§ 6. STRUCTURE OF THE SOURCES

It may often be possible to point out conflicting data, to indicate traditions which seem to be older or more original, and to arrive at positive or negative conclusions regarding the underlying facts; but the endeavour to trace the literary growth of complex sources which are certainly the result of intricate reshaping and revision is a delicate problem of literary criticism and distinct from the historical criticism of the period they describe.

(a) The Sheshbazzar-Cyrus Tradition. The story of Zerubbabel and the first return of the Jews in the time of Darius (E 3:1–5:6) is the pivot upon which the problems turn. Our starting-point is the Aramaic section E 5. seq., where Darius confirms and extends a decree of Cyrus, who had ordered the rebuilding of the Temple and had sent back the vessels with Sheshbazzar (5:13–15). This tradition is supported by E i., which refers also to Mithredath the treasurer who apparently was once mentioned in E 5. (see on E 6:18). But E 1. is written in a different style and in Hebrew; it gives a highly-coloured form of the decree (note the parallels with the story of E, Marq. 56, Torrey, 157 seq.), and tends to minimize the importance of Cyrus by emphasizing the direct influence of Yahweh (contrast the initiative of Darius in E 4., E 6:8–11; see also on E 7:1). Consequently, E 5. seq., which have various marks of incompleteness (see on E 6:7 seq., 23), presuppose an account of Cyrus and the return of Sheshbazzar (probably also in Aramaic), some part of which at least has been replaced by E 1. Further, Sheshbazzar returned to build the Temple, but instead of any account of his work, Jeshua and Zerubbabel are abruptly introduced in the great list, E 2:2. These two erect the altar (3:2), and (mentioned in the inverse order) commence the rebuilding (3:8–10), repulse the ‘adversaries’ (4:2 seq.), and subsequently, in the time of Darius, are encouraged by the prophets to begin operations (5:2, note the repetition of the ancestry). Zer., as in E 3:1–5:6, is the leading figure, whereas the Shesh. tradition in 5. seq. refers to the ‘elders’ (E 5:5, 9, 6:8, 14; in 6:7 BB omits the unnamed governor, see Berth., 19). From the point of view of historical criticism Shesh. and Zer. are two distinct individuals, but it seems obvious that the compiler of E 1–6. regarded them as the same, although it was left for ancient and modern harmonists to make the identification. And in fact it is implied and made in E 6:18, 27, 29, after the introduction of Zer. in 3. seq., but naturally not in E 2:1–15 (=E 1.); yet in E, strangely enough, it is nowhere made, although the return of Shesh. in E 1:11 evidently corresponds to the appearance of Zer. in 2:2 (|| E 5:8 immediately after the Zer. story). Hence Jos. is obliged to harmonize (xi.1 § 14, 3 § 32). Moreover, it is noteworthy that the Aramaic sources (5:3–6:12) do not clearly indicate that the Jewish builders were exiles (contrast E 4:12), and that there is no explicit reference in E 5:15 to any return of exiles under Sheshbazzar; on the other hand, the conflate text of E 6:5, 8 clearly alludes to the Jews as being of the Captivity (cf. 7:6, 10), and E 2:15 shows more distinctly than E 1:11 that exiles returned with Shesh. That there is a gap after this verse has often been suspected. Accordingly, there are two important features: (1) the Shesh. tradition has been mutilated and otherwise adjusted in order to give the greater prominence to Zer. and his return, and (2) while it is not certain that Shesh. was originally the leader of a band of exiles, the text in E partly identifies him with the more illustrious Zer., and partly seems to treat his return as that of the ‘captivity’ also. Finally, the Shesh. tradition is that of a continuous building of the Temple since the time of Cyrus (E 5:16). This may be supported by E 4:4, 5, which refer to unceasing troubles and intrigues, and by v. 6, where the accusation in the reign of Ahasuerus means, in this context, that the Temple was still under construction. On the other hand, the presence of the Artaxerxes-episode would imply that the work was definitely brought to a stop (see 4:21–24), and with this agrees the statement in 5:2 that Zer. and Jeshua, encouraged by the prophets, ‘rose up … and began to build the house of God’. Since the presence of these conflicting views can hardly be original, the Artaxerxes-episode and the cessation of the building may probably be regarded as foreign to the Shesh. tradition. Hence, although E does not present E’s remarkable confusion of the sequence of events in the reigns of Cyrus and Darius—a confusion which Jos. has done his best to remedy—it contains, on closer inspection, a very singular combination of conflicting traditions of the Temple, and of Shesh. and Zer.

