ESDRAS, 4TH BOOK OF. — One of the most important apocrypha of the Old Testament. A true gem of Jewish apocalyptic literature, it enjoyed a very wide circulation and was included in an appendix, together with 3rd Esdras, in the official edition of the Vulgate (following the canonical 1st–3rd Esdras).
In addition to the Latin text, based on the Codex Sangermanensis (822 AD), there are various Eastern versions: Syriac (published by A. M. Ceriani, Milan 1868), Ethiopic (published by R. Laurence, Oxford 1820), Armenian (published by the Mechitarists, Venice 1805), Georgian, two Arabic versions, and a fragment of a Sogdian version (published by J. Leipoldt and B. Violet in Zeitschrift, nos. 1–2, 1904, pp. 139–40). All derive from a common Greek text, but the original was written in Hebrew or Aramaic. The Latin version most faithfully reflects the original. R. L. Bensly made the complete text known by discovering and publishing (The Missing Fragment..., Cambridge 1875) a missing fragment in the Vulgate due to the loss of a leaf (7:35–105; the remaining verses 106–39 correspond to Vulgate 7:36–69; the 70 missing verses are found in the Eastern versions).
The work calls itself the 20th book of the prophet Esdras (1:1). The proper 4th Esdras comprises only chapters 3–14. Almost ignored in rabbinic literature, it left deep traces in some Christian apocalyptic writings, such as the Greek Baruch and the Greek Apocalypse of Ezra, especially in the Syriac Apocalypse of Baruch (q.v.), with which it shares many points of contact in structure and content, though surpassing it in elevated concepts and doctrinal purity. These doctrinal merits earned it wide favor in the Church, to the point of being cited as Holy Scripture by some Fathers (Clement of Alexandria was the first to cite it explicitly, Stromata 3.6; St. Ambrose makes extensive use of it in De bono mortis and De Spiritu Sancto). Despite St. Jerome’s warning, “let no one delight in the dreams of the third and fourth (books of) Esdras” (PL 28, 1403), 4th Esdras continued to be held in esteem among Christians. Even today it is read with keen interest for its exquisite stylistic form, compelling eloquence, and elevated 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 drawn from 4th Esdras 2:34ff. (cf. U. Holzmeister, in *Verbum Domini* 17 [1937], pp. 321–28).
As for the date of composition of this apocryphon, a reference seems to be found in the figure of the “eagle” with three heads and twelve (rather six) wings and eight secondary wings (chapters 11–12), which appears to symbolize the Roman Empire: most scholars see in the wings the emperors (beginning with Caesar) up to Domitian (the three heads representing the three Flavians: Vespasian, Titus, and Domitian); yet the image remains shrouded in mystery. According to 4th Esdras 3:1, the book would have been written in the time of the historian Ezra (or Salathiel?), thirty years after the destruction of Jerusalem by the Babylonians (587 BC). But it is a common device in all apocryphal literature to attribute a work to some illustrious figure of the Old or New Testament and claim an age far earlier than its true composition. Rather, the above chronological indication should be referred to the destruction of the year 70 AD: the book would therefore have been written toward the end of the first Christian century. Even the poignant description of the catastrophe points to recent events (Jerusalem is in ruins, 3:2; 10:48; 12:48; burned, 12:44; its walls are in ruins, 11:42; the Temple is demolished, 10:21; worship has ceased, 10:21ff.; the people are led away, 5:24; 10:22; Zion is in the power of enemies, 10:23). The author’s purpose is precisely to console his fellow believers and help them forget present calamities through the vision of divine justice and future things. Only the Viennese rabbi A. Kaminka, reiterating the thesis of multiple sources advanced by R. Kabisch, believed he could trace the date of composition, at least for the first nucleus of the work, to the time of the Babylonian exile. But this singular opinion has remained isolated.
