ix. 25 with the question who is worthy to share in the blessedness of

the next world. As regards the first problem the writer shows, in the first vision, that suffering and death come from sin--no less truly on the part of Israel than of all men, for God created man to be immortal; that the end is nigh, when wrongs will be righted; God's rule will then be recognized. In the second he emphasizes the consolation to be found in the coming time, and in the third he speaks solely of the next world, and then addresses himself to the second problem. The fourth, fifth and sixth visions are eschatological. In these the writer turns aside from the religious problems of the first three visions and concerns himself only with the future national supremacy of Israel. Zion's glory will certainly be revealed (vision four), Israel will destroy Rome (five) and the hostile Gentiles (six). Then the book is brought to a close with the legend of Ezra's restoration of the lost Old Testament Scriptures.

In the course of the above work there are many inconsistencies and contradictions. These Gunkel explains by admitting that the writer has drawn largely on tradition, both oral and written, for his materials. Thus he concedes that eschatological materials in v. 1-13, vi; 18-28, vii. 26 sqq., also ix. 1 sqq., are from this source, and apparently from an originally independent work, as Kabisch urges, but that it is no longer possible to separate the borrowed elements from the text. Again, in the four last visions he is obliged to make the same concession on a very large scale. Vision four is based on a current novel, which the author has taken up and put into an allegorical form. Visions five and six are drawn from oral or written tradition, and relate only to the political expectations of Israel, and seven is a reproduction of a legend, for the independent existence of which evidence is furnished by the quotations in Bensly-James pp. xxxvii-xxxviii. Thus the chief champion of the unity of the book makes so many concessions as to its dependence on previously existing sources that, to the student of eschatology, there is little to choose between his view and that of Kabisch. In fact, if the true meaning of the borrowed materials is to be discovered, the sources must be disentangled. Hence the need of some such analysis as that of Kabisch (_Das vierte Buck Ezra_, 1889): S = an Apocalypse of Salathiel, c. A.D. 100, preserved in a fragmentary condition, iii. 1-31, iv. 1-51, v. 13b-vi. 10, 30-vii. 25, vii. 45-viii. 62, ix. 13-x. 57, xii. 40-48, xiv. 28-35. E = an Ezra Apocalypse, c. 31 B.C., iv. 52-v. 13a, vi. 13-28, vii. 26-44, viii. 63-ix. 12. A = an Eagle Vision, c. A.D. 90, x. 60-xii. 35. M = a Son-of-Man Vision, xiii. E^2 = an Ezra fragment, c. A.D. 100, xiv. 1-17a, 18-27, 36-47. All these, according to Kabisch, were edited by a Zealot, c. 120, who supplied the connecting links and made many small additions. In the main this analysis is excellent. If we assume that the editor was also the author of S, and that such a vigorous stylist, as he shows himself to be, recast to some extent the materials he borrowed, there remains but slight difference between the views of Kabisch and Gunkel. Neither view, however, is quite satisfactory, and the problem still awaits solution. Other attempts, such as Ewald's (_Gesch. d. Volkes Israel_[3], vii. 69-83) and De Faye's (_Apocalypses juives_, 155-165), make no contribution.

_School of the Author._--The author or final redactor of the book was a pessimist, and herein his book stands in strong contrast with the Apocalypse of Baruch. Thus to the question propounded in the New Testament--"Are there few that be saved?" he has no hesitation in answering, "There be many created, but few that be saved" (viii. 3): "An evil heart hath grown up in us which hath led us astray ... and that not a few only but wellnigh all that have been created" (vii. 48). In the Apocalypse of Baruch on the other hand it is definitely maintained that not a few shall be saved (xxi. 11). Moreover, the sufferings of the wicked are so great in the next world it were better, according to 4 Ezra (as also to the school of Shammai), that man had not been born. "It is much better (for the beasts of the field) than for us; for they expect not a judgment and know not of torments" (vii. 66): yet "it would have been best not to have given a body to Adam, or that being done, to have restrained him from sin; for what profit is there that man should in the present life live in heaviness and after death look for punishment" (vii. 116, 117). In iv. 12 the nexus of life, sin and suffering just referred to, is put still more strongly: "It were better we had not been at all than that we should be born and sin and suffer."[1] The different attitude of these two writers towards this question springs from their respective views on the question of free will. The author of Baruch declares (iv. 15, 19): "For though Adam sinned and brought untimely death upon all, yet of those who were born from him each one of them prepared for his own soul torment to come, and again each one of them has chosen for himself glories to come ... each one of us has been the Adam of his own soul," Though the writer of Ezra would admit the possibility of a few Israelites attaining to salvation through the most strenuous endeavour, yet he holds that man is all but predoomed through his original evil disposition or through the fall of Adam (vii. 118). "O Adam, what hast thou done: for though it was thou that sinned, the evil is not fallen on thee alone, but upon all of us that come of thee."

