Part 75
2 Esdras 1-2 (= 5 Ezra)
5 Ezra contains two principal blocks of material: (i) a prophetic indictment of Israel and the proclamation of the transfer of its status as 'people of God' to another people (1:4-2:9); and (2) a series of eschatological promises for the new people of God (2:10-48).
(1:1—3) Introduction A better and drastically shorter text of these verses (the Spanish Recension) can be found in n. b to the NRSV. The printed text (the French Recension) represents an attempt to bring the earlier version into line with biblical tradition (Ezra 7:1—5). The characterization of Ezra as a 'prophet' (only in the French Recension) contrasts with his biblical titles 'scribe' and 'priest' but agrees with 4 Ezra 12:42 and suits well his role in 5 Ezra.
(1:4—23) God's Actions on Behalf of Israel Like 4 Ezra, 5 Ezra begins with a recital of salvation history. However, the two recitals are used for very different purposes. Here the purpose is to point up the contrast between God's faithfulness to his people and their utter failure to respond as they ought. The text is closely modelled on Ps 78, see especially w. 17-22, 59-62. (1:24-40) The Rejection of Israel and the Election of A New People of God Whereas the purpose of Ps 78 is to demonstrate that God rejected the northern tribes (Joseph/Ephraim) in favour of the 'tribe of Judah' and 'David his servant' (Ps 78:67-72), the author of 5 Ezra uses his recital to demonstrate that Israel is entirely rejected in favour of the Christian church—the 'other nations' of v. 24 ('another people'—Spanish Recension) and the 'people that will come' (1:35, 37). The OT texts which he uses are part of a standard repertoire frequently found in Christian anti-Jewish polemic (Simon 1986: 135-78). Cf v. 26 with Isa 1:15, 59:3, 7, Prov 1:28; v. 31 with Isa 1:14 and Jer 7:22; and v. 32 with 2 Chr 36:15—16. In the
2:7; 14:1; 22:2,14; i Enoch 24-5. v. 18 probably refers to the role of Isaiah and Jeremiah as providing the prophecies which Christians applied to the events of Christ's life—a view confirmed by the addition of Daniel in the Spanish Recension. (2:20-32) Exhortations and Promises Israel's ethical and legal obligations are now incumbent upon the new people of God. These injunctions are found in many places in the OT but for the obligation to bury the dead (v. 23) see Tob 1:17—19. With v. 31 cf. 4 Ezra 7:32. (2:33-41) Ezra, the Second Moses v. 330 is probably modelled on 4 Ezra 14:1 ff v. 33/7 probably alludes to the incident ofthe Golden Calf (Ex 32) which became a type of Israel's rejection of Christ in Christian anti-Jewish polemic. The pattern is as before: Israel rejects God, so he turns to a new audience (v. 34). The 'shepherd' (v. 34) could be God but more likely refers to Christ; see Jn 10:11; Heb 13:20; i Pet 2:25; 5:4. Like other parts of the 2 Esdras complex, 5 Ezra is marked by an intense expectation that the end of the age is at hand; see 4:26, 14:18, 16:74. The end is at hand because the predetermined number ofthe saved has been reached. The theme may have been taken from 4 Ezra 4:36—7 but see also Rev 6:11; 7:4. The reference to the 'sealing' of the elect certainly seems
OT denunciations such as these were meant to call the people to repentance; Christians used them to demonstrate the final rejection of Israel. This section of 5 Ezra is heavily dependent upon the Gospel of Matthew, especially the notorious ch. 23. Cf. v. 24 with Mt 21:43 (me conclusion added by Matthew to the parable ofthe vineyard), v. 300 with Mt 23:37, v. 32 with Mt 23:34, and v. 33 with Mt 23:38. The purpose clause in v. 24— 'that they may keep my statutes' (see also 2:40) suggests that
2 ESDRAS 778
rabbis held, in line with the implied teaching of the OT, that God had created humanity with the ability to overcome the evil inclination by means of the law. But Ezra surveys the history of Israel and concludes that the facts warrant the opposite conclusion, namely, that the power of the evil inclination is irresistible. But if this is so, then God's justice is impugned because he is making demands which cannot be fulfilled
dependent on Rev 7:4-8. 'The feast of the Lord' (v. 38) refers to the messianic banquet; see Isa 25:6; Rev 19:9; 2 BSD 6:52. For the white clothing (v. 40) see Rev 3:4; 6:n; 7:13—14. (2:42-8) Ezra's Vision As frequently in 4 Ezra so here the prophet is granted a vision of the future, but the text breathes the atmosphere of the book of Revelation. See Rev 4:1; 7:9; 14:1, and cf Heb 12:22—4. Th£ tall young man (v. 43) is identified in v. 47 as 'the Son of God'. A similar figure appears in Herm. Sim. 9.6.1 and the Acts of John, 90, while in Gos. Pet. 40 Jesus is distinguished by his height ('overpassing the heavens') from the two angels who assist him at the resurrection. The description is also reminiscent of the appearance of the Son of Man in i Enoch 46:1-3. The vision seems to be describing the eschatological reward in heaven of the Christian martyrs.
(3:20, 8:35). How then can God with any justice blame Israel for transgressing the law, and why has he punished them so drastically?
(3:1—36) Ezra's Prayer This first speech by Ezra consists primarily of a review of the salvation history from the creation of Adam to the fall of Jerusalem to the Babylonians. The review ends at v. 27 and is then followed by a complaint and appeal to God based on the preceding review. The structure of this chapter is probably based upon the pattern of the communal lament psalms in the Psalter, e.g. Ps 44, 85, and 89. In these psalms we find a review of past history recited in order to motivate God's intervention in Israel's present distress. However, when we look more closely at Ezra's speech considerable differences between it and the communal lament psalms appear. The most striking difference is that in his review of past history there is already an element of complaint about God's actions. It is not only, as in the lament psalms, God's present actions or inactivity that are under attack; the salvation history itself is no longer a secure foundation for faith.
2 Esdmsj-14 (= 4 Ezra): First Vision (3:1—5:20)
This vision consists of four major sections: (i) Ezra's prayer
(3:1—36); (2) a dialogue between Ezra and the angel Uriel (4:1— 43); (3) a vision (4:44-9); (4) the interpretation of the vision (4:50-5:20). The same basic structuring of the material can also be seen in the second and third visions; in the fourth vision the dialogue element is missing, thus presaging the change of mood as we move into the consolation section of the text.
