Does Jesus quote an apocryphal book in Matthew 23?

squirrelyguy

Well-known member
I have color-coded the relevant passages here for comparison. If He isn't literally quoting 2 Esdras, it certainly looks like He is alluding to it and assumes His audience would be familiar with it.

2 Esdras 1:30-33

"I gathered you together, as a hen gathereth her chickens under her wings: but now, what shall I do unto you? I will cast you out from my face. When ye offer unto me, I will turn my face from you: for your solemn feastdays, your new moons, and your circumcisions, have I forsaken. I sent unto you my servants the prophets, whom ye have taken and slain, and torn their bodies in pieces, whose blood I will require of your hands, saith the Lord. Thus saith the Almighty Lord, Your house is desolate, I will cast you out as the wind doth stubble."

Matthew 23:34-39

"Wherefore, behold, I send unto you prophets, and wise men, and scribes: and some of them ye shall kill and crucify; and some of them shall ye scourge in your synagogues, and persecute them from city to city: That upon you may come all the righteous blood shed upon the earth, from the blood of righteous Abel unto the blood of Zacharias son of Barachias, whom ye slew between the temple and the altar. Verily I say unto you, All these things shall come upon this generation. O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, thou that killest the prophets, and stonest them which are sent unto thee, how often would I have gathered thy children together, even as a hen gathereth her chickens under her wings, and ye would not! Behold, your house is left unto you desolate. For I say unto you, Ye shall not see me henceforth, till ye shall say, Blessed is he that cometh in the name of the Lord."
 
Interesting. Thanks for this.

I don't know. I think we can assume that Jesus was at least alluding to it. There doesnt seem to be any other OT reference. What do you think squirrelguy?
 
May I suggest that you look at Bruce Metzger's introduction to "2 Esdras" particularly what he says about the first two chapters, the date of composition and language. I only have a hard copy Metzger's Apocrypha 1977 edition where this is on page 23. I found the text used in a different book by searching in https://searx.info/search for the string "2 Esdras are extreamly complicated" a direct link to Google Books will probably fail but here it is: LINK.

The end of the paragraph: "... About the middle of the Second century CE a Christian editor added in Greek the introductory section."
The introductory sections are what you are looking at.

You should consult contemporary scholarship. I think Metzger has a more recent edition of this book.

EDIT: The wording quoted isn't exactly verbatim from Metzger.
 
Last edited:
May I suggest that you look at Bruce Metzger's introduction to "2 Esdras" particularly what he says about the first two chapters, the date of composition and language. I only have a hard copy Metzger's Apocrypha 1977 edition where this is on page 23. I found the text used in a different book by searching in https://searx.info/search for the string "2 Esdras are extreamly complicated" a direct link to Google Books will probably fail but here it is: LINK.


The introductory sections are what you are looking at.

You should consult contemporary scholarship. I think Metzger has a more recent edition of this book.

EDIT: The wording quoted isn't exactly verbatim from Metzger.
I haven't looked at contemporary scholarship's take on this, but I am assuming that the reason Metzger and others say that the first two chapters are a Christian addition is because of the description of the Son of God crowning the saints towards the end of chapter 2. Critical scholars do this with the canonical books as well; they assume that if the text describes people, places, or events that happened after the book was supposedly written that it must be written later and attributed falsely to someone who lived earlier. They especially do this with the book of Daniel based on the description of the four kingdoms which would follow in succession.

I'm not saying Metzger was a liberal scholar, but since he didn't view 2 Esdras as inspired, he may very well have adopted a tactic of liberal scholarship in ascertaining the date of composition since it would be of no consequence to his beliefs.
 
Interesting. Thanks for this.

I don't know. I think we can assume that Jesus was at least alluding to it. There doesnt seem to be any other OT reference. What do you think squirrelguy?
I don't know either; I just think it's worth thinking upon. My interest in the apocrypha isn't based on a belief that it belongs in the canon, but out of a curiosity over whether those works and other ancient works (Enoch, Jubilees) might have been written under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. Even if they were, it wouldn't necessarily mean that they should be incorporated into our Bibles for a number of reasons...but we know that the book of Enoch is quoted in the New Testament (Enoch 1:9 is quoted in Jude 1:14-15), so it isn't unreasonable to suppose that the biblical writers looked to non-canonical works as sources of divine authority.
 
