The Third Book of Esdras. The second apocryphal writing now placed at the end of the authorized editions of the Latin Version, is the third book of Esdras, thus called in the Vulgate because our canonical books of Esdras and Nehemias are known respectively as the first and the second book of Esdras. In the old Latin, Syriac and Septuagint versions, it was named the first book of Esdras from its position immediately before our canonical books of Esdras and Nehemias. This latter name has great historical importance, inasmuch as when early Councils and writers of the Church speak of the first book of Esdras they have in view our third book of that name, and when in their lists of sacred books they mention only two books of Esdras, the first to which they allude is our third book, while their second corresponds to our canonical books of Esdras and Nehemias counted together as one work.
The nomenclature
just referred to is found in the African councils of Hippo and Carthage, in the
writings of St. Augustine, Pope Innocent I and Cassiodorus, and proves beyond
doubt that at a given time the canonicity of the third book of Esdras was officially
recognized, at least in the Western churches. character of this book was taken
for granted by the leading writers of the East, such as Clement of Alexandria,
Origen, Eusebius, St. Athanasius, St. Basil, St. Chrysostom, who agree with St.
Cyprian, St. Ambrose, St. Augustine, and About the same period, the sacred others
in the West, in quoting as Holy Writ passages found nowhere except in the third
book of Esdras.' It is not therefore surprising to find that in presence of
such unanimity of the East and of the West, up to the fifth century of our era,
some writers should have affirmed that this work is truly canonical and
inspired. They remark that the Catholic Church, far from rejecting it
positively as apocryphal, has allowed its use and inserted it in its official
edition of the Vulgate and of the Septuagint ; that by far the largest part of
its contents is simply a duplicate of canonical passages in the second book of
Paralipomenon and in the first and second of Esdras; and that, finally, it is
difficult to see how the fact that the writing in question has ceased to be in
use since the fifth century of our era, can invalidate the earlier positive
testimony in its favor.
Of course it
cannot be denied that the third book of Esdras is almost entirely made up of
truly canonical elements, as may be seen easily in the following table:
|
III Esdras i |
is identical with |
II Paralip. xxxv-xxvi, 21. |
|
ii, 1-15 |
“ “ “ |
I Esdras i. |
|
ii, 16-31 |
“ “ “ |
I Esdras iv, 7-24. |
|
iii-v, 6 |
(sole matter peculiar to the third book of Esdras) |
|
|
v, 7-73 |
“ “ “ |
I Esdras ii-iv, 5. |
|
vi-ix, 36 |
“ “ “ |
I Esdras v-x. |
|
ix, 37-55 |
“ “ “ |
II Esdras (or Nehemias) vii, 73-viii 13a. |
But should not
this almost perfect identity of contents between the third book of Esdras and
the books which pre- cede and follow it in the old editions of the sacred text,
have suggested long ago that the third book of Esdras is really not an
independent writing, but rather a revised translation with a single
interpolation taken from some in- dependent source viz., iii-v, 6? In point of
fact, the more closely the common elements are examined, the more will they
appear to point to the one and same text as underlying the third book of Esdras
and our canonical writings, and as rendered more freely in the former than in
the ordinary Greek copies of the Septuagint : the more, in one word, will it
become probable, that the so-called third book of Esdras is simply a version of
certain parts of Holy Writ, whose sub- stance is of course inspired, but whose
individuality may be rejected by the Church, as was done in the case of the old
Septuagint translation of the book of Daniel.
The third book of
Esdras has been freely used by Josephus. Perhaps it goes back in its present
form to the second century B.C. Dr. Swete, in his valuable edition of the Old
Testament in Greek, vol. ii, has republished the text of Codex Vaticanus with
the various readings of Codex Alexandrinus. (Francis E. Gigot, General Introduction
to the Study of the Holy Scriptures [3d ed.; New York: Benziger Brothers,
1903], 121-23)
