r gfysft^fe, JBfoAs for the founding of if. CoUege, iAih0 Colony' Presented by the A'athor EZRA STUDIES EZRA STUDIES BY CHARLES C. TORREY PBOFESSOB OF SEMITIC LANOUAQES IN YAIE UNIVERSITY CHICAGO THE UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO PRESS 1910 COPYEIGHT 1910 By Chaeles C. Tokeey Published January 1910 i X^5 5 ^loT Composed and Printed By The University of Chicago Press Chicago, Illinois, U. S. A. TO SIR HENRY H. HOWORTH D.C.L., P.R.S., K.C.I.E. PIONEER IN EZRA STUDIES THIS VOLUME IS DEDICATED AS A TOKEN OF HIGH ESTEEM PREFACE Thirteen yelars ago, in 1896, I published a pamphlet entitled The Composition and Historical Value of Ezra-Nehemiah, which appeared in Giessen as one of the Beihefte of the Zeitschrift fur die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft. It presented in concise form certain conclusions which I had reached a year or two previously, in studying the so-called "Apocryphal Ezra," or First Esdras. At about the same time when I was carrying on my investigations appeared the articles of Sir Henry Howorth, in the Academy (see the references given on p. 16), the pamphlets of Hoonacker and Kosters,' and the more elaborate treatise of Eduard Meyer (see below). My own conclusions were formulated before I had seen any of these publications, and differed widely from each and all of them at almost every point. I found myself in agreement with Howorth, however, in his important contention that "I Esdras" represents the old Greek translation of Chron. - Ezr.-Neh. ; and with Kosters in his argument (previously set forth, less completely, by Schrader and others) that the Biblical account of the return of exiles from Babylonia to Jerusalem in the time of Cyrus is untrustworthy. The conclusions reached and stated in my pamphlet have been adopted, in general, by H. P. Smith in his Old Testament History, and by Kent in his Student's Old Testament, but in each case with little or no discussion of the questions involved. So far as I know, the booklet has never been reviewed or estimated in print, except in four brief German notices, to three of which I have occasion to refer in the present volume. It has been mentioned or quoted in a few places, generally in such a way as to show that it had not been read, but only looked at here and there. Siegfried, in the tolerably long list of monographs given in the preface to his Commentary on Ezra-Nehemiah (1901), does not include it. Driver, Introduction to the Old Testament, names it in his list of monographs, but otherwise takes no notice of it, even when discussing the questions with which it is chiefly concerned. iVan Hoonacker, N6Mm,ie et Esdras (1890); 'NiMmie en Van 20 d' Artaxerxes I et Esdras en Van 7 d' Artaxerxes II (1892); Zorobabel et le second Temple (1892); and Kosters, Herstel van Israel in het Perzische Tijdvak (1894), German trans, by Basedow in 1895. viii Preface One or two scholars were sufficiently impressed by the book to express themselves with emphasis. Thus Klostermann, in the article "Esra und Nehemia" in Hauck's Rcalencyclof>adie,^ vol. V, p. 501, remarks: "Zuletzt ist zu erwahnen weniger der Kosters in der Ersetaung der Ueberlieferung durch ttbelberatene Phantasie iiberbietende Torrey, Composition and historical value of Ezra-Nehemia, Giessen 1896, als vielmehr Ed. Meyer, Die Entstehung des Juden turns, u. s. w."^ It is true that such a revolutionary treatise as mine could make no favorable impression on those who had not the time to examine it carefully, or on those who cannot be relied on to distinguish a sound argument from an unsound one. I must admit, also, that this first publication was in its plan not very well fitted to make converts. It pre sented the whole argument in condensed form, leaving many steps merely indicated in a few words, or covered by an assertion, where it was taken for granted that the reader could see for himself the facts and processes which had only been hinted at. But things which are self-evident to one who has himself worked through a large part of the material are often less plain to others. Moreover, an essay which flatly contradicts most of the funda mental tenets of modern Old Testament science in its field (and that a very important field) has every presumption against it, especially when it is presented by one who is unknown as an investigator in this sphere. It is only natural to decide, at the first glance, that the new conclusions cannot possibly be right, and need not be seriously considered. I believe, however, that the main arguments offered in my Composition of Ezra-Nehemiah are sure to be cogent for any one who has studied the material closely enough to be able to follow them through. The question of the general acceptance of the conclusions presented there and here is only a question of time. The preceding briefer investigation seemed chiefly destructive. The author, whose principal tasks and interests are not in the Old 2 Similarly, Ed. Konig, in the article "Ezra and Nehemiah" in the Standard Bible Dictionary (1909), p. 247, writes: " The trustworthiness of the documents and memoirs which have been used in the books of Ezra-Nehemiah has been demonstrated at length, especially by Eduard Meyer, Die Entsteh ung des Judentums, 1896, by whom the extreme views presented in C. C. Torrey's Composition and Historical Value of Ezra-Nehemiah are shown to be without critical foundation," Which of the two treatises was without critical toundation will be evident, I think, to those who read the successive chapters of fne present volume; especially chapter vi. Preface ix Testament field, liad not then the opportunity to carry it out further, but hofxHl that some other investigator would see that what it involved was not the mere matter of a few passages, or even of a few incidents in tlu^ life of the Jewish ixjople, but a thoroughgoi)ig revision of tlic existing notions of the history of their national growth in the Persian [)eriod, their institutions, and their religious ideas. Whoever had i)roceeded thus far could hardly fail to pcixx'ive also how the later part of the Old Testa ment itself, and the story of the community in Jerusalem, had now for the first time become comprehensible and self -consistent. No such coadjutor appeared, however; hence at last the present work, (^very chapter of which is constructive. This attempt to sketch the history of ihe Jews in the Persian period, culminating in the last chapter of the book, differs from all l)l•cc(^(l^ng ones in several fundamental particulars. It recog nizes for the Iirst time the t^xtent of the Chronicler's independent handiwork. That lie must bc regarded as the sole author of the Ezra story, of all the book of Nehemiah after chapter 6, and of the Artaxerxes U'ttcr in Ezra 7, is how demonstrated conclusively. The nature and ])urpose of his work arc also discovered and set forth. It is not the production of a Levitical historian of small ability and large bias (as it is usually regarded), but a great undertaking with a single very definite aim well executed, an elaborate and timely championing of the Jewish sacred insti tutions, especially in opposition to the Samaritans ; very interesting and very important, but by no means to be used as a source for the history of Israel under Persian rule. Its author is, demon strably, not a mei'c editor, but a writer possessed of a rich and vig orous imagination, which lie lierc exercised to the full. Another important point of diH'erence concerns the use made of the Chronicler's iiitlepeiulent work, that is, all of his narrative which we are unable to control from other sources. It is here shown that every part of it tntlior lies directly in the line of his main purpose or else bears other marks cliaracteristic of his own creations; and it is accordingly left entirely out of a'-connt in portraying the course of the history. There was no rt'luvn of exiles, no scribe-potentate Ezra, no law brought from Babylonia, no wholesale exi)ulsion of Gentile wives and children. The book of Ezra-Neheniiaii does not furnish us the date of the completion of the Pentateuch. X Preface But the theory here set forth marks a new departure not only in its treatment of the Chronicler, but still more in the point of view from which it estimates the later writuigs and writers of the Old Testament. It is customary to measure them, one and all, by the Chroniclers --Ezra."' and their words are everywhere given an interpretation to corresi^nd. It would be much fairer to take as the standard the Second Isaiah, the prophets and teaehere of the restoration period, and those who wrote the best part of the Psalter, giving their utterances the broad interpreta tion which I have indicated, and to which they are fully entitled. These were philosophers and poets who in their conception of God and man surpassed all the other sages of the ancient world, one of their number, moreover, being incomparably the profound est thinker and most eloquent writer in all the Old Testament ; men busied with the greatest concerns of human life, not with the petty interests attributed to them by our commentators. The seed sown bv their predecessors of the Hebrew monarchy did not die, nor did the plant which sprung from it dwindle and grow sickly, while the Jews remained in their land; it prospered mightily and brought forth abundantly. Jesus of Nazareth was the true child of his people, the best fruit of a sublime religious growth which in modern times has been sadly misunderstood. The story of the religion of Israel, from Deuteronomy down to the time of the Roman rule, is not a story of deterioration, but one of advance. Moreover. Judaism grew up in Judea, it was not transplanted from foreign soil. The fact of the Dispersion, as is here shown for the first time, exercised a tremendous influence all through the Persian period and thereafter, and its main effect on the Jews of the home-land was broadening and salutary. The messianic and universal interpretation of the Second Isaiah which is found in the Gospels is the only correct one. To put the whole matter in a few words : both the history of Israel after the fall of the kingdom, and the exegesis of the literature of that period, which have been written during the past generation have been built on a false foundation derived from the Chronicler's work, and need to be completely revised. To give the first sketch of such a historical reconstruction is the chief purpose of the present volume, and especially of the last chapter, which attempts to use impartially for that purpose all the trustworthy evidence which we possess. Preface xi The contributions incidentally made to the science of Old Testament literature will probably also be found interesting: the proof of the fact that "Pirst Esdras" is a rescued fragment of the old Greek translation of Chronicles-Ezra-Nehemiah, not an apocryphal writing; the light thrown on some of the versions of these books, especially the demonstration of the true character of the much misunderstood and misused Lucianic recension, the proof that our "canonical" Greek translation is that of Theodotion, the publication for the first time of a part of the Hexaplar text of Nehemiah, and the dethronement of Codex B from the high place which it has so long held without right; the first presenta tion of the Story of the Three Youths in its original character and extent, with the demonstration that it was written in Aramaic ; the recovery, for the "canonical" Old Testament, of the lost chapter which originally followed the first chapter of Ezra, and the attempted restoration of its Hebrew text, rendered back from the Greek; the manifold evidence given to show that among the Jews of Jerusalem in the Greek period it was commonly believed that Darius Hystaspis (supposed by them to be a Median king, and called "Darius the Mede") immediately preceded Cyrus; the conclusive proof that the Aramaic documents in Ezra all date from the Gr^ek period ; the restoration of the primitive form of the long-debated Ezra story, by the transposition of a single block of narrative belonging to a section which ever since the second century B.C. has been recognized as in some way out of place; and other less important matters. The author also hopes that some of the observations relating to text and versions may stimulate to a more serious pursuit of this branch of scientific investigation. If the historical and literary study of the Old Testament books is still in its childhood, the critical study of the Hebrew text may truly be said to be in its infancy. Textual emendation based on conjecture is usually mistaken, and that based on the evidence of versions is in most cases precarious at least; for the massoretic text is likely to be right even where it is contradicted by the other witnesses,' and the testimony of the latter 5 In the vast majority of cases, the version only seems to contradict the Hebrew, but does not in reality. Regarding the relative excellence ot the massoretic text, the writer may refer to his "Notes on the Aramaic Part ot Daniel" (Transactions of the Connecticut Academy of Arts and Sciences, Vol. XV, 1909), in which some new evidence in support ot our traditional Hebrew is offered. xii Preface is very easily misunderstood. The writer is himself conscious of many shortcomings and foolish performances in this field, and does not suppose that the text-critical attempts made in the present volume are free from blunders. Great pains have been taken, however, to find out the character and history, not only of the texts which are being scrutinized, but also of those by the aid of which it is proposed to emend. Lack of acumen may be excused; the unpardonable sin is that of criticising without any careful attention to the materials of criticism. The way in which the best known and oftenest quoted of our modern commentators and editors hack away at a faultless Hebrew text, on the ground of Greek readings which they have not carefully examined, found in translations with whose character they do not concern them selves and of the nature and conditions of whose literary trans mission they have hardly an idea, is nothing short of appalling. And yet this is what passes for "text-criticism" at the present day. A good many instances bf the kind receive mention in the following pages, mostly in footnotes. The influence of this hasty and unscientific mode of procedure in dealing with the text has been working great harm in all the other branches of Old Testament study. Most of the chapters of this book have already appeared in print, but in places where their circulation has of necessity been quite limited. They are not mere reprints, but in nearly every case have undergone revision. In the American Journal of Semitic Languages, published under the auspices of the University of Chicago, appeared chapters I (Oct., 1906), II (Jan., 1907), III (Apr., 1907), V (Oct., 1907), VI (Apr., 1908), VII (Jan., 1909 and Apr., 1909), and VIII (July, 1909). Chapter IV appeared in Vol. II of the Studies in Memory of William Rainey Harper, published at the same University early in 1908. Chapter IX appears here for the first time. It is a pleasure to take this opportunity to express my gratitude to the members of the Semitic and Old Testament Faculty of the University of Chicago and to the Manager of the University Press, for their encouragement and generous assistance, without which the volume would hardly have been written. Attention is called to the Addenda and Corrigenda at the end of the book. Gbindelwald, Switzerland September 1, 1909 TABLE OF CONTENTS Preface FAGB vi CHAPTEE I. Portions op First Esdras and Nehemiah in the Stro-Hexa- PL4R Version 1 II. The Nature AND Origin OP "First Esdras" .... II I. The Two Recensions of the Ezra History ... 11 II. Past and Present Theories Regarding the " Apocry phal" Book 12 III. The Nature of First Esdras 18 IV. The Origin of Our Two Recensions .... 30 III. The Story of the Three Youths 37 I. Origin of the Story 37 II. Translation 50 III. The Interpolator's Additions 56 IV. The Apparatus for the Textual Criticism of Chronioles- Ezra-Nehemiah 62 I. Nature of the Text-Critical Problem .... 63 II. Theodotion the Author of Our " Canonical " Greek Version of Chron.-Ezr.-Neh 66 III. The Two Main Types of the Text .... 82 1. First Esdras ......... 82 2. The Standard Text of the Second Century A.D. 87 IV. Notes on Manuscripts and Versions .... 90 1. The Superiority of the A Manuscripts to Those of the B Group 91 2. Hexaplar MSS of Chron.-Ezr.-Neh. ... 96 3. The Versions Made from Origen's " Septua gint" 99 4. The Two Main Branches of the Greek Tradi tion 101 5. The Syrian Tradition, the Lucian Recension and Our L Text 105 V. The Critical Process in Restoring the Semitic Text 113 V. The First Chapter of Ezra in its Original Form and Setting 115 The Restored Hebrew Text (the Chronicler's Narra tive of the Return from the Exile) .... 120 Translation 132 Note A, the "Seventy Years" of Exile . . .135 Note B, the Name Sheshbazzar 136 Note C, the Number of the Temple- Vessels . . 138 xiv Table of Contexts CH.iPTEE ^^°^ VI. The Aramaic Portions of Ezra 1^ I. The Character of the " OflScial Documents " in Ezra 140 1. The PrevaUing View 14^ 2. A Literary Habit of Ancient Narrators . . 145 3. The Tendency of the Documents . . . 150 n. The Chronicler's Part in the Aramaic Portions . 157 m. The Aramaic of the Book of Ezra 161 IV. Proper Names and Foreign Words .... 166 1. Proper Names 166 2. The Foreign Words 173 V. TheHistoryof the Text of 4:6-11 .... 178 VI. The Text of the Passages ....... 183 Samaritan Intrigues Agauist the Building of the Temple 184 Ezra's Credentials 196 Translation .... 199 VII. The Chronicler as Editor and as Independent Narrator . 208 I. The Chronicler's Main Purpose 208 n. The Chronicler as Editor 213 1. In the Books of Chronicles 213 2. In Ezra-Nehemiah 223 m. The Chronicler as Independent Narrator . . . 227 1. The Sources, Real and Imaginary, in I and II Chron 227 2. The Chronicler's Characteristics as a Narrator 231 5. The "Ezra Memoirs" 238 4. The Chronicler's Narrative of Nehemiah . 248 VIII. The Ezra Stobt in Its Original Sequence 252 The Account of the Expedition ... . 265 The Reading of the Law ... ... 268 The Expulsion of the Gentile 'Wives .... 270 The Covenant Against Gentile Marriages and in Support of the Clergy 274 Note A. on Ezr. 10:44 278 NoteB, onNeh. 9:4 f 279 Note C. The Lacuna in Neh. 9:5 . . .280 NoteD. onNeh. 10:lf . . 282 IX. The Exile asd the Restoration . 285 I. Prevailing Misconceptions . . • . . 2S5 n. The Deportation to Babylonia . .... 290 in. The Beginning of the Hebrew Dispersion . . . 293 IV. The Reviving of Jerusalem . . . 297 V. The Renewed of the Worship 301 1. Untrustworthy Narratives 301 2. Conditions at the Time of Haggai and Zechariah 303 Table of Contenth xv OirAPTKK I'AOE IX. The Exile and the Restoration — Continued : VI. General Summary, 586 to 444 b.c .... .305 VII. The Religious Development 307 VIII. Jewish Temples of the Dispersion 315 IX. The High Priests of the Second Temjjle . . . 319 X. The Rivalry with the Samaritans .321 XI. The Date of Nehemiah 3.33 CHnoNOLoaiOAL Table 337 Addenda and Corrigenda .... 339 Indices ... .341 PORTIONS OF FIRST ESDRAS AND NEHEMIAH IN THE SYRO-HEXAPLAR VERSION In the years 616 and 617 A. D., Paul of Telia made at Alexan dria his Syriac translation of the old Greek version of the Old Testament. The Greek text which he translated was one of great historical importance, namely, that which constituted the "Septu agint" column in Origen's Hexapla. It is quite possible that the Hexapla itself was in existence at that time (presumably at Caesarea) ; but, however that may be, it is pretty certain that old manuscripts transcribed directly from the original — and some of them doubtless collated again with it, to insure the greatest pos sible accuracy — were to be had in Alexandria. One or more of these supposedly faithful copies formed the basis of Paul's labors. His rendering was a closely literal one, and its characteristics are now pretty well known.' Every part of the Greek is reproduced as exactly as possible, and in such a uniform ' and self -consistent manner as to render this translation very easily recognizable, wherever specimens of it are found. The history of the manuscript transmission of this "Syro- Hexaplar" version is a comparatively brief one, as might have been expected. Although often copied, at least in part, it was not as generally or as carefully preserved as the Peshitto. A number of manuscripts containing longer or shorter portions of it are now known to be extant. Of these, the most important by far is the great Milan codex, published in fac-simile by Ceriani in 1874 {Codex Syro-Hexaplaris; published as Vol. VII of his Monumenta sacra et prof ana) . This contains the translation of the second half of the Greek Bible; a twin codex containing the first half, and no doubt originally forming the first volume of this same manuscript, was in existence as late as the sixteenth cen tury, when it was in the possession of Andreas Du Maes (Masius) of Amsterdam. As is well known, it has since then mysteriously disappeared. The Maes codex was a torso, to be sure, lacking 1 See the account of this version in Swete's Introduction to the Old Testame-nt in Greek, pp. 1127-14, and the literature cited on p. 116. 1 2 Ezra Studies both the beginning and the end ; but in its original extent it com bined with the Milan codex to form a whole which probably included all of the version of Paul of Telia. In regard to one or two of the books included in this transla tion there are still uncertainties waiting to be cleared up. This is especially true of the Ezra books, namely I Esdras (the "apoc ryphal" Ezra) and II Esdras (including both the "canonical" Ezra and Nehemiah). Just what was the disposition of these books in Origen's Hexapla ? "What did Paul's Syriac translation from the "Septuagint" column contain at this point? What portion of the Syro-Hexaplar version of these books is still extant, and what may be leamed from it ? In the Peshitto version, the Ezra books are lacking. The Chronicler's history of Israel, Chron.-Ezra-Xeh., did not form a part of the old Syriac Bible. The same considerations which led the Jews to append this book to their sacred writings at a very late date, making it follow even Daniel and Esther, caused its complete exclusion from the Edessene canon. Syriac versions of the Ezra history are therefore rare. First Esdras is extant, in more or less complete form, in several Syriac manuscripts, all of which appear to contain the translation of Paul of Telia. The manuscript which fumished the text of this book for the London Polyglot (see also Lagarde, Libri veteris testamenti apocryphi syriace, p. xxiv) has a title at the beginning which says that the version of the book is "that of the Seventy" : ,_^l^i^, jz-iMStSr .^i Uns .1?}i? Uioy^ U^!^. Similar words occur in a subscription at the end (Lagarde, ibid., p. xxvi); and the same formula, again, begins and closes the extracts which I publish here for the first time (see below). These words, wher ever they appear in a Syriac manuscript, refer to the Hexaplar translation. They stand in the superscription of the book of Tobit, in the London Polyglot ; while in the Ussher codex there is a marginal note at vii, 11 which says that the book is thus far transcribed "from a Septuagint manuscript": ^'^i^•~* U^^ ^ (Lagarde, ibid., p. xii). In either case, whether in Tobit or in I Esdras, examination of the character of the version shows that it is indeed that of the bishop Paul. First Esdras, then, stood in Origen's "LXX" column. This we should suppose, from other evidence, to have been the case. We know not only that the book had a place in his canon, but First Esdras and Nehemiah in the Syeo-Hexaplar 3 also that he — in agreement with the church tradition — believed it to have the right of priority over the form adopted tn the Jewish canon. And Origen was certainly not ignorant of the fact, so widely ignored in modern times, that "I Esdras" is nothing else than a very respectable translation of a Hebrew- Aramaic version of the Ezra history. The status of "Second Esdras" in the Hexapla and in Paul's translation cannot be demonstrated absolutely, with the evidence now available, though a tolerable degree of certainty can be reached. No Hexaplar text of the canonical Ezra, whether Greek or Syriac, has been known; but see now below. The only such text of Nehemiah now recognized is the one which is published in the following pages. In the table of contents of the lost Maes manuscript stood simply "Ezra;'"* according to recognized usage this might mean (1) the apocryphal Ezra, or (2) the canonical Ezra, or (3) both together, or (4) the combination of one or both of them with Nehemiah. It has already been shown that the apocryphal Ezra (I Esdras) stood in the Syro-Hexaplar transla tion, and the text printed below shows that Nehemiah was also included there. The "Ezra" of the Maes codex therefore un doubtedly stood for these two books, at least. It is unfortunate that Maes, in making his extracts for the Peculium syrorum (in the Antwerp Polyglot) and for the Amsterdam edition of the Critici sacri, should have left Chronicles and Ezra untouched, although excerpting systematically every other book contained in his manuscript !' It is not to be doubted, finally, that the Syro-Hexaplar version — and therefore the Maes codex — contained the canonical Ezra, as the first part of "Second Esdras." If the Greek version of our canonical book (and therefore, of course, of Chronicles and Nehemiah as well) is that of Theodotion, as there are good grounds for believing,* and as not a few eminent scholars, from Grotius (1641) onward, have contended, it nevertheless certainly was not apportioned to him, nor even in any way designated as his, in Origen's work. No one can seriously doubt, in view of all 2 See Rahlf s, in Lagarde's Bibliothecae syriacae q-uae ad philologiam sacram pertinent, pp. 32^ sg. 3 Rahlf s, ibid., pp. 19 sg. * I shall discuss this question in a suhsequent chapter. See the very interesting and acute observations of Sir Henry Howorth, printed in the Proceedings of the Society of Biblical Archaeology, May and November, 1901 ; June and November, 1902 ; and his coUection of the external evidence. 4 Ezra Studies the evidence, that the "apocryphal" Ezra was followed immedi ately by the "canonical" Ezra in the fifth column of the Hexapla; and that, too, without any note or comment, in spite of the fact that the one is so nearly a replica of the other. Very likely Origen did not know that the translation was that of Theodotion; as I hope to show elsewhere, there is good reason to believe that the old translation of the Chronicler's work (with the exception of the single fragment which had already come to be known as I Esdras) had perished long before his time. But, be that as it may, it is almost certain that, if he had ever expressed an opinion as to the origin of this version, the fact would have been known to us. It is not easy to believe, moreover, that he could have failed to express the opinion if he had held it. The Syriac manuscript in the British Museum numbered Add. 12,168 has been known for some time past to contain a catena of extracts from this same lost portion of the Syro-Hexaplar version,* namely payts of Chronicles, I Esdras, and Nehemiah, the selections following one another in order, and amounting to a considerable part of the whole. The canonical Ezra is not represented; un doubtedly because it contained nothing not already found in I Esdras, not because it was wanting in the manuscript from which the selections were made. The Ezra-Nehemiah excerpts begin on fol. 61b, with the super scription in red : »^'S^^? Unisn\*vi .^1 : liy^j l-»i*i-o VsSj ^ . The first selection is I Esdr. ii, 1 sq.; i. e., the beginning of the book of Ezra proper. The contents in detail : I Esdr. ii, 1-14. The edict of Cyrus, and its consequences. 15. Beginning of the account of the correspondence in the time of Artaxerxes. 20-25. Conclusion of this account. iv, 356-36, 38^0. The praise of Truth, from the story of the Three Young Men. 49-57. The edict of Darius. V, 46-70. Building of the altar; foundation of the temple; building hindered by the enemies of the Jews. vi, 1-2. Renewal of the building in the time of Darius II. vii, 6-15. Dedication of the temple, and celebration of the Pass over. viii, 1-26. The scribe Ezra, and his commission from Artaxerxes. 65-69. Ezra hears of the mixed marriages, and mourns accordingly. 5 The fact seems to have been first pointed out by Dr. Gwynn ; see Howorth, !oc. cit. First Esdras and Nehemiah in the Syro-Hexaplar 5 I Esdr. viii, 88-92. Confession and repentance of the people, and the oath administered by Ezra. ix, 1-10. The proclamation and the assembly. 466-47. Ezra blesses God, and the people respond (from the account of the reading of the Law = Neh. viii, 6). It will be seen from this table of contents that the "First Book of Ezra" here excerpted is identical, in arrangement and extent, with our First Esdras. Then follow the extracts from the "Second Book of Ezra," all of which are taken from the book of Nehemiah. These are : Neh. i, l—ia. Nehemiah hears of the distress of Jerusalem. ii, 1-8. He is sent thither by Artaxerxes. iv, 1-3. Sanballat and his allies conspire to attack Jerusalem. 10-16. The builders of the wall prepared for battle. vi, 15-16. The completion of the waU. vii, 736 — viii, 18. The reading of the Law. ix, 1-3. Confession of the people. This Esdras-Neh. catena I copied entire in the year 1898. I have not thought it worth while to print here the whole text of the I Esdras selections, however, since it differs but slightly from that already published, which is accessible in convenient form. I have accordingly collated it with the Lagarde text, and give the variant readings, as follows : I Esdr. ii, 2 j^^l] >eu-Dl 3 ,_*:i.(Jij 5 |_i^> ] + loui^l 6 ^aJoio] om. o I iieJjILEO 7 Ijooi^? I ^QJOIJ I I .iViN] t-jio? 8 li^i.^ 2°] li-LyJ5 10 )> .|^.;a.v>>v 11 ..v.MV/>v^v -|- a marginal note (original hand) i^-^ ...|t 12 ji^JLnilD 1 l"*^-""] ll\.q 13 ^03lli>=] + ,— -t? I I— =015? camJZl? iio|js>o I ^i-*.o 14 Viis 15 om. ^j 1° | h * t „ ;;]? | 20 1,0,) l'iaA?o I ^oZ V I Jja^dso 21 ^oLboZ]^ (sic) \ ^2^^^U3::^e aooPliojais.o I iji^aa=o 23 v^V ^ H " | iniV°\o 25 £.**»;?) 1 JcoZi? USoVliaBo I >oii^jo|3 I >oi^io|^? iv, 356 ^^Ji.^ ^:^c 36 ^.ia^o dittogr. I om. )_Joi? 38 \if^ \ >a^j iooio | >nNs\] + >»-o {ical ^y) 40 lloj j]o oili-.) tXkpS i-] |3o (as conjectured in Lagarde, p. xxv) | om. ml^fS:i 49 w=2oo] >^i^ jnS'T ^As.»» I |__k?o(n — . | ]—si] °^~ lo 50 ^.,.".]. I ^-ian:!.] + ^^3, I ]-.?Sbi^? 51 .^i^^J 52 iJj_£i2j + ^^.v^>^^, 53 VsiS 54 ZoEsi-JliO 55 .^r n .n-> I >n N t^sjc 56 )p^.i;'moj^ 57 V_ii_s I >aii-k.?ol] V, 46 "^-^li m .]? 47 3,j_=] otJi 1 Vasio-jo I '^-.li.^i-f? 49 ^OBiiio] ^OBuJi^ 50 )i \ ? V ZnS.^n? 6 Ezra Studies 52 oy> 58 U^rr^ 54 >aii^Joi] I Vraswl | ^-.I^^U-? 55 olLfflIiA.o I Joi^iollo 56 n Sni Ho | "^s^ — ii_»ie?)o | ' i- ' '^'? 59 ,^^o 60 =o„ op., I Po, 2°] p., 65 V^^o>:^ 66 om. ^ | i^anja^l? -f marg. note (original hand) ja^-a^ll 67 jiolo | Vaa^oi 68 V^ljia-l ^ ^ -] -^Ir"-]' I !^]^^ vi. 1 -^^'J ^' '^"^^ ^z] .^a.i„ oizo.^, 1z^*^ (as conjectured inLagarde, p. xxv) I op.,] o^, [ V.,o^ I >ai^iol^= 2 "^li.!^, o^ -^^io^ I >ai^'ol^, I ^i^o vii, 6 p^ I !^\^ni 8 .s-l:^ ]-.-f3i 9 ^"-^f J ^ ^.^M?] Uz^l? i - ^ ¦ H? 3 Vris 5 >al^ioy 6 ,,^ifliD I ^-^-.-.^^l I j^Vv^V I _aaJ I ViLS I '^ ¦— ¦] + . U^r° i— i— '? i'''''^^'''' I >o^i^'=il 7 . A .^ ^^v (marg. note, ]')y^) \ li^:^*^ 8 & * * *¦ j^l | ooi, 10 j_»,ooi_5 I V.-.V ^-i^]i 11 ^.V.) V^oi Vs 12 >CL:i^io] I Jjoaiflli:. 13 >Q:i-k,Jo)3 I V_=i_=? I >^v ¦»¦ H ^ I >cuiA,»o)^? 14 ).SB,5o 15 >i S t,»o)— a? 17 v^ V i.,;..,) ^. 18 ^'^°i. ooi ^? 19 |ji*Jas,o I )_iej ^ias 22 JIq^lls]] marg. note, pjjoo-, jzaiia^jziOso 23 ^¦f.^i2-:^-2 ^5] .^ ¦ Sy-*? ^^ .oj-aij] .oj-iHJ? I lzai:i^oZi.iflaJ marg. note, )_»5aiiisP 25 j_ie1o | y,V ^.i^] ^. 65 ,_*j.i»ici_».) 66 w*.fS I ISnViS? I IZojia^ | Uii)aio?oJ )_,-.jaie],o I l-kf^jo] + l-i^ajojljo 67 ^sio | .-Jtii— Z]o 68 .»^, !-»-»'? -•^¦^ lJ-o??o] 'N*? Vl-o,o ).»-»5j 88 >ali^5ol I Jia:^] l-fcls | lr=^ 89 V_»|i? I )"'¦' 2uiJj— )] marg. note, li_.jjaj | )viVi\ 90 ,_ija<,^Z!ioj 91 ,_s 1°] ,-Jo 92 .1 - -;V I Qia*o ix, 3 yiN >.,o)^o I >o:i^JoJl 5 v^v A.i^ji I |^j_»j 6 ]iui.oj^ I >o^D, ]ohja 7 "^.i^ja.*)] 10 Ij-^a-a 0001 J 001 I Jiij] \jsi 46 Ijp^j marg. note adds ZoV=^ laC^.!] 47 Jiai.] li-^ojs The extracts from Nehemiah begin on fol. 656. I print them entire, as the first published specimen of a Hexaplar text of this book. That we have here the version of the bishop Paul, any student of that version vrill see at a glance. The idioms and verbal order of the Greek are retained,* compound words are resolved in the familiar way, the Greek definite article is replaced by the Syriac demonstrative pronoun, and so on. There are no diacritical marks, and very likely there were none in the manu script from which this one is an excerpt. These signs were included in the original translation of Paul of Telia, to be sure; but copyists were prone to omit them, as we know from the his tory of the Greek Hexaplar codices. The character of the text 1 This was an extremely easy matter, to be sure, inasmuch as the idioms and order in the G-reek Nehemiah are generally not Greek at all, but Semitic. First Esdkas and Nehemiah in the Syro-Hexaplar 7 is thus conflate, including both the Greek version selected by Origen and also the plus of the Hebrew. See further below, chap, iv, where some traces of the work of Aquila and Symma chus in Chron.-Ezr.-Neh. are also noticed. The orthography and punctuation are, of course, those of the manuscript itself. The words and passages here overlined are written in red ink in the original. Notice the marks over the two words ioua), ^JiJl, , in Neh. ii, 3, indicating that they have been accidentally transposed.' At the end, after is, 3, is the sub scription: "Here end the extracts from the Ezra of the Seventy." From the Hexaplar Nehemiah (MS. Brit. Mils. Add. 12,168) looio' .).nN«, 01 j^ j.Vii.1> Uio ^ •I'p"? ^¦'¦^? V=2j —io w=oZ I .£^.^01 ^.i^l jj)o . ^^'yws? ]m.»^ [marg. note, ^ais] f' N w ->) ] ..j . ^ . ],ooL^, ^'r^SP °'" ' ^'-^^? 1-*) '^ x-^ I «n M ^Zc^ )z1o ^ . 1Zf.kS )_4.c.«^ ,__i£ ocoi oAnSbA.), .aJoi : a^lo^^^^, .aJoi V^^ooi^ 'V— {l-^o ^cJ] ^ ^| ^ " OAA^.^], ^«\«1 a^t-^? \fJ°£)]z)cr . £^.nso ^ ^^ ¦ •V'n jl'^V H 01& -1 ffi lo . .^.'~r^ n ), Vin ]o3i xj,oioZ!^|o . liNVi a a ^ .. ^t|i . ^ wv . ]m a«^ h—iaisi >a£l^)o 0 0 . ^oi£lo,.o jJi^] )ooi £^] {lo . ) 'iNvN h.^a\-^ )i Vii«\ -^h^ Po ¦ '¦-¦^ f^.' \so^fS \XiO \ iL-i£ 1-'^'-" ^4l> rio]o' Ij ''^-' ^<— a £J:^k^,o . ) n\, )Zn « ¦ n J }]j . ],oi ouk^ P [marg., loi^i^] . ii-iViVi ] " - ^ looiJ P jJis Vj^ .\J^ >-iNs\ j-iNvi . j n\vi\ Zfiojo^ ^.s4 ll.l>Zo . h.sif^ 1 1^1 tiV? >.<3i "^c^Lio . .<2:^, 1-s°Ar^ |_l_o i^j] alio ''^.^ic . j"'^'-" v»2i. ^1© * © 0 0 0 . ]iaio a^lz] oiii^j V_i» J )^V0.V Zj^lo^' ).Vi*<> ooi loi— ii.) (fol. 66a) Za^ '-^^'^ -M ' The'same sign, apparently not heretofore understood, in Josh. Styl., ed. Wright, 41, 10, note ; where it appears that the corruption of the text had its origin in an accidental trans position. 8 Evidently a mistake for ¦ir'oN . 8 Ezra Studies ,001 ¦ \ -oia_kJp^Z? iOi^l . +^^H= ¦A'? 'r=^ ^---^ v'- = '¦^ l-ii^»^ j-.V'^ ^^ ^]o' . 00 .^-^^r^io oLoiJio .,1:^-? i--i-=l? 'v^=^? l^J-r''^ ; V -. ]ZLi:.llie looiZ -^l^'JH U-r^ • ""-^ ''^^ -=^ l^^---? -^ i^-se^o .j_ioi_-z 01-:^ :v_^^o .^ip-..o u:^ ;cy_^ ^U= ¦+""'^ -^'» za^ Ur^ ^ ^iJ .U4 t^:^ V:- <^ .l^l^:^^ ^r^l=' [marg., iiJflio] IZj^o" .500,.* Vi. U] ui? \^t^ :^Uoi^=iJ? ^] i'-^? ir=i^? "-pson )>,.•¦•» ,^ "\ij, (ia^l .|'n\Sn, ^3i=:u.1? 051 |ja-?pS? I's-JJ -ao] ^aii 001 l:u-u_n_:i.o ]:a-.rii? ]jci-k:i.o .(i-^? IjiaiJas i-.^? ii'iii^i. nNN^v\ IV looio' .^Ui^ .ii.n4 -Ji loi^i? Ii-^l -f^l U'^:^ -^ .^01-0 .ai:i> U] ^U., l:\ifia-D iJiJiJU? : U-io\o l_OQial>o ^AS'Jio : i-^^s-io w^ .\o1w ''- Sn 4. ^s, i L-^-y^Z] ] ':" . a-^ZAia^ ]b.'^ioZ ^001 --j-*-? Vj^o : >Q:i»»^ol5 lis-»^ ]Z'f^lO ^^.r,]n. .,J^!^J ]01-^] ^i^i. ^^I.S^O^ . ii-LU1.»i^ P fll, ^SSflNo {ioo* ^ ]ooio '" oilio . ^01.^5 J^^'.ir^ ^ • I 'N\oo |ioia*ts ^oou^iili .ooui^? i-V^" -Ip^^ OO" ¦^p^^ [marg., ]'\-^i}'\ Ij^l^? \f='*-v^ " "^ ,001—^7 ) •» A ¦'" . )•> -¦; A" ]Z2u*^o ]-f^Lmo )^V-'^\o . ]l'i"n\; 0001 ,,^1, t u] . Vn^.. ajgio . )'" A ^ 0001 . tTi, .aJoio " . |,03i.^, ]h.±S ai^a i£JIl£ ]fSi\ jooi fiii r" ''*>—= it-»1 Ir"^ •'=°'" v^»i '•piO iJ-k-p [mai-g., .^*i4?] i.iJo1 OL^, )"¦"' It-s^ .— 'J-S, .oJoio'^ . |2i_»f^ jooi t-ut) li-i'.so . ou:;>^, )^iQ.as . pf-os |ooi ¦ ^ ^ - '^« 0010 . 0001 ^^J-So . '"^ -* I'' ""- V— L |ooi I— sj— ?, .oJoi Zo^o . ) M^tV ) 1 * »'¦) Zo^o )-,niV Za^ii .'^r'lc *^ • sv^' V .]M^O-fSl ]ia—Lf V_i^ ^J.^^r2l^ . 1 no . ))^>^o 001 1^1.3 It-^^ •I'^'B^? ,_ioi— ^ .jjj_D, liiiV. ^nSVi 4>Z ^j V=L^) l^jops'* .oi^i-i? W ^ Ijja^ oooi ^ -,'•''- .om ^N so '^ . .&.!^kJLi£ v.r2^.aJ ,^\i> )oi2^]o . ^o^ .o^J^ZZ ] Vl, S li s, inmv — ^ . )..ttico''j 0091 ^^l^ » ««1 ^oi.!:^^, i-^i^o . |,jai.s )""•»¦ >ai. ,.i\-i . )VN\ Zpic] 001 )j.s}^o ^'^ .00. ).£Lsa£, jj^ala^^ )-S-V ,^ )oaiJo . >:iNa,,o] (fol. 66b) Ji^^jias oZos . oCi-^j [maig., 1 VV ;] First Esdras and Nehemiah in the Syro-Hexaplar 9 .'\a^|, t^iiWi.o )*Vmn 1^0^ >a!:^£wA<]o '° . OLlio ]^^^^ )v^V/^.)^ . JZ^^^ VI |0'n,Ssn ^ooi S -I nSVi4. ,_s, jocno '"0000. ]£^loa^ ^'7Zo .^¦tViMN .:i-.' •5- . OLlls .poi 1|-£^ a.iV>la£w4la^ Zooi . \i, loi^l . V, . oLf^o . .oai.li^, Q 0 . .091.^, ]'' •» -^^"^ '^ -li " -)¦ ) ¦ l^o . 1 -¦-¦^'¦' ]^-^ I^Liso '^>> VII lUhZ '>efj> £^], OOI )-»Z^.as . >a^:wk.io)^ ^^ ^H^ ~t-*l i^''^ °^-^^ n t1-iZ)o ' VIII OTi . I 4»nV> ]__ma_ia_], )^Za!^ " -^ -V"V . ]f^ss l^'p^ Ojiojo .00. }-i^? _-ia : IZpIk >o, s jjooial^ pou j^}:^ ^i^jo^ . Q 0 . V^fia^P p^if fOS? p>i.^, ,_•. poa.kS . VV v« - ^>'V Vs&.Lli£i, .^^^ Vao : IZZUP po,^o 1i-^ —is .piie? \^iZ >0r^ £wk1, OSI )->.&^ pio^ "^ nnn\ oi2 1r°°^ .) .St^A- .0— loio . ) 4 1o )-,• n ^ ^f—D . I Vn t, fll_^\l\ i^^ ).*Va< ^3iJ, IZn.:^^ li-sis jiy^ >axo^ .OO.pgalal, I^^Lsn pai> sOi>3, p,]o . oooi ¦ «\-i&jaie jpS^oAS oooi oiooo . 1'^'^'^ Q.iQ^,&Vi\ OOOI 0|.a^, s>ai . | irii n, pcj^s 'Vl^ . — Sy •' I •« - V" - — io pjsHoo I - nV..^ )-k^o|o pJJLuo ) >W4.o j£u«&ls . aCii^i ) 'i ^1" I .^ ^ A ..^ , Vn, 4«n MO ) t -i\Vo "^-tj * »Vo )^,)^ . Plaffi ,— Jiso .^3io£ua] ooi, '\— j^-io . piol^ oO^os '>Of£ V^£.al^ ]i'\^ uL^tb^o ^ . >on\*Vo ^fSo" .paik aiiia >axi . ou»&s ,J, jooio . © O 0 0 . pa^ ,_io 'Vi^ ]ooi aJflv^Zlo .00. ,_»iol o^lo oulio pa:* ).li.o . ]^i ooi loi^j j-^ria^i. jj'ji. )T-'"i« -oJcfio Piso "SiOA-ko' .Jii] '\— ^ ^oi-kSo^-fS V:* Pkpia^ °r^* .P_kA— fl_4.o ,aai.o [marg., ^^tN-imv,] . ,^t, >sv, oooi ^oi-»iu.) Piiojjoo OOOI - ° s. v>, : )_»ai:»o : . mn1t°i : vJJ— : Joj^lo.* : P^J^io : > m^nVne .joi— ^], ).ffialaJ, ).£2ua£) oj^o^ "¦ V'« ) V"" " ^ pei^o : psoiaLs ) V S \ . 0 O . )•¦ .1 "-^ )v"'^ VsiJ»]o l^ris? li^f^kS loot ' *'i=iVo ]j}i» jooi ' qNVo . I v/. V V OOOI ^'^""^: ^QJoi P»a^o . li^suuo pou i jp,o |.Vm1 . jiolo ' a_v^_s|ZZ P ^ ^': l-*r^^ ^oio2u»i P»-»j-o pi>a^ .pal, oi\-i\ ojiolo ^)oi" .psoiaJ, |lV"V vv V^- fH .pa^ ou^ looi pia, "V^Lio . ^o-asZ Po .Qj^ iZolio (fol. 67a) oij-».o : p:i-» ol^lo lT.Vi4 oiiaa) aii-| . ^ooi^^ 10 Ezra Studies . ^n\n1ZZ Po . ,Jii*, i .jVaV „40ioiuk] P»-»fji poll*, Vjtio . ^oai^ i-»] 1^? oooi ,_*jsi-»^ P»aii>o" .©©..^Ji^, P- .. ^i^l ],oi pjie, Uop-? V{^« . © © . .nSiIZZ Po . OOI 1^-k.f^ poa_», VjLic . ojoiw^ . .i^p*! t-^ 1'^''''^ M P, ^eJoil. iZali* o»| *vNo ]a ^v^V.^ Vopcii ) V" *- 3i^i>s =^lio " "^joj, - 1" j]V^ oli^&Ji)], '\a.Jiio . )2^.sj ]ZOf.« , ^vv,.,V^ . ^oi_J^ ]o9i pots . jv^v oi_^, li^j-*-, p-*-»':» o-fclsZ] . p^iZ pea-kSo '* .00. ^oilk " "-' ^.)" " . poalaJ, Ui£ —dkoi!::^ Za^ ni .-.av/^V . y^^ja | jy& Zo^ pio^o V*]iJ£.*j, pis .OploiJ, )•'-' -| . ) A,,^v«V P^t^ t-°^? ^"^ psolals ^.SL>£.£, — V . ^ ]','n q 1 1 o ^,a.*J, p-a^jo ^° . ) ¦' ^ *¦ p>i.A£ ],pA PSjiVo o£u<.lo . JJQ ^^ 0^03 . ]iy^ ridjo . © © © © . >iN ^^o)^o .ool^i^, pi i,V |mi p, )-Sf.;o . Uj:,, p-fjo ps], j^s-fjo . p*o''ja^, )w» n, V^-j^o ]it-»1, j^-^ . a—th — >.]o ] V S o^LSJo "^ © Q . p3^£o, ^oi ^] U^^^j^is , nSVN . Ujo^A IZ'ijpSo ^ooiJi->, Izij^o . oiJb^, ]j^ V_ii Ij a__^ . PI::::'^^ .ooili o,.aikO Zpiii.0 " © © . >a*i.3l, aiLt^\ pa^i^o . pi i,V, IZa^^^aso . ]ai^]^ oiiw^n, P, V^ .]i\^Vn as2w*]o . Pii^.io p . o >- ^ o-asoi, .oJoi JZ^ oi^ poa^ pcpi. .V^ljja*], pia pjoi • ^oJ, oij^ -^a-i-i, oii^lco^ ^ 0,.=:^ ^ .po-u^ poa^ ]ol1.1, ousalaJ, |^i.aa IjJo '' . ]Aj=i Izo,- Z0010 .001 .]— ioa—i ) \nk- |,p, Opai.o .Pkjj»] 001 pooj^ pOj^ • P^r-° ="' pfia-» IS P^jjo 1^ 'i^S, poQ-.^o ' . p-», .^1 ).1nqV . Pi^ioZ pco^ao © © © © I ' ¦"''" V^' pa^o .pujiao poo^ V^l^jt*], pia a.»isz| .poi Wt-^l Q-,o]o Qiaoo .p.iJaJ jj^ "^j ,_ic V»]jja*], pia o^j^Zlo^ ..001^-., • .1?'=''^^? i^" "^^-^ aifljo " . ^oouii^*, )oia], jZo-ijaoiaJ Po . .ooi^i^, jaLjt-. Pi Sn N ^,aic, 0001 ^oi_ki_»lo . .ooi2x», ioiii), ouoaiaJ, )— a^^ oijo •l'P>?.)-=i^ rr-i* ^«nmiz], ,_*^.o, vo:s^ .0©.^ooui^, lollop ,^r^o ^^¦S^*, )^"-iv~V .V- ^] II THE NATURE AND ORIGIN OP "FIRST ESDRAS" I. the two recensions of the EZRA HISTORY In the case of several of the books of the Old Testament, the Greek Bible gives us a text which differs widely from the tradi tional Hebrew or Aramaic. In Jeremiah there has been an exten sive transposition of chapters, so that in the second half of the book the order in the Hebrew is altogether unlike that in the Greek. Which, if either, of the two represents the original order is still a matter of controversy. In Esther the Greek con tains a number of rather long passages which are wanting in our Hebrew and are probably secondary, even if possibly translated from a Hebrew original. Moreover, the history of the tradition of the text is often a very complicated one. In several cases the Greek exists in two or more rival versions or recensions, as in the Books of Tobit and Judith. In the case of Daniel we have three different traditions. The oldest Greek version departs widely from our Hebrew-Aramaic text, not only in adding or subtracting brief passages here and there, but also in including the separate stories of Susanna and Bel and the Dragon. The later Greek Bible effected a sort of compromise by adopting Theodotion' s transla tion of our massoretic Hebrew and yet retaining the added stories. Now in the latter part of the Chronicler's history of Israel, in the section dealing with the return from the exile, the rebuilding of the temple, and the work of Ezra, almost exactly the same thing has happened as in the case of Daniel. The old Greek translation, with its transpositions, its one long interpolation, and its other minor peculiarities, was in strong disagreement with the Hebrew text which was preferred in Palestine in the second century a. d., and which soon came to hold the field as the only authoritative form of the narrative. Accordingly, a later translation, based on this m'assoretic Hebrew, was put into circulation in place of the older version, and soon supplanted it in every region where the Greek Bible was in use. There seems to be good reason to believe that this later translation was the work of Theodotion, whose version thus, in the case of the book Chronicles-Ezra-Nehemiah, 11 12 Ezra Studies occupies a place in our modern Greek Old Testament precisely similar to that which it occupies in the case of Daniel. The dis cussion of this question will be reserved for another place. At all events, the old version was so effectually superseded that it very narrowly missed being lost altogether; in this fact, again, furnishing a close parallel to the history of the Daniel text. There is to be noticed, at the outset, one important point in which the case of the rival recensions of the Ezra story differs from the other cases with which it has just been compared. In Jeremiah the transpositions, though extensive, were compara tively harmless. They brought about no serious contradiction or improbability. In Daniel and Esther the additions, though extensive, were not such as to interfere in the least with the prin cipal narrative. They were simply joined on externally, and exer cised no influence on their surroundings. But the two recensions of the narrative dealing with the restoration of the Jews and the work of Ezra could not stand thus peaceably side by side, for the one gives the lie to the other. As for the transpositions, they are effected in the middle of a connected history, with dates, successive kings, and a necessary order of events. It makes comparatively little difference whether Jer. 31 comes before or after Jer. 41, or even whether in I Kings, chap. 20 pre cedes or follows chap. 21 ; but it makes all the difference in the world whether the train of exiles described in Ezra, chap. 2, received permission to return from Cyrus or from Darius. And as for the one addition, the Story of the Three Youths, the pro verbial bull in the china shop could not do more thorough and more vociferous damage. Every adjacent portion of the history is either stood on its head or else reduced to fragments. Yet the tradition of the Greek church, with one voice, names this troublesome fragment ''Eirst Esdras," while the version which faithfully renders our massoretic text is only given second place. Josephus, as is well known, believed its version of the post-exilic history to be the correct one, and so, doubtless, did the most of his contemporaries, even in orthodox Jewish circles. II. PAST AND present THEORIES REGARDING THE "apocryphal" book "First Esdras," or "Third Ezra," or "The Apocryphal Ezra," or "The Greek Ezra," as it has been variously called, has had an interesting history. There is probably no one of all The Old Nature and Origin of First Esdras 13 Testament writings which has been so inadequately studied, and which is so seriously misunderstood among Old Testament schol ars at present. St. Jerome put the tremendous weight of his authority against it (in his Preface to Ezra and Nehemiah : Nee quemquam moveat quod unus a nobis liber ediius est, nee apo- cryphorum tertii et quarti somniis delectetur; quia et apud He- braeos Esdrae Nehemiaeque sermones in unum volumen coarc- tanlur, et quae non habentur apud illos, nee de vigifiti quatuor senibus sunt, procul abjicienda), and his word was law, as usual, for the Latin church from the Middle Ages onward, and exercised a profound influence over the whole western world. The book was excluded from the Complutensian Polyglot (1514-17), and was not even admitted by the Council of Trent (1546) ;' in printed editions of the Vulgate it is given place in an appendix at the end of the Bible, after the New Testament. By modern scholars gen erally this "apocryphal book" is not regarded as a survival from the old Greek version of this portion of the Old Testament, nor even as the part of a recension which once included all of Ezra and Nehemiah; on the contrary, it is believed to be a later free compilation made with a "tendency." That is, just as the Chronicler, in his day, edited and expanded certain parts of the history of Israel into a book which should inculcate his own views, so (according to the generally accepted theory) a later and unknown writer selected that part of the history which "began" with Josiah's passover (as though this were a natural beginning!) and ended with the career of Ezra, and rewrote it, with certain significant changes and additions, according to his own purpose. This view is altogether mistaken, but it is the only one which has any recognition at the present time. All of the modern text books of Introduction, commentaries, and encyclopaedia articles, whether English, German, or French, speak of the "author" of First Esdras, and of his probable "purpose" in making this com- ilt is singular that the belief should have had such wide currency, at this time, that First Esdras did -not exist in Greek. Thus Lupton, in his Introduction to First Esdras (.Speaker's Commentary), p. 5, quotes the remark prefixed to the Latin version of the book in the noted Latin Bible edited and published by Stephanus at Paris in 1557 : "Hujus libri ne Oraecum quidem codice-m, nedum Hebraeum nemini (qUod sciam) videre contigit." The form of the quotation which I give is that of the original, of which I have a copy. Lupton is mistaken, however, in supposing that this note is to be attributed to the scholar Vatablus {whose name is used in an unwarranted way by the editor of this Bible) ; nor can it have come from Claudius BadweU, who did indeed prepare the translation of the Apocrypha for this Bible (see LeLong-Masoh, Bibl. Sacra, II, p. 4S0), but only of the books which stood in the Complutensian Polyglot. The remark is to be attributed to Stephanus himself or to one of his unnamed helpers. 14 Ezra Studies pilation. The question is even seriously discussed whether this "author" (1) made up his book from our canonical Greek ver sion of Chronicles-Ezra-Nehemiah; or (2) made use of an inde pendent Greek version ; or (3) made his own translation from the Hebrew- Aramaic original. That he made his "compilation" in Greek is taken for granted, since it is the general belief that the interpolated Story of the Three Youths, as we have it, is not a translation from a Semitic original. It is a fact that speaks volumes for the general neglect of the book, that Schiirer in both the first and second editions of his Geschichte maintained the view that First Esdras was compiled from our canonical Greek Old Testament — though any well-equipped university student could demonstrate the contrary to a certainty by an afternoon's work on any chapter in the book. To illustrate a little further the current view, and the treatment now given to this "apocryphon" by Old Testament scholars: The DeWette-Schrader Einleitung (8th ed., 1869, p. 565) bravely confessed inability to recognize the purpose of the "author" of First Esdras in compiling it, remarking: "Ein Zweck dieser characterlosen Compilation lasst sich nicht entdecken;" but the great majority are content to repeat over, each from his fellow, Bertholdt's naive hypothesis that the writer intended to provide a history of the temple from the latter part of the regal period down to the time when the cultus had been restored. Kosters, in his Wiederherstellung Israels in der persischen Periode (German trans, by Basedow, pp. 124-26), unfolded a much more elaborate theory — with even less support from the document itself. Of course, the abrupt ending of the "book" (in the middle of a sentence!) has been generally noticed, though few have made any attempt to explain it. Ewald's conjecture, that the work was left unfinished by "its author," is frequently repeated, e. g., by Strack, Einleitung*, p. 152 ("Das Buch, welches von seinem Verf asser nicht voUendet worden zu sein scheint," etc.), and by Guthe, in Kautzsch's, Apokryphen des A. T., p. 2. In most textbooks of Introduction to the Old Testament First Esdras is ignored — as though it stood in no close relation to the Old Testament ! — and this, too, even by those who profess to believe that it represents a Hebrew-Aramaic text differing in many respects from our massoretic recension. In Cornill's Einleitung'' for example, it receives not a syllable of mention. In Driver's Nature and Origin of First Esdras 15 Introduction it is given a brief note at the end of the chapter on Ezra and Nehemiah. By commentators the two "books," Ezra and First Esdras, are usually kept entirely separate. If the com mentaries on Chronicles and on Ezra-Nehemiah mention First Esdras at all, it is only as a curiosum. Bertholet, in his com mentary on Ezra and Nehemiah (in Marti's Kurzer Hand-Com- mentar) , does, indeed, devote a section to the Greek Ezra in his introduction, pp. xvi, xvii, but his statements regarding it are notably confused and ill-digested, while in the commentary itself he makes no serious attempt to use it. In general, his attitude toward the apocryphon is characteristic of a certain irresponsible method of dealing with sources which is far too prevalent in modern Old Testament criticism: any comparison of the Greek Esdras text, in occasional difficult passages, is a work of supererogation, of which the commentator may boast ; the idea that he is in duty bound to consult it all the time, and to make a really critical study of it does not suggest itself. The commentaries on First Esdras, again, have not brought us far toward an understanding of its origin and true character; as might be expected from the fact that all the commentators have believed the book to be simply a late and "historically worthless" compilation. The parallel portions of the canonical books are only occasionally consulted, and then in the most perfunctory way. In the Kurzgefasstes exegetisches Handbuch zu den Apokryphen des A. T., by Fritzsche-Grimm — the one thoroughgoing and scholarly commentary on the Old Testament Apocrypha, but now long outgrown — the treatment of First Esdras (by Fritzsche) is below the level of the rest ; chiefly, no doubt, for the reason already given. No commentary on the book that has appeared since that date (1851) is worthy of serious attention. Lupton, in Wace's Speaker'' s Commentary (1888), is very superficial; and both he and Zockler (1891) are equal to the feat of subjecting the book to a fresh study without even finding out that it offers us a sepa rate, extra-canonical translation froni the Semitic! In the critical examination of text and versions next to nothing has been done, though this is a most promising field for investigation. The state ments as to these things which now and then appear are for the most part either false or inaccurate. Fritzsche {Comm., p. 9) asserted that the best text of First Esdras is to be found in the uncial B and the cursives 52 and 55, -and this most misleading 16 Ezra Studies statement has been industriously copied by his successors, no one taking the trouble to test the matter. In the second edition of Cornill's Einleitung, p. 268, one could even read that Jerome(!) was the author of the Vulgate version of our apocryphon. Nestle {Marginalien und Materialien, p. 29, n. 2) says that "the Lucian recension" (meaning the text printed in Lagarde's Librorum vet. test, canonicorum pars prior graece) fumished the basis of the Syriac translation; a theory which would seem plausible for the first nine verses of the first chapter, but from that point on is seen to be absolutely false. There has not even been made a careful comparison of the two Greek versions, the canonical and the apocryphal, as they stand in our printed Greek Bibles, to say nothing of inquiries as to their nature, history, and mutual relations. Even for the restoration of the massoretic Hebrew text of Chronicles-Ezra-Nehemiah, no critical use of even the current Greek text of First Esdras has ever been made. A few (most recently Guthe, in the Polychrome Bible) have included "The Greek Ezra" in their apparatus in a more or less haphazard and superficial way, but such attempts as these can have no consider able value. The one scholar who in recent times has defended the view that First Esdras represents a Greek translation which is older than the one contained in the corresponding books of our canoni cal Greek Bible is Sir Henry Howorth, who has argued the case more than once,^ with much learning and acumen. This view had been held, in one form or another, by not a few scholars ; among them Grotius, in his annotations, 1644 ; Whiston, Essay towards Restoring the True Text of the Old Testament, 1722 ; Pohlmann, "Ueber das Ansehen des apokr. iii. Buchs Esras," Tubing, theol. Quartalschrift, 1859, pp. 257-75 ; Ewald, Gesch. des Volkes Israel, IV, 1864, p. 166 ; and Lagarde, Psalterium Hieronymi, 1874, p. 162, note. No one of these scholars, however, set forth the view so fully and vigorously as Howorth, nor do they seem to have appreciated, as he has, the great importance of this conclu sion. Nevertheless, the proof which Howorth has been able to bring forward is by no means conclusive ; the skeptic would not 2 In the Academy, 1893, January 7 and 21, February 4 and 25, -April 15, June 17, July 22 ; in the Transactions of the Ninth International Congress of Orientalists at London, Vol. II (1893), pp. 69-85 ; and (raost fully, and including the substance of all the previous articles) in the Proceedings of the Society of Biblical Archaeology, May, 1901, pp. 147-59, November 1901, pp. 305-30, June, 1902, pp. 147-72, and November, 1902, pp. 332-56. Nature and Origin of First Esdeas 17 be compelled by it. He does, indeed, show with a formidable array of evidence that the canonical recension of Chron.-Ezr.- Neh. might well be much later than the First Esdras recension, but he fails to show that it i's in fact later. His assumption {Pro ceedings Soc. Bib. Arch., May, 1901, p. 151), that any Greek translation which closely follows the text of our present Hebrew Bible must be derived from Aquila, Symmachus, or Theodotion, will hardly be accepted by those who have carefully studied the Greek Old Testament. He assumes, in like manner, that the canonical Greek version of Chron.-Ezr.-Neh. is the work of Theodotion — as Grotius, Whiston, and Pohlmann had conjectured before him — but without being able to bring forward any shred of evidence in favor of this opinion, beyond the fact that Theodotion's version of Daniel has found a place in our Greek Bible. The one prime necessity — if the current beliefs as to the Ezra books are to be superseded — is a well-grounded and plausible theory of the origin and mutual relations of the two recensions now existing. Such a theory has never been formulated,' and Howorth has failed to provide one. His main conclusions, touch ing these matters, are the following: (1) First Esdras gives us the original form of this history ; that is, (a) the order in our apocryphon (Ezr. 4 : 7-24 following Ezr. 1 : 11, and Neh. 7 : 73— 8 : 12 following Ezr. 10 : 44) is the primary and correct one ; and (6) the Story of the Three Youths formed a part of the history as it was compiled by its author. (Howorth makes no attempt to prove that our Greek text of the story is a translation from the Semitic, though this proof — which has never been supplied — is essential to his theory.) (2) Origen, or perhaps "his editors," made our First Esdras by cutting a piece out of the middle of the "Septuagint"* version of Chron.-Ezr.-Neh., and then editing and correcting it to some extent. (3) Our canonical Ezra-Nehemiah is the result of a thoroughgoing and arbitrary re-arrangement of the text, undertaken by the Jewish rabbis, who (a) knew nothing of Darius (II) Nothus, and {b) wished to identify Zerubbabel 3 The theory which is set forth in the following pages was presented in full at the meet ing of the .\merican Oriental Society at Andover, Mass., in April, 1896, but was not printed. * I suppose that Howorth means by " the Septuagint" that Greek translation of Chron.- Ezr.-Xeh. which was the first to gain wide currency. I do not understand him to imply the belief that all— or even most— of the books of the Old Testament were translated at the same time, or by the same persons, or in any official or uniform way. Would it not be better, in the interest of clearness and accuracy, to cease altogether from using the term "Septu agint" in scientific treatises? 18 Ezra Studies with Sanabassar, and (c) had various prejudices which led them to make deliberate and extensive alterations in the story of Nehe miah. These conclusions each and all present such serious diffi culties that, in my opinion, even the view now generally held, with all its absurdities, would be likely to maintain its ground in the face of them. III. THE NATURE OF FIRST ESDEAS The main facts regarding the true character of our "apocry phal" Ezra book may be stated briefly as follows: It is simply a piece taken without change out ofthe middle of a faithful Greek translation ofthe Chronicler'' s History of Israel in the form which was generally recognized as authentic in the last century B. C, Tliis was not, however, the original form of the History, but one lohich had undergone several important changes. As is well known, the apocryphal book and the canonical book are, in the main, merely duplicate versions. But probably many fail to realize how close the duplication is. First Esdras contains a long passage, including chaps. 3, 4, and the first six verses of chap. 5, which is not found in the canonical recension. Aside from this, however, its material contents are exactly those of the corresponding parts of Ezra-Nehemiah. Beginning with the last two chapters of II Chronicles, it then includes the whole of the book of Ezra, and continues with a portion of the Ezra narrative'' which is now in our book of Nehemiah, namely, Neh. 8 : 1-12 and the beginning of the first clause of verse 13, where the frag ment ends. In every part of all this history the two recensions generally agree with each other sentence for sentence and clause for clause. In the cases where they fail to agree the differences are due to the usual accidents of manuscript transmission, or to mistakes made by the one or the other translator. The uni versally accepted view, that First Esdras is a free translation, or a free working-over ("freie Bearbeitung") of the material, is mistaken. The translation is close, and the text as a whole has not been "edited," nor freely handled. In investigating First Esdras, then, the all-important point of approach is the Story of the Three Youths, which at present stands only in this recension. We need a satisfactory theory of its origin 6 As I have shown elsewhere, the passage Neh. 7 : 70—8 : 18 originally formed a part of the Chronicler's story of Ezra (following Ezra 8), and was accidentally transposed to the place where it now stands. See my Composition and Historical Value of Ezra-Nehemiah pp. 29-34. I shall return to this subject later. ' Nature and Origin of First Esdras 19 and history, and especially to know who incorporated it in this narrative, whether the Chronicler or some later hand. And this necessarily involves the further question, whether the original language of this episode — or, rather, the language in which it stood at the time when it was incorporated — was Semitic or Greek. If it never existed in Semitic form, then it certainly never was inserted by the Chronicler in his own book, nor could it ever have formed a part of any Semitic recension of these narratives of the Jewish exiles. On the other hand5,»if it can plausibly be maintained that the Greek text of the story, as we have it, is a translation from the Hebrew or Aramaic, then we have at hand the solution of some of the chief problems in this literary tangle. It is fortunately possible to decide at once the question as to the Chronicler, while holding the question of the original language still in abeyance. The form of this history contained in I Esdr., chaps. 2-5, cannot possibly have been the form given it by its author. So scholars of all times have agreed, with hardly a dis senting voice, and for reasons that are conclusive. In the first place, the Artaxerxes correspondence, 2 : 15-25 (= Ezra 4 : 6-24), is palpably misplaced here. It constitutes, to be sure, a very good introduction to the Story of the Three Youths, which immediately follows, but forms in no sense the continuation of 2 : 1-14, where the narrative is obviously cut short in the middle. Again, the Story of the Youths is itself a disturbing element, and the disturb ance this time is far more serious. The presence of this story inevitably turns the whole history upside down, bringing in contradictions and absurdities from which there is no escape. To mention only a single point : The events narrated in 5 : 46- 70 [47-73] (notice verses 53 [55], 68 [71], and 70 [73]!) are events of the reign of Cyrus, even in this recension ! There is no way of making them anything else, or of supposing that they were ever written in any other way. It is not easy to believe that any compiler of a serious history could make such an outrageous blun der as this. What is more, the episode of the Youths cannot be made to fit in anywhere else. Whoever tests the matter will speedily find that there is no point, before, in, or after Ezra 1-6, at which this episode is a possibility; at that, too, even if the name of the king be changed from "Darius" to some other name. Removed to any other place, it causes even greater disturbance than it makes at present. 20 Ezra Studies Obviously, the story was not written for any such context as this; and it is equally obvious that the writer of this context had no thought of fitting it to contain the episode. The conclusion is certain, that the Story of the Three Youths is an interpolation, not a part of the history as it was originally composed. In view of the manifest traces of the Chronicler's hand in the extra- canonical verses just following the episode and serving to connect it with the canonical narrative (see below), the question might seem for a moment to be a legitimate one, whether the Chronicler himself may not have made the insertion, as an after thought. But no one who gives the matter serious consideration will continue to entertain this hypothesis. The Chronicler is a writer of very considerable skill, who composed this history with a definite purpose, of which he never lost sight. He is most methodical in his literary habits, and we know him to be one who incorporated documentary sources in the way best suited to his own ends. He had himself carefully composed this most important narrative of the return (so essential to his pet theory!), writing it out, with vivid detail, in his own words (as scholars agree). It is not reasonable to suppose that he could have undone his own work and have given the lie to his own history in so stupid a manner, by squeezing in this unnecessary episode in an impossible place.^ It was not by the Chronicler, then, but by a later hand, that the story was interpolated. The important question now arises, whether the interpolation was made in the original Hebrew- Aramaic text of the history, or in the Greek translation. It is characteristic of the general neglect which Pirst Esdras has suffered, that no one has recently under taken to determine, by examining the evidence, in what language the Story of the Three Youths was originally written. It is generally taken for granted that the language was Greek, and one scholar after another asserts this with confidence. Fritzsche {Handbuch, p. 6) wrote: "Ein hebraisches Original lag nicht zu Grunde, die Sprache verrath sich durchaus als ursprtinglich hellenistisch ; nur der Schluss, 5:1-6, macht eine Ausnahme, und von diesem besitzen wir das Original nicht mehr." This 6 If the story had been generally believed in his day, he would have known it when he composed his history. If it was not generally believed, he was under no necessity of inserting it. From our knowledge ot the Chronicler, we shonld not expect the story to interest him especially. And flnally, if he had wished to insert it in his completed book, he might easily have prepared a suitable place for it. Nature and Origin of First Esdras 21 opinion has been adopted, as usual, by Fritzsche's successors; thus Schtirer, Reuss, KOnig, Zockler, Lupton, Cornill ("ohne Zweifel griechisch geschrieben " ) , Guthe ("sicher griechisch " ) , Bertholet, and many others. Most of these, it should be noted, make an exception of the passage 5:1-6, which (like Fritzsche) they believe to have been translated from a Hebrew original. Howorth asserts that the story was written in a "Semitic" lan guage (of course, his theory of the book requires this), but does not attempt to go farther. Ball, in his notes in The Variorum Apocrypha (1892), suggested one or two hebraisms in these chapters, but did not thereby make a Semitic original seem probable. Renan {Hist, du peuple d'Tsrael, IV, p. 180, note) said, in speaking of I Esdr., chaps. 3 and 4: "The original was certainly Hebrew." As for the Greek in which I Esdr. 3:1 — 5:6 now stands, those who believe it to be more idiomatic than the ordinary "translation Greek" of the Old Testament are mistaken. It stands, in this regard, on exactly the same plane as the old Greek version of Daniel, or that of the books of the Kings, or of First Maccabees. From the beginning to the end, it shows an unbroken succession of Semitic idioms, reproduced with a faithfulness which is often very clumsy, and in several cases giving plain evidence of mis translation. It is true that the subject-matter (namely, in the section 3:18 — 4:32) is unlike anything else in the Old Testa ment ; and it is this fact, unquestionably, which misled Fritzsche into making his extraordinary remark about the language of the document. But if any student of the Greek Bible will look closely at the idiom of these two chapters, he will find it precisely the same which elsewhere results from a close rendering of a Hebrew or Aramaic original. Again, though as regards subject- matter and mode of treatment the section just named happens to stand alone in our Old Testament literature, it is by no means true that it has a "Hellenistic" sound. All those who are familiar with Semitic modes of thought and literary forms will recognize here a characteristic Semitic product. The fact must not be overlooked, that the first six verses of chap. 5 are almost universally pronounced a translation from a Semitic original, as above noted. The fact usually is overlooked. Those who make the exception straightway forget it, and certainly never attempt to explain it. On what theory can this translated 22 Ezra Studies "fragment" be accounted for? At present it plays a very impor tant part in helping to connect the Story of the Youths with the Hebrew narrative 5: 7 ff. (==Ezra 2: 1 ff.). Its points of affinity with either section are obvious, and certainly not accidental. It sounds as though it were of one piece with the verses which imme diately follow it, as well as with those which immediately precede it ; and as for the Three Youths, there is an express allusion to them (somewhat parenthetical, to be sure) in vs. 6. But what end this passage of six verses may have served when connected with neither portion of its present context, no one, so far as I know, has ever ventured to guess. Of course, if the Episode of the Youths were originally written in Greek, it would follow that these six verses must have belonged to an entirely separate docu ment. As for the following narrative (the Chronicler's), if this passage (5: 1-6) originally formed a part of it, how has it disappeared from our canonical book? And if it did not origi nally belong to it, how in the world can it have been detached from its proper surroundings and brought to this place? Guthe' s amazing suggestion (Kautzsch's ApoJcryphen, p. 2) that it was composed by "the redactor" (!) certainly needs no refutation. The passage bears no resemblance whatever to an editorial patch. Nor is any theory of an isolated fragment plausible. We are not driven to any such strait as this, that we should be obliged to postulate a lost narrative of a return of Jews from Babylonia, written in Hebrew and translated into Greek, and now surviving only in these six verses! There is a far simpler hypothesis. Just as soon as it is observed that the Greek of this passage is the result of translation, it becomes probable • that the Story of the Youths was incorporated in a Semitic form. There is still other important evidence of this nature pointing to the same conclusion. The latter part of chap. 4 cannot so easily be separated from the first part of chap. 5. There is no perceptible break, nor anything to make it probable that two separate documents are joined at this point. The two concluding verses of chap. 4 cannot have formed the end of a piece of narra tive. The closing words of verse 63, "and they feasted .... seven days," make it plain that their author intended to narrate what took place after the seven days. And in like manner the first words of 5:1, "After this there were chosen," etc., presuppose the words which just precede them. The two parts agree per- Nature and Origin of First Esdras 23 fectly, and any attempt to pull them apart has the presumption strongly against it. Two documents were united, beyond doubt, somewhere in this vicinity, but it was not at this point. And again, the evidence of translation from a Semitic original is quite as noticeable in the latter part of chap. 4 as it is in 5: 1—6. Observe, for example, the idiom in vs. 63: Kal to lepov ot aivofj^dadrj rb ovofjia aiiTov iir' aurw; and similarly in vs. 54: iv tlvi Xajpev- ovaiv iv avTy. Now although these verses do not belong to the unexpanded Story of the Three Youths (which, as will be shown presently, ends at 4: 42), they belong to the context in which it was imbedded. Moreover, in some of the verses which now form a part of the Story, and can only have been written in continua tion of it, the marks which indicate the work of a translator are plainly to be seen. The verses 4: 44-46, 57, for example, in the sustained awkwardness with which they render Semitic idioms — and probably reproduce Semitic blunders — could easily be paral leled in other specimens of "translation Greek," but hardly in Greek of any other type. The antecedent probability, from every side, of a Semitic ori ginal for the Episode is thus overwhelming, and we may fairly take for granted, at the outset, the fact of translation (substi tuting "ohne Zweifel semitisch" for "ohne Zweifel griechisch ") . Only very strong evidence in the Greek text of 3: 1 — 4: 42, such evidence, namely, as to show that it could not have been the work of a translator, could suffice to shake this probability ; and such evidence, as has already been said, is not to be had. It only remains to determine whether the original language was Hebrew or Aramaic. This question, usually a very difficult one, is here rendered easy of answer by the use of the Greek word ToVe, in 3: 4, 8; 4: 33, 41, 42, 43, 47, which points plainly to an Aramaic original. The only places in the Greek Old Testament in which ro-re, "then," "thereupon," is consistently used to con tinue a narrative are the Aramaic portions of Daniel and Ezra and this Story of the Three Youths. The usage is neither Greek nor Hebrew; the word can stand only for the Aramaic "CIS (or rni^a). it is not a question of one or two occurrences, such as can be found here and there in all Greek literature ; the word appears again and again, all through the narrative, in every one of these sections in which the Greek is translated from Aramaic, but does not appear similarly anywhere else. In this Story there 24 Ezra Studies is very little narrative, the si)aco being occupied with discourses, letters and decrees, and the like; but wlu>rcvcr the story is resumed (notice especially 4: 41-47) we are pretty sure to see sentences and paragraphs headed by tots. Among the other marks of translation, the following are note worthy : 3:3. /cal 'i^virvo'; iye'veTO is quite impossible. The king is (and must be, for the sake of the story) sound asleep until vs. 13; cf. vss. 8 and 9! Those who were "waking" were the three men' who constituted his body-guard. The original text may have read in some such way as this: KJ?J^by Plllbn ¦j';i«3 ilH "fiyFip^ , "Thereupon the three youths bestirred themselves" (or "stood on guard"). The change would then have been very easy, since T'^^'Z almost invariably (but not always; see Dan. 7: 11) begins the sentence. 3:5. &a Xoyov. The customary use of "in in the place of an indefinite article. So also 4:18. 3:5. 8? vTrepia-xva-ei is a sure mistranslation. It should be ri vTrepia-xvei, "what thing is the strongest," sec vss. 10-12. The Aramaic probably had ^"1 ITJ . 3:12. vTrep B^ Trdvra viKo. rj oKrjdeia. The virip is impossible in Greek, as commentators have roinnrkod (see especially Fritz sche). It is simply tho translation of b?, with which the verb nSSnn is regularly construed; cf. Dan. ():4. 4:14. TToXXoHs an obvious (and quite natural) mistranslation of ¦j''a"i3T. The meaning. in the original was "men aro mighty,''' not "men are numerous;'''' cf. vs. 2. 4:15, 1(). The translator has here given us a false rendering and an incorrect division of clauses. Instead of our iiu'iiniiiir- less text, we must put a comma after ^acnXda, mid then read: Kal ttS? 6 Xao^ S? Kvpievei tj)? OaXda-a-r)<; Kal tt;? 7*)? ef avTOiV iyivero. Cf. again vs. 2. The mistranslation is ouo of a very common type. 4:17. Is it possible that we have horo a double rendering? Some such word as «"nr!, or ^^"nm^l3 , for oxnmplo, would account for both a-ToXd<; and B6^av, the 0110 translation being lit eral and the other interpretative. The tnoXaC are not needed here. Compare the uses of tho Hebrew words "Ilil , "'^21 , and mXStl, and the (mistranslated) verse I Maoo. 14:9. ' Ordinarily called " pages " because of tho misundoistaniling of this verso. Nature and Origin of First Esdras 25 4:31. Kal Trpk tovtok. Probably for nS'^ dy"!, which should here have been translated "and in spite o/th'is." ' 4:37. Kal OVK eariv should probably be et ovk 'iariv. The original may well have been XtJir^lp -jinn ^DS 5king brought out (ho saorod vossols bolongiiig lo lli(< ioiin>lo in .lonisaloin (^ whioh nw fully dosovibod and nuinlH>ro(l), and tloliv<>rtHl |1h>iii inlo Iho hniid o( a Jewish priiioo iiMnuHJ Shoslibaz/.ar. A I this point lh(> narrative is int(>rrupl(>d by thi> inli-rjiolal ion. The nox(. piirtion ol' (ho liislory whioh is oortainly known to coiiio Ivoni (ho hand of tho C^lironiol(>r is (lu* lis(, 5:7 12 (^= Kzra 2:1 -67), aud wliort* (lu> iiarraliv<> is rosunuHl iit (ho olos<> of (h(> list ii appears (hat llui roturiiing ((xilos ai(< alrc^ady in t)(>rusalom. This is a surprising U>ap, (>s|)ooiiilly I'or such a narralor aa Iho C^hronii'lor. Wo should oorlainly ('X|ioo( hiiu (o dosoril)(\ with soiiu> (l(>(ail, (.h(< slarling of Iho (<\podilion; to make* (>xpi'(>ss ni(>n- tion of tho (wo hviilors, J(>sluiii mul /jiMubbabol, whom ho (>ls(>- whoro makos so |)roiuiiunit; l.o t(>ll ol (ho provision niado by (ho king — and iil'((M'ward r((l to Cor (ho aid of (lu> fb'ws aud ospooially for ihe building of tho (ciiiph"; and so on.' Tho iimb- nbilily at oiio.o sugg(>sl.s il.soU', that a pari, of the (1hronioli>r's tiur- rative is oontaiuod in l.lu< long so(|uel (o iho Sl.ory of (ho Throi* Youlhs, that is, in (ho Hoodion 4: Li HiC). It would, of (M)nrs(*, ho liu* wish of tho intorpolafor l.o iiso (lu* original uarnidvo as fai- as possiblo; and in (his onso tlmt would bo (*s|)ooially oasy, sinoc* all the oironnisl.miooH, and ovoii the iiaines (oxcopiing only tlio name of Iho king), art* idontioal. This i)i-ol)- abilil.y l)0(^oiiu*s iiiuoh sln)iig(*r as soon as wo obsi^rvo (ho poonliar way in whioh tlio (>x|)anHion of tlu* Story has l)(*(*n (*(1'oolt*(l. As was roniark(*(l abov(*, ii has boiMi l(*ft ahsolnl.oly nnlonohod — saving tho gloss of two words in 1:1H — all tlu* way from flu* hoginning, 3:1, to 1:42, which is evidently (ho last v(*rH(* of liu* original story which wo havo. it would liav(* l)0(*n mi easy nia(.l.(*r, and, we shouhl say, most (l(*siniblo, lo add a bit of ,J(*wisli color ing, (*sp(*oially at tho l)(*gimiiiig, if only in orili*r to mako tlu* coii- noci.ioii moro phuisibh*. Bnl. tlu* n*(lnc(or (ook his (ask vory easily, and apparently liini(,(*(l his own (*(li(oi-ial addilions (o what was absolutely nocossary. In vi(*w of (,liis, il is Hiirprising (o find that tlu* oxlra-omionioal iiiatl.(*r coiiHtituting tho sotpu*! (o tlu* Story oooii|)i(*H twoiity-sovon V(*rH(*H about half tlu* ox(on(, of ili(. "Snn my hrlnf Btatomoul iil' l.liit ouho In Uki .limrniil »( liiblinU l.ilvnitii,-,- \Mi1 pp. 168-70. ' ' Nature and Origin of First Esdras 27 Story itself. And who is this who now begins to write at such length, and so methodically, what sounds like a piece of carefully composed history (vss. 47 ft'.), and with such disproportionate interest in "the priests and the Levites" (vss. 52-56) and in "instruments of music" (4: 63, 5:2) ? These are the pet interests of the Chronicler himself; his peculiar property, in fact. There is, indeed, plain evidence of composition in this long sequel, 4:43 — 5:6, showing that it consists of the work of the interpolator plus the work of the Chronicler. In the verse 5 : 6, especially, we can see how a harmonistic gloss has been added to the original text. The date, as it stands, is altogether out of place; and, indeed, it is difficult to imagine a reason for telling in any place the day of the month on which Zerubbabel made his successful speech. The words just preceding the date, "he who spoke wise words before Darius," are an obvious gloss, the last of the redactional patches by means of which the two documents were combined. This statement of year, month, and day was originally the Chronicler's date of the return from Baby lon. Commentators have wondered why such a date was missing, in this history in which month and day of the month are never wanting, and on this occasion which overshadowed all others in importance. Verse 6 originally read: "in the second year of the reign of Cyrus, the king of Persia,' in the month Nisan, on the first day ^'' of the month." The interpolator was, of course, obliged to alter "Cyrus" to "Darius" (as also in 5:2), and the insertion of his gloss necessitated a slight change in the wording of the sentence. Whoever examines 5:1-6 closely will see that it is written throughout in the characteristic phrases of the Chronicler, and this is true also of much of the latter part of chap. 4. The redactor's part is, indeed, as we were led to expect, a compara tively small one. Two brief passages, purely harmonistic, and easily recognized, are all that he has added, namely, vss. 43-46 (with the first clause of vs. 47) and vss. 57-61." This conclusion, as to the Chronicler's authorship of 4: 47-56 in particular, receives important confirmation from without. In 9 The pbrase "king of Persia," DIE '^b'a, is a well-known mark of the Chronicler's hand. '"In the Greek, toC irpcorov fiiii-os, " the first month," is derived by some mistake from TBlnb nnH3, as many have observed. u These two patches, small as they are, contain some things of interest. Observe the statement regarding the Edomites, in vs. 45, and the very unusual phrase "king of heaven," in vss. 46 and 58. 