Esdras, first book of

Title.— The titles of the books that deal with the history of Ezra are confusmg. In the Sept. this book is entitled Esdras A, Esdras B embracing the canonical books of Ezra and Neliemiah. In the Vulg., however, Jerome had used the words Esdras I. and II. for the canonical books ; Esdras A therefore became Esdras III., Esdras IV. being the designation of the other and later apocryplial book. In the sixth article of the Book of Common Prayer, and in all the early Eng.

Bibles, the four books are numbered as in the Vulgate. "The Geneva Bible (15UU) was the first to adopt our present classification, which keeps the Heb. names Ezra and Neheiiiiah for the canonical, and gives the Latin names Esdras I. and Esdras II. to the apocryphal books. Another title, 6 UpeOs, appears as the headxg of Esdras A in Cod. A of the LXX, which also has Updis at the head of Esdras B ; the subscriptions in both books give the ordinary names.

Yet another name for our book appears in the subscription to the Old Latin, ' Explicit Esdrae liber primus de templi restitutione,' which aptly describes the contents of the book. To avoid con- fu.sion, ' The Greek Esdras ' has been suggested a.a a suitable title. Contents. — Except for one original section (3'-5'), the book is made up wholly from materials that exist in canonical books. It is a repetition of the history of the rebuilding of the temple.

The first chapter corresponds to the last two of 2 Ch, the last to a portion of Neh 8 ; the inter- vening portion runs parallel to Ezra, and contains the whole of that book, with one transposition and one interpolation. The following scheme gives the canonical paral- lels, and shows the chronological confusion of the book. (The verses are those of the Camb. LXX.) Es 1 = 2 Ch 35. 36.

Great passover of Josiah ; his defeat at Megiddo, and death ; the succeeding Jewish reigns and the Captivity briefly sketched. Es 21-14 = Ezr 1. Ci/ru" proclamation. Delivery of the sacred vessels to Sanabassar, and his return to Jerusalem. Es 21^5= Ezr 4*»-^. Opposition to the rebuilding of the temple. Letter of Persian officials resident in Samaria to Artax^rxit. The work abandoned till the reign oj I>iriu9, Es 31-66. Original.

Story of the three pages at the court of Darius, who each maintain a thesis before the king. The third, Zerubbabel, as a reward for his wisdom, is granted leave to lead a body of Jews to Jerusalem. Departure of the caravan under Joachim, son of Zerubbabel, and others. Es 57-16= Ezr 2. Lists of those reluming with Zerubbabel. Es 54^-70= Ezr 3-4*. Altar of burnt-offering set up; Feast of Tabernacles celebrated ; foundation of temple laid ; offer of ' the enemies ' to co-operate rejected.

The work hindered through their opposition till the reign oi Darius. Es 6. 7=Ezr 5. 6. Work resumed in second year of Darius. Letter of the Persian governors to Darius, and his favourable rescript. Completion of the temple. Es 8-93^ =E2r 7-10. Return under Ezra in reign of .4 rtaj:err«. The abuse of mixed marriages redressed. Names of the tran». gressors. Es 93rJ»= Neh 77»-8i3. Reading of the law by Ezra.

The history goes directly backwards : first ArtA- xerxes (2"''''), then Danus (3-5*), lastly Cyrus (5'"™), instead of Cyrus, Darius, Artaxerxes. After expressly stating that it was Darius who gave permission to Zerubbabel to return, the writer in 568-70 calmly refers this return to the time of Cyrus. The booK is incomplete. It breaks otl' in the middle of a sentence, /cai iiriavv/ix^''l<'av (cf. Neh 8").

It probably continued the history to the Feast of Taoernacles described in Neh 8, but no further ; this is suggested by Jos. Ant. XI. v. 5, who de- scribes that feast, using an Esdras word iTav6p8ii)<ris, and at this point, having hitherto followed Es as his authority, passes on to the Book of Neh. The Latin versions add a clause completing the broken sentence of the Greek. There is no indication that the took ever began at an earlier point in the history than it does now.

Reception and Use of the Book.— The first witness to the existence of Es A is Josephus, who uses it in place of the canonical book not only in his description of the Return {Ant. XI. i.-v.), but also in his account of Josiiih {Ant. x. iv. 5B'.) He agrees with Es in shifting the first oppo.^ition to ESDKAS.

FIRST BOOK OF ESDKAS, FIRST BOOK OF 759 the work, and the letter to the Persian king, from it« place in the canonical Ezr, altering Artaxerxes to Camliyses to correct the clironolofjical error ; lie introduces the story of the three pages ; with Es he passes directly from the end of Ezr to Neh 8 ; ana he borrows a good deal of the lanmiage of our book. His preference for it was proualily due to its more elegant Gr. style, and a desire not to omit the additional matter contained in it.

He occa- sionally supplements his authority l)y information derived apparently from the Heb. Ezr ; the indi- cations of his knowledge of the Gr. Es B are too (•light to warrant the supposition that he made any use of that book (but see XI. i. 3, § 15, xpvitTTjpes ; XI. V. 2, § 136). His narrative is worthless as history, since in trying to remove the inaccuracies of his original he has only introduced greater con- fusion hiinself.

Our book is quoted fairly often by the early Christian Fathere, both Or. and Latin. Among Or. Fathers, Clem. Alex. Strom. 1. 392, Potter (itraifd« Zopc^at^iX ^O^.V nXY,ret{ rci/t itTuyattte-ritt, «.T.X.) ; Orijjen, Horn. ix. in Josuam, $ 10, Comm. in Johann, ri. 1 ; EuBcbius, Comm. in Ps. 76, } 19 ; Athanosius, OrtU. cant. Arianot, iL 20. Tertullian, De Cor. Mitit. 9, perhaps refers to 1 Ea &3 ; C^rian, Ep.

74, 9, quotes the jiassoge, ' Veritas nianet et invAleecit in tetemum, et vivit et ol>tinet in sacula sieculoruin ' (iv. 38); and Au^^istine, de Civ. Dei, x\iii. 36, refers to the same passage, suggesting that it may be prophetical of Christ, who is the Truth. No paj>sage has perhaps been more freq. quoted, or misquoted, than iv, 41, Magna est Veritas et praevalet 'Great is truth, and strong above all things' (utwi^vwu). (The patristic references are collected in the Tiibiiujen Theol.

Quartalachrift, 1859, p. 263 sq.) The first writer to throw discredit on the book was Jerome. He refused to translate the ' dreams ' of 3 and 4 Esdrafl. His words are {PratJ. in Kzram)^ 'Tertius annus est quod semper scrihitis atque rescribitis, ut Esdne librum et Esther vobis de Hebraio transferam. .

Nee quenquam moveat quod unus a nobis liber editus est : nee apacry^'horum tertii et q%iaTti $omnii» dcleetetur ; quia et apud Ilebra^os Ezras Nehemi- aique sennones in unum votumen coarctaiitur ; et qua non faaoentur apud illos, nee de viginti qnatuor senibus sunt, procul abjicienda.' Consequently, the Old Latin was left untouched by him, and the book is absent from the older MSS of the Vulg. '^e.g. Cod. Amiatinua).

It was probably owing to the influence of this estimate of Jerome, that the Tridentine Fathers in 1546 excluded 1 Es from the Canon. 1 and 2 Eg, with the Prayer of Manas.ses, are the only books admitted as apocryplial into the Romish Bibles, the rest of our Apocr. oeing declared canonical by the Council of Trent. In modem editions of the Vulg.

tliey form an Appendix, being placed after the NT, with a prefatory note stating that they are placed ' hoc in loco extra scilicet seriem canonicorum librorum . . ne prorsus interirent, quippe qui a UDnnullis Sanctis Patribus citantur, et in aliquibus Itibliis tam manuscriptis quam inipressia reperi- iintur.' In the Eng. Bible our book stands first in the Apocrypha. Relation to the Canonical Ezra.

— On this question, the most interesting \\'hich arises in connexion with the book, the most opposite opinions have been held. The various tiieories resolve themselves into three. 1. It is regarded as a mere compilation from the Gr. of the LXX (2 Ch and Es B). Those books, according to this theory, have been worked over and modified for the sake of Greek readers, to whom the Hebraic style of the LXX version rendered it unintelligible. Such is the view of Keil, Schiircr (in Ilerzog, Encycl. i.

496, ' niicli der Septuiiginta iibersetzung bearbeitet,' and HJP ll. iii. 17711'. Eng. tr.), and Bisscll (in Langc's OT Comm.) In favour of this view it is urged (i. ) that our book often agrees literally with tlie LXX in the Gr. used, even in rare and unfamiliar words; (ii.) that the LXX is often followed in its derintiun/i from the Heb. text; and (iii.) that in tlie case of deviations from both Hob. and LXX, the reatlings of Es A are more easily referred to the latter than to the former.

