Their noble religious

concep

tions

and freely expanded the stories of the patriarchs with a similar didactic aim. Time and circumstance explain their lack of the historical sense. Prolonged subjection to foreign rulers had excluded the Jews from all participation in political life. The shadow of the exile still rested heavily upon them. At this time the future offered little to inspire them. Their chief joy and pride and comfort were the magnificence of their ritual and the glories of their past. Prominent before their eyes were the dazzling splendors of the Persian and Greek empires. These furnished their basis by comparison with which the facts recorded in the primitive sources of Samuel and Kings seemed paltry and insignificant. Idealizing and almost idolizing the leaders and great events in the past history of their nation, it was inevitable that they should readily overlook the sins and the mistakes, and represent its victories and glories on a scale corresponding to that with which they were familiar.

Their idealized past also furnished dramatic illustrations of that moral order in the universe in which they firmly believed. Aside from their interest in the ritual, which to their minds represented worship and true religion, their supreme purpose was to proclaim that God is just, that he is merciful, and that he rules directly and personally in human life. The might of armies and nations counts as nothing against him. In the end the right will surely win. Obedience and faith in Jehovah are more effective instruments in the hands of Israel's kings than powerful armies and strong alliances. Thus, although the historical perspective of the Chronicler and his school is often defective, their stories emphasize certain of the most vital spiritual truths.

IV

THE ORIGINAL SOURCES AND HISTORICAL VALUE

OF EZRA-NEHEMIAH

miah

WHILE the Chronicler aims in the first great division of his work (I and ImII Chr.) to show that the ceremonial institutions of his day could all be once traced back to David and Solomon, in the second, Ezra-Nehemiah, his of pur- Ezrapose is to demonstrate that these institutions were revived, in connection Nehewith the second temple, by the exiles who returned from Babylonia. Unfortunately, the parallel prophetic history of Samuel-Kings stops with the exile, so that the historian is almost entirely dependent upon the Chronicler for information regarding the Jewish community during the Persian period. The sermons of Haggai and Zechariah supplement and correct the Chronicler's portrait at one important epoch (cf. note § 146), and the book of Malachi and the prophecies in the latter part of Isaiah throw light upon social and religious conditions, but otherwise the additional data are few. On the other hand, the Chronicler stands much nearer the events which he records in the second great division of his work, and his testimony is accordingly more valuable.

icler's

tions

post

Fortunately, his peculiar ideas and tendencies and those of the late priestly Chronand levitical writers whom he quotes, are clearly revealed by comparative peculiar study of Samuel, Kings, and Chronicles. These reappear in Ezra-Nehemiah concepand must be reckoned with in reconstructing the true course of the history. of the In his mind the priests and Levites are so much more important than the exilic laymen, that only the Babylonian exiles, among whom were found the priests history who survived the catastrophe of 586 B.C., were deemed by him eligible to rebuild the temple and reinstitute the rule of the law. The people of the land-those who survived the captivity and under the inspiring teaching of Haggai and Zechariah actually rebuilt the temple in 520 B.C. (cf. note § 146)—were in his eyes ceremonially unclean. The true Israel-like the Jewish community of his own day, ruled by priests and devoted solely to maintaining the temple ritual and fulfilling the insistent demands of the ceremonial law-is the chief actor in his history. As in the midrashim of Chronicles, events are the results of direct divine intervention. Jehovah is represented as influencing the most powerful Persian kings to pour upon the returning exiles the wealth of the empire and to issue decrees, the language and purport of which were well calculated to satisfy the strictest priestly patriot. Ezra 1, 31-45 and 616-22 are excellent illustrations of the Chronicler's conceptions of the revival of the Jewish community. Undoubtedly important historical facts are at the basis, but the idealized character of the narrative is clearly revealed by comparing it with the early record found in Haggai 1 or Ezra 53–615.

