Timothy Jay Schwab of The God Culture has published a new book. Instead of another lesson about the history of the Philippines it is an annotated version of 1st and 2nd Esdras. This is the second volume of his Levite Bible project, the goal of which is to publish the Scriptures as they were kept at Qumran, i.e. the Dead Sea Scrolls.
Reading through the introduction one can see it's really the same old stuff from his videos and previously annotated Book of Jubilees. There is a lot of rehashing going on. But there is a lot of new material too. 2nd Esdras is important to The God Culture's historical and prophetical scheme because Timothy uses it to chart the alleged path of the Lost Tribes to Africa, Central Asia, and the Philippines. It is his belief that Negroes, Kurds, and Filipinos are actually Israelites and that Filipinos and Kurds will literally fight the anti-Christ in Jerusalem during the end times as they are the Two Witnesses spoken of in Revelation. A cursory reading of the introduction reveals the usual mangled syntax, prideful tone against scholars, and historical errors. Let's take a look.
The introduction of this book is set up just like that of The Book of Jubilees. There is some historical material and then a "Torah Test." The historical material deals with who lived in Qumran and is the same introduction found in The Book of Jubilees. There is additional material about how Hanukkah is a hoax, the book of Maccabees is a lie, and Antiochus Epiphanies never defiled the temple by sacrificing a pig on the altar. No proof is offered for this last claim except the Qumran Community's commentary on Nahum and Habakkuk as well as the dealings of Alexander the Great with the Jews. Timothy Jay Schwab ultimately rejects this historical event, i.e. the defiling of the temple by Antiochus by dismissing both Maccabees as lying propaganda and Josephus as fraudulent because his history is informed by Maccabees.
10:57 This fragment is accurate. Maccabees, however, is not. It makes us a new history, basically, in propaganda. The book is a lie....
Who Defiled The Temple? FINALLY, The Truth Exposed By the Dead Sea Scrolls
He offers no clue as to who wrote Maccabees or why the author would concoct not just a defamatory lie against Antiochus but a fake history of Judea which includes the rebellion of the Maccabees which shook off Grecian Seleucid rule and the restoration of the temple. Neither does he tell how such a lie would ever become accepted amongst the people to the extent that it ended up in the Septuagint with no backlash.
I will apply the same method I employed to review Timothy Jay Schwab's annotated Book of Jubilees which is using the "Torah Test" as a guide. Within a set framework hopefully this review will not be excessively long.
TORAH TEST
1. Prophetic Authorship
According to this criteria, for a book to be considered sacred scripture it must have been written by a prophet. Ezra wrote 1st and 2nd Esdras therefore both books are scripture. Tim's proof? The book says so.
1st and 2nd Esdras both identify their writer as the Prophet Ezra, or in Latin Esdras as an eyewitness or relating a fairly recent era in his time around 400 B.C. It does not do so in speculation but even identifies the exact Ezra to whom it refers with detailed lineage. In modern scholarly circles, many hold to the paradigm that somehow those in Qumran just wrote whatever they wanted and called it scripture claiming they wrote in the name of a prophet in fraud. The fact that they do not even realize they are undermining the actual Levite Temple Priests who cared for and curated scripture with their very lives, demonstrates the paradigm is illiterate of the Biblical keepers of scripture up until the time of Messiah. They did not write scripture arbitrarily, they kept it copying it over for many centuries in order to preserve it.
The prophet would typically employ the assistance of a Levite scribe to write his words down but they did not just make up whatever they wanted nor add to it nor wait centuries to write. That is not established and irresponsible. It is certainly not scholarly to claim they just made up texts and attributed them to the prophets just because they wanted to teach the people a lesson. This would undermine their authority in every sense and such practice is not recorded anywhere among the Temple Priests nor would it be acceptable in any sense then nor today. It is unthinkable anyone calling themselves a scholar would even enter such false paradigm.
