From the Rivers of Babylon to the Highlands of Judah: Collected Studies on the Restoration Period 9781575065755

Citation preview

From the Rivers of Babylon to the Highlands of Judah

From the Rivers of Babylon to the Highlands of Judah Collected Studies on the Restoration Period

Sara Japhet

Winona Lake, Indiana Eisenbrauns 2006

ç Copyright 2006 by Eisenbrauns. All rights reserved. Printed in the United States of America.

www.eisenbrauns.com

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Japhet, Sara. From the rivers of Babylon to the highlands of Judah : collected studies on the Restoration period / Sara Japhet. p. cm. Includes indexes. ISBN-13: 978-1-57506-121-4 (hardback : alk. paper) 1. Bible. O.T. Chronicles—Criticism, interpretation, etc. 2. Bible. O.T. Ezra—Criticism, interpretation, etc. 3. Bible. O.T. Nehemiah— Criticism, interpretation, etc. 4. Jews—History—586 b.c.–70 a.d.— Historiography 5. Judaism—History—Post-exilic period, 586 b.c.– 210 a.d.—Historiography. I. Title. BS1345.52.J37 2006 222u.606—dc22 2006022189

The paper used in this publication meets the minimum requirements of the American National Standard for Information Sciences—Permanence of Paper for Printed Library Materials, ANSI Z39.48-1984. †‘

Contents

List of Abbreviations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . vii Chapter 1.

The Supposed Common Authorship of Chronicles and Ezra–Nehemiah Investigated Anew . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

Chapter 2.

Conquest and Settlement in Chronicles . . . . . . . . . . 38

Chapter 3.

Sheshbazzar and Zerubbabel against the Background of the Historical and Religious Tendencies of Ezra–Nehemiah: Part 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . 53

Chapter 4.

Sheshbazzar and Zerubbabel against the Background of the Historical and Religious Tendencies of Ezra–Nehemiah: Part 2 . . . . . . . . . . . . 85

Chapter 5.

People and Land in the Restoration Period . . . . . . . . 96

Chapter 6.

The Historical Reliability of Chronicles: The History of the Problem and Its Place in Biblical Research . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 117

Chapter 7.

Law and “The Law” in Ezra–Nehemiah . . . . . . . . . . 137

Chapter 8.

“History” and “Literature” in the Persian Period: The Restoration of the Temple . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 152

Chapter 9.

The Relationship between Chronicles and Ezra–Nehemiah . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 169

Chapter 10.

The Temple in the Restoration Period: Reality and Ideology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 183

Chapter 11.

The Israelite Legal and Social Reality as Reflected in Chronicles: A Case Study . . . . . . . . . . . 233

Chapter 12.

Composition and Chronology in the Book of Ezra–Nehemiah . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 245

Chapter 13.

The Prohibition of the Habitation of Women: The Temple Scroll’s Attitude toward Sexual Impurity and Its Biblical Precedents . . . . . . . . . . . . 268

v

vi

Contents

Chapter 14.

The Distribution of the Priestly Gifts according to a Document of the Second Temple Period . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 289

Chapter 15.

Postexilic Historiography: How and Why? . . . . . . . . 307

Chapter 16.

Exile and Restoration in the Book of Chronicles . . 331

Chapter 17.

Can the Persian Period Bear the Burden? Reflections on the Origins of Biblical History . . . . 342

Chapter 18.

Periodization between History and Ideology: The Neo-Babylonian Period in Biblical Historiography . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 353

Chapter 19.

Theodicy in Ezra–Nehemiah and Chronicles . . . . . 367

Chapter 20.

Chronicles: A History . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 399

Chapter 21.

Periodization between History and Ideology II: Chronology and Ideology in Ezra–Nehemiah . . . . . 416

Chapter 22.

The Concept of the “Remnant” in the Restoration Period: On the Vocabulary of Self-Definition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 432

Indexes Index of Authors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 451 Index of Scripture . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 456

List of Abbreviations General adj. av col. cons. DSS Heb. impf. jpsv LXX masc. MT neb njpsv nrsv OT P pers. pl. rsv Sam. sing.

adjective Authorized Version (King James Version) column consecutive Dead Sea Scrolls Hebrew imperfective Jewish Publication Society Version Septuagint masculine Masoretic Text New English Bible New Jewish Publication Society Version New Revised Standard Version Old Testament Priestly writer person plural Revised Standard Version Samaritan version singular

Reference Works AB AJSL APOT ATD ATSAT AUSS BA BARev BASOR BBB BDB BEATAJ

Anchor Bible American Journal of Semitic Languages and Literatures Charles, R. H. (editor). The Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha of the Old Testament. Oxford: Clarendon, 1913 Das Alte Testament Deutsch Arbeiten zu Text und Sprache im Alten Testament Andrews University Seminary Studies Biblical Archaeologist Biblical Archaeology Review Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research Bonner biblische Beiträge Brown, F., S. R. Driver, and C. A. Briggs. Hebrew and English Lexicon of the Old Testament. Oxford: Clarendon, 1907 Beiträge zur Erforschung des Alten Testaments und des antiken Judentum

vii

viii BH(K) BHS Bib BKAT BWA(N)T BZ BZAW CBC CBQ CRBS E(nc)Jud FAT FRLANT HALAT

HALOT

HAR HAT HTR HUCA IB ICC IDBS(up) IEJ JANES JBL JBR JJS JNES JNSL JQR JSJSup JSOT JSOTSup JSS JTS KAT KBL

List of Abbreviations R. Kittel (editor). Biblia Hebraica K. Elliger and W. Rudolph (editors). Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia. Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 1984 Biblica Biblischer Kommentar: Altes Testament Beiträge zur Wissenschaft vom Alten und Neuen Testament Biblische Zeitschrift Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für die Alttestamentliche Wissenschaft Cambridge Bible Commentary Catholic Biblical Quarterly Currents in Research: Biblical Studies Roth, Cecil (editor). Encyclopaedia Judaica. 16 vols. Jerusalem: Keter, 1972 Forschungen zum Alten Testament Forschungen zur Religion und Literatur des Alten und Neuen Testaments Koehler, L., and W. Baumgartner, et al. (editors). Hebräisches und aramäisches Lexikon zum Alten Testament. 4 vols. Leiden: Brill, 1967–90 Koehler, L., W. Baumgartner, and J. J. Stamm. The Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament. Trans. and ed. under supervision of M. E. J. Richardson. 5 vols. Leiden: Brill, 1994– 2000 Hebrew Annual Review Handbuch zum Alten Testament Harvard Theological Review Hebrew Union College Annual Interpreter’s Bible International Critical Commentary Crim, K. (editor). Interpreter’s Dictionary of the Bible Supplementary Volume. Nashville: Abingdon, 1976 Israel Exploration Journal Journal of the Ancient Near Eastern Society Journal of Biblical Literature Journal of Bible and Religion Journal of Jewish Studies Journal of Near Eastern Studies Journal of Northwest Semitic Languages Jewish Quarterly Review Journal for the Study of Judaism Supplement Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Supplements Journal of Semitic Studies Journal of Theological Studies Kommentar zum Alten Testament Koehler, L., and W. Baumgartner. Lexicon in Veteris Testamenti libros. Leiden: Brill, 1958

List of Abbreviations KHAT KS MGWJ MGJV MVAG NCB(C) NICOT OBO OLA OTL OTS PJ PW

RB RHPhR RlA RQ RTL SBLDS SBLMS ScrHier SPB SSN ThZ TTZ TynBul TZ USQR VT VTSup WBC WMANT ZAW ZDPV

ix

Kurzer Hand-Commentar zum Alten Testament Alt, A. Kleine Schriften zur Geschichte des Volkes Israel. 3 vols. Munich: Beck, 1953 Monatsschrift für Geschichte und Wissenschaft des Judentums Mitteilungen der Gesellschaft für jüdische Volkskunde Mitteilungen der vorderasiatisch-ägyptischen Gesellschaft New Century Bible Commentary New International Commentary on the Old Testament Orbis biblicus et orientalis Orientalia Lovaniensia Analecta Old Testament Library Oudtestamentische Studiën Palästina-Jahrbuch Pauly, A. F. Paulys Realencyclopädie der classischen Altertumswissenschaft. New edition, G. Wissowa. 49 vols. Munich: Druckenmüller, 1980 Revue biblique Revue d’histoire et de philosophie religieuses Ebeling, E., et al. (editors). Reallexikon der Assyriologie. Berlin: de Gruyter, 1932– Revue de Qumran Revue théologique de Louvain Society of Biblical Literature Dissertation Series Society of Biblical Literature Monograph Series Scripta hierosolymitana Studia Post-Biblica Studia semitica neerlandica Theologische Zeitschrift Trierer theologische Zeitschrift Tyndale Bulletin Theologische Zeitschrift Union Seminary Quarterly Review Vetus Testamentum Vetus Testamentum Supplements Word Biblical Commentary Wissenschaftliche Monographien zum Alten und Neuen Testament Zeitschrift für die Alttestamentliche Wissenschaft Zeitschrift des deutschen Palästina-Vereins

Chapter 1

The Supposed Common Authorship of Chronicles and Ezra–Nehemiah Investigated Anew Dedicated with deep gratitude to Professor I. L. Seeligmann A basic hypothesis in the study of Chronicles and of Ezra–Nehemiah is the supposition that these two books originally formed one continuous work, written or compiled by one author: “the Chronicler.” The work in its entirety is generally termed “The Chronistic Historiography.” Accordingly, it was only during the process of transmission and canonization that the book was divided into two and Ezra–Nehemiah was placed separately, in most Hebrew manuscripts before Chronicles. 1 The basis of this general conviction was laid almost simultaneously by two scholars: L. Zunz 2 and F. C. Movers, 3 and at the end of the 19th century it was accepted as general knowledge. 4 It became a point of departure for most of the studies dealing with Chronicles, Ezra–Nehemiah, or their period in general and remained up to our times unshaken 5 and 1. There is also a general unanimity regarding the reason for the assumed separation. With light variations it runs as follows: “The reason for the division has been seen, and probably rightly, in the fact that Ezra–Nehemiah became canonical before Chronicles for their contents did not appear in the older books which had already become canonical whereas those of Chronicles did. When later Chronicles too became canonical Ezra–Nehemiah still kept its prior place.” O. Eissfeldt, The Old Testament: An Introduction (translated by P. R. Ackroyd; New York, 1965) 530–31. See also J. Myers, I Chronicles (New York, 1965) xvii; and W. Rudolph, Die Chronikbücher (Tübingen, 1955) iv. 2. L. Zunz, “Dibre-Hayamim oder die Bücher der Chronik,” in Die Gottesdienstlichen Vorträge der Juden: Historisch Entwickelt (Berlin, 1832) 13–36. 3. F. C. Movers, Kritische Untersuchungen über die biblische Chronik (1834). 4. Thus it was correctly stated by C. C. Torrey that “It is at present generally agreed that Chronicles–Ezra–Nehemiah originally formed one book, which was put in its final form by the author of the book of Chronicles, commonly called ‘the Chronicler.’ ” “The Composition and Historical Value of Ezra Nehemia,” BZAW 2 (1896) i. A systematic summary of the discussion is given by A. Kuenen, Historisch Kritische Einleitung in die Bücher des A.T. (1890) vol. 1, §29, pp. 111ff., and by S. R. Driver, Introduction to the literature of the O.T. (1891) (enlarged in the following editions). It is interesting to note that J. Wellhausen, while accepting the general opinion in the introductory words to his famous chapter on Chronicles totally ignores it in the investigation itself, and deals only with Chronicles proper. 5. It seems superfluous to mention all the studies that were based on this assumption. On the other hand, the number of those opposed is quite small. They include: W. M. L. de Wette,

1

2

Chapter 1

unchanged. 6 An immediate result was that each book was dealt with in constant reference to the other, and the consequences for the understanding of the books, the historical period they describe, and the religious concepts they contain were enormous. 7 The hypothesis is sustained by four main arguments: 1. The presence of the first verses of Ezra at the end of Chronicles. 8 2. 1 Esdras begins with 2 Chronicles 35–36 and continues through Ezra. 9 3. The linguistic resemblance between the books as revealed by common vocabulary, syntactic phenomena and stylistic peculiarities. 10 4. The alleged uniformity of theological conceptions, expressed both in the material and its selection. 11 Lehrbuch der historisch-kritische Einleitung in das A.T. (6th ed.; Berlin, 1845) 1:290–92; E. König, Einleitung in das A.T. (Bonn, 1893) 285. W. A. L. Elmslie accepted it in his first commentary (Cambridge Bible [1916]), but changed his attitude afterwards (Interpreters Bible [1954] 3:345, 347–48). We should also mention M. H. Segal: “The Books of Ezra–Nehemiah,” Tarbiz 14 (1943) 81–86 [Hebrew] and I. M. Grintz: “Aspects of the History of the High Priesthood,” Zion 22–24 (1958–59) 138–40 [Hebrew; English summary, p. ii]. 6. The position recently advanced by K. Galling, Die Bücher der Chr. Esr. Neh. (ATD; Göttingen, 1954) that not one author but two are responsible for the present work, is of no consequence from the point of view of this study. Galling maintains that the two strata in Chronicles continue also through Ezra–Nehemiah as a part of one composition, and thus the main assumption remains unchanged. The same is true also for the view maintained by A. S. Kapelrud, who assumed that “The Chronicler is not one single author personality. . . . By this designation we must rather understand a whole circle or more probably groups of circles . . .”; The Question of Authorship in the Ezra Narrative (1944) 97. Here, too, Ezra–Nehemiah and Chronicles are regarded as a linguistic and theological unity. 7. As an example only, we could suggest the question of the historical reliability of Ezra– Nehemiah. The Chronicler’s tendentious way of dealing with historical material is famous (although its extent is still in dispute) as is sharply stated by Torrey: “No fact of O.T. criticism is more firmly established than this: that the Chronicler, as a historian is thoroughly untrustworthy,” “The Composition,” 52. If Ezra–Nehemiah was written or edited by the same author, how much can we rely on it as a historical source? On the other hand, many scholars find in Ezra– Nehemiah an anti-Samaritan attitude (see M. Noth, Überlieferungsgeschichtliche Studien [1943] 1:164–66). If the two books are really one, it is only natural to look for it in Chronicles too. But is it really to be found there? 8. Ezra 1:1–3a // 2 Chr 36:22–23. See Zunz, “Dibre-Hayamim” (2nd ed., 1892) 22; Rudolph, Esra–Nehemiah (1949) xxii presents it as his sole argument. 9. Zunz, “Dibre-Hayamim,” 30 and others. Rudolph does not mention this argument at all, in either of his commentaries, as a consequence of his general statement that “dass 3 Esra sachlich und in der Anordnung des Stoffes nirgends vor der kanonischen Darstellung den Vorzug verdient,” Esra–Nehemiah, xv. 10. These are given in detail by Driver, Introduction (5th ed.; 1894) 502–7; and E. L. Curtis and A. A. Madsen, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Books of Chronicles (ICC; Edinburgh, 1910) 27–36. 11. Alleged by all studies. See Zunz, “Dibre-Hayamim,” 22, and all the following studies. “They also resemble each other in the point of view from which the history is treated, in the method followed in the choice of materials as well as in the preference shown for particular topics” (Driver, Introduction, 484).

The Common Authorship of Chronicles and Ezra–Nehemiah

3

Most weight is given to the last two arguments, which are internal and relate to the main elements of the literary unit. The purpose of the present study is to raise anew the question of the linguistic and stylistic resemblances of the two books. 12 We ask whether the two books could really have been written by one author. The research of many scholars has resulted in the unequivocal conclusion that the language of Chronicles and Ezra–Nehemiah belongs to the same linguistic stratum, 13 i.e., the late Biblical Hebrew which differs in many important respects from preexilic Hebrew, and represents in many aspects the intermediate phase between Biblical and Mishnaic Hebrew. This stratum also includes the biblical books Daniel, Esther, and Ecclesiastes and non-biblical texts. 14 However, the strong resemblance between Chronicles and Ezra–Nehemiah was regarded not only as the general similarity of a comprehensive linguistic stratum but as a peculiar stylistic quality which represents the personal stamp of one author. 15 It was argued that no other interpretation could do justice to such a strong resemblance. The weakness of these studies was their lack of interest in the differences between the two books, which is only natural. In the attempt to highlight all the points of similarity, the points of difference were overlooked and neglected. The study of these differences, both linguistic and stylistic, will show that on the background of late Biblical Hebrew each book exhibits strong and distinct traits of its own, some of which reveal a true linguistic opposition and could not have been written by one author. The study presented here, while fully aware of the common linguistic basis, is concerned primarily with the differences between the two books, and presents some of the material in this light. It remains now, as a preliminary requirement to fix the boundaries of the material in question. Chronicles on the one hand, and Ezra–Nehemiah on the other are composite works. Both include various types of material which stem from different sources. Most of the sources used by the Chronicler are well-known 16 and by studying the method of their adaptation we 12. We hope to deal with the question of their theological world in another context. 13. Among others, Torrey, Driver, Curtis, and A. Kropat: Die Syntax des Autors der Chronik (BZAW 16; Giessen, 1909). 14. Mainly the Samaritan Pentateuch, see G. Gerleman, Synoptic Studies in the Old Testament (Lund, 1948) 3–7; the Isaiah Scroll, see E. Y. Kutscher, The Language and Linguistic Background of the Isaiah Scroll ( Jerusalem, 1959) ix–xii. 15. It is worth noting that A. Kropat differed in this respect from the general opinion, but as his main concern was to examine the syntactical structure of the language found in Chronicles and in Ezra–Nehemiah in comparison with earlier Hebrew he did not insist on this distinction. He states that “Hierbei ist es ohne Belang dass ‘der Chronist’ aller Wahrscheinlichkeit nach nicht ein einzelnes Individuum war sondern als Sammelname zu verstehen ist,” Die Syntax, v. 16. They consist, in addition to Samuel and Kings, of parts of Genesis (for example Genesis 10, 25, etc.), lists from Joshua (for example, Joshua 21), Psalms (for example, Psalms 96, 105, and others), and more.

4

Chapter 1

are able to establish and define his own particular goals and aims. 17 In Ezra–Nehemiah we are less fortunate since the sources utilized by the author are not known outside the book itself and the question as to what material in Ezra–Nehemiah may be attributed to these sources and what was actually composed by the author himself is still a matter of debate. 18 In order to form the broadest ground for the present study we preferred to use the narrowest definition, i.e., to consider only the general edition of Ezra–Nehemiah which is regarded as “chronistic,” and those portions which are not subject to debate and are accepted as “chronistic” by general consensus.

I. Linguistic Opposition 1. Formation of the Imperfect Consecutive The form of the impf. cons. is attained through the prefixing of the waw cons. to the jussive. This means that, wherever possible, the short form of the impf. is used and the tone is retracted. 19 In 1 pers. sing. the short form and the retraction of the tone occur more rarely, and the full form of the impf. is used. 20 In late Biblical Hebrew the distinction between the short and the full forms of the impf. is gradually lost. 21 Thus, the two forms alternate in the formation of the impf. cons. and we have, for example, both l[yw and hl[yw. 22 17. The classical work in this respect is Wellhausen’s chapter on Chronicles in his Prolegomena zur Geschichte Israel (1883; translated by J. S. Black and A. Menzies; 1885) 171–227. A certain shift was made by M. Noth, Überlieferungsgeschichtliche, 1:110–22. Noth discerns in Chronicles “post Chronistic” material which, according to his criteria, is quite prevalent. In addition he attributes great import to the conceptions of Ezra–Nehemiah. As a consequence, a certain shift is made in the estimation of the Chronicler’s world and goals. 18. The most extreme opinion is held by C. C. Torrey, who attributes to the Chronicler the two parts of the Ezra Narrative, certain parts of Nehemiah’s memoirs (as Neh 3:1–32, 7:1–69, 11:1–13:31, etc.) and also the Aramaic documents found in Ezra–Nehemiah (“The Composition,” 50, 115, and also his article: “The Aramaic Portions of Ezra,” AJSL [1907–8] 220). On the other hand, Rudolph tries to narrow the “Chronistic” portions in Ezra–Nehemiah and he ascribes to Ezra himself even those parts in the Ezra Narrative which are written in the 3 pers. But he also admits a chronistic adaptation (Rudolph, Esra–Nehemiah, 99–100, 163–65). On the question of the two parts of the Ezra Narrative, see Torrey, “The Composition”; Kapelrud, The Question of Authorship; and lately Mowinckel: “ ‘Ich und Er’ in der Esra Geschichte,” in Verbannung und Heimkehr Beiträge zur Geschichte und Theologie Israels im 6. und 5. Jahrhundert v. Chr.: Wilhelm Rudolph zum 70. Geburtstage dargebracht von Kollegen, Freunden und Schülern (ed. A. Kuschke; Tübingen, 1961) 211–34. 19. E. Kautzsch, ed., Gesenius’ Hebrew Grammar (translated by A. E. Cowley, 1910) §49d, 133–34; P. Joüon, Grammaire de l’Hebreu Biblique (1947) §47a, 105–6. 20. Kautzsch, Gesenius’, §49e, 134, Joüon, Grammaire, §47d, 106. 21. This is one aspect of a more general process of losing the distinction between the moods, which reached its fulfillment in the new verbal system of Mishnaic Hebrew. See G. Bergsträsser, Hebräische Grammatik (1926) vol. 2, §101, 50; Kutscher, The Language, 30, 251; and M. H. Segal, A Grammar of Mishnaic Hebrew (1927) 150–67. 22. l[yw—frequently 2 Chr 1:6; 3:6, 14, etc. hl[yw—Jer 10:13, etc.

The Common Authorship of Chronicles and Ezra–Nehemiah

5

This phenomenon is found in Ezra–Nehemiah and Daniel, as well as in the Samaritan Pentateuch 23 and the Isaiah Scroll. 24 There is, in fact, only one exception to the general picture: the book of Chronicles, contrary to the general tendency of the period, uses clearly and systematically only the short form of the impf. in the formation of the impf. cons. A. Verbs huul The Chronicler follows two basic rules: a. Whenever the impf. cons. is represented in his sources by the full form of the impf. the form is changed and shortened. It appears thus in his sources six times 25 and the rule is rigidly observed: 1 Chr 11:17 // 2 Sam 23:15 (watyw–hwatyw); 2 Chr 18:23, 33 // 1 Kgs 22:24, 34 (˚yw–hkyw); 2 Chr 18:34 // 1 Kgs 22:35 (l[tw–hl[tw); 2 Chr 21:9 // 2 Kgs 8:21 (˚yw–hkyw); 2 Chr 34:27 // 2 Kgs 22:19 (˚btw–hkbtw). b. If the full form is in the 1 pers. sing. it remains unaltered. This occurs three times: 26 1 Chr 17:5, 8 // 2 Sam 7:6, 9 (hyhaw); 2 Chr 6:10 // 1 Kgs 8:20 (hnbaw). Those parts which are not drawn from any known source keep systematically to the same rule. The short form in the impf. cons. occurs over one hundred times. 27 This pedantic and rigid use is especially prominent where the words occur only once or are unusual, as for example 2 Chr 21:11 ˆzyw, 2 Chr 33:9 [tyw, 2 Chr 36:13 çqyw. This consistent procedure, found both in the adaptation of the earlier texts and in his own independent work, leaves no room for doubt that this is a definite feature of the Chronicler’s language. Moreover, it can be interpreted as a deliberate effort to retain a certain linguistic norm.

23. A. Sperber, “Hebrew Based upon Biblical Passages in Parallel Transmission,” HUCA 14 (1939) §49, 187–89. 24. Kutscher, The Language, 252–33. 25. Actually 7, but once it is changed differently: 1 Kgs 10:29: µyrxmm hbkrm axtw hl[tw; 2 Chr 1:17: µyrxmm wayxwyw wl[yw. The Qal is changed into Hiphil. This is one of the characteristics of the Chronicler. See Kropat, Die syntax, 14–15; Gerleman, Synoptic Studies, 18, and further 350 n. 2. The second change from singular to plural is also typical. See Kropat, Die syntax, 8–13. 26. These are the only instances where 1 pers. sing. in the impf. cons. of huul occur in Chronicles. Therefore, nothing further can be said about his own usage. 27. It is unnecessary to quote all the material since it can be seen at a glance: ˆbyw, ˆbtw, rhtw, l[yw, ç[yw, and many others. There are only two exceptions to the rigid rule in the whole book of Chronicles: 2 Chr 21:13—hnztw; 2 Chr 26:6—hnbyw. In view of the Chronicler’s consistent system it can only be due to later transmission. Another example is 2 Chr 16:12: asa aljyw. As it stands this is a partial analogy of huul to auul, finding expression in the consonants only. But the usual tendency of late and Mishnaic Hebrew is contrary, i.e., the analogy of auul to huul (see Segal, Grammar of Mishnaic Hebrew, §198, 90, stated more clearly in the Hebrew edition of the book [1936] §273, 150). We prefer to accept Rudolph’s suggestion ad loc. to regard this form as a dittography of the a. The original phrase was accordingly asa ljyw.

6

Chapter 1

In Ezra–Nehemiah on the other hand, as well as in the Samaritan Pentateuch 28 and the Isaiah Scroll 29 the main characteristic in this matter is the absence of any rule or system. 30 a. In 1 pers. sing. both the short and full forms occur: (1) full forms: Neh 1:4, 7:2, 12:31, 13:25; (2) short forms: Neh 4:8[14]; 1:4; 2:11, 13, 15. 31 b. In the other pers., although the short form is still more prevalent, 32 the full form occurs twice: Ezra 8:15 (hnjnw); Neh 3:38[4:6] (hnbnw). It is in Ezra–Nehemiah, and not in Chronicles that the general linguistic state is reflected. The tendency to lengthen the short forms exists, but it is still in its beginnings, at least in written documents. B. Verbs yuu[/ wuu[ The process of lengthening the short forms in the impf. cons. is here much less developed than in huul, as is shown by the various texts. 33 The Chronicler’s sources still preserve the short forms, and this is true in general also for Ezra–Nehemiah. However, even here the distinctions mentioned above are preserved: a. The 1 pers. sing. occurs in Chronicles only twice. Both instances are taken from his sources and are changed into the full form: 2 Chr 6:10, 11 (1 Kgs 8:20, 21). 34 All the other forms in Chronicles are short. 35

28. A. Sperber, “Hebrew Based,” 188–89 cites 16 instances where the short form of the MT is long in the Samaritan Pentateuch in verbs of huul. 29. Kutscher, The Language, 252–33 cites 12 instances of such changes in the Isaiah Scroll against the MT, in verbs of huul. 30. Another instance exists only in the Qere in Ezra 8:17, Qere hwxaw, Kethiv haxwaw, which is probably hayxwaw and belongs to the next paragraph. 31. In the last 4 instances the form is yhaw. This example demonstrates in a more specific way the opposition to Chronicles. There only the form hyhaw is found. 32. But their number in general is of course much smaller than in Chronicles. We find altogether 9 examples of various verbs and 15 times the form yhyw. 33. Sperber, “Hebrew Based,” 188 presents only 2 examples of such a change in the Samaritan Pentateuch, compared to 16 in huul. They are: (1) Gen 25:17: MT—tmyw, Sam.—twmyw; (2) Num 17:15: MT—bçyw, Sam.—bwçyw. The examples from the Isaiah Scroll are classified by Kutscher as orthographic changes (The Language, 108), and here he cites 6 examples. Kutscher himself is not completely positive about this classification and it seems more likely that the presence of the waw is not a sign of introducing the mater lectionis in a short unaccented syllable, but of the shifting forward of the tone, with analogy to the regular forms of the impf., i.e., π[yw—πw[yw, µjyw—µwjyw, etc. If this distinction is right, the place of these examples is really in another paragraph (The Language, 253). 34. The question is, of course, whether it should rather be classified as an orthographic change for the syllable is in any case accented. Even so, it serves as an illustration to the consequent use in Chronicles. 35. For example: tmyw—26 times, µqyw—4 times, µçyw—5 times, bçyw—11 times, etc.

The Common Authorship of Chronicles and Ezra–Nehemiah

7

b. In Ezra–Nehemiah, although the material is meagre, we do find one example of the full form: 36 Neh 4:9[15] bwçnw. 37 C. Hiphil The same rules apply here too: a. In Chronicles the form which exists in the 1 pers. sing. is full: 1 Chr 17:8 tyrkaw. 38 In all other instances, without any exception, the form is short. 39 b. In Ezra–Nehemiah as well as in the Samaritan Pentateuch and the Isaiah Scroll, 40 short and full forms appear together. The full form occurs twice: Neh 4:3[9] dym[nw; and Neh 8:2 aybyw. We may conclude that: 1. The general tendency of late Biblical Hebrew is towards a developing use of full forms in the impf. cons. 2. This tendency is demonstrated in Ezra–Nehemiah where short and full forms stand together. 3. In clear opposition to the general rule and the practice of Ezra– Nehemiah, the Chronicler applies rules of his own: full forms in 1 pers. sing. and short forms elsewhere. 4. The astonishing accuracy and consistency in Chronicles gives the impression of a conscious awareness of the problem. Actually, the Chronicler does not express the genuine state of the language, but deliberately opposes it. 2. The Lengthened Imperfect Consecutive hl:fqaw Another result of the growing lack of distinction between the moods is the undifferentiated use of lfqa and hlfqa. Thus the form hlfqa replaces the form lfqa and a new form emerges: hlfqaw 41 which has no semantic value of its own. 42 hlfqaw is very common in Ezra–Nehemiah and Daniel. 36. The full forms in 1 pers. sing. are more numerous in Ezra–Nehemiah than in Chronicles. They are: µwqaw, Neh 2:12, 4:8[14]; bwçaw, Neh 9:15 (x2); byraw, Neh 13:24. In addition to these only the form µqyw is found (Ezra 3:2; 10:5, 6, 10; Neh 3:1; 9:4). 37. So the Kethiv. The Qere is bçnw. The introduction of the Qere in this matter points no doubt to a linguistic editing of the text. Other examples of the same type are: (1) Judg 19:21, Kethiv—lwbyw, Qere—lbyw; (2) 2 Sam 13:8, Kethiv—çwltw, Qere—çltw; (3) Ezek 18:28, Kethiv— bwçyw, Qere—bçyw. 38. See below, p. 8. A further example, which is a subject of a textual debate is dgaw in 1 Chr 17:10. The parallel form is dyghw (2 Sam 17:11). See I. L. Seeligmann: “Indications of Editorial Alteration and Adaptation . . . ,” VT 11 (1961) 208–10; Rudolph, Chronikbücher, 130–31. 39. For example: dlwyw—7 times, abyw—7 times, ˆkyw—5 times, etc. 40. Kutscher brings only one instance of such a transition: Isa 31:2, MT—abyw 1QIsaa — aybyw. He notes however that this is the only example of this form in this verb in the whole book of Isaiah (The Language, 265). Sperber presents 15 examples for such a change in the Samaritan Pentateuch: “Hebrew Based,” §49, 1, pp. 187–88. 41. See Bergsträsser, Hebräische Grammatik, 2:23. 42. See Joüon, Grammaire, §47d, 107.

8

Chapter 1

In Ezra–Nehemiah alone, it occurs almost 50 times. 43 In the Samaritan Pentateuch and in the Isaiah Scroll it replaces the lfqaw forms of the MT. 44 However, neither of the forms is exclusive in these texts. In Ezra–Nehemiah hrmwaw (13 times) appears alongside rmwaw (7 times), 45 hntaw (3 times) with ˆtaw, 46 and so on. 47 The main feature is the absence of uniformity in the linguistic usage. The opposite is true in Chronicles. Here hlfqaw is totally absent. Not once does the Chronicler lengthen a full form found in his sources and not once does he utilize it himself. 48 Moreover, the form hlfqaw does occur once in his sources and it is altered. 1 Chr 17:8 2 Sam 7:9

tyrkaw htrkaw

The difference between Ezra–Nehemiah and Chronicles is not one of measure but of principle. The main point is not the existence of these forms in Ezra–Nehemiah and their absence in Chronicles but the presence of a normative linguistic principle which is applied in Chronicles in contrast to all the other texts of the same period. 49 3. Theophoric Names Ending with why The names in this category are known to us in three variations, i.e., those with the endings why, hy, wy, as whyja, hyja, wyja. 50 43. They are: Ezra 7:28; 8:15, 16, 17 (twice, once in the Kethiv alone), 23 (twice), 24, 25, 26, 28, 31; 9:3 (twice), 5 (twice), 6. Neh 1:4; 2:1, 6, 9, 13; 5:7 (twice), 8, 13; 6:3, 8, 11, 12; 7:5; 13:7, 8, 9 (twice), 10, 11 (twice), 13, 17 (twice), 19 (twice), 21 (twice), 22, 30. 44. Sperber cites 19 examples of such changes, “Hebrew Based,” 228–32. Kutscher presents about 20, but has no intention of exhausting all the examples. The Language, 250–32. 45. Neh 1:5; 2:3, 5; 4:8[14], 13[19]. 46. Neh 5:7. 47. As hbyraw—Neh 13:11, 17 and byraw—Neh 13:25; hdy[aw—Neh 13:15, dy[aw—Neh 13:21. Both examples are in the same chapter. 48. The fact is well known; see Bergsträsser, Hebräische Grammatik, 2:23; Kropat, Die Syntax, 75. Nevertheless, it has escaped Gerleman’s attention when dealing with the same question. He states that: “A peculiarity common to Samaritanus and Chronicles is found in the formation of Imperfectum consecutivum. . . . As we know the first person singular and plural sometimes having the ending hA: being thus formed in analogy to the so-called cohortative. . . . The same form of the imperfect is typical also of Samaritanus” (Synoptic Studies, 15). Among the examples, taken from Deuteronomy, Gerleman cites also the following: Deut 3:1, MT l[nw ˆpnw, Sam. hl[nw hnpnw. First of all it should be stated that this last example does not belong here. The auuh is not a part of the hA: cohortative as in hlfqaw, but belongs to the root itself. The form is therefore a full form and not a lengthened one. Secondly, and this is much more important, Gerleman’s opinion does not do justice to the linguistic facts. It was stated before by Kropat and Bergsträsser that hlfqaw is nowhere to be found in Chronicles. It can hardly be described as a “peculiarity common to Samaritanus and Chronicles.” The same is true about the example hl[nw hnpnw. Although it does not belong here, it was shown above that Chronicles deliberately avoids such forms! (see above, p. 5). 49. This raises the question whether the much used terms very common now in textual studies, such as “vulgar text” and “vulgar language” can be applied in connection with Chronicles (see Gerleman, Synoptic Studies, 3–7). 50. whyja 1 Kgs 14:5, etc. hyja 1 Kgs 14:2, etc. wyja 2 Sam 6:3, etc.

spread is 12 points long

The Common Authorship of Chronicles and Ezra–Nehemiah

9

The question of their distribution was taken up by N. H. Tur-Sinai (H. Torczyner) who studied the epigraphic material known up to 1938. 51 His conclusion was that the form with the ending wy is Ephraimite in origin, while the two others were dominant in Judah; the long one with why before and the short one with hy after the Exile. 52 This conclusion was strongly confirmed by the DSS, where the tendency to apply the short ending hy instead of why is seen very clearly. 53 A study of Ezra–Nehemiah and Chronicles provides the following facts: a. In Ezra–Nehemiah the number of names belonging to this category is very high; 80 names mentioned altogether almost 270 times; all the names are written with the short ending hy. 54 Thus, Ezra–Nehemiah is a faithful reflection of the actual linguistic conditions. b. The case is much more complicated in Chronicles. The first outstanding fact is the variety of material in which both short and long endings occur. At first glance the situation may be interpreted thus: It is a result of the Chronicler’s composite character, i.e., the old sources preserved in Chronicles still retain the long form, while in the new material, the short form with the ending hy is to be found. In fact the opposite is true. There is an obvious tendency in Chronicles to lengthen the short endings which do appear in Kings. 55 There are 14 such changes in 10 names: whyzja, whyja, whyxma, whyrkz, whyqzj, whyqlj, whymry, whylt[, whyqdx, why[mç. 56 Only once does the opposite occur. 57 51. N. H. Tur-Sinai (H. Torczyner), The Lachish Letters (London, 1938) 24–31. Besides the Lachish Letters themselves, Tur-Sinai made use of all the epigraphic material found in D. Diringer, Le Iscrizione Antico-Ebraiche Palestinensi (1934), of the Elephantine letters, the ostraca of Samaria, and others. 52. Tur-Sinai, Lachish Letters, 25. Accordingly the emergence of the shorter ending is a result of Aramaic influence. See also G. R. Driver: “The Original Form of the Name Yahweh,” ZAW 46 (1928) 16–19. 53. See M. Burrows, JBL 68, pp. 204–5. Kutscher, The Language, 5. In the Isaiah Scroll the regular form is the short one, which occurs tens of times, while constantly shortening the ending why. Only twice, and one of them presumably added by a second hand, is the longer why to be found. See Kutscher, The Language, 93. 54. There is only one exception among this great number which is no doubt a result of textual error. In Ezra 10:41, hymlç whyrmçw larz[ has to be read hymlçw hyrmçw larz[, with a better division of the word. See Rudolph, Esra–Nehemiah, 100. 55. The fact was recognized by A. Sperber, and taken over by Burrows. Sperber’s list contains 9 examples. One of them seems to me inaccurate (2 Chr 26:1 whyzw[, 2 Kgs 14:21 hyrz[) (“Hebrew Based,” §131a, p. 249). In any case, Sperber’s list is not exhaustive, and the added instances are marked by an asterisk. 56. 2 Chr 22:11* (2 Kgs 11:2); 2 Chr 10:15 (1 Kgs 12:15); 2 Chr 24:27*, 25:17 (2 Kgs 12:22[21]; 14:8); 2 Chr 29:1 (2 Kgs 18:2); 2 Chr 29:1* (2 Kgs 18:1); 2 Chr 34:15*, 18 (2 Kgs 22:8, 10); 2 Chr 36:22 (Ezra 1:1); 2 Chr 22:10; 23:12*, 13* (2 Kgs 11:1, 13, 14); 2 Chr 18:10 (1 Kgs 22:11); 2 Chr 11:2 (1 Kgs 12:22). 57. 1 Chr 11:30 (2 Sam 23:30): hynb. It is possible that the short form was already found in the Chronicler’s source, since all the other names in this list, in Samuel and Chronicles, end with

10

Chapter 1

All these examples are taken from exact parallels. But the same tendency is exhibited also in paraphrastic presentations. 58 Moreover, not all the texts of Kings have their parallel in Chronicles, for example: The name whyqzj occurs in Kings 8 times as hyqzj 59 while in Chronicles the only form (42 times) is whyqzj (or whyqzjy). Nevertheless this is expressed in the above list only once; and so on. 60 In the other parts of Chronicles the picture is not homogeneous, as both forms of the names occur, even in one list. Regarding the names with long ending the variety of material might be classified as follows: a. One group includes such names which are found in their long form elsewhere and exist also in Chronicles. To this group belong such names as whyxma, whyqzj, etc. b. The second group includes those names which do occur in other biblical texts but only in the short form. The only text where they are long is Chronicles. This group might be divided into two: names which occur, in addition to Chronicles, only in Ezra–Nehemiah, where all the names are short. To this category belong names such as whyld, whywdwh, whydbz, whybçj, whyz[m, whyttm, whynbç, whynkç, 61 and others which are known from other books, but nevertheless only in short form. Here we can list names as: whyba, whyrma, whybwf, whyntm, whyd[, whydp, whyfpç. 62 c. The last group includes names which occur only in Chronicles and here they are long. For example, whyqwb, whydjy, whykmsy, whyz[y, whynnwk, whynqm, whymlçm, whykms, whyzz[, whyçwq. 63 In spite of the existence of names with the hy ending it is impossible to deny the general tendency to use the long ending why. 64 The difference hy. 1 Chr 11:36—hyja, 39—hywrx, 41—hyrwa, 44—ayz[, 46—hywçwy. The text in Samuel whynb ynwt[rp is corrupt and the waw might have been the result of the misdivision of the words. 58. For example: 2 Chr 22:7 // 2 Kgs 9:27 where the name hyzja is changed into whyzja. 59. 2 Kgs 18:1, 10, 13, 14 (twice), 15, 16 (twice). 60. hyxma is found 4 times in Kings in a short form (2 Kgs 12:22, 13:12, 14:8, 15:1), but only 2 are represented in the list, and whyxma is always long in Chronicles. whyzw[ is written in Kings twice as hyzw[ and in Chronicles always as whyzw[, but the fact is not represented at all and so with other names. 61. See among others: 1 Chr 24:18—Ezra 2:60; 1 Chr 3:24—Ezra 2:40; 1 Chr 26:2—Ezra 8:8; 1 Chr 25:3—Ezra 8:19; 1 Chr 24:19—Neh 10:9[8]; 1 Chr 25:3—Ezra 10:43; 1 Chr 15:24—Neh 9:4; 1 Chr 24:11—Ezra 8:3. 62. See among others: 2 Chr 13:20 — 1 Sam 8:2; 1 Chr 24:23 — Zeph 1:1; 2 Chr 17:8 — Zech 6:10; 1 Chr 25:4 — 2 Kgs 24:17; 2 Chr 23:1 — 2 Kgs 22:1; 1 Chr 27:20 — 2 Kgs 23:36; 1 Chr 12:5 — 2 Sam 3:4. 63. Among others: 1 Chr 25:4, 1 Chr 24:20, 2 Chr 31:13, 1 Chr 24:26–27, 1 Chr 15:22, 1 Chr 16:18, 1 Chr 26:1, 1 Chr 27:20, 1 Chr 15:17, 1 Chr 26:7, 1 Chr 24:21. 64. The variety of forms is explained by Kutscher thus: “The Chronicler prefers the long form when he deals with a personality of the First Temple Period and he prefers the short form when it is not so” (The Language, 93). As a matter of fact, Chronicles is meant to be a history of

The Common Authorship of Chronicles and Ezra–Nehemiah

11

between Chronicles and Ezra–Nehemiah is clearly expressed in a parallel text: 2 Chr 36:22 Ezra 1:1

whymry ypb uh rbd twlkl hymry ypm uh rbd twlkl

To sum up: In our discussion of the formation of the impf. cons. and the lengthened impf. cons. we were able to discern a rigid and uniform method in Chronicles, in contrast to the plurality of forms and absence of method in Ezra–Nehemiah. In the question of personal names the picture was reversed. Unequivocal uniformity is found in Ezra–Nehemiah as against diversity and plurality of forms in Chronicles. Nonetheless, the underlying principle of all these distinctions is the same: the actual linguistic reality in all these instances is reflected in Ezra–Nehemiah while Chronicles stands alone as an exception and even as opposition to this same reality.

II. Specific Technical Terms 1. rhfh–çdqth 65 Before discussing the matter as it pertains to Chronicles and Ezra– Nehemiah some words of introduction are in order. rhf (purify) and çdq (sanctify) have originally different meanings. rhf, usually as ˆm rhf, relates to the state of a person or an object as being clean from some impurity and possessing its true and unadulterated nature. 66 çdq describes a positive quality added to the basic nature of a person or an object. However, because the state of cleanliness is an essential condition of holiness the two terms show a tendency to interchange and their specific meaning is not always strictly kept. 67 The demand for cleanliness and sanctification is mentioned very often in connection with the cultic ritual. The conception held by P regarding the priests is that they were consecrated by a singular ritual of anointing 68 but must also perform a certain act of cleansing before each ceremonial act. 69 The demand for the ritual cleanliness of the Levites and the laymen is not stated generally, but from the descriptions of actual rites 70 as well as other texts, we may deduce that a certain procedure was required. the First Temple only and the personalities named are all supposed to belong to that period. Preference for a short form could not be found here, if the criterion is right, but this is rather doubtful. 65. For all biblical quotations, we have utilized the rsv, except where explicitly stated. 66. See L. E. Toombs, Interpreter’s Dictionary of the Bible, 1:641–42. 67. A good example is 2 Sam 11:4; htamwfm tçdqtm ayhw which is actually translated: “Now she was purifying herself from her uncleanness.” 68. Exod 30:30. 69. Exod 30:17–21. 70. Samuel’s sacrifice in Bethlehem is one example: “I have come to sacrifice to the Lord. Consecrate yourselves and come with me to the sacrifice, and he consecrated Jesse and his sons and invited them to the sacrifice,” 1 Sam 16:5. An explicit demand for sanctification is found

12

Chapter 1

The act of sanctification before the ritual is strongly emphasized in Chronicles and relates both to the priests and the Levites. It is mentioned before any ceremony, and is added to the descriptions of Samuel and Kings. The technical term to describe it is always without any exception, çdqth: 1 Chr 15:12–14; 71 2 Chr 5:11; 29:5, 15, 34; 30:3, 15, 24; 35:6. The term rhfh is found in Chronicles only once, in reference to the people and, even here, it tends to interchange with çdqth. “For there were many in the assembly who had not sanctified themselves (wçdqth) . . . for a multitude of people had not cleansed themselves (wrhfh)” (2 Chr 30:17–18). In all other instances in Chronicles rhf is confined to acts of cleansing the land and the temple: 2 Chr 29:15–18 (three times); 2 Chr 34:3–8 (three times). Two points are noteworthy in Ezra–Nehemiah. The interest in the act of consecration is much less prominent; in the most important ceremonies it is not even mentioned! 72 Secondly, the term çdqth is totally absent. When the consecration of priests and Levites is mentioned the verb rhfh is used exlusively: Ezra 6:20; 73 Neh 12:30, 13:22. 74 To sum up: the opposition in the use of these terms is very clear. The special preparation of the priests and Levites for the ritual acts is designated by Ezra–Nehemiah as rhfh, while çdqth is absent. In Chronicles the same act is always called çdqth and never rhfh. The use of rhf in Chronicles is confined to the cleansing of the temple, the land, and the people. 2. lwdg ˆhk–çarh ˆhk The object of this section is not a general discussion of these terms and their development, but only their use in Chronicles and Ezra–Nehemiah. Of all the titles denominating the High Priest in the O.T. 75 the Chronicler chooses the title çarh ˆhk. 76 This expression is found in Chronicles six

in ceremonies occurring only once, as the revelation at Sinai, Exod 19:10, and others. But there is no doubt that the actions described were those regular in the cult in general. 71. The present verses form a part of the additions made by the Chronicler to the original story of 2 Samuel thereby changing its original character. In the following example (2 Chr 5:11), the Chronicler’s addition deals mainly with this point, the consecration of the priests. 72. See the dedication of the altar and the foundation of the temple—Ezra 3; the dedication of the temple—Ezra 6:16–18, and more. 73. Many scholars have commented on the great resemblance of this passage which describes the Passover of the returned exiles to 2 Chronicles 30 (see J. M. Myers, Ezra–Nehemiah [1965] 53–34; W. Rudolph, Esra–Nehemia, 61–62). This similarity makes the contrast in the use of the terms even more prominent. 74. In another passage dealing with a similar matter but presenting the subject more generally: Neh 13:30: “Thus I cleansed them (µytrhf) from everything foreign and I established the duties of the priests and Levites. . . .” 75. For example: lwdg ˆhk, ˆhkh, çarh ˆhk, and others. See J. Baily, “The Usage in the PostRestoration Period of Terms Descriptive of the Priest and High Priest,” JBL 70 (1951) 217–27. 76. We take for granted that çarh ˆhk is indeed the title of the High Priest (compare 2 Kgs 25:18 with 2 Kgs 23:4). This opinion is disputed by I. M. Grintz, “Aspects of the History,” 133.

The Common Authorship of Chronicles and Ezra–Nehemiah

13

times and very seldom in the other parts of the O.T. 77 Once the Chronicler changes the lwdg ˆhk of his sources into çarh ˆhk; 2 Chr 24:11 (2 Kgs 22:10). The other instances are: 1 Chr 27:5, 2 Chr 19:11, 24:6, 78 26:20, 31:10. The preference for çarh ˆhk in Chronicles becomes more conspicuous when we compare it to the use of the parallel title lwdg ˆhk. 79 lwdg ˆhk is found in the Chronicler’s sources four times. It was shown above that one of these is deliberately changed into çarh ˆhk (2 Chr 24:11 // 2 Kgs 22:10). The other three are dealt with as follows: in one instance the whole section is missing in Chronicles (2 Kgs 22:4). In another, the title alone is omitted: 2 Chr 34:15 (2 Kgs 22:8). Only once does the title lwdg ˆhk remain untouched: 2 Chr 34:9 // 2 Kgs 22:4. In the other parts of Chronicles, not taken from his sources, the term lwdg ˆhk is never used. The opposite is true in the other books of the same period. lwdg ˆhk is found five times in Haggai, three times in Zechariah and three times in Ezra–Nehemiah. 80 These last are indeed found in Nehemiah’s memoirs but yet the redactor has not altered them. çarh ˆhk is mentioned once in Ezra–Nehemiah, at least at first sight. In Ezra 7:l–5 the text runs as follows: “Now after this in the reign of Ar-ta-xerxes, king of Persia, Ezra the son of Seraiah, son of . . . Phinehas, son of Eleazar, son of Aaron the chief priest— this Ezra . . . ,” etc. The Hebrew text is, çarh ˆhkh ˆwrha ˆb. It seems that the rsv has wrongly understood the words çarh ˆhk as a fixed title for Aaron. What it really means is: “The son of Aaron the first priest.” It has nothing to do with the priest’s rank. 81 We might ask whether the expression çarh ˆhk originated here and then crystallized into a fixed term. In conclusion: The Chronicler deliberately avoids the title lwdg ˆhk and prefers çarh ˆhk, which is a characteristic trait of his style. In Ezra–Nehemiah, as well as in other books of the same period, lwdg ˆhk alone is used. When çarh ˆhk is mentioned once, in Ezra–Nehemiah, it is not a title and its meaning is different. 82 77. 2 Kgs 25:18 and its parallel in Jer 52:24. As to Ezra 7:5, see further above. 78. “The chief” is no doubt an elliptic phrase for “the chief priest.” 79. See also Baily, “The Usage,” 220–21. 80. Hag 1:1, 12, 14; 2:2, 4; Zech 3:1, 8; 6:11; Neh 3:1, 20; 13:28. 81. So Batten, Ezra and Nehemiah, 304, and others. In Hebrew the meaning “first” or “beginning” for çar is quite frequent, see Exod 12:2; and others. Although it is here a question of interpretation, it is worthwhile comparing the various versions of the Septuagint. 1 Esd 8:2 renders: touÅ pr∫tou ¥erevwÍ. Since the usual translation of çarh ˆhk in 1 Esdras is ajrcievreuÍ (9:39, 40, 49) the deviating use of prΩtoÍ in this verse is not without significance. The version of Ezra in Vaticanus is: uJiouÅ Aaron touÅ ¥erevwÍ touÅ patr∫ou. If patr∫ou is not a mere textual error for pr∫tou it should be translated as “the priest of the fathers.” 82. An interesting aspect, which is outside this present study, is the various stages through which these terms have passed. lwdgh ˆhkh became dominant in the Rabbinic literature, while çarh ˆhk was taken over by the sect of the Judean Desert. See The War of the Sons of Light (1QM) 2:1, 15:4, 16:11, 18:5.

14

Chapter 1

3. (trmçm)–tqljm According to the Chronicler’s view the people of Israel were organized into smaller administrative units. The schematic organization was established by David and it included both the people and the different classes of the cult personnel. 83 The term used to designate the single unit is tqljm— division. 84 a. The division of the people: (1) 1 Chr 27:1–15 85—“This is the list of the people of Israel . . . and their officers who served the king in all matters concerning the divisions that came and went . . . each division numbering twenty-four thousand. Jashobeam . . . was in charge of the first division in the first month. In his division were twenty-four thousand . . .” and so on to the end of the list. (2) 1 Chr 28:1—“David assembled at Jerusalem all the officials of Israel . . . the officers of the divisions that served the king. . . .” b. The division of the cult personnel: This division is much more emphasized in Chronicles and is mentioned in the various parts of the book: 1 Chr 23:6; 24:1; 26:1, 12, 19; 28:13, 21; 2 Chr 5:11; 8:14; 23:8; 31:2, 15, 17; 35:4, 10. The abundance of material and the frequent repetition demonstrate the Chronicler’s interest in these matters as one aspect of his vital concern with the cult in general. The second outstanding point is the use of a fixed term, tqljm to designate these units, which as a technical term does not occur elsewhere. In Ezra–Nehemiah the division of the people does not exist. The evidence relating to the division of the cult personnel is much more complicated. First of all, we can notice the lack of interest in these matters: In the descriptions of the ceremonies, and in particular those which are designated as “chronistic,” the organization of the cult personnel into units is 83. In the schematic picture drawn by the Chronicler three main elements can be traced: (1) A historical nucleus from the First Temple, such as the division of the land into 12 tax districts. (2) Orders of the Second Temple, such as the ramified organizations of cult personnel, even if we admit to some historical nucleus even here. (3) Unrealistic elements which issue from the Chronicler’s inclination to schematization and to exaggerated numbers. 84. The word is found in the O.T. 42 times, and only 6 in addition to Chronicles. The other instances are: Josh 11:23, 12:7, 18:10; Ezek 48:29; Neh 11:36, once more in the Aramaic portion, Ezra 6:18. 85. As the present study proves it is very difficult to accept Noth’s opinion, followed also by Rudolph, which regards 1 Chronicles 23–27 as non-chronistic (Noth, Überlieferungsgeschichtliche, 1:112–15; Rudolph, Chronikbücher, 152–85). Noth, in a more general way, and Rudolph in greater detail have shown that these chapters are not homogeneous and contain many inconsistencies. Nevertheless, we can only conclude that the various materials used by the Chronicler were not thoroughly reworked and harmonized, and in particular, where the material comprises lists of various sorts. Both linguistically and ideologically these chapters form a part of the characteristic world of the Chronicler and cannot be separated from it.

spread is 6 points short

The Common Authorship of Chronicles and Ezra–Nehemiah

15

overlooked. 86 As to the word tqljm itself—it does occur once in Ezra–Nehemiah, similar in meaning to Chronicles, but in the Aramaic part of the book. 87 It is confined here to the units of Levites alone. On the other hand, it would be too rash to conclude that the division of the cult personnel is not known at all in Ezra–Nehemiah. Some of the lists in Nehemiah, i.e., Neh 10:2–9[1–8]; 12:1–7, 12–21 do testify to such a division, at least among the priests, as each of them contains 22 88 names of priests, who are designated “The chiefs of the priests” (Neh 11:17) or “Heads of fathers’ houses” (Neh 12:12). Moreover, in Neh 12:12–21 the priests are enumerated according to their families, whose names are already quite fixed. 89 A hint to such a division among the Levites could be found in the elliptic statement of Neh 12:22–23. Without attempting to solve the problem concerning the development of these orders, we might say that the above mentioned lists in Nehemiah testify that, although some division did exist, it was still in its beginnings and there was no fixed term to designate it. In later sources the division of the cult personnel into fixed units is well known. It is attested to in Rabbinic literature, 90 in the Piyyutim 91 and even 86. In the erection of the altar and its dedication (Ezra 3), in the celebration of the Passover (Ezra 6:19 and 22), etc. 87. Ezra 6:18 ˆwhtqljmb aywlw ˆwhtgwlpb aynhk wmyqhw translated as “and they set the priests in their divisions and the Levites in their courses.” The translation is not consistent in rendering here tqljm as “course.” The word tqljm is found once more in Neh 11:36, in an elliptic and obscure verse. After enumerating the dwelling places of Judah and Benjamin it reads µyywlh ˆmw ˆymynbl hdwhy twqljm. The rsv translation is “And certain divisions of the Levites in Judah were joined to Benjamin” and lately J. Myers reads it more freely as “Some of the Levitical groups of Judah were assigned to Benjamin.” The meaning of the verse is most unclear, speaking about “Levitical groups of Judah” or the like. But from the general context it is assumed that: (a) the description is confined to the Levites; (b) it deals with the question of their dwelling places and has nothing to do with the cult organization. However, from a textual point of view it should be asked whether this isolated and unconnected obscure verse is actually original. 88. In the third list, Neh 12:12–21, only 21 names occur at present. But it seems very likely that one name has fallen out in v. 14. See Rudolph ad loc. and BHS. 89. While comparing the lists in Neh 12:1–7 and 12–21 we find that all the 22 names (except Hattush which has fallen out) are found in both lists, although some of them are differently written. Kaufmann emphasizes that “The priests . . . are divided into fathers’ houses but there is no hint of the fact that these fathers’ houses serve in the Temple in changing courses” (Toledoth Haºemunah Haisraelit [ Jerusalem, 1960] 4:361 [Hebrew]; English translation: History of the Religion of Israel [translated by C. W. Efroymson; New York and Jerusalem, 1977] 4:414). But even the fact that the number of the “fathers’ houses” is fixed, although their names do change, cannot be so easily dismissed. 90. M. Taºan. 4:2, t. Taºan. 2; y. Taºan. 4:2; b. Taºan. 27a–b. 91. See S. Klein, Beiträge zur Geographie und Geschichte Galiläas (Leipzig, 1909) 102–8; idem, Neue Beiträge (Wien, 1923); M. Zulay, “Contribution to the History of the Liturgical Poetry in Palestine,” Studies of the Research Institute for Hebrew Poetry in Jerusalem 5 (1937) 107–18, 137–46 [Hebrew].

16

Chapter 1

on pieces of marble plate from Caesarea. 92 It is also found in the literature of the Qumran sect, although the units are there 26 in number and not 24. 93 In all this vast literary realm the only term which designates these units is twrmçm (courses) and, in sing., rmçm or trmçm. 94 Nowhere is the term tqljm, so widely and consistently applied by the Chronicler, to be found, although the institution is identical and even the names of the units are the same. 95 If we turn now to study the meaning of rmçm and trmçm in Chronicles and in Ezra–Nehemiah, we find that both have a wide range of meanings, and mainly, guards, office, function, duty, 96 trmçm being more frequent in Chronicles, while rmçm is more prevalent in Ezra–Nehemiah. The question is whether their use as technical terms, as “divisions of service,” is already in evidence here. Both lexicons of Biblical Hebrew answer affirmatively, but the verses they quote to prove it are different. BDB finds it in Neh 12:9 and KBL in Neh 13:14. It seems that in both instances the interpretation is not certain, and the difference between the lexicons could serve as proof. In any case, even if we do accept it, what is suggested is the beginning of the use of rmçm as a technical term in Ezra–Nehemiah and not in Chronicles—a fact which might carry the contrast between the terms even further. To sum up: The division of the cult-personnel into small units is explicitly stated in Chronicles and very often referred to, while in Ezra–Nehemiah, although it is presumably known, it is much less emphasized and is different in details. The single unit is designated in Chronicles by a fixed term: tqljm which is found in Ezra–Nehemiah only once, in the Aramaic text. 92. M. Avi-Yonah, “The Caesarea Inscription of the 24 Priestly Courses,” Eretz-Israel 7 (1964) 24–25 [Hebrew]; S. Talmon, “The Calendar Reckoning of the Sect from the Judean Desert,” Scripta Hierosolymitana 4 (1958) 171. 93. Y. Yadin, The Scroll of the War of the Sons of Light against the Sons of Darkness (London, 1962) 202–6; P. Winter, “Twenty-Six Priestly Courses,” VT 6 (1956) 215–17; S. Talmon, “The Calendar,” 168–76. 94. The masc. rmçm is the regular term in the Mishnah and the Talmud. In the inscription from Caesarea trmçm is applied and both are used in the Piyyutim. No sing. form has yet been found in the DSS. 95. The word tqljm continues to exist in the language with different meanings. In the Rabbinic literature its meaning is “separation, strife,” etc. M. Jastrow, A Dictionary of the Targumim (1903) 2:762. In the DSS tqljm does preserve its meaning as a technical term but its exact interpretation is still disputed. Most famous is the phrase twqljmh tmjlm in the Scroll of the War of the Sons of Light (1QM) II 10, which is translated by Yadin as “the war of the separate divisions” and is strongly connected by him with 1 Chr 27 (The Scroll, 79–86). J. van der Ploeg translates it as “guerre de divisions” and lately A. M. Gazov-Ginzberg as “the war in parts” (“The Structure of the Army of the Sons of Light,” Revue de Qumran 18 [1965] 164). Another point of dispute is µyty[h twqljm in the Covenant of Damascus (CD). In any case, the use of the term tqljm to signify the units of priests and Levites is absent here too. It is found in this meaning in Tg. Jonathan to Gen 50:1 which reads aynmw ˆynbrwq abrql ˆwhtgwlpb aynhkw armzl ˆyhtqljmb yawl. The verse as a whole seems to be influenced by Ezra 6:18. 96. See BDB, 1038; KBL, 578.

The Common Authorship of Chronicles and Ezra–Nehemiah

17

If we do agree that the later term rmçm has already assumed its technical connotation in Ezra–Nehemiah, then the opposition between Ezra–Nehemiah and Chronicles is that of two different terms. However, it seems more likely that the terminology in Ezra–Nehemiah, as well as the institution itself, is not yet stabilized. The division of the people into units is mentioned only in Chronicles. 4. çrgm The basic meaning of çrgm is presumably “pasture land,” a place of cattle driving. 97 µyr[h yçrgm are the untilled grounds surrounding the cities which were used as pasture lands. 98 In most of its occurrences in the O.T. çrgm is connected with the Levites, i.e., in the explicit commandment to give the Levites cities with their pasture lands (Num 35:2–8) in the law concerning the redemption of lands (Lev 25:32–34) and in the list of the Levitical cities ( Josh 21:3–42). 99 In Chronicles the word is used in several ways: a. In its basic meaning as pasture land: 1 Chr 5:16. b. To denote the pasture lands which surround the Levitical cities: 1 Chr 6:39–66[54–81] 100 which is a doublet of the list of the Levitical cities, in Josh 21:3–42. 101

97. See KBL, 494. 98. See Num 35:1–3: “The cities shall be theirs to dwell in and their pasture lands shall be for their cattle and for their livestock and for all their beasts.” 99. In addition to these and the verses in Chronicles the word çrgm is mentioned also in Ezek 45:2; 48:15, 17; Josh 14:4. 100. M. Noth regards the list in 1 Chr 6:54–81 as post-chronistic. His argument is that its geographical content is not in harmony with the other lists (Überlieferungsgeschichtliche, 1:120). Rudolph agrees with Noth, but differs in his reasons. To him the list cannot be chronistic as “the sons of Aaron” are preferred to the Levites (Rudolph, Chronikbücher, 61). The assumption itself is not proved since it is difficult to see how the list prefers the priests to the Levites. But even so, it should be said that the considerations are rather general, and do not take into account the peculiar signs of the Chronicler’s work. A comparison of all the verses in which the cities of priests and Levites are mentioned reveals that they all belong together and are composed of consistent groups of words and terms. On the other hand, each of them is related to its context. For example: 1 Chr 13:2 is dependent directly upon the list in 1 Chr 6:54–81. This causes Rudolph to doubt its originality (Chronikbücher, 110). But is it possible, if we view the matter from the Chronicler’s standpoint, that the priests and Levites were not invited to the ceremony of bringing the ark to Jerusalem? And further: 2 Chr 11:13: lkb rça µywlhw µynhkhw µlwbg lkm wyl[ wbxyth larçy is dependent on the list too, as the phrase µlwbg is found only in this list and nowhere else in Chronicles (1 Chr 6:39[54], 51[66]) and is also absent from the list in Joshua 21. Should we regard this verse too as secondary? Rudolph does not. There is no doubt that the list in 1 Chr 6:39–66[54–81] was not composed by the Chronicler but it was incorporated in the book by the Chronicler himself who gave it some touches of his own, but did not thoroughly rework it. 101. A summation of the different views regarding the origin of this list and its relation to the parallel list in Joshua 21 is given by B. Mazar: “The Levitical and Priestly Cities,” Encyclopedia Biblica 4:476–85 [Hebrew].

18

Chapter 1 c. The word çrgm alone and the phrase çrgm ry[ are turned in Chronicles into technical terms denoting the Levitical and priestly cities themselves. This last meaning is peculiar to the Chronicler and is found nowhere else in the O.T.

(1) 1 Chr 13:2: µhyçrgm yr[b µyywlhw µynhkh. The rsv translation is literal: “The priests and Levites in the cities that have pasture lands.” But çrgm yr[ in Chronicles means “Levitical and priestly cities,” and so the whole verse is: “Let us send abroad to our brethren who remain in all the land of Israel, and with them to the priests and Levites in their cities that they may come. . . .” (2) 2 Chr 11:13–14: µtzwjaw µhyçrgm ta µyywlh wbz[ yk. Here again, µhyçrgm is not only the pasture lands surrounding the cities but the cities themselves. It should be translated: “The Levites left their cities and their possessions.” (3) 2 Chr 21:19: µhyr[ çrgm ydçb µynhkh ˆrha ynblw. This, again is translated literally by rsv, “. . . The priests who were in the fields of common land belonging to their cities.” In fact, the text does not refer to the priests in “the common land” but to the priests who were not present in Jerusalem. µhyr[ çrgm hdç is taken over as a whole from Lev 25:34 and refers to the cities themselves. Here again it should be translated: “The priests . . . in their cities,” and thus it continues: “there were men in the several cities who were designated by name to distribute portions. . . .” The technical term çrgm ry[ is found, as a fixed term for the cities themselves, in later literature. 102 In Ezra–Nehemiah we find neither the word çrgm nor the technical term. Ezra–Nehemiah describes the settlement of the returned exiles, and among them the priests and the Levites. Nehemiah mentions that “. . . The Levites and the singers who did the work, had fled each to his field” (Neh 13:10) but the cities are not mentioned. This is all the more significant because we do have evidence in Ezra–Nehemiah for the existence of these cities. 103 “And at the dedication of the wall of Jerusalem they sought the Levites in all their places, to bring them to Jerusalem. . . . And the sons of the singers gathered together from the circuit round Jerusalem and from the villages of Netophathites . . . for the singers had built themselves villages around Jerusalem” (Neh 12:27–29). The long and complicated description, which tries so hard to define the exact places of the Levites, is due to the fact that a concise and well-defined 102. T. So†ah 13.2. çrgm yr[ wqspw µymwtw µyrwa wlfbw dwd tybm twklm lfb çdqmh tyb brjçm (very similar in the b. So†ah 48b). The m. Maºa¶. S. 14:5: .≈rab qlj wjql alç µyywlw µynhk al πa . . . çrgm yr[ µhl çy :rmwa yswy ybr. The translations here too overlook the special technical significance of the construct state çrgm yr[ which is literally “cities of a pasture land” and translate it “cities with pasture land.” Actually it should be translated as a unit: “Levitical cities.” 103. See S. Klein: “The Cities of Priests and Levites and the Cities of Refuge,” Journal of the Jewish Palestine Exploration Society 3 (1934–35) 19 [Hebrew].

The Common Authorship of Chronicles and Ezra–Nehemiah

19

term is lacking. The absence of the term çrgm ry[ in Ezra–Nehemiah is not an accident. The term is not known, neither in that period in general nor to the author in particular. 5. rfq The root rfq has in Chronicles two meanings: (a) as a general term for the burning of sacrifices in smoke; (b) more specifically as burning of incense. In this connection the altar of incense (trfqh jbzm) and the censers (twrfqm) are also mentioned. The root rfq in various forms occurs in Chronicles 26 times, of which 2 are taken from his sources: 2 Chr 28:4 // 2 Kgs 16:4; 2 Chr 34:25 // 2 Kgs 22:17. 104 All the other instances belong to the Chronicler’s own language. Some of them might be cited here. 105 (1) 1 Chr 23:13: “Aaron was set apart . . . that he and his sons forever should burn incense before the Lord (uh ynpl ryfqhl) and minister to him and pronounce blessings in his name forever.” The affinities with Deut 10:8 are immediately apparent, but two changes are prominent. The place of “the tribe of Levi” is taken by “Aaron and his sons” and instead of “to stand before the Lord” their first task is “to burn incense before the Lord.” (2) In the letter written by Solomon to Hiram, Solomon states his intention to build a house for the Lord. In Kings the statement is brief: “And so I purpose to build a house for the name of the Lord my God” (1 Kgs 5:5). In the parallel account in Chronicles it is elaborated: “I am about to build a house for the name of the Lord my God and dedicate it to him for the burning of incense and sweet spices before Him” (µyms trfq wynpl ryfqhl). (3) In enumerating the sins of Ahaz, the Chronicler finds it necessary to add twice to his sources in Kings that he burned incense to other gods (2 Chr 28:3, as against 2 Kgs 16:3, and 2 Chr 28:25). The root rfq, as a verb or as a noun, does not occur in Ezra–Nehemiah at all. The material problems involved cannot be dealt with here. But it is worth noting that the altar of incense, called also the altar of gold, which is mentioned several times in Chronicles, is not mentioned at all in the building of the Second Temple described in Ezra–Nehemiah. The sacrifice of

104. In 2 Kgs 22:17 wrfqyw. In 2 Chr 34:17 Kethiv—wryfqyw, Qere—wrfqyw. These variations reflect two divergent tendencies. On one hand, the transition to Hiphil, which is also demonstrated in other strata of late Hebrew (see above, p. 5 n. 25). On the other hand, we could trace the attempt to distinguish between the Piel as describing illegitimate sacrifice and Hiphil for the legitimate one. This distinction is, however, not observed systematically in Chronicles; see 2 Chr 28:3 (against KBL). 105. The other occurrences are in Chronicles: 1 Chr 6:34; 28:18; 2 Chr 13:11; 25:14; 26:16– 19 (frequently); 29:7, 11; 30:14.

20

Chapter 1

incense is not mentioned either, 106 not even among the responsibilities undertaken by the people while making the covenant described in Nehemiah. 6. hmlç ydb[w µynytn The µynytn (Nethinim) and hmlç ydb[ ynb (the sons of Solomon’s servants) form a part of the Jewish community which returned to Jerusalem in the Restoration Period, as described in Ezra–Nehemiah. They are a distinct group, belonging to the cult personnel. But, in spite of their relatively large number, 107 they are always placed at the end of the list. Their names are unusual and probably foreign. 108 The Nethinim and the sons of Solomon’s servants are mentioned, together or separately, in all the literary strata of Ezra–Nehemiah as follows: a. In the lists: Ezra 2:43, 55, 58 (Neh 7:46, 57, 60); Ezra 2:70; Neh 7:72; 11:3, 21. b. In Ezra’s memoirs: Ezra 8:20. c. In Nehemiah’s memoirs: Neh 3:26, 31. d. In Aramaic: Ezra 7:24. e. In parts attributed to the Chronicler: Ezra 7:7; Neh 10:29[28]. We have presented all of the material at length so as to have no room for doubt that the Nethinim and the sons of Solomon’s servants were a social reality in the discussed period. They were two closed classes of templeservants, similar to one another. The sons of Solomon’s servants traced their origin, as can be deduced from their name, to the Solomonic Period; the Nethinim are explicitly connected with David: “. . . the Nethinim, whom David and his officials had set apart (ˆtn) to attend the Levites” (Ezra 8:20). The tradition regarding their origin and place among the cult personnel is generally accepted as reliable. 109 Accordingly, reference is made to 1 Kgs 9:20–21: “All the people who were left of the Amorites, the Hittites, the Perizites . . . who were not of the people of Israel . . . these Solomon made a forced levy of slaves and so they are to this day.” The information casually given here, surely accounts for the presence of hmlç ydb[. And although similar information regarding the Nethinim is not given in Samuel–Kings, the tradition of Ezra 8:20, in its main point, is however, accepted as historical. Now, the inclination to rely on Ezra 8:20 as historical proof derives, among other things, from the parallel phenomenon of the sons of Solo106. In Nehemiah’s memoirs, the frankincense (hnwbl) is mentioned twice, in Neh 13:5, 9. 107. Their number among the returnees was 392 (Ezra 2:58) which is more than the Levites, singers, and gatekeepers together (Ezra 2:40, 41, 42). 108. See M. Noth: Die israelitischen Personennamen im Rahmen der gemeinsemitischen Namengebung (1928) 63–64. 109. See R. Kittel, Geschichte des Volkes Israel (1929) vol. 3.2, §507, 417–19; M. Haran, “The Gibeonites: Their Place in the War of Conquest and in the History of Israel,” Studies in Joshua (1960) 106–10 [Hebrew].

spread is 12 points short

The Common Authorship of Chronicles and Ezra–Nehemiah

21

mon’s servants and the widespread tradition that the beginnings and basis of the cult-organizations were laid by David. It is therefore only natural to look for an explicit mention of the Nethinim, their origin and functions, in Chronicles, where most of the cult institutions are legitimatized through their attribution to David. It is rather a surprise to find that there are no Nethinim in Chronicles. 110 In all the many and diversified descriptions of cultic orders scattered throughout the book they are not even hinted at. 111 Some further remarks of clarification are required: (a) The sons of Solomon’s servants are totally absent from Chronicles, but the Nethinim are mentioned once in 1 Chr 9:2–3: “Now the first to dwell again in their possessions in their cities were Israel, the priests, the Levites, and the Nethinim, and some of the people of Judah, Benjamin, Ephraim and Manasseh dwelt in Jerusalem.” These verses serve as a heading to a list, found in two editions, here and in Neh 11:3–19. 112 The same heading in Nehemiah runs as follows: “These are the chiefs of the province who lived in Jerusalem, but in the towns of Judah everyone lived on his property in their towns, Israel, the priests, the Levites, the Nethinim and the descendants of Solomon’s servants and in Jerusalem lived certain of the sons of Judah and of the sons of Benjamin. 113 The Chronicler has made some changes in his version. He omitted “the sons of Solomon’s servants,” he changed “the chiefs of the Province” (hnydmh yçar) into “the first to dwell again” (µynwçarh µybçwyh) 114 and added the sons of Ephraim and Manasseh to the dwellers of Jerusalem, although their names do not appear in the list itself. 115 The Nethinim are left in the heading as a mere survival; they are mentioned, but in the list itself the verse which gives some details relating to them (Neh 11:21) is omitted in Chronicles. (b) It was stated above that Ezra 8:20 traces the origin of the Nethinim to David’s times. We have also assumed that the sons of Solomon’s servants 110. The fact was already noted by M. H. Segal, “The Books,” 88. 111. For example, 1 Chr 6:16–33, 9:22–34, 23:2–6, and others. 112. The presence of one list in two different recensions in two books which are, according to the general supposition, one continuous book, caused not a little embarrassment. Some solutions are proposed by Curtis (Commentary, 168) and Rudolph, Chronikbücher, 83–85. The general solution is that the list in 1 Chronicles 9 is post-chronistic, but the changes presented in the list, and mainly in its heading, show clear traces of the Chronicler’s adaptation. 113. The affinities between the two headings are obscured because of the inconsistencies of the translation, and are much clearer in Hebrew. For example, in 1 Chr 9:2 µhyr[b µtzwjab is translated: “In their possessions in their cities.” In Neh 11:3 µhyr[b wtzwjab is translated: “On his property in their towns.” ˆymynb ynb ˆmw hdwhy ynb ˆm wbçy µylçwrybw is translated in Chronicles: “and some of the people of Judah, Benjamin, etc., dwelt in Jerusalem” and the same is translated in Nehemiah: “and in Jerusalem lived certain of the sons of Judah and of the sons of Benjamin.” 114. See below, p. 23. 115. The Chronicler’s attitude to the people of northern Israel is also a matter which needs some revision. In any case, see 1 Chronicles 12; 2 Chr 11:16–17, 15:9, 28:9–15, 30:1–27.

22

Chapter 1

were actually those remnants of the Canaanite population which were taken by Solomon as forced levy workers. In this connection we do have in Chronicles divergent and interesting information. The Chronicler attributes the origin of these levy workers not to the days of Solomon but to the Davidic Period: (1) 1 Chr 22:2: “David commanded to gather together the aliens (Heb.: µyrg) who were in the land of Israel and he set stonecutters to prepare dressed stones for building the house of God.” (2) 2 Chr 2:16: “Then Solomon took a census of all the aliens (Heb.: µyrg) who were in the land of Israel after the census of them which David his father has taken. . . . Seventy thousand of them he assigned to bear burden, eighty thousand to quarry in the hill country and three thousand and six hundred as overseers to make the people work.” A comparison of these verses with 2 Chr 2:2, 8:7–9 and 1 Kgs 5:29–30, 9:20–22 reveals that it is the “remnant of the Amorites” which are described here, but they are traced back to the days of David. The inevitable conclusion is that the Chronicler does recognize such a group, which is traced back both to the days of David and Solomon. The fact itself is attested to both by Chronicles and Ezra–Nehemiah but the difference between them is therefore more prominent. (a) In Ezra–Nehemiah they are designated as Nethinim and the sons of Solomon’s servants. In Chronicles these names are absent. The title in Chronicles is µyrg 116 and this title is totally absent from Ezra–Nehemiah. (b) In Ezra–Nehemiah they form a class among the temple servants. In Chronicles they have no function in the cult, or in the temple. They are mobilized at a certain historical period to execute the building of the temple and afterwards they disappear. The fact that “they were given by David . . . to the Levites” is not even hinted at in Chronicles. According to Chronicles they have no connection, whatsoever to the cultic orders. The question remains open as to whether the Chronicler’s attitude towards the Nethinim is a result of mere misinformation, or whether it is to be interpreted as deliberate polemics against this same situation which is described in Ezra–Nehemiah. 7. hnydm 8. µyngs 9. hjp The common denominator which units all these terms is the fact that they are taken from the realm of state affairs in the period of Persian rule. 7. hnydm In the writings of the Persian Period hnydm is a technical term designating an administrative unit in the empire, either the satrapy or its subdivisions. 117 The use of the term is common to Ezra–Nehemiah, Daniel, and 116. Translated by the rsv as “aliens”—µyrz. In 2 Chr 30:25 the word is translated “sojourners.” 117. See J. Liver, “Medinah,” Encyclopedia Biblica 4:692 [Hebrew].

The Common Authorship of Chronicles and Ezra–Nehemiah

23

Esther. 118 In the various strata of Ezra–Nehemiah it is the title of the province of Judah: Ezra 2:1 (Neh 7:6); Neh 1:3, 11:3; Ezra 5:8 (Aramaic). In other instances, all of them in the Aramaic portion, the term relates to other provinces, i.e., Ezra 6:2—relating to the province of Media, in Ezra 7:16—to the province of Babylonia, and in 4:15 to provinces in general. In a later phase of Hebrew the term came to have two meanings: province and town. 119 In contrast to all the writings from this period the word hnydm is not to be found in Chronicles. The argument that the Chronicler limits his description to the period of the First Temple loses its validity in view of the abundance of anachronisms in Chronicles. Moreover, the word hnydm continued its existence in the language after the Persian Period, but in Chronicles it is absent. These finds are supported by a parallel text. The list of Neh 11:3–19 is repeated in 1 Chr 9:2–17. 120 Among the changes which the Chronicler introduced in the list’s heading we also find the transformation of yçar hla hnydmh (“these are the chiefs of the province”) into µynwçarh µybçwyh (“the first to dwell again . . .”). It follows that the absence of the term hnydm in Chronicles is not due to a mere coincidence; this conclusion is strengthened by the following. 8. µyngs The word ˆgs is a loan word from Akkadian 121 and is found in Hebrew only from the 6th century b.c.e. and onwards. 122 It serves mainly as a title of certain officials in the service of a foreign king, Babylonian or Persian, but it also becomes a more general term, as a title of an official in general. 123 The term is found in Ezra–Nehemiah ten times, mostly in Nehemiah’s memoirs but also elsewhere: Ezra 9:2; Neh 2:16; 4:8[14], 13[19]; 5:7; 7:5; 12:40; 13:11. In Chronicles we do not find the term µyngs at all. Moreover, there is a series of foreign titles which do occur in his sources such as hqçAbr, 124 118. The term is very current in Esther, where it appears over 30 times. It appears in Daniel in the following verses: 2:48, 49; 3:1, 2, 3, 12, 30; 8:2; 11:24. In Ecclesiastes it occurs twice: 2:8, 5:5. 119. See Jastrow, Dictionary, 2:734. 120. See above, p. 21. 121. See KBL, 649. 122. In addition to Ezra–Nehemiah, it occurs in Isa 41:25; Jer 51:23, 28, 57; Ezek 23:6, 12, 23, and in Aramaic in Dan 2:48; 3:2, 27; 6:8. In Jeremiah and Ezekiel it is always connected with twjp. 123. It has this general meaning in Ezra 9:2 where it is parallel to µyrç, in Neh 12:40, and presumably also in Isa 41:25. 124. All these titles, in 2 Kgs 18:17–19:8 are given in rsv in transliteration. The comparison of 2 Kgs 18:17 with its parallel text in Chronicles shows that their omission is deliberate (2 Chr 32:9). The name hqçAbr is repeated in this narrative in Kings eight times, but it is omitted in the parallel account in Chronicles.

24

Chapter 1

syrsAbr, ˆtrt, µyjbfAbr, 125 but they are all missing in Chronicles. When the Chronicler describes the disaster which befell the Assyrian army he enlarges upon the description of his sources and adds some titles to the narrative. But all of them are taken from his own storehouse and the authentic titles are absent. 9. hjp The term hjp as well is a loan word from Akkadian. It is used mainly in the Persian Period and it is in the writings from this period that it is most prominent. 126 In the various strata of Ezra–Nehemiah it is repeated several times, in singular and in plural forms: 127 Ezra 8:36; Neh 2:7, 9; 3:7; 5:14, 128 15, 18; In Aramaic Ezra 5:3, 6, 14; 6:7. In addition to appearing in Ezra–Nehemiah, hjp is known from other books of the Persian Period, i.e., Haggai, Malachi, Esther and Daniel. 129 In Chronicles it is found only once in a text which is taken word for word from the Chronicler’s sources in Kings: 2 Chr 9:14 // 1 Kgs 10:15. All these terms, and others which were not discussed, 130 demonstrate the fact that foreign terms taken from the realm of government and administration entered the language and became a living part of it. Most of the terms were thoroughly absorbed into the language and their use in Ezra– Nehemiah is widespread and natural. In the book of Chronicles there is not even a trace of all this world. On one hand hnydm, which has no special foreign color about it but is closely related with the Persian rule, and on the other hand terms such as µyngs, hjp, atçrt, which were fully absorbed into the language—all these are absent from the book of Chronicles. The question which naturally follows, and cannot be answered in this context, is whether this lack is a result of linguistic limitations or whether there is some deliberate tendency in their omission. In any event, the opposition between Chronicles and Ezra–Nehemiah is conspicuously stated. 125. 2 Kgs 25:8, 10, 11, 12, 15, 18, 20. It is the title of Nebuzaradan, and is translated by rsv as “the captain of the body guard” or “the captain of the guard.” All the description of his actions in Jerusalem, given in 2 Kings 25, is absent from Chronicles. 126. In addition to these it is found only in 2 Kgs 18:24 // Isa 36:9; 1 Kgs 20:24; 1 Kgs 10:15 // 2 Chr 9:19 and as a parallel to µyngs in Ezek 23:6, 12, 23; Jer 51:23, 28, 57. 127. To the forms hjp and awjp, their meaning and relation, see E. Y. Kutscher, “awjp and Its Cognates,” Tarbiz 30 (1961) 112–19 [Hebrew, with an English summary]. 128. µjp is a corrupted form of hjp. See BHS. 129. Hag 1:1, 14; 2:2, 21; Mal 1:8; Esth 3:12, 8:9, 9:3; Dan 3:2, 3, 27; 6:8. 130. Such as (1) atçrt—which is also translated by rsv as “governor.” It is mentioned in Ezra–Nehemiah only five times: Ezra 2:63; Neh 7:65, 70; 8:9; 10:2, and is not known from other biblical sources and might be more restricted in meaning. (2) µynprdçja, “Satraps,” which is found in Ezra–Nehemiah only once—Ezra 8:36, and otherwise in Esth 3:12, 8:9, 9:3, and in Aramaic in Daniel nine times. (3) ˚lp which is found only in Nehemiah’s memoirs, in the narrative about the wall building: Neh 3:9, 12, 14, 15, 17, 18. All these do add to the general picture, but the sparsity of material renders their support limited.

subhead drop

The Common Authorship of Chronicles and Ezra–Nehemiah

25

III. Peculiarities of Style The purpose of the following discussion is the study of characteristic stylistic traits. It should be noted beforehand that the general deficiencies of stylistic investigation are present here as well, and among them the fact that a “personal style” is a unified whole, and not every aspect of it has its equivalent in another style. Thus the basis for comparison is very much reduced. Another point, which is restricted to our subject, is the fact that Ezra–Nehemiah cannot be defined as a “stylistic whole” and is, at least from a literary point of view, a much variegated book. Even so there are some traits which do characterize this book and mark it as an independent composition. The following discussion deals at first with traits peculiar to Chronicles and secondly with Ezra–Nehemiah. 1. Chronicles A. hl[ml The adverb hl[ml with its own special nuance is a favorite of the Chronicler. The basic meaning “upwards” 131 is broadened and the word serves as a general adverb meaning “much,” “exceedingly,” “highly,” etc. This enlarged meaning is confined to the Chronicler’s style 132 and is found both in additions to his sources and regularly in other parts. These are: 1 Chr 14:2 (2 Sam 5:12); 2 Chr 16:12 (1 Kgs 15:23); 1 Chr 22:5; 23:17; 29:3, 25; 2 Chr 1:1; 17:12; 20:19; 26:8. In the translation every instance is rendered differently, thus emphasizing the wide range of the meanings given to the single phrase. There is no such use of hl[ml in Ezra–Nehemiah. A superficial glance is likely to bring forth the once-mentioned hl[ml in Ezra 9:6: But, the meaning here does not differ from all the other instances of this adverb in the O.T. denoting “above.” The verse should be translated as follows: “Our iniquities have risen above the [our] head.” 133 It has nothing to do with the specific use of Chronicles. 134

131. See BDB, 751; KBL, 548. 132. See Driver, Introduction, 503. “This metaphorical use of “upwards” as a mere intensive—“exceedingly” is exclusively a late one and confined to these passages” (i.e., to Chronicles alone). 133. Rsv’s translation is “our iniquities have risen higher than our heads.” The Septuagint’s version both here and in 1 Esd 8:72 is “our iniquities [sins] are multiplied above our heads” and hl[ml is translated as uJpevr. It might be conjectured that the original version was çarh l[m (see Ps 38:5[4]), and only by a misdivision was it changed into çar hl[m and then the duuml was added. 134. See also Driver, Introduction, 504.

26

Chapter 1 B. bwrl

The word bwrl recurs in Chronicles over 30 times having a special nuance. 135 With a verb it is parallel to hbrh and is actually an adverb. With a noun it approximates an adjective, and means br—great. Once it is taken over from his sources: 2 Chr 1:15 // 1 Kgs 10:27. Three times the sources are slightly changed and bwrl is introduced; 2 Chr 4:18 // 1 Kgs 7:47 (bwrlAbwrm); 2 Chr 9:1 // 1 Kgs 10:2 (bwrlAbr); 2 Chr 9:9 // 1 Kgs 10:10 (bwrlAhbrh). The word recurs 31 other times, and it might be said that there is no section in which it does not appear. It is variously translated as: “great, greatly, great quantities, great numbers, abundant, abundantly, in abundance, much, plenty, etc.” 136 In Ezra–Nehemiah it occurs once, in an independent text which was incorporated into the book, i.e., in the congregation’s prayer in Neh 9:25, 137 “and fruit trees in abundance.” The text of this prayer belongs to a more elevated linguistic stratum than the usual prose account of Ezra–Nehemiah. 138 In the prose parts of the book it is not found at all. On the other hand, it belongs to the basic style of the prose accounts in Chronicles and there it is abundantly used. We can discern here both a linguistic difference and a peculiar stylistic quality of the Chronicler. C. ynw[mç This particular form of the verb [mç functions as a characteristic way of address at the opening of speeches in Chronicles: 1 Chr 28:2; 2 Chr 13:4, 15:2, 20:20, 28:11, 19:5. It is defined by Driver as “One of the many marks which the speeches in Chronicles contain of the compiler’s hand.” 139 There are speeches, addresses, etc. in Ezra–Nehemiah as well, but none of them opens with this special way of address, 140 which occurs, as a matter of fact, only once more outside of Chronicles. 141

135. Ibid., 502. 136. See 1 Chr 4:38; 12:41[40]; 22:3, 4, 5, 8, 14, 15; 29:2, 21; 2 Chr 2:8; 11:23; 14:14; 15:9; 16:8; 17:5; 18:1, 2; 20:25; 24:11, 24; 27:3; 29:35; 30:5, 13, 24; 31:5, 10; 32:5, 29. 137. See Myers, Ezra–Nehemiah, 166–70. 138. Another instance, of approximately the same period is Zech 14:14, here too in a prophecy, i.e., in an elevated linguistic stratum. 139. Driver, Introduction, 504. 140. As to the origin and character of these speeches see G. von Rad: “Die Levitische Predigt in den Büchern der Chronik,” Gesammelte Studien (1958) 1:248–61. Von Rad finds an actual situation for such a preaching in Neh 8:7. But all the speeches he deals with are found in Chronicles proper. Actually the peculiar type of speech described by von Rad is confined to Chronicles and is not found in Ezra–Nehemiah at all. 141. Gen 23:6.

spread is 6 points long

The Common Authorship of Chronicles and Ezra–Nehemiah

27

D. [nkn [nk appears in Hiphil and Niphal with the meaning to “subdue” or to “be subdued,” mainly in war. 142 This basic meaning occurs in Chronicles too, 143 but in addition it also takes on another significance: [nkn is used spiritually, denoting humility before God and His laws. 144 It describes the inner quality of the pious man in general, as resignation and repentance before God: 145 “Then the princes and the king humbled themselves and said ‘The Lord is righteous.’ When the Lord saw that they humbled themselves, the word of the Lord came to Shemaiah: ‘They have humbled themselves; I will not destroy them’ ” (2 Chr 12:6–7). And further in 2 Chr 7:14; 12:12; 30:11; 32:26; 33:12, 19, 23. Outside Chronicles we find such a use only twice: 1 Kgs 21:29, 146 2 Kgs 22:19. In Ezra–Nehemiah the root [nk itself does occur once, denoting submission in war. 147 But the peculiar use of the Chronicler which, in its essence and its spirit is so much in harmony with the spirit of penitence found in Ezra–Nehemiah is totally absent. 148 E. jkArx[ The peculiar phrase is found only in late Hebrew, in Chronicles, and Daniel. 149 Its meaning is presumably to retain the strength within the body, and hence—“to have strength.” 150 It is found in several places in Chronicles but not in Ezra–Nehemiah. 151 142. See Judg 3:30, 8:28, 11:33; 1 Sam 7:13, etc. 143. In four places: 1 Chr 20:4, where the addition of w[nkyw, “were subdued,” is one of the main divergences from the parallel text in 2 Sam 21:18. 1 Chr 17:10: yt[nkhw—“And I will subdue all your enemies” in place of ytwjynhw—“I will give you rest from all your enemies” in 2 Sam 7:11. And also in 2 Chr 28:19 and 2 Chr 13:18. 144. See Driver, Introduction, 504. 145. The link between these two usages seems to be found in Lev 26:41 and Ps 107:12 in the phrases µbbl [nky and µbl [nkyw where [nk is used metaphorically. From here only one step is required to use [nk itself in the thoroughly spiritual meaning found in Chronicles. 146. The presence of this usage in the context of Elijah’s stories is one more argument in favor of the secondary origin of the whole episode of Ahab’s repentance. See J. Gary, I and II Kings (1963) 393–94. 147. In the congregation’s prayer of Nehemiah 9 which is, in any case, an independent text, Neh 9:24. 148. The continuation of this use is found in Hebrew in the DSS. Besides the general use of the root in Hiphil there is one example of the Niphal in the Manual of Discipline (1QS) X 27. It is mostly translated as “humbled” (see for example, A. R. C. Leaney: “The Rule of Qumran and Its Meaning” [1966] 235). But J. Licht suggests that it is rather a title of the members of the sect ( J. Licht, The Rule Scroll [1965] 222 [Hebrew]). 149. 1 Chr 29:14; 2 Chr 2:6; 13:20; 22:9; Dan 10:16, 18; 11:11. 150. F. Zimmermann proposed that the phrase is a mistranslation from Aramaic ( JQR 42 [1951–52] 276–78). The presence of this phrase in DSS is another argument against his proposal (for example, Hodayot [1QHa] X 10–11). 151. Although similar expressions exist, such as jk ˆya in Ezra 10:3. But here it should be taken into account that its absence could be due to chance only because it is used relatively little.

28

Chapter 1

The phrase is usually translated paraphrastically with “to be able,” and occurs twice with the omission of jk. F. l[ uh djp hyh This phrase, as well, is found only in Chronicles: 152 2 Chr 14:13[14], 17:10, 19:7, 153 20:20. Its origins are not known, but there is no reason to classify it as specifically late. Its most frequent parallel is l[ djp lpn: “The fear fell upon.” 154 It should be asked whether we have here further evidence for the meaning “fall” for hyh in Hebrew. 155 A positive answer to this question also suggests that this meaning for hyh was extant at a relatively late phase of Biblical Hebrew. 156 This phrase is also not found in Ezra–Nehemiah. G. uh µçl tyb twnbl The phrase “to build a house for God’s name” is an expression of the theological conception that God’s name abides in the temple. The origin of the conception itself and the phrases that issue from it are presumably to be found in the Deuteronomistic school. 157 The Chronicler has found the phrase in his sources in Kings, adapted it, and made it a constructive clement in his own style. He copies almost literally the following sections where the phrase occurs seven times: 2 Chr 2:3 // 1 Kgs 4:19; 2 Chr 6:7–10 // 1 Kgs 8:17–20; 2 Chr 6:34 // 1 Kgs 8:44; 2 Chr 6:38 // 1 Kgs 8:48. In addition he uses it in his own narrative: 1 Chr 22:7, 8, 10, 19; 28:3; 29:16; 2 Chr 1:18; 20:8, 9. The phrase is absent from Ezra–Nehemiah although the description given there of the construction of the temple is designated by general opinion as “chronistic.” Both the phrase and the theological conception it ex152. See Driver, Introduction, 504. 153. The use of uh djp in this context seems strange. The whole account is clearly influenced by Deut 10:17. We would have expected, therefore, because of the literary influence as well as the subject itself, to find here uh tary rather than uh djp. Indeed we do find uh tary immediately after in 2 Chr 19:9. We can clearly see how fixed literary phrases stand side by side with others, framed by the Chronicler’s own style. 154. For example: 1 Sam 11:7, Exod 15:16, etc., related to it hmya hlpn “terror fell upon” as in Gen 15:12, Ps 55:5[4]. The difference is sometimes obscured by the rsv. 155. See S. E. Loewenstamm, Thesaurus of the Language of the Bible (1959) 2:359d; G. R. Driver, Biblica 19, 61. 156. Another instance might be added from Ezekiel. The phrase l[ uh dy htyh, “the hand of the Lord was upon,” is very common in Ezek (1:3, 3:22, etc.), but once we have instead lptw uh dy µç yl[—“The hand of the Lord God fell there upon me”—Ezek 8:1. The two parallel expressions explain each other. Similarly it is possible that the phrase uh jwr yl[ lptw—“And the spirit of the Lord fell upon me”—Ezek 11:5 is the equivalent in Ezekiel of the common jwr htyh l[ uh as Num 24:2, Judg 3:10, and more. 157. G. von Rad, Studies in Deuteronomy (English translation by Davis Stalker; London, 1953) 37–41.

The Common Authorship of Chronicles and Ezra–Nehemiah

29

presses are missing. The temple is built “for God” and not “for his name” as in Ezra 1:2; 158 4:1, 3. 159 The question whether the stylistic change is due to theological differences must remain unanswered for the time being. But the stylistic fact itself is nonetheless conspicuous. H. çpn lkbw bbl lkb, µlç blb A specific theological trait peculiar to the Chronicler is the constant insistence on the piety of the Judean kings and people. 160 Not only are their pious deeds fully described but strong stress is laid upon the fact that all their deeds were done “with a whole heart.” The religious disposition is described mainly by µlç blb—“with a whole heart.” wçpn lkbw wbbl lkb —“with all his heart and with all his soul,” µnwxr lkb—“with their whole desire,” and others. These expressions are not specifically late but they are peculiar to the Chronicler’s style. µlç blb. The expression is found only in Kings (5 times) 161 and Chronicles (8 times). It was presumably taken by the Chronicler from Kings 162 but only once does it occur in Chronicles in a parallel text (2 Chr 15:17 // 1 Kgs 15:15). All the other instances are the Chronicler’s own: 1 Chr 12:38; 28:9; 29:9, 19; 2 Chr 15:9; 19:9; 25:2. 163 wçpn lkbw wbbl lkb. This expression, as well, is frequent in Deuteronomistic style; 164 it was adopted by the Chronicler and became a conspicuous sign of his style. Besides the parallel texts, 165 it is found six times in his own narrative, in several variations. 166

158. The verse is taken from the edict of Cyrus which belongs in every respect to Ezra– Nehemiah. The insertion of a part of it into 2 Chr 36:22–23 is no doubt secondary. 159. The phrase “to build a house for/to God” does occur occasionally in Chronicles but is secondary in importance and use. In the parallel texts it occurs a few times in 1 Chronicles 17 // 2 Samuel 7 and also in 1 Chr 22:5, 6; 2 Chr 2:5, 11. 160. Great stress is laid upon religious reformations (Asa, Jehoshapat, Hezekiah), cultic activities, etc. Some of the kings, as Abija and Manasseh, even receive rehabilitation and the evils of others, as Rehoboam, are mitigated. See Y. Kaufmann, History, 4:457, 480 (Hebrew; English translation 4:537, 562). 161. 1 Kgs 8:61; 11:4; 15:3, 14; 2 Kgs 20:3 // Isa 38:3. 162. The expression belongs, it seems, to the Deuteronomistic framework of Kings, but is not found in Deuteronomy. It is a further example, though a minor one, of the difference between the two. 163. It differs in this point from the parallel text in 2 Kgs 14:3. 164. In Deuteronomy itself it recurs about ten times. The phrase in full is: “with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your might” (Deut 6:5). But the full expression does not appear in Chronicles. 165. 2 Chr 6:14, 38 // 1 Kgs 8:23, 48; 2 Chr 34:31 // 2 Kgs 23:3. 166. 1 Chr 22:19; 2 Chr 15:12, 15; 22:9; 30:19; 31:21.

30

Chapter 1

All these modes of expression are not found in Ezra–Nehemiah. The stylistic difference is strongly felt where the subject and purpose of the descriptions are the same. Two examples will suffice to demonstrate this: (1) The two books tell us about the free-will donations for the building of the temple. In Ezra 2:68–69, the description is Some of the heads of families, when they came to the house of the Lord which is in Jerusalem, made free-will offerings for the house of the Lord to erect it on its site; according to their ability they gave to the treasury of the work sixty-one thousand darics of gold, five thousands minas of silver, and one hundred priests’ garments.

In 1 Chr 29:6–9, it is as follows: Then the heads of fathers’ houses made their freewill offerings as did also the leaders of the tribes, the commanders . . . and the officers. . . . They gave . . . five thousand talents of silver, eighteen thousand talents of bronze, and a hundred thousand talents of iron.167 And whoever had precious stones gave them to the treasury of the house of the Lord. . . . Then the people rejoiced because they had given willingly, for with a whole heart they had offered freely to the Lord. David the King also rejoiced greatly.

(2) The other occasion is the making of a covenant, which again is described in both books: In Neh 10:29–30[28–29]: The rest of the people . . . all who have knowledge and understanding join with their brethren, their nobles and enter into a curse and an oath to walk in God’s law which was given by Moses . . . and to observe and do all the commandments of the Lord, our Lord, and his ordinances and his statutes.

And in 2 Chr 15:12–15: And they entered into a covenant to seek the Lord the God of their fathers with all their heart and with all their soul and that whoever would not seek the Lord, the God of Israel, should be put to death. They took oath to the Lord with a loud voice and with shouting and with trumpets and with horns, and all Judah rejoiced over the oath for they had sworn with all their heart and had sought him with all their desire and he was found by them and the Lord gave them rest round about.

The difference is immediately apparent. The descriptions of Ezra–Nehemiah are short, dry, and matter of fact. They describe only external facts and minimize the description of the ceremony. Those of Chronicles are elaborate and pompous, describing in detail the inner feeling of the participants and giving a tinge of exaggeration to every aspect mentioned. The 167. On the difference in the numbers, see M. H. Segal, “The Books,” 85.

The Common Authorship of Chronicles and Ezra–Nehemiah

31

special style of the Chronicler is achieved, among other things, through the abundant use and repetition of fixed pregnant literary formulas. I. tyjçh The use of the root tjç, mainly in Hiphil, is quite frequent in the O.T. Nevertheless, it can be regarded as a favorite of the Chronicler, as it frequently occurs in his account. In two places he depends on his sources: 1 Chr 21:15 (2 Sam 24:16); 168 2 Chr 21:7 // 2 Kgs 8:19. In several places tjç displaces another root of the sources or is added to the original text. For example: to 2 Sam 24:13, “Or shall there be three days pestilence in your land?” the Chronicler adds (in 1 Chr 21:12): “and the angel of the Lord destroying” (tyjçm). In 2 Kgs 8:27: “and he did what was evil in the sight of the Lord for he was son-in-law to the house of Ahab,” here, again, the Chronicler adds: “for . . . they were his counselors to his undoing” (wl tyjçml) (2 Chr 24:4). A similar procedure is followed in 2 Chr 27:2 (2 Kgs 15:35); 2 Chr 34:11 (2 Kgs 22:5–6). Apart from these, the verb is used in the Chronicler’s own narrative. 169 In Ezra–Nehemiah it is totally absent, although the opportunities to use it are many. [[ J]]. ≈ma From earlier literature the Chronicler derives the phrase ≈maw qzj—“Be strong and of good courage” as well as the verb ≈ma itself, and weaves it into his composition. 1 Chr 22:13, tjt law aryt la ≈maw qzj, is taken literally from Josh 10:25, Deut 31:6, and other verses; 170 2 Chr 36:13: “He stiffened his neck and hardened (≈mayw) his heart” is clearly dependent on Deut 2:30. 171 In the use of the verb ≈ma as parallel to qzj two places are noteworthy: 2 Chr 24:13, where the subject of whwxmayw—“they strengthened it” is the house of God, and 2 Chr 13:7, where µ[bjr l[ wxmatyw is translated “and . . . defied Rehoboam,” and is rather “they tried to overcome him.” 172 168. There are some differences between these texts. The parallel in 2 Sam 24:16 is somewhat different. The main linguistic difference is between htjçl Piel and htyjçhl in Hiphil. The Hiphil in this root is generally more frequent than the Piel. It should be asked, however, whether it is additional proof of the strengthening of Hiphil. See above, pp. 5 n. 25, 19 n. 104. 169. 2 Chr 12:7, 12; 20:23; 24:23; 25:16; 26:16; 35:21; 36:19. 170. The same phrase occurs also in 2 Chr 28:20 and 32:7. The phrase tjt law aryt la in itself occurs twice more in Chronicles, in 2 Chr 20:15, 17. This phrase as well is absent from Ezra–Nehemiah. 171. The dependence on Deuteronomy is not felt in the rsv which translates differently in those places. In Hebrew it runs as follows: 2 Chr 36:13: wbbl ta ≈mayw wpr[ ta çqyw; Deut 5:30: wbbl ta ≈maw wjwr ta ˚yhla uh hçqh yk. 172. The other instances are: 2 Chr 11:17, 13:18; 2 Chr 10:18 // 1 Kgs 13:18.

32

Chapter 1

The root ≈ma is not found in the vocabulary of late biblical prose, including Ezra–Nehemiah. [[K]]. hnwma The noun hnwma is rare in early prose 173 but is quite frequent in poetry. As in other instances it was transferred by the Chronicler to his prose and was absorbed there. 174 Its meaning in Chronicles is “stability” and “faithfulness.” But it also has the peculiar connotation “permanent office,” 175 or being in charge of something. The first meaning, “faithfulness,” is exemplified by 2 Chr 24:12 // 2 Kgs 22:7; 2 Chr 19:9, 31:12. The second is exemplified by 1 Chr 9:22: “David and Samuel . . . established them in their permanent office” (µtnwmab) 176 and also by 1 Chr 9:26, 31; 2 Chr 31:15. 177 The problematic verse is 2 Chr 31:18, çdq wçdqty µtnwmab yk. It is translated by rsv as “for they were faithful in keeping themselves holy” which is rather paraphrastic. It seems that here too we should translate “for in their office (µtnwmab) they should be sanctified.” The noun hnwma, in either of its meanings, is not found at all in Ezra– Nehemiah. 178 [[L]]. ˆwmh In early biblical literature the noun ˆwmh is more prevalent in poetry than in prose. 179 In the prose of Chronicles it occurs ten times in various con173. Exod 17:12, 1 Sam 26:23, and twice in Kings in similar contexts and wording: 2 Kgs 12:16, 22:7. 174. To a lesser degree it is shown also in the use of the verb, ˆma. The utterance of Isaiah (7:9) wnmat al yk wnymat al µa is utilized in Jehoshaphat’s sermon: wnymah wnmatw µkyhla uhb wnymah wjylxhw wyaybnb. In three instances the root ˆma substitutes for another in the parallel text or is added to it: 1 Chr 17:23: ˆmay in place of µqh in 2 Sam 7:25, and in the following verse ldgyw ˆmay, found in place of ldgyw alone. The same addition is made also in 2 Chr 1:9 in comparison to 1 Kgs 3:6. All these sections are related to God’s promise to David and his house, and in this connection it does occur once in Kings, and in the parallel text in Chronicles (1 Kgs 8:26 // 2 Chr 6:17). The consistent use of the verb in this context in Chronicles suggests that its origin is in Chronicles and it was secondarily transferred to 1 Kgs 8:26. On the other hand, it might have been taken by the Chronicler from this place in Kings and used in all the other sections dealing with the same subject. The case is complicated by the fact that the Septuagint’s version of 2 Samuel 7 contains a trace of the same verb there. 175. See Loewenstamm, Thesaurus, 197. 176. Translated by rsv: “In their office of trust.” 177. It seems that it should rather be translated here “in their office” instead of “faithfully” (rsv). 178. Nor is the verb. We do have in Ezra–Nehemiah twice the adj. ˆman in “non-chronistic” parts (Neh 9:8, 13:13) and the noun hnma. Neither is found in Chronicles. 179. But we cannot regard its use in early prose as exceptional. It does occur once in Judges, 5 times in Samuel, and 5 times in Kings. It is, however, most typical of Ezekiel’s style, where it occurs over 25 times.

The Common Authorship of Chronicles and Ezra–Nehemiah

33

texts 180 and nowhere in Ezra–Nehemiah. 181 [[M]]. dwbkw rç[ This is another phrase which the Chronicler has taken from earlier sources 182 and absorbed into his style. The rç[ of 1 Kgs 3:11 and the rç[ dwbkw of 1 Kgs 3:13 are turned into dwbkw µyskn rç[ in 2 Chr 1:11, 12. The “riches and honour” form an important part of success: David has died “in a good old age full of days, riches and honour” (rç[ µymy [bç dbkw) 183 (1 Chr 29:28) and it was also the sign of success of Jehoshaphat and Hezekiah (2 Chr 17:5, 18:1, 32:27). It is explicitly described as God’s blessing: “Both riches and honour come from thee” (1 Chr 29:12). This phrase too does not occur in Ezra–Nehemiah. 2. Ezra–Nehemiah A. l[ hbwfh µyhwla dyk The expression “the hand of my God was good upon me” is a characteristic phrase of Ezra–Nehemiah. It recurs several times in the various literary parts of the book, and it is not found elsewhere in the O.T. The full phrase occurs in Ezra 7:9; 8:18, 22; Neh 2:8, 18. Twice more it is used elliptically, with the omission of “good”: Ezra 7:28, 8:31. The exact semantic development which formed this peculiar expression is not attested to in the O.T. 184 However, its use in Ezra–Nehemiah is variegated, lively, and frequent. On the other hand, it is totally limited to Ezra– Nehemiah. It might be conjectured that it was rather common in a certain period or vicinity. To the Chronicler, however, it is no longer known and it finds no place in his work.

180. 1 Chr 29:16; 2 Chr 11:23; 13:8; 14:10; 20:2, 12, 15, 24; 31:10; 32:7. See Driver, Introduction, 504. 181. It does occur in Daniel: in 10:6; 11:10, 11 (twice), 12, 13. 182. Found mainly in the Wisdom Literature, i.e., Prov 3:16, 8:18, etc. See also Driver, Introduction, 504. 183. See Gen 25:8: “and died in a good old age, an old man and full of days.” The specific Chronicler’s addition is made to a literary formula. 184. In its wording it resembles most closely the phrase l[ htyh uh dy and actually it does occur twice in this form (Ezra 7:28, 8:31). However, l[ htyh uh dy generally denotes the power of God which is resting on a person and compels him to perform certain actions. For example: “And the hand of the Lord was on Elijah and he girded his loins and ran before Ahab to the entrance of Jezreel” (1 Kgs 18:46) or “The hand of the Lord was upon me and he brought me out by the spirit of the Lord” (Ezek 37:1). In Ezra–Nehemiah it denotes rather God’s permanent help and grace which rest upon a person or a congregation. The expression was presumably formed when uh dy was semantically changed and lost its specific meaning as “strength, power.”

34

Chapter 1 B. µyçn bçwh

In its meaning hça byçwhl is parallel to the more common hça hql and hça açn 185 and is translated as “marry.” 186 It is peculiar to Ezra–Nehemiah where it freely interchanges with the two others. It is not found elsewhere in the O.T. 187 In Ezra–Nehemiah it occurs in two different literary portions. In Nehemiah’s memoirs (Neh 13:23, 27) and in what is termed the “Chronistic parts” (Ezra 10:2, 10, 14, 17, 18). However, in Chronicles it is absent. We might assume that here again the somewhat strange expression was common in a certain linguistic phase, and disappeared later. To the Chronicler it is already unknown, or at least disliked. C. µylçwryb rça uh tyb The description of the temple as “The house of God which is in Jerusalem” is found in Ezra–Nehemiah several times with small variations, and first in the edict of Cyrus: Ezra 1:3: “Whoever is among you of all his people . . . let him go up to Jerusalem which is in Judah, and rebuild the house of the Lord, the God of Israel—he is the God who is in Jerusalem.” The dispute about the authenticity of this declaration is still going on. 188 However, even those who consider it a mere fiction are inclined to regard some phrases in it, such as “The God who is in Jerusalem” and “Jerusalem which is in Judah” as authentic formulas which were taken and copied by the author from the style of the Persian court. The origin of these expressions was explained in detail by E. J. Bickerman 189 who asserts that “For the ancients a city was the dominion of its tutelary gods” 190 and thus “The God who is in Jerusalem,” equals titles such as “Sin of Ur” and others. It is not a geographical indication but a theological conviction, and expresses the close relationship between the God and the city which is the center of His cult.

185. On the mutual relation of these two, see E. Y. Kutscher, “On the Margins of the Biblical Dictionary,” Lesonénu 30 (1965) 21–23 [Hebrew]. 186. Gesenius-Buhl suggests a similar use in Ethiopic (p. 322). It is followed by Rudolph, Esra–Nehemiah, 92. 187. With perhaps the exception of the problematical Ps 113:9. 188. Not only did the extreme criticism of C. C. Torrey deny it any historical value, but also E. Meyer, who considered all the state-documents in Ezra–Nehemiah as genuine and reliable, excluded Ezra 1:2–4; E. Meyer, Die Entstehung des Judentums (1896) 49; E. J. Bickerman in his detailed discussion, “The Edict of Cyrus in Ezra 1,” JBL 65 (1946) 249–75 had strongly argued for its originality. His conclusion was that “Ezra 1 preserves a genuine edict of Cyrus” (p. 175). This conviction was accepted by H. Tadmor, “The Historical Background of the Edict of Cyrus,” in Jubilee Volume in Honour of D. Ben-Gurion (1964) 450–73 [Hebrew]. However, K. Galling has lately returned to the older view: see “Die Proklamation des Kyros in Esra I,” in Studien zur Geschichte Israels im persischen Zeitalter (ed. K. Galling; Tübingen, 1964) 61–77. 189. Bickerman, “The Edict,” 256–38, 262–68. 190. Ibid., 263.

The Common Authorship of Chronicles and Ezra–Nehemiah

35

The title of God is the origin of the sanctuary’s title: the expression “The house of the God which is in Jerusalem” recurs in various parts of Ezra: 1:4, 5; 2:68; 7:27, and in Aramaic in Ezra 4:24; 5:2, 14; 6:12; 7:15, 17. In Chronicles the title attributed to God and to his temple is completely absent; neither the theological conception nor the external expression occurs even once. 191 The difference is accentuated by such examples which seemingly resemble it, and they are three: 1 Chr 6:17[32]; 2 Chr 3:1, 30:1. In all these instances “in Jerusalem” is a geographical indication and nothing more. In 2 Chr 3:1 it is a part of an accurate designation: “In Jerusalem, on Mount Moriah,” etc. In 2 Chr 30:1 the emphasis is on the fact that the Passover was celebrated in Jerusalem by the whole people. The opposition between Ezra–Nehemiah and Chronicles is clear-cut. An expression which is frequent in the different parts of Ezra–Nehemiah, and which is clearly a product of a certain period, is absolutely missing in Chronicles. D. hdwth The Hithpael of hdy is found in the O.T. 11 times, 4 in the priestly parts of the Pentateuch 192 and the others in Ezra–Nehemiah, Daniel, and Chronicles. Its meaning is “to confess” and it is thus correctly translated in 10 out of the 11 times. In Ezra–Nehemiah it is found 4 times on three occasions: 1. Ezra 10:1: “While Ezra prayed and made confession (wtwdwthk), weeping and casting himself down before the Lord. . . .” 2. Neh 1:6: “Confessing the sins of the people of Israel.” 3. Neh 9:2–3: “And the Israelites separated themselves . . . and stood and confessed (wdwtyw) their sins and the iniquities of their fathers . . . and . . . they made confession (µydwtm) and worshiped the Lord their God.” In all the three events described in the different literary portions, the confession is explicitly connected with prayer, and with external acts of mourning such as fasting, weeping, wearing sackcloth, etc. The same type of confession is also attested to in Daniel. 193

191. It is probable that the expression “the house of the Lord which is in Jerusalem” does not have the same theological significance when spoken by the Jews on one hand, and the Persian emperors on the other. The same is also probable as regards the title µymçh yhla “God of heaven” which is currently used by Nehemiah and Daniel (Neh 1:4, 5, 9; 2:4, 20; Dan 2:18, 19, 37, 44) and is frequent also in the Aramaic parts of Ezra (5:11, 12; 6:9, 10; 7:12, 21, 23). Here, as well, there might be a difference between the same title when used by Cyrus in “The Lord, the God of heaven has given to me all the kingdoms of the earth” (Ezra 1:2). However, the very fact that the writer does not hesitate to use it is significant. (In Chronicles the title µymçh yhla is absent as well, except in the citation from Ezra in 2 Chr 36:23.) 192. Lev 5:5, 16:21, 26:40; Num 5:7. 193. Dan 9:4, 20.

