Chapter XXII: Act 1895: , No. 20 of 1895) (8)

The book divides itself naturally into three parts: the arraignment of
Jerusalem (i.-xxiv.); denunciation of foreign enemies (xxv.-xxxii.);
consolatory construction of the future (xxxiii.-xlviii.). The opening
"vision" (i.), an elaborate symbolic picture, is of the nature of a
general preface, and was composed probably late in the prophet's life.
Out of the north (the Babylonian sacred mountain) comes a bright
cloud, wherein appear four Creatures (formed on the model of
Babylonian composite figures), each with four faces (man, lion, bull,
eagle) and attended by a wheel; the wheels are full of eyes, and move
straight forward, impelled by the spirit dwelling in the Creatures
(the spirit of Yahweh). Supported on their heads is something like a
crystalline firmament, above which is a form like a sapphire throne
(cf. Ex. xxiv. 10), and on the throne a man-like form (Yahweh)
surrounded by a rainbow brightness. The wheels symbolize divine
omniscience and control, and the whole vision represents the coming of
Yahweh to take up his abode among the exiles. The prophet then
receives his call (ii., iii.) in the shape of a roll of a book, which
he is required to eat (an indication of the literary form now taken by
prophecy). He is informed that the people to whom he is sent are
rebellious and stiff-necked (this indicates his opinion of the people,
and gives the keynote of the following discourses); he is appointed
watchman to warn men when they sin, and is to be held responsible for
the consequences if he fail in this duty. To this high conception of a
preacher's function the prophet was faithful throughout his career.
Next follow minatory discourses (iv.-vii.) predicting the siege and
capture of Jerusalem-perhaps revised after the event. There are
several symbolic acts descriptive of the siege. One of these (iv. 4
ff.) gives the duration of the national punishment in loose
chronological reckoning: 40 years (a round number) for Judah, and 150
more (according to the corrected text) for Israel, the starting-point,
probably, being the year 722, the date of the capture of Samaria; the
procedure described in v. 8 is not to be understood literally. In vi.
the idolatry of the nation is pictured in darkest colours. Next
follows (viii.-xi.) a detailed description, in the form of a vision,
of the sin of Jerusalem: within the temple-area elders and others are
worshipping beast-forms, Tammuz and the sun (probably actual cults of
the time); [6] men approach to defile the temple and slay the
inhabitants of the city (ix.). In ch. x. the imagery of ch. i.
reappears, and the Creatures are identified with the cherubs of
Solomon's temple. This appears to be an independent form of the
vision, which has been brought into connexion with that of i. by a
harmonizing editor. There follow a symbolic prediction of the exile
(xii.) and a denunciation of non-moral prophets and prophetesses
(xiii.)--though Yahweh deceive a prophet, yet he and those who consult
him will be punished; and so corrupt is the nation that the presence
of a few eminently good men will not save it (xiv.).[7] After a
comparison of Israel to a worthless wild vine (xv.) come two
allegories, one portraying idolatrous Jerusalem as the unfaithful
spouse of Yahweh (xvi.), the other describing the fate of Zedekiah
(xvii.). The fine insistence on individual moral responsibility in
xviii. (cf. Deut. xxiv. 16, Jer. xxxi. 29 f.), while it is a protest
against a superficial current view, is not to be understood as a
denial of all moral relations between successive generations. This
latter question had not presented itself to the prophet's mind; his
object was simply to correct the opinion of the people that their
present misfortunes were due not to their own faults but to those of
their predecessors. A more sympathetic attitude appears in two elegies
(xix.), one on the kings Jehoahaz and Jehoiachin, the other on the
nation. These are followed by a scathing sketch of Israel's religious
career (xx. 1-26), in which, contrary to the view of earlier prophets,
it is declared that the nation had always been disobedient. From this
point to the end of xxiv. there is a mingling of threat and
promise.[8] The allegory of xxiii. is similar to that of xvi., except
that in the latter Samaria is relatively treated with favour, while in
the former it (Aholah) is involved in the same condemnation as that of
Jerusalem. At this point is introduced (xxv.-xxxii.) the series of
discourses directed against foreign nations. The description of the
king of Tyre (xxviii. 11-19) as dwelling in Eden, the garden of God,
the sacred mountain, under the protection of the cherub, bears a
curious resemblance to the narrative in Gen. ii., iii., of which,
however, it seems to be independent, using different Babylonian
material; the text is corrupt. The section dealing with Egypt is one
of remarkable imaginative power and rhetorical vigour: the king of
Egypt is compared to a magnificent cedar of Lebanon (in xxxi. 3 read:
"there was a cedar in Lebanon") and to the dragon of the Nile, and the
picture of his descent into Sheol is intensely tragic. Whether these
discourses were all uttered between the investment of Jerusalem and
its fall, or were here inserted by Ezekiel or by a scribe, it is not
possible to say. In xxxiii. the function of the prophet as watchman is
described at length (expansion of the description in iii.) and the
news of the capture of the city is received. The following chapters
(xxxiv.-xxxix.) are devoted to reconstruction: Edom, the detested
enemy of Israel, is to be crushed; the nation, politically raised from
the dead, with North and South united (xxxvii.), is to be established
under a Davidide king; a final assault, made by Gog, is to be
successfully met,[9] and then the people are to dwell in their own
land in peace for ever; this Gog section is regarded by some as the
beginning of Jewish apocalyptic writing. In the last section
(xl.-xlviii.), put as a vision, the temple is to be rebuilt, in
dimensions and arrangements a reproduction of the temple of Solomon
(cf. I Kings vi., vii.), the sacrifices and festivals and the
functions of priests and prince are prescribed, a stream issuing from
under the temple is to vivify the Dead Sea and fertilize the land
(this is meant literally), the land is divided into parallel strips
and assigned to the tribes. The prophet's thought is summed up in the
name of the city: _Yahweh Shammah_, "Yahweh is there," God dwelling
for ever in the midst of his people.

