Ezra - Nehemiah [1 ed.] 9042937696, 9789042937697, 9789042937703

Table of contents :
CONTENTS
ABBREVIATIONS
BIBLIOGRAPHY
INTRODUCTION
THE COMMUNITY ORGANIZED

Citation preview

HISTORICAL COMMENTARY ON THE OLD TESTAMENT Ezra-Nehemiah by Bob Becking

HISTORICAL COMMENTARY ON THE OLD TESTAMENT *** EZRA-NEHEMIAH

HISTORICAL COMMENTARY ON THE OLD TESTAMENT

Editorial team: Cornelis Houtman (Kampen, The Netherlands) Gert T.M. Prinsloo (Pretoria, South Africa) Klaas Spronk (Amsterdam, The Netherlands) Wilfred G.E. Watson (Newcastle, UK) Al Wolters (Mount Hope, Ontario, Canada)

EZRA-NEHEMIAH

by Bob Becking

PEETERS LEUVEN – PARIS – BRISTOL, CT 2018

A catalogue record for this book is available from the Library of Congress. Cover design by Dick Prins. ISBN 978-90-429-3769-7 eISBN 978-90-429-3770-3 D/2018/0602/115 © 2018 — Peeters, Bondgenotenlaan 153, B-3000 Leuven (Belgium) All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, or otherwise, without the prior written permission of the publisher.

CONTENTS

PREFACE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

IX

ABBREVIATIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

XI

BIBLIOGRAPHY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

XV

INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

1

§ 1 Canonical approach . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.1 The Chronistic History Writing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.2 Ezra-Nehemiah and Ezra and Nehemiah? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . § 2 Historical Approach . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.1 The Mirror of the Days . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.2 The Book of Ezra . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.3 The Book of Nehemiah . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.4 Persian documents? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . § 3 Ancient Versions and Traditions. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.1 Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.2 Ezra-Nehemiah in the ancient versions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.3 1 Esdras . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.4 2 Esdras - IV Ezra . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . § 4 Ezra and Nehemiah in later traditions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . § 5 Judaism . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . § 6 Ezra and the Church Fathers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . § 7 Ezra in Muslim traditions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . § 8 Later Apocalyptic traditions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . § 9 Reformation and beyond . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

1 1 3 5 5 6 7 8 9 9 10 10 11 13 15 16 17 18 20

EZRA 1-2: LOOKING BACK AT THE RETURN FROM EXILE. . . . . . . .

21

Essentials and Perspectives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Scholarly Exposition I: Introduction to the exegesis . . . . . . . . . . . . . Scholarly Exposition II: Exegesis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ezra 1:1-11 Divine and Imperial Support . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ezra 2:1-70 Those who Returned . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

21 22 23 23 35

EZRA 3-6: THE REBUILDING IN RETROSPECT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

46

Essentials and Perspectives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Scholarly Exposition I: Introduction to the exegesis . . . . . . . . . . . . .

46 47

VI

Contents

Scholarly Exposition II: Exegesis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ezra 3:1-6 Celebrations on the Altar . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ezra 3:7-11 The Foundation of the Temple . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ezra 3:12-13 Building and Mourning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ezra 4:1-6 Offering, Rejection, Complaint . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ezra 4:7 Letter from Bishlam, Mithredat, Tabeel, and Others . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ezra 4:8-16 Official Complaint . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ezra 4:17-22 Answer, Decree, Ban . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ezra 4:23-24 Stopping the Rebuilding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ezra 5:1-2 Prophetic Intervention . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ezra 5:3-5 Inspection by Tattenai . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ezra 5:6-17 Letter from Tattenai . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ezra 6:1-5 Decree of Cyrus found in the Reign of Darius . . Ezra 6:6-12 Letter from Darius to Tattenai. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ezra 6:13-15 The House Rebuilt . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ezra 6:16-18 Dedication of the Temple . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ezra 6:19-22 Celebration of Passover and Mazzot . . . . . . . . . .

53 53 57 60 61 65 67 73 75 76 78 80 84 87 90 91 93

EZRA 7-10: THE COMMUNITY ORGANIZED . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

97

Essentials and Perspectives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Scholarly Exposition I: Introduction to the exegesis . . . . . . . . . . . . . Scholarly Exposition II: Exegesis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ezra 7:1-10 Ezra comes from Babylon . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ezra 7:11-28 The Edict of Artaxerxes. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ezra 8:1-14 List of those Returning with Ezra . . . . . . . . . . . . Ezra 8:15-36 The Journey of Ezra to Jerusalem . . . . . . . . . . . . Ezra 9:1-5 Crisis and Conflict . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ezra 9:6-15 The Power of Prayer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ezra 10:1-17 Rigorous Measures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ezra 10:18-44 List of Transgressors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

97 98 101 101 106 117 121 133 145 151 161

NEHEMIAH 1-7: NO MORE MUDDLE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

165

Essentials and Perspectives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Scholarly Exposition I: Introduction to the exegesis . . . . . . . . . . . . . Scholarly Exposition II: Exegesis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Nehemiah 1-2:9 From Susan to Jerusalem. . . . . . . . . . . . . Nehemiah 2:10-7:72 Restoration of the Wall despite Opposition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

165 166 168 168 184

Contents

VII

NEHEMIAH 8-12: THE COMMUNITY STRENGTHENED. . . . . . . . . . .

240

Essentials and Perspectives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Scholarly Exposition I: Introduction to the exegesis . . . . . . . . . . . . . Scholarly Exposition II: Exegesis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Nehemiah 7:72b-8:12 Reading and Explanation. . . . . . . . . . . . . Nehemiah 8:14-19 Reintroduction of the Feast of Tabernacles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Nehemiah 9:1-2 Blame and Condolence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Nehemiah 9:4-38 Confession of Guilt with Reference to God’s Great Deeds . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Nehemiah 10:1-29 Sealed and Signed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Nehemiah 10:30-39 The Foundation of the Community . . . . . Nehemiah 11:1-36 The Distribution of the Country . . . . . . . Nehemiah 12:1-26 Priests, Levites, and Gatekeepers . . . . . . Nehemiah 12:27-43 The Consecration of the Walls . . . . . . . . Nehemiah 12:44-47 Storerooms for the Tithes . . . . . . . . . . . .

240 241 242 242 250 254 257 283 286 292 300 305 310

NEHEMIAH 13: THE COMMUNITY THREATENED . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

313

Essentials and Perspectives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Scholarly Exposition I: Introduction to the exegesis . . . . . . . . . . . . . Scholarly Exposition II: Exegesis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Nehemiah 13:1-3 Moabites and Ammonites in the Community . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Nehemiah 13:4-9 Abuse of the Store-Rooms . . . . . . . . . . . Nehemiah 13:10-14 No Remittance to the Levites . . . . . . . . . Nehemiah 13:15-22 Violation of the Sabbath . . . . . . . . . . . . . Nehemiah 13:23-31 Mixed Marriages . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

313 313 314 314 316 319 321 326

PREFACE

The Biblical Books of Ezra and Nehemiah confront their readers with a set of problems, such as: How to deal hermeneutically with the harsh measures against mixed marriages? Or: how to understand the exclusivity that permeates these writings? A closer look at these texts reveals problems at the level of chronology and historiography. Who came first: Ezra or Nehemiah? In addition, should Ezra and Nehemiah be treated as a single, coherent book or not? This commentary contains a revision and translation of my Dutch book Ezra–Nehemia published in the series ‘de Prediking van het Oude Testament’ in 2017. I would like to thank the former director of Kok publishing house, Bert Endedijk, for his permission to publish the work in English. I am grateful to the editorial board of the HCOT for including my work in their prestigious series. A special word of thanks goes to Klaas Spronk for his encouragement and patience. Robert Allan was very helpful in improving my English. Woerden, August 6, 2018

Bob Becking

ABBREVIATIONS

ABD ADPV AHw AJBA AJEC AJSL AnBi ANEM ANET AOAT ArOr AThANT Atr. BASOR BBB BEATAJ BET BEThL BibInt BiTr BZ BK BN BThSt BWANT BZAR BZAW CAD CBET CBQ CHANE COT CSCO CTH CUSAS DB

Anchor Bible Dictionary Abhandlungen des Deutschen Palästina Vereins W. von Soden, Akkadisches Handwörterbuch unter Benutzung des lexikalischen Nachlasses von Bruno Meissner (1868-1947) Drei Bände, Wiesbaden 1965-1981 AmericanJournalofBiblicalArchaeology Ancient Judaism and Early Christianity AmericanJournalofSemiticLanguages Analecta Biblica Ancient Near Eastern Monographs J.B. Pritchard, AncientNearEasternTextsRelatingtotheOldTestament, Princeton 21955 Alter Orient und Altes Testament ArchivOrientální Abhandlungen zur Theologie des Alten und Neuen Testaments W.G. Lambert, A.R. Millard, Atraḫasis:TheBabylonianStoryofthe Flood, Oxford 1969 BulletinoftheAmericanSchoolsofOrientalResearch Bonner Biblische Beiträge Beiträge zur Erforschung des Alten Testaments und des Antiken Judentums Beiträge zur biblischen Exegese und Theologie Bibliotheca Ephemerides Theologicae Lovanienses BiblicalInterpretation BibleTranslator BiblischeZeitschrift Biblischer Kommentar BiblischeNotizen Biblisch-Theologische Studien Beiträge zur Wissenschaft vom Alten und Neuen Testament Beiheft zur Zeitschrift für Altorientalische und Biblische Rechtsgeschichte Beiheft zur Zeitschrift für die Alttestamentliche Wissenschaft TheAssyrianDictionaryoftheOrientalInstituteoftheUniversityof Chicago Contributions to Biblical Exegesis & Theology CatholicBiblicalQuarterly Culture and History of the Ancient Near East Commentaar op het Oude Testament Corpus Scriptorum Christianorum Orientalium E. Laroche, Catalogue des textes hittites. Études et commentaires, Paris 1971 Cornell University Studies in Assyriology and Sumerology Darius Behistun

XII DCH DJE DDD DMOA DSf DtrH EThL FAT FRLANT FS FzB GAT HAT HBS HSM IMES JAJ JANES JAOS JBL JBTh JHS JNES JQR JSJ JSOT JSS JThS KAI KAT KJV LHB/OTS LSTS LXX MGI MT NCBC NEB NICOT NorskTT NSKAT OBO ORA

Abbreviations DictionaryofClassicalHebrew texts from Al Yehudah, see L.E. Pearce, C. Wunsch, Documents of Judean Exiles and West Semites in Babylonia in the Collection of DavidSofer (CUSAS 28), Bethesdsa 2014 K. van der Toorn, B. Becking, P.W. van der Horst (eds.), Dictionary of Deities and Demons in the Bible: Second Extensively Revised Edition, Leiden, Grand Rapids, Cambridge 1999 Documenta et Monumenta Orientis Antiqui Trilingual building-inscription of Darius from Susan Deuteronomistic History EphemeridesTheologicaeLovanienses Forschungen zum Alten Testament Forschungen zur Religion und Literatur des Alten und Neuen Testamentes Festschrift Forschungen zur Bibel Grundrisse zum Alten Testament Handbuch zum Alten Testament Herders Biblische Studien Harvard Semitic Monographs Institute for Migration & Ethnic Studies JournalofAncientJudaism JournaloftheAncientNearEasternSocietyofColumbiaUniversity JournaloftheAmericanOrientalSociety JournalofBiblicalLiterature JahrbuchfürBiblischeTheologie JournalofHebrewScriptures JournalofNearEasternStudies JewishQuarterlyReview JournalfortheStudyofJudaism JournalfortheStudyoftheOldTestament JournalofSemiticStudies JournalofTheologicalStudies H. Donner, O. Röllig, KanaanäischeundaramäischeInschriften,Drei Bände, Wiesbaden 1964 Kommentar zum Alten Testament Authorised King James Version Library of the Hebrew Bible/Old Testament Studies Library of Second Temple Studies Septuaginta Y. Magen, H. Misgav, L. Tsfania. MountGerizimexcavations.1.The Aramaic,HebrewandSamaritaninscriptions, Jerusalem 2004 Masoretic Text New Century Bible Commentary Neue Echter Bibel New International Commentary on the Old Testament NorskTeologiskTidsskrift Neue Stuttgarter Kommentar zum Alten Testament Orbis Biblicus et Orientalis Orientalische Religionen in der Antike

Abbreviations OTE OTL OTS PEQ POT RB RHPhR SAA SANER SBL SBS SCM SJOT SSN STAR SVT TADAE Transeu TW VAT VT WBC WMANT WThJ WUNT ZA ZABR ZAH ZAW ZDPV ZThK

XIII

OldTestamentEssays Old Testament Library Oud Testamentische Studiën PalestineExplorationQuaterly de Prediking van het Oude Testament RevueBiblique Revued’HistoireetdePhilosophieReligieuses State Archives of Assyria Studies in Ancient Near Eastern Records Society of Biblical Literature Stuttgarter Biblische Studien Society of Christian Mission ScandinavianJournaloftheOldTestament Studia Semitica Neerlandica Studies in Theology and Religion Supplements to Vetus Testamentum B. Porten, A. Yardeni, TextbookofAramaicdocumentsfromancient Egypt 4 volumes, Jerusalem 1986-1999 Transeuphratène Theologische Wissenschaft Vorderasiatische Texte VetusTestamentum Word Biblical Commentary Wissenschaftliche Monographien zum Alten und Neuen Testament WestminsterTheologicalJournal Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament ZeitschriftfürAssyriologie ZeitschriftfüraltorientalischeundbiblischeRechtsgeschichte ZeitschriftfürAlthebraistik ZeitschriftfürdiealttestamentlicheWissenschaft ZeitschriftdesDeutschenPalästina-Vereins ZeitschriftfürTheologieundKirche

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Commentaries (referred to with the name of the author): Becker, J., Esra/Nehemia (NEB 25), Würzburg 1990. Bertholet, A. DieBücherEsraundNehemia, Göttingen 1902. Blenkinsopp, J., Ezra-Nehemiah:ACommentary (OTL), London 1989. Breneman, M., Ezra,Nehemiah,Esther (New American Commentary 10), Nashville 1993. Clines, D.J.A., Ezra,Nehemiah,Esther (NCBC), Grand Rapids 1984. Coggins, R.J., TheBooksofEzraandNehemiah. (Cambridge Biblical Commentary 15), Cambridge 1976. Davies, G.F., EzraandNehemiah (Berit Olam), Collegeville 1999. Fensham, F.C., TheBooksofEzraandNehemiah (NICOT), Grand Rapids 1982. Fried, L.S., Ezra:ACommentary, Sheffield 2015. Goldingay, J., Ezra,NehemiahandEstherforEveryone, Louisville 2012. Grabbe, L.L., Ezra-Nehemiah (Old Testament Readings), London, New York 1998. Grosheide, H.H., Ezra-Nehemia1:Ezra (COT), Kampen 1963. Gunneweg, A.H.J., Esra (KAT 19/1), Gütersloh 1985. —, Nehemia (KAT 19/2), Gütersloh 1987. Hamilton, J.M., Exalting Jesus in Ezra-Nehemiah (Christ-Centered Exposition Commentary), Nashville 2014. Hieke, T., DieBücherEsraundNehemia (NSKAT 9/2), Stuttgart 2005. Holmgren, F.C., Israel Alive Again: A Commentary on the Books of Ezra and Nehemiah(International Theological Commentary), Grand Rapids 1987. Jagersma, H., Ezra (Verklaring van de Hebreeuwse Bijbel), Utrecht 2012. —, Nehemia (Verklaring van de Hebreeuwse Bijbel), Utrecht 2014. Jobsen, A., EzraenNehemia:Eenpraktischebijbelverklaring (Tekst en Toelichting), Kampen 1997. Kidner, D., Ezra and Nehemiah: an introduction and commentary (Tyndale Old Testament Commentaries 11), Westmont 1979. Levering, M., Ezra & Nehemiah (SCM Theological Commentary on the Bible), London 2008. McConville, J.G., Ezra, Nehemiah, and Esther (The Daily Study Bible Series), Louisville, London 1985. Myers, J.M., EzraNehemiah:AnewTranslationwithIntroductionandCommentary (Anchor Bible 14), New York 1965. Noordtzij, A., DeboekenEzraenNehemia (Korte Verklaring der Heilige Schrift), Kampen 1939. Rudolph, W., EsraundNehemiasamt3. Esra (HAT 20), Tübingen 1949. Schunck, K.-D., Nehemia (BK AT XXXII/2), Neukirchen-Vluyn 2009. Shepherd, D.J., & C.J.H. Wright, Ezra and Nehemiah (The Two Horizons Old Testament Commentary), Grand Rapids 2018. Throntveit, M.A., Ezra-Nehemiah (Interpretation), Louisville 1992. Wijk-Bos, J.W.H. van, Ezra,Nehemiah,andEsther (Westminster Bible Companion), Louisville 1998. Williamson, H.G.M., Ezra,Nehemiah (WBC 16), Waco 1985.

XVI

Bibliography

Other publications: Ackroyd, P.R., ‘The Temple-Vessels – A Continuity Theme’, in: J.A. Emerton (ed.), StudiesintheReligionofAncientIsrael(SVT 23), Leiden 1972, 166-81. Ahlemann, F., ‚Zur Esra-Quelle‘, ZAW 59 (1943), 77-98. Albertz, R., ‘The Thwarted Restoration’, in: R. Albertz, B. Becking (eds), Yahwism aftertheExile:PerspectivesonIsraelitereligioninthePersianera(STAR 5), Assen 2003, 1-17. —, ‘The Controversy about Judean versus Israelite Identity and the Persian Government: A New Interpretation of the Bagoses Story (Antiquitates XI.297-301)’, in: O. Lipschits, G.N. Knoppers, M. Oeming (eds), JudahandtheJudaeansin the Achaemenid Period: Negotiating Identities in an International Context, Winona Lake 2011, 483-504. Amzallag, N., Esau in Jerusalem: The Rise of a Seirite Religious Elite in Zion atthePersianPeriod (Cahiers de la Revue Biblique 85), Pende 2015, 16-18. —, ‘The Authorship of Ezra and Nehemiah in Light of Differences in Their Ideological Background’, JBL137 (2018), 271-97. Avishur, Y., M. Helzer, ‘The Scribe and Priest Ezra: A Leader under Achaemenian Rule’, Transeuphratène29 (2006), 17-36. Bänziger, T. «JauchzenundWeinen»:AmbivalenteRestaurationinJehud:TheologischeKonzeptederWiederherstellunginEsra-Nehemia, Zürich 2014. Baltzer, K., ‘Moses servant of God and the servants: text and tradition in the prayer of Nehemiah (Neh. 1:5-11)’, in: B.A. Pearson, A.T. Kraabel, G.W.E. Nickelsburg (eds), TheFutureofEarlyChristianity, Minneapolis, 1991, 121-30. Bar, S., ‘Who Were the “Mixed Multitude”?’, HebrewStudies 49 (2008), 27-39. Barr, J., ‘Hebrew ‫ ידה‬especially at Job i 18 and Neh. vii.3’, JSS 27 (1982), 177-82. Barstad, H.M., ‘En bemerkning til Deuteronomium 32:15’, Norsk Teologisk Tidskrift 2 (1975), 103-06. Bautch, R.J., DevelopmentsinGenreBetweenPost-exilicPenitentialPrayersand thePsalmsofCommunalLament. (SBL Academia Biblica 7), Atlanta 2003. —, GloryandPower,RitualandRelationship:TheSinaiCovenantinthePostexilic Period (LHB/OTS 471), London, New York 2009. Becker, J., Der Ich–Bericht des Nehemiabuches als chronistische Gestaltung (FzB 87), Würzburg 1998. Becker, U.,‚Esra 7 und das Problem der persischen Reichsautorisation im Spiegel der neueren Forschung‘, in: M. Krebernik, H. Neumann (eds), Babylonienund seineNachbarninneu-undspätbabylonischerZeitWissenschaftlichesKolloquium aus Anlass des 75. Geburtstags von Joachim Oelsner Jena, 2. und 3.März2007(AOAT 369), Münster 2014, 1-15. Becking, B., ‘‘We all returned as One’: Critical Notes on The Myth of the Mass Return’, in: O. Lipschits, M. Oeming (eds), Judah and the Judaeans in the PersianPeriod, Winona Lake 2006, 3-18. —, Ezra,Nehemiah,andtheConstructionofEarlyJewishIdentity(FAT 80), Tübingen 2011. —, ‘Haggai & Zechariah in the Stories of Ezra and 1 Esdras’, in: B. Becking, H.M. Barstad (eds), ProphetsandPropheciesinStories:PapersReadatthe Fifth Meeting of the Edinburgh Prophecy Network, Utrecht, October 2013 (OTS 65), Leiden 2015, 152-65. —, ‘Ezra 4,6 as an Explanatory Gloss: An Implication from a Search on Paragraphing and Interpretation’, in: M.C.A. Korpel, P. Sanders (eds), TextualBoundaries in the Bible: Their Impact on Interpretation (Pericope 9), Leuven 2017, 171-185.

Bibliography

XVII

—, ‘Does Ezra Present the Return from Exile as a Second Exodus?’, BN 177 (2018), 65-73. Bedford, P.R., Temple Restoration in Early Achaemenid Judah (JSJ Sup), Leiden 2001. Berlejung, A., ‘Was ist eigentlich «Aschdodisch»? Überlegungen zu Neh 13,23f. und Sach 9,6’, in: H. Jenni, M. Saur (eds), NächstenliebeundGottesfurcht.Beiträge aus alttestamentlicher, semitistischer und altorientalistischer Wissenschaft für Hans-PeterMathyszum65.Geburtstag (AOAT 439), Münster 2016, 13-26. Berman, J., ‘The Narratological Purpose of Aramaic Prose in Ezra 4.8 – 6.18’, AramaicStudies 5 (2007), 165-191. Bianchi, F., ‘«La semence sacrée»: la polémique sur les marriages mixtes dans les textes bibliques d’époque achéménide et hellénistique’, Transeuphratène 29 (2005), 83-102. Bickerman, E.J., ‘The Edict of Cyrus in Ezra 1’, JBL 65 (1946), 249-75. Blenkinsopp, J., ‘The Mission of Udjahorresnet and those of Ezra and Nehemiah’, JBL106(1987), 409-421. —, Judaism, the First Phase: The Place of Ezra and Nehemiah in the Origins of Judaism, Grand Rapids 2009. Boda, M.J., ‘Words and Meaning: ‫ ידה‬in Hebrew Research’, WThJ 57 (1995), 277-97. —, Praying the Tradition: The Origin and Use of Tradition in Nehemiah 9 (BZAW 277), Berlin, New York 1999. Boda, M.J, P.L. Redditt (eds), Unity and Disunity in Ezra-Nehemiah: Redaction, Rhetoric,andReader, Sheffield 2008. Bodi, D., Jérusalemàl’époqueperse, Paris 2002. Bortz, A.M., Identität und Kontinuität. Form und Funktion der Rückkehrerliste Esr2 (BZAW 512), Berlin, New York 2018. Braun, R.L., ‘Chronicles, Ezra and Nehemiah: Theology and Literary History’, in: J.A. Emerton (ed.), Studies in the Historical Books of the Old Testament (SVT 30), Leiden 1979, 52–64. Bremmer, J.N., ‘Paradise: From Persia, via Greece, into the Septuagint’, in: G.P. Luttikhuizen (ed.), Paradise Interpreted: Representations of Biblical ParadiseinJudaismandChristianity (Themes in Biblical Narrative 2), Leiden 1999, 1-20. Bremmer, J.N., V. Hirschberger, T. Nicklas (eds), FiguresofEzra (Studies on Early Christian Apocrypha 13), Leuven 2018 Briant, P., Histoiredel’EmpirePerse;DeCyrusàAlexandre, Paris 1996. Burrows, M., ‘The Origin of Neh. 3: 33-37’, The American Journal of Semitic LanguagesandLiteratures 52 (1936), 235-44. Burt, S., The Courtier and the Governor: Transformations of Genre in the NehemiahMemoir (JAJ Sup 17), Göttingen 2014. Clines, D.J.A., ‘Nehemiah 10 as an Example of Early Jewish Biblical Exegesis’, JSOT21 (1981), 111-17. Cross, F.M., ‘A Reconstruction of the Judean Restoration’, JBL 94 (1975), 4-18. Davies, P.R., ‘Cultural Memory in Practice: Ezra and Nehemiah’, in: L.L. Grabbe (ed.), ‘EvenGodCannotChangethePast’:ReflectionsonSeventeenYearsof the European Seminar on Historical Methodology (LHB/OTS 663), London, New York 2018, 114-24. Demsky, A., ‚“Pelekh” in Nehemiah 3‘, IEJ 43 (1983), 242-44. Dequeker, L., ‘Darius the Persian and the reconstruction of the Jewish temple in Jerusalem (Ezra 4,24)’, in: J. Quaegebeur (ed.), Ritual and Sacrifice in the AncientNearEast, Leuven 1993, 67-92.

XVIII

Bibliography

Dozeman, T.B., ‘Geography and History in Herodotus and in Ezra-Nehemiah’, JBL 122 (2003), 449-66. Duggan, M.W., TheCovenantRenewalinEzra-Nehemiah(Neh7:72b-10:40):An Exegetical, Literary, and Theological Study (SBL Dissertation Series 164), Atlanta 2001. —, ‘Ezra 9: 6–15: A Penitential Prayer within Its Literary Setting’, in: M.J. Boda, D.K. Falk, R.A. Werline (eds), SeekingtheFavorofGodvol.1,TheOrigins ofPenitentialPrayerinSecondTempleJudaism (Early Judaism and its Literature 21), Atlanta 2006, 165-78. Edelman, D.V., TheOriginsofthe“Second”Temple:PersianImperialPolicyand theRebuildingofJerusalem, London 2005. —, ‘Tyrian Trade in Yehud under Artaxerxes I: Real or Fictional? Independent or Crown Endorsed?’, in: O. Lipschits, M. Oeming (eds), JudahandtheJudeans inthePersianPeriod, Winona Lake 2006, 207–46. Erbele-Küster, D., ‚Welche Tora rezipiert Esra wie? Literarsche Begründungsstrategien des Ethos in persischer Zeit‘, in: M. Häusl (ed.), Denktnichtmehr andasFrühere!BegründungsressourceninEsra/NehemiaundJes40–66im Vergleich (BBB 184), 209-24. Eskenazi, T.C., In an Age of Prose: A Literary Approach to Ezra–Nehemiah (SBL MS 36), Atlanta 1988. —, ‘Nehemiah 9-10: Structure and Significance’, JHS 3 (2001), # 9. Finkelstein, I., ‘Archaeology and the List of Returnees in the Books of Ezra and Nehemiah’, PEQ149 (2008), 1-10. Fitzpatrick-McKinley, A., Empire,Power,andIndigenousElites:ACaseStudyof theNehemiahMemoir(JSJ Sup, 169), Leiden 2015. —, ‘Indigenous Elites in Yehud; The inscriptional Evidence form Xanthus, Tayma and Dedan and the Nehemiah Memoir’, in: A. Fitzpatrick-McKinley (ed.), Assessing Biblical and Classical Sources for the Reconstruction of Persian Influence, History and Culture (Classica et Orientalia 10), Wiesbaden 2015, 127-47. Frei, P., ‚Zentralgewalt und Lokalautonomie im Achämenidenreich‘, in: P. Frei, K. Koch (eds), ReichsideeundReichsorganisationimPerserreich (OBO 55), Fribourg, Göttingen 21996, 5–131. Fried, L.S., ThePriestandtheGreatKing:Temple-PalaceRelationsinthePersian Empire (Biblical and Judaic Studies, 10), Winona Lake 2004. —, ‘The Artaxerxes correspondence of Ezra 4, Nehemiah’s Wall, and Persian Provincial Administration’, in: A.M. Maeir, J. Magness, L. Schiffman (eds), ‘GoOutandStudytheLand’(Judges18:2):Archaeological,Historicaland TextualStudiesinHonorofHananEshel, Leiden 2011, 35-57. —, EzraandtheLawinHistoryandTradition, Columbia 2014. Frolov, S., ‘The Prophecy of Jeremiah in Esr 1,1’, ZAW 116 (2004), 595-601. Fulton, D.N., ‘Where Did the Judahites, Benjaminites, and Levites Settle?: Revisiting the Text of Nehemiah 11:25–36 MT and LXX’, in: I. Kalimi (ed.), New PerspectivesonEzra-Nehemiah:HistoryandHistoriography,Text,Literature, andInterpretation, Winona Lake 2012 197–222. —, ConsideringNehemiah’sJudah (FAT 2/80), Tübingen 2015. —, ‘What Kind of Governor was Nehemiah? The Titles ‫ ֶפּ ָחה‬and ‫ ִתּ ְר ָשׁ ָתא‬in MT and LXX Ezra-Nehemiah’, ZAW 130 (2018), 252-67 Garbini, G., Ilritornodall’esiliobabilonese (Studi Biblici 129), Brescia 2001.

Bibliography

XIX

Grabbe, L.L., AHistoryofJewsandJudaismintheSecondTemplePeriodVol.1 (LSTS 47), London, New York 2004. —, ‘The ‘Persian Documents’ in the Book of Ezra: Are They Authentic?’, in: O. Lipschits, M. Oeming (eds), JudahandtheJudaeansinthePersianPeriod, Winona Lake 2006, 531-570. —, ‘The Reality of the Return: The Biblical Picture versus Historical Reconstruction’, in: J. Stökl, C. Waerzeggers (eds), Exile and Return: The Babylonian Context(BZAW 478), Berlin, New York 2015, 292-307. —, ‘Penetrating the Legend; In Quest for the historical Ezra’, in: M.C.A. Korpel, L.L. Grabbe (eds), Open-Mindedness in the Bible and Beyond: A Volume of StudiesinHonourofBobBecking (LHB/OTS 616), London, New York 2015, 97-110. —, ‘The Use and Abuse of Herodotus by Biblical Scholars’, in: A. FitzpatrickMcKinley (ed.), AssessingBiblicalandClassicalSourcesfortheReconstruction of Persian Influence, History and Culture (Classica et Orientalia 10), Wiesbaden 2015, 49-72. Grätz, S., DasEdiktdesArtaxerxes:eineUntersuchungzumreligionspolitischenund historischenUmfeldvonEsra7,12-26 (BZAW 337), Berlin, New York 2004. —, ‚Die Aramäische Chronik des Esrabuches und die Rolle der Ältesten in Esr 5–6‘, ZAW 118 (2006), 405-22. —, ‚Alter Wein in neuen Schlaüchen? Die Bücher Esra / Nehemia zwischen Tradition und Innovation‘, in: M. Häusl (ed.), Denkt nicht mehr an das F  rühere!BegründungsressourceninEsra/NehemiaundJes40–66imVergleich (BBB 184), Göttingen 2018, 77-91. Grol, H.W.M. van, ‘Ezra 7, 1–10: Een literair stylistische analyse’, Bijdragen 51 (1990), 21-37 —, ‘Ezra 8: on the way to community’, Bijdragen57 (1996), 362-380. —, ‚Schuld und Scham: Die Verwurzelung von Esra 9, 6-7 in der Tradition‘, EstudiosBíblicos 55 (1997), 29-52. —, ‘Exegesis of the Exile – Exegesis of Scripture?’, in: J.C. de Moor (ed.), IntertextualityinUgaritandIsrael (OTS 40), Leiden 1998, 31-61. —, “Indeed, Servants We Are”. Ezra 9, Nehemiah 9 and 2 Chronicles 12 Compared’, in: B. Becking, M.C.A. Korpel (eds), The Crisis of Israelite Religion.TransformationofReligiousTraditioninExilicandPost-ExilicTimes (OTS 42), Leiden 1999, 209-27. Halligan, J.M., ‘Nehemiah 5: By Way of Response to Hoglund and Smith’, in: P.R. Davies (ed.), Second Temple Studies, Vol. 1: Persian Period (JSOT Sup 117), Sheffield 1991, 146-53. Halpern, B., ‘A Historiographic Commentary on Ezra 1-6: Achronological Narrative and Dual Chronology in Israelite Historiography’, in: W.H. Propp, B. Halpern, D.N. Freedman (eds), TheHebrewBibleanditsInterpreters (Biblical and Judaic Studies 1), Winona Lake 1990, 81–142. Haran, M., ‘The Gibeonites, the nethinim and the sons of Solomon’s servants’, VT 11 (1961), 159-69. Harkins, A.K., ‘The Pro-Social Role of Grief in Ezra’s Penitential Prayer’, BibInt 24 (2016), 466-91. Häusl, M., ‚Wenn aus Unterscheidung Scheidungen werden. Zur Mischehendiskussion in den Büchern Esra und Nehemia‘, Wissenschaftliche Zeitschrift der TechnischenUniversitätDresden 57, 3-4 (2008), 41-45.

XX

Bibliography

—, ‚„Ich betete zum Gott des Himmels“ (Neh 2,4) Zur kontextuellen Einbettung der Gebete in Neh 1-13‘, in: C. Diller, M. Mulzer, K. Ólason, R. Rothenbusch (eds), Studien zu Psalmen und Propheten. Festschrift für Hubert Irsigler (HBS 64), Freiburg 2010, 47-64. —, ‚Searching for Forces of Group Cohesion in the Books of Nehemiah and Isaiah’, in: S. Gillmayr-Bucher, M. Häusl (eds), Ṣedaqa and Torah in Postexilic Discourse (LHB/OTS 640), London, New York 2017, 55-70. Heckl, R., Neuanfang und Kontinuität in Jerusalem: Studien zu den hermeneutischenStrategienimEsra-Nehemia-Buch (FAT 104), Tübingen 2016. Hensel, B., JudaundSamaria:ZumVerhältniszweiernach-exilischerJahwismen (FAT 110), Göttingen 2016. —, ‘Ethnic Fiction and Identity-Formation: A New Explanation for the Background of the Question of Intermarriage in Ezra-Nehemiah’, in: M. Kartveit, G.N. Knoppers (eds), TheBible,Qumran,andtheSamaritans (Studia Samaritana 10/STJ 104), Berlin 2018, 133-50. Hogewood, J.C., ‘The Speech Act of Confession: Priestly Performative Utterance in Leviticus 16 and Ezra 9–10’, in: M.J. Boda, D.K. Falk, R.A. Werline (eds), SeekingtheFavorofGod.Vol.1,TheOriginsofPenitentialPrayerinSecond TempleJudaism (Early Judaism and its Literature 21), Atlanta 2006, 69-82. Holmgren, F.C., ‘Faithful Abraham and the ᾿amānaCovenant Nehemiah 9,6 – 10,1’, ZAW104 (1992), 249–54. Honigman, S., TalesofHighPriestsandTaxes, Oakland 2014. Houtman, C., ‘Ezra and the Law’, OTS 21 (1981), 91-115. Ivry, A.L., ‘Nehemiah 6, 10: Politics and the Temple’, JSJ 3 (1972), 35-45. Janzen, D., ‘The ‘Mission’ of Ezra and the Persian-Period Temple Community’, JBL119 (2000), 621-23. —, Witch-Hunts, Purity and Social Boundaries: The Expulsion of the Foreign WomeninEzra9-10 (JSOT Sup 350), Sheffield 2002. —, ‘Yahwistic Appropriation of Achaemenid Ideology and the Function of Nehemiah 9 in Ezra-Nehemiah’, JBL 136 (2017), 839-56. Japhet S., ‘The Supposed Common Authorship of Chronicles and Ezra–Nehemiah Investigated Anew’, VT 18 (1968), 330–71. —, ‘Shesbazzar and Zerubbabel’, ZAW 94 (1982), 66-98; 95 (1983), 618-20. —, ‘People and Land in the Restoration Period’, in: G. Strecker (ed.), Das Land IsraelinBiblischerZeit, Tübingen 1983, 103-25. Johnson, W.M., TheHolyseedhasbeendefiled:theinterethnicmarriagedilemma inEzra9-10 (Hebrew Bible Monographs 33), Sheffield 2011. Jones, C.M., ‘Seeking the Divine, Divining the Seekers: The Status of Outsiders Who Seek Yahweh in Ezra 6:21’, JHS 15 (2015), # 5. —, ‘Embedded Written Documents as Colonial Mimicry in Ezra-Nehemiah’, BibInt 26 (2018), 158-81. Kapelrud, A.S., TheQuestionofAuthorshipintheEzra-Narrative:AlexicalInvestigation, Oslo 1944. Karrer, C., Ringen um die Verfassung Judas: eine Studie zu den theologisch- politischen Vorstellungen im Esra-Nehemia-Buch (BZAW 308), Berlin, New York 2001. Kartveit, M., TheOriginoftheSamaritans (SVT 128), Leiden 2009. Kellermann, D., ‚Korrektur, Variante, Wahllesart?‘, BiZs 24 (1980), 66-67. Kellermann, U., Nehemia: Quellen, Überlieferung und Geschichte (BZAW 102), Berlin 1967.

Bibliography

XXI

Kiel, Y., ‘Reinventing Mosaic Torah in Ezra-Nehemiah in the Light of the Law (dāta) of Ahura Mazda and Zarathustra’, JBL 136 (2017), 323-45. Klinkott, H., Der Satrap: Ein achäimenidische Amtsträger und seine Handlungsspielräume (Oikumene Studien zur antiken Weltgeschichte 1), Frankfurt 2005. Knoppers, G.N., ‘Nehemiah and Sanballat: The Enemy Without or Within?’, in: O. Lipschits, G. Knoppers, R. Albertz (eds), Judah and the Judaeans in the FourthCenturyBCE, Winona Lake 2007, 305-31. —, JewsandSamaritans:TheOriginsandHistoryofTheirEarlyRelations, Oxford 2013. Koch, K., ‘Ezra and the Origins of Judaism’, JSS 19 (1974), 173-97. Kraemer, D., ‘On the Relationship of the Books of Ezra and Nehemiah’, JSOT 59 (1993), 73–92. Kratz, R.G., Die Komposition der erzählenden Bücher des Alten Testaments: GrundwissenderBibelkritik (UTB 2157), Göttingen 2000. —, ‘The Second Temple of Jeb and of Jerusalem’, in: O. Lipschits, M. Oeming (eds), JudahandtheJudaeansinthePersianPeriod, Winona Lake 2006, 247-64. Kuhrt, A., ThePersianEmpire:ACorpusofSourcesfromtheAchaemenidPeriod, London New York 2007. Laird, D., NegotiatingPowerinEzraNehemiah(Ancient Israel and its Literature, 26), Atlanta 2016. Langille, T., ‘Hybrids, Purification, and Multidirectional Memory in Ezra-Nehemiah, in: I. Wilson, D.V. Edelman (eds), History, Memory, Hebrew Scriptures: AFestschriftforEhudBenZvi, Winona Lake 2015, 375-86. Lau, P.H.W., ‘Gentile Incorporation into Israel in Ezra-Nehemiah?’, Biblica 90 (2009), 356-373. Lee, K.-J., The Authority and Authorization of Torah in the Persian Period (CBET 64), Leuven 2011. Leuchter, M., ‘Ezra’s Mission and the Levites of Casiphia’, in: G.N. Knoppers, K..A. Ristau (eds), CommunityIdentityinJudeanHistoriography:Biblicaland ComparativePerspectives, Winona Lake 2009, 173–95. —, ‘The Exegesis of Jeremiah in and beyond Ezra 9-10’, VT65 (2014), 65-72. —, ‘Inter-Levitical Polemics in the late 6th century BCE: The Evidence from Nehemiah 9’, Biblica95 (2014), 269-279. —, TheLevitesandtheBoundariesofIsraelieIdentity, Oxford 2017. Leung Lai, B.M., ‘“I”-Voice, Emotion, and Selfhood in Nehemiah’, OTE 28 (2015), 154-67. Levine, B.A., The Nethînîm, JBL 82 (1963), 207-212. Lipschits, O., ‘Literary and Ideological Aspects of Nehemiah 11’, JBL 121 (2002), 423-40. —, ‘Nehemiah 3: Sources, Composition, and Purpose’, in: I. Kalimi (ed.), New PerspectivesonEzra-Nehemiah:HistoryandHistoriography,Text,Literature, andInterpretation, Winona Lake 2012, 73–99. Louy, S.D., ‘The Septuagint Text of Ezra 9.2’, The Bible Translator 65 (2014), 135-44. Lust, J., ‘The Identification of Zerubbabel with Sheshbassar’, EThL 63 (198), 90-95. Mathys, H.-P., Dichter und Beter: Theologen aus spätalttestamentlicher Zeit (OBO 132), Freiburg, Göttingen 1994. Matzal, S.C., ‘The Structure of Ezra 3’, VT68 (2018), 436-43. McConville, J.G., ‘Ezra-Nehemiah and the Fulfilment of Prophecy’, VT 36 (1986), 218–22.

XXII

Bibliography

Min, K.-J., The Levitical Authorship of Ezra-Nehemiah (JSOT Sup 409), London 2004. Moffat, D.P., Ezra’ssocialdrama:identityformation,marriageandsocialconflict inEzra9and10 (LHB/OTS 579), London, New York 2013. —, ‘The Metaphor at Stake in Ezra 9:8’, VT 63 (2013), 290-98. Mowinckel, S., StudienzudemBucheEzra-NehemiaI(Skrifter utgitt av det Norske videnskaps-akademi i Oslo, II), Oslo 1964. Newman, J.H., Praying by the Book: The Scripturalization of Prayer in Second TempleJudaism (SBL Early Judaism and its Literature 14), Atlanta 1999. Noonan, B.J., ‘Did Nehemiah Own Tyrian Goods?: Trade between Judea and Phoenicia during the Achaemenid Period’, JBL130 (2011), 281-98. Nykolaishen, D.J.E., ‘Ezra 10:3: Solemn Oath? Renewed Covenant? New Covenant?’, in: R.J. Bautch, G.N. Knoppers (eds), CovenantinthePersianPeriod: FromGenesistoChronicles, Winona Lake 2015, 371-89. Oeming, M., ‘‘See, We Are Serving Today’ (Nehemiah 9: 36): Nehemiah 9 as a Theological Interpretation of the Persian Period’, in: O. Lipschits, M. Oeming (eds), JudahandtheJudeansinthePersianPeriod, Winona Lake 2006, 57188. Olmstead, A.T., ‘Tattenai, Governor of ‘Across the River’’, JNES3 (1944), 46. Olyan, S.M., ‘Purity Ideology in Ezra-Nehemiah as a Tool to Reconstitute the Community’, JSJ35 (2004), 1-16. —, BiblicalMourning:RitualandSocialDimensions, Oxford 2004. —, ‘Ritual Inversion in Biblical Representations of Punitive Rites’, in: J.J. Collins, T.M. Lemos, S.M. Olyan (eds), Worship,Women,andWar:EssaysinHonor ofSusanNiditch (Brown Judaic Studies, 357), Providence 2015, 138-39. Pakkala, J., Ezra the Scribe: The Development of Ezra 7–10 and Nehemiah8 (BZAW 347), Berlin, New York 2004. Parente, F., ‘Ezra, 6.11. La pena comminata a chi altera l’editto di Dario’, Henoch 1 (1979), 189-200. Pichon, C., ‚La prohibition des mariages mixtes par Néhémie (XIII 23-31)‘, VT47 (1997), 168-99. Plöger, O., AusderSpätzeitdesAltenTestaments:Studien, Göttingen 1970. Pohlmann, K.-F., Studien zum dritten Esra: Ein Beitrag zur Frage nach dem ursprünglichenSchlussdeschronistischenGeschichtswerkes (FRLANT 104), Göttingen 1970. Porter, J.R., ‘Son or Grandson (Ezra X.6)?’, JThS 17 (1966), 54-67. Redditt, P.L., ‘The Census List in Ezra 2 and Nehemiah 7: A Suggestion’, in: I. Kalimi (ed.), New Perspectives on Ezra-Nehemiah: History and Historiography,Text,Literature,andInterpretation,Winona Lake 2012, 223-40. Reinmuth, T, DerBerichtNehemias:ZurliterarischenEigenart,traditionsgeschichltlichen Prägung und innerbiblischen Rezeption des Ich–Berichtes Nehemias (OBO 183), Freiburg, Göttingen 2002 Rendsburg, G.A., ‘The Northern Origin of Nehemiah 9’, Biblica 72 (1991), 348-66. Rom-Shiloni, D., Exclusive Inclusivity: Identity Conflicts between the Exiles and thePeoplewhoRemained(6th-5thcenturiesBCE) (LHB/OTS 543), London, New York 2013. Rothenbusch, R., ‘The Question of Mixed Marriages between the Poles of Diaspora and Homeland: Observations in Ezra-Nehemiah’, in: C. Frevel (ed.), Mixed Marriages, Intermarriage and Group Identity in the Second Temple Period (LHB/OTS 547), London, New York 2011, 60–77.

Bibliography

XXIII

—, “…abgesondertzurToraGotteshin”:EthnischeundreligiöseIdentitätenim Esra/Nehemiabuch (HBS 70), Freiburg, Basel, Wien 2012. Sanders, P., ‘Argumenta ad Deum in the Plague Prayers of Mursili II and in the Book of Psalms’, in: B. Becking, H.G.L. Peels (eds), Psalms and Prayers: PapersReadattheJointMeetingofSOTSandOTW (OTS 55), Leiden 2007, 181-217. Saysell, C., “According to the Law”: Reading Ezra 9-10 as Christian Scripture (Journal of Theological Interpretation Supplements 4), Winona Lake 2012. Schaper, J., PriesterundLevitenimachämenidischenJuda.StudienzurKult-und SozialgeschichteIsraelsinpersischerZeit (FAT 31), Tübingen 2000. —, ‘The Temple Treasury Committee in the Times of Nehemiah and Ezra’, VT 47 (1997), 200-206. Schraeder, H.H., EsraderSchreiber, Tübingen 1930. Schulte, L.L., My Shepherd, though You Do not Know Me: The Persian Royal PropagandaModelintheNehemiahMemoir (BETh 78), Leuven 2016. Schwiderski, D., HandbuchdesnordwestsemitischenBriefformulars:EineBeitrag zur Echtheitsfrage der aramäischen Briefe des Esrabuches (BZAW 295), Berlin, New York 2001. Shaver, J.R., ‘Ezra and Nehemiah: On the Theological Significance of making them Contemporaries’, in: E. Ulrich etal. (eds), Priests,ProphetsandScribes:Essays ontheFormationofSecondTempleJudaisminHonourofJosephBlenkinsopp (JSOT Sup 149), Sheffield 1992, 76–86. Shepherd, D., ‘Prophetaphobia: Fear and False Prophecy in Nehemiah vi’, VT 55 (2005), 232-50. Silverman, J.M., ‘Sheshbazzar, a Judaean or a Babylonian? A Note on his Identity’, in: J. Stökl, C. Waerzeggers (eds), ExileandReturn:TheBabylonianContext (BZAW 478), Berlin, New York 2015, 308-21. Smitten, W.Th. in der, Esra, Quellen, Überlieferung und Geschichte (SSN 15), Assen 1973. Southwood, K.E., ‘‘And They could not Understand Jewish Speech’: Language, Ethnicity, and Nehemiah’s Intermarriage Crisis’,JThS 62 (2011), 1-19. —, ‘An Ethnic affair? Ezra’s Intermarriage Crisis against a Context of “Selfascription” and “Ascription of others”’, in: C. Frevel (ed.), MixedMarriages, Intermarriage and Group Identity in the Second Temple Period (LHB/OTS 547), London, New York 2011, 46-59. —, Ethnicity and the Mixed Marriage Crisis in Ezra 9-10: An Anthropological Approach, Oxford 2012. Steiner, R.C., ‘The mbqr at Qumran, the Episkopos in the Athenian Empire, and the Meaning of lbqr’ in Ezra 7:14: On the Relation of Ezra’s Mission to the Persian Legal Project’, JBL120 (2001), 623-46. —, ‘Bishlam’s Archival Search Report in Nehemiah’s Archive: Multiple Introductions and Reverse Chronological Order as Clues to the Origin of the Aramaic Letters in Ezra 4-6’, JBL125 (2006), 641-85. —, ‘Why Bishlam (Ezra 4:7) Cannot Rest “In Peace”: On the Aramaic and Hebrew Sound Changes that Conspired to Blot Out the Remembrance of Bel-Shalam the Archivist’, JBL126 (2007), 392-401. Stevens, M.E., Temples,Tithes,andTaxes:TheTempleandtheEconomicLifeof AncientIsrael, Peabody 2006. Talshir, D., ‘The References to Ezra and the Books of Chronicles in b. Baba Bathra 15a’, VT 38 (1988), 358-60.

XXIV

Bibliography

Talstra, E., ‘The Discourse of Praying: Reading Nehemiah 1’, in: B. Becking, E. Peels (eds), Psalms and Prayers: Papers Read at the Joint Meeting of theSocietyofOldTestamentStudyandHetOudtestamentischWerkgezelschap in Nederland en België, Apeldoorn August 2006 (OTS, 55), Leiden 2007, 183-236. Tammuz, O., ‘Will the Real Sanballat Please Stand Up?’, in: M. Mor, F.V. Reiterer (eds), Samaritans–Past and Present: Current Studies (Studia Samaritana 5), Berlin, New York 2010, 51-58. Torrey, C.C., EzraStudies, Chicago 1910. Throntveit, M., ‘Linguistic Analysis and the Question of Authorship in Chronicles, Ezra and Nehemiah’, VT32 (1982), 201–16. Tiemeyer, L.-S., Ezra-Nehemiah: Israel’s Quest for Identity (T & T Clark Study Guides to the Old Testament), London, New York 2017. Tuland, C.G., ‘᾿Uššayyā᾿ and ᾿Uššarnâ: A Clarification of Terms, Date, and Text’, JNES 17 (1958), 269-75. Tuplin, C., ‘The Justice of Darius; Reflections on the Achaemenid Empire as a rulebound Environment’, in: A. Fitzpatrick-McKinley (ed.), AssessingBiblicaland Classical Sources for the Reconstruction of Persian Influence, History and Culture(Classica et Orientalia, 10), Wiesbaden 2015, 73-126. Ulrich, E., ‘Ezra and Qoheleth Manuscripts from Qumran (4QEzra and 4QQohAB)’, in: E. Ulrich et al. (eds), Priests, Prophets, and Scribes: Essays on the Formation and Heritage of Second Temple Judaism in Honour of Joseph Blenkinsopp(JSOT Sup 149), Sheffield 1992, 139-157. Ussishkin, D., ‘On Nehemiah’s City Wall and the Size of Jerusalem during the Persian Period: An Archaeologist’s View’, in: I. Kalimi (ed.), NewPerspectives on Ezra-Nehemiah: History and Historiography, Text, Literature, and Interpretation, Winona Lake 2012, 101–30. VanderKam, J.C., ‘Ezra–Nehemiah or Ezra and Nehemiah?’, in: E. Ulrich et al. (eds), Priests,ProphetsandScribes:EssaysontheFormationofSecondTemple Judaism in Honour of Joseph Blenkinsopp (JSOT Sup 149), Sheffield 1992, 55–75. —, FromJoshuatoCaiaphas:highpriestsaftertheExile, Minneapolis 2004. Venema, G.J., Reading Scripture in the Old Testament: Deuteronomy 9-10; 31 – 2Kings22-23–Jeremiah36–Nehemiah8 (OTS 48), Leiden 2004. Versluis, A., ‘Devotion and/or Destruction? The Meaning and Function of ‫ חרם‬in the Old Testament’, ZAW 128 (2016), 233-46. —, TheCommandtoExterminatetheCanaanites (OTS 71), Leiden 2017. Vogt, H.C.M., StudiezurnachexilischenGemeindeinEsra-Nehemia, Werl 1966. Weinberg, J., TheCitizen-TempleCommunity (JSOT Sup 151), Sheffield 1992. Weingart, K., Stämmevolk-Staatsvolk-Gottesvolk?: Studien zur Verwendung des Israel-NamensimAltenTestament (FAT 2/68), Tübingen 2014. Welch, A.C, ‘The Source of Nehemiah IX’, ZAW 47 (1929), 130-37.. Werline, R.A., PenitentialprayerinSecondTempleJudaism:Thedevelopmentof aReligiousInstitution, Atlanta 1998. Whitters, M., ‘The Persianized Liturgy of Nehemiah 8: 1–8’, JBL 136 (2017), 63-84. Wiesehöfer, J., DasantikePersienvon550v.Chr.bis650n.Chr.,München, Zürich 1994. Willi, Th., Esra:DerLehrerIsraels (Biblische Gestalten 26), Leipzig 2012. Williamson, H.G.M., IsraelintheBookofChronicles, Cambridge 1977.

Bibliography

XXV

—, ‘The Historical Value of Josephus’ Jewish Antiquities xi. 297-301’, JThS 28 (1977), 49-66. —, ‘The Origins of the Twenty-Four Priestly Courses: A Study of 1 Chronicles xxiii–xxvii’, in: J.A. Emerton (ed.), StudiesintheHistoricalBooksoftheOld Testament (SVT 30), Leiden 1979, 251-68. —, ‘The Composition of Ezra i-vi’, JThS 34 (1983), 1-30. Wong, G.C.I., ‘A Note on “Joy” in Nehemiah VIII 10’, VT 45 (1995), 383-86. Wright, J.L., RebuildingIdentity:TheNehemiahMemoiranditsEarliestReaders (BZAW 348), Berlin, New York 2004. —, ‘A New Model for the Composition of Ezra-Nehemiah’, in: O. Lipschits, G.N. Knoppers, R. Albertz (eds), JudahandtheJudeansintheFourthCentury B.C.E., Winona Lake 2007, 333-48. Yamauchi, E.M., ‘Was Nehemiah the cupbearer a eunuch?’, ZAW 92 (1980), 13242. Yoo, P.Y., ‘On Nehemiah 8,8a’, ZAW 127 (2015), 502-07. —, EzraandtheSecondWilderness, Oxford 2017.

INTRODUCTION

§ 1 CANONICAL APPROACH In the Hebrew Bible, the Books of Ezra and Nehemiah are part of the ketûbîm, ‘writings’. From a Jewish point of view, they belong to the second circle around the Torah. In this way, they comment on the Torah and contain consoling guidelines for living in the Diaspora. In the compositional organization of the LXX both books are perceived from a historical perspective, placed after I and II Chronicles and hence are construed as texts describing the history of God’s people after the Babylonian exile. This arrangement is adopted in the Christian canon through the Vulgate with the result that Ezra and Nehemiah are regarded as historical figures who stood at the cradle of a legal form of Judaism. The present commentary aims – among other things – to show that, in the Books of Ezra and Nehemiah, there is more at stake than simple legal duty and pure history. 1.1 TheChronisticHistoryWriting Quite often, scholars point to the Babylonian Talmud, b.BabaBathra15a, where the idea would be suggested that the books of Ezra, Nehemiah, and I & II Chronicles were written by one author. However, the Talmudic text reads: Ezra wrote the book that bears his name as well as the genealogies in the Book of Chronicles up to his own time. … Who finished it (= Chronicles)? – Nehemiah the son of Hachaliah.

This passage should, however, be understood as follows: Ezra wrote, alongside the Books of Ezra and Nehemiah, only certain portions of the Books of Chronicles.1 In the nineteenth century the idea that Ezra was the author of all these three books of the Bible was elaborated by Leo Zunz, a Jew belonging to the so-called Reformbewegung, into the theory of the Chronistic History.2 Zunz based his view upon the large amount of similarities at the

1 See also D. Talshir, ‘The References to Ezra and the Books of Chronicles in b. Baba Bathra 15a’, VT 38 (1988), 358-60. 2 L. Zunz, Die gottesdienstliche Vorträge der Juden, historisch entwickelt: Ein Beitrag zurAltertumskundeundbiblischenKritik,zurLiteraturundReligionsgeschichte, Berlin 1832, 21–32.

2

Introduction

level of content and phrasing within the three books. His view has been adopted in the older commentaries (e.g. Noordtzij).3 In 1943, the thesis was further elaborated by Martin Noth. It is remarkable that he left the publication by Zunz unmentioned.4 Noth construes the writer of the Chronistic History as an author and not as a redactor. His linguistic argument is identical to that of Zunz. His second argument is of a conceptual nature; all three Biblical Books lay great emphasis on the role of the Levites and devote much space to cultic matters. His third argument is of a literary-compositional order. Noth noted that within all parts of the Chronistic History the turning points in history are always accompanied by great cultic celebrations. His view has dominated the field over thirty years (Rudolph; Myers). The thesis of Zunz and Noth was fundamentally challenged by the work of Japhet5 and Williamson.6 Williamson presented a series of methodological question marks. In his opinion, the long lists of linguistic parallels were based on the theory. In addition, many words can easily be classified as elements of a post-exilic cultic terminology which only proves that the three Biblical Books were products of the same period. Japhet followed by showing that the linguistic phenomena under consideration also occur in other post-exilic texts. In addition, she pointed at 36 linguistic differences between, on the one hand I & II Chronicles and Ezra-Nehemiah on the other, making a common authorship rather unthinkable. The theological or conceptual argument of Noth too was challenged. Of the six theological topics considered by him to be present both in EzraNehemiah and in I & II Chronicles, only the emphasis on the cult is attested in all three books. The emphasis on the Davidic dynasty – so characteristic of Chronicles – is absent in Ezra and Nehemiah, as is also the concept of retribution.7 Noth’s series of cultic festivals in the key moments of history does not have to be an element of choice but may also have been adopted from existing traditions.

3

See also W.F. Albright, ‘The Date and Personality of the Chronicler’, JBL 40 (1921),

119. 4 M. Noth, Überlieferungsgeschichtliche Studien: Die sammelnden und bearbeitenden GeschichtswerkeimAltenTestament, Darmstadt 31967, 110–216. 5 S. Japhet, ‘The supposed common Authorship of Chronicles and Ezra–Nehemiah investigated Anew’, VT 18 (1968), 330–71. 6 H.G.M. Williamson, IsraelintheBookofChronicles, Cambridge 1977. 7 Japhet, ‘The supposed common Authorship’; Williamson, IsraelintheBookofChronicles; R.L. Braun, ‘Chronicles, Ezra and Nehemiah: Theology and Literary History’, in: J.A. Emerton (ed.), StudiesintheHistoricalBooksoftheOldTestament(VT Sup 30), Leiden 1979, 52–64; see also T.C. Eskenazi, In an Age of Prose: A Literary Approach to Ezra– Nehemiah(SBL MS 36), Atlanta 1988, 21–34.

Introduction

3

Although the ideas of Japhet and Williamson are generally accepted (Throntveit; Breneman; Grabbe; Hieke; Fried)8, some scholars cling to the thesis of a Chronistic History (Ackroyd; Clines; Gunneweg; Blenkinsopp; Jobsen; Becker).9 Fensham believes the Chronicler to be responsible for the final editing of Ezra and Nehemiah. 1.2 Ezra-NehemiahandEzraandNehemiah? The question then arises whether Ezra and Nehemiah can be understood as one book or, that there were two separate compositions that merged later. With her literary analysis of Ezra-Nehemiah, Eskenazi presents a plea for the unity of the two books; they contain a continuous story.10 The argument for the unity of both books is neither strong nor convincing. It is based, in particular, on a statement by Melito of Sardis (180 CE) about one book of Esdras,11 the fact that Ezra and Nehemiah are combined in the Septuagint where they are one book: Esdras β and the fact that the Masoretes and the Syriac translators of the Peshitta considered them as one book. In fact, the idea of Ezra-Nehemiah as one composition is based on a pragmatic concept of truth: when both books are read together they create a meaningful whole. The thesis also fails to acknowledge the fact that the transition from Ezra 10 to Nehemiah 1 does not make sense. Moreover, in this thesis the differences between the characters Ezra and Nehemiah are minimal.

8 See, e.g. C. Karrer, RingenumdieVerfassungJudas:eineStudie zudentheologischpolitischen Vorstellungen im Esra-Nehemia-Buch (BZAW 308), Berlin, New York 2001, 49-57; K.-J. Min, TheLeviticalAuthorshipofEzra-Nehemiah (JSOT Sup 409), London 2004, 6-22; Th. Willi, Esra: Der Lehrer Israels (Biblische Gestalten 26), Leipzig 2012, 19; D.P. Moffat, Ezra’ssocialdrama:identityformation,marriageandsocialconflictinEzra9 and 10 (LHB/OTS 579), London, New York 2013, 52-53; T. Bänziger, «Jauchzen und W  einen»:AmbivalenteRestaurationinJehud:TheologischeKonzeptederWiederherstellung inEsra-Nehemia, Zürich 2014, 28-29. 9 Thus also: W.Th. in der Smitten, Esra,Quellen,ÜberlieferungundGeschichte (SSN 15), Assen 1973; M. Throntveit, ‘Linguistic Analysis and the Question of Authorship in Chronicles, Ezra and Nehemiah’, VT32 (1982), 201–16; K. Koch, ‘Weltordnung und Reichsidee im alten Iran und ihre Auswirkungen auf die Provinz Jehud’, in: P. Frei, K. Koch (eds), Reichsidee und Reichsorganisation im Perserreich Zweite, bearbeitete und stark erweiterte Auflage (OBO 55), Freiburg, Göttingen 1996, 220–39. 10 Eskenazi, InanAgeofProse, 37–126; see also J.R. Shaver, ‘Ezra and Nehemiah: On the Theological Significance of making them Contemporaries’, in: E. Ulrich etal. (eds), Priests, ProphetsandScribes:EssaysontheFormationofSecondTempleJudaisminHonourofJoseph Blenkinsopp (JSOT Sup 149), Sheffield 1992, 85; and the contributions by Wright, Janzen and Karrer-Grube in: M.J. Boda, P.L. Redditt (eds), Unity and Disunity in Ezra-Nehemiah: Redaction,Rhetoric,andReader, Sheffield 2008. 11 In Eusebius, Hist.Eccl. 4.26:13-14.

4

Introduction

Vanderkam and Kraemer advocate the thesis Ezra and Nehemiah.12 Their main arguments that both texts constitute two books are the following: (1) The Book of Nehemiah has an introductory section that indicates an independent composition of Ezra; (2) The unity-thesis has difficulty with the knowledge that both in Ezra 2 and Nehemiah 7 an almost identical list of returnees is included. In the assumption of two independent compositions, it may be surmised that one of the text lists has been taken over from the other; (3) Kraemer notes stylistic differences (that unfortunately he does not describe); (4) There are clear conceptual differences between the two books. Ezra is a book with a priestly perspective that shows interest in features such as the temple, the priesthood, the Levites and cleanliness; in short, the cult. The Book of Nehemiah is written from the perspective of a layperson. In Ezra, the restoration of the temple and the cleanliness of the community are at the centre, while Nehemiah focuses upon the rebuilding of the walls and the repopulation of the city of Jerusalem. In 2008, a multi-author volume was published in which the voices of supporters of both views are heard.13 The unity of the two books is further argued by Jobsen; Throntveit; Breneman; Van Wijk-Bos; Hieke; Fried; Shepherd & Wright.14 The reading of the volume under consideration has confirmed my view that Ezra and Nehemiah were originally two separate compositions. Recently, Jones has given an extra argument for the two-books

12 J.C. VanderKam, ‘Ezra–Nehemiah or Ezra and Nehemiah?’, in: E. Ulrich etal. (eds), Priests,ProphetsandScribes:EssaysontheFormationofSecondTempleJudaisminHonour ofJosephBlenkinsopp (JSOT Sup 149), Sheffield 1992, 55–75; D. Kraemer, ‘On the Relationship of the Books of Ezra and Nehemiah’, JSOT 59 (1993), 73–92; see also N. Amzallag, ‘The Authorship of Ezra and Nehemiah in Light of Differences in Their Ideological Background’, JBL137 (2018), 271-97. 13 M.J. Boda, P.L. Redditt (eds), Unity and Disunity in Ezra-Nehemiah: Redaction, Rhetoric,andReader, Sheffield 2008. 14 M.W. Duggan, The Covenant Renewal in Ezra-Nehemiah (Neh 7: 72b-10: 40): An Exegetical, Literary, and Theological Study (SBL Dissertation Series 164), Atlanta 2001, 59-78; Karrer, RingenumdieVerfassungJudas, 58-63; G.J. Venema, ReadingScripturein the Old Testament: Deuteronomy 9-10; 31 – 2 Kings 22-23 – Jeremiah 36 – Nehemiah8 (OTS 48), Leiden 2004, 138-81; Min, The Levitical Authorship of Ezra-Nehemiah, 22-30; Willi, Esra:DerLehrerIsraels, 16-19; Bänziger, «JauchzenundWeinen», 29-37; C.M. Jones, ‘Seeking the Divine, Divining the Seekers: The Status of Outsiders Who Seek Yahweh in Ezra 6:21’, JHS 15 (2015), # 5; D.J.E. Nykolaishen, Ezra 10:3: Solemn Oath? Renewed Covenant? New Covenant?, in: R.J. Bautch, G.N. Knoppers (eds), CovenantinthePersian Period:FromGenesistoChronicles, Winona Lake 2015, 371-89; R. Heckl, Neuanfangund KontinuitätinJerusalem:StudienzudenhermeneutischenStrategienimEsra-Nehemia-Buch (FAT 104), Tübingen 2016; D. Laird, NegotiatingPowerinEzraNehemiah(Ancient Israel and its Literature 26), Atlanta 2016, esp. 197-227.

Introduction

5

position: in the Book of Ezra the Achaemenid royal propaganda is mimicked, while in the Book of Nehemiah indigenous Judean writing is invoked to challenge the legitimacy of imperial domination.15 In this commentary, I will demonstrate that Ezra was a co-worker of Nehemiah during his activity in the twentieth year of Artaxerxes I. Based on this priestly character in the beginning of the fourth century BCE, a Pseudepigraphic writing was composed. As I will argue in my interpretation of Ezra 7-10, the last years of the fifth century BCE were turbulent times for the temple in Jerusalem. The Book of Ezra is, therefore, to be construed as a pamphlet giving ideological support to a particular group in that conflict.

§ 2 HISTORICAL APPROACH 2.1 TheMirroroftheDays The Persian period lasted from the conquest of Babylon by Cyrus the Great to the rise of Alexander the Great (537-333). The Persians ruled and controlled a vast empire from the Indus to the Nile and from today’s Kazakhstan to the Aegean Sea.16 We are thus well informed about the internal workings of the empire as a whole. The events around Jerusalem and Samaria remain, despite the large number of studies over the last thirty years, vague and unclear. The main cause for this is the small number of primary sources. In documents from Persia, Samaria, Jerusalem and Yehud are not mentioned. For the Persians this area was of little importance. The papyri and ostraca from Elephantine mention Jerusalem and Samaria only in the correspondence concerning the rebuilding of the Temple of Yaho at Elephantine dating from the end of the fifth century BCE.17 Archaeological data give evidence that the population of the region of Yehud saw a gradual growth in the Persian period. This fact indicates that the idea of a single, massive return from exile after the conquest of Babylon

15 C.M. Jones, ‘Embedded Written Documents as Colonial Mimicry in Ezra-Nehemiah’, BiblicalInterpretation 26 (2018), 158-81. 16 See especially J. Wiesehöfer, Das antike Persien von 550 v. Chr. bis 650 n.Chr., München, Zürich 1994; P. Briant, Histoiredel’EmpirePerse;DeCyrusàAlexandre, Paris 1996. 17 TADAE A.4.7; and 8; B. Porten, etal., TheElephantinePapyriinEnglish (DMOA 22), Leiden 1996, 141, 146; A. Kuhrt, The Persian Empire: A Corpus of Sources from the AchaemenidPeriod, London, New York 2007, 855-859; M. Weippert, HistorischesTextbuch zumAltenTestament (GAT 10), Göttingen 2010, 481-83. See also R.G. Kratz, ‘The Second Temple of Jeb and of Jerusalem’, in: O. Lipschits, M. Oeming (eds), JudahandtheJudaeans inthePersianPeriod, Winona Lake 2006, 247-64.

6

Introduction

by Cyrus the Great must be assessed as unlikely.18 Excavations on Mount Gerizim have shown that a proto-Samaritan sanctuary on the mountain had already been established in the fifth century.19 The assumption that no strong anti-Persian attitude prevailed in the area and that the Persians respected the autonomy of religion, is sustained by the existing material. 2.2 TheBookofEzra In this commentary the book of Ezra is perceived as a pseudepigraphic writing. This implies the following: Ezra the person was a co-worker of Nehemiah, as evidenced by Nehemiah 8, where he served as a priest reading the book of the Torah out loud in front of the community. This relatively junior person was fifty years after the alleged mission of Nehemiah transformed into the protagonist of a bogus history; Ezra 7-10. This story narrates that by order of the Persian king various affairs had to be settled in the Jerusalem area. Ezra 7-10 may, therefore, be read as a response to events in the temple of Jerusalem, recounted by the Jewish historian Flavius Josephus,20 who narrates that the temple had been the scene of a fratricide among priestly leaders, which resulted in a Persian ban on the cult in the temple for seven years. With the arrival of the new king Artaxerxes (II) the ban was lifted. I therefore disagree with the thesis of the so-called Ezra Memoir. This theory assumes that Nehemiah 8 would originally have had its place between Ezra 7-8 and 9-10. With this supposed memoir, Ezra would have accounted for his deeds and doings (Myers; Williamson; Clines, Throntveit; Davies; Shepherd & Wright).21 Leading up to Ezra 7-10, a largely fictional report 18 See B. Becking, ‘‘We all returned as One’: Critical Notes on The Myth of the Mass Return’, in: O. Lipschits, M. Oeming (eds), JudahandtheJudaeansinthePersianPeriod, Winona Lake 2006, 3-18. 19 See Y. Magen, ‘Mount Gerizim – A Temple City’, Qadmoniot 33-2 (2000), 74-118; R. Pummer, ‘Was there an Altar or a Temple in the Sacred Precinct on Mt. Gerizim?’, JSJ47 (2016), 1-21’; B. Hensel, JudaundSamaria:ZumVerhältniszweiernach-exilischerJahwismen (FAT 110), Göttingen 2016, 35-162. 20 Flavius Josephus, Antiq. XI 297-301 with its interpretation by R. Albertz, ‘The Controversy about Judean versus Israelite Identity and the Persian Government: A New Interpretation of the Bagoses Story (Antiquitates XI.297-301)’, in: O. Lipschits, G.N. Knoppers, M. Oeming (eds), JudahandtheJudaeansintheAchaemenidPeriod:NegotiatingIdentities inanInternationalContext, Winona Lake 2011, 483-504. 21 H.G.M. Williamson, ‘The Composition of Ezra i-vi’, The Journal of Theological Studies 34 (1983), 1-30; with D. Bodi, Jérusalemàl’époqueperse, Paris 2002; R.J. Bautch, Developmentsingenrebetweenpost-exilicpenitentialprayersandthePsalmsofcommunal lament. (SBL Academia Biblica 7), Atlanta 2003, 106-09; J. Blenkinsopp, Judaism,theFirst Phase: The Place of Ezra and Nehemiah in the Origins of Judaism, Grand Rapids 2009, 44-85; R. Rothenbusch, “… abgesondert zur Tora Gottes hin”: Ethnische und religiöse IdentitätenimEsra/Nehemiabuch (HBS 70), Freiburg, Basel, Wien 2012, 122-73; D.P. Moffat,

Introduction

7

has been posted on the return from Babylon and the rebuilding of the ruined temple. Further arguments for this view will be given in the discussion on Ezra 1-6 below. In its present form the Book of Ezra contains three narrative elements: Ezra 1-2 About the abolition of exile; Ezra 3-6 About the rebuilding of the temple; Ezra 7-10 About the restoration of the Yahwist community in Jerusalem. Each of these episodes is composed from smaller units that will be identified and discussed in the exegesis below. 2.3 TheBookofNehemiah The backbone of Book of Nehemiah is formed by the so-called NehemiahMemoir.22 This source-text displays, in the form of a message in the firstperson singular, information about the deeds and doings of Nehemiah during his mission to Jerusalem. In the memoir, two narrative threads are interwoven: (1) a message about the painstaking restoration of the walls of Jerusalem, and (2) a report on the founding anew of the religious view and practices of the community. Since both elements are thematically intertwined, there is no reason to propose a literary-critical separation here. Possibly, the NehemiahMemoir was the text of the report, which he himself had made, in order to account to the Persian king (thus: Williamson). However, this view cannot be verified or refuted. Given the internal coherence of the memoir, there is

Ezra’ssocialdrama:identityformation,marriageandsocialconflictinEzra9and10 (LHB/ OTS 579), London, New York 2013, 53-58; L.L. Grabbe, ‘Penetrating the Legend: In Quest for the historical Ezra’, in: M.C.A. Korpel, L.L. Grabbe (eds), Open-MindednessintheBible andBeyond:AVolumeofStudiesinHonourofBobBecking (LHB/OTS 616), London, New York 2015, 100-01; B. Hensel, ‘Ethnic Fiction and Identity-Formation: A New Explanation for the Background of the Question of Intermarriage in Ezra-Nehemiah’, in: M. Kartveit, G.N. Knoppers (eds), The Bible, Qumran, and the Samaritans (Studia Samaritana 10/ STJ 104), Berlin 2018, 133-50. 22 See, e.g. Myers; Williamson; Schunck; Shepherd & Wright; J. Becker, DerIch–Bericht desNehemiabuchesalschronistischeGestaltung (FzB 87), Würzburg 1998; Karrer, Ringen um die Verfassung Judas, 128-47; T. Reinmuth, Der Bericht Nehemias: Zur literarischen Eigenart,traditionsgeschichltlichenPrägungundinnerbiblischenRezeptiondesIch–Berichtes Nehemias (OBO 183), Freiburg, Göttingen 2002; Bodi, Jérusalemàl’époqueperse, 79-97; J.L. Wright, RebuildingIdentity:TheNehemiahMemoiranditsEarliestReaders (BZAW 348), Berlin, New York 2004; Rothenbusch, “… abgesondert zur Tora Gottes hin”, 174-212; S. Burt, TheCourtierandtheGovernor:TransformationsofGenreintheNehemiahMemoir (JAJ Sup 17), Göttingen 2014, 19-45; B.M. Leung Lai, ‘“I”-Voice, Emotion, and Selfhood in Nehemiah’, OTE 28 (2015), 154-67; A. Fitzpatrick-McKinley, Empire,Power,andIndigenousElites:ACaseStudyoftheNehemiahMemoir(JSJ Sup, 169), Leiden 2015, 172-216; L.L. Schulte, MyShepherd,thoughYouDonotKnowMe:ThePersianRoyalPropaganda ModelintheNehemiahMemoir (BEThL 78), Leuven 2016.

8

Introduction

no reason to see the current text as the result of a complex editorial process.23 It is important here, in my opinion, that Nehemiah 8-12 is not to be conceived as an addition composed on the basis of an assumed Ezra memoir, but a text that organically forms a part of both the Nehemiah-Memoir and the Book of Nehemiah.24 The Nehemiah-Memoir has been expanded with some elements by the author of the Book of Nehemiah. These will be identified and discussed in the commentary of the relevant passages below. In my view, the Book of Nehemiah was already established in its present form in the Persian period, although some glosses might have been added in the Hellenistic period.25 From a narrative standpoint, the Book of Nehemiah is made up of three parts: Neh. 1-7

About the abolition of the sorrowful situation of the walls of Jerusalem Neh. 8-12 About the overcoming of the pitiable religious situation in Jerusalem Neh. 13 About the troubles of the community to fulfil the promises made. Each of these episodes is made up of smaller units that will be identified and discussed in the exegesis below. 2.4 Persiandocuments? The Book of Ezra, especially, contains some passages that are presented as original Persian letters, memoranda or edicts (Ezra 4:8-6:18; 7:12-26). Since these documents are written in Aramaic, these passages are often understood as original documents or adaptations of original documents (Breneman, Becker; Shepherd & Wright).26 However, there is a problem. Schwiederski has demonstrated by means of a very careful analysis of the composition of letters both inside and outside of the Bible, written in Hebrew and Aramaic, that the letters in the Book of Ezra reflect a later form of letter culture than those from the early-Persian period.27 Grabbe has convincingly demonstrated in a careful analysis of the seven documents in Ezra that most

23

Contra: Wright, RebuildingIdentity. For details see the discussions on the pertinent passages. 25 Different compositions have been proposed by Eskenazi, InanAgeofProse, and also by Jagersma. 26 Still by: Rothenbusch, “…abgesondertzurToraGotteshin”, 95-108. 27 D. Schwiderski, HandbuchdesnordwestsemitischenBriefformulars:EineBeitragzur EchtheitsfragederaramäischenBriefedesEsrabuches(BZAW 295), Berlin, New York 2001. 24

Introduction

9

probably none of these passages are original or official Persian documents. His main arguments for this view are the presence of late linguistic forms and the presence in many places of a Judaean and sometimes JudeoHellenistic perspective (see also Grabbe).28 The position of Schwiederski and Grabbe does not automatically imply that all these documents were added later. Accepting a date for the Book of Ezra shortly after 400, then most of the passages may be seen as a part of one of the three narrative elements in that book. The one exception, in my opinion, is formed by the Edict of Artaxerxes (Ezra 7:11-26) which I consider to be an addition from the early Maccabean period. Berman argues – though by no means convincingly – that the Aramaic portions in the Book of Ezra go back to a Samaritan anti-vote. By implication, he construes these document as added during the process of literary growth and hence not as original.29

§ 3 ANCIENT VERSIONS AND TRADITIONS 3.1. Overview There are a number deuterocanonical and pseudepigraphic writings that bear the name of Ezra. To clarify, I offer the following schedule: MT

1 Ezra

LXX

Vulgata

Esdras ß:1-10

Ezra

2 Nehemiah Esdras ß:11-23 Nehemia

Slavonic

English renditions

1 Esdras

Ezra

Nehemiah

Nehemiah 1 Esdras

3 -

Esdras α

III Ezra

2 Esdras

4 -

-

IV Ezra Contains: 5 Ezra Ezra Apocalypse 6 Ezra

2 Esdras 3 Esdras (= IV Ezra 3-14) -

28 See L.L. Grabbe, ‘The “Persian Documents” in the Book of Ezra: Are They Authentic?’, in: O. Lipschits, M. Oeming (eds), Judah and the Judaeans in the Persian Period, Winona Lake 2006, 531-70. 29 J. Berman, ‘The Narratological Purpose of Aramaic Prose in Ezra 4.8 – 6.18’, Aramaic Studies 5 (2007), 165-91.

10

Introduction

3.2 Ezra-Nehemiahintheancientversions Both books have been translated in classical times into many languages.30 In the LXX, the Greek translation of Ezra and Nehemiah together forms the book Esdras ß. The Greek translators apparently regarded them as one cohesive book. The translation into Greek strictly assumes the text-form of the MT virtually everywhere. The only exception is found in a few lists in Nehemiah 11-12, where the LXX has a significantly shorter text. Fulton holds the view that the MT is an extended version of the LXX, reflecting the topography of the Hellenistic period.31 Her argument, however, is unconvincing. In the Vetus Latina, Ezra-Nehemiah was also regarded as one book. There is one manuscript handed down from the eleventh century with the complete text of both books. A palimpsest from the eighth century, written in St. Gallen, includes excerpts from Ezra 16:11-19:30.32 The text does not differ very much from the MT. Bonifatia Gesche is working on a critical edition of the text.33 The Vulgate follows rather faithfully the text of the MT. The same is true for the Syriac translation in the Peshitta.34 A Targum of Ezra-Nehemiah is not known. In Gothic, a translated fragment of Nehemiah is preserved. Codex Ambrosianus D contains a partial translation of Nehemiah 5-7.35 3.3 1Esdras There exists a document in the LXX that is called EsdrasAlpha. Its content represents a translation – and sometimes a retelling – in good Greek, of Biblical textual units from II Chronicles 35-36, 1-10 Ezra and Nehemiah

30 See the informative essays by L. Fried and others in: A. Lange, E. Tov (eds), The HebrewBible.Volume1C:theWritings, Leiden 2017, 603-56. 31 D.N. Fulton, ConsideringNehemiah’sJudah (FAT 2/80), Tübingen 2015. 32 B. Gesche, Die älteste lateinische Übersetzung des Buches Esdras A—eine neue Entdeckung, VT 64 (2014), 401-15; B. Gesche, ‚Vetus Latina‘, in: A. Lange (ed.), Textual HistoryoftheBible, Leiden 2017, 638-39. 33 B. Gesche, Vetus Latina: Die Reste der altlateinischen Bibel 6/2 Esra 1, Freiburg 2008ff. 34 Editio: M. Albert etal. (eds), The Old Testament in Syriac according to the Peshiṭta Version,PartIVFasc.4.EzraandNehemiah,1–2Maccabees, Leiden 2013. See: C. Balzaretti, TheSyriacVersionofEzra-Nehemiah:ManuscriptsandEditions,TranslationTechniqueand ItsUseinTextualCriticism (Biblica et Orientalia 51), Rome 2013. 35 See: A.E.V. Uppström, Codices Gotici Ambrosiani sive Epistolarum Pauli Esrae NehemiaeversionisGoticaefragmenta,quaeiterumrecognovit,perlineassingulasdescripsit, adnotationibusinstruxitAndreasUppström[EditedbyAEVilhelmUppström], Leipzig 1864, 23-24; it is uncertain whether the list of returnees is translated with Ezra 2 or Nehemiah 7 as its basis, see: D. Landau, Pages 209 and 210 of the Ambrosian Gothic Palimpsests: Ezra 2: 9-42 or Nehemiah 7: 13-45?, Zeitschrift für deutsches Altertum und deutsche Literatur 4 (2011), 421-41.

Introduction

11

7-8. The text begins mid-sentence and also ends mid-sentence. This two-fold Landmark points out that the text originally was more extensive and that, during the manuscript tradition at the beginning and at the end, one or more blades have disappeared. There are two main differences between 1Esdras and its Hebrew source text. The narrative order in 1Esdras is so composed that it is not the initiative by the prophets Haggai and Zechariah which breaks the deadlock in the process of rebuilding the temple – as in Ezra 3-6. In 1Esdras, a contest between three young men is the means for a resolution. 1 Esdras 3:1-5:16 tells us about three servants of the Persian king holding a contest regarding the question: ‘What is the strongest?’. The contest is won by Zerubbabel with the view that truth is stronger than wine, king or women. He then receives permission, by his request, from Darius to go to Jerusalem to rebuild the temple. 1 Esdras is a typically Hellenistic composition and reapplies the Ezra story to the troublesome times of the Maccabees (Grabbe).36 The translation into Latin is included in the Vulgate. This translation is rather free, and the text of the Vulgate includes many corruptions. A better and probably more original translation was recently found in a manuscript from Spain.37 The name of the book given by the Vulgate, III Ezra, led to the designation 3. Esra in German literature. 3 Ezra was not accepted as canonical by the Councils of Florence (1439) and Trent (1546), but the great value of the book was recognized. Luther had the book placed in his translation among the Apocrypha. 3.4 2Esdras–IVEzra The book 2Esdras consists of three parts: to the Jewish Apocalypse Ezra (IV Ezra 3-14) were added by Christians two parts: 5 Ezra (IV Ezra 1-2) and 6 Ezra (IV Ezra 15-16).38

36 See B. Becking, ‘The Story of the Three Youths and the Composition of First Esdras’, in L.S. Fried (ed.), DidFirstEsdrasComeFirst? (AIIL 7), Atlanta 2011, 61-71; M.F. Bird, 1Esdras:IntroductionandCommentaryontheGreekTextinCodexVaticanus (SCS), Leiden 2012; L.S. Fried, Ezra and the Law in History and Tradition, Columbia 2014, 54-64; D. Böhler, 1Esdras (IEKAT), Stuttgart 2015; L.-S. Tiemeyer, Ezra-Nehemiah:Israel’sQuest for Identity (T & T Clark Study Guides to the Old Testament), London, New York 2017, 47-49. 99. 37 VL 129, eleventh or twelfth century; see B. Gesche, Die älteste lateinische Übersetzung des Buches Esdras A—eine neue Entdeckung, VT 64 (2014), 401-15. 38 See J. Schröter, L. Milbach, ‘The Composition of “2 Esdras”. Reflections on the Relationship of 4, 5 and 6 Ezra with Special Regard to the Use of Female Image’, in: J.N. Bremmer, V. Hirschberger, T. Nicklas (eds), FiguresofEzra (Studies on Early Christian Apocrypha 13), Leuven 2018, 97-115.

12

Introduction

4Ezra The core of the present book 2 Esdras is formed by the Ezra Apocalypse (IV Ezra 3-14). The book contains seven episodes. The first three are dialogues between Ezra and an angel. All three are centred around the question of the purpose of innocent suffering. The remaining four episodes contain visions that have been phrased in flowery apocalyptic language. The visions describe successively: the heavenly Jerusalem; the beating by a messianic lion of the eagle from the sea – representing the worldly powers; the epiphany of the ‘Son of the Most High’ collecting the scattered Jews after his victory as well as the 94 books. In this final episode, God speaks to Ezra from a thorn bush. To him are revealed 94 books, the contents of which should comfort the people of Israel in the period up to the last day. 24 of these are accessible to all, namely the books of the Hebrew Bible. The other seventy books are reserved for the sages. This last vision builds on the role of Ezra as a writer and reader of the law.39 The text of the Ezra Apocalypse originated in the first century CE as a response to the destruction of the temple in Jerusalem by the Romans.40 The text was probably written in Hebrew originally.41 Mussies has convincingly argued with a careful philological analysis that the Ezra Apocalypse would go back to a Greek Vorlage.42 The Latin text was created with a Greek translation as an intermediary. No Hebrew or Greek versions have been preserved. However, ancient translations are available in Syriac, Ethiopian, Arabic, Coptic, Armenian and Church Slavonic.43 5Ezra Probably as early as the second century CE, the first two chapters were added to 4 Ezra. Presumably, the text emerged in reaction to the suppression of the Bar Kochba revolt and the birth of the Jewish Diaspora thereafter.

39 On IV Ezra see, e.g. M.E. Stone, FourthEzra:acommentaryontheBookofFourth Ezra (Hermenaia 41), Minneapolis 1990; M.E. Stone, M. Henze, 4 Ezra and 2 Baruch: Translations,Introductions,andNotes, Minneapolis 2013; DieEsra–Apokalypse:Übersetzt undeingeleitetvonBonifatiaGesche, Göttingen 2015. 40 See, e.g. H. Najman, Losing the Temple and Recovering the Future: An Analysis of 4Ezra, Cambridge 2014; Fried, EzraandtheLaw, 65-88. 41 As suggested by among others Fried, EzraandtheLaw, 65. 42 G. Mussies, ‘When do Graecisms tell that a Latin text is A translation?’, in: Vruchten vandeUithof:StudiesopgedragenaanDrH.A.Brongerstergelegenheidvanzijnafscheid, Utrecht 1974, 100-19. 43 See the survey in B.M. Metzger, ‘The Fourth Book of Ezra’, in: J.H. Charlesworth (ed.), TheOldTestamentPseudepigraphaI,New York 1983, 518-19; and with Fried, Ezraandthe Law, 175-91. The Arabic version has been edited by A. Drint ed., The Mount Sinai Arabic versionofIVEzra (CSCO 563 and 564), Leuven 1997.

Introduction

13

Clearly, another author than that of the Ezra Apocalypse is writing. From a Christian point of view, a prophecy to Ezra is presented characterized by ideas that can be labelled ‘replacement theology’. Now that Israel has failed in obedience to God and His commandments, the Jewish people will be scattered over the earth and the Christians will take their place as the favourite people of God. This anti-Judaic text has not been helpful for Jewish-Christian relations.44 6Ezra Chapters 15-16 of IV Ezra also contain a later addition. At first glance it is not clear whether it is a Jewish or a Christian text. The addition dates from the second half of the third century CE and should be read in the light of the policy of the Roman emperors Decius and Valerianus. They waged fierce anti-Christian politics, which led to persecution and executions. Christians had to issue a declaration of worship of the Roman gods. Since Jews were exempt from this obligation, 6 Ezra should probably be construed as a Christian text. 6 Ezra contains prophecies about the demise of mighty kings and draconian powers, which refers to the Roman empire. The text is only delivered in Latin, with the exception of a small fragment in Greek 15:57-59 (Oxyrhynchus Papyri VII, 11-15).45 IV Ezra as a whole was accepted as canonical by the Councils of Florence (1439) and Trent (1546). Luther had the book placed in his translation among the Apocrypha.46 § 4 EZRA AND NEHEMIAH IN LATER TRADITIONS ThePraiseoftheFathersinSirach It is noteworthy that Ezra is not mentioned in the Laus Patrum in Sirach, while Nehemiah is included in it: The memory of Nehemiah also is lasting; he raised our fallen walls, and set up gates and bars, and rebuilt our ruined houses.47 44 On 5 Ezra see Fried, Ezra and the Law, 89-93; V. Hirschberger, T. Nicklas, ‘5 Ezra — Prophetic or Apocalyptic Writing?’, in: J.N. Bremmer, V. Hirschberger, T. Nicklas (eds), FiguresofEzra (Studies on Early Christian Apocrypha 13), Leuven 2018, 116-30. 45 On 6 Ezra see T.A. Bergren, SixthEzra:thetextandorigin, Oxford 1998; Fried, Ezra andtheLaw, 94-99. 46 On the afterlife of IV Ezra in Muslim traditions, see: V.Comerro, ‘Le Quatrième Esdras et la littérature islamique’, RHPhR80 (2000), 137-51. 47 Sir. 49:13.

14

Introduction

The cause of this anomaly is unclear and led to speculation about the nature and extent of the resources that were available to Sirach, and his grandson. A definitive answer cannot be given here (Grabbe).48 2Maccabees In the Book of Maccabees Nehemiah is mentioned and praised. He functions as a role model for the Maccabees in their struggle against the desecration by Antiochus IV Epiphanes of the temple in order to restore what they see as the true service to God. II Macc. 1:18-31 narrates the deeds of Nehemiah as the one who, like a miracle, brought new life to the withered fire hidden of the temple (Grabbe).49 1Enoch In the Animal Apocalypse in 1Enoch 85-90 a passage is present in which three sheep who after returning from exile perform construction works in Jerusalem are hindered by wild bears (89:72-73). Reference is made in poetic language to the reconstruction of the ruined city. The unnamed sheep are interpreted by Begg as a reference to Jeshua, Zerubbabel and Nehemiah.50 Qumran The manuscripts from Qumran contain some fragments of the text of Ezra.51 4Q117 contains the text of Ezra 4:2-6, 9-11; 5:17; 6:1-6. The Qumran fragment of Ezra generally confirms the text of the MT (Blenkinsopp). So far, no fragments of the Book of Nehemiah have been found.52 The negative view on mixed marriages is like other early Jewish writings present at Qumran, including the discourse used by Ezra and Nehemiah with terms such as ‘unclean’ and ‘abomination’. Texts in which this view is 48 See, e.g. In der Smitten, Esra, 69-74; P. Höffken, ‘Warum schwieg Jesus Sirach über Esra?’, ZAW 87 (1975), 184-201; C.T. Begg, ‘Ben Sira’s Non-Mention of Ezra’, BN 42 (1988), 14-18; Tiemeyer, Ezra-Nehemiah, 101-02. 49 See S. Honigman, TalesofHighPriestsandTaxes, Oakland 2014, 111-14. 50 C.T. Begg, ‘The Identity of the Three Building Sheep in 1 Enoch 89, 72-73’, EThL64 (1988), 152-56. 51 E. Ulrich, Ezra and Qoheleth Manuscripts from Qumran (4QEzra and 4QQohAB), in: E. Ulrich etal. (eds), Priests,Prophets,andScribes:EssaysontheFormationandHeritage ofSecondTempleJudaisminHonourofJosephBlenkinsopp(JSOT Sup 149), Sheffield 1992, 139-57. 52 H. Harrington, ‘Intermarriage in Qumran Texts: The Legacy of Ezra-Nehemiah’, in: C. Frevel (ed.), Mixed Marriages: Intermarriage and Group Identity in the Second Temple Period (LHB/OTS 547), New York 2011, 251, incorrectly claims the existence of a Nehemiah fragment from Qumran.

Introduction

15

attested, include: Sectarian Manifest (4QMMT) A: 8-9; B: 39-41; C: 6-753; Temple Scroll (1Q19), lvii 16; Genesis Apocryphon (1Q20) 2: 15-16. A summons to divorce is, however, missing in these texts.54 FlaviusJosephus In his main work ‘The Antiquities of the Jews’ Josephus refers to both Ezra and Nehemiah. In Ant. XI 5.1-5 he writes positively about Ezra.55 He dates the cult reform of Esdras to the reign of Xerxes, the son of Darius. In doing so, Josephus puts great emphasis on the edict of Artaxerxes (from Ezra 7) and the obedience and fidelity of Esdras. Nehemiah is described in a similar way in this passage. In the historical context of Josephus, a connection between the Persian kings and in his eyes ‘good’ Roman rulers is easily made. Josephus is recognizing himself in Ezra and Nehemiah – as Jews who dared to stand in the service of a foreign power – as has been argued by Grojnowski. On the basis of sections the Vita (About My Life), the autobiography of Josephus, she shows that Nehemiah as a servant between two powers had been a role model for Josephus.56 NewTestament In the New Testament no quotes or references to the Biblical books of Ezra and Nehemiah are to be found. It should, however, be mentioned that the more universalistic message of the apostles and the evangelists was at odds with the particularism of Ezra and Nehemiah.

§ 5 JUDAISM RabbinicJudaism In Rabbinical sources, Ezra plays a greater part than Nehemiah. The Midrash on the Song of Songs interprets the expression ‘The flowers appear on the earth’ (Song of Songs 2:12) as a reference to both figures. Ezra is seen as a disciple of Baruch the son of Neriah. Ezra was busy to ‘lernen’ with Baruch, 53 On this document see esp.: J. Kampen, M.J. Bernstein (eds), Reading4QMMT:New PerspectivesonQumranLawandHistory, Atlanta 1996. 54 See: Blenkinsopp, Judaism,theFirstPhase, 189-227; and Harrington, ‘Intermarriage in Qumran Texts’, 251–79; Tiemeyer, Ezra-Nehemiah, 99-100. 55 See In der Smitten, Esra, 77-80; L.H. Feldman, ‘Josephus’ Portrait of Ezra’, VT43 (1993), 190-214. 56 D. Grojnowski, ‘Flavius Josephus, Nehemiah, and a Study in Self-Presentation’, JSJ46 (2015), 345-65.

16

Introduction

when the decree of Cyrus was issued. Because Ezra would first finish his studies, he did not return from exile with the first group of returnees (Song of Songs Rabbah 5:5). Ezra was deemed worthy to proclaim anew the law of Moses (TalmudSanh. 21b). According to the Talmud, the law of Moses had gone into oblivion, but it was restored to its previous form and standing by Ezra (Sukkot 20a). In the tractate Baba Kama, Ezra is seen as the one who issued the Ten Tekanoth (82a). These Tekanoth contain, in addition to the organization of the weekly Torah readings, evidence for the sanctification of the Sabbath. According to the tractate BabaBathra (15a), Ezra was the author of the genealogies in the Book of Chronicles and his own book. In Judaism, Ezra is construed as both as a new Moses and as the prototype of the Rabbinical scribe and he was clothed with insight, wisdom, and authority.57 According to Jewish tradition, he lived for 120 years – just like Moses. Benjamin of Tudela, a Jewish traveller from the eleventh century CE, narrates that he was shown at the confluence of the Euphrates and the Tigris the former site of the tomb of Ezra.58 Later, a shrine was built on this place which was a sanctuary both for Muslims and Jews.59 This legendary tradition differs from the view of Josephus, according to whom Ezra died and was buried in Jerusalem.60 Samaritans In the Samaritan tradition, Ezra is seen as a traitor who withheld the Persians from building a temple on Gerizim. Interestingly, the medieval Samaritan writer Abū᾿l-Fatḥ made a remark in his Kitabal-Tarikh stating that Sanballat – the opponent of Nehemiah’s wall restoration – was a Samaritan Levite who warned the Persian king about the plans to rebuild the temple in Jerusalem.61 § 6 EZRA AND THE CHURCH FATHERS In the Patres two opposite attitudes toward Ezra are to be found. On the one hand he is recognized as a legislator, but on the other hand they accused him of falsifying the text of the Holy Scripture. Where the Christians saw the 57

See G. Stemberger, ‘Ezra as a New Moses in Rabbinic Tradition’, in: J.N. Bremmer, V. Hirschberger, T. Nicklas (eds), FiguresofEzra (Studies on Early Christian Apocrypha 13), Leuven 2018, 1-12. 58 The Itinerary of Benjamin of Tudela: Critical Text, Translation, and Commentary by M.A.Adler, London 1907, 73. 59 This common sanctuary fell prey to the destructive anger of Islamists in february 2015. 60 Ant., XI 5.5. 61 See P. Stenhouse (ed.), TheKitābAl-TarīkhofAbu’l-Fatḥ(Studia in Judaica 1), Sydney 1985, 91-98; and Fried, EzraandtheLaw, 123-28.

Introduction

17

LXX and later the Vulgate as the Bible, the Jews stuck to the Hebrew text. In his DialoguewithTrypho, 72, the Christian apologist Justin Martyr, from the second century CE reproached the Jews for shortening the Bible. Ezra is accused of the ‘fact’ that in Ezra 6:19-21, he left out the explanation that the Passover is ‘our saviour and our shelter’. This addition is, however, nowhere attested in the ancient versions.62 Jerome made a side-note in his polemical writing against Helvedius ‘About the continued virginity of the Blessed Mary’. To Jerome, it does not matter whether Moses is considered the author of the Pentateuch or, that one adheres to the view that Ezra edited the text.63

§ 7 EZRA

IN

MUSLIM TRADITIONS

In a passage from the Koran – clearly targeted against Jews and Christians – it is stated: And the Jews say: ‘Uzair is the son of God’ and the Christians say: ‘The Messiah is the son of God’. This is what they say with their mouths. They imitate the saying of those who disbelieved before them; Allah’s curse be on them: how they are deluded away!64

Uzair has been identified by many with the Biblical Ezra.65 This view is reflected in various translations of the Qur’an.66 If this identification were correct, the Jews would – according to Islam – recognize Ezra as the son of God in the same way as Christians accept Jesus as the son of God. However, others see Uzair as reference to Azariah, the name given to Abednego in the ‘Prayer of Azariah’ which can be found in an addition to Daniel in the version of Theodotion.67 Busse – who accepts the identification with Ezra – believes that Muhammad in Sura 9 did not refer to a historical claim, but that he confused the high esteem among the Jews for Ezra with a claim to divine sonship.68 The thought of Liz Fried, the Koran would go back to a

62 See A.M. Bibliowicz, JewsandGentilesintheEarlyJesusMovement, New York 2013, 173-78. 63 Adv.Helvidium 7 = II 212. 64 Sura 9 (the remorse):30. Later muslim legends tell that the donkey of Uzair was one of the ten animals in paradise, see C. Lange, ParadiseandHellinIslamicTraditions, New York 2016, 140. 65 See, e.g. In der Smitten, Esra, 77-78; Tiemeyer, Ezra-Nehemiah, 107-08. 66 For instance, Rashad Khalifa; Pickthall; Nooruddin. 67 V. Comerro, ‘Esdras est-ille fils de Dieu?’, Arabica 52 (2005), 165-81. 68 H. Busse, Islam, Judaism, and Christianity: Theological and Historical Affiliations, Princeton 1998, 57.

18

Introduction

misunderstood verse from 4 Esdras, is artificial.69 4 Ezra 14:9 speaks about the promise to Ezra of his Ascension, where he will dwell with God’s son. That position, however, is not identical with that of the son of God. According to Ibn Hazm, a Spanish Muslim scholar from the eleventh century, the current form of the Jewish Torah is not of divine origin, like the Qur’an that is. He blames Ezra; when he dictated the law, he did this from memory and thereby introduced many drastic changes. The text was so altered that he could no longer be seen to be of divine origin.70 The problem of ‘mixed marriage’ is also discussed in the Qur’an, as evidenced by the following: Do not marry idolatresses until they believe; A believing slave is better than an unbelieving woman, even though she allures you. And marry her (believing women) not to idolaters until they believe; A believing slave is better than an idolater, even though he allures you. They invite to the Fire, but Allah invites to Paradise and forgiveness by His command. He makes it clear that they will heed His signs to the people.71

This text contains a clear warning, but as in Qumran and in early Jewish texts an impetus for divorce is absent. Sura 5 shows that God does make an exception for the marriage of Muslim men with women who are part of the People of the Book (Jews, Christians and Sabians): All good things are lawful to you this day. The food of the People of the Book is permitted for you and your food is acceptable for them. And permitted for you are chaste, believing women and chaste women from among those who were given the Book before you, when you give them their dowry, a valid marriage concluding on and no fornication, nor secret intrigues.72

The exception is connected to the particular view cherished by moderate Muslims, that Jews or Christians also believe in God and largely recognize the prophets who were sent by God according to the Qur’an of God.

§ 8 LATER APOCALYPTIC TRADITIONS The book IV Ezra was a favourite for Christian in antiquity and the early Middle Ages. Partly for this reason, the writing has given rise to subsequent apocalyptic speculations, in which the figure of Ezra plays a role.

69

Fried, EzraandtheLaw, 132. Ibn Hazm, Kitab al Fisal I, 123-50; see also C. Adang, ‘Medieval Muslim Polemics against the Jewish Scriptures’, in: J. Waardenburg (ed.), Muslim Perceptions of other Religions:AHistoricalSurvey, Oxford 1999, 143-59. 71 Sura 2:221. 72 Sura 5:5. 70

Introduction

19

TheGreekApocalypseofEzra This short Greek writing – also known as ‘the word and the revelation of Ezra’ – dates to the early Middle Ages. The text describes how the prophet Ezra during a journey through heaven and hell will understand the divine secrets. His focal question concerns theodicy: how could the free will of man be brought into harmony with the concept of original sin. The answer is that God has overthrown mankind. In the final passages of this writing, the horrors of the infernal punishment of sinners are shown to Ezra in poignant images.73 ThevisionoftheblessedEzra The text of this very short writing is only known in Latin manuscripts. The nature of the Latin presupposes a Greek original. Yarbro Collins construes this writing as an abridged translation of the Greek Apocalypse of Ezra.74 Since the text of the vision contains elements that are not present in the Greek Apocalypse – such as the fact that Ezra sees several apostles in the sky – is a stable argument for considering the text as a stand-alone document dating from the seventh century (Myers).75 QuestionsofEzra The ‘Questions of Ezra’ is a relatively short and late Christian text retained in almost identical Armenian versions. The text elaborates the traditions surrounding Ezra as shaped in IV Ezra. The text discusses questions about good and evil souls and what will happen to them at the end of time.76

73 See M.E. Stone, ‘Greek Apocalypse of Ezra’, in: J.H. Charleswoth (ed.), The Old TestamentPseudepigraphaI,New York 1983, 561-79; Fried, EzraandtheLaw, 100-07. 74 A. Yarbro Collins, ‘The Early Christian Apocalypses’, Semeia 14 (1969), 61-121. 75 J. R. Mueller, G. A. Robbins, ‘The Vision of the Blessed Ezra’, in: J.H. Charlesworth (ed.), The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha I, New York 1983, 581-90; Fried, Ezra and the Law, 107; J.N. Bremmer, ‘The Long Latin Version of the Vision of Ezra: Date, Place and Tour of Hell’, in: J.N. Bremmer, V. Hirschberger, T. Nicklas (eds), FiguresofEzra (Studies on Early Christian Apocrypha 13), Leuven 2018, 162-84. 76 For a recent edition, see M. Stone, ‘A new Edition and Translation of the Questions of Ezra’, in: Z. Zevit, S. Gitin, M. Sokoloff (eds), Solving Riddles and Untying Knots (FS J.C. Greenfield ), Winona Lake 1995, 293-316; recent translation in J. Leonhardt-Balzer, Fragen Esras (Jüdische Schriften aus hellenistisch-römischer Zeit – Neue Folge, Bd. 1,5), Gütersloh 2005; see also Fried, EzraandtheLaw, 108-09.

20

Introduction

EzraandMedicalRecipes In an echo to these apocalyptic traditions, Ezra is seen as the inventor of a variety of medical and alchemistic recipes.77 Aetius, for instance, refers to ‘Ezra’s antidote’ against toothache.78

§ 9 REFORMATION

AND BEYOND

To reformed theologians, Ezra and Nehemiah were not of great importance. The Protestant emphasis on solafide implies the undervaluation of ‘legalistic texts’ along with it. As far as I can see neither Luther nor Calvin wrote a commentary on Ezra and Nehemiah. Ezra and Nehemiah were dismissed entirely in the liberal Protestantism of the nineteenth century. In that view, these books were extinguishing the spirit of the moral high prophecy opening the way for a legalistic religion. The Lutheran German theologian Bonhoeffer who had to pay with his life for his brave opposition against the anti-Jewish Nazi ideology, published a meditation on Ezra and Nehemiah.79 In this he continued the liberal protestant view on these two books, but interpreted the two leaders of the post-exilic period in a messianic way.80

77 See: M. Martelli, ‘Recipes Ascribed to the Scribe and Prophet Ezra in the Byzantine and Syriac Tradition’, in: L. Lehmhaus, M. Martelli (eds), CollectingRecipes:Byzantineand JewishPharmacologyinDialogue ((Science, Technology, and Medicine in Ancient Cultures 4, Berlin, New York 2017, 195-220. 78 AetiusapudGalenus 5 = II.441,10. 79 D. Bonhoeffer, ‘Die Wiederaufbau Jerusalems nach Ezra und Nehemia’, JungeKirche 4 (1936), 653–61. 80 See: W. Krötke, ‘Dietrich Bonhoeffer und Martin Luther’, in: P. Frick (ed.), Bonhoeffer’s IntellectualFormation:TheologyandPhilosophyinHisThought (Religion in Philosophy and Theology 29), Tübingen 2007, 59.

EZRA 1-2

LOOKING BACK AT THE RETURN FROM EXILE

The first element in the story of Ezra comprises Chapters 1 and 2. These texts narrate, in two ways, the return from exile. Ezra 1 tells how – after divine prompting – Cyrus king of Persia, made the return possible. Ezra 2 contains a list of the names of those who returned.

ESSENTIALS AND PERSPECTIVES Exile can mean God-abandonment. For those who must live away from the destiny of man, God seems to have disappeared beyond the horizon. With the Babylonian exile, the way of YHWH with Israel seems to have stalled. The author of Ezra 1-2 testifies that the interaction of God with his people had not ceased: God created a twist in the story, which can end the exile. God’s involvement is, however, instrumental. He uses a non-Israelite to further assist Israel. Cyrus, king of Persia, is portrayed as a politician who not only receives a message from God but acts accordingly. From the perspective of the descendants of the exiles, hope and help comes from unexpected corners. For people in the twenty-first century who have lost the way in life and are learning to live in an alienating exile, the hand of a total stranger can help them out of the pit. It takes courage to accept that hand. At the same time, it is a matter of faith to dare to be the hand that moves towards the one in need in order that the life of one’s alienated fellow man may be put back on track. The people had to be urged to return. There will always be a tendency to want to stay with the fleshpots of Babylon (cf. Exod. 16:1-3) and to prefer them, despite everything, over an uncertain journey to the distant land of origin. Belief also means not accepting the accident and misery, but having a vision of a better future. The people got help. Neighbours and acquaintances – with or without a Jewish background – are called to help those who will return; to provide them with the means so that they may survive the journey. Hope alone does not help. In view of a further horizon, the worship in the temple, they receive gifts. Of interest are the cultic objects that were taken to Babylon by Nebuchadnezzar at the destruction of Jerusalem. These objects may be seen

22

Ezra1-2

to be a silent witness. They are, as it were, a replacement for the absent divine images. They are a visible testimony of the unfathomable help of God. When people take the road to a better future, they should not travel empty handed.

SCHOLARLY

EXPOSITION

I: INTRODUCTION TO THE EXEGESIS

Ezra 1 presents a specific image of the return from exile. According to Ezra 1:1 this event occurred in the first year of the reign of Cyrus king of Persia. For various reasons, this date seems not to be historically reliable. (1) Even if it is assumed that the ‘first year of Cyrus’ refers to the year of the conquest of Babylon – not to his first year as ruler of the Persians, then it is hardly likely that Cyrus, immediately after capturing Babylon in 539 BCE, would have taken steps resulting in the return of the descendants of the Judaean exiles. (2) Archaeological traces of Persian influence in the areas around Jerusalem can be dated at the earliest to the reign of the Persian king Cambyses (530-522 BCE). (3) The Cyrus cylinder1 is often seen as extra-biblical evidence for the historicity of the Cyrus decree in Ezra. The inscription would be an example of Cyrus’ liberal policy towards the descendants of the Judean exiles and show that this attitude was not unique, but part of his benevolent reign (McConville, Throntveit; Breneman, Van Wijk-Bos, Davies; Goldingay).2 Amelia Kuhrt, however, made clear that this inscription contains propaganda and is of a stereotypical character.3 The text reflects the world-view of the priests of Marduk from the Esagila temple in Babylon. These priests present Cyrus as a ‘good prince’ who will take the place of the ‘bad prince’ Nabonidus. Returning divine

1 Most recent edition: P.-R. Berger, ‘Der Kyros-Zylinder mit dem Zusatzfragment BIN II Nr. 32 und die akkadische Personennamen im Danielbuch’, ZA 64 (1975), 192-234; see also I. Finkel (ed.), TheCyrusCylinder:TheKingofPersia’sProclamationfromAncientBabylon, London 2013; R. Zarghamee, DiscoveringCyrus:ThePersianConquerorAstridetheAncient World (Iran’s Age of Empire, 1), Washington 2013, 484-93. 2 Thus, e.g. P.R. Ackroyd, ExileandRestoration:AStudyonHebrewThoughtintheSixth Century BC, London 1968, 140-41; J.P. Weinberg, The Citizen-Temple Community (JSOT Sup 151), Sheffield 1992, 40. 3 A. Kuhrt, ‘The Cyrus Cylinder and Achaemenid Imperial Policy’, JSOT 25 (1983), 83-97; A. Kuhrt, The Persian Empire: A Corpus of Sources from the Achaemenid Period, London, New York 2007, 70-74; see also A. Fitzpatrick-McKinley, Empire, Power, and IndigenousElites:ACaseStudyoftheNehemiahMemoir(JSJ Sup 169), Leiden 2015, 54-63; L.L. Schulte, My Shepherd, though You Do not Know Me: The Persian Royal Propaganda ModelintheNehemiahMemoir (BEThL 78), Leuven 2016, 24-46.