This demonstrates a disrespect from the scholarly community for scripture and it’s writers and keepers. If a text says Ezra or Moses wrote it, then, either they wrote it, at most with the assistance of a scribe, or the whole thing is a lie. If it is a lie, then there is little to be learned from it. This vets very easily by merely reading the content as such research will reveal whether the writing offers truth or not. Notice, you will not learn this from reading a blog and scoffing. Does it align with scripture? Is it quoted in scripture? As we executed with The Book of Jubilees, it is time to apply The Torah Test to 1st and 2nd Esdras. Many may be surprised at what we find.
The Qumran/Bethabara exiled Temple Priests are the only documented source for scripture as to what was in the Old Testament and what was not up until the time of Messiah. Anything found there should be assessed with literacy and not by such scoffers. Anything not found there, should also be examined as to whether it should even qualify as scripture. Every book of the Old Testament canon was found in Qumran with the exception of Esther which tells us much. Esther must be examined as well. Notice too, Maccabees of similar Zionist tone to Esther also was not found among these Temple Priests. These are questionable and must be vetted. This is not a new thought. We will show you Martin Luther’s comments on this topic.
Ezra wrote these two books that bear his name as they not only test as scripture in theme and content but they are quoted in the New Testament and by Messiah Himself.
p.36
Tim offers no proof that Ezra wrote these books. Instead he assumes the fact saying that the books tell us Ezra was the author. That is all the proof we need because to posit that someone else wrote them under the name of Ezra is to show disrespect to the Community at Qumran who were the keepers of Scripture. But this assumes already that the book was found at Qumran and is Scripture. His Torah Test has just begun and Tim has already concluded that the book is scripture and was found amongst the Dead Sea Scrolls with zero proof. This is an absolutely worthless analysis of the authorship of 1st and 2nd Esdras.
2. Witness of the Spirit: The Historical Process
This is a very long section of 20 pages dealing with how different communities included 1st and 2nd Esdras in their canons. Specifically Tim cites the Ethiopian Orthodox Church as well as mentioning Codex Sinaticus and Vaticanus.
What is telling is one of the first Christian communities in their canon, the Ethiopian Orthodox Tewahedo Biblical Canon, approximated to the 4th century, included 1st and 2nd Esdras though titles get confusing as they are listed as 1 Ezra (Ezra-Nehemiah as 1 book), 2 Ezra (1st Esdras or Ezra 3 to the Rabbis) and Ezra Sutuel (2nd Esdras or Ezra 4 to the Rabbis). Even the Codex Vaticanus and Codex Sinaiticus both of the 4th Century as well as the Codex Alexandrinus of the 5th century included 1st Esdras (labeled as 3 Esdras or Ezra 3 and some Ezra 2 but all are 1st Esdras). Also, though not included in Jerome’s original Vulgate, the Latin Vulgate includes 1st and 2nd Esdras since the 9th century or so.
p.37
It is very interesting that Tim admits that Jerome's original translation of the Hebrew Scriptures lacks 1st and 2nd Esdras as that is an important testimony that neither the Christians nor the Jews considered this book as being Scripture. Jerome was well versed in the Scriptures and knew what was and was not in the canon. That is why he also rejected Jubilees and Enoch. His testimony about 1st and 2nd Esdras is found in his preface to Ezra and is as follows:
No one ought to be bothered by the fact that my edition consists of only one book, nor ought anyone take delight in the dreams found in the apocryphal third and fourth books. For among the Hebrews the texts of Ezra and Nehemiah comprise a single book, and those texts which are not used by them and are not concerned with the twenty-four elders ought to be rejected outright.
https://www.tertullian.org/fathers/jerome_preface_ezra.htm
As for Codex Sinaticus, that manuscript includes The Shepherd of Hermas. Are we to include that in the canon as well? Likewise, shall we adopt the 81 book canon of the Ethiopian Church? How about their theology? Will Tim be adopting their theology which teaches the Trinity, a doctrine Tim rejects? Of course he won't so why is the Ethiopian Church an authority on what belongs in the canon but not on theology?
