Monday, August 07, 2006

4 Ezra

4 Ezra is a Jewish writing that dates to about AD100, meaning that it was written at about the same time Revelation and the latest parts of the NT were coming off the press (so to speak). I've had to dabble in it for years of course, but finally sat down and read it from front to end at leisure. It's basically written by someone trying to figure out what God is up to after not only letting the Romans destroy Jerusalem and the temple, but in letting it just sit there in the dust for thirty more years after.

It's about the problem of evil from a Jewish perspective and why God allows bad things to happen to His people while letting the wicked prosper their socks off.

4 Ezra is an apocalypse like Revelation, some of Daniel, some of 1 Enoch, etc... It is placed on the lips of Ezra because Babylon had destroyed Jerusalem and its temple once before as well. Of course historically, the temple was rebuilt by the time of Ezra and the Persians were in control. An earlier generation of scholars might laugh or scorn the author of 4 Ezra at this point, saying, "Ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, you silly forgerer--you got it way wrong. How about taking responsibility for your own ideas rather than hiding behind someone else."

But this seems an ignorant response itself, one laden with anachronistic and cultural presuppositions. I have a pet theory (which is either itself ignorant, has already been suggested before, or is something I should publish quickly) that many pseudonymous authors put "fail safe switches" into their writings just to make it clear that they weren't really writing about Ezra, Judith, or whoever. It was like a clue to say, "This is a parable of our present time." If this is the case, of course, then it is wrong to dismiss such writings simply because they weren't written by the name on them. I mean, no one scorns Dickens, "I just found out he made it all up... There never was a Tiny Tim!!" I'm sorry, who are you? It's a novel, twit. And so it may be that these things were simply an ancient type of writing with which we are not familiar and thus don't know the "rules" on how to read them.

The Top Ten Interesting or Relevant Things about 4 Ezra:

1. It mentions Adam as the culprit behind the mess of the world.
Believe it or not, Paul's idea that sin and death entered the world through Adam is a pretty unusual idea in Judaism. The Enoch books which are before Christ more blame fallen angels from the time of the Flood. In fact, it is not until a (perhaps first century BC) work called the Life of Adam and Eve that any Jewish writing even equates Satan with the serpent in the Garden of Eden. Genesis never says this.

"A grain of evil seed was sown in Adam's heart from the beginning, and how much ungodliness it has produced until now--and will produce until the time of threshing comes!" (2 Esdras 4:30; cf. 7:11; translations from the NRSV; it was originally in Hebrew or Aramaic, but no longer survives in the original language)

More on Adam: 6:54; 7:118.

2. It has a full blown sense of the afterlife.
It has a sense of torment and reward immediately at death (7:75), as well as a future resurrection. The corruptible will perish at that resurrection (7:31). The wicked will go to the pit of torment, the righteous to a paradise of delight (7:36). The face of the righteous will "shine like the sun, and how they are to be made like the light of the stars, being incorruptible from then on" (7:97).

Cf. also 4:35, 41-42; 5:41-42; 6:16, 19, 25-26; 7:13, 17, 32, 78 (cf. Eccl), 80-100, 123-25, 131; 8:46; 10:16; 14:35.

3. Almost no one will be saved, certainly no Gentiles, and hardly anyone in Israel either!
4 Ezra's answer to the problem of evil is not a very happy one. Basically, no one is going to be saved (e.g., 7:60; 8:1, 3; 10:10). Well, okay, just a few. The earth is compared to a woman who is getting old and, accordingly, her later children are more sickly than her earlier ones (5:51-55). Things are going to get worse and worse (it reads in some places like Mark 13--e.g., 9:3) and then the end will come.

God basically isn't very gracious in 4 Ezra. In fact, in E. P. Sanders' classic work on Judaism where he tried to debunk the common idea that Jews believed they had to earn salvation through works, 4 Ezra was the only Jewish writing from the time he thought didn't picture God as gracious and compassionate and, in general, Judaism as a religion of grace. Ezra finds himself thinking that he himself is doomed, but God corrects him: "you have a treasure of works stored up with the Most High" (7:77).

So 4 Ezra is untypical of Jewish writings in the sense that a person is saved through works rather than through God's grace and faith in God (cf. 7:105; 9:7 also note the mention of faith there in combination!).

