Part 74
(8:68—9:36) Dissolving the Mixed Marriages The first thing that Ezra encounters upon arrival in Jerusalem is the problem of mixed marriage, presented to him by the leaders of the community. In Ezra-Nehemiah (chs. 9-10), attention to this problem seems to overshadow the other aspect of Ezra's activity in Jerusalem, namely the reading of the law (Neh 8). This is even more apparent in i Esdras, where the reading of the law is abbreviated (9:37-55), and the matter of intermarriage occupies the centre of the Ezra narrative. The story of the mixed marriages is presented in a detailed record: 8:68-9:2: The encounter with the problem (Ezra 9:1-10:6) 8:68-70 (Ezra 9:1-2): The matter is brought to Ezra's attention 8:71—90 (Ezra 9:3—15): Ezra's reaction and confession 8:91-9:2 (Ezra 10:1-6): The decision 9:3-36: The solution (Ezra 10:7-44) 9:3—14: The assembly in Jerusalem (Ezra 10:7—15) 9:15—36: Investigation, recording and expulsion (Ezra 10:16-44) (8:68-9:2) The Encounter with the Problem (Ezra 9:110:6) The opening formula, 'After these things had been done', creates the impression of a direct sequel between the conclusion of the ceremonies and formalities involved with the return, and dealing with the matter of intermarriages. However, according to the chronological details of the narra-
(w. 50—67) The Journey (Ezra 8:21—36) A peculiarity of the story is seen in its unbalanced structure. The journey itself is described briefly in one verse: 'We left the river Theras... and we arrived in Jerusalem' (v. 61), including the date of the departure and a reference to the divine providence. All the rest of the story is dedicated to the preparations before the journey (w. 50-60), and the people's whereabouts upon their arrival (w. 62-7). Although the actual arrangements for the journey must have been extensive, as several thousand people were preparing themselves for a four-month journey in the desert, the details provided in this description relate to only two matters: a proclamation of fasting and prayer to the Lord before departure, and arrangements for the transfer of the money and gifts. It is interesting that the general fast of Ezra 8:21 is changed in i Esdras to 'a fast for the young men' (v. 50). Does this reflect the reality of the author's time and his presuppositions, or is it merely a result of textual corruption or misunderstanding (hnhr, 'the river', to hnfr 'the young man')?
The description of the preparations is dedicated mainly to the transfer of the money and vessels from Babylonia to Jerusalem (w. 54—60). Twelve priests and twelve Levites (Sherebiah, Hashabiah, and ten of their kinsmen) are nominated as trustees (v. 54), the gold and silver are weighed, the vessels are enumerated, and the transaction is concluded by an inspiring
767 I E S D R A S
to the worst of all? (w. 86—90). The confession does not end with a prayer. There is not even a request or a plea for forgiveness, only a confession of sin: you are faithful and we are sinful.
tive, Ezra arrived in Jerusalem 'on the new moon of the fifth month' (8:6), while the matter of intermarriages was dealt with four months later, in the ninth month (9:5). It is thus probable that the reading of the law in the seventh month (9:37; Neh 8) antedated the matter of intermarriages and was Ezra's first undertaking in Jerusalem. This original sequence was disrupted in Ezra-Nehemiah (see Rudolph 1949: xxiv); the new structure places the dissolving of the intermarriages—the wholesome purification of the people of Israel from the pollution of the foreign nations—as a necessary precondition for the sacred ceremony of the reading of the law.
Each ofthe points made in the confession is expressed with great rhetorical force. The tone of self-accusation is achieved through a constant repetition of keywords denoting sin: 'Our sins have risen higher than our heads, and our mistakes have mounted up to heaven' (v. 75)... 'and we are in great sin to this day' (v. 76). 'Because of our sins and the sins of our ancestors' (v. 77). 'We have transgressed your commandments ...' (v. 82), 'and all that has happened to us has come about because of our evil deeds and our great sins' (v. 86), 'but we turned back again to transgress your law' (v. 87), 'we are now before you in our iniquities' (v. 90). On the other side stands the merciful God: 'And now in some measure mercy has come to us from you, O Lord, to leave us a root and a name in your holy place, and to uncover a light for us in the house ofthe Lord our God, and to give us food... Even in our bondage we were not forsaken by our Lord' (w. 78-80), 'For you, O Lord, lifted the burden of our sins and gave us such a root as this' (w. 86-7). 'O Lord of Israel, you are faithful' (v. 89).
(8:68^70), the leaders present Ezra with a grave problem; the people of Israel have mixed with the foreign population of the land by taking their daughters to be their wives, with the leaders of the community in the forefront. The list of foreign peoples is enlightening. Ezra 9:1 mentions two groups of peoples: five of the 'seven nations', the ancient inhabitants ofthe land of Canaan, about whom Deut 7:2—3 demands: 'you must utterly destroy them. Make no covenant with them ... Do not intermarry with them', and three peoples (Moabites, Ammonites, and Egyptians), about whom it is commanded that they 'shall [not] be admitted to the assembly ofthe Lord', either forever or for several generations (Deut 23:3, 7—8). It is obvious that the list is not historical but programmatic, identifying the contemporary foreigners with the forbidden nations. The list of i Esdras is different in two specifics: rather than Emorite it has Edomite—probably a better version—and the Ammonite people are omitted. This may be accidental, a result of some corruption, or a wish to keep the list to the number 'seven', the symbolic figure ofthe 'foreign nations'.
This counterpoint of'we, the sinners', 'you, the faithful' is further accentuated by the description ofthe extreme consequences of the people's sinful history. Although it may be implied that destruction and bondage were brought on Israel by the Lord, it is not spelled out explicitly. The disasters are described in an emphatic passive: 'Because of our sins ... we... were given over to the kings ofthe earth, to the sword and exile and plundering, in shame until this day' (v. 77; also w. 79, 80, 86).
The unique point ofthe confession lies in the definition of the national sin, the root of all the evil visited upon Israel. Unlike all other biblical sources, it is not the sin of idolatry, the worship of other gods, that evoked God's anger, but the sin of intermarriage. This was, according to the confession, the gist of God's warning before the conquest ofthe land, and the core ofthe prophets' rebuke. The conceptual context of this sin is impurity and pollution: 'The land... is ... polluted with the pollution ofthe aliens ofthe land, and they have filled it with their uncleanness' (v. 83, also v. 87). The nature and source of this 'pollution' is not specified, but is ascribed to the very essence of these peoples and not to their conduct. The implication is self-evident: the only way for Israel to atone for this sin is to purify themselves, to detach themselves completely from the source of pollution, from 'the peoples ofthe land'.
(8:71-90), Ezra's spontaneous reaction is that ofthe most profound grief and mourning: tearing garments including his priestly mantle, pulling out the hair of his head and beard, and fasting through the day. It culminates in his long confession of guilt, which represents the developing literary genre of prose-confessions typical ofthe late biblical period (see also Neh 9 and Dan 9). The confession opens with the first person singular (v. 74), but moves immediately to the first person plural, 'For our sins... and our mistakes have mounted up ... and we are in great sin...' (w. 75—90). This style is retained to the end, as Ezra identifies himself completely with the iniquities ofthe people and becomes their spokesman.
The confession (w. 74-90) is a piece of theodicy of the highest order. It juxtaposes the obstinate disobedience ofthe people throughout their history with God's unfailing mercy and compassion, and is permeated with the spirit of penitence: profound acknowledgement ofthe people's sins, and reminder of God's mercy. The argument develops as follows: (i) We are sinful and have always been so. Our sins have put us in a position of constant blame, from of old 'to this day' (w. 756). (2) We were duly punished, and suffered gravely for our sins (v. 77). (3) Then the Lord, because of his mercy, gave us some respite; he brought us into favour with the kings of Persia, and we now see the beginning of some consolation (w. 78-81). (4) Now, we have sinned again, in the most grave historical sin of mixed marriages (w. 82-5). (5) In view of our terrible ingratitude, what are our chances now? Would not the Lord's anger be justified? Are we not destined
Two details deserve attention: although the confession is transmitted faithfully from Ezra 9:3-15, even in the details, there is some rephrasing. The peculiar view of i Esdras that the restoration involved the city of Jerusalem from the very beginning, and not merely the house of God, is expressed clearly in the phrasing ofv. 81, replacing 'to setup the house of our God, to repair its ruins' (Ezra 9:9) with: 'they... glorified the temple of our Lord, and raised Zion from desolation'. The repetitious reference to 'survivor' (Ezra 9:8,13,14,15—sometimes translated as 'a remnant'), is rephrased as 'a root' (w. 78, 87, 88, 89). The basic formula of theodicy in Ezra 9:15: 'you are righteous' (NRSV: you are just) is rephrased in i Esdras to 'you are faithful' (v. 89).
