On the above grounds it is not unreasonable to conclude that whereas the Apocalypse of Baruch owes its leading characteristics to a pupil of Hillel’s school, 4 Ezra shows just as clearly its derivation from that of Shammai. Kohler (Jewish Encyc. v. 221) points out that the view of 4 Ezra that the Ten Tribes will return was held by the Shammaites, whereas it was denied by Aqiba. The Apocalypse of Baruch is silent on this point.
Time and Place.—The work was written towards the close of the 1st century (iii. 1, 29), and somewhere in the east.
Literature.—In addition to the authorities mentioned above, see Dillmann, Herzog’s Real-Encyk.[2] xii. 353 sqq.; Schürer, Gesch. des jüd. Volkes[3], iii. 246 sqq.; and the articles on 4 Esdras in Hastings’ Bible Dictionary and the Encyclopaedia Biblica by Thackeray and James respectively.
(R. H. C.)
[1] In the Apocalypse of Baruch, x. 6, we find a similar expression: “Blessed is he who was not born, or being born has died.” But here death is said to be preferable to witnessing the present woes of Jerusalem.
EZRA AND NEHEMIAH, BOOKS OF, in the Old Testament. The two canonical books entitled Ezra and Nehemiah in the English Bibie[1] correspond to the 1 and 2 Esdras of the Vulgate, to the 2 Esdras of the Septuagint, and to the Ezra and Nehemiah of the Massoretic (Hebrew) text. Though for many centuries they have thus been treated as separate compositions, we have abundant evidence that they were anciently regarded as forming but one book, and a careful examination proves that together with the book of Chronicles they constitute one single work. The two books may therefore be conveniently treated together.
1. Position and Date.—Origen (Euseb, H.E. vi. 25), expressly enumerating the twenty-two books of the old covenant as acknowledged by the Jews and accepted by the Christian church, names “the First and Second Ezra in one book”; Melito of Sardis (Euseb. H.E. iv. 26) in like manner mentions the book of Ezra only. So also the Talmud (in Bābā bathrā, 14. 2), nor can it be supposed that Josephus in his enumeration (c. Ap. i. 8) reckoned Nehemiah as apart from Ezra. That the Jews themselves recognized no real separation is shown by the fact that no Massoretic notes are found after Ezra x., but at the end of Nehemiah the contents of both are reckoned together, and it is stated that Neh. iii. 22 is the middle verse of the book. Their position in the Hebrew Bible before the book of Chronicles is, however, illogical. The introductory verses of Ezra i. are identical with the conclusion of 2 Chron. xxxvi., whilst in the version of 1 Esdras no less than two chapters (2 Chron. xxxv. sq.) overlap. The cause of the separation is probably to be found in the late reception of Chronicles into the Jewish canon. Further proof of the unity of the three is to be found in the general similarity of style and treatment. The same linguistic criteria recur, and the interest in lists and genealogies, in priests and Levites, and in the temple service point unmistakably to the presence of the same hand (the so-called “chronicler”) in Chronicles-Ezra-Nehemiah. See [Bible] (sect. Canon); [Chronicles].
The period of history covered by the books of Ezra and Nehemiah extends from the return of the exiles under Zerubbabel in 537-536 B.C. to Nehemiah’s second visit to Jerusalem in 432 B.C. In their present form, however, the books are considerably later, and allusions to Nehemiah in the past (Neh. xii. 26, 47), to the days of Jaddua (the grandson of Nehemiah’s contemporary Joiada; ib. xii. 11), to Darius (Nothus 423 B.C. or rather Codomannus 336 B.C., ib. v. 22), and the use of the term “king of Persia,” as a distinctive title after the fall of that empire (332 B.C.), are enough to show that, as a whole, they belong to the same age as the book of Chronicles.