Tim's next proof to the Witness of the Spirit concerning 1st and 2nd Esdras is that the books were actually found at Qumran. According to him, the problem is that the scholars who have been researching the Dead Sea Scrolls have willfully misrepresented this fact and covered up the truth.
In the Dead Sea Scrolls, we find what appears misrepresentation on yet another topic from those controlling these narratives.
Are we sure, then, that 1st and 2 Esdras were not found among the Dead Sea Scrolls? Are they even looking for it since these are not in their interest? Let’s take a good look at these so-labeled “Proto-Esther” fragments from the Dead Sea Scrolls, of which there are two.
p.38
What follows is an analysis of the two very tiny Proto-Esther fragments as well as the story of Esther. Over 14 pages Tim tries his hardest to undermine the story of Esther as well as reinterpret the two fragments as better fitting the story of 1st Esdras. His conclusion is as follows:
Many do not realize, this was not just rejected by the Qumran/Bethabara community but even by some Rabbis in that era, there is no mention of Purim nor Esther in the New Testament, the early church strongly questioned its authenticity and inspiration especially those in Turkey where the 7 ekklesias of Revelation were, and even Martin Luther wrote:
“I am so great an enemy to the second book of the Maccabees, and to Esther, that I wish they had not come to us at all, for they have too many heathen unnaturalities. The Jews much more esteemed the book of Esther than any of the prophets; though they were forbidden to read it before they had attained the age of thirty, by reason of the mystic matters it contains.” –Martin Luther (1483-1546), Table Talk [59]
Martin Luther knew even the Jews in the 1500s had issues with the Book of Esther being read among the youth due to mystic matters meaning there is hidden Kabbalistic meaning embedded in this book which demonstrates it is not scripture. That clarifies this is a Pharisee writing with hidden Pharisee messages to the initiated among the Pharisees. It is not for us and we need not read it. It is not scripture. However, let’s be clear, she was a concubine who slept with the King prior to marriage and the story should be adults only really as the Jews of the 1500s even knew.
We could go even deeper into this story but Esther is not found in the Dead Sea Scrolls and instead these liars have propagandized these two fragments in fraud. This needs to be addressed and the church should have caught this and addressed it long ago. However, they give this New Testament era find over to the Pharisees who defiled the Temple and defile scripture still. As long as the church listens to them, they will remain in willing ignorance. This is Proto-1st Esdras not Esther.
p. 51-52
I do not know why Tim cites Martin Luther at all on this matter. It is true that Martin Luther took issue with several books of the Bible including Esther, Maccabees, and James. The fact is all the books he disliked were included in his Bible. You can read the table of contents at this link. Martin Luther is no witness for Tim on any matter. Will Tim excise James from his New Testament?
The next six pages are taken up with analyzing 2nd Esdras and attempting to link it to the Qumran Community. Since no copy of 2nd Esdras was found at Qumran, indeed the overwhelming consensus is that it was written after the temple was destroyed, Tim instead tries to find similar thought patterns between the Dead Sea Scrolls and 2nd Esdras. It is these thought patterns that prove 2nd Esdras was found, or at lest used, at Qumran.
The general conclusion of those managing the Qumran narrative who are Pharisees (modern Rabbis) not Aaronic Levite Priests nor even Hebrews, is that 1st and 2nd Esdras are not found among the Qumran fragments. We have identified a sort of “Proto-1st Esdras” and now let us consider 2nd Esdras at least in mindset of the community that aligns heavily with 2nd Esdras.
He begins by citing two scholars who claim that the writings of the Qumran Community and 2nd Esdras both contain the same apocalyptic traditions. Here is their conclusion.