LITERATURE.--For the older works see the _Introductions_ of J.G.
Carpzov (1757) and C.H.H. Wright (1890). For _legends_:
Pseud.-Epiphan., _De vit. prophet._; Benjamin of Tudela, Itin.;
Hamburger, _Realencycl._; _Jew. Encycl._ On the Hebrew text; C.H.
Cornill, _Ezechiel_ (1886) (very valuable for text and ancient
versions); H. Graetz, _Emendationes_ (1893).; C.H. Toy, "Text of
Ezek." (1899) in Haupt's _Sacred Books of the Old Test._ Commentaries:
F. Hitzig (1847); H. Ewald (1868); E. Reuss (French ed., 1876; Germ,
ed., 1892); Currey (1876) in _Speaker's Comm._; R. Smend (revision of
Hitzig) (1880) in _Kurzgefasst. exeget. Handbuch_; A.B. Davidson
(1882) in Cambr. _Bible for Schools_; J. Skinner (1895) in _Expos.
Bible_; A. Bertholet (1897) in Marti's _Kurz. Hand-Comm._; C.H. Toy
(1899) in Haupt's _Sacr. Bks._ (Eng. ed.); R. Kraetzschmar (1900) in
W. Nowack's _Handkommentar_. See also Duhm, _Theol. d. Propheten_
(1875); A. Kuenen, _Prophets and Prophecy_ (1877); Gautier, _La
Mission du prophete Ezechiel_ (1891); Montefiore, _Hibbert Lectures_
(1892); A. Bertholet, _Der Verfassungsentwurf des Hesekiel_ (1896);
articles in Herzog-Hauck, _Realencykl._; Hastings, _Bibl. Dict._;
Cheyne, _Encycl. Bibl., Jew. Encycl._; F. Bleek, _Introd._ (Eng. tr.,
1875), and Bleek-Wellhausen (Germ.) (1878); Wildeboer, _Letterkunde d.
Oud. Verbonds_ (1893), and Germ, transl., _Litt. d. Alt. Test._;
Perrot and Chipiez, _Hist. de l'art_, &c., in which, however, the
restoration of Ezekiel's temple (by Chipiez) is probably
untrustworthy. (C. H. T.*)

FOOTNOTES:

[1] The Assyrian term _abubu_ is used of the great primeval deluge
(in the Gilgamesh epic), and also of the local floods common in the
country.

[2] So we must read (as Robertson Smith has pointed out) in xxii. 9
and xviii. 6, instead of "eating on the mountains."

[3] The stricter marriage law is formulated in Lev. xviii. 8-15, xx.
11 ff.

[4] Yahweh's spirit, thought of as Yahweh's vital principle, as man's
spirit is man's vital principle, is to be breathed into them, as, in
Gen. ii. 7, Yahweh breathes his own breath into the lifeless body.
The spirit in the Old Testament is a refined material thing that may
come or be poured out on men.

[5] The "Great Synagogue" is semi-mythical.

[6] In viii. 17 the unintelligible expression "they put the branch to
their nose" is the rendering of a corrupt Hebrew text; a probable
emendation is: "they are sending a stench to my nostrils."

[7] The legendary figure of Daniel (xiv. 14) is later taken by the
author of the book of Daniel as his hero.

[8] For a reconstruction of the poem in xxi. 10, 11, see the English
Ezekiel in Haupt's _Sacred Books_.

[9] Gog probably represents a Scythian horde (though such an invasion
never took place)--certainly not Alexander the Great, who would have
been called "king of Greece," and would have been regarded not as an
enemy but as a friend.

EZRA (from a Hebrew word meaning "help"), in the Bible, the famous scribe and priest at the time of the return of the Jews in the reign of the Persian king Artaxerxes I. (458 B.C.). His book and that of Nehemiah form one work (see EZRA AND NEHEMIAH, BOOKS OF), apart from which we have little trustworthy evidence as to his life. Even in the beginning of the 2nd century B.C., when Ben Sira praises notable figures of the exilic and post-exilic age (Zerubbabel, Jeshua and Nehemiah), Ezra is passed over (Ecclesiasticus xlix. 11-13), and he is not mentioned in a still later and somewhat fanciful description of Nehemiah's work (2 Macc. i. 18-36). Already well known as a scribe, Ezra's labours were magnified by subsequent tradition. He was regarded as the father of the scribes and the founder of the Great Synagogue. According to the apocryphal fourth book of Ezra (or 2 Esdras xiv.) he restored the law which had been lost, and rewrote all the sacred records (which had been destroyed) in addition to no fewer than seventy apocryphal works. The former theory recurs elsewhere in Jewish tradition, and may be associated with the representation in Ezra-Nehemiah which connects him with the law. But the story of his many literary efforts, like the more modern conjecture that he closed the canon of the Old Testament, rests upon no ancient basis.

See BIBLE, sect. Old Testament (Canon and Criticism); JEWS (history,
S21 seq.). The apocryphal books, called 1 and 2 Esdras (the Greek form
of the name) in the English Bible, are dealt with below as EZRA, THIRD
BOOK OF, and EZRA, FOURTH BOOK OF, while the canonical book of Ezra is
dealt with under EZRA AND NEHEMIAH.

EZRA, THIRD BOOK OF [1 _Esdras_]. The titles of the various books of the Ezra literature are very confusing. The Greek, the Old Latin, the Syriac, and the English Bible from 1560 onwards designate this book as 1 Esdras, the canonical books Ezra and Nehemiah being 2 Esdras in the Greek. In the Vulgate, however, our author was, through the action of Jerome, degraded into the third place and called 3 Esdras, whereas the canonical books _Ezra_ and _Nehemiah_ (see EZRA AND NEHEMIAH, BOOKS OF, below) were called 1 and 2 Esdras, and the Apocalypse of Ezra 4 Esdras. Thus the nomenclature of our book follows, and possibly wrongly, the usage of the Vulgate.[1] In the Ethiopic version a different usage prevails. The Apocalypse is called 1 Esdras, our author 2 Esdras, and Ezra and Nehemiah 3 Esdras, or 3 and 4 Esdras. Throughout this article we shall use the best attested designation of this book, i.e. 1 Esdras.

_Contents._--With the exception of one original section, namely, that of Darius and the three young men, our author contains essentially the same materials as the canonical Ezra and some sections of 2 Chronicles and Nehemiah. To the various explanations of this phenomenon we shall recur later. The book may be divided as follows (the verse division is that of the Cambridge LXX):--

Chap. i. = 2 Chron. xxxv. 1-xxxvi. 21.--Great passover of Josiah; his
death at Megiddo. His successors down to the destruction of Jerusalem
and the Captivity. (Verses i. 21-22 are not found elsewhere, though
the LXX of 2 Chron. xxxv. 20 exhibits a very distant parallel.)

