Historical Context and Social Function of 4 Ezra

Chapter 11 Historical Context and Social Function of 4 Ezra Because of its literary characteristics, 4 Ezra does not provide any direct in- formation about the historical and social context in which it was written. However, from the text itself and from its comparison with other sources, it is possible to reconstruct, in an approximate way, the circumstances in which it was composed, and thus to describe, in general terms, what could have been its social function. As a starting point, we can say, with most scholars, that 4 Ezra constitutes both an attempt to explain the destruction of the Jerusalem Temple and a response to the Roman political propaganda, within the framework of the reorganization of the Jews after the revolt against the Empire (66–73 CE).1 Before proceeding, a caveat is in order. Strictly speaking, the study of the historical, cultural, and social context of a literary work—that is, all the elements external to the text necessary or useful to a better understanding of it—constitutes an endless task. Any reconstruction is necessarily selective. Furthermore, the distinction between the text itself and its context will always be approximate, since it is impossible to establish a precise border between what is inside a text and what lies outside it. Having performed a literary analysis of 4 Ezra will allow us to look at its environment with some questions in mind. For this reason, we have left this study until now. It would have been possible to follow the reverse path, that is, to begin with a presentation of the historical and social context and to analyze 4 Ezra subsequently. That choice, however, implies the risk of making general considerations that shed little light on the specific features of 4 Ezra.2 1 James R. Mueller, “A Prolegomenon to the Study of the Social Function of 4 Ezra,” SBLSP 20 (1981): 259–68; Esler, “Social Function,” 99–123; Heinz-Martin Döpp, Die Deutung der Zerstörung Jerusalems und des Zweiten Tempels im Jahre 70 in den ersten drei Jahrhunderten n.Chr. (Tübingen: Francke, 1998); Gerbern S. Oegema, Apokalypsen (Gütersloh: Gütersloher Verlagshaus, 2001), 98–101; Flannery, “Esoteric Mystical Practice,” Piovanelli, “Why Ezra and not Enoch?,” 237–49; Grabbe, “4 Ezra and 2 Baruch,” 221–35. On this subject there is an unpublished dissertation: M.L. Gray, “Towards the Reconstruction of 4 Esdras and the Establishment of Its Contemporary Context” (B. Litt. thesis, Oxford University, 1976) (non vidi; a summary can be found in Longenecker, “Locating Fourth Ezra,” 272). 2 One can even conclude that it is very unlikely that someone would ever write such a work. For C. Hezser, with the destruction of the Temple in the year 70, “almost all Palestinian Jewish literary activity seems to have come to a temporary end,” mentioning 2 Baruch and 4 Ezra in a footnote as exceptions: Catherine Hezser, Jewish Literacy in Roman Palestine (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2001), 426. © koninklijke brill nv, leiden, 2019 | doi:10.1163/9789004381612_015 Historical Context and Social Function of 4 Ezra 157 In our case, the task of explaining the historical context is determined by the interest in the account of the writing of the ninety-four books. The epi- logue of 4 Ezra raises several questions that cannot be answered only by the narrative or literary analysis of the work. Why Ezra and not another figure? Why does he appear as the restorer of the Torah in the Babylonian exile and not in Jerusalem? Why insist on the need to be interested in the end of time? Is it possible to identify the ninety-four books? Is there any controversy with regard to the twenty-four public books? In summary, we wish to know to what problems the seventh section of 4 Ezra is trying to give an answer. On the other hand, we will not pay attention to many other aspects of the historical context which could be relevant from other points of view, such as whether 4 Ezra is ex- horting the renunciation of an armed revolt against the Roman domination.3 Thus, the following pages will be organized around two main issues: the functionality of Ezra the scribe as the protagonist of the apocalypse, and the possible identification of the ninety-four books. 11.1 Why Ezra? The characterization of Ezra as the protagonist of the book has already been analyzed in some detail (in Chapter 9). Now we wish to ask why the author has chosen Ezra and not another character, something which requires know- ing the characteristics of this figure at the time of the composition of 4 Ezra. In this task, we should be wary of anachronism. One must not project onto the first century CE all the traits that will be attributed to Ezra in the later tradition where he will occupy an increasingly prominent position. For example, Isidore of Seville (560–636) claims that Ezra the scribe, under divine inspiration, re- stored and corrected the Law and the Prophets, which had been corrupted by the Gentiles, and constituted the collection of the Old Testament in twenty- two books, so that there would be as many books as letters of the alphabet (Etymologies 6.3, PL 82:235–236).4 A millennium later, in 1538, developing elements present in rabbinic liter- ature and in medieval Jewish commentators (R. David Kimchi), Elias Levita goes so far as to say that it was Ezra—in union with the other members of the 3 On this point, cf. Jones, Jewish Reactions, 57–77. 4 On this text and others like it (Irenaeus, Clement of Alexandria, Tertullian, Priscillian, and others), and on their dependence on 4 Ezra, cf. Kaestli, “Le récit de IV Esdras 14,” 72–83; Veltri, Libraries, 48–50; 79–91; and Pierre-Maurice Bogaert, “Les frontières du canon de l’Ancien Testament dans l’Occident latin,” in La Bible juive dans l’Antiquité, ed. Rémi Gounelle and Jan Joosten (Lausanne: Zèbre, 2014), 41–95, 84–88..

Load more