The apocryphon consists of seven “visions” or extended “revelations of an angel” (Uriel, unknown in the Old Testament; he also appears in Enoch in *Studien zum Buch der Weisheit*, 11, 229) to Ezra during the Babylonian exile. — In the 1st vision (3:1–5:20), Ezra laments that God has delivered Israel into the hands of the Babylonians, who are far worse, and has allowed evil to prevail so widely in the world. The angel replies that the ways of the Lord are inscrutable, then points out that this world will soon come to an end and God’s justice will then be revealed; but first the “seed of evil” (4:29ff.) must disappear and the number of the righteous be made complete; thus the precursors of the end times are announced (5:1ff.). — 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 more general considerations, while the background is dominated by the figure of the Messiah: the righteous will soon be freed from present evils and see wondrous things, the messianic era: “my son the Elect One shall be revealed” (Vulgate: *Iesus*) and will reign for 400 years, after which he too will die (7:28–29); and after seven days the dead will rise, judgment will be passed, and the transition from the old to the new age will occur (7:30ff.). Here are added fine reflections on Adam’s sin, the great number of the wicked, their foolish lives, and their fate (7:46–56).
Freedom is affirmed: though the “seed of evil” is rooted in the human heart, man remains master of his destiny (7:57ff.; cf. 9:11ff.). 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 incurs punishment (7:57–61); God’s mercy is great, but it is exercised only in this life; in the next, each will receive according to the measure of his works (7:62–68). Yet since most on earth have chosen to ignore or despise the Almighty and trample upon his people, only a few will be saved (8:3; cf. 9:15ff.): and whereas the present world was made by God for many, the future is reserved for the few (8:1) because of the widespread sin (8:2–36). The vision closes with the precursors of the end (9:1–25), similar to those announced by Christ (cf. Luke 21:25ff.): great wonders, upheavals, wars among the nations.
In the 4th vision (9:27–10:60), the seer beholds the future glory of Jerusalem under the image of a woman weeping over her son who died on his wedding day; suddenly the woman vanishes and in her place appears a noble city: the woman in mourning is 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 three heads and wings and secondary wings symbolizing the Roman Empire, until the lion (the Messiah) pronounces judgment upon it, and the whole body is consumed 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 the heights of Zion, destroying his enemies with the breath of his mouth, like a river of fire, while he gathers the ten tribes of Israel, those deported to Assyria of whom no trace remained (cf. 2 Kings 17:6), to form a new peaceful army; but the time of his coming is unpredictable.
Finally, in the 7th vision (14:1–59), Ezra is commanded to transcribe for future generations the 24 books of the Old Testament (supposedly destroyed), while keeping secret the other 62 (apocryphal) books, reserved for the wise of the people.
The dual ethical and eschatological problem permeates 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.-L. Lagrange, p. 101). Yet, starting from the present calamities of Israel, the author rises to considerations of a general order. Divine justice will be manifested in two distinct phases: 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 age of justice, peace, and happiness. This future age appears, if not imminent, at least near: the present age has grown old, lost its youthful vigor (14:10-12); it is composed of twelve parts, of which ten have already passed, and only two remain (14:11 ff.). Thus, the eschatological vision serves as the key to solving the problem of evil.
Noteworthy is the fact that the evils of humanity are traced back to the *sin of Adam*, to whom the poignant apostrophe is directed: *O Adam, what have you done! Your sin has been not only your ruin but also ours who come from you* (7:48). Yet it seems that human nature was already 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 innate and inherent in humanity as an *evil seed* (4:28-30 ff.); even Adam was dragged into guilt by it (3:21). Therefore, his sin was more the beginning of sins in the world than their origin—the first link in a chain that extends indefinitely.
