As we've seen before, Wikipedia is often unreliable. For a more recent example, see this ongoing thread about whether the Biblical canons of the councils of Carthage and Trent are the same. Not only is the Wikipedia article Orthodox cites wrong, but it also seems likely that Orthodox edited the article. Keep that in mind the next time you think of using Wikipedia. The article you're using might have been edited by somebody like Orthodox.
I can understand the use of Wikipedia in some contexts, such as to get basic information on a relatively non-controversial subject. But it's often unreliable. It should be used with discernment. And as the thread linked above demonstrates, people like Orthodox don't exercise much discernment when using Wikipedia or when editing it.
And I was so hoping that Wikipedia could function as my infallible, authoritative source of interpretation. Without such an "orthodox" (or even "catholic") group to give us the definitive rulings of what really is real, we're all left floundering in a sea of uncertainty! We cannot know anything anymore!
ReplyDeleteDOOMED! We're DOOMED!!!!!
Again with the lies. I didn't cite Wikipedia, I referred to it as a useful reference to the issues involved. We all know that citing Wikipedia proves nothing, but it can provide a useful summary of the issues. And if you disagree with the summary, then at least we all knew exactly what was being disagreed with. Because who here carries around in their head a table mapping all the different Esdras names to each other?
ReplyDeleteNow be honest now, please, who here learnt nothing from that Wikipedia article? For example, be honest how, who here knew before reading that article that the modern LXX 1 Esdras is equivilent to the Slavonic 2 Esdras? My bet is none of you knew it.
Now as to the question of Esdras in the Vulgate, I have found a source for it:
http://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.
And so Wikipedia is proven to be just as accurate as popular Protestant bible dictionaries. Not too bad a showing I'd say.
ReplyDeleteOrthodox said:
ReplyDelete"Again with the lies. I didn't cite Wikipedia, I referred to it as a useful reference to the issues involved."
What's the relevant difference?
You write:
"Now be honest now, please, who here learnt nothing from that Wikipedia article? For example, be honest how, who here knew before reading that article that the modern LXX 1 Esdras is equivilent to the Slavonic 2 Esdras?"
The issue isn't whether we "learnt nothing" from the article. Rather, the issue is whether the article is reliable. I've demonstrated that it isn't, and your latest arguments in the thread I linked to contradict what the Wikipedia article states. Apparently, then, you don't consider the article reliable either.
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.
You write:
"And so Wikipedia is proven to be just as accurate as popular Protestant bible dictionaries. Not too bad a showing I'd say."
I didn't cite that dictionary. And the Wikipedia article you referred us to isn't the only one that's problematic.
I think there's one source that trumps upteen million scholars and that is Jerome himself, who said that he had combined the two books into one.
ReplyDeleteNow whether they became split up again shortly afterwards, or in the centuries leading up to Trent, or right around Trent, would be a nice thing to resolve, but doesn't critically affect any discussion we've had.
It seems doubtful to me that this bible dictionary entry was just made up out of the blue. This information plus Jerome would seem to be prima facie evidence that at least sometime between when Jerome wrote it and Trent it was re-split up again.
So until some so-called scholar wants to actually document their claims, I'm going to stick to Jerome as a source beyond compare to what the Vulgate looked like as originally published.
We all understand that wikis can be editted by nearly anyone - but that fact alone does not mean the wiki article in question for this discussion is wrong. Mr. Pike, asserts that the wiki on Esdras is wrong - but does not support his assertion with any facts - all we have is his assertion. Please Mr. Pike, if there's something wrong with the article, and you KNOW what that error is - please inform us of the error.
ReplyDeleteScott,
ReplyDeleteUm...I think you need to read the post again. I didn't write it.
Orthodox wrote:
ReplyDelete"I think there's one source that trumps upteen million scholars and that is Jerome himself, who said that he had combined the two books into one. Now whether they became split up again shortly afterwards, or in the centuries leading up to Trent, or right around Trent, would be a nice thing to resolve, but doesn't critically affect any discussion we've had."
This thread is about Wikipedia and your use of it. Since the Wikipedia article in question makes claims about the Vulgate prior to Trent, then the status of the Vulgate prior to Trent is relevant.
I've just posted another response to you in the other thread, in which I explain again why your interpretation of Jerome is in error. But even if you were right about Jerome, he died more than a thousand years before Trent. Quoting something Jerome said doesn't address the manuscript record that we have for more than a thousand years after Jerome's death. I've cited multiple scholars referring to editions of the Vulgate that render Ezra and Nehemiah as two books prior to Trent. You've cited one source, an online dictionary, saying the opposite, and I've documented that the same dictionary is inconsistent with that view elsewhere. As I explained in my last post, my multiple sources carry more weight than your one inconsistent source.
And, again, why would the Council of Trent claim to be following the Vulgate if there was no Vulgate with Trent's rendering of 1 and 2 Esdras until after Trent? Your argument, which is found in the Wikipedia article as well, doesn't make sense of the Council of Trent, even if we were to ignore the manuscript evidence.
Scott said:
ReplyDelete"Mr. Pike, asserts that the wiki on Esdras is wrong - but does not support his assertion with any facts - all we have is his assertion. Please Mr. Pike, if there's something wrong with the article, and you KNOW what that error is - please inform us of the error."
Scott, you're a Roman Catholic, right? Is it your position that the Council of Trent was wrong in claiming to be following the Vulgate in its rendering of the canon (see http://www.bible-researcher.com/trent1.html)? Do you realize that siding with Orthodox on this issue puts you at odds with Trent?