Introduction

Preface

The non-canonical book of Ezra, called in our Bible the Second Book of Ezdras, bears other names in other texts. In the translations: the Old Latin, the Syriac, and in the Vatican codex of the LXX it is called the first book of Ezra and is placed before the canonical book of Ezra – apparently because its narrative covers a more ancient period than the narrative of the canonical book of Ezra. In the Vulgate, where the books of Ezra and Nehemiah are called the first and second books of Ezra, the non-canonical book of Ezra is called the third (liber tertius). In the Codex Alexandrinus and some other manuscripts of the LXX text, the book bears the title “ό ιερεύς” (the priest), by which is intended to indicate that Ezra was a priest in a special sense (κατ εξοκήν). Apparently, Jerome in the Prologus Galeatus assigns to the book under consideration the designation Pastor. But in ancient times already, where the books of Ezra and Nehemiah were considered as one and were called “the book of Ezra,” the book under consideration was known also under the name of second Ezdras (Compare Aug., De doctrina Christ. II, 8; Isidore, Orig. VI, 2), which has been accepted into our Bible. Among modern scholars the book is also called: “Pseudo-Ezra,” “Apocryphal Ezra,” and more often “the Greek book of Ezra.” By this last name the book is distinguished, on the one hand, from the canonical book of Ezra, which exists in the Hebrew text, on the other – from “the Apocalypse of Ezra” (the Third book of Ezdras), which was preserved in the Latin text.

The Second Book of Ezdras begins with a narrative of the solemn celebration of Passover under King Josiah in the eighteenth year of his reign and an outline of the subsequent history of the Judean kingdom down to the Babylonian captivity (ch. 1). From ch. 2 onward, the book reviews the post-exilic period of the history of the Jewish people from the return of the Jews under Cyrus to the reform of Ezra inclusive (ch. II-X:55). In this connection, in ch. III,1-V is found an inserted episode: a narrative of the dispute of the three bodyguards of King Darius and of the victory won in this dispute by Zerubbabel. The mentioned episode represents, properly speaking, something original. In the remaining parts, the Second Book of Ezdras sets forth with insignificant changes the narrative of the canonical books of 2 Chronicles, 1 Ezdras, and Nehemiah, namely:

Ch. 1 2 Chr 35-36.

Ch. II, 1–14 Ezra 1.

Ch. II, 15–25 Ezra 4:7-24.

Ch. V:7–70 1 Ezra II:1, IV:5.

Ch. VI, 1, VII:15 Ezra 5-6.

Ch. VIII, 1-IX Ezra 7-10.

Ch. IX:37–55 Neh 7:37-8.

From where the compiler of the book took the section III, 1-V:6 is unknown. It is possible both that the narrative of these chapters is based on some Persian court tale, and that the author uses a Jewish tradition in his narrative. As for the remaining parts of 2 Ezra, the question arises: what texts of his sources (Chronicles, 1 Ezra and Nehemiah) did the author use in writing the mentioned parts. The exegetes Michaellis, Trendelenburg, Berthold, Fritzsche, Nöldeke, Kautsch and others believe that the author of 2 Ezra had before him the Hebrew text of the named sources and moreover in a recension more correct than that in which these sources have come down to us. In the opinion of scholars Daan, Langen, Keil, Schürer, Zöckler, the writer of 2 Ezra used only the Greek text of his sources, which he subjected to reworking. More arguments are on the side of the defenders of the first opinion. Some readings of 2 Ezra can be explained only by the supposition of a Hebrew original. Thus, in II, 16 the author reads the name of one of the enemies of the Jews as Βήλεμος (Belem), which could only arise from the Hebrew bischlam (Ezra 4:7), not from the Greek εν ειρήνη (the LXX understood bischlam in the sense of the common noun beschlom – “in peace”). In I:10 the reading έχοντες τα αζυμα (“holding unleavened cakes”), differing from the parallel 2 Chr 35 κατά τήν έντολήν τού βασιλέως (“according to the king’s command”), could have arisen due to erroneous confusion of Hebrew mizvath (command) with the completely similar in appearance mazhoth. In II, 17 the reading κριται (“judges”) instead of the proper name Dinaeans could only arise from erroneous understanding of the Hebrew dinaje in the sense of dajjane, “judges,” whereas in the LXX the word is correctly rendered by the proper name Δειναιοι. (Other examples in Nestle, Marginalien und Materialien, Tübingen 1898, p. 24–26). But the references of the defenders of the opinion about the author of 2 Ezra using a Greek original to the similarity of 2 Ezra with the LXX text in the use of rare words (VIII, 86; compare Ezra 9:13; compare Neh 8:10), as well as in deviations from the Hebrew original (I:3, compare 2 Chr 35:3, compare 2 Chr 35:9 and others) have no significance, as this has been shown by Nestle (Marginalien, p. 26–27). But, supposing a Hebrew original for 2 Ezra, there are no grounds to assert, as some authors do, that this original represented a better recension of the Hebrew text of the books of Chronicles, Ezra, and Nehemiah than that which has come down to us: the better readings of the presumed original pointed to by Trendelenburg do not actually surpass the Masoretic ones (Bissell, The Apocrypha, p. 66–68).