LookingbackatthereturnfromExile

23

images and deported groups as reported in Cyrus Cylinder:30-34 and the Chronicle of Nabonidus iii:21-23 – if not pure propaganda – only refers to measures taken on a limited local scale. It were images from localities around Babylon, that were brought to the sanctuaries from which they were carried away by Nabonidus.4 This passage is not connected to Judeans, Jews or Jerusalem.5 It is likely that, Ezra 1 provides a so-called ‘claimed tradition’: fragments of history and memories on the past were transformed into a story that served as a legitimation of the deeds and doings of Ezra. In Ezra 1 and 2, we meet an author who looks back at the return from later times (Grabbe).6 The text of Ezra 1 consists of three parts:7 1. The Edict of Cyrus (1:1-4); 2. The reaction of the heads (1:5-8); 3. Return of the temple vessels (1:9-11).

SCHOLARLY

EXPOSITION

II: EXEGESIS

EZRA 1:1-11

DIVINE AND IMPERIAL SUPPORT 1

InthefirstyearofCyruskingofPersia,inordertofulfilthewordof YHWHfromthemouthofJeremiah, YHWHstirreduptheheartofCyrus king of Persia to cause to pass a message in all of his kingdom and alsotoputitinwriting:

4 See, e.g. Kuhrt, ‘Cyrus Cylinder’; J. Wiesehöfer, DasantikePersienvon550v.Chr.bis 650n.Chr.,München, Zürich 1994, 71-88; E. Nodet, ASearchfortheOriginsofJudaism (JSOT Sup 248), Sheffield 1997, 20; R. Albertz, DieExilszeit6.Jahrhundertv.Chr. (Biblische Enzyklopädie 7), Stuttgart 2001, 98-100; L.L. Grabbe, ‘The “Persian Documents” in the Book of Ezra: Are They Authentic?’, in: O. Lipschits, M. Oeming (eds), Judah and the JudaeansinthePersianPeriod, Winona Lake 2006, 541-544; L.L. Grabbe, ‘The Reality of the Return: The Biblical Picture versus Historical Reconstruction’, in: J. Stökl, C. Waerzeggers (eds), ExileandReturn:TheBabylonianContext(BZAW 478), Berlin, New York 2015, 296-98 (292-307). 5 Kuhrt, ‘Cyrus Cylinder’, 87-88. 6 I prefer the label ‘claimed tradition’ over the concept ‘invented tradition’, since this last idea stresses too much the absence of elements and memories on which the tradition is based; see M.J. Bona, Claiming a Tradition: American Italian Women Writers, Carbondale 1999, versus E. Hobsbawm, T. Ranger (eds), TheInventionofTradition, Cambridge 1992. 7 See the majority of the commentaries and A.M. Bortz, IdentitätundKontinuität.Form undFunktionderRückkehrerlisteEsr2 (BZAW 512), Berlin, New York 2018, 95.

24

Ezra1-2

2

ThisiswhatCyruskingofPersiasaid: YHWH, the God of heaven, has given me all the kingdoms of theearthand he has appointed me to build a temple for him in JerusaleminJudah. 3 AnyoneinyourmidstfromhispeoplemaygouptoJerusalemin Judah and build the temple of YHWH, the God of Israel, the God whoisinJerusalem,andmaytheirGodbewiththem. 4 And the whole remnant from all places where they sojourn, the people from that place are to provide them with silver and gold, withgoodsandlivestock,andwithfreewillofferingsforthetemple ofGodinJerusalem. 5 Then the family heads of Judah and Benjamin, and the priests and Levites–everyonewhosespiritGodhadstirred–preparedtogoup andbuildthehouseof YHWHinJerusalem. 6 Allwholivedaroundthemassistedthemwithtoolsofsilverandgold, withgoodsandlivestock,andwithvaluablegifts,inadditiontoallthe freewillofferings. 7 KingCyrusbroughtoutthevesselsbelongingtothetempleof YHWH, which Nebuchadnezzar had carried away from Jerusalem and had placedinthetempleofhisgod. 8 CyrusKingofPersiahadthembroughtbyMithredaththetreasurer, whocountedthemouttoSheshbazzartheprinceofJudah. 9 Thiswastheinventory:  Thirtygolddishes;  Thousandsilverdishes;  Twenty-ninesilverpans; 10 Thirtygoldenbowls;  Fourhundredandtensilverbowls;  Thousandotherarticles. 11 Inall,therewere5,400articlesofgoldandsilver.Sheshbazzarbrought all these along with the exiles when they came up from Babylon to Jerusalem. 1:1-4 This section contains the Edict of Cyrus, embedded in a narrative section that indicates that an impulse from YHWH is understood to be behind the action of the Persian king (vv. 2-4.). Often these lines are understood as a translation in Hebrew, of an original Persian or Aramaic document (Myers, Williamson), or the written record of an oral proclamation (Fried). As Ezra 1-2 should be considered as ‘claimed tradition’ and the text reflects the ideology of the Ezra Group, it seems better to construe the author of

LookingbackatthereturnfromExile

25

the Book Ezra as the composer of this piece of propaganda.8 The Edict of Cyrus is also present at the end of II Chronicles. The text in II Chron. 36: 22-23, however, is shorter than that of Ezra 1. II Chron. 36 lacks the summons to the returnees to build the house of YHWH in Jerusalem and the appeal on those who remain in Babylon to support the returnees materially. In my view, the author of II Chronicles adopted this text from Ezra (see also Fried). Josephus offers a greatly expanded version of the Edict of Cyrus, including elements of Ezra 6.9 1:1

InthefirstyearofCyruskingofPersia,inordertofulfiltheword of YHWH from the mouth of Jeremiah, YHWH stirred up the heart of CyruskingofPersiatocausetopassamessageinallofhiskingdom andalsotoputitinwriting:

Cyrus the Great, Heb. Kōreš, Old Pers. Kurvauš, ‘similar to the sun’, became king of Persia in 559 BCE, albeit as a vassal of the Medes. He managed, however, to free himself from the yoke of the Medes and began to campaign with them leading to great conquests. In 539 BCE he conquered Babylon and put an end to Babylonian rule.10 He died in 530 during a battle against the Scythian tribe of Massagetai in Iran.11 In the Old Testament, Cyrus is mentioned, in Ezra 1, Isa. 45:1 and Dan. 10:1. The text of Second Isaiah presents the Persian king as an anointed servant of YHWH who, with God’s help, will free the captives from Babylon. In Dan. 10 Cyrus is a cipher for a Seleucid king. In Ezra 1 Cyrus is called ‘the king of Persia’. Curiously Cyrus never designates himself in his inscriptions with this title. Cyrus Cylinder:20 declares: ‘I am Cyrus, king of the world, great king, king of Babylon, king of Sumer and Akkad, king of the four world ends …’. The title ‘King of Persia’ therefore does not seem historically appropriate, but an anachronistic term from a later period, in which the inhabitants of Jerusalem area considered themselves citizens of Persia. The verb used here is cûr Hiph. has as its meaning ‘to stir; bring in motion; cause to act’ (see also Isa. 45:13; probably also referring to Cyrus). According to the author of Ezra 1 the initiative of YHWH should be seen

8

Bortz, IdentitätundKontinuität, 96. Ant., XI i; see also A. Netzer, ‘Some Notes on the Characterization of Cyrus the Great in Jewish and Judeo-Persian Writings’, ActaIranica 2 (1974), 35-52. 10 For sources and a reconstruction see: P. Briant, Histoiredel’EmpirePerse:DeCyrus àAlexandre, Paris 1996, 50-53; D.S. Vanderhooft, ‘Cyrus II, Liberator or Conquerer? Ancient Historiography Concerning Cyrus in Babylonia’, in: O. Lipschits, M. Oeming (eds), Judah andtheJudaeansinthePersianPeriod, Winona Lake 2006, 351-72; Zarghamee, Discovering Cyrus, 183-217. 11 Herodotus, Hist. I:201-214; see also Zarghamee, DiscoveringCyrus, 385-401. 9

26

Ezra1-2

to be behind the humanly and politically motivated action Cyrus. YHWH put the rûaḥ of Cyrus into motion. rûaḥ, ‘spirit’, is like lēb, ‘heart’, the emotional-psychological intersection of humans and may be rendered also as ‘person’.12 YHWH is thus presented as the one who puts Cyrus into action. Theologically, the conclusion may be drawn that the author of Ezra understands that everything still to follow in his book is supported by divine and imperial authority.13 The author of the Book of Ezra construes the return from exile as the completion of a prophecy by Jeremiah. It is, however, a problem given that no text can be found in the Book of Jeremiah, which contains a reference to Cyrus. It is therefore assumed that the text should be changed here into ‘by the mouth of Isaiah’. The text in Ezra would then refer to Isa. 45.14 Blenkinsopp assumes that here Ezekiel is referred to since, in his view, there are clear links between the prophecies of Ezekiel and the ideology of Ezra and Nehemiah.15 Sometimes the clause is considered as a looser reference to certain texts from Jeremiah, for example, Jer. 25:11b-12 (Jobsen; Jagersma, Fried), Jer. 29 (Myers, McConville; Fensham; Throntveit; Breneman, Fried; Shepherd & Wright), Jer. 51 (Williamson, Becker), or the tendency of the Book of Consolation (Jer. 30-31).16 This reference to the authoritative prophet Jeremiah functions mainly to strengthening the position of the Ezragroup: not only does their view have the support of God and emperor, it goes back to the Yahwistic interpretation of the exile. The edict itself is indicated by the noun qôl, which here means ‘appeal’ (see also // II Chron. 36:22; Ezra. 10:7; Neh. 8:15; II Chron. 24:9; 30:5).17 1:2 

ThisiswhatCyruskingofPersiasaid: YHWH,theGodofheaven,hasgivenmeallthekingdomsofthe earth and he has appointed me to build a temple for him in JerusaleminJudah.

The actual text of the edict starts with a dual recognition: Cyrus acknowledges that YHWH has given him power over ‘all the kingdoms of the earth’ and that YHWH has given him the task to build a temple for him at Jerusalem in Judah. 12

See S. Schroer, Th. Staubli, DieKörpersymbolikderBibel, Gütersloh 22005, 45-54.170-

72. 13 D. Laird, NegotiatingPowerinEzraNehemiah(Ancient Israel and its Literature 26), Atlanta 2016, 80-87, slightly modifies this view. 14 E.J. Bickerman, ‘The Edict of Cyrus in Ezra 1’, JBL 65 (1946), 270. 15 J. Blenkinsopp, Judaism, the First Phase: The Place of Ezra and Nehemiah in the OriginsofJudaism, Grand Rapids 2009, 127-59. 16 See, e.g. S. Frolov, ‘The Prophecy of Jeremiah in Esr 1, 1’, ZAW 116 (2004), 595-601; D. Laird, NegotiatingPower, 81-85. 17 See also DCH VII, 222.

LookingbackatthereturnfromExile

27

It is noteworthy that the author of the Book of Ezra puts into the mouth of Cyrus the divine designation ’elohêhaššāmayîm, ‘the God of Heaven’, for YHWH. It has been suggested that the Persians would use this expression as an epithet for their god Ahura Mazda. Although Ahura Mazda is certainly a god connected to the celestial spheres,18 this epithet does not appear in Achaemenid or Avestan texts. It is only known from Herodotus, Hist. I 131.19 The Aramaic equivalent of ‘the God of heaven’ is used by the Yahwist population of Elephantine in southern Egypt. By the end of the fifth century Jedoniah writes his request for assistance in the rebuilding of the temple of Yahô that was destroyed by Vidranag, the Persian governor, in conjunction with the priests of Khnum.20 In this letter to Bagohi, the Persian governor of Yehud and Samaria, Yahô is, for example, designated the epithet ‘the God of Heaven’. In the said letter, Bagohi wishes health and blessings from ’lhšmy’, ‘God of Heaven’ (line 1). It is further stated that the Jahwists from Elephantine pray to ‘Yahô, the God of heaven’ (l. 15) and that Bagohi can count on a favour from the ‘God of heaven’ in case of a response to this request (l. 27- 28). The use of this epithet, in both Ezra and Elephantine, can be interpreted as an indication of diplomatic courtesy.21 Others argue that the phrase ‘God of Heaven’ is an indication of a turn of henotheism to universalism within the religion of Israel.22 It should be noted, however, that this epithet was already in use before the Persian period. Kraeling and Niehr interpret the expression ‘God of Heaven’ as an equivalent of the Phoenician divine name bclšmym, ‘Lord of Heaven’. In doing so, they assume that elements of the deity Baalshamain were adopted in the presentation of Yahô at Elephantine.23

18 See P.O. Skjaervo, ‘Ahura Mazdā and Ārmaiti, Heaven and Earth, in the Old Avesta’, JAOS 122 (2002), 399-410. 19 See also K. Koch, ‚Weltordnung und Reichsidee im alten Iran und ihre Auswirkungen auf die Provinz Jehud‘, in: P. Frei, K. Koch (Her.), Reichsidee und Reichsorganisation im Perserreich (OBO 55), Freiburg Göttingen 21996, 310. 20 TADAE A.4.7; TUAT I, 254-58; B. Porten, The Elephantine Papyri in English (DMOA 22), Leiden 1996, 139-144. The letter is also known from a second draft: TADAE A.4.8. Next to that, a memorandum has been found that summarises the positive decision by Arsames on the request (TADAE A.4.9); see also Briant, Histoiredel’EmpirePerse, 620-23; P.R. Bedford, TempleRestorationinEarlyAchaemenidJudah (JSJ Sup), Leiden 2001, 14951; Fitzpatrick-McKinley, Empire,Power,andIndigenousElites, 194-97. 21 Thus: T.M. Bolin, ‘The Temple of ‫ יהו‬at Elephantine and Persian Religious Policy’, in: D.V. Edelman (ed.), The Triumph of Elohim: From Yahwisms to Judaisms (CBET 13), Kampen 1995, 127-142. 22 Thus: T.L. Thompson, ‘The Intellectual Matrix of Early Biblical Narrative’, in: Edelman (ed.), TriumphofElohim, 107-24; K.E. Southwood, EthnicityandtheMixedMarriageCrisis inEzra9-10:AnAnthropologicalApproach, Oxford 2012, 146. 23 E.G.H. Kraeling, The Brooklyn Museum Aramaic Papyri, New Haven 1953, 84; H. Niehr, Der höchste Gott: Alttestamentlicher YHWH-Glaubeim Kontextsyrisch-kanaänischerReligiondes1.Jahrtausendsv.Chr. (BZAW 190), Berlin, New York 1990, 43-68; H. Niehr, ‘YHWH in der Rolle des Baalšamem’, in: M. Klopfenstein, W. Dietrich (eds),

28

Ezra1-2

A problem with this assumption is the presence of the expression ‘God of heaven’ in pre-exilic Biblical texts like Gen. 24:7 and Ps. 136: 26. Apparently, the epithet ‘God of Heaven’ is an indication of continuity with preexilic Yahwism (Hieke). The recognition by Cyrus that YHWH had given him power over the whole earth, is not a sign of a Persian conversion to Yahwism, or diplomatic acceptance of the gods of the peoples conquered by the Persians (Williamson), but a late signal of the ideology of the Ezra group. This group were concerned that its vision of the temple service and its interpretation of the moral code of Yahwism was presented as supported by God and emperor. The recognition by Cyrus that YHWH had commissioned him to (re)build the temple in Jerusalem should also be understood from the later perspective of the Ezra group and its interest in worship. Remarkably, the author has chosen here the very specific verb pāqad, ‘to determine the fate; appoint to a task’, and not the more common ṣāwā, ‘order’. The specification ‘Jerusalem in Judah’ is not seen as a ‘typical bureaucratic pedantry’ on the part of the Persian clerics (as Williamson). Behind this specification, inner-Yahwistic polemic must be assumed. In the fifth century there were temples for YHWH in Samaria/Gerizim, Maqqēdāh and Lakish.24 Against these competing sanctuaries, the Ezra group puts the idea that the temple in Jerusalem was (re)built with divine and imperial approval. 1:3

Anyone in your midst from his people may go up to Jerusalem in JudahandbuildthetempleofYHWH,theGodofIsrael,theGodwho isinJerusalem,andmaytheirGodbewiththem.

This verse contains the actual summons to return and the order for the (re)construction of the temple. The compact wording of this verse yielded a few exegetical problems. The word mî – in ‘Who among you is from

Ein Gott Allein? YHWH-Verehrung und biblischer Monotheismus im Kontext der israelitischen und altorientalischen Religionsgeschichte (OBO 139), Freiburg, Göttingen 1994, 307-26; see also Williamson; H. Niehr, ‚God of Heaven‘, in: DDD2, 370-72; Bedford, Temple Restoration, 122-28. 24 See Y. Magen, ‘Mount Gerizim – A Temple City’, Qadmoniot 33-2 (2000), 74-118; J. Frey, ‘Temple and Rival Temple – The Cases of Elephantine, Mt. Gerizim and Leontopolis’, in: B. Ego, A. Lange, P. Pilhofer (eds), GemeindeohneTempel–CommunitywithoutTemple (WUNT 118), Tübingen 1999, 171-204; A. Lemaire, ‘Nouveau temple de Yaho (IVe siècle av. J.-C.)’, in: M. Augustin, H.M. Niemann (eds), BaselundBibel:CollectedCommunicationstotheXVIIthCongressoftheInternationalorganisationfortheStudyoftheOldTestament, Basel 2001 (BEATAJ 51), Frankfurt a.M. 2004, 265-73; M.D. Knowles, Centrality Practiced: Jerusalem in the Religious Practice of Yehud & the Diaspora in the Persian Period, Atlanta 2006, 44-48; R. Pummer, ‘Was there an Altar or a Temple in the Sacred Precinct on Mt. Gerizim?’, JSJ47 (2016), 1-21.

LookingbackatthereturnfromExile

29

his entire people’ – is not an interrogative pronoun, but a commonly used relative pronoun like Latin quiscumque (Williamson, Fried). The Hebrew phrase has the structure of a legal ruling. In the protasis – ‘Who among you is of all his people’ – is determined to whom the call in the apodosis – ‘let him go up to Jerusalem …’ – is addressed. The interjection ‘his God be with him!’ may be seen to be an adjustment of encouragement. There is no question of predestination theology in this verse.25 The protasis presupposes a situation in which the descendants of the exiles have mingled themselves with other ethnic groups in Babylonia. The addition of ‘lives’ at the end of the verse in the KJV is misleading, since it assumes a theological idea of the ‘living of God’ in the temple, which is not found in the text.

1:4

And the whole remnant from all places where they sojourn, the peoplefromthatplacearetoprovidethemwithsilverandgold,with goods and livestock, and with freewill offerings for the temple of GodinJerusalem.

This verse contains a summons addressed to those who would remain in Babylon to support the returnees materially. This sentence too, has the formal structure of a legal ruling. Called are kālhanniš’ār, ‘anyone who will stay behind’. This group stands in a mirror image relationship to hācāmhanniš’ār, the group of people that remained behind in Judah after the Babylonian conquest of Jerusalem over whom Gedaliah had been appointed as governor (II Kgs 25:22). The support asked for, consists of ‘silver and gold’ on the one hand and ‘substance and possession’ on the other. The mention of precious metals suggests a degree of prosperity among the survivors of the exiles in Babylon. The Hebrew word for possessions rekûš, can refer to both animals and goods and probably refers to support during the return. Cattle (intended are domesticated animals) will be needed to rebuild a base of existence in Judah/Yehud. The voluntary gifts to the temple do not refer to a group of regulations known from the Torah, but to the task of making possible the (re)construction of the temple.

25

72-73

Pace K. Galling, StudienzurGeschichteIsraelsimpersischenZeitalter, Tübingen 1964,

30

Ezra1-2

1:5-6 ThenthefamilyheadsofJudahandBenjamin,andthepriestsand Levites–everyonewhosespiritGodhadstirred–preparedtogoup andbuildthehouseof YHWHinJerusalem.  All who lived around them assisted them with tools of silver and gold,withgoodsandlivestock,andwithvaluablegifts,inaddition toallthefreewillofferings. The word of Cyrus is followed by the act of the family heads. In this short textual unit, they take the initiative. The text suggests an immediate and massive return from exile after the conquest of Babylon by Cyrus. Historically, that is highly unlikely. The return should be seen to be an historical process that lasted at least a century, during which, waves of small groups travelled to Jerusalem.26 That process is summarized in one short sentence with the apparent intention to suggest unity within the Yahwistic groups after the exile. As elsewhere in Ezra – and Nehemiah – the group of returnees is divided into three parts: laity, priests and Levites. The laity are under the guidance of the rōšêhā’ābôt, literally ‘the heads of the fathers’; an elliptical expression for ‘the heads of the father-houses’, that is, the clans or larger families as they were of great importance in the Persian period.27 According to II Kgs 25:18-21, priests were also among those who were lead into exile by the Babylonians. In the final chapter of the Book of Kings no mention is made of Levites, however. According to Biblical tradition, the Levites were descendants of Levi. Their tribe was the only one who had not received a territory in the distribution of the land under Joshua. In Deut. 18:1, this lack justified by claiming that the tribe of Levi had ‘God as their inheritance’. Although all Levites could perform cultic services, one group of them was especially in charge of the worship, the kohanîm, ‘priests’. The data in the Hebrew Bible on the Levites are relatively sparse and contradictory, which makes it difficult to make an informed historical overview of them. In all likelihood, a part of the Levites was associated with the shrines outside Jerusalem that were demolished during the reform under Josiah in 630. The message in Ezek. 44:6-31 shows that the Levites had played a negative role in helping Israel in its idolatry. After the exile the Levites, however, are much more appreciated, as evidenced by a variety of texts in I & II Chronicles, Ezra and Nehemiah.28

26 See B. Becking, ‘“We all returned as One”: Critical Notes on The Myth of the Mass Return’, in: O. Lipschits, M. Oeming (eds), JudahandtheJudaeansinthePersianPeriod, Winona Lake 2006, 3-18. 27 See Weinberg, TheCitizen-TempleCommunity. 28 J. Schaper, Priester und Leviten im achämenidischen Juda. Studien zur Kult- und SozialgeschichteIsraelsinpersischerZeit (FAT 31), Tübingen 2000; K.-J. Min, TheLevitical Authorship of Ezra-Nehemiah (JSOT Sup 409), London 2004, 50-87; M. Leuchter, The LevitesandtheBoundariesofIsraeliteIdentity, Oxford 2017.

LookingbackatthereturnfromExile

31

In addition, all ‘whose spirit was stirred by God’ travelled with them. The same verb cûr Hiph. as in 1:1 is used. The text is not clear whether this group consisted of descendants of the exiled Judeans (thus: McConville, Williamson, Fried) or non-Jewish inhabitants of Babylonia be provided (Jagersma). Verse 6 mirrors v. 4. I am, therefore, inclined to conclude that ‘all who lived around them’ refers, in the first place, to Judean fellow countrymen in Babylon and not so much to other ethnic groups there. A connection with a motif from the Exodus story has often been assumed (Williamson, Blenkinsopp, Becker; Throntveit; Breneman; Jobsen; Jagersma; Shepherd & Wright).29 In Exod. 3:21-22; 11:2; 12:35-36, it is narrated that the departing Hebrews robbed their Egyptian neighbours of valuables. Ezra 1:6, however, refers to a voluntary offering rather than a robbery. I, therefore, do not construe this offering as an Exodus motif, but interpret it as material support from those who remained to those who returned.30 There is a slight difference between v. 4 and v. 6. The latter text refers to the gift of kelê kèsèp, ‘silver implements’. In these words, the theme of the return of the temple vessels is announced. 1:7

KingCyrusbroughtoutthevesselsbelongingtothetempleofYHWH, whichNebuchadnezzar hadcarried awayfromJerusalem andhad placedinthetempleofhisgod.

Cyrus takes the initiative for the return of ‘the utensils of the Temple of YHWH’ to Jerusalem. In several texts from around the Babylonian exile mention is made of the kelêbêtyhwh, ‘the utensils of the Temple of YHWH’. This expression refers to the objects that were used in the cult of YHWH in the first temple. In the conquest of Jerusalem, they were captured by the Babylonians (II Kgs 25:13-17 // Jer. 52:17-23; II Chron. 36:7:18; Dan. 1:2.). Jeremiah warns against false prophets heralding the return of the temple vessels (Jer. 27:16.18.21; 28:3.6). In a legendary story, king Belshazzar is reprimanded for the fact that he used the temple vessels from Jerusalem at a luxurious banquet (Dan. 5:2-3.23; Aram. mā’an). Various instances in the Hebrew Bible refer to the return of the temple vessels. In an oracle of

29 See also K. Koch, ‘Ezra and the Origins of Judaism’, JSS 19 (1974), 173-97; T. Bänziger, «Jauchzen und Weinen»: Ambivalente Restauration in Jehud: Theologische KonzeptederWiederherstellunginEsra-Nehemia, Zürich 2014, 126-34; R. Heckl, Neuanfang undKontinuitätinJerusalem:StudienzudenhermeneutischenStrategienimEsra-NehemiaBuch (FAT 104), Tübingen 2016, 38; Laird, Negotiating Power, 61; Bortz, Identität und Kontinuität, 65.102. 30 See also B. Becking, ‘Does Ezra Present the Return from Exile as a Second Exodus?’, BN 177 (2018), 65-73.

32

Ezra1-2

salvation, those who will carry back ‘the utensils of the Temple of YHWH’ to Jerusalem, are summoned not to touch anything unclean (Isa. 52:11; possibly a later priestly theological addition). In the Book of Ezra, the theme of the ‘return of the temple vessels’ occurs several times (Ezra 1:7-8; 5:14-15; 6:5; 7:19). In Neh.10:40 (ET 10:39), ‘the utensils of the sanctuary’ are noted as a side remark in the episode on the first fruits of the harvest. Neh. 13:9 contains the claim that Nehemiah had brought back ‘the utensils of the Temple of YHWH’ (see also Bar. 1:8). Mistakenly, some exegetes argue that we are dealing here with an Exodus-motif (Williamson, Jagersma; Shepherd & Wright).31 In the Exodus traditions ‘the utensils of the temple of YHWH’ are not yet present. Ackroyd has rightly pointed out that the temple vessels constitute an element of continuity. The paraphernalia symbolize the continuation of the temple service as it had been before the destruction by the Babylonians.32 It should also be noted that the religion of Ancient Israel was supposed to be aniconic. Cogan has pointed out that in Neo-Assyrian inscriptions twelve times the phenomenon is referred to in which divine images previously deported to Assyria were returned to their country of origin as a result of new political circumstances.33 This practice was continued by later Ancient Near Eastern rulers until the Hellenistic period.34 In the Hebrew Bible, the tradition is known of the return from exile of YHWH, for example in the form of his kābôd, ‘glory’ (Isa. 51:2; Jer. 31:22 ketîb; Ezek. 43:1-11; Nah. 2:3; Zech. 1:16; 8:3; Mal. 3:1; Ps. 80:13-16). It is possible to construe the return of the temple vessels as a variation on the return of the deity.35 1:8

CyruskingofPersiahadthembroughtbyMithredaththetreasurer, whocountedthemouttoSheshbazzartheprinceofJudah.

The protocol of the retrocession of ‘the utensils of the Temple of YHWH’ runs through the treasurer Mithredath to Sheshbazzar called here the ‘prince of Judah’. The utensils are given to them in hand. The Hebrew phrase

31 P.H.W. Lau, ‘Gentile Incorporation into Israel in Ezra-Nehemiah?’, Biblica 90 (2009), 363; Bortz, IdentitätundKontinuität, 102-03. 32 P.R. Ackroyd, ‘The Temple-Vessels – A Continuity Theme’, in: J.A. Emerton (ed.), StudiesintheReligionofAncientIsrael(SVT 23), Leiden 1972, 166-81; Bortz, Identitätund Kontinuität, 105-07. 33 M. Cogan, Imperialism and Religion: Assyria, Judah and Israel in the eighth and seventhCenturiesB.C.E. (SBL MS 19), Missoula 1974, 14-19, 35-39. 34 L.S. Fried, The Priest and the Great King: Temple-Palace Relations in the Persian Empire (Biblical and Judaic Studies 10), Winona Lake 2004, 71-73. 35 See: B. Becking, ‘The Return of the Deity from Exile: Iconic or Aniconic?’, in: Y. Amit, E ben Zvi, I. Finkelstein, O. Lipschits (eds), Essays on Ancient Israel in Its Near EasternContext:ATributetoNadavNa’aman, Winona Lake 2006, 53-62.

LookingbackatthereturnfromExile

33

c

al yad is a cognate of the Akkadian ina pāni, ‘before the face of’ and expresses the fact that the vessels are now available.36 Mithredath is a relatively common Persian name of Median origin, mithradāta, ‘created by Mithra’. The name was in use well into the Hellenistic period. In the Hebrew Bible, the name occurs twice. In Ezra 1:8 for the treasurer of Cyrus and in Ezra 4:7 for a Persian officer who stopped the rebuilding of the temple. Mithredath in 1:8 is a gizbar, ‘treasurer’. This is a Persian loanword to be compared with Ancient Iranian kanza-bara and Pers. ganza-bara, ‘treasure-bearer’.37 In the Aramaic from the Persian period the noun occurs as gnzbr. In the Aramaic documents from ancient Bactria the noun gzb[r’], ‘treasurer’, is attested38; the Aramaic of Hatra knows the noun gzbr’; see also gizzabrayā’ in Ezra 7:21. In administrative texts from Persepolis this word generally refers to a senior official of the priestly stores who was responsible for the finances of the Persian Empire (Fried).39 The word ganza-bara was later mistaken for a name and corrupted to Kaspar, the traditional name for one of the wise men from the East in the nativity story, although the Persian origin of that name is questionable.

The name Sheshbazzar is of Babylonian origin: šāmaš-aba-uṣur, ‘the sun god may protect your father’. The fact that descendants of exiles bear Babylonian names is also reflected in some cuneiform documents that indicate that a choice was made for more Babylonian names in the third and fourth generation. Sheshbazzar is classified here as a nāśî’’, ‘prince; leader’.40 Ezra 5:14, 16 indicate that he was appointed by Cyrus as a pèḥā, ‘governor’. These titles have – already in antiquity – resulted to the assumption that Sheshbazzar and Zerubbabel would be two different names for one and the same person.41 This identification is, however, extremely unlikely (see also McConville, Williamson).42 Ezra 5:14-16, makes a clear distinction between the two persons. Furthermore, the identification is associated with the interpretation of nāśî’ as ‘prince’. Sheshbazzar would, like Zerubbabel, stem from the Davidic family. Although nāśî’ may indicate a descendant of royal 36 See also M.E. Stevens, Temples,Tithes,andTaxes:TheTempleandtheEconomicLife ofAncientIsrael, Peabody 2006, 44. 37 Thus W.Th. in der Smitten, Esra, Quellen, Überlieferung und Geschichte (SSN 15), Assen 1973, 4. 38 See J. Naveh, J. Shaqed,AramaicDocumentsfromBactria(FourthCenturyBCE)from theKhaliliCollections, London 212, text B 10:2. 39 G.G. Cameron, PersepolisTreasuryTablets (Oriental Institute Publications 65), Chicago 1948; H. Koch, VerwaltungundWirtschaftimpersischenKernlandzurZeitderAchämeniden (Beihefte zum Tübinger Atlas des Vorderen Orients, Series B 89), Wiesbaden 1990. 40 On this title see now: C. Nihan, ‘The nāśi᾿and the Future of Royalty in Ezekiel’, in: I. Wilson, D.V. Edelman (eds), History, Memory, Hebrew Scriptures A Festschrift for EhudBenZvi, Winona Lake 2015, 229-46; M. Nevader, ‘Picking up the Pieces of the Little Prince: Refractions of Neo-Babylonian Kingship Ideology in Ezekiel 40-48?’, in: J. Stökl, C. Waerzeggers (eds), Exile and Return: The Babylonian Context (BZAW 478), Berlin, New York 2015, 268-91. 41 E.g. Jos., Ant. xi:13-14. 42 J. Lust, ‘The Identification of Zerubbabel with Sheshbassar’, EThL 63 (198), 90-95.

34

Ezra1-2

blood (see, e.g. Gen. 34:2; Num. 25:18; Ezek. 27:12; 32:29; Becker), it is more likely that nāśî’ here refers to a leader the (cult) community as in Exod. 16:22; 34:31; 35:27. In that function, Sheshbazzar had received ‘the utensils of the Temple of YHWH’ and brought them to Jerusalem (see Ezra 5:14-16). According to Silverman, Sheshbazzar would have been the last Babylonian governor of Judah, who was subsequently appointed by the Persian’s Yehud.43 1:9-11 Thiswastheinventory:  Thirtygolddishes;  Thousandsilverdishes;  Twenty-ninesilverpans;  Thirtygoldenbowls;  Fourhundredandtensilverbowls;  Thousandotherarticles.  In all, there were 5,400 articles of gold and silver. Sheshbazzar brought all these along with the exiles when they came up from BabylontoJerusalem. These verses describe the inventory of ‘the utensils of the temple of YHWH’ that would have been brought by Sheshbazzar. Most exegetes assume that these verses go back to an existing document, namely a list of objects that were returned to the temple in Jerusalem (Blenkinsopp, Williamson).44 Such a view is unprovable. There are two exegetical problems: (1) the nature of the different objects, and (2) their number. ‘Thirty golden bowls; one thousand silver bowls. The noun ‘āgarṭāl, ‘basin’; ‘scale’ (RSV), only occurs here in the Hebrew Bible.45 The word form – five radicals – suggests a loan word. Different proposals have been made. The suggestion of a connection with Hittite kurtal, ‘container’, seems to be the most likely proposal. The translations in LXX ψυκτήρ, ‘cup’; and Vulgate fiala, ‘drinking bowl, pelvis’, support an interpretation that ‘āgarṭāl is an object to drink from. This cannot be said with any certainly. The Talmud describes an āgarṭāl as a cup-shaped article in which blood after the sacrifice was collected.46 ‘Twenty-nine knives’. The noun maḥlāp, ‘knife’, occurring only here in the Hebrew Bible has, since the Vulgate (cutler, ‘butcher’) and the Talmud (yYoma 41a iii: 8 skywyn, ‘meat cutters’), been construed as an object for (whether ritual or not)

43 J.M. Silverman, ‘Sheshbazzar, a Judaean or a Babylonian? A Note on his Identity’, in: J. Stökl, C. Waerzeggers (eds), Exile and Return: The Babylonian Context (BZAW 478), Berlin, New York 2015, 308-21. 44 See also L.S. Fried, The Priest and the Great King: Temple-Palace Relations in the PersianEmpire (Biblical and Judaic Studies 10), Winona Lake 2004, 167 45 For details, see Bortz, IdentitätundKontinuität, 67. 46 PYoma 41a iii 8.

LookingbackatthereturnfromExile

35

slaughter. This view assumes the sacrifice of animals. The etymology of the noun is uncertain. A Hebr. root ḥlp II, ‘cutting through’, is known (Judg. 5:26; Job 20:24), the maqṭāl form of that root would then refer to a cutting or shearing object. Furthermore, II Kgs 25:14 uses the noun mazmērā, ‘knife’, in the message about the deportation by the temple vessels by Nebuchadnezzar. Perhaps, it is better to vocalize mḥlp in the wake of Rudolph with Galling as a Hoph. part. of the root ḥlpI, ‘to change; replace’. 47 In this case, the phrase maḥlāpîmtišcāweceśrîmwould be an adjustment meaning ‘of which twenty-nine were repaired’.48 ‘Thirty golden bowls, four hundred and ten silver cups’. The noun kepôr, ‘cup’, occurs nine times in the Hebrew Bible. It refers to a cup-shaped object, probably to be closed with a lid, in which non-liquid substances were kept. ‘A thousand other objects’. The noun kelî, ‘barrel; object’, is a collective term for all kinds of utensils. It, therefore, refers here to the other parts of the temple vessels.

Ezra 1:11 lists a total of 5,400 items. This number is higher than the sum of the objects indicated in vv. 9 and 10 (Becker; Fried). It is, therefore, possible to read in v. 10 ‘thousands of other objects’.49 The Niph. verbal form hēcālôt in ‘when the exiles from Babylon were brought to Jerusalem’ is an indication of a passivumdivinum (Williamson). By concealing the actual actor, it is implicitly emphasized that YHWH is construed as the actual actor behind the event. Hence, the end of Ezra 1 thematically and theologically refers to the beginning of the chapter. The verb clh in the Hiph. is widely used in the Old Testament to describe the process of bringing out of Egypt into the Promised Land. Whether this implies the presence in Ezra 1:11 of Exodus terminology, with the return from Babylon understood to be the new Exodus (as: Williamson), seems to be an interpretative step too far. Remarkably, after all, is the collective name gôlā, literally ‘exile’, to indicate the group marching to Jerusalem.

EZRA 2:1-70

THOSE WHO 1

RETURNED

Thesearethechildrenintheprovincewhocameupoutofthecaptivity, the exile who had carried away Nebuchadnezzar, the king of Babylon,toBabylonandwhoreturnedtoJerusalemandJudah,each tohiscity,

47 K. Galling, ‚Das Protokoll über die Rückgabe der Tempelgeräte‘, in: Studien zur GeschichteIsraelsimPersischenZeitalter, Tübingen 1964, 78-88. 48 For details, see Bortz, IdentitätundKontinuität, 67-68. 49 1 Esdras 2:13-14 presents different numbers; see also Stevens, Temples, Tithes, and Taxes, 44-45.

36 2

3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36  37 38 39 40 

Ezra1-2 who came with Zerubbabel, Jeshua, Nehemiah, Seraiah, Reelaiah, Mordecai,Bilshan,Mispar,Bigvai,Rehum,andBaanah.Thenumber ofthemenofthepeopleofIsrael: thesonsofParosh 2,172; thesonsofShephatiah, 372; thesonsofArah, 775; thesonsofPahath-moabofthesonsofJeshua(and)Joab, 2,812; thesonsofElam, 1,254; thesonsofZattu, 945; thesonsofZaccai, 760; thesonsofBani, 642; thesonsofBebai, 623; thesonsofAzgad, 1,222; thesonsofAdonikam, 666; thesonsofBigvai, 2,056; thesonsofAdin, 454; thesonsofAterofHezekiah, 98; thesonsofBezai, 323; thesonsofJorah, 112; thesonsofHashum, 223; thesonsofGibbar, 95; thesonsofBethlehem, 123 themenof Netophah, 56 themenoff Anathoth, 128 thesonsof Azmaveth, 42 thesonsof Kiriath Jearim,KephirahandBeeroth, 743 thesonsof RamahandGeba, 621 themenof Mikmash, 122 themenof BethelandAi, 223 thesonsof Nebo, 52 thesonsof Magbish, 156 thesonsof the other Elam, 1,254 thesonsof Harim, 320 thesonsof Lod,HadidandOno, 725 thesonsof Jericho, 345 thesonsof Senaah, 3,630 Thepriests: thesonsofJedaiahofthefamilyofJeshua, 973 thesonsof Immer, 1,052 thesonsof Pashhur, 1,247 thesonsof Harim, 1,017 TheLevites: thesonsofJeshuaandKadmielofthelineofHodaviah, 74

LookingbackatthereturnfromExile 41  42  43  44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55  56 57  58 59

60  61   62 63 64 65 66 67 68

37

Themusicians: thedescendantsofAsaph 128 Thegatekeepers: thesonsofShallum,Ater,Talmon,Akkub,HatitaandShobai1 39 Thetempleservants: thesonsofZiha,Hasupha,Tabbaoth, Keros,Siaha,Padon, Lebanah,Hagabah,Akkub, Hagab,Shalmai,Hanan, Giddel,Gahar,Reaiah, Rezin,Nekoda,Gazzam, Uzza,Paseah,Besai, Asnah,Meunim,Nephusim, Bakbuk,Hakupha,Harhur, Bazluth,Mehida,Harsha, Barkos,Sisera,Temah, NeziahandHatipha ThesonsoftheservantsofSolomon: thedescendantsofSotai,Hassophereth,Peruda, Jaala,Darkon,Giddel, Shephatiah,Hattil, Pokereth-HazzebaimandAmi ThetempleservantsandthesonsoftheservantsofSolomon 392 The following came up from the towns of Tel Melah, Tel Harsha, Kerub,AddonandImmer,buttheycouldnotshowthattheirfamilies weredescendedfromIsrael: Thesonsof Delaiah,TobiahandNekoda 652 Andfromamongthepriests: ThesonsofHobaiah,HakkozandBarzillai (amanwhohadmarriedadaughterofBarzillaitheGileaditeandwas calledbythatname). These searched for their family records, but they could not find them andsowereexcludedfromthepriesthoodasunclean. Thegovernororderedthemnottoeatanyofthemostsacredfooduntil therewasapriestministeringwiththeUrimandThummim. Thewholecompanynumbered 42,360, besidestheir7,337maleandfemaleslaves;andtheyalsohad200male andfemalesingers. Theyhad736horses,245mules, 435camelsand6,720donkeys. WhentheyarrivedatthehouseoftheLordinJerusalem,someofthe heads of the families gave freewill offerings toward the rebuilding of thehouseofGodonitssite.

38

Ezra1-2

69 Accordingtotheirabilitytheygavetothetreasuryforthiswork61,000 daricsofgold,5,000minasofsilverand100priestlygarments. 70 Thepriests,theLevites,themusicians,thegatekeepersandthetemple servantssettledintheirowntowns,alongwithsomeoftheotherpeople, andtherestoftheIsraelitessettledintheirtowns. Ezra 2 presents – in its current position in the Bible – a list of people who returned from the Babylonian exile stressing the continuity with pre-exilic times. In other words, this list highlights the view of the author of the Book of Ezra, that there has been a massive and immediate return from Babylon. On closer examination, however, this list provides some problems. In Neh. 7:6-72, an almost identical list is to be found. The differences between the two lists are related to (a) differences in the spelling of proper names; (b) differences in numbers and (c) the final lines of the list. The differences in (a) are, at most, of text-critical significance. The numerical differences (b) often return to clerical errors. In many cases, the number in the text of Nehemiah is slightly larger – a single figure number, and sometimes ten or hundred – than the text in Ezra.50 The differences in the end of the list (Ezra 2:68-69 and Neh. 7:69-71) can be explained by assuming that the text in Ezra is to be seen to be a summary of the report by Nehemiah.51 Next to that, the text in Ezra shows a preference for round numbers in the final calculation.52 In the scholarly discussion, a tendency is identifiable with regard to the literary connection between Ezra 2 and Neh. 7.53 Generally, Ezra 2 is understood to be dependent upon Neh. 7.54 A few observations should be noted. What was the purpose of the list? Neh. 7:5 mentions a sēferhayyaḥas, ‘book of registration’. The noun yaḥas occurs only once in the Hebrew Bible and indicates a register of persons ordered by their genealogy, see also the related verb yḥs, ‘to register to its origin’, (e.g. I Chron. 4:33, 5:17;

50 See, e.g. Ezra 2:13: 666 = Neh. 7:19: 667; Ezra 2:14: 2.056 = Neh. 7:20: 2.067; see Bortz, IdentitätundKontinuität, esp. 92-95. 51 As has been argued by S. Japhet, ‘Shesbazzar and Zerubbabel’, ZAW 94 (1982), 84; see also Williamson. 52 See, e.g. 100 priestly garments (Ezra 2:69) parallel to the 67 plus 30 objects mentioned by Nehemiah (7:69-70; ET 70-71), and the 5.000 minas of silver (Ezra 2:69), while the text in Neh. 7 mentions 500 + 2.200 + 2.000 minas silver. 53 For instance, Weinberg, The Citizen-Temple Community, 41-61; Williamson; M. Leuchter, ‘The Levites in Exile: A Response to L.S. Tiemeyer’, VT 60 (2010), 583-590; Heckl, Neuanfang und Kontinuität, 58-81; L.-S. Tiemeyer, Ezra-Nehemiah: Israel’s Quest for Identity (T & T Clark Study Guides to the Old Testament), London, New York 2017, 44-45. 54 This view is challenged by Bortz, IdentitätundKontinuität, who argues for the priority of Ezra 2.

LookingbackatthereturnfromExile

39

II Chron. 31:17; Neh. 7:5).55 It has been proposed that the list was composed in analogy with the inspection lists as in Num. 1 and 10.56 A suggestion is that this list records the names of the elite of the nation from the time of Nehemiah (see Neh. 7:5: ‘And my God gave me in the heart to assemble the nobles, the leaders and people to enrol in the registers’). Therefore, Weinberg, correctly, makes the suggestion to interpret these lists as the census list of the leading group in and around Jerusalem. This group he labels ‘Bürger-Tempel-Gemeinde’.57 Within Ezra and Nehemiah, this group is referred to as benêgōlāh. The number of persons included in this list is difficult to reconcile with the historical reality at the beginning of the Persian period (for example: McConville). The number of over 42,000 ‘returnees’ is much too large for the first wave of returnees. The archaeology of Jerusalem and its surroundings does not allow such a substantial increase in population.58 The list is better understood to be connected with the size of the population of the Persian province Yehud in the middle of the fifth century. The list includes a number of non-Hebrew names: – – – –

mordākay most probably refers to the Babylonian god Marduk;59 bilšān, contains the name of the Babylonian god Bel; bigway, is a Semitic calque for the Persian personal name *Bagavahya;60 pašhûr, is an Egyptian name meaning ‘son of Horus’, the name, however, is already present in Jer. 20, where ‘Pashhur the son of Immer’ is a priest, indicating that such a foreign name could also be worn by a Judean priest;

55 See P.C. Beentjes, ‘Identity and Community in the Book of Chronicles: The Role and Meaning of the verb jāchaṣ’, ZAH 12 (1999), 233-37. 56 See Bortz, IdentitätundKontinuität, 196-204. 57 Weinberg, TheCitizen-TempleCommunity; with C. Karrer, RingenumdieVerfassung Judas: eine Studie zu den theologisch-politischen Vorstellungen im Esra-Nehemia-Buch (BZAW 308), Berlin, New York 2001, 44-49; see the remarks of D. Laird, NegotiatingPower, 89-109. 58 For details see Becking, ‘We all returned as One’, 3-18; I. Finkelstein, ‘Archaeology and the List of Returnees in the Books of Ezra and Nehemiah’, PEQ 149 (2008), 1-10; with Stevens, Temples,Tithes,andTaxes, 43. 59 The name might have an Elamite background. In three Persepolis inscriptions, four persons with the name Marduku/a occur, see E.M. Yamauchi, ‘Mordecai, the Persepolis Tablets, and the Susa Excavations’, VT 42 (1992), 272-75. 60 See also bigway Ezra 2:2.14; 8:14; Neh. 7:7, 19; 10:16; Greek: Bagoui – many eunuchs and other high officials bore that name – Judith 12:13; 13:1; 14:14; Diodorus Siculus, Hist. XVI 40,3; 43,4; 47,4; 50,7; XXXI 19,2–3; Plinius Hist. Nat. 13,41; the Elephantine Papyri refer to a Bagohi as governor over Samaria and Yehud around 400 BCE; see also H. Klinkott, DerSatrap:EinachäimenidischeAmtsträgerundseineHandlungsspielräume (Oikumene Studien zur antiken Weltgeschichte 1), Frankfurt 2005, 456–58.

40 – – – –

Ezra1-2 bēsāy, contains the name of the Egyptian demon Bes; me‘ûnîm and nepûšîm are most likely Arabic names (Blenkinsopp); barqôs, contains the name of the Edomite deity Qaus/Qôs; sîserā’, is seen as a non-Semitic name. 61

It is not possible to draw, based on these names, any certain conclusion about the meaning or origin of the list of ‘returnees’. All in all, it may be best assumed that this list fits organically into the context of the Book of Nehemiah and that the author of Ezra has adopted it in order to emphasize his idea of a massive and immediate return. The author of Ezra wants to claim that the property relations and dominant positions known in his time (as found in the census list of Neh. 7) go back to the first period after the return. As an argument for this position, it may be pointed-out that in Neh. 7:72 (ET 73), the narrative continues smoothly while between the end of the list and the beginning of Ezra 3, a clear narrative break is observable. The list has a clear structure (Shepherd & Wright):62 A

1-2

Introduction

B

3-35

List of ‘lay persons’

3-20: per family 21-35: per city

C

36-58

Cultic personnel

36-39: priests 40: Levites 41: singers 42: gatekeepers 43-58: others

D

59-63

Persons with an unclear provenance

E

64-67

In sum

F

68-69

Gifts for the building of the temple

G

70

Closure

This scheme shows that in the historical image of the author of the Book of Ezra, the cultic personnel were an important element of the group who returned. 61

M. Noth, DieIsraelitischePersonennamenimRahmendergemeinsemitischenNamensgebung (BWANT 46), Stuttgart 1928, 64; Blenkinsopp toys with the idea of an Illyric name; J.A. Soggin, Judges(OTL), London 1981, 63, drew a parallel with the Luwian personal name zi-za-ru-wa; G. Garbini, ‘Il cantico di Debora’, La Parola del Passato 33 (1978), 17-21, assumes a connection with the Minoic deity (j)a-sa-sa-ru known from the Lineair A inscriptions. T. Schneider, Asiatische Personennamen in ägyptischen Quellen des neuen Reiches (OBO, 114), Freiburg, Göttingen 1992, 192,260, argues Sisera to be a Semitic name, but probably not Judaean. 62 See Bortz, IdentitätundKontinuität, 111-48.

LookingbackatthereturnfromExile

41

2:1-2 These are the children in the province who came up out of the captivity, the exile who Nebuchadnezzar, the king of Babylon, had carriedawaytoBabylonandwhoreturnedtoJerusalemandJudah, eachtohiscity,  who came with Zerubbabel, Jeshua, Nehemiah, Seraiah, Reelaiah, Mordecai,Bilshan,Mispar,Bigvai,Rehum,andBaanah.Thenumber ofthemenofthepeopleofIsrael: The phrase ‘These are the inhabitants of the province’ is generally taken to refer to the Persian province of Yehud.63 Remarkably, the ‘return’ is not linked to a Persian king. The author chooses to point out that the ‘returnees’ were the descendants of those who were transported to Babylon in the time of Nebuchadnezzar. This continuity is constructed: the group which is now being discussed is in continuity with the pre-exilic Israel. In this introduction, eleven names of leaders are mentioned. In Neh. 7:7 the round number of twelve is constructed by the addition of naḥmānî, ‘Nahmani’, after Reelajah – there called Raamya – (as also in 1Esdras 5:8 where Ενηνιος is added), in order to suggest a degree of completeness (Williamson). The first three names in this list refer to leaders who played a role in the post-exilic period. Zerubbabel was an important figure during the process of rebuilding the temple. The same applies to Jeshua. 2:3-20 A large group of ‘returnees’ is indicated by their ancestor. The Hebrew expression benēyX denotes a group of people who know they are descendants of X. It is noteworthy that many names in Ezra 2:3-20, actually occur elsewhere in the books of Ezra and Nehemiah – both in Chapter 8 – but hardly known as pre-exilic persons. This may be due to the fact those were the names of those who were deported to Babylon. In II Kgs 24-25 this exile is mentioned, but not the names of the deportees. 1Esdras 5:15 offers a small addition to Ezra 5:16. Azur and Hodia mentioned there are most likely adopted from the list of those who agreed to the treaty of Nehemiah (Neh. 10:18-19).

2:21-35 In this part of the list an interesting phenomenon occurs. Most of the ‘returnees’ are referred to as benēyX meaning ‘coming from X’. However, four times the phrase ’anšēyY, ‘the men of Y’, is used (Ezra 2:22, 23, 27 63

See Bortz, IdentitätundKontinuität, 113.

42

Ezra1-2

and 28). There is little difference in meaning, but the different wording could indicate different sources. It has been suggested that this is a more topographically organized part of the list and would indicate groups that had not been in exile and who had joined the ‘returnees’ after the return.64 2:36-58 The cultic personnel are divided into different classes. In the list in Ezra 2 only four priestly families are mentioned, although the numbers are very large. According to Williamson, we find in Ezra 8:2-3 a short list of priests who returned later in conjunction with Ezra. However, the listed persons are not considered as priests there. Interestingly, these priests in Ezra 2 are not seen specifically as ‘sons of Aaron’. Only 74 Levites are counted among the ‘returnees’. According to Leuchter, the three consecutive groups – singers, gatekeepers and netînîm – should be seen as Levites also.65 Later, in the book of Ezra, some Levites are recruited to go back to Jerusalem in the company of Ezra. Williamson explains the small number of Levites by assuming that only few Levites were taken captive because of their relatively low status. This suggestion is difficult to assess. ‘Singers’ played an important role in the cult. In Ezra 2:41, they are referred to as ‘sons of Asaph’. A collection of psalms were understood to have been written by Asaph (Ps. 50; 73-83). In the book of Chronicles, the sons of Asaph play a major role. According to I Chron. 16:5, Asaph was the chief of the singers at the time of David.66 In pre-exilic Israel, ‘gatekeepers’ only functioned in the control of the city, as can be derived from II Kgs 7:11. After the exile, their function gradually shifted to the cultic realm. The last group of the cult personnel consists of two subgroups: netînîm, ‘temple servants’, and the benē‘abdēšelōmō, ‘descendants of the servants of Solomon’. Both groups are mentioned only in post-exilic texts, alongside Ezra and Nehemiah, only in I Chron. 9:2. According to Ezra 8:20, David and the princes had given the netînîm on behalf of the Levites, an obvious anachronism. The netînîm were temple servants (with Williamson).67 Their name means ‘the given ones’, which causes one to think that they are of 64 Thus: J.P. Weinberg, ‘Collectives Named after Localities in Achaemenid Judah’, ArOr42 (1974), 341-53. 65 Leuchter, ‘The Levites in Exile’. 66 See N. Amzallag, EsauinJerusalem:TheRiseofaSeiriteReligiousEliteinZionat thePersianPeriod (Cahiers de la Revue Biblique 85), Pende 2015, 16-18. 67 With Stevens, Temples,Tithes,andTaxes, 117; Leuchter, ‘The Levites in Exile’, 588590; contra Weinberg, Citizen-TempleCommunity, 75-91, who classifies them as craftsmen.

LookingbackatthereturnfromExile

43

non-Israelite, possibly Gibeonite (cf. Josh. 9:27), origin and were to be regarded as a sort of temple slaves.68 According to Ezra 7:24, they were like the priests, Levites, singers and gatekeepers; exempt from tax payment. Possibly, it concerns people that were given to the temple by their parents in fulfilment of a vow. The position of Gunneweg who sees them as foreigners – in view of their names – is unconvincing. Something similar applies to the ‘descendants of the servants of Solomon’. They too, were not slaves but performed work in the service of the temple.69 2:59-63 ThefollowingcameupfromthetownsofTelMelah,TelHarsha, Kerub,AddonandImmer,buttheycouldnotshowthattheirfamilies weredescendedfromIsrael:  Thesonsof  Delaiah,TobiahandNekoda 652  Andfromamongthepriests:  ThesonsofHobaiah,HakkozandBarzillai  (a man who had married a daughter of Barzillai the Gileadite andwascalledbythatname).  Thesesearchedfortheirfamilyrecords,buttheycouldnotfind themandsowereexcludedfromthepriesthoodasunclean.  The governor ordered them not to eat any of the most sacred food until there was a priest ministering with the Urim and Thummim. Some groups failed in demonstrating their origin. It concerns three lay families and three priestly families. They had searched in vain for a ketab hammityaḥsîm, ‘a written certificate from the register’. A ketab was, according to Esth. 3:14, an official document in which register(s) could be searched, but this is not clear. For the laity this meant that they were denied access to the community. For the priests, the failure had an even stronger effect: they were excluded priesthood. By order of the governor it was forbidden for them to eat the most holy, by which is meant the sacrificial meals. Stevens, Temples,Tithes,andTaxes, 117, thinks they were the Judaean equivalent of the širku from the Mesopotamian temples; see Bortz, IdentitätundKontinuität, 75-76. 68 Already J. Wellhausen, Prologomena zur Geschichte Israels, Berlin 1882, 145; M. Haran, ‘The Gibeonites, the nethinim and the sons of Solomon’s servants’, VT 11 (1961), 159-69; this idea was possibly influenced by the negative image of the netînîm in Rabbinic texts, for instance Mishna Qiddushim 4:1, where they are construed as mamzer. See, however, B.A. Levine, ‘The Nethînîm’, JBL 82 (1963), 207-212; Williamson; Weinberg, Citizen-Temple Community, 75-91; D.N. Fulton, Considering Nehemiah’s Judah (FAT 2/80), Tübingen 2015, 36-40. 69 See also Fulton, Considering, 40-42.

44

Ezra1-2

For indicating the governor, the Persian loanword tiršātā’ is used. This word also occurs in Neh. 7:65; 69 (70); 8: 9; 10: 2 (1). In the last two texts, Nehemiah is called a tiršātā’. There have been various proposals for the etymology of the title (see Williamson, Becker).70 Most likely, the noun can be associated with Old Persian *tarsa-, ‘to fear’ and Avestan taršta, ‘awe authoritative’. Hence, the name would mean something like ‘he that is feared’, which corresponds to our ‘excellency’. In Ezra 2 // Neh. 7:65 it is not clear which person is presented as the governor. Some want to identify him with Zerubbabel.71 It’s better to be careful in this matter and to suggest no identification (as Williamson; Gunneweg).

The group of priests under consideration were denied access until they could prove, at any given moment, through mantic means – that they still belonged to the people. The mantic utensils to be used were the Urim and Thummim. These are objects that were worn in the breastplate of the ephod of the high priest. The precise nature of these oracular stones is not known, but their function is clear. They could be used for consulting the deity in difficult decisions in personal or political life, as evidenced by many texts that reflect the period of Saul and David. These objects were the remains of mantic practice. Through the Urim and Thummim, one could know the will of God (Fried).72 It is noteworthy that the Greek translator of 1 Esdras renders Urim and Thummim with ‘light and truth’ (1 Esdras 5:40), apparently to avoid confusion with Greek oracle practices.

2:64-67 Thewholecommunitynumbered 42,360,  besidestheir7,337maleandfemaleslaves;andtheyalsohad200 maleandfemalesingers.  Theyhad736horses,245mules,  435camelsand6,720donkeys. The list ends with numbers. It is remarkable that the number of 42,360 of ‘returnees’ stated in v. 64, is about 10,000 higher than the sum of all hitherto numbers mentioned in Ezra 2. No satisfactory explanation for this difference can be found, unless one assumes that not all members of the community belonged to the ‘returnees’ or, that the final number was based on a totally independent tradition.73 Noteworthy here is the use of the term qāhāl for the community. Qāhālcan refer to all kinds of community. Ps. 26:5 refers

70

Bortz, IdentitätundKontinuität, 80. A. Alt, KleineSchriftenzurGeschichtedesVolkesIsrael 2, Berlin 1953, 333; Galling, StudienzurGeschichteIsraels, 81. 72 See C. van Dam, TheUrimandThummim:AMeansofRevelationinAncientIsrael, Winona Lake 1997; L. Fried, ‘Did Second Temple High Priests Possess the Urim and Thummim?’, JHS7 (2007), # 3. 73 Thus: P.L. Redditt, ‘The Census List in Ezra 2 and Nehemiah 7: A Suggestion’, in: I. Kalimi (ed.), New Perspectives on Ezra-Nehemiah: History and Historiography, Text, Literature,andInterpretation,Winona Lake 2012, 223–40. 71

LookingbackatthereturnfromExile

45

to a ‘community of evildoers’. Judg. 20:2 uses the noun for a military group. When, however, in Ezra and Nehemiah the post-exilic community is called a qāhāl, this refers to a more religious community. According to the tradition of Deut. 9:10; 10:4; 18:16 the experience of receiving the Torah at Horeb was, for Israel, a fundamental ‘day of the community’. Qāhāl,therefore, refers to an ideal image of a religious community that follows the paths of God. The slaves who came along, singers – male and female – (v. 65) will be excluded from that community.74 Many row and pack animals were taken with them by the ‘returnees’ (vv. 66-67). 2:68-70 WhentheyarrivedatthehouseoftheLordinJerusalem,some of the heads of the families gave freewill offerings toward the rebuildingofthehouseofGodonitssite.  According to their ability they gave to the treasury for this work 61,000 darics of gold, 5,000 minas of silver and 100 priestly garments.  The priests, the Levites, the musicians, the gatekeepers and the temple servants settled in their own towns, along with some of theotherpeople,andtherestoftheIsraelitessettledintheirtowns. The list concludes with the statement that some – but not all – persons mentioned volunteered a voluntary offering for the rebuilding of the temple. The relationship with the gifts mentioned in Ezra 1:4-6 is unclear. Noteworthy is the name of the currency darkemôn, ‘drachma’, since gold drachmas were not yet being coined during the reign of Cyrus. That happened only a few decades later (Fried).75

74

See Amzallag, EsauinJerusalem, 15-31. See C.M. Harrisson, CoinsofthePersianSatraps, Ph.D. diss., University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, 1982; Stevens, Temples,Tithes,andTaxes, 47. 75

EZRA 3-6

THE REBUILDING IN RETROSPECT

ESSENTIALS AND PERSPECTIVES Faith cannot exist without community. Although faith has individualistic aspects and is often based on personal choices, the community enriches that individual belief with contour, depth and recognition. For a community, a holy place is integral. The communal expression of faith in worship is, of course, possible everywhere: from a silent heath to a packed football stadium. However, a distinctive space that is visited regularly in the rhythm of the times, has a great advantage as a symbolic reference to God. Synagogue, church and mosque are superior to the living room or the kitchen table. Because of what, where and how they are, they are a symbol of the presence of God in the world. In the era after the Babylonian exile, there was an urgency in Jerusalem to rebuild the former temple which had largely been destroyed. Those who believed in YHWH, felt the need for a sacred space that could serve as a landmark for faith and community and as a reference to God. Establishing this sacred space on the site of Solomon’s temple would be seen to be an element of continuity. They desired continuity with the existing traditions in order to visualize eternity in time. Construction of sacred places in a culture that is alien to the religion of the builders, is never without problems. In medieval Europe, the builders of cathedrals were supported by the Christian government. After the Reformation, clandestine churches arose in many places. In democratic societies with a good eye for minority interests, the construction of places of worship – provided they meet certain conditions – never should be problematic. In more dictatorial states, these things are difficult. Jews, Christians and Muslims have met opposition when constructing their shrines in a different cultural context. Ezra 3-6 is a fascinating story about hope and the thwarting of rebuilding plans. The religious and political conflicts in and around Jerusalem also reveal the human factor. There is the obvious fear of opponents for the power that the returnees might build a strong Jerusalem. This fear is perennial and universal. This fear leads to false solutions, such as interrupting the rebuilding of the temple. The deadlock in the story of Ezra 3-6 is broken by a wonderful interplay of religion and politics. It is noteworthy that God does not operate as an

Therebuildinginretrospect

47

actor in Ezra 3-6, his role is, rather, that of the prompter on the world stage. The appearance of the prophets Haggai and Zacharias constitutes a decisive moment. Their action could only be decisive, because the Persian government ultimately supported the plans to rebuild. Who knows from experience the richness of a sacred space for the community of believers cannot but concede other believers such a space.

SCHOLARLY

EXPOSITION

I: INTRODUCTION TO

THE EXEGESIS

The second narrative moment involves Ezra chapters 3 to 6. These chapters narrate the rebuilding of the Temple of Jerusalem and the resistance that the project met from different parties in the country. A first reading of this chapter raises some questions, such as: who were the Persian kings mentioned in the text? When did the rebuilding take place? I want to answer these questions after a detour. From the book of Ezra, it is not immediately clear when the rebuilding took place. The traditional view that it took place during the reign of Darius (I Hystaspes, 522-486) in 515 BCE, meets some reservations. This view is most clearly expressed in a reconstruction by Baruch Halpern.1 According to him, Ezra 3-6 should be understood as a coherent narrative about the (re)construction of the temple during the reign of Darius, which ends with the celebration of the Passover. However, there is an anomaly in the text that is visible when looking at the individuals Jeshua and Zerubbabel. In Ezra 3:2 they are mentioned as priests present at the construction of an altar to the God of Israel during the reign of Cyrus. They are still in office in Ezra 5:2 where they are involved in the initiative to rebuild the temple in Jerusalem during the reign of the Persian king named Darius who reigned

1 B. Halpern, ‘A Historiographic Commentary on Ezra 1-6: Achronological Narrative and Dual Chronology in Israelite Historiography’, in: W.H. Propp, B. Halpern, D.N. Freedman (eds), The Hebrew Bible and its Interpreters (Biblical and Judaic Studies 1), Winona Lake 1990, 103–229; see also W.Th. in der Smitten, Esra, Quellen, Überlieferung und Geschichte (SSN 15), Assen 1973, 5; McConville; M.E. Stevens, Temples,Tithes,andTaxes:TheTemple andtheEconomicLifeofAncientIsrael, Peabody 2006, 41-59; L.S. Fried, ‘Deus ex Machina and Plot Construction in Ezra 1-6’, in: M.J. Boda, L.M. Wray Beal (eds), Prophets,Prophecy, andAncientIsraeliteHostoriography, Winona Lake 2013, 189; R. Zarghamee, Discovering Cyrus:ThePersianConquerorAstridetheAncientWorld (Iran’s Age of Empire 1), Washington 2013, 233-35; R. Heckl, Neuanfang und Kontinuität in Jerusalem: Studien zu den hermeneutischen Strategien im Esra-Nehemia-Buch (FAT 104), Tübingen 2016, 81-217; B. Hensel, JudaundSamaria:ZumVerhältniszweiernachexilischerJahwismen (FAT 110), Göttingen 2016, 283-302; L.-S. Tiemeyer, Ezra-Nehemiah: Israel’s Quest for Identity (T & T Clark Study Guides to the Old Testament), London, New York 2017, 40-44; Shepherd & Wright; A.M. Bortz, Identität und Kontinuität Form und Funktion der Rückkehrerliste Esr2 (BZAW 512), Berlin, New York 2018, 149-79.

48

Ezra3-6

after Cyrus, Ahasuerus and Artaxerxes – and after the exchange of letters mentioned in Ezra 4 during the reign of Ahasuerus and Artaxerxes. Within the development of the story this does not have to be a significant chronological problem, although either a relatively rapid change of power in the Persian court or, the longevity of these two leaders must then be assumed. Problems arise when the text-internal chronology relates to data concerning the reigns of the Persian kings. To whom does Darius in Ezra 5 refer: Darius I Hystaspes (522-486) or Darius II Ochus (424-405)?2 In principle, both are possible, but both identifications generate problems when it comes to the order within the correspondence of Ezra 3-5. When – as has been done traditionally – the starting point is an identification with Darius I, then the letter mentioned in Ezra 5 would be older than the letters referred to in Ezra 4. This, however, is problematic in view of the contents of the letters. At the end of Ezra 4, the rebuilding is stopped and in Ezra 5 authorization is given to continue the activities. If Darius in Ezra 5 would be Darius I, then a reversed historical order must be considered. This is, however, totally futile.3 The identification with Darius II, on the other hand, assumes that Jeshua and Zerubbabel would have lived superhumanly long. Cyrus died in 529, and Darius II Ochus conquered the Persian throne in 424. These observations lead to the realization that the narrative in Ezra 3-6 is a complex and composed text, not so much based on eyewitness reports but, constructed with an apparent intention to relate past events in a nonchronological order.4 I, therefore, propose to look firstly at Ezra 3-6 from a narratological perspective.5 Whoever wishes to gain an insight into the internal dynamics of a narrative would do well to first formulate its mainnarrativeprogram. This view is based upon the assumption that each story is characterized by a plot or a development from the beginning of the story to the end. This development is the result of the action or, lack thereof and also the dialogue or silence of the actors within the story. This development may be tracked by comparing the initial situation with the final position. At the beginning of Ezra 3-6, the celebration of burnt offerings and the Feast of Booths by a group of ‘returnees’ at an altar for YHWH in Jerusalem (Ezra 3:1-6) is 2 See the comparable remarks by P.R. Davies, ‘Cultural Memory in Practice: Ezra and Nehemiah’, in: L.L. Grabbe (ed.), ‘Even God Cannot Change the Past’: Reflections on Seventeen Years of the European Seminar on Historical Methodology (LHB/OTS 663), London, New York 2018, 116-17. 3 Contra Halpern, ‘A Historiographic Commentary on Ezra 1-6’, 103–29. 4 See also G. Garbini, HistoryandIdeologyinAncientIsrael, London 1988, 153–54. 5 Adopting the methodology as elaborated by E.J. van Wolde, A Semiotic Analysis of Genesis2-3:ASemioticTheoryandMethodofAnalysisappliedtotheStoryoftheGarden ofEden(SSN 25), Assen Maastricht 1989, esp. 41–68; see also T. Eagleton, LiteraryTheory: AnIntroduction. Oxford 1983.

Therebuildinginretrospect

49

narrated. A juxtaposed comment in 3:6 states that the foundation for the temple of YHWH had not yet been laid. At the end of Ezra 6 three features are listed: – Completion of the reconstruction on the third day of the month Adar in the sixth year of Darius (6:15); – The temple dedication (6:16-18) and – The celebration of the Passover (6:19-22). From this narrative movement, it may be deduced that two movements are of great importance within Ezra 3-6: (1) (2)

From the Feast of Booths to Passover From an altar to the temple.

These movements indicate that the mainnarrativeprogram of the story in Ezra 3-6 can be formulated as follows: the elimination of the noncelebration of the Passover.6 The rebuilding of the temple causing the change from ‘altar’ to ‘temple’, can be classified as an embedded narrative program, which is a necessary condition for the success of the main narrative program. This main narrative program is narrated in fifteen episodes: (1)

Ezra 3:1-6

(2) (3)

Ezra 3:7-11 Ezra 3:12-13

(4)

Ezra 4:1-6

(5)

Ezra 4:7

(6)

Ezra 4:8-16

(7)

Ezra 4:17-22

(8)

Ezra 4:23-24

Celebration of burnt offering and the Feast of Booths; observation that the foundation of the temple has not yet been established; Laying the foundation of the temple; celebrations; Note about the mourning process by those who had seen the first temple; Opposition on the part of the ‘enemies of Judah and Benjamin’ in the reign of Cyrus, Darius and Ahasuerus; Reference to a letter by ‘Bishlam, Mithredath, Tabeel and his colleagues during the reign of Artaxerxes; Letter written by Rehum, Shimshai, and many others to warn Artaxerxes the risk that the Persian government can run in the repair of the walls of Jerusalem; Decree of the Persian king that it is forbidden to rebuild the city of Jerusalem; Reading of the Decree of Artaxerxes; stopping the work of the house of God in Jerusalem;

6 See: E.K. Holt og K. Nielsen (eds), Bibelkundskab:IntroduktiontilDetGamleTestamente, Aarhus 1998, 206.

50 (9)

Ezra3-6 Ezra 5:1-2

(10) Ezra 5:3-5

(11) Ezra 5:6-17

(12) Ezra 6:1-5 (13) Ezra 6:6-12 (14) Ezra 6:13-18

(15) Ezra 6:19-22

Resumption of building the house of God after prophetic intervention by Haggai and Zechariah; Intervention in favour of Tattenai asking who had given permission to the resumption of construction; Letter from Tattenai (and others) to Darius with the question of the legitimacy of the rebuilding of the house of God in Jerusalem. This letter contains an embedded story about Tattenai and the elders. The narrator of Ezra 3-6 provides the answer to the question in 5:3 through this embedded story; Find of the Decree of Cyrus in the archives to Ekbatana; Letter from Darius to Tattenai: command to rebuild the house; Implementing the command of Darius; completion of construction of the house; dedication of the temple; celebration of the Passover.

In these fifteen episodes, the various actions of different actors are described: to build, to celebrate, to write (including letters), to stop an initiated activity, to issue a decree, to resume the discontinued operation, celebrating the Passover, animal slaughter etc. The actors may be divided into the following groups: (1) (2)

(3)

Israel; Judaeans; returnees. opponents: – ‘adversaries of Judah and Benjamin’ during the reign of Cyrus; – a group that wrote a complaint at the time of the reign of Ahasuerus; – Rehum, Shimshai, and many others; – King Artaxerxes. Supporters: – King Darius; – the prophets Haggai and Zechariah; – Tattenai (but only after the command of Darius) – Phoenician craftsmen.

Therebuildinginretrospect

51

Different ‘story’ agencies and their actions can be summarized in the following semiotic scheme:7 Israel

Passover

Israel

Prophets Darius Tattenai

Israelites

opponents anonymous letter writers Tattenai Shimshai etc. Artaxerxes

Diagram1. This diagram deserves some explanation. The upper horizontal line represents the axis of intention. This summarizes what purpose is to be achieved by the destinator (Israel): It is the intention of the destinator (Israel) that the destined (Israel) will become the owner of the object (the celebration of the Passover). To achieve this goal, the first temple must be built as the house in which the Passover is to be celebrated. Israel being the destinator is easy to argue, it is, however, equally possible to see YHWH as the destinator. Although I disagree with Eskenazi that Ezra 6:14 should be construed as a key verse: ‘functioning as a linchpin for the whole book’8, I do agree that a key-element of the belief system of the narrator is present in this verse. The text – Ezra 6:14: ‘they completed the construction according to the commandment of the God of Israel and according to the decree of Cyrus, Darius, and Artaxerxes king of Persia’ refers to the view that, in constructing the temple in Jerusalem, a divine commandment was fulfilled. The vertical axis is the axis of the operation. Driven by the intent of the destinator (Israel or YHWH), acts are carried out by the subject (individual ‘returnees’) which aim to ensure that the intent of the destinator is implemented. In Ezra 3-6, these acts consist primarily in building and preparing. The lower line in the diagram represents the axis of contrast or conflict. The subject is flanked by two groups: helpers and opponents. Helpers perform acts that further the central intention. Opponents do the reverse; their acts wish to prevent the implementation of the intention. 7

See also Eagleton, LiteraryTheory. T.C. Eskenazi, In an Age of Prose: A Literary Approach to Ezra-Nehemiah (SBL MS 36), Atlanta 1988, 59. 8

52

Ezra3-6

Diagram 1 may thus be understood as a summary of the fabric of the story in Ezra 3-6. The text Ezra 3-6 is a linguistic representation of this story.9 Within Ezra 3-6 the intention of the mainnarrativeprogram soon seems to reach its goal. The episodes (2) and (3) narrate about measures that bring the intention close to implementation. Episodes (4), (5) and (6), however, contain story-moments which frustrate the main narrative program. Disagreement and the sending of letters cause a complication leading to the decree of Artaxerxes (7) that prohibits work on the walls of Jerusalem. That it will implement the intention seems further away than ever. German literary scholar Quasthoff introduced the concept of Planbruch (frustration) in her analysis of stories and novellas from daily life.10 This concept refers to the following. Stories that straightforwardly reach their goal are appreciated less enthusiastically than stories that contain a complication. This refers to an element in the story that is preventing the intended outcome. At the same time, however, a development is caused in the story as the element of Planbruch often refers to the factual point of a story. When the concept Planbruch is applied to Ezra 3-6, then it may be noticed that the frustration is caused by the actions of the opponents. In episode (10) the building of the house of God is resumed. Here, the story seems to reach its fulfillment. There is, however, a second Planbruch due to the intervention of Tattenai. The correspondence with the Persian court in episodes (12) and (13) does not lead to stopping the construction of the temple – as the first correspondence did, but it opens the way for the completion of the construction of the house of God. Planbruch is not just a story-element that frustrates the intent of the destinator, but also highlights an important pointe in the story. In Ezra 3-6 this pointe seems to be the following: The desire to (re)build the temple in Jerusalem – in order there to celebrate Passover – is not only the initiative of some ‘returnees’, but ultimately has divine (episode 10) and imperial (episode 13) support. This narratological detour yields the following results: 1. Ezra 5 refers to Darius II Ochus (424-405) who ruled after Artaxerxes I. The text of Ezra 3-6 is therefore only realized after Darius II. 2. Ezra 3-6 is, as a composition, fictitious. While some elements may be historically reliable, the composition of the text indicates a correlation of events that never occurred.

9 Other texts, such as 1 Esdras and Flav. Josephus, Ant. XI, are representations of the story. Being different in composition and phrasing, they have different emphases. 10 U.M. Quasthoff, ErzähleninGesprächen:LinguistischeUntersuchungenzuStrukturen undFunktionenamBeispieleinerKommunikationsformdesAlltags (Kommunikationen und Institutionen 1), Tübingen 1980, 27.53-60; Fried, ‘Deus ex Machina’, connects the narrative changes in Ezra 1-6 with an element from Aristotelian rhetorics, i.e. the unsurmountable changes of fate.

Therebuildinginretrospect

53

3. The retrospection at the rebuilding in Ezra 3-6 voices the view of the ‘returnees’. Here, the so-called Ezra group is speaking, depositing the claim that their initiative to rebuild the temple – and hence, implicitly, their way of celebrating Passover – is the only correct way and has the support of God and emperor. 4. There is no need to construe certain parts of Ezra 3-6 as later additions.11

SCHOLARLY

EXPOSITION

II: EXEGESIS

CELEBRATIONS ON THE ALTAR EZRA 3:1-6

1  2   3

4  5

6 

WhentheseventhmonthcameandthechildrenofIsraelwereinthecities, thepeoplegatheredasonemaninJerusalem. Jeshua,thesonofJozadakstoodupwithhisbrothersthepriests andZerubbabel,thesonofShealtielwithhisbrothers. TheybuiltanaltarfortheGodofIsrael,inordertoofferburntofferingsuponitasitiswrittenofthelawofMoses,themanofGod. Theysetupthealtaronitsfoundationsincetheywerefilledwithdread forthepeoplesofthelands. They offered burnt offerings on it for YHWH, morning offerings and eveningofferings. TheycelebratedtheFeastofBooths,asitwaswritten. Theyoffereddailyaccordingtothenumberofburntofferingsaccordingtotheordinanceasforeveryday. Afterwards, there were continuous burnt offerings as for the new moonsandforalltheappointedfestivalsofYHWHthatweresanctified andforeveryfreewillofferingforYHWH. Fromthefirstdayoftheseventhmonthonwardtheystartedtooffer burntofferingforYHWH. ThehouseofYHWHwas,however,notfoundedyet.

In view of the arguments given above, I will make no effort to date the events described in these verses. Traditionally, this episode is dated immediately after the return from Babylon or, associated with the activities of Haggai and Zechariah. In my opinion, the question of dating is also insoluble since no Persian ruler is mentioned here. At the beginning of his retrospective,

11 Pace: S. Grätz, ‘Die Aramäische Chronik des Esrabuches und die Rolle der Ältesten in Esr 5–6’, ZAW 118 (2006), 405-22, who supposes Ezra 5-6 to be a text from the Hellenistic era.

54

Ezra3-6

the narrator depicts a situation in Jerusalem around a rebuilt altar. Immediately striking is the fact that the various cultic acts are presented as fully in line with tradition. The burnt offerings are brought to the altar as prescribed in the torah of Moses, the man of God (Ezra 3:2). The Feast of Booths is celebrated ‘as required’ (Ezra 3:4). The daily number of offerings is kemišpaṭ, ‘according to the writing’ (Ezra 3:4). This indicates that the shape of the rituals is a correct form of religion. By implication, any other type of sacrifice or worship is seen to be incorrect.12 3:1

When the seventh month came and the children of Israel were in the cities,thepeoplegatheredasonemaninJerusalem.

This verse is taken from Neh. 7:72-8:1 (2) with a few differences. The first difference is that in Ezra the indication for the place, ‘the open space before the water-gate’ has been changed into the less specific ‘Jerusalem’. The second difference is that the phrase ‘their cities’ from Nehemiah became ‘cities’ in Ezra. There is no reason to change becārîminbecārēhem in Ezra 3:1 (contra BHS; Williamson; Blenkinsopp).13 In view of the borrowing from the Book of Nehemiah the indication of a time stamp, ‘the seventh month’, does not have to refer to the period after the return to the country. The ‘seventh month’ refers to the Israelite cultic calendar that began with the spring and in which there were some important festivals (Breneman; Jobsen). 3:2  

Jeshua,thesonofJozadakstoodupwithhisbrothersthepriests andZerubbabel,thesonofShealtielwithhisbrothers. They built an altar for the God of Israel, in order to offer burnt offeringsuponitasitiswrittenofthelawofMoses,themanofGod.

Under the direction of Jeshua and Zerubabel the construction of an altar begins. Both men have the adjustment we’eḥāw, literally ‘with his brothers’. The mention of these relatives has the intention to show that the rebuilding of the temple was not only a project of the leaders, but that wider sections of the community did participate also.14 The purpose of the construction of the altar is to create the possibility to offer burnt offerings. Whether the cult in Jerusalem was in whatever form continued during the exile, is difficult to answer (see Jagersma; Shepherd & Wright). Jer. 41:5 could indicate

12

My tripartite delimitation of Ezra 3 differs only slightly from the one proposed by S.C. Matzal, ‘The Structure of Ezra 3’, VT68 (2018), 436-43. 13 Bortz, IdentitätundKontinuität, 84. 14 See S. Japhet, ‘Shesbazzar and Zerubbabel’, ZAW 94 (1982), 84; Williamson.

Therebuildinginretrospect

55

continuity, but this text refers only to the very beginnings of the exile – even before the persons listed wanting to offer in Jerusalem, fled to Egypt.15 However, the narrator of Ezra 3-6 stresses that the shape of worship, such as implemented by the ‘returnees’ as recorded, is the only correct one. Burnt offerings. An colā, literally ‘rising gift’, is a form of sacrifice in which the sacrificial animal was burned on the altar partly or completely. The resulting rising fragrance of the sacrifice served to please/placate God.

3:3 

They set up the altar on its foundation since they were filled with dreadforthepeoplesofthelands. TheyofferedburntofferingsonitforYHWH,morningofferingsand eveningofferings.

This verse narrates the construction of the altar. A number of things are remarkable. The altar is built calmekonotāw. Often this phrase is translated ‘on its foundations’ (KJV). In texts like Zech. 5:11 and Ezra 2:68 mekonāh clearly refers to a place that is owned by the main character. With Williamson, I suggest that Ezra 3:3 emphasizes the continuity of place, both of the altar and the temple (see also Blenkinsopp, Becker; Shepherd & Wright). It is a feature of religious history that temples and churches are often built on the remains of holy sites of previous cultures. Ezra 3:3 again emphasizes the continuity with the pre-exilic temple. The altar was built because of fear. The Hebrew construction is rather complicated: kî be’ēmāh calēhem … contains an unusual combination of a causal conjunction (kî) with a preposition (be) introducing a nominal clause.16 In II Chron. 16:10, however, similar syntax occurs (Williamson), therefore Ezra 3:3 should be translated with something like ‘because of the fear for the peoples of the lands that had come over them’. The noun ’ēmāh refers to a fear that goes deeper than ordinary fear. The word indicates a nearly unbearable, terrible fear (see Gen. 15:12; Exod. 23:27; Ps. 88:16). The character of the fear of the peoples of the lands is unclear from Ezra 3:3. One might think of a deep-seated fear of cultic uncleanness. There is no valid reason to regard these words as a later gloss (contra: Rudolph, with: Fensham). The term camhā’ereṣ does not, in the Hebrew Bible, unambiguously refer to a particular group.17 Within the Books of Ezra and Nehemiah, the term

15 D.R. Jones, ‘The Cessation of Sacrifice after the Destruction of the Temple in 586 B.C.’, JThS 14 (1963), 12-31, argues that the Jerusalem cult came to a complete standstill. 16 See the proposal by Bortz, IdentitätundKontinuität, 85.152-53. 17 See still E.W. Nicholson, ‘The Meaning of the Expression ‘am ha’arets in the Old Testament’, JSS10 (1965), 59-66.

56

Ezra3-6

refers to that part of the population of the Persian province of Yehud whose ancestors had not suffered exile. Between the lines of Ezra and Nehemiah one can detect that this population of the country was seen by the benêgolah as people with an improper form of Yahwism that also polluted the land with their behaviour.18 3:4-5 TheycelebratedtheFeastofBooths,asitwaswritten.  They offered daily according to the number of burnt offerings accordingtotheordinanceasforeveryday.  Afterwards, there were continuous burnt offerings as for the new moons and for all the appointed festivals of YHWH that were sanctifiedandforeveryfreewillofferingforYHWH. With Bortz, I do not construe Ezra 3:4-5 as a later addition.19 The mention of a specific cultic festival amidst more general offerings and rituals cannot be construed as a convincing argument. Around the altar, the Feast of Booths is then celebrated. This was a complex ritual with a dual background. Partly, the ritual goes back to a harvest festival and partly a memory of salvation. The sukkā, ‘booth’, is a relic from agricultural life. During the harvest the workers stayed overnight at this temporary habitation on the field. The celebration of the harvest festival is associated with the memory of the Exodus from Egypt.20 The festival usually lasted for seven days and began on the 15th day of the seventh month. In Num. 29:12-38 a detailed description of how this festival is to be celebrated is given. Since it may be assumed that Num. 29 was part of the P-source, it should be assumed that this text describes the post-exilic form of celebration. A shorter, and possibly pre-exilic, description is to be found in Deut. 16:13-15. The message in Ezra 3:4-5 is consistent with both descriptions. Since Keil, exegetes often add a verb to the first part of v. 5 – ‘Then theybrought the daily burnt offering’ (Williamson, Jagersma). This addition, however, is unnecessary, since the verb of v. 4 also can be

18 See J. Blenkinsopp, Judaism,theFirstPhase:ThePlaceofEzraandNehemiahinthe OriginsofJudaism, Grand Rapids 2009, 12-43. 117-59. 19 Bortz, Identität und Kontinuität, 155-56; pace, e.g. Gunneweg; J. Pakkala, Ezra the Scribe: The Development of Ezra 7–10 and Nehemiah 8 (BZAW 347), Berlin, New York 2004, 143. 20 See, e.g. G. MacRae, ‘The Meaning and Evolution of the Feast of Tabernacles’, CBQ22 (1960), 251-75; H. Ulfgard, The Story of Sukkot: The Setting, Shaping, and Sequel of the BiblicalFeastofTabernacles(Beitrage zur Geschichte der biblischen Exegese 34), Tübingen 1998; K.W. Weyde, TheAppointedFestivalsofYHWH.TheFestivalCalendarinLeviticus 23andtheSukkôtFestivalinOtherBiblicalTexts (FAT 2/4), Tubingen 2003; T. Bänziger, «Jauchzen und Weinen»: Ambivalente Restauration in Jehud: Theologische Konzepte der WiederherstellunginEsra-Nehemia, Zürich 2014, 151-53.

Therebuildinginretrospect

57

construed as a verb ruling the first clause of v. 5. 1Esdras 5:51 reads here καὶ θυσίας σαββάτων, which is a specifying supplement (contra Myers, Williamson). In Neh. 8:14-19 (Hebrew 13-18), the reintroduction of the Feast of Booths, in response to the reading out of the tôrā by Ezra, is reported. As, in my view, Neh. 8 is located in an important part of the narrative development of the Book Nehemiah and, since the Books of Ezra and Nehemiah should be construed as originally independent documents, a historicizing question for the order and consistency of the messages on the Feast of Booths makes little sense.21 In my opinion, the reintroduction mentioned in Neh. 8 is part of a series of events that can be located in the middle of the fifth century. Ezra 3 is part of a pseudepigraphic discourse supporting ideas about temple and community that have arisen around 400. 3:6 

Fromthefirstdayoftheseventhmonthonwardtheystartedtooffer burntofferingsforYHWH. ThehouseofYHWHwas,however,notfoundedyet.

This last verse actually gives a summary of the reports in the previous verses. The time-indicator ‘on the first day of the seventh month’ does not refer to the beginning of the celebration of the Feast of Booths on an unusual date, but wants to show that the offering was done lawfully ever since. The message ends with the discovery of a painful absence. Many modern translations render the text as ‘the foundation for the temple of YHWH was not yet laid’ (thus KJV, Fried). I find this a little too strong translation for ‘the temple of YHWH was not founded yet’ (compare. LXX and see I Kgs 6:37).22

THE FOUNDATION

OF THE TEMPLE

3:7-11

7

8

They gave silver to the stonemasons and the carpenters, and food, drink, and oil to the Sidonians and the Tyrians in order to bring cedar-wood from the Lebanon to the port of Jaffa according to the permissionofCyrus,thekingofPersiatheyhad. InthesecondyearaftertheirarrivaltothehouseofGodinJerusalem, in the second month, Zerubbabel, the son of Shealtiel, and Jeshua,

21 Pace D. Laird, NegotiatingPowerinEzraNehemiah(Ancient Israel and its Literature, 26), Atlanta 2016, 113. 22 Thus: Bortz, IdentitätundKontinuität, 86.

58

9

10

11  

Ezra3-6 theson of Jozadak, with the rest of their brothers, the priests, the Levites,andallwhohadcomefromthecaptivitytoJerusalemstarted the work and they appointed Levites who were twenty years of age andoldertooverseetheworkatthehouseofYHWH. Then stood up Jeshua, with his sons and brothers, together with Kadmiel and his sons, the sons of Judah, the sons of Henadad with their sons and brothers the Levites, to oversee the workmen in the templeofGod. WhenthebuildershadlaidthefoundationofthehouseofYHWH,the priestsstoodintheirapparelwithtrumpets,andtheLevites,thesons ofAsaph,withcymbals,topraiseYHWHaccordingtothedirections ofKingDavidofIsrael. Theysang,praisingandgivingthankstoYHWH: ‘ForHeisgood,forHisloving-kindnessisforeveruponIsrael.’ AllthepeopleshoutedwithagreatshoutwhentheypraisedYHWH becausethefoundationofthehouseofYHWHwaslaid.

This section describes the preparation for the construction of the temple. Phraseology and vocabulary are strongly reminiscent of the language in the reports in the Books of Chronicles on the construction of the first temple. 3:7

Theygavesilvertothestonemasonsandthecarpenters,andfood, drink, and oil to the Sidonians and the Tyrians in order to bring cedar-woodfromtheLebanontotheportofJaffaaccordingtothe permissionofCyrus,thekingofPersiatheyhad.

The necessary building materials had to come from elsewhere. The text is very similar to I Chron. 22:2-4 and II Chron. 2:7-15 (ET 8-16). ‘Cedar of the Lebanon’ was a proverbially strong blend of wood.23 A shipment from Jaffa is also mentioned in II Chron. 2:15 (ET 16). Jaffa was an ancient harbour city on the northeast coast of Israel, also referred to in the legendary story of Jonah. The city was already inhabited in the early Bronze Age and had a natural harbour. The city is also mentioned in the Amarna letters (EA 296:33). The parts of the text on food rations for the Phoenician craftsmen too contain a clear allusion to the construction of the first temple. Again, the narrator wants to underline the continuity.

23 See also L.S. Fried, The Priest and the Great King: Temple-Palace Relations in the PersianEmpire (Biblical and Judaic Studies 10), Winona Lake 2004, 169-70.

Therebuildinginretrospect

59

3:8-9 In the second year after their arrival to the house of God in Jerusalem, in the second month, Zerubbabel, the son of Shealtiel, andJeshua,thesonofJozadak,withtherestoftheirbrothers,the priests, theLevites, and all who had come from the captivity to Jerusalem started the work and they appointed Levites who were twenty years of age and older to oversee the work at the house of YHWH.  Then stood up Jeshua, with his sons and brothers, together with Kadmielandhissons,thesonsofJudah,thesonsofHenadadwith theirsonsandbrotherstheLevites,tooverseetheworkmeninthe templeofGod. Solomon’s building the temple also started in the ‘second month’ (cf. I Kgs 6:1 // II Chron. 3:2; Fensham; Jagersma; Shepherd & Wright).24 The indicator of time ‘in the second year after their arrival’ does not refer to the moment of the return, but to the time which is assumed in Ezra 3:1-6 (Williamson). The act of appointing Levites as supervisors of the building-process recalls I Chron. 23:4, where David takes measures to prepare for the temple construction. Noteworthy is the indication that these are the Levites who had returned ‘from captivity’. The word šebîis a designation for the exilic age that assesses the period quite negatively.25 The author once more makes it clear that the monitoring of the construction of the temple was in the hands of people who had survived captivity. To underline their status, the Levitical families are mentioned by name (see also Fried). 3:10-11 WhenthebuildershadlaidthefoundationofthehouseofYHWH, thepriestsstoodintheirapparelwithtrumpets,andtheLevites,the sons of Asaph, with cymbals, to praise YHWH according to the directionsofKingDavidofIsrael.  Theysang,praisingandgivingthankstoYHWH:  ‘ForHeisgood,forHisloving-kindnessisforeveruponIsrael.’  AllthepeopleshoutedwithagreatshoutwhentheypraisedYHWH becausethefoundationofthehouseofYHWHwaslaid. The emphasis here is not so much on the exact progress of the construction process, but rather on the ritual surrounding the laying of the foundation

24 Bortz, IdentitätundKontinuität, 150. On the verb ḥll, ‘to begin action’, see Matzal, ‘The Structure of Ezra 3’, 440. 25 For the various indicators of the exilic period and their connotations, see: A.M. Wetter, ‘Balancing the Scales: The Construction of the Exile as Countertradition in the Bible’, in: B. Becking (ed.), FromBabylontoEternity:TheExileRememberedandConstructedinText andTradition (Bible World), London 2010, 34-56.

60

Ezra3-6

(Shepherd & Wright).26 Similar descriptions can be found among others in I Chron. 15-16; II Chron. 5:7. The description of the ritual – with priests in their apparel and trumpets, according to tradition (Num. 10:8-10) is reminiscent of the description given in II Chron. 5:11. The continuity with the pre-exilic cult is underscored by the observation that all this happened c alyedêdāwîd, ‘according to the directions of David’. David is seen here as the person who gave the Jerusalemite cult its liturgical form. Part of the ritual is the praise of YHWH. The chosen words – ‘for he is good: for his mercy endures for ever toward Israel’- are known from different psalms of praise, Ps. 100:4-5; 106:1; 107:1; 136:1. This does not imply that there has been a temple consecration ritual that had functioned as the original SitzimLeben of these Psalms. The praise of the Priests is taken over by the people present and there is a great joy because of the building of the temple for YHWH. This joy stands in severe contrast to the above-mentioned fear and to the grief that is described in the following scene.

BUILDING AND MOURNING EZRA 3:12-13

12

13

ManyofthepriestsandLevitesandheadsoffathers’houses,theold menwhohadseenthefirsttemple,weptwithaloudvoicewhenthe foundation of this house was laid before their eyes, while many shoutedaloudforjoy; sothatthepeoplecouldnotdistinguishthesoundoftheshoutofjoy fromthesoundoftheweepingofthepeople,forthepeopleshouted withaloudshout,andthesoundwasheardtoagreatdistance.

At the ritual also present were a number of ‘old men who had seen the first house (RSV)’. It is pointed out rightly, that their presence indicates an element of continuity with the pre-exilic temple (Myers; McConville; Williamson; Blenkinsopp; Fensham). There is, however, a problem when it comes to the possibility of the picture. The first temple was destroyed in 587 BCE. When the rebuilding took place during the reign of Darius I – which is otherwise doubtful – then there are seventy years between destruction and rebuilding. The view of Blenkinsopp that the adverbial adjunct ‘in their eyes’ means ‘in their mind’, is sympathetic, but has no ground grammatically and, moreover, does not solve the problem. How many of

26 Jagersma unconvincingly argues that the verb npd would mean ‘to repair’ in this context.

Therebuildinginretrospect

61

those who had seen the temple consciously in 587, were still alive? Moreover, this interpretation is based upon the problematic translation ‘had seen’ for rā’û. This translation suggests a finalized act, while the perfect tense presupposes a time equal to the description. In this context, Liz Fried pointed at the Mesopotamian kalû ritual that was performed in the rebuilding of ruined temples.27 During this ritual a stone from the ruined temple was supposed to be set aside. Around that stone all sorts of rituals took place, including singing balags, lamentations over the destruction of a city. Ezra 3:12-13 refers to a local adaptation of this ritual. The ‘weeping’ (bkh) at the sight of the ‘stone from the first temple’28 would have existed in the starting of laments for what had been lost, reminiscent to the later Jewish tradition to recite on Tisha B’Av, the Book of Lamentations – remembering the destruction of the temple (see Fried). This complaint is matched by the joy (Myers, McConville).29 For bystanders, both emotional outbursts were indistinguishable. In this way expression is given to the ambivalence of a new beginning. Both the complaint and the joy are expressed so violently that their sounds could be heard for miles around. A similar detail can also be found in the description of the ceremony at the dedication of the restored walls in Neh. 12:43.

OFFERING, REJECTION, COMPLAINT EZRA 4:1-6

1  2  

The adversaries of Judah and Benjamin heard that the children of theexilewere buildingthetempleforYHWH,GodofIsrael. TheyapproachedZerubbabelandtheheadsofthehousesofthefathers andsaidtothem, ‘Letusbuildwithyou,forwe,likeyou,seekyourGod. WehavebeensacrificingtoHimsincethedaysofEsarhaddon kingofAssyria,whobroughtusuphere.’

27 Fried, ThePriestandtheGreatKing, 171-173. The text of the ritual is to be found at F. Thureau-Dangin, RituelsAccadiens, Paris 1921, 35-59. 28 See also Zech. 4:7. 29 See K. de Troyer, ‘‘Sounding Trumpets with Loud Shouts’: Emotional Responses to Temple Building; Ezra and Esdras’, in: S.C. Reif, R. Egger-Wentzel (eds), Ancient Jewish PrayersandEmotions:EmotionsAssociatedwithJewishPrayerinandaroundtheSecond TemplePeriod (Deuterocanonical and Cognate Literature Studies 26), Berlin 2015, 41–57.

62

Ezra3-6

3

Zerubbabel and Jeshua and the rest of the heads of the houses of thefathersofIsraelsaidtothem, ‘Youhavenothingincommonwithusinbuildingahousetoour God. WeourselveswilltogetherbuildforYHWH,theGodofIsrael, asKingCyrus,thekingofPersiahascommandedus.’ It happened that the people of the land discouraged the people of Judahandfrightenedthemfrombuilding, hiringcounsellorsagainstthemtofrustratetheirplanallthedaysof CyruskingofPersia,evenintothereignofDariuskingofPersia. InthereignofAhasuerus–inthebeginningofhisreign–theywrote anaccusationconcerningtheinhabitantsofJudahandJerusalem.

   4 5 6

In this brief report, several conflicts are reported caused by two different groups and possibly from different periods of the Persian era. In Ezra 4:1-6, a number of conflicts is reported by representatives of ‘the common people’ that are a prelude to the larger conflict with the leaders in Samaria. 4:1-3 TheadversariesofJudahandBenjaminheardthatthechildrenof theexilewere  buildingthetempleforYHWH,GodofIsrael.  They approached Zerubbabel and the heads of the houses of the fathersandsaidtothem,  ‘Letusbuildwithyou,forwe,likeyou,seekyourGod.  WehavebeensacrificingtoHimsincethedaysofEsarhaddon kingofAssyria,whobroughtusuphere.’  ZerubbabelandJeshuaandtherestoftheheadsofthehousesofthe fathersofIsraelsaidtothem,  ‘Youhavenothingincommonwithusinbuildingahousetoour God.  WeourselveswilltogetherbuildforYHWH,theGodofIsrael,  asKingCyrus,thekingofPersiahascommandedus.’ Who are meant by the ‘enemies of Judah and Benjamin’ remains unclear. What is clear, is that a group other than ‘the people of the country’ (4:4) are referred to. The expression ‘Judah and Benjamin’ assumes that these enemies came from outside the area. It is therefore quite possible to think of groups in and around Samaria. That they would have been Samaritans, as in the later religious sense is a premature conclusion.30 Although the 30 With Williamson and Hensel, Juda und Samaria, contra M. Cogan, Imperialism and Religion:Assyria,JudahandIsraelintheEighthandSeventhCenturiesB.C.E. (SBL MS 19), Missoula 1974, 102-10.

Therebuildinginretrospect

63

religious conflict between Samaritans and Jews is of a later date, a certain antagonism between the temples of Jerusalem and Gerizim in the fifth century may be assumed.31 From the point of view of those ‘who had been in exile’ they are indeed ‘enemies’. Two things are laid in their mouth. First, that they worship the same God as the golah-community and sacrifice to him. This God, moreover, is not given a name here (Fried). Then, they are presented as the descendants of people who were brought to the area by the Assyrian King Esarhaddon. This latter statement is odd. II Kgs 17:24-41 narrates that people from Babylon were deported by the Assyrian king Sargon II to the area of the former Northern Kingdom. In the beginning, they only worshiped their own gods, but gradually they went over to the worship of YHWH. In Jewish anti-Samaritan polemics, a strong emphasis is given to the tradition that Samaritans – in the religious sense of the word – were the descendants of these would-be deportees. Esarhaddon is, neither in the Hebrew Bible – nor in his own inscriptions, mentioned as a king who would have deported people to the area of Israel. Williamson assumed that Esarhaddon would have successfully campaigned in the Levant. Such an assumed historical context does not make sense for the assertion in Ezra 4:2. The royal inscription Myers and Williamson refer to, contain no record of such a campaign by Esarhaddon. It is only narrated that Manasseh of Judah is one of 22 kings of the West who were supplying Esarhaddon with material for the construction of a new armoury in Nineveh.32 These historical ambiguities lead one to assume a ‘claimed tradition’, although it is placed in the mouth of the ‘enemies of Judah and Benjamin’. They claim that they are ‘seeking’ the same God as the group surrounding Zerubbabel (Jagersma). That claim as such is not denied. Yet Zerubbabel does not enter into any discussion with the request to build the temple together. It might be suspected that in the background, issues concerning the distribution of temple income played a role. The argument of the group of ‘returnees’ is built upon them preferring to carry out the construction on their own, because they had received the authorization of the Persian king Cyrus.

31 See, e.g. B. Becking, ‘On the Identity of the ‘Foreign’ Women in Ezra 9-10’, in: L.L. Grabbe, G.N. Knoppers (eds), ExileandRestorationRevisited:EssaysontheBabylonian andPersianPeriodsinMemoryofPeterR.Ackroyd(Library of Second Temple Studies 73), London, New York 2009, 31-49; R. Pummer, ‘Was there an Altar or a Temple in the Sacred Precinct on Mt. Gerizim?’, JSJ47 (2016), 1-21. 32 ANET, 289-294; R. Borger, Die Inschriften Asarhaddons, Königs von Assyrien (AfO Beiheft 9), Graz 1956, 60 = Nin. A-F v:54-vi:1; M. Weippert, HistorischesTextbuch zumAltenTestament (GAT 10), Göttingen 2010, 339-42.

64

Ezra3-6

Ezra 4:2 contains an interesting Ketîb-Qerê-issue. Q reads welô, ‘and him (we have offered)’, K reads welo’, ‘and not (did we sacrifice)’. Q is supported by LXX; Vulg; Pesh and taken over by many modern translations and most of the commentaries (Williamson, Blenkinsopp; Fensham, Becker, Fried).33 In my view, a case of intentional ambiguity is present, however.34 The positively meant words of the opponents (Q) can also be read as a precursor to the anti-Samaritan controversy. K suggests that they had not sacrificed to God.

4:4-5 It happened that the people of the land discouraged the people of Judah,andfrightenedthemfrombuilding,  hiringcounsellorsagainstthemtofrustratetheirplanallthedays ofCyruskingofPersia,evenintothereignofDariuskingofPersia. The other group of opponents is formed by the ‘people of the land’ already mentioned in 3:3. Verse 4 refers to the result of the actions, while v. 5 shows the concrete actions. They discourage the people of Judah, literally ‘make their hands fall’ (see also Jer. 38: 4). In the clause ‘they started them off’ a Ketîb-Qerê issue is at stake. Q read mebahlîm, ‘they frightened’, K mebalhîm, ‘they were troubling them’. There seems to be no significant difference. In both cases the enemies are sowing uncertainty (Fried). One of the ways in which this was done was ‘bribing’ official advisers. The used verb skr, is attested only here in the Hebrew. The verb is understood as a homonym of śkr, ‘to hire; engage’. In doing so, the ‘enemies’ want to thwart the rebuilding. According to 4:5 this resistance began during the reign of Cyrus and continued well into the reign of Darius. 4:6

InthereignofAhasuerus–inthebeginningofhisreign–theywrote anaccusationconcerningtheinhabitantsofJudahandJerusalem.

This verse has often been interpreted as the beginning of the subsequent correspondence (Myers, Williamson, Blenkinsopp; Fensham; Jobsen; Throntveit; Breneman, Van Wijk-Bos, Hieke; Jagersma, Fried; Shepherd & Wright).35 However, the setumā in the MT after the verse indicates that 4:6 can also be construed as part of the previous reports. A comparison with the delineation of the text in other ancient manuscripts shows that the paragraphing of the MT was not standard. In addition, there is no parallel for Ezra 4:6 in 1Esdras. This leads one to the assumption that Ezra 4:6 is an 33 With as exception: D. Kellermann, ‘Korrektur, Variante, Wahllesart?’, BiZs 24 (1980), 66-67. 34 See Heckl, NeuanfangundKontinuität, 86-87. 35 P.H.W. Lau, ‘Gentile Incorporation into Israel in Ezra-Nehemiah?’, Biblica 90 (2009), 366-69; R. Rothenbusch, ‘… abgesondert zur Tora Gottes hin’: Ethnische und religiöse IdentitätenimEsra/Nehemiabuch (HBS 70), Freiburg, Basel, Wien 2012, 54-61.

Therebuildinginretrospect

65

explanatory gloss, which resulted in more clear interpretation. The authors of the indictment against Judah and Benjamin are thus identified with the ‘people of the land’.36 The glossator would indicate that the opposition continued into the reign of Ahasuerus. The word śiṭnā, ‘accusation’, occurs only here in the Hebrew Bible. The word is etymologically related to śāṭān, ‘adversary; opponent. Since that word is not yet demonized in the Hebrew Bible,37 the deeds of the ‘people of the land’ cannot be construed as satanic actions. ’aḥašwērôš is the Hebrew rendering of the name of the Persian king Khashayarsha. This king is also mentioned in Esther, Daniel and Tobith. He is to be equated with Xerxes I of Persia well known from the battle of Thermopylae. He ruled from 485-465 over the vast Persian Empire.38

LETTER FROM BISHLAM, MITHREDATH, TABEEL,

AND OTHERS

EZRA 4:7

The narrator mentions only that this letter was written but, does not reflect its contents. 4:7



InthedaysofArtaxerxes,Bishlam,Mithredath,Tabeel,andtherest ofhiscolleagues,wrotetoArtaxerxeskingofPersia;andthetext oftheletterwaswritteninAramaicandtranslated: Aramaic.

The authors of this letter are mentioned by name, but that does not reveal their identity. Bishlam should be construed, with Steiner, as a corruption of a theophoric Aramaic personal name *bēlšalām, ‘Bel (Marduk) is peace’.39 He was the chief archivist, commissioned by Artaxerxes prior to the mission

36 For details, see B. Becking, ‘Ezra 4,6 as an Explanatory Gloss: An Implication from a Search on Paragraphing and Interpretation’, in: M.C.A. Korpel, P. Sanders (eds), Textual BoundariesintheBible:TheirImpactonInterpretation (Pericope 9), Leuven 2017, 171-85. 37 See, e.g. P.L. Day, An Adversary in Heaven: Satan in the Hebrew Bible (HSM 43), Atlanta 1988. 38 See P. Briant, Historiedel’empirePerse.DeCyrusàAlexandre, Paris 1996, 531-85; H.T. Wallinga, Xerxes’GreekAdventure:TheNavalPerspective (Mnemosyne Supplement, 265), Leiden 2005; E. Bridges, ImaginingXerxes:AncientPerspectivesonaPersianKing, London, New York 2014; ; L.L. Schulte, My Shepherd, though You Do not Know Me: ThePersianRoyalPropagandaModelintheNehemiahMemoir (BEThL 78), Leuven 2016, 121-37. 39 R.C. Steiner, ‘Why Bishlam (Ezra 4:7) Cannot Rest “In Peace”: On the Aramaic and Hebrew Sound Changes that Conspired to Blot Out the Remembrance of Bel-Shalam the Archivist’, JBL126 (2007), 392-401; see also Jagersma.

