CHAPTER VIII

The Greek Ezra

(1 (3) Esdras)

[LITERATURE.—Fritzsche, in _Exegetisches Handbuch zu den Apokryphen_ (1851); Lupton, in Wace, I, pp. 1-69; Sir H. H. Howorth in the _Academy_ (1893), and in the _Proceedings_ of the “Society for Biblical Archæology” (1901-1902); Torrey, _Ezra Studies_ (1910); S. A. Cook, in Charles, I, pp. 1-58. The articles by Thackeray in Hastings’ _Dict. of the Bible_, and by Volz in the _Encycl. Bibl._]

I. THE TITLE OF THE BOOK

The book now to be considered has, with few exceptions, been treated with scant respect by scholars for many centuries. Jerome, in his Preface to the books of Ezra and Nehemiah, condemned both the Esdras books in our Apocrypha with their “dreams,” and the Church has followed him in relegating them to a very inferior position. It is only during the last decade or so that, owing, in the main, to the labours of Sir Henry Howorth, scholars have come to realize the importance of 1 (3) Esdras, with which we are at present concerned.

The various titles of the Ezra books are apt, thanks largely to Jerome, to cause confusion; it will therefore, be advisable to set forth these different titles in tabular form, which will also explain how they have arisen:

_Hebrew _Septuagint_ _Vulgate_ _English _English Bible_ Bible_ Apocrypha_

Ezra[457] } { 1 Esdras Ezra Nehemiah[457] } 2 Esdras, { 2 Esdras Nehemiah 2 Esdras } or Esdras B. { i. ii.[458]

{ 1 Esdras, or Esdras } { A, together with 2 } { Chronicles xxxv., } Ezra { xxxvi. and most of } 3 Esdras Ezra 1 Esdras { Nehemiah viii. (the } { “Greek Ezra”). }

Not extant 4 Esdras 2 Esdras iii.-xiv.

No equivalent 5 Esdras 2 Esdras xv., xvi.

It will conduce to clearness if we speak of our present book as the “Greek Ezra” and ignore these confusing titles. By the “Hebrew Ezra” is meant, of course, the canonical book of Ezra.

II. CONTENTS OF THE BOOK

As will be seen by referring to the table given above, the contents of our book correspond substantially with parts of the canonical Scriptures[459]; but the “Greek Ezra” does not run wholly parallel with the “Hebrew Ezra,” so that in enumerating the contents of the former it will be necessary to record against each section to what passage in the canonical Scriptures it corresponds, whether to some passage in the “Hebrew Ezra,” or in 2 Chronicles, or in Nehemiah.

i. 1-58 (= 2 Chron. xxxv., xxxvi. 1-21): The book begins very abruptly with a long account of Josiah’s celebration of the Passover in Jerusalem (verses 1-24). Then follows the story of Josiah’s death at the battle of Megiddo where he was defeated by the king of Egypt; reference is made to “the book of the histories of the kings of Judæa,” where these things are written (verses 25-33). The rest of the section deals with Josiah’s successors down to the destruction of Jerusalem (verses 34-58).

ii. 1-15 (= 2 Chron. xxxvi. 22, 23 and Ezra i. 1-11): Cyrus the Persian issues a decree permitting the return of the people and the rebuilding of the Temple in Jerusalem; the sacred vessels of the Temple are given back.

ii. 16-30 (= Ezra iv. 7-24): The Samaritans address a letter to Artaxerxes accusing the Jews of the intention to rebel in rebuilding the walls of the city, and warning him of what the result will be if the building is persisted in (verses 16-24). The purpose of the letter is successful, and the building ceases until the second year of Darius (verses 25-30).

iii. 1-v. 3 (no corresponding passage in the canonical Scriptures): The wisdom competition among three young men of Darius’ bodyguard. Zerubbabel proves himself to be wisest and is rewarded by the king (iii. 1-iv. 46); the reward consists in granting Zerubbabel his request that the king would issue a decree permitting the Jews to return to their country and rebuild the walls of Jerusalem and the Temple (iv. 47-57). Zerubbabel’s thanksgiving (iv. 58-63), and the return of the exiles (v. 1-3).

v. 4-6 (no corresponding passage in the canonical Scriptures): These verses contain the fragment of a list of the returned exiles.

