Being as I am Orthodox, I'd be more than happy to find that Carthage had included the LXX's 1 Esdras. However Webster is wrong.
The table at Wikipedia helps to clarify the situation:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Esdras
Basically, there was another tradition within the Greek LXX tradition to list Ezra and Nehemiah as 1 and 2 Esdras. It wasn't something Jerome made up.
This is witnessed by Origen who says that the Jews had "Esdras, first and second in one". . Jerome in the Preface to Samuel and Kings refers to "the eighth, Ezra, which itself is likewise divided amongst Greeks and Latins into two books". Note carefully: What the Hebrews had as one, the Greeks and Latins had as two.
Funnily, protestants are still trotting this Webster-fable out as if it is fact, strangely ignoring the direct evidence of Jerome and Origen. I'd be more than happy to be wrong on this one, but there's just no evidence.
Oh yes, I forgot about Jerome's prologue to Esdras (aka Ezra and Nehemiah) where he asks the reader not to be disturbed about his combining them into one book. That means they were formally known as two books in the old Latin. The Vulgate post-Trent split the up again.
Orthodox said: --- I'd be more than happy to be wrong on this one... ---
I assume you're ecstatic by now.
All objections aside for the moment, do you seriously think we're supposed to take your unattributed, non-sourced claims of what Origen and Jerome said rather than Webster's attributed and sourced quotations?
William Webster addressed Orthodox's erroneous argument. I agree with Peter. It seems that Orthodox didn't even read what he was responding to. I doubt it's the first time he's done that.
Webster doesn't even TOUCH on the issue. In this link the erroneous claim is repeated that Jerome was the first to split up the books of Ezra and Nehemiah according to the custom of the Hebrews. But the exact OPPOSITE is true. The Hebrews had it in one book, the Greeks and Latins had them in two books, and Jerome JOINED them into one, according to the custom of the Hebrews. Webster is 100% back to front wrong.
The Vulgate prior to Trent had them as ONE BOOK. Jerome in the Preface to Samuel and Kings refers to "the eighth, Ezra, which itself is likewise divided amongst Greeks and Latins into two books" Jerome's prologue to Esdras (aka Ezra and Nehemiah) asks the reader not to be disturbed about his combining them into one book.
And don't be giving me this nonsense about unsourced quotes. Can't you folks read? The sources were given. Do I have to hold your hands and point you to the quotes??? Fine:
The article doesn't even make sense for crying out loud. It says the Jews had them as one book, but Jerome split them up to "conform to the Hebrew canon". Huh?
And then the article gets confused between the pre-Trent Vulgate manuscripts and the post-Trent ones where it is split up.
Why are you still listening to this Webster clown? He ignores completely what Jerome said on the subject, he doesn't have a rudimentry knowledge of the Vulgate or the history of the text, and he goes off into wild speculations without and contrary to the actual evidence. He ignores what Origen said about how the Greek splits the single Hebrew book into two books. In short, this is "joke scholarship". There isn't so much as a splinter of foundation for these claims.
Considering Orthodox's behavior in this forum and the lack of scholarship in his own posts, I don't think he's in a position to refer to William Webster as a "clown" who uses "joke scholarship". Orthodox cites an anonymous Wikipedia article in support of his claims, yet the thread that Scott links us to has a poster by the screen name of "orthodox" who tells us that he edited the Wikipedia article. Is that orthodox the same as the Orthodox who posts here? If so, then Orthodox is citing a Wikipedia article that he edited. We're supposed to believe that the many scholars William Webster cites constitute "joke scholarship", yet it's acceptable for Orthodox to cite a Wikipedia article that he edited, one that, as we'll see, fails to support his assertions.
I mentioned the canons of Carthage and Trent in the title of this thread. And Orthodox began his first response by writing:
"Being as I am Orthodox, I'd be more than happy to find that Carthage had included the LXX's 1 Esdras."
Yet, Orthodox's posts don't address what William Webster wrote about the canon of the North Africans (the people who held the council of Carthage), and he says nothing about Trent. He argues that William Webster is wrong on some other issues, such as what Jerome did with the books of Esdras, but nothing Orthodox has posted refutes what I and William Webster have argued about the canons of Carthage and Trent. If Orthodox wants to argue that William Webster is a "clown" who uses "joke scholarship" on other subjects, then he can do so, but that doesn't have much relevance to this thread.
Some of Orthodox's comments are difficult to understand. He begins his third post by referring to how "Webster doesn't even TOUCH on the issue". Which issue? He goes on to refer to "this link" without specifying which one he has in mind. I and Peter provided three links to Webster's material. Orthodox needs to make more of an effort to document his claims, and he needs to make more of an effort to write coherently.
He tells us:
"In this link the erroneous claim is repeated that Jerome was the first to split up the books of Ezra and Nehemiah according to the custom of the Hebrews."
I didn't link to that article. I linked to a different article by Webster. But here's what Webster said in the article Orthodox is referring to:
"Jerome was the first to separate Ezra and Nehemiah into separate books and to assign the title of I Esdras to Ezra and 2 Esdras to Nehemiah in order to conform to the Hebrew canon."
Webster is referring to more than just the separation of the books. He's also referring to the assigning of titles and the intention of conforming to the Hebrew canon. Orthodox has singled out part of what Webster wrote while ignoring the remainder.
And in the article I linked to, Webster writes:
"It was Jerome, who is considered the only Church father who was a true Hebrew scholar, who was responsible for separating Ezra and Nehemiah to be designated as 1 and 2 Esdras respectively as separate books in an official Bible and who relegated 1 Esdras of the Septuagint to a noncanonical status which later became designated as III Esdras." (http://aomin.org/index.php?itemid=1948)
Notice the phrase "in an official Bible". Orthodox seems to be ignoring that qualifier also. But the qualifier is there, and Webster's comments elsewhere acknowledge that prior sources referred to separate books. Why would Orthodox ignore those other comments and ignore the qualifiers mentioned above?
Orthodox writes:
"The article doesn't even make sense for crying out loud. It says the Jews had them as one book, but Jerome split them up to 'conform to the Hebrew canon'. Huh?"
Webster is referring to agreeing with the canon of the Hebrews, not agreeing with the divisions of the books. The comment Orthodox is referring to is in the midst of a discussion of the Septuagint version of 1 Esdras, which isn't part of the Hebrew canon. In other words, Webster seems to be referring to the fact that Jerome was replacing the Septuagint versions of 1 and 2 Esdras with Ezra and Nehemiah, thereby agreeing with the Hebrew canon. He's not denying that Ezra and Nehemiah are combined in the Hebrew canon. Webster has been making references to the fact that the two books were combined in the Hebrew canon for years. See, for example, an older response he wrote to Art Sippo, in which Webster repeatedly acknowledges the fact that the Hebrew canon combines Ezra and Nehemiah:
http://www.christiantruth.com/sippocanon.html
Orthodox claims that Webster is mistaken in saying that Jerome separated Ezra and Nehemiah into two books. He (Orthodox) cites a passage in Jerome's prologue to Ezra that supposedly demonstrates that Jerome kept Ezra and Nehemiah as one book. But Orthodox is misreading the evidence.
Webster explains Jerome's division of the books with the following quote from Herbert Edward Ryle:
"In the lists of the Old Testament which include the Apocryphal books, an element of confusion is caused by the Apocryphal Ezra, our First Book of Esdras. In the LXX Version, the Old Latin, and the Syriac, this Apocryphal Greek Book was placed, out of regard probably for chronology, before the Hebrew Ezra, and was called the First of Ezra...while our Ezra and Nehemiah appeared as one book, with the title of the Second of Ezra. In his translation of the Vulgate, Jerome did not recognize the Canonicity of the Apocryphal Books. He translated the Hebrew Ezra (our Ezra and Nehemiah) as one book with the title of Ezra; but he acquiesced in the division of the Canonical Ezra into two books, for he speaks of the Apocryphal books as the third and fourth of Ezra...In the Vulgate, accordingly, Ezra and Nehemiah were called the First and Second of Ezra; the Apocryphal Greek Ezra was called the Third of Ezra; the Apocalyptic work, the Fourth of Ezra...The influence of the Vulgate caused the names applied in the books in that version to be generally adopted in the West. At the Council of Trent, Ezra and Nehemiah are called the first book of Ezra and the second of Ezra which is called Nehemiah" (http://aomin.org/index.php?itemid=1876&catid=7)
In other words, Jerome was following the Hebrew canon in general, but "acquiesced" in less important matters. The same prologue of Jerome that Orthodox has linked to designates the non-canonical books of Ezra as "the apocryphal third and fourth books" (http://www.tertullian.org/fathers/jerome_preface_ezra.htm), as Ryle describes above. In other words, Jerome referred to Ezra and Nehemiah as one book in some contexts, but as two books in other contexts. Webster hasn't denied that they were one book among the Hebrews, nor has he denied that Jerome refers to them as one book at times. He also divides them into two books, as Ryle explains above.
William Webster has also noted that the Oxford Dictionary Of The Christian Church refers to "I and II Esdras, i.e. St Jerome's rendering of Ezra and Neh., treated as separate books" (New York: Oxford University Press, 1997, p. 560).
R.K. Harrison writes:
"Jerome in his Prologus Galeatus considered Ezra and Nehemiah to be a unity, but in the Vulgate he recognized the existence of two separate works, designating Nehemiah as liber secundus Esdrae, and thereby established the precedent that grew into normal Christian practice." (Introduction To The Old Testament [Peabody, Massachusetts: Hendrickson Publishers, 2004], p. 1135)
Raymond Dillard and Tremper Longman III write:
"Origen is the first attested scholar to differentiate the two books [Ezra and Nehemiah], and Jerome's Vulgate represents this position for the first time in an edition of the Bible" (An Introduction To The Old Testament [Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan, 1994], p. 180)
David Howard writes:
"Jerome, in the fourth century, divided them [Ezra and Nehemiah] into two books in his Latin translation, the Vulgate. The first Hebrew Bibles that evidence a division into two books date to the late Middle Ages, and they do so under the influence of Christian versions." (An Introduction To The Old Testament Historical Books [Moody Publishers, 1993], p. 275)
Charles Fensham writes:
"Jerome acknowledged the division of Ezra and Nehemiah; he used the same division in the Vulgate." (The Books Of Ezra And Nehemiah [Grand Rapids, Michigan: Eerdmans, 1982], p. 1)
H.G.M. Williamson refers to:
"The separation between Ezra and Nehemiah, first attested by Origen (cf. Eusebius Hist. Eccl. 6.25.2, though with acknowledgment that in Hebrew tradition they are reckoned as one) and then by Jerome in the Vulgate (but as two books of Ezra rather than as Ezra and Nehemiah, although in his Prologus galeatus he too acknowledges their unity in Hebrew tradition)" (Word Biblical Commentary: Ezra-Nehemiah [Dallas, Texas: Word Books Publisher, 1985], xxi)
Orthodox repeatedly claims that Ezra and Nehemiah were divided in the Vulgate only after Trent, but he offers no documentation. The fact is that Trent made its decision about the canon based on earlier editions of the Vulgate, not later editions that didn't exist yet. Webster has documented that Trent appealed to the Vulgate canon. And, as sources like the ones cited above explain, Ezra and Nehemiah were separated in the Vulgate prior to Trent. Orthodox's claim that it happened after Trent is wrong.
As I said near the beginning of this post, even if Webster had been wrong on such issues, it wouldn't therefore follow that he's wrong about the canons of Carthage and Trent being different. I cited him on that latter issue, and Orthodox hasn't given us any reason to conclude that Webster is wrong on that subject. He's also misrepresented what Webster has said, as well as misrepresenting the state of the evidence, on the other subjects he (Orthodox) brought up.
I was very careful not to "cite" Wikipedia. I merely pointed people to Wikipedia as a useful summary of a rather confusing topic of the different nomenclature for Esdras, for which all branches of Christianity have different naming.
Concerning the North African canon - yes it was based on the LXX (or the LXX based old latin), just like all of Christendom was. The question is: was the LXX of that day and age both uniform and named the same way it is today?
Origen says that the the Hebrews have Esdras, first and second in one.
Jerome says that the the Hebrew Ezra is is divided in two by the Greeks and Latins.
Jerome tries to placate a potential controversy by asking the reader "not to be disturbed" that he is combining two books into one.
Now as to whether the pre-Trent Vulgate was different, I cannot remember a source for that, so I must withdraw that claim. However I would still claim that sometime between Jerome's work and the present time, they must have been redivided.
Now what is Webster's response to Jerome's saying that he combined the books into one? Well, I can't see any response other than some vague obfuscation.
Someone who wants to present this position must identify what two books were formally separated, but Jerome has to placate his audience for combining them. Then they need to tell us what in what document Jerome combined them, if not the Vulgate.
Then Jason gives us some quotes:
"The first Hebrew Bibles that evidence a division into two books date to the late Middle Ages, and they do so under the influence of Christian versions."
Ok great, let's assume and agree that all Hebrew versions had them as one book.
>"Jerome acknowledged the division of Ezra and >Nehemiah; he used the same division in the >Vulgate." (The Books Of Ezra And Nehemiah >[Grand Rapids, Michigan: Eerdmans, 1982], p. 1)
He acknowledged the division? What division? We agree the Hebrew was not divided. And the position of Webster is that the LXX was not divided. So what prior tradition is he acknowledging?
>"The separation between Ezra and Nehemiah, >first attested by Origen (Word Biblical >Commentary: Ezra-Nehemiah [Dallas, Texas: >Word Books Publisher, 1985], xxi)
Whoa. Origen is prior to Jerome, agreed? So how does this jive with Webster's claim that Jerome was the first to separate them?
We already agreed that the Hebrew didn't separate them, so it must be the Greek LXX, which is exactly what Origen attested. So if the LXX had it separated, Webster's argument falls in a heap.
And as we already saw, Jerome says that what the Hebrews have as one, the Greeks and Latins divide into two. What are these two books that are a division of a Hebrew book? It can't be Jerome's new Vulgate because it has no influence over the Greek tradition. The only conclusion is that there was an LXX tradition already to have them separated, either as a tradition prior to their later combination, or else a parallel tradition.
>"Jerome acknowledged the division of Ezra and >Nehemiah; he used the same division in the >Vulgate." (The Books Of Ezra And Nehemiah [ >Grand Rapids, Michigan: Eerdmans, 1982], p. 1)
He used the "same" division? Same as who? Not the Hebrews, we agree. If Webster is correct, not that of the LXX.
"And that we might enumerate the apocryphal books in the order in which they appear in this Bible, even though they have been produced in a different order, first come the third and fourth books of Ezra. They are called Third and Fourth Ezra because, before Jerome, Greeks and Latins used to divide the book of Ezra into two books, calling the words of Nehemiah the second book of Ezra. " - Biblia cum glosa ordinaria et expositione Lyre litterali et morali. This as I understand it is a 9th century document stating the same thing.
Then we are told that Augustine among others quoted 1 Esdras. That doesn't prove that it was known to him as 1 Esdras, and not 3 Esdras as it was later known in the Vulgate. If we are to assume that I was wrong about when the Vulgate reverts to the later numbering, and that this was apparent shortly after Jerome, it is not unreasonable to assume that the people reverted Jerome's combining the books back to a previous tradition where they were separated, because it was a more familiar naming scheme. In which case it would be reasonable to guess that 1 Esdras was known to Augustine and others as 3 Esdras.
>While the sources cited by Betts and Sippo do list >the Hebrew books of Ezra and Nehemiah as 1 >and 2 Esdras, they have failed to provide their >readers with some crucial information. That >information has to do with the fact that those >fathers who separate Ezra from Nehemiah into >separate books and designate Ezra as 1 Esdras >and Nehemiah as 2 Esdras are following the >Hebrew canon.
What if this were true? How does that help? Isn't the claim on the table here that the Hebrews had them as one book? Didn't we just agree on that? So whatever canon these people may be following, how does that refute what Art Sippo said: " But anyone who is familiar with the state of the Biblical Canon in the late 4th Century knows that the term '2 books of Esdras' had been used for over 100 years by Origen and others to refer to the books of Ezra and Nehemiah."
Has the argument reversed itself again that the Hebrews now had it split up?
Or is what is being said is that people who used the LXX, yet subscribed to a Hebrew-like canon, had designated the books differently? But where is the evidence that anybody actually used LXX manuscripts that excluded everything but the Hebrew canon? I am not aware of any such evidence. So what canon these people subscribed to is irrrelevant to determining what nominclature was used for books in the LXX of that time.
If Art Sippo is correct, and it has been conceded already that he is, then the only hope for Webster's argument is the assumption that the LXX manuscripts of Africa were named differently to people like Origen. Given the extensive influence LXX scholars know that Origen had over the LXX textual tradition, this seems like a dangerous assumption.
Then we are quoted Cyril and Athanasius to show that in the Hebrew canon the two were considered one book. Yep! Everyone agrees the Jews considered them one book. The question is: WHO CONSIDERED THEM TWO BOOKS, which is what Origen tells us.
The best most flattering thing we can say about Webster's thesis here is that it is a semi-plausible suggestion that doesn't really fit the available facts. The problem is that Webster, dare I say it, offers no exegesis on what Jerome and Origen were saying. That leaves Webster's thesis as still a bit of a joke, being as it does, leaving the primary evidence unaddressed.
If anyone wants to make this a serious argument, and not just one long obfuscation, someone presenting this point of view is going to have to clearly lay out a position:
1) What two pre-existing books did Jerome say he combined into one? 2) Why did he have to placate his readership by asking them not to be disturbed? 3) Who are the "Greeks and Latins" who Jerome said used the Hebrew book split into two, and what two books were they? 4) What naming schemes were used in the world in the LXX for these books, and is it allegedly uniform in the world or not? 5) Who really was allegedly the first to divide the books? Was is prior to Origen, Origen, Jerome or who?
Until a clear position is laid out concerning what these references actually mean, all we have here is a muddle headed obfuscation and general mud flinging. Everything presented so far as the Webster position is entirely self-contradictory with no coherent line of argument.
