The Prayer of Manasseh in Latin, and Stephen Langton

I recently came across this comment from Stephen Langton (d. 1228) in regard to the Prayer of Manasseh and its position at the end of the books of Chronicles: 

Hic oracio non est in Hebraica ueritate, nec in Regum nec in Paralipomenon, sed hic interserit eam Ieronimus (“this prayer is not in the Hebrew truth, neither in Kings nor Chronicles, but Jerome inserted it here”). 

Let me provide some context. 

The Prayer of Manasseh is one of those documents in the Vulgate Appendix. It was excluded from the biblical canon by the Council of Trent in 1546, even though it had occupied a place in biblical manuscripts and editions of the Vulgate prior to the Council. 

(Actually, I'm not exactly sure how we know that the Council excluded the Prayer. I mean, the Council doesn't mention it in the canon list, but then I don't guess you'd really expect the Prayer to get an independent mention if it's thought of as only an appendix to Chronicles. After all, Lamentations wasn't mentioned by the Council either, but I don't think anyone suspects that the Council intended to exclude Lamentations. It was just considered an appendix to Jeremiah. At any rate, the Prayer has not been considered a part of the Roman Catholic biblical canon established by the Council, while Lamentations has been so considered.) 

You can see that Gutenberg located the Prayer immediately after Chronicles (fol. 226r), though here it doesn't appear so much as an appendix as a separate work, similar to the way Esdras appears just afterwards. Same in this edition of the Vulgate edited by Jan Henten with a date of 1583 (first published 1547, described by Gordon and Cameron in NCHB 3, pp. 192–93). And in the Vatable Bible published by Stephanus 1545 (the link is to vol. 2; see vol. 1 here; described by Gordon and Cameron on p. 191).

On the other hand, here's an example of a Paris Bible (Beinecke Yale MS 793) from the thirteenth century, and the Prayer does appear without any break as the conclusion to Chronicles. The Prayer starts on fol. 210r, at the bottom right. You can see that someone later has marked the start of the Prayer, but originally its text was continuous with Chronicles. An explicit appears on the other side of the page after the Prayer, and an inicipit introduces Esdras (or, actually, Jerome's Prologue to Esdras, with the biblical text beginning on the next page). 

In this next example, Paris BNF latin 15467 from the year 1270, it is even harder to distinguish between the end of Chronicles and the Prayer. The Prayer begins in the middle of line 13 in the left column of image 220. Again, immediately after the Prayer, Jerome's Prologue to Esdras starts at the top of the next column.

Anyway, from what I hear, the Prayer of Manasseh started to appear in Latin Bibles only in about the 13th century, so these Paris Bibles are early examples, at least as preserved. 
What about before the 13th century? 

Well, the Prayer was translated into Latin from Greek, of course. Now, if you pick up your Rahlfs(-Hanhart) edition of the LXX, you will not find the Prayer listed in the Table of Contents, but you will find a work called the Odes immediately after the Psalms. The Odes consists mostly of excerpts from other parts of the Bible: Ode 1 is the Song of the Sea (Exod 15), Ode 2 is the Song of Moses (Deut 32), Ode 6 is the Prayer of Jonah (Jonah 2), Odes 7–8 are the (deuterocanonical) Prayer of Azariah and the Song of the Three Young Men (Daniel 3). And Ode 12 is the Prayer of Manasseh. 

(The essential book now on the Odes is by Marguerite Harl (2014). The sequence of the odes is arbitrary, and differs according to manuscripts. The earliest surviving manuscript to include the Odes is Alexandrinus. You can take a look here = CSNTM's digital images of the nineteenth-century facsimile by Thompson. The Prayer is Ode 8 in Alexandrinus, and starts at the bottom right of what is labeled in the manuscript as fol. 567 = image GA_02_0557a.jpg.)

It was as part of a similar collection of odes (cantica) that the Prayer of Manasseh first came to be known in Latin. While we know that such collections of canticles were around in Latin from at least the fourth century, the Prayer of Manasseh is clearly attested only from the sixth century, in the commentary on the Canticles by Bishop Verecundus of Junca, such an important author that he merits two separate Wikipedia pages. 

But Stephen Langton thought that Jerome was responsible for locating the Prayer after Chronicles, as you can see from the quotation at the top of this post. Langton (main subject of only a single Wikipedia page) is most famous generally for his role in the situation leading to the Magna Carta, but he is also well-known to biblical scholars for popularizing our present chapter divisions. He wrote many biblical commentaries, of which few have been printed. But the beginning of his commentary on the Prayer of Manasseh has been printed by Beryl Smalley in G. Lacombe and B. Smalley, “Studies on the Commentaries of Cardinal Stephen Langton,” Archives d’histoire doctrinale et littéraire du moyen âge 5 (1930): 1–220, on p. 158 (available here). The comment I quoted at the beginning of this post can be found there.

I'm left with some questions? Did Langton not know about Bibles that excluded the Prayer? Did he not realize that it was only during his own lifetime that the Prayer came to be located after Chronicles? Or did he think that this recent habit restored a long-abandoned practice introduced by Jerome?

Just for the record, we have no evidence suggesting that Jerome was familiar with the Prayer of Manasseh.

Later Canon Lists (Latin): Rabanus Maurus

By "later" in the title of this post, I mean later than the fourth century. As for canon lists in the fourth century and earlier, I have dealt with them before. Perhaps "later canon lists" will turn into a series of posts. We'll see. But as for this post, I'm presenting the canon list of Rabanus Maurus, the ninth-century monk who became the archbishop of Mainz.

The canon list of Rabanus appears in his work De clericorum institutione, which is "an instructional manual for clerics to ensure they would have a proper foundation for the studies that would enable them to fulfill their ecclesiastical duties" (Levy, p. 59).

