TOWARDS ASSESSING THE LATIN TEXT OF "5 EZRA":\1/ THE "CHRISTIAN" CONNECTION by Robert A. Kraft University of Pennsylvania _HD//5 Ezra/%/ [lengthened form, 6/17/85] 5_Ezra is a curious and challenging little work, crying out for detailed examination.\2/ It exists only in Latin, which presumedly was translated from Greek. The text has received minimal attention from modern scholarship,\3/ despite its presence on the fringes of the Christian canonical scriptures.\3a/ 5_Ezra provides living proof that one need not wait for new manuscripts to be uncovered in graves or caves to engage in work on hitherto virtually unexamined materials, and its contents seem directly relevant to questions about early Christian use of Jewish materials. My interests in exploring the interfaces between early Judaism and early Christianity were stimulated while studying with Krister Stendahl and his colleagues, and I gratefully offer this survey essay in partial repayment. Many new investigations need to be conducted and new possibilities/syntheses tested if historical research of Judaism and Christianity in the Greco-Roman period is to progress as effectively as it might. The study of 5_Ezra illustrates some of these needs and approaches. This brief essay focuses on a set of problems that is absolutely basic to the study of any writing, but with 5_Ezra has been left "for dessert," as it were -- the question of establishing the text. In the first instance, this means assessing the relationship between two groups of Latin manuscripts (designated "SA" and "MEC" respectively) which are in general agreement on the overall outlines of 5_Ezra but diverge widely in various specific details. To my knowledge, no published critical edition of all the extant witnesses exists.\4/ Most translations of 5_Ezra depend, quite arbitrarily, on only one side of the Latin tradition (SA), which happens to have exerted the major influence on the existing Latin Vg editions.\4a/ Thus the value of the various claims about origin, authorship, date, provenance, and "message" of 5_Ezra is severely compromised by uncertainties about the text. The consensus of modern scholarship seems to be that 5_Ezra was composed in Greek by a (Jewish) Christian in the second half of the second century, at an unknown but perhaps "western" location, and that it exudes "anti-Jewish" polemics in a prophetic-apocalyptic presentation with a special reverence for Christian martyrs.\4b/ It is described as highly imitative and derivative in its language and ideas -- a pastiche of scriptural phrases from both Jewish and Christian sources. My own discomfort with this consensus is partly the result of working with this and similar texts and partly an overreaction to the absurdity of having such neat answers before the textual basis is more firmly established for asking the questions! Nevertheless, one cannot "establish the text" by working in a vacuum. If this were a detailed study of all the relevant data, my approach would be to try to view the preserved textual materials from as many historically and linguistically defensible perspectives as possible in order to establish as clear a set of options for comparison and evaluation as possible. Since the preserved texts, whatever their differences, seem to ask to be seen as presenting a pre-Christian Jewish writing, one of the perspectives I would attempt to explore is the extent to which the oldest recoverable text can be read in that light. Since the preserved textual witnesses also, in their present forms, emanate from clearly Christian circles, I would try to hold in balance the question of how the Christian readers understood and used, and consciously or unconsciously modified these materials. Textual work is in many ways circular -- or better, "spiral," since it ought to make progress as it moves round and round among the variable items of data. The "critical text" I try to recreate is greatly influenced by the often unexamined assumptions that influence me and the options I choose to exercise at any given point, whether those are linguistic options, or semantic, or more broadly historical. And the resultant "established text" in turn provides evidence to strengthen such (assumptions and) options! The continuous text of 5_Ezra is not known to us in any ancient language other than Latin. That is itself somewhat unusual. Further, the Latin manuscripts present the two significantly variant text forms mentioned above: "type