Chap. ii. 1-14 = Ezra i.--The edict of Cyrus. Restoration of the
sacred vessels through Sanabassar to Jerusalem.

Chap. ii. 15-25 = Ezra iv. 6-24.--First attempt to rebuild the Temple:
opposition of the Samaritans. Decree of Artaxerxes: work abandoned
till the second year of Darius.

Chap. iii. 1-v. 6.--This section is peculiar to our author. The
contest between the three pages waiting at the court of Darius and the
victory of the Jewish youth "Zerubbabel," to whom as a reward Darius
decrees the return of the Jews and the restoration of the Temple and
worship. Partial list of those who returned with "Joachim, son of
Zerubbabel."

Chap. v. 7-70 = Ezra ii.-iv. 5.--List of exiles who returned with
Zerubbabel. Work on the Temple begun. Offer of the Samaritans'
co-operation rejected. Suspension of the work through their
intervention till the reign of Darius.

Chap. vi. 1-vii. 9 = Ezra v. 1-vi. 18.--Work resumed in the second
year of Darius. Correspondence between Sisinnes and Darius with
reference to the building of the Temple. Darius' favourable decree.
Completion of the work by Zerubbabel.

Chap. vii. 10-15 =Ezra vi. 19-22.--Celebration of the completion of
the Temple.

Chap. viii. 1-ix. 36 = Ezra vii.-x.--Return of the exiles under Ezra.
Mixed marriages forbidden.

Chap. ix. 37-55 = Nehemiah vii. 73-viii. 12.--The reading of the Law.

Thus, apart from iii. 1-v. 3, which gives an account of the pages' contest, the contents of the book are doublets of the canonical Ezra and portions of 2 Chronicles and Nehemiah. The beginning of the book seems imperfect, with its abrupt opening "And Josiah held the passover": its conclusion is mutilated, as it breaks off in the middle of a sentence. As Thackeray suggests, it probably continued the history of the feast of Tabernacles described in Neh. viii.--a view that is supported by Joseph. _Ant_. xi. 5. 5, "who describes that feast using an Esdras word [Greek: epanorthosis] and ... having hitherto followed Esdras as his authority passes on to the Book of Nehemiah."

_Claims to Canonicity._--It would seem that even greater value was attached to 1 Esdras than to the Hebrew Ezra. (1) For in the best MSS. (BA) it stands before 2 Esdras--the verbal translation of the Hebrew Ezra and Nehemiah. (2) It is used by Josephus, who in fact does not seem aware of the existence of 2 Esdras. (3) 1 Esdras is frequently quoted by the Greek fathers--Clem. Alex., Origen, Eusebius, and by the Latin--Tertullian, Cyprian, Augustine. The adverse judgment of the church is due to Jerome, who, from his firm attachment to the Hebrew Old Testament, declined to translate the "dreams" of 3 and 4 Esdras. This judgment influenced alike the Council of Trent and the Lutheran church in Germany; for Luther also refused to translate Esdras and the Apocalypse of Ezra.

_Origin and Relation to the Canonical Ezra._--Various theories have been given as to the relation of the book and the canonical Ezra.

1. Some scholars, as Keil, Bissell and formerly Schurer, regarded 1 Esdras as a free compilation from the Greek of 2 Esdras (2 Chron. and Ezra-Nehemiah). This theory has now given place to others more accordant with the facts of the case.

2. Others, as Ewald, _Hist. of Isr._ v. 126-128, and Thackeray in Hastings' _Bible Dictionary_, assume a lost Greek version of Chronicles, Ezra and Nehemiah, from which were derived 1 Esdras--a free redaction of the former and 2 Esdras. Thackeray claims that we have "a satisfactory explanation of the coincidences in translation and deviation from the Hebrew in 1 Esdras and 2 Esdras, if we suppose both are to some extent dependent on a lost Greek original." But later in the same article Thackeray is compelled to modify this view and admit that 1 Esdras is not a mere redaction of a no longer extant version of the canonical books, but shows not only an independent knowledge of the Hebrew text but also of a Hebrew text superior in not a few passages to the Massoretic text, where 2 Esdras gives either an inaccurate version or a version reproducing the secondary Massoretic text.

3. Others like Michaelis, Trendelenburg, Pohlmann, Herzfeld, Fritzsche hold it to be a direct and independent translation of the Hebrew. There is much to be said in favour of this view. It presupposes in reality two independent recensions of the Hebrew text, such as we cannot reasonably doubt existed at one time of the Book of Daniel. Against this it has been urged that the story of the three pages was written originally in Greek (Ewald, Schurer, Thackeray). The only grounds for this theory are the easiness of the Greek style and the paronomasia in iv. 62 [Greek: hanesin kai haphesin]. But the former is no real objection, and the latter may be purely accidental. On the other hand there are several undoubted Semiticisms. Thus we have two instances Of the split relative [Greek: ou] ... [Greek: autou] iii. 5; [Greek: ou] ... [Greek: ep' auto] iv. 63 and the phrase pointed out by Fritzsche [Greek: ta dikaia poiei apo panton] = [Hebrew: asa mishpat min]. It must, however, be admitted that there are fewer Hebraisms in this section of the book than in the rest.

4. Sir H.H. Howorth in the treatises referred to at the close of this article has shown cogent grounds for regarding 1 Esdras as the original and genuine Septuagint translation, and 2 Esdras as probably that of Theodotion. For this view he adduces among others the following grounds: (i.) Its use by Josephus, who apparently was not acquainted with 2 Esdras. (ii.) Its precedence of 2 Esdras in the great uncials. (iii.) Its origin at a time when Chronicles, Ezra and Nehemiah formed a single work. (iv.) Its preservation of a better Hebrew text in many instances than 2 Esdras. (v.) The fact that 1 Esdras and the Septuagint of Daniel go back to one and the same translator, as Dr Gwynn (_Dict. Christ. Biog._ iv. 977) has pointed out (cf. 1 Esdr. vi. 31, and Dan. ii. 5).

This contention of Howorth has been accepted by Nestle, Cheyne, Bertholet, Ginsburg and other scholars, though they regard the question of an Aramaic original of chapters iii. 1-v. 6 as doubtful. Howorth's further claim that he has established the historical credibility of the book as a whole and its chronological accuracy as against the canonical Ezra has not as yet met with acceptance; but his arguments have not been fairly met and answered.

