1 Esdras (Ezra)
Liber EsdræIntroductions
Enciclopedia Cattolica
The two books cover the period from 537 to 433 B.C. or, according to others, to 398 B.C., in addition to later additions. The author does not present a continuous history of this period, but relates only certain events: the first return of the exiles led by Zerubbabel and the rebuilding of the Temple (Ezra 1-6); the second repatriation of exiles led by E., in the 7th year of Artaxerxes, and the religious restoration (Ezra 7-10); the rebuilding of the city walls by Nehemiah amid much opposition (Neh. 1-6) and the political and religious organization of the Jewish community (Neh. 7-13). Various catalogues (Ezra 2:1-70; 8:1-20; 10:18-44; Neh. 3:1-31; 7:6-69; 10:1-27; 11:4-12:25) list the families that returned, the rebuilders of the walls, and the signatories of the renewed covenant.
Haydock
This Book taketh its name from the writer, who was a holy priest and doctor of the law. He is called by the Hebrews Ezra, (Challoner) and was son, (Tirinus) or rather, unless he lived above 150 years, a descendant of Saraias, 4 Kings xxv. 18. It is thought that he returned first with Zorobabel; and again, at the head of other captives, in the seventh year of Artaxerxes Longimanus, with ample authority. Esdras spent the latter part of his life in exhorting the people, and in explaining to them the law of God. He appeared with great dignity at the dedication of the walls of Jerusalem, 2 Esdras 12:26, 35. We have four books which bear his name. (Calmet) --- This and the following book of Nehemias, originally made but one in Hebrew, (St. Jerome, etc.) as the transactions of both those great men are recorded. The third and fourth are not in Hebrew nor received into the canon of the Holy Scriptures, though the Greek Church hold the third as canonical, and place it first; (Worthington) and Genebrard would assert that both ought to be received, as they were by several Fathers. But they contain many thing which appear to be erroneous, and have been rejected by others of great authority, and particularly by St. Jerome. The third book seems to have been written very early, by some Hellenist Jew, who was desirous of embellishing the history of Zorobabel; and the fourth was probably composed by some person of the same nation, who had been converted to Christianity, before the end of the second century; and who injudiciously attempted to convert his brethren, by assuming the name of a man who was so much respected. Many things have been falsely attributed to Esdras, on the same account. It is said that he invented the Masora; restored the Scriptures, which had been lost; fixed the canon of twenty-two books; substituted the Chaldaic characters instead of the ancient Hebrew, Samaritan, or Phoenician. But though Esdras might sanction the latter, now become common, the characters might vary insensibly, (Bianconi; Kennicott, Dis. ii.) as those of other languages have done, (Haydock) and the sacred books never perished wholly; nor could the canon be determined in the time of Esdras. (Calmet) --- As for the Masoretic observations and points, they are too modern an invention. (Elias Levita; Capel.; Houbigant, etc.) --- What we know more positively of Esdras, is, (Worthington) that he was empowered by Artaxerxes to bring back the Jews, and that he acted with great zeal. (Haydock) --- This book contains the transactions of 82 years, till the year of the world 3550. The letter of Reum, and the king's answer, (chap. 4:7., till chap. 6:19., as well as chap. 7:12, 27.) are in Chaldean; the rest of the work is in Hebrew. (Calmet) --- We may discover various mysteries concealed under the literal sense of this and the following book. (St. Jerome, ep. ad Paulin.) (Worthington) --- Esdras is supposed by this holy doctor, as well as by some of the Rabbins, etc., to have been the same person with the prophet Malachy[Malachias]; (Button) and several reasons seem to support this conjecture, though it must still remain very uncertain. (Calmet) --- Some think that (Haydock) Esdras wrote only the four last chapters, and the author of Paralipomenon the six preceding ones. (Du Hamel) --- But it is most probable that he compiled both from authentic documents. (Haydock) --- Some few additions may have been inserted since, by divine authority, 2 Esdras 12:11, 22. (Tirinus)
Douay 1582/1609
ESDRAS a holie Priest and Scribe; of the stocke of Aaron, by the line •. Es•r. 7. The two bookes of Esdras and Nehemias are but one in the Hebrew. The third and fourth are not canonical. of Eleazar, vvriteth the historie of Gods people, in, and presently after their captiuitie in Babilon: vvhich Nehemias an other godlie Priest prosecuteth, vvhose booke is also called the second of Esdras, because in the Hebrevv and Greke they are but one booke, relating the acts of them both. The other two books called the third and fourth of Esdras, touching the same matter, are not in the Hebrew, nor receiued into the Canon of holie Scripture, though the Greke Church hold the third booke as Canonicall, and pla•eth it first, because it conteyneth thinges donne before the other.
In the two here folowing, vvhich are vndoubtedly holie Scripture S. Ierom Epist. ad Paulin. This historie hath also a spiritual sense sayth, that Esdras and Nehemias (to witte the Helper, and Comforter from God) restored the Temple, and built the walles of the citie; adding that al the troope of the people returning into their countrie, also the description of Priestes, Leuites, Israelites, Proselites, and the workes of walles and to wres diuided by seueral families, aliud in cortice praeferunt, aliud in medulla. retinent, shew one thing in the barke, kepe an other thing in the marrow: signifying that this historie hath both a literal, and a mystical sense. According to the First booke diuided into two partes. letter, this first booke shevveth the reduction of Gods people from Babylon; In the first six chapters. In the other soure, their instruction by Esdras after their returne.
Cornely
CAPUT VII. DE DUOBUS LIBRIS ESDRAE,
118. — Paralipomenon libris in Vulgata nostra immediate subiunguntur duo libri Esdrae, quippe qui eodem Cyri decreto, quo Paralipomena terminantur, inchoantes historiam populi electi continuent. In hodiernis bibliis hebraicis prior solus Esdras, alter vero NeAemias inseribitur, atque in Vulgata quoque alter hodie vocatur : « Liber Nehemiae , qui et Esdrae secundus dicitur ». Nihilominus olim unum opus constituerunt. Etenim F7. losephus, quum tredecim libris historiam Israelitarum a. Moyse usque ad. Artaxerxem 1. narrari assereret, duos nostros libros uno opere coniunctos possedit; Me/4to Sard.. de Iudaeorum Palaestinensium canone loquens solum Esdram enumerat; Or/gene quoque teste ludaeis fuerunt "Ec3pac zporoc x«l Ozírspog dv dvi "E?pa, 4 icri Box03;; quocum consentientes S. Epiphanius unum Esdrae librum recenset!, atque S. Hieronymus : « Esdras et Nehemias, inquit, adtutor videlicet et consolator a Domno, in unum volumen coarctantur », vel, uti alibi monet: « nec quemquam moveat, quod unus a nobis liber editus est..., quia et apud llebraeos Esdrae Nehemiaeque sermones in unum volumen coarctantur »?. De uno Esdrae opere etiam loquuntur Thalmudistae, atque usque ad Massoretharum aetatem duos libros semper mansisse coniunctos eorum epicrisis demonstrat, quae utriusque libri versus uno numero indicat et 2 Esdr. 3,22 medium operis versum esse docet. Immo « in multis manuscriplis editisque codicibus, inquit de Ross, incipit Nehemias tamquam pars libri praecedentis, et in nonnullis etiam hispanicis et neapolitanis hagiographis in continuatione lineae nullo prorsus interiecto spatio » ?. Ipsi quoque alexandrini ludaei duos nostros Esdrae libros canonicos uno volumine coniunxerant; nam licet in antiquis alexandrinae versionis codicibus duo Esdrae libri numerentur, plerique tamen in priore loco apocryphum 3. Esdr. exhibent et eorum secundus duos canonicos complectitur *. Inter modernos interpretes non desunt, qui ludaeos, ut pro literarum suarum numero duos et viginti dumtaxat libros numerarent, Esdram et Nehemiam coniunxisse censeant, licet duo diversa opera sint ^; attamen integro suo argumento totaque sua indole ita inter se connexi sunt, ut duae potius eiusdem operis partes, quam duo opera esse videantur 9.
