The Second Book Of Esdras

The Second Book Of Esdras

This book is quite different in character from 1 Es., which it follows in the English Apocrypha, It belongs to the apocalyptic order, and is closely related in time and thought to the Apocalypse of Baruch ( q.v. [Note: quod vide, which see.] ). Some early writers cite it as prophetical-Clement of Alexandria ( Strom . iii. 16) and Ambrose ( de Excessu Satyri , i. 64, 66, 68, 69) in particular; but Jerome speaks slightingly of it as a book he had not read or required to read, because it was not received in the Church ( c. Vigilant . ch. 6). In the authenticated edition of the Vulgate, it is relegated to an appendix, along with 1 Es. and the Prayer of Manasses. It is not reckoned canonical by the Church of Rome, nor is it used in the English Church.

1. Contents .-As it stands in our Apocrypha, 2 Es. consists of 16 chapters; but the first two and last two are separate works which have been added to the original book, and have no inward connexion with it. The prefixed chapters (1:2), though written in the name of Esdras, exhibit an anti-Jewish spirit, in striking contrast to that of the chapters that follow. They speak of the rejection of the Jews and the call of the Gentiles as a Western Christian of the 2nd cent. might have dine. A connexion has been suggested between them and the Apocalypse of Zephaniah , of which fragments are extant in Coptic. The subjoined chapters (15, 16) make no mention of Esdras, and their contents are colourless enough to admit of either a Jewish or a Christian author. In imitation of Jeremiah’s prophecies, they predict wars and tumults, denounce God’s wrath on the wicked, and encourage the righteous to endure. The probable quotation of 16:59 in Ep . xxix of Ambrose-‘extendit coelum sicut cameram’-would indicate that these chapters were known in the middle of the 4th century. Possibly they had their origin about a century previously, in the wars: of the Arabian Odenathus and Sapor i. of Persia.

Divested of these additions, 2 Es is a series of seven visions, separated for the most part, in the experience of the seer, by periods of fasting and prayer. Their purpose is to shed light on the mysteries of the moral world, and restore the faith in God and reliance on His justice which had been shaken by the downfall of Jerusalem. At the outset the seer announces himself as Salathiel, with the parenthetical explanation that he is also Esdras. In the first four visions (chs. 3-10) the angel Uriel appears, to resolve the doubts of the seer, and comfort him with the hope of God’s speedy intervention. In the fifth (chs. 11:12) a great eagle is seen, with three heads, twelve wings, and certain wings of smaller size. She is encountered and annihilated by a lion, and Esdras learns that the eagle is the fourth kingdom of Daniel, and the lion the Messiah. The sixth vision (ch. 13) reveals the Messiah as a wondrous man, coming out of the sea, destroying His enemies, and gathering the righteous and peace-loving to Himself. In the seventh (ch. 14) Esdras is warned that the end is near, and instructed to have ninety-four books written, but only to publish twenty-four of them (the usual Talmudic reckoning of the books of the Ot). On the accomplishment of his task, Esdras is translated to heaven.

2. Text and versions .-The original text no longer exists; but versions are extant in Latin, Syriac, Ethiopic, Arabic (two), and Armenian. Some fragments in Sahidic have also come to light (in 1904), and traces have been found of an old Georgian translation. The Latin version is in every respect the most important, as well as the only one which contains the four additional chapters. It was through this version that the book found its way into the appendix of the Vulgate, and thence into our Apocrypha. The Oriental versions are of value chiefly for the assistance they afford in testing and correcting the Latin. A curious illustration of their usefulness in this way was given by Bensly in 1875, when he discovered a missing fragment of the Latin text consisting of 70 verses, the existence of which had been suggested by the presence of these verses in the Oriental versions. This long passage has now been restored to its place in our Apocrypha, between verses 35 and 36 of the seventh chapter. The basis of all the existing versions, with the possible exception of the Armenian, is generally acknowledged to be a Greek text, now lost; but some difference of opinion has arisen as to whether that was the original text. While the more prevalent view that the book was composed in Greek has found such defenders as Lücke, Volkmar, and Hilgenfeld, some recent scholars, including Wellhausen, Charles, Gunkel, and Box, contend for a Hebrew original.

