ii. 9), and in their present shape were hardly pronounced in public--a

fact that seems to be hinted at in the statement that he was "dumb" till the fall of Jerusalem (iii. 26, xxxiii. 22); in private interviews the people did not take him seriously (xxxiii. 30-33). His book was accepted early as part of the sacred literature: Ben-Sira (c. 180 B.C.) mentions him along with Isaiah and Jeremiah (Ecclus. xlix. 8); he is not quoted directly in the New Testament, but his imagery is employed largely in the Apocalypse and elsewhere. His divergencies from the Pentateuchal code gave rise to serious doubts, but, after prolonged study, the discrepancies were explained, and the book was finally canonized (Shab. 13b). According to Jerome (Preface to _Comm. on Ezek._) the Jewish youth were forbidden to read the mysterious first chapter (called the _markaba_, the "chariot") and the concluding section (xl.-xlviii.) till they reached the age of thirty years.

The book divides itself naturally into three parts: the arraignment of Jerusalem (i.-xxiv.); denunciation of foreign enemies (xxv.-xxxii.); consolatory construction of the future (xxxiii.-xlviii.). The opening "vision" (i.), an elaborate symbolic picture, is of the nature of a general preface, and was composed probably late in the prophet's life. Out of the north (the Babylonian sacred mountain) comes a bright cloud, wherein appear four Creatures (formed on the model of Babylonian composite figures), each with four faces (man, lion, bull, eagle) and attended by a wheel; the wheels are full of eyes, and move straight forward, impelled by the spirit dwelling in the Creatures (the spirit of Yahweh). Supported on their heads is something like a crystalline firmament, above which is a form like a sapphire throne (cf. Ex. xxiv. 10), and on the throne a man-like form (Yahweh) surrounded by a rainbow brightness. The wheels symbolize divine omniscience and control, and the whole vision represents the coming of Yahweh to take up his abode among the exiles. The prophet then receives his call (ii., iii.) in the shape of a roll of a book, which he is required to eat (an indication of the literary form now taken by prophecy). He is informed that the people to whom he is sent are rebellious and stiff-necked (this indicates his opinion of the people, and gives the keynote of the following discourses); he is appointed watchman to warn men when they sin, and is to be held responsible for the consequences if he fail in this duty. To this high conception of a preacher's function the prophet was faithful throughout his career. Next follow minatory discourses (iv.-vii.) predicting the siege and capture of Jerusalem-perhaps revised after the event. There are several symbolic acts descriptive of the siege. One of these (iv. 4 ff.) gives the duration of the national punishment in loose chronological reckoning: 40 years (a round number) for Judah, and 150 more (according to the corrected text) for Israel, the starting-point, probably, being the year 722, the date of the capture of Samaria; the procedure described in v. 8 is not to be understood literally. In vi. the idolatry of the nation is pictured in darkest colours. Next follows (viii.-xi.) a detailed description, in the form of a vision, of the sin of Jerusalem: within the temple-area elders and others are worshipping beast-forms, Tammuz and the sun (probably actual cults of the time); [6] men approach to defile the temple and slay the inhabitants of the city (ix.). In ch. x. the imagery of ch. i. reappears, and the Creatures are identified with the cherubs of Solomon's temple. This appears to be an independent form of the vision, which has been brought into connexion with that of i. by a harmonizing editor. There follow a symbolic prediction of the exile (xii.) and a denunciation of non-moral prophets and prophetesses (xiii.)--though Yahweh deceive a prophet, yet he and those who consult him will be punished; and so corrupt is the nation that the presence of a few eminently good men will not save it (xiv.).[7] After a comparison of Israel to a worthless wild vine (xv.) come two allegories, one portraying idolatrous Jerusalem as the unfaithful spouse of Yahweh (xvi.), the other describing the fate of Zedekiah (xvii.). The fine insistence on individual moral responsibility in xviii. (cf. Deut. xxiv. 16, Jer. xxxi. 29 f.), while it is a protest against a superficial current view, is not to be understood as a denial of all moral relations between successive generations. This latter question had not presented itself to the prophet's mind; his object was simply to correct the opinion of the people that their present misfortunes were due not to their own faults but to those of their predecessors. A more sympathetic attitude appears in two elegies (xix.), one on the kings Jehoahaz and Jehoiachin, the other on the nation. These are followed by a scathing sketch of Israel's religious career (xx. 1-26), in which, contrary to the view of earlier prophets, it is declared that the nation had always been disobedient. From this point to the end of xxiv. there is a mingling of threat and promise.[8] The allegory of xxiii. is similar to that of xvi., except that in the latter Samaria is relatively treated with favour, while in the former it (Aholah) is involved in the same condemnation as that of Jerusalem. At this point is introduced (xxv.-xxxii.) the series of discourses directed against foreign nations. The description of the king of Tyre (xxviii. 11-19) as dwelling in Eden, the garden of God, the sacred mountain, under the protection of the cherub, bears a curious resemblance to the narrative in Gen. ii., iii., of which, however, it seems to be independent, using different Babylonian material; the text is corrupt. The section dealing with Egypt is one of remarkable imaginative power and rhetorical vigour: the king of Egypt is compared to a magnificent cedar of Lebanon (in xxxi. 3 read: "there was a cedar in Lebanon") and to the dragon of the Nile, and the picture of his descent into Sheol is intensely tragic. Whether these discourses were all uttered between the investment of Jerusalem and its fall, or were here inserted by Ezekiel or by a scribe, it is not possible to say. In xxxiii. the function of the prophet as watchman is described at length (expansion of the description in iii.) and the news of the capture of the city is received. The following chapters (xxxiv.-xxxix.) are devoted to reconstruction: Edom, the detested enemy of Israel, is to be crushed; the nation, politically raised from the dead, with North and South united (xxxvii.), is to be established under a Davidide king; a final assault, made by Gog, is to be successfully met,[9] and then the people are to dwell in their own land in peace for ever; this Gog section is regarded by some as the beginning of Jewish apocalyptic writing. In the last section (xl.-xlviii.), put as a vision, the temple is to be rebuilt, in dimensions and arrangements a reproduction of the temple of Solomon (cf. I Kings vi., vii.), the sacrifices and festivals and the functions of priests and prince are prescribed, a stream issuing from under the temple is to vivify the Dead Sea and fertilize the land (this is meant literally), the land is divided into parallel strips and assigned to the tribes. The prophet's thought is summed up in the name of the city: _Yahweh Shammah_, "Yahweh is there," God dwelling for ever in the midst of his people.