Continue reading 69 paragraphs
ARGUMENTUM enim eorum est resiauratio societatis israeliticae post finitum exsilium babylonicum. Ab ipso igitur Cyri decreto, quo Israelitis reditus in patriam et templi reaedificatio permittebantur, initium faciens auctor historiam ultra a. 329. Artaxerxis I. Longimani perducit, ut plus centum annorum spalium conplectatur ?. At non cunctas temporis illius res memoria dignas continet, sed ea sola facta, quae templi, utpote centri religiosi , urhis lerusalem , utpote centri politici, restaurationem populique in Legis observantia renovationem spectant. Post Cyri enim decretum (a. 536.) multi quidem ludaei Zorobabele atque summo sacerdote losue ducibus in Palaestinam reversi erant atque templo reaedificando statim manum admoverant; continuis antem vicinorum populorum insidiis hostilibusque incursionibus impediti non ante a. 6. Darii Wystaspis (a. 516.) templi restaurationem terminaverant, Interea civitas absque muris iacuerat, demortuisque Zorobabele et losua atque duobus illis prophetis, Aggaeo et Zacharia, «qui eos adiuverant, reducum fervor adeo languescere coeperat, ut magna esset in cultu divino celebrando negligentia atque gravissima praecepta. violarentur. Anno 7. autem Artaxerxis [. (a. 568.) Esdras novo obtento decreto et altera exsulum turba adducta fervorem renovavit, cultum divinum restauravit, Legis observantiam. inculcavit. Paucis annis post Nehemias restaurationem ad finem adduxit; etenim a. 20. Artaxerxis (a. 55.) reaedificandorum. murorum facultate obtenta politicum quoque populi slatum restituit atque antiquum populi cum Deo foedus post sollemnem Legis praclectionem publico decreto renovavit. Aptissime ergo totum opus in duas partes est distributum; in priore enim templi cultusque divini restauratio, in altera civitatis foederisque cum Deo initi renovatio praecipuum constituunt argumentum; in priore Esdras, in altera Neliemias primum locum tenent, at ambae partes coniunctae completam nobis exhibent restaurationis imaginem. In sequente analysi accuratius totius operis arzumentum indicabimus.
l. HEsSTAURATIO TEMPLI IEROSOLYMITANI ET REFORMATIO POPULI Ll. 1,1-10,4 45. 1. Primus ezsulum reditus anno 4. Cyri et templi reaedificatio (4,1-6,99). A. Reditus exsulum (1,1-2,70 .
a.) Completis septuaginta exsilii aunis ab leremia praedictis (1,1) Cyrus decreto permisit, ut ludaei ín patriam revertentes templum reaedilicarent (1,2- 4) eisque, qui reverti voluerunt (1,5. 6.), vasa tem. pli a Nabuchodonosor ablata restituenda curavit (1,7 - 11).
b.: Ducibus igitur Zorobabele et summo sacerdote Iosua plus quam quadraginta millia exsulum, inter quos multi sacerdotes, reversi sunt (2,4-61) atque voluntariis donis ad templi reaedificationem collatis varias civitates occuparunt (2,68 - 70).
a. Septimo mense anni, quo redierant, altari exstructo magna cum sollemnitate festum tabernaculorum celebrarunt et ab eo die holocausta offerre inceperunt (3,1 - 6).
b.) Anni autem 2. mense 2. novi templi fundamenta iecerunt aliis laetantibus de opere incepto, aliis, qui prius templum viderant, lacrimantibus (3,7 - 13^.
e. l'emipli exstructionem impedire conati sunt adversarii (4,1 - 6,12).
z., Samaritani, quum opus coeptum esse audissent, petierunt a Zorobabele et losua, ut sibi una cum illis templum aediticare liceret (4,4. 2). Quibus abnuentibus a regibus Persarum impetrarunt, ut ludaeis continuatio operis interdiceretur; qui rerum status usque ad Darii regnum duravit (4,3-35).
f.) Qua occasione usus auctor per parenthesin narrat, quibus macpinationibus iidem hostes postea sub Assuero (Xerxe) et Artaxerxe (L) urbis restaurationem impedierint (4,6. 7) literis accusatoriis hostium (4,8-16) regisque Artaxerxis decreto allatis (4,17-23)*.
y: Keassumto narrationis filo (1,24) exponit auctor, quomodo 2. Darii anno opus sit repelitum exhorlantibus prophetis Aggaeo et Za-
(a) Autiquiores interpretes bac in pericope de impedimentis templo aediticando allatis serionem esse abque chronolozieum ordinem ab auclore teneri rati nomine Assueri Cambysem et nomine. Artaxerxis Pseudo Smerdin intelligendos esse statuerunt. At in. epistola accusatoria el in re;zio decreto de «ola urbe aedilicanda agitur, et nomina AcAaschiverosch (Assuerus; et. Arthuchschaschtha esse hebralcas transcripliones nominum persicorum Kschajarscha. (Xerxis) el Artaksclettra. (Artaxerxis) hodie ab omnibus adtinittitur.. Rationalistae autein (cfr De. Wette Schrader Vinl, p. 387. Anti. c., el Studien u. Kritiken 1867. p. $74; parum apa. capitum. divisione ipsi quoque in errorem. inducti versiculum 21, quem cum praecedentibias arcte coniungunt, ineple. addiluta. esse arbitrantur a redactore, quippe qui in praecedentibus de (ezipli aedificalione agi putaverit. At. redactor, opinor, aeque clare, atque nos, in. praecedentibus de templo non. agi vidit; error igilur ei immerito attribuitur.
Tota. diflicullas disparet, si. parficulam cehald, V TN2. non esse temporalem attenditur fi. q. eo fetipores sed absolute inclieare. novam partem (i. 9, 733 et apud. S. Matth. frequenter veis cbr huales Ves qu rs Error erzo eis. atlribuendus est, qui ea'ci divisionem capilum sequantur: nun. 6*3 coniunzewlas est eum 5,5, ita ut. 4,623 sint. parentliesis, charia (5,1-2). Novas autem moras attulerunt Persarum satrapae (5.3-3), qui literis missis ad Darium regem interrogarunt, num Iudaeis secundum pertinissionem a Cyro acceptam templun aedificare liceret (5,6-17? ; sed decreto regio ludaeis adiuvare iussi sunt (6,1 - 12). .
d.) Decretum regium exsecuti satrapae Persarum adiuverunt ludaeos (6,13), qui rem alacriter urgentes an. 6. Darii templum terminatum (6,14. 13) multis victimis oblatis consecrarunt (6,16- 18) magnaque cum laetitia primum pascha celebrarunt (6,19 - 22).
a.) Esdras genere aaronitico exortus et scriba velox in Lege (7,4-5) facultate ab Artaxerxe obtenta cum magna exsulum turba. a. 7. Arlaxerxis revertitur in Palaestinam (7,6 -10).
b.) Decreto scilicet regio non solum cum aliis, quicunque vellent, redeundi facultatem obtinuit, sed simul regis aliorumque dona et oblationes in templum deferre atque mosaicae Legis observantiam promovere est iussus (7,10 -26); c.) quare Deo hac de re gratiis actis (7,27. 98) magnum numerum sacerdotum et laicorum congregavit (8,1- 14), levitas autem paucos et Nathinaeos, qui secum irent, non sine difficultate invenit (8,15- 20). Quibuscum ieiunio ad iter sese praeparavit (8,21 -23), thesauros regiaque dona sacerdotibus nonnullis custodienda tradidit (8, 24-30). Iter ingressi lerosolyma feliciter advenerunt, thesauros in templo cünsecrarunt, sacrificio oblato sese sanctificarunt, regiumque decretum cum satrapis communicarunt (8,31 -36).
B. Populi reformatio relate ad connubia illicita (9,1 -10,44).
8.) Esdras, quum rescivisset Iudaeos multos Lege despecta cum gentilibus matrimonia contraxisse, gravissimo dolore afflictus (9,1 -3) coram Deo populi peccatum deflevit et misericordiam divinam imploravit (9,6 - 15).
b.) Iudaeis ierosolymitanis promtitudinem suam ad Esdrae mandata exsequenda promittenlibus (10,4 - 5) integrum populum lerosolymis congregavit cique praecepit, ut uxores alienigenas dimitterent (10,6- 17);
C.)cui praecepto obsecuti sacerdotes, levitae et multi ex populo eas repudiarunt (10,18- 44).
1I. HEAEDIFICATIO URBIS ET RENOVATIO FOEDERIS CUM Dro (Il. 4,1- 12, 61). 4. Urbis reaedificatio (1,1 - 71,73). A.) Urbis reaedificandae permnissio a Neheimia petita et obtenta (1,1-2,6).
a.) Nehemia, Artaxerxis pincerna, misero reducum statu audito (3,12) vehementer dolens, quod muri lerusalem dissipati iacerent, supplici oratione ad Deum se convertit (1,4-10), ' b.! atque an. 90. Artaxerxis permissionem reaedificandae civitatis a rege impetravit (2,1 -6.
a.) ltegio decreto munitus, quod parum placuit satrapis Persarum (2, 15-10), Nehernias. statim. post suum adventum prius statum rerum accurate cognovit (2,141-15», deinde vero ludaeos adduxit, ut operi manum. admovereut (2,16-18). irridentes autem satrapas ad silentiuin redegit (2,49. 20).
b.j Opus restauralionis diligenter describitur nominatis quum operariis luin operis partibus ab unoquoque susceptis (3,1-31;.
c.; Ad linem autem opus perductum non est nisi magnis inipedinientis devictis (4,1 - 6,19).
2.: Etenim hostes externi prius quidem irriserunt Iudaeis laborantibus ($,1-3;; quum vero Iudaei. divino auxilio contisi alacriter operi insisterent. (5, 1-6), hostes aperta. vi eos impedire conati sunt ( £,7. 8); Neheiniae autem vigilantia eorum consilia ad irritum redegit (49-15) et ludaei opus continuarunt una manu operantes, altera gladium tenentes (4,16-23).
5.; Alterum impedimentum esortum est ab. avaritia divitum, qua indigentes ad tumultum excitati sunt (3,1-5); severa autem usurae prohibitione Neheniias tumultum sedavit, (3,6 - 13), suoque exemplo divites ad misericordiam. erga. pauperes. adduxit (3, 14-19).
:.; Dolo quoque hostes Nehemiam ex urbe elicere conati sunt (6.1-9j, neque eis defuerunt auxiliarii ludaei, qui Nehlicmiae. insidias slruevent (6,10- 44).
