Nicely done, David! I'm glad you put this out and look forward to Part 2. 👍 UPDATE: I just caught the ending and your thanks, David. It was my pleasure to help! As you know, it was good to see this issue given the more in-depth analysis from what I was able to do 20 years ago since it's still being used by some Protestant apologists today.
You are the pioneer in this topic John, you are the man! I am just expanding on what you already sufficiently debunked years ago. You deserve the credit.
This is an amazing series. I learned about the debates over the books of Esdras a few months ago and couldn't find much info on it. This is extremely helpful.
Thank you so very much for your meticulous care -- this was my first real in-depth introduction to this issue, and I feel that you have given me a solid foundation. May God bless you!
@@johnmb69 Deuterocanonicals formally quoted: 61 Protestant commentaries. The video centers around Hebrews 11:2-39. It’s not really directed at Christie but it definitely shows scripturally where he’s wrong on the canon. It refutes his bookends argument indirectly. That being said Gary’s “Bookends “ video directly addresses Mr Christie’s interpretation of not by name. God bless
Hello! You cited a material that says that the relation between Esdras A and B are similar to that between Theodotion's Daniel and Old Septuagint Daniel. Do you have videos about this issue with Daniel?
Seems as though these council including 3 Esdras is only really an issue if you interpret Florence, Trent, and Vatican I & II as teaching a closed canon. I know we've had this back and forth before, so I don't want to belabor the point, but many simply do not interpret them that way and, at least based on the English translations, i think they're right. It is not at all clear to me that any of these councils intended to teach a closed canon, quite the opposite, Trent seems to have been intentionally leaving the canon open. That doesn't prove 3 Esdras or any additional books belong, but it also doesn't rule them out and so would not be a problem then if we learned that an earlier council or magisterial statement affir!ed them.
Thank you for your comment, I appreciate it. Here are my points: 1. It has to be shown that when the canon lists say "Esdras, 2 books", they meant to include specifically the Greek Esdras. If this cannot be shown, then we cannot say in any way that there is a contradiction. Rather, as I showed and will also demonstrate in the upcoming parts, "1st Esdras" was a general term for Ezra and the Greek Esdras, 2 variants for the same book. Its no different when I would say "Jeremiah", yet it existed in two different textual forms - masoretic text and septuagint. The purpose of the canonical list is not to identify the specific version, but just to show, that this book is accepted by the church as divine, regardless of which textual form you use. 2. I will demonstrate based on the external evidence, its much more likely, if not certain, that at least the last North African Council - Carthage 419, which was adopted to the North African Code and adopted in East, hence becoming universal, would include Ezra and Nehamiah as 1st Esdras and 2 Esdras. This is much more plausible, if not certain. 3. The council of Trent without a doubt decreed a closed canon, this will be also demonstrated and Vatican I and II confirmed this. I am not going to elaborate this here, because I explain this in depth in part 3. If you think it decreed an open canon and the Roman Catholic Church officially recognizes this as an open canon, you will have to deal with my arguments in part 3. Feel free to do so! Nevertheless, It has to be clearly demonstrated. Until, God bless you!
Forgive me, but this was too into the weeds/details for me, or at least, it was often hard to follow how each detail related back to the original issue/question. I guess the main takeaway is the ambiguity of the African council language and the variability of the pre-council manuscript evidence makes it very difficult, if not impossible, to even claim a contradiction. More big picture/high-level commentary was needed at the beginning and maybe throughout. Maybe just a me problem since I couldn't focus 100% on video but usually hasn't been a problem for me with this channel. I think the fact that I may have to watch a 2nd time means there is some room for improvement in the communication of the argument and relevance of pieces of evidence.
I understand and thank you for your feedback. You see, this is a complicated issue by itself. I was wondering about how to explain this easier but on the other hand I don't want to miss anything that is relevant and foremost I do want to show the evidence and not just claim things. This is just the opposite what you can expect from apologists and even scholars from the other side. Usually they make very simplistic statements. And honestly It is schocking how some important data, such as the syro-hexapla, are missed very often. But I understand this can be very difficult to follow and I appologize for my pronounciations. On the other hand, now those on the other side have to do a better research.
An Orthodox online, who has a vested interest in the canonicity of 1 (3) Esdras as a separate book, put it like this when James White used this argument of a supposed contradiction: "Dr. White is guilty of making a possibility or a probability into a certainty. Because back in the 4th century it was common in the Septuagint to split these books up just as Trent did." I personally reject the claim for several reasons, which David did a good job outlining some, but I thought this was a good response.
@@davidszaraz4605Part of the challenge is condensing all of this knowledge into something that a person with little experience can understand. The visualizations and tables are a great start. I remember a quote, that if someone has to spend more than 15 minutes to understand the points of the video well enough, you have lost half of your audience.