LITERATURE.--For the older works see the _Introductions_ of J.G. Carpzov (1757) and C.H.H. Wright (1890). For _legends_: Pseud.-Epiphan., _De vit. prophet._; Benjamin of Tudela, Itin.; Hamburger, _Realencycl._; _Jew. Encycl._ On the Hebrew text; C.H. Cornill, _Ezechiel_ (1886) (very valuable for text and ancient versions); H. Graetz, _Emendationes_ (1893).; C.H. Toy, "Text of Ezek." (1899) in Haupt's _Sacred Books of the Old Test._ Commentaries: F. Hitzig (1847); H. Ewald (1868); E. Reuss (French ed., 1876; Germ, ed., 1892); Currey (1876) in _Speaker's Comm._; R. Smend (revision of Hitzig) (1880) in _Kurzgefasst. exeget. Handbuch_; A.B. Davidson (1882) in Cambr. _Bible for Schools_; J. Skinner (1895) in _Expos. Bible_; A. Bertholet (1897) in Marti's _Kurz. Hand-Comm._; C.H. Toy (1899) in Haupt's _Sacr. Bks._ (Eng. ed.); R. Kraetzschmar (1900) in W. Nowack's _Handkommentar_. See also Duhm, _Theol. d. Propheten_ (1875); A. Kuenen, _Prophets and Prophecy_ (1877); Gautier, _La Mission du prophete Ezechiel_ (1891); Montefiore, _Hibbert Lectures_ (1892); A. Bertholet, _Der Verfassungsentwurf des Hesekiel_ (1896); articles in Herzog-Hauck, _Realencykl._; Hastings, _Bibl. Dict._; Cheyne, _Encycl. Bibl., Jew. Encycl._; F. Bleek, _Introd._ (Eng. tr., 1875), and Bleek-Wellhausen (Germ.) (1878); Wildeboer, _Letterkunde d. Oud. Verbonds_ (1893), and Germ, transl., _Litt. d. Alt. Test._; Perrot and Chipiez, _Hist. de l'art_, &c., in which, however, the restoration of Ezekiel's temple (by Chipiez) is probably untrustworthy. (C. H. T.*)

FOOTNOTES:

[1] The Assyrian term _abubu_ is used of the great primeval deluge (in the Gilgamesh epic), and also of the local floods common in the country.