The best instances of (i.) are Es A 8" A xoi;<^(aat t4« atutprrLai ^pidv = Es B 9" iKoinpiaat itliiir tAs dro/j|at, RV ' punished us less than our iniquities deserve ' ; Es A 9" = Es B IS" ^yer. Xnrd<rMaTo. For (ii.) may be quoted Es A 1'° ical oih-ai t6 vpuivbr = 2 Ch 35" uroi oi'Tut eh t6 irpul, against Heb. 'and so they did with the oxen.' The two Heb.

words 155 ('oxen') and nijia ('morn- ing') are indistinguishable without the vowel points; the agreement need not prove the use of one version by the other. More striking is Es A 1" litr' eiuSlas Kol irifiyeyKay, compared with 2 Ch 35" icai evu5Jj$ri xoi (Spaiiov. This looks like a con- fusion of tiuSiw and evoSbuj ; the Heb. equivalent is 'and in pans.' But here Es renders the Hiphil is-!;i correctly by iTrfiveyKCLv, which tSpanov fails to do, thus showing independent knowledge of the Hebrew.

Compare also Es A l"" voXefKin aiTi» Hrexeipei^ and 2 Ch 35^ dXX' ^ iro\eiieiv avriv iKpa- TaiwO-i), with the Heb. 'disguised himself that he might fight ^vith him.' A comparison of the two books, however, renders it impossible to maintain the view any longer, that Es A is compiled solely from the Gr. of the other books. There are numerous passages where Es preserves the Heb. more closely than the LXX, or points to a dillerent word in the Heb. original.

An examination of all the passages given by Uissell (p. 69) in support of the opposite opinion will show tnat there is not one where Es does not preserve some touch in the Heb. which is missed in the LXX Ezr, which cannot therefore have been the only authority possessed by our author in those parts which agree with the canonical book. It still remains possible that Es A is a mere recension of the canonical books by the help of the Heb. ; but the Gr.

of the two books is of such a ditferent char- acter as to make it improbable that this is the true view of the relation between them. 2. It is regarded as a working over of an earlier Gr. translation of Ch, Ezr, and Neh, but a trans- lation quite distinct from the LXX. This view is held by Ewald {Hist, of Isr. v. 126-128, Eng. tr.) He first gives the alternative that the writer ' was either a translator of the books of Cli, or else found them already translated, and worked up the tr.

,' and then decides for the latter view (p. 128 n.) ' He found the work of the chronicler tolerably freely translated from the original. This tr. was difl'erent from that of the LXX, and no doubt much older.' This theory admits an independent tr. of the Heb. as the basis of the book, but denies that the compiler was himself the translator ; it presuppo.ses a lost Gr. version of Ch, Ezr, Nell. It gives a satisfactory e.\i)Ianation of the coincidences in tr. and deviation from the Heb.

in V,s A and Es B, if we suppose that both are to some extent dependent on a lost Gr. original. We should then have ir the two books a parallel case to the two Gr. versions of Dn, the LXX very para|)hrastic, Theod. fairly literal, both being dependent on ai> earlier version (Smith, Diet. Chnat. Biog. art. ' Theodotion '). 3. It is held to be a direct and independent tr. from the Heb., and from a text in some instances superior to the Massoretic ; Es B was entirely unlinown to the writer.

This view is held by Micliaelis, Trendelenburg (in Eichhom's Allge- meine liibliolhek der bib/, lilt. 1787), Pohlmann (in Tiibingen Qunrtnhrkrift, 1859, p. 2.')7), Herzfcld, Fritzsche, and others. It is simpler than the last, but fails to account for the coincidences in the two books. The question whetlier (2) or (3) is the true view depends also on the date which, on linguistic and other grounds, we are led to a.-isign to the work.

It cannot be said to have lieen yet decided which is right, but (2) appears to satisfy all the requirements of the problem, while (3) doea not. The two translations are of an essentially 760 ESDRAS, FIRST BOOK OF ESDRAS, FIRST BOOK .OF different character. While the writer of Es B bIiows a slavish adherence to the Hebrew, often transliterating his original, and making no pre- tensions to stj'Ie, Es A is marked by a free style of translation, an elegant and idiomatic Gr.

, a happy renilering of Hebraisms, and an omission of dilticulties, which make it a far more readable book than the other. It was clearly intended for Gr. readers unacquainted with Hebrew. Tlie writer was a litterateur in possession of a wide Or. vocabulary. A few instances of hia manner may be jn^en. He consistently translates the phrase ' beyond the river ' (the Persian name for Palestine, Ea B irtpat r«u wotol^u) by K0i;^ii 2vpia xxi ^«i»/xi) (7 times in Ea A ; only 3 times elsewhere, viz.

in the Books of Mac). He writes iyttf to recf^ct for Ch reiiTr ri ifixrix- A good instance of idiomatic Gr. style is 6®- "<> (contrast Es B 4- ). A list of some words peculiar to Ea A In the Gr. OT may not be superfluous. ctxo>^iMit< c. dat. for xmri.

(5 times), itnatytinrTfit (of Ezra, i Uoiut xxi nt»y<iiffT^ r«v ro,ucu = Es B a tiptvf XXI e yptttjLLutTiut, 6 times), ettafx^nr^rtrviratf , ap^noiiif (of Ezra), 0iS>-iO' CvXMXior, Z^UAyoiytgt, tyxaiffxtn^ txrati^u, lu^ri9Uft iiretxsvr-TC(, tTiiiltfS, itpeieuyo! (0 time3 = Es B SecSi^tiu,), liparrotryii, ttpa-iiakrr.t (6 times, Es B otJttvrt;), xtcppot 'a car,' fiipjJa/Jx' (* times), /juris.- ytwirripot, ivo,UAZ»ypetfix, wptLyfuarixif (subst.), m.

L^^pxfiiCii^, nin^apiMff^eti, ru*vovf, 3i« TxXamtv AaXiik, -i^etuxifrlTrif, yp^.ijut- TirTvjpiot. Other words rarely found elsewhere than in this book (which may for the most part be paralleled from Est, Dn, and Mac) are — cttiiptZf 'confiscate,' «^i«uA, atrifiXn'i ioyfitaTi^iii^ lipytir, itxx^Cur, ivmiipBaiffit, imuif^MfVixi 'attack,' i-rinffrarii (ii\. rvcTo^iC), liii^rct, luoSic, liifvr,!

(Es B rz^'^) tlipipof (Es B wu^Mpif), iuLrmkcx'ffC, K»Smi^lffSau, /xmtietMijt, fAiT»>jM^ffU9 vir 0it, aixatoMt, oXoffx^P^^i xrro^pict. Tlie passages which point to a more accurate rendering of the Heb., or a different Heb. original from that tr<i. by the LXX, are collected by Trendelenburg (see also Bissell, 65-69). The foil, instances, partly unnoticed before, may be given : — In the account of the death of Josiah, Es A l'»-2' = 2 Ch 3521M.

Es 1^ iTj ykp TeZ ECifpxm a wiXtfj^if pLw irrtt ; Ch LXX omit; Heb. 'but against the house of my war' ('nDn'?p n'3 Sn). Es apparently read nns (Euphrates) for n'3. The Heb. as it stands is harsh for 'the house with which I have war' ; and Es is a decided improvement. Es 126 ,1, xpofixai^ fnfJjxfif 'liptu-iw rpoi^rau ; Ch LXX «u» ^xM/fi r£w kiya,> Nixa=Heb. Es perhaps read K'5: for "133. 'ItatiMiou is a later insertion ; the Vulg. has non attendens verbum prophet®.'

Es 127 jMt, xxrifiitraf i kpxamf raU fi»fiXim ; Ch LXX »«j iviiivrttt a'l r£orsi iri 0ar. = Heb. Es read ^Ty\ ' and they came down ') for )i^ 'and they shot"). In Ea A 830 xati o-it" atiirav iri ype^f ktipu Immria wtrr^M4ar», the Heb. is more closely rendered (' and with him were reckoned bt/ genralogy 0/ the mdlei') than in t.YY (Es B 8^) tut) fur' m.!naXi r rurTpifx-fjM ». uxi irivr. In »i a Martpii of LXX ia rightly given as AiyCwnai. A writer working on the LXX without the Heb.

could hardly Infer that Ma^tptt stood for 1'ir.T (' the people of Mizraim '). In 8^ ippy>i» ■« ifixTia xMi rr,f itpkt ifd^Tjt, the laat words of the Heb. '7'ysi (' and my mantle are rightly given ; the LXX twice miaconstruea them (9^ A), inpp^tlx rk Ifxaria titv mxi In 87* mm\ iv> mmrk warar « Vfdja iy%iiiBn iXtai ^a.pk rav xupioti, the Heb. phraae yj-JTSl'DJ (' for a little moment ') is rendered, and the paaaive construction kept.