@@zeektm1762 I know what you are talking about. I am not just a doctor but also a lecturer in my university and teach students. I always try to pass on the knowledge in an understandable way, but even those students have to listen to my lectures for more than an hour or two. Unfortunately sometimes you cannot reduce things in less than an hour. If you do so, you inevitably have to sacrifice many important points, which would serve as evidence. I am not willing to do this, because this "issue" with Esdras was disseminated and it has to be shown without the slightest doubt and in great detail that this is not the case. On the other hand I understand your concern and If another video will be needed as a summary, I can do it. I will also summarize part 1 and 2 in the beginning of part 3. And at the end of part 3 again I will summarize everything. This is the only thing I could do for now. I hope you understand this and I truly appreciate you spend the time to watch this. If there is anything unclear, please feel free to ask, I would be more than happy to answer any questions! God bless!
The worst part of this debate is the naming conventions. One would think that after over 2,000 years, someone would have come up with a less confusing way of naming these books.
Are some saying Ezra and Nehemiah were not in the Septuagint? If so, the Church somehow had them regardless, and if the earliest translations were by non Christians, I can't see the Church gaining them in the second century. The possession of them by the Church seems to allow only for a latest date of translation in the first century, otherwise how did any Greek of these Hebrew books get introduced apart from a tradition that the Church only had certain books in Hebrew and Aramaic for a while? Are there no definite geberally known extant statements of the earliest church fathers confirming whether or not the Church had Greek for these and Song of Songs? Did they ever refer to them deferently as to something we here it said is written thus in the Hebrew? Perhaps Barnabas or Mark knew Hebrew texts and translated some into Greek. They were Levites.
In the Septuagint 1st Esdras is the Greek Esdras (Esdras A) and 2nd Esdras is Neheniah (according to the 5th column of the Hexapla). So both are there since the beginning but Ezra in a different version. That is a good question and probably there really wasn't a greek translation of our Ezra until the 2nd century AD. Or perhaps a bit earlier. But the church used all sorts of translations not just the LXX. And it really doesn't matter because the early church viewed the Greek Esdras and Ezra as the same book, just different version or translations. Its really just the modern notion that these are two different standalone books. So for the ancient church Ezra and Neheniah was there, just in a different version.
I'm looking forward to this! 👍
Nicely done, David! I'm glad you put this out and look forward to Part 2. 👍
UPDATE: I just caught the ending and your thanks, David. It was my pleasure to help! As you know, it was good to see this issue given the more in-depth analysis from what I was able to do 20 years ago since it's still being used by some Protestant apologists today.
You are the pioneer in this topic John, you are the man! I am just expanding on what you already sufficiently debunked years ago. You deserve the credit.
@@davidszaraz4605 Thanks David! It'll be great when we can team up on this later this summer. I'm really impressed by all your research.
This is an amazing series. I learned about the debates over the books of Esdras a few months ago and couldn't find much info on it. This is extremely helpful.
Looking forward to part 2...thank you.🙏✝️
Thank you so very much for your meticulous care -- this was my first real in-depth introduction to this issue, and I feel that you have given me a solid foundation.
May God bless you!
Thank you very much. I appreciate it. God bless you too!
Steve Christie in particular keeps spreading lies about this. And Baruch too I think.
Gary soundly dismantled Mr Christie’s arguments.
@@ΕλέησονΑμαρτωλόν Which video is that? Thanks!
@@johnmb69 Deuterocanonicals formally quoted: 61 Protestant commentaries. The video centers around Hebrews 11:2-39. It’s not really directed at Christie but it definitely shows scripturally where he’s wrong on the canon. It refutes his bookends argument indirectly.
That being said Gary’s “Bookends “ video directly addresses Mr Christie’s interpretation of not by name. God bless
@@johnmb69 Both William and David have proved more than able to handle Christie’s arguments as well.
@@ΕλέησονΑμαρτωλόν Indeed they both have.
Hello! You cited a material that says that the relation between Esdras A and B are similar to that between Theodotion's Daniel and Old Septuagint Daniel. Do you have videos about this issue with Daniel?
Seems as though these council including 3 Esdras is only really an issue if you interpret Florence, Trent, and Vatican I & II as teaching a closed canon. I know we've had this back and forth before, so I don't want to belabor the point, but many simply do not interpret them that way and, at least based on the English translations, i think they're right. It is not at all clear to me that any of these councils intended to teach a closed canon, quite the opposite, Trent seems to have been intentionally leaving the canon open. That doesn't prove 3 Esdras or any additional books belong, but it also doesn't rule them out and so would not be a problem then if we learned that an earlier council or magisterial statement affir!ed them.
Thank you for your comment, I appreciate it. Here are my points:
1. It has to be shown that when the canon lists say "Esdras, 2 books", they meant to include specifically the Greek Esdras. If this cannot be shown, then we cannot say in any way that there is a contradiction. Rather, as I showed and will also demonstrate in the upcoming parts, "1st Esdras" was a general term for Ezra and the Greek Esdras, 2 variants for the same book. Its no different when I would say "Jeremiah", yet it existed in two different textual forms - masoretic text and septuagint. The purpose of the canonical list is not to identify the specific version, but just to show, that this book is accepted by the church as divine, regardless of which textual form you use.