v. 7-73 (= Ezra ii. 1-iv. 5, 24 and Neh. vii. 6-73): A list of those who returned from Babylon under Zerubbabel, Joshua and Nehemiah (verses 7-46); the rebuilding of the Temple (verses 47-65); the Samaritans desire to assist in the work, but are refused; in consequence of this they plot against the Jews, and the building is suspended (verses 66-73).

vi. 1-vii. 15 (= Ezra v. 1-vi. 22): The building of the Temple is begun (vi. 1-6); the letter of Sisinnes, the governor of Syria and Phœnicia, to Darius, asking him to signify his approval of the undertaking (vi. 7-22); the favourable reply of Darius (vi. 23-34). The completion of the building of the Temple, and its dedication (vii. 1-9). Celebration of the Feast of Passover (vii. 10-15).

viii. 1-ix. 36 (= Ezra vii. 1-x. 44): With the permission of Artaxerxes, Ezra goes to Jerusalem with “certain of the children of Israel and of the priests and Levites” (viii. 1-7). Copy of the commission written by Artaxerxes to Ezra (viii. 8-24). A list of those who returned with Ezra (viii. 25-60). The return to Jerusalem, and Ezra’s work in combating mixed marriages (viii. 61-ix. 36).

ix. 37-55 (= Neh. vii. 73-viii. 12): The reading of the Law of Moses by Ezra.

* * * * *

It will thus be seen that the whole of our book, with the exception of iii. 1-v. 6, runs parallel with passages from the “Hebrew Ezra” and parts of 2 Chronicles and Nehemiah. But it will be well to consider the relationship between our book and the “Hebrew Ezra,” and also to inquire as to the relationship of 2 Esdras, or Esdras B, to our book.

III. THE “HEBREW EZRA,” THE “GREEK EZRA,” AND 2 ESDRAS

In the table given above it will be seen that the Hebrew Book of Ezra is represented twice in the Septuagint, viz. by 2 Esdras and the “Greek Ezra,” and that both the Greek forms contain more than simply a translation of the “Hebrew Ezra,” since 2 Esdras has the whole of what was once a single Hebrew book (Ezra-Nehemiah), and our “Greek Ezra” has some matter in addition to the translation of Ezra.

Our first point is to see how the “Hebrew Ezra” and the “Greek Ezra” compare. As regards the sequence of events there are only two cases of any considerable divergence, namely, ii. 16-30 (= Ezra iv. 7-24) is out of place, and ix. 37-55 (= Neh. vii. 73-viii. 12) which follows viii. 1-ix. 36 (= Ezra vii. 1-x. 44) varies from the order in the Hebrew Bible. Otherwise the material of the two is the same, with the one exception of iii. 1-v. 3, the story of the wisdom competition between the three young men of Darius’ bodyguard; this is peculiar to our “Greek Ezra,”[460] and, unlike the rest of the book, was originally composed in Greek. The rest of the book is translated from the Hebrew, but the translation is free and paraphrastic. Turning now for a moment to 2 Esdras, the point of chief importance here is that the translation is a very literal one, it follows the Hebrew text minutely and with almost painful accuracy, sometimes giving renderings which are so close as to be rather lacking in sense in their translated form. In his comparison of the two Greek books Thackeray says: “The two translations are of an essentially different character. While the writer of Esdras B (2 Esdras) shows a slavish adherence to the Hebrew, often transliterating his original, and making no pretensions to style, Esdras A (the “Greek Ezra”) is marked by a free style of translation, an elegant and idiomatic Greek, a happy rendering of Hebraisms, and an omission of difficulties, which make it a far more readable book than the other. It was clearly intended for Greek readers unacquainted with Hebrew. The writer was a _littérateur_ in possession of a wide Greek vocabulary.”[461]

The central problem of our book is to ascertain the relationship between it and the canonical Hebrew book, and 2 Esdras. How do the “Greek Ezra” and 2 Esdras stand to one another? How comes it that both are contained in the Septuagint? Do they both go back to the same Hebrew original? These and other questions which suggest themselves in studying the book are by no means easy to answer, and very varying opinions are held by scholars; nor does it appear that any solution offered is clear from objections of some kind. To deal with these theories would be out of the question here, for the discussion of them fills volumes[462]; a few facts may, however, be enumerated which must be taken into consideration in seeking to arrive at a conclusion.

