Original Response To James White & William Webster on Trent and Esdras

Let me begin by noting that in my—admittedly limited—knowledge of James White, I have always thought of him as a man who is most reluctant to “go beyond what is written.” Imagine my surprise then, when someone brought it to my attention that he had recently held forth to his readers on the utility of video cameras and audio recordings in correcting errant memories as to my internal emotional states. Odd. On second thought, don’t imagine my surprise. Perhaps, after all, it would be best, like Trent, to “pass over in silence” the whole matter of my feelings and proceed to the substance of the question in the context of which this unusual suggestion occurred.

The substance concerns an argument that White (following William Webster) made as part of a debate between White and me on the canonical status of the deuterocanonical books of the Old Testament.

Both White and Webster take the position that the absence of a book called I Esdras in the Council of Trent’s definition of the canon constitutes not mere silence on the issue but a clear and explicit rejection of the book “without the slightest ambiguity.” This is a big deal for them because, if it is true, then a case can be made that Trent contradicted the Councils of Carthage and Hippo which they understand to have explicitly included I Esdras (no doubt without the slightest possible ambiguity there either).

My position is that, whatever we want to make of the status of I Esdras, the question of a contradiction between Trent and Carthage cannot arise because the bishops at Trent explicitly avoided answering the question. White and Webster seem to be under the impression that this idea is my own novel interpretation of the decree of the Fourth Session. It is nothing of the kind.

White himself is not sure that “they [the Council Fathers] even knew the differences [between the two versions of the Old Testament canon] in the first place.” And he considers the notion that they were “acting in some restrained manner while not even addressing the topic would require a massive leap of faith that only a...Roman Catholic apologist could make.”

For Webster’s part, he believes that “It should be obvious from the documentation provided from the decree of the Council of Trent” that it is not the case that “Trent elected to pass over the issue of Septuagint I Esdras in silence and not pass any judgment upon the book one way or the other.”

Let me be perfectly clear. My assertion that the Council of Trent passed over the question of the canonicity of I Esdras in silence is not a matter of my own or anyone else’s interpretation of the decree. It is a historical fact. White and Webster would have it that I am creatively reading between the lines, presumably in order to escape the obvious and retain – apparently against all of the evidence – my blind faith in the “Roman system.” Let me assure you that it is nothing that dramatic. Rather, the discrepancy lies in their own ignorance of the relevant lines to read. You see, the acts of the Council include not just the final canons and decrees but also a record of the entire proceedings that produced them.

From these we see that the bishops at Trent were not silent about their silence on this question. They had a discussion about it. At the end of that discussion, they took a vote. This is a matter of record, not of interpretation. On March 29, 1546 the Council Fathers took up the fourth of fourteen questions (Capita Dubitationum) on Scripture and Tradition. At issue was whether those books that were not included in the official list, but were included in the Latin Vulgate (e.g. The Book of Esdras, Fourth Ezra, and Third Maccabees), should be rejected by a Conciliar decree, or be passed over in silence. Only three Fathers voted for an explicit rejection. Forty-two voted that the status of these books should be passed over in silence.

Thus, it is clear that there is in fact no such contradiction as White and Webster imagine between the Councils of Carthage and Hippo and the Council of Trent. In light of this fuller examination of the evidence, may I humbly suggest that it is not me who “needs to reassess his position?" If anyone is interested in a fuller discussion of the many questions surrounding the disputed books of the Old Testament canon, my newest book, Why Catholic Bibles are Bigger, will be available later this month