§ 5. DATA FOR RECONSTRUCTION

The foregoing survey of the intricacies of E-N, the prevailing confusion in regard to the period, and the efforts made by ancient and modern writers to present the historical facts, will perhaps be convincing proof that the difficulties in E-N, are genuine. They concern both E-N, and E, and any attempt to discuss the origin and structure of E must form some preliminary conception of the underlying history. For this the story of N seems most fruitful.

(a) The Samaritans. N’s age was one of intermarriage and close intercourse between the Jews, Samaritans, and other neighbours (6:18, 13:3, 4, 23, 24, 28). The elliptical repulse of the Samaritans in N 2:20 implies that they, as in E 4:2 seq., had some claim ‘to a share in the fortunes of Jerusalem’ (Ryle, 171), and that they ‘would have had no quarrel with the Jews if they had been permitted to unite with the latter in their undertakings and privileges’ (Davies, 177). These details, the character of the intermarriages, the efforts to compromise with N (6:2–4), the close relationship presupposed by the subsequent bitterness after the schism, the fact that Samaritanism was virtually a sister-sect of Judaism—these preclude the present position of E’s return and marriage-reforms and make it extremely doubtful whether there had as yet been any serious Samaritan hostility. They also suggest that the records of E-N, have been written and revised under the influence of a bitter anti-Samaritan feeling, the date of which can hardly be placed before N 13. Indeed, it is not improbable that the Samaritan schism should be placed (with Jos. xi. 7 seq.) at the close of the Persian period (see further Marq., 57 seq.; Jahn, 173 seqq.; Torrey, 321 seqq., 331 seq.).

(b) Place of Ez. 4:7–23. This undated record of the reign of Artaxerxes, in spite of some internal difficulties (see criticisms in Berth., 18 seq., Nikel, 182), probably illustrates the story of N when ‘Tobiah sent letters to put me in fear’ (6:19).1 It points to some new reconstruction of the city by returned exiles—evidently after an earlier disaster—and requires the assumption that the story of N is focussed upon the governor alone and that N and his military escort (2:9, cf. E 5:2, contrast ib. 8:51 seq.) brought back a band of exiles (so Jos.); see below (d). Against this the objection has been brought that N, in spite of the royal command (E 4:21 seq.), continued to build and actually did complete the walls. On the other hand, the walls were already practically finished (6:1, 7:1, see Ryle, 219), and some time would necessarily elapse before letters could reach Artaxerxes and his reply come to hand (cf. the situation in E 5:5). The king does not order the walls to be destroyed or weakened; N naturally had other building operations to attend to in addition to the walls, and these may well have been stopped ‘by force and power’ (E 4:23). The letter to Artaxerxes urges that the rebuilding of Jerusalem would be detrimental to the security of the province (4:13, 19 seq.), and disloyalty was the strongest charge brought against the governor (N 2:19, 6:6–7). In fact, N 7:2 seq. may suggest that the perturbed governor left his brother in charge of the city while he visited the king—his leave had been limited (2:6)—and although the sequence of events is admittedly obscure there is a distinct gap between his position in N 1–4., 6. and that as represented in 13. (cf. 5.). The formal steps of the Samaritans in E 4:7 seqq. (similarly the satrap in E 5. seq.) stand in contrast to the confusing account of the hostility in N 4., 6. against one who had come armed with royal authority, and undue weight must not be laid upon the present form of the N-story (see above [a]). All in all, the evidence does not exclude the helpful conjecture that E 4:7–23 illustrate the troubles of N at that stage where the continuation of the book (after 6:19) is almost inextricably complex.