Es B 9^ xcd iifr iwiuxiuran itfjua i fiw, omits the phraae and changes the construction. 8^ ktixx.i4/^aifji,u wctp«0^pei,, and Es B 9'^ irirrpi^itfut iiatrxi- 3««-<u, are independent versions of "ignS 3iEjn (' shall we again break ?'^. ' 8* atf ixpiBr, rat Mai 'aaai wiS^pxiiirmrn rav aifA4u rav Hvpiau, renders the Heb. ('according to the council of my Lord and of those that tremble at the command of our God ') where the LXX (Es B 103) departa from it, »« i> ^v>.

<, i,krrr6i a<^ faiiipirat aiiravf i, itraXjzit liiav «l.u4v. In !l- Ks A pointa to a neat and certain correction of the Hebrew. The LXX (101) runs, «i tTaptvBvi u( >-aC#^A«au»f 'l»ar«> . . xxi iropauSn ixH, where the second iwaptvd^ ia tautological, Ea A haa iwapavHai lit ri wmrrvfapiaa '\ank . . nx'i m.v\iwQu( txu. The compiler clearly read op |S;l ('and he passed the night there") for D; 5lSn. ('and he went there').

The lettera I and 1 are very liable to confusion ; and <t»i/'J«^«« ia the constant rendering of the verb p7 (' to dwell ") in the LXX. 91« Jr.. ^i>«i, if M,,; OOraK ix upvm raivraui, is a literal rendering of the Heb. ('jns '?'lp (-o'l 'and they said with a loud voice') ; LXX Q012) Is again wrong with xxi iTt.. MiV. ralr. ri I ran 19 ^ftMt wtinrma.

These few instances ont of many show beyond a doubt that the compiler, or the author of the version he is using, had a knowledge of the Heb as against the other Gr. version, and that Es A is an important autliority for a critical emendation of the Heb. text. The most recent supporter of the third view, and of the claims of tliis book to attention, is Sir H. H. Howorth, in a series of six articles in W\e Academy for 1893 on ' The real character and the importance of the first book of Esdras.'

His attempt to estab- lisli the historical credibility of the book and its chronological accuracy, as against the canonical Ezra, is beset by numerous difficulties, and cannot be maintained. Thus he regards the Darius who despatched Zerubbabel as Darius II.

Nothus (424), who was a century later than Darius Hystaspes (522), and is forced to date the return under Ezra, and that under Neliemiali, more than half a century later than the dates ordinarily assigned to those events ; he regards Sanabassar or Shesh- bazzar as a distinct person from Zerubbabel ; he says that the misplaced section Es A 2""*' preserves the original order of the Aramaic chronicle from which it is derived ; and he regards tlie story of the three pages as 'equally valuable and worthy of credit with the rest of the book.'

It is lost labour to attempt to reconcile this book with history ; the compJer has put together his materials regard- less of the inconsequences involved. But Sir H. Howorth's views on the relations between the two Gr. books are far more deserving of notice ; he has here been partly anticipated by Pohlmann (op. cit. 273-275). He argues that ' Es A represents the true LXX text ; Es B represents another tr.

, which in all probability was that of Theodotion ' ; and he quotes the parallel of the two versions of Daniel. The existing evidence makes it probable that this view is so far correct, that Es A represents the first attempt to present the story of the Return in a Gr. dress, the story of the three pages being perhaps added by a later compiler. Subsequently a complete and a more accurate rendering of tlie Heb.

was required, and this was supplied by what is now called the LXX version of Ch, Ezr, Neh. Whether this took place so late as the time of Theodotion may be questioned. In favour of the priority of Es A, these points may be noted : — 1. The Position of the Book and its earliest Title in the MSS ('EtrSpas a'). — The explanation usually given is that the events described in it precede in part the events in the LXX Ezr.

It is equally probable that it was assigned the prior position because it was the earlier of the two Gr. versions. 2. The Contents. — These point to a time when Ch, Ezr, and Neh formed one continuous work, and the division into sections had not yet been made. Es A passes without a break from one book to another, and does not contain the redupli- cation whereby the last two verses of Ch are repeated as the first two of Ezra. 3. The Use of Es A by Jose/thus.

— There is no certain evidence of his acquaintance with the other Gr. book, or of its existence before his time. This looks as if he were usin^ the only Gr. materials available to him ; that is, that m the LXX aa known to him this part of the Bible was repre- sented by Es A. 4. During the first five centuries the Christian Fathers quote the book with respect as canonical. It was included in Origen's Hexapla. 5. As shown above, it has in many places pre- served a better Heb.

text than the LXX Ezra. The Original Section (3'-5«).— The source of the story of the tliree pages at the court of Darius is unknown. In what language it was originally written is also doubtful ; but Ewald is prob. right in holding that while the main body of the book is a tr. from Heb., 'on the other hand the work from which he took the story about Zerubbabel was originally composed in Gr.'

At any rate there are ESDRAS, FIRST BOOK OF ESDKAS, FIRST BOOK OF (61 no clear traces of Hebraisms (Fritzsclie a»Iiluces 4 rd SUaia Totet dwit TdKTwv tuiv d5iKujv = i:2 Dp;;'? ■"'rV) and the paronomasia ir{<riy Kui i<p«ny in 4^ points to a Gr. original. The compiler seems to have been acquainted with traditions of Persian history. The account of Darius and Apame the dau};ht«r of Bartacus (4, Jos.

pives his name as 'PajStj'dicTjs, so the Latin versions Bezaces) is perhaps derived from some book of Persian court stories. The presence of Zerubbabel at the court of Diirius is, of course, an anachronism : it was Cyrus who despatched him to Jerusalem. It is noticeable that in 5°, ace. to the most natural construction, it is Joachim the Bon of Zerubbabel wlio spake wise words before Darius. In 4° the speaker is merely called 4 rawleKot {a name hardly suitable to i.)

, and at his first introduction in 4" the third speaker is identified in a parenthesis only 6 rplroj . . oirbt /m-ir Zopo^ci,i(\, which is certainly a lat«r addition. This has led to the conjecture that Joachim was the hero of the story, and that there were two ex- peditions— one in tlie time of Cyrus led by Zerub- babel, one under Darius led by Joachim (Fritzsche and Keuss). But no Joachim is mentioned among the sons of Z. in 1 Ch 3".

These inconsistencies certainly show the composite nature of the book. It would appear that an earlier Pers. story was adopted by the Jews of Alexandria and became attached to Zerubbabel ; the speakers in the original story were Persian courtiers (3* ol aiii)uiTo- <t>v\aK(t). Tue second of the theses maintained by the third speaker — the superiority of the truth — may al.

so be a Jewish addition to the original, thougli the eulogy of truth would not be out of place in a Persian story, since the Persians were taught from boyhood ' to ride, to use the bow, and to ipeak the truth ' (Hdt. L 136). The story !s told in what perhaps was tbonght a more pUaiible way in Josephns {Ant. xi. iii, 2).

There Darius, onable to sleep, proposes a reward to that one of his three pajfea who StuJl i)€at prove his thesis : to the flrst he pives the tliesis, that wine is the stronijest '; to the second, ' the king is the strongest '; to the third, whether women are the strongest or truth ts stronger than they'T The speeches are held on the following day.

In Es the king makes no promise of rewards ; the three pages su^'gest the idea to each other, and while he sleeps they each write the subject which he means to maintain, and put It under the king's pillow for him to find in the morning. The speeches l)efore the Pers. monarch are not unlike the answers of the 72 translators at the court of Ptolemy Philadelphus, as described in the letter of Aristeas.

The applause which CTeets the thlrtl speech (4'), and the feo-iting for seven days with music and ^ladneiw (4i3), may be illustrated from that work. But there is hardly suflicient ground for saying, with Ewald, that * the book of Aristeas must have t)een already known to the author.' The story in Es is a composition of the same class, and probably of the same time as the Aristeas letter.

It shotild be noted that in the third speech there is an allusion to Gn2"(Es 4''" iydpurot Tdi- ^oin-oD warifxi irKaToXelrti . . xal rpis Tr)v ISlav yvratxa coXXaroi). Object of thk Book.— The body of the book appears, as has been shown, to be the earliest version of the work of the Chronicler. It was written to render Gr. -speaking Jews acquainted with the favour which through the Divine Provi- dence was once shown to their nation by foreign monarchs.

The original section (3-4) is perhaps the nucleus of the whole, round which the rest is grouped. One object of the compiler was to give currency to this story, from whatever source, Persian or Jewish, he had derived it. He may also have hod an ulterior object in view. The exaggerated accounts of the munificence of Cyrus and Darius lead us to suppose that he aimed at * The name Apame Is Oriental, though not found till the Macedonian perio<I. No such person occurs among the wives of Darius 1.

The first of the Dame was the wife of Scleucus NIkator, Alexander's general, and daughter of Artahazus ^trabo). Doe this last name give the explanation of the iiaine fiartacus or P«3iC«»*k ? securing to the .lews ' tlie favour of a Ptolemaic oi other heathen power' (Ewald). Time and Place of Compo.sition.— The ex- treme limits between which the book must ba placed are given on the one hand by the date of the composition of the Heb. books of Ezr and Neh, which is fixed as late as B.C.