2. I will demonstrate based on the external evidence, its much more likely, if not certain, that at least the last North African Council - Carthage 419, which was adopted to the North African Code and adopted in East, hence becoming universal, would include Ezra and Nehamiah as 1st Esdras and 2 Esdras. This is much more plausible, if not certain.
3. The council of Trent without a doubt decreed a closed canon, this will be also demonstrated and Vatican I and II confirmed this. I am not going to elaborate this here, because I explain this in depth in part 3. If you think it decreed an open canon and the Roman Catholic Church officially recognizes this as an open canon, you will have to deal with my arguments in part 3. Feel free to do so! Nevertheless, It has to be clearly demonstrated.
Until, God bless you!
Forgive me, but this was too into the weeds/details for me, or at least, it was often hard to follow how each detail related back to the original issue/question. I guess the main takeaway is the ambiguity of the African council language and the variability of the pre-council manuscript evidence makes it very difficult, if not impossible, to even claim a contradiction. More big picture/high-level commentary was needed at the beginning and maybe throughout. Maybe just a me problem since I couldn't focus 100% on video but usually hasn't been a problem for me with this channel. I think the fact that I may have to watch a 2nd time means there is some room for improvement in the communication of the argument and relevance of pieces of evidence.
I understand and thank you for your feedback. You see, this is a complicated issue by itself. I was wondering about how to explain this easier but on the other hand I don't want to miss anything that is relevant and foremost I do want to show the evidence and not just claim things. This is just the opposite what you can expect from apologists and even scholars from the other side. Usually they make very simplistic statements. And honestly It is schocking how some important data, such as the syro-hexapla, are missed very often. But I understand this can be very difficult to follow and I appologize for my pronounciations. On the other hand, now those on the other side have to do a better research.
An Orthodox online, who has a vested interest in the canonicity of 1 (3) Esdras as a separate book, put it like this when James White used this argument of a supposed contradiction: "Dr. White is guilty of making a possibility or a probability into a certainty. Because back in the 4th century it was common in the Septuagint to split these books up just as Trent did." I personally reject the claim for several reasons, which David did a good job outlining some, but I thought this was a good response.
@@davidszaraz4605Part of the challenge is condensing all of this knowledge into something that a person with little experience can understand. The visualizations and tables are a great start. I remember a quote, that if someone has to spend more than 15 minutes to understand the points of the video well enough, you have lost half of your audience.
@@zeektm1762 I know what you are talking about. I am not just a doctor but also a lecturer in my university and teach students. I always try to pass on the knowledge in an understandable way, but even those students have to listen to my lectures for more than an hour or two. Unfortunately sometimes you cannot reduce things in less than an hour. If you do so, you inevitably have to sacrifice many important points, which would serve as evidence. I am not willing to do this, because this "issue" with Esdras was disseminated and it has to be shown without the slightest doubt and in great detail that this is not the case.
On the other hand I understand your concern and If another video will be needed as a summary, I can do it. I will also summarize part 1 and 2 in the beginning of part 3. And at the end of part 3 again I will summarize everything. This is the only thing I could do for now. I hope you understand this and I truly appreciate you spend the time to watch this. If there is anything unclear, please feel free to ask, I would be more than happy to answer any questions! God bless!
The worst part of this debate is the naming conventions. One would think that after over 2,000 years, someone would have come up with a less confusing way of naming these books.
You are absolutely right 😂
Hello, dude. After finishing these videos, I will require you my PhD. What a confusing topic!
haha, thanks
Are some saying Ezra and Nehemiah were not in the Septuagint? If so, the Church somehow had them regardless, and if the earliest translations were by non Christians, I can't see the Church gaining them in the second century. The possession of them by the Church seems to allow only for a latest date of translation in the first century, otherwise how did any Greek of these Hebrew books get introduced apart from a tradition that the Church only had certain books in Hebrew and Aramaic for a while?
Are there no definite geberally known extant statements of the earliest church fathers confirming whether or not the Church had Greek for these and Song of Songs? Did they ever refer to them deferently as to something we here it said is written thus in the Hebrew?
Perhaps Barnabas or Mark knew Hebrew texts and translated some into Greek. They were Levites.
In the Septuagint 1st Esdras is the Greek Esdras (Esdras A) and 2nd Esdras is Neheniah (according to the 5th column of the Hexapla). So both are there since the beginning but Ezra in a different version.
That is a good question and probably there really wasn't a greek translation of our Ezra until the 2nd century AD. Or perhaps a bit earlier. But the church used all sorts of translations not just the LXX. And it really doesn't matter because the early church viewed the Greek Esdras and Ezra as the same book, just different version or translations. Its really just the modern notion that these are two different standalone books. So for the ancient church Ezra and Neheniah was there, just in a different version.
Sorry I meant to say 2nd Esdras is Nehemiah, I corrected my original comment