66

Ezra3-6

of Nehemiah and seeking for documents regarding the rebuilding of the temple is an interesting proposal, but difficult to prove.40 If this thesis is correct, then the action of the letter-writers should not be located in Samaria (see most commentaries, Williamson among others), but in Persia itself. Mithredath is a relatively common Persian name of Median origin: miΘradāta, ‘created by Mithra’. The Mithredath mentioned here is not the same person as his namesake in 1:8. Presumably, he was a Persian official. The conjunction before his name should be construed as having expanding force: ‘Bishlam wrote, along with …’.41 This view also does justice to the singular form of the verb kātab. The name ṭabe’ēl, ‘Tabeel; God is good’, is probably Aramaic.42 The name Bishlam has puzzled exegetes. LXX translated very literally: ἐν εἰρήνῃ and reads ‘Tabeel Mithredath wrote in peace …’ (Pesh. as well). This interpretation is followed by Klostermann43 and some commentaries (Rudolph, Galling, Blenkinsopp, Fried). 1 Esdras 1:12 (Βεσλεμος) and Vulg (Balsamus, III Ezra 2:16; Beselam, Vulg Ezra 4:7) construe a personal name here. This view is followed by other commentaries (Williamson, among others). Rainey interprets the name as a misreading of Bēlšunu, a governor of the satrapy Eber-Nari.44 He was governor in the middle of the fourth century BCE.45 It is difficult to see in him the same person as mentioned in Ezra 4:7. The proposal of Steiner (mentioned above) to see the name as a corruption of a theophoric Aramaic personal name *bēlšalām, ‘Bel (Marduk) is peace’, still has the strongest case.46

They wrote a letter, together with the ‘rest of his colleagues’. The third person singular suffix refers to Bishlam who, apparently, was the principal among the three enemies mentioned. They wrote to Artaxerxes the Persian ruler of the day. ’artaḥšaśtā, ‘Artaxerxes’ is the Hebrew rendering of the ancient Persian name Artaxšacā, ‘he whose government is sincere’. The name is spelled differently in different instances in Ezra and Nehemiah. Later documents name him Ardeshir. His

40 R.C. Steiner, ‘Bishlam’s Archival Search Report in Nehemiah’s Archive: Multiple Introductions and Reverse Chronological Order as Clues to the Origin of the Aramaic Letters in Ezra 4-6’, JBL125 (2006), 641-85. 41 Thus Steiner, ‘Bishlam’s Archival Search Report’, 641-645. 42 The name is attested elsewhere in the Hebrew Bible only once: in Isa. 7:6, Rezin of Damascus and Pekah of Israel are plotting to set a son of Tabeal on the throne in Jeruzalem. In Isa. 7:6, the name is probably intentionally vocalised as ṭabe’al, ‘Good for nothing’. 43 A. Klostermann, ‘Esra und Nehemia’, RE, 516. 44 A.F. Rainey, ‘The Satrapy ‘Beyond the River’’, AJBA 1 (1968–73), 58; the name is known from judicial documents, e.g. M. San Nicolò, Der Neubabylonische Lehrvertrag in rechtsvergleichenderBetrachtung. München 1950, No. 23:1 mEN-šú-nu lúNAM-e!-bir! -. 45 M. Stolper, ‘Belšunu the Satrap’, in: F. Rochberg-Halton (ed.), Language, Literature and History: Philological and Historical Studies Presented to Erica Reiner (American Oriental Series 67), New Haven 1987, 389-402; Briant, Historiedel’empirePerse, 618-19. 46 Steiner, ‘Why Bishlam (Ezra 4:7) Cannot Rest “In Peace”’, 392-401.

Therebuildinginretrospect

67

nickname was Longomanus as his right hand was longer than his left.47 He ruled over Persia and Egypt between 465-424. He made peace in Kallias with the Delian League in 449, which ended the Persian wars.

Their letter was written in Aramaic (see introduction).

OFFICIAL COMPLAINT EZRA 4:8-16

8 9

10

11  12   13   14  15 

47

RehumthecommanderandShimshaithescribewrotealetterabout JerusalemtoKingArtaxerxes,asfollows. ThusRehumthecommanderandShimshaithescribeandtherestof theircolleagues,thejudgesandthelessergovernors,theofficials,the secretaries,theErechites,theBabylonians,thepeoplefromSusa,the Elamites, andtherestofthenationswhichthegreatandhonourableOsnappar haddeportedandsettledinthecityofSamaria,andintherestofthe regionBeyondtheRiver.Andnow: thisisthecopyoftheletterwhichtheysenttohim: ‘ToKingArtaxerxes:Yourservants,themenfromBeyondthe River,andnow, letitbeknowntotheking,thattheYehuditeswhocameupfrom you havecometousinJerusalem. Theyarerebuildingtherebelliousandevilcityandarefinishing thewallsandrepairingthefoundations.  Nowletitbeknowntotheking,thatifthatcityisrebuilt andthewallsarefinished,theywillnotpaytribute,custom,or tax. Thatwilldamagethetreasuryofthekings. Nowbecauseweeatthesaltofthepalace,anditisnotfitting forus toseetheking’sdishonour,thereforewehavesentandinformed theking. Let, therefore, a search be made in the record books of your fathers. And you will discover in the record books and learn that that city isarebelliouscityanddamagingtokingsandprovinces,

According to: Plutarchus, Artaxerxes, l. 1. c. 1. 11:129.

68

Ezra3-6

16

andthattheyhaveincitedrevoltwithinitinpastdays;therefore,thatcitywaslaidwaste. We let the king know that, if that city is rebuilt and the walls finished, asaresult,youwillhavenopossessioninBeyondtheRiver.’



This passage contains an Aramaic letter by some leaders from Samaria to the central government in Persia. As argued in the introduction, this letter is not a copy of a document that once really existed, but a piafraus.48 For the composition of his story, the narrator invented this correspondence. A few things stand out. (1) In the self-image that the writers in vv. 9-11 show, it is remarkable that they present themselves as a group – like the ‘returnees’ – coming from elsewhere: it should be noted that this label has been given by the narrator. (2) The narrator of Ezra 3-6 allows the letter writers to paint a very negative image of Jerusalem as well as of the ‘returnees’ (12-16). This city would traditionally ‘have been a hotbed of rebellion’. Allowing the ‘returnees’ to rebuild the city walls is giving them a chance to harm the imperial interests throughout the satrapy. 4:8

RehumthecommanderandShimshaithescribewrotealetterabout JerusalemtoKingArtaxerxes,asfollows.

The authors of the letter are mentioned by name. Rehum was a becēlṭecēm. The Aramaic expression indicates a Persian officer whose designation derives from the Assyrian bēlṭēmi, ‘Master/head of the orders or decisions’, in short, someone who was responsible for the administration of all types of orders (Myers, Fried).49 This was an administrative function that can be translated as ‘chancellor’ (so: Williamson) without military connotations. Shimshai was sapera’, ‘the writer, secretary’, a position also held by Ezra (7:12.21), subordinate to a becēlṭecēm.

48

See L.L. Grabbe, ‘The ‘Persian Documents’ in the Book of Ezra: Are They Authentic?’, in: O. Lipschits, M. Oeming (eds), JudahandtheJudaeansinthePersianPeriod, Winona Lake 2006, 544-45 (531-70). 49 The documents from Elephantine are also familiar with this office.

Therebuildinginretrospect 4:9-10



69

ThusRehumthecommanderandShimshaithescribeandtherest oftheircolleagues,thejudgesandthelessergovernors,theofficials, the secretaries, the Erechites, the Babylonians, the people from Susa,theElamites, andtherestofthenations,whichthegreatandhonourableOsnappar had deported and settled in the city of Samaria, and in the rest of theregionBeyondtheRiver.Andnow:

The letter was also written on behalf of many people who are portrayed as deportees from various Babylonian, but also Persian, territories. The NIV renders the passage as if three professional groups and five cities are named. Other modern translations – echoing LXX; Vulg; KJV – refer to a series of eight groups. Williamson summarizes the list as containing two professional groups and eight geographical indications. This lack of clarity is because the professional designations in the first four groups are not very common. Dînājē’ are not residents of an otherwise unknown city Dina (Gunneweg), but ‘judges’ (read dajjānajā’; Williamson; Blenkinsopp, Fried). ’aparsakājē’ are not to be construed as Afarsatites (Gunneweg). The word is an Aramaic rendering of a Persian official title: *fraištaka, ‘envoy’ (Williamson; Fensham, Fried).50 ṭarpelājē’ are not residents of a town Tarpel or Tripolis (Gunneweg; Williamson, Becker; Shepherd & Wright),51 but represent a Persian caste of officials (Blenkinsopp; Fensham). ’aparsājē’ are not Apharsites or residents of Sippar (Williamson). The word is an Aramaic rendering of Old Persian *p(f)rasaka, ‘watcher’. ’arkewājē’ are most likely people from Erech (Williamson). Erech is the biblical name for the southern Mesopotamian city of Uruk (see Gen. 10:10). In the early third millennium BCE, the city was an important center in the Sumerian culture. Gilgamesh was king in Uruk. Later, the city was less important, but in the New Babylonian period she experienced a new heyday.52 babelājē’ were people from the New Babylonian capital Babel (Williamson). šûšankājē’ were people from the Persian city of Susa, which is located, according to the narrator of Ezra, in Elam. The old city had been razed to the ground by the Assyrian king Assurbanipal in the middle of the seventh century. Under Darius I the city was restored to its former glory, as is evident from its construction inscription DSf.53

50 See also W. Eilers, Iranische Beamtennamen in der Keilschriftlichen Überlieferung, Leipzig 1949, 30-40. 51 See also K. Galling, ‘Kronzeugen des Artaxerxes? Eine Interpretation von Esra 4, 9f‘, ZAW 63 (1951), 66-74. 52 See: J. Jordan, Uruk-Warka.NachdenAusgrabungenderdeutschenOrient-Gesellschaft (WVDO 51), Osnabrück 2006. 53 DSf: building inscription for the stronghold of Darius, see: J. Wiesehöfer, Dasantike Persien von 550 v. Chr. bis 650 n. Chr., München, Zürich 1994, 50; Briant, Histoire de l’EmpirePerse, 180; A. Kuhrt, ThePersianEmpire:ACorpusofSourcesfromtheAchaemenid Period, London, New York 2007, 492-95; R. Boucharlat, ‘Susa under Achaemenid

70

Ezra3-6

All these persons were descendants of people who had been deported by Osnappar to the area of Samaria and other places in the satrapy Ebir-nari. The Aramaic verbs used – glh Ha., ‘bringing into exile’, and ytb Ha., ‘to make dwell’ – indicate actions that suggest a process of exile but are inconclusive about whether or not this concerned forced or voluntary migration. The identity of the great and illustrious Osnappar is not quite certain. Often the name is seen as a corruption of the name of the Assyrian king Ashurbanipal (Myers, Blenkinsopp, Williamson; Fensham; Breneman, Becker; Shepherd & Wright).54 This identification is supported by the fact that Assurbanipal was the only Assyrian king to conquer Elam.55 Against the identification stands the fact that cities like Uruk and Susa became important again only after the Assyrian period. Moreover, the identification encounters major linguistic problems.56 Occasionally Osnappar is identified with Esarhaddon.57 It should be noted that Osnappar is not presented as king in Ezra 4:10, as has been done with Esarhaddon (4:2). Possibly, he was a high Persian officer responsible for the migrations. All this means that reading this report as an historical source makes little sense. It is more important to understand that the narrator of Ezra 3-6 classifies opponents as people who came from elsewhere. 4:11-16 thisisthecopyoftheletterwhichtheysenttohim:  ‘ToKingArtaxerxes:Yourservants,themenfromBeyondtheRiver, andnow,  letitbeknowntotheking,thattheYehuditeswhocameupfromyou  havecometousinJerusalem.  They are rebuilding the rebellious and evil city and are finishing thewallsandrepairingthefoundations.  Nowletitbeknowntotheking,thatifthatcityisrebuilt  andthewallsarefinished,theywillnotpaytribute,custom,ortax.  Thatwilldamagethetreasuryofthekings.

Rule’, in: J. Curtis (ed.) MesopotamiaandIraninthePersianPeriod:ConquestandImperialism559-331BC, London 1997, 54-67. 54 A.K. Grayson, ‘Osnappar’, ABD 5 (1992), 50; D.R. Miller, ‘Objectives and consequences of the Neo-Assyrian imperial exercise’, ReligionandTheology 16 (2009), 124-49. 55 In 642; see P.D. Gerardi, Assurbanipal’sElamiteCampaigns:ALiteraryandPolitical Study (Ph.D., University of Pennsylvania), 1987. 56 For details, see A.R. Millard, ‘Assyrian Royal Names in Biblical Hebrew’, JSS 21 (1976), 11-12; Williamson (who, however, argues in favour of the identification). 57 T.B. Dozeman, ‘Geography and History in Herodotus and in Ezra-Nehemiah’, JBL 122 (2003), 461 (449-66).

Therebuildinginretrospect  

71

Nowbecauseweeatthesaltofthepalaceanditisnotfittingforus to see the king’s dishonour, therefore we have sent and informed theking. Let,therefore,asearchbemadeintherecordbooksofyourfathers. Andyouwilldiscoverintherecordbooksandlearnthatthatcityis arebelliouscityanddamagingtokingsandprovincesandthatthey have incited revolt within it in past days; therefore, that city was laidwaste. Weletthekingknowthat,ifthatcityisrebuiltandthewallsfinished, asaresult,youwillhavenopossessioninBeyondtheRiver.’

 

 

This textual unit is presented as a paršegen, ‘copy’. As often when referring to official papers, the narrator uses a loanword from the Old Persian: *patičayana, ‘copy’.58 In the letter to Artaxerxes, the narrator has his opponents from Samaria describe a certain image of Jerusalem. In view of the literary analysis given above, one should refrain from trying to anchor this letter in an uprising of Jerusalem during the reign of Artaxerxes I. Exegetes holding this letter to be authentic, usually place it against the background of the revolt by Megabyzus, satrap of Ebirnari, against the central government in 448 (Rudolph, Galling, Williamson; Blenkinsopp)59 or, the Egyptian strife for independence that started in 459 and was only beaten down in 454.60 In my view, Ezra 3-6 is an introduction to the events of Ezra 7-10 that are to be located in the reign of Artaxerxes II. The rebellion of Jerusalem might then be connected to the message on Bagoses narrated by Flavius Josephus. Incited by the governor Bagoses, Joshua committed a fratricide in the temple on the high priest Johanan. Thus, the temple was defiled. As a punishment by the Persians, it was forbidden for seven years to hold full worship in the temple in Jerusalem.61 Jerusalem is portrayed as a rebellious city. The Aramaean root mrd is used in the Behistun inscription of Darius I to identify those groups and individuals who rebelled against the central government.62 In the Babylonian version of this inscription, a form of the verb nakrû, ‘to be rebellious’, is consistently used. This implies that a serious accusation is made. This

58

See also Ezra 4:23; 5:6; 7:11. On this revolt see Ctesias, Persica, XVI.40; Briant, Histoiredel’EmpirePerse, 119-54; J.P. Stronk, ‘Ctesias of Cnidus, a Reappraisal’, Mnemosyne60 (2007), 25-58. 60 Rainey, ‘The Satrapy ‘Beyond the River’’, 63. 61 Josephus, Ant. XI 297-301; see L.L. Grabbe, A History of Jews and Judaism in the SecondTemplePeriodVol.1 (LSTS 47), London, New York 2004, 319-321; R. Albertz, ‘The Controversy about Judean versus Israelite Identity and the Persian Government: A New Interpretation of the Bagoses Story (Antiquitates XI.297-301)’, in: G.N. Knoppers, M. Oeming, O. Lipschits (eds), NegotiatingIdentities, Winona Lake 2012, 483-504. 62 TADAE C.2. 59

72

Ezra3-6

accusation is argued with references to two activities: the completion of the construction of the walls and the excavation of the foundations. It is unclear whether the foundations mentioned are those of the temple. The Aramaic word ’uššā’ is derived – via the Akkadian – from the Sumerian UŠ, a word that indicates the basic and bearing layer in the foundation of a building, usually a temple or a palace.63 The rebellion of Jerusalem, therefore, concerns not so much just the rebuilding of the temple, but the restoration of the walls of the city that will lead, according to the letter writers, to a form of independence with the result that no longer will they pay taxes to the Persian court. The mentioning of melaḥ, ‘salt’, is at first sight surprising. The ‘salt of the palace’ does not so much refer to salt as an expensive means of payment, but to ‘salt’ as a collateral of a treaty or a covenant (Blenkinsopp; Fensham; Becker; see also Lev. 2:3; Num. 18:19; II Chron. 13: ‘covenant of salt’). The writers of the letter present themselves as good subjects. The NeoAssyrian vassal treaties included a rule that required the subordinates to report any form of rebellion against the central Assyrian authority.64 This obligation to report is, in all probability, adopted by the Babylonians and the Persians. Moreover, the narrator allows the writers to say that, in their view, the rebellion of Jerusalem is not an isolated incident but part of an ongoing history of resistance. Therefore, the letter writers also recommend a search of the archives for all the wickedness of Jerusalem. Bitter irony is at stake and is accompanied with a diplomatic spreading of fear. It is obviously absurd to think that the recovery of the city will lead to the loss of Persian interests in the province ebirnari. In Ezra 4:13 – as in Ezra 4:20; 7:23 – three kinds of taxes are referred to. Mindā or middā, comparable to Akk. mandattu, ‘gift’, was a form of taxation in silver or in kind on land that had to be paid directly to the king annually.65 Belô, compare Akk. biltu, probably was a poll tax based on work done. Halāk, compare Persian Haräka, ‘land tax’, was a type of tax related to the amount of property.66

63 See C.G. Tuland, ‘᾿Uššayyā᾿ and ᾿Uššarnâ: A Clarification of Terms, Date, and Text’, JNES 17 (1958), 269-75. 64 See, e.g. the Loyalty Oaths from the reign of Esarhaddon VTE= SAA 2.6:108-122. 65 See Wiesehöfer, AntikePersien, 94-98. 66 See Stevens, Temples,Tithes,andTaxes, 111.

Therebuildinginretrospect

73

ANSWER, DECREE,

BAN

EZRA 4:17-22

17

 18 19

20

21 22

ThekingsentacommandtoRehumthecommander,toShimshaithe scribe, and to the rest of their colleagues who live in Samaria and BeyondtheRiver: ‘Peace.Andnow, the letter that you sent to us has been translated and read beforeme. Adecreehasbeenissuedbyme.Asearchhasbeenmade.Ithas beendiscoveredthatthatcityhasrisen-upagainstthekingsin dayspast.Rebellionandrevolthavebeenperpetratedinit. TherehavebeenmightykingsoverJerusalem.Theyhaveruled over the whole of Beyond the river. Toll, tribute, and custom, waspaidtothem. Now,issueadecreetomakethesemenstop,thatthecitymay notberebuiltuntiladecreeisissuedbyme. Be warned of being negligent in acting this out; why should damageincreasetothedetrimentofthekings?’

The Persian king replies and reports that the letter was read to him. A search revealed to him the rebellious character of Jerusalem. He recommends that the city, therefore, should not be rebuilt. Williamson argues that the letter of the king follows faithfully the conventions of the art of Achaemenid letter writing. Schwiderski, however, has demonstrated that the letter belongs to a type that was not only used in the Persian period, but also in later eras.67 4:17



ThekingsentacommandtoRehumthecommander,toShimshaithe scribe,andtotherestoftheircolleagueswholiveinSamariaand BeyondtheRiver: ‘Peace.Andnow,

The answer is presented as a pitgāmā. This Aramaic word is derived from the Old Persian patigāma, ‘message’. In Aramaic, the word has the connotation of ‘(power)word; decision; command’.68 The contents of the letter

67 D. Schwiderski, Handbuch des nordwestsemitischen Briefformulars. Ein Beitrag zur EchtheitsfragederaramäischenBriefedesEsrabuches (BZAW 295), Berlin New York 2000, esp. 343-80; see also, Grabbe, ‘The ‘Persian Documents’, 545-46, and my remarks above on the challenged authenticity of the Aramaic documents in the Book of Ezra. 68 G.G. Cameron, ‘Persepolis Treasury Tablets Old and New’, JNES17 (1958), 161-76; a derivation from Greek fṭegma – thus Torrey, EzraStudies, 177 – is very unlikely.

74

Ezra3-6

therefore contain a final decision. The king wishes his subjects šelām, ‘good’, a conventional formula. 4:18-19 theletterthatyousenttoushasbeentranslatedandreadbefore me.  Adecreehasbeenissuedbyme.Asearchhasbeenmade.Ithasbeen discoveredthatthatcityhasrisen-upagainstthekingsindayspast. Rebellionandrevolthavebeenperpetratedinit. The king starts his answer with the message that the letter sent to him was read mepāraš. Traditionally, this word is translated as ‘clearly’. That translation is not without its problems, because it suggests that letters sometimes were read in an unclear way. With Williamson, I argue for another translation and see two possibilities. (1) The word is to be construed as a Pa. part. of the root prš, ‘to split’. (2) The word is a representation of the Persian term (h)uzvarisûn, that indicates the method that was developed in the Persian chancellery to translate documents (Fensham, Becker).69 In my view, the letter was read out loud ‘part by part’, hence, in its entirety and verbatim. The king reports that he has acted and that his archives made clear that Jerusalem was indeed a stubborn and rebellious city. In addition, the narrator of Ezra 3-6 has the king taking over verbatim the reproaches of the leaders in Samaria. Examples of rebellion are not mentioned by name. 4:20

TherehavebeenmightykingsoverJerusalem.Theyhaveruledover thewholeofBeyondtheriver.Toll,tribute,andcustom,waspaidto them.

This verse has correctly been interpreted as a description of the anti-Persian behaviour of the rulers in Jerusalem (Blenkinsopp, Becker). Williamson remarks that this description is difficult to connect with the historical reality and that at instances where there is a possibility – David and Solomon ruled over a large area – the events took place well before the period of Assyrian and Babylonian power over Jerusalem. He therefore proposes to construe the ‘kings’ in this verse as Persian rulers over Jerusalem, the mighty predecessors of Artaxerxes who received tribute, even from Jerusalem. His view, however, does not consider the fictional character of this letter.

69 See J. Naveh, J.C. Greenfield, ‘Hebrew and Aramaic in the Persian Period’, in: W. D. Davies, L. Finkelstein (eds), TheCambridgeHistoryofJudaism1:Introduction:The PersianPeriod, Cambridge 1984, 116.

Therebuildinginretrospect

75

4:21-22 Now,issueadecreetomakethesemenstop,thatthecitymaynot berebuiltuntiladecreeisissuedbyme.  Bewarnedofbeingnegligentinactingthisout;whyshoulddamage increasetothedetrimentofthekings?’ The king decrees a cessation of the rebuilding of the city of Jerusalem. It is remarkable that in a dispute over the temple construction, the leaders in Samaria mention the rebuilding of the walls and the king orders that the city not be rebuilt. The reconstruction should be discontinued until the time of any other decision. This clause seems contrary to the common view of the immutability of the laws of the Medes and Persians.70 On the narrative level, the possibility remains open that the reconstruction can still take place. The letter ends with a clause that places all the responsibility for the consequences of the injunction upon the leaders of Samaria.

STOPPING THE REBUILDING EZRA 4:23-24

23 Then, as soon as the copy of King Artaxerxes’ document was read beforeRehumandShimshaithescribeandtheircolleagues,theywent inhastetoJerusalemtotheYehuditesandstoppedthembythepower ofarms. 24 ThentheworkonthehouseofGodinJerusalemceased,anditwas stoppeduntilthesecondyearofthereignofDariuskingofPersia. After the reading of a copy of the letter of Artaxerxes, Rechum and his associates travel to Jerusalem, where they successfully use the letter as leverage to stop the construction of the temple. Williamson has rightly pointed out that, in doing so, they did not abuse their powers. For paršegen, ‘copy’, see above 4:11. The verb that is used to describe the interruption of the rebuilding, bṭl, already appeared in the command of Artaxerxes (4:21). This verb has, in itself, an aspect of continuity. The cessation seems to be intended as a definitive breakdown of the activity. Remarkably, there is no more talk about the rebuilding of the city or the walls, but the rebuilding of the temple is stopped completely. The observation that the work was ceased until the second year of Darius provides a window on the fifth chapter. Since (within the narrative world) Darius is presented as the successor of Artaxerxes, this name can only refer to Ochus 70 That image is derived from Esth. 1:19 and Dan. 6:9. These texts, however, reflect Hellenistic rather than Persian legal customs.

76

Ezra3-6

Darius II (424-405). The reasoning, of among others Williamson, that here the much-earlier Darius I is meant, is not valid. They are overly motivated by the idea that the rebuilding of the temple had already been completed in 515. Darius II came to power after a bloody succession. After the death of Artaxerxes I his son Xerxes II ascended the throne. However, the only legal son of Artaxerxes was murdered after six weeks by his half-brother Sogdianus. Ochus, a brother of Sogdianus, however, rebelled and after fierce battle ascended the throne as Darius II. During his administration, the central power of the Persian Empire weakened continuously, which affected Persian influence in Greece and Egypt; the latter gained independence after the death of Darius II.

PROPHETIC INTERVENTION EZRA 5: 1-2

1

The prophets, Haggai the prophet and Zechariah the son of Iddo, prophesiedtotheJudaeanswhowereinJudahandJerusalem,inthe nameoftheGodofIsrael,whowasoverthem. ThenZerubbabelthesonofShealtielandJeshuathesonofJozadak stoodupandbegantorebuildthehouseofGod,whichisinJerusalem;andtheprophetsofGodwerewiththemsupportingthem.

2

Despite the activities in the previous chapter, the occurrence of a pair of prophets ensures that the rebuilding is again recorded. 5:1

The prophets, Haggai the prophet and Zechariah the son of Iddo, prophesied to the Judaeans who were in Judah and Jerusalem, in thenameoftheGodofIsrael,whowasoverthem.

The designation of the two prophets is somewhat cumbersome. It seems if they are called prophet twice. Combining a verb-form in the singular with multiple subject wehitnabbî’ … nebî’āyā, ‘the prophets … prophesied’, should be construed as a hendiadys which also indicates the collectivity of the two prophets. Haggai is called: nebî’ā, ‘the prophet’. This indication is lacking in 1 Esdras 6:1, but is present in LXX Ezra 5:1.71 Zechariah is specified as ‘the son of Iddo’, while in Zech. 1:1 ‘the son of Berechiah’ is presented as ‘the son of Iddo’. The Aramaic noun bar, ‘son’, can also

71

See on this J.R. Porter, ‘Son or Grandson (Ezra X.6)?’, JThS 17 (1966), 57-58.

Therebuildinginretrospect

77

mean ‘offspring; grandson’72. An identification with Iddo the head of a priestly family (Neh. 12: 4, 16) is unlikely (contra Williamson). The content of their prophecy is not mentioned. It may be assumed that it would have matched the message found in the Biblical books of Haggai and Zech. 1-8. That message is tantamount to a summons for the swift rebuilding of the temple as a spiritual centre for the religion of the ‘returnees’.73 Traditionally, the performance of both prophets is connected to the construction of the temple under Darius I at the end of the sixth century (Williamson; Fensham; Becker; Fried).74 This view is based on the occurrence of the Persian monarch in Hag. 1:1; 2:1, 11; Zech. 1:1, 7; 7:1 and the assumption of an early return from exile and the connected relatively rapid rebuilding of the temple. The identity of Darius in Haggai and Zechariah, however, is not further detailed. In Ezra 5, the action by both prophets is placed in a period after the reign of Artaxerxes. It is better to locate them in the reign of Darius II.75

5:2

ThenZerubbabelthesonofShealtielandJeshuathesonofJozadak stoodupandbegantorebuildthehouseofGodwhichisinJerusalem; andtheprophetsofGodwerewiththemsupportingthem.

The effect of the prophecy is clear. Zerubbabel and Jeshua (on them see 2:1-2) resume the construction of the temple. The verb used verb šr’, Pa. (in line with the LXX ἤρξαντο, ‘they began’), has often been translated with ‘begin’ (KJV; Williamson). Often, the argument is made that their acts do not have to be seen to be a completely new start (Williamson). The root of the Aramaic verb means ‘to loosen’ or ‘to live’. The intensive Pa’el would best be construed as referring to an act of ‘making themselves loose; liberating themselves’.76 In other words, the two leaders focus their activities on the rebuilding of the temple. The character of support by the two prophets is not made clear.

72

See Porter, ‘Son or Grandson’, 57-58. See M.J. Boda, Haggai & Zechariah Research: A Bibliographic Survey (Tools for Biblical Study 5), Leiden 2003, 61-67. 74 See also Halpern, ‘A Historiographic Commentary on Ezra 1-6’; Stevens, Temples, Tithes,andTaxes, 50-58. 75 Thus already Scaliger, De emendatione temporum , Leiden 1583, V 224; Johannes Cocceius, CommentariusinProphetasDuodecimMinores (Opera Omnia, III), Amstelodamus 1673, 215; see also L. Dequeker, ‘Darius the Persian and the reconstruction of the Jewish temple in Jerusalem (Ezra 4,24), in: J. Quaegebeur (ed.), RitualandSacrificeintheAncient NearEast, Leuven 1993, 67-92. 76 In Aramaic texts outside the Hebrew Bible, the verb šr’in the D-stem occurs once in a Palmyraean inscription, J. Cantineau, ‘Tadmorea’, Syria 14 (1933), (169-202) 188 text 3:3; the reading šr’ in that text is, however, challenged, see J.T. Milik, Dédicacesfaitespardes dieux(Palmyre,Hatra,Tyr)etdesthiasessémitiquesàl’époqueromaine, Paris 1972, 339. 73

78

Ezra3-6 INSPECTION BY TATTENAI EZRA 5:3-5

3

AtthattimeTattenai,thegovernorofebîrnarî,andShethar-bozenai withtheircolleaguescametothemandspoketothemasfollows: ‘Who issued you a decree to rebuild this temple and to finish thisstructure?’ Thenwetoldthemaccordinglywhatthenamesofthemenwerewho werereconstructingthisbuilding. ButtheeyeoftheirGodwasontheeldersoftheJudaeans,andthey couldnotmakethemtostopuntilareportshouldcometoDarius,and thenawrittenreplybereturnedconcerningit.

 4 5

The activities in the construction yield a reaction. The governor of ebîrnarî comes to inspect and asks in a diplomatic manner for the authority behind the construction project. Subtly, divine power and imperial approval are set in opposition of each other. 5:3 

AtthattimeTattenai,thegovernorofebîrnarî,andShethar-bozenai withtheircolleaguescametothemandspoketothemasfollows: ‘Whoissuedyouadecreetorebuildthistempleandtofinishthis structure?’

The inspection by Tattenai has, in principle, no hostile character. He asks for the authority behind the plans. The idiom śymṭecēm, ‘to give an order, command’, always has a human as subject.77 This demand for human authorization stands, therefore, in contrast to the prophetic motivation. The embedded question has two parts. Next to the question on the authority for the rebuilding stands the question of the completion of the ’uššarnā’. This architectural term is derived from the Old Iranian *ušcarana, ‘material’. The Aramaic noun – also known from the papyri of Elephantine – refers to materials for construction or repair, mostly made from wood (Myers, Williamson, Fried).78 I therefore propose to translate here ‘and to complete its woodwork’. Tattenay, ‘Tattenai’, is an Aramaic personal name. It has incorrectly been equated with a Persian satrap Ushtanni, who ruled in 520, both over Babylon and ebîrnarî.79 Olmstead has demonstrated that Tattenai the name appears as ‘ta-ta-an-ni, the 77

See also Ezra 4:21; 5:9, 13; 6:1, 3, 12; Dan. 3:10; and in the Elephantine papyri. See Tuland, ‘᾿Uššayyā᾿ and ᾿Uššarnâ’; Williamson. 79 With A.T. Olmstead, ‘Tattenai, Governor of ‘Across the River’’, JNES 3 (1944), 46; Rainey, ‘The Satrapy ‘Beyond the River’’, 53; contra B. Meissner, ‘‫’תתני‬, ZAW 17 (1897), 191-192. 78

Therebuildinginretrospect

79

governor of ebîrnari’, in a document from 502.80 The governor was a contemporary of Darius I. Possibly a namesake was a senior official at the time Darius II, or the narrator of Ezra 3-6 has made an error in the memory.81 Šetar bôznay, ‘Shethar-bozenai’, presumably was the secretary of Tattenai (Williamson, Fried). The name also appears in the Elephantine papyri and is of old Persian origin.82

5:4

Thenwetoldthemaccordinglywhatthenamesofthemenwerewho werereconstructingthisbuilding.

This verse contains a problem. The Aramaic text has a verb in the firstperson plural: ’amarnā’, ‘we said; asked’. While this reading is supported by the versionesantiquae – except 1Esdras, where the phrase is missing – it makes little sense, because it seems quite stilted if it has to be assumed that the ‘returnees’ were asking this question. Many exegetes translate therefore a third person masculine plural ‘they said, asked’; Tattenai with his entourage would therefore be the subject of the verb (Williamson; Fensham, Fried). In v. 9 the same form is attested, in a letter to Darius from Tattenai, in which the governor mentions that he has questioned the elders of Jerusalem. It seems that the verb in v. 4 has been adopted from v. 5. The suggestion that the question of Tattenai would have led to the composition of the list in Ezra 2 (Galling) is intriguing. This suggestion, however, can hardly be proved or disproved (Williamson). 5:5

ButtheeyeoftheirGodwasontheeldersoftheJudaeans,andthey couldnothavethemstopuntilareportshouldcometoDarius,and thenawrittenreplybereturnedconcerningit.

This verse narrates two interconnected features: the decision of Tattenai not to stop the construction stands parallel to the care of God. The expression ‘eye of God’ refers to the concept of God seeing. Would indeed ‘He who formed the eye, not see himself?’ (Ps. 94:9). The expression is relatively rare in the Hebrew Bible, but expresses divine caring vigilance (Shepherd & Wright).83 The later pietistic view of the all-seeing eye, has no basis in 80 VAT 4560, VorderasiatischeSchriftdenkmälerderKöniglichenMuseenzuBerlin (IV), Leipzig 1907, No. 152; see Olmstead, ‘Tattenai’; A. Fitzpatrick-McKinley, Empire,Power, andIndigenousElites:ACaseStudyoftheNehemiahMemoir(JSJ Sup 169), Leiden 2015, 82. 81 On the title pèḥā and its renditions in LXXEzra-Nehemiah and 1 Esdras, see now D. Fulton, ‘What Kind of Governor was Nehemiah? The Titles ‫ ֶפּ ָחה‬and ‫ ִתּ ְר ָשׁ ָתא‬in MT and LXX Ezra-Nehemiah’, ZAW 130 (2018), 252-67. 82 Štbrzn, TADEA IV C.8.IIIB:30.34.35. See the Old-Persian name Xšathrabūjyāna. 83 Ps. 33:18; Job 34:16; 36:7; see also M. Köhlmoos, DasAugeGottes.Textstrategieim Hiobbuch (FAT 25), Tübingen 1999.

80

Ezra3-6

the text. In Ezra and Nehemiah is, more frequently, made use the parallel expression ‘the hand of God’ to designate his care.84 God’s care is seen to be the reason why the construction was not stopped. Hence, this divine virtue is an underlining of the given prophecy. The mild attitude of Tattenai opens a window to the rest of the narrative. The expression śābēyyehûdāyē’, ‘the elders of the Judaeans’ (see also 5:9; 6:13) is the Aramaic equivalent of rāšēhā’ābôt, ‘the leaders of the families’ – 1:5; 3:12; 4:3.85

LETTER FROM TATTENAI EZRA 5:6-17

6

7  8

9  10 11 

12

13

84

The copy of the letter which Tattenai, the governor of beyond the River,andShethar-bozenaiwithhiscolleaguestheofficials,whowere beyondtheRiver,senttoDariustheking. Theysentareporttohim.Asfollowsitwaswritteninit: ‘ToDariustheking,peacetoall. Let it be known to the king, that we have gone to Yehud, the province, to the house of the great God, which is being built with polished stones. Beams are being laid in the walls. This workisbeingdonewithgreatcareandisprosperousintheir hands. Thenweaskedthoseeldersandsaidtothemasfollows: “Whoissuedyouadecreetorebuildthistempleandtofinish thisstructure?” Wealsoaskedthemtheirnamessoastoinformyou,andthat wemightwritedownthenamesofthemenwhoincontrol. Thustheyansweredus,saying, “We are the servants of the God of heaven and earth and are rebuilding the temple that was built many years ago, whichagreatkingofIsraelbuiltandfinished. ButbecauseourfathershadmadetheGodofheavenwrathful,HegavethemintothehandofNebuchadnezzarkingof Babylon, the Chaldean. He destroyed this temple and deportedthepeopletoBabylon. In the first year of Cyrus king of Babylon, however, King CyrusissuedadecreetorebuildthishouseofGod.

See Ezra 7:6, 9, 28; 8:18, 22; Neh. 1:10; 2:8, 18 (2x). See also S. Grätz, ‘Die Aramäische Chronik des Esrabuches und die Rolle der Ältesten in Esr 5–6’, ZAW 118 (2006), 405-422. 85

Therebuildinginretrospect 14

15  16

17

81

AlsothegoldandsilverutensilsofthehouseofGodwhich NebuchadnezzarhadtakenfromthetempleinJerusalemand broughtthemtothetempleofBabylon.KingCyrustookthem fromthetempleofBabylon,andtheyweregiventoonewhose namewasSheshbazzar,whomhehadappointedgovernor. Hesaidtohim, Takethesevessels,go,carrythemintothetemplethatisin Jerusalem,andletthehouseofGodbebuiltinhisplace. Then this Sheshbazzar came. He laid the foundations of thehouse of God in Jerusalem; and from then until now it hasbeenunderconstruction,anditisnotcompleted.” Andnow,ifthekingthinksittobegood,letaninquirybeconductedintheking’streasurehouse,whichisthereinBabylon whether or not a decree was issued by King Cyrus to rebuild thishouseofGodatJerusalem;andletthekingsendtoushis willhereinconcerning.’

Tattenai is presented here as the ideal diplomat. He does not just make decisions but listens to all parties involved and consents the appropriate investigation of certain claims with the competent authority. The letter has a clear structure. After the indication that what is coming is a copy (5:6), then follows a discussion of the cause: the renewed construction of a temple in Jerusalem and the question of the authority behind it. Next, a relatively detailed description of the response of the elders in Jerusalem is given. This response is largely a reference to historical events and includes a claim that a decree of Cyrus had provided them with the right to rebuild the temple. The letter ends with a clear request to Darius about whether such a decree actually might be found in the archives. 5:6-7 The copy of the letter which Tattenai, the governor of beyond the River, and Shethar-bozenai with his colleagues the officials, who werebeyondtheRiver,senttoDariustheking.  Theysentareporttohim.Asfollowsitwaswritteninit:  ‘ToDariustheking,peacetoall. These two verses indicate that we are dealing with a copy – paršegen see 4:11. Sender and address are known. ‘King Darius’ refers to Darius II. The greeting formula in the letter is somewhat short and unusually formulated. The collocation šelāmā’kolā’ should be translated as ‘peace everywhere’.86 86 See J.A. Fitzmeyer, ‘The Syntax of kl, kl’ in the Aramaic Texts from Egypt and in Biblical Aramaic’, in: A Wandering Aramean: Collected Aramaic Essays (SBL MS 25), Missoula 1979, 205-17; Williamson; Schwiderski, HandbuchdesnordwestsemitischenBriefformulars, 365-68.

82

Ezra3-6

5:8-10 Let it be known to the king that we have gone to Yehud, the province, to the house of the great God, which is being built with polishes stones. Beams are being laid in the walls. This work is beingdonewithgreatcareandisprosperousintheirhands.  Thenweaskedthoseeldersandsaidtothemasfollows:  “Who issued you a decree to rebuild this temple and to finish thisstructure?”  We also asked them their names in order to inform you, and that wemightwritedownthenamesofthemenwhoareincontrol. Tattenai provided the king with information about his visit to Jerusalem. Verse 8 contains several minor problems. 1 Esdras 6:8 adds after the first sentence: ‘and we found the elders of the Jews while they were building …’. Since this addition functions as a clarification to make the text more readable – in 1Esdras it is immediately clear who are meant by ‘the elders’ in v. 9 – they do not necessarily have to lead to a change in the Hebrew text (with Fensham; contra Williamson). The expression ‘the great God’ is often seen as a strange name for YHWH.87 The presence of this expression in the Elamite Persepolis inscriptions, however, makes it plausible that it could have been used by a Persian officer (Williamson, Fried).88 The verse also gives some architectural details. The temple was built with ’ebengelāl. The collocation does not refer to ‘rolling stone’ – compare Aram. gll, ‘to role’, or ‘stone blocks’ (RSV). Based on the Akkadian cognate verb galālu, ‘to polish’, they should be considered as ‘polished stones’ (Williamson, Blenkinsopp; Fensham, Fried). Both the first and the second temple were not only built in stone, but also created from wood (cf. I Kgs 6:36; 7:12; Ezra 6:4). This combination of materials was common in the ancient Near East and created a flexible stability.89 Verses 9-10 essentially repeat vv. 3-4. 5:11-15 Thustheyansweredus,saying,  “We are the servants of the God of heaven and earth and are rebuilding the temple that was built many years ago, which agreatkingofIsraelbuiltandfinished.  ButbecauseourfathershadmadetheGodofheavenwrathful, HegavethemintothehandofNebuchadnezzarkingofBabylon, theChaldean.Hedestroyedthistempleanddeportedthepeople toBabylon.  InthefirstyearofCyruskingofBabylon,however,KingCyrus issuedadecreetorebuildthishouseofGod.

87 88 89

Also Grabbe, ‘The “Persian Documents”’, 546. R.T. Hallock, PersepolisFortificationTablets, Chicago 1969, No. 353 and 354. See H.C. Thomson, ‘A Row of Cedar Beams’, PEQ 92 (1960), 57-63.

Therebuildinginretrospect 

 

83

Also, the gold and silver utensils of the house of God which Nebuchadnezzar had taken from the temple in Jerusalem and brought them to the temple of Babylon. King Cyrus took them fromthetempleofBabylon,andtheyweregiventoonewhose namewasSheshbazzar,whomhehadappointedgovernor. Hesaidtohim, Takethesevessels,go,carrythemintothetemplethatisin Jerusalem,andletthehouseofGodbebuiltinhisplace.

This section contains the answer to the question in v. 10 regarding the authority behind the rebuilding. The embedded story begins with a statement of the fact that the temple of the great God lay in ruins. The ‘returnees’ introduce themselves as worshipers of the ‘God of heaven and earth’. On the epithet ‘God of Heaven’, see above Ezra 1:2. The addition ‘… and the earth’ may indicate a tendency to reinforce the importance of this God: the earth is also his realm. Solomon, as the builder of the first temple, is not mentioned by name. Williamson points out that he was possibly unknown to the Persians. In doing so, he does not consider the fact that Ezra 3-6 was written for a Judaean audience and that this audience was obviously aware of the activities of Solomon. The blame for the destruction is laid upon the Israelites themselves (McConville). Ezra 5:11 is in line with the thought that exile was the result of cumulative offending of God by the people. Nebuchadnezzar is mentioned as the destroyer of the temple, but he is no more than an instrument of divine wrath. Cyrus is seen as the king, who ordered the rebuilding of the temple. Unlike Ezra 1:1, Cyrus is here labelled ‘king of Babylon’. Cyrus II readily adorned himself with this title – as in the Cyrus Cylinder:20-22: ‘I am Cyrus, king of the world, great king, mighty king, king of Babylon, king of Sumer and Akkad…’. Both this text and Ezra 5 present an element of continuity: Cyrus is construed as the rightful successor to the Babylonian kings. What follows is not the exact content of a decree, but the adaptation of such a text by the ‘returnees’. They want to demonstrate that their building-activities have imperial consent. Sheshbazzar again is named as the man commissioned by Cyrus (see also 1:8). Unlike 1:8, he is presented here as ‘governor’. Of great importance is the fact that the ‘temple vessels’ were given too. On the idea to construe the return of the temple vessels as an aniconic varint of the theme of the return of the divine image, see above at 1:7. Noteworthy is the use of the noun ’atar, ‘place’, to indicate the location of the cult (also see Ezra 6:3, 5, 7). This Aramaic word is also used in the consecration inscriptions found on Gerizim in the temple complex.90 90 See Y. Magen, H. Misgav, L. Tsfania, Mount Gerizim Excavations: Volume 1 The Aramaic,HebrewandSamaritanInscriptions (Judea and Samaria Publications 2), Jerusalem 2004, No. 147; 148.

84

Ezra3-6

5:16-17 Then this Sheshbazzar came. He laid the foundations of the house of God in Jerusalem; and from then until today, it has beenunderconstruction,anditisnotcompleted.”  Andnow,ifthekingthinksittobegood,letaninquirybeconducted intheking’streasurehouse,whichisthereinBabylon,whetheror notadecreewasissuedbyKingCyrustorebuildthishouseofGod atJerusalem;andletthekingsendtoushiswillhereinconcerning.’ The setumā after v. 15 indicates that v. 16 is to be understood as the start of a new paragraph. Verse 16 should therefore not be construed as the continuation of the summary of the survey of the history of the ‘returnees’ (as Williamson), but as an observation on the part of Tattenai: his inspection showed him that Sheshbazzar had laid the foundation of the temple. In discussing 4:11-16, it has been noted that the Aramaic noun ’uššā’ refers to the basal and bearing layer in the foundation of a building, usually a temple or a palace.91 All this leads to the request of Tattenai to Darius to search in the archives as to whether the claims of the inhabitants of Jerusalem have any ground. The phrase hēncal-malkā’ṭāb, ‘if it pleases the king’, are part of the courteous letter culture. In the letters from Elephantine around a dozen parallels to this phrase may be found.92 In this context, the place name Bābel indicates Persian territory, not the city of Babylon.

DECREE OF CYRUS

FOUND IN THE

REIGN OF DARIUS

EZRA 6: 1-5

1

ThenKingDariusissuedadecree.Asearchwasmadeinthehouse ofthebooks,wherethetreasureswerestoredinBabylon. InAchmeta,thefortress,whichisintheprovinceofMedia,onescroll inparticularwasfound.Initwaswrittenasfollows: ‘Memorandum— InthefirstyearofKingCyrus,Cyrusthekingissuedadecree: “The house of God at Jerusalem: let the temple, the place where sacrifices are offered, be rebuilt and let its foundations be retained, its height being 60 cubits and its width 60cubits; withthreelayersofpolishedstones,andonelayeroftimbers. Letthecostbepaidfromthetreasuryoftheking.

2  3 

4

91 92

With Tuland, ‘᾿Uššayyā᾿ and ᾿Uššarnâ’. See for instance the letter. TADAEA.4.5:21-22; with Williamson.

Therebuildinginretrospect 5

85

AndalsoletthegoldandsilverutensilsofthetempleofGod, which Nebuchadnezzar took from the temple in Jerusalem and brought to Babylon be returned and brought to their placesinthetempleinJerusalem;andbeputinthehouse ofGod”.’

This text contains two parts: a short message about the request to Darius and the text of a memorandum. 6:1-2 ThenKingDariusissuedadecree.Asearchwasmadeinthehouse ofthebooks,wherethetreasureswerestoredinBabylon.  In Achmeta, the fortress, which is in the province of Media, one scrollinparticularwasfound.Initiswaswrittenasfollows:  ‘Memorandum— Darius follows the request of Tattenai. He issues a command to make a search. The search will take place bebêtsifrayyā’, ‘in the house of the books; the chancelleries’, where the treasures were stored. The process sounds a little excessive, but it has been shown, for example, in Persepolis, that spaces for written records were connected directly to the royal treasury (Williamson; Becker). As in 5:17, Bābel does not point here to the city of Babylon but, is an indication of Persian territory. The search resulted in the news that an inscribed scroll was found in Media containing the text of a memorandum from the reign of Cyrus. The fact that the text was written on a scroll and not on a clay tablet might be an indication that this memorandum was written in Aramaic and not in Old Persian (Williamson, Fried). Achmeta; LXX did not recognize the place name and translated it with ἐν πόλει, ‘in a city’; Vulg. inEcbathanis indicates that the Hebrew place name was construed as referring to the summer residence of the Persians.93 Ecbatana – Old Persian: Haŋgmatana; Greek: Ἀγβάτανα, in Aeschylus and Herodotus, elsewhere: Ἐκβάτανα. The place name means ‘the place of meeting’. The town was located at the foot of Mount Alvand in present day Iran. Cyrus the Great had conquered the city in 549.94 Except in Ezra 6:2, the city is also mentioned in Tob. 7:1; 14:12 and II Macc. 9:3. Dikrônāh; this loan-word only appears here in the Book of Ezra and indicates an official document from the Persian chancellery. It may be rendered with ‘charter’ or ‘memorandum’. The noun literally means: ‘an object that needs to be remembered’. In the texts from Elephantine, the answer by Bagoses and Delaiah that gives the Yehudites in Elephantine permission to rebuild the Temple of Yaho, is called a zkrnh, ‘memorandum’.95

93

See Xenophon, Anabasis3.5:15. See the Chronicle of Nabonidus, A.K. Grayson, AssyrianandBabylonianChronicles, Locust Valley 1975, Chron. 7 ii:1-4. 95 TADAE D4.9:1-2. 94

86

Ezra3-6

6:3-5 InthefirstyearofKingCyrus,Cyrusthekingissuedadecree:  “ThehouseofGodatJerusalem,letthetemple,theplacewhere sacrifices are offered, be rebuilt and let its foundations be retained,itsheightbeing60cubitsanditswidth60cubits;  with three layers of polished stones, and one layer of timbers. Letthecostbepaidfromthetreasuryoftheking.  And also let the gold and silver utensils of the temple of God, which Nebuchadnezzar took from the temple in Jerusalem and broughttoBabylon,bereturnedandbroughttotheirplacesin thetempleinJerusalem;andputtheminthehouseofGod”.’ These verses contain the text of a memorandum that is presented as drafted in the first year of Cyrus. The authenticity of the document is challenged. Traditionally, an authentic document is assumed to underlie it. The main argument for that view is the fact that this memorandum fits well within Cyrus’ assumedly liberal religious policy towards the many peoples in his empire (McConville, Williamson).96 In discussing Ezra 1, however, it has been indicated that this view of Persian politics is based only on elements from the Hebrew Bible and has no basis in Persian documents. With Grabbe, I take Ezra 6:3-5 to be a fictitious text.97 It seems unlikely to me that a Persian king would be engaged in the architectural details of a temple in the outskirts of its empire. The text contains three parts. Firstly, Cyrus orders the (re)building of the temple. The aim of the reconstruction is to provide a place where a ‘sacrifice’ may be brought. The Aramaic verb dbḥ – which is a cognate of Hebrew zbḥ – denotes the slaughter of animals as a thanksgiving-sacrifice. In the proto-Samaritan temple on Mount Gerizim, a votive inscription has been found mentioning the sacrifice of young bulls in a bytdbḥ’, ‘house of sacrifice’.98 Second, the memorandum gives technical guidance for the construction of the temple. The measurements of the new temple are reminiscent to those of the temple of Solomon (see I Kings 6:2; II Chron. 3:3-4.). The new temple is only twice as high as the previous one and will be constructed of three layers of stone and one tier of woodwork. The financing of the reconstruction is also regulated: from the royal treasury. Verse 8 makes it clear that this refers to the tax revenue resulting from the satrapy ‘beyond the

96 See also R. de Vaux, ‘Les décrets de Cyrus et de Darius sur la réconstruction du temple’, RB 46 (1937), 29-57; A.R. Millard, ‘Aramaic Documents of the Assyrian and Achaemenid Periods’, in: M. Brosius (ed.), AncientArchivesandArchivalTraditions:ConceptsofRecordKeepingintheAncientWorld, Oxford 2003, 237-38. 97 Grabbe, ‘The “Persian Documents”’, 548-49. 98 See Y. Magen, H. Misgav and L. Tsfania, MountGerizimExcavations:Volume1The Aramaic,HebrewandSamaritanInscriptions (Judea and Samaria Publications 2), Jerusalem 2004, No. 199.

Therebuildinginretrospect

87

river’. The gesture of v. 4 is significantly less generous than it appears at first sight. Thirdly, it is pointed out that the vessels of the temple – which were captured by Nebuchadnezzar II – had to be returned to the rebuilt temple. On the theme of the return of the cultic paraphernalia and the possibility that this is a symbolic presence of the deity, see above in Ezra 1:7. LETTER FROM DARIUS TO TATTENAI EZRA 6: 6-12

6

7 8  9

10 11

12

Now, Tattenai, governor of beyond the River, Shethar-bozenai, and yourcolleagues,theofficialsofbeyondtheRiver,befarawayfrom there. AcceptthisworkonthehouseofGod;letthegovernoroftheJudaeans andtheeldersoftheJudaeansrebuildthishouseofGodonitsplace. Moreover,Iissueadecreeconcerningwhatyouaretodoforthese eldersofYehudintherebuildingofthishouseofGod: ‘ThefullcostistobepaidtothesepeoplefromtheroyaltreasuryoutofthetaxesofbeyondtheRiverandthatwithoutdelay. Whatever is needed, young bulls, rams and lambs for a burnt offeringtotheGodofheaven,andwheat,salt,wine,andanointing oil, as the priests in Jerusalem request, is to be given to themdailywithoutfail, thattheymayoffersacrificespleasingtotheGodofheavenand prayforthelifeofthekingandhissons. Iissueadecreethatanymanwhoviolatesthisedict,atimber shallbedrawnfromhishouseandheshallbeimpaledonitand hishouseshallbemadearefuseheaponaccountofthis. May the God who has caused His name to dwell there overthrow any king or people who attempts to make changes, in ordertodestroythishouseofGodinJerusalem.I,Darius,have issuedadecree,letitbecarriedoutwithalldiligence!’

This textual unit lacks the usual letter formulae. A formal address, as in other letters in Ezra 3-6, is absent. This creates the impression that the memorandum of Cyrus turns directly into a series of commands addressed to Tattenai. In my view, the content of Ezra 6:6-12 suggests the Genre of a letter. The textual unit contains four elements: (1) Tattenai should not interfere with the work in Jerusalem; (2) Tattenai must arrange the financing of the construction-project; (3) the purpose of the sacrificial cult is determined, and (4) the text concludes with a pair of curse formulas. This passage too should not be construed as an original Persian document. The reference in

88

Ezra3-6

v. 12, that God made his name to settle in Jerusalem, for instance, is an expression of Yahwism (see e.g. Deut. 12:11) that not easily fits in a memorandum of Persian origin.99 6:6-7 Now,Tattenai,governorofbeyondtheRiver,Shethar-bozenai,and yourcolleagues,theofficialsofbeyondtheRiver,befarawayfrom there.  Accept this work on the house of God; let the governor of the JudaeansandtheeldersoftheJudaeansrebuildthishouseofGod onitsplace. The response Tattenai received from Darius is not what he had probably hoped for. He and his entourage are summoned ‘to stay far away’. This does not mean that Tattenai himself would not be allowed to enter Jerusalem. The turn of phrase contains legal language and suggests that the leaders in Samaria are not allowed to interfere with the course of the reconstruction of the temple (Williamson). This command is elaborated in the next verse. The identity of the governor of the Judaeans mentioned here is unknown. Many assume him to be Zerubbabel (Williamson). More important, is the fact that the text presupposes an obviously equivalent governor in Jerusalem next to the governor in Samaria – Tattenai. This shows the Jerusalemite perspective of this passage. 6:8

Moreover,Iissueadecreeconcerningwhatyouaretodoforthese eldersofYehudintherebuildingofthishouseofGod: ‘Thefullcostistobepaidtothesepeoplefromtheroyaltreasury outofthetaxesofbeyondtheRiverandthatwithoutdelay.



This verse specifies what has been said in 3b-4. The reconstruction should be financed from the fiscal revenues of the satrapy ebirnari. 6:9-10



Whatever is needed, young bulls, rams and lambs for a burnt offeringtotheGodofheaven,andwheat,salt,wine,andanointing oil,asthepriestsinJerusalemrequest,istobegiventothemdaily withoutfail, thattheymayoffersacrificespleasingtotheGodofheavenandpray forthelifeofthekingandhissons.

The purpose of building a temple, namely bringing fragrant offerings, as well as the listing of animals and food to be offered make a very Judaean

99

See also Grabbe, ‘The “Persian Documents”’, 549-51.

Therebuildinginretrospect

89

impression. For some scholars, this is an indication that the Persian government meddled in a detailed way with the rebuilding and the function of the temple in Jerusalem (Williamson). Others construe a clue that this letter is not authentic and only represents the ideology of the Ezra Group. ‘Young bulls, rams and lambs’ are frequently referred to as sacrificeanimals for daily offerings (e.g., Exod. 29:3; Lev 23:18; Num. 7). The same applies to ‘wheat, wine, salt and oil’ (for instance Exod. 29:40). The Aramaic word for ‘sweet-smelling’, nīḥōaḥ, is probably a Hebraism. In texts like Exod. 29:18; Lev. 6:14 and Num. 15: 7, the elevation of a sweet aroma to God is also the purpose of the sacrifice. Laird correctly notes that, with this sacrifice, the Persian king is made dependent upon the local community and hence YHWH for his well-being.100 6:11-12 Iissuedadecreethatanymanwhoviolatesthisedict,atimber shallbedrawnfromhishouseandheshallbeimpaledonitandhis houseshallbemadearefuseheaponaccountofthis.  MaytheGodwhohascausedHisnametodwellthereoverthrowany king or people who attempts to make changes, in order to destroy thishouseofGodinJerusalem.I,Darius,haveissuedadecree,let itbecarriedoutwithalldiligence!’ The letter ends with a pair of penalty clauses. Throughout the ancient Near East vassal treaties, contracts, inscriptions on boundary stones and building inscriptions, ended with such clauses, usually in the form of curses. So, Darius I stipulated in the Behistun inscription: If you see this inscription and these reliefs, you destroy them, and not – as long as there is strength in you – take care of it, may Ahuramazda then be your shredder, you may have no posterity and may Ahuramazda cause that whatever you undertake, will have an unpleasant ending.101

The penalty in v. 11 has two elements. First, the offender will be exhibited from a pole that had functioned as a beam in his own house. This forerunner of the Roman punishment of crucifixion was known in Ancient Persia as a punishment for violators.102 The second element elaborates upon the image of the beam, which is then seen as a precursor of the total collapse of the house of the offender. From the parallels – for example, the Behistun

100

D. Laird, NegotiatingPower, 73. Darius Behistun-inscription, § 67, see A. Kuhrt, The Persian Empire: A Corpus of SourcesfromtheAchaemenidPeriod, London, New York 2007, 149. 102 Darius Behistun-inscription §§ 32; 33; 43; 50; Herodotus, Histories III, 159; see F. Parente, ‘Ezra, 6.11. La pena comminata a chi altera l’editto di Dario’, Henoch 1 (1979), 189-200 101

90

Ezra3-6

inscription of Darius, it should be deduced that ‘house’ is meant both physically and genealogically. The clause in v. 12 refers, in a way, back to the past when the rebuilding of the Temple was thwarted.

THE HOUSE REBUILT EZRA 6:13-15

13 Then Tattenai, the governor of Beyond the River, Shethar-bozenai, andtheircolleaguescarriedoutwiththoroughness,justasKingDariushadsent. 14 TheeldersoftheJudaeansweresuccessfulinbuildingasaresult of the prophesying of Haggai the prophet and Zechariah the son of Iddo.TheyfinishedbuildingaccordingtothecommandoftheGodof IsraelandthedecreeofCyrus,Darius,andArtaxerxeskingofPersia. 15 ThistemplewascompletedonthethirddayofthemonthAdar;itwas thesixthyearofthereignofKingDarius. In this relatively short textual unit, some storylines come together. Tattenai acts according to the instructions of Darius. These had broken the resistance against the Jerusalemite temple project, leaving the narrator, emphatically, to say that Persian power played a part in this. The building is completed with two asides: the prophetic call of Haggai and Zechariah and the protection of the imperial court. 6:13

ThenTattenai,thegovernorofBeyondtheRiver,Shethar-bozenai, and their colleagues carried out with thoroughness, just as King Dariushadsent.

Tattenai and his followers adhere to the instructions of Darius. Noteworthy in this verse is the use of Aramaic adverb ’āsparnā’, ‘as precisely as possible’. This word is a term borrowed from the Old Persian, where a/usprna means ‘the whole; the completeness’.103 The word is probably an official term for the exact execution of an order. The word ’sprn is now also attested in an Aramaic letter from the Persian satrapy Bactria. In the letter Achmazda, presumably the satrap, alerts one Bagavant that he will not be released as long as the wheat that will be used for sowing has not been delivered complete (’sprn).104 103

W. Hinz, AltiranischesSprachgutderNebenüberlieferungen, Wiesbaden 1975, 246. J. Naveh, S. Shaked, AramaicDocumentsfromAncientBactria(FourthCentury BCE), London 2012, A6:10. 104

Therebuildinginretrospect

91

6:14 The elders of the Judaeans were successful in building as a result oftheprophesyingofHaggaitheprophetandZechariahthesonof Iddo.TheyfinishedbuildingaccordingtothecommandoftheGod of Israel and the decree of Cyrus, Darius, and Artaxerxes king of Persia. Some scholars have a difficulty with the fact that Arthachsasta/Artaxerxes is mentioned in the context of Persian emperors who provided support in rebuilding (e.g., Williamson). This objection is two-fold. First, Artaxerxes has contributed very little toward the process of rebuilding (Ezra 4). Second, he ruled after the time when traditionally the dedication of the temple is thought: 515. According to Williamson, the name of the Persian emperor refers ahead to the period of the activities of Ezra (Ezra 7-10). Once Darius is not interpreted as Darius I, but as Darius II, the chronological problem is erased. Furthermore, one may assume that the narrator, in this verse, wishes to emphasize Persian support throughout and hence mentioned in Ezra 3-6 all common Persian emperors. 6:15

This temple was completed on the third day of the month Adar; it wasthesixthyearofthereignofKingDarius.

The rebuilding was completed on the third day of the month Adar, in the sixth year of the reign of Darius. The traditional chronology indicates that completion took place in 515 (Williamson). However, if not Darius I, but Darius II is seen to be the emperor to whom this verse refers, then completion occurred in 418. Diana Edelman argued for a date for the rebuilding of the temple during the reign of Artaxerxes I (465-425).105 She, however, cannot account for the name of Darius (II) in the story of Ezra 3-6 after the mention of Artaxerxes.

DEDICATION

OF THE

TEMPLE

EZRA 6:16-18

16

ThechildrenofIsrael,thepriests,andtheLevites,andtherestofthe children of the captivity, celebrated the dedication of this house of Godwithjoy.

105 D.V. Edelman, TheOriginsofthe‘Second’Temple:PersianImperialPolicyandthe RebuildingofJerusalem, London 2005.

92

Ezra3-6

17

They offered for the dedication of this house of God 100 bulls, 200rams, 400 lambs and, as a sin offering for all Israel, 12 male goats,correspondingtothenumberofthetribesofIsrael. TheythenappointedtheprieststotheirordinancesandtheLevitesin theirclassesfortheserviceofGodinJerusalem,asitiswritteninthe bookofMoses.

18

Now the temple is rebuilt, it may be inaugurated. The relatively short message about the dedication indicates for whom the cult of the temple was intended. Fried points out that in the ancient Near East, such an initiation ritual often has three elements: (1) the deity takes residence in the temple; (2) an official ritual takes place and (3) the temple staff is appointed (Fried).106 The first element is absent in Ezra 6: 16-18; the temple-vessels – which may be seen as a symbolic presence of God – too are not mentioned here. 6:16

The children of Israel, the priests, and the Levites, and the rest of thechildrenofthecaptivity,celebratedthededicationofthishouse ofGodwithjoy.

The dedication of the temple is celebrated with joy by benē yiśrā’ēl, ‘the Israelites’ (Jagersma). This indication is intriguing and ideological. The expression can in fact be understood as an indication of ‘all Israel’ and acts as an invitation, now the temple is rebuilt, to bridge the differences between the various groups and movements. The text, however, limits this group immediately ‘the priests, the Levites and the rest of those who had gone into exile’. In doing so, two features are referred to. If bridging differences had been an issue, then certainly not by way of compromise, but in view of the ideas of the ‘children of the captivity’. The classification of the population in these three categories is characteristic of Ezra, see Ezra 1:5. The Aramaic noun for initiation, ḥanûkkā, is also used in the story on the dedication of the image that Nebuchadnezzar had set up (Dan. 3:2-3). The Hebrew equivalent is attested in texts such as the description of the dedication of the altar (Num. 7:11; II Chronicles 7:9). The name of the Jewish festival Hanukkah is derived from this word. During that festival, however, the (re)dedication of the temple after the uprising is remembered.107

106

Fried, ThePriestandtheGreatKing, 175-76. See, e.g. J.C. Vanderkam, ‘Hanukkah: Its Timing and Significance according to 1 and 2 Maccabees’, JournalfortheStudyofthePseudepigrapha 1 (1987), 23-40; S. Honigman, TalesofHighPriestsandTaxes, Oakland 2014, esp. 78-81. 130-33. 107

Therebuildinginretrospect

93

6:17 They offered for the dedication of this house of God 100 bulls, 200rams,400lambs,and,asasinofferingforallIsrael,12male goats,correspondingtothenumberofthetribesofIsrael. The temple is inaugurated with a grand sacrifice. The sacrificial animals ‘young bulls, rams and lambs’ were already mentioned at 5:9. To them are now added ‘twelve goats’. Num. 7 – the textual unit that discusses the dedication of the tabernacle – notes in v. 87 that on that occasion ‘twelve goats’ had to be offered for a sin offering. The Aramaic word in Ezra 6:17 is etymologically related to the Hebrew noun in Lev. 7:87. In Lev. 5, the ritual of a sin offering is extensively discussed. In Ezra 6 the sin offering functions next to the peace offerings to indicate that the people acknowledged guilt from the past. Remarkably, the number of twelve goats to be sacrificed is connected, in Ezra 6, to the number of the twelve of the tribes of Israel.108 This connection presents the benê golah as representative of all of Israel, including the former Northern Kingdom; perhaps as the true Israel. 6:18

ThentheyappointedtheprieststotheirordinancesandtheLevites intheirclassesfortheserviceofGodinJerusalem,asitiswritten inthebookofMoses.

The consecration ends with regulations relating to the rosters for the Levites and the priests. Remarkably, the narrator indicates that this is done according to the requirements of the law of Moses. However, in the Pentateuch no evidence is to be found regarding this issue. The author of the Book of Chronicles holds David responsible for these regulations (I Chron. 23-27). I suspect that this is a claimedtradition: to give authority to these regulations, the narrator claims that the institution goes back to Moses.109 There is no reason to suppose, with Houtman, that the book of Moses mentioned here would be a text differing from the (proto)Pentateuch.110 CELEBRATION

OF

PASSOVER AND MAZZOT

EZRA 6:19-22

19

ThechildrenoftheexilemadethePassoveronthefourteenthofthe firstmonth. For the priests and the Levites had purified themselves; all of them werepure.ThentheyslaughteredthePassoverforalltheexiles,both fortheirbrothersthepriestsandforthemselves.

20

108

See also: Bortz, IdentitätundKontinuität, 151. In line with E.T. Mullen, EthnicMythandPentateuchalFoundations:ANewApproach totheFormationofthePentateuch, Atlanta 1997, 31. 110 See C. Houtman, ‘Ezra and the Law’, OTS 21 (1981), 91-115. 109

94

Ezra3-6

21

ThechildrenofIsraelwhohadreturnedfromexileatewithallthose whohadseparatedthemselvesfromtheuncleannessofthenationsof thelandtowardsthemtoseekYHWH,theGodofIsrael. They observed the Feast of Unleavened Bread seven days with joy, forYHWH had caused them to rejoice. He had caused the heart of thekingofAssyriatoturntowardthemtoencouragetheminthework ofthehouseofGod,theGodofIsrael.

22

After the movement from altar to temple has been made, the movement from Tabernacles to Passover can now be made. With the celebration of the Passover, the narrative reaches its target. This makes it understandable that the narrator here suddenly shifts from Aramaic to Hebrew. Noteworthy is the fact that the Passover celebrated by the benêgôlah together with others and that the story ends with a theological evaluation that states that all the movements in Ezra 3-6 were eventually supported and willed by God and King. 6:19-21 The children of the exile made the Passover on the fourteenth ofthefirstmonth.  ForthepriestsandtheLeviteshadpurifiedthemselves;allofthem were pure. Then they slaughtered the Passover for all the exiles, bothfortheirbrothersthepriestsandforthemselves.  ThechildrenofIsraelwhohadreturnedfromexileatewithallthose whohadseparatedthemselvesfromtheuncleannessofthenations ofthelandtowardsthemtoseekYHWH,theGodofIsrael. The celebration of the Passover on the fourteenth day of the first month of the year follows the instructions for Passover as recorded in Exod. 12:1-13, especially 12:6. What is striking is that the apotropaic blood ritual narrated in Exod. 12:7 is not repeated in Ezra. Prior to the ritual, the priests and the Levites purified themselves collectively and en masse. The Hebrew verb ṭhr is used several times in the Priestly Codex for the process of cleansing after which one could once more take part in a ritual or ceremony (including Lev. 13:6, 34, 58; 15:28; 22:4, 7; Num. 31:24). Subjecting oneself to this cleansing indirectly implies the recognition of the uncleanness of the priests and Levites (Becker).111 The slaughter of the Passover by Levites is not regulated in the Pentateuch but has apparently become a reality after the Exile. The Passover is slaughtered as atonement for all who were in captivity. 111 See S.M. Olyan, ‘Purity Ideology in Ezra-Nehemiah as a Tool to Reconstitute the Community’, JSJ35 (2004), 1-16.

Therebuildinginretrospect

95

When eating the Passover, another group joins them, namely ‘all those who had separated themselves from the filthiness of the people of the country’. That is, given the narrative in Ezra 3-6, a remarkable turn. In fact, part of the group that was set away previously as an opponent and later on accepted in the group ideologically, is now accepted under conditions. This fact is often seen as an early example of proselytism in emerging Judaism (Myers; Fensham; Williamson; Blenkinsopp; Becker).112 This view, however, ignores the fact that these persons were not members of another nation, but Israelites with a different form of religion (Rudolph).113

The condition, by which the group referred to may take part in the Passover, consists in them getting rid of the ṭûm’ā, ‘uncleanness’, which clung to them. A form of the Hebrew verb bdl is used. As in the P-portions of the Pentateuch, this verb indicates a classifying distinction, in particular, between ‘pure’ and ‘impure’, ‘holy’ and ‘unholy’.114 Within the composition of the Book of Ezra, this verb points forward to the isolation of a dozen priests by Ezra before the journey to Jerusalem is taken (8:24) and to the theme of ‘not isolate’ in the crisis of Ezra 9. The noun ṭûm’ā, ‘impurity’, already anticipates Ezra 9 (especially v. 11). The indication for the ‘people of the land’ here is not ‘am-hā’āreṣ as elsewhere in Ezra, but gôyhā’āreṣ. The translation of the NIV with ‘heathens of the country’ suggests quite a difference in meaning between ‘am and gôy. The semantic differentiation by which ‘am refers to the people of Israel and gôy is to be seen as an indication for the ‘other peoples’, is of a much later date. It is noteworthy that ‘those who were in exile’ – in contrast to the priests, the Levites and the newly acceded – do not have to be cleansed to participate in the Passover.

112 See also S. Japhet, ‘People and Land in the Restoration Period’, in: G. Strecker (ed.), DasLandIsraelinBiblischerZeit, Tübingen 1983, 115; J. Kessler, ‘Persia’s Loyal Yahwists: Power, Identity and Ethnicity in Achaemenid Yehud’, in: O. Lipschits, M. Oeming (eds), JudahandtheJudeansinthePersianPeriod, Winona Lake 2006, 109; Lau, ‘Gentile Incorporation into Israel in Ezra-Nehemiah?’. 113 With M. Thiessen, ‘The Function of a Conjunction: Inclusivist or Exclusivist Strategies in Ezra 6.19–21 and Nehemiah 10:29–30?’, JSOT 34 (2009), 63–79; D. Rom-Shiloni, Exclusive inclusivity: identity conflicts between the exiles and the people who remained (6th-5th centuries BCE) (LHB/OTS 543), London, New York 2013, 46-47; C.M. Jones, ‘Seeking the Divine, Divining the Seekers: The Status of Outsiders Who Seek Yahweh in Ezra 6:21’, JHS 15 (2015), # 5; K. Weingart, Stämmevolk-Staatsvolk-Gottesvolk?:Studien zurVerwendungdesIsrael-NamensimAltenTestament (FAT 2/68), Tübingen 2014, 75-78; T. Langille, ‘Hybrids, Purification, and Multidirectional Memory in Ezra-Nehemiah’, in: I. Wilson, D.V. Edelman (eds), History,Memory,HebrewScripturesAFestschriftforEhud BenZvi, Winona Lake 2015, 376. 114 See especially K.E. Southwood, EthnicityandtheMixedMarriageCrisisinEzra9-10: AnAnthropologicalApproach, Oxford 2012, 132-36; and the remarks at Ezra 9:1.

96

Ezra3-6

6:22

TheyobservedtheFeastofUnleavenedBreadsevendayswithjoy, for YHWH had caused them to rejoice. He had caused to turn the heartofthekingofAssyriatowardthemtoencouragetheminthe workofthehouseofGod,theGodofIsrael.

As usual, following the Passover is followed by the Feast of unleavened bread. Maṣṣot means that people eat unleavened bread for seven days to commemorate the Exodus from Egypt (see Exodus 12:15; Leviticus 23:6). The narrator notes that this festival was celebrated with joy, indicating that there had been no a ritualistic formalism (Williamson).115 The narrative cycle Ezra 3-6 ends with a theological evaluation. Although God is hardly mentioned as an actor, this closure has a clear view on the narrated story. The positive outcome has become possible because God brought about a change in the heart of the king of Assyria. The Hiph. of sbb notes the causing of a turn (see I Kgs 18:37; Jer. 21:4.). Lēb, ‘heart’, should be seen to be a moral landmark. The classification ‘King of Assur’ for Darius is unexpected, since in many cases the Persians identified themselves with the, by then, conquered Babylonians. However, it should be noted that in the Cyrus-cylinder (see at 1:1), the Persian king also presents himself as the heir of the Assyrian throne. Ctesias indicates that the Medes saw themselves as the heirs of the Assyrians.116 In fact, this theological evaluation at the end of Ezra 6 forms an inclusio with the beginning of Ezra 1, where it was stated that God raised up the spirit of Cyrus.

115

Contra, e.g. H.H. Schraeder, EsraderSchreiber, Tübingen 1930; G. von Rad, TheologiedesAltenTestaments Bd. I, München 61969, 98-105, 214-15; Th.C. Vriezen, Hoofdlijnen derTheologievanhetOudeTestament, Wageningen 31966, esp. 309-20, 435. 116 Ctesias, Persica § 32.

EZRA 7-10

THE COMMUNITY ORGANIZED

ESSENTIALS AND PERSPECTIVES It is striking that Ezra 7-10, or parts thereof, are not included in any reading schedule for Christian worship. Sermons on these chapters are a delicate matter. From the perspective of the twenty-first century, the performance of Ezra contains, in addition to some valuable elements, some elements that are incomprehensible. The ‘demonization of the other’ and the ‘dissolution of marriages’ contradict what is considered valuable and good within the Jewish-Christian tradition. By this, I mean, on the one hand, a substantial respect for the other; even in case her opinions or, his behaviour does not run parallel to those of mine and, on the other hand, the view concerning the living together of two persons as creating a realm of love where both partners protect each other from the evil powers of life. Through the actions of Ezra, women are sacrificed and left to their fate. In a world without a social safety net that was extremely humiliating to them; they were reduced to poverty. That worldview is terrifying and by no means worthy of adopting. Still, the history of Jewish, Christian and Islamic religious communities is not free from behaviour that can be labelled as unfriendly to women. Ezra could be accused of racism. The traditional interpretation that the ‘strange women’ originated from other ethnic groups, emphasizes that thought. Ezra wanted to keep ‘the people of God’ pure and unattached by strange elements – in accordance with tradition, despite positive exceptions to that tradition (think of Ruth). In doing so, he reformulated the Israelite idea on election in biological terms. The ‘holy seed’ is seen by him as infected with strange DNA. These are very dangerous thoughts in our time. The view that the conflict in Ezra 9-10 conceals an inter-Juda disagreement, only partially reduces any unease with the matter. Within this view, the thought remains that Ezra apparently had an instrument to distinguish between good believers and less-good believers. To this day, the idea is that ‘we have the truth on our side and the others do not’ is inhumane and disastrous for faith communities. In sermons on Ezra 7-10, two models of community should be juxtaposed: the open model and the closed model. Both have their positive and negative sides. The closed model is clear in terms of learning and life, but at the borders it excludes people. The open model is welcoming and inviting

98

Ezra7-10

as a resting place in the hassle of life but contains the danger of indifference, since anything goes. Faith communities should consider a respectable balance between both models. Ezra’s measures can only be understood as a Gebot der Stunde. In the confusing era around 400 BCE, there was a need for clarity regarding the boundaries of the community. Whether Ezra’s choice was the only possible and most desirable option, is open to debate. That debate should not just be an evaluation of what has happened, but should rather, discuss the question of where and how in our time boundaries should be drawn or, walls broken down. In Judaism, the concepts of yichus and zechus function. The first word literally means ‘descent’. The second term is more difficult to translate but indicates fair behaviour that benefits others. Both concepts apply to Ezra: he combines an almost ideal genealogy with commitment to the community. He has not just pride on his lineage for the sake of it but dares to make hands dirty in the requirements of the moment. During the exegesis of these chapters the following ran through my head as an antiphonal counterpoint: In Christ there is no east or west, in him no south or north, but one great fellowship of love throughout the whole wide earth.1

SCHOLARLY

EXPOSITION

I: INTRODUCTION TO THE EXEGESIS

The third story in Ezra includes chapters 7 through 10. These chapters tell about the journey of Ezra to Jerusalem on behalf of the Persian king Artaxerxes (II). The goal of Ezra’s mission was to re-establish justice in the province of Yehud. Ezra arrived in Jerusalem in the seventh year of this Persian king, which was in 398. I would like to add the following to the arguments that substantiate the link of Ezra 7-10 to the government of Artaxerxes II (for instance Grabbe, Fried). Historically, this was a special moment for two reasons. In 398 Egypt had become independent of the Persian Empire. This meant that Yehud’s importance increased, as the area was now on the southwestern border of the Persian Empire. This is reflected in the establishment of forts along the new border.2

1

Lyrics by John Oxenham. See: A. Fantalkin, O. Tal, ‘Redating Lachish Level 1: Identifying Achaemenid Imperial Policy at the Southern Frontier of the Fifth Satrapy’, in: O. Lipschits, M. Oeming (eds), JudahandtheJudaeansinthePersianPeriod, Winona Lake 2006, 167-97. 2

TheCommunityOrganized

99

Shortly before that, Artaxerxes II had lifted the penalty which prescribed that there should be no regular temple service in Jerusalem. In the rebuilt temple of Jerusalem, a certain form of particularism was created – in conflict with a temple built on the Gerizim. The Persian governor Bagoses tried to break this particularism by blending himself into politics with the appointment of a high priest. He supported a certain Joshua in the hope of getting, with this more open minded Zadokite, a less strict figure in the post of the high priest. In response, Jochanan killed his brother Joshua while he was serving in the temple. This murder took place in 408. Governor Bagoses closed the temple in order to punish this crime. This punishment would have lasted for seven years.3 Thus, the mission of Ezra is placed by the narrator at a time that coincides with the expiry of this sentence. The mission seems to coincide with a renewed Persian political interest for the province of Yehud. It should hence be seen to be a new beginning in the history of the Second Temple. Traditionally, the mission of Ezra is associated with the reign of the Persian king Artaxerxes I. Ezra would then have travelled to Jerusalem in 458 (Myers, McConville; Williamson; Clines; Blenkinsopp; Fensham; Davies; Breneman; Jobsen; Hieke; Goldingay; Jagersma; Shepherd & Wright).4 Although this dating might fit the Persian response to the Athenian-Egyptian coalition of

3 This construction of the past is based on the Bagoses fragment in Flavius Josephus, Ant. XI 297-301 and its interpretation by R. Albertz, ‘The Controversy about Judean versus Israelite Identity and the Persian Government: A New Interpretation of the Bagoses Story (Antiquitates XI.297-301)’, in: O. Lipschits, G.N. Knoppers, M. Oeming (eds), Judahandthe Judaeans in the Achaemenid Period: Negotiating Identities in an International Context, Winona Lake 2011, 483-504; see also J.C. VanderKam, From Joshua to Caiaphas: High Priests after the Exile, Minneapolis 2004, 53-63; B. Becking, ‘Zedekiah, Josephus and the Dating of the Books of Chronicles’, SJOT 25 (2011), 217-33. Incorrectly, H.G.M. Williamson, ‘The Historical Value of Josephus’ JewishAntiquities xi. 297-301’, JThS 28 (1977), 49-66, construes this passage to be unhistorical; B. Hensel, Juda und Samaria: Zum Verhältnis zweier nachexilischer Jahwismen (FAT 110), Göttingen 2016, 270-72, dates the events referred to in the reign of Darius II. On Herodotus and Biblical scholarship see L.L. Grabbe, ‘The Use and Abuse of Herodotus by Biblical Scholars’, in: A. Fitzpatrick-McKinley (ed.), AssessingBiblicalandClassicalSourcesfortheReconstructionofPersianInfluence,History andCulture(Classica et Orientalia 10), Wiesbaden 2015, 49-72. 4 See also W.Th. in der Smitten, Esra,Quellen,ÜberlieferungundGeschichte (SSN 15), Assen 1973, 91-105; R.J. Bautch, Developments in genre between post-exilic penitential prayersandthePsalmsofcommunallament. (SBL Academia Biblica 7), Atlanta 2003, 24-27; Y. Avishur, M. Helzer, ‘The Scribe and Priest Ezra: A Leader under Achaemenian Rule’, Transeuphratène29 (2006), 17-36; C.B. Hays, ‘The Silence of the Wives: Bakhtin’s Monologism and Ezra 7-10’, JSOT33 (2008), 75; J. Blenkinsopp, Judaism,theFirstPhase:The PlaceofEzraandNehemiahintheOriginsofJudaism, Grand Rapids 2009, 48-49; K.-L. Lee, The Authority and Authorization of Torah in the Persian Period (CBET 64), Leuven 2011, 213-53; Th. Willi, Esra:DerLehrerIsraels (Biblische Gestalten 26), Leipzig 2012, 25-35; T. Bänziger, «Jauchzen und Weinen»: Ambivalente Restauration in Jehud: Theologische KonzeptederWiederherstellunginEsra-Nehemia, Zürich 2014, 138-50.

100

Ezra7-10

460 lead by Amartyos and Inaros,5 it is difficult to reconcile with the rest of the data from the Book of Ezra. The same counterargument applies to the thought that Ezra might be an alternative name for the high priest Alkimus and Ezra 7-10 would, therefore, refer to events in the middle of the second century BCE.6 At first sight, the literary structure of Ezra 7-10 seems simple: a report about a servant of God who comes to Jerusalem and puts matters in order. However, the chapters contain sections that speak about Ezra in the third person, but also texts that have the character of a first-person communication. In addition, certain parts have been delivered in Aramaic, while the main thread of the narrative is in Hebrew (for details, see introduction). Behind these messages a source is assumed; known as the Ezra memorandum or Ezra Memoir (Williamson). The common view is that the Ezra Memoir is the oldest literary layer in the narrative. This would then have been edited by an author who composed a book that ran from Ezra 7* to Neh. 10. The nature and size of the Ezra Memoir, however, is difficult to determine.7 In addition, it is my opinion that the Book of Nehemiah originated independently of the Book of Ezra (see introduction). Also, I am convinced that Ezra 7-10 is an editorially edited text, but I do not share the view that (parts of) Nehemiah formed part of an Ezra Memoir (see below at Neh. 8).8 Since the literary growth cannot be reconstructed – with one exception (the Artaxerxes edict), I will take the current composition as my starting point for the exegesis. The chapters are structured as follows: 7: 1-10 7:11-28 8:1-14 8:15-36

A narrative prolepsis about the arrival of Ezra to Jerusalem. His aim is to bring order into the religious sphere. The later added edict of Artaxerxes gives an additional legal basis. A list of those who will travel with Ezra to Jerusalem. The journey to Jerusalem is delayed by the absence of the Levites in the group of returnees. After arriving in Jerusalem, Ezra handed his credentials to the local Persian authorities and presented the received gifts to the temple.

5 Thus: K. Bringmann, Geschichte der Juden im Altertum. Vom babylonischen Exil bis zurarabischenEroberung, Stuttgart 2005, 43. 6 See G. Garbini, Il ritorno dall’esilio babilonese (Studi Biblici, 129), Brescia 2001; F. Bianchi, ‘«La semence sacrée»: la polémique sur les mariages mixtes dans les textes bibliques d’époque achéménide et hellénistique’, Transeuphratène 29 (2005), 83-102. On Alkimus, see VanderKam, FromJoshuatoCaiaphas, 226-252. 7 See also S. Burt, The Courtier and the Governor: Transformations of Genre in the NehemiahMemoir (JAJ Sup 17), Göttingen 2014, 154-74. 8 For a complex and detailed redaction-historical analysis, see J. Pakkala, EzratheScribe: The Development of Ezra 7–10 and Nehemiah 8 (BZAW 347), Berlin, New York 2004, 22-135, who accepts seven different redactional layers.

TheCommunityOrganized 9:1-5

9:6-15 10:1-16 10:17-44

101

After arriving, Ezra is informed that a crisis has arisen because of the fact that some Judaeans married ‘strange women’. Ezra interprets this as a violation of the law and withdraws in mourning. Ezra utters a ‘prayer’ that aims to move the inhabitants of Jerusalem and its surroundings to change their behaviour. Sekanja proposes to dissolve the unwanted marriages through a legal procedure. Ezra agrees. List of priests, Levites, singers, gatekeepers and lay-persons, whose marriages were dissolved. With this act, the crisis is overcome.

SCHOLARLY

EXPOSITION

II: EXEGESIS

EZRA COMES FROM BABYLON EZRA 7:1-10

1 2 3 4 5 6

7

8 9

10

After these matters, in the reign of Artaxerxes king of Persia, Ezra sonofSeraiah,sonofAzariah,sonofHilkiah, sonofShallum,sonofZadok,sonofAhitub, sonofAmariah,sonofAzariah,sonofMeraioth, sonofZerahiah,sonofUzzi,sonofBukki, son of Abishua, son of Phinehas, son of Eleazar, son of Aaron thechiefpriest. This Ezra went up from Babylon. He was a scribe skilled in the lawofMoses,whichYHWHGodofIsraelhadgiven.Thekinggave himallherequestedbecausethehandofYHWHhisGodwasupon him. SomeoftheIsraelitesandsomeofthepriests,theLevites,thesingers, thegatekeepersandthetempleservantswentuptoJerusaleminthe seventhyearofKingArtaxerxes. HecametoJerusaleminthefifthmonth,thatwasintheseventhyear oftheking. For on the first of the first month he started the going up from Babylon.OnthefirstofthefifthmonthhecametoJerusalem,because thegoodhandofhisGodwasuponhim. ForEzrahadsethishearttoinquirethelawofYHWH,andtopractice andtoteachstatuteandjudgmentinIsrael.

The opening passage of the third story-element introduces the person Ezra. He is positioned in different roles: his origin, his function, his protection by God and his relationship with the Persian king. These dimensions coalesce

102

Ezra7-10

in his journey from Babylon to Jerusalem. The report contains elements that are conceived as unevenness. The long genealogy is a grammatically odd part of the sentence, and in vv. 7-9 there is a change between singular and plural forms. Some scholars construe the genealogy and the vv. 8-9 as later additions.9 Others see the text as a slightly edited form of a report by Ezra, cast into the present form by the final editor of Ezra-Nehemiah (Williamson). In my opinion, the text can be read as a unit. It functions in the composition of the Book Ezra as a bridge between the previous reports about return and rebuilding and the measures to be taken by Ezra.10 The author wants to indicate that there had been a certain continuity in divine assistance from the rebuilding up to the forthcoming measures. 7:1a

Afterthesematters,inthereignofArtaxerxeskingofPersia,

The expression ‘after these matters’ is a vague indication of time, which has no other function than the creation of a connection with the foregoing; it is caesura and bridge at the same time. With Artaxerxes – about the meaning of his name see above at Ezra 4:7 – Artaxerxes II Mnemom is meant. He ruled over the Persian empire from 404-358. He is mentioned by several Greek authors and also some ancient Persian inscriptions.11 None of these texts, however, refer to Ezra, Jerusalem or Yehud. 7:1b-5 EzrasonofSeraiah,sonofAzariah,sonofHilkiah,  sonofShallum,sonofZadok,sonofAhitub,  sonofAmariah,sonofAzariah,sonofMeraioth,  sonofZerahiah,sonofUzzi,sonofBukki,  son of Abishua, son of Phinehas, son of Eleazar, son of Aaron thechiefpriest. The name Ezra, ’ezrā’, ‘help’, is probably a shortened form of ’ezaryā, ‘Azarja/Ezraja’, ‘YHWH is my help’ (Williamson; Becker; Shepherd & Wright). He is given a detailed lineage. In seventeen generations he is connected to Aaron. The genealogy is related to that of I Chron. 5:27-41

9 For instance: M. Noth, Überlieferungsgeschichtliche Studien: Die sammelnden und bearbeitendenGeschichtswerkeimAltenTestament, Tübingen 1943, 125. 10 See also H.W.M. van Grol, ‘Ezra 7, 1–10: Een literair stylistische analyse’, Bijdragen 51 (1990), 21-37. In der Smitten, Esra, 7-11, argues for the literary unity of 7:1-10, which in his view was the work of the Chronicler. 11 Esp. Plutarchus and Ctesias; for the old-Persian inscriptions see P. Lecoq, LesinscriptionsdelaPerseachéménide, Paris 1997, 269-74; A. Kuhrt, ThePersianEmpire:ACorpus ofSourcesfromtheAchaemenidPeriod, London New York 2007, 347-405.

TheCommunityOrganized

103

(6:1-15; Myers; Williamson; Becker; Fried).12 The historical accuracy of this genealogy can hardly be seen with any certainty. Abisua, Bukki13, Uzzi, Zerachiah, Merajot, Azariah14, Amariah15, Achitub16, and Seraiah are not mentioned in priestly posts outside of Chronicles, Ezra, and Nehemiah. Hilkiah is possibly identical with Hilkiah the high priest named in II Kings 22. This long family tree functions as an argument of authority.17 Ezra is presented as a descendant in a priestly line dating back to Mosaic times. He can, therefore, speak with authority. That Aaron is called a ‘high priest’ is an anachronism, since the high priest’s office was only installed after the exile.18 Moreover, this is the only place in the Hebrew Bible, that refers to Aaron as a ‘high priest’. The Hebrew expression in Ezra 7:5, hakkohēn hāro’š deviates from the usual hakkohēn haggadôl and may thus best be translated by ‘first priest’. Hence, there is a ‘claimed tradition’ present which aims to increase the authority of Ezra. In my view, Grätz takes a step too far when he construes this genealogy as evidence for the Mosaic role of Ezra.19 Although both are drawn as leaders who brought back their people from a strange country, the differences are too great to construe Ezra as a second Moses. 7:6

ThisEzrawentupfromBabylon.Hewasascribeskilledinthelaw ofMoses,whichYHWHGodofIsraelhadgiven.Thekinggavehim allherequestedbecausethehandofYHWHhisGodwasuponhim.

After the long genealogy, the main sentence is resumed with a personal pronoun and personal name: hû’’ezrā’, ‘- Ezra now …’. First, the aim of the journey is narrated: he went up to Jerusalem from Babylon. The verb used ‘lh, ‘to go up’, indicates a positive move to Jerusalem. This verb is sometimes used to indicate the Exodus from Egypt. In DtIsa, this verb is 12 See J.R. Bartlett, ‘Zadok and his Successors at Jerusalem’, JThS 19 (1968), 1-18; L.S. Fried, Ezra and the Law in History and Tradition, Columbia 2014, 28-31; R. Heckl, NeuanfangundKontinuitätinJerusalem:StudienzudenhermeneutischenStrategienimEsraNehemia-Buch (FAT 104), Tübingen 2016, 227-31. 13 Bukki is not identical with Bukki the son van Jogli, the prince of the tribe of Dan mentioned at Num. 34:22. 14 Not to be confused with king Azariah, I Kings 14, or the friend of Daniel, Dan. 1-2. 15 Most probably a different person than his namesake in the lineage of Zephaniah (1:1). 16 Not to be confused with the brother of Ikabod, I Sam. 14. 17 On the function of genealogies in the Hebrew Bible, see R. Wilson, Genealogy and History in the Biblical world, New Haven 1977; VanderKam, From Joshua to Caiaphas, 45-46; M. Walzer, InGod’sShadow:PoliticsintheHebrewBible, New Haven 2012. 18 See VanderKam, FromJoshuatoCaiaphas, 1-42. 19 S. Grätz, Das Edikt des Artaxerxes: eine Untersuchung zum religionspolitischen und historischenUmfeldvonEsra7,12-26 (BZAW 337), Berlin New York 2004, 84.

104

Ezra7-10

used for the return from exile. The verb, however, has a broad meaning and can be used for all forms of ‘rising; going up’. Some scholars construe this phrasing of Ezra’s journey in Ezra 7 as Exodus-terminology (Throntveit; Shepherd & Wright).20 This assumption, however, relies too much on a holistic historical interpretation of the verb ‘lh. In this verse Ezra is called a sofēr. He is a writer, but it depends upon the perspective of which role exactly he is cast. In the traditional Judaean and Israelite society, a writer was someone who employed or commissioned documents or, commissioned by the temple, composed, drafted, collected or copied documents. In the emerging Judaism, the sofēr gradually turned into a Scribe whose business was the interpretation of the torah. From the perspective of Persian rulers, a sofēr was to be compared with a high courtofficial, a ‘chancellor. To construe Ezra as a Rabbinic Scribe avantlalettre is an anachronism, although in Judaism he is often interpreted as such.21 In Ezra 7, he therefore has two faces: a traditional writer who was part of the Yahwistic Judaean tradition but in the meantime, also acceptable to the Persians to carry out a special mission.22 Ezra is a writer who is praised for his craft. The Hebrew word māhîr refers to a trained craftsman, see also Psalm 45:2; Prov. 22:29; Isa. 16:5 and the Aramaic cognate in the Achiqar novel 1:1 (Blenkinsopp; Fried). The expression māhîr betôrat moše indicates that he was skilled, both in copying and editing the old law traditions and also in applying them to the situation of his own days (Jagersma). The adjustment ’ašernātanyhwh, ‘that YHWH had given’, is perceived by many as an indication that Ezra had a complete Torah/Pentateuch at his disposal (Williamson). It is by no means certain, however, that the complex process of the five books of Moses had already reached its completion by 400 BCE.23 I am, therefore, reluctant to equate Ezra’s torah with the Pentateuch. In this verse, the theme from Ezra 1 is repeated, according to which Ezra is under double protection. The emperor deals with everything Ezra asks for. The verb used, bqš, has a broad spectrum of meaning. Usually, the verb means ‘to search in an intense way; figure out; seek’. In some prophetic texts, the verb means ‘to request from’ – see, for example, Ezek. 7:26.

20

Contra K. Koch, ‘Ezra and the Origins of Judaism’, JSS 19 (1974), 173-97; Avishur, Helzer, ‘The Scribe and Priest Ezra’. 21 See, e.g. Talmud bSanh 21a. 22 On scribes and their craft in the ancient Near East, see K. van der Toorn, ScribalCulture andtheMakingoftheHebrewBible, Cambridge MA, London 2007. 23 See on Ezra’s tôrah and the way he coped with it: D. Erbele-Küster, ‚Welche Tora rezipiert Esra wie? Literarsche Begründungsstrategien des Ethos in persischer Zeit‘, in: M. Häusl (ed.), DenktnichtmehrandasFrühere!BegründungsressourceninEsra/Nehemia undJes40–66imVergleich (BBB 184), 209-24.

TheCommunityOrganized

105

In some narrative texts dating after the Babylonian exile, the verb is attested with the meaning ‘to request; question’, for example in Esther 2:15,23; Neh. 2:4. For our text, this means that the Persian ruler accepts the real request of Ezra and not just a few points from a list. At the same time, Ezra is portrayed as someone under the protection of God. The expression yadyhwh’elohâw‘ālâw occurs also elsewhere in Ezra and Nehemiah – Ezra 7:9,28; 8:18, 22, 31; Neh. 2:8,18 – and indicates God’s goodness and protection (McConville; Fried). 7:7-9 Some of the Israelites and some of the priests, the Levites, the singers,thegatekeepersandthetempleservantswentuptoJerusalem intheseventhyearofKingArtaxerxes.  HecametoJerusaleminthefifthmonth,thatwasintheseventhyear oftheking.  For on the first of the first month he started the going up from Babylon. On the first of the fifth month he came to Jerusalem, becausethegoodhandofhisGodwasuponhim. The short report on those who travelled with Ezra and on the length of the journey from Babylon to Jerusalem function as a narrative prolepsis for the more comprehensive reports about fellow travellers (Ezra 8:1-14) and the journey itself (Ezra 8:15-36). The more detailed messages are only mentioned after the assignment of Artaxerxes is displayed (Ezra 7:11-28). Those who will travel with Ezra are listed here as groups, as with the list of returnees in Ezra 2. With this, the narrator of Ezra wants to construct a bridge between the movements in the story. Historically, however, nothing may be derived from this. The transition to a plural form in the verb is not an indication of redactional activity, as the subject in this sentence refers to a variety of people. The narrator wants to show that Ezra was not alone in his pursuit. The information about the duration of the journey is presented quite accurately. Verse 9 specifies the date of arrival, mentioned in v. 8 by also mentioning the day Jerusalem was reached. Therefore, the departure from Babylon must also be located in the seventh year of Artaxerxes; the journey took four months. The reference that the departure took place on the first day of the first month is important. This shows that the departure coincided with the Babylonian New Year festival Akitu. During that festival, it was customary to implement important political measures.24 In Ezra 8, the 24 On the Akitu-festival, see J.A. Black, ‘The New Year Ceremonies in Ancient Babylon ‘Taking Bel by the Hand’ and a Cultic Picnic’, Religion 11 (1981), 39-59; K. van der Toorn, ‘The Babylonian New Year Festival: New Insights from the Cuneiform Texts and their Bearing

106

Ezra7-10

departure from the banks of the river Ahava is placed on the twelfth day of the first month. That is, eleven days after the date of Ezra 7. The difference is understandable when one considers the events related in Ezra 8. After arriving in Jerusalem, the group stayed in town for three days before offering silver, gold and cultic utensils to the priests in the temple on the fourth day. These data too, do not conflict with Ezra 7. 7:10

For Ezra had set his heart to inquire the law of YHWH, and topracticeandtoteachstatuteandjudgmentinIsrael.

This verse functions as a hinge with the following passages. The image of Ezra, outlined here, motivates both his journey, the command of the king and the measures that he will take. The expression kûn (Hi.) lēbāb, ‘to put the heart on’, refers to a ‘complete devotion to a matter’, see also I Sam. 7:3; I Chron. 29:18; II Chron. 19: 3; 20:33; 30:19 (Williamson). Ezra is focused upon ‘inquiring’ God’s clues for good conduct within the community. The verb used – drš – can refer to different things. With Albertz, I believe that this verb – traditionally used for divinatory searches for a solution in a difficult issue – here has the meaning of investigating or inquiring the Torah in urgent questions of life.25 In other words, the moral code of Israel is inquired as an oracle (thus also Fried). The ‘learning’ in Ezra 7 is certainly not the Rabbinic ‘lernen’ (thus: Jagersma), but it is the source of that tradition.

THE EDICT OF ARTAXERXES EZRA 7:11-28

11

12

This is the copy of the decree which King Artaxerxes gave to Ezra thepriest, the scribe, learned in the words of the commandments of YHWHandHisstatutesforIsrael: ‘Artaxerxes, king of kings, to Ezra the priest, the scribe of thelawoftheGodofheaven.Complete.Andnow

on Old Testament Study’, in: J.A. Emerton (ed.), CongressVolume:Leuven1989 (SVT 43), Leiden 1991, 331-39; B. Pongratz-Leisten, InaŠulmi Īrub.DiekulttopographischeundideologischeProgrammatikderAkītu-ProzessioninBabylonienundAssyrienim1.Jahrtausend vorChr., Mainz 1994; M. Hutter, ReligioneninderUmweltdesAltenTestaments:IBabylonier, Syrer, Perser (Kohlhammer Studienbücher Theologie 4,1), Stuttgart, Berlin, Köln 1996, 74-80. 25 R. Albertz, ReligionsgeschichteIsraelsinalttestamentlicherZeit (GAT 8/1-2), Göttingen 1992, 624.

TheCommunityOrganized 13

14

15

16

17

18

19 20

21

22 23

24

25

107

IhaveissuedadecreethatanyofthepeopleofIsraelandtheir priestsandtheLevitesinmykingdomwhoarewillingtogoto Jerusalem,maygowithyou. Sinceyouaresentbythekingandhissevencounsellorstoact asanoverseeroverJudahandJerusalemaccordingtothelaw ofyourGodwhichisinyourhand, andtobringthesilverandgold,whichthekingandhiscounsellorshavefreelyofferedtotheGodofIsrael,whosedwellingis inJerusalem, with all the silver and gold which you shall find in the whole districtofBabylon,alongwiththefreewillofferingofthepeople andofthepriests,whoofferedwillinglyforthehouseoftheir GodwhichisinJerusalem. Withthismoney,therefore,youshalldiligentlybuybulls,rams, andlambs,andofferthemwiththeirgrainofferingsandtheir libations on the altar of the house of your God which is in Jerusalem. Whatever seems good to you and to your brothers to do with therestofthesilverandgold,youmaydoaccordingtothewill ofyourGod. Theutensils,too,whicharegiventoyoufortheserviceofthe houseofyourGod,deliverinfullbeforetheGodofJerusalem. The rest of the requirements for the house of your God, for whichyoumayhaveoccasiontoprovide,providefromtheroyal treasury. I,KingArtaxerxes,willespeciallyissueadecreetoallthetreasurers who are in beyond the River, that whatever Ezra the priest,thescribeofthelawoftheGodofheaven,mayrequire ofyou,itshallbedonediligently, upto100talentsofsilver,100korsofwheat,100bathsofwine, 100bathsofoil,andsaltasrequired. Whatever is commanded by the God of heaven, let it be done diligently for the house of the God of heaven, otherwise there bewrathagainstthekingdomofthekingandhissons. Wealsoinformyouthatitisnotallowedtoimposetax,tribute or toll to any of the priests, Levites, singers, doorkeepers, Nethinim,orservantsofthishouseofGod. You, Ezra, according to the wisdom of your God which is in yourpossession,appointmagistratesandjudgesthattheymay judge all the people who are beyond the River, all those who knowthelawsofyourGod;andyoumayteachanyonewhois ignorant.

108

Ezra7-10

26

WhoeverwillnotobservethelawofyourGodandthelawof the king, let judgment be executed upon him strictly, whether fordeathorforbanishmentorforconfiscationofgoodsorfor imprisonment.’ BlessedbeYHWH,theGodofourfathers,whohasgivenathinglike thisintotheheartoftheking,toadornthehouseofYHWHthatisin Jerusalem, andhasstretchedoutlovingkindnessovermebeforethekingandhis counsellors and before all the king’s mighty princes. Thus, I was strengthenedaccordingtothehandofYHWHmyGoduponme,and IgatheredleadingmenfromIsraeltogoupwithme.

