Introduction

The Books of Ezra and Nehemiah

In our biblical texts, the name of Ezra designates three books, of which one (the first) is considered canonical, while two (the second and third) belong to the section of non-canonical writings. In ancient times the canonical book of Ezra was joined with the book of Nehemiah. This can be concluded from the testimony of the Talmud (Baba Bathra 15-a), Josephus (Contra Ap. I, 8), Melito of Sardis (Eusebius, Church History IV, 26), and from the lists of biblical books provided by church fathers and councils. This is supported by the fact that the Masoretic notes, which usually appear at the end of books, are placed after Neh 13:31, and in many Hebrew codices as well as in the Greek Vatican manuscript, the beginning of the book of Nehemiah follows in one line with the end of the book of Ezra (De Rossi, Variae lectiones V. T. IV, 157). In the Christian church, the book of Ezra was early separated from the book of Nehemiah, as is evident from the testimonies of Origen and Jerome (Orig. in Ps 1, Hier., Prol. galeat). Gradually this separation became universally accepted, and from 1525 onwards, from the time of the publication of the Bomberg edition, it entered Hebrew Bibles as well. Among Catholics, however, the book of Nehemiah is still regarded as the second part of the book of Ezra. Likewise, in scholarly bibliological works, both of these books are ordinarily examined together, in view of their undoubted close connection.

By its content, the books of Ezra and Nehemiah present an account of the history of the restoration of the Jewish community after the end of the Babylonian captivity. In particular, the book of Ezra is divided into two parts: chapters I-VI and VII-X. The book begins with the decree of Cyrus concerning the liberation of the Jews from captivity and an account of how, according to this decree, a group of captives consisting of members of the tribes of Judah and Benjamin, as well as priests and Levites, returned to Jerusalem under the leadership of Sheshbazzar (ch. 1). In chapter II a list of the returned captives and donations for the temple is given. Then, in chapter III, it is narrated how the altar was rebuilt, worship was restored, and the foundation of the temple was laid. In chapter IV, the author reports on obstacles to the construction of the temple from the Samaritans and their allies, and letters are cited that the enemies of the Jews sent to the Persian kings. In chapters V-VI, there is discussion of the resumption of temple construction that had been halted by the enemies’ accusations, its completion, and the dedication of the temple around 516 B.C. The second part of the book of Ezra describes events from the time of Ezra. In particular, it reports on the arrival in the 7th year of king Artaxerxes at Jerusalem of Ezra with a colony of returned captives, and cites the royal decree that specified Ezra’s authority (chapter VII); then (chapter VIII), a list is given of the captives who returned with Ezra, and finally, an account is made of Ezra’s activity in Jerusalem (chapters IX and X).

The book of Nehemiah, by its content forming a direct continuation of the narrative of the book of Ezra, is divided into three parts: chapters I-VII, VIII-X, XI-XIII. In the first part there is discussion of the circumstances of Nehemiah’s arrival at Jerusalem (I-VIII), the building of the walls by him (III-IV), the difficulties he encountered from the Samaritans and the Jews themselves (IV-VI), and a list of those who returned from captivity is provided (VII). In the second part, Ezra’s reformatory activity is described, directed toward establishing the dominion of the Law of Moses in life (VIII-X). Finally, in the third part are presented lists of inhabitants of Jerusalem, priests, and Levites (Neh 11:1 – Neh 12:1-24), an account is given of the dedication of the walls of Jerusalem (Neh 12:27-47), and of Nehemiah’s activity during his second arrival in the city after his journey to the court of the Persian king (XIII).

Thus, the books of Ezra and Nehemiah describe events that occurred in the period from 537–432 B.C. From their content it is evident that they do not relate everything that happened during this time. It is particularly important to note here that the period of Jewish history from the completion of the temple construction in 516 B.C. to Ezra’s arrival at Jerusalem in the seventh year of Artaxerxes, that is in 458 B.C., is entirely omitted. Clearly, like other biblical authors, the writers of the books of Ezra and Nehemiah intend to speak primarily of what is important from the theocratic viewpoint, in which, according to their understanding, God’s care for the chosen people was especially manifest after the Babylonian captivity.

Concerning the form of the books of Ezra and Nehemiah, it should be noted that in Ezra 7:1-11 and at the conclusion of chapter 10 about Ezra it is spoken of in the third person, while in the section Ezra 7:27-9:15 it is in the first person; likewise, concerning Nehemiah, sometimes it is spoken in the first person (I-VII, XII-XIII), sometimes in the third (VIII-X). Moreover, a peculiarity of the book of Ezra is that the sections Ezra 4:8-18 and Ezra 7:12-26 are written in Aramaic (Chaldean) language, while the rest is in Hebrew.