2.. Quibus omnibus non obstantibus opus ad feliceui finem. est perductum (6,135-19).
€. Census incolarum ierosolymitanorum (7,1-73).
a.) Aedilicatis iam muris prima cura Nehenmiae erat, ut ianitoribus custodibusque positis urbem custodiret (1,1-3).
b., Animadvertens autem urbem pro incolarum numero nimis esse spaliosam, incolas arcessere voluit (cfr 11,1); quam ob causam prius statuit recensendas esse familias urbem incolentium; qua occasione inventus est catalogus eorum qui cum Zorobabele erant reversi (7,4-13).
a.) ln. festo tabernaculorum populus ab Esdra petiit, ul publice coram omnibus Le;em praelegeret; qui eorum votis obsecutus de mane usque ad. meridiem legit (8,1 -8); quuin vero integer populus lce- Gone illa ad luctum esset. permotus, moniti sunt ab Esdra et Ncliemia, ut festum cum gaudio celebrarent (8,9 - 12).
p. Secundo die, quuin audissent. praecepisse Dominum , ut in. tabernaculis die festo habitarent, subito praeceptum exsequi coeperunt (8,13 - 183.
e.) Festo autein terminato ab. alienigenis separati convenerunt, ut de peccatis poenitentiam agerent (9,1,2.), atque postquam per levitas in longa oralione Dei inisericordias celebrarunt suamque obstinad.) Qua de re confectum est documentum publicum (9,38), cui subscripserunt Nehemias et optimates et reliqui de populo (10,1 - 99) spondentes se omnia Dei praecepta observaturos , maxime vero illa, quae de vitandis coniugiis illicitis, de sabbathis, annis sabbathicis, oblationibus , primitiis sancte servandis erant statuta (10,30- 39).
3. Ordinis politici restauratio et dedicatio murorum civitatis (11,1 - 12,46).
3.) Quum lerusalem pro magnitudine sua incolis careret (cfr 7,4), providit Nehemias, ut decima populi pars civitatem sanctam incoleret, reliqui per terram habitarent (11,1-3*; enumerantur autem familiae lerusalem inhabitantes (11,4 - 25), civitatesque a tribubus Iuda (11,25-30) et Beniamin (11,31-36) occupatae, atque sacerdotes etlevitae, qui cum Zorobabele reversi sunt (12,14 -9), sumini pontifices (12,10. 11), et sacerdotes (12,12-21) levitaeque (12,22-26), qui tempore Esdrae et Nehemiae fuerunt).
b.) Quibus peractis congregati sunt omnes levitae (12,27-29) et postquam populum ipsum et muros civitatis (victimis) mundarunt (12, 30), duo chori gratias agentium circuierunt integrum murum (12, 31 - 42) et sacrificiis oblatis dedicationem terminaverunt (12,43).
8.) Esdras et Nehemias administrationem rerum ad cultum pertinentium (12,44- 47) atque separationem populi ab alienigenis (13,4 -3) secundum Legis praecepta ordinaverant.
b.) Quum vero Nehemias an. 32. Artaxerxis in Babylonem esset profectus, multi abusus irrepserant. Quos reversus abstulit, sc. relate ad adininistrationem rerum, quae ad templum pertinebant (13, 4-9), ad decimas, quae levitis coinpetebant (13,10- 14), ad observationem sabbathi (13,15 -22), et ad matrimonia cum alienigenis (13,23 - 31).
120. — Quem riNEM auctor noster prosecutus sit, ex argumento solo, quod tractat, cum aliqua probabilitate coniicere licet. Sicut in libris Paralipomenon, in nostris quoque circa lerusalem et templum et cultum tota narratio versatur : eandem in iis invenimus genealogiarum frequentiam, eandem cultus divini Legisque sollicitudinem, eandem diligentiam in recensendis illis, quae ad sacerdotes levitasque pertinent; atque tanta est affinitas inter Paralipomena et inter nostros libros, ut moderni non pauci eos non tantum eidem auctori adscribant, sed etiam velut partes eiusdem operis considerent. In Paralipomenis autem . conscribendis auctor, quem Esdram fuisse ostendimus (111. p. 283 sqq.), id praesertim intendit, ut narratione eorum, quae magni et pii olim reges in lerosolymis occupandis et muniendis, in templo priore aedificando et exornando, in cultu divino promovendo et amplificando praeclare gesserant, aequales suos ad aemulationem excitaret et ad eandem sollicitudinem. et diligentiam in urbis, templi, cultus restauratione provocaret!. Nostri. vero operis auctor, quem eundem Esdram fuisse infra. ostendemus (122 p. 363 sqq.), posteros suos narrata restaurationis historia. videtur monuisse et provocasse, ut illud, quod primi reduces tot difficultatibus impedimentisque superatis a Deo adiuti magna cum perseverantia effecerunt, eadem cum sollertia conservarent et augerent, neve illud nezligentia et socordia sua perderent. Similis igitur procul dubio est Paralipomenon et nostri operis finis, quia simile argumentum similisque. tractandi modus; sed simul tam diversus, ut illos errare arbitremur, qui opus nostrum partem «quandam Paralipomenon antiquitus fuisse censent; Paralipomena enim aequalibussuis, opus nostrum posteris proxime destinavit Esdras.
Re enim vera posterorum multo magis, quam aequalium , utilitatem auctorem in nostris libris conscribendis prae oculis habuisse , multi illi, quos refert, catalogi non obscure, ni fallimur, manifestant. Omittimus enumerationem familiarum, quae an. 1. Cyri Zorobabele duce ex Babylonia reversae prima. novae. reipublicae iudaicae fundamenta iece- "nl; lieri enim facile potuit, ut ultimis Esdrae annis non amplius omnibus essent cognitae. At nec familiae illae, quae 7. Arlaxerxis anno cum ipso Esdra reversae sunt, nec illae, quae Nehemiae aetate lerosolymis habitabant, nee viri, qui ab Esdra moniti uxores alienigenas repudiarunt, aut illi, qui praeeunte Nehemia in restaurandisfcivitatis muris operam suam posuerunt, nec civitates, quas praeter lerusalem reduces occupaverant etc.?, ab aequalibus potuerunt ignorari. Quapropler iure. eoneludimus Esdram omnium eorum memoriam, qui de restauranda. republica bene meriti erant, posteris voluisse transinitlere ideoque integrum opus suum non lam scripsisse , uL aequales suos, quam ut posteros doceret et ad aemulationem provocaret.
Hue quoque spectare censemus varia illa decreta, quibus reges Persarum ludaeis reditum in patriam, reaedificationem templi, restauraionem. urbis sanctae. permiserunt. eosque ad. fidelem Legis mosaicae observantiam exhortati sunt. Esdrae enim aequalibus erant cognita ; posteris autem ea transmittens Esdras illis et fiduciam in Deum et fidelitatem in. Legis observantia. commendavit, Luce clarius enim ex eis elueebat Deum populum suum non dereliquisse, sed pristinarum suarum promissionam memorem corda. regum ethnicorum ita disposuisse, ut sapientissimos misericordiae suae fines attingeret atque ipsorum ethnicorum ore illis Lezem suam inculcaret. Atque illud quoque addere licet, Spiritum S., primarium librorum sacrorum auctorem, variisillis decrctis relatis aliud simul intendisse. Etenim primum statim Cyri decretum diserte affertur, ut ex eo cognoscant lectores Deum promissionem suam per leremiam de exsilii duratione factam fideliter implevisse; concludere igitur debebant eadem cum fidelitate Deum reliquas suas promissiones esse impleturum. Inter quas una erat brevi ante exsilii finem data de tempore adventus Messiae, quod a decreto quodam definiverat, urbis veaedificationem permittente. Recte igitur asserere nobis videmur, Spiritum S. relatis illis decretis attentos reddidisse Iudaeos, ut advenientem Messiam facilius et securius cognoscerent. Atque hac ratione ultimus liber, quem Esdras suo cauoni inseruit, continuo monuit Iudaeos, ut fideli Legis observantia ad Messiam suum digne recipiendum sese praepararent.
8 31. — De origine Dhrorum Esdrae.
121. — Priusquam inquiramus, quis operis huius sit auctor, nonnulla praemittamus oportet de eius compositione. Nam«ue neminem, qui duos hos libros, quos 1 et 2 Esdrae vocamus, vel obiter legerit, fugere poterit, in illis varia scripta esse coniuncta et quasi coagulata. Alius enim est, qui prima persona utens res anno 2. Darii (a. 520.) gestas narrat (I.5, 4), alius qui res a. 7. Artaxerxis (a. 468.) gestas iterum in prima persona refert (I. 7,297 sqq.), atque alius, qui de rebus an. 20. et 32. Artaxerxis (a. 455. et 443.) etiam prima persona loquitur (lI. 1,1 sqq.; 13,6 sqq.). Ultimus enim se ipse Nehemiam, filium Helciae, pincernam regis Artaxerxis, nominat (II. 1,1. 11); alter aulem se Esdram sacerdotem esse manifestat (I. 7,12. 28); neuter autem ex iis fuisse potest, qui cum Zorobabele an. 1. Cyri (a. 536) reversi Darii tempore in aedificando templo erant occupati; id quod ipsa temporum ratio salis clare docet. Praeterea non paucos in opere invenimus catalogos, regum satraparumque persicorum epistolas et decreta, quae cuncta ex actis publicis desumta iure dicuntur!. Accedit demum, quod haud parva prioris libri pars, quae praeter epistolas et decreta Darii, Artaxerxis el satraparum etiam narrationem continuat, chaldaico sermone sit conscripta (I. $,8- 6,18 et 7,12-26), quodque familiarum, quae cum Zorobabele sunt reversae, catalogus bis referatur (I. 2,1- 70; I1. 7,6- 73). Quae omnia apte non explicantur, nisi auctorem nostrum aliorum scripta in suum opus transumsisse admittamus. Hinc duplex vel triplex quaestio nobis est solvenda : quotnam varia scripta distinguenda sint, quinam eorum sint auctores, quis illa omnia in unum opus compezerit.