(b) The Zerubbabel-Darius tradition. Since Jewish tradition has it that Darius was the son of Ahasuerus the Mede (Dan. 9:1), and the Ahasuerus in Esth. was called Artaxerxes (although, historically, Xerxes must be meant), and since the sequence Art.-Darius is true of Art. I-Dar. II (or even of Art. III-Dar. III), compilers might be justified in placing the story of the opposition before a tradition of Darius, whether in E 2:16 seqq., 3., or E 4:7–24, 5. But it is not easy to decide which of the two is the earlier position. The cessation of the building of the Temple would be intelligible before E 4., which really describes a new era in the history, and would equally agree with the commencement of work mentioned in E 5:2. In either case it leads up to Zerubbabel. But whereas in E it forms a necessary link between Cyrus and Darius, in E it breaks the connexion (4:5, 5:1) and conflicts with the Shesh. tradition. The assumption that E gives the older position of the episode may be suggested by the fact that its text presents some features distinctly sounder than that in E 4. (note, however, the textual relation of Chron. to Sam.-Kings). On the other hand, in E 5:66 seqq. (E 4:1 seqq.) the compiler has made use of 4:1–5, 24, and it is possible that he found 4:(6?) 7–24 before him, but naturally omitted the passage he had already used. In any case, 4:1–5 is obviously most closely connected with the preceding chapters, and since these presuppose certain material found only in E 3:1–5:6, E’s account of Sheshbazzar and Zerubbabel in the time of Cyrus thus presupposes data in E of the time of Darius! The simplest explanation of these intricacies is that the MT has suffered by excision (see Torrey, 27 seq.), and it remains to determine whether the material in question originally belonged to the Darius period (as in E) or to that of Cyrus (as in E). Torrey alone has discussed this problem, and he has presented a complete, clever, and attractive hypothesis. He treats the Darius-Zer. story in E 3:1–4:42 as an interpolation in the history of Cyrus, rejects or emends all that is impossible in such a context, and regards E 2:16 seqq. as a transposition from E 4. made by the interpolator (see p. 32). But this leaves the complexity of E 1–6, untouched. It treats as redactional certain passages that have by no means that appearance (viz. E 4:43–7a, 57–61), and if E 4:7–24 was deliberately borrowed, it is strange that no effort was made to form a reasonable link between 2:15 and 16, as Jos. has done. The compiler used E 2:16 seqq. to link Cyrus and Darius, but this theory assumes that for no apparent reason whatsoever a story of Darius has been introduced into the Cyrus-history and combined with it by (redactional?) material, which is partly of considerable independent value, and partly introduces a new tradition of Cyrus (4:44, 57) in conflict with all other evidence. The story, moreover, would hardly have been used in Jewish history unless it was associated with Zerubbabel, Darius, and the return of the Jews; hence its presence, general character, independence, and the confusion arising from the attempt to unite it with other traditions plead for the view (also held by Howorth and Bayer) that it is original.

(c) Result of combination. On this alternative theory, then, E preserves a Zer.-Darius nucleus corresponding to a Shesh.-Cyrus nucleus in E, and it seems probable that the intricacies in E and E have arisen from the endeavour to combine and compromise. E 3:1–5:6 commence like an independent story, presupposes no prelude, and quite excludes any current story of Cyrus. 4:44, 57, it is true, refer to his inability to fulfil a vow, but this has neither any foundation in history nor support in extant tradition, and appears to be an early effort to connect the section with Cyrus. Thenceforth we apparently have the building-up of narratives. The Artaxerxes episode was taken from a source relating to the time of N (§ 5b), and the sequel of the story, the list 5:7 seqq., also has a Nehemian background. The connexion between 5:1–6 and 7 seqq. is not close (note repetition 4, 7a, the preliminary vv. 5 and 7), and it is possible that 3:1–5:6 once had another sequel, or that there has been later adjustment. In any case, the references to Cyrus (4:44, 57), the treatment of the Shesh. tradition, and the fact that E 2:1–15 are not in their original form, unite to show that there has been much revision, the stages in which cannot be traced. The list itself, partly connected with E’s return in N 7., has been applied to the return of Zer., and then treated (in N) by the compiler of E-N, as a quotation from the earlier period. It presents a materially older text, and its immediate continuation in E 5:47 seqq. (E 3.) is also based upon N 8:1, and describes events in which one may recognize the influence of other passages in N (Meyer, 73, 99; Marq., 58 seq.; Volz, § 9). But the material is adjusted to Zerubbabel and Cyrus, with the result that while E 5:8 (the introduction of Zer.) is explained by the preceding story, and 5:47 (the date) by 5:6; 5:55 has in view 4:48 (Darius), but its context is of the time of Cyrus (note the harmonizing efforts of Jos., xi.4 1, 3 seq.).