SA" (traditionally dubbed "French") and "type MEC" ("Spanish"). I resist calling them "recensions," because the question has not yet been carefully examined as to whether both stem from a single Latin prototype and thus reflect conscious editorial activity that created the differences. If 5_Ezra was originally written in Latin (so Labourt and Dani)Celou!), they can only be recensions; if, as I suspect is more likely, it existed earlier in Greek (I did not say originated in Greek, since questions about its possible Semitic origins also need to be asked), the two Latin text types could conceivably stem from two more or less independent Latin translations, or one text type could reflect revisional activity towards a Greek "recension" that differed significantly from the Greek text first rendered into Latin. Various possibilities exist.\5/ Only a close study of the preserved witnesses can give rise to controlled probabilities.\5a/ Modern commentators all affirm that 5_Ezra betrays "Christian" interests in its preserved form(s), although a few would argue that it may have originated in Jewish circles and was later reworked (Riessler sees it as "probably Essene" in origin).\5b/ Much of the evidence adduced to posit the Christian character of 5_Ezra is relatively superficial (see below), and the presentation of the evidence is usually relatively unreflective about the basic assumptions that are operating with regard to Judaism and/or Christianity in the Greco-Roman period.\5c/ The presentations are also largely unimaginative. One might have expected, for example, to find some commentator holding that there had been an older Greek Jewish writing that Latin translators "Christianized." No such claim has been found in the literature consulted for this essay. Already in its hypothetical Greek form, 5_Ezra is assumed to have been a Christian production. None of the recent commentators presents evidence pro or con as to whether a Semitic form of the work might possibly lie behind the presumed Greek (as is commonly assumed for 4 Ezra proper).\6/ The only detailed published study of the textcritical relationships between the preserved Latin witnesses to 5_Ezra of which I am aware is by M. R. James in his introduction to Bensly's posthumous edition of the extended Latin "4 Ezra" (i.e. 5 Ezra + 4 Ezra + 6 Ezra). James presents instance after instance in which he argues that the MEC text preserves readings that could have given rise to the SA text, but which are not likely to have been produced from the SA text. Especially provocative is James's claim that the MEC text is sometimes to be preferred because it is more overtly "Christian," whereas the editors of the SA text "corrected" it to sound more authentically "Jewish" as well as to read more smoothly in Latin.\6a/ James's impressively learned study is also somewhat haphazard and sufficiently idiosyncratic and unconvincing that it has left little impact on the textcritical decisions of subsequent editors and commentators, with the notable exceptions of Stanton, Oesterley and to a lesser extent Weinel(-Duensing). In English speaking circles, the KJV (= Ball) had followed the standard Clementine Vg text quite closely, and the RV (= Oesterly) made only minor adjustments, usually to accord with SA readings which differed from the old Vg edition. RSV (see Metzger) and NEB (= Knibb) also all but ignored the MEC materials.\6b/ Only Stanton and Oesterly, in their occasional comments, and Myers, in his extensive descriptive footnotes, provide the English student with an inkling of how potentially significant the MEC text is in relation to that of SA. In German, the Weinel-Duensing tradition adopted a few of the MEC readings, as is obvious to anyone who examines the opening words of 5_Ezra in Hennecke-Schneemelcher-Wilson side by side with the RSV or NEB! Two other special studies that reflect favorably James's positive judgment about the value of the MEC text of 5_Ezra deserve mention. The noted French scholar of Latin Christian materials, Donatien de Bruyne, argues that 5_Ezra 2:33-48 (which he dubs "Revelatio Esdrae") is a separable fragment of a lost apocalypse that has also left its mark on the old liturgical language of the Roman Churches.