The principal problem that the author confronts in the first vision is God's apparent failure to carry out his promises to Israel viewed in the light of the distressing situation of the Jewish people after the end of the war against the Romans and the loss of the Temple in 70 CE. In the past Jews had always managed to cope with such crises by regarding the disasters they suffered as God's punishment for their sins, and then by looking forward to a restoration of their national fortunes. 4 Ezra's sister apocalypse 2 Apoc. Bar., which probably stems from the same Jewish circles, adopts this traditional response to the Jewish dilemma. But this traditional solution does not satisfy the character Ezra in the dialogue for two reasons: (i) He cannot understand why God deals more severely with his own people than with the Gentiles. After all, Israel has accepted God's law and tried to live up to it. Why then has God not dealt more severely with the Gentiles who now oppress Israel? Behind this complaint appears to lie the widespread Jewish belief that at Mount Sinai God offered the law to all the nations of the world but only Israel volunteered to take on its yoke (see 7:20-4). But all Israel has got for agreeing to fall in with God's plans is one disaster after another. The Gentiles seem to have been rewarded by God for not accepting his law! (2) But Ezra has a deeper reason for finding the traditional explanation for Israel's suffering unsatisfactory. Unlike the OT in general and in contrast to later rabbinic Judaism he seems to believe that humans beings are incapable of keeping God's law because the power of their 'evil heart' is too strong and overwhelms their desire to obey God (3:20-2). Christian doctrine as first formulated by Paul in Rom 5 holds that the power of sin took hold of humanity as a result of Adam's transgression. But the Jewish doctrine to which our author holds is that the 'evil inclination' (ycscr hara') was placed in humans at the time of creation and it is their task to strive to overcome it; see 4:30—1, 7:92, and Hayman (1976; 1984). The
Each of the prayers of Ezra which begin the first three visions in the book has this same structure. 5:23—7 similarly gives us a review of God's past actions, in this case specifically his election of Israel, followed in 5:28—30 by a forthright lament. 6:38—54 offers a review of God's work in creation followed in 6:55—9 by a lament. But in neither of these two later visions is the review of God's past actions marred by any element of complaint. Hence ch. 3, placed at the beginning of the book, presents us with the strongest statement of Ezra's scepticism about the salvation history. This is one way in which the pattern of movement from fierce complaint to eventual acquiescence is built into the structure of the book. (3:1-11) w. 1-3 serve as an introduction both to the book and this specific prayer. For the problem of the identification of Ezra with Salathiel, the possible significance of the latter name, and the apparent setting of the book in Babylon see 2 BSD B. w. 4-11 summarize the biblical story from Adam to Noah. The words 'and commanded the dust and it gave you Adam, a lifeless body' (w. 4-5) rephrase Gen 2:7 in such a way as to give to the earth an active role in Adam's creation. The author does this elsewhere: in 7:62, in 7:116, which has almost a dualistic tone, and in 10:14. But, as if to immediately counteract any dualistic implications, he goes on to emphasize God's direct involvement in the creation of Adam. This also he does elsewhere: 7:70, 8:7, 8-13,44. But why use this image of mother earth here? Probably it serves two purposes: first, it enables the author to avoid irreverence when addressing God by making the accusation indirect—God produced the earth but it, in its turn, produced this flawed creature, man; secondly, it enables the author to stress humanity's earthy origins as mitigating its guilt. The latter reiterates a common sentiment of the OT: Job 14:1-2, Eccl 3:19-20, Ps 90:3; cf. also Paul's use of the image in i Cor 15:47-9. v. 7 is obviously
779 2 ESDRAS
potential force. This exegesis aligns 4 Ezra somewhat closer to the specifically Augustinian Christian doctrine of original sin, and away from the general rabbinic view which regards humanity's free will as unimpaired by the Fall. However, there are strong reasons for resisting this line of interpretation: (i) To say that Adam clothed himself with the evil heart and then transgressed but (as 7:48 states) the result of his sin was the emergence or development of the evil heart does not make sense. (2) The Syriac text of 7:48 omits the word 'has grown up' and simply reads: 'for there is in us an evil heart...'. If Box and others wish to follow the Syriac in v. 21, why not in 7:48 also? (3) Why does the author revert to the terminology 'evil root'atv. 22 and back to'evil heart'in 3:26?The natural wayis to take these as equivalent expressions for the same phenomenon.
summarizing the story of Gen 2-3, though whether it is a correct exegesis is another matter. There is nothing in Gen 2 to suggest that Adam was created immortal and that death was his punishment for transgressing God's command. Gen 3:22-3 says that Adam and Eve were driven out of the Garden in order to prevent them from becoming immortal (Hayman 1984:15). However, the author's exegesis of Gen 2—3 is in line with that first hinted at in Sir 25:24, and then more systematically in Wis 2:23-4, and» of course, Paul in Rom 5:12; see also 2 Apoc. Bar. 23:4. In this tradition of exegesis the way in which Adam's transgression brings death upon his descendants is not spelled out. The connection is stressed elsewhere in 4 Ezra (4:30, 7:11-12, 118) but never explained. 3:21 is the closest we get to an explanation and this is closely parallel to Rom 5:12. Both these texts are factual statements, not explanations. Explanations had to wait for St Augustine. The point made in w. 9-11 is going to be echoed later in the chapter, for here God is behaving how Ezra thinks he should—punishing the wicked and saving the righteous.
These are weighty objections and it seems unlikely that the author of 4 Ezra had a more complicated and developed view of the effect of the Fall on humanity's constitution than that of the rabbis, or one more closely aligned to the later Christian position. It is undeniable, however, that he uses the metaphor of growth to describe the increasing influence of the evil inclination; see 4:30—1; 7:64; and the Latin text of 7:48. Possibly v. 22 carries this meaning also. The author clearly feels that sin has got a firmer and firmer grip on human beings and the influence of the evil inclination has become more and more irresistible. This fits in with the pessimism he expresses elsewhere in statements such as that in 5:55. (3:24-7) Ezra now introduces the theme of Zion and its fate which is to play an important role in the book as a focus for his complaints. Again the point is made that each new initiative by God is neutralized by humanity's sin. v. 26 parallels v. 21. Ezra is saying that since God had not dealt with the root of the problem, then failure was inevitable. At v. 27 we reach the supposed author's own time, the Babylonian exile. The real, rather than the implied, readers can draw their own conclusions about the period from 587 BCE to 70 CE—the whole Second Temple period had ended as disastrously as the First.
(3:12—19) takes us from Noah to the Exodus. The Abraham presented in v. 14 belongs to the esoteric tradition which is read into Gen 15; see 2 BSD 14:1-18. This is the Abraham of the T. Abr. and Apoc. Abr., texts approximately contemporaneous with 4 Ezra. See also 2 Apoc. Bar. 4:4—5. Emphasizing the miraculous and cosmic significance of God's theophany on Mt Sinai (w. 18-19) serves the function of stressing the vital importance of the giving of the law. But our author does it not only for this purpose but also to heighten the contrast with the following verse.
(3:20-2) The Evil Heart With the Exodus we have reached the focal point of the salvation history as far as Judaism is concerned, and it is just here that Ezra raises his major objection. What was the point of giving the law if God did not first wipe out the 'evil heart' inherited from Adam which made it impossible for the people to keep the law? The author's terminology for the evil component within human beings is not consistent and there is a problem deciding exactly what he has in mind.
(3:28—36) This section looks back over the salvation history which has just been recounted and highlights one contrast between the present and the past. At the time of the Flood God had acted as he ought to have done—punishing the wicked and saving the righteous. But now he seems to be doing the exact opposite (v. 30).
3:20, 21, 26; 7:48 3:22:8:53 4:30, 31 7:92 7:62-4
evil heart evil root grain of evil seed evil thought mind
The problem is: do all these expressions refer to the same thing? Some scholars think they do, but others distinguish between the 'evil heart' and the other terms which it is admitted refer to what the rabbis called 'the evil inclination' (yeser ha-raf). This was implanted in Adam at the time of creation (4:30—1; 7:92). But some scholars argue that in the author's thinking the 'evil inclination' developed into 'the evil heart' as a result of Adam's sin. The evidence for this differentiation is 7:48 and the Syriac/Ethiopic text of v. 21 which Box (1912: 16) translates: 'the first Adam, clothing himself with the evil heart, transgressed', i.e. Adam 'clothed himself with the evil heart by yielding to the suggestions of the evil impulse. Though none of its proponents clearly states it, the importance of this interpretation is that the irresistibility of the evil inclination dates from after the Fall; prior to that it was just a
(4:1—43) Dialogue between Ezra and the Angel Uriel Having been exposed at some length to the complaints of Ezra we now get the response of the other partner in the dialogue, Uriel. The dialogue between them passes through two phases. In w. i—21 Uriel provides three illustrations of the limits of human understanding. The point made is very similar to the message Job gets when God appears to him out of the whirlwind (Job 38—41). In the second phase (w. 22—43) Ezra asserts his right both to ask his questions and to have an answer. Uriel replies that all his problems will be solved, not in this age, but in the age to come. Ezra then asks how long it will be before the future age arrives, and receives a somewhat ambiguous answer, replete with characteristic apocalyptic determinism (w. 36—7). As this dialogue proceeds Ezra's role gradually diminishes until he becomes no more than a stooge offering
2 ESDRAS 780
(whose demise was being predicted) was still several hundred years off.
appropriate prompting questions to Uriel. Uriel, for his part, only picks up and answers the last of Ezra's questions in w. 23—5. He ignores the questions for which he has no answer—as often in the rest of the book. (4:1-25) Uriel (v. i) is listed as one of the four archangels in i Enoch 9:1 and occurs often in other lists. In i Enoch 2.0:2. he is said to be set 'over the world and over Tartarus', w. 5—8 contain a polemic against the exaggerated claims of part of the apocalyptic tradition. In texts like i Enoch the apocalyptic seer travels to the heavens precisely so that he can acquire the sort of knowledge which here both Ezra and Uriel accept is off limits to human beings. The scepticism of 4 Ezra towards these sorts of claims aligns it with the tradition marked out by Prov 30:1-4 and Sir 3:21-4 (much quoted by the rabbis for the same purpose). The author's reticence over revealing such matters probably accounts for the abrupt end of the fourth vision (10:55). Other apocalyptic works would have treated us here to a full tourist's guide to the heavenly city; we get not a word from Ezra.