I might also add that the Slavonic bible, deriving as it does from the Greek church, is another snippet of evidence that the numbering and ordering of the LXX of today is not the same as it always was. The Slavonic lists Ezra as 1 Esdras, and lists the book protestants consider non-canonical afterwards.
Jason said: --- "Jerome was the first to separate Ezra and Nehemiah into separate books and to assign the title of I Esdras to Ezra and 2 Esdras to Nehemiah in order to conform to the Hebrew canon."
Webster is referring to more than just the separation of the books. He's also referring to the assigning of titles and the intention of conforming to the Hebrew canon. Orthodox has singled out part of what Webster wrote while ignoring the remainder. ---
Orthodox replied: --- Whoa. Origen is prior to Jerome, agreed? So how does this jive with Webster's claim that Jerome was the first to separate them? ---
My "Someone's-Not-Reading-Before-Responding-ometer" has red-lined.
Orthodox said: --- I was very careful...to "cite" Wikipedia. I [intentionally] pointed people to Wikipedia as a useful summary of a rather confusing topic. ---
(By the way, I must note in passing that Orthodox never denies he was the "orthodox" who edited the Wikipedia article in the first place.)
Orthodox "said": --- all we have here is a muddle headed obfuscation and general mud flinging. Everything presented so far [against] the Webster position is entirely self-contradictory with no coherent line of argument. ---
To which I agree.
Orthodox "said": --- If anyone wants to make [my argument] a serious argument, and not just one long obfuscation, someone presenting [my] point of view is going to have to clearly lay out a position. ---
Notice he doesn't....
Boy, this is a lot more fun than responding to what Orthodox really said. No wonder he always responds this way!
Next, I'm going to apply postmodern deconstructive techniques, wherein the label "Orthodox" can be understood in light of 21st Century Feminist Literature, by which we mean an adherant to a certain play written by Eve Ensler.
Ad hominem response to a very clear request for clarification with very clear questions about a very confusing Webster presentation. Apparently no one here understands Webster, but are prepared to back him to the hilt regardless. That says a lot.
Readers should notice that, as Peter has mentioned, Orthodox hasn't told us whether he edited the Wikipedia article. Readers also should notice how little Orthodox learns from his mistakes. He continues to post replies without having done sufficient research. He continues to approach these issues as if he hasn't given them much thought. He continues to ignore information he's already been given, information that would answer questions he's now asking.
Readers also should notice that Orthodox has changed his approach. In his first few posts, he ignored the evidence pertaining to the North Africans' canon. It was only after I explained to him how unreasonable it is to ignore such data that he began to address it. Again, why do such things need to be explained to him?
Orthodox writes:
"Now as to whether the pre-Trent Vulgate was different, I cannot remember a source for that, so I must withdraw that claim."
Did you "withdraw" the claim from the Wikipedia article? It's still there at the time I'm writing this post.
Why would you not only make the claim in a forum such as this one, but even write or edit a Wikipedia article with a chart highlighting your claim, if you had no source for the claim and couldn't remember where you read it? And what prevents you from finding a source now, even if you've forgotten your previous source?
What prevents you is the fact that you're wrong. We have pre-Trent manuscripts of the Vulgate, and we have pre-Trent accounts of Vulgate contents from other sources. For example:
"In several manuscripts of the Latin Vulgate, as well as in all the printed editions anterior to the decree of the Council of Trent, and in many since that period, there will be found four books following each other, entitled the 1st, 2d, 3d, and 4th books of Ezra. The first two are the canonical books of Ezra and Nehemiah, the 3d and 4th form the subject of the articles below." (John McClintock and James Strong, Cyclopedia Of Biblical, Theological And Ecclesiastical Literature [Rio, Wisconsin: Ages Software, 2000], Vol. 3, Esay-Eusebians, p. 13, "Es'dras")
You weren't just wrong on some minor point, Orthodox. You were wrong about a document distributed widely for hundreds of years, concerning which we have many sources. Your Wikipedia chart and your arguments about Jerome are largely based on your mistaken assertions about the pre-Trent Vulgate.
You write:
"However I would still claim that sometime between Jerome's work and the present time, they must have been redivided."
Why is anybody supposed to be convinced by what you "would still claim"? And how does an eventual change prior to "the present time" lead us to your conclusion? It doesn't.
You write:
"Now what is Webster's response to Jerome's saying that he combined the books into one? Well, I can't see any response other than some vague obfuscation. Someone who wants to present this position must identify what two books were formally separated, but Jerome has to placate his audience for combining them. Then they need to tell us what in what document Jerome combined them, if not the Vulgate."
I addressed those issues in my last post. And I recommend that you reread Jerome's comments from the two sources you linked to in a previous post. Your own sources render his comments in different ways, and your interpretation isn't the only plausible reading. Jerome probably isn't saying what you think he's saying. As I explained earlier, and as the scholars I cited explain, Jerome seems to have considered Ezra and Nehemiah one book in the sense of both being "Esdras", but two books in the sense of "1 Esdras" and "2 Esdras". Your argument depends on the conclusion that Jerome always classified Ezra and Nehemiah as one book during the timeframe in question. As I and the scholars I cited (and some of William Webster's sources) have explained, Jerome seems to have referred to the books in both ways, depending on the context.
You write:
"Origen is prior to Jerome, agreed? So how does this jive with Webster's claim that Jerome was the first to separate them?"
As Peter has mentioned, I addressed that subject in my last post. You're misrepresenting what Webster said. Why are you ignoring what I said on this subject in my last reply?
You write:
"We already agreed that the Hebrew didn't separate them, so it must be the Greek LXX, which is exactly what Origen attested. So if the LXX had it separated, Webster's argument falls in a heap."
We don't know a lot about the earliest Hebrew editions. We know that Hebrew versions around the time of the church fathers in question at least largely included Ezra and Nehemiah as one book. And we know that the Septuagint at least largely included them as one book. Webster presents some evidence to that effect in his articles. Why do you keep ignoring or forgetting so much of what you're told? We have some Septuagint manuscripts from that era, and we have descriptions of the Septuagint's contents from various sources. As we'll see below, Augustine, the most prominent of our North African sources at the time of the council of Carthage, is one of those sources who tells us what the Septuagint contained, and you're misrepresenting the data we have from Augustine.
Furthermore, you're contradicting yourself again. Your own Wikipedia chart has Ezra and Nehemiah as one book in the Septuagint. In other words, you initially weren't disputing the fact that the two were combined in the Septuagint. But now you're arguing that "if the LXX had it [Ezra and Nehemiah] separated, Webster's argument falls in a heap". If the Septuagint separated the two books, then your argument falls into a heap, starting with your errant Wikipedia chart.
You write:
"Then we are told that Augustine among others quoted 1 Esdras. That doesn't prove that it was known to him as 1 Esdras, and not 3 Esdras as it was later known in the Vulgate."
Augustine doesn't just "quote" the Septuagint version of 1 Esdras. He discusses it as if it's scripture. The relevant passage, which William Webster discusses, is The City Of God 18:36. In that passage, Augustine cites the Septuagint 1 Esdras in the context of discussing history as recorded in the Biblical books. He refers to the book as written by Ezra. And he suggests that Septuagint 1 Esdras might even be considered a prophetic rather than just a historical book. In other words, he suggests that it contains prophecy.
Thus, as William Webster explains, we have two pieces of evidence suggesting that the North Africans were referring to the Septuagint version of 1 Esdras:
1. The North Africans of that time used and thought highly of the Septuagint.
2. Augustine refers to Septuagint 1 Esdras as if it's scripture.
Readers should notice that Orthodox has been participating in this discussion for so long now, and even refers to how he's studied the issue in significant depth and apparently edited a Wikipedia article on the subject, yet he needs basic facts like the ones above to be explained to him.
>Why would you not only make the claim in a forum >such as this one, but even write or edit a Wikipedia >article with a chart highlighting your claim, if you >had no source for the claim and couldn't remember >where you read it? And what prevents you from >finding a source now, even if you've forgotten your >previous source?
[sigh] I didn't say I wrote the wiki article, rather I did some editing of it.
>>"However I would still claim that sometime >>between Jerome's work and the present time, >>they must have been redivided." > >Why is anybody supposed to be convinced by >what you "would still claim"?
Because Jerome said he combined them into one.
>And how does an eventual change prior to "the >present time" lead us to your conclusion? It >doesn't.
When the change occured is completely irrelevant to this discussion, whether eventual or whatever. The question is what was the situation prior to Jerome.
>I addressed those issues in my last post. And I >recommend that you reread Jerome's comments >from the two sources you linked to in a previous >post. Your own sources render his comments in >different ways, and your interpretation isn't the >only plausible reading.
That's fine, tell us the alternative understanding. Tell us what books he combined into one. Tell us why he had to placate he audience after doing so. Will you tell us, or just obfuscate?
>Jerome probably isn't saying what you think he's >saying. As I explained earlier, and as the scholars >I cited explain, Jerome seems to have considered >Ezra and Nehemiah one book in the sense of >both being "Esdras", but two books in the sense >of "1 Esdras" and "2 Esdras".
Pure obfuscation. You won't answer the questions will you? WHAT BOOKS DID HE COMBINE INTO ONE? WHY DID HE HAVE TO PLACATE HIS AUDIENCE AFTER DOING SO?
>Your argument depends on the conclusion that >Jerome always classified Ezra and Nehemiah as >one book during the timeframe in question.
I never said such a thing, whether it is so is irrelevant. WHAT BOOKS DID HE COMBINE INTO ONE? WHY DID HE HAVE TO PLACATE HIS AUDIENCE AFTER DOING SO?
"Origen is prior to Jerome, agreed? So how does this jive with Webster's claim that Jerome was the first to separate them?"
>As Peter has mentioned, I addressed that subject >in my last post. You're misrepresenting what >Webster said. Why are you ignoring what I said >on this subject in my last reply?
You addressed it? What you did was quote some scholars who agreed they were separated in Origen's time, and thus you got it wrong. I guess Webster takes one in the stomach for that?
>And we know that the Septuagint at least >largely included them as one book.
No you don't know that, especially given the contrary evidence already presented. Furthermore in that Webster debate, Art Sippo said that people were using the LXX with them separated, which Webster conceded, but then went on to say "yes but, those folks subscribed to a Hebrew style canon". So Webster has conceded this one for you.
>We have some Septuagint manuscripts from that >era,
The old latin that Augustine was using would have been based on an LXX from a much earlier era.
>and we have descriptions of the Septuagint's >contents from various sources.
Why should we believe you when you ae so prone to making mistakes?
>Furthermore, you're contradicting yourself again. >Your own Wikipedia chart has Ezra and >Nehemiah as one book in the Septuagint.
You didn't read the notes on the article did you? Don't blame me for your laziness.
>Augustine doesn't just "quote" the Septuagint >version of 1 Esdras. He discusses it as if it's >scripture.
Which doesn't prove a great deal unless he actually named it as 1 Esdras. If many people were considering Ezra and Nehemiah as 1 and 2 Esdras, as it seems the case from Origen and Jerome, how do you know this wasn't 3 Esdras?
>He refers to the book as written by Ezra. And he >suggests that Septuagint 1 Esdras might even be >considered a prophetic rather than just a >historical book. In other words, he suggests that >it contains prophecy.
MIGHT be considered prophetic? So how do you know it wasn't left out of the canon list due to his uncertainty of its prophetic nature?
>1. The North Africans of that time used and >thought highly of the Septuagint.
And you can't show us any evidence whatsoever how the LXX was divided up at that time. You assume it was divided up differently to Origen and Jerome, but you can't prove it.
>2. Augustine refers to Septuagint 1 Esdras as if >it's scripture.
But you showed us that he was uncertain about it.
Not much of a theory is it? And you refuse to answer my questions because you know they would blow up in your face.
1) What two pre-existing books did Jerome say he combined into one? 2) Why did he have to placate his readership by asking them not to be disturbed? 3) Who are the "Greeks and Latins" who Jerome said used the Hebrew book split into two, and what two books were they? 4) What naming schemes were used in the world in the LXX for these books, and is it allegedly uniform in the world or not? 5) Who really was allegedly the first to divide the books? Was is prior to Origen, Origen, Jerome or who?
"3 Esdras is the designation in old editions of the Vulgate, 1 Esdras being Ezr and Neh, 2 Esdras denoting what in English is called 1 Esdras. But in editions of the Vulgate (Jerome's Latin Bible, 390-405 A.D.) later than the Council of Trent, and also in Walton's Polyglot, Ezra is called 1 Esdras, Nehemiah, 2 Esdras, 1 Esdras = 3 Esdras, the present book (the Latin Esdras) being known as 4 Esdras. In authorized copies of the Vulgate, i.e. in those commonly used, this book is lacking."
So the folks behind the NET bible are telling us that the pre-Trent Vulgate is just as it says in the Wikipedia article. Are they wrong? They could be, but those folks are usually pretty accurate with their facts. I suggest you take it up with them if you disagree.
First, there is a chart in Volume 2 of Holy Scripture: The Ground and Pillar of Our Faith...a book that Orthodox does not seem to have read, or he'd show us that he has done so.
He also writes:
That's fine, tell us the alternative understanding. Tell us what books he combined into one. Tell us why he had to placate he audience after doing so. Will you tell us, or just obfuscate?
Fine, but let's be charitable here. Webster cites Ryle, which Jason also cited here, so if anybody is at fault it's not Webster, it's Ryle. Incidentally, Webster endnotes no less than three additional sources for that citation in his book. I'll leave it to Orthodox to actually, you know, do the work of looking them up.
These two statements are models of equivocation:
[sigh] I didn't say I wrote the wiki article, rather I did some editing of it.
I was very careful not to "cite" Wikipedia. I merely pointed people to Wikipedia as a useful summary of a rather confusing topic of the different nomenclature for Esdras, for which all branches of Christianity have different naming.
First, pointing people to an article is, in point of fact, the very definition of making a citation. That's the point of a footnote or embedded link. Second, he admits to having edited the article, not having "written" the article. So what he did was cite an article that somebody else originally wrote but he himself subsequently modified. He didn't "write" it, but he "modified" it. Orthodox reminds us of Bill Clinton, who wanted to argue over the meaning of "is..." I wish there was a rollseyes emoticon here.
The problem that Orthodox continues to ignore is that Ezra-Nehemiah, not any other book claiming to be authored by Ezra is canonical, contrary to his claims.
Let us not forget that Carthage was not an ecumenical council. What Orthodox requires, and what he cannot provide us, is an ecumenical council from his own communion that can tell us what the books of the canon are. In short, he must use his own private judgment. How very Protestant.
"Well, I think it's safe to say that Jason got his butt kicked...."
You are here as a guest. If you wish to retain the privilege of using the combox, you would do well to act like a proper house guest. Otherwise, you'll be banned and all your comments will be deleted.
"[sigh] I didn't say I wrote the wiki article, rather I did some editing of it."
And I didn't say that you wrote it. I said that you apparently wrote it or edited it. You could have provided clarification earlier. You didn't. You keep acting as if we're the ones being unreasonable ("sigh"), even though the problem is with you. You've now explained that you edited the Wikipedia article that you appealed to in your initial post. That article is inaccurate.
You write:
"Because Jerome said he combined them into one."
As I've told you repeatedly, you're assuming an interpretation of Jerome that's unnecessary and contradicted by other evidence. I've addressed this issue, and so did the scholars I cited. You aren't interacting with what you've been told.
You write:
"When the change occured is completely irrelevant to this discussion, whether eventual or whatever. The question is what was the situation prior to Jerome."
How is the timing irrelevant when you repeatedly made claims about how Jerome and later sources supposedly rendered the books of Esdras? You now tell us that only "the situation prior to Jerome" is relevant, but you made claims about the time of Jerome and the centuries afterward in your earlier posts.
You write:
"That's fine, tell us the alternative understanding. Tell us what books he combined into one. Tell us why he had to placate he audience after doing so. Will you tell us, or just obfuscate?"
I did tell you, repeatedly. And there was no one "audience" Jerome was addressing. Rather, he addressed multiple objections that might arise. He wrote that "Neither should it disturb anyone that the book edited by us is one" (http://www.bombaxo.com/prologues.html). In what context is the book one? Jerome is writing to Domnio and Rogatianus. If he presented Ezra and Nehemiah to them as one book, in imitation of the Hebrew rendering, how does it follow that he could never have counted them as two books in any other context? How do you even know that Jerome is referring to his translation? How do you know that he isn't referring to the fact that the original edition is one book, and that some people might object to his counting them as two? I'm not aware of anything in the text or context of this remark by Jerome that would lead us to your conclusion. You're assuming something you have yet to prove. As the scholars I cited earlier explain, Jerome does acknowledge that Ezra and Nehemiah can be separated, including in this letter you've cited (which is why he refers to the apocryphal books of Esdras as the third and fourth books, acknowledging that the canonical ones can be numbered as two). What you're doing is singling out one comment Jerome made, assuming an unnecessary reading of it, then ignoring all of the contrary data. That doesn't make sense.
You write:
"I never said such a thing, whether it is so is irrelevant."
Why would you say that it's irrelevant whether Jerome always rendered Ezra and Nehemiah as one book? If he only did it in some contexts, but not in others, then how would your objection stand? You accused William Webster of being wrong in saying that Jerome separated the books. If Jerome did separate the books, then you're the one who's wrong. It's not enough for you to argue that Jerome sometimes referred to Ezra and Nehemiah as one book.
You write:
"What you did was quote some scholars who agreed they were separated in Origen's time, and thus you got it wrong. I guess Webster takes one in the stomach for that?"
Where did I deny that Origen referred to Ezra and Nehemiah as two books? I didn't.
You still aren't addressing what I said about how you misrepresented William Webster. Instead, you're not only repeating your false accusation against Webster, but you're now also making the same false accusation against me. All that you're doing is doubling your error.
