^^JUJM^Al.!.^^Ul^.!.,l,^^^l.^l.^^^^^l.^^^l.^IJ.^!.^^^u.M.M,^l,^^u,^^^lL^j

Library of the
Jl)ale ©ivtnttg Scbool

The Books of
jfranfc Cbamberlain porter
Winkley Professor of
Biblical Theology

Beihefte zur
Zeitschrift fiir die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft.
H.
. >i — ¦  ¦ — ¦  **"
The
Composition and Historical Value
of
Ezra-Nehemiah.

By

Dr. Charles C Torrey
Instructor in the Semitic Languages at Andover Theological Seminary.

Giessen
J. Ricker'sche Buchhandlung
1896.

The

Composition and Historical Value

of

Ezra- Nehemiah.

By

Dr. Charles C. Torrey
Instructor in the Semitic Languages at Andover Theological Seminary.

c

Giessen
J. Ricker'sche Buchhandlung
.1896.

CONTENTS:
I. The Composition A. Analysis of Ezra i — 6  p. 4
B. The Source of Ezra 7 — 10, Neh. 8 — 10 p. 14
C. The Original Position of Neh. 7, 70 x — 8,
18; 9, 10 • .  p. 29
D. The Chronicler's Share in Neh. 1 — 7 . . p. 35
E. The Origin of Neh. 11 — 13 . . p. 42
Table of the Analysis . . . . . . p. 49
2. The Historical Value . . . . . . p. 51

i. The Composition of the Book.
It is at present generally agreed that Chr.-Ezr.-Neh.
originally formed one book, which was put in its final form
by the author of the book of Chronicles, commonly called
"the Chronicler". It is also agreed that a not inconsiderable
part of the Ezra-Nehemiah history was composed by this
same writer. The portions thus ascribed to him by common
consent are (with slight variations): Ezr. I. 3. 4, 1 — 5. 24
(Aramaic); 6, 16—22 (partly Aramaic); 7, 1— 10; 8, 35. 36;
Neh. -1 2, 1—26. 44 — 47. Many of the foremost critics add
Ezr. 7, 12—26; Neh. 13, 1—3.
In nearly or quite all of these passages believed to have
been written by the Chr., he is supposed to have been
using older documentary sources; not because this is made
probable by anything in the passages themselves, or be
cause the Chr. has the reputation of being a trustworthy
historian, — the reverse is the case, — but because he
seems to have preserved in the book Ezr.-Neh. at least
three documents that give valuable information concerning
the history of the period; namely, the personal memoirs of
Ezra and Nehemiah, and a document written in Aramaic
dealing with events connected with the building of Jerusalem,
and especially the temple. From these sources, which he
generally reproduces verbatim, he is supposed to have
derived the information given in his own words.
I think it can be shown that the Chr.'s written sources
are represented only by the following sections: 1. Ezr.
Beihefte z. ZATW. II. Torrey, The Composition &c. i

4, 8—6, 14, a free composition in Aramaic; 2. Neh. i. 2.
3, 33—6, 19, the authentic Memoirs of Nehemiah. It will
appear that we have no reason to suppose that any other
sources, written or oral, were used by the Chr. In parti
cular, he is seen to have been the sole author of the
supposed "Memoirs of Ezra"-
Attention has recently been called anew to the literary
and historical problems of Ezr. -Neh., chiefly through
the controversy between van Hoonacker and Kuenen
(1890— 1892), and that between Kosters and Wellhausen
(1893— 1895). Van Hoonacker1 attempted to prove that
Neh.'s career falls in the reign of Artaxerxes L; that of
Ezra in the reign of Artaxerxes II. Kuenen, in his reply 2,
defended the generally accepted view. The elaborate in
vestigations of Kosters require especial mention here. In
his Herstel van Israel in het Perzische Tijdvak (Leiden,
1 893) 3, he reaches the following chief conclusions: 1. The
narrative contained in Ezra 1—4 is untrustworthy; even
the return of exiles under Cyrus is disproved by other
evidence. 2. The Aramaic portion of Ezra is the work
of three different authors; 4, 8—24 he assigns to the
Chronicler, while in 5. 6 he concludes that we have two
separate documents united by a redactor.* 3. Ezra and
the company that returned with him are to be given greater

1 Nihimie et Esdras. Louvain, 1890. Also (in reply to Kuenen):
Nihemie en Pan 20 dArtax. I., Esdras en Van yd'Artax. II. Gand, 1892;
Zorobabel et le Second Temple. Gand, 1 892.
z De Chronologic van het Perzische Tijdvak. Amsterdam, 1890. (Trans.
in Gesammelte Abhandlungen, 1894, p. 212 ff.)
3 Trans, by Basedow, Die Wiederherstellung Israels t Heidelberg, 1895.
I have seen only this translation. Kosters has also published a reply
to Wellhausen in the Theol. Tijdschr., 1895, p. 549ff.
4 This strange theory is disposed of by Wellhausen in his reply
to Kosters (see below), p. 176.

prominence than ever in the history of Jerusalem. 4. The
original order of the narrative is to be restored as follows:
Neh. 1, 1—7, S; 11, 3—36; 12, 1—26; 11, if.; 12, 27—43.
44—47; 13, 4—3i; Ezr. 7— 10; Neh. 9; 10; 13, 1— 3;
7, 6 — 8, 18. The disturbance of this order in our present
text is due, not to accident, but to the deliberate purpose
of the redactor. Kosters' conclusions as to the composition
of the Ezra-Neh. part of the narrative do not differ
materially from those of other critics. He believes that we
have here, in the main, trustworthy history.
The most valuable part of Kosters' work is his exa
mination of the evidence relating to the restoration under
Cyrus.1 He argues with force that the testimony in its
favor is limited to the Chr.'s statements; and shows that
the prophets Haggai and Zechariah, as well as Ezra 5. 6,
know nothing of such a return of exiles. As for Kosters'
treatment of the history of Ezra and Nehemiah, it is not
so easy to feel confidence in it. His restored order of the
text is not justified even by his own hypothesis (/. c,
p. n6f.), which is itself improbable enough. Moreover,
his whole theory falls to the ground unless he is allowed to
cancel or deny the date given in Ezr. 7, 7. 8. So he
himself acknowledges (p. 115). His attempt to get rid of
the difficulty is courageous, but by no means successful.
The same may be said of his treatment of the date in
Neh. 9, 1 (p. 85); and there are many examples of arbitrary
dealing with the text, some of which will be noticed
below. His work well illustrates the difficulties into which
a thorough -going historical criticism of Ezra-Neh. will
bring the man who tries to take the Ezra narrative
seriously.

Wiederherstellung, p. 178".

Wellhausen, in his reply to Kosters1, maintains the
generally accepted view of the post-exilic history; though
making certain concessions2 in the matter of the return
under Cyrus, and in regard to the possibility that Ezra's
work in Jerusalem may have followed that of Neh., as
claimed by Kosters. A. Analysis of Ezra 1—6.
As the present investigation is concerned chiefly with
the part of the book relating to Ezra and Nehemiah, I
shall not attempt here to discuss at length the portion
contained in ch. i— 6. The problems connected with the
question of its original extent and form are complicated
and interesting, involving especially the inquiry into the
relation of i Esdras to our canonical Ezra. I shall endeavor
to omit here all that is not essential to my present purpose,
reserving for another time the further investigation of these
first six chapters. 3
Ezra I ff. is the continuation of Chronicles, by the same
writer, as external and internal evidence combine to show.
In one (the canonical) form of the text, the two books
overlap each other by several verses; in the other (i Esdras),
by two whole chapters. Moreover, the very .noticeable
peculiarities of the Chr. narrative continue to show them-
i Die Ruckkehr der Juden aus dem babyl. Exil. (Nachrichten d.
Konigl. Gesellsch. d. Wissenschaften zu Gottingen, 1895, P- *66 — 186).
2 L. <.., p. 185 f.
3 I hope to show in particular, if I have opportunity: I. That
1 Esdras exhibits in these six chapters a version somewhat nearer to
the archetype than our Ezra; and that it is throughout its whole extent
of the greatest importance for restoring the original text. 2. The Story
of the Three Pages, which is a secondary addition to the book, was
written in Aramaic. 3. The original form of this part of the narrative,
from Cyrus to Ezra, can be ascertained with practical certainty.

selves in Ezra; the style also (one of the most strongly
marked of any in the O. T.) is the same. These argu
ments were set forth in a convincing way by Zunz, Die
gottesdienstlichen Vortrdge der Juden, 1832, p. 21 ff, and
have been repeated many times since. It is now generally
agreed that ch. I; 3; 4, 1—5. 24; 6, 16 — 22 were written
wholly by the Chronicler, whatever may have been his
sources. Ch. 2, which contains the list of those who came up
from Babylon with Zerubbabel, has been generally left out
of the discussion, because of the prevailing belief that it
was either borrowed from Neh. 7, or else, like the correspond
ing portion of that chapter, taken from the older source
that seems to be mentioned there (vs. 5). I think it will
not be difficult to show that this chapter also, like the
preceding and following, is from the hand of the Chronicler.
Obviously, the argument should begin with an examination
of the passage in its context in the book of Nehemiah.
As this can be done better in connection with the in
vestigation of that book, and as some facts having an
important bearing on the question will come to light in
course of the study of the Ezra narrative, I will reserve
the discussion until Neh. 7 is reached.
With 4, 8 begins the long Aramaic section, extending
to the end of 6, 18. This contains: 1. an account of how
the building of Jerusalem was hindered by enemies of the
Jews, in the reign of Artaxerxes; 2. an account of the
building and finishing of the temple in the reign of Darius.
To the first part of this Aramaic section the editor prefixed
a brief introduction of his own (vs. 6f.)1, which through

1 Vs. 6 is simply a historical patch, inserted by the Chr. to make
the history continuous (see below), and also to account for the inactivity
of the Jews (cf. vs. 5).

scribal blunders has become entangled with the beginning
of the following document.
Until vs. 8 there is no trace of an Aramaic source.
The document which there begins was in any case a piece
of narrative (cf. vs. 23), and probably began with the word
pK. Vs. 7 ("in the days of Artaxerxes") was, in all
probability, in its original form an introduction to the
Rehum-Shimshai correspondence which follows. As it now
reads, it is of no possible use to anybody. Vs. 8 — 11,
as they now stand, present a scene of the wildest con
fusion. The simplest solution of this tangle is to suppose that
the names in vs. 7 originally stood in vs. 6; and that their
accidental omission there, and insertion at the next op
portunity, caused further displacement. The original form
of the text would then have been the following: ni3^>D31 (6)
inro wiia *ikpi tooa jmna ub&i lnir&a nbnra. BmwK
mm aro anwnniK wy\ (7) atom mw ^vr by mm
jintson bhbi dis t^o KnwnniK by ibdh tawi qjnj byn
k-ibd wm, aj>a by* Dim jhn (9) (xwik) a:nnai ;vb*ik airo
una mm -qj> iw\ pat? n nnpa ^pri11 n] pnniJD *ikb>i
pans nan (n) wms tote antwnniK1? d^it ty nth kijik
"oj? bok "pay kb^b anawnn-iN ty \nity into n wniK
lii K3fo£ «mb jm nij?31 «[tfa*] mna. The reading thus
gained is unobjectionable, and quite in the style of 5, 5 b — 7.
The Massoretic text differs from this only in a displace
ment of clauses which may be explained on the supposition
that a copyist accidentally omitted the names in vs. 6, and
noticing his mistake after he had begun vs. 7, tried to

1 As in vs. 17. It is probable, however, that the Chr. himself in
troduced the list of names here.
2 This word can hardly have been omitted.

repair it. This hypothesis appears to me to account for
all the facts in a simple and natural way. *
The grotesque list of names in vs. 9b. 10 may possibly
have belonged to the original form of the letter, though
this does not seem probable. On the other hand, its in
sertion here is so exactly in accord with the taste and
habit of the Chr. that we may conclude with some con
fidence that he was its author.
Vs. 24 of this chapter is generally assigned to the Chro
nicler, for two reasons: 1. Xerxes and Artaxerxes (4,6 — 23)
are out of place between Cyrus (1.3, 1 — 4, 5) and Darius I.,
to whose reign the events narrated in ch. 5 f. are supposed
to belong. In other words, ch. 5 cannot be the sequel of
4, 6 — 23. To this it may fairly be replied, that the as
sumption upon which this objection is based, that the Chr.'s
Aramaic source contains trustworthy history, has nothing
to support it. The arguments commonly employed against
the genuineness of the Cyrus edict in ch. 1 2 are equally
applicable here. The utterances recorded in 4, 19 f. would
be remarkable indeed in the mouth of a Persian king, but
viewed as a familiar product of Jewish literature they are
quite in their proper place.3 It is to be noticed that these

1 1 Esdr. 2, 15 f. is palpably an attempt to bring order out of the
chaos of our Massoretic text. Notice especially the combining of the
names in vs. 15, and Kpvral (ttTl) in vs. 16.
2 See e. g. Stade, Gesch., II. p. 99.
3 Cf. Graetz, Gesch. der Juden, II. p. 100. Kosters, op. cit., p. 54 ff.,
calls in question the historical character of Ezra 4, 8 — 23, on the ground
that the wording of the alleged correspondence shows it to be fictitious,
and that the building of the city wall at this time is improbable, in
view of known facts. His arguments are not all valid, to be sure.
4, 9b. 10 is probably an interpolation, as he himself admits. The con
clusion drawn from vs. 21 (last clause) is quite arbitrary and (as it seems
to me) unjustified. The attempt to prove that the work of building the
wall cannot have been begun at this time (p. 58 f.) concerns only those

verses are the centre of the whole episode; if this part of
the correspondence is not genuine, the historicity of the
rest cannot be maintained. In ch. 5 £ the same features
appear again; and the more such indications accumulate,
the plainer the conclusion. Ch. 5, 8. H— 16; 6, 3—5. 8—12
are clearly Jewish compositions couched in the usual stock
phrases, and not for a moment to be regarded as actual
deliverances of Syrian officials and a Persian king. From
the whole tone and atmosphere of this Aramaic section,
from beginning to end, it must be plain that it contains,
not a series of remarkable utterances by heathen kings
and officers to the glory of the Jews and their religion,
but a kind of literature that abounds during this period of
Jewish history. So far as historical value is concerned,
Ezra 4, 8 — 6, 1 5 stands in all respects on the same plane
with Dan. 2 — 6 and the book of Esther.
There is therefore nothing improbable in the order
Cyrus, ...?..., Artaxerxes, Darius. There is no reason
to suppose that Jewish historians and story-tellers of the
Greek period1 were accurately informed as to the order
and chronology of the Persian kings. The author of Dan.
5. 6 made Darius I. precede Cyrus; it is probable that the
Chr. shared this view.2 The only thing that need occasion

who make the very doubtful connection with Neh. 1 ff. The bare state
ment that the Jews began to build the wall in the days of a king
named Artaxerxes, and were soon hindered by enemies, contains nothing
at all improbable. The single one of Kosters' arguments that is con
vincing is that derived from the mention of the "book of the records"
(p- 57)- This he passes over too hastily.
1 See Noldeke, Die alttest. Literatur, p. 64. I shall touch later on
the question of the date of this Aramaic document.
2 If we suppose this to have been the case, the history, so far as
he records it, moves along in steady course and without a hitch : Cyrus,
Xerxes, Artaxerxes I., Darius II. , Artaxerxes II., Darius III. (Neh. 1 2, 22).