Haud facile est dictu , quot variis scriptis libri nostri constent; a certis incipiamus, ut ad minus certa transeamus. Nullum est dubium, quin
Esdras illiun prioris libri partem scripserit, in qua prima persona adhibetur (f. 7,27-9,15), neque dubitamus ultimum quoque caput (I. 10,1- 5^) ei adseribe re. Quod. enim ibi de Esdra tertia persona adhibeatur. id non creat difficultatem , siquidem in libris sacris et profanis satis frequens est eiusmodi transitus a prima. ad tertiam personam et vice versi a terfia ad primam ?*; tam arctas autem est nexus inter duo ultima prioris libri capita, ut illa separare diversisque auctoribus attribuere non liecat. Attamen etiam initium cap. 7. (I. 7,1-11) Esdrae deberi asserimus; id euim etiam ex nexu inter capp. 7. et 8. elucet; laudes vero Esdrae, quae ia illa pericope leguntur (« scriba velox [vel peritus] in Lege », « applieuit cor suum , ut invesligaret Legem » 7.6. 10) eiusinodi non sunt, quas ipse de se scribere non potuerit. Pro cerlo igitur tenemus, totius narrationis de secundo exsulum reditu (1 (. 7,1-10,55) Esdram pm esse iminedialum auctorem ?,
Neque minus certum est, Nehemiam longe maiorem alterius. libri partem conscripsisse. Initium enim libri (Il. 1,1-7,73 a) et finis (H. 12, 3 aut sallem: 13,1-21), in. quibus de se ipso semper prima persona loquitur, ab oinnibus ei attribuuntur. Quoniam vero.ll. 11,1 apte conlinuat 7,73 à, immo arctissime cum eo cohaeret, etiam 11,1-12,47 sine ullo scrupulo eidein auctori adscribimus. Nehemiae igitur commentarium comprehendisse ceusemus ll. 1,1-7,73 a et 11,1-13,31, quae cuneta de eius rebus gestis agunt. Unica difficultas ex eo exoritur, quod 12,10. 11 successio summorum pontificum usque ad leddoa (laddus) continuari videatur, quem Alexandri M. tempore pontificatum gessisse seribit FJ. Iosephus*. et quod idem leddoa paullo post (12,22) iterum ita comimnemoretur, ut vix negari possit eum summa dignitate sacerdotali auctoris tempore insignitum fuisse; de levitarum enim descriptione in diebus eius facta loqui videtur sacer textus. Reclissime autem iam respondit Corueleus e Lap. aut « hune. versum 11., aeque ac. 22., non esse seriplosa Nehemia, sed post eius inortem libro insertosa synagoga vel ab aliquo hagiographo ad ostendendam continuam pontificum successionem usque ad. Alesandrum M., à cuius gestis incipiant libri Machabaeorum », aut « Neliemiam vidisse leddoa puerum, sed non pontificem. » ^. Neutrum responsum probabilitate sua. caret et atrumque difficultatem satis solvit; prius tamen eum plerisque modernis catholieis interpretibus praeferimus.
levera contextus cap. 12. inserlis versibus 10. 14. et 22. 23. interrumpi videtur. Auctor eniin, postquam 12,1-7 sacerdotes et 12.8. 9. levitas enumeravit, qui cum Zorobabele reversi sunt, inde a 12,13 viros nominat, qui tempore sumi sacerdotis. loaciimn (et Exdrae. Nehemniaeque 12,20) familiis illis sacerdotalibus praefuerunt. (12,413-21), atque. similiter inde a 12,24 principes fiuniliarum istarum leviticarum (12,24-26). Optimum igitur habemus contextum, si vv. 10. 11. 92. 23 oinitlantur (12,1-9. 12-21. 24-26). Quid vero sibi velit in islo contextu successio summorum pontificum (12, 10. 11), non satis apparet, atque multo minus intelligitur, cui fini inserviant 12,92. 23; praesertim si in illis versibus, id quod multi putant, de quatuor levitarum descriptionibus sermo sit, quas fecerint quatuor summi sacerdotes sibi succedentes. Nam de quatuor illis descriptionibus nibil prorsus traditur; quae enim sequuntur (12,24-25), ad iuniores illos ponlifices non pertinent, siquidem v. 26. diserle asserit, viros illos fuisse principes familiarum tempore sacerdotis loacim, patris Eliasib 5.
Ceterum si cui religioni est, versus istos a iuniore manu textui sacro insertos dici, nihil vetat quominus ad alterum Cornelii a Lap. responsum recurramus. Nam a.) leddoa nec v. 11. nec v. 22. vocatur summus sacerdos; immo v. 22. omnino insinuat, eum non fuisse summum sacerdotem eo tempore, de quo ibi sermo est. ftectius enim versus de unica levitarum descriptione intelligitur. Quomodo enim fieri potuit, ut « Darii Persae » tempore a quatuor pontificibus quatuor descriptiones sint factae? Namque aut intelligendus est Darius Nothus (423- 405), et profecto tum temporis Ieddoa, summus sacerdos sub Alexandro (a. 330), non potuit esse pontifex, aut intelligendus est Darius Codomannus (333-330), sub quo leddoa quidem, sed nec eius pater nec multo minus eius avus et proavus summam dignilotem tenuerunt. Quapropter de una sola descriptione sermo est, quam auctor parenthetico quodam modo roelationi suae de priore descriptione sub loacim facta ideo inseruit,'quia res ei videbatur memoria digna, quod secunda vice descripti sint levitae, quando in familia summi Pontificis quatuor generationes (pater, filius, nepos, pronepos) simul vivebant. b.) Nehemias quoque Ieddóaà, pronepotem Eliasibi, puerum videre potuit. Eliasib enim, qui summus sacerdos fuit a. 20. Artaxerxis (II. 3,1), eadem dignitate videtur esse functus usque ad initium regni Darii Nothi. Quando enim Nehemias secunda vice reversus est in Palaestinam (probabiliter post Artaxerxis l. mortem), summum sacerdotem invenit Eliasibi filium loiadam, cuius filius natu minor uxorem duxerat alienigenam (Il. 13,98); loiadae igitur filium aatu maiorem, qui patri in summo sacerdotio successit, eo tempore iam filios genuisse, inter quos Ieddoa primogenitus erat, nemo addubitabit. Eae igitur sunt chronologicae rationes, ut alterum Cornelii a Lap. responsum sua non careat probabilitate.
lam ad alias librorum partes transeamus, de quarum origine magis minusve probabilia dumtaxat statuere possumus. In priore libro nonnulla exstant chaldaice conscripta (1. 4,8-6,18), quae num cuncta eidem auctori debeantur, non satis liquet. Parum scilicet videtur probabile, eundem auctorem, qui coaevus Darii I. (cfr I. 5,54) aedificationem et dedicationem templi narravit (54,26-6,18), etiam machinationes narrasse, quibus ludaeorum hostes tempore Xerxis el Artaxerxis I. restaurationem urbis impediverunt (4,8-93). Hebraici quoque versus, qui chaldaicam relationem excipiunt atque descriptionem primi paschatis post templi restaurationem celebrati exhibent (6,19-22), a multis tertio cuidam auctori attribuuntur; idque recte, ni fallor, siquidem Darius ibi « rex. Assur » appellatur (6,22), qui titulus in aliis librorum partibus non usurpatur?. Ex tribus igitur diversis operibus particulam (1. 4,8- 6,92) desumtam esse arbitramur (*,8-93; &,26-6,18; 6,19-22), duo autem versus (4,95, 25) a totius operis redactore esse insertos.
Restant tria prima prioris libri capita (I. 1,1-4,7) et tria intermedia alterius (V. 7,73. 6-10,40); quae cuncta ab eodem auctore scripta esse sermonis stylique similitudo docere videtur. Quoniam vero eaedem styli proprietates in illa parte deprehenduntur, quam Esdrae omnes attribuunt, eum istorum quoque capitum auctorem asserere non dubitamus 8,
E-rod. 36,6 et deinde I. 1,1; atque 10,7; et 11. 8,15; etc. — Ad E. 1,1-4,7 et I. 7,1-10,44 quod attinet, animadvertas velim, in utraque particula reduces vocari filios captivitatis (4,1; — 8,35; 10,7. 16), viros Iuda et Beniamin (t,5; 4,1; — 10,9); Deum vocari Deum Israel aut. Dominum Deum Israel (3,2; 4,1. 3; — 7,6; 8,35; quod nomen fre- «quens in Paral. non invenitur in aliis iunioribus scriptoribus Dan. Agg. Zach. Nehem.); "123 (poculum) non legitur in tota Scriptura nisi 1,10; 8,27 et 1 Par. 28, 17; pnua (epistola) non nisi 4,7 ct 7,1t etc. Ad similitudinem inter I. 1,1-4,7 et II. 7,13-10,40 quod attinet, attende codem versu inchoart descriptionem festi tabernaculorum T. 3,1 et II. 8,1; maioris autem momenti est, quod quam plurimae similitudincs inveniantur inter I. 9. et 1I. 9 (cfr T. 9,7. 9. 12. 15 et II. 9,8. 10. 17. 27. 36 etc.
