Introduction to the Old Testament by John Edgar McFadyen - HTML preview

books of Ezra and Nehemiah. Apart from these books, al that we know

of the origin and early history of Judaism is inferential. They are

our only historical sources for that period; and if in them we have,

as we seem to have, authentic memoirs, fragmentary though they be,

written by the two men who, more than any other, gave permanent

shape and direction to Judaism, then the importance and interest of

these books is without parallel in the Old Testament, for nowhere

else have we history written by a contemporary who shaped it.

It is just and practical y necessary to treat the books of Ezra and

Nehemiah together. Their contents overlap, much that was done by

Ezra being recorded in the book of Nehemiah (vii .-x.). The books

are regarded as one in the Jewish canon; the customary notes

appended to each book, stating the number of verses, etc., are

appended only to Nehemiah and cover both books; the Septuagint also

regards them as one. There are serious gaps in the narrative, but

the period they cover is at least a century (538-432 B.C.). A brief

sketch of the books as they stand will suggest their great

historical interest and also the historical problems they involve.

In accordance with a decree of Cyrus in 538 B.C. the exiled Jews

return to Jerusalem to build the temple (Ezra i.). Then fol ows a

list of those who returned, numbering 42,360 (i .). An altar was

erected, the feast of booths was celebrated, and the regular

sacrificial system was resumed. Next year, amid joy and tears, the

foundation of the temple was laid (i i.). The request of the

Samaritans for permission to assist in the building of the temple

was refused, with the result that they hampered the activity of the

Jews continuously till 520 B.C. (iv, 1-5, 24). Similar opposition

was also offered during the reigns of Xerxes and Artaxerxes, when

the governor of Samaria formal y accused the Jews before the Persian

government of aiming at independence in their efforts to rebuild the

city walls, and in consequence the king ordered the suspension of

the building until further notice, iv. 6-23. Under the stimulus of

the preaching of Haggai and Zechariah, the real work of building the

temple was begun in 520 B.C. The enterprise roused the suspicion of

the Persian governor, who promptly communicated with Darius. The

Jews had appealed to the decree of Cyrus granting them permission to

build, and this decree was found, after a search, at Ecbatana.

Whereupon Darius gave the Jews substantial support, the buildings

were finished and dedicated in 516 B.C., and a great passover feast

was held (v., vi.).

The scene now shifts to a period at any rate fifty-eight years later

(458 B.C.) Armed with a commission from Artaxerxes, Ezra the scribe,

of priestly lineage, arrived, with a company of laity and clergy, at

Jerusalem from Babylon, with the object of investigating the

religious condition of Judah and of teaching the law (vii.). Before

leaving Babylon he had proclaimed a fast with public humiliation and

prayer, and taken scrupulous precautions to have the offerings for

the temple safely delivered at Jerusalem. When they reached the

city, they offered a sumptuous burnt-offering and sin-offering

(vi i.). Soon complaints are lodged with Ezra that leading men have

been guilty of intermarriage with heathen women, and he pours out

his soul in a passionate prayer of confession (ix.). A penitent mood

seizes the people; Ezra summons a general assembly, and establishes

a commission of investigation, which, in about three months,

convicted 113 men of intermarriage with foreign women (x.).

The history now moves forward about fourteen years (444 B.C.).

Nehemiah, a royal cup-bearer in the Persian palace, hears with

sorrow of the distress of his countrymen in Judea, and of the

destruction of the walls of Jerusalem (Neh. i.). With the king's

permission, and armed with his support, he visited Jerusalem, and

kindled in the whole community there the desire to rebuild the wal s

(i .). The work was prosecuted with vigour, and, with one exception,

participated in by al (i i.). The foreign neighbours of Jerusalem,

provoked by their success, meditated an attack--a plan which was,

however, frustrated by the preparations of Nehemiah (iv.). Nehemiah,

being interested in the social as well as the political condition of

the community, unflinchingly rebuked the unbrotherly treatment of

the poor by the rich, appealing to his own very different conduct,

and final y induced the nobles to restore to the poor their

mortgaged property (v.). By cunning plots, the enemy repeatedly but

unsuccessful y sought to secure the person of Nehemiah; and in

fifty-two days the wal s were finished (vi.). He then placed the

city in charge of two officials, taking precautions to have it

strongly guarded and more thickly peopled (vi .).