36

Chapter 1

The verb hdwth appears once in Chronicles but its meaning is different, as is also shown in the translation: “So the people ate the food of the festival for seven days, sacrificing peace-offerings and giving thanks (µydwtm) to the Lord” 194 (2 Chr 30:22). The general context is the description of the great joy and happiness during the festival of unleavened bread, which was celebrated in great throngs, including the northern tribes. The parallel to µydwtm is uhl µyllhm, “Praised the Lord,” a further support to the suggested meaning. The full significance of this difference would be clarified by discussion of the subject matter itself. In Chronicles the very phenomenon of confession of sins, which is essentially connected with consciousness of sin, is absent. It is typical of the general atmosphere of Ezra–Nehemiah and opposed to that of Chronicles. E. drj The adj. drj occurs altogether six times in the O.T.; it has two basic meanings: (a) trembling, be afraid of; 195 (b) to feel awe and reverence towards God’s word. In the last meaning it is found in two places, both in the form of a fixed idiom: 196 In Isa 66:2, 5, as yrbd l[ drj and wrbd la µydrj, and in Ezra 9:4, 10:3, as yrbdb drj. 197 uh rbdb drj is a fixed idiom in Ezra–Nehemiah and possibly, although this cannot be proved, a technical term, but in Chronicles it is lacking. F. µynmwzm µyt[ The word ˆmz is a loan word from Aramaic 198 and belongs to late Biblical Hebrew. 199 From it the form ˆmwzm and the phrase µynmwzm µyt[ are derived. The phrase is peculiar to Ezra–Nehemiah and there it occurs in different literary parts: Ezra 10:14; Neh 10:34, 13:31. The word ˆmz and the derived phrase µynmwzm µyt[ are not found in Chronicles. G. ynpl ynwlp l[ dsj hfh µyhwla “God has extended his love to someone before someone” occurs in the O.T. twice, both in Ezra: (1) Ezra 7:28: “Blessed be the Lord . . . who ex194. Ehrlich has suggested a text emendation to µydwm (Randglossen zur hebräischen Bibel [Hildesheim, 1968] 7:378) but his arguments are not convincing. It is equally probable that it was a specific semantic development in Chronicles. The ancient versions testify to the interpretation of thanksgiving. 195. Which is the basic meaning of the root, see BDB, 353; KBL, 331. 196. It seems, although the material is meagre, that the form found in Ezra is later. The earlier usage of the verb is l drj or l[ drj and not b drj as in 1 Sam 4:13 or 2 Kgs 6:13. 197. The difference between (l[)l drj in Isaiah and b drj in Ezra is not revealed by the translation. 198. Its origin, whether from Persian or Akkadian, is not agreed upon. See KBL, 1072. 199. Eccl 3:1; Neh 2:6; Esth 9:26, 27. In Aramaic, Ezra 5:3; Dan 2:16, 21; 3:7, 8; 4:33; 6:11, 14; 7:12, 22, 25.

page is 1 pica long

The Common Authorship of Chronicles and Ezra–Nehemiah

37

tended to me his steadfast love before the king and his counselors.” (2) Ezra 9:9: “Yet our God has not forsaken us . . . but has extended to us his steadfast love before the kings of Persia to grant us some reviving.” The peculiar phrase has no parallel in the O.T. 200 but its use in Ezra is free and organic. However, it is quite limited and in other places, including Chronicles, it is absent. H. hnma The word hnma appears only in Nehemiah and there twice: Neh 10:1[9:38], 11:23. The two instances are found in sections attributed to the Chronicler. In Chronicles, however, the word is missing.

Conclusions Certain parts of the material discussed revealed conspicuous stylistic differences between Ezra–Nehemiah and Chronicles. Other parts exhibit actual opposition between the two. From the linguistic point of view the book of Chronicles deviates in some important points from the tendencies and phenomena of its period, which are extant in Ezra–Nehemiah. A further question is whether we should see here a specific personal trait of a single author or a wider and more general phenomenon. In the use of terms we saw that Ezra–Nehemiah is rather confined to a limited historical provenance. In Chronicles, a later stage in the use of terms is revealed, later even than the latest stratum of Ezra–Nehemiah. Our investigation of the differences between the two books, which was restricted to one field, has proven that the books could not have been written or compiled by the same author. It seems rather that a certain period of time must separate the two. We are certain that a further study of the literary characteristics, the attitude to the sources and their use, and the theological conceptions of the two books will greatly support our conclusions. 200. The development of the peculiar expression might have been as follows: In one instance in the O.T. we find a similar expression: tyb rç yny[b wnj ta ˆtyw dsj wyla fyw πswy ta uh yhyw rhsh, “But the Lord was with Joseph and showed him [lit.: extended to him] steadfast love and gave him favor in the sight [lit.: in the eyes] of the keeper of the prison” (Gen 39:21). The phrases compounded with the word ˆj such as ˆj axm, “find, obtain favor,” ˆj ˆtn, “give favor” or “cause to obtain favor” are connected, in earlier Hebrew, with yny[b, “in the eyes of.” See Gen 6:8, 18:3, etc., Exod 3:21, etc. In Esther the regular usage (sometimes with the substitution of açn for axm—Esth 2:15, 5:2, 7:8) interchanges with ynpl ˆj axm (Esth 7:5) and ynpl ˆj açn (Esth 2:17)—“before.” If we turn now to our expression in Ezra we might suppose that it is actually an elliptic expression, omitting the words ˆj ˆtn and parallel to Gen 39:21. It should be understood thus: Ezra 7:28—wyx[wyw ˚lmh ynpl [ynj ta ˆtyw] dsj hfh yl[w, “. . . who extended to me his steadfast love [and gave me favor] before the King. . . .” Likewise in Ezra 9:6 “. . . and has extended to us his steadfast love [and gave us favor] before the kings of Persia.”

Chapter 2

Conquest and Settlement in Chronicles The book of Chronicles is in essence a “parallel historiography”—a composition which retells the already known story of the history of Israel. This phenomenon, all the more unusual because of the amount of effort the writer put into it, reflects two essential factors of biblical thought and faith: one is the perpetual adjustment to changing situations, in response to the need of new generations to relive the religious experience and to maintain the relevance and validity of the religious concepts for the present; the other is the concept of history as the arena of God’s relationship with the world and hence the role of historiography as the major vehicle for the understanding of God and his ways with man. The book of Chronicles is therefore an unfailing source for the study of the many-faceted concepts of God and history in various stages of biblical faith. 1 The book of Chronicles begins with Adam, the first man, and ends with the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple. Thus, it covers the same time span as Genesis through Kings. 2 However, the descriptions of that time span are different in many ways and the most striking is the difference in the basic outline of the events: in Chronicles, there are great gaps in time, certain periods and events are overlooked and ignored, and the distribution of the material is not the same. 1 Chronicles 1 is a systematic reproduction of all the list material in the book of Genesis 3 and is the Chronicler’s 1. See S. Japhet, The Ideology of the Book of Chronicles and Its Place in Biblical Thought ( Jerusalem, 1977) [Hebrew]; English translation by Anna Barber (Frankfurt, 1989). 2. The extreme limits of that time are marked with different details: the book of Genesis begins with the full story of the creation, while the book of Chronicles just mentions Adam, the first human being; the book of Kings concludes with an element of hope in the episode of the release of King Jehoiachin from the Babylonian prison (2 Kgs 25:27–30), while the book of Chronicles expresses the same approach with the opening sentences of Cyrus’s declaration, authorizing the restoration of the temple and the return of the exiles (2 Chr 36:22–23). On the significance of these verses to the Chronicler’s view of history see ibid., 309–14 [English translation 363–70]. A different attitude to the origin of 2 Chr 36:22–23 is expressed by Williamson who regards 2 Chr 36:21 as the original ending of the Chronicler’s work. See H. G. M. Williamson, Israel in the Book of Chronicles (Cambridge, 1977) 7–10. 3. A detailed table of parallels is found in the commentaries of E. L. Curtis and A. A. Madsen, The Book of Chronicles (ICC; New York, 1910) 17, and J. M. Myers, 1 Chronicles (AB; Garden City, 1965) l–lxii. Two of the lists of Genesis are found later than 1 Chronicles 1: Gen 35:23–26 is summarized in the beginning of 1 Chronicles 2, and Gen 46:8–27 is interwoven in the lists of the tribes in 1 Chronicles 2–8. Only one list, that of the descendants of Cain in Gen 4:7–23, is not reproduced in any way in Chronicles. See M. D. Johnson, The Purpose of the Biblical Genealogies (Cambridge, 1969) 73–74.

38

Conquest and Settlement in Chronicles

39

way of “paralleling” that book. From 1 Chronicles 11 onwards, the history of the monarchy is told: it begins with David as king over all Israel and is prefaced by the story of Saul’s death in 1 Chronicles 10; the whole parallels 1 Samuel 31, 2 Samuel, and 1–2 Kings. The intermediate history of Israel, told in Exodus through 1 Samuel, is not found in Chronicles; instead 1 Chronicles 2–8 has a vast collection of detailed lists, all pertaining to the twelve sons of Jacob, their families, and their settlements. As a result, some of the most important events in the history of Israel, such as the descent into Egypt, the exodus, the revelation at Mount Sinai, the conquest of the land of Canaan, the settlement, and the periods of Joshua, the judges, and Saul are not described. The omission of that part of Israelite history can be explained in one of two ways: either as a literary feature of the Chronicler’s work, reflecting the Chronicler’s lack of interest in periods other than the monarchy and his taking for granted the prior history of Israel, or as an intentional theological feature, expressing an essential aspect of the Chronicler’s view and overall understanding of the history of Israel. The discussion as to which is the correct interpretation can easily turn into a “vicious circle,” and the only way to avoid that is by approaching it from a different angle, namely by studying the matter from its positive aspects—not from what is omitted, but from what is existent. Consequently, the questions which should be asked are: do we find in Chronicles any expression of the author’s attitude toward the periods and events that are omitted from the story? If we do, what is this attitude and how is it related to those found in the Pentateuch and the Former Prophets? And last—does this attitude have any bearing on his general understanding of Israelite history? The point of departure of the present study is the problem of conquest and settlement, but the question of their reflection in Chronicles can be answered only after some of the relevant features of their description in the preceding historiography are outlined. One of the most widely discussed problems of the book of Joshua is that of the contradictory statements regarding the scope of the conquest. 4 On one hand there is Josh 21:43–45 5 which states simply that at the end of Joshua’s time all the objectives were accomplished and the promises to the patriarchs were fulfilled to the word: “Thus the Lord gave to Israel all the land which he swore to give to their fathers and . . . they settled there. . . . Not one of all the good promises which the Lord had made to the house of Israel had failed; all came to pass” ( Josh 21:43–45). On the other hand there are the statements of Judges 1 and various sections in Joshua, as well 4. For a statement of the problem see J. M. Miller, “The Israelite Occupation of Canaan,” in Israelite and Judaean History (ed. J. H. Hayes and J. M. Miller; Philadelphia, 1977) 213–17. 5. Other texts, related to the same view, are Josh 10:40–42; 11:16–20, 23; 12:7–24; 18:1. On their provenance and message see M. Weinfeld, Deuteronomy and the Deuteronomic School (Oxford, 1972) 49–50.

40

Chapter 2

as the general course of Israelite history, which make the “complete conquest” highly questionable. According to these statements the conquest was not completed in Joshua’s time. It was unfinished in two ways: (1) Certain parts of the land, along the coastal strip and in the north, were not conquered at all. They are defined as traçnh ≈rah —“the land that remained”—and are allotted to the tribes, but their conquest is postponed to later generations (Josh 13:1–7). (2) In the midst of the conquered land and within the tribal territories, many Canaanite cities remained unconquered; their relationship with the neighboring Israelite tribes ranged from full subordination to independence and domination. 6 The generally accepted view is that the actual historical situation is more accurately reflected in the statements about the incompleteness of the conquest than in those about the complete fulfillment of the promises; 7 the latter are regarded as expressions of faith and religious conviction rather than of historical facts. 8 Another problematical aspect of the story about the conquest is the issue of the Levitical and priestly cities. According to Joshua 21 the cities were allotted and given to the Levites at the end of the conquest. However, the historical probability of this event is doubted by many. According to other biblical texts, some even in the book of Joshua, many of the cities listed were not at that time in the possession of the Israelites and, therefore, could not have been handed over to the Levites. 9 Scholarly solutions to that problem reflect two basic approaches: one denies the list any historical validity and regards it as an expression of a utopia, either late or early; 10 the other accepts the historicity of the list in principle, but places it in a different historical reality. 11 The two approaches share the unavoidable 6. Sporadic remarks regarding these cities are found in the book of Joshua, referring to Jerusalem in Judah ( Josh 15:63), Gezer in Ephraim ( Josh 16:10) and several cities in Manasseh ( Josh 17:11–12). A more comprehensive list is found in Judg 1:27–36, but the story about the Danites in Judges 18 seems to indicate that even that list is not complete. 7. See most recently Miller, “Israelite Occupation,” 262–84, for discussion and bibliography. 8. The emphasis on “Not one of all the good promises . . . had failed; all came to pass” sounds very much like a polemical statement, which must have its origins in a later time (see 1 Kgs 8:56). For an attempt to regard the statement as contemporaneous and to harmonize the conflicting statements regarding the conquest, see Y. Kaufmann, The Biblical Account of the Conquest of Palestine ( Jerusalem, 1953). 9. A comparison of the list in Joshua 21 with Judges 1 brings up the names of five cities: Gezer, Aijalon, Taanach, Rehob, and Nahalal, mentioned in Josh 21:21, 24, 25, 31, 35; and Judg 1:29, 35, 27, 31, 30 respectively. But it is probable that some other cities, not mentioned in Judges 1, such as Elthekeh, Gibthon ( Josh 21:23) and others, were at that time outside Israelite territory. 10. A late priestly utopia was the solution suggested by the Wellhausen school and is still maintained by many. See J. Wellhausen, Prolegomena to the History of Israel (Edinburgh, 1885) 159–64. Kaufmann regards the list as an expression of a very early utopian ideal, from the beginning of the period of the conquest (Biblical Account, 65–71). 11. The initiators of this view were S. Klein, “The Cities of Priests and Levites and the Cities of Refuge,” Journal of the Jewish Palestine Exploration Society 3 (1934–35) 81–107 [Hebrew]; W. F.

Conquest and Settlement in Chronicles

41

conclusion that the testimony of Joshua 21 cannot be accepted at face value. Although the Chronicler does not tell the story of the conquest, he takes a clear stand on the two problematic aspects of the issue—its geographical scope and the question of the Levitical and priestly cities. He refers to both in one short section in 1 Chr 13:1–5, and before his attitude is analyzed, some introductory words regarding the function of this section in his account are necessary. In contrast to the description of 2 Samuel 5–6, where David’s initiative to bring the ark of God to Jerusalem takes place only after several years of his rule and when his military and political position is firmly secured, 12 the Chronicler describes it as David’s first action after his enthronement and a direct continuation of it. According to 1 Chronicles 10–12, David’s enthronement over all Israel followed Saul’s death without interruption. All the commanders of the army came to Hebron from all over Israel to facilitate the event and to celebrate it, and as part of this event the conquest of Jerusalem was undertaken. 13 David’s first move as king, immediately after the festivities, was to approach “the commanders of thousands and of hundreds, with every leader” (1 Chr 13:1) and to propose the important undertaking of bringing the ark to Jerusalem. 1 Chr 13:1–5 is the Chronicler’s introduction to that event and is, among other things, his statement regarding the geographical scope of Israel at that specific point in time. Verses 2 and 5 of the introduction are explicit statements of boundaries and settlement prefacing the historical narrative. 14

Albright, “The List of the Levitic Cities,” in Louis Ginzberg Jubilee Volume (New York, 1945) 49– 73; B. Mazar, “The Cities of the Priests and Levites,” VTSup 7 (1960) 193–205. These scholars and their followers ascribe the list to the times of David and Solomon. Alt, followed for the most part by M. Noth, ascribes the list to the times of Josiah; see A. Alt, “Bemerkungen zu einigen judäischen Ortlisten des Alten Testaments,” Beiträge zur biblischen Landes und Altertumskunde 68 (1951) 193–210, and M. Noth, Das Buch Joshua (HAT; Tübingen, 1953) 131–32. 12. The order of the events in 2 Samuel 2–5 bears such a strong stamp of political logic, that it is unanimously accepted as historical. David’s consolidation of political and military power, inside and outside the state, is achieved gradually through a series of well-planned political actions. The changes in that order in Chronicles can be accounted for by the Chronicler’s different view of the historical situation and the figure of David. See Wellhausen, Prolegomena, 204; Curtis, Chronicles, 204; W. Rudolph, Chronikbücher (HAT; Tübingen, 1955) 111–13. 13. This is the only way to explain the present literary structure of 1 Chronicles 11, and even so it is not free of difficulties. In agreement with 2 Samuel 5 the conquest of Jerusalem follows the enthronement of David over all Israel (1 Chr 11:4–9 // 2 Sam 5:6–10). But, whereas in 2 Samuel 5 the story continues smoothly with the description of various actions of David in Jerusalem, the Chronicler continues with the celebration taking place in Hebron (1 Chr 11:10– 12:40, esp. 12:23, 38). Since the Chronicler uses 2 Sam 5:6–10 as a unit, the last three verses (1 Chr 11:7–9 // 2 Sam 5:8–10) are not in harmony with the assumed historical situation (see also Rudolph, Chronikbücher, 97). 14. In that respect these verses serve the same purpose as do all the first nine chapters of 1 Chronicles in relation to the book as a whole. See S. Japhet, “The Biblical Historiography in

42

Chapter 2

1 Chr 13:5 states that “David assembled all Israel from the Shihor of Egypt to the entrance of Hammath, to bring the ark of God from Kiriathjearim.” The border formula “from—to” 15 refers to the southern and the northern borders, as do other statements of borders in the Bible, but the combination of its individual elements, “the Shihor of Egypt” in the south and “Lebo Hammath” 16 in the north, is peculiar. The reference to “Lebo Hammath” is quite common: it is mentioned as the limit of the Israelite settlement in the times of Solomon (1 Kgs 8:65), as the extent of the conquests of Jeroboam the son of Joash (2 Kgs 14:25), as the border of the promised land in Num 34:8 and Ezek 47:15, and elsewhere. 17 However, in none of these instances is it paired with the “Shihor of Egypt.” Among the different ways of describing the southern border, one of the most common is “Nahal Mizraim,” the Brook of Egypt, and in several instances the combination of “Nahal Mizraim” and Lebo Hammath is found. 18 The names “Shihor of Egypt” and “the Brook of Egypt” are formulated in the same way: they both relate to Egypt and are both rivers; however, they refer to two different geographical entities which are easily identifiable: “Nahal Mizraim” is Wadi el-ºarish, which empties into the Mediterranean Sea about 30 miles south of Raphia, 19 and “Shihor Mizraim” is the Nile. 20 Thus, the Chronicler’s formulation of the Israelite borders presents the most extreme concept of the Israelite territory to be found in the Bible, and its historical likelihood at any point in Israel’s history is highly questionable. 21 How, then, should his terminology be interpreted?

the Persian Period,” in World History of the Jewish People, vol. 6: The Restoration: The Persian Period (ed. H. Tadmor and I. Ephºal; Jerusalem, 1983) 176–202, 295–303 [Hebrew]. 15. Y. Aharoni, The Land of the Bible (Philadelphia, 1966) 77–78; M. Saebø, “Grenzbeschreibung und Landideal im Alten Testament,” ZDPV 90 (1974) 17–31. 16. On the question of whether awbl should be interpreted as a place name or as “entrance” and its implications for the problem of boundaries, see B. Mazar (Maisler), “Topographical Researches: Lebo Hammath and the Northern Boundary of Canaan,” Bulletin of the Jewish Palestine Exploration Society 12 (1945/6) 91–102 [Hebrew]; English translation: “Lebo Hammath and the Northern Border of Canaan,” in The Early Biblical Period: Historical Studies (ed. S. A˙ituv and B. A. Levine; Jerusalem 1986) 189–202; Aharoni, The Land, 65–67, 70; Saebø, “Grenzbeschreibung,” 22–29. The determination of the exact geographical location is not necessary for the purpose of the present study. 17. Num 13:21; Josh 13:5; Judg 3:3; Ezek 47:20, 48:1; Amos 6:14; 2 Chr 7:8. 18. E.g., 1 Kgs 8:65 (= 2 Chr 7:8); Num 34:5; Ezek 47:19, 48:28. References to Nahal Mizraim alone are in Josh 15:4, 47; 2 Kgs 24:7; Isa 27:12. 19. See Aharoni, The Land, 58. 20. Shihor is an Egyptian word meaning “the water of Horus.” See A. Alt, “Shihor and Epha,” ZAW 57 (1939) 147–48; M. Saebø, “Grenzbeschreibung,” 30–31. 21. On the whole issue of boundaries, see Aharoni, The Land, 58–72; Z. Kallai, “The Boundaries of Canaan and the Land of Israel in the Bible,” Eretz Israel 12 (1975) 27–34 [Hebrew]; idem, “The United Monarchy: A Focal Point in Israelite Historiography,” IEJ 27 (1977) 103–9.

Conquest and Settlement in Chronicles

43

Some scholars regard it as simply a mistake, either by the Chronicler himself or by one of his copyists—a result of ignorance of geographical matters. Their attitude is that, whether or not it is introduced into the text, it is the Brook of Egypt which is actually intended. 22 A general consideration makes this interpretation unlikely: it is not probable that the Chronicler, or one of his copyists, would replace the more common and well attested “Nahal Mizraim” with the rare and quite obscure “Shihor Mizraim.” The general, and in a way obvious, argument is further confirmed by the study of the Chronicler’s source and literary procedure. The name Shihor appears three more times in the Bible: twice in poetical texts where Shihor is a symbol of Egypt (Isa 23:3, Jer 2:18), and once in prose, in the context of the conquest ( Josh 13:3). Joshua 13 is also the only place in the Bible besides 1 Chr 13:5, where the combination of the Shihor of Egypt and Lebo Hammath appears. Considering the Chronicler’s literary method of utilizing existing biblical texts, 23 it seems unlikely that this similarity is coincidental. Moreover, while some of the geographical details of Josh 13:1–7 are not completely clear, it is evident that the southern border is Shihor of Egypt ( Josh 13:3) and that one of the most important points in the north, and the best known, is Lebo Hammath (v. 5). Shihor of Egypt is preceded by the first “from” (ˆm) of the text, and Lebo Hammath by the second to last “to” (d[). The formulation of 1 Chr 13:5 is thus a condensed form of Josh 13:1–6 and its adjustment into a traditional formula of boundaries. 24 The conclusion that Joshua 13 is the source for 1 Chr 13:5 seems inescapable and through the relationship between the texts the Chronicler’s peculiar concepts become even clearer. As was already mentioned, Josh 13:1–7 is a detailed description of “the land that remained”—those parts of the promised land which were not conquered by Joshua and whose conquest was postponed to the future. 25 Certain parts of “the land that remained” were eventually conquered, mostly during David’s intensive military activity; others never were, and were not regarded as Israelite territory. 26 1 Chr 13:5 is, therefore, a unique statement, reflecting an unprecedented concept of the land of Israel. Here the boundaries “from the Shihor of Egypt to Lebo Hammath” are not those of “the land that remained” but the diametrical opposite: those in which the 22. See Curtis, Chronicles, 225; Rudolph, Chronikbücher, 110; K. Galling, Die Bücher der Chronik, Esra, Nehemia (ATD; Göttingen, 1954) 46. 23. See recently T. Willi, Die Chronik als Auslegung (FRLANT 106; Göttingen, 1972). 24. See n. 15 above. 25. The geographical and historical basis of the concept of “the land that remained,” as well as its relation to the allotment of the tribal inheritance, are not completely clear; see Kaufmann, The Biblical Account, 81–83; Aharoni, The Land, 215–17; Kallai, “The Boundaries,” 28– 29, 32. 26. Along the coastal strip the Philistines in the south and the Sidonians in the north were not integrated into the Davidic empire and their ties with Israel at that time are conceived of differently by scholars. See J. Bright, A History of Israel (2nd ed.; Philadelphia, 1972) 183.

44

Chapter 2

people of Israel are actually settled and from which they are summoned to Jerusalem for the transfer of the ark. Moreover, they are not the result of David’s territorial expansion but precede it: in the very beginning of David’s time and in his first days as king, immediately following Saul’s death, the people of Israel are peacefully settled in these extreme boundaries. One also wonders whether the Chronicler’s unusual reference to the people as those “who remain in all the land of Israel” (1 Chr 13:2), although prompted by the context, is not an intentional echo of “the land that remained,” using the same Hebrew root raç with a completely different connotation. The issue of the Levitical and priestly cities is referred to in the same section in v. 2: “. . . to the priests and the Levites in the cities that have pasture lands.” 27 The historical-geographical assumption of this statement is the same as in the previous one: at that point in Israel’s history the priests and the Levites are already settled in their allotted cities in all the parts of the land. This point is made even clearer by another section of Chronicles, namely 1 Chr 6:35–66[50–81]. 28 The greatest part of 1 Chr 6:35–66 is the list of the Levitical and priestly cities (vv. 39b–66[50b–81]) which is an obvious duplicate of Josh 21:1–39. 29 The significance of that duplication is emphasized by the fact that it is one of the very few texts in the book of Joshua that has a parallel in Chronicles, 30 and it is the longest among them. The two parallel lists differ in their structure and in a number of details, due both to redaction and scribal transmission, 31 but the most significant difference is their respective introductions. Josh 21:1–3 describes how the heads of the Levites came to Joshua, to Eleazar the priest, and to the leaders of the tribes, with the explicit demand to receive their share in the inheritance of the land. As a result lots were cast, the cities were named, and “the people of Israel gave to the Levites the following cities and pasture lands out of their inheritance” ( Josh 21:3, also v. 8). The question whether according to Josh 21:3 the listed cities were actually settled by the Levites at that point, or just de27. On the term to çrgm ry[—“a city of a pasture land,” see S. Japhet, “The Supposed Common Authorship of Chronicles and Ezra–Nehemiah Investigated Anew,” VT 18 (1968) 348–50. 28. Many scholars follow Welch and Noth in assuming that either all of 1 Chronicles 1–9 or the greatest part of it is secondary. See A. C. Welch, Post-Exilic Judaism (Edinburgh and London, 1935) 185; M. Noth, Überlieferungsgeschichtliche Studien (Darmstadt, 1957) 122. Refutations of these views are offered by Johnson, Genealogies, 44–55, and Williamson, Israel, 72–82. Although it is possible that in the course of transmission some material was added to that body of lists, as a whole it comes from the Chronicler’s hand. The following discussion is a further confirmation of that view. 29. A careful study of the duplicate versions is carried out by Albright, “The Levitic Cities”; see also Aharoni, The Land, 269–73. 30. A whole paragraph taken from Joshua is Josh 19:1–8 which is found in 1 Chr 4:28–33. In addition, the note in 1 Chr 2:7 is based on Josh 7:1, and 1 Chr 7:29 is based on Josh 17:11, as discussed later. 31. Albright, “The Levitic Cities,” 61–73.

Conquest and Settlement in Chronicles

45

clared as their portion, cannot be answered with certainty because of the ambiguous use of “to give” with regard to territory in the book of Joshua 32 and the overall picture of the book. Thus, from a historical point of view it can still be argued that the text of Josh 21:3 is not conclusive. The introduction in 1 Chr 6:35–39a takes care of both the ambiguity and the historical problem in an explicit manner. The introduction is comprised of two unequal parts: a genealogy of priests in vv. 35–38[50–53] and a short heading in v. 39a[54a]. The genealogy starts with Aaron and enumerates 12 generations to Ahimaaz, the son of Zadok. It agrees fully with the first part of the complete priestly lineage in 1 Chr 5:29b–41[6:3b–15]; therefore, it either is a meaningless repetition 33 or has a different function. It seems that, similar to other lists in 1 Chronicles 1–9, its point and purpose are in the final name. 34 Ahimaaz the son of Zadok is mentioned in 2 Sam 15:27, 36; 17:16–22; 18:19–29, as a contemporary of David, and thus his name serves the Chronicler as a chronological mark, through which the chronological and historical framework of the list is established. 35 The second part of the introduction is comprised of four Hebrew words which are translated as: “These are their dwelling places according to their settlements within their borders” 36 (1 Chr 6:39a[54a]). The language is awkward, as three of the four words are different expressions of one idea and the transition of this part of the verse to that which follows is not entirely smooth. 37 All these only emphasize the Chronicler’s insistence on the idea of settlement. The combination of the two elements of the introduction leaves no doubt as to the Chronicler’s concept of the Levitical cities: they were not just allotted or given, but were all actually settled by priests and Levites in the early days of David’s reign. 38 32. The phrase “the people . . . gave to the Levites” would seem to mean that these cities were available to be given, that is, already conquered and in Israelite hands. However, there are instances in the book of Joshua where a “giving” precedes the conquest, such as Josh 15:13, where Caleb is given a portion which has not yet been conquered (v. 14). 33. Curtis, Chronicles, 127–28. 34. This is the point of many of the pedigrees of individuals, whether their name is put at the beginning of the list or at its end. Some of these individuals are known from other biblical contexts, while others are completely unknown. See 1 Chr 2:18–20, 34–41; 6:18–23, 24–28, 29– 32[6:33–38, 39–43, 44–47]; 7:25–27, and elsewhere. 35. The time of David is the assumed period for other lists in 1 Chronicles 1–9 as well, e.g., 1 Chr 4:28–31, 6:16–34[6:31–48]. 36. As pointed out by Rudolph (Chronikbücher, 230–31), there is a close affinity between our section and 2 Chr 11:13–17, and in both µlwbg is used in reference to the Levites’ settlement. It seems that the translation of the term with “territory” rather than “border,” following 2 Chr 11:13 and other occurrences of the word, is indicated by the context. See BDB, 147–48. 37. Verse 39a[54a] is a general heading referring to all the listed cities and replacing Josh 21:3, while v. 39b[54b] is the beginning of the list proper, parallel to Josh 21:10 ( Josh 21:4–9 is placed differently in 1 Chronicles 6). 38. The Chronicler’s concept of the cities as “settled” and not as “given,” is expressed only in the introduction. The redaction is not carried on in the list itself and the use of “give” is taken from Joshua and repeated; see 1 Chr 6:40, 42, 49, et al. [55, 57, 64, et al.].

46

Chapter 2

Summing up the discussion to this point we can say that 1 Chr 13:5 is the Chronicler’s statement regarding the two problematical issues of the conquest, that of its scope and that of the Levitical cities. However, for the Chronicler the issue is not that of conquest, and it is not connected with either the period of Joshua or with his person. Rather, it is an issue of settlement and inhabitancy and is exclusively bound up with the time of David. Whereas certain isolated elements of the Chronicler’s view are taken from earlier biblical sources, the concept as a whole is unique and does not conform to any of the preceding historical accounts. It does not agree with any of the views of the book of Joshua nor is it in harmony with the description of the historical course given in Judges and Samuel. The inevitable question is whether this concept is an isolated element of the Chronicler’s thought or whether it is part and parcel of a general view of the historical process. Does the Chronicler oppose only certain elements in the preceding historical description, while accepting its basic kernel, or does he have an alternative view, which perceives the whole history of Israel in a different way? It seems that such an alternative view is what underlies the whole of the Chronicler’s attitude toward these periods and also accounts for the omissions that have already been mentioned. The discussion of that alternative view should start with 1 Chr 7:14–29. 1 Chr 7:14–29 is one continuous section, devoted to the genealogies of “the sons of Joseph the son of Israel” (v. 29). 39 It consists of four subsections: the genealogy of Manasseh, in vv. 14–19; a story about Ephraim and his family in vv. 20–24; a pedigree of Joshua, the son of Nun, in vv. 25–27; and a list of settlements in vv. 28–29. The focal point of the section, and its most interesting part, is the story (vv. 20–24) which differs from the other parts in form and style and is similar to certain stories in the book of Genesis. The story is simple. It is a well-rounded, self-contained unit and concludes with an etiological element. 40 It focuses on Ephraim the son of Joseph and his whereabouts; and, although it bears some clear eponymic features, 41 in its present form it is a story about a well-identified individual. The story is based on certain historical assumptions and offers some historical data. The primary assumption is that Ephraim is living “in the land” 39. Noth, followed by Rudolph, regards only vv. 14–19 (in their supposed original form) and v. 20 as original. See Noth, Studien, 118, 121; Rudolph, Chronikbücher, 69–71, and n. 28 above. 40. There are two etiological statements in the section: the explanation of the name h[rb, which is well-connected to the story, although the etymological explanation is rather awkward, and a note about hraç-ˆza which is only loosely attached to the story. Because of the segmentary character of the section and its isolation, the ethnical and geographical background of the etiologies is rather obscure. 41. See A. Malamat, “Origins and the Formative Period,” in A History of the Jewish People (ed. H. H. Ben-Sasson; Cambridge, 1976) 63–66.

spread is 12 points short

Conquest and Settlement in Chronicles

47

(v. 21). His sons are involved in shepherds’ disputes with their neighbors from Gath 42 and are killed in these conflicts (v. 21). Ephraim’s brothers, who apparently are also living in the land, come to comfort their mourning brother (v. 22). Ephraim’s daughter, Sheªerah, is also mentioned; she is the founder of three cities—one that bears her name and is not known from other sources, 43 and two which are among the best-known Ephraimite cities—Upper and Lower Beth Horon. 44 The story as a whole, and in each of its details, emphasizes the relation of the man Ephraim and his immediate family to the land. From a historical point of view the story can be interpreted as relating to the tribe of Ephraim, to its expansion and stabilization in its tribal territory; but the story as a literary unit relates to the individual, the son of Joseph. A comparison of this unit with the established traditions of the Pentateuch immediately reveals the glaring contradictions between them. According to the story of Genesis, Ephraim was born in Egypt to his father Joseph and to his Egyptian mother Asenath, as was his only brother, Manasseh (Gen 41:50– 52). They both died in Egypt along with all the sons of Jacob (Exod 1:6). Only the fourth generation was delivered by Moses from the bondage of Egypt, but except for Joshua and Caleb all were doomed to die in the wilderness and never entered the land (Num 14:26–35). 45 According to this tradition, then, Ephraim never was in the land of Israel and could not have been there: he was born in Egypt and died there. The tradition of 1 Chr 7:20–24 and that of the Pentateuch are thus mutually exclusive and, understood on their own terms, virtually irreconcilable. 46 The same independent concept of history, with apparent polemical overtones, is found in the pedigree of Joshua (1 Chr 7:25–27). Joshua is depicted here as the tenth generation from Ephraim, while according to the Pentateuch he is probably the fourth. Elishama, the son of Amihud, is Joshua’s grandfather in 1 Chr 7:27, while according to Num 1:10 and 2:18 he is the leader of the tribe of Ephraim in the wilderness and therefore 42. Mazar is probably right in identifying Gath with Gittaim of 2 Sam 4:3; on the borders of Ephraim, Benjamin, and the Philistines (or their predecessors) in the northern Shephela: see B. Mazar (Maisler), “Gath and Gittaim,” IEJ 4 (1954) 227–35. 43. See S. E. Loewenstamm, “Uzen Sheªerah,” Encyclopaedia Biblica ( Jerusalem, 1950) 1:187–88 [Hebrew]. This is the only instance in the Bible where the founding of a city is attributed to a woman, and it warrants further study. 44. See Josh 10:10, 11; 16:3, 5; 18:14; 21:22; 1 Kgs 9:17, et al. 45. The view that the generation of redemption was the fourth is expressed in various ways and underlies the genealogies of the Pentateuch wherever a continuous line of generations is found. See Exod 6:16–20, Num 26:5–9. 46. The later Midrash tried to harmonize these contradicting traditions by attributing the story in 1 Chr 7:21–24 to the tribe of Ephraim, and by assuming an independent and unsuccessful attempt of the Ephraimites to leave Egypt before Moses (See b. Sanh. 92b, the Targum at this place, et al.). A similar position, formulated in historical vocabulary, is suggested by W. F. Albright, “New Israelite and Pre-Israelite Sites,” BASOR 35 (1929) 6.

48

Chapter 2

Joshua’s contemporary. The three generations preceding Amihud—Telach, Tahan, and Laadan—are probably different versions of the names of those who are presented in Num 26:35–36 as Ephraim’s sons and grandson. 47 Rephah and Resheph, mentioned in 1 Chr 7:25 as Ephraim’s son and grandson, are not found elsewhere in the Bible. However, the most important difference between the two traditions is not in details such as these, but in the basic assumption which is presented by placing the genealogy in this specific context. The direct line from Ephraim, who is living and functioning in the land, to Joshua ties Joshua to the land as well, and the consequences of that bond cannot be exaggerated. In the major biblical tradition it is Joshua who represents the period and the idea of the conquest. His personal contact with the land began with his mission as one of the spies (Numbers 13), reached its climax with the conquest and the allotment of the land, and ended with his burial in the land of Ephraim ( Josh 24:30; Judg 2:9). In 1 Chronicles 7 the historical situation which provides the necessary conditions for Joshua’s activity is absent. By his being a descendant of Ephraim who is in the land, the possibility of the accepted tradition is ruled out. Joshua did not conquer the land; he simply was there. The following section of the text is a list of the settlements of the sons of Joseph on the western side of the Jordan, 48 first those of Ephraim (v. 28), and then those of Manasseh (v. 29). Five cities are listed in the land of Ephraim and all the names are known from other sources; but the group as such is not found elsewhere and the source of the list cannot be ascertained. 49 On the other hand the four cities of Manasseh—Beth-shean, Taanach, Megiddo, and Dor—appear elsewhere as a distinct group in a specific context: as the Canaanite cities which the sons of Manasseh could not overcome. A note to that effect appears in the Bible twice—in Josh 17:12: “Yet the sons of Manasseh could not take possession of those cities but the Canaanites persisted in dwelling in that land,” and a very similar statement in Judg 1:27. In opposition to this idea, 1 Chr 7:28 begins the list with: “Their possessions and settlements were,” and v. 29 concludes with: “In these dwelt the sons of Joseph the son of Israel,” 50 referring to exactly the same 47. See Rudolph, Chronikbücher, 71–72. 48. The settlement of the Manassites on the eastern side of the Jordan is described in 1 Chr 5:23. On the Chronicler’s view regarding that part of the people see Japhet, Ideology, 301 [English translation 354]. 49. The names are Bethel, Naaran, Gezer, Shechem, and Ayyah, and their common denominator is that they are all bordertowns of Ephraim, and that seems to be the list’s original role. Two of the names are actually prefaced by directions: “eastward” and “westward.” On the geographical problems raised by the list see Rudolph, Chronikbücher, 74. 50. The emphasis on “settle” in both the introductory and the concluding remarks seems to have polemical overtones. While the root bçy as “settle” is quite common in Chronicles, the noun twbçwm is found in Chronicles only two other times: 1 Chr 4:33 and 6:39, dealt with above; hzja is used in Chronicles only three more times (1 Chr 9:2; 2 Chr 11:14, 31:1) and is always attached to another term. Since in Josh 17:11–12 and Judg 1:27 it is the “inhabitants”

Conquest and Settlement in Chronicles

49

cities with the same phraseology. 51 An additional detail pertaining to this point is found in another context. Beth-shean, one of the above-mentioned Manassite cities, has an important role in the story of Saul’s death in 1 Samuel 31. It is a center of the Philistines and the place where the bodies of Saul and his sons were exposed (1 Sam 31:10, 12; and 2 Sam 21:12). In the parallel story of 1 Chronicles 10, Beth-shean is omitted. It is replaced by “the temple of Dagon” in one verse (10), and just ignored in the other (12). The geographical reason is clear; 52 Beth-shean is an Israelite city and cannot be connected with a Philistine environment. The first subsection, vv. 14–19, is very unclear and full of textual problems, 53 but it seems to convey the same concepts. It is probable that the reference to Zelophehad and his daughters (1 Chr 7:15b) is an echo of the traditions relating to him in the context of the wilderness and the conquest, 54 although the full meaning of the echo cannot be ascertained. However, one point in the section is clear enough, and that is the emphasis upon the Aramean elements in the genealogy of Manasseh. 55 The list explicitly mentions Manasseh’s Aramean concubine (v. 14) who is the mother of Machir, the most important Manassite family; it refers also to Maacha, a well-attested Aramean name, as a wife of either Machir or Gilead. 56 The unstated assumption of the list is that Manasseh, the son of Joseph, actually lived in an Aramean environment—a fact which is in harmony with the historical conditions of the tribe of Manasseh, 57 but is irreconcilable with the (ybçwy) of the cities which are not conquered and it is the Canaanites who “are settled” (tbçl), the Chronicler’s terminology seems carefully selected. 51. The affinity between the lists is emphasized by the use of “hytwnbw” in all three texts—a similarity which is lost in the English translation, as the term is translated “and its villages” in Josh 17:11 and Judg 1:27, and “and its towns” in 1 Chr 7:29. The major difference between the lists is the absence of Ibleam in 1 Chr 7:29, which is found, however, in the Septuagint. 52. The geographical sensitivity of the Chronicler and the importance of geographical statements as carriers of theological messages, to which the present study bears witness, were until recently ignored by most scholars. But see Johnson, Genealogies, 57–60; Japhet, Ideology, 255, 299, 309, 316, et al. [English translation 297–98, 352, 372–73, and more]. 53. See the far-reaching emendations introduced by Curtis, Chronicles, 151–53, and Rudolph, Chronikbücher, 68–70. 54. Num 26:33, 27:1–11, 36:1–12; Josh 17:3. This agrees with the Chronicler’s method of including in the genealogies explicit references to various persons who are known from the other biblical books as being connected with the traditions of exodus and conquest. See 1 Chr 2:7, 10, 20, 49; 4:13, 15; 7:25–27. 55. On the Chronicler’s attitude towards mixed marriage in general, see Japhet, Ideology, 295–99 [English translation 346–51]; Williamson, Israel, 60–61. 56. The exact family situation of Maacha depends on the reconstruction of the text. Verse 16 actually mentions “Maacha, the wife of Machir” but from the conclusion of v. 17: “these were the sons of Gilead the son of Machir the son of Manasseh” it can be inferred that Maacha was Gilead’s wife. See Curtis, Chronicles, 152–53. 57. Historically it was the part of Manasseh which settled east of the Jordan that had connections with the Arameans, whereas in our text it is the western part of the tribe which is alluded

50

Chapter 2

dominant tradition in the Pentateuch about the individual Manasseh. 1 Chr 7:14–29 brings in the genealogies and settlements of the two “Egyptians” among the sons of Jacob: Ephraim and Manasseh who, according to the tradition of the Pentateuch, were born in Egypt and died there. With various procedures and literary devices Chronicles purposely plants these persons in a completely different environment, namely the land of Israel. It is likely that the same historical assumptions underlie some of the other genealogical lists of 1 Chronicles 2–9, but the message of those sections is not as apparent. 58 Before concluding our discussion, two more points of the Chronicler’s historical description, which have already been pointed out by previous scholars, should be mentioned and related to our context. One is the place of the exodus in the religious world of the Chronicler, and the other is the role of the patriarchs, the name of Jacob, and the relative significance of Abraham and Jacob. It has been pointed out by various scholars, with different interpretations, that in the book of Chronicles the exodus is not afforded the same major theological significance that it has throughout the deuteronomistic literature. 59 As the deuteronomistic historiography is the Chronicler’s main source, this is all the more surprising and meaningful. It is not only that the story of the exodus is not told in Chronicles and that the whole historical framework in which it is set is absent, but even the references to the exodus in other texts are often omitted in the parallel texts in Chronicles. 60 It is well known that in Chronicles the reference to Jacob is almost always by his name “Israel,” even in stereotyped phrases such as “the God of Abraham, Isaac and Israel.” 61 Williamson has recently pointed out the importance of Jacob in comparison with Abraham in the book of Chronicles, to. Moreover, the names of Machir, and especially Gilead, are strongly connected with the eastern side of the Jordan (see Num 32:39–40, but also Judg 5:14) but are here related to the western side. It is difficult to determine how much of that is a reflection of historical realities—at one period or another—and how much is an expression of theological concepts and aims. 58. The genealogies of Judah, which exhibit strong attachment to the geographical conditions of the Judean hills, are such an example. The paucity and the rigidity of the material concerning Judah in the Pentateuch and the Former Prophets deny us the advantages of comparison, but even so the specific outlook of the Chronicler is clearly seen in 1 Chr 2:21–23 and 4:21. The same applies to the genealogies of Benjamin in 1 Chronicles 8. 59. See, among others, G. von Rad, Das Geschichtsbild des chronistischen Werkes (BWANT 54; Stuttgart, 1930) 65; A. M. Brunet, “Le Chronist et ses Sources,” RB 61 (1954) 361–62, 368–69; R. North, “Theology of the Chronicler,” JBL 82 (1963) 377–78; Japhet, Ideology, 322–27 [English translation 379–86]; for the place of the exodus in deuteronomistic thinking see, among others, G. von Rad, Old Testament Theology (New York, 1962) 1:121–28; H. H. Rowley, The Biblical Doctrine of Election (London, 1950) 37–38. 60. The parallel texts are noted in Japhet, Ideology, 322–23 [English translation 380–82]. 61. 1 Chr 29:18; 2 Chr 30:6. The combination of “the God of” and the three patriarchs is regularly with “Abraham, Isaac and Jacob,” e.g., Exod 3:6, 15, 16; 4:5 et al. Only 1 Kgs 18:36 shares with Chronicles the use of Israel in such a phrase.

Conquest and Settlement in Chronicles

51

and his role as the most emphasized patriarchal figure. The most pregnant text regarding that issue is 1 Chr 16:13, where “Abraham” of Ps 105:6 is changed into “Israel.” 62 It seems that Williamson is right in suggesting that the two facts point to the role of Jacob/Israel as the immediate father of the people of Israel, by whose name they are called. The above two features of the Chronicler’s account, described very briefly, are an integral part of the Chronicler’s view of history. A starting point for the presentation of that view is a text found in the book itself, the psalm in 1 Chr 16:8–36. 63 As is well known, the psalm is a combination of three paragraphs, taken from Pss 105:1–15; 96:1–13a; 106:1, 47–48, respectively. The historical review, presented in the first part, relates to the period which precedes the historical setting of the psalm, namely the time of David, and conforms fully to the general historical plan of the book of Chronicles until that point. Ps 105, from which the first part is taken, is a historical psalm of praise which begins its historical survey with Abraham (v. 8), proceeds with the other patriarchs and relates to all the patriarchs under one theme of the promise of the land (vv. 8–15). The psalm then dwells in detail on the story of Joseph (vv. 16–23); on the bondage in Egypt, the plagues and the redemption (vv. 24–43); and concludes with two short verses on the conquest of the land, as a place for the keeping of God’s law and commandments (vv. 44–45). 1 Chr 16:8–22 is an exact duplicate of that psalm, 64 but it gets only as far as Jacob. In v. 23, when the story of Joseph is to begin, a psalm of praise is introduced: “Sing to the Lord all the earth! Tell of his salvation from day to day.” 65 Read as one continuous psalm, its message is unequivocal: the covenant with the patriarchs is consummated in their time. There is no break, not even any “history,” between Jacob and salvation! The same historical plan is expressed in 1 Chronicles: There is a direct line from Israel the patriarch to Israel the people, and the line is one of natural growth and multiplication, taking place in the natural environment of the land of Israel. 1 Chronicles 2–9 is all that is needed in way of introduction to the historical description starting with David. The chapters set up the historical and geographical scene: the people of Israel in the land of Israel, as a continuous and uninterrupted reality from Jacob/Israel on. Thus, when the historical narrative starts with David’s reign, the entity of 62. Williamson, Israel, 62–64. The change is not found in the rsv to 1 Chr 16:13, which follows the text of Ps 105:6. 63. A study devoted to that psalm has just been published, but although it also ascribes the psalm to the original layer of the book of Chronicles, its approach and conclusions are different from ours. See T. C. Butler, “A Forgotten Passage from a Forgotten Era (1 Chr XVI 8–36),” VT 18 (1978) 142–50. 64. There are some differences between the two versions, but they are mostly trivial. An important theological change in 1 Chr 16:13 was pointed out above. See also ibid., 142–43. 65. The verse is created by a combination of Ps 96:1b and 2b and the omission of vv. 1a and 2a.

52

Chapter 2

people and the entity of land are established facts. The people are there, settled in their tribal territories which extend to the broadest limits. However, the full background includes also 1 Chronicles 1, which presents Jacob himself as merely a link—albeit an important one—in a longer chain. The full line of ancestry begins with Adam, the first man on earth, and it is from this point that the actual line of Israelite history begins. From all the details found in different contexts and seemingly unrelated, a consistent picture emerges. Through the difficult and tedious techniques of “parallel historiography,” careful omissions, additions, and changes in parallel texts, the Chronicler’s own concept of the early history of Israel is presented. It is a most distinctive and revolutionary concept: contrary to most established historical traditions of the Pentateuch and the Former Prophets, the Chronicler presents a concept of people and land which is autochthonic in its basic features. This concept is anchored in broader religious axioms which, in a very marked and idiosyncratic way, set forth the basic relationships between people, land and God of Israel. 66 66. See in detail, Japhet, Ideology, 78–111; 327–33 [English translation 85–124, 386–93].

Chapter 3

Sheshbazzar and Zerubbabel against the Background of the Historical and Religious Tendencies of Ezra–Nehemiah: Part 1 Although archaeological research and epigraphic discoveries have been making an important contribution towards illuminating various sides of the period of the Restoration, 1 the understanding and appreciation of this period are still dependent almost entirely on biblical evidence. The historical continuity of the period, its leading personalities, the institutions, the social structure, the religious and spiritual life, etc.—are all reflected in the biblical literature, and they are the basis for any historical reconstruction. Consequently, any attempt to present a historical picture of that period must come to grips anew with that question of questions: what is the nature of the biblical material? how reliable is it? and in what way should it be utilized? Biblical material is by nature unchanging; we can expect therefore that the questions which arise will have already been asked in the past, and that the texts used as a basis for a solution of the questions will already have been presented. But this does not exempt us from examining once again both the accepted assumptions, the questions, and the methods of their solution. In the circuitous ways of research it is thus that progress is achieved. The principal source for our knowledge of the Restoration Period is the Book of Ezra–Nehemiah, and the question of its use as a historical source is therefore of primary importance in the study of that period. The answer to the question of the book’s character and its reliability as a historical source has depended for many years now on the literary consensus that the book was composed by the author of Chronicles, known as “the Chronicler.” Both extremes of view—from the total rejection of the book as “Midrash” or “belles letters” on one hand, to its acceptance as a faithful historical source on the other—depend on the understanding of the historical work of the author of Chronicles and his evaluation as a historian. Furthermore, all understanding of the essence of Ezra–Nehemiah, its world view, its literary

1. See J. H. Hayes and J. M. Miller, Israelite and Judean History (OTL; Philadelphia, 1977) 493–503; N. Avigad, “Bullae and Seals from a Post-Exilic Judean Archive,” Qedem 4 (1976); E. Stern, The Material Culture of the Land of the Bible in the Persian Period ( Jerusalem, 1973) [Hebrew]; English translation (Warminster, 1982).

53

54

Chapter 3

method, etc.—are absolutely dependent on and determined by the image of the author of Chronicles. 2 However, the research of recent years has shown conclusively that in spite of the similarity between Chronicles and Ezra–Nehemiah, they cannot be seen as the work of the same author, and that they are separated by differences in time, world view, historical understanding and literary method. 3 Yet, while the influence of this change has already made inroads in the research of the Book of Chronicles, it has not yet been felt in the study of the Book of Ezra–Nehemiah, 4 and it is our duty to re-examine: what is the character of Ezra–Nehemiah “per se,” understood as an independent literary entity, freed from dependence on “the Chronicler?” Once the threatening shadow of the Chronicler’s “imagination” is removed, can we accept the evidence of the Book of Ezra–Nehemiah as it stands? What are its world view, its set of historical assumptions, its literary method? The subject and purpose of the Book of Ezra–Nehemiah are to describe the great revival of Israel, which took place from the days of Cyrus and the Return from Exile, until the end of Nehemiah’s office. From this great complex we have chosen to deal with one section: the beginning of the period, from the decree of Cyrus until the completion of the temple—that portion of Israel’s history described in Ezra 1–6. Even here we have limited ourselves for the time being to one set of questions: the figures, positions and activities of Sheshbazzar and Zerubbabel. However, from this starting point light could be shed on the other aspects of the period, and we have referred to them as the need arose. The awareness that Ezra–Nehemiah is essentially a historiographic work necessitates a maximum distinction between two elements: historical facts on the one hand, and the way in which they are presented in the historical descriptions of the period on the other. Such a distinction can shed light both on the historical reality and on the frame of mind and world view expressed in the description of that reality. Of course our ability to distinguish with certainty between these two elements is limited, not only because of the nature of the material but especially because of the scarcity of extra2. For a recent survey of the subject see S. Japhet, “The Historical Reliability of the Book of Chronicles: The History of the Problem and Its place in Biblical Research,” in Isaac Leo Seeligmann (ed. A. Rofé and Y. Zakovitch; 2 vols.; Jerusalem, 1983) 2:327–46 [Hebrew]; English version: JSOT 33 (1985) 83–107 [[and in this volume, pp. 117–136]]. 3. S. Japhet, “The Supposed Common Authorship of Chronicles and Ezra–Nehemiah Investigated Anew,” VT 18 (1968) 330–72 [[and in this volume, pp. 1–37]]; H. G. M. Williamson, Israel in the Book of Chronicles (New York, 1977) 5–82. 4. An exception to the rule is B. Uffenheimer, The Visions of Zechariah ( Jerusalem, 1961) [Hebrew], who regards the distinction between Ezra–Nehemiah and Chronicles as the basis for a literary understanding of the sources and a historical understanding of the period (ibid., 11– 21, 172–77). It will become evident in what follows, that in spite of this resemblance, there are considerable differences between our view and that of Uffenheimer, both as to the date of composition of these books and as to their character and tendencies.

Sheshbazzar and Zerubbabel, Part 1

55

biblical sources and even of biblical sources other than Ezra–Nehemiah. Yet, in spite of this, the attempt must be made. We will begin with the clearer case—the figure and work of Zerubbabel.

I How does the Book of Ezra–Nehemiah describe Zerubbabel? Without, for the time being, making use of the critical scalpel, we will examine the evidence of the book in the light of three points: Zerubbabel’s origins, his status, and his time and activities. (1) His origins. The Book of Ezra–Nehemiah tells nothing at all of Zerubbabel’s origins. The only datum found in the book is the name of his father, Shealtiel. Zerubbabel is either referred to by name, or with the addition of his father’s name, 5 but nothing more. The only possible conclusion is that in spite of his Babylonian name, his father’s name bears witness to his Jewish origins. Other than this detail there is nothing in the book linking him with a specific tribe or family of Israel. (2) His status. All of the conclusions which can be drawn from the Book of Ezra–Nehemiah concerning Zerubbabel’s status are built on considerations of probability or hints from the context—for whenever Zerubbabel is mentioned by name it is always without title, neither “governor” (hjp) nor “Tirshata” (atçrt) nor any other. Whoever would base the question of Zerubbabel’s status on the explicit evidence of the Book of Ezra– Nehemiah would be forced to the extreme conclusion that he had no official status or title. On the other hand—the course of the narrative leaves no doubt that Zerubbabel was one of the leaders of the people. At the head of the list of returning exiles in Ezra 2, 11 or 12 leaders are mentioned, 6 and Zerubbabel is the first among them. In the building of the altar, in the laying of the temple foundations, in the rejection of the adversaries of Judah and in the resumption of work on the building—Zerubbabel is mentioned together with Joshua the son of Jozadak, and both are presented as leaders of the people. Usually the order of mention is Zerubbabel first and Joshua second (Ezra 2:2, 3:8, 4:3, 5:2) although in one place Joshua precedes Zerubbabel (Ezra 3:2). In one place Zerubbabel is mentioned alone with the “heads of fathers’ houses” (Ezra 4:2), but from what follows it seems that also Joshua took part in the event (Ezra 4:3). 7

5. By his name alone: Ezra 2:2 ( = Neh 7:7); 4:2, 3; Neh 12:47. With his father’s name: Ezra 3:2, 8; 5:2; Neh 12:1. 6. In Ezra 2:2 there are 11 names, while the parallel text in Neh 7:7 has 12, the added name being Nahamani. The accepted view is that the original number was 12, as in Nehemiah. See W. Rudolph, Esra und Nehemia (Tübingen, 1949) 6; J. M. Myers, Ezra, Nehemiah (New York, 1965) 12. 7. In 1 Esd 5:65[68], which parallels Ezra 4:2, the text reads: “So they went to Zorobabel and Jesus, and to the chief men of the families. . . .” This is perhaps the original version. So also BH.

56

Chapter 3

For the sake of completeness we should also mention that in Ezra 2:63 there is also reference to the “tirshata” (his highness), and in Ezra 6:7 to the “pa˙at Yehudaye” (governor of the Jews)—both without a name. There are scholars who think that Zerubbabel is intended in one or both of these references, 8 but this identification depends on exegesis and is not explicit in the text. According to the evidence of the book, Zerubbabel is a leader without a title. (3) His time and activities. Zerubbabel is mentioned for the first time in Ezra 2:2 as the first of the leaders under whose guidance the exiles returned from Babylon to Judah. In its present context, the list in Ezra 2 is an enumeration of those returning from Exile immediately after the decree of Cyrus, 9 and the date of Zerubbabel is determined accordingly. The second occasion on which Zerubbabel is mentioned is subsequent to the first. Upon their arrival in Judah, the returning exiles settle in their places, and in the seventh month they gather together in Jerusalem (Ezra 2:70–3:1). At this assembly they built the altar: “Then arose Jeshua the son of Jozadak, with his fellow priests, and Zerubbabel the son of Shealtiel with his kinsmen, and they built the altar of the God of Israel” (Ezra 3:2). The continuation of the description in Ezra 3 deals with the actions of the returnees “in the second year of their coming to the house of God at Jerusalem, in the second month” (Ezra 3:8)—namely, about half a year after the building of the altar. Zerubbabel son of Shealtiel and Joshua son of Jozadak take the first steps toward the building of the temple: they appoint the Levites “to have the oversight of the work of the house of the Lord” (Ezra 3:8), and lay the foundations of the temple (v. 10). This was celebrated by a great crowd with much rejoicing, and subsequently the “adversaries of Judah and Benjamin” approach Zerubbabel and the elders, with the proposition of helping with the building of the temple (Ezra 4:1–2). Their request is refused by “Zerubbabel and Jeshua and the rest of the heads of fathers’ houses” (v. 3), and after this refusal the enemies of Judah take various actions which lead finally to the cessation of building by order of the kings of Persia: “Then 8. The identification of the “governor of the Jews” in Ezra 6:7 with Zerubbabel is found already in 1 Esdras (6:26[27]), a fact which is in harmony with the general tendency of 1 Esdras to glorify Zerubbabel and emphasize his figure; see below. M. Zer-Kavod, The Book of Ezra– Nehemiah ( Jerusalem, 1948) 39, 60 [Hebrew], identifies as Zerubbabel the leader mentioned in the two texts; so also L. H. Brockington, Ezra, Nehemiah and Esther (London, 1969) 65, 83. J. M. Myers is of the opinion that only Ezra 2:63 refers to Zerubbabel; see Ezra, Nehemiah, 20. Some scholars delete “the governor of the Jews” in Ezra 6:7 as a later gloss; see for example W. Rudolph, Esra und Nehemia, 56. 9. The questions concerning the original role of this list and the historical conclusions which should be drawn from it, are among the most important for the understanding of the period, and should be considered separately. In the view of the Book of Ezra–Nehemiah, this is one list, recording the names of the returning exiles in the first wave of return immediately after the decree of Cyrus. See also W. Rudolph, Esra und Nehemia, 7–18. For another discussion of the list, see K. Galling, “The ‘Gola List’ according to Ezra 2 // Nehemiah 7,” JBL 70 (1951) 149–58.

Sheshbazzar and Zerubbabel, Part 1

57

the work on the house of God which is in Jerusalem stopped; and it ceased until the second year of the reign of Darius king of Persia” (Ezra 4:24). Since the Book of Ezra–Nehemiah is not built around a systematic chronological skeleton, and since it lacks a unified framework of dates, 10 we cannot deduce from the book alone how long the work on the temple was interrupted, nor how many years passed between “the second year of their coming,” in which the foundations were laid, and the second year of Darius; but in any case the impression is created that quite some time passed between the two events. In the second year of Darius, under the inspiration of the prophets Haggai and Zechariah, the work of building the temple is resumed, and still it is Zerubbabel son of Shealtiel and Joshua son of Jozadak who stand at the head of the builders. However, this is their last appearance. In all of the following narrative—the conclusion of the work, the completion of the temple and its consecration—they are not mentioned. The description of the whole period ends with the consecration of the temple in the month of Adar, in the sixth year of King Darius (Ezra 6:15), and with the subsequent celebration of the Passover (vv. 22–29). 11 According to the portrait drawn by the Book of Ezra–Nehemiah, Zerubbabel was leader of the people for a long period. He began his activities immediately after the decree of Cyrus, when he came up to Judah with the first wave of returning exiles, and he is explicitly mentioned for the last time in the second year of Darius. In the light of extra-biblical data, which place Cyrus’s first year as king of Babylon at 538 b.c.e. and the second year of Darius at 521 or 520 b.c.e., 12 we see that Zerubbabel’s activities covered a period of 17 years—perhaps more. He was active during the reigns of Cyrus, Cambyses, and Darius, kings of Persia, and stood at the head of the people both in the laying of the temple foundations in the days of Cyrus and in the resumption of building in the days of Darius. This then is the picture seen in the Book of Ezra–Nehemiah. How is it related to what is learned from other sources?

II The clearest aspect is that of Zerubbabel’s origins. Hardly anyone questions the fact that Zerubbabel the son of Shealtiel was of the House of David, a direct descendant of Jehoiachin king of Judah. 13 This statement rests 10. See S. Japhet, “Biblical Historiography in the Persian Period,” in World History of the Jewish People (ed. H. Tadmor and I. Ephºal; Jerusalem, 1982) 6:176–202, 295–303 [Hebrew]. 11. S. Talmon has recently expressed doubts as to the originality of this passage in its present context; see S. Talmon, “Ezra and Nehemiah,” in Interpreter’s Dictionary of the Bible, Supplement Volume (Nashville, 1976) 324. 12. For the chronology of the period, see R. A. Parker and W. H. Dubberstein, Babylonian Chronology 626 b.c.e.–75 c.e. (Rhode Island, 1956) 10–16. H. Tadmor, “Chronology,” in Encyclopaedia Biblica ( Jerusalem, 1962) 4:303–8 [Hebrew]. 13. See in detail: J. Liver, The House of David ( Jerusalem, 1959) 8–12 [Hebrew].

58

Chapter 3

on three biblical sources: Haggai, Zechariah, and Chronicles; but here too certain matters require clarification. According to the genealogy of 1 Chr 3:17–24, Zerubbabel is a direct descendant of Jehoiachin, apparently his grandson. 14 However, contrary to all other testimonies, he is presented here not as the son of Shealtiel, but as the son of his brother Pedaiah. Solutions for this contradiction are suggested by both harmonizers and critical scholars. The harmonistic way is to keep both testimonies and justify the fact that Zerubbabel is presented as son of both Shealtiel and Pedaiah. 15 The critical approach offers two solutions. One is to assume that there is an error in the Masoretic text and that the Septuagint reading “the son of Shealtiel” in 1 Chr 3:19 is correct. 16 The other is to accept the evidence of both texts without compromise and simply to say that we are dealing here with two different men: 17 Zerubbabel the son of Pedaiah, a descendant of the House of David listed in the genealogy of 1 Chr 3:19 but not mentioned in the historical narrative—and Zerubbabel the son of Shealtiel, one of the leaders of the Restoration period who was not included in the genealogy because he had no son to continue his name. In spite of these difficulties, there is no doubt—even for those who regard Zerubbabel son of Shealtiel and Zerubbabel son of Pedaiah as different personalities—that Zerubbabel son of Shealtiel is of Davidic lineage. The most important evidence to this effect lies in the prophecies of his contemporaries, Haggai and Zechariah, for whom Zerubbabel son of Shealtiel is the bearer of the hopes of redemption. Although this is not explicitly stated, he is presented in their prophecies as the heir of the Davidic dynasty. 18 If this is so, then the question of Ezra–Nehemiah’s utter silence concerning Zerubbabel’s origins is unavoidable. It is hard to hold to the claims 14. The beginning of the list is difficult: “. . . and the sons of Jeconiah, the captive (rsa) Shealtiel his son, Malchiram, Pedaiah etc.” (1 Chr 3:17–18). According to the Hebrew version, Jehoiachin had one son, named Asir (represented in the rsv by “the captive”), and the following names, Shealtiel, Malchiram, Pedaiah, etc. indicate the sons of Asir. Zerubbabel would therefore be the great-grandson of Jehoiachin. Yet, it is known even from outside sources that Jehoiachin already had five sons at the beginning of his Exile. (See E. F. Weidner, “Jojachin, König von Juda in babylonischen Keilinschrifttexten,” in Mélanges R. Dussaud [1939] 2:923–35; W. F. Albright, “King Joiachin in Exile,” BA 5 [1942] 51–55.) There are therefore scholars who propose that the word Asir ‘captive’ is a description of Jehoiachin and not the name of his son (see, among others, E. L. Curtis, The Book of Chronicles [Edinburgh, 1910] 101–2). Still others prefer the version of the Peshi†ta, in which the words “his son” are found after the name Asir, and therefore Asir and all the rest are sons of Jehoiachin (see J. Liver, House of David, 9). As far as Zerubbabel is concerned, the conclusion from both methods of interpretation is the same: he would be the grandson, not the great-grandson, of Jehoiachin. 15. See in detail: ibid., 11–12; W. Rudolph, Esra und Nehemia, 18; L. H. Brockington, Ezra– Nehemiah, 53. 16. J. Liver, House of David, 12. 17. W. F. Albright, “King Joiachin,”108–9. 18. See in more detail pp. 62–65 below.

Sheshbazzar and Zerubbabel, Part 1

59

of lack of information or literary and stylistic considerations when we are speaking of a descendant of the House of David, and we can only conclude that the silence is intentional. Why then would the author of Ezra–Nehemiah avoid mentioning and even conceal Zerubbabel’s origins? The answer to this question is to be found imbedded in one of the foundations of Ezra–Nehemiah’s world view—its stand concerning the political reality and its possibilities. The core of this stand is a complete acceptance of the political present and a complete absence of any perspective of change. 19 In terms of the period, namely for the small Jewish community living in Jerusalem and Judah under the rule of Persian emperors, this means the absence of any aspiration toward political independence, the lack of efforts toward national unity and complete silence concerning the whole realm of hopes for the future. Moreover: the existing political reality, as it stands, is understood and described as divine benevolence and as God’s special blessing upon His people. This tendency influences the narrative from beginning to end. Throughout the period, those who actualize the divine will in the history of Israel are the kings of Persia. All of God’s favours toward His people—the building of the temple, the return of the exiles, the establishment of the cult, the enforcement of the Torah and its commandments—all reach the people through the mediation of the kings of Persia, “whose spirit the Lord stirred up.” God does not bring about the history of His people by direct intervention nor by the mediation of the leaders and personages of Israel alone, but rather through indirect action in which the kings of Persia play an indispensable role. The message of revival and redemption, whose purpose is to bring to fulfillment the prophecy of Jeremiah, is brought to the people in the decree of Cyrus king of Persia. In the prologue to that decree (Ezra 1:1) the author tells how “the Lord stirred up the spirit of Cyrus the king of Persia so that he made a proclamation throughout his kingdom. . . ,” and Cyrus himself affirms this in the words of the proclamation (v. 2): “The Lord, the God of heaven, has given me all the kingdoms of the earth, and he has charged me to build him a house at Jerusalem, which is in Judah.” The whole course of events, centering on the building of the temple, depends upon the will and acts of the ruling powers of Persia. In response to the accusations of the “adversaries of Judah and Benjamin,” the work on the building was forcibly suspended until the second year of Darius’s rule (Ezra 4:24), and when the people of Judah resume the work under the exhortation of their prophets, it is endangered by the interference of the governor of the Province Beyond 19. E. Bickerman, From Ezra to the Last of the Maccabees (New York, 1962) 30; W. Rudolph, Chronikbücher (Tübingen, 1955) xxiii. Both scholars see the book of Chronicles as one composition. Consequently, they mistakenly project this concept onto the book of Chronicles as well— and on the other hand fail to see the concept’s full scope. See also B. Uffenheimer, The Visions of Zechariah, 21–22, 176.

60

Chapter 3

the River (Ezra 5:3–17). The continuation of the building now depends on the good will and action of King Darius, and of special interest are the verses at the end of the narrative. Ezra 6:14 reads thus: “and the elders of the Jews built and prospered, through the prophesying of Haggai the prophet and Zechariah the son of Iddo. They finished their building by command of the God of Israel and by decree of Cyrus and Darius and Artaxerxes king of Persia.” The builders themselves are of course “the elders of Judah,” and their activity is inspired by the prophets Haggai and Zechariah—but the order for building the temple is the command of the Lord God of Israel and of the kings of Persia all mentioned by name. In this way the author endeavors to emphasize that all of the actions and decrees of the kings of Persia are according to the command of the Lord, and that this is the way in which He chose to guide the destiny of His people. So also in what follows: “And they kept the feast of unleavened bread seven days with joy; for the Lord had made them joyful, and had turned the heart of the King of Assyria to them, so that he aided them in the work of the house of God, the God of Israel” (Ezra 6:22). The kings of Persia are called here collectively by the symbolic name “the King of Assyria,” 20 which emphasizes the same idea: God brought happiness to His people by turning the heart of the “great king” favorably toward them. Thus, even in the building of His Temple, God does not act directly or by means of the leaders of His people, but rather inclines the heart of the King of Assyria to strengthen the hands of the people in the work of building. In the other portions of Ezra–Nehemiah there is no complete consistency in this matter, and the tone changes somewhat according to the different sources which the book employs. The story of Ezra is written in the same spirit, which finds explicit expression twice. In a rather moderate form, as a description of the kindness of the king of Persia and his counselors toward Ezra, in Ezra 7:27–28: “Blessed be the Lord, the God of our fathers, who put such a thing as this into the heart of the kings to beautify the house of the Lord which is in Jerusalem, and who extended to me his steadfast love before the king and his counselors, and before all the king’s 20. The title “King of Assyria” lacks historical logic. In order to provide it with such logic, L. W. Batten cautiously suggests that perhaps the reference is to one of the satraps of the Persian kingdom, who was called “the king of Assyria” (L. W. Batten, The Books of Ezra and Nehemiah [Edinburgh, 1913] 154). W. Rudolph suggests that the title should be understood as “the king of Syria,” but he does not explain to whom this refers, nor to the historical setting in which it is to be placed (W. Rudolph, Esra und Nehemia, 64). K. Galling chooses the same route, but goes into more detail. In his opinion, one of the Syrian kings before Antiochus IV is meant, and he therefore dates the last editing of the Book of Ezra–Nehemiah ca. 200 b.c.e. (K. Galling, Die Bücher der Chronik, Esra, Nehemia [Göttingen, 1954] 202). All these efforts seem to prove only that the search for a historical solution is pointless, and that the starting point for an understanding of the title should be different. “The King of Assyria” in this context corresponds to “the Great King,” the figure symbolizing the foreign power, the imperialistic force to which Judah is subservient, and by means of which the Lord directs the fate of Israel.

Sheshbazzar and Zerubbabel, Part 1

61

mighty officers.” Then, more essentially, in Ezra 9:9, which views the revelation of God’s loving-kindness and the “reviving” of Israel as accomplished through the mediation of the kings of Persia: “For we are bondmen; yet our God has not forsaken us in our bondage, but has extended to us his steadfast love before the kings of Persia, to grant us some reviving to set up the house of our God, to repair its ruins, and to give us protection in Judah and Jerusalem.” In Nehemiah’s memoirs there is only little of this concept. It is true that the beginning of Nehemiah’s activities depends on the good will of Artaxerxes, represented as God’s influence on the king: “And the king granted me what I asked, for the good hand of my God was upon me” (Neh 2:8), and that the length of Nehemiah’s road to Jerusalem is paved with royal favours (Neh 2:9, 18). But in what follows the figure of the king recedes into the background, and serves mostly as a kind of address in threats aimed at Nehemiah (Neh 5:19, 6:6–7). Basically, God’s actions on behalf of His people are performed directly through Nehemiah and those assisting him. It is thus that Nehemiah says to the people: “The God of heaven will make us prosper, and we his servants will arise and build” (Neh 2:20), and “Our God will fight for us” (4:14). In one place in the Book of Ezra–Nehemiah another undertone may be perceived, considerably different from the spirit of the book as a whole. Here too the explicit expression of future hope is still lacking, but there is a feeling of despair in the face of the present and its sufferings, and in that feeling there is a latent hope of change. At the end of the great prayer in Nehemiah 9, the people complain: “Behold, we are slaves this day; in the land that thou gavest to our fathers to enjoy its fruit, behold we are slaves. And its rich yield goes to the kings whom thou hast set over us because of our sins; they have power also over our bodies and over our cattle at their pleasure, and we are in great distress” (Neh 9:36–37). The source of this prayer is unclear, and as it is an act of confession based on a review of Israel’s history, it could have been written at any time after the Destruction. 21 The author of Ezra–Nehemiah made use of this prayer in the great confession accompanying the reading of the Torah, but apparently cut short its ending. 22 Its bitter description of present reality and its critical tone emphasize the opposing view of Ezra 1–6, in which Persian domination is accepted unquestioningly, and even as an expression of God’s favour. 21. A. C. Welch, Post-Exilic Judaism (Edinburgh, 1935) 26–38. Welch dates the prayer very early, linking it with the destruction of the Northern Kingdom and the Israelite community which arose afterwards in the north—and in this we do not share his view. He does however reveal some of the prayer’s peculiar features, and its special affinity to the Deuteronomistic literature. 22. In its present form the end of the prayer gives the impression of being cut short and incomplete. Its connection to the covenant in Ezra 10 is also difficult. See W. Rudolph, Esra und Nehemia, 172–76. It is possible that the end of the prayer underwent editing specifically because of the different stand of the author of Ezra–Nehemiah.

62

Chapter 3

In the narrative method of Ezra 1–6 then, two elements are interwoven. The first is the description of political fact, according to which the kings of Persia determine even the smallest details of the destiny of those peoples under their rule, making the lives of these people dependant on the good will and favour of the Persian kings. The second element is the full acceptance of this situation, and the understanding of it not only as an expression of God’s will and sovereign guidance of the world, but as a divine grace and as God’s way of redeeming His people. In the framework of this sort of political thought there is no room for change, and even less room for hopes of redemption. The House of David, as the vehicle of aspirations to national unity 23 and as the symbol “par excellence” of salvific hopes, has no place in this world view and therefore is conspicuously absent from the book. 24 What is the place of this world view in the ideological system of the period of the Restoration? Can it be seen as representing the spirit of the age, or is it rather only one line in a more composite picture? As source material, we have at our disposal only the few compositions from the period of the Restoration, and first among them the prophecies of Haggai and Zechariah. Even these are enough to reveal the variegated thought of the period. The positions of Haggai and Zechariah differ, and their approach to the question of redemption and of Zerubbabel’s role is not univocal, but from the prophecies of both we may learn that during the period of the Restoration the returning exiles were stirred by a great eschatological hope, alternately flaming up and flickering low, which was one of the decisive factors in the molding of the character of the people of Judah. The words of Haggai bear explicit witness to the eschatological outlook linked to two focal points: on one hand the temple, and on the other the House of David, in 23. In this matter we should mention especially the prophecy in Ezek 37:15–28, principally vv. 22–24: “And I will make them one nation in the land, upon the mountains of Israel; and one king shall be king over them all; and they shall be no longer two nations, and no longer divided into two kingdoms. . . . My servant David shall be king over them. . . .” The questions concerning the origin and composition of this prophecy, and whether or not it should be attributed to Ezekiel—do not change the message it bears. See W. Zimmerli, Ezekiel (Neukirchen-Vluyn, 1969) 908–9. 24. Some precision is warranted concerning the place of David and the House of David in the Book of Ezra–Nehemiah. King David is mentioned several times in the context of certain cultic practices connected with his name: the writing of the psalms (Ezra 3:10); the introducing of musical instruments in the temple (Neh 12:16); the appointment of singers and porters according to their divisions (Neh 12:45–46); and the appointment of Nethinim to attend the Levites (Ezra 8:20). Mention is also made of geographic locations connected with the House of David, all in relation to the walls of Jerusalem (Neh 3:15, 16; 12:37). However, only one of the descendants of David in the Restoration Period is mentioned in the book, in the passing reference of Ezra 8, which records the list of exiles returning with Ezra. The verse reads as follows: “Of the sons of Phinehas, Gershom. Of the sons of Ithamar, Daniel. Of the sons of David, Hattush. . . .” The reference is apparently to Hattush the son of Shemaiah, mentioned in 1 Chr 3:22.

Sheshbazzar and Zerubbabel, Part 1

63

the figure of Zerubbabel son of Shealtiel. Both of Haggai’s prophecies of redemption open similarly: the prophecy concerning the temple, “. . . I will shake the heavens and the earth and the sea and the dry land; and I will shake all nations” (Hag 2:6), and the prophecy concerning Zerubbabel, “I am about to shake the heavens and the earth” (2:21). Yet, in spite of the similarity in the opening phrases, there are great differences between the two prophecies which show that we are dealing here not with fossilized formulas but with vital and purposeful ideology. The prophecy to Zerubbabel is presented as a personal prophecy: “Speak to Zerubbabel governor of Judah” (2:21), and after the short description of cosmic changes, “I am about to shake the heavens and the earth,” Haggai describes explicitly and unequivocally, in words which cannot be traced to other prophecies, the political change expected in the world of nations: “. . . to overthrow the throne of kingdoms; I am about to destroy the strength of the kingdoms of the nations, and overthrow the chariots and their riders; and the horses and their riders shall go down, every one by the sword of his fellow” (Hag 2:22). This is a vivid and graphic description of the removal of political regimes and the putting to an end of the military might upon which they are built. The results of this change are described in the second part of the prophecy: “On that day, says the Lord of hosts, I will take you, O Zerubbabel my servant, the son of Shealtiel” (Hag 2:23). The combination of the two parts of the prophecy creates a strong feeling of the approach of the end and the actualization of redemption. This is the only place in the Bible where a prophecy of the End of Days is focused upon a historical figure of the present identified by name. The shaking of the heavens and the earth and the overthrow of the throne of kingdoms are at hand, and already Zerubbabel is prepared to be the instrument of the change. What exactly does Haggai destine for Zerubbabel the son of Shealtiel? Apparently his prophecy is an antithesis to the prophecy of Jeremiah. Both prophets use the unique imagery of the “signet” to refer to the destiny of the House of David. Jeremiah says: “As I live, says the Lord, though Coniah the son of Jehoiakim, king of Judah, were the signet ring on my right hand, yet I would tear you off . . .” ( Jer 22:24); and using the same image, Haggai says: “On that day, says the Lord of hosts, I will take you, O Zerubbabel my servant, the son of Shealtiel, says the Lord, and make you like a signet ring, for I have chosen you . . .” (Hag 2:23). 25 Haggai does not explain, however, for what Zerubbabel was chosen. From what is described in the prophecy— 25. It is a generally accepted view that the prophecy of Haggai refers to that of Jeremiah. See already the words of the sages in Song Rab. 8:4, and Rashi’s commentary to the verses in question. See also F. Horst, Die Zwölf Kleinen Propheten, Nahum bis Maleachi (Tübingen, 1938) 203; E. Sellin, Das Zwölfprophetenbuch (Leipzig, 1938) 466; Y. Kaufmann, History of the Religion of Israel (New York, 1977) 4:262; and many others. On the other hand, J. Liver claims that the resemblance between the prophecies is only external, and nothing can be concluded from it. See House of David, 96.

64

Chapter 3

the overthrow of the kingdoms of the nations as the first stage in the choosing of Zerubbabel—we may conclude that Haggai sees Zerubbabel as a king, whose kingdom is made possible by a change in the political structure. The prophecy of Jeremiah to Jehoiachin reads: “Write this man down as childless, a man who shall not succeed in his days; for none of his offspring shall succeed in sitting on the throne of David and ruling again in Judah” ( Jer 22:30). As Haggai’s words are related to this prophecy, we may conclude that from now on, since Zerubbabel has been chosen as a “signet,” he will be “sitting on the throne of David and ruling again in Judah.” All this, however, is only hinted at in the prophecy of Haggai and is not stated explicitly. This very combination, of strong eschatological stirrings on one hand, and hinting, indirect language, on the other, led some scholars to the conclusion that between the lines of his prophecy, Haggai is preaching open rebellion against Persian domination and a redirection of the destiny of Judah by force of arms. Some even claim that such a rebellion actually took place, under the leadership of Zerubbabel and the inspiration of the prophets, leading eventually to the execution of Zerubbabel and also perhaps of Haggai and Zecharia. 26 The data available to us at this stage do not enable us to reconstruct such a rebellion in Israel’s history. 27 Still, whatever may be our opinion about the actual activities toward the liberation of Judah and the enthroning of Zerubbabel, there is no doubt that such tendencies and moods stirred the hearts of the returning exiles during the very period of the troubled beginnings of new life in Judah. The evidence of Zechariah is not as unequivocal as that of Haggai. He also refers to Zerubbabel the son of Shealtiel explicitly and implicitly. Best known are the prophecies of chap. 4, relating to the building of the temple: “This is the word of the Lord to Zerubbabel: Not by might, nor by power, but by my Spirit, says the Lord of hosts. What are you, O great mountain? Before Zerubbabel you shall become a plain . . .” (Zech 4:6–7a). And: “The hands of Zerubbabel have laid the foundation of this house; his hands shall also complete it. Then you will know that the Lord of hosts has sent me to you” (Zech 4:9). Furthermore, in the book of Zechariah there is a large number of prophecies of consolation. Some of these include elements of political liberation, and a man called “the Branch” (jmx) has a central position in them—e.g., Zech 6:12–13, “Behold the man whose name is the 26. See, among others, A. F. von Gall, Basileia tou Theou (Heidelberg, 1926) 188ff.; L. Waterman, “The Camouflaged Purge of Three Messianic Conspirators,” JNES 13 (1954) 73–79; J. Morgenstern, “A Chapter in the History of the High Priesthood,” AJSL 55 (1938) 1–24, 183– 97. Many studies take this view for granted, sometimes even omitting bibliographic references. See for example W. F. Albright, “The Date and Personality of the Chronicler,” JBL 40 (1921) 108. 27. See A. Bentzen, “Quelque Remarques sur le mouvement messianique parmi les juifs aux environs de l’an 520 avant Jesus-Christ,” RHPhR 10 (1930) 493–503; P. Ackroyd, “Two Old Testament Historical Problems of the Early Persian Period,” JNES 17 (1958) 13–22. The latter examines the question principally from the point of view of its correspondence with the chronology of the Persian kingdom.

Sheshbazzar and Zerubbabel, Part 1

65

Branch: for he shall grow up in his place, and he shall build the temple of the Lord. It is he who shall build the temple of the Lord, and shall bear royal honour, and shall sit and rule upon his throne. And there shall be a priest by his throne, and peaceful understanding shall be between them both.” What is the meaning of these prophecies? Are they to be viewed as a call to immediate renewal of the rule of the House of David and even a description of the coronation of Zerubbabel, 28 or are they rather prophecies for the distant future, whose realization is entirely independent of human activity? 29 The great number of consolation prophecies which do not include any political element also raises the question of how much activism may be attributed to Zechariah. The question is, in the main, whether we can detect in the prophecies of Zechariah a consistent and unchanging stand concerning the future destiny of Judah, or rather various shades of opinion resulting from a changing political environment or a composite spiritual attitude. The attempt to view Zechariah’s stand as a consistent whole usually takes into account only one side of his sayings, and sees him either as a preacher of revolt, a “conspirator,” or as someone who puts an absolute division between Israel’s future salvation and political reality of today. A more balanced view demands that his shades of opinion be considered, but given the lack of exterior sources and background material for his prophecies and his fate, the effort to see in his prophecies a process of coming to terms with transformations of political reality is not very convincing and tends somewhat to circular reasoning. 30 Haggai and Zechariah have different prophetic styles, and as contemporaries of the Restoration they express the simultaneous unity and variegation which existed in the spiritual world of that period. It was an era of ferment, and from the little we know it seems to have been marked by messianic stirrings and expressions of hope for liberation, independence and redemption. These hopes were linked to the figure of Zerubbabel son of Shealtiel, the living scion of the House of David. The Book of Ezra–Nehemiah describes the period of the Restoration from a historical distance and after a period of time during which those hopes and ferments flickered and were suppressed. The starting point of the book is not only a different perception of the course of events, but also a different political stand—the essence of which is an acceptance of political facts. This acceptance is not expressed as a political theory and a guide to political action, but takes form as a religious conviction and a way of understanding God’s ways with His people. The political status quo—i.e., a province under Persian rule—is the expression of divine benevolence. No more hopes for the end of days and no more aspirations to independence. The course of events has proven that in this framework, and in no other way, does God choose to save His 28. See L. Waterman, “The Camouflaged,” 76–78. 29. See Y. Kaufmann, History, 4:302–5. 30. See B. Uffenheimer, The Visions of Zechariah, 3–9.

66

Chapter 3

people. The disappearance of the House of David from the Book of Ezra– Nehemiah, and the virtual disavowal of personages of Davidic lineage, is the polemical expression of one line in the religio-historic outlook of the book.

III We have seen that in the Book of Ezra–Nehemiah, Zerubbabel bears no title and his political position is not defined. On the other hand, from the course of the narrative it seems that he is a leader of the people, together with Joshua son of Jozadak. In this too the evidence of Ezra–Nehemiah differs from that of Haggai, who sees Zerubbabel as the governor of Judah, and the recurring formula is: “Zerubbabel the son of Shealtiel, governor of Judah” and “Joshua the son of Jozadak, the high priest” (Hag 1:1, 14; 2:2). His father’s name is omitted in Hag 2:21; and twice in the book of Haggai (1:12 and 2:4) Zerubbabel is mentioned without title. Was Zerubbabel a governor or not? For A. Alt and his school, this question is one storey in a more complex structure. Alt’s opinion is that Judah became a province of its own only in the days of Nehemiah, and during the whole period from the destruction of Jerusalem to the appointment of Nehemiah (586–445 b.c.e.), Judah was considered part of the province of Samaria. 31 In Alt’s opinion, Zerubbabel was merely a commissar—an official appointed for a specific task. The appellation “governor” given him in the book of Haggai is the result of a loose and inexact usage of the various titles, and this claim relates also to other usages of the title “governor” in the literature of the period. 32 Alt’s approach presents many difficulties, and although it has been accepted by many scholars, the dispute around it has steadily increased. 33 And indeed, recently discovered epigraphic material proves that Judah was in fact a province, and it is perhaps even possible to reconstruct the list of governors who ruled in Judah during the period between Zerubbabel and Nehemiah. 34 How are we to interpret Ezra–Nehemiah’s silence in this matter? Is it at all possible to understand it in historical terms—i.e., that the book transmits to us exactly a certain historical reality; or should the interpretation be in literary and ideological terms—i.e., that the author thought it right to conceal 31. A. Alt, “Die Rolle Samarias bei der Entstehung des Judentums,” in KS 2 (1953) 333–37, followed by many others. 32. W. Rudolph deviates from A. Alt’s position concerning the title “governor of Judah” given to Zerubbabel in the book of Haggai. In his opinion this title is essentially different from the indefinite title “governor,” and he explains it as an anachronistic title from the hand of a later author, for whom it was inconceivable that Zerubbabel, the scion of the house of David, should not have been a governor. See W. Rudolph, Esra und Nehemia, 64. 33. See M. Smith, Palestinian Parties and Politics That Shaped the Old Testament (New York, 1971) 193–201; Hayes-Miller, History, 509–11; N. Avigad, “Bullae and Seals,” 32–36. 34. Ibid., 35.

Sheshbazzar and Zerubbabel, Part 1

67

the position of Zerubbabel and deprive him of any title? We will examine the material of Ezra–Nehemiah from two complementary starting points: (1) the use of the title “governor” (hjp); (2) the use of titles in general. (1) Besides “Pahath-moab” as the name of a father’s house mentioned six times in Ezra–Nehemiah, 35 and besides the “jurisdiction of the governors of the province Beyond the River” (rhnh rb[ tjp ask) in Neh 3:7, 36 the title of governor is given to Tattenai, governor of the province Beyond the River (Ezra 5:3, 6; 6:6, 13), to Sheshbazzar (Ezra 5:14), to Nehemiah in Neh 5:14, 15, 18; 12:26—and as a general appellation “the governor of the Jews” in Ezra 6:7. An examination of the term according to its distribution shows that the author of the book uses the term “governor” only as a title for foreign rulers and not for those of Judah, while the rulers of Judah are called “governors” only in the book’s source material and not in the portions from the hand of the author. 37 This fact is especially obvious in two contexts, and the first is the issue of Sheshbazzar. In Ezra 1:8 Sheshbazzar is called “the prince of Judah,” a title which we shall discuss below, while in the Aramaic document of Ezra 5:11–17, not only is Sheshbazzar described as a governor, but it is explicitly stated that he was appointed to that post by Cyrus (Ezra 5:14). The second context is Ezra 6:17 and its relationship to the narrative in which it stands. This is a description of the visit to Jerusalem of Tattenai, the governor of the province Beyond the River, and the people of Judah are referred to throughout as the “elders of the Jews”; there is no mention of any governor of Judah. But King Darius, in his letter to Tattenai, mentions explicitly this functionary as the one appointed to oversee the building of the temple: “let the governor of the Jews and the elders of the Jews rebuild this house of God on its site” (Ezra 6:7). This contradiction could be explained by historical arguments implying that the negotiations with Tattenai were conducted by the elders of the Jews, as representatives of the people, and not by the governor, who represented the Persian authority. But even if we assume that the negotiations took place in this way, how are we to explain the fact that Tattenai, upon his 35. Ezra 2:6, 8:4, 10:30; Neh 3:11, 7:11, 10:15. It seems that this was originally a title, which later became a proper name, but its origins are unclear. The sages saw it as an appellation of the sons of David (according to Rabbi Meir) or the sons of Joab (according to Rabbi Yosi); see b. Taºan. 28a. 36. This expression is unique, and its interpretation difficult. Some think that it refers to the town of Mitspa [Mizpah] because of its special status. See H. L. Ginsberg, BASOR 109 (1948) 21– 22; U. Kellerman, Nehemia: Quellen, Überlieferung und Geschichte (Berlin, 1967) 158. 37. Only in Neh 12:26 is the title “governor” used for Nehemiah outside his own memoirs. It should be asked whether this verse as well is not part of the lists which served as the author’s source material, rather than being from his own hand. This assertion would be strengthened by the fact that Nehemiah appears here before Ezra. Putting aside for the moment the question of the historical accuracy of this view, it is clear that it is contrary to the view of the book’s author, who places Ezra before Nehemiah. W. Rudolph proposes to view the words “Nehemiah the governor” as a later gloss, from historical considerations, with no connection to our argumentation (Esra und Nehemia, 195).

68

Chapter 3

arrival in Jerusalem for the purpose of clarifying the legitimacy of the building, did not turn to his subordinate, the local governor, but went directly to negotiate with the elders of the Jews? Perhaps the inability to solve the contradiction by historical argumentation drove some scholars to the conclusion that the text is corrupt, and that the words “governor of the Jews” are a later gloss. 38 It seems to me that there is here the same tension between the story and its sources which exists also between Ezra 1:8 and Ezra 5:14 concerning Sheshbazzar, and between the evidence of the whole of Ezra–Nehemiah and that of Haggai concerning Zerubbabel. That is to say, that the source used by the author did indeed refer to “the governor of the Jews,” but that the author himself chose to ignore him. To this we may add the rest of the Book of Ezra–Nehemiah: the story of Ezra does not tell us who was the governor when Ezra came to Jerusalem, and the course of events from the beginning of the time of Ezra until the arrival of Nehemiah does not presume the existence of such a functionary. Even Nehemiah is called “governor” only in his own words. 39 It seems, then, that not referring to the rulers of Judah by the title of governor is one of the marks of the author of Ezra–Nehemiah, and not a reflection of a historical fact. (2) The examination of other titles in the book broadens this conclusion and lends it an added dimension; most of interest to us in this respect is the title of Joshua the son of Jozadak. From various testimonies in the Bible we know with certainty that Joshua the son of Jozadak was a high priest, and his name is connected with the Restoration of the Second Temple and its cult. In the book of Haggai he is mentioned several times by his name and title: “Joshua the son of Jehozadak the high priest” (Hag 1:1, 12, 14; 2:2, 4), and in the same way also in the prophecies of Zechariah, even when he stands trial before the heavenly court (Zech 3:1, 8; 6:11). His position as high priest is made clear also in the list of priests, in which he appears as the first of the high priests (Neh 12:10), and there seems to be no doubt about his origins—the grandson of Seraiah, the high priest at the time of the destruction of Jerusalem (1 Chr 6:14, 2 Kgs 25:18). A study of the Book of Ezra–Nehemiah reveals that Joshua the son of Jozadak is not referred to as “the high priest” or by any equivalent title, and only from the context do we know that he was a priest. He is always referred to either by his surname, or with the addition of his father’s name; 40 from Ezra 3:2, “Then arose Jeshua the son of Jozadak, with his fellow priests . . . ,” we learn that he is a priest. The only priest bearing the title “high priest” in the Book of Ezra–Nehemiah is Eliashib, referred to in this manner in Nehemiah’s memoirs (Neh 3:1, 20; 13:28). Could we conclude, 38. See for example ibid., 56; B. Uffenheimer, The Visions of Zechariah, 40. 39. Neh 5:14–18. He also calls the rulers of Judah who preceded him “The former governors who were before me” (5:15). 40. By his name alone: Ezra 2:2, 36 ( = Neh 7:7, 39); 4:3; Neh 12:1, 7, 10. By his name with patronym: Ezra 3:2, 8; 5:2; 10s:18; Neh 12:26.

Sheshbazzar and Zerubbabel, Part 1

69

as scholars have concluded concerning Zerubbabel, that Joshua was not a high priest, 41 and that there was in fact no high priest in Judah before the time of Nehemiah? Here too there is another way of explaining the puzzle. A close look at the narrative of the Restoration shows how the author transfers the emphasis from the leader to the public or its representatives—a tendency which is to be discerned from the very start. After the decree of Cyrus, the exiles arise to go up to Jerusalem, and the returnees are identified as “the heads of the fathers’ houses of Judah and Benjamin and the priests and the Levites, every one whose spirit God had stirred to go up to rebuild the house of the Lord” (Ezra 1:5). Who led this great awakening? Who acted as the exiles’ representative in the royal courts of Persia? In what follows, we read that the vessels of the house of the Lord were entrusted to Sheshbazzar “the prince of Judah” (Ezra 1:8). Whatever may be the meaning of this title, there can be little doubt that some kind of leadership is intended. But the description of his voyage to Judah places him beside the exiles and not at their head. The text tells that “all the vessels of gold and of silver . . . did Sheshbazzar bring up, when the exiles were brought up from Babylon to Jerusalem” (Ezra 1:11). The exiles, as a group, went up to Jerusalem, accompanied by Sheshbazzar with the vessels of the house of the Lord. Even in the list of returning exiles recorded in Ezra 2, there is no mention of a leader of the people. At the head of the people stand 12 leaders identified by their first names, without titles (Ezra 2:2); upon their arrival in Jerusalem they contribute toward the work on the temple: “Some of the heads of families, when they came to the house of the Lord which is in Jerusalem, made freewill offerings for the house of God, to erect it on its site” (Ezra 2:68). 42 This way of describing the Return and its circumstances is all the more striking when compared with the journey of Ezra, in which Ezra stands at the head of the returning exiles, cares for their needs, guides them and brings them safely to Jerusalem (Ezra 8:1–34).

41. This is B. Uffenheimer’s claim. In his opinion, at the time of the return from Babylon described in Ezra 2, Joshua the son of Jozadak was not as yet serving as high priest, and by the time of the dedication of the temple described in Ezra 6, he had already ceased serving in that office (The Visions of Zechariah, 34–35). Even this assertion fails to explain the complete absence of the “high priest” from the book, excepting Nehemiah’s memoirs. 42. In this context, the relationship between the ending of the list in Ezra 2 and the parallel ending in Nehemiah 7 should be re-examined. In Neh 7:70–72, the donations of three contributors are mentioned: the “Tirshata,” the heads of fathers’ houses, and the rest of the people. The text in Ezra 2:68–69 attributes everything to one group—the heads of fathers’ houses. I tend to agree with W. Rudolph’s opinion, that the description in Ezra 2:68–69 is a summary of the original text in Neh 7:70–72 (W. Rudolph, Esra und Nehemia, 26). The deletion of the “Tirshata,” for which Rudolph has no explanation, can be explained by the tendency of the author of the book to limit the role of the leaders and to replace them with the people and its representatives. For another opinion concerning the relation between these sections, see K. F. Pohlmann, Studien zum dritten Esra (Göttingen, 1970) 60–63.

70

Chapter 3

The first activities toward the renewal of the religious life in Jerusalem are all described in Ezra 3: the building of the altar, the renewal of the cult, and the beginning of preparations for the building of the temple. Of the building of the altar it is said: “Then rose Jeshua the son of Jozadak, with his fellow priests (µynhkh wyja), and Zerubbabel the son of Shealtiel with his kinsmen (wyjaw), and they built the altar of the God of Israel, to offer burnt offerings upon it” (Ezra 3:2–3). The building of the altar and all the activities surrounding it were carried out, therefore, by a large gathering. The “fellow priests” of Joshua are well known to us, but who are the “kinsmen”— literally: the “brethren”—of Zerubbabel the son of Shealtiel? Are they other descendants of the Davidic dynasty in Jerusalem, or rather functionaries subsidiary to Zerubbabel? It seems that neither of these suppositions provides a satisfactory solution, and that wyja is just another expression of the author’s tendencies. From his sources, the author knew of two personalities who were leaders of the people: Joshua and Zerubbabel. However, according to his view, the attribution of all action to them does not describe the events as they really occurred. He therefore attributes the building of the altar to the whole public, the people who had assembled in Jerusalem for that very purpose: “the people gathered as one man to Jerusalem” (Ezra 3:1). The description of the assembled people is accomplished by mentioning its two components: the cult personnel, i.e., Joshua the son of Jozadak and his “brethren,” and all the rest of the people, i.e., Zerubbabel the son of Shealtiel and his “brethren.” 43 The same phenomenon is also to be found in what follows, the account of the preparations for the building of the temple. The first activity is the preparation of materials, recorded in the plural: “So they gave money to the masons and the carpenters, etc.” (Ezra 3:7). We are not told who “they” are; perhaps this is the author’s way of indicating an unspecified subject. 44 But following this we have a description of the second action—the appointment of the Levites to be responsible for the building of the temple. 45 43. This would be, then, a merismus—that is, a description of a whole by means of some of its components—the like of which we have not yet encountered, and which testifies to the vitality of this literary form even at this stage of biblical literature. See A. M. Honeyman, “Merismus in Biblical Hebrew,” JBL 71 (1952) 11–18. Concerning the social view itself—the division of the people into two elements: laymen on one hand and cultic functionaries on the other—it could only be said that in this form it is an innovation of the Second Temple Period, and should be more closely examined. H. G. Kippenberg’s opinion, that the social stratification of the people in the Persian Period reflects Persian influence, seems to me unlikely. See H. G. Kippenberg, Religion und Klassenbildung in antiken Judäa (Göttingen, 1978) 69. 44. A. E. Cowley, Gensenius’ Hebrew Grammar (Oxford, 1910) §§144–45. 45. The Levites are appointed “to have the oversight of the work of the house of the Lord” (Ezra 3:8) and to have the “oversight of the workmen in the house of God” (Ezra 3:9)—that is to say they were assigned supervision over the building of the temple. The entrusting of the building to the Levites is an innovation of the Book of Ezra–Nehemiah and has no parallel either in the description of the erecting of the tabernacle or the building of the temple in 1 Kings or Chronicles. It appears that the author of the book interpreted “to do the work in the

Sheshbazzar and Zerubbabel, Part 1

71

What concerns us here is the fact that the Levites are not appointed as overseers of the building exclusively by the contemporary public leader, nor alternately by the high priest, but by the people as a whole: “Now in the second year of their coming . . . Zerubbabel the son of Shealtiel and Jeshua the son of Jozadak made a beginning, together with the rest of their brethren, the priests and the Levites and all who had come to Jerusalem from the captivity. They appointed the Levites . . . to have the oversight of the work of the house of the Lord” (v. 8). In other words, all the activities were performed with the full participation of the people, even including such technical and administrative activities as the appointment of the Levites to oversee the work of building. The continuation of the narrative is dedicated to the description of the people: “But many of the priests and Levites and heads of fathers’ houses . . . wept with a loud voice . . . though many shouted aloud with joy; so that the people could not distinguish the sound of the joyful shout from the sound of the people’s weeping” (v. 13). Upon hearing the joyful shout, the “adversaries of Judah and Benjamin” approach with their request to participate in the building. They turn to “Zerubbabel and the heads of the fathers’ houses,” and they are refused by “Zerubbabel, Jeshua, and the rest of the heads of the fathers’ houses in Israel” (Ezra 4:2–3). In the time of Darius, the building is resumed, and it is Zerubbabel the son of Shealtiel and Joshua the son of Jozadak who stand at the head of the people, as is related by Haggai and Zechariah (Ezra 5:2), but after this first mention they disappear from the scene. The negotiations with Tattenai are carried out by the elders of the Jews, and in the description of the dedication of the temple and the subsequent celebration of Passover, the leaders have completely vanished. The dedication of the temple is done by the “people of Israel, the priests and the Levites, and the rest of the returned exiles” (Ezra 6:16). Even the appointment of the divisions of priests and Levites for the temple worship is attributed to that same great gathering: “and they set the priests in their divisions and the Levites in their courses, for the service of God at Jerusalem, as it is written in the book of Moses” (v. 18). Also, the Passover is celebrated by those “who had returned from exile” (v. 22), and throughout the description there is no mention of the leaders. Even if we assume, as many do, that Zerubbabel was disposed of after Tattenai’s visit to Jerusalem, this still does not explain the nature of the narrative. Not only is Zerubbabel not mentioned, nor any other civil leaders, but even the high priest has vanished from the scene. Is it conceivable that the dedication of the temple, the celebration of the Passover and the appointment of the cultic ministers to their functions could all have been carried out in the absence of the high priest?

tent of meeting” (Num 4:3), which refers to the regular activities in the tabernacle, as relating to the building itself.

72

Chapter 3

The highlighting and centering of the public’s role in the events, and the resultant dimming of the figures and roles of the leaders are particularly striking not only in the comparison of this narrative with other biblical books, but even in comparison with Nehemiah’s memoirs and the story of Ezra, the other two important components of the Book of Ezra–Nehemiah. The figures of Ezra and Nehemiah differ considerably, and the passive character of Ezra pales before the active character of Nehemiah. Even so, these two records are similar in that the personalities of the leaders are placed in their center. Even the struggle between the people of Judah and their adversaries becomes in the story of Nehemiah a struggle between Nehemiah himself and his enemies—Sanballat the Horonite, Tobiah the Ammonite, and Geshem the Arab, 46 while in the story of the building of the temple the struggle is with “the adversaries of Judah and Benjamin” (Ezra 4:1) and “the peoples of the lands” (3:3) and the antagonists are “the people of Judah” and “the people of the land” (4:4). Is the narrative of the Book of Ezra–Nehemiah a reliable reflection of the historical reality? Are the social structure and the position of the leaders in the Restoration Period to be understood in this way? In this matter more than elsewhere, the poverty of material and the lack of explicit evidence prevent us from arriving at clear-cut answers. But, having taken into account this reservation, we can still make a few observations. It is more and more difficult to doubt that Judah was in fact a province from the beginning of the period, and that Zerubbabel the son of Shealtiel was indeed a governor. The origins and status of Joshua the son of Jozadak have never been questioned, and the fact that he is not described in the Book of Ezra– Nehemiah as a high priest has attracted little attention. The other sources of the period, including Haggai, Zechariah, Nehemiah’s memoirs, and the story of Ezra, all bear witness not only to the great importance of the position and role of the leaders, but also to their central place in the life and consciousness of the people. On the other hand, It seems to me that there is also no room for doubt that a real change in the position of the people vis-à-vis their leaders did come about during this period. The destruction of the kingdom and the abolition of the monarchy led to a change in the social structure both among those remaining in the Land and among the exiles in Babylon. The special regime under which the people of Judah lived during the Persian Period—autonomic existence under foreign domination—had an important role in catalyzing the process of decentralization, in which the power of local and family leaders gradually grew. We might call this process “democratization,” with reservations concerning a terminology which does not fully fit the framework of Israelite life, but does hint at the rise of the power of popular representatives in the socio-political structure. “The el46. Neh 2:19–20, 3:33–38[4:1–6], 4:1–9[4:7–15], 6:1–14.

Sheshbazzar and Zerubbabel, Part 1

73

ders of Israel” or “the elders of Judah” in the words of Ezekiel, 47 “the Jews” in the words of Nehemiah, 48 “the heads of the fathers’ houses” and “the elders of the Jews,” in the words of Ezra–Nehemiah, 49 certainly played an important role in maintaining the way of life of the Jewish community, both in Babylon and in Judah. Several descriptions from contemporary literature reflect the rising strength of the people. Especially important is the description of the construction of the city wall in the days of Nehemiah. This was a joint effort of the whole people, working in groups formed according to varying criteria: the fathers’ houses mentioned according to their heads, members of various Judean settlements, guilds of artisans and craftsmen and functionaries both lay and religious. 50 From the description of the building of the wall a picture of the social composition and stratification of the people can almost be reconstructed. Even though the narrative is part of Nehemiah’s memoirs, 51 a context in which Nehemiah is presented as the instigator, organizer, and director of the work—the dry details of the building of the wall still reveal the variegation of the social structure which had its implications, it seems, not only in the actual execution of the project but also in the realm of responsibility and authority. To these data we should also add what is known to us from later periods of Israel’s history. In sources which refer to the Second Temple Period, there is mention of self-governing institutions and bodies which held authority in various areas of community life, such as the Great Assembly, the Gerusia, etc. 52 It is generally assumed that the beginnings and crystallization of these institutions took place in the Persian Period, but this 47. Ezek 8:1; 14:1; 20:1, 3. For the question of the preservation of the ethnic identity of minorities in Babylon, see now I. Ephºal, “The Western Minorities in Babylonia in the 6th–5th centuries b.c.: Maintenance and Cohesion,” Orientalia 47 (1978) 74–80. 48. The word “Jews” has a double meaning in Nehemiah: an appellation of the people of Judah in general (Neh 1:2; 3:33, 34[4:12]; 4:6[4:12]; 13:23) and a title of a certain stratum among the people of Judah, apparently the leadership (Neh 2:16; 5:1, 8, 17; 6:6). See also M. Smith, Palestinian Parties, 151–52, and n. 17 there. It should be pointed out that the term “Jews” is found in only two of the literary components of the Book of Ezra–Nehemiah: in Nehemiah’s memoirs as mentioned above, and in the Aramaic texts, in which “the Jews” refers to the inhabitants of the Province of Judah ( Jehud) (Ezra 4:12, 23; 5:1; 6:7, 8, 14). The title “heads of fathers’ houses,” found in the other portions of the Book of Ezra–Nehemiah, does not appear in Nehemiah’s memoirs; it might be the parallel of the term “Jews” used there. 49. Ezra 1:5; 2:68; 3:12; 4:2, 3; 8:29; Neh 7:70–71; 8:13; 11:13; 12:12, 22, 23; Ezra 5:5; 6:7, 8, 14. For the meaning of the concept twba in Ezra–Nehemiah, see J. P. Weinberg, “Das Beit Abot im 6.–4. Jh. v. U.Z.,” VT 23 (1973) 400–414. 50. See W. Rudolph, Esra und Nehemia, 114–15. 51. For the origins of the list and its place in Nehemiah’s memoirs, see ibid., 113; U. Kellerman, Nehemia, 14–16. 52. I. Gafni, “Gerusia,” in Encyclopaedia Judaica (1971) 7:522–23; A. Schalit, “The Political and Legal Institutions of the Hasmonean State,” in The World History of the Jewish People (RamatGan, 1972) 6:256–65; H. D. Mantel, “The Men of the Great Synagogue,” in World History of the Jewish People (Ramat-Gan, 1977) 8:44ff.

74

Chapter 3

assumption is more of an opinion since we have no means of proving it or of reconstructing the beginnings and development of these institutions. 53 If anything can indeed be deduced from later sources then we have here some evidence of that same process of democratization which led to the establishment of popular representative bodies and the eclipse of leading figures. The section of Ezra 1–6 is probably the latest stratum of Ezra–Nehemiah, and its author is perhaps to be identified with the author of the whole book. 54 This author stands at a considerable chronological distance from the time of Zerubbabel the son of Shealtiel and Joshua the son of Jozadak— a lapse of 100–150 years. 55 He views the period which preceded him from the viewpoint of his own times, and two factors are at work in his narrative: the facts of life in his time and his particular world view. In his time the social and political processes have already come to a certain point of stability and crystallization, and considerable progress has been made in the process of democratization. And yet, it seems that his narrative reflects not only the facts of the later period, but also the author’s definite tendency to increase the power of the public and to place it in the focus of historical events. 56 53. It is interesting to observe the treatment of this question by two authors in one book. Writing about the social autonomy of Judah under the Ptolemies and Seleucids, and referring to the high priest and the Gerusia, M. Stern writes: “Thus the pattern of government in Judea remained, to all intents, the same as that under Persian rule (see Part II). The Gerusia . . . was a direct continuation of the council of the elders of Judah from Persian times” (M. Stern, “The Period of the Second Temple,” in A History of the Jewish People [ed. H. H. Ben-Sasson; Cambridge, 1976] 191). Yet in the preceding part of the book describing the Persian Period, to which Stern refers us, there is no mention whatever of this council of the “elders of Judah.” A feeling of continuity is doubtless justified, but for lack of sources and information it cannot be proved. 54. Although this section describes the earliest period depicted in the Book of Ezra–Nehemiah it seems that as a literary unit it is the latest in the book (contrary to Y. Kaufmann, History, 4:186, 616–17). Many scholars attribute the composition of this section to the last author of the Book of Ezra–Nehemiah, but identify him with the author of Chronicles, thus determining both the section’s date and character. (See, among others, S. R. Driver, Introduction to the Literature of the Old Testament [Edinburgh, 1913] 545–49; W. Rudolph, Esra und Nehemia, xxiii.) Although the identification of the section’s author with the Chronicler is untenable, the relative lateness of the section and its closeness to the author of Ezra–Nehemiah should not be questioned. See S. Japhet, “Biblical Historiography.” 55. The liberation from dependence on the book of Chronicles and its author, helps also in establishing the date of Ezra–Nehemiah on internal evidence. It seems that the last king mentioned in the book is Darius II (423–404 b.c.e.), mentioned in Neh 12:26, or Artaxerxes II (403–359 b.c.e.) according to those scholars who date Ezra’s activity after that of Nehemiah. In their opinion Ezra came up to Judah in the seventh year of the king’s reign, i.e., in 397 b.c.e. (Ezra 7:7). The last-mentioned high priest in the Book of Ezra–Nehemiah is Jaddua the son of Johanan (Neh 12:11 [here “Jonathan”], 22), whose activity also fell at the end of the reign of Darius II and the beginning of that of Artaxerxes II. (See F. M. Cross, “A Reconstruction of the Judean Restoration,” JBL 94 [1975] 9–17.) No material in the Book of Ezra–Nehemiah obliges us, then, to date the book’s composition any later than the first quarter of the 4th century b.c.e. 56. This tendency is highly intensified in the book of Chronicles, which endeavors to illuminate the period of the monarchy in Israel, i.e., the First Temple Period, from a more “democratic” point of view. See S. Japhet, The Ideology of the Book of Chronicles and Its Place in Biblical Thought (Frankfurt, 1977) 352–61 [Hebrew]; English translation by Anna Barber (Frankfurt,

Sheshbazzar and Zerubbabel, Part 1

75

From a literary point of view, we have here a very interesting feature: the tension between the point of view of the author and the period which he is describing is expressed among other ways in the tension between his own composition and the other sources of contemporary or earlier writers. Some of these sources are found in his own book, as foundation stones upon which his composition was built. So we have, in one and the same work, the testimonies both of contemporary documents and of the author of Ezra–Nehemiah, who presents the era in the light of his own times and of his own social and historical views.

IV Concerning the time and activities of Zerubbabel there is also a measure of discrepancy between the Book of Ezra–Nehemiah and other biblical sources. Upon one fact there is agreement: that Zerubbabel was active during the first years of the reign of Darius. This fact is clearly represented in the books of Haggai and Zechariah, whose prophecies are set in exact chronological frameworks. 57 The first prophecy of Haggai is set “in the second year of King Darius, in the sixth month, on the first day of the month” (Hag 1:1), and the last prophecy “on the twenty-fourth day of the ninth month, in the second year of Darius” (2:10, 20); in both prophecies, the prophet addresses Zerubbabel. The first date in the book of Zechariah is “in the eighth month, in the second year of Darius” (Zech 1:1) and the last “in the fourth year of King Darius . . . on the fourth day of the ninth month, which is Chislev” (7:1), and Zechariah too prophesied to Zerubbabel during this time. Both from the framework of dates and from the content of the prophecies, we learn that Zerubbabel was involved in the building activities which began or were resumed at that time. Ezra 5:2, telling of the resumption of work on the temple in the time of Darius, also bears witness to Zerubbabel’s activity during this period. The disputed question is that of Zerubbabel’s activity before Darius, particularly during the time of Cyrus. In the prophecies of Haggai and Zechariah concerning the building of the Second Temple, there is no hint of any earlier activity. Over against the great task of building the temple with which the present generation is struggling, Haggai does not place the first beginnings in the days of Cyrus, whatever those may have entailed, but rather the glory of the First Temple: “Who is left among you that saw this house in its former glory? How do you see it now? . . . The latter splendor of this house shall be greater than the former, says the Lord of hosts” (Hag 2:3, 9). Haggai specifically sets the 1989) 416–28. That this is not the only tendency active during that period is evidenced by the book of 1 Esdras, of which further below. 57. W. Rudolph, Haggai-Sacharja-Maleachi (Gütersloh, 1976) 21, 61—and the chronological table at the end of the book. See also P. Ackroyd, “Old Testament Historical Problems.”

76

Chapter 3

date of the foundation of the temple in the second year of Darius: “Consider from this day onward, from the twenty-fourth day of the ninth month. Since the day that the foundation of the Lord’s temple was laid, consider . . . from this day on I will bless you” (2:18–19). Zechariah too relates to the preceding period as to a complete vacuum. In the second year of Darius he mourns the fate of Jerusalem and turns to the Lord in supplication: “how long wilt thou have no mercy on Jerusalem and the cities of Judah, against which thou hast had indignation these seventy years?” (Zech 1:12). There is no hint that any action was taken for the redemption of Jerusalem before his time. The general impression from the prophecies of Haggai and Zechariah, arising from the way Zerubbabel is presented and referred to, and from the utter silence about the past, is that Zerubbabel’s star has just now risen. That now, with the appearance of a new leader, a scion of the House of David, a new era in Israel’s history has begun. On the other hand, as we have mentioned, the story in Ezra 2–4 relates Zerubbabel’s principle activity to the days of Cyrus. In Ezra 3:8, the laying of the temple foundations is attributed explicitly to him; this fact creates a contradiction within the Book of Ezra–Nehemiah itself. In the story of the visit to Jerusalem of Tattenai, governor of the province Beyond the River, during which the elders of the Jews seek to confirm the legality of the building, the elders tell Tattenai the history of the building and indicate that the foundations were laid by Sheshbazzar (Ezra 5:16). The question of Zerubbabel’s time arises, therefore, from the various texts, both in general and in particular. In general, the question is whether to date Zerubbabel’s activity only in the days of Darius, or to extend it over the whole period—from Cyrus onward. The particular difficulty is in determining, in the light of the contradiction between Ezra 3:8 and 5:16, whether it was Sheshbazzar or Zerubbabel who laid the foundations of the temple. A harmonizing interpretation can solve the contradiction between Ezra 3:8 and 5:16 in one of two ways. The first is to assume that Sheshbazzar and Zerubbabel are two names for the same man, Sheshbazzar being Zerubbabel’s Aramaic name; 58 the second is to attempt a historical compromise, something to the effect that Sheshbazzar was an appointee of the Persian 58. So Abraham ibn Ezra and others on Ezra 1:8. It seems that this view also serves as a basis for the version in several manuscripts of 1 Esd 6:17[18]. The common reading is: “. . . and they were delivered to Zorobabel and Sanabassarus the governor,” but there are some manuscripts which omit the word “and” (kai) before Sheshbazzar, thus turning the two names into one person. See R. Hanhart, Esdrae Liber I (Göttingen, 1974), and S. A. Cook in the edition of R. H. Charles, The Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha of the Old Testament (Oxford, 1913) on this verse. This opinion has been rejected by many scholars—see for example L. H. Batten, The Books of Ezra, 67, 70; A. C. Welch, Post-Exilic Judaism, 105; and many others. More recently, W. Rudolph (following Kosters) has argued that while Sheshbazzar and Zerubbabel were indeed two different people, the author of Ezra–Nehemiah identified them as one man—and this explains the inaccuracies in his book. See W. Rudolph, Esra und Nehemia, 18; W. H. Kosters, Die Wiederherstellung Israels in der persischen Periode (Heidelberg, 1895) 27–28.