You write:
"No you don't know that, especially given the contrary evidence already presented. Furthermore in that Webster debate, Art Sippo said that people were using the LXX with them separated, which Webster conceded, but then went on to say 'yes but, those folks subscribed to a Hebrew style canon'. So Webster has conceded this one for you."
You're changing the subject. I was addressing the contents of the Septuagint. In response, you're addressing comments made by some people who used the Septuagint (and other translations). The fact that some people who used the Septuagint referred to Ezra and Nehemiah as two books doesn't prove that the Septuagint itself did so. There were other people who referred to Ezra and Nehemiah as one book. And we have manuscripts of the Septuagint. For you to ignore the Septuagint itself and ignore the sources who refer to Ezra and Nehemiah as one book, while citing some people who used the Septuagint (and other translations), doesn't make sense.
Furthermore, if you're going to cite Art Sippo, here's something else he said:
"In the Vulgate translation he made, St. Jerome used the title 1Esdras to refer to Ezra, 2 Esdras to refer to Nehemiah, and 3 Esdras to refer to the apocryphal 1Esdras from the Septuagint." (cited at http://aomin.org/index.php?itemid=1948)
You've been denying that Jerome counted Ezra and Nehemiah as two books. Should we conclude that you're wrong, since Art Sippo has "conceded" the point?
And I want to remind the readers that you're contradicting yourself. You initially referred to Ezra and Nehemiah as constituting one book in the Septuagint. The Wikipedia article you linked us to refers to the Septuagint as rendering Ezra and Nehemiah as one book. Yet, now you're arguing the opposite. You're now arguing that since some sources who used the Septuagint referred to Ezra and Nehemiah as two books, then the Septuagint must have done so as well. The readers should take note of how inconsistent you are.
You write:
"The old latin that Augustine was using would have been based on an LXX from a much earlier era."
Every Bible translation can be said to be "based" on something from "a much earlier era". If you want to make a more specific claim about Augustine that would be relevant to this discussion, then you need to present specific documentation to that effect. All that you're doing above is making a vague comment that can be interpreted in a variety of ways, without documentation.
Augustine lists his Old Testament canon for us. In that canon, he refers to "the two of Ezra" (On Christian Doctrine, 2:8:13). He only accepted two books of Ezra. And he doesn't list Nehemiah separately. If Ezra and Nehemiah are "the two of Ezra", then where's the book of Ezra he discusses in The City Of God 18:36? You can't argue that he accepted three or more books of Ezra. So, how do we get "two of Ezra" from Ezra, Nehemiah, and the book of Ezra Augustine refers to in The City Of God 18:36? We get two books of Ezra from those three books by rendering them in the manner scholars commonly refer to as the Septuagint rendering. Ezra and Nehemiah were one book, and the book of Ezra referred to in The City Of God 18:36 is the second book.
And I want to point out to the readers, again, that Orthodox is contradicting himself. He initially argued that the Septuagint had Ezra and Nehemiah as one book. The Wikipedia article he cited (and edited) said so. But now he's arguing that Augustine and the other North Africans used a Septuagint in which the two books were separated.
Orthodox may add some qualifications to his earlier argument, in an attempt to reconcile his earlier claims with what he's arguing now. He may claim, for example, that he only meant to refer to most versions of the Septuagint as combining Ezra and Nehemiah into one book. But if he meant to include such a qualifier, why didn't he mention it earlier? And how does he justify his suggestion that we should think that Augustine and the other North Africans used one of the minority versions of the Septuagint in which Ezra and Nehemiah allegedly were separated? How does Orthodox supposedly know that the North Africans were using a minority version of the Septuagint that differed from what we know of the Septuagint from the manuscript record and other data?
I and William Webster have cited many scholars commenting on how the Septuagint rendered the books of Esdras. If Orthodox now wants to contradict himself by arguing that the Septuagint separated Ezra and Nehemiah into two books, or he wants to argue that the North Africans might have used an alternate version of the Septuagint that rendered the books in that manner, then he needs to present evidence to that effect. It's not my responsibility to document that the North Africans didn't follow some unknown edition of the Septuagint that differs from the editions we know about.
Orthodox writes:
"You didn't read the notes on the article did you? Don't blame me for your laziness."
What notes? The Wikipedia article you linked us to states:
"Note that in the Septuagint, following ancient Jewish practice, Ezra and Nehemiah are considered one book (Εσδρας B′), whereas most Bibles today count them as two, as does the Post-Trent Vulgate." (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Esdras)
Your Wikipedia article states that Ezra and Nehemiah were one book in the Septuagint. But now you're arguing that they were two books in the Septuagint, and you're calling me "lazy" for not "reading the notes" in the article. You're not making sense. As I said before, you need to try to think and write more coherently.
You write:
"Which doesn't prove a great deal unless he actually named it as 1 Esdras. If many people were considering Ezra and Nehemiah as 1 and 2 Esdras, as it seems the case from Origen and Jerome, how do you know this wasn't 3 Esdras?"
The issue is whether Augustine considered the book scripture. I explained why we should think that he did. If he did consider it scripture, and he was a North African involved in the North African canonical judgment at the council of Carthage, then his canon probably reflects that of Carthage. If Augustine referred to Septuagint 1 Esdras as scripture, then Carthage probably had Septuagint 1 Esdras in view when it referred to 1 and 2 Esdras as canonical. Augustine doesn't have to use the term "1 Esdras" in order for us to know what book he's referring to and that he considered it scripture.
You write:
"MIGHT be considered prophetic? So how do you know it wasn't left out of the canon list due to his uncertainty of its prophetic nature?"
Once again, you're not making sense, and it's probably because you don't even understand the issue under discussion. Have you read the passage in Augustine I cited? He's referring to different divisions of the Bible. Some Biblical books are historical, and some are prophetic. A book doesn't have to contain prophecy in order to be canonical. The issue Augustine was addressing was which portion of the Bible the book should be classified with, not whether the book belongs in the Bible.
And you're ignoring the other evidence I cited that indicates that Augustine viewed Septuagint 1 Esdras as scripture. All you've done is single out one thing I mentioned, misrepresented it, and ignored the rest. Again, readers should take note of how unreasonable you are.
You write:
"And you can't show us any evidence whatsoever how the LXX was divided up at that time. You assume it was divided up differently to Origen and Jerome, but you can't prove it."
Again, your own Wikipedia article states that Ezra and Nehemiah were one book in the Septuagint. You're now arguing the opposite. If you aren't aware of any evidence that Ezra and Nehemiah were one book in the Septuagint, then you're telling us that your initial argument, and the Wikipedia article you edited based on it, had no supporting evidence. That tells us something about how unconcerned you are about having supporting evidence for the claims you make.
And where have I argued that the Septuagint was "divided up differently to Origen and Jerome"? I haven't. You seem to be assuming that people like Origen and Jerome wouldn't refer to Ezra and Nehemiah as two books unless they got that information from the Septuagint. That's an unjustified assumption.
You write:
"And you refuse to answer my questions because you know they would blow up in your face."
Given how much material you ignore, you're not in a position to criticize other people for not answering your questions. And I have addressed the questions you're asking as far as they're relevant. Asking me which two books Jerome was referring to, for example, is irrelevant, since I've said all along that Ezra and Nehemiah were in view. You're acting as though issues I've already addressed haven't been addressed yet.
You write:
"Now as to the question of Esdras in the Vulgate, I have found a source for it"
I've already given you citations from many scholars who contradict you, and William Webster cited some. It's more likely that your one source is wrong than that all of our sources are wrong.
But even your one source writes elsewhere:
"The Vulgate, following Jerome's version, gave the names 1, 2 and 3 Esdras to our Ezra, Nehemiah, and 1 Esdras, respectively, and in editions of the Vulgate (Jerome's Latin Bible, 390-405 A.D.) down to that of Pope Sixtus (died 1590) these three books appear in that order." (http://net.bible.org/dictionary.php?word=Esdras,%20The%20First%20Book%20Of)
If you're interpreting your one source correctly in the passage you've cited from him, then he seems to have been inconsistent or to have miscommunicated something. I would say that our many sources carry more weight than your one inconsistent source. As I said before, Trent wouldn't have claimed to be following the Vulgate if the Vulgate only began rendering its books as Trent did after the time of Trent.
Perhaps what we need in this thread is Brother Webster's presence. Does anybody have his email address? I do not. Perhaps at 23 posts into this discussion, it is time to contact him and ask him to respond if he wishes. Orthodox shouldn't have a problem interacting directly with him, since Orthodox thinks Brother Webster is a "clown," who uses "joke scholarship" right?
My scholars can whup your scholars is not proof it is inaccurate.
>As I've told you repeatedly, you're assuming an >interpretation of Jerome that's unnecessary and >contradicted by other evidence. I've addressed this >issue, and so did the scholars I cited. You aren't >interacting with what you've been told.
You've addressed zero, zilch, nada. ANSWER THE QUESTIONS, or admit you have no position but a ball of obfuscation.
>I did tell you, repeatedly.
Obfuscation is not an answer.
>And there was no one "audience" Jerome was >addressing. Rather, he addressed multiple >objections that might arise.
More obfuscations. Forget the other possible objections: Why was THIS an objection? How would anybody object to him doing what everybody, both Jew and Greek had always done, as is alleged by Webster?
>In what context is the book one? Jerome is >writing to Domnio and Rogatianus. If he >presented Ezra and Nehemiah to them as one >book, in imitation of the Hebrew rendering, how >does it follow that he could never have counted >them as two books in any other context?
I don't give a rip about different contexts. Just address each of his quotes IN ITS OWN CONTEXT. By all means say the context of each is different but at least give us ONE possible meaning for his quotes that agrees with your position.
Actually, that is two steps ahead of where you need to go. First you need to actually STATE A POSITION of what the quotes mean. All we've had so far is obfuscation.
>How do you even know that Jerome is referring >to his translation?
Gee, I don't know. Maybe because HE SAID SO?
"No one ought to be bothered by the fact that my edition consists of only one book" -- Jerome.
>How do you know that he isn't referring to the >fact that the original edition is one book, and >that some people might object to his counting >them as two?
This is unbelievable stuff we're witnessing here today. Jerome asks his readers not to be concerned that HIS edition has them combined as one. Jerome states that the Greeks and Latins divide into two books that which the Hebrews count as one.
Will you tell us what books Jerome is referring to, or will you simply keep on obfuscating because you've lost this debate very badly?
>I'm not aware of anything in the text or context >of this remark by Jerome that would lead us to >your conclusion.
Hello? Can you read?
>What you're doing is singling out one comment >Jerome made, assuming an unnecessary reading >of it, then ignoring all of the contrary data. That >doesn't make sense.
What you're doing is ignoring what Jerome said, shrugging your shoulders and pretending it can mean whatever someone chooses to think it means, and pretending as if nothing happened. Is this how you do exegesis? You just pretend as if words have no meaning, throw in a bit of ad-hominem, and sink back into your comfy traditions?
>Why would you say that it's irrelevant whether >Jerome always rendered Ezra and Nehemiah as >one book? If he only did it in some contexts, but >not in others, then how would your objection >stand?
My objection stands because in the context of each of these quotes, you cannot make any sense of what he said. You are forced to pretend as if he said the exact opposite of what he said. You won't tell us your theory of what books he was referring to. WHAT BOOKS DID HE COMBINE INTO ONE? WHY DID HE HAVE TO PLACATE HIS AUDIENCE AFTER DOING SO?
>If Jerome did separate the books, then you're the >one who's wrong. It's not enough for you to >argue that Jerome sometimes referred to Ezra >and Nehemiah as one book.
Irrelevant. WHO WERE THE "GREEKS AND LATINS" WHO USED A BOOK THE HEBREWS HAD AS ONE DIVIDED INTO TWO?
>Where did I deny that Origen referred to Ezra and >Nehemiah as two books? I didn't.
Then why do keep ignoring it? These books at the time were referred to among the "Greeks and Latins" as TWO BOOKS. Why do you keep dignifying the Webster thesis?
>The fact that some people who used the >Septuagint referred to Ezra and Nehemiah as two >books doesn't prove that the Septuagint itself did >so.
LOL, desperation setting in. Why on earth would people using the Septuagint refer to them as two books if they weren't two books in the Septuagint? This is desperate stuff.
>There were other people who referred to Ezra >and Nehemiah as one book. And we have >manuscripts of the Septuagint. For you to ignore >the Septuagint itself and ignore the sources who >refer to Ezra and Nehemiah as one book, while >citing some people who used the Septuagint (and >other translations), doesn't make sense.
As it says in that Wiki article, there is either a later or a parallel tradition in Greek to treat them as one book. Now, as far as we can see, the earliest tradition, attested to by Origen and Jerome, is the more likely tradition to have found its way into the old latin of Augustine than a later tradition that as far as we know first crops up in some 4th or 5th century manuscripts, for which you know as well as I do, they do NOT have any kind of uniformity in their old testament list. But this other tradition doesn't seem to have become universal till much later. As far as I know, some of the surviving Greek manuscripts have them separated, and as late as the 10th century, when the Slavonic bible was taken from the LXX, they were still separated in some versions at least, with Ezra/Nehemiah listed first.
So I'm not ignoring any evidence, I just don't see why it must mean what you want it to mean, all in the name of a stupid apologetic argument against Trent.
>You've been denying that Jerome counted Ezra >and Nehemiah as two books. Should we conclude >that you're wrong, since Art Sippo has >"conceded" the point?
I doubt neither you nor I consider Art Sippo an authority on anything, but when both sides of the debate conceed something - i.e. that people using the Septuagint counted them as separate books, I think that is very significant. And I note you havn't backed away from that.
>And I want to remind the readers that you're >contradicting yourself. You initially referred to >Ezra and Nehemiah as constituting one book in >the Septuagint.
Context context context. In the difficult landscape of the Esdras books, it will never do to try and make hay out of questions of terminology. The later Septuagint contained them as one book. If we're going to get all pedantic, the Septuagint proper only contains the Pentatuch.
>>"The old latin that Augustine was using would >>have been based on an LXX from a much earlier >>era." > >Every Bible translation can be said to be "based" >on something from "a much earlier era". If you >want to make a more specific claim about >Augustine that would be relevant to this >discussion, then you need to present specific >documentation to that effect.
Isn't it obvious? The old Latin was translated centuries before the arrival of Augustine. So what the Septuagint commonly looked like at the time of Augustine is not directly relevant to what the old latin looks like.
>If Ezra and Nehemiah are "the two of Ezra", then >where's the book of Ezra he discusses in The City >Of God 18:36?
The Vulgate OT was written prior to the City of God. In City of God 18.44, Augustine shows awareness of the Vulgate/Hebrew rendering and accepts differences in Jonah between Hebrew and LXX as both being legitimate expressions of the bible.
The council of Carthage came even later. Being as it is that 1 (3) Esdras is similar in content to Ezra/Nehemiah, it's entirely possible the Africans only listed the first two books of Esdras as canonical, and not 1 (3) Esdras. Remember, Augustine in City of God doesn't show any distinction between Ezra/Nehemiah and 1 (3) Esdras. He just says that "Ezra wrote".
Scholars still can't make up their minds whether Ezra actually wrote Ezra/Nehemiah or whether he wrote 1 (3) Esdras. For all we know, under the influence of Jerome's writings, they made a decision on which to include.
Nobody can know these things. But if we have to decide between either believing what Jerome said explicitely about Esdras, compared to guessing and randomly speculating on what the Africans did, it's much more reasonable to accept the explicit statements from Jerome that are contemporary with Augustine about how the books were numbered then.
Remember, Jerome, writing in Latin in the preface to Ezra, presumably to his old Latin using audience, says not to be disturbed that he is combining these two books into one. Why would an old latin using audience be disturbed by his doing exactly what had always been done?
>He may claim, for example, that he only meant >to refer to most versions of the Septuagint as >combining Ezra and Nehemiah into one book. >But if he meant to include such a qualifier, why >didn't he mention it earlier?
How ridiculous. Terminology always refers by default to the current landscape. Am I supposed to have qualified that the Septuagint at one time didn't include any books of Esdras? Why didn't you qualify similarly?
>And how does he justify his suggestion that we >should think that Augustine and the other North >Africans used one of the minority versions of the >Septuagint in which Ezra and Nehemiah allegedly >were separated?
Assuming what you have yet to prove that having them split up was a minority. In point of fact it must have been a majority. Jerome said the "Greeks and Latins" had divided what the Hebrews had as one. That sounds like a sweeping claim to the majority to me.
>If Orthodox now wants to contradict himself by >arguing that the Septuagint separated Ezra and >Nehemiah into two books, or he wants to argue >that the North Africans might have used an >alternate version of the Septuagint that rendered >the books in that manner, then he needs to >present evidence to that effect.
Ground control to Jason: That's what this entire thread has been about. Jerome and Origen tell us that the normative situation at the time was for them to be divided.
>>"You didn't read the notes on the article did >>you? Don't blame me for your laziness." > >What notes? The Wikipedia article you linked us >to states:
Keep reading, oh lazy one:
"The naming listed as "old Greek" refers to another ancient Greek naming scheme that apparently predated, or possibly overlapped the later Septuagint naming scheme."
Don't get sucked into a foolish nomenclature debate that you can't win. It's quite normal in Septuagint circles to refer to the original form of the Septuagint text as the "old Greek". But I guess we can excuse you for that ignorance, never having read much in the way of Septuagint scholarship.
>Asking me which two books Jerome was referring >to, for example, is irrelevant, since I've said all >along that Ezra and Nehemiah were in view. >You're acting as though issues I've already >addressed haven't been addressed yet.
Wow, can it be that Jason has half heartedly answered one of the challenge questions? Who would have thunk. So now we can substitute his answer into Jerome and see what it says:
"eighth is Ezra, which is also in the same manner among Greeks and Latins divided into two books".
So the Greeks and Latins divided the Hebrew Ezra into two books which were equivilent to modern Ezra and Nehemiah. Next question is: What were these two books named in the Greek and Latin Scriptures? My prediction is we will now be met with another level of obfuscation.