28 Ezra Studies Ezra 3: 7 we are told how cedar-wood for the building of the temple was brought to the Jews from Lebanon '¦ according to the grant which they had from Cyrus, king of Persia;" but the pre eeding narrative, in our canonical recension, contains no record of any such grant. But in this fragment of the Chronicler's history which survives in First Esdras, in 4:48, we have the edict to which reference was made: "He (Cyrus) wrote letters also unto .... those that were in Lebanon, that they should bring cedar- wood from Lebanon to Jerusalem." Again in Ezra 3:1 ( = I Esdr. 5:46 [47]) there is a statement of time which presupposes a defi nite date in the preceding narrative. Just after the long list of returning exiles, and the subjoined statement that the people arrived in Jerusalem and settled there and in the neighboring cities, the narrative continues: "And when the seventh month was come," etc. In our canonical Ezra there is no preceding date, to which this can be referred. The date in 1:1, "The first year of Cyrus, King of Persia," is not to be thought of, both because it is too indefinite and because the time would be far too short. And the Chronicler is particular about such matters as these ; see, for example, Ezra 7:8, 9, and 8:31. But in the First Esdras recension, just before this list of returning exiles, we find the missing date, in 5:6 (the verse which has already been discussed; see above). First Esdras, then contains a portion of the Chronicler's history which has been lost from our canonical book of Ezra. The original narrative passed directly on from 2:14 ( = Ezra 1:11) to 4:47, which began thus: " [And Cyrus the king] wrote letters for him (i e., for Sheshbazzar) unto all the administrators and governors," etc. Then, after the section 4:47-56, there followed immedi ately 4 : 62—5 : 6, and then 5 : 7 ff . ( = Ezra 2 : 1 ff . ) . There is no reason to doubt that the history, as thus restored, is complete and in the very same form which its author gave it. The interpolator, for his part, wrote 4:43-46, and the first clause of vs. 47 (altering the original slightly here), and vss. 57-61. He also changed "Cyrus" to "Darius" in 5:2 and 5:6, and inserted a gloss in the latter verse." Whether the gloss in 4:13 is from him, or from a previous hand, may be questioned. It was he, finally, who transposed the Artaxerxes correspondence, Ezra 4:6-24, to the place where it now stands in First Esdras. 12 The " Joachim " of this verse came from a misread Dp"! , as I have shown elsewhere. Nature and Origin of First Esdras 29 It is an interesting question, at what point the Aramaic text ended, and the Hebrew text began, in the composite narrative. It is, of course, certain that the Chronicler himself wrote all of this portion of his history in Hebrew (or what may be allowed to pass for Hebrew) ; and it is hardly less certain that the interpo lator was as well acquainted with the one language as with the other. No one will question that the verses 4:43-46, at least, were written in Aramaic f and it may also be taken for granted that the passage 5:1-6 was allowed to stand in its original Hebrew. But in regard to the intermediate portion, 4:47-63, there is room for doubt, since it is conceivable that the interpola tor should have written vss. 57-61 in Aramaic, and then have translated the Chronicler's Hebrew up to and just beyond that point, in order to conceal from sight the real place of the juncture. It is improbable, however, that he would have made himself this unnecessary labor. So far as we can judge, from the very few Jewish productions of this period that have survived, the combination of Hebrew and Aramaic in the same document was a common thing. It was possible, for instance, for the Chronicler to compose Ezra 6 : 16-18 in Aramaic, and then continue the same narrative in Hebrew in vss. 19 ff. — although he could not have had any reason for wishing to deceive his readers as to where the preceding document ended. Similarly, in Dan. 2:4 we see the change from the one language to the other taking place in the middle of a sentence, the narrative then going on as though nothing had happened. Obviously, such abrupt changes as these were not felt to be disturbing. So far as the Greek of this part of First Esdras is concerned, the last sure sign of an Aramaic original is the ToVe of vs. 47. Beyond this point, the language seems to me everywhere to suggest Hebrew rather than Aramaic, though I have not been able to find any decisive proof. I there fore believe that the interpolator's Aramaic continued as far as the first words of the Chronicler's narrative, and that everything after this was Hebrew, including vss. 57-61. That is, vs. 47 began 13 Aside from the strong probability that this added patch would be written in the same language as the preceding narrative, we have the evidence of tots in vs. 43, the position of the infinitive e/cirefiif(ai in vs. 44, and the itiipie /Sao-iAeu (apparently S35^ "'^^P ' *^'° ¦''^"' 4:21) in vs. 46. The last-named verse, by the way, contains an evident mistranslation, the conjunction "1 being rendered by ««"', instead of by some word meaning, " since," " inasmuch as." The Arkmaic was : tynib I'D (in) Snil"!, NT! Sl'l, " since such munificence is thine." SmD"! used here Exactly like Jlbina in II Sam. 7:21, 1 Chron. 17:19, where also the Greek rendered by iJ.eya\iaiTvpri. 30 Ezra Studies in Aramaic: "Then Darius the king arose, and kissed him;" and it was continued in Hebrew.- "And he wrote letters for him unto all the administrators and governors," etc. The result of this investigation has been, to restore a lost half-chapter to our "canonical" Old Testament — a thing which has never been done before, and presumably will never be done again — and to give the Story of the Three Youths its true place as an important specimen of old Aramaic literature. I hope to throw further light on the origin of this Story in a subsequent chapter. IV. THE origin of OUR TWO RECENSIONS The Chronicler, probably not far from the middle of the third century b. c, but possibly later, wrote his Levitical History of Israel. Its contents, in their original order, were as follows: I and II Chronicles; Ezr. 1; I Esdr. 4:47-56; 4:62^5:6; Ezr. 2:1—8:36; Neh. 7:70—8:18; Ezr. 9:1—10:44; Neh. 9:1—10:40; Neh. 1:1—7:69; 11:1—13:31. At the beginning of the last century B. c. this history was current only in a form which differed from the original form in two important particulars: (1) Three chapters originally belonging to the story of Ezra had been accidentally transposed, by a natural mistake," into the book of Nehemiah. (2) The Aramaic Story of the Three Youths had been interpolated. The interpolator added a few harmonistic verses at the end of the Story, and also trans posed the passage Ezra 4:6-24 to a place just before it. Somewhat later, still another alteration found its way into numerous copies of the work. The fact that the account of the reading of the Law (Neh. 7:73 — 8:18), and that of the sealing of the covenant (Neh. 9:1 — 10:40), had originally belonged to the story of Ezra was not lost sight of among the Jews. Accordingly, someone, at some time in the last century b. c, made an attempt to restore the history to its true form by transposing these chapters to the place from which they were supposed to have come. That is, they were simply appended to the story of Ezra, being made to follow Ezra 10. It must be noted, however, that not all of the matter which had originally belonged to the story of Ezra was restored at this time. The three verses Neh. 7:70-72 were so securely lodged in their new surroundings (owing to the same considera- i*See my Composition of Ezr.-Neh., p. 34. Nature and Origin of First Esdras 31 tions which had caused their transfer thither) that they were no longer movable. The re-transferred section accordingly began with 7:73. The result was (as we have the best of evidence) that two editions of the Chronicler's book, with its interpolated Story of the Youths, were current at the beginning of the Christian era. The two differed only at one point, namely, the section Neh. 7:73 — 10:40, containing the story of the Reading of the Law and the account of the Sealing of the Covenant. In the one edition (call it A) the position of this section was the same as in our massoretic Hebrew Bible; in the other edition (call it B) it had been appended to the Book of Ezra, of which it formed the close, Ezra 10:44 being continued by Neh. 7:73; and in neither edition were the two narratives which constitute this section in their original and proper context ! To describe the two editions a little more fully: A = I and II Chron. ; history from Cyrus to the com pletion of the temple as in I Esdr. ; stories of Ezra and Nehemiah as in our Hebrew Bible. B = I and II Chron. ; history from Cyrus to the com pletion of the temple as in I Esdr. ; story of Ezra concluding with Neh. 7:73 — 10:40; story of Nehe miah as in our Hebrew Bible minus the section just mentioned. One point in the description of Edition B requires special proof here, namely, the statement that not only Neh. 8, but also chaps. 9 and 10, were retransposed to the end of Ezra. That chap. 8 was thus transferred we know, of course, from First Esdras. Our only surviving text, however, breaks off at the beginning of vs. 13, in this chapter; so for an answer to the question. What came next ? we must turn to other evidence. This is of two kinds: 1. General probability. — Chaps. 9 and 10 had long been connected with chap. 8, and must have been felt to be of one piece with it. Whoever had acumen enough to see that chap. 8 was out of place in the Book of Nehemiah must also have seen (as readers of the book in all ages have seen) that chaps. 9 and 10 belonged with equal certainty to the story of Ezra. The testimony of such verses as 9:1-3, 4f. (cf. 8:4, 7) ; 10:28(!), 29, 32 Ezra Studies 30, could not be misunderstood.'^ And with chap. 8 removed, the incongruity of chaps. 9 and 10 with their surroundings would be very much more obvious. Imagine 9 : 1 following directly upon 7:72! 2. The evidence from Josephus. — Josephus, who is the earliest writer (of those known to us) to excerpt the Chronicler's history, used Edition B. As his method is to give only such extracts as suit his purpose, and he frequently vaults over whole chapters and gives to others only a sentence or a clause, it is not always easy to follow him. The two chapters, Neh. 9 and 10, obviously con tain hardly anything that he could use for his history; and, in fact, he makes no use of them at all, unless we find them alluded to in certain phrases at the end of his abridgment of Neh. 8. In telling the story of Ezra, when he comes to the account of the reading of the law he gives in concise form the contents of Neh. 8, to the very end of the chapter {Antt., xi, 154-57). In finishing the account, he says that Ezra urged the people not to mourn, saying that it would be better for them at that time to keep the feast with joy, Kal t^v fierdvoiav Kal Xvvtjv ttjv ctti toi? 'ifiwpocrOev i^rjfiapTtjfie'voi'; aaepeiv et? 'lepoa-oXvfia, iva Tpe^etrdai BirjveKm exovTei ol lepeK Kal AeviTat fx.r) KaTaXei-Traxn ttjv Oprja-Keiav (Neh. 12:44; 13:10-12). It can hardly be doubted, in view of all this — and with nothing to point to the contrary conclusion — that the two chapters, Neh. 9 and 10, stood at the end of the book of Ezra in the B edition. 15 To say nothing of the «ai elTrev 'Efipas with which 9 : 6 begins in the Greek version I Nature and Origin of First Esdras 33 Both editions, A and B, must have continued in use for a con siderable time. The extent to which Edition B was used may be judged from the fact that it was the one from which the old Greek version was made, as well as the one used by Josephus in writing his history of the Jews;" while for a witness to the prestige of Edition A we have the fact that it was ultimately taken as the basis of the recension which alone was adopted for the "official" Hebrew Bible. It deserves especially to be emphasized that the Story of the Three Youths was present in both of the current forms of the history. At the beginning of the Christian era, there was probably no version of the Chronicler's book in existence which did not contain this Story. Certain it is, at any rate, that those who made the recension now repre sented by our massoretic text knew of no such form already existing, but were obliged to resort to excision. The trouble caused in the Jewish world by this Levitical His tory of Israel, in its two incongruous editions, could be imagined even if we had no direct proof of it. As time went on, and the lingering traditional knowledge of the Persian period dwindled and disappeared, the Chronicler's compilation stood out con spicuously as the one document dealing with the history of the Jews in this important time. It seems to have been little used at first, and when at last it became generally known it was looked upon with suspicion (witness its position in the Jewish canon, and its rejection from the Syriac Bible, to say nothing of other indications), but its ultimate recognition was inevitable. The final test came, of course, when the idea of a definite "canon" of divinely inspired scripture was first developed; namely, about the beginning of the second century a. d. The Jewish rabbis were obliged to meet squarely the question whether they should accept this book or reject it. On the one hand, it was the source, and the indispensable support, of certain theories which had come to be implicitly believed and cherished, especially in ecclesiastical circles ; but, on the other hand, it was obviously an untrustworthy guide. Anyone could see that the Story of the Three Youths was incongruous with its surroundings, and it needed no unusual acumen to see that it was in fact an interpolation. Such naive attempts to cut the knot as that of Josephus, who substitutes 16 And Josephus, as we know, was a writer who would have been careful to employ the ortliodox recension. 34 Ezra Studies "Cambyses" for the Artaxerxes of I Esdr. 2:15 ff., could only do more harm than good. And the case with the history of the two great leaders, Ezra and Nehemiah, was no better, for two versions, incompatible with each other, were in circulation. The situation was an intolerable one, and could be ended only in one way, namely, by a new recension. A final revision was accordingly made, and was officially adopted. The Story of the Youths was cut out bodily from the book, and care was taken that it should never again appear in the Jewish sacred writings. But unfortunately, in the excision of the Story, a part of the Chronicler'' s original narrative was cut out with it. The cause of this accident is easy to see. The expanded Story, as edited by the interpolator, did not end with I Esdr. 4:63, but extended through the first six verses of chap. 5. The interpolation in vs. 6, supported by the occurrence of the name "Darius" both here and in vs. 2, left the revisers no alternative; the knife must cut between vss. 6 and 7. Upon the excision of the Story followed necessarily the restoration of the Artaxerxes correspondence to its proper place. The choice between the two versions of the Ezra-Nehemiah story must have caused more difficulty. What led the Jewish revisers here to follow Edition A rather than Edition B can only be a matter of conjecture. Possibly some external evidence show ing that the order of chapters in the former was older than that in the latter was still in existence. But it is perhaps more likely that what decided the matter was the presence, through interpolation, of Nehemiah's name in the three doubtful chapters (see Neh. 8:9 and 10:1, and compare the date in 1:1), an interpolation which easily (and almost inevitably) took place after these chapters had been accidentally transposed into the story of Nehemiah. So much for the origin of our canonical Ezra. As for our First Esdras, it is, as has already been said, the one surviving fragment of the old Greek version of the Chronicler's history, a version which was simply a faithful rendering of Edition B, and was probably made in the latter part of the last century b. 0. The accompanying diagram will serve to illustrate the history of the two recensions. The extent of our First Esdras, it is hardly necessary to add, is due simply to accident. Probably all the manuscripts, Semitic Nature and Origin of First Esdras 35 Chronicler's History. Hebrew-Aramaic. (250 B. 0., or later) Two long passages transposed from Ezra to Nehemiah; the first by accident, the second as a necessary result (Neh. 7:70—8:18 and 9:1—10:40) Story of the Three Youths (lEsdr. 3:1— 4:42). Aramaic (Eedactional expansions [I Esdr. 4:43-47a,- 57-61] and alterations. Transposition of Ezra 4:6-24) Edition A Excision of the Story; together with a part of the original history, I Esdr. 4:47&-56; 4:62—5:6. (Beginning of second century a. d.) Canonical Ezra-Nehemiah Edition B (Neh. 7:73— 10:40 trans posed to end of Ezra) Greek translation (before middle of second century b. o.) First Esdras 36 Ezra Studies or Greek, which contained any other version than the official one were systematically destroyed. Just as the old Greek version of Daniel narrowly escaped the fate which befell its Semitic original, being saved only in a single Greek codex and a secondary version, so this portion of the condemned Esdras recension was rescued by a lucky chance. There was only one such fragment, and all of our "I Esdras" texts and translations go back to it. It prob ably consisted of a few quires plucked out of the middle of a codex. The first page of the rescued fragment began with II Chron. 35:1; and the last words on the last page were Kal iinavvrjxdriaav, which in this version had been the first words of Neh. 8:13. And it is certain, finally, that the manuscript from which this piece survived was Greek, not Semitic. There never existed a Hebrew- Aramaic fragment of the same extent as our First Esdras. Conclusive proof of this statement is found in the closing words, for in the Hebrew text Neh. 8 : 13 begins with ^DlSH DTHI , not with the verb. Whether accidentally rescued or deliberately excided, it is evident that this fragment was not altered nor edited in any way by those who first preserved it by itself. No attempt was made to give it a suitable beginning, nor even to complete the obviously unfinished sentence with which it ends." In every library of ancient manuscripts there are to be found similar fragments, con sisting generally of a few quires surviving from codices of which the remainder has been lost;'" fragments almost always through accident, but sometimes also through selection. In the sense in which any one of these might be called a "book," First Esdras may be given that designation, but in no other sense. 17 Except in the Lagarde Greek recension, which here, as in some other places (compare what was said above regarding the text of 4:39) has been deliberately "revised." 18 Compare, for example, the accidental loss of the first part of the Peshitto version of Tobit, which has totally disappeared. Ill THE STOKY OF THE THREE YOUTHS (I Esdras 3: 1—4:42) I. ORIGIN OF THE STORY Among the most interesting surviving specimens of old Semi tic literature must be counted the story of the three young guardsmen at the court of King Darius, and their contest of wits in the royal audience hall. As has already been shown (see above, pp. 18-30) , this narrative was originally written in the Aramaic language, and was interpolated in the Chronicler's history of Israel by an unknown hand, probably near the beginning of the second century b. c. The main questions as to its origin, date, and primitive form, and the class of literature to which it belongs, remain to be answered. It is now generally believed that this "story" was a Jewish composition, a "contribution to the legend ary history of the Captivity and Return" (Swete, Introduction to the Old Testament in Greek, p. 266) ; and the only remark which it ordinarily calls forth is the verdict that it "is unhistor- ical." I shall try to show in the following pages that it was originally a separate composition, a bit of popular wisdom-litera ture complete in itself, and in its first estate having nothing to do with the history of the Jews; that it was composed in Pales tine, probably soon after 300 b. c. ; that it was incorporated entire in the Chronicler's history, and has been preserved in what is substantially its original form. The interpolator, as I have shown (see pp. 25-27), gave the story, in the main, as he found it, without attempting to work it over, or indeed to make any alteration whatever beyond what was absolutely necessary. The beginning, obviously, was left un touched. Up to the end of 4:42, moreover, there is not a clause, nor even a word, that seems to be secondary or editorial, excepting of course the manifest gloss in 4:13. It was only at the end, where the story required to be adapted to a definite place in Jewish history, that redactional patches were necessary, and were made. The interpolator himself did this harmonistic work; and one 37 38 Ezra Studies necessary feature of it was the occasional change of the name "Cyrus," in the immediately following portion of the Chronicler's history, to "Darius" (above, pp. 27 f.). The presence of the name "Darius," in fact, was an indispensable condition of the in sertion of the story, Zerubbabel being the hero. The question therefore arises at once, whether the interpolator may not himself have introduced the name throughout the whole story. We know with certainty that according to his representation the ktag who sent Zerubbabel and his company to Jerusalem was Darius II Nothus;' but it is quite another question, whom the author of 1 It is strange that the question of the chronological order of the Persian kings accord ing to the attested Jewish tradition should have made, and should still be making, so much trouble among scholars. See Tor example Meyer, Entstehung des Judenthums, p. 14 ; Well- hausen, Israelitische und jiidische Geschichte^, p. 171, note; Bertholet, E-tra und Nehemia, p. 13, middle. The simple fact is this, that according to the accepted view of the Jewish scholars and writers, in the Greek period and still later, a kingdom of the Medes preceded that of the Persians, and Darius I Hystaspis was the monarch of this Median king dom. Aside from this one important error, the Jewish writers made no mistake in regard to the Persian kings, but everywhere preserved the true order. As for the kingdom of the Medes, it is the one briefly referred to in Dan. 2 :39 and 7 :5, as scholars are generally agreed. Neither the author (or authors) of Daniel nor any of the other Jewish writers shows any interest in this Median power or its history. The duration of its rule over Babylonia was believed to have been very brief; to have included, in fact, the reign of only one king. We read in Dan. 5 :30, 6 :1, that upon the death of the last Baby lonian king, Belshazzar, his kin.gdom was taken by Darius "the Mede,'" and we are told with equal distinctness in 6 : 29, cf . 9 : 1, 10 : 1, 11 : 1, that this Darius was immediately succeeded by Cyrus, the flrst king of the Persians. (I do not believe that the original text of Dan. 9:1 called this Darius the "son of Ahasuerus." The name limTHjnS? is due to some copyist, who substituted a well-known name for the unknown, and probably corrupt, form which lay before him. In Josephus, the name is " Astyages "— cf . Theodotion's Bel and the Dragon, vs. 1 (original reading possibly " Darius, son o/ Astyages "?) . One might perhaps conjecture "Cyaxares" (HuwahSatara), for this blunder would at least have involved no anachro nism. Cyaxares flourished about 600 B.C., and this Darius came to the throne "about sixty -two years of age" (Dan. 6:1). But perhaps we need not take the writer's chronology so seriously. I suppose it is possible that the author, or authors, of these chapters had never heard the name of Hyataspes.) That is, in the Jewish tradition represented by the author of Daniel (who was a man of some learning), Darius I Hystaspis was put immediately before Cyrus instead of immediately after him. The author of Daniel would have begun his list of Persian kings thus : Cyrus, Xerxes, Artaxerxes I Longimanus, Darius II Nothus, etc. TheChronicler's history of Israel represents precisely the same view of the royal suc cession, and, accordingly, ot a brief Median rule preceding the Persian. It is perfectly plain from Ezra 4:1-7 that his list of the Persian kings began in the same way as did thatof the author of Daniel. The Chronicler makes no mention of Darius Hystaspis, "The Mede," before Cyrus, for the same reason that he fails further on to include Artaxerxes III Ochus, namely, because these kings (as he supposed) hadnothingtodo with tbe history of the Jews. But aside from this one transposition of Cyrus and Darius— the same which is made in Daniel— his succession of Persian kings, as given in Ezr.-Neh., is the correct one. According to his view, Zerubbabel and his companions flnished the temple under Darius Nothus; and the Artaxerxes who befriended Ezra and (afterward) Nehemiah was Artaxerxes Mnemon. Again, the Chronicler's Aramaic source represents the selfsame historical tradition. The author of this story of the building of the temple of course makes no mention of the Median king who preceded Cyrus, nor does he have occasion to mention Xerxes; but he leaves us in no doubt as to the fact that, in his belief, the temple was finished in the time of the Darius whose reign followed that of Artaxerxes I. The textual tradition, it should be observed, perpetuates this view ot the two kings named Artaxerxes. The name o£ the enemy of the Jews, who is mentioned in Ezra 4 is in variably written with iU ; the name of the friend of the Jews, mentioned in Ezra 7 f and The Story of7the Three Youths 39 the Story of the Youths intended by his "Darius," or indeed, whether he used this name at all. What, then, is the historical setting of the story, and who is the "king" at whose palace the scene is laid ? It is, of course, beyond question that the story was originally told of a king, not of a satrap, governor, or other high official. It is almost equally certain that the scene was laid in Persia. From the beginning of the story to its end, the Persian kingdom and its capital are plainly in the thought of the writer. The allusions are too many and too deeply imbedded in the structure of the story to be regarded merely as the result of an editorial revision (see, for example, 3:1, 2, 9, 14). We must conclude that when the story was originally composed the narrator intended to describe a scene at the court of one of the Achaemenids. Observe also how the interpolator takes it for granted that the event described took place in the Persian capital. If he were giving the tale a new setting, he would certainly be explicit as to the name of the city; but as it is, he plainly assumes that every reader would know that Susa was intended. Thus, in 4:57: "And he (Darius) sent away all the vessels which Cyrus had brought^ from Babylon (i. e., to Susa) ;" and again, in verse 61: "So he (the youth) took the letters, and came forth {from Susa) to Babylon.'" If no other evidence were to be had, it would still remain doubtful whether the name "Darius" is also original, or whether it is to be ascribed to a later hand. But fortunately, we have the evidence which is needed. Thanks to that most important verse, 4:29, we are able to determine which king is intended, and the Neh. 2, is invariably written with D. The Darius who came between these two kings was of course Darius Nothus. And flnally, the interpolator of the Story of the Youths shared the view of the Chroni cler, the author of Daniel, and the textual tradition of Ezr.-Neh. The fact that he trans posed the account of the correspondence in the reigns of Xerxes and Artaxerxes, Ezr. 4 : 6-24, to the place which it occupies in I Esdr. is conclusive evidence ot this. Like the other Jew ish writers of his time, he believed that the Darius under whom Zerubbabel finished the building of the temple was Darius Nothus; and, according to him, it was at or very near the beginning of the reign of this same king that the three youths held their contest at the Persian court. According to his version ot the history, Zerubbabel was still a youth at the time of the completion ot the temple ; while according to the Chronicler's version he was an old man at that time (though in all probability the Chronicler supposed the reigns ot Xerxes and Artaxerxes I to have been brief ones). It is true that our modern historians may reasonably be in doubt as to the date ot the completion ot the temple; but it does not seem to me that there is justiflcation for doubt, in the face of this evidence, as to what view the old Jewish narrators held. 2 The Greek translator's ex^P'"'"' is probably a mistaken rendering, both here and in verse 44; see the notes. 40 Ezra Studies approximate date of the story. According to the text ordinarily used, the passage reads thus:'' I saw Apama the daughter of Bartakes, . ... the concubine of the king, sitting at the king's right hand; I saw her snatch the crown from his head, and place it upon her own ; with her left hand she slapped the king. In spite of all this, the king gazed upon her with open mouth. It is obvious that we have here the key to the date and original home of the story. The proper name Apama, at least, has been correctly transmitted. It is a very well-known name, and yet not one that would have been chosen at random or taken as typical. The writer of the story had a real personage in mind at this point. The fact that the name of the girl's father is appended adds to the certainty of this conclusion, though the latter name is so badly mutilated as to seem almost hopeless. Among all the women named Apama who are known to us, there are only two who need to be taken into account. The prime requisite is that the girl should have been a concubine, or at least a favorite,* of one of the Persian kings. The two who most nearly meet the requirements are ( 1 ) Apama, the daughter of the satrap Artabazos III, who was the son of the satrap Pharnabazos II; and (2) Apama, the daughter of the Bactrian satrap Spitamenes, or Pithamenes. These two Apamas were the most celebrated of all who bore the name, and both made their first appearance in history at the court of the Persian king. The king, moreover, was Darius III Codomannus, and this fact is another cor roborating element. The coincidence is too far-reaching to be an accident; the natural conclusion is that the king originally intended in this story was Darius III. All that we know of the two Apamas, during their early life in Persia, is contained in the well-known story of the great feast at Susa, given by Alexander to his generals after the conquest of Persia. At this feast, accord ing to the historians, Alexander gave to the foremost of his gen erals wives from the Persian court. Apama, daughter of Spita menes (or, as some authorities have, Pithamenes), was given to Seleucus Nicator, the first of the Syrian line of monarchs; and Apama, daughter of Artabazos, was given to Ptolemy Lagi, the first of the Egyptian kings. Thus Arrian, Anabasis, vii, 4, 6, 3 The Greek text, with its various readings, will be given below and discussed. * We are lett in some uncertainty by the Greek TiakKanii here, inasmuch as it is a transla tion and we cannot be sure what Aramaic word was used in the original. The Story op the Three Youths 41 narrating the distribution of wives: leXevKw Be ttjv iTriTa/jLevov; Tov BuKTpiov TralSa. In speaking {ibid.) of the wife given to Ptolemy Lagi, he calls her the daughter^ of Artabazos, but uses the native name 'ApTaKafia.^ Plutarch, Eumenes, §1, gives the name correctly {UToXe/iaio) p,ev 'Airdfiav) , and says that Artabazos was her father. Strabo, Geographica, xii, 8, 15, confuses the two Apamas, saying that Apama, the daughter of Artabazos was given in marriage to Seleucus Nicator.** The statement regarding Seleu cus and his wife which is given by John Malalas, Chronographia, viii (Migne, Vol. XCVll, col. 312), is perhaps worth quoting: o Be aiiTO'i 2eXeu«o? 6 ^iKaTccp eXa^e yvvaiKa iv tw TroXefia cnrb TIapOcov ovo/jiaTL 'ATra/jiav irapOevov rjVTiva iTrijpev aveXav tov iraTepa auTjy? TliOa/jievrjv, ovTa aTpaTrjjbv HdpOcov fieyav. 'A(f)' ^9 'Airdp.a'i 'ea-j^ev 6 avTb<; SeXev/co? 6vyaTepaaa-ex) occurs eighteen times in the book 6 The assertion is a little too sweeping, for some ol the " other translators " rendered the Hebrew word in still other ways, though Grotius may not have been aware of the fact. And indeed, from the citations given in Field's Hexapla it might seem that the translite ration affex, outside the books of Chronicles, is not the property of Theodotion. It is not only lacking in Field's list (pp. xl f .) of the Theodotion transliterations, but is even attributed to Symmachus in the three passages where its occurrence is noted by him, namely Ex. 12:11, 27; Num. 9:2. But whoever examines carefully the material collected in Field's footnotes in these three places will ascertain the following facts : (1) According to the Syr.-Hex. (by far the most trustworthy witness of those cited) the word JIDS , in Ex. 12:27, was rendered by "the LXX" ffao-xa; by AquQa vTre>)3acris ; by Symmachus j.^^ irdcrxa (not i()iio-€x, as Field gives!), the difference from LXX being in the other words of the clause; and by Theodotion "like the LXX." In 12:11 the renderings are the same, except that Symmachus is said to have had Triirxii (-not "(jtaacx " 0 inrep/nixijiri!. (2) Theodoret, whom we should suppose to have had good means of information, says that Theodotion's rendering waa it>a(Tex. (3) According to notes found in a few codices, in Ex. 12 : 11 and Num. 9 : 2, the transliteration t^ao-ex is attributed to Symmachus, or to "Aquila and Symmachus." Such attributions as these last, coming from unknown hands, are notoriously untrustworthy. The ancient copyists, scribblers, and annotators were as careless as our modern ones, which is saying a great deal. False ascriptions abound, and each one is likely to be copied into several other MSS. Hence most of the evidence of "double versions" of Aquila (Field, pp. xxiv ff.) or Symmachus (pp. xxxvi f.). With regard to the rendering of nOS, the transliteration is exactly in the manner of Theodotion, and not at all in the manner of Sym- mach-us. Indeed, the use of this barbarism by the latter translator would be altogether in explicable. The fact is probably this : Theodotion's 0a Sa)/3a\ iraTpl JLapiadiapeip, apaa ecrei Afj-jMaviwd, '"'vfiaa- (fyecod K.apia6iaeip, AidaXei/M, Ai Kr{n<£> 0%a. 31. ya(T^apr)v6eiti II Chron. 35 : 19. For D^snn, "teraphim"— but the Hebrew original of this passage is now lost ; see no. 44. This transliteration is used by others than Theo dotion. 43. ewBaOa (most MSS, including all the uncials, drnXaOa; an early blunder, A for A) Neh. 12:27. For nilin , "thanksgivings." (L: {iv) ayaXXidcrei.) 44. KaBriaei/j, (? So cod. 121; the others have Kapecreip.^') II Chron. 35:19. For D^TIJnp, "temple-prostitutes." The passage, which is a highly important one for the history of our Hebrew text, is found neither in MT nor in I Esdras. See below, p. 88. Observe that Theodotion has the transliteration KaBrja-eip, in Judg. 5:21. 45. Ke(f>(l>ovpv IChron. 28:17; Ezr. 1:10; 8:27. For -^llBi, "cups." 46. KodcovoL Ezr. 2:69. For niSnS, "robes." (L: (rToXa<; lepa- TiKa<;.) See also no. 69. 47. XaiJ.{iJ,)aave II Chron. 22:1. All our Greek texts are cor rupt here. For ninab, "for a raid.'"' Some justifi cation for Theodotion's transliteration here may be found in the ambiguity of the expression, which I believe to have been mistranslated by every modern scholar as well as in the ancient versions. This strange word, Xap,{ti)aave, immediately following oi"Apa^eaX II Chron. 27:3; 33:14; Neh. 3:26, 27; 11:21. For b2':J(n), the "hill" in Jerusalem. 56. aa^axwd II Chron. 4:12; only in the cursives 56 and 121; see below, p. 80. For niSllfl, "nets." 57, iraxfoX (? A a-axeov, B aaxa>X- The reading of the cod. Basiliano-Vaticanus, N [XI in H. and P.] is given as aa-i^i^aa-axoiX ( ! ) ; the first part of this being probably the proper name Aae^eia, from the beginning of vs. 19?) Ezr. 8:18. For biTfl, "prudence." (L has [ai'^Jo-wero?.) 58. crepcxepmd II Chron. 3:16. For ninTlJTaJ ," chains." (L: aXvaiBcoTa. ) 59. (Toop, I Chron. 29:2. ForOnio', name of a stone. (L: [Xi'^ou?] ovvxo'! .) 60. aacf)ap 1 Chron. 15:28. For isiuj , "trumpet." 61. cr(o4>[e]pei/JL I Chron. 2:55; in the L text only; see below. ForQ"'n2lD, "scribes." i*It is a mistake to suppose that the x of this form is the transliteration of n • It is merely one of the customary blunders of codex B. ^ere^aaS was miswritten ^£TaPx»« (x tor », several other examples are given in the sequel), and so on. 76 Ezra Studies 62. TeKxeip. II Chron. 9:21; in the L text only ; see below. For D^^3^ri, "peacocks." 63. v/xao-^ew^ IChron. 2:53. For ninSffi7^^ ," and the families (of)." The same word is translated in vs. 55, just below — the context there being so plain as to leave even Theodotion no room for doubt! (The L text has acci dentally lost the first words of vs. 53; see Nos. 14 and 38. Both A and B are corrupt here.) 64. 4>a(jex II Chron. 30:1, and often. For riC3 , "passover." The old Greek version of the Chronicler's history had irdaxa; see II Chron. 35:1, 6-13, 16-18, in I Esdras (1:1, 6ff., 16-19). The large number of occurrences of the word in these two chapters of the Theodotion version was what kept it from being changed, even in the L recension. See also above, p. 67, note. 65. 4>ea (?) Neh. 5:14, 15, 18; in the Egyptian text only. For nri3 , "governor." The word occurs four times in these three verses, and appears at first sight to have been transliterated three times and translated once. This would be a truly Theodotionic proceeding; still, it is perhaps more likely that the word was originally translit erated in all four cases. At present, through accidental corruption and attempted correction, the forms originally written have been nearly obliterated ; only close scrutiny can find the trace of them. The Egyptian text of the verses in question now reads: "'Atto tt)? ij/xe/aa? ^? ive- TeiXaTO fjiot elvai et? dpxovTa avToiv (Dns) .... iyoi Kal 01 dBeX(f>oi fjLov ^lav avTWv (HmSiI DHb) ovk e(j)ayov, ^^Kal Tav ^Caea, instead of ^iav avTMv;^'^ vs. 15, (fieooO instead of /Sta?; vs. 18, dpTov TOV (pea instead of dpTov ttj? /Sio?. (The L text has substituted translations in each of the three cases: dpTov ttj? •qyepiovCa'; in vss. 14 and 18, and dpxovTe<: in vs. 15.) 66. x«A''«^"A* Ezr. 8:27. The source of this is the word n^DbSinb (MT. n^53^n5ou/8et/a II Chron. 3:8 ff., and elsewhere. For D'Zl^^i , "cherubim." This transliteration is not peculiar to Theodotion. 68. X^XX^'P (') I Chron. 16:8; only in the L text, which reads XeXxap, presumably because of a common scribal error in the Greek. For "l33, "loaf." A and B have dpTov. Cf. No. 18, where the same word (meaning "circuit"), written with the article, is transliterated by ax^X^P- 69. Xod(ova)0 Neh. 7:70, 72. For inijlnS , "robes." Very likely the KoOoovoi (?) of Ezr. 2:69 (above. No. 46) originated in this same transliteration. (L, in all three cases, <7ToXa? lepaTiKa<;.) 70. x'^^aped (-6)6'?) II Chron. 4:12 (twice), 18. For ninnb , "capitals." The regularity with which these words are distributed through the history is worthy of notice. Leaving out of account the repe tition of such frequently used words as vQ}6, (f>acrex, and probably yeBBovp. To make the demonstration still more complete, it is further to be observed that in the few points of contact between the Theodotion element in Daniel and our Greek translation of the Chronicler's work there are some striking instances of identical usage. One of these is the case of the word p,avaa, noticed above. Another is the use of Xii|r (a favorite word with Theodotion) as the rendering of Zi'^TiZ ; found only in II Chron. 32:30; 33:14; Dan. 8:5; in the last- named passage substituted for the ciTrb Bva-piMV of the older version, which certainly needed no correction! Equally striking is the substitution of evcoBiai, as the rendering of Vtt'irT'D , in Ezr. 6 : 10 and Dan. 2:46; in both cases correcting the airovBai of the older translation. Notice also the peculiar rendering airb p-epovs for rrnp/J , only in Dan. 1 : 2 and Neh. 7:70; the use of the verb cvveTi- ^eiv, and that of the noun iyKaivia. Undoubtedly other examples of the kind can be found; I have made no thorough search. In the case of gentilic names, it is Theodotion's custom to transliterate exactly, instead of using the Greek adjective endings. The latter, however, have been substituted later in a good many instances, sometimes in the Egyptian text and very often in L. Thus, in Neh. 2:19 the original rendering had 6 Apcovei, 6 Ap,- pasvei, and o Apa^ei; where L offers 6 '£lpa)viTr)<;, 6 'Ap.p.coviTT]'!, and 6 "Apayfr. An example of a passage in which nearly all the Greek texts have made the change is Ezr. 8:7, where for "Sidon- ians and Tyrians" cod. 121 has '^iBavip, and "2(0 pip, (probably almost exactly what Theodotion wrote) ; B has 1,r)Bap,eiv and licopeiv; all the other MSS have substituted the Greek adjective forms. Many other instances of the kind could be given. In some cases where Theodotion was in doubt whether the word before him was a gentilic name or not, he cautiously repro duced the Hebrew article by the Greek a. In such cases it was inevitable that those who cared for the Greek text should often have taken the further step of substituting the Greek article. For example, in Ezr. 2:57 Theodotion wrote viol ^aa-{e)pa6 (or ^axepaO?) aae^aeip, (D'^Zl^zn), as is attested by the Egyptian Greek tradition. But in the L text we find viol ^aKepad tmv 2a/3(Bei/i. Of course accidental corruption of these unfamiliar forms took place from time to time. Thus, in I Chron. 18:17 TOV Xeprjdi was Theodotion's rendering. I was miswritten for X, Textual Criticism of Chronicles-Ezra-Nehemiah 79 as occasionally elsewhere, and in a cursive manuscript 6 became (o, as in a great many other places. Hence the tmv lepemv in both L and the ordinary Egyptian text (but not in A). It remains to be said in general, regarding Theodotion's trans literations (and especially those of ordinary nouns), that in all probability some of them, and perhaps a considerable number, have been lost. Of course, in a version which came into common use as a part of the Greek Bible, these uncouth words were very soon felt to be seriously disturbing, especially in the many cases where the Hebrew word and its meaning were perfectly well known. We should therefore suppose that the process of remov ing these peculiar creations of Theodotion would have begun almost immediately. We can see the process going on in the texts which are known to us. In the Lagarde recension, it is the rule (not systematically carried through, to be sure) that these transliterations are replaced by translations; and we can see the same tendency actively at work even in the most conservative group of manuscripts. Observe, for example, what has taken place in I Chron. 28:17, where the unusual word (¦')1133 occurs six times. The L recension ( !) has preserved Theodotion's Ke^- j)ovp{r)) in three places; cod. A has it once ; cod. B has dropped it altogether. Similarly, in Ezr. 7:22 ^adav "baths" (liquid measure) has been replaced in B by a-jroOrjKMv, but not in A; in Ezr. 2:69 KoOwvoi (so B) becomes in A x'-''''^^''-^- Or to take the case of a still more common word: in I Chron. 11:34 DTZJlTI "'51 is rendered by Theodotion ^ev{v)at aaap.; this becomes in A and L (but not in S B) viol a'. Many other examples might be given." It is reasonable to suppose that this process had already begun before the period represented by the earliest manuscript testi mony which we have. A few of the rejected words, after having been actually dropped from all the texts in common use, were preserved in stray cursives, or rescued again by the L recension (thanks to its conflating tendency).'' An excellent example is "In I Chron. 26:16 it seems to be the case that A has preserved the original rendering, -ru 2ei(iiei)», for D"'STBb , while the improvement eis Seiirepoi- (from a late reading D''3tE55 ) has been adopted not only by the MSS of the L recension but also by the most of the "Egyp tian " MSS, including B. The supposition that A's is the corrected text here would be far less plausible, judging from what has taken place elsewhere in the MSS of these books. L's double rendering here contains an obvious correction according to MT, D''D'tt55 being translated by tois n-poflupots. 18 Hence, presumably, the presence of the word evaAeiji in I Chron. 9:18, only in L. Whence it comes I do not know, but it is probably a corrupt form of one of Theodotion's transliterations. The iva is pretty certainly a reproduction of the T\'iT\ which stands here 80 Ezra Studies the rendering of the phrase t^'^SH ^yiB "valley gate" in Neh. 2:15. Here the L text presents both Kal fip,rjv iv Ty irvXri Trjv (pdpayyov and Kal BirjXOov Bid ttj? ttuXtj? yat, the position of the latter clause showing that in this recension it was inserted later. Something very similar has taken place in II Chron. 26:9, where (in the L text) ayyai and ttj? dpayyov form a doublet, though in this case it is the translation which seems to be secondary. No one but Theodotion would be likely to transliterate in such a case as this; and that it was actually he that did it appears to be rendered certain by Neh. 3:13, where L gives for the same phrase only ttjv irvXrjv yat. But in all three of these passages the word yai has quite disappeared from the manuscripts of the standard text ! A case in which the L text has retained a transliteration which has already been dropped by all the MSS of the "Egyptian" group, with the single exception of codex 121, is the word aaxpepeip,,^" I Chron. 2:55. In the ordinary text it has been rendered by ypap,p,aTea)v. Another example is the word X^XX'-'^P^ I Chron. 16:3. Other words of this nature which have narrowly missed oblivion are TeKxeip-, II Chron. 9:21, preserved in L; ayovyeip,, II Chron. 9:10, found in one L MS, 93, and (in the form yovyeip.) in the cursives 56 and 121; and (Ta^axaO, II Chron. 4:12, preserved only by 56 and 121. These words are given by Field in his list {loc; cit., pp. xlf. ) as of "anonymous" origin; but it must now be evident, I think, that they are survivals from Theodotion's version. In other parts of the Old Testament, moreover, traces of Theo dotion's transliteration, hitherto unrecognized as his, are undoubt edly to be found. His version must have been felt to be an indispensable one, meeting a greater variety of needs than any other, and its influence upon the standard Greek text was probably much greater than we ordinarily suppose. Its readings must have supplanted the other renderings in many places,"" and as an inevitable result, the ascription of "Theodotion" readings to "LXX," and vice versa, was not infrequent. This happened even in in the Hebrew; the remainder may be due to dittography of some sort, involving the follow ing iv. No one of the commentators on Chronicles appears to have noticed it. I'J It appears in various forms: o-u((>7)pei/x in 93, 108, and 121; au^^ipeip., in 19; o-uirepiji in the retransliteration from an Armenian codex given in H. & P. Lagarde edits aa^tpeiin. 20To take a single example from the Prophets — the one which happens to occur to me at the moment : in Isa. 44:8 we can see the process at work ; the phrase fiTjSJ nXayatrSt has been taken over from Theod. into the text of cod. B, but is not in the older text of this verse represented by codd. A^Q, etc. Fortunately the Hexaplar MSS here make the matter perfectly plain. Textual Criticism of Chronicles-Ezra-Nehemiah 81 the case of transliterations, passages containing them having been taken over into the current version at an early date, particularly in the books Sam.-Kings, in which the textual tradition made so many difficulties. One example of the kind has already been given; see above, on yeBBovp. Precisely similar in their history, as I believe, are the four other renderings given by Field {loc. cit., p. xiii) as cases in which "LXX" transliterates while Theodotion translates. One of these, for example, is II Sam. 17:19 rilSin, rendered "LXX apacfxod, Theod. iraXdOav." Another is II Kings 16:17 T\^±Ia, rendered "LXX p.exa>va>e, Theod. v-rro- -ffTripiyp^aTa.'" See the note on this latter word in the list above. From the evidence whioh we already have, it seems to me that we are fully justified in reversing these ascriptions, assuming that in these cases, at least, the later version had contaminated the earlier. The important question, whether in preparing his version of the Chronicler's history Theodotion was revising an older trans lation, or not, should probably be answered in the negative. We have as our guide his proceeding in the case of Daniel; and what he does there is to retain to a remarkable degree the wording of his predecessor, in spite of extensive alterations in the form of the text. A comparison of I Esdras with the corresponding part of Theodotion does not show any such close resemblance. The coin cidences of rendering seem to be only such as would be expected in two translations of the same Hebrew text, while the differences are so many and so great as to argue strongly against any depend ence upon, or even acquaintance with, the older version.^' We know of no translation of Chr.-Ezr.-Neh. before the time of Theo dotion, other than the one represented by our I Esdras, and it is not likely that there was another. Our last witness to the exist ence of this version in its completeness comes from Josephus. After his day, so far as I am aware, we meet with it only in the "I Esdras" fragment. Soon after the beginning of the Christian era, in all probability, the old Greek version of the Chronicler's history disappeared from the face of the earth, with the exception of the one fragment which happened to be rescued from a single codex (see above, p. 36). This fragment may have escaped Theodotion's notice altogether, or he may not have thought it of importance for his purpose. At all events, when he put forth his 21 Why, to take a single instance, should Theodotion have rendered the word X^JS? (MT SS^ffli?) in Ezr. 5 : 3 by the senseless x"P1V'''"'. if he had known that it had already ieen rendered (I Esdr. 6: 4) by the obviously suitable o-revi" ? 82 Ezra Studies own translation, it had a clear field ; and as a matter of course, it was soon adopted as apart of "the Septuagint" and its authorship was quite forgotten. If it is indeed an independent translation of these books, as I believe, it is doubly important as the one great example of the methods of this interpreter, this time not a mere reviser, but free to work in his own way. III. THE TWO MAIN TYPES OF THE TEXT 1. First Esdras I have described briefly in one of the preceding essays (above, pp. 31-86) the two differing "editions" of the Chronicler's history which are known to us, giving some account of their origin. Since an interval of 300 years lay between them, and the later edition was, generally speaking, independent of the former one, the comparison of them is obviously a matter of great importance for purposes of textual criticism. But before they can be thus used in any satisfactory way, it is necessary to know to a consid erable extent the history of their transmission; the state of preser vation of the various texts; the age, the character, and the trust worthiness of the translations; the relative excellence and mutual relations of manuscripts. The following observations will serve as a beginning. The old Greek translation of Chron.-Ezr.-Neh. was made not long before the middle of the second century b. c. The direct evidence of this is found in the quotation from the Greek historian Eupolemus, in a work composed about 150 b. c. (see Schurer, GescJiichte', III, 351 f.). The historian is telling of the building of Solomon's temple, and quotes from the letter of Hiram, king of Tyre, in the form of it which is found only in II Chron., chap. 2. The text of the passage, corresponding to II Chron. 2:12ff., is given in Swete's Introduction, p. 370, and reads as follows: evXoyrjTbv 6 debv 8? Tbv ovpavbv Kal Trjv yfjv eKTiirev, 8? eiXero dvdpa- TTOV ;y;/3TjcrT0i' e'«; j^/jtjcttoO dvBpov .... Kal dpxiTeKTOvd aoi atr- icTTaXKa dvOpanrov 'Yvpiov iK /iTjT/ao? 'loi/Sata? e/c ttj? vXfjv Adv. Here is, beyond all question, a somewhat free citation from a Greek version of Chronicles. There is every reason to believe, and no reason to doubt, that this translation was the same one of which a part has survived in the "I Esdras" fragment.^^ All the evidence 22 It might seem useless to attempt to argue from the wording of so free a citation as this one evidently is. But the opening phrase, " Blessed be the God who made heaven and Textual Criticism of Chronioles-Ezra-Nehemiah 88 which we have seems to show that the I Esdras translation was made as early as the second century b. o. Some of the indications of this nature have already been mentioned ; others will appear in the sequel. The home of the translation may well have been Egypt. There is one interesting fact, at least, which seems to show that the translator lived among people to whom the geography and history of Syria were somewhat unfamiliar. The technical term iriDn ^3? (Aram, n^n: ^ny), "the district beyond (west of) the river (Euphrates)," is in every instance — 14 times in all — ren dered by KotXTj 2vpia Kal ^oivikt), "Coele-Syria and Phoenicia," a rendering which occurs nowhere else.'' The term "beyond the river" was one which had long been familiar throughout Palestine and Syria, and Theodotion's rendering, irepav tov nroTap.ov, would have been understood anywhere between Judea and Persia. But in Egypt the phrase was not so well known. From the materials which we have, we are well able to judge as to the character of the translation. It is a faithful rendering, of the kind to which we are accustomed in the older parts of the Greek Old Testament. The translator has a wide knowledge of Greek, uses a large vocabulary, and very often chooses Greek idioms instead of simply copying the Semitic forms of speech. In rendering two verbs connected by "and," for example, he frequently employs the participle for one of the two, where Theodotion and his kind would follow the original. On the other hand, he generally sticks desperately to a corrupt text, hesitating at no nonsense in earth," seems to have been transferred verbatim, and it is at least interesting to observe that we have here one of the characteristic marks of difference between the rendering of Theodo tion and that of the old Greek version. Theodotion has the phrase before him in this passage and in Neh. 9:6, and both times renders by eiroiijo-ei/ (Heb. HlBy). In I Esdr., the words are found only iu 6 : 12, and the rendering there, as here, is by kti^^iv (a form of the Aramaic verb 13y being read). 23 It is important to observe that this is the old and official terminology used by the Greek historians and geographers from the fourth century onward. " Coele-Syria and Phoenicia," or even " Coele-Syria " alone, included the whole Syrian province west of the Euphratus, i.e., exactly "inSil "iSy* An Alexadrian translator of the second century B. c. would have been sure to use it; see II Mace. 3:5, 8; 4:4 for a striking illustration ; and cf . also I Mace. 10 : 69, and the numerous passages in Polybius cited by Halscher, "Palastina in der persischen und hellenistischen Zeit," in Sieglin's Quellen und Forschu-ngen zur alten Geschichte und Geographie, Heft 5 (1903), pp. 7 f. Notice also that "Coele-Syria and Phoenicia" is the term used in the petition of Onias to Ptolemy Philometor, Josephus, .4nM., xiii, 3, 1. This terminology went out ot general nse before the beginning of the Christian era. Strabo, xvi, 2, 2, notes that according to a nomenclature which some (li-ioi Si) had used, " Cbele-Syria " included the territory of the Jews, Edomites, and Philistines. His testimony shows that in the last century B. c. and thereafter " Coele- Syria" was ordinarily applied only to the district between Lebanon and Anti-Lebanon. Thus Holscher, p. 12. His conclusion is the same one which I had myself reached. 84 Ezra Studies "translating" it. His performances in really difficult places — and in many that are not difficult at all — are like those of a modern schoolboy, and we may expect to find at least a few stupid blun ders (so they seem to us) on every page. This is fortunate, for it enables us, here as elsewhere, to see what Semitic words and phrases the Greek was trying to render. One who is thoroughly familiar with Hebrew and Aramaic and also with the habits of these translators will generally be able to see what text lay behind this version — after he has once determined the original form of the Greek. The Semitic text thus rendered seems to have been not partic ularly good, but one which had suffered considerably from care less copyists. In many cases, indeed, its readings are manifestly superior to those of our massoretic text, and there is no place in which its help can safely be dispensed with; but on the whole, the type of text which it represents is inferior to that represented by our canonical books. Aside from all the accidental corruption which it has suffered through careless transmission, it seems now and then to have been deliberately "revised," as, for example, in the opening verses of the section dealing with the official corre spondence in the time of Xerxes and Artaxerxes, I Esdr. 2 : 15. Wherever the probabilities are otherwise evenly balanced, in the confiict of I Esdras readings with those of our canonical recension, the latter has the presumption in its favor. Some instances of the occasional wide divergence of the I Esdras text from that which later became the standard will be given below. Several scholars have called attention to a certain resemblance between the Greek of I Esdras and that 9f the old ("LXX") version of Daniel. See Swete's Introduction, pp. 48 f., and Lupton's preface to his First Esdras, in the Speaker's Commen tary. Most noticeable is the occurrence of the same phrase, Kal dirrjpeia-aTO aiiTo. iv tw elBcoXicp avTov, in both I Esdr. 2 : 9 and Dan. 1:2, as has been observed. I add one or two other note worthy examples.'* The phrase "his house shall be made a rub bish-heap C^blS)," which occurs in Ezr. 6:11; Dan. 2:5; 3:29, is interpreted by the old version in all three places to mean "his house shall be confiscated." In I Esdr. 6:31 the rendering is: Kal Ta vwdpxovTa aiiTov elvai /SaaiXiKd, and in Dan. 2:5: kuI 2*1 give only those which I happen to have noticed and remembered; I have made no search for them. Textual Criticism of Chronicles-Ezea-Nehemiah 85 dvaXr](j)6rjaeTai vp,Siv Ta virdpxovTa et? Tb ^aaiXiKov. In Dan. 8 : 96 he writes: ij o'lKia avTov Br]p,evOi](TeTai, which means the same.'" Again, in Dan. 3:2 we have in the old version (but not in Theo dotion) the same list of officers, craTpdirav, a-TpaTrjyovv, Toirdpxav Kal vTrdTovv, which appears in the same order in I Esdr. 8: 14; as also, lacking the last member, in 3:2. Since the Greek words are by no means the settled equivalents of the Aramaic terms, this coincidence can hardly be accidental. Notice also the use of the word p,avidKr)<;, "golden chain," in I Esdr. 3:6; Dan. 5:7, 29; the frequent occurrence of p^yiaTavev, "magnates," in both I Esdras and Daniel; the phrase iiroCr^ae Boxvv p^eydX-qv, 1 Esdr. 3:1; Dan. 5:1 (not in Theodotion). In Swete's list {Introduction, pp. 310 f.) of the unusual Greek words which are found in certain books of the Old Testament, the following also are mentioned as occurring in both I Esdras and the old translation of Daniel: ava-n-Xrjpaxnv , Boyp,aTi^eiv, p^eyaXeiOTrjv, ireidapxelv. These instances seem to render one of two conclusions certain : either the old Greek translation of the Chronicler's history strongly influenced that of the book of Daniel ; or else both were the work of one and the same translator."^ The latter is the more probable supposition ; notice, for instance, how the two passages Dan. 2:5; 3:29, compared with I Esdr. 6:81, prove that the translator worked independently, and was not simply following an older version. It is not likely that this translation ever circulated widely. The Chronicler's history in its original Semitic form seems to have been little known, and was certainly very little esteemed, in any part of the Jewish world for two or three centuries after the date of its composition." From the time when the Story of the Youths was seen to be secondary, and the abridged recension made its appearance, the older, unabridged texts and versions lost ground; 25 So far as Ikuow, the important testimony which these translations (or mistranslations) give to the existence of a Syro-Palestinian root 513, corresponding to the Arabic JLj , JLo , " take, obtain," has never been noticed. It is the same root whose verb (53^ , jussive) occurs in the last line of the Tabnit inscription, as I hope to show more fully elsewhere. 26 In that case, the translation of Daniel was probably made soon after the publication of the original, inasmuch as the Chronicler's history was translated before the middle of the second century B. c. An early date for the old Greek Daniel is also rendered probable by the Greek version of I Mace. 1:54, in which dependence on the Greek translation of Daniel is certain, as well as the fact that the words quoted had long been familiar. 21 Very likely its true character was well understood, at the first. If that were the case, it would not be surprising that even its one valuable part, thq story of Nehemiah, should have made little impression. 86 Ezra Studies and finally, when the official text was created, this old Greek ver sion, already near to extinction, passed out of sight. There is no evidence that any secondary version was ever made from it, in its entire state, and we know it only from the fragment which survived under the name "First Esdras." The history of the transmission of this fragment, in manuscripts and versions, is unlike that of any other part of the Greek Old Testament, though the old Greek Daniel offers a close parallel in many respects. It bas, of course, been far less infiuenced, in its transmission, by the Hebrew- Aramaic text than its canonical fellows. Their presence beside it has gen erally saved it from editorial "correction" since the establishment of a standard text, and it is not at all likely to have suffered from such correction before that time. Accordingly, the Hebrew- Aramaic that can be shown to lie behind our I Esdras may gen erally be accepted as representing a text which existed before the middle of the second century B. c. On the other hand, there is evidence that the Greek text of this translation was somewhat carelessly handled during the first centuries of its existence, and it is easy to be too confident in arguing from the Greek to the Semitic. In dealing with the plus and minus of I Esdras, espe cially, great caution is necessary. '* Moreover, ever since ^'Eirst Esdras" and "Second Esdras" were first placed side by side in manuscripts of the Greek Bible, the danger of contamination, in either direction, has been present; it is remarkable, indeed, that the better types of text should show so little evidence of such cor ruption. It is only in the L text (see below) that this is a serious matter; there, the contamination of I Esdras has gone so far as to render the text all but useless for critical purposes. The text of I Esdras, like that of Chronicles-Ezra-Nehemiah, is known to us in two principal recensions, which will be described below. The one of these may conveniently be called "Egyptian," and the other "Syro-Palestinian." Ofthe secondary versions made from the I Esdras Greek, the Syriac, the Ethiopic, and the Latin are the only ones requiring mention here. The Syriac, made 28 Not a few of the German scholars who have dealt with I Esdras have relied on the text of Fritzsche (.Libri Vet, Test, apocryphi graece, 1871). But Fritzsche's eclectic text is built on no sound principles, and his apparatus is untrustworthy at every point. Those very marks — including not only misspellings but also erratic readings — which give the surest critical guidance are habitually omitted by him; while many of the readings of codices A, B, S, and others, which he fails to record at all are beyond question the original ones. Those who read the Greek Apocrypha for pastime will flnd Fritzsche's text compara tively smooth and agreeable; but those who are engaged in exact studies can make no use ofit. Textual Criticism of Chronicles-Ezra-Nehemiah 87 by Paul of Telia, and the Ethiopic represent the Egyptian recen sion, and are of considerable value; the Latin, derived from a Syrian text, has also some critical importance. These will receive further mention in the sequel. 2. The Standard Text ofthe Second Century A. D. The text of Chronicles-Ezra-Nehemiah which was taken as the official one seems to have been carefully selected. It was one from which the Story of the Youths had been cut out, and in which the three wandering chapters of the Ezra narrative were allowed to remain in the book of Nehemiah (above, pp. 80 ff.). It was presumably one which bore evidence of being more trustworthy in details than the most of its fellows. So far as we are able to judge, it was, indeed, comparatively "sound," especially in the book of Ezra-Nehemiah; though differing considerably from what the Chronicler originally wrote. The separation of Ezra-Nehemiah from Chronicles had either taken place already, or else was accom plished at this time. When Theodotion made his translation, the division was already effected. As witnesses to the readings of this "standard" recension we have: (1) the massoretic text; (2) the Greek of Theodotion; (3) the Latin of Jerome. We have the great good fortune to know the habits of each of these two translators, and can thus reason from version to original with an assurance which would not otherwise be possible. As Jerome made his translation near the end of the fourth century, its value for text-critical purposes is very small; it almost everywhere agrees verbatim with our mas soretic text. Theodotion's Greek, on the other hand, bears inter esting witness to the fact that the massoretic text is by no means identical with the "standard" text of the second century a. d. The manner in which even an official recension can become cor rupted, even within a short time, is well illustrated here. The text rendered by Theodotion has suffered many accidental changes, and a few which look like deliberate revision ; so also has that of the massoretes. One example of the kind has already been pointed out (above, p. 73); in I Chron. 28:20, Theodotion's Hebrew contained a passage of considerable length which has been lost, by a mere copyist's error, from our MT. Another instance, and one of especial interest, is the long pas sage which in our Greek Bible is appended to II Chron. 85:19 88 Ezra Studies (see above, p. 74). Examination shows''' that this was taken bodily from II Kings 23 : 24-27 ; but no one seems to have observed that the borrowing did not take place in the Greek ver sion, but in the Hebrew original. Theodotion had all this before him, in the text which he rendered; moreover, the word D^inp, which he transliterated by KaBrjaeip {?) , is not attested in II Kings 23:24 by MT or any version, though it appears to be the older reading as contrasted with the D"'2I^pT23 which is given there. What adds materially to the interest of the case is the fact that the old Greek version bears witness to still another Hebrew text at this point. The passage in I Esdras (1:21 ff.) reads as follows: ["«at wpdoiOri to, epya 'Icocreiov ivmiriov TOv.Kvpiov avTOv iv KapBia irX-qpei evae^eiav. ''koI to, kut' avTov Be avaye- ypaiTTei iv Toi'; 'ep^irpoaOev xpovoiv, "irepl .... tmv '^p.apTrjKOTMV Kal ^cre^rjKOTCov et? tw Kvpiov Trapd irdv 'edvov Kal ^aaiXeiav, Kai iXvirr)- aav avrbv iv aladrjaei- Kal ol Xoyoi toO Kvpiov dveaTijaav iirl ^\apaaap. This is a fair sample of the difference between A and B through out the four Chron. -Ezr. books. IChron. 1:54 (and Gen. 86:43) for the name UT''S A has Ylpap, B Zacjyaeiv ! The scribal blunders, mostly made in copying a cur sive text, are only those which the B scribes are constantly making. The original transliteration was aipap,. The Z came from the final N of the preceding word; tp = , as very often; the confusion of a with a> can be found on almost every page of B; /.t becomes IV, Vl, etc. very frequently. I Chron. 2:47, for the name "jtCTt, A has Vrfpamp,, B Iwyap. Neither agrees with MT, and the B reading is a corruption from that of A, as usual. I Chron. 4:5, for "l^rnaS, A Acrxovp, B 'Lapa (A for X, see below on Neh. 3:2). I Chron. 4:21, the translit. e/3Ba6 a^^ovv, given correctly in A and in other codices. B has €(f)pad a^aK. This does not mean at all that B has been corrected according to a reading fll^y ; on the contrary, the confusion of the letters B and p is a rather common thing in B or its nearest ancestors. Another example of the kind is Ezr. 8:27 Ka^ovBr^d (the transliteration, according Textual Criticism op Chronicles-Ezea-Nehemiah 95 to B), where A and most of the others have Ka(povpr) or its equiva lent. In both of these cases, and in others of the same nature, the testimony of thie other MSS of the B group shows that we have to do merely with corruption in the Greek text. Neh. 8: 2, B reads Za/Saovp for MT 1!13T. This certainly seems at first sight to point to a variant Hebrew reading, but it does not in fact. The other MSS of the B group (5< , V) show that the reading of their archetype was Za/c^ov/s. The two scribal blun ders, B for K and A for X, have each many examples in codex B. II Chron. 27:8; 33: 14. Theodotion's transliteration oc^aX was corrupted by one of the very first copyists into oXa (so A and the best of the others) ; B has in both cases oirXa, "arms." Such examples as these could be given by the hundred. And they are simply typical of what is the case in every part of the four books now under discussion.''" Attention should be called, too, to the large number of omissions in codex B, due simply to incredible carelessness. A good example is the very flrst verse of Ezra, in which three words absolutely necessary to the sense are dropped out. Phrases and whole sentences are lost with sur prising frequency; see, for example, in Ezr.-Neh. alone, Ezr. 1:3; 2:10, 89; 3:8; 6:5; 8:5; Neh. 3:4; 7:26 f., 48. This will suffice to show the character of the manuscript. In Chron.-Ezr.-Neh. and I Esdras, the best uncial, by far, is A; and the worst, by far, is B. It would be hard to flnd, among the more pretentious MSS of the Greek Old Testament, any other such miserable specimen of textual tradition as that which codex B offers in these particular books. On the other hand, it repre sents a text which has suffered comparatively little editorial correction. Of course, all of our MSS have been more or less "improved" by the rectification of obvious errors and the substi- 30 If there is any kind of blunder, or confusion of Greek letters, which the transcriber of B (and perhaps also, of its nearest ancestor) did not make repeatedly, I do not know what it is. It is to be hoped that the time may soon come when the authors and editors of works dealing with the Old Testament will cease to load their pages with the textual absurdities of this codex. At present, the custom is all but universal. It might be added, in general, that the recording of obvious blunders in spelling, and ot the orthographic habits of unknown scribes (similar habits and peculiarities being already well known) is not a matter of the least scientific interest. The editors of the Encyclopaedia Biblica, for instance, have made their work the repository of thousands of absolutely worthless "variants ;" as though it were useful to note the occurrence of both A.Siv and ASeiv, or as though there could be any text- critical or other value even iu the fact that while one codex reads BcKTiKee another reads BnncT-EtXnie (the pronunciation being exactly the same in the two cases); to say nothing of recording such rubbish as B's XflaoS, from EAAaS (all ordinary blunders, even the X ; cf. the reading of 55 in Neh. 7:40, etc.) in I Chron. 11:30, or its Ba-yaSirfK, for BeeSa-yuiv, in Josh. 15:41, or TTo\4tJiuv, for TTo^eiav, in I Chron. 18 : 8, or hundreds of others even worse than these ! 96 Ezra Studies tution of translations for the more disturbing transliterations. Examples of such correction in both A and B have already been given ; it has taken place less often in B than in A. 2, Hexaplar MSS of Chron.-Ezr.-Neh. As has already been said (above, p. 3), Hexaplar Greek texts of these Old Testament books, Chron.-Ezr.-Neh. and I Esdras, have heretofore been quite unknown. We have the Syro- Hexaplar version of I Esdras, however; and in the first of these essays I have published for the first time the extant fragments of the same version of Nehemiah." We therefore have direct access to the "Septuagint" column of Origen's Hexapla, not only in I Esdras but also in Nehemiah. Through the general neglect and misunderstanding of I Esdras it has happened that no one has ascertained what Greek MSS are most nearly related to the Syriac, though this can be done with the greatest ease and cer tainty, thanks to the abundance of proper names. Nestle's aston ishing assertion that the Syriac I Esdras was derived "from the Lucian text" (!) has already been noticed. Comparison shows,^ on the contrary, that the Hexaplar Syriac of both I Esdras and Neh. clings closely at every point to the peculiar text of the B group, which has just been described. That is, the MSS of the B group are Hexaplar MSS. This conclusion is confirmed by the much misunderstood note appended to the book of Nehemiah in codex 5< , written apparently by the original hand.^* The note states that the codex had been care- 3' I might have added there, in giving the evidence that this is really the Syro-Hexaplar version, that its transcriber himself explains exactly what is meant by the-recurring phrase, " according to the tradition of the Seventy." In a note at the end of the extracts from the book of Daniel (MS Brit. Mus. Add. 12,168, fol. 1616) he says that the version from which all these excerpts are made is that of Paul of Telia. 38 Thus Swete, in his edition ; and the probability seems to me to be strongly supported by the attendant facts. Of course, the task of distinguishing the work ot the successive hands in coiex X is one of notorious difficulty— often quite hopeless. The matter is further complicated by tbe considerable additions to the text which have been made by the "second" corrector (S c. a), of the seventh century, whose work has been quite generally supposed to be that which is referred to in the note ; see Tisehendorf 's 'Vetv£ Testamentum Graece (1887), Vol. I, Prolegomena, p. 63; Nestle, Einfilhrung in das griechische NT.2, p. 51; and compare also the note appended (this time by J? c a?) to the book of Esther in codex X. But the addi tions of this corrector are of a quite different type. They include : (1) the plus of the Hebrew (on which see below) ; also (2) corrections from the A text, such as those in Neh. 2 : 16 ; 7 : 70, and elsewhere; (3) extensive insertions, mostly worthless doublet readings, from the L recension, such as those in Neh. 1 : 9, 11 ; 2 : 5, 6, 8, etc. ; and (4) corrections from still other sources, such as the name of the month in Neh. 1 : 1, and the word ei/i-oiixos in 1 :11. It would be plain, even without direct proof, that this variegated material was not derived from Origen's "LXX" column ; and the witness of the Syro-Hex. version in 2 : 5-8 shows conclusively that it was not. This version of Paul of Telia, it is to be remembered, included everything —even the asterisked matter— which stood in the fifth column of the Hexapla. The note at the end of Neh. in X then, if it tells the truth, has nothing to do with the work ot the cor rector S «• ». Textual Criticlsm of Chronicles-Ezra-Xehemiah 97 fully collated with one of the oldest and most correct of all existing Hexaplar MSS. But there is in the MS itself no evidence of any considerable diorthosis to which this note could refer. The corrections in the original hand are few and unimportant. The necessary conclusion is. that at least in the book of Ezr.-Xeh. codex S is. aud from the first was known to be, a Hexaplar codex ; and that care was taken to make it as faithful a replica of Origen's text as possible.*' We can say then with certainty that in both ''First Esdras" and "Second Esdras" (^Ezra-Nehemiah) the manuscripts S,*" B, 55 represent more or less faithful transcripts of the fifth column of the Hexapla, and that codex N" is Hexaplar at least in Ezr.- Neh. It is important to notice, further, that the asterisked passages (Origen's insertions from the plus of the Hebrew) are omitted. This fact appears plainly from a comparison of the Greek with the surviving fragments of the Syro-Hexaplar Nehe miah, which contain the /)/(/§. The B MSS coincide exactly with the Syriac except in this one particular.*^ In regai-d to the B group in Chronicles it is necessary to speak with more caution : but it is hardly to be doubted that here also these same MSS contain the Hexaplar text. The codices S, B. and 55, at all events, have the very same character here, and bear the same relation to one another and to the A group, as in the Ezra-Nehemiah books. I have not satisfied myself, thus far, that the same is true of codex N : for this, in the majority of the S3 One must of course bear in mind the fact of the remarkable displacement ot a portion of codex 55. and of the MS from which it was copied (the origin of the circum stance having been, probably, the accidental transposition of a single quire), in these very books; and also the possibility that the above-mentioned note was simply transcribed from .an older codex. But no one of all these uncertainties can affect the conclusion that S is iere a Hexaplar MS. That tact if absolutely certain. ^^la codex S . which is incomplete, I Esdras is now lacking, to be sure. The tact that in certain other books of the OH Testam ent codex B contains, or has affinities with, a Hexa plar t«xt is weU known : see Swete's Introd., pp. 4S7 t. ; Cornill. Einleitung*, p. 335. "According to Swete's iTitroduction, pp. 132, HOi, this codex does not contain I Esdras. What the ground ot this statement if, I do not know, and nothing in the literature to which I have access has yielded any explanation. According to Holmes and Parsons, nearly the whole ot the last chapter ot t!ie book is missing in the codex (XI), but their apparattis includes readings from every other part. The relation of the text of N to that of the Hexapla is not a simple one. In Ezr.-Xeh. it is plainly based on Origen's : in I Esdras and Chron., on the other hand, it differs so widely as to make one ot two suppositions necessary: either it represents an intermediate stage between the older and more correct text ot A and the type selected by Origen ; or else, it is eclectic. It usually contains old and relatively correct readiuifs. but is plainly related everywhere to tbe Origen text in a way that is not true of cod. A and its nearest relatives. I have not made any thorough examination, and so cannot speak with confidence. •-In codex S- the "second" corrector iSC^^ ^^. of tliva>6. -13 Such harmless correction of Thedotion's unnecessary transliteration occurs spora dically in all of the MSS. Thus in I Chron. 2 : 53 B has ir6Aets laeip, while A retains Kaptafltaetp. ^¦1 Presumably ev from w, as occasionally elsewhere. <5 How it is possible for a scholar who has both commented on the books of Chronicles and edited their Hebrew text to say (as quoted above) : " B hat . . . . im ganzen den besseren Text, auch bei den Namen," when it is everywhere as clear as daylight that the difference between the readings of A and B, in Swete's apparatus, is a difference due simply to inner-Greek corruption, and that A has. or approximates to, the very forms from which those of B were corrupted, passes my comprehension. Textual Criticism op Chronicles-Ezra-Nehemiah 99 I Esdr. 5:66, A, Aa^aaapeO, the original (corrupt) reading of the I Esdr. fragment; B, N, Aa-^aKa<})a6; and this still more corrupt form stood in the Hexapla, as is shown by the Syriac and Ethiopic versions. I Esdr. 8 : 7, A, E?/3a? ; B, A-^apa^ ( ! ) ; so also the Syr.