5. Volz (_Encyc. Bibl._ ii. 1490) thinks that the solution of the problem is to be found in a different direction. The text is of unequal value, and the inequalities are so great as to exclude the supposition that the Greek version was produced _aus einem Guss._ iii. 1-v. 3 is an independent narrative written originally in Greek and itself a composite production, the praise of truth being an addition, vi. 1-vii. 15, ii. 15-25a is a fragment of an Aramaic narrative. Some in Josephus (_Ant._ xi. 4. 9) an account of Samaritan intrigues is introduced immediately after 1 Esdras vii. 15, it is natural to infer that something of the same kind has fallen out between vi. and ii. 15-25. The Aramaic text behind 1 Esdras here is better than that behind the canonical Ezra. Next, viii.-ix. is from the Ezra document (= Ezra vii.-x.; Neh. vii. 73, viii. 1 sqq.), though implying a different Hebrew text. ii. 1-15; v. 7-73; vii. 2-4, 6-15 are from the Chronicles: likewise i. is from 2 Chron. xxxv.-vi., 2 Esdras being at the same time before the translator.

_Date._--The book must be placed between 300 B.C. and A.D. 100, when it was used by Josephus. It is idle to attempt any nearer limits until definite conclusions have been reached on the chief problems of the book.

_MSS. and Versions._--The book is found in B and A. The latter seems to have preserved the more ancient form of the text, as it is generally that followed by Josephus. The Old Latin in two recensions is published by Sabatier, _Bibliorum sacrorum Latinae versiones antiquae_, iii. Another Latin translation is given in Lagarde (_Septuag. Studien_, ii., 1892). In Syriac the text is found only in the Syro-Hexaplar of Paul of Tella (A.D. 616). See Walton's Polyglott. There is also an Ethiopic version edited by Dillmann (_Bibl. Vet. Test. Aeth_. v., 1894) and an Armenian.

LITERATURE.--Exegesis: Fritzsche, _Exeget. Handb. zu den Apokr._
(1851); Zockler, _Die Apokryphen_, 155-161 (1891); Bissell in
Lange-Schaff's _Comm_. (1880); Lupton in _Speaker's Comm_. (1888);
Ball, notes to 1 Esdr. in the _Variorum Apocrypha_. Introduction and
critical Inquiries: Trendelenburg, "Apocr. Esra," in Eichhorn's
_Allgem. Bibl. der bibl. Litt._ i. 178-232 (1787); Pohlmann, "Uber das
Ansehen der apokr. dritten Buchs Esras," in _Tubingen Theol.
Quartalschrift_, 257-275 (1859); Sir H. Howorth, "Character and
Importance of 1 Esdras," in the _Academy_ (1893), pp. 13, 60, 106,
174, 326, 524; and further studies entitled "Some Unconventional Views
on the Text of the Bible," in the _Proceedings of the Society of
Biblical Archaeology_, 1901, pp. 147-159; 306-330, 1902, June and
November. (R. H. C.)

FOOTNOTE:

[1] "At the Council of Trent (when the Septuagint Canon was virtually
accepted as authoritative), by a most curious aberration, Esdras iii.
and iv. and the Epistle of Manasseh were alone excluded from the
canon and remitted to our appendix."--Howorth, "Unconventional Views
on the Text of the Bible," in the _P.S.B.A._, 1901, p. 149.

EZRA, FOURTH BOOK (or APOCALYPSE) OF. This is the most profound and touching of the Jewish Apocalypses. It stands in the relation of a sister work to the Apocalypse of Baruch, but though the relation is so close, they have many points of divergence. Thus, whereas the former represents the ordinary Judaism of the 1st century of the Christian era, the teaching of 4 Ezra on the Law, Works, Justification, Original Sin and Free Will approximates to the school of Shammai and serves to explain the Pauline doctrines on those subjects; but to this subject we shall return.

_Original Language and Versions._--In the Latin version our book consists of sixteen chapters, of which, however, only iii.-xiv. are found in the other versions. To iii.-xiv., accordingly, the present notice is confined. After the example of most of the Latin MSS. we designate the book 4 Ezra (see Bensly-James, _Fourth Book of Ezra_, pp. xxiv-xxvii). In the First Arabic and Ethiopic versions it is called 1 Ezra; in some Latin MSS. and in the English Authorized Version it is 2 Ezra, and in the Armenian 3 Ezra. Chapters i.-ii. are sometimes called 3 Ezra, and xv.-xvi. 5 Ezra. All the versions go back to a Greek text. This is shown by the late Greek apocalypse of Ezra (Tischendorf, _Apocalypses Apocryphae_, 1866, pp. 24-33), the author of which was acquainted with the Greek of 4 Ezra; also by quotations from it in Barn, iv. 4; xii. 1 = 4 Ezra xii. 10 sqq., v. 5; Clem. Alex. _Strom_. iii. 16 (here first expressly cited) = 4 Ezra v. 35, &c. (see Bensly-James, _op. cit._ pp. xxvii-xxxviii). The derivation of the Latin version from the Greek is obvious when we consider its very numerous Graecisms. Thus the genitive is found after the comparative (v. 13) _horum majora_; xi. 29 _duorum capitum majus_, even the genitive absolute as in x. 9, the double negative, _de_ and _ex_ with the genitive. Peculiar genders can only be accounted for by the influence of the original forms in Greek, as x. 23 _signaculum_ ([Greek: sphragis]) ... _tradita est_; xi. 4 _caput_ ([Greek: kephale]) ... _sed et ipsa_. In vi. 25 we have the Greek attraction of the relative--_omnibus istis quibus praedixi tibi_. In his _Messias Judaeorum_ (1869), pp. 36-110, Hilgenfeld has given a reconstruction of the Greek text. Till 1896 only Ewald believed that 4 Ezra was written originally in Hebrew. In that year Wellhausen (_Gott. Gel. Anz._ pp. 12-13) and Charles (_Apoc. Bar._ p. lxxii) pointed out that a Hebrew original must be assumed on various grounds; and this view the former established in his _Skizzen u. Vorarbeiten_, vi. 234-240 (1899). Of the numerous grounds for this assumption it will be necessary only to adduce such constructions as "de quo me interrogas de eo," iv. 28, and xiii. 26, "qui per semet ipsum liberabit" (= [Hebrew: asher bo]) = "through whom he will deliver," or to point to such a mistranslation as vii. 33, "longanimitas congregabitur," where for "congregabitur" (= [Hebrew: yeasef]) we require "evanescet," which is another and the actual meaning of the Hebrew verb in this passage. The same mistranslation is found in the Vulgate in Hosea iv. 3. Gunkel has adopted this view in his German translation of the book in Kautzsch's _Apok. und Pseud, des A. Testaments_, ii. 332-333, and brought forward in confirmation the following remarkable instance in viii. 23, where though the Latin, Syriac, Ethiopic, Arabic and Armenian Versions read _testificatur_, the Second Arabic version and the Apostolic Constitutions have [Greek: menei eis ton aiona], which are to be explained as translations of [Hebrew: (lieh) emdat la'ad]. Another interesting case is found in xiv. 3, where the Latin and all other versions but Arabic[2] read _super rubum_ and the Arabic[2] _in monte Sinai_. Here there is a corruption of [Hebrew: sneh] "bush" into [Hebrew: sinai] "Sinai."