>I've already given you citations from many >scholars who contradict you, and William >Webster cited some. It's more likely that your >one source is wrong than that all of our sources >are wrong.
My source agrees with Jerome. That trumps all your sources.
There's still plenty of questions left for you to answer: 1) What were these two books named in the Greek and Latin Scriptures? 2) Why did he have to placate his readership by asking them not to be disturbed? 3) Who are the "Greeks and Latins" who Jerome said used the Hebrew book split into two, and what two books were they? 4) What naming schemes were used in the world in the LXX for these books, and is it allegedly uniform in the world or not? 5) Who really was allegedly the first to divide the books? Was is prior to Origen, Origen, Jerome or who?
>What Orthodox requires, and what he cannot >provide us, is an ecumenical council from his own >communion that can tell us what the books of the >canon are. In short, he must use his own private >judgment. How very Protestant.
You seem to think there are two options: Ecumenical Council or private judgment. Actually, the source is neither of these, but rather it is Holy Tradition, the same source the pre-Christian Jews used.
Of course, no protestant can tell us how to exercise this private judgment without using the dreaded "T" word. How did the pre-Christian Jews know the Canon? Did they historically prove Moses wrote Genesis? Puhlease, don't make me laugh. The Jason theory of the "historical canon" simply is an anachronism from beginning to end.
At the risk of stating the obvious, Orthodox is acting as if uncertainties over the LXX canon are a problem for Evangelicals. Needless to say, the case is just the opposite. Evangelicals don't base their OT canon on the LXX. By contrast, the LXX is the official OT of the Orthodox church. The fact that there are divergent rescensions of the LXX is a problem (and a major problem) for the Orthodox, not for Evangelicals.
"How would anybody object to him doing what everybody, both Jew and Greek had always done, as is alleged by Webster?"
I'm not William Webster. I've explained why I think you're misreading some portions of Webster's material, in which he comments on how the books of Esdras were rendered prior to Jerome. But, as I explained earlier, my citation of one of his articles on the subject of the canons of Carthage and Trent doesn't require that I agree with him on every issue he discusses in that article or related ones. I've explained to you that I don't deny that Ezra and Nehemiah were referred to as two books prior to Jerome. And Webster acknowledges it in the article I linked to. Yet, you keep suggesting that we've denied it. You shouldn't have to be corrected so often.
You write:
"I don't give a rip about different contexts. Just address each of his quotes IN ITS OWN CONTEXT. By all means say the context of each is different but at least give us ONE possible meaning for his quotes that agrees with your position."
I already have. And you ought to "give a rip" about other contexts, since, as I've explained to you repeatedly, your argument fails if Jerome refers to Ezra and Nehemiah as two books in the other context mentioned by the scholars I cited. I've cited multiple scholars explaining that Jerome does separate the books, despite the comment you've quoted from him. You keep ignoring what I cited from those scholars and keep assuming that the comment you've quoted from Jerome has your meaning and is the only relevant evidence. It isn't the only relevant evidence, and you've done nothing to establish your interpretation of the one comment you've quoted.
You write:
"Gee, I don't know. Maybe because HE SAID SO? 'No one ought to be bothered by the fact that my edition consists of only one book' -- Jerome."
As I've explained to you repeatedly, you initially cited two translations of Jerome's comments, and the two translations render his comments differently. The two translations are at:
You're now citing the first of those two, which has the words "my edition", but the second of the two doesn't have "my edition". It has "the book edited by us". If you now think that the second translation you cited should be rejected in favor of the first, then you'll need to explain why. But that first translation has a note attached to the words "my edition". And that note reads "Lit. 'the book edited by us.'" Thus, the translations you cited agree, but the translation you've chosen to focus on uses a less literal rendering in the body of the text while giving a more literal rendering in a footnote. So, would you explain to us why you want us to ignore the more literal rendering and focus on a less literal one instead?
But let's assume for the moment that the less literal rendering is correct. Here are Jerome's comments from the less literal translation:
"No one ought to be bothered by the fact that my edition consists of only one book, nor ought anyone take delight in the dreams found in the apocryphal third and fourth books. For among the Hebrews the texts of Ezra and Nehemiah comprise a single book, and those texts which are not used by them and are not concerned with the twenty-four elders ought to be rejected outright."
What is it that Jerome thinks that some people could be "bothered" by? Is it the fact that he presented two books as one? You're assuming that Jerome has that concept in mind. If he does, why couldn't he present Ezra and Nehemiah as one document to Domnio and Rogatianus while, at the same time, acknowledging that Ezra and Nehemiah can be considered two books as well? As I've told you repeatedly, Ezra and Nehemiah can be presented as one book in one context and as two books in another context. Similarly, we have New Testament manuscripts that place multiple New Testament books together. If Jerome presented Ezra and Nehemiah as one document to Domnio and Rogatianus, in imitation of the Hebrew rendering, it doesn't therefore follow that he couldn't have labeled the two as "1 Esdras" and "2 Esdras" within that one document or elsewhere. There are multiple ways that Jerome's comment can be interpreted, and you're assuming your own interpretation while ignoring the contrary data. Instead of citing your one comment from Jerome while ignoring the data I cited from multiple scholars, you need to arrive at an explanation that makes the best sense of all of the evidence.
You write:
"Will you tell us what books Jerome is referring to, or will you simply keep on obfuscating because you've lost this debate very badly?"
I've said that the books in question are Ezra and Nehemiah, and I never suggested otherwise. I don't know why you keep asking what books Jerome was referring to, as if that issue has been in dispute. I never said or suggested that the issue is in dispute.
You write:
"As it says in that Wiki article, there is either a later or a parallel tradition in Greek to treat them as one book. Now, as far as we can see, the earliest tradition, attested to by Origen and Jerome, is the more likely tradition to have found its way into the old latin of Augustine than a later tradition that as far as we know first crops up in some 4th or 5th century manuscripts, for which you know as well as I do, they do NOT have any kind of uniformity in their old testament list. But this other tradition doesn't seem to have become universal till much later. As far as I know, some of the surviving Greek manuscripts have them separated, and as late as the 10th century, when the Slavonic bible was taken from the LXX, they were still separated in some versions at least, with Ezra/Nehemiah listed first....The later Septuagint contained them as one book....Assuming what you have yet to prove that having them split up was a minority. In point of fact it must have been a majority. Jerome said the 'Greeks and Latins' had divided what the Hebrews had as one. That sounds like a sweeping claim to the majority to me."
You're making a lot of undocumented claims, you're neglecting some of the relevant evidence, and you're drawing some unwarranted conclusions. The Septuagint originated with the Jewish people, and some of the earliest Jewish sources refer to Ezra and Nehemiah as one book. As R.K. Harrison notes:
"The rabbinic authorities (cf. Bab. Bath. 15a) regarded the two books of Ezra and Nehemiah as a single composition attributed to Ezra. A similar opinion was also expressed by Josephus and Melito of Sardis. It was in the time of Origen (A.D. 185-253) that the mention of division into two works as being in accord with current Jewish usage first occurred." (Introduction To The Old Testament [Peabody, Massachusetts: Hendrickson Publishers, 2004], p. 1135)
H.G.M. Williamson explains that "in the earliest manuscripts of the LXX the two books are treated as one" (Word Biblical Commentary: Ezra-Nehemiah [Dallas, Texas: Word Books Publisher, 1985], xxi). Contrary to what you suggest, then, Origen's reference to a two-book rendering is predated by sources supporting a one-book view. The early Septuagint manuscripts that have Ezra and Nehemiah as one book range from the early fourth century to the early fifth century, from before the council of Carthage to a period shortly afterward. You mention that the manuscripts don't have "uniformity in their old testament list", but they don't have to have uniformity in every element in order to have some consistency. The earliest manuscripts, which are most relevant to this discussion, support my argument rather than yours.
And contrary to what you claim, Jerome's comment about "Greeks and Latins" doesn't suggest "a sweeping claim to the majority". He refers to "Ezra, which is also in the same manner among Greeks and Latins divided into two books" (http://www.bombaxo.com/prologues.html). We know that Jerome can't be referring to all Greeks and Latins, since we have multiple, significantly different Septuagint manuscripts from shortly before and shortly after the time when Jerome wrote, and those manuscripts have Ezra and Nehemiah as one book. Jerome doesn't tell us the extent of the two-book rendering, so we have to judge the issue by other criteria. And as we'll see below, even if the two-book rendering had been a majority, the evidence suggests that Augustine and the North Africans went along with the one-book rendering reflected in the Septuagint manuscripts referred to above.
You write:
"Isn't it obvious? The old Latin was translated centuries before the arrival of Augustine. So what the Septuagint commonly looked like at the time of Augustine is not directly relevant to what the old latin looks like."
You need to be more specific. Are you arguing that Augustine's Septuagint would be no different from an alleged "centuries before" version that had Ezra and Nehemiah as separate books? If so, then you need to provide more of an argument for that assertion, including interaction with what I've presented above. Contrary to what you claim, your conclusion isn't "obvious".
You write:
"The Vulgate OT was written prior to the City of God. In City of God 18.44, Augustine shows awareness of the Vulgate/Hebrew rendering and accepts differences in Jonah between Hebrew and LXX as both being legitimate expressions of the bible."
How is any of that relevant to what Augustine writes in The City Of God 18:36? Are you suggesting that Augustine accepted multiple canons of scripture, similar to how he accepted multiple translations of a particular passage? If so, then you need to document his acceptance of a second canon. A canon isn't comparable to a translation.
I've shown that Augustine accepted a canon that included Septuagint 1 Esdras. If he defined the books of Esdras in that manner, and the manuscript record of that period suggests that the Septuagint commonly rendered the books of Esdras that way, then it makes more sense to interpret the council of Carthage the way I've suggested than the way you've suggested.
You write:
"Remember, Augustine in City of God doesn't show any distinction between Ezra/Nehemiah and 1 (3) Esdras. He just says that 'Ezra wrote'."
The passage Augustine discusses isn't found in Ezra or Nehemiah. It's found in Septuagint 1 Esdras. He doesn't have to contrast Septuagint 1 Esdras with Ezra and Nehemiah in order to be referring to Septuagint 1 Esdras as scripture. Your objection is irrelevant.
You write:
"Scholars still can't make up their minds whether Ezra actually wrote Ezra/Nehemiah or whether he wrote 1 (3) Esdras."
Again, that's irrelevant. The issue isn't what "modern scholars" think of the subject. The issue is what Augustine said about it.
You write:
"For all we know, under the influence of Jerome's writings, they made a decision on which to include."
First of all, the North Africans held their councils of Hippo and Carthage in 393 and 397. Jerome's work on the Vulgate was still underway at the time. And the North Africans decided on a canon that includes multiple books that Jerome rejected (Tobit, 1 Maccabees, etc.). Furthermore, you're speculating without any direct evidence of an influence of Jerome over their decision. If Jerome persuaded the North Africans to render the books of Esdras as you're suggesting, then we wouldn't expect Augustine to differ from that rendering in The City Of God 18:36. But he does.
You write:
"But if we have to decide between either believing what Jerome said explicitely about Esdras, compared to guessing and randomly speculating on what the Africans did, it's much more reasonable to accept the explicit statements from Jerome that are contemporary with Augustine about how the books were numbered then."
Jerome was putting together a new edition of the Bible. The North Africans, on the other hand, were continuing to follow the Septuagint. The Septuagint manuscripts I've cited are more relevant to the North Africans than Jerome's unfinished Vulgate. Those Septuagint manuscripts aren't equivalent to "guessing and randomly speculating". And following the implications of Augustine's comments in The City Of God 18:36 isn't equivalent to "guessing and randomly speculating". What's closer to "guessing and randomly speculating" is your suggestion that the North Africans might have departed from a common Septuagint rendering of their day in order to follow the canonical judgments of Jerome, a man whose canonical judgments the North Africans rejected on so many other points (the significance of the Septuagint, the canonicity of Tobit, the canonicity of Judith, etc.).
You write:
"Remember, Jerome, writing in Latin in the preface to Ezra, presumably to his old Latin using audience, says not to be disturbed that he is combining these two books into one. Why would an old latin using audience be disturbed by his doing exactly what had always been done?"
You keep repeating errors that have already been corrected. Again, Jerome doesn't say that he's addressing an objection from any sort of wide audience, whether you call that audience "Latin" or something else. Rather, he's mentioning multiple potential objections that could be raised. The fact that some people might object to rendering Ezra and Nehemiah as one book doesn't tell us specifically which or how many people could be expected to raise such an objection. Just after addressing the potential objection you're referring to, Jerome mentions the potential that some people might be deceived into accepting the non-canonical third and fourth books of Esdras. Should we conclude, then, that Jerome thought that acceptance of such books was something all of his readers or some large percentage of the population was likely to do if not warned? No. The fact that Jerome addresses such issues doesn't tell us much about which people or how many his comments would be applicable to.
I don't know if Gene is going to respond to Orthodox. But, for the benefit of those who haven't read our previous discussions with Orthodox, I want to point out that Steve Hays and I (with others in some cases) have repeatedly explained to Orthodox why his appeal to "Holy Tradition" to arrive at a canon of scripture is unreliable. We've also repeatedly explained to him that using a historical argument for a Protestant canon isn't equivalent to denying that people can arrive at a canon by other means. No Protestant in this forum has argued that ancient Jews utilized the sort of archeological data, lexicons, and such that we utilize in the modern world in order to carry out our historical research. We've also explained to Orthodox, on many occasions, that his appeal to "Holy Tradition" is itself a historical argument. How does he know that Jesus is the Messiah? That He founded a church? That the church in question is Eastern Orthodoxy? That particular councils are ecumenical? Etc. Calling your historical data "Holy Tradition" doesn't change the fact that you're relying on historical probability judgments. And are we to believe that the sort of linguistic evidence, manuscript evidence, archeological evidence, etc. that would be needed to support a historical case for Eastern Orthodoxy is equivalent to what Eastern Orthodoxy commonly defines as "Holy Tradition"? It seems that Orthodox is being deliberately vague and duplicitous in his choice of language. Anybody interested in seeing our discussions with Orthodox on subjects like these (discussions that he frequently leaves) can consult the archives. For example:
Hello, Jason. It's good to see that you haven't completely left the internet. I thought you had when you left NTRM and your site appeared to be down. It's been a long time since our days on the AOL message boards, no? I was surprised to find this blog (and James Swan's) when I did a Google search after being notified that Mr. Webster finally responded to my 2004 article on Esdras.
I've read Mr. Webster's post at aomin.org and have emailed him that I will reply to it in a few weeks. I hope to have some time to do this even sooner. At the moment important matters in the real world demand my attention. Nevertheless, I shall address what he has raised.
Anonymous asked Orthodox to answer Jason's 5 questions. If I may interject:
1) How does he know that Jesus is the Messiah?
Through the Sacred Tradition of the Church he knows this. Scripture is PART OF that Sacred Tradition, not apart FROM it.
2)That He founded a church?
We believe that Scripture is infallibly the Word of God and IN Scripture Jesus (God) promises He would build His Church. We believe Jesus kept His promise and didn't wait 1500+ years to build that Church.
3) That the church in question is Eastern Orthodoxy?
Eastern Orthodoxy was part of that One Church when Jesus built it. The separation of East and West did not happen until over 1000 years of Christendom transpired.
4) That particular councils are ecumenical? Etc.
Councils which are ecumenical invite bishops from all over world to attend and their message is to the entire Church throughout the world. Local councils address local issues and are attended only by the bishops of the region and the decrees address that region.
5) Calling your historical data "Holy Tradition" doesn't change the fact that you're relying on historical probability judgments. And are we to believe that the sort of linguistic evidence, manuscript evidence, archeological evidence, etc. that would be needed to support a historical case for Eastern Orthodoxy is equivalent to what Eastern Orthodoxy commonly defines as "Holy Tradition"?
The history is there and readily available for all to read. What you are expected "to believe" is that which God has given you the faith to believe. If you have doubts about your current walk with Christ - then you would be obligated/expected (if you have intellectual integrity and honesty) to seek the answers to your doubts. Complacency is a tool of the Devil.
thanks, but I think you answered the wrong questions (by Jason). The questions (by Orthodox) are:
1) What two pre-existing books did Jerome say he combined into one? 2) Why did he have to placate his readership by asking them not to be disturbed? 3) Who are the "Greeks and Latins" who Jerome said used the Hebrew book split into two, and what two books were they? 4) What naming schemes were used in the world in the LXX for these books, and is it allegedly uniform in the world or not? 5) Who really was allegedly the first to divide the books? Was is prior to Origen, Origen, Jerome or who?
I had some time this weekend so I finished my response to Mr. Webster and after some editing it should be up at Catholic Legate within a couple of days. Thanks.
Excellent work, James!
ReplyDeleteBeing as I am Orthodox, I'd be more than happy to find that Carthage had included the LXX's 1 Esdras. However Webster is wrong.
ReplyDeleteThe table at Wikipedia helps to clarify the situation:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Esdras
Basically, there was another tradition within the Greek LXX tradition to list Ezra and Nehemiah as 1 and 2 Esdras. It wasn't something Jerome made up.
This is witnessed by Origen who says that the Jews had "Esdras, first and second in one". . Jerome in the Preface to Samuel and Kings refers to "the eighth, Ezra, which itself is likewise divided amongst Greeks and Latins into two books". Note carefully: What the Hebrews had as one, the Greeks and Latins had as two.
Funnily, protestants are still trotting this Webster-fable out as if it is fact, strangely ignoring the direct evidence of Jerome and Origen. I'd be more than happy to be wrong on this one, but there's just no evidence.
Oh yes, I forgot about Jerome's prologue to Esdras (aka Ezra and Nehemiah) where he asks the reader not to be disturbed about his combining them into one book. That means they were formally known as two books in the old Latin. The Vulgate post-Trent split the up again.
ReplyDeleteOrthodox said:
ReplyDelete---
I'd be more than happy to be wrong on this one...
---
I assume you're ecstatic by now.