-Hex. and the Eth. (with a slight variation). Cf. the form found in B in 9:46. I Esdr. 8:31. Por v, in 4:16(10) ; in the former case against all other witnesses, and in the latter against all but the faithful codex 55. On the other hand, the Syriac agrees with X against B in the passages 8:2, Kal eo)?; 8:9, ol avveTi^ovTe';; ibid., fjKovaev; 8:10, pepiBaAA, antedates the branching-off of the Syrian tradition; in other respects L has here kept the original reading. In general, the best MSS of the Egyptian family present a homogeneous text which has been very little revised. By compar ing them among themselves, with the help of the massoretic Hebrew, we can usually flnd our way back to the very words of Theodotion. The aid of L can never be dispensed with, however. and in a good many cases it is our sole Greek witness to the true reading. It is sometimes the case, to be sure, that even with the testimony of both recensions before us we are at a loss to flnd the 48 Based on a slightly different Hebrew text? The rpels suggests niB5115 + DSblB ; the word nbOTSLS] is apparently in another place; nblSTl is not translated in either version. This added rendering makes it still more certain, by the way, that in the first clause of vs. 17 the original reading was DT^b , and not D*^*!??! (the H came from the last letter of the preceding word). Our modern translators, editors, and commentators appear not to have noticed this. *' Ou the possibility that this was the translation of Symmachus, see below. Textual Criticism op Chronicles-Ezra-Nehemiah 105 original. With L alone, on the other hand, we should be very badly off. Unless it is constantly controlled by the Egyptian text it is very difficult to put it to any critical use. Along both of these main lines of tradition there has been a good deal of accidental corruption of the text, the greater part of which is easy to trace. The only type of text in which this corruption has gone very far is, as has been shown, Origen's own "Septuagint." The relation of the A group to the B group is in all other respects a close one; see, for an illustration, Neh. 12:376-38, where a long passage is wanting in ABii , though present in many cursives as well as in the L text. It formed a part of the Theodotion version, as the davvovpeip, shows (cf. 8:11). That is, the codex which was the ancestor of both A and the MS which Origen took as the basis of his text had accidentally lost this passage. Among the cursives of the Egyptian family which deserve close attention, cod. 56 and (especially) the Aldine MS 121'" are conspicuous for the extent to which they have preserved the original readings of the Theodotion version. 5. The Syrian Tradition, the Lucian Recension, and our L Text How wide an influence the Syro-Palestinian text exerted during its early history, while it represented merely a divergent form of the Greek tradition, we do not know. We do not even know whether it was ever a relatively correct text." We know simply that it preserved a good many old readings which were lost or changed in the more widely current version. It presumably deteriorated gradually, like its fellows, until the time when it was made the basis of that thoroughgoing recension which has survived to the present day. Near the end of the third century a. d., Lucian of Antioch undertook a revision of the Greek Old Testament. The few facts which are known in regard to this Syrian editor have often been rehearsed; and the reasons why our L text is commonly supposed (and doubtless rightly) to be identical with Lucian's recension are also familiar. °'^ Even the bare comparison of the citations from Theodoret, given in Holmes and Parsons, would lead one to the 50 This codex sometimes shows a close affinity with the L MSS, it is to be observed. 51 The old Latin translation of I Esdras gives us some information on this point, to be sure ; see below. 62 See Swete, Introduction, pp. 80-86. 106 Ezra Studies conclusion that L is an Antiochian text ; while the fact that it rep resents not a growth but an arbitrary revision is patent enough. Occasionally in descriptions, and commonly in actual use, our L text is treated as though it were identical, or nearly identical, with the text of the Syro-Palestinian tradition. Thus Swete {Introduction, p. 379) , in dealing with the Old Testament text used by Josephus, speaks of a probability that in certain of the historical books "the Greek Bible of Palestine during the second half of the first century presented a text not very remote from that of the recension which emanated from Antioch early in the fourth." But this is by no means the true state of the case. The version as reconstructed by Lucian bears about the same relation to the one on which it was based as a thoroughly remodeled, renewed, and enlarged house bears to its smaller original. In every part of the structure, a great many of the old beams, boards, stones, and other materials have been replaced by new ones, new fabric has everywhere been superadded to the old, and the fashion of the whole has been changed. The following classes of altera tions characterize the Lucian recension: 1. The text has been extensively conformed to the massoretic Hebrew, (a) The plus of MT is freely inserted; not consistently —nothing is done consistently in the L recension — but as a rule. Thus I Chron. 26:16, 17; Ezr. 9:13; 10:3; Neh. 2:1, 8; 8:9; 11:28; these being merely single examples ofwhat takes place in every chapter. (6) The Greek text is very frequently corrected according to the Hebrew. The original reading of the Greek is changed from singular to plural, or vice versa, in order to conform to MT. Words which appear to be out of agreement with the Hebrew are often dropped, and their places are taken by transla tions of MT. So, for instance, in Ezr. 9:8, 5. 2. The Greek has been very much contaminated from other Greek texts. These include: (o) The parallel or duplicate accounts. Thus, a great many of the original readings of the L I Esdras have been discarded, their places being filled by the readings of the canonical version. In like manner, the readings of the parallel passages in the other historical books are adopted whenever they happen to be preferred. That is, for example, the reader of the L version of Chronicles must everywhere be prepared to find that the word or phrase with which he is dealing has simply been transplanted thither from Genesis, or Samuel, or Kings. Textual Criticism op Chronicles-Ezra-Nehemiah 107 {b) Readings found in any part of the Old Testament may be sub stituted for those of Theodotion in the interest of the harmonistic tendency. (c) Harmonizing alterations on the basis of the immediate context, usually very mischievous, are frequently made. Thus in I Esdr. 5:5 instead of 6 tov ZopofSa^eX L offers 6 Kal Zo/3o/3a/3eX. 8. One constant feature of the L recension is its conflation from various sources. Side by side with Theodotion's rendering, in these books, we very often have that of some other translator, or an extract from a parallel passage. Some of these secondary renderings are derived from the other Hexaplar versions; some are doubtless the work of Lucian himself; still others are of unknown origin. For characteristic examples see I Chron. 22:8; Ezr. 9:13; Neh. 4:10 (2), 27 (17); 6:10. Often a correction stands beside the word it was intended to correct, as in I Chron. 4:22. Occasionally a long passage is repeated in varying form, as in I Esdr. 1:96-13, where the I Esdras and Chronicles accounts are put side by side. Not infrequently the translation of our MT is accompanied by the rendering of a manifest corrup tion of it, as in Neh. 2:6, 8. It would be interesting to search for traces of the work of Aquila and Symmachus among these double renderings, whether they are found in L or in other recensions or manuscripts of these books. Sometimes, though probably not often, the identification would be possible. In Neh. 5:18 (L), Oiirca? iKTivd^ai 6 0eo? <7vv irdvTa dvBpa o? ov aT-qaei avv Tbv Xoyov tovtov k.t.X., where the aiiv • ¦ ¦ ¦ avv, representing inSi " " ' ' HS , is not in the ordinary Greek, it seems certain that we have an extract from the translation of Aquila. In 18:25 (L) the verb ipaBdpaaa (other wise unknown) looks like an imitation of the Hebrew t:"i/::S (not rendered here by Theodotion) on the basis of the verb paBi^eiv, "make bald." If this is really its origin, it is presum ably a coinage of Aquila, whose fondness for such new creations is well known. ^' The hand of Symmachus is pretty certainly to be seen in the double rendering of HrTJ in the Hexaplar text (S, B, but not the Syr.-Hex.) of Neh. 1:3, iv tt, x'opa iv Ty iroXei. 53 On the basis of this verb-form in Neh. 13:25, Klostermann (Bealencycl., loc. cit.) would emend the impossible " eiraXW^i.,^ " in Ezr. 9 : 3, .5 to ip.ciSa.p^M" 1 On the contrary, the Hebrew word which corresponds there is IJiy^ , " my outer garment," and we must read iu both verses to ttolKXiov p.ov. 108 Ezra Studies We know that Symmachus would have been likely to substitute TTo'Xt? for the older rendering X'^P'^i ^o^" ^® makes this very same correction in I Kings 20:14 and Dan. 8:2. The secondary trans lation in II Chron. 33:14 (the passage already discussed above), where bsyfl is rendered by Tb dBvTov — the doublet this time also occurring not in L but in certain Egyptian MSS — suggests Symmachus, though I do not know that it is possible to say more than this. In I Sam. 5:9 Symmachus renders D"'bsy by KpvTrrd, and he is the only one of the translators to interpret the root bsy in this way. In Neh. 3:15, where MT has rib^ij , and the ordi nary Egyptian text reads tuv kcoBlcov,^* codex 5i has, instead, 6e TOV liXmap,. This certainly appears to be an ascription to Theo dotion, as Klostermann has observed. Whether it is a correct ascription or not is another question, but the possibility can hardly be denied. In that case we should have to suppose that a rendering corresponding to our MT has supplanted the original one here. 4. Alterations merely in the interest of literary quality and completeness, or to suit the editor's dogmatic or other preferences, are everywhere abundant. These include: (a) The removal (usual, but not invariable) of Theodotion's transliterations, which are accordingly replaced by translations. For examples, see the list above, {b) The free revision of difficult phrases, often to the extent of changing their meaning and completely obscuring their relation to the original Semitic. A characteristic example is I Esdr. 4:39, where instead of the exactly rendered, but dis turbing, Aramaic idiom, Ta BiKaia Troiel d-rrb irdvTcov tmv dBiKWV, "she executes judgment on all the wicked," the L text has BUaia TTOiei, Kal (XTTo TrdvTtov TOiv dBiKcuv aTrexeTat. So in 5:6 L alters TOV TrpcoTOv p,rivoTy tov p.r]v6<;) into Ta TvpdiTW prjvi. Or in 2:17 (14) where the ordinary text has vabv inro^dXXovTai — in MT ItJTl^ !J<^T2J5< — L has "improved" the reading to vabv vwep^dXXovTa 6ep,eXiovaiv. Or in II Chron. 2:12 (18), rbv iralBd pov substituted for Tbv iraTepa p,ov. (c) Supplementary and interpretative additions, composed freely ad hoc. These are also very, numerous, and every one of them is a trap for the unwary text-critic who wishes to advance science by giving new Hebrew 5*This word is a veritable translation of nbffl (cf. the Aramaic SPlblB, "hide"), and is by no means to be altered into ^oMSuv, as Klostermann proposes on the basis of the ren dering in 4:17(11). Textual Criticism of Chronicles-Ezra-Nehemiah 109 readings from "Lucian." For example, in II Chron. 18:19 the narrative runs as follows: 'Yahw6 said to his heavenly retainers. Who will mislead Ahab? One proposed one thing, and another another.' At this point L adds: Kal elirev, Outcd? oi; Sw^cret;" "But Yahw6 said. You will not succeed in this way." Compare vs. 21. In Neh. 4:86 (vs. 18 in the L Greek) just after the word DiT'33'J , L has Kal apKiaa avTov:; Kvpiov Xeyav, a purely arbitrary insertion in the Greek. There are many such examples, besides a good many cases in which the addition of a word or two has been made with interpretative intent. Thus, the words "to Jeru salem," Neh. 8:1; "of Benjamin," 11:8; the name "Ezra" in 8:18; see also I Esdr. 4:13, 48, 61; 5:5; Neh. 12:1, etc. Such interjected vocatives as "O king!" I Esdr. 4:43; "0 Lord!" 4:60, are of course to be expected. And finally, a characteristic example is afforded by the close of I Esdras. In the original fragment, the end was reached in the middle of a sentence; but in the L text this inelegant conclusion is improved by the addition of a verse (Neh. 8:13) from the canonical version. ((/) The substitution of synonyms. This well-known and com paratively harmless peculiarity of the L recension needs no illustration. So much for the deliberate alterations undertaken by the Lucianic revision. As for the accidental corniption which the Syro-Palestinian Greek text had already undergone in the process of its transmission, before suffering this very extensive editorial transformation, it is sufficient to say that it does not appear to have been different, in kind or degree, from that which befell the standard Egyptian text. In general, the amount of this accidental corruption is much underestimated by those who h ave made use of Lagarde's edition."'^ Klostermann {loc. cit., p. 508) even finds in some of it the evidence of differing dialects: "Wenigstens ist es kein Zufall, wenn die dentale Tenuis durch Sibilans ersetzt 55 Lagarde edits — wrongly, as I believe — (cat elirev outhjs Ou Sw-r/aet. 3' It is true, in general, ot the modern use of the Greek Bible for text-critical purposes that recourse is had far too often to the hypothesis of divergent Hebrew texts, while there is tar too little appreciation of the extent to which the Greek texts themselves have bepu corrupted in transmis^ion. It is generally taken for granted, moreover (see, e.g., Benzinger's remark on the Greek MSS of Kings, in the introduction to his Comm.) that the text which diverges most from MT is the oldest and most important. But this is a criterion which has no value unless it is supplemented by exact information as to the quality of individual MSS and the nature of translations and recensions. Codex B and the L text, for instance, usuallj show the greatest divergence from MT, and in both cases the divergence means, as a rule, merely perversion ot the older readings, which (more nearly agreeing with MT) are tound in other MSS. 110 Ezra Studies wird, wie anTa (t^ti'^tlH), aTrjp, TeXp^mv, bei Luc, durch a^i^a, ai^rjp, aeXp,a)v." But this is a mistake. These are scribal blunders of a very common order, which abound also in the MSS of the ordinary text, and especially (of course) in B and its fellows. These facts make it plain that the Greek published by Lagarde is not at all "the old Greek Bible of Palestine," and often bears little resemblance to it. It is in part a mixed text which is the result of an eclectic process, and in part a text arbitrarily con structed de novo; besides all the accidental deterioration which it has suffered. The fact cannot be emphasized too strongly that L in Chron.-Ezr.-Neh., when it differs from the ordinary Greek, usually does not represent anotiier Hebreio tcrt. It is mainly, of course, a translation of the Hebrew which lay before Theodotion. But this Heb. text almost everywhere agreed with our MT; more over, the translation is very well preserved in the Egyptian MSS, and it is only rarely that L can improve upon their readings. It would presumably almost never be the case that a correct reading preserved only in L would happen also to represent a divergence in Theodotion's Hebrew. The doublet readings in L, whether Hexa plaric or not, are, as a rule, derived either from our MT or from a manifestly corrupt form of it. Really helpful corrections of MT are extremely rare. One is to be found in Neh. 11:17, tov aivov for nbnrin ; undoubtedly derived from another Hebrew text, since Jerome's Latin makes the same correction. But in the most of the cases where L presents variant readings which sound plau sible, we are not by any means at liberty to suppose that these were derived from a Hebrew text; on the contrary, they are pretty certain to be arbitrary improvements, of one kind or another, in the Greek itself. It follows, that emendation of MT on the basis of L alone is almost never permissible in these books ; never, in fact, except for the strongest reasons. All this is obvious enough ; and yet our Old Testament scholars, in using the L text of Chron. -Ezr.-Nch., treat it habitually as though it represented a Hebrew text of its own. Thus Kittel," 5^ Kittel. in his Biblia Hebraica, recently published, constantly includes in his notes at the foot of the page Hebrew readings given on the solo authority of L. If these "variant readings" are to haye any significance at all in his apparatus, they must be supposed actually to have stood in a Hebrew text and to have been rendered by thia Greek. But of the great majority of them this is not true. They are mere excrescences on the Greek, due either to the irresponsible reviser or else to obvious errors of Greek transcribers. Nothing corresponding to them ever stood in any Hebrew text of the Chronicler's work. I have observed one case, Neh. 11 ; 8, in which MT can be emended in accordance with a reading peculiar to L; but even here it may be that the oi iSeK^oi airov came from a happy con- Textual Criticism of Chronioles-Ezra-Nehemiah 111 in his several works on Chron.; Benzinger,'*' in his commentary on Chronicles; Bertholet, Comm. on Ezr.-Neh., and others. Siee- fried, Conmi. on Ezr.-Neh., does not pay much attention to the examination of the text. Allied to the Lagarde text, but plainly not belonging to it, is the old Latin translation of I Esdras. This was made from the Syro-Palestinian Greek some time before the Lucianic revi sion; presumably in the second century a. d., since it is cited by Cyprian. In this version we really have a representative of the old Syro-Palestinian text, and the aid which it gives is important. The many additions, corrections, and conflations introduced by Lucian do not appear in it.™ Its text has come down to us in several slightly differing forms, which need to be re-examined. The L Greek text, then, is an instrument only to be used with the utmost caution. It is true that even in Chron.-Ezr.-Neh. it contains a good deal of valuable material, not found elsewhere; but this is much less in amount, and far more difficult to secure, than is commonly supposed. The quest of it is not quite the search for two grains of wheat in two bushels of chaff, for in this case the material in which it is imbedded has also a certain value of its own — but only when its origin and true character are under stood. The folly of "criticizing" our MT by the use of a Greek text which has itself not been criticized at all is nowhere more striking than in the present-day use of Lagarde's edition. The rule usually adopted appears to be: Take any Greek reading jecture and not from any real Hebrew reading. For examples of this mistaken use, see his notes on I Chron. 1:41 (where the Greek must originally havo beenTdsTrTjyas ayeCpov cKet,, and its Heb. = exactly our MT ), 5:20 (of course either efiori[^e-q)iiav or e;3oi)[9^9i)](ra>'), 9:37; 12:24; 13:1 (two places); 16:30 (the second half -verse transferred bodily from the Greek of Ps. 96:10!); 21:20 (see below) ; 24:24 (contamination from 23:20); II Chron. 7:20; 9: 29 ( 1) ; 18:2, 29 (both of these conformed to the parallels in Kings) ; 22:6; 25:1; 27:4; 33:2; Ezra 4:23; 10:3,24; Neh. 9:6, 32 ( !) ; 13:1,9. In general, the apparatus of this Biblia Hebraica in Cbron.-Ezr.-Neh. consists largely of information which is quite worthless for its intended purpose. The "LXX" notes have rarely any significance for the Hebrew text. In the L version of IChron. 9:31, for instance, we have a bit of corrupt Greek side by side with its correct original. Why include such stuff here? Or why print in II Chron. 2:13 " LXX. -{- ical iiif>aCveiv," when it is obvious at the first glance that the verb had its origin in a blundering dittography of the first letters of the following Hebrew word? Plain blunders of Greek copyists are also recorded, as in IChron. 7:8 (twice). The apparatus of a Hebrew Bible (and a reprint of MT at that !) is not the place to study the perform^inces of third-rate Greek scribes, interesting as the stady might be under other circumstances. 5SSee, for example, his comments on I Chron. 2;lSf. ; 3:22: 11:1,8 (irepie^ioio-a to; ct. Ex. 22:18), 11 (contamination from II Sam. 23: S), 22; 15:13(1); II Chron. 2:12; 35:3. 59Such as those in 1:9-12; 2:17 (18) ; 4:13,39,43,48,60,61; 5:fi— togive only the examples which have already beeu mentioned. The incomplete sentence at the end of the I Esdras fragment is filled out in the Latin, but not in the same way as in the Lucian Greek. 112 Ezra Studies which seems useful, no matter whence it comes. Thus it happens that words due simply to copyists' blunders in the Greek, others which plainly resulted from a corrupt form of our MT, and read ings which a closer scrutiny would have shown to be merely later doublet renderings of the same text, are all laid under contribution, and new and strange Hebrew phrases, said to correspond to them, are forthwith constructed.™ Since the conglomerate L text offers so much that is not found elsewhere, it is naturally a mine for those who are not over particular. Klostermann, in the introduc tion to his commentary on the books of Samuel, quoted in Driver, Hebrew Text of the Books of Samuel, p. lii, has expressed him self as follows: "Let him who would advance science .... accustom himself above all things to the use of ... . Lagarde's edition of the recension of Lucian." Theoretically, this has some justiflcation — though it would be better to advise students to begin by learning to make a scientific use of the ordinary Greek text; in practice, there has thus far been little use made of the L text in any part of the Old Testament which has tended notice ably to advance science. Not one in twenty of all the " emendations" of the Hebrew text hitherto made on the basis of Lucian readings will survive any critical examination. And the opportunities of doing harm through uncritical methods are much more numerous here than elsewhere. I would suggest instead this maxim: Let him who would advance science keep away as far as possible from 60 To give a few characteristic examples: In I Chron. 21:20 the Chronicler wrote D^i^^nn^ , as is attested both by MT and by Theodotion's transliteration (see above). The Hebrew word presents no difficulty whatever in its context. Theodotion's transliteration was replaced (as usual) in some MSS by the translation Kpv^6p.evoi.. In L this was cor rupted (possibly under the influence of the Greek of II Sam. 24:20, 5ta7rop6vo/x€covs,= Qin33?, though the word there stands in an altogether different clause, and refers to other persons) to TTopeudjiiecot. On the basis of this reading Klostermann emends to D"'D5nri^ ( I not an equivalent of -iTopev6p.evoi, nor graphically similar to MT, nor at all suited to this context), which is approved by Kittel, Polychrome Bible and Comm. In Kittel's Biblia Hebraica there is a note : " Read with L and II Sam. D"^^!iy ," a specimen of textual criticism which could hardly be surpassed. One of the flrst emendations made by Guthe, in his Polychrome Ezra and Nehemiah, is an insertion in the text of Ezr. 1 : 3, on the sole basis of a reading in the Lucian I Esdras. But no one who is well acquainted with the L recension could doubt for a moment that its OS Trpoi^UjLLeiTat ToO jropev^ffvai (2: 3) is a free editorial insertion in the Greek. In Neh. 4:17. where the Hebrew reads Qlian IFlbli) Ifi'is (D'^TOn a corruption of IT^S cf. II Chron. 23:10), the L Greek has a characteristic double translation ko'i avSpcL ov aTTeaTe\,\ov cttI to iiSiap, avTjp Kai oir^ov avTOv eis to vfiwp. Guthe actually turns this two fold nonsense into Hebrew, inserting also an ^Tt3i5 and the two prepositions 51? and 5i5 , and substitutes it tor MT I Kittel also prints this newly made Hebrew in his critical appa ratus, and Bertholet (Comm.) mentions it with respect. These are merely typical instances, of three different kinds, one from each of the three books. The list could be extended to include nearly all of the modern " critical " use of L in Chron,-Ezr.-Neh. Textual Criticism op Chronicles-Ezra-Nehemiah 113 critical operations with the Lucian recension until he has learned what it is and how to use it. There is one purpose, however, for which the attention of scholars really needs to be directed to the L text at once, and that is, for the study of the Greek itself. There is doubtless much to be learned from it as to the history of both Hebrew original and the Greek versions, especially the Hexaplar, as well as in regard to the primitive readings of the Syro-Palestinian recension. And one of the first important undertakings of the criticism of the Greek Old Testament should be the reconstruction, so far as it is possible, of Theodotion's translation of Chron.-Ezr.-Neh. V. THE critical PROCESS IN RESTORING THE SEMITIC TEXT In investigating the Hebrew-Aramaic text of these books, in the part of the history covered by I Esdras, the process (after making sure of the traditional reading) must always be the following. 1. Ascertain the Egyptian Greek text of the canonical recen sion. Swete's edition usually (though not always) suffices for this purpose ; and when it is used, the reading of codex A must always he given the presumption of superiority over that of codices B and i< . 2. Compare the Syrian text (Lagarde's edition) of the same book, bearing in mind its treacherous character. By the com parison we can reach approximately the original reading of Theodotion's version. 8. By comparing (a) the reading thus gained with (6) the Latin version of Jerome, and then with (c) the massoretic text, we can approximate to — and in most cases reach with certainty — the Heb. -Aram, text which was selected, edited,"' and made norma tive by the Jewish scholars at the beginning of the second ¦century A. d. 4. Ascertain the reading of the Egyptian Greek text of I Esdras, using for this purpose (o) the text of A and the allied cursives, with which must be compared the witnesses to the Hexaplar Greek, including (6) codex B, (c) the Syriac of Paul of Telia, and (d) the Ethiopic version. 5. Compare the Syro-Palestinian I Esdras, using (a) Lagarde's -Greek (with the greatest caution, since this particular recension 61 See above, pp. 34 and 88. 114 Ezra Studies has not only suffered the usual "Lucianic" alterations, but has also been very extensively contaminated from the canonical Ezra), (6) the old Latin version, and (c) the text preserved by Josephus in his Antiquities. By thus comparing the Syrian with the Egyptian readings of I Esdras it is usually possible to gain the true text of the old Greek translation of Chron.-Ezr.-Neh., which was probably made shortly before the middle of the second century B. C. 6. Kegain the Heb.-Aram. text from which this translation was made; and attempt, through comparison of this with the text of the second century A. D., to restore the words originally written by the Chronicler, or found by him in the sources which he used. In reasoning from the old Greek version to the Semitic text which lay behind it, one must bear in mind that this translation, while truly a "close" one, is considerably more free than the later renderings; also, that the Greek text has been much longer exposed to accidental corruption than that of Theodotion's version. Many readings which seem to point to variation in the Semitic original are really due to changes which have taken place in the Greek itself. And flnally, in comparing the two parent Semitic texts with each other, some account must be taken of their relative correctness, so far as any general estimate is possible. V THE FIKST CHAPTEE OF EZKA IN ITS OEIGINAL FOKM AND SETTING I have shown in one of the previous chapters (see above, pp. 26 ff., 83 f.) that our canonical book of Ezra is a mutilated recension, made by cutting out the (interpolated) Story of the Three Youths together with a part of the Chronicler'' s own narra tive which had been so firmly welded to it by a redactor as now to seem inseparable from it. I have also given (above, pp. 50-56) a translation of the Story of the Three Youths in its primitive form, and also of the two small "patches" which were composed by the interpolator (pp. 57, 59) ; it now remains to restore this portion of the Chronicler's history to its original condition, printing it as it stood in the latter part of the third century b. c, before the story was interpolated. The complete accomplishment of this task involves the retrans- lation, from Greek into Hebrew, of an extended passage which is now extant only in our "First Esdras." Such retranslations are rarely worth while, for they can never reproduce the exact word ing of the original, and hardly ever give much real assistance in the cases where there is no Semitic text by which they can be controlled. The present case is peculiar, however, in that the Chronicler is the writer, and the matters with which he is deal ing are nearly all such as he has dealt with repeatedly elsewhere. No other writer in all the Old Testament shows so little variation, in his choice of material and in his literary style, as the Chroni cler; his mannerisms, stock phrases, lexical and grammatical peculiarities, and favorite subjects, are everywhere conspicuous and easily recognized. That is, we do have in this case original Semitic texts by which the translation can be controlled. Nearly everything which stands in this Greek fragment can be more or less easily paralleled from other parts of the Chronicler's work. When to this is added the fact that the Greek here is well pre served and its meaning nowhere obscure, while we know it to be in general a faithful rendering, it will be seen that a Hebrew text can be restored concerning which it is possible to feel some con- 115 116 Ezra Studies fidence that it everywhere stands near to what the Chronicler himself wrote. For this reason, and also for the sake of demon strating in this most tangible way that I Esdr. 4:476-56, 62 — 5:9 is a rendering from the Hebrew, and from the Hebrew of the Chronicler, I have undertaken the retranslation. Without this last step, my demonstration, as such, would be defective. The portion of the Chronicler's history here printed and trans lated includes II Chron. 36:20, 21; Ezra 1:1-11; I Esdras 4:476-56, 62, 63; 5:1-6; Ezra 2:l-3a. This all I believe to be the work of the Chronicler's own hand, written originally in this order, and substantially in the form here presented. Evidence of this, beyond what has already been given, will appear in the notes appended to the Hebrew text. There is no break in the narrative, nor does anything appear to be missing — unless possibly the subject of the verb in I Esdr. 4 : 62. The proof of the Chronicler's authorship of the sections now extant only in I Esdr. is abundant and of every variety, including the constant emphasis laid upon those things which the Chronicler alone, of all O. T. writers, makes prominent ; the recurrence of his favorite phrases, in just the forms which he habitually employs ; the use of words and constructions found elsewhere only in his writings ; and the plain traces of his unique style, seen even in this Greek disguise. Moreover, the manner in which this section fills the gap between the first two chapters of Ezra is proof of the strongest kind, as I have shown in detail elsewhere (above, pp. 25-28). I have made the extract begin at II Chron. 86:20, instead of vs. 22, for two reasons. In the first place, vs. 22 ( = Ezra 1:1) contains a reference to the quotation in vs. 21, which ought there fore to be included, together with vs. 20, which introduces it. And in the second place, the end of II Chron. and the beginning of Ezra, originally written in one piece without any break, have never been printed continuously, so far as I know ; and it is highly desirable that this portion of the Chronicler's history should for once appear in its primitive form. Most scholars now profess to believe that Ezra, chap. 1 was written by the Chronicler in con tinuation of II Chron., chap. 86, but in their mode of dealing with the two "books" they persistently deny the fact' It very rarely happens that the same man writes a commentary on both Chronicles 1 In Kautzsch's Heilige Schrift des A. T., the fact that the order ot the Hebrew canon is followed is no sufficient excuse for printing Ezra before Chronicles. The First Chapter of Ezra 117 and Ezra-Nehemiah, or even makes a careful study of both of these divisions of the history. The commentator on Ezra-Nehemiah finishes his work without troubling himself to examine I and II Chron., and vice versa— as though one should comment on half of the book of Ezekiel without closely examining the other half. The present misunderstanding of Ezr.-Neh. is due in no small measure to this traditional blunder of method. The occurrence of the passage Ezr. l:l-3a in two places is recognized as the result of an arbitrary rearrangement of the history, made long after the Chronicler's day;^ but one scholar after another treats the passage, in either place, as though he had a lingering feeling that it was actually written twice over by its author, or else, that it was "taken over" from one book into another. The climax, in this regard, seems to me to be reached by Kittel, in his edition of the Hebrew text of Chronicles for the Polychrome Bible, where he prints this passage in light red (the color used for sections "derived from passages preserved in our present O. T."!), thus obscuring as completely as possible the true state of the case. It will hardly be superfiuous, therefore, to print the verses for once in their original context.^ 2 The verses in question were not, as the textbooks say, "added to the end of Chronicles" (as though the book had ever had another ending 1). Whoever first cut off the Ezr.-Neh. portion made it begin at II Chron. 36: 22 because with this verse Cyrus and the new era were introduced. Then, when the preceding portion of the history was also set apart as a book by itself, it was made to overlap the other by a few sentences; not "in order to provide for the book an auspicious ending," but either in order to preserve evidence ot the tact that the two " books" were originally parts of the same whole, and that this was the point of their juncture, or else merely as the result of a copyist's carelessness. In the history of ancient literature there are some striking parallels of this latter kind. Thus Freudenthal.B'enenisf- ische Studien, 1875, p. 200, speaking of the MS tradition of the works of Eusebius : " Wenn aber am Ende des ersten und zweiten Buches der praep. die langen Einleitungen zum zweiten und drittenBucheabgeschrieben, anersterStellesogarmitten im Satze abgebrochen werden, so wird man eine solche Plumpheit nicht Eusebios, sondern seinen Abschreibern zur Last legen. Sie ist aber in alle Handschritten eingedrungen, well alle Abschriften eines Urcodex sind." The reason why II Chron. ends with the word by"! , without finishing the sentence, may be either that this is the first possible stopping- place after the mention ot Cyrus, or else that this word happened to end the line, or the page, in the manuscript which first made the separation. 3 To illustrate further the current misinterpretation of the double occurrence of the two verses in question: Kittel, Biicher der Chronik (in Nowack's Handkommentar), p. 178, on II Chron. 36:22 f., writes: "DieWorte finden sich wOrtlich auch als Anfang des kanon- ischen Buchs Esr. 1 : l-3a. Einheit des Verf assers beider Bucher .... f olgt d a r a u s noch nicht. Wie beliebt diese Worte .... waren, zeigt auch III Esr. 2 : 1 ff., ohne dass man dar ans weitergehende Schliisse Ziehen dart. Seine ursprhngliche Stelle hat das Sthck (wie das Abbrechen mitten im Satze Esras durch den Chronisten zeigt) bei Esra, mag es nun durch den Chronisten selbst oder einen Spateren hierher gekommen sein." And in the Introduction, p. vi: "Immerhin kann es als bedeutsam angesehen werden, dass diese alten ErgSnzer sich f ttr ihren Zweck [viz. the purpose of giving the book of Chron. a propitious ending] geradeore das Buch Esra wandten" (the italics are mine). It would be difficult to give more misinformation in this amount ot space. I have quoted the passages somewhat fully because they represent a view which is widely held. 118 Ezra Studies A word in regard to the punctuation of the Hebrew text which here follows. Punctuation is as indispensable in Semitic as in English or any other language, and it is time that some usable system were adopted for our editions of Old Testament writings. Unpointed and unpunctuated Hebrew selections are occa sionally useful — just as unpointed Greek texts are often used — for pedagogic purposes ; but when the books of the Old Testament are intended not for classroom drill, but for the multitude who read them for the sake of their contents, to leave them without punctuation is to leave them half edited. So long as the masso retic text is left untouched, one can make a shift of using the division of clauses and phrases made by the "accents;" since these, though always inexact and often misleading, may be used as a poor substitute for a system of punctuation. But the accents are not always correctly placed; and, what is worse, it is not pos sible to rearrange them at pleasure. It occasionally happens, for example, that the massoretic verse-division is incorrect. This does not, however, justify any modern scholar in moving the sof pdsiiq (I) to another place. The sof pdsiiq belongs to a compli cated and very carefully wrought system, in which the disarrange ment of any one part affects the rest. A Hebrew text in which the verse-dividers are shifted, while the remaining massoretic accents are left as they were before, is a monstrosity. The same is true of the attempt to shift the other accents. It often happens that the chief pause within the verse, marked in the traditional punctuation by the athnachtd {^), has been wrongly indicated, through misunderstanding of the text. But moving the athnachtd to another place is like altering music by moving an occasional bar one or two notes forward or back. The massoretic notation was made for all time, and ought not to be tampered with. To endeavor to make use of it in our modern emended texts of the Old Testament is to attempt the impossible — and the undesirable. It would be an ill-advised proceeding, moreover, to retain a few of these signs (such as the sof pdsiiq, the athnachtd, and the zdqef), using them in the place of modern punctuation marks; first, because they are not at all adapted to such use, and second, because they already have a distinct use of their own, for which it is important that they should be kept.* They are historically *The athnachta, for example, properly belongs in the middle of Gen. 1:1; but there is no place there for punctuation in our sense of the term. The First Chapter op Ezra 119 of real value, and — ^like the rest of the massoretic notation — will continue to be useful for purposes of reference.^ But they ought to be an occasional help, not a perpetual encumbrance. Next to a Hebrew grammar constructed on modern scientific principles, the chief desideratum of Old Testament studies at the present day is an O. T. text printed and punctuated in a way suited to the needs of modern readers and scholars. Not primarily an emended text, or at least, not altered from the massoretic except in the comparatively small number of cases where both the corruption and the remedy are practically certain ; but one in which the page is freed from the mass of bewildering and unnecessary "points" and "accents," and some use, in the way of punctuation, is made of the Hebrew studies which have been pursued since the early Middle Ages.' Since the Old Testament writings are now, and presumably always will be, cited by chapter and verse ; and since these com positions are, in fact, made up of comparatively short sentences, with which the present "verses" are generally intended to corre spond; it is important that the end of the verse should be very distinctly marked. I have therefore chosen the sign 0 for this purpose. The simple period (.) can then be used for the full stop within the verse, wherever this is necessary. For the divi sion of the sentence into its component parts, the reversed comma (<) and semicolon (;) will usually suffice. 5 To be sure, their original and proper use, as a system ot musical notation, is now not understood at all. As for their serving to divide clauses and phrases, it must be admitted that they do it very poorly; indeed, they are in their nature incompatible with any strict divisioa according to the requirements of sense and rhetoric. Por instance, they divide as a rule dichotomously, whether the sentence is thus constructed or not. Punctuation marks should show to the eye the logical relation of the members of the sentence or period ; this the massoretic notes rarely can do. It one should set the first chapter ot Genesis to music, and then print the English text without punctuation proper, but use for that purpose the bars and double-bars of the music printed above each line, the result would be much like what we have throughout our O. T. 6 The Biblia Hebraica recently edited by a number of scholars under the general super vision of Professor R. Kittel shows a curious mixture of the obsolete with the modern. It is half Massoretic Bible, and halt something else. It very properly leaves the last two words of I Sam. 10:27, lor example, where they are instead of making them the beginning of 11:1, as no one doubts that they originally were. And yet in every part of the O. T. which now happens to be recognized by these editors as poetry a separation into lines is made, such as would certainly have astonished the massoretes. This division is based on individ ual judgment, which is of course now and then mistaken; the separation of lines being made in the wrong place, or passages originally written as poetry (such as Isa. 44: 9-20) being here invidiously set apart as prose. All the bewildering rubbish of "accents" is retained, aud yet in the footnotes frequent proposals are made to shift these signs to other places, treating them as punctuation marks. If it was thought desirable to print the Massoretic Bible once more, would it not have been better to do simply that, leaving modern ideas and scholarship to be embodied in an edition of another sort, such as would be made in the case of any Greek classic ? 120 Ezra Studies THE CHKONICLEK'S NARRATIVE OF THE RETURN PROM THE EXILE iiggChron. ^^ vH^i ."b^^ bs jinn "a n^^isirn ^(d^i^s -jba) bj^)_ 36'" "33 nin^ "im nisbT^b'^ ©0^3 n^i^ba -p-a "ly D-'iayb rsabi .nriair naisn rj^ bD ^n^nininij ns ynxn nn^i ^y ,'^i!-i''7jn^ TT-T" - J T t: 0 " riDTi: D-'yznfl nisbab Ezra .rT-an^ '¦'Ba nin^ nm nibsb .c^s -jba ninisb mns riD^ni i' DjT inisba bin bip nnyi ;D"i3 -jba ffl"ib nin ns niri'' n-'yn ynsn nisbaa bD -.viz "jba uins nas ro' ©nasb nnsai n^n lb ntnb ^by ip3 sim ^'n^a^zin ^nbs nin^ 'b -jns ^I have inserted the words D^ITUD 1p'2 here, from the preced ing context, merely for convenience. ^ ban is of course the country Babylonia, not the city Babylon. ¦^The quotation from "Jeremiah" evidently includes the whole of the rest of the verse, not merely the next clause, or the next two clauses (as in Kautzsch's Heilige Schrift des A. T). The part relating to the "70 years" is found in Jer. 25:12; 29:10, while the remainder occurs in our Bible only in Lev. 26 : 34 f . ; cf. vs. 43. It is possible, but not probable, that the Book of Jeremiah in the form known to the Chronicler actually contained all this. What is much more likely is, that he made up the citation freely, without caring to be exact. The identity of the prediction in Leviticus with that in Jeremiah would seem to any exegete of his school to be assured by the designation of the period of exile as a "Sabbath," coupled with the significant four fold repetition of the number seven in vss. 18; 21, 24, and 28. Thus it would be quite natural to combine the two passages in a single loose "quotation," which was not intended to be direct, as the past tenses show. ''On the computation of the "seventy years," see Note A, at the end of this chapter. 'The evidence, including MT in II Chron. 36:22, strongly favors ¦'33 instead of "'Sa . •^Our massoretic text has the original reading here, that of I Esdr. is inferior. The Chronicler is especially fond of making these foreign kings apply to Yahw§ the simple title "God of Heaven;" thus, for example, 6:9, 10 (Darius II) ; 7:12, 21, 23 (Artaxerxes II). See also the note on the last words of vs. 3. The First Chapter of Ezra 121 Tjy rnbs ^n^ -na? bsa dsu ^a' ©rnin^a nirs Dbiri^^a .bsnii:^ -nbs nin^ n-'n ns p^i .mirr^a nius DbTuin^b "bT^ n^rs ni7jpan bsa .-isisDn biV ' ©'DbTuiT'a mas D^nbsn sin .narani "uj^nai nriTin qosa lapa -^icds ins^?- ,dti: ns sin ninsn --^s-i laip^v © ob^n-'a n\as D^nbsn n^ab nsiDri dj ,inn ns d^-Ibsn n^yn 'bsb ,n^ibni D-Dnbni "la^jni rnirr^b ^The L text of I Esdr. adds at this point o? irpoOvp.eiTai TOV TTopevOrjvai, i. e., the interpretative expansion which is so eminently characteristic of this particular recension. See above, pp. 108, 112. Guthe, in the Polychrome Bible, translates the words into Hebrew and inserts them in his text ; a strange pro ceeding. ''At this point the book II Chron. ends. 'Guthe {op. cit.) says of these last four words that they "give prima facie the impression of a gloss." One wonders to whom they could give such an impression, and what manner of man it could be who would append such a "gloss" as this. No one could be so likely to write these words as the Chronicler himself. The comparison of these verses, 2 and 3, with the beginning of the letter of Artaxerxes II, Ezr. 7:12-15, is interesting. There, also, the king is made by the Chronicler to employ first the term "God of Heaven," and then on the next occasion to vary this with "the God of Israel, whose dwelling is in Jerusalem." ''TUim "goods" is of course not to be "emended" to TIJm , merely because I Esdr. happens to mistranslate it in vs. 6 (here in vs. 4 there is a double rendering). 123151 is a favorite word with the Chronicler, and is exactly what is needed here, between the "silver and gold" and the "beasts" (which here meant riding- beasts, cf. Neh. 2:12, 14). 'The characteristic use of the preposition b (= "namely") in bsb ought not to be misunderstood. It is exactly the same use which we find in classical Arabic (Wright, Grammar^, II, 151 C) , and is closely allied to its use with the object of the verb in the Aramaic dialects, and to the construction which is employed in 7:14 (see the note there). The meaning "with reference to" lies at the root of all these uses and those allied to them. This extended use of the preposition b, in a considerable variety of ways, is one of the most marked characteristics of the Chronicler's 122 Ezra Studies Dn^nxao bDi' ©ob-ian-'a iiss nin^ n^3 ns nisab nibyb nisT^aai "ms "0^212: D-:sbs -,cd ^nisD .Q^abTB anT ¦''ii3D n-aTjn 'TiDDbi DHTb "D^bD bD" ©-bs D-'ins D^bD nrn nr nz^vzn by mbiy "nibynbi^^ "This word does not happen to be used by the Chronicler out side this chapter; it is pretty certainly the one employed by him here, however. PCf. Dan. 2:10 {BvvdaTyt), 15; also Ezr. 4:20, etc. ¦^Cf. with these titles the list in vs. 47, and see the notes there. "^More likely than by, as the meaning is "enter with authority," rather than "attack" as an enemy. ^Cf. the use of the same verb, rendered by BiuKpaTovaiv, in the second half of the verse. 'With this clause cf. Ezr. 7:24 = 1 Esdr. 8:22, a passage also composed by the Chronicler. "I Chron. 27:25; cf. also Neh. 6:2. ^Undoubtedly the verbal noun which was used, though it is not found elsewhere in the Chronicler's writings. '^In I Esdr. Tb lepov is the standing equivalent of n^nbsn mD ; see for examples 1:8 (II Chron. 35:8); 7:7 (Ezr. 6:17); 8:13, 17, 22 ( = Ezr. 7:16, 19, 24); 8:59, 64 ( = Ezr. 8:30, 36); 8:78, 88(=Ezr. 9:9; 10:1); 9:l,6(=Ezr. 10:6, 9). The equivalent of bD"'n in I Esdr. is usually vao'i. "So also 8:19 (Ezr. 7:22), and cf. especially I Chron. 29:7. yCf. Neh. 10:35, 36, etc.; and see the note on nVD ni\ etc., in my Comp. of Ezr.-Neh., p. 25. For the trans., cf. I Esdr. 5:50; 6 : 29, KaO' yp,epav. ^The construction nlDSrib "ly is also possible — for the Chron icler, but for no other O. T. writer. See Driver's list (in his Introd. ) of constructions characteristic of the Chronicler, no. 38. But the finite verb — the usual construction — is more probable. "The Greek translator misunderstood this infinitive. He sup posed it to be a continuation of nnbl , vs. 51, and to be governed by nnD'^l , vs. 49 ; whereas it is, on the contrary, a continuation of "j^DZib , and dependent on nnb . The mistake was made all the easier by the position of the infinitive a"'lpnb , which the translator seems to have connected with the following words; see below. With KapTrovadai as the rendering of nibyn , cf . the The First Chapter of Ezra 127 bDb "Iim n^n-' nujsV' ©'nam nair Tay 'ninns npDD translation of nbiy by Kdpireop.a, Exod. 30:9; 40:6, 10, etc., and by Kdpirmaiis (sic). The Lucca codex {hagfivde, Seiitnagiidii-ShtdicnU, 14) has in 2:11 SUj4> UJ| , "2,000 dinars," Wright, Grammar, II, 236 B; cf. also Judg. 16:28, Am. 8:12, Gesenius- Kautzsch § 88/) and the bracketed letters were accidentally lost, by haplography, in the MS from which our MT was derived. The number of golden basins is given by MT as 30, by I Esdr. as 1,000 (the "thirty" of L was borrowed from the canonical Greek, as has been done in a multitude of similar cases). The amount of the total — in both recensions — turns the scale deci sively in favor of the number 1,000. I Esdras, then, has preserved the original numbers throughout, both in the separate items and in the sum total. When the text underlying MT was accidentally corrupted, the "total" was altered to a round number, 5,400. The number "thirty" for the golden basins, in vs. 9 of our Hebrew, was derived by an error from that of the golden bowls, in vs. 10 ; the eye of the copyist wandering from the word HHT to the 2,711 D'^lcbTU in the next line below. VI THE ARAMAIC PORTIONS OF EZRA I. THE CHARACTER OF THE "OFFICIAL DOCUMENTS" IN EZRA Imbedded in the book of Ezra are what purport to be copies of a number of royal and other official communications relating to the Jews, dating from the Persian period. These are: (1) The decree of Cyrus; or more exactly, that part of the decree which announces the purpose of Yahwfe, and encourages the Jews to return from Babylonia to Jerusalem; Ezr. 1:2-4. (2) The letter of Rehum and Shimshai to Artaxerxes Longimanus, urging him to stop the building of Jerusalem; 4:8-16. (3) The reply of the king, commanding that building operations be stopped; 4:17-22. (4) A letter from Palestinian officials to Darius Nothus,^ complaining that the Jews are rebuilding their temple, and at the same time giving the king a concise history (quoted verbatim from the Jews themselves) of that most interesting building; 5:7-17. (5) The decree of Cyrus^ in regard to the building of the temple in Jerusalem and the restoring of the vessels of gold and silver; 6:3-5. (6) A part (the beginning is missing) of the letter of Darius in reply to the Palestinian offi cials; 6:6-12. (7) A letter of Artaxerxes Mnemon^ to Ezra, officially establishing the Mosaic law and ritual in Jerusalem and Judea, recognizing the temple in Jerusalem as the one legitimate seat of the worship of the God of Israel, and appointing Ezra as the religious head of Palestine with full powers; 7:12-26. This is certainly a very remarkable collection of documents, iThis means to say only, that according to the narrative which contains these letters the king by whose order the temple was completed was Darius II. See above, pp. 38 f., 1:^5 f. I have never doubted that the "Darius" of Haggai and Zecha riah was really Darius I. 2 It is quite possible that the document is not complete in its present form. There is obviously a gap between verses 5 and 6, for the leap which is here made from the decree of Cyrus into the middle(!) of a letter of Darius cannot possibly have been made in the original narrative. See further below. -^ See the note above. The Aramaic papyrus fragments recently discovered in Egypt make it extremely probable (though not absolutely certain; see below) that the "Arta xerxes" mentioned in tbe book of Nehemiah is Artaxerxes Longimanus: but according to the clear and consistent statements of our narrative the king who appears in Ezr. 7 ff. and Neh. is Artaxerxes II. 140 The Aramaic Portions of Ezra 141 especially remarkable when it is borne in mind that we are other wise almost entirely destitute of Jewish historical traditions from the Persian period. Aside from the prophecies of Haggai and Zechariah, which are merely brief religious compositions, and the story of Nehemiah (which was hardly preserved as an official document, but rather as a popular narrative), we have scarcely even the semblance of historical standing ground.* We might expect that at least a list of the governors — -Persian or Jewish — who were stationed in Jerusalem would have been handed down ; but we have only the names Sheshbazzar, Zerubbabel, and Ne hemiah. The succession of the high priests is given us only by the Chronicler, probably derived from oral tradition;* Neh. 12:10f., 22. As for the Jewish tradition with regard to the Persian Kings, it is a very significant fact that it places Darius Hystaspis (under the name "Darius the Mede") just before Cyrus, instead of after him. The comparison of Dan. 5:30; 6:1, 29; 9:1; 10:1; 11:1, with the succession of kings in Ezra: Cyrus, Xerxes, Artaxerxes, Darius, Artaxerxes, and again with the computation of the "seventy years" of the captivity (48 years, remainder of Neo-Babylonian rule; +21 years, reign of Darius as Babylonian monarch; +1 year of Cyrus)" proves this in conclusive manner, as I have already shown.' It seems quite certain, in view of all this, that no extensive written traditions of the Persian period were preserved in Jerusalem. The latter half of the period, in particular, was a time full of events of great interest and importance for the history of the province of Judea and of the temple at Jerusalem ; but no Jewish record of them has survived. Even such a momentous thing as ^The Chronicler's stories of Ezra and Nehemiah. as I have already shown, have no more historical value than his stories of David and the ark. I shall return to this subject later. 5 The Chronicler's allusion to a " book of the Chronicles " in Neh. 12 : 23 is no more to be taken seriously than are his allusions to the sixteen other books of his imaginary library (see the list in Driver's Introduction). There is not the least internal evidence that be had a. written source before him in compiling these lists, while they all bear, both in matter and in form, the unmistakable stamp of his handiwork. I shall return to this subject later. 6 See above, pp.38 f., 135 f. 'In all probability, the Jewish tradition was not far wrong in its estimate of the lengthof the reign of this Darius. When he took the throne ot Babylonia he was "about sixty-two years of age" (Dan. 6:1), and the theory of course supposed a previous reign over Media. In reality, the reign of Darius Hystaspis lasted 36 years; which would agree ex cellently with the Jewish estimate. Further evidence that this "Mede" was none other than Darius Hystaspis is furnished by Dan. 6 : 2 f ., where this king is said to have reorganized the government of the empire, dividing it into satrapies, and providing for the royal super vision ot these. Here is certainly a surviving tradition of the great reforms of Darius I, who did, indeed, accomplish this very work, soon after his accession to the throne. 142 Ezra Studies the Samaritan schism is without mention in old Hebrew literature, excepting the (necessarily veiled) allusion by the Chronicler in Neh. 13:28f.' The question of the trustworthiness of these documents in the book of Ezra is therefore one of very great importance. 1. The Prevailing View Most writers on the Old Testament, in modern times, have regarded the Aramaic documents in Ezra — i. e., all of those men tioned above, with the exception of the edict of Cyrus in chap. 1 — - as genuine, or at least, as genuine in their original form. A few scholars, to be sure, expressed themselves decidedly against the authenticity of one or more of these writings, two or three decades ago; thus Graetz, Gesch. der Juden, II, 1875, pp. 87, 100, 128, declared them all forgeries ; and Noldeke, Gott. gel. Anzeigen, 1884, 1014, rendered a similar verdict in the case of the letter in Ezr. 7:12-26. In the years which followed it became customary, among the more "advanced" Old Testament scholars, to speak of these letters and decrees as more or less altered from their primi tive wording, and therefore not fully trustworthy. Thus, the first editions of Cornill's Einleitung treat the Aramaic documents in Ezr., chaps. 4-6 as authentic, but say that 7:12-26 is "liberarbeitet." Similarly Bleek- Wellhausen", Bertheau-Ryssel, Comm., 1887, Kuenen, and others. Stade, Geschichte, thought that the letters might possibly have been composed by the author of the narrative in which they are imbedded, though he believed the information which they contain to be in the main trustworthy. In general, it has been a well-nigh universal custom to treat "the Aramaic source" or "the Aramaic history" as an important historical com position, even among those who look with suspicion on the docu ments which it contains. Thus Driver, Introduction: "[The Aramaic source] appears to have been a thoroughly trustworthy document, though the edicts contained in it, so far as their form is concerned, are open to the suspicion of having been coloured by their transmission through Jewish hands." In a word: 'The documents are not genuine, but in substance are thoroughly trust worthy!" Van Hoonacker, 1892, maintained the authenticity of 8 Composition of Ezr.-Neh., p. 48. 'The objections to this position are both obvious and decisive. In the first place, the "Aramaic stmrce" contains -nothing but these suspicious documents, and we have no right at all (in tbe absence of proof) to assam" that it ever did contain more. And in the second place, wben documents lie before us which in form do uot appear to be authentic, whose The Aramaic Portions of Ezra 143 all these "records;" and so, doubtless, did the majority of his contemporaries who had studied the matter. Kosters, in his Herstel, 1893, while finding genuine portions in the Aramaic documents, rejected the most as a worthless fabri cation.'" Wellhausen, Riickkehr der Juden, 1895, declared all the Aramaic "Urkunden" worthless — but continued, and still continues, to use them for his History. In my own investigations, which were completed before I had seen the work of either Kosters or Wellhausen, I reached the conclusion that these Aramaic por tions of Ezra are compositions exactly on a par with Dan., chaps. 1-6 and the book of Esther ; and also, that the Artaxerxes letter in Ezra, chap. 7, is the work of the Chronicler alone. See my Composition, 1896. Professor H. P. Smith adopted nearly all my conclusions, incorporating them in his Old Testament History, 1903. In one point, however, his view differs widely from my own. In common with nearly all those who have discussed the book of Ezra in recent times, he assumes that the letters in 4:7-23 are out of place in their present connection, and belong rather to a time shortly before the work of Nehemiah (pp. 347 f.). This matter will be considered below. Smith seems to suggest, moreover, that our present book of Ezra could be improved not only by the excision of 4:7-24, but also by cutting out the whole group of documents (in chaps. 5 and 6) -which purport to come from the time of Darius; a proceeding which would have the effect of reducing the whole "Aramaic Source" to three verses of nar rative (5:1, 2 ; 6:15) plus the two letters (chap. 4) which according to his view are quite isolated, since he believes that a context for them can only be conjectured." This certainly hacks the Gordian knot into bits. The view prevailing among the most advanced scholars, then, for some time past, has been that these Aramaic documents are very valuable, though many have believed them to have been more or less altered from their original form by Jewish editors. statements we cannot control from any other source, and of whose author or authors we know nothing, beyond the fact that they obviously write with a "tendency," we cannot legitimately make use of them. 10 Kosters' methods, however, were not thoroughly scientific, and his conclusions, in the main, were of little value. "He remarks (p. 3.51): "It is clear that if the whole account were stricken out we should have a perfectly good connection, 5:2 being continued directly by 6: IS." But by this reasoning we could eliminate nearlj- every formal document that was ever incorporated in a history. Of course, when the main nan ative is resumed the connection is resumed ! It is this same illogical argument that Wellhausen uses in regard to I Mace, chaps. S and 15, in order to get rid of the episodes and documents which be flnds inconvenient. 144 EzEA Studies Recently, however, the view has gained wide acceptance, especially in Germany, that we have here true copies of the original records themselves, the ipsissiina rerha of Persian ''Urkunden nnd Akten- stucke." Thus Cornill, Eirdeituiuf, 1905, after designating the writings by the words just quoted, says that their "Echtheit" is "uber jeden Zweifel erhoben;" and similarly, that the genuine ness of the Artaxerxes letter to Ezra, in 7 : 12-26, is now " abschliess- end bewiesen." Siegfried, Kommenfar, declares the authenticity of these Aramaic transcripts to be " unwiderleglich nachgewiesen" (p. 1 ). So also Bertholet, CommenUir; Guthe, FolycJtrome Bible; Budde, Gesch. der althehr. Litteratur. 1906, pp. 231 ff., and many others. This increased confidence in the "genuineness" of the Ezra documents is due chiefly to E, Meyer's Enfstehu/nj des Juden- thtuns (1896), in which, after setting forth quite fully — but super ficially, as will appear — the arguments pro and con, the author reaches the conclusion that all the letters and edicts in the book, excepting only the Decree of Cyrus in chap. 1,'^ are authentic. Meyer's own opinion as to the fruit of his argument is expressed on p. 70: "Damit ware, denke ich, nicht nur die Aechtheit der im Buche Ezra liberlieferten aramaischen Dokumente gegen alle Ein- wande erwiesen, sondern mehrfach auch ein klarer Einblick in 12 Why he should except this as he does (Entstehunff, p, -19^ is not at all clear. Every single phrase in it is cat out of the very same cloth as is the phraseology of the documents which follow. It does not contain a sentence or an idea which is not exactly paralleled in chaps. 6 and 7. saving only that at the beginning Cyms compliments the God of tbe Jews by identifying him with the chief of his own gods. But this last-mentioned fact would be only a mattier of course to Professor Meyer, as may be seen from his own words (p. &4) : '' Seit wir wissen, wie Kambysed und Darius in den agyptischen loscbriften als treue Diener der ein- heimischen Gotter auftreten, wie Kyros in seiner Proklamation an die Babylonier sich als den eifrigsten Verehrer und den erklarten Liebling des Marduk einfuhrt, dflrfte nlemand daran Anstoss nehmen, wenn sich ein PerserkOnig den Juden gegenuber in gleicher Weise ausserte." Xor is this all. Meyer explains the out and ont priestly-Jewish language of the Artaxerxes edict in chap. 7 by the very " simple" theory that Ezra and his companions drew np the document, while the Persian ministers only gave it official form (p. 6o). Why, then, may it not be that Sheshbazzar, or the high priest -Jeshua, drew up the Cyrns edict? The reason for denying the authenticity cannot lie in the manner in which the document i= pre sented here, for the claim of its verbal genuineness is precisely as clear as in the caee of the ^rman. of Ezra ; the proclamation is distinctly said to have been *'(?i in-iting, as follows''* (1:2). Nor can Meyer fairly withhold credence from the Cyrus edict on the ground that it is presented to us by the Chronicler; so is the Artaxerxes decree (every word of 7:1-11 com posed by the Chronicler, as Meyer himself agrees), and so also are the letters in chap. 4. It cannot be said that 1 : 2-4 is in any way incongruous with 6 : 3-5 ; on the contrary, if we shonld suppose that 1 : 4 was originally followed immediately by 6 : dafi ("As for the house of God in Jerusalem," etc.) so tbat the text of the complete edict included 1 : 2-4 ; 6 :3a/3-.5, the wbole document would be perfectly harmonious and homogeneous. Why should not Meyer assume that the Chronicler translated the first sentences of the decree, from Aramaic into Hebrew, and transferred them, to their present place in chap. 1, tbe place where they are reaUy most effective? There is no difficulty whatever inthe way — excepting the =ame difficul- ties which stand in the way of all the other documents. The Aeamaio Portions of Ezra 145 die Bedeutung dieser ftir die jiidische wie flir die persische Geschichte unsohatzbaren Urkunden gewonnen." To this claim the most of those Old Testament scholars who have written on the book of Ezra during the past decade have seemed to give assent. ¦ But I do not believe that any thorough and unbiased student of the Old Testament who subjects Meyer's argument to a really critical examination, taking into account the important factors which he has left out of account, will be able to accept his conclusions. 2. A Literary Habit of Ancient Narrators Some of the principles and general truths uttered by Meyer at the outset are of very doubtful value. At the foot of p. 2, in the Introduction, he says, alluding to a remark of Stade's to the effect that the Jewish writer might himself have composed the letters and decrees which he incorporated: "Die 'bekannten Gre- wohnheiten alter Schriftsteller,' welche daftir sprechen soUen, dass diese Urkunden Erfindungen des Schriftstellers seien, sind mir ganzlich unbekannt. Die Alten haben den Wortlaut wichtiger Urkunden in ihre Texte genau ebenso aufgenommen wie die neu- eren Historiker." If this last sentence means to say, that some ancient narrators introduced some genuine documents into their narratives, it is superfluous information ; if it means that the for mal documents included in ancient Jewish narratives and his tories are usually genuine, it is not true. And it is true — as will presently appear — that some of the best early (including Jewish) historians of whom we have knowledge invented "official docu ments," with purely literary purpose, in a way that would not be tolerated in a serious historical work of the present day. The substitution of "Historiker" for "Schriftsteller" looks a little like begging the question, moreover, since not every writer of stories — even stories which contain correct and perhaps valuable historical data — deserves the title "historian." We should hardly give this name, for instance, to the authors of Daniel, Esther, and III Maccabees. One of the things which we especially wish to find out is, whether the writer of these few pages of Aramaic embody ing the records in question is entitled to it. As for the claim that the verbal quotation of the documents is presumptive proof of their genuineness : the real fact is, that the direct citation of speeches, letters, and decrees, as a mere literary 1-46 Ezra Studies device, in order to make the account more interesting and effective by increasing its verisimilitude, plays as important a part in the narrative literature of the Hebrews as in that of other peoples. To illustrate: In II Kings 5:6 and 10:2 f. two brief letters are quoted, with the purpose of enlivening the narrative. The one is a letter from the king of Syria to the prophet Elisha, and the other a circular missive sent by Jehu to the magnates of Jezreel and Samaria. They are mere scraps ; but the purpose of present ing them as verbal citations, and not as quotations in sub stance only, is made evident by the formal tinyi (the equivalent of the Aramaic ITIDJ'^^) "To proceed," used to introduce the letter proper, after the preliminaries. In II Chron. 2:2-15 we have the transcript of two letters, the correspondence of the kings Hiram and Solomon, with which the Chronicler has enriched the story of the building of the temple. No one well acquainted with the Old Testament would think of asking how it happens that these docu ments, lost to sight for many centuries, should turn up at last in the hands of the Chronicler. The "documents" thus far mentioned are not given in full official dress, with the introductory formula of address and greet ing, obviously because they are too short to make this desirable. In the book of Esther — at least in its massoretic form — the sev eral royal letters and edicts are given only in brief abstract, though tbe writer plainly means to give the impression that he could pre sent them in extenso if he wished. And in the Greek form of the book they are indeed given verbatim and in full, with date, super scription, and all, in the same way as in the book of Ezra. In Daniel, again, we find the same literary-traditional use of "official records" in order to give dramatic life to the narrative. The technical framework of the documents is given now partially, now entirely. Thus, in 6:26 ff. we have the text of a decree of Darius. It does not begin with the king's name, because that had just been written, and the repetition would have been awkward ; but its dress is otherwise quite formal: "To all the Peoples, Nations, and Languages, that dwell in all the earth; your peace be multiplied. I make a decree, etc." And in 3:31 — 4:34 is given, with all cir cumstance and in what purports to be the exact form," a long 13 Save that in 4 :16, 25-30 the narrator carelessly lapses into the use of the third person instsad of the flrst, in speaking ot the king ; precisely as the Chronicler, in composing the " personal memoirs " of Ezra, every now and then falls out ot the impersonation, writing about his hero instead of letting him speak. The Aramaic Portions of Ezra 147 proclamation of Nebuchadnezzar, with both introduction and for mal conclusion. Other examples of the same kind are the two letters of Ptolemy Philopator "preserved" in III Maccabees; the first (3:12-29) commanding the punishment of the Jews, and the second (7:1-9) proclaiming the king their friend and protector. Both of these are in the regular epistolary form, like the letters in Ezra. More instructive still, if possible, is the employment — i. e., the free composition — of these pseudo-official sources by two of the best-known Jewish historians. Josephus, in his Antiquities, illustrates his story of the Jews by the addition of a good many official documents, a considerable proportion of which were evi dently composed by him for the purpose. Characteristic specimens are to be found in this very portion of the history dealing with the Persian period, where, in addition to the documents contained in the book of Ezra" he pre.sents us with a letter from Cyrus to the governors in Palestine (xi, 1, 3) as well as a letter from Darius to the Samaritans (xi, 4, 9)."* In both cases it is evident that what Josephus aims to contribute is not information, but pomp and circumstance. He did not compose the letters for the sake of any new material which they contain (the Cyrus letter, for instance, is made up almost entirely of things which stand else where in the book), but simply for the glory which they give the Jews, in the eyes of the world and in triumph over their adversaries the Samaritans. And in the subsequent chapters of his history he in-oceeds in the same way, introducing here and there high-sounding documents which are quoted verbatim, and the value of which, to us, is very small indeed. In I Maccabees, that most admirable of all Jewish narratives, we have the same thing once more. Its author is a man of the best stamp, and with the instincts of a true historian, though writing from a point of view which is emphatically that of his own day and his own people. He is well informed, but modest and reserved, and withal a man of few words; not at all the one to make a display of learning, or wilfully to mislead his readers. Scattered through his history are copies of official letters, treaties ' uuiHVossary laudation of the Jews by their eiu'niies, 4:20; 15:11 f.), and [lonneateB the whoicN fabric; the worn-out sublcrfnge of au "UclH>rnrl)eitung" will not avail Inn-e. But tho rlewish charact(>r of these documents is not the only count iu till' indictment. Against their genuineness is also to bt^ put down, that they show no sign of intimate acquaintance with tht> history of the Persian peiiod. The Jewish apologist, writing iu the (lre(eriod, found himself cont'rontt'd with two prin cipal questions which he must needs answer, and answer con clusively. They wen* the following: (1) How did it happen that (^as known from Haggai and Zechariah) the temple at Jerusalem WMS not suitably built and completed until the time of Darius? aud (2) If Jerusalem and Judea were completely depopulated by tlu> C~lhnldeans (as is asserted in II Kings 24:14; 25:2t)(!), etc.), what manner of meu were t lu^ Jews of the sih-oihI temple ? Whence did th(>y couie? Wi they a mixed rabble from the surrounding districts? Might not I'cen the Saiiniritans hc of better Jewish Idood, after all, as they claimed to be/ Wt' have before us, in (ho Chronicler's history, an answer to those two questions; an answer which began with Adam aud was worked out with minute eluboration down into the latter part of the Persian period. The .Vraumic documonts (by whomsoever composed) are obviously an iuipor(an(, part of the same answer;''* and it is equally obvious that mory par(iclo of tho malorial which thoy contain could havo been derivinl oidior directly or indiiin-dy from Haggai, Zechariah, and 11 Kings 25, widi tho aid of sui'h infiu-ninlion as to Persian things lis conlil bo had in any city of Syria or Palestine at any time in the Dreok piM-iod.'^'' If anyoni' assorts that thoso documents in Ezra display mori> knowledge of (ho Persian I'ourt, or of condi lions in tho Persian realm, (han is displayed in tho books of Daniel, Eslhor, and Tobi(, h(> assorts what is not true. -^ Soe furlher billow, p. tliO. 'J'> ll is obvious why tlu' " return " \v:is ri'preseiiled as taking iihice under Cyrus, and also, why Cyrus should have hoen supposed to furnish inone.\ for t lu> buildieij of the temple. This Wiis the lieKiiHiinK "f tlieiii'w tPersianl rt'si'nji, under which tlie toniple was aetually huilt aud eoiwiiletod ; the iiiitural lurniiiK-iioint was here. And as for the royiil aid, how else could these roturuiuK exiles, enteriiii; m desolate land and .1 ruined eitj, have under- lilken their task? Siieli relleel ions as t hese ili-st resnlted in dellnite theories at abont the middle of tho third eeutiiry n. r., so far as our sonrees enable us to iud>;e. Com pare what was said above, p. I,"i;!, in regard li> llie Oreek tierioii. 156 Ezra Studies An important conclusion stated by Meyer, p. 74, deserves to be especially emphasized: " Diese Thatsache .... lehrt, dass es uber das ganze erste Jahrhundert der nachexilischen Geschichte bis auf Ezra und Nehemia herab keinerlei Nachrichten und kein- erlei Tradition gab mit Ausnahme dessen, was in den erhaltenen Urkunden Ezra 4-6 und in den gleichzeitigen Propheten stand." That is, aside from these same more than suspicious "Urkunden," there is nothing whatever to show that any genuine tradition of the early Persian period was preserved in Jerusalem. Even this support is denied them.^" Once more. There are numerous perfectly plain bits of evi dence showing that the documents, in the form which we have, are not what they profess to be. These are (briefly): (1) The wording. Aside from the specifically Jewish phrases, and the peculiar vocabulary of the Chronicler, the comparison of 6: 5 with 5:14 (!) shows conclusively that we are dealing, at least at this single but crucial point, with made-up documents. (2) The language. As will be shown below, the Aramaic of Ezra is not at all that of the fifth century B. C. (3) The names of the kings. The form of the name "Artaxerxes" which is employed in Ezra is not above suspicion; and the name "Nebuchadrezzar" appears in the form (written with n) which is characteristic of the Greek period. (4) The documents are not dated. Genuine docu ments would have borne dates; and it is unlikely that any copyist or editor would ever have omitted such an extremely interesting and important detail. The final statement of the case, then, is this. Here are docu ments which from their wording cannot possibly be regarded as true copies of genuine originals ; written in a dialect which belongs to a time much later than the one which they profess to represent ; containing no facts or materials not obtainable in the Greek period, and unsupported by any tradition from the Persian period ; found in the most untrustworthy of all Hebrew histories; them selves written with a manifest tendency; and finding their only close parallels in numerous writings of about the same time which 2'i So far as the " Urkunde " 7 : 12-26 is concerned, it is of course customary to find sup port for it in the "Ezra memoirs" which immediately follow. As a matter of fact, the one is precisely as "genuine" as the other. As I have already demonstrated, the whole Ezra story was composed by the Chronicler, with no other apparent basis than his own imagina tion (my Composition, pp. 14-29, 57-62). Meyer treats these Chronicler tales, and some of the worthless lists as well, as trustworthy material ; with tlie result that the most of his book is simply built on air. Wellhausen's Qeschichte, in the chapters dealing with this period, is not much better. The Aramaic Portions of Ezra 157 aro acknowledged to be inventions — and we are asked to pro nounce them 'genuine, at least in substance'! The theory of their authenticity, in any sense whatever, has evidently not a leg to stand on. On p. 43, in speaking of the Tattenai correspondence in Ezr., chap. 5, Meyer says: "Wer die Urkunde verwirft, thut dies denn auch nicht aus inneren Grftnden, sondern well er den Tempelbau unter Kyros oder richtiger den Befehl des Kyros den Tempel wie- deraufzubauen fftr unhistorisch hielt, oder well er die Nachricht von der Ruckkehr der Juden unter Kyros verwirft." But this is hardly fair to the scholars who have written on the subject. Probably not one of the number cares a straw for his most cher ished theory in comparison with finding out the truth as to the origin and character of these records. We are in the direst need of information as to the history of the Jews in the Persian period, and every scrap of material that promises help ought to be treas ured and put to use. But no extremity of need can outweigh the obligation to follow the evidence. So the verdict in regard to the Aramaic part of Ezra must be, "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, it stands in all respects on the same plane with Dan. '2-6 and the book of Esther.'"' II. THE chronicler's PART IN THE ARAMAIC PORTIONS The letter of Artaxerxes to Ezra, 7:12-26, was created entire by the Chronicler, like the context in which it stands. The nar rative which introduces it, 7:1-11, is the work of his hand, and so also is that which follows, 7:27 f.; 8:1-36, as I have shown elsewhere {Comjiosition, pp. 16 S., 20 f.). There is no single verse in all the Chronicler's history which is more unmistakably his own property than 7 : 28. The letter itself is marked through out its whole extent by his favorite ideas and jihrases, and his peculiar lexical and syntactical usages, manifest even in their Aramaic dress. See the notes below, passim. It is especially interesting to observe how closely this letter parallels two of the Chronicler's documents which precede it; namely, the royal edict in chap. 1 and the royal letter to the "eparchs" of the Trans- ^^ Composition, p. S. 158 Ezra Studies flumen, now preserved in I Esdras 4:476-56, but originally fol lowing immediately upon Ezra 1:1-11, as I have shown. Thus, 1:2 is reproduced in 7:14; 1:3 in 7:13 and the last clause of vs. 15 ("who dwells in Jerusalena") ; 1:4 reappears in 7:15, 16 (including the "silver and gold and free-will offerings," offered "for the house of God which is in Jerusalem"). And again: 7:17 had its counterpart in I Esdr. 4:52 (and also in Ezr. 6:5, nota bene); 7:18 corresponds to 4:54 ff.; vs. 19 brings back again Ezr. 1:7 ff . ; vs. 20 corresponds to I Esdr. 4:51, and vs. 21 to vss. 476, 48. Vss. 22 f. are again similar to I Esdr. 4:51 f., besides reproducing very noticeably Ezr. 6 : 9 f . And finally, vs. 24 is a repetition of I Esdr. 4:53-56 (cf. also 49 f.), the per quisites of the priests, Levites, and gate-keepers. That is, the decrees of Cyrus in favor of Sheshbazzar and his company are here reproduced in substance, and even with a striking repeti tion of the wording of whole phrases, in the decree of Artaxerxes for Ezra and his followers. Another passage composed in Aramaic by the Chronicler is 6:15-18, directly continued in vss. 19 ff. by his Hebrew narrative. That vs. 15 belongs to him is proved sufficiently by the exact date which it contains, coupled with the fact that in vs. 14 the preceding narrative comes to a natural close. I was formerly inclined to assign the last three words of vs. 14 to him also (Composition, p. 10), but now believe that it is better to regard them as the work of a mere glossator. The Chronicler has written out the story of this whole period of history with some care, and it is hardly fair to him to accuse him, unnecessarily, of this bit of carelessness. He should at least be given the benefit of the doubt. The work of the Chronicler's hand is to be seen, once more, in the two verses 6:9, 10, as I have already shown with abundant proof {Composition, p. 10). These are the only parts of the Aramaic of Ezra which can surely be traced to the Chronicler. The question of course sug gests itself, whether he may not also have been the author of 6:6-14; the grounds of the suspicion being (1) the presence of two verses written by him in the middle of this section; and (2) the strange transition from vs. 5 to vs. 0, the words of Cyrus being followed, without any warning, by those of Darius; which certainly resembles the heedless leap in chap. 7, from vs. 26 to The Aramaic Portions of Ezra 159 vs. 27, where Artaxerxes is suddenly interrupted by Ezra. But it is far more probable that there has been an accidental omission between verses 5 and 6 in chap. 6. Even the Chronicler himself would hardly have made so intolerably abrupt a transition as this. Moreover, there are no manifest traces of his presence in vss. 6-8 and 11-14, though in a passage of this length, in any writing of his, it is usually easy to recognize his handiwork. It is to be observed, also, that when vss. 9 f. are removed, the passage reads smoothly and consistently. The original narrator is concerned only with the building of the temple; there is no evidence, aside from these two verses, that he also intended to represent Cyrus and Darius as providing for the details of the cultus — to say nothing of the "bullocks, rams and lambs" and the "wheat, salt, wine and oil" which the Chronicler is so fond of parading before us; see I Chron. 