A comparison of the two books, however, renders it impossible to maintain the view any longer, that Es A is compiled solely from the Gr. of the other books. There are numerous passages where Es preserves the Heb. more closely than the LXX, or points to a dillerent word in the Heb. original. An examination of all the passages given by Uissell (p. 69) in support of the opposite opinion will show tnat there is not one where Es does not preserve some touch in the Heb. which is missed in the LXX Ezr, which cannot therefore have been the only authority possessed by our author in those parts which agree with the canonical book. It still remains possible that Es A is a mere recension of the canonical books by the help of the Heb. ; but the Gr. of the two books is of such a ditferent char- acter as to make it improbable that this is the true view of the relation between them.
2. It is regarded as a working over of an earlier Gr. translation of Ch, Ezr, and Neh, but a trans- lation quite distinct from the LXX. This view is held by Ewald {Hist, of Isr. v. 126-128, Eng. tr.). He first gives the alternative that the writer ' was either a translator of the books of Cli, or else found them already translated, and worked up the tr. ,' and then decides for the latter view (p. 128 n.). ' He found the work of the chronicler tolerably freely translated from the original. This tr. was difl'erent from that of the LXX, and no doubt much older.'
This theory admits an independent tr. of the Heb. as the basis of the book, but denies that the compiler was himself the translator ; it presuppo.ses a lost Gr. version of Ch, Ezr, Nell. It gives a satisfactory e.\i)Ianation of the coincidences in tr. and deviation from the Heb. in V,s A and Es B, if we suppose that both are to some extent dependent on a lost Gr. original. We should then have ir the two books a parallel case to the two Gr. versions of Dn, the LXX very para|)hrastic, Theod. fairly literal, both being dependent on ai> earlier version (Smith, Diet. Chnat. Biog. art. ' Theodotion ').
3. It is held to be a direct and independent tr. from the Heb., and from a text in some instances superior to the Massoretic ; Es B was entirely unlinown to the writer. This view is held by Micliaelis, Trendelenburg (in Eichhom's Allge- meine liibliolhek der bib/, lilt. 1787), Pohlmann (in Tiibingen Qunrtnhrkrift, 1859, p. 2.')7), Herzfcld, Fritzsche, and others. It is simpler than the last, but fails to account for the coincidences in the two books. The question whetlier (2) or (3) is the true view depends also on the date which, on linguistic and other grounds, we are led to a.-isign to the work. It cannot be said to have lieen yet decided which is right, but (2) appears to satisfy all the requirements of the problem, while (3) doea not.
The two translations are of an essentially
760 ESDRAS, FIRST BOOK OF
ESDRAS, FIRST BOOK .OF
different character. While the writer of Es B bIiows a slavish adherence to the Hebrew, often transliterating his original, and making no pre- tensions to stj'Ie, Es A is marked by a free style of translation, an elegant and idiomatic Gr., a happy renilering of Hebraisms, and an omission of dilticulties, which make it a far more readable book than the other. It was clearly intended for Gr. readers unacquainted with Hebrew. Tlie writer was a litterateur in possession of a wide Or. vocabulary.
A few instances of hia manner may be jn^en. He consistently translates the phrase ' beyond the river ' (the Persian name for Palestine, Ea B irtpat r«u wotol^u) by K0i;^ii 2vpia xxi ^«i»/xi) (7 times in Ea A ; only 3 times elsewhere, viz. in the Books of Mac). He writes iyttf to recf^ct for Ch reiiTr ri ifixrix- A good instance of idiomatic Gr. style is 6®- "<> (contrast Es B 4*- *). A list of some words peculiar to Ea A In the Gr. OT may not be superfluous. ctxo>^iMit< c. dat. for xmri. (5 times), itnatytinrTfit
(of Ezra, i Uoiut xxi nt»y<iiffT^ r«v ro,ucu = Es B a tiptvf XXI e yptttjLLutTiut, 6 times), ettafx^nr^rtrviratf , ap^noiiif (of Ezra), 0iS>-iO' CvXMXior, Z^UAyoiytgt, tyxaiffxtn^ txrati^u*, lu^ri9Uft iiretxsvr-TC(, tTiiiltfS, itpeieuyo! (0 time3 = Es B SecSi^tiu,), liparrotryii, ttpa-iiakrr.t
(6 times, Es B otJttvrt;), xtcppot 'a car,' fiipjJa/Jx'* (* times), /juris.- ytwirripot, ivo,UAZ»ypetfix, wptLyfuarixif (subst.), m.L^^pxfiiCii^, nin^apiMff^eti, ru*vovf, 3i« TxXamtv AaXiik, -i^etuxifrlTrif, yp^.ijut-
TirTvjpiot. Other words rarely found elsewhere than in this book (which may for the most part be paralleled from Est, Dn, and Mac) are — cttiiptZf 'confiscate,' «^i«uA, atrifiXn'i ioyfitaTi^iii^ lipytir, itxx^Cur, ivmiipBaiffit, imuif^MfVixi 'attack,' i-rinffrarii (ii\. rvcTo^iC), liii^rct, luoSic, liifvr,! (Es B rz^'^)* tlipipof (Es B wu^Mpif), iuLrmkcx'ff**C, K»Sm*i^lffSau, /xmtietMijt, fAiT»>jM^ffU9 vir 0it*, aixatoMt, oXoffx^P^^i *xrro^pict.
Tlie passages which point to a more accurate rendering of the Heb., or a different Heb. original from that tr<i. by the LXX, are collected by Trendelenburg (see also Bissell, 65-69). The foil, instances, partly unnoticed before, may be given : —
In the account of the death of Josiah, Es A l'»-2' = 2 Ch 3521M. Es 1^ iTj ykp TeZ ECifpxm a wiXtfj^if pLw irrtt ; Ch LXX omit; Heb. 'but against the house of my war' ('nDn'?p n'3 Sn). Es apparently read nns (Euphrates) for n'3. The Heb. as it stands is harsh for 'the house with which I have war' ; and Es is a decided improvement.