Another contrast between the two books is that while Baruch shows some mercy to the Gentiles (lxxii. 4-6) in the Messianic period, none according to 4 Ezra and the Shammaites (Toseph. _Sanh._ xiii. 2) will be extended to them, (iii. 30, ix. 22 sq., xii. 34, xiii. 37 sq.).

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.; Schurer, _Gesch. des jud. 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.)

FOOTNOTE:

[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 _Baba bathra_, 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.

2. _Contents._--Their contents may be divided into four parts:--

(a) The events preceding the mission of Ezra (i.-vi.).--In the first year of his reign Cyrus was inspired to grant a decree permitting the Jews to return to build the temple in Jerusalem (i.); a list of families is given (ii.). The altar of burnt-offering was set up, and in the second year of the return the foundations of the new temple were laid with great solemnity (iii.). The "adversaries of Judah and Benjamin" offered to assist but were repulsed, and they raised such opposition to the progress of the work that it ceased until the second year of Darius (521-520 B.C.). Aroused by the prophets Haggai and Zechariah the building was then resumed, and despite fresh attempts to hinder the work it was completed, consecrated and dedicated in the sixth year of that king (vi.). The event was solemnized by the celebration of the Passover (cf. 2 Chron. xxx., Hezekiah; xxxv. Josiah).

(b) An interval of fifty-eight years is passed over in silence, and the rest of the book of Ezra comprises his account of his mission to Jerusalem (vii.-x.). Ezra, a scribe of repute, well versed in the laws of Moses, returns with a band of exiles in order to reorganize the religious community. A few months after his arrival (seventh year of Artaxerxes, 458 B.C.) he instituted a great religious reform, viz. the prohibition of intermarriage with the heathen of the land (cf. already vi. 21). In spite of some opposition (x. 15 obscurely worded) the reform was accepted, and the foundations of a new community were laid.

(c) Twelve years elapse before the return of Nehemiah, whose description of his work is one of the most interesting pieces of Old Testament narrative (Neh. i.-vi.). In the twentieth year of Artaxerxes (445 B.C.), Nehemiah the royal cup-bearer at Shushan (Susa, the royal winter palace) was visited by friends from Judah and was overcome with grief at the tidings of the miserable condition of Jerusalem and the pitiful state of the Judaean remnant which had escaped the captivity. He obtained permission to return, and on reaching the city made a secret survey of the ruins and called upon the nobles and rulers to assist in repairing them. Much opposition was caused by Sanballat the Horonite (i.e. of the Moabite Horonaim or Beth-horon, about 15 m. N.W. of Jerusalem), Tobiah the Ammonite, Geshem (or Gashmu) the Arabian, and the Ashdodites, whose virulence increased as the rebuilding of the walls continued. But notwithstanding attempts upon the city and upon the life of Nehemiah, and in spite of intrigues among certain members of the Judaean section, in fifty-two days the city walls were complete (Neh. vi. 15). The hostility, however, did not cease, and measures were taken to ensure the safety of the city (vi. 16-vii. 4). A valuable account is given of Nehemiah's economical reforms, illustrating the internal social conditions of the period and the general character of the former governors who had been placed in charge (v., cf. the laws codified in Lev. xxv. 35 sqq.).

(d) The remaining chapters carry on the story of the labours of _both_ Ezra, and Nehemiah. The list of those who returned under the decree of Cyrus is repeated (Neh. vii.), and leads up to the reading of the Law by Ezra, a great national confession of guilt, and a solemn undertaking to observe the new covenant, the provisions of which are detailed (x. 28-39). After sundry lists of the families dwelling in Jerusalem and its neighbourhood (xi. 1 sqq., apparently a sequel to vii. 1-4),[2] and of various priests and Levites, an account is given of the dedication of the walls (xii. 27-43), the arrangements for the Levitical organization (vv. 44-47), and a fresh separation from the heathen (Moabites and Ammonites, xiii. 1-3; cf. Deut. xxiii. 3 seq.). The book concludes with another extract from Nehemiah's memoirs dealing with the events of a second visit, twelve years later (xiii. 4-31). On this occasion he vindicated the sanctity of the temple by expelling Tobiah, reorganized the supplies for the Levites, took measures to uphold the observance of the Sabbath, and protested energetically against the foreign marriages. In the course of his reforms he thrust out a son of Joiada (son of Eliashib, the high-priest), who had married the daughter of Sanballat, an incident which had an important result (see SAMARITANS).