Sheshbazzar and Zerubbabel, Part 1

77

government, while Zerubbabel was the “man in the field,” the one who actually dealt with the building activities. 59 The first claim does not however hold water, as both Sheshbazzar and Zerubbabel are Babylonian names; the harmonizing principle of removing contradictions between different traditions by ascribing several names to one personality, is at any rate an illegitimate “wonder cure.” The second claim is nowhere proven, and finds no support except in the very matter which is problematic, i.e., the attributing of the building of the temple to two different men. It seems to me that there is no escape from the conclusion that only one of the records is reliable—the question is, which one? There are scholars who accept the evidence of Ezra 3:8, preferring this narrative to the Aramaic source in Ezra 5:11–17, “whose historical accuracy is not above doubt,” 60 but in fact it has not become evident why the reliability of the Aramaic document should be doubted. 61 If we take the evidence of the story at all seriously, then we must note that the facts related by the elders of the Jews are sent to the royal court for examination; there they are crosschecked in the royal archives and are confirmed. Moreover, the formulation of this document shows that for the elders of the Jews working on the building of the temple in the time of Darius, Sheshbazzar is already a dim figure of the past, referred to only for the sake of accuracy: “. . . and they were delivered to one whose name was Sheshbazzar, whom he had made governor. . . . Then this Sheshbazzar came, etc. . . .” (Ezra 5:14–16). If the witness of the Aramaic document is indeed to be accepted, then the contradiction between the reports still stands. Here too the solution is to be found in isolating the various sources, in observing the relationship between them, and in the clarification of their tendencies. The Book of Ezra–Nehemiah itself offers two different presentations of the matter of Sheshbazzar. In Ezra 1:7–11, it is said that Cyrus returned the temple vessels to the Jews, and they were given to Sheshbazzar: “Cyrus the king of Persia brought these out . . . and counted them out to Sheshbazzar the prince of Judah.” In addition, it is reported that “all these did Sheshbazzar bring up, when the exiles were brought up from Babylon to Jerusalem” (Ezra 1:8–11). And yet in what immediately follows, the list of the returning exiles going up from Babylon to Jerusalem, Zerubbabel and not Sheshbazzar is first among the leaders: “Now these were the people of the province who came up out of the captivity . . . who came with Zerubbabel, Jeshua, etc. . . .” (Ezra 2:1). In the transition from chapter 1 to chapter 2, Sheshbazzar has “vanished.” No more details concerning his actions are 59. Y. Kaufmann, History, 4:194: “Sheshbazzar was the official, public leader; Zerubbabel was the messianic, secret leader. No doubt Sheshbazzar, also, was aware of this, and restricted himself to his official assignment.” For the stand of 1 Esdras and Josephus on this question, see below. 60. S. Talmon, “Ezra and Nehemiah,” 320. 61. See principally E. Meyer, Die Entstehung des Judentums (Halle, 1896) 41–46.

78

Chapter 3

known, and in all subsequent activity it is Zerubbabel who stands at the head of the people. On the other hand, in the short Aramaic document in Ezra 5, a fuller and more coherent picture is presented, according to which Sheshbazzar goes up to Jerusalem and lays the temple foundations, but does not bring the work to completion (Ezra 5:15–17). Could we reconstruct historical fact from these various reports? Three sources are at our disposal: the prophets Haggai and Zechariah, the Aramaic document of Ezra 5:11–17, and the continuous narrative of Ezra 1–6. Haggai and Zechariah concentrate on one short chapter in the Restoration Period—the building of the temple in the first years of Darius’s reign. Their witness is simple and unequivocal: all activity in Judah focuses on the building of the temple, and at the people’s head stand two leaders—the governor Zerubbabel the son of Shealtiel, and the high priest Joshua the son of Jozadak. The two prophets give all their attention to their own period; they mention no earlier activity, but present the deeds of their generation as the first acts of Restoration. The second source, the Aramaic document of Ezra 5:11–17, complements and clarifies this evidence. This document is actually from the very same period, from the days of the renewal of building at the beginning of Darius’s reign; but the main argument of the elders of the Jews is that there is nothing novel in the act of building! The words of the elders complement missing portions of the prophecies of Haggai and Zechariah—everything which preceded the present stage. The principle upon which they stand is the principle of continuity: the temple was built many years before by a great king of Israel, and was destroyed. However, after some time, permission was granted by Cyrus king of Persia to rebuild it. In the argumentation of the elders, the permission of Cyrus is of principal importance (vv. 13–16). The details which they enumerate form together a clear and systematic picture: in the first year of his reign Cyrus permitted the building of the temple; he also took out the temple vessels from Babylon and entrusted them to Sheshbazzar; Sheshbazzar was appointed governor by Cyrus, and was instructed to carry the vessels to Jerusalem and to build the temple; Sheshbazzar did indeed go up to Jerusalem, lay the foundations of the temple and begin the work of building—but did not complete it. While the words of Haggai and Zechariah base everything on novelty, the Aramaic document bases the narrative on coherence and continuity. From a combination of these two witnesses a complementary historical picture arises: Sheshbazzar is the leader of the people and the governor in the days of Cyrus, who lays the foundations of the temple and brings up the temple vessels to Jerusalem; Zerubbabel is the leader and governor in the days of Darius, whose journey to Jerusalem brings in its wake waves of hope for redemption. Under his direction and the inspiration of the prophets, the building is resumed and even completed. The haziness and difficulties in understanding this period arise from the third source— the continuous narrative of Ezra 1–6. The principal problem is the different

spread is 6 points short

Sheshbazzar and Zerubbabel, Part 1

79

understanding of the time and activity of Zerubbabel—a difficulty intensified by the literary fact that the narrative includes the very documents which contradict it, specifically Ezra 5:11–17, with no effort to change the wording of the documents or harmonize them with the context. What is the source of this confusion? For reasons which we can only guess at, the leadership of Sheshbazzar left no real imprint in the life of Israel, either because of its short duration or because of historical circumstances. Less than 20 years after the decree of Cyrus, the elders of Judah are already referring to Sheshbazzar as a distant and unfamiliar figure, “a man whose name was Sheshbazzar.” At the distance from which the author of Ezra–Nehemiah wrote, this figure already appears pushed into a corner, and another personality stands in the foreground. This is the figure of Zerubbabel, in whom the building of the temple is symbolized. The author of Ezra–Nehemiah ascribes to the words of Zechariah, “The hands of Zerubbabel have laid the foundation of this house; his hands shall also complete it” (Zech 4:9), their full literal meaning, and they are his source for Ezra 3:8. According to him, Zerubbabel is both the one who lays the foundations in the days of Cyrus and the one who completes the temple in the days of Darius. There is another factor in this process. The author of Ezra–Nehemiah has a very specific conception of history, which reveals itself clearly in the structure of his book. He sees the whole period in question as divided into two parts, in each of which there are two parallel leading personalities acting side by side. In the first period, described in Ezra 1–6, they are Zerubbabel the son of Shealtiel and, at his side, Joshua the son of Jozadak, the priest. The second period, described in Ezra 7–Nehemiah 13, is the period of Nehemiah and at his side Ezra the priest. 62 Within such a hard and set historical conception, Sheshbazzar becomes a sort of “survival”—a name passed on by tradition but whose exact role in Israel’s history is becoming blurred. Accordingly, Zerubbabel’s activity is stretched out over the whole length of the first period, from the Return and the beginning of the building after the decree of Cyrus until its resumption in the days of Darius. The author of Ezra–Nehemiah makes this conception dominate the description of the period; but the materials which he uses and the other available sources enable us to discern his limits—and to reveal to what extent he records the facts and from which point the narrative is dominated by his historical conception.

V In order to complete the picture, and in an effort to exhaust the data at our disposal, it would be well to clarify the other details concerning the 62. See S. Japhet, “Biblical Historiography.”

80

Chapter 3

figure of Sheshbazzar. Who is this man? What are his origins? What is his position? Sheshbazzar is mentioned in the Book of Ezra–Nehemiah only twice: in Ezra 1:7–11 and in Ezra 5:14–16. In both places he is referred to only by name, without even a patronym, and there are no details concerning his origins. His title in Ezra 1:8 is “prince of Judah,” and in Ezra 5:14 he is described as a governor. Ezra 1:7–11 ascribes to him the receiving of the temple vessels from Cyrus king of Persia by means of Mithredath the treasurer, and their transferal to Jerusalem; in Ezra 5:14–16, both the bringing up of the vessels and the laying of the temple foundations are attributed to him. The nature of the material determines that the discussion of Sheshbazzar has two points of departure, independent and yet possibly related. The first—the possibility of identifying Sheshbazzar with Shenazzar the son of Jehoiachin mentioned in 1 Chr 3:18; and the second—the title “prince of Judah” given him in Ezra 1:8. (1) Already at the end of the last century, E. Meyer suggested that Shenazzar and Sheshbazzar are two different forms of one Babylonian name. Although in the course of time different suggestions were offered concerning the Babylonian source of the names and the processes which led to the emergence of the two forms, Meyer’s opinion was accepted by many scholars. 63 If this assumption is correct, then Sheshbazzar is Shenazzar the son of Jehoiachin, and a fact of great importance is added to our knowledge of his origins. In addition, other conclusions regarding the role of the House of David at the beginning of the Persian rule could be drawn. Our ability to decide this question is limited. The preliminary question is whether such a phenomenon is at all possible from the point of view of linguistic processes—and here grave doubts arise. 64 However, even should we answer that question positively, the identification of the two men is still but a probability. Some considerations support this identification: on one hand there is a leader mentioned only by name, called “prince of Judah,” a title laden with associations which can easily be understood as referring to a descendant of the House of David; and on the other hand there is, in the very generation, a son of Jehoiachin king of Judah, bearing a name so similar as to lend itself to interpretation as a variant—and this man is virtually a “natural” candidate for that position and title. Another consideration is the fact that the Persians appointed Zerubbabel, of the House of David, to the post of governor of Judah; we might then ask whether this was not a consistent policy, and whether they would not have chosen another descendant of 63. See E. Meyer, Die Entstehung, 76–77; idem, ZAW 18 (1898) 343–44; W. F. Albright, “The Date and Personality,” 108–10. 64. See recently, P. R. Berger, “Zu den Namen rxanç und rxbçç,” ZAW 83 (1971) 98–100. He thinks that these names derive from two different Babylonian names and have no connection between them.

Sheshbazzar and Zerubbabel, Part 1

81

David before Zerubbabel. There is yet another consideration. We have seen that one of the most characteristic traits of the Book of Ezra–Nehemiah is its anti-eschatological stand, which causes it to conceal the Davidic origins of Zerubbabel the son of Shealtiel. It should be asked, then, whether this same tendency may have influenced the treatment of Sheshbazzar. From the point of view of genealogy, Sheshbazzar is an extraordinary case in the Book of Ezra–Nehemiah. Although the book does not usually go to great lengths in recording the genealogy of its heroes, 65 it does at least the minimum of mentioning the father’s name: Zerubbabel the son of Shealtiel, Joshua the son of Jozadak, Nehemiah the son of Hacaliah, etc. Sheshbazzar is the only leader mentioned only by his name, without a patronym. This fact could of course serve as an added proof for those scholars who claim that Sheshbazzar was not a Jew at all, but a Persian functionary appointed by Cyrus, and his father’s name is rightly not recorded. 66 But Sheshbazzar’s special role, about which there is the agreement of all the sources—i.e., the bringing of the temple vessels to Jerusalem—greatly weakens the possibility of that supposition. 67 Perhaps, then, there is some special reason for the suppression of his father’s name. Can we assume that this was because he was the son of Jehoiachin? The mention of his father would immediately give away his Davidic origins, and the author, true to his tendency, chose to forget this fact and called Sheshbazzar by name only. All these considerations raise Sheshbazzar’s Davidic origins to the level of probability, but they 65. The only person for whom the book provides an extended genealogy is Ezra the scribe, in whose family tree 16 generations are mentioned, going back to Aaron (Ezra 7:1–5). In this list, Ezra the scribe is linked directly to a standard genealogy of the house of Aaron—of the kind found in 1 Chr 5:29–40—which reaches to Seraiah, the last priest of the First Temple. In this schematic and artificial way, Ezra becomes a contemporary of the Destruction and the heir of the high priest. The historical and religious assumptions of the list require separate consideration, but it is difficult to assume that the list was composed by the author of Ezra–Nehemiah. 66. The assumption that Sheshbazzar was not a Jew is found already in Josephus’s narrative, according to which Sheshbazzar is “the eparch of Syria and Phoenicia” in the Restoration Period. The same opinion is also expressed by certain scholars, e.g., W. H. Kosters, Wiederherstellung, 28–29; A. C. Welch, Post-Exilic Judaism, 98–101, and others. 67. How the return of the temple vessels to Jerusalem was envisioned at the time could be learned from the short prophecy in Isa 52:11–12: Depart, depart, go out thence, touch no unclean thing; go out from the midst of her, purify yourselves, you who bear the vessels of the Lord. For you shall not go out in haste, and you shall not go in flight, for the Lord will go before you and the God of Israel will be your rearguard.” This depiction shows similarities to the journey of Israel in the wilderness after the Exodus, the most outstanding of which being the purity and holiness of the bearers of the vessels. It is most difficult to assume that such a description would have been possible if the vessels had been entrusted to a Persian official.

82

Chapter 3

are by nature indecisive. The possibility still exists that the name of Sheshbazzar’s father was simply forgotten in the course of time and was unknown to the author of Ezra–Nehemiah. We have already pointed out that a certain distance and lack of familiarity is evident in the words of the elders about Sheshbazzar, after a lapse of one generation (Ezra 5:14–16). It is possible, then, that the author of Ezra–Nehemiah had no more sources than those he included in his book, and he left us only what he found before him. (2) Sheshbazzar’s title “the prince of Judah” (Ezra 1:8). The title ayçn is not found elsewhere in the Book of Ezra–Nehemiah, and therefore its interpretation rests on the use of ayçn in other biblical sources. The most accepted interpretations are two: either according to the most common meaning of ayçn as head of a tribe, that is to say: the head of the tribe of Judah—or according to the meaning of ayçn in the prophecies of Ezekiel, as a title of the king. 68 There are difficulties in both interpretations. According to the concept of the People of Israel in the Book of Ezra– Nehemiah, which we can touch on here only briefly, the Restoration and the subsequent renewal of Jewish community life involved only three tribes: the lay tribes of Judah and Benjamin, and the tribe of Levi. This outlook finds expression in several ways: in explicit statements, such as “Then rose up the heads of the fathers’ houses of Judah and Benjamin, and the priests and the Levites . . .” (Ezra 1:5); “Now when the adversaries of Judah and Benjamin heard . . .” (4:1); “Then all the men of Judah and Benjamin assembled” (10:9); in various lists, such as the list of returning exiles in Ezra 2, in which the settlements can be identified within the tribal boundaries of Judah and Benjamin; in the list of the residents of Jerusalem in Neh 11:3– 9, divided according to “the sons of Judah,” “the sons of Benjamin,” “the priests,” “the Levites,” and “the gatekeepers” (Neh 11:4, 7, 10, 15, 19); in the list of settlements in Neh 11:25–36; etc. It seems therefore that a description of Sheshbazzar as the head of the tribe of Judah in such a context would be rather surprising. The second possibility is also difficult. If accepted as it stands, it might lead to very far-reaching conclusions. This indeed is the approach of Liver, who is of the opinion that at the beginning of the Restoration Period, Judah held the status of a vassal kingdom, and that Sheshbazzar held the kingship, or some similar position. According to Liver, the status of Judah later changed, and it became a province from the time of Zerubbabel onward. 69 For this view, however, there is really no support, and it seems to push to an extreme the conclusions from the use of the title ayçn. 68. See the entry “ayçn” in Biblical Dictionaries, such as BDB, 672. For the first meaning, see Num 1:16, 44; 2:3; 7:2 etc.; for the second meaning—Ezek 12:10, 12; 19:1; 21:30; 34:24, etc. See also M. Noth, Das System der Zwölf Stämme Israels (Stuttgart, 1930) 151–62. 69. J. Liver, “The Return from Babylon, Its Time and Scope,” Eretz Israel 5 (1958) 116. [Hebrew, English summary 90*].

Sheshbazzar and Zerubbabel, Part 1

83

It seems to us that the title “prince of Judah” should be understood otherwise, with the point of departure being the word “Judah.” Besides being the name of a tribe and of a kingdom, “Judah” has another meaning which is the dominate one in this period: i.e., the Province of Judah—that geographic and administrative area referred to in contemporary Aramaic documents and seals by the name “Yehud,” 70 and in the fuller form of Ezra 5:8 “Yehud medinta” (Province of Judah). This is the meaning of the name “Judah” in other places in the Book of Ezra–Nehemiah, e.g., “Jerusalem which is in Judah” (Ezra 1:2, 3)—which does not mean “Jerusalem in the tribe of Judah” or “Jerusalem in the kingdom of Judah” or even “Jerusalem in the mountains of Judah,” but rather Jerusalem in the Province of Judah. Thus the name is to be understood also in Ezra 2:1, 4:6, 9:9, etc. From the name of the province its residents derive their name of Judeans = aydwhy in Aramaic and µydwhy in Hebrew (Ezra 5:1, 5; 6:7, 8, 13; Neh 1:2, etc.). “The prince of Judah” 71 is then, in the political conditions of the time, the ruler of the Province of Judah. It may well be that in this title we have a unique attempt to find a Hebrew equivalent for the Aramaic “pe˙a” (governor), an attempt which does not recur. I have claimed above, on the basis of other considerations, that the evidence of the Aramaic document in Ezra 5:11–17 should be accepted literally. Among other things, this document calls Sheshbazzar a governor, and attributes his appointment to Cyrus. If our interpretation of the title “prince of Judah” is correct, then the contradiction between Ezra 5:14–15 and Ezra 1:8 is only apparent, and according to this testimony as well Sheshbazzar was the first governor of Judah in the Restoration Period. Our discussion of one segment of the history of Israel—the period of the Restoration—serves as a sample for the main problem confronting the student of biblical history: the differentiation between historical facts, “things as they really happened,” and the forms in which they were transmitted, mainly historiography. The discussion of the Restoration Period focuses primarily on the questions revolving around Zerubbabel and Sheshbazzar— their origins, status, time, and actions—yet through these investigations light has been shed on other aspects of the period as well. The main source of data for the description of this period is still the book of Ezra–Nehemiah, a source which certainly does not display homogeneity and speaks in multiple voices, those of its various, unharmonized sources, and that of its author. Our approach to the book of Ezra– Nehemiah is based on the assumption—now gaining ground—that it is a 70. N. Avigad, “Bullae and Seals,” 1–36. E. Stern, Material Culture, 200–206, 221–23 [English translation 202–9, 224–27]. 71. The Hebrew hdwhyl ayçnh (the prince of Judah) is apparently an unusual form of the construct state, to be paralleled to larçyl ˚lm (king of Israel) in the Aramaic portion, Ezra 5:11; see F. Rosenthal, A Grammar of Biblical Aramaic (Wiesbaden, 1961) §47, p. 25.

84

Chapter 3

composition separate from the book of Chronicles; that its literary method, historical understanding, world view, and historical reliability should be studied independently of the Chronicler and his idiosyncratic features. In addition to Ezra–Nehemiah evidence from other relevant material, particularly from the prophecies of Haggai and Zechariah, is also adduced in an attempt to gain a clearer picture of the period as well as a better understanding of the historical and spiritual positions of the various authors.

chapter top drop

Chapter 4

Sheshbazzar and Zerubbabel against the Background of the Historical and Religious Tendencies of Ezra–Nehemiah: Part 2 I We have seen, 1 that in spite of the scanty material in the Book of Ezra– Nehemiah, and in spite of its literary complexity, we can still discover several meaningful aspects in which the tendencies of the author influenced the shaping of the image of the period and of its leading personalities. In order to complete the picture, and especially in order to clarify and highlight the tendentiousness of the Book of Ezra–Nehemiah, we would like to examine certain aspects regarding Sheshbazzar and Zerubbabel in two other historical compositions. These two, dependent on and continuing the Book of Ezra–Nehemiah, are known as 1 Esdras and Book 11 in Josephus’s Jewish Antiquities. 2 We do not intend to examine at length the question of the relationship between these compositions. It is a well known fact that Josephus preferred 1 Esdras to the Book of Ezra–Nehemiah, and only in reference to Nehemiah, for whom he did not find the necessary material in 1 Esdras, did he make use of Ezra–Nehemiah as a source. 3 Concerning the relationship of 1 Esdras and Ezra–Nehemiah there is no consensus of opinion. 4 We will therefore confine ourselves to a comparison of the relevant material, and perhaps from that material some light might be shed on the wider problem. 1. See ZAW 94 (1982) 66–98; [[reprinted in this volume, pp. 53–84]]. 2. The editions we used are as follows: for 1 Esdras: the Cambridge edition of A. E. Brooke, N. McLean, and H. St. J. Thackeray, The Old Testament in Greek (1935) vol. 2/6 and the Göttingen edition of R. Hanhart, Esdrae Liber I (1974), and the English translation in the edition of R. H. Charles, The Apocrypha and the Pseudepigrapha of the Old Testament (Oxford, 1913) vol. 1. For Josephus: B. Niese, Flavi Iosephi Opera (Berlin, 1892) vol. 3, and the English translation of: R. Marcus, Josephus (London, 1937) vol. 6. 3. See the extensive treatment of these questions in K. F. Pohlmann, Studien zum dritten Esra (Göttingen) 74–126. Pohlmann himself is of the opinion that Josephus did not know Ezra– Nehemiah, but only 1 Esdras; see ibid., 114–26. 4. See C. C. Torrey, “A Revised View of First Esdras,” in L. Ginzberg Jubilee Volume (1945) 395–410; Rudolph, Esra und Nehemia, iv–xix; Pohlmann, Studien, 9–73.

85

86

Chapter 4

We have seen that the Book of Ezra–Nehemiah systematically ignores Zerubbabel’s origins—a fact which is well explained by the anti-eschatological outlook of the book. This outlook stands in tension with and in contradiction to other widespread views of the Restoration Period, and is one aspect of the author’s stand concerning the political actuality of Judah in the Persian Period. The position of 1 Esdras on this point differs both from that of Ezra–Nehemiah and from the positions of Haggai and Zechariah. Its general political outlook is similar in spirit to that of Ezra–Nehemiah, and there is no sign of the stirrings which characterized the Restoration Period. On the other hand, there is also no sign of the sensitivity and reservations concerning the origins of Zerubbabel, and 1 Esdras does not hesitate to mention them. 1 Esd 5:7–46 parallels the list of the returning exiles in Ezra 2:1–70, including the list’s heading (Ezra 2:1–2, 1 Esd 5:7–8). But in 1 Esdras there is also an additional introduction, linking the story of the three young guardsmen with the list of returnees 5 (5:4–6). This addition introduces the two leaders of the people—Joshua and Zerubbabel. The description of Zerubbabel not only indicates his Davidic lineage, but points it out in great detail: “. . . Zorobabel, the son of Salathiel, of the house of David, of the lineage of Phares, of the tribe of Judah” 6 (5:5). To this we should, it seems, add another verse. In Ezra 6:7 Darius commands Tattenai “let the governor of the Jews and the elders of the Jews rebuild this house of God on its site.” In the parallel text of 1 Esd 6:26[27], this “governor of the Jews” is identified as Zerubbabel: “. . . suffer Zorobabel, the servant of the Lord and governor of Judaea, and the elders of the Jews, to build that house of the Lord in its place.” The title “servant of the Lord” given to Zerubbabel is probably to be linked with Hag 2:23, the only place where Zerubbabel is called “my servant.” The author of 1 Esdras does not indeed enlarge upon the hopes 5. This section is regarded by many as composed by the author of 1 Esdras; see O. Eissfeldt, The Old Testament: An Introduction (1966) 576. And see further n. 8. 6. There is a textual difficulty in this verse. The text as it stands reads: “Jesus the son of Josedek, the son of Saraias, and Joakim the son of Zorobabel, the son of Salathiel, of the house of David, of the lineage of Phares, of the tribe of Judah.” It is very difficult to assume that the author meant to relate one of the priests to the house of David and the tribe of Judah; it is an accepted view therefore that with the words “Zorobabel the son of Salathiel” a new name is begun, the word “and” before it having been lost. The difficulty in the text focuses then on the words “and Joakim the son (of).” Of the several solutions offered to resolve this difficulty I will mention two: the first reads “and Joakim his son”—(F. M. Cross, “A Reconstruction of the Judean Restoration,” JBL 94 [1975] 10 n. 34)—or “and Joakim the son of Yeshua” (A. Kahana, HaSefarim HaHizonim [1959] 1:592 [Hebrew]); this reading is in harmony with the heading which speaks of “the priests” in the plural. The second suggestion assumes that “Joakim” is “Joiachin.” The original wording was, then: “and Zorobabel the son of Salathiel the son of Joiachin, etc.” and the words “the son of Joiachin” were subsequently misplaced. See A. Büchler, “Das apokryphische Esrabuch,” MGWJ 41 (1897) 56; Rudolph, Esra und Nehemia, xi. All of the above does not affect the fact that Zerubbabel’s genealogy is given here in full, indicating his Davidic ancestry.

Sheshbazzar and Zerubbabel, Part 2

87

placed upon Zerubbabel, but he does not avoid mentioning the title given him by Haggai, thus calling the prophecies to mind. These were probably intended to glorify Zerubbabel, and are therefore connected with the second point in the description of the period—that is, the question of the image and role of the leaders, and of Zerubbabel in particular. We have seen that the narrative in Ezra 1–6 is formed along the line of “democratization,” attempting to moderate the role of individual leaders and to describe the whole people, with its representatives, as the historical protagonist. There are various facets to this line: Zerubbabel and Joshua were given no title, and their appearances were usually together with a large assembly of the people and its representatives. It also should be pointed out that besides the accounts of their activities, nothing is told about them to glorify their image, point out their virtues, or cite their words of wisdom or piety. 1 Esdras takes a different approach. The extensive addition in the book, the story of Darius’s three pages (“young men of the bodyguard,” 1 Esd 3:1–5:3), is in essence the “story of Zerubbabel,” the point of which is to present us with a figure rich in wisdom, piety, and love for his people—the figure of Zerubbabel. This supplement changes completely the quantitative proportion of the narrative, and Zerubbabel becomes the most important figure of the Restoration Period—even more than Ezra the scribe. It seems today very unlikely that the story of the three pages is a reliable reflection of historical reality. 7 It is generally accepted as a non-Jewish folktale, of which the Jewish reworking is superficial; and the identification of the “third page” with Zerubbabel is among the latest elements in the story’s editing. 8 The insertion of the story into the narrative sequence is a result of the theological and literary tendencies of the author. 9 He was already dissatisfied with the dry description of Ezra 1–6, built entirely around official documents. Furthermore, the eclipse of Zerubbabel’s figure did not 7. But see S. A. Cook, 1 Esdras, in R. H. Charles, The Apocrypha, 1:33. 8. See C. C. Torrey, “The Story of the Three Youths,” AJSL 23 (1907) 183–87. A. Shallit, “The Date and Place of the Story about the Three Bodyguards of the King in the Apocryphal Book of Ezra,” Bulletin of the Jewish Palestine Exploration Society 13 (1946–47) 119–28 [Hebrew], English summary, vi. Pohlmann, Studien, 35–48. In spite of general agreement as to the origin of the story, some scholars, following Torrey, consider its conclusion (1 Esd 4:42–5:6) a part of the original narrative, to be regarded as historically meaningful. See for example Batten, Ezra– Nehemiah, 79; Cross, “A Reconstruction,” 12 (concerning 4:58–5:6). 9. There is today no dispute about the fact that the story of the three pages is an interpolation, a impertinent addition into the narrative (see Pohlmann, Studien, 35). The debate concerns principally the scope of the addition (see the preceding note) and the identity of the interpolator. Torrey assumes that 1 Esdras reflects basically the original form of the Chronistic composition, and does not therefore attribute 1 Esdras to a special author, other than the Chronicler. For him, the addition is an unidentified “interpolation,” whose author had a certain historical conception; this interpolation as well underwent a later editing. Torrey, “A Revised View,” 395–401. In our opinion, 1 Esdras is a self-contained composition, showing clear literary and ideological lines; we therefore tend to attribute to its author the introduction of the story into the narrative sequence. See also Rudolph, Esra und Nehemia, xiv–xv.

88

Chapter 4

correspond, in his opinion, to historical fact. The whole supplement adds nothing to our knowledge of historical occurrences, but serves as an instructive expression of the author’s aim: the glorification of the figure of Zerubbabel, who in spite of his success in the royal court and his intimacy with King Darius, did not forget his duty to his people, and made the king’s favor toward himself an important instrument in the redemption of his nation. The author of 1 Esdras enlarges Zerubbabel’s role in other portions of the narrative as well. I have already mentioned that he adds a new introduction to the list of returning exiles, in order to link it with the story of the three pages. The whole point of the introduction is to supply what is missing in the list itself: a suitable presentation of the two leaders of the Return: Joshua the son of Jozadak and Zerubbabel the son of Shealtiel. The author of 1 Esdras does not content himself with the list of 12 leaders mentioned in 5:8 (Ezra 2:2), even though the first 2 are Zerubbabel and Joshua; he introduces these 2 leaders separately and explicitly by supplementing a heading to the list, putting Joshua before Zerubbabel. 10 In the continuation of the narrative, Zerubbabel’s name is added in places where it does not appear in the Book of Ezra–Nehemiah. In Ezra 5:14, the elders mention that the temple vessels were given by Cyrus to Sheshbazzar, who brought them up to Jerusalem. The parallel text in 1 Esd 6:17[18] adds Zerubbabel’s name to Sheshbazzar’s: “. . . those Cyrus the king brought forth again out of the temple in Babylonia, and they were delivered to Zorobabel and to Sanabassarus the governor.” 11 We have already mentioned 1 Esd 6:26[27], which identifies as Zerubbabel the anonymous “governor of the Jews” of Ezra 6:7. In the continuation of the same letter, which differs in several instances from the version in Ezra–Nehemiah, the author of 1 Esdras again mentions Zerubbabel. According to Ezra 6:8–9, Darius commands Tattenai to give “to these men” “young bulls, rams or sheep for burnt offerings to the God of heaven.” Here too, 1 Esdras (6:28[29]) identifies “these men” with “Zorobabel the governor,” 12 and makes him the recipient of the donations for temple sacrifices from the hand of Tattenai. We have here, then, a systematic attempt to glorify the figure of Zerubbabel, expand his role, and place him more unequivocally in the position of leader of the people. On the other hand, there is no such effort in 1 Esdras 10. The cause of this change of sequence is not clear. There are no additional changes of this kind in the book, and there is certainly no preference of Joshua over Zerubbabel. Rudolph thinks that the change in order stems from the awareness that in a list of returnees, the priests should be placed at the head of the list—as in Ezra 8:2 (1 Esd 8:29). Rudolph, Esra und Nehemia, xi. 11. On the text of the verse, see ZAW 94, 91 n. 58 [[part 1, above, p. 76 n. 58]]. 12. These two passages—1 Esd 6:26[27] and 6:28[29]—are the only ones in which Zerubbabel is called “governor.” This means that the author has no reservations about using this title, but neither does he see any need to add it in other places, or to attribute to Zerubbabel any other title.

Sheshbazzar and Zerubbabel, Part 2

89

regarding Joshua the son of Jozadak. His name is added to the narrative only in one place, together with Zerubbabel the son of Shealtiel, in the heading of the list of returnees mentioned above. 13 In the same context his relationship to Phinehas the son of Aaron is mentioned, but the author of 1 Esdras, like the author of Ezra–Nehemiah, does not call him “high priest” either here or elsewhere, and does not add to his image or role. The result is a considerable diminishing of the principle of “pairing”—that is to say, the viewing of Zerubbabel and Joshua as two parallel and complementary leaders. This view is stressed by the constant references to Zerubbabel and Joshua together, both in Haggai and in the Book of Ezra–Nehemiah. The author of 1 Esdras does not eliminate this co-leadership in those places where it already exists in Ezra–Nehemiah, but other than in 5:5, introducing an existing list, he does not mention it in his own narrative. As he highlights the figure of Zerubbabel and expands his role, Joshua the son of Jozadak stands no longer as his equal but, to a great extent, in his shadow. The way in which 1 Esdras describes Zerubbabel’s position and role may well have been one of the principal reasons which led Josephus to choose 1 Esdras and not Ezra–Nehemiah as the source-material for his narrative. On the basis of 1 Esdras’s account, Josephus further expands Zerubbabel’s role and makes him the central figure of the Restoration Period, overshadowing both Ezra and Nehemiah. 14 This is not the place to analyze all the additions and changes in the description of the period, as that is a subject for special consideration in itself, but I will refer to the principal points which bear on our discussion. Josephus mentions Zerubbabel’s origins only once, in the same context as 1 Esdras: after the story of the three pages. He refers to the leaders of the Return, “Zorobabelos, son of Salathielos, who was of the tribe of Judah, being one of the descendants of David, and Jesus, son of the high priest Josedokos” (11.3.10 [73]). Zerubbabel’s Davidic ancestry is presented more succinctly than in 1 Esdras, but nevertheless explicitly. Elsewhere, however, no mention is made of it, and it has no influence on the narrative. On the other hand, Josephus calls Zerubbabel “the leader of the Jews,” 15 in order, so it seems, to lend him greater importance, in harmony with the general aim of the whole narrative. The importance attributed by Josephus to Zerubbabel is expressed first of all quantitatively: of the five sections which he dedicates to the period 13. On 1 Esd 5:65 paralleling Ezra 4:2, see ZAW 94, 69 n. 7 [[part 1, above, p. 55 n. 7]]. 14. Shallit has shown that “in several books of the first half of Antiquities, if not in all, one can discern one or two personalities attending at the center of the narrative, with the plot unfolding around them” (Qadmoniot Ha-Yehudim [1955] 1:lvii [Hebrew]). Shallit offers examples of this trait from the first ten books of Antiquities, but to these should be added Book 11, in which the whole first part is centered around the figure of Zerubbabel. 15. In 11.1.3 (13–14) he is called aßrcwn tΩn IoudaÇwn; in 11.4.1 (75) he is called simply oJJ aßrcwn; and in 11.3.1 (32) he is called hJgem∫n. The question whether, in changing the title, Josephus intended also to indicate a change in status requires separate consideration.

90

Chapter 4

paralleling the Book of Ezra–Nehemiah, four are parallel to Ezra 1–6 (or more precisely 1 Esdras 2–7). Moreover, Josephus lengthens the span of Zerubbabel’s activity, placing its beginning at the start of the period (11.1.3 [13–14]), 16 and its end after the dedication of the temple and the subsequent Passover celebration. At this point he mentions again the plottings of the Samaritans, due to which “the people of Jerusalem therefore resolved to send an embassy to King Darius . . . ; the envoys were Zorobabelos and four other leaders” (11.4.9 [116]). Thus Zerubbabel’s activity is presented as the last event during Darius’s rule. It seems that it is the impression left on the reader by Ezra 5–6—in which Zerubbabel suddenly “disappears”—which induces Josephus to add this final portion to the narrative, bringing the era and Darius’s rule to a conclusion with a reference to Zerubbabel. Zerubbabel’s place is also emphasized in the course of the narration. For example: the story of the three pages in 1 Esdras mentions Zerubbabel in an incidental note whose secondary character in the text is obvious: “Then the third, who had spoken of women, and of truth, (this was Zorobabel) began to speak” (1 Esd 4:13). By this means, the story of the third page becomes the story of Zerubbabel, but his name is not mentioned again. Josephus records the story of the three pages in great detail, and introduces it with a short section describing the change of rulers in Persia and setting the background for the story. In this we read as follows: “Now at that time there happened to come to Darius from Jerusalem Zorobabelos, who had been appointed governor of the Jewish captives, for there was an old friendship between him and the king, and having been on that account judged worthy of a place in the king’s bodyguard together with two others, he was enjoying an honour for which he had hoped” (11.3.1 [32]). Thus does Josephus stitch together the parts of the narrative, and when the time comes for the note “the third, Zorobabelos, began to discourse” (11.3.5 [49]), it does not come as a surprise or a sudden deviation from anonymity, but rather the reader expects it. Likewise at the end of the story. Instead of “and with that he held his tongue” in 1 Esdras (4:41), Josephus says explicitly “and so Zorobabelos ended his speech on truth . . .” (11.3.7 [57]). Thus the story becomes a more organic component of the history of Zerubbabel, and its integration into the course of events more convincing. Another example of the same phenomenon is the story of the visit to Jerusalem of Tattenai, governor of the province Beyond the River (Ezra 5:3– 6:15, 1 Esd 6:3–7:5). In this story Tattenai conducts the negotiations with “the elders of the Jews,” and only in the letter of Darius is there mention of “the governor of the Jews,” who becomes in 1 Esdras “Zorobabel, the servant of the Lord, and governor of Judaea.” In Josephus, the negotiations themselves already involve “Zorobabelos and the high priest Jesus.” 17 16. See in more detail pp. 93–95 below. 17. Ant. 11.4.4 (90). In what follows, 11.4.5 (95), “Zorobabelos and the high priest.” On the other hand, Josephus does not repeat completely and literally the “record” and the answer of

Sheshbazzar and Zerubbabel, Part 2

91

Another point in which Josephus’s narrative differs from that of his predecessors is the place of Joshua the son of Jozadak. I have mentioned that in Ezra–Nehemiah, Zerubbabel and Joshua always appear together, and always without titles. 1 Esdras continues to mention them together, and still does not give any title to the high priest, but the importance of Joshua diminishes as that of Zerubbabel is augmented. Josephus continues the direction of 1 Esdras in one aspect, and deviates from it in another. Since his narrative source is 1 Esdras, he refers the beginning of Joshua’s activity to the Return from Babylon after the competition of the three pages, and in accordance with 1 Esd 5:5, Joshua the son of Jozadak was one of the leaders of that Return (11.3.10 [73]). On the other hand, from the moment of Joshua’s appearance on the scene he is consistently called “high priest,” 18 and he appears with Zerubbabel, both in accounts where he is already mentioned in earlier sources and also in the story of Tattenai’s visit to Jerusalem. And yet, in the last activity involving Zerubbabel, i.e., the mission to Darius concerning the Samaritans, Joshua does not appear with him. We may say, therefore, that Josephus attributes greater importance to the high priest and to his position than does 1 Esdras, a fact which influences to some extent Joshua’s image; nevertheless he is still not equal in status or worth to Zerubbabel, “the leader of the Jews.”

II Among the tendencies which influence the shaping of Zerubbabel’s image and activities in 1 Esdras and in the account of Josephus, there are some which differ from and even contradict the tendencies of the Book of Ezra–Nehemiah. Yet one central matter is common to all; in its development a line of continuation and broadening from one composition to the next can be discerned. I refer to the overall historical concept, which views the whole period—from the beginning of Cyrus’s reign until the end of that of Darius—as one period. The first step in the formation of this concept is found in the Book of Ezra–Nehemiah, and leads to a “stretching out” of the activities of Zerubbabel and Joshua to cover the whole period, while the figure of Sheshbazzar, the first governor, is blurred and diminished. This process is continued in the other books, although in different ways. As a result of the change of sequence and the insertion of the story of the three pages, a certain change takes place in 1 Esdras also in regards to Sheshbazzar. As we have mentioned, Sheshbazzar is referred to twice in Darius as they appear in 1 Esd 6:23[24]–33[34], and he does not mention Zerubbabel in this context. He refers only to “the Jews and their leaders” and “the Jewish elders and the chiefs of the senate” (11.6.6 [101, 105]). 18. See 11.3.10 (73); 11.4.1 (75); 11.4.3 (86); 11.4.4 (90); 11.4.5 (95). Only in one place, where he records the story from his sources, does he write Joshua’s name without a title (11.4.3 [84], paralleling Ezra 4:2; 1 Esd 5:65[68]).

92

Chapter 4

Ezra–Nehemiah: in Ezra 1:8–11, the description of events after Cyrus’s decree, and in Ezra 5:14–16, the Aramaic document which looks back upon the days of Cyrus from the days of Darius. In 1 Esdras, the narrative commences in accordance with Ezra–Nehemiah: the temple vessels are given to “Sanabassar the governor of Judaea” (1 Esd 2:11[12]), and they are “carried back by Sanabassar together with them of the captivity, from Babylon to Jerusalem” (2:14[15]). However, in the next context mentioning Sheshbazzar—the retrospective description from the time of Darius—a certain change takes place. The information from Ezra 5:16 concerning the laying of the temple foundations by Sheshbazzar is recorded as it stands (1 Esd 6:19[20]), but concerning the temple vessels, we are told that they were entrusted not only to Sheshbazzar (as in Ezra 5:14), but to “Zorobabel and to Sanabassarus the governor” (1 Esd 6:17[18]). What is the origin of this change? The whole matter of the temple vessels is considerably reworked in 1 Esdras. According to him the decisions and intentions of Cyrus were not realized, and it was Darius who actually carried them out. After the competition between the three pages, Zerubbabel reminds Darius of his vow “to build Jerusalem . . . and to send away all the vessels . . .” (1 Esd 4:43–44); and in the description of the deeds of Darius we are told that he “sent away also all the vessels from Babylon, that Cyrus had set apart; and all that Cyrus had given in commandment, the same charged he also to be done, and sent unto Jerusalem” (4:57). In 1 Esdras, then, it was Zerubbabel who brought the temple vessels up to Jerusalem, having received them from Darius. This view renders meaningless the statement of Ezra 1:11 that Sheshbazzar brought up the vessels to Jerusalem. And yet, the author of 1 Esdras does not eliminate this verse, but repeats it word for word in 2:14[15]. Thus a contradiction is created within his own book, as he attributes the return of the vessels both to Sheshbazzar in the days of Cyrus and to Zerubbabel in the days of Darius. Perhaps it was an attempt to harmonize and solve this problem which led him to add “Zorobabel” to “Sanabassarus the governor” in 6:17[18]; but this verse, referring as it does to the time of Cyrus, aggravates rather than solves the difficulty. Yet another difficulty in this matter is created by 1 Esdras in the continuation of the same story. In Ezra 6:6, Darius’s response to Tattenai’s letter is quoted. Darius commands Tattenai to leave the area and to allow the men of Judah to build the temple, and from v. 8 there is a second command concerning financial contributions from royal funds which Tattenai is instructed to deliver to the elders of the Jews. 1 Esdras introduces here two changes. As already mentioned above, he turns “the governor of the Jews” (Ezra 6:7) into “Zorobabel . . . governor of Judaea” (1 Esd 6:26[27]); but in addition he also presents the matter differently. As he understands it, the verse parallel to Ezra 6:6–7 (1 Esd 6:26[27]) is still a continuation of the “record” describing the commands of Cyrus, and not a part of Darius’s re-

Sheshbazzar and Zerubbabel, Part 2

93

sponse. Only with v. 8 (1 Esd 6:27[28]) does the order of Darius himself begin. In this way, the instructions to leave the area and to allow the elders of Judah to build the temple become a description of the time of Cyrus and not of Darius, and Zerubbabel, called “governor of Judaea,” is transposed to that same period. Thus the same contradiction is created: in the continuous narrative Zerubbabel appears for the first time in the reign of Darius, but the retrospective narrative places him in the time of Cyrus, already bearing his full title as “governor of Judaea!” 1 Esdras, then, considerably aggravates the difficulties concerning the time and activities of Sheshbazzar and Zerubbabel. The Book of Ezra– Nehemiah attributed the laying of the temple foundations both to Sheshbazzar and to Zerubbabel. 1 Esdras does not solve this problem, but adds to it. On one hand he dates the beginning of Zerubbabel’s activity to the time of Darius; but on the other hand he afterwards attributes to him both the building of the temple and the bringing up of the temple vessels, in the time of Cyrus. As he leaves all the references to Sheshbazzar in place, the resulting contradiction is conspicuous indeed. Josephus deals differently with the question of Sheshbazzar. His starting point is 1 Esdras, and he makes a more systematic effort to resolve the difficulty—but even in his narrative the problems are not entirely eliminated, and the tension between the different texts remains. Here too we shall consider only the principal points. At the beginning of his narrative, Josephus cites, in his own way, the contents of Ezra 1, and in the appropriate context he says: “Cyrus then sent them the vessels of God . . . these he gave to his treasurer Mithridates to carry, instructing him to give them to Abassaros (= Sanabasaros) to keep until the temple should be built, and upon its being completed to turn them over to the priests and leaders of the people . . .” (11.1.3 [10–11]). Immediately afterwards, he quotes the contents of a letter which Cyrus sent to the governors of Syria—a letter for which there is no parallel in the other sources—in which he says: “King Cyrus to Sisines [= Tattenai] and Sarabasanes [= Shethar-bozenai], greeting: . . . I have sent my treasurer Mithridates and Zorobabelos, the leader of the Jews, to lay the foundations of the temple and build it . . . I have also sent the vessels which King Nebuchadnezzar took as plunder from the temple, giving them over to my treasurer Mithridates and to Zorobabelos, the leader of the Jews, to carry to Jerusalem and place them once more in the temple of God” (11.1.3 [12–14]). The duplication in the matter of the temple vessels has here reached an extreme. In one sequence, Josephus mentions first Mithredath and Sheshbazzar, and then Mithredath and Zerubbabel—regarding the self-same matter. It is hard to assume that the only cause of such a description is negligence or lack of attention given to historical and literary continuity. It seems to me that Josephus builds his whole narrative on a certain assumption concerning the position of the above-mentioned persons. This assumption is

94

Chapter 4

given expression in another place, and it may explain the duplication—at least in its main points. I refer to paragraph 11.4.6 (99–101), in which Josephus presents his version of the “record.” This “record” appears in the same context and sequence as in Ezra 6:3–5 and 1 Esd 6:23[24]–26[27], although in those two places there is no mention of Sheshbazzar. Josephus bases his version on 1 Esdras, but introduces some changes; instead of “Sisines the governor of Syria and Phoenicia” (1 Esd 6:26[27]) he introduces the name of Sheshbazzar: “In the first year of his reign King Cyrus ordered the temple in Jerusalem to be built with its altar . . . and that the vessels which Nebuchadnezzar had taken to Babylon should be given back to the people of Jerusalem, and that the supervision of these matters should be undertaken by Sanabassares, the eparch and governor of Syria and Phoenicia, and his companions, but that they themselves should keep away from the (sacred) place and should leave the building of the temple to the servants of God, the Jews and their leaders” (11.4.6 [99–101]). Here the allotment of the roles is clearly presented: Sheshbazzar and Zerubbabel are both appointed for the execution of one project: the building of the temple and the transferal to it of the cultic vessels. Sheshbazzar, the “eparch and governor of Syria and Phoenicia,” is the king’s representative in all that pertains to his province, and therefore the building of the temple falls within the realm of his responsibility. The practical realization of the king’s orders, however, falls to Zerubbabel, and Sheshbazzar is specifically commanded to allow “the Jews and their leaders” to carry out the work of building. This distinction explains also the careful way in which the narrative describes the delivering of the temple vessels to Sheshbazzar. They are delivered to him “to keep until the temple should be built” (11.1.3 [11]), and the sentence telling how Sheshbazzar actually brought them up to Jerusalem is dropped from the narrative. By making Sheshbazzar the “eparch and governor of Syria and Phoenicia” in the time of Cyrus, the parallelism between him and Zerubbabel is strengthened, while the competition between them is removed; their activities are understood as complementary. This is not the place for examining to what extent Josephus’s solution was successful, and to what extent he applied it systematically to the details of his narrative. 19 But the very effort is an added example of the way in which the description of history is determined not by historical facts but by the processes of historiography. Under the pressure of the tendencies to 19. Due to the description of Sheshbazzar as “the eparch and governor of Syria and Phoenicia” in the time of Cyrus, the narrative presents two men in this role: Sheshbazzar during the reign of Cyrus, and Tattenai, the “governor of Syria and Phoenicia” in the time of Darius (as in 11.4.4 [89]). This division is not however consistently kept; when Josephus adds to the narrative a letter from Cyrus, he follows the wording of 1 Esd 6:26[27] and addresses it to “Sisines and Sarabasanes,” not to Sheshbazzar (11.1.3[12]). It seems that the measure of consistency in the reworking depends on how important Josephus considers a subject and on the resultant degree of independence which he allows himself in his composition.

Sheshbazzar and Zerubbabel, Part 2

95

expand Zerubbabel’s role and to see the Restoration Period in all its aspects as “Zerubbabel’s era”—tendencies in which Josephus himself is an active participant—and out of a clear-sighted realization of the difficulties presented by his sources in the earlier narratives, he attempts to settle the question of Sheshbazzar. Josephus writes at a considerable distance from the period being described, and he does not have new documents which might aid him in solving the difficulties. He therefore solves them in his own way: he does not reject Sheshbazzar, but assigns him a corner of his own, a different role and position in the course of events. With the stroke of a pen, Sheshbazzar “the prince of Judah” becomes Sheshbazzar, “the eparch and governor of Syria and Phoenicia.” How much of historiography, then, is “history” or “historical fact” and how much is the “vestiture”—the garment in which this fact makes its appearance before its audience? The discussion of one segment of the history of Israel could serve as a sample for the problematics of the whole. Theoretically, the task of the modern student of history and historiography is well-defined. In order to be able to get to the very core, to “the things as they really happened” he should be fully aware of the distinction between “facts” and the form in which they are transmitted. But, even taking fully into account the complexity and many-sidedness of that “form,” is such a distinction possible? Is it an attainable goal? We know very well that it is only through mediation— literary or other—that history can reach us. Are we, then, to give in, and abandon the effort? Are we to see the past, forever, only through the eyes of its mediators? In our discussion of the Restoration Period we set the distinction between “fact” and “form” as our declared goal, and strived to reach it. The vision of the prophet, the documents of the official archives, the narration of the historiographer—all these garments in which “historical fact” is clothed—were our “sources.” By confronting them all and unveiling their own aims and views, we were able to come nearer to an understanding of the period itself. Both actual facts and spiritual facets of the period could be better grasped and set in their own contexts. At the same time we became more and more aware of the historiographic process itself. We were able to perceive some of the inner dynamics of this process, the forces which drive the historiographer in his reaction and relation to his sources and predecessors, and finally the very essence of historiography as a vehicle of its author’s stand towards his world. Through its vitality, as an expression of the ever-renewed human experience in man’s encounter with the past, historiography itself has become a part of history.

Chapter 5

People and Land in the Restoration Period The people of Israel’s awareness of their own identity is a constant feature of biblical thought. This self-awareness is expressed in the effort of biblical authors to explain the origin of the nation, its components, and its place among the nations of the world, as well as in their effort to define the relationship between the people and their God. Within this conceptual framework the relationship of the people to their land holds a significant place. Contrary to modern sociological thinking, in which “land” is but one of several elements in the definition of a “people,” in biblical thought the concept of “land” plays a considerable role in the people’s self-understanding and relationship with their God. In order to fully understand the concepts of “people” and “land,” these cannot be treated entirely separate one from the other; at the same time however, they cannot be properly understood only in their relationship to each other. In our discussion an attempt will be made to understand these two important concepts in the biblical thought of one particular period. Firstly, a few words of introduction concerning our general methodological approach should be given. As with any historical topic, one has to constantly differentiate between two realms: between history itself, i.e., “events as they really happened” according to one definition, 1 and between the way or ways in which these events were seen, understood or reacted to by people who related to them. While the need for such a differentiation is axiomatic in theory, it is probably unattainable in practice. Except for archaeological finds which enhance our knowledge—accidentally and partially—of the material aspects of history (and even these, it should be remembered, are presented through the archaeologist’s interpretative viewpoint), our knowledge of a given period is mostly gained through the words of people who participated in the events, or reflected upon them later on. Thus, prophetic sayings and lyric poems, as well as documents and reflective historiography, are the sources of both historical facts and their interpretation. Nevertheless, even if the ideal goal remains unattainable, the attempt to reach it must be made. With full awareness of the difficulty and limitations of the undertaking, we will endeavor, in this study to differentiate as much as possible between these two aspects of historical experience.

1. In L. von Ranke’s famous words: “wie es eigentlich gewesen,” in his Geschichte der romanischen und germanischen Völker von 1494 bis 1534 (Leipzig, 1824) vi.

96

People and Land in the Restoration Period

97

The period under consideration is the Restoration—the point in the history of Israel where a major change of direction takes place. The experience of destruction and Exile suddenly becomes that of Restoration and rehabilitation. The turning point is generally regarded as the conquest of Babylonia by Cyrus in 538 b.c.e. and the ensuing policy change of the new Persian emperors. 2 What was the actual situation of the “people” at this juncture? The people of Israel were comprised at this point of various components, some of which were settled in the land of Israel and some of which were scattered outside the land and settled around several centers. In the land of Israel there were probably the following communities: A. The community of “returned exiles,” which settled in Judah and Jerusalem. This community is mentioned first not for historical reasons, but because it is the subject of our main source for the period, the book of Ezra–Nehemiah. Consequently, the information we possess about this segment of the people is greatest. This community is referred to in Ezra– Nehemiah in various ways: some are simply brief descriptions, such as hlwgh ybçm µylw[h (Ezra 2:1, Neh 7:6), µylçwry ybçhm µyabh lk (Ezra 3:8), hlwghm µybçh larçy ynb (Ezra 6:21), ybçh ˆm µybçh lhqh lk (Neh 8:17), while others seem more like technical terms, such as hlwgh ynb (Ezra 4:1; 6:19, 20; 10:7, 16) and atwlg ynb (Ezra 6:16), hlwgh (Ezra 9:4, 10:6), and hlwgh lhq (Ezra 10:8). In addition, the community is referred to by the usual general designations such as larçy ynb (Ezra 3:1, 6:16, etc.; Neh 9:1, etc.), µ[h and µ[h lk (Ezra 3:11, 13, etc.; Neh 8:1, etc.), and others. 3 The precise historical setting for the emergence of this community is still debated, depending mainly on one’s attitude to Cyrus’s declaration in Ezra 1:2–4. There, Cyrus grants permission to the Jewish community in Babylonia to rebuild the temple and to return to Jerusalem for that purpose. The description following in vv. 5–6, 11 relates how Jews in Babylonia rose up immediately to actualize the provisions of this permission. Scholars who accept the basic reliability of this sequence would see the emergence of the community of returned exiles as early as 538 b.c.e. 4 Others, who deny the historicity of the above description and claim that permission to rebuild the temple was granted to the people of Judah and did 2. Scholarly opinion differs regarding the actual course of events, especially concerning the two major aspects of the Restoration, the rebuilding of the temple and the return from Babylonia. Representatives of the different attitudes are recently S. Hermann, A History of Israel in Old Testament Times (translated by J. Bowden, London, 1979) 299–301; and J. H. Hayes and J. M. Miller, eds., Israelite and Judaean History (Philadelphia, 1977) 519–23. Yet there is a broad consensus regarding the change in mood and attitude brought about by the Persian rulers, which actually made the Restoration possible. Our definition of the Restoration is purposely based on this broadest consensus. 3. For the meaning and use of these terms see pp. 108–110 below. 4. See for example Hayes and Miller, Israelite: “In spite of many attempts to disprove the initial return under Cyrus . . . there are no reasons to doubt its historicity” (p. 519).

98

Chapter 5

not include a return (Ezra 6:3–5), would postpone the beginning of the return to the time of Darius I. 5 In any case, except for the extremists such as Torrey, who regard both Exile and Restoration as fiction, 6 it is generally accepted that in the first generations of the Restoration a growing community of returned exiles was established in Judah and Jerusalem. B. A second community in the land of Israel, which does not get much attention in available sources, is those inhabitants of the kingdom of Judah who were not exiled at all, and who remained in the land. The existence of such a community is no longer seriously questioned. Archaeological findings, biblical passages, and general historical considerations together support the view that a substantial part of the Judean population continued to exist in Judah after the destruction of Jerusalem and the burning of the temple. 7 Very little, however, can be learned regarding the historical circumstances of this community. But even though scholars differ in regard to its extent, way of life, mode of organization, and the like, the very existence of such a community is considered a solid historical fact. 8 C. A third element in the land of Israel is the Israelite inhabitants of northern Israel who remained settled in Samaria and in Galilee after the Assyrian conquest. Here again, we are faced with the problem of sources— silence on the one hand and tendentious information on the other. The issue is further complicated by the problems involved in the emergence of the Samaritans and their origins and history. Avoiding problematic and tendentious information and basing ourselves on the broadest consensus, it can be stated with assurance that the Assyrians did not annihilate the Israelite population of the North, and that the rural population of Samaria and Galilee remained and continued to exist. As to foreign settlers brought to Samaria by the Assyrians, 9 opinions differ: some scholars claim that they preserved their foreign identity and allegiance, which were the source of their power, while others assert that they were absorbed into the local

5. See for example S. Hermann, History of Israel: “So we seem to be able to conclude . . . that those who were deported or their descendants, did not return from Babylonia to Jerusalem at that time” (p. 302). 6. C. C. Torrey’s extreme interpretation of the period is presented in its fullest in his Ezra Studies (Chicago, 1930). 7. The most thorough study in this respect is still E. Janssen, Juda in der Exilszeit (FRLANT 69; 1956). 8. One should mention, however, the attitude of Kaufmann, who denies the existence of such a community and regards the land of Judah as totally desolate. See Y. Kaufmann, History of the Religion of Israel (translated by C. W. Efroymson; New York, 1977) 197–201. 9. The sources of this information are the highly tendentious passages of 2 Kings 17 and Ezra 4, which refer to the transportation of foreign peoples into Samaria in the times of Sargon (2 Kgs 17:24), Esarhaddon (Ezra 4:2), and Assurbanipal (Ezra 4:10). Notwithstanding the tendentiousness of the sources, the information is generally regarded as authentic, largely because of its agreement with the general Assyrian policy; see B. Oded, Mass Deportation and Deportees in the Neo-Assyrian Empire (Wiesbaden, 1979).

spread is 3 points long

People and Land in the Restoration Period

99

population. 10 In any case, the foreign immigrants did not entirely replace the original community. The time of Josiah probably saw the strengthening of the vanquished Israelite population and a closer contact with Judah, 11 as seen clearly in the interesting story of Jer 41:4–5. According to this story, 80 people from Shechem, Samaria and Shiloh, dressed in mourning attire, made their way to Jerusalem to offer meal offerings and incense at the site of the temple after its destruction. The fact that this item is related en passant in the context of the murder of Gedaliah, the son of Ahikam, and thus not suspect of tendentious character, underlines its evidence for the history of the time. In the unsettled days after the destruction of Jerusalem, a large group of people from the three main Ephraimite cities undertakes a voluntary pilgrimage to Jerusalem. 12 It is possible to elaborate further on the actual number of Israelites represented by those 80, on the kind of organization, religious or otherwise, which coordinated the common journey of people from different towns, or the like. What is important for our discussion is the undoubtedly deep emotional involvement and national self-identification of these people. There is no reason to assume that any considerable change in the situation took place in the following years under Babylonian rule. We may conclude that the same conditions obtained in the land of Israel in the time of the Restoration. Several Israelite communities existed outside the land of Israel, though our knowledge of these is extremely limited: D. The community of Judean exiles which settled in Babylonia and later also in Persia. Information on this community can be gathered from biblical books (such as Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Ezra–Nehemiah, Daniel, Esther, Psalms, etc.), pseudepigraphic literature (such as Tobit, etc.), and a few other sources. 13 This was probably the strongest Israelite element outside the land of Israel. 14 10. The former is the position taken by A. Alt, “Die Rolle Samarias bei der Entstehung des Judentums,” Kleine Schriften (1953; 1st ed. 1934) 2:322 and followed by many; the latter position is that of J. Bright, A History of Israel (2nd ed.; London, 1972) 274; H. H. Ben-Sasson, A History of the Jewish People (Cambridge, 1976) 137; Hayes and Miller, Israelite, 434, and others. 11. See inter alia A. Alt, “Zur Geschichte der Grenze zwischen Judäa und Samaria,” PJ 31 (1935) 103; H. L. Ginsberg, “Judah and the Transjordan States from 734 to 582 bc,” Alexander Marx Festschrift (1950) 347–68; F. Cross and D. N. Freedman, “Josiah’s Revolt against Assyria,” JNES 12 (1953) 56–58; A. Malamat, “Josiah’s Bid for Armageddon,” JANES 5 (1973) 267–78. 12. According to the date—the first days of the seventh month ( Jer 41:1–4)—the pilgrimage was undertaken at the time of the Autumn Festival, that is, as one of the three pilgrimages prescribed by ancient Israelite law (Exod 23:14–16, 34:23; Deut 16:13–17). This indicates that it was not a unique act, but a regularly recurring event. See P. Volz, Der Prophet Jeremia (KAT; 1928) 355; J. Bright, Jeremiah (AB; 1965) 254; W. Rudolph, Jeremia (HAT; 1968) 252–53. 13. See R. Zadok, The Jews in Babylonia during the Chaldean and Achaemenian Periods according to the Babylonian Sources (Haifa, 1979). 14. See B. Oded, “Exile and Restoration,” in Israelite (ed. Hayes and Miller) 480–86, and the bibliography there.

100

Chapter 5

E. The community of Judeans in Egypt. The origin of this community is usually placed at the end of the 7th century b.c.e. or the beginning of the 6th. 15 The stream of refugees who fled from Judah to Egypt during the last wars of Judah certainly increased the number and strength of the already existing community. In the book of Jeremiah Judeans are mentioned as settled in Migdol, Tahpanhes, Memphis (Nof) and the land of Pathros ( Jer 44:1). The Elephantine papyri testify to the fact that Jewish life in Egypt continued to flourish for many generations, 16 possibly into the Hellenistic period. F. There is no explicit documentary evidence for an Israelite community in the land of Ammon in the time of the Restoration. Nevertheless, the history of the House of Tobiah and archaeological findings in the vicinity point to the existence of such a community. 17 G. Nothing at all is known of the fate of the “ten tribes” exiled by the kings of Assyria and settled on the borders of their empire. Did they survive up to the time of the Restoration? For the time being the question is better left open. 18 The picture of “Israel” in the period of the Restoration is thus composite. Its basic feature is the existence of several and diverse communities, all identifying themselves as part of the people of Israel but following, to a greater or lesser degree, different religious practices and ways of life. In a situation such as this, the question of identity becomes understandably urgent, revolving around several major issues: what should the relationship be between the people in the land of Israel and those outside it—or between the various communities within the land of Israel? How could the status of the diaspora within the concept “Israel” be determined—would it apply to all these communities, any part of them, or none? In short: who is “Israel?” The thought of the period endeavored to cope with these questions, though clearly, its expression has come down to us only partially. The following is our attempt to understand the spiritual world of Restoration times through the various answers given to some of these questions. An understanding of the world of thought of Restoration times, begins necessarily prior to the Restoration itself, in the attitudes that were being formed during the very events of the destruction. These are reflected, inter alia, in the prophecies of Ezekiel, of which 11:15–21 and 33:23–29 are especially relevant to our issue. 19 Ezek 33:23–29 starts by referring to “the in15. B. Porten, Archives from Elephantine (Berkeley, 1968) 8–16. 16. Ibid., 19–27, 299–301. 17. See mainly B. Mazar, “The Tobiads,” IEJ 7 (1957) 137–45, 222–38. 18. See A. Malamat, “Exile, Assyrian,” EJud 6 (1971) 1034–36. 19. The two prophecies are generally regarded as authentic, see inter alia G. Fohrer, Ezechiel (HAT; 1955) ix–x; W. Zimmerli, Ezechiel (BKAT; 1969) 201, 817; W. Eichrodt, Ezechiel (OTL; 1970) 142–43, 461–62. There seems to be no doubt that Ezek 33:23–29 was pronounced after the catastrophe of 587/586 b.c.e., though opinions differ regarding 11:14–21. A study of the prophecies reveals a progression in the argument from one prophecy to the other, reflecting a

People and Land in the Restoration Period

101

habitants of these waste places in the land of Israel” 20 who say: “Abraham was only one man, yet he got possession of the land; but we are many; the land is surely given to us to possess.” This unequivocal statement clearly denies the exiles any claim to the land. This sentiment is expressed previously in Ezek 11:15, albeit from a different viewpoint: “. . . your brethren, your brethren, your fellow exiles, the whole House of Israel . . . of whom the inhabitants of Jerusalem have said: they have gone far from the Lord; 21 to us this land is given for a possession.” Ezek 33:23–29 refers to the situation in the land of Judah after the destruction. There are people living in the land, whom Ezekiel sarcastically describes as “the inhabitants of these waste places,” 22 who declare that “we are many.” Their claim to possession is directed towards the exiles in Babylonia, emphatically stating: “to us (and not to you) the land is given to possess.” Is this an arbitrary attempt to dispossess the exiles by taking advantage of the moment’s opportunity, or does it have deeper roots with a more theologically-oriented justification? It seems that the latter possibility provides a better explanation of both these persons’ claims and Ezekiel’s reaction to them. The claim of the people remaining in the land, according to Ezekiel, is based on two arguments. The first is: you, the exiles, “have gone far from the Lord” (11:15). This phrase brings to mind the words of Jeremiah: “What wrong did your fathers find in me that they went far from me?” ( Jer 2:5). 23 Their accusation is simple and based on a firmly grounded theological presupposition: you have sinned towards God and gone far from him; therefore, you have been punished by exile—by being taken far from the land. Thus, the situation in its two aspects, exile and remnant, is a fulfillment of Isaiah’s prophecy in 6:11–13: “till cities lie waste without inhabitant and houses without men and the land is utterly desolate, and the Lord removes men far away and the forsaken places are many in the midst of the

change of situation. A pre-destruction date for 11:14–21 better explains the prophecy and its relationship with 33:23–29. See Fohrer, Ezechiel, 62; Zimmerli, Ezechiel, 252, 818. The question of date and authenticity are of little consequence to the bearing of the prophecies on our issue. 20. When not otherwise stated, the English translations follow the rsv. 21. The verb Wqj“r' is vocalized in the MT as the Imperative of the Qal conjugation; this is followed by some translations such as the av and the jps: “keep far from the Lord.” The vocalization with a qameß understanding the verb as a Perfect of the Qal (as followed by the rsv), is more in harmony with the whole spirit of the prophecy. See Abarbanel ad loc.; as well as G. A. Cooke, The Book of Ezekiel (ICC; Edinburgh, 1936) 125; Zimmerli, Ezechiel, 200; Eichrodt, Ezechiel, 107. Naturally, there are different exegetical consequences for each reading, but the main statement “to us the land is given for a possession” is not affected. 22. The Hebrew hlah twbrjh ybçwy is better reflected by “the inhabitants of these ruins.” 23. The same Hebrew idiom is used in both prophecies: hwhy l[m wqjr in Ezekiel and wqjr yl[m in Jeremiah. On the way in which Ezekiel’s prophecy is dependent on that of Jeremiah see J. W. Miller, Das Verhältnis Jeremias und Hesekiels sprachlich und theologisch untersucht (Assen, 1955); Zimmerli, Ezechiel, 67*–70*.

102

Chapter 5

land. And though a tenth remain in it, it will be burnt again like a terebinth or an oak . . . the holy seed is its stump.” Isaiah’s prophecy of the remnant envisages a cruel process of desolation, which becomes over one hundred years later a perfect description of the actual situation. However, the prophecy says nothing concerning the fate of those people that will be “removed far away.” According to Isaiah the people remaining, and they alone, are “the stump,” who shall be a “holy seed.” The unusual expression employed by Isaiah, µdah ta hwhy qjrw which denotes complete banishment, is echoed by Ezekiel relating to the exiles: “Though I removed them far off among the nations . . .” (Ezek 11:16). 24 Ezekiel’s reaction is directed towards the theological base of the remaining people’s assertion based on the words of Isaiah in 6:11–13. To be sure, he says, “I removed them far off among the Nations, and have scattered them among the countries”; but, he states: “I will gather you from the peoples . . . and I will give you the land of Israel” (v. 17). Again, he admits, they were indeed sinners and were punished, but “I will give them one heart and put a new spirit within them, and they shall be my people and I will be their God” (vv. 19–20). The others, however, are doomed: “I will requite their deeds upon their own heads” (v. 21). The issue then, is not merely one of possession or dispossession of the land, although this is an important facet of it, but moreover, who are the people of God: the exiles or those who remained in the land? Such is the import of the remaining people’s second argument: “One was Abraham . . . and we are many” (Ezek 33:24). The unexpected mention of Abraham is very much to the point. Abraham was the patriarch to whom God made two promises: abundant offspring and land. The promises to Abraham are fulfilled: we, the remaining people “are many,” that is, we are his offspring and we are to possess the land! Here Ezekiel’s reaction to this reasoning is even more aggressive. With harsh words of rebuke he denies their right to any claim. His main argument is: you have committed the most terrible sins—can you still be the possessors of the land (vv. 25–26)? He then continues with a pronouncement of final destruction, both to them and to the land they inhabit (vv. 27–29). Ezekiel’s words reflect the position of the exiles on the crucial issue at hand; a similar attitude, relating to the same political situation and theological problem is also expressed by a prophet in Jerusalem—Jeremiah in chap. 24. 25 Jeremiah expresses in no uncertain words his attitude towards 24. Ezekiel uses the same root again, in the Hiphil: µyywgb µytqjrt yk—a very unusual way of describing exile, found elsewhere only in Jer 27:10 in a somewhat different way. 25. We take chap. 24 to be an authentic prophecy, although it might have suffered a few redactional touchings. See W. Rudolph, Jeremia, 156–58. If the prophecy is attributed to a later author (as, for example, by H. G. May, “Toward an Objective Approach to the Book of Jeremiah: The Biographer,” JBL 55 [1942] 139–56, esp. 148–49), then its political background should be understood differently, as should the contact with the prophecy of Ezekiel. The theological issue, however, remains the same.

spread is 3 points long

People and Land in the Restoration Period

103

the two major groups of Judeans: those exiled to Babylon on the one hand and those remaining in the land of Judah on the other. 26 His position is not decided by any specific issue: the issue of possession of the land is not raised at all, and the people’s fate is not based upon their moral deeds or religious attitudes. The formulation of the judgment is a straightforward and rather dogmatic verdict. The people are likened to two baskets of figs. The good figs are “the exiles from Judah, whom I have sent away from this place to the land of the Chaldeans” (v. 5). The bad figs are “Zedekiah, the king of Judah, his princes, the remnant of Jerusalem who remain in this land, and those who dwell in the land of Egypt” (v. 8). Jeremiah prophesies good for the exiles in Babylonia: “I will set my eyes upon them for good and I will bring them back to this land. . . . I will give them a heart to know that I am the Lord and they shall be my people and I will be their God” (vv. 6–7); for those remaining in Judah—annihilation: “until they shall be utterly destroyed from the land which I gave to them and to their fathers” (v. 10). Such a peremptory pronouncement as Jeremiah’s apparently allows for no further discussion, but does the discussion indeed end with Jeremiah’s words, or Ezekiel’s? We find no such explicit dealing with the issue; however, one may wonder whether some of the sayings of Deutero-Isaiah should not be regarded as his stand in the discussion. Deutero-Isaiah refers to Abraham twice, firstly in 41:8–9: “But you, Israel, my servant; Jacob whom I have chosen; the offspring of Abraham my friend; you whom I took from the ends of the earth and called from its farthest corners.” To the usual designations of the people as “Jacob” and “Israel,” the prophet adds a third: “the offspring of Abraham.” Subsequently, a clear parallel between Abraham and the people is drawn: Abraham is the one “whom I took from the ends of the earth,” and thus the seed of Abraham, like him, are those who are scattered in all the far corners of the earth who will be gathered back to the land of Israel. The second reference to Abraham is in 51:1–2: “For when he was but one I called him, and I blessed him and made him many” (v. 2). The affinity here with Ezek 33:24 is obvious. Ezekiel reacted to the statement that “Abraham was only one and we are many,” and Deutero-Isaiah emphasizes that “he was but one . . . and I . . . made him many.” Deutero-Isaiah is aware of the disputed issue, but he refers to it much less forcefully, with no explicit polemic edge, 27 and within the framework of a more general and rather abstract concept of the people of Israel. 26. The description of the two groups is not balanced. While the exiles are referred to briefly and collectively as “the exiles from Judah . . .” the other group is presented in detail and its components enumerated: “Zedekiah . . . his princes, the remnant of Jerusalem . . . and those who dwell in the land of Egypt.” It is of interest that “those who dwell in the land of Egypt” are not considered among the exiles but are included with those “who remain in the land.” 27. Is it only a coincidence that many commentators of Deutero-Isaiah either ignore this connection or suppress it? The mentioning of Abraham is usually regarded as originating with Deutero-Isaiah and considered within a different theological context. Among the exceptions to

104

Chapter 5

Concerning the period of the Restoration three sources should be considered: Haggai and Zechariah 1–8, contemporary with the earliest stages of the Restoration, and Ezra–Nehemiah, which describes the period from Cyrus to Ezra and Nehemiah but was composed later. 28 From the end of the Persian period and the beginning of the Hellenistic is the book of Chronicles, which contains a most significant theological message concerning the concepts of “land” and “people” (discussed elsewhere in detail), 29 and the prophecies of Deutero-Zechariah, which are dealt with in another place. 30 Haggai and Zechariah do not discuss the problem of identity; the questions arising from the changing situation are not directly confronted in their sayings. Yet, their positions on several aspects of the issue can be learned from their prophecies. Haggai mentions no ethnic name whatsoever, either in Israel or outside it. The name “Israel” is not found at all in his book, while “Judah” appears four times as part of the title of Zerubbabel “the governor of Judah,” referring to the province of Judah simply as a political administrative unit. 31 The book also contains no geographical names, and even Jerusalem is not mentioned at all—so much in contrast to Deutero-Isaiah or Zechariah. In what is regarded as the framework of the book, Haggai is said to have dealt with “Zerubbabel . . . Joshua . . . with all the remnant of the people” (1:12, 14; 2:2). The Hebrew µ[h tyraç can also be interpreted as “the rest of the people,” as for example, by the jps translation. 32 But even if the more common interpretation, reflected by the av and the rsv is accepted, the actual meaning of the expression remains uncertain: does Haggai regard as “remnant” those who remained in the land and were not exiled, or those who were exiled and came back? 33 In both contexts the people are also called “the people”—µ[h (1:12, 13). this trend are J. Skinner, The Book of the Prophet Isaiah Chaps. XL–LXVI (Cambridge, 1898) 118; K. Elliger, Deuterojesaja (BKAT; 1978) 138. 28. The critical questions of authenticity, authorship, and date were constantly taken into consideration, but were brought to the surface only when the discussion demanded it. More specifically on Ezra–Nehemiah below, p. 108. 29. S. Japhet, The Ideology of the Book of Chronicles and Its Place in Biblical Thought ( Jerusalem, 1977) 228–333 [Hebrew]; English translation by Anna Barber (Frankfurt, 1989) 267–393. 30. R. Hanhart, “Das Land in der spätnachexilischen Prophetie,” in G. Strecker, ed., Das Land Israel in biblischer Zeit (Göttingen, 1983) 126–40. 31. Hag 1:1, 14; 2:1, 21—all of which are found in the book’s framework (see H. G. Mitchell, Haggai, Zechariah, Malachi and Jonah [ICC; Edinburgh, 1912] 27). If the framework is not to be attributed to Haggai, as suggested by most commentators (e.g., Mitchell, ibid.; W. Rudolph, Haggai, Sacharja 1–8, Sacharja 9–14, Maleachi [BK; 1976] 22–23), then even this one term is not his. 32. See also Mitchell, Haggai, Zechariah, 54. 33. The latter is the traditional view, followed by most modern commentators. See inter alia E. Sellin, Das Zwölfprophetenbuch (KAT; 1938) 2:453 (“tyraç ist bei Haggai und Sach. einfach die aus Babylon gerettete und heimgekehrte Gola, vgl. 14, 2:2; 2:3; Sach. 8:6, 11ff.”); Janssen, Juda, 119 n. 3. W. Rudolph regards this term as a terminus technicus for the returned exiles, Haggai, Sacharja 1–8, 32, and he is followed by W. A. M. Beuken, Haggai–Sacharja 1–8 (Assen, 1967) 30. However, the verses on which these statements are based do not indicate such an interpretation,

People and Land in the Restoration Period

105

More instructive are the words of Haggai himself. In 2:3–9 he opens his words with an address to a small group among the people: “Who is left among you that saw this House in its former glory? How do you see it now?” (2:3). Haggai is addressing here “those who remained” (raçnh)—the very few old men who survived the destruction and lived to see the rebuilding of the temple. 34 In v. 4 he addresses the whole community with words of encouragement: “Yet now take courage, O Zerubbabel . . . take courage, O Joshua . . . take courage, all you people of the land.” It seems, then, that µ[h tyraç in the terminology of the framework is equivalent to “the people of the land”—≈rah µ[ in Haggai’s own terminology, which is his designation for the people of Judah. 35 On other occasions, when reproving the people of their deeds and words, he pointedly speaks of them as “this people”— hzh µ[h (1:2, 2:14), following the example of his great predecessors. 36 No mention is made in Haggai’s words of the origin of the people of Judah, and it seems that the simple definition ≈rah µ[ sufficed. For us, however, the meaning of this expression can be learned from Haggai’s attitude to the exile. Haggai does not mention the exile, either by itself or in reference to people returning from it. Moreover, the book of Haggai contains no prophecy about the ingathering of the scattered people—much unlike the prophecies of his contemporary Zechariah. It could be claimed that the small book we possess does not contain all of Haggai’s prophecies, but we can only learn from what is available to us. Moreover, the book does contain prophecies for the future with an emphasized eschatological tone which is caused rather by the commentators’ historical presuppositions which derive from the history as portrayed in Ezra–Nehemiah. There is nothing in the phrase itself, nor in its contexts in Haggai and Zechariah to point to this limited and technical interpretation, while the use of tyraç in other contexts favors the former interpretation. A radical interpretation in this direction is suggested by W. H. Kosters, Die Wiederherstellung Israels (1895) 17–22, while a more general interpretation is suggested by A. B. Ehrlich, Randglossen zur Hebräischen Bibel (Leipzig, 1912) 5:321. 34. Since almost 70 years have passed since the destruction of the temple in 587 b.c.e., the people who could have had any memory of it would be very old at this time. The difficult journey from Babylonia to Jerusalem was most probably undertaken by young, or relatively young people (Zerubbabel and Joshua, mentioned as the leaders of the return were the third generation from the actual exiles, 1 Chr 3:19, 5:26), so that it is more likely that these old men were not from the returned exiles but from those who did not go into exile. The whole episode is reinterpreted in Ezra 3:12. 35. The term ≈rah µ[ in both Haggai and Zechariah should be interpreted in the contexts of these prophets’ words and against the background of their actual historical situation. The attempt to explain the term in view of Ezra 4:4 is anachronistic and deprives each context of its specific use and of its place in the development of the term. See mainly J. W. Rothstein, Juden und Samaritaner (BWAT 3; Leipzig, 1908) 3–41. Confronted by the inadequacy of the meaning adduced from Ezra 4:4 to Hag 2:4, and unwilling to reconsider the meaning of µ[ ≈rah, Sellin resorts to emendation of the text in Haggai, Das Zwölfprophetenbuch, 2:460, followed by E. Würthwein, Der ºamm haªarez im Alten Testament (Stuttgart, 1936) 53. 36. The use of hzh µ[h “this people” in anger and reproof, as opposed to ym[ “my people” and other more endearing terms, is a typical feature of Isaiah and Jeremiah; see Isa 6:10; 8:6, 11, 12, etc., and especially 9:15 as opposed to 3:12; Jer 6:19, 21, etc. See also n. 38 below.

106

Chapter 5

(2:6–9, 22–23). 37 The scope of these prophecies is cosmic and universal: regarding the peoples of the world Haggai proclaims that “I will shake all nations so that the treasures of all nations shall come in and I will fill this house with splendor” (2:7). He speaks of upheavals in the world of nations, when God will “overthrow the throne of kingdoms . . . destroy the strength of the kingdoms of the nations” (2:22). Yet, even in relation to these events and on the doorstep of “that day,” he does not mention any ingathering of exiles or return to the land of Israel. Haggai’s prophecies focus on Judah, where he is speaking to the “people of the land” regarding two issues: the rebuilding of the temple and the approach of the eschatological events connected with it. Neither the people of the north in the province of Samaria nor the exiles are referred to in his prophecies in any way. 38 The world seems to be dichotomized: “the people”—his audience, on the one hand, and “the kingdoms of the nations” on the other. Yet, we know from other sources that Zerubbabel and Joshua were in fact returned exiles 39—a fact that Haggai does not bother to mention. According to Haggai they were the leaders of the people and the hope for its future. We may conclude that Haggai does not exclude the returned exiles, nor does he discriminate against them in any way; he is focused on the people of Judah and the returned exiles are for him an integral part of the community, “the people of the land” who are in Judah. Is this relation true also for the people of the north? To this question we are left without an answer. Zechariah, Haggai’s contemporary, is much more geographically oriented and his prophecies abound in geographical terms relating both to Judah and to the world around. 40 Jerusalem, addressed in various ways, 41 37. See inter alia S. Japhet, “Sheshbbazar and Zerubbabel against the Background of the Historical and Religious Tendencies of Ezra–Nehemiah,” ZAW 94 (1982) 76–78 [[in this volume, pp. 85–95]]. 38. Although Rothstein’s interpretation of Hag 2:10–14 as a prophecy against the Samaritans, Juden und Samaritaner, 5–41, has been accepted by many, its grounds are rather weak and his reliance on Ezra 3:8ff. and 4:1–5 is misleading. There is nothing in the prophecy, nor in its historical context to support such an interpretation. In view of the lateness of the Samaritan schism, now becoming more accepted (see F. M. Cross, “Aspects of Samaritan and Jewish History in the Late Persian and Hellenistic Times,” HThR 59 [1966] 201–11; J. D. Purvis, The Samaritan Pentateuch and the Origins of the Samaritan Sect [Cambridge, 1968] 118 etc.) such an interpretation becomes all the more difficult. Retaining it would result in considering Hag 2:10–14 as unauthentic and later than Haggai’s time. This is, nevertheless, the view of Beuken, Haggai–Sacharja, 64–77. 39. The book of Ezra–Nehemiah strongly emphasizes this fact. They are mentioned in Ezra 2:2 as the leaders of the return, they continue to lead the community down to the days of Darius, and they are last mentioned in Ezra 5:2. The fact that they were born in Babylonia is to be learned also from their genealogies: 1 Chr 3:17–19, 5:40–41[6:14–15]. 40. Such as: the land of the north (Zech 2:10[6]; 6:6, 10 [in translation “the north country”]); Babylon (2:11[7], 6:10); the land of Shinar (5:11); the four winds of heaven (6:5), etc. 41. Jerusalem is called mainly by this name, about 15 times (1:12, 14, 16, 17, etc.), but also Zion (1:14, 17; 8:2, 3), the daughter of Zion (2:14[10]), and “the mountain of the Lord of hosts” (8:3).

spread is 12 points long

People and Land in the Restoration Period

107

occupies a central place in his prophecies, but he relates also to Judah, designated “Judah” (2:2, 4, 16), “the land of Judah” (2:4), “the cities of Judah” (1:12); and “the house of Judah” (8:13, 15, 19). Several times Judah and Jerusalem are mentioned together—1:12, 2:16, 8:15. When speaking to the people Zechariah sometimes addresses his public directly, without titles or appellations, thus creating an atmosphere simultaneously familiar and yet vague regarding the identity of his audience (see 1:1–4, 2:12–13, 8:14–17, etc.). But, from the designations he does use, it is clear that his main address is to the people of Judah and Jerusalem who are called “the remnant of this people” (8:6, 11, 12), “the house of Judah” (8:15) and “all the people of the land” (7:5). But the purview of his prophecies is actually much broader. In contrast to Haggai he is aware of the exile and relates to it in his prophecies in several ways. He speaks about “my people” (8:7) which are scattered, and prophesies the gathering of exiles and the exodus from Babylonia (2:10, 8:7–8); he knows of people coming to Jerusalem from Babylonia with donations from “the exile” (6:9–15), and as a prophecy for the future he declares that “those who are far off shall come and help to build the temple of the Lord” (6:15). Those to whom he refers as “coming from Babylon” are probably individuals whose names are given; nowhere in his prophecies is there any mention, or even hint, of a community of “returned exiles” in Judah. As for the people of the north—they are mentioned twice in the prophecies of Zechariah, together with the people of Judah. In the first instance the angel identifies the horns of Zechariah’s vision as “the horns which have scattered Judah, Israel and Jerusalem” (2:2[1:19]). In the second instance, Zechariah contrasts the past with the future, saying: “and as you have been a by-word of cursing among the nations, O House of Judah and House of Israel, so will I save you and you shall be a blessing” (8:13). Moreover, the context of this last prophecy shows that both “houses,” that of Judah and that of Israel, are included in the address to “the remnant of this people,” in which the actual people of the period are meant. Although the “house of Israel” is not the immediate audience of the prophecy whose attention is directed to the contemporary problems of Judah, they are nevertheless within the scope of his prophecies and of his conception of the people of Israel. 42 Zechariah’s overall prophetic disposition reveals a strong feeling of continuity: he speaks about “the fathers,” who sinned and were punished, and from whose experience the present generation should draw a lesson (1:4– 5); he evokes the “former prophets” and their rebuke (1:4–6, 7:7–12); he reminisces of the good old days “when Jerusalem was inhabited and in prosperity, with her cities round about her, and the South and the lowlands 42. Fully consistent with the broad concept of Israel is Zechariah’s attitude towards foreigners “who join themselves to the Lord” (2:15[11]). In Zechariah there is a full acceptance of these people as the “people of God” (2:15[11], and also 8:20–23). For the attitude of Ezra– Nehemiah on this issue, see pp. 111–113 below.

108

Chapter 5

were inhabited” (7:7); he mentions the bad “former days” (8:11) and asks God for pardon after 70 years of wrath (1:12). The situation in which he is acting is indeed a sorry one, full of problems, but the prevailing feeling is one of continuity. The people, who have known both better and worse days in their past history, are looking forward with hope for a better future. An altogether different approach, opposed in many respects to both Haggai and Zechariah, is presented in the book of Ezra–Nehemiah. The question of national identity is a major and central issue in the book, and the answers to this question unequivocal. Before broaching this issue, however, it is necessary to mention briefly the literary problems of the book. 43 In very broad outlines the book of Ezra–Nehemiah is comprised of four units, the boundaries of which are not always easily determined: (a) the story of the building of the temple—Ezra 1–6; (b) the story of Ezra the scribe—Ezra 7–10; Nehemiah 8–9; (c) Nehemiah’s memoirs—Nehemiah 1– 7; 13; and probably also 10 and 12 in a reworked form; (d) lists and miscellenia—Nehemiah 11–12. There are differences between these units in language, style, literary form, terminology, religious views, et cetera, the most conspicuous being those between Nehemiah’s memoirs and the rest of the book, 44 yet the book has an overall historical outlook and some basic features common to all its parts. The author of the book of Ezra–Nehemiah had some guidelines and principles for selecting and assembling the material, but he did not interfere very much with what he found and did not rework it thoroughly or systematically. In the following discussion we shall refer to the book as a whole or to its specific parts, as the need arises. A further preliminary remark concerns the book’s author and date. We accept the general view that the book was composed in the first half of the fourth century b.c.e., but dissociate it from the book of Chronicles, which was composed later. 45 However, the book’s concepts and religious outlook should be discussed on their own, unbiased by any attitudes regarding date and authorship. According to Ezra–Nehemiah only one Israelite community exists in the land of Israel: that of returned exiles! This is established not only by the re43. See in more detail in S. Japhet, “The Biblical Historiography in the Persian Period,” in World History of the Jewish People, vol. 6: The Restoration: The Persian Period (ed. H. Tadmor and I. Ephºal; Jerusalem 1983) 176–202, 295–303. 44. These differences are among the factors which led some scholars to excise Nehemiah’s memoirs from the original composition of Ezra–Nehemiah. See K. F. Pohlmann, Studien zum dritten Esra (FRLANT 104; 1970) 143–45. 45. On the date of Ezra–Nehemiah see inter alia O. Eissfeldt, The Old Testament: An Introduction (Oxford, 1965) 450; W. Rudolph, Esra und Nehemia (HAT; 1949) xxiv–xxv. It should be borne in mind, however, that the date is determined by the supposition that the book was composed by the Chronicler, whose date is then determined by considerations external to Ezra– Nehemiah. On the question of authorship see S. Japhet, “The Supposed Common Authorship of Chronicles and Ezra–Nehemiah Investigated Anew,” VT 18 (1968) 330–71 [[in this volume, pp. 1–37]]; H. G. M. Williamson, Israel in the Book of Chronicles (Cambridge, 1977) 5–82.

People and Land in the Restoration Period

109

curring terminology, but by the whole course of events. In accordance with such a view, Cyrus issues a declaration “throughout all his kingdoms,” permitting the rebuilding of the temple and the return to Jerusalem for that purpose (Ezra 1:1–3). Judeans, Benjaminites, priests and Levites from all over Babylonia rose up to go to Jerusalem (1:5–6). A list enumerates the returned exiles, headed by Zerubbabel and Joshua and another ten leaders (Ezra 2:1–67). 46 They come to Judah, settle in their towns, and gather in Jerusalem in order to build the altar and lay the foundations of the temple (2:70–3:13). The evil schemes of their enemies cause a delay in their enterprise until the days of Darius, when the temple is completed and its dedication is celebrated by “the priests, Levites, and the rest of the returned exiles” (6:16), followed by the celebration of the Passover (6:17–21). The story then continues with Ezra’s return to Jerusalem at the head of a caravan, and the expulsion of the foreign wives (chaps. 7–10). Nehemiah is another returning exile, whose story starts at Nehemiah 1. When Nehemiah wishes to re-inhabit the unpopulated city of Jerusalem, he seeks a list of the citizens of Judah which he indeed finds—the list of the returnees, “those who came up at first” (Neh 7:5), already found in Ezra 2. 47 Thus, the history of Israel from the declaration of Cyrus to the end of the offices of Ezra and Nehemiah is, according to the book of Ezra–Nehemiah, the history of the returned exiles. The consistent use of terminology accentuates this view, as the community of Judah and Jerusalem is constantly referred to as “the children of exile,” namely: exiles. 48 This use is especially emphasized in Ezra 9–10, where the people are called not only “the returned exiles” (hlwgh ybç) or “children of exile” (hlwgh ynb) but also simply “the exile” (hlwgh, Ezra 9:14, 10:6) and “the congregation of exile” (hlwgh lhq, Ezra 10:8). 49 Thus, in the time of Ezra, 458 b.c.e. at the earliest 46. There are 11 names in Ezra 2:2, and 12 in the parallel list of Neh 7:7, with the addition of Nahamani. Since the number 12 can hardly be considered incidental it is regarded by many as original. See inter alia W. Rudolph, Esra und Nehemia, 6; R. J. Coggins, The Books of Ezra and Nehemiah: The Cambridge Bible Commentary (1976) 17–18. 47. The incorporation of the list into the book is very carefully devised: it is found first at the point of history which the author assigned to it, and then again at the time of Nehemiah when the list is adduced as originating at that point of history. Therefore, its double occurrence in the book cannot be regarded as a result of multiple redactions, but rather reflects a purposeful arrangement of the author. This does not mean, however, that the origin of the list is indeed in the historical or literary context which the author ascribed to it. See for various stands regarding these points, E. Meyer, Die Entstehung des Judentums (Halle, 1896) 190; Kosters, Die Wiederherstellung, 29–42; K. Galling, “The ‘Gola List’ according to Ezra 2 // Nehemia 7,” JBL 70 (1951) 149–58; idem, “Die Liste der aus dem Exil Heimgekehrten,” Studien zur Geschichte Israels im Persischen Zeitalter (Tübingen, 1964) 89–108; Rudolph, Esra und Nehemia, 11–17. 48. See p. 97 above. 49. The English translations struggle with this terminology and in many cases obscure it. Thus the av translates hlwgh ynb consistently as “children of the captivity” (Ezra 4:1, 6:19, etc.), while hlwgh is translated “those (or “them” or “congregation of ”) that had been carried away” (Ezra 9:4, 6; 10:8); both translations are at least ambiguous. The rsv translates hlwgh ynb as

110

Chapter 5

dating, 50 80 years after Cyrus and over 60 years after Darius, people settled in Judah and Jerusalem are designated “the exiles.” The possibility of using such a designation at such a late date is of interest from a historical point of view, but all the more so for the understanding of the book’s peculiar stand regarding the people’s identity. In the course of the story the people are also called “Israel” (Ezra 10:2, 10), “all Israel” (10:7), or “the people of Judah and Benjamin” (10:9), terms which by being equated with the ones mentioned above, make the outlook of the book even clearer: the people of Judah and Benjamin, the people of Israel, are exiles, that is—returnees from the Babylonian exile. What then, is the book’s attitude to those Israelite groups who did not belong to the returning exiles, those who remained in the land, in Judah and Samaria? The answer is very simple: according to Ezra–Nehemiah there are no such people at all! Except for one passing and quite obscure hint in Nehemiah’s memoirs about “the Jews who lived by them,” 51 which probably escaped the eyes of the author of Ezra–Nehemiah, they are simply ignored. The clear-cut attitude of Ezra–Nehemiah is consistently illustrated in the details of the presentation, of which we choose to discuss the list of the returned exiles in Ezra 2. The heading of the list is as follows: “Now these were the people of the province who came up out of the captivity, of those exiles whom Nebuchadnezzar the king of Babylon had carried captive to Babylon; they returned to Jerusalem and Judah, each to his own town” (Ezra 2:1). This is a rather elaborate heading, which in itself should draw our attention, and its details even more so. The people are presented as hnydmh ynb. Since hnydm is the term for “province” in the terminology of the period, 52 the reference is to the province of Judah. “The people of the province” are, therefore, “the citizens of Judah,” a designation which betrays the actual point of departure of the list. The list was not compiled in Babylonia, as a list of returnees would probably be, but in the province of Judah. The purpose of the list becomes more transparent in the continuation of the heading: all these citizens had been previously exiled by Nebuchadnezzar and then returned to Judah, that is, all the citizens of Judah are returned exiles! “returned exiles” (Ezra 4:1, 6:19, etc., as well as 9:4), thus re-interpreting the term, while hlwgh is translated twice as “exiles” (Ezra 10:6, 8). The neb presents no consistency; “exiles” and “returned exiles” interchange as translations of these terms. 50. On the controversy over the date of Ezra see recently, G. Widengren, “The Chronological Order of Ezra and Nehemiah,” in Israelite (ed. Hayes and Miller) 503–9 and the bibliography there. 51. Neh 4:6[12], µlxa µybçwyh µydwhyh. Although the verse is difficult and corrupt (see Rudolph, Esra und Nehemia, 124), the reference to “Judeans” settled in the areas of those mentioned beforehand, namely Sanballat (in Samaria), Tobiah (in Ammon), the Arabs, Ammonites, and Ashdodites (4:1[6]), is clear. The origin of these “Judeans” and their exact affiliation is not clear from the passing reference. 52. Ezra 5:8, 6:2, 7:16; Neh 1:3, 11:3; Esth 1:1, etc. See J. Liver, Medinah, Encyclopaedia Biblica ( Jerusalem, 1962) 4:692–94 [Hebrew].

spread is 6 points long

People and Land in the Restoration Period

111

The end of the heading of the list complements this view: “that returned . . . each to his own town.” The historical process presupposed here, and further at the end of the list in 2:70, is rather simplistic: those who had been exiled from these towns came back to resettle them. Their towns had been left vacant, empty, waiting for them to come back. No people settled in these towns in the meantime and no problems of land-possession arose. That such a statement does not reflect actual historical processes is quite evident. Furthermore, many commentators have shown that the list of returnees comprises two kinds of names: family names and names of settlements. Of the latter, two are in Judah, many are in Benjamin, and some are in the Shephelah. 53 According to the consensus of archeological finds, the cities of Benjamin were not destroyed by Nebuchadnezzar and their inhabitants were probably never exiled at all. 54 What would then be the meaning of “Nebuchadnezzar . . . had carried captive to Babylonia (and) they returned . . . each one to his own town” in regards to these people? The problem is well explained by the overall purpose of the list: to consider all the people of Judah, whether or not they went into exile, as returnees. It is an intentional legitimization of the people who were not exiled, made necessary because of the book’s understanding of the concept “Israel.” Who, then, are the other inhabitants of the land, according to Ezra–Nehemiah? They are all foreigners (µyrkn), peoples of the lands (twxrah ym[). 55 The issue is explicitly dealt with in Ezra–Nehemiah several times, most emphatically in the account of the mixed marriages in Ezra 9–10. The first thing Ezra encounters upon arriving in Jerusalem is the matter of mixed marriages: “The people of Israel and the priests and the Levites have not separated themselves from the peoples of the lands . . . for they have taken some of their daughters to be wives for themselves and for their sons; so that the holy race has mixed itself with the peoples of the lands” 53. The towns in Judah are Bethlehem and Netophah (Ezra 2:21–22, Neh 7:26–27), in the Shephelah—Lod, Hadid and Ono (Ezra 2:33, Neh 7:37). In regard to the towns of Benjamin, these are not enumerated in one sequence and Ezra 2 and Nehemiah 7 vary slightly regarding names and order, and the geographical identification of the towns is not always agreed upon. They are found, however, in Ezra 2:23–29 (Neh 7:22–23), Ezra 2:34–35 (Neh 7:36, 38) as well as Neh 7:24–25. For the details see the commentaries, the studies mentioned in n. 47 above, and M. Avi-Yonah, Historical Geography of Palestine (3rd ed.; Jerusalem, 1963) 18–20 [Hebrew]; English translation: The Holy Land: A Historical Geography ( Jerusalem, 2002) 15–23; Y. Aharoni, The Land of the Bible (London, 1979) 416. 54. E. Stern, The Material Culture of the Land of the Bible in the Persian Period ( Jerusalem, 1973) 34–44, 225 [Hebrew]; English translation (England, 1982) 31–40; 229. 55. yrkn is found only in the feminine plural, relating to the foreign wives: Ezra 10:2, 10, 11, 14, 17, 18, 44; Neh 13:26–27. The masculine form is rkn ynb—Neh 9:2, and the abstract rkn—Neh 13:30. More frequent are ≈rah ym[, ≈rah yywg, twxrah yywg, twxrah ym[ found in Ezra 3:3; 6:21; 9:1, 2, 7, 11; 10:2, 11; Neh 10:29, 31, 32. br[ is found once (Neh 13:3). In addition, and only in reference to more ancient times, there is mention of ≈rah ybçwy and ≈rah ymm[, Neh 9:24. On µ[ ≈rah in the singular of Ezra 4:4, see pp. 113–114 below.

112

Chapter 5

(Ezra 9:1–2). The accusation is stated in three different ways: the people of Israel did not separate themselves, they intermarried, and the holy seed has intermingled with the peoples of the land. A list of the foreign peoples is included: Canaanites, Hittites, Perizzites, Jebusites, Ammonites, Moabites, Egyptians, and Edomites. 56 Four of these peoples exist contemporaneously—Ammonites, Moabites, Egyptians, and Edomites; the other four— Canaanites, Hittites, Perizzites, and Jebusites, are extinct. Kaufmann recognized an early Midrash at work here. 57 Its purpose is twofold: it enumerates the foreign peoples, relationship with whom has been restricted by the laws of the Pentateuch. The first four are representatives of the “seven nations,” the old inhabitants of the land—any relationship with them is forbidden and they are to be utterly destroyed (Deut 7:1–15). Laws concerning the other four peoples are also found in Deuteronomy: Deut 23:4–7 refers to “Ammonite or Moabite,” and vv. 8–9 to the “Edomite and Egyptian.” There are different regulations in Deuteronomy concerning each of these three groups, but by lumping them together as one group Ezra makes the laws pertaining to anyone of them applicable to all. Thus the line is straightened at its extreme edge. The other purpose of the Midrash is in the equation of the ancient peoples with those of the present. The laws of the Pentateuch against foreign peoples refer only to the specific peoples mentioned above. Other peoples—Philistines, Arabs, Babylonians, and others are thus not covered by the Pentateuchal regulations. What should be the attitude towards them? Are they to be admitted to the people of Israel? The midrashic equation of past and present in Ezra 9:1 gives a clear answer: they too are excluded. 58 Moreover, anyone who does not fall under the definition of Israel according to Ezra’s view, that is, anyone who is not a member of the “community of exile,” belongs to the “peoples of the lands, with their abominations which have filled it from end to end” (Ezra 9:11). The dichotomy is sharp: the “exiles” are Israel, and all others—“the peoples of the lands.” At the basis of this approach is a deep theological conviction—the understanding of the return from Babylonia as a second Exodus. The idea is a common one in the literature of the period, especially so in the prophecies of Deutero-Isaiah, who viewed the return from Babylonia as an even more glorious repetition of the Exodus. 59 What marks out Ezra is that he actually 56. Following 1 Esdras and many commentators we prefer “Edomites” to the MT “Emorites”; see L. W. Batten, The Books of Ezra and Nehemiah (ICC; Edinburgh, 1913) 331; Rudolph, Esra und Nehemia, 86; L. H. Brockington, Ezra, Nehemiah and Esther (New Century Bible; Greenwood, 1969) 90. 57. Y. Kaufmann, History, 4:337–39. 58. Rudolph proposes to omit the list of names as secondary on the ground that half of these peoples had long been extinguished and posed no danger anymore, while the other four were attached to them through the influence of Deuteronomy (Esra und Nehemia, 86). Rudolph failed to realize the import of the whole as a halachic Midrash. 59. See inter alia Zimmerli, Ezechiel, 454–55; C. Westermann, Isaiah 40–66 (OTL; Philadelphia, 1969) 21–22: J. Muilenburg, Isaiah 40–66 (1954) 400–405.

spread is 9 points long

People and Land in the Restoration Period

113

acts on this premise, and the description of his actions demonstrates how much he should be viewed in light of this conviction. The encounter with mixed marriages immediately after coming to Jerusalem is Ezra’s confrontation with “the seven nations.” He is faced with the same problem as Joshua upon entering Canaan, and he follows his steps: he wages war against these peoples and their culture. His primary demand is: “separate yourselves from the peoples of the land and from the foreign wives” (Ezra 10:11). The absolute condition for fulfillment of God’s promise to his people, for the very survival in the land, is separation and sanctification. Therefore the only solution to the problem of mixed marriages is a brute expulsion of the women and their children. No other solution is sought, for the problem is not one of mixed marriages themselves but the significance of such in a theological context. The power motivating Ezra is religious conviction, and his judgment is a religious verdict. The same approach is to be found in another context: the story of the rebuilding of the temple. The account, as it goes, is very simple: the people of Judah returned from exile, gathered in Jerusalem, and laid the foundations of the temple (Ezra 1–3). When their enemies came to know of the intent of the returnees they desired to participate in the building. But the returnees refused, and so the enemies took every possible measure to hinder the building, until it was stopped (Ezra 4:1–4, 24). The terminology employed in this paragraph is of special importance to our discussion. Ezra 4:1 begins: “. . . when the adversaries of Judah and Benjamin (hdwhy yrx ˆymynbw) heard that the returned exiles (hlwgh ynb) were building a temple.” “Judah and Benjamin” are, therefore, “the returned exiles” (hlwgh ynb). But who are their adversaries? These go on to identify themselves: “we worship your God as you do, and we have been sacrificing to him ever since the days of Esar-haddon king of Assyria who brought us here” (v. 2). We have no way of certifying that these were their exact words, but there is no doubt that this is the attitude of the author: even though they may seem to be Israelites because of their religious practices, they are nevertheless foreigners, brought to the land by the kings of Assyria. 60 A new terminology is then introduced: “Then the people of the land (≈rah µ[) discouraged the people of Judah (hdwhy µ[)” (v. 4). Two new terms are used: “the people of the land,” as against “the people of Judah.” These are probably not new and previously unmentioned groups of people, but the same antagonists. On one side are: Judah and Benjamin, returned exiles, the people of Judah; on the other are: the adversaries of Judah and Benjamin, those who were brought by Esar-haddon, the people of the land. 60. One may ask whether the contrasting of the two groups does not go even further. Outwardly both groups came to the land of Israel from Babylon under the auspices of the foreign rulers and both worship the same God. But only one group comprises Israelites who came back to their own land as returned exiles, whereas the others are foreigners who were brought earlier by the kings of Assyria. Because of this external similarity the danger was felt to be so grave and the lines of distinction were consequently so sharply drawn.

114

Chapter 5

This is the only instance in Ezra–Nehemiah in which ≈rah µ[ is used in the singular, and it seems to have been carefully built into the story. Since additional information is lacking we are unable to say whether Ezra 4:4 is a faithful reflection of the general use of this term in the period under discussion; in any case its use differs so greatly, and indeed opposes that of Haggai and Zechariah that we may regard it as intentionally polemic. µ[ ≈rah are not “the people of Judah” but their opponents; whatever their claims may be—they are foreigners. The view of Ezra–Nehemiah on the question of identity is simple and uncomplicated, like many a dogmatic conviction. “Israelites” equal “returned exiles.” Otherwise there are only foreigners in the land, no matter what their religious practice may be. The theological problem, raised by Jeremiah and Ezekiel is given an unequivocal answer: only the “exile” is the holy seed. 61 An important issue regarding the discussion of the concept “Israel” in scholarly literature should be mentioned here: the idea of “true Israel” or “verus Israel” used by many scholars of different schools concerning our period. 62 The presupposition of this concept is the existence of two groups, each having a justified claim to the title “Israel” though only one can properly possess it. Under such circumstances the solution is provided by the idea of a “true” as against “untrue Israel.” These concepts, however, are entirely unapplicable to the thought of the period. They are incompatible with the view of Ezra–Nehemiah or, for that matter, with the later view of Chronicles. 63 Ezra–Nehemiah does not recognize the existence of two groups of Israelites but only one—the exiles. Others, who may live in the land of Israel and may claim this title, are mere foreigners—“peoples of the lands.” The logic underlying use of the term “true Israel” in relation to this period is clear: we later historians are aware that not all those who are depicted as foreigners in the book of Ezra–Nehemiah indeed fall into this category; we understand that many of them could very well have been northern Israelites. In order to express this understanding a later term, created under different historical and theological circumstances, was introduced. But this is an anachronistic solution, alien to the spiritual world of Ezra–Nehemiah. Whether or not these people were in fact foreigners and 61. The exact Hebrew phrase, çdq [rz, appearing in Ezra 9:2, is found in the Bible only once more, in Isa 6:13. By using this phrase the author is expressing not only his understanding of the concept Israel, but is also asserting a line of continuity. According to Isaiah çdq [rz are those who will survive the final catastrophe; according to Ezra 9:2 these are the community of returned exiles. 62. The idea is so common that there is no point in citing all those who hold to it. See inter alia G. von Rad, Das Geschichtsbild des Chronistischen Werkes (Stuttgart, 1930) 29–31; M. Noth, Überlieferungsgeschichtlichen Studien (2nd ed.; Tübingen, 1953) 174–77; L. Rost, Israel bei den Propheten (Stuttgart, 1937), passim; O. Plöger, Theocracy and Eschatology (Oxford, 1968) 37ff.; etc. 63. S. Japhet, The Ideology, 275–77 [English translation 322–24].

People and Land in the Restoration Period

115

whether or not Ezra the scribe or the author or Ezra–Nehemiah were aware that they might not all be Gentiles, though interesting questions, are nevertheless beside the point. In the conceptual world of Ezra–Nehemiah there is only one Israel and her verity is unchallenged. The demand for complete separation, reiterated again and again in Ezra–Nehemiah, raises a further question: are the borders between the people of Israel and the nations eternally closed? Is there no way of joining the people of Israel? In other words—is there any possibility of conversion? The answer given this question is not as unanimous as the view discussed previously; two approaches can be discerned. In the story of Ezra the answer is absolutely negative. In the episode of the mixed marriages the possibility that these women, or their children, would convert is not even suggested. The only possible solution is “to put away all these wives and their children” (Ezra 10:3). 64 We have no way of ascertaining whether or not Ezra’s severe ruling was in fact executed. Nevertheless, the religious verdict is absolutely extreme—no conversion. On the other hand, there are two instances in Ezra–Nehemiah in which conversion is asserted and accepted: Ezra 6:21 and Neh 10:29. Those who participate in the celebration of the Passover are: “the people of Israel who had returned from exile, and also (by) everyone who had joined them and separated himself from the pollutions of the people of the land to worship the Lord, the God of Israel” (Ezra 6:21). The Hebrew idiom used, ˆm ldbn la . . . , means “to separate oneself from something and join another” 65 and it is similarly used in Neh 10:29[28], enumerating among those who signed the covenant “all who have separated themselves from the peoples of the lands to the law of God.” The description of these people is an excellent definition of religious conversion: joining a new community for the sake of its faith and religious way of life, as outlined by its laws. 66 However, no fixed terminology is used, no specific procedure is indicated, and the term rg is not found. In concluding the presentation of Ezra–Nehemiah’s views, one more point should be made, that is, the attitude of the book towards exile as such: should its answer to the question of identity be understood as a 64. The exact phrasing of the Hebrew lends the proposed solution an even greater harshness, as the children are not referred to in this way but by µhm dlwnhw which is literally: “that which is born of them.” 65. The idiom is peculiar to late biblical Hebrew, and is found, in addition to Ezra 6:21 and Neh 10:29, also in 1 Chr 12:9[8]. See also KBL (3rd ed., 1967) 1:106. 66. The term is intentionally used to express our disagreement with Kaufmann’s theory that in the period of the Restoration there was as yet no religious conversion, and that the period is marked by a perplexity of behavior and norms due to its state as a transition period from one mode of conversion to another. Kaufmann’s theory is based, among other things, on the assertion that one may speak of the existence of “religious conversion” in Israel only when the spiritual and social act was validated by a formal act—circumcision. We cannot accept this assertion as historically valid. For Kaufmann’s views see History, 4:229–41, 336–47.

116

Chapter 5

“glorification of exile?” Does the exile have an independent value of itself? The answer is in the negative. The book of Ezra–Nehemiah does not contain any description of the life of the people in the Diaspora, nor does it give any description of events from their perspective. 67 The topic of the book is the reconstruction of Israel in its land, and exile is only the place from which the Israelites are to come—as Moses and the people of Israel had done many generations before them. Exile, the cutting off from the land, was the condition from which a new beginning is made, through a new “exodus” and a new “conquest.” At the end of the Persian period, in a long historiographic work, different answers are given to the existential questions regarding people and land. The book of Chronicles presents a vigorous antithesis to the outlook of Ezra–Nehemiah in many of its major facets, and replaces the narrow, particularistic view of the returned exiles with the broadest concept of a Pan-Israel which includes not only all the Israelite elements in the land of Israel, but also foreigners, presented as µyrg, “sojourners.” 68 Chronicles, and not Ezra–Nehemiah, is the theological ground from which the thought of the Hasmonean period is nurtured, and through which Israelite thought progresses towards the next stage of a theological continuity. 67. The only exception seems to be Nehemiah’s description of the way in which he learned about the state of affairs in Jerusalem, and his reaction to it (Nehemiah 1–2). References like “the survivors there in the province” (Neh 1:3) and “the place of my fathers’ sepulchers” (2:3), surely represent the perspective of the Diaspora. 68. A. C. Welch, The Work of the Chronicler (London, 1939) passim; G. A. Danell, Studies in the name Israel in the Old Testament (Uppsala, 1946) 270–81; Japhet, The Ideology, 228–99 [267– 351]; H. G. M. Williamson, Israel, 132; S. Japhet, “Conquest and Settlement in Chronicles,” JBL 98 (1979) 205–18 ‹in this volume, pp. 38–52›.

Chapter 6

The Historical Reliability of Chronicles: The History of the Problem and Its Place in Biblical Research Anyone interested in the history of research into Chronicles 1 will very soon discover two ways in which its study has deviated from that of other biblical books. Both divergences are interesting and surprising. One is the intense preoccupation with the book of Chronicles during certain phases of biblical research, a preoccupation which was actually in inverse proportion to the value attached to the book. The other is that the focus of interest in Chronicles, from the beginning of research into it and for a long time afterwards, centered upon questions of historical reliability and not upon matters of literary and theological concern, which were at the heart of the attention of biblical scholarship at the time. An examination of these two points—separately and jointly—will clarify the matter and reveal the peculiar position of Chronicles in the history of biblical research.

I The book of Chronicles was appraised negatively from the very beginning of biblical criticism. Joseph Shelomo del Medigo, a Jewish scholar of the Renaissance, stated that the writer of Chronicles “lived a long time after the first destruction . . . and therefore it was included among the Hagiographa . . . and you should know these post-destruction stories, how they vary, like most of the modem historiographies, where you will find no two in agreement on one single event.” 2 Del Medigo’s supposition was that the author of Chronicles was unreliable because he was so far removed in time from the events he described. His attitude probably influenced B. Spinoza, whose evasive

Author’s note: A Hebrew version of this article has been published in the Seeligmann Festschrift: A. Rofé and Y. Zakovitch, eds., Isaac Leo Seeligmann Volume (2 vols.; Jerusalem, 1983) 2:327–46. 1. For the history of research on Chronicles see T. Willi, Die Chronik als Auslegung (FRLANT 106; Göttingen, 1972) 12–47. Willi is interested in the early stages of this research, up to Wellhausen, and deals only briefly with the developments from Wellhausen onwards. 2. Y. S. del Medigo, in Matzref Lahochma (ed. S. Ashkenazi; Basel, 1629) 29b. On the man and his works see recently I. Barzilai, Yoseph Shlomo Delmedigo (Yashar of Candia) (SPB 25; Leiden, 1974). On our subject, pp. 299–304.

117

118

Chapter 6

statement about Chronicles was merely an excuse for the fact that he did not intend to deal with the book at all, and indeed totally disqualified it: Concerning the two books of Chronicles I have nothing particular or important to remark except that they were certainly written after the time of Ezra and possibly after the Restoration of the Temple by Judas Maccabaeus. . . . As to their actual writer, their authority, utility and doctrine, I come to no conclusion. I have always been astonished that they have been included in the Bible by men who shut out from the canon the books of Wisdom, Tobit, and the others, styled apocryphal.3

At first Spinoza’s extreme view did not exert much influence, doubtless because of two factors: one, that he obscured his intentions behind the above evasive comment and did not actually deal with the book, and the other, that interest in Chronicles at that time was at best marginal in any case, the work being assigned little significance. The one scholar actually influenced by Spinoza was G. L. Oeder, who took up the philosopher’s second remark and tried to prove that Chronicles was not written through divine inspiration and therefore should be excluded from the biblical canon. 4 The decisive change in Chronicles research occurred at the beginning of the 19th century with de Wette, who must be regarded as the founder of the modern study of the book. De Wette determined the character of this study—both for better and for worse—for over one hundred years, and his influence is still felt today. De Wette’s work should serve, therefore, as the point of departure for our study. 5 The attention of the reader is drawn immediately to the importance of Chronicles in de Wette’s work, an importance which was in sharp contrast to the work of his predecessors. 6 In 1806 de Wette published his Beiträge zur Einleitung in das Alte Testament which comprised two parts, one entitled 3. B. Spinoza, Theologico-Political Treatise (1670), in The Chief Works of Benedict de Spinoza (translated by R. H. M. Elwes; New York, 1951) 1:146. On the possible connection between Spinoza and del Medigo, see Willi, Die Chronik, 29 nn. 97–98; Barzilai, Yoseph Shlomo, 303–4. 4. G. L. Oeder, Freye Untersuchungen über einige Bücher des Alten Testament (ed. G. L. H. Vogel; Halle, 1771) 137–246; R. Smend, Wilhelm Martin Leberecht de Wette (Basel, 1958) 41. 5. Willi deals in great detail with de Wette’s role in the study of Chronicles. It seems, however, that he tends to judge his motives in a rather over-positive manner; see Die Chronik, esp. pp. 31–35. Smend emphasized the place of Chronicles in de Wette’s scholarship (De Wette, 40– 45) and described it in the following words: “The research on Chronicles is the brilliant piece among the early works of de Wette” (p. 45). 6. An example of such an attitude is Eichhorn’s Einleitung, which is generally regarded as the first modern introduction to the Bible and as laying the foundation of this specific genre; see O. Eissfeldt, The Old Testament: An Introduction (translated by P. R. Ackroyd; Oxford, 1965) 3: “Eichhorn has been described as the founder of modern introduction to the Old Testament and rightly so.” See also H. J. Kraus, Geschichte der historisch-kritischen Erforschung des Alten Testament (Neukirchen-Vluyn, 1956) 120. In the first edition of the Einleitung there are only 26 pages dedicated to Chronicles and, as with the other historical books, there is a short paragraph on its “Echtheit und Glaubwürdigkeit.” J. G. Eichhorn, Einleitung ins alten Testament (Leipzig, 1781–83) 2:630–56.