300(Ryle, Cam. Bible, Introd. xxvi), on the other by the date of Josephus, A.D. 100. Within these rather wide limits it is dillicult to define the time more accur- ately with any certainty. As Fritzsche remarks, the writer h.us kept his own personality in the background and nowhere left any traces of his own time (Einleitung, p. 9). Still there remain a few indications to be mentioned.

The similarity to Aristeas, as we have seen, shows nothing more than that the Zerubbabel story is of the same character and probably the same time as that book (circa B.C. 150). 1. But Ewald notes further (Abhand. iiber d. Sibyll. Bitch, p. 36) that this story was known and referred to by the wTiter of the oldest of tlie Sibylline booKs. Now, this book (iii. of the Sibylline Oracles) is definitely fixed to the reign of Ptolemy Philometor (B.C. 1S1-I46).

In it is an allusion to Persian kings helping forsvard the rebuilding of the temple in consequence of a dream : iii. 293—4, AiStJs yap Swffd Beds (yyvxoy iyyor 6v€ipov, Kal rdre Sij yabs TrdXiy ^fffrereu, ths jrdpos ^y vep. This, in Ewald's opinion, is suggested by Es 3-4. But in Es 4"-" there is no mention of a dream, but only a vow, which influenced Darius.

Still, as the dream is not alluded to elsewhere, it is not improbable that the Sibyllist had some older form of this story before him, from which our Esdras also borrowed. 2. The book has, further, some parallels with the LXX version of Dn and Est. The opening of Es 3 seems to be imitated from the opening of Est 1' : the phrases ^irol-qaey dox'^y, dird ttjs *lydLKrjs p-ixP^ AlBioirlas, and ' the hundred and seventy satrapies,' are common to both. Cf. al.

so Es 3' oi rpeii pLeyicrrayei ttjs Ilfpffloos with Est 1" LXX, Dn 6'^. (Tlie Heb. of Est as also Ezr 7' name seven Persian councillors.) The agreements between Es and Dn LXX are remarkable. Of these the most striking is a clause which they have in common in the account of the treasures which Nebuchadnezzar recovered from Jerus. (Es 2®=Dn 1'^ LXX, Kal dwriptiffaTo ai'rd ^k Ttf (I5a\iip airov).

In this place, since d-jrcpditaOat is an Esdras word, occurring three times in this connexion in Es and nowhere else in Dn, and since elSuiXioy renders the Heb. of Ezr (vriS.j n-j) but not of Dn (i'n*jx ijiiN n'3, Tlieod. fls rbv oXkop Briaavpov Oeov auroC), it would seem that the obliga- tion is on the side of the Dn translator. But, in view of the other parallels between the books, another explanation is more probable, that the translntions are the work of one and the name hand.

In one place the same Aramaic phrase, ' And his house sliall be made a dunghill,' is mis- translated or paraphrased in the same way (K» 6" Kal tA v-ndpxovra avrov tlvai ^affiKiKi, Dn 2* Kal dyaXijfpO i)crtTai vfiutv rd i/Trdpxoyra els rd fiafftXtKdy). It may lie noted that both books are written in an idiomatic Gr.

stylo foreign to most books of the LXX; both are very free translations; both liave interpolations of a similar character (the three pages in Es, tlie three children in Dn) ; the original Heb. of both books has Aramaic sections interspersed in it. If this theory be true, the parallel between the two Gr. books of Es and the two versions of Dn is very close. •The theory has already been 8iiggcst«d by Dr. Ow>nn (Diet Chritt. Bion., f.r. Theodo'tlon, p. 977) ; cf. Dn 2" i^.'Jij.

iCEslH \^,iiim) : i^,A»THu, {pa 2>', Es S") : Dn S>, Es 8^ •; wftyty ^«ia't«. (Dn 33, Es ^^ lAJ only); use of imm c. inf. ia« t» 762 ESDRAS, FIEST BOOK OF ESDRAS, FIRST BOOK OF 3. Graetz {Gesch. der Juden, 1863, p. 445) points to the use of Ototoi in 3'*, and says that the Roman consulate is knowTi to the writer. This would indicate a time later than the first interference of the Komans in the East, i.e. later than B.C. 200. 4.

On the other hand, the term KwXrj Xvpia which so frequently occurs is used in the sense which it bore during the Gr. period, meaning all S. Syria except Phoenicia. Before the coming of the Romans to Palestine (e. B.C. 63, the date of Pompey's taking of Jerus.) this name had acquired a new significance, being restricted to the country E. of the Jordan (G. A. Smith, Hist. Geug. p. 538).

The way in which this phrase is used appears, therefore, to afford certain proof that the book is at least as old as the first half of the last century before the Christian era. Whether it goes back to the 2nd cent. B.C. is more uncertain. 5. That such is the case is the opinion of Herz- feld {Ges. d. Volk. Isr. 1863, vol. ii. p. 73), who dates it before the Maccabiean wars, on the ground that after that date, when the books of Ezr and Neh had become canonical (Ryle, Cam. Bible, Ezr. and Neh.

Ixv), a translator would not have been bold enough to excerpt and rearrange materials from those books. 6. This view is also supported by Lupton, who has an ingenious theory as to the occasion when the book was written. He regards it as edited at the time (B.C. 170) when Onias, having fled from the persecution in Pal. under Antiochus Epiphanes, Petitioned for leave from Ptolemy Philometor to uUd a temple for the Alexandrian Jews at Heliopolis on the site of a ruined Egyp. temple of Bubastis.

At that time 'a work which described the rebuilding of the temple, and the beneficence of foreign kings to the work, and which also introduced the story of Josiah, slain in an invasion of Syria by the Egyptians, would have a special interest.' The account of the building of the Egyp. temple {^ixotov ti^ 4v 'l6po(ro\i5/toi5, fUKpbrcpov S^ Kal irepixpirepoi') is given in Jos. Ant. XIII. iii. 1 ; the reader is referred to the interesting remarks of Lupton {Speaker's Comm., Apoc. vol. i. 11-14).

This is, of course, no more than conjectural, and it is unsafe to base any argument upon it ; if the theory about the relation to the LXX Dn be correct, the date given is rather too early. The limits within which the book may be placed may be taken to be B.C. 170-100. Most editors, how- ever, assign it to the Ist cent. B.C. (De Wette, Ewaid, Fritzsche).

As to the place where the compiler lived, the character of the translation seems to show that it was written for Alexandrian Jews rather than for natives of Palestine, for whom the original Hebrew of the Chronicler would suffice. One sfight allusion in 4^^ to ' sailing upon the sea and upon the rivers ' for the purpose of ' robbing and stealing ' is thought to point to Egypt.

Certain small peculi- arities of the language also indicate Alexandria as the place of writing : ol 0iXoi toC ^aaMais (8-') takes the place of Es B ol ffVfj.8ov\oi {ol vpCrroi <p[\oi were tne third in the scale of courtiers at tlie Alexandrian court) : in 2'* &v ipalfriral aoi is inserted. The phrase Mr <paiirqTa.i (' if it seem good ') occurs in Aristeas (in Merx' Archiv, i. 1870, p. 19), and repeatedly in Egyptian papyri.

Fritzsche, on the otlier liand, concludes that the writer was a Palestinian from his knowledge of sites in Jerusalem, referring to 5'" e/s t4 dpixupov ToC Tpuyrov vvKCtvoi toD Trp6s r% dvaroX^ ( = E8 B eis 'lepoucroXii^). Cf. also 9* ^jri t4 fvpvx<^pop toO irpAs AMSr (Dn 8>», Es SfX); ««^<« = 'to bum" (Dn 8»8, Es «»') ; A VwDi (Dn 4" 6», E8 IM) ; fji^„i,r,i (Dn 6', Es 3« only) ; Dn 61, Es 31 ; use of imimif (8u» 61», Es 8"). The parallels are chiefly in the first six chapters of Dn. &vaTo\&.

s Upou TrvXajvos (=:Neh 8* tit r6 rXdrof ri (^irpocrdev ttvXtjs toO ifdaros). MSS AND Text.— Es A exists in two out of the three oldest MSS of the LXX, viz. Cod. Vaticanus (B) and Cod. Alexandrinus (A). It is not found in either of the portions of the Sinaitic MS (k) discovered by Tischendorf (Cod. Friderico- Augustanus and Cod.

Sinaiticus Petropolitanus) j but this is perhaps due only to the fact that that MS is incomplete, and, except for some few frag- ments of the Pent, and a portion of 1 Ch, contains in its present form no part of the OT earlier than Es B 9, after wliich it is fairly complete. There has been a curious error in connexion with the Esdras books ; 13 chapters of 1 Ch having been apparently inserted in the middle of Es B. Cod. Sin. -Pet. contains one leaf with 1 Ch gs7_ii22 . Qoi_ F.-A.

has four more leaves headed Es B, but in reality containing 1 Ch 11*'-19"; but in the fourth column of the verso of the fourth leaf we suddenly pass in the middle of a line with no break from Cn (/coi ivoKi/iriiriv aurbv) to Es B 9^ {kI 6 Si rj^iMV Kal (kK^v^v i(f> ijfiais Aeos). A note at the bottom of that leaf in a later hand calls attention to the seven superfluous leaves that are ' not of Esdras ' {rd t^Xos tQv iirTo. <pvk\uv tS ireptdffCiv If ^Tj tvTtjjv Tov iabpa).