I think you are misunderstanding where Metzger and others are going with this. It isn't about the fundamentalist modernist controversy. It is a different issue from late dating the authorship of Daniel.
 
Last edited:
I have color-coded the relevant passages here for comparison. If He isn't literally quoting 2 Esdras, it certainly looks like He is alluding to it and assumes His audience would be familiar with it.

2 Esdras 1:30-33

"I gathered you together, as a hen gathereth her chickens under her wings: but now, what shall I do unto you? I will cast you out from my face. When ye offer unto me, I will turn my face from you: for your solemn feastdays, your new moons, and your circumcisions, have I forsaken. I sent unto you my servants the prophets, whom ye have taken and slain, and torn their bodies in pieces, whose blood I will require of your hands, saith the Lord. Thus saith the Almighty Lord, Your house is desolate, I will cast you out as the wind doth stubble."

Matthew 23:34-39

"Wherefore, behold, I send unto you prophets, and wise men, and scribes: and some of them ye shall kill and crucify; and some of them shall ye scourge in your synagogues, and persecute them from city to city: That upon you may come all the righteous blood shed upon the earth, from the blood of righteous Abel unto the blood of Zacharias son of Barachias, whom ye slew between the temple and the altar. Verily I say unto you, All these things shall come upon this generation. O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, thou that killest the prophets, and stonest them which are sent unto thee, how often would I have gathered thy children together, even as a hen gathereth her chickens under her wings, and ye would not! Behold, your house is left unto you desolate. For I say unto you, Ye shall not see me henceforth, till ye shall say, Blessed is he that cometh in the name of the Lord."
Considering 2 Esdras was written towards the end of the first century AD around the time when Josephus wrote some of his latest writings, Jesus most likely was quoting the book of Ruth, which used similar language.
 
Considering 2 Esdras was written towards the end of the first century AD around the time when Josephus wrote some of his latest writings, Jesus most likely was quoting the book of Ruth, which used similar language.
Is it clear exactly that 2 Esdras was written after Jesus' death and resurrection.
 
I don't know either; I just think it's worth thinking upon. My interest in the apocrypha isn't based on a belief that it belongs in the canon, but out of a curiosity over whether those works and other ancient works (Enoch, Jubilees) might have been written under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. Even if they were, it wouldn't necessarily mean that they should be incorporated into our Bibles for a number of reasons...but we know that the book of Enoch is quoted in the New Testament (Enoch 1:9 is quoted in Jude 1:14-15), so it isn't unreasonable to suppose that the biblical writers looked to non-canonical works as sources of divine authority.
I believe God inspired the men compiling the canon as much as he inspired the writing of scripture.
Therefore everything not in the Canon is not in there for a reason.
 
Considering 2 Esdras was written towards the end of the first century AD around the time when Josephus wrote some of his latest writings, Jesus most likely was quoting the book of Ruth, which used similar language.
Is it clear exactly that 2 Esdras was written after Jesus' death and resurrection.
I meant this as a question:
Can it be solidly shown that 2 Esdras was written after Jesus' death and resurrection?
 
I meant this as a question:
Can it be solidly shown that 2 Esdras was written after Jesus' death and resurrection?
Fwiw, the New Oxford Annotated Bible breaks it down into multiple writings, that is, it is a composite with the earliest portion written near the end of the first century AD.

An interesting note that is prior to the introduction of the book is, "The following book is Included in the Slavonic Bible as 3rd Esdras, but is not found in the Greek. It is included in the Appendix to the Latin Vulgate as 4 Esdras." New Oxford Annotated Biblie, p. 320 APOCRYPHA, (c)OXFORD
 
I meant this as a question:
Can it be solidly shown that 2 Esdras was written after Jesus' death and resurrection?
Yes, because there is no evidence prior to the end of the first century AD that 2 Esdras was written before this, let alone prior to Jesus' death & resurrection.
 
Yes, because there is no evidence prior to the end of the first century AD that 2 Esdras was written before this, let alone prior to Jesus' death & resurrection.
Thanks for thinking of the question, @BornAgainRN.

I find it easier to call this book 4 Esdras like Jerome did for clarity, because sometimes the Biblical books of Ezra and Nehemiah have been called "II Esdras" in Greek.

Lack of evidence of a pre 33 or pre 100 AD date is not a solid showing, but there are some signs of a 1st century date, like the eagle's heads, representing perhaps Roman rulers of the 1st century AD.