29:21; II Chron. 29:21, 22, 32; Ezr. 6:17; 7:17, 22; 8:35, and cf. II Chrom 2:9, 14. The question, which has sometimes been raised, whether the whole Aramaic section, 4:8 — 6:14, may not also have been written by the Chronicler, I have once more examined with care; with the result of satisfying myself completely that the hypothesis is an untenable one. The manner of the transition in 4:7 f. (in whatever way these verses are treated) shows distinctly that the work of another narrator begins here. The Chronicler, compos ing the narrative freely, could not possibly have proceeded in this way. It is also incredible that he could have kept his identity concealed throughout this long section. He could hardly have brought himself to leave the Levites, singers, porters, and Nethinim completely out of sight for nearly three whole chapters ; and even if that had been possible, he could not have abandoned to this extent his own vocabulary and style.'"* I formerly thought that the interpolation 4:9 f. might be attributed to the Chronicler, and regarded him as the probable author of 4:24; see my Composition, pp. 7-9. The former of these passages will be discussed below; the latter can best be considered here. So far as internal evidence is concerned, there is no reason for regarding the Chronicler as the author of 4:24. The phrase 28 As I have remarked elsewhere, the Chronicler's peculiar habits in the use of words, phrases, and constructions appear everywhere, and in quite uniform distribution, through out Chron.-Ezr.-Neh., excepting in (1) the parts copied verbally from Samuel and Kings; (2) this Aramaic source, Ezr. 4:8— 6:14; (3) Nehemiah, chaps. 1, 2, 4— 6. 160 Ezra Studies D"I3 "jba is found also written by another hand in 6:14, as I have just shown, and it probably was in common use. The only argument which needs to be considered is the one which aims to show that the verse is an editorial patch. The argument rests on two main assumptions: (1) that this Aramaic narrative is a contemporary account, and trustworthy history; and (2) that vs. 24, which speaks of the building of the temple, is out of keeping with the preceding documents, which speak only of the building of the city. But these two assumptions are both mistaken. I have already shown that the order of the Persian kings, Cyrus, Xerxes, Artaxerxes I, Darius II, in these chapters, 4 ff. — and therefore, of course, the order of the chapters themselves — is the only correct one, according to the view which prevailed in Jerusalem in the Greek period. Both the substance and the progress of the narrative here are precisely what we should expect, when the purposes of the narrator are taken into account. As already remarked (above, p. 155), the author of these "official" documents and the narrative containing them was concerned with two important matters: the delay in building the temple, and the relation of the Jews to the Samaritans. These enemies of the Jews undertook, on two different occasions, to hinder the building of the sanctuary in Jerusalem, by writing to the Persian king. On the first occasion, when they were shrewd enough to speak only of the city as a whole, ^^ without specifying the temple in particular, they had the good luck to gain their point, and the building was stopped. On the second occasion, when other officials, less cautious, wrote only in regard to the temple, the attempt not only failed, but even proved to be of great assistance to the Jews, for it resulted in the recovery of long-lost documents which led the king at once to take the temple in Jerusalem under his special patronage. From the literary point of view — and we need no other — this is all quite according to rule; in fact, it is exactly the way in which any story or play, ancient or modern, would conceive the course of events in order to make it as dra matically effective as possible. At first the villain triumphs, not 29It is customary to say that the two letters in 4:11-22 deal with the building of the city wan. This is not the case, however. It is the building up of the city that is described, and that the king orders to be stopped (vs. 21). Of course the city walls are also specified by the Samaritans; and of course the prohibition of further building included the temple, at which the Samaritans were especially aiming. The Aramaic Portions of Ezra 161 by fair means, but through misrepresentation; but in the end he is overwhelmed. This being the case, it is obvious that such a verse as 24, standing where it now stands, was essential to the original narra tive. The way in which it attaches itself directly to vs. 23 is evident, and also the fact that it is absolutely indispensable as the preparation for 5:1.'" The composer of this Jewish-Samaritan drama could not have devised a sentence which would more exactly have satisfied his immediate purposes. The question of its authorship can therefore not fairly be raised at all. In conclusion : I believe that the Chronicler incorporated this Aramaic writing in its entirety, and that we have it in substan tially its original form. A passage has been accidentally lost between 6:5 and 6:6, as already remarked. The story probably began with some such formula as [DlH^ i{jb7J 5 It is altogether unlikely that the date, " in the second year of Darius," stood also in 5:1 (as I once suggested as possible, Comp,, p. 12, note 1). As for I Esdr. 6:1, of course the date there had to be inserted by the redactor who interpolated the Story of the Three Youths and transposed the Artaxerxes letters. The curious theory (now quite generally adopted) that the passage 5:1, 2 was not written by the' author of 5:3ft". needs no additional refutation. Of course the one who knew (5:14) of the prophecy of Haggai and Zechariah knew also (from Hag. 1:12, 14, etc.) that Zerubbabel and Jeshua were the leaders in the work of building. Chap. 6 : 1 shows the same thing, plainly enough. 31 It is fair to draw this conclusion from the fact that this Aramaic tale presupposes (not only in 4:12, 15 f., but also, by implication, in 5:1211.) the theory of a return of "the Babylonian exiles." Inasmuch as every other mention of such a return, in the whole Old Testament down to Tobit 14:5, comes from the Chronicler himself {Composition, pp. 62f.), it is probable that the theory originated in his own generation, in the school to which he belonged. 162 Ezra Studies written by the Chronicler; (2) that of the Story of the Samaritan Intrigues, which he incorporates; (3) the language of Dan., chaps. 2-7.''^ The date at which the Chronicler wrote may prop erly be taken as the representative one for the period covered by all these documents. The Aramaic story which he edits may be a trifle older, though it probably belongs to his own generation.'' One chapter, at least, of the Aramaic part of Daniel was written nearly a century later. From the linguistic point of view, this is all thoroughly homogeneous ; there is uo possibility of any scientific division into "earlier" and "later" sections. All these writings, and all in just the same waj', represent a certain stage in the development of Western Aramaic; there is not a single particular, major or minor, in which the one of them can be said with con fidence to belong to a more advanced stage of development than its fellow." Any one of the group might be designated the earliest, or the latest, with equal right. This is by no means a new discovery, so far as the identity of the Aramaic of Ezra with that of Daniel is concerned. On this point the Semitic scholars of the present generation are practi cally agreed. There has been a strange failure, however, to draw the correct conclusion as to the date represented by this stage of the dialect. We have had for comparison a good many Aramaic inscriptions dating all the way from the eighth century B. c. down ward, including material sufficient to give us a tolerably clear idea of some of the most characteristic changes which took place in the 32 In my own opinion, which I have otten expressed, the first six chapters of Daniel are older than the rest of the book, which was written in the time of Antiochus Epiphanes. But there is no difference between the .\ramaic of chaps. 2-6 and that of chap. 7. 33The.\ramaic Story of the Three Youths, as I have already shown, belongs approximately to this same period, bnt is probably older than any ot these other documents, dating trom near the beginning of the third century. 3J The fact that the suffix forms D3~ and QH" (instead ot 113" and 'I'lH") do not happen to be used iu Dan., as they are frequently in Ezr., can hardly be made an exception to this statement, since the forms ending in D continue to be tound in both Jewish and gentUe Aramaic until long after the time when the book of Daniel was given its flnal form (e. g., in the Jerusalem Targums, and in Nabatean inscriptions dated in the first century A. D.) . The Chronicler uses both the Q and the ] sufiixes, and the one about as often as the other. Similarly, the preformative 5?^ instead ot H, in the stems of the verb, is represented by several examples in Daniel, but does not appear in Ezra. But we seem to have the same thing in the form "TnrilBS , Ezr. 4 : 15, 19, which is apparently a verbal noun from the hith- pa'al of "1^^C ; cf . T^mCTS in Dan. 6 : 15. Moreover, the process has already begun in the time of the papyri from Elephantine; see the hithpe'el form lliniBS (1st pers. plur. pert.), in Cowley's K, 2. Notice also such parallel phenomena as the name rT^yiCIX (for "in ) in H, 18, and the pronoun ITDX in Ezra. It is very probable, indeed, that Dan., chap. 2-6 was written somewhat later than the Aramaic parts of Ezra ; but it is not safe to say that this is proved by the language. The Aramaic Portions of Ezra 163 language, from tlie Euphrates lo Egypt. Tht! evidence has Ix^en quite sufficient to show tliat our "biblical Aramaic" could hardly be dattnl so early as the fourth century B. c, to say nothing of a still earlier date. Yei, sciiolars have persisted in looking at the Ezra "docuniouts" through (lie medium of a theory, and have found it possibh^ to hoUl the view that tlu^ language in which they are writttm btviongs to tiio sixth and fifth centurit^s,™ while datincr tlu< Aramaic of Daniel in tho second century — as thoucrh the Corpiis lii.^criiitioiiuin Seniiticariim did not (^xist. Now, howtwor, tho papyri of Assuan and Elephantine have given us abundant material confirming most decisively the witness of tho inscriptions. Tho first publishers of these texts have not made the matter plain, to bo surts in fact, what thoy have written would ratliei- lend to mislead inquirois in regard to this point. Sachau, Drei aranii'lisclie Papip-nsurkunden ans Elephantine (1907), p. 3, writes: "Dio SpracJus in der sio geschrieben sind, ist in ailiMi wi'soutlicln'ii Sttickon id(>niiscli mit dorjenigen der ara maischen Kapitel in d(Mi Bftchorn Esra und Daniel, und ihre Phraseologio l)it>li't nahiviously wrilton in i\H^'\vinM'icnVu)u,j[rainaic Papyri JJiscovered at .^issnan (190()) , p. 20: "Much of the interest of the texts lies in the many points of coninot which they show with Palestinian Aramaic as reprtist^uted by the books of Ezra and Daniel. The differences are iliie no doiiht partly lo the diff'erence (f locality, partly also perhaps to the popular style (f llie deeds as compared ivith the literary sti/le of tlihiical Aramaic" (the italics are mine). But this merely obscures iho true state of the case. Of course the language of all these writings, biblical and extra-biblical, is Aramaic and (more or less) Jewish. Tho "points of contact" could bo taktni for grantotl; the points of difference are what wo most noi'd to considiH'. One of the most significant facts in the liistory of the develop ment of the old West-Aramaic dialect is the gradual replacement of ctu'tain sibilants by their corresponding dentals. In our oldest Aramaic inscriptions, including thoso (such as the coins of !!'* Those who think tlmt these docniiients tire ^'iMiuiiie, aud were iireserved in an archive, mustof course hold tliat they are writ.teii in their oriKinal dialect. To suppose that they have been systematieally altered throuRliout, in such a way us carefully to remove all those traces by which tliey eoiiUi bo recognized ua gonuiuo, is to attribute to the Chronicler or to his predecessors an allowetlier unexampled stupidity, espeeially since the archaisms would not in tho least impair the intelligibility of the documents. 164 Ezra Studies Mazaeus) which date from the fourth century, for example, the relative pronoun is always "'T , and the root of the demonstratives is T ; in all the inscriptions (from whatever land) dating from the third century B. C. or later, the relative pronoun is always ^1 , and the demonstrative root is ~! . The condition of things in biblical Aramaic, as regards the sibilants and dentals in general, is altogether like that which is found in classical Syriac and the Aramaic of the Targums; that is, it belongs to the final stage of the development. In the important group of inscriptions from Zenjirli and Nerab, dating from the seventh and eighth centuries B. C, the vocabulary has not yet begun to be "Aramaic" in the matter of these dentals and sibilants. It stands at the oppo site extreme, in this regard, from the vocabulary of biblical Aramaic. The Assuan-Elephantine papyri, which cover the greater part of the fifth century, dating from 471 to 408 B. C, furnish just the added information which was needed, for they occupy, in the most unequivocal manner, the middle ground between the language of the old inscriptions named and that of the Aramaic of the Old Testament. The relative pronoun is ^T , everywhere, and all but invariably. In one text, Cowley's E, 11. 11 and 16, ^1 is found, in the combination ""^b^T . Similarly, the demon strative root, in all the papyri, is 7 , not T . We have the forms HjT , "^DT , ~\1 , 5alam, "Bel is peace," we could retain the massoretic pointing, oblCS. But we have thus far no entirely satisfaetory analogies for such a name. The Aramaic Portions op Ezra 173 (Muss-Arnolt, p. 1042), etc. The original "I Esdras" translit eration was BiaXep.o'; or ByaXep.o<;, and the a was accidentally dropped by a copyist. The "Bee'Xo-t/no?" of the I Esdras L text is a flagrant instance of textual contamination, since it is merely one of the corrupt variants of the transliteration of Dyt3 b^J, : Be^Xre/io?, -^ep,o<;, -aep,oi; which are found here even in the appa ratus of Niese's Josephus. As for the other two names: rn"ina , Mithradates, is Persian, and is employed bythe Chronicler also in Ezr. 1:8; 5S3t3 , Tab-'' el, is Aramaic, and occurs also in Isaiah 7:6. It may be merely accidental, but it is certainly worthy of notice, that in each one of these enumerations by name of the enemies of the Jews, the names are such as to point to as many different nationalities as possible. In 5:3, etc., Tattenai is Babylonian and Satibarzanes is Persian; in 4:8, etc., Rehiim is native Aramaic, and also Jewish (and of course the Samaritan community was supposed to contain Hebrews and renegade Jews, as well as foreigners), and Shimshai is Babylonian; in 4:6 (7) Bishlam is Babylonian, Mithradath is Persian, and Tab' el is Syrian (representing apparently those Samaritans who were brought from the region of Hamath). It is true, as was pointed out above, that at the time when this was written the nationality of names counted for much less than had formerly been the case; but on the other hand, it cannot be doubted that the Jewish narrators of the time did recognize the distinction between names in this regard, and created "local color" accordingly. And it is quite certain that "even in the Hellenistic period a native of Palestine or of any other country inhabited by Jews might without difficulty have collected a large number of Persian names" (Noldeke, Encyl. Bibl., article "Esther," §3). 2. The Foreign Words What has just been said in regard to Persian names is also true of other Persian words. The Chronicler, or the author of Daniel, or any other story-teller of the Greek period in Jerusalem, could easily procure as many of these words as he wished to use. When it is observed how much fewer in proportion these Persisms are in the Jewish papyri of Egypt than they are in the Aramaic of Ezra and Daniel, the conclusion lies near at hand that our narrators introduced at least some of them for effect. 174 Ezra Studies The nature and manner of use of one or two of the words, moreover, point in the same direction. Such a common word as the adverb "diligently" need not have been borrowed by the Ara maic from any foreign source; yet we find it eight times, in these Ezra documents, expressed by the one or the other of two curious Persian (?) words which are otherwise unknown. It is hard to believe that this represents the actual usage of any period of Jewish (or any other) Aramaic. If the adverb occurred only once or twice we might not look on it with suspicion, but this obvi ous parading of it can hardly be accidental. It is perhaps not surprising, on any theory, that the origin of about one half of these foreign words should remain more or less obscure. It is usually only the etymology which is uncertain, however, for the meaning is made plain by the context in nearly every case. The most of the words which can be recognized are Persian or Babylonian ; two or three are Greek ; of the remainder, nothing can be said with confidence at present. S^T¦^^^ 7:23. An adverb, meaning "diligently, zealously," as the context shows. It looks like a Persian word, but no plausible explanation of it has been given thus far. It seems to be the equivalent of 5<3"^3C5< ; see below. SD^SCN 5:8; 6:8, 12, 13; 7:17, 21, 26. Also an adverb, with the same meaning as the preceding — and no other meaning will fit all the places where it occurs. The I Esdras trans lator renders both alike by eTrt/tieXto?. The word is otherwise unknown, and the attempted explanations of it are far-fetched. We are certainly not justified in connecting it with the prob lematic word in the Aramaic inscription, CIS, II, 108. The reading of the word there (generally given as "pECS) is by no means assured; the sense of the whole inscription is unknown; and the meaning "exact," usually postulated there, will not do at all in the Ezra passages. !!<^iC"iSl!< 5:6; 6:6. An official title of the governors of the Transfiumen, of whom Tattenai was one. Apparently the Aramaic plural of the naturalized Greek word eirapxai, the S and D being transposed (naturally; as in Al-iskandar for Alexander, etc.), and the plural ending added in the usual way. These are the "iHSn ^33? fTiin?, "the eparchs of the Transfiumen," Ezr. 8:36; Neh. 2:7, 9, and e-n-apxo^ is the The Aramaic Portions of Ezra 175 usual equivalent (cf. "die standige Bezeichnung," Meyer, Entstehung, 32, note) of 51)13 .** It is quite likely that the author of these documents supposed this to be a Persian word. DHBlt^ 4:13. From the context, evidently a feminine noun signi fying "revenue," as scholars have generally agreed. The suggestion of Andreas, "damage" (!), in Marti's glossary, is plainly impossible. Neither, the old Greek translator nor Theodotion ventured to render the word. 1 have no doubt thatit is a Greek technical term; either eVrraft?, "taxation," or iirideafi, "impost," either one of which words might have been transliterated in this way. In favor of the former might be cited the passage Herod, iii, 89, where, in speaking of the imposition of tribute by Darius upon the various divisions of the Persian empire, the phrase y eTrtVa^i? rot) (fiopov is used. But the terms iTriTidevai, iirideai^, are also used technically in speaking of the "imposition" of tribute, fines, and the like, and in view of the exact transliteration of the latter word it is to be preferred. This explains the gender of the verb pTDtin ; the phrase pib/J Cri3N (notice that it is not 5iib7.3 or X''5b"3) means y ^aaiXiKy iirtdeaif, "the royal taxation," and the gender of the borrowed word is retained, as usual Here, again, it is quite likely that the Aramaic narrator did not know the origin of the term, but supposed it to be Persian. It is barely possible that the writing with S is due to a reminiscence of the sound of the Greek TT. As for the vowel pointing ChB5< , it is exactly as valuable as that of Ciri|5 , for KiOapK, in Dan. 3:5, 7. 10. 5<3"ni3X 5:3, 9. A good illustration of the relative excellency of MT, inasmuch as both the old Greek translator and Theodotion (versions nearly or quite three hundred years apart) had the word before them in the form S'TiS ; the former as 5t*iIiX, aTeyy, "roof," and the latter as S"i3S , T T ¦ T Xopyyia, "outlay" (for hired labor). So long, therefore, as "That Tattenai is thought ot here as the satrap of the whole Transfiumen, is of course not the case. He was the " governor " of his province, just as Zerubbabel, at the same time, was governor (nflD, 6:7) in Judea, as Sheshbazzar had been previously (5:14), and as Bagohi is said in the Sachau papyri to have been the "in"' finS in the years 411-408. The narrator uses the term i{''DDlES. Iirapxoi, here in the same way that his immediate suc cessor, the Chronicler, uses the equivalent terms in his " Ezra Memoirs," 8 : 36, where Ezra, after arriving in Jerusalem, hands over the decrees of the king lbl2n "'DElTIDnSb nnsn -ay rmnsn- 176 Ezra Studies the word given in MT remained otherwise unattested, the only safe critical procedure was to adopt the reading NIjS . But now the word XDTOH has again come to light in the papyri published by Sachau, the reading being quite certain. In the Egyptian document {Drei aram. Papyrusurkunden, I, 11) it signifies a part (just which part, is not clear) of the temple at Elephantine; in the Ezra passages, also, it has always been evident that it stands for a part of the temple at Jerusalem. I believe that the word means "colonnade;" that it is the same as the "jlUJ of the Bod-'astart inscription, CIS, I, 4, 1. 4; and that it is probably to be connected with the Assyrian word surinnu.*^ The prosthetic S, in that case, would be merely euphonic. In the description of the destruction of the Jewish temple in Egypt, first the inner sanctuary is mentioned, with its pillars ; then the gates, with their doors ; then the roofing, made of beams of cedar ; then "the rest of™ the portico," J^DiTTit TCrs , "and whatever else was there." The phrase "and the columns which were there," used in speaking of the sanctuary proper, may perhaps be taken to imply that there were other columns elsewhere, namely in the outer court. As for the context in Ezra, it is at least natural to suppose that there an important and conspicuous part of the whole structure is meant. Point perhaps 5<31^TEit ? I am of course fully aware of the precarious character of these conclusions. ibi Only in the standing phrase "bni ibl niDtl , 4:13, 20; 7:24. "ibi is not to be separated from the Babylonian abdlu, the noun biltu, etc., though the precise nature of the form is is still uncertain. niSp is also a Babylonian loan-word, mandattu, as is well known. Also in the form ill'J, 6:8; Neh. 5:4. Ip'n , judging from its etymology, means custom, "gang und gebe," binding usage (as regards tribute) ; cf. nibn, and the English word "custom" meaning tax. It is not likely that it has anything to do with roads, as some have supposed. Probably not a loan-word from the Baby lonian, though the latter appears to have some closely ana logous usage, cf. especially the various uses of illcu. ¦w I have previously suggested the connection of the Phoenician word with the Assyrian ; Journal ofthe Am. Or. Society, Vol. XXIII, 1902, pp. 171 f. iJOSo read and interpreted by Fraenkel, 2'heol. Litz., 23 Nov., 1907, and Noldeke, ZA, XXI, 199, while Sachau reads rT^TilD • The Aramaic Portions of Ezra 177 Up 7:21. The Persian word "treasurer;" possibly borrowed through the Babylonian, where it also appears.^' m 7:12, 14, 21, 25, 26. The Persian word "law." Also used in the Aramaic of Daniel. "]bn Possibly borrowed ? See the note on ibl . niM See the note on ibl . 1lnT233 4:18, 23; 5:5. Also, in Hebrew, 4:7; 7:11. A noun meaning "letter;" origin not yet satisfactorily explained. The resemblance to old Persian nipistam, modern Persian i.iAjijJ , "writing," is too close to be accidental. Possibly the result of writing down an unfamiliar word from hearsay ? "jjiriS 4:11, 23; 5:6. Also, in Hebrew, 7:11 and (in the form IJTIJriB) Esther 3:14; 4:8; 8:13. Apparently a genuine Persian loan-word, "copy;" but the origin of the form, and the relation to that found in Esther, are not yet clear. Djn3 4:17; 5:7,11; 6:11. Also Dan. 3:16; 4:14, and (Hebrew) Esth. 1:20; Eccles. 8:11; very common in later Aramaic and classical Syriac. It is an exact synonym of 131, i. e. "loord," which is occasionally weakened to "thing." It does not mean "answer," nor "decree," nor "message," as is often affirmed; and it thus stands at some distance, both in meaning and in form, from the modern Persian paighdm, "message" (the "old Persian patighdma," from pcdigam, "arrive," has not actually been found). The hypothesis of a Greek loan-word, namely (f)0eyp,a, "word, utterance," is more probable on all grounds. The Greek translators render Djn3 regularly by pyp.a and Xo'70?; the word in its Syriac form is also used ordinarily to translate Xo'70?, pyp-a, ctto^, (jidoyyo';, (l)0oyyi], (f>0eyp,a (Syr.-Hex. in Job 6:26, Wisd. 1:11). Of the words discussed in the preceding list, at least four are Persian; three (possibly four) are Babylonian; three are Greek; two are altogether unknown, but seem more likely to be Persian (if they are genuine words) than anything else. Counting all their occurrences, they appear in these few chapters more than forty times, a very noteworthy fact. Such well-known and understood loan-words as n"l3>^ , KT3 J , bD^H , HrtB , which have been truly adopted by the Aramaic, are left out of consideration. 5] As ganzabaru; Peiser, in ZATTV (1897), p. 347. The massoretic pointing is therefore of doubtful value ; see the note on the verse, below ; also Andreas, in Marti's glossary. 178 Ezra Studies v. the history of the text of 4:6-11 The restoration of vss. 6-11 which is given here is substan tially the same as that which I made in 1895, and printed in my Compositiofi of Ezra, p. 6. The principal difference is in the treatment of vs. 8, which I formerly regarded as made up of two parts, namely, (1) the proper names which had been pushed out of vs. 7, and (2) a clause which had originally stood at the end of vs. 10, but was now transposed by the copyist in order to repair the damage which he had done. On further considera tion, it has seemed to me that the true explanation is simpler than this, and that vs. 8, in exactly its present wording, originally formed the beginning of the document incorporated by the Chron icler. The conclusion follows of necessity, that the vss. 9-10 are an interpolation; for it is quite obvious that the man who wrote vs. 8 cannot have written the first words of vs. 9 as its con tinuation. The incorporated narrative, moreover, is not very likely to have begun with the word plS^ ; but this would have been a natural way of beginning the interpolation, which is, indeed, made in the easiest possible manner. I have always be lieved the list of names in vs. 9 (see below) to be secondary, and it was for the sake of these, and their fling at the Samaritans, that the interpolation was made. The first clause of vs. 10 is the counterpart of vs. 2/3, above, and the remainder is derived from vs. 17. The first clause of vs. 11 might belong either to the in terpolation or to the original document ; but it is plainly better to regard it in the former way. This restoration involves no change in the text beyond the returning of "Bishlam, Mithredath, Tabel and his companions" to vs. 6, and the filling of the gap thus made in vs. 7 with the names "Rehum the reporter and Shimshai the scribe." By my former restoration, vss. 9-11 were made to read more smoothly; but an interpolated text is not expected to be smooth. The suspended construction in vss. 9-11, ¦]"'1S having no direct con nection with any verb, is in no way remarkable. The variation in the tradition of these verses afforded by the I Esdras fragment is both interesting and important. The Greek text'^ reads: ^'''Ev Be rot? iirl ' ApTa^ep^ov tov Jlepamv ^aatXew<; Xpdvoi<; KaTe'ypa-KJrev avTm^^ KaTa tS)v KaToiKovvTiov iv Ty 'lovBaia Kal 621 have emended the Greek only at those points where the evidence seems conclusive. 53 The Hexaplar text (interior, as usual in the Ezra books) has avrSiv. So B, Syr., Eth. The Aramaic Portions of Ezra 179 'lepovaaXyp, BtcrXe/io?" Kal Mi6piBdTy<; Kal TaySe'XXto? Kal Paot)/.io9 '^ Kal BeeXre/ios-'^ Kal '2ap,aaio<;^'' 6 ypap.p,aTevv Ta TrpoairiwTOVTa Kal ^apaaio<; 6 ypap,paTev<; Kal ol i-TriXonroi Trj<; the /SovXtj? avTcbv KpiTaC, an expansion which, like the similar one intranslation of vs. 7, evidently was made in order to restore the two (or three) names which had been accidentally lost from the text. What, then, is the history of these expansions, in the transla tion of vss. 7 and 11 ? As for the latter verse, it can hardly be doubted, first of all, that the original reading was the single word T2JDX , as in our massoretic text. Now the words inserted in place of this in the Greek I Esdras are almost an exact render ing of a part of vs. 9, from D'lm to it"'D''l ; the conclusion might therefore seem necessary, that the translator had vss. 9 and 10 before him, but omitted all but these few words which he transposed into the latter part of vs. 11. But several considera tions flatly forbid this hypothesis. In the first place, it is incredible that this translator (whose habits we know well) should omit all this important material, if he had it before him. No difficulty of the passage would have led him to discard it, of this we can be certain. As I have already observed (pp. 83 f., see also below), he is sure to stick closely to a difficult or cor rupt text. Again, and more important still, the word X"']"'! in its context in vss. 9 f, does not mean, and could not mean, KpiTai. The juxtaposition with the other gentilic names, and the express statement in vs. 10 that these names, i^'^aby .... K"'D^1, are the names of "peoples," leave no room for doubt; and no trans lator could ever have thought of cutting off the first name in the list and rendering it "judges." The true state of the case, then. The Aramaic Portions of Ezra 181 is this: vs. 9 of our canonical text was derived from the I Esdras expansion in vs. 11 (see further below), not vice versa. The reason why the addition to vs. 11 was made is so obvious as to need no argument. In the accidentally abridged text of this recension there was here no mention of "Rehum the reporter and Shimshai the scribe," that is, of the two officials who according to vss. 17 and 23 sent the letter, received answer to it, and took action accordingly! It was absolutely necessary, in any recension, Aramaic or Greek, that their names should appear in the introduction of the letter. The insertion had been made in the Aramaic text which our translator followed, as the KpiTai shows beyond all question. The term X^]"'l , as a general designation for these less usual officials, was probably the best that the editor could have chosen." But the history of the other expansion of the I Esdras text, the one in vs. 15 ( = vs. 7 of the Hebrew) , is essentially different. The reason for making the insertion here was the same, it is true; but in this case we have to do with the expansion of the Greek translation, not of the Semitic original. This is proved by the presence of the gloss BeeXreyao?, which appears also in vs. 21 ( = vs. 17 of the Aramaic text) , the source from which the whole addition was derived. Vs. 15 ( =vs. 7 of the Hebrew) was very troublesome in its abridged state, for it declared that "Bishlam, Mithredath, and Tabel" were the authors of "the following letter," t^v viroyeypap.p.evyv iiriaToXyv. A translator might well allow this to pass (especially since the difficulty had been lessened by the interpolation made in the Aramaic of vs. 11), and it was in fact left untouched by our translator ; but the contradiction was still so great that it could not long be permitted to stand. Hence the clause, PaoO/tto? Kal BeeXTep.o'i Kal lapaalo'i 6 ypapp.aTev<; Kal ol XoiTTol ol TOUTOt? avvTaaa6p,evoi, oiKovvTe'i Be ev ^ap,apeia Kal rot? dXXoK TOTTOK, was taken over bodily from vs. 21 and inserted in vs. 15 after the other names. As for the BeeXre/tio?, it certainly did not stand in the original rendering. The translator who knew that Dyti bya meant "reporter,""^ o ypd(j}cov Ta TrpoaTriirTOVTa, would not also have treated it as a proper name, and his rendering in vs. 16 shows that he did not so treat it. The gloss was made 61 As a mere coincidence with the phrase 5?1D11 ^inmiDI in Ezr. 4:11 ("I Esdras" version) the occurrence of the phrase SJIJIl nmjDT . " and his colleagues the judges," in Cowley's papyrus B, 1. 6, is interesting. 62 See the note on the translation ot 4 :7 (8). 182 Ezra Studies by some later hand in vs. 21, and was transferred thence to vs. 15 with the rest of the passage. The Hebrew- Aramaic*' text of this passage, Ezr. 4:6-12, in the I Esdras recension therefore read as follows: rn-^np nbm rby zlto d'^3 "jb^:: j^niBanms ¦'70''3i '¦ '¦ ' by" o"x7jp nbisiT'i m^n^ ^n-iii^ by nsuip yrfi'SD isuji bi<2ti nxBi s^3D ^'W2^^ Dyr: byn D^n-i yiziy .toba sniaannns . 'TjI Ninb TT "'' : njysT '' © '"mnD -\j,yq. ^-i j^'^ri "' Tinn^DS This text differs from the massoretic in the following particulars: (1) Vss. 6 and 7 have been editorially combined, as already stated; (2) Vss. 76 and 8 (except the last word) have been lost by the accident of transcription mentioned above; (3) Vss. 9, 10, llaa, interpolated by a later hand in our massoretic text, are wanting here; (4) The editor has made the (absolutely necessary) insertion in vs. 11 very skilfully. The Greek translator reproduced his original verbatim, as usual ; and his rendering here has come down to us intact except ing one particular, namely, that at a later day some one found it necessary to harmonize vs. 15 ( = vss. 6, 7) with its context by inserting in it a paraphrase — almost word for word — of the greater part of vs. 21. Finally, as to the verses, 9, 10, llaa, which have been interpo lated in our massoretic text. They were written by some one who had before him both recensions of the Hebrew- Aramaic (namely, the original form and the I Esdras form), and whose purpose was to deal the Samaritans a more telling blow. The interpolator saw the opportunity of showing still farther, in the introduction to this official document, what a mixed rabble the Samaritans really were, by naming some of the regions from which Shalmanassar" had brought them. That his knowledge of geography and history was 63 The material outof which the introductory verse was made wasundoubtedly left just as it was : all Hebrew with the exception of the last word, 451333 . 64 This word certainly stood inthe text. When the copyist's eye strayed from the king's name in vs. 7 to the same name in vs. 8, it caught this preparatory word also. 65 The same form which occurs (correctly) in both vss. 17 and 23. The translator, who had just rendered the phrase in the preceding sentence, now varies the rendering on literary grounds, as he frequently does elsewhere. 66 The DblJJ was missing here, as well as in the canonical version. 67 See above, on the proper name "IDSDi^ ¦ The Aramaic Portions of Ezra 183 not very extensive is at least suggested by the last four names in the list, "Persians, people of Erech, Babylonians, people of Susa (who are Elamites)." As for the 5t'b3"it3 , they are presumably "people of Tetrapolis," as has already been shown. But it is most impor tant of all to observe that the two first names in the list, namely K'D"'"! and H^5(ll)C"i3S< , are the words used in the documents themselves (as they lay before the interpolator) to designate these enemies of the Jews; namely in 4:11 (I Esdras original) ; 5:6; 6:6. Whether the interpolator recognized them as official titles or not, it is at all events certain that he proceeded to use them as gentilic names, thus completing his curious list. More over, by the continuation in vs. 10, "and the rest of the peoples," etc., he leaves abundant room for still other heathen ancestors of the rival community. The way in which the interpolation was made is as simple as possible. The text used as the basis was of course the more com plete and (obviously) more correct one. For the beginning of the insertion, the secondary clause in thei Esdras text of vs. 11 (see above) was adopted re?'6af i'i», and the description of these "associates" was then continued in the manner just described. The whole was introduced by the word yiX ; it is hard to imagine any other way in which the interpolation could have been effected so easily. VI. the text of the passages Our massoretic text of these Aramaic passages in Ezra is very well preserved, in the main. It has retained some old forms and readings which had disappeared both from Theodotion's text and from the original of the "I Esdras" recension. Even the vowel-pointing is usually (but of course not always) trustworthy, in these Aramaic passages. For the interpretation of the text, the old Greek translation, of which we now have only the frag ments preserved in I Esdras, is very valuable because of its great age. It was made about three centuries earlier than that of Theodotion (our "canonical" version), at a time when many words and matters were still familiar which soon after ceased to be understood. On the system of punctuation adopted for the text here printed, see above, pp. 118 f. (Hebrew) 184 Ezra Studies SAMARITAN INTRIGUES AGAINST THE BUILDING OF THE TEMPLE (Ezr. 4 : 4—6 : 19) lechronicier Dniit n"'bnaai ^rnsiri"' oy ^t d^ei^j ^ynsn oy ¦'nn 4* TD'^is rj^ bs ,Dn::y isrib "D^iiyr nn-'by D-'nioV ©.ntab T T •¦ To ¦'o-is ibia iaii-n n'Dba lyi" d^3 ']b7j ^ The manner in which this phrase is frequently replaced by MlS^Kn ^"-y , in the Chronicler's narrative (see my Composition, p. 18), may show us his idea of the population of Palestine in that day. The returning Jewish exiles had as their neighbors (aside from Phoenicians, Philistines, Moabites, Ammonites, etc. ) merely the motley throng of heathen "peoples of the lands" brought in by the Assyrians. When he uses the term he has the Sama ritans in mind. ''As Bertholet and others have remarked, these "counselors" are thought of as at the Persian court. I believe that the Chron icler had in mind some of the ministers of the king, using the term W'^'ST exactly as he does in I Chron. 27 : 33, Ezr. 7 : 14, 15 (Aramaic), 28; 8:25. ¦^The purpose of the Chronicler to make his history con tinuous, in this verse and those which follow, is quite unmistak able — and he would have damaged his own work seriously, at this point, if he had not done so! During the reign of Cyrus, high Persian officials, bribed for the purpose, managed to stop the building of the temple. Then followed, immediately, the reign of Xerxes, at the very "beginning" of which Bishlam and his asso ciates wrote their effective accusation. ^ This clause is one of the remaining traces of the redactional process through which our book of Ezra has passed. When the Story of the Three Youths was interpolated and the letters 4 : 6- 24 {n. 6.) were transposed, the interpolator who made the new edition left the two (now consecutive) verses 4:5 and 5:1 exactly as they were. But the necessity of putting some bridge across this gap was imperative, and our two surviving texts contain each a clause written for this purpose; namely, the one before us, and the words "and they were hindered from building until the second year of the reign of Darius" (incorrectly rendered by the Greek translator) in I Esdras 5:70 (73). When the makers of our canonical edition cut out the Story and restored the letters to their original place, they of course left 4: 5 in its expanded form. The Aramaic Portions op Ezra 185 T ¦ T * T ' • .. - ©nbuJsiTi rri^rr' ^mi:^ by nataia 'rnias ^ktt^ °b>oaij, "person" or "face" (Guidi, I sette dormienti, p. 19, 1. 7) = [etJKWv + ma. I believe that we have the original 'Aoh, fully naturalized, in the Esmun'azar inscription, 11. 4, 20, 'p Pi< ¦'a , "whosoever thou art;" cf. the Tabnit inscription, 1. 3, and the two Nerab inscriptions, I, 1. 5 and II, 1. 8. " On the peculiar history of this word and the one which fol lows it, see above, pp. 180 f., 183. ° The t< which stands at the beginning of this word in MT is the result of a copyist's mistake; see above, p. 170. P Probably i^.";S1i< , as suggested above ? ^MT Sim. '^This explanatory clause is not necessarily the work of a later hand ; the original narrator himself occasionally wishes to explain a word or a phrase. Cf. Wright's Joshua the Stylite, 9, 16, which is an exact parallel. ¦¦ MT ^S3C!!< ; see above, on the proper names. 186 Ezra Studies •'- i5 ^iri"1, and would transpose the i< to the pre ceding word, leaving the verb in the perfect tense. It is plain from vs. 13, however, that the perfect cannot have been intended. I believe that this is one of the many cases in which initial "' and 5< interchange phonetically, and that the form is really imperf. third person plural. Cf. Dalman, Grainm.^, p. 252, and the well- The Aramaic Portions of Ezra 187 wnnn -j- js^n-^ip -^r) "i ,!!tibab ss^inb tt -jyi" o^^tin^ ¦=pba "cnssn ^-i^sw"; Si^b '"^bni ibn m37p .-iibbinii:^ i^^nnci S5b?j ninyi' ,!j5Dnb7:3 «brn nb^j "i bap =bi 75" ©¦'pTDnn known state of the case in classical Syriac. This imperfect, like the one which follows it, doubtless ended in H. ^The word should be written ^Itari^ (^^tJlj^), without the ^. It is a haph^el imperfect from the root tOUn, corresponding to the Arabic t^~w (not iais.), and with exactly the same meaning, "lay." The I Esdras translation, viro^dXXovTai, is not a bad rendering. The ^rs^ stem of the Arabic verb is used both transitively ("lay") and intransitively ("come down"). The /omH/i stem also is used with the meaning "put down, lay," just as the corresponding form, the haph'el, is used here in Aramaic. The verb is common in Arabic, but has not thus far been found elsewhere in the cognate languages. ''On these three words see above, the section dealing with the foreign words. ''The Greek eVi^etrt?; see above, on the foreign words. MT DhBS. ¦^The final D in MT is probably a mere copyist's error for ". We have no other evidence of an Aramaic plur. in -im. This is not a Hebraism. ¦^This haph''el has two uses: the one causative, as in vss. 15, 22; the other signifying to come into the condition (viz., of deterioration), as this stem is so frequently used in Semitic. Cf. the two uses of nbsn , Dan. 3:30 and 6:29. The fem. form here because of the (Greek) fem. noun; see above. = It is often said (e. g., by Marti, Gramm., p. 98; Strack, Gramm., p. 56; Brown-Driver-Briggs, Lexicon) that this is wrongly divided and pointed, and that the form should be bapbS • But this is not true ; the massoretes have divided and pointed cor rectly. The shifting of the vowel is very natural, and has many analogies; and as for the division, it is not a whit more remark able than in b^J , Eccles. 8:17, cf. Jonah 1:7, 8; or b^l (as a separate word) in the Palmyrene inscriptions; or than in sLyil juc, for Sil ^ (Noldeke, Delectus vet. carm. arab., 10, 4; Goldziher, Abhandl. zur arab. Ptiilol, II, p. xiv). These are local and temporary habits of orthography. 188 Ezra Studies ¦'T' ©,x3b7jb 'KDy^im KDnbia nn by ,STr!ab xsb y"-;^ nd "iWFiTfsi ^p/Toi i^ib7j !npT5in7ji Nni7j j^-^np "^t sri-'np ^n ©minn -n xn^ip hdi by ;s7jby w^i^ 17^ wjh yi^y s^n^TBi i^.priri "jt j^n^np p ^1 2: annna-i -. -. It t t ''"News," as in the title dyti bya. "So also in the Egyptian papyri, the forms ^nX and "nn (Cowley, op>. cit.). ^The singular suffix, as in 4:6 (7) ; a merely literary variation from the more frequent plural. The suffix refers to the nearer one of the two names. 'Aramaic adaptation of the Greek 'eirapxo^; see above. MT X^5D13X . Perhaps the 5 and D were actually transposed in the Jewish pronunciation of the word. *^This word, "Judea," occurs in the letter from the Jews of Elephantine, 408 b. c, published by Sachau, I, 1. ^ A word of unknown origin ; see above. '' It is safest to retain this Jewish pointing, ¦',72 instead of "2 , until we know more about it. 'This form should not be "emended" away, especially since precisely similar forms are found in the Palestinian Talmud and the Jerusalem Targums (Dalman, Gramm^, 340, 349). So also in biblical Hebrew, and especially when b is joined to the infin itive, Gesen.-Kautzsch, § 45, d, e. In Ezr. 7 : 9, indeed, we seem to have an Aramaizing infin. of just this sort, nbya (Gesen.- Kautzsch, I. c). These isolated occurrences are too valuable to be thrown away. ^ See the note" on this word in vs. 3. ' This is correct as it stands. The Aramaic Portions op Ezra 191 X3n]x :" 17272b . xDia-^nn xa.in3 X723ai" © "¦ dn^'uixia naa xm n xn-^a y^z.^ ;xyixi x^ai2: nbx n minay ian ©nbbidi mja ai bxiir-'b -|b72i .¦js-'airi p^ nin n72ipa ra i72n nn^ .x^ac tibxb xDiinax inin n ¦)72 °inb" •'ban n^ayi tnino nn nri^ai ,xno5 baa nba "lansia^ - T - - - T I xsba 12:115 .baa n xsba i2:iiab mn nsaa Dia" ©"baab T .xnbx ti-'a n x^3X72 -|X1'* ©'ii^snb nsi xnbx n-^a dyt: Di2: dbi2:iTa n xbsm ^a psjn isaiiias ^i .xeosi nan^ n xbrn -ja xsba hjiid ian p33n .baa n xbsmb ian bami :nb 172X1" ©wair nn3 n .'W211: ^i^ai2:iab lam^i .baa n n^ai .dbiriTa n xbima ian nnx bTX xir .x^Dxa mbx "There is no Hebraism here. As for the "un-Aramaic" pro nunciation with 1 instead of "1 , is not this what we see preserved in the modern name of the important town Edseyd, X'lTXI , at the northern foot of Hermon? (We seem to have similar survivals of this Aram. plur. ending in the names of the towns Hdsheyd, X"'aii:n , west of Hermon, and Ddreyd, X^'H , just south of Da mascus. I do not know that this explanation of them has ever been given before. ) "This same form (without X) in a papyrus record from Ele phantine; Sachau, op. cd., p. 41. The thoroughgoing Hebraism 172Xb occurs some fifteen times in the papyri published by Sayce and Cowley. ° This also, similarly used, in the Egy[)tian papyri. PThe incorrect form of the name generally used by the Jews iu the Greek period. Also vs. 14 and (>: 5. "Babylonia, not Babylon. ¦¦ See above, on vs. 3. ^ See above, on the proper names. ' The comments which have been made in recent years on the text of this last clause are curious. As though (17212: llia'aili: , "Sheshbazzar by name," were not faultless Aramaic! Marti, in the note appended to his text, suggests that n7212: may be a gloss (!!). Guthe, Polychrome Bilde, decides that the word is the result of dittography (!) of the nai2: at the end of the verse; so also Bertholet, Comm. And so on. " Not a Hebraism, as has long been known from the old Ara- 192 Ezra Studies "X^iBX am-xm XI ^^^^^ p^'" ©^ninx by xDaii-' xnbx ©"db'ffi xbi i5?an72 -jyi nyi -fix 'p^ Jdbaii^a n xnbx n^a n '[¦'1 in.'^'^iic] n ''X'TDJ n^aa ipnn^ .at: Xjba by -jn lysv dyt: d-'i2: xiba 12J11D ja n ¦'nx -n .^baaa •'i .nari xaba © xrby nbi2:^ nDi by xsba myn ; dbi2:ii"a -ji xnbx n^a XDa72b x^i3C n ''X-'TD^ n^aa iipai .dyt: Di2: xiba i2:Tn yixa 6' naa n xni-'aa xnanxa risnicm ' © baaa nan rnnna - T . T - - . J - © :ni:a z'x^'d lii .mn nbja =xnDna :dyt: d'ffl xsba 12:113 .xaba 12:113b mn n:i2;a'" .='n;ii3i' m^iBxi -pnai ¦j-'nai ^1 inx xDatr^ xn^a .dbraii^a xnbx n-'a px n TSaia* ©; 7:112: i^ax n^in3 .i^nir -fax n72ii '.-pbaica ©amnii xsba ma -a xnp3Dl ;^nin yx n -jai;i .xnbn bbj maic inscriptions. In Jewish Aramaic also in Jer. 10:11 and often in the Assuan papyri. "This same phrase used in speaking of the Egyptian temple; Sachau, op. cit., p. 41. ^ Meyer, Entstehung, p. 44, thinks that the meaning of an*' X^12:X is "problematisch"! "Not passive, but the perf. pe'ai of the stative verb. y Plural, " store- /lOMsesy" see the note on 4: 15. ^ The emendation, and the reason for the loss of the words from the text, are alike obvious. ''Here again, baa is the country, "Babylonia." ''The transposition is necessary, not merely for the sake of agreement with 5:17 (as emended), but in order to make sense. "Marti, Gramm., p. 45*: "Xmna n72a n fehlt in LXX." What does he mean by this? ''¦jIDT (the older form) similarly used in the Elephantine papyrus; Sachau, pp. 40 f. '=MT Tliax. But many scholars since Ball {Variorum Apo crypha, 1892, p. 16) have seen that the word for "fire-offering" originally stood here, as also I Esdras translates. The form adopted (emphat. plur. written with n) is the most likely one. *^This is not a. pofil, but a regularly formed sapWel from the root bal, Heb. ba\ Assyr. abdlu, "bring." Cf. the use of the hiph'il b"'ain, in speaking of bringing offerings to Yahwfe; Ps. 68:30; 76:12; Zeph. 3:10. ^MT tnn, "new." The Aramaic Portions of Ezra 193 •a psm i::;iDia2 n ,x3cdi nani n .xnbx ma -xa cxV n xbamb "-j-'i ;-iaTim .baab bami db-xn-a n xbrn ©"^xnbx maa 'nn:-i ,n^rixb dbcii-a * * * n '"xi'cr'^EX '"inm:=i .^nzimc ,n"^n: ^ay nns "nn -p" xnbx ma m-ayb ipa-i' ©nan -a im vpmi .mn: izra © n^nx by -iia* - 1 xnbx n^a ; xnm^ ""airbi xnm^ nns -- ''The construciio ad seiisum, "and let it (all) come." Cf. the similar change of number in vs. 9, and the change of gender at the end of 5: S. ' MT nnm , but the second person is out of the question here. Read the hophal imperf. masc. (cf. Dan. 5:20), which is gra phically almost the exact equivalent of the form in MT. •^On the lacuna here, see above, p. 159. It is plain that at a very early date a passage of some length was accidentally dropped; probably because it resembled the preceding, and ended with the words xnbx n-'a. 'It is common to "emend" this suffix to that of the second person, but no such alteration is required. When the persons directly addressed are not actually present, the Semitic often refers to them at the outset, in the formal address itself, with the third person, as here and in 4: 17. Thus, for example, the Dip in Micah 1:2: the ly^T ijjjJt L^t b etc. of the Koran; and many other instances. " See the note on 5 : 6. " The text of this verse is probably correct as it stands in MT, though the clauses are wrongly divided there. In this word ^a'flbl , the b is used exactly as it is in bsbl, 7:2S; i. e., in order to show how the construction is continued. In this instance, it shows that the noun is the direct object of the preceding verb, not the subject of the following verb, as it would otherwise pretty certainly be regarded. Jerome understood the verse as I have punctuated it. Marti, Gramm., and Bertholet, Comm., say that "LXX" omits Xmn"' nns. which is not true; Kittel, Bibl. S^e6r., says that I Esdr. "inserts"' baai" Xnbx ~ayb . which also is not true. Guthe's restoration of the text here {Polychrome Bible) is a marvel. 194 Ezra Studies xraab -jbx x^'iin" -a'-^ dy ¦;nayn n xab ,cyt: d^'ra '2ai' xnps; xnccx n^n: ^ay n^p n xaba °'":ai .ip xnbx ma o:ni ,P|m»n --av ©nbiaab xb ^- ."ibx x'^a:.b xan-na xmn ¦ I T T T — 1 -172X733 .niB'ai Ton nbT; 7i:;n .S1721S nbsb ^ibyb '-ii-iiaxi ii-ia-i riin ¦iinb I-!"! ©ibuj xb 1- ="ia zii nnb 'ammo xinb DbciT^a ^i x-^rna ' T T .... T d"'i2: ^2ai" ©tiniDai xabia i^nb ';^|s'ai .x-'Taui nbxb iinim: T^a-ipna nn^a ia yx ncrm, .nn xar-ns xr^m n ir:x ba n ,dyt: ¦1 xnbxv- '©mi by ,"iaym ibiD nmai ,miby xnam -771 n^a 'mbanb m-^ nbi2:^ ^1 dyi "^ba bs "-sa' nan nair' -3d ° An explicative 1, meaning "even" or "namely," was certainly used to a considerable extent in the Aramaic of this period. See vs. 9, "ial, and also my notes on I Esdr. 3:1, 6 (above, p. 50). P Generally regarded as plur. of a supposed fem. noun Xnnirn, "need;" so Noldeke in Kautzsch, Gram, des bibl. Aram., p. 175. It seems to me more probable that it is the fem. plur. of the pefd participle, with the meaning "needful." The same form, in just this use, is common in Syriac; and the adjective, or its equivalent, is intrinsically much more probable here than a noun. The con struction according to the sense, "whatever (things) are needful," is certainly possible, especially for such a slovenly writer as this one; and the fem. is the gender to be expected. MT points 'n , just as it points npa for nt:a , "jn^ for in"' . yiix for yiix , ans for ans , and many others ; observe especially that this very participle is pointed "pni2:n in Dan. 3:16^ according to excellent testimony. And this all undoubtedlv rep resents an actual (local or late) pronunciation. ''The "explicative" 1 again; see the note on vs. 8. For this use of --Da, cf. II Chron. 35:7. ¦•Cf. 7:17, etc. ^For the change of gender and number, "let it (all) be given," cf. vs. 5, and the note there. 'For the reasons for ascribing these two verses to the Chroni cler, see Comp., p. 10. "Cf. Dan. 2:5; 3:29, and see above, pp. 84 f. ''Both 1j72 and ban, used as in this verse, in the Elephantine papyrus, ed. Sachau, I, 1. 14. ™MT inserts n'3l2:nb before this word; plainly the lapsus ccdami of a scribe who remembered what he had just written in vs. 11. The Aramaic Portions of Ezra 195 © layn" xnscx , dyt: n72i2: i2:m nsx . dbi2:ii'a n "i'l xnbx n bapb .-jinniDSi ^DTiain-o: mm: lay nns -jnn -jnx" ¦p:a xnm^ ^niri" ©nay xsiscx xaas xsba 12:1m nbi2:' It ¦• t - ¦ja ibbairi isai .iiy ia n-'ipTi mjk^as -an nxiaaa .¦fnb272i ©-O'ls 'ib72 xniriianmxi i2:rni 12:115 dyt372i ,bxiir^ nbx "dyt: n ;iix ni^'b mnbn[i "]nir,y] dv iy nil nn^a ^x^^^iiv' Thechronicier x^Dns bxiir^ ^Da nayV ©xsba i2:rn niabab ni2: n3i2: =xm t "See the note on 5:1. yNot "a Hebraism" (Marti). Both forms of the construct were in common use in the period from which our biblical Aramaic dates. So dbll and dbn , etc. The massoretic distinction between the "decree" of God and the "decree" of the friendly kings is natural enough. ^An addition carelessly made by some later hand. ^The orthography with X may well be ancient; it is safest to retain it. As for the meaning, there is not the least room for doubt, in view of the common use of "'^'^IS in later Jewish Aramaic, to mean "be finished," "come to an end." Merely an example of the stative saph'el (aT''12:, "escape," furnishes another example); cf. the note (d) on 4:13, above. So under stood in I Esdr. 7:5, avveTeXeady 6 oZ/co?. To "emend" to the plural would be a very foolish proceeding. ''The " twenty -ih.ixdi" day of the month, as is made nearly cer tain by I Esdras and Josephus (xi, 4, 7). The "twenty" might easily fall out by accident; it would hardly have been added. The following month, Nisan, was the natural one to select for the first complete restoration of the cultus, cf. Exod. 40:17 ff. This was the first month of the seventh year of Darius. Accord ing to the Chronicler (who always provides an exact date), after the people had finished building they still had a week left for the celebration, before the beginning of the new year. "According to Meyer, Entstehung, 54, X^n ^1 is "offenbar versttimmelt," and- subsequent commentators have echoed this. As for the pronoun, the fem. is quite as natural as the masc, according to all Semitic usage, and undoubtedly stood here origi nally. And as for the connection: "namely, of the sixth year," there is not the least reason to object to it; nor would there be, even if the Chronicler were not its author. The ellipsis is a natural one. 196 Ezra Studies ia-pni" ©nnna n;i xnbx n^a nsrn xmbj -;a ixisi x^ibi . I - TV '.. T T .-T-- yaix -inax .-fnxa -fisi ,nxa -jnin n3- xnbx n^a ns3nb ¦'t:ai2: vjab ,iicy np bxiir-- ba by x''tonb rv ^1^3:21 .nxa by , imnpbnaa x-^ibi . imn-ibsa x-'sns la^pni " © bxii2:'' ' 'r - "T" ' T ¦-, • T ' x^y^m] .n-ia ^3c anss .dbi2:1i-'a n xnbx "[n^'a] ni'ay T ~ T T " T ¦ ©[''yini ynnb (Hebrew) o -jVoXin i2:inb I'ffly nyaixa ncsn nx nbian ¦':a licy^v' 'i:*i iint:n 'S"" EZRA'S CREDENTIALS (Ezr. 7:11-28) x-'Tyb 'xnoirnnix ^^ban -ns izx -(in-aim '^'z-'Z nil 7" The Chronicler (Hebrew) ©bxiffi^ by rpni mn-' m::72 -^lai 13c <^3'cn -nrn Thechronicier -,^jj5 n ^xm 13D . x3na xiTyb .x'sba iba .'xnci2:nmx' (Aramaic) t t - t t t •.¦ I ... ''This word was probably dropped from the text by accident, at an early day. It cannot be dispensed with here. ''So I Esdras, at this point: Kal ol Ovptopol e^' mdaTov 7rvX(ovo<;, and Josephus also had these words before him. The words are the Chronicler's own (no one else would have been half so likely to write them), and they are in their original place, cf. II Chron. 8:14; 23:18 f.; 35:15. They were accidentally omitted by some one who thought that the verse ended with the reference to the "Book of Moses." The exact form of the words is made certain by the passages cited, and especially by the rendering of this same translator in II Chron. 35:15 = 1 Esdr. 1:15. "¦On the orthography of this name see above, in the section on the proper names. sMeyer, Entstehung, p. 61, writes: "Das Particip mit dem abhangigen Nomen xm 13C kann nichts anderes heissen als 'der das Gesetz geschrieben hat.'" He therefore concludes that Ezra is especially designated here, in this official document, as the author of the "Priest-Code." So far as grammar and usage are concerned, this observation is precisely as valuable as the one on pp. 16 f., in which he insists that xniflfflnniX by, Ezr. 4:7, can only mean "against Artaxerxes." And as for the "Priest-Code," The Aramaic Portions op Ezra 197 bs n .dyt: d^'ic ¦^sa"" ^mysi" ©^''P ''[abi2:] .x'a'>2: dbi2:ii^b inab x'ibi mi3nsi bxi'u:^ x^ay ia -msbaa ai:na It -t" t I - .''mbi2: mby;; nyairi xsba dip -(a n 'bap bs'* ©^v^ 'T-^ nbambv ©."(Ta n -jnbx nia .'Dbi2:ii-'bi urn by nijsab nbi2:iTa n ^bxib^' nbxb iai3nn mit:y;i xsba n .anil ces dy ; baa n3na bsa nsi2:nn n arm -ps bsi '' © ; n;3"tt:72 Qdbi2:ii''a n "dhnbx mab "'rai3na .x-3nsi xay ma^snn T I - T T- ¦(nax i^isi inin nsi xecsa xspn "xs^scx .nsi bap bs" n "dsnbx ma n xnm72 by ian "a'^j^ni . -jimscji - imnn372r nanii X3CS ixi2:a yc^-'_ -^nx byi 'i-'by n "nai" ©dbi2:ii"a •|nb3b '^b I'anTa n x^3X72i" ©inayn dsnbx myis .iay72b it is quite as purely a fiction of modern Old Testament learning as is the "Hexateuch," against which designation Meyer (pp. 216 ff.) rightly declaims. There was a priestly expansion and redac tion of the law (which took place in Palestine, not in "Babylonia) ; but when once the true origin and character of the Ezra story are recognized, there is not a scrap of evidence, external or internal, tending to show that any separate "priestly law-book" ever existed. ''The emendation is certain. 'See the note (e) on 4: 14. ''The omission of the subject (the pron. of the second pers. sing.) is very awkward, but is also very characteristic. See Driver, Introd., list of the Chronicler's peculiar syntactical usages. No. 27. A good parallel, e. g., is II Chron. 19:6 (end) : "and [he is] with you in the judgment." So also 18:3, etc. 'The characteristic use of b in continuing the force of another proposition previously used ; see the note (n) on 6:7; also above, p. 125, n. i, and below, vs. 28. ¦" Accusative of condition. "See the note on this suffix in 5:3. °See above, on the foreign words. PThe pa'el, in this sense, is more common than the aph'el in Aramaic, whether Jewish or Christian. To "emend" here is pure vandalism. ¦^Cf. the beginning of 6:9. 198 Ezra Studies ma ^nini2:n 1x12:1'° ©'abi2:1i^ nbx dip dban ."jnbx ma ©xsba 'T3j ma -,a -jrisn .¦]n37pb "^b b^i n -jnbx laya n 'xnaTJ bsb dyt: d^ir xsba xnoannix nsx ^sai" T .X''72i2: nbx n xm ibd .xsns xi-y iiS3bxi2:^ n bs n .nin3 T T T '.' I V ¦ rus; see above. ¦"In the reorganization, by Darius I, ot the Peisian provincial govern ment, an official was created whose especial business it was to report to the king the progress of afiairs in each satrapy (Noldeke, Aufsdtze zur persischen Qeschichte, .33 f .). It is this olBcer who is intended here by the title Dyi3 573 ; ct. the use of 4?72yt3 in 5:5. The old Greek translator, who rendered 6 yp&cfiiav Tct -irpoinrlirTovTa, lived at a time in which the recollection of these government officials was still preserved. "That is, tianslated into Hebrew; there is no other natural or possible interpretation. The narrator supposed that the Jews of the time of Arta xerxes I did not know Aramaic well. °The word of greeting is not present in our text, but may be understood. PThat is, "from thy land," Babylonia. The reference is to the expedition in the days of Cyrus, to which indirect allusion is again made in the following chapters. See above, p. 161, n. 31. arins king of t'ersia. 5' thi I Haggai the prophet, and Zechariah the son of Idilo, littered a prophecy for the ,Ieivs ivho ivere in J-ndea and .feriisideiii, in the name of Ihe God of Israel ivhich'''' ivas over them. ^Tliere- ' 1. •.-., tho glory of tho diiy.s of David and Solomon will return, iind the .lews will rule over all Samaria and Syria. 'So, freciuoiitly, thci tliinl person rallierthan thoseeoiul, in Semitic UB:if;;o. See the niite on the text of (!:(>. 'No l'(>rKi:in king or ollicial could over have written this verse, nor anything resembling it. It is, on the contrary, iin illustration of the old familiar eustom of the Jewish writers ot the last centuries u. i\, to fj:ive i^lory to their eity, and their tmuiile, and thenlSl^lvep, l>y proxy. "Lit., "to the d:iniafj;e of kinf,'S.'' "Lit., "l)y arm and (military) foree." ''Cf. Deut. 2S:1(), ele. 202 Ezra Studies upon rose up Zerubbabel the son of Shealtiel and Jeshua the son of Jozadak, and began" to build the house of God in Jerusalem, and with them were the prophets of God helping them. ^At that time there came to them Tattenai, governor of the jirovince Beyond the Eiver, and Shetharbozenai,^ and their com panions, and thus they said to them: Who hath given you com mand to build this house, and to complete tliis colonnade?' *They also asked'' them: What are the names ofthe men who are build ing this building? ^But the eye of their God was upon the elders of the Jews, and they did not stop them, until the report should come to Darius and thereupon a message be returned in regard to the matter. " The copy of the letter which Tattenai, governor of the province Beyond the River, and Shetharbozenai, and his companions, the eparchs who were in the province Beyond the River, sent to Darius the king. '' They sent him a communication, and thus was written in it: To Darius the king, all peace. "Be it known to the king, that we went to the province of Judea, to the house of the great God; and it is being built with great stones, and wood is pint into the walls; and the work is done diligently, and prospers in their hands. "Then we questioned those elders,^ and thus we said to them: Who hath given you command to build this house, and to complete this colonnade?'^ ^"Moreover, we asked of them their names, in order to make them known to thee, so that we might write down the names of the men who are at their head. ^^And thus they made reply to us, saying: We are the servants of the God of heaven and earth, and are rebuilding a house which was erected many years ago, one which a great king of Israel built and completed. ^^But because our fathers angered the God of heaven, he gave them into the hand of Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon, the Chaldean; and he destroyed this house, and car- " See the note on the Aramaic text. The phrase here implies nothing more than the words of Haggai 1:14: "they came and did work on the house of Yahw6." yThe traditional pronunciation; but see above, on the proper names. ^The meaning of the Aramaic word is uncertain. See above, on the foreign wordp. "MT, "then thus we said to them;" see the nota on the text. ''This would indeed be a singular expression for the hostile officials to use! ¦^See the note in vs. 3. The Aramaic Portions of Ezra 203 ried away the people captive to Babylonia. "But in the first year of Cyrus king of Babylon, Cyrus the king gave command to build this house of God. "Also the vessels of the house of God, of gold and of silver, which Nebuchadnezzar had taken away from the temple in Jerusalem and brought to the temple in Babylon, Cyrus the king brought out from the temple in Babylon and deliv ered to one named Sheshbazzar, ivhom he had made governor. ^^And he said to him: Take these vessels, and go, deposit them in the temple which is in Jerusalem; and let the house of God be built upon its {former) site. ^^Then came that Sheshbazzar and laid the foundations of the house of God in Jerusalem; and from that time until now it hath been building, but is not completed. ^'' Now therefore, if it seem good to the king, let search be made in the storehouses^ in which are the royal documents," in Babylonia,^ to see whether it be true that command was given by Cyrus the king to build that house of God in Jerusalem; and let the king send to us his pleasure in the matter. 6 ' Then Darius the king gave command, and they made search in the storehouses in Babylonia* where the documents^ were deposited. ^And in the citadel at Ecbatana, which is in the province of Media, there was found a certain scroll;^ and thus was written in it: ^Memorandum. ®/tc the first year of Cyrus the king. King Cyrus gave order : As for the house of God in Jerusalem, let the house be built in the place where they offer sacrifices and bring the burnt offerings. Its height shall be sixty cubits and its breadth sixty cubits. *Let there be three courses of great stones, and one course of ivood; and let the expense be paid from the king''s house. ^Also the vessels ofthe house of God, of gold and of silver, which Nebuchadnezzar took away from the temple in Jerusalem and brought to Babylon, let them restore; and let it {all) come to the temple in Jerusalem, to its place, and be deposited in the house of God} ***** ^Noiv Tattenai, governor of the province Beyond the River, Shetharbozenai, and their^ companions, the ejyarchs who are in ¦* Plural number, not singular. 'MT has accidentally lost two words here. ^Not "Babylon." sMT, "the libraries in B. where the treasures were deposited." '^Encycl. Bibl, II, 1481 middle: "i.e., the cuneiform tablet"! 'On the lacuna at this point, see above, p. 159. ''See the note on 4:17. 204 Ezra Studies the province Beyond the River, be ye far from thence. ^ Leave the governor of the Jeivs and the elders of the Jews free to ivork upon that house of God; let them build that house of God in its place. "And I hereby give command, in regard to whatever ye shall do in co-operation tvith those Jewish elders toward building that house of God, that out of the royal revenue from the tribute of the province Beyond the River the expense be diligently paid to those men, ivithout fail. "And whatever things are needful, such as yonng bullocks, rams, and lambs, for whole-burnt-oiferings to the God of heaven; wheat, salt, wine, and oil; according to the word of the priests who are in Jerusalem let it (all) be given to them, day by day, without negligence; ^°so that they may offer pleasant oiferings to the God of heaven, and pray for the life of the king and his sons.' "And I have made a decree, that if any man alter this edict, a, beam shall be pulled out of his house and he shall be impaled thereon, and his house shall be made a dunghill, in pjunishment for this. *'' And may the God who hath made his name to dwell there overttirow any king or people ivho shall put forth a hand to destroy "^ that house of God which is in Jerusalem. I, Darius, have given command; let it be diligently performed. "Then Tattenai, govei'nor of the province Beyond the River, Shetharbozenai, and their companions, according to the word which Darius the king had sent, thus they did diligently. "And the elders of the Jews built and prospered, through the prophecy of Haggai the prophet and Zechariah the son of Iddo. And they completed their building" by the command of the God of Israel, and by the order of Cyrus, and Darius, and Artaxerxes king of Persia. Chronicler '*And this house was finished on the [twenty-] third day of the month Adar, of the sixth year of the reign of Darius the king. "And the children of Israel, the priests, and the Levites, and the rest of the children of the captivity performed the dedication of this house of God with joy. "And they offered, for the dedica tion of this house of God, one hundred bullocks, two hundred rams, and four hundred lambs ; and for a sin offering for all Israel twelve he-goats, according to the number of the tribes of Israel. 'Vss. 9f. are the work of the Chronicler; see above. •"MT, "to change, to destroy;" the result of a copyist's error, see the note on the Aramaic text. "Lit., "and they built and completed." (Aramaic) The Aramaic Portions of Ezra 205 '*And they stationed the priests in their divisions, and the Levites in their courses, for the service of [the house of] God which is in Jerusalem, according to the prescription of the book of Moses, [and tbe portei-s were at every gate]. | '"And the children of the (Hebrew) captivity observed the passover in the fourteenth day of the first month. {The remaining verses {'2(.i-'.^'2) of the chapter give a brief account, in Hebrew, of this passover. Then follows the introduc tion to the story of Ezra, 7:1-10, this also compose'd by the Chronicler, and written in Hebrew. Vs. 11 introduces the "tet ter of Artaxer.res.--) 7 "And this is the copy of the letter which Artaxerxes ' the king TheChronicier gave to Ezra the priest, the scribe, learned in the words of the ordinances of Yahw6 and his statutes for Israel: '"Artaxerxes, king of kings, to Ezra the priest, the scribe of the TheChronicier lawof the God of heaven, perfect [peace]. '^To proceed: "^'Iliave - """"^""^ made a decree, that any one in my kingdom, of the people of Israel, and its priests, and the Levites. who shall freely offer to go with thee to Jerusalem. p may go; "inasmuch as thou art sent by the king and his seven counselors, to make investisationi regard- ing Judea and Jerusalem in accordance with the law of thy God which is in thy hand; '''and to carry the silver and gold which the king and his counselors have vowed to the God of Israel, whose dwellinir is in Jerusalem; "'as well as all the silver and e^old which thou shalt find in all the province of Babylonia:"' together with the free-will offering of the people and the priests, which they vow for the house of their God which is in .Jerusalem. ''Thou shalt therefore purchase diligently, with this money, bullocks, rams. and lambs, besides their meal offerings and their drink offerings. and thou shalt offer them upon the altar of the house of your God which is in Jerusalem. '^And whatsoever shall seem good to thee and to thy brethren to do with the rest of the silver and gold, ye "•I. e., according to the Chronicler, .A^rtaxerses II; to whose reign he also assigns the story of Xehemiah. See above, pp. 3S, 135 f. pQn the very striking resemblance of this letter, in its substance aud its phraseology, to the similar documents (also composed by the Chronicler) in Ezr. 1:3-6 and I Esdr. 4:47-56. see above, pp. 157 f. iln what follows it is made plain that the mission of Ezra included also the institution of any needed reforms. 'This apparently refers to contributions solicited from people of the prov ince who were not Jews. 206 Ezra Studies may do according to the good pleasure of your God. "And the vessels which are given to thee for the service of the house of thy God, deliver in the presence of the God of Jerusalem.^ '^"And whatever other requirement of the house of thy God it may happen to thee to bestow, thou mayest bestow it out of the king's treasury. ^'And I, Artaxerxes the king, hereby issue a decree, to all the treasurers of the province Beyond the Eiver ; that whatever Ezra the priest, the scribe of the law of the God of heaven, shall require of you, let it be done diligently; ^^unto a hundred talents of silver, and to a hundred measures of wheat, and to a hundred measures of wine, and to a hundred measures of oil, and salt without pre scription (of the amount). ^'Whatsoever is by the command of the God of heaven, let it be done diligently' for the house of the God of heaven; lest wrath come upon the reign of the king and his sons. ^*And to you notice is hereby given, that upon no one of the priests or Levites, singers, porters, Nethinim, or (other) servants of this house of God, is it permitted to impose tribute, tax, or custom." ^^And do thou, Ezra, according to the wisdom of God which is in thy hand, appoint magistrates and judges, who shall judge all the people of the province Beyond the River,'' all who know the = See tbe note on the Aramaic text. 'The word is quite unknown, but this is its evident meaning. "The gifts and prerogatives promised in the document thus far make a list which is not guite incredible in itself; it is rather the form iu which it is all cast that betrays with certainty the Jewish authorship. It is interesting to compare fhe imaginary letter from Demetrius Soter to the Jews, " quoted " in I Mace. 10:26-45, where the author of that history deliberately sets himself the task of composing such a list ot royal grants and concessions as should be truly "incredible" (cf. vs. 46). But in the final paragraph of the Artaxerxes edict, where the king for mally adopts the law of Moses for the Jews of all Syria and Palestine, and gives Ezra and the officers appointed by him free hand to enforce this law throughout the whole Transflumen(!), with power to imprison, con fiscate, banish, and execute the death penalty, it is plain that even the last vestige of probability is gone. ''Meyer, Entxtehung, p. 67, argues that this phrase means (and presumably it does, since the Chronicler wrote it) the Jewish community in the Transfiumen, "oder wie wir sagen wtirden Palastina "[!], and then adds, that the Jews of Palestine occupied only the one compact settlement in Judea. That is, mnD ~\2S2 ''I X'Oy bD is.by these successive steps reduced to mean only the Jewish church in Judea! This is convenient reasoning, but in view ot the constant use of the term "Beyond the River" in express contrast with Judea, all through Ezra and Nehemiah, the argument cannot stand. The Aramaic Portions of Ezra 207 law of thy God ; and those who do not know it ye shall teach. ^"^ And whoever will not observe the law of thy God and the law of the king, let judgment be executed diligently upon him ; whether unto death, or to banishment, or to confiscation of goods, or to imprisonment. "Blessed"^ be Yahw6, the God of our fathers, who put such a TheChronicier thing as this into the heart of the king, to beautify the house of 'H«'"'^^) Yahw6 which is in Jerusalem; ^°and gave me favor in the eyes of the king and his counselors, and all the mighty officers of the king. So I strengthened myself, by virtue of the hand of Yahw6 my God which was over me, and gathered out of Israel chief men" to go up with me. "See the note on the text. ^Cf. especially Ezr. 1:5 and I Esdr. 5:1. These "chief men" of Israel are sure to appear wherever the Chronicler is the writer. VII THE CHRONICLER AS EDITOR AND AS INDEPENDENT NARRATOR I. the chronicler's main purpose The Chronicler is a writer who has received a good many hard knocks — often well deserved — from modern critics of every school, but one whose importance as a composer of Hebrew narra tive seems to have remained everywhere unnoticed. He is not merely a compiler and editor, selecting and shaping materials which lay before him; he is also an original author, and possessed of some striking literary excellences, which apjDcar in every part of his unaided work. It is the main purpose of the following investigation to show, more fully than was possible in my former treatise,' the extent and the nature of the Chronicler's independent contributions to the "post-exilic" history of Israel. As I have already pointed out, and as will appear still more fully in the sequel, the Chronicler's great task was to establish the supreme authority of the Jerusalem cultus, in all its details (see the statements already made, pp. 153-55). It is evident that this authority had been sharply challenged, as, indeed, was quite inevitable. So long as the Hebrews were all, or mostly, settled in Palestine, and with a man of David's line occupying the throne in Jerusalem, there could be no question as to the center of the Israelite religion; but when, on the contrary, the Hebrew state was overthrown, and the people scattered abroad, while new Jewish temples were gaining in influence, the questions of authority and centralization became burning ones. Just as one and another of the great branches of the Christian church have striven, with varying success, to show the apostolic origin of their institutions, mainly to silence their opponents, so the Jews of the Second Temple found themselves called upon to prove, if they could, that they in distinction from their brethren elsewhere were the real successors and heirs of David and Solomon, and that their 1 ComposUion of Ezra-Nehemiah, 189S. The main conclusions there stated, though new and thus (ar only partially accepted by Old Testament scholars, are all, as I believe, quite certain. 208 The Chronicler as Editor and as Narrator 209 local traditions of the temple administration and worship were really, derived from Moses and Aaron. Against the claims of the exclusive party in Jerusalem stood some formidable obstacles. Of these, the most important by far was the tradition, which had grown up, that Jerusalem and Judea were not only completely depopulated by the armies of Nebuchad rezzar, but that they remained thus vacant for a long time. Thus especially II Kings 24:14 ff.; 25:8-12, 26; Jer. 25:11 f.; 29:10, etc. This tradition — due chiefly to a misunderstanding of Haggai and Zecharaiah — was harmless at first; but when the new Israelite seat of worship was established at Shechem, a most effective weapon was put into the hands of this rival sect. The Samaritans could claim, and with much apparent right on their side, that they themselves were the rightful heirs and the true church. Jerusalem had had its long and glorious day, and would always remain the most sacred of cities to the Hebrew ; but might not the center of gravity of Israel, and especially the principal seat of the cultus, now return northward? The contest of the Jews with the Samaritans was really a life and death struggle, and the latter possessed some important external advantages at the start. There were doubtless also facts connected with th»religious tradition, to which they could appeal, and which could not easily be gainsaid. They could probably prove, in a ,great many instances, that not only individuals of priestly rank, but also whole priestly families, had migrated into the North-Israelite territory when Jerusalem was destroyed, and that their descendants were now pillars of the Samaritan church. These were sons of Aaron, and with them were Levites; were there any in Jerusalem who could show a clearer title? Probably not, until the Chronicler wrote his history, carrying back through the past centuries the genealogy of the families who in his day constituted the loyal Jewish church in Jerusalem and the neighboring towns, and excluding all others from legitimacy. Nor was it merely with the Samaritans and other rivals in view that this work was undertaken. The Jews had need to justify themselves and their cult in the eyes of the greater world round about them; see above, pp. 147, 153, 155. Moreover, the glory of Jerusalem and of David's line was not duly appreciated, even in Judea, especially now that the horizon of the people had been greatly widened. Hence the Chronicler's marked interest 210 Ezra Studies in foreign kings, and his frequent attempts to show the wide influ ence of the Hebrew power. He adds an east-Jordanic list of names at the end of I Chron. 