surprise is, that in view of the bewildering succession of
kings named Darius and Artaxerxes, these writers seem
to have made so few mistakes.
2. The second reason for ascribing 4, 24 to the Chr.
has greater weight. The Aramaic portion vs. 8 — 23 speaks
only of the building of the city, and in particular, of the
city walls; but in vs. 24 mention is made only of the
building of the temple, with which the preceding narrative
of the Chr., 3, 8 — 4, 5, has been concerned. The natural
conclusion is that the Chr. wrote vs. 24 as a harmonistic
patch, to make the Aramaic narrative fit into his own. It
may be argued, with some appearance of plausibility, that
the enemies of the Jews would in any case represent to
the king that the city walls were being built, but would
have no occasion to mention the temple, inasmuch as he
could have nothing to apprehend from its completion. But
this argument is far from satisfying, especially in view of
ch. S- The fact, moreover, that we have in these letters
the words of the Jewish narrator, who would hardly refrain
from all mention of the temple in such a place, makes it
pretty certain that the narrative that originally stood im
mediately before vs. 8 — 23 was not concerned especially
with the building of the temple. It follows that we are
indebted to the Chr. for vs. 24. Further proof of this may
perhaps be found in the use of the expression D"1B T^B,
which has been recognized since Ewald as the favorite

It is not easy to believe that the Chr. regarded the Artaxerxes who
befriended Ezra and Nehemiah as identical with the one named in
Ezra 4. Had he done so, it would have been an easy matter to transpose
the account of the Artaxerxes correspondence, putting it at the end of
ch. 6, or just before Neh. 1. The Massoretic tradition, which writes
the name of the former invariably with D, the latter invariably with »,
belongs to the same view of the history.

10

form with this writer.1 To argue from '131 «n"?N JTO HTBJ)
(Schrader), or pKB (Konig), is hardly permissible.
In chapter 6, vs. 9 f. is an interpolation by the Chr., as
appears from a comparison of vs. 17; 7> I7- 22> °> 35; °f-
further 1 Chr. 29, 21 ; 2 Chr. 29, 21. 22. 32; 2, 9. 14 (not in
Kings), &c; and from the use of the favorite DVB D1\
It has long been recognized that in vs. 14, at least the
words DIB "J^B KJlBWimK must be secondary. The last
two words suggest the Chr., and the blundering mention of
Artaxerxes is quite as likely to be due to him as to any
later hand. Schrader" probably goes too far in claiming
the whole half- verse 14 b for this writer; the statement,
"they built and finished .... according to the decree of
Cyrus and Darius", is the necessary conclusion of the
preceding narrative; it was in order to show this very thing
that the whole account was written. Vs. 15, on the other
hand, may well be assigned to the Chr. It is evidently an
important part of his purpose to fix the exact dates, all
through this history; cf. 3, 6. 8 (where 1 Esdras 5, 54 f. has
preserved the true reading); 6, 19; 7,9, &c. The reason
for choosing this particular date here is plain from vs. 19. 22 ;
cf. Ex. 12, 2ff. Accordingly, all the latter part of the
chapter, from the last clause of vs. 14, is to be assigned
to this writer.
Aside from the passages already noticed (4, 6. 7. 9 b.
10a. 24; 6, 9. 10. 14b y — 18), there is no certain trace of
the Chr. in the Aramaic section, and no good reason for
believing that he made any further additions or alterations.

1 It is in fact used only by him. He generally employs it in
speaking of Cyrus (i, I. 2. 8; 3, 7; 4, 3. 5), Darius (4, 5. 24), and Arta
xerxes (4, 7; 6, I4(?); 7, 1). Similarly ^22 -]ba, Neh. 13, 6.
2 Stud, n. Krit. 1867, p. 476.

II

The theory, suggested by Kosters1, that he is the author
of 4, 8 — 23, is as unlikely as possible. The only con
ceivable reason why he should compose and introduce at
this point a document relating to the building of the walls,
is the one clearly set forth by Kosters himself (ibid., p. 62).
But if the Chr., having finished his story of the beginning
of the temple, had wished to give a "similar representation"
of the zeal of the returned Jews in building the city wall,
he could not have defeated his own purpose more com
pletely. The proximity of vs. 5 would nullify his attempt
at the start, and vs. 24 would give it the coup de grace.
The omissions would be still more remarkable. No better
proof of this is needed than is furnished by Kosters' own
train of reasoning (ibid.), in which he sets forth clearly the
things that the writer must have said — none of which stand
in our text ! One gets the impression that Kosters has not
read Ezra 4 recently. It would be much easier to believe
that the Chr. was the author of 5, 1 — 6, 14; but to this
supposition also there are serious objections. Passages com
posed by him are generally easy to recognize, even when
they are written in Aramaic. Thus in 7, 12 — 26, seven of
the fifteen verses contain words or expressions unmistakably
characteristic of him. It is hardly credible that he could
have so completely veiled his identity in 5, 1 — 6, 14 if he
were the author, or even the reviser, of that portion. It
is noticeable, too, that in 5, 1. 2. 5, &c. prophets and elders
are mentioned, instead of priests and Levites and chief of
the fathers; that in S, 2 THtP is used without any reference
to the former beginning made by these same men (3, 8);
that in 5, 14 — 16 so little notice is taken of the narrative in
ch. 1 — 3; that 6, 3. 4 has nothing in those chapters to which

1 Op. dt., p. 61 ff., 116,

12

it can refer. On the whole, it seems quite as unlikely that
the Chr. wrote or rewrote 5, i— 6, 14 as that he was the
author of 4, 8 — 23.
Further questions that arise concerning these two Ar
amaic passages— whether they originally belonged to the
same document, and whether they formed there a con
tinuous passage— need not be discussed here. I will merely
state my own conviction, that they were written by the
same hand, and that they stand here in their original
order. r
Before leaving Ezra 1 — 6, the fact should perhaps be
emphasized that the Chr.'s narrative here is homogeneous
thoughout, so far as the most careful examination can show.
There are nowhere any marks that would indicate an older
source behind his version of the history.2

1 It is not even necessary to suppose that any intervening narrative
was omitted by the Chr., if the date in 1 Esdr. 6, I (= Ezra 5, 1) is
original. It might easily have fallen out; cf. the Syr. Hex.
2 To this statement 3, 3 is no exception. It is well known that
the text of this passage is corrupt; and if Graetz' emendation (MonaU
schrift, 1875, p. 6f.) were to be accepted, there would be reasonable
ground for supposing that here, at least, the Chr. was not writing
independently, in view of his customary treatment of the fisn 15».
Graetz emends mainly in accordance with I Esdras, but makes of the
second clause: "for all the peoples of the land came (D^fcO instead of
niS^KS) unto them and strengthened (lptrw) them." But against this
emendation may be said: I. It overlooks the significant variations in
the other versions of 1 Esdr.; particularly the Syr. Hex. 2. It involves
a double mention of the "peoples of the land", the one statement con
flicting with the other ("some of . . . all of . . ."). 3. The word TTSVO
(M. T. ntt'tO) is as well attested as possible, and is just what we should
expect here (cf. 4, 1 f.). 4. The clause rtj> "bv*1 is now deprived of its
connection with the preceding. 5. nisnttn W is one of the Chr.'s most
characteristic expressions; and it is quite impossible that he should
speak of these "peoples" in such a way as this (see below).
I would submit the following, as a plausible solution:

13

The theory has occasionally been advanced that Ezr. i . 3
were originally written in Aramaic; i. e., that they formed
a part of the "Aramaic Document." Thus van Hoonacker,
Zorobabel, p. 104 — 114. Howorth, in The Academy, Feb. 4,
1893, makes the claim for Ezr. 1. Van H. alone has
attempted to bring forward proof in support of this (ibid.),
but fails conspicuously.
On the other hand, there have been found advocates
of the theory that Ezr. 5, 1 — 6, 15 is a translation from
the Hebrew. Thus Schrader, Einleitung (De Wette), 1869,
p. 387; Kosters, Wiederherstellung, p. 62; see also Renan,
Histoire, vol. IV. 1893, p. 3. This theory not only lacks
internal support in the chapters themselves, but is, it seems
to me, quite untenable in view of the facts stated above.
As for the date of the Aramaic Document, all the
indications seem to point to a time not long before that
of the Chr. Noldeke (Die alttest. Literatur, p. 64) assigned
it to the Greek period, on internal grounds. If Graetz
(Gesch. II. p. 85) is right in supposing that the writer of

hi rutnn ww lpmm orrt» ni'sa ^ uw rmn«n n»e srrt» nepM
.'ui v"^ xy6» vbs bvi innatt
"And some of the peoples of the land gathered themselves together
against them; and when they perceived that they were come with
hostile purpose, they withstood them, and built the altar in its place,
and offered . ." &c.
1S2pM for Kal £jricuvfix-3r)cav, as in 1 Esdr. 8, 88; 9, 5. Wl a word
that the Chr. is especially fond of using. By confusion with lWl, all
this trouble arose, lptfirvi for Kal Kaxia%\3aav ; Syr. Hex. o^a^IIo.
It is plain from the verss. that this verb had no direct object expressed.
For the idea expressed here, cf. 2 Chr. 13, 7, where the same verbs are
used. The words "all the nations that are upon the earth" (i Esdr.)
were probably a gloss, judging from the fact that they are inserted in
four different ways in the several versions. Notice, however, the
evidence of dittography, the words:
(ww) uw iwiKn n»B arvhs
being written twice.

14

this story of the correspondence with the Persian king had
in mind the Samaritans (pBP in 4, V). this may be taken
as additional evidence.
B. The Source of Ezra 7—10, Neh. 8—10.
With chap. 7 begins the portion of the book supposed
to have been written by Ezra himself. It consists of two
sections: 1. the account of Ezra's expedition from Babylon
to Jerusalem (7. 8); 2. the expulsion of the heathen wives
(9. 10). But not all of this can be attributed to Ezra, as
many critics have remarked. Ch. 7, 1 — 10, for example, is
pronounced by nearly all to be from the hand of the
Chronicler. Ch. 8, 35 f. and the whole of ch. 10 were also
written by him "on the basis of Ezra's Memoirs."1 Nor
is this all. The letter of Artaxerxes, 7, 11 — 26, is ex
cluded by Cornill (p. 261 f.) from the supposed writings of
Ezra, for reasons that are conclusive.2 There is left the
portion 7, 27 — 8, 34; 9, 1 — 15; concerning which Cornill
remarks that it bears throughout the impress of the same
hand and the same spirit, and that there can be no doubt
whatever that we have here the untouched narrative of
Ezra himself.
But to go so far, and no further, is to get into very
serious difficulties. The statement just quoted concerning
the homogeneous character of Ezra 8. 9 is only misleading
unless it is extended to include chaps. 7. 10, and the passage
Neh. 7, 73 — 10, 40, now generally recognized as belonging
to the Ezra document, and standing on the same footing
with Ezra 10. Absolutely the only reason for separating

1 Zunz, Gottesd. Vortrdge, p. 28; Driver, p. 517; Konig, EinU,
p. 28 Iff.; Kosters, Wiederherstellung, p. 98 ff., &c.
2 So Ewald, Noldeke, Kuenen, Kosters, Driver, al.

is

Out the two chaps. Ezra 8. 9 as "untouched" is the fact
that they are written in the first person instead of the
third. Just how much weight this fact should have, we
may be better able to judge by and by. The material con
tained in these seven chapters is thoroughly homogeneous,
and bears the marks of a single author; but it is the same
hand and the same spirit that appear no less plainly in
Ezra 1 — 6. It is the Chronicler, and he alone, whose work
can be discerned here. And the indications are truly un
mistakable. His own favorite ideas, and even his most
characteristic expressions, are to be seen in these chapters,
if anywhere; not in a few places, but in many. The fact
could hardly fail to have been generally recognized, if it
were not for the time-honored ideas concerning the im
portance of Ezra in the post-exilic history.1
It will be well worth while to examine the "Ichstuck"
Ezra 7, 27 — 9, 15 in regard to its vocabulary and style,
with a view to comparing it with the writings known to
have been composed by the Chronicler; and then, if a
satisfactory result is reached, to apply the same test to
other doubtful portions of the narrative. The argument
based on the material content of the chapters in question
is quite as weighty as that derived from the language; but
the latter will be found to furnish the best possible start
ing point.
The vocabulary of Ezra-Nehemiah, or of some portion
of it, has not infrequently been made the subject of exa
mination, more or less thorough; e. g. by Zunz, /. c, p. 21 ff;
De Wette-Schrader, Einl, 1869, p. 384; Graf, Geschichtl.
Biicher, passim; Kuenen, Onderzoek2, p. 448 f., 5iof.;
Driver, Introd., p. 502—507. Of some of these investigations

1 Due largely to the figure which he cuts in later Jewish tradition.

i6

I shall have more to say later. The lists which I present
here do not claim to be exhaustive, but to be trustworthy
so far as they go. Of course in any such comparison as
this the force of the argument is cumulative; indications
that would have little or no weight by themselves may
become of great moment when combined. After making
all due allowance for resemblances in style and vocabulary
such as might be accounted for on the supposition of two
writers moving in the same circle of ideas, or representing
the same stage in the history of the language, there will
still be found so many and so striking correspondences as
to make the proof complete. *
7, 28 non nan. Also 9, 9.
VSJJV. The ministers of the king. Used in this technical
sense only I Chr. 27, 33; Ezra 7, 14. 15 (Aramaic); 8, 25.
Cf. also 4, 5.
^3^1. Giesebrecht, Die Praeposition Lamed, p. 108, cites
this passage and 1 Chr. 26, 26; 28, 1. 21 ; 29, 6; 2 Chr.
26, 14 as forming a class by themselves. See further notes
below on the peculiar use of this preposition by the Chr.
"flptnnn. This Hithpa'el is used frequently (fifteentimes) 2
by the Chronicler; only one other O. T. writer (J in Samuel)
uses it as often as three times.
ity...tT3. Also 8, 18.
8, 1 DtMTXin. A favorite word with the Chr., but
employed by no other O. T. writer. This particular form
(Hithp. Infin. with suffix 3rd plur.) occurs also 1 Chr. 4, 33;
7, 5. 7. 9. 40; 9, 22; 2 Chr. 31, 16.
niB^B. See Driver's list, No. 9.

