§ 1. PRELIMINARY ACCOUNT OF THE BOOK

The first book of the Apocrypha stands in a class by itself in that it is, with the exception of one portion, a somewhat free Greek version of the biblical history from Josiah’s Passover (2 Chron. 35.) to the Reading of the Law by Ezra (Neh. 8.). It differs, however, in several important particulars both from the corresponding canonical passages and from the more literal Greek translation of them (also preserved in the Septuagint), and an adequate treatment of its text and contents belongs properly to the commentaries and handbooks on Chronicles, Ezra, and Nehemiah. Consequently, in order to keep the Introduction and Notes within limits, it has seemed desirable to print the Revised Version of the ‘apocryphal’ and ‘canonical’ passages side by side, and to restrict all remarks to those points which appeared to be essential for the study of the relation between the texts and their significance for the period which they cover. Further reference to the commentaries and other works dealing with the period in question is therefore recommended.

The contents of 1 Esdras comprise:—

E 1.1 = 2 Chron. 35:1–36:21. Josiah’s passover and death; the last kings of Judah to the fall of Jerusalem, 586 b.c.

2:1–15. = E 1. The decree of Cyrus permitting the rebuilding of the Temple and the return of Sheshbazzar with the temple-vessels and a band of exiles, 538–537.

2:16–30. = E 4:7–24. The Samaritan opposition to the rebuilding in the reign of Artaxerxes, 465–425.

3:1–5:6. wanting in E. The successful oration of Zerubbabel, one of the bodyguards of Darius, in the second year of his reign (D. I, Hystaspes, 521–486), and the king’s decree permitting a return of exiles to rebuild the city and Temple; brief statement of the journey.

5:7–73. = E 2:1–4:5, 24 (v. 6 is wanting). List of Zerubbabel’s band, the rebuilding of the Temple hindered by the Samaritans from the time of Cyrus to the second year of Darius (520).

6–7. = E 5–6. The successful rebuilding of the Temple through the intervention of Darius in 520, and its completion in 516.

8:1–9:36 = E 7–10. The decree of Artaxerxes in his seventh year (458), the return of Ezra and a body of exiles, the separation of the people from the foreign wives.

9:37–55 = N 7:73–8:13 a. The reading of the law by Ezra, placed in N l.c. after the return of Nehemiah in the king’s twentieth year (444).

The outstanding features are:—

(1) The presence of the Artaxerxes record before the reign of Darius, whether after the return of Sheshbazzar (E 2:16–30) or after the commencement of the rebuilding by Zerubbabel (E 4:7–24), both of which are placed in the time of Cyrus.

(2) The inclusion of E 3:1–5:6, the story famous for the Praise of Truth and the well-known dictum ‘magna est veritas et praevalet’, and the decree of Darius (which excludes any prior return).

(3) The confusion caused by the presence of this section (E 3:1–5:6) in the history of the exiles who returned in the time of Cyrus (E 2:1–15 = E 1) and at once commenced the work of rebuilding (E 5:7–73 = E 2–4.).

(4) The omission in E of N 1–7:72, with the result that the continuation of the story of Ezra (N 8.) is placed in immediate connexion with E 7–10., whereas the canonical books leave a gap of twelve years between E 7–10. and N 1. seqq.

(5) Numerous readings in E of greater or less value, which are often important for the textual criticism of the MT, and sometimes affect the literary and historical problems of the sources.

E ceases abruptly; cf. the close of 2 Chron., ‘and let him go up’ (= E 1:3), also Mark 16:8. The R.V. rendering of 9:55 implies that this is intentional (so Ewald, Bissell, Lupton, Bayer, and others). Hence it is often supposed that E is a self-contained work, written and compiled for some specific purpose, e.g. to influence Gentiles in favour of the Jews, or (Lupton) to prepare the way for the building of the temple of Onias at Alexandria, or simply, perhaps, to bring together narratives relating to the Temple; cf. the conclusion of LC ‘explicit Esdrae liber primus de templi restitutione’. But the feature may also be explained on the view that the book, which begins somewhat abruptly, is merely a fragment of a larger work (Michaelis, Eichhorn, Trendelenburg, Rödiger, Treuenfels, Howorth, Torrey, and others). This raises several interesting questions; in particular, 9:38–55 belong in N 8. to the concluding chapters of Ezra’s history, and it is very noteworthy that Josephus finishes his account of Ezra before his introduction of Nehemiah—what was the original sequel of E? Moreover, not only was E used by this orthodox Jewish historian, the book was important enough to find a place in the Greek Bible, it was known to early Christian writers, and is referred to in terms which indicate that its canonicity and value were not doubtful (see § 2).

Now, the criticism of the O. T. has advanced sufficiently to prove that the biblical records E-N bristle with the most intricate and serious difficulties, the extent of which is manifest in the widely-differing conclusions that prevail. As can be seen from other sources (see § 4, 4.c), the history of the Persian period is plunged in obscurity, upon which some light has only recently been shed by contemporary records (Babylonian inscriptions, Jewish-Aramaic papyri from Upper Egypt). It can no longer be assumed that the MT necessarily represents a more trustworthy record of the age, and that E is necessarily arbitrary and methodless. Both share fundamental imperfections. E, therefore, in any case deserves impartial consideration, and its problems involve those of E-N. These problems, owing to the absence of decisive and independent evidence, can be handled only provisionally; but enough is clear to permit the conclusion that E represents a text in some respects older than the present MT, to which, however, some attempt seems to have been made to conform it (cf. Ewald, 138 n. 6; Howorth, PSBA, 23. 306 seq.). From a comparison of both with Jos. and other sources (notably Daniel) it would further appear that E represents one of the efforts to give an account of a period, the true course of which was confused and forgotten, if not intentionally obscured; different attempts were made to remove difficulties and inconsistencies, and the desire to give greater prominence to the priestly Ezra than to the secular governor Nehemiah is probably responsible for the arrangement of the extant texts.

E-N and E (with Jos.) exhibit diverging views of the history. But E, even in its present incomplete form, overlaps with Chronicles-Ezra-Nehemiah, and since it provides a distinctly para-phrastic and free rendering of the MT, it seems probable that when it was superseded by the more literal Greek translation—of Theodotion (cf. the two Greek texts of Daniel)—this confused and self-contradictory book (or fragment) was preserved mainly on account of the excellent story of Zerubbabel (cf. Howorth, PSBA, 24. 167). To the Jews, both Zerubbabel and Nehemiah pale before the growing majesty of Ezra; to the early Christians, the Praise of Truth was a familiar passage, and Augustine (de Civ. Dei, 18. 36) saw in it a prophecy of Christ.1 Dating, apparently, about the first century b.c., E’s view of history was familiar to Josephus and his readers, to the Hellenist Jews, and to the Christians. The form in E-N, with the omission of the story of Zerubbabel (and the chronological confusions which attend it), represents that of the Rabbinical schools, and subsequently (through Jerome) of the Christian Church. Through these vicissitudes E fell into unmerited neglect, and by this omission (apparently intentional) there was removed a story which could not fail to interest the Christians—for it is surely significant that although the two genealogies of Jesus are hopelessly inconsistent, the two lines of ancestry of ‘David’s greater Son’ converge in the person of Zerubbabel.