Of these seven leaves we now possess five ; and reckoning back we find that the divergence must have begun about 1 Ch &" (list of the sons of Aaron). This error, whereby fragments of 1 Ch have been inter- polated into the middle of Es B, is probably due to ' a mistake in binding in the copy from which the MS was transcribed ' (Westcott, Bible in the Church, p. 307, Append. B) ; a less probable explanation is given by Lupton (Introd. p. 1).

The presence of the title Es B is not sufficient by itself to prove, as Lupton supposes, that Ee A ever stood in Cod. k ; since the same MS con- tains only the first and fourth books of Maccabees with the headings iuikk. a, /uikk. S', and the two intervening books certainly never found a place in the MS. An interesting problem is presented by the relation of the texts of Codd. A and B in this Dook.

The text of A is always the smoother and more readable ; and wherever the reading of E suggests a suspicion of corruption, A almost invariably gives the requisite correction. Several of these corrections may be attributed to an Alexandrian revision of the text, removing grammatical solecisms and harsh phrases ; such are 130 iSpv'«vi (B idpyitturact), 133 etrixarirrriTlt ai/rit . . rtv ;>i jSeu-tXtuur (B om. rev /[»)), 161 yi rxiit] iu^MTou(h rkt mBaiToCf), 31* •» Kpint) . .

»Ti i ^oy»c cuTcv rafvTtpos (B » a tipirti . . trt ov i k. tci/Tou fe^.), 338 llBXtTon Iri^C vpo! TO, 'iripef (B l7f rir Vti^o), 812 ixoXotfiav ii< ixti ' r£ refj^M (6 «»>\. i ixtt tofiM). But in Other places it is hard to suppose that A does not preserve the original text. Thus 122 (24; ,(„; i\Crr)fatt moret I OLirHiru (' they grieved him to the heart,' a phrase illustrated by Jth 1617 ; B xai i i>.Cmrm a.C'rev iirr't), 1*1 Joachim at his accession fir irit iiiut imrii (ct.

2 Ch 3fp, B ^u irur enrtii), 4^ ri, pixoy 0, iiiirvpirett »1 '12«uuarM (B 'louiccioi), 6^ jucrs ri wpcrrxyfMt (B xai ri wpc^r.), S"*! twi rit Al>-cul,ov Stpetr wormfjut (B om. ^ukv). 8^ Ka.1 x^titiXm rtti rpi-^iuputTat (B Ko-riruitt rev rei^.) Fritzsche (Einleituna, 1851, § 8) remarks that B is on the whole a ver^ pure ana A an emended text ; but it Is noticeable that m his subsequent critical edition (Lihri Apocryphi Vet. Te«t.

1871J in the pas- sages given above and in numerous others he adopts the reading of A and abandons ' the pure text of B.' Still more noticeable is it that the earliest author to quote Es A supports the A text against the B.

It is not always possible to reconstruct the text which Josephus used owing to his habit of paraphrasing the authority which lay before him ; but out of 13 passages in thij book where a comparison is possible, in 10 he agrees with A against B, while in three only does he side with B against A Jos. Ant. W.m.Bvpestrtc^trc'ui 'Ihauf^ceiou . . kjtitat. rkf ttMt4M4 (Es 4^ ««< <»s i 'lioVfMCici et^ienrit rkt K^fjmt, B ei \aXict)oi). XI. iv. 1 rev i,i2o(My fx^iot (Es 5^- ifiii^uou, B T^flirow), XI.

iv. 6 Ktt'i tvpiH. if 'Exfietrtifoit rt) 0apv Tfi if Mfiii^ &ifiKief. • £ jt.r.A. (Es 6^ «. iit. if 'Kjk3- r^ 0<ipu r^ f> M,;2|jfi X'i'P^ rouet iTr iv or ... B rtwti i» i- A preserves the indefinite article ; cf. Es B 6^ xtfxkii f*''tt ; B is a corruption of the Oreek of A^ ; x^ t. 1 atfifiyjutfi iiptt ri 'XcpatnXirit 0|« (Es 813 mntlytujf iSpm rm twpiat rev ,rX, B rf twpiv) ; id. KckAffDiirefrmt i' hrei Setteir^ 4 Ct;.

u/« xfifiMtrixH (Es 82l fuKetrBrifftfreti lar r\ ssj 0«,wt« idc n Mt rtf^Mpi». fl ecpyvptxri ^r^f^p ] ^rayetyfj : B fii i^yvp., CI^V A is undoubtedly best) ; XI. v. 2 fvfityetymf v< ri ripxf rev h^v^pt^rtm (did Joa. read iwi re kiyofMfer wipaf wtrmusv in Es 8^ ? A 4^1M TcT«u6*, B wvTaLu.ef) ; vl. rixvpev< iaiiixa. virip xairiif rev X««S ESDRAS, SECOND BOOK OF ESDRAS, SECOND BOOK OF 76S rmr^f•t^t, Mfiitvt itif^xtfvrs, x.c.>.

with A in Es S^ (6 omiU a line throu^'h confusion, perhaiw, of KTPId and KPIOTI); ll. ». 8 TbeM instances fonn a strong argument (or the early exist- ence ii not the ori^n&lity of the A text. The chief passage where Joe. appeara to favour B ij Es 6^ (B xa< r « ^ « rttt Juimtiut CAJ Tvpttic u( r» watpxytii ; A Mppa e ' cars ' ; Jos. XL ir. 1 Tttt VI 2titfit*tt ni'u Mai ««i>^«f lir . . marxyMjrit). On the MSS generally see Fritzache, Einleitung, §8. Of VSS, Sabatier prints two Lat.

versions, one of whicU he calls the Vulg., and a ' versio altera' ('ex MS Colbertino annonuu circiter 800'). In reality they appear to be two distinct VSS of the O.L. Jerome left the O.L. untouched, and the Lat. now given in the Appendix to the Vulg. is not his work. A third Lat. version of Es A 3-^ (abbreviated) and of a few verses elsewhere in the book is given in Lagarde {Septuaginta Studien, ii. 1892) from a MS in the cathedral of Lucca written about 670.

Tlie book did not exist in the Peshifta Syriac, but is found in the Syro-Hexaplar of Paul of Telia (A.D. 616) ; the Syriac is given in Walton's Polyglot, 1657. There is a free render- ing of the book in the Armenian version. LrnRATCWL— Fritzsche, Eifget. Handb. z. d. Apokr. I. CLeipzig, 1851), Introd. and Uomm. ; Fritzsche, Libri Apocr, Vtt. Tat. grace (Leipzig, 1871), a crit. ed. of the text ; Zockler, Die Apokryphen, 156-161 (in Strack und Z6ckler*8 Kqjf, Komm, 1889) ; Schiirer, HJP, Eng. tr.

n. iil. 177-181 ; Ewald, Hist, oj It., Eng. tr. t. 126-128. Special treatises on the relation between Ea A and Es B ; Trendelenburg (in Eichhorn's AUgemnne BiUiotlifk der Bibl. LUt. 1. 178-232, Leipzig, 1787) ; Pohlmann, ' Ueber das Ansehen des apokr. dritten Buchs Esras, In Tubingen Theol. (^uartaUchrift, 1859, 267-276). In English the best edd. are Bissell (in Lan);e's Comm. on OT 1880) and LaptOD in The Speaker^e Comm., Apocrypha, vol. 1. 1888.

A ■eriefl of papers on ' The Character and Importance of 1 Esdras,' by Sir H. II. Iloworth in the Academj/, 1803, vol. 43 (pp. 13, 60, 108, 174, 326, 624). Jos. Ant. xi. 1-5 (Niese). For further references see Schurer. H. Sx, J. ThaCKBRAV. ESDRAS.SECONDBOOKOF.— Title.— The title which this book bears in the English Apocrypha is derived from the opening words of ch. i.

, 'the second book of the propliet Esdras ' ; but it is more commonly known by the name which is given it in most Latin MSS, 'The/ourtA book of Esdras.' The variation in the titles of the books of Esdras is due to two causes — (1) The adoption of the Latin name Esdras in the Vulg. for the canonical EzT and Neh ; (2) the composite nature of this book, the first two and tlie last two chapters being later additions to the orig. work, and reckoned by the MSS as separate books.

The most frequent arrangement in the MSS is 1 Es = Ezr-Neh ; 2 Ea = 2E8l. 2; 3E8=1 Es ; 4E8 = 2E8 3-14; 5E3 = 2Es 15. 10. The central portion of the book bears every number from one to four. The original Greek had probably no number attached to it. Two suggestions have been made for the original title — (li'Kfpof A rpoi^Ti)!, adopted by Hilgenfeld in his restoration of the Greek, and based on a quotation of Clem. Alex, from 'EtrSpat i ttdo^tJ- Tiji, and of Ambrose from ' propheta Ezra' (Afcss.