I E S D R A S 768
indeed they make with full acceptance of Ezra's spiritual authority. The role of the five individuals mentioned in v. 14 (Ezra 10:15 has 'four'), remains unclear. In Ezra 10:15 it seems that these people formed an opposition to the general trend, while in i Esdras they are described as those who took upon themselves the execution of the people's decision. In either case, the actual procedure begins in the next verses, with Ezra appointing his own men for the task.
(8:91-9:2), the extremity of Ezra's position and the rhetorical force of his confession set in motion a series of actions, leading to the desired goal: the dissolution of the mixed marriages, and the solution of the problem 'once and for all'. It should be noted that in all that follows, the motivating power is not Ezra but other people, probably laymen, whose position of leadership is not specified. Ezra is described as rather passive, reacting rather than acting. It is a popular movement, under Ezra's inspiration and authority. The first move, following the confession, is the proposition of necessary practical steps. One of the men who surrounded Ezra and witnessed his conduct, someone from Israel (Ezra 10:2: 'of the family of Elam'), takes upon himself to represent the people. In an eloquent address he admits the people's sins, accepts Ezra's authority, and suggests the solution: to expel the foreign women and their children. Ezra acts upon this immediately and makes the people swear to follow this procedure. The scene ends with Ezra's withdrawal to the chamber of Jehohanan the son of Eliashib—probably the officiating high priest. If this identification is correct, it may serve as a chronological mark for the dating of the events—after Nehemiah, in whose time the high priest was Eliashib himself (Neh 3:1; 13:4).
(9:15-36), the people comply with the proposals. A committee, headed by Ezra and some men of his choice, begins to investigate the matter systematically: to enquire in every settlement about the men who married foreign women, record their names, and dissolve the marriages. The result is a thorough list of people of all classes, from the highest ranking priests to the various families of laymen. The list is organized similarly to the other lists in Ezra-Nehemiah, beginning with the clergy. First mentioned are four individuals of the family of the high priest; they undertake to put away their wives and to offer sacrifices in expiation of their sin (w. 19—20). This is the only reference to an individual pledge and sacrifice, and one may question whether it should be explained in literary or historical terms. Does the record imply that each of the transgressors was supposed to pledge himself and offer a sacrifice individually, or was a special procedure applied for the family of the high priest, the highest class on the hierarchal ladder?
(9:3—36) The Solution (Ezra 10:7—44) The decision made by the leaders of the community, to expel the foreign women and their children, now has to be implemented. This is done in two stages: a general assembly is called in Jerusalem, to have the proposed solution adopted by all those involved, and a procedure is suggested and carried out. The whole process takes about four months: the assembly was called in the ninth month (9:5); the procedure of recording the transgressors and dissolving the marriages began on the first day of the tenth month (9:16); and it was concluded on the first day of the first month (9:17). (9:3-14), the initial decision is followed by a proclamation throughout the land to assemble all 'who had returned from exile' (lit. those who were of the exile) to Jerusalem. The authority behind the proclamation is that of 'the ruling elders', but the measures undertaken to have the people conform rest on both the imperial authority granted to Ezra to confiscate their property (thus Ezra 10:8; v. 4: their livestock would be seized for sacrifice), and the internal power of excommunication (v. 4). Whether because of their own free will or because of the threats, the people indeed gather in Jerusalem. The fine irony of Ezra 10:9, that the people sat 'trembling because of this matter and because of the rain' is lost in v. 6, where the people are described as 'shivering because of the bad weather'. This sets the tone for the assembly: everything is done directly and efficiently, even with some impatience and perhaps antagonism. In a straightforward statement, with no drama or elaboration, Ezra informs the people of their sin before the Lord, and demands that they confess their sin and separate themselves from their foreign wives (w. 7—9). The people acquiesce, and since they wish to go home, ask Ezra to settle the matter in a more orderly and less public way, with the help of the judges of every locality
InEzraio:i8-43the version of the list is apparently corrupt, as for example in the listing of the family of Bani (w. 34—42), where twenty-seven individuals are traced to one family, while the average for the other families is between six and seven. In i Esdras the list has been corrupted further, and as in other cases, the names have been reformulated to a great degree. However, the general structure is clear: men of the four priestly families (Ezra 10:18-22; three families in i Esdras 9:21); of the Levites, singers, and gatekeepers (w. 23-5), and of the laymen, the descendants often families (Ezra 10; eleven in i Esdras)—altogether above 100 individuals in either list. The end of the passage carries its final message: 'All these had married foreign women, and they put them away together with their children' (v. 36). This finality is not clear in the obscure phrasing of Ezra 10:44, which leaves open the possibility that the women were not expelled but merely registered, but the doubt is removed in the straightforward phrasing of i Esdras.
As noted above, the matter of the mixed marriages occupies the centre of Ezra's activities in Jerusalem, the focus of his dedication. However, this does not prevent the reader from wondering about the phenomenon as a whole and its details. It seems that the motivation for this initiative was the fear of the returnees of losing their own distinct sense of identity, but was it dealt with in the best possible way? Who were these women who are described here as 'foreign'? How is it possible that what is regarded by Ezra and his followers as the worst possible sin, was practised by everybody in Judah, including the highest clergy? Were these women indeed 'foreign', or did they come from circles other than 'those of the exile' who were relegated to the status of'foreigners'? Why were the measures suggested by the 'devotees' so strict and extreme? Why were the children expelled together with their mothers? Why was there no expedient, nor even a suggestion, for converting
(w. 10—13). It should be pointed out that while administrative measures were taken in order to gather the people in Jerusalem, no authority is exerted to make them separate from their wives. This is left to their own discretion and decision, which
769 I E S D R A S
gestures of prayer: they 'answered "Amen." They lifted up their hands and fell to the ground and worshipped the Lord'
these 'foreign women'? And finally—was Ezra's undertaking really successful? As shown by such works as Ruth or Chronicles, Ezra's position was not the only stance in the Judean community; and, later, Judaism rejected his position altogether and provided a mode of conversion—for women of foreign origin as well as others. All these questions should be left for further reflection and study. (9:37-55) Reading the Law InthebookofEzra-Nehemiah,the reading of the law and the celebration of the festivals form one event in the history of the restoration and one chapter in the course of the narrative. In i Esdras they stand atthe end of the book, marking its conclusion. After solving the problem of themixedmarriages and the purification ofthe people, thetime has come for Ezra to fulfil his mission: 'you shall teach those who do not know them' (i.e. 'the laws of your God' (Ezra 7:25)).
(v. 47). Ezra read aloud from the book for several hours, 'from the early morning until midday' (v. 41), and a group of thirteen Levites taught and explained the reading to the standing crowd (w. 48—9).