Haggai and Zech., in the second year of Darius, know of no return or earlier rebuilding. So far this agrees with the Zer. story, which, however, while excluding any earlier rebuilding, describes the first return of the Jews. The Shesh. story throws back the commencement of the temple, but in E does not clearly point to any return (contrast E). In so far as Darius is concerned, these stories are mutually contradictory, and neither is supported by the prophets, and in so far as the fortunes of the temple are concerned, it is possible that a compromise was found in the belief that the work was brought to a stop and that the building was re-commenced in the time of Darius. This explains the motive of the Artaxerxes episode, and if the references to the Temple in E 2:18, 20 are reliable, their absence in E 4:12, 14 may be due to its new position. Further, if E 5:1 once had (as in E 6:1) the precise date, this would be in order after 4:5 (see Berth., 19), but might naturally be omitted after the insertion of 4:(6) 7–24; and since also the retention of the date in E 6:1 would be unnecessary after 5:73 (=E 4:24), the present unintelligible wording of the latter verse may be due to intentional alteration and not to corruption of the text. Thus, E partly presents material in an older text and form than E, partly shows signs of revision (apparently in the Greek), either to harmonize details or to conform with the MT, and partly is influenced by the form of E, whose imperfections it shares. The root of the problem lies in the two nuclei: Zerubbabel-Darius, Sheshbazzar-Cyrus-Darius, and in the endeavour to co-ordinate them; but in addition to the complexity touching Cyrus and Darius, it is obvious that the present form of the narratives cannot be viewed apart from the literary treatment of the events of the time of Artaxerxes.

(d) The Ezra-story. The narratives involved are an account of N’s work, partly autobiographical, but now in a much revised and intricate form, which is divided by the E-story, also not from one hand, and itself split into two. These have suffered various changes and adjustments in the course of being combined with each other and with the great history of the ‘chronicler’. On both literary and historical grounds we may postulate a stage when the whole of the E-story was found after the first appearance of N (p. 9 d). To suppose that N 8–10. also once stood before N 1. (Torrey, 265 seq.) only increases the difficulties. E appears relatively late in tradition, but continues to grow in reputation. He is absent from both Ben Sira 49:12 seq. and 2 Macc. 1. seq., and here N is particularly prominent; but N’s prominence, though in agreement with all the evidence, has not been made so obvious in the E-story (see § 4. 3. d). Moreover, the effort has apparently been made to give greater significance to E by placing the most important part of his mission—the Reading of the Law (and the sequel, the Covenant)—in the account of the completion of the walls of Jerusalem, and also by introducing the rest of the story before N’s arrival. E has gone further, and in 9:37 seqq. has read part of N 8. after E 10. Now, although E presents in some cases a better text, it is noteworthy that in reproducing N 8. and the introductory 7:73b, the compiler has also unnecessarily removed v. 73a, which can hardly stand after E 9:36 = E 10:44 (cf. Volz, 1492). This deliberate transference perhaps explains the text in vv. 38, 49, and suggests that E’s recension is here based upon the MT, with the E-story divided as at present. Consequently, both E and E-N, share that complicated treatment of the purification of Israel which seems to have arisen when the story of E was rearranged. It is uncertain how E, if more complete, would have continued. There is indeed some evidence, perhaps not of great value, for an account of E’s passover, suggesting that some portion of the story has been lost (see on 9:55). However, if the whole of the present story had been placed before N 1., both N 1–6., 11–13. and E 7–10., N 8–10. (or in any rearranged form) would still be in a confused, and certainly not original shape. The one source which actually effects this transposition is Jos., who finishes the life of E before dealing with N. His treatment is brief and paraphrastic, but it seems to be extremely significant that he does not point to the existence of the story of N in either the form or the sequence which it now has. To reconstruct the continuation of E is to make the overlapping with N more conspicuous; this is clear from the synopses cited below on p. 58, and it is interesting to notice that an old Syriac catena, which follows E, endeavours to readjust to N—it passes from E 9:1–10 to 46b–47 (= N 8:6) and thence to N 1:1–4, and places the Reading of the Law (N 8.) in the context it now has in the MT E, it is evident, does not enable us to go behind the MT, but, together with Jos., it tends to show that the MT is the late outcome of a very intricate literary development.

