4 Esdras (Vulgate)/ 2 Esdras (KJV numbering)

[rakovsky]

In this thread, I would like to ask open questions that came up in my reading of 4 Esdras.

4 Esdras (in the Vulgate) is called 2 Esdras in Protestant Bibles and 3 Esdras in Russian/Slavic Bibles (although the Russian or Slavic Bibles don't include part of this book). 4 Esdras' Chapter 7's verses 35-105 are in the modern NSRV edition of the Bible, but missing in some older, other Bibles. 4 Esdras is canonical in the Ethiopian Orthodox Bible, but it is apocryphal in the Vulgate, Russian, and KJV Bibles. Scholars commonly date it to somewhere in 90 AD.- 218 AD and have different views on how much of it (if any) was written by a non-Christian Jewish author and how much by a Christian author. It was written in Greek or Hebrew and depicted the ancient Jewish prophet Ezra as a visionary. The NSRV version can be found here: www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2%20Esdras+1&version=NRSV

(Question 1) What dating would you give to 4 Esdras?

According to Wikipedia's article "2 Esdras":

The first two chapters of 2 Esdras are found only in the Latin version of the book, and are called 5 Ezra by scholars. They are considered by most scholars to be Christian in origin [and] generally considered to be late additions...
[The next chapters are] conjectured by Protestant scholars to have been written in the late 1st century CE following the destruction of the Second Temple. ... Wellhausen, Charles, and Gunkel have shown that the original composition was in Hebrew...

It must have been written after the writing of the LXX's other books, since the LXX includes the books of Maccabees, but not 4 Esdras. 2 Maccabees identifies itself as written by Jason of Cyrene (100 BC.). I read that 4 Esdras apparently refers to the year of the Four Emperors of Rome (c.69 AD), so it would be written after that year.

(Question 2) Russian Wikipedia interprets 4 Esdras 7:29 to mean: "The Messiah receives the law of mortality like all men, and his death doesn't have any meaning for humanity."
Do you agree with this interpretation of the verse?
The NRSV has:

Everyone who has been delivered from the evils that I have foretold shall see my wonders. 28. For my son the Messiah[d] shall be revealed with those who are with him, and those who remain shall rejoice four hundred years. 29. After those years my son the Messiah shall die, and all who draw human breath.[e] 30. Then the world shall be turned back to primeval silence for seven days, as it was at the first beginnings, so that no one shall be left.

FOOTNOTES D and E:
D: Syriac Arabic 1: Ethiopian my Messiah; Arabic 2 the Messiah; Armenian the Messiah of God; Latin: my son Jesus
E: Armenian version: "all who have continued in faith and in patience"

The KJV has:

28. For my son Jesus shall be revealed with those that be with him, and those who remain shall rejoice within four hundred years.
29. After these years shall my son the Christ die, and all men who have life.

Maybe the passage means that Jesus would have a 400 year life and then die naturally?
The interpretation that Slavic 3 Esdras sees the Messiah's death as not having value is actually directly from the important early 20th c. Russian Bible scholar Lopuhin, who considers the main part of 4 Esdras to have signs of "blindedness of the Jews". Lopuhin says that since the Eastern versions don't say "Jesus" in this passage (chp 7), it must be a Latin "correction" of the original text. He says that in Esdras the Messiah is seen as both a human descendant of David and a supernatural being.

(Question 3) How do you interpret the 400 years in 4 Esdras?

In trying to answer this question for myself, I checked for some other writers' commentaries. In the Clarified King James Bible with Commentary, the book's modern-era Quaker commentator lays out a Protestant-style anti-Orthodox/anti-Catholic rant about the Messiah's 400 years and death. In order to explain the passage, he associates it with the Roman empire's conversion to Christianity and its persecution of heretics in his commentary below:

the 400 years was close to the life of the early church, which was the woman who was forced to flee into the wilderness. Then the woman fled into the wilderness, where she has a place prepared by God, that they should feed her there one thousand-two-hundred and sixty days. Rev 12:6. The woman had a man child who was to rule the nations with a rod of iron; The man child child was taken up into the heavens in 388 AD. The woman is the church of Christ; the true church, which was forced by the devil to flee into the wilderness for 1260 days (years by Bible references) by the persecutions of the false church in which Satan rules. So the true church was no longer seen in the world, no longer organized, but instead became a few isolated individuals; and all men that have life also died after 400 years — the true church died out, (after these years shall my son Christ die, and all men that have life). George Fox refers to this throughout his writings. The true Church of Christ returned from the wilderness in 1648, the beginning of Fox entering the Kingdom, which resulted in thousands entering the kingdom of heaven to be kings and priests to God. Counting backwards, the true church totally disappeared in 388AD. The woman had a man child who was to rule the nations with a rod of iron; The man child child was taken up into the heavens in 388 AD, a few years after the sainted Roman Emperor Theodosius I had enacted a law in 380 AD establishing Roman Catholic Christianity as the official religion of the Roman Empire, which effectively combined the church and Roman state as one entity. The crushing boot of the Empire's sponsored Roman religion was used to persecute and kill the true church by burning all heretics. The Roman Empire's church, both east and west, had doctrines that had been dictated by the sainted Emperors Constantine and Justinian the despot, thus eliminating the true gospel by 388 AD.

I admit that if you take 4 Esdras seriously, the 400 year thing is curious, along with where it claims the Messiah (in the Latin version: "my son Jesus") would die at that point.

Dr. O.V. Binyukov, a Russian theologian, writes in his essay "What are the 400 years in 3 Esdras 7:26-34?": "The 400 years is not a literal quantity of years but a symbolic reference to the 3 years of earthly service of Christ the Lord. 400 years was the length of the Jews in Egypt."