Two matters should be noted: the event is described throughout as having a popular nature, encompassing the gathered crowd, both men and women. The people who attend are 'the whole multitude' (v. 38, also v. 40), both men and women (v. 41). The popular aspect ofthe ceremony is accentuated by the absence of any sacrificial aspect. One may sense a touch of ritualistic gesture in Ezra's bringing and opening the book (w. 45—6) and in his prayer and the people's ceremonial response, but the event takes place outside the temple's precincts and with no participation ofthe clergy, except for the Levites acting as 'teachers'. Although Ezra is titled, as elsewhere in i Esdras, 'the chief priest and reader' (w. 39,40, 42, also 49), there is no expression ofthe priestly aspect of his mission; he is 'the reader ofthe law'. (w. 49-55) Celebrating the Holiday (Neh 8:9-12) The people's reaction of mourning, repeated three times (w. 50, 52, 53), is matched by the statement ofthe leaders that 'this day is holy' (also repeated three times, w. 50, 52, 53), and should be spent in joy. Unlike Neh 8:9, where the address to the people comes from Nehemiah the governor (the Tirshata), Ezra, and the teaching Levites, in i Esdras an unknown person, 'Attharathes', addresses Ezra, the Levites, and the people. It must be inferred that he was a person of the highest authority, although his title or position are not specified. In this way, and at the price of some unclarity, i E sdras omits the reference to Nehemiah in this chronological context (cf. also i BSD 5:36— 40). Although the day is described emphatically as 'holy', it does not involve any cultic activity. It is described as a popular holiday, in which the expression of festivity is eating, drinking, sending portions to those who have none, and rejoicing. The date ofthe event, the new moon ofthe seventh month, is marked in the priestly holiday calendar as 'a day of complete rest, a holy convocation commemorated with trumpet blasts' (Lev. 23:24) and a set of special sacrifices (Num 29:1—6). All these are outside the purview of the present story, which focuses on the new, popular celebration of reading the law.
One ofthe matters that has attracted much scholarly attention is the scope of this passage. It opens with a reference to the people's settlement in 'Jerusalem and in the country'
(v. 37)—a redundant and meaningless statement in the present context, but of great importance in illustrating the literary procedure of the author. Originally, this verse concluded the list ofthe returned exiles of Neh 7 (in itself a parallel to Ezra 2); i Esdras borrowed it from Neh 7:72 and rephrased it—a clear demonstration that i Esdras's Vorlage was the book of Ezra-Nehemiah as we know it, including the story of Nehemiah (cf. i BSD B).
The end of our passage concludes succinctly with 'and they came together', reflecting the beginning of Neh 8:13. This abrupt ending reflects a Greek rather than a Hebrew syntax for, in the Hebrew, the sentence opens with the time-phrase, 'and in the second day they came together', while in the Greek the subject + predicate came first. Although some scholars would see in this ending an intentional feature of the work
(e.g. Eskenazi 1986: 56-9), we tend to accept the more prevalent view that some continuation ofthe story was lost. How far the story continued is impossible to say at this point. As the text now stands, the passage deals with two matters: the reading ofthe law (w. 37-48), and the celebration ofthe holiday (w. 49-55). (w. 37—49) Reading the Law (Neh 8:1—8) The reading ofthe law on the new moon of the seventh month is, again, the initiative ofthe people and not of Ezra: 'they told Ezra... to bring the law of Moses' (v. 39). It is described in two stages: a general description ofthe occasion (w. 37/7—41 = Neh 8:1—3), and a more detailed account ofthe ceremony (w. 42—8 = Neh 8:5-8), all set forth in unique terms. Indeed, a public, ceremonial reading ofthe law has no precedent in the Bible and is inaugurated here for the first time (cf. also the cursory note of Neh 13:1). It is not clear from the story whether it remained a unique event, or became an organic part of the religious calendar. However, this is certainly the earliest evidence, in unusual circumstances, ofthe reading ofthe law, which became a regular part of later Jewish liturgy.
Ackroyd, P. (1972), 'The Temple Vessels: A Continuity Theme', Studies
in the Religion of Ancient Israel, VTSup 23:166-81. Bayer, E. (1911), Das dritte Buch Esdras und sein Verhaltnis zu den
Buchern Esra-Nehemia (Freiburg im Breisgau: Herder). Bewer, J. A. (1922), Der Text der Buche Ezra, FRLANT 31 (Gottingen:
Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht). Brooke, A. E., and McLean, N. (eds.) (1935), The Old Testament in Greek
(Cambridge: Cambridge University Press), ii. pt. 4. Carter, C. E. (1994), The Province of Yehud in the Post-Exilic Period:
The details of the event are of interest: Ezra stood on an elevated wooden platform, made for the occasion (v. 42), with two groups of dignitaries, whose descent or status are not mentioned, to his right and left (six or seven on each side). He opened the reading with a blessing ofthe Lord (mentioned but not quoted), and the people responded in the conventional
Soundings in Site Distribution and Demography', in T. C. Eskenazi and K. H. Richards (eds.), Second Temple Studies, JSOTS 175 (Sheffield: JSOT), ii. 106-45. Coggins, R. G., and Knibb, M. A. (1979), The First and Second Books of
Esdras, CBC (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press). Cook, S. A. (1913), 'I Esdras', APOTi. 1-58.
PRAYER OF MANASSEH 77°
Dequeker, L. (1993), 'Darius the Persian and the Reconstruction of the
Myers, J. M. (1974), I el II Esdras, AB 42 (New York: Doubleday). Pohlmann, K. F. (1970), Studienzum dritten Esra: Ein Beitragzur Frage
Jewish Temple in Jerusalem (Ezra 4:24)', Orientalia Lovaniensia Analecta, 55: 67-92. Eissfeldt, O. (1966), The Old Testament: An Introduction, tr. P. R.
nach dem ursprunglichen Schluss des chronistischen GeschichtsweAes, FRLANT 104 (Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht). Rudolph, W. (1949), Esra und Nehemia samt 3 Esra (Tubingen: Mohr
Ackroyd (Oxford: Blackwell). Eskenazi, T. C. (1986), "The Chronicler and the Composition of I
[Siebeck]). Schaeder, H. H. (1930), Esra der Schreiber (Tubingen: Mohr [Sie-
Esdras', CBQ48: 39-66. Hanhart, R. (197412), Text und Textgeschichte des I Esrabuches (Gottin-
beck]). Schenker, A. (1991), 'La Relation d'Esdras A' au texte massoretique
gen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht).
(19741?) (ed.), Esdrae Liber I, Septuaginta Vetus Testamentum Graecum, 8/1 (Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht). Japhet, S. (1968), "The Supposed Common Authorship of Chronicles
d'Esdras-Nehemie', in Tradition of the Text, Festschrift D. Barthelemy (Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht), 218—47. Talshir, Z. (1984), The Milieu of I Esdras in the Light of its Vocabu-
and Ezra-Nehemiah Investigated Anew', VTi8: 330-71.
lary', in A. Pietersma and C. Cox (eds.), De Septuaginta: Studies in
(1982—3), 'Sheshbazzar and Zerubbabel against the Background of the Historical and Religious Tendencies of Ezra-Nehemiah', ZAW94: 66-98; 95: 218-29.
Honour of John William Wevers (Mississauga: Benben), 129—47.
and Talshir, D. (1995), The Story of the Three Youths (I Esdras 3-4): Towards the Question of the Language of its Vorlage', Textus, 18:135-57. Torrey, C. C. (1970), Ezra Studies, 2nd edn. (New York: Ktav).
(1991), The Relationship of Chronicles and Ezra-Nehemiah', VTSup 43: 298-313.
(1993), l€ll Chronicles, OTL (London: SCM). (1996), 'L'Historiographie post-exilique: Comment et Pourquoi?', in A. de Pury, Th. Romer, and J-D. Macchi (eds.), Israel construit son histoire (Geneva: Labor et Fides), 123-52.
(i945), 'A Revised View of First Esdras', L. Ginzberg Jubilee Volume (New York: American Academy for Jewish Research), 395-410. Walde, B. (1913), Die Esdrasbucher der Septuaginta (Freiburg in Breis-
gau: Herder). Williamson, H. G. M. (1977), Israel in the Book of Chronicles (Cam-
(1997), The Ideology of the Book of Chronicles and its Place in Biblical Thought, tr. Anne Barber, 2nd edn. (Frankfurt: Peter Long 1989), Hebrew original, 1977. Klein, R. W. (1966), 'Studies in the Greek Texts of the Chronicler',
bridge: Cambridge University Press).
(1983), The Composition of Ezra 1-6', JTS 34:1-26. (1985), Ezra, Nehemiah (Waco, Tex.: Word). (1996), "The Problem with First Esdras', in J. Barton and J. Reimer (eds.), Afterthe Exile: Essays in Honour of Rex Mason (Macon, Ga.: Mercer University Press), 201-16. Zimmermann, F. (1963—4), The Story of the Three Guardsmen', JQR
Diss., Harvard. Lipschits, O. (1997), The Yehud Province under Babylonian Rule (586-
539 BCE): Historic Reality and Historiographic Conceptions, Ph.D. thesis, Tel-Aviv. Moulton, W. J. (1899; 1900). 'Uber die Uberlieferung und den text-
54: 179-200.
kritischen Werth des dritten Esrabuchs', ZAWiy. 209-58; 20:1-35.