At a national assembly, Ezra read to the people from the book of the

law, and they were moved to tears. They celebrated the feast of

booths, and throughout the festival week the law was read daily

(vi i.). The people, led by the Levites (under Ezra, ix. 6, lxx.),

made a humble confession of sin (ix.), and the prayer issued in a

covenant to abstain from intermarriage with the heathen and trade on

the Sabbath day, and to support the temple service (x.).

The population of the city was increased by a special draft,

selected by lot from those resident outside, and also by a body of

volunteers (xi.). After a series of lists of priestly and Levitical

houses, one of which[1] is carried down to the time of Alexander the

Great, xii. 1-26, the wal s were formally dedicated, and steps were

taken to secure the maintenance of the temple service and officers,

xi . 27-47. On his return to Jerusalem in 432 B.C. Nehemiah enforced

the sanctity of the temple, and instituted various reforms,

affecting especial y the Levitical dues, the sanctity of the

Sabbath, and intermarriage with foreigners, xii .

[Footnote 1: According to Josephus, Jaddua (Neh. xi . 22) was high

priest in the time of Alexander (about 330 B.C.?).]

The difficulties involved in this presentation of the history are of

two kinds--inconsistencies with assured historical facts, and

improbabilities. Perhaps the most important illustration of the

former is to be found in Ezra i i. There not only is an altar

immediately built by the returned exiles--a statement not in itself

improbable--but the foundation of the temple is laid soon after,

ii . 10, and the ceremony is elaborately described (536 B.C.). The

foundation is also presupposed for this period elsewhere in the book

(cf. v. 16, in an Aramaic document). Now this statement is at least

formal y contradicted by v. 2, where it is expressly said that,

under the stimulus of the preaching of Haggai and Zechariah, who did

not prophesy til 520 B.C., Zerubbabel and Joshua _began_ to

build the house of God. This is confirmed by the very explicit

statements of these two prophets themselves, whose evidence, being

contemporary, is unchal engeable. Haggai gives the very day of the

foundation, ii. 18, and Zechariah iv. 9 says, "The hands of

Zerubbabel have laid the foundation of this house." It is not

impossible to surmount the difficulty by assuming that the laying of

the foundation in 536 B.C. was a purely formal ceremony while the

real work was not begun til 520; still, it is awkward for this view

that the language of two contemporary prophets is so explicit. And

in any case, the statement in Ezra v. 16 that "since that time (i.e.

536) even until now (520) hath the temple been in building" is not easy to reconcile with what we know from contemporary sources; the

whole brunt of Haggai's indictment is that the people have been

attending to their own houses and neglecting Jehovah's house, which

is in consequence desolate (Hag. i. 4, 9).

The most signal il ustration of the improbabilities that arise from

the traditional order of the book lies in the priority of Ezra to

Nehemiah. On the common view, Ezra arrives in Jerusalem in 458 B.C.

(Ezra vi . 7, 8), Nehemiah in 444 (Neh. i . 1). But the situation

which Ezra finds on his arrival appears to presuppose a settled and

orderly life, which was hardly possible until the city was fortified

and the walls built by Nehemiah; indeed, Ezra, in his prayer,

mentions the erection of the walls as a special exhibition of the

divine love (Ezra ix. 9). Further, Nehemiah's memoirs make no

allusion to the al eged measures of Ezra; and, if Ezra really

preceded Nehemiah, it is difficult to see why none of the reformers

who came with him from Babylon should be mentioned as supporting

Nehemiah. Again, the measures of Nehemiah are mild in comparison

with the radical measures of Ezra. Ezra, e.g. demands the divorce of

the wives (Ezra x. 11ff.), whereas Nehemiah only forbids

intermarriage between the children (Neh. xi i. 25). In short, the

work of Nehemiah has al the appearance of being tentative and

preliminary to the drastic reforms of Ezra. The history certainly

gains in intelligibility if we assume the priority of Nehemiah, and

the text does not absolutely bind us. Ezra's departure took place

"in the seventh year of Artaxerxes the king" (Ezra vi . 7). Even if we al ow that the number is correct, it is just possible that the

king referred to is not Artaxerxes I (465-424), but Artaxerxes II

(404-359). In that case, the date of Ezra's arrival would be 397

B.C.; in any case, the number of the year may be incorrect.