27

28

Ezra 7:11-26 contains the text in Aramaic of a decree by the Persian king regarding the task and the assignment of Ezra. This text is understood by many scholars as a Jewish constitution sanctioned by the Persians. I will mention two examples. By the end of the nineteenth century, Eduard Meyer extended the view that the appearance of Judaism should be seen as a direct consequence of this Persian intervention. Meyer assumes the authenticity of Ezra 7:11-26. To support his view, he refers to the so-called edict of Gadatas and to a letter from Xerxes to Pausanias quoted by Thucydides.26 In 1984, Peter Frei published his thesis of a ‘persische Reichsautorisation’.27 In his opinion, the Persians had the habit of granting local customs and social codes valid, as if they were part of Persian law. He detects this principle not only in Ezra 7:11-26 but also in several non-biblical documents such as the trilingual inscription of Letoon from Xantos,28 Darius’ law in Egypt29 and the letter about the correct celebration of Pesach or Mazzot found at Elephantine.30 The thesis that the Persian government was at the cradle of Judaism with this decree of Artaxerxes is, however, difficult to maintain.31 I would like to point out the following. 26

E. Meyer, DieEntstehungdesJudentums, Tübingen 1896. P. Frei, ‘Zentralgewalt und Lokalautonomie im Achämenidenreich’, in: P. Frei, K. Koch (eds), Reichsidee und Reichsorganisation im Perserreich (OBO 55), Fribourg, Göttingen 2 1996, 5-131. 28 See: H. Metzger; E. Laroche, A. Dupont-Sommer, ‘Le texte trilingue récemment découvert au Létôon de Xanthos’, Comptesrendusdel’Académiedesinscriptionsetbelles-lettres, Paris 1974, 82-93,115-125,132-149. 29 See: Diodorus Siculus, I 94.5. 30 TADAE A4.1; TUAT I, 253; see: E. Gass, ‘Die Passa-Papyrus (Cowl 21) – Mythos oder Realität?’, Biblische Notizen 99 (1999), 55-68; I. Kottsieper, ‘Die Religionspolitik der Achämeniden und die Juden von Elephantine’, in: R.G. Kratz (ed.), ReligionundReligionskontakte im Zeitalter der Achämeniden, Gütersloh 2002, 150–78; Lee, The Authority and AuthorizationofTorahinthePersianPeriod, 72-82. 31 See, e.g. U. Rüterswörden, ‘Die persische Reichsautorisation der Thora: fact or fiction’, ZABR 1 (1995), 47-61; K. Schmid, ‘The Persian Imperial Authorization as a Historical 27

TheCommunityOrganized

109

The value of the extra-biblical parallels is limited. The edict of Gadatas seems, at first sight, a text from the time of Darius I directed to the Ionian satrap Gadatas, in which the Persian king confers privileges on his subject.32 However, the text written in a late version of the Ionian dialect is unmasked as a fake from Roman times.33 In Thucydides, mention is made of a letter from Xerxes to the ruler of Sparta.34 This letter refers to mutual friendly relationships. If this letter were authentic at all, it still casts little light on the edict of Artaxerxes, as there is no statement of making valid local Spartan regulations by the Persian power.35 Leton’s inscription from Xantos may be dated to around 337 BCE. The text discusses the foundation of a sanctuary in three languages but, is undecided on the question whether Artaxerxes III – referred to in the text – granted royal approval to certain local religious or political practices.36 The so-called Pesach letter from Elephantine is a seriously damaged document.37 In the name of Darius (II), some regulations Problem and as a Biblical Construct: A Plea for Distinctions in the Current Debate’, in: G.N. Knoppers, B.M. Levinson (eds), ThePentateuchasTorah:Newmodelsforunderstandingitspromulgationandacceptance, Winona Lake 2007, 23-38; S. Grätz, ‘Gottesgesetz und Königsgesetz: Esr 7 und die Autorisierung der Tora, ZeitschriftfürTheologieundKirche 106 (2009), 1-19; ánd especially the essays in J.W. Watts (ed.), PersiaandTorah:thetheoryof imperialauthorizationofthePentateuch (SBL Symposium Series 17), Atlanta 2001. 32 Edition: G. Cousin, G. Deschamps, ‘Une lettre de Darius, fils d’Hystaspes, Bulletinde Correspondence Hellénique 13 (1889), 529-542; Lee, The Authority and Authorization of TorahinthePersianPeriod, 119-136. 33 See, e.g. R. Schmitt, ‘Bemerkungen zu dem sog. Gadatas-Brief’, ZeitschriftfürPapyrologie und Epigraphik 112 (1996), 95-101; P. Briant, ‘Histoire et archéologie d’un texte. La Lettre de Darius à Gadatas entre Perses, Grecs et Romains’, in: M. Giorgieri et.al. (eds), Licia e Lidia prima dell’ellenizzazione. Roma 2003, 107–144; A. Chaniotis, T. Corsten, R.S. Stroud, R.A. Tybout, ‘Magnesia on the Maeander. Letter of Darius I to Gadatas, early 2nd cent. A.D. (56-123)’, SupplementumEpigraphicumGraecum 56 (2006). See: http://referenceworks.brillonline.com/entries/supplementum-epigraphicum-graecum/ magnesia-on-the-maeander-letter-of-darius-i-to-gadatas-early-2nd-cent-a-d-56-1230-a56_ 1230; K.-J. Lee, TheAuthorityandAuthorizationofTorahinthePersianPeriod (Contributions to Biblical Exegesis & Theology, 64), Leuven 2011, 119-36; A. Fitzpatrick-McKinley, Empire,Power,andIndigenousElites:ACaseStudyoftheNehemiahMemoir(JSJ Sup, 169), Leiden 2015, 70-71. 34 Thucydides, Hist.Pelop.Wars 1,129; Kuhrt, ThePersianEmpire, 296-98. 35 For a thorough argument see D. Janzen, ‘The ‘Mission’ of Ezra and the Persian-Period Temple Community’, JBL 119 (2000), 621–623.; L.L. Grabbe, ‘The ‘Persian Documents’ in the Book of Ezra: Are They Authentic?’, in: O. Lipschits, M. Oeming (eds), Judahand theJudaeansinthePersianPeriod, Winona Lake 2006, 531-570. 36 See P. Briant, Histoiredel’EmpirePerse:DeCyrusàAlexandre, Paris 1996, 727-29; Grätz, Das Edikt des Artaxerxes, 113-138; Lee, The Authority and Authorization, 136-52; Fitzpatrick-McKinley, Empire,Power,andIndigenousElites, 71-73; A. Fitzpatrick-McKinley, ‘Indigenius Elites in Yehud’, 128-35. 37 Papyrus Berlin P. 13464; TADAE A4.1; http://elephantine.smb.museum/record/ ID100463/; see recently, Lee, TheAuthorityandAuthorization, 72-82; A. Rohrmoser, Götter, Tempel und Kult der Judäo-Aramäer von Elephantine: archäologische und schriftliche ZeugnisseausdemperserzeitlichenÄgypten (AOAT 396), Münster 2014, 384-85; B. Becking, ‘Centre, Periphery, and Interference: Notes on the “Passover/Mazzot”-Letter from Elephantine’,

110

Ezra7-10

are given to the Yehudite group in Elephantine about the celebration of a cultic matter. However, the text is so fragmentary that it is difficult to conclude that a Persian approval of local traditions may be drawn. All of this implies that there are no convincing extra-biblical indications for Persian intercession, or the approval of the cult in Jerusalem, as suggested by Meyer and Frei. The language of the edict of Artaxerxes in Ezra 7:11-26 is Aramaic. The narrator of the third element in the story interrupts his narrative in Hebrew for a document in the official language of the Persian Empire. The same procedure is also present in the second part of the story. The shift of language gives the impression that an official and authentic Persian document has been inserted here (Myers, McConville; Williamson; Clines; Blenkinsopp; Fensham; Breneman; Jobsen; Van Wijk-Bos; Shepherd & Wright).38 This view – especially to be found in older commentaries and in studies of more conservative character – has often been challenged.39 Fried takes an intermediate position by assuming an original Persian document later edited and altered by a redactor. The evolution of the Aramaic language over the centuries is evident. In official Persian documents, the suffixes 2.m.pl and 3.m.pl are consistently written as -hm and -km. In later Aramaic – for example in Daniel – we find the forms -hwn(m) and -kwn(m). In Ezra 7, both orthographies are attested: ’elāhahom (Ezra 7:16) next to ’elāhakom (Ezra 7:17, 18), ‘your God’. The typical later ending on a nûn is also present several times, for example, niskêhôn, ‘their pledge-offerings’ (Ezra 7:18). For the relative pronoun, Ezra 7 uses, as a standard, the later form dî instead of the more traditional zî as found in official Persian documents. In the preamble (Ezra 7:11), the collaborative object is initiated with the preposition le-, ‘to Ezra’. In official Persian documents, ‘l or ’l is used by default. Older forms may appear in later documents, but newer ones do not occur in older documents. The text of the edict reflects a typical Judaic perspective, as evidenced by the phrase ‘the God of Israel’ (7:15). This indication is unknown in texts that speak about Jerusalem from an outside perspective. Furthermore, the mention of the Levites betrays a Judaean perspective (Grabbe).40

in: E. Ben Zvi and C. Levin (eds), CentresandPeripheriesintheEarlySecondTemplePeriod (FAT 108), Tübingen 2016, pp. 65-78. 38 Thus: In der Smitten, Esra, 11-19; Lee, The Authority and Authorization, 213-53; Blenkinsopp, Judaism,theFirstPhase, 51-57; Willi, Esra:DerLehrerIsraels, 100-08. 39 Already by Batten; Torrey. 40 See also M. Leuchter, ‘Ezra’s Mission and the Levites of Casiphia’, in: G.N. Knoppers, K.A. Ristau (eds), CommunityIdentityinJudeanHistoriography:BiblicalandComparative Perspectives, Winona Lake 2009, 173–195; L.L. Grabbe, ‘Penetrating the Legend: In Quest for the historical Ezra’, in: M.C.A. Korpel, L.L. Grabbe (eds), Open-MindednessintheBible

TheCommunityOrganized

111

The genre of the text is not immediately clear. At first glance, the text seems to be a letter (thus: Williamson; Fried), but elements of a letter do not appear after the preamble. Sebastian Grätz has made it clear that Ezra 7:11-26 has many elements in common with Greek-Hellenistic foundation-documents. However, the text cannot be seen to be a two-sided founding treaty, but, rather resembles a founding decree of a temple cult, where the founding party mentions a pious motive and proposes its purpose with the newly established temple as a law.41 The edict has a parallel in 1 Esdras 8:9-27. Although the Greek text differs in detail, since the Artaxerxes edict is an integral part of 1Esdras, this text should have been part of the Vorlage, which the author of 1Esdras had at his disposal. All in all, I arrive at the conclusion that the edict of Artaxerxes in Ezra 7 is not an original Persian document. The textual unit must have been added to the Ezra material in later times. Presumably, that addition took place during the start of the Maccabean uprising. The edict indirectly supports the Maccabean endeavours.42 The claim that the temple in the time of Ezra was re-founded with the help of the Persian government, supports their struggle to undo the Hellenization of the Temple in Jerusalem. Thus, the edict contains an indirect call to the Hellenistic rulers to act as Artaxerxes had done. The edict contains – after the preamble – the following parts: – 13 – 14 – 15-20 – 21-25 – 26 – 27-28

Permission to return Mission to investigate in Judah and Jerusalem Regulations for the transport and use of various gifts at the temple in Jerusalem Permission to appoint magistrates and implement the ‘law’ Penalty notice for offenders Praise

As an aside, the autobiography of the Egyptian priest Udjahorresnet should be mentioned. He was an important Egyptian official and priest who was employed by the Persians after the conquest of Egypt by the new authority. In his autobiography, he describes how he, with the support of King

and Beyond: A Volume of Studies in Honour of Bob Becking (LHB/OTS 616), London, New York 2015, 101-04. 41 Grätz, Das Edikt des Artaxerxes, 63-194; see also Pakkala, Ezra the Scribe, 32-53; U. Becker,‘Esra 7 und das Problem der persischen Reichsautorisation im Spiegel der neueren Forschung’, in: M. Krebernik und H. Neumann (eds), Babylonien und seine Nachbarn in neu-undspätbabylonischerZeitWissenschaftlichesKolloquiumausAnlassdes75.Geburtstags von Joachim Oelsner Jena, 2. und 3. März 2007 (AOAT 369), Münster 2014, 1-15; Heckl, NeuanfangundKontinuität, 221-65. 42 On them see S. Honigman, TalesofHighPriestsandTaxes, Oakland 2014.

112

Ezra7-10

Cambyses, was able to restore the worship of the mother goddess Neith in Sais and cleansed it from strange influences. This inscription is not so much evidence of the historicity of Ezra and Nehemiah’s performance (McConville). However, it demonstrates that the Persians were benevolent to traditional local cults and gives a partial parallel to the performance of Ezra and Nehemiah. The inscription cannot be seen to be an argument in favour of the theory of a ‘persische Reichsautorisation’ because, in Sais a traditional cult was restored and there is no Persian influence on the nature of the cult.43 7:11

ThisisthecopyofthedecreewhichKingArtaxerxesgavetoEzra the priest, the scribe, learned in the words of the commandments ofYHWHandHisstatutesforIsrael:

This verse introduces the edict. The first part indicates the nature of the following document using two Persian loan words. The text is presented as a paršegen, ‘copy’, of a royal ništewān. This noun is a loanword from Old Persian, in which ni-štā-wan means ‘decree’. The second part of the verse is an almost ungrammatically formulated repetition of elements from Ezra 7:1-10. In my opinion, this part of the verse was written by the editor who inserted the text of the edict. 7:12 ‘Artaxerxes,kingofkings,toEzrathepriest,thescribeofthelaw oftheGodofheaven.Complete.Andnow This verse is the actual preamble of the decree. On the name of Artaxerxes see above 4:7; 7:1. The Aramaic expression melek malkayyā, ‘king of kings’, corresponds to the title that the Persian Kings proudly gave themselves.44 Since the expression also occurs at Dan. 2:37, it cannot be used as an argument for the authenticity of the edict (contra Williamson). Ezra is referred to as a priest and as a writer (see above). The question, which is meant by the ‘law of the God of heaven’, is not easy to answer. That the 43 See: U. Rössler-Köhler, ‘Zur Textkomposition der naophoren Statue des Udjahorresnet/ Vatikan Inv. Nr. 196’, GöttingerMiszellen 85 (1985), 43–54; J. Blenkinsopp, ‘The Mission of Udjahorresnet and those of Ezra and Nehemiah’, JBL 106 (1987), 409-421; J. Baines, ‘On the Composition and Inscriptions of the Vatican statue of Udjahorresne’, in: P. Der Manuelian (ed.) Studies in Honor of William Kelly Simpson, Boston 1996, 83-92; Lee, TheAuthority and Authorization of Torah in the Persian Period, 56-72; L.L. Schulte, My Shepherd, though You Do not Know Me: The Persian Royal Propaganda Model in the NehemiahMemoir (BETh 78), Leuven 2016, 48-57.84-88. 44 For instance, in the tri-lingual inscription of Artaxerxes II A2Sa, in which the expression is given in Babylonian, Old-Persian and Elamite; see Lecoq, Les inscriptions de la Perse achéménide, 272-73; Kuhrt, ThePersianEmpire, 364-365.

TheCommunityOrganized

113

Law of Moses would be implied here is unquestionable. In the Hellenistic context of the editor who inserted the edict, the expression will have referred to the Maccabean program. 7:13

I have issued a decree that any of the people of Israel and their priests and the Levites in my kingdom who are willing to go to Jerusalem,maygowithyou.

By means of an official order (te‘ēm), Artaxerxes gives permission to all Israelites who want to return to Jerusalem. The mention of ‘priests and Levites’ appears unnecessary – they are by definition part of the people – but clearly shows the writer’s perspective: the new community must be formed around priests and Levites. The core of the identity of the people, after the Maccabean revolt, will be religious in nature. 7:14 Since you are sent by the king and his seven counsellors to act as anoverseeroverJudahandJerusalemaccordingtothelawofyour Godwhichisinyourhand, This verse relates the motivation for the royal permission. The consent is also backed by the king’s seven counsellors. What stands out is that this function is not indicated by a Persian loanword. The fact that the Persian court had advisers is more than plausible.45 However, from Persian and Greek sources, the number of seven advisers is unknown. The assignment to Ezra is lebaqqārā’. Usually, the verb bqr has as its meaning ‘to set up an investigation’.46 Steiner, however, has made it clear that ‘to act as an overseer’ is a more adequate translation (also Fried).47 Ezra is thus given the task of overseeing the respect for the law in Judah and Jerusalem. To the Hellenistic editor, this means that ‘Ezra’ has the task of implementing the Maccabean program.

45

See also Esther 1:14; Herodotus Hist.III.31,84; Xenophon, Anabasis I.6. Torrey, EzraStudies, Chicago 1910, 205; Myers; Williamson. 47 R.C. Steiner, ‘The mbqr at Qumran, the Episkopos in the Athenian Empire, and the Meaning of lbqr’ in Ezra 7:14: On the Relation of Ezra’s Mission to the Persian Legal Project’, JBL120 (2001), 623-646; see also Grabbe, ‘The ‘Persian Documents’’, 551; L.S. Fried, EzraandtheLawinHistoryandTradition, Columbia 2014, 12-14. 46

114

Ezra7-10

7:15-16 andtobringthesilverandgold,whichthekingandhiscounsellors have freely offered to the God of Israel, whose dwelling is in Jerusalem,  withallthesilverandgoldwhichyoushallfindinthewholedistrict of Babylon, along with the freewill offering of the people and of thepriests, who offered willingly for the house of their God which isinJerusalem. The first aim of Ezra’s journey was to transfer a treasure of gold and silver objects. These were made available to him by four groups: first, the king; then the counsellors; the non-Judaean people of Babylon and, finally, the Judaeans themselves who gave their gifts to the priests. Emphasis is placed on the fact that giving all these gifts is a voluntary act. This symbolically indicates the support received by Ezra from the Persian court and the people of Babylon and the surrounding area. Although the Persians were favourable to the cult of the gods of other peoples, no examples of texts mentioning financial support to non-Persian temple services are known. In the fortification tablets from Persepolis, there is a regular assertion of goods for sacrifice services during the period of Darius I, Xerxes I and Artaxerxes I. These regard, however, always Persian or Elamite forms of worship.48

7:17-18 Withthismoney,therefore,youshalldiligentlybuybulls,rams, and lambs, and offer them with their grain offerings and their libationsonthealtarofthehouseofyourGodwhichisinJerusalem.  Whateverseemsgoodtoyouandtoyourbrotherstodowiththerest ofthesilverandgold,youmaydoaccordingtothewillofyourGod. Ezra receives this treasure of gold and silver for the purchase of sacrificial animals and the necessities for food offerings and sacrifices. In Numbers 15, instructions are given for animal sacrifices with the accompanying food offerings and pouring offerings. The narrative setting of these sacrifices in Num. 15 is the forthcoming entry into the Promised Land. The sacrifices mentioned in Ezra 7:17-18 are in the narrative setting of the return in the Promised Land. Remarkable is the note that Ezra might use the surplus of these treasures at his own discretion. This remark emphasizes Ezra’s importance. Williamson points out that in Ezra 7:20-24, financial arrangements are being made for the regular sacrificial cult. In his opinion, 7:17-18 refers to the special occasion of thanksgiving for the safe return from the exile.

48 See W.F.M. Henkelmans, TheOtherGodsWhoAre:StudiesinElamite-IranianAcculturationbasedonthePersepolisFortificationTexts(Achaemenid History 14), Leiden 2008, 337.

TheCommunityOrganized

115

7:19 Theutensils,too,whicharegiventoyoufortheserviceofthehouse ofyourGod,deliverinfullbeforetheGodofJerusalem. The theme of the cultic vessels returns here (see Ezra 1:7). Earlier in the Book of Ezra, these objects were identified as the temple vessels that Nebuchadnezzar captured from Jerusalem. This indication is missing here. 7:20-24 TherestoftherequirementsforthehouseofyourGod,forwhich youmayhaveoccasiontoprovide,providefromtheroyaltreasury.  I,KingArtaxerxes,willespeciallyissueadecreetoallthetreasurers who are in beyond the River, that whatever Ezra the priest, the scribeofthelawoftheGodofheaven,mayrequireofyou,itshall bedonediligently,  up to 100 talents of silver, 100 kors of wheat, 100 baths of wine, 100bathsofoil,andsaltasneeded.  Whatever is commanded by the God of heaven, let it be done diligently for the house of the God of heaven, otherwise there be wrathagainstthekingdomofthekingandhissons.  Wealsoinformyouthatitisnotallowedtoimposetax,tributeor tolltoanyofthepriests,Levites,singers,doorkeepers,Nethinim,or servantsofthishouseofGod. These verses describe a very precise arrangement for the regular temple service. They concern both a financial arrangement for the cult in Jerusalem and the provision of tax exemption for cultic personnel. According to Greek sources, such exemption would not have been unusual in the Persian Empire (Becker).49 The list of cult staff covered by the exemption strongly reflects the group-wise order in the list of returnees in Ezra 2. 7:25-26 You,Ezra,accordingtothewisdomofyourGodwhichisinyour possession,appointmagistratesandjudgesthattheymayjudgeall thepeoplewhoarebeyondtheRiver,allthosewhoknowthelaws ofyourGod;andyoumayteachanyonewhoisignorant.  Whoever will not observe the law of your God and the law of the king,letjudgmentbeexecuteduponhimstrictly,whetherfordeath orforbanishmentorforconfiscationofgoodsorforimprisonment.’ After describing the gifts for the cult in Jerusalem, the author returns to the theme ‘divine law’. Ezra is given the task of setting up a judicial apparatus.

49 The exemption is implied in the relatively late letter of Darius II to Gadatas. Herodotus, Hist. III.91, contains a remark about exemption for Arabs with the side-remark that they did not fall under Persian rule, which makes this example less convincing (contra Williamson).

116

Ezra7-10

The word ‘judicial’, however, is misleading as the measure to be taken do not just concern what we should call civil law but also the maintenance of God’s rules of life. The religious and legal realm overlapped each other in antiquity. The Persian loanword dāt does largely coincide with the Hebrew concept of tôrāh, especially in the context of a Judean document, and refers to the social life in Jerusalem and its surroundings under the seizure of the law of justice.50 The expression ‘according to the wisdom of your God which is in your possession’ deserves explanation. The Aramaic adverbial adjunct bîdāk, ‘in your hand’, is comparable to the Hebrew construction beyādèkā, that has the connotation ‘in your power’ and with the Babylonian expression ina qatikunu, ‘at your disposal’, as it appears in the Behistun inscription of Darius.51 In I Chron. 14:10, God promises that He will give the Philistines into David’s power. For Ezra 7:25, this means that the wisdom mentioned is ‘in the possession of Ezra’ (thus: Jagersma). The compound ’èlāhākis, in my opinion, the expression of a genitivusqualitatis and refers to the ‘divine wisdom’ of Ezra and not to the wisdom of God (contra Fried).52 Ezra 7:25 cannot be seen to be the first text, in which the concepts of tôrāh and wisdom coincide (Williamson). In legal language it is indicated to whom the dāt will apply. Nobody is excluded because the concept applies to both those who know her and to those who do not know her. The Aramaic verb yedā‘,in the sense of ‘knowing’, occurs three times in this passage. The third time in the Haph. ‘to make known’. Ezra is also given the task of making the dāt known. It is also stipulated that this dāt will have consequences for whoever does not respect the concept. For the meaning of the Aramaic adverb ’āsparnā’, ‘as accurately as po ssible; complete’, see above at Ezra 6:13. To those who do not keep the dāt, death, ban, a fine or imprisonment is impending.

50 See, next to the commentaries, Th. Willi, Juda–Jehud–Israel:StudienzumSelbstverständnisdesJudentumsinpersischerZeit(FAT 12), Tübingen 1995, 90–91; Fried, Ezra andtheLaw, 14-17; C. Tuplin, ‘The Justice of Darius; Reflections on the Achaemenid Empire as a rule-bound Environment’, in: A. Fitzpatrick-McKinley (ed.), Assessing Biblical and ClassicalSourcesfortheReconstructionofPersianInfluence,HistoryandCulture(Classica et Orientalia 10), Wiesbaden 2015, 73-126; Y. Kiel, ‘Reinventing Mosaic Torah in EzraNehemiah in the Light of the Law (dāta) of Ahura Mazda and Zarathustra’, JBL 136 (2017), 323-345. 51 DB IV:36; see also Fried, EzraandtheLaw, 17-18 52 Compare Dan. 5:14; with B. Becking, ‘“A divine spirit is in you”. Notes on the translation of the phrase rûaḥ ‘elāhîn in Daniel 5,14 and related texts’, in: A.S. van der Woude (ed.), TheBookofDanielintheLightofNewFindings (BETL 106), Leuven 1993, 515-519.

TheCommunityOrganized

117

7:27-28 BlessedbeYHWH,theGodofourfathers,whohasgivenathing like this into the heart of the king, to adorn the house of YHWH thatisinJerusalem,  and has stretched out lovingkindness over me before the king and hiscounsellorsandbeforealltheking’smightyprinces.Thus,Iwas strengthenedaccordingtothehandofYHWHmyGoduponme,and IgatheredleadingmenfromIsraeltogoupwithme. Both by a petucha and by the transition from Aramaic to Hebrew, this doxology is set apart from the text of the edict (Myers). Van Grol construes 7:27-28 as the prologue of Ezra 8.53 He is right as such but, by the insertion in the Hellenistic period of the section about the edict of Artaxerxes, the function of these two verses transformed to that of a hinge between the presentation of the edict and the description of the return journey. In the doxology, Ezra is the speaking voice. The text contains the classic form elements of a describing song of praise.54 Following the call for praise (27a), a motivational summary of God’s good deeds in recent history (27b-28a) follows. The most important elements of this textual unit are (1) the initiative of God to move the Persian king to restore the temple in its former glory and (2) to grant the Persian king a mandate to Ezra. The second part of v. 28 contains the description of two acts of Ezra. Based on the edict and supported by the doxology, he takes courage and collects leading figures from the exilic community to travel with him to Jerusalem. The two narratives form a hinge with the list of family heads that follows in Ezra 8. Because of the petucha after v. 28, these two narratives cannot be seen to be part of the introduction to this list (contra Williamson).

LIST OF THOSE RETURNING WITH EZRA EZRA 8:1-14

1

These are the heads of their ancestor-groups and the registrations of those who went up with me from Babylon in the reign of King Artaxerxes: ofthesonsofPinehas,Gershom; ofthesonsofIthamar,Daniel; ofthesonsofDavid,Hattush;

2   53

H.W.M. van Grol, ‘Ezra 8: on the way to community’, Bijdragen57 (1996), 362-380. ‘Berichtende Lobpsalm’, see C. Westermann, LobundKlageindenPsalmen, Göttingen 1977, 61-67. 54

118 3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13   14 

Ezra7-10 ofthesonsofShecaniahofthesonsofParosh,Zechariah andwithhimwereregistered150males ofthesonsofPahath-moab,EliehoenaithesonofZerahiah and200maleswithhim; ofthesonsofShecaniah,thesonofJahaziel and300maleswithhim; andofthesonsofAdin,EbedthesonofJonathan and50maleswithhim; andofthesonsofElam,JeshaiahthesonofAthaliah and70maleswithhim; andofthesonsofShephatiah,ZebadiahthesonofMichael and80maleswithhim; ofthesonsofJoab,ObadiahthesonofJehiel and218maleswithhim; andofthesonsofShelomith,thesonofJosiphiah and160maleswithhim; andofthesonsofBebai,ZechariahthesonofBebai and28maleswithhim; andofthesonsofAzgad,JohananthesonofHakkatan and110maleswithhim; andofthesonsofAdonikam,thelastones, thesebeingtheirnames,Eliphelet,Jeuel,andShemaiah and60maleswiththem; andofthesonsofBigvai,UthaiandZabbud and70maleswiththem.

The origin of this list is unclear. Several suggestions have been made. It might go back to a census list of the leading group in and around Jerusalem. This group is called by Weinberg the ‘Bürger-Tempel-Gemeinde’.55 The list may be an adjustment of the list from Ezra 2//Neh. 7.56 This present list might also go back to an independent document available to the author (Williamson).57 It is more likely to think of an ad hoc composition which, in particular, aims to express a view about the forthcoming community around Jerusalem. After an introduction, the list consists of three parts: (1) a priestly line (2) a royal line, and (3) a list of twelve leading families. Through these three lines, the intended identity of the new community is constructed as an unambiguous community under priestly guidance. In

55

J. Weinberg, TheCitizen-TempleCommunity (JSOT Sup 151), Sheffield 1992, 41-61. Thus S. Mowinckel, Studien zu dem Buche Ezra-Nehemia I (Skrifter utgitt av det Norske videnskaps-akademi i Oslo II), Oslo 1964, 122. 57 See, e.g. In der Smitten, Esra, 20-21. 56

TheCommunityOrganized

119

addition, it is striking that the priestly line precedes the royal line. This seems to be a signal that the dream of a restored Davidic dynasty had slowly been absorbed by reality around 400.58 8:1

Thesearetheheadsoftheirancestor-groupsandtheregistrations of those who went up with me from Babylon in the reign of King Artaxerxes:

The introduction presents the following verses as a list of family heads. Above, Ezra 1:5, it has already been remarked that the expression rōšê hā’ābôt, literally: ‘the heads of the fathers’, is an elliptical expression for ‘the heads of the fathers’ houses’, that is, the clans or extended families, as they were of great importance during the Persian period.59 8:2a ofthesonsofPinehas,Gershom;  ofthesonsofIthamar,Daniel; The priestly line is drawn over Pinehas. This grandson of Aaron (Exodus 6:24) was also mentioned in the family tree of Ezra (7:5). The head of the priestly family at the time of Ezra was apparently Gershom. The name pînḥās has an Egyptian background. The Egyptian name Pe-Nehasi means ‘the bronze (one)’ and could indicate a coloured person, of Nubian background. In the Hebrew Bible there are three persons thus named: (1) the grandson of Aaron, (2) one of the sons of the priest Eli (1 Sam. 1-4) and (3) Eleazar’s father. The latter is mentioned at Ezra 8:33 as one of the helpers in balancing the gold and silver in the temple. The name gēršom is Hebrew and means ‘stranger-there’. In the Hebrew Bible, there are three people thus named: (1) the eldest son of Moses and Sippora (Exod. 2:22; 18:3); (2) the descendant of Pinehas mentioned in Ezra; and (3) a son of Levi (I Chron. 6).

The second group in the priestly line is the family of Ithamar. He was one of Aaron’s sons. After the punishment by God of Nadab and Abihu for bringing an illegal sacrifice, Ithamar, together with his brother Eleazar, offered in a correct way in the desert sanctuary. This line is now being continued in a certain sense. A descendant of him in the time of Ezra was Daniel. The identity of this Daniel is unknown. He does not coincide with the namesake of the Biblical book Daniel. In Neh. 10:6 a Daniel is mentioned as one of those who sealed the treaty in Neh. 9. Whether this Daniel was the same person as Daniel mentioned in Ezra 8 may no longer be considered. 58

See especially, R. Albertz, ‘The Thwarted Restoration’, in: R. Albertz, B. Becking (eds), YahwismaftertheExile:PerspectivesonIsraelitereligioninthePersianera(STA 5), Assen 2003, 1-17. 59 See Weinberg, TheCitizen-TempleCommunity, 49-61.

120 8:2b

Ezra7-10 ofthesonsofDavid,Hattush;

In the royal line, only one name from the past is mentioned: David. The memory of this great king is slightly weakened by the name of the family head. Chattus, the son of Sekaniah, is mentioned in a side-line of David’s genealogy, where he is the grandson of Sekaniah (1 Chronicles 3:22). The meaning of the name ḥaṭṭûš is unknown. In Nehemiah there are three other persons who have this name: (1) a helper in the building of the wall (Neh. 3:10), (2) a priest who signed the treaty of Nehemiah (Neh. 10:4), and (3) a priest who returned with Zerubbabel (Neh. 12:2).

8:3b-14 ofthesonsofShecaniahofthesonsofParosh,Zechariah  andwithhimwereregistered150males  ofthesonsofPahath-moab,EliehoenaithesonofZerahiah  and200maleswithhim;  ofthesonsofShecaniah,thesonofJahaziel  and300maleswithhim;  andofthesonsofAdin,EbedthesonofJonathan  and50maleswithhim;  andofthesonsofElam,JeshaiahthesonofAthaliah  and70maleswithhim;  andofthesonsofShephatiah,ZebadiahthesonofMichael  and80maleswithhim;  ofthesonsofJoab,ObadiahthesonofJehiel  and218maleswithhim;  andofthesonsofShelomith,thesonofJosiphiah  and160maleswithhim;  andofthesonsofBebai,ZechariahthesonofBebai  and28maleswithhim;  andofthesonsofAzgad,JohananthesonofHakkatan  and110maleswithhim;  andofthesonsofAdonikam,thelastones,  thesebeingtheirnames,Eliphelet,Jeuel,andShemaiah  and60maleswiththem;  andofthesonsofBigvai,UthaiandZabbud  and70maleswiththem. There are twelve leading families mentioned. In that number, the concept of the twelve tribes of Israel is echoed. Apparently, Ezra wants to construe a continuity with the former idea of community. Each family is indicated with an ancestor and the contemporary leader. In addition, the list shows the number of persons – mostly men – that became ‘registered’. The numbers, with two exceptions, are always round numbers. The sum of these numbers

TheCommunityOrganized

121

is 1496. The size of the entire group can only be approximated. Williamson thinks of a group of 5,000 people. All these men are ‘registered’. This is indicated with a form of the Hitp. of the verb yḥš. This verb is found only in Chronicles, Ezra and Nehemiah and always in the context of genealogies or lists. In what list the persons from Ezra 8:3b-14 were included, it is not clear. Most modern translations add in, v. 5, ‘Zattu’ as the parent of this family. LXX and 1Esdras 8:32 read here ἀπὸ υἱῶν Ζαθοης. In Ezra and Nehemiah, the name Zattu occurs four times: in the list of returnees Ezra 2:8 // Neh. 7:13; and in the list of those who endorsed the treaty of Nehemiah (Neh. 10:14, 27). Something similar applies to the addition of Bani in 8:10 based on LXX and 1Esdras 8:36. šelômît, ‘Selomit’, is the name of a woman (Blenkinsopp; see Lev. 24:11; I Chron. 3:19; 23:18; 26:25-28; II Chron. 11:20). Many give the name a male vocalization, e.g. ‘Selomot’ (Williamson) and refer to the LXX Σαλιμουθ. Since the Hebrew word ben can also mean ‘daughter’, this change is not very well argued. There is no reason to assume that in the time of Ezra women could not act as family head.

THE JOURNEY OF EZRA TO JERUSALEM EZRA 8:15-36

15

16

17

18

19 20

21

IgatheredthemattheriverthatrunstoAhava,wherewecampedfor threedays.Iobservedthepeopleandthepriests.Ididnotfindany Levitethere. IsentforEliezer,Ariel,Shemaiah,Elnathan,Jarib,Elnathan,Nathan, Zechariah,andMeshullam,leadingmen,andforJoiaribandElnathan, menofunderstanding. I brought them out to Iddo, the head at the place Casiphia. I told them what to say to Iddo, his brothers, the temple servants at the placeCasiphia,thatis,tobringservantstousforthehouseofour God. SincethegoodhandofourGodwasuponus,theybroughtusaman of understanding of the sons of Mahli, the son of Levi, the son of Israel,namelySherebiah,andhissonsandbrothers,18men; andHashabiahandJeshaiahofthesonsofMerari,withhisbrothers andtheirsons,20men; and 220 of the temple servants, whom David and the princes hadgiven for the service of the Levites, all of them designated by name. Iproclaimedafastthere,attheriverofAhava,thatweshouldhumble ourselvesbeforeourGodtoseekfromHimasafejourneyforus,our littleones,andallourpossessions.

122 22 

23 24 25

26 27 28 

29

30 31

32 33

34 35

36

Ezra7-10 ForIwasashamedtorequestfromthekingtroopsandhorsemento protectusfromtheenemyontheway,becausewehadsaidtotheking: ‘ThehandofourGodisfavourablydisposedtoallthosewho seek Him, but His power and His anger are against all those whoforsakeHim.’ WefastedandsoughtourGodconcerningthisandHelistenedtoour prayer. Isetaparttwelveoftheleadingpriests,Sherebiah,Hashabiah,and withthemtenoftheirbrothers. Iweighedouttothemthesilver,thegold,andtheutensils,theoffering forthehouseofourGodwhichthekingandhiscounsellorsandhis princes,andallIsrael,hadfound. Iweighedintotheirhands650talentsofsilver,andsilverutensilsof 100talents,100goldtalents, and 20 gold bowls of 1,000 darics; and two utensils of fine shiny bronze,preciousasgold. Isaidtothem: ‘You are holy to YHWH, and the utensils are holy; and the silverandthegoldareafreewillofferingtoYHWH,theGodof yourfathers. Watchandguarduntilyouweighbeforetheleadingpriests,the Levites, and the heads of the fathers’ households of Israel at Jerusalem,inthechambersofthehouseofYHWH.’ ThepriestsandtheLevitesreceivedtheweighed-outsilverandgold andtheutensils,tobringtoJerusalemtothehouseofourGod. WejourneyedfromtheriverAhavaonthetwelfthofthefirstmonth togotoJerusalem.ThehandofourGodwasoverus,andHedeliveredusfromthehandoftheenemyandtheambushesalongtheway. WecametoJerusalemandrestedtherethreedays. Onthefourthdaythesilverandthegoldandtheutensilswereweighed out in the house of our God into the hand of Meremoth the son of Uriahthepriest,andwithhimEleazarthesonofPinehas;andwith themtheLevites,JozabadthesonofJeshuaandNoadiahthesonof Binnui. Everythingnumberedandweighed,andalltheweightwasrecorded atthattime. Theexileswhohadcomefromthecaptivityofferedburntofferingsto theGodofIsrael:12bullsforallIsrael,96rams,77lambs,12male goatsforasinoffering,allasaburntofferingtoYHWH. They delivered the decrees of the king unto the satraps of the king, and to the governors on this side of the river. They furthered the people,andthehouseofGod.

TheCommunityOrganized

123

The report of the journey of Ezra to Jerusalem is moulded in a clear literary form. The topography of the journey is marked: from the shores of the Ahava in Babylon to Jerusalem. Before departure and after arrival, a period of three days’ rest is observed (v. 15 and 32). The text contains two summaries: a list of Levites and temple servants (18-20) and a very detailed list of the gold and silver objects destined for the temple in Jerusalem (25-27). At the heart of the message is the confession that only the caring hand of God can be a guarantee for a prosperous journey (21-23). This confession is flanked by the declaration of Ezra that the people is holy (28). There are, therefore, no decisive reasons to assume different sources behind Ezra 8:15-36 (with Fensham, contra Williamson) or, to assume a complex process of editing (contra Leuchter60). The report is a functional element of Ezra 7-10, as it shows that the community around the reconstructed temple is rooted in both piety and in the precise execution of given assignments. 8:15-20 In the opening scene, the lack of Levites is detected and eliminated. 8:15

IgatheredthemattheriverthatrunstoAhava,wherewecamped forthreedays.Iobservedthepeopleandthepriests.Ididnotfind anyLevitethere.

After listing the travelling companions of Ezra, the narrator takes up the thread of the end of chapter 7, which contains three important elements. The collection point for the travel companions is referred to as ‘on the river that flows to Ahava’. The noun nāhār, ‘river’, is an intertextual connection with the nāharôtbābēl of Psalm 137 (see also Jagersma). The verb bô’ in combination with the preposition ’el literally means ‘to come to’. In view of the context, ‘flowed to’ seems to better a better translation. ‘Ahava’ occurs also in Ezra 8:21, 31, where the ‘river of Ahava’ is referred to. Obviously, the topographical indication can refer both to the river and to the most important place. The location of Ahava is unknown. ’ahwāh, ‘Ahava’, does not occur in other ancient Eastern sources. LXX translates with Ευι and the Vulg. with Ahawa. The name of the Midianite ruler ’ewî, ‘Ewi’, defeated by Moses, is also rendered in the LXX with Ευι. Rawlinson proposed an identification with the current name Hit.61 This place lays at eight days away from Babylon and is possibly identical with the place named Is, mentioned by Herodotus.62

60

Leuchter, ‘Ezra’s Mission and the Levites of Casiphia’. G. Rawlinson, The Seven Great Monarchies of The Ancient Eastern World Vol 1.: Chaldaea, London 1884. 62 Herodotus Hist.I.79. 61

124

Ezra7-10

Blenkinsopp supposes an identification with the place Scenae, a city located at a canal near the border of Babylon, which is mentioned by Strabo, Geographika xvi 1: 27. These proposals are not very convincing. The same holds for the attempt to connect the name Ahava with an Indo-European etymology: Gothic ‘ahwa’, Old High German ‘aha’, and Old Dutch ‘a’ all mean water.63

In the phrase ‘we camped for three days’, a verb ḥnh occurs that is often used in the Book Numbers for encampments during the 40-year journey through the desert. Although the verb may also have a military connotation – see, for example, Sennacherib who encamped outside Jerusalem (II Chronicles 32:1) – the verb in Ezra 8:15 is, rather, connected to the theme of the entrance into the promised land (Shepherd & Wright). Ezra pays attention to people. The verb used, bîn, indicates that a mental comprehension is referred to (see also Neh. 13:7). He finds out that no Levites are present and construes this as a failure. The narrator, as in Ezra 7:13, underscores that the new community cannot be formed without the Levites.64 8:16-17 I sent for Eliezer, Ariel, Shemaiah, Elnathan, Jarib, Elnathan, Nathan, Zechariah, and Meshullam, leading men, and for Joiarib andElnathan,menofunderstanding.  IbroughtthemouttoIddo,theheadattheplaceCasiphia.Itoldthem what to say to Iddo, his brothers, the temple servants at the place Casiphia,thatis,tobringservantstousforthehouseofourGod. Ezra sends out nine ‘heads’ and two ‘experts’ to investigate. Their names are given. The ‘heads’ are the leaders of clans or extended families. The choice for them is functional in connection to their position in the community. They are accompanied by two mebînîm. This noun is sometimes incorrectly translated with ‘teachers’. A translation ‘those who have insight’ is more to the point. Jojarib and Elnathan are chosen not because of their position but because of their expertise. Both groups are necessary. There is no reason to take the two nouns, with Williamson, as a hendiadys: ‘intelligent leaders’. The delegation receives a message for Iddo in Casiphia, where he is assumed to be the local leader in the sense of clan-head. Whether he has a cultural function is unclear. An identification with Iddo mentioned in Neh. 12 is uncertain. The location of Casiphia is unclear.

63 64

See R. Ferguson, TheRiver-NamesofEurope, London 1862, 23-24. See also Leuchter, ‘Ezra’s Mission and the Levites of Casiphia’.

TheCommunityOrganized

125

Casiphia, kāsiphyā’, is an Aramaic toponym derived from the word keseph, ‘silver’. Since Iddo is called the ro’šhammāqôm, ‘head of the place’, and the Hebrew word māqôm can also refer to a ‘sanctuary’ (e.g. in Neh. 1:9), it has been assumed that in Casiphia would have stood a sanctuary for the exiles in analogy with the temple of Yahô in Elephantine (Blenkinsopp; Jobsen).65 The existence of such a sanctuary is certainly not impossible, but as long as there is no written or archaeological evidence, the proposal remains speculative. While the location of Casiphia is uncertain, an identification with Kassappa/i on the banks of the Zab66 is considered impossible by some because the place would be too far north from Babylon (Fried). An identification with the city of Ctesiphon at the Tigris (pondered by Fensham; Becker) meets the objection that this city was only founded around 120 BCE by the Parthians.

8:18-20 Since the good hand of our God was upon us, they brought us amanofunderstandingofthesonsofMahli,thesonofLevi,theson ofIsrael,namelySherebiah,andhissonsandbrothers,18men;  andHashabiahandJeshaiahofthesonsofMerari,withhisbrothers andtheirsons,20men;  and 220 of the temple servants, whom David and the princes had givenfortheserviceoftheLevites,allofthemdesignatedbyname. Two groups of Levites are found both with a venerable descent. Serebja, together with his sons and relatives, form a group of eighteen persons. Serebja is a descendant of Machli of the family-line of Levi, see also Exod. 6:18; Num. 3:20; I Chron. 6:23. Serebja is seen as an ’îš šekel, ‘a man full of insight’. The object of his insight is not mentioned but, will undoubtedly be correlated to the cult. A second group is formed around Chasabja. Together with brothers and sons and with a person called Jeshaiah, he forms a group of twenty Levites. Chasabiah, descended from Merari, a son of Levi (see Exodus 6:15). Then there are 220 ‘temple servants’. About this group that would have been installed by David as useful to the Levites, see already Ezra 2:43 and 7:7. Their mention in Ezra 8 betrays a typically Jewish perspective. The opening line of this unit shows that the narrator did not see the recent events all as pure-human-work. Verse 18 mentions the confession that the ‘good hand of YHWH, our God, was with us’. The removal of the lack of Levites is seen as an act of God.

65 Firstly by L.E. Browne, ‘A Jewish Sanctuary in Babylonia’, JThS 7 (1916), 400-01; Blenkinsopp, Judaism, the First Phase, 60; see however Williamson; A. Runesson, D.D. Binder and B. Olsson (eds), TheAncientSynagoguefromitsOriginsto200CE:ASource Book (AJEC 72), Leiden 2008, 274-75. 66 Thus: K.-H. Deller, ‘aB Kastappum, mA Kaltappu, nA Kassappa/i’, NABU 4 (1990), Nr. 83; Leuchter, ‘Ezra’s Mission and the Levites of Casiphia’.

126

Ezra7-10

8:21-23 Before the journey starts, there are two types of activities: a fasting with as its aim to procure God’s protection during the journey (21-23) and practical measures relating to the transport of the treasures to the temple (24-30). 8:21

I proclaimed a fast there, at the river of Ahava, that we should humbleourselvesbeforeourGodtoseekfromHimasafejourney forus,ourlittleones,andallourpossessions.

Ezra proclaims a fast. The abandonment of food had a broad religious significance in Ancient Israel – as throughout the whole of the Ancient Near East. Fasting can be part of a mourning process. Fasting can be the expression of repentance and the search for forgiveness. Fasting can be a preparation for the encounter with the Divine (see, for example, Elijah in I Kings 19).67 In Ezra 8, fasting is a ritual, which prepares for the journey and the expected dangers. Of great importance is the aspect of humiliation. The verb ‘nh signifies in the Hitp. literally ‘making yourself small’. In confrontation with the imminent insecurity, the human being feels small and little and requires protection by higher powers. 8:22



ForIwasashamedtorequestfromthekingtroopsandhorsemento protectusfromtheenemyontheway,becausewehadsaidtothe king: ‘The hand of our God is favourably disposed to all those who seekHim,butHispowerandHisangerareagainstallthosewho forsakeHim.’

Ezra reports that he did not dare to ask the Persian king for protection. The narrator uses the verb form boštî here. This form may be derived from the verb bôš, ‘to be ashamed of’. In that case, Ezra would have been too embarrassed to ask the Persian king (thus: Williamson; Blenkinsopp). Another possibility is to derive the form of a verb bôš II, ‘to linger; to tarry’. In that case, Ezra would have let pass by his chance by being slow.68 In view

67 See H.A. Brongers, ‘Fasting in Israel in Biblical and Post-Biblical Times’, in: InstructionandInterpretation:StudiesinHebrewLanguage,PalestinianArchaeologyandBiblical Exegesis(OTS 20), Leiden 1977, 1-21; Th. Podella, Ṣôm-Fasten:kollektiveTrauerumden verborgenen Gott im Alten Testament (AOAT 224), Neukirchen-Vluyn 1989; S.M. Olyan, BiblicalMourning:RitualandSocialDimensions, Oxford 2004, 71. 68 W.L. Holladay, AconciseHebrewandAramaicLexiconoftheOldTestament, Grand Rapids 1971, 36. The same verb is used in Exod. 32:1 to describe Moses’ lingering to descend from the mountain.

TheCommunityOrganized

127

of the fact that Ezra is drawn in these chapters as a resolute person, preference must be given to the first possibility. The second part of the verse too, pleads for such an interpretation. The narrative shifts to the we-form and reports that the king had already given a short confession of faith in God. This expression is traditional in nature and expresses both sides of the testimony on God in the Hebrew Bible: God is good for those who follow him, but his blazing wrath turns against those who forsake him.69 Grabbe pointed out that Ezra’s refusal to request imperial protection was completely unrealistic given the enormous value he transported and the expected presence of highwaymen and ambushes on the way.70 This detail is an additional argument for the fictionality of the pseudepigraphic writing of the Book of Ezra. 8:23

We fasted and sought our God concerning this and He listened to ourprayer.

With a remark that clearly betrays the ‘posterior perspective’ of the narrator, it is indicated that the fasting had not been futile. Anticipating v. 31, it is stated in traditional language that God answered their prayers and fasting. The verb-form used here yē‘ātēr – ‘tr, ‘to entreat; to supplicate’, Ni. – with God as a subject also occurs at Gen. 25:21-22; II Sam. 21:14; 24:25; II Chron. 33:13. 8:24 Isetaparttwelveoftheleadingpriests,Sherebiah,Hashabiah,and withthemtenoftheirbrothers. Then Ezra secluded some men who will be charged with the transport of the treasures up to the temple. For ‘to seclude’ a form of Hebrew verb bādal is used. As in the P-sections of the Pentateuch, this verb refers to a classifying distinction, especially between ‘pure’ and ‘unclean’, ‘holy’ and ‘non-holy’.71 Within the composition of the Book of Ezra, this verb refers back to the summons to the descendants of those who had remained in the country to renounce the unclean habits of the population of the country (6:21) and forward to the theme of ‘not secluding’ in the crisis of Ezra 9. The number of men secluded by Ezra is, however, not immediately clear. In the first half of the verse twelve ‘leading priests’ are mentioned.

69 See W. Brueggemann, TheologyoftheOldTestament:Testimony,Dispute,Advocacy, Minneapolis 1997, on the concepts of ‘core-testimony’ and ‘counter testimony’. 70 Grabbe, ‘Penetrating the Legend’, 97-98. 71 See especially K.E. Southwood, EthnicityandtheMixedMarriageCrisisinEzra9-10: AnAnthropologicalApproach, Oxford 2012, 132-36; and below at Ezra 9:1.

128

Ezra7-10

It is possible to construe 25b as an explanatory summary of these twelve men: namely Serebiah, Chasabiah and ten of their brothers. Serebiah and Chasabiah, however, are the two Levites who came from Casiphia. Williamson therefore proposes an enumerating connection. The verse would refer to twelve priests and twelve Levites. His proposal is attractive, but in this verse the clauses are asyndetically connected. Therefore, the syntax cannot be the judge. The number twelve is symbolic of the twelve tribes of Israel. 8:25

I weighed out to them the silver, the gold, and the utensils, the offeringforthehouseofourGodwhichthekingandhiscounsellors andhisprinces,andallIsrael,hadfound.

To them Ezra weighed out the gold, the silver and the articles. The used verb for ‘to weigh’, šāqal, indicates a careful administration. Ezra is cast as a responsible leader. The second sentence is asyndetically connected. The words terûmatbêt-’elohênû form a nominal clause: ‘That is the contribution for the temple of our God’. The words indicate, as in Exod. 25:2-3; 35:5, a voluntary contribution to the conservation of the cult. With the verb-form hahērîmû a subordinate clause begins. As often in later Hebrew, the article ha- has the function of a pronomenrelativum.72 The list of those who contributed to this treasure follows the order in the edict of Artaxerxes (Ezra 7:15-16). 8:26-27 Iweighedintotheirhands650talentsofsilver,andsilverutensils of100talents,100goldtalents,  and 20 gold bowls of 1,000 darics; and two utensils of fine shiny bronze,preciousasgold. These verses offer a specification of what was given to the priests and the Levites. The list also stresses the reliability of Ezra. The list is carefully constructed: first the silver and then the silver objects, then the gold and the golden objects and finally two copper bowls. The third clause of v. 26 seems to be transmitted corruptly. The single word mē’āh, ‘hundred’, in the singular, is incongruent with the plural noun kikkārîm, ‘talents’. Williamson believes a numeral, presuambly ‘two’, has disappeared before the word ‘hundred’. When, however, the preposition le before kikkārîm can be construed as the expression of the dativus, it is easy to read, with LXX Ezra and 1 Esdras 8:56: ‘silver objects with a value of a hundred talents’. 72 See B.K. Waltke, M.P. O’Connor, AnIntroductiontoBiblicalHebrewSyntax, Winona Lake 1990, § 19.7.

TheCommunityOrganized

129

Although the two copper-bowls are referred to as very valuable, their identity and function in the cult is no longer traceable. A talent, kikkār, was an ancient oriental measure for weight and value. The talent was in the form of a large round bread and weighed about 35 kilograms.73 A daric, ’adarkôn, is a collatoral form of the darkmoon currency: darkemôn, ‘drachme’ (Ezra 2:69 // Neh. 7:10). The word derived from the Greek does not have to indicate an Hellenistic origin of this passage. Even before Alexander the Great’s victory march, there were trade contacts with the Greek world. Excavations at TellenNasbeh revealed an early attic tetradrachm (around 400 BCE).74 A daric is a gold coin of about 8 grams.75

8:29 Watch and guard until you weigh before the leading priests, the Levites, and the heads of the fathers’ households of Israel at Jerusalem,inthechambersofthehouseofYHWH.’ The ritual of the transferal is accompanied by a statement by Ezra. Those who carried the objects and the objects themselves are seen to be a reflection of God’s holiness. ‘Holy’ means that God is seen as separate from ordinary reality.76 That qualification gives an outspoken responsibility to the priests and Levites for the items they were going to transport. The same applies to the third group mentioned: the śārîm. At 9:1, I will argue that in the reports of the conflict about the unwanted marriages the word śārîm refers to a group of Persian officials. That meaning is also possible in 8:29, in which case the Persians would have appointed a controlling official per Israelite clan. It is more likely to see the word-group hā’ābôtleyiśrā’ēl as the expression of a genitivus subjectivus, in which case Israelite heads of clans are meant. 8:30

ThepriestsandtheLevitesreceivedtheweighed-outsilverandgold andtheutensils,tobringtoJerusalemtothehouseofourGod.

This verse phrases the assignment. On their way they must ‘guard and keep the objects’. Both imperatives express another aspect of care. The verb šqd, ‘to guard’, has the notion of ‘to stay awake’ (see, for example, Psalm 102:8;

73

See R. B. Y. Scott, ‘Weights and Measures of the Bible’, The Biblical Archaeologist 22/2 (1959), 21-40; Ph.J. King, L.E. Stager. LifeinbiblicalIsrael, Louisville 2001, 197. 74 See C.C. McCown e.e., Tellen-NasbehI, Berkeley and New Haven 1947. 75 See, e.g. Scott, ‘Weights and Measures of the Bible’; C.M. Harrisson, Coins of the Persian Satraps, Ph.D. diss., University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, 1982; King, Stager, LifeinbiblicalIsrael, 199; M.E. Stevens, Temples,Tithes,andTaxes:TheTempleandthe EconomicLifeofAncientIsrael, Peabody 2006, 47. 76 See most recently: A. Coppedge, Portraits of God: A Biblical Theology of Holiness, Downers Grove 2009.

130

Ezra7-10

127:1). The verb šmr, ‘to save’, indicates more the aspect of protective care (see also the role of this verb in Psalm 121). The summons to care concerns the entire journey until the second moment of ‘weighing’. The verb used in 8:25-26, šql, is repeated here. The weighing of the objects in Jerusalem must be done in front of three groups and in a clearly indicated location. The three groups – priests, Levites and family heads – represent the cult and the leaders in and around Jerusalem. The liškôt, ‘quarters’, were rooms in the immediate vicinity of the temple. At archaeological excavations, remains of such functional quarters have been found in Israelite sanctuaries from the Iron Age.77 The scene ends with the report that the priests and Levites perform the assigned task. 8:31

WejourneyedfromtheriverAhavaonthetwelfthofthefirstmonth to go to Jerusalem. The hand of our God was over us, and He delivered us from the hand of the enemy and the ambushes along theway.

The journey to Jerusalem is not described in detail. The moment of departure is given on the twelfth of the first month. The reader is not informed about the journey and the hardships en route. The chapter is not a travel report but rather a theological treatise.78 More important is the fact that God’s protective hand guided the people. It is remarkable that in this verse two different words are used for ‘hand’. The yad, ‘hand’ of God has a positive aspect, while the enemy’s qaph, ‘hollow hand’, expresses threatening power.79 The opponent is referred to here as an alliterating hendiadys: ’oyēb we’orēb, litt. ‘enemy and ambush’. The second word is used here as a personification: ‘someone who is in an ambush’. In II Chron. 20:22, the me’ārbîm, ‘those who are laying in ambush’, have the implication of a battalion of the heavenly armies who saved Israel by invading the Ammonites, Moabites and inhabitants of Mount Seir.80 It is unclear whether in Ezra 8 this dimension is also intended.

77 For instance, at Tel Dan, see A.R. Davis, TelDaninItsNorthernCulticContext(SBL Archaeology and Biblical Studies, 20), Atlanta 2013. 78 See also Grabbe, ‘Penetrating the Legend’, 97. 79 See S. Schroer, Th. Staubli, DieKörpersymbolikderBibel, Gütersloh 22005, 123-44. 80 See J.J. Collins, ‘Liers in Wait’, in: DDD2, 517.

TheCommunityOrganized

131

8:32-34 WecametoJerusalemandrestedtherethreedays.  On the fourth day the silver and the gold and the utensils were weighedoutinthehouseofourGodintothehandofMeremoththe son of Uriah the priest, and with him Eleazar the son of Pinehas; andwiththemtheLevites,JozabadthesonofJeshuaandNoadiah thesonofBinnui.  Everythingnumberedandweighed,andalltheweightwasrecorded atthattime. A date for the arrival in Jerusalem is not given. Apparently, the duration of the trip is not important. The narrator emphasizes that a rest period of three days is also taken on arrival. On the fourth day, the gold, silver and cultic utensils are handed over in the temple to a committee composed of priests and Levites. Since a single and unique event is described here, it seems unlikely that there would have been a permanent committee as the possible parallel which Neh. 13:13 might suppose (see Williamson). In Neh. 13, however, a group of priests and Levites is referred to who were responsible for the storage rooms of the temple which is not the same as receiving a great gift from Babylon that will lay the foundation for the economy of the temple in Jerusalem. Schaper’s suggestion that this committee, responsible for receiving the gift from Babylon, was representing the interests of Persian taxpayers, has no foundation in the text.81 The persons mentioned are not easy to identify. The personal name merēmôt, ‘Meremoth, – literally meaning ‘elevations’82 – is worn by various persons in the Hebrew Bible. (1) Meremoth the son of Uriah (Ezra 8:33; Neh. 3:4, 21); (2) Meremoth from the Bani family, married to a strange woman (Ezra 10:36); (3) a priest Meremoth, who had signed the agreement of Nehemiah (Neh. 10:5); (4) Neh. 12:3 mentions a Meremoth as one of the priests and Levites who went up with Zerubbabel. There is some discussion about whether the Meremoths mentioned under (1) in Ezra and Nehemiah would be the same person. In Ezra 8 he is classified as a priest, but not in Neh. 3. Scholars who argue for them to be one and the same person consider an act of promotion (Rudolph)83 or demotion

81 J. Schaper, The Temple Treasury Committee in the Times of Nehemiah and Ezra, VT 47 (1997), 200-06; see J.W. Cataldo, ATheocraticYehud?:IssuesofGovernmentinaPersian Province. (LHB/OTS 498), London New York 2009, 31-32. 82 môt being a theophoric element in this name referring to the Egyptian goddess Mut, thus C.B. Hays, ‘The Egyptian Goddess Mut in Iron Age Palestine: Further Data from Amulets and Onomastics’, JNES 71 (2012), 299-314, seems unlikely. If there is to be a Semitic theophoric element in the name, a connection with the Canaanite deity of death, mōtu, would be plausible: ‘Môt has blessed’, see O. Keel, C. Uehlinger, Göttinnen, Götter und Gottessymbole:NeueErkenntnissezurReligionsgeschichteKanaansaufgrundbislangunerschlossenerQuellen (Quaestiones Disputatae 134), Freiburg, Basel, Wien 1992, 401. 83 Schaper, ‘The Temple Treasury Committee’.

132

Ezra7-10

(Williamson)84 of Meremoth, according to the view of the historical order of Ezra and Nehemiah. Elazar, ’el‘āzār, ‘God helps’, the son of Phinehas, is probably not identical to the Elazar mentioned in Ezra 10:25 and Neh. 12:42. By naming both names, an implicit reference to the story in Num. 25 is made. In Ezra and Nehemiah there are three different people named yôzābād, ‘Jozabad’: (1) a Levite (Ezra 8:33); (2) a priest of the family of Pashur who had married a strange woman (Ezra 10:22); (3) a Levite who oversaw the work on the outside of the temple (Neh. 11:16). Noadiah, nô‘adyāh, the son of Bunni, is a different person from the prophet Noadiah mentioned in Neh. 6:14.

The administrative accuracy again emphasizes the reliability with which Ezra has transferred these vessels to the temple in Jerusalem. 8:35-36 Theexileswhohadcomefromthecaptivityofferedburntofferings to the God of Israel: 12 bulls for all Israel, 96 rams, 77 lambs, 12malegoatsforasinoffering,allasaburntofferingtoYHWH.  Theydeliveredthedecreesofthekinguntothesatrapsoftheking, and to the governors on this side of the river. They furthered the people,andthehouseofGod. These two short-reports form an organic part of the greater narrative about the return in Ezra 7-8. The bringing of sacrifices by the people (v. 35) is an implementation of the mission of the Persian king in 7:17. Handing the royal orders to the leaders in Jerusalem is a sequel to what was said in 7:21-24. The expression ‘those who returned from captivity’ refers to the laypeople and so to all who were not priests or Levites. The number of offers is always a multiplication of the number twelve. The sacrifices are offered as sin offering and as burnt offering. These sacrifices are aimed at cleansing the guilt and thanking God. The number of lambs, 77, is not a multiple of twelve. Usually, the MT is changed into 72, with 1 Esdras 8:63, hebdomèkonta duo (Williamson; Fried).85 However, LXX and Vulg do not support this emendation. The preposition ‘al in the phrase ‘for all of Israel’ has a specific meaning in this verse, not ‘against’ but ‘for the sake of’.

The royal decrees are handed over to ‘satraps and city governors’. This indication for local Persian rulers is somewhat hyperbolic. In Jerusalem, one governor at the most was in office. Again, the support of the Persians

84 85

Koch, ‘Ezra and the Origins of Judaism’. Blenkinsopp, Judaism,theFirstPhase, 61.

TheCommunityOrganized

133

to the cause of the people and the temple is mentioned. The term for ‘to support; promote’, nś’ Pi, is also used in the Book of Esther (see Est. 3:1; 5:11; 9:3). The word ’aḥašdarpenîm, ‘satraps’, appears in the Hebrew Bible only in the plural (see also Est. 3:12; 8:9; 9:3) and is, like the Aramaic ’ḥšdrpn, a Persian loanword, see Old Persian ḫšaçapāvan.86

CRISIS AND CONFLICT EZRA 9:1-5

1 

2

 3

4

5

Nowwhenthesethingshadbeencompleted,theprincesapproached me,saying, ‘The people of Israel and the priests and the Levites have not separatedthemselvesfromthepeoplesofthelands,accordingto their abominations, from the Canaanites, the Hittites, the Perizzites,theJebusites,theAmmonites,theMoabites,theEgyptians, andtheAmorites.  Fortheyhavetakenoutoftheirdaughtersforthemselvesand for their sons, so that the holy seed has been intermingled with thepeoplesofthelands.’ Indeed, the hands of the princes and the rulers have been taking theleadinthisunfaithfulness. When I heard about this case, I tore my garment and my robe, and pulled some of the hair from my head and my beard and sat down appalled. EveryonewhotrembledatthewordsoftheGodofIsraelbecauseof theunfaithfulnessoftheexilesgatheredaroundme,andIsatappalled untiltheeveningoffering. Attheeveningoffering,Iarosefrommyhumiliation,withmygarment and my robe still torn, and I fell on my knees and stretched out my handstoYHWHmyGod.

After the conclusion of Ezra 8, the reader expects a message in a positive tone: now that the descendants of the exiles have returned, the temple has been rebuilt and the cult objects have been returned with imperial approval, it is expected that the people of Israel will live in peace and prosperity in and around Jerusalem. Ezra 9 interrupts this expectation with a report about

86 See H. Klinkott, DerSatrap:einachaimenidischerAmtsträgerundseineHandlungsspielräume, Frankfurt a. M. 2005.

134

Ezra7-10

a crisis. The community has been affected by the fact that several Israelites have entered marriages with ‘strange women’. It is striking that this conflict is described from a one-sided male perspective.87 Neh. 13:23-31 also refers to Judaeans who were married to ‘strange women’. Traditionally, it is assumed that Ezra and Nehemiah are referring to the same crisis (e.g. Myers, McConville, Williamson, Fensham, Breneman, Jagersma; Shepherd & Wright).88 There are, however, some noteworthy differences between Ezra 9 and Neh. 13:89 1. Ezra himself is grieving. He rips his clothes and robe and pulls hair from his head and beard (9:3).90 Nehemiah does not extract his own hair, but that of the accused. 2. Ezra goes into prayer before God, while Nehemiah holds a short sermon for his opponents. 3. Ezra uses inclusive language. Using the pronouns ‘we’ and ‘us’, he sides himself with the group of guilty ones. Nehemiah remains in the role of the outsider who admonishes the others. 4. Ezra, in consultation with the elders of the community, takes some draconian measures: the marriages must be dissolved and the ‘strange women’ should be sent away. Nehemiah only notes that he ‘cleansed them from all the strange stains’, leaving in the middle the character of that cleansing (see also Hieke). These differences can be explained in two ways. Previously, I assumed that the reports about this crisis were transmitted in different circles, each of which had developed their own view of the events.91 Now, I have a different view. I see the report in Nehemiah as a reference to events in the middle of the fifth century BCE. The pseudepigraphic author of the Book Ezra has included this theme in his narrative; extending and applying it to situations in the period around 400 BCE. In my opinion, the report in Ezra must be connected to the above-mentioned fraternal bloodshed in the temple in

87 See M. Häusl, ‘Wenn aus Unterscheidung Scheidungen werden. Zur Mischehendiskussion in den Büchern Esra und Nehemia’, WissenschaftlicheZeitschriftderTechnischen UniversitätDresden 57, 3-4 (2008), 42. 88 T. Veijola, MosesErben:StudienzumDekalog,zumDeuteronomismusundzumSchriftgelehrtentum (BWANT 149), Stuttgart Berlin Köln 2000, 230; B. Hensel, ‘Ethnic Fiction and Identity-Formation: A New Explanation for the Background of the Question of Intermarriage in Ezra-Nehemiah’, in: M. Kartveit, G.N. Knoppers (eds), The Bible, Qumran, and the Samaritans (Studia Samaritana 10/STJ 104), Berlin 2018, 133-50. 89 See also M. Leuchter, ‘The Exegesis of Jeremiah in and beyond Ezra 9-10’, VT65 (2014), 66. 90 See especially S. Olyan, BiblicalMourning. 91 B. Becking, Ezra,Nehemiah,andtheConstructionofEarlyJewishIdentity(FAT 80), Tübingen 2011, 106.

TheCommunityOrganized

135

Jerusalem and its consequences for the Judaean community. The texts in Ezra and Nehemiah, therefore, do not refer to the same events.92 As is widely accepted, the issue of ‘mixed marriages’ is to be seen to be an element in a larger conflict.93 The parties involved in this conflict are not fully recognizable when it comes to numbers of people, historical backgrounds and the like. It is clear, however, that a group calling themselves benê golah was opposed to two other groups: (1) the population of the country and (2) inhabitants of the area of the former northern kingdom. The group referred to as the benêgolah or qāhālgolah may be seen to be an indication of a group of Jahwists who returned from Babylon. According to Blenkinsopp, they returned ‘with their faith intact’.94 Living in a multicultural and poly-religious context, however, must have had in some way affected their beliefs and customs. It may be assumed that life in exile or diaspora often leads to a stricter form of religion that is the one construed as the Old Time Religion. This movement is also evident in the tendency for orthodoxy among Muslims in North West Europe and among Dutch emigrants who left for Canada, New Zealand and Australia after the Second World War.95 Ezra and Nehemiah hint at a conflict between religious claims of the returnees and the religion of those who remained, as evidenced by

92 Contra, e.g. Williamson; M.W. Duggan, ‘Ezra 9: 6–15: A Penitential Prayer within Its Literary Setting’, in: M.J. Boda, D.K. Falk, R.A. Werline (eds), Seeking the Favor of God vol.1,TheOriginsofPenitentialPrayerinSecondTempleJudaism (Early Judaism and its Literature 21), Atlanta 2006, 165-78. 93 See, e.g. P.R. Davies, ‘Scenes from the Early History of Judaism’, in: D.V. Edelman (ed.), The Triumph of Elohim: From Yahwisms to Judaisms, Kampen 1995, 145–182; C. Karrer, RingenumdieVerfassungJudas:EineStudiezudentheologisch-politischenVorstellungen imEsra-Nehemia-Buch (BZAW 308), Berlin, New York 2001, 67-127; L.L. Grabbe, AHistoryoftheJewsandJudaismintheSecondTemplePeriod:Volume1Yehud:AHistoryof the Persian Province of Judah (LSTS 47), London, New York 2004, 313-16; B. Becking, ‘On the Identity of the ‘Foreign’ Women in Ezra 9-10’, in: L.L. Grabbe, G.N. Knoppers (eds), ExileandRestorationRevisited:EssaysontheBabylonianandPersianPeriodsinMemory ofPeterR.Ackroyd(Library of Second Temple Studies 73), London New York 2009, 31-49; Blenkinsopp, Judaism,theFirstPhase, 12-43. 117-59; K.E. Southwood, ‘An ethnic affair? Ezra’s intermarriage crisis against a context of “self-ascription” and “ascription of others”’, in: C. Frevel (ed.), Mixedmarriages,intermarriageandgroupidentityintheSecondTemple period (LHB/OTS 547), London, New York 2011, 46-59; K.E. Southwood, Ethnicity and the Mixed Marriage Crisis in Ezra 9-10: An Anthropological Approach, Oxford 2012; D. Rom-Shiloni, Exclusive inclusivity: identity conflicts between the exiles and the people whoremained (6th-5th centuries BCE) (LHB/OTS 543), London, New York 2013, 33-47; D.P. Moffat, Ezra’ssocialdrama:identityformation,marriageandsocialconflictinEzra9 and10 (LHB/OTS 579), London, New York 2013. 94 Blenkinsopp, Judaism,theFirstPhase, esp. 78-85. 95 See, e.g. E. Bal, K. Sinha-Kerkhoff, ‘Muslims in Surinam and the Netherlands, and the divided Homeland’, JournalofMuslimMinorityAffairs 25 (2005), 193-217; I. Roex, S. van Stiphout, J. Tillie, Salafisme in Nederland: Aard, omvang en dreiging (IMES Rapport), Amsterdam 2010; J. van Dijk, ‘The Role of Religion in the Postwar Settlement Patterns of Dutch Canadians’,CanadianReviewofSociology&Anthropology 38 (2001), 57-74.

136

Ezra7-10

the disputes surrounding the reconstruction of the temple and in the conflict about mixed marriages. In my opinion, the latter conflict is not a dispute between true Israel and other peoples, but an internal Israelite conflict.96 The conflict mentioned has everything to do with administration and economics. I want to draw the nature of this conflict using a set of questions. Who had control over this area? Was Jerusalem or Samaria the peripheral power-base in the satrapy? Who had control over the temple and the connected flow of money and goods? In the background there is a certain rivalry, namely between the temple rebuilt in Jerusalem and the sanctuary on Mount Gerizim. Archaeological traces show that from the middle of the fifth century there was a functioning sanctuary on the Gerizim.97 The rivalry was not limited to the basic functions of religion, such as prayer and worship. The conflict also included the design of worship and the finances of the cult. Many votive inscriptions were found at the sanctuary on Mount Gerizim, indicating that all sorts of gifts were given to the sanctuary.98 This rivalry between the re-migrating exiles and those who had remained in the land must be seen as one of the driving forces behind the so-called crisis of mixed marriages. The diaspora experience had given the benêgolah the idea that they were true keepers of the tradition. In the areas of purity and cult, morality and faith, they felt themselves superior to the others.99 In Ezra 10 and Neh. 13, the ‘other women’ are referred to as nokrî.100 This adjective is often construed as ‘strange’ in the sense of ‘belonging to another ethnic group’ (e.g. Myers; Blenkinsopp; McConville; Williamson; Fensham; Throntveit; Breneman; Jobsen; Becker; Van Wijk-Bos; Hieke; Jagersma; Fried).101 In this view, therefore, it would concern marriages with foreigners.

96

See the argument in Becking, ‘On the Identity of the ‘Foreign’ Women’. See: Y. Magen, ‘Mount Gerizim – A Temple City’, Qadmoniot 33-2 (2000), 74-118; Y. Magen, H. Misgav and L. Tsfania, MountGerizimExcavations:Volume1TheAramaic, Hebrew and Samaritan Inscriptions (Judea and Samaria Publications 2), Jerusalem 2004; R. Pummer, ‘Was there an Altar or a Temple in the Sacred Precinct on Mt. Gerizim?’, JSJ47 (2016), 1-21; B. Hensel, JudaundSamaria:ZumVerhältniszweiernachexilischerJahwismen (FAT 110), Göttingen 2016, 35-75. 98 A preliminary edition: Magen, Misgav and Tsfania, MountGerizimExcavations.; see now J. Dušek, Aramaic and Hebrew Inscriptions from Mt. Gerizim and Samaria Between Antiochus III and Antiochus IV Epiphanes (CHANE 54), Leiden 2012; A.K. de Hemmer Gudme, Before the God in this place for good remembrance: a comparative analysis of the Aramaic votive inscriptions from Mount Gerizim (BZAW 441) Berlin New York 2013; Hensel, JudaundSamaria, 51-67. 99 See also Southwood, EthnicityandtheMixedMarriageCrisisinEzra9-10. 100 Ezra 10:2, 10, 11, 14, 17, 18, 44; Neh. 13:27, 30. 101 And: D.J.A. Clines, ‘Nehemiah 10 as an Example of Early Jewish Biblical Exegesis’, JSOT21 (1981), 115-16; E.J. Ramírez Kidd, AlterityandIdentityinIsrael:Thegēr inthe OldTestament (BZAW, 283), Berlin New York 1999, 28.113; D. Janzen, Witch-Hunts,Purity andSocialBoundaries:TheExpulsionoftheForeignWomeninEzra9-10 (JSOT Sup, 350), Sheffield 2002, 41-42; Häusl, ‘Wenn aus Unterscheidung Scheidungen werden’; Saysell, 97

TheCommunityOrganized

137

However, there is a problem. In Hebrew, the word nokrî rarely has this ethnic connotation. In many cases, the word means: ‘strange; uncommon; unknown; different’.102 In other words, the women involved in the conflict did not belong to another ethnos, they were part of the Jahwistic community in and around Jerusalem. They were, however, demonized because of them being different. They are different from the perspective of the returnees because they presumably had another, less strict view of purity and cult, morality and faith, and possibly visited temples competing with the temple in Jerusalem (Grabbe).103 Against this view, the following could be argued. Ezra 9:1 presents a list of eight nations, while in Neh. 13:23 states that Judaeans were married with women from Ashdod, Ammon and Moab, the last two peoples being listed in a later gloss. In both texts, the topic seems to be exogamous marriages. Before I accept the argument and agree with the traditional ethnic view, I would like to introduce three arguments. (1) In my opinion, Ezra 9 and Neh. 13 do not narrate the same crisis. In addition, the area surrounding Ashdod is considered a province of Persian Yehud. (2) The list of eight nations in Ezra 9:1 has the function of a chiffre.104 The list is reminiscent of

‘AccordingtotheLaw’, 34-57; W.M. Johnson, TheHolyseedhasbeendefiled:theinterethnicmarriagedilemmainEzra9-10 (Hebrew Bible Monographs 33), Sheffield 2011; Willi, Esra:DerLehrerIsraels, 145-49; Southwood, ‘An ethnic affair?’; Bänziger, «Jauchzenund Weinen», 66-68; T. Langille, ‘Hybrids, Purification, and Multidirectional Memory in EzraNehemiah’, in: I. Wilson and D.V. Edelman (ed.), History, Memory, Hebrew Scriptures AFestschrift for Ehud Ben Zvi, Winona Lake 2015, 376-77; Hensel, ‘Ethnic Fiction and Identity-Formation’, 133. 102 C. Bultmann, DerFremdeimAntikenJuda (FRLANT, 153), Göttingen 1992, 22-24; DCH, V, 695; Leuchter, ‘Exegesis of Jeremiah in and beyond Ezra 9-10’, 65-72; Southwood, Ethnicity and the Mixed Marriage Crisis in Ezra 9-10, 140-145, uses the term ‘proximate others’; see also Moffat, Ezra’ssocialdrama, 109-13. 103 See Moffat, Ezra’ssocialdrama,77-79; Rom-Shiloni, Exclusiveinclusivity, 42-45. On the concept of demonizing stereotypes, see, e.g. S. Ewen, E. Ewen, Typecasting:OntheArts and Sciences of Human Inequality. New York 2006; a Biblical example is described by M. Davies, ‘Stereotyping the Other: the “Pharisees” in the Gospel according to Matthew’, in: J.C. Exum, S.D. Moore (eds), Biblical studies/cultural studies: The Third Sheffield C  olloquium, Sheffield 1998, 415-32; Becking, ‘On the Identity of the ‘Foreign’ Women’; N. Amzallag, ‘The Authorship of Ezra and Nehemiah in Light of Differences in Their Ideological Background’, JBL137 (2018), 277-78. 104 See also J. van Seters, ‘The Terms “Amorite” and “Hittite” in the Old Testament’, VT 22 (1972), 64-81; N.P. Lemche, The Canaanites and Their land: the tradition of the Canaanites (JSOT Sup 110), Sheffield 1991, 84; Moffat, Ezra’s social drama, 73-77; S. Grätz, ‚Alter Wein in neuen Schlaüchem? Die Bücher Esra / Nehemia zwischen Tradition und Innovation‘, in: M. Häusl (ed.), Denkt nicht mehr an das Frühere! BegründungsressourceninEsra/NehemiaundJes40–66imVergleich (BBB 184), 77-78; Göttingen 2018; 1Esdras 8:66 lists only seven nations – the Ammonites being absent; A. Versluis, TheCommandtoExterminatetheCanaanites (OTS 71), Leiden 2017, 286-89, is more positive on the historical reliability of this list. According to him, the list goes back to an ancient tradition.

138

Ezra7-10

the lists of five (Exodus 13:5),105 six (Exodus 3:8, 17; 23:23; 32:2; 34:11; Deut. 20:17; Mark 3: 5), seven (Deuteronomy 7:1, John 3:10; 24:11) or ten (Gen. 15:19-21) other peoples, as mentioned in Pentateuch and Early Prophets.106 Around 400 BCE, these names no longer refer to real-life nations. The Canaanites, the Hittites, the Perizzites, and the Jebusites were extinct in the time of Ezra.107 This traditional summary of surrounding peoples functions, in Ezra 9:1, as part of the demonization process. Possibly, the author of Ezra 9-10 has compiled his list based upon the mention of the six peoples in the historical view of the entry into the promised land in Neh. 9:8. (3) Ezra 9:1 merely states that the Israelites did not abstain from the abominations of the peoples. The theme of the exogamy is only discussed in the next verse. In my opinion, the reproach in *Neh. 13:23 is the oldest text in Ezra and Nehemiah, describing this problem. This text probably refers to an historical situation, in which Judaeans had intermingled with Ashdodites. In the later pseudepigraphic Ezra story, this motive was adopted and used to demonize those who had a different view of Jahwism. They were labelled with the classification of the seven or more ‘strange peoples’ to emphasize them as being different. In the final text of Neh. 13:23, the Ammonites and Moabites were adopted from Ezra 9. All in all, I arrive at the conclusion that Ezra 9-10 is a fictional message that applies the theme of Neh. 13 to the crisis recalled in Josephus, which had probably caused hints of internal trouble.108 With Williamson, I interpret Ezra 9-10 as a unit. There is no reason to accept, with Blenkinsopp, two different sources behind these chapters. As Moffat has shown, there are numerous thematic and linguistic connections between both chapters.109 Ezra 9-10 places before the reader, a moral problem. The consolidation of the community is found in sending away the women and their children. This action seems to conflict with the summons from the Ten Words’ ‘You shall not divorce’ (Exod. 20:14; Deut. 5:18) and the high value given in the Bible to the concept of marriage. In addition, the sending away of women and children is difficult to reconcile with the basic idea of the Biblical moral code that demands attention for the weak and the vulnerable.110

105

LXX and SamP have seven nations. For a clear survey, see C. Saysell, ‘According to the Law’: Reading Ezra 9-10 as ChristianScripture (Journal of Theological Interpretation Supplements 4), Winona Lake 2012, 35-42. 107 As was already noticed by Koch, ‘Weltordnung und Reichsidee’, 265. 108 See above on the Bagoses fragment in Josephus, Ant. XI 297-301. 109 Moffat, Ezra’ssocialdrama, esp. 58-66. 110 See for instance Hays, ‘The Silence of the Wives’; Versluis, The Command to ExterminatetheCanaanites. 106

TheCommunityOrganized 9:1 

139

Nowwhenthesethingshadbeencompleted,theprincesapproached me,saying, ‘The people of Israel and the priests and the Levites have not separatedthemselvesfromthepeoplesofthelands,accordingto theirabominations,fromtheCanaanites,theHittites,thePerizzites, the Jebusites, the Ammonites, the Moabites, the Egyptians and theAmorites.

The message begins with an unclear indication of time – ‘when these things were finished’ – suggesting a temporal continuation after Ezra 8. For those who believe that Ezra 9-10 and Neh. 13 describe the same crisis, a minor chronological problem emerges here. Ezra 10:9 records the sending away of women and children in the ninth month. According to Ezra 7:9, Ezra would have reached Jerusalem on the first day of the fifth month. Why did he wait four months before executing this measure? Williamson suggests that the events described in Neh. 8 would have taken place in those four months. He also considers the possibility that Ezra would have noted the crisis before, but that he waited for the moment of confession by the people before going into action. When, however, Ezra 9-10 and Neh. 13 are disconnected historically, there is no chronological problem. Ezra is approached by haśśārîm. The noun śār has a broad semantic meaning. The word can indicate a military leader, a court dignitary, the chief of a clan, a magistrate and even a major angel.111 In Ezra 9, the word śār – as in Neh. 3 and Est. 1:3; 8:9; 9:3 – refers to a ‘ruler over a district: provincial governor’.112 Therefore, in Ezra 9, it does not refer to an undefined group of leaders of the Judaeans, but to a Persian authority (Fried). The fact that they report the problem to Ezra seems strange at first sight but agrees with the major themes of the Book of Ezra: Ezra had to deal with imperial authority. The narrator claims, in this way, Persian approval for the measures to be taken. These Persian officers point out to Ezra that the people of Israel have not separated themselves. For ‘separating’, a form of the Hebrew verb bdl is used. This verb refers to earlier episodes in the Book Ezra where the theme of ‘differentiation’ with others plays an important role (see 6:21; 8:24). To whom the words ‘the people of Israel’ refer to is not clear. The expression is used hyperbolically and metonymically for a part of the people, including some priests and Levites. The conjunction we- before ‘the priests’ is appositional and should be translated with ‘among whom’ (Williamson). Priests

111 See, e.g. U. Rüterswörden, DieBeamtenderisraelitischenKönigszeit:eineStudiezu śrundvergleichbarenBegriffen (WMANT 17), Stuttgart 1985; DCH VIII, 182-190; Moffat, Ezra’sSocialDrama, 69. 112 See DCH VIII, 187.

140

Ezra7-10

and Levites too were included among those who did not adhere to the code of the community. The following clause seems to be syntactically independent of the foregoing. Williamson assumes that ke- is elliptically used here and translates with a complete sentence ‘but has acted according to the abominations of …’ (125). The preposition, however, has an explicative function here and indicates which part of peoples did not separated itself. The noun tô‘ēbāh, ‘abomination’, is emotionally loaded and both disapproves and delusions. The word disapproves of certain religious practices as contrary to Jahwism, and it delineates Jahwism – or at least a certain view of it – against other forms of religion.113 Similar to our word taboo, the word tô‘ēbāh refers to an inaccurately formulated moral standard which is crystal clear to a particular group or community. As argued above, the list of eight peoples constitute a traditional element in the boundaries against ‘the other’. In the pseudepigraphic story of Ezra, they do not refer to direct and concretely designated peoples but, form a chiffre for those who had a different view on purity and cult, morality and faith than the author(s) of Ezra 7-10. ‘Canaanites’ is a fairly general indication of the original population of the Promised Land. In the biblical tradition they were to be eradicated.114 The Hittites are not equal with the Indo-European speaking people who, in the second millennium BCE, populated Anatolia. The ethnic identity of the ‘Biblical Hittites’ is unknown. According to the table of nations in Genesis 10, they would have been descendants from Heth, a son of Canaan. A link is usually made with the Neo-Hittite Luwians.115 The Perizzites – the name means ‘inhabitants of the open land’ – inhabited the fertile land south of Mount Carmel (Josh. 17:15-18). In the table of nations in Genesis 10, they are not mentioned. Under Solomon they would have been forced into slave-labour.116 According to the Hebrew Bible, the Jebusites were descendants of Canaan. They were the original inhabitants of Jerusalem and the surrounding area. It is remarkable that they are referred to in Ezra 9 since, in Biblical stories that are played-out in

113 See esp. M. Douglas, In the wilderness: The Doctrine of Defilement in the Book of Numbers (JSOT Sup 158), Sheffield 1993; M. Douglas, Purityanddanger:AnAnalysisof Concepts of Pollution and Taboo, London 2003; B. Rausche, ‘The Relevance of Purity in Second Temple Judaism according to Ezra-Nehemiah’, in: C. Frevel, C. Nihan (eds), Purity and the Forming of Religious Traditions in the Ancient Mediterranean World and Ancient Judaism(Dynamics in the History of Religions 3), Leiden 2013, 457-75; C.L. Crouch, ‘What Makes a Thing Abominable? Observations on the Language of Boundaries and Identity Formation from a Social Scientific Perspective’, VT65 (2015), 516-41. 114 See Lemche, TheCanaanitesandTheirland; Versluis, TheCommandtoExterminate theCanaanites, 291-92. 115 See J. van Seters, ‘The Terms “Amorite” and “Hittite” in the Old Testament’, VT 22 (1972), 78-81; T. Bryce, The World of the Neo-Hittite Kingdoms: A Political and Military History, Oxford 2012, 64-77. 116 See on them N. Na’aman, ‘Canaanites and Perizzites’, BN 45 (1988), 42-47.

TheCommunityOrganized

141

the time after the conquest of Jerusalem by David, they do not occur. Historically, their origins and fate are shrouded in the misty past.117 The Ammonites were a Semitic-speaking people who populated an area in the present Jordan during the Israelite conquest. The Biblical books of Judges and Samuel report concerning armed conflicts between Israel and Ammon. According to Jer. 40:14, the Ammonite king Baalis – probably b‘lyš‘ –mentioned on two Ammonite seals – was the driving force behind the murder of Gedalaiah, the governor appointed by the Babylonians over the Judaeans after the conquest of Jerusalem.118 During the period of Babylonian exile, the Ammonites disappear into the mist of history.119 1Esdras 8:66 reads ‘Edomites’ instead of ‘Ammonites’. This adaptation to the Hellenistic relations when the Idumeans were the enemies of the Maccabees, has been accepted as the original text only by a few scholars (Gunneweg; Becker).120 The Moabites, too, were a Semitic-speaking people who populated an area in the present Kingdom of Jordan during the Israelite conquest. According to the biblical tradition, there were conflicts between Israel and Moab (Deut. 23:3-4) during the journey through the desert. With the period of Babylonian exile, the Moabites disappear into the mist of history.121 The naming of the Egyptians recalls the period of slavery before the exodus. Egyptians do not appear in the above-mentioned stereotype lists of threatening peoples. That is understandable because they were not a Levantine people. This inclusion in the list of Ezra 9:1 may be correlated with the fact that, during the time that Ezra was written, Egypt had liberated itself from the Persian yoke. Jerusalem and the surrounding area formed, at that time, the border between Persia and Egypt. Historically speaking, the Amorites were a Semitic speaking, semi-nomadic group. In the first half of the second millennium BCE, they succeeded in establishing some so-called Amorite kingdoms in Mesopotamia, including Mari, Larsa, Isin and Babylon (with its King Hammurabi).122 A connection with the Biblical Amorites is hard to prove. According to Old Testament data, these kingdoms would have ruled around the area we now call Jordan. The Hebrew Bible reports various armed conflicts between Israel and the Amorites, portraying the latter in mythological proportions: see, for example, the reports about Og the king of Bashan. Shepherd & Wright propose to read Edomites (with 1Esdras 8:66). The rendition Ιδουμαίων in 1Esdras, however, is an adaptation of the text to the Hellenistic era. Interesting is the hard to prove assumption of Van Seters, that in Ezra 9:1 the Amorites were an alias for Arabs.123 The idea of the Nazi ideologist Alfred Rosenberg, who proposed that the Amorites were descendants of the Aryan race, should be rejected as abject.124

117 See, e.g. O. Keel, JerusalemunddereineGott:eineReligionsgeschichte, Göttingen 2011, 32. 118 See B. Becking, From David to Gedaliah: The Book of Kings as Story and History (OBO 228), Fribourg, Göttingen 2007, 162-72. 119 See now C.W. Tyson, The Ammonites: Elites, Empires, and Sociopolitical Change (1000–500BCE) (LHB/OTS 585), London 2014. 120 Also: Blenkinsopp, Judaism, the First Phase, 65; Saysell, ‘According to the Law’, 41-42. 121 On the Moabites see E. Gass, DieMoabiter:GeschichteundKultureinesostjordanischenVolkesim1.Jahrtausendv.Chr. (ADPV 38), Wiesbaden 2009. 122 See A. Haldar, Who were the Amorites?, Leiden 1971; R. de Boer, Amorites in the EarlyOldBabylonianPeriod (Ph Diss), Leiden 2014. 123 J. van Seters, ‘The Terms “Amorite” and “Hittite” in the Old Testament’, VT 22 (1972), 72-78. 124 A. Rosenberg, DerMythosdes20.Jahrhunderts, München 1930.

142

Ezra7-10

9:2

For they have taken out of their daughters for themselves and fortheirsons,sothattheholyseedhasbeenintermingledwith thepeoplesofthelands.’ Indeed,thehandsoftheprincesandtherulershavebeentakingthe leadinthisunfaithfulness.



This verse contains some intriguing problems. Firstly, the opening word, the emphatic adverb kî, can be construed as an interrogativum: ‘Did not they have …’.125 In other words, the officers here confront Ezra with a rhetorical question. They obviously want to know whether Ezra has noticed these errors. Next, their question contains an allusion to certain Bible stories. The narrator gives the Persian officials a thorough knowledge of the Torah. In such passages – Exod. 34:11-16; Deut. 7:1-4; 20:10-18 – a ban on marrying the original people of the Promised Land is to be found.126 As an argument for this exclusion, it is stated that such commitments would provoke syncretism and decline of faith. Blenkinsopp has rightly pointed out that the said ban applies to both sexes, while the narrator of Ezra limits himself to marriages with strange women (Blenkinsopp).127 The narrator is thus selective in his outrage. The description of marrying is unusual. In the passages mentioned above, the verb lqḥ, ‘to take’, is used each time. In Ezra 9:2, the verb nś’ is used. This verb has a wide spectrum of meaning: ‘to lift up; take; place’ etc. In several post-exile texts, the verb is used elliptically for ‘to take (a woman into marriage)’ (Ruth 1:4; Ezra 10:44; Neh. 13:25; I Chron. 23:22; II Chron. 11:21; Sir. 7:23).128 Because of these commitments, the ‘holy seed had become mixed’. In this phrasing, the concept of divine election is reformulated in a biological category. This reformulation must be seen to be a form of dealing with the discontinuity created by post-exile circumstances. The term ‘holy seed’ is a combination of two traditional elements from the self-image of Israel.129 In Deuteronomy, Israel is labelled an ‘amqādôš, ‘holy people’ (e.g. Deut. 26:9). Elsewhere, the indication for Israel as zèra‘ ’abrāhām, ‘Abraham’s seed; offspring’, is attested (e.g. Isa. 41:8; Jer. 33:26; Ps. 105:6; II Chron. 20:7). Nehemiah uses the term zèra‘, in order to indicate that part of Israel which serves God in a correct way. While the Book of Ezra may indeed be seen to be a pseudepigraphic writing, then Neh. 9:2 is possibly a source for Ezra 9:2 (contra Williamson). The term ‘holy seed’ is already used in 125

See Waltke, O’Connor, Introduction to Biblical Hebrew Syntax, § 39.2.d; DCH IV,

389. 126 127 128 129

See See See See

Versluis, TheCommandtoExterminatetheCanaanites. also Moffat, Ezra’ssocialdrama, 79-80. DCH V, 767. also Rom-Shiloni, ExclusiveInclusivity, 37-38.

TheCommunityOrganized

143

Isa. 6:13. In that text, the ‘idea of a rest’ is phrased using the metaphor of a new rank on a chopped down oak. The narrator of Ezra applies this metaphor to the ideal community (Fried).130 The verb ‘rb II occurs four times in the Hebrew Bible, each time in the Hitp. In the historical retrospection of Ps. 106, the reproach sounds: ‘but they mixed themselves with the peoples and took over their customs’ (v. 35). Prov. 20:19 contains the summon: ‘Do not associate with gossip’. Prov. 14:10 expresses life experience: ‘a stranger cannot share his [i.e. from the heart] joy’. Thus, ‘rb II in Ezra 9:1-2 is an antonym of the intended isolation (bdl). LXX translated ‘they mingled with’ with parèchtè, ‘had disappeared; was given away’. This translation is presumably based on an intentional shift in view of the territorial situation at the time of the Maccabean uprising.131 1Esdras 8:67 translated the form in an idiolectic way with sunoojkèsan, ‘they lived together with’.

Many translations and most scholarly commentaries construe the final clause of this verse as part of the direct speech. In that view, the Persian dignitaries would also confess their own fault (thus: Williamson). In my opinion, however, this clause should be seen as commentary from the narrator, who wishes to indicate that the hand of these dignitaries has been instrumental. The Hebrew noun yad here has the abstract-functional meaning ‘power’. For the meaning of śār, see above. The noun segen, or sāgān (Aramaic segan) is derived from the Assyrian noun šaknu, ‘prefect (of a conquered city or province)’.132 In the Hebrew Bible, the word refers to foreign rulers over Judah or Israel (see Isa. 41:25, Jer. 51:23, 57-58; Ezek. 23:6; Neh. 2:16, 4:8.13, 5:7, 17, 7:5, 12:40, 13:11; Fensham).133 In the papyri from Wadi Daliyeh there are two ‘prefects’ (sgn) mentioned.134 The word appears with the same meaning in the documents from Elephantine.135 Like the ‘princes’, the ‘prefects’ can be seen as a group of Persian officials. The word ‘faithlessness’ (ma’al) refers to an act with one alienates himself from the order wished by God. Here, in Ezra 9, the word is a euphemism for ‘sexual infidelity’.

130

See also J.G. McConville, ‘Ezra-Nehemiah and the Fulfilment of Prophecy’, VT 36 (1986), 218–22; Bianchi, «La semence sacrée». 131 See S.D. Louy, ‘The Septuagint Text of Ezra 9.2’, BiTr65 (2014), 135-44. 132 See Th. Petit, ‘L’évolution sémantique des termes hébreux et araméens pḥh et sgn et accadiens pāḫatu et Šaknu’, JBL 107 (1988), 53-67. 133 Also In der Smitten, Esra, 24-25. 134 See J. Dušek, LesmanuscriptsaraméensduWadiDaliyehetlaSamarievers450-332 av.J.-C. (CHANE 30), Leiden 2007, 510-511. 135 See, e.g. TADAE B4.6:14.

144 9:3 

Ezra7-10 WhenIheardaboutthiscase,Itoremygarmentandmyrobe,and pulledsomeofthehairfrommyheadandmybeardandsatdown appalled.

In response to this message, Ezra performs a number of actions derived from the ritual of mourning (McConville).136 The tearing of garment or mantle is referred to a few times in the Hebrew Bible as a sign of mourning (e.g. Gen. 37:34; II Sam. 1:11; Job 1:20).137 The shaving of the hair on the head and the beard is more often mentioned (Job 1:20: Isaiah 3:24; 15:2; 22:12; Jer. 7:29; 48:37; Ezek. 27:30-31; Am. 8:10; Mic. 1:16). Ezra’s ‘sitting down appalled; bewildered’ may be seen to be a less rigid parallel of ‘sitting in sackcloth and ashes’. Olyan has correctly noted that such mourning rites are not limited to the process of coping after a death but were also executed in situations of a gross disturbance of existential balance.138 In the case of Ezra 9:3, the mourning has the same function as the begging through a prayer. The purpose of the mourning is to appease God and the community, in order that the disturbed order is restored. 9:4

EveryonewhotrembledatthewordsoftheGodofIsraelonaccount of the unfaithfulness of the exiles gathered around me, and I sat appalleduntiltheeveningoffering.

Ezra remained in shock until the time of the evening sacrifice. A group of those who ‘trembled (ḥārēd) for the words of the God of Israel’ gathered around him. This expression indicates, in post-exilic texts, those who strictly adhered to the law (Ezra 10:3; Isa. 66:2.5). They form the true community that the narrator aims towards. The minḥathā‘āreb, ‘evening sacrifice’, was part of the temporal rituals and delimits the transition from day to night. It is unclear whether this ritual has deep roots in the history of Israel. The oldest reference is to be found in the stories about Elijah (I Kgs 18:29, 36).

136

See also Moffat, Ezra’ssocialdrama, 84-86. See M. Jastrow, ‘The Tearing of Garments as a Symbol of Mourning, with Especial Reference to the Customs of the Ancient Hebrews’, JAOS 21 (1900), 23-39; for a comparable rite in other cultures see B. Malinowski, ‘Magic, Science and Religion’, in: A.C.G.M. Robben (ed.), Death,Mourning,andBurial:ACross-CulturalReader, Malden 2009, 19-22; the same rite is surmised in Judith 8:1-8. 138 Olyan, BiblicalMourning; S.M. Olyan, ‘Ritual Inversion in Biblical Representations of Punitive Rites’, in: J.J. Collins, T.M. Lemos, S.M. Olyan (eds), Worship,Women,andWar: Essays in Honor of Susan Niditch (Brown Judaic Studies 357), Providence 2015, 138-39; A.K. Harkins, ‘The Pro-Social Role of Grief in Ezra’s Penitential Prayer’, BibInt24 (2016), 466-91. 137

TheCommunityOrganized 9:5

145

At the evening offering, I arose from my humiliation, with my garmentandmyrobestilltorn,andIfellonmykneesandstretched outmyhandstoYHWHmyGod.

During the evening sacrifice, Ezra delivered a prayer. Ancient Israel knew different positions for prayer: sitting (II Sam. 7); kneeled (Ps. 95: 6) or standing (I Sam. 1:26; Ps. 134:1) and each time with open hands raised to heaven. Meanwhile, there is an emotional shift in Ezra: the bewildering of verse four has changed into a state of ta‘nît. This noun is common in the Hebrew Bible and is derived from a verb ‘ānāh. This verb has a wide range of meaning: ‘to be humble; being humiliated; being bent down; being depressed; sing; answer’. That width makes it difficult to determine the exact significance of ta‘nît. Given the context, ‘humiliation; befuddlement’ might be the most appropriate rendition. THE POWER OF PRAYER EZRA 9:6-15

6 

7

8

9

10  11 

Isaid, ‘OmyGod,Iamashamedandembarrassedtoliftupmyface toyou,myGod,forourtrespasseshaverisenaboveourheads, andourguilthasgrowneventotheheavens. Since the days of our fathers until this day we were in great guilt.Inviewofourtrespasses,we,ourkings,ourpriestshave beengivenintothehandofthekingsofthelands,tothesword, tocaptivity,andtoplunderandtoopenshame,asonthisday. But now, for a short moment favour from YHWH, our God is uponus,toleaveusanescapedremnantandtogiveusatentpininhisholyplace,thatourGodmayenlightenoureyesand grantusalittlerevivinginourbondage. For we are slaves; yet in our servitude, our God has not forsakenus,buthasextendedloving-kindnesstousinthesightof thekingsofPersia,togiveussustenancetoraiseupthehouse ofourGod,torestoreitsruins,andtogiveusawallinJudah andJerusalem. Andnow,ourGod,whatshallwesayafterthis? Forwehaveforsakenyourcommandments, thatyouhadcommandedbyyourservants,theprophets,saying, “Thelandwhichyouareenteringtopossessisanunclean land with the uncleanness of the peoples of the lands, with theirabominationswhichhavefilleditfromendtoendwith theirimpurity.

146

Ezra7-10

12

So now do not give your daughters to their sons nor take theirdaughtersforyoursons,andneverseektheirpeaceor theirprosperity,thatyoumaybestrongandeatthegoodsof thelandandleaveasaninheritancetoyoursonsforever.” Afterallthathascomeuponusforourevildeedsandourgreat guilt,sinceyou,ourGod,hasspareddespiteouriniquitiesand hasgivenusanescapedremnantasthis, Should we again break your commandments and intermingle with the peoples who commit these abominations? Would you notbeangrywithustothepointofdestruction,untilthereisno remnantnoranywhoescape? O,YHWH,GodofIsrael,youarerighteous,forwehavebeen leftanescapedremnant,asonthisday;behold,wearebefore you in our guilt, for no one can stand before you because of this.’

13

14

15

The so-called prayer of Ezra is to be understood as a text aiming at changing the community in and around Jerusalem.139 In the text, Ezra repents, and all the while expanding the guilt of a group within the community to the whole community, including himself, and placing the people’s guilt in an historical perspective. He summarizes the history of the people as an history of continuous human guilt contrasted with God’s kindness. Several penitential prayers are known from the post-exile period. Next to Ezra 9, one should consider II Chron. 33:13; Neh. 1:5-11; 9:6-37; Dan. 9:4-19; Bar. 1:15-3:8.140 Although all these texts share some elements, one cannot speak of a fixed literary form (Williamson).141 In Ezra’s prayer, 139 See also R.A. Werline, PenitentialprayerinSecondTempleJudaism:Thedevelopment ofareligiousinstitutions, Atlanta 1998; H.W.M. van Grol, ‘Exegesis of the Exile – Exegesis of Scripture?’, in: J.C. de Moor (ed.), IntertextualityinUgaritandIsrael (OTS 40), Leiden 1998, 31-61; R.A. Werline, ‘Prayer, Politics, and Power in the Hebrew Bible’, Interpretation 68 (2014), 5-16; Heckl, NeuanfangundKontinuität, 289-301; Harkins, ‘The Pro-Social Role of Grief’. 140 On these textual units see: Werline, PenitentialPrayer; R.J. Bautch, Developmentsin Genre between post-exilic penitential prayers and the Psalms of communal lament. (SBL Academia Biblica 7), Atlanta 2003; Moffat, Ezra’ssocialdrama, 88-92; and the contributions to the volumes: M.J. Boda, D.K. Falk, R.A. Werline (eds), SeekingtheFavorofGodvol.1, TheOriginsofPenitentialPrayerinSecondTempleJudaism (Early Judaism and its Literature 21), Atlanta 2006; M.J. Boda, D.K. Falk, R.A. Werline (eds), Seeking the Favor of God, Vol2:ThedevelopmentofpenitentialprayerinsecondtempleJudaism.(Early Judaism and its Literature 22), Atlanta 2007; M.J. Boda, D.K. Falk, R.A. Werline (eds), SeekingtheFavor ofGodVol3,TheImpactofPenitentialPrayerBeyondSecondTempleJudaism (Early Judaism and its Literature 23), Atlanta 2008. 141 H.W.M. van Grol, ‘‘Indeed, Servants We Are’. Ezra 9, Nehemiah 9 and 2 Chronicles 12 Compared’, in: B. Becking, M.C.A. Korpel (eds),TheCrisisofIsraeliteReligion.Transformation of Religious Tradition in Exilic and Post-Exilic Times (OTS 42), Leiden 1999, 211-13; Duggan, Ezra 9: 6–15.

TheCommunityOrganized

147

the following elements can be indicated: (1) total confession of guilt; (2) acknowledgment of God’s gracious interference; (3) expression of intended behaviour. However, these three elements are interwoven. A request for or, petition to God is missing (Williamson).142 In the narrative development of Ezra 7-10, this prayer sits on a functional spot. Since the textual unit refers back to previous elements (the mentioned crisis) and anticipates forthcoming measures (the dissolution of marriages), the prayer is instrumental in seeking a way out of this crisis. Besides, it is fundamental as the basis of the author’s desired community.143 Hogewood has shown that the prayer has a clear performative power: the words of Ezra encourage the community to act.144 This explains the absence of a request addressed to the deity. 9:6 

Isaid, ‘OmyGod,Iamashamedandembarrassedtoliftupmyfaceto you,myGod,forourtrespasseshaverisenaboveourheads,and ourguilthasgrowneventotheheavens.

Ezra opens his prayer with a captatiobenevolentiae: he is ashamed in front of God and finds himself too little (niklamtî) to raise his hands to God. The word expressing shame – boštî – is identical to the word Ezra used in 8:22 to indicate that he did not want to make a request to the Persian emperor. Then, a shift from first person singular to first person plural takes place. Although Ezra – as may be supposed – had no part in the offenses, he identifies himself with the guilt of the people. In a beautiful parallelism, the debt is summarized. ‘Trespasses’ (‘awônôt) stand parallel to ‘debt; guilt’ (’ašmāh). In addition, the adverbial adjuncts of locality ‘above the head’ and ‘to heaven’ are clearly parallel and express the vastness of the offenses.145 ’ašmāh, ‘debt; guilt’, refers to an act that causes a rupture in the relationship with God. The term is especially attested in post-exilic texts (e.g. Lev. 22:16; II Chron. 28; Ezra 9:6, 10:10, 19), but has ancient roots; compare Am. 8:14: ‘the guilt of Samaria’. Lev. 5:24, 22:16 contains the description of a ritual to compensate for the fracture.

142

See also Moffat, Ezra’ssocialdrama, 92. See also Van Grol, ‘Exegesis of the Exile’, 33; Duggan, Ezra 9: 6–15, 166-67; Willi, Esra:DerLehrerIsraels, 150-55. 144 J.C. Hogewood, ‘The Speech Act of Confession: Priestly Performative Utterance in Leviticus 16 and Ezra 9–10’, in: M.J. Boda, D.K. Falk, R.A. Werline (eds), SeekingtheFavor ofGodvol.1,TheOriginsofPenitentialPrayerinSecondTempleJudaism (Early Judaism and its Literature 21), Atlanta 2006, 69-82. 145 Bautch, DevelopmentsinGenre, 74-76. 143

148

Ezra7-10

9:7

Sincethedaysofourfathersuntilthisdaywewereingreatguilt. Inviewofourtrespasses,we,ourkings,ourpriestshavebeengiven into the hand of the kings of the lands, to the sword, to captivity, andtoplunderandtoopenshame,asonthisday.

Both terms for guilt return in the historical retrospective, with which Ezra gives the current situation a place in Israel’s history. The narrator adopts the basic ideas of the Deuteronomistic history: the people of God have lost their place in the promised land by an accumulation of disobedience and transgression (see, for example, II Kgs 17).146 The four elements to which the people are extradited – sword, imprisonment, plundering, and shame – remind one of the trias ‘pestilence, sword and hunger’ as found in Jeremiah’s prophecy of doom (21:7-9). They give an evaluation of the Babylonian exile. The fourth element bošet, ‘shame’, is characteristic of the narrator of the Book of Ezra. By its behaviour, the people of God have been shamed before God and before the nations. The expression ‘kings of the countries’ refers in all probability to the Assyrian, Babylonian and Persian rulers.147 The final words kehayyôm hazzèh, ‘like today’, seem to be somewhat disconnected (Williamson), but are functional for the view of the narrator of Ezra. The point he wants to make is that Israel obviously has learned nothing from the humiliation of exile by continuing the history of guilt.148 9:8

Butnow,forashortmomentfavourfromYHWH,ourGodisupon us,toleaveusanescapedremnantandtogiveusatent-peginhis holyplace,thatourGodmayenlightenoureyesandgrantusalittle revivinginourbondage.

The narrator returns to the present and notes that the people have recently received teḥinnāh from God. This noun is not common in the Hebrew Bible. The word can have two meanings depending on the context and direction of the action. In prayers to God, the word generally means ‘supplication’ (I Kgs 8:28, 38). In descriptions of God’s deeds to humans, the word signifies ‘favour’ (besides Ezra also Josh. 11:20). The grace of God stands, therefore, in contrast to the behaviour of Israel. This favour includes two gifts: ‘escape’ and ‘tent-peg’. At a narrative level, the escape refers to the return from exile. In the historical context of the writer of the Book of Ezra the restoration of the cult in the temple of Jerusalem is referred to. A yātēd, ‘peg; tent-pin’, is the first element that 146

See also Bautch, DevelopmentsinGenre, 86-87. See also Van Grol, ‘Indeed, Servants We Are’, 213. 148 H.W.M. van Grol, ‘Schuld und Scham: Die Verwurzelung von Esra 9, 6-7 in der Tradition’, EstudiosBíblicos 55 (1997), 29-52; Van Grol, ‘Exegesis of the Exile’, 38-39. 147

TheCommunityOrganized

149

a wandering nomad drives into the ground to find solidity for his tent (Fensham). Applied to the new beginning after the return, the image refers to the beginning of the opportunity to grow into and around Jerusalem into an organized community that finds firmness in the temple and is protected by God (see also Ezek. 15:3).149 9:9 

Forweareslaves;yetinourservitude,ourGodhasnotforsaken us,buthasextendedloving-kindnesstousinthesightofthekings ofPersia,togiveussustenancetoraiseupthehouseofourGod,to restoreitsruins,andtogiveusawallinJudahandJerusalem.

The gaze is focused on recent history. The narrator summarizes this in a parallel with the opening verse (1:1). The causative meaning of the Hiph. form wayyaṭ, ‘he has found’, in combination with the expression lifnêy malkêypāras, ‘with the kings of Persia’, expresses the view that the liberating acts of the Persian kings were ultimately controlled by the God of Israel. The narrator identifies Israel as ‘abādîm, ‘slaves; servants’. The suggestion is that the Israelites should be seen to be servants of the Persians. However, it is possible to see at the same time Israel as a servant of God. As in the traditions about the exodus out of Egypt, Ezra 9:9 states that God has not left them alone in their slavery. As a result of God’s favour and the Persian measures, Israel can breathe freely around the restored temple once more. A remarkable detail is the remark that the Persians gave Israel a ‘fence’. The word gādēr literally means ‘a wall of unprocessed stone built without specie’ (Fried, see, for example, Num. 22:24; Ps. 62: 4; Mic. 7:11). In Ezra 9, the word has a metaphorical meaning and points to the protection given by the Persians to the community around the temple (Williamson; Shepherd & Wright).150 9:10  Andnow,ourGod,whatshallwesayafterthis?  Forwehaveforsakenyourcommandments, After the retrospect, there is a rhetorical question that functions as a summons for reflection and behavioural change in the audience of Ezra’s prayer: ‘What to do?’ The people’s behaviour is briefly summarized in the words: ‘after all, we have forsaken your commandments’.

149 See Moffat, Ezra’s social drama, 98-101; D.P. Moffat, ‘The Metaphor at Stake in Ezra 9:8’, VT 63 (2013), 290-98. 150 See also Bautch, DevelopmentsinGenre, 77; Moffat, Ezra’sSocialDrama, 102-03.

150

Ezra7-10

9:11-12 thatyouhadcommandedbyyourservants,theprophets,saying,  “Thelandwhichyouareenteringtopossessisanuncleanland with the uncleanness of the peoples of the lands, with their abominations which have filled it from end to end with their impurity.  Sonowdonotgiveyourdaughterstotheirsonsnortaketheir daughters for your sons, and never seek their peace or their prosperity,thatyoumaybestrongandeatthegoodsoftheland andleaveasaninheritancetoyoursonsforever.” In line with the Deuteronomistic view, the commandments are understood as communicated by ‘your servants, the prophets’.151 There is a small shift, however, noticeable in comparison with II Kgs 17. In that homily, the prophets were seen to be cautioners to the people to return from their wrong paths. In Ezra 9, it is the prophets who have given the commandments. As a reference is made in vv. 11-12 to parts of the Pentateuch, a beginning might be assumed of the tradition that understands Moses as a prophet (Williamson, see also Deut. 34:10; Luke 9:33; Quran 7:103-171). The quotation from the Pentateuch is, as is often the case in prayers, an anthology of commandments. There are intertextual relationships with Deut. 7:1-3; 11:8; 23:6; Lev. 18:24-30. The effect of this bringing together of traditions is that the viewpoint of Ezra is supported. By marrying the original inhabitants of the Promised Land, people and land are not delineated from the uncleanness of the peoples. The horror of v. 1 is now expressed up to two times with an understanding that has its root in (sexual) impurity. The noun niddāh indicates uncleanness caused by menstruation (Ezek. 18:6) or through intimate contact with a blood relative (Lev. 20:21).152 9:13-14 Afterallthathascomeuponusforourevildeedsandourgreat guilt,sinceyou,ourGod,hasspareddespiteouriniquitiesandhas givenusanescapedremnantasthis,  Should we again break your commandments and intermingle with the peoples who commit these abominations? Would you not be angrywithustothepointofdestruction,untilthereisnoremnant noranywhoescape? Ezra puts a rhetorical question with which he wants to encourage his listeners to change their behaviour.153 First of all, he points to the mildness of 151

See also Bautch, DevelopmentsinGenre, 87-88. Both in the Jerusalem and in the Babylonian Talmud a tractate devoted to questions of impurity after menstruation can be found: jNiddah and bNiddah. 153 Van Grol, ‘Indeed, Servants We Are’, 211-13. 152

TheCommunityOrganized

151

God. In the eyes of the narrator, the Babylonian exile is a fair punishment for the guilt of the people. However, the measure of punishment was milder than the extent of the guilt.154 The exile was not the final end of Israel as a nation. God had given a pelêṭāh, ‘escape; liberation’. This noun is derived from the verb plṭ, which refers almost everywhere in the Hebrew Bible to a salvation out of difficult situations (see, for example, II Sam. 22:44 = Ps. 18:44; Mic. 6:14; Ps. 22:5, 22:9, 31:2, 37:40, 71:2). Against this background, the people are summoned to refrain from intermingling with ‘strange’ elements. The suggestion is that God will prove to be less mild a next time. 9:15  O,YHWH,GodofIsrael,youarerighteous,forwehavebeenleft anescapedremnant,asonthisday;behold,wearebeforeyouin ourguilt,fornoonecanstandbeforeyoubecauseofthis.’ The prayer ends with an element of recognition. Ezra acknowledges that God is ṣaddîq, ‘trustworthily righteous’. In the Hebrew Bible, the term ‘righteous’ does not have a legal function but, is one of the virtues of God. God is trustworthy despite the fragility of the world.155 This righteousness is evidenced by the fact that there has remained a remnant of Israel through the depths of the exile. This rest is, however, assigned to God’s grace: by itself, it cannot stand in front of God.