Binyukov goes on to compare the 400 years with Jesus' 3 years of service to show them to be metaphorically the same. He writes that when it says all those who have breath, the word here is actually a reference to the Spirit because it says in Jn 3:3-8, "the spirit breathes (dyshit) where it wants." Binyukov reinterprets the other numbers in this passage too in order that they fit into the story of the NT.

Andrey Mazurkevich writes in his "Book of Letters" that 4 Esdras probably reached the 400 years due to a miscalculation. He says:

I think that the figure of 400 years could have been received by Esdras as a result of wrong counting. This is because Esdras writes that in his book the action happens "in Babylon in the 30th year of the city's destruction", and Jerusalem was destroyed by Nebudchadnezzar in 586 BC. In other words, the events happened in 556 BC, ie. 3448th year in the ancient Jewish way of counting years from the world's creation. Esdras writes elsewhere, "God said to me: the age lost its youth, and the time comes to old age, because the age is divided into 12 parts, and the 9 parts and a half of the tenth part already passed and what is left is the half of the tenth part." (2 Esdras 14:10-12)

So we get:

Year 3448 when Esdras got the prophecy / 9.5 Parts of the Age = 363 Years per a Part of Age

[ie. each "Age" = 363 years]

363 Years per Part X 12 Parts per Age = 4356 years in the whole "Age"

Mazurkevich then goes on to suggest that Esdras used Daniel 9's prophetic calculation of the Messiah's arrival in order to calculate the end of the "Age", and then he subtracts (A) the date that Daniel predicted for the Messiah's arrival from (B) the date of the "Age" in order to reach (C) the Messiah's life's age of 400 years. (Daniel's own calculation points to about the first century BC to the first century AD for the Messiah's arrival, depending on one's starting date for Daniel's calculation.)

I think that both Andrey Mazurkevich's and 4 Esdras' dates have problems here.
First, 3 Esdras 3:1 (Slavonic) runs: "In the thirtieth year after the destruction of the city, I was in Babylon—I, Salathiel, who am also called Ezra." The 30th year of Jerusalem's destruction would have been in c.556 BC, the date that Mazurkevich gives. But he gives the wrong date in the Jewish Calendar. The Jewish Calendar begans on the date of Creation, which would be c. 3761 BC. Hence 556 BC would be the year 3205 on the Jewish Calendar, not 3448, the year that Mazurkevich gives. The Jewish year 3448 would be 312 BC. The Hebrew Calendar calculator here confirms my dating: calcuworld.com/calendar-calculators/hebrew-calendar-converter
By using 556 BC's correct Jewish year, 3205, the number of years in the whole "Age" turns out to be 4048.42 years (ie. 288 AD using the correct calculation for the Jewish calendar).

But second, 3 Esdras' dating also seems unhistorical. As Wikipedia notes:

Ezra, thirty years into the Babylonian Exile (4 Ezra 3:1 / 2 Esdras 1:1), recounts the siege of Jerusalem and the destruction of Solomon's Temple.[5] This would place these revelations in the year 557 BCE, a full century before the date given in the canonical Ezra. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ezra)

(Question 4) In 4 Esdras 4:3-5, the angel Uriel says to Ezra:

“I have been sent to show you three ways, and to put before you three problems. 4. If you can solve one of them for me, then I will show you the way you desire to see, and will teach you why the heart is evil.”

I [Ezra] said, “Speak, my lord.”

And he said to me, “Go, weigh for me the weight of fire, or measure for me a blast of wind, or call back for me the day that is past.”

To measure a blast of wind, couldn't someone set up a sail like on a ship and set its ends loose and see how far the sail travels? Maybe he could also use a kite or a wind net?

(Question 5): Is "Uriel" Christ, and if not, why does Ezra call him Lord (Is this "Adonai" in Hebrew or is it originally from a foreign word synonymous with both "Master" and "Lord"?) and say he controls the world in chapter 5?:

31. When I had spoken these words, the angel who had come to me on a previous night was sent to me. 32. He said to me, “Listen to me, and I will instruct you; pay attention to me, and I will tell you more.”

33. Then I said, “Speak, my lord.”
...
38. I said, “O sovereign Lord, who is able to know these things except him whose dwelling is not with mortals? 39 As for me, I am without wisdom, and how can I speak concerning the things that you have asked me?”

40. He said to me, “Just as you cannot do one of the things that were mentioned, so you cannot discover my judgment, or the goal of the love that I have promised to my people.”

41. I said, “Yet, O Lord, you have charge of those who are alive at the end, but what will those do who lived before me, or we, ourselves, or those who come after us?”

(Question 6) In Chapter Seven (v.88-93), it says of the righteous:

88. “Now this is the order of those who have kept the ways of the Most High, when they shall be separated from their mortal body. ... they shall see with great joy the glory of him who receives them, for they shall have rest in seven orders. ... 93. The second order, because they see the perplexity in which the souls of the ungodly wander and the punishment that awaits them.

I don't know if it is really a rest to see the punishment of the ungodly. It's curious. If the righteous are merciful, maybe they don't like to see the torment of the unrighteous, or will want to help them. It's like Lazarus and whether he can give water to the rich man.
What do you think about this?

(Question 7) Chapter 10:23 sounded to me like it may be referring to the pentagram or hexagram, which were found on some ancient vessels' seals marked "Jerusalem".

And, worst of all, the seal of Zion has been deprived of its glory, and given over into the hands of those that hate us.

In his essay, "Jesus, Fourth Ezra, and a Son of Man Tradition in the First Century AD", Martin Sheldon sees the references to the Destruction of the Temple and the loss of the seal of Zion in 4 Esd 10 as alluding to the destruction of the Temple in c. 70 AD. He writes:

There is an admixture of chronistic references in this description. This is one reason for proposing that the author is pseudonymous and the reference to Babylon is cryptic. For example, Ezra refers to the Ark of the Covenant being carried away (10:22) and the seal of Zion being taken away (10:23). These events occurred at two different times in Israel's history.