11 (see below) ; describes David's magnificent army, in 12:23-40; besides incorporating (especially in chaps. lS-20) all the material of this sort from II Samuel. He expands greatly the story of Hiram of Tyre in his relations with Solomon (see below), and makes much of the incident of Josiah and Xecho. Further illustration will be given in the sequel. It may be that the occasional accounts of great building operations undertaken in more or less remote regions by kings of Judah originated in this same tendency. And hence, certainly, the large numbers which he so often introduces. He wished his readers, and perhaps especially the youth of his people, to feel the might and splendor of the ancient time, of which the preserved record was so wretchedly meager (see below, p. 231, note). When for instance, he narrates how Solomon, at the dedication of the temple, sacrificed "22,000 oxen and 120,000 sheep,"' we may regard the exaggeration as a small outburst of loyalty on his part. Not even Nebuchadnezzar, or Darius Codomannus, or Alexander the Great, those mightiest of all kings in the popular belief of the Chronicler's time, were able to make offerings on such a scale as this. An important feature of his undertaking, and one in which he evidently took especial satisfaction, was the celebration of the Levites. In magnif}ing their office he magnified the ecclesi astical organization in Jerusalem, and at the same time filled what must have seemed to him a serious gap in the written historv of Israel as it then existed. Side by side with the priests, these temple officials held a most conspicuous place in the public wor ship of his time. There was the main body of "Levites" with their prescribed part in the ritual and the service of the temple ; there were also the special Levitical classes of "Singers" and "Porters;"- then, on a lower plane than the Levites, but doing an indispensable work, stood the class of temple servants called the "Nethinim." These all had their minutely regulated duties, and their own privileges and perquisites. The rights and duties of these classes might easily be challenged, however, for through out the greater part of the history of Israel they were altogether ignored. The Mosaic and Aaronic institutions as described in 20n the.relation of these to the Levites, see below. The Chronicler as Editor and as Narrator 211 the Pentateuch do indeed include the Levites, but in the subse quent history, from Joshua to the end of II Kings, they are rarely mentioned. The Singers, Porters, and Nethinim received no specific mention whatever, either in the Pentateuch or in the other writings. The Chronicler believed that the ritual in which he himself had an active part was the true Mosaic ritual; but he could not ha-ve proved, from the Hebrew historical writings, that it had been perpetuated in actual usage through the time of the kingdom. Moreover, the Chronicler was probably himself one of the temple Singers (as modern scholars have recognized), and was proud of the office and of his Levitical brethren. He took pleasure in doing them this tardy justice, showing in extended narrative the part which (as he would have said) they must have played in the history of the true Israel. But what he planned, as has already been said, was not merely a "history of the Levites;" it was a history which was designed to set the whole Jerusalem church on its feet, once for all. He took his starting-point, as a matter of course, in the insti tutions of his own day. The Levitical organization as it then existed; the various duties and prerogatives of the clergy; the geographical distribution of "Israel and the priests and the Levites" in their cities and villages, as it was at that time; the details of the worship in the temple; all these things he carried back into the beginnings of Hebrew history, incorporating them there and in the record of every subsequent period. He of course made use of the already existing narrative, retaining every part of it which could be made to serve his very definite piirpose. The institutions of the Jewish church were thus given a leading place — their rightful place, any zealous Jew would have said — in the stories of David and Solomon, of Jehoshaphat and Hezekiah and Josiah, as well as in Nehemiah's personal narrative. He proceeded in a similar manner in compiling the genea logical tables, which, together with the story of the Return from the Exile, constituted the most important part of his work. The already existing lists, found in the Pentateuch and the His torical Books, he used wherever they seemed desirable. But in very many of the names which he repeats over and over again, especially in the post-exilic part of his history, we may be sure that we have the names of his own companions and friends, the most zealously "orthodox" of the third century B. c. These, 212 Ezra Studies whether priests or temple-servants or laymen, constituted the inner circle of the Jewish church of his time ; and they, like their cultus, were here legitimated. When he had finished his work, he had shown that none of the pure stock of Israel, none of the true representatives of the cultus, could be looked for outside the territory of Judah and Benjamin. And he had scattered the names of his like-minded contemporaries (in a rather helter- skelter way, it is true) all through his account of the Restoration; showing that these families were the ones which "returned" with Zerubbabel and Ezra, signed the pledge against foreign marriages and the agreement to support the cultus, built the wall of Jerusa lem in the time of Nehemiah, and helped to dedicate it. Here he took the only possible way of placing orthodox Judaism safely beyond the reach of the Samaritans and of the rest of the D^" Y^S^n (which included all the apostates of Israel) : the pure blood and the true icorship were transmitted only by way of Babylonia. The zeal of the Chronicler for the pure blood of Judah and Benjamin — as well as of the House of Levi — was always, and must of necessity have been, a leading motive in his work. The true stock of Israel must keep itself separate from "the heathen of the land." Intermarriage with these foreigners was unlawful. The northern Israelites, whose center was now at Shechem, had intermarried to some extent — and perhaps to a very considerable extent — with the Gentiles who lived near them. The Samaritan church, which was probably founded only a short time before the Chronicler wrote, came into being partly as a result of the runaway marriage of a Jewish priest with the daughter of an outsider.' So the Chronicler and those of his school lost no opportunity of asserting that the Samaritans were a heterogeneous mob of heathen, recruited from many lands. The Chronicler's aversion to the marriage of Hebrews with foreigners shows itself in many places. Perhaps the most striking single instance is found in the passage II Chron. 24:26, which is his own improved version of II Kings 12:21. The story of the assassination of King Joash of Judah is being told, and in the older account the names of those who conspired against him are given as "Jozakar the son of TO'2'Z , and Jehozabad the son of Ti2'Z ." The two 3 As I have already remarked (above, p. 168), it may well be that the Sanaballat of the Samaritan schism — in whatever time we suppose him to have lived — was a man of Hebrew origin. In that case, we must suppose that he was regarded as an apostate by the Jews of Jerusalem, for some good reason. Tun CiiuoNici.nu AH I'lnri'oK anu as Naukatoh 2!:{ niinioH Ikm'i' prinlod in lieln'cw cliiirai'lorH an' bolli iiiasi-idinc, bcyoiiil imicli doiilil,; Inil, Iho liiial fl ol' I lie forinor one looked lo llie ( 'lu'oniider liki* llie reiiiinine (Midiiig, and UiIh miggcHled lo him Ihh o|iporl,iiiiil y. In lln' Htory as he lelU il, Ihe one of Hie Iwo cohHpiraloi'H ( iinpioiiH wreli'hcH in his e\es, e\i'n Ihoiigh llie king had (leni>r\'ed liin I'liie) wiih "l\\o Hon ol' n>''J',li the .ImiiKi nitess.'" nnd Ihe olher was "ihe son of ri"'"i"^',r Ihe Moaliiless.'' The idleralioii here imid(> Ih one ol' the mosI iiisl I'licl i\ c in all ihe ( 'lironi(dei''H w the |)rinci|iiil ainiH, or rallier, Ihe prinei|)al realiires of IJii> one greill. aim, of hin hook. \'ie\\'ed aeeoriliiig lo our modern Hl.iindiinlH of jndgnienl, Ihis was an nidawriii nmnnriu'iiirc of hiHtor\ , Kroiu his own point of \ iew, and I hal. of his con leni po* I'liricK. his piirpoHe was a laudable one. and Ihe melhod emploved liy no meaiiH illegil iinale. All Ihose who niulerslood wind lie had don(>, luil were not aelmilh- sharers in liis inleni, would, of conrHe, Himply ignon^ his N'ei'nion of Ihe liislory. II does iiideiHl Hcem for a lone' lime lo have reeei\(>d \(>i'\ lilll(> iioliee. 11. ¦I'lllO (IIIHONH'M'.K AS MliI'l'OU 1 1, is foi'lnnale Illill we possess the mosI of llie sources used bv Ihe (Mironieler in coliHirucI ing iiis own version of Ihe history of Israel: we ai'e IlillH enabled to see wilh Ihe iilmost c'li>arness his melhod of using I lit'in. /, /;( ///(' Hooks if (''hnniicles ^Phc ( 'hronicler's proceeding is, of eourse, an eeleel ic one. lie does noi, iiH a, ride, record Ihe (>\(MiIs of the liislory for Iheir own siiki', but niendy for (h(> aid which llie\ gi\e lo his ininu>diale purpose. lie is not ri>wi'itiiig lh<> whole hislorv of fliidah from ihe slaiidpoint of his own religions inleresi ; he is r<>wriliiig only that anioinit of thc liislor\ \vhi(di seems lo him ili>sir- abli>. Some coiiHideralile |iassages lo which \\c can have liad no olijiH'lioii in lhenisel\(>H an- eillicr greally abridged or oniilled allogi'lhcr. Ill olher wonls. il was not an objed of his l iinnuM'- ons til her eiiHCH of Iln* sort. The passages thus I I'linscrilied include liy far the gn>iitei' pai't, of the material ilt>ri\'ed liy the ( 'lironicler fi'om OiMi, Sam, Kings. ( )f IIkmii in general miiy lu> naid that which is Haid by Hi'ii/.ingei' of 1 1 ( 'liron.,cliii|i. '_':! ( ( 'omiii., p. Ill); "So\ iel Ills mOglicll ist vom Te\l .... Wi'il'tlich gelilieli(,ii." The (Mii'onicl(>r gives liiniHidf iiti n n ii(>cessa ry liihor, .Vnuuig tlit> pMHHiiges of the older liislory w hich lu> conld use for his purpose, IhtM'e \vtM'i> many which ga\e him no occasion lo inlnuliict- his ow n special properties, siiici> tlu>\ oll'cred no point of ilii'(>ct conlnci with llu> .Itiwish chnrch ami its instil, iilions or iis pt-i'soniud. Snell. for e\ampl(\ were I Chnm., chaps. 10, IS, 1',t. II Chron. D, 10, IS, iimoiig tliose which hint' been ment ioiuHl. ( )|1um' passages, again, neetlcd no n>\ isitin since they wtM'c ali'i>iid\ con- cim\imI in t lit> Ch l'on i c 1 e r's ow n spirit. Snch wi>n> I Chron., chap. 17; 11 Chron., chaps., li, .'!.'!; I 11; iM;15 ;!1; as well as any HhIs of niinit>s whicli could gi\i' rt>al or iip|ii»rcnt, support to tlu> I'laim of the ilt>ws in .lernsalem. (>ii t,lu> olher haiul. as is widl known, lhei'(> are man\ cases in which l,lu> ChronicltM', whilt> using niaterini from his older sources, nillkes more or lt>ss i>\tenHi\'(> idttM'id ions on his own lUlllloril \ . Tliesi> alleriilions iiudntlt>, Iirst, miiuir iiisi'vtions ami adilitions. as Wt>ll as occasional omissions. l''or i>\ample, in 1 t^hroii, o:ll we lia\i> a simple etlilorial expansion t^cf. 2:1), ami in b.'io lu> adds his fa\(ii'ilt> wonl "iTnTlin . In 11 Cliroii. ;U;iU) lu> inserls •'iiud the lii>\ites," and sm-li insertions as this are of course \ei'\ often ni>cessai'\ fi'iim his point of \i<-w. lltMer\ frinpuMilly int(>rpolates a \i>rsi> iM' Iwo in \ho midsi of lliiMnattt>r which lie is transi'i-ihing. Thus, at tlu> end of the stor\ i\( .Siuil's diHilli lu> appends a n>in;irk of his own [\ Chron. 10:1.3 (.] ilesigiuHl lo show inoi't> clearlv llu> sigiiiliciinci> of llu> events iiiirrali'd. In thi> account of the liring ing of iho ark inlo tlu- lt>niplt\ II l^limn.. chap. 5, ht- inserls n cliaracteristic passagi-. vss. II 1 3. show ing w hat an important part in tin- st>r\ ict- was pla\t-il by tlu- l,e\ilical musicians. In 7:(i llu- saiiii- thing lakt-s pliu'i', aiul lln-ri- are many otlu-r instances of tlu- kind. In I lln-on. 11:11 1/ wi- havi- an addition of anotlu>r sort. but t-,pially characlt-ristic. The soun-c. 11 Sam. 23;2I 311. hail jusI givt'ii a list o( tht- mighly men of Pax itl's arniics. reprodnci-d in I Clinui. ll;2ti Wa. Tlie t'hroniclcr, i>iu- of whose chief con- 216 Ezra Studies cerns is the extension of Jerusalem's sphere of influence, even into foreign lands (see above), seizes the opportunity to add the names of a number of men from the country east of the Jordan ; why should this part of the Israelite territory be left out ? The names are, of course, invented for the occasion ; there is no more reason for supposing a written source here than there is in the case of the other insertions just described. There are still other pet interests of his, of lesser importance, out of regard to which he has occasionally inserted verses or longer passages. Thus, his fondness for mention of the homage paid by foreign kings and nations to Jerusalem and the house of David (see above) leads him to make such interpolations as II Chron. 9 : 26 " and I Chron. 14:17. Other similar cases are II Chron. 26 :7 f . and 27 : 5 f . He is always greatly interested in building operations, and especially in the buildings and the topography of Jerusalem. Hence the isolated statements concerning these things which he occasionally throws in for the jjurpose of giving fresh interest to his narrative. In II Chron. 26:6-10, after transcribing the few things which are said of King Uzziah in II Kings 15:1-3, he proceeds to describe in detail the king's greatness.' Vs. 6 nar rates: "He broke down the wall of Gath, and the wall of Yabneh, and the wall of Ashdod; and he built fortresses* in Ashdod and (elsewhere) in Philistia." And vs. 9 proceeds: "Moreover Uzziah built towers in Jerusalem at the corner gate, and at the valley gate, and at the angle of the wall, and forti fied them. ^"And he built towers in the wilderness," etc. In the following chapter, in telling the story of Jotham, similar notices are introduced. To 27:3a, which is taken from II Kings 15:85, "He built the upper gate of the house of Yahw^," the Chronicler adds: "and on the wall of the Ophel he built mnch. 'More over he built cities in the hill country of Judah, and on the wooded heights he built fortresses and towers." Compare further 33:14, where it is said of King Manasseh: "He built an outer wall to the city of David, on the west side of Gihon, in the 6 In vs. 23 of this chapter, onthe other hand, it is probable that he found the word ¦^Sbla , "kings," in the text of IKings 10:24 which lay before him. Observe the witness of the Greek and the Syriac, as well as that of the following verse. ' According to his custom, in order to draw sharp contrast with the passage which fol lows, vss. 16-20. This wtiole chapter affords one of the best illustrations of his qualities as a story-teller (see below). 8 So apparently, the word Ql^y must be interpreted here, as occasionally elsewhere. The text of the verse seems to be sound. The Chronicler as Editor and as Narrator 217 valley, up to the entrance to the fish gate; and he compassed about the Ophel, and raised it to a very great height." Similarly in 82:30 it is said of Hezekiah: "He stopped the upper exit of the waters of Gihon, and brought them down on the west side of the city of David," in which we have merely the Chronicler's more vivid version of II Kings 20:20. Still another case of the same sort is in 36:8, in the passage which has been accidentally lost from onr Hebrew but is preserved in Theodotion's Greek (as already shown) : "So Jehoiakim slept with his fathers" (these words being taken from II Kings 24:6), "and was buried in the garden of Uzza with his fathers;" cf. II Kings 21:18, 26. In no one of these state ments is there anything to make it probable that the Chronicler had any other source than his imagination. He understood the great value of "local color" for enlivening historical narrative, and here also he followed his usual custom of projecting into the past the things (in this case topographical features) which he saw with his own eyes. Some other minor additions to the text made by him in order to give greater liveliness to the narrative will be noticed below." Secondly, thoroughgoing alterations. The passages of this nature are, as we should expect, comparatively few in number and brief in extent. They are of three kinds. The first case is where thorough revision is undertaken in the interest of the Chronicler's tendency ; a thing which would very rarely be necessary, since ordinarily the unsatisfactory material could either be omitted or else set right by the insertion of a word or a verse here and there. The second case is that of abridgment, where material not especially valuable to the Chronicler is condensed. This, again, is a rare occurrence. The third is where the Chronicler composes freely a passage of considerable length on the basis of a few words contained in the original source. There are not many instances of this nature. 9 Some apparent instances of arbitrary alteration by the Chronicler are probably not such in reality. In II Chron. 13:2 (cf. 11:20!), for example, it is presumably the text which is at fault, and the most probable supposition is that a scribe accidentally omitted one whole line of his copy. From the analogy of numerous other passages, and especially with the aid of I Kings 15:8, 10 (where "Absalom " is plainly a mistake caused by vs. 2), 13, we may restore with confidence as follows: lb Hpl"! . DlblBaSC £11 nSyni 113i!5 01131 • !iy35 'i'o bS1"nS m rOy^ tnS nilJS' " And his mother's name was Maacah the daughter ot Absalom. And he took to wife (cf. 11:18, etc.) Maacah the daughter of Uriel of Gibeah." Tbe text of I Kings 15 : 10 whioh lay before the Chronicler had preserved the correct reading. 218 Ezra Studies The most important illustrations of the first case have often been described at length, so it is not necessary to do more than mention them here. The chief instance is the story of the coro nation of the boy-king(,Josiah,>in II Chron. 22:10—23:21. The original account, given in II Kings, chap. 11, is here rewritten in order to make it correspond to the recognized usage of the third century B-. C. The Levites, singers, and porters, and the machin ery of the later temple service, are now introduced. It was possible to do this without omitting more than a very little of the original narrative; accordingly, the changes made by the Chronicler consist chiefly in additions, as may be seen in Kittel's polychrome Chronicles.'" The passage which almost immediately follows, 24:4-14, shows a different problem and therefore a diiferent mode of procedure. The older account, II Kings 12: -5-17, in the most of its essential features runs directly contrary to the views and customs of the Chronicler's day, in a very disturbing manner." The whole passage might have been simply omitted by the Chronicler; but it offered some very interesting suggestions, and, what is more, the impression given by the book of Kings really needed to be "corrected." This was not a case where a few omissions, or any number of additions, would be of any use; the only possible way of dealing with the passage was to rewrite it thoroughly, giving it a new form, and therefore a new meaning, in practically every verse. The Chronicler would never change the form extensively where the meaning remained unchanged. The only cause for wonder here is, that he has managed to retain so much (abont three dozen words) of the original.'" This is the only instance of just this nature. Another good example of the Chronicler's free treatment of his material in the interest of his greater purpose is found in his account of the bringing of the ark to Jerusalem. The first part of the story, I Chron. 13:6-14, can be left as it was in II Sam. 6:2-11, though a special intro- 10 Kittel's edition, however, is an unsafe guide. His overlining of words and pas sages is usually misleading, and so also is his use ot colors, other than the light red which marks passages taken from Genesis, Samuel, and Kings. The Chronicler's authorship of the passage I Chron. 23:24-32, for example, is manifest in nearly every line, 11 See, for example, Kittel's Comm., p. 149, where the various points of difflculty are mentioned in detail. 12 Benzinger, Cumin., p. 113, makes the following rather careless comment on this pas sage : " Im Unterschied von der Athaljageschichte zeigt sich diese Erzahlung auch in der Form unabhilngig von Reg; der Text von Reg ist hier gar nicht benutzt, vielmehr haben wir eine ganz selbstandige Erzahlung vor uns. Das ist nicht die Arbeitsweise von Chr [ !], son dern er hat die Geschichte so schon in seiner Quelle vorgef unden." As though an unusual case might not necessitate an unusual method. The Chronicler as Editor and as Narrator 219 duction to it has to be written. But in the latter part, 15:25-28, the text of II Sam. 6:12-15 requires considerable revision to bring it into accordance with the Levitical ritual. I Chron. 21:1- 30, again, is a most instructive example of free editing. It is the narrative of David's sin in numbering the people, and his pur chase of the threshing-floor of Oman the Jebusite. The original story, II Sam. 24:1-25, was unobjectionable so far as it went, and the Chronicler retains the greater part of it. But to his mind it fell short of doing justice to the theme. This was the time when King David was led to choose the spot on which the temple was afterward built, and .therefore one of the most momen tous occasions in all the history of Jerusalem. The Chronicler's imagination was aroused, and he embellishes the tale in character istic manner. When it leaves his hands, it has become more impressive ; the scenes are more dramatic, and the incidents more striking; and in numerous places the language has been altered in such a way as to increase the interest of the tale.''' David sees the destroying angel in the heavens with his drawn sword stretched over Jerusalem ; Oman also sees the angel, while his four sons (unknown to the original narrative) hide themselves in terror; and so on. Every feature of this embellishment is in the Chron icler's own unmistakable manner. The story of Josiah's reforms, told in II Chron., chap. 34, is altered from the account in Kings in much the same way as the story of the coronation of Joash in chap. 23. The older narrative, II Kings 22:1 — 28: 20, is improved upon by the introduction of the Levites, as well as the singers and porters. The long account of the removal of the abominations from the land, told in II Kings 23:4-20, is con densed into four verses (4-7), and transposed in order to show that the king instituted these reforms before the finding of the book of the law. The wording of the narrative in Kings is retained as far as possible. The extensive alterations of the second class, namely abridg ments, are fewer in number. In some cases, where the material of the older history was extended over more space than the Chronicler could well give to it, he presents a mere summary. One example of this proceeding has just been given, namely II Chron. 34:4-7, which is a condensation of the account of Josiah's "The Chronicler is not long-winded, he is usually concise; and in a good many places ho shows that he has the power of suggesting a scene with sufiicient clearness by the use of half a dozen words, where most authors would need as many as sentences. 220 Ezra Studies reforms given in II Kings 23:4-20. Another case is II Chron 22:7-9, where matter relating chiefly to the Northern King dom — and therefore not wanted — has been reduced to the small est possible compass, giving only a bare statement of the events which concerned the king of Judah. Verse 7 summarizes II Kings 9:1-26, vs. 8 is the abridgment of II Kings 10:11-14, and vs. 9 is that of II Kings 9:27 f. In this case it seems plain that the Chronicler is abridging the narrative of Kings from memory, as indeed we might expect that he would.'* Still another example is the story of Sennacherib and Hezekiah, as told in II Chron. 32:1-23. Here again the Chronicler abridges from memory. The original narrative, II Kings 18:13 — 19:37," was much too extended for his purpose, and contained many things which he can have had no wish to reproduce. On the other hand, the reign of Hezekiah was a very important one in his scheme of the history, and the events of this siege, which were very well known, could not be passed over altogether. So he tells the story briefly in his own words, making it over entirely, retaining neither the form nor the substance of the older narrative. This again is an altogether unusual case, though it presents no difficulty. The following are instances of the third class, where the Chronicler improvises at some length on a brief theme provided by his source. The short story of Josiah and Necho of Egypt, told in II Chron. 35 : 20-24, is typical of the cases in which the Chronicler builds up an edifying tale of his own on the basis of a few words in the older history. In the first place, the reason of the king's fate is made plain: he had disobeyed the command of God. Then the details of the brief story show the writer's passion for the picturesque, and the extreme vividness with which he himself saw, in imagination, the things which he merely sug gests to his readers. In this case, he has introduced features of another narrative which ranks among the most dramatic in the books of Kings, namely the story of the death of Ahab at Ramoth- 1^ Kittel, Comm., p. 145, and Benzinger, Comm., pp. 110 f., are wrong in thinking that the narrative in Chron. contradicts that in Kings. "Samaria" in 22:9 is the province, .iust as in II Chron, 2.5:13, Ezr.4:10 (see my note on that passage, above, p. 186), Neh, 3:34, etc., not the city. There is no discrepancy whatever between the two accounts. It is neither said nor even implied in Chron. that the events of vs. 8 were chronologically subsequent to those of vs. 7 ; on the contrary, vs. 7 is inteu'led as the general summary of the whole matter. Nor is it said (as Benzinger asserts) that Ahaziah was buried in Samaria( I ). i^The Chronicler had before him also Isaiah 36-39, as is evident from II Chron. .32: 32 (where we must read b3?1 , as is shown both by the context and also by the witness of the Greek, Syriac, and Latin versions). In all probability, the book of Isaiah which hehad was of the sarae extent and forrii as our own. The Chronicler as Editor and as Narrator 221 Gilead, I Kings 22 : 29-38. The Chronicler had incorporated it in his own history, II Chron. 18: 28-34; and it seems to have been again suggested to him here by the statement regarding Josiah, in II Kings 23 : 80, that the dying king was brought back from the battlefield to Jerusalem in his chariot. This brought the whole scene before his eyes, and he sketched it afresh. The incident of the disguise'" would suit here very well, as it would show why the king's attendants were permitted to take him away from the field of battle. As in the former instance, the king was slain by random arrows, shot by archers who did not know his rank. The fact that the story of Ahab was in the Chronicler's mind is shown further by one striking verbal reminiscence, the phrase Tl"'""!"; "3 , whose verb occurs only in these two passages. A much more prominent instance belonging to this class is furnished by II Chron., chaps. 2 aud 8, the acconnt of the building of Solomon's temple. The motive for editorial alteration here was of course the same as that which we saw at work in I Chron. 21; the older narrative was too meager for the theme. In that instance, a few additions here and there sufficed ; in the case now before us, the Chronicler took the history into his own hands, building up two new chapters on the basis of materials contained in I Kings, chaps. 5 ff. Especially characteristic is the way in which the cor respondence between Solomon and Hiram of Tyre is expanded (cf . the mention made above, p. 146) . A very good illustration of the Chronicler's literary skill is his transposition of the first men 's The word B2nnn in 35:"23has often been challenged, partlybecause the "disguise" comes so unexpectedly, and partly because the versions do not give the usual equivalent of this word. The Greek of Theodotion renders as though pTnrn stood iu the text. I Esdr' 1:26 (eirixfipei) andthe Vulgate of Chron. {praeparavit} render t'EHrn, but with an attempt to keep near to the usual root-meaning of U)3n , "seek. " The Syriac is ambiguous — very likely led astray by the Greek, as so often happens— but certainly did not have pTDinn. The massoretic reading is undoubtedly right, and in all likelihood it is the reading which lay before every one of the translators named, even Theodotion; though in this last case the Hebrew may have been foolishly corrected. Verse 21 has given the commentators unnecessary trouble, for the text is perfectly sound. The sentence: iniSnb'a nil bS "iD DT^n nPS! T^y ^'" ™"^* ^^ rendered: "Not against thee (am I coming) today, but to the country with which I am at war." n''2 1J-|T3nb')C= ?, '^ vij. The omission of the Hebrew equivalent of the words in parenthesis is nothing unusual in Chron. ; see Driver's list of the Chronicler's usages, no. 27. Theodotion probably rendered freely, but his Hebrew text may have beeu corrupt. I Esdr. and Jerome try to make irTOnbH the subject of the sentence, and then each attempts in his own fashion to solve the resulting difficulty. (The " critical " apparatus in Kittel's Biblia Hebraica sug gests that the Vulgate read -\nS fT'D • which in turn might have been a corruption of I^IBS? n^n ! Further, we are directed by this same apparatus to read HriS "'IS in place of the pronoun nPS • But even the Chronicler himself would not have perpetrated such curious Hebrew as this.) 222 Ezra Studies tion of Hiram (or Huram)," the Phoenician craftsman, from the account of the actual building of the temple (I Kings 7: 13 f.) to the letter written by the Tyrian king, II Chron. 2 : 12 f. Aside from these examples taken from the Chronicler's narrative, there are others, equally instructive, which show how freely he could deal with the statistics which came under his hand; using what he needed, and manufacturing what he pleased, always with his eye fixed either on the actual circumstances and regulations of the time in which he lived, or else on certain ideal conditions suggested by those existing in his own day. Thus, in I Chron. 27:2-15 he takes names which are given in II Sam., chap. 23, and builds about them in characteristic fashion. What he aimed to establish here was the regular monthly succession of these twelve great captains, each with his twenty-four thousand men (the Chronicler is especially fond of multiples of twelve). Another example of the same sort is I Chron. 6: 46-48 (01-G3), which is a free composition by the Chronicler on the basis of material in Joshua 21: 5-7. This will suffice for a description of the Chronicler's editorial proceedings in the first part of his history, from Adam to Nebu chadnezzar. As was stated at the outset, he ordinarily tran scribes his source practically unaltered, selecting the chapters which he needs, and transferring them in solid blocks with sub stantially the original wording. It remains to ask whether the edited portions, where the original source is expanded or rewritten, are entirely the work of his own hand, or partly that of some other editor. It often happens, of course, that definite marks of the Chronicler's presence are not to be found. His peculiarities of style and linguistic usage are strongly marked, it is true, but such peculiarities generally have little opportunity to show themselves in passages which contain merely a refashioning — even a thorough refashioning — of older material. Neverthe less, the purely linguistic evidence of his handiwork is satisfactory; 17 The Chronicler wrote in every case "Huram," for both the king and the craftsman. The narae of the latter, which has caused great discussion, is found in II Chron, 2 : 12 (corre sponding to I Kings 7:13), 4:11, 16 (=1 Kings 7:40, 45). In II Chron. 2: 12. 15K Ellnb must be rendered: ^^ Namely Huram, my trusted counselor;'^ and in II Chron. 4:16 the translation of tlie words nTOb'EJ "^"^^ ^"'Di^ D*Tin must be: "Hwj-ani, ffee irus^ed coun- selor of King Solomon ;^^ for the peculiar construction in this latter case, paralleled several times in the later Hebrew of the Old Testament, and especially in Chron., see KOnig, Syntax, pp. 2.^6 f. The Hebrew text (saving the variations Hiram — Hirom — Hilram) is correct in all of the six passages involved. It is by one of the Chronicler's best literary touches that the man whom he had made King Hiram describe as his own "intimate adviser" is later on styled the "intimate adviser" of King Solomon. The Chronicler as Editor and as Narrator 228 a tell-tale word or construction appears cvi>ry now and then, especially in the verses which have been interpolated by him. But far more important than any testimony of words and phrast^s is thc evidence of the editorial purpose. We havc before us a man in a definite historical situation, with a great problem confronting him which wt> can at least jjartially untk'rstand. We know soniething of the surroundings in which he lived, and a little concerning his i)crsonal sympathies and prejudices. He had before him onr Old Testauunit historical books, and wished to use them as a foundation for a new history of his own. He preferred to make his extracts in the easiest way — by mere transcription — as a general rule ; but where alteration was necessary or desirable for his purposes, hc was ready to take any liberty with his sources (as every Old Testament scholar recognizes in such cases as the story of David bringing back the ark, the account of the corona tion of Joash, the frequent substitution of very large numbers, and so on). The question is, then, whether this editor of whom wc know can reasonably be sup[)osed to have done all the editing and expauiling of Gen. -Sam.-Kings which wc see before us in tlie books of Chronicles. And the answer is plain. There is no internal evidence, anywhere, of an intermetliate source between our Old Testament books and the Chronicler. On the contrary, every minor or major alteration which appears in I and II Chron. finds its obvious explanation in the Chronicler's aims which have already been indicated. There is not even one passage in which his proceeding is hard to understand. As for the "sources" — a long list of them — which he names from time to time (thougli he nowhere directly claims to have used any of them!), they are a mere show, as will appear presentlv. He him self, th(>n, is the only editor with whom we have to deal. '2. In Ezra-Neheniiali In the Chronicler's history of the Jews after the exile we are obliged, unfortunately, to depend chiefly upon internal evidence for our conclusions as to the sources which he used. We have merely what he himself has given ns, and from that and our knowledge of his habits in the pre-exilic history we must form our opinion of his editorial proceedings here. We know that he has used at least two documents; namely, an Aramaic storv, Ezr. 4:8 — (!: 18, written by one of his own school. 224 Ezra Studies and probably of his. own generation; and the "Words of Nehe miah," including (as I have shown elsewhere) the greater part of the flrst six chapters of Nehemiah.'* The methods which he employs, in incorporating these documents in his narrative, are, so far as we are able to judge, identical with those employed in the books of Chronicles. It certainly seems to be the case that both documents have been left untouched throughout the greater part of their extent. I have already discussed elsewhere the traces of the Chronicler's hand in the Aramaic story (see above, pp. 158 ft'.). From Ezr. 4:8 to 6:8, and again through 6:11-14, there is no sign of his pres ence. It is quite possible that single words, or even phrases, may have been altered or added by him, here and there; just as we have seen him make insignificant verbal changes in some of the chapters in Sam. and Kings which he transcribes. But we may be sure that he has contributed nothing of importance to the Aramaic passages just named, and it is quite likely that he has not even changed a single word. Again, in Neh. 1:1 — 2:6; 2:96-20; 4:1 — 6:19, we seem to have solid blocks of the Nehe miah narrative, transmitted with little or no editorial alteration. Here also we must conclude that if the Chronicler took any inde pendent part, it was too slight to deserve consideration. In one place, 5:13, we seem to have one of those minor interpolations which he occasionally makes, namely the phrase: "And all the con gregation said. Amen, and praised Yahwfe." '" A few other things, here and there, appear to give evidence of his presence, but it is hardly possible to go beyond the mere suspicion. The language and style throughout these long sections are totally different from those of the Chronicler,^" and it would be out of the question to think of him as the author of any extended passage. The way in which the Chronicler makes considerable editorial additions to these two documents in Ezra-Neh. corresponds exactly to his mode of proceeding in the books of Chronicles. The Aramaic story in its original form (as I have elsewhere argued; loc. cit., p. 161) probably began with the words: "In the days of Artaxerxes ttie king wrote Rehum the reporter 18 See my Composition of Ezra-Neh., pp. 35-49 ; and above, pp. 157-61. 19 Composition, p. 39. soThis, of course, does not apply to the prayer, 1:5-11, which is built up of stock phrases, mostly Deuteronomic, and might as well have been written by the Chronicler as by anyone else. The Chronicler as Editor and as Narrator 225 and Shimshai the scribe," etc., as in Ezr. 4:^. The Chronicler composed two introductory verses. 6. 7. at the same time altering slightly the beginning of the incorporated passage. This is just what he does over and over again, all through the earlier part of his history; see. for example, I Chron. 11:10. 18:1 ff.. II Chron. 1:1 ff.. 2:1. 1S:1 f.. 24:4 f.. 84:14. In the letter of Darius to Tattenai and his associates he has made one of his characteristic interpolations. Ezr. 6:9 f. This passage, brief as it is. is filled with the tokens of his presence, as I have elsewhere shown. It is uot a case of revision, both verses are entirely his own. Brief passages of this sort are interpolated in many places in the pre-exilic history : with this particular instance cf . especially II Chron. 2:9. 14. observing the addition to the text of Kings. At the end of the Aramaic story, moreover, the Chronicler appends a passage of his own, Ezr. 6:15— IS. filled to the brim with char acteristic material. So ^"ith the additions to the Nehemiah story. Three verses. Neh. 2:1-90. are interpolated at the point where the king grants his permission. The Chronicler saw a good opportunity to introduce one or two features in which he else where shows great interest. Cf. espeeially I Esdr. 4;476-5ri (^and my notes on the passage. loc. cit., pp. 125 ff . b and see also mv Composdion. p. 36, where the numerous parallels are indicated. His alwavs livelv imagination shows itself here in the same vari eties of embellishment with which we are famiUar. He gives the name (his favorite "Asaph"!) of the keeper of the royal forest, and shows his customary interest in the buildings of Jerusalem ; see above, p. 216, In chap. 3, vss. 1-32 are from the Chroniclers hand. This passage appears to be an independent creation of his. not based on anything written by Nehemiah, and it will therefore be mentioned later. The immediately foUowing passage. 3 : 83-3> (English trans.. 4:1-6), has always seemed to me to be at least in part the work of the Chronicler. I formerly thought {^Comp.. pp. 38, 50) that the most of it might be saved for Nehemiah. bnt further study has convinced me that the six verses are all from the Chronicler's hand. The passage sounds like his writing throughout its whole extent, but the subject-matter is so unusual that characteristic words and phrases ai-e not to be found. With rrr.. --restore." in vs. 34 cf. I Chron. 11:8. The collocation of the two words ~'Z and ""Z'i occurs elsewhere only tn II Chron. 28:14. And what was the "army of Samaria,'" before which 226 Ezra Studies Sanaballat made his speech (vs. 34) ?" The Chronicler's imagi nation pictured a standing army of hostile Samaritans; it is less likely that Nehemiah himself would have used the phrase b^n ¦jl^/JTU. Later than this (4:2) he speaks of a coalition and the collecting of an army to come against Jerusalem, which is something different. It is to be observed, furthermore, that the three passages, 2:19 f., 3:33 ff., and 4:1 ff., repeat one another rather awkwardly, and that the awkwardness is very much in creased when the Chronicler's interpolation, 3:1-32, is removed. And finally, in regard to vss. 36 f. Siegfried, Comm., writes: "Neh. bewegt sich durchaus in den Wendungen der nach exilischen Psalmendichtung." This is not altogether easy to believe of Nehemiah, "but we know it to be true of the Chronicler; and to the latter it seems best, for every reason, to attribute the whole passage.*^ His purpose in inserting it is precisely the same which he had in inserting I Chron. 12:38-40, or II Chron. 21:12-15, or the many other equally striking episodes; namely, the purpose of a first-class narrator to take full advantage of the most important situations. The passage 6:16-19 I am also inclined to attribute to the Chronicler for reasons which I will not take the time to discuss here.^'' Cases of thoroughgoing alteration of material are of course not to be found in Ezra-Nehemiah. It is not likely that any such alteration took place here; nor, if it had, should we be able to recognize it. The Aramaic story would never have been corrected in the interest of the Chronicler's aim; its tendency, from beginning to end, was substantially the same as his own. There is nothing whatever to indicate that it has been either abridged or expanded by him, or that any change in it was made, aside from the few additions which have already been described. So also with the Nehemiah narrative. If there has been any more extensive editing than that which has just been pointed 21 Of course it is probable, as I have said before, that the Sanaballat of the Elephantine papyri is the one mentioned by Nehemiah. 221 formerly thought {Comp., pp. 35, 47) that the presence of the word D''~in"', "Jews," testifled against the Chronicler's authorship. This is not the case, however; he uses the word in I Esdr, 4:49, 50, as well as in Neh. 13:23. It is merely accidental that he does not use it oftener. 23 It is quite likely, further, that the prayer of Nehemiah, l:5-lla, has at least been edited by the Chronicler. Among the occasional words and phrases which I have suspected of belonging to the latter writer are: thename, "Hanani," in 1:2 (cf. 7:2) ; possibly 2: 13 f.?. thelast clause of 2:20; the " Ashdodites" in 4:1; and the whole middle part of 5:14, from njlBIS to miUy (cf. 13:6). The last-named passage is an important one. The Chronicler as Editor and as Narrator 227 out, we have at least no evidence of the fact. It appears that Nehemiah's own personal memoir ended either with 6:15 or with 6:19. If the following chapters, 7, 11, 12, and 13,'* are in any way based on material originally provided by Nehemiah, they at all events contain nothing to indicate the fact. On the contrary, they seem to be filled full with the Chronicler's own familiar themes and materials (not at all like the things in which Nehe miah himself shows interest!), and are couched throughout in his own language. Knowing, as we do, his method of writing the pre-exilic part of the history, where he originated by himself about as much material as he obtained from others (see below), no theory of editorial alteration in the last chapters of Nehemiah can have scientific value. III. THE chronicler AS INDEPENDENT NARRATOR 1. The Sources, Real and Imaginary, in I and II Chron. The sixty-five chapters which make up the books of I and II Chron. occupy fifty pages in Kittel's polychrome edition. Of this amount, nearly one half is printed in plain black and white by Kittel. That is, about one half of the material of this impor tant document is known to us only as it comes from the hand of the Chronicler, being altogether independent of any other docu ments with which we are acquainted. Whoever approaches the book with the idea that it is merely an edition of the canon ical history (as it is sometimes styled) will be amazed to find out how much of this added matter there is. And the character of the matter, if anyone examines it carefully, will soon tell its own story in unequivocal fashion. It does not consist of mere appendages to the older history, it is itself the important part. The whole work was planned and executed for the sake of these independent chapters and paragraphs. Its author, as we have seen, was a man with a definite and important aim, and it was just here that his purpose was carried out. The Chronicler, as he wrote, had before him the Pentateuch, and the historical books of the Old Testament, from Joshua to II Kings; the books of Isaiah and Jeremiah, and probably all, or nearly all, of the other prophetical writings known to us ; also the greater part of the Psalter. So far as we are able to judge, the 24 As I have shown elsewhere, chaps. 8-10 originally belonged to the Ezra story, and were transferred to the book of Nehemiah through the error of a copyist. •22 S Ezra Studies form in which he had these books was substantially identical with the form in which we have them now. Against the probability that any other historical material of value was at his command stand some very potent facts, as many scholars have remarked. The Jews of the third century B.C. did not even have in their possession historical traditions regarding the first half of the Persian period (see above, p. 156), to say nothing of a still earlier time. In the books of Samuel and Kings, which were given their present form some considerable time after the fall of Jerusa lem, was embodied all that was known of the history of the Hebrew kingdoms; there is no likelihood whatever that other records, not used by the editors of Kings, were in existence and survived until the Chronicler's day. Nevertheless the Chronicler, in a series of allusions scattered through his book, presents us with the names of a most impres sive collection of historical works, of which certainly the most, and probably all, are otherwise unknown to us. These are the following: 1. The Acts C'^Z-) of Samuel the Seer. I Chron. 29:29. 2. The Acts of Nathan the Prophet. I Chron. 29:29, II Chron. 9:29. 3. The Acts of Gad the Seer. I Chron. 29:29. 4. The Prophecy of Ahijah the Shilonite. II Chron. 9:29. 5. The Vision of Iddo the Seer conceming Jeroboam the son of Nebat. II Chron. 9:29. (The writings named thus far are said by the Chronicler to contain information regarding the deeds of David or of Solomon.) 6. The Acts of Shemaiah the Prophet and of Iddo the Seer. II Chron. 12:15. 7. The Teaching {•X-\T2y' of the Prophet Iddo. II Chron. 13:22. 8. The Acts of Jehu the son of Hanani, "which are included in the Book of the Kings of Israel." II Chron. 20:84. 9. A book written by "Isaiah the son of Amoz, the prophet," containing "the rest of the acts of Uzziah." II Chron. 26:22. 10. The "acts of seers" who are not named. II Chron. 25 The precise meaning of tbe word, occurring here and in no. 1."), is uncertain. It must at any rate be connected with the common use of the verb tCn in the meaning "search (for truth)," "inquire into," and the like. Perhaps originally this noun formed with the prefix ma- denoted the " place where the inquirer is to search," and tlience "authoritative teaching." It is hardly safe to assume that the word in these two passages had the very sarae connotation as the later technical term, " midrash.'' The Chronicler as Editor and as Narrator 229 33:19.^" These are the seers who lived in the time of Manasseh, and are said by the Chronicler to have written down his acts. 11. The Book of the Kings of Israel and Judah. I Chron. 9: 1,'" II Chron. 27:7, 85:27. It is possible that iu this and the three (or four) following numbers we havc merely variations of the same title. It is plainly not our Book of Kings to which reference is made; see especially I Chron. 9:1, II Chron. 20:34, 27:7, 33:18, 3(): 8. 12. The Book of the Kings of Judali and Israel. II Chron. 16:11, 25:26, 28:26, 82:32. 13. The Book of the Kings of Israel. II Chron. 20:34 (see the reference to this passage above, in no. 11). 14. The Acts of the Kings of Israel. II Chron. 83:18. Said to contain the prayer of Manasseh, and the words of the seers who warned him. 15. The Teaching {vii~iTC)'" of the Book of Kings. II Chron. 24:27. The Chronicler nowhere expressly quotes from any one of these works; he does not even say that he himself made use of any of them as sources. But he plainly wishes to givc the impression that he is writing with authority, and concerning matters which were well known, at least to the inner cir cle in Jerusalem which preserved the true tradition. Obviously, some of these titles are a mere literary adornment, designed to give the impression just described, and any close study of the cvidence leads to the same conclusion in regard to all the titles in the list. The material which has come to us only through the books of Chronicles is perfectly homogeneous, the work of a single hand. It is impossible to suppose that any part of it is excerpted, as the Chronicler habitually excerpts from the sources which we know him to have used. It is certainly not the case that Samuel, Nathan, Gad, Ahijah, Iddo, Shemaiah, Jehu, Isaiah, and the authors of the other "sources," used all exactly the same language and style, and wrote with the selfsame tendency. But this is not all. The language, style, and tendency, throughout these long 2«The text of the verse seems to be corrupt. MT and Jerome read " Hozai," a proper name. Theodotion probably had before him D"'Tin (without the article), and this is the most likely reading ; cf. vs. 18. The Syriac has " Hanan the prophet." 27 So, of course, the verse must be punctuated, as in all the old versions. 28 See no. 7, and the note there. 230 Ezra Studies and important chapters and sections, are those ofthe Chronicler himself and of no one else. This is well stated by Driver, Encycl. Bibl., art. '-Chronicles,'" col. 772: "The style of the Chronicler has remarkable peculiarities. It is not merely that it presents characteristically late linguistic novelties, .... but it has also a number of special mannerisms So constant are [these marks] that there is hardly a sentence, not excerpted from Samuel or Kings,'' in which they are not observable." And yet Professor Driver, sharing the traditional disinclination to believe that the Chronicler himself invented any long passages — though he sup poses him very frequently to have invented short ones! — expresses himself as follows in his Introduction', p. 493. After drawing the conclusion that all this added matter must be either the composition of the Chronicler or derived from a contemporary writing, he adds, in a footnote; "The former alternative is decidedly the more probable ; but the latter cannot be absolutely excluded. The author of the -Midrash of the Book of Kings' may, for instance, have used a style and diction similar to those of the Chronicler." But this is lame reasoning. What logical value is there in the sug gestion that some (why not all?) of the added matter may have been composed not by the Chronicler, but by another writer who wrote at the same time, with the same aim {ibid., p. 498), and employing the same peculiar language and style? This is reallv a reductio ad absurdum. It is time that scholars were done with this phantom --source," of which the internal evidence is absolutely lacking, and the external evidence is limited to the Chronicler's transparent parading of '-authorities;" while the evidence against it is overwhelming.*' It may be added, that the hypothesis of a --midrashic"' source, of which such very free conjectural use has been made by modern scholars, does not at all suffice to explain the Chronicler's added matter. The latter does not consist, for the most part, of moral and religious lessons, nor is it an expansion or explanation of an older text. It is motived history: and the one thing which is fundamental to it everywliere is the studied purpose of an earnest man. Nothing is included by accident, nowhere is any other aim than the Chronicler's apparent. What we have is a consistently altered picture — the Chronicler's own picture — of the whole history, every single portion sup- 29 The italics are mine. 30If Chronicles had not been a sadly neglected book, these manifestly untenable theories could not have held the field for so long a time. The Chronicler as Editor and as Narrator 231 porting and supplementing every other portion. As has already been said, it was this added material that formed the all-important part of the work. The Old Testament writers, in their methods and practices, seem generally to have followed the traditions of their time; and in thus making an impressive (though equivocal) show of authori ties, the Chronicler was doing what many ancient writers of note have done." What he aimed at was partly literary adornment, ^^ but partly also an apologetic advantage. He certainly could not count on the immediate success of his improved version of the sacred history, and it might be that even these allusions to ancient writings, presumably known in Jerusalem, would be of assistance against the rivals of the Jews. I believe, however, that the literary motive was the principal one. Be that as it may, the necessary conclusion as to the origin of the material of I and II Chron. not derived from our canonical books is this, that it was all freely composed by the Chronicler himself, in the pursuit of his apolo getic aim. 2. The Chronicler^s Characteristics as a Narrator So much has been said on this subject already, in the course of the preceding argument, that it is possible to be brief here. The Chronicler has some very strong points as a story-teller, though they have been generally overlooked because of the traditional view of him as a mere compiler. I have already given some examples of the way in which he occasionally "retouches" the older narrative by introducing into it local color and fresh incident (above, pp. 217, 219). The story of Oman the Jebusite, as retold by him in I Chron. 21, furnishes a typical instance. His imagina-' tion is not the mere bondservant of his tendency. He very fre quently creates new pictures and invents striking details with a dogmatic purpose, it is true, but perhaps quite as often with a purely literary aim. Few, if any, of all the narrators of the Old Testament could surpass him in vividness of imagination. Every 31 See, for illustration, Bernheim, Historische Methode, 272 ff. ; James, Apocrypha A-nec- dota ii, p. xcvii. 321 have no doubt that it is a purely literary embellishment when the latest editor of the Books of Kings speaks of " The Book of the Acts of Solomon," " The Book of the Chron icles of the Kings of Israel," and "The Book of the Chronicles of the Kings of Judah," as of works which at least had been in existence: "The rest of his acts, . . . . ifei-e they not written, etc.?" It is not in the least likely that this editor had seen such chronicles, nor does he say that he had. But he wished to offset in this harmless way, so far as he could, the humiliating effect of this extremely meager account of the Hebrew Kings. I Mace. 16 : 23 f . is a very similar case, as I have argued elsewhere {Encycl. Bibl., Ill, col. 2862 f.). 282 Ezra Studies scene stands out clearly before his eyes, as his thought creates the successive incidents. Everything is alive, and in movement. He is fond of putting things in the most concrete form, giving places, names, and dates, even when he is thus taking liberties with the older history. If his skill — or care — in telling thc story were equal to his power of invention, lie would stand among the flrst of Hebrew writers. But this is unfortunately not thc case. In con structing his narrative he is often careless, sometimes extremely so ; his language is inelegant, even for the time in which he lived ; and his style is slovenly to the last degree. The following instances, picked up at random, may serve to illustrate further his chief characteristics. II Chron. 22:116; the statement that Jehosheba was the wife of Jehoiada the priest is the addition of a true story-teller. This is perhaps a little more than a literary touch, to l)e sure, since by means of it the credit for the rescue of the boy king is given entirely to the priests and Levites. II Chron. 21:12-15; the introduction of the letter from the prophet Elijah to Joram of Judah is the same sort of lively editing which we have in the case of the Hiram- Solomon con-('S[)ondence (mentioned above). Of a similar nature are the speeches which the Chronicler is so very fond of putting into the mouth of his characters. "' Their purpose is simply to lend a certain dramatic vividness to the narration. A good exam ple is I Chron. 12:18. In II Chron. 21:16 f. the Chronicler removes in a picturesque way all the sons of thc wicked queen Athaliah, excepting only the one (the youngest) who afterward reigned. The inveterate fondiu'ss for furnishing a date is illus trated in 16:12: "And in the thirty-ninth year of his reign Asa was diseased in his feet" (cf. I Kings 15:23). And it is with names as it is with dales; where thc^ ordinary narrator merely tells the occurrence, the Chronicler gives this name of the man. Thus 14:8: "There came out against them Zcrah the Ethiopian." There is no reason for thinking of possible "writ ten sources," in the many cases of this kind. No one was better able to invent such names than the Chronicler himself. II Chron. 24:15-22 is a bit of narrative which illustrates both the Chronicler's didactic hal)it and also his manner as a narrator. Vs. 20, in particular, is characteristic: "And the spirit of God came upon Zechariah the son of Jehoiada the priest; and he 33 See Driver, Encycl. Bibl., loc. cil., col. 772, and note 2. The Chronicler as Editor and as Narrator 283 stood above the people, and said unto them, Thus saith God, Why transgress ye the commandments of Yahw6?" Thc motives which led the Chronicler to create this episode are obvious. The sad end of Joash (II Kings 12:17-21), who had done so many good things in his lifetime, needed some jjreparation in the pre ceding history, and this was accordingly provided. Even after the deatli of Jehoiada (the narrator would say), the king and the princes were not left without admonition; thc son of that famous priest began to rebuke them, but was slain by the com mand of the king. This was all laid close at the narrator's hand by the needs of the situation; but the enlivening touches, the spoken words, and the picture of thc young priest "standing above" the people, are marks of the Chronicler's individuality. II Chron. 16:7-12 is another case which affords an excellent parallel. Here the good king who goes astray is Asa. Thc prophet who warns him is Hanani.^' Asa, like Joash, is enraged, and puts the seer in a dungeon. Then this king also, like the other, comes to a mournful end (as told in I Kings 15:23). The story of Uzziah is another parallel. Here we are told in II Kings 15:5 that the good king became a leper, and the Chronicler tells the reason why; II Chron. 2(): 16-20. This time it is a priest who withstands the king and utters the rebuke which is quoted. Cf. further '20:14-17, and 28:9-13. The following are minor touches illustrating the Chronicler's imaginative way of narrating. I Chron. 11:23: "In the Egyp tian's hand was a spear like a weaver's beam" (cf. II Sam. 23:21). We might also expect the Chronicler to give the name of this Egyptian. 12:8: David's Gadite warriors were men " ivliose faces ivei'c like the faces of lions, and they were as swift as the roes upon thc mountains." And among these same warriors were those (vs. 15) "who went over Jordan in- the Jirst )iioidh, when it had overjlowed all its banks'^ And in vs. 39, those who came to Hebron to make David king "were there with David three days, eating and drinking.'" 28:2: "Then David the king stood np iqwn his feet, and said, Hear me, my brethren," etc. II Chron. 13:4; "And Abijah stood upon Mount Zemaraim and said. Hear me, Jeroboam and all Israel." 16:14: When Asa was buried, "they laid him in a bed whicli was prepared with per- 3< Known in 1 Kings 16:1, 7 only by name, as the father of the prophet Jehu. The name Hanani(ah) ia one of the Chronicler's favorites, being introduced by him wherever there is opportunity. See for example II Chron. 26 : 11. 234 Ezra Studies fumes and spices of many kinds'' (Asa was one of the Chronicler's favorite characters). 20:5: "And Jehoshaphat stood in the con- firresration of Judah and Jerusalem, in the house of Yahw6, before the new conrt." Ys. 16, speakingof a coming encounter with the forces of Edom, Ammon, and Moab: "Ye shall find them cd the end of the vcdJey, before the wilderness of Jeruel." The Chron icler's imagination locates the scene exactly, as usual. Yss. 18 f. : Jehoshaphat and all the people bowed down with their faces to the ground, "and the Lerites .... stinxl up to sing praises," etc. 26:16 ff., the story of Uzziah's trespass: As the king stood there in his anger, "the leprosy broke forth in his forehead in the sight of the priests. . . . And they thrust him out quickly from thence; yea, he himself hastened to go out.''' 28:7: "And Zikri, a mighty man of Epdiraim, sleiv Maaseicdi the King's son," and others whose names are likewise invented with the sole pur pose of giving life to the narrative. 29:3 f . : King Hezekiah, " in the first year of his reign, in the first month, opened the doors of the house of Yahw6, and repaired them. And he brought in the priests and the Levites, and gathered them together into the broad place on fhe east." 35:20, at the time whdn Josiah went out to meet Necho, the latter was marching to battle "at Carche- niish on the Euphrates." All the embellishment of this kind, which is purely literary, is valuable for the light which it throws on the Chronicler's qualities as a composer of narrative. It has received little attention hith erto, for the obvious reason that it has been customary to relieve the Chronicler of the responsibility for this material, supposing him to have derived it from older writers, especially "the mid rashic source" and '-the lost bookof Kings." But every particle of it bears the plain stamp of one man's hand. Those independent contributions to the history which have been made by the Chronicler in the interest of the Levitical organization, and of the religious beliefs and practices of his day, have been treated often and well; though they have not been adequately studied from the literary side, and even those who have discussed them most fully have been content to leave open the bewildering possibility that they (or some of them) were not written by the Chronicler, but by another man who lived at about the same time, had the same views, and wrote in the same peculiar manner. Examples of narrative which originated in the Chroni- The Chronicler as Editor and as Narrator 235 clcr's well-known prejudices may bc passed ovcr licrt^, important as they nro. But, as I have already shown, he was not a mere dealer iu niidrashim, but the cliampion of a great cause. His iiit(M-t>,st iu tlu> Levitical organization was only one I't^ature (though a very impcjrtant ft^afure) of liis intert^si, in all the )H'ciiliarly Jewish religious institutions. Aud lie repeatedly invents hisl-orical t^pisotU'S in wliich his controversial pur[)ose cim 1k^ seen. His dereiise ol' the sole authority of the church in Jtn-usalem, and his hali'-coiiccaled polemic'' against (lie Samaritans in partic ular, niak(> their n|)[)enraiice wilh imiplmsis as soon as lu^ comes in his history to llu^ dividing of tlu> kingdom. The reason why the Northern Kingdom of Israel is geii(>rally left out of account by him is mainly because it lay outsitU^ the spher(> of his chief pur- post-,"" but is found also in the fact that in his own day rival Hebrew organizations, and especially the church on MounKierizim, were using the exisleiice of this Northern Kingdom as a weapon against thc ]n'ei,eiisions of the Jews. At the ver)' beginning of his account of Ihe schism, in th(> story of Abijah and his war with Jeroboam, the Chronicler lays down his main thesis in a v(>ry conspicuous manner. The king of Judali didivers an oration, II Chron. 13:4 1'2, in which, afler showing that the men of thc northern kingdom were apostates and idolaters (vss. 5 -S), he utters these words: ""Have yt^ noi, driven out the priests of Yaliw^, the sons of Aaron, and the tjcvites. and have made for yourselves priests f nnn the people if the land'/''' ]\'lio<'rer cometh to conse- crate himself ivith a young bullock and .-^I'veii rams, lie may become a priest to your false gods. '"But as for us, Yahwi> is onr (-iod. ami ive have not forsaken him. We have priests ministering to Yalnv(^, ///(¦ sons of Aaron, and the IjcvUcs in their work. "And they [i. t\, the jji-it'sis]™ buru unto Yahwt^ t>very morning and every (>vening burnt ott'eriugs and sweet incense: the showbread also is set in order on the pur(> table, and thc goldtMi candlestick with 3'' Ho was of course much loo shrewd a man to introduce into his history :iiiy open 11 ole Illic against the Saninri tans, .Vnythiug resombliug this must immediately liave spoiled tl\e ell'ect of his whole work. 1 f it could easily bo rocognizod as a party document, he might as well have spared himself the trouble of writing it. His whole hopoof success lay in giving it the aiiiiearauce of history, built up out of material which antedated the Samaritan schism, 30.,\nd yet wo cau imagine that the Chronieler, with his zeal for the glory of the Hebrew lieoiile as over against the other iiein)les of tho earth, might have been Kind to make mention of the external prosiierity of such reigns as thoae of .\hah aud .leroboani II. 37 Read rriinSn ''IQy'KJ" following the Greek, « too AooO t^? yiis. 3SThe Chroniolei-, in his usual slovenly style, attaches the particii>le ni^t2pT2 to its predecessor DTlllOO "^ though nothing had intervened. 236 Ezra Studies its lamps, to burn every evening. For we keep the charge of Yahwd our God, but ye have forsaken him." The purpose of all this is as plain as day. It is precisely the main purpose of the whole book of Ezra, and of chaps. 7-13 of the book of Nehemiah ; namely, to show that the Samaritans, who claimed to be the heirs of the Northern Kingdom, and a legitimate branch of the people of Yahw6, had no right to recognition. The Chronicler here, as elsewhere, insists on the pure blood, not contaminated by inter marriage; and he enumerates the details of the orthodox forms of the worship, as it existed in his day in Jerusalem, but nowhere else, not even on Mount Gerizim. The Samaritan priests are men of the nli:^i" , however near they may keep to the regula tions of the Pentateuch. '° So also with the rest of the officials and the apparatus of the temple. In the church which had its center at Shechem, the Levites of the Chronicler's Jerusalem, with their important tasks and elaborate organization, did not exist.''" Jerusalem preserved the true tradition of the cult; in departing from it these northern rivals were apostates. In the development of his theme the Chronicler composes here an elabo rate narrative of 18 verses, containing the account of an ambush, the slaying of 500,000 men of the Northern Kingdom (thus the pure Hebrew stock there suffered a great diminution at the very beginning!), and the names of the cities which Judah captured on this occasion. Another instance of this nature is II Chron. 25:6-10, 13. Amaziah, in undertaking an important expedition against the Edomites, hires a large body of warriors from Israel. A prophet warns him that "Yahw6 is not with" the people of the Northern Kingdom; so he sends the army back, and it returns home "in fierce anger." Bent on revenge, it lays waste the cities of northern Judea. Similar in its motive, again, is the story told in 28; 6-15. This is very lively, and full of incident. The principal scene is vividly sketched, two speeches are reported verbatim, and the names of nine characters, otherwise unknown, are given. This 39 With the "young bullock and seven rams " of vs. 9 corapare Exod. 29:1, :ii, etc. Per haps the Chronicler is not trying to be exact in these verses, but it raay well be that we are to recognize in them both what was and what ivas not included in the official ritual of the Samaritan church in the Chronicler's day. ^** The term "Levites" here of course includes "porters" aud "singers," just as it does everywhere else in Chron.-Ezr.-Neh. where there is no special reason for distinguishing the separate classes. In the following narrative, vss. 12, 14, the priests appear with trumpets as in I Chron. 15:21, Ezr, 3:10, Neh. 12:3.5, etc. This occasion (actual battle!) would be noplace for the "singers." Kittel, Comm., p. 130, writes without due consideration. The C1iiu()NI(ii,i5k as hlorrou and as Naurator 237 alfonis a very good cxiunpK^, in l)ricf c(ini|)aHH, of the ChronicKM-'s skill as a novelist. A cdiiHideniblti part ol' tlu* CliroiiicltM-'s inile|)en(lenl nari-al,ive is not controvtM-sial at all, but simply coni|iosed with a didactic aim. In tin* castas of this kind, as in Ihe othcrH, it is his habit to carry back inb) the hisbn-y of curlier times the things which he eitlu^- saw, or would likt* t,o H(m\ in his own day. A very good example is furniBhed by the two pMssiiges, 11 Chron. 17:7 10 and 19:1 11. King .l(*lioHlia[)hiit wished all his |)(M)|)l(t to know the l,*ciital,(Hicli and bc goveriuMl by it,. Ile tluM-el'ore in t,he iliiril ytvir of his reign ap|)oinl,e(l men to visit all the cil,ii>s ol' Judith, l,(ia,cliing tin* law ol' Moses iiiid acliiig us judges in accordnncti wilii it (17:7 il'.). This worked so well that "the i'ear of Yahw(> fell upon all IIk* kingdoins of the lands that, were round about .ludiiii, so that, tliey inadt* no war againsi, .bdioshaphat" (vs. 10). SoiiK* ytvirs later, accordingly, after Hit* king had become well (*slM,liiiHli('d in his kingdom, lie renewed this appoini ment, of jmlges and teachers, making I iu* organi/,al ion more formal and lluu-ougli, as W((ll as mon* permanent (19:111'.), Tlie result was jnst tlu* Haiiie as in the former cas(>. -b*liosha|)hat and his ptMiple immedi ately Irimnphed o\'(m- a gr(>al, hostile ariii\', withonl, the necessity of Ht,riking a single blow (20: 1 2S). ".\nd Ihe i'ear of Cbxl was on all llu> kingdoms of tlu* lands, when ihey heard thai, N'ahwt> foiighl, against, tlu* en(>mies of isratd" (vs. 29). Tliesi* judges and tt*Mch(>rs art* said by the Chronicler, iu both cases, to consist, of promiiuMil men of Judah, priests, and lii*vil,i>s." Through tlu*ir co-op(*rai ion was made jiossible a nniform knowledg(> of liu* divinc law. and a uniform administration of il, all through tlu* land. H(>sid(* the local S(*ai,s of jnslict* t,lu*r(* was the ctMitral seat,, in Jerusal(*m (19;S). vMI tliis, as has often bi*(*n remarked, corresponds closely lo condilions which aci,mdly exisii'd in tlu* land at lh(> clost* of Uu* last, century n. c. (sih- Jos(*plius, .\iitt., iv, 214 IS, and Schilri>r. (Ieschichte\ 11. 176 79), and probably also in lh(> time of the (Mironiclcr. Ili> doubtless had in mind a slill mort* t iuirongh and eilicient sysl,(*m, and hoped to set* it cxIendtHl. How fundanienlally imjiorlant it se(>mcd to him may be scimi from II Chron. I5;;i, l<>/,i-. 7:10, 25 f., 10: II. K-/.rn the priest was a judgt* and a teacher himself, Mdminislering the law of MoS(*s, aud lu* appointed oilicrs for tlu* sanu* import, ant work. Cn ttu* ljt>\ites *l 1 11 n : 7 r., " itrinccH, Lovites, ttnd priesl,s,'' exuel,!y as in N(>h, 10 : I, etc. 238 Ezra Studies as judges and teachers, see also I Chron. 23:4, 26:29, Neh. 8:7, 9; and with II Chron. 19:11 cf. especially Neh. 11:22-21." 3. The " Ezra Memoirs" From what has been said, above, as to the character of the Chronicler's work, that it is an elaborate historical apology for the Jewish institutions of his time, it is obvious that the center of gravity in it must lie in his account of the restoration. The one possible key to the situation which confronted him was a formal and thoroughgoing "restoration" through the medium of the Babylonian captivity (see above, pp. 208, 212). There was no other way in which the primacy of the Jewish church, and the exclusion of its rivals, could be assured — now that those ill-fated verses, II Kings 24:11 ff., 25:8-12, 22, 25 f., had been written and widely circulated. It was absolutely necessary to show that the genuine old Hebrew church, both its men and its institutions, came straight from Babylonia to Judea, and that the ancient stream of tradition had been kept uncontaminated. We should accordingly expect that the Chronicler, in passing on from the story of the kingdom to that of the Persian period, would begin to show the measure of his best work. That is, in fact, what we do see. The amount of the independent material which he contributes is proportionately but little greater here, it is true, than in the earlier sections. In I and II Chron., as we have seen, nearly one-half of the whole was composed by him; and here in Ezr.-Neh. his contribution amounts to about two- thirds, consisting largely of lists of names. But it is in some respects work done more thoroughly (not more carefully ; the Chronicler never did anything with great care) than any of that which preceded it. So far as the author's manner and his literary habits and devices are concerned, the Chronicler's narrative in Ezr.-Neh. presents nothing at all that is new, excepting the (very natural) use of the first person in the story of Ezra, in imitation *2 Benzinger's amazing comments on the two passages, II Chron. 17:7 ff. and 19:4 ff., are characteristic of the manner in which he has h-Tstened through the hooks of Chronicles {Comm., p. 104): " Das erbauliche Element in der Erzahlung fehlt gfinzlich Sodann ist nicht einzusehen, wozu die Eriindung der Namen der obersten Beamten 17:7 gedient hatte, Bei einem Produkt f reier Phantasie hatte sich Chr. resp. seine Quelle an den Pries- tern und Leviten gentigeu lassen Chr. und seine Zeit hatteu die Verklindigung des Gesetzes den Leviten und Priestern allein ttberlassen, deren Amt das war; vgl. die Gesetzesverlesung Nch. 8, bes. v, 7. 8" (and yet it is obvious that in Neh. 8:4 laymen are intended, and the most of the names are actually found, as names of "chief men of the people," in Neh. 10:15-28 and Ezr. ltl:25-13). And both Benzinger and Kittel flnd it notice able that the laymen are mentioned first, in 17 : 7 f. I In 19 : 8 point of course ^^IB^I . The Chronicler as Editor and as Narrator 239 of the memoir of Nehemiah. But the opportunity which he had here to show his inventive ability and his constructive skill was much greater than any which he had had previously. He had before him, as usable material, two documents. The first was an Aramaic popular tale of the building of the temple, recently com posed by one of his own way of thinking. It was dated, unmis takably, in the reigns of Artaxerxes I and Darius II. The second was the memoir of Nehemiah, telling of the buildipg of the city wall. This was dated in the reign of a certain "Artaxerxes," who, if the Aramaic story was right, must have been Artaxerxes II. So the Chronicler evidently reasoned, on the basis of Ezr. 4:19-24. Aside from these two documents, and the few data in the prophets Haggai, Zechariah, and Malachi, the whole Persian period was a blank, which he was free to fill as he saw fit. Prom his account of the last days of the kingdom of Judah and the destruction of the temple (nearly all of II Chron. 35, and 36:13-21, being his own free composition) he proceeds directly to narrate the restoration at the beginning of the Persian rule. This is told in his well-known manner, with primary attention to all the details connected with the Jewish church, and the smallest possible amount of other narrative. There is no evidence, nor likelihood, that he had any written source, other than those already named. He tells of the proclamation of Cyrus (Ezra, chap. 1), and how the king restored the sacred vessels; he also gives (in I Esdras 4:47-56) the contents of the letters of Cyrus to his Syrian officials, with prescription for all the principal institu tions and ordinances of the Jewish community as the Chronicler imagined it. He gives the date (of course!) of the great return, and the names and lineage of the leaders (I Esdras 5:4-6) ; and then the all-important list, outside of which there was no ecclesi astical salvation. In Ezra 3 and 4:1-5 he narrates how the returning exiles settled in the land, restored the worship as far as possible, and began building the temple. In 3:12f. we have one of those descriptive touches of which he is master. It is worthy of especial notice how in 4:1-5 he does the same thing which he had done in II Chron. 13:4-11 (see above). Just as the speech of Abijah, made after the division of the kingdom, showed that the true tradition was in Jerusalem and not in north ern Israel, so here, immediately after the return, the fact is stated with emphasis that the Samaritans (purposely called by the non- 240 Ezra Studies committal term, "adversaries of Judah and Benjamin") have no part in the true worship of the God of Israel, although they claim to have it. But the story of Ezra is the episode of especial interest in this "post-exilic" history, and the one which best illustrates the quali ties which have been described. It is "the Chronicler's master piece" {Comp., p. 57). I showed in my former brief treatise that he is the sole author of this, and the proof there given, while it might have been extended much farther, was more than suffi cient." It is singular that the fact should have remained so long unrecognized. A generation or more ago, when it was still believed that there was a "post-exilic style" of Hebrew prose, it was easy to believe that these supposed three men, the Chronicler, Ezra, and Nehemiah, could all write in exactly the same way. But the time for such an easy-going theory is long past, now that we know that the authors of the books Joel, Haggai, Zechariah, Malachi, Jonah, Ruth, Nehemiah (in chaps. 1-6), Koheleth, Esther, Ezekiel, Daniel, and the writer of the "Priestly Narra tive" in the Pentateuch — not to mention still others — wrote each in his own individual manner, and no one of them in a style which at all resembles that of the Chronicler. First, as to the fact that the whole of the "Ezra memoir" (especially Ezr. 7:27— 10:44 and Neh. 7:70—10:40) is written in the Chronicler's own words, whether created by him entire or merely rewritten. It is only necessary to ask three questions: (1) Is there such a thing as a characteristic style; i. e., a recognizable individuality in the use of words and phrases and in the manner of expressing ideas? (2) Did the Chronicler have a style which can be recognized? (3) In what passages or chapters of Chron.-Ezr.-Neh. is it to be found with certainty? The first of these questions must of course be answered affirma tively. The answer to the second is, or ought to be, known to every student of Hebrew. There is no writer, in all the Old Tes tament, whose peculiarities of language and style are so strongly marked, or who can so easily and certainly be recognized, as the Chronicler." In answer to the third question I make the follow- *3Most of the reviewers of my Co-mposition passed very hastily over the evidence of language and style, as though these were matters of minor importance I In nearly every case, however, they acknowledged the justice of the claim which I had made (p. 16), that my lists of words and usages were trustworthy so far as they went. One reviewer, LOhr, in the Theol. Rundschau, 1898, pp. 331 f., asserted the contrary, with a succession of statements which are not only misleading but in part positively unfair. **See the statement of Professor Driver, already quoted (above, p. 230). The Chronicler as Editor and as Narrator 241 ing assertion, whioh is the assured result of a good deal of hard study: There is no portion of the whole work Chron.-Ezr.-Neh. in which the Chronicler's literary peculiarities a,re more strongly marked, more abundant, more evenly and continuously distrib uted, and more easily recognizable, than in the Hebrew narra tive of Ezr. 7-10 and Neh. 8-10. Sufficient proof of this can be seen by anyone even in the long "list of peculiar usages" pub lished in Driver's Introduction, or in that given in Geissler's Litterar. Beziehungen der Esramemoiren, 1899, pp. 5-11,*° with out the necessity of going .farther. How does it happen that the Chronicler, and "Ezra" (everywhere), and Nehemiah (every where excepting in chaps. 1-6!) all write just the same very peculiar Hebrew? So far as this phenomenon has been noticed at all, it has been customary to explain it by saying that the Chronicler as editor gave the writings of Ezra and Nehemiah a stylistic revision: "well ja der Verf.(Chroniker) die Denkschrift Esra's umgeschrieben und in sein Buch aufgenommen hat, wobei sich leicht seine Sprachfarbung dem Texte mittheilte" (von Orelli, in the Theol. Liter aturblatt, 1898, p. 290). But those who attempt this explanation show that they neither realize the extent of this "revision" nor have an acquaintance with the Chronicler's editorial methods. He also edited Neh., chaps. 1, 2, 4-6, but left all this apparently untouched, saving a few verses which he added or inserted, and which contain the only sure marks of his hand. More important still, we know just how he has edited the multitude of long extracts from the books of Sam uel and Kings. The material of which he has made use there has not been given his "Sprachfarbung." His peculiar words and usages, such as those given in the long list just mentioned, are almost never found in the chapters and paragraphs which he has transferred; and even in the comparatively few cases where he has revised or expanded the older narrative they are not at all common. The only passages in which his characteristics *5 Geissler's investigation is industrious and useful, but his conclusions in the matters now under discussion are singularly at variance with the evidence which he pre sents. After sho*ving the enormous extent to which the literary stock-in-trade of "Ezra" coincides with that of the Chronicler, he goes on to discuss the words and phrases occurring both in "Ezra" and in the Hexateuch (pp. 12-21), presenting an array of evidence which proves nothing more than this, that the Chronicler wrote Hebrew and had read his Bible. He then presents (pp. 22f.) the linguistic material peculiar to the "Ezra memoirs." What is gained from this very meager list, and from the remarks which follow it, is merely the certainty tbat a few words and phrases found in Ezra are not found in Chron., and vice versa; i. e., that the Chronicler really had at his command as large a vocabulary as he .might be expected to have. 242 Ezra Studies appear frequently, in successive verses and many times on a single page — as they appear all the time in the Ezra story — are the paragraphs and chapters which he has composed independently. This is a statement concern ing which there can be no dispute. It can easily be verified by anyone who will take the trouble to study the books of Chron icles in Kittel's edition, with the aid of the lists already mentioned. As I said in my Comp., pp. 51 f.: "The Chronicler incorporates his documentary sources entire, so far as practicable, not rewrit ing them or working them over, but enriching them occasionally with an added clause or inserted paragraph." I have now given sufficient illustration of this (see above), and it is a fact well known to those who have studied the books of Chronicles.