50. Prayer of Manasseh GEORGE W. E. N I C K E L S B U R G
A. Text and Language. 1. The Prayer of Manasseh claims to be the prayer that moved God to forgive the wicked king of Judah and restore him from his captivity in Babylon to his throne in Jerusalem (2 Chr 33:12—13). The text is preserved only in Christian sources, which are of two kinds. The first is the Odes, a collection of hymns and prayers that forms an appendix to the book of Psalms in three Greek biblical MSS (A, 5th cent.; T, yth cent; 55, loth cent.) and in some daughter translations. A few Syriac MSS append the prayer to 2 Chronicles. Two church handbooks provide the second set of sources. The third-century Didascalia Apostolorum (Teaching of the Apostles) was written in Greek and has been preserved in a Syriac translation and some fragments of a Latin translation. Parts of the Didascalia have also been preserved in another church handbook, the ^facentury Greek Apostolic Constitutions. Both handbooks set the prayer in a narrative context that conflates and expands the accounts of Manasseh's reign in 2 Kings 21 and 2 Chr 33. 2. It is uncertain whether the Greek of the prayer is the language of its composition or a translation of a Semitic original (APOT i. 614-15; OTP ii. 625-7). Th£ Greek does have a strong Semitic flavour, but it also uses phrases paralleled in the LXX and has some linguistic constructions that suggest composition in Greek.
B. Literary Genre. This penitential prayer, or confession of sin, spoken in the first person singular, has relatively few counterparts among the individual laments of the canonical psalter. Its closest parallel is Psalm 51, whose language it appears to echo (OTP ii. 630). Despite its prevalent concern with the covenant, it differs significantly from such penitential prayers as Ezra 9, Neh 9, Dan 9, Bar 1:15-3:8, Song of Three, the Qumran 'Words of the Heavenly Lights', and Tob 3:2-6. Its focus is consistently personal rather than national, and it lacks the language of the Deuteronomic tradition that permeates these prayers.
C. Narrative Context. Verbal allusions to details of the 2 Kings and 2 Chronicles narratives indicate that the prayer was composed in the voice of Manasseh. A question rarely discussed or even mentioned is whether the prayer was composed as an integral part of the conflated narrative context in which it stands in the Didascalia and the Apostolic Constitutions or whether it is an independent composition that was later placed in that narrative context (see, however, APOTi. 613— 14). Two factors may support the former alternative. All but one of the other compositions in the Odes are drawn from biblical contexts (Ode 14 is, however, an expansion of Lk 2:14). The prayer and the narrative share at least one detail (v. 10) that is missing in both 2 Kings and 2 Chronicles. Claiming to
771 PRAYER OF MANASSEH
recount the story in 2 Kings and 2 Chronicles, the narrative begins with a compressed revision of 2 Kings (with a few details from 2 Chr). Turning to 2 Chronicles, it mentions Manasseh's exile, elaborates the Chronicler's account by detailing the terrible conditions of Manasseh's imprisonment, picks up the report of his prayer and recounts the prayer, describes how a fire miraculously melted his chains, returns to the Chronicler's account of Manasseh's return to Jerusalem, adds that he worshipped God wholeheartedly and 'was reckoned righteous', and concludes with a summary of the Chronicler's report of Manasseh's restoration of the Jerusalem cult. As a whole, the rewritten narrative emphasizes the severity of God's judgement, the sincerity of Manasseh's repentance, God's direct intervention and restoration of the covenantal relationship, and Manasseh's transformation from sinner to righteous, attested by his deeds.
to accept penitent sinners back into the fold. Alongside this pastoral function, the prayer's inclusion among the Odes suggests a devotional or liturgical use for this text. A similar pair of alternatives can be imagined in a Jewish setting. The prayer and its narrative context should be studied together with an eye towards Jewish texts that recast Scripture (see e.g. iQapGen 20 and other texts discussed in Nickelsburg 1981: 231-68).
H. Canonicity. Although the prayer is regularly included in editions of the Apocrypha, only Eastern Orthodox churches consider it authoritative. This doubtless reflects its preservation in church manuals of Syrian provenance.
Invocation (vv. 1-7)
D. The Manasseh Traditions. According to both 2 Kings and 2 Chronicles, Manasseh's sins were mainly related to the cult, and 2 Kings states that these sins caused the destruction of the temple in 587 BCE. Scholars dispute whether the Chronicler's mention of Manasseh's prayer (which he ascribes to a source) and repentance are an attempt to explain his long reign, or whether the author of 2 Kings expurgated the incident from a form of the Deuteronomistic history that was subsequently used by the Chronicler (McKenzie 1984: 191—3). Some later Jewish texts depict Manasseh wholly in a bad light (Mart. Isa.; 2 Apoc. Bar. 64-5; Apoc. Abr. 25), while others emphasize his repentance (e.g. Josephus, Ant. 10.3.2 JJ 40—6; see Bogaert 1969: ii. 296—304). One Qumran text (4(3381 33:8—11) preserves fragments of a prayer ascribed to Manasseh but it has no certain relationship to Prayer of Manasseh (Schuller 1986: 151-62).
(v. i) Address The title 'Almighty' (pantokrator) anticipates w. 2-3 and the prayer's first major theme, God's power in creation. It sets a tone for the prayer in its very first line, by expressing Manasseh's repentance from his polytheistic worship of rival gods. Taking up the Chronicler's reference to Manasseh's humility 'before the God of his ancestors' (lit. fathers, 2 Chr 33:12), the prayer strikes its second major theme, the covenant with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, and their righteous offspring. The appeal indicates Manasseh's repentance from his idolatrous apostasy from the covenant and is ironic, since Manasseh was anything but righteous, having 'shed innocent blood' (2 Kings 21:16). (w. 2-50) God's Power in Creation God's creative power is a traditional topic in Jewish prayers (i Enoch 9:5; Add Esth 13:10; 3 Mace 2:9). The Greek noun kosmos (order) translates the Hebrew saba' (host) in Deut 4:19; 17:3; Isa 24:21; 40:26 with reference to the host of heaven (Osswald 1974: 23). Perhaps Manasseh is here acknowledging that the sovereign God created the host whose idolatrous worship he had instituted in Jerusalem (2 Kings 21:3, 5; 2 Chr 33:3, 5). The shackling of the sea and sealing of the abyss alludes to the mythic notion that the Creator brought order from chaos by taming the great sea monster (cf. Job 38:8—11; Ps 89:9—10; 104:5—9; Prov 8:29; Jer 5:22; i Enoch 101:6). Depicted here as capture and imprisonment, it may imply the king's concession that his own imprisonment is an act of divine power and judgement. Although w. 4—5 assert that the whole creation fears and trembles in the presence of God's power and majestic glory, these characteristics of God recall descriptions of the divine throne room.
E. Religious Teaching. According to Prayer of Manasseh, repentance is a divine gift that allows the worst of sinners to be accepted back into the covenant and have its curses turned to blessing. Even Manasseh, whose apostasy caused the destruction of the temple and the holy city, could be forgiven and, according to the narrative context, reckoned to be righteous, as was Abraham, the first recipient of the promise (Ap. Con. 2.22.16; Gen 15:6). This moralizing focus on the vices and virtues of a biblical figure, implicit in the prayer and explicit in the narrative, is typical of Jewish and Christian literature of the Graeco-Roman period (e.g. Jub., T.Job, T. 12 Pair.).
F. Date and Provenance. The prayer's presence in the Didascalia indicates a date of composition before the third century CE, and the prayer's parallels to LXX Greek may indicate a date in or after the first century BCE. Whether the prayer is a Jewish or a Christian composition is disputed. Every concept and mode of expression in the prayer is paralleled in Jewish texts of the Graeco-Roman period, and nothing in it or its narrative context is demonstrably and exclusively Christian. At the same time, the prayer's attestation and documented usage are exclusively Christian, and it could have been composed by a Christian conversant in the LXX and other post-biblical Jewish traditions.