The conclusions of our study are no doubt modest but by no means insignificant. The observation that some of the key ideas of 4 Ezra are to be found in one way or another in the MSS from Qumran, allows to fit this apocalypse within a secular tradition more easily. We can see its roots, the development of certain themes, the rejection of others, etc. In short, we have a more historical vision of this fascinating work. In the same way that the publication of the Qumran fragments of 1 Enoch had proved that one should not look for the origins of apocalyptic tradition in the Antioch crisis, the discovery of certain basic ideas of 4 Ezra in 4QSecond Ezekiel forces us to separate the origin of these ideas from the great crisis that was the destruction of Jerusalem and of the Temple. We also have to acknowledge that these ideas had already been present within the apocalyptic tradition for some two centuries. While recognising the importance of this fundamental event in the radical way in which the author of 4 Ezra poses his problems, the Qumran parallels noted here force us to acknowledge that these ideas are not exclusively the product of reactions to the author’s present desperate situation, but had existed and matured over a long period within the apocalyptic tradition to which the author of 4 Ezra belongs.
Qumranica Minora I Qumran Origins and Apocalypticism (Studies on the Texts of the Desert of Judah) by Florentino Garcia Martinez, p. 167
The conclusion here is that the apocalyptic ideas in 2nd Esdras reflect a long tradition which stretches back hundreds of years. It is 2nd Esdras that has incorporated the apocalyptic tradition of Qumran and not the other way around. Timothy Jay Schwab in his usual fashion acknowledges the import of this study but then dismisses it by attributing bad motives to the author.
However, we encourage everyone to read this entire finding but unfortunately, they do not prove this out. One is left with a maybe or ammunition to scoff which is the likely intention unfortunately. If only these scholars then conducted true research seeking other fragments that may actually be a match to 2nd Esdras, then, this might be compelling. We did and we find more direct references.
p. 53
Once again the scholars are not just wrong but malicious and shallow while Tim and The God Culture have taken the time to do actual deep and compelling research. However, a closer look at the content of this research shows that Tim has found absolutely nothing to conclude that 2nd Esdras was held in esteem by the Qumran Community. In fact what follows is a whole lot of exorbitant interpretation and polemic. Tim claims that the Qumran Community applied 2nd Esdras in their interpretation of Habakkuk.
One must merely read the community writings and commentaries especially from these Aaronic Temple Priests to quickly realize they were reading and applying the prophesies of 2nd Esdras which the aforementioned scholars do perceive. One of the greatest examples of this synergy is Ezra’s Prophetic Vision of the Eagle Empire, the Final Empire (2 Esd. 11-12). Ezra tells us this is a continuation of Daniel’s Fourth Beast thus this must be the Final Empire which Daniel describes in interpretation of the statue from Nebuchadnezzar’s dream from Yahuah (Dan. 2) as well as the Four Beasts (Dan. 7). We fully break this Eagle Empire down at the end of Chapter 11 of 2nd Esdras with diagram even identifying the three heads in the end.
In their commentary on Habakkuk, these sons of Zadok of Qumran/Bethabara clearly apply this 2nd Esdras vision in their interpretation.
p. 53
His whole thesis that 2nd Esdras was found in Qumran amongst the Dead Sea Scrolls relies on this notion of "synergy" rather than the finding of actual fragments of 2nd Esdras. Instead of offering hard and tangible proof that the Qumran Community used 2nd Esdras Tim goes on to offer a bizarre and factually wrong interpretation of their commentary on Habakkuk.
The Holy Roman Empire moves it’s seat at least in appearance but the islands from Greece and Turkey to the rest of the Mediterranean to the British Isles as well as their coastal nations have been these power structures as these ‘islands of the sea” which “come from afar” largely throughout history until today. They established such pattern from the beginning when Constantine essentially declared Turkey as the seat of the new Roman Empire. He is the origin of the Holy Roman Empire (Final Empire) as he established the control religion that remains the largest in the world to this day. He did so “where satan’s seat is” (Rev. 2:13) and the synagogue of satan worked (Rev. 2:9, 3:9) That restored the role of Priest King, Pontifex Maximus (“greatest priest,” title of the Pope also deriving from Persia not the Bible) originating in the Nephilim Atlantis and prominent in Persian history. That role is NEVER a Biblical one and it’s history is lined in blood no different from that of Mohammed who was no prophet but a warlord both better aligning with the acts of the Beast and fruits of satan as they steal, kill and destroy (Jn. 10:10). This was the origin of his religion as well as he was High Priest of Mithraism, a Persian religion. Constantine was repeating the same Samaritan hijacking of Yahuah’s worship infusing it with their Persian/Babylonian gods (2 Ki. 17) which is why Catholicism is so foreign to the Bible in practice most of the time.
