| |
Easton's Bible Dictionary
This book is the record of events occurring at the close of the Babylonian exile.
It was at one time included in Nehemiah, the Jews regarding them as one volume.
The two are still distinguished in the Vulgate version as I. and II. Esdras. It
consists of two principal divisions:
The history of the first return of exiles, in the first year of Cyrus (B.C. 536),
till the completion and dedication of the new temple, in the sixth year of Darius
Hystapes (B.C. 515), ch. 1-6. From the close of the sixth to the opening of the
seventh chapter there is a blank in the history of about sixty years.
The history of the second return under Ezra, in the seventh year of Artaxerxes
Longimanus, and of the events that took place at Jerusalem after Ezra's arrival
there (Ezra 7 - 10).
The book thus contains memorabilia connected with the Jews, from the decree of
Cyrus (B.C. 536) to the reformation by Ezra (B.C. 456), extending over a period
of about eighty years.
There is no quotation from this book in the New Testament, but there never has
been any doubt about its being canonical. Ezra was probably the author of this
book, at least of the greater part of it (comp Nehemiah 7:27 , 7:28 ; 8:1 , etc.),
as he was also of the Books of Chronicles, the close of which forms the opening
passage of Ezra.
Hitchcock's Dictionary of Bible Names
(no entry)
Smith's Bible Dictionary
is a continuation of the books of Chronicles. The period covered by the book is
eighty years, from the first of Cyrus, B.C. 536, to the beginning of the eighth
of Artaxerxes, B.C. 456. It consist of the contemporary historical journals kept
from time to time, containing, chs. 1-12, and account of the return of the captives
under Zerubbabel, and the rebuilding of the temple in the reign of Cyrus and Cambyses.
Most of the book is written in Hebrew, but from Ezra chs. 4:8 to 6:19 it is written
in Chaldee. The last four chapters, beginning with ch. 7, continue the history
after a gap of fifty-eight years --from the sixth of Darius to the seventh of
Artaxerxes-- narrating his visit to Jerusalem, and giving an account of the reforms
there accomplished, referred to under EZRA. Much of the book was written by Ezra
himself, though the first chapter was probably written by Daniel; and other hands
are evident.
International Standard Bible Encyclopedia
(FROM EZRA-NEHEMIAH)
1. Name:
The books of Ezra and Nehemiah, by whomsoever written, are properly so named according
to analogy from the principal persons mentioned in them. In the Hebrew Bibles,
the former is headed simply, Ezra, and the latter, Nehemiah. The two books are
counted in the Talmud, in Josephus, and in the Canon of Melito, 171 AD, as one,
and are so treated also in the subscription of the Massoretic Text, which reads:
"The totality of the verses of Ezra and Nehemiah is 688, and its sign is `Remember,
Yahweh, the reproach of thy servants,' and its two parts (are at the sentence)
`unto the ascent of the corner' (Nehemiah 3:31) and its chapters (sedharayw) are
ten, and its sign is `Upon a high mountain get thee up, O thou that announcest
good tidings to Zion.' " In the Septuagint, Ezra-Nehemiah is called Esdras B,
while an apocryphal Book of Ezra is called Esdras A (see below). In the catalogues
of the Old Testament writings handed down to us by the Fathers (Origen, Cyril,
Melito, Jerome and the Council of Laodicea) our Ezra is called 1 Ezra; Nehemiah,
2 Ezra; the apocryphal Greek Ezra, 3 Ezra; and an apocalyptic book, falsely called
a book of Ezra, is denominated 4 Ezra.
2. Object:
The object of the books is to show that God fulfilled His promise, or prophecy,
to restore His exiled people to their inheritance, through the instrumentality
on the one hand of the great heathen monarchs, Cyrus, Darius and Artaxerxes, and
on the other hand by stirring up the spirit of such great men among the chosen
people as Joshua and Zerubbabel, Haggai and Zechariah, and Ezra and Nehemiah,
through whom the altar, the temple, the houses and walls of Jerusalem, and finally
the worship and ceremony of the Jewish people were reestablished, the people being
separated from foreign admixtures, customs and idolatry, and their religious observances
purified and fixed for all time.