Some confusion of nomenclature bus been caused by the varying titles of the versions. The Latin Manuscriptsmostly distinguish five books of Ezra: the first being the canonical Ezra-Nehemiah, the second the prefixed chapters of 2 Es., the third the 1 Es. of the Apocrypha, the fourth chs. 3-14 of 2 Es., and the fifth its subjoined chapters. According to this arrangement, our book is now commonly denominated 4 Ezra , although the title Ezra-Apocalypse , suggested by Westcott as the probable form in the lost Greek text, has also come into use.

3. Literary structure .-Of late years, the question of the literary structure of the book has assumed increasing prominence. Its essential unity, as coming from the hand of a single writer, who may, however, have used and failed to assimilate adequately material previously existing, is still maintained by such scholars as Gunkel, Porter, and Sanday. On this theory, its date is fixed with some degree of unanimity between a.d. 81 and 96, the Fall of Jerusalem, which gives occasion to it, being rightly referred to the destruction by Titus in a.d. 70, and the difficult Eagle Vision being interpreted of the succession of Roman Emperors (Vespasian, Titus, and Domitian) after that event. Another theory, however, ascribing a composite character to the book, has recently been worked out with much ingenuity by Kabisch, Charles, and Box. The last-mentioned finds five independent works in our Apocalypse; (1) a Salathiel Apocalypse (S = chs. 3-10), composed about a.d. 100; (2) the Eagle Vision (A = chs. 11:12), belonging to the time of Domitian or possibly Vespasian; (3) the Son of Man Vision (M = ch. 13), written before a.d. 70; (4) the Ezra Legend (E2 = ch. 14), dating about a.d. 100; and (5) extracts from an old Ezra Apocalypse (E), interpolated in S, and belonging to some period before a.d. 70. These separate documents were welded into a single book by a redactor (R), and published about a.d. 120. Whatever may be said for this analysis, it helps to elucidate certain features of the book which have hitherto been puzzling and obscure: divergent eschatological conceptions, varying historical situations, breaks of thought, and linguistic transitions.

4. Value and relation to Nt .-On either theory, the book remains of great importance, especially for the understanding of later developments of Judaism, and the environment of the early Christian Church. A fine expression of later Judaism, it reveals a passionate clinging to the merciful goodness of God, notwithstanding a measure of disappointment with the Law, and the most disastrous experience. Its spirit may be somewhat narrow, its style not infrequently tedious, its later visions lacking in imaginative power, and its solutions of the moral problem disappointing; yet it strikes a truly reflective note, and breathes throughout an unconquerable faith in God and the vindication of His righteousness. In these characteristics, perhaps, no less than in its unconscious admission of the weakness of Judaism, lay the strength of its appeal to Christian readers; but its present-day value is chiefly historical, as it is practically contemporaneous with the Nt literature, and shows points of contact with it. Direct dependence can hardly be established, yet there are similarities of thought and language to most of the Nt books, while, as Gunkel has clearly shown, there are marked affinities with the Pauline letters and the Book of Revelation.

( a ) The speculations of St. Paul are closely paralleled by the discussions of moral and religious problems in the earlier part of 2 Esdras. Our author presumably belonged to the school in which the great Apostle was trained; and, especially in his treatment of sin and the weakness of the Law as a redemptive power, has much in common with him. Sin is essentially transgression of the Law, and alienates from God ( 2 Esdras 9:36;  2 Esdras 7:48; cf.  Romans 5:13;  Romans 5:20). Its origin is to be found in the Fall of Adam and the evil heart ( cor malignum ) which he has transmitted to his descendants (2 Es 7:118; 3:20-22, 25-26; 4:30; cf.  Romans 5:12,  1 Corinthians 15:21). Accordingly it is universal, and has universally as its result not only spiritual corruption and infirmity, but physical death (2  Ezra 3:7; cf.  Romans 5:12;  Romans 5:14-15;  Romans 5:17;  Romans 5:21). In further agreement with St. Paul, and in opposition to the usual Rabbinical doctrine, our anther despairs of the efficacy of the Law to redeem and save the sinner ( 2 Esdras 9:36; cf.  Romans 3:20). Its promised rewards have little encouragement or inspiration for beings so constituted as to be unable to keep it (2 Es 7:116-131). At the best, though the world is perishing, it may still be hoped that a few may be saved (9:15, 22). It is all a puzzle and pain to the apocalyptist. Unacquainted with the great solvent ideas in which the Apostle found satisfaction for heart and mind, he resigns himself to the inscrutableness of God’s ways, the limitations of human intelligence, and the pre-determined Divine purpose in the history and end of the world, while taking what comfort he may from the assurance of God’s faithfulness and love to His ancient people (4:7-11, 28-31, 33-43; 5:31-40). This attitude of mind may not have been uncommon among the Jews of his time.