1 For the sake of convenience, I shall often merely refer to Driver's
numbered list, which I have found very complete and accurate. I had
nearly finished my own lists before consulting any others.
2 Sixteen, if Ezr. 3, 3 is counted.

17

8, 3 B^ EWnn. Just as in 2 Chr. 31, 1 6.
8, 16 liy vN?. The use of this preposition with the direct
object is not uncommon in Chr. Cf. with this verse
especially 2 Chr. 17, 7. The resemblance is striking.
D^BB. Cf. 1 Chr. 15, 22; 25, 8 (pa formally contrasted
with TB^fl); 27, 32, and see notes on Neh. 8, 71T. below.
8, 17 B^lTi.1 The word occurs only 1 Chr. 9, 2 and
in numerous passages in Ezra-Neh.; viz. Ezra 2, 43. 58. 70;
7, 7. 24 (Aramaic); 8, 17. 20 (bis); Neh. 3, 26. 31 ; 7, 46.
60. 73; 10, 29; 11, 3. 21 (bis). These passages are all (as
I believe) from the hand of the Chronicler.
8, 20 niBEO IBpX Also 1 Chr. 12, 31 ; 16, 41 ; 2 Chr.
28, 1 5 ; 31, 19. Only other occurrence, Num. 1, 17. A
characteristic expression.
8, 21 t?13\ Also 10, 8. A word that the Chr. is fond
of using. 1 Chr. 27, 31; 28, I; 2 Chr. 20, 25; 21, 14. 17;
31, 3; 32, 29; 35, 7; Ezra 1, 4. 6. No other O. T. writer
employs it so often.
8, 24 D'Omn i"lt?. So vs. 29; 10, 5 ; 2 Chr. 36, 14. These
are the only occurrences of this expression.
*wy W&. Concerning the artificial use of the number 12
in this chapter, cf. Kosters, Wiederherstellung, p. 37. The
author of vs. 35 f. was the author of the rest of the chapter.
8, 25 lannn. See Driver, No. 36. A very singular usage,
and occurring only in Chr.
DWJBJn biXW bl. Cf. 2 Chr. 31, I; 35, 17- J8; 5, "•
A use peculiar to the Chr.2
8, 27 ''IBB. Only other occurrences of the word, 1 Chr.
28, 17; Ezra 1, 10.
DMBIIK. Only here and 1 Chr. 29, 7. A form analogous

1 Kethibh ttlHU.
2 Cf. however Judg. 20, 48.
Beihefte z. ZATW. II. Torrey, The Composition &c

i8

to )B31T (Neh. 7, 71. &c); the one evidently corresponding
to deepen^, the other to 5paxp.r|. The presence of these
two words is worthy of especial notice, in connection with
the other evidence. Cf. Neh. 7, 7 if., and see note there.
8, 30 I'jBp. Mentioned in Driver, /. c, No. 1 1, among the
characteristics of the Chr.
8, 33 niBIB T by. Cf. bW1 T1 by in the very similar
passage 1 Chr. 29, 7. 8.
8, 34 ^ptt>8B (so in vs. 26. 30. 33). Cf. 1 Chr. 28, 141T.
8, 35 ,TBS. Found elsewhere only in two passages from
the hand of the Chr.; viz. Ezra 6, 17 (Aramaic); 2 Chr.
29, 21 '; and in the eighth chapter of Daniel.
9, 1 XY6331. Cf. 2 Chr. 31, 1. The combination 01^331
occurs also 2 Chr. 7, i; 29, 29; and once in Daniel.
I^HBX The only other occurrences in Niph'al, aside from
Num. 16, 21, are Ezra 6, 21 ; 10, 8. 11. 16; 1 Chr. 12, 8;
23, 13; Neh. 9, 2; 10, 29.
niSINn ,BJ?. An expression often used by the Chr., and
by him only; 2 Chr. 13, 9; 32, 13. 17 ("li); Ezra 3, 3; 9, 2. ii;
Neh. 9, 30 ; 10, 29. Cf. also vs. 7; and concerning the
Chronicler's habit of combining two plurals, see Zunz,
/. c, p. 22.
''iyisb ("namely, the Canaanite", &c.).2 Such extended
use of the preposition b is especially frequent in writings
of the Chr. See Giesebrecht, Die Praeposition Lamed,
p. 101 ff. ; Driver, No. 39. The passages most nearly parallel
to this one are 2 Chr. 2, 12; 23, 4; cf. also 1 Chr. 13, I;
2 Chr. 28, 15; 33, 8; Ezra 8, 24; Neh. 9, 32.

1 Compare both passages with this one, noticing the connection
and the wording.
2 As in Arabic; e. g. Ibn Hisham, ed. Wustenfeld, p. 435, 17. 19;
442, 3-

19

9, 2 HtPK KtW. Also vs. 12; io, 44; Neh. 13, 25; 1 Chr.
23, 22; 2 Chr. 11, 21; 13, 21; 24, 3; Ruth 1, 4.
ninsn %$>. See above.
bya. "A favorite term with Chr." (Driver). See his
list, No. 3.
9, 4 Tin. So 10, 3.
iTJUn byto by. So io, 6. Concerning the use of bya
see note above.
nniB7 iy. This combination of prepositions is one of
the most characteristic marks of the Chr.'s style. See
the long and very significant list in Driver (No. 38). Even
the use of it with an infinitive, which is slightly different,
has no parallel in other O. T. writers, except in the phrase
nan K13^ iy Josh. 13, 5; Judg. 3, 3. The use with a sub
stantive, as here (also 3, 13; 9, 6; 10, 14), is found only
in the Chr.1
9, 5 ''BB ntriBKl. As in 2 Chr. 6, 12 (1 Ki. 8, 22). 13.
9, 6 Th» (after WlTib). Cf. 1 Chr. 29, 17.
B>m nbynb. Cf. I Chr. 23, 17 (Bertheau).
The Chr. is fond of using 7\bysh as an adverb, "ex
ceedingly". That is what we should expect here, and the
present construction is very difficult. The conjecture is
tempting that t?N"l originated in a misreading of the first
three letters of the following word.
13nBK>K. Another uncommon word, used chiefly by the
Chr. (13 times). Driver, No. 19.
DW^ iy. Cf. 2 Chr. 28, 9, where the words are used
in the same way. See also above, vs. 4.
9, 7 msiKn "Ote. See above, vs. 1.
9, 11 niS1«n ''By. See above.
9, 13 13nBtS>K (also vs. 15). See above.
1 1 Ki. 18, 29 cannot be cited to the contrary, for the text there is
plainly corrupt (cf. LXX.).

20

9, 14 niBJ?nn ^y. Cf. note on vs. i.
tvim y»b. Cf. i Chr. 22, 4; 2 Chr. 14, i2; iS- 3; 20, 5;
21, 18. Another remarkable use of the preposition. Driver
(No. 43) says of it: "Peculiar. Not elsewhere". See also
Giesebrecht, Die Praeposition Lamed, p. 92 f.
9, 1 5 TiBJ^ Y». Driver, No. 40. Still another syntactical
peculiarity. It appears from the foregoing list that the passages
Ezra 7, 27—8, 34; 9, 1 — 15 contain a very large proportion
of words and expressions found elsewhere only (or in a
few cases, chiefly) in the writings of the Chronicler. These
expressions are for the most part pretty evenly distributed;
yet the way in which they sometimes accumulate in a
single verse should be noticed. Take, for example, 7, 28.
The several "ear-marks" noted in this verse are not such
as naturally belong together, so that the use of one would
stand in any connection with the use of the others. It is
therefore purely by accident that they are congregated in
this verse, if the Chr. did not write it. It is remarkable
that this same accident should happen in a half-dozen other
verses in this short portion of narrative; e. g. 8, 1. 27;
9, 1. 2. 4. 6. 14 f. The character of some of the ex
pressions also deserves especial attention. The use of
nwifctn ''BJJ and the similar phrases, noted in 9, 1. 2. 7. 11.
14, looks like the habit of a single writer. But this is
only one example; if it were alone, it might hardly deserve
comment. * More noticeable still is the peculiar use of the

1 It is a fact that speaks volumes, that in the list of "singular syn
tactical usages" marking the style of the Chronicler, compiled by Driver
(Nos. 27—45), al1 but two (31 and 42; occurring twice and three times,
respectively) of the 19 peculiarities named are found likewise in
Ezra-Neh., being distributed through all parts of the book except the
Aramaic document and the portion written by Nehemiah!

21

preposition b; and in particular, of b iy (g, 4, &c); P&6
(9, 14); 71 (7, 28). Here, if anywhere, we may see one of
the most characteristic of those subtle peculiarities that go
to make up individual style. This, like the preceding, is a
purely syntactical peculiarity, that might appear anywhere
in all the extensive post-exilic literature: psalms, narrative,
prophecy, apocalypse. But they occur only, and that
frequently, in the one book Chr.-Ezra-Neh. Other simi
lar examples might be added.
I will not press the argument of another kind derived
from the occurrence of the Greek word p"VW, Sapencoc;
(8, 27; cf. )BBTT, 8paxiif|, 2, 69; Neh. 7, 70 ff), although it
seems to me to be a clear case.
Further, there is nowhere in the sections just examined
the slightest indication of the editing or re-writing of an
older document. All parts bear one and the same stamp,
as critics generally acknowledge; and it is impossible to put
the finger on any single verse or collection of verses that
will offer reasonable ground for a theory of editorial
alteration. I have passed by the passages 7, 1 — 11 ; 8, 35. 36
without special examination, because it is quite generally
acknowledged that they are the work of the Chronicler.
They exhibit, however, precisely the same linguistic and
stylistic peculiarities as the other portions of the narrative.
There is nothing whatever to suggest that they stand on
a different footing from the remainder, except that in them
the writer lapses into the use of the third person.
The same may be said of ch. 10. The fact might be
easily shown by continuing the preceding table of statistics;
but this is unnecessary, for if the Chronicler is proved to
have been the author of ch. 7—9, the same would follow a
fortiori of ch. 10.

22

The case of Neh. 7, 70—10, 40 is somewhat different,
for it has been doubted by some1 whether these chapters
proceed from the same hand as Ezra 10. I will therefore
examine the first chapter of this group in the same way
as above, before drawing the final conclusions.
7, 70 2 niB«n WK\ Cf. 1 Chr. 29, 6. The Chr. is very
fond of this expression.
"131*6 )ni. Cf. 1 Chr. 29, 8; and notice the striking
resemblance between the whole passage there (vs. 6—8)
and vs. 70—72 here. Cf. also 2 Chr. 35, 7ff.
t\bH B'flBBYT Bnt. The same construction in the fol
lowing verses, also Ezra 2, 69; 1 Chr. 29, 7.
D^BBTl. Also in the two following verses, and Ezra
2, 69. Evidently the Greek Spaxjifj. See note on Ezra 8, 27.
7, 71 mB"l (vs. 72 K1B1). The parallel passage 1 Chr.
29, 7 (as well as Ezra 2, 69) uses this uncommon word also.
7, 73 B^Ti^ani D^jntyn. Among the special properties
of this writer, who brings them in again and again. They
are found only in Chr.-Ezr.-Neh. (Driver, No. 46).
It is an erroneous theory that the status of the "Singers"
and "Porters" in Ezr.-Neh. is different from that in Chr.;
namely in that the Chr. makes them Levites, while in
Ezr.-Neh. they seem to be distinguished from the Levites.
This observation, first made by Graf(?), has been repeated
with approval by most recent commentators and critics. -3
The reason for giving the Porters and Singers special mention
in Ezr.-Neh. is the purpose (the same which moved the
Chr. to write this whole history!) to show that all the
institutions of the true "Israel!', as they existed in the

1 Especially Kuenen, Onderzoek2, p. 509 ff.
2 Vs. 69 in Baer.
3 E. g. Smend, Die Listen, p. 26; Baudissin, Gesch. des A. T. Priester-
thums, p. 142 ff.

23

third century B. C, and as they had been established by
Moses and David, were restored complete when the exiles
returned. In the first place, it is not true that the Chr.
does not distinguish: Levites, Singers, Porters, in the same
way that they are distinguished in Ezr.-Neh. He states
distinctly that they were separate classes, with separate
duties; see I Chr. 23, 3 — 5 ; and especially ch. 24 — 26. In
2 Chr. 35, 14. 15 the three classes are enumerated just as
in Ezr.-Neh.; and finally, in Neh. 12, 44 — 47 (generally
admitted to be from the hand of the Chr.) the Singers and
Porters are twice distinguished from the Levites. Again,
it is not true that the Porters and Singers in Ezr.-Neh.
are not regarded as Levites. In Neh. 11, 15 — 18, as also
in vs. 22 f., the Singers are expressly classed among the
Levites. It is perfectly plain, moreover, that in vs. 3 the
Singers and Porters are included in the term "Levites". I
In 12, 27 the Levites perform the functions of the Singers;
while in 13, 10 the Singers do the work of the Levites.
Cf. also 7, 1. In 13, 11 Levites are put in charge of the
gates as a part of their regular service (against Baudissin,
Gesch. des A. T. Priesterthums, p. 144); cf. the wording in
11, 19; 12, 25.
BWlin. See note on Ezr. 8, 17.
btmr1 ^31. See below.
1BB«i1  JW1. As in 2 Chr. 5, 3.
8, 1 "iBDn. In this sense (one learned in the Scriptures)
1 Chr. 27, 32; Ezra 7,6. 11 ; Neh. 8, 4. 9. 13; 12, 26. 36.
8, 2 biTpft. One of the words most characteristic of the
Chr.'s idea of the history as it should have been.

'- It is impossible to s-uppose that these passages in Neh. 11 were
interpolated, or simply adapted (!). And if the ch. is assigned bodily
to the Chr., then ch. 7 falls at the same time (see below).