The question of the origin of the books of Ezra and Nehemiah is at present difficult to resolve with complete certainty, both because of the absence of clear indications in the books themselves and because of the lack of firm guidance in tradition. Regarding the book of Ezra, the tradition attested in the Talmud (Baba Bathra 15-a: “Ezra wrote his book”), in the synopses of St. Athanasius and St. Chrysostom (“Ezra himself, having been a priest and a reader, tells and records in it the return from captivity, etc.”), asserts, apparently, that the book was written by Ezra. In favor of this tradition, the name of the book can speak in part, as also the established understanding of the history of the Old Testament canon. The content of the book of Ezra, and especially its second part (chapters 7–10), also confirms the tradition’s testimony. The discussion here concerns Ezra, and most of it is spoken directly in his person (Ezra 7:27 – Ezra 9:1). Although in chapter X and at the beginning of XI Ezra is spoken of in the third person, these parts too may be considered as written by Ezra: the change of persons in one and the same work is permissible for a single writer, and examples of such a literary device can be cited both in biblical writings (Dan 1:7; Jer 20:1) and in non-biblical. Moreover, chapter X is most closely connected with chapter IX, and the section Ezra 7:1-11 presents a natural introduction to what follows, where Ezra is narrated about in the third person. If the section being considered contains praises of Ezra and his genealogy, it is hardly possible to see in this a striving for self-exaltation, and therefore to regard it as incompatible with the tradition of the section being written by Ezra himself.

The second part of the book of Ezra (Ezra 7:1) begins with the words: “after these events.” This indicates, apparently, the close connection of the second part with the first (chapters I-VI), and therefore points to the writing of the latter also by Ezra. But Ezra was not an eyewitness of the events described in chapters I-VI, and therefore could only relate them on the basis of written documents. These documents may be represented either as raw materials which Ezra independently worked over, or else as already-worked-out compositions which Ezra merely published, adding without change to the part he himself composed. In favor of the latter view may speak the remark Ezra 5:4 (“then we said to them the names of those men”), which would hardly be used by Ezra if he were the compiler of chapters I-VI; yet the first view also has its defenders in scholarship.

The book of Nehemiah, on the basis of its inscription (Neh 1:1) and some – though not entirely clear – indications of tradition (2 Macc 2:13; Baba bathra 15-a), is considered by many scholars to be the work of Nehemiah. The chief proof of the book’s belonging to Nehemiah is that, in relating the events of the time of Nehemiah, the book in most of its extent (I-VII, XII-XIII) speaks of Nehemiah in the first person. In opposition to this view is ordinarily raised the passage Neh 12:1-11, where the genealogy of the high priest Jeshua is continued down to Jaddua, and Neh 13:28, where it is related that Nehemiah expelled from Jerusalem the son-in-law of Sanballat, the governor of Samaria. According to the testimony of Josephus (Antiquities 11:8, 5), Jaddua was high priest during the time of Alexander the Great; to the same time Josephus (Antiquities 11:7, 2) dates the fact of the expulsion of Manasseh. In view of Josephus’s testimony, the passages Neh 12:10-11 and Neh 13:28 (and consequently the entire section XII-XIII) are thought to have been unable to be written by Nehemiah. But the fact is that Josephus’s reports relating to the 4th century are very confused, and they cannot be used to verify biblical statements. On the other hand, if we accept the veracity of Josephus’s reports, the mentioned verses could be considered a later addition. As for Neh 12:10-11, besides, it is possible to suppose that here, in the genealogy of Jeshua, are indicated not four successive high priests serving over a hundred years, but only members of one and the same family, from which Nehemiah saw only the youngest contemporary of Alexander the Macedonian.

The origin of chapters VIII-X is less clear. In view of the fact that the named section speaks properly of Ezra, and also considering some peculiarities of the section compared with the rest of the book, some Protestant and Catholic exegetes consider the section to have been composed by Ezra, who was responsible for the final redaction of the book. Yet it is not without foundation indicated that too great a difference between chapters VIII-X and the rest does not exist. If the section speaks chiefly of Ezra, this is because the section narrates religious activity, in which the leading role belonged precisely to Ezra, not to Nehemiah, who was first in civil matters. This can also explain the distinction of the section from others in expressions – namely, that Nehemiah in the section is given the title of Tirshatha (Neh 8:9 and Neh 10:1), whereas earlier (Ezra 1:8; Neh 12:26) he was called pechah (governor).