\7/ De Bruyne speaks favorably of James's preference for the MEC text, and expresses the hope that Violet will produce a critical edition of 5_Ezra based on those materials. (He didn't.) Also of interest is Albrecht Oepke's judgment about the text of 5_Ezra found in his deceptively titled and wide-ranging study of relationships between "Church and Synagogue" which begins with the identification of a quotation from 5_Ezra 1:24 in the 10/11th century (?) work entitled De altercatione Ecclesiae et Synagogae.\8/ Oepke argues that at least for this passage, the MEC text is preferable to that of SA. Although the differences are quantitatively minor, they are qualitatively significant, and can serve to introduce us to a larger set of issues. The introductory formula in De altercatio hints at some of the basic problems encountered in 5_Ezra: "Lege quid tibi Esdras ex persona salvatoris scripsit:" (Read what Esdras in the person of a/the savior wrote to you). The author of De altercatio identifies "Esdras" (so MEC; "Ezra" in SA) as the source, but also knows that at some points, this Ezra sounds very much like the Christian "savior," speaking to the "synagogue." The first sentence of the presumed quotation underlines this point. "Ad meos veni et me mei non receperunt" (I came to mine and mine did not receive me). Oepke does not know what to do with these words, so he treats them as a reformulation of John 1:11 (Vg "In propria venit, et sui eum non receperunt"), placed in the mouth of Christ himself by means of the phrase "ex persona salvatoris." Perhaps. But it is also possible that some form of 5_Ezra, from which the remainder of the quotation clearly derives, once contained a similar statement on Ezra's lips. Note that the SA text (but not MEC) of 5_Ezra 2:33 has Ezra saying "When I came to them [Israel] they rejected me" (ad quos cum venirem reprobaverunt me). Elsewhere in 5_Ezra, the speaker (usually "the Lord") often complains of such rejection: e.g. 1:7-8, 1:14, 1:25, 1:34, 2:1, 2:3, 2:5-7. Then follows the identified material from 5_Ezra 1:24: De altercatio 5 Ez 1:24 MEC text SA text quid tibi faciam, Jacob? [same] [same] noluit me audire Juda. noluit obaudire me J. noluisti me obaudire J. transferam me [same] [same] ad alteram gentem. ad gentem alteram ad alias gentes et dabo illi et dabo eis nomen meum [same] et custodientes ut custodient custodiant legitima mea. [same] What shall I do to you, J. [=] [=] He did not want me He did not want You did not want to hear Judah! to obey me, Judah. to obey me, Judah! I will turn my attention [=] [=] to another nation! [=] to other nations and will give it and will give them my name [=] and they will surely so that keep they may keep my requirements. [=] The MEC text is clearly reflected here at two points: the statement relating to Judah (either construed in one of the above ways, or more probably "Judah did not want to hear me") and the reference to "nation/race" in the singular. Taken in isolation, neither point is convincing evidence of the superiority of MEC. With regard to the Jacob/Judah couplet, SA seems smoother and more typical of Semitic poetic/prophetic parallelism, with both of the offending parties addressed directly. The reference to "nation/race" in the singular is supported by the subsequent singular pronoun (illi), but then is compromised by the plurals in the next clause (-entes -ent). Again, SA is structurally more balanced ("smoother"), although the pleonasm of MEC (custiodentes custodient) could be considered a "Semitism" and viewed as more "primitive" than the simpler parallel in SA. Oepke is not primarily concerned about assessing these details in terms of basic textcritical categories such as which is "the more difficult" reading to explain (lectio difficilior), syntactical awkwardness, etc. His main focus is theological: "The French text [SA] is concerned with the gentiles in general, but the Spanish [MEC] with the Christians as the new people of God or 'third race.' Thus the theological opposition is more precisely presented in the Spanish. That can hardly be attributed to the reviser. Rather, the Spanish text probably preserves the original reading of the presumed Greek original. The readings of the Spanish text are often noteworthy, while the French polishes unintelligible difficulties in it" (180). Although this is not one of the contexts discussed by James, he would certainly have been pleased with Oepke's conclusion: here is another example in which the originally "Christian" outlook of the work is neutralized by the SA revision. But this passage in isolation need not be viewed that way. One could also argue that an originally relatively smooth