His

Sources:

Aramaic docu

ment

The analysis of Chronicles has demonstrated, however, that the Chronthe icler was not primarily an author, but a compiler. This fact also determines the great historical value of Ezra-Nehemiah. He makes long, verbal quotations from three or four older sources. The first is the Aramaic document cited in Ezra 53-615. It records an unsuccessful attempt by the local Persian satrap to stop the building of the temple. Not only is the language different, but the vocabulary and literary style are distinct from those of the Chronicler. A Persian monarch like Cyrus is referred to simply as the king, implying that the document was at least composed before the Greek period, when he was designated as the king of Persia. At the same time the Jewish form of the decree in 63-12 suggests that that idealizing process had begun, which is still more prominent in the sections which come from the Chronicler (cf. Appendix XII for a recently discovered decree of Darius). In general, however, the data, which it presents, may be regarded as authentic. Probably from the same series of documents, which appear to have recorded the official relations between the Persian government and the Judean community, was taken the other Aramaic section in Ezra 47-23. It is very loosely connected with its context, which relates to the rebuilding of the temple, while it records an independent attempt to restore the walls. Its true setting is to be found in connection with the work of Nehemiah (cf. note § 155). Whether or not these Aramaic documents were more extensive and furnished the Chronicler additional data is an interesting question, which cannot be definitely answered. Ezra 1 appears to be his expansion and idealization of the facts derived from the Aramaic document quoted in 53-615. The continuation of Ezra 1, found in I Esdras 547-65 (cf. § 144), and Ezra 31-4° may possibly contain some older data derived from his Aramaic source, but there is no conclusive evidence.

Nehe

miah's

memoirs

The oldest and by far the most important source quoted by the Chronicler is the memoirs of Nehemiah. Written to record the stirring events in which he was the leader, they rank as in many ways the most authentic and valuable historical document in the Old Testament. In a concise, straightforward, vivid narrative this noble Jewish patriot tells of how he accomplished the seemingly impossible task of rebuilding the ruined walls of Jerusalem and of reconstructing fundamentally the moral and religious standards of the degenerate Jewish community. In Nehemiah 11-75, with the probable exception of chapter 3, the Chronicler quotes bodily from this source. Unless it is found in 112, the sequel to 75 has been lost in the complex process of editorial readjustment, to which the material in Ezra-Nehemiah has been subjected. The conclusion of the account of the rebuilding of the walls is probably to be found in 1981. 32. 37-40. In 133-31 Nehemiah's energetic reforming spirit again finds expression. Since the section concerns the reform of the ceremonial life of the community, the Chronicler has evidently here departed from his usual custom in quoting from the memoirs of Nehemiah and recast and supplemented his source at several points (cf. note § 158). The references in also imply that he failed to reproduce that part of the memoirs which probably told of Nehemiah's other acts as governor and of his return to Artaxerxes. Otherwise we appear to be in complete

possession of the autobiography of the most important Jew of his age. The preservation of this document, which records the work not of a priest nor of a Levite, but of a layman, must forever be reckoned to the Chronicler's credit. It certainly represents his greatest service to history. Upon a brief but exceedingly important period, which is preceded and followed by centuries of comparative obscurity, it throws the clear light of contemporary testimony.

conclu

and

Ezra

tive

Nehemiah's memoirs also furnish a definite starting point for the con- Various sideration of the complex and difficult problems presented by the remaining sions chapters of Ezra-Nehemiah. Within the past decade an extensive literature regarding the has grown up about them (cf. Appendix I), in which very diverse conclu- origin sions have been maintained by different scholars. Basing his deductions value upon a careful, exhaustive study of the vocabulary and literary style, Pro- of the fessor Torrey in his Composition and Historical Value of Ezra-Nehemiah narraconcludes that they were all originally written by the Chronicler, and that Ezra is but the creation of his imagination. Others maintain that in Ezra 727–913, 10, we have verbatim quotations from Ezra's memoirs, and in Nehemiah 770-109 documents of the time of Ezra (cf., e.g., Guthe, The Book of Ezra and Neh. in SBOT). This position naturally carries with it the acceptance of the testimony of these records as substantially historical. These wide variations in opinion are possible from the historical point of view, because Ezra is mentioned nowhere else in the Old Testament outside EzraNehemiah. Even in Ben Sira's list of Israel's 'immortals (written about 190 B.C.) the name of Ezra is not found beside those of Zerubbabel, Jeshua, and Nehemiah (4911-18). This omission is all the more significant because Ben Sira himself is an intelligent and reverent disciple of the law and of the traditions that gathered about it. Likewise in the still later traditions found in II Maccabees 118-23 Nehemiah, not Ezra, is the one who is represented as coming back from Babylon to Jerusalem to restore the worship. In estimating the work and relative importance of these two men it is significant that outside the writings of the Chronicler the one, a priest and scribe, is ignored and the other, a layman, is honored for the next three or four centuries by Judaism, the chief interest of which nevertheless centred in ceremonialism and the law.