It would certainly explain their obsession with forcing a Trinity, a term not found in the Bible but well-documented in Persian worship.
This is ignorant nonsense. Constantine is not the origin of the Holy Roman Empire. The Holy Roman Empire was actually founded by Charlemagne in the year 800. It was dissolved during the Napoleonic wars and no longer exists. It is most certainly not the "Final Empire." What Constantine founded later became the Byzantine Empire when the Western half of the Roman Empire fell. The Byzantine Empire lasted until 1453 when the Ottomans conquered it. And what exactly is the Nephilim Atlantis? Pure fantasy. The doctrine of the Trinity was around long before Constantine came on the scene but Tim would not know this as he has not read the writings of the pre-Nicene church and rejects the doctrine because the word "trinity" does not appear in the Bible. I agree. It does not. But the concept does. The doctrine does. That is why the Church confesses it. There is no room to get into that here but the information is out there. Start with reading the Seven Ecumenical Councils.
Tim concludes this portion of the "Torah Test" by telling us that 2nd Esdras is cited in an alleged prophecy of the Messiah which originates from Qumran. He then offers us this:
What did John say Messiah’s purpose was? He declared: “Behold the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world” (Jn. 1:29). The only way to take away lawlessness or sin is to restore the law.
p. 56
That is Tim's heretical legalistic doctrine of "the law is what redeems us." To think that Jesus came to restore the law is anti-Christian to the core. Jesus Christ is the END of the law for righteousness to every one that believeth (Rom 10:4).
To sum up this portion of Tim's Torah Test he offers no "Witness of the Spirit" for either 1st or 2nd Esdras. The Witness of the Spirit is:
“The appeal to the inner witness of the Holy Spirit was also made to aid the people in understanding which books belonged in the canon and which did not.”
Tim does not show how the books of 1st and 2nd Esdras were used throughout history by the Church. The fact is both books were excluded from the canons of the Jews and Christians. Neither the Third Council of Carthage held in 397 A.D. nor the Decretum Gelsaianum include those books in their lists of Canonical Scripture. 1st Esdras made it into the Septuagint but not 2nd Esdras which is not accepted in the East while in the West both 1st and 2nd Esdras are relegated to apocrypha rather than Scripture. Jesus said the Spirit would be sent to lead the Church into all truth. Tim offers no florilegium or catena of citations of 1st and 2nd Esdras spanning the history of the Church to show that the books were used as Scripture because such a thing does not exist. The Church rejected them.
That the Church rejected 1st and 2nd Esdras as Scripture is a testimony against the Witness of the Spirit for them. This is another worthless analysis that offers the reader nothing substantial to prove the case for the canonicity of 1st and 2nd Esdras.
Let me add here that the subtitle of this book, The Hidden Book of Prophecy, really does despite to the Spirit of Grace. How can Tim talk about the Witness of the Spirit and then call this a HIDDEN book of prophecy? The Spirit was sent to reveal all truth to us (John 16:13). There is no hidden prophecy or books or knowledge waiting to be revealed in the end times. The fullness of revelation is to be found in Jesus Christ who was revealed 2,000 years ago and fulfilled both the law and prophets. The Law and the Prophets were until John (Luke 16:16). The testimony of Jesus IS the Spirit of prophecy (Rev. 19:10).