That these books are the result of compilation (like the book of Chronicles itself) is evident from the many abrupt changes; the inclusion of certain documents written in an Aramaic dialect (Ezr. iv. 8-vi. 18, vii. 12-26)[3]; the character of the name-lists; the lengthy gaps in the history; the use made of two distinct sources, attributed to Ezra and Nehemiah respectively, and from the varying form in which the narratives are cast. The chronicler's hand can usually be readily recognized. There are relatively few traces of it in Nehemiah's memoirs and in the Aramaic documents, but elsewhere the sources are largely coloured, if not written from the standpoint of his age. Examples of artificial arrangement appear notably in Ezr. ii.-iii. 1 compared with Neh. vii. 6-viii. 1 (first clause); in the present position of Ezr. iv. 6-23; and in the dislocation of certain portions of the two memoirs in Neh. viii.-xiii. (see below). It should be noticed that the present order of the narratives involves the theory that some catastrophe ensued after Ezr. x. and before Neh. i.; that the walls had been destroyed and the gates burnt down; that some external opposition (with which, however, Ezra did not have to contend) had been successful; that the main object of Ezra's mission was delayed for twelve years, and, finally, that only through Nehemiah's energy was the work of social and religious reorganization successful. These topics raise serious historical problems (see JEWS: _History_, S 21).

3. _Criticism of Ezra i.-vi._--The chronicler's account of the destruction of Jerusalem, the seventy years' interval (2 Chron. xxxvi. 20 sq.; cf. Jer. xxv. 11, xxix. 10, also Is. xxiii. 17), and the return of 42,360 of the exiles (Ezr. ii. 64 sqq.) represent a special view of the history of the period. The totals, as also the detailed figures, in Ezr., Neh. and 1 Esdr. v. vary considerably; the number is extremely large (contrast Jer. lii. 30); it includes the common people (contrast 2 Kings xxiv. 14, xxv. 12), and ignores the fact that Judah was not depopulated, that the Jews were carried off to other places besides Babylon and that many remained behind in Babylon. According to this view, Judah and Jerusalem were practically deserted until the return. The list in Ezr. ii. is that of families which returned "every man unto his city" under twelve leaders (including Nehemiah, Azariah [cf. Ezra], Zcrubbabel and Jeshua); it recurs with many variations in a different and apparently more original context in Neh. vii., and in 1 Esdr. v. is ascribed to the time of Darius. The families (to judge from the northwards extension of Judaean territory) are probably those of the population in the later Persian period, hardly those who returned to the precise homes of their ancestors (see C.F. Kent, Israel's _Hist. and Biogr. Narratives_, p. 379). The offerings which are for the temple-service in Neh. vii. 70-72 (cf. 1 Chron. xxix. 6-8) are for the building of the temple in Ezr. ii. 68-70; and since the walls are not yet built, the topographical details in Neh. viii. 1 (see 1 Esdr. v. 47) are adjusted, and the event of the seventh month is not the reading of the Law amid the laments of the people (Neh. viii.; see _vv._ 9-11) but the erection of the altar by Jeshua and Zerubbabel under inauspicious circumstances (cf. Ezr. iii. 3 with 1 Esdr. v. 50).

The chronologically misplaced account of the successful opposition in the time of Ahasuerus (i.e. Xerxes) and Artaxerxes (the son and grandson of Darius respectively) breaks the account of the _temple_ under Cyrus and Darius, and is concerned with the city walls (iv. 6-23)[4]; there is some obscurity in _vv._ 7-9: Rehum and Shimshai evidently take the lead, Tabeel may be an Aramaized equivalent of Tobiah. A recent return is implied (iv. 12) and the record hints that a new decree may be made (v. 21). The account of the unsuccessful opposition to the _temple_ in the time of Darius (v. sq.; for another account see Jos. _Ant._ xi. 4, 9) is independent of iv. 7-23, and throws another light upon the decree of Cyrus (vi. 3-5, contrast i. 2-4). It implies that Sheshbazzar, who had been sent with the temple vessels in the time of Cyrus, had laid the foundations and that the work had continued without cessation (v. 16, contrast iv. 5, 24). The beginning of the reply of Darius is wanting (vi. 6 sqq.), and the decree which had been sought in Babylon is found at Ecbatana. Chap. vi. 15 sqq. follow more naturally upon v. 1-2, but