Against all enemies and oppressors of the theocracy, 4 Ezra awaits first a temporal and national victory under the leadership and auspices of the Messiah; and against the widespread moral corruption of the world, it foresees the final judgment and the happiness of the righteous in the life to come. Thus, there is a twofold eschatology: the first, collective and temporal, the second, individual and otherworldly. The former is realized through the Messiah, the latter solely by God. The messianic restoration, entirely *political in scope*, reflects the particularistic views of Judaism. Yet within the framework of individual eschatology, the vision broadens. It is to the credit of the apocryphon that it clearly presents final salvation from an individual perspective, distinguishing itself from other judgmental eschatologies that almost entirely neglect the individual problem and rising to a universalism that is not merely fictitious, as W. Mundle contends.
Even in this apocryphon, the Messiah is a national restorer, a leader thirsting for vengeance against enemies; he will free his people not from sin but from foreign oppression. His mission is earthly and partial, having no part in the kingdom to come. More than a king or judge, he is a great envoy set aside once his work is done. In passages where he is called *Son of God* (7:29 *Filius meus Christus*; 13:34), there is strong reason to suspect Christian influence, not to mention 7:28, where an interpolator has inserted even the name *Jesus* (*Filius meus Iesus*). The Messiah’s preexistence in heaven is vaguely affirmed (13:36), where the Abyss holds him in reserve to later *reveal* him (7:28); how this *revelation* occurs is not explained. In 7:29, the Messiah’s death is foretold—a motif unique in Jewish apocalyptic literature (absent in some Eastern versions, such as the Arabic and Armenian): following M.-L. Lagrange and many other critics, this must be regarded as a Christian interpolation. Even if the passage were genuine, it would not refer to redemptive death, which is entirely absent from the apocryphon, but to a common death, from which not even the Messiah can escape once his work is complete. What follows (resurrection of the dead, judgment, and the final fate of humanity) is the work of God alone.
R. Kabisch dissected 4 Ezra into five documents, differing in content, ideological substratum, and date of composition: *A* (Apocalypse of Salathiel, composed in Rome ca. A.D. 100), *E* (Apocalypse of Ezra, ca. 31 B.C.), *A* (Vision of the Eagle, ca. A.D. 30), *M* (Mourning, or Vision of the *Son of Man*, at the time of Pompey’s arrival in Jerusalem, 63 B.C.), *E* (Grain of Ezra, ca. A.D. 30); a redactor (*R*) then united the various fragments, without managing to eliminate the glaring divergences in ideas and figures. This thesis was also supported by E. De Faye, R. H. Charles, G. H. Box, and others; among recent scholars, A. Kaminka has again denied the book’s unity. Yet this vivisection has been opposed by other esteemed critics, such as H. Gunkel, C. Clemen, E. Schürer, B. Violet, W. Mundle, M.-L. Lagrange, J.-B. Frey, and others. Today, the unity and integrity of the book are commonly accepted, since despite differing motifs and images, the presence of a single author is strongly marked in the linearity of the stylistic form and even in the central theme: the problem of evil and divine justice. *The mosaic lies in the ideas*, as Lagrange rightly observes, *not in the documents* (*Revue biblique*, new series, 2 [1905], p. 487): the doctrinal elements preexisted the author, who drew them from the traditional background without succeeding in fusing and harmonizing the disjointed and chaotic material.
Numerous parallels exist, in both phraseology and concepts, between 4 Ezra and the writings of the New Testament (J.-B. Frey, in *DBs*, I, col. 414), and it is precisely the presence of this Christian element that led the apocryphon to be long held in honor within the Church. Most scholars acknowledge Christian influence, though its extent is difficult to determine. The most notable similarities concern doctrines of the Law, justification by works, original sin, free will, and the resurrection of the dead and future life; yet these parallels are often more apparent than real, while the divergences are more pronounced, especially regarding the concept of messianic restoration and the role of the Messiah in the final judgment.