24

pB (also vs. 3). Concerning the Chr.'s fondness for this
word, see notes on vs. 7f. and Ezr. 8, 16.
8, 4 Concerning the manner of the enumeration here
and in vs. 7, see below.
8, 5 nay. Cf. 2 Chr. 6, 3.
8, 6 )BK « ' • • • lijn. As in 1 Chr. 16, 36, and elsewhere
in the Chr.
8, 7 BJ>n n« B^BB D^n (also vs. 9). Just as in 2 Chr.
35, 3; cf- 3°> 32- The use of this expression deserves es
pecial notice. Cf. 2 Chr. 17, 7 — 9.
DIB J? by. A characteristic expression. Also 9, 3; 13,11;
2 Chr. 30, 16; 35, IO; cf. 1 Chr. 6, 17; 23, 28; 2 Chr. 7, 6;
Neh. 12, 44.
8, 8 WBI bs&. Both roots are in high favor with the
Chr. when he is speaking of "understanding" in the religious
sense. For this use of blVf, cf. Ezra 8, 18; 1 Chr. 26, 14;
22, 12 (WBI b2&); 2 Chr. 2, 11 (n^BI bltif); 30, 22. See
also notes on vs. 7. 13.
8, 10 lb ? ? ? • y&6. The relative omitted. Another striking
syntactical peculiarity. See the very significant list in Driver,
No. 30.
p3. See Driver, No. 6.
min. Elsewhere only 1 Chr. 16, 27; Elzra 6, 16 (Ara
maic). 8, 1 1 BJttl "?3^ ? ? •« B^n. Cf. vs. 7. 9, and note on the
former. 8, 12 n'rna nnat?. A standing expression in the Chr.'s
account of such occasions. Cf. vs. 17; also 1 Chr. 29, 9;
2 Chr. 30, 26; Ezra 3, 12 f.; 6, 22; Neh. 12, 43, &c.
WBn. As above.
8,13 S^ni  »K1. The usual combination. See
note on 7, 70.
"^BtWlVi. Cf. vs. 8; and for this use of the Hiph'il, 1 Chr.

25

28, 19; 2 Chr. 30, 22; Neh. 9, 20. For the peculiar use of
the conjunction and preposition, see notes above, and Driver,
No. 40.
8, 15 blp WBjn. Ezra 1, i; 10, 7; 2 Chr. 30, 5; 36, 22.
Only other occurrence, Ex. 36, 6.
8, 17 ''BETl ? • • • • bnpn. I. e. the Chr.'s usual way of
making the Ty7M and the religious community coextensive.
Cf. Ezra 6, 21 ; 10, 8 (!).
TDMi nnBt?. See note on vs. 12.
8, 18 BVB B1\ Also 1 Chr. 12, 22; 2 Chr. 8, 13; 24, ii;
30,21; Ezra 3, 4; 6,9 (Aramaic). Concerning this and
similar expressions in the Chr., see Driver, No. 29 (cf.
No. 35).
an ItyjN. Just as in 2 Chr. 7, 9.
Extended comment is unnecessary. We find here the
same large proportion of words and expressions char
acteristic of the Chr. If the two following chapters 9. 10
are examined, they will yield the same result. It is to be
noticed how, in the lists above presented, these characteristics
show themselves in even distribution over all parts of the
book — even the Aramaic section Ezra 7, 12 — 26 — excepting
only the Memoirs of Neh. and the Aramaic Document Ezr.
4, 8 — 6, 14. In these they are almost totally absent (see
below). Kuenen's decision * regarding the style of these chapters
(8 — 10) in Neh., accepted without question by subsequent
writers, has been very widely misleading. He says (after
arguing for a comparatively early date of composition):
"En daarvoor pleit, dat zij, in weerwil van de overeenkomst
met Kron., grammatisch en stylistisch veel hooger staan dan
de verhalen, die uit de pen van den Kroniekschrijver zijn

1 Onderzoek2, p. 511.

26

gevloeid." I think it can be shown that this is a mistake.
In the first place, the long Deuteronomic prayer 9, 6—37,
by which Kuenen was no doubt influenced, has no right
to a place in the discussion; for it is simply a catena of
quotations1, not a free composition of the writer.2 Con
cerning the remainder, it will be worth while to give it a
brief examination in regard to style.
The passage 7, 70 — 72, which (as will be shown later)
belongs with 7, 73—8, 18, not with the preceding list, can
be put side by side with the very similar passage 1 Chr.
29, 6—8.3

iana niasn wi mpai
"131&6 jna antinnn naxba^
awan nipitB *\bn b^bbti ant
niMB warn awiw a^ans mans
-131*6 iana ma«n wkibi (71)
w b'Oibbvj ant n3t6an
Din«ai b^k a^aa *pai man
ant aj>n nnsty iana "itswi (72)
B'OB *)D31 K131 TW B^BBYl
.njnan a w a^ans mansi b^k

ibbw •"•ttj't nia«n •na* mami
niKani a^an ¦ntjn ^>sw
iami (7) n^an naj6a ne^i
a^naa ant a^an ma miaj6
*p3i iai b^btjki b^k nts>an
iai ntynai a^bx rrwy b^tbb
n«a ^nai a^iaa b^n naiatJM
inx Ksaam (8) bi-db *6n
by mm ma tsi*6 iana a^aa
/atsnan tow t

It is certainly not easy to say which of the two passages
is the worse written. One thing is plain; they are either
by the same hand, or else the one was written in imitation
of the other.
In vs. 73, Wellhausen* wishes to strike out the last
three words as unnecessary. But the testimony of text
and versions, both here and in the similar passage Ezra
1 Cf. De Wette, Krilischer Versuch, 1806, p. 181.
2 As so often in Chr. In later times these catenae become still
more frequent.
3 Not in Kings.
4 Nachrichten, I. „., p. 177 f.

3, i, is unanimous, in their favor. Moreover, if the Chro
nicler wrote the verse, the awkward repetition is sufficiently
explained; it is just what we should expect from him. Cf.
i Chr. 5, 24; 28, 21 ; Ezra 8, 35, &c. Those who find it
hard to believe that the confusion in the first half of the
verse is due to the original writer need only compare
1 Chr. 9, 2; 12, 40; 28, 1.
In 8, 2, the manner of introducing the parenthetical
clauses is a good example of the Chr.'s slovenly style;
the impossible J?Btt6 pa "?31 (vs. 3 B^BBH) \ in particular,
is worthy of that writer.
Vs. 8 is a specimen of such Hebrew as only the Chr.
can write or understand. Vs. 7 and 13 are as good ex
amples of his most glaring faults of style as can be found
anywhere. The clumsy way of using the proper names in
9, 4 f . is very characteristic; cf. 8, 7; Ezra 2, 2; 1 Chr.
16, 4ff, &c.
In ch. 10, the first verse shows us the Chr. at his worst.
It is hard to see how any part of it could be more
awkwardly expressed.2 Vs. 2—28 is a list of names. The
rest of the chapter, vs. 29—40, belongs in the same class
with vs. 1. To speak more particularly: in vs. 29 f. there
is the labored accumulation of substantives and clauses, in
vs. 32 the awkward suspended construction, to be found
on every page written by the Chr. Is there any Hebrew
style worse than that exhibited in vs. 34 f.? Such matters
as logical and grammatical connection were evidently of
1 Cf. 10, 29.
2 It is certain, at all events, that it is narration, belonging with
the following, not with the preceding. Ryle, Commentary, p. 266, says:
"The view that the verse resumes the narrative of 9, I — 5 is very
improbable on account of the use of the Ist person plur., which has
not been employed in this section." But how about 10, 31 ff. — almost
the very next verses of narrative?!

28

no concern to this writer. The same may be said of vs. 38
and 40.
In conclusion: it might be possible, it would not be
easy, to find a portion of Chr. of equal extent written more
abominably than Neh. 7, 70 — 9, 5; 10, 1— 40.
If there is any such thing as a valid argument from
language, style, and recurrence of characteristic ideas, we
have an example of the kind before us. If the books in
question stood in no sort of external connection with one
another in the O. T., the proof would even then be well
nigh conclusive; but when it is borne in mind that the
author of the book of Chronicles is acknowledged to have
written a considerable part of Ezra-Nehemiah — in fact, all
of the Hebrew narrative up to this point, — there is simply
nothing more to be said.
It remains to notice the explanation (now hardly ne
cessary) of that which has long been a chief obstacle to
the right understanding of the narrative in these books;
namely, the repeated and bewildering change from third
person to first, and back again; as at Ezra 7, 27; 8, 35 f. ;
9, i; 10, i; Neh. 10, 1. 29. 31; also Neh. 12, 31. 43; 13, 4.
It is the confusion raised by a writer who is narrating
somebody else's personal recollections, on the sole basis
of his own imagination, and doing it carelessly. Now he
gives his hero the word, now tells the story himself. That
which caused the Chronicler to fall into this unfortunate
method was Nehemiah's own "Memoir", written throughout
in the first person. Wellhausen, Israelitische und judische
Geschichte2, p. 169, note, says: "Der Gedanke, Memoiren
zu schreiben, ist in jener Zeit durchaus neu; unmoglich
konnen zwei Manner selbstandig und unabhangig darauf
verfallen sein. Vielmehr ist Nehemia dem Beispiel Ezras
gefolgt und hat dessen Memoiren seine eigenen zur Seite

29

gestellt", &c. What Wellhausen supposes Nehemiah to
have done for himself, the Chronicler actually did, or tried
to do, for his hero, Ezra. As he was not trying to "forge"
documents, as we understand the term (such an idea could
certainly never have occurred to him), it was a matter of
no concern to him that the illusion was not always kept
up, but the phantom Ezra sometimes disappeared alto
gether. The historical probability, or improbability, of the Ezra
story will receive brief notice further on. For the present
it may be said, that so far as the literary form is con
cerned, there is nothing in the "Ezra Memoirs" to justify
the supposition that the Chronicler used a written source,
or written sources, in compiling them.
C. The Original Position of Neh. 7, 70 t — 8, 18; g. 10.
The three chapters Neh. 8 — 10 are out of place where
they now stand. Ch. 11 forms the proper continuation of
ch. 7, as critics generally agree. Moreover, the intervening
chapters belong, not to Nehemiah's narrative, but to that
concerning Ezra and his work. They are evidently of one
piece with the story told in Ezra 7 — 10 ; just how they are
related to it has remained an unsolved problem. Manifestly,
Neh. 8 cannot be the sequel of Ezra 10, as in 1 Esdras.
Nor does Kosters' use of axe and crowbar yield satisfactory
results. I believe it is possible to determine, beyond any
reasonable doubt, 1. where these chapters originally stood;
and 2. how they came into their present connection.
The best starting-point is found in the verses 7, 70—73 2,
where there is an allusion of a very definite character. "And

T Vs. 69 in Baer.
2 Vs. 69—72 in Baer.

30

some of the chief of the fathers gave to the treasure of
the work, &c." The gifts include not only gold and silver
in large amounts, but also bowls for use in the temple,
and a good many priests' garments. What was the nature
of "the work" that required such gifts as these? Certainly
not the building of the city walls, nor any other work
mentioned or suggested in this part of Nehemiah. The
reference must be to the restoring or carrying on of the
Temple service*- (Cf. not only the parallel passage Ezra
2, 68 f., but also i Chr. 29, 6 — 8.) But how is it possible
to explain the sudden, indirect allusion to the Temple
service, in this place where it would be meaningless? The
manifest and only satisfactory solution of the difficulty is
that the misplaced section of the Ezra document begins,
not with Neh. 8, 1, or 7, 73 b2, but with 7, 70. The hypo
thesis, adopted by most modern critics, that these four
concluding verses of ch. 7 were copied, in connection with
the preceding list, from an older document, is as unnecessary
as it is improbable.3
It remains to ask where in the Ezra narrative these
statements regarding gifts for the Temple worship would
be in their proper place. The question is easily answered;
there is only one place, namely, at the end of Ezra 8.
There, they would be just what is needed; they form,
moreover, as natural a continuation of the close of that
chapter as could be desired. The narrator (the Chronicler)

1 So also Kosters, Wiederherstellung, p. 35 ; though he fails to draw
the necessary conclusion, that the verses are not in their original con
nection. 2 Schrader, Smend, Ryssel, Kuenen, Stade, Cornill, Driver, Konig,
Ryle, Kosters, al.
3 On the other hand, it would evidently be an untenable hypo
thesis that these verses were borrowed and adapted from Ezra 2 by a
later scribe or editor.

3t

has told of the arrival at Jerusalem of the Ezra expedition,
with the gifts from Babylon for the temple. The king's
governors in the province, also, help with gifts (IKbO, cf.
Ezra i, 4) the work of the house of God (8, 36b). Then
followed the verses Neh. 7, 70 ff, telling how some of the
chief of the fathers and of the rest of the people gave to
the work; and finally, how the members of this expedition
settled down in their respective places — a statement that
is noticeably absent at the end of Ezra 8 as it now stands. '
Next came the account of the reading of the Law, Neh. 8.
This was a principal object of Ezra's journey; he was "an
expert in the law of Moses" (Ezra 7, 6), and set out for
Jerusalem with the express purpose of teaching and applying
it there (vs. 10). In the letter of Artaxerxes, the king is
represented as taking this same view of Ezra's mission
(vs. 14; cf. vs. 12. 21. 25 f.). It is then most natural that
the narrator should tell, first of all, how Ezra set about
accomplishing his purpose. According to the restored order
of the chapters, the reading of the Law was his first official
act after reaching Jerusalem — as soon as the sacred "seventh
month" was come.
But when the end of Neh. 8 is reached, a new difficulty
arises. Chapters 9. 10 cannot have formed the original
sequel. The sudden transition from feasting to sackcloth
and ashes, without any statement of the reason why, is at
least very noticeable; and there are other difficulties in the
way. Kosters2 finds the opening verses of chap. 9 well
nigh incomprehensible as they stand; the impression gained
from them is that the convening of the assembly was oc
casioned, not by the reading of the law, but by the separation
of Israel from foreigners. In his attempt to determine the
1 Notice also verses 32 f.
2 Wiederherstellung, p. 64 ff.

32

original order of the narrative, he feels obliged to put ch. 8
after ch. 9. io.1 Wellhausen, in his reply2, fails to dispose
of all the difficulties; he has, moreover, in another place,
himself called attention to the chief one of them. 3
It has been generally taken for granted that the mourning
and fasting of 9, 1 f. was occasioned by the reading of the
Law. The people were in distress because they had not
known, and therefore had not kept, all these commandments.
But this is nowhere stated, in either of the two chapters
9. 10, nor is it the most natural way of interpreting them,
when they are taken by themselves. The true state of
the case may be surmised from the hint given in 9, 2 a,
and repeated later (especially 10, 29): "And the seed of
Israel separated themselves from all strangers" (cf. Ezra
10, ii; 9, if.). In the penitent assembly and solemn
covenant of Neh. 9. 10 we have the original conclusion of
Ezra 9. 10. All commentators remark that Ezra 10 ends
in a most unsatisfactory way. Even when the text of
verse 44 is restored in accordance with 1 Esdras 4, it seems
certain that the story of "the seed of Israel" and their
heathen marriages could not have ended at this point. Neh.
9. 10 gives precisely the continuation that is needed. After
Ezra's extreme measures have been carried through, and
the heathen wives are formally dismissed, then comes the
second part of the reform, which is hardly less important
than the first. The children of Israel come together,
humbled and penitent, in solemn assembly; and enter into
1 L. c, p. 85 f.
2 Nachrichten, p. 173 f.
3 Israel, u. jiid. GeschichteT-, p. 135, note 2: "Wunderlich an seiner
Stelle ist der erste Satz von Neh. 9, 2."
4 See c. g. the attempts in Oettli, Comm., p. 1 75; van Hoonacker,
Nihimie, p. 37. (Kosters, p. 102, dismisses Oettli's emendation as im
possible because of the masc. suffix; but see Ezr. 10, 3.)