(c) The semi-Edomite population. In the list of those who helped to rebuild the wall (N 3.) it is noteworthy (1) that very few of the names can be at all plausibly identified with the families who apparently returned with either Zerubbabel or Ezra (Kosters, 47), and (2) that some of the names have Calebite affinities.2 The list is evidence for the poverty of the Babylonian section of population and for the prominence of the Judaeans, who include both the natives and those Calebite and allied groups who moved up from the south of Judah some time after 586. The presence of the latter is only to be expected, and the fact, pointed out by Meyer himself in 1896, is obviously fundamental for the criticism of the book of Ezra (see Kosters, Th. T. 31. 536).3 In this Calebite or semi-Edomite Judah—and to call these groups ‘half heathen’ (with Nikel, 56, 64) is to beg the question—we may find a starting-point for our conception of the district from the time of their immigration northwards to the date of the far-reaching reorganization associated with the names of N and E. Further, the list of the inhabitants of Jerusalem in N 11. recurs, though with variations, in 1 Chron. 9., where it represents the compiler’s conception of the post-exilic population after the captivity. According to his perspective of history, there was an old Israel which included a Judah of Calebite and Jerahmeelite origin (1 Chron. 2. and 4.) and some later stage which corresponds closely with N 11. N 11., however, differs widely from the lists in E 2. and 8. and ignores the return of Zerubbabel and Ezra. Its disagreement is hardly a proof that these lists are authentic; what is significant is the agreement between the Judaean clans Perez, Shelah and the semi-Edomite Zerah in N 11. and the mixed genealogies in 1 Chron. 2. and 4. The chronicler, it will be observed, knows of no earlier Judah; his evidence in 2., 4. is (in his view) pre-Davidic, and it agrees with this that his lists of the Levitical orders of David’s time illustrate the close bond uniting these ecclesiastical bodies with people of south Palestinian and Edomite affinity.4

(d) A decree and a return. The introduction to the Jerusalem list reads like the sequel to the account of some return (N 11:3, 1 Chron. 9:2; cf. E 2:70, N 7:73, and see Ewald, 159 n. 2). The list itself, after dealing with priests, Levites, &c., proceeds to refer to those who dwelt in the country, and it is noteworthy that N 11:23 seq. have in view the fulfilment of some royal decree touching the singers (cf. E 4:54 seq., E 7:24). The singers, also, are subsequently collected from the Netophathite and other Villages which they had built at some unspecified period (12:28 seq.; cf. the Levites in 1 Chron. 9:16), and the explicit references to the rest of Israel and their cities (11:20, 25), before the assembling at the dedication of the walls (12:27), recall the situation before the exiles were assembled in Jerusalem after their return and settlement in the Zerubbabel-story (E 2:70, 3:1). Thus, the difficult and much revised narratives of N’s work, between 6. and 13., are connected with the list of the return in 7., with the return of E (see p. 9 c), and with some return associated with the figure of N himself. G. A. Smith observes that the reforms of N ‘are best explained through his reinforcement by just so large a number of Babylonian Jews under just such a leader as E’ (Expos., July, 1906, p. 7 seq.). On the other hand, there is insufficient historical evidence for the presence of E and his band, and the above details strongly suggest that there was an account of some other return in connexion with the activity of N, although it is still impossible to reconstruct the course of N’s work (see § 4, 3. b).

