Commentary on the Second Book of Ezra

The non-canonical book of Ezra, called the second book of Ezra in our Bible, has other names in other texts. In translations: ancient Italic, Syrian and in the Vatican Codex LXX, it is called the first book of Ezra and is placed in front of the canonical book. Ezra - obviously because its narrative covers a more ancient period than the narrative of the canonical book. Ezra. In the Vulgate, where the book. Ezra and Nehemiah are called the first and second books. Ezra, non-canonical book. Ezra is already called the third (liber tertius). In the Codex Alexandrinus and some other manuscripts of the LXX text, the book has the inscription: ό ιερεύς, “priest,” which is meant to indicate that Ezra was a priest in a special sense (κατ εξοκήν). Apparently, the book in question is blessed. Jerome in Prologus Galeaius adopts the name Pastor. But in ancient times, where the books of Ezra and Nehemiah were considered one and called the “book of Ezra,” the book in question was also known under the name of the second Ezra (Cf. August, De doctrina Christ II, 8; Isidur, Orig VI, 2), which is adopted into our Bible. The newest researchers also call the book: “Pseudo-Ezra”, “Apocryphaesdra” and more often “Greek book”. Ezra." The last name of the book differs, on the one hand, from the canonical book of Ezra, which exists in the Hebrew text, and on the other, from the “Apocalypse of Ezra” (Third Book of Ezra), which is preserved in the Latin text. The second book of Ezra begins with a narrative about the solemn celebration of Passover under King Josiah in the 18th year of his reign and an outline of the subsequent history of the kingdom of Judah before the Babylonian captivity (chapter 1). From ch. 2 and further in the book the post-exilic period of the history of the Jewish people is reviewed from the return of the Jews under Cyrus to the reform of Ezra inclusive (chap. II-X:55). At the same time, in Chap. III,1-V there is an intercalary episode: a narrative about the dispute between the three bodyguards of King Darius and the victory won in this dispute with Zerubbabel. This episode actually represents something original. In the remaining parts, the second book of Ezra sets out, with minor changes, the narrative of the canonical books of 2 Chronicles, 1 Ezra and Nehemiah, namely: Ch. I 2Pairs XXXV-XXXVI. Ch. II,15–25 1Ezd IV:7–24. Ch. V:7–70 1Ezd II:1, IV:5 . Ch. VI,1, VII,15 1Ride V-VI. Ch. VIII,1-IX 1Ride VII-X. Ch. IX:37–55 Nehemiah VII,37-VIII,13. Where the compiler of the book took section III, 1-V: 6 is unknown. It is possible that the narration of these chapters is based on some Persian court story, and that the author uses Jewish tradition in the narration. As for the remaining parts of 2 Rides, the question arises: what texts of his sources (Chronicles, 1 Rides and Nehemiah) did the author use when writing these parts. Exegetes Michaelis, Trendelburg, Berto, Fritsche, Neldeke, Kaut and others believe that the author of 2 Ezra had at hand the Hebrew text of the named sources and, moreover, in a more correct edition than the one in which these sources have come to us. According to researchers Dan, Langen, Keil, Shirer, Zockler, the writer of 2 Rides used only the Greek text of his sources, subjecting this text to revision. More reasons are on the side of the defenders of the first opinion. Some readings of 2 Rides can only be explained by supposing the Hebrew original. Thus, in II.16, the author reads the name of one of the enemies of the Jews as Βήλεμος (Vilem), which could only arise from the Hebrew bischlam (1Ezra IV:7), and not from the Greek εν ειρήνη (LXX understood bischlam in the sense of the common noun beschlom - “in the world”). In I10, the reading έχοντες τα αζυμα (“holding unleavened bread”), which differs from the parallel 2 Chronicles XXXV κατά τήν έντολήν τού βασιλέως (“according to the king’s command”) could have occurred as a result of an erroneous mixtures of heb. mizvath (command) with a completely similar style to mazhoth. In II.17, the reading κριται (“judge”) instead of the proper name Dinea could also only arise from an erroneous understanding of the Hebrew dinaje in the sense of dajjane, “judge,” whereas in the LXX the word is correctly rendered by the proper Δειναιοι. (Other examples in Nestle, Marginalien und Materialien Tubingen. 1898. S. 24–26). The defenders of the opinion about the use of the Greek original by the author of 2 Rides to the similarity of 2 Rides with the LXX text in the use of rare words (VIII.86; cf. 1Ezra IX:13; IX:51; cf. Nehemiah VIII.10), as well as in deviations from Hebrew. the original (I3, cf. 2 Chron XXXV:3; 19, cf. 2 Chron XXXV:9, etc.) do not matter, as shown by Nestle (Marginalien S. 26–27). But, assuming the Hebrew original for book 2. Ezra, there is no reason to assert, together with some authors, that this original was the best edition of Heb. text of the book Chronicles, Ezra and Nehemiah, whichever has come down to us: the best readings of the supposed original indicated by Trendelburg do not actually prevail over the Masoretic ones (Bissel, The Apokrypha, pp. 66–68). As for the attitude of the compiler of 2 Rides towards his originals, the following can be said about this. The author uses the Hebrew text freely, taking care of clarity of thought and ease of presentation. Accordingly, he avoids Hebraisms (VIII.6; cf. 1 Ezra VII.9), shortens the original (I10 cf. 2 Chron XXXV:10–12; II.16; cf. 1 Ezra IV:7–11; VI3–4; cf. 1 Ezra V:3–4), makes additions (I56; cf. 2 Chron. XXXVI20; II.5 ; cf. 1Ez. I3; cf. 1Ez. I4; cf. 1Ez. II.70; cf. 1Ez. IV:13; II.20; IV:14, 19), changes the form of proper names (cf. V:8 et c., 1Ezra II; Nehemiah VII). In some cases, the author also reveals an erroneous understanding of the original, presenting, for example, Zerubbabel as a contemporary of Darius Hystaspes (chap. V), incorrectly interpreting section 1Ezra IV:7-23 (cf. 2Ezra II, (6) and some individual messages (cf. V:70; VI27; IX:49). The narrative of 2 Rides is not complete. In view of this, it is assumed that the end of the book, which was probably stated by Nehemiah VIII-IX, has not reached us (Zuntz). According to Trendelenburg and Eichhorn, we do not even have the beginning of the book, since the author probably did not limit himself to reviewing the events from the 18th year of Josiah, but also mentioned the first years of Josiah, including Chapter XXXIV in his presentation. 2 Par. But such assumptions do not have solid ground (see, however, note to IX:55). It is difficult to say anything definite about the time of origin of 2 Rides. The first historical indication of the book is found in I. Flavius, who in his presentation of the events of the beginning of the post-exilic time (Ancient X and XI) follows precisely 2 Rides. From this we can conclude that the book was written no later than the 1st century AD - but exactly when is unknown. Fritsche considers the author of the book to be a Hellenist who lived in Palestine. Dan, Langen and Bissel believe that the book originated in Egypt. Bissel sees an indication of Egypt in remark IV:23 (“ready to sail on the sea and rivers”), and other authors see it in the peculiarities of the book’s language. For general reasons, the need for the Greek text of the book. Ezra was more likely to have originated in Egypt than in Palestine. The first writer to use 2 books. Ezra, as noted above, was I. Flavius. Treating the book with confidence, trying to eliminate some of the perplexities it arouses, I. Flavius, however, deviates from it in places and follows its originals when transmitting (I9; I38; II,15). Church teachers quote 2 Rides very often. Links to the book can be found, for example, in Clement Alex. (Strom, I, 21), in Origen (Homil. XI, Comment, in loann. t. VI, 1), in Cyprian (Ep. 74, 9), in Jerome (Praef. in vers, lib. Ezr.) and Augustine (De Civit. Dei XVIII, 36; De doctr. Christ. II, 8). Digl (Ceschichte A. T. im Christi-Kirche, v. 182) says that most of the church fathers, with the exception of Jerome, considered 2 Esdras canonical. But from the paternal quotations, which relate mainly to the episode of the dispute between the bodyguards, it is only clear that the book was respected, related to Holy Scripture and was quoted with the formula ut scriptum est (Cyprian, Origen). There are 2 books in the catalogs of canonical books. There is no Ezra. Only blessed. Augustine recognized the messianic-prophetic meaning in books, specifically in speech about truth (IV:34–40), and, apparently, classified it as canonical. Blazh. Jerome, on the contrary, did not value the book highly, classifying it as apocrypha. Explaining why he translated only the canonical book. Ezra - Nehemiah, blessed. Jerome says among other things: nec quemquam moveat, quod unus a nobis editus est liber (Esdrae), nec apocriphorum tertii et quarti somniis delectetur (Praef. in vers. Lib Ezr). Following the view of the blessed one. Jerome, the Council of Trent did not accept the book into the canon, and in the official editions of the Vulgate it is either not included at all, or is included as an appendix. Blessed look. Jerome was also followed by Luther, who said that in books 2 and 3. There is nothing in Ezra that cannot be found in better form in Aesop or in other less important books. Many Protestant exegetes therefore do not attach any importance to 2 books. Ezra does not use it at all when studying the post-exilic period. Contrary to the noted views, the latest criticism, as already indicated, has elevated the importance of the book and is inclined to give it preference over the canonical books. Ezra and Nehemiah. Undoubtedly, as a non-canonical book containing obvious errors, 2 books. Ezra does not deserve the confidence to which the canonical books of Ezra and Nehemiah are entitled. But at the same time, it is hardly fair to reject, like some authors, any meaning of it: being a translation from the Hebrew original, 2 books. Ezra can help restore this original in those places where its readings arouse confusion. Literature: Trendelenburg, Ueber den apocryphischen Esras (in Eichhorn, Aug. Bibliothekbibl. Literatur Bd. 1. 1787). Frikschie, Kurzgefasstes exeget. Handbuch zu den Apokryphen A. T. Erste tiefer. Leipz. 1851. Bissel, The Apokryphe O. T. 1880. Zockler, Die Apokryphen A. T. Munchen 1891. Kauthsch, Die Apokryphen B. I Tubing. 1900. Schürer, geschichte J. Volkes im Zeit lesu. 2 and 3 Ausgabe. Fischer, Das apokryphische und das kanonische Esrabuch. (Bibl. Zeitschrift 1904). Moulton, Ueber die Ueberliefenmg und textkrit Werth dritten Esrabuchs (Zeitschr fur Atttestamentlishe Wissenschaft 1899 B. II), See also interpretation. on the book 1 Ezre and Nehemiah in III vol. Commentary. Bible.