All objections aside for the moment, do you seriously think we're supposed to take your unattributed, non-sourced claims of what Origen and Jerome said rather than Webster's attributed and sourced quotations?
By the way, I should also point out that it is painfully obvious that Orthodox hasn't read the entire discussion Webster had either.
ReplyDeleteWebster's first portion can all be found linked from this entry, but he should especially pay attention to this part.
William Webster addressed Orthodox's erroneous argument. I agree with Peter. It seems that Orthodox didn't even read what he was responding to. I doubt it's the first time he's done that.
ReplyDeleteWebster doesn't even TOUCH on the issue. In this link the erroneous claim is repeated that Jerome was the first to split up the books of Ezra and Nehemiah according to the custom of the Hebrews. But the exact OPPOSITE is true. The Hebrews had it in one book, the Greeks and Latins had them in two books, and Jerome JOINED them into one, according to the custom of the Hebrews. Webster is 100% back to front wrong.
ReplyDeleteThe Vulgate prior to Trent had them as ONE BOOK. Jerome in the Preface to Samuel and Kings refers to "the eighth, Ezra, which itself is likewise divided amongst Greeks and Latins into two books" Jerome's prologue to Esdras (aka Ezra and Nehemiah) asks the reader not to be disturbed about his combining them into one book.
And don't be giving me this nonsense about unsourced quotes. Can't you folks read? The sources were given. Do I have to hold your hands and point you to the quotes??? Fine:
http://www.tertullian.org/fathers/
jerome_preface_ezra.htm
http://www.bombaxo.com/prologues.html
The article doesn't even make sense for crying out loud. It says the Jews had them as one book, but Jerome split them up to "conform to the Hebrew canon". Huh?
And then the article gets confused between the pre-Trent Vulgate manuscripts and the post-Trent ones where it is split up.
Why are you still listening to this Webster clown? He ignores completely what Jerome said on the subject, he doesn't have a rudimentry knowledge of the Vulgate or the history of the text, and he goes off into wild speculations without and contrary to the actual evidence. He ignores what Origen said about how the Greek splits the single Hebrew book into two books. In short, this is "joke scholarship". There isn't so much as a splinter of foundation for these claims.
We had much of this discussion on the Locutus Message Board yesterday too... Check here
ReplyDeletehttp://www.catholicresponse.org/locutus
Considering Orthodox's behavior in this forum and the lack of scholarship in his own posts, I don't think he's in a position to refer to William Webster as a "clown" who uses "joke scholarship". Orthodox cites an anonymous Wikipedia article in support of his claims, yet the thread that Scott links us to has a poster by the screen name of "orthodox" who tells us that he edited the Wikipedia article. Is that orthodox the same as the Orthodox who posts here? If so, then Orthodox is citing a Wikipedia article that he edited. We're supposed to believe that the many scholars William Webster cites constitute "joke scholarship", yet it's acceptable for Orthodox to cite a Wikipedia article that he edited, one that, as we'll see, fails to support his assertions.
ReplyDeleteI mentioned the canons of Carthage and Trent in the title of this thread. And Orthodox began his first response by writing:
"Being as I am Orthodox, I'd be more than happy to find that Carthage had included the LXX's 1 Esdras."
Yet, Orthodox's posts don't address what William Webster wrote about the canon of the North Africans (the people who held the council of Carthage), and he says nothing about Trent. He argues that William Webster is wrong on some other issues, such as what Jerome did with the books of Esdras, but nothing Orthodox has posted refutes what I and William Webster have argued about the canons of Carthage and Trent. If Orthodox wants to argue that William Webster is a "clown" who uses "joke scholarship" on other subjects, then he can do so, but that doesn't have much relevance to this thread.
Some of Orthodox's comments are difficult to understand. He begins his third post by referring to how "Webster doesn't even TOUCH on the issue". Which issue? He goes on to refer to "this link" without specifying which one he has in mind. I and Peter provided three links to Webster's material. Orthodox needs to make more of an effort to document his claims, and he needs to make more of an effort to write coherently.
He tells us:
"In this link the erroneous claim is repeated that Jerome was the first to split up the books of Ezra and Nehemiah according to the custom of the Hebrews."
I didn't link to that article. I linked to a different article by Webster. But here's what Webster said in the article Orthodox is referring to:
"Jerome was the first to separate Ezra and Nehemiah into separate books and to assign the title of I Esdras to Ezra and 2 Esdras to Nehemiah in order to conform to the Hebrew canon."
Webster is referring to more than just the separation of the books. He's also referring to the assigning of titles and the intention of conforming to the Hebrew canon. Orthodox has singled out part of what Webster wrote while ignoring the remainder.
And in the article I linked to, Webster writes:
"It was Jerome, who is considered the only Church father who was a true Hebrew scholar, who was responsible for separating Ezra and Nehemiah to be designated as 1 and 2 Esdras respectively as separate books in an official Bible and who relegated 1 Esdras of the Septuagint to a noncanonical status which later became designated as III Esdras." (http://aomin.org/index.php?itemid=1948)
Notice the phrase "in an official Bible". Orthodox seems to be ignoring that qualifier also. But the qualifier is there, and Webster's comments elsewhere acknowledge that prior sources referred to separate books. Why would Orthodox ignore those other comments and ignore the qualifiers mentioned above?
Orthodox writes:
"The article doesn't even make sense for crying out loud. It says the Jews had them as one book, but Jerome split them up to 'conform to the Hebrew canon'. Huh?"
Webster is referring to agreeing with the canon of the Hebrews, not agreeing with the divisions of the books. The comment Orthodox is referring to is in the midst of a discussion of the Septuagint version of 1 Esdras, which isn't part of the Hebrew canon. In other words, Webster seems to be referring to the fact that Jerome was replacing the Septuagint versions of 1 and 2 Esdras with Ezra and Nehemiah, thereby agreeing with the Hebrew canon. He's not denying that Ezra and Nehemiah are combined in the Hebrew canon. Webster has been making references to the fact that the two books were combined in the Hebrew canon for years. See, for example, an older response he wrote to Art Sippo, in which Webster repeatedly acknowledges the fact that the Hebrew canon combines Ezra and Nehemiah:
http://www.christiantruth.com/sippocanon.html
Orthodox claims that Webster is mistaken in saying that Jerome separated Ezra and Nehemiah into two books. He (Orthodox) cites a passage in Jerome's prologue to Ezra that supposedly demonstrates that Jerome kept Ezra and Nehemiah as one book. But Orthodox is misreading the evidence.
Webster explains Jerome's division of the books with the following quote from Herbert Edward Ryle:
"In the lists of the Old Testament which include the Apocryphal books, an element of confusion is caused by the Apocryphal Ezra, our First Book of Esdras. In the LXX Version, the Old Latin, and the Syriac, this Apocryphal Greek Book was placed, out of regard probably for chronology, before the Hebrew Ezra, and was called the First of Ezra...while our Ezra and Nehemiah appeared as one book, with the title of the Second of Ezra. In his translation of the Vulgate, Jerome did not recognize the Canonicity of the Apocryphal Books. He translated the Hebrew Ezra (our Ezra and Nehemiah) as one book with the title of Ezra; but he acquiesced in the division of the Canonical Ezra into two books, for he speaks of the Apocryphal books as the third and fourth of Ezra...In the Vulgate, accordingly, Ezra and Nehemiah were called the First and Second of Ezra; the Apocryphal Greek Ezra was called the Third of Ezra; the Apocalyptic work, the Fourth of Ezra...The influence of the Vulgate caused the names applied in the books in that version to be generally adopted in the West. At the Council of Trent, Ezra and Nehemiah are called the first book of Ezra and the second of Ezra which is called Nehemiah" (http://aomin.org/index.php?itemid=1876&catid=7)
In other words, Jerome was following the Hebrew canon in general, but "acquiesced" in less important matters. The same prologue of Jerome that Orthodox has linked to designates the non-canonical books of Ezra as "the apocryphal third and fourth books" (http://www.tertullian.org/fathers/jerome_preface_ezra.htm), as Ryle describes above. In other words, Jerome referred to Ezra and Nehemiah as one book in some contexts, but as two books in other contexts. Webster hasn't denied that they were one book among the Hebrews, nor has he denied that Jerome refers to them as one book at times. He also divides them into two books, as Ryle explains above.
William Webster has also noted that the Oxford Dictionary Of The Christian Church refers to "I and II Esdras, i.e. St Jerome's rendering of Ezra and Neh., treated as separate books" (New York: Oxford University Press, 1997, p. 560).
R.K. Harrison writes:
"Jerome in his Prologus Galeatus considered Ezra and Nehemiah to be a unity, but in the Vulgate he recognized the existence of two separate works, designating Nehemiah as liber secundus Esdrae, and thereby established the precedent that grew into normal Christian practice." (Introduction To The Old Testament [Peabody, Massachusetts: Hendrickson Publishers, 2004], p. 1135)
Raymond Dillard and Tremper Longman III write:
"Origen is the first attested scholar to differentiate the two books [Ezra and Nehemiah], and Jerome's Vulgate represents this position for the first time in an edition of the Bible" (An Introduction To The Old Testament [Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan, 1994], p. 180)
David Howard writes:
"Jerome, in the fourth century, divided them [Ezra and Nehemiah] into two books in his Latin translation, the Vulgate. The first Hebrew Bibles that evidence a division into two books date to the late Middle Ages, and they do so under the influence of Christian versions." (An Introduction To The Old Testament Historical Books [Moody Publishers, 1993], p. 275)
Charles Fensham writes:
"Jerome acknowledged the division of Ezra and Nehemiah; he used the same division in the Vulgate." (The Books Of Ezra And Nehemiah [Grand Rapids, Michigan: Eerdmans, 1982], p. 1)
H.G.M. Williamson refers to:
"The separation between Ezra and Nehemiah, first attested by Origen (cf. Eusebius Hist. Eccl. 6.25.2, though with acknowledgment that in Hebrew tradition they are reckoned as one) and then by Jerome in the Vulgate (but as two books of Ezra rather than as Ezra and Nehemiah, although in his Prologus galeatus he too acknowledges their unity in Hebrew tradition)" (Word Biblical Commentary: Ezra-Nehemiah [Dallas, Texas: Word Books Publisher, 1985], xxi)
Orthodox repeatedly claims that Ezra and Nehemiah were divided in the Vulgate only after Trent, but he offers no documentation. The fact is that Trent made its decision about the canon based on earlier editions of the Vulgate, not later editions that didn't exist yet. Webster has documented that Trent appealed to the Vulgate canon. And, as sources like the ones cited above explain, Ezra and Nehemiah were separated in the Vulgate prior to Trent. Orthodox's claim that it happened after Trent is wrong.
As I said near the beginning of this post, even if Webster had been wrong on such issues, it wouldn't therefore follow that he's wrong about the canons of Carthage and Trent being different. I cited him on that latter issue, and Orthodox hasn't given us any reason to conclude that Webster is wrong on that subject. He's also misrepresented what Webster has said, as well as misrepresenting the state of the evidence, on the other subjects he (Orthodox) brought up.
This "Orthodox" is a real muddle brain, isn't he?
ReplyDeleteI was very careful not to "cite" Wikipedia. I merely pointed people to Wikipedia as a useful summary of a rather confusing topic of the different nomenclature for Esdras, for which all branches of Christianity have different naming.
ReplyDeleteConcerning the North African canon - yes it was based on the LXX (or the LXX based old latin), just like all of Christendom was. The question is: was the LXX of that day and age both uniform and named the same way it is today?
Origen says that the the Hebrews have Esdras, first and second in one.
Jerome says that the the Hebrew Ezra is is divided in two by the Greeks and Latins.
Jerome tries to placate a potential controversy by asking the reader "not to be disturbed" that he is combining two books into one.
Now as to whether the pre-Trent Vulgate was different, I cannot remember a source for that, so I must withdraw that claim. However I would still claim that sometime between Jerome's work and the present time, they must have been redivided.
Now what is Webster's response to Jerome's saying that he combined the books into one? Well, I can't see any response other than some vague obfuscation.
Someone who wants to present this position must identify what two books were formally separated, but Jerome has to placate his audience for combining them. Then they need to tell us what in what document Jerome combined them, if not the Vulgate.
Then Jason gives us some quotes:
"The first Hebrew Bibles that evidence a division into two books date to the late Middle Ages, and they do so under the influence of Christian versions."
Ok great, let's assume and agree that all Hebrew versions had them as one book.
>"Jerome acknowledged the division of Ezra and
>Nehemiah; he used the same division in the
>Vulgate." (The Books Of Ezra And Nehemiah
>[Grand Rapids, Michigan: Eerdmans, 1982], p. 1)
He acknowledged the division? What division? We agree the Hebrew was not divided. And the position of Webster is that the LXX was not divided. So what prior tradition is he acknowledging?
>"The separation between Ezra and Nehemiah,
>first attested by Origen (Word Biblical
>Commentary: Ezra-Nehemiah [Dallas, Texas:
>Word Books Publisher, 1985], xxi)
Whoa. Origen is prior to Jerome, agreed? So how does this jive with Webster's claim that Jerome was the first to separate them?
We already agreed that the Hebrew didn't separate them, so it must be the Greek LXX, which is exactly what Origen attested. So if the LXX had it separated, Webster's argument falls in a heap.
And as we already saw, Jerome says that what the Hebrews have as one, the Greeks and Latins divide into two. What are these two books that are a division of a Hebrew book? It can't be Jerome's new Vulgate because it has no influence over the Greek tradition. The only conclusion is that there was an LXX tradition already to have them separated, either as a tradition prior to their later combination, or else a parallel tradition.
>"Jerome acknowledged the division of Ezra and
>Nehemiah; he used the same division in the
>Vulgate." (The Books Of Ezra And Nehemiah [
>Grand Rapids, Michigan: Eerdmans, 1982], p. 1)
He used the "same" division? Same as who? Not the Hebrews, we agree. If Webster is correct, not that of the LXX.
"And that we might enumerate the apocryphal books in the order in which they appear in this Bible, even though they have been produced in a different order, first come the third and fourth books of Ezra. They are called Third and Fourth Ezra because, before Jerome, Greeks and Latins used to divide the book of Ezra into two books, calling the words of Nehemiah the second book of Ezra. " - Biblia cum glosa ordinaria et expositione Lyre litterali et morali. This as I understand it is a 9th century document stating the same thing.
Then we are told that Augustine among others quoted 1 Esdras. That doesn't prove that it was known to him as 1 Esdras, and not 3 Esdras as it was later known in the Vulgate. If we are to assume that I was wrong about when the Vulgate reverts to the later numbering, and that this was apparent shortly after Jerome, it is not unreasonable to assume that the people reverted Jerome's combining the books back to a previous tradition where they were separated, because it was a more familiar naming scheme. In which case it would be reasonable to guess that 1 Esdras was known to Augustine and others as 3 Esdras.
>While the sources cited by Betts and Sippo do list
>the Hebrew books of Ezra and Nehemiah as 1
>and 2 Esdras, they have failed to provide their
>readers with some crucial information. That
>information has to do with the fact that those
>fathers who separate Ezra from Nehemiah into
>separate books and designate Ezra as 1 Esdras
>and Nehemiah as 2 Esdras are following the
>Hebrew canon.
What if this were true? How does that help? Isn't the claim on the table here that the Hebrews had them as one book? Didn't we just agree on that? So whatever canon these people may be following, how does that refute what Art Sippo said: " But anyone who is familiar with the state of the Biblical Canon in the late 4th Century knows that the term '2 books of Esdras' had been used for over 100 years by Origen and others to refer to the books of Ezra and Nehemiah."
Has the argument reversed itself again that the Hebrews now had it split up?
Or is what is being said is that people who used the LXX, yet subscribed to a Hebrew-like canon, had designated the books differently? But where is the evidence that anybody actually used LXX manuscripts that excluded everything but the Hebrew canon? I am not aware of any such evidence. So what canon these people subscribed to is irrrelevant to determining what nominclature was used for books in the LXX of that time.
If Art Sippo is correct, and it has been conceded already that he is, then the only hope for Webster's argument is the assumption that the LXX manuscripts of Africa were named differently to people like Origen. Given the extensive influence LXX scholars know that Origen had over the LXX textual tradition, this seems like a dangerous assumption.
Then we are quoted Cyril and Athanasius to show that in the Hebrew canon the two were considered one book. Yep! Everyone agrees the Jews considered them one book. The question is: WHO CONSIDERED THEM TWO BOOKS, which is what Origen tells us.
The best most flattering thing we can say about Webster's thesis here is that it is a semi-plausible suggestion that doesn't really fit the available facts. The problem is that Webster, dare I say it, offers no exegesis on what Jerome and Origen were saying. That leaves Webster's thesis as still a bit of a joke, being as it does, leaving the primary evidence unaddressed.
If anyone wants to make this a serious argument, and not just one long obfuscation, someone presenting this point of view is going to have to clearly lay out a position:
1) What two pre-existing books did Jerome say he combined into one?
2) Why did he have to placate his readership by asking them not to be disturbed?
3) Who are the "Greeks and Latins" who Jerome said used the Hebrew book split into two, and what two books were they?
4) What naming schemes were used in the world in the LXX for these books, and is it allegedly uniform in the world or not?
5) Who really was allegedly the first to divide the books? Was is prior to Origen, Origen, Jerome or who?
Until a clear position is laid out concerning what these references actually mean, all we have here is a muddle headed obfuscation and general mud flinging. Everything presented so far as the Webster position is entirely self-contradictory with no coherent line of argument.
I might also add that the Slavonic bible, deriving as it does from the Greek church, is another snippet of evidence that the numbering and ordering of the LXX of today is not the same as it always was. The Slavonic lists Ezra as 1 Esdras, and lists the book protestants consider non-canonical afterwards.
ReplyDeleteJason said:
ReplyDelete---
"Jerome was the first to separate Ezra and Nehemiah into separate books and to assign the title of I Esdras to Ezra and 2 Esdras to Nehemiah in order to conform to the Hebrew canon."