Scholars often consider it actually to be a Jewish Christian writing. It has a chapter talking about the Messiah in a way that reminds me of Christianity. The prediction of the world's end in that chapter seems to conflict with standard Christ ideas of those on earth being alive and seeing the Second Coming, but the prediction does go along with the noncanonical book of 2 Baruch.

The Jewish Apocalyptic genre that the book belongs to generally precedes the Bar Kohba revolt, and perhaps the 70 AD Temple destruction. Judaism underwent major changes following the Temple destruction due to the lack of the Temple center, the Council of Jamnia, the split with Christianity, etc.

One part of it, as I recall, about the Last Judgment and Afterlife, overlaps and relates closely to part of the Apocalypse of Peter and the Christian Sibylline Oracles.

One issue related to Matthew's Gospel in the OP is also the dating of Matthew's Gospel. Scholars seem divided on whether it was written before or after the 70 AD destruction.

I am inclined to think that Matthew was written first and then 4 Esdras was written following the "Year of the 4 Emperors", ie. after 68-69 AD.

An interesting note that is prior to the introduction of the book is, "The following book is Included in the Slavonic Bible as 3rd Esdras, but is not found in the Greek. It is included in the Appendix to the Latin Vulgate as 4 Esdras." New Oxford Annotated Biblie, p. 320 APOCRYPHA, (c)OXFORD
BJ,
An explanation for this is that being noncanonical, it was not included in the Greek Bible and the Greek translation was lost. The Greek Church as a result never included it it in its Bible.

For some reason, Jerome give it special attention and the Western Church preserved it, even though the Catholic Church has also considered it noncanonical, although they put it in their Bible texts, kind of like what the KJV did.

The Russian Church Bible printers picked it up from the Catholic Bibles, and the 1968 Russian Church Bible counts all the Bible books as "holy books", but they also put a mark on it as noncanonical in their Bible printings.

Regards.
 
Thanks for thinking of the question, @BornAgainRN.

I find it easier to call this book 4 Esdras like Jerome did for clarity, because sometimes the Biblical books of Ezra and Nehemiah have been called "II Esdras" in Greek.

Lack of evidence of a pre 33 or pre 100 AD date is not a solid showing, but there are some signs of a 1st century date, like the eagle's heads, representing perhaps Roman rulers of the 1st century AD.

Scholars often consider it actually to be a Jewish Christian writing. It has a chapter talking about the Messiah in a way that reminds me of Christianity. The prediction of the world's end in that chapter seems to conflict with standard Christ ideas of those on earth being alive and seeing the Second Coming, but the prediction does go along with the noncanonical book of 2 Baruch.

The Jewish Apocalyptic genre that the book belongs to generally precedes the Bar Kohba revolt, and perhaps the 70 AD Temple destruction. Judaism underwent major changes following the Temple destruction due to the lack of the Temple center, the Council of Jamnia, the split with Christianity, etc.

One part of it, as I recall, about the Last Judgment and Afterlife, overlaps and relates closely to part of the Apocalypse of Peter and the Christian Sibylline Oracles.

One issue related to Matthew's Gospel in the OP is also the dating of Matthew's Gospel. Scholars seem divided on whether it was written before or after the 70 AD destruction.

I am inclined to think that Matthew was written first and then 4 Esdras was written following the "Year of the 4 Emperors", ie. after 68-69 AD.


BJ,
An explanation for this is that being noncanonical, it was not included in the Greek Bible and the Greek translation was lost. The Greek Church as a result never included it it in its Bible.

For some reason, Jerome give it special attention and the Western Church preserved it, even though the Catholic Church has also considered it noncanonical, although they put it in their Bible texts, kind of like what the KJV did.

The Russian Church Bible printers picked it up from the Catholic Bibles, and the 1968 Russian Church Bible counts all the Bible books as "holy books", but they also put a mark on it as noncanonical in their Bible printings.

Regards.
Scholars who attempt to date Matthew after AD 70 are simply liberal in their dating & do not agree with the consensus of scholars who date it around 50 to the early to mid-60s, as well as testimony of the early church. Since there is no evidence for a pre-Temple dated authorship of Matthew, the burden of proof is on the one to demonstrate that it was written prior to the end of the first century. So, you are correct that Matthew was written first, decades before 2 Esdras (of 4 Esdras, if you prefer).

