Page:Apocrypha-and-Pseudepigrapha-Charles-A.djvu/29

 which will also explain the description of N's social reforms (v.) amid the intrigues during the hurried rebuilding of the walls, where N looks back upon the period of his governorship (v. 14). In fact, his strong position as reformer in v. seems more in harmony with that in xiii. than with the picture of suspicion and hostility represented in iv., vi., and this serious difficulty touching the course of N's work (vii. 2 may hint at his departure) hampers every attempt to trace the history of his period. Consequently N, even with the elimination of the E-story, cannot be in its original form, as is clear also from the literary features of xi. and xii. (see also Torrey, 225 seq., 248 seq.).

(e) The List N vii. N's proposal to summon the people in order to augment Jerusalem (vii. 4 seqq.) is severed by part of the E-story (N viii.–x.) from the list of inhabitants (xi.), other lists (xii. 1–26), the dedication of the walls and arrangements for the Temple officials (xii. 27–47), &c. His story is no longer autobiographical (contrast, however, xiii. 4–31) and fresh sources are to be recognized. Since the list found by him (vii. 5) is that of the return of Zerubbabel (E ii.), it is often assumed that the sequel in xi. must also refer to this earlier period (Ewald, Smend, Stade, Meyer, &c). But xi. differs so widely from vii. 6 seqq. that both cannot be authentic (Meyer, 189). It is more probable, however, that xi. belongs to the story of N and follows upon vii. 4, ‘though the narrative is hardly continued uno tenore’ (Driver, 551). Yet, on any theory, the presence of N vii. 6–73 is inexplicable, since it is difficult to see why even a compiler should quote an ancient list which excluded the more recent return of E (E viii. 1–14; cf. Holzhey, 37). If ‘a genealogical register was necessary’ (Davies), this would have been out-of-date, and although lapse of time and later adjustment might explain—on this view—the various differences between E ii. and N vii., there are far more significant differences in N x. 1–27, a list which is referred to N's time. Now, its conclusion (N vii. 73 b) is the proper introduction to the Reading of the Law (viii.), which is in a more natural position between E viii. and ix., and Torrey (256 seqq., cf. Kent, 369) points out that N vii. 70–3 a, also, are more in harmony after the account of E's return. Indeed, vii. 66–9 (the enumeration) and 61–5 (the expulsion of the impure in Zerubbabel's time, see on E v. 38) would be useless for N's purpose, and in fact H. P. Smith would place the entire list (from vii. 5) after E viii. 36 (393 n. 1; see, however, Torrey 259 n. 9). Accordingly, through compilation and revision the account of N's work, with its own chronological embarrassments, has been broken by a portion of the story of E, the first part of which is now found before N i., while the list in vii. (vv. 5 a, 73 suggest a gathering of the people) records details which are not in keeping with the context, whereas in E ii. it is in a consistent context, albeit an unhistorical one. While the Reading of the Law (vii. 73 b–viii.) abruptly introduces E, the preceding material is partly (at least) connected with E's return in E vii. seq., and partly belongs to the (unhistorical) account of Zerubbabel's return. A considerable portion of the E-story is sundered from N viii. seqq., but the description of the separation from the heathen is confused and closely interrelated, and the list of those who had married strange women (see on E ix. 21–36) includes families who are not mentioned in E's band (E viii. 1–14), but appear in the list of E ii., which in || N vii. is connected with the return of E! Finally, this great list, though used for the time of Cyrus (or Darius, E v.) and treated in N vii. as a document of that period, reveals traces of the age of N himself, and of having been adjusted to the earlier context (see on E v. 24 seq., 40, 44 seq., 46 seq.). Hence it would seem that E ii. N vii. originally belonged to an account of a return in some record of the history of the times of N, E, and Artaxerxes. On its repetition, see p. 19 (§ 6).

(d) The Ezra-story. The well-supported view that E came to Jerusalem after N i.–vi. implies some rearrangement of the material; and the suitability of N vii. (some portion) and viii. between E vii. seq. and ix. suggests, not that the latter part of the E-story has been removed from E x. and placed after N vi., but that the whole once stood after that chapter. The complexity of the list vii. (which overlaps with E viii.) still remains, and it is at this point in the book that the critical problems become most intricate. But it must be noticed that the E-story is certainly composite and not in its original form, and some of the confusion may have arisen when it was divided and part of it placed before N i. If, moreover, the E-story stood after N vi. it may be observed that there is a certain relationship between the stories of E and N: the reference to the son of Eliashib, E x. 6, cf. N xiii. 4, 28; the suitability of N xiii. 1–2, between E x. 9 and 10 (W. R. Smith; Berth., 89); the coincidence in the day of arrival of each (see E viii. 6); the twelve-years' gap in the history of each, and the parallel features in their measures on behalf of temple, priests and people. E, however, is mentioned only incidentally in the story of N (xii. 36, doubtful, see the comm.), and it is impossible that the two laboured together. On the other hand, the Tirshatha is prominent at the Reading of the Law (N viii. 9) and the signing of the Covenant (x. 1), and also in the list, vii. (v. 65, the degradation of the priests; v. 70, gifts to the treasury); he is identified with N (see on E ix. 49), and N is