Online Encyclopedia

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] EZRA  . The titles of the various books of the Ezra literature are very confusing . The Greek, the Old Latin, the
See also:
Syriac, and the
See also:
English Bible from 156o Gog probably represents a Scythian
See also:
horde (though such an invasion never took place)—certainly not Alexander the
See also:
Great, who would have been called "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 Nehemiah being 2 Esdras in the Greek . In the Vulgate, however, our author was, through the
See also:
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 i 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) . 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 article we shall use the best attested designation of this book, i.e . 1 Esdras . Contents.—With the exception of one
See also:
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) :
See also:
Chap. i . =2 Chron.
See also:
xxxv . 1-
See also:
xxxvi . 21.—Great
See also:
passover of Josiah: his
See also:
death at Megiddo . His successors down to the destruction of 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 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
See also:
Samaritans . 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 court of Darius and the victory of the Jewish youth " Zerubbabel," to whom as a
See also:
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
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 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
See also:
middle of a sentence . As Thackeray suggests, it probably continued the
See also:
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 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 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., Origen, Eusebius, and by the Latin—Tertullian, Cyprian, Augustine . The adverse
See also:
judgment of the 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 Council At the Council of Trent (when the Septuagint
See also:
Canon was virtually accepted as authoritative), by a most curious aberration, Esdras iii. and iv. and the
See also:
Epistle of Manasseh were alone exciuded 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.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 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 case . 2 . Others, as Ewald, Hist. of 1st. v . 126-128, and Thackeray in 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 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 Michaelis, 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

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, Schiffer, Thackeray) . The only grounds for this theory are the easiness of •the Greek style and the paronomasia in iv . 62 bean, Kai 4€ocv . 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 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 rest .

4 .

See also:
Sir H . H . Howorth in the
See also:
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
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 . 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, 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
See also:
historical credibility of the hook as a whole and its
See also:
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 .

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.