Jud. 18). The title would then be parallel to A lepfiJt attaclied to 1 Esin Cod. A. (2) Airo<d\i>i|tit "EirJpo, suggested by Dr. Westcott, and found in a catalogue of the 60 books, canonical and apocry- phal, made in Asia (Westcott, Canon', 559). Tlie title is far the most suitable to the contents of the book, but has already become appropriated to a later and inferior Greek Apocalyjjse published by Ti.schen<loi f (Ajmcal. Apocri/pha, 1800). Original Imnouaoe and Ver.sions.

— The original language of 2 Es was undoubtedly Greek j two quotations from the Greek exist, Clem. Alex. Strom, iii. 16. 100 (= 2 Es 5"), and Apost. Con- ttitut. viii. 7 (=2 Es 8"). Otherwise we possess the book only in versions. The Latin version abounds in Grecisms, such as the use of the com- parative with the genit. (' honim maiora,' 'omnium maior,' etc.), the genit. abs. (10"), the prepositions ad and pro with the inf. (7'" IS**), e/<! and ea followed by the genit.

, the double negative (• nihil nemini,' ' nunquam nemo '), redundant prepositions after verbs ('timere a,' 15'; ' niultiplicare super,' 9"). The theory of a Ueb. original, of which the Greek was a tr°, has now been given up ; one Hebraism, which, however, had become naturalized in Greek, is of constant occunence, namely, the use of the participle with a finite tense of the same verb {e.g. e.xcedens exces.sit, 4'' ; proticiscens pro- fectus sum, 4'^).

The popularity which this book has enjoyed is shown by the number of versions that have been made of it. For many years the text of t/ie Latin depended on a few MSS, Codex Sangermanensia (S, A.D. 822), Cod. Turicensis (T, 13th cent.) Cod. Dresdensis (D, 15th cent.), which presented a text from which it m as clear that a considerable section was missing between w. 35 and 36 of the 7th chapter. iThe other versions contained 70 addi- tional verses in this place. In 1865 Prof.

GUde- meister discovered that this ' missing fragment ' had once been contained in Cod. S, from which a leaf had been purposely cut out in early times ; and drew the certain and imijortant conclusion that all MSS of 4 Es which do not contain the passages were ultimately derived from Cod. S. The discovery of this missing fragment was made by K. L.

Bensly, who in 1874 found a MS of the 9th cent, in the Bibliotkiaue Communale of Amiens containing the entire Latin text ; he thus had the unique distinction of adding a chapter to the Apocrypha, for hitherto the verses in the Oriental VSS had not been universally considered genuine. An account of the MS and its discovery, with a full commentary on the new passage, was published by him in the following year (The Missing Fragment of the Fourth Book uf Ezra, Camb. 1875).

It sub- sequently apjjeared that he had been anticipated in the discovery, for a transcript of the lost pas- sage, made in 1826 from a Siianish MS, was found among the papers of Prof. Palmer : this was not published till 1877 (Journ. of Fhilol'igi/, vol. vii. 'Mi\. The excision of 7"'"'"^ was probably inudc for dogmatic reasons. The verses contain a lie- scripti'Ui of tlie intermediate state of souls, :ind an emphatic denial of the etlicacy of intercessions for the dead (v.'"")

, a passage which called forth a severe reproof from Jerome (' Tu . . proponis mihi librum apocryphum, qui sub nomine Esdxje a te et siniilibus tuis iegitur : ubi scriptum est, quod post mortem nullus pro aliis audeat deprecari : quern ego librum nunquam legi,' Cont. Vigilant, c. 7), and this estimate not improbably accounts for the di.sappearance of the section from Cod. S. The number of known MSS which give a complete text of 2 Es has now been increased, through the dis- coveries of M.

Berger, to five. A complete text of the book, based on four of these M.SS and Cod. S, has at length been edited from IJenslys papers, with an introd. by Dr. James (Texts and Htudies, iii. 2, Camb. 1895) ; while the missing fragment has been restored to its place in the Eii'dish Bible in the Revision of the Apocryjiha. The Latin MSS fall into two groups: (1) those which pre- serve a French text. S (Sangernianensis) once in the Abbey of S. Germain des Priis, now in the Bibl. Nat.

Paris, 11504-5, Konds Latin, dated A.D. 822, the oldest extant MS, and the parent of numerous later MSS, and A (Ainbianensis), Amiens, Bibl. Comm. 10, cent, ix., containing a text very similar to but independent of S, and agreeing with the quotations of Gildas the Briton in his Epistle (Otii cent.) ; (2) a Spanish text, perha|is traceable to Priscillian (Texts ajidHtw/ics, xxxvi.), represented by three MSS. C (Complutensis), umw at Miidrid, cent, ix., from which Prof.

Pahnui 764 ESDRAS, SECOND BOOK OF ESDRAS, SECOND BOOK OF copied the missing fragment in 1826. M (Mazar- inseus), Paris, Bwl. Mazarine, 3, 4, cent, ix.-x., discovered by M. Berger. V (Abulensis), Madrid, Bibl. Nac. E. R. 8, cent, xiii., a copy of C, dis- covered by M. Berger, and a fourth, not yet fully collated, out probably belonging to this group. L (Legionensis), at Leon, of tlK year 1162.

For one section of the book, the Confessio Esdra; (S^*"), which was often copied in collections of Cantica, an additional group of MSS exists. The two groups ditl'er most widely from each other in the mterpolated cliapters (1. 2, 15. 16). An ex- amination of their relative values in these chs. has been made by Dr. James (T. and S. xliv.- Ixxviii.), from which he concludes that in 1. 2.

the Spanish form of text is more accurate than the French, which has corrected the text to agree with the canonical Scriptures, whereas in 15. 16 the Spanish is on the whole an emended text, and in IS'^-ie'- A, which has the support of Gildas, is to be preferred to S C M. The other versions agree in omitting the inter- polated chapters at the beg. and end (1. 2. 15. 16). Of tlie.

se the best is the Svriac, which exists only in a celebrated MS of the Peshitta in the Ambro- sial) Library, Milan, B. 21 Inf. The Syriac was edited by Ceriani in 3[onnmenta Sacra et Pro/ana, vol. v. fasc. 1 (1868), and tr^ into Latin in vol. i. fasc. 2 of the same work (1866). There are two independent Arabic versions : Ar.' in an Oxford MS (Bodl. 251, A.D. 1354), of which an English tr° was made by W.

Whiston for his Primitive Chris- tianity Eeviv'd, 1711, and the Arabic text was edited by Ewald in 1863 (Ahhandl. der Kbnigl. Gesellsch. d. Wissensch. zu Gottingen) ; and Ar.' preserved in toto in a Vatican MS Arab. 462, and in part in Bodl. 260. The Ethiupic version was first published in 1820 by Dr. Richard Laurence from a Bodleian MS (Mih. 7). Dillmann collected readings from other MSS, which are given at the end of Ewald's ed. of the Arabic. The Syr. Ar. Eth.

versions were probably all made directly from the Greek ; the Armenian, however, given in Zohrab's ed. of the Armenian Bible (1805, Venice) was perhaps from the Synac. A reconstruction of the Greek has been made by Hilgenfeld in his Messias JudcB- orum. Contents. — The original Apocalypse (3-14) consists of a series of revelations or visions given to Ezra by an angel. \tt Vifion, Si-6»>. Eir», In captivity at Babvlon In the thirtieth year after the destruction of Jerus.

[the date is nearly a century too early], recounta God's favours to Isr. in their earlier history, and while admitting their 'evil heart,' yet com- plains of their subjection to Babylon, which is more wicked than they (ch. 8). The angel Uriel replies that E. should not enquire into things beyond his understanding. E. pleads with the angel as Abraham did at Mamre (' If I have found favour in thy sight,' 4**; cf.

Gn 181), and asks, further, whether the time that is past exceeds the time to come ; and is told that it is so. The signs of the end Ar« given, 61-1^ ; and he is ordered to fast for seven days. 2ftd Vision, 621-6W. E. renews his complaints, and Is told why God 'doeth not all at once' so as to hasten the judgment ; an<f of the degeneracy of the world, which cannot produce such children as of old '(.^i^ff-). The next world is to follow this as closely as Jacob followed Esau from the womb (610).

More 6igiis of the end follow, and E. il a^ain bidden to fast for seven days. 3r(f Vimon, 6S»-9». E. recounts the works of creation. In- cluding the creatures Behemoth and Leviathan, who were re- served to be meat for the saints (6»-i^ (this idea is met with also in Enoch 60', Apoc. Bar 29] ; and asks, why, if the world was made for us, we do not possess our inheritance. He is tnid that the narrow way must be traversed before the large room of the next age be attained (71-*8).