But I think even this portrait takes 4 Ezra a little out of focus. 4 Ezra does believe that God "is gracious, because he is gracious to those who turn in repentance to his law" (7:133; note the opportunity for repentance at 9:11). The same passage also proclaims God merciful, patient, bountiful, and abundant in compassion. People can get through even though every one has sinned. We have to remember that 4 Ezra is trying to figure out how God is righteous even though he has let the Romans toast Jerusalem. This is about all he could come up with.

There is a strong sense at least that God made the world for Israel (thus, election): 7:10-11.

Notice the importance of faith: 6:6, 28; 7:34; 9:7.

By the way, I'm sure all this has been suggested, but I wonder if this guy was brought to Rome from Jerusalem as a captive after the Jewish War (cf. 3:29; look at 10:22).

4. All have sinned and are in really big trouble.
I've already hinted at this but 4 Ezra has something like a Romans 3:23:

"Who among the living is there that has not sinned, or who is there among mortals that has not transgressed your covenant" (7:46). See also 3:36; 4:24; 8:35.

Notice that sin is defined in terms of the Jewish law. See also 5:27; 13:38.

5. 4 Ezra looks for the arrival of a political Messiah.
I've often written that the Christian conception of Jesus as Messiah was not at all around before Christ. They didn't expect the Messiah to be divine or to come from heaven or, particularly, to suffer. Psalms of Solomon 17 expects a political leader to come pound the Romans. A part of 1 Enoch that either dates to just before or just after Christ (the Similitudes) does have a more heavenly sense of a Son of Man.

4 Ezra has a primarily political sense of the Messiah. The author thinks the Messiah is pre-existent in heaven (see 12:32; 13:26, 52; 14:9), and in fact likely thinks human souls are pre-existent as well (8:4-5). He will be born of the lineage of David (12:32).

When the Messiah arrives, he will reign for 400 years (7:28). Then he and all humans will die. Then there will be the resurrection of all (7:32). He will destroy Rome when he arrives (he is the lion of 11:37-12:3 and the eagle is Rome). Chapter 12 is basically an apocalyptically presented history of the Roman Empire up to the time 4 Ezra is being written.

He will stand on the top of Mt. Zion and the new Zion will appear, not made with human hands (13:36).

There is a very interesting "Son of Man" type portrait of the Messiah in 13:1-4. He is flying on the clouds of heaven. This imagery probably comes from Daniel 7 rather than NT influence.

See also 5:6; 13:32.

6. A new Jerusalem is being or is prepared.
Even though the current Jerusalem is in shambles. God apparently has another one ready or is getting it ready: 8:52 (rest is involved, see Hebrews 4), 10:27, 42, 44, 55 (where city and building [temple?] is equated). Cf. 10:54; 13:32.

This reminds us of Revelation's city that descends and is at least analogous to Hebrews 12.

7. Ezra is really bold!
Ezra really seems bold to me in his questioning of God. I think a friend of mine, Bruce Longenecker, argued at one time that 4 Ezra doesn't actually conclude that the author thought God was really being appropriate. He later changed his mind, I think.

I think Ezra increasingly accepts God's actions as the book moves on, to where he is more puzzled at the beginning but more defending God by the end.

8. I think the word "Apocrypha" comes from 4 Ezra 14.
Here Ezra writes 24 books of Scripture for the public--these correspond to the Jewish/Protestant canon (14:45). So perhaps the Jewish canon is pretty much set at this point (the idea that it was set at Jamnia is more a legend than established fact). But he "hides" seventy others (14:46). Presumably these include things like the books of Enoch and many other books that we call the Apocrypha. Apocrypha means "hidden," but there are really only 7 books in the Roman Catholic "Apocrypha," along with some expansions to Daniel and Esther.

9. The angel and the Lord are interchangeable speakers.
One fascinating thing to me is that the angel speaking to Ezra and God speaking to Ezra blur together. In 5:31, the angel is talking to Ezra. They have a number of exchanges and then suddenly when Ezra responds, he is talking to God (5:38). So the angel is speaking God's word and Ezra can respond to God directly by responding to the angel.

Tidbits vaguely related in my mind... God's word accomplishes God's work in creation (6:38, 43). The holy spirit is mentioned and is a category in a non-Christian Jewish writing in relation to the inspiration to write scripture!! (14:22; cf.6:39).

