Whether formulated in terms of a quest for the authorial voice, an analysis of putative sources, or an attempt simply to define the structure and logic of 4 Ezra, much of the scholarly interest in this work has for over a century focused on the issue of its unity or disunity, which is to say, the literary integrity of the whole.' For the differences which separate the three initial dialogues from the three ensuing visions seem to outweigh by far the elements of continuity. Even more so is this true of the concluding scene in relation to the chapters that precede it. In addition to their obvious differences of format, we note that the two halves of the work involve significant changes of location-from bed (3:1) to open field (9:24, 26)-and of regimen-from total fasts of seven days' duration prior to each dialogue (5:13, 20; 6:31, 35) to a vegetarian diet for the duration of the visions (9:24, 26; 12:51). Whereas the angel Uriel serves as Ezra's interlocutor in the dialogues, he fades from sight after the first of the three visions, and Ezra addresses God directly instead. Indeed Ezra's own attitude changes markedly from one of bitter complaint and lamentation in the dialogues to abject terror in response to each of the visions (10:25, 28-31, 55; 12:3-5, 8; 13:13). And whereas throughout the dialogues he is far from willing to accept the answers he is given, to the point that he and Uriel seem to be talking at or past one another, Ezra's response to the explanation of each vision is by contrast muted and subdued. In fact, we even catch him mouthing some of Uriel's own dogmatic orthodoxy (e.g. 10:5-17); it may be that the angel fades from view simply