(1) There are strong grounds for believing that the “Greek Ezra” is of earlier date than 2 Esdras; in the Septuagint it precedes the latter; Josephus uses it, and apparently does not know of 2 Esdras; the writer of the “Greek Ezra” utilizes Chronicles, Ezra and Nehemiah in such a way as to suggest that these three formed one whole, and had not yet been divided up; in 2 Esdras the “Hebrew Ezra” is clearly a separate book. The Hebrew text which underlies the “Greek Ezra” is often a purer, and therefore in all probability an older, one than that represented in 2 Esdras. For these reasons we are justified in regarding the “Greek Ezra” as of earlier date than 2 Esdras.

(2) The “Greek Ezra” and 2 Esdras often agree in small details; and, what is more striking, they not infrequently agree in deviating from the Hebrew. But, on the other hand, there are many passages in which the “Greek Ezra” follows the Hebrew more closely than 2 Esdras. Now, seeing that one of the characteristics of 2 Esdras is that it follows its Hebrew original in a slavish manner, one is led to the conclusion that the Hebrew text underlying the “Greek Ezra” varied considerably from that which is represented in 2 Esdras. But how is one to account for the agreements between the “Greek Ezra” and 2 Esdras, just mentioned? We suggest that something of this kind took place:

That the Hebrew text which underlay those two books respectively was not the same is clear; the “Greek Ezra” represents a text differing in many respects from the Massoretic text, and therefore in all probability an older one in which Chronicles-Ezra-Nehemiah were all one book; 2 Esdras represents in the main the Massoretic text. A Greek translation was made of the earlier Hebrew text, before, that is to say, the Hebrew text became fixed. This Greek translation was the immediate parent of our “Greek Ezra.” In the meantime the revision of the Hebrew text took place, and a translator translated this into Greek, utilizing at the same time the original Greek translation; this represents 2 Esdras. So that a different Hebrew text lies ultimately at the base of the “Greek Ezra” and of 2 Esdras; nevertheless both have to recognize the parentage of an intermediate Greek translation, which accounts for the elements of agreement between them; while their differences are accounted for because they were translated from different Hebrew texts. The accompanying diagram will illustrate the suggestion made:

Original Hebrew | +----------------------+---------------------+ | | Original Greek Revised Hebrew | | +-------------------------+ | “Greek Ezra” | | +--------+---------+ | 2 Esdras

This suggestion is a combination of those of Ewald[463] and Sir H. H. Howorth.[464] What has been said does not account for all the difficulties; there is, for example, the piece iii. 1-v. 3 to be accounted for; and the historical inaccuracies (see next section) constitute another difficulty. Much can, however, be explained by recognizing, what seems to be an undoubted fact, that a redactor has been at work on our book, but has not finished his work; there seems to have been a special purpose which this redactor had in view (see section V) and he was concerned with this more than with historical accuracy. The difficulties are enhanced by the fact that the abrupt beginning and ending show that the book is incomplete in its present form.

IV. THE HISTORICITY OF THE BOOK

In discussing the question of the historical character of our book it is obviously necessary to take the “Hebrew Ezra” and Nehemiah into account; and it will help us to some extent in seeking to find our way about the hopelessly intricate historical maze in which we soon become involved if we begin by drawing up a chronological table. We will, however, preface this with the following list of Persian kings; the names which are put in square brackets do not concern us, but they are added for completeness’ sake:

Cyrus, as king of Persia, B.C. 538-529. [Cambyses, B.C. 529-522.] Darius I, Hystaspes, B.C. 522-486. [Xerxes, B.C. 486-465.] Artaxerxes I, Longimanus, B.C. 465-426.

Now we give a chronological list of events with the references to the canonical Chronicles-Ezra-Nehemiah; for the corresponding references in the “Greek Ezra” see the table on pp. 440 ff.

Fall of Jerusalem, B.C. 586 (2 Chron. xxxvi. 17-21).

Edict of Cyrus, in his first year, permitting the return of the Jews to Jerusalem under Zerubbabel, B.C. 538 (Ezra i. 1 ff.).

Laying of the foundation-stone of the Temple, B.C. 536 (Ezra iii. 8 ff.).