4 Esdras was also never in the version of the LXX in Jesus' day, nor were the rest of the Apocryphal books.
 
Scholars who attempt to date Matthew after AD 70 are simply liberal in their dating & do not agree with the consensus of scholars who date it around 50 to the early to mid-60s, as well as testimony of the early church. Since there is no evidence for a pre-Temple dated authorship of Matthew, the burden of proof is on the one to demonstrate that it was written prior to the end of the first century. So, you are correct that Matthew was written first, decades before 2 Esdras (of 4 Esdras, if you prefer).
Makes sense.
4 Esdras was also never in the version of the LXX in Jesus' day, nor were the rest of the Apocryphal books.
How does one define the LXX?
I don't know about 4 Esdras, but I've often heard that some or all of the Deuterocanon was in what we call the LXX. Take for instance the Book of Daniel. The Greek version of it has also 3 major additions to this book that are not in typical modern Protestant Bibles, which rely more on the Masoretic. So the LXX version of Daniel would have those additions.
 
Makes sense.

How does one define the LXX?
I don't know about 4 Esdras, but I've often heard that some or all of the Deuterocanon was in what we call the LXX. Take for instance the Book of Daniel. The Greek version of it has also 3 major additions to this book that are not in typical modern Protestant Bibles, which rely more on the Masoretic. So the LXX version of Daniel would have those additions.
The version of the LXX that contained the Deuterocanon, which included the Greek additions to Daniel, wasn't until sometime after the first century AD. The version that Jesus & the apostles used did not include it, because the Deuterocanon was not laid up in the Temple, since the Sadducees who were the Jewish sect that was responsible for laying up books there did not accept the Deuterocanon. Also, according to John Martignoni from EWTN, the LXX was completed around 134 BC. Most (if not all) of the Deuterocanon was written or translated after this date. The later Masoretic Text compiled around AD 200 simply reflects the books that were in this BC version of the LXX, what was laid up in the Temple, & the version that Jesus & the apostles used, which all excluded the Deuterocanon.
 
The Greek version of it has also 3 major additions to this book that are not in typical modern Protestant Bibles, which rely more on the Masoretic. So the LXX version of Daniel would have those additions.

The fact additions were made to the book of Daniel shows that the LXX is not reliable.
 
The fact additions were made to the book of Daniel shows that the LXX is not reliable.
IMO The Masoretic is overall more reliable because it's in the original language, but it can't be said that the LXX is not reliable per se. The DSS have confirmed in numerous important places that the LXX is more reliable than the Masoretic.

One example is in Psalm 22 where the aggressors pierce, gouge, or like a lion my (the narrator's) limbs.

  • Most Masoretic texts say Karu or the ambiguous K'aru, meaning they dig/gouge, or something like that. A few Masoretic scrolls says K'ari, meaning like a lion.
  • Rabbinical translations prefer "like a lion."
  • The LXX has "they dig"/"they gouge"
  • The DSS, discovered in the 1940's, has K'aru.
Another case is Isaiah 53, when it talks about the Servant's experience after undergoing sacrifice. Currently there is a debate whether it says He sees light, implying life, and the Christian side says that it does, taking the chapter to entail resurrection.

  • The Masoretic says that God's servant shall see of his labor of his soul. As I recall, it looks like something could be grammatically missing in relation to the phrase "of the labor of his soul." That is, the phrase "shall see of his labor" sounds awkward, as if another word should be there. מֵעֲמַ֤ל נַפְשֹׁו֙ יִרְאֶ֣ה יִשְׂבָּ֔ע בְּדַעְתֹּ֗ו יַצְדִּ֥יק צַדִּ֛יק עַבְדִּ֖י לָֽרַבִּ֑ים וַעֲוֹנֹתָ֖ם ה֥וּא יִסְבֹּֽל׃
  • The LXX says that God shows the Servant light. "11δεῖξαι αὐτῷ φῶς καὶ πλάσαι τῇ συνέσει, δικαιῶσαι δίκαιον εὖ δουλεύοντα πολλοῖς, καὶ τὰς ἁμαρτίας αὐτῶν αὐτὸς ἀνοίσει."
  • The KJV follows the Masoretic and has: "He shall see of the travail of his soul, and shall be satisfied".
  • The DSS includes the word "light", which fits grammatically:
11 After the suffering of his soul,
he will see the light[1] and be satisfied.
My righteous servant will justify many by the knowledge of himself;
and he will bear their iniquities.

Source:
 
Back
Top