Webster is referring to more than just the separation of the books. He's also referring to the assigning of titles and the intention of conforming to the Hebrew canon. Orthodox has singled out part of what Webster wrote while ignoring the remainder.
---
Orthodox replied:
---
Whoa. Origen is prior to Jerome, agreed? So how does this jive with Webster's claim that Jerome was the first to separate them?
---
My "Someone's-Not-Reading-Before-Responding-ometer" has red-lined.
Responding in an Orthodox manner....
ReplyDeleteOrthodox said:
---
I was very careful...to "cite" Wikipedia. I [intentionally] pointed people to Wikipedia as a useful summary of a rather confusing topic.
---
(By the way, I must note in passing that Orthodox never denies he was the "orthodox" who edited the Wikipedia article in the first place.)
Orthodox "said":
---
all we have here is a muddle headed obfuscation and general mud flinging. Everything presented so far [against] the Webster position is entirely self-contradictory with no coherent line of argument.
---
To which I agree.
Orthodox "said":
---
If anyone wants to make [my argument] a serious argument, and not just one long obfuscation, someone presenting [my] point of view is going to have to clearly lay out a position.
---
Notice he doesn't....
Boy, this is a lot more fun than responding to what Orthodox really said. No wonder he always responds this way!
Next, I'm going to apply postmodern deconstructive techniques, wherein the label "Orthodox" can be understood in light of 21st Century Feminist Literature, by which we mean an adherant to a certain play written by Eve Ensler.
Ad hominem response to a very clear request for clarification with very clear questions about a very confusing Webster presentation. Apparently no one here understands Webster, but are prepared to back him to the hilt regardless. That says a lot.
ReplyDeleteReaders should notice that, as Peter has mentioned, Orthodox hasn't told us whether he edited the Wikipedia article. Readers also should notice how little Orthodox learns from his mistakes. He continues to post replies without having done sufficient research. He continues to approach these issues as if he hasn't given them much thought. He continues to ignore information he's already been given, information that would answer questions he's now asking.
ReplyDeleteReaders also should notice that Orthodox has changed his approach. In his first few posts, he ignored the evidence pertaining to the North Africans' canon. It was only after I explained to him how unreasonable it is to ignore such data that he began to address it. Again, why do such things need to be explained to him?
Orthodox writes:
"Now as to whether the pre-Trent Vulgate was different, I cannot remember a source for that, so I must withdraw that claim."
Did you "withdraw" the claim from the Wikipedia article? It's still there at the time I'm writing this post.
Why would you not only make the claim in a forum such as this one, but even write or edit a Wikipedia article with a chart highlighting your claim, if you had no source for the claim and couldn't remember where you read it? And what prevents you from finding a source now, even if you've forgotten your previous source?
What prevents you is the fact that you're wrong. We have pre-Trent manuscripts of the Vulgate, and we have pre-Trent accounts of Vulgate contents from other sources. For example:
"In several manuscripts of the Latin Vulgate, as well as in all the printed editions anterior to the decree of the Council of Trent, and in many since that period, there will be found four books following each other, entitled the 1st, 2d, 3d, and 4th books of Ezra. The first two are the canonical books of Ezra and Nehemiah, the 3d and 4th form the subject of the articles below." (John McClintock and James Strong, Cyclopedia Of Biblical, Theological And Ecclesiastical Literature [Rio, Wisconsin: Ages Software, 2000], Vol. 3, Esay-Eusebians, p. 13, "Es'dras")
You weren't just wrong on some minor point, Orthodox. You were wrong about a document distributed widely for hundreds of years, concerning which we have many sources. Your Wikipedia chart and your arguments about Jerome are largely based on your mistaken assertions about the pre-Trent Vulgate.
You write:
"However I would still claim that sometime between Jerome's work and the present time, they must have been redivided."
Why is anybody supposed to be convinced by what you "would still claim"? And how does an eventual change prior to "the present time" lead us to your conclusion? It doesn't.
You write:
"Now what is Webster's response to Jerome's saying that he combined the books into one? Well, I can't see any response other than some vague obfuscation. Someone who wants to present this position must identify what two books were formally separated, but Jerome has to placate his audience for combining them. Then they need to tell us what in what document Jerome combined them, if not the Vulgate."
I addressed those issues in my last post. And I recommend that you reread Jerome's comments from the two sources you linked to in a previous post. Your own sources render his comments in different ways, and your interpretation isn't the only plausible reading. Jerome probably isn't saying what you think he's saying. As I explained earlier, and as the scholars I cited explain, Jerome seems to have considered Ezra and Nehemiah one book in the sense of both being "Esdras", but two books in the sense of "1 Esdras" and "2 Esdras". Your argument depends on the conclusion that Jerome always classified Ezra and Nehemiah as one book during the timeframe in question. As I and the scholars I cited (and some of William Webster's sources) have explained, Jerome seems to have referred to the books in both ways, depending on the context.
You write:
"Origen is prior to Jerome, agreed? So how does this jive with Webster's claim that Jerome was the first to separate them?"
As Peter has mentioned, I addressed that subject in my last post. You're misrepresenting what Webster said. Why are you ignoring what I said on this subject in my last reply?
You write:
"We already agreed that the Hebrew didn't separate them, so it must be the Greek LXX, which is exactly what Origen attested. So if the LXX had it separated, Webster's argument falls in a heap."
We don't know a lot about the earliest Hebrew editions. We know that Hebrew versions around the time of the church fathers in question at least largely included Ezra and Nehemiah as one book. And we know that the Septuagint at least largely included them as one book. Webster presents some evidence to that effect in his articles. Why do you keep ignoring or forgetting so much of what you're told? We have some Septuagint manuscripts from that era, and we have descriptions of the Septuagint's contents from various sources. As we'll see below, Augustine, the most prominent of our North African sources at the time of the council of Carthage, is one of those sources who tells us what the Septuagint contained, and you're misrepresenting the data we have from Augustine.
Furthermore, you're contradicting yourself again. Your own Wikipedia chart has Ezra and Nehemiah as one book in the Septuagint. In other words, you initially weren't disputing the fact that the two were combined in the Septuagint. But now you're arguing that "if the LXX had it [Ezra and Nehemiah] separated, Webster's argument falls in a heap". If the Septuagint separated the two books, then your argument falls into a heap, starting with your errant Wikipedia chart.
You write:
"Then we are told that Augustine among others quoted 1 Esdras. That doesn't prove that it was known to him as 1 Esdras, and not 3 Esdras as it was later known in the Vulgate."
Augustine doesn't just "quote" the Septuagint version of 1 Esdras. He discusses it as if it's scripture. The relevant passage, which William Webster discusses, is The City Of God 18:36. In that passage, Augustine cites the Septuagint 1 Esdras in the context of discussing history as recorded in the Biblical books. He refers to the book as written by Ezra. And he suggests that Septuagint 1 Esdras might even be considered a prophetic rather than just a historical book. In other words, he suggests that it contains prophecy.
Thus, as William Webster explains, we have two pieces of evidence suggesting that the North Africans were referring to the Septuagint version of 1 Esdras:
1. The North Africans of that time used and thought highly of the Septuagint.
2. Augustine refers to Septuagint 1 Esdras as if it's scripture.
Readers should notice that Orthodox has been participating in this discussion for so long now, and even refers to how he's studied the issue in significant depth and apparently edited a Wikipedia article on the subject, yet he needs basic facts like the ones above to be explained to him.
Well, I think it's safe to say that Orthodox got his butt kicked....
ReplyDelete>Why would you not only make the claim in a forum
ReplyDelete>such as this one, but even write or edit a Wikipedia
>article with a chart highlighting your claim, if you
>had no source for the claim and couldn't remember
>where you read it? And what prevents you from
>finding a source now, even if you've forgotten your
>previous source?
[sigh] I didn't say I wrote the wiki article, rather I did some editing of it.
>>"However I would still claim that sometime >>between Jerome's work and the present time, >>they must have been redivided."
>
>Why is anybody supposed to be convinced by >what you "would still claim"?
Because Jerome said he combined them into one.
>And how does an eventual change prior to "the
>present time" lead us to your conclusion? It
>doesn't.
When the change occured is completely irrelevant to this discussion, whether eventual or whatever. The question is what was the situation prior to Jerome.
>I addressed those issues in my last post. And I
>recommend that you reread Jerome's comments
>from the two sources you linked to in a previous
>post. Your own sources render his comments in
>different ways, and your interpretation isn't the
>only plausible reading.
That's fine, tell us the alternative understanding. Tell us what books he combined into one. Tell us why he had to placate he audience after doing so. Will you tell us, or just obfuscate?
>Jerome probably isn't saying what you think he's
>saying. As I explained earlier, and as the scholars
>I cited explain, Jerome seems to have considered
>Ezra and Nehemiah one book in the sense of
>both being "Esdras", but two books in the sense
>of "1 Esdras" and "2 Esdras".
Pure obfuscation. You won't answer the questions will you? WHAT BOOKS DID HE COMBINE INTO ONE? WHY DID HE HAVE TO PLACATE HIS AUDIENCE AFTER DOING SO?
>Your argument depends on the conclusion that
>Jerome always classified Ezra and Nehemiah as
>one book during the timeframe in question.
I never said such a thing, whether it is so is irrelevant. WHAT BOOKS DID HE COMBINE INTO ONE? WHY DID HE HAVE TO PLACATE HIS AUDIENCE AFTER DOING SO?
"Origen is prior to Jerome, agreed? So how does this jive with Webster's claim that Jerome was the first to separate them?"
>As Peter has mentioned, I addressed that subject
>in my last post. You're misrepresenting what
>Webster said. Why are you ignoring what I said
>on this subject in my last reply?
You addressed it? What you did was quote some scholars who agreed they were separated in Origen's time, and thus you got it wrong. I guess Webster takes one in the stomach for that?
>And we know that the Septuagint at least
>largely included them as one book.
No you don't know that, especially given the contrary evidence already presented. Furthermore in that Webster debate, Art Sippo said that people were using the LXX with them separated, which Webster conceded, but then went on to say "yes but, those folks subscribed to a Hebrew style canon". So Webster has conceded this one for you.
>We have some Septuagint manuscripts from that
>era,
The old latin that Augustine was using would have been based on an LXX from a much earlier era.
>and we have descriptions of the Septuagint's
>contents from various sources.
Why should we believe you when you ae so prone to making mistakes?
>Furthermore, you're contradicting yourself again.
>Your own Wikipedia chart has Ezra and
>Nehemiah as one book in the Septuagint.
You didn't read the notes on the article did you? Don't blame me for your laziness.
>Augustine doesn't just "quote" the Septuagint
>version of 1 Esdras. He discusses it as if it's
>scripture.
Which doesn't prove a great deal unless he actually named it as 1 Esdras. If many people were considering Ezra and Nehemiah as 1 and 2 Esdras, as it seems the case from Origen and Jerome, how do you know this wasn't 3 Esdras?
>He refers to the book as written by Ezra. And he
>suggests that Septuagint 1 Esdras might even be
>considered a prophetic rather than just a
>historical book. In other words, he suggests that
>it contains prophecy.
MIGHT be considered prophetic? So how do you know it wasn't left out of the canon list due to his uncertainty of its prophetic nature?
>1. The North Africans of that time used and
>thought highly of the Septuagint.
And you can't show us any evidence whatsoever how the LXX was divided up at that time. You assume it was divided up differently to Origen and Jerome, but you can't prove it.
>2. Augustine refers to Septuagint 1 Esdras as if
>it's scripture.
But you showed us that he was uncertain about it.
Not much of a theory is it? And you refuse to answer my questions because you know they would blow up in your face.
1) What two pre-existing books did Jerome say he combined into one?
2) Why did he have to placate his readership by asking them not to be disturbed?
3) Who are the "Greeks and Latins" who Jerome said used the Hebrew book split into two, and what two books were they?
4) What naming schemes were used in the world in the LXX for these books, and is it allegedly uniform in the world or not?
5) Who really was allegedly the first to divide the books? Was is prior to Origen, Origen, Jerome or who?
Now as to the question of Esdras in the Vulgate, I have found a source for it:
ReplyDeletehttp://net.bible.org/dictionary.php?word=Apocalyptic%20Esdras
"3 Esdras is the designation in old editions of the Vulgate, 1 Esdras being Ezr and Neh, 2 Esdras denoting what in English is called 1 Esdras. But in editions of the Vulgate (Jerome's Latin Bible, 390-405 A.D.) later than the Council of Trent, and also in Walton's Polyglot, Ezra is called 1 Esdras, Nehemiah, 2 Esdras, 1 Esdras = 3 Esdras, the present book (the Latin Esdras) being known as 4 Esdras. In authorized copies of the Vulgate, i.e. in those commonly used, this book is lacking."
So the folks behind the NET bible are telling us that the pre-Trent Vulgate is just as it says in the Wikipedia article. Are they wrong? They could be, but those folks are usually pretty accurate with their facts. I suggest you take it up with them if you disagree.
Well, I think it's safe to say that Jason got his butt kicked....
ReplyDeleteFirst, there is a chart in Volume 2 of Holy Scripture: The Ground and Pillar of Our Faith...a book that Orthodox does not seem to have read, or he'd show us that he has done so.
ReplyDeleteHe also writes:
That's fine, tell us the alternative understanding. Tell us what books he combined into one. Tell us why he had to placate he audience after doing so. Will you tell us, or just obfuscate?
Fine, but let's be charitable here. Webster cites Ryle, which Jason also cited here, so if anybody is at fault it's not Webster, it's Ryle. Incidentally, Webster endnotes no less than three additional sources for that citation in his book. I'll leave it to Orthodox to actually, you know, do the work of looking them up.
These two statements are models of equivocation:
[sigh] I didn't say I wrote the wiki article, rather I did some editing of it.
I was very careful not to "cite" Wikipedia. I merely pointed people to Wikipedia as a useful summary of a rather confusing topic of the different nomenclature for Esdras, for which all branches of Christianity have different naming.
First, pointing people to an article is, in point of fact, the very definition of making a citation. That's the point of a footnote or embedded link. Second, he admits to having edited the article, not having "written" the article. So what he did was cite an article that somebody else originally wrote but he himself subsequently modified. He didn't "write" it, but he "modified" it. Orthodox reminds us of Bill Clinton, who wanted to argue over the meaning of "is..." I wish there was a rollseyes emoticon here.
The problem that Orthodox continues to ignore is that Ezra-Nehemiah, not any other book claiming to be authored by Ezra is canonical, contrary to his claims.
Let us not forget that Carthage was not an ecumenical council. What Orthodox requires, and what he cannot provide us, is an ecumenical council from his own communion that can tell us what the books of the canon are. In short, he must use his own private judgment. How very Protestant.
orthodox said:
ReplyDelete"Well, I think it's safe to say that Jason got his butt kicked...."
You are here as a guest. If you wish to retain the privilege of using the combox, you would do well to act like a proper house guest. Otherwise, you'll be banned and all your comments will be deleted.
Orthodox said:
ReplyDelete"[sigh] I didn't say I wrote the wiki article, rather I did some editing of it."
And I didn't say that you wrote it. I said that you apparently wrote it or edited it. You could have provided clarification earlier. You didn't. You keep acting as if we're the ones being unreasonable ("sigh"), even though the problem is with you. You've now explained that you edited the Wikipedia article that you appealed to in your initial post. That article is inaccurate.
You write:
"Because Jerome said he combined them into one."
As I've told you repeatedly, you're assuming an interpretation of Jerome that's unnecessary and contradicted by other evidence. I've addressed this issue, and so did the scholars I cited. You aren't interacting with what you've been told.
You write:
"When the change occured is completely irrelevant to this discussion, whether eventual or whatever. The question is what was the situation prior to Jerome."
How is the timing irrelevant when you repeatedly made claims about how Jerome and later sources supposedly rendered the books of Esdras? You now tell us that only "the situation prior to Jerome" is relevant, but you made claims about the time of Jerome and the centuries afterward in your earlier posts.
You write:
"That's fine, tell us the alternative understanding. Tell us what books he combined into one. Tell us why he had to placate he audience after doing so. Will you tell us, or just obfuscate?"
I did tell you, repeatedly. And there was no one "audience" Jerome was addressing. Rather, he addressed multiple objections that might arise. He wrote that "Neither should it disturb anyone that the book edited by us is one" (http://www.bombaxo.com/prologues.html). In what context is the book one? Jerome is writing to Domnio and Rogatianus. If he presented Ezra and Nehemiah to them as one book, in imitation of the Hebrew rendering, how does it follow that he could never have counted them as two books in any other context? How do you even know that Jerome is referring to his translation? How do you know that he isn't referring to the fact that the original edition is one book, and that some people might object to his counting them as two? I'm not aware of anything in the text or context of this remark by Jerome that would lead us to your conclusion. You're assuming something you have yet to prove. As the scholars I cited earlier explain, Jerome does acknowledge that Ezra and Nehemiah can be separated, including in this letter you've cited (which is why he refers to the apocryphal books of Esdras as the third and fourth books, acknowledging that the canonical ones can be numbered as two). What you're doing is singling out one comment Jerome made, assuming an unnecessary reading of it, then ignoring all of the contrary data. That doesn't make sense.
You write:
"I never said such a thing, whether it is so is irrelevant."
Why would you say that it's irrelevant whether Jerome always rendered Ezra and Nehemiah as one book? If he only did it in some contexts, but not in others, then how would your objection stand? You accused William Webster of being wrong in saying that Jerome separated the books. If Jerome did separate the books, then you're the one who's wrong. It's not enough for you to argue that Jerome sometimes referred to Ezra and Nehemiah as one book.
You write:
"What you did was quote some scholars who agreed they were separated in Origen's time, and thus you got it wrong. I guess Webster takes one in the stomach for that?"
Where did I deny that Origen referred to Ezra and Nehemiah as two books? I didn't.