As for the author’s relationship to his originals, the following can be said. The author uses the Hebrew text freely, caring for the clarity of thought and ease of exposition. Correspondingly, he avoids Hebraisms (VIII, 6. Compare Ezra 7:9) abbreviates the original (I:10 compare 2 Chr 35:10-12; II, 16; compare Ezra 4:7-11; VI:3–4; compare Ezra 5:3-4), makes additions (I:56; compare 2 Chr. XXXVI:20; II, 5; compare 1 Ezra I:3; II, 9; compare 1 Ezra I:4; V:46; compare Ezra 2:70 and many others), clarifications (II, 17, 24–25; VI:3; compare Ezra 4:8; II, 19; compare Ezra 4:13; II, 20; compare Ezra 4:14), changes the form of proper names (compare V:8 and following, Ezra 2; Neh 7). In some cases the author shows even erroneous understanding of the original, representing, for example, Zerubbabel as a contemporary of Darius Hystaspis (ch. 5), incorrectly interpreting the section Ezra 4:7-23 (compare 1 Esd 2), and some individual reports (compare V:70; VI:27; IX:49).

The narrative of 2 Ezra does not have a finished character. On account of this, it is supposed that the end of the book, which probably set forth Neh 8-9, has not come down to us (Zunz). In the opinion of Trendelenburg and Eichhorn, we do not have the beginning of the book either, since the author probably did not limit himself to a review of events from the eighteenth year of Josiah, but also mentioned the first years of Josiah, including in his exposition the XXXIV ch. of 2 Chronicles. But such suppositions have no firm ground (see, however, the note to IX:55).

As to the time of origin of 2 Ezra, it is difficult to say anything definite. The first historical reference to the book is found in Josephus, who in his exposition of the events of the beginning of the post-exilic period (Antiquities X and XI) follows precisely 2 Ezra. From this one can conclude that the book was written no later than the first century of our era – but when exactly, is unknown. Fritzsche considers the author of the book to be some Hellenist living in Palestine. Daan, Langen, and Bissell believe that the book originated in Egypt. Bissell sees the indication of Egypt in the remark IV:23 (“ready to sail over sea and rivers”), and other authors – in the peculiarities of the language of the book. On general grounds, the need for a Greek text of the book of Ezra could have arisen in Egypt rather than in Palestine.

The first writer to use the Second book of Ezdras, as noted above, was Josephus. Treating the book with trust, attempting to eliminate some difficulties which it raised, Josephus, however, in places departs from it and follows its originals in transmission (I:9; I:38; II, 15). Among the Church Fathers, 2 Ezra is quoted very frequently. References to the book are found, for example, in Clement of Alexandria (Strom., I, 21), in Origen (Homilies XI, Commentary on John, vol. VI, 1), in Cyprian (Epistle 74, 9), in Jerome (Preface in the books of Ezra) and Augustine (City of God XVIII, 36; On Christian Doctrine II, 8). Diggel (History of the Old Testament in the Church of Christ, vol. 182) says that the majority of the Church Fathers, with the exception of Jerome, considered the Second book of Ezdras to be canonical. But from the Patristic quotations, which relate mainly to the episode of the dispute of the bodyguards, one sees only that the book enjoyed respect, was regarded as Holy Scripture, and was quoted with the formula ut scriptum est (Cyprian, Origen). In the canons of canonical books, the Second book of Ezdras is not listed. Only Jerome recognized in the book, namely in the discourse on truth (IV:34–40) a messianic-prophetic significance and apparently numbered it among the canonical. Jerome, on the contrary, valued the book low, classing it among the apocrypha. Explaining why he translated only the canonical book of Ezra-Nehemiah, Jerome says in particular: “Let no one be moved because only one book of Esdras is published by us, and let him not delight in the dreams of the apocryphal third and fourth [books]” (Preface to the book of Ezra). Following the view of Jerome, the Council of Trent did not accept the book into the canon, and in official editions of the Vulgate it is either not included at all, or is placed as an appendix. The view of Jerome was followed by Luther, who said that in the 2nd and 3rd books of Ezra there is nothing that could not be found in better form in Aesop or in other less important books. Many Protestant exegetes therefore attach no significance to the 2nd book of Ezdras and in investigating the post-exilic period do not use it at all.

Contrary to the noted views, modern criticism, as already indicated, has elevated the significance of the book and tends to give it preference before the canonical books of Ezra and Nehemiah. Undoubtedly, as a non-canonical book containing obvious errors, 2 Ezra does not deserve the trust which the canonical books of Ezra and Nehemiah deserve. But at the same time it is hardly just to reject, as some authors do, all significance of it: as a translation from a Hebrew original, 2 Ezra can help restore this original in those places where its readings raise difficulties.

Literature: Trendelenburg, On the apocryphal Ezdras (in Eichhorn, Aug. Bibliothek bibl. Literatur, vol. 1. 1787). Fritzsche, Concise exegetical handbook to the Apocrypha of the Old Testament, First part. Leipzig 1851. Bissell, The Apocrypha of the Old Testament, 1880. Zöckler, The Apocrypha of the Old Testament, Munich 1891. Kautsch, The Apocrypha, vol. I, Tübingen 1900. Schürer, Geschichte des jüdischen Volkes im Zeitalter Jesu Christi, 2nd and 3rd edition. Fischer, The Apocryphal and the Canonical Book of Esdras. (Bibl. Zeitschrift 1904). Moulton, On the Transmission and Text-critical Value of the Third Book of Ezdras (Zeitschrift für Alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 1899, vol. II). See also the commentary on the books 1 Ezra and Nehemiah in vol. III of the Expository Bible.