EZRA, SECOND BOOK OF. Also known as “the Apocalypse of Ezra” or 4 Esdras, this work is a Jewish apocalypse written in the last decade of the 1st century AD It has not survived in its Semitic (probably Hebrew) original; see Stone 1967: 109-11; Klijn 1983: 9-10), or in the Greek version made of that Hebrew. It was not preserved in the rabbinic tradition and is known from its popularity in Christian churches.
A. Versions
Complete versions made of the Greek translation survive in Latin, Syriac, Ethiopic; two in Arabic, Georgian and Armenian. Fragments of a Coptic version have also been discovered. Furthermore, the influence of 4 Ezra is attested by a number of tertiary translations. From the Latin, translations were made into Arabic (a single fragment), New Greek (chapters 11-12), Armenian (the second version), Georgian (the second version), and Slavonic. A Romanian version exists, apparently made from Slavic. A third complete Arabic version was translated from the Syriac.
Since the analysis of Robert Blake (1926: 308-14), it has been accepted that the textual tradition falls into two main families: Latin and Syriac on the one hand, and Ethiopic, Georgian and Coptic on the other. The other translations from the Greek are less literal in character and are generally of secondary importance as textual witnesses. Readings attested by either of the two main families have a strong claim to have existed in Greek. This is significant, as scholars have tended to attribute disproportionate weight to the Latin version.
B. Use in Jewish and Christian literature
This large number of translations reflects the extraordinary impact of 4 Ezra. This is corroborated by the number of later writings that depend on it, including the Greek Apocalypse of Ezra, Apocalypse of Sedrach, Vision of Ezra, Revelation of Ezra, Questions of Ezra, and other compositions in Ethiopic, Syriac, and other languages.
The best known of the versions of 4 Ezra is the Latin one. It was often included in the Vulgate in the Middle Ages and is usually printed in an Appendix to the Latin Bible, following the NT. 4 Esdras is included in the apocrypha of the Church of England and the Protestant churches. The Latin version includes four chapters, more than any other; two of these usually precede the book and two follow it. They are conventionally included in the chapter numbering, although they are recognized as different works. The title “2 Esdras” is drawn from the English apocrypha; most often the Jewish Apocalypse of Ezra, that is, the chapters. 3-14 from the Latin, is called 4 Esdras, while chaps. 1-2 are called 5 Ezra and chaps. 15-16 are 6 Esdras. These last two writings are not an integral part of 4 Esdras; and although some scholars raise the possibility that 5 Esdras is of Jewish or Judeo-Christian origin, in general both works are considered Christian.
4 Apparently, Ezra got lost in Greek quite early. It is definitely cited by 2d-century authorities (eg, Apostolic Constitutions 2.14.9 = 4 Esdras 7:103; 8.7.6 = 4 Esdras 8:23; Clement of Alexandria Strom. 1:22 = 4 Esdras 5:35). Later definitive Gk quotes are unknown; and, although other quotations from the Greek text have been claimed to exist, they are far from certain. The reasons for the loss of the Greek text remain a mystery. The surviving versions were cited to a greater or lesser extent depending on the particular circumstances of the various church traditions.
C. General character
4 Ezra is an apocalypse. Written a generation after the destruction of the temple, it is dominated by this catastrophe. The book is structured in seven parts, conventionally called visions: Vision 1 = 3:1-5:20; Vision 2 = 5:21-6:34; Vision 3 = 6:35-9:25; Vision 4 = 9:26-10:59; Vision 5 = ch.11-12; Vision 6 = ch. 13; Vision 7 = ch. 14. The first three visions are predominantly dialogues between the seer, identified as Ezra the Scribe, and an angel. In the fourth vision, the seer meets a woman in mourning, comforts her, and experiences her transformation into the heavenly Jerusalem. The fifth and sixth visions are political and messianic in nature, predicting in detail the fall of the Roman Empire and the wicked nations along with the coming of a redeemer. The last vision relates the revelation to Ezra of the Holy Scriptures, as well as 70 secret books, and concludes with Ezra’s assumption into heaven.
D. Main critical issues
The main critical questions raised in the study of the book over the past century and a half have been those of date, literary unity, and, in recent years, its character and general purpose.
The date cannot be more precisely established on external grounds than to say that 4 Esdras precedes the earliest definite citations of it, those by Clement of Alexandria and in the Apostolic Constitutions. The internal evidence that has been adduced to establish the time of composition has been controversial in many cases. For example, 3:1 dates the book pseudepigraphically to the year 30 after the Babylonian destruction of the First Temple. Taken typologically, this date might be thought to indicate a date 30 years after the Roman destruction of the Second Temple, i.e., in AD 100. But such typological use of pseudepigraphical dates is unknown elsewhere, and 4 EsdrasInstead, 3:1 may have taken this date from Ezekiel 1:1. Other indications have been sought in certain prophecies of Messianic afflictions (eg, Von Gutschmidt 1960:78; de Faye 1892:44-45; Wellhausen 1899:247) , but these afflictions can be shown to be traditional in character.