[2] So we must read (as Robertson Smith has pointed out) in xxii. 9 and xviii. 6, instead of "eating on the mountains."

[3] The stricter marriage law is formulated in Lev. xviii. 8-15, xx. 11 ff.

[4] Yahweh's spirit, thought of as Yahweh's vital principle, as man's spirit is man's vital principle, is to be breathed into them, as, in Gen. ii. 7, Yahweh breathes his own breath into the lifeless body. The spirit in the Old Testament is a refined material thing that may come or be poured out on men.

[5] The "Great Synagogue" is semi-mythical.

[6] In viii. 17 the unintelligible expression "they put the branch to their nose" is the rendering of a corrupt Hebrew text; a probable emendation is: "they are sending a stench to my nostrils."

[7] The legendary figure of Daniel (xiv. 14) is later taken by the author of the book of Daniel as his hero.

[8] For a reconstruction of the poem in xxi. 10, 11, see the English Ezekiel in Haupt's _Sacred Books_.

[9] Gog probably represents a Scythian horde (though such an invasion never took place)--certainly not Alexander the Great, who would have been called "king of Greece," and would have been regarded not as an enemy but as a friend.

EZRA (from a Hebrew word meaning "help"), in the Bible, the famous scribe and priest at the time of the return of the Jews in the reign of the Persian king Artaxerxes I. (458 B.C.). His book and that of Nehemiah form one work (see EZRA AND NEHEMIAH, BOOKS OF), apart from which we have little trustworthy evidence as to his life. Even in the beginning of the 2nd century B.C., when Ben Sira praises notable figures of the exilic and post-exilic age (Zerubbabel, Jeshua and Nehemiah), Ezra is passed over (Ecclesiasticus xlix. 11-13), and he is not mentioned in a still later and somewhat fanciful description of Nehemiah's work (2 Macc. i. 18-36). Already well known as a scribe, Ezra's labours were magnified by subsequent tradition. He was regarded as the father of the scribes and the founder of the Great Synagogue. According to the apocryphal fourth book of Ezra (or 2 Esdras xiv.) he restored the law which had been lost, and rewrote all the sacred records (which had been destroyed) in addition to no fewer than seventy apocryphal works. The former theory recurs elsewhere in Jewish tradition, and may be associated with the representation in Ezra-Nehemiah which connects him with the law. But the story of his many literary efforts, like the more modern conjecture that he closed the canon of the Old Testament, rests upon no ancient basis.

See BIBLE, sect. Old Testament (Canon and Criticism); JEWS (history, S21 seq.). The apocryphal books, called 1 and 2 Esdras (the Greek form of the name) in the English Bible, are dealt with below as EZRA, THIRD BOOK OF, and EZRA, FOURTH BOOK OF, while the canonical book of Ezra is dealt with under EZRA AND NEHEMIAH.

EZRA, THIRD BOOK OF [1 _Esdras_]. The titles of the various books of the Ezra literature are very confusing. The Greek, the Old Latin, the Syriac, and the English Bible from 1560 onwards designate this book as 1 Esdras, the canonical books Ezra and Nehemiah being 2 Esdras in the Greek. In the Vulgate, however, our author was, through the action of Jerome, degraded into the third place and called 3 Esdras, whereas the canonical books _Ezra_ and _Nehemiah_ (see EZRA AND NEHEMIAH, BOOKS OF, below) were called 1 and 2 Esdras, and the Apocalypse of Ezra 4 Esdras. Thus the nomenclature of our book follows, and possibly wrongly, the usage of the Vulgate.[1] In the Ethiopic version a different usage prevails. The Apocalypse is called 1 Esdras, our author 2 Esdras, and Ezra and Nehemiah 3 Esdras, or 3 and 4 Esdras. Throughout this article we shall use the best attested designation of this book, i.e. 1 Esdras.

_Contents._--With the exception of one original section, namely, that of Darius and the three young men, our author contains essentially the same materials as the canonical Ezra and some sections of 2 Chronicles and Nehemiah. To the various explanations of this phenomenon we shall recur later. The book may be divided as follows (the verse division is that of the Cambridge LXX):--

Chap. i. = 2 Chron. xxxv. 1-xxxvi. 21.--Great passover of Josiah; his death at Megiddo. His successors down to the destruction of Jerusalem and the Captivity. (Verses i. 21-22 are not found elsewhere, though the LXX of 2 Chron. xxxv. 20 exhibits a very distant parallel.)