The Historical Reliability of Chronicles

119

“Historical-Critical Study of the Books of Chronicles,” and the other “Conclusions for the History of the Books of Moses and the Giving of the Law.” 7 The structure of de Wette’s work and the relationship between the two parts are the keys to understanding his attitude towards Chronicles, in general and in particular. The main question which engaged all biblical scholars of the time and which was the focus of protracted and lively debate was the question of authorship of the Pentateuch in its various aspects. 8 De Wette’s view on the matter was that the Pentateuch was not written by Moses but much later, and he endeavored to prove this not only by evidence from the Pentateuch but primarily by the history of Israel as described in the Bible. He challenged the biblical and traditional view that the Law was given to Israel in the wilderness and formed Israel’s constitution from the very beginning of its history, and posed this view as a question: Was the life of Israel in its land, from Joshua onwards, actually conducted according to the laws of Torah? Aware that a negative answer to this question would have supported and reinforced his different approach, he turned to examination of the life of Israel during the preexilic period, with this question serving as his guideline: Does the actual life of Israel, as recorded for that time, testify to the existence of the Torah? Two sources were available to the contemporary biblical scholar in the attempt to reconstruct the period under discussion: the Former Prophets, from Joshua to Kings, in which are found only slight traces of the Pentateuch (mainly of Deuteronomy), and Chronicles, which describes the whole period, from David onwards, in close affinity with the laws of the Pentateuch. That affinity is especially evident in regard to worship, which is described in Chronicles with great similarity to the precepts of the Torah. 9 Until de Wette these two sources had been regarded as complementary, each describing the period from different points of view according to the different interests of their authors. The historian was expected to make use of the two sources while constantly harmonizing them. The consequence of this approach would be, of course, that the life of Israel was indeed 7. Originally “Historisch-kritische Untersuchung über die Bücher der Chronik,” and “Resultate für die Geschichte der Mosaischen Bücher und Gesetzgebung.” 8. See Kraus, Geschichte, 141–43. The problem of the Pentateuch revolved mainly around two issues: the question of “who,” which contained also that of “when,” and the question of “how.” “Who,” namely: was it Moses who wrote the Pentateuch or a later author? “How,” mainly: was the Pentateuch as a whole the product of one creative author or were there sources which the author has used? There is a partial overlapping between the questions and the supposition of “sources” is possible even when Moses is regarded as the author. See Kraus, Geschichte, 82–86. 9. See W. Rudolph, Chronikbücher (Tübingen, 1955) xiv–xv. The question which of the literary layers of the Pentateuch had influenced Chronicles most had drawn the attention of many scholars in the course of research; see n. 69 below, and S. Japhet, The Ideology of the Book of Chronicles and Its Place in Biblical Thought ( Jerusalem, 1977) 11 n. 20 [Hebrew]; English translation by A. Barber (Frankfurt, 1989) 6 n. 20.

120

Chapter 6

determined by the laws of the Pentateuch. De Wette’s goal, therefore, was to undermine the accepted view and base the history of Israel on one source alone: the Former Prophets. In order to attain this goal it was not sufficient to express a few doubts or hesitations regarding the reliability of Chronicles; rather it was necessary to reject completely any use of the book as a historical source, and to prove that it was absolutely unreliable. This was the purpose of the first part of de Wette’s study. Thus, while his choice of title—“Historical-Critical Study of the Books of Chronicles”—appears unassuming and neutral, the work was in fact directly aimed at disproving the reliability of Chronicles. De Wette achieved this goal by the juxtaposition of the two sources: the Former Prophets on one hand and Chronicles on the other. He presented a contrast between what is close to the events, accurate, authentic, etc., and what is distant and detached, inaccurate, tendentious, etc. What is described in Samuel–Kings is presented as ‘truth,’ ‘history’; whatever deviates from it as ‘forgery’ and ‘tendentious.’ The central place of Chronicles in the critical study of the Pentateuch explains at once the significance which the book acquired in de Wette’s approach, the intense preoccupation with the problem of reliability, and the interrelationship between the two parts of de Wette’s work. Indeed, at the beginning of the second part he says: Just as the whole of Jewish history, in its most interesting and important aspects, namely those of religion and worship, took on a completely different form after sweeping out 10 the description of Chronicles, which was . . . for such a long time an obstacle to the correct view and deceived the student of history, so at once the study of the Pentateuch received a completely different direction. 11

Consequently, the first chapter of this part is called “Revision of the Historical Evidence and the Traces of the Existence of the Pentateuch as a Written Whole.” 12 There is an inseparable bond between the study of Chronicles and Pentateuch criticism, and it is this which illumines the history of Chronicles research from de Wette to a long time afterwards. The interest of scholars in the book itself remained marginal, a trend reinforced by the constant efforts of biblical scholarship to prove the book’s worthlessness. But its central role in the study of the Pentateuch resulted in a series of studies all dealing with the question of its reliability and with the sources at its disposal. In the fourth edition of his Einleitung, Eichhorn dedicated seven 10. De Wette’s language is very sharp, using words like “Wegräumung” here and “Verwerfung der Chronik” later (W. M. L. de Wette, Beiträge zur Einleitung in das Alte Testament [Halle, 1806] 136). 11. Ibid., 135. 12. Ibid., 136.

The Historical Reliability of Chronicles

121

pages to a discussion of the reliability of Chronicles and tried to defend it against de Wette’s view. 13 Among the books written at that time we should mention J. G. Dahler, Of the Dispute about the Authority and Historical Fidelity of the Book of Chronicles; 14 J. M. Hertz, Are There Traces of the Pentateuch and the Law of Moses to Be Found in the Books of Kings? A Study on the Defence of Chronicles, as well as the Antiquity of the Law of Moses; 15 C. P. W. Gramberg, The Historical Character and Credibility of Chronicles Examined Anew, 16 which supports de Wette’s views; and C. F. Keil, Apologetical Study of the Books of Chronicles and the Integrity of the Book of Ezra, 17 who again defends the traditional view. As already stated, the close connection between the two fields of research persisted later on, its main landmarks being the studies of K. H. Graf, “The Book of Chronicles as a Historical Source,” 18 and of Wellhausen in his Prolegomena, published in 1878, with Chapter 6 dedicated to Chronicles. 19 That it was these two scholars who produced momentous research on Chronicles was again no accident. In the study of the Pentateuch in the 19th century the line of development continued via the detailed work of Graf to its climax in Wellhausen’s work, which presented a final synthesis of all the lines of research followed to his time. Even today the “Documentary Hypothesis” is often referred to as “the Graf-Wellhausen hypothesis.” 20 The fact that these same scholars were the ones who developed and completed the line of study of the book of Chronicles is closely linked with their preoccupation with the Pentateuch. While Graf dedicated an elaborate study to the reliability of the various details in Chronicles, the

13. J. G. Eichhorn, Einleitung in das Alte Testament (4th ed.; Leipzig, 1823) vol. 3, §495, pp. 598–605. 14. J. G. Dahler, De Librorum Paralipomenon Auctoritate atque Fide Historica Disputatio (Strassburg and Leipzig, 1819). 15. J. M. Hertz, Sind in den Bücher der Könige Spurn des Pentateuch und der Mosaischen Gesetze zu finden? Ein Versuch zur Vertheidigung der Bücher der Chronik wie auch des Alterthums der Mosaischen Gesetze (1822). 16. C. P. W. Gramberg, Die Chronik nach ihren geschichtlichen Charakter und ihrer Glaubwürdigkeit neu geprüft (Halle, 1823). 17. C. F. Keil, Apologetischer Versuch über die Bücher der Chronik und über die Integrität des Buches Ezra (Berlin, 1833). 18. K. H. Graf, “Das Buch der Chronik als Geschichtsquelle,” in Die Geschichtlichen Bücher des Alten Testament (Leipzig, 1866) 114–247. The book comprises two parts and the difference between their respective titles is telling. While the discussion of Chronicles focuses on the problem of historical reliability, that of the Pentateuch and Former Prophets is dedicated to the “Components of the Historical Books from Genesis 1 to 2 Kings 25 (Pentateuch and Former Prophets).” 19. J. Wellhausen, Prolegomena to the History of Israel (translated by S. Black and A. Menzies; Edinburgh, 1885) 171–227. 20. See for example, H. H. Rowley, The Growth of the Old Testament (London, 1950) 16. The justification of this title and the contribution of other scholars, mainly A. Kuenen, to the formation and establishment of this theory is not my interest here.

122

Chapter 6

synthesis is presented in Wellhausen’s work, as a systematic presentation of the book’s character and its value as a historical source. Wellhausen regarded himself as a follower of de Wette and not of Graf; 21 indeed, without overlooking his own contributions to the understanding of the literary character and theological concepts of Chronicles, 22 its study was for Wellhausen, as much as for de Wette, only a means to an end. 23 De Wette had denied the reliability of Chronicles on the basis of what he regarded as two of its main features: negligent, inaccurate work, and gross tendentiousness, expressed inter alia in the author’s preference for the Levites, his predisposition toward the cult and his love of Judah and animosity for Israel. 24 Having abrogated the historicity of the Chronicler’s evidence, the way was clear for establishing a later dating of the Pentateuch as a whole. In principle Wellhausen followed the same path, but at his time the late date of the Pentateuch had already become an accepted axiom and the main interest lay with the problem of the ‘documents’ of which the Pentateuch was composed, their origins, dates and delimitation. Given these developments, therefore, Wellhausen related the tendentious testimony of Chronicles not to the lateness of the Pentateuch as a whole, but more specifically to the dating of the Priestly Code. His conclusion was that the historical description of Chronicles was thoroughly dyed with the colours of the Priestly Document and this was for him a proof that the Priestly Document had only recently come into being. The complete tendentiousness and unreliability of Chronicles were the indications by which the lateness of the Priestly Document was proven, and this in turn led to a complete theory of the history of the spiritual development and the religious institutions of Israel. 25 21. Wellhausen, Prolegomena, 172. It is certainly noteworthy that he downplays the importance of Graf, both here and in his general introduction, pp. 3–4. 22. On the resemblance between Wellhausen and de Wette, see also Willi, Die Chronik, 44– 45. According to Willi, “The meaning of Wellhausen’s chapter on Chronicles in his ‘Prolegomena’ lies only in giving a classical form to de Wette’s results, and enabling them to exert a general influence.” It seems, however, that Wellhausen cannot be regarded only as providing form and distribution to de Wette’s work; he made a contribution of his own and added important points to our understanding of the Chronicler’s views. 23. It should not be surprising, therefore, that Wellhausen paid no attention at all to Ezra– Nehemiah. Although he stated categorically that Ezra–Nehemiah is an organic part of Chronicles, he referred to it only in one parenthetical sentence in the introduction: “Chronicles, which properly speaking forms but a single book along with Ezra and Nehemiah, is . . .” (Prolegomena, p. 171), with no further elaboration. Although he agreed with the prevalent view of his time regarding the relationship between the two books, it was only Chronicles which was needed for the discussion of the Pentateuch and therefore it alone was the subject of his study. 24. The third paragraph in de Wette’s work on Chronicles is entitled: “Lack of Precision, Negligence, Compilatory Manner of the Author of Chronicles” (Beiträge zur Einleitung, 62–77); the following paragraphs deal with the above-mentioned subjects and with the Chronicler’s love for miracles (pp. 78–133). 25. Concerning the historical value of the book, he concludes as follows: “The whole question ultimately resolves itself into that of historical credibility; and to what conclusion this leads we have already seen. The alterations and additions of Chronicles are all traceable to the same

spread is 12 points long

The Historical Reliability of Chronicles

123

The work of Wellhausen was apparently conclusive. His description of Chronicles was accepted almost without demur. An expression of this view, in an extreme form, was given by C. C. Torrey, who dedicated several of his studies to Chronicles and Ezra–Nehemiah. At the end of the 19th century he declared categorically: No fact of Old Testament criticism is more firmly established than this; that the Chronicler as a historian is thoroughly untrustworthy. He distorts facts deliberately and habitually; invents chapter after chapter with the greatest freedom, and what is most dangerous of all, his history is not written for its own sake, but in the interest of an extremely one-sided theory.26

II Before turning to the next stage in the history of research, we should clarify another aspect of the study of Chronicles. This aspect may at first seem unrelated to our subject, but its relevance will quickly become evident. It is the question of the extent of the chronistic work, namely the relationship between Chronicles and Ezra–Nehemiah. 27 The traditional view is expressed in the Talmudic statement found in b. B. Bat. 15a: “Ezra wrote the book that bears his name and the genealogies of Chronicles up to his time. . . . Who then finished it [the book of Chronicles]? Nehemiah, the son of Hachaliah.” The view that Ezra was the author of Chronicles was questioned by Spinoza, who claimed that “they were certainly written after the time of Ezra.” 28 Spinoza based his argument on the list of the Davidides in 1 Chr 3:17–24, 29 but it seems that the motive behind his argument was again related to the problem of the Pentateuch. Since Spinoza suggested Ezra as the most likely candidate for the authorship of the Pentateuch and the Former Prophets, which he regarded as one composition, 30 he could not then attribute to Ezra authorship of the book

fountain-head—the Judaizing of the past” (Wellhausen, Prolegomena, 223). In the same vein he also opens his study: “We shall now proceed to show that the mere difference of date fully accounts for the varying ways in which the two histories [Former Prophets and Chronicles] represent the same facts and events, and the difference of spirit arises from the influence of the Priestly Code which came into being in the interval” (pp. 171–72). He also attacks rather sharply all those who tried to defend the reliability of Chronicles with the argument that the Chronicler had made use of ancient authentic sources. See especially his pp. 222–27 and n. 44 below. 26. C. C. Torrey, The Composition and Historical Value of Ezra–Nehemiah (BZAW 2; Giessen, 1896) 52. 27. See S. Japhet, “The Supposed Common Authorship of Chronicles and Ezra–Nehemiah Investigated Anew,” VT 18 (1968) 330–71 [[see pp. 1–37 in this volume]]; H. G. M. Williamson, Israel in the Book of Chronicles (Cambridge, 1977) 5–82. 28. Spinoza, Treatise 1:146. 29. Ibid., 274 n. 19. 30. “When we put together these considerations, namely, the unity of the subject of all the books, the connection between them and the fact that they are compilations made many generations after the events they relate had taken place, we come to the conclusion . . . that they are all

124

Chapter 6

named after him, or of Chronicles. Both of these works Spinoza ascribed to much later writers. 31 The question of the relationship between Chronicles and Ezra–Nehemiah took central place in a study of Chronicles by L. Zunz in 1832. His conclusions were that the two books were indeed composed by one author, but that this person could not have been Ezra the scribe but someone who surveyed the period from a distance and who therefore must have lived at a later date. Ezra, then, was not the author of Chronicles but rather the opposite: the Chronicler was the author of Ezra–Nehemiah. “We see the book of Chronicles and the book of Ezra–Nehemiah as two interconnected parts of one and the same work. Thus in the book of Ezra we have the Chronicler before us, with his descriptions of the people’s assemblies, festivals, and the reading of the Law. . . .” 32 Zunz’s approach and arguments were based on a literary-critical study of Ezra–Nehemiah, having—on the face of it—no direct bearing on the question of the book’s reliability or its use as a historical source. Yet, in characterizing the Chronicler as the author of Ezra–Nehemiah a judgment was implied: “Thus in the book of Ezra we have the Chronicler before us . . . with his love for genealogies, his exaggeration of numbers . . . his historical ignorance, etc.” 33 Still, from these literary conclusions Zunz did not draw far-reaching historical ones, since he attributed to the Chronicler only a small part of Ezra–Nehemiah and regarded most of Ezra–Nehemiah as consisting of sources adopted by the Chronicler. 34 He did not challenge the overall reliability of the book but tended to accept its evidence more or less at face value. The theory suggested by Zunz was a significant point of departure for future generations of scholars. In the following years this view gained in popularity, until it became a virtually unquestioned axiom. 35 Indeed, various literary studies of the time endeavored to show that the Chronicler’s part in Ezra–Nehemiah was much greater than Zunz had supposed, and the entire Ezra narrative was attributed to the Chronicler’s authorship. 36 Toward the

the work of a single historian. Who this historian was is not easy to show; but I suspect that he was Ezra and there are several strong reasons for adopting this hypothesis” (ibid., 129–30). 31. Spinoza places at a very late date also the author of Ezra, but he does not identify him with the author of Chronicles. In addition to Ezra he ascribes to him the composition of Nehemiah, Daniel, and Esther (ibid., 150–51). 32. L. Zunz, Die Gottesdienstlichen Vorträge der Juden historisch entwickelt (Berlin, 1832) 21. The same conclusion was reached independently by F. C. Movers, Kritische Untersuchungen über die biblische Chronik (Bonn, 1834), who attributed to the Chronicler only Ezra 1–10. Unfortunately I could not consult the book. 33. Zunz, Vorträge der Juden, 21. 34. Zunz regarded the following sections as “chronistic”: Ezra 1, 3, 6:18–7:11, 10:1–17; Neh 7:73b–10:29; and also some verses and sections in Nehemiah 11, 12, and 13 (ibid., 28). 35. See Japhet, “Supposed Common Authorship,” 330–33 [[in this volume, pp. 1–3]]. 36. Torrey, Composition, 14–29; idem, Ezra Studies (Chicago, 1910) 238–48; A. S. Kapelrud, The Question of Authorship in the Ezra Narrative (Oslo, 1944).

The Historical Reliability of Chronicles

125

end of the 19th century there was an increasing tendency to deny completely the historical reliability of Ezra–Nehemiah and consequently the very fact of the Restoration. 37 The most extreme view was again expressed by Torrey, who claimed that the author of Ezra–Nehemiah had at his disposal only two sources, both of which were more meager than was generally thought, and not free of later reworking. These two were Nehemiah’s Memoirs and a late, worthless, Aramaic source; all the rest was of the Chronicler’s free composition. 38 The basis of Torrey’s stand on the matter was the combination of the two lines of research which had been developed previously: the identification of the author of Ezra–Nehemiah with the Chronicler, and a categorical denial of this author’s reliability. Torrey’s contribution lay in the broadest application of these principles and the drawing of the most extreme historical conclusions from them. Consequently, he rejected out of hand the historical picture portrayed by Ezra–Nehemiah and suggested his own: The Exile was a limited phenomenon; there was no Restoration at all; Ezra the Scribe is a fictitious figure; the edict of Cyrus and the letter of Artaxerxes are later forgeries; the story about the bringing of the Torah from Babylon is pure imagination; the expulsion of the foreign wives is an unfounded invention; and so on. 39 From the point of view of the historian, the consequences of the rejection of the historical reliability of Ezra–Nehemiah were more far-reaching than the denial of the same in Chronicles. After all, for the description of the monarchic period the book of Chronicles can be regarded as merely complementary; our main sources are to be found in earlier historiography, other biblical books and extrabiblical material. Not so the history of Israel in the Persian Period, for which the book of Ezra–Nehemiah was and still is the main source. Only little can be learned from other biblical books (in particular Haggai and Zechariah), and extra-biblical material was and remains quite meager. The total abandonment of Ezra–Nehemiah as a historical source left the historical study of the period to the scholar’s whim. Thus the problem of these “ad absurdum” conclusions about the unreliability of Ezra–Nehemiah can be regarded as a major cause for change of direction and a reconsideration of the historicity of the Chronicler.

37. One should mention here the work of van Hoonacker, who raised doubts regarding the historical framework of Ezra–Nehemiah and placed Ezra after Nehemiah. See A. van Hoonacker, Néhémie et Esdras (Louvain, 1890); idem, Zorobabel et le Second Temple (Gand, 1892); idem, Nouvelles Études sur la Restauration Juive (Paris, 1896). Also to be mentioned is Kosters, who doubted the historical reliability of Ezra 1–4 and denied the historicity of the Restoration. See W. H. Kosters, Die Wiederherstellung Israels in der persischen Periode (translated by A. Basedow; Heidelberg, 1895) (the Dutch original was published in 1893). 38. The summary of Torrey’s literary analysis is found in his Composition, 49–50. 39. Ibid., 51–65. Torrey then elaborated these conclusions in his following studies (mainly in Ezra Studies, 208ff.), after realizing that his first study did not make the impression he had wished for.

126

Chapter 6

III The first impulse toward a moderation of attitudes, and a more careful examination of the use of Chronicles as a historical source, came from scholars whose main interest lay not in the study of the Pentateuch or the history of the religion of Israel, but in the reconstruction of ancient history. In the second half of the 19th century archaeological discoveries in the Near East were beginning to bear fruit. The newly discovered findings were brought to bear on the accepted view of the history of Israel—until then based on biblical sources alone. The discoveries also inspired increased interest in the history of Israel as such, and encouraged scholars to search for additional sources even within the Bible, to complete as far as possible the historical picture. The beginnings of a change in attitude regarding the reliability of Chronicles must be put within this framework. It seems that the first scholar to articulate this change was Hugo Winckler, who dedicated a special study to “Remarks on Chronicles as a Historical Source,” 40 and dealt with the book on various other occasions. 41 Winckler’s approach was cautious and rather reserved. He faithfully followed his predecessors in the study of Chronicles and accepted as a general rule the fact of the book’s tendentiousness which by its very nature compromised reliability. Yet, following some isolated remarks made by Graf, 42 he began to re-examine the historical description, although in a very restrained manner. To begin with he disregarded the sections of the book which parallel Samuel–Kings, agreeing with his predecessors that the changes which this material underwent in Chronicles all resulted from the Chronicler’s own motivations, and consequently were of no historical value. He therefore limited himself to a re-examination of the additional material peculiar to Chronicles. Even this, according to Winckler, had to be scrutinized for the characteristic views of the Chronicler, and only when these were absent could one reconsider—in each case on its own merits—the historical probability of the material. Winckler believed that the new information gathered from the discoveries in the ancient Near East caused an essential change in the very concept of “historical probability,” a change which must be brought to bear on the material in Chronicles as well. 43

40. H. Winckler, “Bemerkungen zur Chronik als Geschichtsquelle,” in Alttestamentliche Untersuchungen (Leipzig, 1892) 157–67. 41. See mainly his discussion of the deportation of Manasseh in “Die Orakel über Nordarabien, Jes. 21,” in Alttestamentliche Untersuchungen, 122–23. His conclusion was that “one has as much right to doubt Manasseh’s deportation as his very existence.” See also the discussion of the problem of the Arabs and Meunites in “Musri, Meluhha, Mai’n,” MVAG 3 (1898) 42–51. 42. See Graf, “Das Buch der Chronik,” 187–88. Graf lists here verses and passages from 2 Chronicles which are of an annalistic character and were probably excerpted from an ancient source. He states here too, however, that they are found in Chronicles in a reworked form and therefore should not be taken literally. 43. Winckler, “Bemerkungen,” 157–60.

spread is 6 points long

The Historical Reliability of Chronicles

127

Winckler’s cautious approach demonstrated the historian’s need to complement his or her sources and to make use of all the material to which he or she might have access, but also the conviction that the uncompromising, categorical disqualification of Chronicles is itself rather arbitrary. Following Winckler, we can trace the same careful search for historical elements by other scholars as well, such as Benzinger, Kittel, and Curtis. 44 At the same time the examination of the problem of historical reliability was being introduced in another area, that is, the book of Ezra–Nehemiah. In 1896 Eduard Meyer published his study Die Entstehung des Judentums, in which he discussed in great detail the Aramaic documents in the book of Ezra: their language, form, and historical background. The conclusion he reached was that the Aramaic documents were an authentic, reliable source; as a result much greater historical value was ascribed to the whole of Ezra–Nehemiah. 45 The path taken by Meyer is a good example of the way in which generally accepted conventions forced the historical and literary study of Ezra–Nehemiah into certain avenues of research. According to the general view the Chronicler was the author of Ezra–Nehemiah and his reputation as a historian had reached its nadir; in fact he is described as a first-rate forger of history. The only way to “rescue” the book of Ezra– Nehemiah and accept its historical outlines was by the assumption that at least the major part of the book derived from authentic, contemporary sources, and that the Chronicler’s interference with these sources was minimal. At the same time, all historical inconsistencies could be attributed to the Chronicler, an academic escape route which afforded easy solutions and ample opportunity for various historical reconstructions. 46 An important change in attitude can be traced in the first study of Albright dedicated to Ezra–Nehemiah. The article is entitled, “The Date and Personality of the Chronicler,” but it deals in fact with the question of authorship and reliability of Ezra–Nehemiah. 47 Albright was faced with a 44. I. Benzinger, Die Bücher der Chronik (KHAT; Tübingen, 1901) x–xiii; R. Kittel, Die Bücher der Chronik (HAT; Göttingen, 1902) x–xvi; E. L. Curtis and A. A. Madsen, The Books of Chronicles (ICC; New York, 1910) 14–16. It should be said that Wellhausen too recognized the existence of several historical nuclei in the genealogy of Judah, following his dissertation on the subject (De Gentibus et Familiis Judaeis [Göttingen, 1870]). See Prolegomena, 216–18. However, he regarded as marginal the importance of these details, did not draw from them any inferences regarding the other parts of the book, and in his final conclusions simply ignored them. He stated explicitly that “To speak of a tradition handed down from pre-exilic times as being found in Chronicles, either in 1 Chronicles 1–9 or in 1 Chronicles 10–2 Chronicles 36, is thus manifestly out of the question” (ibid., 222). Later on he justified his stand by saying: “It is indeed possible that occasionally a grain of good corn may occur among the chaff, but to be conscientious one must neglect this possibility of exceptions and give due honour to the probability of the rule” (ibid., 224). 45. E. Meyer, Die Entstehung des Judentums (Halle, 1896) 8–71. 46. Torrey debated with Meyer in “The Aramaic Portions of Ezra,” in Ezra Studies, 140–207. See also the independent views of L. W. Batten, The Books of Ezra and Nehemiah (ICC; New York, 1913) 14–24. 47. W. F. Albright, “The Date and Personality of the Chronicler,” JBL 40 (1921) 104–24.

128

Chapter 6

dilemma. On the one hand he admired the philological studies of Torrey and accepted unquestioningly his literary conclusions, that most of Ezra– Nehemiah, including the Ezra narrative, was composed by the Chronicler. 48 On the other hand, he followed Meyer in accepting the authenticity of the Aramaic documents, and rejected Torrey’s historical conclusions that almost everything in Ezra–Nehemiah was spurious. 49 In order to solve this impasse Albright suggested that Torrey’s literary conclusions did not force the assumption that the author of Ezra–Nehemiah was the Chronicler. In fact the opposite is more convincing: that Ezra was the author of both Ezra– Nehemiah and Chronicles. 50 By returning to the traditional view Albright achieved several ends: he upheld the literary conclusions of Torrey without denying the existence of Ezra himself; he considerably antedated the composition of Ezra–Nehemiah; and, while holding to the accepted view regarding the complete unreliability of Chronicles, he emphasized the reliability of Ezra–Nehemiah, the problematics of which had been his starting point. Thus he writes: The question of the Chronicler’s date is naturally of the greatest importance for the post-exilic history of the Jews. Since he shows a total lack of historical sense in dealing with the pre-exilic age, he may be trusted with equal unreliability for the century after the Captivity, in case he lived in the third century bc, where the great majority of scholars . . . place him. On the other hand, since practically the whole of the old Jewish literature perished in 586, we can understand how a writer of the early fourth century might be worthless for pre-exilic conditions, and yet reliable for the century preceding his own time. The two problems of the date and veracity of Ezra–Nehemiah are therefore indissolubly connected. . . .51

In a way, Albright is here at a crossroads: he is still bound to the prevalent conclusions of his time, but his historical approach impels him to look for new solutions. Albright proposed a view which entailed some changes in the concept of historical reliability. Accordingly, he saw one and the same author as unreliable for one historical period and fully trustworthy for another, because the origin of his unreliability was not in himself as an author, but in the lack of appropriate sources or in the absence of a critical method. 52 In principle this view implied a rehabilitation of the Chronicler 48. See ibid., 106: “Torrey’s textual work is perhaps unsurpassed for brilliancy in the whole domain of Old Testament science.” 49. Ibid., 107. In support of Meyer’s view he adduced the witness of the Elephantine papyri which had come to light in the interval (pp. 107, 117–18). 50. Ibid., 120. 51. Ibid., 105–6. 52. Albright refers to it in one sentence from the passage already quoted: “since practically the whole of the old Jewish literature perished in 586, we can understand how a writer of the early fourth century might be worthless for pre-exilic conditions”—which implies that the cause of the late author’s “worthlessness” is only the lack of sources and not his literary method or theological bias. At the same time another possibility may be implied, namely that

spread is 6 points long

The Historical Reliability of Chronicles

129

as a historian who, in spite of his tendentiousness, could be regarded as a writer of history and not of belles lettres. Albright addressed himself in this study only to Ezra–Nehemiah and not to Chronicles, but in the article’s first footnote he remarks: Up to the present no archaeological discoveries have confirmed the facts added by the Chronicler to his liberal excerpts from the canonical books of the Old Testament. Some of his statements, especially his lists of towns and clans, have doubtless historical value, though their exact source remains unknown. . . . It is still however too early for a categorical denial of historical nuclei in these fantastic stories. . . .53

These words of Albright were actually an expression of a wish and hope that the archaeological discoveries might indeed confirm these stories! Indeed, in an article written almost 30 years later, in 1950, this new direction was confirmed. The title of the article is “The Judicial Reform of Jehoshaphat,” 54 but only its second part dealt with that subject; the first, more comprehensive part, addressed itself to “The Literary and Historical Character of the Chronicler’s Work.” 55 Here Albright purposed to challenge outright the rejection of Chronicles as a historical source, for which “archaeological evidence can now be marshaled in increasing abundance.” 56 Still, Albright finds it necessary, here too, to begin his argument with the post-exilic periods and the book of Ezra–Nehemiah. He then proceeds from the historicity of the Restoration, the Exile of Jehoiachin and the Elephantine papyri, to the book of Chronicles itself, making reference to the genealogies, the temple singers, various facts from the history of the kingdom of Judah, and so forth. His final conclusion was that the total rejection of Chronicles is “both subjective and uncritical.” 57 Even Albright did not accept the evidence of Chronicles at face value but required a careful examination of the material before any historical conclusions could be drawn. However, in relation to Winckler, he took an important step forward. Winckler looked for reliable historical elements only in the additional material of Chronicles, and only when it was free of any characteristic tendencies of the author. Albright demanded that all the elements of the chronistic work be studied anew. Important data could be found, according to Albright, not only in the neutral stories, but also in the tendentious ones, and even there it was possible that the Chronicler was not inventing his stories but selecting what suited his purposes from alternative the late author could act more freely because there was no appropriate literature which could serve as a means of control. 53. Ibid., 104 n. 1. 54. W. F. Albright, “The Judicial Reform of Jehoshaphat,” in Alexander Marx Jubilee Volume (New York, 1950) 61–82. 55. Ibid., 61–74. 56. Ibid., 62. 57. Ibid., 74.

130

Chapter 6

sources. According to Albright, Ezra edited his work “with profound respect for what he found in books and traditions, but with scarcely the most elementary conception of critical method. It is therefore incumbent on the historian to accept his material with gratitude but sift it with care.” 58

IV The change in Albright’s attitude toward the historical reliability of Chronicles was just one expression of a more general, manifold change which has come about in the study of Chronicles in the present century. This change was accelerated by several factors, of which the weightiest in Albright’s consideration was the progress in knowledge of the history of Israel as a result of archaeological discoveries, both material and epigraphic. The influence of this factor can be discerned already in Winckler’s studies, and it gained impetus gradually with the accumulation and combination of various details, both large and small. The discovery of the Siloam inscription and tunnel, for example, confirmed the evidence of 2 Chr 32:30 and made almost impossible any understanding of this verse as a mere interpretation of 2 Kgs 20:20. 59 As early as 1905, Macalister connected the seals bearing the inscription ˚lml, which were being discovered at several sites in Israel, with 1 Chr 4:23 and the genealogies of Judah. 60 The archaeological surveys in the Judaean Desert, which began in the 1950s, showed that the information about the constructions of the kings of Judah “in the desert” were not just an expression of the Chronicler’s own interests but also reliable historical facts. 61 More examples could be cited. Another result of the archaeological discoveries, especially in Israel, was an increased understanding of historical geography, which led to a new evaluation of the geographical data in Chronicles, and an emphasis on their basic reliability. In this area one could mention the studies of Klein, Bewer, Noth, Aharoni, Kallai, and others. 62 58. Ibid., 73–74. See also the balanced statement of Rudolph: “Descriptions in which no influence of the chronistic leading ideas can be recognized deserve full trust and form a welcomed complement to our knowledge; even where such influence can be traced we are not free from examining whether the Chronicler did not make authentic events carry the burden of his theological views even when these events are not known from any other place” (Chronikbücher, xvii). 59. The inscription was discovered by accident in 1880. See J. Simons, Jerusalem in the Old Testament (Leiden, 1952) 179–87. 60. R. A. S. Macalister, “The Craftsmen’s Guild of the Tribe of Judah,” PEQ 37 (1905) 243– 53, 328–42. 61. 2 Chr 17:12, 26:12, 27:4; see F. M. Cross and J. T. Milik, “Explorations in the Judean Buqê’ah,” BASOR 142 (1956) ii; M. Kochavi, ed., Judea, Samaria and the Golan Archaeological Survey 1967–1968 ( Jerusalem, 1972) 93–94 [Hebrew]. 62. S. Klein, “Studies in the Genealogical Chapters of Chronicles,” in Palästina Studien ( Jerusalem, 1930) [Hebrew]; G. Beyer, “Das Festungssystem Rehabeam,” ZDPV 54 (1931) 113–34; M. Noth, “Eine siedlungsgeographische Liste im 1 Chron. 2 und 4,” ZDPV 55 (1932) 97–124; idem, “Die Ansiedling des Stammes Juda auf den Boden Palästinas,” PJ 30 (1934) 31–47.

The Historical Reliability of Chronicles

131

The force of archaeological discoveries as a factor in biblical research stems from its foundation in extra-biblical material, which affords a sense of objectivity. Its results were felt not only in the confirmation or rejection of isolated details, but in a more general change of attitude. This manifested itself in two ways: an overall increase in the credibility of Chronicles (thanks to the cumulative evidence of numerous details), and a more cautious stand regarding the limits of “historical probability.” From these new points of departure the historian could now approach the historical data of Chronicles in a more moderate mood. 63 The above considerations were, however, just one of the factors which brought about a change of attitude toward Chronicles. Another factor was the developing re-evaluation of the Chronicler himself and of his literary methods. The portrayal of the Chronicler as the forger of history, as a person endowed with a rigid dogma, rare literary talents, and an unrestrained audacity, whose writings were pure fiction, inspired by limited objectives 64—this was a stereotype which could no longer be accepted. It seems that two elements in this picture caused a counter-reaction. One is the presupposition that the Chronicler had been writing his history with a priori evil intentions and vicious premeditations, forging his story in the service of ideological and political objectives, and the other the assumption of “free invention”: fictitious writing disguised in geographical lists, genealogical details and historical narratives. As we saw above, Albright claimed that the Chronicler (or Ezra) was a cautious editor, who described the history of Israel by means of collecting and reworking ancient sources which he handled with great respect. Another step was made at the same time by E. Bickerman, who claimed that characteristic features of the historiography of the time are expressed in the Chronicler’s work. These would include the selection of data from available source material, guided by the principle of historical probability; the choice of subjects in accordance with the changes in historical interest; and the description of history in line with its meaning to the author and to his generation. 65 Bickerman applied to the Chronicler the same criteria which would be applied to any historiography, and compared the Chronicler’s methods to those of contemporary 63. It should be emphasized that the definition of “historical probability” is still fluid and inconclusive. We still find a complete acceptance, or almost so, of the witness of the Chronistic material (see for example, J. Bright, History of Israel [2nd ed.; Philadelphia, 1955] 230–31, 248– 49, 272, 283, 316, etc.) and side by side with this acceptance, a total, or almost total, denial. See inter alia, M. Noth, The History of Israel (translated by S. Godman; Edinburgh, 1958) and n. 74 below. Moreover, even when the bare event is accepted as historical, the debate regarding the details is still active. See for example the manner in which two commentators react to Albright’s attitude regarding the judicial reform of Jehoshaphat: Rudolph, Chronikbücher, 256–58; and J. M. Myers, II Chronicles (AB 13; New York, 1965) 108–9. 64. Torrey, Ezra Studies, 227–51. 65. E. Bickerman, From Ezra to the Last of the Maccabees (New York, 1962) 21–31, first published in L. Finkelstein, The Jews: Their History, Culture and Religion (New York, 1949).

132

Chapter 6

Greek historiographers. In contrast to the generally held view Bickerman claimed that the Chronicler’s tendentiousness and his lack of critical method do not compromise his status as a historian. 66 Another direction in the understanding of the literary phenomenon of Chronicles was being followed in the 1930s. By then, the study of biblical historiography was developing under the influence of factors which had come into play within biblical scholarship. In the first half of the 20th century new avenues were opening up in the study of biblical literature, and the question of the authorship of the Pentateuch was being freed from the rigid hold of the “Documentary Hypothesis.” Following Gunkel, his contemporaries and successors, the “documents” lost some of their centrality in the study of the Pentateuch, the composition of which was now conceived of as a process spanning many generations, and not as the exclusive enterprise of individual authors at specific historical moments. 67 In addition, the chronological landmarks in the composition of the Pentateuch had become firmly established, based on interior literary and historical considerations, and only to a lesser degree in the light of the evidence of biblical historiography. The need to deal with the historical evidence of Chronicles as a proof of the lateness of the Pentateuch—as a whole or in part—was greatly diminished. Consequently, Chronicles ceased to be used as a tool in the service of Pentateuch criticism. It could now become an object of interest in its own right, to be studied in its proper context as one component of biblical historiography. Further, biblical historiography in general ceased to be evaluated in terms of “truth” and “untruth.” This change should be attributed to the general disillusionment within the historical sciences, and to the realization that the describing of events “as they really happened” was impossible—not just for the ancient historian. Historiosophy, the historian’s concept of history, became a legitimate aspect of historiography, to be coped with and accepted. The fruits of this general disillusionment with “objective history” can be found also in the study of Chronicles. In 1930 von Rad published his book on The Historical Picture of the Chronistic Work, 68 a title which was already an expression of the change 66. This argument was brought up by various scholars over the years; see Graf, “Das Buch der Chronik,” 122; Wellhausen, Prolegomena, 226–27; G. von Rad, Das Geschichtsbild des chronistischen Werkes (BWANT 54; Stuttgart, 1930) 121, 133; J. M. Myers, I Chronicles (AB 12; New York, 1965) xviii. On the recent expressions of this view, see below. Bickerman’s stand is followed by M. Smith, Palestinian Parties and Politics That Shaped the Old Testament (New York, 1971) 169–70. One may say that the decision on this issue rests less with the book’s tendentiousness than with a basic definition of “historian” on the one hand and an opinion about the literary nature of Chronicles on the other. See M. Noth, Überlieferungsgeschichtliche Studien (2nd ed.; Tübingen, 1957) 166, 172; Japhet, Ideology, 426–31. 67. H. Klatt, Hermann Gunkel (FRLANT 100; Göttingen, 1969) 104–92; D. Knight, Rediscovering the Traditions of Israel (2nd ed.; Missoula, 1975) 71–75. 68. Von Rad, Das Geschichtsbild.

The Historical Reliability of Chronicles

133

afoot. What von Rad regarded as significant was the “historical picture” of the Chronicler, the way in which he understood the history he described, and not the “historical truth.” In order to draw this picture von Rad made use of the sketches of his predecessors; however, he broadened the picture to include many aspects previously neglected (having no bearing on the problem of historical reliability), and he explained differently, as might be expected, their origins and meaning. 69 He also made a clear shift in the focus of interest: the specific chronistic views, which until then had been used only as proof of the unreliability of the historical description, now became objects of study in their own right. Consequently von Rad emphasized those parts which are peculiar to Chronicles and not the parallel sections 70 and in the additional material the central meaning of Chronicles was determined for him by the historiosophical aspects rather than by the historical. Noth dedicated to Chronicles a substantial part of his book TraditioHistorical Studies of the Historical Compositions of the Old Testament, Which Are of a Collective and Editorial Nature. 71 He dealt with Chronicles from a different point of view than von Rad, yet depended basically on the same development in biblical studies. According to him there were three “historical compositions” in the Bible: the Pentateuch, the Deuteronomistic work, and the Chronistic work. It was to the last two that he devoted his book, leaving the Pentateuch for special consideration elsewhere. In Noth’s study there is almost a full parallelism between the two parts, which deal respectively with the Deuteronomistic and Chronistic historiographies, and the discussion is conducted under the same headings for both works. 72 Noth emphasized in particular that the book of Chronicles should be defined as “historiography” 73 though by no means should this definition obscure the book’s tendentiousness (of which Noth is very much aware), nor should it in itself lend the book any extra reliability. 74 His opening assumption is that the need to explain the past to any present generation in

69. Willi claims that von Rad’s main merit is the proof that the Chronicler was influenced not only by the Priestly Code but by the Pentateuch as a whole and especially by Deuteronomy (Die Chronik, 46 and elsewhere). This is rather an underestimation of von Rad’s work and even more so of its influence. 70. Von Rad, Das Geschichtsbild, 3. 71. See n. 66 above. 72. The study of each of these compositions is divided basically into two sections: “The Structure of the Work” and “The Character of the Work.” The latter is built along identical headings for each of the compositions, referring to: “literary peculiarity”; “historical presupposition”; “the stand towards the accepted traditions,” and “leading theological ideas.” The first section, which deals with the structure of the work, is built along different lines for each of the compositions, as determined by their respective problems. 73. Überlieferungsgeschichtliche Studien, 172. 74. On the extent of the historical data in Chronicles, see Noth, ibid., 131–43. Noth regards only very few passages in Chronicles as historically reliable, and even these are not used in full when he draws the picture of the history of Israel. See n. 63 above.

134

Chapter 6

meaningful terms is a common feature of historiography, and Chronicles with its idiosyncrasies is just one example. 75 It seems, then, that with regard to the problem of historical reliability two major trends were being established: one was the attempt to sift from the book maximum historical data through a cautious, critical method, in order to complement our knowledge of the history of the monarchic period and exploit as far as possible the material peculiar to Chronicles. The other was the treatment of the book as a specific section of biblical historiography with interest focused on questions of a literary and religious nature and with the question of historical reliability losing its centrality. The fruits of these two trends are found in a long series of studies published during recent years. 76

V To approach and evaluate with a proper perspective the most recent studies of the subject is a forbidding task. It is as yet impossible to say what are the general guidelines expressed in these studies. Yet even at risk of error I can hardly ignore some of the more recent endeavors, devoted specifically to the subject under consideration here. I would like to mention first the monograph by P. Welten, entitled History and the Description of History in the Books of Chronicles, dealing with 2 Chronicles 10–36. 77 Welten accepts the results of several recent studies 75. A comparable attitude towards the Former Prophets and Chronicles is also the general point of departure of B. Mazar, according to whom “The character of the books of Kings and Chronicles makes it necessary to distinguish between the elements which bear on the time of their compilators and editors and which are influenced by the religious and national views of the period of their composition, and on the other hand the ancient sources, namely the authentic material which was written at the time of the events themselves or somewhat later” (B. Mazar, “Early Israelite Historiography,” in The World Congress of Jewish Studies [ Jerusalem, 1952] 1:358 [Hebrew]). Regarding the details, however, Mazar ascribes to Chronicles a much greater reliability than Noth and in his reconstruction of historical events he uses its evidence abundantly. See for example, B. Mazar, “The Cities of the Priests and Levites,” VTSup 7 (1960) 197–200; also H. N. Richardson, “The Historical Reliability of the Chronicler,” JBR 26 (1958) 12. 76. It is beyond the scope of this study to mention all these contributions, but some of them should be listed. The first direction is demonstrated, for example, by J. Liver, “History and Historiography in the Book of Chronicles,” in Festschrift A. Biram ( Jerusalem, 1956) 152– 61 [Hebrew]; S. Talmon, “Divergences in the Calendar Reckoning in Ephraim and Judah,” VT 8 (1958) 48–74; F. L. Moriarty, “The Chronicler’s Account of Hezekiah’s Reform,” CBQ 17 (1965) 399–406; E. L Ehrlich, “Der Aufenthalt des Königs Manasse in Babylon,” TZ 21 (1965) 281–86. To the second direction belong, for example, A. C. Welch, The Work of the Chronicler (London, 1939); G. Wilda, “Das Königsbild des chronistischen Geschichtswerk” (Ph.D. diss., Bonn, 1959); A. M. Brunet, “Le Chroniste et ses sources,” RB 60 (1953) 481–508; 61 (1954) 349–86; J. Liver, Chapters in the History of the Priests and the Levites ( Jerusalem, 1968) [Hebrew]; R. Mosis, Untersuchungen zur Theologie des chronistischen Geschichtswerk (Freiburg, 1973); Willi, Die Chronik; Williamson, Israel; Japhet, Ideology. 77. P. Welten, Geschichte und Geschichtsdarstellung in den Chronikbüchern (WMANT 42; Neukirchen-Vluyn, 1973).

The Historical Reliability of Chronicles

135

and regards Chronicles and Ezra–Nehemiah as two separate works 78—a step of great significance in itself. Yet both in method and in conclusions his book is closest to the work of Torrey. This is an interesting phenomenon, as Welten does not mention Torrey, and it is quite possible that he was not aware of his work. 79 Welten bases his study on a literary-linguistic analysis of the additional sections of 2 Chronicles 10–36; the gist of his historical conclusions is that the sure contribution of Chronicles to our knowledge of the monarchic period is minimal, and is exhausted in three short paragraphs from the times of Rehoboam, Uzziah, and Hezekiah. To these one could add, hesitantly, two more pieces of information from the time of Rehoboam and Jehoram. 80 All the other additions in 2 Chronicles 10–36 are a free invention of the Chronicler, created in response to the circumstances of his time, the first half of the 3rd century b.c.e. 81 It seems that, in both method and results, Welten’s study is an antithetical reaction to the two trends in the study of Chronicles that I have mentioned above. He consciously opposes any attempt to find in Chronicles a substantial contribution to the history of Israel in the monarchic period, criticizing systematically a number of studies written in this spirit. 82 At the same time he opposes Noth and his followers who regard the book of Chronicles as an organic continuation of biblical historiography, to be understood and evaluated in parallel to the Deuteronomistic historiography. According to Welten Chronicles is a new and unique phenomenon, which he describes as follows: “With the books of Chronicles the historiography of Israel enters an entirely new stage; no more are traditions being collected and reworked; no more are earlier works being re-edited. The Chronicler writes history from beginning to end, anew and independently.” 83 Welten’s definition of the phenomenon as a “free, parabolic, writing of history” 84 is arrived at through a comparison with the book of Judith. In this way he excludes Chronicles from the very definition of historiography. 78. See n. 27 above; Willi, Die Chronik, 179–84; Welten, Geschichte, 3–4. 79. This may be explained by the fact that the author limited his reading to books concerning Chronicles and did not refer to those which deal with Ezra–Nehemiah. This is but one example of Welten’s one-sided treatment of the subject. 80. The sections are: 2 Chr 11:5b, 6–10a; 2 Chr 26:6a, 10; 32:30 (Welten, Geschichte, 195– 96). Elsewhere he points to the possibility that also for 2 Chr 11:22–23, and 21:1–4 a source from the monarchic period was utilized (p. 193). 81. On his view regarding the date of the Chronicles, see Geschichte, 196–97. For a dispute with these views see Williamson, Israel, 83–86. 82. See the introduction, pp. 2–5, and in great detail throughout the book. Welten is right in claiming that the positive attitude towards the historical reliability of Chronicles is to be found mainly in non-German circles of biblical studies (Geschichte, 3). Among the German scholars his arguments are directed especially against Galling (p. 5). See K. Galling, Die Bücher der Chronik, Ezra, Nehemia (ATD; Göttingen, 1954) ii, 189–91. 83. Welten, Geschichte, 205. 84. “Freie parabolische Geschichtsdarstellung” (Geschichte, 206). The term is borrowed from H. Junker, TTZ 70 (1961) 182–85.

136

Chapter 6

A second study on the subject is R. North, “Does Archaeology Prove Chronicles’ Sources?” 85 His answer to the question is categorically in the negative and his results are very similar to those of Welten. The third, and the most recent, is Ralph W. Klein, “Abijah’s Campaign against the North (1 Chronicles 13): What Were the Chronicler’s Sources?” 86 Klein’s conclusions are that all the Chronicler’s sources were biblical, and nothing more. In a cautious but determined style he concludes: I do not wish to disparage in general the historical character of the Chronicler, or to deny that he had access at times to records that were the basis for much of his additional or divergent information. In the case of Abijah, however, the Chronicler’s departures from Kings can all be explained as due to a divergent text of Samuel–Kings, to his theological viewpoints, and to his exegetical-midrashic use of an old Benjaminite list, to give concreteness to Abijah’s northern victory.87

In view of all these studies one should ask whether the renewed scepticism regarding the reliability of Chronicles is more than a passing mood and represents a new line of approach to the understanding and interpretation of the book. This new development clearly shows that although the interest in Chronicles has certainly broadened and become much more varied, with the question of the historical reliability no longer occupying the centre of discussion, the feeling of many scholars that a certain consensus has been reached, albeit with slight variations, is far from justified. As yet, the question of the Chronicler’s historical reliability cannot be considered a “closed case.” We are still looking forward to a broadening of our knowledge, a deepening of our understanding, a clarification of our terms and definitions, an improvement of our evaluation, all of which may enlighten our use of the book of Chronicles as a source for the history of Israel. 85. In A Light unto My Path (Festschrift J. M. Myers; Philadelphia, 1974) 375–401. 86. ZAW 95 (1983) 210–17. 87. “Abijah’s Campaign,” 217.

Chapter 7

Law and “The Law” in Ezra–Nehemiah One of the most important foundations of biblical religion is the concept that the legal system which governs the life of the people of Israel was given to them by God. 1 The main force of this concept lies in the fact that, not only specific cultic laws, regulating obligations and prohibitions in the strictly religious realm, but the legal system as such, with all its social and moral enactments, was ordained for Israel by God himself. This divine perspective imbues the legal system with an emphasized religious dimension: any adherence to the law, even in the particular realm of social and economic life, is by definition the fulfillment of a religious precept, while any transgression of the law, even in pecuniary, torts or personal law, is also a religious offence and constitutes disobedience to the divine will. An important corollary of this basic concept was the need to establish instruments of mediation, by which this “divine law” would be brought to the people’s attention, and for the exact definition of the legal corpus which constitutes the “divine law” and whose force is binding on the conduct of the people. Indeed, biblical thought addressed itself to these questions, and several answers to the attendant problems—contradicting or complementing each other—are to be found in the Bible. The predominant view in this matter is that the divine laws were given to the people of Israel through the mediation of Moses and were written in the “law of Moses.” At the end of a long process, the exact historical and spiritual circumstances of which are not always clear to us, this concept came to exclude all others. It became a single, binding norm, determining to a great measure the nature and form of the Israelite religion. There is no one definition in the Bible for this “law of Moses,” but it is described in various ways: “the book of Moses” (Neh 13:1); “the book of the Law” (2 Kgs 22:8); “the book of the law of Moses” (2 Kgs 14:6; Neh 8:1); “the book of the Law of God” (Neh 8:8); “the book of the Lord given through Moses” (2 Chr 34:14), etc. In various instances, these descriptions may allude to different compositions, 2 but the titles themselves are no guide to their identification. Only at the end of a prolonged process was “the law of

1. See A. Alt, “The Origins of Israelite Law,” in Essays on Old Testament History and Religion (translated by R. A. Wilson; Oxford, 1966) 81–132; especially 81, 96–97. 2. It is thus generally accepted that most references to “the book,” “the book of the Law,” or “the book of the law of Moses” in Kings refer to Deuteronomy alone, or even to the “nucleus of the canonical Deuteronomy.” See J. Gray, I and II Kings (OTL; London, 1964) 547, 651–52.

137

138

Chapter 7

Moses” identified with the book which is designated in Jewish tradition as simply “the Law”—namely, the Pentateuch. 3 The identification of the divine law with “the law of Moses” has farreaching ramifications. Among these is the view that the laws in their totality were given to the people during a specific, relatively short, historical period, before the entrance into Canaan. The laws by which the people were to abide were determined a priori, and were binding on all future generations. Conceived of as divine in origin, the laws were regarded as absolute and immutable, and were expected to answer all of life’s needs, even with the changing of aspects and eras. This formula also denied the following generations, at least in theory, any legislative function or capacity. The most outstanding expression of this view is provided by the biblical canon as it stands: all of the legal material, whatever its historical or literary provenance, is confined to the Pentateuch, with no legislative function ascribed to any of the Israelite leaders or institutions after the settlement in Canaan.4 Once this theological premise had been established, its consequences were to transcend the realm of theology, and its influence was to be felt in the actual socio-historical developments. The significance of this influence cannot be over-estimated. In principle, such a concept stands in conflict with the very essence of law as a social phenomenon. By its nature, law is an expression of specific social situations and needs, and is therefore changeable. By definition it cannot be absolute and immutable—as required by the supposition of its divine origin. Judaism has always lived in the light of this dialectic, and postbiblical Judaism was constrained to find ways of coping with it in order to survive. Of these we may mention the legitimization of “oral law,” conceived as being the law of Moses which complements the written law; the assumption of a “chain of tradition” for the unwritten law originated at Sinai; the authorization of later generations of sages to enact regulations, and, finally, the establishment of flexible rules by which Scripture served as a basis for every new enactment, either by direct homiletics or through secondary scriptural support. 5

3. The question is not yet resolved whether the term “Torah” has this precise meaning already in biblical passages, e.g., in Ezra–Nehemiah or Chronicles. See T. Willi, “Thora in den biblischen Chronikbüchern,” Judaica 36 (1980) 102–5, 148–51. 4. It should be stated that in the present context we are not concerned with the historical and sociological validity of this view. Some scholars, however, would regard it, at least as far as indigenous Israelite law is concerned, as an authentic reflection of historical circumstances. See Alt, “The Origins,” 131: “so the assertion of the canonical text . . . that all law in force in Israel came down from the occasion when the covenant was made in the time of Moses, is to some degree confirmed for at least one category of law.” 5. For the whole subject, consult the two major works, M. Elon, Jewish Law: History, Sources, Principles ( Jerusalem, 1973) 1:171–98 [Hebrew]; English translation by B. Auerbach and M. Skyes (Philadelphia, 1994) 190–223; and E. E. Urbach, The Halacha (Gibeataim, 1984) [Hebrew]; English translation by R. Posner (Gibeataim, 1986).

Law and “The Law” in Ezra–Nehemiah

139

Within biblical thought, however, the concept of the divine origin of the law did not necessarily entail its mediation through the “law of Moses”; this was, in fact, but one among several views. Without attempting a full picture of the matter, we may point out two more views regarding the media of the divine will in a legal, regulating capacity. One of these sees the priests as custodians of the actual teaching of the law. One may view the priestly legal material of the Pentateuch as an organic offshoot of this mode of teaching, which was constantly coping with new situations. This priestly legal role is also explicitly alluded to, in the Pentateuch and outside it. One example is in Mal 2:7: “For the lips of a priest guard knowledge and men should seek ruling from his mouth (whypm wçqby hrwtw), for he is a messenger of the Lord of hosts.” According to this definition, the priest is the address for “seeking law,” namely, for guidance and instructions regarding actual problems. His authority is described in this case as deriving from his being “the messenger of the Lord of hosts”—an idea to which I will return later. 6 Two interesting samples of “seeking the law” through the priest are illustrated in postexilic sources. In Hag 2:11–17 an inquiry of the priests becomes the basis for a prophecy. After the introductory words “Seek a ruling from the priests” (rmal hrwt µynhkh ta an laç), Haggai poses the priests two questions regarding purity and impurity. No instruction regarding this specific problem is found in the extant biblical material, and this had probably been the state of affairs in Haggai’s time. The priests pronounce their decision on the new problem—which might then serve as precedent in similar cases. In Zech 7:3, a practical question is brought before the priests and prophets, regarding the continuation, now that the rebuilding of the temple was in progress, of the fasts which were established after the destruction: “to address this inquiry to the priests . . . and to the prophets: Shall I weep and practise abstinence in the fifth month as I have been doing all these years?” The response is provided not by the priests but by the prophet Zechariah; concerning the concrete problem it is rather evasive. 7 It is not our task here to discuss this view in detail, especially as regards the practical procedures and techniques through which the divine will was made known. We should however point out that “seeking the law” is viewed and demonstrated in these texts in its double capacity: on one hand as a practical procedure in the settlement of problematic matters in both individual and public life, and on the other hand as a general designation for the priest’s role and activity. It should also be noted that although this priestly activity is not a priori legislative, it eventually becomes so. Some of the actual “rulings” were to become precedents for future decisions, and 6. See p. 140 below. 7. Zech 7:4–8:19. Zechariah himself seems to have been of priestly origin—see H. G. Mitchell, Haggai, Zechariah, Malachi and Jonah (ICC; Edinburgh, 1912) 81–82—but his response is prophetic in nature, very much at variance with the direct and laconic answer of the priests in Hag 2:12–13.

140

Chapter 7

were eventually crystallized into fully-fledged “laws.” The absence of legal corpora ascribed explicitly to priests is only a result of the present format of the biblical material, shaped as it is by the concept discussed above, and not of the priestly legal activity as such. The other way in which the divine will was conceived of as reaching the people, not merely in rebuke and comfort but also in the specific form of laws and commandments, was the medium of “the prophets” in general. Thus, Ezra 9:10b–11: “For we have forsaken Your commandments which You gave us through Your servants the prophets”; Dan 9:9b–10: “for we have rebelled against Him and did not obey the Lord our God by following His teachings (wytwrwtb) which He set before us through His servants the prophets”; and most clearly 2 Chr 29:25: “for the ordinance was by the Lord through His prophets”—which refers to an innovation introduced by David: “as David and Gad the king’s seer and Nathan the prophet ordained.” There are obvious links between this view and the ones I have already mentioned. “The prophets” as the mediators of law may include Moses but are not confined to him. Theoretically at least, one may regard one of these concepts as emanating from the other—in a process of broadening from Moses to prophecy in general, or of limitation—from prophecy in general to “the master of all prophets.” 8 Be that as it may, in the designation of “the prophets” as lawgivers, a shift in the historical centre of gravity is effected: from pre-conquest times to the realities of the land of Israel. Moreover, the possibility of renewal and change is introduced into the concept of “divine law.” From another point of view prophetic legislation is linked to the “seeking of the law” from the priests. This connection is expressed not only in the appearance of priests and prophets together as the address for a practical question (Zech 7:3), but also in the description of the priest as the “messenger of the Lord of hosts” (Mal 2:7)—a title which transfers to the priest concepts more characteristic of the prophet (Hag 1:13, 2 Chr 36:16, etc.). Both views relate to the seeking of God’s will as a living aspect of real life and one may say that in Malachi’s words a fusion of two concepts—related but still distinct—is achieved: the priests as bearers of God’s law, and the prophets as transmitters of God’s will. To regard the source of the law in the living revelation of the prophet allows for a great adaptability of the law and for its constant change without relinquishing the absolute divinity of its origin. Also established is the law’s “oral form,” mediated directly by the prophet. However, both this view and the one connected with the priest had eventually to give way to the view that the “law of Moses” was the sole source for God’s commandments. Although the “Torah” as we know it is far from being complete, and in spite 8. Moses’ superiority over all prophets is referred to already in the Pentateuch, in Num 12:6–8 and Deut 34:10–12, but in neither of these passages is it related to his role as mediator of the Law.

Law and “The Law” in Ezra–Nehemiah

141

of the inherent difficulty encountered by any absolute law-code in coping with changing situations, the dialectic process has led to the establishment of the “law of Moses” as the sole and binding authority in all spheres of human conduct. Only through the study of the written law, according to the methods of sages and not of prophets, could regulations for actual behavior be fixed. This is the meaning of the well known maxim: “Until now the prophets were prophesying through the Holy Spirit; from now on—lend your ear to listen to the words of the sages.” 9 As mentioned above, the systematic confrontation of these problems is fully demonstrated in postbiblical Judaism, in the legal activity reflected in the homiletic and talmudic literature. However, the tensions between “written divine law” and “life” were immanent in the very concept of the “law of Moses” and were surely manifest earlier. The question should therefore be asked: can we observe these processes already from the vantage point of biblical texts? There seems to be a special interest in what can be learned about this subject from late biblical historiography and the period of the Restoration, for several reasons: (a) We have at our disposal explicit evidence bearing on our subject, the time and provenance of which are not disputed. (b) The period of the Restoration is characterized by a professed spirit of repentance which is expressed, inter alia, in the strongest desire to obey God’s will and live by his word. (c) The figure of Ezra the scribe represents a turning point—according both to traditional views and modern scholarship—to “the religion of the law,” 10 that is: a religion based on a written book. This view is anchored in Ezra–Nehemiah itself, first in the description of Ezra as the one who “had set his heart to study the law of the Lord and to do it and to teach his statutes and ordinances in Israel” (Ezra 7:10), and further in the story of the reading of the law with all its consequences for the history of Israel, as described in Nehemiah 8. This is, therefore, the place to ask how these processes functioned in practice, in the conditions prevailing at the Restoration, at least as described by its historiographers. The point of departure for our investigation is provided by one of the major events recorded in Ezra–Nehemiah—the expulsion of the foreign 9. Seder ºOlam Rabbah 30. To this approach belongs also the rabbinic axiom: “no prophet has now the right to introduce anything new” (Sipra Behukotai 13:7; b. Tem. 16a) and similar statements. However, different approaches to the subject survived for a long time and were prevalent also among the sages, as attested by rabbinic sources. See in detail, E. E. Urbach, “Halacha and Prophecy,” Tarbiz 18 (1947) 1–27 [Hebrew]. 10. This idea is, of course, interpreted and evaluated in various ways. Its clearest expression is in the saying which compares Ezra to Moses himself: “Had Moses not preceded him, Ezra would have been worthy of receiving the Torah for Israel” (b. Sanh. 21b). In modern scholarship this was greatly emphasized by J. Wellhausen, Prolegomena to the History of Israel (translated by J. S. Black and A. Menzies; Edinburgh, 1885) 404–10, followed by many others. An interesting revision of this view is attempted by K. Koch, in his study “Ezra and the Origins of Judaism,” JSS 19 (1974) 173–97.

142

Chapter 7

women (Ezra 9–10). For the present discussion, it is not so much the historical aspects (such as the precise background of the events or the reliability of the narrative), but rather the legal aspect which is significant. This we shall consider as it stands, as a reflection of its author’s views. A short while after Ezra’s arrival in Jerusalem, he is approached by a delegation, described as “the officials.” They describe to him, in a “matter of fact” manner, an urgent social problem, with which the reviving community of the Restoration has been confronted: “the people of Israel have not separated themselves from the peoples of the lands. . . . They have taken their daughters as wives for themselves and for their sons” (Ezra 9:1–2). Ezra reacts dramatically: he rends his garments, pulls hair from his head, and fasts; at the time of the evening sacrifice he turns to the Lord with a penetrating confession (vv. 3–15). In the meantime, the people join Ezra in his mourning (10:3), and then one of the attending crowd comes forth with a suggestion: “Let us make a covenant with our God to expel all these women and those who have been born to them” (Ezra 10:3). Ezra accepts the suggestion and puts “the officers of the priests and the Levites and all Israel under oath to act accordingly, and they took the oath” (10:5). Then the events proceed to their conclusion, as depicted in Ezra 10. The different stages of this incident are carefully delineated. The initiative to deal with the problem comes from a certain body called “the officials.” Their first step is to present the situation to Ezra, without asking for an answer, although their stand on the matter is clear from the way they present it. 11 In accord with the way in which he is approached, Ezra does not react with ready solutions. His confession has but one purpose: to establish a doctrinal stand toward mixed marriages. Of the various theoretical possibilities for evaluating this phenomenon—samples of which are to be found in the history of Israel and in the biblical literature—Ezra chooses the most extreme. He describes the sin of intermarriage as the “source of all evil,” regards it as the cause for the destruction of the kingdom, when the people “have been handed over . . . to the sword, to captivity, to pillage and to humiliation” (Ezra 9:7), and views it as a major threat for the future: “Will You not rage against us till we are destroyed without remnant or survivor?” (v. 14). Ezra’s evaluation of the matter leads the officials to the next stage: suggesting solutions. The initiative, then, is taken not by Ezra but by one of the gathering, probably one of the officials, who presents the solution to Ezra and asks for his authorization. Indeed, Ezra adopts the suggestion and pro11. One should note, however, that this stand was not unanimous. We can presume that a different position was held by those who contracted mixed marriages, which would include members of all Israelite classes, Ezra 10:18–44. A positive attitude toward mixed marriages is clearly implied in the book of Ruth and plays an important role in the historical concept of Chronicles. See S. Japhet, The Ideology of the Book of Chronicles and Its Place in Biblical Thought ( Jerusalem, 1977) 295–99 [Hebrew]; English translation by A. Barber (Frankfurt, 1989) 346–51.

Law and “The Law” in Ezra–Nehemiah

143

ceeds to act upon it. Our attention focuses on Ezra 10:3–4, in which the actual steps are recorded and substantiated: “let us make a covenant with our God to expel all these women and those who have been born to them, in accordance with the bidding of the Lord 12 and of all who are concerned over the commandment of our God, and let it be done according to the law 13 (hç[y hrwtkw). Take action for the responsibility is yours and we are with you. Act with resolve!” The first step suggested is the making of a covenant, that is, the undertaking of a commitment by oath, 14 to act on what will be decided. Thus, the motivating force is not to be sought in an external source—a ruler or a law— but with the people, who bind themselves to the plan by oath. The act itself is substantiated by the exhortation—which for our topic is of the greatest significance: “let it be done according to the Law.” It has already been demonstrated that there is in fact no ruling in the Pentateuch prohibiting intermarriages in general. 15 The most specific rule on the matter is devoted to the prohibition of marriages between Israelites and the descendants of the “seven nations,” “the inhabitants of the land,” found in the Pentateuch in two versions. In Exod 34:11–16, it is phrased as a general warning: “Beware of making a covenant with the inhabitants of the land. . . . And . . . you take wives from among their daughters for your sons . . . ,” while in Deut 7:1–3 it is apodeictic: “You must doom them to destruction . . . you shall not intermarry with them: do not give your daughters to their sons or take their daughters for your sons.” In both cases the intermarriage is only one of the expressions of “making a covenant” with these peoples, against which the children of Israel are severely warned, because of the danger to their faith inherent in Canaanite idolatry: “their daughters will lust after their gods and will cause your sons to lust after their gods” (Exod 34:16), and “for they will turn your children away from Me to worship other gods” (Deut 7:4 and see also Deut 20:17–18). For other peoples, those who are “far off” (20:15), Deuteronomy provides different laws, which, inter alia, recognize and regulate marriages with foreign women. Although Deuteronomy cites only one specific case of that sort, that of a “beautiful captive woman” (Deut 21:11–14), the premises of the 12. MT: yn;døa“, and many mss actually have the Tetragrammaton (see BHS). Some scholars would prefer to read ynidøa“, referring to Ezra himself. See W. Rudolph, Esra und Nehemia (HAT; Tübingen, 1949) 92; J. M. Myers, Ezra, Nehemiah (AB; New York, 1965) 80. So also rsv and neb. 13. Here we follow the common rendering of hrwt as “law” and deviate from that of the njpsv, which renders the Hebrew hrwt with “the Teaching”—going back to the Hebrew etymology but preserving the capital “T” (See also the njpsv for Neh 8:1, 2, 3, etc.; 9:3, 14, 34 etc.). 14. The English rendering “let us make a covenant with our God” might be misleading, if a bilateral commitment is inferred. The Hebrew phrasing wnyhlal tyrb trkn, literally “to” or “for our God,” refers to a one-sided commitment of the people. This is also the use in 2 Chr 29:10. See Rudolph, Esra und Nehemia, 92; and Japhet, The Ideology, 102–3 [English translation 113–15]. 15. Y. Kaufmann, History of the Religion of Israel [Hebrew]; English translation by C. W. Efroymson (New York, 1977) 4:333.

144

Chapter 7

law and its phrasing indicate a general permit to marry women who do not belong to the “seven nations.” No additional rule is found in the other legal codes; in fact they ignore the subject altogether. In the more general area of relationship with other peoples, two more laws should be mentioned, referring to those who are not allowed to “enter the assembly of the Lord” (rsv) or: “admitted into the congregation of the Lord” (njpsv) (Deut 23:2–9[1–8]). Four groups are enumerated: those whose genitals are damaged (23:1); bastards (v. 2); Ammonites and Moabites (v. 3); and the last—Edomites and Egyptians—of whom the children of the third generation “may enter the assembly of the Lord” (v. 8). Judging from the first two groups, the law originated not in ethnic considerations per se, but in some criterion of “adequacy” for a specific status inside Israel, the nature of which is not made clear by the relevant contexts. 16 This status is denied forever, for historical reasons, to people of two nations, Ammonites and Moabites, while for Edomites and Egyptians the restriction applies only until the third generation. These are all the legal data in the Pentateuch pertaining to mixed marriages; if any conclusion were to be drawn therefrom, it would be that a woman belonging to one of the “seven nations” would have had to be put to death, according to the ruling: “you must doom them to destruction,” while for all others there would have been no sanction at all. It is clear, therefore, that the regulation of Ezra 10:3, “to expel all these women and those who have been born to them,” is not taken from the Law, either in its general attitude or in its details. The question posed by this fact is twofold: what was the basis and origin of this regulation, and why is it introduced with: “let it be done according to the Law?” One possibility, which may provide an answer for both aspects of the question and seems at first rather attractive, is the assumption that Ezra’s law-book, upon which the decision was founded, was different from the canonical one. 17 For the specific issue under consideration, the adoption of this hypothesis would mean that Ezra’s law-book contained an explicit reference to mixed marriages in general, as well as a regulation providing for their dissolution. Such a possibility cannot be ruled out a priori, but the dif16. The term uh lhqb aby is exclusive to this context, where it is repeated five times, and to Lam 1:10 and Neh 13:1–3, which are clearly dependent on it. It is rendered by S. R. Driver, Deuteronomy (ICC; Edinburgh, 1902) 259 as “religious communion with Israel,” but this too is vague. A similar concept may be intended in Judg 21:5, 8, which reads lhqb hl[, “come up in the assembly of the Lord.” Rabbinic exegesis interpreted the term straightforwardly as denoting marriage, but at the same time regarded the definitions of “Ammonite,” “Moabite,” etc. as referring to proselytes of these origins (m. Qidd. 3:1–3; m. Yad. 4:4, etc.). Kaufmann, History, 4:338 takes the interpretation of “marriage” as the original meaning of these laws; see also Driver, who regards it as “the principle embodied in them” (Deuteronomy, 262). 17. The question of the scope and nature of Ezra’s “law-book” has attracted much attention from the very beginning of modern biblical criticism. See recently R. Rendtorff, “Esra und das Gesetz,” ZAW 96 (1984) 165–84.

Law and “The Law” in Ezra–Nehemiah

145

ficulties it incurs are enormous. Not only would it render the whole development of Pentateuchal literature and biblical theology inexplicable, but, in the specific matter at hand, it would contradict the very spirit of the narrative which it is supposed to clarify. As is very clear from the whole context, the main feature of this episode is the people’s confusion, their inability to handle the social dilemma with which they have been unexpectedly confronted. 18 In turning to Ezra they are first of all seeking guidance, asking him to define the phenomenon in meaningful terms for their historical and religious self-understanding. If this were all to be found in a written law-book, what would be the point of this whole scene? What was the need of Ezra’s dramatic reaction, his confession, the elaborate description of the sin and the homiletic interpretation of Scripture? The logic of the story lies in its being a new situation which needed new solutions. Indeed, Ezra does not turn to consult any written book when he formulates his response—unlike Josiah in 2 Kings 22, or Ezra himself in Nehemiah 8. Moreover, the “making of a covenant” and the taking of the “oath” are necessary only because of the novelty of the issue. If an explicit extant law had been available (as the one regarding the Feast of Tabernacles referred to in Nehemiah 8, or the one regarding the offering of sacrifices mentioned in Ezra 3), a covenant would have been entirely superfluous. Another possible solution to the difficulty inherent in Ezra 10:3 is the assumption that “the law” to which it refers is not an unknown law-book, but a homiletic interpretation of the canonical one. Indeed, Kaufmann claimed that “Ezra chapter 9 is the first Halakhic Midrash in our literature.” 19 This suggestion needs to be examined in more detail. As Kaufmann clearly demonstrated, the whole pericope of Ezra 9–10 contains midrashic elements, two of which are of special interest. The first is found in the words of the officials in their initial presentation of the situation. They describe the foreign peoples with the general designation: “the peoples of the lands,” but also enumerate them: “the Canaanites, the Hittites, the Perizzites, the Jebusites, the Ammonites, the Moabites, the Egyptians and the Edomites.” 20 This list is well calculated: the first four names represent the “seven nations,” who were by the time of Ezra probably only a historical memory. The last four are historical peoples indeed, but only those mentioned in the laws of Deut 23:1–8. The juxtaposition of the two groups is intended to identify them as one, applying the laws of one group to the other. In addition, a general category of “peoples of the land” is thus formed, which includes all the 18. This has been strongly emphasized by Kaufmann, History, 4:336–37, who refers repeatedly to “confusion” and “perplexity” as hallmarks of the time. 19. This is our translation of Kaufmann’s words in the original, Toledot ha ºEmuna haYisraªelit ( Jerusalem, 1972) 4:293. The published translation, History, 4:339, reads: “Ezra chapter 9 is the first instance of halakhic exegesis in Jewish writings.” 20. The reading “Edomites” follows 1 Esdras (see BHS)—adopted by many commentators; see Rudolph, Esra und Nehemia, 86. MT: “Amorites,” followed by others; see Myers, Ezra, 73.

146

Chapter 7

nations with whom the Israelites may have had historical contact; contrary to the original laws, the prohibition of intermarriage would now apply to all. 21 In his confession, Ezra follows this implication and ascribes the prohibition to the “peoples of the lands” in general, without referring to their exact ethnic origin or geographic provenance. He composes his speech with segments taken from Deut 7:3 on one hand and Deut 23:7 on the other. The second homiletic interpretation is found in our context in Ezra 9:11–12. Here Ezra brings together two originally unconnected texts, expressing independent ideas. One is the notion of the “uncleanness” of the land, caused by the “abhorrent practices” of the peoples of the lands, who filled the land with their “impurity.” The other is the prohibition of intermarriage. Originally, the “uncleanness” of the land is a priestly concept, found in the context of incest and other sexual offences, which the earlier inhabitants of the land were practising: “For all of these abhorrent things were done by the people who were in the land before you, and the land became defiled” (Lev 18:27). This defilement caused the land to “spew out” these peoples (v. 28); therefore the people of Israel are warned not to repeat these sins, so that they may inherit the land: “You shall possess their land for I will give it to you to possess, a land flowing with milk and honey” (Lev 20:24). The focus of this concept is not in the relationship between these peoples and Israel, but in their uncleanness as such, and its bearing on their inheritance of the land. By contrast, the prohibition of intermarriage with the “seven nations” in Deut 7:3 is not related to their “uncleanness” but to their idolatry; it is part of the law of the ban, which has nothing to do with, and is even contrary to, notions of defilement and pollution which caused the land to “vomit out” its inhabitants. In his confession, Ezra combines the two ideas: the prohibition of intermarriage was enacted because of the uncleanness of the peoples, which he then describes in unspecific but most emphatic terms: “the land . . . is a land unclean through the uncleanness of the peoples of the lands, through their abhorrent practices with which they, in their impurity, have filled it from one end to the other” (Ezra 9:11). The promise to inherit the land “for ever” is dependent on severing every connection with these peoples; not only intermarriage is forbidden but also the seeking of “their well-being or advantage” (v. 12). This whole conceptual structure is unique to our context; it has no parallel in other biblical sources and is based entirely on homiletic interpretation of existing scriptures, mainly from Leviticus and Deuteronomy. The focus of the matter is the establishment of a dogmatic stand toward intermarriage, its definition as a sin, its portrayal as “the” historical transgression of Israel, and the description of its dangers for the present generation. However, this homiletic procedure of adaptation of existing scripture is 21. The homiletic point of the list was completely missed by Rudolph, Esra und Nehemia, 86, who regards it as a gloss precisely because “at least half of these peoples were for long perished and could not any more constitute a threat.”

Law and “The Law” in Ezra–Nehemiah

147

confined to the theological aspect of the problem. When it comes to the establishment of pragmatic regulations, with which the community is to cope in the actual situation—no homiletic procedure is followed. The regulations are adjusted completely—in both content and phraseology—to the actual exigencies of the situation, with no reference at all to the laws of the Pentateuch. Three explicit regulations are laid down on this occasion: 22 two are mentioned in 10:3—to expel both the foreign wives and their children, and the third is inferred from 10:19—to offer a sacrifice for the expiation of their guilt. Yet, none of these was taken from “the Law” as it stands, and only the last was derived from the Law by way of homiletic interpretation. What, then, was the origin of these regulations? It seems that the story itself provides the answer. The community of the Restoration was motivated by the strongest desire to uproot the abhorrent phenomenon of intermarriage and chose to reverse the situation by annulling the marriages altogether. The desire to restore the original order of things and to nullify the very act of marriage would account not only for the expulsion of the women, but probably also for the expulsion of the children: the fruit of transgression must also be removed. In the expulsion of the children, however, another factor could have been at work. A very ancient Jewish provision stipulates that in matters of ethnic affiliation the children follow their mother. The provision is found in a laconic formulation, with no scriptural basis, in the Mishnah: “If her betrothal with this man was not valid, and her betrothal with others would also not be valid, the offspring is of her own standing. This is the case when the offspring is by a bondwoman or Gentile woman.” 23 It is also found in the Talmud, in what may seem a legal homiletic interpretation based on Scripture but which is in fact a doctrinal decision: “thy son by an Israelite is called thy son; but thy son by a heathen is not called thy son but her son.” 24 In the Midrash this provision is connected with our text in Ezra 10:3. 25 The connection is liable, in principle, to one of two explanations: that the dogmatic provision regarding the status of children actually originated in the historical situation described in our context, or the opposite: that this had been the prevalent norm at the time of Ezra and before but 22. It is probable that these regulations did not cover all the exigencies which may have arisen during their actual application. Problems relating to the timing and mode of operation are alluded to in the story itself (Ezra 10:16–17), but other matters, which may have included the exact criteria for the definition of “foreign women,” the manner and conditions of the expulsion, financial arrangements for the women, their children and their families, modes of punishment for those who refused to acquiesce, etc., are not mentioned. If the story indeed reflects authentic historical conditions, such questions were bound to arise and answers must have been provided. 23. M. Qidd. 3:12. 24. B. Qidd. 68b. 25. Gen. Rab. 7:3.

148

Chapter 7

acquired written documentation only because of the mixed marriages affair. Only in much later times was this prevailing convention attached, secondarily and loosely, to biblical verses. The third regulation, the bringing of a guilt offering by those who had married foreign women, is also not attested in the Pentateuch. 26 However, its introduction in this case can be explained as an application of the ritual concept of guilt offering to the actual sin of intermarriage. Although the expulsion of the women and their children nullified the marriages, it did not expiate for the act itself, which had been defined as a prodigious sin. Some act of confession, repentance and expiation was required, in order to cleanse the sinners of their iniquity. This was achieved by the guilt offering, which according to Lev 5:17–18 was designated for the following matters: “And when a person, without knowing it, sins in regard to any of the Lord’s commandments about things not to be done, and then realizes his guilt, he shall be subject to punishment. He shall bring to the priest a ram . . . as guilt offering.” Indeed, this was precisely the nature of the people’s sin: “without knowing it” they were doing “things not to be done.” The understanding of the sin in terms of “guilt” as established in Lev 5:17–18, 27 led naturally to the demand for “guilt offering”—a simple process of legal homiletic technique, which encompasses the new situations within the framework of familiar concepts and regulations. Yet, precisely here there is no mention that the offering was made in conformity with an existing law, stating either that it was done “as is written” or “according to the Law.” We may conclude, then, that the regulations provided for dealing with intermarriages stemmed from the actual legal circumstances of the time; they were based on common legal premises, prevalent customs and contemporaneous theological concepts. The phrasing of these rulings was neither based on, nor connected with, the established commandments, but rather employed laconic, adequate, contemporary language. 28 And yet, as stated above, these very rulings are substantiated by: “let it be done according to the Law.” Before attempting to resolve the problem, we will highlight it with another example, of a similar nature.

26. On the general subject of “guilt” see now J. Milgrom, Cult and Conscience, the Asham and the Priestly Doctrine of Repentance (Leiden, 1976). 27. Differently Milgrom, ibid., 71–73, who regards the intermarriage as a case of “sancta desecration” and connects it with Lev 5:15–16. Milgrom proposes a different interpretation also for Lev 5:17–19 (ibid., 73–80). 28. The phrasing of these injunctions is exceptionally idiosyncratic, with none of the phrases attested elsewhere. The expulsion is described in the Hiphil form of axy, ayxwh (Ezra 10:3, 19), while the common usage for divorce is jL"væ (Deut 22:19; 24:1, 3, 4; Jer 3:3, 78; Isa 50:1, and even in the contemporary Mal 2:16). It is not clear whether the different linguistic usage implies a different act or procedure. The children are designated with the unique “those born of them” (µhm dlwnh), and even the statement: “let it be done according to the Law,” does not recur in the Bible.

Law and “The Law” in Ezra–Nehemiah

149

The brief and concise passage of Neh 13:1–3, of which the exact content and specific historical background are not entirely clear, is of consequence to our inquiry. At that time they read to the people from the Book of Moses and it was found written that no Ammonite or Moabite might ever enter the congregation of God, since they did not meet Israel with bread and water, and hired Balaam against them to curse them; but our God turned the curse into a blessing. When the people heard the law,29 they separated all the alien admixture (br[ lk) from Israel.

The procedure described in this passage is similar to the one followed in Neh 8:13–18: the reading in the Law is an inducement for the people to keep God’s commandment and celebrate the Feast of Tabernacles. However, while the identification of “the Law” in the case of Neh 8:13–18 is still disputed, 30 “the Book of Moses” of Neh 13:1–3 is easily identifiable: it is the book of Deuteronomy, whether taken by itself or as part of the Pentateuch. Verses 1bb (following “since”)–2 are an accurate citation, with some omissions, from Deut 23:4–6[3–5]. 31 The reading in the “Book of Moses” leads the people to practical conclusions: “They separated all the alien admixture from Israel.” The disparity between Neh 13:1–3 and the legal injunction on which it is based is apparent. First, the conclusions of Neh 13:3 are applied to lk br[, a term not found in the context of Deut 23:1–9. br[ occurs in the Bible only once more, where it is translated as “mixed multitude” (Exod 12:38), and there at least it can hardly be regarded as a legal definition. 32 Its connotation in Neh 13:3 may be inferred by comparison with Neh 9:2, a passage to which it has a strong affinity: “Those of the stock of Israel separated themselves from all foreigners (rkn ynb).” By force of analogy one may assume that br[ means “foreigner,” but even if this is the case, it has been demonstrated above that the passage in Deut 23:3–6 does not deal with relationships with foreign peoples in general but only specifically with two, Ammonites and Moabites, who comprise a special group among the nations. Their exclusion is defined as “shall not enter the congregation of the Lord,” and the reasons presented in the passage, even in the section of it cited in Nehemiah, are historically precise: “they did not meet the children of Israel with bread and water and hired Balaam against them to curse them.” Nevertheless, from this very passage, as cited, the people of Israel of “at that time” draw their own conclusions. First they define the negative formulation: “shall not enter” as an affirmative prescription: the active separation of these people from the people of Israel. Secondly, they change 29. 30. 31. 32.

Jps: the Teaching; see n. 13 above. See Rudolph, Esra und Nehemia, 150–51. See p. 144 above. These are probably the same people who are designated also πspsa in Num 11:4.

150

Chapter 7

the precise definition of “Ammonite and Moabite” to include all those of foreign descent. The text in Deuteronomy is surely not a general stipulation, and the word “all” is not intended there. Yet, in spite of this obvious disparity, the steps taken by the people of Israel are described explicitly as being a direct outcome of the reading of the book: when the people heard the Law they separated from Israel, etc. The similarity between Neh 13:1–3 and the pericope of Ezra 9–10 is therefore not limited to their common subject. More significant for our discussion is the fact that in both cases the legal actions adopted by the community are referred to as being based on the Law (and in Neh 13:1–3 also on a citation of it), while in fact they did not conform literally, or even fully, to any given commandment as found in the Pentateuch. Similar examples of disparity can be added; 33 I will mention only Ezra 6:18, which deals with a completely different topic. The Aramaic text reads as follows: They appointed the priests in their courses and the Levites in their divisions, for the service of God in Jerusalem, according to the prescription in the Book of Moses.

As is well known, the division of priests and Levites into “courses” is not mentioned in the Pentateuch at all. Their historical origin should most probably be sought for in circumstances characteristic of the Second Temple, while the book of Chronicles, which serves as the major source for this subject, ascribes their initiation and introduction to David. 34 It is difficult to assume the existence of an unknown “Book of Moses” which attributed to Moses the implementation of the “divisions.” Neither can we regard this statement as merely a case of “imprecision” in the use of language and terminology. Rather, one should view this usage as programmatic, a deliberate expression of the author’s stand. In the more limited sphere, such a statement could be regarded as direct polemic against the above-mentioned view, nominating Moses rather than David as the founder of the temple’s courses. 35 In the broader theological sphere, it would throw light on the general dispositions of the age. In this respect two matters seem to have become clear thus far in the course of our discussion: that the community of Israel at the time of the Restoration, as depicted by the book of Ezra–Nehemiah, was seeking to build its life in the strictest conformity with the will of God; and that the written “Book of Moses” was regarded as the embodiment of God’s will in his laws. The reading and study of the Law had become a major factor in public religious life; the 33. Mainly Neh 10:30–40, 1 Chr 15:15, 2 Chr 30:15–16. See Japhet, The Ideology, 206–10 [English translation 239–44]. 34. 1 Chr 23:6; 24:1–6, etc. See J. Liver, Chapters in the History of the Priests and Levites ( Jerusalem, 1969) 33–52 [Hebrew]. 35. On the historiographical meaning of this alternating attribution of institutions, see E. Voegelin, Order and History (Louisiana, 1956) 1:174ff.

Law and “The Law” in Ezra–Nehemiah

151

foundations of faith, as well as the basic demands of pious conduct, were learned from the Law, either directly or by way of midrashic interpretation. These have indeed become the foundation for the community’s self-understanding. However, in the realm of actual legislation, which was to cope directly with life’s changing conditions and demands, and which established detailed prescriptions for the practical conduct of the individual and the community, no strict adherence to the details of the law was attempted. In a paradoxical way, what may be called “a religion of the book” was not in fact “a religion of the letter.” The major public legislation was provided in this period by means of a “covenant,” sealed with an oath before the Lord. 36 In the religious realm such a covenant is demonstrated by the two most important examples: the expulsion of the foreign women and the “firm covenant” described in Nehemiah 10. In the social sphere this manner of legislation is attested by the social reform of Nehemiah, described in Nehemiah 5. This is a distinct form of legislation: religious in its foundation and disposition but simultaneously very democratic in the source of its authority—two of the most important features of the community of the Restoration. 37 The people take upon themselves, freely and with full responsibility, the obligation to live by the rules they decide upon; in the language of Neh 10:33[32]: “we have laid upon ourselves obligations.” The details of the legislation respond to actual historical situations, prevalent customs, legal traditions and norms, and religious concepts. At the same time, and with no sensation of incoherence, the people of the Restoration regard themselves as acting according to the written book. The substantiation and motivation of their acts are presented as a religious maxim: hç[y hrwtk “let it be done according to the Law.” 36. This mode of legislation was not, most probably, the only one, but surely intended for major issues and public reforms. The priestly role in this period was illustrated above, and one should not exclude the legislative effect of regular judicial processes; see mainly E. E. Urbach, The Halacha, 8–10 [English translation 3–6]. 37. S. Japhet, “Biblical Historiography in the Persian Period,” in World History of the Jewish People (ed. H. Tadmor and I. Ephºal; Jerusalem, 1983) 6:186–88 [Hebrew]; idem, “Sheshbazzar and Zerubbabel against the Background of the Historical and Religious Tendencies of Ezra– Nehemiah,” ZAW 94 (1982) 83–89 [[in this volume, pp. 69–75]].

chapter title drop

Chapter 8

“History” and “Literature” in the Persian Period: The Restoration of the Temple I The question of the Bible’s “historical truth” has received in recent years renewed momentum, arising this time not from the problem’s more traditional philosophical-theological aspect but from the unprecedented awakening of interest in the Bible “as literature,” 1 an interest which must itself be viewed in the broadest social and cultural context of our time. 2 This awakening has focused not only on biblical poetry, the obviously “literary” nature of which has always been given a central place in the course of biblical scholarship, 3 but also—and perhaps more intensively—on biblical prose, “the narrative,” which now has become the target of extensive literary study. 4 1. In the preface to their quite recent book, J. S. Ackerman, T. S. Warshaw, and K. R. R. Gros Louis, Literary Interpretation of Biblical Narratives (Nashville, 1974) 8, the editors describe their endeavor as “a pioneering venture into relatively uncharted territory.” While this sense of “pioneering” seems to characterize the study of “Bible as literature” all along, the beginnings of this study should in fact be looked for much earlier. For a very early beginning, see J. L. Kugel, Hebrew University Studies in Literature and the Arts 11 (1983) 20–70. 2. One may view it against the background of the general flourishing of literary theory in our century (for a convenient survey see R. Selden, A Reader’s Guide to Contemporary Literary Theory [Lexington, 1985]), or as an aspect of the struggle to preserve the Bible’s position of primacy vis-à-vis Western culture’s general move toward “secularization.” See H. N. Schneidau, Sacred Discontent: The Bible and Western Tradition (Berkeley, 1977). 3. J. L. Kugel, The Idea of Biblical Poetry (New Haven and London, 1981) 96–203. 4. There is a growing wave of books and articles on the subject. For a survey of this literature in Israel, see Y. Zakovitch, Newsletter of the World Association of Jewish Studies 20 (1982) 17– 29 [Hebrew]. Among the most recent and comprehensive studies one may mention J. P. Fokkelman, Narrative Art in Genesis (Assen and Amsterdam, 1975); idem, Narrative Art and Poetry in the Books of Samuel (2 vols.; Assen, 1981–86); R. Alter, The Art of Biblical Narrative (New York, 1981); S. Bar-Efrat, The Art of the Biblical Story (Tel Aviv, 1979) [Hebrew]; English translation: Narrative Art in the Bible (translated by D. Shefer-Vanson; Sheffield, 1989). An interesting new definition of the biblical narrative “as literature” may be found in M. Sternberg, The Poetics of Biblical Narrative (Bloomington, 1985). See also A. Preminger and E. L. Greenstein, The Hebrew Bible in Literary Criticism (New York, 1986).

152

“History” and “Literature” in the Persian Period

153

The search for “literary genres,” 5 their gradual definition and analysis, 6 the growing awareness of “historical traditions” 7 and their function in the collective Israelite self-understanding, 8 and finally, the extensive occupation with “rhetorical analysis” or “close reading” of the biblical narrative and the application of modern literary theories to the Bible, have greatly increased the literary and theological appreciation of biblical prose. At the same time, however, these methods have placed severe limitations on the “historical” employment of this material. For, if the narrative is “literature,” that is, a product of individual or collective creative endeavor, to what degree may it be employed for reconstructing the history of ancient Israel? 9 The exact classification of genres, especially in regards to biblical narrative, has become paramount in laying the ground for historical research. 10 While “historical books” is still the prevalent term, not only for the Former Prophets, Ezra–Nehemiah, and Chronicles, but also for the Pentateuch, 11 the corpus which in fact serves as a “historical source” seems to be rapidly shrinking. One might compare the opening chapters of some modern “histories of Israel” in order to see how their point of departure has shifted, the very latest ab quo being the proposal of A. Soggin. 12 The purpose of the present discussion is to highlight some aspects of the question of “history,” not for the earliest eras of Israel but rather for one of the latest. The Persian Period stands squarely within the realm of 5. Gunkel’s introduction of “form criticism” to biblical studies has been described as “quite possibly . . . the most revolutionary moment for biblical exegesis in this century” (L. Alonso Schökel, “Of Methods and Models,” VTSup 36 [1985] 7). The status of form criticism in contemporary biblical scholarship is best illustrated by the recent series The Forms of Old Testament Literature, edited by R. Knierim and G. M. Tucker. The series is planned for 24 volumes; the first, dealing with Wisdom Literature, was published in Grand Rapids in 1981, and others have followed. 6. See inter alia, J. H. Hayes, ed., Old Testament Form Criticism (San Antonio, 1974). 7. The foundations of this line of study were laid by M. Noth in his two comprehensive works Überlieferungsgeschichtliche Studien (Tübingen, 1943), and Überlieferungsgeschichte des Pentateuch (Stuttgart, 1948). 8. G. von Rad, Old Testament Theology (translated by D. M. G. Stalker; 2 vols.; Edinburgh and London, 1962–65) 1:105–28. Also (among others), A. Knight, ed., Tradition and Theology in the Old Testament (Philadelphia, 1977). 9. See statements like: “. . . we assume that the entire Bible is imaginative literature and study it accordingly” (D. Robertson, The Old Testament and the Literary Critic [Philadelphia, 1971] 3); or: “The learning of actual history from biblical narrative, except in the most general and vague terms, is an unachievable task, even irresponsible” (Y. Zakovitch, Proceedings of the Eighth World Congress of Jewish Studies [panel sessions] [ Jerusalem, 1983] 60). 10. See J. Van Seters, In Search of History (New Haven and London, 1983) 5–6. 11. As random examples, see O. Eissfeldt, The Old Testament: An Introduction (translated by P. R. Ackroyd; Oxford, 1965) 132–43; or G. Fohrer, Introduction to the Old Testament (translated by O. Green; London, 1968) 51. 12. A. Soggin, A History of Israel from the Beginnings to the Bar Kochba Revolt, c.e. 135 (translated by J. Bowden; London, 1984) 26: “Where, then, does a history of Israel begin? . . . the answer should be to point to the united kingdom of Judah and Israel under David and Solomon.” Also, J. M. Sasson, JSOT 21 (1981) 3–24.

154

Chapter 8

“history”; here there is no tension between “myth”—as a vehicle of theology and cult—and “reality,” or between “historical tradition”—as bearer of the collective memory and self-identity—and “historical fact.” This is also the last biblical period to be provided with a historiography: the abundantly documented book of Ezra–Nehemiah. Nevertheless, the problematics of “history” versus “literature” exist here too, as exemplified by the various “histories” of the period. 13 We will illustrate some of these problems, choosing for our perspective one topic: the rebuilding of the temple 14 during the early days of the Restoration Period.

II The building of the Second Temple is the theme of Ezra 1–6. According to this account the history of the reconstruction was as follows: 15 a. The initial step in the project is taken by Cyrus, king of Persia, in a decree issued in the first year of his reign (Ezra 1:1), 16 granting his royal permission (1) to build “the house of the Lord” in Jerusalem (1:2); (2) for whoever may wish to do so, to leave Babylon and “go up to Jerusalem” (1:3a); (3) to collect financial contributions in Babylonia and to transfer them to Jerusalem (1:4). b. The community of exiles responds immediately; they bestir themselves and prepare to go to Jerusalem, with the funds they have collected (1:5–6), and the temple vessels restored to them by Cyrus (1:7–11). A detailed list of the returning exiles is then recorded (2:1–67). c. Upon their arrival in Judah, and after a short interval for settling down (2:68–70), the people begin the realization of the project for which they have come, in two stages: building the altar “in its place” (3:2–3), and laying the foundation of the temple, an occasion celebrated with a mixture of nostalgia and joy (3:7–13). 13. A list of recent histories may be found in J. M. Miller and J. H. Hayes, A History of Ancient Israel and Judah (Philadelphia, 1986) 477–78. A short survey of the main histories may be found in Soggin, History of Israel, 32–35. 14. For a detailed discussion of the various aspects of this subject, see S. Japhet, “The Temple of the Restoration: History and Ideology,” in The History of Jerusalem: The Biblical Period (ed. S. A˙ituv and A. Mazar; Jerusalem, 2000) [Hebrew] 345–82 = “The Temple in the Restoration Period: Reality and Ideology,” Union Seminary Quarterly Review 44 (1991) 195–251 [[in this volume, pp. 183–232]]. 15. As we are presenting here only the most basic historical sketch, no reference will be made to textual difficulties, for which one may consult the commentaries on Ezra–Nehemiah. Recently: H. G. M. Williamson, Ezra, Nehemiah (Waco, Texas, 1985); A. H. J. Gunneweg, Esra (Gütersloh, 1985). 16. This is usually understood as Cyrus’s first year as king of Babylon, i.e., 538 b.c.e. For the plausibility of the date—which is more often than not accepted as authentic—see H. Tadmor, Festschrift D. Ben Gurion ( Jerusalem, 1964) 450–72 [Hebrew].

“History” and “Literature” in the Persian Period

155

d. At this stage the “adversaries of Judah and Benjamin” ask to participate, but are rejected by the returned exiles under the leadership of Zerubbabel (4:1–3). These adversaries react by doing all in their power to hinder the project: intimidating the builders (4:4), hiring counselors against them, thus creating an anti-Judean “lobby” in the Persian capital (4:5), and writing letters of accusation to the central government (4:6, 7, 8–16). As a result of these concerted efforts, a sample of which is recorded (4:9–16), the Persian king issues a decree to stop the work (4:17–22, esp. v. 21), an order which is then forcibly implemented by the local administration (4:23). The work ceases and is not resumed until the second year of Darius (4:24). 17 e. At this point, the prophets Haggai and Zechariah encourage the people (5:1) and inspire them to resume the work of building (5:2). Tattenai, “the governor of the province Beyond the River,” makes a visit of supervision to Judah, and inquires about the project (5:3). Having received the information he requires (5:11–16), he sends to Darius for confirmation and further orders (5:6–17). He receives in reply both a citation of the “record” found in the royal archives (6:3– 5), and Darius’s instructions to give full support to the building, in the prescribed way (6:6–12). f. The project continues. The temple is completed in the month of Adar, in the sixth year of Darius (6:13–15), and its dedication celebrated (6:16–18). Comparatively speaking, this is a very long story. It spans a period of 22 years (538–517 b.c.e.), involves several protagonists and incorporates various kinds of documents. The scene shifts between Babylon and Jerusalem by means of caravans and letters, yet the narrative never loses the thread of the main topic, tracing the process which culminated in the dedication of the temple. How does this complete, coherent, and convincing account measure up to more thorough critical study?

III When approaching a story from a historical point of view, we may employ several critical tools, and their application may vary in accordance with the specific material. 18 1. Establishing “facts,” through the evidence of other sources of knowledge. 17. Probably 521 b.c.e. On the correlation between biblical and extra-biblical dates for the first years of Darius I, see E. J. Bickerman, RB 88 (1981) 23–28. 18. J. G. Droysen, Historik: Vorlesungen über Enzyclopaedie und Methodologie der Geschichte (8th ed.; ed. R. Hübner; München, 1937) 17–36.

156

Chapter 8

2. Demonstrating the author’s possible source of information and the “line of transmission,” written or oral, linking the event to the story. 3. Examining the coherence and harmony of the story itself: the coherence of individual details and their relationship to the narrative as a whole. 4. General consideration of “historical probability.” This concept, although somewhat undefined and strongly conditioned by the cultural definition of “probability,” 19 is nevertheless an important tool of historical criticism. Applying these criteria to our story will soon reveal that, as far as the general picture goes, it meets them all. The major elements of the narrative, such as the fact that the temple was rebuilt, the names of the Persian rulers Cyrus, Darius, and Artaxerxes, the names of the Judean leaders Zerubbabel and Jehoshua, some of the given dates, and more, are attested by other sources. These include from within the Bible, the contemporary prophecies of Haggai, Zechariah, and Malachi, the subsequent sections of Ezra–Nehemiah, and some data found in Chronicles. From outside the Bible are mainly ancient Near Eastern and Greek sources of archaeological, epigraphic, and literary origin. 20 This mutual confirmation supports the authenticity of each of the sources, and establishes the “facts” of our narrative. The author’s sources are particularly evident, as he cites contemporary documents in their original languages. 21 The summary of the narrative above has already shown its coherence, and its probability is also wellfounded. Even matters which were once regarded as dubious, such as the likelihood of Cyrus issuing a declaration in favor of the Judean exiles and their temple in Jerusalem, have now been confirmed by analogical epigraphic material. 22 The intervention of the “adversaries of Judah and Benjamin” appears likely when compared to the adamant opposition met by Nehemiah, 23 and so on. It is therefore no wonder that some “histories” of

19. According to Bickerman, the application of this principle distinguishes ancient Greek historians, as well as the Chronicler, from their Oriental colleagues. See E. J. Bickerman, From Ezra to the Last of the Maccabees (New York, 1962) 22. 20. For a survey of these sources see G. Widengren, in Israelite and Judaean History (ed. J. H. Hayes and J. M. Miller; London, 1977) 489–503. 21. For this system, see S. Japhet, in World History of the Jewish People, vol. 6 (ed. H. Tadmor; Jerusalem, 1983) 180–81 [Hebrew]; H. G. M. Williamson, JTS 34 (1983) 1–30. Bickerman points out the similar practice of the Greek logographers and cites Dionysius of Halicarnassus, who describes their practice as repeating “the written records that they found preserved in temples or secular buildings in the form which they found them, neither adding nor taking away anything” (Bickerman, From Ezra, 28). The citation is from Thucydides 5, in the English translation of L. Pearson, Early Ionian Historians (Oxford, 1939) 3. 22. H. Tadmor, Festschrift, 450–52, 468–72. 23. Neh 2:19; 3:33–35[4:1–3]; 4:1–2, 5[4:7–8, 11]; 6:1–14.

“History” and “Literature” in the Persian Period

157

the period follow very closely the story of Ezra 1–6, complementing it when possible with material derived from the other relevant sources. 24 The above conclusions hold true, however, only for the general lines of the narrative. A different picture emerges when the details are more carefully examined.

IV In addition to Ezra 1–6, our main sources for the actual rebuilding of the temple are the contemporary prophecies of Haggai and Zechariah. These prophets were eyewitnesses of the events themselves and they addressed the people at this crossroad of Israel’s history. 25 In the extant prophecies of Haggai, the building of the temple is the primary topic, complemented only by the restoration of the Davidic monarchy. While Zechariah’s interests are broader, the building is a major focal point for him as well. 26 Neither prophet offers as complete a description as that of Ezra 1– 6, but some information gleaned from their books may serve as a valuable critical tool. The most outstanding feature of Haggai’s testimony concerns the difficult circumstances of the period, around 521 b.c.e. The people are in the throes of an economic crisis attended by severe drought, a poor harvest, low wages, and general destitution. As a result, the social atmosphere is one of apathy and indifference to public matters. 27 Zechariah too testifies to delays in the building of the temple (Zech 1:14–16, 6:12–15), and to the same desperate economic and social situation, to which he adds also the lack of physical security (8:10–13). In addition to these practical circumstances and, one may suspect, as a rationalization of them, comes a theological reluctance to build the temple: “This people say the time has not yet come to rebuild the house of the Lord” (Hag 1:2)—”time” (t[) meaning the appropriate, probably previously destined, “right” time. Thus, while Haggai and Zechariah on one hand, and Ezra on the other attest to the fact that the building of the temple was suspended, this fact is 24. For example, H. Tadmor, in A History of the Jewish People (ed. H. H. Ben Sasson; Cambridge, 1976) 166–72. 25. According to references in the framework of Haggai’s prophecies, his prophetic activity is confined to a period of less than four months, between the 1st day of the 6th month of the 2nd year of Darius (Hag 1:1) and the 24th day of the 9th month of the same year (Hag 2:10, 20). According to Bickerman, RB 88, 26, this period would fall between September and December of 521 b.c.e. Zechariah’s prophecies are dated between the 8th month of Darius’s 2nd year (Zech 1:1) and the 4th day of the 9th month of Darius’s 4th year (Zech 7:1), that is, between February 520 and March 518 b.c.e. 26. Hag 1:1–2:19; Zech 1:7–16, 3:1–7, 4:6–10, 6:9–15, 7:1–8:23. 27. In Haggai’s words (1:6, 9–10): “You have sown much, and harvested little; you eat, but you never have enough”; “. . . You have looked for much, and, lo, it came to little . . . the heavens above you have withheld the dew, and the earth has withheld its produce.” All this, “because of my house which lies in ruins while you busy yourselves each with his own house.”

158

Chapter 8

viewed from two different angles. According to Ezra 1–6, the people were highly motivated and industrious; there were no economic exigencies, and surely no negligence. Having brought with them from Babylon great sums of money, they made all the necessary preparations and set immediately to work. 28 The subsequent interruption in the building was due to malicious outside intervention, stirred up by local “adversaries” and sanctioned by imperial authority. According to Haggai, however, the problem is not a discontinuation of the work, but its very inception. He makes no reference either to overtures which were interrupted, or to the external intervention of enemies or the Persian king. The people themselves are indifferent—either because of economic and financial difficulties, or theological attitude. Up to a certain point, these two different records may be harmonized by the reasonable assertion that different emphases do not necessarily indicate historical inconsistency, and that economic difficulties may have accompanied political pressure. However, the incompatibility of these testimonies may be brought into focus by reducing it to one simple question: was there an actual royal decree ordering a cessation of the work on the temple, followed by forcible action of the Persian authorities—as claimed by Ezra 4:21–23, or not—as implied from Haggai? The full coherence of the story itself also loses credibility when we examine more carefully the details of the story. Here, two issues have attracted the greatest scholarly interest: a comparison between the two versions of the edict of Cyrus (Ezra 1:2–4 and 6:3–5), and the contents and context of the correspondence cited in Ezra 4:9–23. A comparison of the two versions of Cyrus’s edict 29 will immediately reveal that Ezra 6:3–5 contains both more and less than 1:2–4. The most important of the three royal “permissions” mentioned above, i.e., to rebuild “the house of God at Jerusalem,” is common to both documents. However, in Ezra 6:3–5 no reference is made to a return to Judah, and therefore no permission in this regard is granted; also, there is no mention of the collection and transfer of funds; the expense is to be defrayed from the royal treasury. The question is, again, to what extent may these documents be harmonized? Although some scholars regard them as complementary, 30 the more prevalent view is that they are mutually exclusive, with only one—usually Ezra 6:3–5—having any historical validity. The tension between the two documents has then far-reaching consequences for the whole issue of 28. According to Ezra 2:68–69 in its context, upon coming to Jerusalem the returning exiles donated for the temple 61,000 golden drachmas and 5,000 minas of silver. For their value, see E. Meyer, Die Entstehung des Judentums (Halle, 1896) 196–98. Funds were then appropriated to cover building expenses (Ezra 3:7). 29. For a bibliography on the subject see Williamson, Ezra, Nehemiah, 3. 30. See in particular, E. J. Bickerman, JBL 65 (1946) 249–75; H. Tadmor, Festschrift, 450; and Williamson, Ezra, Nehemiah, 6–7.

spread is 6 points long

“History” and “Literature” in the Persian Period

159

sources and authenticity. For, if the evidence of only one of the two documents can be taken as historical, the other can be defined only in terms of “literature,” that is, as an imitation of a contemporary, official document. The existence of one such inauthentic document may raise doubts regarding the general reliability of the author and the authenticity of further documents in Ezra–Nehemiah—a point well demonstrated by the heated controversy on the subject. 31 The second issue is raised by a careful study of Ezra 4:9–23, the record of the correspondence which effected the discontinuation of the building. Although the context is ostensibly still the second half of the sixth century, the letters are addressed neither to Cyrus, Cambyses his son, nor to Darius, but to Artaxerxes, who ascended the throne only in 464 b.c.e. Further, the subject of this correspondence is not the rebuilding of the temple but of the city, i.e., the walls. 32 How could a royal decree of the 5th century put a stop to work going on 50 years earlier? Indeed, returning to the narrative of Ezra–Nehemiah itself, had such a decree been known when Tattenai conducted his inquiry in Jerusalem (Ezra 5:3–17), some reference to it would be expected—if not by the people (who might naturally wish to avoid the subject), then at least by Tattenai himself. It is furthermore doubtful whether Haggai and Zechariah could have succeeded in persuading the people to resume work, were such an explicit royal command actually in effect. Here, again, the authenticity of the document is brought into question, and the historicity of the whole account is greatly shaken. Coming now to the last, most external criterion, “historical probability,” our attention is immediately drawn to two aspects of our story: the large number of returning exiles and the remarkable promptness with which the expedition is organized. 33 There is no need, I suppose, to elaborate on the unlikelihood of such an enterprise from the rational standpoint of the 31. Since Ezra 1:2–4 has more often than not been regarded as a forgery, or, at best, as a Hebrew paraphrase of an Aramaic original, the debate—which was at its peak around the turn of the century—focused on the Aramaic documents. Meyer strongly defended their authenticity (Die Entstehung, 8–71), which was refuted with equal force by Kosters, Torrey, and Hölscher (See, inter alia, C. C. Torrey, The Composition and Historical Value of Ezra–Nehemiah [Giessen, 1896] 5–14; G. Hölscher, Die Bücher Esra und Nehemia [Tübingen, 1923] 495a). In general, scholars seem to have followed Meyer’s lead, although Kaiser, in the first editions of his “Introduction,” suggested that “the scarcely heeded objections of Hölscher, who sees the letters as a clumsy forgery, deserve to be considered seriously” (O. Kaiser, Introduction to the Old Testament [translated by J. Sturdy; Minneapolis, 1975] 180). In the recent 5th edition, however, he seems to be less favorable toward Hölscher’s view and expects new developments to decide the issue (idem, Einleitung in das Alte Testament [Gütersloh, 1984] 180). 32. All the references in the correspondence are to the “city” and “the walls” (vv. 12, 13, 16, 21), and it is difficult to accept Kaufmann’s contention that “they are certainly connected with the Construction of the Temple” (Y. Kaufmann, History of the Religion of Israel [translated by C. W. Efroymson; New York, 1977] 4:632). The royal order halting development in Jerusalem created a situation which probably formed the background for Nehemiah’s activity (Nehemiah 1ff.) and therefore should be dated in the first half of Artaxerxes’ rule. 33. Ezra 1:5–6, 2:1–67.

160

Chapter 8

modern historian. It seems highly improbable that, under the guidance of 12 leaders, about 50,000 people should promptly arise, immediately after the proclamation of Cyrus’s decree, leave Babylon, and immigrate to Judah “each to his own town” (Ezra 2:1), to settle there (2:70), and “to rebuild the house of the Lord.”

V After such a critical treatment, of which we have suggested only some illustrations, the story of Ezra 1–6—which at first sight seemed so coherent and complete—now appears laden with difficulties. We find here internal discrepancies, contradictions with external data, doubts on the authenticity of the documents and therefore on the reliability of the whole, and, at times, historical improbabilities. In responding to these difficulties, it is easiest to opt for one of two extremes. On one hand is the a priori assumption of the book’s overall historicity, prompting an understatement of the problems and a persistent effort to harmonize them. On the other we find a so-called “consistent” followup of the difficulties, leading to a wholesale denial of historicity. The book is then defined in terms of “literature,” that is, the fictitious creation of an author working to promote certain theological goals. Each of these extremes is well represented in the study of the book. 34 However, just as an exaggerated search for harmony results in overharmonization, so a narrow, hypercritical view fails to really represent sound criticism. The problem before the critical scholar is, therefore, to resolve these tensions without falling prey to either extreme. In terms of the present discussion the question is: how should the interrelationship between “history” and “literature” be conceived? From the above discussion one thing is sure: the story of Ezra 1–6 cannot be accepted by the modern historian as it stands. It is not a presentation of “objective fact”—a claim which no “history” can make, 35 and its perspective cannot determine the historical view of the modern scholar. However, this does not render these chapters “fictitious,” or historically useless. Rather, the opposite may be the case. The difficulties which confront the critical scholar of Ezra—or for that matter of any historical work—cannot be approached with a simplistic “either/or” attitude. The only way to deal with 34. The first is of course the attitude of traditional exegesis, while the most extreme example of the second is C. C. Torrey, who regards the author of Ezra–Nehemiah (in his view identical with the Chronicler) as “manufacturing history” (The Composition, 60, et passim), and the book as a whole, except for parts of Nehemiah 1–6, as having “no value whatsoever as history” (ibid., 65. Torrey’s evaluation of Ezra 1–6; ibid., pp. 52–57). For Torrey, these judgements lay the foundations for a complete reconstruction of the history of the Persian Period; see C. C. Torrey, Ezra Studies (Chicago, 1910) 285–335. Although his views have not been accepted in their extreme form, his basic presuppositions are followed by quite a number of scholars. 35. H. L. Marrou, De la connaissance historique (Paris, 1954) 48.

“History” and “Literature” in the Persian Period

161

them effectively is through a more complex understanding of the book as historiography, which by definition is both “history” and “literature.” A proper grasp of Ezra 1–6 as “history” depends on our understanding of the author’s figure as a historian, a relationship categorically summed up by Marrou: “L’histoire est inseparable de l’historien.” 36 The author’s choice of subject matter, his chronological and theological perspective, the breadth of his knowledge and accuracy of his information, his particular concepts of “cause” and “effect,” his concepts of time and periodization—all these and more must be taken into account. Understanding Ezra 1–6 as “literature” involves examining the author’s methods, the “art” of his presentation. Here, however, a remark of precaution is in order. Since a literary approach to any work is of value only when it refers to the particular genre under consideration, a study of the literary aspect of historiography should be restricted to the relevant questions. These would concern the general character of the work, 37 the author’s use of his sources, the degree and manner of his intervention with his sources, the way in which his own views are expressed, the lines of composition, etc. As the general character of Ezra 1–6 is the most common historical form of narrative, one should be most careful to avoid the plethora of terms and questions certainly applicable to narrative fiction, but not to historiography. 38

VI In other studies of related subjects, we have endeavored to characterize the author of Ezra 1–6, 39 and to present the multiple aspects of the story of the building of the temple. 40 Some points, however, may be further presented here. The distinctive literary feature of Ezra 1–6 and the literary principle of the unit’s composition is the author’s handling of documents. 41 Ezra 1–6 is composed of a series of sub–units, each of which comprises a core surrounded by a framework of introduction and conclusion. The core is a document, cited verbatim, while the framework is provided by the author. 36. Ibid., 47. 37. J. G. Droysen, Historik, 237ff. 38. We refer to terms like “plot,” “characters,” etc.; see S. Rimmon-Kenan, Narrative Fiction: Contemporary Poetics (London, 1983) 2. At the same time, some of the sources and texts incorporated into the final work may fall under different literary categories and should be studied separately within the context of their own genre: prayer, biography, list, official correspondence, to mention only a few. The range of genres which the historian regards as legitimate sources is of course an indication of his historical method. For several approaches to Ezra– Nehemiah “as literature” see recently T. Cohn-Eskenazi, In an Age of Prose: A Literary Approach to Ezra–Nehemiah (Ph.D. diss., Denver, 1986); S. Talmon in The Literary Guide to the Bible (ed. R. Alter, F. Kermode; Cambridge, 1987) 357–64; F. Polak, Shnaton 9 (1987) 127–43 [Hebrew]. 39. See Japhet, World History, 6:177–88. 40. Idem, “The Temple.” 41. See references in n. 21 above.

162

Chapter 8

Thus, chapter 1 contains two documents, the edict of Cyrus (vv. 2–4) and the list of the temple vessels (vv. 9–11a). The first is introduced by v. 1 and concluded by vv. 5–6; the second is introduced by vv. 7–8 and concluded by v. 11b. The core of chapter 2 is the list, in vv. 2b–67, while the framework consists of vv. 1–2a and 68–70. 42 The axis of chapter 4 is the correspondence with Artaxerxes (vv. 9–16, 17–22), and the author’s comments are found in vv. 1–5, 6–8, and 23–24. In chapters 5–6, the documents are the letter of Tattenai and Darius’s answer (5:7b–16, 6:3–12), set in the framework of 5:1–6; 6:1–2, 13–18. Only at one point, in chapter 3, did the author compose his own narrative, without recourse to documents. 43 This kind of writing testifies to the author’s understanding of his task as a historian: he allows past events to be represented by contemporary documents, while his own contribution consists mainly in supplying the connecting links, turning the isolated documents into a continuous history. This unique literary method may provide the key for understanding the overall unit and solving some of its difficulties. What may be called “the documentary imperative” may lead the author to employ source material out of its original context. Thus, for example, when the author does not have at his disposal an appropriate document to support a major phase or aspect of the historical process, he may use for this purpose another document, of a similar nature. One may see in Ezra 4:9–22 such “misplaced” documents: an authentic correspondence from the time of Artaxerxes, concerning the building of the wall, cited anachronistically for the time of Cyrus or Cambyses. In the same way, in chapter 2, a list which probably represents the population of the province of Judah at a certain historical point 44 is made to represent the exiles returning from Babylonia following Cyrus’s edict. These “mis-employments,” which highlight some of the author’s major interests, are of the greatest significance for appreciating his methodology, as well as his historical and theological concepts.

