Ezra, Fourth Book of

EZRA, Fourth Book of. - One of the most important apocrypha of the Old Testament. A true jewel of Jewish apocalyptic literature, it enjoyed very wide diffusion, and was inserted as an appendix, together with III Esdras, in the official edition of the Vulgate (as a continuation of the canonical I-II Esdras).

Besides the Latin text, based on cod. Sangarm. (a. 822), there are various Oriental versions: Syriac (edited by A. M. Ceriani, Milan 1868), Ethiopic (edited by R. Laurence, Oxford 1829), Armenian (edited by the Mechitarists, Venice 1865), Georgian, two Arabic ones and a fragment of a Psidic version (edited by J. Leipold-B. Violet in Zeitschr. f. aegypt. Sprache, 41 [1904], pp. 139-40). All derive from a common Greek text, but the original was written in Hebrew and Aramaic. The one that most faithfully reflects the original is the Latin version. R. L. Bensly made its complete text known, having discovered and published (The missing fragment..., Cambridge 1875) a fragment missing in the Vulgate owing to the disappearance of a leaf (7, 35-105; the other vv. 106-30 correspond to Vulg. 7, 36-69; the 70 missing vv. are found in the Oriental versions).

The writing calls itself "the 2nd book of the prophet Esdras" (1, 1). IV E. properly so called comprises only chaps. 3-14. Almost ignored in rabbinic literature, it left deep traces in certain apocalyptic writings of Christian inspiration, such as the Greek Baruch and the Apocalypse of Greek E., especially in the Syriac Apocalypse of Baruch (v.), with which it has many points of contact in composition and content, but which it surpasses in loftiness of concepts and purity of doctrine. These doctrinal merits won it wide favor in the Church, to the point of being cited as Holy Scripture by some Fathers (Clement of Alexandria is the first to cite it expressly, Strom., 3, 6; St. Ambrose makes great use of it in the De bono mortis and De Spiritu Sancto). Despite the warning of St. Jerome "non apocryphorum tertii et quarti (Esdrae) somnia delectetur" (PL 28, 1403), IV E. continued to enjoy credit among Christians. Even today it is read with lively interest for its exquisite stylistic form, its gripping eloquence and the loftiness of its doctrine. Some passages have entered the liturgy (1, 14; 2, 36, 37-45; 8, 21-24; 16, 53). The beautiful prayer for the dead requiem aeternam is taken from IV Esd. 2, 34 f. (cf. U. Holzmeister, in Verbum Domini, 17 [1937], pp. 321-28).

As for the date of composition of the apocryphon, it is believed that a reference is to be found in the figure of the "eagle" with 3 heads with 12 (rather 6) wings and 8 under-wings (chaps. 11-12), in which the Roman Empire seems to be symbolized: for the most part the emperors are recognized in the wings (beginning with Caesar) down to Domitian (of the three heads the three Flavians: Vespasian, Titus and Domitian); but the image is wrapped in mystery. According to IV Esd. 3, 1, the book would have been written in the time of the historian Esdras (or Salathiel?), 30 years after the destruction of Jerusalem at the hands of the Babylonians (a. 587). But it is an artifice common to all apocryphal literature to refer back to some illustrious personage of the Old or New Testament and to attribute to itself a much earlier age. Rather, the aforementioned chronological indication is to be referred to the destruction of a. 70 A.D.: the book therefore would have been written toward the end of the 1st Christian century. Even the description, so full of grief, of the catastrophe points back to events of recent date (Jerusalem is in ruins, 3, 2; 10, 48; 12, 48; burned, 12, 44; its walls thrown down, 11, 42; the Temple is demolished, 10, 21; worship has ceased, 10, 21 f.; the people is led away, 3, 28; 10, 22; Zion in the power of enemies, 10, 23). The author's purpose is precisely to console his brothers in the faith and to make them forget the present calamities with the vision of divine justice and of things to come. Only the Viennese rabbi A. Kaminka, reaffirming the thesis of the plurality of sources upheld by R. Kabisch, believed he could trace the date of composition, at least for the first nucleus of the work, back to the time of the Babylonian exile. But the singular opinion has remained isolated.