(4:26—7) Throughout 4 Ezra a sharp distinction is made between this age/world and the next; see especially 6:7-10; 7:29-31, 50, 112-13; 8:1. It is probable that the term used for age/world in the original Hebrew text was folam. In biblical Hebrew this almost invariably has an adverbial use in the phrase le'dlam (for ever); by the first century CE it had changed its meaning to 'world'. The rabbis used the phrases ha'dlam hazzeh (this world) and hcfolam habba' (the world to come) to distinguish the two time periods; possibly the original Hebrew text of 4 Ezra did likewise. (4:33-42) 4:34 and similar verses (5:33; 8:47) hint at the 'experiential solution' to Ezra's agonizing that will come in the fourth vision—when he turns from his own, self-absorbed doubting to dealing with the concrete problems of his needy people, and so mirrors God's concern for 'the many', v. 35, 'storehouse of souls' (NEB) rather than 'chambers' (NRSV) better reflects the Hebrew word 'osar which probably underlies the Latin and Syriac here. The 'storehouse of souls' (located under the divine throne according to R. Eliezer b. Hyrcanus in b. Sabb. 152/7) was the place where the rabbis believed the souls of the righteous were kept before they were reconnected with their bodies at the resurrection; see 7:32 and cf 4:41; 7:80, 95. The archangel Jeremiel (v. 36) is mentioned in the Coptic Apoc. Zeph. as being in charge of the souls of dead. However, the Syriac here has Ramiel, who is the seventh archangel in i Enoch 20:8 (cf. 2 Apoc. Bar. 55:3—'the angel Ramiel who presides over true visions'). The idea that the end of the world has been predestined by God (4:36-7; cf. 7:74) is a common one in apocalyptic and other Jewish texts, as also is the idea that he has fixed beforehand the number of human beings that will be born. The two ideas are combined in 2 Apoc.
(4:26—32) This paragraph presents us with the first systematic statement of 4 Ezra's view of history. In contrast to large parts of the OT (though not all of it) where history is seen as the sphere of God's saving actions, in 4 Ezra salvation is seen as a catastrophic intervention of God to wipe out this present world and to replace it with an entirely new heaven and earth. It is repeated time and again that this present age/world cannot possibly see the realization of Israel's hopes or the fulfilment of God's promises (4:27; 7:12—13). In the previous chapter Ezra looked back over the course of I srael's history and saw it as one long disaster leading nowhere and Uriel does not disagree with this analysis. The present age is evil, full of pain and sorrow, so must be eliminated before God's salvation can come, as must the 'evil heart'; the words 'place' and 'field' in v. 29 have this dual reference. The same general atmosphere pervades the NT and early Christianity; the temptation story presupposes that the devil is in charge of this world, not God (Mt 5:8—9), and Paul goes so far as to describe the devil as 'the god of this world' (2 Cor 4:4). Christianity expresses this in a dualistic fashion alien to Judaism and to 4 Ezra but underlying both is despair of this present world and a concentration on the 'other world' as the real sphere of God's actions and the real goal of the saved. (4:26) The phrase 'The age is hurrying swiftly to its end' in 4:26 reflects the tone of eschatological urgency which pervades 4 Ezra; see 6:20 and esp. 14:11—12,18, where a timetable is laid down. However, just at this point the author's literary use of the device of pseudonymity is in real danger of unravelling. He, in the late first century CE, is writing as though he were living in the sixth century BCE. He believes that the tragic events of 66—70 through which presumably he has lived are the woes preceding the coming of the Messiah, an event which he expects to take place very soon. But in the fictional stance of the text the world had at least another 650 years to go! The writer has to suggest in a veiled way that the world will soon come to an end but not so overtly as to rupture his pseudepigraphic framework. This is a hard act to accomplish. Precisely at v. 26 and 14:18 we can feel him stepping out from behind his pseudonym; from the perspective of the implied rather than the real author the arrival of the Roman empire
Bar. 23:4-5 and strikingly in Gen. Rab. 24:4 ('The Son of David will not come until all those souls which are destined to be born will be born'). However, the author may intend to refer here to the completing of a fixed number of the righteous, as with the 144,000 in Rev 7:4; 14:1. Locating the chambers of the souls in Hades (4:41) hardly fits in with what the text later indicates is the fate ofthe righteous after death (7:88—99). It is better to follow the Syriac (supported by the Ethiopic) which reads: 'Sheol and the storehouses ofthe souls are like the womb'. The alternative is to think of the wicked being separately stored in Sheol away from the righteous (Box 1912: 37). (4:43-5:25) A Vision and its Interpretation 4:44-6 leads into the actual parabolic vision in w. 48-9; see 5:50 for a similar leading question. In 5:1—13 the vision is interpreted to show that most of human history has passed, and only a little while remains before the future age comes. All Jewish apocalyptists believed this. It is schematized in 14:10-11 but is a recurring refrain throughout the book. 5:1—13 contains a description of the hard times (conventionally referred to as 'the messianic woes') which will precede the end and by means of which the 'wise' may discern its approach. The list of signs is traditional material and may well have been drawn from a literary source. The beginning of 5:1 looks like a rubric to an already existing collection of material. Many parallels can be cited. See Mk 13 and parallels and the extensive list provided by Stone (1990:
78i 2 ESDRAS
goal of [my] love') for the discussion to shift to the topic of eschatology, ground where the angel has answers to offer. We noticed the same technique in 4:23—5. Ezra's question in v. 41 refers back to the angel's future-orientated answer in the first vision to the problem of theodicy. Uriel does not know whether Ezra will be alive when the end comes (4:26, 52). Ezra wants to know if this means that he, and all the righteous born before him, will therefore miss out on part of this promised eschatological reward. If so, its power to soften the problem of theodicy is weakened. The issue raised by Ezra is very similar to that faced by Paul in i Thess 4:3-18. Note how in these verses the angel recedes into the background in the author's mind and God directly addresses Ezra. Uriel does not re-emerge until 6:30. This phenomenon occurs regularly in 4 Ezra just as in the OT the Angel of the Lord and the Lord constantly fuse together; cf also Judg 6:12, 14. The image of the circle (v. 42) is not very clear and the text is uncertain. The point it makes has been aptly compared with i Thess 4:15. The general resurrection (7:32) will ensure that all will stand on an equal footing in the future age. v. 45 is a neat rejoinder by Ezra: if all who have ever lived will be resurrected and kept alive for the final judgement, then there is no reason why all who are destined to be born could not be alive now and so the end could come without any delay. With v. 46 cf. 4:40-3 where the deterministic potential of the image of human reproduction is similarly used. The pessimistic view of the world in w. 50—5 (cf. 4:26—7; 14:10) is a deduction both from the references to the giants in Gen 6:1-4 and me lengths of the lives of the prediluvian patriarchs in Gen 5. But the general sentiment was widespread in the ancient world; see Philo, On the Creation, 140—1, and 2 Apoc. Bar. 85:10.
no n. 15). The signs catalogue the reversal of all order as the end approaches—in nature and in human society. The theme of the reversal of the natural order reaches far back into the OT; see esp. Isa 24. In 5:3 the author alludes to a theme which will be vastly expanded in ch. n and 12, namely, the demise of the Roman empire as a sign of the end. In 5:6 he hints, and no more, at another standard theme of Jewish apocalyptic—the emergence of the Antichrist, a belief which is rooted in Jewish experiences at the hands of Antiochus Epiphanes in the Maccabean period. He does not develop this theme later in the book, which reinforces the impression that he is editing traditional material.