Then follows a picture of the Messianic a^e, the appearance of ' My Son ' [or * Mv Son .lesus' : the nanie is omitted in the Oriental versions] witli His attendants, their reign of 400 years, succeeded by the death of ' .My Son Christ ' and all linnp, and the return of the world for Bevrn days into 'the old silence," and then the resurrection (7«>-S5). The ' missing fragment ' describes the pit of torment and the paradise of deliglit over-against it : ineffectual inter- cession of E.

for the wicked, leading him to exclaim that the beasts are more fortunate than man : the seven ways of punish ment for the wicked, and the ' seven orders ' of blessings fol the righteous : the seven days' respite after death, before tb souls are gathered to their habitations : and the severe declara- tion of the inelficacy of intercr-s.sion for the departed (786.108)^ K. says it were better if Adam had never been born {' O tu quid fecisti Adam," cf. Apoc. B;ir48), but acknowledges Clod's mercy.

Ch. a contains the same theme, Many are created, but few shall be saved,' and fresh intercession in the Confessio Esdro. In answer to the question. When shall the end be? fresh isigns are given. 4tA i wion, 9»-1060. E. eats of the herbs in the Beld ol Ardat, and sees a vision of a woman mourning for her son, who died on his marriage day. The woman, he is told, is Sion lamenting the fall of her city, and her tliirty years* sterility re- presents the 3000 years before Solomon iiuilt the city.

The city in building, which appears after the woman vanishes, is the heavenlv Jerusalem whicii is to replace the earthlv. bth V'im>n, 111-1239. Of the Eagle (Rome) with 12 wings and 8 little wings {contraricB pemwe) and 3 heads, which bear rule in turn, until sentence is pronounced on the eagle by a lion (the Messiah), and it is burnt up. A partial interpretation is given of the vision. Uh Vision, 131-68.

a man (the Messiah) arises from the sea, and graves for himself a mountain (Sion) : his enemies collect to fight against him, and are burnt up : and he gathers to him ' a peaceable multitude,' i.e. the ten lost tribes, who are to return from Arzareth (i.s. * another land' ninx Y^K, cf. Dt 2921). Ith Vision, 141-47. E.

is told he is to he taken from men ; and to console the people for his departure, he in forty days writes ninety-four books (the twenty-four canonical books of the OT that were lost, and seventy books of mysteries for the wise among the people). The interpolation at the beginning (1. 2), "written in an anti-Jewish spirit, contains a reproof of the Isr. for their desertion of God, and threatens the transference of God's favours from them to the Gentiles. The concluding chs. (15.

16) are not of an apocalyptic character, but a denunciation of woe on the nations of the world (Egypt, Asia, Babylon) in the style of the OT prophets. Both sections have numerous reminiscences of the NT (e.g. l*'-'»=Mt 23"- » l»» = Lk 11«'», 2" 'taber- nacula a;tema ' = Lk 16', 2" = Mt 7' and 25", 2»«- "" = Rev7"''», 16"^- = 1 Co7^»-). Character and Date. — The book is written in a tone of deep despondency, and offers a marked contrast in this respect to the Book of Enoch.

The prospect of ultimate triumph and blessedness is almost lost in dismal forebodings about the im- mediate future and the destiny of the world.

The time and place in which the scene is laid demanded that this should be so ; but the meaning of this despairing tone is greatly enhanced if we suppose that recent events are referred to, that Jerusalem was in ruins at the time when it was written, and that the whole work portrays the hopeless outlook of the Jew after the terrible events of the year A.D. 70.

Hence the gloomy picture of the few that shall be saved (8'), tlie dying of the Messiah and all that draw breath (7^), the discussion of the problem of the origin of evil ('quare cor malig- num,' 4*), the oft-repeated cry that it were better not to be born, or to be without consciousness of our doom like the beasts (7«2-i" 4H 53i> c"), the con- solation to be found in the permanence of the law (9") though the city is gone. The date of the book has been the subject of much controversy.

It is obviously not a genuine work of the time of Ezra, as is shown, e.g., by the error in Ezra's date (3') and the allusion to the Book of Daniel (12"-"). An ultimate limit is given by the quotation of Clem. Alex, from it referred to above (A.D. 200). Internal notices must fix it more nearly. Hilgenfeld adduces for the earlier date (B.C. 30) 6' ' Finis huius sa-culi Esau,' whicli he thinks proves the time of writing to be the reign of the mumsean Herod.

But Edom is found in Rabbinical literature equally as a de- • This name (In the Arm. Ardab) is explained by Rendel Harris as a corruption of (Kiriath) Arba, the old name of Hebron, which is the scene of the visions of Baruch in the sister Apocah-pse (Rest of the Words of Baruch, 15). The oak (HI) is the terebinth of Mamre. Hilg. takes it to mean Arpad (•Am«t, 2 K IS*").

ESDllAS, SECOND LOOK OF ESDRAS, SECOND BOOK OF 765 signation of Rome ; and the Herodian dynasty, if that is referred to, lasted on througli the hrst century of our era. He also draws an argument from the description of the twelve ages of the World, of which ten and a half are past (14"), taken in connexion with 10" (Solomon built the temple in the year of the world 3uiW), from which he ciileulates about B.C. 30 as the date (Mens. Jud.

104) ; but the description of the world-ages is too uncertain (the Syr. omits the verses) to base any inference upon it. Another argument for the early date is that a Jew, writing after the death of Christ, would not have introduced a prophecy of the death of the Messiah (7^) which would have been employed against him by Christians.

No inference can be drawn from the signs of the end (S'"- 6'*"- 9') as applicable rather to the por- tents that preceded the battle of Actium than to those in the time of Vespasian. On the otlier band, the allusion to the pulling down of tlie walls of Jerus. (11" ' humiliasti muros eorum qui te non nocuerunt') was true of Titus, but not of the capture of the city by Pompey in B.C. 63. But the question of the date really depends upon the interpretation given to the Eagle Vision.

Tlie details given al)out the reign of the several wings show that historic facts are here alluded to ; the interpretation which follows the vision is perhaps purposely ob.scure, and does not help much as to the solution of it.

The vision describes the reign of 12 feathered wings,' 8 subordinate wings, and 3 heads — in all, of 23 kings ; the attempt to take the %ving8 in pairs, each pair re- presenting a single king, their number being so reduced to 10 (Volkmar), is opposed to the inter- pretation given to Esdras (12' ' regnabunt xii reges, unus post unum,' 12* ' exsurgent octo rejjes '). The follomng points are to be borne in mind in the interpretation (Schiirer, HJP III. ii. 100).

(1) The autlior writes during the reign of the third head, in which the Me-ssiah is to appear ; the subsequent reign of the two last subordinate wings is not history, but prophecy. (2) The second wing reigns more than twice as long as any of the rest (11"). (3) Several wings do not get so far as to reign, and represent pretenders only. (4) The wings and heads all belong to one and the same kingdom. (5) The first head dies a natural death (12^) ; the second is murdered by the third, who al.

to is to die by the sword (11*° 12^). Three main explanations are proposed — (i.) The wings repre- sent Uome under the Kings and the republic, and the 3 heads are Sulla, Pompey, and Caesar ; the date of the work is shortly after Ciesar's death (Laur enee, Van der Vlis, LUcke). This view has no probability. Early Roman history would have no interest to a Jew, and there is great diificulty in adapting the 8 minor wings to the period before Sulla, (ii.)

Hilgenfeld's view, that tiie wings re- present the Greek empire reckoned from Alexander, either, as he first held, the line of the Ptolemies {Jud. Apokalyptik, 217 0".), or, according to his later theory, tiiat of the Seleucidoo (Mess. Jud. liv ff.) : in either case the three heads are Cffsar, Antony, and Octavian, anil the book was written directly after Antony's death in B.C. 30, thirty years after the capture of Jerus. by Pompey (cf. 2 Ks 3' ' in the thirtieth year').

It is true that in 2 Es 11" the eagle is compared to the fourth bea.st of Daniel (7' = the tJreek empire); but the fourth kingdom was often referred to the Romans. The chief objections to this view are — (I) The heads and the wings must all refer to a single kingdom, not to a combination of Roman and Creek rulers; (2) the rule of the second in the dynasty, whether Ptolemy I. Lagi or Seleucus i.

Nikator, was not more than twice the length of any succeeding reign ; (3) Cnesar was assassinated, and did not die in his bed, as the first head is said to have done. (iii.) It is now the generally accredited view, and it has most arguments in its favour, that the book sliould be dated in the reign of Domitian (a.D. 81- 9U). So Gfrorer, Dillmann, Volkmar, Ewald, Schiirer, and others. Tlie eagle represents Im- perial Rome, the line of the emperors beginning with J. C;esar.

The second wing is certainly to be identified with Augustus, who, reckoning from his first consulate, held rule for 56 years (B.C. 43- A.D. 14), i.e. more than twice the time of any of his successors. The three heads with equal pro- bability are referred to the Flavian emperors : Ves[«isiau died on his bed in torment (Suet. Vesp. 24 ; 2 Es 12-") ; Titus was commonly believed to have been murdered by Domitian. The difficulty lies in supplying the twenty rulers to precede Vespasian.