33

a formal covenant1 (written and signed, and sealed by "a
curse and an oath", io, 30), the first clause of which is
"that we would not give our daughters unto the people of
the land, nor take their daughters for our sons" (vs. 31;
notice also the wording of vs. 29 f.). There follow other
specifications, most of them easily recognized as belonging
to the pet interests of the Chronicler — provision for tithes,
and all sorts of offerings for the temple service, and
especially the gifts for the Levites; so that the covenant is
finally made to include pretty much all virtue as seen from
his peculiar standpoint. The story of Ezra is thus brought
to a fitting close.
It may be remarked here that the dates given from time
to time in Ezra 7 — 10; Neh. 8 — 10 now follow one another
in perfect order, each event falling into its proper place.
Ezra begins his journey, at Babylon, in the seventh year
of Artaxerxes, on the first day of the first month (7, 9; cf.
8, 15. 31). His company arrives at Jerusalem on the first
day of the fifth month (7, 8. 9); and there they all remain
for a few days (8, 32 f.), before dispersing to "their" cities
and villages (Neh. 7, 73). On the first day of the seventh
month (8, 1. 2) all assemble at Jerusalem to hear the Law
read. The reading is continued on the second day (vs. 13).
The Feast of Tabernacles is observed at the usual time,
from the fifteenth to the twenty-second day of the month
(verse 18). Soon after this (Ezra 9, 1), Ezra hears of the
obnoxious marriages, and measures are taken to remove
the evil. After three days of preparation (10, 8. 9), the
people are all assembled in Jerusalem on the twentieth day
of the ninth month (vs. 9). On the first day of the tenth
month (vs. 16) Ezra and his associates begin their work,

1 Cf. Ezr. 10, 3— 5.
Beihefte z. ZATW. II. Torrey, The Composition &c.

34

and bring it to an end on the first day of the first month
(vs. 17). This is apparently the beginning of the eighth
year of Artaxerxes. On the twenty-fourth day of this
month (Neh. 9, 1) the people assemble once more, for the
purpose of taking the covenant.
It has . thus been shown that the original order of
chapters in the story of Ezra was the following: Ezra 7. 8;
Neh. 7, 70 — 8, 18; Ezra 9. 10 ; Neh. 9. 10. Whoever admits
that these chapters in the book of Nehemiah belonged ori
ginally in the Ezra narrative, will hardly dissent from the
above conclusion after having once tested it.
As to the way in which the three chapters Neh. 8 — 10
came to be misplaced, the following is at least a plausible
hypothesis. The transposition was due to the close resem
blance of the passage Neh. 7, 70 — 8, 1 to Ezra 2, 68 — 3, 1 . T
Neh. 7, 70 — 8, 1 8 thus came to be removed to the place
directly after the list 7, 6 — 69 (= Ezra 2, 1 — 67), where it
was supposed to belong. Once there, it would not easily
be removed. But this first transposition made a second absolutely
necessary. The two chapters Neh. 9. 10 plainly presuppose
the public reading of the Law, as narrated in Neh. 8, and
cannot possibly precede it; see especially 9, 3; 10, 29. 30.
35- 37- They were therefore placed after it.
But the tradition was not lost, that these incidents be
longed to the history of Ezra. Hence the attempt, re
presented by 1 Esdras, to restore the chapters to their
proper place. The section thus transferred to the end of
the book of Ezra began with Neh. 7, 73, the only place
where it could have begun.
1 Such a. repetition is not at all surprising under the circumstances
— the two similar expeditions from Babylonia. And it might well lead
a copyist astray.

35

D. The Chronicler's Share in Neh. i — 7.
With Neh. 1 it is evident that a new writer appears,
whose work can be recognized in the greater part of the
first six chapters of the book. The narrative is quite
different in style and tone from all that has preceded, and
its peculiarities of expression are not those of the Chr.,
such as appear everywhere in the chapters hitherto dis
cussed. Hardly a single one of all the words and phrases
brought together in the foregoing lists is to be found here *,
except in chapter 3, 1 — 32, which will be considered by itself.
This is very significant, as showing (if any further
demonstration of the fact were needed) that the peculiarities
mentioned are not those of a period of literature, but of
an individual writer.2 It will be seen that when ch. 11 — 13
is reached they begin again to be scattered in as profusely
as ever. There are other more positive indications. The
date at the beginning of the first ch. could not have been
written in this way (simply "in the twentieth year") by the
Chr. The inhabitants of Jerusalem and the vicinity are
called "the Jews" (BHinYI); never the Sip, or the «"6ia, or
"Israel" 3. The enemies of the Jews are designated as

1 The solitary exceptions are: bsb in 1,8; and pH • • •• VUSNI 5, 13
(in a clause interpolated by the Chr.). In the long list compiled by
Driver, these first chapters of Neh. do not appear (except in the case
of TIMMI and minb), though each of the other chapters is frequently
represented. 2 Of course it is to be expected that the Chr., who is editing the
writings of Neh., should be occasionally found imitating him, in the
part of the book composed by himself. Thus 2, 8 (last clause), also
Ezra 7, 6. 9. 28; cf. Neh. 2, 18. Neh.'s self-satisfied prayer, 5, 19, is
repeated for him by the Chr. 13, 14- 22. 31.
3 It is worthy of notice that the term DHIST, which is constantly
used by Neh. and in the Aramaic document in Ezra, seems to be avoided
by the Chr. See note on Neh. 13,23. 3*

36

Moabites, Ammonites, Arabians and Ashdodites (never
mentioned as enemies in Chr.), rather than by the use of
the convenient and non-committal ni31«n ,BJ>. The Levites,
Singers, &c. disappear entirely, and even the priests hardly
receive mention.
Examination of the narrative seems to show that the
Chr. has followed his usual labor-saving method; giving his
source entire, so far as possible, and adding from time to
time his own interpolations.
Ch. I he seems to have left untouched. In ch. 2, vs.
7 — 9a was probably inserted by him. These *inan "13JJ nimB,
not mentioned elsewhere by Neh., play a similar part once
and again in Ezra. The reason for introducing the mention
of these official letters here is apparent from Ezra 5, 3. 6;
6, 6K; 1 Esdr. 4, 47; Ezra 7, 21 ; 8, 36. For the command
ment concerning wood from the king's forest, cf. 2 Chr. 2, 2.
7, &c; 1 Esdr. 4, 48; Ezra 3, 7. The verb nip (Pi' el) occurs
elsewhere only 2 Chr. 34, 11; Neh. 3, 1. 3. 6 (all written by
the Chr., as I shall endeavor to show)1; Ps 104, 3. The
expression ma? "lt?K nTan seems to bring us down at once
into the last centuries B. C. It can only mean here the
fortified court or enclosure of the temple ; as occasionally in
the Talmud. With this use of the word nT3 belongs that
according to which the temple itself was thus called; as in
1 Chr. 29, 1. 19, and apparently in Neh. 7, 2. So also in the
Talmud. See Jer. Pesachim VII. 35a; B. Zebachim 104b;
in both of which passages these two uses of the term are
put side by side, and the passage in 1 Chr. is cited. 2 See
1 In Neh. 3, 1 read lnnp instead of imtSHp (twice). The emendation
is rendered certain by the comparison of vs. 3. 6; notice also the LXX
f)ytaaav (= lBHp without the suffix).
2 It is not surprising that in some Greek Mss. (not "the Septuagint",
Wellhausen, Gesch.2, p. 166) the mention of this rrpa in the present
passage should be omitted altogether.

37

note on 7, 2, below, where the evidence of the Chr.'s
presence is equally strong. With the mention of the "gates"
of this enclosure, cf. 1 Chr. 9, 17 — 27 (especially vs. 23);
26, I2ff. Still another, and a very weighty, reason for sup
posing the interpolation is found in the clause 9 b, which is
the proper sequel of vs. 6, but is quite out of place after 9 a1.
With 3, 1 — 32 we are again in the domain of the Chr.
The mere fact of a new list of names is sufficient to arouse
suspicion, when it is borne in mind that we are dealing
with a writer who had lists on the brain. Here is certainly
a good place for another of the inevitable catalogues. And
all the indications point in this direction. First of all,
though there is very little opportunity here for the ap
pearance of words and expressions characteristic of the
Chr., yet some of these do appear, hardly by accident.
The Levites and Nethinim, too, are given just the pro
minence that might be expected in any statistics compiled
by him. It may also be remarked that the high priest,
who here apparently leads the work, is not mentioned
elsewhere by Neh. in these first six chapters, though there
is no lack of opportunity for doing so.2 Among the ex
pressions that suggest the Chr., the following may be
especially noted:
3, 1 laa11! • • • • Dp"1!. Cf. Ezra 3, 2.
B^anan. These must of course be the leaders, whenever
the Chr. is writing the history. So also we have the Levites
in vs. 17, and the Nethinim in 26. 31.

1 To avoid the difficulty by translating rbm as pluperfect, is to
ignore Hebrew syntax.
2 As for the names of the various gates, towers, buildings, and
other features of the city mentioned in this chapter (most of them also
ch. 12), they undoubtedly give us a description of the Jerusalem of the
Chr.'s own time.

33

mittHp (bis). Read in both cases Wj? (see note on 2, 8),
and cf. vs. 3. 6; 2 Chr. 34, n.1
3, 2 IT by. Also in the verses following: 4 (ter). 5. 7.
8 (bis). 9. 10 (bis). 12. 17. 19. Used in precisely the same
way 2 Chr. 17, 15. 16. 18. Cf. also Neh. 13, 13; 1 Chr.
7, 29; 2 Chr. 21, 16; 31, 15. The only other passage in
the O. T. that can be compared is Jos. 15, 46.
3, 5 annn«. Thus absolutely 2 Chr. 23, 20; Neh. 10, 30.
mi3J>. In the signification "Dienstpflicht" ; cf. 1 Chr.
26, 30 (Gramberg, Die Chronik, 1823, p. 8).
3, 8 B^DIIS and D'flp. Similarly vs. 3 if. Cf. 1 Chr.
4, 21. 22. 23.
3, u maty ma (also vs. 19. 20. 21. 24. 27. 30). Cf. 12, 38.
3, 16 lis ma ^s ^n iw (cf. vs. 9. 12. 14. 15. 18). Cf.
1 Chr. 2, 50 ff; especially 52. 54.
3, 26 B^avian. Also vs. 31. See note on Ezra 8, 17.
3, 30 ina^a. For n3ts6. Only here and 12,44; 13, 7-
See note on the latter passage.
It can hardly be doubted, in view of all this, that for
3, 1 — 32 we are indebted to the same hand that compiled
all the other lists in the book.
In vs. 34, the clause piBt? • ? * ? • 1BN',1 sounds like an
interpolation; not so much because of the double "IBfc^l as
because of the mention of Samaria. Neh. always calls
Sanballat "the Horonite"; the prince of a stronghold near
by Jerusalem, but nowhere near Samaria. The latter city
he never mentions, nor does it anywhere appear that he
knew of Samaritan enemies.

1 The verb tfflp is used of persons or things (temple, altar, &c.)
which are made "holy" for the cultus. To speak of "sanctifying" such
a thing as a gate or a. wall is unheard of. The "parallel" (i Ki. 8, 64)
adduced by Bertheau-Ryssel, Oettli, Ryle, and others, has no resemblance
to the present instance.

39

Ch. 4 appears to be intact.1 In ch. 5, the first clause
of vs. 13b, mm ••?• IIBWI, is a Chr. addition. Notice the
use of Snp, and cf. 1 Chr. 16, 36; Neh. 8, 6.
With ch. 7, the uninterrupted reign of the Chr. begins
again. As the long catalogue containing the names of
"those that returned  with Zerubbabel, Jeshua," and the
rest (vs. 6 — 69) is an important factor in the analysis of
the book, and as the decision as to its probable origin must
precede the discussion of vs. 1 — 5, it will be well to examine
it first. I have already (in speaking of Ezra 1 — 6) stated
my opinion as to the source of this catalogue; the argument
was reserved for this place.
1. Both structure and contents suggest the Chr. The
lists of names, which he is perpetually inventing or recon
structing in order to enrich his history, in season and out
of season, often show their origin plainly. The one before
us is made up, half of names of men, half of names of
places. The Chr.'s fondness for locating the members of
the congregation in "their cities" is characteristic.2 In a
number of his catalogues he concludes with a formidable
list of cities and villages. Thus the latter half of Neh. ii;
1 Chr. 4. 6; cf. also 26, i3ff. His especial interest in Levites,
Singers and Porters has already received frequent comment.
Their presence here is noticeable in itself, and will be still
more so when we compare the lists in 1 Chr. 9. 15 (0-
23 — 26(!); Ezra IO; Neh. 11. 12, all constructed after the
same model; to say nothing of the many single verses such
as 2 Chr. 34, 12 f.; 35, 15 ; Ezra 7, 7. 24; Neh. 10, 29; 12, 47.
2. The style of the narrative portions of the section is

•¦ Vs. 17b, read 1T3 \rbv V», as in 2 Chr. 23, 10. It is easy to
see how n might be mistaken for D.
2 Cf. also such passages as 1 Chr. 2, 50 f. 52 ff. (!); 4, H, &c-

4o

like that in Chr. It is only necessary to call attention to
vs. 6. 7. 61. 64. J It may be also worth noticing that the
manner of writing compound numerals (the hundreds first)
in this list and in Neh. 11 is that invariably adopted by
the Chr.2
3. There is also the evidence furnished by a good many
single words and expressions.
7,6 na^an ^3 nto. Cf. Neh. 11, 3; and the Chr.'s
favorite <-6ian na.
nbian -opa atyn. Cf. Ezra 3, 8; 6, 21 ; 8, 35 ; Neh. 8, 17.
Wyb t^«. The Chr.'s idee fixe!
7, 7. The introduction of these twelve leaders cer
tainly does not inspire confidence in the trustworthiness of
the document. Cf. Kosters, Wiederherstellung, p. 36 ff.3
7, 57 naiw nay "OB. Also vs. 60 ; 11, 3. Not only
the Porters, Singers, and Nethinim, but also this subdivision
of the last-named class, must be connected in direct line,
through the exiles in Babylon, with the institutions of David
and Solomon. Cf. Ezra 8, 20 (Bertheau). According to
the Chr., no portion or institution of the true Israel ceased
in the exile, or originated after it.
7, 61 BniBK ma. One of the expressions that the Chr.
delights to use.
7, 63 B^anan JB1. Ezra 2, 61 ''aaa, with which cf. 10, 18;
Neh. 12, 35; 1 Chr. 9, 30 ; B^n ^3, 1 Chr. 15, 15; 24, 30;
aTwan ¦'aa, Neh. 12, 28; a^nnpn •oa, 2 Chr. 20, 19; 34, 12.
These expressions do not occur elsewhere.
7, 64 DWTIB. See note on Ezra 8, i.