There is a recent edition of De clericorum instituione, with a German translation, edited by Detlev Zimpel. I have been able to access the Latin text of this edition through the Library of Latin Texts (Brepols), but I don't have the printed books, so I don't have access to the German translation or any notes included. Of course, there is also Migne's text (PL 107), which is very close to Zimpel's text. The canon list appears in book 2, chapter 53, corresponding to Migne's columns 364–65.

Here's the Latin. By the way, the entire first paragraph is ripped straight out of Isidore, De ecclesiasticis officiis 1.11.1–3.

Chapter 53, De libris duorum Testamentorum
Pronuntiantur autem lectiones in Christi ecclesiis de Scripturis sanctis. Constat autem eadem sacra Scriptura ex veteri lege et nova. Vetus lex illa est, quae data est primum Iudaeis per Moysen et prophetas, quae dicitur Vetus Testamentum. Testamentum autem dicitur, quia idoneis testibus, utique a prophetis scriptum est atque signatum. Nova vero lex Evangelium est, quod dicitur Novum Testamentum, quod per ipsum Filium Dei Christum et per suos apostolos dedit. Illa lex vetus velut radix est, haec nova velut fructus ex radice. Ex lege enim venitur ad Evangelium. Siquidem Christus, qui hic manifestatus est, ante in lege praedictus est, immo ipse locutus in prophetis, sicut scriptum est: 'Qui loquebar, ecce adsum', legem praemittens velut infantibus paedagogum, Evangelium vero perfectum vitae magisterium iam adultis omnibus praestans. Ideo in illa operantibus bona terrae promittebantur, hic vero sub gratia ex fide viventibus regnum caeleste tribuitur. Evangelium autem dicitur bonum nuntium, et re vera bonum nuntium, ut qui susceperint filii Dei vocentur.

Hi sunt ergo libri Veteris Testamenti, quos ob amorem doctrinae et pietatis legendos recipiendosque Ecclesiarum principes tradiderunt. Primi namque legis, id est Moysi, libri quinque sunt: Genesis, Exodi, Levitici, Numeri, Deuteronomium. Hos secuntur historici libri sedecim, Iesu Nave scilicet et Iudicum libri singuli, sive Ruth, Regum etiam libri quatuor, Paralipomenon duo, Tobii quoque et Hesther et Iudith singuli, Aezrae duo et duo Machabaeorum. Super hos prophetici libri sedecim sunt: Isaias, Hieremias, Ezechiel et Daniel libri singuli, Duodecim quoque prophetarum libri singuli; et haec quidem prophetica sunt. Post haec versuum octo libri habentur, qui diverso apud Hebraeos metro scribuntur, id est: Job liber, et liber Psalmorum et Proverbiorum et Ecclesiastes et Cantica canticorum sive Sapientia et Ecclesiasticus, Lamentationesque Hieremiae. Sic quoque complentur libri Veteris Testamenti quadraginta quinque. 

Novi autem Testamenti primum quatuor Evangelia sunt, Matthaei, Marci, Lucae, Iohannis. Hos quattuordecim Pauli apostoli epistolae sequuntur, quibus etiam subiunctae sunt septem catholicae epistolae: Iacobi, Petri, Iohannis et Iudae; Actus quoque duodecim Apostolorum, quorum omnium signaculum est Apocalypsis Iohannis, quod est revelatio Iesu Christi, qui omnes libros et tempore concludit et ordine. Hi sunt libri canonici septuaginta duo, et ob hoc Moyses septuaginta elegit presbiteros qui prophetarent; ob hoc et Iesus, Dominus noster, septuaginta duos discipulos praedicare mandavit. Et quoniam septuaginta duae linguae in hoc mundo erant diffusae, congrue providit Spiritus sanctus, ut tot libri essent, quot nationes, quibus populi et gentes ad perficiendam fidei gratiam aedifcarentur.

And here's an English translation.

And lections from the holy Scriptures are read in the churches of Christ. And the same sacred Scripture consists of the old law and the new. The old law is what was given first to the Jews through Moses and the prophets, which is called the Old Testament. Now it is called a Testament because it was written and sealed by suitable witnesses (testes), indeed by the prophets. But the new law is the Gospel, which is called the New Testament, which he gave through the Son of God himself, the Christ, and his apostles. That old law is like a root, this new one is like fruit from the root. For from the law one goes on to the Gospel. Now Christ, who has been manifested here, previously in the law he was predicted. Actually he spoke in the prophets, as it is written: "I who was speaking, here I am (Isa 52:6), sending the law beforehand like a pedagogue for children, but now supplying to all adults the Gospel, the perfect instruction for life." Therefore, in that one [= the Law], the good things of the earth were promised to those who worked, but here to those living under grace from faith a heavenly kingdom is offered. But the Gospel is called good news, and it really is good news, so that those who accept it are called sons of God.

So then these are the books of the Old Testament, which the leaders of the churches have handed down to be read and received on account of the love of doctrine and of piety. The first are five books of law, that is, of Moses: Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy. Sixteen historical books follow these: Jesus Nave and Judges, single books, and Ruth, and four books of Kings, two of Paralipomenon, Tobit and Esther and Judith, single books, two of Ezra and two of the Maccabees. Beyond these there are sixteen prophetic books: Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel and Daniel, single books, and also single books of the Twelve prophets, and these are prophetic. After these, there are eight books of verses, which are written among the Hebrews in a different meter, that is: the book of Job, and the book of Psalms and of Proverbs and Ecclesiastes, and Songs of Songs as well as Wisdom and Ecclesiasticus, and the Lamentations of Jeremiah. Thus are completed the 45 books of the Old Testament. 

