The Vulgate Appendix

If you study much about the biblical canon in the Latin tradition, you will eventually run across a statement about how some books are in the appendix to the Vulgate. This type of thing is meant quite literally: if you get a hold of the standard modern edition of the Latin Vulgate, you can flip to the end (after the New Testament) and you will find an Appendix that includes the following books:

The Prayer of Manasseh
3 Ezra (= LXX 1 Esdras)
4 Ezra (= 2 Esdras in some English versions of the apocrypha)
Psalm 151
The Epistle to the Laodiceans

But, of course, these books did not constitute an "appendix" to the Vulgate in any ancient or medieval manuscripts of the Latin Bible. As far as I know, there was no such thing as an "appendix" to Latin biblical manuscripts. So, when someone talks about 3 Ezra as occupying a place in the appendix to the Vulgate, this could give quite a misleading impression. Such a statement is accurate only if the term "Vulgate" refers to a modern printed edition and not to anything that, for instance, Jerome would have recognized.

Where did the appendix come from? Well, I'm not completely sure, but I think that the Sixto-Clementine edition from 1592 was the first to include an appendix.

The Sistine edition from 1590 did not include an appendix. It's available here, all three volumes. Vol. 1 ends with Job, vol. 2 ends with 2 Maccabees, and vol. 3 contains the NT and ends with Revelation. No appendix.

The Sixto-Clementine edition is available here. After the NT, there's an appendix with the Prayer of Manasseh and 3–4 Ezra. And there's a preface to the Appendix:

Oratio Manassa, necnon Libri duo, qui sub libri Tertii & Quarti Esdrae nomine circumferuntur, hoc in loco, extra scilicet seriem canonicorum Librorum, quos sancta Tridentina Synodus suscepit, & pro Canonicis suscipiendos decreuit, sepositi sunt, ne prorsus interirent, quippe qui a nonnullis sanctis Patribus interdum citantur, & in aliquibus Bibliis Latinis tam manuscriptis quam impressis reperiuntur. 

The Prayer of Manasseh, as well as two books, which circulate under the name of the Third and Fourth Book of Ezra, are set aside in this place—that is, outside the series of canonical books, which the holy Tridentine Synod accepted, and determined should be taken up for canonical—lest they should perish completely, since they are sometimes cited by some of the holy Fathers, and they are found in some Latin books, both manuscript and printed. 

As this note suggests, it was the decree on the biblical canon by the Council of Trent (1546) that created the situation in which it made some sense to print the Vulgate with an appendix containing non-canonical books. For it was only at Trent that the biblical canon was definitively settled. Thenceforth, editions of the Vulgate for a Roman Catholic readership would need to conform to the canon approved by Trent, and so it would no longer be appropriate to print the Prayer of Manasseh and 3–4 Ezra among the other biblical books, as the Gutenberg Bible had done, for instance. An edition of the Vulgate could completely omit any non-canonical works, as the Sistine edition had done, but the editors of the Sixto-Clementine edition were concerned that these venerable though non-canonical books might no longer be available, even though previous generations of Christian authors had sometimes referred to them.

Thus was born the Vulgate appendix.

The Vulgate Canon

I'm still blogging my way through the latest issue on The Bible Translator, which is a themed-issue on the biblical canon. For previous posts in this series, see here. This time I'll be discussing this article:

Daniel Kerber, “The Canon in the Vulgate Translation of the Bible,” The Bible Translator 67.2 (2016): 168–83.

Traces the origins of the Latin Bible, first clear in Cyprian, and then explains the development of Jerome's translations (169–73). Jerome did not translate most of the deuterocanonicals (only Tobit and Judith), nor most of the New Testament.

At the end of this section, there is an odd sentence:

After his death, probably in the middle of the fifth century, the translations he made were complemented by the addition of others’ translations, put together by an editor who used the terminology of Rufinus. (p. 173)

There is no citation, or any explanation about what the “terminology of Rufinus” might mean. I don’t think Rufinus is previously mentioned in the article. Kerber is referring to a colophon following Esther in a manuscript dating to around 800, though the colophon itself might be considerably earlier. The text does mention the categories of biblical books known also from Rufinus, such that some books that are non-canonical are given the label 'ecclesiastical' because they are helpful to Christians even though they cannot establish doctrine. (See a little more in n. 70 here.) [UPDATE (7 Dec. 2016): I see that I have previously mentioned this colophon, and supplied a translation, while summarizing Bogaert's article on Baruch. See here.]

  

Kerber does represent correctly Jerome’s views on the OT canon, even though he didn’t cite this excellent article. 

Kerber's article contains a contradiction regarding the time at which the word ‘vulgate’ came to apply to Jerome’s translation. On p. 171, he says this happened in the seventh century (citing the Aland's), but on p. 175 he says it first happened in the work of Roger Bacon in the thirteenth century.

He supplies an adequate, brief accounting of the history of the Vulgate to modern times.