_Latin Version._--All the older editions of this version, as those of
Fabricius, Sabatier, Volkmar, Hilgenfeld, Fritzsche, as well as in the
older editions of the Bible, are based ultimately on only one MS., the
Codex Sangermanensis (written A.D. 822), as Gildemeister proved in
1865 from the fact that the large fragment between verses 36 and 37 in
chapter vii., which is omitted in all the above editions, originated
through the excision of a leaf in this MS. A splendid edition of this
version based on MSS. containing the missing fragment, which have been
subsequently discovered, has been published by Bensly-James, op. cit.
This edition has taken account of all the important MSS. known, save
one at Leon in Spain.

_Syriac Version._--This version, found in the Ambrosian Library in
Milan, was translated into Latin by Ceriani, _Monumenta sacra et
profana_, II. ii. pp. 99-124 (1866). Two years later this scholar
edited the Syriac text, op. cit. V. i. pp. 4-111, and in 1883
reproduced the MS. by photo-lithography (_Translatio Syra Peshitto
V.T._ II. iv. pp. 553-572). Hilgenfeld incorporated Ceriani's Latin
translation in his _Messias Judaeorum_. This translation needs
revision and correction.

_Ethiopic Version._--First edited and translated by Laurence, _Primi
Ezrae libri versio Aethiopica_ (1820). Laurence's Latin translation
was corrected by Praetorius and reprinted in Hilgenfeld's _Messias
Judaeorum_. In 1894 Dillmann's text based on ten MSS. was
published--_V.T. Aeth. libri apocryphi_, v. 153-193.

_Arabic Versions._--The First Arabic version was translated from a MS.
in the Bodleian Library into English by Ockley (in Whiston's Primitive
Christianity, vol. iv. 1711). This was done into Latin and corrected
by Steiner for Hilgenfeld's _Mess. Jud._ The Second Arabic version,
which is independent of the first, has been edited from a Vatican MS.
and translated into Latin by Gildemeister, 1877.

_Armenian Version._--First printed in the Armenian Bible (1805).
Translated into Latin by Petermann for Hilgenfeld's Mess. Jud.; next
with Armenian text and English translation by Issaverdens in the
_Uncanonical Writings of the Old Testament_, pp. 488 sqq. (Venice,
1901).

_Georgian Version._--According to F.C. Conybeare an accurate Georgian
version made from the Greek exists in an 11th-century MS. at
Jerusalem.

_Relation of the above Versions._--These versions stand in the order
of worth as follows: Latin, Syriac, Ethiopic. The remaining versions
are paraphrastic and less accurate, and are guilty of additions and
omissions. All the versions, save the Second Arabic one, go back to
the same Greek version. The Second Arabic version presupposes a second
Greek version.

_Modern Versions._--All the English versions are now antiquated,
except those in the Variorum Apocrypha and the Revised Version of the
Apocrypha, and even these are far from satisfactory. Similarly, all
the German versions are behindhand, except the excellent version of
Gunkel in _Apok. u. Pseud._ ii. 252-401, which, however, needs
occasional correction.

_Contents._--The book (iii.-xiv.) consists of seven visions or parts, like the apocalypse of Baruch. They are: (1) iii. 1-v. 19; (2) v. 20-vi. 34; (3) vi. 35-ix. 25; (4) ix. 26-x. 60; (5) xi. 1-xii. 51; (6) xiii.; (7) xiv. These deal with (1) religious problems and speculations and (2) eschatological questions. The first three are devoted to the discussion of religious problems affecting in the main the individual. The presuppositions underlying these are in many cases the same as those in the Pauline Epistles. The next three visions are principally concerned with eschatological problems which relate to the nation. The seventh vision is a fragment of the Ezra Saga recounting the rewriting of the Scriptures, which had been destroyed. This has no organic connexion with what precedes.

_First Vision._ iii.-v. 19.--"In the thirtieth year after the ruin of
the city I Salathiel (the same is Ezra) was in Babylon and lay
troubled upon my bed." In a long prayer Ezra asks how the desolation
of Sion and the prosperity of Babylon can be in keeping with the
justice of God. The angel Uriel answers that God's ways are
unsearchable and past man's understanding. When Ezra asks when the end
will be and what are the signs of it, the angel answers that the end
is at hand and enumerates the signs of it.

_Second Vision._ v. 14-vi. 34.--Phaltiel, chief of the people,
reproaches Ezra for forsaking his flock. Ezra fasts, and in his prayer
asks why God had given up his people into the hands of the heathen.
Uriel replies: "Lovest thou that people better than He that made
them?" Man cannot find out God's judgment. The end is at hand; its
signs are recounted.

_Third Vision._ vi. 35-ix. 25.--Ezra recounts the works of creation,
and asks why Israel does not possess the world since the world was
made for Israel. The answer is that the present state is a necessary
stage to the coming one. Then follows an account of the Messianic age
and the resurrection: the punishment of the wicked and the blessings
of the righteous. There can be no intercession for the departed. Few
will be saved--only as it were a grape out of a cluster or a plant out
of a forest.

_Fourth Vision._ ix. 26-x. 60.--Ezra eats of herbs in the field of
Ardat, and sees in a vision a woman mourning for her only son. Ezra
reminds her of the greater desolation of Sion. Suddenly she is
transfigured and vanishes, and in her place appears a city. The woman,
Uriel explains, represents Sion.