Now of the New Testament, first are the four gospels, of Matthew, of Mark, of Luke, of John. Following these are the 14 epistles of Paul the apostle, to which also have been join seven catholic epistles: of James, of Peter, of John, and of Jude; and the Acts of the Twelve Apostles, and the seal of all of these is the Apocalypse of John, which is the Revelation of Jesus Christ, who concludes all the books in both time and order. These are the 72 canonical books, and for this reason Moses selected seventy elders who would prophesy [Num 11:25]; on account of this also Jesus, our Lord, commanded 72 disciples to preach [Luke 10:1]. And because 72 languages have been scattered in this world, the Holy spirit suitably provides that there are so many books as nations by which peoples and Gentiles might be edified for the grace of faith to be accomplished. 

Notes:

The NT canon = the usual list of 27 books, first attested by Athanasius, Epistle 39. No surprises.

The OT canon = the Jewish canon + Tobit, Judith, 1–2 Maccabees, Wisdom of Solomon, Ecclesiasticus (Sirach). And the books of Daniel and Esther no doubt include the deuterocanonical additions.

There is no mention of Baruch, which is the other deuterocanonical book accepted at the Roman Catholic Council of Trent. During Rabanus' days, Jerome's translation of Jeremiah was becoming dominant, so it is possible—I would say likely—that Rabanus read an edition of Jeremiah without Baruch. Of course, the edition of Theodulf did include Baruch, but the edition of Alcuin did not. On these editions, see here, and for much more on Baruch in Latin Bibles, start here. In this regard, it is interesting that Rabanus separates Lamentations from Jeremiah, putting it in the poetry section rather than the prophets section.

Rabanus says there are 45 OT books. Roman Catholics today count 46, but if you take away Baruch, you get the 45 of Rabanus. Augustine had counted 44 books, but he didn't name Lamentations, no doubt because he considered it a part of the book of Jeremiah. (Augustine probably also considered Baruch a part of Jeremiah.)

The next chapter (2.54) covers the authorship of the canonical books, and contains several interesting comments.

Theodulf Bibles

Theodulf (760–821 CE; see Ann Freeman's article) became bishop of Orléans (75 miles south of Paris) in 797/8. He wrote in many genres: poems, letters, theological and liturgical treatises. Charlemagne died in 814, and his son, Louis the Pious, accused Theodulf of political intrigue, which led to Theodulf's resigning his see in 817. He died in 821 and was buried in Angers (125 miles west of Orléans), where he had spent most of his last years. Apparently, his principal work was the unattributed Libri Carolini, a polemical response to the Second Council of Nicaea (787). This work, written for Charlemagne, concentrated on criticizing the supposed position taken at Nicaea in regard to icons. According to Wikipedia:

The work appears to have been very largely a polemic based on a misunderstanding of the actual position taken by the Byzantine church, which was quietly archived when this was realized, probably in Rome.

(For more on the Libri Carolini, see this other article by Ann Freeman.)

Theodulf's revision was not the first during the reign of Charlemagne (see this article).

There were also:
--Maurdramnus, abbot of Corbie (772–781). Five of twelve volumes survive at Amiens (90 miles north of Paris; BM Amiens, 6, 7, 9, 11 and 12). This is the first known example of the caroline minuscule.
--Angilram, bishop of Metz (d. 791), who produced a single-volume Bible, a single manuscript preserved at Metz (200 miles east of Paris; Bibliothèque Municipale 7), but destroyed in 1944.

--Alcuin of York (c. 735–804), abbot at Tours (796–804), who produced the edition that became the most popular. Tours is 75 miles southwest of Orléans. There survive 18 complete and 28 incomplete pandects from the scriptorium at Tours, copied in the first half of the ninth century. The earliest of these is: St Gall, Stiftsbibliothek, 75 (images). Another important one is the Bible of Moutier-Grandval, London, Add. 10546 (see here). Alcuin's revision concentrated on issues of Latin grammar and style.

Theodulf wanted to attain the original translation from Jerome, the hebraica veritas. Theodulf himself knew neither Hebrew nor Greek, but he had a good knowledge of the Latin manuscript tradition, and chose variants among the manuscripts. Variant readings he sometimes recorded in the margin. He continued this work of revision for the rest of his life. This is why the six preserved Theodulf Bibles each contains a different state of the revision. This fact also helps to establish relative dates for the six Bibles. 

"Theodulf's text was continuously revised during his lifetime, and was conceived as an accessible reference work, and so he chose a very small, three column 61-line format, with quires of five leaves" (Ganz, p. 53). 

Each of Theodulf's six Bibles (except for the Le Puy Bible) is available in online digital images; references given below. 

In chronological order: 