Then he turns to Trent. I would dispute this sentence: “Influence by Renaissance humanism, the Reformers, in their desire to go back to the original faith because of the many abuses in the church, also wanted to return to the source texts, and so they rejected the biblical books belonging to the Greek tradition (LXX) and went back to the Hebrew canon” (p. 177). I do not doubt that the Reformers were influenced by Renaissance humanism, but so were the Catholics, and in any case this is not the reason that the Reformers clung to the narrow canon. In fact, the church had never taken a firm decision on this matter, and so even in the days of the Reformation, or afterwards, up until Trent, it was a legitimate option for Catholics to affirm the narrow canon. Some of the divines at Trent did so. I do not believe that Luther thought of himself as disputing church tradition when he claimed that 2Maccabees is not a part of the canon. Rather, he thought he was reasserting church tradition. This confusion is exacerbated in the footnote attached to this statement, where Kerber cites approvingly Sundberg’s mischaracterization of the Leipzig Debate, as if Luther’s views on the canon were determined by his need to disprove the doctrine of purgatory, which completely overlooks the fact that some Catholic theologians at the time, in full communion with Rome, also affirmed the narrow canon. What is odd is that Kerber, in the next paragraph, mentions these Catholic doubts about the deuterocanonical books, correctly describing the views of Erasmus and Cajetan, and in the paragraphs following, he mentions the contentious debates on the issue among those gathered at the Council. Note: followers of Luther did not attend the Council. The Catholic theologians debated the matter because the matter had not previously been settled for the Catholic Church. This gives the lie to the idea that Luther overturned church tradition by rejecting the canonicity of 2 Maccabees. For more, see this post.

  

The rest of the article discusses the meaning of Trent’s approval of the Vulgate text, and whether we should continue to use the term ‘deuterocanonical’.

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. 

The Book of Baruch in the Manuscripts of the Latin Bible: Disappearance and Reinstatement, Part 3

This post continues the series on Bogaert's article on Baruch (see part 1 and part 2). Here we will just look at the final major section of the paper. I won't summarize as much of this section because, frankly, I don't find it as interesting. You'll find summary below for the parts I thought were interesting.

IV. Les bibles latines à partir de 800

A. La réintégration: quatre types de textes

1. Théodulfe: type Θ

Theodulf's Bibles have the order Jer-Bar-EpJer-Lam. Baruch is without prologue. 

2. Le Cavensis: type C

This single manuscript attests the text of Baruch and the Letter of Jeremiah--after the 16 prophets--preceded by the prologue Liber iste (see the second post on this) and a title attributing the work to Baruch. 

3. En Espagne, le texte recomposé: type L

Some Spanish manuscripts attest a different text: Baruch begins with Incipit (liber) Baruch, then an unusual order for the book (1:1–4; 3:9–5:9; 1:5–3:8). These manuscripts have the order Jer-Baruch-Lam-EpJer, though some do switch the last two books.

4. En France, le type G 

This type of text has an incipit and explicit attributing the book to Baruch. It begins its text at Jer 52:12 (on which see the first posting in this series). There are 3 types of these witnesses, and Bogaert lists quite a number of them. Both this type of text, and L above, want the book that Baruch writes and reads to be Baruch itself, rather than looking back to Jeremiah as that book (with the LXX; on this idea, see the first post in this series). 

5. Les quatre formes conservées du texte de Baruch 

B. La diffusion du type Θ

The Theodoulfian text finally prevailed. 

1. Première diffusion du type de Théodulfe (Θ)
2. Copies ultérieures de bibles de Théodulfe
3. Baruch de deuxième main ou à diverses places
4. En Angleterre et en Catalogne
5. En Italie: a. Le Mont-Cassin; b. Les bibles 'atlantiques' 
6. L'Ysagoge in theologiam
7. Rareté des commentaires de Baruch

C. Baruch dans les bibles à partir due XIIIe siècle (aperçu)

1. Les Biblia Parisiensia

The Paris Bibles standardize the order Jer-Lam-Bar-EpJer. Bogaert notes that it is in these Bibles that the EpJer tends to become a part of Baruch rather than its own Bible, though this practice preceded the Paris Bibles by a few decades (325n166). 

2. Baruch cité de façon éclectique
3. Contaminations
4. Hésitations théoriques
5. Bibles imprimées

a. Les bibles de Gutenberg

Here Lamentations is its own book (of four chapters, and the fifth chapter is now the Prayer of Jeremiah, almost a book unto itself; some earlier mss had done the same, such as the Paris Bibles), Baruch is its own book, and the EpJer is treated like the last chapter of Baruch. 

b. La bible de Louvain de 1547

Here the Prayer of Jeremiah is more clearly a part of Lamentations, and Baruch is labeled a prophet.

c. La Bible Sixto-(Clémentine) de 1593 

Lamentations numbers 4 chapters, then the Prayer of Jeremiah, and then the prophecy of Baruch, from which the EpJer is hardly distinguished. 

Conclusion 

Bogaert concludes with a table illustrating the transmission of the text, and several points summarizing the important results of his research. This conclusion is followed by these useful appendices. 

Appendix I: Citations patristiques attribuées à Jérémie
Appendix II: Les bibles sans Baruch
Appendix III: Les mss utilisés par Sabatier
Appendix IV: Liste de bibles dans lesquelles Baruch est ajouté de deuxième main ou copié à une place anormale
Appendix V: Baruch (type Θ) avant ou après Lamentations dans les bibles antérieures à 1100 (sans les bibles italiennes)
Appendix VI: Ba/EpJr (Θ) avant ou après Lm dans les bibles atlantiques italiennes
Appendix VII: Échantillons du ms. Madrid, BN 12906
Appendix VIII: Ba 4,20-30 dans le ms. Escurial b.II.17 (notes de D. De Bruyne)