The apocryphon is composed of 7 "visions" or supposed revelations of an angel (Uriel, unknown in the Old Testament; he also occurs in Enoch and in Sibyll., II, 229) to Esdras in the Babylonian exile. - In the 1st vision (3, 1-5, 20), to Esdras, who laments because God has left Israel at the mercy of the Babylonians, who are by far worse, and has allowed evil to spread so greatly in the world, the angel replies that the ways of the Lord are imperceptible, then points out that this world must soon end and then the justice of God will be revealed; but first the "evil seed" (4, 29 ff.) must disappear and the number of the righteous must be complete: therefore the signs precursor to the end of the times were announced (5, 1 ff.). - The 2nd (5, 20-6, 34) and 3rd vision (6, 35-9, 25) also refer to the fate of Israel; but the latter rises to considerations of a more general order, while the background is dominated by the figure of the Messiah: the righteous will soon be freed from present evils and will see marvelous things, the messianic era: "my son the Anointed will be revealed" (Vulgate: Jena) and he will reign with his 400 years, after which he too will die (7, 28-29); and after 7 days the dead will rise, judgment will be held and there will be the passage from the old to the new age (7, 30 ff.). And here beautiful considerations are added on the sin of Adam, on the great number of the wicked, on their mad life and on the fate that awaits them (7, 46-56).

Freedom is affirmed: although the "evil seed" is rooted in the human heart, man remains master of his destinies (7, 57 ff.; cf. 9, 11 f.). The anguishing problem of salvation is resolved in the dilemma: either man wins the struggle of life and will receive the promised reward, or he succumbs and will have the punishment (7, 57-61); the mercy of God is great, but it is exercised only in this life; in the other each will receive according to the merit of his own works (7, 62-68). But since most on earth have wished to ignore or despise the Most High and trample his people, only few will be saved (8, 3; cf. 9, 13 f.): and while the present world was made by God for many, the future is reserved for few (8, 1) because of sin spreading everywhere (8, 2-63). The vision closes with the signs precursor to the end (9, 1-25), analogous to those foretold by Christ (cf. Lk. 21, 25 ff.): great prodigies, upheavals, wars among the peoples. — In the 4th vision (9, 27-10, 60), the seer contemplates the future glory of Jerusalem under the image of a woman who weeps over her son who died on the day of his wedding, but suddenly she disappears and in her place a noble city appears: the woman in mourning is "Zion our mother" (cf. Gal. 4, 26), the death of the son is the fall of Jerusalem; the newly built city is the heavenly Jerusalem, which will take the place of the earthly one. — The 5th vision (11, 1-12, 39) is dominated by the figure of the eagle with the three heads with wings and seven wings symbolizing the Roman Empire, until the lion (Messiah) pronounces judgment on it, and the whole body goes up in flames. — In the 6th vision (13, 1-58) the Messiah returns under the image of a man who comes up from the sea and ascends to the summit of Zion, destroying with the breath of his mouth, like a river of fire, the enemies, while he gathers, to form the new peaceful army, the 10 tribes of Israel, the one deported to Assyria, of which no trace remained (cf. II Kings 17, 6); but the time of his coming is inscrutable. — Finally in the 7th vision (14, 1-50), E. receives the order to transcribe for future generations the 24 books of the Old Testament (supposed destroyed), and instead to keep hidden the other 62 (apocrypha), reserved for the wise men of the people.

The double ethical and eschatological problem pervades the whole book, which could be entitled: "the problem of evil according to a pious Israelite after the fall of Jerusalem and the destruction of the Temple" (M.-J. Lagrange, p. 101). But starting from Israel's present calamities, the author knows how to rise to considerations of a general order. Divine justice will be manifested in two distinct times: at the coming of the Messiah and at the end of the world. Everything is reconciled with the divine promises, if a distinction is made between the present age (corrupt, transitory, unhappy) and the future one, of justice, peace and happiness. This future age appears, if not imminent, near: the present age has grown old, has lost its youthful vigor (14, 10-12): it is composed of 12 parts, and of these, 10 ½ have already passed and only 1 ½ remains (14, 11 ff.). Thus the eschatological vision serves as the key for the solution of the problem of evil. Worthy of note is that the evils of humanity are considered as depending on the "sin of Adam," to whom the heartfelt apostrophe is addressed: "O Adam, what have you done! your sin has been not only your own ruin, but also that of us who come from you" (7, 48). But it seems that human nature was corrupted even before Adam's transgression, since the cor malignum (3, 20 ff.; 4, 4; 3, 26; cf. 7, 92 cogitamentum malum), which is the true root of all sins, is found and implanted in humanity as a "bad seed" (4, 28-30 ff.); Adam too had it and was dragged by it into sin (3, 21). Therefore his sin, rather than the origin, was the beginning of sins in the world, the first link of a chain that extends indefinitely.