RIGOROUS MEASURES EZRA 10:1-17

1

Now while Ezra was praying and making confession, weeping and prostrating himself before the house of God, a very large assembly, men,women,andchildren,gatheredtohimfromIsrael;forthepeopleweptbitterly. AndShecaniahthesonofJehiel,oneofthesonsofElam,answered andsaidtoEzra, ‘WehavebeenunfaithfultoourGodandhavemarriedforeign womenfromthepeoplesoftheland;yetnowthereishopefor Israel,inspiteofthis. SonowletusmakeacovenantinfrontofourGodtoputaway allthewivesandtheirchildren,accordingtothecounselofmy

2 

3

154 155

Bautch, Developmentsingenre, 77-78. See Brueggemann, TheologyoftheOldTestament, 213-28.

152

4 5

6

7 8

9

10  11

12  13

14

15

16

Ezra7-10 master and of those who tremble at the commandment of our God.Letitbedoneaccordingtothelaw. Standup!Forthematterconcernsyou,butwewillbewithyou; becourageousandact.’ Ezrastoodupandmadetheleadingpriests,theLevites,andallIsrael, take oath that they would do according to this proposal. They took theoath. EzrastoodupfrombeforethehouseofGodandwentintothechamber ofJehohananthesonofEliashib.Althoughhewentthere,hedidnot eatbread,nordrinkwater,forhewasmourningovertheunfaithfulnessoftheexiles. They made a proclamation throughout Judah and Jerusalem to all theexiles,thattheyshouldassembleinJerusalem, and that whoever would not come within three days, according to thecounsel of the leaders and the elders, all his possessions should beforfeitedandhehimselfexcludedfromtheassemblyoftheexiles. All the men of Judah and Benjamin assembled in Jerusalem within thethreedays.Itwastheninthmonthonthetwentiethofthemonth, and all the people sat in the open square before the house of God, tremblingbecauseofthismatterandtheheavyrain. Ezratheprieststoodupandsaidtothem, ‘You have been unfaithful and have married strange women addingtotheguiltofIsrael. Now,therefore,makeconfessiontoYHWH,Godofyourfathers. DoHiswill. Separate yourselves fromthe peoples of theland andfromthestrangewomen.’ Alltheassemblyansweredandsaidwithaloudvoice, ‘Thatisright!Asyouhavesaid,sowewilldo. Truly,thecrowdislarge.Itistherainyseason.Wearenotable tostandintheopen.Noristheworkreadyinoneortwodays, forwehavetransgressedgreatlyinthismatter. Let our leaders stand for the whole assembly. Let all those in ourcitieswhohavemarriedstrangewomencomeatappointed times,togetherwiththeeldersandjudgesofeachcity,untilthe fierce anger of our God, on account of this matter is turned awayfromus.’ OnlyJonathanthesonofAsahelandJahzeiahthesonofTikvahstood against this, with Meshullam and Shabbethai the Levite supporting them. The exiles did so. Ezra the priest selected men, heads of fathers’ houses for their father’s houses, all of them by name. So, they convenedonthefirstdayofthetenthmonthtoinvestigatethematter.

TheCommunityOrganized 17

153

And they finished all the men who had married strange women by thefirstofthefirstmonth.

As a result of Ezra’s prayer and, on behalf of Shecaniah, the son of Jehiel, the crisis is solved. A covenant is made and the unwanted marriages are dissolved. The report has a clear chronological structure: – Proposal of Shecaniah to conclude a covenant (vv. 1-4). – Ezra has the leaders swear the oaths (vv. 5-6). – A proclamation is being sent with a compelling summons to come to Jerusalem (vv. 7-8). – All come to the city (vv. 9-11). – Proposal for restraining the things by the weather (vv. 12-15). – Dissolution of unwanted marriages (vv. 16-17). On a narrative level, this section connects directly with the foregoing. The vocabulary, narrative art, and theme are like those in Ezra 9. However, the narrator shifts his perspective. No longer is the story narrated from the perspective of Ezra, but from an anonymous character (he-message). For some, this shift is a reason to see Ezra 10:1-6 as an editorial addition (Williamson).156 This view does not consider the well-known procedure of change of perspective in ancient Israelite narratives, as well as the fact that the narrative at the end of Ezra 9 was completely unfinished. I, therefore, agree with those who consider the shift from first person to third person as a stylistic method of the narrator.157 With this shift, the narrator wants to show that Ezra’s prayer has reached its intended effect: behavioural change in the people. It is quite remarkable that in the whole of Ezra 9-10 no voice is given to the women concerned. They are reduced by the narrator to silent objects.158 10:1

NowwhileEzrawasprayingandmakingconfession,weepingand prostratinghimselfbeforethehouseofGod,averylargeassembly, men, women, and children, gathered to him from Israel; for the peopleweptbitterly.

The perspective shifts from Ezra to the people. About both, features are related in a clear context. Concerning Ezra, two continuous actions are narrated. Both 156 See also M. Leuchter, ‘The Exegesis of Jeremiah in and beyond Ezra 9-10’, VT 65 (2014), 64. 157 E.g. Torrey, Ezra Studies, 244-46; S. Mowinckel, ‘“Ich” und “Er” in der Ezrageschichte’, in: A. Kuschke (ed.), Verbannung und Heimkehr. Beiträge Zur Geschichte und Theologie Israels im 6. und 5. Jahrhundert v. Chr., Tübingen 1961, 211-33; McConville; Jagersma. 158 See Hays, ‘Silence of the Wives’.

154

Ezra7-10

verbs used, pll and ydh, are in the infinitive of the Hitp. This means that ‘praying’ and ‘confessing (of guilt)’ have taken place continuously. The verb ydh in the Hi. has as its standard meaning ‘to praise’; see for example Gen. 49:8; Ps. 6:6. Sometimes a semantic reversal takes place and then the verb means ‘confessing guilt’ (Ps. 32:5; Prov. 28:13). The Hitp. of this verb almost always expresses a confession of guilt (e.g. Lev 5:5; Neh. 1:6; 9:2).159

Ezra performs these acts as he weeps (bokèh) and while he throws himself to the ground (mitnappēl) before the house of God. The Hitp. of the verb is used in the Hebrew Bible to indicate a prayer posture of penitence (see, for example, Deut. 9:18, 25; Williamson).160 As Ezra executes these mourning rites, a very large crowd is formed around him. This crowd is called a qāhāl, ‘community’ It is precisely this community that Ezra wants to (re)organize. The somewhat unusual enumeration of ‘men, women, and children’ underlines the size of the crowd and the severity of empathy. It is mentioned that they ‘wept’. In this way, a social connection is formed in collective mourning.161 10:2-4 AndShecaniahthesonofJehiel,oneofthesonsofElam,answered andsaidtoEzra,  ‘WehavebeenunfaithfultoourGodandhavemarriedforeign womenfromthepeoplesoftheland;yetnowthereishopefor Israeldespitethis.  SonowletusmakeacovenantinfrontofourGodtoputaway allthewivesandtheirchildren,accordingtothecounselofmy master and of those who tremble at the commandment of our God.Letitbedoneaccordingtothelaw.  Standup!Forthematterconcernsyou,butwewillbewithyou; becourageousandact.’ Shecaniah, the son of Jehiel, takes the initiative to get out of the crisis. He thereto addresses Ezra. The name šekanyāh means ‘he who dwells with YHWH’. In the Hebrew Bible there are eight different persons with this name. (1) A descendant of Zerubbabel, mentioned in I Chron. 3:21, 32 and Ezra 8:3. (2) Ezra 8:5 refers to some ‘sons of Shecaniah’ who returned with Ezra from the exile. (3) The head of the tenth section of the priests (I Chron. 24:11). (4) A priest from the time of Hezekiah (II Chron. 31:15). (5) A contemporary of Ezra, the son of Jehiel (Ezra 10:2). (6) The

159

See M.J. Boda, ‘Words and Meaning: ‫ ידה‬in Hebrew Research’, WThJ 57 (1995), 277-

160

Olyan, BiblicalMourning, 107. Olyan, BiblicalMourning, 107.

97. 161

TheCommunityOrganized

155

father of Shemaiah, the guard at the East Gate of Jerusalem (Neh. 3:29). (7) The father-in-law of Tobiah the Ammonite (Neh. 6:18). (8) A head of a family, who returned with Zerubbabel (Neh. 12:3). The name of his father Jehiel occurs regularly in post-exile texts. Ezra 8:9 mentions ‘Obadiah the son of Jehiel’ as one of those who spoke to Ezra. Ezra 10:26 mentions a Jehiel from the family of Elam as one of those who had entered an undesirable marriage. This Jehiel is probably another person than Shecaniah’s father (Williamson). In Ezra 2 // Neh. 7, twice a tribe of Elam is referred to among those who would have returned with Zerubbabel. Apart from the question of the historicity of the lists, it cannot be said with certainty whether Shecaniah in Ezra 10 was among this group.

Shecaniah starts with a summary of the words of Ezra, in which he involves the people through applying inclusive language. In doing so, he accepts the responsibility of the people for the arisen crisis. Shecaniah adopts the word for ‘unfaithfulness’ (ma‘al) from Ezra (9:2, 4), but uses a different terminology for marriage than Ezra in 9:2 and 12 by applying the vocabulary of Neh. 13:23, 27. The verb yšb in the Hiph. with an object ‘iššāh, ‘woman’, literally means ‘laying down with a woman’. In Ps. 113:9, it is one of the virtues of God that he lets the ‘barren live in a house, so that she may become a happy mother of children’. From the notion of this ‘living together’ the meaning ‘commitment’ in Ezra 10 is created, see also Neh. 13:23, 27.

Shecaniah has a more positive view on the turn than Ezra by formulating it in terms of ‘hope (miqwèh)’. He proposes to conclude a berît, ‘binding agreement’. This concept is a widely discussed theme in Old Testament scholarship. The classic translation with ‘covenant’ has been discussed without reaching an unambiguous alternative. Suggested are words like ‘commitment; agreement; deal; obligation’.162 In the context of Ezra 10, the noun refers to an interpersonally binding appointment (Williamson). Incorrectly, Valeton states that this commitment would not have a religious dimension.163 Most modern translations and commentaries render the

162 To offer a selection: W.F. Albright, ‘The Hebrew Expression for “Making a Covenant” in Pre-Israelite Documents’, BASOR 121 (1951), 21-22; K. Baltzer, Das Bundesformular (WMANT 4), Neukirchen-Vluyn 1964; E. Kutsch, ‘Sehen und Bestimmen: Die Etymologie von ‫’ברית‬, in: A. Kuschke, E. Kutsch (eds), ArchäologieundAltesTestament.Festschriftfür KurtGallingzum8.Januar1970, Tübingen 1970, 165-78; G. Gerleman, ‘Die ‘Besonderheit’. Untersuchungen zu berît im Alten Testament’, in: G. Gerleman, Studienzuralttestamentlichen Theologie, Heidelberg 1980, 24-37; S.D. Sperling, ‘Rethinking Covenant in late biblical books’, Biblica 70 (1989), 50-73; S. Linington, ‘The term ‫ ברית‬in the Old Testament, part V: An enquiry into the meaning and use of the word in 1-2 Chronicles, Ezra and Nehemiah’, OTE 19 (2006), 671-693; C. Koch, Vertrag, Treueid und Bund: Studien zur Rezeption des altorientalischenVertragsrechtsimDeuteronomiumundzurAusbildungderBundestheologie imaltenTestament (BZAW 383), Berlin, New York 2008. 163 J.J.P. Valeton, ‘Das Wort ‫ ברית‬bei der Profeten und in der Ketubim – Resultat’, ZAW 13 (1893), 266.

156

Ezra7-10

expression with ‘concluding a covenant with God’ (Myers; Fensham; Becker; Van Wijk-Bos; Fried; Shepherd & Wright).164 That is, however, incorrect because the preposition ‘im, ‘with’ is not used in this clause (as, for example, in II Chron. 23:3). The preposition le-used in the adjective clause lē’lohênû, ‘in front of our God’, should be seen as an indication that God is taken as a witness at the human appointment (Williamson, Breneman, Hieke, see also II Chron. 29:10).165 The content of this binding agreement is the sending away of women and children. This sentence is somewhat elliptically formulated and is intended to refer to the dissolution of unwanted marriages after an investigation. The verb chosen for ‘to send away’, (yāṣāh Hi.) is unusual. In the regulations concerning the dissolution of marriage the verb šālaḥ is used (Deut. 22:19, 29; 24:1-4). The agreement will be concluded according to the ‘council; or the advice’ of Ezra and of those who truly respected the institutions of God. The latter expression refers to the group that had already gathered around Ezra in Ezra 9:4. The final clause, which urges a conduct in accordance with the tôrāh, wants to establish a connection between the instantaneous and the continuous. Although Shecaniah’s proposal is a GebotderStunde, he does not want to promote pragmatism but adheres to tradition. Williamson assumes that the rules on the dissolution of marriages would have been adopted from Deut. 24:1-4. That text states that when a man finds an ‘èrwat dābār with his wife – usually euphemistically translated with ‘something improper’, he may send her away. Presumably, Ezra’s narrator interprets the behaviour of the ‘strange women’ as ‘something improper’ and finds a legal basis for by-passing the seventh commandment. Janzen interpreted this sending away of the ‘strange women’ as a rationalized act of witch hunting with, as its aim to keep the community pure and clean. His main arguments are: (1) The fact that the language in Ezra 9-10 is full of ‘pure’ related words; (2) The fact that women are not charged for anything – their only ‘mistake’ was them being different – and (3) The political-economic tension under which the province of Yehud suffered.166 Although I disagree with the fact that the women would have had a different ethnic background, I share his view that these women were sent away as scapegoats by the leaders of the community in order to overcome the 164 See also: Häusl, ‘Wenn aus Unterscheidung Scheidungen werden’, 43; Bänziger, «JauchzenundWeinen», 82. 165 See also Moffat, Ezra’ssocialdrama, 113-15; Willi, Esra:DerLehrerIsraels, 168; D.J.E. Nykolaishen, ‘Ezra 10:3: Solemn Oath? Renewed Covenant? New Covenant?’, in: R.J. Bautch, G.N. Knoppers (eds), Covenant in the Persian Period: From Genesis to Chronicles, Winona Lake 2015, 371-89. 166 Janzen, Witch-Hunts; see also Johnson, TheHolyseedhasbeendefiled.

TheCommunityOrganized

157

sentiments of slump and malaise. The women are victims of this social drama.167 Elaborating the ideas of Janzen, Saysell has suggested that the implementation of Shecaniah’s proposal boils down to executing the ḥērèm, ‘(war-)ban’.168 In doing so, she makes a connection to the occurrence of the verb ḥrm in 10:8. The proposal is concluded with a double summons to Ezra. Firstly, Shecaniah summons him up to rise, that is, to leave his lethargic attitude. This appeal is motivated by the hint that Ezra will be in a position to carry out the task of carrying on the matter and the promise that the people will support him. Then he summons Ezra to be strong and to act. This last summon reminds one of a phrase ḥazaq wè’èmāṣ, ‘be strong and courageous’, which appears in texts in which people are appointed to perform special acts (see, for example, Deut. 31:23; Josh. 1:6, 9; I Chron. 22:13; 28:20; Williamson). In the farewell speech of David to his son Solomon, in the context of the assignment to build the temple, the exact same words occur as in Ezra 10.169 10:5-6 Ezra stood up and made the leading priests, the Levites, and all Israel,takeoaththattheywoulddoaccordingtothisproposal.They tooktheoath.  Ezra stood up from before the house of God and went into the chamberofJehohananthesonofEliashib.Althoughhewentthere, he did not eat bread, nor drink water, for he was mourning over theunfaithfulnessoftheexiles. The two verbs from the final summons of Shecaniah recur in v. 6. Ezra stood up (wayyāqām) and he called on the people to act according the proposal of Sekanja (la‘aśôt). Swearing an oath may be seen to be a confirmation of making a binding appointment. Swearing an oath is a performative act. By implementing

167

Moffat, Ezra’ssocialdrama. Saysell, ‘According to the Law’, 58-80. On the institution of ḥerem see: P.D. Stern, TheBiblicalHerem:AWindowonIsrael’sReligiousExperience, Atlanta 1991; S. Niditch, WarintheHebrewBible:AStudyintheEthicsofViolence, Oxford 1995; D. Greb, VölkermordimNamenGottes?:DerKriegsheremimJosuabuchundseineParalleleninderbiblischenUmwelt. München 2012; I. Rosen-Zvi, ‘Rereading herem’, in: K. Berthelot, J.E. David, M. Hirshman (eds), TheGiftoftheLandandtheFateoftheCanaanitesinJewishThought, Oxford 50-64; L.A.S. Monroe, ‘Israelite, Moabite and Sabaean War-ḥērem Traditions and the Forging of National Identity: Reconsidering the Sabaean Text RÉS 3945 in Light of Biblical and Moabite Evidence’, VT 57 (2007), 318-41; A. Versluis, ‘Devotion and/or Destruction? The Meaning and Function of ‫ חרם‬in the Old Testament’, ZAW 128 (2016), 233-46. 169 See also H.G.M. Williamson, ‘The Accession of Solomon in the Books of Chronicles’, VT 26 (1976), 351-61. 168

158

Ezra7-10

the act and pronouncing the standardized text, the volition for behavioural change is made clear.170 In Ezra 10, the deity is indirectly called as witness to the act. Swearing an oath is a hazardous enterprise in the Ancient Near East, precisely because of the being witness of the deity. By having the people make a vow, Ezra adopts the proposal of Shecaniah. It is remarkable that among those called upon to swear an oath the priests, the Levites and all the people are mentioned, and especially the śārîm of the priests. Above (9:1) I argued that the noun śār would refer to Persian officials. The fact that they are mentioned here as leaders of a part of the community, indicates that Ezra wants to involve them in his order of the community. Then Ezra departs to the quarters of Jochanan’s son Eliashib to mourn further. Because both names – Jochanan and Eliashib – occur regularly in post-exilic texts, it is virtually impossible to identify them with some of the other people with the same name mentioned in Ezra and Nehemiah. The fact that Ezra continues his mourning, also after the proposal of Shecaniah, shows that his mourning was not only to evoke an effect, but must be seen to be an expression of deeply felt insulting of God’s order (Fried contra Blenkinsopp). 10:7-8  TheymadeaproclamationthroughoutJudahandJerusalemtoall theexiles,thattheyshouldassembleinJerusalem,  and that whoever would not come within three days, according to thecounseloftheleadersandtheelders,allhispossessionsshould beforfeitedandhehimselfexcludedfromtheassemblyoftheexiles. Meanwhile, practical measures were taken. A qôl, ‘voice; summons; appeal’, (see Ezra 1:1) goes through the whole area. With it, those who had been in exile were summoned to present themselves to Jerusalem in three days. Failure to follow the summon would be a strong punishment: exclusion from the community. Here, the same verb, bādal, is used that occurred earlier in the appeal to be separated from the impurity (6:21; 8:24; 9:1). The possessions of those who would not be present will be given into the ‘ban’. The ḥērèm was an ancient oriental institution with roots in the ethics of war. The spoil after a battle did not accrue to individuals and should not be robbed but, had to be separated for the temple.171 In Ezra, there is not

170 See, e.g. J. Flowerdew, ‘Problems of Speech Act Theory from an Applied Perspective’, Language Learning 40 (1990), 79-105; J. Turri, ‘Epistemic Invariantism and Speech Act Contextualism’, PhilosophicalReview 119 (2010), 77-95; B. Conklin, OathFormulasinBiblicalHebrew (Linguistic Studies in Ancient West Semitic 5), Winona Lake 2011, 1-11. 171 On ḥerem see above.

TheCommunityOrganized

159

a situation of war, but the property of those who would not obey is seen as ‘spoil’. The appeal is based on a decision of Persian, śārîm (see 9:1), and Judaean zeqēnîm, ‘elders; officials’. The elders already played a role in Ezra 5:5, 9; 6:7-8, 14. 10:9-11 All the men of Judah and Benjamin assembled in Jerusalem within the three days. It was the ninth month on the twentieth of themonth,andallthepeoplesatintheopensquarebeforethehouse ofGod,tremblingbecauseofthismatterandtheheavyrain.  Ezratheprieststoodupandsaidtothem,  ‘You have been unfaithful and have married strange women addingtotheguiltofIsrael.  Now,therefore,makeconfessiontoYHWH,Godofyourfathers. Do His will. Separate yourselves from the peoples of the land andfromthestrangewomen.’ The fact that all the men of Judah and Benjamin gathered in Jerusalem within three days assumes that the sanction was effective. They meet at the temple which is a symbolic witness here. The narrator mentions a temporal moment. The men meet on the twentieth day of the ninth month. That is, in the month of Kislev the third (spring-) or ninth month (autumn-) year of the old-Israelite calendar. The date is not exactly measurable but, will fall in our month of December. In that period, until the present day, there is severe rainfall in Israel.172 For two reasons, the men shiver in the square: because of the issue and because of the rain. The verb rā‘ad occurs only three times in the Old Testament, besides Ezra 10, only in Psalm 104:32 and Dan. 10:11. These occurrences and the nouns ra‘ad, ‘shiver’ (Exod. 15:15; Ps. 55:6), and re‘ādāh, ‘panic; fear’ (Isa. 33:14, Ps. 2:11; 48:7; Job 4:14), make it clear that a deep emotion of terrible insecurity is referred to. The men were shaken emotionally.

As in 7:12, 21, Ezra is presented here as priest. He rises and summarizes the history and claims that the unwanted marriages have increased Israel’s ‘guilt’ (’ašmāh). He does not demand explicit penitence from the gathered crowd (so KJV) but comes with a more positively formulated appeal to thank God. The noun tôdāh means ‘thanksgiving in the form of a sacrifice’ (Lev. 7:12, 29; Ps. 50:14, 23; 107:22; 116:17; Jer. 17:26; 33:11; Am. 4:5; Jonah 2:10) or in the form of praise (Ps. 26:7; Isa. 51:3; 30:19). In conjunction with the verb nātan, it appears next to Ezra 10:11 in Josh. 7:19.

172 See D.C. Hopkins, TheHighlandsofCanaan:AgriculturalLifeintheEarlyIronAge, Sheffield 1985, 79-108.

160

Ezra7-10

In the latter text, Joshua summons Achan to leave behind his guilty past and to praise God (Williamson). By calling God the ‘God of your ancestors’, the continuity with the ancestors is emphasized in positive terms. 10:12-14 Alltheassemblyansweredandsaidwithaloudvoice,  ‘Thatisright!Asyouhavesaid,sowewilldo.  Truly,thecrowdislarge.Itistherainyseason.Wearenotableto standintheopen.Noristheworkreadyinoneortwodays,forwe havetransgressedgreatlyinthismatter.  Let our leaders stand for the whole assembly. Let all those in our cities who have married strange women come at appointed times, together with the elders and judges of each city, until the fierce angerofourGodonaccountofthismatteristurnedawayfromus.’ The whole community gives a conceding answer to Ezra’s summons. A procedural objection, however, is raised that contains three elements. (1) The people are numerous. (2) The steady rain makes standing for a long time unpleasant and (3) The nature of the case is very serious. Therefore, a careful procedure is proposed. The case is given to the śārîm, ‘rulers’, and returned to local communities. It is proposed that be‘ārênû, ‘in our cities’, the various cases of unwanted marriages will be brought before the Judaean zeqēnîm, ‘elders’. They are apparently considered capable of giving a fair judgment from their knowledge of local circumstances. In most translations, ‘judges’ are added to the ‘elders’. The Hebrew word wešofṭèhā, however, is a verbal form (infinitivus with suffix preceded by a conjunction that indicates the purpose) and thus refers to the task of the ‘elders’ and not to a separate group of officials. The adverb ’abāl has, in classical biblical Hebrew, a confirming function in classical biblical Hebrew: ‘truly …’ (see, for example, II Kgs 4:14). In post-exilic Hebrew, however, the conjunction has an opposing function: ‘but, on the contrary …’ (see Dan. 10:7; 10:21, Ezra 10:13, II Chron. 1:4; 19:3; 33:17).

The fact that the members of the community are not presenting with a diversionary tactic, is apparent from the closing clause of v. 14. They, too, want to avert from the ḥarôn‘āp, ‘burning anger’, of God.173

173 On divine anger see now: J. Jeremias, DerZornGottesimAltenTestament:dasbiblischeIsraelzwischenVerwerfungundErwählung. (BThSt 104), Neukirchen 2009.

TheCommunityOrganized

161

10:15 Only Jonathan the son of Asahel and Jahzeiah the son of Tikvah stoodagainstthis,  withMeshullamandShabbethaitheLevitesupportingthem. This verse is separated from the foregoing by a petuḥā. For the sake of completeness, the narrator reports a small opposition to the proposal just described. An alternative solution is not mentioned. Jonathan, the son of Asael, is unknown outside this passage. The name Jonathan is very common in ancient Israel. In II Sam. 2-3 a cousin of David bears the name Asael. The name yaḥzeyāh, ‘Jahzeja’, occurs only in Ezra 10:15. The collocation āmad‘alhas the specific meaning ‘rise against’ (Williamson, see also Lev. 19:16; Judg. 6:13; I Chron. 21:1; II Chron. 20:23; 26:18; Dan. 8:25).

10:16-17 Theexilesdidso.Ezrathepriestselectedmen,headsoffathers’ houses for their father’s houses, all of them by name. So, they convenedonthefirstdayofthetenthmonthtoinvestigatethematter.  And they finished all the men who had married strange women by thefirstofthefirstmonth. The vast majority, however, perform out the proposal. Ezra segregates family heads – again the verb bādal (see 6:21) – to conduct the investigations. The work will last for exactly three months and will be completed on the first day of the new year. Thus, Ezra would have accomplished his task exactly within the year. The time-indication has led to exegetical speculations. According to Rudolph, the three-month period is far too long to complete the 109 cases listed in the following list. He assumes that the list in Ezra 10 is incomplete. Williamson rightly pointed out that the110 cases, in his view, concern only the alleged cases and that a good trial for those who were not guilty should have taken time.

LIST OF TRANSGRESSORS EZRA 10:18-44

18 Among the sons of the priests who had married foreign wives were found of the sons of Jeshua the son of Jozadak, and his brothers: Maaseiah,Eliezer,Jarib,andGedaliah. 19 Theypledgedtoputawaytheirwivesand,beingguilty,theyoffered aramoftheflockfortheiroffense. 20 OfthesonsofImmer:HananiandZebadiah. 21 OfthesonsofHarim:Maaseiah,Elijah,Shemaiah,Jehiel,andUzziah.

162

Ezra7-10

22 Of the sons of Pashhur: Elioenai, Maaseiah, Ishmael, Nethanel, Jozabad,andElasah. 23 OftheLevites:Jozabad,Shimei,Kelaiah(thatis,Kelita),Pethahiah, Judah,andEliezer. 24 Ofthesingers:Eliashib.Ofthegatekeepers:Shallum,Telem,andUri. 25 OfIsrael,ofthesonsofParosh:Ramiah,Izziah,Malchijah,Mijamin, Eleazar,Malchijah,andBenaiah. 26 Of the sons of Elam: Mattaniah, Zechariah, Jehiel, Abdi, Jeremoth, andElijah. 27 OfthesonsofZattu:Elioenai,Eliashib,Mattaniah,Jeremoth,Zabad, andAziza. 28 OfthesonsofBebai:Jehohanan,Hananiah,Zabbai,Athlai. 29 OfthesonsofBani:Meshullam,Malluch,andAdaiah,Jashub,Sheal, Jeremoth. 30 Of the sons of Pahath-moab: Adna, Chelal, Benaiah, Maaseiah, Mattaniah,Bezalel,Binnui,andManasseh. 31 ThesonsofHarim:Eliezer,Isshijah,Malchijah,Shemaiah,Shimeon, 32 Benjamin,Malluch,Shemariah. 33 Of the sons of Hashum: Mattenai, Mattattah, Zabad, Eliphelet, Jeremai,Manasseh,Shimei. 34 OfthesonsofBani:Maadai,Amram,Uel, 35 Benaiah,Bedeiah,Cheluhi, 36 Vaniah,Meremoth,Eliashib, 37 Mattaniah,Mattenai,Jaasu, 38 Bani,Binnui,Shimei, 39 Shelemiah,Nathan,Adaiah, 40 Machnadebai,Shashai,Sharai, 41 Azarel,Shelemiah,Shemariah, 42 Shallum,Amariah,Joseph. 43 OfthesonsofNebo:Jeiel,Mattithiah,Zabad,Zebina,Jaddai,Joel, Benaiah. 44 All these had married strange women, and some of them had wives theyhadchildrenwith. The book Ezra ends with a list of 110 persons who, as a result of the procedure followed, had to terminate their marriage with a ‘strange woman’. The origin of the list is unclear. The fact that it is ordered to civil servants – priests, Levites, singers, gatekeepers and others – and not to domicile, as could be expected from the foregoing, indicates that the list has been edited into its current form. Additionally, there are about twelve lay families, all in all pointing to a conscious composition (Williamson). The layout of the list in Ezra 10 is related to that in Ezra 2 // Neh. 7. Perhaps the narrator of

TheCommunityOrganized

163

the Book of Ezra searched for a balance between both lists. Rudolph has speculated about the possible incompleteness of the list (see also at 10:16-17). However, his argument that he misses the ‘common man’ is not convincing, as twelve lay families are listed. Within the composition of Ezra 7-10, the list functions as an indication that Ezra’s actions have been effective. 10:18-19 Among the sons of the priests who had married foreign wives were found of the sons of Jeshua the son of Jozadak, and his brothers:Maaseiah,Eliezer,Jarib,andGedaliah.  Theypledgedtoputawaytheirwives,andbeingguilty,theyoffered aramoftheflockfortheiroffense. The list begins with the names of some priests. Williamson assumes that with yēšûa‘, ‘Jeshua the son of Josadak’, a high priest would be meant. Although this Jeshua plays a prominent role in the Book of Ezra (see 3:2), he is nowhere called high priest.174 The family members of a leading priest too had intermingled with ‘strange women’. The sending away of the women has both a legal and a cultic effect. The ‘giving of the hand’ is a legal formula that includes both ratification and surrender (see also II Chron. 30:8). After that, they offer – according to tradition (Lev. 5:16) – a ram as a guilt offering. It is striking that these actions are only mentioned in v. 19. After each subsequent group of violators, they are not repeated. This can mean two things: (1) The family members of Jeshua were the only ones who offered a sacrifice for which they felt obliged considering their status, or (2) The contents of v. 19 form as a refrain to be repeated after each subsequent group, because, in view of what happened before, no meaning can be given to the fact that only a small group would have confessed their debt in this way. Indeed, large parts of Israel were guilty of the ma‘al (Williamson). 10:20-22 The list continues with the names of some priests of lesser stature. A priest Immer is also mentioned in the list of returnees (Ezra 2:37 // Neh. 7:40). The same holds for Charim (Ezra 2:39 // Neh. 7:42) and Paschur (Ezra 2:38 // Neh. 7:41). 10:23 The names of the six Levites mentioned here are not found in the lists in Ezra 2 // Neh. 7. The addition ‘that is Kelita’ after the name Kelija is remarkable. Presumably, the editor who later created Ezra and Nehemiah

174

See also VanderKam, FromJoshuatoCaiaphas, 18-21.

164

Ezra7-10

as one book, would like to identify in this way Kelija with the person Kelita who in Neh. 8:7 reads the law that Ezra taught to the people and who in Neh. 10:10 is one of the signatories of the arrangements of Nehemiah. 10:24 ‘Singers’ are also mentioned in Ezra 2:41 and Neh. 7:44. However, an Eliashib is not mentioned there. Of the three gatekeepers in Ezra 10, only Sallum is mentioned in Ezra 2:42 // Neh. 7:45. 10:25-43 The eleven setumôt in this passage, group those Israelites who are not directly linked to the temple, in twelve groups. In this list too, the community is ordered to the ideal image of the twelve tribes. This list shows – again – many parallels with the list of those returning. Paros (v. 25), for example, is also mentioned in Ezra 2:3 // Neh. 7:8. All these agreements usually refer to members of a next generation of families mentioned in Ezra 2 // Neh. 7. Within the composition of the Book Ezra, both lists stand in each other’s mirror image. Because of Ezra’s actions, the community is now free from strange stains. Cogan has detected similarities between the names of the sons of Nebo in v. 43 and a list of Reubenites in I Chron. 5:3-8. He construes that agreement as an indication of the return of a group from the tribe of Reuben who would have been in exile in Transjordan after the conquest of Jerusalem.175 In addition to the place name Nebo, only two personal names are identical in both passages: Jehiel and Joel. Therefore, Cogan’s proposal is not very convincing (see also Williamson).176

10:44 Allthesehadmarriedstrangewomen,andsomeofthemhadwives theyhadchildrenwith. In this final verse, it is reportedly said that all these men had ‘strange women’ and that some had already raised children with them. This list is the conclusion of the Book of Ezra. The order given to Ezra by Artaxerxes to restore order in the province of Yehud has been completed. This means that from a narrative perspective there is no need for a followup. This observation is an argument to consider Ezra and Nehemiah as originally two independent books. In addition, it should also be noted that the narrative in Neh. 1 does not connect with Ezra’s book-end.

175

M. Cogan, ‘The Men of Nebo—Repatriated Reubenites’, IEJ 29 (1979), 37-39. See P.J. Williams, ‘Israel outside the Land: The Transjordanian Tribes in 1 Chronicles 5’, in: V.P. Young, D.W. Baker, G.J. Wenham (eds), WindowsintoOldTestamentHistory: Evidence,Argument,andtheCrisisof‘BiblicalIsrael’, Grand Rapids 2002, 158-60. 176

NEHEMIAH 1-7

NO MORE MUDDLE!

ESSENTIALS AND PERSPECTIVES The first seven chapters of the Book of Nehemiah report an important change: at first the city of Jerusalem is portrayed as a city in ruins, at the end, the walls of the city have been rebuilt and the descendants of the exiles can return. This shift includes two story-units that will be discussed separately. Each wall has two functions: protection and impediment. Inside the walls, people are safe from the dangers of external forces and powers. On the other hand, walls keep people from going to where they want to be. In the early second century CE; the Roman emperor Hadrian constructed the Vallum Hadriani in Northern England, to protect the Imperium Romanum from attacks by British tribes, such as the Picts. The Berlin Wall is a more recent example. The purpose was to protect citizens of eastern Berlin from the influences of the West. This wall, however, prevented people from freedom during many years. Throughout the entire history of mankind, walls – and other fences – have led to conflicts: from the Chinese wall to the border fences between Mexico and the United States. The sense of security on one side coincides with the awareness of exclusion on the other. The sympathy of the outsider depends on a connection with either of the sides. Nehemiah restores the broken wall around Jerusalem with the aim of providing protection and security to the community within the walls. His activities are not without conflict. Many Judaeans are prepared to support him. Other groups – especially around Sanballat in Samaria – are injurious in their interests and try to distort or impede rebuilding. The sympathy of the reader lies with Nehemiah. The reader is steered by the narrator who presents the rebuilding of the walls as a fair and justified case. He does this by weaving three elements into his story. (1) The support of the Persian king; (2) The testimony that YHWH is on the side of Nehemiah and (3) the casting of the Judaeans as the heroic underdog who, like David versus Goliath, defended themselves against the forceful powers from outside. However, this sympathy also has a backdrop. The Book of Nehemiah shows that the community must be worthy enough to enjoy the protection of the walls. That theme will be further elucidated in chapters 8-13. In the present unit, this theme is underlined by the crisis surrounding drought and impoverishment. If the community wants to count upon the sympathy of

166

Nehemiah1-7

others and on the solidarity of God, then it must be built on internal solidarity. Nehemiah carries out the old concept of šemiṭṭa, ‘remission’, as a mechanism of redistribution in times of sorrow. He underlines the principle of equivalence in ancient Israel, where the rich should not be too rich and the poor not too poor. Each wall is a temporary solution. Walls are necessary because of the nature of mankind. People want to possess what the others possess and do not easily like to share their wealth. Walls keep people and groups at a distance or apart from each other. That may be necessary on a temporary basis. Paul in the letter to the Ephesians depicts a different perspective. Through Jesus, the middle wall between people, groups and nations has been broken down and the hostility that has been the foundation of it was dismantled.

SCHOLARLY EXPOSITION I: INTRODUCTION TO THE EXEGESIS The Book of Nehemiah opens with a scene of sorrow. An embassy from Jerusalem reports to Nehemiah – who is living at the Persian court – that the city has been affected by ‘anguish and reproach’. The city lays unprotected in the landscape. The question of how to end this situation is not only historically interesting but also theologically relevant. The way things happen in the book of Nehemiah is a thematic parallel to the movement in the lives of many people and groups. Every time, people enter a situation of mourning, whether or not by their own fault. I would like to label that as the ever-present experience of exile. The big question is time and again: how do people return from mourning into the joy of healed life? The first twenty verses of the Book of Nehemiah draw a step by step process. The first step is to express the trouble openly, thereby acknowledging the tragedy. The second step is the compassion of the other. Nehemiah is a co-national of the Judaeans living in a privileged position. He is at the border between two worlds: the world of his origin and the world of his work at the court. The third step is that of prayer. On behalf of his peers, Nehemiah presents the mourning to God. The image of God in this prayer is not one-sided. God is not reduced to a sweet God who wants to lay his arm to console the tired backs of his people. Nor is God reduced to mere wrath and anger for what was done to him by the people. Thus, Nehemiah places his cards on the table with God in this prayer. Then, worldly power enters the stage. Of great importance is the moment when the Persian king notices the sadness of Nehemiah and wants to remove it. Whoever laments, for any reason, can benefit from a fellow human being who has an eye for their grief and wants to do something about it. At the

Nomoremuddle!

167

same time, this is a call for people to look around and to notice the sadness and misery of others. The preliminary final step is the practical assistance offered by the king. He sends Nehemiah on his travels, but not emptyhanded. Assistance to man in need is ultimately a combination of the pastoral and diaconal aspects. With beautiful words alone, sadness is not removed. Assistance limited to practical matters disregards the true depth of sorrow. For the narrator of the book of Nehemiah, God was present – sometimes tacitly – in all these steps. The first narrative in the Book of Nehemiah relates the return of the protagonist from the king’s palace in Susan to a Jerusalem that is still devastated and confused. The twenty verses report a change in the function and locality of Nehemiah. From the cupbearer to the king’s court he becomes the master of the walls of Jerusalem. The engine for this change lies with Nehemiah’s sorrow for the situation of the city in combination with the generous willingness of the king to send him on a mission to that city. Most exegetes consider 2:10 as the end of this first narrative. The petucha after 2:9, however, indicates that 2:10 should be construed as the opening of the second narrative in Nehemiah. The majority of exegetes assume that these verses were taken from the Nehemiah-memoir (Williamson; Schunck).1 The events are dated ‘in the twentieth year’. Neh. 1:1 leaves out whose twentieth year is implied, leading to a variety of speculations (see 1:1). In Neh. 2:1, the king is called Artaxerxes. This refers to Artaxerxes I Longimanus who ruled over the Persian empire from 465 to 424. His twentieth year of government fell in 445. During that period, there was some rest in the Persian Empire; because the rebellion of Egypt had collapsed, and a peace was concluded with Greece.2 The second element in the story of Nehemiah is the narration concerned with the restoration of the walls of the city. In this narrative, Nehemiah experiences support from the inhabitants of Judah and Jerusalem, but opposition from the side of the rulers in Samaria. Most often, these chapters are considered derived from the Nehemiah-memoir (Williamson). The chapters are written as first person singular reports. The unit consists of the following parts: 2:10-20 3:1-32

Inspection followed by consent and conflict List of persons responsible

1 E.g. T. Reinmuth, Der Bericht Nehemias: Zur literarischen Eigenart, traditionsgeschichltlichen Prägung und innerbiblischen Rezeption des Ich–Berichtes Nehemias (OBO 183), Freiburg, Göttingen 2002, 33-55. 2 The peace of Callias 449; see Diodorus Siculus, Historia 12.4 and L.J. Samons, ‘Kimon, Kallias and Peace with Persia’, Historia:ZeitschriftfürAlteGeschichte 47 (1998), 129–140.

168

Nehemiah1-7

4:1-23 5:1-19 6:1-7:4 7:5-7:72

Confrontation with Sanballat Socio-economic crisis Opposition from Sanballat List of returnees

The style of the unit is that of a report and contains two lists. In addition to a list of those who assisted in the rebuilding and their responsibilities, there is a list of those who returned from exile. The motive of the rebuilding is inextricably linked to a second narrative. The restoration of Jerusalem, supported by God and the Persian king, is being wrecked by the rulers in Samaria. SCHOLARLY

EXPOSITION

II: EXEGESIS

From Susan to Jerusalem NEHEMIAH 1:2:9

DEPLORABLE REPORTS NEHEMIAH 1:1-4

1  2

3 

4

ThewordsofNehemiahthesonofHachaliah. NowithappenedinthemonthChislev,inthetwentiethyear,whileI wasinSusathecapitol, that Hanani, one of my brothers, and some men from Judah came; andIaskedthemabouttheJudaeanswhohadescapedsurvivingthe captivity,andaboutJerusalem. Theysaidtome, ‘Theremnantthereintheprovincewhosurvivedthecaptivity isingreatdistressandreproach,andthewallofJerusalemis brokendownanditsgatesareburnedwithfire.’ Now it came about when I heard these words, I sat down and wept andmournedfordays;andIwasfastingandprayingbeforetheGod ofheaven.

Usually, Neh. 1 is referred to as ‘the call of Nehemiah’ (Williamson). This label, however, is incorrect. There is no mention of calling in the textual unit. Rather, this first chapter shows how Nehemiah became aware of the compassionate situation in Jerusalem and how he responded to it. 1:1a ThewordsofNehemiahthesonofHachaliah. This introductory clause presents the Biblical Book as the words of Nehemiah, the son of Hachaliah. The first word dibrêy, ‘the words of …’, indicates –

Nomoremuddle!

169

as in the Hebrew name for the Books of the Chronicles – a written record of events. The clause is from the Nehemiah-memoir.3 The personal name neḥèmyāh, ‘YHWH has comforted’, appears regularly as does the abbreviated form nāḥûm. In addition to the main character of the Book of Nehemiah, in the Hebrew Bible there are two more persons with the same name: (1) In the list of returnees, a Nehemiah is mentioned. The absence of a filiation suggests that he is to be seen to be a different person (Ezra 2:2 // Neh. 7:7); (2) In the enumeration of those responsible for the rebuilding of the wall, a Nehemiah is called Azbuk’s son (Neh. 3:16). Even in non-Biblical texts, the name appears, for example, in the recently published Al Yehudah documents. DJE 5:4 reports that the tax yield of the date-yard of pni-ḫi-am-mu was 0.2 kor. DJE 21:7 states that Shama-yahu the son of pna-aḫ-ḫi-im-ma-a (Nehemiah) had contributed a tax-payment of 3-kor of barley.4 The name was, therefore, known among the exiles. In Papyrus 4 from Wadi Daliyeh the sale of a slave Nehemiah is documented.5 In the documents from Nippur (Murashu archives) and Elephantine, the name Nehemiah does not occur. The name ḥakalyāh, ‘who waits for YHWH’, is only attested here and in Neh. 10:1.

1b-2 

NowithappenedinthemonthChislev,inthetwentiethyear,while IwasinSusathecapital, thatHanani,oneofmybrothers,andsomemenfromJudahcame; and I asked them about the Judaeans who had escaped surviving thecaptivity,andaboutJerusalem.

The encounter of Nehemiah with Chanani is precisely dated and localized. It took place in the month of Kislev in the borough of Susan. Kislev is the third month in the Israelite calendar and usually falls in December. The month name appears only twice in the Hebrew Bible (Zech. 7:1; Neh. 1:1). Susan, in the southwest of modern Iran, is one of the oldest inhabited cities in the world. The city was already the capital of an empire under the Elamites. For the Persian rulers, Susan served as their winter residence (Blenkinsopp).6 The stories about Daniel and Esther are situated in Susan. The city is indicated here with an Aramaic loanword bîrāh, ‘palace city’. The same word is used in the Elephantine papyri as an indication of the military fortress on the island in the Nile. The nature of the meeting is not explained. The reason for the arrival of the group around Chanani is not mentioned. Since an ordinary or, tourist3 See S. Burt, TheCourtierandtheGovernor:TransformationsofGenreintheNehemiah Memoir (JAJ Sup, 17), Göttingen 2014, 49. 4 Documents dated in 517 resp. 512; see L.E. Pearce, C. Wunsch,DocumentsofJudean ExilesandWestSemitesinBabyloniaintheCollectionofDavidSofer (CUSAS 28), Bethesdsa 2014. 5 Middle of the fourth century, see J. Dušek, LesmanuscriptsaraméensduWadiDaliyeh etlaSamarievers450-332av.J.-C. (CHANE 30), Leiden 2007, 171-81. 6 See Xenophon, Cyropaedia 8:6, 22; P. Amiet, Suse.6000ansd’histoire, Paris 1988.

170

Nehemiah1-7

like visit is unlikely, one might think of the possibility that this group had come from Jerusalem as an envoy. Nehemiah’s role is not immediately clear. Is this a private meeting with peers or does he receive them in his official capacity at the Persian court? Nehemiah enquires after the fate of the inhabitants and of the city of Jerusalem. It is not immediately clear which group he has in mind. The word šebî, ‘captivity’, in combination with the verb plṭ, ‘to escape’, certainly refers to groups who have been in exile (Bertholet). The verb š’r, ‘to survive’, can point to groups who escaped deportation and remained in Judah (Rudolph). The Book of Nehemiah, unlike the Book of Ezra, makes little distinction between the different groups in and around Jerusalem during the Persian period.7 Therefore, it may be assumed that Nehemiah enquires after the fate of everyone in and around Jerusalem (Williamson). The name ḥanānî, a shortening of ḥananyāh, ‘YHWH is beneficial’, occurs several times in the Hebrew Bible. In addition to a prophet from the time of king Asa of Judah, there are four people, mostly Levites, known by this name: (1) One of the sons of Heman (I Chronicles 25:4-9). (2) A priest of the family of Immer (Ezra 10). (3) The ‘brother’ of Nehemiah (Nehemiah 1:2; 7:1-2). (4) A Levitical musician who played a role in the initiation-ceremony of the rebuilt wall of Jerusalem (Neh. 12:31-36). Whether the one mentioned in Neh. 1 and 7, was a physical brother of Nehemiah (Myers, Williamson) is hard to prove. An identification of this person with the Chanani that appears in the correspondence from Elephantine is almost impossible considering the time difference of half a century.8

1:3 

Theysaidtome, ‘Theremnantthereintheprovincewhosurvivedthecaptivityis in great distress and reproach, and the wall of Jerusalem is brokendownanditsgatesareburnedwithfire.’

The response from the group around Chanani does not draw a roseate picture. The inhabitants of the medînāh, ‘district; province’; meant as a subdivision of the satrapy, are immersed in anguish and scorn. What constitutes the evil is, unfortunately, left unexplained. Sometimes, the misery is so great that it is enlarged when its constituent parts are named by name and explanation. ‘Scorn’ (ḥèrpāh) indicates injustice caused by another (see especially Lam. 3:30; 5:1):9 Jerusalem is desolate. The walls are destroyed, while the gates are burned by fire. To indicate the destruction of the walls, the verb

7

See H.C.M. Vogt, StudiezurnachexilischenGemeindeinEsra-Nehemia, Werl 1966, 45. Contra: W.R. Arnold, ‘The Passover Papyrus from Elephantine’, JBL 31 (1912), 1-33; C.G. Tuland, ‘Hanani-Hananiah’, JBL 77 (1958), 157-161. 9 See also Burt, TheCourtierandtheGovernor, 126. 8

Nomoremuddle!

171

prṣ, ‘to break through something; to make breaches’, is used. There is some discussion about the question regarding what event this picture refers to. Some think of the destruction by Nebuchadnezzar (Fensham; Jagersma), for others a later event (Williamson refers to Ezra 4:23, which he perceives as an implicit message about a devastation in 458; also Shepherd & Wright).10 Becker claims that the author had no specific time frame in mind. The use of the participle meporèṣèt indicates, in my opinion, an ongoing situation. In other words, the desolate state of the city continues. 1:4 

NowitcameaboutwhenIheardthesewords,Isatdownandwept andmournedfordays;andIwasfastingandprayingbeforetheGod ofheaven.

In response to this message, Nehemiah performs several acts derived from the ritual of mourning. The ‘sitting down’ of Nehemiah might be construed as a euphemism for ‘to sit in rags and ashes’ (Fensham; Jagersma).11 Olyan has rightly noted that such mourning rites are not limited to coping with the sadness after a death but, are also applied in situations of gross disturbance of the balance of existence.12 In the case of Neh. 1:4, the mourning has the same function as the prayer of plea. The purpose of mourning is to appease God and the community in order that the disturbed order may be restored. To emphasize his intentions, Nehemiah abstains for many days and prays to God.13 On the expression ‘God of heaven’, see Ezra 1:2.

10 For an unconvincing criticism of this view, see J.L. Wright, RebuildingIdentity:The Nehemiah Memoir and its Earliest Readers (BZAW 348), Berlin, New York 2004, 25-44; L.S. Fried, ‘The Artaxerxes correspondence of Ezra 4, Nehemiah’s Wall, and Persian Provincial Administration’, in: A.M. Maeir, J. Magness, L. Schiffman (eds), ‘GoOutandStudythe Land’ (Judges 18: 2): Archaeological, Historical and Textual Studies in Honor of Hanan Eshel, Leiden 2011, 35-38. 11 Reinmuth, Der Bericht Nehemias, 41-44; M. Häusl, ‘„Ich betete zum Gott des Himmels“ (Neh 2,4) Zur kontextuellen Einbettung der Gebete in Neh 1-13‘, in: C. Diller, M. Mulzer, K. Ólason, R. Rothenbusch (eds), StudienzuPsalmenundPropheten.Festschrift fürHubertIrsigler (HBS 64), Freiburg 2010, 57. 12 S.M. Olyan, BiblicalMourning:RitualandSocialDimensions, Oxford 2004. 13 On fasting see H.A. Brongers, ‘Fasting in Israel in Biblical and Post-Biblical Times’, in: InstructionandInterpretation:StudiesinHebrewLanguage,PalestinianArchaeologyand BiblicalExegesis(OTS 20), Leiden 1977, 1-21; Th. Podella, Ṣôm-Fasten:kollektiveTrauer umdenverborgenenGottimAltenTestament (AOAT 224), Neukirchen-Vluyn 1989.

172

Nehemiah1-7 THE PRAYER OF NEHEMIAH NEHEMIAH 1: 5-11

5 

Isaid, ‘Now,YHWH,Godofheaven,thegreatandawesomeGod,who keepsthecovenantandlovingkindnessforthosewholoveHim andkeepHiscommandments, 6 letyourearbeattentiveandyoureyesopentoheartheprayer ofyourservantwhoisprayingbeforeyounow,dayandnight, onbehalfofthechildrenofIsraelyourservants,confessingthe sinsofthechildrenofIsraelwhohavesinnedagainstyou.Iand myfather’shousehavesinned. 7 Wehaveactedverycorruptlyagainstyouandhavenotkeptthe commandments,northestatutes,northeordinanceswhichyou hadcommandedyourservantMoses. 8 RememberthewordthatyoucommandedtoyourservantMoses, saying,  “IfyouareunfaithfulIwillscatteryouamongthepeoples; 9 butifyoureturntoMeandkeepMycommandmentsanddo them,thoughthoseofyouwhohavebeenscatteredwerein themostremotepartoftheheavens,Iwillgatherthemfrom thereandwillbringthemtotheplacewhereIhavechosen tocauseMynametodwell.” 10 Theyareyourservantsandyourpeoplewhomyoudidredeem byyourgreatpowerandbyyourstronghand. 11 Now,myLord,mayyourearbeattentivetotheprayerofyour servantandtheprayerofyourservantswhohavedelightedin fearingyourname,andmakeyourservantsuccessfultoday,and granthimcompassionbeforethisman.’  NowIwasthecupbearertotheking. Unlike Ezra 9:6-15, Neh. 1:5-11 is a clear prayer directed to God. At Ezra 9 it has already been noted that a number of penitential prayers are known from the post-exile period (Ezra 9:6-15; II Chron. 33:13; Neh. 1:5-11, 9:6-37; Dan. 9:4-19; Bar. 1:15-3:8; 1 QS (Community Rule) I:24-II:1).14 Although 14 See on these texts: R.A. Werline, PenitentialprayerinSecondTempleJudaism:The development of a religious institutions, Atlanta 1998; and the contributions to the volumes M.J. Boda, D.K. Falk, R.A. Werline (eds), SeekingtheFavorofGodvol.1,TheOriginsof PenitentialPrayerinSecondTempleJudaism (Early Judaism and its Literature 21), Atlanta 2006; M.J. Boda, D.K. Falk, R.A. Werline (eds), Seeking the Favor of God, Vol 2: The developmentofpenitentialprayerinsecondtempleJudaism.(Early Judaism and its Literature 22), Atlanta 2007; M.J. Boda, D.K. Falk, R.A. Werline (eds), SeekingtheFavorofGodVol3,

Nomoremuddle!

173

these texts have a number of elements in common, one cannot speak of a fixed form (Williamson). The text of the prayer has been part of the Nehemiah-memoir.15 In the prayer of Nehemiah, the following elements may be indicated: (1) General guilt; (2) Acknowledgment of God’s gracious interference; (3) Call to God to turn to the people graciously. The text has the following composition: A. B. C. D. E. F.

Appeal (5) Call to God to hear and see (6a) Confession of debt (6b-7) Call to God to remember his two-sided commandment (8-9) Indication of Israel as God’s people that he once liberated (10) Call to God to hear and stand by his servant (11a).16

Within the composition of the Book Nehemiah, this prayer functions in two ways. The prayer deepens and underlines the previous mourning and is the beginning of a process that will lead to the solution for the problem.17 1:5 

Isaid, ‘Now,YHWH,Godofheaven,thegreatandawesomeGod,who keepsthecovenantandlovingkindnessforthosewholoveHim andkeepHiscommandments,

In the appeal to God, a little religious doctrine is hidden. The God of heaven is presented as a great and fearsome God. The designation hannôrā’, ‘fearsome’, has two meanings: ‘the God to fear’, and ‘the God to be feared/ served’. The designation is derived from the language of the Psalms (45:5; 65:6; 76:12; 99:3; 106:22; 145:6) and is used in Job 37:22 in the same double-sided manner as in Nehemiah (see also Neh. 4:14; 9:32).18 With this

The Impact of Penitential Prayer Beyond Second Temple Judaism (Early Judaism and its Literature 23), Atlanta 2008; Burt, TheCourtierandtheGovernor, 50; D. Laird, Negotiating PowerinEzraNehemiah(Ancient Israel and its Literature, 26), Atlanta 2016, 247-83. 15 Thus also: C. Karrer, RingenumdieVerfassungJudas:eineStudiezudentheologischpolitischenVorstellungenimEsra-Nehemia-Buch (BZAW 308), Berlin, New York 2001, 199; L.L. Schulte, MyShepherd,thoughYouDonotKnowMe:ThePersianRoyalPropaganda ModelintheNehemiahMemoir (BEThL 78), Leuven 2016, 149-54. The arguments of Wright, RebuildingIdentity, 9-23, that the prayer was only added during the last stages of the redaction-process of the Book of Nehemiah, are not convincing. 16 See also E. Talstra, ‘The Discourse of Praying: Reading Nehemiah 1’, in: B. Becking, E. Peels (eds), Psalms and Prayers: Papers Read at the Joint Meeting of the Society of Old Testament Study and Het Oudtestamentisch Werkgezelschap in Nederland en België, ApeldoornAugust2006 (OTS 55), Leiden 2007, 183-236 17 See also: Häusl, ‘„Ich betete zum Gott des Himmels“‘, esp. 57-59. 18 Jagersma pays attention to the fact that this ambiguity is also present in the Jewish prayer SjemonéEsré.

174

Nehemiah1-7

ambiguity, a theme in the prayer of Nehemiah is announced.19 In the image of god in this prayer, God is both punishing and salvaging. Furthermore, God is pictured as a God in relationship. He is the keeper of ‘covenant and loyalty’ and he is loving all who keep his commandments. The repetition of the verb šmr puts an additional relationship between God and the people. 1:6a let your ear be attentive and your eyes open to hear the prayer of yourservant The summons to God is dressed in anthropomorphic language. Nehemiah demands careful ears. The adjective qaššāb only occurs here and in Neh. 1:11. The related verb qšb is used in prayer language (see, for example, Ps. 66:19). The image of God’s opened eyes speaks for itself. As a whole, this summons reminds us of a phrase from Solomon’s prayer (I Kgs 8:52). 1:6b-7



who is praying before you now, day and night, on behalf of the childrenofIsraelyourservants,confessingthesinsofthechildren ofIsraelwhohavesinnedagainstyou.Iandmyfather’shousehave sinned. We have acted very corruptly against you and have not kept thecommandments,northestatutes,northeordinanceswhichyou hadcommandedyourservantMoses.

As in Ezra 10:1, the Hitp. of the verb ydh expresses here the act of confessing guilt. The nature of the confession is quite general (Williamson; Throntveit; Jagersma). Donna Laird noticed the unexpectedness of this theme. In the narrative context of Nehemiah1, a lament on the deplorable status of the walls of Jerusalem seems to be more appropriate.20 Nehemiah depicts himself here as ῾èbèd, ‘servant’. This word occurs four times in Neh. 1:5-11, evoking a mirror image of Nehemiah and Moses: – – – –

1: 6 1: 7 1: 8 1:11

your your your your

servant servant servant servant

(= Nehemiah) Moses Moses (= Nehemiah) amid other servants.

This mirroring functions within the prayer as a summons to God to save the people around Nehemiah in the same manner as, at that time, the group around Moses.

19 20

See Karrer, RingenumdieVerfassungJudas, 200-02. Laird, NegotiatingPower, 261.

Nomoremuddle!

175

Additionally, it should be said that here too guilt is not individualistic, but inclusive: the breadth of the people and the depth of the ancestry are included in the confession.21 The expression bêt ’āb, ‘the father’s house’, refers to a typical post-exilic concept as part of the newly formed family communities. 1:8-9 Remember the word that you commanded to your servant Moses, saying,  “IfyouareunfaithfulIwillscatteryouamongthepeoples;  but if you return to Me and keep My commandments and do them,thoughthoseofyouwhohavebeenscatteredwereinthe mostremotepartoftheheavens,Iwillgatherthemfromthere andwillbringthemtotheplacewhereIhavechosentocause Mynametodwell.” God is summoned to remember the words spoken to Moses. The verb zkr does not refer to a nostalgic retrospective of the past, but to an inner concentration with a view to behaviour in the present.22 Nehemiah does not refer to a specific text from the Torah but summarizes the tendency of Deuteronomy (Jagersma).23 As in Deut. 30:11-16, two ways are presented: ‘loss of faith’ and ‘conversion’. The verb used here, m‘l, has the broader meaning ‘to act unfaithfully’ and does not so much have the sexual connotation as in Ezra 9. That decay leads to being scattered among the peoples is now a reality during the era of Nehemiah. The second way is that of the return to a life according to God’s commandments. Whoever follows this road may hope for a reversal of dispersion. The horizon of God’s grace is drawn wide here: the expression ‘ends of heaven’ is an inversed allusion to the curse of Deut. 28:49, which argues that Israel will be expelled by a people living at the end of the earth. In using the word ‘heaven’, the distance to Jerusalem is further expanded and the return seems to be an adynaton. The verb qbṣ Pi., ‘to collect’, is a reference to the promise of return in Deut. 30:3. Among the prophets, this

21

See also Laird, NegotiatingPower, 266-67. On the verb zkr see, e.g. W. Schottroff, ‘Gedenken’imAltenOrientundimAltenTestament.DieWurzelzākarimsemitischenSprachkreis (WMANT 15), Neukirchen-Vluyn 1964; J.A. Loader, ‘Prosthetic memory in the Old Testament’, OTE 25 (2012), 583-597. 23 K. Baltzer, ‘Moses servant of God and the servants: text and tradition in the prayer of Nehemiah (Neh. 1:5-11)’, in: B.A. Pearson, A.T. Kraabel, G.W.E. Nickelsburg (eds), The FutureofEarlyChristianity, Minneapolis, 1991, 123-125, construes Neh. 1:8-9 as an echo of Deut. 30:4; see also H.-P. Mathys, DichterundBeter:Theologenausspätalttestamentlicher Zeit (OBO 132), Freiburg, Göttingen 1994, 70-71; Laird, NegotiatingPower, 264. 22

176

Nehemiah1-7

is a favourite verb to indicate God’s actions that will lead to return (see, for example, Mic. 2:12; Jer. 23:5; 29:14; 31:8; 32:37; Ezek. 11:17; 37:21).24 1:10  They are your servants and your people whom you did redeem by yourgreatpowerandbyyourstronghand. This verse contains an argumentumaddeum.25 By proposing – in a rhetorical question and in traditional language – the people of Israel as once redeemed by great power and strong hand, Nehemiah appeals to God to cause another Exodus. 1:11



Now,myLord,mayyourearbeattentivetotheprayerofyour servant and the prayer of your servants who have delight in fearingyourname,andmakeyourservantsuccessfultoday,and granthimcompassionbeforethisman.’ NowIwasthecupbearertotheking.

In the final sentence of the prayer, the theme of the attentive ear from v. 6 returns. Nehemiah presents himself again as ῾èbèd, ‘servant’, now surrounded by other servants. The phrase ‘to have pleasure in the fear of your name’ stands parallel to ‘to keep the commandments’ in v. 9. The verb ḥpṣ does not only mean ‘to have favour; to have fun in’, but also contains the connotation ‘to be aware, watchful; pay attention to’. Ultimately, Nehemiah asks whether God wants to make sure that ‘this man’ shows compassion with him. In this wording, an echo may be seen regarding the request in Solomon’s prayer where compassion with those who have taken away Israel is requested. With hā’îš hazzèh, of course, the Persian king is meant (Williamson; Blenkinsopp; Hieke). A glossator later added – in the style of Nehemiah – an explanatory sentence (Schunck), where Nehemiah is presented as the mašqèlammèlek, ‘the royal cupbearer’. Such a function is further known in the Old Testament only in the Joseph novella (Gen. 40). At the Persian court, the cupbearer had an important function of trust.26 This officer oversaw all wine-pourers and

24

See J. Lust, ‘“Gathering and Return” in Jeremiah and Ezekiel’, in: P.-M. Bogaert (ed.), LeLivredeJerémie:leprophèteetsonmilieu,lesoraclesetleurtransmission (BEThL 54), Leuven 1981, 119-42. 25 See P. Sanders, ‘Argumenta ad Deum in the Plague Prayers of Mursili II and in the Book of Psalms’, in: B. Becking, H.G.L. Peels (eds), PsalmsandPrayers:PapersReadat theJointMeetingofSOTSandOTW (OTS 55), Leiden 2007, 181-217. 26 See P. Briant, Histoiredel’EmpirePerse:DeCyrusàAlexandre, Paris 1996, 274-75; L. Llewellyn-Jones, King and Court in Ancient Persia 559 to 331 BCE, Edinburgh 2013, 44-48.137-43; L.L. Grabbe, ‘The Use and Abuse of Herodotus by Biblical Scholars’, in:

Nomoremuddle!

177

test-drinkers. The cupbearer himself was responsible for the king’s wine that he drank from a special egg-shaped bowl.27 This addition also functions as a hinge to Neh. 2 (Hieke). The question has been alluded to whether Nehemiah was a eunuch (Myers; Rudolph; Fensham).28 This suggestion was motivated by the fact that at ancient eastern courts high-ranked officials were often eunuchs29 and by the view that the LXX oinochoos, ‘cupbearer’, might be read as eunochos as is the case in LXXB and Origen. Since the text of Nehemiah does not make any further allusion to this motif, this proposal must be regarded as speculative (Williamson; Blenkinsopp; Throntveit; Jobsen; Becker; Jagersma; Shepherd & Wright).30

The absence of elements of lament should be construed as an indication that this prayer had a function in the reframing of the corporate identity in the post-exilic era. The prayer offers a new ‘mind-scape’. It replaces shame and sorrow over the ruins of the city of Jerusalem with guilt and acceptance. The confession of sin paves the way for a new community. The boundaries of this community are, however, restricted: Only the ‘abādîm and those who dare to confess will be part of it.31

TABLE MANNERS NEHEMIAH 2:1-9

1

2   3 

It came about in the month Nisan, in the twentieth year of King Artaxerxes,thatwinewasbeforehim.Iliftedthewineandgaveitto theking.Ihadneverbeensadinhispresence. Thekingsaidtome, ‘Whyisyourfacesadthoughyouarenotsick?Thisisnothing butsadnessofheart.’ ThenIwasverymuchafraid. Isaidtotheking, ‘Letthekingliveforever.Whyshouldmyfacenotbesadwhen thecity,theplaceofthetombsofmyfathers,liesdesolateand itsgateshavebeenconsumedbyfire?’

A. Fitzpatrick-McKinley (ed.), AssessingBiblicalandClassicalSourcesfortheReconstruction ofPersianInfluence,HistoryandCulture(Classica et Orientalia, 10), Wiesbaden 2015, 56-57. 27 See Xenophon, Cyropaedia 1.3.9; 8.4.3. 28 E.M. Yamauchi, ‘Was Nehemiah the Cupbearer a Eunuch?’, ZAW 92 (1980), 132-42. 29 See Briant, Histoiredel’EmpirePerse, Paris 1996, 279-88. 30 See also Llewellyn-Jones, KingandCourt, 40. 31 See Laird, NegotiatingPower, 267-69.

178 4   5 

6   7 

8

 9

Nehemiah1-7 Thenthekingsaidtome, ‘Whatwouldyourequest?’ So,IprayedtotheGodofheaven. Isaidtotheking, ‘If it pleases the king, and if your servant has found favour before you, send me to Judah, to the city of the tombs of my fathers,thatImayrebuildit.’ Thekingsaidtome,whilethequeenwassittingbesidehim, ‘Howlongwillyourjourneybe,andwhenwillyoureturn?’ So,itpleasedthekingtosendme.Igavehimafixedtime. Isaidtotheking, ‘Ifitpleasestheking,maylettersbegiventomeforthegovernorsbeyondtheRiver,thattheymayallowmetopassthrough untilIcometoJudah, andalettertoAsaphthekeeperoftheking’sforest,thathemay givemetimbertomakebeamsforthegatesofthefortresswhich is by the temple, for the wall of the city, and for the house to whichIwillgo.’ ThekinggrantedtomebecausethegoodhandofmyGodwasonme. IcametothegovernorsbeyondtheRiverandgavethemthelettersof theking.Thekinghadsentwithmeofficersofthearmyandhorsemen.

After hearing the grief of his peers and after praying to God, Nehemiah must await a favourable opportunity to approach the king with a request. This unit tells about this occasion and about how Nehemiah gained permission to go to Jerusalem and restore the walls of the city. Neh. 2:1-10 seem to form a clear literary unity (Myers, Williamson).32 There are only two fragments that are somewhat odd within the narrative: v. 6b and v. 10. Verse 6b is unclear about the length of the journey of Nehemiah. However, this lack of clarity is part of a literary process: in due time it will be revealed to the reader how long Nehemiah’s stay in Jerusalem lasted. Verse 10 seems to contain a new motif that falls outside the direct storyline. Usually the pericope is delineated as Neh. 2:1-10 (Williamson; Fensham; Blenkinsopp; Becker; Schunck).33 The petucha after 2:9, however, hints at the possibility that 2:10 should be seen as the opening of the second narrative in Nehemiah and not as part of the first. I, therefore, take 2:1-9 as a coherent pericope (as Jagersma).

32 See also U. Kellermann, Nehemia: Quellen, Überlieferung und Geschichte (BZAW 102), Berlin 1967, 11-13; Reinmuth, DerBerichtNehemias, 56-82. 33 Reinmuth, Der Bericht Nehemias, 56-82; Schulte, My Shepherd, though You Do not Know Me, 154-67. McConville interprets 1-8 as a literary unit and sees 9-10 as part of the next pericope.

Nomoremuddle! 2:1

179

It came about in the month Nisan, in the twentieth year of King Artaxerxes,thatwinewasbeforehim.Iliftedthewineandgaveit totheking.Ihadneverbeensadinhispresence.

The event is very precisely dated and localized. The meeting takes place in the first month of the twentieth year of the king and at the table during a banquet. The narrator does not inform the reader, whether or not this the first time, after meeting with Chanani, that Nehemiah had to serve at the royal table. Some scholars assume a period of time in which, either the king was absent or, Nehemiah had not been scheduled on the roster. Williamson assumes that Nehemiah had to act as a royal cupbearer regularly, and that for several months he has been able to control his emotions but, has now come to the point where he can no longer control them. This visual and moving representation does not find a ground in the text. At the Persian court it was the custom to accept requests from servants on special festive occasions.34 The name for the month nîsān is of Babylonian origin. It is the first month in spring and usually falls in March-April. The Babylonian month-name has replaced the original Hebrew term ’ābîb (see Exod. 13:4; 23:15; 34:18; Deut. 16:1).35 The name Nisan is only known from post-exile texts: Neh. 2:1; Esth. 3:7; 1 Esdras 5:6; Esth.Vulgate 3:12; And possibly from Elephantine in a letter formerly named the Passover/Mazzot letter, TADAE A4.1.36 King ’artaḥšaste’ is Artaxerxes I Longimanus (465-424); Ancient Persian Artaxšaça, ‘whose government is by truth (rṭa).

Nehemiah is presented as ra‘. This adjective usually means ‘bad’, both in the moral and in the cultic sense. Sometimes, it should be understood, from the context, that the meaning ‘sad; discouraged’ is intended.37 Nehemiah’s self-portrait strongly reminds one of the questions Joseph put before the baker and the cupbearer: ‘Why is your face so bad today?’

34 See Esth. 2:18; 5:6; 1Esdras 5:6; Herodotus, Hist. IX 110; and S. Amigues, ‘Pour la table du Grand Roi’, JournaldesSavants 1 (2003), 3-59; C. López-Ruiz, ‘The King and the Cupbearer: Feasting and Power in Eastern Mediterranean Myth’, in: J. Blánquez, S. Celestino Pérez (eds), Patrimonioculturaldelavidyelvino(Proceedings of the International Conference held in Almendralejo, Badajoz, Feb. 2011), Badajoz, Madrid, 2013, 133-51. 35 See J.A. Wagenaar, ‘Post-Exilic Calendar Innovations’, ZAW 115 (2003), 3-24. 36 S. Stern, ‘The Babylonian Calendar at Elephantine’, Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und Epigraphik130 (2000), 159-171; a recent treatment of this letter can be found in B. Becking, ‘Centre, Periphery, and Interference: Notes on the “Passover/Mazzot”-Letter from Elephantine’, in: E. Ben Zvi, C. Levin (eds), Centres and Peripheries in the Early Second Temple Period (FAT 108), Tübingen 2016, 65-78. 37 Gen. 40:7; Prov. 25:20; Neh. 2:1-2; see DCH VII, 507.

180 2:2   

Nehemiah1-7 Thekingsaidtome, ‘Whyisyourfacesadthoughyouarenotsick?Thisisnothing butsadnessofheart.’ ThenIwasverymuchafraid.

Artaxerxes remarks the mood of his cupbearer and makes three short remarks. Firstly, he asks for the reason of sadness. Then he asks a rhetorical question: ‘You are not sick?’, and finally he diagnoses. The king observes roa‘ lēb, ‘heartache’. In parallel with the phrase roa‘ pānîm, ‘sad face’ (Qoh. 7:3), and the fact that Hebrew is a language in which words for body parts may be used to indicate the recurring pronoun38 makes it clear that this concerns sadness of the person Nehemiah. The questions of the king evoke serious fear in Nehemiah, for which his anxiety is not phrased in so many words. Anxiety is often and frequently unfocussed.39 The suggestion by Williamson that Nehemiah would be afraid of a revocation of the edict in Ezra 4:21, is speculative. 2:3  

Isaidtotheking, ‘Letthekingliveforever.Whyshouldmyfacenotbesadwhen thecity,theplaceofthetombsofmyfathers,liesdesolateand itsgateshavebeenconsumedbyfire?’

Nehemiah answers in courteous and diplomatic words in the meantime, showing some courage (McConville).40 His answer gives the king room to react or not in full freedom (Williamson). Court-officials were considered not to speak to the king.41 After the polite phrase ‘the king lives forever’ – see also I Kgs 1:31 – Nehemiah confirms the king’s observation. He then gives the reason for his sadness. He adopts the words of Chanani from Neh. 1:3 in a somewhat changed form. There are some changes in phraseology: not the walls but the city has been destroyed and the gates are not burned but ‘consumed by fire’. It is remarkable that Nehemiah does not mention the name of the city of Jerusalem and that he speaks about the place where the tombs of his ancestors are located; indirectly appealing to the monumental tomb culture of the Persians. In Pasargadae the tomb of Cyrus the Great is still to be admired. In Naqsh-e Rustam, twelve kilometres north

38 See recently I. Kraska-Szlenk, ‘Semantic extensions of body part terms: common patterns and their interpretation’, LanguageSciences 44 (2014), 15-39. 39 See G. Glas, Angst–beleving,structuur,macht, Amsterdam 2001. 40 Burt, TheCourtierandtheGovernor, 127. 41 See Llewellyn-Jones, KingandCourt, 44-48.

Nomoremuddle!

181

of Persepolis, the graves of Artaxerxes I and his two predecessors Darius I and Xerxes are still present.42 The reference of Nehemiah to the tombs of his ancestors was perceived by Kellermann as a sign that he was of Davidic origin.43 Nothing in the rest of the Book of Nehemiah indicates such a lineage (Williamson; Blenkinsopp).44

2:4-5  Thenthekingsaidtome,  ‘Whatwouldbeyourequest?’  So,IprayedtotheGodofheaven.  Isaidtotheking,  ‘If it pleases the king, and if your servant has found favour before you, send me to Judah, to the city of the tombs of my fathers,thatImayrebuildit.’ The king responds quickly and professionally and asks what Nehemiah would like to request. This reaction is the beginning of the reversal of fate. From now on the road to recovery is open. Nehemiah’s response to the king’s question has a complex communicative structure. He prays to God and speaks to the king. The fact that he prays to the ‘God of Heaven’ forms a connection with his prayer in Nehemiah 1 (Shepherd & Wright).45 The content of prayer in Neh. 2:4 is not given. Perhaps, the words to the Persian king may be seen to be the content of the prayer. This complex communication shows that, for the narrator of Nehemiah too, there was a collaboration between heavenly and earthly powers. The combination of prayer to God and speaking to the king functions narratively as the beginning of the opening of a door on the way to the solution of the problem sketched. With this prayer, Nehemiah presents himself once more as a devout person. Laird argues that this focus upon prayer would have been a compensation for Nehemiah not being a priest and yet taking the lead.46 I would add that the narrator also presents Nehemiah as a role-model for a new Judaean identity. In courteous politeness, Nehemiah hopes that his proposal can convey royal approval. The content of his request – to go to Judah – takes over the words from v. 3. Again, the name of the city of Jerusalem is not mentioned

42 D. Stronach, Pasargadae:areportontheexcavationsconductedbytheBritishInstitute ofPersianStudiesfrom1961to1963 (Vol. 1), Oxford 1978, 24-44; E.F. Schmidt, Persepolis Vol3:TheRoyalTombsandOtherMonuments, Chicago 1970; P. Briant, Histoiredel’Empire Perse:DeCyrusàAlexandre, Paris 1996, 108.182-86. 43 Kellermann, Nehemia, 156-59. 44 See also Reinmuth, DerBerichtNehemias, 66. 45 See also Häusl, ‘„Ich betete zum Gott des Himmels“‘, 52-53. 46 Laird, NegotiatingPower, 222.

182

Nehemiah1-7

(Fensham). The last word of the clause, we’èbnènnāh, ‘that I will (re)build her’, is intriguing. The antecedent of the suffix 3.f.s. is unclear, since there is no feminine noun in the clause. Does Nehemiah refer to the city, the tombs of his ancestors, or the walls? Or does the narrator leave that diplomatically in the middle? In the Nehemiah memoir, the coming of Nehemiah to Jerusalem is presented as triggered by the Persian king’s compassion with the condition of the walls of the city as drawn to him by Nehemiah. Fitzpatrick has argued that other factors played an even greater role. She points to the well-known fact that Nehemiah encountered, in the execution of his plans, opposition from Sanballat in Samaria, Tobiah of Ammon and the Arab Geshem. She interprets this opposition as a signal of the fact that during the period preceding the mission of Nehemiah, these three were responsible for the remittance of taxes from Jerusalem and its surroundings but, their own interests were considered by them as higher than those of the Persians. According to Fitzpatrick, Nehemiah was sent to Jerusalem as a new player in the Persian game to belittle local elites through competition and to secure the Persian economic and trade interests.47 Her construction of this part of the past is attractive and highly likely. However, the scarcity of reliable sources makes it virtually impossible to give a fair judgment of her view. That there were others interests behind the commitment of the Persian king than compassion for a cupbearer in tears is of course more than possible.

2:6   

Thekingsaidtome,whilethequeenwassittingbesidehim, ‘Howlongwillyourjourneybe,andwhenwillyoureturn?’ So,itpleasedthekingtosendme.Igavehimafixedtime.

The king then poses a practical question concerning the duration of the journey. Remarkably, his spouse is sitting next to him. The word used, šēgal, is not entirely equivalent to malkāh, ‘queen’ (Becker). The Persian kings lived in polygamy. The noun šēgal is a loanword from Akkadian, ša ekalli, literally ‘he from the palace’ and refers to one of the concubines (Blenkinsopp).48 She will perhaps have been the chosen favourite of the king for the occasion. Since she does not play a part in the story (and the author usually disapproves of unnecessary details) the mention of her may be assumed to leave the reader unaware of the king’s reaction for a little longer.

47 A. Fitzpatrick-McKinley, Empire,Power,andIndigenousElites:ACaseStudyofthe NehemiahMemoir(JSJ Sup 169), Leiden 2015; A. Fitzpatrick-McKinley, ‘Indigenous Elites in Yehud; The inscriptional Evidence from Xanthus, Tayma and Dedan and the Nehemiah Memoir’, in: A. Fitzpatrick-McKinley (ed.), Assessing Biblical and Classical Sources for theReconstruction of Persian Influence, History and Culture (Classica et Orientalia, 10), Wiesbaden 2015, 127-47. 48 See A.R. Millard, ‘fšaekalli – šgl – dsagale’, UF 4 (1972), 161–62.

Nomoremuddle!

183

Nehemiah’s response to the king’s question about the length of the travel could be misunderstood. The noun used, zemān, refers – like the Aramaic equivalent zemān (Dan. 2:16; 7:12) – to a fixed time. Nehemiah and the king are aware of the duration of the journey, but the reader is not. This also is a narrative procedure and does not suggest any reason to consider this part of the clause as a gloss.49 2:7  

Isaidtotheking, ‘Ifitpleasestheking,maylettersbegiventomeforthegovernors beyondtheRiver,thattheymayallowmetopassthroughuntil IcometoJudah,

Nehemiah immediately shifts to the practical domain. He asks the king, in polite language, for several letters, which he will need as a passport on his journey to Judah. The noun ’iggèrèt, ‘letter’, is a loanword from Akkadian, used in post-exile texts (II Chron. 30:1, 6; Neh. 2:6; Esth. 9; the Aramaic cognate is attested at Ezra 4:8). In Imperial Aramaic, the noun ’grt usually refers to an official document. 2:8 



andalettertoAsaphthekeeperoftheking’sforest,thathemaygive metimbertomakebeamsforthegatesofthefortresswhichisbythe temple,forthewallofthecity,andforthehousetowhichIwillgo.’ The king granted to me because the good hand of my God was onme.

In particular, Nehemiah asks for a letter for Asaph, the overseer of the royal domain in Judah. The location of this domain is unknown (Williamson). Excavations at Ramat-Rachel revealed a palace from the Persian period.50 A crown domain could have been adjacent to that palace. Asaf, ’āsāph, ‘the collector’, is a personal name that is worn by a great number of people in the Hebrew Bible. Most of them are Levite singers. The so-called Psalms of Asaph are ascribed to one of David’s singers. See also at Ezra 3:10. The word pardēs occurs only three times in the Hebrew Bible, see also Song 4:13; Qoh. 2:5. The word is derived from Old Iranian *paridayda and Avestan pairidaēza, ‘walled terrain’. In late Babylonian texts, the loanword pardēsu, ‘walled garden’, occurs. This word may also mean ‘domain’ or ‘royal park’. In the Persepolis tablets, the Elamite word partetas is attested, which refers to a storage space for all kinds

49

Contra, e.g,. Kellermann, Nehemia, 11-13. See O. Lipschits, Y. Gadot, B. Arubas, M. Oeming, ‘Palace and Village, Paradise and Oblivion: Unravelling the Riddles of Ramat Rachel’, NearEasternArchaeology 74 (2011), 1-49; Schulte, MyShepherd,thoughYouDonotKnowMe, 162. 50

184

Nehemiah1-7

of natural products owned by the king.51 The Hebrew word pardēs can thus mean ‘(royal) garden, park or domain’, according to the context. In Xenophon, Anabasis 1.2.7, in the description of Babylon, the Greek noun parádeisos still has this meaning. The identification of the gan, ‘garden’, from Gen. 2-3 with such a walled garden, has led to the specific meaning of ‘garden of the intact relationship of God and humanity’, through LXX parádeisos. Through Judaism, for example the Apocalypse of Moses 1:1, and the New Testament, this meaning has become commonplace in our culture.52

Nehemiah requires wood from the royal domain for three construction projects. He needs wood for the gates of the castle. It is remarkable that Jerusalem is presented as a bîrāh, ‘stronghold; castle’, (see Neh. 1:1); Nehemiah describes the city in terms that are understandable to the king. Then, he connects this castle with habbayît, which refers to the temple. The way the temple is mentioned suggests that it was functioning at the time. Then, he wants wood for the rebuilding of the wall of the city and, finally, wood to build a house for himself. The narrator interprets the royal consent as a sign of God’s favour. 2:9 

IcametothegovernorsbeyondtheRiverandgavethemtheletters of the king. The king had sent with me officers of the army and horsemen.

The journey to Judah is described without much detail. In a nachholende Erzählung it is reported that the king supported the journey of Nehemiah with a military escort (Williamson).

RESTORATION OF THE WALL DESPITE OPPOSITION NEHEMIAH 2:10-7:73 (HEBR. 72) INSPECTION AND CONSENT NEHEMIAH 2:10-18

10 WhenSanballattheHoroniteandTobiahtheAmmoniteservantheard, it was very displeasing to them that someone had come to seek the welfareofthesonsofIsrael. 11 IcametoJerusalem.Iwastherethreedays.

51

See also Llewellyn-Jones, KingandCourt, 92. See J.N. Bremmer, ‘Paradise: From Persia, via Greece, into the Septuagint’, in: G.P. Luttikhuizen (ed.), Paradise Interpreted: Representations of Biblical Paradise in JudaismandChristianity (Themes in Biblical Narrative 2), Leiden 1999, 1-20. 52

Nomoremuddle!

185

12 Istoodupinthenight,Iandafewmenwithme.Ididnottellanybody whatmyGodhadgivenintomyhearttodoforJerusalem.Therewas noanimalwithmeexcepttheanimalonwhichIwasriding. 13 SoIwentoutatnightbytheValleyGateinthedirectionoftheSnakeWellandbytheRefuseGate,inspectingthewallsofJerusalemwhich werebrokendownanditsgateswhichwereconsumedbyfire. 14 IpassedontotheFountainGateandtheKing’sPool,buttherewas noplaceformyanimaltopass. 15 Iwasgoingupatnightbytheravineandinspectedthewall.Ientered theValleyGateagainandreturned. 16 TheofficialsdidnotknowwhereIhadgoneorwhatIhaddone.By then I had not informed the Judaeans, the priests, the nobles, the officials,ortherestwhodidthework. 17 Isaidtothem,  ‘Youseethebadsituationwearein,thatJerusalemisdesolate anditsgatesareburnedbyfire.Come,letusrebuildthewall ofJerusalemthatwemaynolongerbeareproach.’ 18 ItoldthemhowthehandofmyGodhadbeenfavourabletome,and alsoabouttheking’swordswhichhehadspokentome.Thentheysaid,  ‘Letusariseandbuild.’  So,theystrengthenedtheirhandstothegood. This episode reports the plans that Nehemiah made after a nightly inspection of the walls. His proposal receives agreement and opposition. In Nehemiah 3, the consent is elaborated; in Nehemiah 4, counteracted. 2:10

When Sanballat the Horonite and Tobiah the Ammonite servant heard, it was very displeasing to them that someone had come to seekthewelfareofthesonsofIsrael.

The scene opens with a message about the evil that awoke in Sanballat and Tobiah. The report of the arrival of Nehemiah raises their anger. Here, the same word is used as the word to depict the sorrow of Nehemiah when at the court (2:2). However, in 2:10 the word has a more negative side. For them, it is not acceptable that anyone might worry about the welfare of the Israelites. For ‘someone’ the noun ’ādām, ‘human being’, is used, which functions as a personal pronoun.53 The character of the anger and the nature of the concern will be unfolded in the following verses.

53

See DCH I, 123-126.

186

Nehemiah1-7

Sanballat, sanballaṭ, is an originally Neo-Assyrian name (pd30-TIN-iṭ read Sîn-uballiṭ) meaning ‘Sin revived’. The name appears in cuneiform documents deep into the Persian era.54 In the Hebrew Bible, the name is only mentioned in the book of Nehemiah. The first petition from Elephantine concerning the rebuilding of the devastated temple of Yahô – the text of which is lost, but the text is referred to in the two remaining documents – was directed to ‘Delaiah and Shelemiah the sons of Sanballat (sn’blṭ), governor of Samaria’.55 When his sons had an administrative function in Samaria forty-four years after the mission of Nehemiah, then Sanballat himself may have had such a function in 445. A seal impression from Wadi Daliyeh (WD 22) contains the following inscription: …[…]yhwbn[…] \ blṭpḥtšmr[…]. Dušek reconstructs this inscription: ‘[Dela]yahu, son of [Sin’u]balliṭ, the governor of Samar[ia]’.56 If this addition is to be correct, the seal refers to the same person as the Sanballat from the Book of Nehemiah. In a legal document from Wadi Daliyeh (WDSP 11) one of the witnesses is a brother of Sanballat (sn’blṭ). Since this document dates from the second quarter of the fourth century, another Sanballat will have been referred to. Whether he was governor, cannot be distracted from the text.57 Josephus also mentions a governor Sanballat.58 This person, however, was sent to the Levant by Darius III (336-331) and will thus have been a third Sanballat present in Samaria. The reference in Josephus, in combination with the textual material from Elephantine and Wadi Daliyeh, led to a complex discussion about the number of people called Sanballat and about who would have been their governor of Samaria (Williamson). An analysis of this discussion and a clear overview of the current state of the debate has been offered by Dušek.59 In the Book of Nehemiah, Sanballat is labelled the ‘Horonite’ three times (2:10,19; 13:28). Although other options have been suggested, the name would be a reference to Horonaim in Moab,60 to Harran in northern Mesopotamia,61 or to the deity Horon (Schunck):62 the traditional view that Horonite refers to a person with genealogical roots in Low or High Beth Horon in Ephraim (see Josh. 16:3, 5; Williamson), seems

54 See H.D. Baker, The Prosopography of the Neo-Assyrian Empire 3/I, Helsinki 2002, 1150; L.E. Pearce, C. Wunsch,DocumentsofJudeanExilesandWestSemitesinBabylonia intheCollectionofDavidSofer (CUSAS 28), Bethesdsa 2014, 80. 55 TADAE A.4.7=8:29. On these petitions see: R. Albertz, ‘The Controversy about Judean versus Israelite Identity and the Persian Government: A New Interpretation of the Bagoses Story (Antiquitates XI.297-301)’, in: O. Lipschits, G.N. Knoppers, M. Oeming (eds), Judah and the Judaeans in the Achaemenid Period: Negotiating Identities in an International Context, Winona Lake 2011, 483-504. 56 J. Dušek, Les manuscripts araméens du Wadi Daliyeh et la Samarie vers 450-332 av.J.-C. (CHANE 30), Leiden 2007, 319-31. 57 WDSP 11 Rev.:13; Dušek, LesmanuscriptsaraméensduWadiDaliyeh, 248-74. 58 Antiq.ix.302-309. 59 Dušek, Les manuscripts araméens du Wadi Daliyeh, 516-549; see also, O. Tammuz, ‘Will the Real Sanballat Please Stand Up?’, in: M. Mor, F.V. Reiterer (eds), Samaritans– Past and Present: Current Studies (Studia Samaritana 5), Berlin, New York 2010, 51-58; Fitzpatrick-McKinley, Empire,Power,andIndigenousElites, 208-12. 60 E.g. by U. Kellermann, Nehemia:Quellen,ÜberlieferungundGeschichte (BZAW 102), Berlin 1967, 167. 61 S. Feigin, ‘Etymological Notes’, AJSL 43 (1926-27), 58. 62 J. Gray, ‘The Canaanite God Horon’, JNES 8 (1949), 27-34.

Nomoremuddle!

187

the most plausible.63 In Nehemiah, Sanballat is nowhere called governor. Perhaps, he did not hold that office in the time of Nehemiah, but more likely, the author of Nehemiah does not give him that title in order not to place him above Nehemiah.64 Tobiah, ṭôbiyyāh, ‘God is good’, is an Israelite name, which is also worn next to the Tobiah in the Book of Nehemiah by a Levite at the time of King Joshaphat (II Chronicles 17:8) and a returned exile (Zech. 6:10, 14). In the list of ‘returnees’ some sons of Tobiah are mentioned (Ezra 2:60 // Neh. 7:62). In the Lachish Ostraca dating from just before the devastation of Jerusalem the name ṭwbyhw occurs twice (Ostr. 3 and 5). Josephus mentions the existence of the influential family of the Tobiads in Ammon in Hellenistic times.65 The relationship between Tobiah from the Book of Nehemiah and this later family is unclear. Tobiah was an ῾èbèd, ‘servant’, which could point to a function in the board of Samaria (Williamson). Whether the ethnic indication ‘Ammonite’ refers to a Transjordan origin is not certain. Fitzpatrick wants to see a link between the fact that, after the devastation of Jerusalem, Judaeans flew to Ammon and were involved in the killings of Gedalaiah (II Kings 25:22-26; Jer. 40:7-41:18) and the fact that, according to her, Tobiah was subservient to Sanballat. 66 According to Weingart, Tobiah was a Judean in an important Persian office in Ammon.67

In addition, Knoppers makes it clear that Sanballat and Tobiah both have a complex identity and loyalty: on the one hand they are opponents to the mission of Nehemiah while, on the other hand, they are also part of the people of Israel. 2:11-12 IcametoJerusalem.Iwastherethreedays.  I stood up in the night, I and a few men with me. I did not tell anybodywhatmyGodhadgivenintomyhearttodoforJerusalem. There was no animal with me except the animal on which I was riding. On arrival in Jerusalem, Nehemiah rests for three days (see also Ezra 8:32). It is remarkable that, Nehemiah no longer being under direct Persian care, the city can be named again properly (Fensham). The fact that he performs his inspection at night indicates that Nehemiah wants to keep his plans secret (Jagersma). This is emphasized by the fact that he did not inform anyone about his mission. The phrase ‘what God gave me in the heart’ refers to the awareness that Nehemiah acts upon the instigation of a power higher 63

K. Weingart, Stämmevolk-Staatsvolk-Gottesvolk?:StudienzurVerwendungdesIsraelNamensimAltenTestament (FAT 2/68), Tübingen 2014, 72. 64 G.N. Knoppers, ‘Nehemiah and Sanballat: The Enemy Without or Within?’, in: O. Lipschits, G. Knoppers, R. Albertz (eds), JudahandtheJudaeansintheFourthCentury BCE, Winona Lake 2007, 305-331. 65 Ant.ii.4. 66 Fitzpatrick-McKinley, Empire,Power,andIndigenousElites, 204-07; A. FitzpatrickMcKinley, ‘Indigenous Elites in Yehud’, 138-42. 67 Weingart, Stämmevolk-Staatsvolk-Gottesvolk?, 72.

188

Nehemiah1-7

than his own heart. The fact that he has only one animal with him indicates that he wants to make a tour in silence. Remarkably, this animal is called a behēmāh, ‘animal, (mostly) cattle’, where an ass would be expected. LXX translates here with ktènos, ‘beast of burden’. The fact that Nehemiah’s inspection would have taken place during a moonlit night, as Rudolph suggests, is a beautifully romanticized detail that has no support in the text.

2:13-15 SoIwentoutatnightbytheValleyGateinthedirectionofthe Snake-WellandbytheRefuseGate,inspectingthewallsofJerusalem whichwerebrokendownanditsgateswhichwereconsumedbyfire.  IpassedontotheFountainGateandtheKing’sPool,buttherewas noplaceformyanimaltopass.  I was going up at night by the ravine and inspected the wall. IenteredtheValleyGateagainandreturned. With attention to detail, the author describes the night-time journey of Nehemiah. About the precise location of the mentioned gates and wells, a lively debate has ensued, which has led to various proposals and beautiful maps. The problem, however, is that archaeologically very little is known about Jerusalem in the middle of the fifth century.68 The inspection begins and ends at the Valley Gate, ša‘ar-haggay’(13.15), which indicates that Nehemiah has inspected the whole of the walls. The Hebrew verb is śbr, ‘to investigate’, indicating the inspection only occurs in Neh. 2. The Valley Gate is also mentioned in II Chron. 26:9 as one of the three places in Jerusalem where king Uzziah built a tower of defence. The Snake-well, ‘ên hattannîn, is not mentioned elsewhere in the Hebrew Bible. Becker identifies it with the well of Rochel mentioned in Josh. 15 (see, however, Blenkinsopp). The Refuse Gate, ša‘ar-hāšpot, is mentioned only in the Book of Nehemiah (Neh. 2:13; 3:13, 14; 12:31) and presumably provided access to a landfill for human and animal waste. The Source Gate, ša‘ar-hā‘ayin, is mentioned only in Nehemiah (Neh. 2:14; 3:15; 12:37) and presumably provided access to a vital source of water, called the King’s Pond.

68 See H. Blok, M. Steiner, Deonderstesteenboven:OpgravingeninJeruzalem, Kampen 1991, 57-59.

Nomoremuddle!

189

2:16 TheofficialsdidnotknowwhereIhadgoneorwhatIhaddone.By then I had not informed the Judaeans, the priests, the nobles, the officials,ortherestwhodidthework. Nehemiah conceals his plans for two groups. Firstly, for the Persian authorities who are presented here as in Ezra 9:2 as seganîm, ‘city rulers; their role or function is not specified here. Of the Judaeans, however, different groups are mentioned. A translation of yehûdîm with ‘Jews’ (e.g. KJV; Williamson) is an anachronism, as it was first in the Hellenistic era that Judaism became a religion. Among them are the priests next to all kinds of secular officials. The role of the ḥorîm, ‘nobles’, in post-exilic society is unclear. They are mentioned only in the Book of Nehemiah. Their mention in I Kings 21 also is not illuminating. The second mention of seganîm, ‘leaders’, seems to refer to a group of Judaeans. The author of Nehemiah leaves aside the reason why Nehemiah has kept all these people ignorant of the purpose of his inspection. 2:17 Isaidtothem,  ‘Youseethebadsituationwearein,thatJerusalemisdesolate anditsgatesareburnedbyfire.Come,letusrebuildthewallof Jerusalemthatwemaynolongerbeareproach.’ Then Nehemiah speaks to them. The narrator leaves aside whether he appeals only to the Judaeans or, to the Persian officials also. His short speech contains an observation and a summons. In words that echo Neh. 1:3, he depicts the desolate state of the city. Then, he makes an appeal to recover the walls of the city. The purpose of his actions is that ‘we’ will no longer be an object of reproach (see also 1:3). Williamson suggests that ḥèrpāh, ‘reproach’, is a veil for the shame of the ban as punishment by God. The noun itself does not give rise to such an over-interpretation. 2:18  ItoldthemhowthehandofmyGodhadbeenfavourabletome,and alsoabouttheking’swordswhichhehadspokentome.Thenthey said,  ‘Letusariseandbuild.’  So,theystrengthenedtheirhandstothegood. When Nehemiah utter his belief that he has been supported by God and King; those present, respond positively and enlist as co-workers. The idiomatic expression ḥzq Pi. with yādîm as an object can signify ‘to encourage; assist’ (I Sam. 23:6, II Chron. 29:34; Ezra 6:22).

190

Nehemiah1-7 INSPECTION AND CONFLICT NEHEMIAH 2:19-20

19  20 

WhenSanballattheHoronite,andTobiahtheAmmoniteservant,and GeshemtheArabheard,theymockedusanddespisedusandsaid, ‘What is this thing you are doing? Are you rebelling against theking?’ Iansweredthemandsaidtothem, ‘TheGodofheavenwillgiveussuccess;therefore,weHisservantswillariseandbuild,butyouwillhavenoportion,right,or memorialinJerusalem.’

Nehemiah’s plans also meet resistance as the narrative announced in 2:10. After unfolding the recovery plans, the anger of his opponents has shifted into mockery and despair. Nehemiah does not pay his opponents with equal coin but, expresses his trust in God. 2:19 

WhenSanballattheHoronite,andTobiahtheAmmoniteservant,and GeshemtheArabheard,theymockedusanddespisedusandsaid, ‘What is this thing you are doing? Are you rebelling against theking?’

The previously mentioned Sanballat and Tobiah are now accompanied by Geshem, the Arab. Although Arabs are mentioned in the Hebrew Bible (e.g. II Chron. 17:11; 21:16; 26:7; Isa. 13:20; Jer. 3:2; 25:23), Geshem is the only Arab specifically named. In extra-biblical sources, the name gèšèm, ‘Geshem’, appears a few times: an Aramaic inscription from Egypt from the fifth century on a silver scale states that Qaynu, the son of Geshem, brought the king of Qedar an offering to ‘the god’.69 On a northern Arabic coin from the fourth century, the name [g]šm appears.70 A difficult-to-date Liḥyanite inscription mentions, as governor of Dedan, ‘Gashmu, the son of Shahar’.71 According to Frank M. Cross, all these inscriptions refer to the same person, which would indicate Arab involvement in the aversion in Samaria against the restoration of the walls of Jerusalem (see also Williamson).72 Given the different dates of the various inscriptions just mentioned, this seems to be a premature conclusion. All these inscriptions show is that Geshem was an authentic Arabic name. 69 I. Rabinowitz, ‘Aramaic Inscriptions of the Fifth Century B. C. E. from a North-Arab Shrine in Egypt’, JNES 15 (1956), 1-9. 70 M. Huth, S. Qedar, ‘A Coin from North Arabia with an Aramaic Inscription and Related Coins of the Incense Road’, TheNumismaticChronicle159 (1999), 295-98. 71 HS 349 see F.V. Winnett, AstudyoftheLihyaniteandThamudicInscriptions, Toronto 1937, 50-51. 72 F.M. Cross, ‘A Reconstruction of the Judean Restoration’, JBL 94 (1975), 4-18.

Nomoremuddle!

191

According to Fitzpatrick, the Arabs had advanced to the south of Judah in the Persian period. In addition, she believes that Geshem belonged to their elite who worked with the Persians in collecting tribute.73

This three utter their anguish about the plans of Nehemiah in bold words. The verb l‘g, ‘to mock’, indicating the derision of the other, usually by saying preposterous things (see also Job 21:3; Ps. 22:8). The verb bzh, ‘to despise’, indicates that the leaders in Samaria looked down on Nehemiah’s actions. About God, it is said in the Psalms that he does not despise his people (22:25). The question whether the inhabitants of Jerusalem want to revolt against the Persian king is provocative and ironic at the same time. Indeed, the reader knows what Sanballat, Tobiah and Geshem do not know or do not want to know; that Nehemiah will restore the walls with the king’s approval. The verb mrd, ‘to revolt; rebel’, is used in the Hebrew Bible to describe all kinds of rebellion against a higher power, mostly against an earthly king, but also against God (Num. 14:9, Josh. 22:16, 18, 29; Ezek. 2:3; Dan. 9:9). 2:20  Iansweredthemandsaidtothem,  ‘The God of heaven will give us success; therefore, we His servantswillariseandbuild,butyouwillhavenoportion,right, ormemorialinJerusalem.’ In his reply, Nehemiah refers to his mission by the God of heaven. This avoids a conversation about the theme of royal approval. His answer is full of confidence and humility. The closing remark of this verse is of a religious-judicial nature. In mentioning three concepts, Nehemiah rejects the claims that Samaria might have had on Jerusalem. The first term ḥèlèq, ‘share’, refers to the traditional view of the distribution of the promised land and to the social code surrounding the inheritance rights in ancient Israel. Josh. 18:5 states that the land must be divided into seven ḥalāqîm and that Judah and Joseph cannot dispute each other’s territory. In Mic. 2:4, it is a part of the prophecy of doom that some will be bereft from their ḥèlèq in the country upon a return from exile. In Gen. 31:14, the bitter question is asked by Leah and Rachel if they will have a ḥèlèq in their father’s house. The second word ṣedāqāh, ‘justice’, is used here as a formal legal concept: there is no legal basis for the interfering of Samaria with the affairs of Jerusalem.74

73 74

Fitzpatrick-McKinley, Empire,Power,andIndigenousElites, 203-04. See also DCH VII, 86.

192

Nehemiah1-7

In the letter sent from Elephantine to the rulers in Jerusalem and Samaria requesting support for the rebuilding of the devastated temple of Yahô (TADAE A4.7//8), Bagohi is promised the acquisition of a ṣdqh when he would be positive toward this request. The exact meaning of the Aramaic noun is not clear. Given the context, it is a favour or gift that God will supply – material or intangible.

The third term zikkārôn, ‘memory; remembrance’, deserves some explanation. In Hebrew, the word is used not only as a mental concept. In Josh. 4:7, after the crossing of the Jordan, stones are set up to become a sign of remembrance (zikkārôn). Kartveit has pointed out the occurrence of a certain formula in the votive-inscriptions in the sanctuary on Mount Gerizim.75 The longer formula from these inscriptions reads: ‘What X the son of Y has given for himself, his wife and his children for a good remembrance (dkrn) for the god of this place’.76 The Aramaic noun dkrn has the meaning of a ‘memory plaque’ in these texts. The Hebrew zikkārôn could thus point to a tangible memory in the form of a memorial stone. In other words, the inhabitants of Samaria cannot rely on a stele in Jerusalem connected with their ancestors. Whether this conflict should be seen to be the starting point for the later separation of Jews and Samaritans seems to me unproven. The process of the parting of the ways is complex and is not available in all details in the sources.77

SHARED RESPONSIBILITY IN THE REPAIR OF THE WALL NEHEMIAH 3:1-32

1

Eliashibthehighprieststoodupwithhisbrothersthepriestsandbuilt theSheepGate;theyconsecrateditandhungitsdoors.TheyconsecratedthewalltotheToweroftheHundredandtheTowerofHananel. NexttohimthemenofJerichobuilt.NexttothemZakkurthesonof Imribuilt. ThesonsofSenaahbuilttheFishGate.Theylaiditsbeamsandhung itsdoorswithitsboltsandbars.

2 3

75

M. Kartveit, TheOriginoftheSamaritans (SVT 128), Leiden 2009, 214. See the analysis of the texts in Y. Magen, H. Misgav, L. Tsfania, MountGerizimExcavations: Volume 1 The Aramaic, Hebrew and Samaritan Inscriptions (Judea and Samaria Publications 2), Jerusalem 2004, 16; A.K. de Hemmer Gudme, BeforetheGodinthisplace forgoodremembrance:acomparativeanalysisoftheAramaicvotiveinscriptionsfromMount Gerizim (BZAW 441) Berlin, New York 2013, 70-90; Burt, TheCourtierandtheGovernor, 108-11; B. Hentsel, Juda und Samaria: Zum Verhältnis zweier nachexilischer Jahwismen (FAT 110), Göttingen 2016, 51-67. 77 See, e.g. Kartveit, TheOriginoftheSamaritans; G.N. Knoppers, JewsandSamaritans: TheOriginsandHistoryofTheirEarlyRelations, Oxford 2013; Hensel, JudaundSamaria. 76

Nomoremuddle! 4

5 6

7

8

9 10 11 12 13

14

15

16

17

18

193

Next to them Meremoth the son of Uriah the son of Hakkoz made repairs. Next to him Meshullam the son of Berechiah the son of Meshezabelmaderepairs.NexttohimZadokthesonofBaanamade repairs. NexttohimtheTekoitesmaderepairs,buttheirnoblesdidnotsupport theworkoftheirmasters. Joiada the son of Paseah and Meshullam the son of Besodeiah repairedtheOldGate.Theylaiditsbeamsandhungitsdoors,with itsboltsanditsbars. NexttothemMelatiahtheGibeoniteandJadontheMeronothite,the menofGibeonandofMizpah,maderepairsfortheofficialseatofthe governorofbeyondtheRiver. NexttohimUzzielthesonofHarhaiahofthegoldsmithsmaderepairs. Next to him Hananiah, one of the perfumers, made repairs. They restoredJerusalemasfarastheBroadWall. NexttothemRephaiahthesonofHur,theofficialofhalfthemilitary serviceofJerusalem,maderepairs. NexttothemJedaiahthesonofHarumaphmaderepairsoppositehis house.NexttohimHattushthesonofHashabneiahmaderepairs. Malchijah the son of Harim and Hasshub the son of Pahath-moab repairedanothersectionandtheTowerofFurnaces. Next to him Shallum the son of Hallohesh, the official of half the militaryserviceofJerusalem,maderepairs,heandhisdaughters. HanunandtheinhabitantsofZanoahrepairedtheValleyGate.They builtitandhungitsdoorswithitsboltsanditsbars,andathousand cubitsofthewalltotheRefuseGate. Malchijah the son of Rechab, the official of the military service of Beth-hakkerem repaired the Refuse Gate. He built it and hung its doorswithitsboltsanditsbars. Shallum the son of Col-hozeh, the official of the military service of Mizpah,repairedtheFountainGate.Hebuiltit,coveredit,andhung itsdoorswithitsboltsanditsbars,andthewallofthePoolofShelah attheking’sgardenasfarasthestepsthatdescendfromthecityof David. AfterhimNehemiahthesonofAzbuk,officialofhalfthemilitaryservice ofBeth-zur,maderepairsasfarasapointoppositethetombsofDavid, andasfarastheartificialpoolandthehouseofthemightymen. AfterhimtheLevitescarriedoutrepairsunderRehumthesonofBani. Next to him Hashabiah, the official of half the military service of Keilah,carriedoutrepairsforhismilitaryservice. AfterhimtheirbrotherscarriedoutrepairsunderBavvaithesonof Henadad,officialoftheotherhalfofthemilitaryserviceofKeilah.