Any doubt which might arise as to the possibility of so serious a

transformation is at once met by an indubitable case of misplacement

in Ezra iv. 6-23. The writer is dealing with the alleged attempts of

the Samaritans to frustrate the building of the temple between 536

and 520 B.C. (Ezra iv. 1-5), and he diverges without warning into an

account of a similar opposition during the reigns of Xerxes (485-465)

and Artaxerxes (465-424) (Ezra iv. 6-23), resuming his interrupted

story of the building of the temple in ch. v. The account in iv. 6-23

is altogether irrelevant, as it has to do, not with the temple, but

with the building of the _city_ wal s, iv. 12.

Such peculiarities and dislocations are strange in a historical

writing, and they are to be explained by the fact that the book of

Ezra-Nehemiah is not so much a connected history as a compilation.

The sources and spirit of this compilation we shal now consider.

First and of surpassing importance are (_a_, _b_) what are

known as the I-sections--verbal extracts in the first person, from

the memoirs of Ezra and Nehemiah:--

(_a_) Ezra vii. 27-ix., except vi i. 35, 36.

(_b_) Neh. i.-vii. 5, xii. 27-43, xi i. 4-31.

(_c_) Other sections, though they are not actual y extracts from

the memoirs, appear to rest directly on them: cf. Ezra vi . 1-10, x.,

Neh. vii .-x. In these sections Ezra is spoken of in the third person.

(_d_) Of great interest and importance are the Aramaic

sections, Ezra iv. _7b_-vi. 18 and vi . 12-26, involving

correspondence with the Persian court or royal rescripts.

(_e_) Final y, there are occasional lists, such as Neh. xi . 1-26_a_,

or Neh. vi . 6-69, a list of the returning exiles, incorporated in the

memoirs of Nehemiah from some earlier list and borrowed in Ezra ii.

These are the chief sources, but there can be no doubt that they

were compiled--that is put together and in certain cases worked

over--by the Chronicler. That suspicion is at once raised by the

fact that Ezra-Nehemiah is a strict continuation of the book of

Chronicles,[1] though in the Hebrew Bible Chronicles appears last,

because, having to compete with Samuel and Kings, it won its

canonical position later than Ezra-Nehemiah. But apart from this,

the phraseology, style and point of view of the Chronicler are very

conspicuous. There is the same love of the law, the same interest in

Leviticalism, the same joy in worship, the same fondness for lists

and numbers. He must have lived a century or more after Ezra and

Nehemiah; he looks back in Neh. xi . 47 to "the days of Nehemiah,"

and he must himself have belonged to the Greek period. One of his

lists mentions a Jaddua, a high priest in the time of Alexander the

Great. He speaks of the king of _Persia_ (Ezra i. 1), and of

Darius _the Persian_[2] (Neh. xi . 22), as one to whom the

Persian empire was a thing of the past; contemporaries simply spoke

of "the king," Ezra iv. 8.

[Footnote 1: Note that the opening verses of Ezra are repeated at

the end of Chronicles to secure a favourable ending to the book--the

more so as that was the last book of the Hebrew Bible.]

[Footnote 2: In Ezra vi. 22 Darius is even cal ed the king of

Assyria.]

Many of the peculiarities of the book are explained the moment it is

seen to be a late compilation. The compiler selected from his

available material whatever suited his purpose; he makes no attempt

to give a continuous account of the period. He leaves without

scruple a gap of sixty years or more[1] between Ezra vi. and vii. He

interpolates a comment of his own in the middle of the original

memoirs of Nehemiah.[2] He transcribes the same list twice (Ezra

ii., Neh. vi .), which looks as if he had found it in two different

documents. He gives passages irrelevant settings (cf. Ezra iv. 6-23).

He passes without warning from the first person in Ezra ix. to the

third person in Ezra x., showing that he does not regard himself

as the slave, but as the master, of his material. Whatever may be

thought of the view that he has reversed the chronological order of

Ezra and Nehemiah, the book undoubtedly contains misplaced passages.

Ezra x. is a very unsatisfactory conclusion to the account of Ezra,

whereas Neh. vii .-x., which deal with the work of Ezra and its

issue in a covenant, form an admirable sequel to Ezra x., and have

almost certainly been misplaced.

[Footnote 1: Unless we take into account the brief misplaced section

in iv. 6-23.]

[Footnote 2: Cf. especially xii. 47 with its reference to "the days of Nehemiah," whereas in xi . 40, xi i. 6, etc., Nehemiah speaks in the first person. Ch. xi . 44-47 at least belongs to the

Chronicler.]

