ESDKAS. FIRST BOOK OF
ESDKAS, FIRST BOOK OF 759
the work, and the letter to the Persian king, from it« place in the canonical Ezr, altering Artaxerxes to Camliyses to correct the clironolofjical error ; lie introduces the story of the three pages ; with Es he passes directly from the end of Ezr to Neh 8 ; ana he borrows a good deal of the lanmiage of our book. His preference for it was proualily due to its more elegant Gr. style, and a desire not to omit the additional matter contained in it. He occa- sionally supplements his authority l)y information derived apparently from the Heb. Ezr ; the indi- cations of his knowledge of the Gr. Es B are too (•light to warrant the supposition that he made any use of that book (but see XI. i. 3, § 15, xpvitTTjpes ; XI. V. 2, § 136). His narrative is worthless as history, since in trying to remove the inaccuracies of his original he has only introduced greater con- fusion hiinself.
Our book is quoted fairly often by the early Christian Fathere, both Or. and Latin. Among Or. Fathers, Clem. Alex. Strom.
1. 392, Potter (itraifd« Zopc^at^iX ^O^.V nXY,ret{ rci/t itTuyattte-ritt,
«.T.X.) ; Orijjen, Horn. ix. in Josuam, $ 10, Comm. in Johann, ri. 1 ; EuBcbius, Comm. in Ps. 76, } 19 ; Athanosius, OrtU. cant. Arianot, iL 20. Tertullian, De Cor. Mitit. 9, perhaps refers to 1 Ea &3 ; C^rian, Ep. 74, 9, quotes the jiassoge, ' Veritas nianet et invAleecit in tetemum, et vivit et ol>tinet in sacula sieculoruin ' (iv. 38); and Au^^istine, de Civ. Dei, x\iii. 36, refers to the same passage, suggesting that it may be prophetical of Christ, who is the Truth. No paj>sage has perhaps been more freq. quoted, or misquoted, than iv, 41, Magna est Veritas et praevalet 'Great is truth, and strong above all things' (utwi^vwu). (The patristic references are collected in the Tiibiiujen Theol. Quartalachrift, 1859, p. 263 sq.) The first writer to throw discredit on the book was Jerome. He refused to translate the ' dreams ' of 3 and 4 Esdrafl. His words are {PratJ. in Kzram)^ 'Tertius annus est quod semper scrihitis atque rescribitis, ut Esdne librum et Esther vobis de Hebraio transferam. . . . Nee quenquam moveat quod unus a nobis liber editus est : nee apacry^'horum tertii et q%iaTti $omnii» dcleetetur ; quia et apud Ilebra^os Ezras Nehemi- aique sennones in unum votumen coarctaiitur ; et qua non faaoentur apud illos, nee de viginti qnatuor senibus sunt, procul abjicienda.' Consequently, the Old Latin was left untouched by him, and the book is absent from the older MSS of the Vulg. '^e.g. Cod. Amiatinua).
It was probably owing to the influence of this estimate of Jerome, that the Tridentine Fathers in 1546 excluded 1 Es from the Canon. 1 and 2 Eg, with the Prayer of Manas.ses, are the only books admitted as apocryplial into the Romish Bibles, the rest of our Apocr. oeing declared canonical by the Council of Trent. In modem editions of the Vulg. tliey form an Appendix, being placed after the NT, with a prefatory note stating that they are placed ' hoc in loco extra scilicet seriem canonicorum librorum . . . ne prorsus interirent, quippe qui a UDnnullis Sanctis Patribus citantur, et in aliquibus Itibliis tam manuscriptis quam inipressia reperi- iintur.' In the Eng. Bible our book stands first in the Apocrypha.
Relation to the Canonical Ezra.— On this question, the most interesting \\'hich arises in connexion with the book, the most opposite opinions have been held. The various tiieories resolve themselves into three.
1. It is regarded as a mere compilation from the Gr. of the LXX (2 Ch and Es B). Those books, according to this theory, have been worked over and modified for the sake of Greek readers, to whom the Hebraic style of the LXX version rendered it unintelligible. Such is the view of Keil, Schiircr (in Ilerzog, Encycl. i. 496, ' niicli der Septuiiginta iibersetzung bearbeitet,' and HJP ll. iii. 17711'. Eng. tr.), and Bisscll (in Langc's OT Comm.). In favour of this view it is urged (i. ) that our book often agrees literally with tlie LXX in the Gr. used, even in rare and unfamiliar words; (ii.) that the LXX is often followed in its derintiun/i from the Heb. text; and (iii.) that in tlie case of deviations from both Hob. and LXX, the reatlings of Es A are more easily referred to the latter than to the former. The best instances of (i.) are Es A 8" A xoi;<^(aat t4« atutprrLai ^pidv = Es B 9" iKoinpiaat itliiir tAs dro/j|at, RV ' punished us less than our
iniquities deserve ' ; Es A 9" = Es B IS" ^yer. Xnrd<rMaTo. For (ii.) may be quoted Es A 1'° ical oih-ai t6 vpuivbr = 2 Ch 35" uroi oi'Tut eh t6 irpul, against Heb. 'and so they did with the oxen.' The two Heb. words 155 ('oxen') and nijia ('morn- ing') are indistinguishable without the vowel points; the agreement need not prove the use of one version by the other. More striking is Es A 1" litr' eiuSlas Kol irifiyeyKay, compared with 2 Ch 35" icai evu5Jj$ri xoi (Spaiiov. This looks like a con- fusion of tiuSiw and evoSbuj ; the Heb. equivalent is 'and in pans.' But here Es renders the Hiphil is-!;i correctly by iTrfiveyKCLv, which tSpanov fails to do, thus showing independent knowledge of the Hebrew. Compare also Es A l"" voXefKin aiTi» Hrexeipei^ and 2 Ch 35^ dXX' ^ iro\eiieiv avriv iKpa- TaiwO-i), with the Heb. 'disguised himself that he might fight ^vith him.'