and theologically less pointed (i.e. more "Jewish") text (SA) has been corrupted seriously in transmission while also, at least at one point, becoming better geared to the needs of its Christian users (MEC). The analysis by Oepke seems to assume James's conclusion about the more overtly "Christian" character of the MEC text. I suspect that James himself never seriously tested the possibility that in the pre-Latin Greek form(s) of 5_Ezra, we might be dealing with a Jewish writing. Nor does James consider that the relationship between the two Latin text types might be other than one of direct dependence -- e.g. that each might reflect relatively independent attempts to translate a (slightly different) Greek 5_Ezra, using similar approaches to translation. With regard to the preferability of reading "another nation" with MEC in 5_Ezra 1:24 (not SA "other nations"), Oepke is almost certainly correct, but for reasons he never explicates. Both Latin text types of 5_Ezra provide ample evidence that the idea of one special nation/people over against another special nation/people is an often repeated theme in this material.\9/ The "people that is coming" (1:35-38) to replace/displace the original people (Jacob, Judah, Israel) seems to become "my people" in 2:10, while the original "my people" (1:5) either disappears as such or is reinstated without fanfare in 2:15-32: The relationship of the "people" in 2:41 (MEC, "the people that was called from the beginning"; SA "your [Ezra's] people ...") and in 2:48 (MEC "that very people"[?]; SA "my people") to the original people and to the "people to come" is not entirely clear unless 2:33 indicates irrevocable rejection by and of the former. This consistent pattern of using the singular for the two special "people/nations" is broken only by the SA text with its plural references in 1:24 (see above) and in 2:34 "I say to you, nations that hear and understand" (MEC has "I say to you who hear and understand"). The thematic framework of 5_Ezra, then, is partly similar to materials found especially in Jeremiah, Isaiah, Hosea, and some of the other oracular prophets of ancient Israel: God's people stand condemned for their sins, rebellions, thanklessness, etc. Thus God rejects Israel and lavishes attention on another "people" (1:24, 1:35-40, 2:10-15). Nevertheless, God remembers his own (with all the ambiguities implied in that phrase) and will be merciful to them in the end (2:16-32, 2:34-41). The hortatory eschatological section in 2:34(33)-41, spoken by Ezra (not directly by the Lord, as with previous discourses in 5_Ezra), culminates with Ezra describing an apocalyptic type scene on Mount Zion in which "God's son" puts crowns on the white robed persons who had valiantly confessed their God in the world (2:42-48). To what extent is all this necessarily "Christian"? Certainly the parallels between 5_Ezra and Jewish and Christian scriptures prove little. 5_Ezra contains no explicit (formula) quotations from other works. Unless we assume that whenever words and phrases that occur in "biblical" writings are also found elsewhere, the extra-biblical uses must be derivative, there is no way to determine whether a writing such as 5_Ezra is dependent on scriptural texts, is used by scriptural texts, or independently reflects the same sort of language that also appears in the scriptural texts. In general, the parallels between 5_Ezra and early Christian literature are not sufficiently characteristic of Christian interests and activities to be persuasive: "As a hen gathers her brood under her wings" (1:30; see Matt 23:37 & par); "Your house is desolate" (1:33; see Matt 23:38 & par); "Ask and you will receive" (2:13; see Matt 7:7 & par, John 16:24); "Pray ... that your days may be shortened" (2:13; see Matt 24:22); "Watch!" (2:13; see Mark 13:37 & par). Such passages are in the NT gospels (especially Matthew, as Stanton elaborates), but that is hardly proof that the author of 5_Ezra got them from the gospels or wrote at a later date than the gospels. Similarly, various words and phrases in 5_Ezra 2:33-48 can be paralleled in the NT book of Revelation (e.g. 6:9-11). The origins of all these materials, both for the NT writings and for 5_Ezra, may be a common store of prophetic-apocalyptic materials available to those writers (see Dani)Celou for various "Jewish Christian" themes in 5_Ezra). More serious candidates for the "Christian" label are the references to "God's son" in