FOOTNOTE 10
G. H. Box notes in The Apocalypse of Ezra (p. 84), concerning the reference to the ark of the covenant 'occurred at the destruction of the first Temple" and that the seal of Zion is her independence with a possible reference to the national coinage in AD 66-70.

What do you think the seal of Zion refers to?

[alon]

I have the books of 1 & 2 Esdras on my shelf. But I use them only as a reference. I don't study them as they are probably pseudepigraphic works. Much scholarship puts them at very late 1st cen CE or even much later. Regardless, they have a lot in them which is wrong, which is why they were not considered canon by the Protestants. The RC Church didn't formally adopt the Apocrypha until 1546. Before this they were considered to be esoteric writings whose secrets only certain initiates could understand. That is a red flag for most of us right there. Like the 400 yrs you mention, almost anything can be made of this since really it means nothing at all. Or maybe I am just not an initiate, which is true enough.

As Messianics however we do at times look into other writings not considered canon for one reason or another. The book of Judith for example I am pretty sure contains nothing against or any other scripture. And I'm not as sure about it, but I don't think the 1st 2 books of the Maccabees has anything wrong either. We may also look at other writings not AS scripture, but as containing customs or other details which might better help us understand scripture. 

I haven't read the books of Esdras through, and very little in the way of reference. So I really don't know if they contain anything really useful to us. I understand the Eastern Orthodox Church does consider the Apocryphal writings to be scripture, and they believe the Jews who worshiped Yeshua in the 1st cen also called them scripture, am I right? What you must understand is that the idea of a canon is a Gentile thing, not Jewish. This idea of a canon was more or less forced upon the Jews as their world was impacted heavily first by Greece, then by Rome. Both these cultures loved their lists, and this had a terrific impact on the Jews. However at that time many still called any writings that dealt with religious topics kadosh, holy, set apart. And there were many sects, some of which could be called different Judaisms. So I would not be surprised to find a 1st cen BCE or CE document which called one or more Apocryphal books holy, or scripture. But that wouldn't necessarily mean the apostles believed everything in those books, even though they may have been familiar with them.

I don't know that you'll get a lot of discussion here on books of the Apocrypha, even though some I know come from an RC background. That might get more response on a Catholic forum. Although if it does here it wouldn't be the first time the members have surprised me.

Dan C

[rakovsky]

Jan 21, 2019 1:08:03 GMT -8 alon said:

I understand the Eastern Orthodox Church does consider the Apocryphal writings to be scripture, and they believe the Jews who worshiped Yeshua in the 1st cen also called them scripture, am I right? What you must understand is that the idea of a canon is a Gentile thing, not Jewish. This idea of a canon was more or less forced upon the Jews as their world was impacted heavily first by Greece, then by Rome. Both these cultures loved their lists, and this had a terrific impact on the Jews. However at that time many still called any writings that dealt with religious topics kadosh, holy, set apart. And there were many sects, some of which could be called different Judaisms. So I would not be surprised to find a 1st cen BCE or CE document which called one or more Apocryphal books holy, or scripture. But that wouldn't necessarily mean the apostles believed everything in those books, even though they may have been familiar with them.

Dan,

It's neat to hear that you have 1-2 Esdras. I think I know what you are referring to about the interpretation and meanings being given to initiates: John's Revelation is usually not read in the Orthodox Church's services, and the Muratorian Canon included the Apocalypse of Peter, but had a similar limit on its use. I don't know whether "initiates" is the best word for those who could understand the early Christians' visionary writings, because the Gnostics were more into the idea of teaching "initiates" the supposed salvific, secret "knowledge" of their esoteric groups and cults.

The early Christians and the Orthodox Church could call the Apocrypha "scripture" in that "Scripture" means "writings", and the apocrypha were sacred writings that were included in Bibles. But they are not in the "canon" of the Orthodox Bible. This is why I wrote in the OP that 4 Esdras is part of the "canon" of the Ethiopian Church's Bible, but not in the canon of the KJV, the Eastern Orthodox Church, or the Catholic Church. Some Orthodox Christians might correct me and would give an answer like you did when you said that in the 1st century the Jewish canon or list of sacred writings was more fluid. I think that the Jewish canon was formalized by the rabbis' Council of Jamnia in the late 1st century. There might be some better words for this category like Deuterocanonical, because some of the books like Maccabees seem more historical and narrative than visionary or esoteric.

[rakovsky]

Dan,

Let me address why I find 4 Esdras and other noncanonical writings on the Old Testament theme worthwhile. One reason is that the New Testament writers and apostles were familiar with, respected, and used some of them in writing the Bible. For example, Jude 1:14 quoted the apocryphal Book of Enoch when Jude wrote about the ungodly:

Enoch, the seventh from Adam, also prophesied about them: “Behold, the Lord is coming with myriads of His holy ones 15to execute judgment on everyone, and to convict all the ungodly of every ungodly act of wickedness and every harsh word spoken against Him by ungodly sinners.”

The noncanonical writings can show religious beliefs common among the first century Christians because the Christian community authored and circulated the books. By analogy, if a writer wants to understand Luther and the Protestant Reformation, one would want to read their 16th century writings, even ones not included in their manifestos and principle declarations like the Augsburg Confession.

Also, like the Targums and Talmud in their commentaries on "Old Testament" events, these first century writings can reflect traditions handed down into the first century AD when they were finally written. This era is one of the earliest when we have surviving records of traditions and accounts of the TaNaKh's figures and events outside the TaNaKh itself. So in reading these 1st century texts, it can better help us to understand the foundational period and community of Christianity, as well as the Bible because it gives us added background on their ideas, culture, and terms. You gave a good example with the example of the concept of the rabbi's "yoke". This phrase in Judaism helps give us a better idea of what Jesus meant when he referred to His "yoke" being easy. Another good example that you gave was when you mentioned to people that the Book of Revelation reflected a genre of its time with similar ideas, which was news for your audience.