Against all the enemies and oppressors of the theocracy, IV E. confidently awaits temporal and national victory under the guidance and auspices of the Messiah; and against the moral corruption widely diffused in the world it sets forth the final judgment and the happiness of the righteous in the other life. Thus there is a twofold eschatology, collective and temporal the first, individual and otherworldly the second: the former is brought about by the work of the Messiah, the latter is accomplished by God alone. The messianic restoration, entirely political in background, reflects the particularistic views of Judaism. But within the sphere of individual eschatology the vision broadens. And it is the merit of the apocryphon to have set forth clearly the final salvation under its individual aspect, differing from the other Jewish eschatologies which almost completely neglect the individual problem, and rising to a universalism that is not merely fictitious, as W. Mundle would have it.

In this apocryphon too the Messiah is a national restorer, a leader thirsting for vengeance on his enemies: he will free his people not from sin but from foreign oppression. His mission is earthly and partial and he will have no part in the otherworldly kingdom: more than a king or a judge he is a great envoy who steps aside once his work is accomplished. In those texts where he is called Son of God (7, 29 "Filius meus Christus"; 13, 34) there is strong reason to think of Christian influences, not to mention 7, 28, where the interpolator has inserted "Jesus" outright ("Filius meus Iesus"). Of the Messiah his preexistence in heaven is vaguely affirmed (7, 36), where the Most High keeps him reserved in order then to "reveal" him (7, 28): how this "revelation" takes place is not said. In 7, 29 the death of the Messiah is foretold: a unique passage in Jewish apocryphal literature (missing in some Eastern versions, such as the Arabic and the Armenian): with Fr. Lagrange and many other critics one must think of a Christian interpolation; even if the passage were genuine, it would not be a question of a redemptive death, which is entirely foreign to the apocryphon, but of a common death, from which not even the Messiah can escape when his work is accomplished: what follows (resurrection of the dead, judgment and final lot of men) is the work of God alone.

R. Kabisch dissected IV E. into 5 documents, differing in content, ideological substratum and age of composition: S (apocalypse of Salathiel, composed in Rome ca. the year 100 A.D.), E (apocalypse of E., ca. 31 B.C.), A (vision of the Eagle, ca. 90 A.D.), M (Menschensohn, or vision of the "Son of man," at the time of Pompey's coming to Jerusalem, 63 B.C.), E' (fragment of E., ca. 100 A.D.); a redactor (R) would then have joined the various fragments together, without succeeding in eliminating the strident divergences of ideas and figures. The thesis was also maintained by E. De Faye, R. H. Charles, G. H. Box, etc.; among recent scholars A. Kaminka has returned to denying the unity of the book. But other valiant critics have opposed this vivisection, such as H. Gunkel, C. Clemen, E. Schürer, B. Violet, W. Mundle, M.-J. Lagrange, J.-B. Frey and others. Today the unity and integrity is commonly admitted, since, despite the different movements of ideas and images, the imprint of a single author is very marked in the linearity of the stylistic form and also in the central interest: the problem of evil and of divine justice. "The mosaic is in the ideas," Lagrange rightly says, "not in the documents" (Revue biblique, new series, 2 [1905], p. 487): the doctrinal elements preexisted the author, who drew them from the traditional stock, without succeeding in fusing and harmonizing his own and borrowed material.

Numerous parallels exist, in phraseology and in concepts, between IV E. and the writings of the New Testament (J.-B. Frey, in DBs, I, col. 414), and it is precisely to the presence of this Christian element that the apocryphon owes its having been held in honor in the Church for a long time. A Christian influence is admitted by most, although it is not easy to determine its extent. More notable analogies are found in the doctrines of the law, justification by works, original sin, free will, resurrection of the dead, future life; often, however, they are more apparent than real, while the divergences are stronger, especially in the concept of messianic restoration and concerning the role of the Messiah in the final judgment.

E., V and VI BOOK of

Chapters 1-2, extant only in the Latin version, form V E., and chapters 15-16 form VI E., as they are commonly called after O. F. Fritzsche and H. Weisel. In V E. two messages are read: the first (1:4-2:9) of malediction against the synagogue for its infidelities, the second (2:10-4:8) of mercy and of knowledge for the Church, to which victory and happiness are promised. The additional character of these chapters with respect to the primitive apocalypse does not escape notice. The critics do not agree on the date of composition: from the middle of the 2nd century A.D. (G. Volkmar) to the end of the 5th century or the beginning of the 6th (L. Pirot). VI E., of lesser interest than the preceding, serves as an appendix to IV E. (chapters 3-14); it has a markedly apocalyptic coloring: it is entirely a message of terror that recalls the well-known invectives of Isaiah, Jeremiah, Joel and Nahum. It is held that it was originally written in Greek toward the end of the 3rd century.

Gaetano Stano