Chap. ii. 1-14 = Ezra i.--The edict of Cyrus. Restoration of the sacred vessels through Sanabassar to Jerusalem.

Chap. ii. 15-25 = Ezra iv. 6-24.--First attempt to rebuild the Temple: opposition of the Samaritans. Decree of Artaxerxes: work abandoned till the second year of Darius.

Chap. iii. 1-v. 6.--This section is peculiar to our author. The contest between the three pages waiting at the court of Darius and the victory of the Jewish youth "Zerubbabel," to whom as a reward Darius decrees the return of the Jews and the restoration of the Temple and worship. Partial list of those who returned with "Joachim, son of Zerubbabel."

Chap. v. 7-70 = Ezra ii.-iv. 5.--List of exiles who returned with Zerubbabel. Work on the Temple begun. Offer of the Samaritans' co-operation rejected. Suspension of the work through their intervention till the reign of Darius.

Chap. vi. 1-vii. 9 = Ezra v. 1-vi. 18.--Work resumed in the second year of Darius. Correspondence between Sisinnes and Darius with reference to the building of the Temple. Darius' favourable decree. Completion of the work by Zerubbabel.

Chap. vii. 10-15 =Ezra vi. 19-22.--Celebration of the completion of the Temple.

Chap. viii. 1-ix. 36 = Ezra vii.-x.--Return of the exiles under Ezra. Mixed marriages forbidden.

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 [Greek: epanorthosis] 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 Schurer, 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, Schurer, Thackeray). The only grounds for this theory are the easiness of the Greek style and the paronomasia in iv. 62 [Greek: hanesin kai haphesin]. 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 [Greek: ou] ... [Greek: autou] iii. 5; [Greek: ou] ... [Greek: ep' auto] iv. 63 and the phrase pointed out by Fritzsche [Greek: ta dikaia poiei apo panton] = [Hebrew: asa mishpat min]. 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.

_Date._--The book must be placed between 300 B.C. and A.D. 100, when it was used by Josephus. It is idle to attempt any nearer limits until definite conclusions have been reached on the chief problems of the book.

_MSS. and Versions._--The book is found in B and A. The latter seems to have preserved the more ancient form of the text, as it is generally that followed by Josephus. The Old Latin in two recensions is published by Sabatier, _Bibliorum sacrorum Latinae versiones antiquae_, iii. Another Latin translation is given in Lagarde (_Septuag. Studien_, ii., 1892). In Syriac the text is found only in the Syro-Hexaplar of Paul of Tella (A.D. 616). See Walton's Polyglott. There is also an Ethiopic version edited by Dillmann (_Bibl. Vet. Test. Aeth_. v., 1894) and an Armenian.

LITERATURE.--Exegesis: Fritzsche, _Exeget. Handb. zu den Apokr._ (1851); Zockler, _Die Apokryphen_, 155-161 (1891); Bissell in Lange-Schaff's _Comm_. (1880); Lupton in _Speaker's Comm_. (1888); Ball, notes to 1 Esdr. in the _Variorum Apocrypha_. Introduction and critical Inquiries: Trendelenburg, "Apocr. Esra," in Eichhorn's _Allgem. Bibl. der bibl. Litt._ i. 178-232 (1787); Pohlmann, "Uber das Ansehen der apokr. dritten Buchs Esras," in _Tubingen Theol. Quartalschrift_, 257-275 (1859); Sir H. Howorth, "Character and Importance of 1 Esdras," in the _Academy_ (1893), pp. 13, 60, 106, 174, 326, 524; and further studies entitled "Some Unconventional Views on the Text of the Bible," in the _Proceedings of the Society of Biblical Archaeology_, 1901, pp. 147-159; 306-330, 1902, June and November. (R. H. C.)

FOOTNOTE:

[1] "At the Council of Trent (when the Septuagint Canon was virtually accepted as authoritative), by a most curious aberration, Esdras iii. and iv. and the Epistle of Manasseh were alone excluded from the canon and remitted to our appendix."--Howorth, "Unconventional Views on the Text of the Bible," in the _P.S.B.A._, 1901, p. 149.

