II. Chap. ii. 1-15 corresponds to Ezra i. 1-ii, recording the return of the Jews from Baby lon under the guidance of Sanabassar in the reign of Cyrus.
III. Chap. ii. 16-3o corresponds to Ezra iv. 7-24, giving an account of Artaxerxes' prohibition to build the temple till the second year of Darius.
IV. Chap. iii. 1-v. 6 contains the original piece.
V. Chap. v. 7-73 corresponds to Ezra ii. r-iv. 6, giving a list of the persons who returned with Zerubbabel, describing the commence ment of the building of the temple and the obstacles whereby it was interrupted for the space of two years' until the reign of Darius.
VI. Chap. vi. 1-vii. 15 corresponds to Ezra v. I vi. 22, giving an account of the building of the temple by Zerubbabel under Darius, of its completion in the sixth year of this mon arch's reign and of the commencement of the temple service.
VII. Chap. viii. r-ix. 36 corresponds to Ezra vii. I-x. 44, describing the return of Ezra with his colony, and the putting away of the strange wives.
VIII. Chap. ix. correspondents to Neh. vii. Viii. Chap. ix. correspondents to Neh. vii. 23-viii. 12, giving an account of Ezra's pub lic reading of the law.
The original piece around which all this clusters, has evidently been the cause of this transposition and remodelling of the narrative contained in the canonical books. Having assumed that Zerubbabel returned to Jerusalem with a portion of his brethren in the second year of Darius, the compiler natu rally placed Ezra ii. 1-iv. 5, which gives the list of those that returned, after the original piece, for it belongs to Zerubbabel's time, according to ii. 2, and the original piece he placed after Ezra iv. 7-24, because Ezra (Ezra iv. 24) led him to suppose that Artaxerxes reigned before Darius.
3. The Unity and Or4inal Language of the above analysis of its contents chews that the book gives us a consecutive history de templi restitutione as the Old Latin tersely expresses it. It is, however, not complete in its present state, as is evident from the abrupt manner in which it concludes with Neh. viii. 12. We may therefore legitimately presume that the compiler intended to add Neh. viii. 13-IS, and perhaps also
chap. ix. Josephus, who follows the history given in this book, continues to speak of the death of Ezra (Antiq. xi. 5. 5), from which it may be concluded that it originally formed part of this nar rative. More venturous are the opinions of Zunz, that Neh. i.-vii. originally belonged to this book (Die Gottesdienstl. Vortrage, p. 29), and of Eich horn, that 2 Chron. xxxiv. followed the abrupt breaking off (Einleitung in d. Apokr., p. 345, etc.) As to its original language, this compilation is un doubtedly made directly from the Hebrew, and not from the present Sept. This is evident from the rendering of nyri +)]5 by roll Audi, read ing for '")z A (comp. i. II with 2 Chron. xxxiv.
12) and of 49z nlby Cal zrcipra rd cuircis, reading :19Z1 for (comp.
i. 53 with 2 Chron. xxxvi. 19 ; see also ii. 7-9 with Ezra i. 4, 6; ii. 17 with Ezra iv. 9; ii. 16 with Ezra iv. 7 ; ii. 24 with Ezra iv. 16 ; ix. Jo with Ezra x. 4), since these can only be accounted for on the supposition that the book was com piled and translated from the Hebrew. The trans lator, however, did not aim so much to be literal as to produce a version compatible with the Greek idiom. Hence he sometimes abbreviated the He brew (comp. i. to with 2 Chron. xxxv. 10-12 ; ii. 15, 16 with Ezra iv. 7-It ; v. 7 with Ezra v. 6, 7 ; 4 with Ezra v. 3, 4 ; viii. 6 with Ezra vii. 6 ; viii. 14 with Ezra vii, 17 ; viii. 20 with Ezra vii. 22), and sometimes tried to make it more intelli gible by adding some words (comp. i. 56 with 2 Chron. xxvi. 20 ; ii. 5 with Ezra i. 3 ; ii. 9 with Ezra i. 4 ; ii. 16 with Ezra iv. 6 ; ii. 18 with Ezra iv. 12 ; V. 40 with Ezra ii. 63 ; v. 47 with Ezra iii. 1; v. 52 with Ezra iii. 5 ; v. 66 with Ezra iv. 1 ; vi. 41 with Ezra ii. 64 ; vi. 8 with Ezra v. 14 ; vi. 9 with Ezra v. 8; vii. 9 with Ezra vi. 18). The original portion, too, is a Palestinian production, embellished to suit the Alexandrian taste. The Hebrew forms of it may be seen in Josephus (Antiq. xi. 3. 1; and Josippon ben Gorion (i., c. 6, P. 47, etc., ed. Breithaupt).