(e) The Compilation. At the stage when the stories of E and N were shaped in their present form, and when the traditions of the time of Artaxerxes had been used directly or indirectly for the age of Cyrus and Darius, we reach the complete historical work Chron.-E-N., and the structure of E-N, really involves close attention to that of Chron. itself. Here it must suffice to observe that both Chron. and E-N, furnish evidence representing different stages in the vicissitudes of the priests and Levites (see on E 8:28), and it is noteworthy that there are several traces of textual variation and confusion where these are concerned (see, e.g., 1:5 seqq., 10, 15, 5:56, 7:9, 8:42, 9:43 seqq.). It is also significant of the relative lateness of E-N, that the age at which the Levites serve agrees with secondary passages in Chron. (see on 5:58), and that an apparent anti-Aaronite bias has found its way into both (see on 7:10–12). Perhaps the most important feature in the compilation is the presence of gaps (e.g. before E 5:1, N 1.), the more striking when we observe that the chronicler has ignored pertinent material in Kings, Jer., Daniel, and Esther. The book of Daniel was familiar in the Greek age and later (cf. 1 Macc. 2:59 seq., and, for the Targums, Prot. Realency., 3. 107 seq.), and was used by Jos. The story in E 3. seq. has literary points of contact with both Dan. and Est. (Marq. 66, 68, 72; Torrey, 47 seq.; Bayer, 110 seqq.), and the former of these records traditions of the Temple-vessels (see on 2:10).1 The sacrilegious use of the holy objects by Belshazzar was followed by the fall of Babylon to the Medes and Persians, and forthwith Darius the Mede, son of Ahasuerus, became king (5:31, 9:1). He was led to proclaim the God of Daniel (6:25–7), and to the first year of his reign is ascribed the prayer of Daniel (9.). Here, the seventy years of desolation foretold by Jeremiah are complete, and Daniel prays on behalf of the Jews in Jerusalem and afar off, and on behalf of the ruined sanctuary. The tradition—irrespective of its present setting—is so far in harmony with E 3. seq., the story of Zerubbabel in the second year of Darius (cf. Büchler, 7 seq.), where, as in Daniel’s prayer, an earlier return is excluded. It is difficult not to believe that these traditions are related, and it is noteworthy that while the references to Cyrus in the story of Zerubbabel appear to be due to later revision, Cyrus, according to Dan. 6:28, 10:1, reigned after Darius. Thus, not only is it more intelligible that the Cyrus tradition is relatively the later, and probably grew out of the Darius tradition, than the reverse, but a tradition evidently once prevailed which placed Darius before Cyrus.

But it was also known that Cyrus preceded Darius, and in Bel and the Dragon he follows after Astyages (see above, p. 11) and—like Darius in Dan. 6.—becomes convinced of Daniel’s God. This correct sequence is that represented by Jos. and the ‘chronicler’, with one important difference, that while the former does his best to combine all the varying traditions of Cyrus and Darius, the present MT ignores Dan. and E 3:1–5:6 and the complications these would introduce into the history. Accuracy of sequence does not necessarily prove greater antiquity of source. It depends upon accuracy of information, and if Jos. (xi.2) knows that Cambyses and not Artaxerxes (E 2:16 seqq.) reigned before Darius, he is confused in his treatment of Xerxes and Artaxerxes, and while the chronicler wrongly retains these two between Cyrus and Darius, he has, however, avoided the incorrect sequence of the latter two in Daniel. The traditions of this period (§ 4 IV. c.) combine in an inextricable manner trustworthy and untrustworthy data with the result that mere mechanical rearrangement of material or correction of names is inadequate for the recovery of the historical facts. Whether or no there was a continuous chronicle of the Kings of Media and Persia (Est. 10:2), if a compiler of Jewish history followed the tradition which also appears in Dan., Darius the Mede reigned before Cyrus, and Darius, after E 3. seq., was the first to permit the Jews to return. On the other hand, Cyrus was really the first king, and it is easy to understand the endeavours to adjust the traditions. It may not be possible to trace all the steps in the process, nevertheless, E’s recension is a valuable witness to the efforts made to effect a compromise, and it is significant that while all the evidence points to the relative lateness of the Cyrus tradition in the form it now has in E 2:1–15 or E 1., the immediate prelude in E 1. represents a text materially older in some respects (though more corrupt in others) than the corresponding 2 Chron. 35. seq.