42. Much has been said regarding the relationship between Ezra 2 and Neh 7:6–72; see the commentaries on Ezra–Nehemiah; the bibliographical references in Williamson, Ezra, Nehemiah, 29; and M. Z. Segal, Tarbiz 14 (1942–43) 93–96 [Hebrew]. The general inclination is to regard Nehemiah 7 as primary (Williamson, pp. 29–30). 43. Chapter 3 is, therefore, where the author’s language, style, and views are most distinct. His data-sources for this chapter remain unknown, but the influence of Haggai and other biblical texts is well evidenced (see the commentaries). 44. The list itself is certainly composite. There are differences between the pure recording style of 2:3–58 and the more narrative style of vv. 59–63, 64–67; even the records of vv. 3–58 are not uniformally structured. As correctly stated by Williamson, Ezra, Nehemiah, 29–30, it is difficult to speak about its “original” form or task. In the list’s present format the factor of “return” is well ingrained and has led to its interpretation as a compilation (for one reason or another) of a number of smaller returns (see Tadmor, A History, 168; K. Galling, JBL 70 [1951] 149–58; Williamson, Ezra, Nehemiah, 31). We are not sure that this interpretation accounts for all the details and aspects of the list. See for the time being, S. Japhet, in Das Land Israel in biblischer zeit (ed. G. Strecker; Göttingen, 1983) 113–15 [[in this volume, pp. 110–11]].

spread is 6 points long

“History” and “Literature” in the Persian Period

163

The point which our author wishes to make is that the delays in the building of the temple had only one cause: interruptions from without, enforced by the authority of the Persian government. This view is in full harmony with the emphasis which Ezra 1–6 and Ezra–Nehemiah as a whole puts on the role of the Persian emperors in the history of the Judean community (see also below). The “misplaced” correspondence in chapter 4 is an emphatic expression of these attitudes. Having been convinced that the violent intervention, which according to his views caused the postponement of the completion of the temple from the time of Cyrus to that of Darius, should be properly evidenced by relevant documents, and in the absence of such a document, our author foregoes the option of forgery and chooses to enlist similar documents, from a later period. The same holds true for the list of chapter 2. For our author, the population of Judah is composed of two elements exclusively: returning exiles (hlwgh ybç) and foreigners, “the peoples of the land.” 45 Therefore, any member of the authentic Judean community must belong to the “Exile,” the group of people who came to Judah from Babylonia. With this view, another imperative is created: to present all the Israelite population of Judah, whatever their origin, as returning exiles. This is the function of chapter 2, which, given our author’s historical presuppositions, is a major charter of legitimization for all the Judeans there listed. Again, while this view may be found throughout the book, it receives a special emphasis by this “misemployment” of a document.

VII There is another feature of Ezra 1–6 which finds satisfactory explanation in the author’s literary method: the inner tensions and even contradictions in the details of the evidence. Following his “documentary imperative,” the author tends to cite his documents as they are, without recourse to editing. However, on some of the issues reported in these sources he may entertain personal views, which he presents in his own words. As a result, the composition in its final form may speak to us synchronically both with the voice of the final author, expressing his own views, and with the original voices of his sources. 46 From the same point of view the question of the so-called “Aramaic source” may also be resolved. It is a rather common assumption that Ezra 4:9–6:12 was originally an independent literary composition, which was incorporated by the later author into the final work. 47 Heavy doubts were 45. Japhet, Das Land, 112–16 [[in this volume, pp. 108–14]]. 46. For a detailed example see S. Japhet, ZAW 94 (1982) 66–98; 95 (1983) 218–29 [[in this volume, pp. 53–84, 85–95]]. 47. See for example, W. Rudolph, Esra und Nehemia (Tübingen, 1949) xxiii; L. W. Batten, The Books of Ezra and Nehemiah (Edinburgh, 1913) 18; Gunneweg, Esra, 31. Kaufmann regards it as “The Aramaic Book of Zerubbabel” (Kaufmann, History, 4:616–17).

164

Chapter 8

cast concerning the authenticity and historical value of this assumed Aramaic source because of its assumed misconception regarding the order of the Persian kings. The series Xerxes (= Ahasuerus, Ezra 4:6), Artaxerxes (4:7–23), and Darius (4:24) corresponds to the order of the Persian rulers of the 5th century. 48 Consequently, it has been assumed that the author of the “Aramaic source” was completely unaware of the confusion of Darius I (522–486 b.c.e.), in whose days the temple was actually completed, with Darius II (423–404 b.c.e.). 49 This assumption had some effect, too, on the understanding of the literary history and date of Ezra–Nehemiah. The “Aramaic source” had to be considered late; since it formed one of the components of Ezra 1–6, the composition of the final work had to be placed even later. 50 This whole structure should, however, be re-examined in light of our above observations. The literary features of the Aramaic portion of Ezra 1– 6 are identical to those of the rest of the pericope. In both cases we find the same structure of units built around a documentary core, the same literal citation of sources, and the same “misplacements” of documents. In addition, the Hebrew and Aramaic sections of Ezra 1–6 form a coherent narrative continuum. The same, rather unusual, literary method is followed throughout Ezra 1–6 and this can be best explained by assuming one author for the whole pericope. The transition from one language to another would then be an indication that the author was completely bilingual, as would be expected of a writer of his time and provenance. 51 Following the idiom of the documents he cites, the author’s own remarks move from Hebrew to Aramaic and back again, without altering the general structure or tone of the work. There is, therefore, no secondary “Aramaic source,” but only individual Aramaic documents, which the final author of the section employed in constructing his history of the temple.

VIII A comparison of the history of the temple in Ezra 1–6 with the evidence of Haggai and Zechariah has led us to the conclusion that the former cannot be regarded as full or “objective.” The same conclusion is correct regarding Haggai and Zechariah as well. Only a cautious consideration of all the details may bring us closer to an understanding of the period and its historical processes—of which a few points may be mentioned here. 52 48. Xerxes, 486–465/4 b.c.e.; Artaxerxes, 464–423 b.c.e.; Darius II, 423–404 b.c.e. 49. See O. Kaiser, Einleitung, 180–81. A more complex explanation is suggested by J. Liver, Studies in Bible and Judean Desert Scrolls ( Jerusalem, 1971) 263–76 [Hebrew]. 50. At the earliest, in the days of Darius II, but more often, afterwards. See M. Noth, Überlieferungsgeschichtliche Studien (Tübingen, 1943) 152–53. 51. E. Y. Kutscher, Hebrew and Aramaic Studies ( Jerusalem, 1977) 307 [Hebrew part]; J. A. Fitzmyer, A Wandering Aramean (Missoula, 1979) 29. 52. See nn. 39 and 40 above.

“History” and “Literature” in the Persian Period

165

Haggai, Zechariah, and Isaiah 66 all attest that the rebuilding of the temple was a much debated issue at the time, with three different attitudes being expressed: (1) A limited reservation entertained by Haggai’s contemporaries: “the time has not yet come to rebuild the house of the Lord” (Hag 1:2). (2) A theological denial of the necessity of temple building, expressed in Isa 66:1–2: “Heaven is my throne and the earth is my footstool; what is the house which you would build for me, and what is the place of my rest?” Even if this attitude is (as has been suggested) no more than a rationalization of the fact that the temple cannot be built, 53 it is nevertheless theological and categorical: the Lord does not need a house for his rest. (3) The third attitude is the positive command voiced by Haggai and Zechariah, expressed with great feeling and insistence mainly by Haggai: “Go up to the hills and bring wood and build the house” (1:8). Ezra 1–6 reflects upon the same issues at a remove of about 150 years, and the difference in theological and historical viewpoint is striking. First and foremost, there is no hint of controversy, or even of need for encouragement. 54 The task of building, unquestionably obligatory, is not burdened by theological or ideological reservations. This obligation is recognized, and acted upon, even by the Persian rulers. One may surmise that there were some differences of opinion, for the project is portrayed as fraught with difficulties, but nothing of the kind is expressly admitted. This ignoring of controversy may be regarded as a result of perspective: at a distance of over a century what really counts is what has been fulfilled, the true essence of the historical process. However, a similar silence marks the presentation in Ezra–Nehemiah of other issues as well, later in time and no less debatable. In the period when the mold of Judaism was being forged, almost every issue was a subject of controversy, as evidenced in various degrees by our sources. Intermarriage, the building of the walls of Jerusalem, the way in which the Sabbath was to be observed, the reorganization of the cult, etc., all were the object of practical and theological debate. In Ezra–Nehemiah they are all summarized in terms of positive obligatory goals, with no consideration given to the opinion of those who probably thought differently. The book posits a kind of unanimous, even dogmatic, consensus within the Judean community, to which only “adversaries” and “sinners” are opposed. In presenting the story of the temple, Ezra 1–6 goes beyond the silencing of controversy. From the distance of time and temperament, the experience of the Restoration is somewhat idealized. There are still obvious 53. M. Haran, Between Riªshonot (Former Prophecies) and Óadashot (New Prophecies) ( Jerusalem, 1963) 94–96 [Hebrew]. 54. See the “flat” reference in Ezra 5:1–2 to the fervent prophecies of Haggai and Zechariah: “Now the prophets Haggai and Zechariah the son of Iddo prophesied to the Jews who were in Judah . . . in the name of the God of Israel. . . . Then Zerubbabel . . . and Jeshua . . . arose and began to rebuild the house of God. . . .”

166

Chapter 8

difficulties, but the returning community is portrayed as full of good intentions, diligent and cooperative. It is not sin, theological doubt, negligence or even economic limitations which pose a threat to the well-being and prosperity of the community, but only the scheming of “foreigners” and “adversaries.” In weighing the evidence of Haggai, Zechariah, and Isaiah 66 at this point against that of Ezra 1–6, we tend to accept the contemporary evidence of the prophets against the more remote and idealized picture of Ezra. However, it seems that Haggai and Zechariah, too, present not only a fragmentary, but also a one-sided view of the issue. For them, the Persian kings are not involved in any way with the building—or, for that matter, with any aspect of the Restoration. The orientation of the prophets is toward the Judean community, and some degree of eschatological motive is ascribed to all its activities. The success of the prophets was due to their capacity of integrating the issue of building into a more general theological understanding of history. The temple was presented as essential for Israel’s well-being, its construction as God’s wish and command. To refrain from building the temple was regarded as transgression, and the severe drought and economic difficulties as the measure of divine punishment. Moreover, the building was conceived as the first stage in an eschatological transformation of the present order: in its shadow would come peace, the overthrow of kingdoms, and the renewal of the Davidic dynasty. 55 By contrast, the orientation of Ezra 1–6 (and Ezra–Nehemiah as a whole) is much more outward, and anti-eschatological. 56 Imperial activities and decrees are the points of departure for the history of the period, and the destiny of the Judean community is determined by the good will of the Persian emperors. They are, in fact, integrated into a theological frame of reference, and are conceived of as the Lord’s agents for realizing his plans for Israel. Thus, while all of the spokesmen for the period agree on the fundamental theological principle that the ultimate cause of any act in history is the God of Israel, they differ in the understanding of the “agents” through which these acts are realized. When the Persian rulers and the existing political order are seen as the instrument of God’s will, eschatology retires completely from the scene. The strictly Judean orientation of Haggai and, to a lesser extent, of Zechariah, turns a blind eye toward the Israelite communities in Exile—Haggai, if we accept the evidence of his prophecies, does not even know of a Diaspora. 57 Ezra–Nehemiah, by contrast, is Exile55. On the eschatology of Haggai and Zechariah see, inter alia, K. M. Beyse, Serubbabel und die Königserwartungen der Propheten Haggai und Sacharja (Stuttgart, 1972); K. Seybold, Judaica 28 (1972) 69–78. For their possible close rapport with actual political circumstances, see Bickerman, RB 88, 26–27. 56. W. Rudolph, Esra-Nehemia (Tübingen 1949) xxix–xxx. 57. Japhet, Das Land, 109–10 [[in this volume, pp. 104–6]].

“History” and “Literature” in the Persian Period

167

oriented: the rehabilitation of Israel, both physical and spiritual, owes its realization to people, ideas, initiatives, norms, and even funds coming to Judah from Babylonia. A broader historical perspective of the period under consideration would indicate, then, that the Judeo-centered view of the prophets is less dependable than that of Ezra 1–6. Several critics at the turn of the century have expressed the opinion—with rather pointed sarcasm—that the role of the Persian emperors as depicted in Ezra 1–6 is nothing but an apologetic attempt of the Jews to describe the Gentile kings as their benefactors. 58 However, against the standard policy of the Persian rulers as learned from the growing resources of material on the subject, their intervention in the affairs of Judah is seen as an authentic feature of the time. 59 The theological frame of mind in which their role is described befits well a historian of that time and provenance, but should not conceal from the modern historian the overall political situation. Here Ezra 1–6, with the help of supporting documents, seems to better reflect the political picture of the period. A similar problem is posed by the Return. Ezra–Nehemiah’s strong assertion that the “returned exiles” formed the only authentic Israelite community in Judah, must be re-evaluated. It is becoming a matter of general consensus that life in Judah was not extinguished after the Babylonian conquest. 60 Indeed, ethnic, social, and religious processes in Judah have to be re-interpreted along more complex lines than those laid down in Ezra 2. However, it seems that no one would go so far as to deny any Return, or accept the implications of Haggai’s Judeo-centered attitude as historically binding. The state of our information makes it much more difficult to propose a well-documented and critical alternative to the picture of Ezra– Nehemiah, but the weight given to the impact of the Babylonian Diaspora on developments in Judah should be seriously taken into consideration.

IX The study of biblical historiography has very often been inclined to polarization and given to “either/or” attitudes. The biblical story has been evaluated in terms of “true or false,” “fact or fiction,” “objective or arbitrary,” “history or literature,” and the critical approach has seemed at times to be as dogmatic as the orthodox. In the process, several truisms have been lost track of: the self-evident principle that every literary work should be studied in terms of its specific genre, the observation that “narrative” is not necessarily “fiction” but may include “historical narrative,” “biographic narrative” etc., and the valid tautology that ancient historiography is not modern historiography. Even now it does not seem superfluous to remind 58. G. Hölscher, Die Bücher, 495b. 59. A. T. Olmstead, History of the Persian Empire (Chicago, 1948) 51–56. 60. See now J. M. Miller and J. H. Hayes, A History, 416–29.

168

Chapter 8

ourselves that “historiography” is by definition a literary genre, and is determined by three factors: the facts recounted, the figure of the author through whose perspective these facts are conceived and presented as a continuum, and the literary method and techniques by which he brings his story to the reader. We have tried to clarify some aspects of the complex problems of Ezra 1–6 and the beginning of the Restoration Period. We may sum up by saying that for the modern historian, the sources we have discussed have a twofold significance. When the author’s period and provenance are determined, his literary method analyzed, and his historical and theological perspectives understood, his work too becomes a historical “fact.” It now serves as a “source,” not only for the circumstances he chose to describe (that is, the period between 538 and 517 b.c.e.), but also for his own contemporary situation, which forms the background for his historical and theological concepts. He therefore becomes a spokesman for the Persian Period at two distinct points: near its beginning, and approaching its end— with all the attendant existential tension between the two. A careful literary and historical criticism may therefore yield not only “facts” but historical and theological insights which may restore the true life of the period and reveal the vitality of the historical process.

chapter title drop

Chapter 9

The Relationship between Chronicles and Ezra–Nehemiah The problem we are trying to elucidate in the present symposium is of long standing; it is related to one of the first impulses of any Bible student, i.e., to identify the anonymous authors of biblical books. These books may be divided in this respect into two groups: those designated by personal names were traditionally assumed to be authored by those individuals ( Joshua, Samuel, Isaiah, etc.), while for those bearing general titles (Judges, Proverbs, Song of Songs, etc.) various historical figures were suggested as authors. 1 The inclination to identify the author with a known historical figure may be accounted for to a certain degree by the general midrashic trend to avoid anonymity, 2 but this cannot be seen as its major motive. Rather, the providing of a name-label arises from the need—essential for the study of any literary work—to understand the work in a meaningful historical and theological context; such a context is instantly provided when a known historical figure is identified as author of the anonymous work. It is well known that ancient tradition ascribes the composition of the book of Chronicles, or part of it, to Ezra the scribe. 3 The method of the Rabbis in this matter is the same followed elsewhere: basing themselves on hints found within the work, and some tradition regarding its general provenance, they attribute authorship to a contemporary historical figure— Ezra. In this way they determined the historical context and—perhaps even 1. The classical presentation of this matter is the Baraita b. B. Bat. 14b–15a, with the ensuing talmudic discussion. The passage revolves around two problems: “the order” of the prophets and the Hagiographa, and “who wrote the Scriptures.” 2. See I. Heinemann, The Methods of the Midrash (2nd ed.; Jerusalem, 1954) 13, 21–24, 28– 32, and passim [Hebrew]. 3. See the obscure statement of b. B. Bat. 15a: “Ezra wrote the book that bears his name and the genealogies of the book of Chronicles up to him (or: up to his time). . . . Who then finished it? Nehemiah the son of Hachaliah.” It is remarkable that this tradition was not followed by the medieval exegete David Kim˙i, who views the canonical book of Chronicles as “the Book of the Chronicles of the Kings of Judah” mentioned repeatedly in the book of Kings (1 Kgs 14:29, etc.). The role of Ezra in regard to this book was limited, according to Kim˙i, to the addition of the post-exilic genealogy of the house of David, and the joining of the book to the Scriptures—unlike “the Book of the Chronicles of the Kings of Israel,” which was lost. (See Kim˙i’s prologue to his commentary on Chronicles, in the Rabbinic Bible.)

169

170

Chapter 9

more important—confirmed its canonical status: Chronicles falls within the boundaries of inspired books: “until now,” as opposed to: “from now on.” 4 While Ezra’s authorship of Chronicles was explicitly refuted already by Spinoza, 5 it was L. Zunz who posed the relationship of the two works as a problem to be solved in a systematic way. Beginning with the book of Ezra– Nehemiah and observing that “its careful study reveals amazing phenomena,” and that “certain parts of this book could by no means be ascribed to Ezra or Nehemiah,” he concludes that “in the book bearing his name, Ezra’s part is at most an eighth, and the rest belongs to earlier and later hands.” 6 Zunz found no similar difficulties, however, in the other aspect of tradition, i.e., the identification of the author of Ezra–Nehemiah with the author of Chronicles, and therefore came up with a brilliant solution: it was not Ezra who composed Chronicles but vice versa: the Chronicler was the author of Ezra–Nehemiah (p. 22). With this proposal, Zunz remained as close as possible to tradition, and at the same time provided a solid historical and theological context for these books. He moved authorship to the latest phase of the biblical period, in fact to the threshold of the postbiblical era, representing the connecting link between the Bible and the subsequent rabbinic literature, which was his main concern. 7 The history of this view, its eventual acceptance as an almost obvious consensus of scholarly opinion, and the results of this acceptance for the study of both Chronicles and Ezra–Nehemiah have been pointed out in several previous studies 8 and need not be repeated here. Neither need we describe here the emergence and development of an opposite stance on the matter during the last few decades. 9 But it should be mentioned that, in addition to the original motive of “author identification,” the view of common authorship seems to have satisfied more general trends in the 4. See Seder ºOlam Rab. 30: “Until now prophets were prophesying by inspiration of the holy spirit; from now on, lend your ear and listen to the words of the wise men.” Indeed, in the many later discussions in Jewish sources on matters of canonization, the book of Chronicles never comes up. For early Christian attitudes, see T. Willi, Die Chronik als Auslegung (Göttingen, 1972) 13. 5. “. . . the two books of Chronicles . . . were certainly written after the time of Ezra . . . ,” B. Spinoza, Theologico-political Treatise (1670), in The Chief Works of Benedict de Spinoza (translated by R. H. M. Elwes, New York, 1951) 1:146. 6. Die Gottesdienstlichen Vorträge der Juden historisch entwickelt (Berlin, 1832) 20–22. 7. Zunz dates the Chronicler to the Hellenistic period; his approximate proposal is around 260 b.c.e., which is also the time to which he ascribes the activity of “the Great Assembly” (knst hgdwlh) (ibid., 32–36). 8. See S. Japhet, “The Supposed Common Authorship of Chronicles and Ezra–Nehemiah Investigated Anew,” VT 18 (1968) 330–33 [[in this volume, pp. 1–37]]; idem, “The Historical Reliability of Chronicles,” JSOT 33 (1985) 88–92 [[in this volume, pp. 117–136]]; H. G. M. Williamson, Israel in the Books of Chronicles (Cambridge, 1977) 5–6. 9. A convenient summary, with the author’s own stand on the matter, may be found in M. A. Throntveit, When Kings Speak: Royal Speech and Prayer in Chronicles (Atlanta, 1987) 2–5. See also A. H. J. Gunneweg, “Zur Interpretation der Bücher Ezra–Nehemiah,” VTSup 32 (1981) 147–49; J. Blenkinsopp, Ezra–Nehemiah: A Commentary (London, 1988).

SPREAD IS 6 POINTS LONG

The Relationship between Chronicles and Ezra–Nehemiah

171

course of biblical scholarship, and to have provided answers to a number of questions. Among these one may mention the tendency to conceive biblical historiography as composed in comprehensive blocks: “Chronistic historiography” was seen as paralleling “Deuteronomistic historiography,” the fruits of both parallel and divergent literary, historical and theological schools. 10 The two comprehensive works were seen as cutting across the boundaries of the traditional biblical compositions, and the canonical division into books ( Joshua, Judges, etc. on the one hand, Chronicles and Ezra–Nehemiah on the other) was regarded as secondary. This comprehensive antithetical symmetry was seen also in literary and theological terms: the two compositions were viewed as the fruit of a prolonged process of “redaction”; great effort was invested in the analysis of respective “strata” or even different individual authors. It seems to us that the time is ripe to examine this matter on its own merit and on the basis of contemporary presuppositions and information. 11 While awareness of the forces which motivated earlier studies may prompt us to be cautious, we may proceed with our examination independently of any accepted view, with no commitment to any path, no matter how well-trodden—except our obligation to sound methodology. Thus we may attain an initial neutral approach, basing ourselves on the most elementary presuppositions. The context of our discussion is decided by the most basic problem: is there any relationship of authorship between Chronicles and Ezra–Nehemiah? We will tackle this question in two stages, proceeding first from an understanding of “the Chronicler” as an individual author, and then from the alternative view, seeing “the Chronicler” in terms of a “circle” or a “school.”

I At this point, a preliminary note seems indicated. In the present state of research, there is great divergence of opinion in regard to every aspect of the composition and dating of the books under discussion. One issue is the distinction in each work between the “sources” which the author incorporated into his work, and his own share in the book, represented by his redaction of the earlier material, and the composition of his own sections. Another, related issue is the question whether the work(s) should be seen 10. See in particular, M. Noth, Überlieferungsgeschichtliche Studien (Halle, 1943) vol. 1. Now translated into English as The Deuteronomistic History (Sheffield, 1981), and The Chronicler’s History (Sheffield, 1987). This parallelism is also seen in F. M. Cross, “A Reconstruction of the Judean Restoration,” JBL 94 (1975) 4–18, and more specifically in S. L. McKenzie, The Chronicler’s Use of the Deuteronomistic History (Atlanta, 1985). 11. This need is illustrated by the present symposium, which is the second of its kind in a relatively short time. A similar discussion took place in the SBL meeting in Atlanta in November 1986, under the heading: “The Scope and Extent of the Chronicler’s Work,” with P. R. Ackroyd, B. Halpern, and the present writer. See also P. R. Ackroyd, “Chronicles-Ezra-Nehemiah: The Concept of Unity,” ZAW 100 supplement (1988) 189–201.

172

Chapter 9

as composed essentially by a single author at a given point in time, or as the fruit of a process, of either broad, identifiable “layers,” or secondary redactions and accretions. Although the great variety of opinion on these matters 12 does have some bearing on the topic of our discussion, in order to begin with some common ground, we will proceed with the only sure textual reality: the canonical book of Chronicles as such, and the canonical book of Ezra–Nehemiah as such, speaking in the broadest and least controversial terms possible.

II If “the Chronicler” is assumed to be an individual, a general principle of utmost significance should be explicitly stated. When the attribution of an anonymous literary work to a particular author is not merely a mechanical means to avoid anonymity, or a way to establish a historical context, then its purpose is to identify the work as that of a specific “literary personality.” Such an identification is easiest when the work and the reader are contemporary and share the same literary milieu—although even here it is not always simple to name the known literary personality behind a pseudonym. In the case of literature which is very ancient, or from a remote milieu, the task is much more difficult; one wonders what degree of similarity between certain literary works will warrant their attribution to a single author. One certainly needs compelling arguments to prove that the precise contours of one and the same literary personality are displayed in two (or more) literary works. Do the arguments supporting the view that the Chronicler was the author of Ezra–Nehemiah meet this criterion? Among the familiar arguments for common authorship, the weightiest are those we may call “internal,” i.e., arising from the immanent nature of the books in question. These include the various linguistic aspects, similarity of literary style and forms, common interests, and identical historical and theological views. The correct general claim has been made by biblical scholarship that if two books display profound similarity of language, style, literary art and theology, “common authorship” is an inevitable conclusion. However, when we turn to examine the particulars of similarity, we find that the stand taken by today’s scholarship is different from that of yesterday. The first illustration is the realm of language and style, historically especially persuasive elements in the discussion of our topic, because of their seemingly “objective” nature. 13 What scholars until several decades ago saw 12. For some summary of the matter in regards to Chronicles, see Throntveit, When Kings Speak, 5–6. Also, Gunneweg, “Zur Interpretation,” 150–52; and H. G. M. Williamson, Ezra, Nehemiah (Waco, 1985) xxii–xxxv. 13. See the summarizing lists of S. R. Driver, An Introduction to the Literature of the Old Testament (9th ed.; Edinburgh, 1913) 535–40; E. L. Curtis and A. A. Madsen, The Book of Chronicles (Edinburgh, 1910) 27–36; also the detailed lists of C. C. Torrey, The Composition and Historical Value of Ezra–Nehemiah (BZAW 2; 1896) 16–51.

The Relationship between Chronicles and Ezra–Nehemiah

173

as clear signs of idiosyncratic, personal style are now seen as representing a general linguistic development. Let me clarify immediately that our illustrious predecessors were just as aware of a distinction in principle between general linguistic developments and individual “peculiarities and mannerisms” as we are; 14 in practice, however, many of the phenomena regarded as indicating personal style, and sometimes “imperfect command of the language,” 15 have been since discovered to be of a more general provenance. Moreover, in the eager disposition to uncover these individual mannerisms, differences between the various works tended to be neglected. The change in scholarly approach is due to a better understanding of biblical language, in particular the later idioms, including those of Chronicles and Ezra–Nehemiah. The increase of data obtained during the last few decades, mainly from the Dead Sea Scrolls; the progress made in the study of Hebrew and Aramaic, including the Samaritan Pentateuch and Rabbinic Hebrew; and better methods of linguistic analysis, all indicate that “Late Biblical Hebrew” was a significant phase in the development of Hebrew, 16 expressed in several biblical works (Ezra–Nehemiah and Chronicles among them), as well as extra-biblical ones. With the increasing interest in this phase, new questions emerge. Is this indeed a transition stage between classical Biblical Hebrew and Mishnaic Hebrew, or an independent stage in the history of the language? Should all its features be explained in diachronic terms, or should dialectic factors also be taken into consideration? 17 And what precisely is the function of Aramaic influence in the development of Late Biblical Hebrew? 18 The impact of these questions on the topic of authorship is obvious: linguistic similarity is approached with increasing caution, as reflecting a general development of language, rather than the stylistic peculiarity of an individual. 19 In our study of 1968 we turned our attention to the linguistic opposition and stylistic distinctions obtaining between Chronicles and Ezra–Nehemiah, as seen against the background of their general linguistic similarity; 20 14. Driver, An Introduction, 535; Torrey, The Composition, 16. 15. Driver, An Introduction, 535. 16. This is the conclusion of numerous contributions, some of which may be mentioned here: Y. Kutscher, The Language and the Linguistic Background of the Isaiah Scroll (Leiden, 1974); A. Bendavid, Hebrew and Mishnaic Hebrew (2nd ed.; Tel Aviv, 1967) [Hebrew]; A. Hurvitz, The Transition Period in Biblical Hebrew ( Jerusalem, 1972) 13–63 [Hebrew]; idem, A Linguistic Study of the Relationship between the Priestly Source and the Book of Ezekiel (Paris, 1980); E. Qimron, The Hebrew of the Dead Sea Scrolls (Atlanta, 1986). 17. See S. Gevirtz, “Of Syntax and Style in the ‘Late Biblical Hebrew’–‘Old Canaanite’ Connection,” JANES 18 (1986) 25–29. 18. R. Polzin, Late Biblical Hebrew: Toward an Historical Typology of Biblical Hebrew Prose (Missoula, 1976); see pp. 13–14. 19. See E. J. Revell, “First Person Imperfect Forms with waw Consecutive,” VT 38 (1988) 419–26. 20. We classified this material into three categories: linguistic opposition, technical terminology, and peculiarities of style (Japhet, “Supposed Common Authorship,” 334–41, 341–57,

174

Chapter 9

Williamson followed with a careful examination of the similarities, real and alleged, between these works and convincingly showed that “as far as the argument from style is concerned, the onus now rests on those who favour unity of authorship to produce more compelling new arguments to support their position.” 21 The ensuing works of Polzin, Throntveit, Talshir, and Revell have all contributed to a better understanding of Late Biblical Hebrew and refined our tools of discernment; although these scholars differ in their expressed stand regarding the matter of “common authorship,” 22 in the end their work supports the view that “affinity in language between two literary works is not proof of unity of authorship.” 23 The study of Late Biblical Hebrew is in many ways still at its beginning, but it has become abundantly clear that linguistic evidence can no longer be utilized as proof for common authorship.

III Theology came to bear on our discussion at a later phase, with the weakening of the linguistic argument. 24 A systematic study of the ideology of Chronicles or Ezra–Nehemiah immediately reveals their different views on central religious issues, as recognized in fact even by scholars who attributed the works to the same author. In such cases these differences were either played down, harmonized, or incorporated into the system. 25 Howand 357–71 [[in this volume, pp. 4–11, 11–24, and 25–37]]). None of these categories purports to be exhaustive. 21. Williamson, Israel, 37–59; the citation is from p. 59. 22. Polzin, Late Biblical Hebrew, and D. Talshir, “A Reinvestigation of the Linguistic Relationship between Chronicles and Ezra–Nehemiah,” VT 38 (1988) 165–93, consider more favorably the possibility of common authorship, but this is not supported by the actual results of their work. See the detailed examination of Polzin’s arguments in M. A. Throntveit, “Linguistic Analysis and the Question of Authorship in Chronicles, Ezra and Nehemiah,” VT 32 (1982) 201–16; also, G. Rendsburg, “Late Biblical Hebrew and the Date of P,” JANES 12 (1980) 65–80. 23. Talshir, “A Reinvestigation,” 167. 24. Our conviction, that “a further study of literary characteristics, the attitude to the sources and the theological conceptions of the two books will greatly support our conclusions” (Japhet, “Supposed Common Authorship,” 371 [[in this volume, p. 37]]) met with a response at first only regarding the last item, theology. 25. Thus, for example, Wellhausen simply ignored the book of Ezra–Nehemiah in his chapter on Chronicles, although he regarded the two works as authored by the Chronicler. Von Rad realized the different concept of “Israel” in the two works, and devoted two different chapters to “Israel in Esra Nehemia” and “Israel in den Bücher der Chronik,” but then tried, unsuccessfully, to harmonize them; see G. von Rad, Das Geschichstbild des chronistischen Geschichtswerk (Stuttgart, 1930) 19–37. See also G. A. Danell, who could not harmonize the different views of Chronicles and Ezra–Nehemiah, but did not make an effort to solve the problem (Studies in the Name Israel [Uppsala, 1946] 270–85). W. Rudolph incorporates these differences into the system by viewing them as an intentional part of the author’s theology (Chronikbücher [Tübingen, 1955] xxiii–xxiv), and to a certain degree this is true also of Mosis, who incorporates “exile” as a major component into the Chronicler’s theological typology (see R. Mosis, Untersuchungen zur Theologie des chronistischen Geschichtswerkes [Freiburg, 1973]).

The Relationship between Chronicles and Ezra–Nehemiah

175

ever, in recent decades we see an upsurge of studies which deal theologically with these differences, and apply their conclusions to the question of authorship. 26 Here again, we should begin with the obvious. As two biblical works of the same genre, written in the same general historical, political, and religious milieu, both Chronicles and Ezra–Nehemiah express Israelite faith at this point in history. 27 Thus, monotheism, providence, election, people of God, God’s justice, retribution, theodicy, prophecy, commandments, temple, worship, etc. are only some of the terms which would appear in any theological study of both these books. However, against this elementary and self-evident similarity, and even against the more specific parallels such as the significance of the temple and the clergy in the two works, the theological differences are all the more striking. To the many points mentioned by earlier scholars, many more may still be added. In evaluating these theological features, one should be aware not only of their existence, but of their precise formulation and nuances, as well as their significance and function in the author’s work and theology as a whole. We may find illustrations in the role of David, the Davidic monarchy and dynasty in the historiosophical view of Chronicles, and their absence in Ezra–Nehemiah; 28 the hopes for redemption as part of Israelite self-understanding in Chronicles, 29 against the acceptance of the political present of the Restoration community and lack of perspective of change, in Ezra– Nehemiah; 30 the dominant idea of the twelve tribes as a living political reality in Chronicles, the favorable attitude to non-Israelites and the concept of “pan Israel,” 31 against the extreme separatism of Ezra–Nehemiah, the 26. Williamson, Israel, 60–63; R. L. Braun, “A Reconsideration of the Chronicler’s Attitude toward the North,” JBL 96 (1977) 59–62; idem, “Chronicles, Ezra and Nehemiah: Theology and Literary History,” VTSup 30 (Leiden, 1979) 52–64; J. D. Newsome, “Toward a New Understanding of the Chronicler and His Purpose,” JBL 94 (1975) 201–17. 27. There is great diversity of opinion on the dating of these works; the proposed dates run the range of almost 400 years: from ca. 520 to ca. 165 b.c.e., all, however, within either the Persian or the Hellenistic periods. 28. Already M. Z. Segal, “The Books of Ezra and Nehemiah,” Tarbiz 14 (1943) 85 [Hebrew]. See, among others, Newsome, “Toward a New Understanding,” 201–3; S. Japhet, “Sheshbazzar and Zerubbabel against the Background of the Historical and Religious Tendencies of Ezra– Nehemiah,” ZAW 94 (1982) 68–80 [[in this volume, pp. 55–66]]. Note that our list of references for these topics must be only illustrative; a full list of all studies is beyond the scope of this article. 29. Noth, Überlieferungsgeschichtliche, 1:179; also, S. Japhet, The Ideology of the Book of Chronicles and Its Place in Biblical Thought ( Jerusalem, 1977) 413–22 [Hebrew]; English translation by Anna Barber (Frankfurt, 1989) 493–504. 30. See W. Rudolph, Esra und Nehemia (Tübingen, 1949) xxvii–xxx; Japhet, “Sheshbazzar and Zerubbabel,” 72–80 [[in this volume, pp. 58–66]]. 31. J. Wellhausen, Prolegomena zur Geschichte Israels (2nd ed.; Berlin, 1883) 223; English translation: Prolegomena to the History of Israel (Edinburgh, 1885) 214; A. C. Welch, The Work of the Chronicler (London, 1939) 17–18, 24–25, and passim; Danell, Studies, 270, etc.; Japhet, Ideology, 228–37, 278–99 [English translation 267–78, 325–51]; R. L. Braun, “Chronicles, Ezra and Nehemiah,” 56–59.

176

Chapter 9

decline of the concept of the twelve tribes, and the major function of “the Exile” (Golah) as the embodiment of Israel’s identity; 32 the central role of divine justice as a formulating factor of the whole history of Israel, with a specific theory of retribution, in Chronicles, and its complete absence as a formulating force in Ezra–Nehemiah; 33 the function in Ezra–Nehemiah of foreign rulers as a vehicle of God’s benevolence in the restoration of Israel, 34 and the absence of this idea in Chronicles; the strict stand on the matter of mixed marriages in Ezra–Nehemiah, versus the different attitude of Chronicles. 35 This partial list of major subjects may be supplemented by numerous points of minor significance, as well as divergences of terminology in which these theological issues are clad. It is true that some of these points are debated among scholars, and in certain cases different views on the scope of the books under consideration, and their supposed sources, may influence a scholar’s stand; still, the overwhelming accumulation and variety of issues suffice to show how different the two theological voices are.

IV In contrast to language and theology, much less attention has been given in research to the literary aspect of these works. Zunz listed some literary features of the Chronicler’s work, which point, in his opinion, to the common authorship of the two books; their general nature, however, is apparent. 36 However, very little research has been done in the whole field of literary method, forms, structures, use of sources, modes of literary adaptation, rhetoric, etc. 37 The lack of interest in this aspect may be due to several factors. Most obvious is the fact that “literary analysis” is a relatively 32. Von Rad, Das Geschichstbild, 31–32; Rudolph, Esra und Nehemia, xxviii; M. Weinfeld, “Universalism and Particularism in the Period of Exile and Restoration,” Tarbiz 33 (1964) 228– 42 [Hebrew]; S. Japhet, “People and Land in the Restoration Period,” in Das Land Israel in biblischer Zeit (ed. G. Strecker; Göttingen, 1983) 112–16 [[in this volume, pp. 96–116]]; idem, Ideology, 237–64 [English translation 278–309]; Newsome, “Toward a New Understanding,” 214. 33. Wellhausen, Prolegomena, 211–19 [English translation 203–11]; Japhet, Ideology, 132–72 [English translation 150–98]; Williamson, Israel, 67–68; Braun, “Chronicles, Ezra and Nehemiah,” 53–56. 34. Rudolph, Esra und Nehemia, xxvii; idem, Chronickbücher, xxiii–xxiv. 35. Y. Kaufmann, History of the Religion of Israel (New York, 1977) 4:331–46, 409–10; Williamson, Israel, 60–61; Japhet, Ideology, 295–99 [English translation 346–51]. 36. Zunz mentioned descriptions of public assemblies, festivals, and readings of the Law; special interest in genealogies, exaggerated numbers, and quotations from the Pentateuch and the Psalms (Die Gottesdienstlichen, 22). Regarding the genealogies, see Wellhausen’s remark: “The penchant for pedigrees and genealogical registers . . . is a characteristic feature of Judaism” (Prolegomena, 220 [English translation 211]); the use of quotations as a literary tool is a stylistic phenomenon defined as musiv Stil or “anthological style” (on which we intend to elaborate on another occasion), and is certainly of general distribution; it should be obvious that exaggerated numbers are not an idiosyncracy of the Chronicler. 37. See as examples the section on “literary devices” in S. Talmon, “Ezra and Nehemiah (Books and Men),” IDBS (1976) 321–22; T. Eskenazi, In an Age of Prose: A Literary Approach to

The Relationship between Chronicles and Ezra–Nehemiah

177

new field of biblical scholarship, and its accelerated development can be traced to recent years. One may also surmise that the general evaluation of Chronicles and Ezra–Nehemiah as compilations, of inferior artistic merit, and the difficulty of their peculiar idiom, have not encouraged research. Since in this aspect too, Chronicles and Ezra–Nehemiah vary widely, and literary observations have not generally been brought to bear on our topic, 38 we would like to present two short illustrations. One of the most familiar of the Chronicler’s literary features is the appearance of what is commonly—but erroneously—termed “the Levitical Sermon.” 39 This category comprises all the oratorical pieces, including prophetic speeches, royal addresses, prayers, etc., and is rightly regarded as having great formulative and theological significance in the Chronistic composition. The function of these speeches is often compared to that of the Deuteronomistic prophecies in the book of Kings, and of orations in historiography in general. 40 This literary category is utterly absent from Ezra–Nehemiah. Even when prophetic figures do appear, with the explicit role of encouraging the people to resume work on the temple at the time of the Restoration, none of their words—authentic or “Chronistic”—are quoted. 41 The history of the Restoration as described in Ezra–Nehemiah offers some wonderful opportunities for rhetorical addresses; one need only imagine the exhortations, prayers, thanksgivings, etc. with which the Chronicler would have embellished the laying of the temple foundations (Ezra 3), the dedication of the temple (Ezra 6:16), and the wall of Jerusalem (Neh 12:27–43)—to mention only a few. And yet, no such orations are found; even the Psalms are never quoted in Ezra–Nehemiah, except for the solitary indirect refrain of Ezra 3:11: “and they sang . . . giving thanks to the Lord, for he is good, for his steadfast love endures for ever toward Israel.” On the other hand, the book of Ezra–Nehemiah does contain two confessions, with historical retrospects which are among the longest in the Ezra–Nehemiah (Atlanta, 1988); idem, “The Structure of Ezra–Nehemiah,” JBL 107 (1988) 641– 56. Also, S. Japhet, “Biblical Historiography in the Persian Period,” in World History of the Jewish People (ed. H. Tadmor and I. Ephºal; Jerusalem, 1983) 6:178–82 [Hebrew]. 38. But see Newsome, “Toward a New Understanding,” 214–15; H. G. M. Williamson, 1 and 2 Chronicles (Grand Rapids and London, 1982) 11. 39. The term was coined by von Rad in 1934 and widely accepted. See G. von Rad, “The Levitical Sermon in I and II Chronicles,” in The Problem of the Hexateuch and Other Essays (Edinburgh and London, 1966) 267–80 (= Gesammelte Studien zum Alten Testament [Munich, 1958] 248–61). This definition was, however, challenged by D. Mathias, who concludes that the passages in question are neither “Levitical” nor “Sermons” (“ ‘Levitische Predigt’ und Deuteronomismus,” ZAW 96 [1984] 23–24). The role of these oratorical pieces in Chronicles, however, is independent of the definition of their genre. 40. See, among others, K. H. Graf, Die geschichtlichen Bücher des Alten Testament (Leipzig, 1866) 122; M. Weinfeld, Deuteronomy and the Deuteronomic School (Oxford, 1972) 52–58; M. Dibelius, “The Speeches in Acts and Ancient Historiography” (1949), in Studies in the Acts of the Apostles (London, 1956) 135–85 (= Aufsätze zur Apostelgeschichte [Göttingen, 1951] 120–62). 41. Ezra 5:1–2, 6:14; see Newsome, “Toward a New Understanding,” 214–15.

178

Chapter 9

Bible (Ezra 9 and Nehemiah 9)—unparalleled in Chronicles. The closest approximation to a verbal confession of sin in Chronicles is the laconic: “the Lord is righteous” (2 Chr 12:6). This is no coincidence; these confessions embody a view of divine justice which conceives an “accumulation” of the sin of the people—in Ezra’s own words: “From the days of our fathers to this day we have been in great guilt” (Ezra 10:7). The view reflected here, repeated in the confession of Nehemiah 9 (see also Daniel 9), is absolutely impossible for the Chronicler’s theology of history and his view of retribution, which excludes “accumulating sin” and postponed punishment. 42 Another point concerning the Chronicler’s historiographical method is his routine—following the Deuteronomistic precedent—to conclude each king’s life with a summary including, inter alia, a note concerning his death and burial. 43 It has been pointed out long ago that these notes are a significant element in the Chronicler’s presentation of divine retribution. 44 In Ezra–Nehemiah we find not a single such remark; the protagonists are introduced in various ways, but their exit is never described. Sheshbazzar, Zerubbabel, Jehoshua, Ezra, and Nehemiah, are all simply abandoned at a certain point; they are never accompanied to the end of their career. This difference, like the preceding one, includes both literary and theological elements; it is inexplicable if one author is assumed for both works.

V In addition to “internal” arguments, there are two “external” literary indications cited to prove common authorship. The first is from the apocryphal work of 1 Esdras, which opens with 2 Chronicles 35–36, continues with Ezra 1–10 (with certain deviations of order and additional material), and ends with Neh 8:1–13. It has been claimed that 1 Esdras reflects the format of an original composition, in which Ezra 1 followed 2 Chronicles 36. 45 Another indication is the repetition of Ezra 1:1–3a in 2 Chr 36:22– 23—assumed to be a scribal “sign” that the two works were originally one. 46

42. This facet of the Chronicler’s theory of retribution has been often demonstrated; see Japhet, Ideology, 139–45 [English translation 156–65]; R. B. Dillard, 2 Chronicles (Waco, 1987) 76–81. 43. 1 Chr 29:26–30, 2 Chr 9:29–31, etc. This historiographic rule has a systematic exception: the kings who died outside the land of Israel, that is, Jehoahaz, Jehoiachin and Zedekiah; see Japhet, Ideology, 314–15 [English translation 370–71]. 44. See inter alia, Rudolph, Chronickbücher, xx. 45. Already Zunz, Die Gottesdienstlichen, 21. See in particular, K. F. Pohlmann, Studien zum dritten Esra. Ein Beitrag zur Frage nach dem ursprünglichen Schluss des chronistischen Geschichtswerk (Göttingen, 1970). 46. See the recent discussion between M. Haran, “Explaining the Identical Lines at the End of Chronicles and the Beginning of Ezra,” Bible Review 2 (1986) 18–20, and H. G. M. Williamson, “Did the Author of Chronicles Also Write the Books of Ezra and Nehemiah?” Bible Review 3 (1987) 56–59.

spread is 6 points long

The Relationship between Chronicles and Ezra–Nehemiah

179

These claims have only a peripheral influence on our debate, since they tend to involve us in a circular argument. If we assume a priori that Chronicles and Ezra–Nehemiah were originally one book, then these two literary phenomena appear to support common authorship. And yet, that basic assumption is not necessarily the best point of departure. Thus, for example, it has been shown that 1 Esdras and Ezra–Nehemiah display two different theological attitudes; they are not merely varying textual traditions, but two different works. 47 Moreover, 1 Esdras cannot in any way be regarded as an original composition: it is clearly the reworking of an existing one, that is, the canonical books of Ezra–Nehemiah and Chronicles for the respective passages. 48 It would seem, in fact, that the assumption that 1 Esdras constitutes a “more original” form than Ezra–Nehemiah impedes rather than enhances our understanding of this work; in any case, the combination of 2 Chronicles 35–36 with Ezra 1ff. can be interpreted in several ways and “cannot be used to support the view that Chronicles was originally continued by Ezra.” 49 The procedure generally adduced for the repetition of Ezra 1:1–3a in 2 Chr 36:22–23 has nowhere been proven; it is thus completely conjectural. This repetition may be explained in various ways, the most obvious of which has already been suggested: the Chronicler wishes to conclude his work with a pointer to the future, to the continuation of the history of Israel after the catastrophe. For that purpose he follows his regular literary method, citing a “borrowed” passage with rhetorical impact, this time from Ezra–Nehemiah. 50 Another approach is to view these verses as a later addition to Chronicles, with a possible “liturgical” motive of ending the book on a positive note. 51 This view may result from the general literary position that the composition of Ezra–Nehemiah is later than Chronicles, and therefore direct borrowing by the latter from the former is impossible. 52 The fact 47. Williamson, Israel, 12–36. 48. Williamson; T. Eskenazi, “The Chronicler and the Composition of 1 Esdras,” CBQ 48 (1986) 39–61; also Japhet, “Sheshbazzar and Zerubbabel against the Background of the Historical and Religious Tendencies of Ezra–Nehemiah,” ZAW 95 (1984) 219–22, 225–29 [[in this volume, pp. 86–89, 91–95]]. 49. Williamson, Israel, 36. 50. Another example of the Chronicler’s borrowing from Ezra–Nehemiah is the synoptic list of 1 Chr 9:2–17 and Neh 11:3–19, where the assumption of borrowing may best explain some of the differences between the two versions. This borrowing will of course be denied by scholars who regard either 1 Chronicles 9 or Nehemiah 11 (or both) as secondary in their respective contexts. 51. Williamson, Israel, 7–10; idem, 1 and 2 Chronicles, 419. This argument is also not attested elsewhere. It may be based on the technique by which the Massoretes provide a “positive” conclusion for all biblical books which have a negative ending; see the Massorah conclusions of Isaiah, Malachi, Ecclesiastes, and Lamentations. In all these cases, however, the appended verse is taken from the same passage, as near as possible to the end. 52. Williamson, “The Composition of Ezra i–vi,” JTS n.s. 34 (1983) 1–30; in particular, pp. 26–30.

180

Chapter 9

remains that the repetition per se is far from proving that the two books had one author; it can serve as a supporting argument only when we assume this common authorship a priori. To sum up briefly our discussion so far: the decision that a particular author is responsible for the composition of an anonymous work must be based on compelling evidence. To my mind, the arguments brought forward in the case of Chronicles and Ezra–Nehemiah do not meet this criterion. On the contrary—there is every indication, in the array of literary differences of every possible kind, that these two books are distinct compositions; the author of one work could not have been the author of the other.

VI We venture on less solid ground when we approach the question of common authorship in terms of “Chronistic circles” or a “school.” The hypothesis of “circles” was first introduced into the context of our discussion by A. S. Kapelrud, who defined the term in the broadest sociological sense. Kapelrud’s question did not concern the final composition of Ezra–Nehemiah—which he regarded from the outset as of Chronistic authorship—but the more specific Ezra Narrative of Ezra 7:1–10:44, Neh 8:1–18. His conclusions regarding the composition of this pericope have broader implications: The Chronicler is not one single author personality. . . . By this designation we must rather understand a whole circle or more probably groups of circles that have grown up in a definite Levite-influenced milieu in Jerusalem. . . . It is these circles that have taken up the Ezra-tradition and continued it in their own language. It is obvious that this view of Chr must lead to taking up again the entire question of the origin and sources of the Books of Chronicles. This . . . task . . . lies outside the frame of this treatise. 53

The view of wide circles, or “groups of circles,” in which tradition was formulated and then transmitted for generations in oral form before being committed to writing was not adopted by later scholarship. However, a less extreme modification, the view of a “Chronistic School,” is sometimes expressed in recent research. 54 A “school” has a more literary and theological orientation than the sociological definition of “circles,” and provides a common milieu for various works of similar literary style and theological vocabulary. This idea may de-emphasize the theological creativity and 53. The Question of Authorship in the Ezra-Narrative (Oslo, 1944) 97. 54. P. R. Ackroyd, “Studies in the Book of Haggai,” JJS 2 (1951) 173; idem, JJS 3 (1952) 2, 12; in particular, W. A. M. Beuken, Haggai–Sacharja 1–8 (Assen, 1967) 19–20 and passim. Thus on p. 20: “Doch kann man sicher von einer chronistishcen Schule sprechen.” These scholars take for granted that Ezra–Nehemiah was the work of the Chronicler; their own purpose is to broaden the activity of a “Chronistic school” to encompass the final composition of Haggai and Zechariah 1–8.

The Relationship between Chronicles and Ezra–Nehemiah

181

achievement of the individual, but does not exclude the unique literary expression of particular authors within the school. Regarding “the Chronicler” as a “school” is an elegant compromise, and makes possible a comprehensive synthesis: “the Chronicler” did compose Ezra–Nehemiah, and yet he did not; all that is found in these books may be attributed to him, yet also only certain portions. 55 This tempting solution appears on more serious examination to be problematic. There is no doubt in my mind that “a school” or “schools” should indeed be postulated for the period under consideration, no less than for earlier and later eras in the history of Israel. The full-fledged theology of Chronicles, revealing an original philosophy of history at almost every turn, could not have been the creation of a single individual working in an ideological vacuum. Rather, there must have been a broader spiritual movement in which the Chronicler’s thought was rooted. However, the book of Chronicles was not composed by a “corporate personality.” The peculiar literary signature, visible throughout the book, is that of an individual—“the Chronicler,” writing at a particular point in the political and religious history of Israel. Should the book of Ezra–Nehemiah be ascribed to this supposed “Chronistic school?” This would account for the often demonstrated similar background of the two works, and do justice to their peculiar idiom and some of their common interests, such as the central position of the temple and the propensity for lists. However, unless we define the term “school” so broadly that it loses any specific contours, this possibility should be excluded. If we sketch the foundations of this school by the major concepts and convictions of the book of Chronicles—as we must, by definition—it is difficult to see how the book of Ezra–Nehemiah could belong to it. On the most crucial issues of the period, determining the community’s religious and national identity and self-understanding, the two compositions express attitudes which are no less than diametrically opposed. The theological understanding of politics, the exclusive or inclusive attitudes to foreign elements, the principles of divine providence in the history of Israel, are only a few examples. Could the advocates of such contrasting attitudes have 55. This solution is well illustrated by the influential proposal of F. M. Cross, “A Reconstruction,” 11–14. Cross sees Chronicles and Ezra–Nehemiah, as well as 1 Esdras, as one “Chronistic work,” composed in three stages over a period of over a century, as follows: a. 1 Chronicles 10–2 Chronicles 34 + the Vorlage of 1 Esd 1:1–5:65 (= 2 Chronicles 35–36 + Ezra 1:1–3:13), written shortly after 520 b.c.e. b. 1 Chronicles 10–2 Chronicles 34 + the Vorlage of 1 Esdras, written after Ezra’s mission in 458 b.c.e. c. 1 Chronicles 1–2 Chronicles 36 + the Hebrew Ezra–Nehemiah, written after 400 b.c.e. Cross does not use the term “school,” and his three authors have different views on major historical and theological issues, but they nevertheless are all called “Chroniclers,” even with reference to Ezra–Nehemiah and 1 Esdras. See also Throntveit, When Kings Speak, 97–107.

182

Chapter 9

belonged to the same ideological circle? Some affinity to Chronistic theology may be found in 1 Esdras where it deviates from the canonical Ezra– Nehemiah; 56 and there are points of similarity between Chronicles and some of the Apocrypha, 57 but in terms of a theological “school” the book of Chronicles and the book of Ezra–Nehemiah are not related. At the beginning of our presentation we asked whether one author was responsible for the composition of both Ezra–Nehemiah and Chronicles. Having discussed the matter from the different perspectives of an individual author and a “school,” we now conclude that the answer should be a firm negative. Ezra–Nehemiah and Chronicles were written by different authors, at separate—although proximate—periods in the Persian-Hellenistic Period, and express varying theologies and objectives. They are both fruits, however, of the spiritual endeavor of the Restoration community, and represent the last fruits of biblical historiography. It is through their study, each on its own terms, that this major stage in the development of biblical history and theology may be fully learned and appreciated.

56. Eskenazi, “The Chronicler,” 39–61. 57. Japhet, Ideology, 104–11 [English translation 116–24].

Chapter 10

The Temple in the Restoration Period: Reality and Ideology We know so little about the physical structure of the temple of the Restoration that, with regard to its structural plan, dimensions, building materials, ornamentation, and furnishings, it represents the least well-known stage in the history of the temple in Jerusalem. For Solomon’s Temple, we possess detailed biblical evidence in two texts which, despite their differences in a number of details, provide us with a good picture of the temple and its furnishings. 1 For Herod’s Temple, information culled from different literary sources combines with impressive archaeological evidence. 2 For the Temple of the Restoration, in contrast, we have only isolated details which scarcely satisfy our desire for knowledge. The paucity of available information notwithstanding, we should not underestimate the place and importance of this sanctuary in the history of Israel, nor should we minimize its role in the renewal and reconstruction of Judah at the beginning of the Second Temple Period or thereafter. In the year 516 b.c.e., the temple’s construction was completed and its dedication was celebrated in Jerusalem. 3 The temple’s end should be placed in the 18th year of Herod’s reign (19/20 b.c.e.) with his construction of the new temple. 4 It follows, therefore, that the temple built during the Restoration Period endured almost 500 years, longer even than Solomon’s Temple. Although it underwent several repairs and alterations over the years, it essentially remained the same. 5 Descriptions found in literary sources, for example in various tractates of the Mishna or in the writings of Josephus, represent the temple after its reconstruction by Herod, not the temple built at the beginning of Persian rule. Nevertheless, we may claim that the temple of the Restoration Period is, in fact, “the Second Temple,” because of both its long life span and its place in the history of Israel. When we nevertheless define this temple as “the Temple of the Restoration” and 1. See S. Yeivin, “Solomon’s Temple,” Encyclopedia Biblica (1968) 5:328–46 [Hebrew]; M. Haran, “Ezekiel’s Temple,” ibid., 5:346–55; T. A. Busink, Der Temple von Jerusalem (Leiden, 1970). 2. A. Schalit, King Herod: Portrait of a Ruler ( Jerusalem, 1964) 194–206 [Hebrew]; G. Foerster, “Art and Architecture in Palestine,” in The Jewish People in the First Century (ed. S. Safrai and M. Stern; Assen/Amsterdam, 1976) 2:977–84; B. Mazar, The Mountain of the Lord (New York, 1975) 75–87. 3. See pp. 211–12 below. 4. For a discussion of this question, see Schalit, King Herod, 194 and nn. 743–44 on p. 463. 5. S. Safrai and M. Avi-Yonah, “Temple,” Encyclopedia Judaica (1971) 15:960–61.

183

184

Chapter 10

not as “the Second Temple,” it is only in order to circumscribe the historical focal point of our discussion, i.e., the beginning of the temple’s restoration, the events connected to its reconstruction, and its place in the worldview of the first generations of the Restoration Period.

Chronological Framework and the Question of Sources The common designation of the period in question as “the Restoration Period” stems from the view that, after the destruction of the Kingdom of Judah and the exile of the people, a new stage in Israel’s history was initiated by the return from Babylon. Such a view portrays the situation in Israel after the destruction and Exile as a complete break in historical continuity. The resumption of continuity occurred only 50 years later with Cyrus’s proclamation, which set the stage for the return to Zion and the Restoration of Israel. Although this view is held by many historians, 6 its origin lies in the historical description of Ezra–Nehemiah and seems to rest on two presuppositions: a break in historical continuity in the land of Israel and a restoration which originated entirely from the outside. It is doubtful, however, whether such a view, both in its general outline and in its details, conforms with either historical reality or probability. This is not the place for a full treatment of this question, 7 but we shall have occasion to refer to it in the course of our discussion. What are the precise historical boundaries of the period? As has already been pointed out, its beginning is generally dated to Cyrus’s proclamation in the first year of his reign. When, then, should we place its end? And how shall the period following it be designated in light of this definition? These questions resist solution. The Second Temple Period in general is divided into sub–periods according to the political power present in Israel at the time, i.e., the Persian Period (538–332 b.c.e.), the Hellenistic Period (332– 142 b.c.e.), the Hasmonean kingdom, etc. The “Restoration Period” does not suit these political definitions, and the question of its terminal point is solved by history books in a practical way: they identify it with the Persian Period or with the contents of Ezra–Nehemiah. 8 In truth, however, there is 6. See, for example, Y. Kaufmann, History of the Religion of Israel, from the Babylonian Captivity to the End of Prophecy (translated by C. W. Efroymson; Jerusalem, 1977) 4:196–201. 7. See M. Kochman, “ ‘Yehud Medinta’ in the Light of the Seal Impressions YHWD-PWH,” Cathedra for the History of Israel and Its Yishuv 24 (1982) 3–30 [Hebrew]. 8. An interesting example of the scholarly struggle with this question is H. H. Ben-Sasson, A History of the Jewish People (Cambridge, 1976). The book is divided into six sections, the second of which is entitled “The Period of the First Temple, the Babylonian Exile and the Restoration” (pp. 91–182) and the third: “The Period of the Second Temple” (pp. 185–303). The chapter entitled “The Period of the Second Temple” begins, however, only with the Hellenistic period, after the land of Israel had been conquered by Alexander the Great (332 b.c.e.), in other words, close to 200 years after the dedication of the Second Temple. On the other hand, in the second

The Temple in the Restoration Period: Reality and Ideology

185

no precise historical definition of the period in question, neither for its end nor for its beginning; its description as the “Restoration Period” is not related to its chronological boundaries, but to the historical phenomenon of Israel’s Restoration. The chronological framework of the period is determined by the combination of biblical and extra-biblical data. The chronology of the kings of Persia has been established with great accuracy by Parker and Dubberstein, and the synchronic data found in the Bible dovetails with it, creating the chronological basis for the description of the period. 9 There are three principal chronological signposts which can be situated with certainty: (1) Cyrus’s proclamation in “the first year” of his reign (Ezra 1:1; see also Ezra 6:3), i.e., in 538 b.c.e.; (2) the year in which the temple’s construction is resumed, “in the second year of Darius the king” 10 (Hag l:1–2:23, Ezra 4:24– 5:2), i.e., in 521 b.c.e.; (3) the date of the temple’s completion and dedication, “on the third day of the month of Adar in the sixth year of the reign of Darius the king” (Ezra 6:15), i.e., in 516 b.c.e. All other details in the chronological system are fixed in relation to these points, and we shall discuss them when appropriate. The sources available to us for a description of the period are almost entirely biblical. Extra-biblical sources, and in particular several inscriptions of the Persian kings, contribute to an understanding of the general historical background, but they offer no information about Judah or the land of Israel in general. The epigraphic and archaeological evidence is still limited, and its chief contribution is in conjunction with the biblical evidence, corroborating or refuting it. 11 Consequently, an understanding and proper evaluation of the biblical evidence becomes all the more important. A few preliminary comments about the nature of the principal sources and the problems connected with their utilization are therefore in order at this point.

section—“The Period of the First Temple, the Babylonian Exile and the Restoration”—the final chapter is devoted to “The Babylonian Exile and the Restoration” (pp. 159–82), and the Restoration itself receives only a single, brief section (pp. 168–72). The book’s perception of history is clear, and the chapter under discussion does, in fact, refer to the history of the people of Israel under Babylonian and Persian rule, but the use of the imprecise term “Restoration,” and the survey of the period in light of the type of source in which it is described make it difficult to establish precise historical definitions. 9. See R. A. Parker and W. H. Dubberstein, Babylonian Chronology 626 b.c.—a.d. 75 (Providence, 1957) 10–16; H. Tadmor, “Chronology of the Restoration Period,” Encyclopedia Biblica (1962) 4:303–10 [Hebrew]; E. J. Bickerman, “En marge de L’écriture,” RB 88 (1981) 19–28. 10. All biblical citations are taken from the Revised Standard Version (rsv) unless otherwise indicated. 11. See J. H. Hayes and J. M. Miller, Israelite and Judaean History (London, 1977) 489–583. More recently, see Kochman, “Yehud Medinta”; U. Rappaport, “The Coins of Judea at the End of Persian Rule and the Beginning of the Hellenistic Period,” in Jerusalem in the Second Temple Period: Abraham Schalit Memorial Volume (ed. A. Oppenheimer; Jerusalem, 1980) 7–21 [Hebrew with English summaries].

186

Chapter 10

The biblical sources related to our subject are of four types: documents, historical descriptions, prophetic utterances, and poetry and psalms. The longest and most detailed composition is Ezra 1–6, a self-contained unit within the book of Ezra–Nehemiah devoted entirely to the building of the temple. The unit begins with Cyrus’s proclamation and concludes with the temple’s dedication and the Passover celebration which immediately followed. Although in its final form Ezra 1–6 constitutes a single continuous unit, the material contained within it may be classified into two categories: documents (lists, letters, etc.), and a historical narrative which provides the sequence and into which the documents are integrated. Both the narrative material and the documents are found in two languages: Hebrew and Aramaic. The Hebrew material begins and concludes the unit (Ezra 1:1–4:7, 6:19–22), while the Aramaic material is concentrated in the middle (Ezra 4:8–6:18). Because of the concentration of the Aramaic material, some scholars are inclined to see in it a separate source which existed independently before it was integrated into our present narrative. 12 However, there is no difference between the Hebrew and Aramaic material in regard to their literary character: both constitute an integration of documents into a narrative sequence according to a premeditated plan and form a single, continuous unit. 13 An important point of departure for an appreciation of the unit’s value as a historical source is the time of its composition. The fact that the unit narrates the construction of the temple does not mean that it was written at the same time. Conversely, the possibility that the unit was composed at a chronological and ideological distance from the events it describes does not necessarily imply that all the information found within it is unreliable. Nevertheless, the establishment of the time of composition, as far as possible, is of great importance for an evaluation of the source and a characterization of its use. One of the means by which the time of the unit’s composition may be established is the study of Ezra 4: the description of the hostile acts taken by the enemies of Judah. The chapter opens with an attempt of “the adversaries of Judah and Benjamin” to participate in the building of the temple and their subsequent rebuff by Zerubbabel and the heads of the fathers’ houses (Ezra 4:1–3). After this comes a general description of their hostile acts: “then the people of the land discouraged the people of Judah and 12. Thus, for example, W. Rudolph, Esra und Nehemia (HAT; Tübingen, 1949) xxiii, 40–41; J. Liver, “The Order of the Persian Kings in Ezra–Nehemiah” in J. Liver, Studies in Bible and Judean Desert Scrolls ( Jerusalem, 1971) 271 [Hebrew]. Kaufmann believes that the entire unit in Ezra 1–6 is based upon an “Aramaic account” which he entitles “the Aramaic story of Zerubbabel,” and that the author of Ezra–Nehemiah “translated some of it, and adduced the rest in Aramaic” (History, 4:186–87, 616–17). We do not accept his view. For a detailed discussion of this subject, see n. 13 below. 13. See S. Japhet, “Biblical Historiography in the Persian Period” in World History of the Jewish People (ed. H. Tadmor and I. Ephºal; Jerusalem, 1983) 6:181–82 [Hebrew].

The Temple in the Restoration Period: Reality and Ideology

187

made them afraid to build and hired counselors against them to frustrate their purpose” (4:4–5). The narrative then provides three examples of such hostile actions: (1) a brief notice concerning a letter of accusation” against the inhabitants of Judah and Jerusalem” which is sent to King Ahasuerus (4:6); (2) a brief notice concerning a letter written by “Bishlam and Mithredath and Tabeel and the rest of their associates” to King Artaxerxes (4:7); (3) a detailed record of the correspondence between “Rehum the commander, Shimshai the scribe and the rest of their associates” and Artaxerxes, which leads in the end to a halt in the construction (4:8–24). A scholarly consensus maintains that Ahasuerus is the Hebrew name of Khshayarsha, better known by his Greek name Xerxes, who ruled after Darius between 486 and 464 b.c.e., while Artaxerxes I (atsçjtra = Artachshastah) ruled after Xerxes between 464 and 423 b.c.e. Clearly, therefore, the author who reported this information lived no earlier than the period of Artaxerxes; it stands to reason, in fact, that he lived after it. 14 Correspondingly, we cannot place the time of the unit’s composition before the time of Artaxerxes, and more probably, we should place its date sometime after, that is, approximately one hundred years after the completion of the temple. 15 It must be pointed out, however, that the sources from which the unit was composed—the documents, lists, various historical data, etc.—may be contemporaneous with the events to which they relate. Thus, we may conclude that, regarding their time and origin, the literary material composed by the later author differs in status from that of the documents, a situation which heightens the importance of the documents and calls attention to the problem of their provenance and historical reliability. Indeed, this problem has preoccupied scholars who, it may be said, generally assign great reliability to the Aramaic documents, while differing over the reliability of the Hebrew documents. 16

14. The report that following the letter to Artaxerxes, who ruled between 464 and 423 b.c.e., construction was halted until the second year of Darius (521 b.c.e.!) creates an obtrusive chronological difficulty which we will discuss in detail on pp. 192–95 below. 15. This is the accepted view. See M. Z. Segal, “Ezra–Nehemiah: The Books of Ezra–Nehemiah,” Encyclopedia Biblica (1971) 6:151 [Hebrew]; Rudolph, Esra und Nehemia, xxiii–xxv; Kaufmann, who seeks an early date for the unit’s composition, claims that a confusion arose in the names of the kings resulting in the substitution of the name Artachshastah (Artaxerxes) for the original name Canbuzi (Cambyses), who ruled between 530 and 522 b.c.e. As for vv. 6–7, which mention Ahasuerus and Artachshastah, Kaufmann defines them as “a marginal notation recorded by an erudite copyist.” See Kaufmann, History, 4:629–35. 16. The historical reliability of the Aramaic documents is stressed by E. Meyer, Die Entstehung des Judentum (Halle, 1896) 8–71. His view has been generally accepted with almost no challenge. Concerning the importance of the documents in the history of scholarship on Ezra– Nehemiah, see also: S. Japhet, “The Historical Reliability of the Book of Chronicles: The History of the Problem and Its Place in Biblical Research” JSOT 33 (1985) 91–92 [[in this volume, pp. 127–28]]. On the question of the Hebrew documents, and in particular Cyrus’s proclamation as recorded in Ezra 1:2–4, see pp. 197–203 below.

188

Chapter 10

In our discussion of the time of the unit’s composition, we also touched on the nature of its composition. The integrity of subject matter and the chronological continuity of the unit suggest that it had a final author who molded the material in his possession according to a premeditated plan, added his own comments, and produced the narrative as we have it. The identity of the unit’s author is not revealed by the composition itself. The rabbis saw Ezra as the writer of the entire book, thereby assigning its composition to the time of Artaxerxes, 17 while many modern scholars attribute the book entirely to the Chronicler, including the unit presently under discussion. 18 The view that the final author of Ezra–Nehemiah is also the author of Ezra 1–6 seems to us to be well-supported, but we do not identify this author with either Ezra or the Chronicler. 19 We will refer to him, therefore, as the author of the unit or the author of the book without venturing into the question of his identity. Another source for our period is the books of the contemporaneous prophets, especially Haggai and Zechariah. According to the dates found in his book, Haggai was active from the first day of the sixth month (Elul) in the second year of Darius to the twenty-fourth day of the ninth month (Kislev) in the same year (Hag 1:1, 15; 2:1, 10, 18, 20), in other words, the final months of 521 b.c.e. The dates mentioned in Zechariah stretch from the eighth month (Heshvan) in the second year of Darius to the fourth day of Kislev in the fourth year of Darius (Zech 1:1, 7; 7:1), in other words, from October, 521 b.c.e., until December, 519 b.c.e. The historical setting within which these prophets operated is clear from the people to whom they appealed, particularly Zerubbabel son of Shealtiel and Joshua son of Jozadak (Hag 1:1, 12–14; 2:2, 4, 21, 23; Zech 3:l–10, 4:6–10, 6:10–13), as well as from the content of their prophecies, many of which are directly connected to the temple’s building or to other questions central to the period. The introduction of Haggai and Zechariah in Ezra 5:1–2, 6:14 as prophets who stirred the people to renew construction and who aided in its completion fits, therefore, the overall information provided in their books. Prophecies are, by their very nature, a direct response to the events and people of their age and constitute an invaluable source for an appreciation 17. See b. B. Bat. 15a, “Ezra wrote the book that bears his name and the genealogies of the Book of Chronicles up to his own time. . . . Who then finished it?—Nehemiah the son of Hachaliah.” Unless stated otherwise, all talmudic passages are cited from I. Epstein, ed., The Babylonian Talmud (various translators; London, 1935). Among modern scholars who adhere to this view, see W. F. Albright, “The Date and Personality of the Chronicler,” JBL 40 (1921) 104–24. 18. On the identification of the Chronicler as the author of Ezra–Nehemiah, see, for example, J. Blenkinsopp, Ezra–Nehemiah (OTL; London, 1989) 44, 47–54. Against this view, see S. Japhet, “The Relationship between Chronicles and Ezra–Nehemiah,” Congress Volume (VTSup 41; Louvain, 1991 [[in this volume, pp. 169–182]]) which includes bibliography. 19. See Japhet, “Biblical Historiography,” 182. So also H. G. M. Williamson, “The Composition of Ezra I–VI,” JTS 34 (1983) 1–30.

The Temple in the Restoration Period: Reality and Ideology

189

of the historical reality. Nevertheless, we must ask whether the prophets’ words have reached us in their original form. The book of Haggai is a narrative which describes the prophet in the third person and combines the words of the prophet, a description of his actions and the reaction of the people to his words. We may reasonably conclude, therefore, that Haggai himself did not produce the book in its present form, but rather, that it is the work of one of his contemporaries or disciples, 20 a conclusion which raises the question of the book’s authenticity, accuracy, and reliability. Despite theories about a later, secondary editing of Haggai, the extent of which varies from scholar to scholar, 21 it appears that the book essentially reflects the prophet’s authentic words and deeds, although within a very limited period which perhaps does not reflect the whole range of his activities as a prophet. Also in the book of Zechariah there are reflections of later revision, particularly the headings (Zech 1:1, 7; 7:1), but in contrast to Haggai, the entire book is written in the first person and bears a clearly personal stamp. 22 Additional prophetic sources cannot be defined with such precision, and it is not always possible to connect these prophecies conclusively to specific historical events. Nevertheless, the prophets’ words offer an important contribution to our subject, and we will mention in particular the prophecies in Isaiah 40–66 and Malachi. Yet another source with potential to illuminate the events of the period are poetry and psalms: the book of Lamentations, which expresses the sense of catastrophe following the temple’s destruction, and the various psalms which originated in our period, such as Psalm 126, which has given our period its name (Ps 126:1). 23 Because of their nature, these sources cannot serve as the basis for a historical discussion, but they do represent an authentic expression of moods, and of historical and religious concepts, illuminating the period from an angle which does not always receive expression in other historical sources. 20. See Kaufmann, History, 4:253; W. Rudolph, Haggai, Sacharja 1–8, Sacharja 9–14, Maleachi (Gütersloh, 1976) 22–23; D. L. Petersen, Haggai and Zechariah 1–8 (OTL; London, 1984) 32–39. 21. See on the one hand Kaufmann, who claims that there is not even one secondary verse in the book (History, 4:253 and also nn. 3, 5, 7, 10). On the other hand, see W. A. M. Beuken, Haggai–Sacharja 1–8 (Assen, 1967) 27–83, who attributes large sections of the book to a “Chronistic editor.” Mason believes that the book’s editorial framework is of great importance, but he does not see in it a “Chronistic” framework necessarily. See R. Mason, “The Purpose of the Editorial Framework of the Book of Haggai,” VT 27 (1977) 413–21. On the entire book’s proximity to the period it describes, see also Petersen, Haggai and Zechariah, 39; C. L. Meyers and E. M. Meyers, Haggai, Zechariah 1–8 (AB; New York, 1987) xliv–xlvii. 22. Beuken finds also in Zechariah evidence of a “Chronistic editing.” See Beuken, Haggai– Sacharja, 183–84; Petersen, Haggai and Zechariah, 124–25. 23. The number of these psalms is quite large. See A. Hurvitz, The Transition Period in Biblical Hebrew: A Study in Post-Exilic Hebrew and Its Implications for the Dating of Psalms ( Jerusalem, 1972) 67–176 [Hebrew].

190

Chapter 10

The Description of the Temple’s Construction in Ezra 1–6 Like Solomon’s or Herod’s Temple, the initiative to build the Temple of the Restoration Period came from the ruler, Cyrus king of Persia. 24 In contrast to these other cases, however, Cyrus the Emperor was the supreme ruler over Judah, not its direct king, and his involvement in the construction was apparently small. For this and other reasons, the building of the temple lasted more than 20 years during which the builders faced many obstacles and challenges. In the main source, Ezra 1–6, the temple’s construction is described in three phases: the first steps, concluded with the laying of the temple’s foundations (Ezra 1–3); a long interruption in the building which lasted many years (Ezra 4), and the construction’s resumption and completion (Ezra 5– 6). For many of these matters, Ezra–Nehemiah is our only source of information; only in relation to part of the third phase—the renewal of construction in the second year of Darius—do we have the additional testimony of the prophets Haggai and Zechariah which provides us with much-needed additional information. The description of the construction presented by Ezra 1–6 may be summarized as follows: 1. In the first year of his reign, Cyrus king of Persia declares that God has ordered him to build God a house in Jerusalem (Ezra 1:1–2). Cyrus therefore turns to the Judean exiles in his kingdom and grants them three rights, the chief of which is permission to build the house of the Lord in Jerusalem. To accomplish this plan, Cyrus permits them to return to “Jerusalem which is in Judah” and to bring with them money and gifts from the contributions of the people in Babylon and all those that dwelt with them (1:3–4). 2. Immediately following Cyrus’s proclamation, the heads of the fathers’ houses of Judah and Benjamin, together with the priests and Levites, arise to return to Jerusalem, taking with them silver, gold, and goods from “all who were about them” (1:5–6).

24. We are not sure of the causes which motivated Cyrus to take this initiative, but see H. Tadmor, “The Historical Background of Cyrus’ Proclamation,” in Strength to David: Jubilee Volume for David Ben-Gurion ( Jerusalem, 1964) 450–73 [Hebrew]; A. Kuhrt, “The Cyrus Cylinder and Achaemenid Imperial Policy,” JSOT 25 (1983) 83–97. The author of Ezra–Nehemiah attributes Cyrus’s motivation to the influence of God: “The Lord stirred up the spirit of Cyrus king of Persia so that he made a proclamation throughout all his kingdom . . .” (Ezra 1:1). These words appear to be the source for Josephus’s claim that Cyrus was moved by a prophecy of Isaiah to act: “These things Cyrus knew from reading the book of prophecy which Isaiah had left behind two hundred and ten years earlier . . . and so, when Cyrus read them, he wondered at the divine power and was seized by a strong desire and ambition to do what had been written.” Josephus, Jewish Antiquities (translated by R. Marcus; Cambridge, MA, 1937) 11.1.2.

The Temple in the Restoration Period: Reality and Ideology

191

3. Among the gifts are the vessels of the temple which are given by Cyrus king of Persia to Sheshbazzar through Mithredath the treasurer. Sheshbazzar brings them to Jerusalem (1:7–11). 4. Chapter 2 describes the return and settlement, and because most of its contents are not relevant to our subject, we will not delve into details. We should emphasize, however, that according to the narrative sequence, the return occurs immediately after Cyrus’s proclamation, and at its head stand Zerubbabel son of Shealtiel, Joshua son of Jozadak, and other leaders (2:1–67). When they arrive in Judah, the heads of the fathers’ houses offer large amounts of money as free-will offerings “for the house of God, to erect it on its site” (2:68–69). After this, everyone settles in their respective cities. 5. Shortly after their arrival to Judah, in the seventh month, the returnees gather in Jerusalem and perform the following actions: they build the altar in its place and offer burnt offerings upon it (3:2–3), they celebrate the Feast of Booths (3:4), and they establish a fixed ritual (3:5–6). Moreover, they give money to the Tyrians and Sidonians, who bring cedar trees from Lebanon via the sea to Joppa (3:7). 6. Approximately half a year later, “in the second year of their coming . . . in the second month,” the returnees begin the practical steps of building: they appoint the Levites to oversee the work of the construction (3:8), they lay the foundations of the building (3:10), and they celebrate the building’s foundation “with trumpets . . . praising and giving thanks to the Lord” (3:10–13). 7. After the foundations are laid, “the adversaries of Judah and Benjamin” learn of the temple’s construction and seek to participate in it. The returnees and their leaders—Zerubbabel, Joshua, and the heads of the fathers’ houses—reject their request (4:3), and from this point on, the enemies of Judah take every possible measure and employ every possible stratagem to prevent the temple’s construction (4:4–5). The result is an explicit directive from the king of Persia to halt construction, which is in fact terminated “by force and power . . . until the second year of the reign of Darius king of Persia” (4:23–24). In Ezra 2–3, the events portrayed do not synchronize with the kings of Persia, but the narrative sequence suggests that, in the author’s opinion, the returnees proceeded to Jerusalem immediately after Cyrus’s proclamation. Because all the events described after this are represented as a sequence, we may conclude that “the second year of their coming” corresponds, in the eyes of the unit’s author, to the second year of Cyrus king of Persia. 25

25. See also H. Tadmor, “Chronology,” 306.

192

Chapter 10

Construction was interrupted, therefore, from the second year of Cyrus to the second year of Darius, i.e., from 537 to 521 b.c.e. 8. In the second year of Darius, the prophets Haggai and Zechariah arise and stir the people to build the temple, and as a result, Zerubbabel and Joshua resume building (5:1–2). At the same time, Tattenai the governor of the province Beyond the River and his entourage arrive in Jerusalem to investigate who the builders are and whence comes their authority to build. The elders of Judah argue before Tattenai and his entourage that they wish only to continue what was begun in the days of Cyrus (5:13–16), and Tattenai, rather than halting the construction, asks Darius to investigate the matter and to inform them of his wish (5:17). This request for clarification, it turns out, uncovers “a record” in Ecbatana from the time of Cyrus which confirms in its general outlines the story of the elders of Judah, and in particular the authority granted them to build the temple (6:1–5). Darius ratifies this authority, adding to it a financial contribution from the king’s treasury both for the erection of the temple and for the permanent worship in it, and threatening with punishment anyone who interferes with the execution of his command (6:6–12). 9. Finally, with the aid of Darius and the support of the prophets, the elders of Judah carry on with the construction, completing it on the third day of Adar in the sixth year of Darius. After its completion, the temple’s dedication is celebrated with rejoicing and sacrifices, and the proper worship of the Lord is established in Jerusalem. This is the description of the temple’s construction as it is presented in Ezra 1–6, a clear and fluent picture of all its stages. However, a close study of its details and a comparison with other contemporary sources raises many questions about various aspects of the description. It is necessary, therefore, that we systematically clarify these difficulties.

Interruption and Resumption of the Temple’s Construction From a chronological perspective, the main difficulty concerns the account of the construction’s cessation in the time of Cyrus and its later resumption in the days of Darius. The difficulty emerges both at the beginning and end of the account, that is, at the two points through which it is tied into its present sequence. We have already mentioned the events which precipitated the halting of construction. The description of these events begins with the days of Cyrus, recounting in a general way the deeds of Israel’s enemies: “then the people of the land discouraged the people of Judah and made them afraid to build and hired counselors against them to frustrate their purpose all the days of

The Temple in the Restoration Period: Reality and Ideology

193

Cyrus king of Persia” (Ezra 4:4–5). Next, the narrative briefly mentions the letters of accusation sent to Xerxes and Artaxerxes, the latter written by “Bishlam and Mithredath and Tabeel and the rest of their associates” (4:6– 7). The height of hostilities is reflected in the detailed description of the correspondence between Rehum the commander and Shimshai the scribe on the one hand, and Artaxerxes king of Persia on the other. The description reads as follows: v. 8 introduces the letter; vv. 9–16 quote the contents of the letter; 26 vv. 17–22 present the resolute response of Artaxerxes; while vv. 23–24 record the actual cessation of the temple’s construction. The chronological difficulty is most conspicuous: the hostile actions of the enemies of Judah are said to have occurred in the days of Cyrus and Darius, but their actions are exemplified by letters of accusation from the days of Xerxes and Artaxerxes, who ruled after Darius. Moreover, the narrative explicitly states that the correspondence with Artaxerxes, who ruled between 464–423 b.c.e., directly caused the halt in construction until the second year of Darius—521 b.c.e.! To the chronological difficulty may be added difficulties of subject matter. The letter of accusation and Artaxerxes’ response do not at all pertain to the construction of the temple, but rather to the building of the city. The letter reads: “They are rebuilding that rebellious and wicked city; they are finishing the walls and repairing the foundations” (Ezra 4:12), and therefore, “be it known to the king that, if this city is rebuilt and the walls finished, they will not pay tribute, customs or toll, and the royal revenue will be impaired (4:13), and finally, “if this city is rebuilt and its walls finished, you will then have no possession in the province Beyond the River” (4:16). The king’s response reflects concern with the same subject, “Therefore make a decree . . . that this city be not rebuilt until a decree is made by me” (4:21). To this may be added another difficulty. Concerning the renewal of construction, the narrative reads: “Then Zerubbabel the son of Shealtiel and Joshua the son of Jozadak arose and began to rebuild the house of God which is in Jerusalem; and with them were the prophets of God, helping 26. There are several difficulties at the beginning of the letter. The presentation of the letter comes in v. 8, but vv. 9–10 present the authors of the letter a second time and at greater length. Verse 10 concludes with the introductory phrase “and now,” but in v. 11 words of introduction appear again which also conclude with the phrase “and now.” From this point forth, the letter proceeds sequentially. Verses 9–10, therefore, appear to be a sort of duplicate, and the letter reads much more coherently if we pass directly from v. 8 to v. 11. On the other hand, the details found in vv. 9–10 appear to be authentic, and their designation as secondary additions seems arbitrary (thus, C. C. Torrey, The Composition and Historical Value of Ezra–Nehemiah [BZAW 2; Giessen, 1896] 6–7, and following him, Rudolph, Esra und Nehemia, 42, and others). It is possible, therefore, that a corruption arose through which the introductory words of the author intermingled with those of the letter. Zer-Kavod claims that the author summarized the original form of the letter, “leaving only those parts that appeared essential.” See M. Zer-Kavod, The Books of Ezra–Nehemiah ( Jerusalem, 1948) 48 [Hebrew]. See also H. G. M. Williamson, Ezra, Nehemiah (WBC; Waco, 1985) 61–62; Blenkinsopp, Ezra–Nehemiah, 112.

194

Chapter 10

them” (5:2). The narrative context, in other words, is not at all connected to the explicit statement in 4:21 “that this city be not rebuilt until a decree is made by me.” The narrative neither states nor implies that the builders are violating an explicit command forbidding construction, and on the other hand, no mention is made of a new command which nullifies the preceding order, as the phrasing of 4:21 would seem to require. We could argue that, under the prophets’ instigative influence, the people ignored the king’s command or acted in deliberate opposition to it. Such an argument, however, could not be applied to the Persian administration itself and its leader, the governor of Beyond the River. Immediately after construction is resumed, it will be recalled, Tattenai and his entourage arrive in Jerusalem and ask the people, “Who gave you a decree to build this house?” (5:3). The narrator immediately adds that “the eye of their God was upon the elders of the Jews, and they did not stop them till a report should reach Darius, and that answer be returned by letter concerning it” (5:5). Such tolerant and even-handed treatment, coming from an emissary of extremely high rank who has come to investigate matters, suggests that Tattenai the governor had absolutely no knowledge of a command explicitly forbidding construction. This may also be concluded from the contents of Tattenai’s correspondence with Darius in which he relates the story told by the elders of the Jews. The story’s most conspicuous feature is its repeated emphasis that there is nothing new in the construction: “We are rebuilding the house that was built many years ago,” the elders claim, “but because our fathers had angered the God of Heaven, He gave them into the hand of Nebuchadnezzar . . . who destroyed this house. However, in the first year of Cyrus king of Babylon, Cyrus the king made a decree that this house of God should be rebuilt. . . . Then this Sheshbazzar came and laid the foundation of the house of God which is in Jerusalem; and from that time until now it has been in building, and it is not yet finished” (5:11–16). The elders’ story does not mention an official prohibition against construction, and certainly no royal command to this effect. Darius’s response supports the elders’ story; the king verifies the existence of Cyrus’s command and adds orders of his own to revalidate and reinvigorate the work of the construction. In other words, all the people connected with the temple’s construction are unaware of a command which explicitly prohibits such an enterprise, including the Persian administration and the Persian king himself. Of course, we may claim that all those concerned with the matter tried to ignore the command, but if this is so, what was the purpose of the investigation in the first place? If we connect all this to the facts established above, namely, that the narrative of Ezra 4 is concerned with the construction of the city wall, not the construction of the temple, and that the events described occur in the days of Artaxerxes, not in the days of Cyrus or his heir, then all the details of the narrative fall into place. The difficulty arises from the insertion of the correspondence between Rehum and Artaxerxes into

spread is 6 points short

The Temple in the Restoration Period: Reality and Ideology

195

its present place in the narrative and not from its contents. From Nehemiah’s memoirs we know that the building of Jerusalem and its walls was an issue of concern in the age of Artaxerxes. With great trepidation, Nehemiah requests a command from the king “that you send me to Judah, to the city of my fathers’ sepulchers, that I may rebuild it” (Neh 2:5), a command which he is, in fact, given. The events described in Ezra 4:6–24, therefore, antedate Nehemiah; they serve as background to his work and have no connection to the temple’s construction. 27 We should ask, of course, what led the author of Ezra–Nehemiah to insert this unit here, in a context in which it is out of place, and we shall return to this subject later on. 28 At this point we must conclude, however, that the temple’s construction was indeed delayed, but not as a result of a royal decree, but rather through the pressure of internal circumstances, which were also responsible for its renewal and completion. Such a view of the course of events is confirmed by the words and deeds of the contemporary prophets, Haggai and Zechariah. The majority of Haggai’s prophecies are devoted to the temple’s construction. The first of these, uttered on the first day of Elul in the second year of Darius (Hag 1:1), begins with words of rebuke and confrontation. Haggai opens with a quotation of the people’s words to which he reacts: “This people say the time 29 has not yet come to rebuild the house of the Lord” (Hag 1:2). The notion of “the time” (t[) is a product of the age and is found in ancient Near Eastern literature. It denotes the proper point in time designated for a specific deed. 30 In the view of the people of Judah, whose words are quoted by Haggai, “the time” has not yet arrived for the temple’s construction. The brief quotation does not specify to what exactly the people of Judah are referring: do they refer to the fulfillment of Jeremiah’s prophecy concerning the 70 years of servitude to Babylon, to Ezekiel’s prophecy concerning the building of the temple ( Jer 25:11–14, 29:10–14; Ezekiel 40–48), or to a combination of the two? At any rate, their words are simple: it is not the right moment to build the temple. Haggai’s response to these words is stinging: “Is it a time for you yourselves to dwell in your paneled houses, while this house lies in ruins?” (1:4). The prophet does not directly react to the people’s argument itself, nor does he bring evidence to prove that “the time” has indeed arrived. His response nullifies the argument altogether, 27. This view is accepted by many. See, among others, Zer-Kavod, The Books, 47–53; Rudolph, Esra und Nehemia, 44–45; J. M. Myers, Ezra, Nehemiah (AB; New York, 1965) xxxii; Williamson, Ezra, Nehemiah, 56–59; Blenkinsopp, Ezra–Nehemiah, 113–15, 203–4. 28. See p. 231 and n. 99 below. 29. The repetition of the word t[ in twnbhl hwhy tyb t[ ab t[ al (Hag 1:2) is difficult. For various suggestions to explain it, see the commentaries listed in nn. 20–21 above. The rsv refrains from translating its first occurrence. 30. E. Jenni, “t[,” Theologisches Handwörterbuch zum Alten Testament (ed. E. Jenni and C. Westermann; München, 1976) 2:379–84; J. R. Wilch, Time and Event (Leiden, 1969).

196

Chapter 10

dismissing it as nothing but a pretext, a hypocritical sham concocted to conceal the people’s concern not for the temple’s construction, but for their own affairs. It is clear, therefore, that Haggai assigns responsibility to the people themselves, not to foreign causes, for the fact that the temple had not been built. Moreover, even the people do not justify their inaction by blaming hostile external forces or the intervention of the kings of Persia; rather, their argument is based on a particular religious outlook. This position is confirmed by the prophecies of Haggai and Zechariah as a whole. For them, the question of the temple’s construction is an internal, not an external, question in all its aspects, one of the more important of which is economic. Haggai and Zechariah paint in dark colors the economic depression during the period in question, and their words on the subject have become classic, “You eat, but you never have enough; you drink, but you never have your fill; you clothe yourselves, but no one is warm; and he who earns wages earns wages to put them in a bag with holes” (Hag 1:6). Or in the words of Zechariah, “For before those days there was no wage for man or any wage for beast” (Zech 8:10). The setting and point of departure for their prophecies is the actual reality surrounding them, and we can construct from their descriptions an accurate picture of this reality. All the misfortunes of “the day of small things” appear to have afflicted Judah: a severe drought, “Therefore the heavens above you withheld their dew, 31 and the earth has withheld its produce” (Hag 1:10); produce which cannot sustain life; labor which cannot sustain the laborer, “And I have called forth a drought upon the land and the hills, upon the grain, the new wine, the oil, upon what the ground brings forth, upon men and cattle and upon all their labors” (Hag 1:11); and agricultural produce afflicted by a whole series of plagues, “When one came to a heap of twenty measures, there were but ten; when one came to the wine vat to draw fifty measures, there were but twenty. I smote you and all the products of your toil with blight and mildew and hail” (Hag 2:16–17). Zechariah sheds light on yet another reflection of the contemporary situation: the lack of secure roads and personal safety, “neither was there any safety from the foe for him who went out or came in; for I set every man against his fellow” (Zech 8:10). Zechariah, in contrast to Haggai, does not present an extended picture of the bleak reality and prefers words of consolation, but even their content suggests a miserable present: “And as you have been a by-word of cursing among the nations . . . so will I save you” (Zech 8:13). 31. The phrase lfm µymç walk (Hag 1:10) is difficult and several suggestions have been offered for its reconstruction: to see the m of lfm as dittography and emend to lf µymç walk; to see the word as a corruption arising from the transposition of letters and emend to µlf (thus rsv); to propose an exchange of letters and emend to rfm. See BH and the commentaries to the verse. A similar idiom with the opposite meaning is found in Zech 8:12: hlwby ta ˆtt ≈rahw µlf wnty µyfçhw.

The Temple in the Restoration Period: Reality and Ideology

197

We will discuss later how Haggai and Zechariah explain this situation and use it to unify the people and lead them, in the end, to complete the temple’s building. At this point, however, we must stress that against the background of Haggai and Zechariah’s words, the interruption of the temple’s construction can be understood in the simplest way. The statement of the elders of Judah to Tattenai the governor—“from that time until now it has been in building, and it is not yet finished” (Ezra 5:16)—becomes understandable in and of itself. The community in Jerusalem did not have the strength to complete the temple, or even to make progress in its construction. The afflictions brought by “the day of small things” united against them, together with the tense relations with the inhabitants of the rest of the land, to bring the construction to a complete halt. With this we arrive at one of the central aspects connected to the practical realization of the temple’s construction—the question of financing. Solomon financed the First Temple from his own money and treasuries, as one part in a larger series of building projects, 32 and the same was true of Herod. 33 How was this fundamental problem to be solved in the Restoration Period? This question returns us to the first stages of the temple’s construction which we will now discuss at greater length.

Ezra 1–3 versus Ezra 5:13–6:5 As has already been pointed out, the first stages of the temple’s construction are described only in the book of Ezra–Nehemiah, but here they are described twice: first, in the smooth, sequential description of Ezra 1– 3 which we have briefly presented above; second, in the retrospective summary, from the vantage point of Darius’s time to that of Cyrus, offered in Ezra 5:13–6:5. These descriptions differ from one another at several points, including: Cyrus’s proclamation—to whom was it given and what did it include? The temple’s financing—upon whose shoulders was it laid and how was it accomplished? Who actually laid the foundations of the temple, and what was its history until the days of Darius? The beginning of construction falls at a well-defined turning point: the permit granted by Cyrus in the first year of his reign. However, this grant appears in Ezra–Nehemiah in two different versions, one of the most 32. This is how matters are described in the book of Kings. Solomon is the one responsible for building, and everything connected to the temple is attributed to him (see 1 Kings 6–8). Another picture emerges from Chronicles which includes two principal differences: (1) Everything necessary for the temple’s construction is prepared in advance by David and transferred to Solomon (1 Chr 22:1–5, 14–16; 28:11–19; 29:2–5); (2) The people also participate in the preparations for the temple by making voluntary contributions “with a whole heart” (1 Chr 29:6–9). See also S. Japhet, The Ideology of the Book of Chronicles and Its Place in Biblical Thought (Frankfurt, 1989) 229–30, 421, 485–88. 33. See Josephus, Antiquities 15.11.3; ibid., The Jewish War (translated by H. St. J. Thackeray; Cambridge, 1937) 5.5.1.

198

Chapter 10

well-known and frequently debated problems in the study of the book. 34 The first document, written in Hebrew, opens the book of Ezra–Nehemiah in Ezra 1:2–4, and its beginning is also found at the end of Chronicles (2 Chr 36:23). The second document is written in Aramaic and is found in Ezra 6:3–5. Apart from a difference in language, these two documents also differ in their contents and style. Questions connected to the sources of these documents, their formulation and reliability, and the relationship between them has persistently preoccupied scholars of the period and of Ezra–Nehemiah. We will mention here only a few aspects of the problem relevant to our discussion. The two documents share a common subject: the granting of permission to build the house of the Lord which is in Jerusalem (Ezra 1:3, 6:3). Apart from this, however, the documents differ in almost all other details. From the perspective of the historical process operative at the beginning of the Restoration Period, and the formation of the people of Israel during this time, the difference in the identity of the grant’s recipient is of great significance. According to Ezra 1:2, permission to build is granted to the Judean exiles. Moreover, the proclamation connects the temple’s construction with the return to Jerusalem: “Whoever is among you of all his people, may his God be with him, and let him go up to Jerusalem, which is in Judah, and rebuild the house of the Lord, the God of Israel” (1:3). In other words, the return is not an end in itself; it is a means to the rebuilding of the temple. On the other hand, the temple’s construction is described only after the return, which is a necessary prerequisite for it. This interpretation is confirmed by what follows in the proclamation: those who are not going back are to assist the returnees “with silver and gold, with goods and with beasts, besides freewill offerings” (1:4). The subsequent narrative fits the proclamation well: “Then rose up the heads of the fathers’ houses . . . to go up to build the house of the Lord” (1:5). Finally, Cyrus entrusts the temple’s vessels to Sheshbazzar who then brings them to Jerusalem: “All these did Sheshbazzar bring up, when the exiles were brought up from Babylonia to Jerusalem” (1:11). On the other hand, the document introduced in Ezra 6:3–5 refers only to the temple’s construction; despite its great specificity (see below), it does not mention the people for whom the grant is intended. Who are the recipients of the grant according to this version? It neither mentions the exiles, nor does it include permission to return as a prerequisite for the building. 34. In addition to the commentaries on Ezra–Nehemiah and the historical surveys of the period, see among others: R. de Vaux, “Les Décrets de Cyrus et de Darius sur le Reconstruction du Temple,” RB 46 (1937) 29–57; E. J. Bickerman, “The Edict of Cyrus in Ezra 1,” JBL 65 (1946) 249–75; K. Galling, “Die Proklamation des Kyros im Esra 1,” in Studien zur Geschichte Israels im persischen Zeitalter (Tübingen, 1964) 78–88; W. T. in der Smitten, “Historische Probleme zum Kurosedikt und zum Jerusalemer Tempelbau,” Persica 6 (1974) 167–78; L. Rost, “Erwägungen zum Kuroserlass,” in Festschrift: W. Rudolph (Tübingen, 1961) 301–7.

The Temple in the Restoration Period: Reality and Ideology

199

Since a mass migration from Babylon to Jerusalem without the permission of the king of Persia would be absolutely impossible, 35 we can explain this document’s silence only by maintaining that it is in fact not directed toward the exiles, nor does it view the return as necessary to the construction. We must conclude, therefore, that the people of Judah, the inhabitants of the land, are the ones permitted to build the temple! How can we resolve the contradictions between the two documents? Three possibilities are open to us: to accept both as reliable and see them as complementary; to accept only one of them as authentic and see the second as an inauthentic document which reflects specific historical goals; or to declare both documents unreliable, because of the contradictions between them and other considerations, and see them as later apologetics which do not reflect any historical reality. In the course of scholarly study of the Restoration Period, each one of these theoretical possibilities has had its practical expression, but it appears that the third, and most extreme, of these possibilities has lost its force. Although we do not have direct extra-biblical evidence for either of these documents, philological considerations and historical plausibility are sufficient to rule out the possibility that the entire historical picture bears no relation to historical reality. 36 If this is so, then our choice lies between the first two possibilities: can both documents be seen as reliable and complementary, or is only one of them an accurate reflection of reality? And if the latter proves true, which one? Adherents to the first view stress that the differences between the documents reflect their different functions: the first is a public proclamation directed toward a large audience, either announced by a herald or posted as a placard in public places; the second is an official document intended for the royal archives as a memorandum. 37 This distinction between the documents may actually explain some of the differences between them, particularly in language—Hebrew as opposed to Aramaic—and in style, a declamatory and highly rhetorical style, full of religious and political elements but treating the subject itself in a general and imprecise way as opposed to a dry, impersonal and official style, meticulous in its attention to details. However, this distinction cannot explain the two central differences in the contents of the two documents: the permission to return from Babylon to Jerusalem given in connection with the permit to build, which 35. A. T. Olmstead, History of the Persian Empire (Chicago, 1948) 68–85; R. N. Frye, “Persia,” Encyclopedia Biblica (1971) 6:596–604 [Hebrew]. 36. See in particular the arguments of E. Meyer, Die Entstehung, in opposition to the extreme, uncompromising view of Torrey. 37. See Bickerman, “The Edict”; Williamson, Ezra, Nehemiah, 6–7; H. Tadmor, “The Period of the First Temple, Babylonian Exile and the Restoration” in H. H. Ben-Sasson, A History, 166; M. D. Herr, “Jerusalem, the Temple and Its Cult-Reality and Concepts in Second Temple Times,” in Jerusalem in the Second Temple Period: Abraham Schalit Memorial Volume (ed. A. Oppenheimer; Jerusalem, 1980) 167 n. 7 [Hebrew].

200

Chapter 10

is found only in the proclamation, and the financing of the undertaking. The proclamation recorded in chapter 1 imposes the financial responsibility upon the people who return from Babylon to Jerusalem, while the Persian government has no share in it. According to the document recorded in chapter 6, however, the financing is to come from the resources of the Persian treasury: “Let the cost be paid from the royal treasury” (6:4). The proclamation of chapter 1 contains no hint of financial support from the Persian treasury, while the document of chapter 6 makes no reference to contributions made by the people or to permission to take money from Babylon to Jerusalem. 38 These are differences in substance, not style, and cannot be resolved by way of harmonization. It appears, therefore, that only one of the documents reliably reflects the conditions of the grant given by Cyrus, while the second is a reworking of the first adapted to the needs of the narrative, written from a later historical and ideological perspective. The decision as to which document is original is not easy and depends upon several considerations. An examination of the documents themselves suggests that there is no reason to doubt the reliability of the document in Ezra 6:3–5. In all respects, it fits the circumstances of the time and the function it is supposed to have served. Its language—Aramaic—is the official language of the Persian Empire; its style is concise, dry, official, written entirely in the third person, apparently detached from all emotion or ideology whatsoever. It treats only facts, with no argumentation or justification, treating all necessary details tersely and systematically: date, the definition of the grant as a “decree,” the king’s name, a precise definition of the grant’s purpose, a brief description of the activity to take place in the temple, a description of the building’s measurements and the manner of its construction, and an explicit declaration of responsibility for its financing. Finally, the document contains a specific command to return the vessels of gold and silver taken from the temple by Nebuchadnezzar and brought to Babylon, and transfer them back to the temple in Jerusalem. According to the narrative in Ezra 6, the document is confirmed by Darius, and it is upon its basis that the king expands the rights of the people of Judah (Ezra 6:8–12). Interestingly, however, this document receives confirmation even from the description of events presented in the first chapter. The proclamation itself, in Ezra 1:2–4, does not include all the particulars, including the date and the order to return the temple vessels, but these two details are included in the frame narrative. The first is in Ezra 1:1, in the introductory words of the unit’s author: “In the first year of Cyrus king of 38. Kaufmann, who establishes that “in fact . . . there is no contradiction between the two (documents),” claims that “permission to return was included in the directive, with the permit to rebuild the Temple and for the restitution of the temple vessels” (History, 4:191). It is not at all clear what Kaufmann means by this; the permit to rebuild and restore the vessels does not include any hint of return, and it can be found there only if we suppose that it is self-evident.

The Temple in the Restoration Period: Reality and Ideology

201

Persia . . .”; the second comes after Cyrus’s proclamation and the description of the first reaction to it, when the author relates that Cyrus brought out the temple’s vessels and gave them to Sheshbazzar (1:7–11). In other words, we can clearly see how the description in Ezra 1, in both its parts— the proclamation and the frame narrative—depends upon the official document in Ezra 6:3–5. 39 The reverse situation is not possible; we cannot explain all the details of Ezra 6:3–5 on the basis of the version preserved in Ezra 1:2–4. We should stress again that the difficulty is not in the proclamation’s style or language. The possibility that a type of oral announcement did in fact exist must be kept in mind, 40 and it is possible that whoever composed the proclamation of chapter 1 imitated the formulae of royal announcements of this sort. It is also possible that certain aspects of the proclamation, such as the predominant religious undertone or the use of “Jewish” terms, also arose from its presentation as a public declaration. The difficulty stems from its contents, chiefly from the two points at which it deviates from Ezra 6:3–5. That the grant to build the temple is given to the exiles is unusual for several reasons. Firstly, the grant is addressed to the exiles alone, without any mention of the population already in Judah and Jerusalem where the temple is to be built. Secondly, the return from Babylon is not mentioned or even hinted at in Ezra 6:3–5, i.e., the royal document which provided archival backing for the entire matter ignores it. Third, we do not find its like in other historical contexts. In his inscriptions, Cyrus describes how he restored sanctuaries and returned to them the plundered statues of their gods, but there is no suggestion that this also involved a return of exiles, and clearly no indication that such a return was a prerequisite for the restoration of a sanctuary. Fourth, we might expect that a return of this sort, that carried with it the message of restoration and deliverance, would find expression in the literature of the period, but this is not the case. Deutero-Isaiah prophesies about a miraculous gathering of the exiles, but he makes no mention of an actual return to Jerusalem. The only fact mentioned in his words is the return of the temple’s vessels: “Depart, depart, go out thence, touch no unclean thing; go out from the midst of her, purify yourselves, you who bring the vessels of the Lord” (Isa 52:11). Haggai and Zechariah also do not refer to this at all. In general, these prophets mention nothing in their prophecies of what preceded them, not Cyrus’s proclamation, not the laying of the temple’s foundations, not the history of the temple until their time. This can be attributed to the modest scope of these activities and their lack of success, but is it possible 39. Among the scholars who think that only one of the documents is authentic, a general consensus exists that it is the Aramaic one. An exception is Batten, who thinks that only the Hebrew document is authentic. See L. W. Batten, The Books of Ezra and Nehemiah (ICC; Edinburgh, 1913) 60–61. 40. See in particular E. Bickerman, “The Edict.”

202

Chapter 10

that a massive return like that depicted in Ezra–Nehemiah, a return which marks the one and only beginning of the redemption, should escape mention? This silence is reinforced by Zechariah, who in 521 b.c.e. addressed God with a cry of despair: “O Lord of Hosts, how long wilt Thou have no mercy on Jerusalem and the cities of Judah, against which Thou hast had indignation these seventy years?” (Zech 1:12). In other words, nothing has changed! These facts are difficult in any case, but they undermine in particular the picture of events as they appear in Ezra 1–2. The second difficulty concerns the question of financing. According to Ezra 6:4, the expenses for the temple’s construction are to come from the king’s treasury. Does this command imply direct financing from the royal court, or is the money to come from tax revenues collected from inhabitants of the province? 41 Whatever the answer, the very act of financing is a concrete expression of Cyrus’s commitment to build the temple, something which, in turn, helps to explain the interest in the temple’s measurements and mode of construction expressed in the document of Ezra 6:3–4. The version presented in Ezra 1 omits this subject, and according to it, Cyrus does not take upon himself any responsibility to carry out the construction. The money is said to come from other sources: the people’s donations and the contributions of “the men of his place.” A manner of financing such as this, entirely based on donations, cannot assure that the enterprise will actually be realized, and it is doubtful whether we should ascribe to a ruler like Cyrus so unrealistic a solution. The two features specific to the proclamation in Ezra 1:2–4 can be fully explained in light of the author’s tendencies. It has often been pointed out that the biblical outlook likens the Restoration to the Exodus from Egypt. This is most characteristic of Deutero-Isaiah who sees the departure from Babylon as a second Exodus, greater and more exalted than the first. 42 In Ezra–Nehemiah this outlook is integrated into the historical narrative which, as a result, draws the broadest possible analogy between the historical reality of the Restoration and the Exodus from Egypt. 43 This influences, in particular, the author’s views of the people of Judah. For him, there ex41. The reference to this subject is formulated differently in the respective grants of Cyrus and Darius. Darius gives his officials a precise directive: “the cost is to be paid to these men in full and without delay from the royal revenue, the tribute of the province Beyond the River” (Ezra 6:8). In other words, the central royal treasury is not involved, and payment is to come from the taxes of the province. Cyrus’s grant is formulated in a more generalized way: “let the cost be paid from the royal treasury” (Ezra 6:4). The question is whether we must see Cyrus’s words as merely an imprecise formulation or must we conclude that the money is to be sent directly from the royal treasury? 42. See J. Muilenburg, Isaiah 40–66 (IB; New York, 1954) 400–405; C. Westermann, Isaiah 40–66 (OTL; London, 1969) 21–22; W. Zimmerli, Ezechiel (BKAT; Neukirchen, 1969) 454–59; B. W. Anderson, “Exodus Typology in Second Isaiah,” in J. Muilenburg Festschrift (London, 1962) 177–95; Y. Hoffman, The Doctrine of the Exodus in the Bible (Tel Aviv, 1983) 60–65 [Hebrew]. 43. See Rudolph, Esra und Nehemia, 6.

The Temple in the Restoration Period: Reality and Ideology

203

ists in Judah only one Israelite entity: those who returned from Exile. 44 He does not recognize the existence of Israelites in the land of Israel—in Judah or in any other place—who have not gone into Exile and returned from it, just as the dominant biblical traditions perceive Israel in its formative stage as a people who, in its entirety, came out of Egypt. With this as his point of departure, the author must see Cyrus’s proclamation as a grant given to the Jews of Babylon who afterwards returned and began the temple’s construction. According to his most fundamental conviction, no other historical reality was possible! The temple’s financing is also described with this analogy in mind. The children of Israel who came out of Egypt brought money with them. The book of Exodus emphasizes in particular that the Israelites borrowed money from the Egyptians: “And I will give this people favour in the sight of the Egyptians; and when you go, you shall not go empty, but each woman shall ask of her neighbour, and of her who sojourns in her house, jewelry of silver and of gold, and clothing . . .” (Exod 3:21–22). And further on: “The people of Israel had also done as Moses had told them, for they had asked of the Egyptians jewelry of silver and of gold, and clothing” (Exod 12:35; see also 12:2). For the erection of the tabernacle, God commands Moses, “Speak to the people of Israel, that they take for me an offering: from every man whose heart makes him willing you shall receive the offering for me” (Exod 25:2), and indeed, the people make a contribution with a full heart, as is related in detail in Exod 25:21–29. The description of Ezra 1 and following is constructed on this model. Already in the proclamation itself it is said “let each survivor, in whatever place he sojourns, be assisted by the men of his place with silver and gold, with goods and with beasts, besides freewill offerings for the house of God which is in Jerusalem” (Ezra 1:4). Later it is related that “all who were about them aided them with vessels of silver, with gold, with goods and beasts, and with costly wares, besides all that was freely offered” (Ezra 1:6). And the first action of the returnees when they arrive to Jerusalem is their contribution of “freewill offerings for the house of God, to erect it on its site; according to their ability they gave to the treasury of the work . . .” (Ezra 2:68–69). All this creates the closest possible parallel between the temple’s construction and what is related of the Exodus from Egypt. The unavoidable conclusion is that the author of Ezra 1–6, who operated at a considerable distance from the events themselves, sees them from a perspective colored by ideology. He perceives the Restoration as an entirely new beginning, paralleling in many respects the first, constitutive beginning in Israel’s history—the Exodus from Egypt. Through this looking glass, moreover, he describes the history of the temple’s construction and 44. See S. Japhet, “People and Land in the Restoration Period,” in Das Land Israel im biblischer Zeit (ed. G. Strecker; Göttingen, 1983) 112–16 [[and in this volume, pp. 108–14]].

204

Chapter 10

especially its first stages. The question is, then, whether the unit’s ideological coloring eliminates any possibility of reconstructing historical reality, or whether, with the help of material within and outside of Ezra–Nehemiah, we may still achieve a historical picture which comes as close as possible to an authentic representation of history. With constant awareness of our limitations, we will make such an attempt below.

Sheshbazzar and Zerubbabel A good starting point for our subject is the description of the construction’s history as presented by “the elders of the Jews” before Tattenai governor of Beyond the River (Ezra 5:11–16). After the elders relate to Tattenai the history of the building until its destruction at the hands of Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon (5:11–12), they move to the days of Cyrus: However, in the first year of Cyrus king of Babylon, Cyrus the king made a decree that this house of God should be rebuilt. And the gold and silver vessels of the house of God, which Nebuchadnezzar had taken out of the temple that was in Jerusalem and brought into the temple of Babylon, these Cyrus the king took out of the temple of Babylon, and they were delivered to one whose name was Sheshbazzar, whom he had made governor; and he said to him, “Take these vessels, go and put them in the temple which is in Jerusalem, and let the house of God be rebuilt on its site.” Then this Sheshbazzar came and laid the foundations of the house of God which is in Jerusalem; and from that time until now it has been in building, and it is not yet finished. (5:13–16)

The man who stands at the center of the picture is Sheshbazzar, although the way in which the elders refer to him—“one whose name was Sheshbazzar”—suggests that his figure has already faded with the passage of time. Aside from his name, we learn the following details about him: Cyrus appoints him to be governor, delivers to him the vessels of the temple so that he might bring them to Jerusalem, and explicitly charges him to build the temple (v. 15); Sheshbazzar arrives to Jerusalem and lays the temple’s foundations, but he does not complete its construction (v. 16). This description is not congruent with the story of Ezra 1–3; it corresponds to it at several points, deviates from it slightly at other points, and contradicts it completely at still other points. The point of correspondence arises in connection to the temple vessels. We have mentioned above that the vessels’ return is explicitly included in the command given by Cyrus as represented in Ezra 6:3–5, and the elders’ description is completely consistent with this. On the other hand, this detail is not included in Cyrus’s proclamation presented in Ezra 1:2–4. It appears, rather, in the narrative which follows in chapter 1 where the author relates that the king brought out the vessels of the temple and entrusted them to Sheshbazzar, who then brought them to Jerusalem (1:7–11), and this too is in harmony with the

The Temple in the Restoration Period: Reality and Ideology

205

elders’ story. Moreover, like the story in chapter 5 and Cyrus’s grant in chapter 6, the narrative of chapter 1 emphasizes that these vessels were originally removed from the temple in Jerusalem and taken to Babylon by Nebuchadnezzar (1:7, 5:14, 6:5). However, while Cyrus’s grant and the elders’ story maintain that the vessels were brought by Nebuchadnezzar to “Babylon” (6:5) or to “the temple of Babylon” (5:14 twice), the narrator in chapter 1 states that the vessels were brought by Nebuchadnezzar to “the house of his gods” (1:7). Similarly, chapter 1 adds the mediation of Mithredath the treasurer, who is not mentioned in the other chapters, and a specific enumeration of the various vessels and their quantities. An important difference involves Sheshbazzar’s title. According to Ezra 5, Cyrus appoints Sheshbazzar to be governor (5:14), while in Ezra 1, Sheshbazzar is described by the title “the prince of Judah,” a unique designation the precise meaning of which has provoked much debate. However, the discussion of this question, which has important consequences for an understanding of Judah’s political standing during this period, exceeds the framework of this study. 45 The most conspicuous contrast between these two descriptions concerns the temple itself. According to the elders’ story, Cyrus explicitly appoints Sheshbazzar to build the temple (5:15), and indeed, Sheshbazzar begins the temple’s construction by laying its foundations. The narrative in Ezra 1–3 ignores Sheshbazzar’s role in this matter completely. According to this description, Cyrus does not entrust the work of the construction to a specific individual, but rather is content with issuing a proclamation of permission formulated in the most general way: “Whoever is among you of all his people, may his God be with him, and let him go up to Jerusalem, which is in Judah, and rebuild the house of the Lord, the God of Israel” (Ezra 1:3). The people of Judah and Benjamin, together with the priests and Levites, return to Jerusalem led by Zerubbabel son of Shealtiel and Joshua son of Jozadak (1:5, 2:1–67). After returning en masse, but before settling in their cities, the returnees make freewill offerings of large amounts of money for the temple’s needs (2:68–69). When they turn to the work of the construction itself, they prepare all the necessary materials: they give “money to the masons and the carpenters, and food, drink and oil to the Sidonians and the Tyrians to bring cedar trees from Lebanon to the sea, to Joppa” (3:7). In the second year after their arrival, in the second month, they lay the temple’s foundations (3:8–10). 46 All these deeds are performed, 45. I have discussed this subject recently in another article: S. Japhet, “Sheshbazzar and Zerubbabel against the Background of the Historical and Religious Tendencies of Ezra– Nehemiah,” ZAW 94 (1982) 96–98 [[see pp. 82–84 in this volume]]. See also Williamson, Ezra, Nehemiah, 18. 46. These descriptions bear a strong resemblance to the record of the construction of Solomon’s temple. First, the agreement with the Sidonians and Tyrians, according to which they will supply cedar trees for the temple in exchange for “food, drink and oil” corresponds to Solomon’s agreement with Hiram king of Tyre (1 Kgs 5:22–25[8–11]). The second point of similarity

206

Chapter 10

according to this description, by all those who return from Exile under the leadership of Zerubbabel and Joshua (3:2, 8). The difference between this description and Ezra 5:13–16 is not only in its greater length and attention to details not mentioned in chapter 5, but crucially, also in the subject matter itself: it is not Sheshbazzar who returns and lays the temple’s foundations, but Zerubbabel and Joshua, nor is it the governor who leads the people, but “the heads of the fathers’ houses of Judah and Benjamin, and the priests and the Levites” (1:5 and also 2:2). The official title of these leaders is not mentioned, either because they do not have such a title, or because the author wished to ignore it. 47 In short, this is not the activity of a single man, the details of which are not transmitted, but an enterprise in which the entire people of Israel participates. The most noticeable difficulty is, of course, the overt contradiction between the accounts concerning the laying of the temple’s foundations: was it Sheshbazzar who laid the foundations, or Zerubbabel and Joshua? Several possible solutions to this question have been proposed. The harmonizing approach identifies Zerubbabel with Sheshbazzar, as is suggested, for example, in the commentary of Rabbi Moses Kim˙i (attributed to Ibn Ezra): “Sheshbazzar is Zerubbabel, but this is his name in the language of the Chaldeans.” 48 Similarly, others maintain that Sheshbazzar and Zerubbabel were, in fact, two different individuals whom the author of the book conflated into one, and hence the illogicality in his writing. 49 Yet another harmonizing solution sees Sheshbazzar and Zerubbabel as two different individuals who lived in the same period but fulfilled different functions: Sheshbazzar the governor was the official and public leader who repre-

is the detailed description of the trees’ delivery: “from Lebanon to the sea, to Joppa.” Interestingly, 1 Kings 5 does not mention Joppa. The servants of the king are to bring the wood “to the sea from Lebanon” and from there the wood is to be transferred on rafts “to the place you direct” (1 Kgs 5:23[9]). The parallel description in 2 Chr 2:15 mentions Joppa in this context, and it appears that both Ezra 3 and 2 Chronicles reflect the maritime reality of the Second Temple Period. The third point is the time for the laying of the temple’s foundations: “in the second month” (Ezra 3:8) which parallels the time of the laying of the temple’s foundations by Solomon (1 Kgs 6:1, 37). The principal question is whether the parallel originated in the actual deeds of the returnees, who sought to imitate the First Temple, or in the descriptions of the historiographer who sought to create such a parallel. In light of what we have learned above about the economic situation in Judah in that period (according to the testimony of Haggai and Zechariah), and in light of Haggai’s words “Go up to the hills and bring wood and build the house” (Hag 1:8), it is doubtful whether we can assign historical plausibility to the first two points. As for the third, we do not possess the information to probe any further into the matter. 47. See Japhet, “Sheshbazzar,” 80–86 [[in this volume, pp. 66–72]]. 48. See A. Bartal, “Once More: Who Is Sheshbazzar?” Beth Mikra 24 (1979) 357–69 [Hebrew]; J. Lust, “The Identification of Zerubbabel with Sheshbazzar,” Ephemerides Theologicae Lovaniense 63 (1987) 90–95; M. Saebø, “The Relation of Sheshbazzar and Zerubbabel—Reconsidered,” Svensk Exegetisk Årsbok 54 (1989; Festschrift for M. Ottosson) 168–77. 49. For example, M. Noth, The History of Israel (New York, 1958) 308 n. 5; Rudolph, Esra und Nehemia, 7, 29, 62, and others.

