Chap. ix. 37-55 = Nehemiah vii. 73-viii. 12.—The reading of the Law.
Thus, apart from iii. 1-v. 3, which gives an account of the pages’ contest, the contents of the book are doublets of the canonical Ezra and portions of 2 Chronicles and Nehemiah. The beginning of the book seems imperfect, with its abrupt opening “And Josiah held the passover”: its conclusion is mutilated, as it breaks off in the middle of a sentence. As Thackeray suggests, it probably continued the history of the feast of Tabernacles described in Neh. viii.—a view that is supported by Joseph. Ant. xi. 5. 5, “who describes that feast using an Esdras word ἐπανόρθωσις and ... having hitherto followed Esdras as his authority passes on to the Book of Nehemiah.”
Claims to Canonicity.—It would seem that even greater value was attached to 1 Esdras than to the Hebrew Ezra. (1) For in the best MSS. (BA) it stands before 2 Esdras—the verbal translation of the Hebrew Ezra and Nehemiah. (2) It is used by Josephus, who in fact does not seem aware of the existence of 2 Esdras. (3) 1 Esdras is frequently quoted by the Greek fathers—Clem. Alex., Origen, Eusebius, and by the Latin—Tertullian, Cyprian, Augustine. The adverse judgment of the church is due to Jerome, who, from his firm attachment to the Hebrew Old Testament, declined to translate the “dreams” of 3 and 4 Esdras. This judgment influenced alike the Council of Trent and the Lutheran church in Germany; for Luther also refused to translate Esdras and the Apocalypse of Ezra.
Origin and Relation to the Canonical Ezra.—Various theories have been given as to the relation of the book and the canonical Ezra.
1. Some scholars, as Keil, Bissell and formerly Schürer, regarded 1 Esdras as a free compilation from the Greek of 2 Esdras (2 Chron. and Ezra-Nehemiah). This theory has now given place to others more accordant with the facts of the case.
2. Others, as Ewald, Hist. of Isr. v. 126-128, and Thackeray in Hastings’ Bible Dictionary, assume a lost Greek version of Chronicles, Ezra and Nehemiah, from which were derived 1 Esdras—a free redaction of the former and 2 Esdras. Thackeray claims that we have “a satisfactory explanation of the coincidences in translation and deviation from the Hebrew in 1 Esdras and 2 Esdras, if we suppose both are to some extent dependent on a lost Greek original.” But later in the same article Thackeray is compelled to modify this view and admit that 1 Esdras is not a mere redaction of a no longer extant version of the canonical books, but shows not only an independent knowledge of the Hebrew text but also of a Hebrew text superior in not a few passages to the Massoretic text, where 2 Esdras gives either an inaccurate version or a version reproducing the secondary Massoretic text.
3. Others like Michaelis, Trendelenburg, Pohlmann, Herzfeld, Fritzsche hold it to be a direct and independent translation of the Hebrew. There is much to be said in favour of this view. It presupposes in reality two independent recensions of the Hebrew text, such as we cannot reasonably doubt existed at one time of the Book of Daniel. Against this it has been urged that the story of the three pages was written originally in Greek (Ewald, Schürer, Thackeray). The only grounds for this theory are the easiness of the Greek style and the paronomasia in iv. 62 ἄνεσιν καὶ ἄφεσιν. But the former is no real objection, and the latter may be purely accidental. On the other hand there are several undoubted Semiticisms. Thus we have two instances Of the split relative οὗ ... αὐτοῦ iii. 5; οὗ ... ἐπ᾽ αὐτῷ iv. 63 and the phrase pointed out by Fritzsche τὰ δίκαια ποιεῖ ἀπὸ πάντων = עשה משפט מן. It must, however, be admitted that there are fewer Hebraisms in this section of the book than in the rest.
4. Sir H.H. Howorth in the treatises referred to at the close of this article has shown cogent grounds for regarding 1 Esdras as the original and genuine Septuagint translation, and 2 Esdras as probably that of Theodotion. For this view he adduces among others the following grounds: (i.) Its use by Josephus, who apparently was not acquainted with 2 Esdras. (ii.) Its precedence of 2 Esdras in the great uncials. (iii.) Its origin at a time when Chronicles, Ezra and Nehemiah formed a single work. (iv.) Its preservation of a better Hebrew text in many instances than 2 Esdras. (v.) The fact that 1 Esdras and the Septuagint of Daniel go back to one and the same translator, as Dr Gwynn (Dict. Christ. Biog. iv. 977) has pointed out (cf. 1 Esdr. vi. 31, and Dan. ii. 5).
This contention of Howorth has been accepted by Nestle, Cheyne, Bertholet, Ginsburg and other scholars, though they regard the question of an Aramaic original of chapters iii. 1-v. 6 as doubtful. Howorth’s further claim that he has established the historical credibility of the book as a whole and its chronological accuracy as against the canonical Ezra has not as yet met with acceptance; but his arguments have not been fairly met and answered.
5. Volz (Encyc. Bibl. ii. 1490) thinks that the solution of the problem is to be found in a different direction. The text is of unequal value, and the inequalities are so great as to exclude the supposition that the Greek version was produced aus einem Guss. iii. 1-v. 3 is an independent narrative written originally in Greek and itself a composite production, the praise of truth being an addition, vi. 1-vii. 15, ii. 15-25a is a fragment of an Aramaic narrative. Some in Josephus (Ant. xi. 4. 9) an account of Samaritan intrigues is introduced immediately after 1 Esdras vii. 15, it is natural to infer that something of the same kind has fallen out between vi. and ii. 15-25. The Aramaic text behind 1 Esdras here is better than that behind the canonical Ezra. Next, viii.-ix. is from the Ezra document (= Ezra vii.-x.; Neh. vii. 73, viii. 1 sqq.), though implying a different Hebrew text. ii. 1-15; v. 7-73; vii. 2-4, 6-15 are from the Chronicles: likewise i. is from 2 Chron. xxxv.-vi., 2 Esdras being at the same time before the translator.