1. Stuttgart, Württemburgische Landesbibliothek HB II, 16, deriving from the Konstanz Cathedral. This Bible lacks Gen 1:1–Lev 23:32; Josh 2:11–7:23; Baruch 6; Lamentations; Job; Psa 1:1–144:21; 2 Par 32:26–35:20; Sir 31:33–37:17; 1 Mac 1:27–3:56; 2 Mac 15:30–end. In the NT, all that remain are Paul's letters (including Hebrews), the letter of James, and 1 Pet 1:1–4:3. Digital images here.
2. Saint-Hubert Bible (abbey of Saint-Hubert), now in London, British Library Add. 24 142. Lacks: Gen 1:1–49:6; most of the Minor Prophets (Hos 6:8–Mal); 1 Pet 4:3–end of the NT (which would include Acts and Rev). Digital images here. 
3. Le Puy Bible, Trésor de la Cathedral (at the Le Puy Cathedral).
4. Orléans Bible (Paris, BnF, lat. 9380) = Codex Mesmianus, because it was at one point acquired by the family of Mesmes. Digital images here. This Bible has variants from Alcuin.  
5. Saint-Germain Bible (Abbey of Saint-Germain-de-Prés), now Paris, BnF, lat. 11 937. This manuscript is preserved only from Gen 18:20–Psa 92:5. The evidence for marginal readings attributed to the Hebrew Bible in this manuscript has made it the object of study by Graves (231–41) and Candiard and Chevalier Royet. "It seems that the purpose of these Hebrew scholia was to indicate to the Latin reader what the Hebrew contained according to the strictest and most literal understanding. They were presumably meant as a study tool for the reader interested in Hebrew" (Graves 231–32). Graves' comprehensive study of the Hebrew marginal notes in 1 Samuel is based on the apparatus in the Roman Vulgate (232n48). Digital images here. Jerome's prologue to Samuel begins on what is labeled on the manuscript as fol. 62, but the digital image is given the number 72. The text of Samuel begins at image 73, the right inside column. According to Candiard and Chevalier-Royet (21 with n30), in these last two manuscripts Theodulf is no longer chiefly concerned with comparing Latin manuscripts: the marginal glosses (numbering around 2000 in the Saint-Germain manuscript) are almost always preceded by an 'h', signaling a reading based on the Hebrew text, whereas there are only a few notes preceded by 'al' (= alii), signaling a reading derived from another Latin witness. 
6. Copenhagen, Kongelige Bibliotek NKS1, previously at the Carcassonne Cathedral. This Bible exists in fragments: Psalms, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Song of Songs, Dan 1:1–6:5. This Bible also presents abundant marginal notes offering comparisons with the Hebrew Bible. Digital images here. 

(See also another fragment here.)

The first four Bibles were produced around 800, the fifth and sixth one later on. Only the Le Puy and Orléans Bibles are complete. At least three other Theodulf Bibles are known to have once existed. 

Theodulf began his work on the biblical text only after he became bishop, and his work was interrupted by his deposition. 

The Theodulf Bibles were much more scholarly than Alcuin's with their marginal notes and concern for the Hebrew text, but they were also harder to use and presented no unified text. Alcuin's more straightforward and more magnificent volumes predominated, aided by the rapid production rate at Tours (about 2 Bibles per year for the first half of the ninth century). 

Bogaert on the Borders of the Latin Old Testament

I have recently summarized a couple of important articles by Pierre-Maurice Bogaert on the Latin Bible. I like reading Bogaert because he's a real scholar who looks at real evidence, and because he writes about things that are not run-of-the-mill. In a more recent article (published a couple years ago, see here), he surveys the reception of the deuterocanonical literature in the Latin Bible. Here is a summary of that article. Bogaert's article is pretty long (50 pages), but well worth the read.

Préambule (41–42)

At Strasbourg in 1526, Johannes Lonicer and Wolfgang Capito published an edition of the LXX in three volumes. The third volume featured some protocanonical books and then the title ΑΠΟΚΡΥΦΟΙ followed by Tobit, Judith, Baruch, Epistle of Jeremiah, Dan 3:25–90, 1Esdras, Wisdom, Sirach, Susannah, Bel and the Dragon, 1–3 Maccabees, and 4Maccabees attributed to Josephus. (The second volume had featured Esther with the additions.) The same year in Antwerp, Jacob van Liesveldt printed a Dutch Bible in which between the Testaments came the Apocrypha: Tobit, Judith, Wisdom, Sirach, Additions to Daniel, Prayer of Manasseh, 1–2 Maccabees. (Baruch comes not in the section but after Jeremiah and Lamentations.) It's hard to decide which of these two Bibles came first, but they both came before Luther's Bible, which was not complete until 1534, though he had already published the NT with a complete biblical table of contents in 1523. So, already it was clear what Luther was going to do with the deuterocanonical literature--he would separate them from the books of the Hebrew canon. But the first time this actually happened in a printed Bible--rather than just in a table of contents--was in a Greek Bible. The first two printings of the Greek Bible (Complutensian Polyglot and the Aldine LXX) intermixed the deuterocanonicals with the books of the Hebrew canon. 

Introduction (42–45)

Qumran did not have a canon in the sense of a defined list of sacred writings. The use of 'extra' books (Jubilees, Enoch, 4Ezra, Apocalypse of Baruch) by diverse Jewish communities contributed toward their use by Christians. When Jews made a formal decision on their canon in the second century, this act encouraged the Christians to make a similar move. The extra books were never judged heretical. Bogaert thinks the Latin canon always (except at the very beginning) attests some lists that are long and undifferentiated (i.e., they have the deuterocanonicals intermixed with the protocanonicals) and other lists differentiated. But at the very beginning there are only undifferentiated lists. 

La naissance d'une frontière intérieure dans le canon latin de l'Ancien Testament (45–72) 

--La stade de l'indistinction: avant le canon (45–47)

There was no Latin canon (strictly speaking) until about 350, though previously there were rejected books (esp. in regard to the NT). Christians cited, with apparently equal authority, books from the Hebrew Bible, books proper to the so-called LXX canon, and some other books besides--a lack of distinction perhaps dependent on the same in Judaism. Cyprian is a good example, since he cites Wisdom, Sirach, 1–2 Maccabees, Baruch, Epistle of Jeremiah, and 1 Esdras (but not Judith, Esther, or Lamentations). Another example is the stichometric Mommsen Catalogue of biblical books, perhaps a Donatist document from North Africa, mid-fourth century. It shows no influence from the Hebrew Bible. Probably from a library or scriptorium. It matches the later canons of the North African councils by listing Judith, Tobit, 1–2 Maccabees, and (probably--because of the stichometry) Wisdom and Sirach, and it lists no other books beyond the Hebrew Bible. (It also omits Ezra. Accident?) 

--L'influence d'Origène et des Pères grecs (47–53)

In the decades after 350, the traditional Latin position (including the deuterocanonical literature) is echoed by the Councils of Hippo (393) and Carthage (397) and Pope Innocent I. This list matches the one at Trent, except for the inclusion of 1 Esdras, which Trent excluded. But there is also an effort in the Latin world to distinguish the books of the Jewish canon from 'extra' books. This position is represented by Hilary of Poitiers, Rufinus of Aquileia, and Jerome. These three Latin fathers were heavily influenced by Origen. 