3. Plan:
The object of the work justifies the selection and arrangement of the material
and the plan pursued by the composer, or composers; all matter being stringently
excluded which does not bear directly upon the purpose in view. However much we
may wish that other historical records had been included, it is not proper to
criticize the work because of these omissions, nor is it fair to argue that the
writer was ignorant of what he has not seen fit to record.
4. Unity:
The unity of the combined work is shown by the fact that they have the same common
object, the same plan, and a similarity of language and style; that they treat,
for the most part, of the same period of time; and that Ezra is one of the most
prominent persons in both. It is not fair to deny the essential unity on the ground
that the list of priests and others found in Ezra 2 is repeated in Nehemiah 7;
for there is no doubt that Ezra was the compiler of parts at least of the book
called after him, and that Nehemiah also was the original writer of parts of the
book that bears his name. Whoever was the final editor of the whole work, he has
simply retained the two almost identical lists in their appropriate places in
the documents which lay before him.
5. Sources:
The Books of Ezra and Nehemiah are a compilation of genealogical
lists, letters and edicts, memoirs and chronicles. We cannot be certain as to
who was the composer of either or both books. Many think that Ezra compiled both
the books out of preexisting materials, adding parts of his own composition. Others,
suppose that Ezra wrote the book named after him, while Nehemiah composed the
Book of Nehemiah. Others, again, are of the opinion that neither Ezra nor Nehemiah,
but some other unknown editor, most probably the compiler of the Books of Chronicles,
put together the Books of Ezra and Nehemiah, using largely the memoirs of the
two great men who are the principal persons in the records. While there is still
much difference of opinion as to who was the final redactor, there is a general
agreement as to the composite character of the whole, and that the person who
wrote the parts that bind together the original sources was the same as he who
wrote the canonical books of Chronicles.
6. Literary Character:
The diversified character of the style, languages and other literary peculiarities
of the books is accounted for by the large number and the variety of sources.
From the style and contents of the first chapter it has been argued with great
plausibility that it was written by Daniel; for similar reasons it has been argued
that the portion of Ezra from 3:2 to 4:22 inclusive was written by Haggai the
prophet. All admit that the parts of Ezra and Nehemiah in which the 1st person
is employed were written by Ezra and Nehemiah respectively. As to who it was who
added the other connecting portions there is and must always be great doubt arising
from the fact that the author is not mentioned. The style points to the same hand
as that which composed the Book of Chronicles. Those who believe that Ezra compiled
the Book of Chronicles will believe that he most probably composed also the Books
of Ezra and Nehemiah. The principal objection to his authorship arises from the
inexplicable change from the 1st to the 3rd person occurring in both Ezr and Neh.
Inasmuch as the 3rd person is the proper form to use in the best style of Biblical
historical composition; inasmuch as Herodotus, Thucydides and Xenophon often employ
it in their histories; inasmuch as some of the Bah monuments mingle the 1st and
3rd persons in the same document; and finally, inasmuch as the prophets and psalmists
of Israel likewise interchange the persons in what is for us often an unaccountable
manner: this characteristic of the style of Ezra-Nehemiah seems an insufficient
reason upon which to base the denial of the claim that Ezra may have been the
author.
The facts that there is unevenness in the treatment of the history, and that there
are long periods on which the narrator is silent, do not militate against the
authorship of Ezra nor do they imply a date long after his age; for the author
is perfectly consistent in his purpose to stick to the object and plan which he
had in view for himself, that is, to give an account of the reestablishment of
the Israelite people and of their Divinely given institutions. That he has omitted
other matters-does not imply that he was ignorant of them.