1 For the awkward way of enumerating in vs. 7. 61 (in the parallel
Ezra 2, 59 and in the LXX here, there is no conjunc. before the name
ION), cf. I Chr. 4, 24; 26, 23; Neh. 12, 8. 25. 36. 41.
2 See the tables in Konig, Lehrgebaude, H. p. 217 — 220.
3 Kosters' conclusion is, that this verse was interpolated by the Chr.

4i

namjn )B itoiM. Cf. 13, 29, and see note there. The
coincidence is remarkable; the more so, as it evidently
cannot be a case of borrowing; the uncommon root toa
is not used in the same way in the two passages.
7, 65 lay. The use of this verb in place of Dip; cf.
Gramberg, Die Chronik, p. 43; Zunz, p. 25; &c.
7,66 into. "Together." So 2 Chr. 5, 13; Ezra 3, 9;
6, 20. Elsewhere, Is. 65, 25; Eccl. 11, 6.
K13"l. Cf. vs. 71 f.; Ezra 2, 69; 1 Chr. 29, 7.
It seems plain, therefore, that we have here (and in
ch. 11, which is the immediate and necessary sequel)1 tables
compiled by the Chr., according to his usual purpose and
method, with the aim of giving the exact statistical basis
of the restored community at the time when everything
was once more in running order.
As for vs. 1 — 5, the most hasty examination shows that
at least some portions were written by the Chr. Vs. ib
could have been written by no one else; 3b suggests him
with almost every word; vs. 4 expresses just his idea of
the city at that time (contrast the last clause with Hag.
1,4!), and furnishes the necessary introduction to the
following list; vs. 5 is certainly all his property. The
question remains, whether some material from the Neh.
document may not be incorporated here, especially in vs. 2. 3.
This appears plausible at first, but closer examination seems
to prove the contrary.
The significance of all these specifications in vs. 1—3
concerning the doors, the appointment of gate-keepers, the
regulations for the time and manner of opening and closing
the gates, the establishment of the "watches", becomes

1 The verses 7, 70 — 73 (Baer, 69—72) have nothing to do with the
preceding, but belong with ch. 8, as we have already seen.

42

apparent upon comparing i Chr. 9, 17 — 27; 26, 12—19;
and such descriptions of the Jerusalem police service as
that given in Schurer, Gesch., II. p. 217—220. According
to the Chr., to whom such things were an every-day matter,
all this service had been a feature of the true Israel from
the beginning, and was restored by Neh. just as soon as
the city walls and the wall of the temple enclosure (TITan
m3^> IBM) were finished.1 Hanani, the brother of Neh.,
had been mentioned in 1, 2; it was easy to introduce him
again. It is the mention of his companion Hananiah, the
iTY-an 1W, that deserves especial notice. I have already
spoken (note on 2, 8) of the peculiar use of iW3 as a
designation of the temple, with its courts, found in the
Rabbinic writings and in Chr. In the case before us we
have a striking example of this usage, stamping the present
passage as belonging in the same class with 1 Chr. 29. The
mon "W is the "ruler of the temple", the JtpoerdTric. too
tepou, 2 Mace. 3, 4; cf. Jos. Antt. XX, 6, 2, &c.2. The
designation is in common use in the Talmud.3 It can
hardly be doubted, in view of all this, that 7, 1 — 5 is the
work of the Chr. alone.
E. The Origin of Neh. 11 — 13.
Chapters 11 and 12 may be dismissed with a very few
words. The former is the necessary continuation of 7, 5 — 69;

1 The conjecture may be ventured that the word 'H»t» originally
stood before nbwv, in vs. 2 (cf. vs. 3). This would be a decided im
provement on the present text. Mention is made in the Talmud of the
officer in charge of the gate-service (WW rtfVl by); see Schurer, loe. cit.
2 Cf. also 0Y6Nn JVa mi, I Chr. 9, 11; 2 Chr. 31, 13.
3 See Derenbourg, Histoire de la Palestine, p. 48; Schurer, Gesch., II.
p. 219; Grimm, Zweites Buch der Maccabder, p. 66 f.; and the citations
in Levy.

43

in fact, without this as the immediate sequel the list in
ch. 7 could be of no possible use where it stands.1 The
purpose of the compilation of these lists is apparent only
on the supposition that the Chr. was the compiler. His
motive is plain enough; it is the same that dominates all
his post-exilic history. From internal indications, also (nature
and structure of the catalogues; wording and style), the
origin of ch. 1 1 cannot for a moment be in doubt.
With ch. 12 the case is quite as simple. Every word
of it was written by the Chr. It is generally admitted that
he was the author of vs. I — 26; 44 — 47. Concerning the
rest of the chapter there is difference of opinion— caused
chiefly by the Chr.'s unfortunate habit (already referred to)
of occasionally letting his heroes speak for themselves.2
The prevailing theory has been that Neh. wrote the whole
of vs. 27 — 43. Ryssel, in Kautzsch's Die heilige Schrift
des A. T., divides this section as follows: to the Chr. belong
27—30. 33—36. 41—43; to Nehemiah, 31 f.. 37— 40; that
is, wherever the "Ichstiicke" can be escaped, the writer is
the Chr. ! It would be difficult, if not impossible, to formulate
a reasonable theory according to which the Chr. should
have incorporated these small fragments of Neh.'s narrative,
and no more. The fact is, there is nothing in this story
of the dedication of the walls that deserves to be taken
seriously. The necessity of such a ceremony would of
course be keenly felt by the Chr.3; it is not so likely that

1 Kosters (op. dt., p. 31) finds 7, 5—69 so foreign to its present
context that he feels compelled to use violence. The list is accordingly
beheaded, and put, with ch. 8, at the end of the book.
2 As vs. 27—43 continues the narrative of ch. 1—6 (where Neh.
was always the speaker), it is most natural that the Chr. should here
(vs. 31. 38. 40) give him the word again.
3 Cf. I Chr. 15, 3—25; 2 Chr. 5, 2—14; 7, 4—1°; 29, 25—30; Ezra
3, 10—13; 6, 16-22.

44

it would have occurred to Neh. The manner of this solemn
procession, in all its details, is familiar to readers of the
Chronicler; and the narrative exhibits at every point the
marks that indicate his work.1
Ch. 13 will need more careful examination. Most recent
critics have followed Kuenen (Onderzoek2, 1887, p. 447,
499 f-, 5 13) in regarding vs. 1 — 3 as the continuation of
12, 44 — 47, and assigning them to the Chr.2, leaving the
rest of the chapter as the untouched work of Neh. The
one potent reason for making the division here is the fact
that, while vs. 1 — 3 manifestly comes from a time later
than Neh., the anecdote introduced by vs. 4 is written in
the first person, and must therefore be entitled to a place
in the "Memoirs" without further examination. The evidence
now presented will, I think, lead to a different conclusion.
13, 4 niB ,aB1?1. Bertheau-Ryssel (p. 346): "Verfehlt ist
es, ntB '¦as^ auf die vorher berichtete Absonderung des
3iy von Israel v. 3 beziehen zu wollen." But a better con
tinuation could not be wished for. And for what other
purpose were those verses written than to introduce this
very anecdote? To suppose, with Bertheau-Ryssel, that
the words refer to a lost portion of Neh.'s narrative, in
which he tells how he returned to Babylon and then came
again to Jerusalem, is to shut the eyes to what is obvious,
and moreover, to get into trouble at once (see below).
pan B'wto. The Jewish priesthood of the time of
Alexander the Great was not all that it should have been,

1 Driver, Introd., p. 511, says: "The phraseology of the Chr. is
especially noticeable in Ezra 1. 3. 6, 16 — 22. 7, i — 10. Neh. 12, 22 — 26.
43 — 47-" The inaccuracy of this statement is again strikingly manifest
in these last chapters of Neh. In what respect is the phraseology of
the Chr. more apparent in Ezra 3. 6, 16 — 22 than in Neh. 12, 27 — 43;
or in Neh. 12,43—47 than in 13,4 — 13?
2 Thus Cornill, Ryssel, Oettli, Ryle, al.

45

as we know. The events of the Chr.'s own generation,
combined with Neh. 6, 17 ff, &c. might well have furnished
him with the material for this episode of the high priest.
Cf. also vs. 28. Eliashib is mentioned Ezra 10, 6. 24. 27.
36; Neh. 3, 1. 20. 21; 12, 10. 22. 23; 13, 7. 28; all passages
written by the Chr. Neh. does not give the name of any
priest. The only mention of priests by him is at 2, 16;
5, 12. Levites are not mentioned at all.
Wnto ma nats6. Cf. io, 38 ff (same words); 12,44;
Ezra 8, 29; 1 Chr. 9, 33; 2 Chr. 31, 11 ff. (not in Kings).
See also vs. 7, and note.
13, 5 'iai B'ona i\n am Cf. io, 38— 40; 12, 44. it is
plain that vs. 5, and therefore the whole passage 4 — g, was
written by the Chr.
niXB. A peculiar use. Cf. 10, 33.
B'Hjntym B^lt^an. These are dragged in once more.
13, 6 'iai nat^a. Cf. 5, 14. This would require us to
suppose that Neh. wrote and finished his account of the
building of the city wall at the end of his term of service
as governor, and then added ch. 13 as a sort of appendix
after coming to Jerusalem the second time. The case is
much simpler, however. The Chr., wishing to represent
"all this" as having happened during Neh.'s absence, made
use of the date given in 5, 14. Notice ^33 "^B here, in
contrast with "J^an there. It does not seem to have oc
curred to Bertheau (Ryssel) that if his theory is correct,
vs. 6. 7 a (at least) must be an explanatory note by a later
hand — written in the first person, nevertheless!
13, 7 nyna nanxi. Cf. Ezra 8, 15.
natSO. This form (for TOSb) elsewhere only 3, 30; 12, 44.
Cf. especially the latter passage.
13, 1 o B^n nvaa. Cf. 12, 44. 47 (the only other oc
currences of this plural in the O. T.); 2 Chr. 31,4

46

m&b W. Cf. 2 Chr. 31, 19; Neh. 12, 44. The remainder
of the verse betrays its authorship beyond a doubt.
13, 11 BTBJ? by D1BJ?«1. Another unmistakable ear-mark.
See note on Neh. 8, 7.
13, 12 'iai "ItPya. Cf. vs. 5, and see note there.
13, 13. The style of this verse marks it sufficiently as
belonging to the Chr., even without "the Levites" and the
usual enumeration of temple officials.
B'OBKi. Cf. 7, 2; and especially, 2 Chr. 19, 9; 31, 12.
13, 14 yb <TDt. Neh.'s fondness for these interjected
prayers is quite noticeable (3, 36 f.; 5, 19; 6, 14). Such
peculiarities as this would be most readily seized upon by
an imitator. The Chr. introduces this formula not only
here, but also vs. 22. 29. 31.
HBn. Cf. 2 Chr. 6, 42; 32, 32; 35, 26. These are the
only examples in the O. T. of the use of B^Bn for "good
works." 13, 15 nann anyo. Cf. 12, 44; 13, 1.
nat^a. Cf. 9, 14; 10, 32. It is noticeable that the cove
nant in which the Ezra story culminates (Neh. 10, 30 — 40)
corresponds throughout to this closing chapter of Neh., both
in the matter included and often in the verbal form: marriage
with foreigners, 10, 31 ; 13, 23 — 27; trading on the Sabbath,
10, 32; 13, 15 — 22; offerings for the temple service, and
for the priests and Levites, 10, 33 — 40; 12, 44 — 13, 14.
13, 16 B^ITBI mim. The Chr.'s favorite combination,
"Judah and Jerusalem"; not found in Neh.'s own writing.
13, 17 maw •••? nansi. Cf. vs. II.
13, 19 tibttfYV ,1JW- Compare this verse with 7, 3.
"nyaai. Mentioned in 4, 10. 17; 5, 10. 16. It may seem
strange that the Chr. should have missed an opportunity
of bringing in the Levites. This was however no regular

47

service, but temporary police duty, of no great importance.
The Levites appear duly in v. 22.
13, 22 D^naa • • ? ? B^M. There can be no question con
cerning the authorship of this.
13, 23 BTimn. It has already been remarked that the
Chr. does not elsewhere make use of this term; there was
a particular reason for employing it here, however, inasmuch
as Jews and Ashdodites &c. were put in direct contrast;
as miim and mint5>K in the following verse.
B^a la^n. This striking expression (also v. 27) appears
elsewhere only in Ezra 10 (five times). For the omission
of the relative, see note on 8, 10.
1 3, 24 mTntPK. How wide are we to suppose the difference
between the language of the Jews and that of the Moabites,
Ammonites, or Ashdodites? The reading of the text here
does not give the impression that Neh. was taking these
summary measures simply in the interest of a pure Jerusalem
accent. BJ?1 BJ> JltPbl. This is awkward enough to be the Chr.'s
own; but is more probably a misplaced gloss intended to
supplement mYntPN. The testimony of the Greek Mss. is
all but unanimous against it.
13, 25 aay an«1. As in vs. 11. 17.
BB1BN1. Cf. Ezra 9, 3.
'131 lann DK. The same formula in 10, 31 ; Ezra g, 12.
1KSSTI. See note on Ezra 9, 2.
13,26. Cf. vs. 18; also 9, 26 ff; Ezra 9, 6 ff; 2 Chr.
29, S— 9; 30, 7- 8 &c.
13, 27 yBBOn. Cf. the very similar rhetorical question
(31B>an) Ezra 9, 14-
byStb. See note on Ezra 9, 2; and cf. Ezra 10, 2. 10!
nmaa a^a yumb. Exactly as in Ezra 10, 2. 10. 14. 17.
18. See note on vs. 23.