The Temple in the Restoration Period: Reality and Ideology

207

sented the Persian government, while Zerubbabel was the leader of the people, “the messianic, secret leader.” It was consequently possible to attribute the temple’s foundation to either one of them, and the matter was settled one way or the other depending upon the author’s point of departure. 50 The advantage of these solutions is that they remove the difficulty by eliminating the contradiction between the two accounts, and thus they are deemed “harmonizations”; their disadvantage is that they have no support, aside from the very difficulty which they seek to resolve. Moreover, before we can address the historiographical problem implicit in the author’s attribution of the temple’s foundation to two different individuals, we must first confront the historical problem. According to each of the sources in our possession—Ezra–Nehemiah, Haggai, and Zechariah—Zerubbabel’s period of activity falls within the days of Darius, and more specifically, at the beginning of Darius’s reign. 51 According to Ezra 1–3, Zerubbabel’s office lasted from the return in the days of Cyrus until the days of Darius, in other words, for at least 18 years. However, it is highly doubtful whether we can properly explain the historical events in the period of Darius, and in particular the place of Zerubbabel in the prophecies of Haggai and Zechariah, if we view his office in the period of Darius as the end of an uninterrupted career beginning in the days of Cyrus. We can properly understand Haggai’s prophecy concerning Zerubbabel, upon whom he pins a far-reaching messianic hope, only if we suppose that the prophecy is connected to Zerubbabel’s first appearance on the historical stage. With the appearance of Jehoiachin’s grandson, Haggai recognizes an auspicious omen for the future, a turning point in history. He fervidly prophesies: “I am about to shake the heavens and the earth. . . . On that day, says the Lord of hosts, I will take you, O Zerubbabel my servant, the son of Shealtiel, says the Lord, and make you like a signet ring; for I have chosen you, says the Lord of hosts” (Hag 2:21–23). Also from Zechariah’s prophecy we learn that Zerubbabel’s appearance is something new, part of God’s response to the cry: “O Lord of hosts, how long . . .” (Zech 1:12). After 70 years of wrath, the temple will be rebuilt and Zerubbabel will be the one who builds it. His very activity is the confirmation of Zechariah’s prophecy: “Then you will know that the Lord of hosts has sent me to you” (Zech 4:9). Whence the sense of novelty, the reversal and transformation of history, if Zerubbabel is nothing but an old leader whose career began in the days of Cyrus, who has been in charge for 18 years and who has accomplished nothing? It is incumbent upon us, therefore, to solve the difficulty in two stages: to try to reconstruct as far as possible the course of historical events with greatest attention to the material in our possession and the considerations which accompany their use; and after this, to try to understand from 50. So Kaufmann, History, 4:194. 51. Hag 1:1; 2:1, 23; Zech 2:7; 4:6–10; Ezra 5:2.

208

Chapter 10

whence arose the picture presented in Ezra–Nehemiah. In light of the considerations presented above, we would describe the historical events in the manner presented below.

The History of the Temple’s Construction After Cyrus conquers Babylon, and within the framework of a general policy, he grants permission to the people of Judah to restore the temple in Jerusalem. Cyrus takes it upon himself to finance the building from the resources of the Persian treasury, and therefore, he gives his own opinion as to what the temple’s measurements and mode of construction ought to be. As part of his general policy to restore sanctuaries, Cyrus returned to the various sanctuaries the images of the gods which were plundered from them or removed from their place. 52 From this perspective the temple in Jerusalem was unusual because it contained no images of gods from the very beginning. With this policy in mind, however, we can understand the great importance attached to the return of the temple’s vessels formerly plundered by Nebuchadnezzar. They are explicitly included in Cyrus’s grant (Ezra 6:5), Deutero-Isaiah devotes a special prophecy to their return from Babylon (Isa 52:11–12), and the two narratives pertaining to the temple’s history refer to them (Ezra 1:7–11, 5:14–15). 53 With the consolidation of his rule in Babylon, Cyrus appoints a new governor over Judah, Sheshbazzar, whose personality and figure are not known to us in any detail. 54 As governor, he is responsible for the actual administration of the province on behalf of Cyrus, and moreover, he is assigned a special function which receives explicit mention—the temple’s construction. Upon his departure to his post, the governor receives the temple’s vessels and brings them with him to Jerusalem. The only detail known to us about Sheshbazzar’s activities in Judah is his laying of the temple’s foundations. (Ezra 5:16), and from this point on, the information available to us in our sources is completely cut off. What seems most clear is that the temple is not built, and from Haggai and Zechariah’s descriptions, a depressing picture of neglect and inactivity emerges. It is possible to suggest various reasons to account for the sequence of events at that time. Sheshbazzar may not have had the organizational strength or leadership skill to carry out the temple’s construction; the system of taxation in the province of Judah, from which the construction’s financing was to come, was perhaps not adequate for this large undertaking; indeed, it is possible that Sheshbazzar did not last long after his arrival in Jerusalem and that his work was cut off in its bud. 52. See Olmstead, History, 51–58; Kuhrt, “The Cyrus Cylinder.” 53. P. R. Ackroyd, “The Temple Vessels: A Continuity Theme,” in Studies in the Religion of Ancient Israel (VTSup 23; Leiden: Brill, 1972) 166–81. 54. For a longer discussion of this matter, see Japhet, “Sheshbazzar,” 94–98 [[in this volume, pp. 79–83]].

The Temple in the Restoration Period: Reality and Ideology

209

The manner in which the elders of Judah refer to him after the passage of several years suggests that his work did not leave a great impression, and that the man himself was almost forgotten. The turning point in the history of the temple falls in the days of the third king to rule Persia—Darius. Two new figures now appear upon the historical stage: Zerubbabel son of Shealtiel, grandson of Jehoiachin, and Joshua son of Jozadak, grandson of Seraiah who served as the last high priest for Solomon’s temple. 55 These two arrive in Judah from Babylon, but the precise circumstances surrounding their return are not known to us. A wave of rising messianic expectations washes over Judah, connected principally to the figure of Zerubbabel, grandson of Jehoiachin and scion to the House of David. Haggai and Zechariah arouse the people to participate in a joint effort to build the temple, and the people unify around their leaders and begin to build. The books of Haggai and Zechariah, which are so important as sources for this period, describe the renewal of construction: “And the Lord stirred up the spirit of Zerubbabel the son of Shealtiel, governor of Judah, and the spirit of Joshua the son of Jehozadak, the high priest, and the spirit of all the remnant of the people; and they came and worked on the house of the Lord of hosts, their God” (Hag 1:14). The two prophets do not describe the building’s completion. In the prophecies available to us, this completion remains a vision for the future. Haggai prophesies about a worldwide upheaval: “And I will shake all nations, so that the treasures of all nations shall come in, I will fill this house with splendor, says the Lord of hosts . . . the latter splendor shall be greater than the former, says the Lord of hosts” (Hag 2:7–9). Zechariah also views the temple’s completion as a future event: “And those who are far off shall come and help to build the temple of the Lord; and you shall know that the Lord of hosts has sent me to you” (Zech 6:15). Two years later, however, in the fourth year of Darius, real progress in the temple’s construction had already been made. To be sure, Zechariah does not note this explicitly, but he does offer revealing testimony in connection to a legal question brought before the priests and prophets in Jerusalem: “Should I mourn and fast in the fifth month, as I have done for so many years?” (Zech 7:3). The question is undoubtedly connected to the temple which is in the process of being built. 56 Now, when the reality of the temple’s destruction is expected to 55. We can learn from Hag 2:21–23 and 1 Chr 3:17–19 concerning Zerubbabel’s descent from the House of David. For the problems connected to this derivation, see, among others: J. Liver, The House of David from the Fall of the Kingdom of Judah to the Fall of the Second Commonwealth and After ( Jerusalem, 1959) 8–12 [Hebrew]. Joshua’s lineage may be adduced from 2 Kgs 25:18 ( Jer 52:24) and 1 Chr 5:40–41[6:14–15]. 56. This view is accepted by all. See the commentaries on Zechariah, for example: M. ZerKavod, Zechariah in The Book of the Twelve Prophets ( Jerusalem, 1976) 25–26 [Hebrew]; H. G. Mitchell, Haggai and Zechariah (ICC; Edinburgh, 1912) 196–97; R. Mason, Haggai, Zechariah and Malachi (Cambridge, 1977) 66; Rudolph, Haggai, Sacharja 1–8, 135–36; Petersen, Haggai and Zechariah, 283.

210

Chapter 10

change, is it still appropriate to observe the days of mourning, as has been the custom in Israel since the destruction of Solomon’s temple? Zechariah does not directly answer this question. Rather, he addresses the people with words of reproof: “When you fasted and mourned in the fifth month and in the seventh, for these seventy years, was it for me that you fasted? And when you eat and when you drink, do you not eat for yourselves and drink for yourselves?” (Zech 7:5–6). Fasting on the one hand and eating and drinking on the other are matters for the people, not for God. Together with this, however, Zechariah also offers a prophecy of salvation: “Thus says the Lord of hosts: the fast of the fourth month, and the fast of the fifth, and the fast of the seventh, and the fast of the tenth, shall be to the house of Judah seasons of joy and gladness, and cheerful feasts” (Zech 8:19). In other words, the prophet does not bid that the fasts be abolished immediately, but he does predict that in the future they will become days of happiness and festivity. The information found in Ezra–Nehemiah in relation to the construction’s renewal at the beginning of Darius’s reign adds several matters pertaining to the political situation. From the description in Ezra 5 we learn that immediately after the resumption of the temple’s construction, representatives of the Persian government arrive on the spot: “Tattenai the governor of the province Beyond the River and Shethar-bozenai and their associates” (Ezra 5:3). What prompted the appearance of a delegation of such high rank in the remote, southern edge of the province Beyond the River? Are we to conclude that the supreme authority over the province conducted a regular series of inspections in order to keep an eye on what was happening, or that this was a special investigation determined by the circumstances? The sources do not provide us with details on this subject, and all we can do is supplement it through conjecture. Thus, it is possible to suppose that the reason for the investigation lies in a specific initiative undertaken by the enemies of Judah, like those described in Ezra 4. Against this explanation we may claim that the author of Ezra–Nehemiah, who continually turns to arguments such as these in his book, 57 does not introduce them at this point, nor does he mention the involvement of “the adversaries of Judah and Benjamin.” Perhaps, then, we can suppose that, as a result of the construction’s renewal, the payment of taxes to the Persian government was disrupted. If this was actually the case, then such an investigation becomes quite understandable. We have already summarized Ezra–Nehemiah’s description of this juncture in history above, and we shall not return to it a second time. 58 It is appropriate to point out, however, that after Darius confirms the claim of the elders of the Jews concerning the matter of Cyrus’s grant, he orders Tatte57. Ezra 3:3; 4:4–7, 8–16, 23–24; Neh 2:19; 3:33–34; 4:1–2, 16. 58. See pp. 191–97 above.

The Temple in the Restoration Period: Reality and Ideology

211

nai, governor of Beyond the River, to keep his distance from the place, to permit the local governor and the elders of the Jews to build the temple and to offer direct assistance in its construction. In a succinct and forceful decree, he issues to Tattenai an official order detailing what he should do to help the elders of the Jews to build the house of God (Ezra 6:8a). The expenses for the temple’s construction will be paid without delay from the royal revenue, i.e., from the tribute collected from the province Beyond the River, in order that the work can proceed without interruption (6:8b). In addition, a permanent daily allocation is to be granted for the requirements of the temple cult: “young bulls, rams or sheep for burnt offerings to the God of heaven, wheat, salt, wine or oil, as the priests at Jerusalem require” (6:9)—all this so that “pleasing sacrifices” may be offered to the God of heaven and prayers offered “for the life of the king and his sons” (6:10). The penalty established for anyone who violates this order is most severe: “a beam shall be pulled out of his house, and he shall be impaled upon it, and his house shall be made a dunghill” (6:11). In this edict, therefore, Darius confirms the validity of Cyrus’s grant, and by extension, the Jews’ right to finance the temple’s construction from the royal treasury. Furthermore, he adds to this the right to finance the ongoing needs of the temple from the same source. In exchange, he obligates the priests of Jerusalem to offer a daily prayer for the life of the king and his sons. 59 The book of Ezra concludes the description with an explicit notice describing the completion of the temple’s construction “on the third day of the month of Adar, in the sixth year of the reign of Darius the king” (Ezra 6:15). It appears, therefore, that the work of the construction lasted only five years—from the second year of Darius to his sixth year. According to the testimony of Ezra–Nehemiah, everything came together to promote success in the undertaking, although it is precisely in this context that the book does not mention the people’s leaders, Zerubbabel and Joshua. 60 The author sums up the period as follows: “And the elders of the Jews built and prospered, through the prophesying of Haggai the prophet and Zechariah the son of Iddo. They finished their building by command of the God of Israel and by decree of Cyrus and Darius and Artaxerxes king of Persia” (6:14). 59. In this way Darius actually gives expression to the temple’s status as a “royal temple” and the Persian king’s status as the successor to the kings of Judah. The sacrifice for “Caesar’s welfare” was a custom in Judah also during Roman rule, and its cessation was a sign for the beginning of the Great Revolt. See Josephus, Jewish War 2.17.2. It is generally accepted that the two phenomena are expressions of the same practice which continued throughout the period. See Ben-Sasson, A History, 171. 60. This fact has attracted many explanations, the most extreme of which maintains that following the rise of messianic expectations in Judah, Zerubbabel was forced out of office and perhaps even executed. See L. Waterman, “The Camouflaged Purge of Three Messianic Conspirators,” JNES 13 (1954) 73–79. This may explain the silence concerning Zerubbabel but not of the silence concerning Joshua. See also Japhet, “Sheshbazzar,” 82–86 [[in this volume, pp. 68–72]].

212

Chapter 10

Ezra 6 also relates that the people of Judah celebrated the temple’s dedication with rejoicing and sacrificial offerings: “One hundred bulls, two hundred rams, four hundred lambs, and as a sin offering for all Israel twelve he-goats, according to the number of the tribes of Israel” (6:17). After this, the permanent orders of worship in the temple are established: “the priests in their divisions and the Levites in their courses, for the service of God at Jerusalem” (6:18).

Zerubbabel and the Laying of the Temple’s Foundations If we have properly reconstructed the historical reality, the question naturally arises: what caused the author of Ezra–Nehemiah to attribute the laying of the temple’s foundations to Zerubbabel? We may explain this by combining several factors, some of which are general and derive from the very process of writing history long after the events described by that history have taken place, others of which are specific and arise from the outlook of the book’s author. We have seen that Sheshbazzar’s figure and actions did not leave an imprint on the people’s memory, and that already in the days of Darius his figure has become remote and unfamiliar. Nevertheless, the people did remember a connection between him and the transfer of the temple’s vessels from Babylon to Jerusalem. In contrast, Zerubbabel’s figure becomes more prominent and comes to occupy the entire historical stage. These facts constitute a stimulus to the historiographical process, resulting in the magnification of the scope of Zerubbabel’s activities—both in terms of the time in which they occurred and in terms of their contents—and in the perception of Zerubbabel as responsible for deeds performed by others. Moreover, at least on the face of the matter the author of Ezra–Nehemiah possessed a historical datum according to which the laying of the temple’s foundations was assigned to Zerubbabel. In his prophecy concerning Zerubbabel, Zechariah says, “The hands of Zerubbabel have laid the foundations of this house: his hands shall also complete it” (Zech 4:9). To what does Zechariah refer here? Is it the laying of the corner-stone immediately after Cyrus’s proclamation, or the renewal of construction in the second year of Darius? 61 We must remember that Zechariah begins his prophetic activities “in the eighth month, in the second year of Darius” (1:1), and his prophecy betrays a clear historical outlook. For him, the present in which he himself operates is the turning point in the people’s history. Up to this point has been destruction and neglect, a period of divine wrath which has lasted for 70 years without any relief (1:12, 7:4). From this point 61. As several scholars have shown, this problem cannot be solved by referring to the use of the root dsy because Biblical Hebrew employs this root to express both the actual laying of foundations and the restoration of a building. See, among others, A. Gelston, “The Foundations of the Second Temple,” VT 16 (1966) 232–35; J. Liver, The House, 86 n. 59.

The Temple in the Restoration Period: Reality and Ideology

213

forth, however, begins a new age: “But now” (8:11). Zechariah refers to the age of misfortune as “before these days” or “the former days” (8:10–11), while the age of deliverance is “on that day” (µhh µymyb; neb) (8:6). 62 The turning point is “in these days [hlah µymyb] . . . the day that the foundation of the house of the Lord of hosts was laid, that the Temple might be built” (8:9). An examination of Zechariah’s prophecy in its entirety reveals that he does not refer in any way to what happened in the time of Cyrus, in 538 b.c.e. or in the period immediately following, and his interest is focused entirely on his own time, in the second year of Darius. 63 Both in his words directed to Zerubbabel “The hands of Zerubbabel have laid the foundations of this house” (4:9) and in his words directed to the people “the day that the foundation of the house of the Lord of hosts was laid, that the Temple might be built” (8:9), Zechariah treats his own age only, and not what preceded it. The new beginning of the temple is one and the same with the laying of its foundations, and the one responsible for it, Zerubbabel, will be the one to bring it to completion. However, the author of Ezra– Nehemiah—who writes history at a chronological distance from the events he describes, not prophecy contemporaneous with those events—accepts the literal meaning of Zechariah’s words. In accordance with the information available to him, he places the laying of the temple’s foundations in the days of Cyrus, but in opposition to the document which he himself presents in Ezra 5:16, he attributes this feat not to Sheshbazzar, but to Zerubbabel, when he describes the events in their chronological order. This understanding is consistent with another view characteristic of the historical perception of the author of Ezra–Nehemiah. The author describes the entire period of the Restoration in a symmetrical fashion, extending over two generations: the generation of the Restoration and the temple’s construction, to which Ezra 1–6 is devoted, and the generation of Ezra and Nehemiah, the book’s subject from Ezra 7 to Nehemiah 13. 64 The continuity between the two generations is achieved by placing a transitional 62. Many commentators see in the words µhh µymyb (v. 6) a gloss. Mitchell says, for example: “They have no meaning in their present context” (n. 56 above, 209), but he does not clarify what he sees as the difficulty. See also Petersen, Haggai and Zechariah, 301. B.H.S. asserts with confidence but without support that these words are an addition. The use of this phrase, however, is similar to what is found in Zech 8:23—hmhh µymyb—and it fits in nicely with Zechariah’s perception of time. See C. and E. Meyers, Haggai, Zechariah, 417. 63. Haggai and Zechariah refer to what occurs in their age as a complete innovation, and they do not mention anything of what precedes them. The question is whether we must conclude from their words and their silence that no activity whatsoever occurred in the years preceding them, and that the laying of the temple’s foundations happened for the first time in the reign of Darius. In light of all the data found in Ezra–Nehemiah, this conclusion seems extreme, and it is necessary to suppose that some sort of activity occurred already in the days of Cyrus. The prophets’ mode of presentation is determined by their view of the process of redemption which is discussed below on pp. 218–23. 64. For a discussion of this perception of history and its relationship to historical reality, see Japhet, “Biblical Historiography,” 178–80.

214

Chapter 10

phrase between Ezra 6 and 7: “Now after this” (Ezra 7:1), skipping in the process a period of close to 70 years according to those who would follow an early date for Ezra’s office, and even longer according to those who would follow a later date. 65 One expression of this symmetry between the generations is the description of their respective leaders. In both generations two leaders guide the people: Zerubbabel and Joshua in the first generation; Nehemiah and Ezra in the second. This schematic perception creates obvious historical difficulties, but what is important for our purposes is that it reflects the author’s historical outlook. One of the results arising from this outlook is that other individuals active in the periods under discussion are squeezed out of the picture. Sheshbazzar is a prime example; thrust into a neglected corner, his actions are transferred to Zerubbabel son of Shealtiel.

The Worship of the Lord in Jerusalem from the Destruction of the First Temple until the Dedication of the Second Temple Thus far we have been concerned with the history of the temple and the descriptions of its construction. Before we move to other aspects of the subject, we must ask one more question: is the history of the temple in the Restoration Period also the history of worship? More precisely, what occurred in Judah in relation to the Lord’s service from the destruction of the temple by Nebuchadnezzar in 586 b.c.e. until the establishment of worship in the temple in the days of Darius upon its dedication in 516 b.c.e.? Several biblical texts enable us to answer this question, at least partially. Our starting point is Jeremiah 41, a chapter which describes the murder of Gedaliah son of Ahikam. In the course of this description, the narrator relates: “Eighty men arrived from Shechem and Shiloh and Samaria, with their beards shaved and their clothes torn and their bodies gashed, bringing cereal offerings and incense to present at the temple of the Lord” ( Jer 41:5). The time—“in the seventh month”—suggests that these men are making a pilgrimage to the Lord’s house in Jerusalem, probably for the festival of booths. 66 This indicates, in turn, that several months after the burning 65. Ezra–Nehemiah places Ezra before Nehemiah and establishes the date of Ezra’s return in the 7th year of Artaxerxes (Ezra 7:7–8) and the date of Nehemiah’s return in the 20th year of Artaxerxes (Neh 2:1). If Ezra’s activities fall within the reign of Artaxerxes I, then it is necessary to date his return to 458 b.c.e. Many scholars assign him to the days of Artaxerxes II, however, or posit that a confusion in the date has occurred in Ezra 7:8. The subject has been discussed by many scholars; for a summary and bibliography, see Hayes-Miller, Israelite, 503–9; Williamson, Ezra, Nehemiah, xxxix–xliv. 66. This is the accepted view. See the commentaries on the verse. Some scholars think that the men are making a pilgrimage to Mizpah, not to Jerusalem. See for example M. Elat, “History and Historiography in the Story of Samuel and Saul,” Shnaton: An Annual for Biblical and Ancient Near Eastern Studies (1978–79) 17 n. 43 [Hebrew].

The Temple in the Restoration Period: Reality and Ideology

215

of the temple and the destruction of Jerusalem, while the country is still in a state of unrest and travel is clearly fraught with danger, people still continue to make pilgrimage from the North to Jerusalem. They are in mourning: “their beards shaven and their clothes torn and their bodies gashed,” and they bring with them “cereal offerings and incense to present at the temple of the Lord.” This brief story is not continued, and we must ask what may be learned from it? The fact that the men come from the North does not imply that the pilgrimage was limited only to Samaria. This detail is required in order to explain the men’s arrival at Mizpah, which lies on their way from the North to Jerusalem, and their consequent demise at the hands of Ishmael the son of Nethaniah. We may reasonably suppose that the pilgrimage to Jerusalem for the Festival of Booths involved people from other places as well, and perhaps, from among all those who remained in the land after the Destruction. Although the temple itself “has been burned by fire” (Isa 64:11), the men bring “cereal offerings and incense to present at the temple of the Lord.” This suggests that some kind of worship continued to exist within the temple’s precincts. May we conclude that in general the cult was limited and did not include animal sacrifice, or does the description of Jeremiah 41 pertain only to these particular men, teaching us nothing about the general situation? And if, in fact, this was the general situation immediately after the temple’s destruction, did practice continue in this way later? We are not able to answer these questions. 67 We should further ask, however, whether the pilgrimage was a one-time affair, an event which happened immediately after the Destruction and was motivated by sympathy with it, or whether it continued after this as well? We may answer this question also only by means of conjecture, but it appears that the first possibility implies the second: if the men had the courage to make a pilgrimage to Jerusalem immediately after the Destruction, under difficult conditions following a war and at great personal risk, it seems reasonable to conclude that they also continued this practice afterwards, when the political situation had stabilized and the land had quieted down. We have no other information concerning the period of the Exile. The problem continues into the first part of the Restoration Period, however, and from this later vantage point we may be able to learn something of the earlier period. The author of Ezra–Nehemiah describes at length the establishment of worship in Jerusalem in which he sees two separate stages: the erection of the altar and the building of the temple. Ezra 3 relates that 67. Kochman has reached interesting conclusions concerning the special status of Jerusalem from the days of Cyrus onward. He raises the possibility that the cult site in Jerusalem had a recognized status also in the Neo-Babylonian Period. As for its character, however, he claims that it was not designed “for the needs of the burnt sacrificial offerings, but only for cereal offerings and incense ( Jer 41:5).” In other words, he suggests that what is described in Jer 41:5 was the rule for the entire period. See Kochman, “ ‘Yehud Medinta,’ ” 26.

216

Chapter 10

when the seventh month had arrived, the people gathered “as one man to Jerusalem” (Ezra 3:1), and at that point the altar was erected: “Then arose Jeshua son of Jozadak, with his fellow priests, and Zerubbabel the son of Shealtiel with his kinsmen, and they built the altar of the God of Israel, to offer burnt offerings upon it, as it is written in the law of Moses the man of God. They set the altar in its place” (3:2–3a). This story is of great interest, particularly in regard to its date. The description of the preceding events in chapters 1–2 does not indicate in which month these events occurred, and the author takes no pains to mention them. In chapter 3, however, the month is suddenly mentioned—it is the seventh month just as it is in Jeremiah 41. On this occasion the people gather “as one man to Jerusalem.” The erection of the altar, which is described afterwards, is not presented as the objective of the gathering at Jerusalem but only as its consequence. In other words, the people’s arrival in Jerusalem is connected to a pilgrimage in the seventh month, and indeed, the only festival mentioned in that month is the festival of booths: “And they kept the feast of booths, as it is written, and offered the daily burnt offerings by number according to the ordinance, as each day required” (3:4). 68 It is further related that from that point forth fixed worship and regular sacrifices were organized around the altar: “and after that the continual burnt offerings, the offerings at the new moon and at all the appointed feasts of the Lord, and the offerings of every one who made a freewill offering to the Lord” (3:5). The narrative emphasizes that sacrifices were offered upon the altar before the temple had come into existence or even before the foundations had been laid: “the foundation of the temple of the Lord was not yet laid” (3:6). This was to happen only about half a year later: “Now in the second year of their coming . . . in the second month” (3:8). 69 In conclusion, the altar’s erection and the establishment of a complete sacrificial system are described as a separate and independent act, occurring before the temple’s construction and even before the laying of its foundations. How did this situation come about? The rabbis struggle with this question, because even though the altar stood in the temple courtyard, its sanctity derived from that of the temple. They offer the following answer: “Three prophets went up from the Exile; one testified to them about (the dimensions of) the altar; another testified to them about the site of the altar; and the third testified to them that they could sacrifice even though there was no Temple” (b. Zeba˙ 62a). In other words, the innovation was introduced on the basis of a provisional order issued by a prophet. The justi68. This text, and data from Nehemiah 8, are used as a starting point for an understanding of the history of the festivals in Israel, and in particular, the origin and history of the Day of Atonement. See J. Wellhausen, Prolegomena to the History of Ancient Israel (translated by Black and Menzies; 1957; reprinted Gloucester, 1973) 110–11; Y. Kaufmann, History of the Religion of Israel ( Jerusalem, 1937) 1:217–18 [Hebrew]. 69. On the meaning of this date see n. 44 above.

The Temple in the Restoration Period: Reality and Ideology

217

fication for such an order is explained by later Amoraim: “The first sanctity hallowed it for the nonce and for the future” (b. Zeba˙ 107b). The account in Ezra 3 does not mention these facts, while the books of the contemporary prophets do not refer to this set of questions. From Haggai’s position regarding “the altar cult” (see below), however, we can infer that his opinion was different from that attributed to him, or to Zechariah and Malachi for that matter, by the rabbis. It seems likely, therefore, that we need to find an alternative explanation. The fact that the returnees gathered in Jerusalem precisely on the seventh month and the confidence with which they approached the altar’s erection suggest that, in reality, there was nothing new in their actions; they were merely revalidating an already existing custom. We should ask whether this story reflects the views of the author of Ezra–Nehemiah as well, and whether he reports these events with complete accuracy. Cyrus’s grant to build the temple includes a remark on its function: “the place where sacrifices are offered and burnt offerings are brought” (Ezra 6:3), but it does not refer separately to the altar. Similarly, the elders who describe Sheshbazzar’s actions after Cyrus’s proclamation refer only to his laying of the temple’s foundations and make no mention of the erection of an altar (Ezra 5:16). In contrast, according to Ezra 3, the first action of those returning from Exile is precisely the erection of the altar and the establishment of regular worship. 70 It seems that the altar may not have been the innovation of the returnees at all, and perhaps it had existed “in its place” even before Cyrus’s proclamation and the Restoration. Because of his tendency to see the returnees as the sole inhabitants of the province of Judah, the author of Ezra–Nehemiah attributes the building of the altar to them and their leaders, but there is a glimpse in his description of a reality which does not tie the altar’s erection to the temple’s construction. We are inclined to accept this latter possibility, but we do not have sufficient data to prove it conclusively. Haggai also refers to an “altar cult” not dependent on the temple. In a prophecy to the people formulated as a legal question concerning purity and impurity, he proclaims: “So is it with this people and with this nation before me, says the Lord; and so with every work of their hands; and what they offer there is unclean” (Hag 2:14). In all his prophecies, Haggai consistently refers to the temple’s construction and everything connected to it, and this prophecy is no exception, as becomes clear from v. 15 and following. Here he offers a forceful response to a question which is not asked explicitly but can be inferred from what is said: why is there need for the temple when a regular sacrificial cult exists already? Haggai’s answer is “and what they offer there is unclean.” The people are unclean, their sacrifices 70. The language of this description is very clear, emphasizing the regularity and continuity of the ritual. It is a summary, in priestly terminology, of a sacrificial calendar of the sort found in Numbers 28–29. Consequently, it is not clear why Kaufmann refers to it as an “interim ritual.” Kaufmann, History, 4:224.

218

Chapter 10

are unclean, and therefore, no blessing dwells in their midst. 71 Only the temple’s construction will remove the impurity and restore God’s blessing upon the people and the land! (2:18–19). Haggai does not elaborate on the subjects which engage us, nor does he explicitly mention the altar and certainly not the date of its erection. Because, moreover, Haggai generally does not refer to what preceded him, we cannot infer from his silence whether the altar was founded after Cyrus’s proclamation (as described in Ezra 3), or whether it was already in place before this. The prophecy of Haggai in the second year of Darius (2:10) does testify, however, that sacrificial service existed in Jerusalem, that there were priests in attendance who were in charge of the worship of God and that among their functions was the responsibility to respond to anyone who inquired about questions of law—all this before the temple was established. Zechariah also speaks about “the priests of the house of the Lord of hosts” (Zech 7:3) in the fourth year of Darius, before the temple’s construction had been completed. He speaks of men who come to the priests “to entreat the favor of the Lord” and to ask them about a legal question which affects the life of all the people (7:2–3). This suggests, therefore, a wellestablished and institutionalized religious reality in which there exists a sacrificial cult and pilgrimage without a temple, and that creates a continuity in the worship of the Lord within the politically uncertain periods of the Destruction and the Restoration.

The Place of the Temple in the Thought of the Period What is the place and status of the temple in the thought of the period? A partial answer has already emerged in the course of our discussion. The fact that Ezra–Nehemiah devotes a full unit to the temple (Ezra 1–6), and that this subject has a central place in the words of the contemporary prophets—Haggai and Zechariah, whom we have already mentioned, and Malachi, who prophesied not long after them—already suggests its importance. 72 We must ask, however, whether it is possible to specify more precisely the meaning of that “importance” and the different ways in which it is expressed. A good starting point for the study of this matter is the words of the prophets. Haggai and Zechariah see it as their duty to encourage the people to build the temple, and indeed, they succeed in this task. What are the arguments by which they demonstrate the indispensability of the temple’s construction, and how do they succeed in rousing the people from their apathy? We have seen that Haggai and Zechariah prophesy against a background of severe economic depression. The combination of drought, 71. See also ibid., 4:259–61. 72. On Malachi and his time, see pp. 228–30 below and n. 90.

spread is 3 points long

The Temple in the Restoration Period: Reality and Ideology

219

low crop yields, agricultural plagues and general social unrest supplies a perfectly reasonable explanation for why the temple’s construction might have been neglected. Here lies the origin of the prophets’s unique stance, however. The simple causal explanation—the poor economic state is responsible for the failure to build the temple—is turned on its head by these prophets: it is the failure to build the temple which is responsible for the poor economic state! Haggai’s words are spoken in two stages. In the first stage he describes the facts: “You have sown much and harvested little . . . and he who earns wages earns wages to put them into a bag with holes” (Hag 1:6). In the second stage, he explains those facts: “‘Why?’ says the Lord of Hosts. ‘Because of my house that lies in ruins, while you busy yourselves each with his own house. Therefore the heavens above you have withheld the dew, and the earth has withheld its produce’ ” (1:9–11). In his basic theological presuppositions Haggai reflects the religious thought of his time: since all misfortunes are perceived as punishment, the depressed economy is to be seen similarly as punishment for a sin. Against the general background of this view, however, Haggai’s way of understanding the sin represents a significant innovation. The national sin of Israel, according to him, is the failure to build the temple! It is this sin which is responsible for all the calamities, and a change in the people’s fortune hinges entirely upon its correction. Thus, after the laying of the temple’s foundations, Haggai announces with great excitement: “Consider from this day onward . . . since the day that the foundation of the Lord’s Temple was laid . . . from this day on I will bless you” (Hag 2:18–19). In Zechariah’s prophecies we do not find an explicit statement of cause and effect, as is exemplified in the resolute words of Haggai, but he draws connections between events in a way that implies a similar view: let your hands be strong, you who in these days have been hearing these words from the mouth of the prophets, since the day that the foundation of the house of the Lord of hosts was laid, that the Temple might be built. For before those days there was no wage for man or any wage for beast. . . . But now I will not deal with the remnant of this people as in former days . . . for there shall be a sowing of peace; the vine shall yield its fruit, and the ground shall give its increase.” (Zech 8:9–12)

The temple’s construction is the turning point between “the former days” and “these days,” between curse and blessing. Such a perception of the temple’s construction has no precedent in biblical thought before Haggai and Zechariah. We can understand the full significance of this innovation only if we grasp the full extent of the physical and spiritual difficulties facing their generation. Unfortunately, we do not have sufficient source material to illuminate this situation in its various shades and colors, but we can mention several elements, directly related to our subject, which determined the general shape of the generation’s thought. To understand the spiritual environment of this period, we must

220

Chapter 10

return to the generation of the temple’s destruction. Here we find that, as regards the temple, two elements have become prominent. On the one hand, the temple has a position of utmost sanctity based on the very fact that it had existed for hundreds of years, on its centrality as a site of worship and pilgrimage, and on historical events like the rescue of Jerusalem in the days of Sennacherib or the reform of Josiah. The temple’s sanctity drew its vitality from an authority which had accumulated over time, from the powerful institutionalization of rituals and literary texts, and from human and divine sanctions which lent it ever increasing validity. On the other hand, there existed the disturbing reality of the temple’s destruction, which, moreover, was represented as the fulfillment of God’s word through the prophets. Jeremiah prophesied about the temple’s destruction in indirect but biting words: “Therefore I will do to the house which is called by my name . . . as I did to Shiloh” ( Jer 7:14, see also 26:9). Nevertheless, he sustained the hope that the people would repent before the Destruction arrived. Ezekiel, by contrast, already stood face to face with the Destruction and represented it as an established fact: “And the glory of the Lord went up from the midst of the city” (Ezek 11:23). For the generation of the Destruction, then, there existed two elements in tension with one another: the physical reality of the Destruction which was an accomplished fact and the fulfillment of God’s word, and alongside it, the confident, almost unchallengeable belief in the temple’s eternality. We do not need to elaborate on the crisis in the people’s consciousness caused by the Destruction, 73 but we should mention that the resources for overcoming the crisis are already found in the words of these same prophets of Destruction, who foresaw continuity of existence, and even Restoration after the Destruction. Both Jeremiah and Ezekiel move from an orientation toward a reality of destruction to an orientation toward a reality of Restoration, which is to be achieved within a historical sequence. 74 Their words establish the challenges which later confronted the generation of Haggai and Zechariah. Jeremiah looks far ahead to what lies beyond the Destruction, but his view is rather general. He foresees the collapse of Babylon ( Jer 25:11–14) and a change in the people’s fortune (29:10). 75 Ezekiel goes even further, and he is not content with generalities. He predicts recovery and return for 73. See, among others, Y. Kaufmann, History, 4:1–50. 74. This transition is astonishing in and of itself, and required the greatness and spiritual power of the prophets. Many scholars have not been able to accept that such a psychological transformation was really possible, and have assigned the prophecies of salvation of the prophets of destruction to other, later prophets or to the various stages of their books’ redaction. On this subject, see T. M. Raitt, A Theology of Exile: Judgement/Deliverance in Jeremiah and Ezekiel (Philadelphia, 1977) esp. 106–27. 75. The common view is that these prophecies originated in the Deuteronomistic redaction of the book of Jeremiah and not in the authentic words of the prophet himself, but the debate surrounding this question does not bear on the present subject. See R. P. Carrol, Jeremiah (OTL; London, 1986) 493–96.

The Temple in the Restoration Period: Reality and Ideology

221

the people of Israel, laying out a detailed plan for the temple’s building, for the resumption of the Lord’s worship and for the redistribution of the land (Ezekiel 40–48). 76 He draws a parallel between future and past, a parallel which includes Restoration, a new temple, a new organization of worship, and a new distribution of the land to the tribes of Israel. 77 The Destruction is represented by the prophets of its generation, therefore, as a temporary phenomenon. However, Jeremiah, who firmly fixes the duration of the people’s tribulation at 70 years, is content with general facts and makes no mention of the temple’s restoration. On the other hand, Ezekiel, who presents a broad and detailed program for the future including the temple’s rebuilding, does not establish the time of its restoration. Furthermore, in the book of Ezekiel the description of the war of Gog and Magog (Ezekiel 38–39) is placed immediately before the prophet’s plan for the future: Does the contiguity of these two sections imply a connection between them? With Cyrus’s conquest of Babylon it appeared that the prophets’ predictions were completely realized. The fall of Babylon, soon after it had become an empire, opened the door to enthusiastic hopes for redemption. Deutero-Isaiah, the prophet of consolation, paints in bright colors the deliverance from Babylon: a miraculous return to Zion which successfully rivals the wonders of the Exodus from Egypt. 78 However, the many hopes pinned on Cyrus and the eager expectation of a miracle were belied. To be sure, the temple’s foundations were laid in the days of Cyrus, but very little seems to have happened beyond this. The exiles who were returning from Babylon found Judah afflicted with “the day of small things,” while for the inhabitants of Judah who had not gone into Exile, Cyrus’s ascendancy to power signified mainly a change in the conqueror’s identity and perhaps little more than this. One generation after the collapse of Babylon, in short, the people were in a state of complete confusion: Babylon had fallen, but little had changed. Had the redemption arrived or not? It is against this perplexing background that we can understand both the words of Haggai and Zechariah and their success. Haggai gives concise and pointed expression to the people’s doubts and misgivings through a quotation of their words: “The time has not yet come to rebuild the house 76. In the scholarship on Ezekiel many voices have been raised against the originality of these chapters. See the summary of O. Eissfeldt, The Old Testament: An Introduction (Oxford, 1965) 367–70. In our generation, views have moderated considerably and without referring to the process of the book’s composition or to the possibility of the insertion of later glosses, most recent scholars see this particular section as essentially authentic. See W. Zimmerli, Ezechiel, 976–1249. At any rate, it is impossible to place the origin of these prophecies after the temple’s construction. 77. For the theological aspects of Ezekiel’s plan, see J. D. Levenson, Theology of the Program of Restoration of Ezekiel 40–48 (Missoula, 1976); J. Strange, “Architecture and Theology,” Svensk Exegetisk Årsbok 54 (1989) 199–206. 78. See n. 42 above.

222

Chapter 10

of the Lord” (Hag 1:2). This sentiment receives even sharper expression in Zechariah’s vision of the horses (Zech 1:7–17). The horses, who patrol the earth, bring to the prophet their impressions: “We have patrolled the earth, and behold, all the earth remains at rest” (Zech 1:11). At first glance, this appears to be the best possible news one could hope for—“all the earth remains at rest”—but it is precisely this news which provokes from Zechariah a desperate cry: “O Lord of hosts, how long wilt Thou have no mercy on Jerusalem and the cities of Judah, against which Thou hast had indignation these seventy years” (Zech 1:12). The question of “the time” resurfaces, for if the land is quiet and the war of “nation against nation” has been delayed, this means that the time of redemption for Jerusalem and Judah has not yet arrived. Zechariah explicitly alludes here to Jeremiah’s prophecy concerning the 70 years, thereby expressing the people’s expectation that the prophecies will be fulfilled. This generation knows from its own experience that the prophecies of destruction were fully realized (Zech 1:4, 6), and consequently, they have no doubt that the prophecies of redemption will be realized as well. Now, after 70 years of destruction, the people await the fulfillment of Ezekiel’s prophecies: the war of nation against nation, the return of the exiles and the Restoration of Israel. The words of Haggai and Zechariah are the response to the confusion of their time. The two prophets present their own generation as the generation of the redemption, and the first step to this redemption is the building of the temple. Haggai and Zechariah introduce also on this point a new view—the temple’s construction is the people’s obligation, and divine action will come later. The building of the First Temple is presented in biblical texts as the end of a process. Only after the people had securely established themselves in the land, after “you go over the Jordan and live in the land which the Lord your God gives you to inherit, and when he gives you rest from all your enemies round about, so that you live in safety” (Deut 12:10), only then has the time arrived to build the temple. Thus Solomon says, “but now the Lord my God has given me rest on every side; there is neither adversary nor misfortune. And so I purpose to build a house for the name of the Lord my God” (1 Kgs 5:18–19[4–5]), and thus he says when he offers a blessing at the temple’s completion, “Blessed be the Lord who has given rest to His people Israel, according to all that he promised” (1 Kgs 8:56). For the Second Temple, however, the prophets suggest a reversed sequence of events: the temple’s construction by the people is the beginning of the process, and only after its completion will redemption arrive. Among Haggai’s proclamations there are two prophecies of salvation which are phrased in cosmic terms. The first is centered around the temple (Hag 2:6–9); the second, around Zerubbabel (2:20–23). Haggai foresees, then, that Israel’s Restoration will revolve around two foci: the temple and the House of David. First it is necessary to erect the temple, and then the Davidic kingdom! Haggai’s prophecy is striking in its expression: on the one hand, he emphasizes the cosmic scope of events: “I will shake the heav-

spread is 6 points long

The Temple in the Restoration Period: Reality and Ideology

223

ens and the earth and the sea and the dry land” (2:6), “I am about to shake the heavens and the earth” (2:21). There will also be an upheaval of peoples and a war of each man against his brother: “And I will shake all nations” (2:7), “I am about to . . . overthrow the throne of kingdoms. I am about to destroy the strength of the kingdoms of the nations” (2:23). On the other hand, Haggai places all these cosmic and political events in the present, even within the very hour. Moreover, they bear directly on the temple which is in the process of being built (2:7–9) and on Zerubbabel son of Shealtiel (2:23). Zechariah’s prophecy is more restrained, especially in regard to the aspirations for political independence and the figure of Zerubbabel, yet he also sees the building of the temple as the beginning of redemption. The words of God—“I will return to Zion and will dwell in the midst of Jerusalem” (Zech 8:3)—are a sign for the redemption of Jerusalem, the ingathering of the exiles, and the transformation of the people of Israel into the people of God: “And they shall be my people and I will be their God, in faithfulness and righteousness” (8:8).

The Perception of the Temple in Isaiah 66:1–2 The power of Haggai’s and Zechariah’s words and the source of their influence lies in their comprehensive outlook—the view that redemption was to arrive in their own generation and that the building of the temple was not the culmination of the redemption, but the first step to its realization. We must ask, however, whether this outlook was shared by all the people in that period, or whether other views of Israel’s history and the place of the temple may have existed. The evidence does not enable us to see the entire spectrum of opinions and views, but one voice, whose very preservation inspires wonder, expresses a basic theological position different from the rest—the prophecy in Isa 66:1–2. This prophecy is unusual, and deviates completely from its context, whether we attribute it to Deutero-Isaiah or Trito-Isaiah. 79 Moreover, the prophecy’s literary boundaries are not as clear as one would wish, but all this does not obscure or change the meaning of the prophecy itself which is brief: “Thus says the Lord: ‘Heaven is my throne and the earth is my footstool; what is the house which you would build for me, and what is the place of my rest? All these things my hand has made, and so all these things are mine’, says the Lord. ‘But this is the man to whom I will look; he that is humble and contrite in spirit, and trembles at my word.’ ” 79. This attribution is connected to the wider question of whether we should see Isaiah 40– 66 as a collection of prophecies from a single prophet or as two compositions, 40–55 and 56– 66. Another question is whether Isaiah 56–66 is a homogeneous composition or a collection of prophecies from different times. See the review of Eissfeldt, The Old Testament, 332–46; M. Haran, Between Former Prophecies and New Prophecies ( Jerusalem, 1963) 73–96 [Hebrew].

224

Chapter 10

To fully understand the meaning of this prophecy, we must offer a number of introductory comments. As is well-known, several concepts of the temple are expressed in the Bible. It is precisely because of the temple’s centrality in the people’s religious consciousness that it was perceived differently in different periods and circles. The fundamental principles— God’s presence in the temple and the worship of the Lord—were shared by all, but each perspective differed in what it emphasized. The temple was perceived as the Lord’s dwelling place, a dwelling place for God’s name, a dwelling place for God’s glory, a place of prayer, a house of sacrifice, 80 and other perceptions, including its being God’s throne. The outstanding expression of this latter view is found in Jeremiah: “A glorious throne set on high from the beginning is the place of our sanctuary” ( Jer 17:12). According to another outlook, the temple (or the ark within it) is “the footstool of the Lord,” 81 while yet another view sees the temple as “a house of rest” for the ark or for God. 82 All these terms—the Lord’s throne, his footstool, his house of rest—give positive, meaningful expression to God’s presence in the temple, but nevertheless, they suggest a diminishment in the temple’s standing in relation to God. The brief prophecy in Isa 66:1–2 reflects these final three perceptions from a clearly polemical position. In the prophecy’s first two lines we find the words: “my throne,” “my footstool,” “house,” “place,” “my rest”—all expressions connected to the different ways of understanding the temple. However, the prophecy subverts the views implied by these terms: heaven, not the temple, is the Lord’s throne, while the earth, not the temple, is the divine footstool. In short, God has no need of the temple! In several places within the Bible God is described as one who dwells in heaven, a depiction which simultaneously expresses God’s reality, supremacy, and transcendence. We read in Solomon’s prayer, for example: “hear thou in heaven thy dwelling place” (1 Kgs 8:30; see vv. 39, 43, 49) and in Qoheleth: “For God is in heaven, and you upon earth” (Eccl 5:2). Solomon’s prayer repeatedly stresses that the temple serves as a place of prayer for human beings, a sort of “hearing-tube” by which a connection is established between people and God, but nevertheless God is far off “in heaven.” This feeling is most conspicuous in the words of Qoheleth, which strike a note of caution: “for God is in heaven, and you upon earth; therefore let your words be few” (Eccl 5:2). The prophecy in Isa 66:1–2 differs from these other examples, for while the former expresses divine exaltedness and supremacy, it does not envision God’s presence as remote. Heaven is not God’s “dwelling place” but only God’s “throne,” while the earth is the “foot80. See, among others, G. von Rad, “Deuteronomy’s Name Theology and the Priestly Document’s ‘Kabod’ Theology,” in Studies in Deuteronomy (London, 1953) 37–44; R. E. Clements, God and Temple (Oxford, 1965); T. N. D. Mettinger, The Dethronement of Sabaoth (Lund, 1982); W. Eichrodt, Theology of the Old Testament (London, 1967) 2:15–45; Japhet, Ideology, 57–78. 81. Ps 99:5, 132:7; Lam 2:1; 1 Chr 28:2. See also Japhet, Ideology, 70–73. 82. In particular 1 Chr 28:2.

6 ponts long

The Temple in the Restoration Period: Reality and Ideology

225

stool.” This is an expression of God’s omnipresence, similar to a statement found elsewhere in Isaiah, “the whole earth is full of his glory” (Isa 6:3), which has a practical consequence concerning the temple: “what is the house which you would build for me, and what is the place of my rest?” It is not within human power to build a house for God for whom all the heavens are but a “throne,” nor is there a person who can establish “a place” for God’s rest. The prophecy’s third line parallels the first two and continues them. After speaking about the people, “What is the house which you would build for me,” the prophet turns his attention to God, but the question of the temple’s construction remains the focus of interest: “All these things my hand has made, and so all these things are mine, says the Lord” (Isa 66:2). “All these things” are the universe, 83 previously described by the merism “heaven and earth.” 84 God is the one who created the universe, and how can anyone build a house for the Lord? The prophecy’s conclusion refers to the temple from another angle, and the words “But this is the man to whom I will look” smack of polemic. 85 As has been said, the temple was perceived not only as the place of God’s presence, but also as the place of divine worship where human beings can turn to God. The polemical words “But this is the man to whom I will look” apparently refer to this line of thought. God does not turn to the one who brings sacrifices and offerings, but rather to him “that is humble and contrite in spirit, and trembles at my word.” In this way, the prophecy undermines the two arguments which affirm the necessity of the temple’s construction: the temple is required neither as the place of God’s presence nor as the place of worship. 86 We have already pointed out that this prophecy deviates from its context, which has a basically positive attitude toward the temple. 87 Because of the prophecy’s pungency, there are those who claim that it must not be read as a categorical rejection of the need for the temple, but only as an exhortation designed to encourage a people humiliated by their failure to complete its construction, or as an attempt to reduce the temple’s importance as a way to redemption. 88 However, even from a more limited reading of this sort, the prophecy still represents an unusual reaction to the 83. See A. B. Ehrlich, The Bible according to Its Literal Meaning, vol. 3 (1899, 1901; reprinted New York, 1969) on Isa 45:7 (106) [Hebrew]. 84. See J. Krasovec, Der Merismus im Biblisch-Hebräischen und Nord-westsemitischen (Rome, 1977). 85. The waw in law is not copulative but adversative, correctly translated by the rsv: “But this is the man. . . .” See E. Kautzsch, Gesenius’ Hebrew Grammar (Oxford, 1910) §154a, 485. See also Ibn Ezra on this verse; Ehrlich, The Bible, on Isa 66:2 (3:160); Westermann, Isaiah 40–66, 411; and others. 86. See also Kaufmann, History, 4:147–49. 87. For example, Isa 60:13; 62:8–9; 64:8–11; 66:20, 22–23, and others. 88. See, for example, M. Haran, Between Former Prophecies, 94–96; Muilenburg, Isaiah 40– 66, 760; Westermann, Isaiah 40–66, 412–13.

226

Chapter 10

question of the temple’s construction. The prophecy is set in a reality in which the temple has not yet been built, in other words, at a time when the problems facing Haggai and Zechariah were most acute. It turns out, therefore, that within the Restoration Period at least three views were expressed regarding the temple’s construction: the first saw a pressing need for its construction; the second sought to postpone the construction, for the appropriate time had not yet arrived; and the third categorically rejected the need for its construction. The first view prevailed over the others—the building was completed—but the hope that the temple’s construction was only the first step to a full redemption was not realized. What, therefore, was the temple’s fate after its completion, and what was its place in the thought of the period?

The Temple at the Beginning of the Second Temple Period We can only say a few words about the temple’s history after its founding in this context. The first problem to arise was the practical administration of the temple: the systematic establishment of worship, the arrangement of provisions for its needs, and the organization of temple personnel. A full discussion of this question exceeds the boundaries of this study, but we will offer a few comments which touch on general aspects of the subject, and which emerge from two sources: Nehemiah’s memoirs and Malachi’s prophecy. Nehemiah’s date is clear: he arrives in Judah in the 20th year of Artaxerxes I, remains in Jerusalem 12 years, is recalled to the king’s court, and returns to Judah (Neh 2:1–9, 5:14, 13:6). His activities in Judah begin, therefore, in 445 b.c.e. 89 In contrast, the precise time of Malachi is unknown, and only the general background of his prophecies, which reflect conditions similar to those of Nehemiah, places him in approximately the same period. 90 If we accept this, then we stand about 70 years after the temple’s dedication, or a little less than this if we place Malachi somewhat earlier. Two texts in the book of Nehemiah deal with the concern for temple worship: the greater part of the covenant reported in chapter 10 and the description of Nehemiah’s activities after his return from Susa presented in chapter 13. According to the sequence of events in Ezra–Nehemiah, chapter 13 represents a withdrawal from the covenant and a violation of the 89. This view is generally accepted. See M. Z. Segal, “Nehemiah,” Encyclopedia Biblica (1968) 5:818 [Hebrew]; H. H. Rowley, “The Chronological Order of Ezra and Nehemiah,” in I. Goldziher Memorial Volume (Budapest, 1948) 2:135–38; Blenkinsopp, Ezra–Nehemiah, 205. 90. For a discussion of the dating of Malachi, see J. Liver, “Malachi, the Book of Malachi,” Encyclopedia Biblica (1962) 4:1028–29 [Hebrew]; A. E. Hill, “Dating the Book of Malachi: A Linguistic Reexamination,” in D. N. Freedman Jubilee Volume (Winona Lake, Ind., 1983) 77–89.

The Temple in the Restoration Period: Reality and Ideology

227

obligations which the people had taken upon themselves, but it is also possible that the events had the opposite order, that the covenant is the organized reaction undertaken to end the situation described in Nehemiah 13. 91 The problem of the temple’s maintenance emerges from Nehemiah’s words after he returns from Susa: “Why is the house of God forsaken?” (Neh 13:11), and from the covenant’s conclusion: “We will not neglect the house of our God” (10:40[39]). The covenant’s obligations begin with a general injunction to keep the commandments of the Torah (10:30[29]), to prohibit mixed marriages (10:31[30]), and to keep the Sabbath and the Sabbatical year (10:32[31]). After the words “We also lay upon ourselves the obligation” comes a long list of detailed economic obligations, all related to the temple, the priests, and the Levites: a third part of a shekel, wood offerings, the first fruits, the firstborn of sons and cattle, contributions, and tithes (10:33–40[32–39]). 92 Again and again the expression is repeated “the house of our God” or phrases similar to it (vv. 33–40[32–39]). The covenant raises many questions. I have already mentioned that no consensus exists regarding its time: should we assign it to the period of Nehemiah, should we prefer the days of Ezra (whether Ezra precedes Nehemiah or comes after him), or is it possible that the covenant belongs in neither period? 93 We must also ask whether the covenant represents a complete innovation, a set of obligations which the people have placed upon themselves for the first time, or is it only a public reaffirmation of matters which had already existed previously? 94 Thirdly, what is the relationship between the covenant’s obligations and the obligation undertaken by Darius who stated that the temple’s needs would be met from the royal treasury? According to Ezra 6:9, Darius undertook to support the daily cult from the royal treasury, but it is for this very purpose that the people now obligate themselves to give a third part of a shekel every year. 95 These questions notwithstanding, the general picture is sufficiently clear: the covenant testifies that the people had the intention and the obligation to establish worship in the temple to its full extent, though the description of events suggests that they did not succeed in doing this. We cannot be sure whether the failure to maintain worship in the temple to its full extent was the result of negligence, apathy, a refusal to keep the commandments etc., or whether it arose from the inability to bear the heavy economic burden associated with the temple and its network of personnel. The words of 91. The acceptance of the biblical order as it is may be found in Kaufmann, History, 4:407– 16. The arguments for placing the contents of Nehemiah 13 before the covenant reported in chap. 10 are offered by Rudolph, Esra und Nehemia, 173–74. 92. For an extensive discussion of the covenant, see Kaufmann, History, 4:383–89; D. J. A. Clines, “Nehemiah 10 as an Example of Early Jewish Biblical Exegesis,” JSOT 21 (1981) 111–17. 93. See, for example: A. Jepsen, “Nehemiah 10,” ZAW 66 (1954) 87–106. 94. Kaufmann, History, 4:384–89. 95. See J. Liver, “The Half-Shekel in the Bible and in the Dead Sea Scrolls,” in Studies in Bible and Judean Desert Scrolls ( Jerusalem, 1971) 116–19 [Hebrew].

228

Chapter 10

Malachi, which also apparently belong in the same context, refer to these two aspects of the people’s attitude. Malachi addresses two audiences: the priests and the people. All his addresses share a tone of rebuke the object of which is the sense of disrespect, slovenliness, even deceit which permeates man’s relationship to God. Malachi does not mention the temple itself, only the cult conducted within it, and his words are most severe. He says of the priests: they “despise my name” (Mal 1:6) “by offering polluted food upon my altar” (1:7) and by offering “blind animals in sacrifice” and “those that are lame and sick” (1:8). He again accuses them: “You bring what has been taken by violence or is lame and sick” (1:13); “You have turned aside from the way; you have caused many to stumble by your instruction; you have corrupted the covenant of Levi” (2:8). In the same spirit of stern rebuke, he addresses the people: “Cursed be the cheat who has a male in his flock, and vows it, and yet sacrifices to the Lord what is blemished” (1:14), and he accuses the people of trickery and deceit: “Will man rob God? 96 Yet you are robbing me. But you say, ‘How are we robbing thee?’ In your tithes and offerings” (3:8). The picture emerging from Malachi’s words is one of general decline and decomposition. To be sure, the Lord’s worship in the temple continues, but it suffers from neglect, disrespect and a shirking of responsibility. This attitude toward the temple may have been the result of the people’s disillusionment when they saw that the redemption had been delayed and that the kingdom of David had not been restored. It is possible that the people expressed their disappointment in this way, believing that the effort invested in building the temple was to no end. Yet Malachi’s words also reveal that the economic situation was very grave: drought, locusts, barren crops. As was true for Haggai and Zechariah, Malachi portrays this situation not as the cause of the temple’s neglect but as its result: “Bring the full tithes into the storehouse, that there may be food in my house; and thereby put me to the test, says the Lord of hosts, if I will not open the windows of heaven for you and pour down for you an overflowing blessing. I will rebuke the devourer for you, so that it will not destroy the fruits of your soil; and the vine in your field shall not fail to bear, says the Lord of hosts” (Mal 3:10–11). Malachi’s response to the people’s stance vis-à-vis the temple reveals yet another view which is most conspicuous against the background of the period. Malachi informs the priests of what will result from their behavior: 96. The meaning of the root [bq in these verses (3x in v. 8; 1x in v. 9) is problematic, and many scholars see in it a transposition of letters, intentional or unintentional, from the root bq[. For example, see M. Zer-Kavod, Malachi in The Book of the Twelve Prophets ( Jerusalem, 1976) 14 [Hebrew]; Rudolph, Haggai, Sacharja 1–8, 282; L. Koehler and W. Baumgartner, Lexicon in Veteris Testamenti Libros (Leiden, 1953) 820. Alternatively, others see in it an independent root with the meaning of “to take away,” “to remove.” See G. R. Driver, “Problems in Proverbs,” ZAW 50 (1932) 145.

The Temple in the Restoration Period: Reality and Ideology

229

“Oh, that there were one among you who would shut the door, that you might not kindle fire upon my altar in vain! I have no pleasure in you, says the Lord of hosts, and I will not accept an offering from your hand. For from the rising of the sun to its setting my name is great among the nations, and in every place incense is offered to my name, and a pure offering; for my name is great among the nations, says the Lord of hosts” (Mal 1:10–11). Malachi does not predict the temple’s destruction, as did the prophets of the First Temple; he simply advises the priests to shut the temple’s doors. If the Lord’s worship cannot be performed with the respect appropriate to it, then it is appropriate to close the temple completely and to extinguish the eternal flame upon the altar. The reason for this is stated explicitly: “I have no pleasure in you . . . and I will not accept an offering from your hand. For . . . in every place incense is offered to my name, and a pure offering” (1:11). Our information about the period is not sufficient to establish precisely the historical circumstances to which the prophet’s words refer, although there have been many conjectures the aim of which is precisely this. 97 The theological basis of the prophet’s words, however, lies in a view which opposes the centralization of the cult: there is no special value attached to the cult in Jerusalem. In many places incense and pure offerings are presented to the Lord, and if the temple in Jerusalem were to cease functioning, the damage would not be considerable. One can argue, of course, that the prophet’s words are only polemic, spoken in the heat of debate and designed merely to provoke, an exaggerated, even absurd portrayal of what might result from the present situation. Even if this is the case, however, what the prophet sees as a possibility stands in sharp opposition to the view that the temple in Jerusalem is unique, the only place in which the worship of the Lord can be conducted, the focal point of God’s presence in the world. How should we understand the place of this view in the history of biblical thought? Should we view it as a continuation of pre-Deuteronomistic views according to which there is room for many places of worship? If this is the case, then we may conclude that the Deuteronomistic viewpoint concerning the centralization of the cult in Jerusalem did not become the exclusive viewpoint, even at this late period. On the other hand, it is possible that this view represents a new line of thought which has no connection to the Deuteronomistic revolution, a line of thought which envisions the expansion of the Lord’s worship to many places beyond national and geographical borders.

97. See, for example, J. Liver, “Malachi,” 1030–31; Kaufmann, History, 4:441–43; M. Rehm, “Das Opfer der Völker nach Malachi 1:11,” in Festschrift für H. Junker (Trier, 1961) 193–208; J. Swetnam, “Malachi 1:11: An Interpretation,” CBQ 31 (1969) 200–209; J. G. Baldwin, “Malachi 1:11 and the Worship of the Nations in the Old Testament,” Tyndale Bulletin 23 (1972) 117–24.

230

Chapter 10

We cannot know the extent to which Malachi’s view was accepted, or to what extent it had a basis in the thought of the people in that period. However, it appears that Malachi, who was willing to sacrifice the temple if the worship in it was not performed perfectly, represents neither the central current of thought concerning the temple, nor that which, in the end, prevailed over all others in the people’s consciousness. Rather, this current of thought is best represented by a book referred to many times in this study: Ezra–Nehemiah.

The Temple of the Restoration in Historical Perspective We have seen that an entire unit within Ezra–Nehemiah is devoted to a description of the temple’s construction (Ezra 1–6), and that for the unit’s author, the history of the Restoration Period is, in fact, the history of the temple. What were the views of the unit’s author concerning the place of the temple in the history of Israel? We can describe these views as the formulation of the author’s position vis-à-vis the messianic hopes which were attached to the building of the temple. This position was not one of disillusionment, disappointment, and frustration; it lay one step beyond this, involving a reexamination of the temple’s significance and a complete ideological-religious reorientation. For the author of Ezra 1–6 (who appears to be the author of the entire book), the very building of the temple represents the redemption. While according to Haggai and Zechariah the redemption revolves around two pivots, the temple and the Davidic Kingdom, there is only one pivot for the author of Ezra–Nehemiah: the temple. The entire book expresses a clear anti-eschatological orientation and a complete rejection of the aspiration for national liberation and political independence. For this reason, the author completely obscures Zerubbabel’s descent from the House of David. 98 The book expresses a complete acceptance of the political status quo; moreover, it represents this status quo as an expression of God’s mercy. The beginning of the redemption, according to the author of Ezra–Nehemiah, is Cyrus’s proclamation, a grant which had only one purpose: “that the word of the Lord by the mouth of Jeremiah might be accomplished” (Ezra 1:1). In other words, it is the temple’s construction which constitutes the realization of the prophecy of redemption. The contrast with Zechariah comes immediately to mind. For Zechariah, it is still appropriate in the 2nd year of Darius to cry out to God: “O Lord of hosts, how long wilt thou have no mercy on Jerusalem and the cities of Judah, against which thou hast had indignation these seventy years?” (Zech 1:12). For the author of Ezra–Nehemiah, in 98. For a discussion of this subject, see Japhet, “Sheshbazzar,” 71–80 [[in this volume, pp. 57–66]].

The Temple in the Restoration Period: Reality and Ideology

231

contrast, Jeremiah’s prophecy of redemption began to be fulfilled 18 years earlier, through Cyrus’s proclamation. The instrument for the realization of Jeremiah’s prophecy is Cyrus. The Lord “stirred up the spirit of Cyrus,” inspiring the king to act. Such an understanding of the historical reality—that God’s intervention in the history of his people is accomplished by means of the kings of Persia—underlies the entire description and receives much emphasis particularly at its end: “And the elders of the Jews built and prospered, through the prophesying of Haggai the prophet and Zechariah the son of Iddo. They finished their building by command of the God of Israel and by decree of Cyrus and Darius and Artaxerxes king of Persia” (Ezra 6:14). The actual builders are “the elders of the Jews”; the ones who arouse them into action are the prophets of God, but God’s command and His will reach them through the kings of Persia. The same idea appears in the description of the Feast of Unleavened Bread after the temple’s dedication: “And they kept the feast of unleavened bread seven days with joy; for the Lord had made them joyful, and had turned the heart of the king of Assyria to them, so that he aided them in the work of the house of God, the God of Israel” (6:22). The author of Ezra–Nehemiah repeatedly likens the building of the temple to the building of the First Temple: the temple’s construction is the end of a process, not its beginning. The construction of the Second Temple is also only possible when “God has given them rest from all their enemies.” According to the author of Ezra–Nehemiah, the only factor which delays construction and which prevents its immediate completion is the endless disturbances created by the enemies of Judah and Benjamin. 99 No blame can be assigned to the people themselves. They are prepared to do whatever is necessary to complete the temple’s construction as expeditiously and as enthusiastically as possible: return to Judah, donate large sums of money, gather in Jerusalem, begin the construction etc. God’s intervention, by means of the prophets on the one hand and the kings of Persia on the other, is what finally overcomes the various disturbances. The prophets of God prophesy to the Jews in Judah and Jerusalem in the name of the God of Israel (Ezra 5:1), they rouse them to the construction, “the eye of their God” is upon the elders of the Jews (5:5), the Persian authorities do not hinder them in their work, and finally, the Persian kings themselves permit them to bring the construction to completion. Ezra–Nehemiah views the Restoration Period from a chronological distance and from a specific historical and religious perspective. The difficulties and obstacles which characterized the beginning are to a certain degree a matter of the past, while the messianic fervor has died out, leaving the temple as its only concrete achievement. From the distance of time, the 99. See pp. 191, 193, and 210 above. This view also explains why the author of the unit took such pains to illustrate these disruptions by means of documents, and why he used later documents when contemporary documents were not available to him.

232

Chapter 10

author likens the Restoration to a second Exodus; the return from Babylon, to the conquest of the land. At the end of the process, he places the building of the temple and the establishment of the community of “returnees” who walk in the ways of the Lord. 100 The decisive difference between this period and that of the First Temple is the matter of political independence—an autonomous government and the Davidic dynasty. The author of Ezra–Nehemiah comes to terms with this deficiency; he describes the political status quo as an expression of God’s mercy and the kings of Persia as the successors to the Davidic kings. By coming to terms with the political reality in this way, and by integrating it into a religious world view, the author establishes the theological foundations that were to underlie Second Temple Judaism until the Hasmonean Period. During this period the temple became the center of the people’s life in every way and not only for those living in land of Judah, while the high priest became the people’s most important leader. Years later, when the kingdom had been restored in Judah, two pillars undergirded the Hasmonean kings: the priesthood and the crown. It was the priesthood, not the kingship, which provided the Hasmonean rulers with a legitimate claim to authority. 101 In the end, this period of political independence, the days of the Hasmonean kings, amounted to only one brief chapter in the longer historical period which owes its very definition to the nonpolitical pillar of Israel’s existence: the period of “the Second Temple.”

100. On this subject, see Japhet, “People and Land,” 112–17 [[in this volume, pp. 108–16]]. 101. See M. D. Herr, “Jerusalem,” 171–72.

Chapter 11

The Israelite Legal and Social Reality as Reflected in Chronicles: A Case Study The legal reality assumed or reflected in Chronicles has attracted the attention of Scripture scholars since the early stages of biblical criticism, the focus being exclusively on the various aspects of the cult. At the outset, this study was motivated by the main driving force of biblical scholarship at that time—the investigation of the history of the Pentateuch. The analysis of the legal strata which informed the description of religious institutions in Chronicles was to contribute to the reconstruction of the history of the Pentateuch and of the Israelite cult. 1 The interest of the present study lies neither in the literature on which the Chronicler draws, nor in the cult, but rather in the actual social and legal reality as reflected in Chronicles. 2 Here the path of research is fraught with difficulties, including the many preliminary questions of a literary and historical nature which attend any study of biblical historiography, Chronicles in particular. 3 I will limit myself to one rather neglected passage, 1 Chr 2:34–41: Now Sheshan had no sons, only daughters; but Sheshan had an Egyptian slave, whose name was Jarha. So Sheshan gave his daughter in marriage to Jarha his slave; and she bore him Attai. Attai was the father of Nathan and Nathan of Zabad. Zabad was the father of Ephlal and Ephlal of Obed. Obed was the father of Jehu and Jehu of Azariah. Azariah was the father of Sismai and Sismai of Shallum. Shallum was the father of Jekamiah and Jekamiah of Elishama.

Literary Context A superficial reading of 1 Chronicles 2 suffices to show that vv. 34–41 constitute an independent unit, loosely tied to the broader context. In spite 1. See S. Japhet, “The Historical Reliability of Chronicles: The History of the Problem and Its Place in Biblical Research,” JSOT 33 (1985) 83–88 [[in this volume, pp. 117–23]]. 2. Very few studies have actually taken this direction. See J. P. Weinberg, “Die Soziale Gruppe im Weltbild des Chronisten,” ZAW 98 (1986) 72–95; idem, “Das beit ªabot in 6–4. Jh.v.u.Z,” VT 23 (1973) 400–414. 3. These relate to composition, date, sources, and reliability. In the present context I will refer briefly to relevant aspects of the discussion, but refrain from dealing with the general issues, for which the reader may consult introductions to the Old Testament and commentaries on Chronicles. See also n. 1 above.

233

234

Chapter 11

of the ongoing debate regarding the structure, composition, and sources of chap. 2, 4 the relatedness of vv. 25–33 (referring to Jerahmeel) to vv. 42–50a (referring to Caleb) is not questioned. The two passages are often regarded as a continuous composition by the same author. 5 Verses 34–41, which have been interpolated into the original sequence, form an independent, selfcontained unit. Yet, the cause of this interpolation is also obvious: the appearance of Sheshan, a name found nowhere else in the Bible, denoting in this context both a descendant of Jerahmeel (v. 31) and the protagonist of vv. 34–35. 6 The juxtaposition of these two verses immediately creates a contradiction: the reference to “the sons of Sheshan,” of whom one is explicitly named in v. 31, cannot be reconciled with the statement of v. 34, “Sheshan had no sons, only daughters.” A common means of settling this contradiction is to interpret v. 31 in the light of v. 34, taking Ahlai to be a female name, with “the sons of” having the general connotation of “descendants,” 7 or presuming that Ahlai died childless during his father’s lifetime. 8 However, harmonization is not really necessary, as the difficulty is more apparent than real. Each passage represents different presuppositions and objectives, and thus the same name represents different entities, with different roles. In the genealogy of the Jerahmeelites (vv. 25–33), a conventional ethnic/tribal document portraying relationships and developments within the ethnosocial group in terms of family ramifications, 9 Sheshan and Ahlai represent family units. References to “father” and “son” indicate that an original group 4. See, among others, H. G. M. Williamson, “Sources and Redaction in the Chronicler’s Genealogy of Judah,” JBL 98 (1979) 351–59; and S. Japhet, The Books of Chronicles (OTL; London, 1993) 67–73. 5. Within the broader context of genealogical lists, these passages display a single genre, uniformity of structure, similarity of subject matter, presuppositions, and phraseology, and are expressly linked by the reference in v. 42: “Caleb the brother of Jerahmeel.” Compare the parallel introduction: “the sons of Jerahmeel” (v. 25) and “the sons of Caleb” (v. 42); and the parallel conclusions: “these were the descendants of Jerahmeel” (v. 33) and “these were the descendants of Caleb” (v. 50a). Compare also the structure of the introductory verses, where some identifying comment accompanies the clan’s eponym: “Jerahmeel, the first born of Hezron” (v. 25) and “Caleb, the brother of Jerahmeel” (v. 42). 6. Regarding the name, see M. Noth, Die israelitischen Personennamen im Rahmen der gemeinsemitischen Namengebung (Stuttgart, 1928) 41; H. L. Ginsberg and B. Maisler regard the name as of Hurrite origin; “Semitised Hurrians in Syria and Palestine,” Journal of the Palestine Oriental Society 14 (1934) 263–64. 7. See E. L. Curtis and A. A. Madsen, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Books of Chronicles (ICC; Edinburgh, 1910) 94. 8. See Pseudo-Rashi and D. Kim˙i on 2:34. Also, S. Yeivin, “Judah,” Encyclopaedia Biblica ( Jerusalem, 1958) 3:491–93 [Hebrew]. 9. This genre is well attested in the Bible, mainly in the Pentateuch and the introductory chapters of Chronicles. See J. Liver, “Ja˙as [Genealogy],” Encyclopaedia Biblica ( Jerusalem, 1958) 3:663–71 [Hebrew]; M. D. Johnson, The Purpose of Biblical Genealogies (Society for New Testament Studies Monograph Series 8; Cambridge, 1969); R. R. Wilson, Genealogy and History in the Biblical World (New Haven, 1977).

Israelite Legal and Social Reality as Reflected in Chronicles

235

has branched, the younger element assuming a new name. 10 Sheshan of vv. 34–35 is an individual who is seen to have belonged to the family unit of the same name. The family tree of this individual in vv. 34–41 may be related to the tribal genealogy, but is not part of it. It is taken from another source and has an altogether different purpose. 11

Historical and Chronological Context From a literary point of view, vv. 34–41 form a composite unit; the narrative section of vv. 34–35 combines with the genealogical list of vv. 36–41 to introduce the pedigree of one Elishama the son of Jekamiah, the last name in the line. The story implies that Elishama’s legitimate descent from Sheshan was questioned, either because of his recognized Egyptian affiliation or because of the common knowledge that “Sheshan had no sons, only daughters.” It is the purpose of the introductory story to account for Elishama’s unusual ancestry. While the text does not reveal any details regarding this Elishama or his time—the name itself is very common in biblical and extra-biblical onomastica—the elaborate genealogy may in fact point to distinction and social prominence. 12 One should note that such pedigrees are not too common in the Chronicler’s genealogical introduction; identical structure and formulaic language are attested only in the parallel lists of David and the high priests (1 Chr 2:10–17, 5:30–40[6:4–14]), while different formulations are employed for the list of the Judean kings, the three founding fathers of the Levitical singers, and the Saulides (1 Chr 3:10–16, 6:18–32[33–47], 8:33–40, 10. According to this passage, the patriarchal system of Jerahmeel comprises 24 subunits, divided into two branches: a more ancient group, affiliated with Jerahmeel’s first wife, comprising 8 units (Ram, Bunah, Oren, Ozem, Ahijah, Maaz, Jamin, Eker), and a younger group, the offspring of Jerahmeel and a foreign element (“another wife”), a group which eventually became the stronger element in the tribe (Onam, Jada, Shamai, Nadab, Abishur, Ahban, Molid, Appaim, Seled, Ishi, Sheshan, Ahlai, Jether, Jonathan, Peleth, Zaza); with the extinction of Seled and Jether, these 16 units were eventually reduced to 14. Neither the total number nor the proportions seem to be coincidental. 11. See W. F. Aufrecht, “Genealogy and History in Ancient Israel,” Ascribe to the Lord: Biblical and Other Studies in Memory of Peter C. Craigie ( JSOTSup 67; Sheffield, 1988) 205–35. Several scholars regard vv. 34–41 as a later gloss, assuming that the “contradiction” necessarily indicates different authors (see W. Rudolph, Chronikbücher [HAT; Tübingen, 1955] 19–20, following earlier commentators). I see no reason, however, why the Chronicler himself could not have realized this double function of the passages. One may better understand the chapter if one posits an intentional interpolation at this point. 12. Early rabbinic literature identified Elishama with the grandfather of “Ishmael the son of Nethaniah,” who killed Gedaliah the son of Ahikam (2 Kgs 25:25, Jer 41:1–3; y. Hor. 3:14), an identification followed by some modern scholars. G. Richter identifies him with the scribe of Jehoiakim ( Jer 36:12, 20–21; see “Untersuchungen zu den Geschlechtsregistern der Chronik,” ZAW 34 [1914] 123–24), while others regard him a contemporary of the Chronicler (Curtis and Madsen, Books of Chronicles, 95) or even later (Rudolph, Chronikbücher, 18).

236

Chapter 11

9:39–44). Shorter, less strictly formulaic registrations are found occasionally in other tribes. This passage is thus an elaborate attempt to consolidate Elishama’s position by connecting him to an established, ancient Judahite family. As for Elishama’s period, some hints may be gleaned (with all due caution, of course) from the passage itself and the broader chronistic context. At this point a preliminary remark is indicated. The material under consideration, with its highly conventional and standardized formulas, requires that one distinguish clearly between conventional and historical elements. While the details of the family tree, the number of listed generations, the names, and even the very point of departure may all express conventional patterns (and may or may not contain historical elements), two aspects of the list represent firm historical fact: the person Elishama living sometime during the history of Israel, and the presuppositions underlying the conventional patterns. The study of these conventional structures may reveal the author’s view of the list’s time, provenance, and objectives, linked with the person Elishama. The list registers 15 generations between Sheshan and his late descendant, Elishama, according to biblical conventions a chronological distance of about 300 years. The crucial point is, therefore, to establish a chronological focus for Sheshan himself. Here one may turn to the more general chronistic context, discerning carefully between “objective” historical truth, which is not an issue here, and the Chronicler’s historical presuppositions. According to chap. 2 as a whole, Sheshan represents the 10th generation from Jacob’s son Judah 13—a schematic position fully paralleled in the genealogy of David, whose father Jesse is also the 10th generation from Judah. 14 This, then, is the chronistic historical view, expressed by conventional patterns in these introductory genealogical tables: the passage of 10 generations between the 12 sons of Jacob and David’s era. Indeed, one of the major objectives of this introduction seems to be to draw a “genealogical portrait” of a complete system of tribal family units of the time of David, as a necessary introduction to the history of Israel, beginning with David. 15 Forging a link between vv. 34–41 and the preceding passages provides the essential integration of Elishama’s family tree. With 15 generations from David, one is brought to the end of the monarchic period, noting that 15 ruling monarchs have been enumerated between David and Josiah in the stereotypical list of 1 Chr 3:10–14. One wonders which of the persons whose seals have been recently uncovered might represent “Elishama the 13. Sheshan’s line may be traced as follows: Judah — Perez — Hezron — Jerahmeel — Onam — Shamai — Nadab — Appaim — Ishi — Sheshan (1 Chr 2:3–5, 9, 25–31). 14. David’s line may be traced as follows: Judah — Perez — Hezron — Ram — Amminadab — Nahson — Salma — Boaz — Obed — Jesse — David (1 Chr 2:3–5, 9–15). For the method of this structure, see Japhet, Books of Chronicles, 69–71. 15. S. Japhet, The Ideology of the Book of Chronicles and Its Place in Biblical Thought (trans. Anna Barber; Frankfurt, 1989) 278–79, 360–61.

Israelite Legal and Social Reality as Reflected in Chronicles

237

son of Jekamiah” of this passage. 16 Was he one of the leaders of “the people of the land,” representing the ancient tribe of Jerahmeel, the “governor of the house of Judah” (2 Chr 19:11), the person “at the king’s hand, in all matters concerning the people” (Neh 11:24), or any other dignitary of the time? A decision on this matter must await more solid information.

Sociological Context The etiological story of vv. 34–35 is subservient to the list, providing an explanation for the unexpected continuation of Sheshan’s line. It therefore must be based, as even the most skeptical will not deny, on valid social conventions, even if the genealogy itself may be approached with various degrees of suspicion or credence. 17 The very function and value of the family tree for the claimant depend on the fact that it reflects rules and customs recognized by the contemporary reader as valid. Any falsification of sociological assumptions would run counter to the list’s raison d’être and render it useless. Thus, although the protagonists of the little story cannot be identified, and although Sheshan, his daughter, the Egyptian slave Jarha, and the son Attai may all be fictitious, the set of relationships assumed between them, with their social and juridical basis and function, are all valid. This is the social and legal reality to which I now turn.

The Social Problem: Survival through “Name” The story’s point of departure is established by the introductory statement: “Now Sheshan had no sons, only daughters” (v. 34). The problem which confronts Sheshan is the future existence of his “name,” denoting in concrete sociological terms the preservation of his family as a living, functioning reality, with full membership and property rights within the tribe, and thus within the broader framework of the people. Only one other case in the Bible shares this point of departure: the well-known story of the daughters of Zelophehad (Numbers 27, 36; Josh 17:3–6), which unfolds 16. Among the bullae published recently by N. Avigad and ascribed by him to the time of Jeremiah, there are several bearing the name Elishama; see Hebrew Bullae from the Time of Jeremiah ( Jerusalem, 1986) nos. 4, 66, 158–60. Bulla no. 4 actually belongs to “Elishama, the king’s servant.” Number 75 is the bulla of “Jekamiah the son of Meshulam,” while in 1 Chronicles 2 Elishama’s father is presented as “Jekamiah the son of Shallum.” The interchangeability of Meshulam and Shallum is attested by 1 Chr 9:17 and Neh 12:25; it would not be too far-fetched to identify these names with this text. Bullas 158–60 are the seals of one “Shallum the son of Elishama” who does not really belong to the list but may be related to it. 17. Richter advocates the list’s “precision and detail” (“Untersuchungen,” 123), and Curtis and Madsen suggest that “there is nothing in the character of the names given against the genealogy being genuine” (Books of Chronicles, 95). A. B. Ehrlich identifies the third and fourth generations—Nathan and Zabad (vv. 36)—with “Zabud the son of Nathan” of Solomon’s time (1 Kgs 4:5), identifying Nathan as David’s prophet; see Mikrâ ki-Pheschutô (Berlin, 1899–1901; reprinted New York, 1969) 3:276, 431–32 [Hebrew].

238

Chapter 11

from the very same statement: “Now Zelophehad . . . had no sons, but daughters” (Num 26:33). 18 It is in this story that the common problem of Zelophehad and Sheshan is clearly expressed: “Why should the name of our father be taken away 19 from his family, because he had no sons?” (Num 27:4). Within the context of Numbers 26–27, the establishment of a “name” determines the allocation of “inheritance” among the Israelite tribes, that is, the social unit’s property rights: “To these the land shall be divided for inheritance according to the number of names” (Num 26:53). Property, however, while forming the necessary basis of social existence, does not exhaust its implications. A “name” effected the actual social power of a unit, its privileges, and obligations. 20 One may say that as far as tribal society is concerned, the whole system of social controls and balances was dependent on the preservation of these small units, represented by “names.” It is no wonder, then, that Israelite society invested great effort to secure this balance. In the more specific context under consideration, the best known means is levirate marriage, devised to ensure “that his name may not be blotted out of Israel” (Deut 25:6). However, even were it consistently applied 21 levirate marriage would provide only limited remedy for very specific situations; more common problems are left unattended in biblical traditions and legislature. Generally speaking, the major risk threatening a man’s name is his own sterility—a possibility which is never brought up explicitly in biblical evidence. 22 Only temporary or conditional male unproductivity is actually assumed, as when a premature death prevents his procreation. 23 All actual cases of childlessness are ascribed to female barrenness, 24 which in a polygamic society does not have conclusive effects on 18. See K. D. Sakenfeld, “Zelophehad’s Daughters,” Perspectives in Religious Studies 15 (1988) 37–47; idem, “In the Wilderness Awaiting the Land: The Daughters of Zelophehad and Feminist Interpretation,” Princeton Seminary Bulletin 9 (1988) 179–96. 19. Njpsv renders Hebrew [rgy as “be lost to his clan.” See Thesaurus of the Language of the Bible ( Jerusalem, 1959) 251: subtract, eliminate. 20. The precise establishment of these “families” and “fathers’ houses” is the purpose of the census (see Numbers 1, 3, 26), upon which all matters, secular and ritual, are then based. See G. E. Mendenhall, “The Census Lists of Numbers 1 and 26,” JBL 77 (1958) 52–66. Traces of such a census are to be found also in the genealogical material of Chronicles; see J. Liver, “So All Israel Was Enrolled by Genealogies; and These Are Written in the Book of the Kings of Israel,” in dwdl z[ (David Ben Gurion FS; Jerusalem, 1964) 486–99 [Hebrew]; Johnson, Purpose, 62–68. 21. This is very doubtful, as already in the Bible its abolition is provided for; see Deut 25:5– 10, Genesis 38, and Ruth 4. 22. The adjective “barren” appears frequently in the feminine (Gen 11:30, 25:21, 29:33; Judg 13:2; etc.) but only once in the masculine, as part of a general blessing (Deut 7:14). The cause of unproductivity is explicitly described in Gen 20:18 as “the Lord closed the wombs of the house of Abimelech”; also Gen 16:2, 1 Sam 1:5, Prov 30:16. 23. This is certainly the case with Judah’s sons (Gen 38:7–10) and Naomi’s two sons (Ruth 1:4)—the two cases where some kind of levirate marriage is indicated. This would probably be the case also in Deut 25:5. 24. As in the famous cases of Sarai, Rebekah, Rachel, Manoah’s wife, and Hannah (Gen 11:30, 25:21, 29:31; Judg 13:2; 1 Sam 1:2, 11).

spread is 9 points long

Israelite Legal and Social Reality as Reflected in Chronicles

239

the continuity of the social unit. As male unproductivity is not really recognized, no remedy for it is provided. This story shares the same anthropological and social assumptions as the Zelophehad pericope. Although neither male nor female is infertile, the family line is not ensured—since all the offspring are daughters. That the biological cause—now commonplace—rests with the male is indeed recognized in this story: Sheshan does not take another wife, but appoints a male replacement as procreator. However, even faced with the risk of utter loss of a family’s name, the Bible does not provide any structured remedy for either case. Biblical anthropology did not acknowledge any flaws in the male procreative system. In contrast to biblical law, the legal systems of other ancient Near Eastern civilizations provided adequate solutions for such situations, conceived under the general roof of “adoption.” Best known are the texts from Nuzi which have been amply discussed in connection with the patriarchal narratives, 25 but the subject is of much broader scope. 26 In these extra-biblical systems one finds not only straightforward adoption, but also the formal procedure for transactions of property, as well as the case most similar to this context: “adoption” for the purpose of marriage, where an “adopted” son marries his “father’s” daughter. 27 The concept of adoption is not employed in biblical law, and scholars still debate its practical application in ancient Israelite society. Several cases in the biblical narrative, in particular the Jacob–Laban cycle, have been interpreted as reflecting adoption procedures, while several phrases and metaphors—in particular in the framework of God’s relationship with the Davidic king—may indicate that the notion itself was not unknown. 28 However, even where the echoes are strongest, one finds no reference to this institution, and the term itself is absent from the biblical lexicon. 29 The solution applied by Sheshan, unique in biblical literature, 30 is found not in the context of “adoption” but in that of slavery laws and customs.

25. See, among others, E. A. Speiser, “New Kirkuk Documents Relating to Family Laws,” Annual of the American Schools of Oriental Research 10 (1928–29) 21–22, 31–33; J. S. Paradise, Nuzi Inheritance Practices (Thesis, University of Pennsylvania, 1972) 41–47, 303–8; also, differently, J. Van Seters, “Jacob’s Marriage and Ancient Near Eastern Customs: A Re-examination,” HTR 62 (1969) 377–95. 26. See M. David, “Adoption,” RlA 1 (1932) 37–39. 27. For these see E. Neufeld, Hebrew Marriage Laws (London, 1944) 56–67. Neufeld regards the case of Sheshan and Jarha as belonging to this category (p. 58), but the meager evidence does not support this conclusion. 28. For a detailed list of all these, see J. H. Tigay, “Adoption,” EncJud 2:298–301. 29. Most interestingly, this is followed in postbiblical Jewish law, where “adoption is not known as a legal institution in Jewish law” (B. Scherschewski, “Adoption,” EncJud 2:301). 30. The case of Zelophehad’s daughters, although having a similar point of departure, has different objectives and implications. Its focal point is the problem of property rights, while the issue of “name” (in this case, of “title”) as such, is not really attended to, either in Numbers 27 or in Numbers 36. See Sakenfeld, “Zelophehad’s Daughters.”

240

Chapter 11

The Legal Solution: Application of Slavery Laws Sheshan’s actions are presented succinctly: having sired only daughters, he marries one of his daughters to his slave; the son born of this marriage is “his,” that is, Sheshan’s. No comprehensive slavery law is extant in the Bible, nor any systematic presentation of definitions, modes of acquisition, rights and obligations of the parties, and the like. Yet, each of the main legal corpora in the Pentateuch contains a version of a manumission law 31 and there are also several regulations pertaining to slaves in the context of other legal sections. 32 Since this story does not belong to any of these categories, my conclusions must be drawn by inference from the material at hand. Biblical legislation treated the problem of a slave’s children as a particular aspect of manumission; it is referred to in two of the three versions of the law, but omitted in Deut 15:12–18. Exod 21:3–4 establishes, in casuistic detail, the principle that a slave should leave his master’s household in the same condition that he entered it. This principle is illustrated by three different cases: “if he comes in single, he shall go out single” (v. 3a); “if he comes in married, then his wife shall go out with him” (v. 3b); and “if his master gives him a wife and she bears him sons or daughters, the wife and her children shall be her master’s, and he shall go out alone” (v. 4). These three possibilities are not exhaustive, nor is there a full balance between the opposing situations; 33 nevertheless, the structure of the passage permits the clear inference that children born to a slave by a wife given him by his master are his master’s, and remain so even if the slave regains his freedom and leaves his master’s house. Although the law is here specifically articulated in the context of manumission, it seems to derive from a more general principle, namely, that whatever a slave acquires during his term of slavery and through his master’s intervention is the master’s. Although this restricts the slave’s control over his family, it also imposes certain limitations on the master’s power over the slave’s property: not all that a slave owns belongs to his master, but only that which he acquired during his slavery. Exod 21:2–6 deals exclusively with a “Hebrew slave.” Scholarly opinion is greatly divided on the meaning of this term, proposals ranging from the 31. Exod 21:2–11, Lev 25:39–54, Deut 15:12–18. For their relationship, see S. Japhet, “The Relationship between the Legal Corpora in the Pentateuch in Light of Manumission Laws,” in Studies in the Bible (ed. S. Japhet; ScrHier 31; Jerusalem, 1986) 63–89. 32. For their listing and analysis, see S. Cardellini, Die biblischen Sklaven-Gesetze im Lichte des keilinschriftlichen Sklavenrechts (Bonn, 1981) 237–334. 33. A full opposition requires three more clauses: a reference to children—either coming in with their father or born to him during his slavery—in the first instance; a reference to a wife only, in the second. It seems that the present structure is motivated by rhetorical considerations, putting the emphasis on the explicit statement of v. 4.

Israelite Legal and Social Reality as Reflected in Chronicles

241

ethnic connotation, viewing “Hebrew” as a synonym of “Israelite,” to a distinctly social connotation, deriving “Hebrew” from “Habiru.” One finds also a combination view, regarding the origin of the term in the social context, but seeing its application in Exod 21:2 as ethnic. 34 Whatever the meaning of the term, it is clear that the specific law is confined exclusively to one category of slaves—the “Hebrew.” It is, however, both possible and justified to infer that the rules concerning a slave’s children had broader validity and applicability. 35 Following this reasoning, a general ruling may be formulated: a slave’s offspring (or any property) born (or acquired) during his term of slavery (naturally, by a wife given to him by his master) are the master’s. This is the background against which Sheshan’s actions should be considered, in both the common and divergent aspects of the case. Exod 21:4 does not give the wife’s or her children’s identity and status, but a reasonable assumption would be that she was a maid and her children were what the Bible designates as “house born.” 36 Other possibilities, however, need not be ruled out; the one illustrated by the case of Sheshan is the marriage of a slave to his master’s daughter. The context does not specify whether such a marriage involves a change in the slave’s status, 37 but it is clear that the child born of this marriage is a free person, who is to carry on the master’s name and inherit his property. The story formulates this fact in the simplest way: “And she bore him [i.e., to Sheshan] Attai.”

The Legal Context: Exodus 21:2–6 or Leviticus 25:39–54? One aspect of the story has so far not figured in my discussion—the narrative’s emphasis on the ethnic identity of the slave, both in the explicit adjective “Egyptian,” and in the proper name “Jarha,” immediately recognizable as foreign. 38 These details are not coincidental, nor should they be ascribed to merely literary or theological motives; rather, in view of the passage’s extreme economy of detail and its socio/legal orientation, they 34. See N. P. Lemche, “The ‘Hebrew Slave,’ ” VT 25 (1975) 129–44; versus E. Lipinski, “L’esclave Hebreu,’ ” VT 26 (1976) 120–23; see recently O. Loretz, Habiru–Hebräer (BZAW 160; Berlin, 1984). 35. See Ehrlich, Mikrâ, 3:431–32 [Hebrew]. 36. tyb dyly in Gen 17:12–13, 23, 27; Lev 22:11; Jer 2:14. 37. Postbiblical Judaism took it for granted that the slave has been manumitted (and converted). This assumption is best expressed by the popular saying, common in Jerusalem: ˚tb hl ˆtw ˚db[ rrjç hrgb, ‘If your daughter has attained puberty, free your slave and give him to her’ (b. Pesa˙ 113a). Neufeld assumes that the slave was adopted (Hebrew Marriage); while Tigay takes the rabbinical view as self-evident: “Since the slave . . . married his master’s daughter, he was certainly manumitted and, quite likely, was adopted by his master” (“Adoption,” 300). 38. Hebrew [jry. The name has not yet been attested in the Egyptian onomasticon, but the un-Hebrew combination of consonants [j is very common in Egyptian; see M. Broshi, “Jarha,” Encyclopaedia Biblica ( Jerusalem, 1958) 3:863 [Hebrew].

242

Chapter 11

should be regarded as of necessary legal significance. The slave’s nonIsraelite origin is an essential condition for Sheshan’s plan, an aspect which should qualify more precisely the socio/legal situation. While Exod 21:2–6 is confined to a “Hebrew slave,” Lev 25:39–54 establishes a categorical and systematic differentiation between Israelites and non-Israelites in all relevant situations of slave holding. As the manumission of slaves is presented from the master’s point of view, the two masters are differentiated first: an Israelite master (vv. 39–46) and a non-Israelite one (vv. 47–54). Beginning with the Israelite master, a further distinction is made between the two categories of slaves, an Israelite (vv. 39–43) and a non-Israelite (vv. 44–46). In the case of a non-Israelite master, however, the law is cited only for an Israelite slave (vv. 47–54); the fourth possible situation—a non-Israelite slave serving a non-Israelite master—is omitted. In each of these oppositions there is a clear preference for the Israelite vis-àvis his non-Israelite counterpart, whether slave or master. 39 Two points of this legislation are significant for the present discussion: the application of ethnic identity as a factor in the context of slavery laws, and the precise legal definitions of the slaves’ status. The social class of “slaves” is thus conceived as comprising two subclasses, each with its peculiar definitions and rulings. An Israelite sold to a master—any master—is not a slave but a “hired worker”; the laws pertaining to him in any other realm would be those of the free man, the citizen: 40 “He shall be with you as a hired servant [rykç] and as a sojourner” (Lev 25:40); “as a servant hired year by year shall he be with him” (Lev 25:53). When the time comes for the slave to leave his master’s house, all his family goes with him, to reclaim their family property: “Then he shall go out from you, he and his children with him” (Lev 25:41). In explicit contrast to the Israelite, a non-Israelite slave is never set free. Here the definition of a slave as his master’s property is given in the full sense of the term: “And they may be your property; you may bequeath them to your sons after you, to inherit as a possession forever; you may make slaves of them” (Lev 25:45–46). Taking Lev 25:39–54 as a frame of reference, we see that the plan conceived by Sheshan could be executed only by a slave who was non-Israelite. If he were an Israelite, no matter how distant his liberation would be, his children would be his own and bear his name—as would the children of any free citizen. I may sum up this aspect of the discussion as follows: If the story is seen in the context of Exod 21:2–6, the identity of the slave would be immaterial, for Sheshan’s steps would achieve their desired result no matter who the slave was. According to Exod 21:2–6, even a Hebrew slave, with the most 39. Japhet, “The Relationship,” 76–80. 40. This attitude is followed very consistently by postbiblical exegesis, which equates the Hebrew/Israelite slave with his free brother, interpreting all the different rulings (Exod 21:26–27; 32; etc.) as referring exclusively to the non-Israelite. See Mek. de Rabbi Ishmael, Tractate Neziqin.

Israelite Legal and Social Reality as Reflected in Chronicles

243

favorable manumission regulations, leaves his master’s house without his new family. The slave being an “Egyptian” would then be an incidental detail. If, however, we regard this detail as essential, it is only in the context of Leviticus 25 that Sheshan’s plan has any meaning. Precisely because the slave is non-Israelite can Sheshan perpetuate through him his line and name. I stated at the beginning of my discussion that Elishama’s family tree must be based on valid social conventions. Thus, for the purpose of studying these conventions, this passage is an “unprejudiced witness,” an unbiased reflection of social and legal reality. To the extent that it reflects the social assumptions of Exod 21:2–6 and Lev 25:39–54, these are to be appreciated as thoroughly valid reflections of a specific, patriarchal system of Israelite society.

Further Sociological and Theological Implications Might this story, “unbiased” as it is, have further implications? Two points are of particular interest: from a sociological point of view, one wonders at the matter-of-fact record of a marriage between a free woman and a slave. Like many surrounding Near Eastern civilizations, ancient Israelite society accepted as standard procedure that a free man could take a slave girl as a (secondary) wife; this is attested most clearly by the patriarchal narratives 41 and the law of Exod 21:7–11. The opposite, however, is not the case: no other instance of a free woman being given in marriage to a slave is attested in the Bible. 42 This is no simple discrimination, and the causes of the phenomenon must be sought in the socioeconomic structure and values of Israelite society, a task which is beyond the scope of the present study. Obviously, however, it should be indicated that in Israel the polygamous system was—as in many other civilizations—unilateral, sanctioning plurality of wives but not of husbands. There was thus an essential difference between a man marrying a slave girl and a free woman being married to a slave. Indeed, postbiblical Judaism did not recognize the possibility suggested by this episode, and assumed as a matter of fact that the slave had been duly manumitted. 43 While this interpretation reflects well the problematics of the situation as well as later attitudes, it cannot be regarded as

41. For example, the famous cases of Abraham taking Hagar, and Jacob taking Bilha and Zilpah as secondary wives. In these cases, however, it is the main wife’s initiative, who “gave her to . . . her husband as a wife” (Gen 16:3; 30:3–4, 9). 42. Among the ancient Near Eastern legal traditions, it is known from the Hittites. See Cardellini, Die biblischen Sklaven-Gesetze, 146–48. 43. This is assumed by the popular saying quoted in n. 37 above. See Kim˙i ad loc.: “And he gave him his daughter after he manumitted him . . . but this is a homiletic interpretation . . . From this passage they [the Rabbis] learned that: ‘If your daughter has attained puberty, free your slave and give her to him.’ ” See also Pseudo-Rashi, ad loc.

244

Chapter 11

the plain sense of this text; the very fact that Jarha is a slave makes the procedure suggested here socially valid. Another aspect of sociological and theological interest is the “mixed marriage”—Jarha is not merely a slave but an “Egyptian slave.” Here, again, later rabbinic exegesis took it for granted that the slave had converted and become a proselyte (rg), his description as Egyptian referring only to his origin. This is the standard rabbinic interpretation of all Deuteronomic injunctions, where certain people are prohibited from “entering the assembly of the Lord,” applying in different degrees to Ammonites, Moabites, Edomites, and Egyptians (Deut 23:4, 8–9). In fact, in the rabbinic view, which tries to reduce the scope of slavery, the two factors came together: a converted slave would become an “Israelite slave” whose manumission would be in the seventh year. 44 Here, again, the text makes no reference to Jarha’s conversion; in fact, if my interpretation of the episode is correct, it is precisely his status as non-Israelite which makes the whole transaction possible. The issue of mixed marriage is stated with no hesitation or religious overtones; the acknowledgment of an Egyptian ancestor seems not to detract in any way from the prestige which, no doubt, Elishama’s family tree was construed to enhance. This attitude is very much at variance with the atmosphere prevalent in Deuteronomistic circles and Ezra/Nehemiah, 45 but on the other hand very much in accord with the story of Ruth, and the Book of Chronicles in which it is embedded. 46 While the motives of the latter contexts may be different, they share a positive attitude to the phenomenon of mixed marriage. The moving force behind the untiring struggle against mixed marriage may be seen in the religious factor, the struggle for maintaining Israel’s religious uniqueness in face of all “incitement” and “defilement.” This story of marriage to a non-Israelite, by contrast, is anchored in a reallife context, entirely inspired by social factors, which extend their influence even to questions of ethnic identity. It is within this social context, with all its norms, objectives, standards, and procedures, that marriage to a nonIsraelite slave is to be understood. 44. See Mek. de Rabbi Ishmael, Tractate Neziqin §§1–2. The explicit statement is instructive: “Just as the Israelite serves six [years] so the proselyte should serve six.” 45. See Deut 7:3–4; 1 Kgs 11:1–13; Ezra 9–10; Neh 10:31, 13:23–27. 46. See Japhet, “Law and ‘the Law’ in Ezra–Nehemiah,” Proceedings of the Ninth World Congress for Jewish Studies: Panel Sessions, Bible Studies and Ancient Near East ( Jerusalem, 1988) 99– 115 [[in this volume, pp. 137–51]]; idem, Ideology, 334–51.

Chapter 12

Composition and Chronology in the Book of Ezra–Nehemiah Among the problems that concern scholars of the Book of Ezra–Nehemiah—which is the main source for the period of the Restoration and the history of Judah under Persian rule 1—are two that appear to be independent of each other: the literary or literary-historical question regarding the structure and composition of the book, and the historical or historiographical problem regarding the chronology upon which it is based and which emerges from it. Before explaining why I have chosen to present these two issues as dependent upon one another, I shall first present the central problems in each of the two areas.

I The point of departure for any discussion of the question of composition is Ezra–Nehemiah as a whole, before it was divided in two by later traditions. 2 From this compulsory point of departure, which is sometimes termed “canonical,” 3 arise the questions regarding the book’s structure, composition, and author. Suggestions that the book should be viewed as a compilation of shorter, independent works, or, alternatively, as part of a larger work, as well as suggestions for identifying the author or authors and for reconstructing the process of its formation, have all been proposed as solutions to the problems that the book as it stands presents to the reader. In treating this question many scholars seem to hasten to advance 1. This estimation is still valid, despite a certain increase in extra-biblical epigraphical and archaeological sources. On the history of criticism regarding the value of Ezra–Nehemiah as a historical source, see S. Japhet, “The Historical Reliability of Chronicles: The History of the Problem and its Place in Biblical Research,” JSOT 33 (1985) 83–107, esp. pp. 88–94 [[in this volume, pp. 117–136, esp. pp. 123–30]]; D. J. A. Clines, “The Nehemiah Memoir: The Perils of Autobiography,” in What Does Eve Do to Help? ( JSOTSup 94; Sheffield, 1990) 124–64; L. L. Grabbe, “Reconstructing History from the Book of Ezra,” in Second Temple Studies, vol. 1: Persian Period (ed. P. R. Davies; JSOTSup 117; Sheffield, 1991) 98–106. Regarding the definition and subdivision of the period, see S. Japhet, “The Temple in the Restoration Period: Reality and Ideology,” USQR 43 (1991) 196–97, 243 [[in this volume, pp. 184–85, 230–32]]. 2. See H. G. M. Williamson, Ezra, Nehemiah (WBC 16; Waco, 1985) xxi–xxii. 3. It seems that this term was coined following the general approach of Childs to the study of the Bible. See B. S. Childs, Introduction to the Old Testament as Scripture (Philadelphia, 1979); J. Blenkinsopp, Ezra–Nehemiah: A Commentary (OTL; Philadelphia, 1988) 41. The use of this term does not, of course, indicate acceptance of Childs’s method.

245

246

Chapter 12

immediately to the second stage; 4 we shall first dwell upon the book that we have before us. On the basis of internal criteria such as contents, style, narrative technique, and the like, and on the basis of formal criteria such as opening formulae, Ezra–Nehemiah comprises three well-defined units: 1. Ezra 1–6, describing the history of the temple from the first year of Cyrus (Ezra 1:1) until the sixth year of the reign of Darius (Ezra 6:15). 2. Ezra 7–10, the story of Ezra, which begins with a new opening phrase: “After these events” (Ezra 7:1), presents new protagonists and is written in a different style. 3. Nehemiah 1–13, the story of Nehemiah, which also begins with a new opening phrase, “The words of Nehemiah son of Hacaliah” (Neh 1:1), and which ends with the last words of Nehemiah: “O my God, remember it to my credit!” (13:31). This simple structure presents events in chronological sequence: beginning with the building of the temple, then Ezra the Scribe and his activities, and finally, the acts and achievements of Nehemiah. The non-critical reader will interpret this structure as an authentic reflection of historical events: the first told first, and the last, last. In a critical, literary-historical reading, however, this structure may be interpreted as an expression of the literary process, meaning that Ezra–Nehemiah has been composed of the combination of three compositions, each of which existed independently before being joined together into the present work. This combination may be viewed as a single act or as a multi-staged process: first the two elements of the Book of Ezra were combined, and later the Book of Nehemiah was joined to it or placed adjacent to it. Indeed, those scholars who maintain that Ezra and Nehemiah are essentially two separate and independent works subscribe to this opinion or to one similar to it, arguing that their combination is merely a technical and late development. 5 The view of the book as a combination, in one or several stages, makes the question of authorship insignificant, leaving no good reason for seeking traces of the author in the creation of the book. The main focus of attention then shifts to each of the components of the book, with its structure, composition, and authorship.

4. On this matter see the criticism of T. C. Eskenazi, “The Structure of Ezra–Nehemiah and the Integrity of the Book,” JBL 107 (1988) 642. 5. Such as M. Z. Segal, “The Books of Ezra and Nehemiah,” Tarbiz 14 (1943) 93–96, 103 [Hebrew]. In Segal’s opinion the book of Nehemiah was written before the book of Ezra. S. Talmon, “Ezra and Nehemiah (Books and Men),” IDBSup 318 (but on p. 322 and following a different view is reflected); M. Kochman, “Introduction to the Books of Ezra and Nehemiah,” in N. Heltzer and M. Kochman, “The Books of Ezra and Nehemiah,” The World of the Bible Encyclopedia ( Jerusalem, 1985) 4 [Hebrew]. Kochman’s remarks are not unequivocal. On p. 4 he says, “It seems that the two books were not even edited by the same person,” while on p. 5 he speaks of “the editor of Ezra–Nehemiah.”

Composition and Chronology in the Book of Ezra–Nehemiah

247

Indeed, each of the three components of Ezra–Nehemiah is complex, and the topic of composition presents more than a few problems in each of them. 6 I shall present a number of these, following the order of the units: A. For Ezra 1–6 three central problems may be presented: 1. The change of language in the course of the unit: the story begins in Hebrew (1:1–4:7), passes over to Aramaic (4:8–6:18), and concludes in Hebrew (6:19–22). Hence the Hebrew part is a kind of framework within which the Aramaic portion is embedded. 2. The section comprises material of two major literary genres: narrative and document, and the transitions between them or their integration do not depend upon the change in language. The documents in the Hebrew part are Cyrus’s proclamation (1:2–4), the list of the temple vessels (1:9– 11a), and the list of the returnees (2:2–67). In the Aramaic part they are: the correspondence of Rehum the commissioner and Shimshai the scribe with Artaxerxes (4:[8]9–22), and the correspondence between Tattenai governor of the province of Beyond the River and Darius (5:4[?], 7–17; 6:3–12). The rest of the text, both in Hebrew and in Aramaic, is narrative. 7 3. Chapter 4 presents a particular difficulty, because of the evident lack of continuity in subject matter and chronology. The chapter passes from the construction of the temple to the building of the city, and from the period of Cyrus to that of Ahasuerus and Artaxerxes, and then to Darius (4:3, 5, 6, 7, 23, 24). In this chapter the problems of composition and chronology are closely connected, and we shall return to them below. 8 B. Ezra 7–10 also presents three central compositional problems, and the first two are shared with the first section of the book. The transition from language to language is expressed in the literal citation of one document: the letter given by King Artaxerxes to Ezra the Scribe, which is written in Aramaic (Ezra 7:12–26). This document also expresses the combination of narrative 6. For detailed discussions of this subject one may consult the commentaries on Ezra– Nehemiah, both the introductions and also the relevant passages of the commentary. In addition to commentaries that have already been mentioned (see nn. 2, 3 above), I might mention, among others, L. W. Batten, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Books of Ezra and Nehemiah (ICC; Tübingen, 1913) 14–24; W. Rudolph, Ezra und Nehemia (HAT; Edinburgh, 1949) xxii–xxiv; D. J. A. Clines, Ezra, Nehemiah, Esther (NCB; Grand Rapids, 1984) 9–12; A. H. J. Gunneweg, Esra (KAT; Gütersloh, 1985) 28–31. See also U. Kellermann, Nehemia: Quellen, Überlieferung und Geschichte (BZAW 102; Berlin, 1967) 8–56; W. T. in der Smitten, Esra: Quellen, Überlieferung und Geschichte (SSN 15; Assen, 1973) 3–26. 7. The transitions from narrative to document and back are not always smooth. See for example Ezra 4:8, 9–11; 5:4; 6:6. In general it may be said that the documents are placed within the stories as in a frame, and on this matter see also: S. Japhet, “Biblical Historiography in the Persian Period,” in World History of the Jewish People, vol. 6: The Restoration: The Persian Period (ed. H. Tadmor and I. Ephºal; Jerusalem 1983) 181–82 [Hebrew]; H. G. M. Williamson, “The Composition of Ezra I–VI,” JTS 34 (1983) 1–26. 8. See p. 258 below; and see S. Japhet, “The Temple,” 203–6 [[in this volume, pp. 193–95, 231]].

248

Chapter 12

and document. Additional documents include Ezra’s genealogy (7:1–5), the list of returnees (8:1–14, and its appendices, 8:19–20), the list of donations (8:26–27), and the list of those who had married foreign women (10:18–43). However, a more complex problem in this section of the book is the shift in literary style from a first-person narrative of autobiographical character (7:27–9:15) to a third-person narrative, where Ezra is the main protagonist of the story but not its author (7:1–26, 10:1–44). 9 Thus the autobiographical unit is embedded within an overall literary framework. At the same time it must be noted that the shift in style from third-person to first-person and back does not influence either the continuity of the story or the plot, the unity of which is preserved, nor does it affect the combination of documents and narrative, which is found throughout the book. C. The most difficult problems relating to composition are found in the third section, in Nehemiah 1–13, making its very definition as a single unit problematical. However, its opening with “the words of Nehemiah” and its conclusion with Nehemiah’s prayer delimit it clearly, demanding that it be seen from that viewpoint. 1. The major problem derives from the changes in style and literary genre. “The words of Nehemiah” begins in Neh 1:1 as an autobiographical composition with its own linguistic and stylistic stamp. 10 This style is preserved even, among other things, in the frequent transitions from singular to plural, which express the close identification of the speaker, Nehemiah, with the community for whom he speaks (Neh 2:19, 20; 4:9–17, and elsewhere). The uniform autobiographical style dominates in Neh 1:1–7:5 and 13:4–31 and determines the framework of this unit, whereas all the intervening material in Neh 7:6–13:3 is characterized by variety and lack of uniformity. Here we find a mixture of genres and styles, and, as for the speaker, Nehemiah is still present from time to time, but in certain sections he is mentioned in the third person and in others he is not mentioned at all. 11 2. The first question arising from this literary reality is that of the precise extent of “the words of Nehemiah.” We may ask whether all of Nehemiah 1–7 should be included in it, or should the list of the builders of the 9. See, among others, S. Mowinckel, “ ‘Ich’ und ‘Er’ in der Esrageschichte,” in Verbannung und Heimkehr: Beiträge zur Geschichte und Theologie Israels im 6 and 5 Jahrhundert v. Chr. (FS W. Rudolph; Tübingen, 1961) 211–33. 10. The definition of the work as “the words of Nehemiah the son of Hacaliah” is found in the book itself, Neh 1:1. The question of whether this is an authentic autobiographical work, written by Nehemiah, or a work written in autobiographical style, is of no concern in the present context. On questions of this type, see, for example, Clines, “The Nehemiah Memoir.” 11. Nehemiah is mentioned in the third person in Neh 8:9; 10:2; 12:26, 47—that is, in each of the central components of this section (the reading of the Torah in chaps. 8–9, the making of the covenant in chap. 10, and the lists in chaps. 11–12). However these units themselves are complex, as we shall see below.