(f) Conclusion. In the nature of the case, any explanation of the structure of E and E-N must be a provisional one. At all events, Bayer’s view (93 seq., 102, 139), that E is a secondary and deliberate self-contained compilation dealing with the Temple, is inadequate, in that it accounts for only a small proportion of the textual features. Howorth, whose merit it has been to force the attention of biblical students to the importance of E, undoubtedly goes too far in championing the textual and historical value of E. As regards its text, used by Jahn with a certain lack of discrimination and by Bayer somewhat unduly underestimated, Torrey and Volz support an intermediate position, pointing out the general relative superiority of MT Torrey justly observes, also, that as a history E is not in its original form, and he has proposed a hypothesis of its relationship with E-N, which he works out with much skill and thoroughness (18 seqq., 30 seqq., 255 seqq.). He starts from the chronicler’s history in almost its present form (dated c. third cent. b.c.), and assumes two important changes: (1) the transference of N 7:70–10:39 from their ‘original’ position between E 8. and 9. to the place where they now stand, and (2) the interpolation of the story E 3:1–4:42, in the history of Cyrus, with redactional expansion, alteration, &c., and with the transposition of the Artaxerxes episode from E 4:6–24 to E 2:16–30. Subsequently, two rival forms arose: one (A) with the retransposition of N 7:73–10:39 this time between E 10. and N 1.; the other (B) with the excision of the Story of the Three Youths (E 3. seq.) together with a part of the ‘original’ history. The latter is represented by the MT; the former, after being translated into Greek, survives only in the fragmentary E, which is defined as ‘simply a piece taken without change out of the middle of a faithful Greek translation of the chronicler’s History of Israel in the form which was generally recognized as authentic in the last century b.c.’ (18). This hypothesis is complicated (see Bayer’s criticisms, 143 seq.), though not unduly so. On the other hand, there are objections to the view that the Story of the Three Youths is an interpolation in the alleged original Cyrus-history, viz. in E 1., E 4:47–56, 4:62–5:6, E 2. seqq. (see p. 16), and to the assumption that the place of the E-story before N 1. is the earlier (see p. 17). Further, although E is obviously imperfect, to restore a complete work in which it should correspond to E in the chronicler’s series necessitates the belief that Jos., the only early source which places the E-story before N, is witness to the MT form of the stories of both E and N, and this cannot be said to be certain (see p. 57 seq.). The latter part of E presupposes the present structure of E 7–10, N … 7:73–8:13 …, whereas the first half presents older traits in 1., 2:16 seqq. (the position of the Artaxerxes episode), 3:1–5:6 (the Zerubbabel story), 5:7–70 (the background of the list, E 2.), and 5:71 (the immediate sequel, the prelude to the work of the returned exiles). Finally, the criticism of E inevitably raises the problem of the entire series Chron.-E-N, which at one stage was a literary whole, and consequently we cannot take the chronicler’s history as a fixed starting-point. As a matter of fact, apart from the literary questions arising out of Chronicles alone, it seems that the books were regarded by the Rabbis with some suspicion (Curtis and Madsen, Chron. 2), and now stand after E-N, ‘as if it were an afterthought to admit them to equal authority’ (W. R. Smith, Old Test. Jew. Church, 182). It is not improbable that this severance involved some subsequent alteration and revision (cf. Marq., 29). Moreover, the recurrence of 1 Chron. 9., N 11., in a single work hardly looks like an original feature; like the more remarkable repetition of the list E 2., N 7. (see Jampel, 1:306; Howorth, PSBA, 26. 26; Holzhey, 37 n. 2) the feature seems to point to the combination of sources which were primarily distinct.

All the data suggest that E and E-N, represent concurrent forms which have influenced each other in the earlier stages of their growth. They are rivals, and neither can be said to be wholly older or more historical than the other. The endeavour was made to correct E to agree with the MT—and BL is a conspicuous example of the extent to which the revisers could go—and the presence of such efforts and in particular the doublets (see § 3 b) are of essential importance in indicating that E’s text does not precisely represent a Heb.-Aram. work, and that when all allowance is made for correction and revision of the Greek, problems of the underlying original text still remain. But it was impossible to make any very satisfactory adjustment, E diverged too seriously from the MT, which had cut the chronological knot by the excision of the story of Zerubbabel, and we may suppose that this facilitated the desire for the more literal translation of Theodotion (p. 3 seq.).