48

13, 28 awto. See note on vs. 4. The event alluded
to here took place not long before the time when the Chr.
wrote (Jos. Antt, xi, 8, 2) ; possibly within his own memory.
See below.
mniBNI. Cf. v. 10; 1 Chr. 8, 13; 12, 15. It should be
plain from the way in which this is told, that the founding
of the Samaritan church did not take place in the time of
Nehemiah. He could not have dismissed the whole matter
with this brief and obscure mention. On the other hand,
the Chronicler, who is getting in a stab at the new sect
(notice Bi"6 and nanan ''toa in the next verse) through the
medium of Neh., could not have taken a better way to
accomplish his purpose.
13, 29 an^>. To whom can this refer, as the story is
told here?
nanan itoa by. Cf. 7, 64 (Ezra 2, 62), where the same
expression occurs in slightly differing form (a verse certainly
written by the Chr.). How this accusation could apply is
not at all apparent from the present narrative; from the
particulars given by Josephus — in an account derived from
extra-Biblical sources, and by no means to be separated
from the history in which it stands — the meaning of the
allusion is at once plain.
B^pm. Once more.
J3> 3°- This verse betrays in almost every word the
hand of the Chr.
13, 31 'iai pyb). Cf. 10, 35 f.
maajB B^nya. A noticeable expression, occurring else
where only 10, 35; Ezra 10, 14.
The evidence thus presented seems to me to prove that
the Chr. wrote the whole of ch. 13. That he was the
author of vs. 1— 14. 28—31 there cannot be the smallest
doubt (if his presence in Ezra-Neh. is admitted at all); the

49

indications in the intervening section vs. 15 — 27 are fewer, but
conclusive nevertheless. As in the preceding cases, there
is nothing in the text to justify the assumption that an older
narrative was worked over, or that any paragraph or verse
came from another source than the Chr.'s active brain. It
does not appear that Neh. wrote anything more than the
five chapters above assigned to him. His story is complete
as there given; there is nothing to require or suggest its
continuation further.

I append a tabular view of the results reached in the
above analysis of Ezra-Neh. The Chr. made use of two
documents: 1. Nehemiah's own account of the building of
the wall of Jerusalem. 2. An Aramaic writing composed
probably near the beginning of the Greek period.

Nehemiah.
(372 B. C?)

Aramaic Source.
(Near the end of the
4th century.)
Ezr. 4, 9 a.

4,io(frorrii"mp3)1.
8a£. 8b. 11—23.

5, 1—6, 8.

1 The words \Wt> 1
must be restored before
mpa. At the end of
the verse WS31 is a later
addition. The mistake
was occasioned by the
resemblance to the end
of vs. 11.
Beihefte z. ZATW. II. Torrey. The(Composition &c.

Chronicler.
(After 300 B. C.)
Ezr. 1, 1 — 4, 8a a.5
4, 9 b. 10 (as far
as ian).

4, '24-

1 After making a
simple transposition of
clauses in 4, 6. 7. 8, as
previously explained.

5o

Nehemiah.
(372B.C?)

Neh. 1, 1—2, 6.
2, 9 b — 20.
3. 33-
3, 34aP— 5, 13a.
5, i3bp— 6, 19.

Aramaic Source.
(Near the end of the
4th century.)
Ezr. 6, n — I4bp-

Chronicler.
(After 300 B. C.)
Ezr. 6, 9. 10.
6, i4by— 8, 36.
Neh. 7, 701— 8,18.
Ezr. 9, 1— 10, 44.
Neh. 9, 1— 10, 40.
2, 7— 9a.
3, 1—32.

3, 34acc.

5, I3bcc.

7, 1— 69 2.
11, 1— 13.

31-

1 69 in Baer'
2 68 in Baer'

s edition.
; edition.

That the form of the text thus restored is that of the
original Ezra-Nehemiah, I should be the last to admit.
On the contrary, our canonical book is a mutilated version,
in which the Aramaic Story of the Three Pages, which
was interpolated at an early date, has been cut out again,
together with a part of the original narrative, leaving a
very noticeable gap between ch. 1 and 2. This I hope to
prove elsewhere. There are also minor omissions which
may be supplied from 1 Esdras, which on the whole
represents an older form of the Hebrew text, for the
portion it covers, than that which we have, though itself

5i

much more carelessly written1. For the most part, our
Hebrew text has come down to us in good condition and
almost wholly free from additions. I have above noted
only three: maiN in Ezra 4, 7; nayai in 4, IO; and pts6B1
Byi By in Neh. 13, 24. I have observed, but not thought
it necessary to mention, several more; due in every case
to scribal blunders, dittography, and the like. In many
cases where literary taste seems to demand purification of
the text, the trouble is due simply to the writer's peculiar
style. No one who is familiar with the writings of the
Chronicler could feel justified in marking verses, or clauses,
or even single words, as later additions to the work of that
author merely because they are superfluous or disarrange
the context. Awkward parentheses and suspended con
structions are among his specialties. It is not probable
that the book was at first widely copied or read (see
below). Those who would be likely to alter Hebrew
canonical writings in the interest of a theory or for har-
monistic purposes would be least likely to wish to alter
this book. The Chronicler had cared for that.
2. The Historical Content of Ezra-Nehemiah.
The results reached in the preceding investigation will,
if accepted, necessitate a decided change in our estimate
of the value of Ezra-Nehemiah as a source for the post-
exilic history of the Jews. It has been my aim to show:
1. That the method pursued by the Chronicler in writing
this part of his book is precisely the same as that ob
served by him in the previous portions of his history,
from Adam to the Exile. He incorporates his documentary

1 It is my intention to make a detailed comparison of the two
recensions, in the near future. 4*

52

sources entire, so far as practicable, not rewriting them or
working them over, but enriching them occasionally with an
added clause or inserted paragraph; and supplements them
with considerable narrative matter of his own composition,
2. That the older documents here incorporated by him are
of much less extent than has been generally supposed.
The question of the trustworthiness of the Chronicler's
narrative thus gains considerably in importance, and it is
with this that I shall chiefly concern myself. It is possible
to be brief here. No fact of O. T. 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. In passing judgment on
his account of the Ezra-Nehemiah period, it is only necessary
to inquire: i. what part of his narrative receives confir
mation from other sources; and 2. what is the nature of
such sources, and the character of their testimony. Where
his account is not supported by any other witness, the
matter is settled, strictly speaking, without further discussion.
It may not be superfluous, however, to examine briefly the
internal character of his narrative in a few such cases.
As for the story of the Return under Zerubbabel, told
in Ezra i. 2, each one of its several features has been
repeatedly shown to be unworthy of credence. The Cyrus
edict cannot possibly be regarded as genuine. Even the
Aramaic document knows nothing of Zerubbabel as governor
in the time of Cyrus (see 5, 14 — 16). T The mention of
Sheshbazzar in ch. 1 is a transparent harmonistic device.*
1 The Chr. avoids using the term "governor", to be sure. See below.
2 How well it succeeded may be seen e. g. in 1 Esdr. 6, 17 !

53

The list in ch. 2, whatever may be thought of its origin1,
is evidently not an authentic list of returning exiles. See
Kosters, op. cit., p. 32ff; Wellhausen, Israel, u. jud. Ge
schichte*, p. 155. Kosters2 has demonstrated, from the testi
mony of Haggai. and Zechariah, that Zerubbabel and Joshua
were not returned exiles; and furthermore, that the prophets
H. and Z. know nothing of an important return of exiles
from Babylonia.3 The later references to this xh\i, found
in Ezra-Neh., are all by the hand that wrote Ezra 1. 2
(Ezra 4, 12, which is a disputed passage, may be left out
of the discussion for the present).4 According to the re
presentation of this writer, Jerusalem was uninhabited when
the exiles returned. He does not say this in so many
words, but it is the necessary inference from his absolute
silence regarding any "remnant"5, and is quite in keeping
with his idea of post-exilic Israel, for which n?ian is a
synonym.6 His theory, as it appears all through Ezra-Neh.,
is that the population of Jerusalem and the surrounding
towns was entirely swept away by the Chaldaeans. These
cities and villages then remained desolate until the return,
when "the priests and the Levites and the porters and the
singers and the Nethinim and all Israel" had simply to go
and take possession of them and occupy them as they

1 I shall discuss below the question of the origin of these lists.
2 Op. cit., p. 38 ff.
3 Cheyne, Introd. to Isaiah, 1895, p. XXXV f., accepts and supports this
conclusion of Kosters.
4 Ch. 5, 13—16 omits all mention of the company that came with
Sheshbazzar. The omission is noticeable. Cf. also 6, 3 ff.
5 Contrast Neh. 1, 2 f . !
6 In particular, 3, 8 leaves no room for any survivors from the
pre-exilic community. That the expression p«n "t» ('n '13, niSIKH n»)
is intended to refer to this remnant left in the land (Reuss) cannot be
successfully argued. See below.

54
pleased.1 Such a representation as this hardly deserves
serious refutation. In a word, the story of the return in
the time of Cyrus has no credible testimony whatever in
its favor; while there is weighty evidence against it.2
The continuation of the history in 3, 1—4, 5, describing
the building of the altar and the beginning of work on the
temple, is of the same character. Since Sehrader's demon-
1 Just as in the Priestly narrative of the conquest of Canaan the
heathen are completely exterminated at a blow, and the Israelites have
only to cast lots for the empty land.
2 It is still possible to argue, as Wellhausen does (Nachrichten der
Konigl. Gesellsch. der Wissenschaften zu Goltingen, 1 895, p. l83f.; Israel.
u. jiid. Geschichte2, p. 155, 160), that a return at about this time is in
trinsically probable, inasmuch as 1. Jerusalem was entirely destroyed, and
the population swept away, by the Babylonian army; 2. Is. 40 ff. gives
the impression that Jerusalem is desolate and without inhabitants (i. e.
shortly before the time when this return of exiles is supposed to have
taken place); 3. Nevertheless, in the time of Haggai and Zechariah
Jerusalem is occupied by people in prosperous circumstances, with laws
and rites quite like those of the Priest-code, and with a literature of
their own, not Babylonian, but Palestinian, in its character. Ergo, there
must have been a return of exiles.
To this may be said in reply: The accounts of the destruction of
the city, and deportation of the inhabitants, are certainly very much
exaggerated. As for the number carried to Babylon, even Jer. 52, 28 — 30
gives the total as only 4600, which is much more likely to be an
exaggeration than the reverse. From the highly colored poetic utterances
of such a writer as the author of Is. 40 ff. no legitimate argument on
this point can be derived — nor could be, even if his language were
much more definite than it really is. Wellhausen himself admits (Nach
richten, p. 185): „Man hat die Deportation vielfach als zu radikal an-
gesehen  Dem entsprechend hat man denn auch bei der Restauration
zu sehr ausser Acht gelassen, dass doch ein starker Bodensatz der alten
Bevolkerung sich noch im Lande vorfand." After this admission, there
is little left on which to found the theory. The absolute silence of
all the prophets, even Haggai and Zechariah, on the subject of a return
of exiles in any considerable number, taken in connection with the
condition of things in Jerusalem presupposed in Haggai, Zechariah and
Malachi — our earliest witnesses from the city after its capture by the
Chaldaeans — must be regarded as furnishing very straightforward evidence

55

stration1 there is no need of further proof that the narrative
here is utterly unworthy of credence. It is to be noticed
with what an appearance of reality it is all told. The
events are dated, even to the day of the month2; names
of persons are freely used; and in vs. io — 13 we have a
bit of vivid description in the Chronicler's characteristic style.
Of the Aramaic document, 4, 8—6, 14, and its worth-
lessness as a historical source, I have already spoken at
some length. (See above.) The condemnation applies not
only to 4, 8—23 (Kosters), but to all the rest as well. It
is admitted on all hands that the "official documents" here
presented cannot be regarded as genuine. In recognizing
this, emphasis should be laid not only on the motive so
apparent in all five of these documents alike, but also on
the fact that this Aramaic section contains almost nothing
else. It must be evident that the writer did not introduce
the documents for the sake of the history, but rather the
history (only a few bits of the barest narrative) for the
sake of the documents. There is no legitimate use that
can be made of such a work as this in constructing a
sober history of the period, except in cases where its
statements are confirmed from reliable sources. The main
facts with which it deals are the following: 1. The Cyrus
edict, and the laying of the foundation of the temple by

that the post-exilic community in Jerusalem grew up from the survivors
of the pre-exilic community, namely, those who remained in the city
when it was sacked, reenforced by those who would be certain to come
in from all directions as soon as the danger was over. To argue that
these survivors must have all belonged to the lowest stratum of the
people, and have been therefore incapable of preserving the religious
and literary traditions of Jerusalem, is to beg the whole question.
1 L. c, p. 481 ff.
2 Ch. 3, 8 is no exception. I Esdras (5, 54—56) has preserved
the original reading, beyond all question.

56

Sheshbazzar. 2. The attempt to build the wall, and its
interruption by enemies, who secure a decree from Arta
xerxes ordering the work to cease. 3. The completion
of the temple by express command of Darius, and in spite
of interference from Persian officials. As for the story of
Cyrus' decree regarding the temple and the vessels, Kosters
(p. 27) is undoubtedly right in explaining it as a fiction
derived from Is. 44, 28; 45, 1. The official execution of the
royal decree by Sheshbazzar formed a necessary part of
the story. * As this feature, the founding of the temple by
a heathen, was obnoxious to the Chronicler, he managed
to get rid of it in his own account, as we have seen.
There is evidently nothing to be learned from the book
of Ezra regarding the time when the work of building the
temple was first begun. The date given here — the be
ginning of the reign of Cyrus — was equally necessary to
the story derived from Is. 44f. and to the Chronicler with
his theory of the return from the exile.2 Concerning the
completion of the temple we are no better informed. There
is the best of evidence that work was begun under Zerub-
1 The fact that the name Sheshbazzar "sounds genuine" is far from
proving that the statements here connected with it have any basis of
fact. Why is it difficult to suppose that Jewish story tellers occasionally
recognized the difference between native and foreign names? And
there would be every reason for believing, even if we had not the
books of Daniel and Esther, that Babylonian and Persian names were
to be had when they were wanted.
2 We should suppose, on general grounds, that at least a temporary
house of worship (Hag. 2, 14; cf. Zech. 3, 8, &c.) would have been erected
long before the time of Cyrus. The great undertaking in the time of
Haggai and Zechariah would then have been to stir up the people to
build a worthy structure in place of the poor make-shift. On this
supposition, the words of Hag. 1, 2 — 6 take on new meaning. In the
difficult passage Hag. 2, 15—19 there is at least nothing to prove the
contrary (in 2, 16 read, with LXX, Dn«ri ifi "How fared it with you?"
For the idiom, cf. Ruth 3, 16).

