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 books. The canonical book of Ezra in ancient times 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, Ecclesiastical History IV, 26), and from the lists of biblical books provided by Church Fathers and church councils. This is also confirmed 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 manuscripts, as well as in the Greek Codex Vaticanus, the beginning of the book of Nehemiah follows on the same line as the ending 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 testimony of Origen and Jerome (Origen, in Ps 1, Jerome, Prol. galeat). Gradually this separation became generally accepted, and since 1525, with the appearance of the Bomberg edition, it entered also the Hebrew Bible. Among Catholics, however, even to this day the book of Nehemiah is regarded as the second part of the book of Ezra. Likewise, in scholarly bibliological works, both these books are ordinarily reviewed together, in view of their undoubted close connection.

In 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: I-VI and VII-X. The book begins with a decree of Cyrus concerning the liberation of the Jews from captivity and a report that according to this decree a band of captives, composed of members of the tribe of Judah and Benjamin and of priests and Levites, returned to Jerusalem under the leadership of Sheshbazzar (chapter 1). In chapter II a list of the returned captives and contributions for the temple is given. Then in chapter III the narrative describes the building of an altar, the restoration of worship, and the founding of the temple. In chapter IV the writer reports on obstacles to the building of the temple from the Samaritans and their allies, and includes letters by which the enemies of the Jews appealed to Persian kings. In chapters V-VI there is an account of the resumption of the temple construction, which had been interrupted by the accusations of enemies, its completion, and the dedication of the temple around 516 BC. The second part of the book of Ezra describes the events of the time of Ezra. In particular, it reports the arrival in the seventh year of King Artaxerxes of Ezra in Jerusalem with a group of returned captives, and a royal decree is given that determined the authority of Ezra (chapter VII); then (chapter VIII) a list of the captives who returned with Ezra is provided, and finally there is an account of Ezra’s activity in Jerusalem (chapters IX and X).

The book of Nehemiah, in its content a direct continuation of the narrative of the book of Ezra, is divided into three parts: I-VII, VIII-X, XI-XIII. In the first part there is an account of the circumstances of Nehemiah’s arrival in Jerusalem (I-VII), of his building the walls (III-IV), of 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 is described the reformatory activity of Ezra, which was directed toward establishing the authority of the law of Moses in life (VIII-X). Finally, in the third part there are lists of the 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 there is an account of Nehemiah’s activity after his second arrival in the city following a journey to the court of the Persian king (XIII).

Thus the books of Ezra and Nehemiah recount events that occurred in the period 537–432 BC. From their content it is evident that they do not record everything that happened in that time. It is especially important to note that the period of Jewish history from the completion of the building of the temple in 516 BC until the arrival of Ezra in Jerusalem in the seventh year of Artaxerxes, or in 458 BC, is entirely omitted. Clearly, like other biblical authors, the writers of the books of Ezra and Nehemiah were concerned primarily with what is important from a theocratic point of view, in which, according to their understanding, the care of God for the chosen people after the Babylonian captivity became especially evident.

With regard to 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 the narrative is in the third person, while in the section Ezra 7:27–9 it is in the first; likewise, about Nehemiah it is sometimes spoken in the first person (I-VII, XII-XIII) and sometimes in the third (VIII-X). Furthermore, a characteristic of the book of Ezra is that the sections Ezra 4:8-18 and Ezra 7:12-26 are written in Aramaic (Chaldaic) language, while the rest of the book is in Hebrew.

The question of the origin of the books of Ezra and Nehemiah is difficult to answer with complete certainty at the present time, both because there are no clear indications of it in the books themselves and because there is no 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 Saint Athanasius and Saint Chrysostom (“Ezra himself, being a priest and reader, narrates and writes down in it the return from captivity, etc.”), seems to affirm that Ezra was the writer of the book. In favor of this tradition one can cite to some degree the name of the book, as well as the established understanding of the history of the Old Testament canon. The content of the book of Ezra, and especially the second part of it (chapters 7-10), also confirms the testimony of tradition. The narrative here concerns Ezra, and for the most part it is directly from his perspective (Ezra 7:27 – Ezra 9:1). Although in chapter X and at the beginning of XI Ezra is spoken of in the third person, even these parts may be considered to have been written by Ezra: the change of person in one and the same work is permissible even for a single writer, and examples of such a literary device can be found in both biblical literature (Dan 1:7; Jer 20:1) and non-biblical literature. Besides, chapter X is most closely connected with IX, and the section Ezra 7:1-11 represents a natural introduction to what follows, where Ezra is narrated about in the third person. If the section under consideration contains praises of Ezra and his genealogy, it is hardly possible to see in this a striving for self-aggrandizement, and therefore to consider it incompatible with the tradition of the writing of the section by Ezra himself.

The second part of the book of Ezra (Ezra 7:1) begins with the words: “After these events.” This seems to indicate the close connection of the second part with the first (chapters I-VI), and thus the writing of the latter also by Ezra. But Ezra was not an eyewitness of the events recounted in chapters I-VI and therefore could have related them only on the basis of written documents. These documents may be imagined either as raw materials which Ezra independently processed, or as an already processed work which Ezra merely published, joining it unchanged to the part which he himself had composed. In favor of the latter conception one can cite the remark at Ezra 5:4 (“then we said to them the names of those men”), which would hardly have been used by Ezra if he were the compiler of chapters I-VI; but the first conception also has its defenders in scholarship.