Composition and Chronology in the Book of Ezra–Nehemiah

249

wall of Jerusalem (Neh 3:1–32), for example, be regarded as secondary to it? 12 From a different perspective, we may ask whether “the words of Nehemiah” should be limited to Nehemiah 1–7 and 13:4–31, or should “traces” of it be looked for in 7:6–13:3 as well? The considerations pertaining to this matter touch upon questions both of style and literary genre and also of the literary and topical continuity, and the decision is not always easy. 13 It is frequently determined by the scholar’s preconceptions regarding the degree of stylistic uniformity and narrative continuity that may be expected in any work, and thus in “the words of Nehemiah” as well. In the light of the literary and topical continuity one may also join the list in Neh 7:6–72 to “the words of Nehemiah.” Nehemiah is certainly not the author of this list, as he himself says (Neh 7:5), but some commentators would include the list in his work. The autobiographical style also shows in the description of the dedication of the wall (Neh 12:31, 38, 40) and in the wording of the covenant (10:1–40). Thus it is possible that these passages, in their present form or in a different one, derived from Nehemiah’s own words. However, even if we enlarge as much as possible the extent of the “words of Nehemiah” and include controversial passages in it, we can only attribute to it Neh 7:6–72, 10:1–11:2, and 12:27–43. This still does not cover all the material, and the resulting composition remains incomplete. Within it are passages that do not fit into any full continuity. 14 3. What is the composition and source of the rest of the material in the Book of Nehemiah? It seems that at least three components are to be found in it, regarding whose existence and literary definition there is general agreement among commentators, although controversy persists regarding the original extent of each of them, its origin, and its relation to the final work. In general outline, and without taking a position with regard to controversial matters, these components are as follows:

12. This question received a negative answer in the work of Torrey, who denies the list any historical value. See C. C. Torrey, The Composition and Historical Value of Ezra–Nehemiah (BZAW 2; Berlin, 1896) 37–38. Mowinckel believes that it was inserted by a later editor; see S. Mowinckel, Studien zu dem Buche Ezra-Nehemia (Oslo, 1964) 1:109–16; Blenkinsopp also prefers the possibility that this material comes from another source (Ezra–Nehemiah, 47). But Rudolph, for example, maintains that this list, as well as Neh 7:6–72, were already included in “the words of Nehemiah” (Rudolph, Ezra und Nehemia, 113); and see Williamson, Ezra, Nehemiah, 201–2. 13. In all these matters there is no agreement among scholars, and we cannot expand upon this here. My remarks below are not intended to be conclusive but rather to suggest possibilities. 14. The connection of Neh 11:1–2 to 7:5 or 7:72a creates continuity in content but not a textual one, and some link appears to be missing in the story. This combination also leaves Nehemiah 10 out of the sequence and emphasizes the question of where it originally belonged: should it be placed before Neh 11:1–2 and joined in some way to 7:72a? Should it be regarded as the conclusion of Nehemiah 8–9, so that it is viewed as part of the “story of Ezra”? Or should it be viewed as an independent unit? Also in the following two junction points—the story of the dedication of the wall in 12:27–43 and the account of Nehemiah’s second term of office (13:4– 31)—the narrative sequence is not fully clear.

250

Chapter 12

a. A narrative describing the events of the seventh month in the time of Ezra. This certainly includes Neh 8:1–9:3, but the question arises regarding the following two chapters, Neh 9:4–10:40, which are combined with it into a single unit within the present narrative continuum. It seems probable that the great prayer in Neh 9:5b–37 predated Ezra the Scribe; 15 but was it already included in the present narrative? As for Nehemiah 10, is its source in “the words of Nehemiah” (see above), or did it have an independent literary existence? Despite these questions, in the existing literary reality, this component may be defined as “the story of Ezra.” Ezra is the main protagonist of the narrative, and the story has a uniform character. 16 b. Lists (Neh 11:3–12:26). As we have thus far seen, various types of lists are included within the narrative continuum in each of the sections of the book; in Neh 11:1–12:26, however, they constitute a different sort of literary phenomenon. This is a compilation of lists that are not integrated into the narrative but stand by themselves. They cannot be included in any of the earlier compositions, either in “the words of Nehemiah” or in “the story of Ezra.” Moreover, they themselves do not compose a complete unit. 17 This is essentially a compilation. Each of the lists undoubtedly has its own independent history, but it is difficult to assume that the compilation itself had any independent existence. c. Some of the literary units do not belong to any of the components described above. First of all this refers to Neh 12:44–13:3, but other passages may also be included in this category, depending on the definition of each commentator. Thus we find that each of the component sections of Ezra–Nehemiah is a composite, though there is a difference in degree, which becomes a difference in kind, between the units of the Book of Ezra and those of the Book of Nehemiah. Both in Ezra 1–6 and Ezra 7–10 one may find unity of style 15. Concerning this prayer, see H. G. M. Williamson, “Structure and Historiography in Nehemiah 9,” Proceedings of the Ninth World Congress of Jewish Studies, 1985: Panel Sessions ( Jerusalem, 1988) 117–31; G. Rendsburg, “The Northern Origin of Nehemiah 9,” Bib 72 (1991) 348–66. 16. See also Blenkinsopp’s remarks on this subject. In his opinion, Nehemiah rather than Ezra is the hero of the story. He also separates Nehemiah 9–10 from the story of Ezra and sees Nehemiah 10 as the latest element in the book. But he argues that, nevertheless, this section (Neh 7:5–10:40) “has its own logic and preserves a kind of unity independent of its context” (Ezra–Nehemiah, 46). 17. Nehemiah 11 is organized into a literary sequence. The list is preceded by a heading: “These are the heads of the province who lived in Jerusalem—in the countryside of Judah, the people lived in their towns, each on his own property” (11:3). Then it proceeds to describe the inhabitants of Jerusalem (vv. 4–24) and those who lived in villages, in Judah (vv. 25b–30) and in Benjamin (vv. 31–36). Neh 12:1–26 contains four lists, all of which present information about the priests and Levites: the lists of the priests and Levites “in the time of Jeshua”—the priests (12:1–7) and the Levites (12:8–9); the list of the High Priests (12:10–11); “the list of the priests” in the time of Joiakim (12:12–21); and “the Levites” in “the time of Johanan son of Eliashib” (12:23–25); as well as two headings (vv. 22, 26), which perhaps serve as introductory and concluding phrases.

Composition and Chronology in the Book of Ezra–Nehemiah

251

and literary method as well as overall continuity in narrative and subject matter which define these units as literary entities. This is not true of Nehemiah 1–13, where one does not find the same degree of literary uniformity overcoming the variety of its parts. Moreover, as shown above, one of the components of Nehemiah 8–13, which at least includes Nehemiah 8, is a literary entity similar in all its aspects to the “Story of Ezra” in Ezra 7–10, and it may even be designated by that title. The natural conclusion here is that Nehemiah 8 initially belonged to the story of Ezra, and this position is adopted by practically all scholars. 18 The problem still remains of the place of Nehemiah 8 (or 8–10) in the context of the story of Ezra: is it a continuation of Ezra 10 or does it belong elsewhere? 19 But this problem is not sufficient to cast doubt upon the original connection of Nehemiah 8 to the story of Ezra. This association proves that in an earlier stage, prior to the literary reality of Ezra–Nehemiah, Nehemiah 8 belonged to Ezra 7–10. The conclusion necessarily follows that the connection between the Book of Ezra and the Book of Nehemiah cannot be viewed as an entirely external combination. The connection between them belongs to the level of the sources from which the present book was constructed—a conclusion that brings us back to the question of the composition of Ezra–Nehemiah as a whole, and to the role of its author. The tension between the final structure of the work and the continuity, uniformity, and unity of its component parts necessitates the assumption of the existence and action of an author/editor. What were the function and aims of that author in composing the work?

II A number of possible solutions are available to the scholar who seeks to answer the questions of composition and editing of Ezra–Nehemiah. However, the most prevalent is the diachronic approach, according to which the composition of the book was a multi-staged process in which the literary units were compiled and joined to each other. Since the book is seen as being composed of various literary sources—whole works or isolated documents—deriving from various times and written by various authors, this approach does not distinguish sharply and unequivocally between the various stages of the literary process, some of which are “creative writing,” while others are “editing.” The creation of the book is seen as one extended line upon which lie a large number of points, and it continues past what has 18. This includes scholars who believe that the Book of Ezra and the Book of Nehemiah are essentially two separate works. See for example Segal, “The Books,” 103; Kochman, “The Books of Ezra and Nehemiah,” 5. 19. The most common suggestion is to view the reading of the Torah as Ezra’s first action after his arrival in Jerusalem, that is, to place Nehemiah 8 after Ezra 8. See for example Rudolph, Ezra und Nehemia, xxii; Blenkinsopp, Ezra–Nehemiah, 45; Williamson, Ezra, Nehemiah, xxxi, etc.

252

Chapter 12

been determined as the “final” composition, in the figure of “additions,” inserted into the book in the course of transmission. Thus the “Book,” the final outcome of this process is not the planned result of a premeditated action. It is not a coherent composition whose plan was determined in advance so that a structural logic is reflected in it, but rather the result of a literary process, parts of which were quite coincidental. In reconstructing this process, a scholar may define its “final” point anywhere along the extended line, and, according to his or her inclinations, ignore everything that came afterward. The great advantage of this conception is in its diachronical-historical aspect. It mitigates the difficulty presented by the contradictions and inconsistencies and permits maximum consideration of all the varieties that are evident in the work. Moreover, it liberates the authors and editors from the burden of the contradictions and inconsistencies and turns them into “systematic” and “rational” authors. Such a view gives the scholar a great deal of freedom in understanding the composition of the book, and thus in reconstructing its meaning. Let us illustrate this with two examples, from among many, those of Rudolph and Williamson. These two approaches differ from each other, but they have in common both the fact that they are examples of a “middle line,” not the extremes, 20 and also the clarity with which they are presented. Rudolph assigns great importance to the author of Ezra–Nehemiah. He identifies him with the Chronicler and attributes great weight to him in molding the literary and theological character of the book. In his opinion, this author’s method combined creative writing with use of sources, which are presented in their own language or reworked, and his hand as a writer and adapter is evident in all parts of the book. 21 In the light of this conception, which may explain the variety found in the book as a result of the author’s use of sources, and which attributes great importance to the author, it might be expected that the “book” to which Rudolph relates, that is, the product that left the hands of the writer/editor, would be Ezra–Nehemiah as we have it—but that is not the case. Rudolph does not even try to clarify the structure and meaning of Ezra–Nehemiah as it is. He assumes that when the work left the author’s hands it was different in two important points from the version in the biblical canon: 20. As a special group one should mention those scholars who believe that the original form of the book is that which is reflected in the apocryphal book of 1 Esdras. After 2 Chronicles 35–36, the book includes Ezra 1–10 and Neh 8:1–12. See especially K. F. Pohlmann, Studien zum Dritten Ezra (FRLANT 104; Göttingen, 1970), and in the same spirit, Dequeker (see n. 29 below). Since I regard the secondary character of this work as firmly established, I shall not address this position and its conclusions in detail. 21. See Rudolph, Ezra und Nehemia, xxii–xxiii. The method itself is influenced strongly by the general approach of Noth. See M. Noth, Überlieferungsgeschichtliche Studien (2nd ed.; Tübingen, 1957 [1943]) 155–61 (= The Chronicler’s History [translated by. H. G. M. Williamson with an introduction; JSOTSup 50; Sheffield, 1987] 75–81).

Composition and Chronology in the Book of Ezra–Nehemiah

253

1. The order of the chapters, and thus the progress of the story were considerably different. The original order was: Ezra 1–8; Neh 7:72b– 8:18; Ezra 9:1–10:44; Neh 9:1–10:40; Neh 1:1–7:72a; 11:1–13:31. The subsequent change in the order and the creation of the present structure resulted from an error, the misunderstanding of a later editor. 22 2. The book was much shorter than the present version, because certain passages were added after its completion. Among the additions are Neh 10:2–28, 37b, 38b–40; 12:1–26, 46–47; 11:21–24, 25b–36, as well as verses and parts of verses throughout the book. It is important to emphasize yet again that Rudolph does not attribute these changes in order and extent to the stratum of the sources but rather to the final redaction of the book. Therefore, although he emphasizes the importance of the author, this is not, in fact, the author of Ezra–Nehemiah as we have it, but the hypothetical author of a reconstructed book. Consequently, a scholar such as Blenkinsopp, who accepts many of Rudolph’s considerations and views, was able to present a different Book of Ezra–Nehemiah. He maintains, on the one hand, that the transfer of Nehemiah 8 from its original place after Ezra 8 to its present position was not the result of an error but rather the intentional doing of the author himself. However, on the other hand, he sees the end of the book not in Nehemiah 13 but in the story of the dedication of the wall (Neh 12:27–43). Everything that comes afterward—the material written in the “third-person” (Neh 12:44–13:3) as well as authentic portions of Nehemiah’s memoirs (Neh 13:4–31)—was inserted into the book at a later date, after it was completed. 23 Williamson’s position is considerably different, first of all because he is entirely free of the view that Ezra–Nehemiah is a continuation of Chronicles. On the other hand, he does not attribute the same degree of importance to the author of the book as does Rudolph. In Williamson’s opinion, after the stage of the primary sources, all of which are more or less contemporary with the events they describe, 24 there are two principal stages in the composition of the book. First the hypothetical work, Ezra 7–Nehemiah 11 and 12:27–13:31, was created by joining together the stories of Ezra and Nehemiah and the other materials that comprise this unit. This work was composed in approximately 400 b.c.e. The second stage took place about 22. It is interesting that in Rudolph’s opinion, “error” recurs on various levels of the composition of the book. According to him the author of the book, “the Chronicler,” as he defines him, also erred in understanding his sources and thus in composing the book. Rudolph maintains that in historical fact Nehemiah preceded Ezra and not vice versa. But because of an error in reading the date, the order of the sources was changed (p. xxiv). Thus the author first erred and reversed the order of Ezra and Nehemiah, and then a later editor erred and moved various chapters from their original (erroneous) place to their present positions. 23. Blenkinsopp, Ezra–Nehemiah, 47. 24. Williamson, Ezra, Nehemiah, xxxv.

254

Chapter 12

one hundred years later, when another author wrote Ezra 1–6 and joined it to the existing work, as an introduction. In addition to these two central stages, the book underwent a process of expansion, by the addition of the lists and short comments, which were added after Neh 11:20 in 11:21– 12:26 in a process of filling in, 25 which was concluded at the beginning of the Hellenistic Period. 26 It must be emphasized that there is no reason to reject in principle the formation of any biblical book as a multi-staged process, nor should one reject the possibility that a biblical book might have been expanded after the completion of its final form. The question is whether a scholar may completely ignore the canonical reality of Ezra–Nehemiah and forego in advance any effort to find a structure or plan in it, and to determine ex silentio that the final state of the book has no significance. We are all well aware of the fear that may lurk in the heart of the critical scholar of adopting an excessively naive attitude to a book as it is. Such an approach courts the dangers of ignoring any signs of complexity, of pursuing harmonization, and of uncritical return to the orthodox position which denies the validity of literary-historical criticism in principle. However, in full awareness of the dangers of this approach, with full recognition of the complexity of the material in the book, and despite the unpopularity of this approach, I wish to suggest that it is possible—and hence obligatory—to explain the composition of Ezra–Nehemiah precisely in that manner: as a book that was produced “all at once,” by an author, according to a clear plan. Before doing so, however, I shall take up the second aspect of this article, the question of chronology.

III One of the most difficult problems facing the student of Ezra–Nehemiah and the history of Judah in the Persian Period is the historical-chronological background of the events described in Ezra–Nehemiah. This problem has two aspects: the “objective,” historical aspect—that is, the need to determine the correct order of historical events; and the historical-historiographical aspect—that is, the effort to understand the author of Ezra– Nehemiah’s conception of history as it is expressed in the chronology. I have argued elsewhere, and others have argued before me, that Ezra– Nehemiah differs from other historical books of the Bible in that it lacks a chronological skeleton, or a systematical chronological framework “from which individual dates receive their meaning.” 27 We may contrast this situation to the Book of Kings, for example, where the chronological skeleton is composed of links—the kings of Judah and Israel in their synchronic po25. Ibid., 349. 26. See ibid., xxxiii–xxxvi, 361; and also “The Composition.” 27. Japhet, “Biblical Historiography,” 178.

Composition and Chronology in the Book of Ezra–Nehemiah

255

sitions, and the length of their reigns. This chronological structure is also the literary skeleton upon which the entire book is built. Things look different in Ezra–Nehemiah. The book describes events one after the other, and occasionally provides the readers with various chronological facts, 28 but those facts do not appear to be combined within an overall chronological system. Scholars wishing to determine the historical background and order of the events must do it on the basis of the unsystematic comments scattered through the book, comparing them with extra-biblical information derived from various sources, primarily the kings of Persia. Because of the importance of the Persian kings to the historical and theological outlook of Ezra– Nehemiah, we find many references to these kings, and the question arises as to whether the analysis of these references may reveal the historical and chronological basis underlying the book. The Persian emperors are mentioned in Ezra–Nehemiah in the following order: Cyrus (Ezra 1:1, 2, 7, 8; 3:7; 4:3), Cyrus and Darius (4:5), Ahasuerus (4:6), Artaxerxes (4:7, 8, 11, 23), Darius (4:24; 5:5, 6, 7; 6:1, 12, 13, 15), (Cyrus retrospectively [5:13, 14, 17; 6:3]), Cyrus, Darius, and Artaxerxes (6:14), Artaxerxes (7:1, 7, 11, 12; 8:1; Neh 2:1; 5:14; 13:6), Darius the Persian (Neh 12:22). If we compare this list as it stands, and the sequence of the kings as they appear, to the list of the Persian kings as reconstructed from Persian, Babylonian, and Greek sources, we find that—although the biblical list lacks a few names—except for one place, 29 the sequence of the kings is completely consistent with the correct order, 30 which is given below: Order of the Kings of Persia 31

Ezra–Nehemiah

Cyrus (538–530) Cambyses (530–522) Bardiya (522)

Cyrus (Ezra 1:1ff.) — —

28. As in Ezra 1:1, 3:8, 4:24, 5:13, and elsewhere. See Japhet, ibid., 177 and n. 9. 29. Ezra 6:14. This verse mentions “Cyrus and Darius and King Artaxerxes of Persia” in that order, which is the historical sequence of Darius I, Artaxerxes I, skipping Ahasuerus (Xerxes). But according to the structure proposed immediately below, it is necessary to replace this with the sequence between Artaxerxes II and Darius II, where the order is reversed. See on this matter L. Dequeker, “Darius the Persian, and the Reconstruction of the Jewish Temple in Jerusalem (Ezra 4:24),” Orientalia Lovaniensia Analecta 55 (1993) 75–76. I wish to thank Professor Dequeker for letting me read this article prior to publication. 30. Liver already took note of this: see J. Liver, “Regarding the Problem of the Order of the Kings of Persia in the Books of Ezra and Nehemiah,” in Studies in Bible and Judean Desert Scrolls ( Jerusalem, 1974) 264–65, 270–71 [Hebrew]. 31. Regarding the Persian chronology, see R. A. Parker and W. H. Dubberstein, Babylonian Chronology 626 bc—ad 75 (Providence, 1957 [repr. 1971]) 10–16. See also E. J. Bickerman, “En marge de l’écriture,” RB 88 (1981) 19–28. There are small differences among scholars regarding the calculation of the years, but none of these is significant in the present context.

256

Chapter 12 Darius I (522–486) Xerxes/Ahasuerus (485–465) Artaxerxes I (464–424) Xerxes II (423) Darius II (423–404) Artaxerxes II (404–359) Artaxerxes III (358–338) Arses (338–336) Darius III (335–331)

Darius (Ezra 4:5) Ahasuerus (Ezra 4:6) Artaxerxes (Ezra 4:7ff.) — Darius (Ezra 4:24ff.) Artaxerxes (Ezra 7:1ff.) — — Darius (Neh 12:22)

May we conclude from this apparent correspondence that the sequence of the Persian kings provided the historical basis for Ezra–Nehemiah as we have it? If we fill in the historical events on the basis of this assumption, the following historical picture emerges: 1. In the history of the building of the temple (Ezra 1–6), where the order of kings is: Cyrus, Darius, Ahasuerus, Artaxerxes, Darius, the necessary conclusion would be that the temple was built at the time of Darius II, and the order of events would be as follows: the declaration by Cyrus (Ezra 1:2–4), which grants permission to build the temple (538 b.c.e.); the Return from Babylon; and the first steps in building the temple (Ezra 1:5–3:13)—all took place at the time of Cyrus. Interruptions in the building of the temple (Ezra 4:1–24) took place at the time of Cyrus, Darius, Ahasuerus, and Artaxerxes, until the second year of the reign of Darius II (422 b.c.e.). Renewal of work on the temple, Darius’s decree, the completion of the temple and its dedication (Ezra 5:1–6:19) occurred from the second to the sixth year of the reign of Darius II (422–418 b.c.e.). 32 2. King Artaxerxes, during whose reign, according to Ezra–Nehemiah, both Ezra and Nehemiah were active, was Artaxerxes II (404–359). Ezra came to Judah in the seventh year of his reign (Ezra 7:7–8), that is, in 398 b.c.e., and Nehemiah did so in the twentieth year of his reign (Neh 2:1–9), that is in 384 b.c.e. 3. The king called “Darius the Persian” in Neh 12:22 would most probably be Darius III, so that Ezra–Nehemiah would reach the end of the Persian Period. As noted, this historical picture is the necessary conclusion from the assumption that the sequence of the kings of Persia is the historical and chronological basis of the events in Ezra–Nehemiah. However, the difficulties it involves become evident the moment it is presented. We shall note the central problems: 1. With respect to objective evidence, the greatest difficulty is in placing Nehemiah during the reign of Artaxerxes II. Although some scholars 32. This indeed is the picture suggested by Dequeker, “Darius the Persian.”

spread is 9 points long

Composition and Chronology in the Book of Ezra–Nehemiah

257

have argued for such a dating, 33 the preponderance of extra-biblical evidence, mainly in the Elephantine papyri, necessitates the placing of Nehemiah during the reign of Artaxerxes I, as is indeed the prevailing view. 34 2. The question of the time of Ezra, which is an independent problem, is connected here to the transposing of Nehemiah to the reign of Artaxerxes I. Within the chronological sequence presented above, Ezra precedes Nehemiah (according to Ezra–Nehemiah), but the period of his activity would fall in the reign of Artaxerxes II. Placing Nehemiah earlier, during the reign of Artaxerxes I, would immediately raise a methodological question: which details of Ezra– Nehemiah must a scholar retain? Is one to accept the order of the Persian kings as a decisive datum, even after noting that the dating of Nehemiah deviates from that order, so that Ezra is left during the reign of Artaxerxes II? If so, the order of the Persian kings would be retained in the Book of Ezra but not in the Book of Nehemiah, which would completely detach Nehemiah 8 from the story of Ezra. Or, perhaps one should accept the order of events as described as obligatory and place Ezra during the reign of the same king as Nehemiah—that is, Artaxerxes I. By so doing, however, the order of the Persian kings would be disrupted. One way or another, the correspondence between the sequence of events as described in Ezra–Nehemiah and the order of the kings of Persia is impaired, both in fact and in principle. 3. The third difficulty resides in placing the reconstruction of the temple during the reign of Darius II. Historically this would mean that the temple lay in ruins from its destruction in 586 b.c.e. until 418 b.c.e., a period of 168 years. The interruption in the building lasted for more than 110 years, and the actions of Haggai and Zechariah the prophets, Zerubbabel the son of Shealtiel, and Joshua the son of Jozadak, the leaders of the people, all took place during the reign of Darius II. This view implies that other biblical evidence, such as the evidence in Ezra 3–4 or the genealogical lists in 1 Chr 3:17–24 or 5:40–41, which seek to date Haggai, Zechariah, Zerubbabel, and Joshua the son of Jozadak closer to Cyrus’s declaration or during the reign of Darius I, are all baseless, having either been falsified initially or misinterpreted later. 35 33. See Kellermann, Nehemia: Quellen, 49–50; idem, “Erwägungen zum Problem des Esradatierung,” ZAW 80 (1968) 44–87; R. I. Saley, “The Date of Nehemiah Reconsidered,” in Biblical and Near Eastern Studies: Essays in Honor of William Sanford LaSor (ed. G. A. Tuttle; Grand Rapids, 1978) 159–60. 34. See the summary of the question, A. R. W. Green, “The Date of Nehemiah: A ReExamination,” AUSS 28 (1990) 195–209. 35. Generally speaking, this is the position of Dequeker: Nehemiah during the reign of Artaxerxes I, the building of the temple during the reign of Darius II, the activities of Ezra during

258

Chapter 12

Moreover, if we combine this difficulty with those we raised earlier and argue—following the common opinion—that Nehemiah is to be dated to the reign of Artaxerxes I, we would have to conclude that Nehemiah’s actions in restoring the walls of Jerusalem preceded the reconstruction of the temple, and that the figures mentioned above—Haggai and Zechariah, Zerubbabel and Joshua—all acted at the time of Nehemiah or afterward. If we persist in claiming that Ezra, too, belongs to the reign of Artaxerxes I, these men would also be subsequent to Ezra. However, the difficulty of such a view is evident. It entirely contradicts not only the story of Ezra, but also that of Nehemiah, according to which it is abundantly clear that at his time the temple already existed (see mainly Neh 6:10–11). It also presents problems regarding other matters, such as the order of the High Priests, and the like. 36 It seems, therefore, that there is tension which cannot be removed between the two structures within Ezra–Nehemiah: on the one hand there is the list of the Persian kings in the order in which they appear, which seemed to correspond in every detail with the historical order, and, on the other hand, there are the historical development and the order of the various figures as they may be inferred from the details of the events and their specific contexts. What seemed at first glance to be full chronological correspondence cannot withstand historical criticism, and the conclusion demanded by these data is that the order of the kings of Persia cannot be viewed as the chronological foundation of Ezra–Nehemiah. Rejecting this chronological basis, however, raises another question. If one dates Nehemiah during the reign of Artaxerxes I and accepts the accumulating historical evidence that the construction of the temple did precede Nehemiah and is to be dated during the reign of Darius I—as is accepted by most scholars—one must face the question of the order of kings in Ezra 4. If we assume that the Darius who is mentioned in 4:24–6:15 is Darius I, we find that Ahasuerus and Artaxerxes, who ruled after him, are mentioned before him here (Ezra 4:6–23). However, this difficulty cannot outweigh all the problems that accrue according to the other approach. Several solutions have been proposed to this problem, and it seems that the literary arguments do provide a reasonable explanation. 37 Another chronological question, which is not necessarily dependent upon the complex of problems raised above, is the dating of Ezra the

the reign of Artaxerxes II (“Darius the Persian,” 1–12). He argues that the return of Zerubbabel must be dated to the time of Nehemiah, that is, in the second half of the 5th century b.c.e. (p. 4), and that there is no decisive opposition to viewing Zerubbabel and Joshua as contemporaries of Nehemiah (p. 12). See also p. 14 et passim. 36. Dequeker tries to respond to some but not all of these difficulties. Moreover, many of his proposed solutions are based on the repeated claim that various biblical authors distorted the facts or misunderstood them, and these do not seem convincing. 37. See, for example, Japhet, “The Temple,” 241 n. 99 [[in this volume, p. 231 n. 99]]; and also Blenkinsopp, Ezra–Nehemiah, 43 and 114.

Composition and Chronology in the Book of Ezra–Nehemiah

259

Scribe. Ezra–Nehemiah places him before Nehemiah, that is, during the reign of Artaxerxes I, but many considerations make it more plausible to date him to the period of Artaxerxes II. 38 Does Ezra–Nehemiah have another chronological skeleton? Theoretically its author could have used two other systematic structures for that purpose, and hints at their existence are indeed found in the book: the governors of Judah under the Persian regime and their terms of office, 39 and the High Priests and their terms of office. 40 By the nature of these positions, it is to be assumed that continuity both in office and registry were maintained. Evidence of the former is found in the “words of Nehemiah,” linking his rule to that of Artaxerxes (“in the twentieth year,” Neh 1:1, 2:1), and dating it (“From the twentieth year of King Artaxerxes until his thirtysecond year, twelve years in all,” Neh 5:14, and also 13:6). However, this is the only evidence in this area, and it too is incomplete, since it does not indicate the end of Nehemiah’s term of office. 41 We learn of the succession of High Priests and their systematic listing from the presence of the list of priests (Neh 12:10–11). From the headings of other lists, it can be also inferred that the terms of the High Priest provided the basis for administrative registries: “In the time of Joiakim, the heads of the priestly clans were: . . .” (Neh 12:12); “But the Levite heads of clans are listed in the book of the chronicles to the time of Johanan son of Eliashib” (Neh 12:23); and elsewhere. Nonetheless, despite the great 38. Much has been written on this subject, and there is no need for us to go into detail. See, for example, the summary of the relevant considerations in Clines, Ezra, Nehemiah, 16–24; or Williamson, Ezra, Nehemiah, xxxix–xliv. 39. Here another historical question enters, which is considered by all those who deal with Ezra–Nehemiah or the period of the Restoration: when did Judah/Yehud become an independent province under the Persian regime? Did this occur at the beginning of the Persian rule (as implied by the biblical evidence, such as Ezra–Nehemiah, the headings of Haggai’s prophecies, and the like)? Or was it only during the time of Nehemiah, when it was removed from the jurisdiction of the governor of Samaria? Debate on this matter persists, but it does not touch directly upon the subject under discussion here. We expressed our position in S. Japhet, “Sheshbazzar and Zerubbabel against the Background of the Historical and Religious Tendencies of Ezra–Nehemiah,” ZAW 94 (1982) 80–82, 96–98 [[in this volume, pp. 66–68, 82–83]]. See also H. G. M. Williamson, “The Governors of Judah under the Persians,” TynBul 39 (1988) 59– 82. However, for the opposite opinion, see Dequeker, “Darius the Persian,” 71–72. 40. This question is also a subject of prolonged controversy, especially since Cross proposed expanding the list of priests in Neh 12:10–11 on the basis of the principle of “paponymy.” See F. M. Cross, “A Reconstruction of the Judean Restoration,” JBL 94 (1975) 9–18 and in other articles. Arguing against this position is J. C. VanderKam, “Jewish High Priests of the Persian Period: Is the List Complete?” in Priesthood and Cult in Ancient Israel (ed. G. A. Anderson and S. M. Olyen; JSOTSup 125; Sheffield, 1991) 67–91. 41. This fact fits into the broader approach of Ezra–Nehemiah. Surprisingly, the book presents not even a single detail about the end of its protagonists. Sheshbazzar, Zerubbabel, Joshua, Ezra, and Nehemiah all disappear from the stage of history without their deaths being recounted, in utter contrast to the other historical books of the Bible, which make a point of indicating the protagonists’ deaths. See also S. Japhet, “The Relationship between Chronicles and Ezra–Nehemiah” (VTSup 43; Leiden, 1991) 308 [[in this volume, p. 178]].

260

Chapter 12

importance of this material, it lacks chronological data and cannot be linked to the details of the historical picture in Ezra–Nehemiah. It certainly does not provide the chronological or structural basis of the book. Our discussion up to this point has led to similar conclusions in the two areas upon which we touched: the complex structure of the book presents the critical reader with such grave problems that one may doubt whether a coherent and planned structure exists, and in the matter of chronology it is clear that the book is not built on any chronological structure that can be verified in historical-political terms. Does this mean that the author of Ezra–Nehemiah is a historian devoid of any sense of structure or any consciousness of time, that is, not a historian at all? Such a conclusion would, in my opinion, be misguided. It would appear to derive from the separation of the two subjects that have so far been discussed and from the attempt to examine each of them in itself in terms as “objective” as possible. It seems to me that the correct approach would be to examine these two subjects in terms of their relations with each other, that is, to examine the author’s historical-chronological view not on the objective but rather on the historiographical-literary level. Then it would be clear that the author has a very clear conception of time, which provides the basis of the literary structure of Ezra–Nehemiah. Hence we must turn back and discuss conjointly the two subjects to which we have so far devoted separate discussions, because they are bound up together and shed light upon each other.

IV Analysis of the historical picture according to the chronological statements of Ezra–Nehemiah shows that, with respect to historical periodization, the book is built in two parts: the first unit (Ezra 1–6) begins with Cyrus’s decree in the 1st year of his reign (Ezra 1:1) and ends with the dedication of the temple in the 6th year of the reign of Darius (Ezra 6:15). This is a period of 22 years: from 538 b.c.e. to 517 b.c.e. The second unit (Ezra 7–Nehemiah 13) begins with Ezra’s arrival from Babylonia in the 7th year of the reign of Artaxerxes (Ezra 7:7), continues with Nehemiah, who went up to Jerusalem in the 20th year of the reign of Artaxerxes (Neh 1:1, 2:1), and finishes with Nehemiah’s second term of office in the 33rd year of the reign of Artaxerxes (Neh 13:6–7). This is a period of 26 years, from 458 b.c.e. until 432 b.c.e. There are both similarities and differences in the formulation of these two periods. The most important similarity is the principle upon which the historical periodization is based: each of the periods lasts one generation, between 20 and 30 years. However, the two numbers are not equal, nor are they standard or typological. Rather they represent real numbers: 22 years and 26 years. The general chronological framework of the historical periodization is the reign of the Persian kings, and in both cases the length of

Composition and Chronology in the Book of Ezra–Nehemiah

261

the period is measured according to the years of the emperor. But this framework provides only the chronological data and not the principle upon which the historical periods are determined. The first period includes the full reign of two kings, one of whom is not even mentioned (Cyrus, who reigned in Babylonia from 538 b.c.e. to 530 b.c.e., and Cambyses, 530–522 b.c.e.), and part of the reign of a third king (Darius, 522–517 b.c.e.); whereas the second period comprises part of the reign of one king (Artaxerxes), it does not begin with his ascent to the throne, nor does it end with the termination of his reign. Thus one must distinguish between the chronological reckoning, which is based on the reigns of the Persian kings, and the historical periodization, which defines the periods according to events in Judah. Another feature common to these two periods is that in each of them the people were led by two leaders: Zerubbabel and Joshua in the first period, Ezra and Nehemiah in the second. However, in this regard the portrayal of the periods is accomplished in different ways. During the first period the leaders were the heads of the establishment: Zerubbabel headed the secular establishment, and Joshua the religious one—although there is no definition of their status throughout the unit. Joshua is not called “the High Priest,” nor even simply “the priest”; one learns of his status only from an indirect expression, “Joshua the son of Jozadak and his brothers the priests” (Ezra 3:2, and similarly also in 10:18). From other passages in the book of Nehemiah it may be inferred indirectly that Joshua was the High Priest (see Neh 12:7, 10, 26), but in Haggai and Zechariah he is explicitly called “the High Priest” (Hag 1:1, 12, 14; 2:2, 4; Zech 3:1, 8; 6:11). This is also true of Zerubbabel: in Ezra–Nehemiah he holds no administrative title, and his leadership is indicated only by an indirect expression: “They approached Zerubbabel and the chiefs of the clans” (Ezra 4:2), and by his comparison with Nehemiah in another passage (Neh 12:47). However his status as a governor is indicated explicitly in Haggai 42 (Hag 1:1, 14; 2:2, 21). Furthermore, the definition of a “generation” is not determined by its leaders. They are first mentioned in Ezra 2 (2:1), and the construction of the temple finishes without them. 43 The definition of the period is determined by its central project: the building of the temple! The period begins with Cyrus’s declaration permitting its construction and ends with the conclusion of construction and the dedication of the temple. In contrast, the 42. Therefore one cannot learn from Ezra 1–6 that Zerubbabel did not have the status of a governor, as argued by Alt and his followers: A. Alt, “Die Rolle Samarias bei der Entstehung des Judentums,” Kleine Schriften 2:333–37. See also n. 39 above. The absence of titles is due to the author’s particular outlook and he treats Zerubbabel similarly to Joshua. See also Japhet, “Sheshbazzar and Zerubbabel,” 80–86 [[in this volume, pp. 66–73]]. 43. They are mentioned for the last time in Ezra 5:2. The rest of the story refers to “the elders of the Jews” (Ezra 5:5; 6:8, 14), and conjointly to “the governor of the Jews and the elders of the Jews” (Ezra 6:7), but Zerubbabel and Joshua are not mentioned anymore.

262

Chapter 12

second period is defined clearly by its leaders, and not by its projects. The period begins with the commencement of Ezra’s activity and concludes at the second part of Nehemiah’s term of office. In the beginning Ezra works by himself (Ezra 7–10), in the end, Nehemiah works by himself (Neh 13:4– 31), and in between, Ezra and Nehemiah work in parallel or together. The definition of the roles of these two men is also somewhat different from the roles of their predecessors. Without doubt, Nehemiah is the head of the secular establishment: he is the governor of Judah appointed by the Persian king (Neh 5:14, 18; 12:26). Ezra is a priest, and he is represented as the spiritual leader of the people, but he is certainly not a High Priest, and he does not head the religious establishment. As indicated by his title, he is “the priest-scribe” (Ezra 7:11, 12; Neh 8:9; 12:26). Hence, during the time of their parallel activity, subjects such as construction of the walls, social reform, and the populating of Jerusalem belong to the field of Nehemiah’s activity, and Ezra takes no part in them. By contrast, in the reading of the Torah and everything connected with that, as well as the dedication of the wall, they are presented at each other’s side (Neh 8:1, 2, 9; 12:36; and also 12:26). The inner structure of these historical periods is also of importance. In the first period there is a concentration of events at two points in time, in the beginning of the period and at the end. The first chapters describe the events as a tight historical and chronological sequence, all of which takes place at the time of Cyrus. Immediately after Cyrus’s proclamation the return to Jerusalem takes place. This migration is not dated explicitly, but as portrayed historically, it should be placed immediately after the proclamation: “So the chiefs of the clans . . . got ready to go up and to build the House of the Lord . . . and King Cyrus of Persia released the vessels of the Lord’s house,” and so on (Ezra 1:5–7). Immediately after their arrival, “When the seventh month arrived,” preparations for construction of the temple began, bringing in its wake active opposition by “the people of the land” (4:1–5) and the cessation of construction (4:24). 44 Since the return from Babylonia is not dated, and the following events are described in relation to it (“in the second month,” “in the second year of their arrival,” etc.), we cannot determine precisely to which year or years the author was attributing the events, but there is no doubt that it is soon after the proclamation by Cyrus, during the first years of his reign. The last two chapters describe the events at the end of the period, from the second (4:24) to the sixth (6:15) year of Darius’s reign. Between those two extremes is an interim period which, chronologically speaking, is the lion’s share of the period, though there is nothing to tell about it. This is the time when construction of the temple was stopped, “all the years of King Cyrus of Persia and until the reign of King Darius of Persia” (4:5), and the author passes over it in a single sentence (4:24). 44. On the literary and chronological problem of Ezra 4:6–24, see p. 258 above.

spread is 6 points long

Composition and Chronology in the Book of Ezra–Nehemiah

263

The second section is constructed according to the same historiographical principle: all the events are clustered at three very short points in time: two starting points and one conclusion. The first focus is Ezra’s coming to Jerusalem, around which are concentrated all the events described in Ezra 7–10. The date at the beginning of the unit determines its setting in time: “in the seventh year of King Artaxerxes” (7:7). The historical and chronological context of chaps. 7–8 is established explicitly: “On the first day of the first month the journey up from Babylon was started, and on the first day of the fifth month he arrived in Jerusalem” (7:9), and the affair of the foreign wives is linked to it in the narrative sequence: “When this was over, the officers approached me, saying . . .” (9:1). Later two more dates are supplied (“the ninth month, the twentieth of the month” [10:9], “the first day of the tenth month” [10:16]), and the affair is finished “by the first day of the first month” (10:17). That is, the whole story of Ezra, in Ezra 7–10, takes place within a single year: from the first day of the first month in the seventh year of Artaxerxes until the first day of the first month one year afterward! The second point in time is Nehemiah’s arrival, which is set in the twentieth year of Artaxerxes’s reign, that is—twelve years later. Here too, there can be no doubt concerning the close sequence of events. Nehemiah arrives in Jerusalem “in the month of Nissan, in the twentieth year of the king” (Neh 2:1). Three days after his arrival (2:11), he evaluates the situation, makes a plan, and begins constructing the wall, the completion of which is dated “on the twenty-fifth of Elul, after fifty-two days” (6:15). 45 According to the given narrative sequence the social reform is included in the same time period (Nehemiah 5), while Nehemiah begins preparations for populating Jerusalem immediately after the completion of construction (7:4–5). In parallel, the people gather in Jerusalem “in the seventh month” (7:72), and in this context the reading of the Torah, the celebration of Sukkoth, the covenant, and populating Jerusalem are all bound together (chaps. 7–11). Following all this comes the dedication of the wall (12:27–43). Although no dates are given, the spirit of the story and even the logic of the events require us to place it soon afterward. This means that all of Nehemiah’s activities, from chap. 1 to chap. 12, are presented as the events of a single year! The third point in time, which is about twelve years later, is the final one: the description in a single sequence of all the activities of Nehemiah in his second term of office: “only after a while did I ask leave of the king [to return]. When I arrived in Jerusalem . . .” (Neh 13:6–7). The intermediate periods between these points in time are treated similarly; both the transition from the first to the second period and also the 45. From this point it is possible to reconstruct the course of events in the prior months. According to this calculation, the construction of the wall began during the first days of the month of Av, leaving four months from Nissan until the end of Tammuz, for Nehemiah’s journey to Jerusalem. These dates fit the data given in the book of Ezra, which are presented very precisely (Ezra 7:9).

264

Chapter 12

time intervening within each period itself. These are times when nothing is accomplished—according to the data of the book—and the role of the historian is just to bridge over them. This he does with a short sentence describing the situation, with a literary transitional phrase, or with utter silence. 46 The historical concept of time is also the principle according to which one must understand the composition of Ezra–Nehemiah. “The first period” is presented by Ezra 1–6. The author apparently did not possess a complete and continuous literary source describing that period, but only miscellaneous documents that related to it. Therefore he wrote this unit using his own historiographical method, combining existing documents, as is, with a narrative framework. 47 For the description of the “second period,” however, two literary sources were available to the author: “the words of Nehemiah” and the “story of Ezra,” which were apparently uniform and complete literary works, with a decided literary stamp, as well as lists of various sorts. According to the evidence of those sources, Ezra’s activity began in the “reign of King Artaxerxes” (Ezra 8:1, and also 7:11), but, lacking other identifying signs, this could have been any of the Persian kings of that name. This is also true of the king in whose time Nehemiah was active, for he too is called simply “Artaxerxes” (Neh 2:1, 5:14, et passim). Either following an accepted tradition or expressing his own opinion, the author placed both of these men at the time of the same king, 48 thus laying the chronological foundation upon which he built the “second period.” In order to portray it as a single generation, and to express the synchronicity between Ezra and Nehemiah, he relinquished the literary integrity of each of the two works that were in his possession. He broke them into smaller sections and combined them with each other. His cutting and editing are evident especially in “the words of Nehemiah,” from which he drew the longer sections. He placed the “story of Ezra” at the beginning of the description, but after a series of events that included Ezra’s coming to Jerusalem (Ezra 7–8) and the affair of the foreign women (Ezra 9–10), he interrupted the story and passed over to “the words of Nehemiah.” Here, too, he did not present his 46. An account of the situation is found in Ezra 4:24: “At that time, work on the House of God in Jerusalem stopped and remained in abeyance until the second year of the reign of King Darius of Persia.” The transition between the completion of the temple and Ezra’s return is effected by the formula: “After these events” (Ezra 7:1). The transition between Ezra and Nehemiah receives no attention, and that between Nehemiah’s first and second terms of office is drawn indistinctly by the phrase: “Earlier . . .” (Neh 13:4), and then: “During all this time I was not in Jerusalem” (13:6). 47. For a more detailed account of this method of writing, see Japhet, “Biblical Historiography,” 181–82; Williamson, “The Composition,” 1–26. 48. On this matter see pp. 258–59 above. It is likely that this refers to Artaxerxes I. Those who indeed maintain that Ezra was active at that time will assume that the author had a reliable tradition that reflected the historical facts (see for example Williamson, Ezra, Nehemiah, xliv), whereas those who place Ezra during the reign of Artaxerxes II will assume that the author was expressing his own opinion (see, for example, Blenkinsopp, Ezra–Nehemiah, 44).

Composition and Chronology in the Book of Ezra–Nehemiah

265

source in a single sequence. First he severed the last part of “the words of Nehemiah” (describing his second term of office) from the narrative continuum and placed it (or part of it) at the end of the work (Neh 13:4–31). 49 By this means he expressed the historical view that everything recounted from Nehemiah 1 to 13 refers to the period of Nehemiah. In a single sequence at the beginning of the description he presents the building of the wall, which also includes the story of the social reform (1:1–7:4 or 72), 50 but after beginning to tell about the populating of Jerusalem he interrupted the continuity of “the words of Nehemiah” and assembled the continuation of the story from four components: an additional passage from “the story of Ezra” about the reading of the Torah and everything pertaining to that (Nehemiah 8 or 8–9, or 8–10), a cluster of lists containing various pieces of information about the inhabitants of Jerusalem and of Judah (Neh 11:1–12:26), passages from “the words of Nehemiah” that are included within that sequence (Nehemiah 10 [?], 11:1–2, 12:27–43), and words of his own. By structuring the historical work in this way he created full synchronicity between Ezra and Nehemiah, presenting the events of “the seventh month” of the story of Ezra as being anchored in the time of Nehemiah immediately after completion of the wall, and placing Ezra among those who celebrated at the dedication of the walls (Neh 12:36). He also presented a comprehensive picture of settlement and administration during the time of Nehemiah, whether or not this was the original position of the material he used. Evidently this compositional activity impaired the unity and integrity of the material that was taken from the sources, and it is doubtful whether they can be fully reconstructed. For in his historical writing the author sought to give literary expression to chronological and historical principles that were alien to both of the sources he used. “The words of Nehemiah” 49. The opening of this passage is doubtless truncated (see 13:4), and regarding the end it is hard to say whether the formula concluding the chapter, “O my God, remember it to my credit” (13:31), which is repeated elsewhere in Nehemiah’s memoir (5:19, 13:22) is indeed the concluding phrase. 50. We cannot deal here with the question of the source and function of the list of returnees in this context (Neh 7:5–72) and its repetition in Ezra 2:1–70. Interestingly, in their understanding of the formation of Ezra–Nehemiah, various scholars have attributed a decisive role to this list, or to the fact of its repetition, though they have come to entirely different conclusions. Kochman, for example, believes that the repeated appearance of the list is sufficient to prove that the books of Ezra and Nehemiah were originally separate works (“The Books of Ezra and Nehemiah,” 4; following Segal, “The Books,” 93–96). Williamson, Ezra, Nehemiah, xxxiv, sees the relation between the lists as “the most important single clue” for understanding the stages of the book’s composition as we have presented them above, whereas Eskenazi, on the contrary, sees the repetition of the list as the key to understanding the book as a unified work (Eskenazi, “The Structure”; and In an Age of Prose: A Literary Approach to Ezra–Nehemiah [SBLMS 36; Atlanta, 1988] 37–88). I find no difficulty in assuming that the two appearances of the list might come from the author of Ezra–Nehemiah himself, as is the opinion of Eskenazi, but, unlike her, I do not see the motivation for it in literary-rhetorical considerations but rather in historical and theological ones. However, I cannot expand on this here.

266

Chapter 12

did not mention Ezra and covered a period of approximately 13 years, and the “story of Ezra” did not include Nehemiah, and its original historical framework is not clear from the material remaining from it. The lists in chaps. 11–12 mentioned neither Ezra nor Nehemiah, and their historical background is described in other ways or not presented at all. 51 Hence, although, on the one hand, the author of the book chose to use existing literary sources and did not include much of his own writing, nevertheless, on the other hand, he sought to express his own views by placing this borrowed material within a chronological and historical framework that he himself created. Between these two traits there is tension, which persists no matter what, even if we assume that the author’s historical view is consistent with the historical data of his sources. Without doubt the tension between the final framework and the sources augments as the deviation from the original material increases. The historiographical method of Ezra–Nehemiah in general and in detail forcibly raises the question of the relation between historical writing and historical reality. 52 The reader might ask, for example, why the structure of the book and its periodization is a “historiographical principle” and not a faithful reflection of events “as they happened.” This question would not relate, however, to the problem of reliability but to the very essence of historiography, and we can only touch upon it briefly. For even if we assume that all of the data are entirely dependable, down to the last detail, the historical periodization and the definition of these periods are historical concepts and not “reality.” If the author wished to describe the restoration of life in Judah after the destruction of the temple, why did he choose “the construction of the temple” as his topic and not some other subject? And why did he choose to begin his composition with the proclamation of Cyrus and not, for example, with the downfall of Jerusalem and the destruction of the temple? Or with the history of Judah during the transitional period from 586 to 538 b.c.e.? Or, on the contrary, with the very act of laying the foundations, which is now described in Ezra 3? The place where the author did decide to begin his account is a historical statement: the restoration of Judah and the reconstruction of Jerusalem begin with the proclamation of Cyrus and continue with the arrival of the returnees from the Babylonian Exile. Similarly, the other starting points are deter51. The historical context of some of the lists is determined by their headings, such as: “These are the priests and the Levites who came up with Zerubbabel son of Shealtiel and Joshua” (Neh 12:1, and elsewhere). See also p. 250 above. However, the originality of the headings and their relations to the lists are not clear in every instance. The headings of the lists in chap. 11 lack all historical context. 52. I have dealt with various aspects of this question in several articles, such as those mentioned in nn. 1 and 39 above. See also S. Japhet, “ ‘History’ and ‘Literature’ in the Persian Period: The Restoration of the Temple” in Ah, Assyria . . . : Studies in Assyrian History and Ancient Near Eastern Historiography Presented to Hayim Tadmor (ed. M. Cogan and I. Ephºal; ScrHier 33; Jerusalem, 1991) 174–88 [[in this volume, pp. 152–68]].

Composition and Chronology in the Book of Ezra–Nehemiah

267

mined by the same criterion: the return of Ezra and his caravan with the permission from Artaxerxes and the coming of Nehemiah with the authorization and protection of the same king. By means of this time-structuring, the author expresses his historical view—which he also expresses in other ways—that change and renewal in the life of Judah were the result of initiative on the part of the Persian kings and the Jews of Babylonia, rather than any action in Judah itself, whether political or spiritual. God extended grace to Israel—that is, to those who returned from Exile—by means of the kings of Persia. We may sum up briefly with the points at which we began: the literary composition of Ezra–Nehemiah expresses the chronological-historical outlook of the author and was determined by it. Chronology and composition must be viewed as differing but complementary aspects of the historical writing, which can be understood only in their mutual relation and in their essence as one of the historian’s means of expression.

Chapter 13

The Prohibition of the Habitation of Women: The Temple Scroll’s Attitude toward Sexual Impurity and Its Biblical Precedents The laws of purity and impurity are known to be an important component of the Temple Scroll. Among these laws the regulations concerning the Temple city occupy a special place, the importance of which was noted immediately upon their publication. 1 Initially these regulations were interpreted as a highly valuable source for the basic concepts of the Qumran sect and the way in which its particular legal system was formed, 2 and they were discussed in the light of other sectarian works and in relation to the sect’s positions regarding purity and impurity, which had been known before the publication of the scroll. However, with progress in research on the Temple Scroll, and, principally, once the question arose as to whether it was, in its entirety, a sectarian work, the possibility was raised that the laws of ritual purity might also be an ancient element within the laws of the sect, which did not originate with it. 3 If this is indeed the case, it might provide both an indication of the sources of the Temple Scroll, and also of the vari1. The laws of the Temple city are found together on cols. 45:7–46:18 (or 47:3), and the laws of purity continue until 51:10. However, various details relevant to this area are also mentioned in other places. See Y. Yadin, The Temple Scroll (henceforth cited as TS; 3 vols.; Jerusalem, 1977–83) 1:277–307; also the commentary on the appropriate passages, 2:188–227. 2. Yadin emphasized this frequently, both in the book itself and also in other contexts. See, e.g., “But the determining factor of identification is the draconic nature of all the laws in the scroll pertaining to matters of purity and to the holiness of the temple” (TS, 1:399). See also Levine’s remarks: “Long before the publication of the Scroll, Yadin regularly emphasized in lectures and preliminary statements the special importance of purity regulations for ascertaining the historical provenance of the Scroll” (B. A. Levine, “The Temple Scroll: Aspects of Its Historical Provenance and Literary Character,” BASOR 232 [1978] 13). This position was also taken by Milgrom in a series of studies, most recently: J. Milgrom, “The Scriptural Foundations and Derivations in the Laws of Purity of the Temple Scroll,” in Archaeology and History in the Dead Sea Scrolls (ed. L. H. Schiffman; Sheffield, 1990) 83–99: “Concerning the vexed question of whether 11QT is truly Qumranic, the impurity rules call for an answer in the affirmative” (p. 95). 3. Doubts regarding whether the Temple Scroll originated with the Qumran sect were raised by Levine immediately after the publication of the Scroll (“Temple Scroll,” 7–17). See also H. Stegemann, “The Origins of the Temple Scroll,” VTSup 40 (1988) 235–56; idem, “Is the Temple Scroll a Sixth Book of the Torah?” BARev 13 (1987) 28–35; P. R. Callaway, “The Temple Scroll and the Canonization of the Jewish Law,” RQ 13 (1988) 239–50. Regarding the origins of the laws governing purity and impurity in the Temple Scroll, see A. M. Wilson and L. Wills, “Literary Sources of the Temple Scroll,” HTR 75 (1982) 275–88; P. Callaway, “Source Criticism of the Temple Scroll: The Purity Laws,” RQ 12 (1986) 213–22.

268

The Prohibition of the Habitation of Women

269

ous views and legal controversies that prevailed in Judaism during the Second Temple Period. The process of clarifying these questions is still at a high pitch, 4 and the present discussion seeks to make a small contribution to the topic.

I Among the regulations related to the Temple city, there is the law concerning the impurity of seminal emission, which reads as follows: And if a man lies with his wife and has an emission of semen, he shall not come into any part of the city/of the Temple, where I cause my name to dwell, for three days. (11QT a 45:11–12)

As Yadin correctly points out, “the author does not discuss the ban on sexual relations in the Temple city, but rather the procedure of purification for anyone who lies with a woman outside the city.” 5 Nevertheless, a fortiori, Yadin concludes that one must not cause the pollution of a seminal emission within the Temple city itself, hence inferring an unequivocal prohibition against sexual relations within the Temple city: “The ban on intercourse anywhere within the Temple city is implicit in the language of the scroll.” 6 A specific prohibition in this regard is found in the Damascus Covenant: “Let no man lie with a woman in the City of the Sanctuary so as to convey uncleanliness to the City of the Sanctuary with their impurity” (CD 12:1–2). It is commonly agreed that these two laws refer to the same matter and represent a single Halakah that comprises two issues: (1) the prohibition against sexual intercourse in the Temple city (Damascus Covenant); (2) the injunction that a person who has had intercourse with a woman elsewhere may not come to the Temple city for three days (Temple Scroll). Each of these two compositions highlights a different aspect of the broader law, depending upon the respective context within each work. The decidedly complementary character of the two regulations leads one to the inevitable conclusion that both works cite a more ancient source, whose character and scope are unknown to us at present. The scope of that source might have been broader than what is presently in our possession, and the combination of these two passages might not represent the entire law in all its details. 7 4. See the recent article, Y. Sussmann, “The History of Halakha and the Dead Sea Scrolls: Preliminary Observations on Mikßat Maºase Ha-Torah (4QMMT),” Tarbiz 59 (1990) 11–76 [Hebrew]. 5. Yadin, TS, 1:288. 6. Ibid., and see also p. 281. 7. See, e.g., Greenfield’s comments: “They probably share a common written source. Indeed one may speculate that the various laws quoted in the Damascus Document go back to legal collections that circulated in sectarian circles” ( J. C. Greenfield, “The Words of Levi Son of Jacob in Damascus Document IV, 15–19,” RQ 13 [1988] 320). With regard to the content of

270

Chapter 13

Despite the clear and unambiguous language of the law, its significance and implications are not unequivocal to the same degree. The central question, which touches upon all the regulations governing the Temple city, is the exact definition of “Temple city”—what are the boundaries within which the aforementioned prohibitions and restrictions apply? Yadin himself defined the “Temple city” within its widest boundaries; that is, the “Temple city” is the entire city of Jerusalem. 8 This basic definition led Yadin to two further conclusions, which are of far-reaching significance regarding the laws of the sect and its history: (a) “The doctrine of the sect deemed it necessary to ban women from permanent residence in the Temple city,” and (b) “We have here the most distinct halakhic core for the development of Essene celibacy.” 9 Yadin also explicitly stated the reasoning that led him to these conclusions: “According to the laws of the sect, all males residing in the Temple city must abstain from having sexual relations therein. Therefore, this ban is tantamount to ordaining complete celibacy for them.” 10 What is the validity of Yadin’s definition and the conclusions derived from it? First, let us recall that neither in the writings of Qumran nor in the Temple Scroll is there any prohibition against the habitation of women. Thus the conclusions belong to the realm of conjecture, with no explicit or implicit support. Moreover, Yadin makes a point of using the term “permanent residence,” apparently taking cognizance of the fact that women were present in Jerusalem, even within the bounds of the Temple, as is proven not only by historical evidence from the period, 11 but also in the Temple Scroll itself. The scroll forbids women from entering the middle court of the Temple, but it appears that they were permitted to enter the outer court. 12 Nevertheless, the major difficulty regarding Yadin’s conclusion does not lie in the lack of documentary evidence, explicit or implicit, to support it, but rather in the logic upon which it is based. Since the law deals with the laws, Milgrom also argues: “Qumran did not invent its laws on . . . the exclusion of women. . . . It is more likely that it inherited them from others” (“Scriptural Foundations,” 95). However, Milgrom views the content of the Halakah as an ancient law and its specific formulation as the work of the people of Qumran, whereas Greenfield presents the law as formulated as a quotation from an earlier source. 8. This identification was first suggested by Ginzberg, and I have not seen that Yadin refers to it; L. Ginzberg, Eine unbekannte jüdische Sekte; English translation: An Unknown Jewish Sect (New York, 1976) 73–74. After discussing this possibility, Ginzberg preferred a different one; see p. 287 below. 9. Yadin, TS, 1:289. In the spirit of these remarks, Milgrom stated: “Yet, within the Templecity . . . its residents must live priestly, indeed celibate lives” (“Scriptural Foundations,” 88). 10. Yadin, TS, 1:288. Similarly, p. 281: “and from that to the banning of women from taking up permanent residence there was a small step. It seems that it was this edict that eventually developed into the ‘abstention’ of the Essenes, and their celibacy.” 11. See S. Safrai, Pilgrimage at the Time of the Second Temple (Tel Aviv, 1965) 88–91 [Hebrew]. 12. Temple Scroll 39:7–9, 40:6. See Yadin, TS, 1:248, 2:166–67; also L. H. Schiffman, “Exclusion from the Sanctuary and the City of the Sanctuary in the Temple Scroll,” HAR 9 (1985) 305–6.

The Prohibition of the Habitation of Women

271

purity, its details and conclusions must be examined within the conceptual framework of that realm of thought. Impurity is the cause of the prohibition against being present in the Temple city, and in the matter under discussion here, this impurity is not caused by an external factor but rather arises from within the person himself, or, to be precise, within men. According to the Jewish outlook, which is found in the Bible and preserved in the rabbinic halakah—and which is also reflected in the Temple Scroll—the cause of ritual pollution in sexual relations is the seminal emission (tbkç [rz), the source of which is in the man; the woman’s pollution in sexual relations is only a result of that. 13 While the law in the Damascus Covenant includes both the man and the woman with respect to “their impurity,” the wording of the Temple Scroll is explicit regarding the source of the pollution, “an emission of semen.” The question regarding Yadin’s claim is clear: if the source of the impurity is the man, why should we conclude from this law that the residence of women was forbidden? 14 Logically one should draw the opposite conclusion, which is the prohibition against the permanent habitation of men! Such a claim could be supported by the position of the Temple Scroll regarding seminal emission in general, which is liable to result not only from sexual relations but also from their lack, in a nocturnal emission. It is well known that the Temple Scroll takes an extremely severe view of the pollution resulting from a nocturnal emission, requiring the man to whom it happened to immerse himself twice. 15 Nevertheless Yadin does not conclude that the permanent habitation of men in the Temple city, i.e., Jerusalem, was forbidden. Moreover, logically it is clear that the impurity of seminal emission applies only to married women, but not to minors, unmarried women, widows, etc. If so, what is the logical or legal basis for the conjecture that because sexual intercourse was forbidden in the Temple city, it was forbidden for women to live in Jerusalem? Yadin does not adduce the considerations presented above, but he might have been aware of them, since he attempts to support his claim with two additional arguments: (1) In parallel with the source of pollution found in men, according to the biblical view, there is also a source of pollution in women, which is that of menstruation and the bleeding associated with childbirth. In that matter Yadin states: “Menstruating women and women after confinement are not given places in the Temple city,” and, therefore, he deduces, “the doctrine of the sect deemed it necessary to ban 13. See, e.g., the talmudic ruling that a woman is not rendered impure if the intercourse does not include a seminal emission, either in normal or in uncommon intercourse; see Talmudic Encyclopedia ( Jerusalem, 1981) 3:98, 100 [Hebrew]. 14. Ginzberg indeed argues in this spirit: “Conceivably the rigorousness of our author is dictated by a policy of making a sojourn of some time in Jerusalem very difficult for the adherents of the sect and thus removing them from the influence of their opponents” (Unknown Sect, 74). 15. See Milgrom, “Scriptural Foundations,” 91–92, and p. 275 below.

272

Chapter 13

women from permanent residence in the Temple city.” 16 (2) Arguing from another direction, Yadin claimed that one must derive the laws governing the Temple city from those governing the “war camp.” Just as women and children were forbidden to enter a war camp, 17 so, too, women were forbidden to dwell in the Temple city. However, these arguments offer dubious support to his central claim. We shall return to the question of the allocation of a place to menstruating women and women with postpartum bleeding; 18 as for the analogy with a war camp, it cannot help us here. A war camp is a temporary situation, to which special conditions of sanctity apply, and therefore it is governed by special regulations: “Holy angels are in communion with their hosts” (War Scroll [1QM] 6:6). 19 That is to say, in its degree of sanctity, the war camp is parallel with the Temple itself, and the analogy with the war camp is indeed found in the Scroll in another place, in the prohibition against women and children entering the middle court of the temple: “a woman and child shall not enter it” (11QT a 39:7). Yadin’s claim regarding the prohibition against the residence of women in Jerusalem thus seems untenable, and certainly there is no support for the superstructure erected upon that claim, that this is the source of celibacy among the Essenes. 20 What, then, is the meaning of the law, what can be learned of its sources, and what are its implications?

II As is well known, the laws of the Temple city do not have a biblical source, and among the questions that immediately arose after the publication of the Scroll were: Is it possible to interpret the laws of the Temple city in the context of the biblical laws and concepts? Can they be seen as a development of biblical laws? And can one discover the principles underlying this development?

16. Yadin, TS, 1:289. See also ibid., 304, and TS 2:200. 17. War Scroll 7:3–4, and see Yadin’s comments in The Scroll of the War of the Sons of Light against the Sons of Darkness (Oxford, 1962) 70–73; see TS, 1:288–89. 18. See p. 277 below. 19. See Yadin, Scroll of the War, 290–91. 20. The way in which Yadin connects these two conclusions seems difficult, not only with respect to the contents, but also with respect to his methodology. As we have seen, Yadin argues that “all males residing in the Temple city must abstain from having sexual relations therein. Therefore, this ban is tantamount to ordaining complete celibacy for them.” He also states that Essene celibacy developed from this ban (TS, 1:282). That is to say, he views Essene celibacy as a sociological development from a concrete situation, which existed in a certain historical reality. However, according to Yadin’s own view, the Scroll does not reflect reality; rather, “the author generally deals with commands and subjects that ran contrary to contemporary practice” (TS, 1:388). He also attributes the Scroll to the sectarians of Qumran, who did not live in Jerusalem in any event. Thus he posits a sociological and historical development from a basic situation which never existed as concrete reality.

The Prohibition of the Habitation of Women

273

Yadin offered positive answers to this series of questions, and, following G. Alon, he formulated two general rules by means of which one could, in his opinion, interpret the standard relationship between the laws of the Bible and those of the Temple Scroll: 1. Extension of the laws of purity and impurity from the priests to the entire people. 21 2. Application of the laws of “the camp” to the Temple city: “This sect identified the camp of the Pentateuch with the entire Temple city and maintained that every ban involving the former applies to the Temple city as well.” 22 Without relating to the general validity of these two rules, 23 let us examine them with respect to the issues under discussion. The matter of the pollution of a seminal emission is mentioned in several laws in the Bible, and in various contexts. In Leviticus 15 three laws are presented which concern purification from this kind of impurity: of the man alone (Lev 15:16), of “every garment and every skin” (15:17), and of both the man and woman after intercourse (15:18). This source of impurity is also mentioned in relation to the purity of the priests (Lev 22:3–7 and see v. 4). 24 The same matter, although in the very special context of the war camp, and without using the expression “seminal emission” ([rz tbkç), is also found outside the Priestly material, in Deut 23:10–12. The rules concerning impurity resulting from a seminal emission are simple and complementary. The first two laws deal with the seminal emission itself. Though this is not stated explicitly, they apparently relate to a nocturnal emission: any man who experiences a seminal emission must bathe and will be impure until the evening (Lev 15:16); any garment or leather apparel that is touched by semen must be washed in water and will be impure until the evening (Lev 15:17). The third law relates to sexual relations: when a couple lies together, and a seminal emission occurs, both parties are required to bathe and are impure until the evening (Lev 15:18). Further, in connection with priests, the law states that a priest who has experienced a seminal emission is forbidden to eat even the least holy of the consecrated foods; he must bathe in water, and he remains impure until sunset. Then he may eat consecrated foods, “because such are his food” (Lev 22:4–7). 21. G. Alon, Studies in Jewish History ( Jerusalem, 1957) 148–49 [Hebrew]; English translation by I. Abrahams, Jews, Judaism and the Classical World ( Jerusalem, 1977) 190–91; Yadin, TS, 1:277. This line of argument was also strongly emphasized in L. H. Schiffman, “The Impurity of the Dead in the Temple Scroll,” in idem, Archaeology and History in the Dead Sea Scrolls (Sheffield, 1990) 136, 152, and passim. 22. Yadin, TS, 1:279. 23. On this subject see Milgrom, “Scriptural Foundations,” 83–89. 24. This term also appears at the conclusion of the passage in Lev 15:32, and without relation to the area of impurity in Lev 19:20. All Bible quotations are taken from the rsv.

274

Chapter 13

These rules indicate that the impurity of a seminal emission is relatively minor. It requires a single immersion, and the person afflicted with it remains polluted only until the evening. Even a priest, who is restricted from eating consecrated foods because of it, may partake of them after sunset and after he has purified himself. In any event, it is clear that the pollution of a seminal emission does not require removal from the camp. This is implied not only by the silence of the laws just quoted, but also by an explicit ruling in this matter: “Command the people of Israel that they put out of the camp every leper, and everyone having a discharge, and everyone that is unclean through contact with the dead” (Num 5:2–3). The impurity of a seminal emission is not mentioned here. In contrast to the laws of the Priestly code, which deal with the “camp” in general, that is, the place where the Israelites dwelled in the wilderness, the law in Deuteronomy refers to the war camp, and only to one aspect of that law: nocturnal emissions. This narrowing of focus is understandable in its context, for it is unlikely that women would have been present in a war camp. A comparison between Deut 23:10–12 and Lev 15:16–17 shows that, on the one hand, the law in Deuteronomy is stricter than that of the Priestly code, because it requires the removal from the camp of the man who has experienced a nocturnal emission (Deut 23:11). On the other hand, with respect to the level of impurity and the manner of removing it, the two laws are equal: “But when evening comes on, he shall bathe himself in water, and when the sun is down, he may come within the camp.” The difference between the two laws therefore derives not from a different conception of the pollution caused by a seminal emission but rather from the special status of a war camp in Deuteronomy, for stricter laws of purity apply to it, “because the Lord your God walks in the midst of your camp. . . . Therefore your camp must be holy” (Deut 23:15). The comparison between the biblical laws in these two contexts and the laws of the Temple Scroll immediately shows both the similarity between them and their differences. They both share the belief that the camp was holy, the view that a seminal emission causes impurity, and the instruction that the means of purification is through bathing. However, along with the shared principles there is a difference in many details, and these cannot be viewed as independent elements unconnected with one another. Rather they must be seen as concrete expressions of a different fundamental outlook. The principle underlying all of these changes in detail is a change in the status of seminal emission as a source of pollution. The Temple Scroll takes a more intense view of this kind of impurity, and this increased severity is expressed in all three aspects by which the gravity of the impurity can be evaluated: the duration, the process of purification, and the position of the affected person in respect to the camp. In the biblical laws, the impurity of a seminal emission lasts “until evening,” the act of purification is a single immersion, and the impure person re-

spread is 6 points short

The Prohibition of the Habitation of Women

275

mains in the camp. With respect to the last of these clauses, there is a special provision relating to a war camp, stating that a man who has experienced a nocturnal emission is removed from it until the evening. According to the laws of the Temple Scroll, the increased severity of the pollution resulting from a seminal emission with respect to the Temple city is expressed in all the aforementioned aspects: a. The duration of the impurity is three days, whether a man has experienced a nocturnal emission or whether he has had sexual relations with a woman: “If a man has a nocturnal emission, he shall not enter into/any part of the temple until [he will com]plete three days” (11QT a 45:7–8); “If a man lies with his wife and has an emission of semen, he shall not come into any part of the city of the temple 25 . . . for three days” (45:11–12). Return to the Temple city is only possible after the sun has set on the third day. b. The process of purification demands not a single immersion but rather two, and it also demands a double laundering of the clothes: “He shall wash his clothes and bathe/on the first day, and on the third day he shall wash his clothes [and bathe]” (45:8–9). c. The person polluted by a seminal emission is entirely removed from the Temple city: “You shall make three places to the east of the city . . . into which shall come the lepers and the people who have a discharge and the men who have had a (nocturnal) emission” (46:16). Comparison of this demand to Num 5:2 immediately clarifies both the similarity and the difference: according to the biblical text, Moses is commanded to remove three types of polluted individuals from the camp: the leprous, people with a 25. There is a difference in wording between these two laws which, at least at the outset, might be interpreted as having legal consequences. A person who has had a nocturnal emission is forbidden to enter “any part of the temple,” whereas a man who has lain with his wife may not enter “any part of the city of the temple.” If we analyze these formulations precisely, assuming that “the city of the temple” and “the temple” are two discrete areas, the sanctity of the former being less than that of the latter, it would appear that the consequences of a man’s lying with his wife are more severe than those of a nocturnal emission: a man who had lain with his wife would not be permitted to enter “the city of the temple,” and, a fortiori, the temple itself, whereas the man who had had a nocturnal emission would be forbidden to enter “the temple” but nevertheless permitted to enter the “city of the temple.” However, these precise distinctions are nullified by the explicit injunction in the Scroll to remove any man who had experienced a nocturnal emission from the Temple city (11QT a 46:6). One way of resolving this difficulty is to assume that the text is corrupt at line 45:7 and that it ought to read “city of the Temple” everywhere. However, Yadin has already refuted this suggestion in the light of the sequel. Yadin himself suggested interpreting the expression “any part of the temple” as an expression of special severity relating to means of purification (TS, 1:287), whereas Milgrom believes that the difference in wording derives from different perspectives, whether the pollution took place in the city or outside it ( J. Milgrom, “ ‘Sabbath’ and ‘Temple City’ in the Temple Scroll,” BASOR 232 [1978] 27; idem, “Studies in the Temple Scroll,” JBL 97 [1978] 517–18). In contrast, Levine believes that the two terms are synonymous, expressing a single concept, a suggestion with far-reaching consequences regarding the meaning of “Temple city” (“Temple Scroll,” 14). See also p. 287 below.

276

Chapter 13

discharge, and those rendered impure by contact with a corpse. The Temple Scroll also mentions three types of impurities that must be removed from the Temple city. But in place of those rendered impure by contact with a corpse, it mentions a man who has experienced a nocturnal emission. This change does not mean that those rendered impure by contact with a corpse are permitted to enter the Temple city; an explicit prohibition in this regard is mentioned elsewhere: “Anyone unclean through contact with the d[ead] shall not enter it (the city) until he cleanses himself” (11QT a 45:17). There is, however, a difference between the two groups deriving from a distinction we find in the Scroll but not in the Bible. Whereas the biblical text states a single general rule of “putting out of the camp,” without discussing where those excluded from the camp must dwell, the author of the Temple Scroll creates two different categories. The more severe of the two involves not only removal of the impure from the city but also their confinement in special places (48:14–17), and, regarding the Temple city, the Scroll discusses their locations in detail (46:16–18). The less severe of the two categories removes the impure person from various areas but does not require him to be confined. The Scroll interprets “putting out” (Num 5:2) as quarantine, 26 replacing the category of those rendered impure by contact with a corpse with that of those who have experienced a nocturnal emission. The Scroll compares the impurity of the former to that of the blind, who were also forbidden to enter the Temple city but whose condition did not demand confinement (11QT a 45:12–13). Furthermore, according to the Temple Scroll, the sentence of removal from the city in instances of severe impurity applies not only to the Temple city but also to Israelite cities in general. That is to say, on the one hand there is an analogy between the Israelite camp in the desert and every Israelite city, not only to the Temple city; 27 and, on the other hand, the list of the impure is slightly different both from that stipulated by the Pentateuch regarding the camp, and also from that stipulated by the Scroll regarding the Temple city: “In every city you shall allot places for those afflicted/with leprosy or with plague or with scab, who may not enter your cities and defile them, and also those who have a discharge, and for women during their menstrual uncleanness and after giving birth” (48:14–15). Regarding removal from the camp, interpreted as quarantine, there is, then, a parallel between the Israelite camp in the wilderness and any Israelite city; however, that parallel only applies to two kinds of impurity: the kind that derives from various types of skin dis26. This interpretation of the removal from the camp might have been inferred from the story of Miriam in Numbers 12; see vv. 14–15: “ ‘Let her be shut up outside the camp seven days, and after that she may be brought in again.’ So Miriam was shut up outside the camp seven days.” Both Num 5:2 and Lev 13:46 use different wording. 27. Yadin noted this trait of the Scroll but did not draw any conclusions from it. See, e.g., “in order to make the commands of the ‘camp’ apply to the populated cities” (TS, 1:325), and “applying the laws of the camp to the Temple, the Temple city and the cities” (ibid., 279).

The Prohibition of the Habitation of Women

277

ease and the kind that attaches to a person having a discharge. The Scroll lowered the level of impurity caused by a corpse. With regard to the Temple city, it removes from the city those rendered impure by contact with a corpse but does not confine them; regarding all Israelite cities, it does not demand their removal at all. 28 In contrast, the Scroll intensified the severity of the impurity derived from sexual organs. It orders the removal of menstruating women and those who have just given birth from “every city” and that they be quarantined; 29 and it also requires the removal of anyone who has been polluted by a seminal emission from the Temple city, and the placement of a man who has experienced a nocturnal emission in confinement similar to that of a leper. All of these are strictures that are not mentioned in the Bible. 30 The conclusion emerging from our discussion thus far is that the laws under consideration here concerning the Temple city do indeed have roots in the Torah, but the principles posited by Yadin cannot explain the relation between them. The rule of “applying the laws of the camp to the Temple city” is insufficient and inexact because, on the one hand, we have found that the “laws of the camp” apply not only to the Temple city but also to other cities, and, on the other hand, the Scroll diverges from the “laws of the camp” both in greater leniency and in greater severity. As for the rule regarding the extension of the demand of purification from the priests to the entire people, it is not relevant in this case; the Pentateuch does not contain restrictions applicable only to priests except with respect to the eating of consecrated foods, and this area remains a matter for the priests alone.

28. Regarding the laws of the impurity of the dead in the Temple Scroll and in comparison to rabbinic Halakah, see Schiffman, “Impurity of the Dead.” 29. As we have seen above, Yadin argues that this required the allocation of a special place to those women, as with other types of impure people and as in other cities. From the absence of such an instruction Yadin deduces, as noted, the prohibition against habitation (see pp. 271– 72 above), but on this matter two comments must be made. From the textual point of view, this “lacuna” is not certain. The first lines of col. 47 are damaged, and Yadin correctly argued that “the first few lines probably continued the discussion of places for the unclean and other laws concerning the purity of the Temple city” (TS, 2:201). In that spirit Yadin also reconstructed the first word at the top of col. 47 as hlyl, “night,” since the last word on col. 46 is hrqm, “emission.” It is therefore possible that this subject is included in the missing lines. Even if this is not the case, Yadin’s conclusion regarding habitation is an argument ex silentio based on the earlier assumption that the Temple city is Jerusalem. The detailed reference to “three places to the east of the city” (46:17) has a purpose of its own: to locate the places of quarantine far from the Temple and to include among those who must be confined there men who have had a nocturnal emission. This does not imply, however, that the subject was covered in its entirety, or that Jerusalem must be excluded from the category of “any city.” The removal of menstruating and postpartum women from the Temple city is thus self-evident. 30. See Lev 12:2–8 for the impurity of childbirth; Lev 15:19–24 regarding the impurity of menstruation. For a discussion of these texts, see the recent work of T. Z. Meacham, Mishnah Tractate Niddah with Introduction (Ph.D. diss., Hebrew University, Jerusalem, 1989) 172–87 [Hebrew].

278

Chapter 13

It seems that what is common both to the laws of the Temple city and also to the laws of the Pentateuch are the general principles of the sanctity of the Temple and the camp, and the conception of the “source” as the cause of pollution. Notwithstanding these general principles, there are many differences between them, some of which derive from a general strictness in matters of purity 31 and others of which derive from a different view of the impurity of a seminal emission, and, correspondingly, all the types of pollution deriving from sexual organs. It can be said in general that the Pentateuch distinguishes between the less serious form of impurity, which is caused by regular functions, and the severe impurity deriving from an irregular condition of venereal secretions. The Pentateuch made the impurity of a discharge equal to that of leprosy, but it did not take such a severe view of the menstrual flow, postpartum bleeding, and the impurity of a seminal emission. The Scroll, by contrast, intensifies significantly the conception of the impurity of regular bodily functions, and this is expressed with respect to menstruation, childbirth, and seminal emission. This intensification can be seen on two levels: the first in relation to the secular realm, and the second in connection with the holy. 32 In the secular domain the Temple Scroll refers only to the impurity of menstruation and childbirth, and, in contrast to the Pentateuch, it requires that women who are menstruating or who have given birth must be removed from the camp and quarantined. Shall we conclude from this that in the secular domain, in “every city,” no change took place in the view of the impurity of a seminal emission, and that the detailed laws of Lev 15:16–18 also apply here? We have seen in relation to “every city,” that the Scroll did not require everyone who was polluted by a seminal emission to be removed from the city and quarantined. But was it content with limiting the duration of the state of impurity to only one day and with effecting purification by means of a single immersion? For the moment, the answers to these questions can be given only ex silentio. In contrast, the Scroll greatly intensified the impurity of the seminal emission with respect to the realm of the holy, and, as we have seen, it ordered that a man who has experienced a nocturnal emission must be removed from the Temple city and quarantined, and also that a man who has lain with a woman should be prevented from entering the Temple city. What are the sources of this view? The essential contradiction between “sanctity” and sexual relations can also be inferred from the Bible, and the 31. Such as “when the sun is down” rather than “when evening comes on”; a double laundering and not merely bathing; and others. See Milgrom, “Scriptural Foundations,” 90–95; Schiffman, “Impurity of the Dead,” 148. 32. A different attitude toward these two areas is expressed in the rules concerning menstrual impurity and those of nocturnal emission later as well, as demonstrated by Y. Dinary, “The Impurity Customs of the Menstruate Woman: Sources and Development,” Tarbiz 49 (1979–80) 302 [Hebrew]; idem, “The Profanation of the Holy by the Menstruant Woman and ‘Takanat Ezra,’ ” Teºudah 3 (1983) 17 [Hebrew].

spread is 3 points long

The Prohibition of the Habitation of Women

279

text that is commonly cited in this context is not legal but rather narrative: the description of the revelation on Mount Sinai in Exodus 19. God’s command to Moses is given in verses 11–12: “Go to the people and consecrate them today and tomorrow, and let them wash their garments, and be ready by the third day.” Moses’ words appear in verses 14–15: “So Moses went down from the mountain to the people, and consecrated the people; and they washed their garments. And he said to the people, ‘Be ready by the third day; do not go near a woman.’ ” Influenced by this text, scholars have concluded that the author of the Temple Scroll was comparing the Temple city to Mount Sinai. 33 Another matter concerning sanctity is mentioned in 1 Samuel 21, where partaking of the holy bread is permitted to nonpriests, “if only the young men have kept themselves from women” (1 Sam 21:5). David responds to this requirement by saying, “Of a truth women have been kept from us as always” (v. 6). These two texts illustrate the general idea of opposition between sanctity (the holiness of the holy place and of the shewbread) on the one hand, and sexual relations, on the other hand. This contrast is presented with respect not to the priests but to everyone in Israel. However, the Bible contains another text touching on this matter, similarly non-legal in nature, explicitly relating to the prohibition against the habitation of women. This text has indeed been mentioned in connection with the issues under discussion, but it has not received the detailed discussion that it merits, nor did Yadin mention it at all. The situation described in this text is parallel with the laws that have been discussed until now, and it is predicated upon the same halakic assumptions touching upon our context. I refer to 2 Chr 8:11, 34 which we shall now examine and interpret.

III 2 Chr 8:11 reads: “Solomon brought Pharaoh’s daughter up from the city of David to the house which he had built for her, for he said, ‘My wife shall not live in the house of David king of Israel, for the places to which 33. Yadin expresses this analogy cautiously and sees “a kind of parallel” between Mount Sinai and the Temple Mount: “We are thus presented with a kind of parallel between the Temple Mount—‘any part of the Temple’—and Mount Sinai. Hence, the laws applying to Mount Sinai also apply to the Temple” (TS, 1:288). In contrast, Milgrom expands greatly on the matter: “Not only the mountain but also the camp, situated in its proximity, is endowed with a sacred status. Once the tabernacle is built it virtually becomes a portable Sinai, endowing the wilderness camp with Sinaitic sanctity” (“Sabbath and Temple City,” 513); see also “Scriptural Foundations,” 89. The details of the comparison do not justify the sweeping generalizations made by Milgrom. 34. This reference was first presented by Ginzberg (see n. 8 above), in his discussion of the concept “Temple city” in the Damascus Covenant, and, following him, by Levine, “Temple Scroll,” 16. For a more extended discussion of this text, see Shaye J. D. Cohen, “Solomon and the Daughter of Pharaoh: Intermarriage, Conversion, and the Impurity of Women,” JANES 16– 17 (1984–85; Bickerman Memorial Volume) 32–37.

280

Chapter 13

the ark of the Lord has come are holy.’ ” This verse is dependent upon the parallel text in 1 Kgs 9:24 in its context, subject matter, and wording. It appears between two matters which are unconnected: the list of the “chief officers of King Solomon” (2 Chr 8:10; see 1 Kgs 9:23) and information about the sacrifices brought by Solomon in the Temple (2 Chr 8:12–16 and see 1 Kgs 9:25). In that sense it reflects the character of 1 Kings 9 as a collection of independent passages dealing with various aspects of Solomon’s activities. The subject of Solomon’s marriage to the daughter of Pharaoh is important to the historiographer of Kings; he repeats it five times in the history of Solomon, and its purpose is apparently to demonstrate and emphasize Solomon’s exceptional greatness. 35 Solomon’s marriage is the first subject in the “Acts of Solomon” that immediately follow the statement, “So the kingdom was established in the hand of Solomon” (1 Kgs 2:46b): “Solomon made a marriage with Pharaoh king of Egypt; he took Pharaoh’s daughter” (3:1). The palace of Pharaoh’s daughter is mentioned again in 7:8, and Solomon’s marriage with Pharaoh’s daughter is recounted in 9:16 in connection with the fortifications of Gezer. The matter is mentioned again in 9:24, the verse with which we are dealing here, as a conclusion of the matter that had begun in 3:1. All of these verses are connected in one way or another with Solomon’s building projects. In contrast, in 11:1 Solomon’s marriage is cited pejoratively, in connection with his marriage to many Gentile women. 36 In Chronicles there is a clear tendency to restrict the treatment of this subject. The Chronicler refrains from any mention of Pharaoh’s daughter except in the verse we are discussing here. However, the Chronicler expands this verse beyond what he found in his sources, using it as an opportunity to convey an important message to his readers. 2 Chr 8:11 consists of two parts. The first presents the facts and quotes 1 Kgs 9:24 with slight changes. Compare: Kings: But Pharaoh’s daughter went up from the city of David to her own house which Solomon had built for her. Chronicles: Solomon brought Pharaoh’s daughter up from the city of David to the house which he had built for her. The differences between these parallel texts are linguistic. Central among them is the change in the subject of the sentence: in Kings “Pharaoh’s daughter went up” (htl[), but in Chronicles “Solomon brought . . . up” 35. See mainly A. Malamat in a series of studies, and, in conclusion, “The Kingdom of David and Solomon and Its Relations with Egypt: A Power at Its Inception,” in Israel in Biblical Times ( Jerusalem, 1983) 182–88 [Hebrew]; English version: History of Biblical Israel (Leiden, 2001) 199–204. 36. On the sources of these texts and the relations among them see Cohen, “Solomon and the Daughter of Pharaoh,” 27–30.

spread is 3 points long

The Prohibition of the Habitation of Women

281

(hl[h). 37 Indeed, as was his practice with parallel texts, the Chronicler clearly made an effort to preserve the look of the verse, and, despite the change in syntax, in the Hebrew original the elements of the parallel sentences are in the same order. “Pharaoh’s daughter” changes from the subject to the direct object, the conjugation of the verb is changed from the simple active (Qal) to the causative active (Hiphil), and “but” (˚a) becomes the direct object particle (ta). The main difference between the two texts is, however, the addition in Chronicles of a second part: an explanatory clause presented as a direct quotation of Solomon, “for he said,” 38 and formulated as a series of three phrases, each of which explains the one before it. The reason for transferring Pharaoh’s daughter is: “my wife shall not live in the house of David,” and this argument is explained by two causal phrases: “for [they] are holy” and “to which the ark of the Lord has come.” 39 With this complex structure of explanation, the Chronicler seeks to answer the question of why Solomon built a special mansion for the daughter of Pharaoh. The text in Kings does not address this question, but one can infer from the context that the allocation of a separate palace expresses the special status of that wife among all of Solomon’s wives, and this may have been prescribed in an agreement between Solomon and Pharaoh. The Chronicler addresses this issue directly and offers his own answer, which is related to our main topic: Pharaoh’s daughter’s first place of residence was not suitable because the place was “holy,” and she was not permitted to live there. It should be emphasized that the prohibition against her habitation was not connected to her identity as the daughter of Pharaoh, that is to say, a Gentile, 40 but rather to her being a woman, and, more precisely, a married woman, “my wife.” 41 The text in Chronicles, therefore, deals explicitly with 37. Another linguistic change is the substitution of “to her house” (htyb la) by “to the house” (tybl). On this matter see Y. Thorion, “Neue Bemerkungen über die Sprache der Qumran-Literatur,” RQ 11 (1983) 579–80. 38. This is a common method employed in biblical narrative to present the considerations underlying certain actions; see 2 Chr 23:14 = 2 Kgs 11:15; 1 Chr 23:26; 2 Chr 22:9, 26:23. What is peculiar to Chronicles is that in most (perhaps all) of these cases, the consideration underlying the action has a legal basis. This is certainly true of 1 Chr 23:26; 2 Chr 23:13, 26:23. As for the passage under consideration, see pp. 284–85 below. 39. For similar structures in Chronicles see, e.g., 2 Chr 14:5; 28:19, 23; and others. Such a long series of causal clauses is not unique to Chronicles (see, e.g., Deut 14:25), but it stands out because of the peculiar use of tenses. 40. Since the other contexts in which Pharaoh’s daughter is mentioned in Kings and in which she is explicitly described as the daughter of the Pharaoh of Egypt are absent in Chronicles, it is in fact impossible to know how the Chronicler understood her identity. The name “Bithiah, the daughter of Pharaoh” appears in 1 Chr 4:18 as the name of a Judahite woman. On the function of this factor in determining the image and fate of Solomon in midrashic exegesis, see Cohen, “Solomon and the Daughter of Pharaoh,” 30–32. 41. The preposition indicating the proprietary relationship between man and wife (in addition to the construct state and pronouns) is always a lamed, either one or double, as in ˚lAjqw hça . . . (Gen 28:2); hçal . . . ylA jq (Gen 34:4); hça wl htyh (2 Chr 21:6); hçal wl yhtw (Gen

282

Chapter 13

the prohibition against habitation, and in order to understand the position taken by the Chronicler on this subject, we should examine it in detail. A first point is the definition of the location. In the sources available to the Chronicler, the City of David is mentioned in a number of contexts, including those which relate directly to our discussion: the Ark of the Lord, on the one hand, and the daughter of Pharaoh, on the other. In all of the events in which the Ark is mentioned during the period of David and Solomon, its connection to the City of David is stated explicitly: “So David was not willing to take the ark of the Lord into the city of David” (2 Sam 6:10); “so David . . . brought up the ark of God . . . to the city of David” (6:12); “as the ark of the Lord came into the city of David” (6:16); “to bring the ark of the covenant of the Lord out of the city of David” (1 Kgs 8:1); and the parallel passages in 1 Chr 13:13, 15:29; 2 Chr 5:2. 42 Notice of Pharaoh’s daughter’s residence in the City of David is also repeated: “He took Pharaoh’s daughter, and brought her into the city of David” (1 Kgs 3:1); “but Pharaoh’s daughter went up from the city of David” (9:24). The City of David is also mentioned in other contexts in Chronicles, an examination of which shows that this term has two meanings. The first is broad, the second narrower. The broad meaning is intended in the description of the conquest of Jerusalem, and in all the passages where the tombs of the kings of the House of David are mentioned, usually phrased as, “and they buried him in the city of David.” Here Chronicles depends on sources in Samuel and Kings. 43 Similarly, this is the meaning of the term in verses referring to the various construction projects undertaken during the reigns of Hezekiah and Manasseh, kings of Judah, of which we do not possess the sources: “and he strengthened the Millo in the city of David” (2 Chr 32:5); “afterwards he built an outer wall for the city of David west of Gihon” (33:14). However, it seems that precisely in the two contexts that relate to our topic, the term “City of David” has a narrower meaning. In 2 Chr 8:11, we read: “Solomon brought Pharaoh’s daughter up from the city of David. . . . ‘My wife shall not live in the house of David king of Israel.’ ” That is to say, 24:67); etc. Nevertheless the phrase used in 2 Chr 8:11, yl hça (njpsv: “a wife of mine”) is unique; it seems to convey a special variety of meaning, something like “a woman who is my wife.” 42. The rewriting of 2 Sam 6:12 in 1 Chr 16:25 removes the reference to the City of David in that text; contrastingly, the City of David is mentioned in 1 Chr 15:1, which has no parallel in 2 Samuel. See p. 283 below. 43. Both the description of the conquest of Jerusalem and the phrase “and they buried him in the city of David” are taken from the sources with changes; compare 1 Chr 11:4–8 to 2 Sam 5:6–9 and 2 Chr 9:31; 12:16; 13:23; 16:14; 21:1, 20; 24:25; 27:9 with their parallels in 1 Kgs 11:4; 14:31; 15:8, 28; 22:51; 2 Kgs 8:24; 9:28; 15:38). Burial in the City of David is mentioned in Chronicles in relation to Jehoiada the Priest (2 Chr 24:16) with no source in Kings, and it is removed from Chronicles with relation to David himself (1 Kgs 2:10 compared with 1 Chr 29:28) and also to the kings Ahaziah, Amaziah, Uzziah, and Ahaz (compare 2 Chr 22:9, 25:28, 26:23, 28:27 with 2 Kgs 9:28, 14:20, 15:7, 16:20). Hence, borrowing from the sources is purposeful and controlled.

The Prohibition of the Habitation of Women

283

Pharaoh’s daughter does not live in the “City of David” in the broad sense, but rather in the more specific sense: “the house of David king of Israel.” This meaning of the term also applies to the context of the Ark of the Lord. According to the description in Samuel and Kings, it is clear that the Ark was not placed in a building (tyb) but rather in a tent (lha): “and set it in its place, inside the tent that David had pitched for it” (2 Sam 6:17; also 7:2; 1 Kgs 8:4). However, the precise location of the tent within the broad area of the City of David is not indicated. The Chronicler added a verse to the information he had drawn from Samuel and Kings: “David built houses for himself in the city of David; and he prepared a place for the ark of God, and pitched a tent for it” (1 Chr 15:1). This verse supplements several aspects of the story: it refers specifically to pitching the tent, it specifies that this was done prior to bringing the Ark, and it expresses the logical order of events of David’s preparations. Likewise, it explicitly links the “houses” that David built for himself to the “tent” that was pitched for the Ark. In the linguistic context of Chronicles, the plural form of “houses” should be understood in the collective sense, meaning, a structure with many parts. 44 This description is not found in Samuel, though it is a fitting proposition to the contrast later described by David: “Behold, I dwell in a house of cedar, but the ark of the covenant of the Lord is under a tent” (1 Chr 17:1, and the parallel in 2 Sam 7:2). It also fits in well with the other details of the story. The location of the Ark in the “House of David” after being brought up the second time is parallel to its location after it was first brought up “to the house of Obed-edom the Gittite” (2 Sam 6:10, 11, 12, and, with slight changes, 1 Chr 13:13, 14), and it provides a proper background for the famous scene with Saul’s daughter Michal: “As the ark of the Lord came into the city of David, Michal the daughter of Saul looked out of the window . . .” (2 Sam 6:16). Saul’s daughter sees the procession passing right past her house. 45 In these contexts the Chronicler understood the term “City of David” as referring to the area of King David’s palace, including all of its annexes, and this interpretation forced him to conclude that the Ark of the Lord and the daughter of Pharaoh dwell together—an impossible situation demanding a solution. A second point in the Chronicler’s addition to 1 Kgs 9:24 is his explanation of the cause: “for the places . . . are holy” 46 “to which the ark of the 44. See 1 Chr 29:4: “for overlaying the walls of the houses” (µytb, rsv: “house”) and also 2 Chr 34:11: “beams for the buildings (µytbh) which the kings of Judah had let go to ruin.” In both cases the word µytb (rsv: “house, buildings”) refers to the Temple itself. On the use of the plural as a collective in Chronicles, see A. Kropat, Die Syntax des Autors der Chronik (BZAW 16; Giessen, 1909) 9–10. 45. The Peshi†ta to 2 Sam 6:16 does indeed interpret the text in this spirit when it writes “in David’s house” instead of “he came to the city of David” as in the Masoretic text. 46. The pronoun hmh, “they” replaces the phrase “the house of David, king of Israel,” and, in referring to the “house of David,” use of the plural seems at first surprising. Perles suggested that the form hmh is a mistaken expansion of an abbreviation. In his opinion the original version

284

Chapter 13

Lord has come.” This is both a description of the situation (“the house of David” is “holy”) and a suggestion regarding the source of this holiness: “the ark of the Lord has come.” Indeed, the tent where the Ark stood served as a sanctuary during the time of David and Solomon. The Book of Kings indicates that sacrifices were actually brought there (1 Kgs 3:15: “[He] stood before the ark of the covenant of the Lord and offered up burnt offerings and peace offerings”), while, according to Chronicles, a ritual including song and instrumental music was conducted there in all of its fullness and pomp. 47 The explanation in Chronicles in itself may be interpreted as a general theological and cultic argument, based on a contrast in principle between “woman” and “holy,” as in Exod 19:15 and 1 Sam 21:5. 48 However, in light of the testimony of the Temple Scroll, this explanation appears differently. The combination of the two elements, that is, the definition of a place as “holy” and the suggestion of the source of its sanctity, characterizes all of the laws governing purity and impurity in the Temple Scroll. It is the standard explanation for the prohibitions included in them, 49 such as: “The city/of the Temple [lit., Sanctuary] where I will cause my name to dwell” (11QT a 45:11–12); “the city in which I dwell/for I, the Lord, dwell among the children of Israel” (45:13–14); “be within my Temple [lit., Sanctuary] forever and ever, all the days that I dwell among them” (46:3–4); “my Temple [lit., Sanctuary]/for I dwell among them” (46:11–12) and others, 50 and it seems that the explanation presented in Chronicles must also be understood in the context of these concepts. This is not a general theological consideration, but rather a specific legal issue. 51 The explanation of the Chronicler is a halakic exegesis that moves in two directions. On the one hand, it seeks to cope with the problems that arise from the ancient source and to solve them by means of appropriate exegesis; and, on the other was µwqmh, “the place,” abbreviated as mh and then mistakenly expanded into hmh; later, the original “to it” was replaced by “to them”; F. Perles, “Neue Analekten zur Textkritik des Alten Testament,” Mitteilungen der Gesellschaft für jüdische Volkskunde (1917) 134–35. This conjecture was accepted and followed by the rsv, which writes “for the places . . . are holy”; see Cohen, “Solomon and the Daughter of Pharaoh,” 32–33. The conjecture, however, is far from likely. The phrase “for they are holy” (hmh çdq yk) is found elsewhere in Chronicles (2 Chr 23:6), and reference to the House of David in the plural is attested in 1 Chr 15:1 (see p. 283 above, with n. 44). 47. See S. Japhet, The Ideology of the Book of Chronicles and Its Place in Biblical Thought (Frankfurt, 1989) 226–28. 48. See, e.g., E. L. Curtis and A. A. Madsen, The Books of Chronicles (ICC; Edinburgh, 1910) 353; W. Rudolph, Chronikbücher (Tübingen, 1955) 220–21. 49. See Yadin, TS, 1:278–79. 50. Also 11QT a 47:3–4, 10–11, 18, and elsewhere. 51. Cohen comes close to this view in attributing “this kind of religiosity” to the Chronicler; “Solomon and the Daughter of Pharaoh,” 36. After presenting as an example various halakic rules, he says: “2 Chr 8:11 anticipates these rulings” (p. 37). It seems that one ought to be more precise in this matter; the Chronicler did not merely “anticipate” these rulings, but he was actually following them.

The Prohibition of the Habitation of Women

285

hand, it presents the current legal practice as the force that operated in antiquity. A historical event which is documented in the sources is explained by means of these halakic considerations. What is the law reflected in Chronicles? We have seen that the author explicitly refers to the prohibition against the habitation of women in the area of the Sanctuary, defined, on the one hand, as the “city of David,” and, on the other hand, as the “house of David, king of Israel.” Further, we have seen that both according to the definition of the place and also according to the narrative background, this is the place where the Ark of the Lord stands. Since the Sanctuary itself, the place to which the Ark was brought, is a tent, the “House of David” appears as a sacred compound: in its center stands the tent, within it is the Ark, and around it is the royal palace and the “houses” that the king built, all of which are included in the sanctified compound. Clearly Pharaoh’s daughter does not live in the Sanctuary itself, but rather in the compound around it, though, since the presence of the Ark radiates its sanctity throughout the entire compound, the dwelling of Pharaoh’s daughter in one of its parts is not permissible. Thus we find here a conception of sanctity similar to that of the Tabernacle and the Temple and their courts. The focus of holiness in the Sanctuary extends from the center outward and radiates its sanctity upon everything surrounding it. The similarity between the Temple and the Tabernacle receives additional force through the repeated emphasis in Chronicles, that the entire house built by Solomon is none other than “a house of rest for the ark of the covenant of the Lord” (1 Chr 28:2; see also 22:19). That is to say, it replaces the tent that stood within the bounds of the House of David. Moreover, according to the narrative of Chronicles, which provides the basis for 2 Chr 8:11, the transfer of Pharaoh’s daughter to the City of David would seem to have taken place after the construction of the Temple, and after the Ark, the tent, and the holy vessels were transferred to their new location in the Temple (l Kgs 8:1–7 = 2 Chr 5:2–8). 52 That is to say, the sanctity of the holy place does not depend on the actual presence of the Ark, but rather on the fact that the Ark stood there at one time. From the moment that sanctity was accorded to a holy place, it remains valid forever. It seems that in this, too, the Chronicler expresses a conception of holiness of his own time. The sanctity of the Temple is indicated in the Temple Scroll not by the presence of the Ark, but rather through another system of concepts, whether these be taken from Deuteronomic phraseology, as in “to have his name dwell there,” or in the appellation “Temple (Sanctuary),” terms which are very appropriate for a period in which the Ark no longer exists. Nevertheless, the sanctity derived from the source of holiness remains in force even when the Ark is no longer physically present. This applies both to the 52. See also Cohen, “Solomon and the Daughter of Pharaoh,” 33–34.

286

Chapter 13

City of David and to the Second Temple—and to everything that comes afterwards. The conception of the holy as expressed in Chronicles can be viewed as analogous not only to the Temple but also to the war camp. We have seen above that, according to the laws of Deuteronomy, a war camp must have particular rules of purity because of its specific state of sanctity. According to the wording in Deuteronomy, the reason for this sanctity is “because the Lord your God walks in the midst of your camp” (Deut 23:15); in concrete terms, this means that the Ark of the Lord is present among the warriors 53—exactly as the Ark of the Lord is present in the extended compound of the House of David. According to the law of Deuteronomy, the sanctity of the war camp demands that those who have been polluted by a seminal emission must be removed from the camp, and in this respect a war camp is distinguished from the secular realm, which also includes the camp of the Israelites in the wilderness. A demand for the purity of the war camp is also voiced in another source: the Scroll of the War of the Sons of Light against the Sons of Darkness. There we find, on the one hand, an explicit prohibition against the entry of women and children into the war camp (1QM 7:3–4) and, on the other hand, a prohibition against a man who has had a nocturnal emission from going forth to war (7:6). However, the analogy between the law reflected in Chronicles and the texts concerning the war camp is not exact in all its aspects, for Chronicles speaks specifically about “habitation,” that is to say, permanent dwelling, whereas the War Scroll refers to a temporary situation—the presence of women in the war camp—and we have already seen that this prohibition is related by the Temple Scroll to the presence of women in the Temple, in that they were forbidden to enter the middle court. Nevertheless, it seems that all of these matters combine into a single system of legal precepts and concepts. The comparison between Chronicles and the texts mentioned in the course of our discussion demands caution. Chronicles does not present the law itself, but rather an example of its application, and, in the light of the differences in context and terminology, Chronicles might reflect a legal practice different in its details from that which is formulated in the War Scroll, the Damascus Covenant, and the Temple Scroll. However, these texts testify to the importance of “the impurity of sexuality” in the thought of that period and in its way of life. Here we find an expression of legal thinking meant to define clearly the effect of sexual impurity and the restrictions it necessitates. The focus of these restrictions is the relation between the 53. This is the prevalent view of the Pentateuch narrative. See, e.g., Num 14:42–44: “Do not go up . . . for the Lord is not among you. . . . Neither the ark of the covenant of the Lord, nor Moses, departed out of the camp.” See also Num 10:35, 1 Sam 4:3–11, 2 Sam 7:6. The Priestly text in Num 31:6 is already less clear because it speaks in general about “the vessels of the sanctuary and the trumpets for the alarm.”

The Prohibition of the Habitation of Women

287

impurity of sexuality and the holy, and this necessitates a clear definition of the confines of the holy and their gradations. Common to all of these texts is that they attribute greater force and severity to sexual impurity, particularly in its regular manifestations, opposing this aspect of human existence as to the realm of the sacred.

IV To conclude this discussion, it is fitting to return to the starting point and to sum up with two comments. We have seen above that Yadin interpreted the term “Temple city” to refer to the entire city of Jerusalem, an interpretation with far-reaching consequences for understanding the Scroll, its character, and its background. Not only are the laws of purity and impurity in the Scroll generally more severe than those in the Pentateuch, but also their application to the entire city of Jerusalem makes their demands unrealistic, polemical, and sectarian, expressing an ideology so radical that it must be viewed as utopian. However, the law itself does not support such a view. Schiffman has already noted: “the laws concerning the impurity of the dead are devoid of any particular characteristics that would be associated with sectarian life.” 54 This is also true of the laws governing the impurity of a seminal emission, which in themselves do not have a sectarian cast. Hence it follows that Yadin’s conclusion regarding this matter is virtually derived from a circular argument: these laws of purity and impurity may be identified as sectarian only if we begin with that assumption, or if we identify the “Temple city” with all of Jerusalem. However, it seems that in this legal context one must see “Temple city” as a more precise term, referring to a well-defined area, all of which is sanctified. This area is different from the “Temple” in the narrow sense of the Temple building, but it could be synonymous with the Temple in the larger sense, i.e., the broad but well-defined Temple compound, including the buildings, courts, and walls. There is thus a clear analogy between the City of David in 2 Chr 8:11 and the Temple city of the scroll: a sanctified compound with the Temple in its center. 55 The history of Halakah concerning the impurity of menstruation is discussed by Dinary in two complementary studies, with no direct reference to the laws of the Temple Scroll. 56 Dinary noted the tendency towards casting out the menstruating woman, both in the secular realm and also in that of the holy, “to the point of absolute social segregation,” and he has compared this to the attitude towards a man who had a nocturnal emission, as shown in the “Ordinance of Ezra” and its successors. In contrast to rabbinic Halakah and the central tradition of Jewish law over the generations, 54. Schiffman, “Impurity of the Dead,” 152. 55. See Ginzberg, Unknown Sect, 74; Levine, “Temple Scroll,” 14–17; see Schiffman, “Exclusion,” 317–18. 56. Dinary, “Impurity Customs.”

288

Chapter 13

a reiterated phenomenon appears in Jewish history, in various periods, diasporas, and streams of thought: a tendency to regard the impurity of menstruation and nocturnal emission with increased severity. Dinary proves that stringent practices governing this form of impurity have very ancient roots, going back to Temple times, though he calls them “folk customs that have no connection with the halakah.” 57 This claim must be reexamined in light of what has been discussed here. It seems that a severe attitude towards sexual impurity, in all its aspects, is a trait which appears repeatedly in the Jewish tradition. While the general tendency of rabbinic Halakah was to restrict the extent and applicability of this impurity—and the historical, theological, and legal reasons for this tendency must be examined further—it is doubtful whether we may view the opposite tendency in this matter as mere “folk custom.” This is a basic view within Judaism that found legal expression in various places, quite distant from each other. The connections among all of these expressions are not always evident, but they deserve to be traced and brought to light. Indications of the existence of legal practices of this kind can be found in the Bible itself; it is from the biblical period that the various branches of Jewish custom spread out, each with its own outlook and law. 57. Ibid., 310; see also “Profanation of the Holy,” 17: “these customs were apparently ancient even in the time of the Temple, but they have no halakic foundation.”

Chapter 14

The Distribution of the Priestly Gifts according to a Document of the Second Temple Period A The subject of the priestly gifts receives much attention in all the strata of biblical law and arises once and again in the literature of the Restoration period, in Nehemiah and Malachi. 1 The priestly gifts thus became one of the central issues in the discussion about the dating of the Pentateuch sources, the Priestly source in particular. 2 However, although the subject has been extensively discussed in the scholarly literature, it has been analyzed from too narrow a perspective, generally centering on the relationship of the Pentateuch sources to one another, and their dating. 2 Chr 31:4–19 contains interesting and detailed evidence about the priestly gifts, but this has drawn only limited attention, which has centered on one verse alone. This is the reference to the tithe of cattle and sheep (2 Chr 31:6), from which Wellhausen deduced that “the tithe of cattle” was first established in the Second Temple Period, and even that this was the source of Lev 27:32– 33, which refers to this tithe. 3 Other scholars also discussed the evidence of 2 Chronicles 31 in regard to the tithe of cattle. 4 The material in Chronicles seems to have been neglected both by scholars of the biblical period, who viewed it as late and tendentious, and by the scholars of Halakah, who concentrated their attention on the halakic literature itself and not on its biblical precedents. 5 1. The main sources are: Exod 22:28–29; 23:19; 34:19–20, 26; Leviticus 6–7; 23:15–20; 24:5–9; 27; Num 5:8; 6:19–20; 15:17–21; 18; 31; Deut 14:22–27; 15:19–20; 18:3–4; 26:1–11; Mal 3:8–12; Neh 10:33–40; 12:44–47; 13:10–13, 31. See Y. Kaufmann, History of the Religion of Israel ( Jerusalem, 1960) 1.143 [Heb.]. 2. See the discussions by Wellhausen and Kaufmann, which have become the classic literature on the topic: J. Wellhausen, Prolegomena to the History of Israel (Eng. trans.; Edinburgh, 1885) 152– 59; Kaufmann, History of Religion, 1.143–59. 3. Wellhausen, Prolegomena, 157. 4. See for example: R. de Vaux, Ancient Israel: Its Life and Institutions (Eng. trans.; London, 1961) 404–5. 5. See for example the division of topics in the Encyclopaedia Judaica. The entry “Tithe” is almost entirely devoted to biblical sources, and Chronicles is mentioned only in passing (Enc.Jud. 15.1158–62; the text in Chronicles, p. 1161), while the entry “Terumot and Maºaserot” (ibid., 1025– 27) deals primarily with Halakah, and mentions only 2 Chr 31:6.

289

290

Chapter 14

Only recently, with the accumulation of halakic material from the Dead Sea Scrolls, 6 has there been a certain shift in scholarly interest to the intermediary period, of which Chronicles is a major representative. It is no coincidence that 2 Chronicles 31 drew the attention of Y. Yadin in his discussion of priestly gifts in the Temple Scroll, 7 but he too touched only upon the similarities between the two works. Yadin’s attention naturally focused on the Temple Scroll rather than on 2 Chronicles 31, and he therefore dealt only with isolated details of the chapter. The Temple Scroll, and the Qumran Halakah in general, now allow us to view the halakic evidence in the book of Chronicles in a new light. 8 I hope that this article will be a contribution to this effort.

B 2 Chronicles 31 forms part of a larger unit devoted to the reform of Hezekiah (2 Chronicles 29–32). The chapter continues the description that begins with the purification of the temple (2 Chronicles 29) and proceeds with the celebration of Passover in Jerusalem (2 Chronicles 30) and with the purification of the land from all traces of idolatry (2 Chr 31:1). According to the Chronistic account, after these accomplishments, Hezekiah turned to establishing the daily service in the temple; he appointed the priests and Levites “division by division, each according to his service” (31:2), and he took appropriate steps to maintain the temple both by seeing to the provision of sacrifices for the regular offerings and by establishing the system of economic sustenance for the temple personnel. While the provision of sacrifices is described as the responsibility of the king himself (v. 3), he turns 6. See L. Schiffman, The Halakah at Qumran (Leiden, 1975); J. Zussman, “The History of Halakah and the Dead Sea Scrolls,” Tarbiz 59 (1990) 11–76 [Heb.]; and Zussman’s revision of the same article in The Scrolls of the Judean Desert: Forty Years of Research (ed. M. Broshi et al.; Jerusalem, 1992) 99–127 [Heb.]. 7. Y. Yadin, The Temple Scroll (3 vols; Jerusalem, 1983) 1.141, 154–56, 167–68, 264–66, et al. One of the points upon which Yadin expands is the tithe of honey, which is mentioned in 11QT a LX 9. In Yadin’s view, the author of the scroll prescribed this law on the basis of 2 Chr 31:5: “The deliberate inclusion of the honey in the discussion of the hunt suggests that the author knew he was setting forth a polemical law. He doubtless drew upon the verse: ‘as soon as the command was spread abroad . . .’ (2 Chr 31:5)” (pp. 167–68). Two observations on this issue are in order: The book of Chronicles does not refer directly to “the tithe of honey.” It does mention the “firstfruits of honey” and adds at the end of the verse, “and they brought in abundantly the tithe of everything.” While the “tithe of everything” may include tithe of honey, it is not mentioned specifically. The “firstfruits of honey” is alluded to in Lev 2:11–12 as well and is not the innovation of Chronicles. My second observation is that it seems more reasonable that Chronicles and the author of the Temple Scroll have a common halakic tradition than that Chronicles is the basis for the Temple Scroll’s innovation. 8. For another aspect of this topic, see: S. Japhet, “The Prohibition of the Habitation of Women: The Temple Scroll’s Attitude toward Sexual Impurity and Its Biblical Precedents,” JANESCU 22 (Comparative Studies in Honor of Yochanan Muffs; 1993) 69–87 [[in this volume, pp. 268–288]].

The Distribution of the Priestly Gifts

291

to the people for the financial support of the temple personnel: “to give the portion due to the priests and the Levites” (v. 4). The chapter then proceeds to describe in detail how Hezekiah’s command was carried out and the administrative steps that were taken (vv. 5–19). The bulk of 2 Chronicles 31 suits this theme in terms of its literary nature and style. It is a narrative description of the actions and statements of the personalities involved: Hezekiah, the people, the priests, and others. And he [the king] commanded the people to give the portion. . . . As soon as the command was spread abroad the people of Israel gave in abundance . . . they brought in abundantly of everything . . . when Hezekiah and the princes came and saw they blessed the Lord. . . . And Hezekiah questioned the priests and the Levites about the heaps. . . . Azariah the chief priest answered him. . . . (vv. 4ff.)

The narrative part ends with a concluding statement: by the appointment of Hezekiah the king and Azariah the chief officer of the house of God. (v. 13)

2 Chr 31:14 introduces a change in both the topic and style. The passage shifts from a narrative description to an administrative document that is built entirely of nominal clauses and that has no narrative or rhetorical elements. There is not one instance of speech, direct or indirect, 9 no narrative time of any kind, and the entire section contains only two declined verbs, both in subordinate clauses, which serve an adjectival function. 10 The topic also changes from collection or storage of the contributions to the apportionment of the contributions to the priests and Levites. 11 The document presents the mechanisms for the distribution of the priestly gifts and the rules governing the status of the recipients of the gifts and the logistics of distribution; it has its own heading (v. 14), which reveals a certain tension 9. This can be compared with the preceding narrative section, which has four references to indirect speech (v. 4: “and he commanded the people . . . to give the portion due to the priests and the Levites, that they might give themselves to the law of the Lord”; v. 8: “When Hezekiah and the princes came and saw the heaps, they blessed the Lord and his people Israel”; v. 9: “And Hezekiah questioned the priests . . .”; v. 11: “Then Hezekiah commanded them to prepare chambers . . .”; and a long citation of the statement of “Azariah the chief officer of the house of God” (v. 10). 10. In v. 18 in a causative clause: “for they were faithful in keeping themselves holy (wçdqty),” and in v. 19 in a relative clause: “men in the several cities who were designated (wbqn) by name.” 11. The different topics are expressed terminologically: that which follows the heading “to give the portion due to the priests and the Levites” (v. 4) deals with the ‘bringing’ of the gifts (vv. 5, 6, 10, 12), while the document deals with their ‘apportionment’: “to apportion (ttl) the contribution reserved for the Lord and the most holy offerings” (v. 14), “to distribute (ttl) the portions to their brethren” (v. 15), “to distribute (ttl) portions to every male among the priests” (v. 19). The term ‘to bring’ is not mentioned once in the document.