57

babel in the second year of Darius (I) ; beyond this, we are
limited, unfortunately, to the statements of the Aramaic
document, 6, 14, and the Chr. (with the usual date), 6, 1 5;
and on these, as on the stories of hostile interference,
4, 1 — 5 and 5, 3 ff-> no dependence can be placed. The
episode of Tatnai and his associates is introduced as means
to an end; namely, the glorification of the Jews and their
worship in the long letter that follows, and especially in
the edicts of Cyrus and Darius, 5, 8 — 6, 12. The story told
in 4, 8 — 23 is of a like nature. The statement that the
Jews made an early attempt to build the city wall, but
were hindered, is not in itself hard to believe, nor can it
be fairly claimed that it is contradicted by other evidence.1
Only the character of the source from which it comes debars
us from making any confident use of it. In fine, there is
nothing in this Aramaic writing to render it probable that
the author had at his command any other source than the
books of Haggai and Zechariah.
The story of Ezra is the Chronicler's masterpiece. It
is the best exemplification of the traits that appear so
prominently in the long passages in the book of Chroni
cles, his own qualities as a writer of fiction and his idea of
the history of Israel. The story of the return under Ezra
is in most respects a repetition of the former account, of
which Zerubbabel was the hero. As that expedition signified
the restoration of the Jewish community and the building

1 With Kosters' argument (/. <.., p. 58 f.) that Neh. 1, 1 f. does not
refer to a definite calamity that had recently befallen the Jews, I am
in full agreement, however. Even Kosters fails to enter a protest
against the wholly unwarranted assumption, now in such favor, that Ezra
4, 21 — 23 implies a destruction (!) of the part of the wall that had been
built. It is plain, moreover, that neither the Aramaic writer nor the
Chr. identified the Artaxerxes of Esra 4 with the one mentioned in
Neh 1 ff. See above.

58

of the temple, so this second layer of exiles is designed
to complete the work thus begun, and give the religious
institutions their final form. The narrative shows the same
unhistorical features that were seen in the case of the other.
The Artaxerxes letter, 7, 12 — 26, is a transparent imitation
of the letters (themselves fictitious) in the preceding chapters1,
and stands on the same plane with the Cyrus proclamation
in ch. 1, which it resembles in several particulars. When
the members of this expedition arrive in Jerusalem, they
are at once absorbed in the community, and are not again
mentioned or thought of as in any way distinguished from
the rest.2 Here, again, the remnant left in the land at the
time of the Babylonian captivity is wholly ignored. See
for example Ezra 9, 1. 4, &c. The only occupants of the
land are the members of the two expeditions from Baby
lonia (called collectively the T\b)i)3, and the DISIKn "ay.
These last-named, whatever their origin, are heathen, the
legitimate successors of "the Canaanite, the Hittite, the
Jebusite", &c. (Ezra 9, i; cf. vs. 2. ii; 6, 21, &c.). That
Jews left in the land cannot be intended here is shown
especially in the chapters treating of the mixed marriages.
And on the other hand, the members of the 7h\i are the
only sinners in the matter of the foreign wives, because
there were no others who could thus sin! Either the Chr.
really believed that "the Canaanite, the Hittite, the Jebusite",
and so on, remained in the land until the end of the fifth
century (!), or else he is transferring to Ezra's time a con
dition that existed in his own day. In that case he would

1 In vs. 12 tfott has accidentally fallen out after «'B». Cf. 5, 7.
The emendation is so obvious that it is strange no has made it.
2 Against Kosters, /. c, p. 97 and elsewhere.
3 The way in which this term is used by the Chr. as an exact
synonym for "Israel" is well iUustrated in Ezra 10, 8.

59

probably have found it difficult to explain just what he
meant here by the expression niS"l«n ""By.
The central point in the story of Ezra is the account
of the restoring of the Law. This was the main object of
his coming from Babylon (see above). The members of
his expedition, on their arrival at Jerusalem, disperse to
"their" respective cities, where they remain until it is time
for them to assemble with the rest of Israel to hear the
Law read. The account of this ceremony is cast in the
same mould as the stories told by the Chr., on his own
authority, concerning his other favorites, David, Solomon,
Hezekiah and Josiah. In particular, the story of the de
dication of Solomon's temple, I Ki. 8; 2 Chr. 5—7, furnishes
a striking parallel to Neh. 8, and might well be supposed
to have served as the model. The children of Israel assemble
in the seventh month (2 Chr. 5, 2. 3). A brazen platform,
or pulpit, has been prepared; and Solomon, mounted upon
it, conducts the ceremony (6, 13; not in Kings). As he
blesses the people, all stand (6, 3). The long prayer
which follows is made up largely of Deuteronomic phrases
(6, 14 — 42). After the ceremony, all disperse and keep the
feast with joy (7, 8. 9).
To the question whether there may not have been some
Jacts at the basis of this story of Ezra and the Law, the
answer, so far as any can be given, must be in the negative,
for the following reasons: 1. Because of the improbability
of the story itself. It is a kind of narrative of which we
have abundant examples in the so-called "priestly stratum"
of the O. T. The representation is mechanical and un
natural to the last degree. It is understood in Babylonia
that Ezra is to proceed to Jerusalem and reinstate the Law,
as an officer would serve a writ. Jerusalem was a city of
some size, with rulers, nobles (Neh. 2, 16, &c; cf. 1, 2),

6o

native priests (Zech. 3, 8, &c), a population partly, at least,
in very good circumstances (Hag. 1, 4), and with old and
/well established religious traditions. But Ezra conducts
matters with a high hand, and the people of the city, priests
and laymen alike, stand huddled together like frightened
sheep while the ceremony of "restoring the Law" is being
carried through. This is the Chr.'s own way of manu
facturing history. To suppose, as is now commonly done,
that a new law-code was introduced (i. e., made canonical)
on this occasion involves still greater difficulties. It is not
in itself a probable theory that the Priestly Law should
have been written or edited in Babylonia; and there is
certainly nothing in the law itself that could be regarded
as proof of such an origin. The sole witness to this theory
is the story told in Ezra-Neh. As for the way in which
the Law came to be regarded as sacred and binding, it
may be that there are those who can see how it would be
easier for Babylonian priests to suddenly foist a "canonical"
law-code upon the people of Jerusalem, than for native
priests gradually to gain for it its place of authority. 2. The
second reason for believing that the Ezra story has no
basis of fact need only be stated. It is because of what
we already know concerning the Chr.'s talent for manu
facturing just such stories in favor of his own view of the
history of Israel. The wealth of incident with which the
narrative is set forth (e. g. Neh. 8, 4; Ezra 10, 6. 9) will
not deceive those who have read the Chronicles.1 3. The
motive for composing such a story at this point in the
history is especially plain to see. The Law was carried
to Babylonia with the children of Israel. Now that the
temple was rebuilt, and it was once more possible to observe

1 Cf. alsoWellh., Pro leg A, p. 353.

6\

the Law, it was fitting that it should be brought, with due
ceremony, to Jerusalem.1 It had been sadly neglected,
moreover, and here was the opportunity to exhibit the fact
in a most impressive way. It was necessary, too, to create
a fitting character to do this work. Nehemiah could not
be used for the purpose; for he was not suited, either by
birth or by- profession, for the task; besides, everybody
knew who he was and what he had done. To a historyf
written from the standpoint of this one, an Ezra was in- 1
dispensable.2 The Chr. certainly took the simplest and j
most direct way to provide one, concerning himself only I
with the immediate object, and leaving the rest to his(
readers. A lineal descendant of Aaron, an "expert scribe" *[
the absolute power of a dictator — these were the necessary
properties of the character. 4. A fourth reason is derived
from the significant silence concerning Ezra in Sirach
49, 11 — 13 (written about 180 B. C.?). The more carefully
one reads this long hymn (ch. 44 — 50) in praise of the
names revered in the Jewish church, the more remarkable
the omission of Ezra seems. Zerubbabel, Joshua and
Nehemiah receive appreciative mention. Notice also the
writer's enthusiasm over Josiah and his reforms, 49, 1 — 4.
It is hardly credible that Bar Sira, with his zeal for the

1 Similarly, in certain favorite Jewish legends the sacred fire is kept
safe in Babylonia until its restoration (by Nehemiah, 2 Mace. 1, 20 ff.).
2 Just as an Asaph was required by the Chr.'s theory as to the
Temple music.
3 Throughout the narrative, Ezra is represented as a "scribe" inr
the later technical sense of the term; one learned in the Law, and
qualified to expound and apply it; the N. T. Ypau-u-ccreus (against Stade,
Gesch. II. p. 140, note). In Ezr. 7, 6 he is introduced as mim TiTtS "IBID
ffl»B, and in 7, 10 it is said of him nmb\ m mm m wrh iaa^> pn-
to"W3 "IB^l. And this conception of his relation to the Law is con'
sistently maintained. See also Carpzov, Introd., I. (1757). P- 3°8- Inv
1 Esdr. 8, 8; 9, 39. 49, IBID is rendered simply dvayvdjOTri;.

62

Jewish Law, should have intentionally slighted Ezra; the
one satisfactory explanation of his silence is, that he had
never heard of him. And this is in every way probable.
The Chronicler's book of history was not one that would
be often copied or widely circulated.1
The account of Ezra's social reforms is quite as destitute
I of any internal probability or external support. The in-
! habitants of Jerusalem here presented to us are puppets,
'^made to act according to a theory (as in Num. 31, Judg.
/ 2of., 1 Chr. 13, &c), not men and women of flesh and
blood. The monstrous proceeding described in Ezr. 9. 10 2
would be sufficiently incredible even if it were demanded
by the Jewish Law, which is not the case. Race ex
clusiveness is not brought about suddenly and violently,
by a wave of the hand. Whether the Chr.'s purpose in
this part of his narrative was to account for this same ex
clusiveness, or to work in its interests, or to deal a blow
at the founders of the Samaritan church, need not here be
conjectured. Before leaving the story of Ezra and his expedition, a
word more may be said about the Jewish tradition of a
return from the Babylonian exile. The fact deserves to
be emphasized, not passed over lightly, that outside of
Ezra-Neh. there is not a trace of any such tradition in the
Old Testament. To the prophets, Babylonia is not the
only land of captivity. The "exiles" of whom they speak
are scattered among all the nations (Is. 43, 5. 6; 49, 12;
Zech. 7, 14; 8, 7, &c). The cherished hope seems to be

1 It may be worth mentioning, in this connection, that in 2 Mace.
1, 18 — 36, Nehemiah, not Ezra, is the one who restores the worship
(Renan, Histoire, IV. p. 97).
2 It is represented as completely successful, Neh. 9 f. being the
immediate sequel of Ezr. 10. See above.

63

that the Jews of the Diaspora who have left the holy land,
and suffered strangers to pour in, will one day return (Joel
4, 17b). But there is nowhere a hint that this hope was
ever realized in any actual occurrence. Such an event
would have furnished a most inspiring theme for a Psalm-
writer, or could have been used with great effect in the
prophet's prediction; but we look in vain for anything of
the kind.1 With the exception of the single clause in Ezr.
4, 12 (in the Aramaic Document), every mention of a return
comes from the Chronicler. While there is nothing im
probable in the supposition that the Chr.'s extravagant
theory of the exile and the restoration was inherited, in
fully developed form, by him; yet in view of the silence
of Ezr. 5, 13 — 16; 6, 3 ff. with regard to a return of exiles
(see above), it seems to me more probable that the clause
D^tPVY1^ ? ? • ? ? )pbo ''I in 4, 12 is an interpolation by the Chr.
The principal additions made by the Chr. to the genuine
memoirs of Nehemiah are lists of names. The general
character of some of these has already been briefly noticed
above ; it remains to ask whether any use can be made of
any of them. Even an untrustworthy writer may some
times give us valuable information. But concerning these
lists in Ezra-Neh. (for all belong in the same category) there
is only one answer that can be given. There is nothing
to make it probable that any one of them was derived
directly or indirectly from official sources; while on the
other hand there is no lack of indications that we have in
them merely worthless compilations. A comparison of these
lists with one another and with those in 1 Chr. leaves the
impression made by looking into a kaleidoscope, though
without the element of regularity, for the same broken bits

In the book of Tobit (14, 5) we have at last the tardy mention.

64

are jumbled together in many different ways. Compare
e. g. Ezr. 2 (Neh. 7,7—68) with Neh. 11, noticing the
context (see above). Cf. also 1 Chr. 9, 2 — 17 with Neh.
11, 3—24 and 1 Chr. 24— 26.1 In Neh. 10, 1—28, the
writer is apparently speaking of individuals; but a com
parison of 7, 8 — 43 and 12, 1 — 21 seems to require us to
suppose that he is referring to families or classes. Besides
this economy of material, which is in itself more than
suspicious2, there are contradictions and impossibilities in
the Chr.'s lists, of such a nature as to confirm the im
pression that he alone is responsible for them. For charac
teristic examples, see Graf, Geschichtl. Biicher, p. 230 ff. ;
Wellhausen, Prolegomena*, p. 220 ff; Smend, Listen, p. iof. ;
Kosters, Wiederherstellung, p. 38, 40. The fondness for
inventing such tables and catalogues as these has played
a very conspicuous part in the world's literature. 3 Knowing
the Chr.'s qualities as a historian, and that the tendency
just mentioned is especially strong in him, only one course
is open to us; namely, to refuse to make any use of these
lists. Neh. 3 is on the same footing with 1 Chr. 12.
The unhistorical character of Neh. 12, 27 — 13, 31 has
already been shown, in connection with the analysis.
Nehemiah, so far as we are able to judge from his own
memoirs, was a man of affairs, and one not likely to
concern himself with the things that are most interesting
to the Chr. He did institute certain reforms, however
(ch. 5), and it was possibly this fact that led the Chr. to
make him a reformer after the pattern of Ezra (see note
on 13, 15) and a special patron of the Levites.

1 See Smend, Die Listen, p. 7.
2 Cf. especially Graf, Geschichtl. Biicher, p. 242 f.!
3 See the interesting illustrations in Bernheim, Historische Methode2,
p. 272 ff.

65

The evidence furnished by 13, 28 f. with regard to the
founding of the Samaritan church is important as cor
roborating the story told in Jos. Antt. XI, 8, so far at least
as the date is concerned.
It is unfortunate that we should be left in doubt as to
which king Artaxerxes was Nehemiah's benefactor. According
to the tradition represented by the Aramaic Document and
the Chronicler, it was Artaxerxes II. (Mnemon), who reigned
404 — 358 B. C. This is certainly testimony of the most
unsatisfactory kind, but it is all that we have.

The result of the investigation as to the historical content
of Ezra-Neh. has thus been to show, that aside from the
greater part of Neh. 1 — 6 the book has no value whatever,
as history. It may have served a useful purpose in its
own day. The Chr. was not trying to write history for
us, but for what he supposed to be the benefit of his people.
He had his own motive, which we shall do well not to
judge harshly. But his work, whatever else may be said
of it, certainly throws no light on the history of the Jews
in the Persian period.

Beihefte z. ZATW. II. Torrey, The Composition &c.

Druck von W. Drugulin in Leipzig.