Employing language found in Jewish texts and orthodox and Gnostic Christianity, w. 5—6 use the Greek alpha privative (a- = 'non-' or 'un-') to describe God in terms of what God is not: 'cannot be borne, unendurable, immeasurable, unsearchable'. This heaping up of adjectives reinforces Manasseh's repentance before the sovereign, almighty, and majestic God.
(w.^b-j) The Wrath and Mercy of the God of the Covenant The emphasis on God's majesty continues in a description of God's activity within the covenant, which juxtaposes the threat of wrath against the sinner and the promise of mercy to the repentant. In the idiom of the section, the one is unendurable, while the other is immeasurable and
G. Function and Setting. In the Didascalia and the Apostolic Constitutions, the story and prayer of Manasseh are part of a long instruction to bishops and provide the basis for an appeal
PRAYER OF MANASSEH 772
the specific conditions of his imprisonment described in that narrative. This particular complaint and its repetition in v. 13/7 recalls a similar repetition in the confession ofthe 'mighty kings' in i Enoch 63:1, 5, 6, 8). The language ofthe second half of v. 10 refers to details in 2 Kings 21:2, 6 and 2 Chr 33:2, 6.
unsearchable. This first major section of the prayer closes with reference both to God's unique power ('Most High') and to God's covenantal activity. The latter is phrased in a quotation of Joel 2:13, which undergirds that prophet's appeal for repentance by allusion to the covenantal description of God in Ex 34:6—7. Thus the author comes to the major point of the prayer and sets the stage for Manasseh's repentant confession of his sins. Although the two earliest Greek MSS of the Odes (A, T) omit most of v. 7 ('O Lord, according to your great goodness ... be saved') the originality of these lines is attested by their inclusion in a later Greek biblical text (55), in the Vg, and in the Apostolic Constitutions and the Didascalia. The passage interprets the promise of mercy in v. 6 as the mercy that God promises to those who accept the divinely initiated repentance. Although v. yb, following Joel 2:13, could refer to the curses of the covenant that fall on sinners ('human suffering'), the present context seems to allude to human wickedness and Manasseh's sins in particular.
Manasseh's Petition for Relief and Forgiveness (vv. 11-15)
(w. 11-12) Introduction Like v. 8, these introductory verses provide a transition between what precedes (a double confession of sin; cf. gb) and what follows (formal petition). The introductory 'And now' is formulaic in Jewish prayer
(Add Esth 13:15; 14:6, 8; 3 Mace 6:9; iQpGenAp 20:13; Tob 3:12; i Enoch 9:9-10). Again, external condition symbolizes the internal state. Physically bent down and, presumably, kneeling in prayer, he submits his will (heart) to the God against whom he has sinned. The sentiment again recalls Joel 2:13. The appeal for God's 'goodness' (chrlstotes; cf. agathosynein 14) is a request for the covenantal blessing (Deut 30:15, tab, agathon), which God promises to those who repent (Deut 30:1-10). The second ofthe parallel lines in v. 12 is one of several resonances of Ps 51 (cf. Ps 51:3).
Manasseh's Confession of Sin (vv. 8-10)
(v. 8) Introduction The continuation ofthe description of God in v. 8 reprises themes in v. i and thus seems to conclude the prayer's invocation. However, Manasseh's personal reference to 'me, who am a sinner' in the last line links it to the confession that follows. Thus the verse serves as a transition between the first and second parts. Employing the traditional Jewish distinction between the righteous and the sinner, Manasseh contrasts Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, who have not sinned against God, with himself, who epitomizes the category of'sinner'. In normal Jewish usage, 'righteous' does not designate a person who never sins, but one who attends to his or her sins and does not let them accumulate; the 'sinner', by contrast, lives in effective rejection of God and the covenant
(w. 13-14) Petition The language of v. i^ab with its participle, 'making petition' (deomenos), and its doubled verb reprise at w. n, I2». Having twice confessed that he has sinned, he now twice begs for relief (Gk. anes) from the suffering (cf. loc, tmesis) that is a consequence of his sin. This implies God's forgiveness, although NRSV may overtranslate the verb as 'forgive'; cf. 'relief in v. 10). The three parallel lines in lyde expand on the notion in negative form, 'do not destroy, do not be angry, do not condemn me'. Most serious is the possibility of eternal destruction in the underworld. 'Evil things' (Gk. kaka), i.e. the covenantal curses (Deut 30:15), contrast with the 'goodness' he seeks in w. n, 140. The rationale is expressed in the climax of a triad of divine appellations: 'Lord the God of our ancestors' (v. i), 'Lord, God ofthe righteous'
(Pss. Sol. 3). The consequences of these two ways of life are the blessings and curses ofthe covenant. While the present verse is consonant with such usage, it emphasizes God's active role in establishing repentance as a means by which the sinner can become righteous (cf. v. 13). (w. 9—10) The Confession Manasseh's confession fits well with the emphasis ofthe biblical accounts on the quantity and quality of his sins. Although v. gc recalls Ezra's confession (Ezra 9:6), the combined language of w. ga and gc with reference to the multitude of Manasseh's sins may be an inverted allusion to the covenantal promises about the multitude of Abraham's descendants (Gen 22:17; I5:5)- The verb 'they are multiplied' (epllthunan) corresponds to the same verb in 2 Kings 21:6; 2 Chr 33:6, and the doubling ofthe verb T have sinned' (cf. v. 12) emphasizes the point. The vivid reference to the physical conditions of Manasseh's imprisonment (T am unworthy to look up... I am weighted down', lit. bent down, v. 10) complements v. gc, and his physical condition may be seen to symbolize the spiritual (cf. the variants of v. lob in Gk. MSS T and 55 and the Didascalia). Manasseh's iron fetters are not mentioned in 2 Kings or 2 Chronicles, but the specification of 'iron' in the narrative section preceding the prayer in the Apostolic Constitutions (2.22.10) may indicate that the prayer was composed as an integral part ofthe narrative preserved in that text. Manasseh's lack of 'relief from his torment also suggests an allusion to
(v. 8), 'Lord, the God of those who repent' (v. I3_f). v. 140 may allude to Ex 33:18—19, where Moses asks to see God's glory and is promised a vision of God's goodness, which is epitomized in a reference to the covenantal mercy that is now extended to the repentant Manasseh. On the king's unworthiness and need for 'much mercy', cf. v. gcd and his unworthiness due to 'the multitude of my iniquities'. The wording of v. 14/7 recalls Ps 51:1.
(v. 15) The Praise of God The promise to praise God after relief from present distress is typical of the psalms. More importantly, it corresponds with the Chronicler's account of Manasseh's return to the worship ofthe true God (2 Chr 33:1517), and it echoes specifically the wording ofthe narrative in Ap. Con. 2.22.16, 'He worshipped the Lord God alone with all his heart and all his soul all the days of his life.' Parallel to Manasseh's promise to praise God is the statement, 'For all the host of heaven sing your praises.' Coming from one who had instituted the worship ofthe host of heaven' (cf. v. 2), it is a fitting reinforcement of his repentance from polytheism and a suitable reprise of prayer's opening invocation ofthe 'LORD Almighty'. It remains only to assert the eternity of that God's glory (v. I5c).
773 3 MACCABEES
Nickelsburg, G. W. E. (1981), Jewish Literature Betweenthe Bible and the
Mishnah (Philadelphia: Fortress). Osswald, E. (1974), 'Das Gebet Manasses', JSHRZ 4:1 (Giitersloh:
Bogaert, P. (1969), Apocalypse de Baruch, SC 144-5 (2 vols.; Paris:
Cerf). McKenzie, S. L. (1984), The Chronicler's Use of the Deuteronomistic
Mohn), 17-27. Schuller, E. M. (1986), Non-Canonical Psalms from Qumran: A Pseude-
History, HSM 33 (Atlanta: Scholars Press).
pigraphic Collection, HSS 28 (Atlanta: Scholars Press).