We cannot be too grateful to him for giving intact the vivid and

extremely important account of the activity of Nehemiah the layman

in Nehemiah's own words (i.-vi . 5); at the same time, his own

interests are almost entirely ecclesiastical. Unlike Ezra (vi i.

15ff.), he says little of the homeward journey of the exiles in 537,

but much of the temple vessels (Ezra i.) and of the arrangements for

the sacrificial system, ii . 4-6. He dwel s at length on the laying

of the foundation stone of the temple, ii . 8-13, on the Samaritan

opposition to the building, iv. 1-5, on the passover festival at the

dedication of the temple when it was finished, vi. 19-22. He

amplifies the Nehemiah narratives at the point where the services

and officers of the temple are concerned.

The influence of the Chronicler is unmistakable even in the Aramaic

documents, whose authenticity one would on first thoughts expect to

be guaranteed by their language. Aramaic would be the natural

language of correspondence between the Persian court and the western

provinces of the empire, and these official documents in Aramaic one

might assume to be originals; but an examination reveals some of the

editorial terms that characterize the Hebrew. A decree of Darius is

represented as ending with the prayer that "the God that hath caused His name to dwel there (i.e. at Jerusalem) may overthrow al kings

and peoples that shal put forth their hand to destroy this house of

God which is at Jerusalem" (Ezra vi. 13). To say nothing of the

first clause, which has a suspicious resemblance to the language of

Deuteronomy, such a wish addressed to the God of the Jews is

anything but natural on the lips of a Persian. Again, there are

several distinctively Jewish terms of expression in the rescript

given by Artaxerxes to Ezra, e.g. the detailed allusion to

sacrifices in Ezra vii. 17. This, however, might easily be explained

by assuming that Ezra himself had had a hand in drafting the

rescript, which is not impossible.

The question, however, is for the historian a very serious one: how

great were the liberties which the Chronicler al owed himself in the

manipulation of his material? It is interesting in this connexion to

compare his account of the decree of Cyrus on behalf of the Jewish

exiles in Ezra i. 2-4 with the Aramaic version in vi. 3-5, which has

all the appearance of being original. The difference is striking.

Cyrus speaks in ch. i. as an ardent Jehovah worshipper; but the

substance of the edict is approximately correct, though its form is

altogether unhistorical and indeed impossible. The Chronicler's

idealizing tendency is here very apparent; and it is not impossible

that this has elsewhere affected his presentation of the facts as

wel as the form of his narrative. In the light of the very plain

statements of the contemporary prophets Haggai and Zechariah, we are

justified in doubting whether, in Ezra i i., the Chronicler has not

antedated the foundation of the temple. To him it may wel have

seemed inconceivable that the returned exiles should--whatever their

excuse--have waited for sixteen years before beginning the work

which to him was of transcendent importance.

It is possible, too, that prophecy may have influenced his

presentation of the history. He throws into the very forefront a

prophecy of Jeremiah (xxv. 12), and regards the decree of Cyrus as

its fulfilment (Ezra i. 1). He may also have had in mind the words

of the great exilic prophet who had represented Cyrus as issuing the

command to lay the foundation of the temple (Isa. xliv. 28); and he

may in this way have thrown into the period immediately after the

return activities which properly belong to the period sixteen years

later. But it is perfectly gratuitous, on the strength of this, to

doubt, as has recently been done, the whole story of the return in

537 B.C. Those who do so point out that the audience addressed by

Haggai, i. 12, 14, i . 2, and Zechariah vi i. 6, is described as the

remnant of the people of the land--that is, it is al eged, of those

who had been left behind at the time of the captivity. No doubt the

better-minded among these would lend their support to the efforts of

Haggai and Zechariah to re-establish the worship, but this community

as a whole must have been too dispirited and indifferent to have

taken such a step without the impulse supplied by the returned

exiles. The devotion of the native population to Jehovah, not great

to begin with--for it was the worst of the people who were left

behind--must have deteriorated through intermarriage with heathen

neighbours (Neh. xii ., Ezra ix. x.); and without a return in 537 on

the strength of the edict of Cyrus, the whole situation and sequel

are unintel igible. The Chronicler's version of the decree of Cyrus

throws a flood of light upon his method. It cannot be fairly said

that he invents facts; he may modify, amplify and transpose, but

always on the basis of fact. His fidelity in transcribing the

memoirs of Nehemiah is proof that he was not unscrupulous in the

treatment of his sources.

It remains to consider briefly the value of these sources. The

authenticity of the memoirs of Nehemiah is universal y admitted.