**ESDRAS IV BOOK** — ESENIN SERGEJ ALEKSANDROVIČ
**AND THE FIFTH BOOK OF ESDRA** — Chapters 1-2, extant only in the Latin version, form 5 Ezra, and chapters 15-16 are called 6 Ezra, as commonly designated after O. F. Fritzsche and H. Weinel. In 5 Ezra, two messages are read: the first (1:4-2:9) is a curse against the synagogue for its infidelities, the second (2:10-48) is a message of mercy and consolation for the Church, to which victory and happiness are promised. The secondary character of these chapters with respect to the primitive apocryphon is evident. Critics do not agree on the date of composition: from the mid-second century A.D. (G. Volkmar) to the end of the fifth or beginning of the sixth century (L. Pirot). 6 Ezra, of lesser interest than the preceding, serves as an appendix to 4 Ezra (chapters 3-14); it has a markedly apocalyptic tone, conveying a message of terror reminiscent of the invocations of Isaiah, Jeremiah, Joel, and Nahum. It is believed to have been originally written in Greek toward the end of the third century.
Bruk, R. Kabisch, *Das zweite Buch der Erzählung auf seine Quellen untersucht*, Göttingen 1882; E. De Faye, *Les Apocalypses juives*, Paris 1892, pp. 14-25, 35-45, 103-23, 153-65; M. R. James, *The fourth book of Ezra*, Cambridge 1895 (critical edition); L. Vaganay, *Le problème ethnologique dans le IV livre d’Esdras*, Paris 1906; H. J. Labouret, *La cinquantaine livre d’Esdras*, in *Rev. bibl.*, nouvelle série, 6 (1909), pp. 12-34; M.-J. Lagrange, *Le messianisme chez les Juifs*, Paris 1909, p. 103 sqq.; F. Schürer, *Geschichte des jüdischen Volkes*, III, 4th ed., Leipzig 1909, pp. 315-336; J. Wolter, *Die Ezra Apokalypse*, in J. Wolter (ed.), *The Church, Apocalypse and Pseudepigrapha of the Old Testament*, II, Oxford 1913, pp. 542-624; id., *A critical history of the doctrine of a future life*, London 1913, pp. 337-357; G. Pelten, *Storia dei tempi del Nuovo Testamento*, trans. it., Turin 1913, pp. 370-387; S. Szekely, *Bibliotheca apocalyptica*, Freiburg in Br. 1913, pp. 284-328; J. Kuelers, *Die eschatologische Lehre des vierten Einbruches* (*Bibl. Studien*, 20, II-III), Paris 1913; W. Mundt, *Das religiöse Problem des vierten Einbruches*, in *Zeitsch. f. all. Lit.*, 47 (1929), pp. 232-240; B. Pelata, *Eschatologia Messianica IV libri Esdrae*, in *Verbum Domini*, Paris 1923, pp. 241-249, 310-318; J. Mazerski, *Libri IV Esdrae doctrina humanistica*, ibid., 12 (1923), pp. 374-376; 13 (1923), pp. 84-90, 215-221, 247-259, 359-370; W. O. E. Oesterley, *II Esdras (The Ezra Apocalypse)*, London 1933; E. Ellwein, *Die Apokalypse des IV Esdras u. das urchristl. Zeugnis von Jesus dem Christus*, in *Helv.-Festgabe*, Berlin 1934, pp. 29-41; A. Kaminka, *Beiträge zur Erklärung des Ezra-Apokalypses und zur Rekonstruktion des kbr. Urtextes*, Breslau 1934; S. Garofalo, *De Inaecorum justis reliquiis in apocr. libri, IV Esdrae*, in *Verbum Domini*, 13 (1923), pp. 280-288; L. Gry, *Les dires prophetiques d’E. (IV Esdras)*, Paris 1938; id., *La mort du Messie en IV Esdras*, in *Mémorial de la Paroisse*, 11 (1923-24), pp. 13-39; J.-B. Frey, *Apocalypses de l’Ancien Testament*, in *DBS*, I, cols. 411-418 (bibliography); L. Pirot, *Le livre de l’Esdras*, ibid., III, cols. 114-120.