The following proposals are made — (1) Gfrorer takes the twelve greater wings to be tlie first nine emperors, Caesar to Vitellius, with three usurpers, Vindex, Nymphidius, and Piso Licini- anus : the eight lesser wings are petty kings and leaders in Pal. (Herod the Great, Agrippa I., Eleazar, John of Gischala, Simon Bar Giora, John the IdumKan, Agrippa 11., and Berenice : the last two attached themselves to Rome in the war).

(2) Schiirer agrees as to the twelve, but regards six of the lesser wings (the last two being matter of propliecy) as Roman generals who laid claim to the empire in the years of disorder, A.D. 68-70. (3) Wieseler takes tne eight subordinate wings to mean the Herodian dynasty, vassals of Rome (Antipater, Herod I. and his three sons, Archelaus, Antipas, Philip, Agrippa I. and II., and Berenice).

(4) Ewald, who is followed by Drummond (Jetcish McsKiah, 107), takes the twelve wings to be the twelve emperors up to Domitian : the eight little wings are the eignt emperors among these who reigned less than ten years (Domitian included, for whom a short reign was anticipated), and the three heads are the Flavian princes, reckoned a third time under a difi'erent aspect.

The double and triple repetition of the same names is unsatis- factory ; Schiirer's view (2) appears on the whole the most free from objection. The simpler theory, on the other hand, of Gutschmid and Le Hir {Eludes lUbliques, i. 184(1".), that twenty-three actual emperors are intended, the three heads being Sept. Sevenis, Caracalla, and Geta, is shown to bo wrong by the fact that the book was quoted by Clem.

Alex, at an earlier date than these emperors, and can be maintained only by supposing an interj>oIation, of which there is no sign in the Eagle Vision. In considering the date, reference should be made to a companion volume to 2 Esdras, which curiously reproduces the language and visions of that book, namely, the Apocalypse of liaruch, first pub. in 1866 by Ceriani from a Syr. MS at Milan {Mon. sacra et pruf., torn. i. fasc. ii., and torn. v. fasc. ii. ; also in Fritzsche, Libri Apiicr. V.T.

654). It also is a product of the Jewish literature called forth by the events of A.U. 70, but written before tlie final destruction of Jerus. in 133, which is not foreseen (Apoc. Bar 32 ; Jerus. is to l)e rebuilt, and then again destroye<i [A.D. 70] for a time, and then rebuilt for ever). The similarities in tone and language with 2 Es are so striking that Ewald as- cribed it to the same naithor. Tlie general belief now held is that Banicli is the later, and has u.sed Es, because, e.g..

Bar corrects the crude notions of Es about original sin (cf. Es 7"* ' O tu quid fecisti Adam ?

si eiiim tu peccasti non est factum soliua tuns casus sed et nostrum,' with Bar 54, ' Non est ergo Adam causa nisi animn^ sua; tantum ; noa vero unusquisque fuit anima- sun; Adam'): and whereas Ezra complains that Jems, should at least 766 ESDRAS, SECOND BOOK OF ESHCOL have been punished by the hands of God (5**), Bar accordingly represents it as destroyed by four angels before the entry of the Chaldiean army (6-8).

Some of the parallels are tlie division of each book into seven scenes, separated in most cases by intervals of seven days of fasting : the division of time into twelve parts (Bar 27 = Es 14") : the legend of Behemoth and Leviathan (Bar 29 = Es 6") : the prayer of Baruch (48, cf. the Confessio Esdrae 8') : the importance of Adam's transgression, prefaced in each by ' O quid fecisti Adam?' (Bar 48 = Es 7"): the vision of a cloud ascending from the sea (Bar 53, cf.

Es 13) : the permanence of the law though the teachers de- part (Bar 77, cf. Es 9") : the interest in the lost tribes, to whom Baruch sends a letter of consola- tion (78-86, cf. Es 13"), besides frequent minute resemblances of language. The writing is a characteristically .Jewish work in its apocalyptic form, its knowledge of .Jewish traditions (Belieraoth, etc.), its interest in the ten tribes, and its deep concern in the fate of Jeru- salem.

There is no ground for supposing that the author was a Jewish Christian : there is a marked contrast between the Christian interpolations (1-2, 15-16, and the insertion of the name Jesus in 7*) and the remainder of the book. The place of writing is given as Rome (Ewald) or Alexandria (Hilgenfeld, Ixii, and most edd.), from which the added chapters certainly emanate ; this would account for the earliest quotation bein^ found in Clem. Alex. On the other hand, the fall of Jerus.

would be more impressive to a Palestinian Jew than to an Alexandrian ; and the geography (if Ardat is rightly explained by Rendel Harris) points the same way. The date of the concluding chs. (15. 16) is I-laced about A.D. 268 by most critics. 15""" refers to the troubles of Alexandria under Galli- enus (260-268), when two-thirds of the population were destroyed by a plague following upon a famine (Eus. HE vii. 21. 22).

IS^*"'' refers to the conquests of the Sassanidae (' Carmonii insani- entes'), esp. Sapor 1. (240-273), who overran Syria but was repulsed by Odenathus and Zenobia (' dracones Arabum'), the founders of Palmyra; they, in turn, were defeated by Aurelian. 33 describes the murder of Odenathus at Emesa (266) by his cousin Maeonius. 34 ff. are referred to the invasion of Asia Minor by Goths and Scythians from the N.

of the Euxine : Gallienus marched against them, but was recalled by the revolt of Aureolus (38 ' portio alia ab occidente '). 46 ' Asia consors in specie Babylonis ' alludes to the associa- tion of Odenathus in the empire, A.D. 264 (Hilgen- feld, Mess. Jud. 208). The chapters were written apparently as an appendix to 3-14, and were never current in a separate form. Chs. 1. 2 are not fixed so definitely, but are probably earlier than the close.

They are a com- pilation from various sources, and perhaps a frag- ment of a larger work : they show some relation to an Apocalypse of Zephaniah (T. and S. Ixxix). Keception. — The early quotations from the book are collected by Dr. lames (7". and S. xxvii- xliii). The Ep. of Barnabas 12' (Sro* {liXox (tXiffp KOi draoTj «roI Srav ix fiiXou alixa (rriH) is thought to refer to 2 Es 5», and the Rest of the Words of Baruch (A.D. 136), ch.

9, has similar words ; the last scene of that book, where a stone takes the form of Jeremiah and speaks to the people, may be an amplification of ' lapis dabit vocem suara ' of 2 Es. But the first express quotation is Clem. Alex. Strom, iii. 16. 100, who regards it as the work of ' the prophet ' Ezra. It is made use of in an Hippolytiean fragment irepl tov iroiT6j, and quoted in the Greek in the Apost. Constit. viii. 7. The supposed references in Tert. {de priescr. haret.

3), Cyprian, and Commodian (3rd cent., Cam. Apot. 943, on the lost tribes) are doubtful. But it is quoted very frequently by Ambrose (cfe bono Mortis, 10-12, and elsewhere), who regards it as prophetical : in his time clis. 15. 16 were already current in the Latin version, and probably attached to 3-14. In Spain it was known to PriscUlian and Vigilantius; and in Britain to Gildas, who quotes 15. 16 (Bensly, 36-40).

The legend of the restora- tion of the books of Scripture (2 Es 14) is wide- spread, and may be derived from tradition apart from 2 Es (Iren. iii. 21. 2 ; Tert. de cult. /em. L 3 ; Clem. Alex. Strom, i. 22. 149). Jerome is alone unfavourable to it {adv. Vigilantium, 6, Prof, in vers. libr. Ezrce, quoted in last art.) It was perhaps owing to his estimate that the book was excluded from the Canon by the Council of Trent : it now with 1 Es forms an appendix to the Vulg. after the NT.

The liturgical use of the book shows its popularity : the words of 2**- " are em- ployed in tlie ' Missa pro def unctis ' of the Breviary ad Usum Sarum, and the word Requiem is derived from this passage ; and 2™- " were formerly used by the En". Church as an Introit for Whit Tuesday. Otherwise no use is made of it in the services of the Church. LrrRRATiTRB. — A full list of the wide lit. on the subject is ^ven in Schurer, HJP n. iii. 93-114. The beat critical edd. o( the Lat.

text are in the Camb. Texts and Studif«, vol. iii. 2. ed. Bensly and James, 1895 ; and Bensly, The MUging Fragtaeni of the Fourth Book of Ezra, 1875. The versions are collected in Hilgenfeld's Messias Judce&nim (Lips. 18(19). Eng. coin- mentaries and introductions are Lupton in the Speaker's Comin. on the Apoc. ; Bissell (in Lange's 01 Coinm.) ; Churton's CTnca/i. and Ap9er. Scriptures ; and Druramond's Jewish Messiah, 1877. H. St. J. Thackeray.