iv. 41 to the end, does not really belong to the original story of

the three young men; or rather, one should say that this story does not belong to the context in which it now stands, or indeed to the historical record at all of which our book is a compilation, for its presence creates great chronological confusion. The words in iv. 13, spoken in reference to the third young man, “this was Zerubbabel,” do not belong there; they were added later to the story, but they are important because they point to the reason why this story was interpolated into the historical compilation. As we have seen, the whole purpose of our book, in the form in which we now have it, was to lay stress on ritual and worship, and to place the person and work of Ezra in the foreground; this reflects the orthodox and legalistic Pharisaic attitude. An attempt to counterbalance this was made by a Hellenistic Jew who inserted the story of the three young men (whether his own composition, or taken from some collection of stories does not affect the point), and added the words “this is Zerubbabel” for the purpose of bringing into prominence this personality, and thereby making Ezra and all which his name connoted not the sole important issue in Jewry. Zerubbabel, it will be remembered, was the great instrument of the prophets Haggai and Zechariah (see Hag. i., ii., Zech. iv.); he represented, therefore, the prophetical ideals expressed, for example, in such words as: “Not by might, nor by power, but by my spirit, saith the Lord of Hosts” (Zech. iv. 6), as against the legalism of Ezra and the school that followed him, above all his disciples, the Pharisees, in the post-Maccabæan period.

It need scarcely be added that this story did not belong to the Hebrew even in its latest form; it was in all probability written in Greek by a Hellenistic Jew; yet the possibility of an Aramaic original is not excluded. If it could be proved that Hebrew or Aramaic was the original language of this addition, and that Palestine was its home, the interesting theory might then be put forth that it, together with the inserted words “this is Zerubbabel,” was added by a Sadducee in opposition to Pharisaism; Zerubbabel’s close connection with the high-priest (see Hag. i. 12, 14, ii. 2, 4, and all Zech. iv.) would fully explain the reason of the inserted words. But whichever view be correct the main purpose of the addition would be the same, viz. an attempt to counteract the influence of Pharisaism.

VII. THE DATE OF THE BOOK

Very few words are needed in speaking of the date of our book, or rather, of its compilation. To fix the date of the original documents made use of by the compiler of the Hebrew form is not in question here. If we inquire as to the date of the Hebrew form which lay before the Greek translator it must be replied that this depends upon what that form was; if it contained the marks of what may be called the “Ezra-tendency,” then it must probably be post-Maccabæan, in which case our present Greek translation might fairly be dated not later than the middle of the last century B.C.

But if the Hebrew did not contain these marks—we refer especially to the passage dealt with in the preceding section—and they are due to the Greek translator or a redactor, which we believe more probable, then the Hebrew, even in the form in which it lay before the translator, was pre-Maccabæan, and the Greek form, though post-Maccabæan, might well be dated about B.C. 100. It is to this latter date that we incline; and it is corroborated by considerations of vocabulary, as has been well shown by Dewick.[467]