We have now had the two responses of Uriel to Ezra's complaints that will dominate the rest of the book: (i) who are puny you to challenge God?—mere mortals cannot understand God's ways; (2) the resolution of the problem can only be sought in the next world, not in this one.
(5:16—20) A transitional narrative that connects the first and second visions. Similar material is placed between the other visions. Phaltiel's rebuke is significant since it points forward to the resolution or assuaging of Ezra's problems by immersing himself in communal service. See 2 BSD 4:33-42.12:40-5 expands the rebuke, this time on the lips of the people, but in 12:46—8 and esp. 14:27—36 Ezra responds and accepts the role required of him.
Second Vision (5:21-6:34)
This follows more or less the same pattern as the first vision:
(i) Ezra's prayer (5:21-30); (2) a dialogue between Ezra and Uriel (5:31-6:10); (3) a vision (6:17-28); (4) conclusion of the vision (6:29—34).
(6:1—16) The text at the beginning of v. i is uncertain; see n. (to NRSV. Possibly Christian scribes in the Latin tradition removed the reference attested in the Syriac to the 'beginning' coming through 'man', feeling that it contradicted the divinity of Christ. If the phrase is original it could have referred either to the Messiah (see 7:28; 11:32-4; 13:37-8) or to the human agents of the messianic woes (5:1-13; 6:24). Here, and in the emphatic wording of v. 6b, there seems to be some polemical intention, perhaps against the heresy of 'the two powers'. On this see Segal (1977). The function of the list of elements in the cosmos in w. ifc-6 is to reinforce the point made more prosaically in 7:70. The text of w. 7-10 is much disturbed in the versions, especially in the Latin. Scribes found it difficult to understand and probably made matters worse by trying to 'improve' it. The section presupposes an eschatological interpretation of Gen 25:26 well-attested in later rabbinic texts: Esau = Rome, Jacob = the Jewish messianic kingdom which will seamlessly replace the Roman empire (5:3; 11:38—46; 12:31-4).
(5:21—30) Ezra's Prayer This time Ezra's complaint has a much narrower focus than in ch. 3. What makes it less acute is the absence of the whole theme of the permanently diseased 'evil heart', though the language of v. 30 ('hates') pulls no punches. As here (v. 21) a period of seven days' prayer and fasting precedes each of the first three visions; see 5:13, 20; 6:31, 34. The pattern is broken at the end of the third vision where seven days of eating flowers replaces the period of fasting (9:23, 27)—a significant symbol of the change of mood in the fourth vision. The prayer is based on a series of seven images which illustrate God's unique choice of Israel, but in v. 28-9 the imagery of 'one out of the many' is neatly reversed by the complaint: the many oppress the one. Why? The series of images is based on traditional symbols for Israel in biblical and Jewish sources; cf Ps 80:8-19; Hos 14:5; Ps 132:13; 74:1,19. The use of the language 'love' and 'hate' (v. 30) comes from the biblical comparison of the relationship between Israel and God with human marriage. The tone is reminiscent of Hos 1-3. (5:31-6:10) Dialogue between Ezra and Uriel This repeats in a different form the content of their previous dialogue. Cf. 5:3640 with 4:5—11. Again Uriel states that the future age is imminent, that the time when it will come has been completely predetermined from the beginning of creation, and that history is moving inexorably towards this predestined goal. (5:31-56) Since further dialogue is blocked on the issue of Ezra's competence to understand God's ways in creation, the text carefully creates an opening (v. 40, 'my judgement', 'the
(6:17-28) Vision This is not really a vision but an audition. Ezra hears a voice proclaiming the arrival of the End. The messianic woes are again described and also the beginning of the messianic age (6:25—8). We get here in embryo the eschatological timetable that will be spelt out in much greater detail in the next vision. Cf, for example, 6:25 with 7:27-8, 12:34, 13^48—50; and 6:26/7 with 8:53. w. 11—12 consciously hark back to 5:1—13, and some scholars have seen in what follows further material from the source the author may
2 ESDRAS 782
have used there. The foundations of the earth shake (w. 1416) because the prediction concerns their imminent end and transformation into a new heaven and earth (7:30—1). v. 17 alludes to Ezek 1:24. The heavenly books on which all human deeds are recorded (v. 20) are mentioned in many biblical and extra-biblical books; see Dan 7:10; Mai 3:16; Rev 20:12; i Enoch 47:3; 2 Apoc. Bar. 24:1. For the trumpet blast (v. 23) see Isa 27:13; Mt 24:31; i Thess 4:16 v. 260 refers to the OT saints who were assumed to heaven (Enoch, Gen 5:24; Elijah, 2 Kings 2:11, Mai 3:5—6) and who will appear with the Messiah as his companions ('those who are with him', 7:28, 13:52). Ezra himself is elected to this select band—14:9,49 (Syriac). Other figures, such as Moses and Baruch, were similarly believed to have been assumed to heaven without dying.
6:52 in 2 Apoc. Bar, 29:4, and in rabbinic texts, Behemoth and Leviathan provide the menu at the messianic banquet (Isa 25:6). It is not explicitly said in the OT that the world was created for the sake of Israel (v. 55) but rabbinic and other Jewish texts took it for granted, as Ezra does here and the angel/God does in 7:11. Note the careful phrasing of w. 55—7: 'you have said that...', 'which are reputed to be...' (referring mainly to Isa 40:15,17). Ezra attributes these views to God; in the subsequent dialogue they represent Uriel's position. In fact Ezra is going to dispute this attitude to the Gentiles on the basis of the doctrine of creation (8:14). The author is bringing to the surface the latent contradiction between the doctrines of creation and election in the OT. This contradiction is not resolved in 4 Ezra.
(6:29—34) Conclusion of the Vision There is no interpretation of the vision because the message of the audition is fairly comprehensible on its own. Ezra is warned not to misinterpret what has happened in this present age; his attention is being firmly focused on the future, not the past. v. 34 refers back to the agonizing laments of ch. 3 and 5:22—30. The legitimacy of the laments is not denied, otherwise Ezra would not be praised in the terms of v. 32; see also 10:38, 57. This approval of Ezra performs the same psychological function as Job 42:7; it legitimizes the cathartic effect on readers who empathize with Job and Ezra in their railing against the incomprehensibility of God's ways.
(7:1—25) First Dialogue The initial speech by Uriel (w. 3—16) attempts to show that the harsh conditions under which human beings now live are the result of the Fall and that this world now serves as a testing ground, so that those who pass the test can enjoy eternal blessedness. Ezra retorts that this is a bit hard on those who have suffered the pains of humanity's mortal conditions yet will not receive any compensatory reward (v. 18). Behind Ezra's retort lies his concept of the evil inclination which he sees as mitigating the guilt of the unrighteous. Uriel will have none of this and reiterates in harsh terms the criteria by which human beings will be judged (w. 19-24).
The parables in w. 3—9 imply that 'the world' in 6:59 is the future world (contrary probably to what Ezra himself had in mind) and that Israel has first to negotiate this difficult world (the narrow entrance) before reaching the spacious future age: cf Mt 7:13—14. The effects of Adam's sin spread out from human beings (3:7; 7:118) to encompass the whole of creation (9:19-20)—as in Rom 8:20-2. But there is a tension between this 'heavy' view of the Fall and the clear statement that God planned for it all in advance (7:70). What sense does it make to say that God made the world for Israel's sake when he knew that they would never inherit it and when he had planned another future world for at least the righteous Israelites? This tension accounts for the slippery meaning of'world' in 6:59—7:11. Basically, our author here is up against the old problem of the contradiction between God's foreknowledge and human free will. He does not see the problem clearly, so some degree of muddle in his thinking is inevitable, v. 16 is a significantly placed harbinger of what is to come later in the text; turning his attention to the future is in the end what Ezra does because the issues raised in this vision are never (perhaps can never be) resolved. They are rather sidelined by the change of orientation in the last four visions. Note how in w. 17-18 Ezra changes from being the spokesperson for Israel
Third Vision (6:35-9:25)
In this vision the pattern of the previous two is broken since we get only Ezra's prayer (6:35-59) and then a very long and involved dialogue between Ezra and Uriel (7:1—9:25). There is no vision and interpretation. These elements are replaced here by a series of apocalyptic predictions or monologues
(7:26-44, 78-99; 9:1-13). (6:35-59) Ezra's Prayer The structure of the prayer, like those which begin the first and second visions (3:4—36; 5:22—30), follows the pattern of the lament psalms. On the basis of God's deeds in the past, in this case his work in creation culminating in his election of Israel (6:54), a lament is raised over his inaction in the present (6:57—9). m me earlier prayers the emphasis was on God's acts in history. Here it centres on his work in creation (Gen i) because the dialogue in this vision is going to confront the issue: if nearly all human beings are sinners and hence shut out of the future age, why did God bother to create them in the first place?