Building of the Temple interrupted till the second year of Darius, B.C. 520 (Ezra iv. 1-5, 24 [in Ezra iv. 6-23 the reference is to interference with the building of the city walls, not to the Temple; this section has either got out of place, or it is a later insertion]).

Edict of Darius permitting the building of the Temple to be recommenced, B.C. 520 (Ezra vi. 1 ff.).

Completion and dedication of the Temple in the sixth year of Darius, B.C. 516 (Ezra vi. 13 ff.).

Arrival of Ezra in Jerusalem, in the seventh year of Artaxerxes, and his activity there, B.C. 458. (Ezra vii. 1 ff.) [Note the gap of fifty-eight years between this and the previously recorded event.]

Arrival of Nehemiah in Jerusalem in the twenty-first year of Artaxerxes, B.C. 444; permission given to rebuild the city walls (Neh. ii. 1 ff.). [Note the gap of fourteen years between this and the previously recorded event.]

Reading of the Law by Ezra, B.C. 444, late in the year (Neh. vii. 73_b_, viii. 1 ff.).

* * * * *

On comparing the history of the “Greek Ezra” with that of Chronicles-Ezra-Nehemiah the two most prominent points to be noted are that, (1) the “Greek Ezra” makes the order of the Persian kings the reverse of what that order actually was, viz., Artaxerxes (ii. 15-25), Darius (iii. 1-v. 6), Cyrus (v. 7-70), while Chronicles-Ezra-Nehemiah has the right order. It is, however, well to remember that the “Greek Ezra” in ii. 1 ff. begins the list in the right order, namely, with Cyrus. And (2) the “Greek Ezra” takes no account of Nehemiah i. 1-vii. 72, but gives the history as recorded in Ezra vii.-x., Nehemiah vii. 73-viii. 12; so that the “Greek Ezra” does not present the gap of fourteen years found in Ezra-Nehemiah, for it makes the history of Ezra continuous.

As regards the first of these two points, it is evident that the writer of the “Greek Ezra” was not unaware of the fact that the events were in their wrong order, otherwise we should not have found Cyrus mentioned first, as in ii. 1 ff., and Artaxerxes last, as in viii. 1 ff. An important fact in this connection is that Josephus, who follows the “Greek Ezra” and not 2 Esdras with its literal translation of the “Hebrew Ezra,” has “Cambyses” instead of “Artaxerxes,” thus getting the order correct; and, in following the text of the “Greek Ezra,” he has a consistent chronology. But the contents of the passage in question (ii. 16-30) show that the _position_ in which it stands must be wrong because it speaks of the interruption of the building of the Temple before the foundation is begun. So that if Josephus did not himself alter “Artaxerxes” to “Cambyses,” which is very improbable, he must have found it in the source he had before him; in this case a redactor or compiler altered the name, desiring to get the names of the Persian kings in their right order. But if this is so it suggests the fact that in the original translation of the book the chronology was inconsistent, in which case the same must be true of the Hebrew text which the translator had before him. Now when we look at the Hebrew text of Ezra-Nehemiah we find that it, too, contains historical inaccuracies of a serious character, and that there has clearly been a considerable manipulation of the text. What seems, therefore, to be pretty clear is that there were several different Hebrew records of the history of the people since the Return, and that the knowledge of this history was hazy; but that finally an authoritative, revised, Hebrew form was made in which the general uncertainty regarding the historical events is strongly reflected; not only so, but for particular purposes (see next section) certain aspects of the history were emphasized, while others were treated more scantily; the final result being that before any Greek translation was made there were two, at least, Hebrew accounts of the history both characterized by a particular tendency, and both characterized by historical inaccuracies. Our two Greek versions represent these two Hebrew (or Hebrew-Aramaic) forms. But it does not follow that the historicity of either of these was superior to the other; in this matter each has something to contribute. A striking example of the way in which the “Greek Ezra” sometimes shows its superiority is the second point referred to above; in this case the Ezra story is more logical, differing from the canonical account by making Ezra vii.-x. to be immediately followed by Nehemiah vii. 73-viii. 12.