292

Chapter 14

with the facts related by the preceding narrative. 12 Verses 14–19 would, therefore, seem to represent an independent document that dealt generally with the apportionment of priestly gifts and that was integrated into the narrative in order to anchor the enactment of the administrative procedures to Hezekiah’s time, endowing them thereby with antiquity and authority. 13 The document in its present form is undoubtedly from the Second Temple Period, 14 not only in terms of language and style but also in content, for the order of service described is based on the system of priestly courses, which certainly originated in the Second Temple Period. 15 The conjecture can, of course, be made that the chapter reflects a historical memory of the origins of the various procedures relating to the temple and the clergy in the days of Hezekiah. 16 The centralization of the cult in Jerusalem and the abolition of the highplaces certainly entailed the necessity for financing the various groups of the cultic personnel. The laconic remark in 2 Kgs 23:9 provides a hint of reform in this sphere: “Nevertheless the priests of the high places came not up to the altar of the Lord in Jerusalem, but they did eat unleavened bread among their brethren.” However, the questions remain. Can one date the centralization of the cult—with all its ramifications—as early as Hezekiah’s reign? Can one link this reform to 12. The narrative mentions several types of priestly gifts: firstfruits and tithes in v. 5 (“the firstfruits of grain, wine, oil, honey. . . . they brought in abundantly the tithe of everything”); tithe in v. 6 (“the tithe of cattle and sheep”), the meaning of which is clear; and “the dedicated things that had been consecrated to the Lord,” which is not. Some scholars believe that the text is corrupt; see W. Rudolph, Chronikbücher (HAT; Tübingen, 1955) 304–5; and BHS. In the following verses, all the gifts are called ‘contributions’ (hmwrt, v. 10) or ‘contributions, tithes, and the dedicated things’ (µyçdq, rç[m, hmwrt, v. 12). All these gifts belong to the category called by the sages ‘light holy’ (µylq µyçdq) and tithe, which is the Levite gift (see M. Haran, “Priestly Gifts,” Encyclopedia Biblica 4.39, 43 [Heb.]). In contrast, the heading in v. 14 has three other terms: ‘free-will offerings to God’ (µyhlah twbdn), ‘contribution reserved for the Lord’ (òh tmwrt), and the ‘most holy offerings’ (µyçdqh yçdq). Without entering into detail (see below, pp. 301–2), I would mention that ‘the most holy offerings’, which are an integral part of the document, are gifts of another kind; they were not mentioned in the narrative and have no connection to it. 13. For the concept of the king as the source of cultic authority, see S. Japhet, The Ideology of the Book of Chronicles and Its Place in Biblical Thought (Frankfurt, 1989) 234–39, 438–44. 14. See also Licht’s statement: “The action attributed to Hezekiah apparently reflects the custom of the Second Temple period” ( J. Licht, A Commentary on the Book of Numbers [XI–XXI] [ Jerusalem, 1991] 129 [Heb.]); this view is accepted by most of the commentators. 15. See: S. Japhet, I and II Chronicles: A Commentary (OTL; London, 1993) 423–24. According to Williamson the courses are a later stratum in Chronicles, for they were not established until after the book’s composition. However, in his discussion of chap. 31, Williamson’s position on this issue is not unequivocal. See H. G. M. Williamson, “The Origins of the Twenty-Four Priestly Courses: A Study of I Chronicles XXIII–XXVII,” Studies in the Historical Books of the Old Testament (ed. J. A. Emerton; VTSup 30; Leiden, 1979) 251–68; idem, I and II Chronicles (NCBC; London, 1982) 373–77. 16. See for example, I. Knohl: “It seems to me that a reliable tradition concerning reforms in the system of collection and distribution of the contributions and tithes carried out in this period lies at the basis [of the chapter]” (Temple of Silence [ Jerusalem, 1993] 196 n. 41 [Heb.]).

The Distribution of the Priestly Gifts

293

the specific procedures depicted in our document, or even to their basic principles? In any event, we are concerned here not with the entire chapter, its contents and presuppositions, but with 2 Chr 31:14–19 alone, the document that deals with the allocation of the priestly gifts.

C There are two criteria in 2 Chr 31:14–19 by which the temple clergy who are eligible for priestly gifts are divided: a distinction is made between priests and Levites and between those who officiate at the temple and those who live in the provincial towns. Thus, four groups are created: priests who serve in the temple, priests who live in the provincial towns, Levites who serve in the temple, and Levites who live in the provincial towns. The originally clear structure of the document has been somewhat distorted by a small textual corruption in the Masoretic Text. In the interest of precision, let us first clarify the text of the document and the difficulties it presents. The obvious point of departure is 2 Chr 31:19, which refers to all the members of the tribe of Levi who are in the provincial towns, both priests and Levites: As for the sons of Aaron, the priests, who were in the fields of common land belonging to their cities (µhyr[ çrgm ydçb), . . . to distribute portions to every male among the priests and to every one among the Levites who was registered by genealogy.

The wording of the opening phrase, “as for the sons of Aaron,” indicates that the verse deals with a different group from the one discussed previously. 17 The question is, to whom are those “who were in the fields of common land belonging to their cities” contrasted? Who are the “others” discussed earlier? Reason would dictate that they are the sons of Levi who are in Jerusalem and officiate in the temple and that v. 19 indeed points to a differentiation between these two groups. However, the wording of v. 15, which mentions “the cities of the priests,” militates against this simple answer. The wording of the text as it now stands thus contrasts the priests in the “priestly cities” (v. 15) and those “in the fields of common land belonging to the cities” (v. 19). This contrast presents several difficulties. (a) The terms ‘priestly cities’ (µynhkh yr[) and ‘the fields of common land belonging to the cities’ (µhyr[ çrgm ydç) refer to the same thing with a minor change in terminology, for the book of Chronicles attests to the evolution of the term çrgm ry[ (‘a city of common land’) or even çrgm (‘common land’) as a term for the Levitical cities. 18 The “fields of common land” is a 17. See, for example, the neb translation, ‘As for the priests of Aaron’s line . . .’, and similarly the njpsv and others. 18. S. Japhet, “The Supposed Common Authorship of Chronicles and Ezra–Nehemiah Investigated Anew,” VT 18 (1968) 348–50 [[in this volume, pp. 17–19]].

294

Chapter 14

quotation from Lev 25:34, but the meaning is changed. It does not mean the common land that surrounds the city, as opposed to the built-up area inside it, but means the Levitical city or priestly city itself. 19 (b) In the extant text, the document seems to deal twice and in two different ways with the priests who live in the provincial towns, while the priests of Jerusalem who officiate in the temple are not classified as a special group. However, it is particularly the priests of Jerusalem who are the primary candidates to receive the priestly gifts, both because they are officiating in the temple and because they are cut off from any other source of income. The “most holy offerings” taken “from the fire” are certainly designated for them alone. The focus of the document, as it stands, on the priests of the provincial towns seems very strange. 20 (c) 2 Chr 31:16 seems to refer to the temple clergy: “all who entered the house of the Lord as the duty of each day required.” However, in its present form, the syntactical context of this phrase is unclear, and it is unconnected to the preceding phrase. Its connection to v. 15 (the priestly cities) on the one hand, and to v. 16a (“except those registered by genealogy”) on the other, leads to some strange and unacceptable interpretations. The root of all these problems seems to be a minor corruption in the MT of 2 Chr 31:15 that is not easily detected, since it causes no difficulty when one reads the verse on its own. The difficulties become evident only when the syntax and internal logic of the entire section are examined. The text of the Septuagint preserves the original version and provides the solution. Instead of ‘in the cities of the priests’ of the MT, the Septuagint reads: dia; ceiro;Í tΩn ¥erevwn, in which ‘in the cities’ (yr[b) is presented as ‘by the hand of ’ (dy l[). This cannot be an internal Greek corruption, for there is no connection between the translation of the MT to be expected (ejn [ta∂Í] povlesin touÅ /tΩn) and the extant version dia; ceirovÍ. On the other hand, the similarity between the Hebrew basis of the Septuagint and the Hebrew of the MT is undeniable, making clear the process by which the error crept in. 21 The l was changed to r in the original dy l[, 19. Not all the commentators realized the significance of “the fields of common land belonging to the city” as the technical designation for a Levitical city and explained the contrast between v. 19 and v. 15 as being between the priests living in the “fields” around the city and those living in the city itself (see for example, Rudolph, Chronikbücher, 309; Williamson, “Origins,” 377; and others). This differentiation is not supported by any other source, biblical or later, and seems forced. See also: E. L. Curtis and A. A. Madsen, The Book of Chronicles (ICC; Edinburgh, 1910) 484. 20. This is indeed Elmslie’s conclusion: “ver. 15 states that the distribution was to be made to priestly and levitical persons resident in the priestly cities but (ver. 16) not to those who were for the time being on duty at the Temple, since these no doubt would receive their share at the Temple itself ” (W. A. L. Elmslie, The Book of Chronicles [CBC; 1916] 315). Regarding his understanding of the entire section, see below, n. 34. 21. For the considerations that apply to the preference of one version of a text to another, see E. Tov, Textual Criticism of the Hebrew Bible (Minneapolis, 1992) 293–311.

The Distribution of the Priestly Gifts

295

because of the phonetic similarity of the two consonants 22 and so the meaningless word dyr[ was created. The final d was erased in a hypercorrection, and the word yr[ remained as a construct form: µynhkh yr[. When we accept the Septuagint version, the text becomes coherent, its internal structure and meaning become perfectly clear, and all the difficulties that were listed above (and others that were not mentioned) disappear.

D The document (2 Chr 31:14–19) before us is thus composed of two unequal parts: after the heading in v. 14, vv. 15–18 deal with the clergy in Jerusalem, while v. 19 is devoted to the members of the tribe of Levi who live in the provincial towns. Verses 15–18 are also divided into two subunits: one dedicated to the priests, which ends with a summarizing clause, and one dealing with the Levites, which ends with an explanatory clause. In each of the subunits, the expression ‘according to their offices by their divisions’ is repeated in order to emphasize the fact that the text deals with those who actively officiate in the temple. The section reads thus: Part I, vv. 15–18 Ia (15–17a): ttl ,hnwmab µynhkh dy l[ whynkçw whyrma why[mçw [wçyw ˆmynmw ˆd[ wdy l[w (hl[mlw µynç çwlç ˆbm µyrkzl µçjyth dblm) ˆfqk lwdgk twqljmb µhyjal çjyth 23taz .µhytwqljmk µtwrmçmb µtdwb[l wmwyb µwy rbdl òh tybl abh lkl 24.µhytwba tybl µynhkh And by his side Eden, Miniamin, Jeshua, Shemaiah, Amariah, and Shecaniah alongside the priests in offices of trust, to distribute [the portions] to their brethren, old and young alike, by divisions (except those registered by genealogy, males from three years old and upwards), to all who 22. See GKC s6 o–p / pp. 34–35. 23. The reading of the MT is taw, but with many other commentators I prefer the version of the Septuagint: taz (ou•toÍ). See, for example, BHK, BHS, and others. The formula X taz serves in the priestly literature both as a heading and as a conclusion. As a heading, see, for example: Exod 12:43; Lev 6:2, 7, 18, and many more. As a conclusion, see: Lev 7:35, 37; 12:7, et al. Generally speaking, the conclusion is longer than the opening and has a celebratory style. See, for example: Lev 7:35–37, 11:46, 13:59, and so on. See also: M. Paran, Forms of the Priestly Style in the Pentateuch ( Jerusalem, 1989) 152, 156–60, 223–25, 237 [Heb.]. 24. The division of verses in the MT does not fit the syntax of the passage. The conclusion is severed from the passage that it ends and becomes a heading where what follows (“and the Levites from twenty years old . . .”) is unconnected to it. This break is further emphasized in some editions (see BHK/BHS) by a closed passage (hmwts hçrp), which creates an even greater separation between the conclusion and what came before. This may be a reflection of redactory activity, which attempts to overcome the problematics in the meaning of the text by changing its structure.

296

Chapter 14

entered the house of the Lord as the duty of each day required, for their service according to their offices, by their divisions. This is the registration of the priests according to their fathers’ houses. Ib (17b–18): µpf lkb çjythlw .µhytwqljmb µhytwrmçmb hl[mlw hnç µyrç[ ˆbm µywlhw .çdq wçdqty µtnwmab yk ,lhq lkl µhytwnbw µhynbw µhyçn And the Levites from twenty years old and upwards according to their offices, by their divisions. They were registered by genealogy with all their little children, their wives, their sons, and their daughters, the whole multitude, for in their faithfulness they sanctified themselves in holiness. Part II, v. 19: ttl,twmçb wbqn rça µyçna ry[w ry[ lkb µhyr[ çrgm ydçb µynhkh ˆrha ynblw .µywlb çjyth lklw µynhkb rkz lkl twnm As for the sons of Aaron, the priests, who were in their cities (which have common land), there were men in each city who were designated by name to distribute portions to every male among the priests and to every one among the Levites who was registered by genealogy.

2 Chr 31:15–17a defines the priests of Jerusalem who are eligible for the priestly gifts. First are mentioned all those in service (“their brethren, old and young alike, by divisions”), but this is interrupted by a parenthetical sentence that begins with the word ‘except’: “except those registered by genealogy, males from three years old and upwards” (v. 16a). The description of the priests who perform the temple service is thus: “to distribute the portions to their brethren, old and young alike, by divisions, . . . to all who entered the house of the Lord as the duty of each day required, for their service according to their offices, by their divisions.” All the terms used are part of the linguistic corpus connected to the temple service; some appear in Chronicles alone and some in other sources as well. 25 The priests eligible for priestly gifts are therefore composed of two groups that are essen25. ‘Their brethren’ (µhyja), as an expression of the relationship between the priests and the Levites, or between one group of the clergy and another, is widespread in Chronicles. See, among others: 1 Chr 6:44[6:29]; 9:32; 15:16, 17, 18; 23:32; 24:31; 2 Chr 29:15, 34. The term ‘divisions’ (twqljm) is a common term in Chronicles, see: 1 Chr 23:6, 24:1ff., et al.; and see: Japhet, “Supposed Common Authorship” 344–48 [[in this volume, pp. 14–17]]; and see n. 15 above. The term ‘offices’ (twrmçm), both in singular and plural, is a standard term in the priestly material in the Pentateuch, in Ezekiel, in Ezra–Nehemiah and in Chronicles, and so is the term ‘service’ (hdwb[). See J. Milgrom, Studies in Levitical Terminology (Berkeley, 1970) vol. 1. The following terms should also be included in this category: ˆfqk lwdgk: 1 Chr 25:8, 26:13; wmwyb µwy rbd: 1 Chr 16:37, 2 Chr 8:14, etc. Concerning the term abh lk as a terminus technicus that indicates membership in a specific group, see: S. Lieberman, “The Discipline in the So-Called Dead Sea Manual of Discipline,” JBL 71 (1952) 202; idem, Greek in Jewish Palestine (New York, 1965) 80. It is possible that it is already terminus technicus in our text.

The Distribution of the Priestly Gifts

297

tially one: the priests who officiate in the temple and all males above age three, that is to say, all male priests. This definition is summed up in v. 17a: “This (MT: and) is the registration of the priests according to their fathers’ houses.” It is repeated in v. 19 regarding the provincial towns: “to every male among the priests.” The criteria for the priests are thus personal and individual. Each priest is eligible for priestly gifts from age three on, that is from the time he is weaned 26 until his death, his entire life. 2 Chr 31:17b–18 opens with a new heading, “And the Levites,” and defines the criteria for their eligibility. Here, too, the reference is to those who officiate “according to their offices, by their divisions,” but in contrast to the priests they are not registered from age three but “from twenty years old and upwards.” This difference becomes significant in the sequel: “They were registered by genealogy with all their little children, their wives, their sons and their daughters, the whole multitude.” That is, in contrast to the priests, the eligibility of the Levites is a function of their household, and every household is defined according to its head, who must be twenty or more. 27 This definition is also repeated very briefly regarding the Levites in the provincial towns: “and to everyone among the Levites who was registered by genealogy” (v. 19). Although the document focuses on the men officiating in Jerusalem, the basic terms of eligibility seem no different for the priests of Jerusalem and the priests of the provincial towns or for the Levites in Jerusalem and the Levites in the provincial towns. The essential difference (upon which the document centers) concerns the various administrative bodies responsible for distribution of the gifts. 28 The difference in terms of eligibility lies between the priests and the Levites. In this regard, the document agrees with what we know from the Pentateuchal laws. In the Pentateuch as well there are separate categories of gifts, one for the priests and one for the Levites, with different terms of eligibility of each group. However, despite the general similarity, many differences in detail appear between the document 26. Regarding age three as the age of weaning, see H. Z. Hirshberg, “Weaning,” Encyclopaedia Biblica 2.519–20 [Heb.]. There is no explicit reference in the Pentateuch to the age at which the priests become eligible for the priestly gifts. 27. Twenty is the generally accepted age of full maturity in the Bible. It is the age when the male is included in the census, the age of military service, and so forth. See for example Exod 38:26; Num 1:3ff., 26:2ff., et al. For the age of twenty in the Dead Sea Scrolls, see 1QSa I 9–11. See also L. Schiffman, Sectarian Law in the Dead Sea Scrolls: Courts, Testimony, and the Penal Code (Chico, Cal., 1983) 55–65; idem, The Eschatological Community of the Dead Sea Scrolls (Atlanta, 1989) 16–20, and the literature mentioned there. 28. A comparison between the detailed language of 2 Chr 31:14–15 and the general description in v. 19 should be made, but this is outside the purview of our article. On the practical level, there was probably a difference between the priests of Jerusalem and the priests in the provincial towns: since there was only one central temple, one would assume that the parts of the sacrifices given to the priests—the “most holy offerings” and some of the “light holy offerings”—were not delivered to the provincial towns. This may explain the claims of the priests, testified to in sources of the Second Temple Period, to a portion of the tithe.

298

Chapter 14

and the Pentateuch. In order to clarify these details, their scope and significance, let us first turn to the Pentateuchal sources, the most detailed and orderly presentation of which is found in Numbers 18. 29

E According to Numbers 18, the priestly gifts are divided into two categories: 30 ‘the most holy offerings’ (µyçdqh çdq)—“this shall be yours of the most holy things [reserved] from the fire” (v. 9); and ‘the gift offering’ (tmwrt µntm), called by the sages ‘light holy offerings’—“and this is yours, the offering of their gift” (v. 11). The first category is designated only for the males of the priests and it must be eaten in a holy place: “In the most holy place you shall eat it, every male shall eat it” (v. 10). The second category is for all the priestly families, and can be eaten in purity everywhere: “I have given them to you, and to your sons and your daughters with you, . . . everyone that is clean in your house shall eat of it” (v. 11). 31 According to the guidelines in Numbers 18, enjoyment of the priestly gifts is given to the priests and their families. The most holy offerings are reserved for “every male,” while the other gifts, which are the majority (the firstfruits, the firstborn, and so on), are intended for the entire family: “everyone that is clean in your house shall eat of it” (v. 13). In contrast to the great number of gifts intended for the priests, 32 the Pentateuch designates only one gift for the Levites, the tithe, called by the 29. The common view is that Numbers 18 belongs to source P. See, for example, Licht: “It is generally accepted that chapters 17–18 come from P; this is clear . . .” (Commentary, 132). Recently, Knohl has claimed that this chapter belongs to H, which in his opinion is later, and expresses different views from P (Temple of Silence, 56–57). Since one may assume that Chronicles already knew the complete Pentateuch, this dispute has no direct bearing on our analysis, but it is of interest regarding Chronicle’s position vis-à-vis the various trends in Israel, the laws and ideologies they propound. 30. For further details, see Haran, “Priestly Gifts,” 39–44; also Licht, Commentary, 121–31. 31. The question of the household slaves is a separate issue. According to Lev 22:10 it is clear that “every stranger” (anyone who does not belong to the family of the priest) is forbidden to eat of the holy offerings. But slaves are not included in this category: “But if the priest buys a slave as his property for money, he may eat of it, and those that are born into his household may eat of his food” (22:11). How then, are we to understand Numbers 18, which does not enter into detail on this issue. Is one to emphasize “to you and to your sons and daughters with you” (Num 18:11), that is only family members, or “everyone that is clean in your house” (18:11), which may include the slaves? It is impossible to decide this issue for lack of detail, but it should be emphasized that the different texts need not be harmonized. They may reflect different legal positions. 32. Even in the Pentateuch, where the various sources have different views of what the priestly gifts constitute and at times call the same gift by different names, the number of priestly gifts is quite large. This is certainly the case in rabbinic law, whose enumeration of priestly gifts integrated the details given in all the sources. See Kaufmann, History of Religion, 1.143.

spread is 12 points short

The Distribution of the Priestly Gifts

299

Rabbis ˆwçar rç[m (‘the first tithe’) (Num 18:21ff.). 33 The following Pentateuchal guidelines for the tithe relate to the issue under discussion: 1. The Levites are obligated to deduct from the tithe rç[m tmwrt (a tithe contribution), equal to a tenth of the tithe (Num 18:26), intended for the priests. 2. After the hmwrt is deducted, the tithe loses its holiness and “shall be reckoned to the Levites as the produce of the threshing floor and as the produce of the winepress” (v. 30). 3. It may be eaten anywhere, and the definition of those who eat it is general: “And you may eat it in any place, you and your households” (v. 31). Thus, Numbers 18 lists three kinds of priestly gifts, which differ in their origin, the level of their holiness, those allowed to eat them, and the place where they may be eaten: 1. Most holy offerings—given to every male priest and eaten in a holy place. 2. Light holy offerings—(µntm tmwrt)—given to all the priestly families and eaten in purity everywhere. 3. The Levite gifts (tithe)—given to all the Levite families and eaten everywhere. There is a similarity between the light holy offerings and the Levite gifts, for both are eaten by the entire family and are not limited to the males, but the light holy offerings are holy and must be eaten in purity, while the tithe is not holy. The exact definition of those who may eat the gifts is another issue. There is a clear reference to familial ties for the priests: “to you, and to your sons and your daughters with you” (v. 11), “you and your sons with you” (v. 19). Regarding the Levites, general terms are used: “you and your households” (v. 31).

F As we have seen above, 2 Chr 31:14–19 does not have three categories of eligibility for priestly gifts, but only two: “every male among the priests” and “every one among the Levites who was registered by genealogy.” That is, one category of priests and one of Levites. Moreover, the categories of 33. Some of the questions regarding the tithe—should it be viewed as an annual obligation or as a voluntary donation? what is the relationship between the different types of tithe? and what is the history of the tithe in the biblical and postbiblical periods?—are not relevant to our analysis and cannot be dealt with here. See the literature referred to above, the commentaries on the relevant texts, and recently: M. Herman, Tithe as Gift: The Institution in the Pentateuch and in Light of Mauss’s Prestation Theory (Lewiston, N.Y., 1991) and the literature mentioned there.

300

Chapter 14

Numbers 18 and those of 2 Chronicles 31 are not identical, and these differences demand a detailed examination. 2 Chronicles affirms only the first of the Pentateuchal categories, “every male among the priests,” and nullifies the second, which relates to the priestly families. Correspondingly, it sustains the category of Levites but offers a definition that differs from that given in Numbers 18. Instead of “you and your households,” 2 Chronicles 31 defines the Levites as “everyone among the Levites who was registered by genealogy,” that is, everyone who is a Levite according to his genealogy. This category instead matches the category of the priestly families in Numbers 18. 2 Chronicles 31 thus introduces two changes into the definition of those eligible for priestly gifts: the category of the priestly families is abolished, and the degree of sanctity of the Levites is raised by applying to them the guidelines previously used for the priests. The major difficulty of this new categorization concerns the priests. Does it mean that the priestly families are not allowed to enjoy the priestly gifts? Such an interpretation contradicts the Pentateuchal source to such an extent that the spontaneous reaction of the commentator is to reject it and to search for ways to harmonize the various testimonies. This may be done either by reading the text in 2 Chronicles 31 differently from the way we have read it above or by interpreting it so that the tacit assumptions of Numbers 18 will be implicit in this text as well. I cannot present here all the solutions suggested by the commentators, but will give a few illustrations. The easiest way to resolve the difficulty is to forego a precise explanation of the document and to make only general statements, claiming that the text is not sufficiently clear, that it has been corrupted, or that it was modified by secondary additions. 34 This method cannot be used by the translators, who must confront the text in its entirety. They therefore attempt to apply 2 Chr 31:18, “They were registered by genealogy with all their little children, their wives, their sons and their daughters,” both to the priests and to the Levites 35 or, alternatively, to the priests alone. There are several variations to this exegetical procedure. Curtis, for instance, proposes that 2 Chr 31:17ab–b “and the Levites . . . by their divisions,” is a parenthetical sentence and that vv. 17aa and 18 are a continuum, so: “This is the registration of the priests according to their fathers houses (µhytwba tybl), who were registered by genealogy with all their little children. . . .” 36 The rsv, in contrast, achieves the same goal by changing 34. So, for example, Elmslie in 1916: “The exact meaning and sequence of these verses is hard to follow, and probably the obscurity is due to faults in the Hebrew text” (Book of Chronicles, 315), and Dillard in 1987: “The flow of thought and the precise significance of some of the details in this section are difficult” (R. B. Dillard, 2 Chronicles [WBC 15; Waco, Tex., 1987] 251). 35. So in the Septuagint and the Targum, and so in various modern translations, such as the av, njpsv, and others. See also Pseudo-Rashi to v. 17. 36. Curtis and Madsen, Book of Chronicles, 483–84. David Qim˙i, the Medieval commentator, may have interpreted these verses similarly. See the conclusion of his commentary on v. 16.

The Distribution of the Priestly Gifts

301

the text via translation. It concludes the sentence with v. 17, ignores the conjunctive waw at the beginning of v. 18 (çjythlw), and adds a new heading at the beginning of v. 18: “The priests were enrolled.” 37 The difficulties with these interpretations are clear: there is no sign in the text that 2 Chr 31:17ab–b is a parenthetical sentence; presenting it as such makes it meaningless; the new reading, according to both suggestions, is in total contradiction to the explicit testimony of v. 19 (“every male of the priests” and “every one among the Levites who was registered by genealogy”). Pseudo-Rashi follows a different direction, reading an a fortiori inference into 2 Chr 31:19 that includes the directives of Numbers 18. The commentary on v. 19 reads: “To every male among the priests.” And also to all their wives, sons and daughters. And what was stated here: “to every male” is meant to add something new, for if they provide even for male minors . . . all the more so they provided for their wives and sons and daughters.38

Another means of harmonization is to assume that 2 Chr 31:14–19 does not refer to all the priestly gifts but only to part of them, that is, to the most holy offerings on the one hand (which are eaten by the male priests as per Num 18:9–10) and to the tithe on the other (intended for the Levites, as in Num 18:24ff .). The text then would not refer to the light holy offerings, the other priestly gifts. In order to examine this avenue of interpretation, the document in 2 Chr 31:14–19 should be analyzed within the two contexts in which it appears: the primary context, in which the document is a separate literary unit, whose subject is set by its special heading in v. 14 and the secondary context created by the inclusion of the document in chap. 31. 2 Chr 31:14 designates the priestly gifts by three terms: ‘freewill offerings to God’ (µyhlah twbdn), ‘the contribution reserved for the Lord’ (òh tmwrt), and “the most holy offerings” (µyçdqh yçdq). We cannot examine the meaning of the term ‘freewill offerings to God’ in light of its use in other places, for it is peculiar to this verse, but its literal meaning and its place within the verse may indicate that it is a general term that includes the other two and perhaps more: “And Kore the son of Imnah the Levite . . . was over the freewill offerings to God to apportion the contribution reserved for the Lord and the most holy offerings.” Freewill offerings to God apparently include all the gifts and holy offerings, while the gifts that are to be apportioned (ttl) are the contribution reserved for the Lord, on the one hand, and the most holy offerings, on the other. The third term, ‘most holy offerings’, is a well-defined term, equivalent to the priestly gifts described in Num 18:9: “This shall be yours of the most holy things [reserved] from the fire, every offering of theirs, every cereal 37. It should be remarked that the translators did not note these changes. 38. See Miqraot Gedolot. David Qim˙i has another explanation: “to every male among the priests: Portions suitable to be eaten by the male priests.”

spread one pica long

302

Chapter 14

offering of theirs, and every sin offering of theirs and every guilt offering of theirs which they render to me shall be most holy to you and to your sons.” 39 The term ‘the contribution reserved for the Lord’ may be interpreted in two ways. In Numbers 18 it is used for the tenth part of the tithe that the Levites reserve for the priests (Num 18:26, 28, 29); if we seek an exact parallel between the texts, 2 Chr 31:14 would also refer to the tenth part of the tithe. However, according to its literal meaning, its use in other sources, 40 and its function in the document before us, ‘the contribution reserved for the Lord’ seems to serve as a more general term that describes many gifts, among them the priestly gifts detailed in Num 18:11–18 and called there ‘their gift contribution’ (µntm tmwrt), and the Levite gifts, the tithe, which is also called ‘contribution’: “For the tithes of the children of Israel, which they offer as a contribution unto the Lord, I have given to the Levites to inherit” (Num 18:24). Indeed, no matter how we interpret the contribution reserved for the Lord, even in its most narrow sense of a tenth part of the tithe, it thereby refers to the light holy offerings, which according to Numbers 18 are intended for the priests. It cannot be interpreted as meaning the tithe alone. As for the context of 2 Chronicles 31 as a whole, it contains an explicit reference to the tithe (vv. 5–6) and to the firstfruits (v. 5), which is certainly one of the light holy offerings that according to Numbers 18 are intended for the entire families of priests. The conclusion to be drawn is that no matter in what context 2 Chr 32:14–19 is read, it does not exclude the light holy offerings from the gifts, and no reasonable harmonization can be made with the positions of Numbers 18. The question whether the priestly families are allowed to enjoy the priestly gifts remains; even though the document mentions the two types of gifts, it limits the recipients to “every male of the priests.”

G 2 Chr 31:14–19 also expresses a different view from the Pentateuch regarding the status of the Levites. By describing the eligibility of the Levites as being according to their registration by genealogy, the text transfers to the Levites certain concepts that originally belonged to the priests. The use of the term ‘holy’ in v. 18 may be connected to this trend as well. It is apparently no coincidence that the only time the document uses the term ‘holy’ is in relation to the Levites, as a justification for their eligibility: “for in their faithfulness they would sanctify themselves in holiness.”

39. See also Ezek 42:13 (twice), 44:13. 40. In Exod 30:14–15 the term hmwrt describes the half-shekel, the census toll. In Exod 35:21, 24 it describes the people’s donation to the building of the tabernacle, also called hmwrt òhl (v. 5), and in Num 31:29, 41 it refers to the tax on the booty.

The Distribution of the Priestly Gifts

303

As is well known, the Pentateuch does not assign holiness to the Levites. Although the Levites perform their duties in the courtyard of the tabernacle and carry its vessels, what is demanded of them, except for their origin, is purity and not holiness. 41 This is not the case in Chronicles, where the holiness of the Levites is a basic concept that is repeated several times. Not only is holiness demanded of the Levites, but they are even quicker to fulfill this obligation than the priests. See, for example, the following verses: “And the priests and the Levites made themselves holy (or: sanctified themselves) to bring up the ark of the Lord the God of Israel” (1 Chr 15:14); “Hear me, Levites, now make yourselves holy (or: sanctify yourselves) and make the house of the Lord the God of your fathers holy” (2 Chr 29:5); “And the Levites arose . . . and they gathered their brethren and made themselves holy (or: sanctified themselves)” (2 Chr 29:12–15); “their brethren the Levites helped them, . . . for the Levites were more upright in heart to make themselves holy (or: in sanctifying themselves) than the priests” (29:34); and others. The ‘holiness’ of the Levites is no doubt linked to the Chronicler’s unique position regarding the functions of the Levites and is a necessary consequence of this view. The Levites’ involvement in the temple service in Chronicles is much broader than the service designated for them by the Pentateuch: some of the functions that Chronicles assigns to them were originally, or according to other views, the legacy of the priests. 2 Chr 31:14–19 fits in very well with the book in its entirety in the increased functions assigned to the Levites, in their higher status, and in the increased level of their holiness. Various scholars since the earliest scholarship of Chronicles have noted the unique position of this work vis-à-vis the Levites. Some saw in its proLevite tendency one of the cornerstones of its world view, while others viewed it as the major motivation for the composition of the book. 42 However, the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls, chief among them the Temple Scroll, has changed the perspective from which this position is to be considered. It has become evident that this was not the personal inclination of one author, but a more widespread view, aspects of which are expressed in the writings of the Dead Sea sect. As Yadin justly claims, “the tendency of the Scroll . . . [is] to emphasize the status of the Levites.” 43 41. One may compare the rite of purification of the Levites (Num 8:5–22) with the initiation ceremony of Aaron and his sons (Leviticus 8–9) in order to appreciate the difference. In contrast to the priests, whose holy state obligates them to remove themselves from impurity and imposes on them various matrimonial restrictions (Leviticus 21), no such rules apply to the Levites. See also J. Milgrom in Yadin, Temple Scroll, 1.169 n. 1. 42. See, among others: G. von Rad, Das Geschichtsbild des chronistischen Werkes (Stuttgart, 1930) 88–119; A. C. Welch, The Work of the Chronicler (London, 1939) 55–67; R. H. Pfeiffer, Introduction to the Old Testament (New York, 1941) 795–801; O. Eissfeldt, The Old Testament: An Introduction (Eng. trans.; Oxford, 1965) 537–38, etc. 43. Yadin, Temple Scroll, 1.155.

304

Chapter 14

The strong similarity between the Temple Scroll and Chronicles regarding the status of the Levites raises another question, that of the claim of the Levites to a share in the priestly gifts. We have seen above that the heading of the document found in 2 Chr 31:14 lists two types of gifts: most holy offerings and contributions reserved for the Lord. We have also seen that the document mentions two eligible groups: (1) every male of the priests and (2) every one of the Levites who was registered by genealogy. The obvious question is, should one press this dichotomy in order to claim that there is complete parity between the two principles of classification and to conclude that the most holy offerings are intended for every male of the priests, while contributions reserved for the Lord are intended for every one of the Levites who is registered by genealogy. Since we have concluded above that the term ‘contribution reserved for the Lord’ is not restricted to tithes, but includes the light holy offerings as well (some or all), this equation would imply a claim by the Levites for gifts that according to the Pentateuchal law are intended for the priests. This conclusion may be formulated in two alternate ways, one more extreme than the other. According to the most extreme interpretation, the claim made by the Levites would be for all of the contributions reserved for the Lord, leaving the priests with only the most holy offerings. According to the more moderate view, the contributions reserved for the Lord would be shared by the priests and Levites, and the exclusive rights of the priests would be abolished. In either case, this equation may infer the demand to include the Levites in the gifts that were originally the legacy of the priests. The elevation of the sanctity of the Levites would be associated with this demand; it would be a necessary condition of their eligibility for the priestly gifts. As Yadin pointed out, there is a clear correlation between 2 Chronicles 31 and the Temple Scroll on this issue as well. The Temple Scroll testifies explicitly to the Levite demand for part of the peace offerings and designates the shoulder for the Levites: “And to the Levites one tenth of the grain and the wine and the oil . . . and the shoulder from those offering a sacrifice” (11QT a LX 6–7). In Yadin’s view, this prescription is based on biblical sources, among them 2 Chronicles 31. 44 He relies mainly on the term hnm (‘portion’), common to these works and the Temple Scroll. However, it should be emphasized that one can find in 2 Chronicles 31 at most hints of the claims of the Levites, rather than explicit statements, so Yadin’s view remains a hypothesis for the time being.

44. “In my opinion, however, the prescription in the scroll is based, as well, on several passages that, when taken simply, probably hint that the portions from the dedicated things are to be shared with the Levites” (ibid.). Yadin enumerates among these sources: 2 Chr 31:4ff., 19; Neh 12:44ff.; 13:10. According to Milgrom, this demand is based on Num 18:1–3 (see Milgrom in ibid., 1.169–70).

spread is 3 points long

The Distribution of the Priestly Gifts

305

H We have seen that 2 Chr 31:14–19 limits the eligibility of the priests to “every male of the priests,” and in light of the distinction made in Num 18:9–10 and 11–18, this seemed to exclude the priestly families. In fact however, this limitation affects only the women, 45 rather than the entire family, for “every male of the priests” includes all males with no age limit, young and old alike. More precisely, the women in the priestly families are divided into two groups according to their genealogy, and this difference can have a direct bearing on their eligibility to enjoy the priestly gifts. The first group includes the wives of the priests. Since a priest is not restricted to marriage with only the daughters of priests, 46 the wife of a priest may be an Israelite, having no priestly genealogy of her own. If individual priestly genealogy is the guiding principle for eligibility to enjoy the priestly gifts, this may explain the exclusion of the wives of priests from those eligible. However, this principle is not applicable to the second category, the daughters of priests who do have priestly origins and to whom the Pentateuch explicitly refers. 47 Both according to halakic reasoning and according to the Pentateuchal sources, there is no reason to deny the rights of the daughter of a priest to eat from the holy gifts. 2 Chr 31:14–19 abolishes the rights of all women to partake of the holy offerings, without reference to their genealogy. This position (which seems most extreme and seems to lack any halakic basis) is connected to another aspect of the ideology of Chronicles and may be explained in that context. As I have shown elsewhere, and in an entirely different connection, one finds in Chronicles a more extreme position regarding sexual impurity than the position of the Pentateuch. It demands a complete separation between “holiness” and “women.” This tendency, which demands that women be kept away from all sacred objects, is found in the writings of the Dead Sea sect as well, and the two sources shed light on one another. 48 This fundamental outlook seems to serve as the basis for 2 Chronicles 31: the extraordinary sanctity of the priestly realm and its inherent relationship to the temple and its service demand the maximum distancing from women. The priestly gifts are holy, and their defilement by women qua women should be prevented, including mothers, wives, and daughters. 45. See also Rudolph, Chronikbücher, 309. Rudolph applies this to the Levites as well, and considers the words “their wives, their sons and their daughters” in v. 18 a late addition. I cannot accept this view. 46. Lev 21:7. It is possible that such a restriction applies to the High Priest: “he shall take a virgin of his own people (wym[m) to wife” (Lev 21:14), if we interpret ‘of his own people’ (wym[m) in the narrow sense of ‘his family’ (as does HALAT 3.792). It is certainly not applicable to priests in general. As far as we know, this restriction was never observed in reality (see Exod 6:23). 47. Lev 22:12–13; Num 18:11, 19. 48. See my “Prohibition of the Habitation of Women,” which deals with 2 Chr 8:11 [[in this vol., 268–288]]. Rudolph already noted the affinities between 2 Chr 31:16 and 2 Chr 8:11 (Chronikbücher, 309).

306

Chapter 14

I We came across the ideational and halakic similarity between Chronicles and the Dead Sea Scrolls in two different and independent contexts; 2 Chr 8:11, on the one hand, and 2 Chr 31:14–19, on the other. This close affinity sharply delineates the question of the place Chronicles holds within the framework of the different streams of Second Temple Judaism, as well as demanding a new look at these streams themselves. The fact that Chronicles contains laws and positions that deviate from the Pentateuch has been noted in the past, although the general tendency in scholarship has been to emphasize rather the similarities between Chronicles and the biblical literature, particularly its priestly and Deuteronomistic traditions. As long as these issues were examined independently, they were generally interpreted as an expression of the individual, idiosyncratic tendencies of the Chronicler. Now, with the testimony of the Dead Sea Scrolls, the ideational proximity of Chronicles to these writings is beginning to be clear, particularly the issues in which Chronicles deviates from the Pentateuchal tradition. These phenomena delineate new isoglosses that traverse the lines of canonical and noncanonical status and emphatically raise the question of the “sectarian” nature of works, laws, and views. The affinity between Chronicles and the writings of the sect became clear to me, as stated, with my detailed study of two separate issues. It is of course possible that the correlation is merely coincidental, and it is certainly too early to draw general conclusions, but it seems to me, nonetheless, that this ideational proximity cries out for further investigation. It is to be hoped that new research and additional discoveries will enlighten us concerning these questions; I have intended but to open a small window upon this fascinating world.

Chapter 15

Postexilic Historiography: How and Why? Introduction Postexilic historiography constitutes one segment of a much larger corpus: the historiography of Israel during the First and Second Temples. The first representatives of this literature are the great historical works in the Bible, followed by the historiography found in the Apocrypha and later works. “Writing history” is, thus, a consistent and continuous cultural phenomenon in Israel, an immanent expression of its spiritual constitution, disposition, and presuppositions. The exact literary scope of this phenomenon, as well as its precise chronological boundaries, are still a matter of scholarly debate. While it is generally accepted that the original extent of this literature was broader than what we now have in our possession, and that not all the historical works that were written over this long period have come down to us, 1 the chronological boundaries of this literary activity are the subject of a long and rather heated debate. The end of historical writing in Israel may be placed quite accurately with the two great historical works of Flavius Josephus, written after the destruction of the Second Temple by the Romans: the Jewish War and the Antiquities of the Jews. 2 The beginnings of this phenomenon, however, are far less clear. 3 Rather loud voices in current scholarship tend to deny the early beginnings of biblical historiography (as well as its authenticity) and postpone it to as late a date as possible.4 The debate continues and no general or even partial agreement on this point has been reached. Although this debate may have an impact on the question of definition—what precisely is “postexilic” within biblical historiography—my attention in this paper will be given to a well-defined corpus, 1. This view is based on both the general argument that there is no reason to believe that everything written during this period was preserved and canonized and on the explicit mention of historical works in the extant biblical ones, e.g., in the books of Kings and Chronicles. See O. Eissfeldt, The Old Testament: An Introduction (Oxford, 1965) 132–36. 2. The time of publication can be decided fairly accurately as between 75 and 82 c.e. for War, 93–94 c.e. for Antiquities. See G. Hölscher, “Josephus,” PW 9:1942, 1950; more recently, L. L. Grabbe, Judaism from Cyrus to Hadrian (2 vols.; Minneapolis, 1992) 1:6–9. 3. For a brief summary of the matter and the pertinent considerations, including bibliography, see N. Naªaman, “The ‘Conquest of Canaan’ in the Book of Joshua and in History,” in From Nomadism to Monarchy (ed. I. Finkelstein and N. Naªaman; Jerusalem, 1994) 218–22. 4. See, for example, J. Van Seters, In Search of History (New Haven, 1983); idem, Prologue to History (Louisville, 1992).

307

308

Chapter 15

of less-debated provenance. 5 This corpus will include the biblical books of Ezra–Nehemiah and Chronicles, and the apocryphal book of 1 Esdras. 6 I shall preface my discussion with four preliminary remarks. (1) In this article the term “postexilic” should be understood in a technical or chronological sense rather than an essential one. Biblical scholarship tends to ascribe a certain finality to the “Exile,” that is, the destruction of Judah in 586 b.c.e., and view everything that followed in relation to it. The period of Return and Restoration or, from another perspective, the Persian Period in the history of Israel, is commonly described as “postexilic,” and so are its social, literary, and spiritual phenomena. “Postexilic” prophecy, liturgy, poetry, and so on, are therefore common terms in scholarly literature. This terminology, however, may have been influenced by the historical picture of Ezra–Nehemiah, which has determined the historical understanding of the period for a long time. 7 In fact, however, the works that are commonly identified as “postexilic historiography” were not written under the immediate impact of destruction and Exile, nor as a direct response to them. These works were composed between the 5th (or 4th) and the 3rd centuries b.c.e., and the destruction and Exile are not their principal concern. They view these events from a distance and from varying historical perspectives, to which I will return later. (2) My choice of corpus is based on two principles, literary and historical. From the literary point of view I restricted myself to “historiography” proper. Works that belong to other genres were excluded, even though they may deal with historical subjects, express “historical memory” or may be used as historical sources. The popular genre of “historical novel,” for example, Esther, Ruth, parts of Daniel, Judith, and Tobit; poetry that invokes and preserves “historical memory”; and prophecy, which addresses the issues of the time and serves as an authentic and powerful historical source—should all be treated on their own. My second principle of selection is historical rather than canonical. I included 1 Esdras although it does not form part of the Hebrew Bible, but did not include other historical works from the Apocrypha, primarily the books of Maccabees, which come from a later period and should be viewed against a different historical and cultural background. By its genre, purpose, subject matter, and perspective

5. Even here, however, the range of dates proposed for the respective works spans from the second half of the 6th to the first half of the 2nd centuries b.c.e. See S. Japhet, I and II Chronicles: A Commentary (OTL; London, 1993) 23–28; H. G. M. Williamson, Ezra, Nehemiah (WBC; Waco, 1985) xxxv–xxxvi; J. M. Myers, I and II Esdras (AB; New York, 1972) 8–15. My position on the matter will be expressed as we go along. 6. For recent research reviews of these works see T. C. Eskenazi, “Current Perspectives on Ezra–Nehemiah and the Persian Period,” CRBS 1 (1993) 59–86; J. W. Kleinig, “Recent Research in Chronicles,” CRBS 2 (1994) 43–76. 7. See S. Japhet, “People and Land in the Restoration Period,” in Das Land Israel in Biblischer Zeit (ed. G. Strecker; Göttingen, 1983) 103–25 [[in this volume, pp. 96–116]].

Postexilic Historiography: How and Why?

309

1 Esdras belongs to the same group of writings as Ezra–Nehemiah and Chronicles. (3) The literary questions of composition, authorship, and date stand outside the formal scope of the present article. I would have liked to ignore these difficult problems altogether, at least at the outset, and begin my presentation from as neutral a vantage point as possible. However, since one can speak only about one thing at a time, some order of presentation is indicated. A seemingly “neutral,” or “formal” solution was to follow the order in which these books appear in the Hebrew Bible, that is, Ezra–Nehemiah first, and Chronicles second, but this order is problematic in itself, since the tradition of the Hebrew Bible is divided on this point. In addition to this commonly known order, which appears in many manuscripts and in the printed editions, another order is displayed in the most important mediaeval manuscripts (Len. B 19a and the Aleppo Codex), where Chronicles appears as the first book of the Hagiographa, and Ezra–Nehemiah as the last. 8 Moreover, since 1 Esdras is not included in the Hebrew Scripture, its position must be determined on different grounds. If we place it after the canonical works, should the order be: Ezra–Nehemiah—Chronicles—1 Esdras, according to one tradition, or Chronicles—Ezra–Nehemiah—1 Esdras, according to the other? One may suggest, alternatively, following the order of the Septuagint, which deviates from all the above and has Chronicles first, 1 Esdras second, and Ezra–Nehemiah last. It is clear, therefore, that this decision cannot be made on the basis of “neutral,” or “external” factors and needs to have recourse to literary and historical considerations, which are outside the scope of this article. I will therefore present the works in what I consider to be the historical order of composition, that is, Ezra–Nehemiah, Chronicles, 1 Esdras, without actually trying to justify it. 9 I hope that some contribution to this topic will be made by the discussion as it unfolds. (4) The topic of this article has been phrased as: “Postexilic Historiography: How and Why?” One may wonder whether the order of the questions should not be reversed. Should we not look first for the causes and motives of this phenomenon and only then turn to the manner and methods of its actual realization and formulation? The answer lies in the scope and nature of the sources from which we draw our data. Even when dealing with the question of “Why?” our most important evidence remains the literary work itself, and even questions of historical and cultural background, against which these works have been written, may sometimes be decided only from the works themselves. Facts and considerations drawn from the fields of archaeology, epigraphy, sociology, economy, world history, contemporary cultures, and the history of religions are certainly to be taken into account in understanding this background. But the relevance of such evidence 8. Japhet, I and II Chronicles, 2. 9. For some notes on the separateness of the works see pp. 326–27 below.

310

Chapter 15

must be fully justified. The “Why?” question cannot be addressed before the “How?” question also because the authors of the works under consideration did not identify themselves, their motives, or their purposes in writing their books. Even if they had, it is doubtful whether we would have been satisfied with their views on the matter. The only sound methodology is thus to first analyze the nature and method of presentation in each literary work and follow with its background, motives, and purpose.

Ezra–Nehemiah The book of Ezra–Nehemiah is a historical description of the Restoration of Israel in the land of Judah between the second half of the 6th century and the first half of the 4th century b.c.e., that is, a period of about 150 years. 10 The historical description is focused on three topics and periods: 1. The building of the temple in the time of Cyrus and Darius (Ezra 1–6). 2. The return and activities of Ezra in the time of Artaxerxes (Ezra 7–10). 3. The leadership of Nehemiah and his enterprises in the time of Artaxerxes (Nehemiah 1–13). The book of Ezra–Nehemiah displays a very peculiar literary method, which is not attested elsewhere in the Bible. It is composed by means of a constant and faithful citation of existing documents, either official or literary. The official documents are supplied with a narrative framework and the literary ones are left to transmit their own story. 11 The author preserves the peculiarities of language (Hebrew or Aramaic), style, contents, and views of the original documents incorporated into his book, while his own additions to these documents are limited. The author’s composing hand is manifest in the book’s general structure, its specific periodization, some harmonistic remarks, and the material he added to his sources. The result 10. The book opens with the decree of Cyrus in the first year of his reign, that is 538 b.c.e. (Ezra 1:1), and ends formally with Nehemiah’s second term of office, which began in 433 b.c.e. (Neh 13:6). However, there are references within the book to later dates, and its actual chronological span is dependent on three factors: the identity of “Darius the Persian” in Neh 12:22— whether Darius II (423–404 b.c.e.) or Darius III (335–331 b.c.e.) is intended; the identity of “Artaxerxes,” whether the first or the second, in whose seventh year Ezra’s activity is dated (Ezra 7:7–8), that is, either 458 or 398 b.c.e., and the identity of the priests mentioned in Neh 12:11, 22, and their office. For a more general treatment of these matters, and the book’s peculiar chronological method, see S. Japhet, “Composition and Chronology in the Book of Ezra–Nehemiah,” in Second Temple Studies 2 (ed. T. C. Eskenazi and K. H. Richards; JSOTSup 175; Sheffield, 1994) 189–216 [[in this volume, pp. 245–267]]. 11. On this method, see S. Japhet, “Biblical Historiography in the Persian Period,” in World History of the Jewish People (ed. H. Tadmor and I. Ephºal; Ramat Gan, 1983) 6:181–82 [Hebrew]; H. G. M. Williamson, “The Composition of Ezra I–VI,” JTS 34 (1983) 1–26; and from a different point of view, T. C. Eskenazi, In an Age of Prose (Atlanta, 1988) 87–96, 189–91.

Postexilic Historiography: How and Why?

311

of this peculiar method is that the book speaks to us in several simultaneous voices. The voices of the various sources and the voice of the final author may differ in many ways, and sometimes present the reader with difficult historical problems. It is only through the understanding of this method that the various aspects of Ezra–Nehemiah become clear, and that the distinctive historical view taken by the author of Ezra–Nehemiah can be grasped. According to the historical picture drawn by Ezra–Nehemiah, the Restoration of Israel’s life had three central aspects, which form the focus of the book’s interest. (1) The most important aspect is the full renewal of religious life in Jerusalem and Judah. This renewal is described as occurring in several stages: the renovation of the altar and the re-establishment of regular sacrificial worship (Ezra 3:2–6); the building of the temple and the establishment of its clerical institutions (Ezra 3:7–6:18); provision for the maintenance and prosperity of the temple and the support of the priests and Levites (Ezra 6:9–10, 7:17–24, 8:25–27; Neh 10:33–40; 12:44–45; 13:10–13, 30–31); the reading of the Law and the establishing of its authoritative position in the life of Israel (Neh 8:1–9:4, 10:30, 13:1–3); the celebration of the festivals (Ezra 3:4–5, 6:19–22; Neh 8:13–18); the strict observance of the Sabbath (Neh 10:32, 13:15–22), and more. Renewal of religious life is the central axis of Ezra–Nehemiah. It is almost the exclusive topic of the first section of the book (Ezra 1–6) and large parts in the other sections are dedicated to it. The book thus describes the continuous and consistent effort to restore religious institutions, in the greatest possible conformity with the institutions and standards of the First Temple, though with a different economic, social, and spiritual basis. (2) The second aspect of Israel’s Restoration in Ezra–Nehemiah is the concrete, physical restoration of habitation and settlement, in Jerusalem and in Judah. This aspect of the Restoration is depicted in two ways: 1. Reference to and description of repeated acts of rehabilitation, settlement, and reform throughout the whole period, such as the return of exiles and their settlement (Ezra 1:5–6, 11; 2:1–70; 7:7–9; 7:28–8:36; Neh 2:5–9, etc.); the building and dedication of the walls of Jerusalem and the organization of its guard (Neh 1–4, 6:1–7:3, 12:27–43); and the populating of Jerusalem and the social care for the community (Neh 5:1–13, 7:4–71, 11:1–2). 2. Introduction of lists of various kinds which reflect and illustrate actual static situations and confer the feeling of an established, wellrooted community. One may mention such lists as returnees (Ezra 2 / Nehemiah 7; Ezra 8:2–24; Neh 12:1–8); people settled in the land (Neh 11:3–21); participants in events and ceremonies (Neh 3:1–32, 10:2–28); clergy (Neh 12:1–26); lists of settlements (Neh 11:25–35), and more.

312

Chapter 15

(3) The third aspect of Israel’s Restoration in Ezra–Nehemiah is the establishment and consolidation of the Judaean community as a “holy people.” Israel of the book of Ezra–Nehemiah is a community of “returnees,” people who went through the experience of the Babylonian Exile and returned to Judah. Although they are traced by genealogy to “the clans of Judah and Benjamin” (Ezra 1:5) or to the various clans to which they belong (Ezra 2, etc.), they are defined as “returned exiles” (benei hagolah, Ezra 4:1 etc.) or even “Exile” (hagolah, Ezra 9:4 etc.). 12 This community is fully aware of its historical role as the bearer of the history and destiny of Israel, and its members dedicate themselves to the keeping of God’s will and commandments. They are also actively occupied in preserving the purity of the community through repeated acts of segregation from and expulsion of foreign elements: “peoples of the land,” “foreign wives,” or “mixed.” This topic is a major component in the story of Ezra, but is found also in Nehemiah’s memoirs and in the words of the author himself (Ezra 4:1–4; 9–10; Neh 9:1– 2; 10:31; 13:1–3, 23–27). 13 Several salient features characterize this historical picture, first and foremost its basic positive perspective. Although the book of Ezra–Nehemiah is written in a very low key and is far from idealistic exaggeration, it leaves no doubt that the people of Israel have succeeded in their enterprise of Restoration. There certainly have been difficulties and occasional drawbacks, but no failures. The building of the temple was a longer and harder process than initially anticipated, but it was completed at the right time (Ezra 6:15– 16). The building of the walls of Jerusalem was met by intense opposition and intrigue, but was brought to a successful completion in the shortest possible time (Neh 6:15). Even regarding the problem of mixed marriages, which penetrated all layers of Judaean society, the author creates an impression of success (Ezra 10:17, 19; Neh 9:2, 10:31, 13:3). The problem was certainly difficult, but the people of Judah coped with and overcame it. Furthermore, all the difficulties that confronted the people of Judah were caused by outsiders, by external, powerful forces. The building of the 12. On this aspect of Ezra–Nehemiah see in more detail, Japhet, “People and Land,” 112– 18 [[in this volume, pp. 108–14]]. 13. It is also a major concern of biblical scholarship. In addition to the commentaries, see, among others, Y. Kaufmann, The Religion of Israel ( Jerusalem, 1956) 4:197–206 [Hebrew]; S. Japhet, “Law and ‘the Law’ in Ezra–Nehemiah,” in Proceedings of the Ninth World Congress of Jewish Studies: Panel Sessions (ed. M. Goshen-Gottstein; Jerusalem, 1988) 104–15 [[in this volume, pp. 137–151]]; D. L. Smith, The Religion of the Landless: The Social Context of the Babylonian Exile (Bloomington, 1989), passim; see the conclusion on pp. 196–97; S. Talmon, “Esra–Nehemia: Historiographie oder Theologie?” in Ernten, was man sät: Festschrift für Klaus Koch (ed. D. R. Daniels, U. Glessman, and M. Rosel; Neukirchen-Vluyn, 1991) 343–51; D. Smith-Christopher, “The Mixed Marriage Crisis in Ezra 9–10 and Nehemiah 13: A Study of the Sociology of the Post-Exilic Judaean Community,” in Second Temple Studies 2 (ed. T. C. Eskenazi and K. H. Richards; JSOTSup 175; Sheffield, 1994) 243–65; T. C. Eskenazi and E. P. Judd, “Marriage to a Stranger in Ezra 9–10,” in ibid., 266–85.

Postexilic Historiography: How and Why?

313

temple was halted not because of any laxity or negligence on the part of the people of Judah, or because of their desperate economic situation, 14 but because of the hostile intervention of “the adversaries of Judah and Benjamin” and the explicit command of the Persian king (Ezra 4:1–24). The delays in the building of the walls in the time of Nehemiah were all caused by “foes,” by adversaries who exploited every possible means to prevent the Restoration of Jerusalem (Neh 2:10, 19; 3:33–35; 4:1–5; 6:1–14). The people themselves were eager to build and cooperative in every way. It is significant that these drawbacks are not conceived in the theological framework of “sin and punishment.” The difficulties were temporary, practical obstacles, to be overcome by the people’s adherence to their goals. They are nowhere represented as divine punishment, or even as being of divine origin, nor are the people regarded as sinful. Only in the matter of the mixed marriages are the people presented as having committed actual sin (maºal, Ezra 9:2, 4, 6, 15). However, when confronted with the nature and meaning of their acts, the people immediately repent and do everything in their power to repair their ways (Ezra 10:2–5). “Sin” and “punishment” are certainly valid and powerful theological concepts in Ezra–Nehemiah. They are strongly emphasized in the several confessions and prayers included in the book, and serve to explain God’s ways in conducting the fortunes of his people. 15 From the perspective of this book, however, they belong either to the past or are considered as a latent threat for the future. They are not applied to the actual present of return and Restoration and do not explain the realities of the time. 16 Also characteristic of Ezra–Nehemiah are the chronological system and method of periodization, which determine the literary structure of the work. 17 Ezra–Nehemiah conceives of the Restoration as comprised of two consequent periods, each of which spans one generation. The focus of the first generation is the building of the temple (Ezra 1–6) and the center of the second is the activities of Ezra and Nehemiah (Ezra 7–Nehemiah 13). An outstanding characteristic of these periods is their political system. In each of the periods the people are ruled by a “pair” of leaders of equal 14. As depicted by Haggai and Zechariah (Hag 1:6–11, 2:15–19; Zech 8:10). See S. Japhet, “The Temple in the Restoration Period: Reality and Ideology,” USQR 43 (1991) 206–7 [[in this volume, pp. 196–97]]. 15. These confessions witness a strong sense of guilt, which is phrased mostly in conventional terminology. See Ezra 9; Nehemiah 1, 9; and the commentaries. 16. Except for one place in the whole book, that is, Neh 9:36–37. On the question of origin of this prayer, see H. G. M. Williamson, “Structure and Historiography in Nehemiah 9,” in Proceedings of the Ninth World Congress of Jewish Studies (ed. M. Goshen-Gottstein; Jerusalem, 1988) 117–31. 17. See in great detail, Japhet, “Composition and Chronology.” A further developed form of this article is “Periodization between History and Ideology II: Composition and Ideology in Ezra–Nehemiah,” in Judah and the Judeans in the Persian Period (ed. M. Oeming and O. Lipschitz; Winona Lake, Ind., 2006) 219–36 [[in this volume, pp. 416–31]].

314

Chapter 15

status: a secular leader (Zerubbabel, Nehemiah), and a clerical one (Joshua, Ezra). 18 Both the method of periodization and the assumed political system express Ezra–Nehemiah’s political ideology, and I will return to it later. Another feature of the historical picture is the absence of any expressed foresight toward the future. Not only eschatology—expectations for the “end of days”—is missing from the book, but any perspective toward the future. 19 The explicit focus of interest is exclusively the present, the actual moment. Thus, for example, when the building of the temple is concluded, all we hear is that the people celebrated its dedication “with joy” and reestablished the clerical institutions (Ezra 6:16–18). Nothing is said, for example, about the role of the temple in Israel’s life, how it will serve future generations, and what its fortunes will be—so much in contradistinction to the dedication of the First Temple, expressed in Solomon’s prayer and in God’s response to it (1 Kgs 8:21–53, 9:1–9). This is true of all the other events recorded in the book except for the immanent danger of mixed marriages (Ezra 9:14). The attention of the book is directed solely to the present. Moreover, any concept or fact that might be identified as, or even related to “eschatology” is missing from the book. This is seen most emphatically in the attitude to the Davidic ideology and to the concept of political independence. There are, indeed, a few reminiscences of David, 20 and even of the kingdom, 21 but these institutions belong exclusively to the past. They are irrelevant for the present day of the community’s life. The absence of any mention of the house of David, and in fact what seems to be an intentional avoidance of it, is most obvious in regard to the figure of Zerubbabel; his extended genealogy and even a reference to his Davidic ancestry are totally missing. 22 The only occasional reference to a Davidide, probably by oversight, is to a person named Hattush, in the list of returnees at the time of Ezra (Ezra 8:2). Kingship, political power and independence, and the house of David are all ignored, I would even say, silenced, in Ezra–Nehemiah.

18. See Japhet, “Composition and Chronology”; Talmon, “Esra–Nehemia,” 351–56. 19. See also W. Rudolph, Esra und Nehemia (HAT; Tübingen, 1949) xxx. 20. Ezra 3:10; Neh 12:24, 36, 45 (mentioning also Solomon), 46, relating to various aspects of the temple’s song; and Ezra 8:20 relating to the temple servants (Nethinim), “whom David and the officers had appointed.” All these references relate to David’s constitutive acts in the framework of the cult. Neh 3:16, 12:37 mention geographical points in the city of Jerusalem connected with David: “the graves of David” and “the steps of the City of David.” Ezra 8:2 defines the genealogy of one, Hattush, as “of the sons of David.” 21. See in particular Ezra 4:20, 5:11; Neh 9:32, 34, 35; 13:26. 22. These are attested in the prophecies of Haggai (in particular, 2:21–23), the genealogy of Chronicles (1 Chr 3:17–19), and probably also in Zechariah (6:12–13). See in detail S. Japhet, “Sheshbazzar and Zerubbabel against the Background of the Historical and Religious Tendencies of Ezra–Nehemiah,” ZAW 94 (1982) 66–98; in particular pp. 68–80 [[in this volume, pp. 55–66]].

Postexilic Historiography: How and Why?

315

Another peculiar feature of the description is the role allotted to the kings of Persia in the history of Israel. These kings are presented as the source of authority and initiative in all the important enterprises of the period. The book begins with Cyrus, who in the first year of his reign issued a decree permitting the Jews to rebuild the house of the Lord in Jerusalem (Ezra 1:1–4). It is followed by the command of Artaxerxes to stop the building of the temple (Ezra 4:17–23) and the renewed effort to build it in the second year of Darius (Ezra 5:1–2). This is followed by the investigation of Darius (Ezra 5:3–6:5), his own decree (Ezra 6:6–12), and the completion of the building in the sixth year of his reign (6:15). Then the story continues with the role of Artaxerxes, in whose days both Ezra and Nehemiah were active. His letter of authorization to Ezra (Ezra 7:12–26) and his authorization of Nehemiah (Neh 2:7–9, 5:14, 13:6) formed the basis for all their future enterprises. The role of the Persian kings is expressed not merely through the abundant narrative detail, but also in explicit, reflective statements. They are presented as inspired by the Lord’s spirit, and their acts are seen as the way in which the Lord of Israel chose to extend his love to his people. The best way to illustrate this astonishing trait is to cite a few examples: 1. “In the first year of King Cyrus of Persia . . . the Lord roused the spirit of King Cyrus of Persia to issue a proclamation. . . .” (Ezra 1:1). 2. “So the elders of the Jews progressed in the building . . . and they brought the building to completion under the aegis of the God of Israel and by the order of Cyrus and Darius and King Artaxerxes of Persia” (Ezra 6:14). 3. “They joyfully celebrated the Feast of Unleavened Bread for seven days, for the Lord had given them cause for joy by inclining the heart of the Assyrian king to them, so as to give them support in the work of the House of God, the God of Israel” (Ezra 6:22). 4. “Blessed is the Lord God of our fathers, who put it into the mind of the king, to glorify the House of the Lord in Jerusalem, and who inclined the king and his counselors and the king’s military officers to be favorably disposed toward me” (Ezra 7:27–28). 5. “For bondsmen we are, though even in our bondage God . . . has disposed the king of Persia favorably toward us, to furnish us with sustenance and to raise again the House of our God, repairing its ruins and giving us a hold in Judah and Jerusalem” (Ezra 9:9). This view of the role of the Persian kings may be traced to well-attested biblical theological tenets, but it bears its own peculiar marks. The attitude of biblical narrative towards foreign rulers in the history of Israel is generally to regard them as oppressors and enemies. 23 From a theological perspective 23. One may recall, for example, the figure of Pharaoh in all the biblical sources, or the kings who subordinated Israel during the period of the Judges. A more specific and politically oriented

316

Chapter 15

they were seen as the agents of the Lord in executing judgment against his people, his “rods.” 24 Probably following the excited pronouncements of Isaiah regarding Cyrus (Isa 44:28, 45:1–7), the book of Ezra–Nehemiah reverses the common picture as well as extends his view to all the Persian kings related to the history of Israel. These rulers were the benefactors, the agents of the Lord in bringing about the people’s salvation. These characteristics of the historical narrative are all interrelated and add up to a consistent ideology, which is the spiritual response to an actual historical reality. We should therefore turn to this historical background which may be learned, albeit in an incomplete way, from the eye-witnesses of the events, the prophets Haggai and Zechariah. The picture drawn from the words of Haggai and Zechariah conforms in many respects to that of Ezra–Nehemiah and thus adds weight and authority to the general historical portrayal. The process of restoration that the community in Judah was undergoing; the centrality of the issue of “building”—of the temple and the city; the difficulties that this community was facing; the role played by the prophets Haggai and Zechariah; the figures and roles of the leaders, Zerubbabel and Joshua, form the common ground of these books. In certain other matters, however, the views proclaimed by these books are no less than diametrically opposed. 25 Two of these matters are relevant to our immediate context: the role of the Persian rulers and the question of eschatology. In the books of Haggai and Zechariah, the Persian rulers play no role in the history of Israel, neither positive nor negative. The decrees of Cyrus and Darius on the one hand, and the command to stop the building of the temple, on the other hand, are not even mentioned. The only references to Darius are the chronological statements in the narrative framework (Hag 1:1, 15; 2:10; Zech 1:1, 7; 7:1). The responsibility for the fortunes of the community lies entirely in the hands of the people themselves: their egocentric neglect at one point and their enthusiastic devotion at another, were the origins of failure and success. Israel’s destiny is determined by God and the only mediators between the Lord of Israel and his people are the prophets. 26 view is displayed in the book of Kings. See N. Naªaman, “Criticism of Voluntary Servitude to Foreign Powers: A Historiographical Study in the Book of Kings,” in Proceedings of the Eleventh World Congress of Jewish Studies: Division A (ed. D. Assaf; Jerusalem, 1994) 63–70 [Hebrew]. 24. This is the term used by Isaiah regarding Assyria: “Ha! Assyria, rod of my anger, in whose hand, as a staff, is my fury” (Isa 10:5), but the idea is very common. See H. Wildberger, Isaiah 1–12: A Commentary (Hermeneia, 1991) 218–45, 424–26; G. von Rad, Old Testament Theology (2 vols.; New York, 1965) 2:183–84. 25. Regarding both the similarities and the differences, see Japhet, “The Temple,” 199–208, 216–22 [[in this volume, pp. 195–201 and 208–14]]. For a skeptical view of these materials, see R. Carroll, “So What Do We Know about the Temple? The Temple in the Prophets,” in Second Temple Studies 2 (ed. T. C. Eskenazi and K. H. Richards; JSOTSup 175; Sheffield, 1994) 34–51; D. J. A. Clines, “Haggai’s Temple, Constructed, Deconstructed and Reconstructed,” in ibid., 60–87. 26. See Hag 1:13; Zech 1:4–6; 2:12–13, 15–16; 4:9, etc.

spread is 9 points long

Postexilic Historiography: How and Why?

317

The counterpart of this attitude is the eschatological ideology that permeates the words of these prophets and motivates their activity. 27 This ideology may be best illustrated by the small book of Haggai, which contains two eschatological prophecies that predict the shaking of the natural world and the upheaval of the political one. The topic of the first prophecy is the temple, and it opens with: “In just a little while longer I will shake the heavens and the earth, the sea and the dry land. I will shake all the nations. And the precious things of all the nations shall come [here] and I will fill this House with glory, said the Lord of Hosts” (Hag 2:6–7). The second prophecy is addressed to Zerubbabel, and opens similarly: “I am going to shake the heavens and the earth, and I will overturn the thrones of kingdoms and destroy the might of the kingdoms of the nations. I will overturn chariots and their drivers. Horses and their riders shall fall each by the sword of his fellow” (Hag 2:21–22). The shaking of heaven and earth and the overturning of the political powers is to be followed by the establishment of a new world order founded on two pillars: the House of the Lord in Jerusalem, which is in the process of being built, and the kingship of the “house of David,” represented by the Davidic heir, Zerubbabel. 28 For Haggai, these cosmic changes are to happen “in a little while,” and they are connected with concrete, contemporary institutions. In fact, this “end of Days” would be an aggrandized repetition of the First Commonwealth, in a reversed order of attainment. The order for the first period was “conquest—settlement— kingship—rest,” that is, the securing of political independence and power followed by the consolidation of the cultic institutions and the building of the temple. In the new era soon to come, the building of the temple will be achieved first, to be followed by the establishment of Davidic kingship. It is probably by the force of this comprehensive eschatological ideology that Haggai and Zechariah succeeded in changing the attitude of the people and made them build the temple. “That day” was at their gates! Against the background of this ideology, the political statement of Ezra– Nehemiah is easily understandable. It is a sober reaction to the frustration from the unrealized eschatological hopes, and a declaration of confidence in the new reality. The eschatological hopes were founded on the expectation, actually the confidence, that God “will overturn the thrones of kingdoms and destroy the might of the kingdoms of the nations” (Hag 2:22). But the rule of the Persian Empire continued and strengthened, and seemed so solid as to last forever. In the meantime, a new reality had developed in Judah. There was now a rooted and active community, with a temple whose arrangements were being consolidated and a lifestyle that had as its center the worship of the Lord. This present situation, under the 27. On this matter, see Kaufmann, Religion of Israel, 4:219–20; 224–25; 247–51; 269–72; von Rad, Old Testament Theology, 2:282–84, 288. 28. As phrased vigorously by Clines, “designating him as nothing less than the universal and eschatological ruler” (“Haggai’s Temple,” 77). For a critique of the “domesticated” interpretations of earlier commentators, see ibid., nn. 52–53.

318

Chapter 15

auspices and benevolence of the Persian kings, is conceived in Ezra–Nehemiah as governed by God’s providence. It is “God’s steadfast love for Israel” and “the good hand” of the Lord for Israel. The adherence to this kind of life, separation from “the peoples of the land,” and observance of the commandments of the Lord, is a guarantee for the future—survival and prosperity. The position of Ezra–Nehemiah on the most fundamental issues of identity and continuity is characterized by a view of partial and restricted connection with the past. In terms of identity, the book professes a distinct definition of the “we,” the community in which Israel’s existence and survival is represented. This is the community of the “Exile,” the people from Judah, Benjamin, and Levi, who came from Babylon to settle in Judah. Ezra–Nehemiah displays no interest in the fortunes of the Diaspora as such, 29 and does not recognize any other “Israel” in the land. The “ten tribes” of northern Israel, or “non-returned” Judaeans in the land of Judah, simply do not exist in the view of this book. This partial and restricted connection with the past is true also in the book’s view of historical continuity between the new life, which began with the Return, and the past. The destruction of Jerusalem brought about the end of the Davidic kingdom and the destruction of the temple, but only the latter is to be renewed. The Davidic house, the monarchy, political independence, all are seen as having come to their final end. The decree of Cyrus and the period of Restoration are a new beginning, which is connected to the past through the medium of prophecy: “to fulfill the word of the Lord spoken through Jeremiah” (Ezra 1:1). This limited fulfillment, under the Persian rule, represents the people’s “hopeful future” ( Jer 29:10–14); no other is necessary or should be hoped for. In the structure of Ezra–Nehemiah and in much of its symbolism, the Restoration of the Judaean community is compared to the conquest of the land: a new revival of Israel. This revival, however, gets only as far as building the temple, the city and the walls, and the organization of the community. No farther.

Chronicles Moving from Ezra–Nehemiah to the book of Chronicles is like moving from one spiritual world to another; in its topic, contents, method, and ideology, Chronicles presents a different world. 29. The Jews of the Diaspora are referred to primarily as a “source:” of returnees (Ezra 1:3, 5, 11; 2:1–67; 7:6–9; 8:1–20, 35–36; Nehemiah 1–2) and financial means (Ezra 1:4, 2:68–69, 8:25–34). Their history, whether of individuals or collectives, is not recorded. How much the perspective of Ezra–Nehemiah has influenced the modern histories of the period is illustrated by the recent book of Grabbe, Judaism. Although the book’s topic is defined as “Judaism,” Diaspora Judaism is never treated on its own ( Judaism, 1:xxv). Why this fact did not affect the choice of title is another problem that the book presents.

Postexilic Historiography: How and Why?

319

The book of Chronicles 30 is a comprehensive historiography, which describes the history of Israel from its beginning to the end of the First Temple. It begins with Adam (1 Chr 1:1), thus being parallel to Genesis 1, and ends with the destruction of Jerusalem and the declaration of Cyrus. Except for the last four verses (2 Chr 36:20–23), its end parallels the last chapter of 2 Kings, and so it constitutes a “parallel” to the entire history of Israel, from Genesis to Kings. This history is told in three parts, distinguished in their topic, contents, and method. (1) 1 Chronicles 1–9 is the introduction, which provides the basis for the historical description that follows. The “introductory” function of this section is demonstrated by both contents and literary form. It provides answers to basic preliminary questions, such as: who is the people whose history is to be told, where does this people live, and what is the historical framework? (2) 1 Chronicles 10–2 Chronicles 9 tells the history of David and Solomon, presented as one period. In the longest and most detailed section of the book, this period is described as the climax of Israel’s history, in which it reached its peak in both worldly and spiritual achievements. (3) 2 Chronicles 10–36 presents the history of the people of Israel during the reign of the kings of Judah. It begins with the story of the rebellion, the defection of the northern tribes from their legitimate kings, and ends with the destruction of Jerusalem and the termination of the monarchy. The book concludes with the beginning of the declaration of Cyrus, cited from Ezra–Nehemiah (2 Chr 36:22–23). The “parallelic” essence of Chronicles is expressed not merely in the topic of the book but also in the details of contents and form: it follows the order of the preceding works and has the same chronological skeleton. Large parts of Chronicles are a repetition, literal or with changes, of earlier works. It is a “parallel history” in genre, historical framework, main contents, and method. 31 At the same time, however, there are also great differences between Chronicles and the preceding historiography. From among the books of the Pentateuch, the only one that is fully represented, albeit only through its lists, is the book of Genesis. Small sections are taken from Exodus, Numbers, and Joshua, but the historical portrayal of Chronicles 30. I have written extensively about Chronicles and will restrict myself here to the more general features of the work and to questions of background, provenance, and motivation. For a more detailed presentation of my views, see: S. Japhet, The Ideology of the Book of Chronicles and Its Place in Biblical Thought ( Jerusalem, 1977) [Hebrew]; English translation by Anna Barber (Frankfurt, 1989); idem, I and II Chronicles. 31. This “parallelic” nature of the book exerted great influence on the study of the book, in ancient as well as modern time. On this matter, see S. Japhet, “The Historical Reliability of Chronicles: The History of the Problem and Its Place in Biblical Research,” JSOT 33 (1985) 83– 88 [[in this volume, pp. 119–23]]; idem, I and II Chronicles, 28–29. For a list and classification of the parallels, see J. Kegler and M. Augustin, Synopse zum chronistischen Geschichtswerk (BEATAJ 1; 2nd ed.; Bern, 1991).

320

Chapter 15

skips over the sojourn of Israel in Egypt, the Exodus, the wanderings in the wilderness, the conquest of Canaan, the settlement, and the periods of Joshua, the Judges, and Saul. History moves directly from the genealogies of the sons of Jacob to the reign of David. In the description of the monarchic period, there are numerous omissions, additions, and changes in detail in the histories of David, Solomon, and all the kings of Judah, as well as a systematic omission of the independent history of the northern kingdom of Israel. This intensive reworking adds up to a thoroughly new picture of the history of Israel. This historiographical method, that is, the repetition of a story that has already been told, the founding of the historical description on earlier works to the degree of extensive literal citations, and yet the portraying of an idiosyncratic historical picture, raises the question of purpose: What was the goal of the Chronicler in his writing? Why did he make this enormous effort? Was his work intended to supplement earlier historiography or replace it? The concept of “supplement,” which was prevalent in the earlier interpretations of the book and still survives in certain circles, 32 is not supported by the literary nature of the work. If this was the author’s purpose, he could have limited himself to supplementing the books of Samuel–Kings with the few additional details that he had to offer. He certainly did not have to reiterate the historical course, or reproduce whole chapters word for word. The enormous effort put into the work clarifies the fact that the interest of the writer was not in the antiquarian knowledge of details, nor in the publishing of the “hard facts” of history. “Replacement” seems to be a better way of explaining the Chronicler’s project, but it is refuted by the correct argument that the Chronicler alludes to facts and topics that are not brought up in his book, and thus assumes the reader’s acquaintance with details that he has not provided or even suppressed. 33 The best way to define the author’s purpose is through the concept of “corrective history”: a thorough reformulating of ancient history from a new, “modern” perspective, responsive to its time. The new story should supplement the necessary facts where they were unknown or omitted, replace mistaken facts and explanations by historically probable and theologically valid ones, use all available sources and materials, and provide wholeness of form and meaning to the account of the past. Such a history would provide a new interpretation of the past, which would be valid for the present and lay the foundations for the future. How, then, does Chronicles respond to the central issues of his time?

32. The earliest testimony for this view is the name of the book in the Septuagint: Paraleipomena, that is, “[the book of] the things omitted” or “left over.” 33. This is pointed out particularly by H. G. M. Williamson, 1 and 2 Chronicles (NCB; Grand Rapids, 1982).

Postexilic Historiography: How and Why?

321

Although the book of Chronicles deals with a host of subjects in the worldly and spiritual spheres—it seems, in fact, that it has touched upon every important topic that pertains to Israel’s history and religion—and these subjects are scattered throughout the book as demanded by the historical course and the narrative plan, the book’s composition in three sections constitutes also a representation of the super-arching components of the historical portrayal. 1 Chronicles 1–9 concentrates on the question of identity and answers the question of “who is Israel,” the protagonist of the story and the bearer of God’s providence. 1 Chronicles 10–2 Chronicles 9 portrays the “ideal,” that period in the history of Israel which is the model for all times to come. And 2 Chronicles 10–36 expounds the author’s philosophy of history and unveils the mysteries of the historical course. These chapters uncover the ways of God in ruling the world and display how the divine attributes were realized and demonstrated in the history of Israel. Following the deep-structure of the book but availing myself of the testimony of the work as a whole, I will present its views on these three topics. (1) The Chronicler has a very clear view of the people of Israel: they are the descendants of the sons of Jacob, “the children of Israel.” Although the concept of “the twelve tribes” is an active symbol in the book, the actual constitution of Israel is not determined by this concept. Israel is the name for everyone who descends from the seed of Jacob, in the broadest possible meaning of these terms. In the first nine chapters of the book, the prevalent genre is genealogy, which is a major form for the Chronicler’s conceptualization of identity. “Who you are” is determined by “where you come from,” that is, by ancestral origin and the way in which descent from this origin is actually traced. In providing this genealogical basis for Israelite identity, the Chronicler is as inclusive as possible; 34 every element in the land of Israel is made to be connected to the basic structure of the sons of Jacob. Those among the inhabitants of the land who are expressly foreigners, are regarded as “sojourners” (gerim), who also form part of the people of Israel (2 Chr 30:25, etc.). Thus, contrary to the more common function of genealogy as the means of exclusion and restriction, of setting boundaries between the legitimate and non-legitimate, the Chronicler employs the genealogical format as the way of inclusion, of stretching to the broadest limits the concept of “Israel.” The Chronicler traces the genealogy of Israel back to Adam, who is thus presented as the ancient father of Israel, and with it expresses his peculiar concept of Israel’s election. The special relationship between the people and their God is not viewed as a result of a particular historical act at a given historical moment. It is an absolute relationship, embedded in the

34. See Japhet, Ideology, 267–351; T. Willi, “Late Persian Judaism and Its Conception of an Integral Israel according to Chronicles,” in Second Temple Studies 2 (ed. T. C. Eskenazi and K. H. Richards; JSOTSup 175; Sheffield, 1994) 146–62.

322

Chapter 15

very creation of the world, and whose validity is similar to that between God and the universe. Parallel to this “inclusive” concept of ethnic identity is the Chronicler’s view of geographical identity. In concrete, geographical terms he describes the borders of the land of Israel in their greatest extent, and as early as the beginning of their history at the onset of David’s kingship (1 Chr 13:5). From a theological point of view, he regards the bond between the people and the land as a constant. Settlement in the land of Israel goes back to the sons of Jacob themselves, that is, to the earliest beginnings of the people’s existence. All the intermediate periods of “Exile,” such as the sojourn in Egypt on the one hand, and the Babylonian Exile on the other, are played down and almost ignored. The tie between the people and their land is viewed as an undisturbed continuity; it is not a result of an historical act at a historical moment, but an essential aspect of their being. (2) The history of David and Solomon is presented in Chronicles as one successive period, and along the same lines of form and contents. Although it is not depicted as “ideal” (some mistakes and drawbacks are to be found even here) this is the glorious period in the history of Israel, which has never been repeated. Only very few of the subsequent Davidic monarchs, particularly Hezekiah, approached it to some degree, but no one has succeeded in emulating it. The Chronicler omitted from the story of his sources almost all the chapters that cast a shadow, or might be understood to do so, on the figures of David and Solomon. David’s sins, the struggle for his succession, Solomon’s sins of idolatry, the political drawbacks in Solomon’s times, and more, are all omitted in the Chronicler’s story. 35 To the rest of the story which he takes from 2 Samuel–1 Kings, the Chronicler adds his own material. Most extensive additions are provided for the time of David, pertaining primarily to ceremonial celebrations and to administrative matters of the temple and the kingdom. This huge corpus has a double function: it serves to highlight and glorify the achievements of the kings, particularly David, and to equalize their respective reigns. The long period under David and Solomon, the apex of Israel’s history, was a glorious time of prosperity and success. The model presented by David and Solomon comprises elements of all aspects of life. The state’s political order is the monarchy, which for the Chronicler is the “natural,” self-evident regime, adopted by all nations. Geographical expanse, constitution of the people, economic prosperity, military prowess, political administration, international reputation and contacts, are all at their utmost level of achievement. As for the religious sphere, this period sees the building of the First Temple in its extraordinary splendor, the establishment of cultic ritual and clerical institutions, the introduction of temple music and song, and the consistent care for the most minute details of temple administration. This is also a period of almost no sin. The people 35. See the synoptic lists in Kegler and Augustin, Synopse.

spread is 6 points long

Postexilic Historiography: How and Why?

323

are described as enthusiastic about the building of the temple and devoted to the worship and the commandments of the Lord, while their kings are depicted as wise and devoted leaders. Only in a few issues relating to David do we trace some setbacks, but he repents and makes reparation. The history of David and Solomon is in every respect the historical model, to which every period in the history of Israel should aspire. (3) The reign of the kings of Judah is a direct continuation of David and Solomon in the historical and political aspects, but the integrity that characterized this “model period” has been disrupted. Based on the material taken from the book of Kings with greater or lesser omissions and additions, the history of the kings of Judah is portrayed as a continuous struggle with constant vacillations from one extreme to the other. The task of the historian, underlined in his handling of this period, is not merely to describe the events but to explain them. This is when the principles that govern the Lord’s guidance are the most manifest, and when the Lord’s attributes, particularly his justice, are illustrated in the most minute details of the historical description. The Chronicler’s view of God’s justice is influenced greatly by that of Ezekiel, but is transferred from the realm of the individual to the public, national arena. There is a constant correlation between “deed” and “reward.” Human act, good or evil, is always and immediately recompensed, and any human state of welfare or misfortune is a consequence of God’s retribution, measured to fit the human conduct. Important components of this philosophy are the concepts of warning, repentance, and compassion, which involve an increased emphasis on the role of the prophets in Israel’s history. Although the theological basis of this view may have other biblical expressions, the Chronicler develops it into a comprehensive, encompassing theory. More importantly, he portrays the history of Israel as a constant realization of these principles: this is how the history of Israel actually unfolded. One of the most significant consequences of this philosophy is its basic positive view of the fortunes and future of Israel. Since each and every sin is immediately punished, there is no burden of blame carried on from one generation to the next. There is no “accumulated sin,” and each generation is a tabula rasa, whose fortunes are decided by its own choice. It raises to the highest degree the concept of self-responsibility, but it also provides a starting point of great hope for every new generation, for the very possibility of continuity and restoration. One of the major themes of Chronicles, which runs throughout the book, is the place of religion, in the limited sense of the term, in the history of Israel. The temple—its site, plans, preparations for, building, furnishing, dedication, and restorations; the temple personnel and administration— priests, Levites, singers, doorkeepers, treasurers, and more; the ritual, sacrifices, music, and more; the temple’s economy and history; celebration of the festivals, primarily Passover; the teaching of the Law; faithfulness to the

324

Chapter 15

Lord versus idolatry—all these are the subject of great interest and the author refers to them repeatedly and throughout his work. 36 The major role in this field is assumed by David and Solomon, who bring the ark to Jerusalem, prepare for the temple, build and dedicate it, and establish the constitutive forms of ritual and administration. However, the following kings both continued in the steps of their predecessors and also initiated and executed reforms and innovations of their own. The first Commonwealth was a period of laying the foundations, of struggle and renewal in the religious life of Israel. A comparison with the preceding Deuteronomistic historiography highlights two different aspects to this picture. The first is the great interest and the enormous literary effort put into the description of these matters and in their integration into the story; the second is the specific points of interest within the general subject. These two features reveal the Chronicler’s vantage point and his reaction to issues of his time. The Chronicler’s greatest attention is given to the innovative aspects of Israel’s worship and to the very questions of innovation and authority. While the sacrificial cult as established in the Pentateuch is basically taken for granted, the Chronicler deals extensively with aspects of cult administration and ritual that are not recorded in the Pentateuch. These include, among others, the introduction of the system of rotating “divisions” for all the classes of temple personnel; the division of the Levites into four sub– groups, Levites, singers, gatekeepers, judges and scribes (1 Chr 23:4–5) and clear definition of their tasks; the introduction of temple music and descriptions of ritual ceremonies in which “song” is greatly emphasized; the presentation of various innovations in the celebration of the festivals, and more. All these reflect either the Chronicler’s own reality or his concepts and aspirations. His major motive is legitimization, based on the concept of “genealogy.” Present day institutions are legitimized by the uncovering of their origins. The “writing of David” or the “order of the king,” which were inspired and sanctified by God or were “the command of the prophets,” are the source of authority from which contemporary institutions and concepts receive their validity. When the Chronicler’s overall ideology is compared with that of Ezra– Nehemiah, his agenda becomes clear. Although the two works have several common interests and respond to similar major aspects of historical existence, they are acting against different historical backgrounds. As demonstrated above, the Chronicler’s answer to the question of identity is totally different from that of Ezra–Nehemiah, and a similar difference may be seen in his concept of continuity. The reader of Chronicles cannot fail to note the dominant “future perspective” from which the book is written. This correct observation, however, has led many scholars to define the book as “eschatology” and ascribe to it eschatological ideology. But this interpretation 36. See Japhet, Ideology, 199–265; 438–44.

spread is 6 points long

Postexilic Historiography: How and Why?

325

is entirely mistaken, if we take the term “eschatology” to mean what it does. The Chronicler does not share the prophetic expectations for “the end of days,” and cannot be regarded as the follower of Haggai and Zechariah. He does not foresee any changes in the cosmic or even the political constitution of the world. Rather, his concept of the Lord’s guidance of the world by absolute, constant principles mitigates against any concept of dramatic change. Yet, the Chronicler is not satisfied with the reality of “the Restoration” either. In Ezra–Nehemiah the new beginning initiated by Cyrus’s decree forms the basis for the Restoration of Israel. In Chronicles, by contrast, the first sentences of the same decree constitute the end of the story. The decree of Cyrus is presented in Chronicles indeed as a beginning of a change, but it is not followed by fulfillment, because what has been described in the book of Ezra–Nehemiah cannot count. Fulfillment is still ahead, a matter of the future. The Chronicler’s whole view of history is a clear pointer to a future, when Israel will achieve its true destiny. This is a belief in the concrete revival of Israel, in earthly, political terms within the framework of historical time. The model of that revival is the period of David and Solomon: the broadest definition of Israel both as people and land, political independence and Davidic kingdom. The guarantee for the realization of this future is what the Chronicler tried so hard to describe: the positive picture of God’s providence. His guidance in justice and compassion must lead to the near revival of Israel, in all its glory.

1 Esdras Compared with Ezra–Nehemiah on the one hand and Chronicles on the other, 1 Esdras is the least impressive work of postexilic historiography. Contrary to Ezra–Nehemiah it has no new story to tell, and unlike Chronicles, it is not a comprehensive new interpretation of the history of Israel. However, 1 Esdras is a historiography and belongs with the two earlier works also by its actual text: most of its story parallels literally either Ezra– Nehemiah or Chronicles. 1 Esdras reacts to a close historical background and its study sheds light not merely on the book’s own message but on the views and positions of its predecessors as well. 1 Esdras describes the history of Israel from the celebration of the Passover by Josiah king of Judah to the reading of the Law in the time of Ezra, covering a period of about 165 or 225 years. 37 As the book stands, the historical description is composed of three parts:

37. Josiah’s Passover is dated in all biblical sources to the 18th year of his reign (2 Kgs 23:23, 2 Chr 35:19, 1 Esd 1:22), that is, 622 b.c.e. According to 1 Esdras, Ezra’s reading of the Law followed immediately the settlement of the mixed marriages affair (1 Esd 9:17, 37), and should be placed at the 8th year of Artaxerxes, i.e., either 457 or 397 b.c.e. (for these alternatives, see n. 10 above).

326

Chapter 15

1. The history of the kings of Judah, from Josiah’s Passover to the destruction of Judah and Jerusalem (1 Esdras 1). 2. The building of the Second Temple during the times of Cyrus and Darius (1 Esdras 2–7). 3. The return and activities of Ezra the scribe (1 Esdras 8–9). From the perspective of sources, 1 Esdras has three components: 1. 1 Esdras 1 is parallel, with minor changes, to 2 Chr 35–36. 2. 1 Esdras 2 and 5:7–9:55 parallel Ezra 1–10 and Neh 7:72–8:13a, with some changes in order and detail. 3. 1 Esdras 3:1–5:6 is peculiar to this book and is not attested in any other source. 38 In the period it covers, its topic, contents, and source, 1 Esdras is more similar to Ezra–Nehemiah, whereas by some of its contents, and particularly by its major characteristic of being a “parallel history,” it follows the example of Chronicles. The question of its origin and relationship to these two works is thus of the greatest significance, and probably the most discussed subject in the study of the work. 39 A stand on this matter is also of great relevance for our discussion, as it might influence our understanding of the whole historiographical corpus. A quite common position on this matter is that 1 Esdras represents a fragment of an original work, which comprised in one sequence Chronicles and Ezra–Nehemiah. Those who profess this view usually bring up another literary aspect of the book, its actual extent, as both ends of the work seem curtailed. The book opens in the middle of Josiah’s reign, presenting with no introduction or proposition the story of the Passover: “and Josiah made . . .” (1 Esd 1:1). 40 It ends even more abruptly with the first word of Neh 8:13: “They came together,” 41 left as is. Could this be the original format of the work, or is the book that has come down to us only a fragment of a longer one, the boundaries of which are unknown? 42 As already indicated by the order of my presentation 38. For the details see S. A. Cook, “I Esdras,” APOT, 1:1; Myers, I and II Esdras, 1–4. 39. See E. Bayer, Das dritte Buch Esdras und sein Verhältnis zu den Büchern Esra–Nehemia (Freiburg, 1911); K. F. Pohlmann, Studien zum dritten Esra: Ein Beitrag zur Frage nach dem ursprünglichen Schluss des chronistischen Geschichtswerkes (FRLANT 104; Göttingen, 1970); H. G. M. Williamson, Israel in the Book of Chronicles (Cambridge, 1976) 12–36; T. C. Eskenazi, “The Chronicler and the Composition of I Esdras,” CBQ 48 (1986) 39–61; A. Schenker, “La relation d’Esdras A’ au texte massorétique d’Esdras–Néhémie,” in Tradition of the Text: Festschrift D. Barthélemy (Göttingen, 1991) esp. pp. 238–46. 40. In Hebrew: wayaºas, in Greek: kaµ hßgagen. 41. In Hebrew: wayeªasfu, in Greek: kaµ sunhvcqhsan. The modern translations try to overcome this abruptness in various ways. 42. Eskenazi sees in the abruptness itself, especially at the end, an intentional literary device and regards it as one of the proofs that the author of this work (but not of Ezra– Nehemiah) was the Chronicler (“The Chronicler,” 56–59). Most scholars, including Williamson, who regards 1 Esdras as independent of the Chronicler’s work and of Ezra–Nehemiah, regard the present form of the book as incomplete.

spread is 3 points long

Postexilic Historiography: How and Why?

327

(which did not begin with 1 Esdras) I do not accept the view that 1 Esdras represents a fragment of an original work that comprised Chronicles and Ezra–Nehemiah. Elaboration on this point is outside the scope of this article, 43 but suffice it to say that, following other scholars before me, I regard 1 Esdras as a work on its own. While it should certainly be compared with Ezra–Nehemiah and Chronicles, it has its own purpose, method, and ideology. The nature of 1 Esdras as a “corrective history” is demonstrated in two different areas, the historical and ideological. The book exhibits an impressive effort to remove the chronological and historical difficulties presented in the story of Ezra 4, and accord the historical course a more coherent flow. 44 In the realm of ideology, 1 Esdras reacts to the same issues that were dealt with by both Ezra–Nehemiah and Chronicles and this reaction determines its position vis-à-vis the previous historical books and against the background of its period. (a) In terms of historical continuity, the picture of 1 Esdras is different from both Ezra–Nehemiah and Chronicles. While Ezra–Nehemiah opened with the declaration of Cyrus and passed in complete silence over what preceded it, and Chronicles presented Cyrus’s declaration as a turning point, the continuation of which still lies in the future, 1 Esdras bridges the gap between the periods of the First Temple and the Second by the very flow of the story. Destruction, Exile, and Restoration are fully integrated into the flow of history. The fall of Jerusalem loses the severe meaning that it had in the book of Kings, and Cyrus’s decree becomes one in a series of events. It no longer marks, as in Ezra–Nehemiah, the beginning of the new period nor, as in Chronicles, is it the vantage point toward a new future. The realization of the concept of continuity can be seen as the motive and purpose of the book’s structure. The author does not show any interest in the actual history 43. For arguments against this view see, for the time being, Williamson, Israel; Eskenazi, “The Chronicler,” 42–43. As we have shown on many other occasions, and as demonstrated by other discussions of this topic, the underlying concept of continuity between Chronicles and Ezra–Nehemiah cannot be upheld anymore (for my last statement on this issue, see Japhet, “The Relationship between Chronicles and Ezra–Nehemiah,” in Congress Volume: Leuven, 1989 [ed. J. A. Emerton; VTSup 43; Leiden, 1991] 298–313 [[in this volume, pp. 169–82]]), and this fact by itself undermines the “fragment hypothesis” for the composition of 1 Esdras. As will be evidenced in what follows, my view differs also from that of Eskenazi, who sees in 1 Esdras a separate work but attributes its composition to the Chronicler (“The Chronicler,” 44–61). Eskenazi has eloquently elucidated the similarities between 1 Esdras and Chronicles, but failed to consider the differences between them, some of them of the greatest significance for each author’s world view. These differences put the possibility of a common author in serious doubt. 44. For the difficulties, see Japhet, “Composition and Chronology,” 201–5 [[in this volume, pp. 254–58]]; L. Dequeker, “Darius the Persian and the Reconstruction of the Jewish Temple in Jerusalem (Ezra 4:24),” OLA 55 (1993) 69–70. In spite of the great effort, the harmonization does not seem to have worked out. Even among those scholars who see 1 Esdras as the original form of the work, some would nevertheless view the reversal of order as a secondary element in 1 Esdras. See Rudolph, Esra und Nehemia samt 3. Esra, xii–xiii.

328

Chapter 15

of the interim period, as he does not “fill in” the bridged gap by any additional data. Nor are theological explanations given for the transition from one historical stage to the other. A direct and uneventful way leads from Destruction to Restoration, through the decree of Cyrus and beyond it. (b) One of the major changes in 1 Esdras pertains to the figure and role of Zerubbabel, who becomes the central figure and the major protagonist of the whole period. The tendency to “stretch” the span of Zerubbabel’s office and project him from the time of Darius back to that of Cyrus is found already in Ezra–Nehemiah. Yet, he is not explicitly mentioned there at the completion of the temple, and he is not included in the transfer of the temple’s vessels, which is presented exclusively as the role of Sheshbazzar (Ezra 1:7–11, 5:14–15). In 1 Esdras this matter is corrected at both ends of the story: Zerubbabel is mentioned by name in connection with the completion of the temple (1 Esd 6:27) and is referred to explicitly with regard to the transfer of the holy vessels (1 Esd 6:18). The term of his office thus covers the entire period from Cyrus to Darius. Moreover, the refraining in Ezra–Nehemiah from any form of glorification with regard to Zerubbabel is “corrected” in 1 Esdras in several ways. With the introduction of the story of the three guards, of which he is the hero, he is presented as full of wisdom and piety, devoted to the welfare of his people. The Davidic descent of Zerubbabel, which is totally silenced in Ezra–Nehemiah, is reaffirmed in 1 Esdras by an explicit genealogy: “Zorobabel, the son of Salatiel, of the house of David, of the lineage of Phares, of the tribe of Judah” (1 Esd 5:5). 45 He is also explicitly referred to as the governor of Judah (1 Esd 6:27), a fact that is suppressed in Ezra–Nehemiah. Zerubbabel’s wise words are cited extensively: in his answer to Darius’s challenge, his negotiations with the king and his prayer (1 Esd 4:13–63) and his personality and wisdom are greatly lauded. In 1 Esdras Zerubbabel is the central figure of the Restoration. On the other hand, while 1 Esdras follows Haggai in calling Zerubbabel “my servant” (Hag 2:23, 1 Esd 6:27), it does not adopt the eschatological perspectives of the Restoration prophets. In 1 Esdras Zerubbabel is not the bearer of any eschatological expectations, not even the hope of political renewal and independence. Due to the additions in 1 Esdras the story of Zerubbabel comes close to a “court story,” which by its very definition presupposes the authority and benevolence of the foreign rulers. In this respect, 1 Esdras follows in the wake of Ezra–Nehemiah, seeing in the Persian rule the “good hand” of the Lord toward his people. (c) The literary structure of Ezra–Nehemiah, which expresses its sociopolitical view of the period, is completely disrupted in 1 Esdras. As we have seen, according to Ezra–Nehemiah the political order in Judah during the 45. On the textual difficulty of this verse see the commentaries; also Japhet, “Sheshbazzar and Zerubbabel against the Background of the Historical and Religious Tendencies of Ezra– Nehemiah,” ZAW 95 (1983) 219 n. 6 [[in this volume, p. 86 n. 6]].

Postexilic Historiography: How and Why?

329

Restoration Period was a rule of “pairs,” a secular and a clerical ruler working together. 1 Esdras breaks up this structure in three different ways. For the first period of the Restoration 1 Esdras augments the role of Zerubbabel without doing the same for the priest Joshua. The result of this change is that Joshua is no more Zerubbabel’s equal but acts very much in his shadow. For the second period 1 Esdras omits altogether the story of Nehemiah and leaves Ezra as the sole protagonist of this period. And finally, by beginning his story with Josiah, the entire periodization has been changed. This restructuring seems to express, among other things, a certain rivalry between the figures of Nehemiah and Zerubbabel. 1 Esdras recognizes in the history of the Restoration Period only one “governor of Judah”: Zerubbabel, “the servant of the Lord,” the descendant of the house of David. 46 Although his office is subordinate to the foreign rulers of the country, he is nevertheless the legitimate heir of the earlier monarchy. There is no political independence indeed, but in Zerubbabel the rule of the Davidic kings is somehow continued.

Conclusion The study of the three works that constitute postexilic historiography illustrates in an unmistakable way their political dimensions. In the book of Ezra–Nehemiah Israel was asked to adjust to a political situation at the peak of the Persian Period, when the Persian military and political supremacy seemed so solid as to last for ever. In reaction to earlier messianic movements it now adopted a quietist approach, which saw in the limited Restoration under the Persians the grace of God. All the religious fervor and energy were to be directed to the formation of a “pure Israel,” a “holy seed,” which would secure the physical and spiritual survival of Israel, and would realize the perfect relationship between Israel and its God. The book of Chronicles was written later than Ezra–Nehemiah, at the end of the Persian or at the beginning of the Hellenistic Period. For the Chronicler, the great change in the history of Israel still lies in the future but is sure to come. Chronicles is a profound “stock taking” of all of Israel’s history and faith in preparation for this change. It lays the foundations for the unbroken continuity—from the very creation of the world—among past, present, and future. 1 Esdras is obviously later than Chronicles and should be dated to the Hellenistic Period in the third century. Following Chronicles, it preserves 46. In the same vein, the reference to Sheshbazzar as governor is also omitted or rephrased. The words “whom he had appointed governor” of Ezra 5:14 are omitted, and the reference to him as the receiver of the temple’s vessels is augmented to include Zerubbabel, thus: “they were delivered to Zorobabel and Sanabassarus the governor” (1 Esd 6:18). Sheshbazzar’s Hebrew title of Ezra 1:8 “the prince (hanasiª) of Judah” is rendered in 1 Esd 2:11 with the rare word: “the appointed” (prostavt¬).

330

Chapter 15

the hope of a Davidide as Israel’s ruler, but the general political framework for Israel’s existence is very much different from the model set by Chronicles. The hope for a change in the fortunes of Israel is limited, and as in Ezra–Nehemiah the survival and welfare of Israel is dependent on the world powers. Could it be said, then, that postexilic historiography is a “political history”? The answer, which would apply to any part of biblical historiography, would be both in the positive and in the negative. It is positive because, as historiography, it is a response to a political situation and makes a political statement. It is also in the negative, because the term “political” does not exhaust it. “Pure” politics do not exist according to the most basic presuppositions of biblical faith. The world is ruled by God, and he alone conducts all that happens in it. Any statement about politics is by definition a statement about God, about his guidance and providence for the world or, more restrictedly, for the people of Israel. The two protagonists of biblical historiography, including its postexilic segment, are God and Israel. Moreover, “history” is not merely one aspect of religion, but is the arena in which the manifestation of God’s sovereignty is expressed. The role of the biblical historian, like that of any historian, is to uncover the chain of cause and effect in the actual unfolding of history. Since the primary cause of the world history is God, the principle that guides this history is the will of God and history is “religious” in the broadest sense of the term. Yet, this “religious” framework of the concept of history does not preclude history from being rational at the same time. God’s acts in ruling the world are neither willful nor arbitrary. The world is governed by rational principles which are the divine attributes. These principles are known and understandable and were revealed to man by God’s self-revelation. The conclusions of this discussion may be summarized in a broad characterization of postexilic historiography. Very much in contrast to its Deuteronomistic antecedent, postexilic historiography has a positive message at its core and is basically optimistic. It was not written as a theodicy, aimed to justify God in the face of the Destruction, or as a memorial to an extinguished past. It conceives of the political reality as the expression of the will of God, but is consigned to this reality and is operating within its framework. For postexilic historiography, the trauma of the Exile is a matter of the past.

Chapter 16

Exile and Restoration in the Book of Chronicles 1. The Chronological Master-Plan The book of Chronicles does not fit well into the framework of the conference theme, as it is not a contemporary witness to the 6th or 5th century b.c.e. This, however, should not detract from its significance for the understanding of those centuries, and its relevance to the questions of identity and continuity posed by the conference. Written at the end of the Persian— or perhaps even better—at the beginning of the Hellenistic Period, it observes the one that preceded it from without, and certainly relates to it. As is generally accepted (although some differences of opinion exist on this as on any other matter), the book of Chronicles was composed in the last part of the 4th century, most probably after the Persian rule had come to an end. By its genre it is a historical work—although the debate about this definition continues. Whether, or to what degree, the Chronicler should be regarded as a historian, and whether—or to what degree—his work should be studied from a historical or a theological perspective, are questions that are still the focus of attention. 1 Nevertheless, from a generic point of view Chronicles is a history. It is a description of the whereabouts of the people of Israel from its creation onwards, throughout the centuries. Considering the two parameters that I have just mentioned—the point in time at which the book of Chronicles was written, and its topic—the question of its chronological master-plan immediately comes to mind: Why did the Chronicler deal with the distant past, from the beginning of humanity onwards, and did not recount the events of the immediate past, the last centuries of the Persian Period? More specifically, why did he not bring the story up to his own time, stopping short two centuries earlier? Author’s note: This essay was originally presented at the conference “Israelite Religion under Stress: Continuity and Discontinuity in the Sixth and Fifth Centuries b.c.e.,” which took place on 5–8 April 1998, in Soesterberg, Holland. 1. See the recent collection of essays dedicated to this topic: M. P. Graham et al., eds., The Chronicler as Historian (JSOTSup 238; Sheffield, 1997). In the most recent commentary on Chronicles, Johnstone denies the book any claim to history: “C [Chronicles] is a theological work,” or: “C’s must be termed a work of Theology,” William Johnstone, 1 and 2 Chronicles ( JSOTSup 253; Sheffield, 1997) 10, 23.

331

332

Chapter 16

Before addressing the question, it should be presented in greater detail. The Chronicler’s historical blueprint is well known and needs no repeating. 2 Stated in the briefest terms, the story begins at the earliest possible point in time, that is, with Adam, the first human being, and continues with the history of Israel, omitting or epitomizing certain periods. It passes quickly to the history of the monarchical period, which is presented in great detail as the “history of Israel.” 3 The story follows the kingdom to its end: the destruction of Jerusalem, the burning of the temple, the termination of Davidic rule, and the Exile (2 Chr 36:20–21). The book concludes with a short fragment of the edict of Cyrus, cited from the book of Ezra (2 Chr 36:22–23). Thus, the general question of how the book ends may be approached from two directions: (a) The relationship of Chronicles at this point to the book of Kings. Although the Chronicler’s history draws very heavily on the book of Kings, and in particular on its historical and chronological framework, 4 the Chronicler chose a different ending for his story. Taking the historical outline of Kings as a point of departure, the Chronicler could have concluded the monarchical period at one of three points: destruction and Exile (2 Kgs 25:21), the office of Gedaliah the son of Ahikam, terminated by his assassination (25:22–26), or the rehabilitation of Jehoiachin by the Babylonian emperor in the 37th year of Jehoiachin’s reign (25:27–30). The Chronicler did not adopt any of these alternatives. He followed the story of Kings to the end of the reign of Zedekiah, described the fall of Jerusalem and the Exile (2 Chr 36:20), 5 skipped the story of Gedaliah and the rehabilitation of Jehoiachin, and moved directly to the conclusion of the exilic period. He bridged this gap in two ways: by rephrasing the wording of 2 Kgs 25:21 (in vv. 20–21) and adding the first sentences of the edict of Cyrus (in 36:22–23). Thus the final statement “So Judah went into exile out of its land” (2 Kgs 25:21) was replaced by: “He took into exile in Babylon those who had escaped from the sword, and they became servants to him and to his sons until the establishment of the kingdom of Persia. To fulfill 2. See the commentaries, e.g., H. G. M. Williamson, 1 and 2 Chronicles (NCBC; London, 1982) 33–6; S. Japhet, I and II Chronicles: A Commentary (OTL; London, 1993) 8–13. 3. The peculiarities of the Chronicler’s historical sketch, such as the omission of the narrative portion of the Pentateuch (the Patriarchs, the servitude in Egypt, the Exodus, the wandering in the wilderness etc.), and of the conquest of Canaan and the period of the Judges, and the refrainment from relating the history of the northern kingdom in its own right, have been discussed at some length in the scholarly literature. Although they all belong to the broad context of the present discussion, they will not be dealt with here. 4. The general chronological structure of Chronicles follows faithfully that of Kings, in spite of differences in detail. On these differences see recently, W. B. Barnes, “Non-Synoptic Chronological References in the Books of Chronicles,” in Graham et al., eds., The Chronicler as Historian ( JSOTSup 238; Sheffield, 1997) 103–31. 5. On the many differences in detail see S. Japhet, The Ideology of the Book of Chronicles and Its Place in Biblical Thought (ET; Frankfurt & Bern, 1989) 364–73; idem, I and II Chronicles, 1061–77.

Exile and Restoration in the Book of Chronicles

333

the word of the Lord by the mouth of Jeremiah (until the land had made up for its Sabbaths—all the days that it lay desolate it kept sabbath), to fulfill seventy years.” This is then followed by: “In the first year of King Cyrus of Persia, in fulfillment of the word of the Lord spoken by Jeremiah, the Lord stirred up the spirit of King Cyrus of Persia so that he . . . declared: ‘. . .whoever is among you of all his people, may the Lord his God be with him! Let him go up.’ ” (b) The second direction from which the book’s ending should be analyzed is by reviewing what is missing: Why did the Chronicler end his history with the edict of Cyrus and not go on to bring the story up to his own time? Would not such a procedure be almost “natural” for a historian? Is he not expected to continue the historical narrative to the point at which he himself is writing? This question, too, should be presented in somewhat more detail. In the history of scholarship this issue of the end of Chronicles has received only passing attention, and to the extent that the question was raised, the solutions provided were either of a technical or literary nature. A well-known answer, and for a long time the dominant one, was that this was not, indeed, the end of the book. Originally—so it had been claimed— the books of Chronicles and Ezra–Nehemiah were one long history, “the Chronistic history,” and its author, the Chronicler, indeed recorded the history of Israel up to his own time. Only at a later stage, and as a technical measure, was the book of Ezra–Nehemiah separated from Chronicles and placed earlier in the canon. Concluding the book with the edict of Cyrus was a technical means, an allusion to the original continuation of the work, and nothing more. 6 I have dealt with the relationship between Chronicles and Ezra–Nehemiah on several occasions and do not intend to go into this question again. 7 I wonder, however, whether uneasiness with the conclusion of Chronicles did not perhaps play an unconscious role in the persistence of this view. The joining of Ezra–Nehemiah to the end of Chronicles certainly relieves this uneasiness. I should add, however, that even among scholars who regard the books of Chronicles and Ezra–Nehemiah as separate works, the answer to the question I posed tends to be based on literary grounds. Such for example, is the claim made by Williamson and by some scholars following him, that the present conclusion of the book was not the original one. It ended—so 6. A recent advocate of this view is M. Haran. See, among others, his “Book-Size and the Device of Catch-Lines in the Biblical Canon,” Journal for Jewish Studies 36 (1985) 1–11. A direct reaction to his view may be found in H. G. M. Williamson, “Did the Author of Chronicles Also Write the Books of Ezra–Nehemiah?” Bible Review 3 (1987) 56–59. 7. For a summary of my views on this matter see: S. Japhet, “The Relationship between Chronicles and Ezra–Nehemiah,” in Congress Volume: Leuven, 1989 (ed. J. A. Emerton; VTSup 43; Leiden, 1991) 298–313 [[in this volume, pp. 169–182]].

334

Chapter 16

they claim—in much greater similarity to the conclusion of Kings, that is, with the reference to the Exile in 2 Chr 36:20–21; the last two verses, taken from the edict of Cyrus, are a later addition, attached to the book for one reason or another. 8 I will not dwell on the analysis of this view or its arguments, which seem to move in a circle and beg the question. To my mind, rather than providing an answer to the book’s conclusion it manages to avoid the question, and as a result grossly misinterprets the Chronicler’s message. The book’s conclusion—no less than its beginning—is of great significance for understanding the Chronicler’s view of history and his goals in writing this history. The implications of the way in which Chronicles concludes are: 1. It ends on a positive note rather than with a catastrophe—be it the destruction, the Exile, or the death of Gedaliah. This ending looks to the future. 2. The book skips the actual period and experience of the Exile. The details referring to this period found in the book of Kings are omitted and no others are supplied. In one sentence the book covers a period of 70 years. 9 In view of the detailed history of Israel up to this point, this omission cannot be accidental. One may claim, of course, that the Chronicler omitted the exilic period because he lacked sources, but this assertion cannot be sustained. He certainly had the book of Ezekiel (whose influence on Chronicles is evident in several matters), the book of Lamentations (which he actually used) and probably other materials which are no longer extant. Lack of sources had never been an obstacle for his story. 3. The period of the Restoration too, is not described. Here, again, this is not due to a lack of sources. The Chronicler had at his disposal the book of Ezra–Nehemiah (which he actually used), contemporary prophetical sayings (such as Haggai, Zechariah, and probably others), and most probably additional materials (some of which he actually employed for the description of earlier times). Yet, in contrast to his procedure regarding the books of Samuel and Kings, he did not rewrite these texts but omitted them altogether. All these point to one conclusion: the Chronicler’s plan is a conscious and powerful way of expressing his views. More specifically, his unique position on Exile and Restoration provides an important key to revealing his program. 8. See H. G. M. Williamson, Israel in the Books of Chronicles (Cambridge, 1977) 8–10. He is followed by T. Willi, Juda–Jehud–Israel: Studien zum Selbstverständniss des Judentums in persischer Zeit (FAT 12; Tübingen, 1995) 21 n. 12, 53–55. 9. The wording of these verses echoes the prophecies of Jeremiah in 27:7: “All the nations shall serve him and his son and his grandson, until the time of his own land comes,” and 25:11– 12 and 29:10 referring to the “seventy years.”

spread is 6 points long

Exile and Restoration in the Book of Chronicles

335

2. Exile What is the Chronicler’s stand on the issue of “Exile”—deportation of the people from their land—in the history of Israel? I have dealt elsewhere with this subject 10 but I believe that some repetition and further elaboration are in order. 11 The place of “Exile” in the Chronicler’s history may be examined from three standpoints: the use of words and phrases from the semantic field of “exile” (such as huulg ,hmdah l[m çtn), their frequency and distribution; the place of exile in the rhetoric of the book: in speeches, prophetical rebukes, and historical overviews; and most importantly, the description of exile as a real historical event. I will skip the first two and move directly to the third: “exile” in the Chronicler’s historical narrative. According to the book of Kings—and to the commonly held view of Israel’s history—there were two major acts of exile in the Monarchical period: the destruction of the northern kingdom of Israel and exile of its inhabitants by the Assyrians (in the 8th century b.c.e.), and the destruction and exile of the kingdom of Judah by the Babylonians (in the 6th century b.c.e.). In the book of Kings each of these events is described as a prolonged process, having occurred in two major stages. The Assyrians’ first act was the conquest of the Galilee and the Gilead by Tiglath-pileser, in the days of Pekah of Israel and Ahaz of Judah (733–732 b.c.e.). It is related in 2 Kgs 15:29 and confirmed by extra-biblical sources: “In the days of Pekah of Israel, King Tiglath-pileser of Assyria came and captured Ijon, Abel-bethmaacah, Janoah, Kedesh, Hazor, Gilead, and Galilee, all the land of Naphtali; and he carried the people captive 12 to Assyria.” 13 The second stage, about ten years later, was the final conquest of Samaria by Sargon II, in the reigns of Hosea of Israel and Hezekiah of Judah (722 b.c.e.). This, too, is described rather briefly and confirmed by extrabiblical sources: “Then the king of Assyria invaded all the land and came to Samaria; for three years he besieged it. In the ninth year of Hoshea the king of Assyria captured Samaria: he carried the Israelites away 14 to Assyria. He placed them in Halah on the Habor, the river of Gozan, and in the cities of the Medes” (2 Kgs 17:5–6; repeated in 18:11). 15 The Babylonians’ first act was the deportation of Jehoiachin, who had ruled for only three months (597 b.c.e.). As described in great detail in 10. See Japhet, Ideology, 364–73. 11. In particular after the criticism of my views by W. Johnstone, “The Use of Leviticus in Chronicles,” in Reading Leviticus: A Conversation with Mary Douglas (ed. J. F. A. Sawyer; JSOTSup 227; Sheffield, 1996) 243–55. 12. The nrsv translation of the Hebrew huulg as “carry captive” or “carry away” seems to obscure the original emphasis on “exile.” 13. See M. Cogan and H. Tadmor, II Kings (AB; 1988) 173–80. 14. See n. 12 above. 15. See Cogan and Tadmor, II Kings, 195–201.

336

Chapter 16

2 Kgs 24:10–16, the Babylonians took away “the king, his mother, his servants, his officers and his palace officials” (v. 12); “the treasures of the house of the Lord, and the treasures of the king’s house . . . the vessels of gold” (v. 13); “he carried away (Hebrew: hl:g}hIw)] all Jerusalem, all the officials, all the warriors, ten thousand captives (Hebrew: hl