2, G, 40 ) ; and the succession of kings quoted by Hil- genfcld to represent "the twelve wings," preserves only a faint resemblance to the imager}^ of the vision. But when it is established that the interpretation of the vision is to be sought in the history of Rome, the chief difficulties of the problem begin. The second wing (i. e. king) rules twice as long as tlie other (xi, 17). This fact seems to point to Octavianus and the lino of tlie Cresars ; but thus tlie line of " twelve" leads to no ))lausible conclusion. If it is supposed to close witli Trajan (LUcke, 1st ed.),the "three heads" receive no satisfactory' explanation. If, again, the "three heads" represent the three Flavii, then "the twelve" must be composed of the nine Cajsars (.Jul. Ca;sar — Yi- tellius) and the three pretenders, Piso,Yindex, and Nymphidius (Gfrorer), who could scarcely have i)een Lrouglit within the range of a Jewish A])ocalypse. Volkmar proposes a new interpretation, liy which two
wings are to represent one king, and argues that this symbol was chosen in order to conceal better from strange ej-es the revelation of the seer. The twelve wings thus represent the six Cassars (Ctesar — Nero) ; the eight "counter-feathers," the usur])ing emperors Galba, Otho,Yitellus, and Nerva ; and the three heads the tliree Elavil. This hypothesis offers many strik- ing coincidences with the text, but at the same time it is directly opposed to the form of interpretation given hy Ezra (xii, 14, regnabunt . . . duodecim reges ; v. 18, octo reges), and Yolkmar's hypothesis that the twelve and eight were marked in the original MS. in some way so as to suggest the notion of division, is ex- tremely improbable. Yan der Ylis and Liicke, in his later edition, regard the twelve kings as only general- ly symbolic of the Roman power ; and while they iden- tify the three heads with tlie triumvirs, they seek no explanation of the other details. All is evidently as yet vague and uncertain, and will pjrobabh' remain so till some clearer light can be thrown upon Jewish thought and historj- during the critical period B.C. 100-A.D. 100.
In tone and character, the Apocalypse of Ezra offers a striking contrast to that of Enoch (q. v.). Trium- phant anticipations are overshadowed by gloomy fore- bodings of tlie destiny of the world. The idea of vic- tory is lost in that of revenge. Future blessedness is reserved only for " a very few" (vii, 70 ; viii, 1, 3, 52- 55; vii, 1-13). The great question is "not how the ungodly shall be punished, but how the righteous shall be saved, for whom the world is created" (ix, 13). The "woes of Messiah" are described with a terrible mi- nuteness which approaches the despairing traditions of the Talmud (v ; xiv, 10 sq. ; ix, 3 sq.) ; and after a reign of 4(0 years (vii, 28-35 ; the clause is wanting in Eth., V, 29), " Christ," it is said, " my Son, shall die (Arab, omits), and all men that have breath ; and the world shall be turned into the old silence seven days, like as in the first beginning, and no man shall re- main" (vii, 29). Then shall follow the resurrection and the judgment, "the end of this time and the be- ginning of immortality" (vii, 43). In other points the doctrine of the book offers curious apiiroximations to that of Paul, as the imagery does to that of the Apoca- lypse (e. g. 2 Esdr. xiii, 43 sq. ; v, 4). The relation of "the first Adam" to his sinful posterity, and the operation of the law (iii, 20 s q. ; vii, 48; ix, 30); the transitoriness of the world (iv, 26); the eternal coun- sels of God (vi, sq.) ; his providence (vii, 11) and long- suffering (vii, 64) ; his sanctification of his people "from the beginning" (ix, 8), and their peculiar and lastmg privileges (vi, 59), are pjlainly stated ; and, on the other hand, the efficacy of good works (viii. 33), in conjunction with faith (ix, 7), is no less clearly affirmed.
III. Unity and Original Lanijuarje. — For a long time this book of Ezra was known only by an old Eatin version, which is preserved in some MSS. of the Yul- gate. This version was used liy Ambrose, and, like the other parts of the Vetiis Latina, is probably older than the time of Tertullian. It is published in AYal- ton's Foli/glot, vol. iv. An Arabic text was discovered bj' Mr. Gregory, about the middle of the 17th century, in two Bodleian MSS., and an English version made from this by Simon Ockley was inserted by Whiston in the last volume of his Pj-imitive Christianity (hon- don, 1711). Fabricius added the various readings of the Arabic text to his edition of the Latin in 1723 (Cod. J'seiidcp. r. T. ii, 174 sq.). An Ethiopic text was published by [archbishop] Laurence, with Eng- lish and Latin translations (Primi Esrm libri, rcrsio yh'thiopica . . . LatineA72gliceque7-cddita,Os.on.lS'20); likewise from a Bodleian MS. which had remained wholly disregarded, though quoted by Ludolf in his dictionarj-. The Latin translation has been reprinted 1)3' Gfrorer, with the various readings of the Latin and Arabic iPrrff. Pseudep. Stuttg. 1840^ ji. 60 sq.) ; but the original Arabic text has not ye*- been published.