122. — Maior igitur prioris (I. 1,1-5.7 et 7,1-10,4*) et non parva alterius libri pars (Il. 7,73 b-10,50) ab Esdra immediate sunt consceriptae; &t eundem etiam totius operis compilatorem esse censemus. Cui sententiae non leve argumentum suppeditat constans antiquorum ludaeorum sententia, qui duos hos libros in suo canone coniunxerunt eosque semper Esdrae auctori attribuerunt!. Nec quidquam in toto opere deprehenditur, quod ei contradicat ; immo vero quaecunque de Esdrae vita et laboribus nobis sunt tradita, eam videntur confirmare.
Namque Esdras (7177 ; quod nomen ab Origene foz05;, a S. Hieronymo adiutor recte explicatur?) e familia Aaronis ac proin sacerdotali dignitale insignitus, nou tantum post reditum in patriam populo mosaicae Legis observantiam inculeavit (I. 9,1 sqq.), sed praecipua cius cura eliam antea iam fuerat, ut populum Legem doceret. Id enim titulus Scribae indicat, qui ei ita. fuit proprius, ut ipse Artaxerxes in suo decreto eum « Scribam legis Dei coeli doctissimum » vocarel (I. 7,12). « Scribam autem , inquit recte Burtorf, appellant non tam a scribendo, quam ab enarrandis et explicandis iis, quae in Scripturis sacris comprehenduntur. Nam 922. [/ber, ^z32. librarius, librorum peritus, interpres et Doctor, Scriba. A nullo autem libro maius nomen lausque maior erat, quam a libro Legis Dei , unde Sop/ier vocabatur Legisperitus , qui libeum Legis Dei docebat et interpretabatur »?. Hanc ob causam ab Artaxerxe cleetus, ut « seeundum sapientiam Dei, quae in manu eius », reduces ad Legem divinam observandam adigeret (1. 7,95. 26), praeprimis magna eum diligentia antiquiores libros saeros collegit, a mendis quae irrepserant, quantuin eius fieri potuit, mundavit, in canone apte digessit*.. Attamen. ille, qui magna. beneficia. olim. patriarchis concessa Legemque ab ipso Deo per Moysen datam populo iterum ob oculos posuit, permittere non. potuit, ut nova beneficia, quibus Deus populum post eaptlivitatem eumulaverat, oblivioni darentur. Quapropter, sicut brevi post reditum in Paralipomenis antiquam populi historiam ex fontibus superstitibus compendio quodam comprehendit, ita iam graudaevus brevi aute mortem illa omnia, quae sive in aetis publicis sive in scriptis privatis de exsulum in patriam reversorum historia et de templi eivitatisque sanefae. restauratione invenit, in hoc nostro opere collezit illis additis, quae ab. aliis erant. omissa quaeque ipse gesserat. Mae ralione totius operis orizo apte. explicatur eiusque eliam iudoles intelligitur; etsi enim nec unitas plane desit nec satis idonea singularum partiuin dispositio, quae omnes eo tendunt, ut fundationis novi status rerum imaginem completam exhibeant, collectanea tamen potius quaedam historica esse videntur, quam elaborata et perfecta historia.
Quae huic nostrae sententiae, qua Esdram totius operis redactorem esse asserimus, a multis modernis interpretibus catholicis el protestanlicis opponuntur, ea nee multa sunt nec magni momenti esse videntur et pleraque a nobis iam praeocecupata. Quin enim doo libri Esdrae ct Neliemiae unum solum opus constituant , quod uni auetori sit attribuendam, elsi ex variis operibus sit collectum, nemo in. dubium vocabit, qui antiquae eb eoustanti traditioui lidem adlübet (118. n. 1-5 p. 352 sq.). Neque maiore eum iure rationes elironologicas obiiciunt, qui Esdram auctorem esse negant?. Quid de origine versuum lH. 12,10. 11. 92. 23. probabilius sit sentiendum , supra iam diximus (121 p. 360 sq.); at ne is quidem, «qui versus istos a iuniore 1nanu operi inserios esse negat. alinm auetorem , quam Esdram, admittere cogitur. Namque quum Ieddoa non nominetur summus sacerdos atque 12,22. 23 de unica levitarum descriptione sit sermo, quae facta sit Darii Persae tempore, tota quaestio est, num vitam suam Esdras usque ad Darii Nothi (423-405) regnum protraxerit. lam vero, licet de Esdrae annis nihil certi nobisssit traditum, omnes famen antiqui scriptores tradunt eum ad summam senectutem pervenisse ?, Nihil ergo impedit, quominus eum velipsius Artaxerxis Il. Mnemonis (405-362) initia vidisse dicamus; si enim vir circiter triginta annorum 7. Artaxerxis anno (468.) in Palaestinam advenit, centenarius non erat, quando Darius II. est mortuus. Ceterum omnia, quae in libro nostro leguntur, iam c. a. 420. scribi potuerunt, quo tempore Esdras vi& octogesimum annum attigerat. — Vix demum memoria dignae videntur duae aliae obiectiones, quod scilicet titulus « regis Persarum » Cyro, Dario I. et Il. et Artaxerxi L. attributus tempus indicet, quo Persarum regnum iam interierit, quodque 12.26. 47. Nehemiam iam diu mortuum esse demonstrent, antequam liber noster sit scriptus. Nam cur ludaeo in Palaestina degenti et scribenti regem, cui populus suus erat subiectus, « regem Persarum » nominare non licuerit, idonea ratio nec redditur nec reddi potest; nonne idem quotidie fieri videmus in omnibus regnis, quae aliorum regnorum provincias vi sibi subegerunt?? Num Nehemias ante Esdram, an post illum sit mortuus, non liquet; at parum interest; nam etiam ante Nehemiae mortem, expressione « in diebus Nehemiae » illud tempus designare licuit, quo Nehemias satrapae munere in Palaestina functus erat. (12,47); alterum autem versum (12,26) ex publico documento esse transcriptum iam monuimus (121. n. 6). Haec omnia sunt iunioris 5 elatis vestigia, quaein libris nostris inveniri dicuntur; illa autem non tanti momenti esse, ut antiquam et constantem traditionem de operis nostri origine esdrina convellant, evidens esse arbitramur.
DEibl. Heallexie. Ed. 3. I. p. 3i01, quam trilitionem probabilem vocat Àaulen Einl. p. 213.
7. Nonne hodie Poloni Borussiae subiccti de « rege Borussiae » aut Ronioni reizuo Italiae subiccti de « rege Italize » loquuntur?
8 32. — De librorum Esdrae auctorttute historica et divina.
123. — AUCTORITAS HtsTORICA operis nostri, quippe quod nec magna miracula narret nec de vaticiniis impletis aliisque extraordinariis factis loquatur, a rationalistis vix est impugnata; paucas dumtaxat. et leves difficultates nonnulli moverunt. Ac profecto ea est libri compositio et origo, ut quomodo illius auctoritas addubitari possit, vix intelligatur. Longe maior enim eius pars constat documentis, quae ex actis publicis sunt desunita, aut relationibus, quae a testibus ocularibus sunt conscriptae. Documenta (i. e. genealozias, familiarum catalogos, epistolas regum et satraparum) fide esse digna nemo unquam negavit; Neliemiam: vero et. Esdram illorum, quae aut ab. iis ipsis aut. saltem iis praesentibus zesta. sunt, certam scientiam habuisse nec ullo. partium studio in iis referendis ductos esse demonstratione non indiget. Omnia illa, quibus praesentes non adfuerant , documentis allatis fulciuntur; illa, quae de ludaeorum reducum misero statu, difficultatibus, angu- 4liis atque etiam de eorum nezligentia in Legis observatione tradunt, trium ultimorum prophetarum libris confirmantur; illa vero, quae de persica. historia scriptores profani narraverunt, cuncta eum libris nostris consonant. Undenam igitur seria obiectio desumatur, non apparet. Mtainen. opus nostrum pro sacro et divino habetur; ideo ab eo impuznando plane abstinere non. potuerunt. vationalistae: corum autem obiectiones paucissimis absolvere licet.