_Fifth Vision._ xi. i-xii. 39.--Vision of an eagle with three heads,
twelve wings and eight winglets, which is rebuked by a lion and
destroyed. The eagle is the fourth kingdom seen by Daniel, and the
lion is the Messiah.

_Sixth Vision._ xiii.--Vision of a man (i.e. the Messiah) arising from
the sea, who destroys his enemies who assemble against him, and
gathers to him another multitude, i.e. the lost Ten Tribes.

_Seventh Vision._ xiv.--Ezra is told of his approaching translation.
He asks for the restoration of the Law, and is enabled by God to
dictate in forty days ninety-four books (the twenty-four canonical
books of the Old Testament that were lost, and seventy secret books
for the wise among the people).

Ezra's translation is found in the Canon only in the Oriental
Versions. In the Latin it was omitted when xv.-xvi. were added.

_Integrity._--According to Gunkel (_Apok. u. Pseud._ ii. 335-352) the whole book is the work of one writer. Thus down to vii. 16 he deals with the problem of the origin of suffering in the world, and from vii. 17 to ix. 25 with the question who is worthy to share in the blessedness of the next world. As regards the first problem the writer shows, in the first vision, that suffering and death come from sin--no less truly on the part of Israel than of all men, for God created man to be immortal; that the end is nigh, when wrongs will be righted; God's rule will then be recognized. In the second he emphasizes the consolation to be found in the coming time, and in the third he speaks solely of the next world, and then addresses himself to the second problem. The fourth, fifth and sixth visions are eschatological. In these the writer turns aside from the religious problems of the first three visions and concerns himself only with the future national supremacy of Israel. Zion's glory will certainly be revealed (vision four), Israel will destroy Rome (five) and the hostile Gentiles (six). Then the book is brought to a close with the legend of Ezra's restoration of the lost Old Testament Scriptures.

In the course of the above work there are many inconsistencies and contradictions. These Gunkel explains by admitting that the writer has drawn largely on tradition, both oral and written, for his materials. Thus he concedes that eschatological materials in v. 1-13, vi; 18-28, vii. 26 sqq., also ix. 1 sqq., are from this source, and apparently from an originally independent work, as Kabisch urges, but that it is no longer possible to separate the borrowed elements from the text. Again, in the four last visions he is obliged to make the same concession on a very large scale. Vision four is based on a current novel, which the author has taken up and put into an allegorical form. Visions five and six are drawn from oral or written tradition, and relate only to the political expectations of Israel, and seven is a reproduction of a legend, for the independent existence of which evidence is furnished by the quotations in Bensly-James pp. xxxvii-xxxviii. Thus the chief champion of the unity of the book makes so many concessions as to its dependence on previously existing sources that, to the student of eschatology, there is little to choose between his view and that of Kabisch. In fact, if the true meaning of the borrowed materials is to be discovered, the sources must be disentangled. Hence the need of some such analysis as that of Kabisch (_Das vierte Buck Ezra_, 1889): S = an Apocalypse of Salathiel, c. A.D. 100, preserved in a fragmentary condition, iii. 1-31, iv. 1-51, v. 13b-vi. 10, 30-vii. 25, vii. 45-viii. 62, ix. 13-x. 57, xii. 40-48, xiv. 28-35. E = an Ezra Apocalypse, c. 31 B.C., iv. 52-v. 13a, vi. 13-28, vii. 26-44, viii. 63-ix. 12. A = an Eagle Vision, c. A.D. 90, x. 60-xii. 35. M = a Son-of-Man Vision, xiii. E^2 = an Ezra fragment, c. A.D. 100, xiv. 1-17a, 18-27, 36-47. All these, according to Kabisch, were edited by a Zealot, c. 120, who supplied the connecting links and made many small additions. In the main this analysis is excellent. If we assume that the editor was also the author of S, and that such a vigorous stylist, as he shows himself to be, recast to some extent the materials he borrowed, there remains but slight difference between the views of Kabisch and Gunkel. Neither view, however, is quite satisfactory, and the problem still awaits solution. Other attempts, such as Ewald's (_Gesch. d. Volkes Israel_[3], vii. 69-83) and De Faye's (_Apocalypses juives_, 155-165), make no contribution.

_School of the Author._--The author or final redactor of the book was a pessimist, and herein his book stands in strong contrast with the Apocalypse of Baruch. Thus to the question propounded in the New Testament--"Are there few that be saved?" he has no hesitation in answering, "There be many created, but few that be saved" (viii. 3): "An evil heart hath grown up in us which hath led us astray ... and that not a few only but wellnigh all that have been created" (vii. 48). In the Apocalypse of Baruch on the other hand it is definitely maintained that not a few shall be saved (xxi. 11). Moreover, the sufferings of the wicked are so great in the next world it were better, according to 4 Ezra (as also to the school of Shammai), that man had not been born. "It is much better (for the beasts of the field) than for us; for they expect not a judgment and know not of torments" (vii. 66): yet "it would have been best not to have given a body to Adam, or that being done, to have restrained him from sin; for what profit is there that man should in the present life live in heaviness and after death look for punishment" (vii. 116, 117). In iv. 12 the nexus of life, sin and suffering just referred to, is put still more strongly: "It were better we had not been at all than that we should be born and sin and suffer."[1] The different attitude of these two writers towards this question springs from their respective views on the question of free will. The author of Baruch declares (iv. 15, 19): "For though Adam sinned and brought untimely death upon all, yet of those who were born from him each one of them prepared for his own soul torment to come, and again each one of them has chosen for himself glories to come ... each one of us has been the Adam of his own soul," Though the writer of Ezra would admit the possibility of a few Israelites attaining to salvation through the most strenuous endeavour, yet he holds that man is all but predoomed through his original evil disposition or through the fall of Adam (vii. 118). "O Adam, what hast thou done: for though it was thou that sinned, the evil is not fallen on thee alone, but upon all of us that come of thee."

Another contrast between the two books is that while Baruch shows some mercy to the Gentiles (lxxii. 4-6) in the Messianic period, none according to 4 Ezra and the Shammaites (Toseph. _Sanh._ xiii. 2) will be extended to them, (iii. 30, ix. 22 sq., xii. 34, xiii. 37 sq.).

