Ezra, Third Book of

EZRA, Third Book of. - An apocryphal book, whose material is found almost entirely in the canonical books: II Par. 35, 1-36, 21 = ch. 1; Estd. 1, 1-12 = 2, 1-14; Estd. 4, 7-24 = 2, 15-25; Estd. 2, 1-4, 5 = 5, 7-79; Estd. 5-6 = 6-7; Estd. 7-10 = 8, 1-9, 36; Neh. 7, 37-8, 13 = 9, 37-55. It has as its own only 3, 1-5, 6.

III Estd. 3, 1-5, 6 narrates that three personal guards of Darius I (521-485 B.C.) debate before the King to determine what is strongest: wine, the king, woman, or truth. The Jew Zerubbabel stands for truth: « To her belongs dominion, strength and glory, for all eternity. Blessed be the God of truth » (4, 40). At this word the King, amazed, rewards Zerubbabel, promising him to restore to the Jews the sacred vessels of the Temple and to rebuild the sanctuary. The style of this passage differs from the others, indeed it is in contradiction with them, since according to 5, 8, 66-71 Zerubbabel returns to Judea under Cyrus. It is not known from where the redactor of the work drew this passage; it is probable that it was added later (C. C. Torrey).

The remainder of the book contains the history of the celebration of the Passover in the time of Josiah (d. 609) up to the rebuilding of the Temple after the exile and the restoration of divine worship with Ezra. The lack of chronological order is evident: it speaks successively of Cyrus the Persian (558-29), of Artaxerxes (465-25), of Darius (521-485), and a second time of Cyrus, of Darius and of Artaxerxes. This book, like Estd. A, or I Estd., is included in the Septuagint and in the versions dependent on it such as the Old Latin, among the canonical books, and precedes Ezra-Nehemiah, united in a single book (= Estd. B or II).

As for its origin, many hold that III E. is the Septuagint version of the Hebrew book of Chronicles after the exile, while Estd. B would be the version of Theodotion. Others think of a later compilation of canonical Greek texts. Very probably, according to E. Schürer, St. Székely, M.-J. Lagrange, J.-B. Frey, the text corresponding to canonical passages is a version of the original Hebrew-Aramaic text, which differed in several places from the Masoretic text. Indeed, according to some recent critics, such as H. H. Howorth, C. C. Torrey, P. Rieseler, this Semitic work would be the original text of the canonical book of Ezra, older than the Masoretic. But J. B. Frey and S. Fischer regard Howorth's opinion as a paradox.

The most serious question concerns the canonicity of the book. Calmet already wrote: « It may be held as certain that before the version of St. Jerome the whole Church admitted III E. as authentic ». Cornely too holds: « It can hardly be denied that in the Greek and Latin Church up to the 5th century divine authority was attributed to Greek Ezra ». Protestants, such as Howorth and Charles, have accused Jerome and the Councils of Florence and Trent of having unjustly omitted this book. The decision of the Church, however, corresponds to the true traditional data. For one cannot speak of an ancient tradition truly unanimous in favor of the canonicity of the book. Certainly there are not found in the classic ten lists that the Fathers and ecclesiastical writers (from St. Melito of the 2nd century and Origen, to Leontius of Byzantium and Junillus Africanus [ca. 1202]) have handed down to us almost ex officio. It is true that up to the 5th century some Fathers, such as Dionysius of Alexandria, Athanasius, Basil, Cyprian, Augustine, cite as inspired certain phrases of III E., but this fact is not decisive. The Fathers often in practice show themselves more generous than they were in theory; and even while fixing the canon of the sacred books according to the teaching of the Church, they cite apocryphal passages as sacred. The fact that III E. was found in many biblical manuscripts and its great affinity with the truly canonical books had also led them to recognize its authority in practice. « Could they not cite it as a document of indisputable historical authority, and even attribute to it a certain prophetic value, without however classifying it among the canonical books? » (J. B. Frey). The common doctrine from the 5th century onward, according to which it is to be regarded as apocryphal, is certainly the true one.

This book was composed before the Christian era, between the middle of the 2nd century and the beginning of the 1st. Flavius Josephus made extensive use of it. Fischer argues for 124. The legend of Zerubbabel seems written for an apologetic purpose.

The Latin Catholic liturgy uses III Esd. 5, 40 in the Mass « non eligendo Summo Pontifice ».

Vincenzo M. Jacono