1. Chap, i corresponds to 2 (Ihron. xxxv and xxxvi, giving an account of Jo.~iah's magnificent celebration of the Passover- feast ill the eighteenth month of his reign, and continuing the history till the Babylonian captivity.
2. Chap, ii, 1-15, corresponds to Izra i, 1-11, recording tlie re- turn of the Jews from Babylon under the guidancs of Sana- bassar in the reign of Cyrus.
3. Chap, ii, lG-30, corresponds to Ezra iv, 7-24, giving an ac- count of Artaxerxes' prohibition to build the Temple till the second year of Darius.
4. Chap, iii, 1-v, 6, contains the original piece.
5. Cliap. V, 7-73, corresponds to Ezra ii, 1-iv, 5, giving a list of the persons who returned witli Zerubbabel, describing the commencement of the building of the Temple and the obstacles whereby it was interrupted "far the space of two years" until the reign of Darius.
C. Chap, vi, 1-vii, 1.5, corresponds toEzra v,l-vi, 22, giving an account of the building of the Temple by Zerubbabel under Danns, of its completion in the sixth year of this monarch's reign, and of the couimencemcnt of the Temple service.
7. Chap, viii, 1-ix, 36, corresponds to Ezra vii, 1-x, 44, describ- ing the return of Ezra with his colony, and the putting away of the strange wives.
S. Chap, ix, 37-55. corresponds to Neh. vii, 23-viii, 12, giving an account of Ezra's public reading of the law.
The original piece around which all this clusters has evidently been the cause of this transposition and remodelling of the narrative contained in the canoni- cal books. Having assumed that Zerubbabel returned to Jerusalem with a portion of his brethren in the sec- ond year of Darius, the compiler naturall.y placed Ezra ii, 1-iv, 5, which gives the list of those that returned, after the original piece, for it belongs to Zerubbabel's time, according to ii, 2, and the original piece he ])laced after Ezra iv, 7-24, because Ezra (Ezra iv, 24) led him to suppose that Artaxerxes reigned before Darius. Hence a twofold design in the compiler is discernible. One was to introduce and give scriptural sanction to the legend about Zerubbabel, which may or may not have a historical base, and may have existed as a separate work ; the other was to explain the great obscurities of the book of Ezra, and to present the narrative, as the author understood it, in historical order, in -vvhich. however, he has signally failed. For, not to advert to
ESDRAS
292
ESDRAS
innumcral)le other contradictions, the introducing of j seems to indicate a residence in Egj'pt, and an acquaint* the opposition of the heathen, as offered to Zerubbabel ance with the lawlessness of Creek pirates there ac- after he liad been sent to Jerusalem in such triumph by , quired. The i)hraseology of v, To savors also strongly Darius, and the describing of that opposition as lasting of Greek rather than Hebrew. If, however, as seems " until the reign of Darius" (v, 73), and as put down ' verj' probable, tiie legend of Zerubbabel appeared first bv an appeal to the decree of Cyrus, is such a palpable I as a separate piece, and was afterwards incorporated
inconsistency as is alone sufficient quite to discredit the authority of the book. It even induces the sus- picion that it is a farrago made up of scraps by several different hands. At all events, attempts to reconcile the diffi^rent jjortions with each other, or with Scrip- ture, is lost labor.
III. Umti/ and Original Language. — The ahove an- alysis of its. contents shows that the book gives us a consecutive historj' de templi restiiutione, as the old Latin tersely expresses it. It is, however, not com- plete in its present state, as is evident from the abrupt
into the narrative made up from the book of Ezra, this Greek sentence from ch. v would not prove anything as to the language in which the original legend was written. The expressions in iv, 40, "She is the strength, kingdom, power, and majesty of all ages," is very like the doxolog}' found in some copies of the Lord's Prayer, and retained bj' us, " Thine is the king- dom, and the power and the glorj' forever." But Lightfoot says that the Jews in the Temple service, instead of saying Amen, used this antiphon. Blessed )e the Name of the Glory of His Kingdom forever
manner in which it concludes with Neh. viii, 12. We ; and ever ( Works, vi, 421). Thus the resemblance may
mav therefore legitimately presume that the compiler intended to add Neh. viii, 10-18, and perhaps also ch. ix. Josephus, who follows the history given in this book, continues to speak of the death of Ezra (Ant. xi, 5, 5), from which it may be concluded that it originally
be accounted for by their being both taken from a com- mon source.
Whoever the author was, he seems to have lived in Palestine (comp. v, 47), and certainly was a master of Greek, as is evident from his superior style, which
formed part of this narrative. More venturous are the ' resembles that of Symmachus, and from his success- opinions of Zunz, that Neh. i-vii originally belonged ' fully turning the Hebraisms into good Greek (comp.
to this l)ook (Die Gottesdlenstl. Vortriige, p. 29), and of Eichhorn, that 2 Chron. xxxiv followed the abrupt breaking off (Einleitung in d. Apokr. p. 345 sq,)-