the "apocalypse" of 5_Ezra 2:42-48. He is described as "a youth of great stature, preeminent over all" (2:43). Whether those on whom he is placing crowns are thought to have "confessed him" in the mortal world, or "confessed God," is problematic (2:45 "they have confessed the name of God" [SA = M, but C has here "God's son"]; 2:47 "He is son of God whom they confessed" -- does the "confessing" pertain to God or to God's son?). What relationship there may be between this sort of imagery, descriptions of the divine spirit as exceedingly tall, etc., and such passages as the description of the resurrection event in G.Peter, deserves further discussion in the context of Jewish expectations regarding divine agency in the last times (see Dani)Celou). Unless we imagine that the eschatological idea of "God's son" was first created by Christianity -- a contention rendered even more questionable by the Qumran materials -- we cannot neglect the possibility that 5_Ezra provides pre or non Christian evidence of this figure. The MEC text has other allegedly blatant "Christian" touches. One is the long "addition" after 1:32 which is only found in M (not in [E?]C) and refers to delivering "Lord almighty" to death by suspending him on a tree. I do not wish to contend that this is not Christian; nor do I wish to argue (as did James) that it belongs to the earliest recoverable text of 5_Ezra. The MEC text has two references to "apostles." In 1:32 "I sent you my servants the prophets whom you took and killed, and you tore apart the bodies of the apostles" (SA has "their bodies"); in 1:37 "The apostles are witnesses to the people who are about to come" (SA has "I [presumably the Lord] call to witness the gratitude of the people that is to come"). The Greek word apostle is, of course, known from contexts other than Christian. It means a legate, one sent on behalf of another. Semitic language traditions in early Judaism can also speak of such legate-apostles, as can Greek literature in general. Presumably there was a rich background behind the technical application of this word to early Christian missionaries (as in Paul), and to the twelve disciples of Jesus. Can the MEC text of 5_Ezra, with its prophets and apostles, be understood in the light of such a setting? (Compare Luke 11:49, which is in the form of a quotation!) This is certainly worth investigation! Other arguments for the "Christian" origin of 5_Ezra may be encountered, perhaps to enhance the cumulative effect of the evidence presented above. Of special interest both for its methodological and factual absurdity and for its textcritical relevance is the claim found in the otherwise often helpful commentary by Oesterley regarding the term "Lord Almighty": "This title of God stamps the passage [1:28] as Christian" because it occurs in 2 Cor 6:18 and in Revelation but not in the Hebrew scriptures. Myers also comments on the phrase, noting that it occurs six times in 5_Ezra, and almost as an afterthought that it also occurs in the Greek Jewish scriptures ("LXX") and in Sirach! All other considerations aside, this hardly constitutes evidence of "Christian" phraseology. In addition, it is doubtful that the oldest recoverable text of 5_Ezra had the designation; it appears only once in MEC, at 1:33 where the M text has its long addition. Otherwise, the MEC text has simply "Lord" where SA has "Lord Almighty." I have only scratched the surface of the sorts of textual, philological, formal and historical/conceptual research that need to be done on this provocative little literary package. On the whole, if not in every particular, James's judgment that the MEC text is superior to that of SA seems demonstrable. Of course, each individual context requires careful analysis. James's suggestion that the complicated Latin textual situation in 5_Ezra preserves evidence in SA of Christian de-Christianization of a would-be "Jewish" text is exciting, and deserves close scrutiny. My own tentative conclusion is that he is wrong in this instance (but not necessarily for every other writing as well), and that the MEC type of text can be understood better as a relic of pre or non Christian "Judaism" in its broader sense. It is not clear to me that the SA text developed directly from the MEC type; SA and MEC may at points preserve independent variant versions of the underlying Greek textual stream, which itself undoubtedly contained a certain amount of diversity. I am dubious that a Semitic original lay behind the lost Greek form(s), although the evidence has not yet been carefully tested. With regard to matters of "form," 5_Ezra 1:4 through 2:32 seem to me to have constituted a unit of primarily "parenetic/confrontational prophetic" type Jewish material -- the sort of material on which little study has been done for Judaism and Christianity in the Greco-Roman period. The largely biblical, priestly genealogy of 1:1-3 (SA) is patently secondary. We are dealing in 5_Ezra with Ezra the prophet!