Ezra narra from icler's that this is due to mere chance. This fact is fully recognized and further The illustrated in great detail by Geissler (in Die literarischen Beziehungen der Esramemoiren), who, however, maintains that the Chronicler was not tive the original author of the narrative. Contents and method of representation the also emphasize the close relationship with the narratives of Chronicles. If Chrona majority of the distinctive passages in that book are from the Chronicler, school he is unquestionably the author of the Ezra narrative. But if, as seems more probable (cf. pp. 26, 27), he quoted largely from the midrashim which came from the very late priestly school to which he belonged and of which he was the final editor, he here again figures in his ordinary rôle of editor and reviser. The arbitrary manner in which he has rearranged the narrative, dismembering it without adjusting the parts to their new settings, strongly suggests that he had an older document before him. Certain grammatical and stylistic peculiarities, as well as characteristic words and idioms, also distinguish this Ezra narrative from the passages elsewhere assigned to the Chronicler (cf. Geissler, LBE pp. 22-24). His own additions can also be detected at several points. As Geissler has shown, the earlier scriptures most quoted are the pre-exilic and exilic prophets, Deuteronomy, and the Holiness Code, but not the later sections of the priestly code, which figure most prominently in the writings of the Chronicler. dence Ezra tive is The possibility that Ezra himself wrote a memoir and that we have quo- Evitations from it is therefore not absolutely precluded, but literary and his- that torical considerations do not support it. The vocabulary and literary struct- the ure of what may be called the Ezra narrative proclaim that it stands nearer narrathe Chronicler and the author of Esther than Nehemiah or the late priestly idealwriters. Its contents support the same inference. The decree of Artaxerxes, ized history Ezra 711-28, the account of the fabulous wealth brought back by the exiles, 824-27, and the sudden conversion of the Judean community read much more like the midrashim in Chronicles than Nehemiah's detailed memoirs. The parallels between the history of Nehemiah and that of Ezra are also many and striking: the liberal decree of Artaxerxes, the journey to Jerusalem with a following and unusual authority, the preliminary study of the conditions, the detailed reforms, and finally the recording it all in the form of a personal memoir. It is significant that practically every element in the covenant recorded in Nehemiah 10 corresponds to a distinct reform instituted by Nehemiah (134-31). When we add to this the conspicuous absence of any other references to Ezra in the literature of the next three or four centuries, the conviction deepens that this is partly idealized history, in which the mantle of Nehemiah has fallen upon Ezra. An instructive analogy might be drawn between the Nehemiah-Ezra and the Elijah-Elisha stories. Elijah and Nehemiah were both men who met grave crises with dauntless courage and energy, and as a result of their achievements set to work forces which revolutionized the subsequent history of their race. Later schools of writers, however, manifested a strong tendency to transfer the renown of their work to two of their successors who represented more perfectly the ideals of the later school in which the Elisha and Ezra traditions respectively assumed their final literary form (cf. pp. 18-20). Its ical cance At the same time there is good reason for believing that Ezra, as well as histor- Elisha, actually lived and that he performed an important, although less signifi- conspicuous service than tradition attributed to him, in introducing the priestly law to the Judean community. As portrayed, he and his acts faithfully symbolize that fundamental and probably gradual reformation which converted the weak, discouraged people to whom Nehemiah and the author of Malachi spoke into a body of heroes and martyrs, who in the Maccabean struggle won religious and political freedom. Origin gene lists The remaining chapters of Ezra-Nehemiah consist chiefly of genealogical of the lists in which the Chronicler was deeply interested. The data incorporated in alogical them may in part have been derived from the Book of the Chror icles, to which he refers in Nehemiah 1223, but their setting and present literary form are clearly due to the editor himself. It must be admitted that their historical value is slight, except as they reveal the organization of the Judean community in the days of the Chronicler and in the immediately preceding century. The census of the Jews in Palestine in the latter part of the Persian period (cf. note § 165) has been introduced by the editor into the Nehemiah history and again in Ezra 2, where it purports to give the list of those who returned soon after 538 B.C. Historical of Ezra Nehe miah as a Thus in its present form, as it comes from the Chronicler, Ezra-Nehemiah value gives the reader a confused and misleading conception of the real course of post-exilic history. And yet side by side with the dull and almost valueless genealogical lists, this book contains some of