Divested of these additions, 2 Es. is a series of seven visions, separated for the most part, in the experience of the seer, by periods of fasting and prayer. Their purpose is to shed light on the mysteries of the moral world, and restore the faith in God and reliance on His justice which had been shaken by the downfall of Jerusalem. At the out-
366 ESDRAS, THE SECOND BOOK OF
ESDEAS, THE SECOND BOOK OF
set the seer announces himself as Salathiel, with the parenthetical explanation that he is also Esdras. In the first four visions (chs. 3-10) the angel Uriel appears, to resolve the doubts of the seer, and comfort him with the hope of God's speedy intervention. In the fifth (chs. 11. 12) a great eagle is seen, with three heads, twelve wings, and certain wings of smaller size. She is encountered and annihilated by a lion, and Esdras learns that the eagle is the fourth kingdom of Daniel, and the lion the Messiah. The sixth vision (ch. 13) reveals the Messiah as a wondrous man, coming out of the sea, destroying His enemies, and gathering the righteous and peace-loving to Himself. In tiie seventh (ch. 14) Esdras is warned that the end is near, and instructed to have ninety-four books written, but only to publish twenty-four of them (the usual Talmudic reckoning of the books of the OT). On the accomplishment of his task, Esdras is translated to heaven.
2. Text and versions. — The original text no longer exists ; but versions are extant in Latin, Syriac, Ethiopic, Arabic (two), and Armenian. Some fragments in Sahidic have also come to liglit (in 1904), and traces have been found of an old Georgian translation. The Latin version is in every respect the most important, as well as the only one which contains the four additional chapters. It was through this version that the book found its way int.o the appendix of the Vul- gate, and thence into our Apocrypha. The Oriental versions are of value chiefly for the assistance they afford in testing and correcting the Latin. A curious illustration of their usefulness in this way was given by Bensly in 1875, Avhen he discovered a missing fragment of the Latin text consisting of 70 verses, the existence of which had been suggested by the presence of these verses in the Oriental versions. This long passage has now been restored to its place in our Apocrypha, between verses 35 and 36 of the seventh chapter. The basis of all the existing versions, with the possible exception of the Armenian, is generally acknowledged to be a Greek text, now lost ; but some ditt'erence of opinion has arisen as to whether that was the original text. While the more prevalent view that the book was composed in Greek has found such defendei's as LUcke, Volkmar, and Hilgenfeld, some recent scholars, including Wellhausen, Charles, Gunkel, and Box, contend for a Hebrew original.
Some confusion of nomenclature has been caused by the varying titles of the versions. The Latin MSS mostly distinguish five books of Ezra : the first being the canonical Ezra-Neheraiah, the second the prefixed chapters of 2 Es., the third the 1 Es. of the Apocrypha, the fourth chs. 3-14 of 2Es., and the fifth its subjoined chapters. According to this arrangement, our book is now commonly denominated 4 Ezra, although the title Ezra- Apocalypse, suggested by Westcott as the prob able form in the lost Greek text, has also come into use.
3. Literary structure. — Of late years, the ques- tion of the literary structure of the book has as- sumed increasing prominence. Its essential unity, as coming from the hand of a single writer, who may, however, have used and failed to assimilate adequately material previously existing, is still maintained by such scholars as Gunkel, Porter, and Sanday. On this theory, its date is fixed with some degree of unanimity between A.D. 81 and 96, the Fall of Jerusalem, which gives occasion to it, being rigiitly referred to the destruction by Titus in A.D. 70, and the ditticult Eagle Vision being inteijpreted of the succession of Roman Em[)erors (Vespasian, Titus, and Domitian) after that event. Another theory, however, ascribing a composite character to the book, has recently been
worked out with much ingenuity by Kabisch, Charles, and Box. The last-mentioned finds five independent works in our Apocalypse: (1) a Sala- thiel Apocalypse (S = chs. 3-10), composed about A.D. 100; (2) the Eagle Vision (A = chs. 11. 12), belonging to the time of Domitian or possibly Vespasian ; (3) the Son of Man Vision (M = ch. 13), written before A.D. 70 ; (4) the Ezra Legend (E''^ ch. 14), dating about A.D. 100; and (5) extracts from an old Ezra Apocalypse (E), interpolated in S, and belonging to some period before A.D. 70. These separate documents were welded into a single book by a redactor (R), and published about A.D. 120. Whatever may be said for this analysis, it Iielps to elucidate certain features of the book which have hitherto been puzzling and obscure : divergent eschatological conceptions, varying his- torical situations, breaks of thought, and linguistic transitions.
i. Value and relation to NT.— On either theory, the book remains of great importance, especially for the understanding of later developments of Judaism, and the environment of the early Chris- tian Church. A fine expression of later Judaism, it reveals a passionate clinging to the merciful goodness of God, notwithstanding a measure of disappointment with the Law, and the most dis- astrous experience. Its spirit may be somewhat narrow, its style not infrequently tedious, its later visions lacking in imaginative power, and its solu- tions of the moral problem disappointing ; yet it strikes a truly reflective note, and breathes through- out an unconquerable faith in God and the vindica- tion of His righteousness. In these characteristics, perhaps, no less than in its unconscious admission of the weakness of Judaism, lay the strength of its appeal to Christian readers ; but its present-day value is chiefly historical, as it is practically con- temporaneous with the NT literature, and shows points of contact with it. Direct dependence can hardly be established, yet there are similarities of thought and language to most of the NT books, while, as Gunkel has clearly shown, there are marked affinities with the Pauline letters and the Book of Revelation.