There are many other differences between the “Greek Ezra” and the canonical books, details of which would be out of place here, but the two given illustrate the main point regarding the historicity of our book which we wish to emphasize, namely, that its historical value is, at the lowest estimate, on a level with that of its canonical rival; each has many inaccuracies, but each has something to contribute; to use one without the other in dealing with the history of the period would be a great mistake. “It can no longer be assumed,” Cook rightly points out, “that the Massoretic text necessarily represents a more trustworthy record of the age, and that _E_ (= the “Greek Ezra”) is necessarily arbitrary and methodless. Both share fundamental imperfections. _E_, therefore, in any case deserves impartial consideration, and its problems involve those of Ezra-Nehemiah. These problems, owing to the absence of decisive and independent evidence, can be handled only provisionally; but enough is clear to permit the conclusion that _E_ represents a text in some respects older than the _present_ Massoretic text, to which, however, some attempt seems to have been made to conform it.... From a comparison of both with Josephus and other sources (notably Daniel) it would further appear that _E_ represents one of the efforts to give an account of a period, the true course of which was confused and forgotten, if not intentionally obscured; different attempts were made to remove difficulties and inconsistencies, and the desire to give greater prominence to the priestly Ezra than to the secular governor Nehemiah is probably responsible for the arrangement of the extant texts.”[465]

V. THE PURPOSE OF THE BOOK

It is an open question as to what the special purpose was which the writer of the original Hebrew work had in his mind; one might at first naturally suppose that it was the same as the writer of any other Jewish historical book, namely to give the history of the particular period dealt with. But assuming, as we may justly do, that our Greek translation gives, upon the whole, an equivalent of the Hebrew that lay before it, it is not difficult to discern a special tendency at work in it. In the first place, political history is quite relegated to the background; but great stress is laid upon everything that has to do with worship and ritual, the re-instatement of the sacrificial system and of the priests and their duties, the due support of the priests, the return of the holy vessels of the sanctuary, the celebration of the festivals, and the purification of the congregation. In addition to this, it is the rebuilding of the Temple which is emphasized, while the rebuilding of the city walls takes quite a secondary place. It is pretty evident, therefore, that the object which the writer had in view was not so much that of giving the history of his people during the post-exilic period, but rather to set forth the paramount importance of the worship of the Temple. In the second place, and closely connected with this, is the further purpose of presenting Ezra as the one really important person who figures in Jewish post-exilic history, and with his name was, of course, indissolubly connected the Law, of which he was the great champion. The title of the book, in fact, implies its purpose. All this is in accordance with what we know to have been characteristic of the attitude of the Jewish religious leaders during the late post-exilic period. In the original form of the Hebrew this was in all probability not so to the same extent, but that original was worked over in the interests of the school of thought just referred to; so that the actual form of the Hebrew which lay before the Greek translator was not the original form in which the book was written. The present title was a subsequent addition.

VI. THE STORY OF THE THREE YOUNG MEN OF DARIUS’ BODYGUARD

A few words about this section of our book is needed both because, according to some scholars, it is closely connected with the purpose for which our book was written, and also because it is the part which is peculiar to the “Greek Ezra.” It occurs in iii. 1-v. 6,[466] and is briefly as follows:

Three young men of Darius’ bodyguard undertake to enter upon a competition as to which of them shall be able to put forth a “sentence which shall seem wiser” than those of the other two; it seems to be taken for granted that the successful one will be richly rewarded by the king. They, therefore, wrote their sentences and sealed them, and laid them “under the king his pillow.” The king and the three princes of Persia are to be the judges as to which is the wisest of the three sentences, these being: “Wine is the strongest”; “The king is strongest”; “Women are strongest, but above all things Truth beareth away the victory” (iii. 1-12). Then the king, having had these sentences placed before him, calls upon all the state officials to assemble, while he sits in the seat of judgement, so that all may hear the explanations of their sentences which the three young men are invited to give (iii. 13-17). The first seeks to establish the truth of his sentence by showing that its power is uniform over all men; it affects all alike in that it enforces them to forget (iii. 17_b_-24). The second, by pointing to the unlimited power of the king over his subjects who obey his every command, maintains that the king is the strongest (iv. 1-12). The third, who, it is added in parenthesis, is Zerubbabel, speaks at greater length; he deals first with women, and shows that though the king is great, and wine is strong, yet “Women have borne the king and all the people that bear rule by sea and land. Even of them came they; and they nourished up them that planted the vineyards, from whence the wine cometh.” Man’s succumbing to the fascination of woman, and therefore her superior power, is the theme of the verses that follow (iv. 13-32). The second part of his oration is concerned with truth, and it contains some really fine sentences: “O sirs, are not women strong? (Yet) great is the earth, high is the heaven, swift is the sun in its course, for it compasseth the heavens round about, and fetcheth its course again to its own place in one day—is _He_ not great that maketh these things? Therefore great is truth, and stronger than all things.... Truth abideth, and is strong for ever; she liveth and conquereth for evermore.... Blessed be the God of Truth.” And then all the people shouted and said: “Great is truth, and strong above all things”; in the Latin Version: _Magna est veritas, et praevalet_ (iv. 13-41). Needless to say, the last speaker is the winner, and he receives the king’s reward. But the curious part is that here we suddenly get transported into an entirely different region of thought, for on the king desiring him to make some further request over and above what had been originally settled, he replies: “Remember thy vow, which thou didst vow to build Jerusalem, in the day when thou camest to thy kingdom, and to send away all the vessels that were taken out of Jerusalem.... Thou didst also vow to build up the temple ...” (iv. 42-46). Then the king gives orders that all this is to be carried out (iv. 47-57). The young man (he is not again referred to as Zerubbabel) offers up a prayer of thanksgiving (iv. 58-63); the return of the exiles commences (v. 1-6).