\10/ The exact relationship of 2:33-41 (words of Ezra) and of 2:42-48 (what Ezra saw) to what preceeds and to each other, in terms of literary development, is not yet clear to me. This material brings 5_Ezra closer to more typically "apocalyptic" materials, with 2:33-41 serving as a bridge from the previously "prophetic" outlook. In any event, 5_Ezra is in these and other regards significantly different from 6_Ezra, which seems to me to be even more clearly Jewish and of an "oracular prophetic" (political oracles) type that also deserves serious attention. But that is another essay. ===== NOTES \1/ "5 Ezra" is used here to designate the writing that has been prefixed in Latin Vg editions to the Ezra-Apocalypse proper ("4 Ezra"). In modern English translations of the Apocrypha, 5_Ezra usually comprises the first two chapters of "2 Esdras." ("6 Ezra" refers to the similarly brief writing appended to 4 Ezra in the Vg editions; i.e. "2 Esdras" 15-16.) _\x It is interesting that neither the Jerusalem Bible nor the _New American Translation, both recent Roman Catholic productions, _include the Latin 4-5-6 Ezra library. _ \2/ Appreciation is also extended to the participants in my recent graduate seminars on the Ezra materials, one of which (Fall 1982) was conducted jointly with Michael E. Stone (Hebrew University), especially Theodore Bergren, Allen Callahan, Mary LaRue, Stephen Taylor and Benjamin Wright. The present study is an extension of some of the methodological observations in my "Greek Transmission of Jewish Scriptures: a Methodological Probe," in Paganisme, Juda)Cmsme, Christianisme (M. Simon Festschrift, Paris: de Boccard, 1978) 207-26. \3/ Modern general studies examined for this article are listed here. A classified computer based bibliography for 4-5-6 Ezra compiled by Theodore Bergren has proved most useful. Nevertheless, because of space considerations, footnoting in the present article will be minimal. One of the most intelligent general treatments of 5_Ezra, especially for its awareness of textcritical issues, is that by Stanton, although I cannot agree with some of his assumptions or with the main thrust of his article. A separate fascicle on 5-6 Ezra by H. Stegemann has been announced for the series J)Cwdische Schriften aus hellenistisch-rrmischer Zeit 3 (G)Cwtersloh: Mohn, 1973-), but it does not seem to be available yet. Ball, C. J. The Ecclesiastical or Deuterocanonical Books of the OT commonly called the Apocrypha (Variorum Reference Edition; London: Eyre & Spottiswoode, n.d. [post 1888]). Dani)Celou, J. "Le Ve Esdras et le Judeo-Christianisme Latin au Second Si)Cfcle," in Ex Orbe Religionum I (G. Widengren Festschrift = Studies in the History of Religions 21, Supp. to Numen, 1972) 162-71. Dani)Celou/2. The Origins of Latin Christianity (A History of Early Christian Doctrine Before the Council of Nicaea 3, trans. D. Smith and J. A. Baker; Philadelphia: Westminster, 1977), esp. 17-31. Duensing, H. "The Fifth and Sixth Books of Esra," in W. Schneemelcher's edition of Hennecke's NT Apocrypha (trans. ed. R. McL. Wilson; Philadelphia: Westminster, 1965), 689-95. Hilgenfeld, Adolf. Messias Judaeorum (Leipzig: Sumpto Fuesiano, 1869). James, Montague Rhoades. "Introduction" to Bensly, xi-xc. Knibb, M. A. 2 Esdras (Cambridge Bible Commentary, 1979). Labourt, M. J. "Le cinqui)Cfme livre d'Esdras," RB 17 (1909) 412-34. Metzger, Bruce M. "The Fourth Book of Ezra," in The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha: Apocalyptic Literature and Testaments, ed. J. H. Charlesworth (Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1983) 516-559. Myers, Jacob M. I and II Esdras (AB; Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1974). Oesterly, W. O. E. II Esdras (The Ezra Apocalypse) (Westminster Commentaries; London: Methuen, 1933). Oesterly/2. An Introduction to the Books of the Apocrypha (London: SPCK, 1935) 246-47. Pl)Crger, Otto. "Das 5 und 6 Esrabuch," RGG\3/ 