So I would like to please invite you to try to answer any of the questions that you can. You don't have to treat the books as a definitive authority or agree with them, because as you noted, they aren't in the canon. And your answers don't have to be right. You bring a valuable Messianic perspective to looking at the books because of their Jewish-Christian authorship. I added a link to 4 Esdras in Bible Gateway in the OP to make things easier, and you can delete it if you find the website in conflict with Messianic Judaism. Likewise, if you want you can ask me questions on Eastern Orthodoxy.

Thanks for hosting the discussion. Shalom.

[alon]

Jan 21, 2019 9:03:09 GMT -8 rakovsky said:

The early Christians and the Orthodox Church could call the Apocrypha "scripture" in that "Scripture" means "writings", and the apocrypha were sacred writings that were included in Bibles. But they are not in the "canon" of the Orthodox Bible. This is why I wrote in the OP that 4 Esdras is part of the "canon" of the Ethiopian Church's Bible, but not in the canon of the KJV, the Eastern Orthodox Church, or the Catholic Church. Some Orthodox Christians might correct me and would give an answer like you did when you said that in the 1st century the Jewish canon or list of sacred writings was more fluid. I think that the Jewish canon was formalized by the rabbis' Council of Jamnia in the late 1st century. There might be some better words for this category like Deuterocanonical, because some of the books like Maccabees seem more historical and narrative than visionary or esoteric.

My understanding of the term Deuterocanon is that it is "secondary canon;" books that have no conflicts or problems in them but which were not included in canon for one reason or another. So that is a clearly defined class of sacred writings. Apocrypha, meaning "hidden," are books of unknown authorship, dubious origin, or that are problematic in some way. That pretty much describes MOST of the books in the Apocrypha.

There is so much to study that is not problematic that I usually advise only looking at these books when referenced by someone else. However if you have the time there is often a lot to be learned, and sometimes spiritual benefits to reading the Apocryphal books as well as other extra-biblical books. We are learning much from the Qumran scrolls, for example. And the 1st 2 books of the Maccabees are where the RC folks get the faith many are noted for. But you will need an extra bucketfull of discernment when you read such writings.

Dan C

[alon]

Jan 21, 2019 9:51:00 GMT -8 rakovsky said:

Dan,

Let me address why I find 4 Esdras and other noncanonical writings on the Old Testament theme worthwhile. One reason is that the New Testament writers and apostles were familiar with, respected, and used some of them in writing the Bible. For example, Jude 1:14 quoted the apocryphal Book of Enoch when Jude wrote about the ungodly:

Enoch, the seventh from Adam, also prophesied about them: “Behold, the Lord is coming with myriads of His holy ones 15to execute judgment on everyone, and to convict all the ungodly of every ungodly act of wickedness and every harsh word spoken against Him by ungodly sinners.”

The Book of Enoch the apostles had and the one we have are not the same. Sadly, many writings have been lost to time, and the current Book of Enoch, while containing what apparently are fragments of the original has overall been proven to be a much later writing. 

rakovsky said: The noncanonical writings can show religious beliefs common among the first century Christians because the Christian community authored and circulated the books. By analogy, if a writer wants to understand Luther and the Protestant Reformation, one would want to read their 16th century writings, even ones not included in their manifestos and principle declarations like the Augsburg Confession.

Also, like the Targums and Talmud in their commentaries on "Old Testament" events, these first century writings can reflect traditions handed down into the first century AD when they were finally written. This era is one of the earliest when we have surviving records of traditions and accounts of the TaNaKh's figures and events outside the TaNaKh itself. So in reading these 1st century texts, it can better help us to understand the foundational period and community of Christianity, as well as the Bible because it gives us added background on their ideas, culture, and terms. You gave a good example with the example of the concept of the rabbi's "yoke". This phrase in Judaism helps give us a better idea of what Jesus meant when he referred to His "yoke" being easy. Another good example that you gave was when you mentioned to people that the Book of Revelation reflected a genre of its time with similar ideas, which was news for your audience

True.

rakovsky said: So I would like to please invite you to try to answer any of the questions that you can. You don't have to treat the books as a definitive authority or agree with them, because as you noted, they aren't in the canon. And your answers don't have to be right. You bring a valuable Messianic perspective to looking at the books because of their Jewish-Christian authorship. I added a link to 4 Esdras in Bible Gateway in the OP to make things easier, and you can delete it if you find the website in conflict with Messianic Judaism. Likewise, if you want you can ask me questions on Eastern Orthodoxy.

I might take you up on that offer to ask about EO beliefs and practices! I am currently arguing about whether Yeshua gave any new commandments in the NT with an EO person on another venue. We both just like to argue, and I can't do that here, so ... 

rakovsky said: Thanks for hosting the discussion. Shalom.

Actually, the forum is hosted by Synagogue Chavurat HaMashiach in Spokane, WA. I am about 3 hrs away from them, and so I travel to Erev Shabbat services with Synagogue Beit Aveinu out of Wenatchee, WA. The rabbi there travels to a town close enough that I can travel over and attend. He's in the Phillipines right now, so we just carry on without him. But when he is here and does teachings I learn a LOT from him. 

When I first found out about Messianic Judaism I started looking for ways to connect with others of like mind. I found a different forum, but they were not so restrictive about what could be posted or who could post. So it was almost as bad a sewer as the Hebrew Roots sites I was visiting. In the end, a bunch of dispensational Christians got on and pretty much ran off all but a few stalwarts there. I had already left, but was still monitoring the site in case someone posted something I found interesting. But when that happened I was already looking, and I found this site. It was a Godsend! So now, even though I sort of have a community and a good teacher, I stay here and moderate this forum to give back, because I know how tough it is for those doing this on their own.