Now, one can scarcely fail to perceive that the whole section, from iv. 41 to the end, does not really belong to the original story of the three young men; or rather, one should say that this story does not belong to the context in which it now stands, or indeed to the historical record at all of which our book is a compilation, for its presence creates great chronological confusion. The words in iv. 13, spoken in reference to the third young man, “this was Zerubbabel,” do not belong there; they were added later to the story, but they are important because they point to the reason why this story was interpolated into the historical compilation. As we have seen, the whole purpose of our book, in the form in which we now have it, was to lay stress on ritual and worship, and to place the person and work of Ezra in the foreground; this reflects the orthodox and legalistic Pharisaic attitude. An attempt to counterbalance this was made by a Hellenistic Jew who inserted the story of the three young men (whether his own composition, or taken from some collection of stories does not affect the point), and added the words “this is Zerubbabel” for the purpose of bringing into prominence this personality, and thereby making Ezra and all which his name connoted not the sole important issue in Jewry. Zerubbabel, it will be remembered, was the great instrument of the prophets Haggai and Zechariah (see Hag. i., ii., Zech. iv.); he represented, therefore, the prophetical ideals expressed, for example, in such words as: “Not by might, nor by power, but by my spirit, saith the Lord of Hosts” (Zech. iv. 6), as against the legalism of Ezra and the school that followed him, above all his disciples, the Pharisees, in the post-Maccabæan period.

It need scarcely be added that this story did not belong to the Hebrew even in its latest form; it was in all probability written in Greek by a Hellenistic Jew; yet the possibility of an Aramaic original is not excluded. If it could be proved that Hebrew or Aramaic was the original language of this addition, and that Palestine was its home, the interesting theory might then be put forth that it, together with the inserted words “this is Zerubbabel,” was added by a Sadducee in opposition to Pharisaism; Zerubbabel’s close connection with the high-priest (see Hag. i. 12, 14, ii. 2, 4, and all Zech. iv.) would fully explain the reason of the inserted words. But whichever view be correct the main purpose of the addition would be the same, viz. an attempt to counteract the influence of Pharisaism.

VII. THE DATE OF THE BOOK

Very few words are needed in speaking of the date of our book, or rather, of its compilation. To fix the date of the original documents made use of by the compiler of the Hebrew form is not in question here. If we inquire as to the date of the Hebrew form which lay before the Greek translator it must be replied that this depends upon what that form was; if it contained the marks of what may be called the “Ezra-tendency,” then it must probably be post-Maccabæan, in which case our present Greek translation might fairly be dated not later than the middle of the last century B.C.

But if the Hebrew did not contain these marks—we refer especially to the passage dealt with in the preceding section—and they are due to the Greek translator or a redactor, which we believe more probable, then the Hebrew, even in the form in which it lay before the translator, was pre-Maccabæan, and the Greek form, though post-Maccabæan, might well be dated about B.C. 100. It is to this latter date that we incline; and it is corroborated by considerations of vocabulary, as has been well shown by Dewick.[467]