2 (1958) 699-700. Riessler, Paul. Altj)Cwdischen Schriftum ausserhalb der Bibel (Heidelberg: Kerle, 1928), 310-17 and 1285-86. Schneemelcher, W. "Esra. II. Christl. Esraliteratur," RAC 6 (1966) 604-5. Schneider, H. "Esdras: 5. Buch E.," LThK 3 (1959). Stanton, G. N. "5 Ezra and Matthean Christianity in the Second Century," JTS 28 (1977) 67-83. Turner, Nigel. "Esdras, Books of," IDB 2 (1962) 142. Volkmar, G. Esdra Propheta (T)Cwbingen: Ludovici Friderici Fues., 1863) Weinel, Heinrich. "Das f)Cwnfte Buch Esra," in E. Hennecke (ed.), Neutestamentliche Apokryphen (T)Cwbingen: Mohr, 1904), ()C~bersetzungsband) 305-11, (Handbuch) 331-36. Weinel/2. Ibid. (2d ed; 1924), 390-94. \3a/ Neither the Jerusalem Bible nor the New American Translation, both of which emanate from Roman Catholic scholarly circles, include the 5-4-6 Ezra materials. \4/ The most complete Latin edition of this material is the Biblia Sacra iuxta vulgatam versionem (Stuttgart, 1975), ed. R. Weber with B. Fischer et al., which is based on SA and admits to being selective about MEC readings included in the apparatus to 5_Ezra. The appendix to Bensly's edition (ed. J. A. Robinson, TextsS 3.2, 1895) gives the complete text of ms C, with variant readings of M noted in the apparatus, but does not include this material in the "main text" which is based on SA. Violet's editions (GCS 18, 1910; GCS 32, 1924) of 4 Ezra proper do not include 5_Ezra, but do discuss the various Latin mss of 4-5-6 Ezra. Additional textual material is noted by D. de Bruyne, "Quelques nouveaux documents pour la critique textuelle de l'Apocalypse d'Esdras," RB)Cen 32 (1920) 43-47. The main Latin mss are listed here (full collations of E and L are not, to my knowledge, available): S = Sangermanensis (Paris, BN Latin 11504/5), dated 821/2. A = Ambianensis (Amiens, Bib.Communale 10), 9th century (Corby). M = Mazarinaeus (Paris, Bib.Mazarine 3/4), 11/12th c. (Cordeliers). E = Epternacensis (Luxemburg, Bib.Nat. 264), 11th century. C = Complutensis (Rome, Abbey S.Girolamo photocopy), 10th c. L = Legionensis (Leon, Real Colegiate San Isidoro 1.3), dated 1162. \4a/ To illustrate this fact, the chart that follows tests several translations on what James thought were the strongest passages for arguing the preferability of type MEC, plus a few passages that have received favorable judgment from other commentators or editors (1.22 2.3, 2.5, 2.13, 2.36). If an editor notes the textual problem, that is indicated by "n" -- "n+" means with favor, "n-" means rejection, "(n)" means without comment. variant (MEC/SA) W.(1=2)=D. Riess. Ball Oest. Myers Knibb RSV Metzger (AV) (RV) (NEB) 1.1 son of Chusis/ MEC = /genealogy SA SA SAn- SAn SA(n) SA SA 1.10 cast into sea/ /struck down SA = SA SA SA SA SA SA SA 1.11 Bethsaida/ MEC = /no mention SA SA SA SAn SA(n) SA SA 1.11 south (midday)/ MEC = /east SA SA SA(n) SAn+ SAn SA(n) 1.22 bitter/ MEC = MEC MEC MECn MEC MEC MEC /Amorite SAn 1.32 apostles/ /their SA = SA SA SAn+ SAn SA SA SA 1.32+ text of M/ /lacking SA = SA SA SA SA SA SA SA 1.37 apostles wit./ /I wit. SA = SA SA SAn+ SAn SA SA SA 1.39f less order/ MEC = /ordered SA SA SAn- SAn SA SA SA 2.3 before him/ MECn /before me SA = SA SAn+ SAn SA SA SA 2.5 your covenant/ /my covenant SA = SA SA SAn+ SAn SA SA SA 2.9 land to hell/ /lumps & heaps SA = SA? SA SAn+ SAn SA SA SA 2.13 Ask/ MEC = MEC MECn+ MCEn MEC MEC MEC /Go SA 2.23 signs of resurr./ /seal the dead SA = SA SA SA SAn SA SAn SAn 2.36 ensnarer of/ /receive joy of SA = SA SA SAn+ SAn SA SA SA 2.36 savior commanded/ /savior witness SA = SA SA SAn+ SAn SA SAn SAn 2.37 joy of glory/ / joy SA = SA SA SA SAn SA SA SA \4b/ Some opinions: Ultimately Semitic source: Riessler, Schneider (possibly) Jewish Christian origin emphasized: Oesterley, Dani)Celou, Turner Arguments for date in mid-2nd c.: Stanton, (Volkmar 160), (Knibb) vaguely 2nd c.: Weinel last half of 2nd c.: Oesterley, Pl)Crger, Duensing (ca 200) end of 2nd c.: Dani)Celou vaguely 2nd/3rd: Schneemelcher (Hilgenfeld 268, Gutshcmid 251+, Labourt 5/6th c., ) Western location: Hilgenfeld (Rome), Weinel/1, Duensing (W. Orient !) (L)Cwcke & Gutschmid apud Weinel/1 = Egypt) Prophetic form: Riessler, Schneemelcher Martyr focus: deBruyne, \5/ See my "Reassessing the 'Recensional Problem' in Testament of Abraham," in G. Nickelsburg (ed.), Studies on the Testament of Abraham SBLSCS 6, 1976), 121-137. \5a/ Examples of evidence for indep. tr., recensional rel., etc. \5b/ There is a tendency