*" So when, for example, Kraetzschmar, in the Theol. Literaturzeitung, 1897, col. 350, would make the concession, "dass der Chronist in die Esra-Memoire starker eingegriffen hat, als man bisher im Allgemeinen annahm" (cf. also Geissler, op. cit., pp. 11 f.), he is proposing an explanation of the facts which is entirely inad missible. Then, as to the significance of the fact that the Ezra story lies before us in the Chronicler's own language. There is only one possible conclusion to be drawn from the abundant material which we have to guide us, namely this, that the story is entirely his own composition. Kraetzschmar, loc. cit., objects: "Es ware ein Leichtes, nach des Verfassers Methode auch diese Kapitel [I Chron. 21 and II Chron. 28 f. J und noch viele andere auf alteren Quel len beruhende der Chronik als vom Chronisten frei erfunden und ganzlich ungeschichtlich hinzustellen." Of course! That is the only treatment possible to one who knows the Chronicler and has any idea what a scientific method is. In the two chapters, II Chron. 28 f., and all others like them, whatever the Chronicler himself has written, in the way of either addition or alteration, is "frei erfunden und ungeschichtlich." Since Kraetzschmar has pointed out these three chapters by way of illustration, it may be well to notice, in passing, what they really illustrate. In II Chron. 28 f. there are no marks whatever of the Chronicler's hand in any of the verses which contain material from II Kings. But in the remainder of the two chapters, where he cuts loose <6Thus Benzinger, Comm., p. 113, decides that the story of Joash's repairing of the tem ple, II Chron, 24:4-14, cannot come from tho Chronicler, simply because the story told in Kings has been thoroughly rewritten (and altogether changed in its contents, be it noted 1). The Chronicler as Editor and as Narrator 248 from his source and composes his own narrative, the characteris tic words and phrases appear. In I Chron. 21, where he has merely made extensive superficial alteration, while retaining a good deal of the material of his source, no traces of his lan guage and style appear (and this, as I remarked above, is the rule in such cases). This chapter, therefore, stands on an alto gether different footing from those in the Ezra story. With the narrative which does not appear to have been written by the Chronicler we have at present nothing to do. Further, the narrative which gives evidence of coming from the Chronicler's hand cannot possibly be treated as substantially representing an older source. It is not simply that we have no guarantee that in introducing his own form of words he has not altered the material contents of his source; we know with certainty that in all such cases he has altered them fundamen tally. The evidence of I and II Chron. is conclusive on this point, as I have shown. Wherever he employs his own language, the substance also is his; and if the traces of his presence are numerous throughout any considerable piece of narrative, the overwhelming probability is that he had no written source at all for it. Now, as a matter of fact, there is nothing whatever to make it seem likely that the Chronicler had any source, written or oral, for his story of Ezra. If we have any definite knowledge at all of this "Ezra," we know that he was a man precisely like the Chronicler himself: interested very noticeably in the Levites, and especially the class of singers ; deeply concerned at all times with the details of the cult and with the ecclesiastical organiza tion in Jerusalem; armed with lists of names giving the geneal ogy and official standing of those who constituted the true church; with his heart set on teaching and enforcing the neg lected law of Moses throughout the land (see above, pp. 237 f.) ; and — most important of all — zealous for the exclusion of the "people of the land," the condemnation of mixed marriages, and the preservation of the pure blood of Israel ! There is not a gar ment in all Ezra's wardrobe that does not fit the Chronicler exactly. To suppose that the latter could have rewritten the words, and twisted the ideas, of this kindred spirit, whose testi mony was of such immense importance to all his own special interests, is out of the question ; his intelligence was not of such 244 Ezra Studies a low order as this; and we know, besides, that his habit was directly opposed to any such proceeding, even when the material was not exactly suited to his purpose. One literary feature of the "Ezra document" is referred to over and over again as conclusive proof of its genuineness, namely the occasional appearance of the first person. "I was strengthened" (Ezr. 7:38); " the princes drew near to me " (9:1); "and tee cast lots" (Neh. 10:34). Such verses as these, it is said, must surely come directly from Ezra himself; for anyone else would have narrated in the third person — as is done in Ezr. 10 and Neh. 8, for example. Thus Orelli, in the Theol. Liter aturblatt, 1898, p. 292, asks how it is possible to deny the authentic memoir — "ihr Vorhandensein bekundet deutlich genug noch das ungesuchte Auftreten der ersten Person des Erzahlers." But surely no exten sive acquaintance with ancient literature is needed in order to recognize this very transparent and very common literary device. Such touches as these, used often brilliantly, but hardly ever consistently, are the Chronicler's regular stock-in-trade. If we had no direct proof that narratives written in the first person were known to him, we might hesitate a little to suppose that he (with all his power of living in the scenes which he depicts) had adopted this form of composition. But he actually had the Nehemiah memoir in his hands! As for the change from the first person to the third, and back again, which has so thoroughly mystified our Old Testament scholars, it is not even necessary to make it a special reproach to the Chronicler's care lessness, since it occurs, in precisely the same way, in many other ancient works of fiction. A good example is found in the fourth chapter of Daniel. I quote from Bevan's Commentary, p. 87: "One peculiarity which cannot fail to strike the reader, is that in the middle of the narrative (4:25-30 [English trans., vss. 28-33]) the author, forgetting for the moment that he is writing in the name of Nebuchadnezzar, speaks of the king in the third person, but afterwards returns to the first (vss. 31-34)." Another instance, equally instructive, is furnished by the same book. From 7:2 onward, to the end of the book, all of the narrative is given in the first person, with the exception of 10:1, where the third person is temporarily introduced. Are we to conclude that the authentic memoirs of Daniel begin at 7:2, and that 10:1 has been "liberarbeitet," or inserted by the redactor? Excellent The Chronicler as Editor and as Narrator 245 illustration is given by the book of Enoch, in more than one place. 12 : 3, for example, begins one of the " Ichstilcke" (observe vss. 1,2). Shall we not suppose that one of the extracts from the genuine personal memoir of Enoch begins at this point ? And, again, there is the story of Tobit. Chaps. 1-3 (in both of the principal Greek recensions) are composed in the first person; but in chaps. 4-14 the narrator lapses into the third person. In the seventh chap, of the Book of Jubilees, where the narrative is in the third person, in vs. 26 it suddenly passes over, without any warn ing, into the first person, and so continues to the end of the chap ter (vss. 26-39) , after which the third person is resumed.*' A simi lar thing happens in the ancient Protevangel of James, where a part of the narrative, told by Joseph, suddenly adopts the first person — simply because the writer's imagination happened to work in that way. Excellent illustration from the Gentile narrative literature is afforded (for instance) in the various recensions of the Thousand and One Nights, in numerous places; also in the Arabic story of SUl und- SchumUl, ed. Seybold, p. 79, lines 14 f. ; p. 85, line 16. In all these cases, and many similar ones, and in the Chronicler's change from "I" to "he" in telling Ezra's story, the determining factor is the same: whether the narrator uses the first person or the third depends simply on the mood of his imagination; whether, as he sits down to write a fresh chapter, he happens to identify himself with his hero, or not." It is a most significant fact, in this connection, that the very verses and passages whioh contain "Ezra's" first person are often those which are most noticeably filled with the telltale signs of the Chronicler. Thus, the verses 7:27 — 8:1 which form the beginning of the first "memoir section" show a remarkable aggre gation of such marks, including some of the most characteristic of all (see my Composition, pp. 16 f., 20 f.). Geissler, op. cit,, p. 12, records his conclusion that the traces of the Chronicler's *^ There are many illustrations of such sudden change, back and forth, in the Jewish apocalyptic literature. Thus, the " Life of Adam and Eve," § 33 (Kautzsch, Pseudepi- graphen, 524, bottom) ; the cases noted in James, Apocrypha Anecdota, ii, pp. Iv, xc, xcii, xciv f., 12411.; also these same Cambridge Texts and Studies, II, 2, pp. 146 f. ; further. Fleck, Wisse-nschaftliche Reise (Leipzig, 1837), ii, 3, and the trans, by Bornemann, Zeitschr, 'Wiss. Theol., 1844, 3. Heft, pp. 20 f. *8 It cannot be insisted too often, that these writers werenot trying to "forge docu ments." The device of using occasionally tho first person (like that of presenting fictitious 'material in the form of edicts and letters in full ofiicial dress ; see above, p. 150) was always adopted with a literary purpose, never chiefiy in order to gain credence — though this aim may possibly also have been present in some cases. 246 Ezra Studies hand are as numerous in 7:28—9:15 (i. e., in the "Ichstiick"!) as in chap. 10, and even more numerous than in Neh., chaps. 8-10.*" But if even these cherished "I" verses were composed by the Chronicler, where then can we hope to find traces of Ezra's handi work? Bertholet, Comm., p. xiv, in blissful ignorance of the trne state of the case, writes as follows: "Am leichtesten lasst sich herausschalen, was Chr von jenen Memoiren in unverandertem Wortlaute [!!] mitteilt. Es ist von den Esramemoiren: 7:27 — 8:34, 9:1-15." But can Bertholet point out, anywhere in these sections, half a dozen consecutive verses which (after examining Geissler's lists) he can confidently pronounce free of the suspicion of being at least "iiberarbeitet"? On the contrary, the style is everywhere and unmistakably that of the Chronicler. And the whole argument for the genuineness of these "Ichstilcke" — the supposed ipsissima verba — rests on the assumption that they have not been rewritten. To all this must be added, finally, that the literary qualities of the narrative in Ezr. 8-10 and Neh. 8-10 are exactly those of the independent narrative in I and II Chron. Keference has already been made, in the preceding pages, to some important illustrations of this point. Both the subject-matter and. the man ner of treating it are the Chronicler's own. The proportion of the material is just the same as usual; the same which we have remarked in the opening chapters of Ezr., for example; a great deal of space given to ecclesiastical matters and machinery, and the minimum of narrative. Levites are mustered, and temple vessels numbered and weighed ; feasts are celebrated, and reforms instituted and accepted by "the congregation" on the basis of the law. The Chronicler's omnipresent number twelve appears here also; thus, in 8:3-14, 24, 35 (cf. 6:17), 10:25-43 (in the original form; see the Greek of vss. 38 ff.), Neh. 9:4 f., twelve including Ezra ; see the Greek text at the beginning of vs. 6 ; and *9In regard tit the chapters in Neh., however, Geissler, like some of his predecessors, is strangely blind. He writes {loc. cil.) : " Aufi'allig ist es, dass die Gebete Esr. 9:6-15, Neh. 9:6-37 viel weniger Verwandschaft mit der Sprache von Ch verraten als die erzablenden Abschnitte." This shows how very slight his acquaintance with the Chronicler is. These prayers, like all the many others which the Chronicler introduces into his history, consist chiefiy of a tissue of quotations from Deut., which was the favorite devotional book of the Jewish community throughout the most of the Pert^ian and Greek periods, until it was finally supplanted by the Psalms. And it would be nothing short of a marvel if more than a very few traces of his hand should appear, even inthe unusually long prayer in Neh. Geissler speaks of the section Neh. 8-10 as " considerably longer " (i. e., for the purposes of his linguis tic investigation) than Ezr. 8-10. But it ie really shorter, when the lists of names and the prayers are left out of account. The Chronicler as Editor and a.s Narrator 247 probably also originally in Neh, 8:4, 7 (cf, Kv.v. 2:2 = Neh,7:7). The didactic utbd-ancc in Ezr. 8:226 is oneof hiscHp(*c,ial favorites; ficc II ()liron. L3:t8, M:7, ll, 15:2(!), 17:9 f., 20:6, 17, 20,' 21:20, 25:Sf. Tlu* usual short sikh*cIh'h an* uitcrcil, t*. g., Ezr. 8:28 f., 10:2 11, 10 ff., N.*h. 8:9 f., 11. Nmiics and dates are giv(*ii ill the customary i)rol'uHioii. The style of tht* narration is as liv(*iy as (*ver. ()bscrv(* thc following very chai-iicicristic louchcH, which r(*iniiul us at once ot the flashes of lite and local color which appt*iir all tlii-tnigh thc iiid(*p(*ndt*nt iiarrativ(*H of T and 1 1 Chron. Ezr. 8:15: "And I gathered them together at the river at Aliava, and there wo (*ncami)c(l three days." 9:3: "I i-(*nt my garment, and pulled out the hair of my head and (f my beard." 10:6: "Then Ezra arose* .... and ivent into the chamber Levib'S "stood up ujxui the stairs." Cf. liu* passages cited above, pp. 2.'{)! f. Th(* Chronicl(*r'H "creation of thc character" of Ezra is not an cs|H*cially nob*worthy achievement for him. His imnu*dia(o pur- [)()8(* drew (lie indistinct outlines. To what I wrob* r(>garding thi.B ma(,b*r in my Comp., pp. 57 (')2, the following may be added, as l,o considcralions which must havt* chiefly influt*nccd him in bishioning the sbn-y. It was necessary that (lu* sin of inter marriage with forc*igncrs — (lu* thing which tlu* Samaritans had done — should bi* scvcroly Hcon*d. Then* was only oiu* natural way to do (his, namely, by l,cHing how (lu* rc(,urn(*(l exiles once fell iii(() this evil way (in (lu*ir })artial inuociMicc !),''" were* rcbulunl by OIU* who had authorily; and how (lu>y (hen ga\'c solemn promist*, in public assembly, to do so no more, (liven tho obvious necessities of (lu* Chronicler's aim, and tin* crca(ion of "Ezra the scribe" just as lu* appears, and (lu>- gi'iicral out- flfl,\M l,lio narnit,ivO ovei-ywluiro says or itnpli(*s, (Im pt'ople hud siiuicd grievously in tu*gli*cl,iiig tlu* law; and .ynl, tlioy Iind tin* imrtial oxcnst* that, il,s usi* had for a loiigt inn* nnd of n(*cnssity b(M*n siiHix'iidiMi, jiiul (Ihm-o lind biM-n no " oxiioi-t sorihn " (,o tench it, to thom (cf. II Chron. l.-i:3l). 248 Ezra Studies line of the events in which he figured, follow as matters of course. Compare also what is said below, regarding the character of Nehemiah. 4. The Chronicler's Narrative of Nehemiah What has just been said in regard to the story of Ezra can also be said, mutatis mutandis, of the considerable addition to the Nehemiah memoir which the Chronicler has made; namely, Neh. 7:1-69;" 11:1 — 13:31. These two passages, when joined together by the removal of the interpolated section 7 : 70 — 10 : 40, form a solid block of the Chronicler's own very characteristic material, self-consistent, perfectly comprehensible in every part, and in the same order and extent which he himself originally gave it; excepting, of course, that the text has suffered some corruption. It is all the unaided work of his hand, and there is no part of it concerning which there can be any reasonable doubt when the evidence has been examined. I presented the argument briefly in my Comp,, pp. 39-49, and the force of what was said there is much increased by the demonstration of the Chronicler's aims and characteristics which I have given here. 11:1 is the immediate and necessary continuation of 7:69. Just as soon as the statistics are finished, and the narrative is resumed in 12:27 ff., it is the Chronicler, unmistakably, who is the narrator. The Nehemiah who told his story in chaps. 1-6 was a man of affairs; truly religious, but giving no sign of any interest in the ritual of the temple. But the Nehemiah of 12:27 — 13:31 is simply Ezra (i. e., the Chronicler) under another name. Subject-matter, manner, language, and style, all bear the same witness in every paragraph ; and here also, as in Ezra, it is pre cisely the "Ichstilcke" which are most characteristically and certainly the composition of the Chronicler. The current "analy sis" of 12:27-43, which saves for Nehemiah every verse which happens to contain "I" or "me," and pronounces all the others "edited," is a curious specimen of literary criticism. The fact is, there is no excuse for analysis here anywhere. In vss. 37 ff. we see once more the Chronicler's ever-present interest in the topog raphy and buildings of Jerusalem (above, p. 216). In chap. 13 the main features of those orthodox institutions in the interest of which the whole history Chron.-Ezr.-Neh. was composed are 51 As I have already said (p. 226), I suspect the passage 6:16-19. It seems to me safer, however, to leave it with the Neh. memoir for the present. 7 : 69 is 7: 68 in Baer's edition. The Chronicler as Editor and as Narrator 249 brought forward for the last time. "Ezra" had recently given them his powerful support, and now Nehemiah is made to do the same — often in a remarkably similar form of words; adopting, in fact, the peculiar language of the Chronicler. There is the zeal for the pure blood of Israel, vss. 1-4, 23-28 ; the care for the perquisites of the temple officials, vss. 5-13, 30 (cf. especially 10:35-40!); the rebuke of those who break the sabbath, and especially of those of the "people of the land" who bring wares to Jerusalem for sale on that day, vss. 15-22 (cf. especially 10:32!) ; and, most striking of all, the curious veiled allusion to the Samar itan schism, in vss. 28 f. (see above, p. 235, and Comp., p. 48).'' The circumstantial manner of the narrative is the one with which we are familiar; see for instance 12:31 ff. (where the Chronicler's personal leaning toward Ezra appears in vs. 36!), 13:8, 21, 24 f. In all this, again, as in the story of Ezra, there is nothing what ever to indicate a written source. The lists in chaps. 7, 11, and 12 were very important, from the Chronicler's standpoint. This was his final presentation of the historical antecedents of the Jewish official church, bringing down "the true Israel" almost to his own day. In 7: 5 Nehemiah is made to "gather together the nobles, and the rulers, and the people, that they might be reckoned by genealogy." The prin cipal result of this gathering was the finding of the "book of the genealogy of those who came up," which is evidently repre sented as containing not only 7:6-69, but also 11:1-36. Further fruit of this effort on the part of Nehemiah is given in 12: 1-26. As has already been remarked, the Chronicler believed Nehemiah to have flourished under Artaxerxes II; he therefore would natu rally have supposed him to survive until the time of Jaddua (12:11) and Darius III (12:22), and could easily represent him as the compiler of all these lists in chap. 12.^'' In his list of those who helped to build the wall, in the time of Nehemiah, Neh. 3:1-32, the Chronicler presents the usual names; and doubtless rejoiced the hearts of many of his contemporaries. For specific marks of his hand here, see Comp., pp. 37 f. 52 It may be that the Chronicler believed Nehemiah to have been living at the time of the rupture with the Samaritans, but that he did not quite dare to connect him definitely with the event. Compare what is said, below, in regard to his chronology of Nehemiah. 53 Hence iu II Mace. 2 : 13 Nehemiah is identified with the Chronicler, or at all events is declared to have been the one who collected the documents embodied in the compilation Chron.-Ezr.-Neh. ! As for the ''book of chronicles" referred to in 12:23, we have no reason to suppose that it was anything more than one of this writer's fictitious sources, like those which have received mention above. 250 Ezra Studies The "great list," 7:6-69, had already been given in full by the Chronicler, in Ezr. 2:1-67. He repeats it here, partly because of its fundamental importance, and partly because it formed an integral part of the material the rest of whioh he wished to present in 11:1 — 12:26. It is entirely his own com position, and (like everything else of his) is put together with insufficient care. Hence the great difficulties it has always pre sented to those who have tried to take it seriously. See, for example, Bertholet, Comm., p. 8, where it is shown, on the best of modern authority, (1) that this cannot possibly be a genuine list of returning exiles; and (2) that it cannot ever have been intended as any other kind of a list!" The Nehemiah of chaps. 7 and 11-13, as already observed, is in nearly all respects the same character as the Ezra of Ezr. 8-10, Neh. 8-10. One would expect that a writer of the Chronicler's ability would at least have given the latter hero some pronounced characteristics (other than a mighty fondness for Levites and singers), and that he would have studied Nehemiah's memoir for the very purpose of recognizing salient traits which he could then reproduce in his own added chapters. But the only thing of this kind which he has done is to introduce into chap. 13 several of the brief interjected prayers (vss. 14, 22, 29, 31) which are so striking a feature of the genuine narrative (3:36, 37, 5:19, 6:14). In general, it is evident that the Chronicler became an editor more from necessity than from choice. By taste and gift he was a novelist. He would doubtless have preferred to give freer rein to his imagination in composing the story of the Jews and their 5iAs has already been observed, the names in these manifold tables of the Chronicler are largely or wiiolly those of his orthodox contemporaries. It would be interesting to know what lay beneath the express degradation of certain families, 7 : 61 f ., 63 ff. It may be worth while to recall the fact that Delaiah (vs. 62) is given in the Elephantine papyrus as the name of Sanaballat's elder son ; though the coincidence may be only accidental. Regarding the number of "the whole congregation," 42, 360 (so in all the texts, and therefore pretty certainly original), the conjecture may be hazarded that it is the result of one of the Chron icler's computations. Josephus, Antt., x, 8, 5, reckons 3,513 years from the creation down to the destruction of the temple. If we suppose the Chronicler to have reckoned the number at 3,530, his total number of the new congregation would have included twelve men for each year of that period. To show the possibility of some such computation : creation to Exodus = 2,666 years, according to MT; Exodus to building of temple = 440 years, in the Greek version of I Kings 6:1; 36 = remaining years of Solomon (I Chron. 3:2, 9:30); 258 = synchronistic years of the two kingdoms, in MT ; fall of Samaria to destruction of temple = 134 years, in MT. Total, 3,534 years. After deducting the four years which are counted twice, where these five periods overlap, final result, 3,530 years. Regarding the Chronicler's infatuation for the number twelve, see above, pp. 222, 246. The Chronicler as Editor and as Narrator 251 antecedents. But he was now writing not to interest, but with an apologetic purpose. The support of the recognized history was indispensable; outside this, it was important that he should con fine himself to what was necessary. In the pre-exilic period, he could not well avoid incorporating at least a part of the well-known history of every king of Judah. In the post-exilic period, he certainly seems to have made the most of the two documents which were available. And his view of the history ultimately gained general acceptance, though it seems to have made its way slowly. The evidence that he was an earnest and devout man is abundant and striking. No one ever believed more sincerely than he that human prosperity rests only upon the fear of God; and from time to time, throughout his history, he puts into the mouth of his characters some expression of his own conviction, that if the people, all through the land, could be thoroughly instructed in the divine truth, all their serious troubles would be over. Vlll THE EZRA STOKY IN ITS OKIGINAL SI<:(,)UENCh] .Vny aKcuipt (o "rt*s(()r(* (lu* original form" of an aiu-icid documcnl, by rearranging its cliapb'rs, paragrajihs, or V(>rscs, ought b> bc nic( with siis|)icioii aud subjcclcd (,o (lu* sc\(*rcs( cfiticisni. In (he grcal majorily of cases, cither the Iraditional form can fairly claim to bc thc original one, in sjiib* of seeming con(riulic(,ions, or (*lsi* the cvidciict* enabling ns (,o niakt* a sure rcsloration is not (o bc had. Many oi (lu* gravi* inconsislcncics which (rouble us did no(, disturb the author hiniS(*ir, siiuply bccaust* lu* understood, bcl,(,(*r (lian wc do, what lu* incani (,o say. Even wlu*r(* it is a dcmoiis(,ra(,cd laci that tlu* (,cxl, which lies before us has sull'crcd irom (,ranH|)osil,ioii of sonu* sor!,, i(, is noi, enough fin' tlu* wouhl-bi* r(*s(,orcr (o rearrange (he |tassagcs logically, ov symniclrically, or so as (,o bring tlu* wlioK* inb) per fect accord with sonu* plausible theory. Vi*ry many ancient wriicrs did no(, bind tlu*insclv(*s (,o observe logit*al sc(]ucnci>; did not cart* i*sp(*cially for Hyninu*(,ry; and would havc lK*(*n gri*atly asl(iiiislu*tl, or aiigcri*d, or amused, if they (*oiil(l havt* heard a(,(,ril)u(,cd to tlu*ni (lu* vi(*ws which (hey arc now bclii*vcd to havt* lu*ld. l( is not our conc(*rn, al'icr all, bi Iind tho best pos- siblt* arrangeni(*ii( of tlu* ma(,crial — that would or(,(*n bi* v(*ry (*asy ; our biiriincss is (,o (ind (lu* arrang(*iiu*n( ac(,iially made by thc author -and that is usual ly very dillicull,. N(*vcr(hcli'ss, [)crrcc(,ly convincing rcconstruc(,ions by (ransposKion, based solely on internal cvid(*ncc, arc somclinics possibh*; (he liislory of lil,(*ra(,ur(* c,,)n(aiiis a go(3(l many inslanccs. In (*ach cast* il, is sim[)ly a tpicslit I' whether (lu* i*vidciic(* can saiisiy (he rigor ous i,(*s(,s which thc na(,urc oi (h(* pi'obl(*ni d(*umnds. 'I'he pro posed new arrang('ni(*n(, must really rcmovt* (,lu* (lilIii*td(icH which itis (l(*sign(*d b> ovcrconu*; i(, must crca(,(* no n(*w diHicnl(,i(*s; ii, must cnabli* us to explain how (lu* disorder was brouglil, abou(,; i(, must givc cl(*ar evidence of being (lu* order originally planned by (he author hiiiist*!!', and inust harinonizt* with all that we c(*r- (,ainly know I'cgarding his ])iii'|iosi*s and iiicIIuxIh; and i(, innH(, bt* rccogiiiz(*d as (-lu* only order which can nic(*t l,lu*S(* rc(piir(*mcnts. '252 The Ezra Story in Its Original Sequence 253 If any single link in the chain of evidence is missing, or defective, the critical theory may be tolerated, but it cannot be accepted as demonstrated. I am confident that it will be agreed that the demonstration given in the following pages is a conclusive one, and that this is a case in which the original order of a disarranged narrative has been restored with certainty. In all the narrative part of the Old Testament, there is no where else such an appearance of chaos as in the story of Ezra, as it stands in our received text. Part of it is found in one place, and part in another. Moreover, the two principal frag ments, thus separated from each other, are incoherent in them selves. No one of our modern interpreters has succeeded in obtaining a continuous and comprehensible account of events from either Ezr. 7-10 or Neh. 8-10. The sequence of the sev eral scenes is plainly out of order; the chronology is all wrong; and the bearing of the successive (?) incidents upon one another is far from clear. Ezra makes his journey to Judea in order to teach and administer the law (Ezr. 7: 10, 14, 25 f.), but it is not until thirteen years (!) after his arrival that he first presents it to the people (Neh. 8:2, cf. 1:1 and Ezr. 7:8). In Ezr. 9, the people are rebuked for a grievous sin against the law, the manner of the rebuke implying obviously that the law was already known to them ; and their representative, indeed, after confessing the transgression, proposes to make reparation "according to the liav" (10: 3).' But in the narrative as it now lies before us, the iThat the public reading of the law had already taken place, is necessarily implied uot only in 10:8, but also, and only a little less obvicmsly, in 9:1, 4, 10 ff,, 14. The "com mandments of God," which the people had "forsaken" and "broken," were the command ments of the written law; they could not possibly have been anything else. Those who "trembled at the words of the God of Israel" (9: 4, 10:3) were those who were dismayed at tho transgression of statutes which were def initely known to them; tho ctui- text in each caso makes this certain, Bertholet, in his remarks ou Ezr. 9:1 {Comm., pp. 3S f. ), declares that Ezra's reform in the matter of foreign wives was " vorbereitet durch dio Gedaukenwelt des Deuteronomiums, eines Hesekiel, Maleachi und Tritojesaja," but this is a very lame explanatioa. It is sufficiently obvious that when Ezra tore his clothes, pulled out some of the hair of his head and beard, and spoke and prayed in such passionate language of tho "great guilt" of the people, he was not reproaching them for a sin against a Oedankemoelt! In order to argue in this way, it is necessary that one should flrst shut his eyes. It is not ouly said, in so many words (10:3), that the people already know the Torah, the fact is also certainly implied in the account of the way in which they received Ezra's rebuke (10 : 2 ft'., 12 ffi.). In Neh. 8 : 9, 13 it is made plain that the commandments of the law were quite new to all, princes, priests, and common people alike, when Ezra first road them. In Ezra 9 and 10, on tlie contrary, the people accept as indisputable the charge that they have grievously transgressed; they themselves know what command ments have been broken; and Ezra in his prayer for them actually quotes (loosely) the words of Lev. 18 : 21 f ., 27, Deut. 7 : 3, 23 : 7, 11 : 8. This was a part of that law which he had come to teach — and had already taught. What is more, it was not Ezra who dis covered this "trespass of the exiles," it was certain of their own 254 Ezra Studies law had not yet been made known! Furthermore, although this evil of mixed marriages is discovered and corrected soon after Ezra's arrival in Jerusalem, the time when the people formally repent of it, in solemn assembly, and vow never to do so again, is thirteen years later (Neh. 9:1). The manifest incongruity between Neh. 8 and the two follow ing chapters has also been the subject of much comment. There is nothing in the narrative as it now stands which can account for the sackcloth and ashes in 9: 1. Or it would be a more cor rect statement of the case to say, that the reason for the mourn ing is given, but is incomprehensible in the present form of the story. Kosters, Wiederherstellung Israels {lS'.)o), pp. 85 f., remarks that the occasion of the penitential ceremony in chap. 9 was, plainly, the separation of Israel from foreigners. This is indeed made evident by the two passages, 9 : 2 and 10:29-31; the former of which must necessarily be regarded, because of its position, as giving the principal reason for the assembly, while the otlier^ for a like reason, must be held to give the primary feature of the solemn covenant.^ Wellhausen, Isra elitische und jiidische Geschichte^, p. 135, n. 2, feels the same difficulty as Kosters, and says: "Wunderlich an seiner Stelle ist der erste Satz von Neh. 9:2." But Wellhausen certainly would not wish to suggest that the first clause of this verse is not in its right place in the chapter. The trouble is, of course, that the preceding narration has not prepared the way for such a scene as this. That is, just as Ezr. 9 must have been preceded by an account of the public reading of the law, so Neh. 9 must have followed directly after a chapter which told of the separation from foreign wives. And just here the fact also stares us in the face that the story of Ezra's reform is not suitably concluded by Ezr. 10:44, even when the verse is restored to its original form (see below). We leaders. 9:1 says: "When these things were finished, the chief men drew near to me, saying: The people of Israel .... have not separated themselves from the peoples of the land," etc., and these princes thereupon p?-oceed fo quote from the laws in question {yss. 1,2)1 This is either the sequel of Neh, 8, or else it is inexplicable. 2 No neater demonstration ot this exegetical necessity could be asked than is furnished by the " Neapolitan Synopsis " of the Old Testament, published by Lagarde in bis Septua ginta Studien II. The following is its summary of that part of the Ezra narrative whioh is contained in the book of Nehemiah (ibid., p. 84, 11. 27-34) : .... wai o fj.ev''EcrSpa^ avayLVMiTKMV SLSiTTehKev STTLO-T^ixj] KVpiov.o 5e Xaos (Tvvriieev ef T-fj ava-yvi^tiTei . (cal €Troir](T€ to Trotrxa . Kat ec T(}> e^6djU([j /HTjcl e-noirjtre r'r^v rTja-reiav Kal -ry}v aK-qvOTT-rj-yiav li? -y^-ypaTTTai 'UtrSpas Se etitpaKOiS CTEt- /xiyetaas yvvtuKa^ a^wTt'ous Tols 'E)3patoi?, TrevOrjaa^, e7ret(rc iracra? ijTay-yeiKaa-dat, rrcd the section, which of ctmrse included thc story of ilu< reading of the law (cf. Neh. 7:73/) and the begin ning of 8:1 with Ezr. 3:1!), to the book of Ncliemiah.' This transfer was an easy one, requiring hardly any thought at all; but when it was (uicc made it was certain to be permanent, at least so far as the verses 70-73a, weri^ concerned, since they wonld henceforth always be regarded as a mere repetition of Ezr. 2:(iN-70. Moreover, the transfer — and this was possibly not foreseen at first by the one who made it — rendered a sec ond transposition absolutely necessary. The chapters conlainiiig the story of the people's repentance, and of the coviMiant which they made, alluded in more than one place to ///(¦ public reading of the law by Ezra (Neh. 9:3, 10:29f., 35, 37), and it was (herefore obviously and totally impossible that they should preccilc Nch. 8. The only thing that could be done with them was to put them immediately after the last- named i'hapt,cr. There can bc little doubt that this was done by the same ct>pyist-cditor who had begun the rearrangement — for hc cannot liave failed to sec the necessity of this second step; ?The nuintioo of tho "Tirshatha" in Nob. 7:70 would also immediately suggest tho oocurroiico ol' tho word just boforo, in vs. 65 {Ezr. 2:63) I BSuoh transpositions, morn or loss consciously made, aro familiar enough in the history of tho manuscript transmission of ancient documents. It sometimos happens, indeed, that transcribers porform fonts which niiglit well havo boon doomed impossible. For example, in tho nianuaoripts of tho rnlosliniau Syriac Lectionary, immediately after John 8:2 stands a oolophon, " Knd of thr Oospi-I of John, ^^ etc. ! The explanation is presumably this, that in some old manuscripts of tho Gospols the pericopo dc iniiiltcra, 7:53 — 8:11, was phicod at tho ond as a siirt of appendix, aud that in at least one such codex tho transposod section con tained merely .s :;i-ll (cf, tho transposition of Neh, 7 :73 tl'., instoatl of vss. 7011,, in I Esdras!). Thon, in tho Syriac manuscript from which tho text of tho Loctiouary was derived, this appendix, 8;3-U, was again transferred, this timo being put back into what was naturaUy supposed to bo its original place (cf. I Esdras). But along with it was transferred the oolophon of tho Gospol, whioh stood jnst bofore it! (See the Vnlcst. Syr. Led., od. Lewis nnd Gibson, p, xv, where an explanation similar to this is givon on the authority of Rondol Harris.) This is by no means au isolated instance of the stupidity of a copyist. 258 Ezra Studies but whether by him or by another, it must in any case have been accomplished very soon. Thus it came about that the "great list" in Neh. 7 received this most incongruous sequel: the account of the gifts to the temple on Ezra's arrival (Neh. 7: 70- 73a) ; the reading of the law (735—8: 18) ; and the two chapters (Neh. 9f.) which had originally formed the end of the Ezra story, immediately preceding the first chapter of Nehemiah. Ezr. 9 and 10 were of course left where they were, as the account of the work performed by Ezra in his "first period." Thus the books of Ezra and Nehemiah received their present shape," by a process each step of which is perfectly comprehensible. The first step was almost mechanical, and might even have been purely accidental ; the rest then followed inevitably. The date of this transposition of chapters was probably near the end of the third century B. 0., at about the time when the Story of the Three Youths was interpolated in the first chapter of Ezra, as already described. For some reason which we can only conjecture,' the rearranged edition completely supplanted the original one. Not long after, some one made the attempt to restore the Ezra chapters to the book of Ezra; it was a matter of tradition that they had once formed a part of it. The best that he could do, naturally, was to chop out Neh. 7:73 (!) — 10:40, and put it between Ezr. 10 : 44 and Neh. 1:1; and this did not by any means remove the existing difficulties. His version gained such acceptance, however, that it was the standard recen sion at least from the early part of the second century b. c. until the time of the historian Josephus (cf. what I have said in regard to "Edition B" in the chapter dealing with the Nature and Origin of First Esdras). Even before the time of this last transposition, the interpolation of Nehemiah's name into the three ill-gotten chapters of his book had begun to take place, judging from I Esdr. 5:40 (= Ezr. 2:63), Nee/.iio?(!) Kal 'KTOapia';." 6 The mixing of the Ezra story with that of Nehemiah naturally brought about the interpolation of Nehemiah's name in certain passages where "the governor" was men tioned. On the form and history of these interpolations see below, the notes on Neh. 8:9 and (especially) 10:2. 7 As I have remarked already in several places, tbe evidence seems to show that the Chronicler's book was little known during the first generation or two after it was written (neither Bar Sira nor the author of Enoch 89: 72 had ever hoard of Ezra, for example). It may have been a good while before it was copied at all ; then when its real vogue began, the copies were made from the rearranged and interpolated edition, which was the popular one. 8 This means, apparently, that in some text older than Edition B the name "Nehe miah " had been interpolated in Neh. 7:65, and then had been carried over thence, through carelessness, into Ezr. 2: 63. The Ezra Story in Its Original Sequence 259 This interpolation was afterward made in other places (already mentioned) in "Edition A," and their presence was doubtless the chief reason why this latter recension was ultimately made authoritative. I print here the story of Ezra in its original sequence, as the best possible demonstration of the correctness of the conclusions just stated. How does one who is attempting to restore a dis sected map or picture know when he has succeeded? The story as here arranged shows perfect order instead of complete chaos, the obvious design of the narrator carried out in a harmonious way from beginning to end. It is the one arrangement to which logic compels, a dozen different lines of argument all pointing in the same direction. And it is the only arrangement which can meet all the tests named at the beginning of this chapter. The comparison of the dissected picture is an unjust one in two respects, since (1) it suggests numerous pieces, and (2) he who restores the picture has no need to explain the disorder in which he found it. In the case of this narrative, the shifting of one single block, Neh. 7: 70 — 8: 18, brings back the original order of the Ezra chapters — a solution whose simplicity puts it in strong contrast with every other one which has been proposed; and the explanation of the displacement, a thing not to be dispensed with, is provided.^ Ezra goes to Jerusalem in order to bring back the people to the neglected and forgotten law of their God, i. e. the Penta teuch. He is sent by the king, who gives him full power, and he and his companions carry contributions for the improvement of the temple service. Arriving in Jerusalem, they present their gifts, and the governor and the leaders of the people also contri bute liberally. Two months later, at the beginning of the sacred 9 Professor H. P. Smith, in his Old Testament Ristoi-y, adopts my restoration of the Ezra story, but proposes to modify it in oue respect, suggesting (p. 393, n. 1) that the list in Neh. 7 also belonged originally to the story of Ezra, Ezr. 8 : 36 having been continued by Neh. 7: 5ff. What I have written in the preceding pages is perhaps a sufficient answer to such a suggestion, but I will add: (1) There would then be no plausible way of explaining the presence of the chapters in the book of Nehemiah. (2) The passage 7 : 70-73 would be deprived of any natural connection; and it would look like a mere variant (a very corrupt variant!) of Ezr. 2:68-70. (3) In Ezr. 8 there is no obvious reason for a census; in Neh. 7, on the contrary, vs. 4 prepares for this very thing, and chap. 11 continues it without a break! The Chronicler represents Nehemiah as interested in the census of the com munity (see also above, pp. 219 f.), and the list there sen-es an. important purpose: while in the Ezra story it could serve no purpose at all. These considerations are quite decisive. Another Old Testament scholar, Professor H. G. Mitchell, accepts some of my conclu- Bions while rejecting others {Journal of Bib, Lit., 1903, pp. 92fl:.). I think it will be seen that every objection which he raises is fully met in the present chapter. His own hypothe sis seems to me to leave both the stories of Ezra and Nehemiah in a hopeless muddle. 260 Ezra Studies ''seventh month," Ezra prepares his great assembly at Jerusalem, and reads the law of Moses in public. The first fruit of the reading (as is fitting) was joy and good cheer, for the people found themselves summoned to undertake at once the celebra- bration of a festival which had been lost to sight. But results of a less pleasant nature were bound to come soon. The restor ing of a neglected law means reform. The princes had heard, with dismay, the statute forbidding intermarriage with the heathen, and now come to Ezra to confess the sin of the people. He charges the guilty ones with their crime; they confess, and agree that "the law must be followed" (ri'ini twy^ > Ezr. 10:3). A thorough work of investigation, occupying three months, is instituted, and all the foreign wives and the children born of them are sent away. Then, after a breathing spell of about three weeks, all the people assemble once more at Jeru salem, and the solemn covenant, which crowns the work of Ezra, is drawn up and signed. Here is a clear and consistent story, the only clear and con sistent story dealing with Ezra that has ever been told by any one. That it is the story actually told, in the first place, by the Chronicler himself, is still further attested by the chronology. The dates given in such profusion throughout the narrative are now all intelligible for the first time. No other single fact could give so striking a vindication as thjs of the correctness of my restoration, and for this reason I have printed the suc cessive dates in the margin, so that their mutual relation can be seen at a glance. The "unity of time" in the story also deserves to be emphasized. The initial date of Ezra's undertaking, accord ing to 7:9, was the first day of the first month,'" in the seventh year of Artaxerxes;" that is, April 1," 398 B. c. The whole series of events of which he is the hero" occupies just one year and twenty-four days (cf. Neh. 9:1 with Ezr. 10:17). The mul tiple of twelve is not accidental; notice also how in Ezr. 8:31 the date of the actual beginning of the journey is given as the twelfth day of the first month. Compare the many similar 10 Observe that tho Chronicler's date for the beginning of the former expedition, under Cyrus, was also the flrst day of the first month (above, pp. 131, 134). 11 Artaxerxes II Mnemon; see above, pp. 38 f., 170, 239. 12 Merely for the sake of convenience, I have used this inaccurate terminology, calling the flrst month "April," and so on throughout the year. 13 Of course it is to be remembered that the Chronicler brings him in again for a moment, in very characteristic fashion, in the story of Nehemiah, a dozen years later (12:36). The Ezra Story in Its Original Sequence 261 cases, in all parts of the Chronicler's narrative, which have already been numtioned. It is p(^rhaps hardly necessary to reiterate, that in all this there is not a word said about the introduction of a new law. What is rc[)rcsiuitcd is everywhere and ciuisisicntly tliis, that the old law, of whose existence thc k^ndors of the jieople well kiii^w, and whose main prescriptions they were of course fol lowing all the time, but which had been sadly neglected, so that many of its commands were quite I'orgoltcn, was now re instated in its complcttMicss by one who had authority. This, as I havo already shown, is one of tho Chronicltn-'s bivorite ideas, to which he returns again and again, in his history of Israel. Sec above, especially pp. 2)57, 217. More than this, the ])icturc of a riivival of the law immediately followed, as a result, by a formal covenant entered into by thc [)coplc, is one which he delights to paint. According to his narrative in II Chron. 14:4, thc Judean king Asa restored the law. It had bct'ii iK^glcctcd tli(>u in tim same inanner as in the time of Ezra; the people had no opporiunity to read it, and tliere was no "expert scribe" to teach it to them. As one of the prophets of Asa's kingdom said (15: ;5): "Now tor a long season Israel hath been without the true (bnl, and ivilhont a leaching priest, and without law." After the law had been restored, (he people gathered bigcther at Jerusalem (vss. 10-13) and i-ntcrcd into a covenant "to scck the Lord, .... aud that whoso(^vcr would not seek thc Lord should be ]nit to death." So also iu 34: 32, after repeating from Kings tlu> sbiry of Josiah's public reading of thc law, and of the covcmuit which \\\c king made, thc Chronicler adds: "And hc caused all who wcrc found iu Jerusalem and Bt'ujamin to stand to it. vVnd thc inhabitants of Jerusalem did according to thc covenant of Grod." In like manner after the first reading of Ihc law by Ezra, when the need of the first great reform is seen, one of the leaders of thc people says (Ezr. 10: 3): "Now therefore let us make a covenant with our L\od, to put away all such wives," etc. And (hen finally, after still another public reading and expounding of the law (Nch. 9: 3), thc peo ple are represented as signing and sealing a more comprehensive covenant, embracing those things which wcrc commonly neg lected, and yct (in the mind of the Chronicler) were of the greatest importance. There is never a hint of such a thing as 262 Ezra Studies accepting a new law, only the familiar idea of renewing an old one which had been neglected." Before leaving the story of Ezra, the question deserves to be raised once more whether some valuable material, however small, for the history of the Persian period may not be found in it.. It is the Chronicler's own tale, his composition from beginning to end, that is certain ; but even so, every witness in its favor must be given a fair hearing. I have already shown with sufficient detail of proof, that the whole Ezra narrative is motived history, com posed with the very same purpose which produced the similar narratives written to supplement the accounts of Samuel and Kings; and that there is not a particle of evidence that any other story of Ezra, written or oral, lies behind this one (see above, pp. 238, 242 f.). The only question that can arise is this, whether the Chronicler has not used events or names of persons which can legitimately be received by us as historical material. But the answer to this question, the only answer justified by the evidence, is an unqualified negative. I have remarked elsewhere upon the fact that the Chronicler, in all this tale, recounts no events at all except such as serve his apologetic purpose. What is told of the Ezra expedition is just that which was narrated of the former "return" in Ezr. 1-3: a royal edict; names of the participants; enumeration of vessels for the temple; special mention (for the purpose of praise or blame) of certain men or groups of men; the fact that the several classes duly occupied "their" cities. So also in the next episode: the same magnificent liberality, and told in the same words, in Neh. 7:70—72 as in Ezr. 2:68 f. and I Chron. 29:6 tf. The account of- the reading of the law is merely repeated from the Chronicler's story of the dedi cation of Solomon's temple, in II Chron. 5-7; it is the very same scene, with the same principal incidents (for details, see my Comp., p. 59) . All the ideas found in the eighth chapter of Nehemiah, and 11 Bertholet, Comm,, pp. 7.5 f., argues that a chapter must have fallen out after Neh. 9, namely a chapter telling how the people formally pledged themselves to accept "the new law;" Neh. 10, he insists, cannot be the continuation of chap. 9, because in the covenant which it contains nothing is said about adopting any new code I This is perfectly typical of the whole treatment of the Ezra narrative which prevails at present; the rule every where followed appears to be this : Let the documents go, but keep the present " critical " theory ; never this rule : Let the theory go, but hold to the documents. No part of the Old Testament, in fact, has brought forth so much perverse exegesis as this tale of Ezra. It will doubtless long be customary to cite it as the account of " the introduction of the Priest-code," though this view of it has not the least foundation of any sort. The narrative says nothing of the kind; the laws quoted and accepted in the story do not belong, as a rule, to tftepWestJi/iegisiattOTC (read Bertholet, !t>c. cii., p. 76!) ; and flnally, as I have said else where (pp, 196 f.), there is neither evidence nor likelihood that any "Priest-code" ever existed. The Ezra Story in Its Original Sequence 263 most of the phrases in which they are couched, are commonplaces in the Chronicler's history. The story of the reform in the matter of foreign wives differs only in the nature of the case from the stories told by him of the reforms of Asa, Jehoshaphat, and Hezekiah. The manner of the narrative is just the same, and the properties and personages are as nearly identical as they can be. The details introduced by way of embellishment (Ezra's violent manifestations of grief ; the storms of rain ; the stairs on which the Levites stood, etc.) are like the similar ones found in every part of the earlier history, devised solely with the purpose of giving life to the story, not in order to give it the semblance of truth — and it does not, indeed, sound in the least like truth. And finally, the account of the signing of the covenant is, as I have just shown, one of the Chronicler's specialties, a thing which he brings into his history over and over again. And all the items of the covenant are those which he reiterates elsewhere, in about the same words, in such chapters as II Chron. 31 and Neh. 13. In all this there is not a word which sounds like popular tra dition, nor a single incident which stands outside the direct line of the Chronicler's tendency. As for names of persons and places, what appears to be opulence in this regard is really the extreme of poverty. We have only the same old threadbare stuff, names of "the chief of the people, the priests, and the Levites" which have been paraded in every chapter of the book since the time of Moses. "Ezra" himself is the personification of the Chronicler's interests, completely identical with the Nehemiah of Neh. 13 and {mutatis mutandis) with each of the long list of ecclesiastical heroes and reformers created by the Chronicler and introduced by him into his history of the Judean kingdom. It is a most significant fact, among others, that the Chronicler did not know who the governor of Judea was during the first part of the reign of Artaxerxes II. He could not leave him out, and therefore speaks of him simply as "the Tirshatha" in Neh. 7:70, 8:9, and 10:2 (see the note on the last-named passage).'^ He did undertake to present, as a matter i»It appears to be a similar instance of caution when he employs the term, without the name, in Ezr. 2 : 63 and Neh. 7 : 65. The reason for this is obvious. The .iramaic tale, incor porated by the Chronicler, says expressly (Ezr. 5:11) that Sheshbazzar was the HnD "governor" of the Jews at the time when the foundation of the temple was laid; while the same document (6 : 7) gives Zerubbabel the title nilB "governor." In the face of these conflicting statements, there was only one prudent course. It was doubtless from the same motive— caution— that the Chronicler chose the unusual term XniCin " Tirshatha." Just as soon aa he gets back to flrm ground, in Neh. 12:26, he writes "Nehemiah the gover nor" (nnsn). 264 Ezra Studies of course, a list of the high-priests during the Persian period. Regarding the list, which contains too few names, and gives other evidence of being artificially created, I shall have more to say later. It is uncertain whether he intended the persons named in Ezr. 10:6, "the chamber of Jehohanan the son of Eliashib," to belong to the high-priestly line, or not (cf. Neh. 13:4) ; if that' was his intention, so much the worse for his chronology. Certain words of Bernheim, Die historische Methode^, p. 426, are so nearly applicable to the present case that they are worth quoting. He writes: "In einer eigenthiimlichen Lage befindet sich die Kritik manchen Zeugnissen gegeniiber, die, einzig in ihrer Art, durch andere Quellen weder positiv noch negativ zu kontrol- lieren sind, well aus derselben Zeit, bzw. iiber dieselben Thatsachen gar keine anderen Quellen erhalten sind, wahrend wir obendrein wissen, dass die Zeugnisse nicht durchweg Zuverlassig sind ; . . . . und aus einer gewissen Schwache des Gemilts sind wir geneigt, obwohl wir nicht recht trauen, dieselben gelten zu lassen, solange wir sie nicht kontrollieren kOnnen, well wir gar keine Kenntnis liber die betreffenden Thatsachen besitzen, falls wir sie aufofeben." In one respect, indeed, the case before us differs slightly from the one described by Bernheim, in that the documents which he char acterizes are "not altogether trustworthy;" while in the writings of the Chronicler we have the work of an author who is well known tous as thoroughly untrustworthy, and, what is far more important, as one who composes history with a motive which is obviously furthered by this very narrative. That being the case, it is plain that no use whatever can be made of any part of the Ezra story as a source for the history of the Jews in the Persian period. The same is of course true of Neh. 7:1-69 and chaps. 11-13, with the solitary exception of the list of high-priests in 12:10f., 22, where we are able partially to control the Chronicler's statements by the help of other sources. The translation which here follows is based on an emended text, the reason for the emendation being given in each case. Our massoretic text is in the main excellent, standing probably very close to what the Chronicler himself wrote. The other texts (rendered by I Esdras, Theodotion, and Jerome) are inferior. I have omitted the lists of names and the long prayer in Neh. 9, as not essential to my present purpose, which is to print the narrative as it originally stood. The Ezra Story in Its Original Sequence 265 THE ACCOUNT OP THE EXPEDITION =" (Ezr. 8 : 1-36 ; Neh. 7 : 70-73a) Ezr. 8' And these are the chief of the fathers,'^ and their genealogy, those who went up with me from Babylonia"' in the reign of Artaxerxes the king. ^Of the sons of Phinehas, Grer- shom, .... etc. {Then follows, in vss. 2-14, the list, composed in the Chronicler's characteristic manner.) ^°I assembled them at the river which fiows into the Ahava,"* and there we encamped for three days. And I took account of the people," and of the priests, but of the sons of Levi I found none there. "So I sent Eliezer, Ariel, Shemaiah, Elnathan, Jarib,* Nathan, Zachariah, and Meshullam, chief men; and Joiarib and Elnathan, men of discernment; "directing them to Iddo, who was the chief in the place Casiphia. And I instructed them what to say to Iddo my brother,^ and to the Nethinim in the place Casiphia, to bring us servants for the house of our Grod. ''And by the good hand of our God upon us they brought us a man of understanding, of the sons of Mahli, son of Levi, son of Israel; even*" Shore biah, with his sons and his brethren, eighteen; '"Also Hashabiah and' Jeshaiah, of the sons of Merari, with their brethren' and their children, twenty. ^"And of the Nethinim, 'For a translation of the narrative immediately preceding, see above, pp. 205-7. •"Cf. Ezr. 1:5, and especially 1 Esdr. 5:4. See the texts and annotations given above, pp. 120-35. "=" Babylonia," not "Babylon;" cf. my notes, above, on II Chron. 36:20, Ezr. 5: 12,6:1. ''The name is known only from this chapter, and the translation is accordingly uncertain. = The Chronicler has no fixed order of mentioning these three classes: "people (or, 'Israel'), priests, Levites." The order found here occurs very frequently; thus I Chron. 9:2, 23:2, II Chron. 17:7 f. (contrast 19:8), 34:30, 35:8f., Ezr. 1:5, I Esdr. 4:53£f., Ezr. 2:2ff., 6:16, 7:7, 13, 9:1, Neh. 8:13, 10: 28, 11 : 3. See also above, p. 238, note. 'The "Elnathan" which follows this name in MT is due to the error of a copyist whose eye strayed to the same pair of names just one line below. Our text is otherwise correct. Cf. with this vs. II Chron. 17:7! The Chronicler's style is not like that of any one else. elt is obvious that DTDDn TnS must be divided DiSTiDm ^nS . ¦¦The occasional use of an "explicative waw" in both the Hebrew and the Aramaic of the Greek period is well attested. Cf. my notes, above, on I Esdr. 3:1, 6, Ezr. 6:8, 9; further, I Chron. 28:1, Neh. 8:13, 9:16, 10:29. Theodotion's Hebrew had here TDl 1X3 ffill , instead of V^Ti n-'niBI . 'Reading nSI and DH-inS. 266 Ezra Studies whom David and the princes gave for the service of the Levites: two hundred and twenty Nethinim, all registered by name. ''And I proclaimed a fast there, at the river Ahava, that we might humble ourselves before our God, to seek from him a prosperous journey, for ourselves, our little ones, and all our goods. ^^For I had been ashamed to ask of the king an armed and mounted guard, to protect us from enemies on the way ; because we had said to the king: The hand of our God is upon all those who seek him, for good; but his power and his wrath are against all who forsake him. *'So we fasted, and besought our God for this, and he accepted our prayer. ^*And I set apart twelve men of the chief priests, .... Sherebiah and Hashabiah and ten of their brethren.'' ^'And I weighed out for them the silver, and the gold, and the vessels; the offering for the house of our God which the king, and his counselors and princes, and all Israel there present had offered. ''"I weighed into their hand six hundred and fifty talents of silver, and one hundred silver vessels worth .... talents;' one hundred talents of gold; "twenty bowls of gold worth a thousand darics;"" and twelve vessels of fine polished bronze," precious as gold. ^*And I said to them:° Ye are holy unto Yahw6, and the vessels are holy, and the silver and the gold are a freewill offering to Yahw6 the God of your fathers. ^^ Watch and keep them, until ye weigh them out before the chief priests and Levites and the chief of the fathers of Israel, in Jerusalem, in? the chambers of the house of Yahw6. '"So the priests and the Levites received the weight of the silver and the gold, and the vessels, to bring them to Jerusalem to the house of our God. ¦^ Probably something has fallen out after the numeral "twelve," either the single word D'^lbrDal or else a longer passage. We should expect twelve priests and twelve Levites, cf. vss. 30 and 33. The 5 before "Sherebiah" was pretty certainly written by the Chronicler himself. 'The numeral seems to have fallen out; it must have stood just after the word " talents.'' ¦" The word ^IDTli? , derived from SapeiKds, originated in the Greek period and was formed after the analogy of "ilTaSIl, "drachma." The Chronicler uses it also in I Chron. 29: 7. "The numeral here was originally "WT WZtO, as I Esdr. 8:56 (S^ko Sio) shows. See also Josephus, Antt. xi, 136. nOriD is construct state, and Dn2p (a noun, of course, with collective meaning) is probably corre- 1. " Ct. I Chron. 15: 12, II Chron. 29: 5, 35: 3-6. Very characteristic. p The text is slightly corrupt. The Ezra Story in Its Original Sequence 267 "And we set out from the river Ahava on the twelfth^ day of April 12 the first month, to go to Jerusalem. And the hand of our God was upon us, and he delivered us from the power of the enemy and the lier-in-wait, on the way. '"So we came to Jerusalem, and there we abode for three days. "And on the fourth day the August 1 silver, the gold, and the vessels were weighed in the house of our (See 7:8f. God, under the direction of Meremoth the son of Uriah, the priest, with whom was Eleazar the son of Phinehas; and with them were Jozabad the son of Jeshua and Noadiah the son of Binnui, the Levites. '*(They received) the whole by number and by weight,'' and all of the weight was written down at- that time. '^The children of the exile, those who had just come from the captivity, offered whole burnt offerings to the God of Israel : twelve bullocks for all Israel, ninety-six rams, seventy-seven lambs, and twelve he-goats for a sin offering ; all this as a whole burnt offering to Yahw6. '"And they delivered the orders of the king to his satraps and the governors of the province Beyond the River ;^ these accordingly aided the people and the house of God. Neh. 7™ And some of the chief of the fathers made donations to the work. The Tirshatha' gave into the treasury a thousand drachmas" in gold, fifty basins, thirty priests' garments, and five hundred [minas of silver ] ." "And some of the chief of the fathers gave to the treasury of the work"" twenty thousand drachmas of gold, and two thousand and two hundred minas of silver. '^And that which the rest of the people gave was twenty thousand drachmas of gold, two thousand minas of silver, and sixty-seven priests' garments. ''"And the priests, the Levites, the porters, and the singers, some of the people, and the Nethinim, even all Israel, dwelt in their cities.'" iThe Chronicler's favorite number, again, for this most important date. 'The same peculiar construction, and the same words, in I Chron. 28:14 ff. ' Concerning these officers, see above, pp. 125, 174 f. •Ihat is, the governor of Judea. The Chronicler employs the title in Ezr. 2:63, Neh. 7:65, 8:9, and (probably) 10;2; in these passages, also, asanon- committal designation, the name not being given. "Nehemiah" in 8:9 and 10:2 is an interpolation; see the notes on the two passages. "Observe the Greek word. " It is probable, as many have observed, that the words D'^Sp 3D3 origi nally stood between 1 and TBOn. ''With this whole passage cf. I Chron. 29:6 flf. (obviously the work of the same hand!), II Chron. 29:31 flf., 35:7 ff. "Cf. I Chron. 9:2 and Ezr. 2:1 (end)! Our text of the verse is probably just what the Chronicler wrote. 268 Ezra Studies THE READING OF THE LAW (Xeh. 7:736— 8:18) 7 '""And when the seventh month was come, the children of Israel being in their cities,^ 8 'all the people assembled as one man at the open place before the water gate;^ and they sent word to Ezra the scribe to bring the book of the Law of Moses, which Yahw6 had commanded to Israel. "So Ezra the priest brought the law before the congregation, both men and women, and all that October 1 could hear with understanding, on the first day of the seventh month. "And he read in it, over against the open place before the water gate, from early morning until midday, before the men and women and all who could understand; and the ears of all the people were attentive to the book of the law. *And Ezra the scribe stood upon a pulpit of wood^ which had been made for the purpose; and there stood beside him Mattathiah, Shema, Anaiah, Uriah, Hilkiah, and Maaseiah, on his right hand; and at his left hand Pedaiah, Mishael, Malchijah, Hashum, Hashbaddanah, and Zechariah.'' ^And Ezra opened the book in the sight of all the people (for he was above the people), and as he opened it they all stood up. 'Then Ezra blessed Yahw6, the great God; and all the people answered. Amen, amen, lifting np their hands, and they bowed down and worshiped Yahw6 with their faces to the ground. 'Moreover Jeshua, Bani, Sherebiah, Jamin, Akkub, Shabbethai, Hodiah, Maaseiah, Kelita, Azariah, Jozabad, Hanan, and Pelaiah, the Levites,'^ instructed the people in the law, while all remained in their places. 'And they read in the book of the law distinctly,"^ and gave the sense, so that the reading was understood. y Compare I Chron. 13:2, which is an instructive parallel. ^See above, pp. 234, 247; and compare also II Chron. 5:3, 29:4. ^Cf. the brazen pulpit used by Solomon on a similar occasion, II Chron. 6:13 (not in Kings). Just as Neh. 7:70-72 is repeated from I Chron. 29:6-8, so the whole scene in Neh. 8 is, in its main features, a repetition of the one pictured in II Chron., chaps. 5-7. See my Composition, p. 59. ¦= Neither Greek version gives "Meshullam," and it obviously originated in a marginal variant of bbtela or bsiCTO. These iweZue names are iotended as those of laymen; cf. 10:15-28, and Ezr. 10:25-43. "= Omit T . The number of these names was probably tivelve originally, but there is no good ground for emending the text. In Theodotion's original, the resemblance of "jia'' to ?"'31(113) had caused the accidental omission of eleven words. ''The usage elsewhere, and the evident intent of the grammatical con nection here, combine to render this meaning certain. The Ezra Story in Its Original Sequence 269 'And the Tirshatha,^ and Ezra the priest the scribe, and the Levites who taught the people, said to all the people : This day is holy unto Yahwfe your God; mourn not, nor weep. For all the people wept, when they heard the words of the law. '"They*^ also said to them: Go, eat the fat and drink the sweet, and send por tions to him that hath no provision ; for this day is holy unto our Lord. And be ye not distressed; for the joy of Yahw6 is your strength. "And the Levites quieted all the people, saying: Be still, for the day is holy; neither be ye distressed. '^So all the people went away, to eat and drink, and to send portions, and to make great rejoicing, for they gave heed to the things which had been told them. "Then were assembled | ^ on the following day the chief of the October 2 fathers of all the people, the priests, and the Levites, unto Ezra the scribe, even that they might give attention to the words of the law. "And they found written in the law, that Yahw6 had given command, through Moses, that the children of Israel should dwell in booths during the festival of the seventh month; '^and that they should proclaim'' and publish in all their cities and in Jeru salem, saying: Go forth to the mountain, and bring olive branches, and branches of wild olive, also of the myrtle, and the palm, and other leafy trees, in order to make booths according to the pre scription. '"So the people went forth, and brought them; and they made for themselves booths, upon their own roofs, and in their courts, and in the courts of the house of God; also in the open places before the water gate and the gate of Ephraim. "And all the congregation, those who had returned from the captivity,' made booths and dwelt in them ; for the children of Israel had not done thus from the days of Joshua the son of Nun unto that '=The words Sin rTiTanD are a later addition, as the old Greek version shows. See the note on 7:70. Theodotion's original hud Bimply substituted the name "Nehemiah," both here and in 10:2. ^Third pers. sing, for indefinite subject, as very often elsewhere. So also vs. 18. ^Here ends the fragment originally plucked from the middle ot the old Greek translation, and known to us as " First Esdras." See above, p. 36. ''A good example of the Chronicler's careless way of narrating (cf. above, pp. 158 f.). What here follows ip, of course, not what they found in the law, but what Ezra said to those who had come to him. (It is possible, to be sure, that the original text had IIUS '^)2iA^>^ in place of nffiXT.) iCf. Ezr. 6:21, 8:,S5. 270 Ezra Studies day.'' And there was very great rejoicing. "And they read in the book of the law of God day by day, from the first day unto October 22 the last. So they observed the feast seven days, and on the eighth day was a festal assembly, according to the ordinance. THE EXPULSION OF THB GENTILE WIVES (Ezr. 9:1—10:44) Ezr. 9 'Now when these things were finished, the chief men November (?) drew near to me, saying: The people of Israel, the priests, and the Levites, have not separated themselves from thc peoples of the land, with' all their abominations, namely the Canaanites, Hittites, Perizzites, Jebusites, Ammonites, Moabites, Egyptians, and Amorites. ^For they have taken of their daughters, for them selves and for their sons, and thus the holy race hath been mixed"" with the peoples of the land. Moreover, the hand of the chief men and the rulers hath been foremost in this trespass. "When I heard this thing, I rent my garment and my cloak, and plucked out some of the hair of my head and of my beard, and sat as though stunned. *Then were assembled unto me all those that trembled at the words of the God of Israel, because of the trespass of the men of the exile ; bnt I continued sitting as though stunned, until the evening offering. '''And at the time of the evening offering I arose from my humiliation, even with my garment and my cloak rent; and I fell upon my knees, and spread out my hands unto Yahw6 my God." "And I said: O my God, I am confounded and •^ Meaning, of course, that the festival had not before been observed so universally and completely, since the time of Joshua. The state ment is merely a parallel to the one found in II Chron. 3): 18. The Chronicler had several times, in the earlier history, mentioned the celebration of this festival, and with eraphawis. See not only Ezr. 3:4, but especially II Chron. 7:8ff., 8:1'!, in both of which passages he has deliberately altered the text of Kings. He could not possibly have put into his book, here in the Ezra story, a flat contradiction ot the statement which he had previously made with so evidently studied purpose. 'I believe that the reading ot our text (with 3) is correct. This is prob ably one of the Chronicler's ellipses. ¦"Ct. Ps. 106:.35, and especially Neh. 9:2, 13:3. (In the last-named pas sage Meyer, Entstehung, p. 130, would emend to "Arabs"!) "Cf. II Chron. 6:13. This part of the Ezra story is written in the Chronicler's liveliest style — not, however, a whit more lively than 10:1-14, where the story is told ot Ezra in the third person. See above, pp. 234, 246 f. The prayer which follows is also thoroughly characteristic. The Ezra Story in Its Original Sequence 271 ashamed to lift up° my face unto thee ; for our sins have multiplied exceedingly ,P and our guilt hath mounted high as the heavens. 'Since the days of our fathers we have been exceeding guilty, unto this day; and for our sins, we, our kings, and our priests, have been given into the power of the kings of the lands, for slaughter, for captivity, for plundering, and for humiliation, as at this day. 'But now for a moment grace hath been given from Yahw6 our God, to save for us a remnant, and to give us a secure fastening in his holy place; that our God may restore the light to our eyes, and grant ns a little reviving in our bondage. 'For bondservants we are;i yet in our bondage our God hath not forsaken us, but hath extended to us favor in the sight of the kings of Persia, to grant us a reviving, to raise up the house of our God, and to repair its ruins, and to give us a wall of protection"^ in Judea and Jeru salem. '"Now therefore, O our God, what shall we say after this? for we have forsaken thy commandments, "which thou didst com mand by thy servants the prophets, saying:^ The land which ye are entering, to possess it, is a land foul with the filth of the heathen peoples, with their abominations, since they have filled it from end to end with their uncleanness. "Now therefore give not your daughters to their sons, nor take for your sons their daughters, nor seek their peace or their welfare, for ever;' that ye may be strong, and eat the good of the land, and make it the perpetual inheritance of your children." "And after all that hath come upon us for our evil deeds, and for our great guilt, — and yet thou, O our God, hast spared us, punishing" less than our sins deserve, and hast given ns such a remnant as this, — "shall we again break thy commandments, and intermarry with the people of "With the peculiar interjection of TlbX at this point, ct. the similar case in I Chron. 29:17. PThe impossible IDS'! is merely dittography of the following 1I3SCV iCf. especially Neh. 9:36. 'This is ot course figurative! 'The manner of the following quotation, given as from " the Prophets " (by which word he means primarily Moses) and not truly representing any single passage, is exactly what we have already noticed in II Chron. 36:21 (see the note above, p. 120). The Chronicler quotes as he writes — carelessly and irresponsibly. 'All this is a most instructive example of misquotation! "Cf. I Chron. 28:8 (not in Sam.-Kings). " The Hebrew contains one of the Chronicler's ellipses. 272 Ezra Studies these abominations? Wouldest thou not be angry with us to the point of cutting us off without residue or remnant? '^O Yahw6, God of Israel, thou dealest righteously, that we are left a remnant as at this day ; behold we are before thee in our guilt, for none can stand before thee because of this. 10' Now while Ezra^ prayed and made confession, weeping and prostrating himself before the house of God, there were assembled unto him a very great congregation of the people of Israel, men, women, and children; moreover the people wept exceedingly. ^Then Shechaniah the son of Jehiel, of the sons of Elam, said to Ezra: We have trespassed against our God, and have married foreign women of the peoples of the land; yet even now there is hope for Israel, in spite of this. ^Now therefore let us make a covenant with our God, to put away all such wives," and the children born of them, according to the counsel of my lord and of those who tremble at the commandment of our God;^ and let obedience be given to the law.^ *Arise, for the matter resteth upon thee, and we are with thee; stand firm, and do it. 'So Ezra arose, and made the chief men of the priests, of the Levites, and of all Israel, swear that they would do according to this word. So they took oath. "Then Ezra withdrew from before the house of God, and went to the chamber of Jehohanan the son of Eliashib,^ and there he passed the night;'' he ate no bread, nor drank water, for he was mourning because of the trespass of the men of the exile. 'And they made proclamation throughout Judea and Jerusalem, to all those of the exile, that they should assemble at Jerusalem; ^and ™ The reason for the use of the third person in this chapter is simply this, that when the Chronicler sat down to write it he did not happen to identify himself, in imagination, with his hero. On the next occasion, in another mood, he might write in the first person; he was under no obligation to write always in the same way. See the remarks above, pp. 244 t. ''The qualifying "such" is of course understood from the context. The article is omitted just as in 1:11 (see my note, p. 124) and in vs. 17 of this chapter. yThat is: after my lord (Ezra) shall have consulted with the more devout of the leaders of Israel. See vs. 5. ^Namely, the law which had Just been read, and from which the " chief men" (ct. 9:1 with Neh. 8:13) had learned ofthe ijrohibition of foreign mar riages. See the introductory remarks, above. " See the introductory remarks at the beginning of this chapter. "Reading ]b^1 instead ot l^il. The Ezra Story in Its Original Sequence 273 that whoever did not come within three specified = days, accord ing to the counsel of the chief men and the elders, all his property should be forfeited, and he himself separated from the congrega tion of the exile. "Then all the men of Judah and Benjamin assembled at Jeru salem within the three days; it was'' the ninth month, on the twentieth day of the month. And all the people sat in the open December 20 place before the house of God, trembling because of this matter, and because of the storms of rain. '"Then Ezra the priest arose, and said to them: Ye have trespassed, and have married foreign women, adding this to the guilt of Israel. "Now therefore make confession to Yahw6, the God of your fathers, and do his will ; and separate yourselves from the peoples of the land, and from the foreign wives. '^Then all the congregation answered and said with a loud voice: Thus, according to thy word, it is our duty to do. '^But the people are many, and this is a time of heavy rains, so that we cannot remain out of doors. Moreover it is not a work of one day, nor of two ; for very many of us have sinned in this manner. '*Let our chief men (that is, of all the congregation)" be stationed here, and let all those in our cities who have taken foreign wives come to them at stated times, and with them the' elders and judges "^ of their several cities; to the end that we may turn back from us the wrath of our God because of^ this thing. ("^Nevertheless Jonathan the son of Asahel and Jahzeiah the son of Tikwah stood against this counsel, and Meshullam and Shab bethai the Levite seconded them.)'' '"And the people of the exile did so. Ezra the priest and' certain chief men according to ^If the definite article is original here (D'l'a^n), this must be its meaning. That is, three days were appointed during which the men were to present themselves at Jerusalem tor registration. ¦^ Nothing is missing here! Ct. 7:8 and 6: 15, and see my note (p. 195, note c) on the latter passage. This is a comnion and thoroughly Semitic construction. <^Ct. Neh. 9:32, II Chron. 23:4, 28:15, etc. The b explaining the suffix. as so often in Arabic. fCf. II Chron. 15:3, 19:5, Ezra 7:10, 25 f., and see above, p. 237. ^Read inn bV , with Jerome, Theodotion (cf. vs. 9), and, almost cer tainly, the old Greek version (the Tepl ot the L text, I Esdr. 9:13, is presumably derived trom Theodotion, however). "The Chronicler's imagination delighted in creating such incidents, as I have already shown with abundant illustration. Cf. also II Chron. 30:10 f., 18, I Chron. 21 : 6, Neh. 7 : 61-65, as well as such passages as II Chron. 28 : 12, etc. 'Read D'lTBSi^l , with Theodotion and Jerome. The old Greek (_= ib b'^n^l) also gives sure evidence that the original verb was ^blli'l, tor lb is impos- 274 Ezra Studies their families, all designated by name, were set apart; and they January 1 were in session on the first day of the tenth month to examine the matter. "And they finished with all the men'' who had mar- April 1 ried foreign women by the first day of the first month. "And there were found among the sons of the priests, who had married foreign women: of the sons of Jeshua the son of Jozadak, and his brethren;' Maaseiah, Eliezer, Jarib, and Gedaliah. "They gave their pledge that they would put away their wives; and for their trespass they were fined "" a ram of the flock. ^"And of the sons of Immer; Hanani and Zebediah. {Then follows, in vss. 21-43, the remainder of the list.) "All these had taken foreign wives; and they sent them back (to their people), both wives and children." THE COVENANT AGAINST GENTILE MARRIAGES AND IN SUPPORT OF THE CLERGY (Neh. 9:1— 10:40) April 2t Neh.. 9 'Now on the twenty-fourth" day of this month the children of Israel assembled, fasting, and in sackcloth, and with earth upon their heads. ^And the seed of Israel separated them selves from all foreigners;'' and they took their places, and con fessed their sins and the iniquities of their fathers. ^And they stood up in their places, and read in the book of the law of Yahw6 sible here. This latter blunder ultimately produced the text of which the translation (presumably by Aquila or Symmachus) has in this verse supplanted the rendering ot Theodotion in the bizarre L recension. ''Read D'^lDDS bp3. The Chronicler omits the article here exactly as he does in vs. 3 and in 1:1; see the notes on these passages. 'See Note A, at the end ot the chapter. ¦"DIBS , like the Syriac ^. .. , may take a direct object. On the elliptical clause (very characteristic) see p. 197, note" k. "The original was D"^3D1 D""!?? DlS'^tp^V By an easy accident, the two letters 13 were dropped from the first word. The resulting D'^IB'^I, which was absolutely impossible, naturally produced the variant, DflXl 1B.'