3. Acceptance
Acceptance is rather self-expalantory and is not much different from the Witness of the Spirit. The issue is whether or not the church accepted 1st and 2nd Esdras as Scripture. They did not and Tim does not offer any proof to the contrary. Instead he says there are parallels between 2nd Esdras and Revelation and is probably the origin of certain terms found there. This on its face is completely wrong.
If we are to take Revelation seriously then we must admit that it is a book all of its own and does not borrow from any sources. John was given a unique vision and he wrote down what he saw. To say that Revelation cites Jubilees or 2nd Esdras or any other book influenced it in any way is to deny the uniqueness of John's vision. The only reason there are similarities between Revelation and other prophetic books like Ezekiel is because there is only one God and one consistent revelation of Him. But to say John borrowed from other books is to deny the uniqueness of the vision which John was commanded to write down. What thou seest, write in a book (Rev. 1:11).
4. Quoted as Doctrine in Scripture
Tim begins this section as follows:
In this portion of The Torah Test, we will identify several scriptures from the New Testament in which 2nd Esdras is the likely origin. We are aware the current scholarly dating of 70-218 A.D. remains an illiterate guess as to when this book was written. No scientific dating has occurred thus they are only guessing. As we proved earlier in this test, we can find 2nd Esdras being used to interpret prophecy as early as 100 B.C. and 1st Esdras in 100 A.D. at least. There is a high likelihood 1st Esdras was in the original Septuagint of 300 B.C. or so. We covered the historicity which waxes solid.
2nd Esdras was written at the very least in 100 B.C. well before the whole of the New Testament thus any concepts we find in the New Testament for that book, proves Messiah and the Apostles were quoting it. Of course, that still is far later than the book says and once you find this vets as scripture in doctrine especially, 2nd Esdras was written when it says it was around 400 B.C. by the Prophet Ezra himself or perhaps his scribe though he originally was a scribe so certainly would not have needed one necessarily. This will affirm 2nd Esdras as inspired scripture or not. Let’s begin with Messiah’s words even recognized in the 1611 King James Version as originating in 2nd Esdras.
p. 59-60
This is a very long section but there is no need to go through each of the alleged citations of 2nd Esdras in the New Testament. The fact is Tim has not proven that Ezra wrote the book, he has not proven it was to be found in Qumran, and he has certainly not disproved the accepted date of the book's writing which is sometime after the destruction of the temple. He simply assumes all those things while mocking the consensus of the book's post-70 A.D. date as "an illiterate guess." 2nd Esdras, also known as 4th Ezra, does contain passages similar to the New Testament and there is a reason for that.
Fourth Ezra is a pseudonymous Jewish writing that was highly regarded by the early Christians, who added material to the book and used it in worship and instruction in the second century C.E.
The Biblical Canon, Lee McDonald, p. 161
Tim does not disprove that consensus in the slightest, though he thinks he does. What he does do is write page after page of irrelevant interpretation and polemic. It is assertion after assertion with no actual proof. His alleged proof that 1st and 2nd Esdras was known to the Qumran Community is based on his interpretation of the very tiny fragment known as Proto-Esther and similarities with the Habakkuk commentary.
Tim is putting the cart before the horse here since he has not proven any of his previous assertions. This part of the Torah Test is easily disproved by noting that every single time Jesus cites Scripture he alerts his hearers by saying "It is written" or "You have heard it said" or something similar. At no point do any of Jesus' alleged quotations from 2nd Esdras follow that pattern.
5. In Agreement With the Whole of Scripture
Tim's conclusion to the Torah Test is more assumptions that he has proved his case.
Having fully reviewed the 5 points of our Torah Test, some from Blue Letter Bible and our additions to strengthen such test, we feel confident in declaring 1st and 2nd Esdras as inspired scripture. We find the authorship of a prophet who writes accurate prophecy and doctrine from which many New Testament passages originate. We find these books applied in consistent historicity as inspired scripture from around 100 B.C. to present. Again, we demand the Pharisees and the Catholic Church produce their authority to overrule the legitimate, ordained Temple Priests who were exiled to Qumran. If they cannot, and none can, they have no such authority. We should all migrate to a position which places these Biblical keepers of scripture above any modern scholar.