You still aren't addressing what I said about how you misrepresented William Webster. Instead, you're not only repeating your false accusation against Webster, but you're now also making the same false accusation against me. All that you're doing is doubling your error.
You write:
"No you don't know that, especially given the contrary evidence already presented. Furthermore in that Webster debate, Art Sippo said that people were using the LXX with them separated, which Webster conceded, but then went on to say 'yes but, those folks subscribed to a Hebrew style canon'. So Webster has conceded this one for you."
You're changing the subject. I was addressing the contents of the Septuagint. In response, you're addressing comments made by some people who used the Septuagint (and other translations). The fact that some people who used the Septuagint referred to Ezra and Nehemiah as two books doesn't prove that the Septuagint itself did so. There were other people who referred to Ezra and Nehemiah as one book. And we have manuscripts of the Septuagint. For you to ignore the Septuagint itself and ignore the sources who refer to Ezra and Nehemiah as one book, while citing some people who used the Septuagint (and other translations), doesn't make sense.
Furthermore, if you're going to cite Art Sippo, here's something else he said:
"In the Vulgate translation he made, St. Jerome used the title 1Esdras to refer to Ezra, 2 Esdras to refer to Nehemiah, and 3 Esdras to refer to the apocryphal 1Esdras from the Septuagint." (cited at http://aomin.org/index.php?itemid=1948)
You've been denying that Jerome counted Ezra and Nehemiah as two books. Should we conclude that you're wrong, since Art Sippo has "conceded" the point?
And I want to remind the readers that you're contradicting yourself. You initially referred to Ezra and Nehemiah as constituting one book in the Septuagint. The Wikipedia article you linked us to refers to the Septuagint as rendering Ezra and Nehemiah as one book. Yet, now you're arguing the opposite. You're now arguing that since some sources who used the Septuagint referred to Ezra and Nehemiah as two books, then the Septuagint must have done so as well. The readers should take note of how inconsistent you are.
You write:
"The old latin that Augustine was using would have been based on an LXX from a much earlier era."
Every Bible translation can be said to be "based" on something from "a much earlier era". If you want to make a more specific claim about Augustine that would be relevant to this discussion, then you need to present specific documentation to that effect. All that you're doing above is making a vague comment that can be interpreted in a variety of ways, without documentation.
Augustine lists his Old Testament canon for us. In that canon, he refers to "the two of Ezra" (On Christian Doctrine, 2:8:13). He only accepted two books of Ezra. And he doesn't list Nehemiah separately. If Ezra and Nehemiah are "the two of Ezra", then where's the book of Ezra he discusses in The City Of God 18:36? You can't argue that he accepted three or more books of Ezra. So, how do we get "two of Ezra" from Ezra, Nehemiah, and the book of Ezra Augustine refers to in The City Of God 18:36? We get two books of Ezra from those three books by rendering them in the manner scholars commonly refer to as the Septuagint rendering. Ezra and Nehemiah were one book, and the book of Ezra referred to in The City Of God 18:36 is the second book.
And I want to point out to the readers, again, that Orthodox is contradicting himself. He initially argued that the Septuagint had Ezra and Nehemiah as one book. The Wikipedia article he cited (and edited) said so. But now he's arguing that Augustine and the other North Africans used a Septuagint in which the two books were separated.
Orthodox may add some qualifications to his earlier argument, in an attempt to reconcile his earlier claims with what he's arguing now. He may claim, for example, that he only meant to refer to most versions of the Septuagint as combining Ezra and Nehemiah into one book. But if he meant to include such a qualifier, why didn't he mention it earlier? And how does he justify his suggestion that we should think that Augustine and the other North Africans used one of the minority versions of the Septuagint in which Ezra and Nehemiah allegedly were separated? How does Orthodox supposedly know that the North Africans were using a minority version of the Septuagint that differed from what we know of the Septuagint from the manuscript record and other data?
I and William Webster have cited many scholars commenting on how the Septuagint rendered the books of Esdras. If Orthodox now wants to contradict himself by arguing that the Septuagint separated Ezra and Nehemiah into two books, or he wants to argue that the North Africans might have used an alternate version of the Septuagint that rendered the books in that manner, then he needs to present evidence to that effect. It's not my responsibility to document that the North Africans didn't follow some unknown edition of the Septuagint that differs from the editions we know about.
Orthodox writes:
"You didn't read the notes on the article did you? Don't blame me for your laziness."
What notes? The Wikipedia article you linked us to states:
"Note that in the Septuagint, following ancient Jewish practice, Ezra and Nehemiah are considered one book (Εσδρας B′), whereas most Bibles today count them as two, as does the Post-Trent Vulgate." (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Esdras)
Your Wikipedia article states that Ezra and Nehemiah were one book in the Septuagint. But now you're arguing that they were two books in the Septuagint, and you're calling me "lazy" for not "reading the notes" in the article. You're not making sense. As I said before, you need to try to think and write more coherently.
You write:
"Which doesn't prove a great deal unless he actually named it as 1 Esdras. If many people were considering Ezra and Nehemiah as 1 and 2 Esdras, as it seems the case from Origen and Jerome, how do you know this wasn't 3 Esdras?"
The issue is whether Augustine considered the book scripture. I explained why we should think that he did. If he did consider it scripture, and he was a North African involved in the North African canonical judgment at the council of Carthage, then his canon probably reflects that of Carthage. If Augustine referred to Septuagint 1 Esdras as scripture, then Carthage probably had Septuagint 1 Esdras in view when it referred to 1 and 2 Esdras as canonical. Augustine doesn't have to use the term "1 Esdras" in order for us to know what book he's referring to and that he considered it scripture.
You write:
"MIGHT be considered prophetic? So how do you know it wasn't left out of the canon list due to his uncertainty of its prophetic nature?"
Once again, you're not making sense, and it's probably because you don't even understand the issue under discussion. Have you read the passage in Augustine I cited? He's referring to different divisions of the Bible. Some Biblical books are historical, and some are prophetic. A book doesn't have to contain prophecy in order to be canonical. The issue Augustine was addressing was which portion of the Bible the book should be classified with, not whether the book belongs in the Bible.
And you're ignoring the other evidence I cited that indicates that Augustine viewed Septuagint 1 Esdras as scripture. All you've done is single out one thing I mentioned, misrepresented it, and ignored the rest. Again, readers should take note of how unreasonable you are.
You write:
"And you can't show us any evidence whatsoever how the LXX was divided up at that time. You assume it was divided up differently to Origen and Jerome, but you can't prove it."
Again, your own Wikipedia article states that Ezra and Nehemiah were one book in the Septuagint. You're now arguing the opposite. If you aren't aware of any evidence that Ezra and Nehemiah were one book in the Septuagint, then you're telling us that your initial argument, and the Wikipedia article you edited based on it, had no supporting evidence. That tells us something about how unconcerned you are about having supporting evidence for the claims you make.
And where have I argued that the Septuagint was "divided up differently to Origen and Jerome"? I haven't. You seem to be assuming that people like Origen and Jerome wouldn't refer to Ezra and Nehemiah as two books unless they got that information from the Septuagint. That's an unjustified assumption.
You write:
"And you refuse to answer my questions because you know they would blow up in your face."
Given how much material you ignore, you're not in a position to criticize other people for not answering your questions. And I have addressed the questions you're asking as far as they're relevant. Asking me which two books Jerome was referring to, for example, is irrelevant, since I've said all along that Ezra and Nehemiah were in view. You're acting as though issues I've already addressed haven't been addressed yet.
You write:
"Now as to the question of Esdras in the Vulgate, I have found a source for it"
I've already given you citations from many scholars who contradict you, and William Webster cited some. It's more likely that your one source is wrong than that all of our sources are wrong.
But even your one source writes elsewhere:
"The Vulgate, following Jerome's version, gave the names 1, 2 and 3 Esdras to our Ezra, Nehemiah, and 1 Esdras, respectively, and in editions of the Vulgate (Jerome's Latin Bible, 390-405 A.D.) down to that of Pope Sixtus (died 1590) these three books appear in that order." (http://net.bible.org/dictionary.php?word=Esdras,%20The%20First%20Book%20Of)
If you're interpreting your one source correctly in the passage you've cited from him, then he seems to have been inconsistent or to have miscommunicated something. I would say that our many sources carry more weight than your one inconsistent source. As I said before, Trent wouldn't have claimed to be following the Vulgate if the Vulgate only began rendering its books as Trent did after the time of Trent.
Gentlemen,
ReplyDeletePerhaps what we need in this thread is Brother Webster's presence. Does anybody have his email address? I do not. Perhaps at 23 posts into this discussion, it is time to contact him and ask him to respond if he wishes. Orthodox shouldn't have a problem interacting directly with him, since Orthodox thinks Brother Webster is a "clown," who uses "joke scholarship" right?
>That article is inaccurate.
ReplyDeleteMy scholars can whup your scholars is not proof it is inaccurate.
>As I've told you repeatedly, you're assuming an
>interpretation of Jerome that's unnecessary and
>contradicted by other evidence. I've addressed this
>issue, and so did the scholars I cited. You aren't
>interacting with what you've been told.
You've addressed zero, zilch, nada. ANSWER THE QUESTIONS, or admit you have no position but a ball of obfuscation.
>I did tell you, repeatedly.
Obfuscation is not an answer.
>And there was no one "audience" Jerome was >addressing. Rather, he addressed multiple
>objections that might arise.
More obfuscations. Forget the other possible objections: Why was THIS an objection? How would anybody object to him doing what everybody, both Jew and Greek had always done, as is alleged by Webster?
>In what context is the book one? Jerome is
>writing to Domnio and Rogatianus. If he
>presented Ezra and Nehemiah to them as one
>book, in imitation of the Hebrew rendering, how
>does it follow that he could never have counted
>them as two books in any other context?
I don't give a rip about different contexts. Just address each of his quotes IN ITS OWN CONTEXT. By all means say the context of each is different but at least give us ONE possible meaning for his quotes that agrees with your position.
Actually, that is two steps ahead of where you need to go. First you need to actually STATE A POSITION of what the quotes mean. All we've had so far is obfuscation.
>How do you even know that Jerome is referring
>to his translation?
Gee, I don't know. Maybe because HE SAID SO?
"No one ought to be bothered by the fact that my edition consists of only one book" -- Jerome.
>How do you know that he isn't referring to the
>fact that the original edition is one book, and
>that some people might object to his counting
>them as two?
This is unbelievable stuff we're witnessing here today. Jerome asks his readers not to be concerned that HIS edition has them combined as one. Jerome states that the Greeks and Latins divide into two books that which the Hebrews count as one.
Will you tell us what books Jerome is referring to, or will you simply keep on obfuscating because you've lost this debate very badly?
>I'm not aware of anything in the text or context
>of this remark by Jerome that would lead us to
>your conclusion.
Hello? Can you read?
>What you're doing is singling out one comment
>Jerome made, assuming an unnecessary reading
>of it, then ignoring all of the contrary data. That
>doesn't make sense.
What you're doing is ignoring what Jerome said, shrugging your shoulders and pretending it can mean whatever someone chooses to think it means, and pretending as if nothing happened. Is this how you do exegesis? You just pretend as if words have no meaning, throw in a bit of ad-hominem, and sink back into your comfy traditions?
>Why would you say that it's irrelevant whether
>Jerome always rendered Ezra and Nehemiah as
>one book? If he only did it in some contexts, but
>not in others, then how would your objection
>stand?
My objection stands because in the context of each of these quotes, you cannot make any sense of what he said. You are forced to pretend as if he said the exact opposite of what he said. You won't tell us your theory of what books he was referring to. WHAT BOOKS DID HE COMBINE INTO ONE? WHY DID HE HAVE TO PLACATE HIS AUDIENCE AFTER DOING SO?
>If Jerome did separate the books, then you're the
>one who's wrong. It's not enough for you to
>argue that Jerome sometimes referred to Ezra
>and Nehemiah as one book.
Irrelevant. WHO WERE THE "GREEKS AND LATINS" WHO USED A BOOK THE HEBREWS HAD AS ONE DIVIDED INTO TWO?
>Where did I deny that Origen referred to Ezra and
>Nehemiah as two books? I didn't.
Then why do keep ignoring it? These books at the time were referred to among the "Greeks and Latins" as TWO BOOKS. Why do you keep dignifying the Webster thesis?
>The fact that some people who used the
>Septuagint referred to Ezra and Nehemiah as two
>books doesn't prove that the Septuagint itself did
>so.
LOL, desperation setting in. Why on earth would people using the Septuagint refer to them as two books if they weren't two books in the Septuagint? This is desperate stuff.
>There were other people who referred to Ezra
>and Nehemiah as one book. And we have
>manuscripts of the Septuagint. For you to ignore
>the Septuagint itself and ignore the sources who
>refer to Ezra and Nehemiah as one book, while
>citing some people who used the Septuagint (and
>other translations), doesn't make sense.
As it says in that Wiki article, there is either a later or a parallel tradition in Greek to treat them as one book. Now, as far as we can see, the earliest tradition, attested to by Origen and Jerome, is the more likely tradition to have found its way into the old latin of Augustine than a later tradition that as far as we know first crops up in some 4th or 5th century manuscripts, for which you know as well as I do, they do NOT have any kind of uniformity in their old testament list. But this other tradition doesn't seem to have become universal till much later. As far as I know, some of the surviving Greek manuscripts have them separated, and as late as the 10th century, when the Slavonic bible was taken from the LXX, they were still separated in some versions at least, with Ezra/Nehemiah listed first.
So I'm not ignoring any evidence, I just don't see why it must mean what you want it to mean, all in the name of a stupid apologetic argument against Trent.
>You've been denying that Jerome counted Ezra
>and Nehemiah as two books. Should we conclude
>that you're wrong, since Art Sippo has
>"conceded" the point?
I doubt neither you nor I consider Art Sippo an authority on anything, but when both sides of the debate conceed something - i.e. that people using the Septuagint counted them as separate books, I think that is very significant. And I note you havn't backed away from that.
>And I want to remind the readers that you're
>contradicting yourself. You initially referred to
>Ezra and Nehemiah as constituting one book in
>the Septuagint.
Context context context. In the difficult landscape of the Esdras books, it will never do to try and make hay out of questions of terminology. The later Septuagint contained them as one book. If we're going to get all pedantic, the Septuagint proper only contains the Pentatuch.
>>"The old latin that Augustine was using would
>>have been based on an LXX from a much earlier
>>era."
>
>Every Bible translation can be said to be "based"
>on something from "a much earlier era". If you >want to make a more specific claim about
>Augustine that would be relevant to this
>discussion, then you need to present specific
>documentation to that effect.
Isn't it obvious? The old Latin was translated centuries before the arrival of Augustine. So what the Septuagint commonly looked like at the time of Augustine is not directly relevant to what the old latin looks like.
>If Ezra and Nehemiah are "the two of Ezra", then
>where's the book of Ezra he discusses in The City
>Of God 18:36?
The Vulgate OT was written prior to the City of God. In City of God 18.44, Augustine shows awareness of the Vulgate/Hebrew rendering and accepts differences in Jonah between Hebrew and LXX as both being legitimate expressions of the bible.
The council of Carthage came even later. Being as it is that 1 (3) Esdras is similar in content to Ezra/Nehemiah, it's entirely possible the Africans only listed the first two books of Esdras as canonical, and not 1 (3) Esdras. Remember, Augustine in City of God doesn't show any distinction between Ezra/Nehemiah and 1 (3) Esdras. He just says that "Ezra wrote".
Scholars still can't make up their minds whether Ezra actually wrote Ezra/Nehemiah or whether he wrote 1 (3) Esdras. For all we know, under the influence of Jerome's writings, they made a decision on which to include.
Nobody can know these things. But if we have to decide between either believing what Jerome said explicitely about Esdras, compared to guessing and randomly speculating on what the Africans did, it's much more reasonable to accept the explicit statements from Jerome that are contemporary with Augustine about how the books were numbered then.
Remember, Jerome, writing in Latin in the preface to Ezra, presumably to his old Latin using audience, says not to be disturbed that he is combining these two books into one. Why would an old latin using audience be disturbed by his doing exactly what had always been done?
>He may claim, for example, that he only meant
>to refer to most versions of the Septuagint as
>combining Ezra and Nehemiah into one book.
>But if he meant to include such a qualifier, why
>didn't he mention it earlier?
How ridiculous. Terminology always refers by default to the current landscape. Am I supposed to have qualified that the Septuagint at one time didn't include any books of Esdras? Why didn't you qualify similarly?
>And how does he justify his suggestion that we
>should think that Augustine and the other North
>Africans used one of the minority versions of the
>Septuagint in which Ezra and Nehemiah allegedly
>were separated?
Assuming what you have yet to prove that having them split up was a minority. In point of fact it must have been a majority. Jerome said the "Greeks and Latins" had divided what the Hebrews had as one. That sounds like a sweeping claim to the majority to me.
>If Orthodox now wants to contradict himself by >arguing that the Septuagint separated Ezra and
>Nehemiah into two books, or he wants to argue
>that the North Africans might have used an
>alternate version of the Septuagint that rendered
>the books in that manner, then he needs to
>present evidence to that effect.
Ground control to Jason: That's what this entire thread has been about. Jerome and Origen tell us that the normative situation at the time was for them to be divided.
>>"You didn't read the notes on the article did
>>you? Don't blame me for your laziness."
>
>What notes? The Wikipedia article you linked us >to states:
Keep reading, oh lazy one:
"The naming listed as "old Greek" refers to another ancient Greek naming scheme that apparently predated, or possibly overlapped the later Septuagint naming scheme."
Don't get sucked into a foolish nomenclature debate that you can't win. It's quite normal in Septuagint circles to refer to the original form of the Septuagint text as the "old Greek". But I guess we can excuse you for that ignorance, never having read much in the way of Septuagint scholarship.
>Asking me which two books Jerome was referring
>to, for example, is irrelevant, since I've said all
>along that Ezra and Nehemiah were in view.
>You're acting as though issues I've already
>addressed haven't been addressed yet.