to consider a Jewish source as more possible for the material in the first part of the book (to 2.9 or 2.31). \5c/ E.g. that terms used technically by Christians could have had no significant prehistory in Judaism. \6/ Ball's notes include occasional references to presumed Semitic readings behind the preserved Latin, while Riessler (see also Schneider) affirms that a "Hebrew" base text underlies the work. \6a/ James deals with the following variant contexts. He considers those marked with "*" to provide the best evidence for preferring the MEC type text (listed first) over the SA type: title-1.1 * son of Cush // canonical genealogy Nebuchadnezzar // Artaxerxes prophet (priest) // second 1.10f * Bethsaida // < .15f with army // < (cf) .19 > // bread of angels .20 leaf coverings (cf) .21 filios eorum // Philistinos .22 amaro // Amorreo .23 indigne // ignem .25 [rough] // [smoother] .26 they...minds and // you...> .26b shedding blood // homicide .30 pullos // filios .31 non mandavi // [carnis] repudiavi .32 apostolorum // illorum .32+ * long text of M // < .36f testati sunt apostoli // testor .39f * [jumbled names] // [ordered names] 2.2 sibi progeneraberunt // eos generavit .8f * usque ad infernum // in piceis glebis ... .15 (cf) as a dove her children .18 Jer-Isa-Dan // Isa-Jer .21 [longer text] // > .23 * sealed ones = 1st in resurrect. // bury & seal the dead, be first .29 all fear me // my hands guard ?? .31 fulness of your glory // > .32 praesta aliis // praedica illis .33 Chobar // Choreb .34 diminiutio hominem // (cf) .36f salv. mandatum esse / salv. commendatum .42 nemo poterat // non potui .43f mirari cepi et // miraculo tenebar tunc .45 fili dei // dei .46 > // in manus tradit [smoother] .47 > // bravely stand for Lord's name "The temptation to get rid of the mention of apostles (here and in i.37) from a soi-disant Old Testament prophecy is an evident one: and though I am well aware that the words "Christian interpolation" -- a catchword of modern criticism -- lie very ready to the reader's lip, I am sure that the tendency to make a forgery look more plausible must also be taken into account. We are dealing now with what is in any case a very bald Christian forgery: and the belief is gaining upon me as I examine it, that it was much balder when it left the writer's hand than it is in the French [i.e. SA type] text." (James, li) At this point in the text of MS M there is a lengthy passage not found in any other Latin witness, but paralleled in part by the 7th century (?) Greek Acts of Silvester. James uses it to further his argument about the history of the text of 5 Ezra: "Omission [of this passage] by homoeoteleuton in the French [SA type] text is also [as in MS C of MEC] possible; but I incline to believe that the passage, being original, was omitted there of set purpose, as being too obviously Christian." Finally, James notes that in 2.45 the SA type text speaks of confessing "God's name" where MEC has "the name of God's son." He concludes that the former "has removed a Christian touch" (lx). \6b/ Stanton's amazement at this fact deserves to be underlined. \7/ "Fragments d'une Apocalypse perdue," RB)Cen 33 (1921) 97-109. He compares 5_Ezra with a 9th (?) century Liber Responsalis from Gaul that is published in PL 78 726-852. See also Dani)Celou/2. \8/ "Ein bisher unbeachtetes Zitat aus dem f)Cwnften Buche Esra," ConNt 11 (1947) 179-95. \9/ Concern about "the two peoples" (see Gen 25:23) is evidenced in early Judaism and early Christianity. See the comments on Barn. 13:2 in my Barnabas and The Didache (The Apostolic Fathers: a New Translation and Commentary 3, ed. R. M. Grant; NY: Nelson, 1965) and in P. Prigent's edition of Barnabas (SC 172, 1971). Oepke's connection of the passage with concepts of "the third race" (Christians) is unnecessary. Elsewhere in 5_Ezra there are also a few plural general references to "the nations": 1:11 (SA), 2:7, 2:28. [On rejection: 1.7 inritaverunt me et consilia mea spreverunt 1.8 non obaudierunt (?) legi meae, populus indisciplinatus 1.14 mei obliti estis 1.25 me dereliquistis 1.34 mandatum meum neglexerunt 2.1 audire noluerunt sed irrita fecerunt mea consilia 2.3 educavi vos cum laetitia, amittam (amisi SA) vos cum luctu... 2.5 noluerunt testamentum tuum (meum SA) servare 2.7 respuerunt (spreverunt SA) testamentum meum 2.33 respuerunt mandatum hoc (Domini SA) \10/ See my "'Ezra' Materials in Judaism and Christianity," ANRW 2.19.1 (1969) 119-36.