ESDRA, IV BOOK of. — One of the most important apocrypha of the Old Testament. A true jewel of Jewish apocalyptic literature, it enjoyed an exceptionally wide diffusion and was inserted in an appendix, together with III Esdra, in the official edition of the Vulgate (following the canonical I–II Esdra).
Besides the Latin text, based on cod. Sangarm. (A.D. 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 versions, and a fragment of a Psidic version (edited by J. Leipold-B. Violet in Zeitschr. f. aegypt. Sprache, 41 [1904], pp. 139–40). They all derive from a common Greek text, but the original was written in Hebrew and Aramaic. The version that most faithfully reflects the original is the Latin. R. L. Bensly made its complete text known by discovering and publishing (The missing fragment..., Cambridge 1875) a fragment missing from the Vulgate owing to the loss of a folio (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 work calls itself « the 2nd book of the prophet Esdra » (1, 1). IV E. properly so called comprises only chaps. 3–14. Almost entirely ignored in rabbinic literature, it left deep traces in certain apocalyptic writings of Christian inspiration, such as the Greek Baruch
and the Greek Apocalypse of E., especially Apocalypse of Baruch (v.), with which it has many points of contact in composition and content, but which it surpasses in elevation of conception and purity of doctrine. These doctrinal merits won it broad favor in the Church, to the point that some Fathers cited it as Holy Scripture (Clement of Alexandria is the first to cite it expressly, Strom., 3, 6; s. Ambrose makes extensive use of it in De bono mortis and De Spiritu Sancto). Despite s. Jerome’s warning, « 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 keen interest for its exquisite stylistic form, compelling eloquence, and elevated doctrine. Several 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 ff. (cf. U. Holzmeister, in Verbum Domini, 17 [1937], pp. 321–28).
As for the date of composition of the apocryphon, a reference is thought to be found in the figure of the « eagle » with 3 heads, 12 (rather 6) wings, and 8 under-wings (chaps. 11–12), in which the Roman Empire seems to be symbolized: the wings are generally understood as the emperors (beginning with Caesar) up to Domitian (the three heads being the three Flavians: Vespasian, Titus, and Domitian); but the image is shrouded in mystery. According to IV Esd. 3, 1, the book would have been written in the time of the historian Esdra (or Salathiel?), 30 years after the destruction of Jerusalem by the Babylonians (587 B.C.). But it is a device common to the whole of apocryphal literature to trace one’s origins back to some illustrious personage of the Old or New Testament and to attribute to oneself a much earlier age. Rather, the chronological indication in question should be referred to the destruction of A.D. 70: the book, therefore, would have been written toward the end of the first Christian century. The intensely poignant description of the catastrophe likewise points to events of recent date (Jerusalem is in ruins, 3, 2; 10, 48; 12, 48; burned, 12, 44; its walls lie in ruins, 11, 42; the Temple is demolished, 10, 21; worship has ceased, 10, 21 ff.; the people have been led away, 3, 28; 10, 22; Zion is in the power of the enemies, 10, 23). The author’s purpose is precisely to console his brothers in faith and make them forget their present calamities through the vision of divine justice and future things. Only the Viennese rabbi A. Kaminka, reaffirming the thesis of the plurality of sources maintained by R. Kabisch, believed that the date of composition, at least for the work’s first nucleus, should be traced back to the period of the Babylonian exile. But this singular opinion remained isolated.
The apocryphon consists 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 Esdra during the Babylonian exile. — In the 1st vision (3, 1–5, 20), when Esdra complains that God has abandoned Israel to the Babylonians, who are far worse, and has allowed evil to spread so widely in the world, the angel replies that the ways of the Lord are inscrutable; he then points out that this world must soon end, and that God’s justice will then be revealed. But first the « evil seed » (4, 29 ff.) must disappear and the number of the righteous be complete: thus the signs preceding the end of time are announced (5, 1 ff.). — The fate of Israel is also the subject of the 2nd (5, 20–6, 34) and 3rd visions (6, 35–9, 25); but the latter rises to considerations of a more general order, while its background is dominated by the figure of the Messiah: the righteous will soon be freed from their present evils and will see wondrous things, the messianic age: « my Son, the Anointed, shall be revealed » (Vulgate: Jena) and will reign with his own for 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 a passage from the old age to the new (7, 30 ff.). Here are added beautiful reflections on Adam’s sin, the great number of the wicked, their foolish life, and the fate awaiting them (7, 46–56).
Freedom is affirmed: although the « evil seed » is rooted in the human heart, man remains the arbiter of his destiny (7, 57 ff.; cf. 9, 11 ff.). The anguishing problem of salvation is resolved in the dilemma: either man wins the struggle of life and receives the promised reward, or he succumbs and receives punishment (7, 57–61); God’s mercy is great, but it is exercised only in this life; in the other, each person will receive according to the merit of his works (7, 62–68). But since most people on earth have wished to ignore or despise the Most High and trample upon his people, only a few will be saved (8, 3; cf. 9, 13 ff.): and while the present world was made by God for many, the future is reserved for the few (8, 1), because of the evil that has spread everywhere (8, 2–63). The vision concludes with the signs preceding the end (9, 1–25), analogous to those foretold by Christ (cf. Lc. 21, 25 ff.): great wonders, upheavals, and 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 mourning her son, who has died on the day of his wedding; but suddenly she disappears, and in her place a noble city appears: the mourning woman is « Zion, our mother » (cf. Gal. 4, 26), the son’s death 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 three heads, wings, and under-wings symbolizing the Roman Empire, until the lion (the Messiah) pronounces judgment upon it and its entire 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 climbs to the summit of Zion, destroying the enemies with the breath of his mouth, like a river of fire, while he gathers together the 10 tribes of Israel, deported to Assyria and of which no trace remained (cf. II Reg. 17, 6), to form the new peaceful army; but the time of his coming is inscrutable. — Finally, in the 7th vision (14, 1–50), E. receives the command to transcribe for future generations the 24 books of the Old Testament (supposed to have been destroyed), and instead to keep hidden the other 62 (apocryphal), reserved for the wise men of the people.
