Page:EB1911 - Volume 10.djvu/121

 chronicler’s hand can usually be readily recognized. There are relatively few traces of it in Nehemiah’s memoirs and in the Aramaic documents, but elsewhere the sources are largely coloured, if not written from the standpoint of his age. Examples of artificial arrangement appear notably in Ezr. ii.–iii. 1 compared with Neh. vii. 6–viii. 1 (first clause); in the present position of Ezr. iv. 6-23; and in the dislocation of certain portions of the two memoirs in Neh. viii.–xiii. (see below). It should be noticed that the present order of the narratives involves the theory that some catastrophe ensued after Ezr. x. and before Neh. i.; that the walls had been destroyed and the gates burnt down; that some external opposition (with which, however, Ezra did not have to contend) had been successful; that the main object of Ezra’s mission was delayed for twelve years, and, finally, that only through Nehemiah’s energy was the work of social and religious reorganization successful. These topics raise serious historical problems (see : History, § 21).

3. Criticism of Ezra i.–vi.—The chronicler’s account of the destruction of Jerusalem, the seventy years’ interval (2 Chron. xxxvi. 20 sq.; cf. Jer. xxv. 11, xxix. 10, also Is. xxiii. 17), and the return of 42,360 of the exiles (Ezr. ii. 64 sqq.) represent a special view of the history of the period. The totals, as also the detailed figures, in Ezr., Neh. and 1 Esdr. v. vary considerably; the number is extremely large (contrast Jer. lii. 30); it includes the common people (contrast 2 Kings xxiv. 14, xxv. 12), and ignores the fact that Judah was not depopulated, that the Jews were carried off to other places besides Babylon and that many remained behind in Babylon. According to this view, Judah and Jerusalem were practically deserted until the return. The list in Ezr. ii. is that of families which returned “every man unto his city” under twelve leaders (including Nehemiah, Azariah [cf. Ezra], Zcrubbabel and Jeshua); it recurs with many variations in a different and apparently more original context in Neh. vii., and in 1 Esdr. v. is ascribed to the time of Darius. The families (to judge from the northwards extension of Judaean territory) are probably those of the population in the later Persian period, hardly those who returned to the precise homes of their ancestors (see C. F. Kent, Israel’s Hist. and Biogr. Narratives, p. 379). The offerings which are for the temple-service in Neh. vii. 70-72 (cf. 1 Chron. xxix. 6-8) are for the building of the temple in Ezr. ii. 68-70; and since the walls are not yet built, the topographical details in Neh. viii. 1 (see 1 Esdr. v. 47) are adjusted, and the event of the seventh month is not the reading of the Law amid the laments of the people (Neh. viii.; see vv. 9-11) but the erection of the altar by Jeshua and Zerubbabel under inauspicious circumstances (cf. Ezr. iii. 3 with 1 Esdr. v. 50).

The chronologically misplaced account of the successful opposition in the time of Ahasuerus (i.e. Xerxes) and Artaxerxes (the son and grandson of Darius respectively) breaks the account of the temple under Cyrus and Darius, and is concerned with the city walls (iv. 6-23) ; there is some obscurity in vv. 7-9: Rehum and Shimshai evidently take the lead, Tabeel may be an Aramaized equivalent of Tobiah. A recent return is implied (iv. 12) and the record hints that a new decree may be made (v. 21). The account of the unsuccessful opposition to the temple in the time of Darius (v. sq.; for another account see Jos. Ant. xi. 4, 9) is independent of iv. 7-23, and throws another light upon the decree of Cyrus (vi. 3-5, contrast i. 2-4). It implies that Sheshbazzar, who had been sent with the temple vessels in the time of Cyrus, had laid the foundations and that the work had continued without cessation (v. 16, contrast iv. 5, 24). The beginning of the reply of Darius is wanting (vi. 6 sqq.), and the decree which had been sought in Babylon is found at Ecbatana. Chap. vi. 15 sqq. follow more naturally upon v. 1-2, but v. 14 with its difficult reference to Artaxerxes now seems to presuppose the decree in iv. 21 and looks forward to the time of Ezra or Nehemiah. As regards this section (Ezr. i.–vi.) as a whole, there is little doubt that i. iii. 1-iv. 5, vi. 15-22 are from the chronicler, whose free treatment of his material is seen in the use he has made of ch. ii. Notwithstanding the unimpeachable evidence for the tolerant attitude of Persian kings and governors towards the religion of subject races, it is probable that the various decrees incorporated in the book (cf. also 1 Esdr. iv. 42 sqq.) have been reshaped from a Jewish standpoint. A noteworthy example appears in the account of the unique powers entrusted to Ezra (vii. 11-26), the introduction to whose memoirs, at all events, is quite in the style of the chronicler.