By the way, more than once as I read this thing I wondered whether this guy was aware of certain Christian ideas and was interacting with them, working things retro from Christian Judaism back into a form of mainstream Judaism. Of course it is also possible that Christian Jews and this guy (is it a guy?) were drinking from the same Jewish stream. Of course since Christians preserved this thing, you can't always be completely sure that they haven't "upgraded" the manuscripts somewhere.

10. The Western Church deleted a bunch from chapter 7 (verses 36-105).
I say Western rather than Catholic because everything's catholic until 1054 when East and West split. But these verses were cut out of the Latin textual tradition, probably because they leave no hope for a person to switch to the righteous side after death. In other words, you can't support the idea of Purgatory from these verses:

"The day of judgment is decisive and displays to all the seal of truth" (7:104), I think in reference to not long after death.

Scraps that don't fit my top 10 list:
1. Behemoth and Leviathon, always favorites (6:49ff).

2. Compare 8:22 to Hebrews 1:7.

3. God didn't intend all this. It was humanity's fault (8:59).

4. Some language makes us wonder if this guy went to Essene/Enoch school: plant language (9:21, see the Apocalypse of Weeks); dream visions (10:59).

5. The creation of the world is set 3000 years before the temple was completed (10:45).

6. The 5th vision of the seven reminds one a lot of Revelation and actually reinterprets Daniel (11:1-12:51).

7. Ezra may be the last prophet before the end (12:42). While we shouldn't assume the old "they didn't think there were any prophets in the dark intertestamental times" idea, Ezra may have some sense of something like this. Part of the dynamic here is the fact that Ezra=the author of 4 Ezra, which causes the time between the two to collapse somewhat.

8. God has hidden the lost nine tribes (some mss say 10) of Israel on the other side of the Euphrates River, but they'll come back in the end times. Were the Mormans reading this or what?!!!!

If you want to find 4 Ezra, it is hidden inside 2 Esdras in your handy dandy Apocrypha (usually printed in association with the OT of the Roman Catholics, Orthodox, and Anglicans--but it is not considered Scripture by any of these groups). It's a little confusing. The first two chapters of 2 Esdras are a later Christian addition (sometimes called 5 Ezra). Then the last two chapters, 15-16, are an even later Christian addition (sometimes called 6 Ezra).

Welcome to my world..

By the way, I guess I should say any unique things above are my intellectual property, in case I want to develop any of it for publication at some point.

3 comments:

David Drury said...

Wow. This was awesome, Ken. I loved it.

And just in time for our church wide sermon-series and small group Bible study program in all small groups called: "40 Days in the Apocrypha -- 4 Ezra Rules!"

:-)

Oh, I was thinking about this article and the fact that most people haven't ever read 4 Ezra (including Catholics) and still fewer have ever read anything else written ON 4 Ezra. And of that number scant few would have ever done what amounts to a BIBLE STUDY on 4 Ezra. Furthermore, among that number far less than half know it well enough to spot previous assertions about the jewels in the book. Also, of that group (which may number now in the dozens worldwide) perhaps less than half are careful weekly readers of your blog (I don't know).

Taking all of this subtracting and dividing into account I don't think you really need to preface several of these thoughts with variations of the phrase, "I'm sure this has been said before."

hee hee hee

Thanks for the education!

-David

Ken Schenck said...

Ha! What I thought when I finished was that this entry was a grad student's dream. It's the kind of "Cliff Notes" stuff that I think I do well and am trying to perfect with publishers (I'm approaching approval/rejection time with a book something like Paul: Classic Studies and Ongoing Debates with Westminster). Frankly, I wrote it for myself so that I can pillage it later in future writing.

But I think working through this particular book would transform the way the person in the pew reads the Bible. Because no one has presuppositions about a book like 4 Ezra, reading through it exposes the kind of "bubble world" that is the way we tend to read Scripture. It can make possible a kind of "thou art the man" effect on one's presuppositions.

Mike Cline said...

I'm not sure if it is a grad student's dream, but it sure made me smile thinking back to our intertestament days together. Ahh...

Do you still have my paper on 4 Ezra, or did I finally come and pick that up? Would you agree that the majority of intertestament writers (and our own cannon's writers for that matter) see the problem of evil as a largely eschatological question? Meaning, regardless of how bad life sucks (and it sucks bad in 4 Ezra), the future holds the key to figuring out the mess about God's justice. I remember reading parts of 4 Ezra and thinking "this guys is even more pessimistic than Qoheleth in Ecclesiastes." Agree or disagree?