Also occasionally we get people like you who want our thoughts on different topics, or who want to learn more about MJ. We welcome those of you who respectfully come to discuss, and hopefully you find us just as respectful in our answers. There aren't but a few active posters, and everyone is at different levels of understanding. Also many hold different views. But very often I find I get a perspective from others posts that I would never have considered. Some, like Elizabeth who is a mother has a perspective I could never have if I had a thousand years to meditate on this stuff! So I get a lot out of it too. But I am just a moderator, not the host.

Dan C

[rakovsky]

Jan 21, 2019 10:49:24 GMT -8 alon said:

I might take you up on that offer to ask about EO beliefs and practices! I am currently arguing about whether Yeshua gave any new commandments in the NT with an EO person on another venue.

Some topics and teachings can legitimately viewed one or more ways. Take for example Substitutionary Atonement vs. Christ the Victor vs. Redemption theologies about how salvation works. The theologies are not really mutually exclusive. Likewise, you can find Orthodox people today who will tell you that there are two covenants, an Old and a New one; and some others who will tell you that this is wrong and that there is really ever only one covenant between the Lord and His people. These positions are not really mutually exclusive and both can be correct.

[alon]

Jan 21, 2019 15:08:48 GMT -8 rakovsky said:

Some topics and teachings can legitimately viewed one or more ways. Take for example Substitutionary Atonement vs. Christ the Victor vs. Redemption theologies about how salvation works. The theologies are not really mutually exclusive. Likewise, you can find Orthodox people today who will tell you that there are two covenants, an Old and a New one; and some others who will tell you that this is wrong and that there is really ever only one covenant between the Lord and His people. These positions are not really mutually exclusive and both can be correct.

We fall into the "there is really ever only one covenant between the Lord and His people" camp. One book, one author, one message; and a God who said in both so called "testaments" that He does not change! Moreover: "These positions are not really mutually exclusive and both can be correct" is correct only in the sense that you can make divisions based on different co-authors, different times, different subjects (all of which point us to God and His Messiah in some way). However there should be no major division which effectively gives us two Bibles. That however is precisely what the early church and the fathers who framed it wanted.

A covenant cannot be changed without agreement of all parties; and while men may be faithless and break the covenant, God cannot. However a "testament" is a legal document which can be changed by a court, an official, or a governing body. By separating the books and labeling it such, the fathers set themselves up to be able to usurp God's authority and make changes to times and dates and observances without His or all the peoples consent. They were the courts, the synods, the councils, the bishops- one of which was a supreme bishop, the Pope.

They could also reinterpret scripture to mean what they wanted, so translations reflect their biases. And where they couldn't translate it into the pagan Greek so that it would say what they wanted, they controlled what congregants were taught so that they are brainwashed and cannot see the truth when it is plainly before them. In Acts  10, for example, Peter had a vision of a sheet full of animals lowered from heaven (vs. 11). A voice from heaven told Peter to kill and eat, but the  sheet contained unclean animals, so Peter declined. The command was repeated twice more, saying, "What God hath made clean, that call not thou common" (vs. 15). All Christendom takes this to mean they can now eat whatever they want, because this is taken out of context and taught to them that way. However at this point messengers sent from the Centurion Cornelius arrived, asking Peter to accompany them. He does, and he mentions the vision when he speaks to Cornelius, saying "God hath shewed me that I should not call any man common or unclean" (Acts 10:28). So the meaning of this vision is clearly given, yet Christians insist it is not the case. If showed this, most look puzzled at first, then say something like "Well, it can mean both."

True, it could, except it doesn't say it means both. Still, maybe it could, except when there is a discrepancy or problem with scripture, we must go to all that came before it to find the answer, and nowhere does it say you can eat unclean foods. And ultimately we must go back to , which is the foundation of the entire Bible. And there it clearly says we cannot eat unclean foods. However since we now arbitrarily have a testament instead of a covenant, and since we are no longer under the Hebrew system of scriptural exegesis, but rather the Greek (do a search for the threads  Greek Hermeneutics and Hebrew Hermeneutics), meanings can and are expected to be changed. And it is no longer Gods religion, but a pagan one which takes His name. What a coup for the enemy, ha'satan. And those two religious systems are very much mutually exclusive.

Dan C

PS: there is nothing wrong with a pig, a rabbit, or shellfish. does not denigrate them for being what they were made. "Unclean" is an unfortunate translation of ṭumah טומאה, ritually impure or ritually unavailable. We tend to equate the term "unclean" with filthy and all the negative connotations that carries. God had reasons for making those animals tumah; reasons for both their welfare and ours. But in understanding what the Bible says, we must also strive to understand what was said in the original Hebrew. This includes the so called "New Testament."

[rakovsky]

Alon,

Sure, I find your view that there is one covenant, one Bible legitimate, and agree that one can make divisions in it (eg. different authors and subjects - the books of Moses, the books of the NT, etc.). I would need another thread to explain better why I think that the account of Peter's vision in Acts suggests that there were animals in the sheet that the labeled ritually unclean, and that the Lord instructed him to eat those animals. It's noteworthy though even today that in Eastern Orthodoxy, the Noachide food restrictions still apply, in agreement with the Council of Jerusalem.

I think that you addressed questions 1-3 already. What do you think about Question 4 and the others? I took Question 4 as being like the challenges to Job in the Bible. Job wasn't able to answer the divine riddles, because only the Lord was capable of it. So the author of 4 Esdras meant that a mere human couldn't do things like measure a blast of wind. But maybe a person like Ezra in ancient times was actually able to measure blasts of wind with things like sails or windsocks?