194

Nehemiah1-7

19 NexttohimEzerthesonofJeshua,theofficialofMizpah,repaired anothersection,infrontoftheascentofthearmouryattheAngle. 20 AfterhimBaruchthesonofZabbaizealouslyrepairedanothersection, fromtheAngletothedoorwayofthehouseofEliashibthehighpriest. 21 After him Meremoth the son of Uriah the son of Hakkoz repaired anothersection,fromthedoorwayofthehouseofEliashibevenasfar astheendofhishouse. 22 Afterhimthepriests,themenofthevalley,carriedoutrepairs. 23 After them Benjamin and Hasshub carried out repairs in front of theirhouse.AfterthemAzariahthesonofMaaseiah,sonofAnaniah carriedoutrepairsbesidehishouse. 24 AfterhimBinnuithesonofHenadadrepairedanothersection,from thehouseofAzariahasfarastheAngleandasfarasthecorner. 25 PalalthesonofUzaimaderepairsinfrontoftheAngleandthetower projectingfromtheupperhouseoftheking,whichisbythecourtof theguard.AfterhimPedaiahthesonofParoshmaderepairs. 26 ThetempleservantslivinginOphelmaderepairsasfarasthefront oftheWaterGatetowardtheeastandtheprojectingtower. 27 AfterhimtheTekoitesrepairedanothersectioninfrontofthegreat projectingtowerandasfarasthewallofOphel. 28 Above the Horse Gate the priests carried out repairs, each in front ofhishouse. 29 After them Zadok the son of Immer carried out repairs in front of hishouse.AfterhimShemaiahthesonofShecaniah,thekeeperofthe EastGate,carriedoutrepairs. 30 After him Hananiah the son of Shelemiah, and Hanun the sixth son ofZalaph,repairedanothersection.AfterhimMeshullamthesonof Berechiahcarriedoutrepairsinfrontofhisownquarters. 31 AfterhimMalchijahoneofthegoldsmiths,carriedoutrepairsasfar asthehouseofthetempleservantsandofthemerchants,infrontof theInspectionGateandasfarastheupperroomofthecorner. 32 BetweentheupperroomofthecornerandtheSheepGatethegoldsmithsandthemerchantscarriedoutrepairs. This chapter provides a very detailed report of the restoration work on the walls and gates of Jerusalem. The report begins and ends at the Sheep Gate (vv. 1 and 32) and follows the wall in an anti-clockwise motion – if, at least, the traditional identities are correct. The archaeology has not found any recognizable or dateable wall or section of it from the Persian period.78 78 See I. Finkelstein, ‘Jerusalem in the Persian (and early Hellenistic) Period and the Wall of Nehemiah’, JSOT 32 (2008), 501-20.

Nomoremuddle!

195

Each presentation or reconstruction of the wall of Nehemiah remains, therefore, speculative (contra, e.g. McConville).79 The descriptions in the report are partly standardized. Per section information is given about the builders, their origin, the section and various architectural details. However, the textual units are not uniform. Some variation in description is clearly recognizable. The report is in the form of a list. The large amount of setumôt – more than one per verse on average – gives the impression that the text goes back to schematic collections or smaller reports. Since the list is not written in the I-form, it is generally assumed that it had not been part of the Nehemiah-memoir (Williamson; Schunck).80 Only a few researchers are of the opinion that the list has no historical value.81 The fact that the high priest Eliashib occupies a prominent place in the list could be an indication that its background probably was from spheres around the temple. The question whether the list had already been included by the author of Nehemiah or, added by a later editor is difficult to answer. In addition, it is important to put the question of how the composition of the Book of Nehemiah would have looked without the list. Can Neh. 3:33 (ET 4:1) be construed as an immediate continuation of 2:20, or not? Mowinckel believes that the storyline of 2:20 is continued at 3:33 (4:1) and understands the list in Nehemiah 3 as a later addition.82 Kellermann is of the opinion that Nehemiah 3 belongs to the Nehemiah narrative, as it casts light on Nehemiah’s above-average organizational talent.83 Williamson, correctly, notes that 2:20 and 3:33ff (4:1ff) have the same theme – opposition from the side of Sanballat – but 2:20 clearly refers to the preparation phase of recovery, while 3:33ff (4:1ff) presupposes an already advanced phase of the recovery operations. For that reason, in my opinion, the position that Nehemiah 3 contained an organic part of the narrative is preferable. The list contains many personal names. This indicates that various people were responsible each for part of the wall. Whether that responsibility was a traditional duty or, whether it was established for this occasion cannot be deduced from the text. Furthermore, about twenty place names are mentioned. These places are all within a radius of thirty kilometres 79 See also: D. Ussishkin, ‘On Nehemiah’s City Wall and the Size of Jerusalem during the Persian Period: An Archaeologist’s View’, in: I. Kalimi (ed.), NewPerspectivesonEzraNehemiah: History and Historiography, Text, Literature, and Interpretation, Winona Lake 2012, 101–30. 80 See however: Burt, TheCourtierandtheGovernor, 50-53. 81 E.g. C.C. Torrey, EzraStudies, Chicago 1910, 225, 249. 82 S. Mowinckel, Studien zu dem Buche Ezra-Nehemia I (Skrifter utgitt av det Norske videnskaps-akademi i Oslo II), Oslo 1964, 109-116; also Reinmuth, DerBerichtNehemias, 82-87. 83 Kellermann, Nehemia, 14-17.

196

Nehemiah1-7

around Jerusalem. Williamson assumes that they were all located within the boundaries of the Persian province of Yehud, which would have stretched from Ono in the Northwest to Engedi in the South East. Personal names and place names indicate joint responsibility for the recovery program, which was not the project of a single person, Nehemiah, but a task carried out by the entire Judaean community (Fensham, McConville).84 Residents of Jerusalem and the surrounding areas thus define their shared identity on the one hand within the Yehud province and on the other hand in contrast to the more northern territory of Samaria. 3:1 

Eliashib the high priest stood up with his brothers the priests and builttheSheepGate;theyconsecrateditandhungitsdoors.They consecratedthewalltotheToweroftheHundredandtheTowerof Hananel.

The restoration of the walls begins at the Sheep Gate. This gate probably formed the north-eastern tip of the walls. This sheep gate, along with two nearby towers, is the only element in the wall that becomes ‘sanctified’. The Pi. of the verb qdš is used here with a meaning that indicates consecration or dedication. Elsewhere in the Hebrew Bible, this verb is used only for the dedication of places with a clear cultural function (see, the Sinai: Exod. 19:23; altars: Exod. 29:36, 37; 30:29; the tabernacle: Exod. 40:9, 10, 11, Lev. 8:10, 11, 15, Num. 7:1; the temple: II Chron. 27:29). This verb, combined with the fact that the high priest was involved in this part of the rebuilding, could indicate that the Sheep Gate was seen to be a ritual gateway to the temple (Jagersma). Eliashib, ’èlyāšîb, ‘God restores’, was high priest in the middle of the fifth century. In Neh. 13:28 it is reported that his grandson was married to a daughter of Sanballat.85 The Sheep Gate is mentioned elsewhere only in Neh. 12:39 and in the Gospel of John 5:2. The name of the gate could indicate that through this gate the sheep were brought to the market and the temple. The Meah-tower, ‘one hundred tower’, and the Chananel-tower, ‘Tower of God’s grace’, served to guard this gate. They are both mentioned in Neh. 12:39. The Chananel-tower plays an unclear role in Jeremiah’s prophecy about the rebuilding of Jerusalem after the exile (Jer. 31:38).

84 See also O. Lipschits, ‘Nehemiah 3: Sources, Composition, and Purpose’, in: I. Kalimi (ed.), NewPerspectivesonEzra-Nehemiah:HistoryandHistoriography,Text,Literature,and Interpretation, Winona Lake 2012, 73–99. 85 J.C. VanderKam, FromJoshuatoCaiaphas:HighPriestsaftertheExile, Minneapolis 2004, 49-53.

Nomoremuddle! 3:2 

197

NexttohimthemenofJerichobuilt.NexttothemZakkurthesonof Imribuilt.

In a next section, inhabitants of Jericho do their work. The expression ‘al-yādô, which occurs fifteen times in Nehemiah 3, literally means ‘next to his hand’ and indicates an adjacent section. The name zakkûr, ‘Zakkur, ‘he is remembered’, is a general west Semitic personal name. Seven people in the Hebrew Bible bear this name as well as an Aramaic king of Hamath.86

3:3 

The sons of Senaah built the Fish Gate. They laid its beams and hungitsdoorswithitsboltsandbars.

The sons of Senaah are also mentioned in the list of returnees (Ezra 2:35; Neh. 7:38). The Fish-gate is also known from Zeph. 1:10 and from II Chron. 33:14. At excavations just north of Jerusalem, the remains of a fish processing installation from the Monarchic Period has been found.87 Possibly there was a fish market near the Fish Gate. This verse describes several specific elements of reconstruction. The verb form qērûhû, ‘they laid beams’ (see also 3:6), stands elliptically for ‘laying a beam for an attic’ (see also Ps. 104:3). The defenders of the city could then stand on the beams to get a better view of an approaching enemy. With daltôt, ‘doors’ (see also 3:6, 13, 14, 15), reference is made to the heavy wooden structures that could close the gate. The word man’ûl, ‘lockbar’, occurs a few times in Nehemiah 3 as well as in Song 5:5. A good bar in a gate is vital for keeping hostile powers out of town. The berîḥîm, ‘bolts’’ (see also 3:6, 13, 14, 15) could provide extra security. 3:4 

Next to them Meremoth the son of Uriah the son of Hakkoz made repairs. Next to him Meshullam the son of Berechiah the son of Meshezabelmaderepairs.NexttohimZadokthesonofBaanamade repairs.

In the two consecutive sections, Meremot and Mesullam work on the wall. The additional section is the responsibility of Zadok. The verbal form used hèḥzîq, ‘he made strong’ – occurring a total of 23 times in Neh. 3 – indicates repairs that make the wall stronger. 86

Refered to in the Zakkur-stele (KAI 202). R. Reich, E. Shukron, O. Lernau, ‘The Iron Age II Finds from the Rock-Cut “Pool” near the Spring in Jerusalem: A Preliminary Report’, in: L.L. Grabbe (ed.), IsraelinTransition: From Late Bronze Age to Iron IIa (c. 1250-850 B.C.E.). Volume 1. The Archaeology (LHB/OTS 491), London, New York 2008, 140-41. 87

198

Nehemiah1-7

Meremot, merēmôt, the son of Uriah, is also mentioned in Ezra 8:33. In distinction to the priest named there, in Neh. 3:4, 21, Meremot is also given the name of his grandfather Hakkoz. The name Mesullam, mešullām, is borne by eleven different persons in the Hebrew Bible.

3:5 

Next to him the Tekoites made repairs, but their nobles did not supporttheworkoftheirmasters.

About the inhabitants of Teqoah it is reported that their ’addîrîm, ‘nobles’, did not want to put their shoulders to work. This is a characteristic of the history of humanity. The reason for their refusal is not mentioned. Williamson suggests that the location of Teqoah might have brought these local leaders into Geshem’s sphere of influence. That may be the case; it seems to me that there is sluggishness in the governing layer of that community. Who are meant by ‘their masters’: Eliashib, Nehemiah or local rulers, is unclear. 3:6 

Joiada the son of Paseah and Meshullam the son of Besodeiah repairedtheOldGate.Theylaiditsbeamsandhungitsdoors,with itsboltsanditsbars.

The ša‘arhayšānāh, ‘Old Gate’, – not the Mishneh Gate (pace Shepherd & Wright) – falls under the responsibility of Jojada and another Mesullam. The adjective yešānāh, ‘old’ (see also Isa. 22:11), is considered by the LXX as a personal name: tènpúlèntouIsana. This view is taken over in the Zürcher Bibel – ‘dasJeschana-Tor’. In this view, this gate would have given access on the way to the village of Jesana (II Chron. 13:19). That a gate was named after a small village and not after the nearby centre of Bethel is unlikely. 3:7 

NexttothemMelatiahtheGibeoniteandJadontheMeronothite,the menofGibeonandofMizpah,maderepairsfortheofficialseatof thegovernorofbeyondtheRiver.

In the next section Melatiah from Gibeon and Jadon of Meremoth are at work. They were directly under the jurisdiction of the governor of the Persian satrapy ‘Beyond the River’. 3:8

Next to him Uzziel the son of Harhaiah of the goldsmiths made repairs.NexttohimHananiah,oneoftheperfumers,maderepairs. TheyrestoredJerusalemasfarastheBroadWall.

Uzziel, a goldsmith, and Chananiah, an ointment maker, are confronted with a part of the wall that needs no repair.

Nomoremuddle! 3:9

199

NexttothemRephaiahthesonofHur,theofficialofhalfthemilitary serviceofJerusalem,maderepairs.

In the next section, Rephaiah works. The noun pèlèk – which only occurs in Neh. 3 – is usually translated with ‘district’ (Williamson; Schunck; KJV). The word can then be construed as a loanword from the Assyrian in which language pilku A, ‘district’, occurs.88 One problem with this interpretation, is that Yehud seems too small to comprise at least five districts.89 Therefore, it may be better to think of a meaning for the Hebrew noun associated with Assyrian pilku B, ‘work on the (re)building of a wall’.90 The word pèlèk could then refer to a ‘military service; civil liability’.91 In Nehemiah 3, a pèlèk is preceded by a śar. The person concerned would then be the foreman of a group of people doing their military service by repairing part of the wall. 3:10  Next to them Jedaiah the son of Harumaph made repairs opposite hishouse.NexttohimHattushthesonofHashabneiahmaderepairs. About Jedaiah, it is stated that he was working on a part of the wall that was opposite his house. The name Hattus also occurs in Ezra 8:2 but refers there to another person. 3:11  MalchijahthesonofHarimandHasshubthesonofPahath-moab repairedanothersectionandtheTowerofFurnaces. The noun middāh (also in 3:19, 20, 21, 24, 27, 30) indicates a predetermined distance. Obviously, different groups had a double task assigned. The first course of Malchijahand Chassub had been the recovery of the Kiln-tower. The name Malchijah, ‘YHWH is king’, appears in the Hebrew Bible several times. In Nehemiah 3, three different people are named Malchijah (vv. 11, 14, 31). The name Chassub is found in 3:23. The Kiln-tower also occurs at Neh. 12:38. The exact location is unknown.

88

See AHw863; CAD P, 373-74. Thus: A. Demsky, ‘“Pelekh” in Nehemiah 3’, Israel Exploration Journal 33 (1983), 242-44; C.E. Carter, The emergence of Yehud in the Persian period: a social and demographic study (JSOT 297), Sheffield 1999, 80; D.V. Edelman, The Origins of the ‘Second’ Temple: Persian Imperial Policy and the Rebuilding of Jerusalem, London 2005, 213; Lipschits, ‘Nehemiah 3: Sources, Composition, and Purpose’, 92-93; Fitzpatrick-McKinley, Empire,Power,andIndigenousElites, 194. 90 CAD P, 374-75. 91 As argued by Demsky, ‘“Pelekh” in Nehemiah 3’, 242-44; Edelman, Origins, 213-22. 89

200 3:12

Nehemiah1-7 Next to him Shallum the son of Hallohesh, the official of half the militaryserviceofJerusalem,maderepairs,heandhisdaughters.

In the report on šallûm, ‘Shallum’, ‘retribution’ the extraordinary detail that he was assisted by his daughters is mentioned. This is the only instance in Neh. 3 where the contribution of women to the restoration of the wall is referred to. Shallum is the name of a king of the Northern Kingdom (I Kgs 15). In Ezra and Nehemiah, five different persons with this name occurs. The name hallôḥēš, ‘the whisperer’, probably a nickname, also occurs in Neh. 10:24. There, he is one of the leaders who sign the treaty of Nehemiah. Given the unique character of this name, it can be assumed that the same person is indicated.

3:13  HanunandtheinhabitantsofZanoahrepairedtheValleyGate.They builtitandhungitsdoorswithitsboltsanditsbars,andathousand cubitsofthewalltotheRefuseGate. The Valley Gate and the Refuse Gate were already mentioned in Neh. 2:13, 15. Hanun and the inhabitants of Zanoach are indulged indirectly because they recovered ‘1,000 ell of the wall’. The ancient Israelite ell, ’ammāh, was about 45 cm long.92 3:14  MalchijahthesonofRechab,theofficialofthemilitaryserviceof Beth-hakkerem repaired the Refuse Gate. He built it and hung its doorswithitsboltsanditsbars. The Malchijahmentioned here is another person than the Malchijahreferred to in 3:11. 3:15

ShallunthesonofCol-hozeh,theofficialofthemilitaryserviceof Mizpah, repaired the Fountain Gate. He built it, covered it, and hungitsdoorswithitsboltsanditsbars,andthewallofthePoolof Shelahattheking’sgardenasfarasthestepsthatdescendfromthe cityofDavid.

The Fountain Gate was already mentioned in 2:14. Here, the repair work is carried out by šallûn, ‘Shallun’. Several scholars write this name with an /m/ at the end: Shallum (Fensham; Blenkinsopp; Becker).

92

See: P.J. King, L.E. Stager, LifeinbiblicalIsrael, Knoxville 2001, 200.

Nomoremuddle!

201

The LXX leaves the first part of Neh. 3:15 untranslated. However, in some Greek manuscripts, the name salwmwn occurs.93 In Qumran no fragments of Nehemiah have been found. The reading Shallum finds support in the Vulgate: Sellum and could be original in view of the following remarks. In the rebuilding, both Shallum ‘son of Halloches’ and Sallum/n ‘the son of Col-hozeh’ are at work. The fact that both persons are called both the name of their respective fathers and with their function indicates, in my opinion, that there may have been an attempt at avoiding any confusion. The names of fathers and roles then function as a means of addressing this possible confusion. The fact that the MT writes the name of the second person with a nûn may indicate a secondary step in the avoiding of any confusion.94 In addition, Sallun is a somewhat unusual and difficult to explain Hebrew personal name.95

3:16  After him Nehemiah the son of Azbuk, official of half the military service of Beth-zur, made repairs as far as a point opposite the tombs of David, and as far as the artificial pool and the house of themightymen. The Nehemiah mentioned here is a different person than the main character of this Biblical Book. The expression ‘the tombs of David’ is found only here in the Hebrew Bible. II Chronicles several times mentions the ‘graves of the kings’ (II Chron. 21:20; 24:25; 28:27) and one time the ‘tombs of the sons of David’ (II Chron. 32:33). The expression in Neh. 3:16 therefore should be construed as referring to the tombs of the Davidites in Jerusalem.

3:17  After him the Levites carried out repairs under Rehum the son of Bani.NexttohimHashabiah,theofficialofhalfthemilitaryservice ofKeilah,carriedoutrepairsforhismilitaryservice. In the next section, the Levite Rechum is active. The addition of ‘the son of Bani’ makes it clear that he is not the same as the Persian official from Ezra 4. Next to him, Hashabiah from Keila is working. This name occurs thirteen times but only in post-exilic texts (see Ezra 8:19).

93

LXXBSAV; see the apparatus in the edition of Rahlfs. The name Sallun should, therefore, not be construed as an accidental alternative or a mere writing error (Blenkinsopp). 95 See M. Noth, Die israelitischen Personennamen im Rahmen der gemeinsemitischen Namengebung, Stuttgart 1928, 258; Rudolph. 94

202

Nehemiah1-7

3:18  AfterhimtheirbrotherscarriedoutrepairsunderBavvaithesonof Henadad,officialoftheotherhalfofthemilitaryserviceofKeilah. Next, we meet ‘their brothers’. The plural pronoun probably refers to the persons mentioned in v. 17. The name bawway, ‘Bavvai’, does not occur elsewhere.

3:19  NexttohimEzerthesonofJeshua,theofficialofMizpah,repaired anothersection,infrontoftheascentofthearmouryattheAngle. In a next section, Ezer from Mizpah is at work. His name means ‘helper’. His section is of military importance, as it is situated at the stairs to the nèšèq. This noun usually means ‘weaponry equipment’ but, refers here to the building where the weapons were stored: ‘an arsenal.’

3:20  After him Baruch the son of Zabbai zealously repaired another section, from the Angle to the doorway of the house of Eliashib thehighpriest. Baruch is the only person who is said to have done his job hèḥrāh, ‘full of fire’. The verb form is used adverbially here (contra Williamson). His zeal might coincide with the fact that his section ends at the high priest’s house. Some Hebrew manuscripts and the Vulgate represent the name of his father, Zabbai, as Zakkai. Presumably, this last reading is based on a scribal error.

3:21

After him Meremoth the son of Uriah the son of Hakkoz repaired another section, from the doorway of the house of Eliashib house evenasfarastheendofhishouse.

Although Meremoth oversees the whole section of the high priest’s house, the zeal is missing from him.

3:22  Afterhimthepriests,themenofthevalley,carriedoutrepairs. In a next section, priests are working. They are presented as being from the kikkār. This noun may refer to a ‘round bread’ (e.g. I Sam. 2:36), to a round weight; the value of a talent (e.g. II Sam. 12:30) or to a rounded area. The Jordan Valley, in particular, is designated as such (Gen. 13:10, 11). Presumably, Neh. 3:22 refers to priests who came from the Jordan Valley, as the Vulgate suggests: sacerdotesviridecampestribusIordanis.

Nomoremuddle!

203

3:23  After them Benjamin and Hasshub carried out repairs in front of theirhouse.AfterthemAzariahthesonofMaaseiah,sonofAnaniah carriedoutrepairsbesidehishouse. Benjamin, Chassub, and Azariah are said to have repaired a piece of wall opposite their own houses. 3:24  AfterhimBinnuithesonofHenadadrepairedanothersection,from thehouseofAzariahasfarastheAngleandasfarasthecorner. Then Binnui is mentioned. This name – derived from the verb bnh, ‘to build’ – is carried by five different persons and occurs only in post-exile texts. 3:25 Palal the son of Uzai made repairs in front of the Angle and the towerprojectingfromtheupperhouseoftheking,whichisbythe court of the guard. After him Pedaiah the son of Parosh made repairs. Palal was working across a corner-bastion and at the height of the high tower of the royal house, which was located near the prison-court. The words ḥāṣērhammaṭṭārāh, ‘square of the prisoners’, recalls the traditions of the captivity of Jeremiah (Jer. 32:37-39). 3:26 ThetempleservantslivinginOphelmaderepairsasfarasthefront oftheWaterGatetowardtheeastandtheprojectingtower. For the meaning of netînîm, ‘temple servants’, see Ezra 2:43. The function of their listing here is not clear. 3:27 AfterhimtheTekoitesrepairedanothersectioninfrontofthegreat projectingtowerandasfarasthewallofOphel. Residents from Tekoa were also mentioned in Neh. 3:5. 3:28 AbovetheHorseGatethepriestscarriedoutrepairs,eachinfront ofhishouse. The ša‘arhassûsîm, ‘Horse Gate’, is also mentioned in II Chron. 23:15 and Jer. 31:40. In II Chronicles, the Horse Gate is the place where Athaliah was killed and in Jer. 31, this gate is part of the restored Jerusalem. In this section, priests perform the restoration work.

204

Nehemiah1-7

3:29 AfterthemZadokthesonofImmercarriedoutrepairsinfrontofhis house.AfterhimShemaiahthesonofShecaniah,thekeeperofthe EastGate,carriedoutrepairs. In a next section, Zadok and Shemaiah work. Zadok works across his own home. Shemaiah is mentioned as the guardian of the ša‘ar hammizrāḥ, ‘East Gate’. This gate is the place where Ezekiel was led to in a dream (Ezek. 10:19; 11: 1). 3:30 AfterhimHananiahthesonofShelemiah,andHanunthesixthson ofZalaph,repairedanothersection.AfterhimMeshullamthesonof Berechiahcarriedoutrepairsinfrontofhisownquarters. In this section we find Hananiah and Hanun. The latter is the sixth son of a further unknown Zalaph. This detail may indirectly indicate that his older brothers had been obliged to cooperate with him. In the following section, Meshullam is active, opposite his ‘room’ – a somewhat unusual detail. 3:31 AfterhimMalchijahoneofthegoldsmiths,carriedoutrepairsasfar asthehouseofthetempleservantsandofthemerchants,infrontof theInspectionGateandasfarastheupperroomofthecorner. Opposite the Gate of the Guards, we find Malchijahthe goldsmith. This gate is not mentioned elsewhere. 3:32 Between the upper room of the corner and the Sheep Gate the goldsmithsandthemerchantscarriedoutrepairs. On arrival at the Sheep Gate (see 3:1) the tour has come full circle.

OPPOSITION AND DETERMINATION NEHEMIAH 4:1-23 (HEBR. 3:33-4:17)

1 2 

Now when Sanballat heard that we were building the wall, he was angryandgreatlyenraged,andhejeeredattheJudaeans. AndhesaidinthepresenceofhisbrothersandofthearmyofSamaria, ‘WhatarethesefeebleJudaeansdoing?Willtheyrestoreitfor themselves?Willtheysacrifice?Willtheyfinishupinaday? Will they revive the stones out of the heaps of rubbish, and burnedonesatthat?’

Nomoremuddle! 3  4

5

6 7

8 9 10 

11  12  13

14 

15 16

205

TobiahtheAmmonitewasbesidehim,andhesaid, ‘Yes,whattheyarebuilding–ifafoxgoesuponithewillbreak downtheirstonewall!’ Hear,OourGod,forwearedespised.Turnbacktheirtauntontheir ownheadsandgivethemuptobeplunderedinalandwheretheyare captives. Donotcovertheirguiltandletnottheirsinbeblottedoutfromyour sight, for they have provoked you to anger in the presence of the builders. So,webuiltthewall.Andallthewallwasjoinedtogethertohalfits height,forthepeoplehadamindtowork. When Sanballat and Tobiah and the Arabs and the Ammonites and theAshdoditesheardthattherepairingofthewallsofJerusalemwas going forward and that the breaches were beginning to be closed, theywereveryangry. They all plotted together to come and fight against Jerusalem and tocauseconfusioninit. WeprayedtoourGodandsetaguardasaprotectionagainstthem dayandnight. InJudahitwassaid, ‘Thestrengthofthosewhobeartheburdensisfailing.Thereis too much rubble. By ourselves we will not be able to rebuild thewall.’ Ourenemiessaid, ‘They will not know or see till we come among them and kill themandstopthework.’ AtthattimetheJudaeanswholivednearthemcamefromalldirectionsandsaidtoustentimes, ‘Youmustreturntous.’ So,inthelowestpartsofthespacebehindthewall,inopenplaces, Istationedthepeoplebytheirclans,withtheirswords,theirspears, andtheirbows. Ilookedandaroseandsaidtothenoblesandtotheofficialsandto therestofthepeople, ‘Donotbeafraidofthem.RememberYHWH,whoisgreatand awesome,andfightforyourbrothers,yoursons,yourdaughters, yourwives,andyourhomes.’ When our enemies heard that it was known to us and that God had frustratedtheirplan,weallreturnedtothewall,eachtohiswork. From that day on, half of my servants worked on construction, and half held the spears, shields, bows, and coats of arms. The leaders stoodbehindthewholehouseofJudah,

206 17

18 19  20 21 22 

23

Nehemiah1-7 who were building on the wall. Those who carried burdens were loadedinsuchawaythateachlabouredontheworkwithonehand andheldhisweaponwiththeother. Eachofthebuildershadhisswordstrappedathissidewhilehebuilt. Themanwhosoundedthetrumpetwasbesideme. Isaidtothenoblesandtotheofficialsandtotherestofthepeople, ‘Theworkisgreatandwidelyspread,andweareseparatedon thewall,farfromoneanother. Intheplacewhereyouhearthesoundofthetrumpet,rallyto usthere.OurGodwillfightforus.’ So, we laboured at the work, and half of them held the spears from thebreakofdawnuntilthestarscameout. Ialsosaidtothepeopleatthattime, ‘LeteverymanandhisservantpassthenightwithinJerusalem, that they may be a guard for us by night and may labour by day.’ So, neither I nor my brothers nor my servants nor the men of the guardwhofollowedme,noneofustookoffourclothes;eachkepthis weaponathisrighthand.

After the display of unprecedented responsibility in the previous chapter, the reader expects a festive conclusion celebrating the restoration of the walls. However, there is a counteractivity. The group around Sanballat in Samaria – as narratively announced in Neh. 2:10 and 19 – want to prevent the recovery. At first glance, Neh. 4 appears to be a patchwork of short messages about various seemingly detached events. Therefore, the chapter has been seen to be the final product of an editing process. Torrey and Burrows believe that the Chronicler has edited the present text from a set of fragments.96 This view, however, coincides with the outdated thought that the Books of Ezra and Nehemiah would have been part of the work of the Chronicler. Hölscher and Mowinckel are of the opinion that a message about internal counter-measures has been transformed into a message about an external threat through a variety of additions.97 However, Kellermann has made it clear that the proposed additions cannot be isolated from their present context.98 Therefore, I agree with the view that Nehemiah 4 is a coherent whole and possibly derived from the Nehemiah-memoir (Williamson; Schunck). However, I would like to add a fresh argument.

96

Torrey, EzraStudies, 225-226; M. Burrows, ‘The Origin of Neh. 3: 33-37’, AJSL 52 (1936), 235-44. 97 Mowinckel, Studien, 24-26. 98 Kellermann, Nehemia, 18-20.

Nomoremuddle!

207

The events described in Neh. 4 do not follow those narrated in Neh. 3 chronologically. In fact, Neh. 4 describes the circumstances under which the repairs have taken place. The order of Neh. 3 is countered by the disastrous disorder of Neh. 4. The ‘patchwork’ also has a literary effect: the chaos puts to the test all those attempts to obstruct the repairs. 4:1-3 (Hebr. 3:33-35) Now whenSanballatheardthatwewerebuilding the wall, he was angry and greatly enraged, and he jeered at the Judaeans.  And he said in the presence of his brothers and of the army of Samaria,  ‘WhatarethesefeebleJudaeansdoing?Willtheyrestoreitfor themselves? Will they sacrifice? Will they finish up in a day? Will they revive the stones out of the heaps of rubbish, and burnedonesatthat?’  TobiahtheAmmonitewasbesidehim,andhesaid,  ‘Yes,whattheyarebuilding–ifafoxgoesuponithewillbreak downtheirstonewall!’ Sanballat’s response is stronger than in 2:19. When it appears that Nehemiah’s plans begin to become reality, Sanballat burns fierce with anger. For the description of this anger, two verb forms are used. The first verb form, wayyiḥar, ‘he ignited’, expresses a violent emotional response, comparable to that of Moses when he saw the people dancing around the golden calf (Exod. 32:29), or that of Balaam when the she-ass collapsed under him (Num. 22:27). The second verb form, wayyikas, ‘he felt hurt’, expresses deep, furious anguish (see also II Chron. 16:10; Qoh. 5:16; Ezek. 16:42). Sanballat is raging in mockery. Mockery is a form of inappropriate humour that affects the other in her or his personal integrity (see also II Kgs 2:23-24 and Marc. 15:32). This mockery he utters to his fellow executives in Samaria. Firstly, he calls the Judaeans ‘weak’. The word ’amēlāl only occurs here in the Hebrew Bible. It is derived from a verb ’ml, ‘to be weak’ (Ezek. 16:30). The related word ’umlal, ‘weakened; quivering’, occurs in Ps. 6:3 describing the destructive situation of the poet. It is unclear whether Sanballat targets physical or emotional weakness. The subsequent rhetorical questions question the ability of the Judaeans to restore the walls. The verb form hayḥayyû, ‘will they revive …?’ underscores the view of Sanballat that the destruction of Jerusalem is irreparable (Myers; Williamson; Becker; Jagersma). Tobiah, the Ammonite, replenishes Sanballat’s sarcasm with a remark about the suspected crumbliness of the restored walls. The šû‘āl, ‘fox’, appears seven times in the Hebrew Bible. The fox is a canine predator that

208

Nehemiah1-7

moves without much force. Even under the walk of this animal, the restored walls would break down. Bauer’s suggestion that ‘fox’ would refer to a siege tool99 is difficult to refute because of the lack of textual material but, is unlikely given that the image of the animal is clear (Williamson; Fensham; Blenkinsopp; Schunck; Jagersma; see also Ezek. 13:4).

4:4-5 (Hebr. 3:36-37) Hear,OourGod,forwearedespised.Turnback theirtauntontheirownheadsandgivethemuptobeplunderedin alandwheretheyarecaptives.  Donotcovertheirguilt,andletnottheirsinbeblottedoutfromyour sight, for they have provoked you to anger in the presence of the builders. To this mockery, Nehemiah reacts with a short prayer – which is not marked as such – in stereotypical language. This prayer has been composed chiastically in four parts: A

situation of scorn B request for retaliation B’ request for no forgiveness A’ indication of the offence. In addition, he presents himself and his fellow human beings as persons who have become an object of scorn. The noun bûzāh, ‘scorn’, appears in the Hebrew Bible only here. The related verb bwz, ‘to scorn; despise’, repeatedly suggests words and deeds that make another grief. The conclusion of Williamson: due to the conduct of the people, God himself was scorned, is based on the wording of element A’. The imperative hāšēb, ‘do return, reward’, is derived from the language of prayer and expresses a wish that is related to the iustalionis.100 In essence, Nehemiah asks whether the group around Sanballat may meet the same fate as Jerusalem during the conquest by the Babylonians. In this prayer, it is not literally ‘an eye for an eye’. It should be noted, however, that opposite to the experienced bûzāh, ‘scorn’, as a request the assonant bizzāh, ‘spoil, is phrased. The noun šibyāh, ‘captivity’, is elsewhere an indication of the (Babylonian) exile too (Jer. 48:46; see also the parallel šebî in Deut. 28:41; Jer. 30:10, 16; Am. 9:4; Nah. 3:10; Neh. 1:2).

99

J.B. Bauer, ‘Der ‘Fuchs’ Neh 3, 35 ein Belagerungsturm?’, BiZs 19 (1975), 97-98. See, e.g.. E. Otto, KontinuumundProprium.StudienzurSozial-undRechtsgeschichte desAltenOrientsunddesAltenTestaments (Orientalia Biblica et Christiana 8), Wiesbaden 1996, 224–45. 100

Nomoremuddle!

209

The theme of ‘covering the guilt’ regularly appears in the prayer language of the Hebrew Bible as an indication of God’s forgiveness (e.g. Ps. 32:5; 85:3; Job 31:3). The request not to cover the guilt of the other also occurs in Jer. 18:23 and in this prayer of Nehemiah. Something comparable can be said of the ‘erasure of debt’. Those words point to an act of forgiveness (e.g. Ps. 51: 3, 11). Just as in Jer. 18:23, this phrase was reversed in the prayer of Nehemiah into a ruthless request.101 This appeal is motivated by an assessment of the actions of Sanballat and Tobiah. They are understood as an affront to God in the face of those who are rebuilding the wall. The prayer has performative force, since after it the rebuilding of the wall is continued despite the scorn and the mockery. Again, Nehemiah is presented as a devout person compensating for his lack of priestly qualities.102 He is once more seen as a role-model for the community. His prayer against Sanballat, Tobiah, and Geshem clearly defines the boundary of the community. By their conduct they do not deserve to be incorporated into the new Judah. 4:6 (Hebr. 3:38) Sowebuiltthewall.Andallthewallwasjoinedtogether tohalfitsheight,forthepeoplehadamindtowork. The next verse begins with a waw finalis. Despite the scornful words and, as a result of Nehemiah’s prayer, the rebuilding is uninterrupted. Half of the original height is reached. It is better to connect the noun ḥaṣî, ‘half’, with the height of the wall than with its perimeter (Williamson). The Niphal of the verb qšr has the meaning ‘to combine’. The aim is to achieve an even and continuous height in all sections of the wall. The use of the noun lēb, ‘heart’, in the last clause of the verse indicates that there was a strong emotional urge to restore the wall and that that intention was not broken by the opposition of others. 4:7-8 (Hebr. 4: 1-2) WhenSanballatandTobiahandtheArabsandthe AmmonitesandtheAshdoditesheardthattherepairingofthewalls of Jerusalem was going forward and that the breaches were beginningtobeclosed,theywereveryangry.  They all plotted together to come and fight against Jerusalem and tocauseconfusioninit. Here too, action evokes a reaction that leads to an escalating spiral. Sanballat’s response is stronger than in 4:1 (Hebr. 3:33). The verbal form, wayyiḥar, 101 See J. Krašovec, Reward,Punishment,andForgiveness:TheThinkingandBeliefsof AncientIsraelintheLightofGreekandModernViews (SVT 78), Leiden 1999. 102 Laird, NegotiatingPower, 222.

210

Nehemiah1-7

‘he was inflamed; became angry’, is repeated but now with an adverb me’od, ‘very’. The opposition has also increased in number. Apart from Sanballat and Tobiah, Arabs, Ammonites and Ashdodites are now in the coalition. Although it is not entirely clear who are meant to be ‘Arabs’ in this time, it can be assumed that they lived to the south of Judah. With the Ammonites in the east and the inhabitants of Ashdod in the west, Jerusalem is so beaten from all four corners of the wind (Williamson). The restoration of the walls of Jerusalem is described in language more flowery than that of Nehemiah 3. The expression ‘lh ’arûkāh, ‘the emergence of healing’, is attested as a metaphor in II Chron. 24:13. Indirectly, the destruction of the city is seen as a ‘wound’ evoking the image of the ‘irreversible wound’ from Jer. 31:12-17. The verb qšr, ‘to bandage’, from 4:6 (Hebr. 3:38) is repeated. Opposite the assembled wall of Jerusalem is the bondage within the coalition. The infinitive with preposition lehillāḥēm indicates an act of siege (see, for example, Isa. 7:1). The purpose of the expedition is to establish tô‘èh, ‘confusion’. This noun also appears in Isa. 32:6, where the context gives it a slightly different meaning. 4:9 (Hebr. 4:3) We prayed to our God and set a guard as a protection againstthemdayandnight. On the side of Nehemiah, there is an escalation of another kind: the solidarity grows. There is a response with prayer and the setting up of a continuous guard. It is remarkable that there is now a ‘we’ who prays and no longer the single Nehemiah. Through prayer, God is called upon to act as a guardian at work without excluding human waking.103 The message about setting a guard during the day and the night summarizes proleptically what will be described in the next verses. 4:10 (Hebr. 4:4) InJudahitwassaid,  ‘Thestrengthofthosewhobeartheburdensisfailing.Thereistoo muchrubble.Byourselveswewillnotbeabletorebuildthewall.’ The gaze shifts. The waw-consecutivum in wayyo’mèr, ‘and he said’, can be understood as an epexegetic waw. The verb form does not refer to a following act in a narrative chain but refers to an act that took place in the meantime.104 As the surrounding people gather together, Judah is raising a lamen103

See also Häusl, ‘„Ich betete zum Gott des Himmels“‘, 53. See B.K. Waltke, M.P. O’Connor, AnIntroductiontoBiblicalHebrewSyntax, Winona Lake 1990, § 33.2.2. 104

Nomoremuddle!

211

tation. ‘Judah’ stands here collectively for the inhabitants of Jerusalem and the surrounding area. Williamson is correct in saying that the content of their lamentation has the shape and the rhythm of a qinah (also Blenkinsopp). A qinah is a specific Hebrew dirge with 3+2; 3+2 as its metre. The Hebrew word qinah, ‘elegy; dirge’, is attested about fifteen times in the Hebrew Bible.105 Williamson assumes that the lament was spontaneous in the given situation. It seems to me more plausible that the narrator puts a traditional song in the mouth of the workers. The function of this qinah is clear. Although the work progresses on the wall, the fear is that work will never reach its end: there is too much work for too few people. 4:11 (Hebr. 4:5) Ourenemiessaid,  ‘Theywillnotknoworseetillwecomeamongthemandkillthem andstopthework.’ This fear is emphasized unwillingly by spreading a rumour by the opponents. They announce a surprise attack with the aim of killing the workers, so that the restoration work would stop. The verb used, hrg, ‘to kill’, is one of the four Hebrew verbs used in the Old Testament to describe the act of ending the life of the other. The focus concerning hrg regards the ruthlessness of this act. In the history of Cain and Abel, this verb occurs four times (Gen. 4). The Book of Esther refers to the planned slaughter of the Jewish people. All this points to the intention of the opponents to stop the restoration work ruthlessly. 4:12-14 (Hebr. 4:6-8) At that time the Judaeans who lived near them camefromalldirectionsandsaidtoustentimes,  ‘Youmustreturntous.’  So,inthelowestpartsofthespacebehindthewall,inopenplaces, Istationedthepeoplebytheirclans,withtheirswords,theirspears, andtheirbows.  Ilookedandaroseandsaidtothenoblesandtotheofficialsandto therestofthepeople,  ‘Donotbeafraidofthem.RememberYHWH,whoisgreatand awesome,andfightforyourbrothers,yoursons,yourdaughters, yourwives,andyourhomes.’ A surprise attack would not be possible. This text causes the exegete some problems, especially when it comes to the question ‘who is who’? In my 105 See K. Budde, ‘Das hebraische Klagelied’, ZAW (1882), 1-52; W.R. Garr, ‘The Qinah: A Study of Poetic Meter, Syntax and Style’, ZAW 95 (1983), 54-75.

212

Nehemiah1-7

opinion, the following players (groups) are on stage. (1) There is a group of Judaean people who are said to live ’eṣlām, ‘in their vicinity’. These Judaeans call the ‘we’ time and again to return to them. Williamson wants to make a connection with the presence of Judaeans from the whole area of Yehud who, according to Nehemiah 3, contributed to the restoration of the wall. However, that assumption does not prove to be true. More particularly, there is (2) a ‘we’-group that is apparently in Jerusalem. In my estimation, this ‘we’-group is formed by the workers on the wall. They are called upon by their fellow citizens to return to their place of origin presumably because of an army rushing on. (3) The suffix 3.m.p. in ’eṣlām, ‘in their vicinity’, refers to the group of opponents around the figure of Sanballat. The army of this group had apparently already advanced into Judaean territory. (4) However, the main character is Nehemiah. When Nehemiah understands what threat comes to Jerusalem, he takes measures that recall the so-called holy wars from the Book of Judges. He arms the inhabitants of Jerusalem with swords, spears, and arches. He orders them to go to a specific place where the enemy can see them. Although they are few, they form a Gideon-gang who have to give the impending enemy the impression that Jerusalem is full of countless and well-armed warriors. Nehemiah appeals to these troops with the encouragement formula ’al-tîrā’, ‘fear not’.106 He motivates this summons with the memory of the greatness with which YHWH will fight for his faithful. 4:15 (Hebr. 4:9) Whenourenemiesheardthatitwasknowntousandthat Godhadfrustratedtheirplan,weallreturnedtothewall,eachto hiswork. With retained pride, Nehemiah mentions the success of his manoeuvre. The retraction of the opponents is not mentioned, only its result; the builders can return to their workplace while restoring the wall. Nehemiah, however, gives all glory to God who has frustrated the opponents’ plans. The verb used, prr Hi., means both literally ‘to break’ and figuratively ‘to frustrate’. In, with and through the strategy of Nehemiah, God was seen to be active. Rudolph proposes to add wyšbwtwmmnh, ‘and they abandoned’. This would fill the empty space in the sequence of the story. However, with Myers, Williamson and Blenkinsopp, I believe the current text implies this was the act of the opponents. It is the power of the text not to explain.

106 See M. Nissinen, ‘Fear Not: A Study on an Ancient Near Eastern Phrase’, in: E. Ben Zvi, M.A. Sweeney (eds), TheChangingFaceofFormCriticismfortheTwenty-FirstCentury, Grand Rapids 2003, 122-61.

Nomoremuddle!

213

4:16-20 (Hebr. 4:10-14) Fromthatdayon,halfofmyservantsworkedon construction, and half held the spears, shields, bows, and coats of arms.TheleadersstoodbehindthewholehouseofJudah,  who were building on the wall. Those who carried burdens were loadedinsuchawaythateachlabouredontheworkwithonehand andheldhisweaponwiththeother.  Each of the builders had his sword strapped at his side while he built.Themanwhosoundedthetrumpetwasbesideme.  Isaidtothenoblesandtotheofficialsandtotherestofthepeople,  ‘Theworkisgreatandwidelyspread,andweareseparatedon thewall,farfromoneanother.  In the place where you hear the sound of the trumpet, rally to usthere.OurGodwillfightforus.’ Trust in God does not dismiss human beings from taking precautionary measures. After the abstained threat, Nehemiah reorganizes the work on the restoration of the walls. He arms half of his ‘boys’ with spears, shields, arches, and armour, while the other half has to focus on the construction work. The term na‘ar, ‘boy; servant’, for the members of this group raises two questions. First, it is unclear whether all employees of Nehemiah are meant, or only a limited elite (thus: Williamson). The text gives no indication. In post-exile texts, the word na‘ar usually refers to a group of servants with a specific assignment directly around the governor.107 The arsenal of weapons is expanded over against v. 13 (Hebr. 7) with širyonîm, ‘coats of arms’. This word refers to metal breastplates to protect the torso of the warriors. Nehemiah appointed śārîm, here ‘supervisors’.108 They will serve as liaison officers between the dispersed groups of workers and were also tasked to warn in case of any threat. The increased preparedness is painted in vivid images. Wherever possible, workers carry a weapon in their free hand, where otherwise they would have girded a sword. In case of emergency, the šôfār, ‘horn’, needed to be blown. This instrument evokes the memory of the stories about the period of Judges. Then, the horn was blown as a starting signal for action (Judg. 3:27; 6:34; 7:18). The final clause of this textual unit shows that human action alone is insufficient. The phrase ‘our God will fight for us’ reflects the narrator’s faith in

107 See H.-P. Stähli, Knabe-Jüngling-Knecht:UntersuchungenzumBegriffna’arimAlten Testament (BET 7), Frankfurt am Main 1978; C.S. Leeb, Away from the Father’s House: TheSocialLocationoftheNa’arandNa’arahinAncientIsrael (JSOT Sup 301), Sheffield 2000. 108 See U. Rüterswörden, DieBeamtenderisraelitischenKönigszeit:eineStudiezuśrund vergleichbarenBegriffen (WMANT 17), Stuttgart 1985; DCH VIII, 182-90.

214

Nehemiah1-7

the caring guidance of God for his people. The expression is also an echo of the description of previous saving deeds of God (see, Exod. 14:14, Josh. 10:14; Williamson). 4:21-23 (Hebr. 4:15-17) So we laboured at the work, and half of them heldthespearsfromthebreakofdawnuntilthestarscameout.  Ialsosaidtothepeopleatthattime,  ‘LeteverymanandhisservantpassthenightwithinJerusalem, thattheymaybeaguardforusbynightandmaylabourbyday.’  So, neither I nor my brothers nor my servants nor the men of the guardwhofollowedme,noneofustookoffourclothes;eachkept hisweaponathisrighthand. The last three verses are a summary description of the way in which the repairs were performed despite the threat. The main point is that the workers stay at Jerusalem day and night and do not waste time commuting to and from their home. Also, no time is wasted on changing clothes. The language is clearly hyperbolic and suggests that none of the workers ever slept, which of course would be impossible (see Williamson). The text wishes to emphasize that the work was carried out in an ongoing state of vigilance. The Hebrew of the last three words is enigmatic and almost untranslatable: ’îššilḥû hammāyim, literally: ‘each one’s weapon the waters’. Already in ancient times the text was unclear and the translators reconfigured the text. LXX renders šilḥû with himatia, ‘clothing’, and connects the words with the preceding clause that reports that the clothes are not expelled. The Vulgate makes šilḥû a verb form: nudabatur, ‘he was uncovered’, and procures the hammāyim on the act of baptism: baptismum. During the course of scholarly research, numerous proposals have been made. There is a clear tendency to read hammāyim as hayyad, ‘in the (right hand)’ (Williamson; Fensham; Blenkinsopp; Schunck), although this reading is not supported by the ancient versions.

DROUGHT,

HUNGER AND REDISTRIBUTION

NEHEMIAH 5:1-13

1 2

3

Nowtherewasagreatoutcryofthepeopleandoftheirwivesagainst theirJewishkin. Fortherewerethosewhosaid, ‘Withoursonsandourdaughters,wearemany;wemustget grain,sothatwemayeatandstayalive.’ Therewerealsothosewhosaid, ‘We are having to pledge our fields, our vineyards, and our housesinordertogetgrainduringthefamine.’

Nomoremuddle! 4

5

6 7

8

 9 

10 11

12

 13

 

215

Andtherewerethosewhosaid, ‘Wearehavingtoborrowmoneyonourfieldsandvineyardsto paytheking’stax. Ourfieldsandvineyardsnowbelongtoothers.Weareforced toselloursonsanddaughterstobeslaves.Wearepowerless. Nowourfleshisthesameasthatofourkindred;ourchildren arethesameastheirchildren.’ IwasveryangrywhenIheardtheiroutcryandthesecomplaints. After thinking it over, I brought charges against the nobles and the officials;Isaidtothem, ‘Youarealltakinginterestfromyourownpeople.’ Icalledagreatassemblytodealwiththem,andsaidtothem, ‘As far as we were able, we have bought back our Judaean kindredwhohadbeensoldtoothernations;butnowyouare sellingyourownkin,whomustthenbeboughtbackbyus!’ Theyweresilentandcouldnotfindawordtosay. SoIsaid, ‘Thethingthatyouaredoingisnotgood.Shouldyounotwalk inthefearofourGod,topreventthetauntsofthenations,our enemies? Moreover,Iandmybrothersandmyservantsarelendingthem moneyandgrain.Letusstopthistakingofinterest. Restoretothem,thisveryday,theirfields,theirvineyards,their olive orchards, and their houses, and the interest on money, grain,wine,andoilthatyouhavebeenexactingfromthem.’ Thentheysaid, ‘We will restore everything and demand nothing more from them.Wewilldoasyousay.’ I called the priests and made them take an oath to do as they had promised. Ialsoshookoutthefoldofmygarmentandsaid, ‘So,mayGodshakeouteveryonefromhouseandfromproperty whodoesnotperformthispromise.Thus,maytheybeshaken outandemptied.’ Alltheassemblysaid, ‘Amen’, andpraisedYHWH.Andthepeopledidastheyhadpromised.

The cohesion of the community is not limited to material matters. Neh. 5 narrates events that are evidently connected to the moral construction of the community. Neh. 5 tells about a famine and how its consequences were countered by Nehemiah. The coherence with the foregoing is not immediately

216

Nehemiah1-7

clear. The text-internal chronology suggests a connection with Neh. 4, as if the drought followed soon after the recovery of the walls. At the level of history, the immediate sequence of events is doubted. Many assume that the drought/hunger episode took place in a much later period of the mission of Nehemiah and that the editor of the Biblical Book for some unclear reason has linked these episodes (Batten; Becker).109 Others assume a relatively short time interval between the events in both chapters (Myers; Williamson; Schunk).110 Wright considers Neh. 5:1-13 as written by the hand of the final editor without having any historical value.111 In my opinion, this chapter, regardless of the historical emergence of the story, offers a socio-economic background to the rebuilding of the walls. Here another threat is depicted than in Neh. 4. The text section contains three coherent episodes:112 – Neh. 5: 1-5 expressing a triple complaint – Neh. 5: 6-11 Nehemiah’s reactions: anger and proposal – Neh. 5:12-13 Redistribution. 5:1-5      

Now there was a great outcry of the people and of their wives againsttheirJewishkin. Fortherewerethosewhosaid, ‘With our sons and our daughters, we are many; we must get grain,sothatwemayeatandstayalive.’ Therewerealsothosewhosaid, ‘We are having to pledge our fields, our vineyards, and our housesinordertogetgrainduringthefamine.’ Andtherewerethosewhosaid, ‘Wearehavingtoborrowmoneyonourfieldsandvineyardsto paytheking’stax.

109 See also D. Bodi, Jérusalemàl’époqueperse, Paris 2002; T. Reinmuth, DerBericht Nehemias:ZurliterarischenEigenart,traditionsgeschichltlichenPrägungundinnerbiblischen RezeptiondesIch-BerichtesNehemias (OBO 183), Freiburg Göttingen 2002, 129-37. 110 See also T.C. Eskenazi, InanAgeofProse:ALiteraryApproachtoEzra-Nehemiah (SBL MS 36), Atlanta 1988, 77-88; L.L. Grabbe, JudaismfromCyrustoHadrian, London 1994, 163-64; J.W. Rogerson, TheoryandPracticeinOldTestamentEthics (JSOT Sup 405), London 2004, 131-32; Edelman, Origins, 340-41. 111 Wright, RebuildingIdentity, 163-88. 112 M. Häusl, ‘Searching for Forces of Group Cohesion in the Books of Nehemiah and Isaiah’, in: S. Gillmayr-Bucher, M. Häusl (eds), Ṣedaqa and Torah in Postexilic Discourse (LHB/OTS 640), London, New York 2017, 56-61 only reckons with two scenes. In my opinion the section on redistribution is to be seen to be a separate item.

Nomoremuddle! 

217

Ourfieldsandvineyardsnowbelongtoothers.Weareforcedto selloursonsanddaughterstobeslaves.Wearepowerless.Now ourfleshisthesameasthatofourkindred;ourchildrenarethe sameastheirchildren.’

The first episode describes the expression of a triple complaint: hunger, poverty, and despair. These complaints are expressed by three different groups, as evidenced by the repeated weyēš’ašer’omrîm, ‘some said’ (5:2, 3 and 4). There may have been three different social groups involved (Schunk).113 Other scholars think of three stages in the process of impoverishment.114 The cause of the crisis is not mentioned in so many words. In my opinion, this was caused by a period of drought (also: Shepherd & Wright).115 The impact of crop failure was reinforced by local economic conditions. The poorer sections of the population were caught in a network of obligations. Their reserves were emptied. They were forced to sell their land or provide it as collateral for a loan in order to pay off their debts and to meet the tax obligations.116 From Babylonian and Persian economic documents it can be deduced that interest rates on loans could reach 40-50% per annum.117 Crop-failure could bring people further down the road to oblivion: the means to pay off debts were lacking and sections of the people stood at the edge of the abyss. The caprices of nature in combination with the free-market economy led to a dramatic result. Their complaint and appeal are based on the principle of equivalence, as evidenced by their language. They regard the ‘others’ as their ‘brothers’ (5:1) and as people of the same flesh and blood (5:5).118 Their peers on

113 Thus also: H. Kreissig, DiesozialökonomischeSituationinJudazurAchämenidenzeit (Schriften zur Geschichte und Kultur des Alten Orients 7), Berlin 1973, 78-79; N. Gottwald, ‘The Expropriated and the Expropriators in Nehemiah 5’, in: M.R. Sneed (ed.), Conceptsof ClassinAncientIsrael(South Florida Studies in the History of Judaism 201), Atlanta 1999, 1-19; Häusl, ‘Searching for Forces of Group Cohesion’, 56-58. 114 E.g. H.G. Kippenberg, ReligionundKlassenbildungimantikenJudäa:einereligionswissenschaftliche Studie zum Verhältnis von Tradition und gesellschaftlicher Entwicklung, Göttingen 1982, 55-62. 115 For details see B. Becking, ‘Coping with Drought and Famine in some Post Exilic Texts’, in: E. ben Zvi and C. Levin (eds), Thinking of Water in the Early Second Temple Period (BZAW 461), Berlin, New York 2014, 229-255. 116 On taxation see: Williamson; J. Wiesehöfer, DasantikePersienvon550v.Chr.bis 650n.Chr.,München Zürich 1994, 98-102; M. Heltzer, TheProvinceofJudahandJewsin PersianTimes, Tel Aviv 2008, 161-72. 117 See E. Neufeld, ‘The Rate Interest and the Text of Nehemiah 5:11’, JQR 44 (1953-54), 203-04; C.D. Gross, ‘Is There Any Interest in Nehemiah 5?’, SJOT 11 (1997), 270-78. 118 See also D. Janzen, Witch-Hunts,PurityandSocialBoundaries:TheExpulsionofthe ForeignWomeninEzra9-10 (JSOT Sup 350), Sheffield 2002, 93-98.

218

Nehemiah1-7

the other side of the social divide show neither emotion nor empathy (Williamson; Becker; Schunk; Shepherd & Wright).119 The first complaint relates to a shortage of grain, especially in families with a greater number of children. The verbal form weniqḥāh is not immediately transparent. It is a cohortativus of the verb lqḥ, which here has the meaning ‘to acquire’. The preceding waw copulativum has a causal force, which leads to the following descriptive translation: ‘Make us able to … acquire’.120 The second complaint has the same syntactic structure as the first one. Here we find a group of impoverished landowners; they are forced to mortgage their fields, vineyards and houses. Neh. 5:3 is the only instance in the Hebrew Bible where the verb ‘rb is used to indicate the pawn for a loan. Among the Aramaic documents from Elephantine there is text describing an agreement between Ananyah, the son of Haggai, and the Egyptian Pachnum, about borrowing a large amount of dinkel wheat dating from the year 402. The document does not mention interest, but there is a penalty for late refunding. The document also describes the dramatic consequences for Ananyah and his offspring if he cannot repay the loan.121

A third group relates, as a reason for their impoverishment, that they were forced to borrow money to be able to pay the imperial tax; concerning this tax, see Ezra 4:13. The elliptical construction of the clause suggests that ‘our fields and our vineyards’ were given as collateral. The complaints are brought together under an appeal to the concept of solidarity. In fact, the victims sighed that they are equal to their unaffected peers. Because of the economic downturn, the victims had to pay off their children in debt slavery and lost their fields and vineyards. It is noted that such matters are permitted by law (Exod. 21:2-11; 22:24-26; Lev. 25; Deut. 15).122 The prophets in ancient Israel, however, vehemently criticized these practices precisely based on the principle of equality and groupinternal solidarity.123

119 See also J.M. Halligan, ‘Nehemiah 5: By Way of Response to Hoglund and Smith’, in: P.R. Davies (ed.), Second Temple Studies, Vol. 1: Persian Period (JSOT Sup 117), Sheffield 1991, 146-53; E. Gerstenberger, IsraelinderPerserzeit(Biblische Enzyklopädie 8), Stuttgart 2005, 95-96; Wright, RebuildingIdentity, 180-88. 120 See, e.g. Waltke, O’Connor, IntroductiontoBiblicalHebrewSyntax, § 33.4 121 Williamson; it concerns the document TADAE3:13, see also A. Botta, TheAramaic and Egyptian Legal Traditions at Elephantine: An Egyptological Approach (LSTS 64), London, New York 2009, 58. 122 See, e.g. E. Otto, TheologischeEthikdesAltenTestaments (ThW 3.2), Stuttgart 1994, 249-56. 123 See C. van Leeuwen, LedéveloppementdusenssocialenIsraël (SSN 1), Assen 1955.

Nomoremuddle! 5:6 

219

IwasveryangrywhenIheardtheiroutcryandthesecomplaints.

Nehemiah’s primary reaction is anger. He burns loose with anger (Jagersma). The Qal of the verb ḥrh is frequently used in the Hebrew Bible to describe the divine or human response to atrocity and injustice. Both will be explained with an example: God’s preference for the sacrifice of Abel leads to anger with Cain (Gen. 4:5). The refusal of Moses ignites God in anger (Exod. 4:14). Anger is a human emotion attributed to God by analogy. The expression of anger is ultimately a sign of deeply committed involvement. Only people who really care for others can become furious with them. The same applies by analogy to God.124

5:7-11 After thinking it over, I brought charges against the nobles and theofficials;Isaidtothem,  ‘Youarealltakinginterestfromyourownpeople.’  Icalledagreatassemblytodealwiththem,andsaidtothem,  ‘As far as we were able, we have bought back our Judaean kindred who had been sold to other nations; but now you are sellingyourownkin,whomustthenbeboughtbackbyus!’  Theyweresilentandcouldnotfindawordtosay.  So,Isaid,  ‘Thethingthatyouaredoingisnotgood.Shouldyounotwalk inthefearofourGod,topreventthetauntsofthenations,our enemies?  Moreover,Iandmybrothersandmyservantsarelendingthem moneyandgrain.Letusstopthistakingofinterest.  Restoretothem,thisveryday,theirfields,theirvineyards,their olive orchards, and their houses, and the interest on money, grain,wine,andoilthatyouhavebeenexactingfromthem.’ Nehemiah, however, does not linger in anger, but consults himself (mlk Ni.). He does not remain emotional but proposes concrete measures. Contrary to the prevailing ideology, he presents measures that economically reflect a redistribution. Redistribution is one of three economic base mechanisms: exchange, gift and redistribution. These three mechanisms determine each economic system, although culturally-defined patterns will provide a different

124 See, e.g. P.A. Kruger, ‘A cognitive interpretation of the emotion of anger in the Hebrew Bible’, JNSL 26 (2000), 181-93; E.J. van Wolde, ‘Sentiments as culturally constructed emotions: anger and love in the Hebrew Bible’, BibInt 16 (2008), 1-24; J. Jeremias, DerZorn Gottes im Alten Testament: Das biblische Israel zwischen Verwerfung und Erwählung (BThSt 104), Neukirchen-Vluyn 2009.

220

Nehemiah1-7

and ever-changing mix of these three mechanisms. The essence of redistribution is that income, prosperity and risks are being redistributed, whether successful or ‘beneficial’, for example through progressive taxation for the financing of collective goods or services, with the most contributing parties not necessarily those who profit most. Of the three mentioned mechanisms, redistribution is usually the most threatened because the relationship between private ‘offer’ and private ‘profit’ is least directly visible and therefore evokes much free-riding behaviour (tax evasion, for example). Therefore, redistribution mechanisms are often dependent upon prophetic and ideological safeguards and defences, unless it can, of course, be enforced with (structural) power.125 What Nehemiah proposes is a redistribution of property that must ensure that the community as a whole can have a future. In addition, Nehemiah reverts to the old idea of the šemiṭṭa, ‘remission’ (Exod. 23:10-11; Deut. 15).126 With his proposal, he honours the complaint of the impoverished on the principle of equivalence in ancient Israel. Nehemiah accuses the leaders of the community that they ask usury from their compatriots. The noun maššā’, ‘usury’, is attested only here and at Neh. 5:10. In Deut. 24:10 and Prov. 22:26, the collateral form maššā’āh is used to warn any scrooge. Then he calls together a meeting in which he delivers a speech. In that speech three elements emerge. (1) Nehemiah takes over the complaint of the impoverished; (2) he condemns the behaviour towards the impoverished from a religious point of view and (3) he proposes a redistribution of property and debt. Of great importance is v. 10. Nehemiah does not place himself above or beyond the arrangement but, shows that he is personally involved and will lose some of his properties by the proposed measures. The enumeration of ‘grain, must and oil’ also appears elsewhere in the Hebrew Bible as a triple merism indicating the whole of the proceeds of agricultural activities, thus pointing to the basic conditions for human life (see, for example, Num. 18:12 Deut. 11:14; 12:17; 14:23; 18:4; Hos. 2:24; Joel 1:10).127

125 On redistribution see: H. Uusitalo, ‘Redistribution and Equality in the Welfare State: An Effort to Interpret the Major Findings of Research on the Redistributive Effects of Welfare State’, European Sociological Review 1 (1985), 163-76; G. Tullock, Economics of Income Redistribution(Studies in Public Choice 11), Boston 1997; Häusl, ‘Searching for Forces of Group Cohesion’, 58-61. 126 See, e.g. N.P. Lemche, ‘The Manumission of Slaves: The Fallow Year, the Sabbatical Year, the Jobel Year’, VT 26 (1976), 38-59; R. Albertz, Religionsgeschichte Israels in alttestamentlicherZeit (Grundrisse zum Alten Testament, 8/1-2), Göttingen 1992; Otto, TheologischeEthik, 249-56; W. Dietrich, “Theopolitik”:StudienzurTheologieundEthikdesAlten Testaments, Neukirchen-Vluyn 2002, 184-93. 127 See C.L. Crouch, Israel and the Assyrians: Deuteronomy, the Succession Treaty of Esarhaddon,andtheNatureofSubversion(ANEM 8), Atlanta 2014, 136-37, who argues that this section is devoid of treaty – or covenant terminology.

Nomoremuddle!

221

5:12-13   13 

  

Thentheysaid, ‘We will restore everything and demand nothing more from them.Wewilldoasyousay.’ Icalledthepriestsandmadethemtakeanoathtodoastheyhad promised. Ialsoshookoutthefoldofmygarmentandsaid, ‘So,mayGodshakeouteveryonefromhouseandfromproperty who does not perform this promise. Thus, may they be shaken outandemptied.’ Alltheassemblysaid, ‘Amen’, andpraisedYHWH.Andthepeopledidastheyhadpromised.

The creditors accept the proposal of Nehemiah. Their positive reaction is confirmed with an oath to the priests. Rightly, Williamson points out that the text does not give rise to seeing the remission of debt as part of a ceremony to renew the covenant. Neh. 5 lacks covenant terminology and the mechanism of redistribution is mainly to be understood as Gebot der Stunde.128 The episode ends with a sign-act by Nehemiah.129 With this act, he underlines his message in a non-verbal way. Symbolically, he depicts a curse. As he shakes the dust out of the folds of his robe, God will do with all who will not obey the oath. With the word ‘Amen’ the whole community confirms the procedure and all do as is stated.

THE GOOD GOVERNOR NEHEMIAH 5:14-19

14

15

128

Moreover, from the twentieth year of King Artaxerxes, when I was appointedtobetheirgovernorinthelandofJudah,untilhisthirtysecondyear–twelveyears–neitherInormybrothersatethefood allottedtothegovernor. But the earlier governors – those preceding me – placed a heavy burden on the people and took forty shekels of silver from them in addition to food and wine. Their assistants also lorded it over the people.ButoutofreverenceforGodIdidnotactlikethat.

Pace D.J. McCarthy, ‘Covenant and Law in Chronicles-Nehemiah’, CBQ 44 (1982),

25-44. 129 With K.G. Friebel, Jeremiah’s and Ezekiel’s Sign-Acts: Rhetorical Nonverbal  ommunication (JSOT Sup 283), Sheffield 1999, I prefer the classification ‘sign-act’ over C the more traditional ‘symbolic-act’.

222

Nehemiah1-7

16

Instead,Idevotedmyselftotheworkonthiswall.Allmymenwere assembledthereforthework;wedidnotacquireanyland. Furthermore, a hundred and fifty Judeans and officials ate at my table,aswellasthosewhocametousfromthesurroundingnations. Eachdayoneox,sixchoicesheepandsomepoultrywereprepared forme,andeverytendaysanabundantsupplyofwineofallkinds. Inspiteofallthis,Ineverdemandedthefoodallottedtothegovernor, becausethedemandswereheavyonthesepeople. Remember me with favour, my God, for all I have done for these people.

17 18

19

The royal ideology of the ancient Near East included – among many other things – the following two features: (1) The good king is often depicted in contrast with his ‘bad’ predecessors; (2) The good king makes sure that his subjects profit from an emerging economy, paying little tax.130 Neh. 5:14-19 is a text giving account that reminds the ‘letters to the deity’ in which several New Assyrian kings accounted for what they had done with the divine mandate.131 In Neh. 5:14-19, Nehemiah gives account to three parties: (1) the Persian king who appointed him; (2) the God of Israel and (3) the inhabitants of Jerusalem and the surrounding area. In these verses, an image of Nehemiah is portrayed of a good governor who, better than his predecessors, worked out his mandate and did not enrich himself at the expense of others.132 The textual unit derives from the Nehemiah-memoir (Williamson). The section has probably been located here by the editor because the content matches the comment in 5:10 about Nehemiah’s personal involvement in the crisis. The tendency of 5:14-19 marks the general attitude of Nehemiah which, by implication, cannot be limited to the episode of the economic crisis.

130 A great number of sources and literature could be mentioned here; see generally B. Pongratz-Leisten, ReligionandIdeologyinAssyria (SANER 6), Berlin, New York 2017. As for texts, I confine myself to: Psalm 72 – see M. Arneth, “Sonne der Gerechtigkeit”. StudienzurSolarisierungderJahwe-ReligionimLichtevonPsalm72, (BZAR 1), Wiesbaden 2000; R.S. Salo, Die judäische Königsideologie im Kontext der Nachbarkulturen: UntersuchungenzudenKönigspsalmen2,18,20,21,45und72 (ORA 25), Tübingen 2017 205-72; the Cyrus Cylinder – most recent edition: P.-R. Berger, ‚Der Kyros-Zylinder mit dem Zusatzfragment BIN II Nr. 32 und die akkadische Personennamen im Danielbuch‘, ZA64 (1975), 192-234; see now I. Finkel (ed.), The Cyrus Cylinder: The King of Persia’s Proclamation fromAnceintBabylon, London 2013; for the Akkadian literary prophecies see T. Longman, FictionalAkkadianAutobiography:AGenericandComparativeStudy, Winona Lake1991. 131 See esp. the ‘letter’ of Sargon II after his campaign against Urartu, W. Mayer, Sargons FeldzuggegenUrartu-714v.Chr., Berlin 1984. 132 See also Wright, RebuildingIdentity, 171-79.

Nomoremuddle!

223

5:14  Moreover,fromthetwentiethyearofKingArtaxerxes,whenIwas appointedtobetheirgovernorinthelandofJudah,untilhisthirtysecondyear–twelveyears–neitherInormybrothersatethefood allottedtothegovernor. The responsibility account is opened with the announcement that neither Nehemiah nor his ‘brothers’ have made use of the arrangement that he as a governor was entitled to food paid by others. In this piece of text, Nehemiah is called pèḥāh, ‘governor’, a title that is not given to him elsewhere. The Assyrian loanword can refer to the leader of a larger area, such as the governor of the satrapy ebîr narî in Ezra 5:3 but, refers here to the governor appointed by the Persians about a much smaller unit: the province of Yehud. The narrator thus increases the importance of Nehemiah within the Persian administrative hierarchy. The collocation ṣiwwāh ’otî, ‘he appointed me’, is (in view of the absence of a subject) usually read as one-word ṣw’ty, ‘I was appointed’ (Rudolph; Williamson; Blenkinsopp).133 This reading is not supported by the ancient versions. Moreover, the silencing of the subject has a literary function, because initially it is left open by whomever Nehemiah was appointed (Schunck). The form pèḥām, ‘their governor’, is often read as péḥāh, ‘governor’ (Williamson; Blenkinsopp).134 However, the ancient versions clearly read a suffix 3.m.pl.135

5:15  But the earlier governors – those preceding me – placed a heavy burdenonthepeopleandtookfortyshekelsofsilverfromthemin addition to food and wine. Their assistants also lorded it over the people.ButoutofreverenceforGodIdidnotactlikethat. Nehemiah is placed in clear contrast with the governors before him. This raises the historical question, who were they? Some scholars assume that the text refers to certain guardians in Jerusalem, although these sources are not known from the Hebrew Bible or other texts (Williamson).136 Others are of the opinion that governors are implied who ruled from Samaria over the area around Jerusalem. With the advent of Nehemiah, Jerusalem would become more independent of Samaria. Nehemiah was construed as

133

See also Reinmuth, DerBerichtNehemias, 117. Also Reinmuth, DerBerichtNehemias, 119. 135 See D. Fulton, ‘What Kind of Governor was Nehemiah? The Titles ‫ ֶפּ ָחה‬and ‫ִתּ ְר ָשׁ ָתא‬ in MT and LXX Ezra-Nehemiah’, ZAW130 (2018), 252-67. 136 See also M. Smith, Palestinian Parties and Politics that shaped the Old Testament, New York 1971; S.E. McAvenue, ‘The Political Structure in Judah from Cyrus to Nehemiah’, CBQ 43 (1981), 353-64. 134

224

Nehemiah1-7

a successor to the governors in Samaria (Rudolph).137 More important than the historical question, however, is the contrast that is drawn between ‘earlier governors/guardians’ and the ‘good governor’. Over against the heavy burdens imposed by the first group, stands the god-fearing Nehemiah. 5:16-18 Instead, I devoted myself to the work on this wall. All my men wereassembledthereforthework;wedidnotacquireanyland.  Furthermore, a hundred and fifty Judeans and officials ate at my table,aswellasthosewhocametousfromthesurroundingnations.  Eachdayoneox,sixchoicesheepandsomepoultrywereprepared forme,andeverytendaysanabundantsupplyofwineofallkinds. Despiteallthis,Ineverdemandedthefoodallottedtothegovernor, becausethedemandswereheavyonthesepeople. Nehemiah emphasizes his general attitude to his behaviour during the period of restoration of the wall by indicating three data. Firstly, he reports that he was involved in the repairs without claiming compensation for himself in the form of a piece of agricultural land. He then announces that he invited 150 staff members to his own table. Finally, he summoned the dishes he offered. The excess of protein rich food: one ox, six sheep and some poultry per day and abundant liquor every ten days is in the tradition of the ancient royal ideology. A good king was supposed to provide sufficient food for his subjects (see, for example, Ps. 72:16). 5:19  Remember me with favour, my God, for all I have done for these people. The accountability ends with a short prayer to God. Nehemiah asks God to commemorate him (zkr) because of the good he has done for ‘this people’. It is remarkable that both here and at 13:31, the call to remembrance, the somewhat unusual addition leṭôbāh, ‘for goodness’, is placed. Remembrance seems by definition ‘beneficial’, but remembering evil occurs a single time in the Hebrew Bible (I Kgs 17:18; Ps. 79:8). The verb zkr appears in the Hebrew Bible more than 250 times. Both God and human beings can be subject of memorial. The call to God to remember a human being focuses on the hope that this person may experience immediate and tangible consequences of God’s interference. In fact, it is a petition for divine blessing for

137 See esp. A. Alt, ‘Die Rolle Samarias bei der Entstehung des Judentums’, in: Kleine SchriftenzurGeschichtedesVolkesIsraelsII, München 1953, 316-37.

Nomoremuddle!

225

further life (see, for example, Gen. 8:1; Exod. 32:13; I Sam. 1:19).138 In the case of Nehemiah, he asks if God wants to acknowledge him as the earthly instrument that sends and executes God’s plans. In the dedication inscriptions from the second temple period as found on Mount Gerizim, there are many texts in which God is asked for a ‘good remembrance’, for example: ‘Delayah, the son of Simeon, offered this stone to himself and his sons in view of a good remembrance (dkrnṭb) by God in this place’ (MGI 147).139

NO

FEAR OF FALSE PROPHECY

NEHEMIAH 6:1-14

1

NowwhenSanballatandTobiahandGeshemtheArabandtherest ofourenemiesheardthatIhadbuiltthewallandthattherewasno breachleftinit–althoughuptothattimeIhadnotsetupthedoors inthegates– SanballatandGeshemsenttome,saying, ‘ComeandletusmeettogetheratHakkephirimintheplainof Ono.’ Buttheyintendedtodomeharm. Isentmessengerstothem,saying, ‘IamdoingagreatworkandIcannotcomedown. Why should the work stop while I leave it and come down to you?’ They sent to me four times in this way, and I answered them in the samemanner. For the fifth time Sanballat sent his servant in the same way to me withanopenletterinhishand. Initwaswritten, ‘Itisreportedamongthenations,andGeshemalsosaysit,that youandtheJudaeansintendtorebel;thatiswhyyouarebuildingthewall.Andaccordingtothesereportsyouwishtobecome theirking.

2   3   4 5 6 

138

On the verb zkr see: P.A.H. de Boer, GedenkenundGedächtnisinderWeltdesAlten Testaments, Stuttgart 1962; J.A. Loader, ‘Prosthetic Memory in the Old Testament’, OTE 25 (2012), 583-597; A.K. de Hemmer Gudme, BeforetheGodinthisPlaceforgoodRemembrance: A Comparative Analysis of the Aramaic Votive Inscriptions from Mount Gerizim (BZAW 441), Berlin New York 2013, 135-38. 139 Y. Magen, H. Misgav, L. Tsfania, MountGerizimExcavations:Volume1TheAramaic, HebrewandSamaritanInscriptions (Judea and Samaria Publications 2), Jerusalem 2004; with De Hemmer Gudme, BeforetheGodinthisPlaceforgoodRemembrance; Hensel, Judaund Samaria, 51-67.

226 7   8  9   10 

11  12

13 14

Nehemiah1-7 You have also set up prophets to proclaim concerning you in Jerusalem, ‘ThereisakinginJudah.’ Andnowthekingwillhearofthesereports.Sonowcomeand letustakecounseltogether.’ ThenIsenttohim,saying, ‘Nosuchthingsasyousayhavebeendone,foryouareinventingthemoutofyourownmind.’ Fortheyallwantedtofrightenus,thinking, ‘Theirhandswilldropfromthework,anditwillnotbedone.’ Butnow,God,Ijuststrengthenedmyhands. NowwhenIwentintothehouseofShemaiahthesonofDelaiah,son ofMehetabel,whowasconfinedtohishome,hesaid, ‘LetusmeettogetherinthehouseofGod,withinthetemple.Let usclosethedoorsofthetemple,fortheyarecomingtokillyou. Theyarecomingtokillyoubynight.’ ButIsaid, ‘Should such a man as I run away? And what man such as Icouldgointothetempleandlive?Iwillnotgoin.’ I understood and saw that God had not sent him, but he had pronouncedtheprophecyagainstmebecauseTobiahandSanballathad hiredhim. Forthispurposehewashired,thatIshouldbeafraidandactinthisway andsin,andsotheycouldgivemeabadnameinordertotauntme. RememberTobiahandSanballat,OmyGod,accordingtothesethings that they did, and also the prophetess Noadiah and the rest of the prophetswhowantedtomakemeafraid.

Neh. 6 also has its origin in the Nehemiah-memoir (Williamson). The first fourteen verses tell about another dimension of resistance to the restoration of the walls of Jerusalem. The opponents around Sanballat put two arguments against Nehemiah’s efforts: prophecy and rebellion. They claim that Nehemiah would have used prophets to substantiate his claim to the Davidic throne in Jerusalem and that he would like to rebel against the Persian king from there. The theme of (false) prophecy returns in the second episode, when Nehemiah does not react to the suggestion to flee to the temple in connection with a possible attack on his life. The section is finalized with an intercession on behalf of Sanballat, Tobiah and the prophetess Noadiah. Most scholars consider Neh. 6 as a literary unit, with only a single later addition (Williamson). Torrey regards vv. 16-19 as a later addition.140 He is

140

Torrey, EzraStudies, 226, 248.

Nomoremuddle!

227

correct in thinking that another theme is being addressed. I myself see vv. 15-19 as a report from the Nehemiah-memoir about the situation after the completion of the recovery. Rudolph and, in his footsteps, Kellermann see vv. 11-13 as a later gloss.141 However, their argument is vague – Nehemiah would not have been able to express both aspects: asylum in the temple and exposure of prophecy – and, therefore, not convincing. In this chapter, the theme of (false) prophecy plays an important role. The tension between true and false prophecy is also discussed elsewhere in the Hebrew Bible (Deut. 18; I Kgs 22; Jer. 28; Mic. 3). In Deut. 18:22 a clear criterion is given: the true prophecy will turn out, in reality, not false. Despite this clarity, it is a difficult criterion because the judgment of a prophecy is postponed to the (near) future and many prophecies are pronounced at times in which an immediate response is sought and, therefore, there is not always time to bear the (near) future. Shepherd is correct in construing the final sentence of Deut. 18:22 as an hermeneutic key for understanding Neh. 6.142 Deut. 18:22 ends with the words ‘do not be afraid of him’. The verb used there, gwr, ‘to be afraid; have awe for’, is synonymous to the verb yr’, ‘to fear’, used in Neh. 6:13. 6:1-4 NowwhenSanballatandTobiahandGeshemtheArabandtherest ofourenemiesheardthatIhadbuiltthewallandthattherewasno breachleftinit–althoughuptothattimeIhadnotsetupthedoors inthegates–  SanballatandGeshemsenttome,saying,  ‘Come and let us meet together at Hakkephirim in the plain ofOno.’  Buttheyintendedtodomeharm.  Isentmessengerstothem,saying,  ‘IamdoingagreatworkandIcannotcomedown.  Why should the work stop while I leave it and come down toyou?’  Theysenttomefourtimesinthisway,andIansweredtheminthe amemanner. The first verse is an introductory positioning to 6:1-14. This verse informs the reader about the circumstances of the conflict and indicates who the main characters are. The conflict in Nehemiah 6 is placed against the background of the moment when the recovery of the walls is almost ready. The verb form bānîtî, ‘I build; I have built’, can still indicate the construction 141

Rudolph; Kellermann, Nehemia, 22-23. D. Shepherd, ‘Prophetaphobia: Fear and False Prophecy in Nehemiah vi’, VT 55 (2005), 232-50. 142

228

Nehemiah1-7

process itself. However, the parallels of this form elsewhere in the Hebrew Bible indicate that a finished past time must be construed and thus a rounded off action. In the prayer of Solomon at the dedication of the temple, the form bānîtî occurs four times to indicate the completed temple building (I Kgs 8:13, 27, 43, 48). Although recovery is advanced in relation to the situation in Neh. 4:7 (Hebr. 4:1) and there are no more breaches in the wall, the repair is not yet completed. The gates are not yet provided with doors that can block access. The same group of opponents must now, having been unable to frustrate the recovery, apply a different tactic to interfere with Nehemiah (thus: Williamson). They send a messenger with an invitation to a meeting in the town of Kefirim located in the valley near the city of Ono. The narrator immediately makes clear that Nehemiah suspects a scurvy plan behind this neutrally formulated invitation. He sees in advance that they want to do him rā‘āh, ‘evil’, without specifying the nature of that evil. In the list of people who are listed for them repairing the walls, the personal name Tobiah lacks the prefix, le, ‘to’, which is present before Sanballat and Geshem. For some exegetes, this is the reason to construe ‘and Tobiah’, as a gloss (see Williamson). The name Tobiah is also absent in v. 2. In the LXX, the name Tobiah is mentioned, but this name, different from Sanballat and Geshem, is not preceded by an article in the dativus. The topographical name kefîrîm, ‘Kefirim’, is not mentioned elsewhere in the Hebrew Bible. LXX: en tais komais, and Vulg: in viculis, read kefārîm, ‘(in) the villages’, leaving Nehemiah the choice of where in the valley of Ono he wants to meet his opponents. Schiemann notes that the Hebrew text could also be translated with ‘(with) the lions’. In Nah. 2:12-14 and Ezek. 19:2-6 lions stand metaphorically for ‘princes. Then he argues that the verb y‘d Hi., ‘to come together’, can also be translated with ‘let us covenant together’. Therefore, he proposes to translate 6:2 with ‘let us covenant together with the princes’.143 This somewhat far-fetched interpretation has correctly been rejected (Williamson). ’ônô, ‘Ono’, is a place in the territory of the Benjaminites (I Chron. 8:12; Ezra 2:23 = Neh. 7:37; Neh. 11:35). ‘The valley of Ono’ refers to the Sharon-plain which is close to Ono. The opponents therefore propose a meeting in the border area between Jerusalem and Samaria.

Nehemiah’s response is diplomatic and clear. From his point of view, the repair of the walls is an important work that cannot be interrupted. Williamson does not construe lāmāh as an interrogative conjunction: ‘why?’, but as a causal pronoun, ‘therefore’. I disagree: Nehemiah wants to reject Sanballat’s proposal with a rhetorical question.

143

R. Schiemann, ‘Covenanting with the Princes: Neh vi 2’, VT 17 (1967), 367-69.

Nomoremuddle!

229

Up to four times Sanballat sends his request; up to four times Nehemiah repeats his reply. The narrative function of the number four is clear: Sanballat is depicted as a governor who keeps trying. The number four does not have a symbolic value here. 6:5-7 ForthefifthtimeSanballatsenthisservantinthesamewaytome withanopenletterinhishand.  Initwaswritten,  ‘Itisreportedamongthenations,andGeshemalsosaysit,that you and the Judaeans intend to rebel; that is why you are building the wall. And according to these reports you wish to becometheirking.  You have also set up prophets to proclaim concerning you in Jerusalem,  ‘ThereisakinginJudah.’  Andnowthekingwillhearofthesereports.Sonowcomeand letustakecounseltogether.’ When the fifth consignment is mentioned, the function of the transferor is given. The intermediary is a na‘ar, ‘boy; servant’. Above at 4:16 (Hebr. 4:10) it is reported that in post-exile texts the word na‘ar usually refers to a member of a group of servants with a specific assignment directly surrounding the governor.144 The intermediary is not just an insignificant servant. For ‘letter’, the Assyrian loanword ’iggèrèt, is used here. This word is used in Hebrew and Aramaic post-exilic texts to indicate official messages (see, for example, II Chron. 30:1, Esth. 9:26, 29, and many documents from Elephantine). The fact that the letter was ‘opened’ indicates that it was not a sealed document, but for a text that should be readable to everyone (Williamson). The introductory words, kātûbbāh, ‘In it was written …’, and the absence of ancient oriental epistolary formulas145 indicate that in 6:6-7 a summary of the letter is to be found (Williamson). Sanballat describes two rumours that travel around under the gôyîm, ‘peoples’, and connects a warning to that. The first rumour is that Nehemiah would strive to restore the monarchy in Jerusalem in order to be able to rebel from that position. Indeed, in some circles in the post-exile period, the hope of a restoration of the dynasty of David lived. The Persians even granted the right of kingship to extremely

144

See Stähli, Knabe-Jüngling-Knecht; Leeb, AwayfromtheFather’sHouse. On them see: D. Schwiderski, Handbuch des nordwestsemitischen Briefformulars. EinBeitragzurEchtheitsfragederaramäischenBriefedesEsrabuches (BZAW 295), Berlin, New York 2000. 145

230

Nehemiah1-7

loyal provinces. For Judah, the paxpersicameant partial autonomy restricted by Persian rule.146 Nehemiah has found himself a place in this political arrangement. He never sought kingship or independence. The second rumour concerns the appointment by Nehemiah of prophets who would have supported his claim on the throne in Jerusalem through an oracle. One of the remarkable differences between the Biblical books of Ezra and Nehemiah is that in the first-mentioned book, the performance of prophets (especially Haggai and Zachariah), the intended plot is brought closer to its aim by their actions. In the book of Nehemiah, this prophetic support is lacking in the unfolding of the plans.147 Sanballat connects a warning to the unproven rumours. These reports might have been heard by the Persian king with all its consequences. That is why he urges a meeting with Nehemiah. The idea of Williamson that Sanballat would also make his own hands dirty by a secret encounter with Nehemiah ignores the fact that Sanballat was aiming to put an end to alleged rebellion. The personal name Geshem differs from elsewhere in Nehemiah, being vocalized as gašmû, Gashmu. That this vocalization would come closer to the original Arabic name (Becker) is uncertain because pre-Islamic Arabic inscriptions are not vocalized. Hence, the original pronunciation of the name cannot be reconstructed.

6:8-9 ThenIsenttohim,saying,  ‘Nosuchthingsasyousayhavebeendone,foryouareinventing themoutofyourownmind.’  Fortheyallwantedtofrightenus,thinking,  ‘Theirhandswilldropfromthework,anditwillnotbedone.’  Butnow,God,strengthenmyhands. Nehemiah answers Sanballat loud and clear: nothing of this is true (Jagersma). This letter, too, lacks the usual epistolary formulas which points out that only a summary is given. Nehemiah denies the rumours and the reader is invited to believe him. Nehemiah qualifies the rumours as ‘delusions of the heart (of Sanballat)’. The expression is attested elsewhere only at I Kgs 12:33, where Jeroboam is accused of inventing an unprecedented festival in the eighth month. 146 See R. Albertz, ‘The Thwarted Restoration’, in: R. Albertz, B. Becking (eds), Yahwism aftertheExile:PerspectivesonIsraelitereligioninthePersianera(STAR 5), Assen 2003, 1-17. 147 See on this B. Becking, ‘Haggai & Zechariah in the Stories of Ezra and 1Esdras’, in: B. Becking, H.M. Barstad (eds), ProphetsandPropheciesinStories:PapersReadattheFifth MeetingoftheEdinburghProphecyNetwork,Utrecht,October2013 (OTS 65), Leiden 2015, 152-65.

Nomoremuddle!

231

The verb bd’, ‘to contrive’, appears in the Aramaic Achiqar novella, narrating that the unreliable cousin of the main character ‘contrives non-existing things’ (Achiqar 1:30). The verb may have a background in Arabic (Williamson).148

For the readers of the Nehemiah memoir, an analysis of the motifs of Sanballat is given by Nehemiah. The means are indicated by the participle meyār’îm. This Pi’el form of the verb yr’ has clearly factitive force: ‘to make angry’. Due to the fears evoked, Sanballat’s goal might have been achieved. The restoration of the wall would then have been halted. The verb used rph has a broad spectrum of meaning ‘to release; drop; distance oneself from’. With yādîm, ‘hands’, as subject, the verb constitutes a standing expression that means so much as ‘losing courage’ (see also: II Sam. 4:1, Isa. 13:17; Jer. 6:24; 50:43; Ezek. 7:17; 21:12; Zeph. 3:16). The last clause of v. 9 is problematic. Many translations construe the phrase as a prayer: ‘Now, strengthen my hands! ‘(KJV and many others). In line with the LXX and the Vulg., this should be seen to be a description of an act by Nehemiah: ‘But I just strengthened my hands’. This translation also follows a trend in recent research. Williamson, for example, presents three arguments against the notion that the clause is a prayer. (1) The ancient versions do not unanimously present the clause as a prayer. (2) Nowhere else, in the Hebrew Bible, is God summoned to ḥzq, ‘to strengthen’. (3) A clear appeal – like ‘O, God …’ – Is missing. However, these arguments are not convincing. The second argument meets a caveat. In Jer. 20:7, God is indeed the implied subject of the verb ḥzq. In a different context and meaning, God is indeed a subject of ḥzq: ‘Hardening the heart (of Pharaoh) (see Exod. 4:21, for example). In sum, the traditional rendering may be maintained. 6:10 NowwhenIwentintothehouseofShemaiahthesonofDelaiah,son ofMehetabel,whowasconfinedtohishome,hesaid,  ‘LetusmeettogetherinthehouseofGod,withinthetemple.Let usclosethedoorsofthetemple,fortheyarecomingtokillyou. Theyarecomingtokillyoubynight.’ In the next episode, Nehemiah is in the house of Shemaiah. The reason for this visit is not reported. This further unknown person is in a state of ‘anxious distress’. The word ‘āṣûr has been understood in many ways. It is a participle act. of the verb ‘ṣr. However, this verb has a broad spectrum of meaning.149 The meaning ‘to lock (oneself) up’ (KJV) makes little sense. 148 L. Kopf, ‘Arabische Etymologien und Parallelen zum Bibelwörterbuch’, VT 8 (1958), 165 (161-215). 149 See DCH VI, 537-39.

232

Nehemiah1-7

The same goes for ‘to be obstructed’ and ‘to be held’ (Becker). In line with the LXX, sunechómenos, ‘he was captured’, I choose the translation, ‘he was worried’ (see also Williamson). The personal name šema‘yāh, ‘YHWH hears’, is worn by about a dozen different people in the Hebrew Bible. Most of them are Levites. Shemaiah the son of Delaiah, the son of Mehetabel, is only referred to in Neh. 6:10.

Shemaiah proposes Nehemiah to hide in the interior of the temple. The Hebrew verb used for hiding, y‘d Ni., literally means ‘come together’ and is identical with the verb used in 6:2 to indicate the ‘coming together’ in the valley at Ono. Thus, the narrator says subtly that Shemaiah’s proposal is of the same character as that of Sanballat. The law on asylum states that a protected place is to be found at the altar in the courtyard of the temple (Exod. 21:13-14). The proposal of Shemaiah to shelter in the part of the temple, which is accessible only to priests, is therefore grotesque. As Nehemiah falls outside the strictly formulated rules regarding those who may seek asylum, it may be assumed that Shemaiah’s proposal does not involve an asylum procedure. In addition, he reports to Nehemiah that an unspecified group, ‘they’, will kill him in the forthcoming night. The location of the attack is not mentioned. The text opens the possibility that Shemaiah wants to tempt Nehemiah to ambush in the temple. The view of Ivry, that Shemaiah tempted Nehemiah to the temple in order to convert the temple into a military fortress from which Jerusalem could be defended, is just mentioned as rarity.150

6:11 ButIsaid,  ‘Should such a man as I run away? And what man such as Icouldgointothetempleandlive?Iwillnotgoin.’ Nehemiah answered Shemaiah, loud and clear, I will not go! He gives two arguments. (1) He does not want to flee from his responsibility. (2) He is aware of his non-priestly status, so therefore he cannot enter the temple’s interior. The expression wāḥāy, ‘and I will stay alive’, therefore does not indicate staying alive as a result of an asylum procedure (such as: Rudolph; Fensham; Becker), but points out the impossibility to stay alive for a layman who will approach the holiness of God, for example, through a visit to the interior of the temple (cf. Exod. 20:21, Deut. 5:25; see also Williamson). Nehemiah does not fear the enemy but has awe for God and temple.

150 A.L. Ivry, ‘Nehemiah 6, 10: Politics and the Temple’, JSJ 3 (1972), 35-45; see also the critical remarks by Williamson.

Nomoremuddle!

233

6:12-13 I understood and saw that God had not sent him, but he had pronouncedtheprophecyagainstmebecauseTobiahandSanballat hadhiredhim.  For this purpose, he was hired, that I should be afraid and act in thiswayandsin,andsotheycouldgivemeabadnameinorderto tauntme. Nehemiah apparently looked through the words of Shemaiah. The verb nkr Hi. has here the meaning of ‘to recognize; perceive; spot’ (see also, Judg. 18:3; I Sam. 26:7; Job 2:12). He understands that Shemaiah was not sent by God and that his words cannot be seen as nebû’āh, ‘prophecy’. He perceives that Shemaiah has been bribed. How Nehemiah knows that Tobiah is the evil genius behind this plan is not explained. The abstractum, nebû’āh, ‘prophecy’, appears only in post-exile texts (next to Neh. 6:12 also II. Chron. 9:29; 15: 8). The reflective word can indicate both true and ‘false’ prophecy.

The purpose of the plan appears to be to bring fear over Nehemiah, so that he would act in such a way that he would make himself ashamed. The word weḥāṭā’tî, ‘that I should sin’, does not have to be understood as a gloss (Rudolph).151 The proposal of a gloss is based on the idea that Neh. 6 would reflect an asylum procedure. With Williamson, I am of the opinion that the verb ‘to sin’ refers to the violation of the rule that non-priests cannot enter the interior of the temple. Nehemiah shows that he has no fear and causes himself not to be discredited. 6:14 Remember Tobiah and Sanballat, O my God, according to these thingsthattheydid,andalsotheprophetessNoadiahandtherest oftheprophetswhowantedtomakemeafraid. The episode continues with a prayer for revenge.152 As in Ps. 137:7, the construction zkrle has the meaning of ‘to charge’. In other prayers within the book of Nehemiah, the verb zkr has as its meaning ‘to remember’ (e.g. Neh. 1:8; 5:19; 13:14, 22, 29). In both cases, the clause contains a petition to God asking to repay the actions of a human being or a group with comparable deeds: good with good and evil with evil. This retaliation is not a matter for people among themselves. Nehemiah does not take justice in his own hands but realizes that revenge is the domain of God (see Deut. 32:35; Ps. 94:1). Retribution too is not seen to be an automatism: the execution of

151 152

See also Kellermann, Nehemia, 22-24. See also Häusl, „Ich betete zum Gott des Himmels“, 55.

234

Nehemiah1-7

revenge is left to God’s choice.153 The petition for revenge not only applies to the rulers Sanballat and Tobiah, but also to some prophets who sought to bring fear to Nehemiah. The prophetess nô‘adyāh, Noadjah, ‘the one to whom God made known’, is not mentioned anywhere else in the Hebrew Bible. Ezra 8:33 refers to a Levite with the same name.

THE WALL FINISHED NEHEMIAH 6:15-19

The message about the restoration of the wall is concluded with a comment on the completion of the work and its effects on the relations between Jerusalem and the surrounding areas. The material goes back to the Nehemiahmemoir (Williamson). 15 Thewallwascompletedonthetwenty-fifthofElul,infifty-twodays. 16 When all our enemies heard about this, all the surrounding nations wereafraidandlosttheirself-confidence,becausetheyrealizedthat thisworkhadbeendonewiththehelpofourGod. 17 Also,inthosedaysthenoblesofJudahweresendingmanylettersto Tobiah.RepliesfromTobiahkeptcomingtothem. 18 FormanyinJudahwereunderoathtohim,sincehewasson-in-law to Shekaniah son of Arah, and his son Jehohanan had married the daughterofMeshullamsonofBerekiah. 19 Moreover,theykeptreportingtomehisgooddeedsandthentelling himwhatIsaid.AndTobiahsentletterstointimidateme. 6:15

Thewallwascompletedonthetwenty-fifthofElul,infifty-twodays.

The completion of the restoration of the wall is reported in sober terms. References to ritual acts are missing. However, dates are mentioned. The work is finished on the twenty-fifth day of the month Elul and lasted for only 52 days. Williamson suggests that this relatively short construction time could be due to the not always good quality of work. He refers to the excavations of Kathleen Kenyon.154 The problem, however, is that

153 See fundamentally K. Koch, ‘Gibt es ein Vergeltungsdogma im Alten Testament?’, ZThK 52 (1955), 1-42. 154 K. Kenyon, DiggingupJerusalem, London, Tonbridge 1974, esp. 183.

Nomoremuddle!

235

archaeology has not found any recognizable or dateable wall remains from the Persian period.155 The month ’èlûl, ‘Elul’, ‘is the twelfth month in the Israelite autumnal calendar. The month is only mentioned in the Hebrew Bible in Neh. 6:15. The name of the month was derived from the Akkadian name elūlu during the Babylonian exile. When the completion of the rebuilding is to be dated in the twentieth year of Artaxerxes I Longimanus, this was on October 2, 445.

6:16  Whenallourenemiesheardaboutthis,allthesurroundingnations were afraid and lost their self-confidence, because they realized thatthisworkhadbeendonewiththehelpofourGod. The report on the quick completion evokes ‘fear’ and ‘disconsolation’ on the side of the opponents. The words ‘our enemies’ refer to Sanballat, Tobiah and Geshem. The ‘peoples around’ are probably a wider group than just the inhabitants of Samaria (contra Williamson). With the verb form, wayyir’û, ‘and they feared; had awe’, a contrast is made with the previous episode. Where Nehemiah did not fear the threat, the ‘others’ were full of awe. Moreover, the narrator has them acknowledge that the quick completion was only possible with divine aid. 6:17-19 Also,inthosedaysthenoblesofJudahweresendingmanyletters toTobiah.RepliesfromTobiahkeptcomingtothem.  FormanyinJudahwereunderoathtohim,sincehewasson-in-law toShekaniahsonofArah,andhissonJehohananhadmarriedthe daughterofMeshullamsonofBerekiah.  Moreover,theykeptreportingtomehisgooddeedsandthentelling himwhatIsaid.AndTobiahsentletterstointimidateme. This note gives insight into the complexity of relationships. There appears to have been some correspondence between Tobiah and the ḥorîm, ‘nobles’ (see about them 2:16). When that exchange of letters took place, cannot be said with certainty. The expression bayyāmîmhāhû’, ‘in those days’, may refer to (1) the period during the recovery of the walls or (2) the period after the completion of the walls. Williamson chooses the first option that explains how Nehemiah could have been aware of all kinds of inside information from the hostile camp. I choose the second option myself. The correspondence then indicates an indirect acceptance of the rebuilding and will have been concerning relations between Tobiah and the ‘nobles’ as the wall is now a faitaccompli. 155 I. Finkelstein, ‘Jerusalem in the Persian (and early Hellenistic) Period and the Wall of Nehemiah’, JSOT 32 (2008), 501-20.

236

Nehemiah1-7

A brief look is given into the relations between Tobiah and ‘the nobles’. The term ‘allegiances’ most likely refers to a joint signing of trade contracts (Jagersma). In addition to Tobiah’s economic bonds with Jerusalem, there were also kinship relationships. Both Tobiah and his son Jochanan were married into families from Jerusalem. A remarkable detail is that his son was the son-in-law of Meshullam, the son of Berekiah, who was Nehemiah’s helper at 3:30 in the restoration of the wall. The same ‘nobles’ acted as an intermediary between Tobiah and Nehemiah by communicating mutually good messages about the other. For the narrator, however, Tobiah remains the evil genius. He is the one who wanted to make Nehemiah anxious.

THE GATES OF A CITY WITH FEW INHABITANTS NEHEMIAH 7:1-5

These verses round off the story of the rebuilding and form a transition to the list of those returning. These verses also come from the Nehemiahmemoir. 1 2

3 

4 5

AfterthewallhadbeenrebuiltandIhadsetthedoorsinplace,the gatekeepers,themusiciansandtheLeviteswereappointed. IputinchargeofJerusalemmybrotherHanani,alongwithHananiah thecommanderofthecitadel,becausehewasamanofintegritywho fearedGodmorethanmostpeopledo. Isaidtothem, ‘ThegatesofJerusalemarenottobeopenedwhenthesunis hot.Whilethegatekeepersarestillonduty,havethemshutthe doors and bar them. Also appoint residents of Jerusalem as guards,someattheirpostsandsomeneartheirownhouses.’ Nowthecitywaslargeandspacious,buttherewerefewpeopleinit, andthehouseshadnotyetbeenrebuilt. SomyGodputitintomyhearttoassemblethenobles,theofficials andthecommonpeopleforregistrationbyfamilies.Ifoundthegenealogicalrecordofthosewhohadbeenthefirsttoreturn.Thisiswhat Ifoundwrittenthere:

Nomoremuddle! 7:1

237

AfterthewallhadbeenrebuiltandIhadsetthedoorsinplace,the gatekeepers,themusiciansandtheLeviteswereappointed.

Gates are the weakest link in the defence ring that is a city wall. It is therefore of the utmost importance that they can be barred with solid doors. Its importance is emphasized by the fact that Nehemiah himself places the doors in the city gates. At the same time, he is setting up gatekeepers to monitor. Usually, the words ‘and the singers and the Levites’ are considered a later gloss (e.g. Williamson; Blenkinsopp; Schunck). The main reason for this is that ‘gatekeepers’ would not have a cultural function here, as opposed to gatekeepers elsewhere in the Hebrew Bible who watched the entrance to the temple. A glossator would then – in addition to the cultural function of those other gatekeepers – have added two groups of cultic staff to create a threefold grouping as occurs elsewhere (e.g. Ezra 2:70 // Neh. 7:45; Ezra 7:7, 24 Neh. 12:45). However, it is questionable whether such a sharp distinction between ‘cultic staff’ and civilian functionaries was already made in ancient Israel.

7:2-3 I put in charge of Jerusalem my brother Hanani, along with Hananiahthecommanderofthecitadel,becausehewasamanof integritywhofearedGodmorethanmostpeopledo.  Isaidtothem,  ‘The gates of Jerusalem are not to be opened when the sun is hot.Whilethegatekeepersarestillonduty,havethemshutthe doors and bar them. Also appoint residents of Jerusalem as guards,someattheirpostsandsomeneartheirownhouses.’ Nehemiah appoints two trustworthy men over Jerusalem, that is, the guarding of its walls and its gates. Hanani, the brother of Nehemiah, is already mentioned in 1:2. He does not need any further description concerning his qualities. This does not apply to Hananiah, the ruler over the fortress, a clear military function. He is presented as a reliable and god-fearing man, an equilibrium of Nehemiah. The term ‘godly’ endorses the awe of Nehemiah before God in Neh. 7. Since both names Hanani and Hananiah are almost homonymous, it has been suggested that both refer to the same person who is first mentioned with his family name and then by his official name. The wāw between the two attributes should then be a wāw explicativus: ‘namely …’.156 However, Williamson rightly pointed out that such an understanding is problematic in view of the plural form at the beginning of v. 3: ‘I told them …’.

156

Thus: C.G. Tuland, ‘Hanani-Hananiah’, JBL 77 (1958), 157-61.

238

Nehemiah1-7

The Hebrew noun bîrāh, ‘fortress’, is only attested in post-exile texts (I Chronicles, Nehemiah, Esther and Daniel). The word is synonymous with the older meṣûdāh (e.g. II Sam 5:7, 9). Through New Babylonian birtu, the word is derived from Indo-European languages, cf. Ancient Persia. bâru and Sanskrit bura. In the documents from Elephantine, the Aramaic word byrh indicates the military fortress in this border garrison.

Nehemiah commissions two measures. The Ketîb wayyo’mèr, ‘and he spoke’, makes little sense. Therefore, it is preferable to read with Qerê w’mr, ‘and I spoke’, see also LXX (eipan), Vulg (dixi) and the vast majority of modern translations and comments. The verb ’mr, ‘to speak’, here has the late Hebrew Aramaicized meaning, ‘to command’. The first measure concerns the closing of the doors at a given time of the day. The expression ‘ad-ḥomhaššèmèš is often understood as ‘until the sun is hot’ (e.g. KJV). In addition, it is suggested that the gates of the city should not be opened at dawn but, at a later time of the day (Myers, Fensham, McConville, Breneman, Jobsen; Jagersma). This view meets two objections. (1) It does not fit the early start of the working day in the ancient Near East, where the work started at the break of dawn. (2) In the passage I Sam. 11:9-11, the expression ‘getting hot from the sun’ refers to the time of the sun’s zenith which was causing the most heat (see also Gen. 18:1; II Sam. 4:5). That is why it is better to translate the preposition ‘ad with Williamson with ‘while’ (also: Blenkinsopp; Schunck; Shepherd & Wright).157 Thus perceived, the text suggests that the gate should be closed during the ‘heat of the day’. The fact that that period in antiquity was a vulnerable time is evidenced by two parallels from Roman history given by Driver.158 On August 24, 410 CE, the Visigoths of Alarik I entered Rome around midday by surprising the guardians at the Salarian Gate. About these guards, Procopius notes that they were ‘sleeping at the moment after their meal’.159 Parallels from the Babylonian and Assyrian king inscriptions are unknown to me. The second measure concerns the setting of a rotation scheme. The inhabitants of Jerusalem should each take a period to guard the gate. This measure speaks for itself.

157 See also J. Barr, ‘Hebrew ‫ עוד‬especially at Job i.18 and Neh. vii.3’, JSS 27 (1982), 177-82; DCH VI, 265-66. 158 G.R. Driver, ‘Forgotten Hebrew Idioms’, ZAW 78 (1966), 4 (1-7). 159 Procopius, DeBelloVandalorum I.ii.7 = HistoryoftheWars III, ii § 17; see P. van Nuffelen, ‘Not Much Happened: 410 and All That’, JournalofRomanStudies 105 (2015), 1-8.

Nomoremuddle!

239

7:4-5 Nowthecitywaslargeandspacious,buttherewerefewpeoplein it,andthehouseshadnotyetbeenrebuilt.  So,myGodputitintomyhearttoassemblethenobles,theofficials and the common people for registration by families. I found the genealogicalrecordofthosewhohadbeenthefirsttoreturn.This iswhatIfoundwrittenthere: A number of nominal sentences raise a problem. Although the city is spacious and resplendent, there are only few people living in it. Of course, this low population rate does not strengthen the just-mentioned rotation schedule. Inspired by God, Nehemiah brings together the leaders of the people. The same groups as in 2:16 are mentioned. The purpose of this meeting is to take measures that must lead to the establishment of a register of inhabitants after their origin. At that time, Nehemiah discovered the sēfer hayyaḥas, ‘registration book’.160 Although this is not evident, the thought evokes that from those who returned, only a small part dwelled in the city of Jerusalem, while most of them were living in the agricultural areas. This assumption could explain the contrast between the large number of people in the list and the small population of the city of Jerusalem.

THOSE WHO RETURNED NEHEMIAH 7:6-7:73 (HEBR. 72)

Apart from some minor differences, this list corresponds to the list of those returning in Ezra 2. For the origin, structure and interpretation of this list, see above at Ezra 2. At some instances in the Book of Nehemiah, the numbering of the verses in the modern translations differ from those in the Hebrew text. In the commentary, these differences are indicated.

160 See also P.C. Beentjes, ‘Identity and Community in the Book of Chronicles: The Role and Meaning of the verb jāchaṣ’, ZAH 12 (1999), 233-37.

NEHEMIAH 8-12

THE COMMUNITY STRENGTHENED

ESSENTIALS AND PERSPECTIVES A wall alone does not yet lead to a living community. In addition to protection against external forces there also is a need for protection from inside. In Neh. 8-12, that protection is given by the tôrā of God. That might sound strange. For many readers there seems to be an equal sign between tôrā, ‘law’ and ‘legalism’. The tôrā is then seen as a body that limits life and presents strict rules. Many people are afraid of losing their individual freedom and point to the concept of personal responsibility as a better alternative. For the past fifty years, in the Netherlands and elsewhere, a process has taken place in which human beings, religious or not, freed themselves from what was experienced as a moral yoke. Legalism was replaced by feelings of freedom and happiness. Personal choices in the perennial questions of life were favoured over a restricting tradition. For many, however, this process has led to moral disorder: in their own conscience, individuals are often dismayed and feels as though they were drowning in the waves of time. For the community around Nehemiah, the question too was: ‘How do we keep on track at a time of disruption?’. In Neh. 8-12, the tôrā is presented as a compass. Three aspects play a major role. First, the tôrā leads to joy. For example, this is reflected in the celebration of the Feast of Tabernacles, but also in the joy of everyday life. Secondly, the tôrā leads to repentance. The text is a mirror in which human beings recognize their limitations. This leads to a sense of guilt before God and one’s neighbour. This theme is splendidly presented in the history lesson of Neh. 9. Contrary to the goodness of God stands the weakness of man. Finally, the tôrā functions as a foundation for the construction of the community. Indeed, it contains all kinds of practical hints for the division of time, such as the Sabbath. In this way, it shows that the community cannot do without people who were set aside for worship. Priests and Levites perform the service of reconciliation with God in the temple on behalf of the people. They must be free from other work and hence paid with kind. I also construe these chapters as a summons to continue reading from the Bible. Continuous reading of Scripture brings the community to kyrie and gloria and is hence formative.