the most detailed and exact historical writings in all the Old Testament. In a fragmentary manner, whole and yet with vivid flashes of light at critical points, it records the rebuilding of the second temple, the elaborate development of its ritual, the revival of the Judean state, the return of the exiles, the unification of the Jewish race, and the birth of that Judaism which treasured the writings and traditions incorporated in the Old Testament and furnished the background and atmosphere of the New. V THE RECORDS OF THE MACCABEAN AGE tance and bean THE list of the Jewish high-priests in Nehemiah 1210. " carries the history Imporof the Jewish people down to the conquests of Alexander in 332 B.C. This of the leaves a period of over three centuries, until the birth of Christ, regarding Greek which the historical records in the present Protestant Bible are absolutely Maccasilent. It is, however, one of the most important periods in biblical and periods Israelitish history. It was during these centuries that several of the books of the Old Testament, such as Chronicles, Ezra, Nehemiah, Daniel, Ecclesiastes, and Esther were written, and many more like Proverbs and Psalms crystallized into their present form. It also witnessed the gradual growth and practical completion of the canon of the Old Testament. These memorable three centuries not only bind the Old Testament to the New, but represent the final development of that Judaism which is the outgrowth of the life recorded in the Old Testament. Without a knowledge of the events and forces of this revolutionizing era, any study of either of the Testaments is necessarily incomplete. It was then that Greek and Jewish ideas and civilization met in mortal combat and later contributed each their peculiar message to Christianity. Out of the fires of persecution came that passionate love for race, for law, for traditions, and for Jerusalem, which fused all the scattered members of the Jewish nation together, and which has kept them practically intact until the present. Then the feud between Jew and Samaritan reached its height of bitterness, and through the conversion of the Idumeans at the edge of the sword, the malign influence of the Herodian house became a potent factor in Jewish history. Then also the Jews of Galilee and Perea were brought into religious union with those of Judea. The same transitional epoch saw the birth and full development of the Pharisaic and Sadducean parties. The brilliant victories under the leadership of Judas Maccabeus and his successors gave the Jews that taste of liberty and conquest which made them so restive under the rule of Rome and so eager to welcome the visions of a temporal Messianic kingdom. and canon I Mac Fortunately, the most important events of this reign are recorded in detail Value in two books which are still included in the Old Testament canon accepted by the Greek and Roman Catholic churches, and which have only in very icity of recent times been dropped from the Protestant Bible. In the case of several cabees of the so-called Apocryphal Old Testament books the conclusions of the Reformers and the final decision of the Bible Societies, during the earlier part of the last century, are amply justified. But the tendency which is becoming so marked among thoughtful Bible students in this country and in Europe to restore at least in practice such a book as I Maccabees to its rightful place beside Samuel and Kings is sane and thoroughly justified by the facts. Its lateness and the fact that, unlike Ecclesiastes and many Psalms, Value and canon it was not associated with revered names like those of Solomon or David, alone kept it out of the Palestinian Jewish canon. Otherwise its historical title to a place in the Old Testament is well established. Measured by the more fundamental and enduring standards of value and authority, its claim to a place in the Old Testament is well supported. As has just been noted, the events which it records are surpassed in importance and inspiring qualities by none in Israelitish history. Judas and Simon are certainly as brave and noble types as David and Solomon. The deeply patriotic and religious spirit in which it is written compares favorably with that of Samuel, Kings, or Chronicles. As a vivid, faithful record of the events of which it speaks it is equalled by no other Jewish writing. While its historical title to canonicity is equally valid, II Maccabees does not rank with the first book. Its theme, however, is in general the same, and icity of it supplements the earlier history at many points. Its spirit is also strongly cabees religious, although far less historical. It may be compared with the Chronicler's late ecclesiastical history. In both the primary aim is not merely to record events, but rather to edify and instruct. Nowhere else in pre-Christian Jewish literature does the belief in the resurrection of the dead find such clear expression (cf. 79. 11. 14. 