( b ) The points of comparison with the Johannine Apocalypse are of an eschatological kind, and appear most prominently in the later chapters of 2 Esdras. The same visionary method of Divine revelation is pursued; the schemes of the Last Things run upon similar lines; Rome is again the hostile world-power standing in the background; and there are not wanting resemblances of diction close enough to suggest a common source (cf.  2 Esdras 9:35 and  Revelation 6:9-11,  2 Esdras 4:41 and  Revelation 1:18). In 2 Es., too, especially when the earlier chapters are compared with the later, an inconsistency of eschatological representation is revealed, which is reflected not only in the Book of Revelation, but in other Nt books as well. Probably it attached to the current conceptions of the time, and did not greatly trouble the author or redactor of our book. In the earlier chapters, the eschatology is entirely of an individual character, concerning itself with the future of the soul, and postulating, immediately after death, a personal judgment and entrance into an eternal world of punishment and reward (7:75ff.). The later chapters (11, 12) are prevailingly political, and revive the old eschatology of the nation, with its scheme of preliminary woes, world-judgment, and earthly Messianic kingdom of indefinite duration. Some attempt is made in the book to adjust these points of view by the introduction of a temporary reign of the Messiah before the final consummation, which ushers in the glorious Heavenly Kingdom. This reign seems to have been expected to compensate the nation for the years of oppression in Egypt; and, by a comparison of  Genesis 15:13 with  Psalms 90:15, its length was fixed at 400 years (7:26-30). By a similar process of inference Slavonic Enoch had determined the duration of the temporary Messianic kingdom as 1000 years, or a millennium. On this matter the Book of Revelation follows Enoch.

Withal, there are still left in 2 Es. a number of divergent ideas. At one time the Messiah is presented as a purely human being, an earthly, temporal ruler of the line of David (12:32ff.); at another time he appears as a superhuman, pre-existent being, to whom the title ‘Son of God’ can be applied (7:28, 29; 13:32, 37, 52; 14:9). In some passages the Judgment is personal and individual, and takes place immediately after death (7:78-101, 117, 126); in others it is universal, and reserved for a great day at the end of the world (7:33, 43, 44; 8:1). Now the Messiah is Judge (12:32, 33), now God Himself (6:6). Side by side with the old restricted view of a resurrection of the righteous only stands the later view of a general resurrection (7:28-44), the one at the beginning, the other at the close of the Messianic period, as in the Book of Revelation. These discrepancies belonged to the environment of the early Church, and it was part of her intellectual task to combine them into a harmonious belief.

Literature.-G. Volkmar, Dai vierte Buch Esra , 1858; A. Hilgenfeld, Messias Judœorum , 1869; F. Rosenthal, Vier apokryphische Bücher , 1885; R. Kabisch, Das vierte Buch Ezra , 1889; J. Wellhausen, Skizzen and Vorarbeiten , 1899; R. H. Charles, The Apocalypse of Baruch , 1896, and Eschatology; Hebrew, Jewish, and Christian , 1899 (21913); R. L. Bensly and M. R. James, The Fourth Book of Ezra (= Texts and Studies iii. 2 [1895]); H. Gunkel, ‘Das vierte Buch Esra’, in Kautzsch’s Die Apokryphen und Pseudepigraphen des At [Note: T Altes Testament.], 1900; Léon Vaganay, Le Problème eschatologique dans le Iv e livre d’Esdras , 1906; F. C. Porter, The Messages of the Apocalyptical Writers , 1905: Bruno Violet, Die Esra-Apokalypse , 1910; G. H. Box, The Ezra-Apocalypse , 1912, and ‘Iv Ezra’ in R. H. Charles’s The Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha of the Ot , 1913.

D. Frew.