[alon]

Jan 23, 2019 10:02:54 GMT -8 rakovsky said:

Alon,

Sure, I find your view that there is one covenant, one Bible legitimate, and agree that one can make divisions in it (eg. different authors and subjects - the books of Moses, the books of the NT, etc.). I would need another thread to explain better why I think that the account of Peter's vision in Acts suggests that there were animals in the sheet that the labeled ritually unclean, and that the Lord instructed him to eat those animals. It's noteworthy though even today that in Eastern Orthodoxy, the Noachide food restrictions still apply, in agreement with the Council of Jerusalem.

I think that you addressed questions 1-3 already. What do you think about Question 4 and the others? I took Question 4 as being like the challenges to Job in the Bible. Job wasn't able to answer the divine riddles, because only the Lord was capable of it. So the author of 4 Esdras meant that a mere human couldn't do things like measure a blast of wind. But maybe a person like Ezra in ancient times was actually able to measure blasts of wind with things like sails or windsocks?

You'd have to go to the text in the original language to find out the term which was translated "Lord" when speaking to Uriel. Since I don't believe this to be holy writ, speculating on whether the author meant it to be the CHrist, Yeshua, or just a spiritual messenger (malach) would be pointless. However since the author would have been acquainted with the book of Iyov (Job) it s not surprising that you find some parallels there.

Since men have always measured wind by various means, I am guessing the author meant something much more. Not just how strong it was or how long it blew, but the quantity of air moved. Also the severity of the blast would be different at different locations. These are the things a malach of the spiritual realm  might know that a man could not.

Dan C

[jimmie]

Jan 23, 2019 10:02:54 GMT -8 rakovsky said:

Alon,

I would need another thread to explain better why I think that the account of Peter's vision in Acts suggests that there were animals in the sheet that the labeled ritually unclean, and that the Lord instructed him to eat those animals.

There were unclean animals the sheet. God However did not instruct Peter to eat any of the unclean animals. God instructed him to kill and eat one of the clean animals that was in the sheet.


Act 10:11 And saw heaven opened, and a certain vessel descending unto him, as it had been a great sheet knit at the four corners, and let down to the earth:
12 Wherein were all manner of fourfooted beasts of the earth, and wild beasts, and creeping things, and fowls of the air.
13 And there came a voice to him, Rise, Peter; kill, and eat.
14 But Peter said, Not so, Lord; for I have never eaten any thing that is common or unclean.
15 And the voice spake unto him again the second time, What God hath cleansed, that call not thou common.
16 This was done thrice: and the vessel was received up again into heaven.

Verse 12 clearly states that there were all manner of fourfooted beast in the sheet. This would include clean animals such as sheep, goats, cows, and deer, as well as unclean animals such as pigs, horses, and camels.

In verse 12 Peter said he never ate anything the was common or unclean. A common animal is a clean animal that has become unclean by coming into contact with something unclean. The carcase of an unclean animal will cause what it touches to become unclean. However touching an unclean living animal does not cause anything to become unclean. See Lev. 11;26-28. So peter was in error to call the clean animals in the sheet common.

In verse 15 God rebukes Peter for calling something common that God had cleansed. That would have been for calling the clean animals in the sheet common. Also note God did not rebuke Peter for calling the unclean animals in the sheet unclean.

[rakovsky]

Alon,

I appreciate your thoughtful replies.

For Question 1 (about 4 Esdras' dating), you gave a fine answer, saying "Much scholarship puts them at very late 1st cen CE or even much later."

It must have been written after the writing of the other books of the Biblical Apocrypha, since the LXX includes Biblical books of Maccabees, but not 4 Esdras. II Maccabees identifies itself as written by Jason of Cyrene (100 BC.). The major Christian parts (or the whole document if it is Christian) of course was written in the first century or later. Since 4 Esdras 12 (as quoted below) apparently ascribes a succession of 12 kings to the Roman empire, the date of authorship could be around 81-96 AD.

14. And twelve kings shall reign in it, one after another.
15. But the second that is to reign shall hold sway for a longer time than any other one of the twelve.

The Roman historian Suetonious wrote De vita Caesarum, also known as The Twelve Caesars, describing the line of twelve emperors or "Caesars", from Julius Caesar to Domitian. Domitian reigned in 81-96 AD.

There is weaker evidence pointing to dates between the beginning of Christianity and Jerome's use of 4 Esdras. For example, 2 Esdras 3:1 says: “In the thirtieth year after the downfall of the City I Salathiel – who am also Ezra – was in Babylon, and as I lay on my bed I was disquieted.” This could be interpreted as an allusion to 30 years after the fall of Jerusalem in c. 70 AD, pointing thus to a date of writing of c. 100 AD.

Michael E. Stone writes about 4 Esdras 15:28-33:

"The prophet describes a vision of two military forces (each represented symbolically by an animal) engaged in battle in the east. It is generally thought that these two forces represent the troops of Odenathus of Palmyra ('the Arabian dragons,' v. 29) and those of Shapur I of Persia ('the Carmonians,' v. 30), which fought on the eastern bordres of the Roman Empire in A.D 260-261. If this identification is correct, it establishes the earliest possible date of composition for the work." (Harper's Bible Commentary, p. 789)

This is another example of weak evidence for a date. At the latest, the document was written before Jerome used in his Vulgate, in c. 382 AD. But the scholars consider it to be from the 1st to 3rd century as the fully reasonable possible range. I don't think I can get more specific than this.