1st and 2nd Esdras coalesce with the whole of scripture including the role of the Yahudim in the Old Testament and New as well as Messiah’s purpose, birth, death, ascension and second coming. One can strain gnats to attempt a detail here or there but they do that with the Gospels even and they are wrong every time. The Bible never contradicts itself, man’s interpretations do. This is very solid ground in which we can move forward in publishing 1st and 2nd Esdras in The Levite Bible of texts found in Qumran not currently in most modern canons. When assessing all of these books, one uncovers a clear agenda of manipulation which has led to their censorship at least in part for some. It is time we all awaken and test this increasing knowledge of ancient origin. Here is our report card for 1st and 2nd Esdras which prove as inspired scripture.
p. 72
The only thing Tim has shown is that 2nd Esdras has similarities between the apocalyptic literature of Qumran and the New Testament. That is because 2nd Esdras was written after the destruction of the temple, has Christian interpolations, and is firmly in the apocalyptic tradition which was in evidence at Qumran. This is why 2nd Esdras especially has such an affinity with the Gospels. Tim has everything backwards by assigning 2nd Esdras an earlier date. Likewise Tim has failed to prove any application of 1st or 2nd Esdras as history or "as inspired scripture from around 100 B.C. to present." This is because the Church never accepted those books as scripture. He has cited no sermons or commentaries or writings where this book is used authoritatively or referred to as sacred scripture. One of the most important apologetic pieces of literature from the Early Church is the dialogue of Justin with Trypho. Justin goes through the whole Old Testament proving that Jesus is the foretold Messiah. Not one time does he cite from 2nd Esdras and its prophecy about the Messiah. Not one time! That is because it is not part of the Jewish Old Testament.
For all the words Tim has typed this analysis is poor and shallow. There are a lot of problems with 2nd Esdras which he simply does not discuss such as the differences between the Greek and Latin manuscripts.
Study of 2 Esdras is complicated by the probability that its early chapters—found only in Latin manuscripts but in not Greek ones—appear to be later additions written by a Christian author, prophesying the coming of the messianic "son of God" and God's subsequent complete rejection of the Jews. Some later chapters may also suffer from similar additions, although this is more debatable. Despite these and other difficulties with the text, the bulk of the work is considered one of the gems of Jewish apocalypticism.
The first two chapters of 2 Esdras appear in the Latin version of the book, but not the Greek. They are considered by most scholars to be Christian in origin for this reason, and more especially because they speak of the the Messiah in Christian terms and assert God's rejection of the Jews in language resembling the Christian theology of the second and third centuries C.E. "I gathered you as a hen gathers her brood under her wings," it states, apparently quoting a phrase used by Jesus in Matthew 23:37, "but now, what shall I do to you? I will cast you out from my presence." (1:30)
This section also contains a vision of the the Messiah as the son of God who ministers to the martyred saints in heaven: "Then I said to the angel, 'Who is that young man who places crowns on them and puts palms in their hands?' He answered and said to me, 'He is the Son of God, whom they confessed in the world.'" (2:46-47)
Because of their Christian character, these chapters are therefore generally considered to be late additions to the work from the second or third century.
https://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/2_Esdras
The issues raised in the above article are why 2nd Esdras is assigned a late date. It is not an "illiterate guess." It is a hypothesis that takes into account the actual contents of the book as well as the fact that there is no evidence for the existence of 2nd Esdras until after the destruction of the temple. Tim does not deal with any of this. He does not mention that there is no Hebrew version of 2nd Esdras or that the Latin and Greek texts differ. For all the research he has done on 2nd Esdras there is no way he can be ignorant of these facts. So, why does he ignore them? Because he cannot overcome them and they disrupt his thesis that the Qumran Community was influenced by the book and that it was ever considered Scripture.
This is the end of the first part of my review of this book. Next week I will take a look at Tim's marginal notes and other annotations.