7. Languages:
The language of the books is Hebrew, except Ezra 4:7
- 6:18 and 7:12 - 26, which is written in Aramaic. The Hebrew closely resembles
that of Daniel, Haggai and Chronicles, much more so than it does that of Ecclesiasticus,
which was written probably about 180 BC. The Aramaic (formerly called Chaldee)
is very much like that of the Egyptian papyri which are dated in the 5th century
BC. It closely resembles also the Aramaic in Daniel.
8. Historicity:
Neither language nor style can be assigned as a ground
for asserting a date later than the 5th century BC as the time of the composition
of the book. A much stronger reason against placing the final redaction of the
books at so early a time is the mention of a Jaddua among the high priests in
Nehemiah 12:11,22, it being assumed that this is the same Jaddua whom Josephus
mentions (Ant., XI, viii, 4) as having filled the high-priestly office in the
time of Alexander the Great. In view of the fact that Josephus is the only source
of information as to the period between 400 and 300 BC, it seems unfair to accept
what he says as to the existence of this Jaddua, while rejecting substantially
all the rest of the same chapter in Josephus which tells about Sanballat, Manasseh
and Alexander's meeting with Jaddua. Inasmuch as the Sachau papyri, written in
the 17th year of Darius Nothus, that is, in 410-408 BC, mention the sons of Sanballat
the governor of Samaria, the Sanballat who was their father must have lived about
450 BC. The same papyrus mentions Jehohanan (Johnnan of Nehemiah 12:22) as the
high priest of the temple at Jerusalem, and Bagohi (Bagoas) was the Persian governor
of Jerusalem in 410-408 BC. Since, according to Nehemiah 13:6, Nehemiah was governor
in 434-433 BC, the 32nd year of Artaxerxes, Bagoas would be perhaps his immediate
successor. If we are to put any confidence in the story of Josephus, then there
must have been at least two Sanballats, and probably two Jadduas, and at two different
times a son of a high priest must have married a daughter of a Sanballat. While
this is not impossible, it seems better to suppose that Josephus has confused
matters beyond any possibility of disentanglement, and we might be justified in
throwing over entirely his account of a Sanballat, a Manasseh, and a Jaddua as
living in the year 330 BC, when Alexander conquered Syria. As far, of course,
as the Jaddua of Nehemiah 12:11 , 22 is concerned, he may well have been high
priest as early as 406 BC, and have continued to serve till 330 BC. On the other
hand, another of the same name, probably a grandson, may, for all we know to the
contrary, have been high priest in 330 BC. In view of the numerous Oniases, Simons,
and Johns who served in that position between 600 and 150 BC, and in view, further,
of our almost absolute lack of information as to the history of this period, it
will be a bold man who will dare to deny, on the ground of the Jaddua of Josephus,
that Ezra-Nehemiah might have been written as early as 4OO BC.
The objection against the books having been composed in the Persian period, based
upon the use of the titles of the kings of Persia, is fully answered by the fact
that the same titles as those used in these books are found to have been used
by the Persian kings themselves. (See the articles of the present writer in the
Presbyterian Reformed Review for 1905-6.) The "Darius the Persian" of Nehemiah
12:22 is shown by the Sachau papyri to have been Darius Notbus, as Keil long ago
suggested. The author may have called him "the Persian" to distinguish him from
Darius the Mede. At any rate, it is best for us to remember that our inability
to explain why the author called him by this title does not prove that he did
not do so. Of all the Dariuses known to history, any one might have been called
"the Persian," except Darius the Mede, because all but he were Persians. The assertion
that a king of Persia could only have been called a Persian "after the Persian
period was past" involves, on the one hand, the assumption of such thorough knowledge
of the possibilities of the usus loquendi of that time, and, on the other hand,
such real ignorance of the usage of all times in such matters, as well as of the
usage of the Persian and Babylonian monuments of the Persian era, as almost to
cause one to believe that it can scarcely have been seriously made. (See the writer's
articles cited above.) Josephus, it is true, apparently confuses in his account
Darius II and Darius III.