Wow, can it be that Jason has half heartedly answered one of the challenge questions? Who would have thunk. So now we can substitute his answer into Jerome and see what it says:
"eighth is Ezra, which is also in the same manner among Greeks and Latins divided into two books".
So the Greeks and Latins divided the Hebrew Ezra into two books which were equivilent to modern Ezra and Nehemiah. Next question is: What were these two books named in the Greek and Latin Scriptures? My prediction is we will now be met with another level of obfuscation.
>I've already given you citations from many
>scholars who contradict you, and William
>Webster cited some. It's more likely that your
>one source is wrong than that all of our sources
>are wrong.
My source agrees with Jerome. That trumps all your sources.
There's still plenty of questions left for you to answer:
1) What were these two books named in the Greek and Latin Scriptures?
2) Why did he have to placate his readership by asking them not to be disturbed?
3) Who are the "Greeks and Latins" who Jerome said used the Hebrew book split into two, and what two books were they?
4) What naming schemes were used in the world in the LXX for these books, and is it allegedly uniform in the world or not?
5) Who really was allegedly the first to divide the books? Was is prior to Origen, Origen, Jerome or who?
>What Orthodox requires, and what he cannot
ReplyDelete>provide us, is an ecumenical council from his own
>communion that can tell us what the books of the
>canon are. In short, he must use his own private
>judgment. How very Protestant.
You seem to think there are two options: Ecumenical Council or private judgment. Actually, the source is neither of these, but rather it is Holy Tradition, the same source the pre-Christian Jews used.
Of course, no protestant can tell us how to exercise this private judgment without using the dreaded "T" word. How did the pre-Christian Jews know the Canon? Did they historically prove Moses wrote Genesis? Puhlease, don't make me laugh. The Jason theory of the "historical canon" simply is an anachronism from beginning to end.
At the risk of stating the obvious, Orthodox is acting as if uncertainties over the LXX canon are a problem for Evangelicals. Needless to say, the case is just the opposite. Evangelicals don't base their OT canon on the LXX. By contrast, the LXX is the official OT of the Orthodox church. The fact that there are divergent rescensions of the LXX is a problem (and a major problem) for the Orthodox, not for Evangelicals.
ReplyDeleteOrthodox writes:
ReplyDelete"How would anybody object to him doing what everybody, both Jew and Greek had always done, as is alleged by Webster?"
I'm not William Webster. I've explained why I think you're misreading some portions of Webster's material, in which he comments on how the books of Esdras were rendered prior to Jerome. But, as I explained earlier, my citation of one of his articles on the subject of the canons of Carthage and Trent doesn't require that I agree with him on every issue he discusses in that article or related ones. I've explained to you that I don't deny that Ezra and Nehemiah were referred to as two books prior to Jerome. And Webster acknowledges it in the article I linked to. Yet, you keep suggesting that we've denied it. You shouldn't have to be corrected so often.
You write:
"I don't give a rip about different contexts. Just address each of his quotes IN ITS OWN CONTEXT. By all means say the context of each is different but at least give us ONE possible meaning for his quotes that agrees with your position."
I already have. And you ought to "give a rip" about other contexts, since, as I've explained to you repeatedly, your argument fails if Jerome refers to Ezra and Nehemiah as two books in the other context mentioned by the scholars I cited. I've cited multiple scholars explaining that Jerome does separate the books, despite the comment you've quoted from him. You keep ignoring what I cited from those scholars and keep assuming that the comment you've quoted from Jerome has your meaning and is the only relevant evidence. It isn't the only relevant evidence, and you've done nothing to establish your interpretation of the one comment you've quoted.
You write:
"Gee, I don't know. Maybe because HE SAID SO? 'No one ought to be bothered by the fact that my edition consists of only one book' -- Jerome."
As I've explained to you repeatedly, you initially cited two translations of Jerome's comments, and the two translations render his comments differently. The two translations are at:
http://www.tertullian.org/fathers/jerome_preface_ezra.htm
http://www.bombaxo.com/prologues.html
You're now citing the first of those two, which has the words "my edition", but the second of the two doesn't have "my edition". It has "the book edited by us". If you now think that the second translation you cited should be rejected in favor of the first, then you'll need to explain why. But that first translation has a note attached to the words "my edition". And that note reads "Lit. 'the book edited by us.'" Thus, the translations you cited agree, but the translation you've chosen to focus on uses a less literal rendering in the body of the text while giving a more literal rendering in a footnote. So, would you explain to us why you want us to ignore the more literal rendering and focus on a less literal one instead?
But let's assume for the moment that the less literal rendering is correct. Here are Jerome's comments from the less literal translation:
"No one ought to be bothered by the fact that my edition consists of only one book, nor ought anyone take delight in the dreams found in the apocryphal third and fourth books. For among the Hebrews the texts of Ezra and Nehemiah comprise a single book, and those texts which are not used by them and are not concerned with the twenty-four elders ought to be rejected outright."
What is it that Jerome thinks that some people could be "bothered" by? Is it the fact that he presented two books as one? You're assuming that Jerome has that concept in mind. If he does, why couldn't he present Ezra and Nehemiah as one document to Domnio and Rogatianus while, at the same time, acknowledging that Ezra and Nehemiah can be considered two books as well? As I've told you repeatedly, Ezra and Nehemiah can be presented as one book in one context and as two books in another context. Similarly, we have New Testament manuscripts that place multiple New Testament books together. If Jerome presented Ezra and Nehemiah as one document to Domnio and Rogatianus, in imitation of the Hebrew rendering, it doesn't therefore follow that he couldn't have labeled the two as "1 Esdras" and "2 Esdras" within that one document or elsewhere. There are multiple ways that Jerome's comment can be interpreted, and you're assuming your own interpretation while ignoring the contrary data. Instead of citing your one comment from Jerome while ignoring the data I cited from multiple scholars, you need to arrive at an explanation that makes the best sense of all of the evidence.
You write:
"Will you tell us what books Jerome is referring to, or will you simply keep on obfuscating because you've lost this debate very badly?"
I've said that the books in question are Ezra and Nehemiah, and I never suggested otherwise. I don't know why you keep asking what books Jerome was referring to, as if that issue has been in dispute. I never said or suggested that the issue is in dispute.
You write:
"As it says in that Wiki article, there is either a later or a parallel tradition in Greek to treat them as one book. Now, as far as we can see, the earliest tradition, attested to by Origen and Jerome, is the more likely tradition to have found its way into the old latin of Augustine than a later tradition that as far as we know first crops up in some 4th or 5th century manuscripts, for which you know as well as I do, they do NOT have any kind of uniformity in their old testament list. But this other tradition doesn't seem to have become universal till much later. As far as I know, some of the surviving Greek manuscripts have them separated, and as late as the 10th century, when the Slavonic bible was taken from the LXX, they were still separated in some versions at least, with Ezra/Nehemiah listed first....The later Septuagint contained them as one book....Assuming what you have yet to prove that having them split up was a minority. In point of fact it must have been a majority. Jerome said the 'Greeks and Latins' had divided what the Hebrews had as one. That sounds like a sweeping claim to the majority to me."
You're making a lot of undocumented claims, you're neglecting some of the relevant evidence, and you're drawing some unwarranted conclusions. The Septuagint originated with the Jewish people, and some of the earliest Jewish sources refer to Ezra and Nehemiah as one book. As R.K. Harrison notes:
"The rabbinic authorities (cf. Bab. Bath. 15a) regarded the two books of Ezra and Nehemiah as a single composition attributed to Ezra. A similar opinion was also expressed by Josephus and Melito of Sardis. It was in the time of Origen (A.D. 185-253) that the mention of division into two works as being in accord with current Jewish usage first occurred." (Introduction To The Old Testament [Peabody, Massachusetts: Hendrickson Publishers, 2004], p. 1135)
H.G.M. Williamson explains that "in the earliest manuscripts of the LXX the two books are treated as one" (Word Biblical Commentary: Ezra-Nehemiah [Dallas, Texas: Word Books Publisher, 1985], xxi). Contrary to what you suggest, then, Origen's reference to a two-book rendering is predated by sources supporting a one-book view. The early Septuagint manuscripts that have Ezra and Nehemiah as one book range from the early fourth century to the early fifth century, from before the council of Carthage to a period shortly afterward. You mention that the manuscripts don't have "uniformity in their old testament list", but they don't have to have uniformity in every element in order to have some consistency. The earliest manuscripts, which are most relevant to this discussion, support my argument rather than yours.
And contrary to what you claim, Jerome's comment about "Greeks and Latins" doesn't suggest "a sweeping claim to the majority". He refers to "Ezra, which is also in the same manner among Greeks and Latins divided into two books" (http://www.bombaxo.com/prologues.html). We know that Jerome can't be referring to all Greeks and Latins, since we have multiple, significantly different Septuagint manuscripts from shortly before and shortly after the time when Jerome wrote, and those manuscripts have Ezra and Nehemiah as one book. Jerome doesn't tell us the extent of the two-book rendering, so we have to judge the issue by other criteria. And as we'll see below, even if the two-book rendering had been a majority, the evidence suggests that Augustine and the North Africans went along with the one-book rendering reflected in the Septuagint manuscripts referred to above.
You write:
"Isn't it obvious? The old Latin was translated centuries before the arrival of Augustine. So what the Septuagint commonly looked like at the time of Augustine is not directly relevant to what the old latin looks like."
You need to be more specific. Are you arguing that Augustine's Septuagint would be no different from an alleged "centuries before" version that had Ezra and Nehemiah as separate books? If so, then you need to provide more of an argument for that assertion, including interaction with what I've presented above. Contrary to what you claim, your conclusion isn't "obvious".
You write:
"The Vulgate OT was written prior to the City of God. In City of God 18.44, Augustine shows awareness of the Vulgate/Hebrew rendering and accepts differences in Jonah between Hebrew and LXX as both being legitimate expressions of the bible."
How is any of that relevant to what Augustine writes in The City Of God 18:36? Are you suggesting that Augustine accepted multiple canons of scripture, similar to how he accepted multiple translations of a particular passage? If so, then you need to document his acceptance of a second canon. A canon isn't comparable to a translation.
I've shown that Augustine accepted a canon that included Septuagint 1 Esdras. If he defined the books of Esdras in that manner, and the manuscript record of that period suggests that the Septuagint commonly rendered the books of Esdras that way, then it makes more sense to interpret the council of Carthage the way I've suggested than the way you've suggested.
You write:
"Remember, Augustine in City of God doesn't show any distinction between Ezra/Nehemiah and 1 (3) Esdras. He just says that 'Ezra wrote'."
The passage Augustine discusses isn't found in Ezra or Nehemiah. It's found in Septuagint 1 Esdras. He doesn't have to contrast Septuagint 1 Esdras with Ezra and Nehemiah in order to be referring to Septuagint 1 Esdras as scripture. Your objection is irrelevant.
You write:
"Scholars still can't make up their minds whether Ezra actually wrote Ezra/Nehemiah or whether he wrote 1 (3) Esdras."
Again, that's irrelevant. The issue isn't what "modern scholars" think of the subject. The issue is what Augustine said about it.
You write:
"For all we know, under the influence of Jerome's writings, they made a decision on which to include."
First of all, the North Africans held their councils of Hippo and Carthage in 393 and 397. Jerome's work on the Vulgate was still underway at the time. And the North Africans decided on a canon that includes multiple books that Jerome rejected (Tobit, 1 Maccabees, etc.). Furthermore, you're speculating without any direct evidence of an influence of Jerome over their decision. If Jerome persuaded the North Africans to render the books of Esdras as you're suggesting, then we wouldn't expect Augustine to differ from that rendering in The City Of God 18:36. But he does.
You write:
"But if we have to decide between either believing what Jerome said explicitely about Esdras, compared to guessing and randomly speculating on what the Africans did, it's much more reasonable to accept the explicit statements from Jerome that are contemporary with Augustine about how the books were numbered then."
Jerome was putting together a new edition of the Bible. The North Africans, on the other hand, were continuing to follow the Septuagint. The Septuagint manuscripts I've cited are more relevant to the North Africans than Jerome's unfinished Vulgate. Those Septuagint manuscripts aren't equivalent to "guessing and randomly speculating". And following the implications of Augustine's comments in The City Of God 18:36 isn't equivalent to "guessing and randomly speculating". What's closer to "guessing and randomly speculating" is your suggestion that the North Africans might have departed from a common Septuagint rendering of their day in order to follow the canonical judgments of Jerome, a man whose canonical judgments the North Africans rejected on so many other points (the significance of the Septuagint, the canonicity of Tobit, the canonicity of Judith, etc.).
You write:
"Remember, Jerome, writing in Latin in the preface to Ezra, presumably to his old Latin using audience, says not to be disturbed that he is combining these two books into one. Why would an old latin using audience be disturbed by his doing exactly what had always been done?"
You keep repeating errors that have already been corrected. Again, Jerome doesn't say that he's addressing an objection from any sort of wide audience, whether you call that audience "Latin" or something else. Rather, he's mentioning multiple potential objections that could be raised. The fact that some people might object to rendering Ezra and Nehemiah as one book doesn't tell us specifically which or how many people could be expected to raise such an objection. Just after addressing the potential objection you're referring to, Jerome mentions the potential that some people might be deceived into accepting the non-canonical third and fourth books of Esdras. Should we conclude, then, that Jerome thought that acceptance of such books was something all of his readers or some large percentage of the population was likely to do if not warned? No. The fact that Jerome addresses such issues doesn't tell us much about which people or how many his comments would be applicable to.
I don't know if Gene is going to respond to Orthodox. But, for the benefit of those who haven't read our previous discussions with Orthodox, I want to point out that Steve Hays and I (with others in some cases) have repeatedly explained to Orthodox why his appeal to "Holy Tradition" to arrive at a canon of scripture is unreliable. We've also repeatedly explained to him that using a historical argument for a Protestant canon isn't equivalent to denying that people can arrive at a canon by other means. No Protestant in this forum has argued that ancient Jews utilized the sort of archeological data, lexicons, and such that we utilize in the modern world in order to carry out our historical research. We've also explained to Orthodox, on many occasions, that his appeal to "Holy Tradition" is itself a historical argument. How does he know that Jesus is the Messiah? That He founded a church? That the church in question is Eastern Orthodoxy? That particular councils are ecumenical? Etc. Calling your historical data "Holy Tradition" doesn't change the fact that you're relying on historical probability judgments. And are we to believe that the sort of linguistic evidence, manuscript evidence, archeological evidence, etc. that would be needed to support a historical case for Eastern Orthodoxy is equivalent to what Eastern Orthodoxy commonly defines as "Holy Tradition"? It seems that Orthodox is being deliberately vague and duplicitous in his choice of language. Anybody interested in seeing our discussions with Orthodox on subjects like these (discussions that he frequently leaves) can consult the archives. For example:
ReplyDeletehttp://triablogue.blogspot.com/2007/03/sola-ecclesia.html
http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2007/04/in-search-of-true-church.html
Hello, Jason. It's good to see that you haven't completely left the internet. I thought you had when you left NTRM and your site appeared to be down. It's been a long time since our days on the AOL message boards, no? I was surprised to find this blog (and James Swan's) when I did a Google search after being notified that Mr. Webster finally responded to my 2004 article on Esdras.
ReplyDeleteI've read Mr. Webster's post at aomin.org and have emailed him that I will reply to it in a few weeks. I hope to have some time to do this even sooner. At the moment important matters in the real world demand my attention. Nevertheless, I shall address what he has raised.
God bless.
Sorry...I am getting loss.
ReplyDeleteOrthodox,
could you give your answers to the 5 questions you asked Jason. May help clear things up for me. Thanks.
Anonymous asked Orthodox to answer Jason's 5 questions. If I may interject:
ReplyDelete1) How does he know that Jesus is the Messiah?
Through the Sacred Tradition of the Church he knows this. Scripture is PART OF that Sacred Tradition, not apart FROM it.
2)That He founded a church?
We believe that Scripture is infallibly the Word of God and IN Scripture Jesus (God) promises He would build His Church. We believe Jesus kept His promise and didn't wait 1500+ years to build that Church.
3) That the church in question is Eastern Orthodoxy?
Eastern Orthodoxy was part of that One Church when Jesus built it. The separation of East and West did not happen until over 1000 years of Christendom transpired.
4) That particular councils are ecumenical? Etc.
Councils which are ecumenical invite bishops from all over world to attend and their message is to the entire Church throughout the world. Local councils address local issues and are attended only by the bishops of the region and the decrees address that region.
5) Calling your historical data "Holy Tradition" doesn't change the fact that you're relying on historical probability judgments. And are we to believe that the sort of linguistic evidence, manuscript evidence, archeological evidence, etc. that would be needed to support a historical case for Eastern Orthodoxy is equivalent to what Eastern Orthodoxy commonly defines as "Holy Tradition"?
The history is there and readily available for all to read. What you are expected "to believe" is that which God has given you the faith to believe. If you have doubts about your current walk with Christ - then you would be obligated/expected (if you have intellectual integrity and honesty) to seek the answers to your doubts. Complacency is a tool of the Devil.
In JMJ,
Scott<<<
Locutus Webboard
Scott,
ReplyDeletethanks, but I think you answered the wrong questions (by Jason). The questions (by Orthodox) are:
1) What two pre-existing books did Jerome say he combined into one?
2) Why did he have to placate his readership by asking them not to be disturbed?
3) Who are the "Greeks and Latins" who Jerome said used the Hebrew book split into two, and what two books were they?
4) What naming schemes were used in the world in the LXX for these books, and is it allegedly uniform in the world or not?
5) Who really was allegedly the first to divide the books? Was is prior to Origen, Origen, Jerome or who?
I had some time this weekend so I finished my response to Mr. Webster and after some editing it should be up at Catholic Legate within a couple of days. Thanks.
ReplyDeleteThat was quicker than I thought! My response to Mr. Webster is now up at Catholic Legate:
ReplyDeletehttp://www.catholic-legate.com/articles/esdras2.html