(e) The Temple. The history after the rise of the Davidic Zerubbabel is a blank which can be filled only by conjecture (see e.g. Ewald; Sellin, Ser.; Nikel, 142–6, and others). The situation in Jerusalem at the return of N cannot be explained by the disasters at the fall of Jerusalem about 140 years previously. The city was in great affliction and reproach, and N’s grief, confession, and prayer recall E’s behaviour at the tidings of the heathen marriages. The ruins of Jerusalem were extensive (N 1:3, 2:3, 8, 13, 3., cf. Ecclus. 49:13), and it is disputed whether the bīrāh (2:8) refers to the fortress on the north side of the Temple (G. A. Smith, Jerus., 2. 347 seq., 461), or the Temple itself (cf. 1 Chron. 29:1 and see Jahn, pp. 4:93). According to 2 Macc. 1:18, N built both the Temple and the Altar, and Jos. (independently) asserts that he received permission to build the walls of the city and to finish the Temple. An old Latin synopsis (Lag. 18 seq.) states that E restored the foundations of Zerubbabel’s temple, and an old Greek summary of ‘Second Esdras’ refers to N as a builder of the Temple (Lag. 84, l. 27: αὐτὸς ἠξίωσε περὶ τῆς οἰκοδομῆς τοῦ ἱεροῦ). These can scarcely all be based upon the references to the Temple in the Artaxerxes-record in E 2:18, 20. It is at least noteworthy that, both in E and E, compilers have placed this episode in the history of the Temple, and the different readings in E 4:12, 14, might be due to the alternative position of the story (see below, § 6 (c)) after the account of the opposition in the time of Cyrus.1 Moreover, the mention of the ‘decree of Cyrus, and Darius, and Artaxerxes king of Persia’ (E 6:14, see E 7:4) is unintelligible—for even a gloss or interpolation must express some plausible belief—unless there was a tradition associating Artaxerxes with the building of the Temple. Again, in view of the parallels between E 4. and N 2. 4., 6., in the account of the Samaritan opposition, it is surely significant that the abrupt allusion in N 2:20 to the repudiation of the Samaritans can only be explained in the light of E 4:3, where the building of the Temple is concerned.2 Finally, the E-story represents a period of favour during which the Temple had been restored or repaired through God’s mercy and the clemency of Persia (E 9:8 seq.). This brief ‘moment’ (v. 8) cannot date back from the decree of Cyrus and the work of Zerubbabel, rather must one read the whole situation—the strengthening of a neglectful community, the furthering of a poor temple—as a supplement to the disorganization and confusion in the story of N’s measures. Hence, it may be concluded that there is sufficient evidence for some tradition of a rebuilding of the Temple and of a return in the time of N.

(f) The recent disaster. The disaster which explains N’s grief, anxiety, and energetic labours may probably be ascribed in part at least to Edom. Friendly or neutral relations between Judah (and its semi-Edomite population, see c) and the ‘brother’ Edom appear to have continued at a relatively late period, until for some reason Edom is denounced for its unbrotherly conduct.3 The origin of the enmity is generally connected with the fall of Jerusalem in 586. But it cannot be found in the time of Jehoiakim (the conjecture ‘Edom’ for ‘Aram’ in 2 Kings 24:2 is against Jer. 35:11), or of Zedekiah (when Edom was among the allies of Judah; Jer. 27., Ezek. 17:11 seqq.); the Chaldeans alone destroyed the Temple, and Jews had even taken refuge in Edom and elsewhere (Jer. 40:11). The very explicit statement that the Edomites burned the Temple ‘when Judaea was made desolate by the Chaldeans’, and occupied Judaean territory (E 4:45, 50), points to the reality of a tradition which, however, has been connected with the events of 586. The various allusions to Edom (Obad., Ezek. 25:12, 35:10, 12, 36:5, Lam. 4., Ps. 137:7), though possibly referring to different periods, cannot be based upon the history of the Chaldean invasion. The very circumstantial references to Edomite aggression (E 4:50, Ezek. 35:10, 36:3, 5) have led to the view that the Jewish exiles recovered their land through Persian aid.4 This, however, finds no support in the history of either Cyrus or Darius. But may it not be later (Nikel, 57 n. 1), before the prophecy of Mal. 1:2–5, and between the times of Zerubbabel and N?1 If so, it is tempting to associate the relatively simple and unadorned decree attributed to Darius in E 4:48–56 (which points to a return to rebuild the Temple after a period of Edomite hostility) with the situation that underlies the narratives of N, cf. d above.