The dual ethical and eschatological problem pervades the entire book, which might 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). Yet, starting from Israel’s present calamities, the author knows how to rise to considerations of a general nature. Divine justice will be manifested at 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, characterized by justice, peace, and happiness. This future age appears, if not imminent, at least near: the present age has grown old and has lost its youthful vigor (14, 10-12); it consists of twelve parts, of which 10½ have already passed, and only 1½ remain (14, 11 ff.). Thus the eschatological vision serves as the key to the solution of the problem of evil. It is noteworthy that the evils of humanity are considered as dependent upon the “sin of Adam,” to whom this impassioned apostrophe is addressed: “O Adam, what have you done! Your sin was not only your ruin, but also that of us who are descended from you” (7, 48). Yet 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 inherent in humanity like an “evil seed” (4, 28-30 ff.); Adam too possessed it and was driven by it to guilt (3, 21). Thus his sin was less the origin than the beginning of sins in the world, the first link in a chain that continues indefinitely.
Against all the enemies and oppressors of the theocracy, IV E. confidently awaits temporal and national victory under the Messiah’s guidance and auspices; and against the moral corruption widely diffused throughout the world it sets forth the final judgment and the happiness of the just in the life to come. Hence there is a twofold eschatology: the first collective and temporal, the second individual and otherworldly. The former is brought about through the Messiah, the latter by God alone. The messianic restoration, wholly set against a political background, reflects the particularistic views of Judaism. Yet within the sphere of individual eschatology the vision broadens. It is the merit of this apocryphon to have clearly presented final salvation under its individual aspect, distinguishing itself from the other Jewish eschatologies that almost entirely neglect the individual problem, and rising to a universalism that is not merely fictitious, as W. Mundle maintains.
In this apocryphon too the Messiah is a national restorer, a leader thirsting for vengeance upon his enemies: he will free his people not from sin but from foreign oppression. His mission is earthly and limited, and he will have no part in the kingdom of the world beyond: rather than a king or a judge, he is a great envoy who withdraws sadly once his work has been accomplished. In those passages where he is called the Son of God (7, 29 “Filius meus Christus”; 13, 34), there is strong reason to suspect Christian influences, quite apart from 7, 28, where the interpolator has inserted “Jesus” outright (“Filius meus Iesus”). The Messiah’s preexistence in heaven is vaguely affirmed (7, 36), where the Most High keeps him in reserve in order later to “reveal” him (7, 28); how this “revelation” takes place is not stated. In 7, 29 the Messiah’s death is foretold: this is a unique passage in Jewish apocryphal literature (it is absent from certain Eastern versions, such as the Arabic and Armenian); with Fr. Lagrange and many other critics, one must regard it as a Christian interpolation. Even if the passage were genuine, it would not concern a redemptive death, which lies entirely outside the apocryphon, but an ordinary death, from which not even the Messiah can escape once his work has been accomplished. What follows—the resurrection of the dead, the judgment, and the final destiny of human beings—is the work of God alone.
R. Kabisch divided IV E. into five documents, differing in content, ideological substratum, and date of composition: S (the apocalypse of Salathiel, composed in Rome around A.D. 100), E (the apocalypse of E., around 31 B.C.), A (the vision of the Eagle, around A.D. 90), M (Menschenzeb, or the vision of the “Son of Man,” at the time of Pompey’s arrival in Jerusalem, 63 B.C.), and E' (a fragment of E., around A.D. 100); a redactor (R) would then have joined the various fragments together, without succeeding in eliminating their jarring divergences of ideas and figures. The thesis was also defended by E. De Faye, R. H. Charles, G. H. Box, and others; among more recent scholars, A. Kaminka returned to the denial of the book’s unity. But other distinguished critics opposed this dissection, including H. Gunkel, C. Clemen, E. Schürer, B. Violet, W. Mundle, M.-J. Lagrange, J.-B. Frey, and others. Today the unity and integrity of the book are generally admitted, since, despite the differing movements of its ideas and images, the imprint of a single author is strongly marked both in the linearity of its stylistic form and in its central concern: the problem of evil and divine justice. “The mosaic lies 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 heritage without managing to fuse and harmonize his varied and discordant material.
Numerous correspondences exist, in phraseology and 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 owed the esteem in which it was held for a long time in the Church. Most scholars admit a Christian influence, 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, the resurrection of the dead, and the life to come; often, however, they are more apparent than real, whereas 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 BOOKS of. - Chapters 1-2, which exist only in the Latin version, constitute V E., and chapters 15-16 VI E., as they have commonly been called since O. F. Fritzsche and H. Weisel. In V E. two messages are read: the first (1, 4-2, 9) is a curse against the synagogue for its infidelities; the second (2, 10-4, 8) is one of mercy and knowledge for the Church, to which victory and happiness are promised. The additive character of these chapters in relation to the primitive apocryphon is unmistakable. Critics do not agree on the date of composition: estimates range from the middle of the second century A.D. (G. Volkmar) to the end of the fifth or the beginning of the sixth century (L. Pirot). VI E., of less interest than the preceding section, serves as an appendix to IV E. (chapters 3-14); it has a markedly apocalyptic character: it is an entire message of terror reminiscent of the well-known invectives of Isaiah, Jeremiah, Joel, and Nahum. It is held to have originally been written in Greek toward the end of the third century.