No exact parallel is known to the sevenfold division of the earth in v. 42. v. 49 expands on 'the great sea monster' (Gen 1:21). This is traditional material (possibly incorporated here by the author from another source) which is not utilized elsewhere in 4 Ezra; see i Enoch 60:7-10, and 2 Apoc. Bar, 29:4. Many OT passages allude to a mythical version of creation (with parallels in the Ugaritic and other ancient Near-Eastern texts) in which God is involved in conflict with a monster
(6:57-9)to being 'spokesperson for humanity trapped in sin' (Longenecker 1995: 46). He persists in this role to the end of the vision (9:14—15). The dialogue fluctuates, sometimes confusingly, between having Israel in mind and broadening the scope to encompass the whole of the human race. In 8:15 the author alludes specifically to this double focus of attention.
(Rahab/Leviathan) which is never really subdued and hence has to be definitively dealt with at the end of the world (Isa 27:1). See Ps 74:13—14; 89:10—11; Job 7:12; 26:12-13; Isa 51:9. Job 40:15—41:34 describes the two monsters and names them as Behemoth and Leviathan, v. 51 is based on Ps 50:10 where the word 'cattle' is in Hebrew behemot. In a parallel passage to
(7:19—25) The angel states clearly the hard line to which he will stick right to the end of this vision: human beings know the score; they have only themselves to blame if they fail to observe the rules and end up with 'empty things'. Deut 30:15-
7«3 2 ESDRAS
the beginning of time (Moore 1927, ii: 348—9). Our author seems to believe that the Messiah is ready waiting in heaven. On the phrase 'those who are with him' see 2 BSD 6:26. There is no hint here of the militant role ascribed to the Messiah in chs. 11—13. Th£ 4OO-year reign of the Messiah is an exegetical deduction from the collocation of Gen 15:13 and Ps 90:15. The same figure is found in some rabbinic texts with explicit reference to these biblical texts. The i,ooo-year period (millennium) found in Rev 20 similarly arises out of biblical exegesis of Ps 90:4 (see 2 Pet 3:8) applied to the concept of the day of the Lord.
20 lies behind the formulation of w. 20-1. But if the author's scope has widened to include all humanity—'those who come into the world'—then they can hardly be blamed for not observing the law of Moses. Something like the rabbinic notions of the Noachian commandments or the legend that all nations were offered the law at Sinai but only Israel accepted it must lie in the background if the angel's argument is to be coherent (Box 1912: 105). On the other hand, it is more likely that the focus is shifting back to the wicked within Israel, since w. 22—4 retail the sort of accusations fired in the OTat wayward Israelites. Cf. v. 23 with Ps 14:1; 8:58 shows that the author has this psalm in mind. (7:26-44) Apocalyptic Prediction This is the clearest and most systematic exposition of 4 Ezra's eschatological timetable. As has often been pointed out, the author combines here two different types of eschatological expectation (the thisworldly and the other-worldly) by placing them in chronological sequence. Here we can observe the fusion of ideas that gave rise, both in Judaism and Christianity, to the concept of the millennium. In principle, these two types of eschatology are distinguishable. They line up with the different possible attitudes to history discussed in 2 BSD 4:26-32. They can be found in isolation in different Jewish texts or, as here in 4 Ezra, in combination. They are similarly combined in the book of Revelation, produced at almost the same time as 4 Ezra, and in 2 Apoc. Bar. In 4 Ezra the two types of eschatology neatly correlate to the two main problems raised by Ezra, namely, the current situation of his people Israel and the problem of the utter corruption of the world and human nature. The this-worldly eschatology responds to the first problem: it will be resolved by the Messiah's removal of the Roman empire and re-establishment of the kingdom of David and a totally renewed city of Jerusalem and land of Israel. The other-worldly eschatology explains how eventually this corrupt and worn-out world will be wiped out and replaced by a new heaven and a new earth. Thereafter the evil inclination will be extirpated from human nature (8:53).
Cf. v. 27 with 6:25:9:8; 12:34, and see 2 BSD 5:41. Mention of the death of the Messiah (v. 29) is unique to 4 Ezra in Jewish sources. In 2 Apoc. Bar. 30:1 the Messiah is assumed to heaven at the end of the messianic era. According to v. 30 the clock is wound back through the seven days of Gen i to the state of the earth in Gen 1:2. Compare 2 Apoc. Bar. 44:9 and Barn. 15:8. The Gen i paradigm shapes v. 43 as well. With v. 31 cf 7:75
('renew the creation') and see 2 BSD 6:14-16. v. 32 describes the general resurrection. Cf. Dan 12:2; Rev 20:5,12-13; and for the 'chambers' see 2 BSD 4:35. With the description of the final judgement (v. 29) cf. Dan 7:9 and i Enoch 47:3. That 'compassion will pass away' becomes a matter of fierce dispute later in this vision (7:102-15). Cf. the description of hell here with the parable of Dives and Lazarus (Lk 16:19-31) which also presupposes that hell and Paradise are within sight of each other, as does the setting of Wis 5. The earth as we know it will no longer exist so the promise of Gen 8:22 will no longer hold good (7:38-42). See also Zech 14:6-7 and Rev 21:23.
(7:45—74) Second Dialogue This expands out of the positions adopted by the two protagonists in 7:17—24. Again, as in the earlier dialogues, Ezra is not silenced by the account of the glory to come reserved for the righteous because he feels that there is no one, or at best only a few people, righteous enough to qualify for the future age (w. 45—8). As ever the bugbear is the 'evil heart'. Uriel replies that God is only really interested in these few who are righteous; the rest can go to hell (w. 4961)! Ezra then, not unreasonably, asks why all the wicked (among whom he seems to include himself) have been created at all, if their ultimate fate is eternal damnation (w. 62— 9). The substance of v. 48 is dealt with at 2 BSD 3:20-7; for the textual problem in this verse see Hayman (1975: 54 n. 35). The view in v. 46 (see also v. 68; 8:35), that no human being is without sin, is widespread in the OT (2 Kings 8:42; Prov 20:9; Eccl 7:20) and outside it (Man and his God, ANET 590). But Ezra's argument here seems to depend on such texts as Ps 90:3—8 and Isa 40:6—8, the grounds for his appeal being the frailty and weakness of human nature. The doctrine of the 'evil heart' gives this OT idea more precision. However, there is not necessarily a contradiction between this verse and the view with which both Ezra and the angel agree— that there will be at least a few righteous people saved for the future world. It is not sinlessness that qualifies people for the next world but the correct attitude to the law (7:72, and esp. 9:10—12). In w. 49—61 the angel simply accepts what Ezra says about the righteous being few in number, explaining that that is why God has made not one but two worlds—so that they will get their just reward. For the address to the earth in w. 62—4 see 2 BSD 3:4—5. What the author means here by the
Ezra gets a foretaste of the hidden city (v. 26) in 10:25-7, 55~ 6. See also 8:52; 13:36; Rev 21. On 'my son the Messiah' see Stone 1990: 208 for a table of the variant readings of the versions and a detailed treatment of the redeemer figure in 4 Ezra. For the most up-to-date survey of scholarship on the topic of the Messiah see Collins (1995). Christian scribal interference with the text of v. 28 is clearest in the Latin but has probably contaminated the other versions as well. The major critical issue is whether or not the term 'son' (if part of the original text) goes back to the Hebrew ben (son), or via the Greek pais (child, servant) to the Hebrew febed (servant). The appearance of a Qumrantext (40^46 ii i, Martinez 1994:138) which assigns the title 'son of God/of the Most High' to the redeemer figure swings the balance now in favour of the former option. Other references to the Messiah/son of God in 4 Ezra are 12:32-4; 13:25-39, 52; 14:9. The word 'revealed' suggests the pre-existence of the Messiah, a belief which is explicitly affirmed in 13:26,52; 14:9. The idea that the Messiah is predestined to appear from the beginning of time is wellattested in rabbinic Judaism. However, the rabbis were more careful than our author in the way they phrased it; in their view it was the 'name of the Messiah' which had been fixed at
2 ESDRAS 784
which the vast numbers of the wicked might not be shut out of the future age. Could the righteous intercede for the wicked as they have certainly done in this age? Is it possible that God might not judge by strict justice but exercise mercy in line with the characterization of his nature found in Ex 34:6—7? The angel loads his pistol with Deut 30:19 (7:129) and fires off a firm negative to both suggestions (7:104; 8:3).