(g) Summary. The internal difficulties of E-N, are exceedingly complex owing to the numerous untrustworthy features, the remarkable and suspicious parallels, and the intricacies of rearrangement, adjustment, and revision. The sources throw little (if any) light on the period before the return of N, and traditions originally associated with him or his age appear to underlie the rest.2 His story forms the starting-point for the problems of E-N, but it has too many serious difficulties for any confident theory of the order of events. Yet it seems clear that in N’s time there had not as yet been any previous Samaritan hostility of any extent, any separation from the ‘heathen’, any important return of exiles. It is not improbable that in the time of Zerubbabel there was a monarchy of some size (cf. Sellin, Ser., 89), and it is interesting to notice that the Samaritan opposition in the time of Artaxerxes is aimed especially at the apparent political pretensions of N (2:19, 6:6–8, cf. E 4:13). The population in and around Jerusalem consisted partly of the old indigenous stock and partly of the southern groups of Edomite affinity who moved northwards after 586. This semi-Edomite people had suffered from a disaster, due, in some measure, to the ‘brother’ Edomites who had burned the Temple and occupied Jewish territory, and to repair the lamentable conditions was the object of N’s return. The southern groups in question are only to be expected after 1 Chron. 2. and 4., and the history in Chron. seems to reveal some traces of their perspective: their presence in the Levitical bodies, the stories of the reconstruction of Temple and cult, and the traditions of invasions of hostile southern peoples. On independent grounds it is probable that other traces of the presence and prominence of these groups may be observed elsewhere, and we may notice that the O. T. preserves the tradition of the high reputation of the eponymous Caleb, the ‘servant of Yahweh’, and that late traditions even ascribe a southern origin to some of the prophets.3

In the chronicler’s compilation the rise of the new Jewish Church and the opposition of the Samaritans are dated at the commencement of the Persian age, and in the light of this the later history was meant to be read, even as other writers presuppose the patriarchal ancestors of pre-Mosaic days or the elaborate Levitical ritual associated with Moses and Aaron. Although this view shapes the compilation, the study of the age of Artaxerxes throws a different light upon its value. There are persistent and independent traditions of some return in his reign, and of some reconstruction of the people. Subsequent to the situation represented in N 3. (see c above) a new community was formed, and since it would be composed of elements of exilic (Babylonian) and non-exilic ancestry, some of the names of the latter class (found e.g. in N 3.) might naturally recur in (the later) lists referring to earlier periods (for such names, see Nikel, 154 seqq.). From 1 Chron. 2. and 4., and from the place of Caleb and Jerahmeel among the ‘sons’ of Perez—Gen. 38 seems to record his superiority over the rival and semi-Edomite Zerah—it is obvious that there has been a genealogical readjustment of the groups of southern origin. Moreover, elsewhere, the specific traditions of such groups as these have been revised or mutilated, and it is probable that all these features may be connected with the intricate development of the priestly and Levitical figures, suggestive of rival representations and compromise.4

E-N, is written from the standpoint of a reorganized community which admitted no relationship with the semi-Edomite or native Judaean groups. The Babylonian exiles piqued themselves on their superiority to the Judaeans, who none the less could boast of their father Abraham—the hero of the Calebite city of Hebron (Ezek. 33:24). To the exiles from Babylon and thence (E 2.) to the old Judah which fell in 586, the community persistently attributed its origin. The Jews of the post-exilic theocracy laid most weight upon an ancestry from the deportation by Nebuchadrezzar, even as the old Israel ignored the large indigenous and mixed element in Palestine, and descent was claimed from the immigrant tribes from Egypt and thence from the pre-Mosaic sons of Israel. Different disasters were focussed upon 586, and traditions of return and rebuilding were concentrated upon the return of Zerubbabel. Consequently, by thus passing over the native groups, whether akin or not to the hated Edomites, the mixed origin of the Jews was rendered less conspicuous. The significance of this has been well pointed out by Torrey (155, 236 seq., 321 seqq., and, especially, 328 n. 53). Both Jews and Samaritans were of mingled ancestry, but the latter could at all events claim to have been associated with the land longer than the former. The question of kinship between the two divisions was, as we see from Jos. (ix.14 3, xi.8 6, xii.5 5), always a debatable one, and the knowledge of past history would only increase the bitter enmity at the rise of the rival cult on Mt. Gerizim. But the chronicler’s compilation very carefully conceals the course of events and upholds for Judah alone the sole right to be the legitimate descendant of the ancient confederation of Israel.1