36, 1243-45, 14). In a great variety of ways it effectively aids in bridging the chasm which otherwise yawns between the history and teaching of the Old Testament and that of the New. Orig inal cabees The present titles to the Maccabean histories were given by the Greek title of translators on the basis of their contents. The term Maccabean was derived I Mac- from the surname or possibly the original name of the chief hero in the history. The Jews themselves, however, never applied it to the histories nor to the members of his family, but used instead the term Hasmonean (or Asmonean), the family name of the house of Mattathias. The original Hebrew or Aramaic title of I Maccabees, which was known to Origen (cf. Eusebius, HE 6), was probably Book (or History) of the Hasmoneans. This title is certainly a felicitous designation of the history which records the achievements of the different members of the famous Hasmonean house and the events of their rule. Its original lan guage and later trans lations The independent testimony of Origen and Jerome that it was originally written in Hebrew is completely confirmed by the presence in every verse of characteristic Semitic idioms, and above all by the fact that certain of the obvious errors in the Greek text, which alone survives, are due to the failur of the translator to understand his Hebrew original. Frequently it is possible by restoring the Hebrew to correct the current translation. The original Hebrew version was early lost, probably because it never found a place in the Palestinian canon of the Old Testament, while the Greek, accepted as canonical by the Jews of the dispersion, survived. This translation is exact without being slavishly literal, and was evidently made by a Jew who was well acquainted with the Hebrew and yet master of a good Greek style which was well adapted to the subject matter. Josephus in his history, Jerome in the Vulgate, and the translator of the Syriac version all depended upon the Greek text. The author of I Maccabees was evidently a Jew and a native of Palestine, author as is shown by his minute acquaintance with its topography and comparative Its ignorance of places and affairs outside Judea. His familiarity with political events and court intrigues strongly suggests that he was a man of rank and in close touch with the leaders of his day. His loyalty to each of the Maccabean rulers and evident approval of their policy indicate that, if affiliated with either of the leading parties of the state, it was with the Sadducean, rather than the Pharisaic, which soon after the restoration of the temple began to view askance the political and military ambitions of Judas's successors. It is as a devoted and enthusiastic patriot that he writes his history. The earlier historical books are his models. The familiar expressions, to this day (1330), or, now the rest of the acts of John and his wars and his brave deeds-behold they are recorded in the Chronicles of his high priesthood (1623. 24, cf. 922), indicate that he wrote with the feeling that he was the true successor of the earlier Hebrew historians. His spirit is devout, and he is by no means blind to the religious significance of the stirring deeds that he records, but his first aim is simply historical, that is, to produce a simple, vivid narrative of events. His own reflections he keeps for the most part to himself, but his enthusiasm and piety doubtless find expression in the exalted addresses, usually in the form of poetry, which are uttered by Mattathias (27-13. 49-60), Judas (318-22, 48-11), and the people (350-53). These and other passages reveal a man zealous for the religious institutions of his race, assured of its noble destiny, but believing that this was to be realized not by miracles but through men who combined faith with courage and action. The author of I Maccabees records the death of Simon 135 B.C. and refers Its date in the epilogue, 1623. 24, to the wars of John Hyrcanus and the rebuilding of the walls which belong to the earlier part of his reign, between 135 and 125 B.C. The absence of any reference to the later important acts of John's reign, as for example the conquest of Idumea and the destruction of Samaria, indicate that the history was probably completed by 125 B.C. It also reflects throughout the national pride and exultation that reached their height during the days of Simon and the earlier part of the reign of John Hyrcanus. There is no suggestion of the clouds that began to gather during the latter part of John's reign, because of the opposition of the Pharisees, nor of the storm of civil war which swept over Judea during the reign of Alexander Jannæus. The Romans, instead of being regarded as the future conquerors of Judea, are spoken of as distant allies whose friendship is most desirable. On the other hand there is no positive evidence pointing to a later date. Instead, the minute details, the marvellous acquaintance with men and facts and forces are best explained by the conclusion that the author was reporting events with which he was personally familiar. sources tegrity The unity of I Maccabees and the absence of abrupt transition and con- Its tradiction distinguish it from books like Samuel and Kings, which are com- and pilations from earlier sources. Furthermore, aside from the two stereotyped informulas, which he introduced in imitation of the earlier historians (922, 162), the author nowhere gives the slightest suggestion that when he wrote, earlier sources relating to the period were in existence. The simple, straight |