'mind' is difficultto pin down. Myers (1974: 211) translates the Latin sensus as 'reason'. Stone (excursus on inspiration, 1990: 119—24) thinks it means something like 'consciousness'. In the role which he has adopted since 7:18 Ezra identifies himself with the wicked (v. 67; and see 8:31). The angel will have to try and stop him doing this (7:76—7; 8:47). v. 74 seems to be designed to forestall Ezra's subsequent attempts to plead for God's mercy on the wicked (7:132-40). The delay in the end is planned, not a sign that God is being or will be patient with sinners.
A dual numbering of the verses from 7:106 to the end of the chapter appears in the Eng. versions. The printed editions of the Vg, on whose numbering system the AV and later Eng. translations draw, all go back ultimately to one MS, the ninthcentury Codex Sangermanensis, from which 7:36-105 had been cut out. Since Bensley published (1875; 1895: xii-xiii) what came to be known as 'The Missing Fragment' modern translations have preserved the old and the new numbering systems side by side.
(7:75—101) The Fate of Souls after Death In this section the tension of the dialogue relaxes and, as in earlier visions (4:33, 44-6; 5:50; 6:11), Ezra lapses into the role of prompter. This allows the angel to launch into a long explanation of the fate of the soul after death, the purpose of which is to forestall Ezra's question whether there is any hope of repentance for the wicked after death, and whether the righteous will be able to intercede on their behalf (7:70—103). The souls are said to pass through three stages: (i) For a period of seven days after death each soul, whether good or bad, is given a foretaste of its fate after the Last Judgement (w. 75-101). This state is described as 'separation from the body' (7:78, 88, 100). (2) After these seven days the souls depart to their resting-places to await the Last Judgement. Where the souls are located during this waiting period is difficultto discern. 4:35,41, and 7:32 suggest that they are all alike in Hades; v. 80 could be read to suggest that the wicked souls are left to wander about (ghosts?) while only the righteous go into their chambers. If it is the former, then the author's view of the intermediate state is similar to that found in i Enoch 22 where Sheol is the place where all the dead go to await the Last Judgement, but where moral distinctions are already made and the righteous enjoy bliss while the wicked suffer preliminary punishment. From elsewhere in the text we know that a privileged few of the saints are taken up immediately into heaven (6:26; 14:9, 48)—reflecting the OT stories of the ascensions of Enoch and Elijah and subsequent Jewish expansion of the number of ascenders. (3) At the Last Judgement all the dead are raised and a final separation is made between the righteous and the wicked. The righteous enjoy all the eternal delights described in w. 88-99 and 8:52-4. It is not expressly stated, though it may be inferred, that the wicked suffer eternal punishment (7:36-7, 84; 9:10-13). 7:97, 125 reflect the belief that after death the risen righteous join the host of heaven/sons of God/stars (Job 38:7). Cf. Dan 12:3; Wis 3:7; i Enoch 104:3; 4 Mace 17:5; 2 Apoc. Bar. 51:10. This concept of astral immortality, widespread in the ancient world, also lies behind Lk 20:35— 6. These views about the soul and its fate in 4 Ezra mark a considerable change from OT teaching. In the OT human beings are regarded basically as animated bodies; they are made from 'the dust of the earth' into which God infuses the life force/breath of life. But by the first century CE many Jews had come to accept both the ideas of the pre-existence of the soul and that souls could live on after death (at least for an interim period) without their bodies. See Wis 3:1; 8:19; 9:11; 2 Enoch 23:4—5; Josephus, J.W. 2:154—8.
For the intercessions of Abraham and Moses see Gen 18:22—33 and Ex 32:11—14. For the other biblical allusions in 7:107-10 see Josh 7:6-9; i Sam 7:9; 12:19-23; 2 Sam 24:17; i Kings 8:22-53; 18:42)?); 17:20-1; 2 Kings 19:15-19. It is difficult to reconstruct the text of v. 112 from the versions. The point seems to be that there is a decisive difference between this world and the next, marked primarily by the intermittent presence of God's glory in this world and his permanent presence in the next. His permanent presence dates from the Day of Judgement (7:33,113); from that point on everyone's fate is sealed. Only before that time is intercession possible. 7:113-15 spells out in detail how 'the day of judgement is decisive' (7:104).
As before in 6:62—9, whgn confronted with the angel's blank negatives, Ezra moves into lament mode (7:116—26). This preserves the basic psychological motivation of the lament psalms in the OT, namely, to evoke a merciful response from God by depicting one's miserable condition, often acted out by means ofthe symbol of sackcloth and ashes (cf 9:38). It might have worked in OT times; it cuts no ice with Uriel! The substance ofthe lament harks back to the prayer with which this vision began: what is the point of all God's work in creation if nearly all human beings are fated to go to perdition? For 7:118 see 2 BSD 7:46 and 3:20-2. Ezra appears to be making the same move as before: we frail mortals cannot help sinning—it is all Adam's fault. The implication ofthe angel's words in 7:129 is that he rejects any notion that human freedom to obey the law was affected by the Fall.
7:132-40 is a midrash on Ex 34:6-7, a frequently used literary topos in both biblical and extra-biblical texts. Most of the elements ofthe biblical text are cited and expanded, but it is highly significant that everything after 'forgiving iniquity and transgression and sin' (Ex 34:7) is left out. The rest ofthe verse would not have helped Ezra's case in the present context! 8:2 harks back to 7:52—7 with the point of both sets of comparisons being bluntly stated in 8:3. With the angel summarizing the position he has taken throughout, these three verses mark the conclusion ofthe major dialogue cycle which began in 7:45.
(8:4—62) Two Prayers and a Subsequent Dialogue Yet again, as in 7:62—9 and 116—26, Ezra responds to the angel with a lament based on creation. The same point is made (v. 14) but this time emphasized by an elaborate description ofthe pro-
(7:102—8:3) A Duel with Texts! In his efforts to avoid the conclusion that only a few will be saved if the test is full compliance with the law, Ezra seeks for alternative ways by
7«5 2 ESDRAS
ters is one's attitude to the law, not keeping it perfectly. Fully in line with this Uriel states in w. 10—n that it is the refusal to acknowledge God and 'scorning' his law which disqualifies human beings from salvation. For a detailed comparison of 4 Ezra and Paul on these issues see Longenecker (1991). 9:8 refers to the messianic age; see 6:25; 7:28; 12:34; 13:48—9.
cess of pregnancy and birth. Why such a marvellous process of birth if the end is only death? There follows the so-called Prayer of Ezra which was excerpted from the book and used in many early Christian liturgies (8:19-36).The wording ofv. igfc is a result of this practice. In this prayer Ezra appeals to God to forgive those who have no store of good works to their credit. The grounds of the appeal in w. 27—30 are that a few in Israel have been faithful to God. But this conflicts with what Ezra goes on to say in w. 31-6, themselves not very internally consistent if we compare v. 33 with v. 35. This apparent inconsistency serves a literary purpose for it allows Uriel to pick up the first part of Ezra's prayer but ignore the second (8:37-40). 'Some things... rightly' (v. 37) presupposes 'some things incorrectly'. For the textual variant in 8:23 see 2 BSD E. On the issue of the criteria for salvation in w. 32—3 see 2 BSD 9:7. The idea of a 'treasury of works' laid up for the righteous in heaven (7:77; 8:33, 36) was widespread in Judaism at the time and appears also in the NT (Mt 6:20). For v. 35 see 2 BSD 7:46.