On the above grounds it is not unreasonable to conclude that whereas the Apocalypse of Baruch owes its leading characteristics to a pupil of Hillel's school, 4 Ezra shows just as clearly its derivation from that of Shammai. Kohler (_Jewish Encyc._ v. 221) points out that the view of 4 Ezra that the Ten Tribes will return was held by the Shammaites, whereas it was denied by Aqiba. The Apocalypse of Baruch is silent on this point.

_Time and Place._--The work was written towards the close of the 1st century (iii. 1, 29), and somewhere in the east.

LITERATURE.--In addition to the authorities mentioned above, see
Dillmann, Herzog's _Real-Encyk._[2] xii. 353 sqq.; Schurer, _Gesch.
des jud. Volkes_[3], iii. 246 sqq.; and the articles on 4 Esdras in
Hastings' _Bible Dictionary_ and the _Encyclopaedia Biblica_ by
Thackeray and James respectively. (R. H. C.)

FOOTNOTE:

[1] In the Apocalypse of Baruch, x. 6, we find a similar expression:
"Blessed is he who was not born, or being born has died." But here
death is said to be preferable to witnessing the present woes of
Jerusalem.

EZRA AND NEHEMIAH, BOOKS OF, in the Old Testament. The two canonical books entitled Ezra and Nehemiah in the English Bibie[1] correspond to the 1 and 2 Esdras of the Vulgate, to the 2 Esdras of the Septuagint, and to the Ezra and Nehemiah of the Massoretic (Hebrew) text. Though for many centuries they have thus been treated as separate compositions, we have abundant evidence that they were anciently regarded as forming but one book, and a careful examination proves that together with the book of Chronicles they constitute one single work. The two books may therefore be conveniently treated together.

1. _Position and Date._--Origen (Euseb, _H.E._ vi. 25), expressly enumerating the twenty-two books of the old covenant as acknowledged by the Jews and accepted by the Christian church, names "the First and Second Ezra in one book"; Melito of Sardis (Euseb. _H.E._ iv. 26) in like manner mentions the book of Ezra only. So also the Talmud (in _Baba bathra_, 14. 2), nor can it be supposed that Josephus in his enumeration (c. _Ap._ i. 8) reckoned Nehemiah as apart from Ezra. That the Jews themselves recognized no real separation is shown by the fact that no Massoretic notes are found after Ezra x., but at the end of Nehemiah the contents of both are reckoned together, and it is stated that Neh. iii. 22 is the middle verse of the book. Their position in the Hebrew Bible _before_ the book of Chronicles is, however, illogical. The introductory verses of Ezra i. are identical with the conclusion of 2 Chron. xxxvi., whilst in the version of 1 Esdras no less than two chapters (2 Chron. xxxv. sq.) overlap. The cause of the separation is probably to be found in the late reception of Chronicles into the Jewish canon. Further proof of the unity of the three is to be found in the general similarity of style and treatment. The same linguistic criteria recur, and the interest in lists and genealogies, in priests and Levites, and in the temple service point unmistakably to the presence of the same hand (the so-called "chronicler") in Chronicles-Ezra-Nehemiah. See BIBLE (sect. Canon); CHRONICLES.

The period of history covered by the books of Ezra and Nehemiah extends from the return of the exiles under Zerubbabel in 537-536 B.C. to Nehemiah's second visit to Jerusalem in 432 B.C. In their present form, however, the books are considerably later, and allusions to Nehemiah in the past (Neh. xii. 26, 47), to the days of Jaddua (the grandson of Nehemiah's contemporary Joiada; ib. xii. 11), to Darius (Nothus 423 B.C. or rather Codomannus 336 B.C., ib. v. 22), and the use of the term "king of Persia," as a distinctive title after the fall of that empire (332 B.C.), are enough to show that, as a whole, they belong to the same age as the book of Chronicles.

2. _Contents._--Their contents may be divided into four parts:--

(a) The events preceding the mission of Ezra (i.-vi.).--In the first year of his reign Cyrus was inspired to grant a decree permitting the Jews to return to build the temple in Jerusalem (i.); a list of families is given (ii.). The altar of burnt-offering was set up, and in the second year of the return the foundations of the new temple were laid with great solemnity (iii.). The "adversaries of Judah and Benjamin" offered to assist but were repulsed, and they raised such opposition to the progress of the work that it ceased until the second year of Darius (521-520 B.C.). Aroused by the prophets Haggai and Zechariah the building was then resumed, and despite fresh attempts to hinder the work it was completed, consecrated and dedicated in the sixth year of that king (vi.). The event was solemnized by the celebration of the Passover (cf. 2 Chron. xxx., Hezekiah; xxxv. Josiah).

(b) An interval of fifty-eight years is passed over in silence, and the rest of the book of Ezra comprises his account of his mission to Jerusalem (vii.-x.). Ezra, a scribe of repute, well versed in the laws of Moses, returns with a band of exiles in order to reorganize the religious community. A few months after his arrival (seventh year of Artaxerxes, 458 B.C.) he instituted a great religious reform, viz. the prohibition of intermarriage with the heathen of the land (cf. already vi. 21). In spite of some opposition (x. 15 obscurely worded) the reform was accepted, and the foundations of a new community were laid.

(c) Twelve years elapse before the return of Nehemiah, whose description of his work is one of the most interesting pieces of Old Testament narrative (Neh. i.-vi.). In the twentieth year of Artaxerxes (445 B.C.), Nehemiah the royal cup-bearer at Shushan (Susa, the royal winter palace) was visited by friends from Judah and was overcome with grief at the tidings of the miserable condition of Jerusalem and the pitiful state of the Judaean remnant which had escaped the captivity. He obtained permission to return, and on reaching the city made a secret survey of the ruins and called upon the nobles and rulers to assist in repairing them. Much opposition was caused by Sanballat the Horonite (i.e. of the Moabite Horonaim or Beth-horon, about 15 m. N.W. of Jerusalem), Tobiah the Ammonite, Geshem (or Gashmu) the Arabian, and the Ashdodites, whose virulence increased as the rebuilding of the walls continued. But notwithstanding attempts upon the city and upon the life of Nehemiah, and in spite of intrigues among certain members of the Judaean section, in fifty-two days the city walls were complete (Neh. vi. 15). The hostility, however, did not cease, and measures were taken to ensure the safety of the city (vi. 16-vii. 4). A valuable account is given of Nehemiah's economical reforms, illustrating the internal social conditions of the period and the general character of the former governors who had been placed in charge (v., cf. the laws codified in Lev. xxv. 35 sqq.).