More convincing are two considerations. The first is that, because of its character and central concerns, the book must have been written shortly after the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple by the Romans in AD 70. The other has to do with Vision 5. This is a political view. . , as well as other apocalyptic visions (eg, 1 Enoch 89-90; Daniel 7; and others). Such visions tell past history and predict future history down to the eschaton, disguising events behind complex symbolic structures. If it is possible to isolate the point at which the narrative of past events is abandoned for the prediction of future events, that point can be regarded as the moment of composition. Vision 5 of 4 Esdrases the seer’s dream of a monstrous eagle with 12 wings, 8 small wings and 3 heads. Each of them is said to represent a Roman ruler, and the peak of Roman wickedness was reached during the rule of the three heads and, in particular, the middle head. The heads are analyzed in considerable detail and can be admirably identified as the Flavian emperors, and the middle head as Domitian (AD 81-96). The vision does not know of Domitian’s death, which is taken to indicate that 4 Esdras was written before 96 CE. The main arguments on this matter were already put together by Schurer (GJV 3:241-42), and no arguments have been added. of the substance Since then.
The question of literary unity is deeply related to the conception of the purpose of the book and has been a central theme since Richard Kabisch published his analysis of the source of 4 Ezra in 1889. The most influential scholar of the English language who followed this point of view was GH Box (1912), who concluded that 4 Ezra was composed of five sources combined by a redactor who was also responsible for part of the text. These sources were: (1) S: A Salathiel Apocalypse (3:1-31; 4:1-51; 5:13b–6:10; 6:30-7:25; 7:45-8:62; and 9:15-10:57); (2) E: An Apocalypse of Ezra (4:52-5:13a; 6:13-29; 7:26-44; and 8:63-9:12); (3) A: The Eagle’s Vision (chaps. 11-12 with editor’s revisions); (4) M: The Vision of the Son of Man (ch. 13, with much revision by the editor); and (5) E2: Second Ezra Piece (14:1-17a; 14:18-27; and 14:36-47). The redactor composed several passages and was responsible for numerous adjustments within the sources.
The criteria applied to establish these distinctions within the book were both literary and conceptual. On the one hand, literary inequities were highlighted and taken as indications of the inept combination of existing sources. On the other hand, supposed differences in the eschatological conceptions of the different parts of the book were also taken to demonstrate their composite authorship.
The attack on this view developed along several lines. First, the literary difficulties, when examined, were by no means as serious as Kabisch and Box had claimed (Sanday in Box 1912:vi-vii). Second, the assumptions about the coherence requirements were challenged on the grounds that (1) they implied an unwarranted systematic approach for a work of this genre, and that (2) in any case, very often the alleged contradictions were the result of an exegesis. designed to highlight differences (Keulers 1922: 46-54; Stone 1965: 12-21; Hayman 1975: 48; Stone 1983, etc.).
Gunkel (1900), while acknowledging the differences between the various parts of the book, saw them not so much as arising from the combination of different sources, but as reflecting psychological tensions within the author’s personality. This viewpoint profoundly influenced later scholarship (eg, Breech 1973). Today, this source analysis is generally no longer accepted, while Gunkel’s approach has been both criticized and modified.
It is now almost universally accepted that 4 Ezra is the work of a single author who probably used some literary sources and some crystallized traditions, cleverly incorporating them into his book. Major passages that reflect pre-existing material probably include 13:1-13 (Stone 1968); 9:43-10:3 (Gunkel 1900:334); 4:35-37; 6:49-52; 13:40-47; and perhaps 7:78-99. These materials have also been detected in 5:1-13 and 6:18-27. This use of pre-existing materials is, however, a quite normal and natural phenomenon in the literature of the time. Nonetheless, the book is a very deliberate and considered composition, as Brandenburger (1981) and Stone (4 Ezra Hermeneia) have recently emphasized.
E. The teaching of 4 Esdras
It is quite evident that 4 Esdras is struggling with the problems that arise from the destruction of the temple. Visions 1-3 are dialogues between the seer and an angel in which the seer repeatedly attacks the divine government of the world, as is evident in both the fate of Israel (eg, Chapter 3) and that of the beings humans (eg, Vision 3). In the fourth vision, the seer changes and accepts the point of view presented by the angel (see particularly 10:5-17). Vision occurs…