ESDRA, III BOOK of. — An apocryphal book, the subject matter of which is found almost entirely in the canonical books: II Par. 35, 1–36, 21 = chap. 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 contains only 3, 1–5, 6 of its own.
III Estd. 3, 1–5, 6 relates that three personal guards of Darius I (521–485 B.C.) discuss before the King what is strongest: wine, the king, woman, or truth. The Jew Zorobabel stands for truth: «To her belong dominion, strength, and glory, for all eternity. Praised be the God of truth» (4, 40). At these words the King, filled with admiration, rewards Zorobabel by promising to return the sacred vessels of the Temple to the Jews and to rebuild the sanctuary. The style of this passage differs from that of the others; indeed, it contradicts them, since according to 5, 8, 66–71 Zorobabel returns to Judea under Cyrus. It is not known where the redactor of the work obtained this passage; it was probably added later (C. C. Torrey).
The remainder of the book contains the history of the celebration of Passover in the time of Josiah (d. in 609) up to the rebuilding of the Temple after the exile and the restoration of divine worship with Esdra. There is an evident lack of chronological order: it speaks successively of the Persian Cyrus (558–29), Artaxerxes (465–25), Darius (521–485), and then a second time of Cyrus, Darius, and Artaxerxes. This book, like Estd. A, or I Estd., is included in the Septuagint and in the versions dependent upon it, such as the Old Latin, among the canonical books, and precedes Esdra-Nehemiah, which are joined together in a single book (= Estd. B or II).
As regards its origin, many hold that III E. is the Septuagint version of the Hebrew book of Chronicles after the exile, whereas Estd. B would be the version of Theodotion. Others think it a later compilation of canonical Greek texts. Most probably, according to E. Schürer, St. Székely, M.-J. Lagrange, and J.-B. Frey, the text corresponding to the 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, and P. Rieseler, this Semitic work would be the original text of the canonical book of Esdra, older than the Masoretic text. 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 had already written: «It may be regarded as certain that before the version of St. Jerome the whole Church accepted III E. as authentic.» Cornely likewise holds: «It can scarcely be denied that in the Greek and Latin Church, until the fifth century, divine authority was attributed to Greek Esdra.» Protestants, such as Howorth and Charles, have accused Jerome and the Councils of Florence and Trent of having unjustly omitted this book. The Church’s decision, however, corresponds to the true traditional evidence. One cannot in fact speak of an ancient and truly unanimous tradition favorable to the book’s canonicity. It certainly does not appear in the classical ten lists which the Fathers and ecclesiastical writers—from St. Melito of the second century and Origen to Leontius of Byzantium and Junillus Africanus [ca. 1202]—have handed down to us almost ex officio. It is true that until the fifth century some Fathers, such as Dionysius of Alexandria, Athanasius, Basil, Cyprian, and Augustine, cite certain phrases of III E. as inspired, but this fact is not decisive. The Fathers often show themselves in practice to be broader than they were in theory; and while establishing the canon of the sacred books according to the Church’s teaching, they cite passages from apocrypha 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 unquestionable historical authority, and even attribute to it a certain prophetic value, without nevertheless classifying it among the canonical books?» (J. B. Frey). The common doctrine from the fifth century onward, according to which it is to be regarded as apocryphal, is certainly the correct one.
This book was composed before the Christian era, between the middle of the second century and the beginning of the first. Flavius Josephus made extensive use of II. Fischer dates it to 124. The legend of Zorobabel seems to have been written for apologetic purposes.
The Latin Catholic liturgy makes use of III Esd. 5, 40 in the Mass «non eligendo Summo Pontifice».
BIBLIOTHE: S. Fischer, Der apokripte und das kanonische Eirabuch, in Bibliotheze Zeitschrift, 2 (1904), pp. 351–64; P. Rieseler, Die tradierische Wert des dritten Eudrischen, ibid., 5 (1907), pp. 146–58; C. Torrey, Ezra Studies, Chicago 1910; St. Ezekiel, Bibliotheca apocrypha, Friburgo in Br. 1913, pp. 316–72; J. B. Frey, Apocryphae de l'Ancien Testament, in Dbs. I, coll. 430–442. Vincenzo M. Jacono