Quod si enim nonnulli asserunt , auctore machinationes hostium conbra. cérifatis restanralionem , quae F. 5.8-23. referuntur, illo in loco posuisse, propterea quod de emi reacdificatione in vegio decreto sermonem esse putaverit, temere omniuo et sine ullo fundamento auctori ipsi errorem aliquorum interpretum attribuunt !, — Neque rectius infidelitatis accusatur auctor, quia in exsulum, qui eum Zorobabele reversi sunt, dupliei catalozo et in duabus recensionibus donorum, quae primni reduces. ad templum. reaedifieaudum contulerunt, satis multae reperiantur dillerentiae. Saepissime euim in. nominibus et numeris deseribendis iuniores librarios erravisse omnes concedunt; in nostris autem catalogis eiusmodi librariorum errata. latere ex eo jam elucet, quod in ulroque. catalozo. eadein. ponatur. summa. reducum, quanivis in neutro singulorum numerorum additione efficiatur; librarii igitur negligentia aceuselur, sed quo eum iure auctoris infidelitas inculpetur, ignoramus?. Donorum quoque catalogos ab omnibus librariorum mendis non esse immunes certum cst; praeterea. animadvertas velim in priore summatim dona indicari, quae in altero. enumerantur singula ?. — Quae omnia, utpote leviora, a plerisque merito negliguntur; maiorem autem censent difficultatem in iis esse sitam, quae de initio restaurationis templi referuntur. Namque auctor ille, qui tria prima capita prioris libri scripsit, iam primos reduces statim post reditum altare erexisse et templi fundamenta iecisse asserit (I. 3,3. 8 sqq.); attamen chaldaicae narrationis auctor docet, non ante 2. annum Darii templum aedificari esse. coeptum (Il. 5,2. 16), consentientibus iuniori- | bus prophetis Aggaeo cl Zacharia, qui omnino supponunt ante 2. Darii annum nihil de templi aedificatione esse peractum *. Concludunt ergo adversarii, iuniorem librorum redactorem, «quem Alexandri M. tenpore vixisse putant, narrationem illam de templi aedificatione sub Cyro inchonta finxisse, neque credere volunt inchoatam templi aedificationem per quatuordecim annos usque ad Darium potuisse interrumpi ?. Nescio vero, an terlia hacc obiectio duabus prioribus non sit levior. Etenim I. 3,10 de fundatione quidem templi sermo cst, sed cur aedificatum non sit templum, ratio iam affertur ]. 4,1; e contra l. 5,2 non de fundationis, sed de aedificationis initio sermo fit. Procul dubio eliam intermediis illis annis inter Cyri decretum et Darium non ab omni labore abstinuerant ludaei, quotiescunque per hostium machinationes licebat; id enim verba indicant satraparum : « ex eo tempore (sc. quo Zorobabel fundamenta posuerat) usque nunc aedificatur » (I. 5,16). At progressus nullos fecerat aedificium; quare non est mirum, quod 2. Darii anno populus quasi desperabundus conquestus sit, nondum venisse tempus aedificandae domus Dei (495. 1,2) atque a prophetis sit admonitus, ut tandem aliquando operi manum admoveret (475. 1,7 sqq.). Neque magis est mirum, quod propheta diem illam, qua rem acriter aggressi sunt ludaei, vclut diem fundationis habeat (499. 2,18). Profecto Cyrus decreto suo, euius authentia extra conlroversiam est, ludaeis ideo in Palaestinam revertendi permissionem concesserat, ut aedificarent templum Domini (1. 1,2. 3) ; quis ergo crediderit, reduces decreto isto non obstante de templi aedificatione non cogitasse? Érroneae igitur textuum interpretationi tota obiectio innititur, neque difficile est, eiusmodi interpretationibus contradictiones ex omnibus omnino libris historicis extorquere 9.
« quingenti argentei et triginta vestes sacerdotales », ut sit summa argenteorum 4500 ei 97 vestes sacerdotales; quos sumina solida expressit 1. Esdr. 5000 argenteorum et 100 vestes. Differentia prima facillime explicatur permutatione literarum, quibus numeri scribebantur : NO (61000) N'O (11000).
Invicta igitur. stat operis nostri auctoritas historica; piviNAM autem eius AUCTORITATEM maxime ex continua ludacorum et Christianorum traditione demonstramus. Etenim in Novo Testamento nulla ad nostros libros reperitur allusio, id quod nemo mirabitur, qui eorum maiorem fere partem nudis catalogis et documentis publicis constare animadverterit. Quae autem iu deuterocanonicis V. T. inveniuntur, ea certum sallem argumentum non przbent. Plane enim omittenda est narratio de Nehemiae rebus gestis, quae in epistola ludaeorum ierosolymitanorum (2 Mac. 1,18-2,13) legitur, siquidem ex nostro libro non est desumta. Magna tamen cum probabilitate asserimus Siracidam suas laudes Zorobabelis et losuae filii losedec, qui templum restaurarunt, et Nehemiae, qui « urbis muros eversos erexit et stare fecit portas » (Eccli. &9,13-15) ex opere nostro desumsisse ; tribus enim illis versibus summum eius argumentum, templi civitatisque restaurationem, comprehendit. Nihilominus rem pro cería asserere non audemus , quoniam Esdram non nominat, cui in cultu sacro restaurando opus nostrum praecipuas parles attribuit, ita ut posteri eum velut alterum Moysen venerati sint ^. Deficientibus igitur cert/s argumentis scripturislicis ad traditionem recurrat necesse est, qui canonicitatem librorum Esdrae tueri vult. Traditio autem invictum praebet argumentum, quium. Iudaeos et Christianos integrum opus nostrum semper in suo canone habuisse testetur; nullus enim reperitur librorum V. T. catalogus, in quo sit omissum. Quibus immorari superfluum est, quoniam a nemine in dubium unquam sint vocata.
De 3 et & Esdrae libris, quos aliqui Patres etiam velut divinos venerati sunt, diximus in [ntrod. gener. (Ed. 2. n. 1 p. 215-917).
8 33. — De praectpuis commentariis catholicis in libros. Esdrae,
124. — Inter ParREs GRAECOS ne unum quidem commentatorem invenerunt libri Esdrae; nam ipse Theodoretus, qui nonnullas saltem quaestiones de Paralipomenis conscripsit, nostros libros non attigit. Inter PATRES LATINOS autem unum dumtaxat eorum interpretem bhabemus eumque satis recentem. Nam Ven. Beda « in Esdram et Nehemiam prophetas allegoricam expositionem » nobis reliquit, in qua solum fere spiritualem sensum expouit, « quo manifestius pateat, qualiter his, qui vel per negligentiam vel errorem perierant, sit ad poenifa) Antiqua quaedaim est rabbinoruim opinio, Esdrae deberi illa vaticinia, quae Malachiae nomine inscripta sunt. Si quis illam admiserit, Siracidam dicet eam ob causam Esdrae. noinen omisisse, quia de duodecim prophetis iam erat locutus ac proin proprio nomine Esdram iterum commemorare noluerat.
tentiam. redeundum ». Hinc etiam factum est, ut. Wal. Strabonis Glossa ex sola Bedae expositione sit excerpta !.
Neque maiorem diligentiam wEbiA AETAS in nostris libris explicandis adhibuit, nec quisquam ex tota illa periodo innotuit librorum Esdrae interpres praeter. Card. Hugonem , Néc. Lyranum , Dionysium Carth. et si quis alius omnes Scripturas commentatus est. Allezoricae enim explicationes, quas in eos composuit Ago a S. Vict., tam paucae sunt nuinero et tam leves, ut memoria vix dignae esse videantur *.
Etsi iNpk A sakc. 16. libri Esdrae ab interpretibus paullo diligentius tractari sint. coepti, pauci tamen prodierunt commentarii, qui vere utiles dici possint. C. Sanctius et Hadr. Crommius brevibus quidem sed bonis notis sensum literalem explicarunt; multo diffusiorem commentarium literalem, moralem, allegoricum debemus Nic. Lonibardo.Brevissima sunt scholia Leopoldi Mauschberger?, quibus merito praeferuntur scholiastarum illorum, qui integras Seripturas illustrarunt (Sa, Marina, Menochius elc.) adnotationes, nedum Caietani , Paulutét, Coruclii a Lap., Calneti maiores cominentarii.
Paucis his antiquioribus NosTRA AETATE duo accesserunt commentarioli, germanicus per B. Neteler et gallicus per Clair, qui priora opera nominata non reddunt superílua*, Melius de libris Esdrae meruit A. de Hoonacker eorum auctoritatem historicam a « criticorum » obicctionibus vindicans; minus felix autem est in chronologia operis stabilienda, de qua etiam tractarunt Imbert, Fl. de Moor etc. ».
Cornelius a Lapide
Ezra and Nehemiah, as St. Jerome says in his epistle to Paulinus, which is prefixed to the Bibles, namely a helper and consoler from the Lord, are compressed into one volume; they restore the temple, they build the walls of the city, and all that multitude of people returning to their homeland, and the description of the Priests, Levites of Israel, Proselytes, and through individual families the works of walls and towers divided, present one thing on the surface, retain another in the depths.
Where note: there was a twofold captivity of the Hebrews. The first of Israel or the ten tribes, which were carried away by Shalmaneser into Assyria, and it was perpetual, concerning which IV Kings XVII, and Tobias I, verse 1. The other, which was 134 years later than the first, by which the remaining two tribes of Judah and Benjamin were led by Nebuchadnezzar into Babylon, IV Kings last. Concerning the return of this second captivity from Babylon to Jerusalem after 70 years of captivity, the matter is treated here, so that the history of the Jewish people and likewise of the Synagogue, or Church of God, is woven together continuously as if by a thread.