To the foregoing should be added that even modern negative criticism recognizes in the foundation of the books of Ezra and Nehemiah genuine records (“memoirs”) of Ezra and Nehemiah, reproduced in the books partly literally. The difference in the views of criticism from traditional ones in this case is that the final redaction of the books is pushed back to a later time than the era of Ezra, and both books are considered to have been edited by the author of the book of Chronicles, and numerous interpolations are admitted. The chief basis for such a view is ordinarily the unity that many scholars presume between the books of Ezra and Nehemiah and the book of Chronicles. As proof of this unity, reference is made to: a) the common tone of the language of the books, b) the similarity of individual expressions, and c) the identity of the end of 2 Chronicles and the beginning of Ezra 1. But similarity in language and expressions with the same subject matter of both books is entirely natural and can testify only to the fact that the books considered belong to one epoch and perhaps were composed by one author, but not that they are parts of one whole. The identity of the end of 2 Chronicles and the beginning of Ezra (the decree of Cyrus) is more easily understood on the assumption of the independence of both works. As for those historical errors which induce representatives of negative criticism to push the final redaction of the books of Ezra and Nehemiah back to a very late time and to admit many interpolations in them, then (as will be evident from the commentary) the references to these errors are either unjust or very debatable.

The books of Ezra and Nehemiah have always enjoyed high regard in the Church and possessed the authoritative standing of inspired works as strictly historical compositions. Since the latest theories concerning the origin of the Pentateuch shifted the center of gravity of biblical history and biblical literature to the post-exilic period, the books of Ezra and Nehemiah, as an important source for studying the post-exilic period, naturally became the subject of numerous investigations. In the process, many authors subjected the historical veracity of the narrative of the books in whole and in part to doubt. Thus, Schrader rejected the historical accuracy of the testimony Ezra 3:8 concerning the laying of the temple foundation in the second year of Cyrus, removing this event to the second year of Darius Hystaspes. Guanacer rejected the accuracy of the chronological sequence of the books’ narrative, attempting to prove that Nehemiah’s arrival at Jerusalem preceded Ezra’s arrival. Many scholars rejected the authenticity of the royal decrees cited in the books, of the Aramaic documents Ezra 4, as well as the list of those returned from captivity, attributing all this to the inventions of the chronicler, i.e., the editor of the books, who lived long after the events described. Finally, Costers and Torrey rejected the fact of the return of the Jews under Cyrus, the testimony about the building of the temple by the returned Jews, and much else. By the most recent works, however, especially the work of Meyer (Meyer, Entstehung des Judentums. Halle. 1896), many of the objections against the books of Ezra and Nehemiah have been refuted with sufficient persuasiveness. Especially important in this regard is the fact that from parallels in non-biblical literature the accuracy of those documents that are cited in the book of Ezra can be considered established. This to a considerable extent confirms the exactness of the author’s testimonies in other respects as well. The chronology of the books of Ezra and Nehemiah raises perplexity only. In naming the names of Persian kings (Artaxerxes, Darius) under whom certain events occurred, the author does not give these names closer definitions. And since Persian history knows several kings bearing these names, from this it is difficult to say with certainty which king the author means in one or another case. The chronological order of the events described in the books of Ezra and Nehemiah is therefore indicated by exegetes differently and can only be indicated with probability.

Literature: 1) Russian: Doroshkevich, Chronology of the books 1 Ezra and Nehemiah, Christian Readings 1886, July – Aug. Also. How the books 1 Ezra and Nehemiah were composed. Readings of the Society of Lovers of Spiritual Enlightenment 1891 December; Yanitsky, Origin and composition of the book of Nehemiah. Oryol Eparchial News 1881; Yungerov, Origin and historicity of the books of Ezra and Nehemiah. Orthodox Interlocutor 1905, 10; V. Popov, The Return of the Jews from Babylonian Captivity. Kiev, 1905. 2) Foreign: From the extremely extensive Western literature on the books of Ezra and Nehemiah, the most valuable are: The commentaries of Ryssel on Esra, Nehemia und Ester 1887, Bertholet on Die Bücher Esra und Nehemia. 1902, Keil on Bibl. Komment über Chronik, Esra, Nehemia und Ester. A detailed list of foreign literature can be found in the aforementioned books by Bertholet and V. Popov.

* * *

Examples see Readings in the Society of Lovers of Spiritual Enlightenment 1891, 2, 553–559