[rakovsky]

For Question 2 (Russian Wikipedia interprets 4 Esdras 7:29 to mean: "The Messiah receives the law of mortality like all men, and his death doesn't have any meaning for humanity." Do you agree with this interpretation of 4 Esdras 7:29? Maybe the passage means that Jesus would have a 400 year life and then die naturally?), I think that the significance of the Messiah's death in the passage is that it concludes the end of his 400 year apocalyptic reign, marking the end of the human race and the restoration of the world for 7 days to a primeval, pre-human state. The passage, with the Lord's words to Ezra about this, runs in the NRSV:

26. “For indeed the time will come, when the signs that I have foretold to you will come to pass, that the city that now is not seen shall appear, and the land that now is hidden shall be disclosed.
27. Everyone who has been delivered from the evils that I have foretold shall see my wonders.
28. For my son the Messiah shall be revealed with those who are with him, and those who remain shall rejoice four hundred years.
29. After those years my son the Messiah shall die, and all who draw human breath.
30. Then the world shall be turned back to primeval silence for seven days, as it was at the first beginnings, so that no one shall be left. ..."

The KJV has for verse 29, "After these years shall my son the Christ die, and all men who have life." The Messiah's death happens with the death of everyone with life, and so is part of the same phenomenon. The passage does not say whether the Messiah would be killed at the end of this period or just die naturally like all mortals. Verses 31 etc. then go on to describe the general resurrection and Judgment that would follow.

This reminds me of the idea in some medieval rabbinic writings that the Messiah would establish his kingdom, reign for a very long time (like a thousand years), and then die. Maimonides wrote about the Messianic era:

But the Messiah will die, and his son and grandson will reign in his stead... However his reign will be a very long one. All human life will be longer, for when worries and troubles are removed, men live longer.... There is no reason for surprise that the Messiah's reign will extend for thousands of years. As our Rabbis have put it: 'When good is gathered together it cannot be speedily dissipated'.
(Cited in: Menachem Marc Kellner, Maimonides on the "Decline of the Generations" and the Nature of Rabbinic Authority, SUNY Press, Jan 1, 1996)

The nearest related idea in common Christian thinking is the hypothesis of "Chiliasm" or "Millennialsm", the idea of a millennial rule of Christ, but I haven't heard of Chiliasm including the idea that Christ would die after this long reign. If one were to force this idea to fit with the gospels, then it would suggest that Christ died, rose in three days, Ascended, and then will come back to have a 400 year reign and die again with all humanity, followed by the general Resurrection. But this idea that Christ would die again would contradict Paul's teaching in Romans 6:9, where he writes: "For we know that since Christ was raised from the dead, He cannot die again; death no longer has dominion over Him."

On the other hand, the reference to Christ's death in 4 Esdras 7 could refer to His first (and only) death if O.V. Binyukov is correct when he writes that "The 400 years is not a literal quantity of years but a symbolic reference to the 3 years of earthly service of Christ the Lord. 400 years was the length of the Jews in Egypt."

[alon]

rakovsky said:  (Question 1) What dating would you give to 4 Esdras?
… The first two chapters of 2 Esdras are found only in the Latin version of the book, and are called 5 Ezra by scholars. They are considered by most scholars to be Christian in origin [and] generally considered to be late additions…

 I’d tend to agree. Any religious writings in Latin only and which show Latin and Christian thought processes would be laer additions to an already more than just suspect book.

rakovsky said: [The next chapters are] conjectured by Protestant scholars to have been written in the late 1st century CE following the destruction of the Second Temple. ... Wellhausen, Charles, and Gunkel have shown that the original composition was in Hebrew...

It must have been written after the writing of the LXX's other books, since the LXX includes the books of Maccabees, but not 4 Esdras. 2 Maccabees identifies itself as written by Jason of Cyrene (100 BC.). I read that 4 Esdras apparently refers to the year of the Four Emperors of Rome (c.69 AD), so it would be written after that year.

Possibly. Or for some reason the early compilers of that particular canon just didn’t include it.

rakovsky said: (Question 2) Russian Wikipedia interprets 4 Esdras 7:29 to mean: "The Messiah receives the law of mortality like all men, and his death doesn't have any meaning for humanity."
Do you agree with this interpretation of the verse?

I disagree emphatically! As you note later, the 400 yrs is problematic. I am relatively sure the EO churches would all have a problem with this! As to what interpretations are textually correct, I don’t speak biblical Hebrew, Greek, or Latin. So I can’t answer that question. But I think you answered your own question quite well in the addendum: “But this idea that Christ would die again would contradict Paul's teaching in Romans 6:9, where he writes: "For we know that since Christ was raised from the dead, He cannot die again; death no longer has dominion over Him.”"

rakovsky said: The KJV has:
28. For my son Jesus shall be revealed with those that be with him, and those who remain shall rejoice within four hundred years.
29. After these years shall my son the Christ die, and all men who have life.

So really, we have no hope.

rakovsky said: Maybe the passage means that Jesus would have a 400 year life and then die naturally?
The interpretation that Slavic 3 Esdras sees the Messiah's death as not having value is actually directly from the important early 20th c. Russian Bible scholar Lopuhin, who considers the main part of 4 Esdras to have signs of "blindedness of the Jews". Lopuhin says that since the Eastern versions don't say "Jesus" in this passage (chp 7), it must be a Latin "correction" of the original text. He says that in Esdras the Messiah is seen as both a human descendant of David and a supernatural being.

Yeshua died once, and that was it! He conquered sin and death so that He and we will live eternally. As to Lopuhin, his catholic rots are sowing. If it’s a Latin “correction,” how is it the Jews and not Rome are responsible?

rakovsky said: (Question 3) How do you interpret the 400 years in 4 Esdras?

… I admit that if you take 4 Esdras seriously, the 400 year thing is curious, along with where it claims the Messiah (in the Latin version: "my son Jesus") would die at that point. …

I don’t take Esdras seriously at all, and really see no reason for studying it. You’ve obviously done a lot of work with it. But since it has such glaring problems and scriptural contradictions what’s the point?

rakovsky said: (Question 4) In 4 Esdras 4:3-5, the angel Uriel says to Ezra:

“I have been sent to show you three ways, and to put before you three problems. 4. If you can solve one of them for me, then I will show you the way you desire to see, and will teach you why the heart is evil.”

