Talk:Esdras
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Contents |
[edit] Older
There can't be any such thing as Εσδρας Γ′ in the LXX, because the book is not even extant in Greek and doesn't exist in the LXX anyway.
Source: http://net.bible.org/dictionary.php?word=Apocalyptic%20Esdras
Neither does it exist even in the oldest copies of the LXX
Source: http://www.geocities.com/r_grant_jones/Rick/Septuagint/sp_books.html
[edit] Pre-tridentine Vulgate
I disagree with the article's assertion that the Vulgate had only 3 books of Esdras. The Gutenberg bible had 4: [1]. Rwflammang 17:47, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
[edit] What I don't like about this article
Unsourced statements about how catholics and protestants number books, which seem to me to be inaccurate. Unsourced generalizations about what greek fathers do. And an overloaded table. And two tables when one would be sufficient.
Last time I checked this was en.wikipedia.org and not el.wikipedia.org, so the English names should come first in the table, like so:
| Enumeration of the books of Ezra | |||
| Many English versions[1] | DR and Vulgate | Septuagint | Slavonic Bibles |
|---|---|---|---|
| Ezra | 1 Esdras | First half of Εσδρας B′ | 1 Esdras |
| Nehemiah | 2 Esdras or Nehemias | Second half of Εσδρας B′ | Nehemiah |
| 1 Esdras | 3 Esdras | Εσδρας Α′ | 2 Esdras |
| 2 Esdras | 4 Esdras | not present | 3 Esdras |
I'm also not sure I like the Greek font; why isn't the Slavonic in Cyrillic?
Rwflammang 20:55, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
- For what it's worth your proposal sounds good to me. 75.15.194.28 19:16, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Distinction between Bible and Canon
I think it is important to keep the distinction between Bible and Canon. Canons are issued by religious authorities and are irrespective of language. There is no such thing as a Latin canon, for instance. You probably mean the Catholic canon, but of course the Catholic canon goes for all Catholics regardless of what language their bible is in. I'll accept the term Hebrew canon, but only because "Hebrew" can be a synonym for "Jewish". Bibles, on the other hand, by their nature must be written in some language or other, so it makes sense to talk of a Latin or Hebrew bible.
Another distinction to be made is that Bibles often contain scriptures that are not necessarily considered canonical by the publishers. Many bibles (e.g. KJV, Vulgate) contain apocrypha sections, for instance. Gutenberg's bible does not contain an apocrypha section, but never-the-less contains 3 and 4 Esdras in its Old Testament, along with prefaces that say that 3 and 4 Esdras are not canonical. This reflects a fairly common practice in the Latin manuscripts.
In short, "biblical" and "canonical" are not synonyms.
Rwflammang (talk) 16:15, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