(d) The remaining chapters carry on the story of the labours of _both_ Ezra, and Nehemiah. The list of those who returned under the decree of Cyrus is repeated (Neh. vii.), and leads up to the reading of the Law by Ezra, a great national confession of guilt, and a solemn undertaking to observe the new covenant, the provisions of which are detailed (x. 28-39). After sundry lists of the families dwelling in Jerusalem and its neighbourhood (xi. 1 sqq., apparently a sequel to vii. 1-4),[2] and of various priests and Levites, an account is given of the dedication of the walls (xii. 27-43), the arrangements for the Levitical organization (vv. 44-47), and a fresh separation from the heathen (Moabites and Ammonites, xiii. 1-3; cf. Deut. xxiii. 3 seq.). The book concludes with another extract from Nehemiah's memoirs dealing with the events of a second visit, twelve years later (xiii. 4-31). On this occasion he vindicated the sanctity of the temple by expelling Tobiah, reorganized the supplies for the Levites, took measures to uphold the observance of the Sabbath, and protested energetically against the foreign marriages. In the course of his reforms he thrust out a son of Joiada (son of Eliashib, the high-priest), who had married the daughter of Sanballat, an incident which had an important result (see SAMARITANS).

That these books are the result of compilation (like the book of Chronicles itself) is evident from the many abrupt changes; the inclusion of certain documents written in an Aramaic dialect (Ezr. iv. 8-vi. 18, vii. 12-26)[3]; the character of the name-lists; the lengthy gaps in the history; the use made of two distinct sources, attributed to Ezra and Nehemiah respectively, and from the varying form in which the narratives are cast. The chronicler's hand can usually be readily recognized. There are relatively few traces of it in Nehemiah's memoirs and in the Aramaic documents, but elsewhere the sources are largely coloured, if not written from the standpoint of his age. Examples of artificial arrangement appear notably in Ezr. ii.-iii. 1 compared with Neh. vii. 6-viii. 1 (first clause); in the present position of Ezr. iv. 6-23; and in the dislocation of certain portions of the two memoirs in Neh. viii.-xiii. (see below). It should be noticed that the present order of the narratives involves the theory that some catastrophe ensued after Ezr. x. and before Neh. i.; that the walls had been destroyed and the gates burnt down; that some external opposition (with which, however, Ezra did not have to contend) had been successful; that the main object of Ezra's mission was delayed for twelve years, and, finally, that only through Nehemiah's energy was the work of social and religious reorganization successful. These topics raise serious historical problems (see JEWS: _History_, S 21).

3. _Criticism of Ezra i.-vi._--The chronicler's account of the destruction of Jerusalem, the seventy years' interval (2 Chron. xxxvi. 20 sq.; cf. Jer. xxv. 11, xxix. 10, also Is. xxiii. 17), and the return of 42,360 of the exiles (Ezr. ii. 64 sqq.) represent a special view of the history of the period. The totals, as also the detailed figures, in Ezr., Neh. and 1 Esdr. v. vary considerably; the number is extremely large (contrast Jer. lii. 30); it includes the common people (contrast 2 Kings xxiv. 14, xxv. 12), and ignores the fact that Judah was not depopulated, that the Jews were carried off to other places besides Babylon and that many remained behind in Babylon. According to this view, Judah and Jerusalem were practically deserted until the return. The list in Ezr. ii. is that of families which returned "every man unto his city" under twelve leaders (including Nehemiah, Azariah [cf. Ezra], Zcrubbabel and Jeshua); it recurs with many variations in a different and apparently more original context in Neh. vii., and in 1 Esdr. v. is ascribed to the time of Darius. The families (to judge from the northwards extension of Judaean territory) are probably those of the population in the later Persian period, hardly those who returned to the precise homes of their ancestors (see C.F. Kent, Israel's _Hist. and Biogr. Narratives_, p. 379). The offerings which are for the temple-service in Neh. vii. 70-72 (cf. 1 Chron. xxix. 6-8) are for the building of the temple in Ezr. ii. 68-70; and since the walls are not yet built, the topographical details in Neh. viii. 1 (see 1 Esdr. v. 47) are adjusted, and the event of the seventh month is not the reading of the Law amid the laments of the people (Neh. viii.; see _vv._ 9-11) but the erection of the altar by Jeshua and Zerubbabel under inauspicious circumstances (cf. Ezr. iii. 3 with 1 Esdr. v. 50).

The chronologically misplaced account of the successful opposition in the time of Ahasuerus (i.e. Xerxes) and Artaxerxes (the son and grandson of Darius respectively) breaks the account of the _temple_ under Cyrus and Darius, and is concerned with the city walls (iv. 6-23)[4]; there is some obscurity in _vv._ 7-9: Rehum and Shimshai evidently take the lead, Tabeel may be an Aramaized equivalent of Tobiah. A recent return is implied (iv. 12) and the record hints that a new decree may be made (v. 21). The account of the unsuccessful opposition to the _temple_ in the time of Darius (v. sq.; for another account see Jos. _Ant._ xi. 4, 9) is independent of iv. 7-23, and throws another light upon the decree of Cyrus (vi. 3-5, contrast i. 2-4). It implies that Sheshbazzar, who had been sent with the temple vessels in the time of Cyrus, had laid the foundations and that the work had continued without cessation (v. 16, contrast iv. 5, 24). The beginning of the reply of Darius is wanting (vi. 6 sqq.), and the decree which had been sought in Babylon is found at Ecbatana. Chap. vi. 15 sqq. follow more naturally upon v. 1-2, but v. 14 with its difficult reference to Artaxerxes now seems to presuppose the decree in iv. 21 and looks forward to the time of Ezra or Nehemiah. As regards this section (Ezr. i.-vi.) as a whole, there is little doubt that i. iii. 1-iv. 5, vi. 15-22 are from the chronicler, whose free treatment of his material is seen in the use he has made of ch. ii. Notwithstanding the unimpeachable evidence for the tolerant attitude of Persian kings and governors towards the religion of subject races, it is probable that the various decrees incorporated in the book (cf. also 1 Esdr. iv. 42 sqq.) have been reshaped from a Jewish standpoint. A noteworthy example appears in the account of the unique powers entrusted to Ezra (vii. 11-26), the introduction to whose memoirs, at all events, is quite in the style of the chronicler.