Search over 40,000 articles from the original, classic Encyclopedia Britannica, 11th Edition.
|
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: 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: 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 . |
|
|
[back] FOURTH BOOK EZRA (or APOCALYPSE) OF |
[next] EZV |
There are no comments yet for this article.
Do not copy, download, transfer, or otherwise replicate the site content in whole or in part.
Links to articles and home page are encouraged.