Ezra's position, like the angel's, remains unchanged throughout this vision (9:15; cf 7:45-8). He never explicitly accepts the validity of the angel's views, thus legitimizing the feelings of those who sympathize with his problems. See 2 BSD 6:32 and Hayman (1975: 53). Uriel's words in 9:20-2 seem to hint at a scheme at variance with 7:70, namely, that the second world/age to come and the salvation of only a few righteous people was a rescue plan by God, not something determined in advance.
Fourth Vision (g.\26-10.159)
This vision serves as a transition from the tense dialogues of the first three visions to the apocalyptic revelations of the last three visions where the author has turned his attention away from the doubts and complaints occasioned by the current situation of his people in order to reaffirm his eschatological hopes. As was nicely observed by Breech, the change of mood in the fourth vision is comparable with that which we find in the lament psalms (Breech 1973: 271). It is possible that the change of mood in these psalms was occasioned by a cultic oracle (see esp. Ps 60:6—8 and Eissfeldt 1966: 113—20). If so, the vision in 10:25-7 performs the same role in 4 Ezra. (9:26-37) Ezra's Prayer The introduction in w. 26-8 contains most of the same elements as in those to the previous visions (3:1—3; 5:21—2; 6:35—7), but the change of venue and location are a hint that this vision will not end like the others. In 10:51— 4 we discover the reason for the change of location. The main burden of the prayer is a contrast between the law, in all its glory and immutability, and the perishable human vessels who must keep it (9:36—7). Note that, as elsewhere in the book, there is no criticism of the law itself, only of people's inability to keep it. Although the prayer harks back to issues raised earlier in the book, its tone of complaint is considerably muted in comparison to the prayers which begin the first three visions (Longenecker 1995: 63). (9:38-10:28) Vision of the Mourning Woman The vision does not respond directly to the issues raised by Ezra's prayer, reflecting the fact that the author has come to see that they are irresolvable in this world. In the vision Ezra sees a woman weeping and, when he asks her what her trouble is, she tells him that her only son, conceived after thirty years of barrenness, has just died on his wedding day. At the end of the vision the woman metamorphoses into the vision of a great city. Ezra's speech to the woman in 10:6-17 plays a crucial role in the transition from complaint to hope in 4 Ezra. The complaint is clearly restated in w. 6—14 ('almost all go to perdition', v. io),butinw. 15—16 Ezra turns to give the woman some stern advice, v. 16 foreshadows what is to follow in the fourth to seventh visions. In effect, Ezra's advice to the woman is selfexhortation by the author to himself: what are your mental agonies worth in the context of the total disaster faced after 70 CE by the whole Jewish people? The author draws back from the chasm opened in the first to third visions. If he denies
The angel has no answer to the second part of Ezra's plea (8:31-6) and has to resort rather pathetically to claiming that despite appearances God loves his creation better than Ezra does (v. 47). Ezra is rebuked for identifying himself with the wicked. As always when the argument gets too tough for Uriel he resorts to recounting the eschatological bliss laid up for the righteous (w. 51-4). This strategy comes explicitly to the surface in 9:13. For v. 47 see 2 BSD 4:33—42. w. 52—4 give a fourteen-phrase summary of the rewards of the righteous—seven positive items (v. 52) and seven deleted negatives (w. 53-4). Not only is the 'evil root' removed (cf. Ps.-Philo, Bib. Ant. 33.3; iQS 4:20), hence neutralizing one of Ezra's more agonizing complaints, but all the consequences, material and spiritual, of Adam's sin will disappear, v. 62 hints at a theme to be developed at greater length in 12:36-8 and throughout ch. 14. As for the fate of the wicked, Uriel appeals to the concept of free will to justify their damnation (8:56, 59—60).
(8:63—9:25) Concluding Prediction and Dialogue As with the first and second visions (5:1—13; 6:11—28), so this vision draws to an end with Uriel again describing the messianic woes and the Day of Judgement, and claiming that God is just (9:10-12). Ezra remains dissatisfied (9:14—16), and the discussion ends with yet another justification by Uriel of God's actions.
Commentators vary in their understanding of 9:5-6 which is made difficult by differences between the Latin and Syriac texts. The point seems to be that since observably everything has a beginning and an end, so has the world: it begins with the wonders of creation (referring back to 6:1-6, 38-54) and ends with the signs mentioned in 9:1-3. Note in v. 9:7 the criteria for being one of the saved. Stone (1990: 296) comments on this verse that 'while not asserting that these two concepts, faith and works, are identical, we may say they were not very clearly differentiated and are used interchangeably'. This would seem to be justified by 13:23 where 9:7*8 'either works or faith' becomes 'both works and faith'. Nor does there
seem to be much difference between 'treasures of faith' (6:5) and 'treasure of works' (7:77; 8:33). Contrast this with Paul's position in the NT (e.g. Rom 3:20, 27—8; Gal 3:10—11). The Pauline view on the issue of justification fails to take account of one vital ingredient in Jewish theology which our text mentions in v. n, namely, repentance. In Judaism what mat-
2 ESDRAS 786
end-time (city, Messiah, immortality, Paradise, etc.) are preexistent realities which are only finally revealed to human beings in the future age. In the ancient Near East it was generally believed that earthly realities were but pale copies of heavenly originals (see Ex 25:40 and Ps 11:4; Heb 8:5). In apocalyptic a radical change takes place in that it is believed that at the end of time these heavenly originals will come down to earth. Ezra's consolation consists in the evidence of his own eyes that the heavenly Zion exists now.
God's justice, if this fundamental tenet of the OTand Judaism can no longer be affirmed, then all is lost and there is nothing more to hope for. Despite all his doubts he wills to affirm God's justice because he must. His solution to the problem of evil is experiential, not rational (Hayman 1975: 56). The God whom he knows simply cannot be unjust whatever the evidence to the contrary.
Ezra is transformed by the need to do what religious leaders have to do—hold the community together in times of crisis. Cf the role of Rabbi Ephraim Oshry in the ghetto of Kovno during the Holocaust (Rosenbaum 1976). Ezra's changed role is expressed symbolically by his move from lamenter to comforter. Only then is he, himself, granted the vision which lifts him in the rest of the book into the realm of eschatological affirmation. Note how in 14:13 Ezra is commanded to do what here he did voluntarily and spontaneously—'comfort the lowly among them'. Ezra has also done what previously Uriel advised (8:55; 9:13). 9:39—40 and 10:5 show him taking this advice, but he only does so when faced by the grieving woman. We have already been prepared for this assumption of a leadership role by Ezra (5:16-18). Ezra is now doing his job as Phaltiel had requested. Progressively hereafter he accepts the 'Mosaic role' (12:40—8; 14:27—36).
There is no parallel known to the dating scheme behind the 'three thousand years' of 10:46, nor are any of the dating schemes hinted at in the book (14:11-12, 48 Syriac) consistent with each other (Stone 1990: 337). For 10:56-9 see 2 BSD 4:58. Contrast the Description of the New Jerusalem texts from Qumran and Rev 21-2. The theme of restricted apocalyptic secrets will be developed in ch. 14. Ezra is now placed on the same level as Abraham (3:14) and Moses (14:5-6).