51. Psalm 151 J O H N BARTON
was evidently a fuller version of Ps 151:6—7, though only two lines of it now remain. The first dealt with David's early career, the second (which originally had its own superscription) with his victory over Goliath. The superscription to the first psalm in Hebrew is 'A hallelujah for David the son of Jesse'. There is no scholarly consensus about the status of n QPsa. It may reflect an early 'canon' of the Psalms differing from the later Hebrew one, or it may be a compendium of hymns for worship containing both canonical and non-canonical texts.
Ps 151 occurs at the end of the book of Psalms in the Greek Bible, and can also be found in the ancient versions that depend on the Greek: Latin, Syriac—where it is one of a group of five non-canonical Psalms—and Ethiopic. The heading in the Greek indicates that it is 'outside the number' (and some texts add 'of the one hundred and fifty'), but it is regarded as canonical in the Greek and Russian Orthodox churches. As it stands it describes various aspects of the life of David and 'is ascribed to David as his own composition': his work as a shepherd, his musical ability, his choice by God even though his 'brothers were handsome and tall', and his victory over Goliath.
Verses 1-5 are based on i Sam 16. On David's musical abilities (w. 2-3) the Hebrew adds, 'And I rendered glory to the Lord; I spoke in my soul. The mountains do not witness to him and the hills do not tell. The trees have cherished my words and the flock my deeds.' Verses 6-7 derive from i Sam 17.
The Qumran Psalms Scroll n QPsa preserves evidence of an earlier Hebrew version in which there were two separate psalms. The first corresponds to Ps 151:1-5; but the second
52. 3 Maccabees SARAH PEARCE
A. Text and Title. 1. Despite its title, the content of 3 Maccabees bears no obvious relation to events surrounding the Maccabean Revolt nor to its heroes. Nor does it pretend to do so, since it describes events affecting an earlier generation of Jews under Ptolemaic rule in Jerusalem and Egypt in 217—216 BCE. The title was no doubt attributed to this work on account of its position in the Greek canon where it lies between 2 and 4 Maccabees. However, its concerns with the defence of the sanctity of the Jerusalem Temple, resistance to idolatry, and belief in divine providence link it firmly with the ideology espoused in the other Maccabean stories.
tertain and to elicit strong sympathy for the heroes and villains of the story. In genre, 3 Maccabees is like a number of Hellenistic romances that embroider historical events or personalities with legendary developments characterized by their presentation in a historical framework and by narratives of the miraculous public rescue, by divine intervention, of the hero(es). In its function as an explanation for the origin of a festival, 3 Maccabees also bears some relation to Hellenistic antiquarian histories that seek to provide 'historical' explanations for ancient institutions.
D. Date. 1. A firm date of composition for 3 Maccabees remains elusive. It can be no earlier than the battle of Raphia in 217 BCE, with which the narrative begins. However, in spite of the narrator's efforts at verisimilitude, the overriding fantastic nature and improbabilities of the story, as well as the absence of any other evidence for a real persecution targeted at Jews in this period, cast serious doubt on its historical authenticity. A latest possible date is more difficult to fix, although the story's assumption that the Jerusalem Temple exists and stands at the heart of Judaism suggests (but does not prove) that it was written before the temple's destruction in 70 CE. In spite of the meagre evidence that serves to support any particular date within these boundaries, several specific settings have been proposed for the origins of 3 Maccabees.
2. 3 Maccabees survives in Greek, the language of its original composition, in the fifth-century uncial M S Alexandrinus and the eighth-century Codex Venetus as well as in minuscules of varying reliability, though the chief textual witnesses show few substantial variations. Otherwise, some sign of its popularity in the Christian east is reflected in fourth-century translations into Syriac and Armenian.
B. Provenance. Both the author and place of writing of 3 Maccabees are unknown. Any sense of the author's identity must, therefore, be surmised from the religious and political ideology and the intellectual influences apparent in this story. As to the author's background, the setting of 3 Maccabees in Egypt, and particularly in Alexandria, as well as clear signs of familiarity with Ptolemaic history and culture, point to Alexandria as home, but this is by no means certain.
2. Of the main proposals, the latest suggested setting for 3 Maccabees relates it to the persecution of the Jews of Alexandria in the time of the emperor Gaius Caligula. However, there is little proper correspondence between the situation described in 3 Maccabees and events in Roman Alexandria from 38 CE. If the story is a veiled criticism of that period of Roman rule, it is very cryptic indeed.
C. Language and Genre. The Greek composition of 3 Maccabees is the work of a 'pseudo-classicist', combining both classical and koine forms of the language. Passages of purple prose and other rhetorical devices are employed both to en-
3 MACCABEES 774
Dionysus, would be treated like citizens of Alexandria. A further royal decree, fuelled by widespread resistance to the first plan and by rumours of Jews' disloyalty to the crown, planned for the extermination of all the Jews of Egypt. The king commanded that they be taken to Alexandria, registered, and executed.
3. A dating to early Roman rule in Egypt under Augustus depends on the significance of the term laogmphia. In 3 Maccabees, this refers to a census imposed by Ptolemy IV for the registration of all Jews unwilling to commit apostasy and who are to be enslaved (2:28). This has been taken as a covert reference to the laographia introduced in 24 BCE that subjected the vast majority of inhabitants of Egypt to a poll tax. The Augustan measure was, however, by no means equivalent to enslavement, and certainly not directed exclusively at Jews. It carried no demands for religious observance, and certainly did not offer citizenship in the terms proposed in 3 Maccabees for Jewish apostates. It is quite possible that the term in 3 Maccabees, which also appears in the usage of Ptolemaic papyri, is meant simply to recall the strict taxation imposed under Ptolemy IV as a result of his expensive wars.
2. As the burlesque dimension of the story unfolds, each attempt to destroy the Jews is foiled as God intervenes to rescue them in answer to their prayers. First, a complete registration fails because papyrus and calami (reed pens) run out after forty days of writing! Then all the king's attempts to kill the Jews in the hippodrome with 500 drunken elephants come to nothing. Thanks to the Jews' prayers and God's action, the king is prevented from carrying out the execution. First he oversleeps; then he forgets completely about his plan; and, finally, two angels appear to the Jews' enemies, paralysing them and forcing the elephants back to crush them and not the Jews.
4. The author of 3 Maccabees seems to borrow from the Greek Daniel, which, in final form, must belong to a period after 165 BCE. However, the connection depends on just one word (6:6, cf. Dan 3:50), and the fluid nature of the composition of the Daniel corpus must make it impossible to prove our author's dependency on the Greek Daniel. An early firstcentury BCE date may be indicated by the formulae in the royal letters that appear in 3 Maccabees and reflect the style of latePtolemaic papyri. Caution, however, must be urged here too: the formulae might well be the work of a later writer, imitating the style of earlier chancery practice.
3. The king is brought to acknowledge the Jews' loyalty and that 'the living God of heaven' protects the Jews (6:28). Ptolemy turns from annihilator to protector of the Jews, commanding their safe return home and decreeing a seven-day feast of deliverance for them which the Jews determine to celebrate as a festival for ever. All ends happily except for Jewish apostates: with the king's permission, the Jews execute 300 who abandoned Judaism under the king's first decree, on the grounds that Jews disloyal to God will also be disloyal to the crown. On their return home, with further celebrations, the Jews can look forward to a secure future: 'They had even greater authority than before among their enemies and were regarded with high esteem and awe; no one at all extorted their property... The great God had accomplished great things for their salvation' (7:21-2; tr. Andersen 1985).
5. Finally, 3 Maccabees has been related to a persecution of the Jews of Alexandria under Ptolemy VIII Euergetes (Physcon) (145-116 BCE), which is recorded only in Josephus' Against Apion, 2.50—5). Josephus' narrative, though showing no clear dependence on 3 Maccabees, shares some similarities of detail with our story: a Ptolemy's attempt to destroy the Jews of Alexandria with a herd of drunken elephants; his repentance; and the commemoration of the Jews' deliverance by a special festival day. However, the two narratives, as their differences demonstrate, are best seen as different versions of a common folk-tale, adapted for different purposes. From a historical point of view it is not implausible that Physcon may have expressed hostility to Jews at the beginning of his reign, since Alexandrian Jews had sided with his opponent, subsequently his partner and queen, Cleopatra II. However, there is no other evidence for a persecution of Jews at this time. Indeed, Physcon is known from papyrological evidence to have favoured the Jews.