The phrase "the days of Nehemiah" (Nehemiah 12:26) certainly implied that the
final redactor "looked back upon them as past." But there is no intimation as
to how long they were past. According to Nehemiah 5:14, Nehemiah returned to Babylon
in the 32nd year of Artaxerxes, that is, in 434 BC. As Bagoas was already governor
of Jerusalem, and Johnnan high priest in 408 BC, a writer living about 400 BC
can very well have referred to what happened "in the days of Joiakim .... and
in the days of Nehemiah the governor, and of Ezra the priest and the scribe" as
having occurred "in the days of Zerubbabel, and in the days of Nehemiah" (Nehemiah
12:47). From all we know it appears that these were the only Jews who were ever
governors of Jerusalem under the Persian domination. Certainly Bagoas is not a
Hebrew name any more than Sanballat, and it looks as if on the death of Nehemiah
his place as governor of Jerusalem had been filled by a native Persian just as
the governorship of Samaria was held by Sanballat, a Cuthean. If we can trust
Josephus, Bagoas treated the Jews with harshness and even desecrated the temple
itself (Ant., XI, vii, 1). Already, then, in 405 BC, any patriotic and pious Israelite
may have justly looked back upon the days of their native governors with longing
and pride, and have written with appropriate eulogy of the days of Zerubbabel,
Nehemiah and Ezra--the time of his people's semi-independence and of the glorious
and unforgetable restoration of the temple and city, just as we today refer to
the time of Bismarck, Victoria, or Lincoln (compare 1 Chronicles 13:3). Waiving
the discussion of the probability of Ezra's having called himself "a ready scribe
in the law of Moses," and one who had prepared his heart to seek the law of the
Lord, etc., it certainly cannot be denied that someone writing in 405 BC may have
employed the language here used. There is not the slightest proof that any of
Ezra- Nehemiah is unhistorical, nor the least indication that all of it may not
have been written as early as 405 BC. The section Ezra 4:1 - 6 presents difficulties
of date and composition. The section may have been misplaced. It may be episodical.
It may be explained, as suggested by Klostermann, as having been inserted here
as a sort of resume which is later expanded. But however explained, it is a literary
rather than a historical or linguistic problem which it presents, and may safely
be left for solution to those who think that everything in literature whose purpose
or meaning they cannot perceive is therefore inexplicable.
In conclusion, we Would say in the words of Professor Cornill, that since Ed.
Meyer's demonstration of the authenticity of the documents in Ezra 4-7, the hypercritical
reconstruction of the books "has lost all claim to serious consideration, and
we may rest assured that in Ezra-Nehemiah we have every reason to recognize an
essentially trustworthy recital of the events narrated therein."
9. Text:
The most thorough investigation of the text of Ezra-Nehemiah has been made by
Professor A. Klostermann, his results being published in the 3rd German edition
of RE. After an examination of the Arabic, Syriac, Greek and Latin versions and
a comparison of them with the Hebrew Massoretic Text, he comes to the conclusion
that our Hebrew text as a whole is of more value than that represented by the
versions. The writer of this article has noted a wonderful accuracy in the transmission
of the Aramaic part of Ezra, the spelling or writing of the words resembling in
many of the smallest particulars that of the Aramaic papyri of Elephantine, which
date from the 5th century BC.
LITERATURE.
Commentaries and Introductions:
A, Introductions: Sayce, Introduction to Ezra, Nehemiah, Esther; Angus-Suen, The
Cyclopedic Hand-Book to the Bible; Rarnu, Introduction to the Old Testament; Keil,
Old Testament Intro.
B, Commentaries: Keil, Ezra, Nehemiah, and Esther; Rawlinson, in the Speaker's
Comm., and in the Pulpit Commentary; and in Ezra and Nehemiah ("Men of the Bible"
series); Lange's Comm.; Meyer, Entstehung des Judenthums; OTJC2; RE2.
R. Dick Wilson
Tags:
babylon exile, bible commentary, bible history, bible reference, bible study, book of ezra, book of nehemiah, define, ezra, priest, scribe
Comments:
|
 |
|