Fifth Vision (11:1-12:51)
The eagle vision of chs. 11—12 is cast in the form of an elaborate allegorical prediction of the history of the Roman empire especially as it impacted on the Jewish people (2 BSD c). Such surveys of history are a common genre within the apocalyptic literature; two good examples are Dan n and i Enoch 85-90. For their authors they served two purposes: to enable them to demonstrate to their audiences that they were indeed living in the 'end of the times', and also to enhance their claims to speak with veracity and authority. If the presumed authors had been able to predict history so accurately before it happened, surely they must be right about the end of history!
The woman's 'thirty years' period of barrenness corresponds to the thirty years Israel has spent in exile in Babylon (3:1). The reference to 'Zion, mother of us all' in 10:7 is a literary hint of what is to follow later in the story. For the image cf Gal 4:26. On the phase in 10:10 'almost all go to perdition' see 7:48 and Hayman (1975: 54 n. 35); also Thompson (1977: 303—10). 'You will receive your son back in due time' (10:16) refers, on the individual level, to the resurrection of the dead; on the symbolic level this represents the descent of the restored Zion from heaven. The events lamented in 10:21—3 nt in well with Josephus' description of the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 CE, in J.W. b. However, most of the items are conventional elements belonging to the lament genre; see Lamentations passim and i Mace 1:36-40; 2:7-13. The intensity of the lament fits in with the observation that part of the answer to Ezra's troubles is to recognize the legitimacy of lamenting (Humphrey 1995: 74). The graphic account of Ezra's experience in 10:25-8 probably relates in some way to the author's own experience of moving from doubt to faith, but cf. Dan 10:7—9 an(^ ] Enoch 71:11. In 10:27, 42, 44 the RSV's 'an established city' (following the oriental versions) is preferable to the NRSV's 'a city was being built'
The eagle vision is a reapplication for later times of Dan 7, as the author makes clear in 12:11. The beginning ofthe dream consciously alludes to Dan 7:1-3. The eagle is identified with the fourth kingdom seen by Daniel in his visions (11:39;I2:I1)- The eagle symbol was used on the standards of the Roman army and Jewish and Christian exegesis had by the first century CE updated Daniel and shifted the interpretation of this kingdom from Greece to Rome. Our author (unlike many later reinterpreters of Daniel) is aware ofthe fact that his view is not that of Daniel himself (12:12). His language implies that he knows better than Daniel—a claim to inspiration and authority worked out in detail in the Ezra legend of ch. 14. A similar claim is made by the author of the Habakkuk commentary at Qumran (iQpHab 7:1—8—Martinez 1994: 200). The eagle has twelve wings and three heads, and also eight little wings. All commentators are agreed that the eagle symbolizes the Roman empire but the identification of these wings and heads has been much disputed. There seem to be too many wings for the known Roman emperors and usurpers before the author's time. The problem of identifying them is not helped by some divergences between the vision and its interpretation. However, all contemporary commentators agree on the following identifications: the second wing which reigned for a long time (11:13-17; 12:15) is Caesar Augustus, and the three heads are the Flavian emperors Vespasian, Titus, and Domitian. 11:32 and 12:23—4 clearly reflect a Jewish perspective on the Roman rulers (Vespasian and Titus) who destroyed Jerusalem and enslaved the Jews. All the other wings must be, then, the Roman emperors and the pretenders
(following the Latin). The heavenly city/Jerusalem exists already and needs only to be revealed (7:26; 8:53; 10:54; 13:36). Cf. i Enoch 90:29, 2 Apoc. Bar. 4:2-7, and the Description of the New Jerusalem texts from Qumran (Martinez 1994: 129-35).
(10:29—59) Interpretation of the Vision and Dialogue with Uriel Uriel interprets the vision so that the grieving woman represents the real Zion, the heavenly Jerusalem which for 3,000 years had no earthly counterpart (w. 44-5). Her son is the earthly Jerusalem built by Solomon (v. 45). The son's death represents the destruction of Jerusalem in 587 BCE (v. 48). In his vision (10:25-8) Ezra saw the real Zion which exists in heaven and will be revealed in the last times. This reflects the view of the apocalyptists that the events and personnel of the
787 2 ESDRAS
of what has really been going on while he has been out in the field, thus observing the injunction of v. 38.
to the throne who lived between Julius Caesar (the first wing) and Domitian (who reigned from 81—96 CE).
The author predicts the appearance of the Messiah (the lion) and the subsequent destruction of the Roman empire in the reign of the third head, Domitian (11:36-46; 12:31-4). There is a bit of a loose end in 12:2, 29—30 with a reference to two little wings, on the explanation of which scholars do not agree. They do not really fit Domitian's two successors Nerva and Trajan. The latter's reign from 98-117 could hardly be said to be 'brief and full of tumult'. So the point where the accurate history stops and the prediction begins seems to be near the end of Domitian's reign, presumably near the middle of the gos CE.
Sixth Vision (iy.i-^8)
This chapter divides into three sections: (i) The dream of the Man from the Sea (Dan 13:1-130); (2) Ezra's response to the dream (Dan 13:13/7—20); and (3) the interpretation of the dream (13:21—58). The dream can likewise be divided into three sections: (13:1-4) The Origin of the Man v. i immediately calls to mind Dan 7:1, and we know from 12:11 that our author consciously intended to update and rewrite Dan 7. By v. 2 we know that this is precisely what is happening here; cf. Dan 7:2. In Daniel the 'great sea' is an allusion to the old creation myth, probably in its Babylonian form (the Enuma Elish), in which the god Marduk, armed with the four winds of heaven, attacks Tiamat, the chaos monster and personification of the primeval ocean.
The chapters can be divided into four sections: (i) The Dream (11:1—12:30); (2) Ezra's Prayer for Enlightenment (12:3/7-9); (3) The Interpretation of the Dream (12:10-39); and (4) A Dialogue between Ezra and the People (12:40-51).
(11:1—12:30) For the phrase 'rising from the sea' in 11:1 see 2 BSD 13:1—3 and cf Dan 7:1—3 and Rev 13:1. What is most noticeable about the role of the lion in 11:36—46 is the absence of the use of military force or violence. His function is judicial and his speech to the eagle reads like a legal indictment, a characterization of his role that is continued in the interpretation in 12:31—4. As we shall see, this makes it all the more likely that the militant 'man from the sea' in 13:9-11 has roots in an earlier mythical tradition of cosmic conflict. 11:39 shows that, despite his gloomy view of this world, the author still conceives of God as in charge of human history. 'Laid low the walls' in 11:42 is probably a reference to the Roman destruction of Jerusalem in 70 CE. 11:46 hints at the messianic kingdom; its interpretation in 12:34 alludes to the eschatological timetable in 7:26—44. (12:3^-9) Ezra's prayer in 12:3/7-9 is parallel in structure and function to 13:13/7-20; cf. 10:29-37 and Dan 7:15. The seer's reaction to the dream is a conventional element in the genre of the apocalyptic vision. For 12:9 see above on 10:59 (Ezra being placed on the same level as Abraham and Moses). (12:10-39) F°r ^e implied pre-existence of the Messiah in 12:32 see 2 BSD 7:26-44. It is unfortunate here that the reference to the Davidic descent of the Messiah is missing in the Latin version where there seems to be a lacuna in the text; see the translation in the NEB. The textual basis for this belief is actually rather sparse in earlier Jewish texts outside the NT. Knibb claims it is widespread but cites only Pss. Sol. 17:23 in support (Coggins and Knibb 1979: 252). However, the image of the lion here does seem to connect the Messiah with David and the tribe of Judah; see Gen 49:9-10 (interpreted messianically in the Targums and rabbinic texts) and Rev 5:5. 12:37—8 adumbrates a theme that will be developed at length in ch. 14. The purpose of the injunction is to explain how a revelation received during the Babylonian Exile remained secret until the end of the first century CE. The authors of other apocalyptic books had to use the same device; see Dan 12:4, 9; i Enoch 82:1,104:11—13; As. Mas. 1:16, 10:11—12. (12:40-51) For Ezra's changed role in 12:40-51 see on 9:3810:28.12:47 reveals the purpose for which 4 Ezra was written: to provide consolation and hope for the author's people, to assure them that, in the aftermath of 70, God had not forgotten them. Note that Ezra gives no indication to the people