--Listes officielles et continuité (53–56)

The first "official" lists in the Latin world came near the turn of the fifth century, at the Councils of Hippo (393) and Carthage (397) and in the letter of Pope Innocent I (405), as just mentioned. These lists contain the six 'extra' books (not in the Jewish canon) also included by the Mommsen List and Augustine. These 'extra' books are intermixed with the others, without any apparent distinction. Bogaert also mentions here the Decretum Gelasianum, which also includes these books, but the date of this document is uncertain. Because certain elements seem to rely on Jerome, Bogaert insists that the present form of the list must post-date Jerome (specifically, 393), but an earlier form of the list might precede that date. The ps-Augustinian Speculum (Liber de divinis scripturis, fifth century) also includes these books. 

--Divergences: distinction et indistinction (56–58)

Bogaert first mentions the colophon (which I've mentioned before, here, at the block quote; and here) at the end of the Esther that appears in a Latin Bible (Paris BnF lat. 11553) from around 800 (as well as an 11th cent. Bible, Paris BnF lat. 6). This colophon mentions the twenty-four canonical books of the OT, and then mentions the 'ecclesiastical' books (according to the terminology of Rufinus), including the deuterocanonical literature and the Shepherd of Hermas. It thus shows a desire to distinguish the books of Hebrew Bible from others. The colophon dates perhaps to the fifth century. Next, Junilius Africanus in the 6th century strangely mentioned that several books--Chronicles, Job, Tobit, Ezra, Judith, Esther, Maccabees--were not in the Jewish Bible even though some of these are (here, p. 472).  Only some receive Wisdom (p. 476). Some scriptural books have perfect authority, some have medium authority, and others none (pp. 479–80). 

Cassiodorus (Institutes) describes three Bibles: 

• Nine codices: (1) Octateuch, (2) Kings, (3) Prophets (Jeremiah w/ Lamentations), (4) Psalter, (5) Solomon (5 books), (6) Agiographa (Job, Tobit, Esther, Judith, Maccabees, 2 books of Ezra), (7) Gospels, (8) Epistles, (9) Acts and Revelation
• A Bible containing the translations of Jerome, without the books absent from the Hebrew Bible. 
• Augustine's Bible, and the Bible in the order of the LXX, containing the 'extra' books. 

--Les pandectes (700–900) (58–62)

Visigothic Spain
Bogaert here first mentions Isidore of Seville (d. 636), who divides the OT into Law-Prophets-Writings (like Jerome), but a fourth division contains books not in the Hebrew Bible: Wisdom, Sirach, Tobit, Judith, 2 books of Maccabees, "which, although the Jews separate them into the apocrypha, yet the church of Christ both honors and proclaims them among the divine books" (Etymolog. 6.1.9). Isidore's list here matches that of Rufinus's ecclesiastical books and that of the Esther colophon. 

Perhaps Idisore commissioned a Bible, but in any case a note in a 10th cent. Bible sounds like Isidore's comment above, adding also "because in them the Holy Spirit has announced many mysteries concerning Christ and the church" (see here, p. 74). The list is the same as Rufinus's ecclesiastical group (but Baruch is completely absent from the ms). Theodulf's Bibles essentially followed Isidore's groupings, placing the deuterocanonicals (Wisdom, Sirach, Tobit, Judith, 1–2 Maccabees) in a fourth division right before the NT, though he does include Baruch as a part of Jeremiah (more here). Codex Cavensis (ninth cent.) places only Tobit, Judith, and 1–2 Maccabees at the end of the OT, but Wisdom and Sirach follow the other Solomonic books, and Baruch comes at the end of the Minor Prophets. But in Cavensis, and even some (second-stage) Theodulfian Bibles, Baruch begins with the prologue Liber iste (translated near the end of this post). Bogaert believes that while this prologue does not affirm the canonicity of Baruch, it tends in this direction. The Bible of Angilram (d. 791, see here and here) is the most ancient carolingian Bible (unfortunately, now destroyed) and contains mixed signals of influence from the Hebrew Bible. 

Most Bibles do not distinguish the books of the Hebrew Bible from the others. Codex Amiatinus (images here) is the most ancient extant complete Bible and has this order: Octateuch, Samuel-Kings, Chronicles, Psalter (Jerome's translation from the Hebrew), five Solomonic books, Prophets (without Baruch), Job, Tobit, Judith, Esther, Esdras(-Nehemiah), Maccabees. The Bibles of Alcuin, abbot at Tours, had a large diffusion. It was probably they which first placed Jerome's Epist. 53 at the beginning of the Bible, which tended to attribute the entire Latin Bible to Jerome. This letter from Jerome does not mention any OT book not in the Hebrew Bible. About the placement of Jerome's canonical theory at the head of many Latin Bibles, Bogaert says: "The entire history of the Latin canon of the OT will be marked by this massive fact" (p. 62). And yet--Alcuin's Bibles intermix the deuterocanonical books with the others (except for Baruch, which is completely absent). Sometimes when Jerome's preface to Judith (which diminished Judith's authority, see here) was placed before VL Judith, the wording was changed to magnify the authority of the book. 