TheCommunityStrengthened SCHOLARLY

EXPOSITION

241 I: INTRODUCTION TO

THE EXEGESIS

The third narrative in Nehemiah reports on the social and religious order of the community inside and outside the city. In this narrative, textual sections of different nature have been gathered: narrative texts, a long reflective prayer and different lists. All these texts largely have their background in the Nehemiah-memoir. They are thematically held together by the following thought: God who led the people through history will now lead it by a religious and social code. That code calls for a certain kind of behaviour for community and individual, in the areas of cult and time, during special days and in ordinary life. The lists function as an overview of all those who want to be involved in this organization and at the same time define the community boundary. The narrative has the following components: 8:1-13 8:14-19 9:1-3 9:4-38 10:1-29 10:30-39 11 12:1-26 12:27-43 12:44-47

Reading from the tôrā and explanation thereof; (Re)introduction of the Feast of Tabernacles; Blame and condolence; Confession of guilt with reference to God’s great deeds; A new agreement with God; Contents of the agreement; Distribution of population; Register of the Priests; Consecration of the wall; Rules for Priests and Levites.

Some scholars believe that the transition to Neh. 8 is unexpected and less organic.1 Vocabulary and theme would not match the foregoing chapter(s). The first point was disproved by Japhet and Williamson.2 The thematic breach is only apparent. The second and third elements in the story are both about the security of the community. The wall around the city provides security against attacks from outside, the social and religious order creates unity and safeguarding within the walls.

1

E.g. A.S. Kapelrud, ThequestionofAuthorshipintheEzra-Narrative:AlexicalInvestigation, Oslo 1944; U. Kellermann, Nehemia: Quellen, Überlieferung und Geschichte (BZAW 102), Berlin 1967, 32. 2 See the introduction.

242

Nehemiah8-12 SCHOLARLY

EXPOSITION

II: EXEGESIS

READING AND EXPLANATION NEHEMIAH 7:72B-8:12

72b Inthebeginningoftheseventhmonth,whentheIsraeliteshadsettled intheirtowns, 1 allthepeoplegatheredasonemanintothesquarebeforetheWater Gate.TheytoldEzrathescribetobringtheBookofthetôrāofMoses thatYHWHhadcommandedIsrael. 2 Ezra the priest brought the Law before the assembly, both men and womenandallwhocouldunderstandwhattheyheard,onthefirstday oftheseventhmonth. 3 HereadfromitfacingthesquarebeforetheWaterGatefromearly morninguntilmidday,inthepresenceofthemenandthewomenand thosewhocouldunderstand.Theearsofallthepeoplewereattentive totheBookofthetôrā. 4 Ezrathescribestoodonawoodenplatformthattheyhadmadefor the purpose. Beside him stood Mattithiah, Shema, Anaiah, Uriah, Hilkiah,andMaaseiahonhisrighthand,andPedaiah,Mishael,Malchijah, Hashum, Hashbaddanah, Zechariah, and Meshullam on his lefthand. 5 Ezraopenedthebookinthesightofallthepeople,forhewasabove allthepeople,andasheopeneditallthepeoplestood. 6 EzrablessedYHWH,thegreatGod,andallthepeopleanswered,  ‘Amen,Amen,’  lifting-uptheirhands.TheybowedtheirheadsandworshipedYHWH withtheirfacestotheground. 7 Also Jeshua, Bani, Sherebiah, Jamin, Akkub, Shabbethai, Hodiah, Maaseiah, Kelita, Azariah, Jozabad, Hanan, Pelaiah, the Levites, helpedthepeopletounderstandthetôrā,whilethepeopleremained intheirplaces. 8 Theyreadfromthebook,fromthetôrāofGod,clearly,andtheygave themeaning,sothatthepeopleunderstoodthereading. 9 Nehemiah,whowasthegovernor,andEzrathepriestandscribe,and theLeviteswhotaughtthepeoplesaidtoallthepeople,  ‘ThisdayisholytoYHWHyourGod;donotmournorweep.’  ForallthepeopleweptastheyheardthewordsoftheLaw. 10 Hesaidtothem,  ‘Goyourway.Eatthefatanddrinksweetwineandsendportionstoanyonewhohasnothingready,forthisdayisholyto YHWH.Donotbegrieved,forthejoyofYHWHisyourstrength.’

TheCommunityStrengthened

243

11 SotheLevitescalmedallthepeople,saying,  ‘Bequiet,forthisdayisholy;donotbegrieved.’ 12 Allthepeoplewenttheirwaytoeatanddrinkandtosendportions andtomakegreatrejoicing,becausetheyhadunderstoodthewords thatweredeclaredtothem. Within this third part of the story, Neh. 8 forms an independent unit. This chapter narrates how the tôrā was read and explained and what effect it had on the community. In addition, several questions arise. What is meant by tôrā here? The Jewish tradition assumes that Ezra has read all of the five books of Moses. Two questions can be asked: (1) Did the tôrā already have the form of the five books as we know them now? And (2) Ezra reads for six to seven hours. That period sets a limit to the size of the text to be read. It is remarkable that in Neh. 8:4, when it comes to reading, the construction qārā’be, ‘to read from’, is used and not as expected qārā’ + object, which would mean ‘to read X’ (Williamson). This expression could even indicate that Ezra has read only parts of the tôrā. Here, I will make a detour. More and more scholars are of the opinion that the Book of Deuteronomy was cast into the final, current form only after the exile. In that view, Deuteronomy is construed as a guideline for the people who returned from exile.3 I believe that Ezra has read (parts of) Deuteronomy. The fact that Ezra in Neh. 8 is cast in the role of the one who can read the tôra, while in the Book of Ezra itself a reading of the tôrais absent, has led to some theorizing about the origin of Neh. 8. Torrey first suggested that Neh. 8 is an erratic block at its present place. According to him, this chapter had its original place between Ezra 8 and 9. The displacement of the material would be due to an inattentive copyist.4 His view has been adopted (e.g. Rudolph),5 and has found even more followers in the slightly modified version of Mowinckel who suggests that Neh. 8 originally followed Ezra 10.6 His view gave rise to the assumption of a written source

3 See next to various recent commentaries on Deuteronomy: E.W. Nicholson, DeuteronomyandtheJudaeanDiaspora, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2014; C.L. Crouch, Israel andtheAssyrians:Deuteronomy,theSuccessionTreatyofEsarhaddnon,andtheNatureof Subversion (ANEM 8), Atlanta 2014. 4 C.C. Torrey, EzraStudies, Chicago 1910, 252-84. 5 See also: H.H. Schaeder, Esra der Schreiber, Tübingen 1930, 7-26; F. Ahlemann, ‘Zur Esra-Quelle’, ZAW 59 (1943), 77-98. 6 S. Mowinckel, Studien zu dem Buche Ezra-Nehemia, III. Die Esrageschichte und das Gesetz Moses, Oslo 1965, 7-11; see, e.g. K.-F. Pohlmann, Studien zum dritten Esra: Ein Beitrag zur Frage nach dem ursprünglichen Schluss des chronistischen Geschichtswerkes (FRLANT 104), Göttingen 1970, 127-148; W.Th. in der Smitten, Esra,Quellen,Überlieferung und Geschichte (SSN 15), Assen 1973; K. Koch, ‘Ezra and the Origins of Judaism’, JSS 19 (1974), 179.

244

Nehemiah8-12

called the Ezra-memoir (Myers, Williamson; Clines; Blenkinsopp; Throntveit; Schunck; Davies).7 This idea assumes that the characters Ezra in Ezra 7-10 and Nehemiah were contemporaries. It has been argued above that this position cannot be maintained. Therefore, I propose to see Neh. 8 as a part of the Nehemiah-memoir, which later gave rise to the pseudepigraphic narrative in Ezra *7-10. The thesis that Neh. 8 was part of the Ezra-memoir has not been adopted by Sayssell. She rightly points out that in Neh. 8-9 the theme of mixed marriages is missing. How she sees or understands the literary connection between Ezra and Nehemiah is not clear.8 For supporters of the view that the Biblical books of Ezra and Nehemiah were part of a Chronistic History, there are no problems (Becker). Radical positions have been taken by Pakkala according to whom Neh. 8:1-3, 9-10, 12a were part of the oldest layer in the Ezra-memoir, to which many editorial layers have been added up to the Hellenistic era, and Wright who believes that Neh. 8 was written by the final redactor of Neh. 1-13 in Hellenistic times.9 Venema silently assumes that there has never been an Ezra-memoir.10

It has been suggested that the narrative in Neh. 8 would follow the pattern of the later synagogue worship (thus: Fensham; Becker).11 As argument, the following elements are mentioned: (a) request to read from the Torah; (b) opening the Torah roll; (c) standing of the community; (d) blessing the

7 H.G.M. Williamson, ‘The Composition of Ezra i-vi’, JThS 34 (1983), 1-30; see D. Bodi, Jérusalemàl’époqueperse, Paris 2002; R.J. Bautch, DevelopmentsingenrebetweenpostexilicpenitentialprayersandthePsalmsofcommunallament. (SBL Academia Biblica, 7), Atlanta 2003, 106-09; J. Blenkinsopp, Judaism, the First Phase: The Place of Ezra and NehemiahintheOriginsofJudaism, Grand Rapids 2009, 44-85; R. Rothenbusch, “…abgesondert zur Tora Gottes hin”: Ethnische und religiöse Identitäten im Esra/Nehemiabuch (HBS 70), Freiburg, Basel, Wien 2012, 122-73; D.P. Moffat, Ezra’ssocialdrama:identity formation,marriageandsocialconflictinEzra9and10 (LHB/OTS 579), London, New York 2013, 53-58; L.L. Grabbe, ‘Penetrating the Legend; In Quest for the historical Ezra’, in: M.C.A. Korpel, L.L. Grabbe (eds), Open-MindednessintheBibleandBeyond:AVolumeof Studies in Honour of Bob Becking (LHB/OTS 616), London, New York 2015, 100-01; D. Laird, NegotiatingPowerinEzraNehemiah(Ancient Israel and its Literature, 26), Atlanta 2016; M. Whitters, ‘The Persianized Liturgy of Nehemiah 8: 1–8’, JBL 136 (2017), 63-84. P.Y. Yoo, EzraandtheSecondWilderness, Oxford 2017; L.-S. Tiemeyer, Ezra-Nehemiah: Israel’s Quest for Identity (T & T Clark Study Guides to the Old Testament), London, New York 2017, 46-51. 8 C. Saysell, “AccordingtotheLaw”:ReadingEzra9-10asChristianScripture (Journal of Theological Interpretation Supplements 4), Winona Lake 2012, 20-29. 9 J. Pakkala, EzratheScribe:TheDevelopmentofEzra7-10andNehemiah8(BZAW 347), Berlin, New York 2004, 177-79; J.L. Wright, Rebuilding Identity: The Nehemiah Memoir anditsEarliestReaders (BZAW 348), Berlin, New York 2004, 319-40. 10 G.J. Venema, Reading Scripture in the Old Testament: Deuteronomy 9-10; 31 – 2Kings22-23–Jeremiah36–Nehemiah8 (OTS 48), Leiden 2004, 138-81. 11 S. Grätz, ‚Alter Wein in neuen Schlaüchen? Die Bücher Esra / Nehemia zwischen Tradition und Innovation‘, in: M. Häusl (ed.), DenktnichtmehrandasFrühere!BegründungsressourceninEsra/NehemiaundJes40–66imVergleich (BBB 184), Göttingen 2018, 87-89.

TheCommunityStrengthened

245

community and (e) the interpretation of the section from the Torah.12 However, this suggestion has two problematic aspects. First, it is debatable whether in the middle of the fifth century BCE synagogue worship already existed (Williamson; Blenkinsopp; Schunck).13 Additionally, in Neh. 8, the emphasis is on the reading of the Torah. The other elements of later synagogue worship remain unmentioned. Whitters has argued that the ‘liturgy’ in Neh. 8:1-8 is to be seen to be a reflex of the ‘liturgy’ for the reception of subdued nations as depicted in the reliefs on the walls of the Apadana-palace of Darius II in Persepolis.14 His argument is not convincing especially since the comparisons are of too general a character. It may be positively said that Neh. 8 played a role in the creation of the Jewish feast śimḥathattôrā, ‘joy of the Law’, which is celebrated on the eighth day of the feast of Tabernacles. 7:72b-8:2 Inthebeginningoftheseventhmonth,whentheIsraeliteshad settledintheirtowns,  allthepeoplegatheredasonemanintothesquarebeforetheWater Gate. They told Ezra the scribe to bring the Book of the tôrā of MosesthatYHWHhadcommandedIsrael.  EzrathepriestbroughttheLawbeforetheassembly,bothmenand womenandallwhocouldunderstandwhattheyheard,onthefirst dayoftheseventhmonth. In the opening scene, it is narrated that Ezra brought out the book of the law and read it out loud to all the people. A first problem is the date. Verse 1 starts with ‘At the beginning of the seventh month …’. It is not clear beforehand what period in the annual cycle is meant. However, from vv. 14-16, it can be deduced that ‘seventh month’ refers to a month in the autumn. The aforementioned Feast of Tabernacles must be celebrated in ‘the seventh month. All of this indicates that in Neh. 8, a calendar is assumed that starts in the spring. The initiative lies with the people. The people had gathered on a square in front of the Water Gate. The exact location of this gate, which is also

12

K. Galling, ‘Erwägungen zur antiken Synagoge’, ZDPV 72 (1956): 163-78; Kellermann, Nehemia, 29-30; Pohlmann, Studien, 136; In der Smitten, Esra, 38-47; Grabbe, ‘Penetrating the Legend’, 100. 13 See also H.A. McKay, SabbathandSynagogue:TheQuestionofSabbathWorshipin AncientJudaism (Religions in the Graeco-Roman World 122), Leiden 1994; with the rather critical remarks by P.W. van der Horst, ‘Was the synagogue a place of Sabbath worship before 70 CE?’, in: S. Fine (ed.) Jews,Christians,andPolytheistsintheAncientSynagogue (Baltic Studies in the History of Judaism), Abingdon 1999, 18-43. 14 Whitters, ‘The Persianized Liturgy’.

246

Nehemiah8-12

mentioned in 3:26, is unknown. Collected was kōlhā‘āmke’îš’èḥad, ‘the whole people as one man’. The expression stresses the unity of the people. They ask Ezra to read from the tôrā. The verb ’mr, usually ‘to speak’, here has the connotation of an urgent request.15 In Neh. 8, Ezra is presented as sopēr, ‘writer’ (8:1, 4, 5, 9, 13) only once with the addition kohēn, ‘priest’ (8:9). In 8:3, he is referred to only as a priest. In the discussion of Ezra 7:6 it has been argued that Ezra should not be understood as a Rabbinic scribe avantlalettre, but rather as a chancellor. The addition that the book, from which Ezra read, is presented as written by ‘Moses’, indicates that Ezra is dressed here with the authority of tradition. 8:2-4 HereadfromitfacingthesquarebeforetheWaterGatefromearly morninguntilmidday,inthepresenceofthemenandthewomenand thosewhocouldunderstand.Theearsofallthepeoplewereattentive totheBookofthetôrā.  Ezrathescribestoodonawoodenplatformthattheyhadmadefor the purpose. Beside him stood Mattithiah, Shema, Anaiah, Uriah, Hilkiah, and Maaseiah on his right hand, and Pedaiah, Mishael, Malchijah,Hashum,Hashbaddanah,Zechariah,andMeshullamon hislefthand. The community to whom the text was read consisted of both men and women, which is remarkable. Ezra 10:1 adds the ‘children’ in a slightly different context. In addition, the audience is called ‘all who could hear it’. It is not clear whether a second group of persons is intended, or that this qualification was given to the men and women just mentioned. Syntactically, both views are possible. The Hebrew verb bîn, ‘to understand’, has connections with the world of wisdom. Consequently, the ‘understanding’ demanded by Ezra and Nehemiah is more than a cognitive act. People are invited to be able to ‘fathom’ the tôrā, so that it permeates everyday life. This verb also plays a part in the explanation by the Levites. The reading lasts from the morning until the end of the afternoon, probably seven hours (Williamson). The second scene offers a repetition of the first, but now from a different perspective. The opening verse gives some details about the place of the reading. Ezra takes place on a stage made on the occasion. The expression laddābār should be rendered with ‘for the occasion’ and not with ‘for the word’. A theology of the Word of God did not yet exist. Ezra takes place on a wooden migdal. LXX and 1Esdras 9:42 translate with epibèmatos, ‘on a loft’. The Greek word has a background in Hellenistic architecture.

15

See also DCH I, 323 sub 5.

TheCommunityStrengthened

247

In II Macc. 13:26 the word refers to the speaker’s chair. In the New Testament, the word refers to the court that Herod had built in the theatre of Caesarea (Acts 12:21) and to the throne from which Jesus would judge (Rom. 14:10). From this Greek word, the later Hebrew word bîmāh has been derived; the stand in the synagogue where the Torah is read. The Hebrew word in Nehemiah, migdal, means ‘tower’ elsewhere in the Hebrew Bible (e.g. Gen. 11:5; Judg. 8:17; II Kgs 17:9; Ps. 48:13; Jer. 31:38; Neh. 3:1, see also Moabite: Mesha Inscription KAI 181:22). The translation ‘tower’, however, makes little sense. On a tower, thirteen people cannot stand next to someone. The translation ‘pulpit’ (McConville; Becker) seems to be an anachronism. Williamson rightly points to the parallel with the copper elevation, kiyyôr, that Solomon had established at the dedication ceremony of the first temple (II Chron. 6:13).16 The word migdal may, therefore, be best translated with ‘platform’ (Fensham; Blenkinsopp; Jagersma).17 The suggestion of Whitters that this ‘platform’ was comparable to and had the same ritual function as the rostrum on which Darius II was standing in the reception scenes in the Apadana-palace18 is intriguing but would suppose a royal role for Ezra.

Ezra is surrounded by thirteen people – all named. Their family relationships and their functions are not explained. Possibly, they were the Levites who would assist in explaining the tôrā as already suggested by the list in 8:8 (Hebr. 8:7). However, this thought cannot be proven or falsified. The names are relatively common in post-exilic texts. Identifications are, however, difficult. Williamson suggests that three people, Mattitiah, Maasaiah and Malkiah, could be identical to their namesakes mentioned in Ezra 10 as persons who terminated their marriage with a foreign woman. However, this identification is based on the thesis of the Ezra-memoir. 8:5

Ezraopenedthebookinthesightofallthepeople,forhewasabove allthepeople,andasheopeneditallthepeoplestood.

Before the reading of the tôrā there is a ritual in which both Ezra and the people are involved. Ezra opened the book: in the period before the invention of the codex, of course, it means that he rolled out a scroll. Out of respect for the moment and for the tôrā, the people stood up (Blenkinsopp). Elsewhere in the Hebrew Bible, the verb ‘md also means ‘to stand out of reverence’ (cf. Judg. 3:20; Job 29:8; Ezek. 2:1).

16

See also G. Widengren, ‘King and Covenant’, JSS 2 (1957), 1-32. With M.W. Duggan, TheCovenantRenewalinEzra-Nehemiah(Neh7:72b-10:40): An Exegetical, Literary, and Theological Study (SBL DS 164), Atlanta 2001, 79; Venema, ReadingScriptureintheOldTestament, 166. 18 Whitters, ‘The Persianized Liturgy’, 76. 17

248

Nehemiah8-12

8:6-7 EzrablessedYHWH,thegreatGod,andallthepeopleanswered,  ‘Amen,Amen,’  lifting-uptheirhands.TheybowedtheirheadsandworshipedYHWH withtheirfacestotheground.  Also, Jeshua, Bani, Sherebiah, Jamin, Akkub, Shabbethai, Hodiah, Maaseiah, Kelita, Azariah, Jozabad, Hanan, Pelaiah, the Levites, helpedthepeopletounderstandthetôrā,whilethepeopleremained intheirplaces. A ritual praise before the reading of a sacred text is a very ancient tradition and functions as a further hallowing of the text. The people gathered express the acceptance by means of prayers in three different forms of bodily expression. This acceptance is underlined by the announcement that the people responded with ‘Amen, amen’ and functions as an endorsement of what has been said. Nature and content of Ezra’s prayer are not given. Remarkably, he directs the prayer to hā’èlohîmhaggādôl, ‘the great God’. This epithet does not appear elsewhere in the Hebrew Bible. Nehemiah refers to God as hā’ēlhaggādôl, ‘the great God’, (9:32; see also Deut. 10:17; Jer. 32:18). In Ezra 5:8, an Aramaic equivalent is found. The epithet might have its origins outside Ancient Israel. In Mesopotamia, gods were called ilurabû, ‘great god’. In a papyrus, presumably from Elephantine, a companion of the god Anubis ’ptḥ, ‘Wepwapet’, is referred to as an ’lh’rb’, ‘great god’, in a report on wine supplies.19 Another thirteen people are mentioned that provide text and explanation together with the Levites. The function of these thirteen people is unknown. Their names are relatively common in post-exilic texts. Identifications are also difficult here. The fact that they were Levites (Williamson) cannot be excluded, but also not evident. All these people help the gathered people to ‘understand’ the tôrā. As in 8:3, the verb used is bîn. This verb indicates that it is not the intention of the author of Nehemiah to do legalism, but for the view of the tôrā in moral decisions in daily life. 8:8-9 TheLevitesreadfromthebook,fromthetôrāofGod,clearly,and theygavethemeaning,sothatthepeopleunderstoodthereading.  Nehemiah, who was the governor, and Ezra the priest and scribe, andtheLeviteswhotaughtthepeoplesaidtoallthepeople,  ‘ThisdayisholytoYHWHyourGod;donotmournorweep.’  ForallthepeopleweptastheyheardthewordsoftheLaw. It is remarkable that the tôrā is not read specifically by Ezra, but by the Levites. It is then said that the readers had succeeded. Here are two 19 TADAE3.3.12:26; on this deity, see: T. DuQuesne, Anubis,Upwawet,andOtherDeities: PersonalWorshipandOfficialReligioninAncientEgypt, Cairo 2007.

TheCommunityStrengthened

249

problems. Firstly, the Hebrew reads bassēper betôrā hā’elohîm. A quite literal translation would be ‘(read) from the book, from the law of God’. It is better, however, to see here a precursor of a later Jewish custom. In the Jewish tradition, Scripture is delimited into paragraphs, named parashen. It may be that the Levites in the time of Nehemiah read from the tôrā section by section.20 The suggestion of Whitters that this explanation might have included translations into alternative languages21 is mainly based on his comparison with the reception scenes in the Apadana-palace and on the fact that the Bisitun inscription of Darius II is known in four different languages.

The reading and explanation lead to reaction. The people ‘weep’, I suspect, as a result of the fact that they recognized their own failure.22 It is remarkable that this weeping is only mentioned after Nehemiah and Ezra had taken a stand against it. Nehemiah is referred to as a governor here,23 while Ezra is presented as a priest and writer. With governmental and religious authority, the people are presented two things: they should see the day as a ‘holiday’, sanctified and set apart by God; additionally, they are summoned: ’al-tit’abbelû, ‘do not mourn or weep’. 8:10  Hesaidtothem,  ‘Goyourway.Eatthefatanddrinksweetwineandsendportions toanyonewhohasnothingready,forthisdayisholytoYHWH. Donotbegrieved,forthejoyofYHWHisyourstrength.’ The ban on mourning is positively linked to a call for mercy. The people are being sent away for a communal meal. The exuberance of delights and sweet wine contains not only a silent reference to the eschatological meal on the mountain (Isa. 25), but also refers to the ancient Israelite custom to have a common meal on public holidays (I Sam. 1-2; II Sam. 6). The meal in Neh. 8 has an element of redistribution. The text contains an assignment for sharing with anyone for whom ’ên nākôn lô’, ‘nothing is prepared’. This expression has sometimes been construed as a sign that some did not judge the nature of the day correctly or had nothing prepared in laziness. However, it is more obvious that the text calls for sharing in joy and food 20 Against the view of P.Y. Yoo, ‘On Nehemiah 8, 8a’, ZAW 127 (2015), 502-07, who renders with ‘that was already declared’ and hence assumes that not only the text but also its meaning was already fixed. 21 Whitters, ‘The Persianized Liturgy’, 68. 22 With Williamson, I disagree with the view that the ‘weeping’ would have been part of a celebration of the New Year with roots in Canaanite tradition. Such a custom is never attested and besides, Neh. 8 is not connected with a New Year festival, see also Pohlmann, Studien, 136. 23 On the Persian loanword tiršātā’ see at Ezra 2:63. The LXX has the title in Neh. 8 untranslated.

250

Nehemiah8-12

(Williamson). In other words, the call not to mourn is repeated with a different phrasing. The expression ‘al-tē‘āṣēbû, ‘do not be sad’, literally means ‘do not hurt yourself’. This last summon is motivated by the reference to the fact that God is a mā‘ôz, ‘protecting place’. Elsewhere in the Hebrew Bible, this word points at protection against enemies (see especially Nah 1:7; Ps. 27:1). In Neh. 8, God is a protector against possible curses because of any transgression of the tôrā (Williamson). In his protection of the people lies their true joy.24 8:11-12 SotheLevitescalmedallthepeople,saying,  ‘Bequiet,forthisdayisholy;donotbegrieved.’  Allthepeoplewenttheirwaytoeatanddrinkandtosendportions andtomakegreatrejoicing,becausetheyhadunderstoodthewords thatweredeclaredtothem. The Levites take over the summons of Ezra. There is no reason to see this verse as a later addition. The content of the verse is consistent with the idea that the Levites are Ezra’s helping hands. The pericope ends with joy. The community follows the call for a celebration. It is intriguing to read that they did this because they had ‘understood’ what had been read to them. Here too the verb used is bîn. Whoever fathoms the tôrā comes to joy. There is, therefore, no suffocating legalism here.

REINTRODUCTION OF THE FEAST OF TABERNACLES NEHEMIAH 8:14-19 (HEBR. 8: 13-18)

14

15

16 

24

Thenontheseconddaythefamilyheadsofallthepeople,thepriests, andtheLevitesweregatheredtoEzrathescribethattheymightgain insightintothewordsofthelaw. They found written in the law how YHWH had commanded through MosesthatthesonsofIsraelshouldliveinboothsduringthefeastof theseventhmonth. Theyproclaimedandcirculatedaproclamationinalltheircitiesand inJerusalem,saying, ‘Go out to the hills, and bring olive branches, and wild olive branches, myrtle branches, palm branches, and branches of otherleafytrees,tomakebooths,asitiswritten.’

See also G.C.I. Wong, ‘A Note on “Joy” in Nehemiah VIII 10’, VT 45 (1995), 383-86.

TheCommunityStrengthened 17

18

19

251

Thepeoplewentoutandbrought.Theymadeboothsforthemselves, eachonhisroof,andintheircourts,andinthecourtsofthehouseof God, and in the square at the Water Gate, and in the square at the GateofEphraim. The entire assembly of those who had returned from the captivity madeboothsandlivedinthem.TheIsraeliteshadindeednotdoneso fromthedaysofJeshuathesonofNuntothatday.Therewasgreat rejoicing. HereadfromthebookofthelawofGoddaily,fromthefirstdayto thelastday.Theycelebratedthefeastsevendays,andontheeighth dayasolemnassembly(waspresent)accordingtotheordinance.

The narrative on the reintroduction of the Feast of Tabernacles forms a separate episode. It contains a literary connection with the previous verses. The section is therefore to be seen as originating from the Nehemiahmemoir. In the light of my view of the relationship between Neh. 8 and Ezra 9-10, it does not make sense to think of an origin from the Ezramemoir. The discussion, already mentioned at Ezra 3:4-5, concerns the double background of the Feast of Tabernacles. Neh. 8 also reflects the post-exilic design of this calendrical ritual. 8:14 (Hebr. 8:13) Then on the second day the family heads of all the people,thepriests,andtheLevitesweregatheredtoEzrathescribe thattheymightgaininsightintothewordsofthelaw. The next day a smaller group of people meet. Next to the priests and the Levites, only the rôšê hā’ābôt, ‘family heads’, are coming to Ezra. This typical post-exile designation (I and II Chronicles, Ezra, Nehemiah; P) refers to those who oversaw the ‘Bürger-Tempel-Gemeinde’.25 The purpose of the meeting was to further understand the words of the tôrā. The verb used here, śkl, – like the verb bîn – is related to wisdom.26 The Hiph. of this verb can be translated with ‘to pay attention to’ in the sense of ‘to focus on’ in view of good behaviour (see also Dan. 9:13).

25

See: J.P. Weinberg, TheCitizen-TempleCommunity (JSOT Sup 151), Sheffield 1992. See: M. Gertner, ‘Terms of Scriptural Interpretation: A Study in Hebrew Semantics’, BulletinoftheSchoolofOrientalandAfricanStudies 25 (1962), 1-27. 26

252

Nehemiah8-12

8:15-16 (Hebr. 8:14-15) They found written in the law how YHWH had commanded through Moses that the sons of Israel should live in boothsduringthefeastoftheseventhmonth.  They proclaimed and circulated a proclamation in all their cities andinJerusalem,saying,  ‘Go out to the hills, and bring olive branches, and wild olive branches, myrtle branches, palm branches, and branches of otherleafytrees,tomakebooths,asitiswritten.’ As they read, they are making a discovery in the form of regulations for the celebration of the Feast of Tabernacles. Whether an old use or the initiating of a whole new tradition is at stake, it is remarkable that the clue was found in the tôrā God commanded through Moses. Whatever the historical development of the Feast of Tabernacles has been, the circles around Nehemiah claim the (re)introduction the authority of Moses. A sukkāh, ‘booth’, is a temporary residence whose roof is constructed with the branches of deciduous trees. Booths were built to protect against the heat of the sun (Jon. 4:5) or to hold the guard in a vineyard (Isa. 1:8; Job 27:18). They could also serve as a stay during a campaign (II Sam. 11:11; I Kgs 20:12, 16). Presumably, the booth also formed the temporary residence during harvest time. In Lev. 23:42, this temporary stay is projected back to the desert sojourn, during which the people would have stayed in booths. The term ‘living in a booth’ occurs next to Neh. 8 only in Lev. 23:42. The stay in a transient booth gives rise to pondering on the ephemeral character of human life. In the Talmud tractate Sukka there are numerous indications for the construction of a booth and for the stay therein. In the Jewish view of the eschatological age, God will bring the skin of the conquered Leviathan to his people and make it into a booth for the righteous.27

Ezra and his companions had also found an instruction for the construction of the booths. According to the tôrā, they should issue an order among all the inhabitants of Jerusalem and surroundings. They had to leave their villages and towns and go to the mountainous areas, where they had to make a booth from the leaves of different trees. This summons combines elements from Lev. 23:40 and Deut. 16:15, but does not literally cite either text. To the ‘palm trees’ and the ‘deciduous trees’ of Lev. 23:40 are now added ‘the olive tree, the olive-willow and the mirth’. This addition may be a reference to the promise at Isa. 41:19 that God will plant cedar, acacia, mirth and olive in the wilderness. The word combination kakkātûb battôrāh, ‘as written in the law’, is a post-exile expression (II Chron. 35:12; Ezra 3:2, 4; Neh. 8:16 [Heb. 8:15]; 10:35, 37) and indicates the severity of a particular instruction. It does not have to be a literal quote (Williamson).

27 A. Jellinek (ed.), Bet ha-Midrasch: Sammlung kleiner Midraschim und vermischter AbhandlungenausderjüdischenLiteratur(Vol 3), Leipzig 1857, 75.

TheCommunityStrengthened

253

8:17 (Hebr. 8:16) The people went out and brought. They made booths for themselves, each on his roof, and in their courts, and in the courtsofthehouseofGod,andinthesquareattheWaterGate,and inthesquareattheGateofEphraim. The command was followed immediately. Loaves were collected, and the booths were being built. The inhabitants of Jerusalem place the booths on the (flat) roof of their houses or in a nearby court. The locations in the forecourts of the temple and on two squares in the city were supposedly intended for the inhabitants of Yehud (Williamson). The celebration of the Feast of Tabernacles was celebrated centrally and not locally, showing the influence of the Deuteronomistic cult centralisation (II Kgs 23). 8:18 (Hebr. 8:17) Theentireassemblyofthosewhohadreturnedfromthe captivitymadeboothsandlivedinthem.TheIsraeliteshadindeed not done so from the days of Jeshua the son of Nun to that day. Therewasgreatrejoicing. The group of those who made booths and lived therein is specified. It is all those who returned, min-haššebî, ‘out of the captivity’. This indication for the exile is less frequent than the usual gôlāh, ‘exile’. Nehemiah prefers šebî as an indication (see also 1:2, 3; 7:6). The only time that the noun gôlāh occurs in Nehemiah, is in the phrase miššebîhaggôlāh, ‘out of the captivity of the exiles’ (Neh. 7:6 // Ezra 2:1). The remark that the Feast of Tabernacles had not been celebrated since the days of Jeshua causes confusion on two levels. Firstly, who is meant by Jeshua? The addition ‘the son of Nun’ suggests that the name yšw‘, ‘Joshua’, is here vocalized as the name of one of the leaders in the period of return and rebuilding. Since Joshua is the only person in the Old Testament called ‘the son of Nun’, the name presumably referred to this person from the traditions surrounding the entry into the Promised Land (Williamson; Shepherd & Wright). The vocalization to Jeshua may originate from the time that Ezra and Nehemiah were seen to be one book that the editor of which wished to make an association with the celebration of the Feast of Tabernacles in Ezra 3:4-5. In an historic reading of Ezra-Nehemiah as a joint composition, that celebration must be seen as having occurred prior to Neh. 8. Secondly, when it is assumed that Joshua is meant here, there is a problem with the mention of the celebration of the Feast of Tabernacles in the period of the Judges and Kings, at least according to Williamson. He refers to half a dozen instances where there is a celebration of a feast in the seventh month (Judg. 21:19; I Sam. 1:3; I Kgs 8:2, 65). In his view, this is the celebration of the Feast of Tabernacles. Williamson assumes that an originally agricultural harvest festival from the pre-exile period has evolved

254

Nehemiah8-12

into a ritual in which the journey of forty years through the desert was celebrated. However, an accurate reading of the texts mentioned, shows that in no case is there a booth. The existence of a feast of booths as an agricultural harvest festival is very possible; only precise indications for it are lacking. The narrator of the Book of Nehemiah adopts the historical interpretation of Lev. 23:40-42, and presumably records Joshua the son of Nun, because with the entry into the Promised Land, the desert period ended. Shepherd & Wright construe the adverb kēn as an indication for the specific character of the celebration: ‘thus’. To them, since Joshua the feast of booths had not been celebrated in the correct way since the days of Joshua.

The feast leads to great joy, which again indicates that tôrā does not lead to legalism but to the real happiness of life. 8:19 (Hebr. 8:18) He read from the book of the law of God daily, from the first day to the last day. They celebrated the feast seven days, and on the eighth day a solemn assembly (was present) according totheordinance. The habit of reading daily from the tôrā is already present in Deut. 31:9-13. The inclusion of an eighth day in the festival refers to Lev. 23:36, 39.

BLAME AND CONDOLENCE NEHEMIAH 9:1-3

1 2 3

Nowonthetwenty-fourthdayofthismonththeIsraelitesassembled withfasting,insackcloth,andwithdirtuponthem. TheoffspringofIsraelseparateditselffromallforeignersandstood andconfessedtheirsinsandtheiniquitiesoftheirfathers. Whiletheystoodintheirplace,theyreadfromthebookofthelawof YHWHtheirGodforafourthoftheday;andforanotherfourththey confessedandworshipedYHWHtheirGod.

At first glance, the transition from Neh. 8 to 9 seems to be abrupt. A few things are remarkable. (1) Ezra, prominent in Neh. 8, does not play any role in Neh. 9, where the Levites are the steering force behind the events. (2) Neh. 8 ends with mentioning joy. Neh. 9 begins with mourning, while in Neh. 8:10-11 (Hebr. 9-10) the people are summoned not to mourn and not to weep. (3) Neh. 9 introduces a theme that was previously absent: the isolation of strange or foreign elements. For scholars who see Neh. 8 as part of the Ezra-memoir, this break represents an additional argument for their

TheCommunityStrengthened

255

view (Williamson).28 However, they are unable to make clear why an editor would have placed Neh. 8 exactly here. Scholars who advocate the literary coherence of the whole of Ezra and Nehemiah make unconvincing suggestions about the narrative transition from Neh. 8 to 9 (Jagersma).29 In my view, there is no breach here. Neh. 9 raises a new theme that, narratively, is prepared for in the previous chapter. Indeed, the figure of Ezra is no longer mentioned, but his co-workers and helpers take over the task. His role was apparently completed. The condolence contrasts with the joy at the celebration of the Feast of Tabernacles. However, it must be noted that mourning too is a response to reading from the tôrā. The multifaceted versatility of the reactions corresponds to the breadth of the areas discussed in the tôrā. In addition, to speak with Qoheleth, ‘there is a time for joy and there is a time for mourning’. The theme of the ‘others’ or ‘strangers’ is indirectly announced by a note in 8:18 (Hebr. 8:17). The emphasis placed on ‘those who returned from captivity’ indicates that other groups must have been in and around Jerusalem. In addition, it should be noted that all three episodes in Neh. 8:1-9:3 are initiated with a form of the Niph. of the verb ’sp (Neh. 8:1, 13; 9:1). A literary-critical separation between both chapters is therefore not necessary. The author is just discussing another topic. The unit Neh. 9:1-3 is most likely adapted from the Nehemiah-memoir (Williamson). 9:1

Nowonthetwenty-fourthdayofthismonththeIsraelitesassembled withfasting,insackcloth,andwithdirtuponthem.

The twenty-fourth day has no special meaning in the Israelite festival calendar.30 In Jerusalem, an undefined group of ‘Israelites’ meet. The purpose of their togetherness is not mentioned. They clearly perform mourning rites. About the nature and the forms of mourning, see at Ezra 9:3 above. Having ’adāmāh, ‘dust of the earth’, on the head (see also I Sam. 4:12; II Sam. 1:2; Job 2:12) is a parallel of the application of ‘ashes’ (Ezek. 27:33) or ‘dust’ on the head (Josh. 7:6; Rev. 18:19) as a sign of mourning. This action indicates that one sees himself as already buried (Blenkinsopp).31

28 See also: C.C. Torrey, The Composition and Historical Value of Ezra-Nehemiah (BZAW 2), Giessen 1896, 31-33. 29 See also T.C. Eskenazi, InanAgeofProse:ALiteraryApproachtoEzra–Nehemiah (SBL MS 36), Atlanta 1988. 30 This day is only mentioned as the day on which the revelations to Haggai and Zechariah were given (Hag. 2:11, 19, 21; Zech. 1:7). 31 See already M. Jastrow, ‘Dust, Earth, and Ashes as Symbols of Mourning among the Ancient Hebrews’, JAOS 20 (1899), 133-50.

256

Nehemiah8-12

9:2

TheoffspringofIsraelseparateditselffromallforeignersandstood andconfessedtheirsinsandtheiniquitiesoftheirfathers.

In this verse, a ‘separation’ takes place. The progeny of Israel removes itself from anything strange. For ‘separation’ a form of Hebrew verb bdl is used. This verb plays a thematic role in the Book of Ezra (6:21; 8:24; 9:1; 10:16). In my opinion, the author of the pseudepigraphic pamphlet (*Ezra 7-10) adopted this theme from Neh. 9:2. The presence of the verb in Neh. 9:2, therefore, cannot be seen to be an argument for the existence of the Ezramemoir. The offspring of Israel secludes itself from the benênēkār, ‘children of (the) strangeness’. This expression is often understood as referring to ‘strangers’ in the sense of people ‘belonging to another ethnic group’ (Williamson; Blenkinsopp; see also Ezra 10). The Hebrew root nkr, however, has in many cases as its meaning ‘strange; uncommon; unknown; different’.32 This would imply that they had separated themselves from Israelites who were ‘different’ or ‘unusual’. I suspect that the expression refers to a group of Israelites who for some reason held different views in matters moral and religious than those who had been in exile. This latter group also confesses their guilt and the blame of their fathers. Here, a transgenerational view of cumulative debt comes to the fore as is reflected elsewhere in the Hebrew Bible (Jer. 31:29-30; Ezek. 18).33 The verb ydh has in the Hiph. as standard meaning ‘to praise’, see for example Gen. 49:8; Ps. 6:6. Sometimes, a semantic reversal takes place, and the verb means, ‘to make a confession of guilt’ (Ps. 32:5; Prov. 28:13). The Hitp. almost always expresses the confession of guilt (e.g. Lev 5:5; Ezra 10:1; Neh. 1:6; 9:2).34

9:3 

Whiletheystoodintheirplace,theyreadfromthebookofthelaw ofYHWHtheirGodforafourthoftheday;andforanotherfourth theyconfessedandworshipedYHWHtheirGod.

This verse – previously seen as a later addition (Rudolph) – summarizes the foregoing and shows that mourning and guilt were a result of listening to the tôrā. A fourth part of the day indicates a period we would now call three hours (Williamson).

32 C. Bultmann, Der Fremde im Antiken Juda (FRLANT, 153), Göttingen 1992, 22-24; DCH, V, 694-95; M. Leuchter, ‘The Exegesis of Jeremiah in and beyond Ezra 9-10’, VT65 (2014), 65-72; Southwood, EthnicityandtheMixedMarriageCrisisinEzra9-10, 140-145, speaks about ‘proximate others’. 33 See J.F. Mol, Collective and individual responsibility: A description of corporate personalityinEzekiel18and20 (SSN, 53), Leiden 2009. 34 See also M.J Boda, ‘Words and Meaning: ‫ ידה‬in Hebrew Research’, WThJ 57 (1995), 277-97.

TheCommunityStrengthened

257

CONFESSION OF GUILT WITH REFERENCE TO GOD’S GREAT DEEDS NEHEMIAH 9:4-38

4

NowonthestairsoftheLevitesstoodJeshua,Bani,Kadmiel,Shebaniah, Bunni,Sherebiah,Bani,Chenani.TheycriedwithaloudvoicetoYHWH theirGod. 5 Then the Levites, Jeshua, Kadmiel, Bani, Hashabneiah, Sherebiah, Hodiah,Shebaniah,Pethahiah,said,  ‘Arise,blessYHWHyourGodforeverandever!  Omayyourgloriousnamebeblessed  andexaltedaboveallblessingandpraise! 6 YoualoneareYHWH.  Youhadmadetheheavens,  theheavenofheavenswithalltheirhost,  theearthandallthatisonit,  theseasandallthatisinthem.  Youhavegivenlifetoallofthem  andtheheavenlyhostbowsdownbeforeyou. 7 YouaretheGodYHWH,  whochoseAbram  andbroughthimoutfromUroftheChaldees,  andgavehimthenameAbraham. 8 Youdidfindhisheartfaithfulbeforeyou,  anddidmakeacovenantwithhim  togivethelandoftheCanaanite,  oftheHittiteandtheAmorite,  ofthePerizzite,theJebusite,andtheGirgashite  togivetohisdescendants.  Youhavefulfilledyourpromise,  foryouarerighteous. 9 YoudidseetheafflictionofourfathersinEgypt,  anddidheartheircrybytheRedSea. 10 ThenyoudidperformsignsandwondersagainstPharaoh,  againstallhisservantsandallthepeopleofhisland;  Foryoudidknowthattheyactedarrogantlytowardthem,  anddidmakeanameforyourselfasthisday. 11 Youdiddividetheseabeforethem.  So,theypassedthroughthemidstoftheseaondryground;  theirpursuersyoudidhurlintothedepths,  likeastoneintoragingwaters.

258

Nehemiah8-12

12    13    14    15    16 

Withapillaryoudidleadthembyday, withapillarbynight tolightforthemtheway inwhichtheyweretogo. YoudidstcomedownonMountSinai, didspeakwiththemfromheaven; youdidgivetothemjustordinancesandtruelaws, goodstatutesandcommandments. Youdidmakeknowntothem yourholySabbath, didlaydownforthemcommandments,statutes,andlaw, throughyouservantMoses. Youdidprovidebreadfromheaventothemfortheirhunger, youdidbringforthwaterfromarockforthemfortheirthirst, youdidtellthemtoenterinordertopossess thelandwhichyoudidsweartogivethem. Butthey,ourfathers,actedarrogantly; theybecamestubbornandwouldnotlistentoyourcommandments. Theyrefusedtolisten, didnotrememberyourwonderfulacts whichyouhadperformedamongthem. Theybecamestubborn andappointedaleadertoreturntotheirslaveryinEgypt. ButyouareaGodofforgiveness, graciousandcompassionate, slowtoanger, aboundinginlovingkindness; youdidnotforsakethem. Evenwhentheymadeforthemselves acalfofmoltenmetalandsaid, ‘ThisisyourGod whobroughtyouupfromEgypt,’ andcommittedgreatblasphemies, You,inyougreatcompassion, didnotforsaketheminthewilderness; thepillarofclouddidnotleavethembyday, toguidethemontheirway, northepillaroffirebynight, tolightforthemthewayinwhichtheyweretogo. Youdidgiveyourgoodbreathtoinstructthem, yourmannayoudidnotwithholdfromtheirmouth, youdidgivethemwaterfortheirthirst.

17          18     19      20  

TheCommunityStrengthened 21    22    23   24     25      26      27      28       

259

Indeed,fortyyearsyoudidprovidetheminthewilderness, theywerenotinwant; theirclothesdidnotwearout, nordidtheirfeetswell. Youdidalsogivethemkingdomsandpeoples, youdidallottothemasabufferzone. TheytookpossessionofthelandofSihonthekingofHeshbon, andthelandofOgthekingofBashan. Youdidmaketheirsonsnumerousasthestarsofheaven, andyoudidbringthemintotheland thatyouhadtoldtheirfatherstoenterandpossess. Sotheirsonsenteredandpossessedtheland. You did subdue before them the inhabitants of the land, the Canaanites, andyoudidgivethemintotheirhand,withtheirkings, andthepeoplesoftheland, todowiththemastheydesired. Theycapturedfortifiedcitiesandafertileland. Theytookpossessionofhousesfullofeverygoodthing, hewncisterns,vineyards,olivegroves, fruittreesinabundance. So,theyate,werefilled,andgrewfat, andrevelledinyourgreatgoodness. Buttheybecamedisobedientandrebelledagainstyou. Theycastyourlawbehindtheirbacks andkilledyourprophets whohadadmonishedthem sothattheymightreturntoyou. Theycommittedgreatblasphemies. Thereforeyoudiddeliverthemintothehandoftheiroppressors whooppressedthem. Butwhentheycriedtoyouinthetimeoftheirdistress, youdidhearfromheaven, andaccordingtoThygreatcompassion youdidgivethemdeliverers Butassoonastheyhadrest, theydidevilagainbeforeyou. Therefore,youdidabandonthemtothehandoftheirenemies, sothattheyruledoverthem. Whentheycriedagaintoyou, youdidhearfromheaven. Manytimes,youdidrescuethem accordingtoyourcompassion,

260

Nehemiah8-12

29        30    31   32       33  34

andadmonishedthem inordertoturnthembacktoyourlaw. Yettheyactedarrogantly anddidnotlistentoyourcommandments butsinnedagainstyourordinances, Bywhich–ifoneobservesthem–heshalllive. Theyturnedastubbornshoulder andstiffenedtheirneckandwouldnotlisten. However,youdidbearwiththemformanyyears, Andadmonishedthembyyourbreaththroughyourprophets. Yettheywouldnotgiveear. Therefore,youdidgivethemintothehandofthepeoplesofthelands. Nevertheless,inyourgreatcompassion youdidnotmakeanendofthemorforsakethem, foryouareagraciousandcompassionateGod. Nowtherefore,ourGod,thegreat,themighty,andtheawesomeGod, whokeepscovenantandlovingkindness, donotletallthehardshipseeminsignificantbeforeyou, whichhascomeuponus,ourkings,ourprinces, ourpriests,ourprophets,ourfathers, andonthewholeofyourpeople, fromthedaysofthekingsofAssyriatothisday. However,youarejustinallthathascomeuponus; foryoudealtfaithfully,butwehaveactedwickedly. Forourkings,ourleaders,ourpriests,andourfathershavenotkept yourlaw orpaidattentiontoyourcommandments andyouradmonitionswithwhichyouhadadmonishedthem. Butthey,intheirownkingdom, whichyoudidgivethemwithyourgreatgoodness, withthebroadandrichland whichyoudidsetbeforethem, didnotserveyouorturnfromtheirevildeeds. Look,weareslavestoday, andastothelandthatyoudidgivetoourfathers toeatofitsfruitanditsbounty, look,weareslavesinit. Itsabundantproduceisforthekings whomyouhadsetoverusbecauseofoursins; theyalsoruleoverourbodies andoverourcattleastheyplease. Weareingreatdistress.

  35     36    37    

TheCommunityStrengthened 38 

261

Nowbecauseofallthiswearemakinganagreementinwriting onthesealeddocumentofourleaders,ourLevites,ourpriests.’

This section contains a complex and complicated prayer. The text is presented as pronounced by a group of Levites and is aimed at God who is addressed in the second person singular. The main line of the text consists of a faithful presentation of the good acts of God in creation and history. This line is interrupted a few times with remarks about the behaviour of the ancestors of those praying (9:16-17a, 26, 29b, 34-35). In contrast to the goodness of God, the behaviour of the people of Israel is characterized as disobedience to the rules of life that God had given. The text ends with a positioning of the praying group. They present themselves as ‘servants’ of God and of the kings appointed over them by God. Neh. 9:5-38 is a prayer, but the question is: what kind of prayer? Several answers have been given to this question. Von Rad suspected a prayer with some relation to the LevitischePredigt, a sermon rooted in the tradition of the Levites.35 Neh. 9, however, is only once conceived as a sermon.36 The text is always considered a prayer:37 35 G. von Rad, ‘Die levitische Predigt in den Büchern der Chronik’, in: FestschriftfürOtto Proksch, Leipzig 1934, 113-24, reprinted in G. von Rad, Gesammelte Studien zum Alten Testament(Theologische Bücherei 8), München 1958, 249-61. 36 C.R. Anderson, The Formation of the Levitical Prayer in Nehemiah 9 (Dissertation: Dallas Theological Seminar, 1987). 37 See O. Plöger, Aus der Spätzeit des Alten Testaments: Studien, Göttingen 1970, 62; Myers, 166-70; In der Smitten, Esra, 47-51; Williamson, 305-310; Gunneweg, 121-29; Blenkinsopp, 297-308; Eskenazi, InanAgeofProse, 96, 100; Becker, 93-97; Throntveit, 102-06; H.-P. Mathys, Dichter und Beter: Theologen aus spätalttestamentlicher Zeit (OBO 132), Freiburg, Göttingen 1994, 67-68; Grabbe, 55-56; Nelson, Historical Books, 172-73; J.H. Newman, Praying by the Book: The Scripturalization of Prayer in Second Temple Judaism (SBL Early Judaism and its Literature, 14), Atlanta 1999, 55-116; H.W.M. van Grol, ‘‘Indeed, Servants We Are’. Ezra 9, Nehemiah 9 and 2 Chronicles 12 Compared’, in: B. Becking, M.C.A. Korpel (eds),TheCrisisofIsraeliteReligion.TransformationofReligiousTradition in Exilic and Post-Exilic Times (OTS 42), Leiden 1999, 215-19; M.J. Boda, Praying theTradition:TheOriginandUseofTraditioninNehemiah9 (BZAW 277), Berlin, New York 1999, esp. 21-41; Duggan, TheCovenantRenewalinEzra-Nehemiah, 157-234; T.C. Eskenazi, ‘Nehemiah 9-10: Structure and Significance’, JHS 3 (2001), #9; Bautch, Developments in Genre, 109-15; Pakkala, Ezra the Scribe, 180-211; M. Oeming, ‘ “See, We Are Serving Today” (Nehemiah 9: 36): Nehemiah 9 as a Theological Interpretation of the Persian Period’, in: O. Lipschits and M. Oeming (eds), JudahandtheJudeansinthePersianPeriod, Winona Lake 2006, 571-88; R.J. Bautch, Glory and Power, Ritual and Relationship: The Sinai CovenantinthePostexilicPeriod (LHB/OTS 471), London, New York 2009, 51-52; Saysell, “AccordingtotheLaw”, 20-29; M. Häusl, ‘„Ich betete zum Gott des Himmels“ (Neh 2,4) Zur kontextuellen Einbettung der Gebete in Neh 1-13‘, in: C. Diller, M. Mulzer, K. Ólason, R. Rothenbusch (eds), Studien zu Psalmen und Propheten. Festschrift für Hubert Irsigler (HBS 64), Freiburg 2010, 47-64; M. Leuchter,‘Inter-Levitical Polemics in the late 6th century BCE: The Evidence from Nehemiah 9’, Biblica95 (2014), 269-279; N. Amzallag, Esauin Jerusalem:TheRiseofaSeiriteReligiousEliteinZionatthePersianPeriod (Cahiers de la Revue Biblique 85), Pende 2015, 145-52; L.L. Schulte, My Shepherd, though You Do not

262

Nehemiah8-12

Classification:

Authors:

Confessional sermon prayer

Throntveit

Confession by the community and call Williamson; McConville for universal recovery Penitential prayer

Plöger; Myers; In der Smitten; Fensham; Schunck; Becker; Boda; Bautch; Hieke; Häusl; Leuchter; Schulte; Heckl; Laird

Penitential song

Jagersma

Penitential liturgy

Jobsen

Prayer of penitence and guilt

Van Grol; Goldingay

Prayer

Van Wijk-Bos; Newman; Oeming; Saysell; Janzen

Prayer with an included theology

Mathys; Shepherd & Wright

Communal prayer

Eskenazi

Historical narrative ending in a prayer

Bautch

Levitical prayer

Duggan

National confession

Pakkala

Confession of guilt

Gunneweg; Blenkinsopp; Breneman; Grabbe; Nelson

Pessimistic preamble to the charter

Amzallag

All these characterizations circle around the view that in Neh. 9, the Levites confessed on behalf of the people their debt to God, who had been good to them. The history of God with Israel is summarized in the following episodes:38 6 7-8 9-11 12-15 16-17a 17b-22 23-25

Creation Abraham Exodus out of Egypt Revelation at Sinai Disobedience Through the desert Entrance into the Promised Land

Know Me: The Persian Royal Propaganda Model in the Nehemiah Memoir (BEThL 78), Leuven 2016, 178-82; D. Laird, NegotiatingPowerinEzraNehemiah(Ancient Israel and its Literature 26), Atlanta 2016, 269-83; R. Heckl, Neuanfang und Kontinuität in Jerusalem: Studien zu den hermeneutischen Strategien im Esra-Nehemia-Buch (FAT 104), Tübingen 2016, 315-22; M. Häusl, ‘Searching for Forces of Group Cohesion in the Books of Nehemiah and Isaiah’, in: S. Gillmayr-Bucher, M. Häusl (eds), Ṣedaqa and Torah in Postexilic Discourse (LHB/OTS 640), London, New York 2017, 61-64; D. Janzen, ‘Yahwistic Appropriation of Achaemenid Ideology and the Function of Nehemiah 9 in Ezra-Nehemiah’, JBL 136 (2017), 839-56. 38 See also Williamson; Mathys, Dichter und Beter, 4-21; Van Grol, ‘Indeed, Servants We Are’, 216-17; Oeming, ‘See, We Are Serving Today’, 573.

TheCommunityStrengthened 26 27-29a 29b 30-33 34-35 36-37 38

263

Disobedience Era of the Judges Disobedience Monarchic period Disobedience Recognition of current position Conclusion of an agreement.

The literary origin of this prayer is unclear. Some think of an adaptation of a part of the Nehemiah-memoir (Rudolph). Others argue for an origin from the Ezra-memoir (Williamson). Again, others construe the prayer as a very late editorial addition.39 In my opinion, the text is based on a traditional prayer tradition, adapted for the occasion and updated to connect with the mention of the confession of guilt in Neh. 9:1-3 (Williamson).40 The view of Welch, that Neh. 9 was written in Northern Israel shortly after the conquest of Samaria, is intriguing,41 but denies that the reflection on history in Neh. 9 clearly goes on until the Persian period and the fact that the Hebrew of this prayer is clearly post-exilic. The idea of Rendsburg, that Neh. 9 was written in the Persian period by offspring of the Northern Israelites,42 undervalues the antagonism between Jerusalem and Samaria in the book of Nehemiah. A radically contrary view is given by Gunneweg who construes Neh. 9 as a later addition to what he saw as the Chroniclers History.

In their definition of ethnicity, Hutchinson and Smith indicate six dimensions that play a role in determining whether a community may be labelled as an ethnic group.43 Three of these are important in the analysis of Neh. 9: (1) the myth of a common lineage, (2) shared historical memories and (3) the awareness of a homeland. These three elements are clearly present in the prayer in Neh. 9. (1) The group is presented as Abraham’s descendants. This is emphasized by using the words ‘we’ and ‘us’ in the prayer. (2) The common historical memory is clearly pronounced. The past is a binding element here, both in the remarks on the goodness of God and in those on the (dis)obedience of the ancestors. (3) Jerusalem and its surroundings are clearly seen as the area where this group is at home. The prayer therefore serves in two ways as an identity marker. This view of the past offers a grip on the identity in the present,

39 E.g. J.L. Wright, ‘A New Model for the Composition of Ezra-Nehemiah’, in: O. Lipschits, G.N. Knoppers, R. Albertz (eds), JudahandtheJudeansintheFourthCentury B.C.E., Winona Lake 2007, 345-46; Leuchter,‘Inter-Levitical Polemics’. 40 See also Oeming, ‘See, We Are Serving Today’. 41 A.C. Welch, ‘The Source of Nehemiah IX’, ZAW 47 (1929), 130-37. 42 G.A. Rendsburg, ‘The Northern Origin of Nehemiah 9’, Biblica 72 (1991), 348-66; with the remarks of Mathys, DichterundBeter. 43 J. Hutchinson, A.D. Smith (eds), Ethnicity, Oxford 1996.

264

Nehemiah8-12

9:4-5a



Now on the stairs of the Levites stood Jeshua, Bani, Kadmiel, Shebaniah,Bunni,Sherebiah,Bani,Chenani.Theycriedwithaloud voicetoYHWHtheirGod. ThentheLevites,Jeshua,Kadmiel,Bani,Hashabneiah,Sherebiah, Hodiah,Shebaniah,Pethahiah,said,

What exactly is meant by the ma’alèh, ‘platform’, is uncertain. Elsewhere, the word has as its meaning ‘rise (to a landscaped higher place)’ (e.g. Josh. 10:10; I Sam. 9:11; II Sam. 15:30; Isa. 15:5); or ‘(monumental) staircase’ (inter alia, Neh. 12:37; Ezek. 40:31, 34, 37). This latter meaning is to be preferred here (Williamson). It refers to a construction of steps for the Levites to find their way to the temple. It is in any case a different construction than the stage upon which Ezra preaches the law (8: 5). In the Mishna tractate Middot 2:5, it is noted: ‘There were fifteen steps that went up [from the courtyard of the women] to the court of the Israelites, equal to the number of the fifteen Songs of Ascent. In those stairs, the Levites sang their songs’. This remark refers to the ‘pilgrim songs’ (Psalms 121-134). Kidner assumes that the Mishna refers to the stairs from Neh. 9:4.

Twice a list of eight Levites is given. Both lists are largely identical but differ in some instances. One of the two lists may be a later addition. A caveat against this view is the fact that the actions that both groups perform, differ. In v. 4, wayyiz’aqûbeqôlgādôl, ‘they shouted out loudly’. In v. 5, it is reported that ‘they’ wayyomrû, ‘spoke (called upon)’. Both expressions have another address; God, and the community, respectively. Possibly both actions were performed by two slightly different groups of Levites. In the second act, the community is invited to stand up and praise God. 9:5b  

‘Arise,blessYHWHyourGodforeverandever! Omayyourgloriousnamebeblessed andexaltedaboveallblessingandpraise!

The prayer itself opens with a doxology. At the beginning of prayer, the text is incorrect. The adjective adjunct ‘from eternity to eternity’ is unconnected syntactically. A connection with the previous verb form bārkû, ‘praise!’, is possible but encounters the problem that ‘from eternity to eternity’ is a characteristic of God and does not appear elsewhere in the Hebrew Bible as an indication of the duration of praise. A comparison with texts like Ps. 41:14; 106:48; I Chron. 29:10 makes it clear that here, perhaps bārûk yhwh, ‘praise YHWH!’, has fallen out during the early transmission of the text (Williamson).44 The image of God in this doxology combines priestly 44

See also Torrey, EzraStudies, 280-82.

TheCommunityStrengthened

265

(kābôd) and Deuteronomistic (šēm) elements.45 The extensive narrative on history then functions as an argument for praise. Leuenberger has pointed to the reciprocal character of the verb brk in the Hebrew Bible: because God blesses humanity, mankind should bless God. There is, therefore, no reason to distinguish between ‘blessing by God’ and ‘praise by the people’, although there is a qualitative distinction.46 Blessing is the transfer of invisible power which gives the recipient well-being, happiness and joy of life. However, the blessing can also be expressed in increasing fertility – both in the family and in agriculture. The blessing is also a matter that the recipient must share with others. It therefore includes a call for solidarity. Whoever knows they have been blessed, thanks God for that. 9:6      

YoualoneareYHWH. Youhadmadetheheavens, theheavenofheavenswithalltheirhost, theearthandallthatisonit, theseasandallthatisinthem. Youhavegivenlifetoallofthem andtheheavenlyhostbowsdownbeforeyou.

The prayer continues with a statement about the incomparability of YHWH (Blenkinsopp).47 The claim that only YHWH is God is supported by the belief that God is the creator of all things. For creating, the craftsmanshipword ‘śh, ‘to make’ is used. Not only did God create heaven and earth, but also the ‘heaven of heavens’ and ‘all its army (ṣèbā’). The expression ‘heaven of heavens’ refers here and elsewhere to the ‘highest heaven’ as the abode of God above the firmament (Deut. 1:14; I Kgs 8:27; Ps. 68:34; 148:4).48 The ‘Host of Heaven’ is an expression rooted in the metaphor of the divine warrior. This host formed the armies that assisted God in his struggle. Texts like II Kgs 17:16; 23: 5; Jer. 8: 2; Zeph. 1:5 show that the worship of these powers was not consistent with a more monolatric view of Yahwism. However, in post-exile texts, the expression has a positive meaning and refers to the heavenly council (Isa. 40:26; 45:12; Ps. 33:6; 45 See T.N.D. Mettinger, InSearchofGod:TheMeaningandMessageoftheEverlasting Names, Philadelphia 1988. 46 M. Leuenberger, SegenundSegenstheologienimaltenIsrael:Untersuchungenzuihren religions-undtheologiegeschichtlichenKonstellationenundTransformationen (AThANT 90), Zürich 2008, esp. 453-86. 47 See C.J. Labuschagne, TheIncomparabilityofYahwehintheOldTestament (Pretoria Oriental Series 5), Leiden 1966, esp. 110; Mathys, DichterundBeter, 4; Boda, Prayingthe Tradition, 93. 48 See C. Houtman, DerHimmelimAltenTestament:IsraelsWeltbildundWeltanschauung (OTS 30), Leiden 1993; Mathys, DichterundBeter, 5-6; Boda, PrayingtheTradition, 96-97.

266

Nehemiah8-12

Dan. 4:32).49 In Neh. 9:6 it is said that these figures should ‘bow down before God’. That idea contains an implicit summons to the community to ‘bow down to God’. The text in Nehemiah clearly echoes a remark in the creation hymn (Gen. 2:1).50 From this hymn, the partition of the universe into three domains: waters, earth and heaven, has also been adopted.51 The LXX has a remarkable plus at the beginning of the verse kaieipènEsdras. This would make Ezra the one who pronounced the prayer in Neh. 9. Other versions do not have this addition. The addition is rarely adopted in contemporary translations or comments (e.g.: McConville).

9:7-8           

YouaretheGodYHWH, whochoseAbram andbroughthimoutfromUroftheChaldees, andgavehimthenameAbraham. Youdidfindhisheartfaithfulbeforeyou, anddidmakeacovenantwithhim togivethelandoftheCanaanite, oftheHittiteandtheAmorite, ofthePerizzite,theJebusite,andtheGirgashite togivetohisdescendants. Youhavefulfilledyourpromise, foryouarerighteous.

In the section on the patriarchs, the author limits himself to the person of Abra(ha)m. In a few sentences the life of Abraham – and the role of YHWH in it – is summarized. The first thing that is noticed is that YHWH has ‘chosen’ him. The expression bḥrbe- should be translated with ‘to elect to …’. Abram was chosen for a task. This expression gives an assessment of the tradition of Abram’s departure from Ur of the Chaldeans. Nowhere else in the Hebrew Bible is God’s preference for Abram phrased with this verb.52 In most instances in the Hebrew Bible the divine election of Israel is connected to the exodus generation. In Neh. 9, this election expanded backwards in time.53 The second act of God concerns the departure from Ur of the Chaldeans. Reference is made to the tradition of leaving hearth and home as narrated in Gen. 11:28, 31 and 15:7. Here, the author uses terminology that recollects 49

See H. Niehr, ‘Host of Heaven’, in: DDD2, 428-30. Houtman, DerHimmel, 69. 51 Boda, PrayingtheTradition, 96-100. 52 At Gen. 18:19 the verb yd‘, ‘to know’, can have the connotation ‘to choose; elect’. 53 Th.C. Vriezen, DieErwählungIsraelsnachdemAltenTestament (AThANT 24), Zürich 1953; Boda, PrayingtheTradition, 101-02. 50

TheCommunityStrengthened

267

the phrasing of the Exodus story. The Hiph. of the verb yṣ’, ‘to lead; bring out’, is used in many places for the Exodus-event.54 The author of Nehemiah construes Abram’s departure as a parallel to the Exodus out of Egypt.55 At the same time, this text is prayed by or for a community that can identify itself with Abram because of its stay in the Babylonian Exile.56 The author interprets the return from exile as a new Exodus. The ancient versions have some difficulty with the translation of the place name ’ûr, ‘Ur’. LXX renders here – just as in Gen. 11:28, 31 and 17:7 – with the base imitation χώρα, ‘region’, while Vulg – which in Genesis always translates with ‘Ur’ – has in Nehemiah a form of the noun ignis, ‘fire’, with the Hebrew obviously being read as ’ôr, ‘light’. A Rabbinical influence on this translation is therefore unlikely.57

As the third act of God, the name change from Abram into Abraham is mentioned. The author reverts to a tradition that is also found in Gen. 17:5-8. In Genesis, this name change is connected to the divine promise of numerous progeny and the promise of the land (Williamson).58 The wāw in ûmaṣā’tāh, ‘for you had found’, has causal force.59 This opened sentence gives the motive for the acts of God to Abra(ha)m. The verb refers to a recognition based on inquiry. The Niph. of the verb ’mn, ‘to be faithful; true’, refers here, as in I Sam. 2:35; 22:14; Job 12:20; Ps. 89:38, 101:6; Prov. 25:13; Isa. 8:2 and Neh. 13:13, to the reliability of Abraham. The assessment of the patriarch refers to the traditions of Gen. 15 and 22.60 The wāw in wekārôt, ‘to close; conclude’, has final strength.61 As a result of God’s appreciation of Abraham, he concludes a ‘binding obligation’ with him. The Hebrew word berît, traditionally ‘covenant’, is and remains a difficult concept to understand, both philologically and theologically. The classic translation with ‘covenant’ has been discussed without resulting in an unambiguous alternative. Suggested are words as ‘commitment; agreement;

54 See: J.N.M. Wijngaards, ‘‫ הוציא‬and ‫ העלה‬a Twofold Approach to the Exodus’, VT 15 (1965), 91-102; W. Gross, ‘Die Herausführungsformel – Zum Verhältnis von Formel und Syntax’, ZAW 86 (1974), 425-53. 55 Boda, PrayingtheTradition, 102-03. 56 J. Blenkinsopp, Abraham:TheStoryofaLife, Grand Rapids 2015, 30-32. 57 Contra Boda, PrayingtheTradition, 102. 58 See also Boda, PrayingtheTradition, 103: B. Ziemer, Abram-Abraham:kompositionsgeschichtliche Untersuchungen zu Genesis 14, 15 und 17 (BZAW 350), Berlin, New York 2005, 277-384. 59 See B.K. Waltke, M.P. O’Connor, AnIntroductiontoBiblicalHebrewSyntax, Winona Lake 1990, § 32. 60 F.C. Holmgren, ‘Faithful Abraham and the ᾿amāna Covenant Nehemiah 9,6 – 10,1’, ZAW104 (1992), 249–54; Boda, PrayingtheTradition, 103-05; Bautch, GloryandPower, RitualandRelationship, 51-52. 61 See Waltke, O’Connor, IntroductiontoBiblicalHebrewSyntax, § 32.

268

Nehemiah8-12

duty; concord’.62 God obliges himself to do two things for Abraham. The promise of the land is given explicitly with reference to the six nations in whose country Abraham’s posterity will live. As stated above at Ezra 9:1, the number and order of the ‘original inhabitants’ are not exactly determined in these types of lists. The promise of progeny is implicitly given in the mention that Abraham’s posterity will come to live in these areas.63 The episode closes with the confession that God has fulfilled his promises. In addition, God is called ṣaddîq, ‘righteous’. This word is an enhanced parallel of Abraham’s ‘trustworthiness’. The phrase ‘fulfilment of promise’ should be understood in two ways. Firstly, the expression refers to the traditions surrounding the entry into the Promised Land, but also to the situation of the praying community, which after the exile was given space to reside in the country. 9:9-11 YoudidseetheafflictionofourfathersinEgypt,  anddidheartheircrybytheRedSea.  ThenyoudidperformsignsandwondersagainstPharaoh,  againstallhisservantsandallthepeopleofhisland;  Foryoudidknowthattheyactedarrogantlytowardthem,  anddidmakeanameforyourselfasthisday.  Youdiddividetheseabeforethem.  So,theypassedthroughthemidstoftheseaondryground;  theirpursuersyoudidhurlintothedepths,  likeastoneintoragingwaters. The section on the exodus from Egypt contains traditional material. Essentially, the verses refer to the hymnic wording in the Psalms (Ps. 78; 105; 106; 136). The first verse gives a free rendering of Exod. 3:7. The ‘seeing’ by God of the ‘misery’ of the Hebrews also occurs elsewhere in reflections on the exodus (Exod. 4:31; Deut. 26:7). In all these texts, the word ‘ānî is 62 From the overwhelming abundance of literature: W.F. Albright, ‘The Hebrew Expression for “Making a Covenant” in Pre-Israelite Documents’, BASOR 121 (1951), 21-22; K. Baltzer, Das Bundesformular (WMANT 4), Neukirchen-Vluyn 1964; E. Kutsch, ‘Sehen und Bestimmen: Die Etymologie von ‫’ברית‬, in: A. Kuschke, E. Kutsch (eds), Archäologie undAltesTestament.FestschriftfürKurtGallingzum8.Januar1970, Tübingen 1970, 165178; G. Gerleman, ‘Die „Besonderheit“. Untersuchungen zu berît im Alten Testament’, in: G. Gerleman, StudienzuralttestamentlichenTheologie, Heidelberg 1980, 24-37; S.D. Sperling, ‘Rethinking Covenant in late biblical books’, Biblica 70 (1989), 50-73; S. Linington, ‘The term ‫ ;ברית‬in the Old Testament, part V: An enquiry into the meaning and use of the word in 1-2 Chronicles, Ezra and Nehemiah’, OTE 19 (2006), 671-693; C. Koch, Vertrag,Treueid undBund:StudienzurRezeptiondesaltorientalischenVertragsrechtsimDeuteronomiumund zur Ausbildung der Bundestheologie im alten Testament (BZAW 383), Berlin, New York 2008; Crouch, IsraelandtheAssyrians. 63 Mathys, DichterundBeter, 9-10; Boda, PrayingtheTradition, 106-10.

TheCommunityStrengthened

269

used, which has a broad spectrum of meaning: ‘sadness; grief; sorrow; pain’; it refers to situations in which a human being is led away from a beneficial life. The word ze‘āqāh, ‘clamour’, as well as its parallel ṣe‘āqāh, refers to the cry of an individual or community from a situation of inhumanity. The combination of this word with the ‘Sea of Reeds’ is unique and astonishing.64 The cry of the people was located in the Exodus traditions during the period of tribulation in Egypt. In Exod. 14:10 the Israelites shout (ṣ‘q) to YHWH because they are stuck between the Red Sea and the Pharaoh’s army. YHWH is presented in Neh. 9 anthropomorphically as a God who sees and hears and acts accordingly. The ‘signs and wonders’ refer to the acts of God by which he was made known to Pharaoh (see especially Exod. 7:3; Deut. 6:2; 29:3; 34:11; Jer. 32:20). The suppressive acts of the Egyptians are referred to here by the unusual verb zyd. This verb is used for the acts of the Egyptians (Exod. 18:11) and the Babylonian (Jer. 50:29). In Neh. 9:16 it is used to draw the disobedience of the people to YHWH. Opposed to this behaviour of Pharaoh stand the saving acts of YHWH with which he has ‘made a name’. The author adds that that reputation of God as a creator and saviour was not only a matter of actions in the past. The power of God’s name is present ‘until this day’. With this, the praying community also falls under the protection of God. The double theme of salvation through the dried sea for Israel and the demise in the waters of the pursuing Egyptians is derived from the report in Exodus 14 and the framework of the song of Moses in Exod. 15. The verb bq‘, ‘to split’, to describe the drying of the Sea is taken from the hymnic traditions (see next to Exod. 14:16, also Ps. 78:13; Isa. 63:12). The verb ‘br, ‘to cross’, has been taken from the report on the crossing of the river Jordan (Josh. 4:23).65 The image that the pursuers went down ‘like a stone in wild waters’ is here unique in the Hebrew Bible. 9:12-15 Withapillaryoudidleadthembyday,  withapillarbynight  tolightforthemtheway  inwhichtheyweretogo.  YoudidstcomedownonMountSinai,  didspeakwiththemfromheaven;  youdidgivetothemjustordinancesandtruelaws,  goodstatutesandcommandments. 64 65

Boda, PrayingtheTradition, 115-16. Boda, PrayingtheTradition, 120-22.

270        

Nehemiah8-12 Youdidmakeknowntothem yourholySabbath, didlaydownforthemcommandments,statutes,andlaw, throughyouservantMoses. Youdidprovidebreadfromheaventothemfortheirhunger, youdidbringforthwaterfromarockforthemfortheirthirst, youdidtellthemtoenterinordertopossess thelandwhichyoudidsweartogivethem.

The first part of the summary of the journey through the desert emphasizes God’s gracious care (Williamson).66 The protection on the way is indicated with the image of the ‘ammûd, ‘column’. As in Exod. 13:21, 22; 14:24 and Num. 14:14, this word can refer both to the cloud column during the day and to the fire column at night. LXX always translates with stulos, ‘pillar’. Only in the Vulgate is a distinction made between a columna nubis and a columnaignis, presumably based on the mention of ’ēš, ‘fire’, and ‘ānān, ‘cloud’, in the parallel Deut. 1:33.67 This distinction has been taken over by all subsequent translations, until today. The author of Nehemiah follows the Book of Exodus by seeing Sinai as the place where God spoke from heaven. The traditional four-stroke ‘ordinances, laws, statutes, and commandments’, is enriched by three adjectives that appear to be adopted from Ps. 19. By qualifying the rules for life as ‘righteous, trustworthy, and good’, it is emphasized that they are not intended as a yoke, but as a protection to not get lost in the world.68 Remarkable is the separate mention of the Sabbath commandment. The author of Nehemiah represents the tradition that the Sabbath originally relates to the exodus (see also Exod. 16: Deut. 5:14-15). Elsewhere, the origin of the Sabbath is associated with creation (Exod. 20:10-11). Often, the same connection is read in Gen. 2:1-3, although the word Sabbath does not occur in the Creation Hymn. The Sabbath appears later in the Book of Nehemiah to be an important element for the identity of the community (Neh. 10:31; 13:15-22). That the Sabbath is labelled in Neh. 9 as qodèš, ‘holy’, is not unique, but special. The same designation appears in Exod. 16:23. In Gen. 2: 3, the seventh day is ‘set apart’.69 66

Amzallag, EsauinJerusalem, 156-59. Boda, PrayingtheTradition, 124-25. 68 See, e.g. W. Brueggemann, Theology of the Old Testament: Testimony, Dispute, Advocacy, Minneapolis 1997, 181-201; P.D. Miller, ‘Divine Command and Beyond: The Ethics of the Commandments’, in: W.P. Brown (ed.), TheTenCommandments:TheReciprocityofFaithfulness, Louisville 2004, 12-29. 69 Boda, Praying the Tradition, 132-36. For a recent proposal concerning the religiohistorical background and function of the Sabbath, see A. Grund, DieEntstehungdesSabbats: seineBedeutungfürIsraelsZeitkonzeptundErinnerungskultur (FAT 75), Tübingen 2011. 67

TheCommunityStrengthened

271

The tradition of God’s care by giving manna to Israel during the years in the desert (Exod. 16; Deut. 8; Josh. 5:12; Ps. 78:24) is summarized here in the expression ‘bread of heaven’ for the journey on earth.70 At 9:20 the manna tradition is referred to verbally. 9:16-17a Butthey,ourfathers,actedarrogantly;  theybecamestubbornandwouldnotlistentoyourcommandments.  Theyrefusedtolisten,  didnotrememberyourwonderfulacts  whichyouhadperformedamongthem. The disobedience of the people is, for the greater part, expressed in traditional language, except for the first reproach. The author takes over the verb zyd, ‘to act criminally’, from v. 10. Once liberated, the Israelites repeated the behaviour of Pharaoh, but now against God. The ‘stubbornness’ of the people is a reproach that occurs three times in Neh. 9 (16, 17, 29). In the tradition, this attitude is mainly associated with the incident of the golden calf (inter alia Exod. 32-34; Deut. 9; II Kgs 17:14; Jer. 7:26).71 The continuous ‘not listening to the’ commandments are an ongoing theme in Israel’s history. Although not specifically formulated, this expression refers to ‘not hearing; not obeying’ the moral impulses of God (Williamson). This jeopardizes God’s willingness to care for the people. The ‘not remembering’ the miracles of God refers to the aforementioned ‘signs and wonders’. ‘Not remembering’ stands parallel to ‘not hearing’ a perennial theme in Israel’s history. Within the composition of the Book of Nehemiah, this reproach stands in antithesis to the prayer of Nehemiah in 5:19, asking God to commemorate him (zkr) because of the good he has done for ‘this people’ (see also 13:31). ‘To remember’ is not a mere ‘remembrance’ but, especially, a gratifying reflection that materializes in direct and tangible deeds (for literature see 5:19). Designating a ro’š, ‘head; leader’, other than Moses refers to the episode at Kadesh Barnea (Num. 14). There, the disappointed Israelites propose to appoint a ro’š, ‘head; leader’, who will take them back to Egypt.72

70 Boda, Praying the Tradition, 143-44; on manna see P. Maiberger, Das Manna: eine literarische,etymologischeundnaturkundlicheUntersuchung(Ägypten und Altes Testament 6), Bamberg 1983. 71 Boda, PrayingtheTradition, 146-47. 72 Boda, PrayingtheTradition, 149-50.

272

Nehemiah8-12

9:17b-22 ButyouareaGodofforgiveness,  graciousandcompassionate,  slowtoanger,  aboundinginlovingkindness;  youdidnotforsakethem.  Evenwhentheymadeforthemselves  acalfofmoltenmetalandsaid,  ‘ThisisyourGod  whobroughtyouupfromEgypt,’  andcommittedgreatblasphemies,  You,inyougreatcompassion,  didnotforsaketheminthewilderness;  thepillarofclouddidnotleavethembyday,  toguidethemontheirway,  northepillaroffirebynight,  tolightforthemthewayinwhichtheyweretogo.  Youdidgiveyourgoodbreathtoinstructthem,  yourmannayoudidnotwithholdfromtheirmouth,  youdidgivethemwaterfortheirthirst.  Indeed,fortyyearsyoudidprovidetheminthewilderness,  theywerenotinwant;  theirclothesdidnotwearout,  nordidtheirfeetswell.  Youdidalsogivethemkingdomsandpeoples,  youdidallottothemasabufferzone.  TheytookpossessionofthelandofSihonthekingofHeshbon,  andthelandofOgthekingofBashan. Between the first reproach of disobedience and the further summary of the desert traditions, the confession of God’s forgiveness is placed as a hinge. 17b refers to the traditional cultic confession of God’s virtuous care for Israel (Exodus 34:6-7; with many echoes in the Old Testament: Num. 14:18; Ps. 103:8; 145:8; Nah. 1:2-4; Joel 2:13).73 However, this confession is quoted selectively. The clauses about divine punishment for the ‘third and fourth generation’ have been omitted. Added is the mention that God has not ‘left them alone’. This contrasts with the behaviour of Israel: ‘zb, ‘to abandon’, is an ongoing theme in Israel’s history.

73 See, e.g.: H. Spieckermann, ‘Barmherzig und gnädig ist der Herr …’, ZAW 102 (1990), 1-18; Brueggemann, Theology of the Old Testament, 215-18; Mathys, Dichter und Beter, 15-16; Boda, PrayingtheTradition, 150-51.

TheCommunityStrengthened

273

The double theme – Israel’s disobedience and God’s loving care – is continued in the following verses. The first example is God’s reaction to the manufacture and the worship of a ‘ēgèlmassēkāh, ‘molten calf’. The verse reminds us of Ex. 32:4, 8 and Deut. 9:16. In the Hebrew Bible, the expression ‘golden calf’ does not occur. This post-biblical tradition emerged based on the material from which the ‘molten calf’ was made: golden rings, and from the identification with the ‘two calves of gold’ that Jeroboam made (I Kgs 12:28; II Kgs 10:29) which are also presented as the ‘gods that led you out of Egypt’.74 The making and worship of the calf are labelled as a nè’āṣāh, ‘despicable matter’. This word, associated with the verb ’ṣh, ‘to despise’, appears only three times in the Hebrew Bible (also: Neh. 9:26; Ezek. 35:12). Again, it is pointed out that God had not ‘forsaken’ Israel. The two columns are symbolic, although the author varies here against v. 12 by talking about ‘ānān, ‘cloud’, and ’ēš, ‘fire’. This variation does not have to indicate a later editorial addition. Again, the gift of ‘manna’ and ‘water’ in the desert are stressed. The idea that man does not live by bread alone is emphasized by the memory of the gift of rûḥakāhhaṭṭôbāh, ‘your good spirit; breath’. In addition, there are three exegetical questions: (1) What tradition of Pentateuch does this gift refer to? The book of Exodus refers to the gift of the spirit of craftsmanship (28:3; 31:3 and 35:31). Num. 11 tells us how part of the spirit of Moses is given by God to the 70 elders (Num. 11:17, 25). In addition, there is the tradition that the spirit of Moses was transferred to Joshua (Num. 27:18; Deut. 34:9). It seems that Neh. 9 does not explicitly refer to one of these traditions, but rather on the motif of guidance by God in general. (2) How did Neh. 9 see the function of this spirit? The purpose of the gift is lehaśkîl, ‘to teach; give insight’. This emphasis on instruction or wisdom appears at first sight to be a strange element in a section on God’s caring guidance. The only other instance in the Hebrew Bible, where there is a ‘good spirit’, contains a petition for guidance through this spirit (Ps. 143:10). The word lehaśkîl also appeared in 8:14 (Hebr. 8:13), indicating the understanding of tôrā for daily life. The verb śkl occurs mainly in the Hiph. and has a wide range of meanings that are all related to ‘education’ and ‘wisdom’.75 There is no reason to deviate from this meaning in Neh. 9: God ensures that his people will have sufficient wisdom and insight for their journey through the desert. Whether this leadership takes place through the tôrā (thus: Williamson) is possible, but not necessary. (3) Was this spirit a personification? 74 J.W. Watts, ‘Aaron and the Golden Calf in the Rhetoric of the Pentateuch’, JBL 130 (2011), 417-30. 75 See DCH VIII, 15-53; Boda, PrayingtheTradition, 159.

274

Nehemiah8-12

Like all other words for body parts and life functions, the word rûaḥ can pars pro toto stand for a human being or in this case for God. As such, Neh. 9:20 emphasizes an aspect of God as a creator of space and scope.76 Kline identifies the ‘spirit’ with the conductive cloud column.77 She follows a tradition already found in the church fathers. This makes the ‘spirit’ a hypostasis of God. It is possible to construe ancient texts about rûaḥ as referring to a reality outside of God. The Spirit, however, only becomes a separate person in early Christian theology. 78 Verse 21 mentions the traditional duration of the desert journey: forty years (see: Exod. 16:35; Num. 14:33, 34; 32:13; Deut. 2:7; 8:2; 4; Josh. 5:6 Ps. 95:10; Am. 2:10). The hyperbolic comment about the not being worn out of clothes during the desert trip is an echo of Deut. 2:7; 8:4, 9; 29:5. The report on the Gibeonites mentions exactly the reversed image: pretending to come from far away they meet the Israelites in torn and worn clothes (Josh. 9).79 By the end of the desert journey, the territories of Sihon, king of Heshbon, and of Og, king of Bashan, were conquered by the Israelites (see, for example, Num. 21). In Neh. 9, this tradition is presented in two ways. First, it is said that God had given them and assigned them to the Israelites. Second, it is then reported that the Israelites had conquered two kingdoms. The verb used yrš, ‘to take possession’, is typically Deuteronomistic.80 The exact meaning of the word pē’āh in this context is controversial.81 Most scholars translate with ‘border’ or the like (Williamson; Blenkinsopp). Williamson points to the parallel with Akkadian pāṭu, ‘edge; border’. Others choose ‘border area’ (Rudolph).82 Since the Hebrew Bible generally uses gebûl for ‘border’, there is a second possibility. The areas beyond the promised land are considered as ‘buffer zones’. Sihon (siḥôn) was an Amorite king. In the Hebrew Bible he is often called ‘king of the Amorites’ (Num. 21:21, 29, 34; 32:33; Deut. 1:4; 3:2; 4:46; 31:4; I Kgs 4:19; Ps. 135; 136) who ruled from Chesbon. A single time he is called ‘King of Chesbon’ (Deut. 2; 3:6; 29:7; Josh. 9:10). The city of Chesbon, today’s Tell Hesban, is

76 See S. Schroer, Th. Staubli, DieKörpersymbolikderBibel, Gütersloh 22005, esp. 17072; H. Schüngel-Straumann, “RuahbewegtdieWelt”:GottesschöpferischeLebenskraftin derKrisenzeitdesExils (SBS 151),Stuttgart 1992. 77 M.G. Kline, ImagesoftheSpirit, Boston 1980, 15. 78 See: J. Reiling, ‘Holy Spirit’, in: DDD2, 418-24; S.M. Studebaker, FromPentecostto theTriuneGod:APentecostalTrinitarianTheology, Grand Rapids 2012. 79 Boda, PrayingtheTradition, 160-61. 80 N. Lohfink, ‘Die Bedeutungen von hebr. jrš qal und hif’., BZ27 (1983), 14-33; Boda, PrayingtheTradition, 161-63. 81 The translation ‘booty’ by Brockington for which no philological argument can be found, is only adapted by the New English Bible. 82 Boda, PrayingtheTradition, 161.

TheCommunityStrengthened

275

located in what is now the kingdom of Jordan. At excavations in Tell Hesban, six Moabitic inscriptions were found dating around 600 BCE.83 Og (‘ôg) was king of Bashan. He is always mentioned together with Sihon. Bashan was a region east of the Lake of Tiberias. The region was known in ancient times as of great agricultural importance (Am. 4: 1; Mic. 7:14; Nah. 1:4).

9:23-25 Youdidmaketheirsonsnumerousasthestarsofheaven,  andyoudidbringthemintotheland  thatyouhadtoldtheirfatherstoenterandpossess.  So,theirsonsenteredandpossessedtheland.  You did subdue before them the inhabitants of the land, the Canaanites,  andyoudidgivethemintotheirhand,withtheirkings,  andthepeoplesoftheland,  todowiththemastheydesired.  Theycapturedfortifiedcitiesandafertileland.  Theytookpossessionofhousesfullofeverygoodthing,  hewncisterns,vineyards,olivegroves,  fruittreesinabundance.  So,theyate,werefilled,andgrewfat,  andrevelledinyourgreatgoodness. The reflection on entering into the Promised Land gives a romantic picture that is clearly written from the perspective of the victorious Israelites. The episode opens with the fulfilment of two promises. In the Book of Genesis, three times we find the promise of God that he will make the seed of Abraham ‘numerous as the stars in heaven’ (15:5; 22:17; 26:4; see also Exod. 32:13; I Chron. 27:23) is present. In the Book of Deuteronomy, the fulfilment of this promise is located in Egypt (1:10; 10:22; 28:62). Neh. 9 places it on the threshold of the Promised Land. The second promise fulfilled is the gift of the land to Abraham’s many descendants.84 Contrary to the traditions in the books of Joshua and Judges – the entering was laborious and no occupied territories remained in the Promised Land – Neh. 9 places the ideal of an unambiguous, simple and comprehensive conquest of the land of Canaan. Remarkable are two things. Firstly, the use of the verb kn‘ Hif., ‘to humiliate’. This verb is undoubtedly intended as a pun on the geographical term Canaan. This verb occurs only a few times in the description of entering the Promised Land (Deut. 9: 3; Judg. 4:23). In 83

The inscriptions might have been written in Ammonite, see on this E. Gass, Die Moabiter: Geschichte und Kultur eines ostjordanischen Volkes im 1. Jahrtausend v. Chr. (ADPV 38), Wiesbaden 2009, 87-88. 84 Boda, PrayingtheTradition, 161-63.

276

Nehemiah8-12

reports of struggle, this verb has the meaning ‘to make a laughing-stock’ of the enemy that leads to disruption.85 It is then stated that the Israelites were permitted to deal with the country and the original inhabitants as they pleased. The adverbial adjunct kirṣônām, ‘to their liking’, only occurs twice elsewhere in the Hebrew Bible: Neh. 9:37 and Est. 9:5. The noun rāṣôn refers to a concept of emotional charge. The word has a broad sense of meaning: ‘will; consent; desire; indulgence’.86 In other words, the noun expresses that one person lets the other person do what he wants, to a more or less severe degree. In combination with the verb ‘śh a negative judgment is sometimes given (Dan. 8:4; 11:3; 11:16, 36).87 In the context of the return from Babylon, the two cases evoke an ideology in which those returned from exile were allowed to deal with the land and its former residents at their discretion. The land that Abraham’s descendants should take possession of is presented as a country ready to live in. There is no need for pioneering. This elaborated image of the ‘land of milk and honey’ is almost entirely taken from Deuteronomy (6:11). The expression wayyašmînû means in Nehemiah too: ‘they became rich (Fensham).88 Neh. 9 has two additions over Deuteronomy. First, the phrase ‘and numerous fruit trees’ is added. Second, at the end of the verse, it is reported as a climax that the Israelites were wayyit‘addenû, ‘living in luxury’. The verb ‘dn – derived from the noun ‘èdèn, ‘wealth; luxury’, (II Sam. 1:4; Jer. 51:34; Ps. 36:9), only occurs here in the Hebrew Bible. 89 The noun is also related to the word ‘ēdèn, ‘Eden’, mentioned in the garden story (Genesis 2-3). In the context of the return from Babylon, this image of the country is reminiscent of the court from which humans were banned. 9:26 Buttheybecamedisobedientandrebelledagainstyou.  Theycastyourlawbehindtheirbacks  andkilledyourprophets  whohadadmonishedthem  sothattheymightreturntoyou.  Theycommittedgreatblasphemies. The disobedience that occurred instead of the anticipated gratitude for God’s good gifts is expressed in terms that are a summary of the Deuteronomistic 85

Boda, PrayingtheTradition, 167-68. See DCH VII, 543-46. 87 Boda, PrayingtheTradition, 168-69. 88 See also H.M. Barstad, ‘En bemerkning til Deuteronomium 32:15’, NorskTT 2 (1975), 103-06. 89 Boda, PrayingtheTradition, 171. 86

TheCommunityStrengthened

277

evaluation of the downfall of Samaria and Jerusalem in II Kgs 17.90 In addition, the theme of disobedience to God’s ‘servants the prophets’ (II Kgs 17:13, 23) presumably with a reminder of the ‘extinction’ and the ‘killing (hrg)’ of the prophets in the time of Ahab and Jezebel (I Kgs 18-19) was reinforced by the charge that the descendants of Abraham had ‘killed’ the prophets who had admonished them. Thus, Neh. 9 forms an important link in the formation of the tradition that comes to the surface in the New Testament that the Israelites persecuted and killed the prophets (Math. 5:12; Luke 6:23).91 9:27-29a Thereforeyoudiddeliverthemintothehandoftheiroppressors  whooppressedthem.  Butwhentheycriedtoyouinthetimeoftheirdistress,  youdidhearfromheaven,  andaccordingtoThygreatcompassion  youdidgivethemdeliverers  Butassoonastheyhadrest,  theydidevilagainbeforeyou.  Therefore,youdidabandonthemtothehandoftheirenemies,  sothattheyruledoverthem.  Whentheycriedagaintoyou,  youdidhearfromheaven.  Manytimes,youdidrescuethem  accordingtoyourcompassion,  andadmonishedthem  inordertoturnthembacktoyourlaw. The description of the period of the Judges is summarized in the repeated cycle from the Book of Judges: disobedience – punishment – repentance – salvation – sending a redemptive ruler – relapse into disobedience.92 This cycle is supplemented by a remark derived from II Kgs 17, albeit that in Neh. 9 the prophets are not mentioned as instrumental in the admonition. As in II Kgs 17:13, the verb ‘wd, ‘to testify’ is used in the sense of ‘to exhort’ and thus calls for a change of behaviour.93

90 On that chapter see B. Becking, FromDavidtoGedaliah:TheBookofKingsasStory andHistory (OBO 228), Fribourg, Göttingen 2007, 88-122. 91 See O.H. Steck, Israel und das gewaltsame Geschick der Propheten (WMANT 23), Neukirchen-Vluyn 1967, who incorrectly takes Neh. 9 as the oldest trace of this tradition. In my view, the pre-deuteronomistic remarks in the Elijah-cycle are older. 92 See also Mathys, DichterundBeter, 11-14; Boda, PrayingtheTradition, 174-77. 93 Boda, Praying the Tradition, 177; for this specific meaning see: J.A. Thompson, ‘Expansions of the ‫ עד‬Root’, JSS 10 (1965), 225-26.

278

Nehemiah8-12

9:29b Yettheyactedarrogantly  anddidnotlistentoyourcommandments  butsinnedagainstyourordinances,  Bywhich–ifoneobservesthem–heshalllive.  Theyturnedastubbornshoulder  andstiffenedtheirneckandwouldnotlisten. The disobedience consists of two things. First of all, it is said about the Israelites that they hēzîdû, ‘acted criminally’. This reproach that has already been made in v. 16, is in a sense an echo of the Egyptians’ actions in v. 10. What acts exactly are referred to, is not explained. The text mentions a basic attitude towards God. The second reproach consists of not hearing (šm‘). This disobedience manifests itself in stubbornness and obstinacy.94 9:30-31 However,youdidbearwiththemformanyyears,  Andadmonishedthembyyourbreaththroughyourprophets.  Yettheywouldnotgiveear.  Therefore, you did give them into the hand of the peoples of the lands.  Nevertheless,inyourgreatcompassion  youdidnotmakeanendofthemorforsakethem,  foryouareagraciousandcompassionateGod. The monarchical period in Israel and Judah is drawn in a contrast. The author uses an ellipsis (Williamson).95 The verb mšk, ‘to renew’, has no object here. Presumably, the word ḥèsèd, ‘faithful(ness)’, is omitted, and the ellipsis should be understood as ‘You have kept (your faithfulness) for a long time’ (cf. Ps. 36:11; 109:12; Jer. 31:3). The author here refers to the ‘longsuffering’ of God which implies that he is willing to postpone a necessary judgment. The theme of God’s long-suffering was already mentioned in the confession in v. 17 (’èrèk’appayim).96 The author thus epitomizes the point of II Kgs 17. Again, it is reported that God ‘admonished’ the people especially through the spirit (see 9:20) who worked instrumentally through the prophets. In opposition to God’s longsuffering, it is stated that the Israelites did not amend their lives: lo’ hè’èzînû, ‘they did not listen. The ‘phrasing of the disobedience’ is adopted from II Chron. 24:19.

94

Boda, PrayingtheTradition, 177-78. Boda, PrayingtheTradition, 178. 96 See: J. Jeremias, DerZornGottesimAltenTestament:dasbiblischeIsraelzwischen VerwerfungundErwählung (BThSt 104), Neukirchen 2009, 126-38. 95

TheCommunityStrengthened

279

Nevertheless, God did not betray them. The verb ‘zb, ‘to abandon’, refers in the Hebrew Bible mainly to the act of human betrayal. God’s attitude is again founded in his gracious mercy (see also 9:19, 27, 28). 9:32-33 Nowtherefore,ourGod,thegreat,themighty,andtheawesome God,  whokeepscovenantandlovingkindness,  donotletallthehardshipseeminsignificantbeforeyou,  whichhascomeuponus,ourkings,ourprinces,  ourpriests,ourprophets,ourfathers,  andonthewholeofyourpeople,  fromthedaysofthekingsofAssyriatothisday.  However,youarejustinallthathascomeuponus;  foryoudealtfaithfully,butwehaveactedwickedly. These verses contain a direct question to God. The particle we‘attāh, ‘indeed’, introduces the actual prayer.97 The addressee of the prayer is spoken to in language that conceals a small religious doctrine. At 1:5 it has been argued that the phrase hannôrā’, ‘tremendous’, has two meanings: ‘to fear God’ and ‘to serve God’. In comparison to 1:5, the epithet is extended with the recognition that God is an ’ēl … gibbôr, ‘strong … God’. This expression – which is one of the throne names of the coming prince of peace in Isa. 9:5 – refers to the warrior attribute of God: he is fighting for his people (see also Ps. 24:8; Deut. 10:17; Isa. 10:21; Jer. 32:18).98 The twosidedness is also confined in the confession that God is the šômēr, ‘guardian’, of the covenant and the solitary adherence. God’s supervision of humans can lead to both punishment and salvation. In the following prayer, the final phase of the monarchic era has been included. With a unique combination of words, God is asked not to treat with disregard the ‘misery’ that has affected the people.99 The verb used m‘ṭ, ‘to be small’ has, in the context of Neh. 9, the connotation of ‘to be little; be indifferent’.100 God is asked not to pass by Israel’s misery, just as he did not overlook the humiliation in Egypt. The word telā’āh, ‘disaster; misery’, also occurs in Exodus, when Moses told his father in law about the problems the Hebrews faced during the journey through the desert (Exod. 18:8; 97 Van Grol, ‘Indeed, Servants We Are’, 215; Mathys, Dichter und Beter, 4; see also H.A. Brongers, ‘Bemerkungen zum Gebrauch des Adverbialen we῾attāh im Alten Testament (Ein Lexikologischer Beitrag)’, VT(1965), 289-99. 98 See, e.g. M.C. Lind, YahwehisaWarrior:theTheologyofWarfareinAncientIsrael, Harrisonburg 1980. 99 See Boda, PrayingtheTradition, 181. 100 See also DCH V, 391.

280

Nehemiah8-12

cf. Num. 20:14). In the Book of Lamentations, after the conquest of Jerusalem, the complaint suggests that God has bothered the Israelites with ‘trouble’ from all sides (Lam. 3: 5). The adverbial adjunct ‘since the days of the kings of Assyria’ summarizes the process of the loss of independence of Israel and Judah during the past 150 years (Williamson).101 The term ‘to the present day’ – which refers to the author’s time – stands in parallel with the expression kehayyômhazzèh in v. 10 (Williamson). The word combination ‘until this day’ is found in the Hebrew Bible quite often, in different genres, sources and layers. The expression is very common in Deuteronomistic texts but is not limited to DtrH. The expression has a number of literary functions, such as indicating continuity with and creating distance to the past.102

Verse 33 summarizes a main line in the prayer. Opposite God’s ‘justice’ and ‘faithfulness’ stand the guilty acts of the we-group. The sinful deeds are, again, not made specific, but the use of this verb indicates that the Israelites realized that they had jeopardized the relationship with God by their acts. This verse underscores the prayer by declaring that God was fully in his right when judging Israel. With the use of the inclusive ‘we’, the community of that day identifies itself with historical Israel. 9:34-35 Forourkings,ourleaders,ourpriests,andourfathershavenot keptyourlaw  orpaidattentiontoyourcommandments  andyouradmonitionswithwhichyouhadadmonishedthem.  Butthey,intheirownkingdom,  whichyoudidgivethemwithyourgreatgoodness,  withthebroadandrichland  whichyoudidsetbeforethem,  didnotserveyouorturnfromtheirevildeeds. In these verses, the theme of disobedience returns in standard vocabulary. The language is clearly influenced by II Kgs 17. The responsibility for the misery is laid with the leaders of the people. The contrast between God’s goodness and the human shortcoming is again drawn.103 The use of the verb ‘bd, ‘to serve’, builds a bridge to the recognition of the current situation of the community and in and around Jerusalem.104 101

Contra Welch, ‘The Source of Nehemiah IX’, who dates Neh. 9 to the Assyrian period. See next to B.S. Childs, ‘A Study of the Formula “Until this Day”’, JBL 82 (1963), 279-92; J.C. Geoghegan, The Time, Place, and Purpose of the Deuteronomistic History: TheEvidenceof‘UntilThisDay’ (Brown Judaic Studies 347), Atlanta 2006. 103 Boda, PrayingtheTradition, 182-84. 104 On this verb see: I. Riesener, Der Stamm ‘bd im Alten Testament: eine Wortuntersuchung unter Berücksichtigung neuerer sprachwissenschaftlichen Methoden (BZAW149), Berlin, New York 1979. 102

TheCommunityStrengthened

281

9:36-37 Look,weareslavestoday,  andastothelandthatyoudidgivetoourfathers  toeatofitsfruitanditsbounty,  look,weareslavesonit.  Itsabundantproduceisforthekings  whomyouhadsetoverusbecauseofoursins;  theyalsoruleoverourbodies  andoverourcattleastheyplease.  Weareingreatdistress. As in I Sam. 25:41, the particle hinnēh, ‘see’, introduces the recognition of the current situation.105 The community accepts that, after the whole history of God’s patience and human shortcoming, it has now come to a situation where the Israelites are ‘slaves’ in their own country. Oeming and Mitchell rightly point out that behind the word ‘abādîm a Persian concept is hidden: the indication of the relationship between the Persian king and a dependent people. They refer to the concept of bandaka, which was a title for servants of the king and for vassals who lived in good relations with the central power. The verse in Nehemiah thus wants to communicate something like: ‘Today we are considered as allies of the Persian empire’.106 The service therefore has two sides. On the one hand, YHWH is recognized as the God to be served by Israel, on the other hand, the people recognize that they should be servants to the Persian ruler. The latter appears from two aspects. (1) The sincerity given to the rich returns of the land to the kings, whom God had caused because of their guilt, may be seen as a reference to the different kinds of taxations that should be given to the Persians.107 (2) The ‘ruling’ (mšl) over their bodies and livestock is a hyperbolic expression for the fact that the Israelites had to render military services for the Persians.108 However, the recognition of the situation is not a docile acceptance. Even though Abraham’s posterity realizes that the only way is to adapt to the new relationships, it finds that this situation is different from how the people of God should actually live. With the unique word combination beṣārāh gedôlāh, ‘in great misery’, they asserted that they suffer from the conditions they have accepted.109 105 See I. Zatelli, ‘Analysis of Lexemes from a Conversational Prose Text: hnh as Signal of a Performative Utterance in 1 Sam. 25:41’, ZAH 7 (1994), 5-11. 106 Oeming, ‘See, We Are Serving Today’, 579; C. Mitchell, ‘Achaemenid Persian Concepts Pertaining to Covenant and Haggai, Zechariah, and Malachi’, in: R.J. Bautch, G.N. Knoppers (eds), CovenantinthePersianPeriod, Winona Lake 2015, 291-306. 107 Van Grol, ‘Indeed, Servants We Are’, 216; on Persian taxation, see: J. Wiesehöfer, DasantikePersienvon550v.Chr.bis650n.Chr.,München Zürich 1994, 98-102. 108 Van Grol, ‘Indeed, Servants We Are’, 216; Boda, PrayingtheTradition, 185. 109 Van Grol, ‘Indeed, Servants We Are’, 216; Boda, PrayingtheTradition, 185.

282

Nehemiah8-12

This interpretation also gives an answer to the problem of Oeming’s interpretation.110 His question of the reasons why Neh. 9 terminates so negatively, receives as answer that he qualifies as ‘negative’ is not ‘negative’ but an acceptance of reality as God’s middle way between salvation and evil. There is therefore no reason to correct the text in addition to a somewhat less negative original form.111 9:38 (Hebr. 10: 1) Nowbecauseofallthiswearemakinganagreement inwriting  onthesealeddocumentofourleaders,ourLevites,ourpriests.’ There is much to be said to see this verse as part of the tenth chapter of Nehemiah, as does a vast majority of scholars (Myers; Williamson; Fensham; Blenkinsopp; Breneman; Schunck; Becker; Van Wijk-Bos; Jobsen; Hieke; Goldingay; Jagersma).112 An exception is Oeming who construes this verse as part of the prayer (as does McConville).113 The Masoretes indicated with a petucha after v. 38 that, in their opinion, a textual unit ends. I would, therefore, advocate that 9:38 (Hebr. 10: 1) is part of the prayer. Grammatically and syntactically, the verse directly continues the previous one. The pronoun zo’t, ‘this’, has a backwards referring force and binds the verse with the foregoing.114 The trio ‘rulers, Levites, and priests’ refers back to the enumeration of ‘our kings, our rulers, our priests, our prophets, our fathers’ (9:32, 34). The noun ’amānāh forms a bridge with Abraham’s trust in 9:8. Conceptually, the act of concluding an agreement is seen as the necessary conclusion from the acceptance of the situation by the community. In this final verse of the prayer, it is reported to God that the community has made a mutual binding agreement. The performative goal of the long retrospective has been achieved. God is therefore not a party to the agreement. Through prayer he is involved in it in the role of a witness. The signatories – princes, Levites, and priests – are mentioned in the following textual unit. The content of the appointment is narrated in 10:28-39 (Hebr. 29-40).

110

Oeming, ‘See, We Are Serving Today’, 576-78. See Oeming, ‘See, We Are Serving Today’, 578-84. 112 See also Boda, PrayingtheTradition; Van Grol, ‘Indeed, Servants We Are’; Duggan, TheCovenantRenewalinEzra-Nehemiah, 235-90; Bautch, Developmentsingenre, 101-36; Schulte, MyShepherd,thoughYouDonotKnowMe, 178-82. 113 Oeming, ‘See, We Are Serving Today’ (Nehemiah 9: 36), 573. 114 On anaphoric pronouns see: D. Büring, Binding Theory (Cambridge Textbooks in Linguistics), Cambridge 2005; for Hebrew: Waltke, O’Connor, Introduction to Biblical HebrewSyntax, § 17.4. 111

TheCommunityStrengthened

283

The expression kārat’amānāh, ‘to make an agreement’, is construed by many scholars as a synonym to kāratberît, to conclude a covenant’ (Rudolph; Myers; Fensham; McConville; Becker; Jobsen; Jagersma; Shepherd & Wright).115 It is, however, problematic since the words ’amānāh and berît are not synonymous. I am of the opinion that the word ’amānāh refers to a ‘reliable mutual-agreement’ (Williamson; Gunneweg; Blenkinsopp; Breneman; Schunck; Becker; Van Wijk-Bos; Hieke; Goldingay).116 The use of a different word suggests that the author did not think of a traditional ‘covenant’. Holmgren rightly pointed out that the word ’amānāh was chosen to make a bridge to the theme of Abraham’s trust in 9:8. With the ‘reliable mutualagreement’, the community in and around Jerusalem is brought back into the track and traces of Abraham.117

SEALED AND SIGNED NEHEMIAH 10:1-29 (HEBR. 10:2-30)

1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 

Thosewhosealeditwere: Nehemiahthegovernor,thesonofHakaliah. Zedekiah, Seraiah,Azariah,Jeremiah, Pashhur,Amariah,Malkijah, Hattush,Shebaniah,Malluk, Harim,Meremoth,Obadiah, Daniel,Ginnethon,Baruch, Meshullam,Abijah,Mijamin, Maaziah,BilgaiandShemaiah. Thesewerethepriests.