F. Purpose. 1. 3 Maccabees is often seen as a crisis document, hence the attempts to locate the story's origins in persecutions or perceived persecutions of the Jews under Ptolemaic or Roman rule. If so, there is little in the story itself to suggest that it represents the concerns of an alienated community unhappily struggling for survival in the Diaspora. The story does not oppose Alexandrian citizenship for Jews—only when such status is dependent on abandoning Judaism. Alexandrians themselves are depicted as close and loyal allies of the Jews in the time of persecution. Indeed, except when his mind is temporarily clouded by madness or the machinations of his evil counsellors, Ptolemy himself is seen as very positive towards the Jews. While the Jews of Alexandria are presented as the 'countrymen' of the people in Jerusalem who protested against the king's entry into the Holy of Holies, they do not yearn for refuge in Jerusalem. On the contrary, the story celebrates their return to their legitimate homes in Egypt, as does the festival that commemorates their freedom to do so. True, the festival is, we are told, to be held only for as long as the Jews' sojourn (paroikia) in Egypt continues, language that recalls the ancestors' toils in pre-Exodus Egypt (cf. Wis 19:10; Lev 26:44), and a hint that this is not their final home. There is, thus, a sense of looking forward to a 'return' to Judea, but this is not at all prominent in the story, and belongs to very common expectations for the future in Second Temple period Judaism.
E. The Plot. 1. The story purports to record an otherwise unknown attempt to exterminate the Jews of Egypt under Ptolemy IV Philopator (221-205 BCE). Following his victory over the Seleucid Antiochus III at the battle of Raphia (217 BCE), Ptolemy made a tour of his subject territories, honouring their temples as he went. Responding to a warm invitation from Jerusalem, he also visited the temple there, but insisted on entering the Holy of Holies, to the horror of the Jews. However, following their prayers for deliverance from this violation, God's intervention struck the king unconscious. Full of rage at this rebuff, the king returned to Alexandria, determined on exacting revenge against the Jews. At the instigation of certain courtiers, he issued a decree removing all civil rights from the Jews of Alexandria with the exception of Jewish apostates who, if they embraced the cult of
775 2 ESDRAS
The emphase of the story reveal several main concerns
T on the part of the author of 3 Maccabees. First, it is emphasized that Jews are loyal to the Ptolemaic monarchy, and that they are vital for the security of its empire. Above all, however, the author seeks to show, in the great tradition of the Exodus and the later history of the Jews, that the supreme king is the God whom the Jews serve and that only this king has power over the fate of the Jews and, indeed, of all things. The message is essentially a declaration of confidence in God's providence, manifested in response to the power of prayer. What is demanded of the story's Jewish readers is to be confident in that providence and to trust that, in all circumstances, loyalty
to Judaism will be rewarded with life and security. In this, the author of 3 Maccabees adheres strongly to the Deuteronomic teaching that fidelity to the God of Israel will be rewarded with life, apostasy with death. Finally, the story serves, as does
Esther for the feast of Purim, to explain and support an existing Jewish festival whose origins had perhaps been forgotten by the Jews of Egypt.
R E F E R E N C E
Andersen, H. (1985), '3 Maccabees', OTP ii, 509-30.
53. 2 Esdras PETER HAYMAN
attempt to fuse together separate sources. Box's view here is part of a much more elaborate source-critical analysis of 4 Ezra which has since fallen out of favour with most scholars; see Hayman (1975), Stone (1990:11—23). Most recent scholarly work takes for granted that the text is a unitary composition by a single author who yet had earlier sources available to him. The most probable explanation for the identification of Ezra and Salathiel/Shealtiel is that it arises from a misreading of the Hebrew text of i Chr 3:17 (Stone 1990: 55—6). Another seductive reason for the identification has often been pointed out. In Hebrew the name Shealtiel means T asked God'. Since in the book Ezra spends a good deal of time asking pointed questions of God, the name seems quite appropriate.
A. Background. 2 Esdras in the Apocrypha ofthe English Bible consists of three separate works which are found combined together only in manuscripts ofthe Latin Vulgate Bible dating from the ninth century CE onwards. It has become conventional amongst scholars to distinguish these three works by designating 2 Esdi—2 as 5 Ezra, 2 Esd 3—14334 Ezra, and 2 Esd 15-16 as 6 Ezra. The core work in the collection to which the others were subsequently added is 4 Ezra. This was written by a Jew not long after the Jewish War against the Romans in 6 6— 73 CE and the destruction ofthe temple in 70 CE. The author was devastated by these events and felt that they severely threatened his inherited theological beliefs. His text was composed as a kind of catharsis in which he and the reader travel in the early chapters of the book through the dark night of doubt into the shining light of apocalyptic certainty which pervades the end of the book. But his book seems to have had little impact upon that mainstream of Jewish culture which eventually crystallized into Rabbinic Judaism. Its major impact was upon those groups on the periphery of Jewish life in the first century who eventually crystallized into the Christian church. They alone preserved it for posterity and included it in their collections of sacred and authoritative books.
C. The Date of 4 Ezra. The book can be fairly securely dated by aligning the known facts of Roman history with the eagle vision of chs. 11—12, just as we can date the book of Daniel by running through its ch. n to the point where history ends and prediction begins. The point where the accurate history stops in 4 Ezra and the prediction begins seems to be near the end of Domitian's reign (81—96) towards the middle ofthe gos CE. One other factor confirms a date for this apocalypse towards the end ofthe first century CE: in 3:1 and 3:29 the author sets these supposed visions of Ezra thirty years after the destruction of Jerusalem. In the pseudonymous structure ofthe book this refers to the destruction of Jerusalem by the Babylonians in 587 BCE. However, the real reference point ofthe book is to the destruction of Jerusalem by the Romans in 70 CE. The span of thirty years seems to come from Ezek 1:1, but is the author's choice of this date due to his own distance from the seminal event of his lifetime?
B. Authorship. The author of 4 Ezra chose to write under the pseudonym of Ezra, apparently the person depicted in the biblical book of Ezra as the bringer ofthe law from Babylon. There is, however, a problem about identifying precisely whose persona the author is adopting and it emerges in the first verse ofthe book (3:1). This places Ezra in the middle of the Babylonian exile and identifies him with someone called
Salathiel. Salathiel is the Latin form of the Hebrew name Shealtiel and it is taken from i Chr 3:17 where Shealtiel is identified as the son of King Jehoiachin who was taken into exile in Babylon in 597; i Chr 3:19 makes Shealtiel the uncle of Zerubbabel who led the first return from Babylon in 537. Unfortunately, Ezra the scribe as depicted in the books of Ezra and Nehemiah lived 100 years later than this. Box (1912) regarded 2 Esd 3:1 as a clumsy attempt by the editor of our text to identify these two originally quite separate figures. He did so because in Box's opinion one ofthe main sources the author utilized for his work was an apocalypse ascribed to Salathiel. So, on his view, the verse is an editorial
D. The Author's Audience and His Social Setting. 4 Ezra is probably to be related to other Jewish works (2 Apoc. Bar., Apoc. Abr., and Ps. Philo, Bib. Ant.) which may have been written in the aftermath ofthe destruction of Jerusalem and the temple in 70 CE. They have in common the urgent need to address the theological crisis occasioned by the recent events and to offer what reassurance they could to the Jewish people. But 4 Ezra clearly has two separate audiences in mind, as ch. 14 makes clear. There are the wise (represented by his five scribes in 14:24)—the ones really 'in the know', and the
2 ESDRAS 776
quotation in the Apostolic Constitutions, a fourth-century collection of liturgical texts, and the second Arabic version read: 'and whose truth stands for ever'. The divergence is neatly explained by different readings of the same consonantal Hebrew text: I'd read as Iff ad (for ever) or le'ed (for/as a witness).
people (represented in 5:16 by Phaltiel, a chief of the people; see also 12:40—50). It is clear that 4 Ezra is designed for the inner circle of the wise; it is one of the seventy reserved books (14:46). But nevertheless the function of the book is to instruct the wise so that they will be in a position to 'reprove your people' (14:13). This social structure seems to be close to that which began to develop within the Jewish community of refugees from the disaster of 70. Rabbinic texts tell us that a small group of sages led by Yohanan ben Zakkai escaped from Jerusalem during the siege and obtained from the Romans permission to set up in Yabneh (near present-day Tel-Aviv) an academy for the study of the law. They formed a nucleus of order and authority around which at least parts of the Jewish community rallied and which eventually gave rise in the course of the next century to a new social and political order in Judaism based upon rabbinic authority to expound and administer the law. It is very tempting to set 4 Ezra within this nucleus of rabbinic sages at Yabneh. Recent students of 4 Ezra (Grabbe 1981, 1989; Longenecker 1995; Coggins and Knibb 1979; Essler 1994) seem to be succumbing to this temptation. But if this was the locus from which 4 Ezra originated we are left with the question: why, then, was this text preserved only by Christians and not by the rabbis ? Could it have originated in a group whose long-term aim became to forge an enduring identity for Judaism that would preserve it from the Christian threat?