--Tendances contradictoires (62–66)

Many Italian Bibles of the 11th–12th cent. begin with Jerome's Epist. 53. Baruch is missing from some of these Bibles, and none of them have 1 Esdras or 4 Ezra. These Bibles are very similar to Alcuin's Bibles, and they are the last Bible family before the Paris Bibles. The Bible of Stephen Harding (dated to 1111, basic information here) separates the books of the Hebrew Bible and does not contain Baruch (more here, or in this article). The Ordines romani--lists for the liturgical year (more here)--list the books of Solomon (3 or 5?) and Judith, Tobit, and Maccabees. The Bobbio Missal also has a list that specifies 3 Solomonic books but does contain Judith. The Decretum Gratiani includes within the liturgy readings from Tobit and Maccabees (and Judith in a variant). The Ysagoge in theologiam includes Bar 3:36–38 among the messianic prophecies; the author knows that Baruch is absent from the Hebrew Bible, but he insists that it enjoys the authority of Jeremiah. 

As a summary, Bogaert says "one observes the co-existence of an undifferentiated long canon and lists bearing distinctions and explanations, drawn from Isidore, concerning a knowledge of the Hebrew Bible and, in some cases, concerning association with Jewish scholars" (p. 65). 

"At the end of the Middle Ages, practically all Latin Bibles put forward the authority of Jerome, through his prefaces and more by the placement of Epist. 53 ad Paulinum at the beginning" (p. 65). But, Bogaert goes on to point out, these same Bibles almost always include the deuterocanonicals intermixed with the other books (along with 1 Esdras, the Prayer of Manasseh, and more rarely 4 Ezra). "It is important to note that it does not yet constitute a point of controversy" (p. 66). 

--L'heure des décisions (66–71)

Here we move forward to the sixteenth century, starting with the decision at Trent (1546) to include the deuterocanonical books. Bogaert discusses this council in a paragraph, focusing mostly on the council's mention of Baruch but its failure to mention Lamentations, which they therefore considered an appendix to Jeremiah. He also mentions that the council excluded 3 Esdras (= LXX 1 Esdras) and 4 Ezra; the council includes 2 Esdras which is called Nehemiah. The council also specifies 150 Psalms. It was Sixtus of Siena about 20 years later that actually coined the word 'deuterocanonical'. The biggest surprise (in light of subsequent Roman Catholic practice) in Sixtus's treatment of this question is his inclusion of Esther (i.e., the Hebrew book) in the deuterocanon, and the supplements to Esther in the apocrypha. As Bogaert says, this is "unexpected". The Sistine Vulgate (1590) excluded the apocrypha (as defined by Trent), but the Sixto-Clementine edition (1592) placed after the NT the Prayer of Manasseh, 3 Esdras (= LXX 1 Esdras) and 4 Ezra, "in order that they not perish completely", as their preface says. Robert Bellarmine, a driving force behind the Sixto-Clementine edition, wrote the Disputations in the late sixteenth-century (Bogaert cites this edition), in which, Bogaert thinks, Bellarmine corrects Sixtus's views on Esther, by including Esther in the second order of books (once discussed but now received) and not including Esther's Additions in the third order (books occasionally cited by the Fathers but now not received). 

--Réception catholique (71–72)

According to Bogaert's report, it seems that the Sixto-Clementine Bible really established the format of the Bible for subsequent Catholic publications (editions, not translations), which always included 3–4 Ezra and the Prayer of Manasseh as an appendix after the NT, but these books are finally abandoned for the Nova Vulgata. 

Les livres discutés: Quelques cas d'espèce (72–80)

This section discusses the differences between the rabbinic canon and the books circulating in Latin biblical manuscripts. 

--Les livres à géométrie variable (72–75)

Here Bogaert includes books that have different content under the same title, such as 3 Esdras (= LXX 1 Esdras, more here), Daniel, Esther, and Jeremiah. Bogaert has little sections dealing with each of these. Bogaert also includes Reigns and Proverbs here, because "the Hebrew is often shorter than the Greek," a difference mirrored in the Latin tradition between the VL and Jerome. 

--Les attributions à David et à Salomon (75–77)

Bogaert discusses Psalm 151, Wisdom of Solomon, and Sirach. The attribution of Sirach to Solomon is very ancient, accomplished in the most ancient Latin witnesses by taking Solomon's prayer in 2 Chron 6:13–22 and putting it at the end of Sirach. This prayer does not appear in Greek manuscripts of Sirach, but Greek mss have an inversion within the text of Sirach that is absent from Latin (and Syriac) witnesses, so Bogaert conjectures that perhaps the Greek Vorlage of the Latin translation did have the prayer. For the most part, the Latin mss group the five Solomonic books, with Wisdom and Sirach being the last of these. 

--La liturgie. Lectures, cantiques, antiennes (77–80)

Bogaert discusses 1–2 Maccabees, 4 Maccabees, 3 Maccabees (in that order), and biblical songs. The biggest surprise to me here is that 3 Macc was translated into Latin first in the Complutensian Polyglot (1517). The category of 'biblical songs' includes songs used in the liturgy that are pulled from parts of the Bible (Judith, Tobit, Wisdom, Sirach) but also some songs from non-biblical sources: Prayer of Manasseh and the Confession of Ezra (4 Ezra 8:20–36). The Prayer of Manasseh appears in the Greek liturgy, and in some Latin liturgical compositions. It is widespread in Latin biblical manuscripts (after Chronicles) from the 13th cent., and it does appear in Gutenberg's Bible. 

L'Apocalypse d'Esdras et la Confessio Esdrae (80–88)

4 Ezra was written between 70 and 135, thus one of latest Jewish writings to hang around the borders of the Christian canon. 

--Les manuscrits bibliques (81–83)

4 Ezra is attested only in biblical manuscripts, especially Spanish ones. The most ancient witness is VL 67 (7th cent.), a fragmentary palimpsest from León, in which 4 Ezra follows 1–2 Esdras. Bogaert describes some of the other manuscripts that contain 4 Ezra and the Confession of Ezra. 