?T . In our MT both of these readings are ingeniously used; the latter at the begin ning of the clause, and the former, ^SitC'l , inserted before D"'3m . (For a similar case of ingenuity in combining two variant Greek readings, see the L text ot Neh. 13: 20.) The old Greek version, I Esdr. 9: S6, renders the Hebrew which I have conjectured. See further, on the restoration of this verse. Note A, at the end of this chapter. "Observe the multiple of twelve; see the note on Ezr. 8:31, and also p. 246. Pit is obvious that this is the iramediate sequel ot Ezr. 9:1 — 10:44. Cf. with this clause especially Ezr. 9:1 and 10:11; and see, further, the intro ductory remarks. The Ezra Story in Its Original Sequence 275 their God for a fourth part of the day; and for another fourth part they made confession, and worshiped Yahw6 their God. *Then Jeshua and the sons" of Kadmiel, (namely) Shechaniah,i Bunni, Sherebiah, Bani, and Chenani, stood upon the elevated place of the Levites and cried with a loud voice unto Yahw6 their God. 'Also the Levites, Hashabneiah," Sherebiah, Hodiah, She- baniah, and Pethahiah, said: Come,"^ bless Yahwfe your God. [And Ezra said: Blessed art thou, Yahw6 our God,=] from ever lasting to everlasting; and blessed be thy name, glorious and' exalted above all blessing and praise. ^Thou, Yahw6, art (God) alone. Thou hast made the heavens, the heaven" of heavens, and all their host; the earth, and all creatures that are upon it; the seas, and all things that are in them. Thou givest life to them all, and to thee the host of heaven boweth down. {Then follows, in vss. 7-37, the remainder of the prayer, the last words of which are these:) ^° Behold, we are vassals today; and as for the land which thou gavest to our fathers, to eat its fruit and its good things, we are bondmen upon it. "It" bringeth forth its abundant produce for the kings whom thou hast set over us because of our sins; they have power also over our persons and our cattle, at their pleasure. Yea, we are in great distress." lOn the text of this verse and the following, see Note B, at the end of the chapter. ' It is possible that IBIp is to be taken here in its literal meaning "stand up;" but more probably it means simply "up! come!" as in II Chron, 6:41, Ezr. 10:4, and many other passages; i. e., it is used here just as N3 is used in the parallel I Chron. 29:20. ¦ Concerning the lacuna here, see Note C, at the end of the chapter. 'The conjunction, to which some have objected, is quite in place. The construction which is virtually adjectival is continued by one which is really such. "Those who would emend here (and in raany similar places) by inserting the conjunction 1 , should bear in mind that the Chronicler is fond of enu merating in the Aramaic way, omitting the conjunction in every place but the last. 'With the Chronicler's characteristic omission of the subject; of. the note on Ezr. 10:19. "The closing part ot this prayer is strikingly similar to the close of the prayer in Ezr. 9. Vss. 33-37 here are the expanded counterpart of vss. 9, 13, and 15 there. The prayer in Neh. includes also supplication for mercy (vs. 32). Neh. 10:1 (9:38 in the English version) is not a part ot the prayer, but the resumption of the narrative. It is not strange that some scholars should have thought the transition here "abrupt;" it is smoothness itself, however, com- 276 Ezra Studies 10 'In consequence of all this" we made an abiding covenant, in writing, and to sign if stood our princes, our Levites, and our priests; '•'and at the head of the signers^ were the Tirshatha^ and Zedekiah.^ '^Seraiah, Azariah, Jeremiah; *Pashhur, .... etc. {Then follows, in vss. i.-28, the remainder of the list.)"- ''"And the rest of the people, and of' the priests, the Levites, the porters, the singers, and the Nethinim, even all those who had separated themselves from the peoples of the land unto the law of God, with their wives and their sons and daughters, all who had knowledge and understanding," ™ stood fast by their brethren, their leaders, and entered into a curse and an oath, to walk in the law of God, which was given through Moses the serv ant of God, and to keep and perform all the commandments of Yahwfe our Lord, and his ordinances and his statutes: "to wit, that we would not give our daughters to the peoples of the land, nor take their daughters for our sons; '^and that whenever the peoples of the land should bring their merchandise or any sort of grain on the sabbath day to sell, that we would not take it from them, on the sabbath or on a holy day ; and that we would forego the product'' of the seventh year and the exaction of every debt. pared to this same writer's transitions in I Chron. 28:19 (!), Ezr. 2:68, 7:27 (!), Neh. 12:27; to say nothing of the many places where he leaps from the flrst person to the third, or vice versa, without apparent occasion. "I. e., all the events narrated in the preceding chapter and in Ezr. 9f. This covenant gave the finishing touch to Ezra's reform. TJie words bD31 nXT give a very natural continuation. y Evidently the technical term. '^ On the text and interpretation of this verse and the preceding, see Note D, at the end of the chapter. ^On the number ot the names, one of the Chronicler's multiples of twelve, see Note D, at the end of the chapter. ''The construction so otten tound in the Chronicler's writings; see Ezr. 8:29, 10:5, etc. = This verse, which betrays the Chronicler's authorship with almost every phrase, fairly represents the whole chapter. Prom this point on to the end, we can recognize everywhere his peculiar style and diction, and his own special hobbies. Those who know his writings intimately will see this at once, for it is beyond all question; those who are not thus prepared will do well to read II Chron. .31:4-19 first of all. "It is obvious that the word nSJ'iari has been accidentally omitted, by haplography, after DS ; see Ex. 23: 10 f. and Lev. 25: 3-7, the passages which the Chronicler had in mind. The law of the debtor's release, to which he refers, is of course Deut. 15: 1-3. The Ezra Story in Its Original Sequence 277 ^'Moreover we imposed upon ourselves stated contributions,^ charging ourselves yearly with the third part of a shekel, for the service of the house of our God; "for the showbread, the continual meal offering, and the continual burnt offering, as well as the offerings of the sabbaths and the new moons ; for the feasts, the holy sacrifices,*^ and the sin offerings to make atonement for Israel ; even for all the work of the house of our God. "'Also we cast lots, the priests, the Levites, and the people, for the wood offering, to bring it into the house of our God, according to our fathers' houses, at appointed times year by year, to burn on the altar of Yahw6 our God, as is prescribed in the law;^ ^''and (we cove nanted) to bring the first fruits of our land, and the first of every sort of fruit of any tree, year by year, to the house of Yahw6; "also the firstborn of our sons and of our cattle, as is prescribed in the law ; and that we would bring the firstlings of our herds and of our fiocks to the house of our God, for the priests who minister in the house of our God; ^'and that the best of our coarse meal, and of our heaps of grain ( ?),'' and of the fruit of every tree, the wine and the oil, we would bring for the priests, to the chambers of the house of our God; also the tithes of our land for the Levites; — and they, the Levites, were to reckon the tithes in all the cities of our tillage, ^'and the' priest the son of Aaron was to be with the Levites when they reckoned the tithes; and the Levites were to bring up the tenth of the tithes to the house of our God, to the chambers belonging to the treasury; *°for unto the chambers were the children of Israel and the sons of Levi to "So also in 13:5, and in the post-Biblical usage. f Namely those described in II Chron. 29:33 and 35:13. eThis is a very good example of the Chronicler's heedless and irrespon sible mode of citation, giving merely what he happened to remember, or thought he remembered. See above, the notes on II Chron. 36:21 (p. 120) and Ezr. 9:11. N«h. 8: 14 is another most instructive instance. On the text of this verse Bertholet, Oomm., says: "L. nach LXX "] vor n^lbn und St. IDiJiaS ni^b 'ins innb."! This is curious textual criticism. ¦¦Read ^JTlb'^yi in place of IDTlb'ini ? The accidental substitution of the latter word would then be very natural in view of Num. 15: 20 t., etc. In the text which lay before Theodotion the word had been canceled as corrupt. The supposition of a gloss has not much likelihood. 'Are we to regard the use of the article here as evidence that this was the custom followed in the Chronicler's own day? 278 Ezra Studies bring'' the offering of corn, and wine, and oil, and there also were the utensils of the sanctuary, and of the priests who minister, and of the porters and the singers;"" — and that we would not forsake the house of our God."' NOTE A (on Ezr. 10:44) There can be no doubt whatever that the original intent of this verse is expressed in I Esdr. 9:36, according to which I have restored the Hebrew text. The plan proposed, in Ezr. 10:3, 5, was to put away both the wives and the children. A complete census, town by town, was to be taken ; every Israelite who failed to appear before the authorities was to be expelled from the con gregation (vs. 8). The people agreed (vs. 12), and also acted according to the agreement (vs. 16). "By the first day of the first month" all of those who had married foreign women had appeared before the judges (vs. 17). The members of the lead ing priestly house are first mentioned, and it is said of them that they agreed to put away their wives of foreign birth (vs. 19). Then follows, without any other introduction, the remainder of the list. At its close must therefore have stood, in some form, the statement that these all put away their wives (and presumably the children also would be mentioned) ; no other continuation is possible. Furthermore, the immediate sequel in Neh. 9 f . asserts 9,gain that they did separate themselves completely, not only from the heathen wives and their children (10:29-31), but also from all the other foreigners (9:2, cf. especially Ezr. 9:1, 10:11). And ¦^ The contradiction which many recent commentators have found in vss. 38-40 vanishes when they are understood as here indicated. It is not even necessary to appeal to II Chron. 31: 5-7. This whole passage, however, is very characteristic of the Chronicler's loose-jointed way of thinking and writing. 'The usual construction; see the note on vs. 29. '"The status of these Levitical classes is the very same in all parts of Chron.-Ezr.-Neh. — the writer being generally at no pains to express himselt exactly. See my Composition, pp. 22 f.; also above, p. 236, note 40 — and Bertholet's Comm., on Neh. 11: 17 f.! "The verb (iT^D) in this last clause concludes the construction begun by ^M in vs. 31, and continued by np3 and iBtSD in vs. 32, and ^''li in vs. 38. The Chronicler intended this whole passage, vss. 31-40, to give the substance ot his "abiding covenant" (ilD'QS? , vs. 1), and he ends it with a clause which both sums up the preceding details and also forms a highly suitable close to the whole Ezra story. Notice that he ends his expanded story of Nehemiah in a very similar manner (13:31!). The Ezra Story in Its Original Sequence 279 yet our commentators and historians all wonder whether Ezra's reform was pictured as successful! The Chronicler does, indeed, represent this evil of mixed mar riages as present once more (in a few cases) in the time of Nehemiah, a dozen years later. The fact that he does so shows his own great interest in the subject, and that he realized the impossibility of preventing such alliances entirely; it also, no^ doubt, may be taken as an indication that the Jews in his day were not as exclusive as he wished to see them. NOTE B (onNeh. 9:4 t.) It is generally agreed that the lists of Levites given in verses 4 and 5 have been corrupted through copyists' errors. The chief reason for the corruption is, obviously, the fact that the one list follows the other so immediately, while each is introduced by the word D"'lbn . The presence of three names written 'j2. in vs. 4 is more than suspicious, and without much doubt the first of the three was originally "33^ or 'p, . It was the influence of the similar list in the preceding chapter (8:7) which caused the reading of the name "Bani" here, very naturally. Theodotion rendered: 'Yrjuoik xal viol K.aBfiirj\, 'S.a'x^avia^^ vlo<; 'Eapa^ia," viol 'Kavavi, but this is plainly the rendering of a text which is inferior to MT. For the "sons of Kadmiel," cf. Ezr. 2:40 and Neh. 7:43 (the text of the former passage probably correct, that of the latter certainly corrupt).'* The possibility must not be overlooked that the original reading was "Jeshua the son of Kadmiel;" see Neh. 12:24. The fact that "Shebaniah" appears also in vs. 5 makes it extremely probable that Theodotion is right with his "Shecha niah" in vs. 4; see above. The first three names in vs. 5 came from vs. 4 (or a variant of it). The accident in copying was due to proximity jjlus the fact that the word D'^lbtl immediately precedes. Thename "Hashab- 16 The Hexaplar MSS., t? and B, have here the blunder Sopa^ioi. The coincidence of the A text with that ot L {^excvw) proves that Theodotion read rt'iDIl! • In the names. immediately following, L has been conformed to MT, as usual. "The very inferior character of the Hexaplar text is always apparent, from the begin ning of I Chronicles to the end of Nehemiah ; and the most corrupt form of it, in nine cases out of ten, is that given by Codex B. 18 Guthe, in the Polychrome Bible, gives us a most astonishing " emendation" of Ezr. 2 : 40 based on one of the blunders of the Greek text in Codex B (in I Esdr. 5 : 26) , where some care less copyist had converted the tachygram of Ka.i (V) into is. With this help, Guthe restores. the preposition ei?, which is made to govern the genitive case. 280 Ezra Studies neiah" is very likely a copyist's error for "Hashabiah," the man referred to in 12:24 as a "chief oi the Levites." The whole number of the Levite assistants on this occasion was eleven. The six named in vs. 4 began the ceremony with an invocation ; then the five named in vs. 5 called upon the people to unite in prayer. The prayer was offered by Ezra, who thus joined himself, in a way, to the Levites of vs. 5, making the number of those conducting the ceremony to be twelve in all. Cf. especially 12:36, where the Chronicler makes his Ezra join a company of the Levite "singers." NOTE C (the lacuna in Neh. 9:5) It has been quite generally recognized that something has been lost from our Hebrew text here, at the point where the long prayer begins. Theodotion's Greek prefixes Ka\ elirev "Ef/aa? to the first words of vs. 6; and it is indeed obvious that some one man (and presumably Ezra) must have been named as the speaker of the following words, which occupy more than thirty verses. But it is even plainer that whatever lacuna there is must be sought further back than the end of vs. 5. The words '^li^ D1I5, "thy glorious name," in the last clause of this verse, originally formed, beyond question, a part of the same address to Yahw6 which is continued in vs. 6. The immediately preceding verb, ^SlS^I , "and let thy glorious name be blessed" (literally, "and let them bless j" the common Aramaic use of the indefinite third person plural in place of the passive), shows the same thing. Moreover, the four words preceding this, Dbl^n HS Obiyfl "02 , are now in a strange context; how could these people be exhorted to "stand up and bless Yahw6 from everlasting to everlasting" ? They were not immortal, and had not been eternal. Apparently, no one has ever studied this verse carefully, for the explanation of the difficulty is clear almost at the first glance. The Chronicler is drawing a large part of his devotional material from the Psalms, as usual. This particular form of words, Dbiyn nyi Dbiyn "I'J , is found elsewhere only in the doxology appended to Psalms 41 and 106, and quoted from the latter Bsalm by the Chronicler in I Chron. 16:36. The 106th Psalm is not only the Chronicler's favorite (see especially I Chron. 16:34-36, 41, II Chron. 5:13, 7:3, 20:21, Ezr. 3: 11), but it is also one from which he is quoting in this very prayer; see especially vss. 27 f., where it is obvious The Ezra Story in Its Orkunal Sequence 281 that we have, in tlu^ main, a free r(^[)roduction of Ps. 106:41-45 (wiih som(! very charact,cri8tic changes, such as D^TO tli^"! instead of n'ai D'^^ys). The thcnu* on which the Psalm is built is pre cisely th(i Olio which thc Chronich'r is developing here; and it is therefore most fitting that its doxology should be used by him as the introduction of thc praycu-. When in addition to these facts it is observed how in another favorite Psalm this doxology, slightly varied (Ps. 72:18), is continued in the words (vs. 19): "and blessed be his glorious name (ilhS DlIJ) for ever," there can no longer bo any question as to the position of the lacuna and the reason for thc accidental omission. The original text is to be restored as follows: tlTl'' Db* 15la ,l7Jlp • • • • Q-lbn 'n70N''1 Dbiyn p [,^rnbi< run-' ,nns -ji-^n -.uriiy i-;x^i] .DD^nbs "ijl ^ID13''1 : dblyn is . The cause of the accident was the usual T one: th(! very close resemblance of thc omitted words to those immediately preceding them. In the Hi!l)r(!w text which lay befonn Theodotion the words i^liy 17Ji{'1 had been restored (in the wrong place, necessarily) simply because it was well known that they had once stood at the beginning of the ])rayer; there is no other satisfactory way of explaining their presence.'" It is barely possible that the tw 6ebv r]^i,5)v of the (Ireek is thc veritable translation of imbx (in which case we should have either to regard the DDTibi* of our MT as the ri^siilt of correction or corruption, or else to suppose that a similar accidental omission took place in thc Greek version) ; but in view of the thousands of cases of confusion of j^/xwi/ and vjxSiv by Greek scribes it is much more likely that we havc to do with a mere copyist's error. As for the original extent of the passage omitted from thc Hebrew, it is not probable that it contained anything more than the words hero restored. There is one other very striking parallel to be noticed. In I Chron., chaps. 28 f. (not in Sam.-Kings), the Chronicler depicts a scene somewhat resembling the one which hc has constructed here in his story of Ezra. All the people are assembled at Jeru salem, and David the king offers prayer before them. He calls upon them to "bless Yuhw6," using the very words which are uttered by thc Levites in Nch. 9:5; though in I Chron. 29:20 l»lt WMS 11 .soniiiwlint similar cnse when f lie throe ohnpters, Neh. 8-10, were transposed agnin to tho book of Ezra, in tho recension represented by our I Esdras, and attached in tho wrong place (lu'ccissarily). Tho thing was dono simply because it was well known that they had onoo formed a jmrt of the Ezra story. 282 Ezra Studies the command DS^Hb^t Ti'lTT riS N3 1S13 follows the prayer instead of preceding it. The prayer itself begins with the words (29:10): biOVi" "ubs niPi^ , nnSit "im :T11 17.2S^1 Dbiy iyi Dblyj , ^i''3i^ ; and then continues in much the same way as Neh. 9:6. The Chronicler loves to repeat the incidents, and the set phrases, which he has already used. NOTE D (on Neh. 10: If.) It is not strange that the use of the participle in 10:1 (D"'lnib , D"'3rib) should have misled some translators, ancient and modern, into connecting the verse with the preceding prayer; all the more because the first person plural has just been used there, while in the introductory narrative, 9:1-5, the first person was not used. But it is certain that the verse is narrative; this would be sufiiciently evident, indeed, even if it were not directly continued in vss. 29 f. by the same narrating participle (D'p^Tri"J, D"'S3) and by the first person plural {"our Lord;" "we would not give our daughters," etc.). This whole passage affords one of the very best illustrations of the Chronicler's intolerably heedless way of carrying on a story; the best single parallels are perhaps I Chron. 28:19, Ezr. 7:27, and (carelessness of another sort) Neh. 13:1, 6. In vs. 2, it is obvious that D''"J^rintl is impossible, and equally obvious (see, for example, the English versions!) that the plural number refers to the signers who are named in the following verses.™ The original reading must have been D'7^r>irin , active participle, "those who sealed" the document. It may well be that Theodotion, who renders by eirl tcov a-(^pa by side wilii tlui urigiiini "'I'ii'Hiiatiia." In Ui(> Hebrew lc\i rcn(icr(Ml by Tiicodoiion, llic proccHH iind gone so I'nr Itiai llic nnramiliar woni "TirHliMlliii" iiad Ikmmi dropped ii I togel iu^r.'^" Ill a lew (IrtHik miimisci'i|ils, m(ii'e(i\'(>r notnlily in Cddex H liie HMllie liiiiig has taken phicc e\(Mi in 7:7()(^!), " N(>lieniiiili " lieiiig simply HiibHtitnbHl bir "TirslniUia." In l.lie old (J reek version, Dll (lie contrary, Iho (iriginni reading, conbuniiig (lie title bull not (,iie iiaiiK^ is prener\ed in S:9 (I hisdi'. il: 19); and if W(> piiMSCHsed (lie res(. nf tliis N'ersioii W(> sluinld doub(l(>HS (ind (ii(> same thing tnii> in 10:2. Xci (-v(rs, (Ik^ iii(,er|)ola(,ioii oC (,lu> iianu> "Nelieminh " liegaii ; a fncl, wliich receives very in(.<'res(iing illiisl radon in (he presence of N«:(U,ms- in I Msdr. 5 :.|()( ! ).'•'•' Tli(^ "/jcdekinh" of Ihis \'erse is a a(ed siinpl\' in oi'd(>r ((I provide a coinpniiioii for (lu' niioii\inons "Tirshatha." The ('i|ironi(der did not know who tlu> governor of Judea was dur ing (lie lirsi par(. of (he reign of this .\r(.ax(M-xes, and did not \('n(ur<' (o giv(> him a name; but il would not do to appear not to kiioiv who he was, luMice tlu' name of his associate, rfplH , "ii(. (h(> head of" thc list of signers. II ma\' Innc Iuhmi Iht* casi> Ihal he Ihought of (,lu> govcM'iior as a rersian, and wished (o |)u( besid<^ him a iM^presiMilalive of Ihe |ieo|ile; but il. seems mor(> lik(>ly, on |.h(> con(rar)', (hat llie ollicial wlio had con( ribii((>d so magnilicenl 1\' (o tlu> tr(>asiiry of lh(> lem|>le (7:70), and then wliorl.ly afler had helped M/.ra iiisl.rnci (In- pc>oplc in (he religion of Isnu'l (S:9), and who now pledged himself io follow (lu> law of Moses, (o kci>p his family fr(H' from inlermarriage willi for eigners (i0:.'{l), and to show himself in all (hings a faithful ineinluM- of "(h(> congregadon," was (liought of !is a -lew. Whedier (h(< (lironicKn- iideiuled his "/icdekiah" lo bc ji prince, or a privale siH'rebiry, is a (]n(>s(ioii of very sligld imporlaiu'c, and ¦J'iTlii\ .S K.u .U)„|i,i,r(),.,- of (liii I, l.oxt ill N.'li. li)::;o> is, ot .•oiu-si-, iii.M-.'l.v .mo ol tim IjlUMiiilit' conni'l ioii.s from iho \\\i\sHoyo\\o Wi-Im-ow. MTIii. liMuliMif.v to iiilorpiiliilii dm iiiinm of llii> niilliliiH'd ollU'iiil, I'spivinlly wluMi ho was lii'liiwiiil In linvf> llOKll so illi|iorl,iiiil. 11 iiiTsiill lis Ni'lioiiiiiill or '/iM'lihhMlu'l, w.'lsof oolirso M'r.v stroiiHiil nil tiiims. Wn son si-vural iiislaimivs of oxiu'lly Iliis sort iiiloivsl ing parallels lo (lliisii JlLst tlnsorihi'd in I Hsdr. ll: 17, -ll, "iS, in all t lircMi of wlii.'li vi'im's (Im iiaiin- /ivi.ifi..flr.\ llttil lii'cMi liili'riml.iti'il for tlio |iiir|iosii of iilmil i lyiiKj tho "ifovunior " who is iimnlioiu-il. 284 Ezra Studies one which it will never be possible to answer. The reason why Ezra's name does not appear among the signers is of course this, that he was regarded as above the necessity of taking this oath, which had in it something of the nature of a confession of evil-doing (see 9:1 f., 10:29 f., and DXT bin in 10:1). The man who had come all the way from Babylonia in order to call the Jews to account for their neglect of the Pentateuch (Ezr. 7:141), and under whose vehement rebuke they were now making this solemn promise to return to the right path, certainly had no need to sign the document. The number ofthe names of the signers (D'^T^ininn) calls for especial notice. This written covenant, according to the repre sentation of the Chronicler, marked an epoch in the history of Israel. The document was one, moreover, which contained a summary of his own pet interests, and those who signed it were the representatives of a community reformed according to his ideals. It is, therefore, a foregone conclusion that the number of names will be found to be a multiple of twelve; just as in his "great list," in Ezr. 2 and Neh. 7, he starts off with twelve "leaders" (Ezr. 2:2, Neh. 7:7), and makes the whole number of the people equal to twelve times the number of years which had elapsed since the creation of the world (see above, p. 250). Here in Neh. 10:2-28 the numbering is as follows: two leaders; twenty-one priests ; seventeen Levites ; forty-four laymen. Total, eighty-four. 84 = 7X12. IX THE EXILE AND THE KESTOKATION I. PREVAILING MISCONCEPTIONS The Babylonian exile of the Judean Hebrews, which was in reality a small and relatively insignificant affair, has been made, partly through mistake and partly by the compulsion of a theory, to play a very important part in the history of the Old Testament. The successive steps of the process which resulted in the erroneous view are all plain to see. (a) The exaggerated account of the deportation of the people given by II Kings 25 (see further below) furnished the starting-point. (6) At about the time when the completion of the temple was undertaken by Zerubbabel, it became customary to speak of an interval of seventy years. The years were numbered from the destruction of the temple until its rebuilding; that is, employing the terms of our chronology, from 586 to 516 b. c' This, the original "seventy years" period of distress, is twice mentioned by Zechariah, in 1:12 and 7:5. It had nothing to do with Babylonia or with the return of exiles, (c) Somewhat later than this arose, naturally enough, the poetical idea of the "sabbath rest" of the worn and weary land. The love of the devout Israelites for Jerusalem and the sacred province in which it lay was far stronger in the Persian period than it had ever been before, and their reflection on the chastisement of Israel assumed this characteristic form, among others. While the temple was in ruins, and the religious activity of the chosen people in the sacred place was suspended, or hampered, Yahw6 was purposing to bring good out of evil. The people had merited his wrath, but his love for Zion, the holy city, who had already "paid double for all her sins," remained una bated. At last, after the interval which he had appointed, the new era dawned, and the abandoned work was taken up again. Jerusalem, after its day of rest, entered upon another week; the lAt that early period, there was of courfo no difBculty with tbe chronology from Nebuchadrezzar downward. At the time when Haggai prophesied, there were men living who had seen the first temple (Hag. 2:3). 285 286 Ezra Studies land had "enjoyed its sabbaths" (Lev. 26:34 f., 43).' (d) The next step — taken probably many years later — was to connect the interval of seventy years with the desolation of the land, rather than with the disgrace of the sanctuary. Jerusalem and Judea were pictured as absolutely depopulated during this time, the whole country containing only uninhabited ruins. In Jer. 25:11 f. and 29:10, 14 we have a plain prediction that the land will be desolate for seventy years, at the end of which time it will be peopled again by returning "exiles" (that is, men of the Diaspora) who will come back to Judea "from all the nations" whither they have been scattered (29:14; cf. 23:3, 8, 31:8, 32:37, etc. ) . As a matter of course, the members of the deportation to Babylonia receive special mention (29:10; cf. 24:5).' The date of these passages can only be a matter of conjecture. The con nection with the seventy years of Zechariah' s prophecy is certainly not accidental,* and the altered conception of the period had its origin in a very natural misunderstanding. Zech. 1:12, with its mention of the long continued chastisement of Jerusalem and the cities of Judah (see also 7:5, 7!),^ was supposed to refer to the 2 I do not mean to insist on the date of Leviticus 26, ( r of any part of it. But it do s seem to me sure that the idea here expressed, and this very manner of expressing it, originated in the time between Zechariah and the ''seventy years" of the pseudo- Jeremiah (see below). The Chronicler, in II Chron. 36:21 (as already shown), combines the phrases of Leviticus with the prediction of Jer. 25:11, 29:10, but this is merely on-- of his easy-going misquotations. In Lev. 26 there is no allusion to a return from the Babylonian exile in particular. The people are scattered through the 1 a n d s {plural) of their enemies, and will come very near to perishing there; yet Jerusalem and Judea will at last be restored to their ancient glory, since Yahwfe is not false to his covenant. 3In the prophesies contained in the book of Jeremiah three distinct classnsof (xiles an* taken into consideration from time to time. These are: (1) The "exiles" or " captives " scattered through all the lands of the Gentile world ; or, in other words, the Jews of th - great Dispersion. This usage, which is the customary one in all the Old Testa ment propheta (see below), is the usual one in Jeremiah also. (2) The choice company of Judean ex il"s inBabyloni a. So, for example, 24:5 f., 29:4, 10. (3) The rest of the people who were carried or driven away from Jerusalera and the vicinity in the time of Nebnch d- rezznr (II Kings 25:11, 26), who were regarded as the more guilty "remnant" (Jer. 24:8il., 29 ; 16-19). It was predicted that these should utterly perish. See also below, on Jer. 42, etc. *If the Jeremianic authorship of the chapters in question were probable on other grounds, we could hardly refuse to admit the possibility that the prophet was us ng a round number, and that the twofold mention of a period of seventy years, by Jeremiah and Zechariah, was merely a remarkable coincidence. But the chapters are obviously much later than Jeremiah's time; notice, for instance, how 24:lquotes from II Kings 24 : 14, 6. As a matter of fact, the view which I have here set forth as to the development of the idea of the " seventy years," and the dependence of Jer. 25:. 11, etc., ou Zechariah, is the one hei 1 by the most recent commentators on these books; see Duhm on Jer. 25 : 12 and Marti on Zech. 1:12. 5 As I showed in the Journal of Biblical Literature, 1898, pp. 17 f., the correct render ing of Zech. 7:7 is: "Are not these the words which Yahw6 proclaimed through the former prophets, in the days whin Jerusalem and the surrounding cities were still in quiet, and when the Negeb and the Shephela were still undisturbed?" Cf. the use of Dlfil in this same idiom in 1 : 11. The Exile and the Eestoration 287 devastation of the region. Hence Jer. 25 : 12, assertino- that the seventy years will be ended by the final overthrow of the Babylo nian kingdom (that is. by the Persians). It is conceivable that these passages might even belong to the Chronicler's generation, but it is easier to suppose that they are older. They seem at anv rate to belong to that late period (presumably either near the end of the Persian rule, or else after the conquest of Alexander) when the chronology of the first Persian kings was a matter of some uncertainty, and it was becoming possible to transpose the reigns of Cyms and Darius I." {e) Last of all, when the rivals of the Jews, and in particular the Samaritans, had begun to nse these existing notions of exile and desolation as a most dangerous weapon, was produced the theory devised and set forth by those of the school to which the Chronicler belonged. This theory, which is embodied in the Chronicler's own version of the Jewish history, and seems also to be presupposed (in less fully developed form?) in the Aramaic tale which he used, has already been described at length. According to its terms, all the genuine institutions and traditions of Israel, and all the "blue blood" of the old community, were kept safe and unchanged in Babylonia; while all the elements which had remained in Palestine during "the exile" became thoroughly heathen and corrupt. Judaism was "restored" completely by the return of the Babylonian Jews, who alone constituted the true church, from which "the people of the lands" were henceforth to be kept uncompromisingly separate. In modern Biblical science the Babylonian exile has been given the central place, and made the dominating factor, in both the religious and the literary history of the Hebrews. This concep tion is, in fact, one of the most characteristic features of the critical theory which in our generation has been elaborated by Wellhausen, Robertson Smith, and their fellows and successors, and is now held by all of the more advanced Old Testament scholars. Straight across the face of Israelite history is drawn a heavy line, the exde, which is supposed to mark a very abrupt and complete change in almost every sphere of the people's life. Above the line is what 6See above, pp. 135 f. Itisnot likelythatthe transposition wasmade for the sole purpose of satisfying this theory ol the seventy years. More probably the Jews had become per suaded, on other grounds, that a Median kingdom preceded that of the Persians ; an 1 along with the new theory had come the name ofthe monarch, Darius the son of ''Ahasuerus" (Dan, 9:1; originally " HystaspesV "Cjaxarest" Josephus has "Astyages"). 288 Ezra Studies is called the "prophetic" period, and below it the "legal" period, the latter being regarded as altogether inferior to the former. Before the exile, the great writers and preachers of Israel ; after it, inferior teachers and imitators. In the earlier period, a con tinuous and admirable development, in national character, litera ture, and religion; in the later period, a low level at the start, and a steady decline, in all these respects. The theory of the exile itself, and of the nature of the "restoration" after it, is fundamental to these conceptions. According to the accepted view, the Jews who had been deported to Babylonia prepared the elaborate ritual code which was to regulate the life of the new community. And the restored Israel, after the long period of suspended animation, was a church founded from without, and a community devoting itself henceforth to the study and practice of the new ceremonial law. This is a thoroughly mistaken theory. So far as the Jews of the Babylonian deportation are concerned, it is not likely that they ever exercised any considerable influence on the Jews in Judea. We have no trustworthy evidence that any numerous com pany returned from Babylonia, nor is it intrinsically likely that such a return took place. The "priestly law" was neither edited in Babylonia nor brought to Jerusalem from that country.' Hebrew literature contains no "exilic" elements. Every part of our Old Testament was written in Palestine;* if Jews of the Dispersion influenced its growth at any point, we have at least no evidence of the fact. The wider influence of Babylonian (or Assyrian) life and literature was potent in Judea long before the sixth century, and the transition to the Persian rule brought no marked change in this regard. The development of life and letters and religion in Jerusalem after the great calamity con- 7 No Biblical narrative, it must always be emphasized, asserts or even implies that Ezra's book of the law originated or received its shape in the foreign land. 8 My view in regard to the Second Isaiah, which has been more or less familiar to sch lars in the United States for ten years past (see, for example, H. P. Smith, Old Testa ment History, pp. 371, 379; W. H. Cobb, in the Journal of Biblical Literature, 1908, pp. 5 , 56, 64) is, briefly, this: The chapters Is. 40-66, together with 34 and 35, are the work of a single author who wrote in Palestine not far from the middle of tbe Persian period. The name "Cyrus'' in 45:1 is interpolated, as is also the whole verse, 44:28. Likewise inser ed are the words 533 and QlnlBS in 43 : 14, 48 : 11, 20. I hope to publish, in the near future, a volume (the most of which is now ready for tbe press) setting forth my view of this great poet and prophet, and giving a brief commentary on his poems. See also below, passim, and especially p. 314. Ezekiel I believe to be a pseudepigraphon written in the Greek period. See the intro ducti n to my ' 'Notes on the Aramaic Part of Daniel," published in the Transactions of the Connecticut Academ-y of Arts and Sciences, Vol. XV (1909). The Exile and the Restoration 289 tinned to be a genuinely native development, in which foreign elements played — as they always had — a relatively small part. The outlook of the people was not growing narrower, it was becoming broader all the time. The religion of Israel — meaning that of the whole people — was more liberal and more spiritual in the fourth century than it had been in the fifth ; more so in the fifth century than it had been in the seventh. The ceremonial law played no such part in the thought and activities of the people in general as the modern theory has assumed. The catastrophe which included the destruction of the temple and the extinction of the monarchy was indeed a crushing blow, which left its deep and permanent imprint on the religious literature of the Jews. But the Dispersion was a calamity which was far more signifi cant, and whose mark on the heart of Israel was much deeper. The dissolution of the nation began even before the fall of the kingdom, and continued at an aminously increasing rate, even after the building of the second temple. It was the influence qf this fact, more than anything else, that revised the theology received from the old prophets, and gave it a broader scope : Israel, the savior of the world, even through its suffering. The monarchy was not necessary (I Sam. S), and the community could, and did, recover from the catastrophe of 586. But the scattering of Israel to the four corners of the earth meant the death of the nation, and only the miracle of a second "return from Egypt" (Is. 43:16 ff., 48:21, etc.,) could restore the dead to life. The people were, indeed, -'purified in the furnace of affliction," and were spiritually the better for it, after they had once risen to their feet again. What their religious life suffered in the years immediately follow ing 586 was merely the temporary arresting of a continuous and splendid development. They were not crushed to the point of despair, nor driven into any such selfish exclusiveness as is pictured in the Chronicler's imaginary history. The prophets and (still more) the Psalms teach us better than that. The destruction of the temple was a turning-point, partly for evil, but more for good, seeing that the nation as a political entity was doomed in any case. At all events, it was this catastrophe, not the exile, which constituted the dividing line between the two eras. The terms "exilic," "pre-exilic," and "post-exilic" ought to be ban ished forever from usage, for they are merely misleading, and correspond to nothing that is real in Hebrew literature and life. 290 Ezra Studies II. the deportation to babylonia When Nebuchadrezzar made his last i'Xi)cdition against Ji>ru- salem, in the yi'ar 5S() b. o., ho did his work of devastation thoroughly, sacking the city, razing its walls, and burning the temple, together with thc other ])rincipal buildings. Hc and his captains also carried away, on this and two other oct'asions, a con siderable numl)er of Jews to Babylonia, pLinliiig them there as colonists. The total number of those deported, according fo ,Icr. 52:2S-30,° was 4,(100. The majority of them came from .](>ru- salcm, and they are said to havc been chosen from thc up])ermost stratum of the peo|)le. Taking this slalemeni at its face value, the most that it cau nn'aii is this, (hat Nebuchadrezzar and his officers carried away the best that they wore able to lay hands on. The deportation was a small one,'" and cvimi it it really included the cream of Jerusalem, (he life ol' (he cily could not have been endangered by the loss. The question which really meant life or death was this, whether there wer(' sufficicMitly strong reasons why the fugitive masses of the po|nilation, who were scattcri'd about in the neighborhood after the calamity, should rel.nrn and rebuild the city after the withdrawal of tlu^ Babylonian army. In regard to thc subse(]uiuit hisbu'y of those, who were (h<])ort(-(l, there can be no question; like the nuunbers of evi^ry other depor tation, they settled down promptly and |H^rniaiiently in their new surroundings, engaging in every sort of lucrativi^ oct'upation which was within th(.'ir reach, and ado[)tiiig unreservi'dly for themselves and their posterity the country into which they had been trans planted. Wc can be reasonably ct^'lain, t^'cn without direct cvi dence, that within a gi'iieralion or two thc most of the principal merchants and financiers of the districts round about these colonies were children of Israel; and Ihat all of tim ([Uondam exiles, of whatever trade or occupation, wtu'c hard at work, with the tireless industry and yiractical alertness which have always characi.erizetl the race. This is not the traditional view, to be mwo. According to the apologists of the Chronicler's school, the Jewish exiles "The source is a late one, but wo have nothing hotlor. The dotaileil niiiiiiinration given makos the impression of being based on g I inrorniution, and is all Hm moro wortliv ot crodonce bocauso of its di-sagreninent with the oxaggerations which ultinml.cily bocamo current. l»For example, in tho Chninii-lc of Joshua the Stj/liU; chap. 52, tliii narrator lolls how in tho yeiir .502 A. ji. the Arab liing an-Nu'mau doportoel 18,500 ol the people ilwniling in tho neighborhood of Harran. Tho blow was severe, but tho recovery ciimiiloto, judgiiig ri-oiii tho subsequent history of tho region. The Exile and the Restoration 291 were so insecurely planted in Babylonia, even after "seventy" years, that more than forty-two thousand of them could under take the journey back to Judea. According to the 137th Psalm, which plainly draws a favorite picture, the sons and daughters of Zion were held by their captors in an unhappy confinement in the strange land, like beasts in a cage. They sat by the rivers of Babylon and wept, while their harps hung silent on the neighbor ing willows. A. well-known writer on Old Testament subjects has remarked in a recently published volume, that in "the leisure ofthe exile" the Jews were able to work out problems for which they would have had no time in the busy life in Palestine. The leisure of the exile! The use of this marvellous phrase is of itself sufficient to show how far removed even the modern current theory of these events is from any historical possibility. As for the religious experiences of the exiles, we may be sure of this, at least, that they very speedily found that they could be faithful children of Abraham, and acceptable worshipers of the God of Israel, in a strange land. So their predecessors, who had emi grated from Palestine into the outside world, had learned ; and so also in later years did the great multitude of the Dispersion who. went forth and remained true to their faith, but never came back. Of one thing in particular they must have been well per suaded, namely, that an elaborate ritual was not an essential thing. If they reflected on the causes of the catastrophe which had over taken the holy city, they knew very well that their prophets had always told them the truth in saying that it was their neglect of the moral law, not of the ceremonial law, which aroused the wrath of Yahw6. The prescribed ritual was the one thing that they had observed with tolerable faithfulness. Almost the last thing in the world that could have interested any of the Jews in Babylonia was a priestly law to be used in Palestine. There were doubtless many priests among the exiles; but those who continued in that profession (they had, in any case, to earn their living) must have found all their time and strength taken up. by the duties which came to them in the land where they lived." This, again, is not the traditional view. It has long been custom ary to represent the deporte'd colonists as absorbed in the con- UAs for the ritual of the sanctuary: if the Babylonian Jews had a temple of their own, then its priests were certainly concerned to elaborate a ceremonial law for their own uto, based on their own local praxis. If there was no such temple, we should not expect them to be concerned with anything of the sort. 292 Ezra Studies templation of "the law;" a view for which the Chronicler is chiefly responsible. Thus A. Berliner, Beitrdge zur Geographie und Ethnographic Babyloniens im Talmud und Midrasch, 1884, p. 5: " Bei dem Uberflusse von Datteln in Babylonien waren die Exilir- ten vor Mangel geschtitzt und konnten sich daher ungestort dem Studium der Thora hingeben." At present, the "captives" are usually depicted as working away at the material now contained in the middle books of the Pentateuch, and even as producing a new written work, a ceremonial law-book'^ for Jerusalem, with an interest which must have been mainly academic, seeing that they could not have foreseen just what Cyrus, Darius, and Arta xerxes were going to do; and could hardly have been so simple- minded as to suppose that, if the cult of the Jews should be restored by a gradual renewal of life in Jerusalem and Judea, the native priests of the sanctuary would ever accept a foreign-made ritual law in place of their own. Marti, in his Religion des Alten Testaments, 1906, p. 66, can still repeat without apparent hesita tion the old theory: "Im Exit, wo man von den Schwierigkeiten der Verhaltnisse in Jerusalem nicht gedrtickt war, -konnte man die Ordnung, wie sie in der neuen Gemeinde in Jerusalem und Juda sein sollte, feststellen;" but the idea which this sentence expresses is as much of a curiosity, in its way, as is that of the "leisure of the exile," mentioned above. The Hebrews who were deported by Nebuchadrezzar were doubtless a God-fearing com pany, in the main, and their subsequent religious history was probably similar to that of the better Jewish colonists generally, in all other parts of the world. But we have no literary product or other record of their religious activity." 12 But to the questions What book? and How much of the Pentateuch? no one could now give a plausible answer. It was easy to answer them thirty years ago, when the theory of the priestly law was comparatively new, and the critical study of the Hebrew legislation was still in its infancy. I have already remarked (for example, pp. 196 f.) that no evidence of the exi- tence of a separate " priest code " is to be found. Nor is it possible to suppose that one or two creative minds produced the body of legislation which is imagined as " Ezra's book of the law." Precisely this part of the Pentateuch has a literary history which is "ganz besonders kompliziert" (Cornill, Simiei/wnffS, p. 58, cf. p. 65). Not a few priests, but many, were at work upon it. What is more, their labors covered a long time, new parts being added, and revision being again and again undertaken, evidently astheneedsand growth of an actual praxis requi red — thereisnootherreasonable supposition. It certainly requires a notable exercise of the imagination to create conditions in Babylonia under which any such variegated ritualistic production would have been natural. 13 We do have mention of a few individuals, belonging to this deported colony, who remained true to the faith of their fathers — as we could have been sure that the most of them would. These are Nehemiah (whose ancestors were pi esumably among those carried to Babylonia by Nebuchadrezzar), and the men named in the very difficult passage Zech. 6 : 10. The Exile and the Restoration 293 iii. the beginning of the' hebrew dispersion One very important fact, often overlooked, must always be kept in mind when the Hebrew "exiles" (voluntary or involun tary) are under discussion; they were — and knew that they were — uniformly much better off in the foreign countries than they could ever have been in the home land. There is evidence tending to show that even in the latter years of the kingdom the people became restless and began to emigrate. The most of the interior of Palestine could no longer support a large population. Whether deforestation had diminished the rainfall, or other cli matic changes had taken place, or whether it was merely the case that unskilful methods of agriculture, continued through centuries, had exhausted the soil, at all events the land no longer flowed with milk and honey. Even at its best it had not been an agricultural paradise. It was indeed a sacred territory, and Jerusalem was the city chosen of Yahw6 ; but not all the children of Israel could live in Jerusalem, nor in Judea, nor even to the best advantage in Palestine, under the new conditions. But far more important than any change in the land was the change in the people. The time had gone by when they could be satisfied with agricultural pursuits, and the drift toward city life had begun, a movement steadily increasing in volume. Jerusalem itself was small, and obviously incapable of any considerable growth. It was perched on a waterless rock, in a relatively barren region; had no impor tant industries, nor the means of supporting any; and was not even a station of great importance in the caravan trade of the region. Zion was doubtless "the joy of the whole earth" to any devout Israelite who was in the psalm- writing mood; but large families cannot be supported on religious enthusiasm alone, and men of energy and enterprise must go where they can find oppor tunity. Those who first wandered forth were quick to see that each one of such great cities as Babylon, Nineveh, Ecbatana, Hamath, Tyre, Memphis, and Thebes had a true claim to be called the joy of the whole earth ; and as for the God of Israel, they found — as their brethren have always found, and still find — that they could carry him with them. That is why the emigrants, early and late, did not return to the holy land. The same thing was happening then which has taken place countless times in history, wherever peoples who have long dwelt quietly in their 294 Ezra Studies own secludfed land are awakened by the stir of new life from without, see a new day dawning, find themselves outside the main currents of progress and achievement, and see great enterprises actually within their reach, if they will but go forth to the centers of activity. The Hebrews were by nature both worldly-wise and energetic, and saw clearly that the future of the world of affairs did not rest with Palestine." Neither patriotism nor rehgious beliefs ever kept, or could keep, such people at home, when they have once heard the call of the greater world, and the spirit of the new age has come upon them. It is not always easy to date the beginning of an era, and the history of the first stage of the Hebrew Dispersion is, as might be expected, very obscure."* It was not merely the advance of the Assyrian armies into Palestine that set the peoples of that land in commotion; other causes, partly unknown to us, were at work. In the eighth century B. c. the great colonizing move ment of the Phoenicians was in full swing. By the end of the century, all the countries around the eastern end of the Mediter ranean were in a ferment, and migratory currents were flowing in all directions as perhaps never before. The great cities of Asia Minor had been founded, and the Greek peoples, now beginning their marvellous renascence, were flocking to the Ionian coast, as well as in other directions. Then, as the next step, the doors of Egypt were opened wide to foreign colonists, Psametik I (663—609) adopting this new and very significant policy. Both Greek and Asiatic traders and emigrants poured in. " Phoenician galleys filled the Nile mouths, and Semitic merchants, forerunners of the Aramaeans so numerous in Persian times, thronged the Delta" (Breasted, History ofthe Ancient Egyptians, 1908, p. 398). It was in this seventh century, so far as we can judge, that the inland peoples of Syria and Palestine were thoroughly awakened and began to play a noteworthy part in the general movement. Several important invasions from the north, coming at just this I'l Thus the prophet Amos (6:1 ff.), and no doubt'many had said the same thing before him. asserting the relative insigniflcance of Israel : "Woe to the secure in Zion, the confident in the mountain of Samaria! They (the Assyrians) have plucked off (1Sp3 with the Greek) the foremost of tbe nations, and will come to you (read tDOb), O house of Israel. Passover to Calneh, and see; and go thence to Hamath the great; thence go down to Gath of the Philistines ; are ye better than these kingdoms, or is your territory greater than theirs? " (transposing the suffi-xes). I can see no reason whatever for supposing vs. 2 to be an inter polation. * . 15 Of course thore had been occasional minor Hebrew migrations and colonies from the very first ; but I am speaking of the great movement which affected the whole land. The Exile and the Restoration 295 time, added their influence; first came the great campaigns of Sennacherib and Esarhaddon, and then followed the inroad of the Scythians, who appeared in the year 624 and swept through the land. We have every reason, then, to give credence to the statement found in the Letter of Aristeas, that the army of Psametik (II?), in a certain campaign against the Ethiopians, contained Jewish mercenaries. The gradual outflow from Judea which later assumed such proportions must already have begun. When the temple at Jerusalem was destroyed by the Babylonians, a large body of Jews fled to Egypt, as might have been expected (see II Kings 25:26, Jer. 43:4-7). The words which are put into the mouth of these fugitives by one of the Old Testament writers (Jer. 42:14) had probably been uttered by many of their prede cessors: "We will go into the land of Egypt, where we shall see no more war, nor hear the sound of the trumpet, nor hunger for bread ; and there will we dwell." Numerous colonies were founded (see, for example, Jer. 44:1), some of them doubtless earlier than this migration of the year 586. At Elephantine, as we have recently learned, an imposing temple was built, in which the worship of Yahw6 was carried on faithfully according to the Mosaic law. In Babylonia there were Hebrews in large numbers at least since the deportations by Tiglathpileser III (734) and Sargon (27,290 inhabitants of the Northern Kingdom carried away to Mesopotamia and Media in 722). Of these captives also, like the most of the remainder of the early Dispersion, in all parts of the world, we have thenceforward no sure trace. They of course became good citizens of their adopted countries, used to the utmost the new opportunities, and were in increasing extent assimilated with the surrounding peoples. How faithful they were to Yahw6, the God of Israel, we have no means of knowing; nor can we even guess to what extent their descendants could or did co-operate with the Judean captives deported by Nebuchad- rezzar.'^ As regards voluntary Jewish emigration to Babylonia, 15 Among the eastern Semites, religious differences often completely override identity of race; and if the Hebrews of the Southern Kingdom really held, at the beginning of the sixth century, the extreme view of tho apostasy of their Northern brethren which is expressed everywhere by the (later) editor of the books of Kings, we might well believe that tho mem bers of the second great group of deported exiles would show little interest in the fortunes of their predecessors, even if they were able to come in contact with them. But we know that tho people of Israel claimed to be worshipers of Yahwfe, and it is lil^ely that the people of Judah acknowledged them to be such, while both kingdoms were still standing. 296 Ezra Studies before the downfall of Jerusalem, we have at present no informa tion at all. It would be strange, indeed, if some considerable companies of colonists had not turned their faces thither in the seventh century, under the conditions described above. It is true that the principal streams of migration at that time ran from north to south, but there were also counter currents. Hebrew names, in large number, are found in the Babylonian business documents of the Persian period. It does not by any means fol low, as some have hastily concluded,' that these are the names of Jews of "the Captivity" — meaning the colonists deported in the time of Nebuchadrezzar. No tidings have reached us of any temple built by Jews in Babylonia. The existence of such temples is certainly possible, perhaps even probable ; see further below. But the Nile valley and the lands east of the Euphrates were by no means the only countries which offered great opportunities to enterprising Palestinian colonists. If we could read the his tory of Phoenicia, Asia Minor, North Africa, and the Greek islands and shores, in this early period, we should doubtless find that the waves of migration in the seventh century and thereafter carried some Jews to each of these regions, and to still others as well. Upon the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple, fugitive com panies swarmed forth in all directions. Many were only trying to escape the immediate danger, and soon found their way back; but a large number, certainly, continued their flight into foreign parts, and never returned. After the restoration of Jerusalem, moreover, the stream of emigration from all Judea continued to flow ominously, and the Jewish settlements in foreign lands grew steadily larger. These were the "exiles" of whom the Old Testament prophets are constantly speaking, and whose removal from the holy land they mourn as the deadliest blow to Israel; those who were in "the north, the south, the east, and the west;" see, for example. Is. 11:11 f., 43:5 f. ("I will bring thy seed from the east, and gather thee from the west; I will say to the north. Give up, and to the south. Keep not back; bring my sons from far, and my daughters from the end of the -earth"), 49:12, 60:4-9 (ships of Tarshish will bring back the exiles); Jer. 23:8, 29:14, 31:8, 32:37; Zech. 2:6, 8:7, and many similar passages. The Babylonian captives of 597-586 were but a small part of the whole, and it is not often that they The Exile and the Restoration 297 are mentioned separately, save by the pseudo-Jeremiah and the Chronicler. Such terms as "captivity" (^^TIJ) and "exile" (Wbj) are frequently used in speaking of the Jewish Dispersion in general, and the usage persisted for many centuries." IV. THE reviving OF JERUSALEM It was this sinister combination of involuntary and voluntary exile that made the restoration such a very difficult matter. The devastation wrought by Nebuchadrezzar, terrible as it was, would have left plenty of hope of a speedy recovery, in a city of great natural resources. The neighboring city of Sidon was repeatedly wiped out of existence (in the year 350 b. c, for instance, with the slaughter of 40,000 of its citizens and the total obliteration of the city itself), but it always arose again immediately from its ashes, and was soon as proud and powerful as ever. If there is a potent reason for the existence of a city on a certain spot, it is very hard to stamp out its life utterly. After each catastrophe, returning fugitives, re-enforced by adventurers, are likely to put in an appearance very soon, unless they are kept away by force. So it was with Jerusalem. The essential fact which insured its continuity of life was the sacred rock on the eastern hill. Far fewer people are drawn by the magnetism of a cultic rallying point than by that of an important commercial or industrial site ; but the attractive force exerted on the few, by the religious motive, is much stronger than the other. We know very little of the history of Jerusalem and its neighborhood during the century beginning with the destruction of Solomon's temple; but we are at least sure of these two things, that the site was soon occupied again, and that the principal reason for the revival of the city was the existence of the ancient holy place, holier yet than the temple which had been built upon it. In II Kings 25:26 it is said that upon the assassination of Gedaliah "all the people, both small and great," fled to Egypt. This is also the Chronicler's way of looking at the matter, the entire population of Jerusalem and the neighboring towns removed "Thus in an official letter of Rabbi Gamaliel the younger (beginning of second century A. D.), published in Dalman, Aram&ische Dialektproben, p. 3, we read the superscription: " To our brethren the men of the captivity (StnibS "^Da) of Babylonia, those of the captivity of Media, those of the captivity of Greece i']'\'fl) and all the rest of the Dispersion (Sm"53 , ' captivities ') ; your peace be multipUed." In each and all of these expressions, he is referring to Jews who had gone forth voluntarily and formed trading colonies. 298 Ezra Studies to Babylonia and Egypt, so that none remained in the land, or could return to it. Thus, too, the traditional view, which is still formally held fast by most students of the Old Testament, assert ing that Jerusalem and the cities of Judah continued to be nearly or quite deserted for forty-nine years. Of late, especially since Kosters' renewal of the argument against the historicity of the return under Cyrus, scholars in increasing number have been dis posed to modify the extreme .theory to the extent of admitting that some of the inhabitants of the city and its vicinity remained near at hand after the catastrophe, and either themselves began, or else assisted in, the work of restoration." This, to be sure, is not at all the Chronicler's view; as he tells the story, the popula tion of Judea in the Persian period consisted solely of the returned Babylonian exiles and the heathen of the land (including heathenized Jews), with whom the pure blood of Israel must not, and did not, mix." His theory, as shown in the preceding chapters, is artificial and contrary both to our other evidence and to reason. As for the statement in II Kings 25:26, which was partly responsible for the theory elaborated by the Chronicler, it is merely the usual, and very natural, exaggeration. A large company fled to Egypt at this time, no doubt, joining the Jews who were already in that land ; but other companies fled in other directions, and — most important of all — a very large number must have taken temporary refuge in the immediate or more remote neighborhood. This is just what had happened a few months earlier, when the Babylonians made their last attack on the city, according to Jer. 40-43. Thus we read in 40:11 f. : "When all the Jews that were in Moab, and among the children isThus Wellhausen, Nachrichten von der KOnigl. Gesellschaft der Wissenschaflen zu GOttingen, 1895, pp. 185 f . : " Man hat bei der Restauration zu sehr ausser Acht gelassen, das doch ein starker Bodensatz der alten BevOlkerung sich noch im Laude vorfand An den massgebenden Kern der Gola muss sich vielmehr ein grosser Teil der im LanJe verblie- benen BevOlkerung angeschlossen und sich in die Cadres ihrer Geschlechter eingegliedert haben." 1!^ For the sake of enforcing this lesson — and especially for the effectual discomfiture of the Samaritans — he represents the " exiles " as having twice sinned in this respect, and shows how they were punished. Just before the reform fif " Ezra," a considerable number of the people, from all classes, married heathen wives. But afler taking a complete census, the work of which occupied several months, all of these wives, wi/A their children, -were banished. And again, when Nehemiah is made by the Chroni cler to complete some of Ezra's work of reform, a few Jews are said to have broken the solemn covenant of all Israel (Neh. 10) by marrying women of Ashdod, Ammon, and Moab (Neh. 13:23 ff.). This time, also, the remedial measures were effective, for Nehemiah says in vs. 30: "Thus I cleansed them from all strangers." The seed of Israel was not contaminated to any appreciable extent, and only the men of the Babyloninn captivity took part in the restoration, according to the rigidly consistent representation in Chronicles-Ezra-Nehemiab. The Exile and the Restoration 299 of Ammon, and in Edom, and that were in all the countries, heard that the king of Babylon had left a remnant of Judah, and that he had set over them Gedaliah the son of Ahikam, the son of Shaphan; then all the Jews returned out of all places whither they had been driven, and came to the land of Judah." The same thing is said in briefer compass in 43:5. Whatever may have been the source of this information,^" the course of events here described is just what is usual when cities are sacked and destroyed ; the majority of the inhabitants flee into the neighbor ing country, and return from time to time, in straggling bands, when it is safe to do so. The removal of this multitude of tem porary refugees from Jerusalem to the nearest surrounding countries must have been extended over some time; and their return to Judea cannot possibly have been accomplished in the way stated (though the words were perhaps not intended to be taken strictly) in Jer. 40:11 f., 41:10-17, 43:5 f.— as though "all the Jews in Moab, Ammon, Edom, and all the countries" could have returned to Judea, moving as one man, in less than two months' time (it might easily have taken a month or t-wo for them even to learn of the appointment of Gedaliah), and as though they could have been led about thereafter in the manner described. What is probable — ^and we have nothing bat probability to guide us at this point — is that the majority of the fleeing inhabitants of Jerusalem and the neighboring towns took up their temporary quarters in the nearest regions where they could be both safe and comfortable ; that they did this in the hope of returning eventu ally ; and that the most of them did actually return, some coming soon and others following later, in larger or smaller companies. Regarding the probable character and quality of these returning fugitives, several things are to be said. (1) According to II Kings 24:15 f.,^' the deportation in 597 included a large part of the best men of the land ; but it is plain from subsequent pas sages of the same account (as well as from the numbers given in Jer. 52) that the majority of this upper stratum — nobles, war riors, craftsmen — escaped the fate of their brethren.'^ As has 20 The account in these chapters seems to me to give evidence of dependence on II Kings 25, and there are plenty of marks indicating that it originated at a time much later than the events described. 21 The two verses 13 f., in this chapter, are regarded by the most recent commentators as a later and mistaken addition to the text; see, for example, Benzinger, Comm., and Kautzsch's Heilige Schrift des A. T. 22 According to Jer. 52 : 28, which is generally regarded as the most probable statement of the kind, the total number of this deportation was 3,023. 300 Ezra Studies already bct>n remarked, Nebuchndrcz/.ar took ouly what hc was able b) lay liaiuls on — and tlic best are most likely b> cscaptv (2) The sortie from the cily, at tht^ end of tht- liiwd siege in 5S(), inclutltHl the king and "all the men ol' war," 1 1 Kings 2.^): I f. Tho king liimst^f was ciiptnreil by thc Babylonians, iu>ar -lericlio, but "all his army was scattered From him," probably inb) iiie regions beyond tlie Jordan. It is b) b(- presimuHl that many of llie most noble and iidluentiid men in Jcriisaleni K-i't tlii^ city in this night expedilion with their king. (3) We have iid'ormatioii, more or less valuable, concerning sonu^ ol' the royal liousii wlm survived all those ciilaniities of sword and capti vity. Ishnnu^l ben Netlianiali, "of the seed royal," was amoug those whoflcnl (o the Ammonites (J(-r, 41:li")). (leriain daughti-rsof King Zedc^kiah are mentioned in Jer. ll :10 and bb.b, as belonging to the com pany that eventually migrated b) Egypt. ^¦' And finally, Zerubbabel Ikmi Sh(vdtic>l, who appears to have been the oll'spriiig of om- of llu-se I'ligilives,'" may be included hen^ if thii ChronicU-r's statenuMd'., that he belonged to thc house of David, can be given any credeiuHv"" (1) At all events, the companies returning to .the situ of thc mined city included many of the most devoted adlu-rcMits of tlu- i-eligiou of Israel (compare what was said above, on this point). In shoi't, if we give our sources a fair hearing, taking into acconnt all their stiitemeiits and not merely a few of them, we find I hut they do not re(|uire us to suppose that those who (-scaped the armies of NebuchadrcK'zar and soon retunied to their old home formed a (community essentially dillcrt-iit from those- which under similar circuiiislances hnvo r(d)uilt otlu-r cit.i(-K, in vurions parts of the world. It we could learn tho trnth in regard to tlu- bravi- few who firsi ventur(-il back and stood by tlu- aslu-s of tlu- t(-mph-, and the much largi-r compmiy of tlioS(- who w(*i'e striving to n-slori- the city, a doy-(-n years aft.i-r it had b(-(-n dc-stroye-d,"" wo should 2.1 It is likely tlmt those "dllUglltrrs" iiro iimrnly nn iiiiiiroviiiiinnl. on tlin lUllTlltive of Kings, whore Iho king's «oii» iini moni ioiinil (25:7), but inithing ia siiiil ahoiil the rest of his householil. In goiioral, tho hnignr iiiiil much iiiiinicirciiinBtuiltiiil iimniiiil, cniitiiined in lliimii chnptor.i of Jm-oniiiih makos tlin liniirimHion of being nmroly tho niHiill. of oniliroiilnry on tho story told in 1 1 Kings. ¦Ji Kosti'rs, W'inh-rliirslcUunn, hna ulriwidy iirKiied very foiT-ibly Unit /.innlilMibol nnd Josliiin cannot bn rngardoil, acconliiig to the nvidnnr.o (•iiiiliiiiniil in llnggni nnil /jorhnriiih, us having oomo to .loriisiiloin from tliu exiles in Hali.vlonlii. Snn also linlow, rngiirding this point. 26AiM'iirdiiig to thoChroiiichir, in II Chi :t: 111, /.nrubbiibol was tlin son of I'li.laiiili, and nnphow ofSlinilll.ini. 2«VViMhinot know, III lie sure, just how mnch ot JornHnloin was ihiHl.royod. II Kings 25:9 says that the liiibylonianH liiirnod "Iho tiiiii|iln, tho luiliicn, and ovnry greiil. Iioiiso" (the wonls obTCTT' T^ bO nSI must of coiii-.Mo Im regiiriliiil as u later iiihlil.ion to tlvo The Exile and the Restoration 301 certainly find that the very best elements of the people — the nobility, the clergy, the men of influence and enterprise — were well represented.^' For the period lying between the great catastrophe of 586 and the reign of Darius Hystaspis we are absolutely reduced to infer ence and conjecture, so far as the fortunes of Jerusalem are con cerned. No historical source now known gives us any direct testimony. New light has recently been thrown on the history of one of the Jewish colonies in Egypt, in this period. The papyrus document found at Elephantine tells of the great temple of Yahw6 there, built by the Jews, and declares that it was in existence when Cambyses entered the land. It was built, then, as early as the reign of Cyrus, perhaps even considerably earlier. In regard to the relation of this temple to the one in Jerusalem more will be said in the sequel. V. THE RENEWAL OE THE WORSHIP 1. Untrustworthy Narratives The story of the restoration of the Jewish worship in Jerusa lem by Cyrus, at the beginning of his reign, makes its first appear ance in the Aramaic tale which the Chronicler has incorporated. This tale, as I have shown, dates from the third century b. c^, and is just as untrustworthy as the Chronicler's own "history," because composed with the same purpose. But the reason why the story of the restoration by Cyrus cannot be used in a serious history of Israel is not simply that it is found in an untrustworthy source, but also this, that its artificial origin is obvious. The strong feeling against Babylon was a matter of course, and the overthrow of the Babylonian power was hoped for in Jerusalem. Cyrus was presumably hailed as the rod of chastisement in the hand of Yahw6. The Jews had a feeling of gratitude toward him, and whether he ever did anything for them or not, the next generation could not have failed to have a tradition to the effect that when he overthrew text; there is no other way of explaining the verse). A large part of the city, then, was still habitable. The wall was of course broken down (vs. 10), but not wholly, see especially Neh. 4:1. 2' Nehemiah, in 1:2 f., speaks of "those Jews who had escaped, who were left of the captivity," living both in Jerusalem and elsewhere "in the province." As he makes no mention here or elsewhere of any Jews who had returned from Babylonia to Judea, it is fair to infer thatthe " priests, nobles, and rulers " (2:16, 4:8, 5:7, etc.) whom he found in the city were of the fugitives who escaped the army of Nebuchadrezzar. 302 Ezra Studies the Babylonian enemies of Israel, he also gave the Jews some positive tokens of his favor. ^* "Cyrus the deliverer," then, was an idea which in any case considerably antedated the third cen tury B. c. To this was soon added the notion of the "seventy years" intervening between the destruction and the deliverance, as already explained. Thus Jer. 25:12: "When seventy years are completed, I will visit upon the king of Babylon, and upon that nation, their iniquity," etc. And 29:10, addressing the Jews of the Babylonian deportation:^" "When seventy years are com pleted for Babylon, I will .... bring you back to this place." And finally, by the transposition of the reigns of Cyrus and Darius I, the promised deliverance after seventy years had been made to coincide with the beginning of the Persian rule.'" Thus it is plain that the materials for the story^' told by the Chronicler and his Aramaic-writing predecessor were ready to hand, by the time when they wrote; and this fact adds its own great weight to the evidence — already sufiiciently strong — against the trustworthiness of the stories regarding the favor shown to the Jews by Cyrus. The same thing is true of the similar account of aid given by Darius. It has the same notorious origin, and the manner of its genesis is equally obvious. Given the story of Cyrus, and the Jewish chronology current in the third century b. o., with its "Darius the Mede;" and the narrative contained in Ezra, chaps. 4-6, follows almost as a matter of course. If Cyrus aided the Jews, and even expressly ordered the building of the temple, how 28 We flnd such "traditions," for example, even in the case of Alexander the Great, though thi! Jews had no such feeling of enmity toward the Persians, whose yoke he removed from them. 29 Bear in mind, however, that elsewhere in this chapter the very same thing is sa d to the other " exiles " belonging to all parts of the great Dispersion among the nations. See above. 30This transposition certainly involved no change in the current idea of the deliverance from the Babylonian yoke. "Darius the Mode" became lord of the Babylonian empire, according to this belated theory, but not as a hero known to popular legend. It is obvious that the Jews can havo heard no tales in regard to his chastisement of Babylon, or his campaigns through Mesopotamia and Asia Minor. He simply " received tho kingd. ,m " (Dan. 6:1). The " Medes and P.-r.'.ians," acting in concert, overthrew the power ot Belshazzar, and the Median king was tho first to enjoy the fruit, but not because of his prowess in this conquest. But with Cyrus it was very different. Even Herodotus believed that he took Babylon by force, and the fame of his campaigns was spread (with the inevitable exag geration) throughout Western Asia. It was to him, always, that the " everlasting devasta tion" (Obiy nTala125, J^. 25:12) ot tlie conquered land was attributed. So whether Darius the Mede was put betore Cyrus the Persian, or not, it was only the latter whom the Jews looked upon as their deliverer. See also p. 1.55, note 25. 31 But -not the sior-y itself. Not even in the pseudo-Jeremiah is there any place for such a picture of events as that whioh is given us by these two writers of the third century. The Exile and the Restoration 303 did it happen that it was neither built, nor in process of building, at the beginning of the reign of Darius Nothus, something like a hundred years later f^'' Why did Zerubbabel and Jeshua "arise and begin to build" at this late date? The natural answer was, that they had been hindered, by hostile intervention, from beginning any sooner. Jewish pride and religious devotion could not have conceived any other solution than this. The renewed effort to build, described by the two prophets, must have been the result of a royal edict, putting an end to the forcible restraint previously in effect ever since the early part of the reign of Cyrus. Add the ever-present hostility of the Samaritans and their allies, and the whole of the material of the Aramaic narrative is provided. 2. Conditions at the Time of Haggai and Zechariah The two brief prophecies of Haggai and Zechariah give us a glimpse of conditions in Jerusalem at the beginning of the reign of Darius I Hystaspis,"^ and they are our first and only sure source of information between Nebuchadrezzar and Nehemiah. The details which we are able to glean from these two prophecies suffice to give us a tolerably clear general idea of the conditions in which they originated. One thing becomes more and more certain, as we read; the community in which Haggai and Zecha riah lived was not made up chiefiy, or even largely, of recently returned exiles; no such event as the Chronicler's "restoration" can have taken place only seventeen years before the two preachers began the work of which we have the record. The time is one of quiet and expectancy (Zech. 1: 11). For a long time past, the people have been struggling along, making some gain in a material way, but with their expectation as the chosen people sadly disappointed. Quite a measure of pros perity has been reached, both in the city itself and in the land round about — though in some things, notably agriculture, their success has not been such as they could have expected; but their religious prosperity has for many years seemed to be almost at a standstill. In 1: 12 the angel of Yahw6 is represented as saying: " How long, O Yahw6 of Hosts, wilt thou not have mercy on 32 According to their Chronology, the "Darius " named in Haggai and Zechariah could only be Darius II. They may not, indred, have believed the interval to be as long as oue hundred years. 33 Hag. 2:3 (notice especially the position of the word nfiy) seems to make this certain. 304 Ezra Studies Jerusalem and the cities of Judea, at which thou hast been angry these seventy years?" That is, for seventy years past Yahw6 has not shown his people any special favor. Imagine the prophet saying this to a community which only a few years before (accord ing to the story told by the school to which the Chronicler belonged) had seen Yahwfe "turn its captivity" in a manner worthy to be put beside the deliverance from Egypt! But though Israel has long seemed to be forsaken by its God, yet now a change for the better is promised, and the people themselves, by their own altered conduct, are to bring it about. The question of their prosperity (the prophet would say) rests with them alone. Yahw6 is always ready, but waits for his people to do their duty. They have long been selfish and negligent; the temple should have been restored some time ago, but they have been willing to postpone the building. When they have done this one significant thing, Yahw6 will bless them spiritually, and will also increase their material welfare (Hag. 2: 15-19; cf. Zech. 8: 9-12). The extent to which a considerable part of the population had been dependent on the yield of the soil is indicated by Haggai espe cially. It is also plain, from his words, that they have been engaged in agriculture for a long time. During the more recent past, things have not gone so well as during the more remote past within their memory. They had been wont to expect so and so much from the wine vat and the oil press, but in the recent years only a part of the customary amount has been yielded (Hag. 2: 15 f.)."