of

work

Many of the otherwise insuperable difficulties of Ezra-Nehemiah dis- Priority appear, when it is recognized that, if at all historical, the work of Ezra must Nehehave followed, not preceded that of Nehemiah. If an expedition of the size miah's and importance of the one described in Ezra 8 had gone to Judah only thirteen years before, it is incredible that Nehemiah would have made no reference to it, and also have found conditions in Jerusalem as he did. Not one of the ardent reformers mentioned in Ezra 8 is referred to in Nehemiah's detailed record. The leaders of the community also, instead of being ready to submit to any sacrifice, are even suspicious of the man who comes to help them build their walls. Moreover, after the community had submitted to Ezra's sweeping measures, Nehemiah's mild reforms are meaningless. On the other hand, such an expedition as Ezra is represented as leading back to Judah was a practical impossibility before Nehemiah had fortified Jerusalem,

Present order due to

the Chron

icler

Original

the

Ezra

narrative

reorganized the community, and brought the dismembered sections of the Jewish race into sympathetic touch with each other. Likewise his pioneer reforms, enforced by his energy and authority and claim to the gratitude of the Palestinian community, alone make credible the revolutionary changes associated with Ezra and realized in the character of later Judaism. Direct evidence also may be found in Ezra's prayer in Ezra 9, in which he gives thanks that the wall of Jerusalem has been rebuilt and Judah's defences restored (vs. ). Instead of a defenceless, afflicted city, he found a strong, populous community, ready to follow him to any extreme, even if it involved the severance of all relations with foreigners and the rending asunder of their homes (Ezra 10).

The present impossible order of events in Ezra-Nehemiah is probably due to the Chronicler's desire to give Ezra, the priest and scribe, the precedence over Nehemiah. His free readjustment of his sources is illustrated not only in Chronicles but also repeatedly in Ezra-Nehemiah. Thus for example the account of an attempted interruption of the rebuilding of the walls in the days of Artaxerxes he introduced in 47-23 as an explanation of why the temple was not completed before the days of Darius. In Nehemiah 12"1331 the analogy is even closer. Just before the quotation in 1310-12, which tells of Nehemiah's pioneer regulations providing for the income of the Levites and singers, he himself adds a section, 1244-47, in which it is stated that this arrangement had already been made and was in force in the days of Zerubbabel and in the days of Nehemiah (§ 158). Possibly the original Ezra tradition read in Ezra 7 the thirty- or forty-seventh year of Artaxerxes, or the reference may have been to Artaxerxes II or III. It is more probable, however, that the Chronicler simply introduced his favorite number to establish the priority of Ezra. Additional evidence of his desire to give Ezra a prominent position is found in the fact that he also in Nehemiah 12 places Ezra at the head of the procession of priests at the dedication of the walls, although the older sources give no suggestion that this priestly reformer was then at Jerusalem.

That the similar material in Nehemiah 770-103, which is injected into the order of midst of the quotations from Nehemiah's memoirs, belongs with the dismembered section, Ezra 7-10, was even recognized by the editor of I Esdras, who introduces Nehemiah and immediately after Ezra 10. Of the many attempts to restore the original order, that of Torrey alone gives a connected and consistent narrative: Ezra 7, 8, Nehemiah 770-818, Ezra 9, 10, Nehemiah 9, 10. With the exception of the editor's introduction, Ezra 71-10, and a few supplemental passages, the unity of representation and ideas is confirmed by the constant recurrence of the same peculiar words and expressions. It must be admitted that the strenuous efforts of certain scholars to find here the work of several different authors is a failure. Even those sections in which Ezra is represented as speaking in the first person are not exceptions. As Professor Torrey has further demonstrated, nowhere outside that book itself do we find more, if as many, of the literary characteristics that distinguish the book of Chronicles. They are so marked and recur in nearly every verse with such persistency that all possibility is eliminated