--Interprétation (83–88)

Bogaert considers the suggestion of de Bruyne that the position of 4 Ezra in the Latin Bible is owing to priscillianists. Bogaert first notes that Ambrose cited 4 Ezra often and once introduces a citation of 4 Ezra by locating it "in the third book" of Ezra (see more here). The story of the Torah burned by Babylon and restored by Ezra, known primarily from 4 Ezra 14, was widespread in early Christianity. Priscillian makes a case for the acceptance of 4 Ezra as a valuable non-canonical work; he does not intend to include the book within the canon. Isidore is similar. But Bogaert surmises: "It is probable however that certain churches in Spain have gone further than Isidore and have introduced it, if not in their canon, at least in their biblical manuscripts" (p. 87). (Note that Bogaert here acknowledges that the contents of a biblical manuscript is not necessarily the same as a biblical canon.) 

Conclusion (88–90)

The consideration of the rabbinic canon of scripture played a decisive role in the church. But it did not intervene, I think, until a second stage, after other usages had been established sufficiently firm, the traces of which have not ceased to be perpetuated. And these usages could have come only from Judaism, prior to the final closing of the rabbinic canon or independently of this closing. The Greek Bible and the Vetus Latina with their utilization by Christian writers attest these diverse ways of accessing the Jewish scriptures not yet, or otherwise, defined. (p. 89)

Jerome and Rufinus both asserted that the useful non-canonical literature (essentially, the deuterocanonicals) could not establish doctrine. Bogaert insightfully connects this claim to Origen's insistence that in debates with Jews he wants to use only those texts that Christians share with Jews (Ep. Afr. 9). Of course, Origen is talking about the textual form of books shared by Jews and Christians, such as the two different forms of Daniel or Esther or Exodus. "That which was initially for Origen a concession to apologetics was understood, on the basis of Jerome's reading, as a general principle." 

The recognition of a distinction between canonical books and useful religious books came about gradually, and here is an important point: "Both in the Greek world and in the Latin world up to this date [= 16th cent.], the differences--though real in the lists and in the manuscripts--do not raise serious conflicts" (p. 90). 

Appendice 1: Manuscrits bibliques influencés par le canon rabbinique (91–93)

Bogaert looks for three characteristics to identify a manuscript that has been influenced, directly or indirectly, by the rabbinic canon: (1) the separation of Daniel from the major prophets, (2) the separation of Wisdom and Sirach from the other Solomonic books, and (3) the grouping of the libri ecclesiastici: Wisdom, Sirach, Tobit, Judith, 1–2 Maccabees. Bogaert also notes the presence or absence of Baruch and, when present, the order of the Jeremianic compositions, the order of Judith and Tobit relative to one another, and the presence of the Psalter iuxta Hebraeos or the Gallican Psalter, or the Roman Psalter, or the Mozarabic Psalter. He then lists 38 manuscripts in four different classifications.  

Appendice 2: Le Siracide salomonien dans les manuscrits (93)

The Prayer of Solomon is present as ch. 52 of Sirach in the majority of Latin manuscripts, but it is absent in part of the Spanish tradition and in the first Theodulfian manuscripts. The mss from Milan and a 7th cent. Uncial mention Solomon in the capitula Ab. Amiatinus mentions Solomon in the explicit to the book (as also Sangallensis 28 and the witnesses from Milan) and also at the beginning of ch. 1. 

Appendice 3: Liste de témoins de la Confessio Esdrae (94–95)

Bogaert lists several witnesses to the Confession of Ezra, positioned among biblical songs, or located after Ezra-Nehemiah.

Esdras in the Latin Bible

Just like the Book of Baruch, the role of Esdras in ancient manuscripts and authors can be confusing, though for different reasons. There are 3 or 4 or 5 or 6 different books of Esdras, and sometimes they switch the numbers around, so that what one author calls 1Esdras will not necessarily correspond to what someone else calls 1Esdras. This confusion doesn't really affect Hebrew sources--where we are dealing with the book of Ezra, in any case--because we have extant in Hebrew only the single book of Ezra that is found in the Jewish Bible. The only possible confusion here is whether Nehemiah is included with Ezra, as it is in the Masoretic Text, so that Ezra-Nehemiah forms one book (one set of Masoretic notes for both books).

But Greek and especially Latin sources can be mighty confusing when Esdras is mentioned. Fortunately, again, Pierre-Maurice Bogaert has written an article that sorts out some of the confusion: "Les livres d'Esdras et leur numérotation dans l'histoire du canon de la Bible latine," Revue bénédictine 110 (2000): 5–26. This post will summarize Bogaert's article.

The Paris Bible (13th cent.) usually contained four books of Esdras:

• 1Esdras = canonical Ezra (in the Jewish canon, 10 chapters)
• 2Esdras = canonical Nehemiah (in the Jewish canon, 13 chapters)
• 3Esdras = Esdras A of the LXX (usually now called 1Esdras by scholars)
• 4Esdras = Apocalypse of Ezra (16 chapters, thus including what scholars now call 4Ezra, 5Ezra, 6Ezra, all sometimes called 2Esdras by Anglophone scholars)

The Sixto-Clementine Bible (1592) maintained these four books, even though the Council of Trent had declared only the first two of them to be canonical.

The text known in the LXX as Esdras A (which I will call 1Esdras from now on) is very closely related to canonical Ezra. Wikipedia has a helpful table showing the similarities. The main difference is that 1Esdras has an extra story, the 'Story of the Three Youths'. 

Donatien De Bruyne argued (p. xl n. 1) in 1932 that the Latin tradition knew only 1Esdras and Nehemiah, until Jerome translated Ezra-Nehemiah at the end of the fourth century. Three decades later Thomas Denter in his dissertation confirmed the total absence of Latin citations from canonical Ezra. But Bogaert points out that the main contention (no VL Ezra-Nehemiah) is wrong because we have a manuscript of the text, the ms. Vercelli from eleventh-century northern Italy (still unpublished; see below).