EZRA, FOURTH BOOK (or APOCALYPSE) OF. This is the most profound and touching of the Jewish Apocalypses. It stands in the relation of a sister work to the Apocalypse of Baruch, but though the relation is so close, they have many points of divergence. Thus, whereas the former represents the ordinary Judaism of the 1st century of the Christian era, the teaching of 4 Ezra on the Law, Works, Justification, Original Sin and Free Will approximates to the school of Shammai and serves to explain the Pauline doctrines on those subjects; but to this subject we shall return.

_Original Language and Versions._--In the Latin version our book consists of sixteen chapters, of which, however, only iii.-xiv. are found in the other versions. To iii.-xiv., accordingly, the present notice is confined. After the example of most of the Latin MSS. we designate the book 4 Ezra (see Bensly-James, _Fourth Book of Ezra_, pp. xxiv-xxvii). In the First Arabic and Ethiopic versions it is called 1 Ezra; in some Latin MSS. and in the English Authorized Version it is 2 Ezra, and in the Armenian 3 Ezra. Chapters i.-ii. are sometimes called 3 Ezra, and xv.-xvi. 5 Ezra. All the versions go back to a Greek text. This is shown by the late Greek apocalypse of Ezra (Tischendorf, _Apocalypses Apocryphae_, 1866, pp. 24-33), the author of which was acquainted with the Greek of 4 Ezra; also by quotations from it in Barn, iv. 4; xii. 1 = 4 Ezra xii. 10 sqq., v. 5; Clem. Alex. _Strom_. iii. 16 (here first expressly cited) = 4 Ezra v. 35, &c. (see Bensly-James, _op. cit._ pp. xxvii-xxxviii). The derivation of the Latin version from the Greek is obvious when we consider its very numerous Graecisms. Thus the genitive is found after the comparative (v. 13) _horum majora_; xi. 29 _duorum capitum majus_, even the genitive absolute as in x. 9, the double negative, _de_ and _ex_ with the genitive. Peculiar genders can only be accounted for by the influence of the original forms in Greek, as x. 23 _signaculum_ ([Greek: sphragis]) ... _tradita est_; xi. 4 _caput_ ([Greek: kephale]) ... _sed et ipsa_. In vi. 25 we have the Greek attraction of the relative--_omnibus istis quibus praedixi tibi_. In his _Messias Judaeorum_ (1869), pp. 36-110, Hilgenfeld has given a reconstruction of the Greek text. Till 1896 only Ewald believed that 4 Ezra was written originally in Hebrew. In that year Wellhausen (_Gott. Gel. Anz._ pp. 12-13) and Charles (_Apoc. Bar._ p. lxxii) pointed out that a Hebrew original must be assumed on various grounds; and this view the former established in his _Skizzen u. Vorarbeiten_, vi. 234-240 (1899). Of the numerous grounds for this assumption it will be necessary only to adduce such constructions as "de quo me interrogas de eo," iv. 28, and xiii. 26, "qui per semet ipsum liberabit" (= [Hebrew: asher bo]) = "through whom he will deliver," or to point to such a mistranslation as vii. 33, "longanimitas congregabitur," where for "congregabitur" (= [Hebrew: yeasef]) we require "evanescet," which is another and the actual meaning of the Hebrew verb in this passage. The same mistranslation is found in the Vulgate in Hosea iv. 3. Gunkel has adopted this view in his German translation of the book in Kautzsch's _Apok. und Pseud, des A. Testaments_, ii. 332-333, and brought forward in confirmation the following remarkable instance in viii. 23, where though the Latin, Syriac, Ethiopic, Arabic and Armenian Versions read _testificatur_, the Second Arabic version and the Apostolic Constitutions have [Greek: menei eis ton aiona], which are to be explained as translations of [Hebrew: (lieh) emdat la'ad]. Another interesting case is found in xiv. 3, where the Latin and all other versions but Arabic[2] read _super rubum_ and the Arabic[2] _in monte Sinai_. Here there is a corruption of [Hebrew: sneh] "bush" into [Hebrew: sinai] "Sinai."

_Latin Version._--All the older editions of this version, as those of Fabricius, Sabatier, Volkmar, Hilgenfeld, Fritzsche, as well as in the older editions of the Bible, are based ultimately on only one MS., the Codex Sangermanensis (written A.D. 822), as Gildemeister proved in 1865 from the fact that the large fragment between verses 36 and 37 in