Online Encyclopedia

Search over 40,000 articles from the original, classic Encyclopedia Britannica, 11th Edition.

THIRD BOOK OF [I Esdras] EZRA

Online Encyclopedia
Originally appearing in Volume V10, Page 106 of the 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica.
Spread the word: del.icio.us del.icio.us it!

THIRD See also:

BOOK OF [I Esdras] See also:EZRA  . The titles of the various books of the See also:Ezra literature are very confusing . The See also:Greek, the Old Latin, the See also:Syriac, and the See also:English See also:Bible from 156o See also:Gog probably represents a Scythian See also:horde (though such an invasion never took See also:place)—certainly not See also:Alexander the See also:Great, who would have been called "See also:king of See also:Greece," and would have been regarded not as an enemy but as a friend . onwards designate this See also:book as 1 Esdras, the canonical books Ezra and See also:Nehemiah being 2 Esdras in the Greek . In the See also:Vulgate, however, our author was, through the See also:action of See also: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 i and 2 Esdras, and the See also:Apocalypse of Ezra 4 Esdras . Thus the nomenclature of our book follows, and possibly wrongly, the usage of the Vulgate) . In the Ethiopic version a different usage prevails . The Apocalyspe is called 1 Esdras, our author 2 Esdras, and Ezra and Nehemiah 3 Esdras, or 3 and 4 Esdras . Throughout this See also:article we shall use the best attested designation of this book, i.e . 1 Esdras . Contents.—With the exception of one See also:original See also:section, namely, that of See also:Darius and the three See also:young men, our author contains essentially the same materials as the canonical Ezra and some sections of 2 See also:Chronicles and Nehemiah . To the various explanations of this phenomenon we shall recur later .

The book may be divided as follows (the See also:

verse See also:division is that of the See also:Cambridge LXX) : See also:Chap. i . =2 Chron. See also:xxxv . 1-See also:xxxvi . 21.—Great See also:passover of See also:Josiah: his See also:death at Megiddo . His successors down to the destruction of See also:Jerusalem and the Captivity . (Verses i . 21-22 are not found else-where, though the LXX of 2 Chron. xxxv . 20 exhibits a very distant parallel.) Chap. ii . 1-14=Ezra i.—The See also:edict of See also:Cyrus . Restoration of the sacred vessels through Sanabassar to Jerusalem . Chap. ii . 15-25—Ezra iv .

6-24.—First See also:

attempt to rebuild the See also:Temple: opposition of the See also:Samaritans . See also:Decree of See also:Artaxerxes: See also:work abandoned till the second See also:year of Darius . Chap. iii . 1—v . 6.—This section is See also:peculiar to our author . The contest between the three pages waiting at the See also:court of Darius and the victory of the Jewish youth " Zerubbabel," to whom as a See also:reward Darius decrees the return of the See also:Jews and the restoration of the Temple and See also:worship . Partial See also:list of those who returned with " See also: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 . See also:

Correspondence between Sisinnes and Darius with reference to the See also: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 See also:

reading of the See also:Law . Thus, apart from iii . 1-v . 3, which gives an See also: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 See also:middle of a See also:sentence . As See also:Thackeray suggests, it probably continued the See also:history of the feast of See also:Tabernacles described in Neh. viii.—a view that is supported by See also:Joseph .

See also:

Ant. xi . 5 . 5, " who describes that feast using an Esdras word eirav6pOwocs 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 See also:Hebrew Ezra . (1) For in the best See also:MSS . (BA) it stands before 2 Esdras —the verbal See also:translation of the Hebrew Ezra and Nehemiah . (2) It is used by See also:Josephus, who in fact does not seem aware of the existence of 2 Esdras . (3) x Esdras is frequently quoted by the Greek fathers—Clem . Alex., See also:Origen, See also:Eusebius, and by the Latin—See also:Tertullian, See also:Cyprian, See also:Augustine . The adverse See also:judgment of the See also:church is due to Jerome, who, from his See also:firm See also:attachment to the Hebrew Old Testament, declined to translate the "dreams " of 3 and 4 Esdras . This judgment influenced alike the See also:Council At the Council of See also:Trent (when the See also:Septuagint See also:Canon was virtually accepted as authoritative), by a most curious See also:aberration, Esdras iii. and iv. and the See also:Epistle of See also:Manasseh were alone exciuded from the canon and remitted to our appendix."—Howorth, " Unconventional Views on the See also:Text of the Bible," in the P.S.B.A., 1901, p . 149.of Trent and the Lutheran church in See also:Germany; for See also:Luther also refused to translate Esdras and the Apocalypse of Ezra .

Phoenix-squares

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, See also:

Bissell and formerly Schiffer, regarded 1 Esdras as a See also: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 See also:case . 2 . Others, as See also:Ewald, Hist. of 1st. v . 126-128, and Thackeray in See also:Hastings' Bible See also: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 r . 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 See also:mere redaction of a no longer extant version of the canonical books, but shows not only an See also:independent knowledge of the Hebrew text but also of a Hebrew text See also: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 See also:Michaelis, See also:Trendelenburg, Pohlmann, Herzfeld, Fritzsche hold it to be a See also: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 See also:

time of the Book of See also:Daniel . Against this it has been urged that the See also:story of the three pages was written originally in Greek (Ewald, Schiffer, Thackeray) . The only grounds for this theory are the easiness of •the Greek See also:style and the paronomasia in iv . 62 See also:bean, Kai 4€ocv . But the former is no real objection, and the latter may be purely accidental . On the other See also:hand there are several undoubted Semiticisms . Thus we have two instances of the split relative ou . . . avro6 iii . 5; ov . . . ir' avrc iv . 63 and the phrase pointed out by Fritzsche ra S&Kaca aocei See also:art!, 7ravrwv=See also:inn=ran ?IrY . It must, however, be admitted that there are fewer Hebraisms in this section of the book than in the See also:rest .

4 . See also:

Sir H . H . Howorth in the See also:treatises referred to at the See also: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 See also:precedence of 2 Esdras in the great See also: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 (See also:Diet . See also:Christ . Biog. iv . 977) has pointed out (cf .

1 Esdr. vi . 31, and See also:

Dan. ii . 5) . This contention of Howorth has been accepted by Nestle, See also:Cheyne, Bertholet, See also: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 See also:historical credibility of the See also:hook as a whole and its See also:chronological accuracy as against the canonical Ezra has not as yet met with See also:acceptance; but his arguments have not been fairly met and answered . 5 . Volz (Encyc . Bibl. ii . 1490) thinks that the See also: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 See also:

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 See also: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 See also:

chief problems of the book .

End of Article: THIRD BOOK OF [I Esdras] EZRA
[back]
FOURTH BOOK EZRA (or APOCALYPSE) OF
[next]
EZV

Additional information and Comments

There are no comments yet for this article.
» Add information or comments to this article.
Please link directly to this article:
Highlight the code below, right click and select "copy." Paste it into a website, email, or other HTML document.