La nomenclature

The Hebrew Bible contains one book of Ezra (= Ezra-Nehemiah). The Greek Bible contains two books, Esdras A (i.e., 1Esdras) and Esdras B (= a literal Greek translation of Ezra-Nehemiah). The Latin Bible has four books of Esdras, as explained above for the Paris Bibles. 

L'unique livre d'Esdras-Néhémie

Here Bogaert stresses that Ezra-Nehemiah counts as one book in Hebrew and Greek. He asserts that the first time Ezra-Nehemiah was divided in a Hebrew Bible was in the First Rabbinic Bible edited by Felix Pratensis and published by Bomberg in 1516–17. The LXX has a single book in 23 chapters, though some later manuscripts do signal a new book with Nehemiah (citing Hanhart, pp. 144, 249). Same goes for the Latin. Jerome insists in his preface that he is translating only a single book that he finds in Hebrew, and no ancient Vulgate manuscript divides Nehemiah from Ezra (see the Roman edition, pp. 76–77). Further arguments support this notion. 

Esdras-Néhémie divisé en deux livres

The division of Ezra-Nehemiah into two books seems to have happened first in the Latin tradition in the 8th century (Cologne manuscript) and became popular first in Spain, then gradually spread geographically. These two books were first called 1Esdras and 2Esdras, which makes little sense because Ezra is almost wholly absent from 2Esdras. To explain the popularity of this move, Bogaert appeals to a 'motivation canonique', since the earlier lists often mention two books of Esdras. 

Deux livres d'Esdras dans les listes anciennes des livres canoniques

Ancient Latin lists frequently mention two books of Esdras: Breviarium Hipponense, Augustine, Pope Innocent, Decretum Gelasianum, etc. They must mean 1Esdras (= Esdras A of the LXX and VL) and Ezra-Nehemiah (= Esdras B of the LXX and VL), rather than Ezra and Nehemiah in Jerome's translation, because Jerome's version is explicitly and deliberately presented as a single book (thus matching the Hebraica veritas) and Jerome's version hadn't had time to circulate so widely anyway. But once Jerome's version became dominant, these lists mentioning two books of Esdras probably served as the motivation to divide Jerome's translation into two and name them 1Esdras and 2Esdras, so that the Bible would agree with the lists. 

Omission d'Esdras dans les listes

Several ancient lists completely omit reference to Esdras (perhaps accidentally): Mommsen catalogue from 359 CE; some liturgical material; some manuscripts of the Decretum Gelasianum. 

Esdras plutôt que Néhémie

Lucifer of Cagliari (De non parcendo 14) and Quodvultdeus (Liber Promissionum II, xxxvii) both attribute to Esdras words or an attitude of Nehemiah, showing once again that Ezra-Nehemiah was perceived as a single book. 

Le Troisième d'Esdras chez Amroise

Ambrose (De Spiritu Sancto 2.6) cites 4Ezra 6:41 as coming from the third book of Esdras. He must mean that his first book of Esdras is 1Esdras, and his second book is Ezra-Nehemiah, so what we think of as 4Ezra becomes for him 3Esdras. 

Le Prologue de Jérôme à sa nouvelle traduction d'Esdras

Jerome says in the prologue to his translation of Ezra-Nehemiah that it shouldn't surprise anyone that this is a single book, and that the third and fourth books of Ezra are just apocrypha that don't exist among the Hebrews and should be rejected. Bogaert thinks Jerome's third book of Ezra would be the same as Ambrose's, that is, our 4Ezra. But what about Jerome's fourth book of Ezra. Bogaert: "As for the fourth book of Ezra according to Jerome, one can only take guesses. One could see 5Ezra or 6Ezra. I prefer the hypothesis according to which it is both (5Ezra and 6Ezra), for in one part of the tradition of 4Ezra they follow the Jewish apocalypse (= 4Ezra 3–14) and they are not distinguished (chap. 15–16 + 1+2)" (p. 16). Bogaert cites (16n38) some manuscripts of 4Ezra that attest this procedure. If this argument is accepted--and Jerome's assertion that Ezra-Nehemiah form only one book in Hebrew makes it a pretty strong argument--then the two other books of Ezra, Jerome's 1Ezra and 2Ezra, will not be Ezra and Nehemiah (which would both count only as 1Ezra) but rather Ezra-Nehemiah and our 1Esdras. Jerome does in fact cite 1Esdras 5:64–65 in his Comm. Ezech. (Bogaert cites CCSL 75, p. 551). Bogaert also points out (16n39) that in the Prologus Galeatus Jerome mentions that Ezra is divided into two books among Greeks and Latins. So, Bogaert thinks that Jerome regards 1Esdras as some sort of corrupted form of Ezra-Nehemiah. 

Esdras-Néhémie dans le manuscrit de Verceil

Old Latin Manuscript XXII (76) of the Archivio Capitolare of Vercelli. Eleventh century. 1Esdras precedes Ezra-Nehemiah. Nehemiah is not distinguished at all from Ezra. There is a textual inversion that Bogaert discusses. 

La version latine du Vercellensis et son modèle grec

The first Latin translation of 1Esdras is ancient and from Africa. Latin Fathers cite rarely the Nehemiah section of Ezra-Nehemiah. They almost always prefer 1Esdras to Ezra-Nehemiah in their citations. But the Vercelli manuscript proves the existence of an Old Latin Ezra-Nehemiah. Bogaert argues against De Bruyne and especially Denter. 

La numérotation des livres d'Esdras au moyen âge

Bogaert presents a chart of the different books of Esdras and which number was assigned to them in the different editions and manuscripts. 

Conclusion et bilan

Mostly a summary of the article. 

Appendice: le Prologue de Jérôme à Esdras en français

Bogaert closes with a French translation of Jerome's preface to Ezra, along with some notes.