Hippo and Carthage proclaimed that the Septuagint versions of 1 Esdras and 2 Esdras are canonical. In the Septuagint, 1 Esdras is the Apocryphal additions to Ezra while 2 Esdras is the Jewish verion of Ezra-Nehemiah from the Jewish canon. However, the Council of Trent omits the Septuagint version of 1 Esdras and maintains that 1 Esdras is actually Ezra from the Jewish canon and 2 Esdras is Nehemiah from the Jewish canon! Further, Hippo and Carthage state that Solomon wrote 5 books of the Old Testament when in actuality he wrote only 3.I wouldn't stand with Origen on much of anything if I were you.If that's not enough, the Council of Rome did not include Baruch even though Hippo and Carthage and Trent did. Some, to gloss over the inconvenient omission, have maintained that Baruch was counted by Rome as part of Jeremiah, but there's no evidence of that.
It looks like I just refuted your irrefutable facts.
Okay, so what about the rest? Do you discredit them as well?No, Mike. You obviously have the exegetical subtlety of a sledgehammer.
Maybe so, but at least I know my church history.
This is William Webster's bogus argument. You know why it's bogus? Hippo and Carthage say nothing about the Septuagint.
The people in Hippo and Carthage were Latin speakers. St. Augustine wrote his works in Latin. The Bible they used was the Old Latin version, not the Greek Septuagint. The "two books of Esdras" in the Old Latin were the same "two books of Esdras" endorsed by Trent.
Maybe so, but at least I know my church history.
You know William Webster's and James White's polemical twisting of church history, you mean.