Similar phrases are continually recurring, e.g. "the good hand of my God upon me," ii. 8, 18, and the whole narrative is stamped with the impress of a brave, devout, patriotic and resourceful personality.

The authenticity of the memoirs of Ezra has been disputed with

perhaps a shadow of plausibility. The language of the memoirs

distinctly approximates to the language of the Chronicler himself,

though this can be fairly accounted for, either by supposing that

the spirit and interests of Ezra the priest were largely identical

with those of the Chronicler, or that the Chronicler, recognizing

his general affinity with Ezra, hesitated less than in the case of

Nehemiah to conform the language of the memoirs to his own. But more

serious charges have been made. It has been alleged that the account

of the career of Ezra has been largely model ed on that of Nehemiah,

as that of Elisha on Elijah, and that legendary elements are

traceable, e.g. in the immense wealth brought by Ezra's company from

Babylon (Ezra vi i. 24-27). These reasons do not seem altogether

convincing. The Chronicler stood relatively near to Ezra. Records

and lists were kept in that period, and he was no doubt in

possession of more first-hand documentary information than appears

in his book. There is no obvious motive for the writer who so

faithful y transcribed the memoirs of Nehemiah, inventing so vivid,

coherent and circumstantial a narrative for Ezra in the first person

singular (Ezra vii. 27-ix.).

The question of the Ezra memoirs raises the further question of the

Aramaic documents. The memoirs are immediately preceded by the

Aramaic rescript of Artaxerxes permitting Ezra to visit Jerusalem

for the purpose of reorganizing the Jewish community (Ezra vii. 12-26).

Doubt has been cast upon the authenticity of this document on the

strength of its undeniably Jewish colouring; but this, as we have seen, is probably to be explained by the not unnatural assumption that Ezra

himself had a hand in its preparation. Its substantial authenticity

seems ful y guaranteed by the spontaneous and warm-hearted outburst of

gratitude to God with which Ezra immediately fol ows it (Ezra vi . 27ff):

"Blessed be Jehovah, the God of our fathers, who hath put such a thing as this in the king's heart," etc. A similar criticism may be made in general on the Aramaic document, Ezra iv. _7b_-vi. 18. It is certain,

as we have seen, that the document has been retouched by the Chronicler; but the whole passage and especial y the royal decrees are substantial y authentic. Attention has been cal ed to the Persian words which they

contain, though this alone is not decisive, as they might conceivably

be due to a later author; but the authenticity of the decree of Cyrus

is practically guaranteed by the story that it was discovered at

Ecbatana (Ezra vi. 2). Had it been a fiction, the scene of the discovery would no doubt have been Babylon or Susa.

After making al owance, then, for the Chronicler's occasional y

cavalier treatment of his sources, we have to admit that the sources

themselves are of the highest historical value, though in order to

secure a coherent view of the period, they have, in al probability,

to be rearranged. No rearrangement can be considered as absolutely

certain, but the following, which is adopted by several scholars,

has internal probability:--

Ezra i.-iv. 5, iv. 24-vi., fol owed by about seventy years of

silence (516-444 B.C.). Neh. i.-vi., Ezra iv. 6-23, Neh. vi . 1-69

(= Ezra i .), Neh. xi., xii., xi i. 4-31, Ezra vii., vi i., Neh.

vii. 70-vii ., Ezra ix.-x. 9, Neh. xii . 1-3, Ezra x. 10-44, Neh.

ix., x.

Despite their enormous difficulties, Ezra-Nehemiah are a source of

the highest importance for the political and religious history of

early Judaism. The human interest of the story is also great--the

problems for religion created by intermarriage (Neh. xi i. 23ff.,

Ezra ix., x.), and the growth of the commercial spirit (Neh. xi i.

15-22). The figure of Ezra, though not without a certain devout

energy, is somewhat stiff and formal; but the personality revealed

by the memoirs of Nehemiah is gracious almost to the point of

romance. Seldom did the Hebrew people produce so attractive and

versatile a figure--at once a man of prayer and of action, of clear

swift purpose, daring initiative, and resistless energy, and endowed

with a singular power of inspiring others with his own enthusiasm.

He forms an admirable foil to Ezra the ecclesiastic; and it is a

matter of supreme satisfaction that we have the epoch-making events

in his career told in his own direct and vigorous words.

CHRONICLES

The comparative indifference with which Chronicles is regarded in

modern times by al but professional scholars seems to have been

shared by the ancient Jewish churc