Continue reading 50 paragraphs
The first and second books of Ezra are canonical Scripture, nor did anyone ever doubt their authenticity. For they exist in Hebrew, and are in the canon of the Hebrews; the third and fourth, however, are apocryphal, as I shall say in their proper place.
The author of the first book is Ezra, of the second Nehemiah, as is evident from the title of each, as well as from the course of the narrative. It is called, however, the Book of Nehemiah, the second book of Ezra, partly because it contains those things which were done together by Ezra and Nehemiah; partly because formerly among the Hebrews and Greeks Nehemiah and Ezra were but one book. Thus Sixtus Senensis and Bellarmine, On Ecclesiastical Writers, in Nehemiah, and St. Jerome, in the epistle cited, Lyra, Dionysius and others; although St. Athanasius in the Synopsis, and Isidore, book VI of the Etymologies, chapter 11, consider both the second and the first book to have been written by Ezra.
You will ask first: Who was Ezra? I answer, he was the son of Seraiah the High Priest, who was slain along with other nobles in the destruction of Jerusalem by Nebuchadnezzar, in the eleventh year of Zedekiah, IV Kings xxv, 18 and 21. That this is so is evident from chapter VII, verse 1, where Ezra, recounting his genealogy, says: "Ezra the son of Seraiah, son of Azariah (who was Priest under Ozias king of Judah, as is evident II Paralipomenon XXVI, 20,) son of Hilkiah, son of Shallum, son of Zadoc," etc. All of whom are listed in the catalogue of Priests II Paralipomenon VI, 12 and 14, where it is also added: "Seraiah begot Josedec. Moreover Josedec went forth when the Lord carried away Judah and Jerusalem by the hand of Nebuchadnezzar." Whence it follows that Ezra, begotten of the same father Seraiah, was the brother of Josedec, who was Priest in captivity, to whom succeeded his son Jesus the Priest likewise, who with Zerubbabel as leader brought back the Jews from Babylon to Jerusalem. Indeed the Hebrews according to St. Jerome in the Tradition in the book of Paralipomenon and Sixtus, book I of the Library, in Ezra, think that Ezra was the same as Josedec (for he had two names) and therefore was Priest. Whence also in the third book of Ezra, the last chapter, he appears to exercise priestly authority in full and absolute right in settling the marriages of the Israelites, even of Priests with foreign wives. But this cannot be said; for if Ezra was Josedec the Priest, then Jesus the son of Josedec in Babylon was not Priest: for Ezra was living at that time. It must therefore be said that Josedec was the elder brother of Ezra, and therefore was Priest, to whom, dying in Babylon, his son Jesus succeeded, who accordingly as Priest brought back the people from Babylon with Zerubbabel. For Jesus would not have done this, but Ezra, if he himself had been Josedec the Priest.
Rupert and others hold the opinion that Ezra was the Prophet Malachi, whose reasons I have reviewed at length and refuted in the proem to Malachi. Nevertheless Ezra lived with Malachi, and treated almost the same subject matter as he: which was the occasion for suspecting they were one and the same.
You will ask secondly whether Ezra was a prophet? St. Augustine seems to deny it, book XVIII of the City of God, chapter XXXVI, saying: "Ezra was regarded more as a writer of deeds accomplished than as a prophet." But I say that Ezra was not only a historian, as well as a scribe or doctor of the law, but also a prophet. It is evident, because by divine inspiration he wrote this book as canonical Scripture, and, as many wish, the books of Paralipomenon, and chapter XXXVI of Genesis, and the last chapter of Deuteronomy; for this contains the death of Moses, which Moses himself, being already dead, could not have written. Indeed St. Augustine, book XVIII of the City of God, chapter XXXVI, etc., and St. Isidore, book VI of the Etymologies, chapter 11, hold that Ezra was also the author of the book of Esther. Moreover, it is no less, indeed it is a greater gift of prophecy to write sacred books from God than to predict future things. Finally, Ezra throughout this entire book narrates that the Jews, by the command of Cyrus, returning from Babylon to Jerusalem, began to restore the city together with the temple, but were hindered by the calumnies of adversaries and forced to desist.
You ask thirdly, whether Esdras restored Holy Scripture? Many hold that all the books of the Old Testament were burned by the Chaldeans together with the Temple: and were restored by Esdras rather from divine than from human memory. For the fourth book of Esdras, chapter XIV, seems to narrate this at length, which book is cited by St. Augustine, Cyprian, Athanasius, Clement of Alexandria and others as canonical. Whence from this book Tertullian drew this opinion, in the book On the Dress of Women, chapter VIII: "At Jerusalem, he says, the city having been destroyed by the Babylonian conquest, it is established that all the instruments of Jewish learning were restored through Esdras." St. Irenaeus, book III, chapter XXV, where concerning the miraculous agreement of the Seventy interpreters: "It is not wonderful, he says, that God wrought this in them, when in that captivity of the people, which was made by Nebuchadnezzar, the Scriptures being corrupted, and after 70 years the Jews descending into their own region, then in the times of Artaxerxes king of the Persians he inspired Esdras the priest of the tribe of Levi to recall all the sayings of the former Prophets, and to restore to the people that law which had been given through Moses." The same Eusebius asserts in the same words, book V of the History, chapter VIII, St. Jerome, Against Helvidius: "Whether, he says, you wish to call Moses the author of the Pentateuch, or Esdras the restorer of the same work, I do not refuse." Clement of Alexandria, book I of the Stromata: "Zorobabel, he says, having overcome his adversaries by wisdom, bought from Darius the restoration of Jerusalem, and returned to his native land with Esdras, through whom the redemption of the people was accomplished: and the divinely inspired utterances were reviewed and renewed."
St. Basil, in his letter to Chilon: "Esdras, he says, brought forth all the divine books by the command of God." The same is held by Theodoret, in the preface to the Psalms, Isidore, book VI of the Etymologies, chapter III, Rabanus, in the book On the Institution of Clerics, chapter LIV, Leontius, who narrates this more clearly in the book Against the Sects, action 2, at the end (found in volume IV of the Library of the Holy Fathers). "This return, he says, Esdras described, who when he came to Jerusalem, and found all the books of that time, when they had been carried into captivity, burned, is said to have brought forth those 22 books, which we reviewed above, from memory into writing." The same is proved by Leo Castrius in the preface to Isaiah, IV, namely that Esdras restored the books of the law from memory. Nor is this wonderful. More wonderful is what we read of St. Anthony of Padua, that he knew the whole Holy Scripture, so much so that by the Pope he was called "the Ark of the Covenant." "For thus he had the pages of both testaments fixed in his memory, so that like Esdras, if the matter so required, he could have restored all the complete divine writings in their entirety from his memory, even if all codices had been utterly destroyed," says the author of his life.
But although this opinion on account of such great authority of the Fathers may seem probable, yet far more probable, and certain from reason, is the contrary opinion, namely that neither were all the sacred books burned by the Chaldeans, nor were they restored by Esdras from memory. It is proved first, because we nowhere read that the Chaldeans burned these books: and even if they had burned all that were in Jerusalem (which is incredible), yet they could not burn those which throughout all Judea, indeed throughout the whole world were constantly handled in the hands of the Jews, especially of the scribes and Rabbis, and were read in the Synagogues.
Secondly, because Daniel, chapter IX, says that in the first year of Darius he understood the number of seventy years, of which the Prophet Jeremiah had written. He therefore had the Prophecy of Jeremiah and of the other Prophets, and was reading it.
Thirdly, because the Prophecy of Isaiah, chapter XLV, concerning Cyrus was shown to the Jews, and therefore made him well-disposed toward them, Josephus is witness, book XI, chapter I: "Cyrus, he says, knew this from the reading of the book, which contains the Prophecies of Isaiah, written two hundred and ten years before his own time."
To the fourth book of Esdras I reply that it is apocryphal. Add that in that book nothing is said of the sacred books of Moses or the Prophets being restored, but only that in 40 days by five men two hundred and four books were written, of which seventy were to be kept and handed to the wise, but the rest were to be set forth publicly, so that they might be read by the worthy and unworthy; which have nothing in common with the books of which we are treating. See more in Bellarmine, volume I, book II, chapter I, and Pererius in the preface to Genesis, chapter VII.
To the Fathers I reply, that most of them meant nothing other than that Esdras arranged the sacred books, which were in disorder, into proper order, and divided them into readings (which in Hebrew are called Parasioth, and are read successively in the Synagogues): To these things, he corrected the errors, which through the fault of copyists had crept in abundantly, and restored the books to their pristine purity and brightness, and this by knowledge not so much acquired as infused from heaven. Whence in Esdras chapter VIII, 8, the Seventy say that Esdras read those things which were written in those books, in the knowledge of the Lord, that is, through knowledge infused by God.
Finally, Ezra supplied what was lacking in individual books. Whence many believe that, with the assistance of the Holy Spirit, he added to Moses chapter XXXIV of Deuteronomy and thus described the death and burial of Moses; Joshua did the same in the final chapter, and Jeremiah in the final chapter, where the kingdom of Evil-merodach and the exaltation of Jeconiah is narrated: for Jeremiah could not have written this, being already dead. In a similar manner he appears to have supplied the ending of Tobit and Judith: for the book of Judith is thought to have been written by Joachim the High Priest, who died before Judith lived. Thus Ezra appears to have added "until the present day," wherever it is said, which is so often inscribed and repeated; thus Salianus in the year of the world 3621, number 10, and Bede, book II Allegories on Ezra.
