Did the Councils of Hippo & Carthage believe Esdras to be inspired? (Response to Steve Christie)

Protestant apologist Steve Christie, who goes by BornAgainRN on Youtube, claims that the Councils of Hippo and Carthage endorsed the book of Esdras as part of inspired Scripture, which is a book neither Catholics nor Protestants accept as inspired Scripture. Steve makes this claim because he thinks that by doing so it undermines the Catholic appeals to these early Councils since these Councils endorse the "larger canon" of Scripture (i.e., Sirach, Maccabees, Wisdom, Judith, etc). While Steve's argument doesn't automatically refute Catholicism, since the canon of Scripture had to be clarified over time, it is still slightly inconvenient since clear historical testimony is always a good thing to have on your side. 

Here is what Steve said in his YouTube video on the matter (slightly edited for readability):

BornAgainNR: My argument is that Hippo and Carthage included Esdras and [combined] Ezra-Nehemiah as the "two books of Esdras" (which is simply the Greek and Latin word for “Ezra”), is based on the fact that Augustine in his work “City of God” entertains the possibility that chapters 3-4 in Esdras are indeed prophesying about Christ. Augustine would not even entertain the possibility this is prophesying about Christ unless he believed these 2 chapters of Esdras are scripture FIRST. Considering Augustine was a member of these two late fourth century church councils of Hippo and Carthage, 25 years earlier, he would know if this book was in these councils or not. Yet, he believes 25 years later this book and these 2 chapters of Esdras are scripture. This demonstrates this book was one of the two books of Esdras in these two councils.

In short, Steve claims that when the Councils of Hippo and Carthage gave their canonical list of Biblical Books, when these councils said that there were "two books of Esdras," this specifically meant that the Councils were saying Ezra+Nehemiah were counted as one combined book at that time, and that Esdras (sometimes called 3rd Ezra/Esdras) was the second of the "two books". The Councils often spoke in terms of "two books of Kings" and such, so it was not uncommon for multiple books to be combined. Steve's argument and his proof is that since in Augustine's cites Esdras ch3-4 in his book City of God as likely a prophecy of Jesus that this means Augustine held Esdras to be inspired Scripture, and thus Augustine's Councils must have also held this.

Here is my response: Steve Christie's argument that Augustine's quote of Esdras as a prophecy means Augustine held it as canonical, and thus his influence on Carthage/Hippo means they also held it as canonical, is a reasonable conclusion. That said, I believe I have found a far better explanation.

In the same City of God (Book XVIII:36) passage where Augustine quotes Esdras (also called 3 Esdras, meaning 3rd Ezra), in the next sentence he mentions "the books of Maccabees," but Augustine makes a point to qualify that the Jews do not accept Maccabees but the Christians do. If Augustine held Esdras as canonical, then he should have given a similar qualification, since the Jews do not hold Esdras as canonical. The most natural conclusion from this City of God passage, I believe, is that Augustine held  Esdras as something akin to how Protestants treat the apocrypha (ie useful for reading and can be in the appendix of Scripture but not fully "canonical"). This allows him to see Esdras as good and useful, but not having to give a canonical qualification like he explicitly did with Maccabees.

Also, in Augustine's book On Christian Doctrine 2:8, he begins his talk on the canonical books by saying the true interpreter of the "sacred writings" is one who has a good knowledge of them, and gives the minimal qualification of having to have at least read those books counted as "canonical," which he then gives criteria of the testimony of the majority of churches, etc. This indicates that Augustine was well aware of various books that were included in book lists, including books which were not "canonical" but still found amongst the canonical books. Thus, Esdras could easily be seen a "sacred writing" in Augustine's mind, as a appendix/apocryphal type of book that is useful and holy, but not "canonical".

In that very On Christian Doctrine section, Augustine then goes on to list the canonical books, and provides interesting details sprinkled throughout. He says Ruth "seems to belong to the beginning of Kings," and that of the Four Kings and Two Chronicles, the books of Chronicles "do not follow Kings but seem to be a parallel, going over the same ground". This qualification is significant to me, because when he mentions two books of Esdras, and simply says "these look like a sequel to Kings and Chronicles," this would fit naturally with Ezra and Nehemiah as the "two books". However,  Esdras is largely a repeat/parallel of Chronicles and Ezra, so we would expect Augustine to give more of a nuanced answer, something like 'Esdras covers the same ground', just like he did earlier with describing Chronicles. Thus, Ezra & Nehemiah fit better here, and they are never disputed books, which also makes them also the more likely. Lastly, Augustine goes on to mention there are twelve minor prophets, and names each of them, but qualifies "these prophets are connected and never disjointed but counted as one book," which means Augustine was aware of the joining of books into one. We would expect Augustine to have qualified that Ezra and Nehemiah were likewise separate but joined into one, but he doesn't, thus strongly implying he didn't see them as one combined book.

Note: The Old Encyclopedia says Esdras (aka "3rd Ezra") was maintained in the appendix after Trent, and if it was always appendix status then it wasn't "removed" it just was clarified to be useful appendix writing at Trent.

When Steve says the early church recognized 3Esdras to be as inspired as 1Esdras (Ezra) and 2Esdras (Nehemiah), I would need to see evidence for Church Fathers who clearly held this, as I've not seen such evidence nor have I seen any such disputes. The standard Patristic list of canon's I've seen on Bible Researcher, such as Athanasius, Melito, Origen, Cyril, Council Laodicia, Rufinus, all mention "first and second esdras, as one book," clearly Ezra/Nehemiah, but say nothing of a "third" book (ie 3 Esdras). Jerome says "Ezra, which itself is likewise divided amongst Greeks and Latins into two books" but clearly did not accept 3 Esdras, shows us Ezra & Nehemiah as the two books was the tradition. So from the clear evidence I have seen, most Church Fathers who clearly speak on the matter label first/second Esdras as Ezra and Nehemiah. And thus it is safest to see 3 Esdras (even if called "1 Esdras") was not seen as canonical, but at most appendix/apocrypha. 

What are the implications if Augustine/Carthage/Etc held 3 Esdras to be "Protocanon"? These would be in error, but that isn't a major concern since various Church Fathers had "issues" with their list of books, and thus we recognize the canon was not as solid as it has been treated since modern times. This is a far cry from the mysterious Protestant notion of "just knowing" what books belong, despite most Protestants not having read the whole bible themselves and even being unaware of most of the contents. Now if 3 Esdras was/is truly fully "canonical" and Catholics & Protestants since the Reformation have rejected it, that's a far bigger problem.

I believe that my response pretty sufficiently refutes Steve's argument, which Steve has used often when going after Catholics on Sola Scriptura. Most important to note is that Steve's argument contains a significant assumption, namely that just because Augustine spoke positively about Esdras that this must mean the Councils endorsed Esdras. While that is a reasonable assumption, it is also not really proof, since speaking positively about something does not equate to endorsing it as canonical. Steve absolutely does not believe that just because Jerome cites certain books that this means Jerome endorses those books as inspired Scripture. So by that same logic, just because Augustine says something 25 years after Carthage that this means Carthage endorsed that book back then as inspired Scripture. Seeing the "two books of Ezra" as Ezra and Nehemiah is perfectly reasonable and what others have done, so it's a perfectly natural reading, and what other sources do. I think Steve would need to show other sources include 3rd Esdras in their understanding of "two books of Ezra" for hist line of thinking to have stronger weight. I believe I have made a far more honest and convincing case with the available evidence, that Augustine held Esdras to be good and useful for reading, but not on the same level as the 73 canonical books which Catholics have in our Bible.