F. The Structure of the Text. The text is carefully structured into seven episodes. These episodes are usually called visions although the vision genre only dominates the later parts of 4 Ezra. The divisions between the episodes or visions are clearly marked out by means of a chronological framework—usually, but not always, a seven-day period.
Macrostructure
3:1-5:20 1 5:21-6:34 6:35-9:25 J 9:26—10:59 11:1-12:51 ^ 13:1-58 14:1-48
Vision i Vision 2 Vision 3 Vision 4 Vision 5 Vision 6 Vision 7
Lament
Transformation/Fulcrum
Consolation
At the deepest level the text is structured by a movement from lament to consolation with the change of mood hinging on the fourth vision (Breech 1973). Visions 1—3 have similar internal structural patterns as (to a lesser extent) do visions 4—7. See the table in Stone (1990: 51). The primary literary genre used to structure the lament section is the dialogue between the prophet Ezra and the angel Uriel; in the consolation section the apocalyptic vision is the mould in which the author chooses to write.
E. The Text of 2 Esdras. The original text of 4 Ezra, which was almost certainly written in Hebrew, disappeared at an early stage, as did the Greek translation of the Hebrew. Only a few traces of the Greek have been preserved in isolated quotations by Christian writers. We are dependent now for our knowledge of the text upon translations of this Greek version into Latin, Syriac, Ethiopic, Georgian, Armenian, and Arabic, plus a tiny Coptic fragment. Of these secondary versions the most important is the Latin which is preserved in a number of manuscripts dating from the seventh century onwards. In the Latin version the prevalent name given to 2 Esd 3—14 is 4 Esdras and hence the contemporary scholarly preference for calling this text 4 Ezra. 2 Esd 1—2,15—16 are found only in this Latin version and there they are always kept separate from chs. 3—14. They are two separate works, now called 5 and 6 Ezra, and consist of Christian material added to the original Ezra apocalypse in the course of the second to third centuries CE. None of the oriental versions contains these additions. The next most important version after the Latin is the Syriac. Apart from a few liturgical extracts this is preserved in only one manuscript, the Codex Ambrosianus, the most important and complete codex of the Syriac Bible, dating from the sixth to seventh century. Most translations of the text are based on the Latin and bring in readings from the other versions (principally the Syriac) only when the Latin does not make sense, is clearly corrupt, or has been altered tendentiously. The clearest example of Christian scribes at work 'improving' the text is 7:28 where the Latin has 'my son Jesus'but the Syriac'my son the Messiah' and the Ethiopic has just 'the Messiah'. That the readings of none of the oriental versions can be passed over lightly is shown by one very interesting example in ch. 8:23. At the end of this verse nearly all the versions attest to a text which read: 'and whose truth bears witness'. However, a
G. 2 Esdras 1-2 (= 5 Ezra). 1. As we have seen, these two chapters are not attested in any of the oriental versions which we have in abundance for 4 Ezra. They are found only in nine Latin manuscripts (eight of which also contain the text of 4 Ezra). These Latin manuscripts clearly divide into two main recensions which have been named the Spanish and French Recensions (Bensley 1895: xxi—xxii, xliv—Ixxviii). It is unfortunate that the RSV and NRSV translations of 5 Ezra follow the manuscripts of the French recension since Bergren (1990) has confirmed James's view (Bensley 1895) that the readings of the Spanish recension (mostly confined to marginal notes in the NRSV) are almost always superior. See also Kraft (1986). Readers interested in a text closer to the original would be better to follow Bergren's Eng. translation (1990: 401-5). 2. The general scholarly consensus is that 5 Ezra dates from about the middle of the second century CE and is a Christian work (albeit from the hands of a Jewish Christian). Stanton
(1977: 80) has argued that it represents a 'continuation into the second century of Matthean Christianity' and offers a Christian perspective on the recent cataclysmic outcome of the Bar Kochba revolt (132-5 CE). This view is strongly contested by O'Neill (1991) who argues that 5 Ezra is an originally Jewish work, probably of the first century CE, which has suffered interpolations and corruptions at the hand of Christian scribes. As for the original language of these chapters, Bergren (1990: 22), who has studied this at great length, is cautious in his conclusions: '5 Ezra could have been written either in Greek or Latin (with the former option being slightly
777 2 ESDRAS
preferable)' but 'a Semitic original (at least for parts of the book) also cannot be excluded.'
the author of 5 Ezra may have been a Jewish Christian (Stanton 1977). For a full treatment ofthe text and history ofthe version of v. 32 quoted in n. n to the NRSV see Hayman (1973, CSCO 339: n*-i3*).
H. 2 Esdras 15-16 (= 6 Ezra). From internal evidence it would seem that these chapters were composed towards the end of the third century CE as a deliberate attempt to reapply 4 Ezra to a new situation facing, this time, not the Jews but the Christian church in the eastern Roman empire. Like 5 Ezra they are not found in the oriental versions of 4 Ezra. Except for a small Greek papyrus fragment (15:57-9) they are attested only in the Latin version. They were clearly written at a time of political upheavel and probably of persecution of the church (15:21; 16:68—70). Their aim is to encourage the persecuted righteous to stand firm, confident of their eventual vindication by God and the overthrow of their oppressors.
In w. 38-9 Jewish hopes for the return ofthe Dispersion to Israel (particularly in Bar 4:36 and 5:5, but see also 4 Ezra 13:39—40) are reapplied to the new people who will replace them. Mt 8:11-12 is probably responsible both for the reference to the 'east' and to 'Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob'. This passage in Matthew's Gospel precisely summarizes the main theme of 5 Ezra. The reference to Ezra as 'father' is probably based on a misreading ofthe Greek text of Baruch (Bergren 1990: 290). n. s in the NRSV contains the more original Spanish Recension of v. 39; the French Recension in the main text eliminates the obscure elements in the earlier version and provides a correct list of the twelve minor prophets in the Septuagint order.
(2:1—9) Zion Denounces her Children w. 2—512 draws closely on, and is scarcely comprehensible without reference to, Bar 4:8—23; cf. v. 3 with Bar 4:11. The 'mother who bore them' is Jerusalem/Zion as personified in Bar 4; cf. Isa 50:1; 54:1; 4 Ezra 10:7. In Baruch she consoles her children, but here in 5 Ezra she denounces them, a denunciation in which Ezra joins, w. 5—7. In this latter section the MS tradition is hopelessly confused and the original text scarcely recoverable. However, we should read 'your covenant' at the end of v. 5 with the Spanish Recension. Ezra is the speaker and God the person addressed—'father'. Most commentators take the reference to Assyria in v. 8 as a cryptic allusion to Rome. (2:10-19) Israel's Blessings Transferred 'My people' (v. 10) refers to the new people of 1:24, 35, 37—presumably the Christian church. The old Israel is blotted out (2:7) and the old covenant promises transferred to the new legatees. Mother Zion now has a new set of children (w. 15, 17); as the text progresses she seems to be transmuting into Mother Church. The influence ofthe books of Revelation and i Enoch may be perceived in this section. Cf. w. 12,16,18-19 wrth R£V