I [Ezra] said, “Speak, my lord.”

And he said to me, “Go, weigh for me the weight of fire, or measure for me a blast of wind, or call back for me the day that is past.”


To measure a blast of wind, couldn't someone set up a sail like on a ship and set its ends loose and see how far the sail travels? Maybe he could also use a kite or a wind net?

If God wanted to show one of His prophets something He wouldn’t ask them to do impossible tasks. We know wind can be measured in many ways, but in the 1st cen. they didn’t. When God gave examples like that it was like in Job when He asked if Job was there at creation.

rakovsky said: (Question 5): Is "Uriel" Christ, and if not, why does Ezra call him Lord (Is this "Adonai" in Hebrew or is it originally from a foreign word synonymous with both "Master" and "Lord"?) and say he controls the world in chapter 5?:

Lord just means one in charge. If you give yourself over to demons, hen they are your lords. And I would suspect if the writer here was talking to supernatural beings, they were demons.

rakovsky said: (Question 6) In Chapter Seven (v.88-93), it says of the righteous:
88. “Now this is the order of those who have kept the ways of the Most High, when they shall be separated from their mortal body. ... they shall see with great joy the glory of him who receives them, for they shall have rest in seven orders. ... 93. The second order, because they see the perplexity in which the souls of the ungodly wander and the punishment that awaits them.

I don't know if it is really a rest to see the punishment of the ungodly. It's curious. If the righteous are merciful, maybe they don't like to see the torment of the unrighteous, or will want to help them. It's like Lazarus and whether he can give water to the rich man.
What do you think about this?

Well, apparently the righteous could see the punishment of the ungodly from Paradise. Maybe we’ll see them in the Olam Haba, the World to Come as well. I don’t know.

rakovsky said: (Question 7) What do you think the seal of Zion refers to?

The seal on the deed to the city? Or an emblem representing the city? A seal usually carries authority or the idea of ownership.

Dan C

[rakovsky]

Aug 6, 2019 19:37:00 GMT -8 alon said:

rakovsky said: The KJV has:
28. For my son Jesus shall be revealed with those that be with him, and those who remain shall rejoice within four hundred years.
29. After these years shall my son the Christ die, and all men who have life.

So really, we have no hope.

I take this to mean that under this scheme, the remaining, rejoicing people living on earth with the Messiah for 400 years wouldn't avoid death. The next verses go on to describe the General Resurrection and Judgment.

rakovsky said: Maybe the passage means that Jesus would have a 400 year life and then die naturally?
<<The interpretation that Slavic 3 Esdras sees the Messiah's death as not having value is actually directly from the important early 20th c. Russian Bible scholar Lopuhin, who considers the main part of 4 Esdras to have signs of "blindedness of the Jews". Lopuhin says that since the Eastern versions don't say "Jesus" in this passage (chp 7), it must be a Latin "correction" of the original text. He says that in Esdras the Messiah is seen as both a human descendant of David and a supernatural being.>>

Yeshua died once, and that was it! He conquered sin and death so that He and we will live eternally. As to Lopuhin, his catholic rots are sowing. If it’s a Latin “correction,” how is it the Jews and not Rome are responsible?

Lopuhin saw that the surviving Eastern versions (Arabic, Ethiopic, Syriac) say "Messiah" and don't use the name "Jesus". So he was theorizing that the Eastern versions were correct, and that the Romans who translated the text into Latin "corrected" their version to say "Jesus".

When Lopuhin wrote that 4 Esdras has signs of the blindedness of the Jews, he was referring to how the document did not specify spiritual significance for the Messiah's death. He was interpreting 4 Esdras to mean that the divine and human Messiah would reveal himself, live 400 years, and then die with the rest of humanity. I think that Lopukhin was referring to the idea in the New Testament that the Jews (including Yeshua's disciples at first) lacked clear understanding about the atoning death of the Messiah. In the gospels, Yeshua has to open the disciples eyes about this topic.

rakovsky said: (Question 3) How do you interpret the 400 years in 4 Esdras?
<<… I admit that if you take 4 Esdras seriously, the 400 year thing is curious, along with where it claims the Messiah (in the Latin version: "my son Jesus") would die at that point. …>>
I don’t take Esdras seriously at all, and really see no reason for studying it. You’ve obviously done a lot of work with it. But since it has such glaring problems and scriptural contradictions what’s the point?

I find the early Christian texts like 4 Esdras spiritually helpful and fascinating. Studying them brings out ideas and facts that the early Christians had or dealt with, but which I am not.

Also, sometimes spiritual documents appear to have contradictions but actually do not, and figuring out whether they do or not is like solving a puzzle. Isaiah 53 is like this. There are puzzles like whether it refers to the Messiah, and seeming contradictions, like between the Messiah's kingly status, his being brought like a sacrificial animal and cut off, and then being rewarded by the Lord. Solving the puzzles can be fascinating and inspiring, as well as spiritually valuable.

You can rightly reply that 4 Esdras is not canon like Isaiah 53, so that we can't assume that it agrees with the ideas of Scripture. Lopuhin thought that it conflicted, but Binyukov didn't. Binyukov took the 400 years to refer to Christ's ministry and His death to refer to the crucifixion. So figuring this out, or trying to can be an interesting task considering that we are dealing with the apostolic-era texts.

You have been doing a good job yourself addressing the issues.

rakovsky said: (Question 7) What do you think the seal of Zion refers to?
The seal on the deed to the city? Or an emblem representing the city? A seal usually carries authority or the idea of ownership.

You are right that the plain image is a seal/emblem with authority or ownership. Something that came to my mind was the Second Temple-period hexagram seals found on ancient jars marked Jerusalem, like this:

But Jerusalem is not the same as Zion, which 4 Esdras references.