The book of Nehemiah, on the basis of its inscription (Neh 1:1) and some—although not entirely clear—indications of tradition (2 Macc 2:13; Baba bathra 15-a), is considered by very many scholars to be a work of Nehemiah. The principal proof of the book’s authorship by Nehemiah is that, in recounting the events of the time of Nehemiah, the book in the greater part of it (I-VII, XII-XIII) speaks of Nehemiah in the first person. As an objection to this view there is ordinarily put forward the passage at Neh 12:1-11, where the genealogy of the high priest Jesus is continued to Jaddua, and Neh 13:28, where it is reported 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 this same time Josephus (Antiquities 11:7, 2) also dates the expulsion of Manasseh. In view of the testimony of Josephus, the passages Neh 12:10-11 and Neh 13:28 (and consequently the entire section XII-XIII) could not, it is thought, have been written by Nehemiah. But the fact is that the accounts of Josephus, relating to the 4th century, are very confused, and by them the biblical statements cannot be verified. On the other hand, if the accuracy of Josephus’ accounts is acknowledged, the indicated verses could be considered a later addition. Regarding Neh 12:10-11, moreover, it is possible to suppose that here, in the genealogy of Jesus, are listed not four priests who served successively over a hundred years, but only members of one and the same family, from which—at the time of Alexander the Great—Nehemiah saw only descendants.

Less clear is the origin of chapters VIII-X. In view of the fact that in this section the narrative concerns itself with Ezra, and also taking into account certain 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, to whom belonged the final editing of the book. But it is not without reason that it is indicated that there is not too great a difference between chapters VIII-X and the rest. If in this section the narrative concerns itself mainly with Ezra, this is because the section narrates religious activity, in which the foremost role belonged precisely to Ezra and not to Nehemiah, who was first in civic matters. This can explain also the distinction of the section in expressions—namely the fact that in the section Nehemiah is given the title Tirsatha (Neh 8:9 and Neh 10:1), whereas previously (Ezra 1:8; Neh 12:26) he was called pechah (governor of a province).

It should also 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 between the views of criticism and traditional views in this case is that the final editing of the books is placed at a later time than the age of Ezra, and the editor of both books is considered to be the writer of the book of Chronicles, and numerous interpolations are allowed. The principal basis for such a view is ordinarily the presumed unity of the books of Ezra and Nehemiah with the book of Chronicles, which many scholars assume. In proof of this unity they cite: a) the general coloring 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 identity of the subject matter of the narrative of both books is entirely natural and can testify only to the fact that the books under consideration belong to one age 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 easier to understand on the supposition of the independence of both works. As for those historical errors which impel representatives of negative criticism to place the final editing of the books of Ezra and Nehemiah at a very late time and to allow many interpolations in them, (as will be seen from the commentary) the references to these errors are either unjust or highly disputed.

The books of Ezra and Nehemiah have always enjoyed high respect in the Church and have had divine authority as strictly historical works. Since the newest theories concerning the origin of the Pentateuch moved the center of gravity of biblical history and biblical literature to the post-exilic period, the books of Ezra and Nehemiah, as the most important source for studying the post-exilic age, naturally became the subject of numerous investigations. In doing so, many authors have questioned the historical reliability of the narrative of the books as a whole and in particular parts. Thus, Schrader rejected the historical reliability of the testimony at Ezra 3:8 about the founding of the temple in the second year of Cyrus, placing this event in the second year of Darius Hystaspes. Guanaquer rejected the accuracy of the chronological sequence of the narrative of the books, attempting to prove that Nehemiah’s arrival in Jerusalem occurred before Ezra’s arrival. Many scholars rejected the authenticity of the royal decrees cited in the books, the Aramaic documents Ezra 4, as well as the list of those who returned from captivity, attributing all of this to fabrications of the chronicler—the editor of the books who lived long after the events described in the books. Finally, Costers and Torrey rejected the fact of the return of the Jews under Cyrus, the accounts of the building of the temple by the returned Jews, and much else. By more recent works, however, especially the work of Meyer (Meyer, Entstechung des Judenthums. Halle. 1896), very many objections against the books of Ezra and Nehemiah have been refuted with sufficient persuasiveness. It is particularly important in this case that by parallels from non-biblical literature the reliability of those documents which are cited in the book of Ezra can be considered established. This in considerable measure confirms the accuracy of the author’s testimony in other parts as well. Only the chronology of the books of Ezra and Nehemiah raises uncertainty. In naming the names of Persian kings (Artaxerxes, Darius) under whom certain events took place, the writer 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 writer speaks of in one case or another. The chronological arrangement of events described in the books of Ezra and Nehemiah is therefore indicated by exegetes differently and can be indicated only with probability.

Literature: 1) Russian: Doroshkevich, Chronology of the books of 1 Ezra and Nehemiah, Christian Readings 1886, July-August. The same author. How the books of 1 Ezra and Nehemiah are composed. Readings of the Society of Lovers of Spiritual Enlightenment, 1891 December; Yanitsky, Origin and composition of the book of Nehemiah. Oryol Diocesan Gazette, 1881; Yungerov, Origin and historicity of the books of Ezra and Nehemiah. Orthodox Conversations, 1905, 10; V. Popov, Return of the Jews from the Babylonian captivity. Kyiv, 1905. 2) Foreign: From the extremely extensive Western literature on the books of Ezra and Nehemiah the most valuable are the commentaries of Ryssel’s Esra, Nehemia und Ester 1887, Bertheau’s Die Bücher Esra und Nehemia. 1902, Keil’s Bibl. Komment über Chronik, Esra, Nehemia und Ester. For a detailed index of foreign literature see the above-mentioned books of Bertheau and V. Popov

* * *

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