115 P. Kalluveettil, Declaration and covenant: A comprehensive review of covenant formulae from the Old Testament and the ancient near East (AnBib 88) Roma 1982, 50-51; Boda, Praying the Tradition, 32-34; Bautch, Developments in genre, 107; T. Bänziger, «Jauchzen und Weinen»: Ambivalente Restauration in Jehud: Theologische Konzepte der Wiederherstellung in Esra-Nehemia, Zürich 2014, 84-86.92-93; R. Heckl, Neuanfang und KontinuitätinJerusalem:StudienzudenhermeneutischenStrategienimEsra-Nehemia-Buch (FAT 104), Tübingen 2016, 315-322. 116 See also DCH I, 318; D.J.A. Clines, ‘Nehemiah 10 as an Example of Early Jewish Biblical Exegesis’, JSOT21 (1981), 111-17; Holmgren, ‘Faithful Abraham’; Oeming, ‘See, We Are Serving Today’, 582; Bautch, Glory and Power, Ritual and Relationship, 51-52; Rothenbusch, “… abgesondert zur Tora Gottes hin”, 364-65; Saysell, “According to the Law”, 21; L.S. Fried, Ezra and the Law in History and Tradition, Columbia 2014, 43-45. Amzallag, Esau in Jerusalem, 180-84; Häusl, ‘Searching for Forces of Group Cohesion’, 61-64, opt for a translation with ‘charter; contract’. 117 Holmgren, ‘Faithful Abraham’.

284

Nehemiah8-12

9  10  11 12 13 14  15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

TheLevites: JeshuasonofAzaniah,BinnuiofthesonsofHenadad,Kadmiel, andtheirassociates:Shebaniah, Hodiah,Kelita,Pelaiah,Hanan, Mika,Rehob,Hashabiah, Zakkur,Sherebiah,Shebaniah, Hodiah,BaniandBeninu. Theleadersofthepeople: Parosh,Pahath-Moab,Elam,Zattu,Bani, Bunni,Azgad,Bebai, Adonijah,Bigvai,Adin, Ater,Hezekiah,Azzur, Hodiah,Hashum,Bezai, Hariph,Anathoth,Nebai, Magpiash,Meshullam,Hezir, Meshezabel,Zadok,Jaddua, Pelatiah,Hanan,Anaiah, Hoshea,Hananiah,Hasshub, Hallohesh,Pilha,Shobek, Rehum,Hashabnah,Maaseiah, Ahiah,Hanan,Anan, Malluk,HarimandBaanah. Therestofthepeople—priests,Levites,gatekeepers,musicians,templeservantsandallwhoseparatedthemselvesfromtheneighbouring peoplesforthesakeoftheLawofGod,togetherwiththeirwivesand alltheirsonsanddaughterswhoareabletounderstand— all these now join their fellow Israelites the nobles, and bind themselveswithacurseandanoathtofollowtheLawofGodgiventhrough Moses the servant of God and to obey carefully all the commands, regulationsanddecreesofYHWHourLord.

29

In the Ancient Near East, legal documents were signed in two ways. Deeds of sale, marriage-contracts, law-suits, but also (vassal) treaties were signed by an imprint of the seals of the main parties. In addition, these documents usually contain a list of names of the persons involved, the author of the text, and the witnesses at the end. The more important the agreement, the more names and seals were included. 10:1-27 (Hebr. 10:2-28) contains a list of 84 persons who bind themselves with their seal impression or by naming their name to the agreement. The list opens with Nehemiah followed by priests, Levites, and princes, keeping the reverse order of the three categories from the final verse of the prayer. The list that presumably goes back to an original document (Williamson), contains a number of names that are

TheCommunityStrengthened

285

also to be found in Neh. 3, but not necessarily refer to the same persons in all cases. For example, Rechum is a prince in 10:25 (Hebr. 10:26), while Neh. 3:17 reports about a Levite Rechum. Archaeological excavations found several post-exile seal impressions.118 In naming all these persons, it is indicated that the ‘binding agreement’ was endorsed by many. 10:1a (Hebr. 10:2a) Thosewhosealeditwere:  Nehemiahthegovernor,thesonofHakaliah. Nehemiah is again referred to as tiršātā’, ‘governor’ (see also 7:65, 69; 8:9). By putting the function of Nehemiah first, the author shows that his role here is more important than his origin. About the function see at Ezra 2:63. Nehemiah signs with his seal. A seal or its imprint with the name of Nehemiah has not been found, but it does not prove that this seal never existed. 10:1b-8 (Hebr. 10:2b-9) The list continues with the names of 22 priests. How many of them gave an imprint of their seal is unclear. The list opens with ṣidqiyyāh, ‘Zedekiah’, a person not mentioned elsewhere in the Book of Nehemiah. Williamson believes that the list starts with śerāyāh, ‘Seraiah’, but does not give an argument for this view and does not reveal what role Zedekiah would have had. 10:9-13 (Hebr. 10:19-14) The priests are followed by seventeen Levites. The first three – Jeshua, Binnui and Cadmiel – are mentioned separately, the rest are fellow Levites. Possibly only these first three signed with their seal. 10:14-27 (Hebr. 10:15-28) The largest group is formed by the rôšêhā’ām, ‘heads of the people’, who are not referred to as śārîm, ‘princes’, as in 9:38 (Hebr. 10:1). This indication does not occur elsewhere in Nehemiah and is parallel to the rôšê hā‘ābôt, ‘family heads’ (7:69; 8:13; 12:12).

118 See, for instance, N. Avigad, Bullae and Seals from a Post-exilic Judean Archive, Jerusalem 1976.

286

Nehemiah8-12

10:28-29 (Hebr. 10:29-30) The rest of the people—priests, Levites, gatekeepers, musicians, temple servants and all who separated themselvesfromtheneighbouringpeoplesforthesakeoftheLawof God,togetherwiththeirwivesandalltheirsonsanddaughterswho areabletounderstand—  all these now join their fellow Israelites the nobles and bind themselveswithacurseandanoathtofollowtheLawofGodgiven through Moses the servant of God and to obey carefully all the commands,regulationsanddecreesofYHWHourLord. A list of names of priests, Levites and heads of the people is added. Following the detailed list of names, a comprehensive list of professional groups is presented, describing the rest of the people. The enumeration is as extensive as possible but has a clear limitation. The community is defined as all that nibdāl, ‘separated from (a reflexive participle of the Niph.) the peoples’. Within Nehemiah, this form refers back to 9:2 and defines the community as pure and free of foreign influences. By means of an ’ālāh, ‘oath’, and an šebû‘āh, ‘pledge’, they obliged themselves to abide by the statutes of the tôrah of Moses. This means that they voluntarily submitted to the negative consequences in case they would not comply with the statutes.

THE FOUNDATION

OF THE COMMUNITY

NEHEMIAH 10:30-39 (HEBR.10:31-40)

30 31

32 33

34

Wewillnotgiveourdaughterstothepeoplesofthelandortaketheir daughtersforoursons. Asforthepeoplesofthelandwhobringwaresoranygrainonthe dayofSabbathtosell,wewillnotbuyfromthemontheSabbathor a holy day; and we will forego the crops the seventh year and the exactionofeverydebt. We also placed ourselves under obligation to contribute yearly one thirdofashekelfortheserviceofthehouseofourGod: fortheshowbread,forthecontinualgrainoffering,forthecontinual burnt offering, the Sabbaths, the new moon, for the appointedtimes,fortheholythingsandforthesinofferingsto makeatonementforIsrael,andalltheworkofthehouseofour God. Wecastlotsforthesupplyofwoodamongthepriests,theLevites,and thepeopleinorderthattheymightbringittothehouseofourGod, accordingtoourfathers’households,atfixedtimesannually,toburn onthealtarofYHWHourGodasitiswritteninthelaw.

TheCommunityStrengthened 35 36

37

38

39

287

In order that they might bring the first fruits of our ground and the firstfruitsofallthefruitofeverytreetothehouseofYHWHannually, andbringtothehouseofourGodthefirst-bornofoursonsandof ourcattle,andthefirst-bornofourherdsandourflocksasitiswritteninthelaw,forthepriestswhoareministeringinthehouseofour God. Wewillalsobringthefirstofourdough,ourcontributions,thefruit ofeverytree,thenewwineandtheoiltothepriestsatthechambers of the house of our God, and the tithe of our ground to the Levites, fortheLevitesaretheywhoreceivethetithesinalltheruraltowns. Thepriest,thesonofAaron,shallbewiththeLeviteswhentheLevites receivetithes,andtheLevitesshallbringupthetenthofthetithesto thehouseofourGod,tothechambersofthestorehouse. ForthesonsofIsraelandthesonsofLevishallbringthecontribution ofthegrain,thenewwineandtheoil,tothechambers;therearethe utensils of the sanctuary, the priests who are ministering, the gatekeepers,andthesingers.Thus,wewillnotneglectthehouseofour God.

These verses present, in the form of a ‘we-report’, the content of the binding appointment, a number of vows in the field of religion, culture and morality. These verses have a completely different style than the Nehemiah-memoir (Williamson). In all likelihood, they originally formed an independent document, which was written by an anonymous author and included in the Book of Nehemiah at this place. With Clines, I suspect that the content is based on the appropriation of existing legal rules for the momentum.119 It is remarkable that most of the themes from Neh. 10 return in Neh. 13, albeit in a different order.120 That raised the question of the mutual relationship. Williamson points to two possibilities: (1) After the binding appointment was made, it appeared that some of the rules were violated, which required Nehemiah to act. (2) Because Nehemiah noticed that these rules were violated, they were inserted into Neh. 10. Williamson chooses the second option. However, that is problematic. Neh. 13 would have then been part of the Nehemiah-memoir. If Neh. 10 was written based on the final chapter, the style of the Nehemiah-memoir style should also be present in Neh. 10. The text-internal chronology locates the offenses of Neh. 13 during a second mission of Nehemiah. This means that the author deliberately presents these abuses as deviations from the binding appointment. In the absence of further 119

Clines, ‘Nehemiah 10’. See also S. Burt, The Courtier and the Governor: Transformations of Genre in the NehemiahMemoir (JAJ Sup, 17), Göttingen 2014, 174-78. 120

288

Nehemiah8-12

historical data, no pronouncement may be made of the historicity of appointment and violation. 10:30 (Hebr. 10:31) We will not give our daughters to the peoples of thelandortaketheirdaughtersforoursons. The first obligation that is included is the promise to not marry the children – sons as well as daughters – of the ‘peoples of the land’.121 These peoples are not specified in a list of seven original populations. In view of the tenor of the Book of Nehemiah, it should be considered a ban on marriages with the descendants of those who have not been in captivity. The regulations of Exod. 34:11-16 and Deut. 7:1-3 is thus applied to this group, being disqualified as resembling the Canaanites. 10:31 (Hebr. 10:32) As for the peoples of the land who bring wares or anygrainonthedayofSabbathtosell,wewillnotbuyfromthem on the Sabbath or a holy day; and we will forego the crops the seventhyearandtheexactionofeverydebt. The next obligation is connected to the phenomenon of ‘holy times’. The traditional command regarding the Sabbath is further clarified and sharpened (Williamson).122 Not only is ‘selling’ (Am. 8: 5) forbidden, but ‘buying’ is also considered a work that cannot be performed on this holy day. Offering merchandise on the Sabbath is presented in this verse as an act of the ‘peoples of the land’. If my assumption is correct that by them the descendants of those who have not gone into exile are meant, then it should be noted that this group of Yahwists had a less restricted view on Sabbath and that a more rigorous view was part of a redefinition of the identity of the community. The documents from Elephantine show that in this Persian fortress in southern Egypt in the fifth century the Sabbath was known but not maintained in a very strict manner.123

The last two obligations mentioned in this verse are also connected to the concept of ‘holy times’. Exod. 23:10-11 refers to the commandment to let

121 Clines, ‘Nehemiah 10’, 115; A. Versluis, TheCommandtoExterminatetheCanaanites (OTS 71), Leiden 2017. 122 See also Clines, ‘Nehemiah 10’, 114-15. 123 See B. Becking, ‘Sabbath at Elephantine: A Short Episode in the Construction of Jewish Identity’, in: A. Houtman, A. de Jong, M. Misset-van de Weg (eds), EmpsychoiLogoi – Religious Innovations in Antiquity: Studies in Honour of Pieter Willem van der Horst (AJEC 73), Leiden 2008, 177-89.

TheCommunityStrengthened

289

a field fall fallow every seven years. In post-exilic texts, this commandment has been interpreted to have the whole country lay fallow every seventh year (Lev. 25:1-7; II Chron. 36:21). Many traditional agricultural cultures have the habit of letting arable land lie fallow on a regular basis. In combination with the rotation of the crops, it prevented the soil from getting exhausted. This habit may be a remnant from the earlier phase of wild farming.124

To this agricultural cycle, the rule of Deut. 15 is linked to let loose debts every seven years.125 The promise in Neh. 10 refers back to Chapter 5. 10:32-33 (Hebr. 10:34-35) Wealsoplacedourselvesunderobligationto contributeyearlyonethirdofashekelfortheserviceofthehouse ofourGod:  fortheshowbread,forthecontinualgrainoffering,forthecontinual burntoffering,theSabbaths,thenewmoon,fortheappointedtimes, fortheholythingsandforthesinofferingstomakeatonementfor Israel,andalltheworkofthehouseofourGod. The following obligations concern the payment of a third shekel per head per year for the maintenance of the temple service. That is a remarkable promise, as there are no rules in the tôrā for paying tax at the temple (Williamson).126 The speculation of Williamson that the support of temple service as promised by Darius (Ezra 6:9-10) was terminated after the death of this Persian king and that a contribution from the local community became necessary is based on the premise that Ezra historically preceded Nehemiah. A šèqèl, ‘shekel’, was originally a weight and later a silver coin of about 11.5 grams. Archaeological excavations have made it clear that silver coins were circulating in Yehud/Judea in the Persian period.127

124 See for Ancient Israel: M. Silver, Prophets and Markets: The political economy of ancientIsrael, Boston, the Hague 2013, 19-28; and the essays in M.F. Cairns (ed.), Shifting CultivationandEnvironmentalChange:IndigenousPeople,AgricultureandForestConservation, London, New York 2015. 125 On this mechanism for redistribution see: N.P. Lemche, ‘The Manumission of Slaves: The Fallow Year, the Sabbatical Year, the Jobel Year’, VT 26 (1976), 38-59. 126 The levy of half a shekel as ‘ransom’, on the occasion of the composition of a list at Exod. 30:11-16 cannot – in view of its single occurrence – be construed as an institutionalized form of a yearly tax to the temple, see also Williamson paceM.E. Stevens, Temples,Tithes, andTaxes:TheTempleandtheEconomicLifeofAncientIsrael, Peabody 2006, 108-09. 127 See H. Gitler, O. Tal, TheCoinageofPhilistiaoftheFifthandFourthCenturiesBC: AStudyoftheEarliestCoinsofPalestine(Collezioni Numismatiche 6), Milan 2006.

290

Nehemiah8-12

The levying of tax was a standard source of income for the rulers in the Ancient Near East. The nature and height of the levy varied by area and per period.128 Among the documents from Elephantine is the account of contributions for the temple of Yahô. The text TADAE C3.15 gives a list of 218 people who each contribute two shekels. Presumably, however, this collection of gifts was intended for the local marzeaḥ.129

The ‘abodāh, ‘service’, in the temple, is exhaustively specified. Of two of the three types of rituals known in the Hebrew Bible, examples are given. (1) The calendrical rituals are most strongly represented at the level of the day (daily food sacrifice), the week (Sabbath) and the month (new months).130 (2) The ‘sacrifices’ for reconciliation may be seen to be a form of rituals in times of crisis. They serve to help the believer over the threshold after a break in life. The absence of life-span-related rituals is remarkable. 10:34 (Hebr. 10:35) Wecastlotsforthesupplyofwoodamongthepriests, theLevites,andthepeopleinorderthattheymightbringittothe house of our God, according to our fathers’ households, at fixed timesannually,toburnonthealtarofYHWHourGodasitiswritten inthelaw. The casting of lots orders a rotation system for the supply of wood that will be burned in the temple. This habit refers indirectly to the regulations in Lev. 6:5-6, which states that the fire on the altar may never extinguish. In Josh. 9:27, in response to their ruse, the Gibeonites are put in the role of ‘woodcutters and water carriers’ for the temple. In post-exile times, the family structure has replaced the traditional idea of tribal duties. There also may not have been Gibeonites left (Williamson). The word gôrāl, ‘lot’, refers to the tradition of the division of the land through casting the lots after the entry under Joshua (see Num. 26:55-56; 33-36; Josh. 13:16; 14:2; 17). In the Ancient Near East, ‘lots’ were not seen as a fatum, but as a way of fathoming the will of the gods. In the opening scene of the Atrahasis epic, the gods determine their positions in the pantheon by means of the lot (Atr. I i:12-18). The same theme is to be found in the Hittite Iluyanka myth (CTH 321).131 Rudolph suggests, on the basis of not very convincing syntactic arguments, to replace this verse, just before the summarizing conclusion in 39 (Hebr. 40). For the interpretation of the verse, any displacement would not have an effect (Williamson).

128 129

See Stevens, Temples,Tithes,andTaxes, 82-120. See B. Becking, ‘Temple, marzēaḥ, and Power at Elephantine’, Transeu 29 (2005),

37-47. 130

See A. Berlejung, ‘Heilige Zeiten: Ein Forschungsbericht’, JBTh 18 (2003), 3-62. A. Taggar-Cohen, ‘The casting of lots among the Hittites in light of ancient near eastern parallels’, JANES 29 (2002), 97 [97-103]. 131

TheCommunityStrengthened

291

10:35-39 (Hebr. 10:36-40) Inorderthattheymightbringthefirstfruits ofourgroundandthefirstfruitsofallthefruitofeverytreetothe houseofYHWHannually,  andbringtothehouseofourGodthefirst-bornofoursonsandof our cattle, and the first-born of our herds and our flocks as it is writteninthelaw,forthepriestswhoareministeringinthehouse ofourGod.  We will also bring the first of our dough, our contributions, the fruit of every tree, the new wine and the oil to the priests at the chambersofthehouseofourGod,andthetitheofourgroundto theLevites,fortheLevitesaretheywhoreceivethetithesinallthe ruraltowns.  The priest, the son of Aaron, shall be with the Levites when the Levitesreceivetithes,andtheLevitesshallbringupthetenthofthe tithestothehouseofourGod,tothechambersofthestorehouse.  ForthesonsofIsraelandthesonsofLevishallbringthecontribution ofthegrain,thenewwineandtheoil,tothechambers;thereare the utensils of the sanctuary, the priests who are ministering, the gatekeepers,andthesingers.Thus,wewillnotneglectthehouseof ourGod. The last obligation relates to the levy of agricultural surplus for the Levites. The author has combined various rules from the tôrā and brought them into a functional system of redistribution. The obligation has three categories: firsts, first products and tithes. The command to bring the ‘first of the field’ to the sanctuary can already be found in the Covenant Code (Exod. 23:19) and will be elaborated in Deut. 26:1-11. Num. 18:12-13 shows that the priests have benefited from these firsts of the field. In addition to the first of the field, Neh. 10 also mentions the first fruits of the fruit trees, giving a precision to Num. 18:13 (Williamson). The bringing of the firstborn to the temple goes back to a regulation in the tôrā (Exod. 34:20; Num. 18:15; Deut. 15:19-23). In Neh. 10 it concerns the gift of the firstborn of the cattle and of the Israelites themselves. The purpose of the gift is not mentioned. Since in the direct context of Neh. 10 is not about sacrifices, but about sustenance of the Levites, it can be assumed that the text does not refer to the sacrifice of a child. To the priests, other first products are to be brought. In addition to some tree fruits, it includes processed products: barley flour, must and oil. These should be brought to the temple as terûmāh, ‘contribution (for sacred use)’ (see Ezra 8:25). It is therefore remarkable that the Levites and the priests must be given different gifts.

292

Nehemiah8-12

The regulations regarding the ma‘aśar, ‘tenth; tithe’, in the tôrā are complicated.132 It concerns a levy in money or natura of the proceeds from the field. Neh. 10 writes carefully about how and where this levy should be delivered in the outbuildings of the temple and how the administration should be conducted under the aegis of an Aaronite. As special detail, it is written that the Levites themselves should also pay one tenth of their income for the temple’s storage rooms. The list of obligations concludes with a summary promise that will continue to be worshiped in the temple.

THE DISTRIBUTION OF THE COUNTRY NEHEMIAH 11:1-36

1

2 3

4

5

6 7

8 9 10

NowtheleadersofthepeoplelivedinJerusalem,buttherestofthe peoplecastlotstobringoneoutoftentoliveinJerusalem,theholy city,whilenine-tenthsremainedintheothercities. AndthepeopleblessedallthemenwhovolunteeredtoliveinJerusalem. NowthesearetheheadsoftheprovinceswholivedinJerusalem,but inthecitiesofJudaheachlivedonhisownpropertyintheircities– the Israelites, the priests, the Levites, the temple servants and the descendantsofSolomon’sservants. AndsomeofthesonsofJudahandsomeofthesonsofBenjaminlived inJerusalem.FromthesonsofJudah:AthaiahthesonofUzziah,the sonofZechariah,thesonofAmariah,thesonofShephatiah,theson ofMahalalel,ofthesonsofPerez; and Maaseiah the son of Baruch, the son of Col-hozeh, the son of Hazaiah,thesonofAdaiah,thesonofJoiarib,thesonofZechariah, thesonoftheShilonite. AllthesonsofPerezwholivedinJerusalemwere468ablemen. NowthesearethesonsofBenjamin:SalluthesonofMeshullam,the son of Joed, the son of Pedaiah, the son of Kolaiah, the son of Maaseiah,thesonofIthiel,thesonofJeshaiah; andafterhimGabbaiandSallai,928. AndJoelthesonofZichriwastheiroverseer,andJudahthesonof Hassenuahwassecondincommandofthecity. Fromthepriests:JedaiahthesonofJoiarib,Jachin,

132 See H. Jagersma, ‘The Tithes in the Old Testament’, in: B. Albrekston etal. (eds), RememberingalltheWay…aCollectionofOldTestamentStudies (OTS 21), Leiden 1981, 116-28; Stevens, Temples,Tithes,andTaxes, 93-98.

TheCommunityStrengthened 11 12

13

14 15 16 17

18 19 20 21 22

23 24 25

26 27 28 29 30

293

SeraiahthesonofHilkiah,thesonofMeshullam,thesonofZadok, thesonofMeraioth,thesonofAhitub,theleaderofthehouseofGod, and their kinsmen who performed the work of the temple, 822; and AdaiahthesonofJeroham,thesonofPelaliah,thesonofAmzi,the sonofZechariah,thesonofPashhur,thesonofMalchijah, and his kinsmen, heads of fathers’ households, 242; and Amashsai thesonofAzarel,thesonofAhzai,thesonofMeshillemoth,theson ofImmer, and their brothers, valiant warriors, 128. And their overseer was Zabdiel,thesonofHaggedolim. Now from the Levites: Shemaiah the son of Hasshub, the son of Azrikam,thesonofHashabiah,thesonofBunni; and Shabbethai and Jozabad, from the leaders of the Levites, who wereinchargeoftheoutsideworkofthehouseofGod; andMattaniahthesonofMica,thesonofZabdi,thesonofAsaph, who was the leader in beginning the thanksgiving at prayer, and B  akbukiah, the second among his brethren; and Abda the son of Shammua,thesonofGalal,thesonofJeduthun. AlltheLevitesintheholycitywere284. Also the gatekeepers, Akkub, Talmon, and their brethren, who kept watchatthegates,were172. The rest of Israel, of the priests, and of the Levites, were in all the citiesofJudah,eachonhisowninheritance. But the temple servants were living in Ophel, and Ziha and Gishpa wereinchargeofthetempleservants. TheoverseeroftheLevitesinJerusalemwasUzzithesonofBani,the sonofHashabiah,thesonofMattaniah,thesonofMica,fromthesons ofAsaph,whowerethesingersfortheserviceofthehouseofGod. Fortherewasacommandmentfromthekingconcerningthemanda firmregulationforthesong-leadersdaybyday. PethahiahthesonofMeshezabel,ofthesonsofZerahthesonofJudah, wastheking’srepresentativeinallmattersconcerningthepeople. Now as for the villages with their fields, some of the sons of Judah lived in Kiriath-arba and its towns, in Dibon and its towns, and in Jekabzeelanditsvillages, andinJeshua,inMoladahandBeth-pelet, andinHazar-shual,inBeershebaanditstowns, andinZiklag,inMeconahandinitstowns, andinEn-rimmon,inZorahandinJarmuth, Zanoah, Adullam, and their villages, Lachish and its fields, Azekah anditstowns.So,theyencampedfromBeershebaasfarasthevalley ofHinnom.

294

Nehemiah8-12

31

The sons of Benjamin also lived from Geba onward, at Michmash andAija,atBethelanditstowns, atAnathoth,Nob,Ananiah, Hazor,Ramah,Gittaim, Hadid,Zeboim,Neballat, LodandOno,thevalleyofcraftsmen. FromtheLevites,somedivisionsinJudahbelongedtoBenjamin.

32 33 34 35 36

With Chapter 11, the author of Nehemiah takes up a narrative thread from 7:4. There, it was reported that the population of the city was small. Now that the walls have been rebuilt and the foundation for a faithful community is laid, this problem is raised again. Neh. 11 confronts the reader with some problems. The chapter actually contains two lists, whose origins – and literary coherence – are uncertain. Both 11:3-19 and 11:21-36 contain material that differs in style and phraseology from the Nehemiah-memoir (Williamson). Presumably, the author draws from unknown source material. As for the origin of the material, the following possibilities have been offered (see also Williamson): (1) The list goes back to pre-exile time and informs about the way in which in Juda the defence against a foreign attacker was regulated.133 (2) The list is from the era of Nehemiah and offers a utopian view of the country’s occupation. Not only places within Yehud are mentioned, but also those places outside of the Persian satrapy where faithful Yahwists would live.134 (3) The list is written in the Maccabean period and reflects the dream of a great Judah from those days.135 With Williamson, I am of the opinion that the list has a utopian character: because the list respects the boundaries of Judah from the time of King Josiah (see also Josh. 15), the dream is kept alive that Yehud, once again, will be like Judah. At the same time, Neh. 11 underscores the thought that Jerusalem is the centre of the region, which cannot exist without the support of the periphery.136

133

Thus: Kellermann, Nehemia, 41-44. W.F. Albright, ‘The Topography of Simeon’, JPOS 4 (1924), 149-61; G. von Rad, DasGeschichtsbilddeschronistischeWerkes (BWANT 54), Stuttgart 1930, 21-25; Kidner; Fensham; Williamson; O. Lipschits, ‘Literary and Ideological Aspects of Nehemiah 11’, JBL 121 (2002), 423-40. 135 E.g. E. Meyer, DieEntstehungdesJudentums, Halle 1896, 105-08. 136 See also Lipschits, ‘Literary and Ideological Aspects’. 134

TheCommunityStrengthened

295

The text of the list in 1-24 is, in the LXX, significantly shorter than in the MT. In v. 3, the word netînîm, ‘those who were given (a group of temple servants)’, remained untranslated. In v. 12, the number 822 is missing. The lists from v. 12 onward have about 40% fewer names in the LXX. Usually, the LXX is seen as a shortened form of the text (Williamson). Fulton, however, defends the view that the MT is an extended version of the LXX that reflects the Hellenistic period.137 Her argument, however, fails to convince.

The chapter contains the following sections: 11:1-2 11:3-4a 11:4b-19 11:20 11:21-24 11:25-36

Distribution by lot of the population over and the Introduction to the lists List of those who lived in Jerusalem Indication that others did not live in Jerusalem List of temple servants List of inhabited places outside of Jerusalem.

11:1-2 NowtheleadersofthepeoplelivedinJerusalem,buttherestof the people cast lots to bring one out of ten to live in Jerusalem, theholycity,whilenine-tenthsremainedintheothercities.  And the people blessed all the men who volunteered to live in Jerusalem. These two verses contain three notifications. First, it is reported that the ‘leaders of the people’ settled in Jerusalem. Subsequently, the lot determines which 10% of the population should settle in Jerusalem. Blenkinsopp makes a correlation between the report that 10% of the population lives in Jerusalem and the fact that the temple should be given tithes.138 This parallel underscores the utopian character of the list: these people are present as a sacrifice to the city. The casting of the gôrāl, ‘lot’, connects this passage with the preceding (especially 10:34). Thirdly, there were also men who chose to live out of free will in Jerusalem. They are ‘blessed’ by their peers, that is, their choice is applauded. Between the lines, it might be read that Jerusalem – despite the restored wall – was not seen as the most ideal residence (Williamson). Nevertheless, Jerusalem is called an ‘ırhaqqodèš, ‘holy city’.

137 138

D.N. Fulton, ConsideringNehemiah’sJudah (FAT 2/80), Tübingen 2015, 17-67. Thus, also Fulton, Considering, 21.

296

Nehemiah8-12

11:3-4a NowthesearetheheadsoftheprovinceswholivedinJerusalem, but in the cities of Judah each lived on his own property in their cities–theIsraelites,thepriests,theLevites,thetempleservantsand thedescendantsofSolomon’sservants.  And some of the sons of Judah and some of the sons of Benjamin livedinJerusalem. The following lists are introduced by the announcement that several ro’šê hammedînāh, ‘heads of the province’, settled together with priests and Levites in Jerusalem. These leaders originate from the tribes of Judah and Benjamin.139 The word medînāh, ‘province; literally: area of jurisdiction’, is the Hebrew term for the Persian province of Yehud, in post-exile texts (e.g. Ezra 2:1; Neh. 7:6; 11: 3; Est. 1:1, 13; 2:3).

11:4b-19 Thelistconsistsofseveralparts. 11:4b-6 Of the Judeans who settled there two are named with their lineage: Ataiah from the descendants of Perez and the Silonite Maaseiah. In total, 468 ‘brave men’ from the descendants of Perez settle in Jerusalem. Perez is a name from the distant past. He was the child that Tamar bore to Judah (Gen. 38:29). Through Boaz and Ruth, he is David’s ancestor (Ruth 4:18-22). The name atāyāh, ‘Ataiah’ (meaning insecure), is found only here in the Hebrew Bible. The name ma‘aśēyāh, ‘Maaseiah (the work of YHWH)’, appears twenty times in the Hebrew Bible and is carried by at least six different persons. The Maaseiah of Neh. 10 may be identical to Asaiah (I Chron. 9:5).

11:7-9 The section about the Benjaminites in Jerusalem seems to be editorially in disorder in comparison to the previous section. Here too some people are named with a venerable lineage: Sallu, Joel and Jehuda. The note about the total number of Benjaminites – 928 in this case – is placed in between. In addition, it was agreed that Gabbai and Sallai came to Sallu. The text in Nehemiah may be an editing of an older list (see I Chron. 9:7-9; Williamson). The titles of Joel and Jehuda, namely pāqîd, ‘authority’, and ‘al hā‘îr mišnèh, ‘second in line with authority over the city’, indicate positions in 139

Possibly, 3b-4a can be construed as a late gloss, see Fulton, Considering, 34-35.

TheCommunityStrengthened

297

the administration of the city and are not connected to the concept of the tribal organization (Williamson). The name sallu, ‘Sallu’ (the returned), occurs twice in the Hebrew Bible. In I Chron. 9:7 and Neh. 11:7, he refers to the same person from the tribe of Benjamin. In Neh. 12:7 the name refers to a priest with the collateral form sallû. The name yô’ēl, ‘Joel’ (YHWH is god), occurs approximately twenty times in the Hebrew Bible. None of the thirteen other people is identical to ‘Joel the son of Zikri’. The name yehûdāh, ‘Judah; Jehuda’, is very common. ‘Jehuda, the son of Assenua’, appears only in I Chron. 9:7. Based on the Lucian revision of the LXX and in the light of the parallel with Neh. 11:14, Rudolph, Williamson and Blenkinsopp suggest reading, instead of ’aḥarāw, ‘behind him’, ’aḥāw, ‘his brothers’.140 However, this smoothened text is not supported by other versions.

11:10-14 The list of priests who settle in Jerusalem is impressive: more than a thousand priests would have lived in the city. Given the small size of the city, the historicity of this number may be doubted. When comparing 11:10-14 with the section about the priests in the list of those who returned (Ezra 2:36-39 // Neh. 7:39-42), it appears that in Neh. 11 there is no more mention of the descendants of Charim. Noteworthy is the absence of a high priest in the enumeration, while two other features are mentioned. Seraiah is appointed as a nāgîd, ‘guardian of the temple. A similar function was performed by Pashur in the late ‘monarchic period’ (Jer. 20:1). Zabdiel was appointed as pāqîd, ‘authority’, over a group of 128 brave heroes, or possibly over all priests as suggested by Williamson. Presumably, Seraja oversaw the cult and Zabdiel military affairs. 11:15-18 In the enumeration of the 284 Levites in the holy city, the tasks assigned to them are designated very specifically. A distinction is made between Levites who are responsible for the ritual within the walls of the temple and those who had to take care of the activities outside the temple domain. Verse 16 is missing in the LXX.

140

Also, Fulton, Considering, 21, 31.

298

Nehemiah8-12

11:19 Among the 172 gatekeepers, two are called by name: Aqqub and Talmon. The task of the gatekeepers is reported as to monitor the gates.141 Compared to the list of returnees in Ezra 2 // Neh. 7, it is noted that in Neh. 11 the gatekeepers are mentioned, but not the temple singers and temple servants. Both groups are mentioned in the later added section 11:21-24. 11:20 TherestofIsrael,ofthepriests,andoftheLevites,wereinallthe citiesofJudah,eachonhisowninheritance. This verse states that the rest of the people, including priests and Levites, went to live in the cities of Judah. Remarkable is the adverbial adjunct benaḥlātô, ‘on his inheritance’. This concept of return to the ancient land appears to contrast with the above-mentioned principle of division through casting the lots. However, it should be noted that, according to tradition, naḥalāh was also designated by fate. The verse is absent in the LXX. 11:21-24 But the temple servants were living in Ophel, and Ziha and Gishpawereinchargeofthetempleservants.  TheoverseeroftheLevitesinJerusalemwasUzzithesonofBani, thesonofHashabiah,thesonofMattaniah,thesonofMica,from thesonsofAsaph,whowerethesingersfortheserviceofthehouse ofGod.  Fortherewasacommandmentfromthekingconcerningthemand afirmregulationforthesong-leadersdaybyday.  Pethahiah the son of Meshezabel, of the sons of Zerah the son of Judah, was the king’s representative in all matters concerning the people. This later added part of the list describes various groups living mostly in Jerusalem (Williamson). The netînîm, ‘temple servants’ (see Ezra 2:43), are housed on the ‘opèl, ‘Ophel’. The Hebrew word meaning ‘hill’, refers to a fortified fortress on a hill within the walls of Jerusalem between the Tyropeon and the Kidron Valley (see II Chron. 27:3).142 In a later period, three new generations were added to the genealogy of Levite Mattanjah (11:17). His great-grandfather ‘uzzî, ‘Uzzi’, was appointed in the period of the redactor of the Book of Nehemiah – probably around 141

According to R. Zadok, ‘Remarks on Ezra and Nehemiah’, ZAW 94 (1982), 296-98, these words are an explanatory gloss, see also Fulton, Considering, 46. 142 See N. Na’aman, ‘Biblical and Historical Jerusalem in the Tenth and Fifth-Fourth Centuries BCE’, Biblica 93 (2012), 21-42.

TheCommunityStrengthened

299

400 – as pāqîd, ‘authority over the Levites’. The word mešorerîm, ‘singers’, stands syntactically in an unexpected position. The same holds for the phrase ‘from the Asaphites’. These words can, with most translations and commentaries, be read as an adjustment to the previous ‘son of Micah’ (for example, Williamson). However, it is more meaningful to read the words as part of the final nominal clause: ‘From the Asaphites, the singers were appointed for the service in the temple (KJV). Regarding these singers, reference is made to a ‘royal regulation’. Here again the word ’amānāh, ‘agreement’ is used (see 9:38 [Hebr. 10:1]). Apparently, the Persian king was, in the eyes of the editor, responsible for the life sustenance of the temple singers. Although petaḥyāh, ‘Petachjah’ (YHWH releases), has a lineage of three generations, nothing is known about him and his cultic role. He was placed in an important position, since he could make decisions with royal support regarding the entire people. 11:25-36 These verses offer a list of settlements relatively far away from Jerusalem. The origin of the list is uncertain. It is included in Neh. 11 as a sign of a third further shell around the holy city. At the same time, this list of ḥaṣērîm, ‘settlements’, is an addition to Neh. 11 by the hand of an editor who wishes to express, on the basis of a utopian view of the extent of the area of Judah and Benjamin, the hope for a glorious future for Jerusalem as the centre of a vast area (Williamson).143 The area outside of Jerusalem is referred to with the word śādèh, ‘field’, often wrongly translated with ‘countryside’. The agricultural areas are intended without which the centre cannot function. The list is divided into two parts. Following a summary of the Judean settlements, an overview of places where Benjaminites settled follows. The final verse about Judah’s Levites who joined Benjamin is, presumably, a later addition. The Judean occupation would extend to Ber Sheba. In Persian times – and still afterwards – the southern part of the land of Judah was in the possession of the Edomites and later the Idumeans. The list of settlements in 25-36 in the LXX is significantly shorter than in the MT. Of the 32 places in MT, there are only six in the LXX. Usually, the LXX is seen as a shortened form of the text (Williamson). Fulton takes the view that the MT is an extended version of the more original LXX that reflects the Hellenistic period.144 Her argument, however, does not convince.

143

See also Lipschits, ‘Literary and Ideological Aspects’, 435-39. Thus: D.N. Fulton, ‘Where Did the Judahites, Benjaminites, and Levites Settle?: Revisiting the Text of Nehemiah 11:25–36 MT and LXX’, in: I. Kalimi (ed.), NewPerspectiveson 144

300

Nehemiah8-12 PRIESTS, LEVITES,

AND GATEKEEPERS

NEHEMIAH 12:1-26

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22

23

ThesearethepriestsandtheLeviteswhocameupwithZerubbabel thesonofShealtiel,andJeshua:Seraiah,Jeremiah,Ezra, Amariah,Malluch,Hattush, Shecaniah,Rehum,Meremoth, Iddo,Ginnethoi,Abijah, Mijamin,Maadiah,Bilgah, Shemaiah,Joiarib,Jedaiah, Sallu,Amok,Hilkiah,Jedaiah.Thesewerethechiefsofthepriestsand oftheirbrothersinthedaysofJeshua. TheLevites:Jeshua,Binnui,Kadmiel,Sherebiah,Judah,andMattaniah,whowithhisbrotherswasinchargeofthesongsofthanksgiving. Bakbukiah and Unni and their brothers stood opposite them in the service. Jeshua was the father of Joiakim, Joiakim the father of Eliashib, EliashibthefatherofJoiada, JoiadathefatherofJonathan,andJonathanthefatherofJaddua. In the days of Joiakim were priests, heads of fathers’ houses: of Seraiah,Meraiah;ofJeremiah,Hananiah; ofEzra,Meshullam;ofAmariah,Jehohanan; ofMalluchi,Jonathan;ofShebaniah,Joseph; ofHarim,Adna;ofMeraioth,Helkai; ofIddo,Zechariah;ofGinnethon,Meshullam; ofAbijah,Zichri;ofMiniamin,ofMoadiah,Piltai; ofBilgah,Shammua;ofShemaiah,Jehonathan; ofJoiarib,Mattenai;ofJedaiah,Uzzi; ofSallai,Kallai;ofAmok,Eber; ofHilkiah,Hashabiah;ofJedaiah,Nethanel.’ InthedaysofEliashib,Joiada,Johanan,andJaddua,theLeviteswere recordedasheadsoffathers’houses;sotoowerethepriestsinthe reignofDariusthePersian. As for the sons of Levi, their heads of fathers’ houses were written in the Book of the Chronicles until the days of Johanan the son of Eliashib.

Ezra-Nehemiah: History and Historiography, Text, Literature, and Interpretation, Winona Lake 2012 197–222; Fulton, Considering, 71-94.

TheCommunityStrengthened 24

25 26

301

ThechiefsoftheLevites:Hashabiah,Sherebiah,andJeshuatheson of Kadmiel, with their brothers who stood opposite them, to praise andtogivethanks,accordingtothecommandmentofDavidtheman ofGod,watchbywatch. Mattaniah, Bakbukiah, Obadiah, Meshullam, Talmon, and Akkub weregatekeepersstandingguardatthestorehousesofthegates. ThesewereinthedaysofJoiakimthesonofJeshuasonofJozadak, andinthedaysofNehemiahthegovernorandofEzra,thepriestand scribe.

This chapter opens with a list of names of priests and Levites who returned from the exile during the time of Zerubbabel. In the current form, the list has the following composition: 1a 1b-7 8.9 10-11 12-21 22-23 24-25a 25b-26

Heading Heads of the priestly families Levites Genealogy of important priests Second generation priestly family heads Sources Leading Levites Gatekeepers.

The origin of these lists is unknown, despite the notes in vv. 22-23. Almost all scholars assume that the current form of the list(s) is the result of a complex process of editing and textual growth. There is no consensus: in fact, every scholar has his or her own view of the origin and growth of the text. I abandon summarizing the discussion. Three things are striking. First, the list appears to be a repetition of the section about priests and Levites from the list of returnees in Neh. 7. In Neh. 12, however, more names are mentioned than in Neh. 7. Of the four names for priestly families mentioned in Neh. 7:39-42, only two are repeated in Neh. 12: Jedaja (12:19, 21) and Charim (12:15). In 7:43, two Levite families are mentioned: the sons of Jesua and of Hodewa. The latter does not return in Neh. 12. The Levite Cadmiel (mentioned by name in Neh. 7:43) is mentioned in Neh. 12:8, 24. In addition, the list in Neh. 12 is a comprehensive repetition of the enumeration of priests, Levites and gatekeepers in 11:10-19. A comparison between 11:10-19 and Neh. 12 also shows that some names are repeated, others omitted, with new ones added. Together with the genealogical remarks in Neh. 12, this leads to the assumption that Neh. 12 must have been a text from a later period that was intentionally placed by the author of the Book Nehemiah (or a later editor).

302

Nehemiah8-12

The second striking feature is the following. While Ezra is not mentioned in the list from Ezra 2 // Neh. 7, he appears in the list of Neh. 12 as often as three times. In the closing verse he is characterized as both priest and writer. This listing suggests that the addition of Neh. 12 might be from the hand of an editor who edited and joined both Biblical books. Thirdly, the list in 12:1-26 is located before the description of the ritual of the initiation of the restored walls. Apparently, the author of the Book of Nehemiah (or a later editor) found it necessary to emphasize who – and thus also: who not – should be involved in this important ritual. Both lists of cultic staff in Neh. 12 are significantly shorter in the LXX than in the MT. The verses 3b-7a and 15-21 are missing in the LXX. Usually, the LXX is seen as a shortened form of the text (Williamson). Fulton takes the view that the MT is an extended version of the more original LXX that reflects the Hellenistic period.145 Her argument, however, does not convince.

12:1a The list is presented as an enumeration of priests and Levites who would have returned from exile at the time of Zerubbabel. The fact that at the end some gatekeepers are also mentioned indicates that the text has been edited. About Zerubbabel, see the remarks at Ezra 1:8. 12:1b-7 The current list contains 22 names. The wāw-copulativum before the name of Jojarib is either an indication that the last four names have been added later or an indication that the latter four are referred by the qualifier wa’aḥêhèm, ‘and their brothers’, in v. 7. Kellermann construes, wrongly, wa’aḥêhèm as the introduction of v. 8, which would have classified the Levites as ‘brothers’ in the sense of ‘connected workers’ of the priests.146 In the LXX, the list of names is significantly shorter, only six names are mentioned since 12:4-7a is missing. The name ginnetôy, ‘Ginnetoi’, in v. 4 is read by almost all the scholars as ginnetôn, ‘Ginneton’ (Williamson).147. See already Vulgate: Genthon. The name is missing in the LXX. This reading was introduced by the appearance of ginnetôn, ‘Ginneton’, in the parallel v. 12:16. There, LXX reads Ganathoon and the Vulgate Genthon.

145 146 147

Fulton, Considering, 119-60. Kellermann, Nehemia, 106. See, however, Fulton, Considering, 121.

TheCommunityStrengthened

303

12:8-9 The list of Levites contains eight names that are mentioned together with some others in 24-25. The literary relationship between both sections can be understood in two ways. Williamson sees 8-9 as a shorter list based on 24-25. In my opinion, the order is the opposite and 24-25 is a later edited addition. The first six Levites were appointed to lead the choir song. The word huyyedôt, ‘praises’, occurring only here in the Hebrew Bible, is related to the Hodayot known from Qumran.148 The last two Levites are said to be ‘in front of them’ during the cult, which is a very specific function, although Williamson thinks of singers singing an antiphon. 12:10-11 These verses offer a genealogy of five generations of descendants of Yeshua. According to Williamson, this is a list of high priests.149 That is not impossible, but the text does not mark these people as such. Perhaps the lastmentioned priest yaddûa, ‘Jaddua’, is identical to the Jaddua mentioned by Flavius Josephus as the high priest in Jerusalem when Alexander the Great conquered the city in 333 (Williamson).150 If this identification would be correct, then Nehemiah should have been edited until early Hellenistic times. 12:12-21 The list of 22 priests is repeated, while deleting Chattus, with the names of the heads of the fathers in the time of Jehoiakim; that is, a generation later. The purpose of this addition is undoubtedly to indicate who could – and also who could not – play a cultic role in Jerusalem. The differences in the names between the first and second list of priestly family heads point in the direction that the second list is a later addition. The verses 15-21 are missing in the LXX. 12:22-23 These verses refer to lists by which the Levites and priests were registered. The lists of the Levites were prepared during the period of the important priests mentioned in 12:10-11. The remark of the priests interrupts the 148 1QHa, see recently: E.M. Schuller, C.A. Newsom, The Hodayot (Thanksgiving Psalms):AStudyEditionof1QHa, Atlanta 2012. 149 See also J.C. VanderKam, From Joshua to Caiaphas: high priests after the Exile, Minneapolis 2004. 150 Ant., XI 302. A visit by Alexander to Jerusalem is not referred to in Greek sources on his life.

304

Nehemiah8-12

theme of the Levites and may be a later gloss by a redactor who wanted to unite priests and Levites from the various lists (Williamson). The ‘Book of Chronicles’ refers to the annals of the temple. The priest yôḥānān, ‘Jochanan’, added to the second list, is presumably the same as Jerusalem’s high priest who is mentioned in the request from Elephantine for the rebuilding of the devastated temple on the island, to which he did not respond to a first request.151 This Jochanan would have been (high) priest at the end of the fifth century. This could be a clue for the date of addition around or after 400. The preposition ‘al is problematic. The translation with ‘during’ (LXX; Vulg; Williamson) provides an understandable clause but is not supported by philology. When ‘al has a temporal function, it means ‘on (in/out)’.152 Some scholars even go so far as to change the text to ‘ad, ‘until’.153 Rudolph assumes that some words have been omitted and proposes as the original text: ‘in the Book of Chronicles up to the Government of …’. Albright assumes a form of haplography with the previous mēm and reads m‘l, ‘from’.154 The preposition ‘al has here, as in I Kgs 2:18; Job 32:23; 42:8 and Neh. 1:6, the meaning ‘for the sake of’.155 Hence, there is no reason to change the text. The adjustment happarsî, ‘the Persian’, for Darius is unique in the Hebrew Bible. In Dan. 11:1, a Darius hammādî, ‘the Median’, occurs. Elsewhere in the Hebrew Bible no gentilicium is added to the name Darius. The identity of Darius in Neh. 12:22 is disputed. Albright and Williamson assume a reference to Darius I and read in the text a claim that the Persian government had already, in early Persian times, registered the priests.156 However, Darius II and III are also possible. In the latter case, reference is made to a Persian king – Darius III Codomannus 336-330, who was a contemporary of the high priest Jaddua.157 The text of Neh. 12:22 is inconclusive on this matter.

12:24-25a This section contains an elaboration of 12:8-9. The names are identical as are the functions. Remarkably, the addition is that the rotation system for the Levites would stem from David’s time. Presumably, this section was added by an editor who was influenced by the theology of I and II Chronicles, in which David plays an important role as the patriarch of the Levitical liturgy. Also, the indication of David as ‘man of God’, seems to have been adopted from II Chron. 8:14.158 151

TADAE A4.7:18; see VanderKam, FromJoshuatoCaiaphas, 55; Fulton, Considering,

134. 152

See DCH VI, 395. E.g. Fulton, Considering, 123. 154 W.F. Albright, ‘The Date and Personality of the Chronicler’, JBL 40 (1921), 112-13. 155 See DCH VI, 394. 156 Albright, ‘The Date and Personality of the Chronicler’, 112-13. 157 Thus Fulton, Considering, 137. 158 See H.G.M. Williamson, ‘The Origins of the Twenty-Four Priestly Courses: A Study of 1 Chronicles xxiii–xxvii’, in: J.A. Emerton (ed.), StudiesintheHistoricalBooksoftheOld Testament (SVT 30), Leiden 1979, 251-68. 153

TheCommunityStrengthened

305

12:25b Gatekeepers were not mentioned in Neh. 12. The note is an adaptation of 11:19. To the names of 11:19 has been added ‘Mesullam’. The ‘keeping of the guard at the gates’ is further specified here as ‘to keep watch at the warehouses …’. The antecedent of ’ēllèh, ‘they’, at the beginning of v. 26 is not formed by the sum of all names from Neh. 12 (e.g. Williamson), but consists of the three named gatekeepers. The closing clause explains that they were contemporaries not only of Jehoiakim, but also of Ezra and Nehemiah. Jojakim is, of course, the post-exile (high)priest and not the pre-exilic king.

THE

CONSECRATION OF THE WALL

NEHEMIAH 12:27-43

27

28 29 30 31

32 33 34 35

36

37

38

AtthededicationofthewallofJerusalemtheysoughttheLevitesin alltheirplaces,tobringthemtoJerusalemtocelebratethededication with gladness, with thanksgivings and with singing, with cymbals, harps,andlyres. ThesonsofthesingersgatheredtogetherfromthedistrictsurroundingJerusalemandfromthevillagesoftheNetophathites; also from Beth-gilgal and from the region of Geba and Azmaveth, forthesingershadbuiltforthemselvesvillagesaroundJerusalem. ThepriestsandtheLevitespurifiedthemselves,andtheypurifiedthe peopleandthegatesandthewall. ThenIbroughttheleadersofJudahupontothewallandappointed twogreatchoirsthatgavethanks.Onewenttothesouthonthewall totheDungGate. AfterthemwentHoshaiahandhalfoftheleadersofJudah, andAzariah,Ezra,Meshullam, Judah,Benjamin,Shemaiah,andJeremiah, andcertainofthesonsofthepriestwithtrumpets:Zechariahtheson ofJonathan,sonofShemaiah,sonofMattaniah,sonofMicaiah,son ofZaccur,sonofAsaph; andhisrelatives,Shemaiah,Azarel,Milalai,Gilalai,Maai,Nethanel, Judah,andHanani,withthemusicalinstrumentsofDavidthemanof God.Ezrathescribewentbeforethem. AttheFountainGatetheywentupstraightbeforethembythestairs of the city of David, at the ascent of the wall, above the house of David,totheWaterGateontheeast. The other choir of those who gave thanks went to the north, and Ifollowedthemwithhalfofthepeople,onthewall,abovetheTower oftheOvens,totheBroadWall,

306 39

40 41 42 43

Nehemiah8-12 and above the Gate of Ephraim, and by the Gate of Yeshanah, and bythe Fish Gate and the Tower of Hananel and the Tower of the Hundred,totheSheepGate.TheycametoahaltattheGateofthe Guard. SobothchoirsofthosewhogavethanksstoodinthehouseofGod. Iandhalfoftheofficialswithme. The priests Eliakim, Maaseiah, Miniamin, Micaiah, Eliunai, Zechariah,andHananiah,withtrumpets. Maaseiah, Shemaiah, Eleazar, Uzzi, Jehohanan, Malchijah, Elam, andEzer.ThesingerssangwithJezrahiahastheirleader. Theyofferedgreatsacrificesthatdayandrejoiced,forGodhadmade them rejoice with great joy; the women and children also rejoiced. ThejoyofJerusalemwasheardfaraway.

These verses offer an impression of the joyous ceremonies at the dedication of the restored walls. The position of this episode within the Book of Nehemiah makes it clear that such initiation only became possible after the community protected by the walls was otherwise organized. Following the guilt, the binding obligations and the distribution across the country, the jubilee about the restoration of the walls can finally be added. The structure of the section in the current form is jumpy and unbalanced: 27-30 First report 27-29 Levites and temple-singers come to Jerusalem 30 Priests and Levites purify people and wall 31-43 Second report 31a Nehemiah takes initiative 31b-37 Composition and procession of the first choir 38-39 Composition and procession of the second choir 40-43 Ritual in the temple. For clarification some comments are in place. The first and second report do not connect properly. The second report clearly shows I-style of the Nehemiah-memoir. This style is absent in the first message. The description of the composition of the two processes is largely parallel, as Williamson has shown: Theme:

Firstchoir:

Secondchoir:

Thanksgiving-choir

31

38

Prominent lay person

32: Hosaiah

38, 40: Nehemiah

Half of the leaders of the laypersons

32

40

Seven priests with trumpet

33-35a

41

Conductor

35: Zechariah

42: Jizrachja

Eight Levitical musicians

36

42

TheCommunityStrengthened

307

In addition, both groups each walk about half the distance of the walls to meet in the temple square. However, there are some differences between the descriptions of the course of both choirs. In particular, the number of proper names in both messages differs. The verses 33-36 give the impression of being a later addition that interrupts the course of the narrative.159 All in all, the evidence pleads for the following view. (1) A core of the section – presumably *31-32, 37-40, 43 – is based on the Nehemiah-memoir. (2) This core is interwoven with a report on the dedication from another tradition (27-30, 41-42). (3) Later, a large number of participants have been added (see also Williamson). 12:27 At the dedication of the wall of Jerusalem they sought the Levites inall their places, to bring them to Jerusalem to celebrate the dedicationwithgladness,withthanksgivingsandwithsinging,with cymbals,harps,andlyres. The author of the Book of Nehemiah adopts an independent tradition to indicate that the dedication of the walls would have been impossible without the presence of the Levites. Without their contribution, the ritual would have been without joy. Their contribution will consist of tôdāh, ‘thanksgiving’, and šîr, ‘song’, presumably a hendiadys. They accompany themselves with ‘cymbals, harps and citers’.160 The Hebrew word ḥanukkāh, ‘dedication’, occurs several times in the Hebrew Bible. In Num. 7:10-11, 84, 88 there are sacrifices at the dedication of the altar. II Chron. 7:9 narrates festivities at the initiation of the altar at the time of Solomon; such a ritual is lacking in the source text in I Kings. Ps. 30 has as title ‘song for the temple dedication’. The Aramean equivalent in Dan. 3:2-3 is used in the consecration of an image of Nebuchadnezzar. I Macc. 4:54 states: ‘On the same day and at the same hour that strange peoples had conceived the altar, the new altar was initiated while songs and music of lyres, harps and cymbals were brought to the test’. It is remarkable that here the same musical instruments as in Neh. 12:27 are mentioned. The report from I Maccabeans is at the root of the Jewish Hanukkah festival, which is celebrated in the month of Kislev, usually in midDecember.161

159

Williamson interprets vv. 32-36 to be a redactional addition. He overlooks the fact that v. 32 is part of the basic-pattern. 160 On these string instruments, see: J. Braun, MusicinAncientIsrael/Palestine:Archaeological, Written, and Comparative Sources, Grand Rapids, Cambridge 2002, 20-21, 22-24 and 16-19. 161 See G. Wheaton, ‘The Festival of Hanukkah in 2 Maccabees: Its Meaning and Function’, CBQ 74 (2012), 247-62.

308

Nehemiah8-12

In the ancient Near East, the Mesopotamian kalû ritual was known which was performed after the rebuilding of devastated temples.162 Although the ritual at the inauguration of the restored walls of Jerusalem deviates significantly from the kalû ritual, both rituals communicate the joy of the restoration made possible by the deity.

12:28-29 The sons of the singers gathered together from the district surroundingJerusalemandfromthevillagesoftheNetophathites;  also,fromBeth-gilgalandfromtheregionofGebaandAzmaveth, forthesingershadbuiltforthemselvesvillagesaroundJerusalem. In the book of Nehemiah, the mešorerîm, ‘singers’, play a relatively important role, especially in the cult at the temple. Their relationship with the Levites is not entirely clear. This passage mentions that they had built villages around Jerusalem. The village neṭopāh, ‘Netofa’, was according to Neh. 7:26 located near Bethlehem, the current Khirbet Bedd Faluh. The place bêthaggilgāl, ‘Beth ha-Gilgal’, is to be identified with Khirbet Jiljal south of Netofa. Geba was a Levite city in the territory of Benjamin (Josh. 18:24). The name ‘azmāwèt, ‘Azmawet’, can refer both to a person and to a place. Azmawet was one of David’s heroes (II Sam. 23:31). The place can be identified with the current Ḥizme, eight kilometres north-northeast of Jerusalem. In the LXX, the last three places are absent.

12:30 The priests and the Levites purified themselves, and they purified thepeopleandthegatesandthewall. The report about the purifying of city and population can be read in two ways. First of all, this verse can be read as a summary of the way in which, according to a particular tradition, the walls were consecrated. But besides, the verse can also be seen to be the preparation for the ritual acts that follow. The act of purification is a ritual process of unblocking the uncleanness that has come into existence in whatever way. In post-exilic texts in the Hebrew Bible, it is reported that, in preparation for cultic events, the priests had to be purified (Exod. 19:10-15, Lev. 16:28; Num. 8:5-8; Ezra 6:20). Lev. 14:49-53 gives a detailed description of the ritual cleansing of a house by sprinkling it with the blood of dead birds. Whichever ritual was referred to in 12:30 is unclear. 162 See L.S. Fried, ThePriestandtheGreatKing:Temple-PalaceRelationsinthePersian Empire (Biblical and Judaic Studies, 10), Winona Lake 2004, 171-73; S. Köhler, Jeremia– Furbitter Oder Klager? Eine Religionsgeschichtliche Studie Zur Furbitte Und Klage Im J eremiabuch (BZAW 506), Berlin, New York 2017, 65-114. The relevant texts are to be found in F. Thureau-Dangin, RituelsAccadiens, Paris 1921, 35-59.

TheCommunityStrengthened

309

12:31a ThenIbroughttheleadersofJudahupontothewallandappointed twogreatchoirsthatgavethanks. The second report begins differently. Here it is the initiative of Nehemiah who has the princes of the people climb on the walls and organizes two choir groups. 12:31b-37 OnewenttothesouthonthewalltotheDungGate. AfterthemwentHoshaiahandhalfoftheleadersofJudah, andAzariah,Ezra,Meshullam, Judah,Benjamin,Shemaiah,andJeremiah, and certain of the sons of the priest with trumpets: Zechariah the sonofJonathan,sonofShemaiah,sonofMattaniah,sonofMicaiah, sonofZaccur,sonofAsaph; andhisrelatives,Shemaiah,Azarel,Milalai,Gilalai,Maai,Nethanel, Judah,andHanani,withthemusicalinstrumentsofDavidtheman ofGod.Ezrathescribewentbeforethem.  AttheFountainGatetheywentupstraightbeforethembythestairs of the city of David, at the ascent of the wall, above the house of David,totheWaterGateontheeast. The first choir turns to the right in the direction of the Dung Gate. This gate was mentioned by name in the description of the restoration of the wall (3:13-14). The procession is then led by hôša‘yāh, ‘Hoshaiah’ (who YHWH rescues), a further unknown person who presumably held an important organizational function.163 Following him, one half of the rulers of Judah follow with a group of seven persons, including Ezra. The absence of the wāw-copulativum before the name of Ezra can be seen as a signal that this name has been inserted by a glossator from v. 36. After them, follow in the procession a dozen of the priests zekaryāh, ‘Zechariah, and his brothers. This Zechariah is not previously mentioned in the Book of Nehemiah. His genealogy goes back to Asaph. This descent and the remark that he and his brothers carry David’s musical instruments contribute to the claim of continuity with the pre-exilic cult. The route that follows this process runs through the Fountain Gate and the Water Gate, both mentioned in the section about the restoration of the wall. The ‘stairs of David’ are likely to be a pre-exile construction. As the expression does not occur elsewhere, an identification is problematic.

163

He is certainly not identical with his name-sake in Jer. 42:1; 43:2.

310

Nehemiah8-12

12:38-39.41-42 The other choir of those who gave thanks went to the north,andIfollowedthemwithhalfofthepeople,onthewall,above theToweroftheOvens,totheBroadWall, andabovetheGateofEphraim,andbytheGateofYeshanah,and by the Fish Gate and the Tower of Hananel and the Tower of theHundred,totheSheepGate.TheycametoahaltattheGateof theGuard.  The priests Eliakim, Maaseiah, Miniamin, Micaiah, Elioenai, Zechariah,andHananiah,withtrumpets. The second choir takes the reverse direction via, among other things, the Tower of the Ovens (see also 3:11). The composition of this procession is not mentioned here. It is generally assumed that it consisted of the persons mentioned in vss. 41-42 (Williamson). However, moving v. 40 after v. 42 has never been proposed. In this choir too, priests are present with trumpets. 12:40.43 Sobothchoirsofthosewhogavethanksstoodinthehouseof God.Iandhalfoftheofficialswithme. They offered great sacrifices that day and rejoiced, for God had made them rejoice with great joy; the women and children also rejoiced.ThejoyofJerusalemwasheardfaraway. According to this second report, the actual dedication takes place by a ceremony with the two choirs standing opposite each other in the square before the temple. There are zebāḥîmgedôlîm, ‘great sacrifices’, brought. In front of the greatness of God, the people brought generous sacrifices. These sacrifices of gratitude lead to great joy among the entire people, women and children included. The eruption is so great that it can be heard far away. A similar detail is also to be found in Ezra 3:13, where the cheer and weeping at the devastated temple could also be heard far beyond Jerusalem.

STOREROOMS FOR

THE TITHES

NEHEMIAH 12:44-47

44

45

Atthattimemenwereappointedtobeinchargeofthestoreroomsfor the contributions, first fruits and tithes. From the fields around the townstheyweretobringintothestoreroomstheportionsrequiredby theLawforthepriestsandtheLevites,forJudahwaspleasedwiththe ministeringpriestsandLevites. TheyperformedtheserviceoftheirGodandtheserviceofpurification, asdidalsothemusiciansandgatekeepers,accordingtothecommands ofDavidandhissonSolomon.

TheCommunityStrengthened 46

311

Forlongago,inthedaysofDavidandAsaph,therehadbeendirectors forthemusiciansandforthesongsofpraiseandthanksgivingtoGod. SointhedaysofZerubbabelandofNehemiah,allIsraelcontributed thedailyportionsforthemusiciansandthegatekeepers.Theyalsoset aside the portion for the other Levites, and the Levites set aside the portionforthedescendantsofAaron.

47

The last four verses of Neh. 12 describe some measures that have been taken as proper regulations of the organization of bringing and distributing the tithes to the priests and the Levites. The origin of this section is controversial. It certainly has not been adopted from the Nehemiah-memoir. Williamson gives no indication of where these verses have their origin.164 In my view, they were written by the editor of the Book of Nehemiah who added this section to make an accolade to 13:10-14. In that part of the chapter about the inspection process that Nehemiah held a few years later, it is reported that the Levites did not receive the tithes they had been promised. By adding at the end of chapter 12 a textual unit describing that the vow of 10:35-39 (Hebr. 36-40) had been kept builds an editorial bridge to chapter 13. By phrasing the recognition of the Judeans for the work of the priests and the Levites with the word śimḥāh, ‘joy’, an editorial bridge is made with the previous great joy at the dedication of the restored walls. 12:44 Atthattimemenwereappointedtobeinchargeofthestorerooms forthecontributions,firstfruitsandtithes.Fromthefieldsaround the towns they were to bring into the storerooms the portions requiredbytheLawforthepriestsandtheLevites,forJudahwas pleasedwiththeministeringpriestsandLevites. For the sake of a proper regulation of the tithes, ‘men’ are appointed. Their names are not mentioned, neither is their relationship with the priests and the Levites. The omitted subject in the passive form of pqd, ‘to appoint’, leaves it unclear by whom they were appointed. The ‘store rooms’ mentioned may be identical to the liškôt, ‘quarters’, mentioned in Ezra 8:30. Both were rooms in the immediate vicinity of the temple. During archaeological excavations, remains of such functional rooms have been found in the Iron Age sanctuaries in Israel.165 The joy of the Jews in the work of priests and Levites is an echo of joy from v. 43. The willingness to feed those who are economically non-productive is not self-evident, as is underscored by 13:10-14.

164

See also Burt, TheCourtierandtheGovernor, 68-69.178-82. E.g. at Tel Dan, see A.R. Davis, TelDaninItsNorthernCulticContext(SBL Archaeology and Biblical Studies 20), Atlanta 2013. 165

312

Nehemiah8-12

The preposition in liśdêy has a distributive function ‘in accordance with the fields’ (Williamson).166 The translation of the LXX èn autois àrchousin toon poleoon, ‘for the rulers of their cities’, (see also Vulg: eos principes civitatis) is based on a reading lśry for liśdêy.

12:45 TheyperformedtheserviceoftheirGodandtheserviceofpurification, asdidalsothemusiciansandgatekeepers,accordingtothecommands ofDavidandhissonSolomon. This verse gives a clear argument for the non-direct economic utility of the priests and Levites. They carry, along with the singers and gatekeepers, care for the service in the temple and the ritual of purification. The mention of David and Solomon in this regard refers to the idea of continuity and the influence of the theology of I and II Chronicles, in which David plays an important role as the patriarch of the Levitical liturgy. Therefore, the editor of 12:43-47 is probably the same as that of 12:24-25a. The words ‘Solomon, his son’, are asyndetically connected and form, likely a gloss because, in v. 46, there is no mention of Solomon.

12:46 Forlongago,inthedaysofDavidandAsaph,therehadbeendirectors forthemusiciansandforthesongsofpraiseandthanksgivingtoGod. This verse sets the origin of thanksgiving and praise in the days of David and Asaph. Asaph was seen to be the most important of the three temple singers (besides Heman and Ethan/Jeduthun). Whether he was David’s contemporary cannot be established. However, a group of Psalms has been put to his name.167 12:47 SointhedaysofZerubbabelandofNehemiah,allIsraelcontributed thedailyportionsforthemusiciansandthegatekeepers.Theyalso setasidetheportionfortheotherLevites,andtheLevitessetaside theportionforthedescendantsofAaron. This verse summarizes the previous and adds that the gifts were given during the days of Zerubbabel and Nehemiah by all Israel. This adverbial adjunct of time already anticipates the period of the second inspection by Nehemiah, when these gifts were no longer or, no longer heartfelt given.

166

See also DCH IV, 483. Psalms 73-83; see P. Schelling, De Asafpsalmen. Hun Samenhang en Achtergrond (Dissertationes Neerlandicae), Kampen 1985; K.N. Jacobson, MemoriesofAsaph:MnemohistoryandthePsalmsofAsaph, Minneapolis 2017. 167

NEHEMIAH 13

THE COMMUNITY THREATENED

ESSENTIALS AND PERSPECTIVES Human promises and good intentions do not last. In good times and often driven by need, people are willing to promise things that they will or cannot fulfil later. That is why the Bible also warns against ill-considered vows (Deut. 23:21-23). When promises are not fulfilled, the continuity of the community may be at stake. This insight may be applied to the community within the restored walls of Jerusalem, but also to the Christian congregation in the twenty-first century. I do not believe that such drastic measures are required at the present as in the period of Nehemiah’s two trips. The times are not comparable. Nehemiah lived in a closed community that had to keep standing within the waves of a hard time. Our time is completely different. We have also learned that there is more than one way to confess and experience faith. Yet we will not have to be afraid to warn each other when life has ended up too far outside the crest of promises. In the first place, however, we will have to warn ourselves of the ‘beam in our own eyes’ (Math. 7:3-5 // Luke 6:41-42). SCHOLARLY

EXPOSITION

I: INTRODUCTION TO THE

EXEGESIS

The last chapter of the Book of Nehemiah contains five episodes chronologically linked to a second journey by Nehemiah to Jerusalem (Blenkinsopp). This chapter shows that the community was threatened again because countless people did not keep to the promises made. As a result, Nehemiah was forced to take new measures that led to the re-purification of the people.1 The contents of the chapter mostly derive from the Nehemiah memoir (Williamson)2, although Hensel construes the chapter as a thematic summarising addition by ‘a redactor’.3 Only in the first episode (13:1-3) the 1 See also S.M. Olyan, ‘Purity Ideology in Ezra-Nehemiah as a Tool to Reconstitute the Community’, JSJ35 (2004), 1-16. 2 See also C. Pichon, ‘La prohibition des mariages mixtes par Néhémie (XIII 23-31)’, VT47 (1997), 168-99. 3 B. Hensel, ‘Ethnic Fiction and Identity-Formation: A New Explanation for the Background of the Question of Intermarriage in Ezra-Nehemiah’, in: M. Kartveit, G.N. Knoppers (eds),

314

Nehemiah13

characteristic I-style is absent. These verses are again on the theme of the others in the community, albeit in a different way than in 13:23-28. In 1-3 there is no mention of marriages, but of presence within the community. Presumably the verses 1-3 were added by the later editor of the Book of Nehemiah.4 The chapter is composed of the following parts: 1-3 4-9 10-14 15-22 23-31

Threat: Threat: Threat: Threat: Threat:

Moabites and Ammonites in the community Abuse of the store rooms in the temple no remittance to the Levites violation of the Sabbath mixed marriages.

It is remarkable that the last three parts all end with a prayer from Nehemiah, in which he asks God to remember him in a favourable way. 5 SCHOLARLY

EXPOSITION

II: EXEGESIS

MOABITES AND AMMONITES IN THE COMMUNITY NEHEMIAH 13:1-3

1

2

3

AtthattimetheyreadfromtheBookofMosesinthehearingofthe people.InitwasfoundwrittenthatnoAmmoniteorMoabiteshould everentertheassemblyofGod, fortheydidnotmeetthepeopleofIsraelwithbreadandwater,but hired Balaam against them to curse them – yet our God turned the curseintoablessing. As soon as the people heard the law, they separated from Israel all thoseofforeigndescent.

These later added verses signify the threat of the presence of Moabites and Ammonites for the qāhāl, ‘community’. They became aware of this threat after reading from the sēpermošèh, ‘book of Moses’, and immediately took measures. These verses are not about the issue of mixed marriages (thus Williamson). The Bible, Qumran, and the Samaritans (Studia Samaritana 10/Studia Judaica 104), Berlin 2018, 144-46. 4 J.L. Wright, Rebuilding Identity: The Nehemiah Memoir and its Earliest Readers (BZAW 348), Berlin, New York 2004, 315-17, construes these verses as stemming final redactor of the Book of Nehemiah. 5 See also M. Häusl, ‘„Ich betete zum Gott des Himmels“ (Neh 2,4) Zur kontextuellen Einbettung der Gebete in Neh 1-13‘, in: C. Diller, M. Mulzer, K. Ólason, R. Rothenbusch (eds), StudienzuPsalmenundPropheten.FestschriftfürHubertIrsigler (HBS 64), Freiburg 2010, 55-57.

TheCommunityThreatened 13:1

315

At that time they read from the Book of Moses in the hearing of thepeople. In it was found written that no Ammonite or Moabite shouldeverentertheassemblyofGod,

The adverbial adjunct bayyôm hāhû, literally: ‘on that day’, but better: ‘at that time’, has an editorial function because it is a repetition of 12:44 and hence is part of the accolade with which a redactor wished to connect chapter 13 with the rest of the Book Nehemiah. Which period exactly is meant here, is not clear; presumably the time between the two visits of Nehemiah to Jerusalem. It is remarkable that, in this verse, the ‘law’ is referred to primarily as the ‘Book of Moses’ without mentioning that this book was given by YHWH. Later, in v. 3, the word tôrāh occurs. Apparently, Moses had a decisive authority. The prohibition to admit Ammonites and Moabites into the qāhāl, ‘community’, can be found in Deut. 23:3. In Deuteronomy the word qāhāl has the connotation of a ‘religious community’ that may gather in the sanctuary. In Ezra and Nehemiah, the meaning of this word is much stricter. It refers to those who returned from the exile and who were attached to a specific form of Yahwism. At Ezra 9:1, I pointed to the interpretation that the names of the ‘seven nations’ mentioned there do not refer to non-Israelite ethnic groups but, are a chiffre for Israelites with a different form of Yahwism. Since the Ammonites and the Moabites have disappeared in the Persian period in the mist of the past, Neh. 13:1 can also be interpreted as referring to differently believing Israelites who should not have been admitted to the community. Neh. 13:1-3 is in contrast with the book of Ruth, which propagates a generous approach to the ‘others’.6 13:2

fortheydidnotmeetthepeopleofIsraelwithbreadandwater,but hired Balaam against them to curse them – yet our God turned thecurseintoablessing.

The tradition concerning Balaam (Num. 22-24) is quoted here as an argument for the prohibition of the admission. This is done with an almost literal quotation from Deut. 23:4-5. Two reproaches are central: the inaction of the

6 See now R. Rothenbusch, ‘The Question of Mixed Marriages between the Poles of Diaspora and Homeland: Observations in Ezra-Nehemiah’, in: C. Frevel (ed.), Mixed marriages,intermarriageandgroupidentityintheSecondTempleperiod (LHB/OTS 547), London, New York 2011, 60–77; A.-M. Wetter, On Her Account: Reconfiguring Israel in Ruth,Esther,andJudith (LHB/OTS 623), London, New York 2015, 41-96; B. Hensel, Juda undSamaria:ZumVerhältniszweiernachexilischerYahwismen (FAT 110), Göttingen 2016, 324-26.

316

Nehemiah13

people in the desert with the basic conditions for life, bread and water, and the refusal to have the people cross their territory. The lack of humanity in ‘Ammonites and Moabites’ contrasts with the love of God, who changed out of repentance his curse into a blessing. Read against the background of the post-exile situation, the Israelite community can identify with their ancestors in the desert. At the same time the text demonizes ‘the other’. 13:3

Assoonasthepeopleheardthelaw,theyseparatedfromIsraelall thoseofforeigndescent.

Hearing the tôrāh leads to obedience. The initiative for the action, unlike in the four following episodes, lies with the people themselves and not with Nehemiah. The ‘others’ were separated from Israel. The verb bdl is used elsewhere in Nehemiah (9:2; 10:28) for the withdrawal of the Israelites into their own group. This section is about repelling whomsoever is undesirable. The nature of that process is not specified. With Williamson, I believe that this does not mean the dissolution of ‘mixed marriages’, but an exclusion from the cult, although the word ‘ērèb, ‘mixture (of groups)’, could refer to people of ‘mixed origin’ (Williamson; Fensham; Blenkinsopp; Jagersma).7 ABUSE

OF THE STORE ROOMS

NEHEMIAH 13:4-9

4

Now before this, Eliashib the priest, who was appointed over the chambersofthehouseofourGod,andwhowasrelatedtoTobiah, preparedforTobiahalargechamberwheretheyhadpreviouslyput thegrainoffering,thefrankincense,thevessels,andthetithesofgrain, wine, and oil, which were given by commandment to the Levites, singers,andgatekeepers,andthecontributionsforthepriests. Whilethiswastakingplace,IwasnotinJerusalem,forinthethirtysecond year of Artaxerxes king of Babylon I went to the king. After sometime,Iaskedleaveoftheking. IcametoJerusalem,andIthendiscoveredtheevilthatEliashibhad done for Tobiah, preparing for him a chamber in the courts of the houseofGod. Iwasveryangry,andIthrewallthehouseholdfurnitureofTobiah outofthechamber.

5

6

7

8

7

See also S. Bar, ‘Who Were the “Mixed Multitude”?’, HebrewStudies 49 (2008), 27-39.

TheCommunityThreatened 9

317

Then I gave orders, and they cleansed the chambers, and I brought backtherethevesselsofthehouseofGod,withthegrainofferingand thefrankincense.

In the period that Nehemiah no longer lived in Jerusalem, abuse of power took place. Through political machinations of Eliashib, Tobiah (previously mentioned in the Book of Nehemiah) received rooms in the temple. Nehemiah takes clear measures. These verses are adopted from the Nehemiah memorial (Williamson).8 13:4-5 Now before this, Eliashib the priest, who was appointed over thechambers of the house of our God, and who was related to Tobiah,  preparedforTobiahalargechamberwheretheyhadpreviouslyput the grain offering, the frankincense, the vessels, and the tithes of grain,wine,andoil,whichweregivenbycommandmenttotheLevites, singers,andgatekeepers,andthecontributionsforthepriests. The adverbial adjunct lipnêmizzèh, ‘preceding this’, suggests that the abuse of the temple rooms took place before the events of 13:1-3. Since Eliashib is characterized just as kohēn, ‘priest’, he is not identical to the high priest Eliashib (3:21, 12:38, Williamson, Jagersma). Eliashib was apparently a priest with a limited task. He was nātûn, ‘appointed’ (passive participle), over the store rooms at the temple. He abused that position by giving his ‘relative’ Tobiah a large room. Tobiah is the same as the Ammonite Tobiah who previously in the Book Nehemiah was an adversary of Nehemiah’s construction activities. According to 6:17-19 Tobiah had all kinds of relations in Jerusalem. A qārôb is someone close by, hence a relative (Williamson) and not necessarily a kinsman. Almost all commentaries and contemporary translations read instead of the singular form liškat a plural liškôt, ‘store rooms’, because it seems unlikely that Eliashib would only have been appointed over one room (Williamson). The versiones antiquae, however, support the reading of a noun in the singular.

The room that was made available to Tobiah, originally had two functions. Firstly, it was intended as a storehouse for cultic implements with regard to the meal offering. In addition, the tithes for the priests, Levites and gatekeepers were collected in this room. The allocation that Tobiah had given 8 The intriguing view of Wright, Rebuilding Identity, 191-204, that these verses would refer to rules regarding the rebuilding of the walls overlooks the fact that Neh. 13:4-9 refers to the promises from Neh. 10.

318

Nehemiah13

to space, is not mentioned. Williamson suggests that Tobiah abused the space as a base for a liberal religious policy. That is not impossible. The most important point, however, is that the room was withdrawn from the goal to which the Israelites had committed themselves with a binding agreement (see Neh. 10). 13:6

Whilethiswastakingplace,IwasnotinJerusalem,forinthethirtysecondyearofArtaxerxeskingofBabylonIwenttotheking.After sometime,Iaskedleaveoftheking.

The absence of Nehemiah places the historian in front of a set of questions. Why was he called away from Jerusalem? How long did his stay at the Persian court last? Was his return caused by reports about the threats of the community? The text does not provide an answer to all these questions. The point of these verses within the whole is clear: the absence of Nehemiah gave others the opportunity to undo his measures. Apparently, the promises made had no lasting depth. Artaxerxes (I Longimanus, see Neh. 2:1) is presented here as ‘king of Babylon’, which is unusual. Formally, the Persian kings were also rulers over Babylon, especially Cyrus who, in the Cyrus Cylinder, boasts about that. In the two inscriptions of Artaxerxes that have been found, he never calls himself ‘king of Babylon’.

13:7-9

 

IcametoJerusalem,andIthendiscoveredtheevilthatEliashib haddoneforTobiah,preparingforhimachamberinthecourtsof thehouseofGod. Iwasveryangry,andIthrewallthehouseholdfurnitureofTobiah outofthechamber. ThenIgaveorders,andtheycleansedthechambers,andIbrought backtherethevesselsofthehouseofGod,withthegrainoffering andthefrankincense.

The measures taken by Nehemiah on his return to Jerusalem with regard to Tobiah’s room are drastic. He throws all the utensils of Tobiah out of the room, purifies the room to be ritually clean and gives it back to its original designation, even though the text does not mention anything about the tithe for the temple staff. However, that topic is discussed in the next episode. The need for ritual purification implies that in Nehemiah’s judgment the room was contaminated by Tobiah’s conduct. The plural liškôt, ‘store rooms’ in v. 9, is surprising. Tobiah, after all, was given only one room. The context suggests a singular (Blenkinsopp). Williamson rightly notes, however, that the contamination mentioned above will have extended over the adjoining rooms.

TheCommunityThreatened NO REMITTANCE

319 TO THE

LEVITES

NEHEMIAH 13:10-14

10

11   12 13

14

IalsofoundoutthattheportionsoftheLeviteshadnotbeengivento them,sothattheLevitesandthesingers,whodidthework,hadfled eachtohisfield. SoIconfrontedtheofficialsandsaid, ‘WhyisthehouseofGodforsaken?’ Igatheredthemtogetherandsetthemintheirstations. ThenallJudahbroughtthetitheofthegrain,wine,andoilintothe storehouses. IappointedastreasurersoverthestorehousesShelemiahthepriest, Zadok the scribe, and Pedaiah of the Levites, and as their assistant HananthesonofZaccur,sonofMattaniah,fortheywereconsidered reliable,andtheirdutywastodistributetotheirbrothers. Rememberme,OmyGod,concerningthis,anddonotwipeoutmy good deeds that I have done for the house of my God and for his service.

These five verses too, derive from the Nehemiah memoir (Williamson).9 Thematically, this section is linked to the preceding episode. The space provided to Tobiah was meant to receive the gifts for the Levites. Here, too, Nehemiah is resolute. 13:10 IalsofoundoutthattheportionsoftheLeviteshadnotbeengiven tothem,sothattheLevitesandthesingers,whodidthework,had fledeachtohisfield. The verb yd‘ here has the meaning ‘to get it known’. The verbal form is narratively parallel to the form wā’ābô’, ‘I noticed’, in 13:7 (Williamson). Both express that Nehemiah, through observant observations, had understood that the vows made did not last. Because the Levites did not receive tithes anymore, they had to provide for their sustenance in another way. According to Deut. 18:2 the Levites were not allowed to possess their own land. That this ideal did not always meet reality, is shown by the note that Levites and temple singers fled each one to śādēhû, ‘his field’.

9 The intriguing view of Wright, Rebuilding Identity, 191-204, that these verses would refer to rules regarding the rebuilding of the walls overlooks the fact that Neh. 13:10-14 refers to the promises from Neh. 10.

320

Nehemiah13

13:11-12 SoIconfrontedtheofficialsandsaid,  ‘WhyisthehouseofGodforsaken?’  Igatheredthemtogetherandsetthemintheirstations.  ThenallJudahbroughtthetitheofthegrain,wine,andoilintothe storehouses. Nehemiah takes decisive and effective measures. He holds the segānîm, ‘leaders’ (concerning this word Ezra 9:2), responsible. By this he refers to those who were paraded with him in two groups over the walls of Jerusalem at the feast of dedication. He blames them for their lack of supervision resulting in the ‘abandonment’ of the temple. Because of the absence of the Levites, worship could not have been kept properly. Nehemiah gathers (qbṣ) the Levites and restores them in their functions even before the payment of tithes is restored. As an effect of his actions, all of Judah brings the gifts again. With this totumproparte all those Judeans are meant who are part of the community. The triad of ‘grain, wine, and oil’ refers to the basic food products. According to the vow made, they should have been offered to the Levites (10:39 [Hebr. 10:40]). 13:13 IappointedastreasurersoverthestorehousesShelemiahthepriest, Zadokthescribe,andPedaiahoftheLevites,andastheirassistant HananthesonofZaccur,sonofMattaniah,fortheywereconsidered reliable,andtheirdutywastodistributetotheirbrothers. The vow at 10:38 (Hebr. 10:39) promised that the administration of the tithes for the Levites would take place under the leadership of an Aaronite. Although it is not indicated that a certain person had failed in the performance of this task, a triumvirate is now appointed as overseers: a priest, a scribe, and a Levite, whose names are given.10 The fact that Hanan is appointed as executor points out that the triumvirate was only imposed a governing and no executive task. All four people were seen to be ‘reliable’. The word echoes the reliability of Abraham (9:8).11 The name of the priest šèlèmyāh, ‘Shelemiah’ (YHWH is peace), is borne by various people in post-exile texts (Ezra 10:30, Neh. 10:30, 13:13). The letter with the request to rebuild the temple in Elephantine is also addressed to ‘Shelemiah, the son of Sanballat’.12 The name may appear on coins from Samaria.13 10 See also J. Schaper, ‘The Temple Treasury Committee in the Times of Nehemiah and Ezra’, VT 47 (1997), 200-06. 11 See F.C. Holmgren, ‘Faithful Abraham and the ᾿amānaCovenant Nehemiah 9,6 – 10,1’, ZAW104 (1992), 249–54. 12 TADEA A.4.7:29; A.4.8:28. 13 See D.V. Edelman, TheOriginsofthe‘Second’Temple:PersianImperialPolicyand theRebuildingofJerusalem (Bible World), London 2005, 60-62.

TheCommunityThreatened

321

The name of the scribe ṣādôq, ‘Sadok’, is quite common (see Neh. 3:14). The name of the Levite, ‘Pedaja’ (YHWH redeems), occurs four times in the Book of Nehemiah, but is always another person (3:25, 8:5, 11:7, 13:13). The executor ḥānān, ‘Hanan’, has a very common name.

13:14 Rememberme,OmyGod,concerningthis,anddonotwipeoutmy good deeds that I have done for the house of my God and for his service. The section ends with a prayer to God. As in 5:19, Nehemiah asks God to remember him (zkr) because of the good he has done for temple and worship.14 It is remarkable here that the text assumes a heavenly accounting of good and evil. The Hiph. of the verb mḥh refers to the act of ‘removing’ the name. In Ps. 69:29 the supplicant asks for vengeance against his opponents. He asks God: ‘delete their names from the book of life, do not let them be written to the righteous’. In the background there are two Ancient Near Eastern concepts. The Mesopotamian Anzu myth narrates how the bird Anzu steals the ‘tablet of destiny’ from the hands of the god Enlil.15 In addition, some Assyrian, Aramaic and Phoenician texts on steles contain a textual element in which the person who removes the name of the king of the inscription, is be threatened with all kinds of curses. See, for example, the bilingual inscription from Tell Fekherye: ‘Whoever removes my name from the cult tools of the temple of Hadad …’.16 Here too it is a form of damnatiomemoriae that is meant.17

VIOLATION

OF THE

SABBATH

NEHEMIAH 13:15-22

15

In those days I saw in Judah people treading winepresses on the S abbath,andbringinginheapsofgrainandloadingthemondonkeys, andalsowine,grapes,figs,andallkindsofloads,whichtheybrought into Jerusalem on the Sabbath day. And I warned them on the day whentheysoldfood.

14 On the verb zkrsee: P.A.H. de Boer, GedenkenundGedächtnisinderWeltdesAlten Testaments, Stuttgart 1962; J.A. Loader, ‘Prosthetic Memory in the Old Testament’, OTE 25 (2012), 583-597; A.K. de Hemmer Gudme, BeforetheGodinthisPlaceforgoodRemembrance: A Comparative Analysis of the Aramaic Votive Inscriptions from Mount Gerizim (BZAW 441), Berlin, New York 2013, 135-38. 15 For a recent translation see S.Dalley,MythsfromMesopotamia.Creation,TheFlood, Gilgamesh,andOthers, Oxford2000, 203-235. 16 See A. Abou-Assaf, P. Bordreuil, A.R. Millard, La statue de Tell Fekherye et son inscriptionbilingueassyro-araméenne, Paris 1982, Assyrian: 26-27; Aramaic: 16. 17 See N.M. May, ‘Decapitation of Statues and Mutilation of the Image’s Facial Features’, in: W. Horowitz, U. Gabbay, F. Vukosavović (eds), AWomanofValor:JerusalemStudiesin theAncientNearEastinHonorofJoanGoodnickWestenholz, Madrid 2010, 105-18.

322

Nehemiah13

16

Tyrians also, who lived in the city, brought in fish and all kinds of goodsandsoldthemontheSabbathtothepeopleofJudah,inJerusalemitself! ThenIconfrontedthenoblesofJudahandsaidtothem, ‘What is this evil thing that you are doing, profaning the Sabbathday? Did not your ancestors act in this way, and did not our God bring all this disaster upon us and on this city? Now you are bringingmorewrathonIsraelbyprofaningtheSabbath.’ AssoonasitbegantogrowdarkatthegatesofJerusalembeforethe Sabbath,Icommandedthatthedoorsshouldbeshutandgaveorders that they should not be opened until after the Sabbath. I stationed someofmyservantsatthegates,thatnoloadmightbebroughtinon theSabbathday. Thenthemerchantsandsellersofallkindsofwareslodgedoutside Jerusalemonceortwice. Iwarnedthemandsaidtothem, ‘Whydoyoulodgeoutsidethewall?Ifyoudosoagain,Iwill layhandsonyou.’ FromthattimeontheydidnotcomeontheSabbath. IcommandedtheLevitesthattheyshouldpurifythemselvesandcome andguardthegates,tokeeptheSabbathdayholy. Rememberthisalsoinmyfavour,OmyGod,andsparemeaccording tothegreatnessofyoursteadfastlove.

17  18

19

20 21

 22 

In this episode Nehemiah, observes a gross violation of the Sabbath, with which the obligation that was solemnly entered (10:31 [Hebr. 10:32]) was broken. Here, too, Nehemiah takes drastic measures. This part clearly derives from the Nehemiah memoir. 13:15 In those days I saw in Judah people treading winepresses on the Sabbath, and bringing in heaps of grain and loading them on donkeys,andalsowine,grapes,figs,andallkindsofloads,which theybroughtintoJerusalemontheSabbathday.AndIwarnedthem onthedaywhentheysoldfood. The observation of an abuse is expressed here with a form of the verb r’h, ‘to see’ (see also 13:23). The verbal form is a late echo of the seeing by YHWH of the goodness of the family of Noah (Gen. 7:3), of the misery in Egypt (Exod. 3:7, 9) and of the tears of King Hezekiah (II Kgs 20:5). The verbal form is followed by a series of participles that indicate the continuity of the actions. The acts detested by Nehemiah did, therefore, not have a one-off character but occurred continuously.

TheCommunityThreatened

323

The treading of grapes in wine presses is an ancient custom. After the harvest, people walk barefoot in a round brick basin with drainage to separate the juice from the grape-extinctions, the peelings, and the seeds. The oldest archaeologically found wine presses date from the fourth millennium BCE and are found in present-day Armenia.18 In Israel, wine presses from the bronze age were found in Ajjalon,19 from the Iron Age in el Jîb (Gibeon)20 and recently from the late monarchical period in Jerusalem.21 The method of pressing grapes in this way lasted well into the twentieth century CE. Nehemiah interprets this practice a form of labour that should not take place on the Sabbath. He also abhors the bringing of and selling of agricultural products such as corn, wine, grapes and figs to the city. His condemnation is in line with Am. 8:5 and Jer. 17:19-27. His condemnation leads to protest. The form ’ā‘îd contains a Hiph. of the verb ’wd, which, in addition to ‘to give testimony’, could also mean ‘to protest; warn’.22 13:16 Tyriansalso,wholivedinthecity,broughtinfishandallkindsof goods and sold them on the Sabbath to the people of Judah, in Jerusalemitself! The Tyrians, like most of the Phoenician city-states, were traditionally dependent on overseas trade.23 Since they had established trading posts throughout the ancient Near East, their presence in Jerusalem is not surprising.24 Although there are no direct archaeological indications of Phoenician presence in Jerusalem, the historicity of the message in Neh. 13:16 is very likely.25 Although they were not bound to the tôrā of YHWH, Nehemiah condemns the fact that they offer fish and other merchandise for sale on the Sabbath. His criticism, however, is aimed at members of the community in

18 See C. Vincent, ‘Principles of arthropod pest management in vineyards’, in: N.J. Bostanian, C. Vincent, R. Isaacs (eds), ArthropodManagementinVineyards, Dordrecht 2012, 1-16. 19 Y. Hirschfeld, ‘Ancient Wine Presses in the Park of Aijalon’, IEJ33 (1983), 207-18. 20 J.B. Pritchard, Gibeon,WheretheSunStoodStill:TheDiscoveryoftheBiblicalCity: TheDiscoveryoftheBiblicalCity, Princeton 1962, 79-99. 21 See http://www.timesofisrael.com/1600-year-old-wine-press-found-in-old-jerusalemarmy-base/. 22 See also T. Veijola, ‘Zu Ableitung und Bedeutung von hē’îd I im Hebräischen: Ein Beitrag zur Bundesterminologie‘, UF 8 (1976), 343-51; DCH II, 287-88. 23 On them see J. Elayi, HistoiredelaPhénicie, Paris 2013. 24 See M.E. Aubet, ThePhoeniciansandtheWest:politics,coloniesandtrade, Cambridge 2001; B.J. Noonan, ‘Did Nehemiah Own Tyrian Goods?: Trade between Judea and Phoenicia during the Achaemenid Period’, JBL130 (2011), 283-87. 25 Noonan, ‘Did Nehemiah Own Tyrian Goods?’, 281-98; contra D. Edelman, ‘Tyrian Trade in Yehud under Artaxerxes I: Real or Fictional? Independent or Crown Endorsed?’, in: O. Lipschits, M. Oeming (eds), Judah and the Judeans in the Persian Period, Winona Lake 2006, 207–46.

324

Nehemiah13

and around Jerusalem that, by buying such merchandise, violate the regulations of the Sabbath (Williamson). 13:17-1 ThenIconfrontedthenoblesofJudahandsaidtothem,  ‘What is this evil thing that you are doing, profaning the Sabbath day?  Didnotyourancestorsactinthisway,anddidnotourGodbring all this disaster upon us and on this city? Now you are bringing morewrathonIsraelbyprofaningtheSabbath.’ Nehemiah addresses the ḥorîm, ‘nobles’ (see also 2:16). It is unclear to which group of directors this word refers. He holds them accountable for the above-mentioned actions, with which in his view the Sabbath was ‘desecrated’. The verb ḥll used here is an antonym of the verb qdš, ‘to put aside; make holy’. According to the Ten Commandments, Israel was to set the seventh day ‘apart’ in time by refraining from work. With the help of two rhetorical questions, Nehemiah reminds the leaders that the ‘desecration’ of the Sabbath had been one of the reasons for the misery of the exile (Jagersma). Thereby he adopts the ideas from Jer. 17:19-27. By threatening the possibility of even more serious misery, he hopes that the leaders will realize what they are putting at risk. 13:19 AssoonasitbegantogrowdarkatthegatesofJerusalembefore theSabbath,Icommandedthatthedoorsshouldbeshutandgave orders that they should not be opened until after the Sabbath. I stationed some of my servants at the gates, that no load might be broughtinontheSabbathday. Nehemiah immediately acts. He has the gates of the city closed on the Sabbath from sunset to sunset (Jagersma). He keeps his servants on guard and therefore does not use the aforementioned gatekeepers. He is in line with the time concept from the Priestly Code, according to which the day started with the sunset.26 The walls of Jerusalem with its gates form a fence around the community that must protect them from external influences (Williamson).

26 See A. Grund, Die Entstehung des Sabbats: seine Bedeutung für Israels Zeitkonzept undErinnerungskultur (FAT, 75), Tübingen 2011, 189-304.

TheCommunityThreatened

325

13:20-21 Then the merchants and sellers of all kinds of wares lodged outsideJerusalemonceortwice.  Iwarnedthemandsaidtothem,  ‘Whydoyoulodgeoutsidethewall?Ifyoudosoagain,Iwill layhandsonyou.’  FromthattimeontheydidnotcomeontheSabbath. Throughout the ages traders, however, do not just step aside for moral principles. They stayed outside the walls presumably hoping to be able to continue their trade. This is a thorn in the eye of Nehemiah. He warns them (the verbal form is identical with that from 13:15) and threatens them with death. If he would see them one more time, he will extend his ‘hand to them’. The idiomatic expression šlḥ + yad + be refers to an act that harms the other and is a euphemism for ‘killing’.27 Nehemiah’s warning appears to be effective (Williamson, Jagersma). 13:22 I commanded the Levites that they should purify themselves and comeandguardthegates,tokeeptheSabbathdayholy.  Rememberthisalsoinmyfavour,OmyGod,andsparemeaccording tothegreatnessofyoursteadfastlove. Nehemiah then orders the Levites to take over the role of the servants as guardians of the closed gates. This task does not belong to the standard activities of the Levites (see Williamson). In fact, they take over the role of the gatekeepers. One can only speculate about whether or not Nehemiah trusted these gatekeepers. It should be noted that by closing the gates on the Sabbath, the whole of Jerusalem within the walls became a sacred space within which the Levites had their task. The section ends with a prayer from Nehemiah in which he asks God to ‘remember’ him (see also 1:8, 5:19, 13:14). The supplication is varied here with the demand for ‘mercy’. The verb used ḥws does not appear elsewhere in the Book of Nehemiah and stands here parallel to the prayer of Nehemiah in 13:14 in order not to erase his name.

27

DCH VIII, 381; see also Est. 8:7.

326

Nehemiah13 MIXED MARRIAGES NEHEMIAH 13:23-31

23 24

25  26

27 28

29 30 31 

In those days also I saw the Judeans who had had laid down with Ashdodite,Ammonite,andMoabitewomen. HalfoftheirchildrenspokethelanguageofAshdod.Theycouldnot speakthelanguageofJudah,butonlythelanguageofthepertinent people. Iconfrontedthemandcursedthemandbeatsomeofthemandpulled outtheirhair.ImadethemtakeanoathinthenameofGod,saying, ‘Youshallnotgiveyourdaughterstotheirsons,ortaketheir daughtersforyoursonsorforyourselves. DidnotSolomonkingofIsraelsinonaccountofsuchwomen? Amongthemanynationstherewasnokinglikehim,andhewas beloved by his God, and God made him king over all Israel. Nevertheless,foreignwomenmadeevenhimtosin. Shall we then listen to you and do all this great evil and act treacherouslyagainstourGodbymarryingforeignwomen?’ OneofthesonsofJehoiada,thesonofEliashibthehighpriest,was the son-in-law of Sanballat the Horonite. Therefore, I chased him fromme. Rememberthem,OmyGod,becausetheyhavedesecratedthepriesthoodandthecovenantofthepriesthoodandtheLevites. Ipurifiedthemfromeverythingforeign.Iestablishedthedutiesofthe priestsandLevites,eachinhiswork. Iprovidedforthewoodofferingatappointedtimes,andforthefirst fruits. Rememberme,OmyGod,forgood.

In the last episode of the Book of Nehemiah, the theme of mixed marriage occurs. Thus, the self-imposed obligation from 10:30 (Hebr. 10:31) is broken. The text derives mostly from the Nehemiah-memoir (Williamson).28 Some scholars, however, think of a later addition from the fourth century.29 The verses 28-29 - narrating a related theme - were later added by the editor of the Book of Nehemiah. He wanted to link the crisis of marriages with 28 The intriguing view of Wright, Rebuilding Identity, 243-57, that these verses would refer to rules regarding the rebuilding of the walls overlooks the fact that Neh. 13:23-31 refers to the promises from Neh. 10. 29 E.g. Wright, Rebuilding Identity, 248; A. Berlejung, ‘Was ist eigentlich «Aschdodisch»? Überlegungen zu Neh 13,23f. und Sach 9,6’, in: H. Jenni, M. Saur (eds), NächstenliebeundGottesfurcht.Beiträgeausalttestamentlicher,semitistischerundaltorientalistischer WissenschaftfürHans-PeterMathyszum65.Geburtstag (AOAT 439), Münster 2016, 15.

TheCommunityThreatened

327

women from other peoples with the motive of the battle between Nehemiah and Sanballat (Neh. 2-6). 13:23-24 In those days also I saw the Judeans who had laid down with Ashdodite,Ammonite,andMoabitewomen.  HalfoftheirchildrenspokethelanguageofAshdod.Theycouldnot speakthelanguageofJudah,butonlythelanguageofthepertinent people. Introduced by a formula similar to 13:15, it is reported here that Nehemiah noticed that several Judeans had entered into intimate relationships with residents of Ashdod. It is remarkable that a boundary-marking word like ‘foreign’ is not used here. The idiomatic expression yšb Hiph. + nāšīm literally means ‘to lay down with women’ but must be understood as the indication of a long-term intimate cohabitation. Williamson rightly pointed out that the adjectives ‘Ammonite’ and ‘Moabite’ are asyndetically connected with ‘Ashdodite women’. This indicates that both words are to be construed as later additions and that Neh. 13:23 originally only referred to relationships with ‘Ashdodite women’ (Williamson, Blenkinsopp, Schunck).30 Others hold these words as original (Fensham; McConville; Breneman; Becker; Jobsen; Jagersma; Shepherd & Wright).31 This observation is of great importance for the understanding of the whole of the discourse on ‘mixed marriages’ within Ezra and Nehemiah. Ashdod never occurs in the list of seven, or more, foreign peoples, for which Israel is warned. In the Persian period, Ashdod is part of a province of the Achaemenid world empire. In my opinion, the reproach in *Neh. 13:23 is the oldest text in Ezra and Nehemiah that narrates about this problem. The text refers to a historical situation, in which Judeans had become associated with Ashdodites. In the later pseudepigraphic Ezra story (7-10) this motive was adopted and used to demonize those who had a different view of Yahwism. On them the label of the seven, or more, foreign peoples were placed to underline their differences. In the final text of Neh. 13:23, the Ammonites and Moabites were included from Ezra 9, in order to bring both books more in line. 30 See also U. Kellermann, Nehemia:Quellen,ÜberlieferungundGeschichte (BZAW 102), Berlin 1967, 53; Pichon, ‘La prohibition des mariages mixtes’, 188; Wright, Rebuilding Identity, 245; J. Pakkala, EzratheScribe:TheDevelopmentofEzra7–10andNehemiah8 (BZAW 347), Berlin, New York 2004, 218-19. 31 Thus D. Rom-Shiloni, Exclusive inclusivity: identity conflicts between the exiles and thepeoplewhoremained(6th-5thcenturiesBCE) (LHB/OTS 543), London, New York 2013, 43.

328

Nehemiah13

Nehemiah noted that about half of the children from these relationships were unable to speak Judean but had learned the language of their mothers; Ashdodian. It is unclear what the nature of the Ashdodian language was. A majority thinks of a Phoenician or Philistine dialect (Williamson, Gunneweg, Blenkinsopp, Jobsen, Hieke, Jagersma).32 Some think of a language related to Aramaic (Fensham). Berlejung construes Ashdodian as a pidgin language used for communication among various ethnic groups.33 During excavations in Ashdod two pottery fragments were found. The first form the eighth century with the probably Aramaic inscription pḥr, ‘potter’.34 from the Persian period was found with Aramaic writing ‘[from the] vineyard of Zebediah h(alf) of a j(ar)’.35 This inscription made Dothan assume that the language of Ashdod in the Persian period was Aramaic.36 In the Persian period, it is however not immediately possible to conclude a language merely on the basis of the type of script.

It is more important to note that language is an important ethnic marker. Language is part of the (group) identity (Blenkinsopp).37 The inability to speak Judean was taken as alienation from the correct Yahwist identity. The lack of Judean language skills is only noticed and not presented as a violation. No measures are taken against it. 13:25 Iconfrontedthemandcursedthemandbeatsomeofthemandpulled outtheirhair.ImadethemtakeanoathinthenameofGod,saying,  ‘You shall not give your daughters to their sons, or take their daughtersforyoursonsorforyourselves. Nehemiah reacts very violently to this observation. His reaction is different from that of Ezra (see Ezra 9). Nehemiah’s first action is admonishment. He starts a conversation of contest in which he curses them. Then he moves on to deeds; he beats some of them (nkh). The same verbal form occurs in 32 See also D. Janzen, Witch-hunts,Purity,andSocialBoundaries:TheExpulsionofthe ForeignWomeninEzra9-10 (JSOT Sup 350), London 2002, 144. 33 Berlejung, ‘Was ist eigentlich’, 13-26. 34 M. Dothan, D.N. Freedman. AshdodI:TheFirstSeasonofExcavations1962, Tel Aviv 1967, 84-85; see Berlejung, ‘Was ist eigentlich’, 14. 35 R. Hestrin, Y. Israeli, Y. Meshorer, A. Eitan, Inscriptionsreveal:Documentsfromthe timeoftheBible,theMishnaandtheTalmud, Jerusalem 1973; see Berlejung, ‘Was ist eigentlich’, 14. 36 M. Dothan, ‘Ashdod’, in: ABDI, 481. 37 See also: Janzen, Witch-Hunts, 143-45; D.I. Block, ‘The Role of Language in Ancient Israelite Perceptions of National Identity’, JBL 103 (1984), 321-40; J.C. Kuipers, Language, Identity,andMarginalityinIndonesia:TheChangingNatureofRitualSpeechontheIsland of Sumba, Cambridge 1998; W.M. Schniedewind, ‘Prolegomena for the Sociolinguistics of Classical Hebrew’, JHS 5 (2004-05) # 2.9; K.E. Southwood, ‘ “And They could not Understand Jewish Speech”: Language, Ethnicity, and Nehemiah’s Intermarriage Crisis’, JThS 62 (2011), 1-19.

TheCommunityThreatened

329

Jer. 40:15, where Jochanan proposes to ‘beat’ Ishmael, that is to murder him. That the action of Nehemiah did not lead to the death of his adversaries may be deduced from the fact that he then pulls their hair out. In doing so, he performs the mourning-ritual that they should have done to themselves. There is, therefore, a ritual inversion.38 Then he lets them make a vow, referring to the text from Deut. 7:3-4 that also plays in the background of the promise in 10:31 (Hebr. 10:30) by which they promise not to marry their children to the inhabitants of the land.39 13:26-27 DidnotSolomonkingofIsraelsinonaccountofsuchwomen? Among the many nations there was no king like him, and he was beloved by his God, and God made him king over all Israel. Nevertheless,foreignwomenmadeevenhimtosin.  Shall we then listen to you and do all this great evil and act treacherouslyagainstourGodbymarryingforeignwomen?’ As in the previous episode, Nehemiah refers to the past. He points to the tragic example of Solomon. This king was originally loved by God (II Sam. 12:24-25) and was a prince without an equal (I Kgs 3:12). Nevertheless, in his last days he was tempted to sin by his foreign wives (I Kgs 11:1-6). Nehemiah refers to both sides of the tragic shift in the life of Solomon: from a chosen king to a human sinner. With this example, Nehemiah wants to warn the Judeans. With two rhetorical questions, Nehemiah tries to bring them to other ideas and acts (Jagersma).40 13:28-29 OneofthesonsofJehoiada,thesonofEliashibthehighpriest, was the son-in-law of Sanballat the Horonite. Therefore, Ichased himfromme.  Remember them, O my God, because they have desecrated the priesthoodandthecovenantofthepriesthoodandtheLevites. These verses are a later addition (Williamson). The theme is the same: mixed marriages, but the editor introduces an example that cannot be related to Ashdod, namely the engagement of a descendant of the high priest

38 See S.M. Olyan, Biblical Mourning: Ritual and Social Dimensions, Oxford 2004; S.M. Olyan, ‘Ritual Inversion in Biblical Representations of Punitive Rites’, in: J.J. Collins, T.M. Lermos, S.M. Olyan (eds), Worship,Women,andWar:EssaysinHonorofSusanNiditch (Brown Judaic Studies 357), Providence 2015, 135-43. 39 See also Pichon, ‘La prohibition des mariages mixtes’, 180-83; A. Versluis, TheCommandtoExterminatetheCanaanites (OTS 71), Leiden 2017. 40 See also Pichon, ‘La prohibition des mariages mixtes’, 183-85.

330

Nehemiah13

Eliashib with a member of the family of the governor in Samaria, Sanballat.41 Moreover, Nehemiah’s reaction to this union is completely different from the surrounding verses. In Neh. 12:10-11 a short genealogy of Eliashib is given. Whether or not the nameless son of Jehoiada in 13:28 refers to Jonathan (12:11) cannot be decided. The punishment for this nameless son is clear. Nehemiah banishes him from the community by having him flee. The prayer to God in 13:29 to charge the tribe of Eliashib with their debt, is in line with the petition for vengeance against Sanballat, Tobiah and some prophets (6:14). 13:30a Ipurifiedthemfromeverythingforeign. The suffix 3.m.p. in ṭihartîm, ‘I purified them’, refers to the Judeans referred to in 13:23-24. The nature of this cultic cleansing remains unknown.42 Unlike in Ezra 9-10, these Judeans are not forced to give up their relationship with the women from Ashdod. They can be reintegrated into the community after the cultic cleansing (Hieke). 13:30b-31 IestablishedthedutiesofthepriestsandLevites,eachinhis work.  Iprovidedforthewoodofferingatappointedtimes,andforthefirst fruits.  Rememberme,OmyGod,forgood. The chapter ends with a summarizing note on the measures taken by Nehemiah to restore the promises made and to revive the community. Although there are no reports of problems with the promises about the supply of wood for the temple (see 10:34 [Hebr. 10:35]) and about the first fruits (see 10:35 [Hebr. 10:36]), nevertheless mention is made of regulatory measures by Nehemiah. The chapter (and with it the Biblical book) ends with a prayer to God in which Nehemiah asks him to remember him ‘for good’ (see 5:19).

41 42

See also Hensel, ‘Ethnic Fiction and Identity-Formation’, 144-46. See Olyan, ‘Purity Ideology in Ezra-Nehemiah’.