St. Jerome adds in the Galeate Prologue; and Eusebius in the Chronicle in the year of the world 4740, that Ezra discovered new Hebrew letters, which we still use, and left the ancient ones to the Samaritans, so that the Jews might have no commerce with them, not even in letters.
Others add that the points (which serve the Hebrews in place of vowels) were invented by Ezra, but they are mistaken: for these did not exist in the time of the Septuagint Interpreters, who were two hundred years later than Ezra, nor in the time of St. Jerome who was nine hundred years later: but shortly after him they were invented by the Rabbis in the city of Tiberias in Galilee, in the year 476 after Christ was born, as Genebrardus teaches from Elijah in the Massoreth under the year of the world 4573.
You will ask fourth, at what time did the history of Ezra and Nehemiah occur? I answer, at that time when, the 70 years of captivity being finished, the Jews were freed from Babylon by Cyrus. The book of Ezra therefore contains those things which happened around this liberation from the first year of the monarchy of Cyrus until the seventh year of King Artaxerxes, when Ezra returned from Babylon with other Priests and Levites to Jerusalem, as is evident from chapter VII, which is a span of 73 years. But the book of Nehemiah contains the rebuilding of the city of Jerusalem from the 7th year until the 32nd year of the same Artaxerxes, as is evident from chapter XIII, 6, which is a span of 25 years. Hence these two books were written in Hebrew, but with many Chaldean words mixed in. For the Hebrews in Babylon corrupted the Hebrew language and mixed it with Chaldean. He also records the letters of the kings of Babylon in the same language in which they were written by them, namely Chaldean, in chapters IV, V, VI, VII; for which reason Daniel also wrote his book partly in Hebrew, partly in Chaldean.
Hence it is clear that Ezra was very long-lived, and prolonged his life to 132 years. For he lived until the seventh year of Artaxerxes, as is evident from chapter VII, verse 8. For since his father Saraias was killed in the eleventh year of Zedekiah, it is necessary that he himself was born at least in that same year, or was posthumous. Moreover from the eleventh year of Zedekiah to the first year of Cyrus there elapsed 60 years. To these add three years of Cyrus, six of Cambyses, 36 of Darius Hystaspes, 27 of Artaxerxes, you will have 132 years, which it is necessary that Ezra lived, and perhaps he lived more. For we do not know how much longer he prolonged his life afterwards, nor do we know in what year before his father's death he was born.
Ezra and Nehemiah were contemporaries and coeval among the Prophets with Jeremiah, Baruch, Daniel, Haggai, Zechariah, Malachi; from the royal line, Jeconiah, Salathiel and Zerubbabel; from the High Priests, Saraias the father of Ezra, Josedec his brother, and Jesus his grandson.
At this time the Synagogue or Great Synod was assembled, in which the Canon of the books of Sacred Scripture was established, over which presided Ezra, Nehemiah, Daniel, Mordecai, Zerubbabel and Jesus son of Josedec, in which likewise action was taken concerning the correction of the books of Sacred Scripture, and their division into sections and chapters, the care of which was given to Ezra. Thus the Hebrews hand down.
In the time of Ezra the monarchy of the Chaldeans flourished under Nebuchadnezzar, Evil-merodach, Belshazzar: in Media reigned Cyriaxares and Astyages: in Persia Cyrus, Cambyses, Darius, Xerxes and Artaxerxes. At Rome, the kings being expelled, the first consuls were appointed, Junius Brutus and Lucius Collatinus. In Greece there flourished Historians, Poets and Philosophers, Herodotus, Pindar, Simonides, Anacreon, Aristoxenus, Archilochus, Alcaeus, Sappho, Arion, Sophocles, Euripides, Parmenides, Empedocles, Socrates, and among the Sibyls the Cumaean and Hellespontinean. Thus Eusebius, Torniellus, Genebrardus, Salianus and others.
Moreover, because frequent mention must be made in these books, equally as in the books of Judith and Esther, of the kings of the Persians, to whom the monarchy was transferred by Cyrus after the capture of Babylon; hence I shall here subjoin their series and years: for it brings great light to these books.
Series of the Ancient Kings of the Persians
The first was Cyrus, grandson of Astyages king of the Medes through his daughter Mandane, and son of Cambyses king of the Persians, as Xenophon says: who reigned thirty years, but was monarch only in the last three, in which he freed the Jews from Babylon, so as a monarch he reigned 3 years.
The second, Cambyses son of Cyrus, who while his father Cyrus was setting out against the Scythians (where he also perished), ruled in Persia for two years; but after his father's death he reigned 6 years. Ezra in chapter IV calls him Ahasuerus, and in verses 7 and 8, Artaxerxes. He hindered the building of the temple permitted by Cyrus, chapter IV, verse 23.
The third, Smerdes the magus, reigned 7 months.
Fourth, Darius son of Hystaspes, created king by the neighing of a horse, reigned 36 years. He gave the Jews the faculty of completing the temple, Ezra VI, 7. Some think this Darius was the husband of Esther, and that the history of Mordecai and Haman happened under him; but I shall examine this in the preface to Esther.
Fifth was Xerxes, son of Darius, who reigned 20 years. Under him many think the history of Judith happened: concerning which I shall treat there.
Sixth was Artaxerxes, surnamed Longimanus on account of one hand being longer, son of Xerxes, who in the seventh year of his reign sent Ezra, and in the twentieth year sent Nehemiah to restore Jerusalem: whence the 70 weeks of Daniel, cap. IX, begin from him, which are completed in Christ. He reigned 40 years.
Seventh was Darius, son of Nothus of the aforesaid Artaxerxes. He reigned 19 years.
Eighth, Xerxes the second, who reigned 2 months.
Ninth, Sogdianus, who reigned 8 months.
Tenth, Artaxerxes, surnamed Mnemon, that is, mindful, from his excellence of memory. He was the son of Darius Nothus, and reigned 43 years.
Eleventh, Artaxerxes Ochus, 23 years.
Twelfth, Arses or Arsames son of Ochus, 3 years.
Thirteenth, Darius son of Arses, surnamed Codomannus, 6 years. For in the seventh year of his reign and life he was despoiled by Alexander the Great, who transferred the monarchy from the Persians to the Greeks.
These kings therefore reigned in Persia for 227 years, but from the monarchy of Cyrus only two hundred. For Cyrus became monarch in the 27th year of his reign.
Allegorically, in this liberation of the Jews through Cyrus was signified the liberation of the human race from the captivity of the devil made through Christ; tropologically the liberation of Christians from the oppression of pagans made by Constantine, Theodosius, Charlemagne, etc.; likewise the liberation of the faithful and penitent soul, which is made daily by apostolic men. See Bede, volume three, who wrote the allegory both in Ezra and in Nehemiah.
Now receive the series of the Jewish High Priests, who were contemporary and synchronous with the kings already mentioned.
Series of the Jewish High Priests from the Babylonian Captivity to Alexander the Great and Ptolemy Philadelphia
1. Saraias, or as Josephus says, Sareas, son of Azariah the High Priest. Him, when Jerusalem was captured, Nebuchadnezzar killed with 70 Princes, IV Kings, final chapter, verse 18.
2. Josedec son of Saraias, transferred to Babylon, there acted as High Priest throughout the entire time of captivity until Cyrus, I Paralipomenon VI, 45.
3. Josue or Jesus, son of Josedec. He with Zorobabel led the Jews from Babylon to Jerusalem under Cyrus, and rebuilt the temple, Ezra III, 2.
4. Joacim, son of Josue, held the High Priesthood under Darius Hystaspes and Xerxes, Nehemiah XII, 10.
5. Eliasib, son of Joacim, was High Priest under Artaxerxes Longimanus, Nehemiah III, 1, and final chapter, verses 4 and 6.
6. Joiada, son of Eliasib, High Priest under Darius Nothus son of Longimanus, Nehemiah XII, 10.
7. Jonathan, son of Joiadae, High Priest under Artaxerxes Mnemon son of Darius Nothus, Nehemiah XII, 11.
8. Jeddoa or Jaddo, son of Jonathan, Nehemiah XII, 11. He met Alexander the Great, and reconciled him when he was offended toward the Jews, as Josephus testifies, book XI of the Antiquities, at the end. Jaddi was the brother of Manasse, the first High Priest of the Samaritans on Mount Garizim. See Josephus, book XI of the Antiquities, chapter VII.
9. Onias the first, son of Jaddi, High Priest under Ptolemy Lagus, the first king of Egypt after Alexander, as testified by Josephus, Eusebius and others.
10. Simon son of Onias, surnamed the Just, whose praises are described in Ecclesiasticus, chapter L.
11. Eleazarus brother of Simon and son of Onias. He sent 70 Interpreters to Ptolemy Philadelphia the second king of Egypt: who translated the sacred Scripture from Hebrew into Greek, as testified by Josephus, Aristeas, Eusebius and others.
Machine translation from the Latin, not reviewed.