III. The Work of Ezra and Nehemiah

(a) Ezra. In the story of E there is considerable intricacy in the description of the separation from the heathen on the part of the ‘children of the captivity’ (i.e. E’s small band of exiles, or the congregation presumably formed in 536–516), and the inauguration of the new community, consisting of these and the elect of the ‘seed of Israel’. The whole story is closely interconnected, and much difficulty is caused by N 1–7. which sever E 7–10. from N 8. seqq. by twelve years. There is, moreover, a very strong presumption that the Reading of the Law was originally described shortly after E’s arrival (cf. E 9.), and not (as in N 8.) after this lengthy interval, during which we hear nothing of him. Finally, on independent grounds there seems to be no place for E before the first visit, at all events, of N. It is indeed allowed that ‘it is impossible to decide upon the evidence at our disposal’ (G. A. Smith, Expositor, July, 1906, p. 16), or that this later position of E is only a possibility (Wellhausen); but it seems very doubtful whether the story is trustworthy (H. P. Smith, Torrey, Jahn), and, even if it be historical, many agree that it cannot be placed before N 1–6. (Berth., Buhl, Cheyne, Guthe, Hoonacker [esp. Rev. Bibl., 10. 15 seqq.], Kennett, Kent, Kosters, Marq., Sellin, Wildeboer). See further the notes on E 8–10.

(b) Nehemiah. N was governor from the 20th year of Artaxerxes (Jos. xi. 5 7, 25th of Xerxes) to the 32nd (N 5:14), i.e. 444–432, and we hear of a return to the king and a second visit (13:4–6). But N 13. is joined to 12. so closely as to imply that only on the occasion of the later visit were the walls dedicated, although the ceremony is ostensibly the immediate sequel of their completion, two months after his first visit (6.).2 This must be due to defective compilation (cf. Nikel, 196 n. 1), 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 (5:14). In fact, his strong position as reformer in 5. seems more in harmony with that in 13. than with the picture of suspicion and hostility represented in 4., 6., and this serious difficulty touching the course of N’s work (7:2 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 11. and 12. (see also Torrey, 225 seq., 248 seq.).

(c) The List N 7. N’s proposal to summon the people in order to augment Jerusalem (7:4 seqq.) is severed by part of the E-story (N 8–10.) from the list of inhabitants (11.), other lists (12:1–26), the dedication of the walls and arrangements for the Temple officials (12:27–47), &c. His story is no longer autobiographical (contrast, however, 13:4–31) and fresh sources are to be recognized. Since the list found by him (7:5) is that of the return of Zerubbabel (E 2.), it is often assumed that the sequel in 11. must also refer to this earlier period (Ewald, Smend, Stade, Meyer, &c.). But 11. differs so widely from 7:6 seqq. that both cannot be authentic (Meyer, 189). It is more probable, however, that 11. belongs to the story of N and follows upon 7:4, ‘though the narrative is hardly continued uno tenore’ (Driver, 551). Yet, on any theory, the presence of N 7:6–73 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 8:1–14; 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 2. and N 7., there are far more significant differences in N 10:1–27, a list which is referred to N’s time. Now, its conclusion (N 7:73 b) is the proper introduction to the Reading of the Law (8.), which is in a more natural position between E 3. and 9., and Torrey (256 seqq., cf. Kent, 369) points out that N 7:70–3 a, also, are more in harmony after the account of E’s return. Indeed, 7:66–9 (the enumeration) and 61–5 (the expulsion of the impure in Zerubbabel’s time, see on E 5:38) would be useless for N’s purpose, and in fact H. P. Smith would place the entire list (from 7:5) after E 8:36 (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 1., while the list in 7. (vv. 5 a, 73 suggest a gathering of the people) records details which are not in keeping with the context, whereas in E 2. it is in a consistent context, albeit an unhistorical one. While the Reading of the Law (7:73 b–8.) abruptly introduces E, the preceding material is partly (at least) connected with E’s return in E 7. seq., and partly belongs to the (unhistorical) account of Zerubbabel’s return. A considerable portion of the E-story is sundered from N 8. 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 9:21–36) includes families who are not mentioned in E’s band (E 8:1–14), but appear in the list of E 2., which in || N 7. 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 7. 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 2. N 7. 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 1–6. implies some rearrangement of the material; and the suitability of N 7. (some portion) and 8. between E 7. seq. and 9. suggests, not that the latter part of the E-story has been removed from E 10. and placed after N 6., but that the whole once stood after that chapter. The complexity of the list 7. (which overlaps with E 8.) 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 1.1 If, moreover, the E-story stood after N 6. 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 10:6, cf. N 13:4, 28; the suitability of N 13:1–2, between E 10:9 and 10 (W. R. Smith; Berth., 89); the coincidence in the day of arrival of each (see E 8:6); 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 (12:36, 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 8:9) and the signing of the Covenant (10:1), and also in the list, 7. (v. 65, the degradation of the priests; v. 70, gifts to the treasury); he is identified with N (see on E 9:49), and N is equally prominent in his own story (especially 5., 13.). N was not the only governor in post-exilic Jerusalem (N 5:15, Mal. 1:8), but it is noteworthy that the E-story, especially in the narrative-portions, shows no interest in either the governor or the high-priest; the story seems to be written from an independent standpoint, and is focussed upon the austere figure of E alone. The story represents a period of divine favour and royal clemency after the sufferings of Israel (Dan. 9., N 1. presuppose an earlier situation); it obviously comes after the disappearance of Zerubbabel, but it cannot be placed before the introduction of N. There are independent arguments for the tradition of a return under N and religious reorganization (see § 5 b, d), and this appears to be supplemented by the account of E. The latter describes the return of E and a representative community to a temple, but one sorely in need of replenishing (E 7:15–27, 8:36); to an ecclesiastical body (note E 8:17), but a negligent one (N 10:32 seqq.); to a community that worshipped Yahweh, but had fallen from the ideal. It can hardly be called an Autobiography (Meyer, 205) or a Memoir, and there is no evidence to prove it to be a mere invention or fiction. Rather is it based upon facts which link the energy of N with the subsequent appearance of an established orthodox Jewish Church. It may be regarded as an ideal description of the inauguration of Judaism, and the introduction of the ‘Book of the Law of Moses’ (the Pentateuch is probably meant) is a later parallel to the story of the (re-)discovery of the ‘Book of the Law’ (Deuteronomy) in the reign of Josiah; cf. also the chronicler’s accounts of Asa, Jehoshaphat and Hezekiah (2 Chron. 14:4, 15:3, 10–13, 17:7, 9, 29:10). It does not seem to have been written by the compiler of the series Chron.-E-N; it appears rather as a tradition of independent origin, written around the age of N, combined with the story of N and ultimately with the great post-exilic history of Jerusalem and the Temple.