4. Memoirs of Nehemiah and Ezra.—The memoirs of Ezra and Nehemiah do not appear to have been incorporated without some adjustment. The lapse of time between Neh. i. 1 and ii. 1 is noteworthy, and with the prayer in i. 5-11 cf. Ezr. ix. 6-15, Dan. ix. 4 sqq. (also parallels in Deuteronomy); chap. i. in its present form may be a compiler’s introduction. The important topographical list in ch. iii. is probably from another source; the styie is different, Nehemiah is absent, and the high-priest is unusually prominent. Chap, v., where Nehemiah reviews his past conduct as governor, turns aside to economic reforms and scarcely falls within the fifty-two days of the building of the walls. The chapter is closely associated with the contents of xiii. and breaks the account of the opposition. Anticipated already in ii. 10, the hostility partly arises from the repudiation of Samaritan religious claims (ii. 20; cf. Ezr. iv. 3) and is partly political. It is difficult to follow its progress clearly, and the account ceases abruptly in. vi. 17-19 with the notice of the conspiracy of Tobiah and the nobles of Judah. The chronicler’s style can be recognized in vii. 1-5 (in its present form), where steps are taken to protect and to people Jerusalem; the older sequel is now found in ch. xi. Whilst the account of the dedication of the walls is marked by the use of the pronoun “I” (xii. 31, 38, 40), it is probably now due as a whole to the chronicler, and when the more trustworthy memoirs of Nehemiah are resumed (xiii. 4 sqq.) the episodes, although placed twelve years later (ver. 6), are intimately connected with the preceding reforms (cf. xii. 44–xiii. 3 with xiii. 10 sqq., 23 sqq.). Nehemiah’s attitude towards intermarriage is markedly moderate in contrast to the drastic measures of Ezra, whose mission and work the simpler and perhaps earlier narratives of Nehemiah originally ignored, and the relation between the two is complicated further by the literary character of the memoir of Ezra.

To the last mentioned are prefixed (a) the scribe’s genealogy, which traces him back to Aaron and names as his immediate ancestor, Seraiah, who had been slain 130 years previously (Ezr. vii. 1-5), and (b) an independent account of the return (vv. 6-10) with a reference to Ezra’s renown, obviously not from the hand of Ezra himself. Whatever the original prelude to Ezra’s thanksgiving may have been (vii. 27 seq.), we now have the essentially Jewish account of the letter of Artaxerxes with its unusual concessions. The list of those who returned amounts to the moderate total of 1496 males (viii., but 1690 in 1 Esdr. viii. 30 sqq.). Ezra’s mission was obviously concerned with the Law and Temple service (vii. 6, 10, 14 sqq., 25; viii. 17, 24-30, 33 sq.), but four months elapse between his return in the fifth month (vii. 9) and the preparations for the marriage reforms in the ninth (x. 9), and there is a delay of twelve years before the Law is read (Neh. viii.). The Septuagint version (1 Esdr. ix.; cf. Josephus, Antiq. xi. 5. 5 and some modern scholars) would place