* It is important to observe, however, that in spite of this long-continued shortage of their crops, the people whom Haggai addresses are living in such comfortable condition that the prophet can reproach them, collectively, with their short sighted selfishness in enjoying a measure of luxury in their own fine houses, while the worship of Yahw6 is carried on in a miser ably inadequate structure (1:4). All this appears to describe the circumstances of a people occupying a land where both they and their fathers before them have been dwelling in security and reaping some good fruit of their labor. Two generations had elapsed since the devastation of the province, and within that time much that was lost had been regained. The great evil, overshadowing all others, is the same one which is lamented by 3* In vs. 16, instead of DnT^rTQ we must of course read, with the Greek, DEl'^'in ''IQ or 'n ma, " how did it fare with youi " (the same idiom which is found in Ruth's : 16 and elsewhere). The Exile and the Restoration 305 all the other later prophets, the Dispersion. Israel has been scattered to the four winds (Zech. 2:10, 12). The comforting promise is, that at last the exiles shall be brought back "from the east and from the west" (8:7). Yahw6 will punish all the nations which are holding and oppressing his children (1 : 15, 2:12 f.). Those to whom Zechariah and Haggai are speaking have been observing the public worship of Yahw6 in the time-honored manner, with the usual sacrifices and cremonies, but in a n^TT ri'2 whose appearance and equipment have become a shame to them. A temporary structure had been erected some time ago, on the sacred site, and the majority of the people are still willing to continue in the use of this makeshift. Haggai says: "Is it a time for you to dwell in your ceiled houses, while this house lieth in ruins?" (1:4). The same thing is implied in 1:2, which quotes the people as saying: "The time for building the house of Yahw6 is not yet come." It is hardly necessary to insist that no one would have said this at a time when no house of Yahwd was in existence, while the people were comfortably housed. What they were saying was: "The building which we have will do for some time longer." Certain passages in Zechariah indicate the same thing. In 3:8 it is implied that Jeshua and the priests "who dwell in his presence" are, and have been, in the regular service of the sanctuary. So also in 7:2 f., where men have been sent from a distance to inquire at the temple, of "the priests who belong to the house of Yahw6 of Hosts." And finally, in Hag. 2:10-14, dated in the second year of Darius, there is express mention of the temple sacrifices ("that which they offer there;" vs. 14). The cult had of course not ceased in Jerusalem during all these years since the city had been re- peopled. VI. general summary, 586 to 444 b.c. We may therefore sketch the course of events from the date of the destruction of the temple until that of its restoration in the time of Darius I as follows. Soon after the army of Nebuchad rezzar had withdrawn from Judea, companies of returning fugi tives began to show themselves in the neighborhood of Jerusalem. In a short time, the work of bringing back life to the ruined city had begun. The many whose homes had not been destroyed 306 Ezra Studies returned to them, while others strove to rebuild and repair. One of the first undertakings, of course, after something like a settled life had been reached, was the erection of a temporary house for the worship of Yahw6, on some part of the site of Solomon's temple. The condition of the people, it is needless to say, was most wretched at first, and improved but slowly. Agriculture was the main stay in the beginning, and by slow degrees a few industries and a struggling trade grew up. One generation passed away, and their children carried on the work. The city grew constantly larger. By the beginning of the Persian period, fifty years after the great calamity, something like prosperity had been restored; and a little later, in the time of Darius Hystaspis, the people were rebuked and incited by Haggai, Zechariah, and per haps other prophets, until they undertook to build a worthy temple in place of the temporary house. The high priest at that time was Jeshua, the son of Jozadak, while the recognized leader of the people was Zerubbabel the son of Shealtiel.^'* The work of building the new temple began in the second year of Darius, on the twenty-fourth day of the sixth month (Hag. 1:14 f., cf. Zech. 1:1, 15 ff. ), that is, in the year 520 b. o. How soon it was finished, we do not know; the date given in Ezr. 6:15 seems 35 It is not likely that Zerubbabel was governor of Judea. The prophery of Zechariah says nothing which would indicate this, while in every one of the four passages in Haggai where he is given the title (1:1, 14; 2:2, 21) comparison of the Greek shows that the words rmn*' nHS are a later interpolation in the Hebrew. The title would never have been thus deliberately removed from any text, Hebrew or Greek; but the interpolation of it would be most natural in consequence of Ezr. 6 : 7. The Aramic nar rator concluded, from the prominence given to Zerubbabel in both Haggai and Zechariah, that he was the governor; but if this had really been the case, some passage in the one or the other of the two prophets would have been likely to give him his title. The "Sheshbazzar" ot the Aramaic story, often identiHed with Zerubbabel, may also be considered here. He was created by the narrator in order to show that Cyrus was in earnest with his decree, and that a beginning was really made. (The name was as easily found as was Daniel's Persian name, " Belteshazzar.") According to the .Vramaic narra tive, he preceded Zerubbabel by at least two generations. He "laid the foundation " ot t h e first buildingon the site of the temple ruin; Zerubbabel "laid the foundation " of the permanent structure which was built in the days ot Haggai and Zechariah. The Chronicler, on the other hand, made Zerubbabel's career begin in the time ot Cj rus (see pp. 59 f.) ! He theretore either believed the interval before Darius II to be shorter than it actu ally was, or else supposed his heroes to have lived to a great age. As for Sheshbazzar, he apparently preferred to ignore him, after the first necessary mention (necessary because of Ezr. 5 : 14-16). It is not likely that he identified him with Zerubbabel, for if he had done so he would have been pretty sure to make this important fact plain. As has already been observed, when he has occasion to mention the governor of Judea in the time ot the return under Cyrus, he does not commit himself, but simply employs the title "Tirshatha" (see above, p. 263). It was inevitable that some at a later date should make the identification of Sheshbazzar with Zerubbabel; in the first place, because both are styled " governor " of Judea in the Aramaic narrative, and then are made contemporaries by the Chronicler; and in the second place, benause of the comparison of Ezr. 5:16 with Zech. 4:9. Hence the identification, by means of an explanatory interpolation, in I Esdr. 6:18. ' The Exile and the Restoration 307 to be the Chronicler's (see p. 158), and we have every reason to hold aloof from such information of his furnishing."" At the time when the temple was rebuilt, the wall of the city was still lying in ruins (Zech. 2:5-9). About seventy years later, in "the reign of Artaxerxes I (probably; see below), a singular turn of events brought about the restoring of this wall. The story of Nehemiah is a strange one; but in such an environ ment as the Persian court truth is often stranger than fiction. We have at present no reason to reject the account given us by the book of Nehemiah in its original form." VII. THE religious DEVELOPMENT During all this time, while Israel's external prosperity was being restored, a most significant development of the spiritual life of the people was taking place; a development which had begun long ago, and which was destined to bring forth a most important part of the nation's religious contribution to the world. The Jews of the second temple were, indeed, a community broken in spirit ; but we may easily exaggerate their discouragement, and overestimate the suddenness of the change in their circumstances. Nothing could have been more . bitter, it is true, than the expe rience of the years 597-586; but the humiliation had begun before Nebuchadrezzar's conquest. The people had already been made to see how the "chosen of Yahw6" was doomed to be a vassal, and a mere cipher among the nations. Their life under Persian governors was not very different from what it had been under their own powerless and tributary kings, in the later years of the monarchy. And this, as has already been remarked, was only a part, and the less important part, of their humiliation. The dis integration and scattering of Israel meant more than any merely temporary reverses. The loss of four or five thousand of their best men by deportation was not a vital matter, nor was the burn ing of the temple. Vacant places can be filled in a surprisingly short time, and temples can be rebuilt. But the breaking up of the nation which bore the name of Abraham, and 36 The latest date given in Zechariah is the fourth year of Darius (7:1), and it does not appear that the temple was finished at that time, so far as we can judge from the lack of any mention of the fact in Zech. 7 and 8. 37 That is, substantially, chaps. 1, 2, and 4-6. Some bits in these chapters also, however, are from the hand of the Chronicler, and the task of recognizing them is one of some impor tance and considerable difliculty. I am far from supposing that I have said the last word in my own suggestions regarding the analysis (above, pp. 225 f.). 308 Ezra Studies had received the splendid promises, all of which seemed to attach themselves to the holy land, apparently meant the loss of the whole inheritance. How could this people come into possession of the blessings assured by Yahw6, when it was divided among the four corners of the earfh ? How could it ever be the leader among the nations, when the part of it which still held to the soil of Palestine was, and to all appearance must ever be, in this present age, a mere "remnant?" As has already been said, the vast majority of the "exiles" did not return to the home-land. Why should they have done so, even if it had been possible? They knew that they could make better use of their powers, and better serve the world, in the countries to which they had emigrated. Their attitude was a matter of course, from the beginning; but what was more important was the attitude of those who remained behind in Palestine, the custo dians of the temple, the true nucleus of Israel, those who wrote and preserved for us the later books of the Old Testament. At first, no doubt, they used every effort to stem the tide, and even may have denounced their brethren as deserters; but the utter fruitlessness of all such efforts must soon have become apparent. As reasonable beings, they could only understand and acquiesce; and as interpreters of the faith of the fathers it was theirs to see whatever light they could in the rapidly darkening outlook. We see, in the documents which have survived, no censure of the emigrating Hebrews, only lament for the bitter necessity which drove them out of the land."' They are always spoken of as "exiles" and as "driven out," banished and held captive against their will. And this, under the circumstances, was the only just view. Those who went forth were indeed loyal Jews, and they did go under a real compulsion. Those who remained at home would never have counseled the wanderers to return ; in fact, they could hardly even have wished them to do so. To what should they return? The land was not able to support them all, nor was it desirable that the Jews who could do something better should be limited to tilling the poor soil and carrying on the few and inferior native industries. As for the multitude of abandoned farms, they were speedily taken up by men of another sort. In 38 The writer ot Jer. 43 looked upon the fugitives to Egypt after the assassination of Gedaliah as deserving especial rebuke tor their desertion ot the land at this (in his view) most critical juncture. But this is an altogether unique case, having uothing to do with any censure of the emigrants in general. The Exile and the Restoration 309 this particular, also, the history of that movement in Judea has been repeated many times in our own day; foreigners of a lower grade of civilization, men of few needs and great physical endur ance, are always ready to step in where the way is thus opened. First Edomites, pressing in from the south, then other peoples from across the Jordan and from Philistia, and afterward swarms of Nabatean peasants, entered the districts which the Jews were vacating.^" This, again, was a change which was most painful to the devout Hebrews. The God of their fathers had promised the land to them ; why then were foreigners permitted to pour in and occupy it? The words of Joel 4:175 are typical: "Then Jeru salem shall be holy, and strangers shall not pass through it any longer." But it was as obvious that the newcomers came to stay as it was that the outgoing population went to return no more. And, looking calmly at the conditions which had come to be, it is not likely that any wise patriot in Jerusalem would have checked the one movement or the other, if he could have done so. These were only single incidents in the great plan of Yahw6, who was chastising his people and yet preparing some good thing for them in the end. Thus the Second Isaiah (42:22 ff.):*° "'But' (yecry) 'itis a people robbed and plundered, all of them trapped in holes and hidden away in dungeons; they 'have become a prey, with none to rescue ; a spoil, with none to say : Restore it ! ' O that some one of you would hear this ; would hearken, and make it known for the future. Who gave Jacob to the spoiler, and Israel to those who plundered? Was it not Yahw6, against whom they had sinned, in whose ways they would not walk, and whose law they would not hear?" And again, in 48:9 ff. : "For my name's sake I will hold back mine anger; for the sake of my praise I will spare thee, not cutting thc^ off. Lo I have purified thee for myself like silver, I have tried thee in the furnace of affiiction. For my sake, mine own sake, I will do it; for how shall my name be profaned? and my glory I give to no other." If this was the prevailing spirit among the religious leaders in Jerusalem — and it assuredly was, as we know from the Old Testament and especially from the Psalms — then it must, a fortiori, have held sway everywhere in the Diaspora. No Jew in 39 Aside from this more gradual immigration, there seems also to have been a sudden pouring in of Edomites just after Nebuchadrezzar's campaign. *OAs wiU appear, I have made one or two slight and obvious emendations in the text of the passages quoted. 310 Ezra Studies Babylonia, for instance, could ever have thought of advising the colonists there to return; nor would any member of the presum ably still larger gola in Egypt have counseled his countrymen to make their way back to Palestine, though they might perhaps have found it possible to do so. All the faithful, of whatever land, dreamed of a great home-gathering, but not iu this present age; the day when the exiles were to return to Zion was the day when all evils, for man or beast, should be forever done away (Is. 11:1-16, 60:16-2'2, 65:25, 66:19 f.). But obviously no one could hasten the glorious time by bringing the lion straw to eat, or by forcing the leopard and the lamb to lie down together. The Jews have always been a people of strong faith, but they had before them at this time such a problem in theodicy as no other people has ever faced. It was quite impossible that they — the best part of them — should doubt that they had really been called and led by Yahwfe, and that he was able to carry out his purpose for them. The question was simply, tohat his plan was, and how he intended to work it out. The new and very disheart ening conditions made necessary a new development of Jewish theology. How well fitted were they for such a task? If the modern view of the external history of the Jewish res toration is thoroughly mistaken, that of the religious tone and temper of the people of the second temple is even more so. Had the men of Jerusalem in the Persian period really been such as our text-books represent them, — dispirited particularists ; un friendly to everything lying outside the pale of Jewish orthodoxy, and with ceremonial piety as their ideal of personal righteousness; with their faces toward the past rather than the future, and unable to take a broad view of their situation, — then they would, indeed, have been incapable of any adequate solution of their great prob lem. But they were by no means such men as this; the current characterization of them is a false one. Here, also, the source of the error lies in a wrong estimate of the writings of the Chronicler; the mistake of supposing him to be a trustworthy historian, instead of an apologist setting forth a one-sided theory. At the time when the great battle of modern Biblical scholarship was fought and won, establishing the fact that the "priestly" strata. of the early Hebrew narratives, and of the legislation of the Pentateuch, were of relatively late date, pretty nearly the whole body of what was recognized as "post-exilic" literature (aside from the poetical The Exile and the Restoration 311 books) consisted of writings which either were written or redacted by professional priests, or else came from the Chronicler's hand (viz. Chronicles, Ezra, and all the narrow-Judaistic part of Nehemiah). Hence these were of necessity regarded as the char acteristic products of the period, and upon them was built, forth with, a theory of the "post-exilic religion" of Israel. At the present day, we know that the most of the prophetical literature contained in our Old Testament, including the deepest and most wide-hearted expressions of the Hebrew faith which exist, dates from the Persian period. This was the golden age of Hebrew prophecy, as it was also that of Hebrew poetry. Nevertheless the outgrown and unjust theory persists, and the dogma of "the peo ple given over to formalism" is one which no one questions. The faithful community in Jerusalem and Judea is pictured as a "church" of a narrow and ever narrowing type, busied with small and uninspiring matters. Even the noblest utterances of psalm ist and "post-exilic" prophet are given a petty interpretation; so that instead of reaching the utmost horizon, as by their own word ing they seem to do, they are made to cover only the smallest and unworthiest patch of human life and interest.'" If there were any facts tending to show that the Jews of Per sian Palestine were really such a caricature of religious humanity as the "post-exilic" theory depicts them, then the honest investi gator would of necessity drop all considerations of probability and lay hold of these facts, endeavoring to interpret them fairly. But there is, on the contrary, nothing tending to show that Israelite theology in the Persian period (speaking of the people in gen eral) was more legalistic than it had been in the latter days of the kingdom; while there is very much to show that the general tendency had been, and was, toward liberality. This was, in a certain sense, a "legal" period. The ritual law had been steadily growing until it had reached an unwieldy size, and this was the time for its codification and revision, especially now that rival sanctuaries, with rival rituals, were becoming dangerous. The priests were more thoroughly organized than they had been before, and were developing a considerable literary activity, as we have *l For full illustration of this statement I would refer to any recent commentary on the Psalms, especially that of Duhm; or to the modern interpretation of any "post-exilic" prophet, especially the Second Isaiah. Professor Cheyne's little volume, " Jewish Beligious Life after the Exile," sets forth quite fully, and with great learning and skill, the modern view; but such a religious society as he depicts could probably neverhave existed any where, and certainly never did exist in Palestine. 312 Ezra Studies abundant evidence. But these few priests were not the whole people, and the fact that they had written or edited a considerable number of the documents which (thanks to their care) have sur vived to the present day can give us no clue whatever as to the religious tendencies of the laity. It was, in fact, a time of many widely differing tendencies. The new and strange conditions, at home and abroad, the rapid infiux of foreign ideas, and the break ing up of the nation, all brought forth extreme types of religion, conservative on the one hand and radical on the other. There were scribes who were absorbed, as never before, in legal minu tiae; there were narrow-hearted nationalists; and there were apologists who, like the Chronicler, were compelled by their own argument to present a distorted view, whether they would have preferred it or not. On the other hand, there was a strong tendency toward ultra-liberalism, going to the extent of giving up all that was characteristic of the Jewish faith. There were even many, from the better part of the people, who adopted outright the crude and often very revolting forms of the pagan worship which they saw in the land; as is made evident by the tremen dous invectives in Is. 57 and 65 f., as well as by the milder yet severely ironical polemic against idolatry in chaps. 40 f., 44, etc. But the great majority of the people stood at neither the one nor the other extreme. So far as "the law" was concerned, the hints given us by the Chronicler indicate that the rank and file of the people paid not over much attention to it. Judging from the prophecy of Malachi — who was himself one of the most liberal- minded of men — even the priests were prone to neglect it. From passage after passage in the prophets and the Psalter we can see that the true sentiment of the people was against ritualism ; that their religious life was based on the spirit rather than the letter, and could combine the new with the old. There were multitudes (judging from the literature which we have) whose view was broad and sane, and who were in all respects worthy heirs of the teaching of their leaders and representatives, the prophets. Israel's inheritance from the past was a great one, not a small one, and it was a possession of which they could and did make use. It has been customary to think of the prophets of the Old Testament as isolated phenomena ; men speaking words put into their mouth by the Holy Spirit, but heeded by none of those who heard (Matt. 13:14f.). On the contrary, these great teachers were all The Exile and the Restoration 313 men of the people. By seeing what they were, we can see what the people were. Every prophet of Israel was the true product, and the best product, of his own day, the leader into a better time which his voice and his example helped to bring near, but which could not come without the added help of the many. When Amos, Hosea, Isaiah, Jeremiah, and all their fellows, had passed away, their work was not merely stored up in written books and laid away at one side, as it were; it was living in the hearts of the people. As I have already said, above, the religious life of Jerusalem and Judea went on from the period of the monarchy over into that of the foreign dominion in one continuous line of development. The Jews of the Persian and Greek periods did work out a solution worthy of their past and adequate to the demand of the time. It is impossible to go into details here, only the bare facts can be stated. They accepted the distress and the humiliation as deserved punishment. No people possessed of a genuine religious spirit, and accustomed to the idea of a special divine guidance, could fail to look for a benevolent purpose in all this discipline; and the Jews made their way, by degrees, into a new and wider view of their life as the chosen few, all the way from Abraham on to the coming age. They saw, and welcomed, what was good in the religious beliefs of the Gentiles. The sacrifices and rites which had been ordained for the Hebrews were the best for them, beyond question, but were not necessary for other peoples. Even for the Israelites themselves, the ceremonial law was not the essential thing ; psalmist after psalmist and prophet after prophet express clearly their conviction — which was certainly the convic tion of the people as a whole — that what Yahwfe wishes of his children is not burnt offering and punctilious observance, but clean hands and a pure heart, loyal affection to the God who had chosen them, and good will toward all their brethren." As for the Gentiles, the prophet Malachi says in the most <2 We find in tho Psalter, as nowhere else, the true religion ot the Jews of the second temple. However strongly subjective many of these poems are, they certainly speak, in the main, for the multitude, the common people who made up the great majority of Israel. Hence the deepest significance ot tho fact that we flnd, all through the collection, a faith which is warm-hearted and catholic, and founded on practical common sense. It is true that one and another of these poets speak despairingly of "the righteous /ew," but such phrases are only the expressions of a mood. In the great majority ot the pnems the con sciousness ot the multitude, not indeed righteous, but at least hungering for righteous ness, is evident enough. But so long as the Psalms are understood as the utterances of men akin in spirit to the leaders of the congregation pictured by the Chronicler, just so long will they continue to be cruelly misinterpreted. 314 Ezra Studies unequivocal terms (1:11), that all the worship which they offer sincerely is accepted by Yahw6 as offered to him. In the afflict tion of the Dispersion, these teachers of the restored community were quick to see a new opportunity. Israel was destined to bring the nations to Yahw6. Even in its suffering, to the point of death, it was fulfilling the divine mission, hastening tq comple tion its work as the faithful "Servant." Indeed, these very suf ferings were by God's plan made to be an atonement for the sin of the Gentiles. It is worthy of especial notice, as a striking illustration of the range of this religious sympathy, as wide as the human race, how the Second Isaiah, in picturing the return of the "exiles" from all parts of the earth, represents the Gentiles as coming home with them. See Is. 49:8ff., where the com parison of the parallel passage, 42:6 f., shows conclusively that those who are "bound" and "in darkness" are not only Jews but also Gentiles, to whom Israel has been appointed to give light (D'^lri "ll5 According to Antt. xi, 8, 7, the death of Jaddua occured after that of Alexander. «From the fact that Josephus. in telling this story, calls Bagohi the "officer ot Arta xerxes II" (see above), it seems likely that he or his source supposed this event to have taken place in his reign, rather than in that ot Darius II. But it may mean only, that Bagohi (and Johanan as well) were ordinarily associated with Artaxerxes II in tho popular tradition. The whole occurence is more easily imagined as taking place near the begin ning of Johanan's term of olRce, aud while he and his brother were still comparatively young, than at any later time. The Exile and the Restoration 321 of "Johanan" ("jDnr), and this fact has led some to conjecture that the Chronicler's list orginally contained seven names instead of six. But the conjecture has very little probability, for the following reasons. (1) The number of the names in vss. 10 f., from Eliashib to Jaddua, agrees with the number in vs. 22. (2) The transcriber's error, 'p'jT for -janT, is an extremely easy one. (3) Josephus makes no mention of a "Jonathan." Itis evident from this that his text of Nehemiah had the reading "Johanan" in 12:11; if the Chronicler's genealogical table in the form which he had before him had contained both names, he certainly would have included both in his history, since the Chronicler is his only source of information as to the predecessors of Jaddua and Johanan. Of the preceding names in the list, between Johanan and Jeshua, we are at present unable to make any use, since we have no means of knowing whether the Chronicler invented them or not.*' X. the rivalry with the SAMARITANS One very important phase of the struggle for the religious restoration of Jerusalem is still to be considered, namely, the con test for the recognition of Zerubbabel's temple as the one true Palestinian home of the worship of Yahwfe. It was not simply a question of the persistence of other Hebrew sanctuaries. More than one sacred place continued to be greatly revered, without ever becoming dangerous as a rival, so far as we know. For example, on at least two occasions when Jerusalem was stricken, the ancient shrine of Mizpah was the rallying place of the people. It was here that Gedaliah made his headquarters after the burn ing of the temple (II Kings 25:23), and thither also the Jews under Judas Maccabseus turned in the time of their greatest dis tress (I Mace. 3:46-51). But we have no reason to suppose that at any time after the building of Solomon's temple Mizpah « It is clear, at any rate, that he was mistaken as to the time at which Johanan became high priest. What he knew with certainty was, that Jaddua was high priest at the time when Alexander the Great appeared; and he believed that Johanan was the next before Jaddua. In Ezra 10:6 (cf. Neh. 12:23) Johanan is evidently thought ot as a youth in the seventh year ol Artaxerxes Mnemon; and in Neh. 13:28, dated in the thirty- second year of the same king, the grandfather, Eliashib (or is it the father, Joiada?) is still hoUing the office of higli priest. But we know from the Elephantine papyrus that Johanan was holding the office in the latter part of the reign of Darius II, at least eight years before the beginning of the reign of Artaxerxes II. Considering the fact that nearly seventy years intervened between the accession of Artaxerxes Mnemon and tbat of Darius Codomannus, itis easy to see how the Chronicler was thus misled. 322 Ezra Studies really threatened to become the principal Israelite seat of worship. There was only one city in all the land which could and did dis pute Jerusalem's claim to the religious primacy, and that city was Shechem. As one of the most sacred localities in the territory of Israel, Shechem had been important from the beginning, and its importance had grown. After the fall of the Southern Kingdom, its prestige was much increased. By degrees, the rivalry of the shrine on Mount Gerizim became really serious, and many passages in the Old Testament show that the Jews were becoming concerned to maintain the supremacy of their own temple, and to combat the pretensions of their dangerous competitors. At last, the rivalry broke out into open confiict, ending in a struggle for life or death which exercised a profound influence on the Judean community, especially in and after the Greek period. If the chief of those forces which principally shaped the Jewish theology of the Restoration was the Dispersion, that one which contributed most to the development of the tendencies which produced the narrower and more exclusive type of "Judaism" — a type which plays only a very small part in the Old Testament, be it noted — was the long contest with the Samaritans. Shechem had been the chief center of the patriarchal history. In the very beginning, a sacred tree had stood there, with an altar and a masseba. Abraham himself founded the sanctuary, on the day when he flrst received the promise of the land for his children (Gen. 12:6 f.). There Jacob had worshiped, and the well which he had dug was near by. Joshua, after flnishing his work, made his solemn covenant with the people at this shrine (Josh. 24:1, 25 f.), and it was in this vicinity that the bones of Joseph were buried (Josh. 24:32). In the book of Deuteronomy, in more than one place. Mount Gerizim is given especial honor in connection with the proclaiming of the law. The "blessing" is put on Mount Gerizim, and the "curse" on Mount Ebal (Deut. 11:29).** 48 This fact is immediately obscured by vs. 30, which contains a later addition by means of which the two mountains are transferred to the Jordanvalley. The verse reads at present : "Are they not on the other side of the Jordan, beyond the western road, in tho land of the Canaanite who dwells in the Arabah, opposite Gilgal, beside the terebinths of Moreh?" What Ebal and Gerizim havo to do with " the Arabah," aud how they could be described as "opposite Gilgal " (some twenty-eight miles SSW. of Shechem !), are questions which have puzzled the commentators; Driver, Comm,, pp. 133 f., for instance, confesses his inability to answer them. But the fact is, these added phrases were intended to discomfit the Samaritans by showing that another pair of mountains, bearing the same names but lying much nearer to the old crossing of the Jordan, were originally intended. This altera tion, made b e t o r e the time of the schism, was the forerunner of the later deliberate change ot "Gerizim" to "Ebal," in the Jewish text of Deut. 27:4 and Josh. 8:30 (see below). So The Exile and the Restoration 323 By the command of Yahw6 through Moses, the people build an altar on the sacred mountain, Gerizim, as soon as they have crossed the Jordan into the promised land (Deut. 27:1-8; Josh. 8 : 30 ff . ) ." No wonder that the Samaritans kept reiterating : Our fathers, the patriarchs, worshiped in this mountain! All through the time of the Hebrew kingdoms, this ancient sanctuary was especially revered. It is probably an exaggeration, however, when in Luther-Meyer {Israeliten und Nachbarstdmme, p. 559) it is spoken of as the main religious rallying-point for all northern Israel. Shechem did not have any great central im portance, as a seat of worship, in the days of the monarchy. If this had indeed been the fact, some deflnite indication of it would pretty certainly have been preserved. The Northern Kingdom had other religious centers which came into political prominence, and Shechem was temporarily eclipsed — for reasons which we do not happen to know. It is not likely that the existing conditions were altered in any important respect by the deportation of some of the people of the district of Samaria, and the corresponding importation of foreigners, under the Assyrian rule. The members of this religious community were, and continued to be, mainly Hebrews (on this subject see further below). The significant change began when the temple in Jerusalem was destroyed, and the kingdom of the house of David was brought to an end. Then, as was natural, the sanctuary on Mount Gerizim gained greatly in importance; all the more so when Samaria became the first main seat of government in Palestine under the Persian rule. Doubt less not a few of the fugitives from Jerusalem, including some of the clergy, betook themselves at once to Shechem after the great calamity of the year 586; see the remarks already made, pp. 209, 212, 235 f. We are not to suppose that even now, after the rapid rise in the influence of the northern shrine, the worship there was performed on any such scale, or with any such central significance, as that in Jerusalem had been and soon came to be again. The prescriptions of the book of Deuteronomy were Eduard Meyer, Die Israeliten und ihre Nachbarstdmme, pp. 543 if. I am glad to be able now to refer to these illuminating investigations of Luther-Meyer, instead ot needing to elaborate my own arguments and conclusions on these points. *9The Samaritan Pentateuch has the original reading in Deut.; "Gerizim," not "Ebal." In the Jewish text, the name "Ebal "was substituted in both Deut. 27:4 and Josh. 8 : 30, after the secession of the Samaritans. See Meyer, op. cit., pp. 545 f . This is a conclusion of whose correctness I have long been assured. It has been generally customary to accuse the Samaritans, rather than the Jews, ot having made the alteration. See further below. 324 Ezra Studies known and respected (as the event proved) throughout the length and breadth of Palestine, wherever any close attention was paid to the Mosaic ritual. The sanctuary at Shechem had its own priesthood, of course, but not a high priest and the machinery of a great central shrine. These, as the narratives show, came later, in consequence of the break with Jerusalem. After the Judeans had rebuilt their temple, the Samaritan church continued to flourish, and still as an institution of secondary rank, not claim ing to be the chief religious rallying-point of Israel. In all probability there was no sharp rivalry, such as to produce bad feeling between the two communities in general, until shortly be fore the hijra of Manasseh and his adherents. Even in the year 408 B. c, the time of the petition from Elephantine, the churches of Jerusalem and Shechem seem to have been still "on speaking terms." The Jews of Egypt plainly knew of no open hostility existing between them. The Shechemites, on their part, had no reason to be hostile. Beyond any doubt, they still acknowledged the primacy of the temple on Mount Moriah, though giving the regulations of Deuteronomy an interpretation conformed to their own interests. Hence they accepted the Jerusalem redaction of the Pentateuch. They wished, of course, to have their own sanc tuary recognized and authorized, and so long as the Judean temple had the upper hand, especially in the matter of the literary tradition, the safest course was to hold to it. The Jews, on the contrary, had nothing to gain,, and much to lose, from any express recognition of the shrine on Gerizim. The time came, moreover, when they saw that the prestige of their own temple was really in jeopardy ; and from that time on they became, at least in secret, more and more jealous of their northern brethren. There was a deflnite time when the already strained relations between the church in Jerusalem and that in Shechem suffered an important change, covert opposition being replaced by open and bitter hostility. Something happened which was at once so dis agreeable and so decisive in its character that it led to an imme diate declaration of independence on the part of the Samaritans. Thenceforward they were done with all allegiance to the temple in Judea, or even with recognition of it on equal terms. " Ye say that in Jerusalem is the place where men ought to worship," but "our fathers worshiped in this mountain" (John 4:20). The Jews responded even more bitterly, and war to the The Exile and the Restoration 325 knife was declared. This was the real "Samaritan schism," and it proved to be an important turning-point in the history of Palestine. We know at least the nature of the event which caused this sudden and violent outburst of feeling and the separation which was incurable from the first. A young Jew of the family of the high priest married the daughter of the governor of Samaria, in spite of the opposition of his own family and of his most zealous Jewish associates. In consequence, he was disowned and driven from Jerusalem ; while on the other hand his father- in-law made him high priest of the Samaritan chnrch, and built a fine temple for the sanctuary on Mount Gerizim. Either the young renegade had been especially popular in Jerusalem, or else there was already considerable disaffection in the ranks of the Jewish clergy ; at any rate, a goodly number of priests and Levites deserted at once, following their leader to the northern sanctu ary.^" By ill fortune, the sources of our knowledge of these events are both meager and ambiguous. It is universally supposed that our two chief sources contradict each other, but this I believe to be a mistake. Our best modern scholars are in doubt as to the name of the young fugitive and that of his father the high priest. The one thing of which all are sure is the name of the Samaritan governor, Sanaballat, in whose time the event occurred. But even here there is a very disturbing element of uncertainty, inas much as two dates, about one hundred years apart, seem to be given for his time. The earlier date is the one now accepted by the great majority of scholars; the other is the one which I myself believe to be correct. I think it can be shown that, so far as the Samaritan schism is concerned, the later date is the only one which can seriously be taken into account. Direct information from contemporary sources as to the feeling in Jerusalem against these adversaries, in the early time, is very scarce indeed. At the beginning of the Christian era, the Jews had "no dealings with the Samaritans" (John. 4:9). It was a somewhat unusual thing for a Jew passing through the Samaritan country to exchange a word with one of its inhabitants, even where it was merely a case of a man chatting with a woman. Bar Sira, writing about 180 B.C., mentions the hated rivals with 60 Josephus, Antt. xi, 8, 6, calls Shechem a city "inhabited by apostates of the Jewish nation." Probably its inhabitants had always been prevailingly Hebrew. 326 Ezra Studies a contemptuous phrase (50:26): "that foolish people that dwells in Shechem," and declares that they are "no nation" (vs. 25). '' Evidently in his day, also, the two Hebrew churches, worshipers of Yahw6 and custodians of the Mosaic law, were deadly enemies and had been such for a long time past. The Chronicler, writing some fifty years earlier than Bar Sira, made it his great work to establish the sole legitimacy of the institutions of Jerusa lem in opposition to the Samaritan claims. From the manner in which he proceeds, and the scale on which his work is planned, it is evident that the contest in his day was bitter, and, what is more, that the Jews were in some real danger of being outstripped. He attacks the Shechemites both openly, making them out to be a heterogeneous mob of heathen (see for example pp. 169, 173, 182 f.), and also indirectly, through the medium of the Northern Kingdom (pp. 235 ff. ), or the opponents of Nehemiah (p. 249), or in still other ways. The Aramaic story which the Chronicler incorporated in Ezra, chaps. 4-6, contained a slightly earlier polemic of a similar character. The author of this popular narrative probably lived and wrote not far from 250 B. c. The malicious alteration of "Gerizim" to "Ebal," in the Jerusalem text of Deut. 27:4 and Josh. 8:30, has already been mentioned. The date of this change can only be conjectured, but it was prob ably very soon after the secession of the Samaritans.'^ Earlier still came the tendentious alteration of Deut. 11:30, already described. One of the late narratives of II Kings is an interesting docu ment of the rivalry between the two Hebrew communities, those of Judea and Samaria, before the time of the schism. It is the story of the origin of the Samaritan people, composed with an animus which is constantly in evidence. We know from the Assyrian records that in the year 722 Sargon deported 27,290 of the people of the Northern Kingdom of Israel, filling their place with colonists from his eastern domain. The number of those deported is not unusually large, and was certainly only a small fraction of the Hebrew population of the region. But the Jewish " It is plain that Bar Sira is here quoting Deut. 32 : 21 : "I will move them to jealousy with those who are no nation; I will provoke them to anger with a foolish people." The fact may be without significance, but the possibility can hardly be denied that in the oiiginal passage also, (of course written prior to the hijra of Manasseh) the Samaritans were intended. 62 The alteration may possibly have been made before the schism, in which case we should have to suppose that the Samaritans knew the original reading and restored it. There is little to choose between the two hypotheses. The Exile and the Restoration 327 narrator makes characteristic use of the opportunity. According to II Kings 17:6, 18, 23; 18:9-12, all the Israelites of the Northern Kingdom were carried away at this time to Assyria and Media! "Yahw6 was very angry with Israel, and removed them out of his sight; there was none left but the tribe of Judah only" (17:18). And having thus removed the last remnant of the chosen people from the region of Samaria, the narrator proceeds, in 17:24-41, to describe the religious condition of the heathen rabble with which the land had been filled by the Assyrian king. They professed to worship Yahw6 (the same contemptuous taunt which is made in Ezr. 4:2), but came to this mind only under compulsion (17:25 f.), and really continued to worship their own idols, the gods of Cutha, Hamath, Babylon, and all the other places from which they had come (cf. Ezr. 4:9 f., etc.). "They made unto themselves ofthe lowest of them priests of the high places, who sacrificed for them in the houses of the high places" (17:32); compare the railing accusation made in II Chron. 13:9 ff. (above, p. 235). And in summing up it is said, in vs. 41: "So these nations 'feared Yahwfe,' but served their own graven images, they and their children and their children's children; as did their fathers, so do they unto this day." To regard all this as a true record of events is not possible for any one who knows both the history of the past and the way in which the historical books of the Old Testament were written. As a matter of fact, it is not all accepted as trustworthy by modern scholars. Cowley, Jewish Encyclopedia, article "Samaritans," p. 670, says: "It is not to be supposed, however, that the country was in any sense depopulated by these means," that is, by Sargon's deportation of Israelites. H. P. Smith, Old Testament History, p. 230, also denies that the story of the deportation and subsequent importation, as given in II Kings, is historically true ; and says in regard to the description of the religion of the Samaritans (p. 231, note 2) : "The account in II Kings 17:24-34 seems to be composite A later hand emphasizes the syn- cretistic character of the new religion, doubtless with a strong prejudice against the Samaritans." Several scholars have, indeed, pronounced the passage composite, but this is a mistake caused by misapprehension of its character. Both 17:1-23 and 18:9-12 are inseparable from 17:24-41, and if there is evidence of the work of more than one hand here, I, at least, am unable to find it. 3'28 Ezra Studies It is obviously the whole account, and not merely a fragment of it, that is written with the "strong prejudice against the Samaritans." The story of the deportation of all the Israelites is told for the sake of populating the land completely with heathen, and this for the express purpose of showing the origin of the cult on Mount Gerizim. The passage 17:24-41 has not the least historical value. ^^ But the testimony of the account as an anti-Samaritan polemic is significant and valuable. The date of it is unfortunately only a matter of conjecture; I have no doubt, however, that it was prior to the secession, most likely in the fifth century B.C. It is obviously of one piece with the polemic of the Chronicler and his Aramaic-writing colleague, and provided the former, at least, with an important part of his material. It may be added, finally, that there is no evidence of hostility to this Shechemite shrine as far back as the time of the composition of Deuteronomy. In that book, the sanctuary on Mount Gerizim is mentioned with great respect ; there is nothing to show that it was obnoxious to the people of Jerusalem." Returning to the question of the date of the Samaritan secession: there are four documents which need especially to be taken into account, in determining when the decisive event took place. These are: (1) the full and circumstantial account given by Josephus, Antt. xi, 7, 2; 8, 2-7; (2) the two verses, Neh. 13:28 f. ; (3) the letter from Elephantine, published by Sachau; (4) the Samaritan Pentateuch. Let us begin with the last-named of these documents. When the Samaritans declared war on the Jews, and set up their own temple in open rivalry to the one in £»' It is plain that this is exactly the sort ot story which the Samaritans on their partcoukl. and unrloubiedly did, mako up in regard to the Jews. They would have been a people thick-witted above all otliers if thoy had tailed to seize the obvious oppor tunity. They could claim (ami the Jews' own scriptures would support the claim!) that Jerusalem and Judea were entirely depopulated by the armies ot Nebuchadrezzar; tliat Elomites, A nrnonites, Philistines, Nabateans, and many otliers, had poured in (the Jews admitted this) ; that there was very littlo genuine Hebrew blood in Judea at the end of the Persian period; and that tho cult of tho temple at Jerusalem dnring much ot the time of the Restoration w.is really a syncretism of various South Palestinian and North Arabian form? of idolatry. Sach a representation would have had in it just about as mucli truth as the malicious account in II King'.; 17. TheJewscouldmakenosatisfactory reply to it, however; and it was for this very reason that the Chronicler compo-ed his "history." After he had finished his work, tlin renown of Jerusalem and the disgrace of Shechem wjre both assured. It is a pity that we h ive only the Jewish stories of the Samaritans, and not also the Samaritan stories ot the Jews. £>4Some recent commentators on tho book of Isaiah have tound in chaps. 65 and 66, as well as elsewhere in the latter part of tho book, a polemic against the Samaritans. The lofty utterance in 66:1, for instance, is said to be an allusion to tho temple on Mount Gerizim 1 The Exile and the Restoration 329 Jerusalem, they organized their expanded cultus on the basis of the Pentateuch. This revered book, which contained the story of the Hebrew origins, their laws, mostly ancient, and the elaborate prescriptions regarding the cultus, largely more recent, was the property of the whole Hebrew people. The entire com pilation, from Genesis to Deuteronomy, would of necessity be the text-book of any Hebrew sanctuary. The Shechemites of course regarded (and had long regarded) their own right to the Penta teuch as entirely equal to that of the Judean community; though they had admitted, as we have seen, that to the temple in Jerusalem belonged the special prerogatives and the unique ritual of the center of worship. When, therefore, we see that the Pentateuch of the Samaritans is identical with that of the Jews, we know with certainty that the history ofthe growth of these five books of Moses was closed before the time of the schism. No alteration or addition made by the Jews in Jerusalem after the separation would ever have been accepted by the priests at Shechem. They would, on the contrary, at once have raised the cry that their rivals were falsifying the records; and with the documents in their hands they conld have proved their point. The Jews were estopped from any further redaction of the book, because their opponents also had it. Nevertheless, they did make the single verbal change from "Gerizim" to "Ebal," as we have seen. The Samaritans made no alterations at all. The weight of past history and present circumstances was against them, from the start, and their only hope of ultimate triumph lay in refraining from all tampering with the sacred documents. At the time, then, when the independent Samaritan church was founded, the Pentateuch was regarded, both in Jerusalem and in Shechem, as complete and unalterable. No other hypothesis is tenable. This conclusion argues strongly for the later of the two proposed dates of the schism. The ablest commentators on the Pentateuch, at the present day, would probably all agree that the final redaction of the Hebrew text could hardly have taken place so long as two centuries before the date of the first Greek translation. As has already been remarked, the petition from the Jewish church at Elephantine, so far as its mention of the household of Sanaballat as possible helpers can be used as an argument, would seem to show that the breach between Jews and Samaritans took 330 Ezra Studies place later than 408 B.C. On the other hand, it has been univer sally taken for granted that Samaria never had but one gov ernor named Sanaballat; and since he is represented in the papyrus letter as a man far advanced in years, the conclusion is drawn that the hijra had taken place some time before this, and that Neh. 13: 28 f. is a description of the event. But on the con trary, "Sanaballat" may well have been a common name, and even a good Hebrew name, as I have already argued. The Ele phantine letter may even be said to make it probable that another Sanaballat held the post of governor in Samaria in the next following generation. The duties of the office were already, in 408, exercised by the two sons of Sanaballat, named Delaiah and Shelemiah, and upon his death one of them, presumably the older of the two, was evidently expected to succeed him. According to the well known law of Semitic nomenclature, the oldest grand son of Sanaballat, if there should be one, was pretty certain to bear the name of his grandfather. That is, if the Persians per mitted the office to remain in this family — and judging from the papyrus letter they did so permit — all probability pointed to a Sanaballat II as the successor to it at the time when Delaiah and Shelemiah should be old men; that is, at just about the time when Darius III ascended the throne. It seems to me that the evidence before us is sufficient to show that this probability was actually realized. At the time when Alexander the Great arrived in Syria, the governor of Samaria was, in fact, Sanaballat II. As for Neh. 13:28f., the interpretation which I have already given (pp. 235, 249) seems to me, for every reason, the only possible one. The incident narrated by the Chronicler (for it is certainly he, and not Nehemiah, who is the narrator) cannot be the same as the one described by Josephus in the passage presently to be discussed. If the great patriot Nehemiah had been con nected in tradition — and written tradition! — with the Samaritan secession; if Neh. 13:28 had been supposed to contain mention of the renegade Manasseh; could these facts ever have been forgotten in Jerusalem ? Most certainly not. Moreover, accord ing to Josephus this renegade was the brother of the high priest Jaddua; according to the Chronicler, the man whom Nehemiah "chased" away was "one of the sons of Joiada, the son of Eliashib the high priest." The name of the high priest in whose time this momentous event occurred could never have been lost to sight. The Exile and the Restoration 331 The two stories are not the same; bnt on the other hand, they are certainly not independent of each other; the Chronicler obviously wished to show how Nehemiah had dealt with a case precisely like that of Manasseh. The story of the schism told by Josephus, finally, runs as follows {Antt. xi, 7, 2; S, 2): Sanaballat, the governor of Samaria under Darius III, gave his daughter Nicaso (Nt/cao-w) in marriage to Manasseh, the brother of the high priest Jaddua. The elders of Jerusalem were greatly incensed, and insisted that the obnoxious marriage should be annulled. Sanaballat therefore promised the youth that if he would leave Jerusalem and take up his abode in Shechem, he would build a fine temple at the shrine on Mount Gerizim, and secure his formal appointment as high ])riest there. Manasseh consented, and a great uproar was the result. Moreover, iu his fiight to Shechem he was accompanied by a large number of priests, Levites, and others. The story is embellished in Josephus' usual mamier, and contains some details which are not to be taken seriously, such as the incidents in which Alexander the Great figures, the statement that Sanaballat was "a Cuthean" (the favorite gentilic to be applied to the Samaritans) "sent into the land by Darius," and so on. But in its main state ments regarding the schism it is self-consistent and plausible in every way. No information which we possess contradicts it; on the contrary, all that we know tends to support it.'° One important argument in its favor can now be drawn from the story of Johanan, Jeshua, and the Persian governor Bagoas, which just precedes that of Manasseh. In both of these stories Josephus cuts quite loose from the Chronicler, and uses a source, or sources, concern ing which we have had no knowledge until very recently. Now, however, as I have shown, the former of the narratives has been iJUTlie authenticity of tho traditicm ot the namo " Manasseh " seems to be supported indirectly in the following ways: (1) byihe suspended nun in the name HlC'^'Q iu Judges 18:30, by means of which the priests of the idoUtruus Danite sanctuary are made to bo descended not from " Moses," but from " Manasseh." This was the story ot the origin ot a chief shrine of tho Northern Kingdom, and the two-edged witticism wliicli introducrd the name of this most notorious of all priests wasa cliaracteristic one. It has been customary to refer the allusion to King lUanasseh, but this is much less likely. Professor Moore, who iu his Judges, pp. 101 S., adopted the traditional explanation, tells me tliat ho has since come to believe that tho Samaritan renegade is the one intended. (2) By tho name of thu hnioiue's husband in the book of Judith. The only imaginable reason for the choice of the hated namo " Manas.-'eh" hero is tho wish of the uood-humored narrator to show his own appre ciation of the fact that the scene ot his stirring tale is laid, after all, in the city of thi> Jews' arch-enemies. For tho demonstration ot tho identity ot Shechem with " Kethulia," I may refer to my article " The Site ot Bethulia " in the Journal of tlu- American Oriental Society, Vol. XX (1899), pp. 160-72. 332 Ezra Studies shown to be true history; and a strong presumption is thus created in favor of the other, which was presumably derived from the same source. The secession of the Samaritans, then, occurred shortly before the end of the Persian rule. For some time before the actual breach, the relation between the two communities had been grow ing more and more strained. It was either during this period, just before the outbreak, or (more probably) on the occasion of the secession, that the Shechemites took the Pentateuch into their own hands once for all, and would hear no more of Judean redactions and improvements. It had been, for generations past, the book of the great sanctuary in Jerusalem, expanded and revised there by the Jewish priests, and it had not occurred to the Samaritans to interfere with this development. They had taken what was set before them, no matter how unpalatable it often was. But now that they saw themselves compelled to cut loose, the book was henceforth their own property, to be preserved just as it stoojl. The character of the worship on Mount Gerizim, we may suppose, was not materially changed by the secession. It had always followed the Mosaic law, with its own interpretations and peculiarities of ritual usage, which were now also retained.™ Even more in the temple at Jerusalem, as a matter of course, the effect of the schism was to stiffen every characteristic feature of the praxis. There was a natural tendency in the ranks of the clergy to put increasing emphasis on certain local forms of organi zation, and to develop them further. The Chronicler's writings furnish good illustration of this tendency. But both in Judea and in Samaria the principal effect of the separation lay deeper than the ritual. The whole Jewish people, from the beginning of the Greek period onward, saw itself confronted, close at hand, with a bitter enemy of its own flesh and blood, worshiping the God of the Patriarchs and holding to the law of Moses. Here was a breaking up of the family of Abraham much more distressing in its character than the dispersion into foreign lands. And this was at just the time when some of the best Gentile faiths and philosophies were beginning to have a sympa thetic hearing in Judea, and when the truth which the Second 5" Cowley, in the Jewish Encyclopedia, article " Samaritans," p. 671, expresses the usual erroneous view wlien he says: " Manasseh's advent no doubt had the effect ot fixing the Israelitish character of the Samaritan religion." But the worsliip had been "Israelitish" all the time ; it was just this which had led to all the bad feeling. The Exile and the Restoration 333 Isaiah, Malachi, and others had taught, that Yahw6 has his chil dren in every race and nation, was becoming still better under stood. The contrast was one which could not fail to have its lasting effect on the thought and life of the people. In particular, the growth of sharply defined and opposed sects, such as we see in process of formation in the Maccabean period and later, was greatly promoted. The Psalms can teach us, however, that a large body of the Jews held steadily to the direct and well-considered middle course, continuing in a wholly worthy manner the religious tradi tion which they had received from the great teachers of the Persian period. Such as these could think and speak of the Samaritans without malice, even if not without dislike. The good-humored raconteur who tells the tale of Judith not only makes no hostile allusion to the Shechemites of his own day, but even chooses for the pseudonym of their city a name of singularly good omen — if the usually accepted lnlbi5 tT2 , "House of God," is the original of BervXova (or whatever the Greek transcription may at first have been). As has already been observed, the choice of "Manasseh" for the name of Judith's husband is certainly harmless enough, calculated to provoke a smile rather than any thing else, under the circumstances. The more carefully the story is read, the more the reader must marvel at the forbearance of its author, in this regard. There was repeated opportunity to hint at the ill omen of Shechem, or to point a moral at the expense of the Samaritans; but nothing of the sort is done, not even in speaking of the counsel taken by the citizens, or in the episode of Achior the Ammonite. Both the city itself and all connected with it are mentioned invariably with respect. And yet the disguise of the pseudonym must have been transparent, and intended to be so." XI. the DATE OE NEHEMIAH Since the sources for the- history of the Jewish Restoration, from its beginning to its end, are so very meager, it is doubly unfortunate that the date of so important a part of it as the work of Nehemiah should remain uncertain. In my Composition of Ezra-Nehemiah, I was obliged to give up the attempt to answer the question whether the "Artaxerxes" of Nehemiah was Longi manus or Mnemon. The only evidence which we then possessed, in favor of either one of these two monarchs, was the late Jewish 67 On the identity of " Bethulia " with Shechem, see the reference given above, p. 331. 334 Ezra Studies tradition (Aramaic story; the Chronicler) which made him out to be Artaxerxes II. But (as I then remarked) this tradition deserves to be given hardly any weight. It is quite possible, for instance, that a true report may long have been current that the Artaxerxes of Nehemiah was the one who immediately followed the Darius of Haggai and Zechariah. In that case, the same blunder (of about a century) would have been made in the date of the building of the wall as in that of the building of the temple. Such a "tradition" as this is of no practical value until it is con firmed from some other source.^* Moreover, it is very likely that the choice of Artaxerxes Mnemon as the benefactor of Nehemiah was simply a necessary result of the current version of the pre ceding history. With Darius I transposed to his place before Cyrus, and the theory established that the Jews were hindered by force from building the temple, until the time of Darius II, it was quite impossible to date the story of Nehemiah in the time of Artaxerxes I. The Elephantine letter now gives information on one important point touching the matter, but leaves us still unable to decide finally between the two dates. We know from the letter that in 408 B.C. the governor of Samaria was named Sanaballat, and that he was then an aged man. On the supposition that Nehemiah flourished under Artaxerxes I, this Sanaballat would have been in the prime of life at the date (444 B.C.) when the wall was built. On the other hand, we know from the account in Josephus, already discussed, that Sanaballat II was governor of Samaria at about 335 B.C., and that he was at that time at least in middle life, and possibly far advanced in years. If Nehemiah is supposed to have lived in the time of Artaxerxes II, this Sanaballat could have been a man of perhaps twenty-flve years of age at the date (384 B. c. ) when the wall, on that supposition, would have been built. The book of Nehemiah does not, indeed, refer to its Sanaballat as the governor of Samaria; but this fact is of little importance, since "the Horonite" is doubtless employed as a mere 58 From the lamentation of Nehemiah and his friends (l:3f.) over the destruction ot the city wall, some have wished to derive an argument as to the date, assuming that a recent destruction is referred to. But the argument is unwarranted. The expressions used in the verse are stock phrases ; compare for example I Mace. 3 : 45, II Mace. 1 : 8. The destruction referred to is that by Nebuchadrezzar. Nehemiah may really have heard ot it then for the first time, but whether he did or not makes no difi'erenee. It is possible to draw howls of woe from a Shi'ite Muslim, at the present day, by recounting to him the death ot Hasan and Husain ; not, however, because he has not heard the story already, nor because their martyr dom is a recent event. The Exile and the Restoration 335 term of contempt.^" We may regard it as fairly certain, in any case, that Nehemiah's Sanaballat was in fact the governor of Samaria.™ The date of the building of the city wall, however, must still be considered an open question. It has seemed to me much more likely that the earlier date is the correct one; because the age which it gives to Sanaballat seems better suited to the story, and because of the intrinsic probability that the repairing of the wall would not have been neglected until so late a date as the reign of Artaxerxes II. Hence I have once or twice (pp. 140, 226) spoken of the "probability" that Nehemiah lived in the time of Artaxerxes Longimanus. It must be admitted, however, that these reasons are not conclusive. It is still open to anyone who prefers the later date to hold to it until we have received further light. 69 It is quite fruitless to attempt to decide whether the term refers to Beth Horon or to Horonaim ; the one is as likely as the other. 60 The allusion to "The army of Samaria" in Neh. 3: 34, however, I believe to be a contribution by the Chronicler ; see above, pp. 225 f . The hostility ot Sanaballat, like that of his allies Tobiah and GuSmu, was political, and a matter ot course under the circum stances. Just such jealous protest is sure to be made even in modern times, wherever the building of new fortifications disturbs the existing balance of power. CHRONOLOGICAL TABLE (It must be borne in mind that many of the dates are only approximate.) B. c. 722 End of the Northern Kingdom of Israel. 701 Sennacherib crushes the revolt in Palestine, including Judah. His successors hold the kings of Judah in vassalage, and make expeditions through the land. c. 650 Psametik I opens Egypt to foreigners. 624 Scythian invasion. 608 Death of Josiah at Megiddo. Jehoahaz carried to Egypt. 605-602 Campaigns of Nebuchadrezzar extending into Palestine. 597 Siege of Jerusalem, plundering of the temple, and first deporta tion to Babylonia. c. 590 Jewish mercenaries in the army of Psametik II (? possibly the army of Psametik I, fifty years earlier). 586 Partial destruction of Jerusalem, burning of the temple, and second deportation. Murder of Gedaliah at Mizpah. Plight of many into the neighboring regions, and to Egypt. Repeopling and rebuilding of Jerusalem, beginmng soon after the destruction. Erection of a temporary house of worship. 555 Nabunaid's accession. 539 Cyrus invades Babylonia. Building of Jewish temple at Elephantine; certainly before the time of Cambyses, and perhaps before the time of Cyrus. 525 Cambyses invades Egypt. 521 Darius I Hystaspis (" Darius the Mede"). 520 Haggai and Zechariah. Rebuilding of the temple, under the leadership of Zerubbabel. Jeshua, son of Jehozadak, high priest. 485 Xerxes. 464 Artaxerxes I Longimanus. 444 Nehemiah rebuilds the wall of Jerusalem. Chaps. 1, 2, 4-6 of the book of Nehemiah. Sanaballat I ("the Horonite") governor of Samaria. 424 Darius II Nothus. c. 415 Johanan high priest in Jerusalem. Bagohi Persian governor of Judea. Murder of Jeshua in the temple. 411 Destruction of the temple at Elephantine. 408 The Jews of Elephantine petition successfully for the rebuilding of their temple. Delaiah and Shelemiah, the sons of Sanaballat I, in charge of affairs at Samaria. 337 338 Ezra Studies . c. 407 Revolt of Egypt from Persia. 404 Artaxerxes II Mnemon. 359 Artaxerxes HI Ochus. 336 Darius III Codomannus. Jaddua high priest in Jerusalem. Sanaballat II governor of Samaria. Expulsion of Manasseh, and Samaritan secession; building of the temple on Mount Gerizim. Pentateuch in its final form. 332 Palestine under Macedonian rule. 323 Ptolemy I Soter. c. 320 Pseudo-Jeremiah. 312 Seleucus I Nicator. 301 Palestine securely under Egyptian rule. c. 300 Story of the Three Youths, written in Aramaic. 285 Ptolemy II Philadelphus. 281-261 Antiochus I Soter. Translation of the Pentateuch into Greek, at Alexandria. 0. 260 Aramaic Story of Samaritan intrigues (Ezr. 4: 8— 6: 14). c. 250 The Chronicler. 248 Antiochus II Theos marries Berenice, daughter of Ptolemy Phila delphus (Dan: 2:43, 11:6). 246-221 Ptolemy III Euergetes. Seleucid kingdom (the "clay," Dan. 2:41-43) broken up, and nearly annihilated by the Egyptian power (the "iron"). c. 235 Dan. 1-6, written in Aramaic. 223-187 Antiochus III the Great. c. 220 The book of Ezekiel. c. 200 Story of the Three Youths interpolated in the Chronicler's his- 198 Palestine securely under Seleucid I'ule. [tory of Israel. c. 180 Wisdom of Bar Sira. 175-164 Antiochus IV Epiphanes. 168 Desecration of the temple and cessation of the worship. 165 Restoration of the worship, iby Judas Maccabaeus and his fol lowers. Old Greek translation of Chron.-Ezr.-Neh. 164 Dan. 7-12 (the author wrote chap. 7 in Aramaic and chaps. 8-12 in Hebrew, and translated chap. 1 into Hebrew, in order to unite the two parts inseparably). 161 Building of Jewish temple at Leontopolis in Egypt. c. 150 Old Greek translation of Daniel. 143 Letter from the Jews of Jerusalem and Judea to their brethren in Egypt (II Mace. 1:1-9). 132 Antiochus VII Sidetes besieges Jerusalem and breaks down the wall of the city. 128 Death of Antiochus VII in Parthia (II Mace. 1 : 12-16). 124 Second letter from the Jews of Judea to those in Egypt (II Mace 1:10—2:18). ADDENDA AND CORRIGENDA P. 30. — Through an almost unaccountable slip, made in preparino- the article on First Esdras for the AJSL., the date of the transposition of Neh. 7:73- 10:40 and that of the old Greek translation of the Chronicler's work were put in the last century instead of the second century b.c, both in the account of the origin of the two recensions and in the table at the end of the article (p. 35 in this book). In the latter place, the correction was made when the sheets for the "Studies" were printed off; but in the other passages the blunder was overlooked, and still stands. Accordingly, on p. 30, line 9 from the bottom, instead of "¦at some time in the last century" read ''early in the second century." The same correction must be made on p. 34, line 5 from the bottom. P. 54.— The original reading of the Greek text of I Esdr. 4:29 was certainly this: iBempow a^Tos 'A-Trd/jL-rjv, k. t. i. "I myself saw Apama," etc. By an easy mistake in copying, the second word became airhv, whereupon Kal had to be inserted (see the present text of the verse on p. 43). P. 55. — It is possible that the only change required in I Esdr. 4:36 at the point where I have conjectured a lacuna (see note d) is a change in the p u n c t u a t i o n . If we put a period after the word " tremble," and suppose the next clause, " And with her is no error at all," to introduce a new phase of the subject, the result is fairly satisfactory. It seems to me more probable, however, that something has been accidentally omitted. P. 80, bottom. — It is very much to be desired that some one who has the time and equipment for the task should undertake to identify the portions of Theodotion's translation which can still be recognized in the remaining historical books of the Old Testament. In some books two distinct Greek versions have been preserved, one of which can probably be shown to be Theodotion's. In other cases it is certainly true either that the sole extant version is his, or else that his work has been used to supplement and correct the older translation. Transliterations which from their number and character can only be his are very noticeable in the books of Kings, for instance. One reason why Theodotionic readings have been adopted in certain passages, here and there throughout the Old Testament, supplanting the readings of an older text, is this, that the abbreviations for "Septuagint" (O) and " Theodotion " (®) used in the critical apparatus of the early Jewish and Christian scholars and editors were constantly confused. P. 99, middle. — The tradition which attests that this i^B Syr. Eth. text in the Chronicles-Ezra books is that of Origen's Hexapla is in fact about as strong as any such tradition could possibly be. The comparison (which I have not made) of the quotations from these books in Origen's writings could not add anything essential to the evidence. If the text 339 340 Ezra Studies should be found to agree, the corroboration would be interesting; but if on the contrary another type of text should be found to have been employed, the fact could have no weight whatever against the tradition. Hundreds of learned writers on Biblical subjects in the United States and England, for instance, habitually quote the King James version of the Bible — that being the version with which they and their readers have long been familiar; while if they had to select a standard English text for a polyglot edition of the Bible, they would one and all employ the Revised Version. The parallel is a good one. P. 107, line 12 from the bottom. — It should be added, that the Hebrew reading which lay before Aquila was of course ItJ'JSt) not t3"l7JK •. P. 131, note V. — It is a somewhat similar use of the "3 of accompani ment " when in the old Aramaic inscriptions found at Zenjirli the vassal king tells how he has been wont to run "beside the chariot-wheel" (bjbjH) of his lord and master. Perhaps the Chronicler's favorite and peculiar DV3 DV j etc., may also be included here. P. 191, middle. — Another example of the survival of this Aramaic ending in a modern Syrian place-name is afforded by the name of the village 'Areya in the Lebanon, originally S*'"i3', "laurel trees." T — T P. 191, note t. — I now see that this very same idiom is found in the Aramaic papyri edited by Sayce and Cowley; thus, "one named Petosiris," n^Ti: "'TDItOB , K 4, 8f.; "Teba by name," tl'JTT! S3n, K 12f. P. 195, bottom. — Compare especially Ezr. 7:8 and 10:9, where the idiom is also used. INDICES I. MATTERS AND NAMES Abbreviations in Greek MSS., 138, 279, 339 "Accents" of the massoretic Hebrew misused as punctuation marks, 118 f. Alexander the Great, 40 f ., 45, 320, 330 f . Andreas, C. F., 175, 177 Apama, daughter ol Artabazos III, 40 fl., 339 Apama, daughter of Spitamenes, 40 fl. AquUa, 66 f., 72, 107, 274, 340 Arabic ver.sion of Chron.-Ezr.-Neh., 64 Aramaic Story in Ezra, period to which it belongs, 152, 161 fl. — its tendency, 154 fl., 287, 306, 326 Aramaic passages joined to Hebrew, 29 1., 58, 157 fl., 178 fl., 225 Aristeas, letter of, 151, 153 f., 295 Artaxerxes I, 38 f., 48, 59, 140, 149, 1701., 307, 384 t. Artaxerxes II, 38, 140, 170, 205, 239, 249, 260, 263, 318, 320(., 334f. Artaxerxes III, 38, 318 Assuan, Aramaic papyri from, 161 fl., 170 fl., 181, 198 f., 340 Astyages, 38, 287 Babylonia, Jews in, 286 fl., 290 fl., 295 f., 310, 317 Bagohi (Bagoi, Bagoas, Bagoses), 175, 318 fl., 331 — as a Jewish name, 167 Ball, C. J., 21, 43, 192 Batten, L. W., 62, 123 Belshazzar, 38, 302 Benzinger, J., 62, 73 f., 109, 111, 215, 218, 220, 238, 242 Berlmer, A., 292 Bernheim, E., 264 Bertholdt, L., 14 Bertholet, A., 15, 21, 38, 62, lllf., 123 f., 135, 142, 144, 184, 191, 193, 246, 250, 253, 262, 277 f. "Bethulia" a pseudonym of Shechem, 331, 333 Bod-Ashtart inscription, 176 Budde, K., 144 Canon of sacred scripture, among the Jews, 33 fl. — in the Syriac church, 2, 33 Catena, Syriac, containing extracts frora I Esdras and Nehemiah, 4 fl. Cheyne, T. K., 311 Chronicler, the, his literary habits, 20, 27 fl., 115, 120fl., 133, 135, 157 fl., 213 fl., 230 fl., 270, 282 168 f., 173, 238, 262 f.. Chronicler, the, his characteristics as editor, 213 fl. — apologetic aim, 135, 155 fl., 178, 184, 208 fl., 227, 230 f., 287, 297 f., 326, 332 — didactic purpose, 237, 251 — interest in the Levitical institutions, 210f., 234fl., 280 — lists of names, 211 f., 214, 222, 239, 2491., 265 — imaginary sources, 141, 223, 227 fl., 242 fl. — fondness for the number t-welve, 222, 246 f., 250, 260, 266 fl., 274, 276, 280, 284 Chronicles, Books of, manner of separation from Ezr.-Neh., 116 f. Cobb, W. H., 288 Codex A Alexandrinus, 79, 91 fl., 105, 169, 172, 279 Codex X Sinaiticus, 91 fl. Codex B Vaticanus, 54, 62, 65, 75, 80, 90, 92 fl., 136, 169, 178 f., 279 Codex N Basiliano-Vaticanus, 91 fl., 136, 169 Coele-Syria, 83 Cornill, C. H., 14, 16, 21, 47, 97, 142, 144, 292 Cowley, A. E. Cyaxares, 38, Cyprian, 111 Cyrus, 38, 48, 57, 59 1., 117, 135 f., 140 fl., 155, 288, 301 fl. — edict in favor of the Jews, 144, 239 Dalman, G., 51 Daniel, Book of, dependent ou I Esdras, 48 — chaps. 1-6 older than chaps. 7-12, 48 f., 162 — "official documents" in the book, 146 — character of its Aramaic, 161 fl. — old Greek version, made by translator ot I Esdras, 84 t.; Its date, 85 — Theodotion's translation, 68, 78, 85 Darius I Hystaspis ("the Mede"), 38, 48, 59, 135 f., 140 f., 200, 287, 302 f., 334 Darius II, 38 f., 59 f., 140, 171, 239, 303, 320 t., 334 Darius III, 40 t., 45, 249, 320 f., 330 t. "Darius" substituted for "Cyrus," 57 fl., 125, 130 Delaiah, son ot Sanaballat I, 250, 330 Deportation of Israelites by Sargon, 326 f. DUlmann, A., 100 Dispersion, the Jewish, 153, 167, 286, 289, 293 fl. , 163 fl.,167, 172, 327, 332 287 341 342 Ezra Studies Documents, official, in Ezra, 140 fl. — use of such for hterary embellishment, 145 fl., 206, 231 f., 245 Driver, S. E., vii, 14, 112, 126, 142, 197, 230, 241, 322 Duhm, B., 286, 311 "Ebal" substituted by the Jews for the original reading "Gerizim," 322 1 , 329 Edomites, 27, 57, 309, 328 Egypt, Jews in, 294 f., 298, 301, 310 Egyptian recension of Greek text ot Chron.- Ezr.-Neh., 43, 75 f., 80, 86 f., 101 fl., 127, 136fl., 179 Elephantine, Jewish Aramaic letters from, 140, 163 f., 167, 175 f., 190, 250, 316 fl., 324, 328 fl. — the Jewish temple there, 176, 301, 315 fl. EUashib the high priest, 264. 318 f., 321, 330 Encyclopaedia BibUca, 95, 203 Esarhaddon, 169 Esdras I, in the Hexapla, 2 fl. — theories of the book held by scholars, 12 fl. — supposed not to be extant in Greek, 13 — general neglect ol it, 14 f., 20, 65 — its true nature, 18 fl., 82 fl. — contains a portion ot the Chronicler's narrative lost from canonical OT, 25 fl., 115 fl. — origin as a separate "book," 30 fl., 81, 269 "Esdras II," in the Hexapla, 3 Eshmimazar inscription, 185 Esther, Book of, dependent on I Esdras, 47 f. — "ofEicial documents" incorporated, 146 Ethiopic version ot I Esdras, 100 t., 137, 169, 178 f. Eupolemus, 49, 82 f. Ewald, H., 14, 16 Excision, by editors, of a troublesome passage, 33 f., 88, 115, 184 "Exile," the term ordinarily appUed in the OT to the Jewish Dispersion, 286, 289, 296 f., 302, 305, 308 fl., 314 — exiles in Babylonia, 285 fl., 290 fl., 301 fl. Ezekiel, Book of, a pseudepigraphon, 288 Ezra the scribe-potentate, 49, 140, 199, 205, 237, 243, 247, 259 f., 263, 284 — "Memoh-s" of, 156, 175, 238 fl. — story without historical value, 242 fl., 262 fl. Ezra-Nehemiah, Book of, manner ot its separation trom Chronicles, 116 f. — misplacement of certain chapters ot the Ezra narrative, 253 fl. — date of this transposition, 258 — chronology ot the Ezra story, 260 Field, F., 66 fl., 80 1. First person, used in Imitating personal narratives and documents, 146, 244 fl., 272 Fraenkel.IS., 176 Fritzsche, O. F., 15, 20 f., 25, 43, 52, 54, 57, 86 Geissler, J., 241 f., 245 f. Gerizim, Mount, the seat of the blessing in Deut., 322 1. "Gerizim" altered by the Jews to "Ebal," 322 t., 329 Gloss added by original narrator, 185 Governors of Judea in Persian period, 141, 263, 267, 283, 306, 318 f. Graetz, H., 142 Greek MSS., variations io orthography, 70, 95, 179 — extent of accidental corruption, 74 f ., 77, 78 f., 93 fl., 169 f. Greek version, old, of Chron.-Ezr.-Neh., 82 fl. — its date, 35, 49, 82 f. — loss of greater part, 35 f.,81, 269 — unknown to Theodotion, 81 f. — made in Egypt, 83 — its character, 83 t., 179 f., 182 — • quality of its Semitic text, 84 Greek version, old, of Daniel, 84 f. — its date, 85 Greek versions, misuse of, 65, 112 Grotius, 16, 66 fl. Guthe, H., 14, 16, 211., 52, 54, 62, 112, 120 fl., 144, 191, 193, 279 Gwynn, J., 4 Hadad inscription, 189 Haggai, Bookjof, historical data trom, 285, 303 fl. Hanani(ah), favorite name with Chron., 226, 233 Haupt, P., 122 Hebrew text, recension of second century A. D., 87 fl. "Hellas," designation of Seleucid Empire, 45 Hexapla of Origen, Ifl., 65 ff., 96 fl., 339 Hexaplar "LXX" text, its character, 99, 105, 169, 178, 279 Hexaplar Syriac version, 1 fl., 67, 96 f ., 99 f. — in I Esdras, 6 f . — in Nehemiah, 100 High priests, Jewish, m the Persian period, 319 ff. Hh'am, King of Tyre, 82, 146, 210, 221 f. Hiram (Huram), the Phoenician crafts man, 222 Historians, Jewish, their hterary habits, 145 fl. Holscher, G., 83, 147, 150, 154 Hoonacker, A. van, vii, 142 f. Howorth, H., vii, 3, 4, 16 ff., 21, 59, 67 Isaiah, the Second, 153, 288, 309, 311 f., 314, 328 Jaddua the high priest, 249, 319 fl., 330 Jeremiah, Book of, late origin of a large part, 285 fl., 297, 2991., 302 Indices 343 Jerome, 13, 87 Jerusalem an5, 81, 102, 10(;!'u4, 137, 147, 150, 154, 170, 179, 255, 317 fl ' 328 fl. Joshua the Stylite, Chronicle of, 7, 185, 290 Kautzscu, E., 116 "King of Heaven," 27, 57, 59 Kittel, R., 62, 73 f., 92, UO fl., 117, 218 220, 238 Kittel's Biblia Hchrni.ca, UO fl., 119, 22t Klostermann, A., viii, 65, 76, 107 fl., 122 KOnig, Ed., viii, 21 Kosters, W. It., vii, 14, 143, 254, 298, 300 Kraetzschmar, 11., 242 Kuenen, A., 142 IjAOAnDE, 1'. A. de, 16, 48, 54, 80, 109 Latin version, old, of I Esdras, 105, Ul, 127, 137 Law ot Mo.s(w, represented by Chron. as "restored" from time to time, after periods ot neglect, 237, 247, 261 f. — its restoration hy "Ezra," 259 fl. Leontoijolls, Jewish temple at, 317 t. Levites, singers, and porters, their status the same in Ezr.-Neh. as in Chron., 236, 27H Liilir, M., 210 Lucca codex of Latin version, 19, 51, 137 Lucian's recension, 16, I15, 70 If.. 90, 105 It., 136 t., 169, 173, 179, 198, 274, 279 Lupton, 13, 15, 21 ' Maccabiokh 1, character and purpose ot its author, 14 7 H. — tlio incorporated docunients, 143, 147 fl. 206 — genuineness ot last cliapters, 148 t. — trustworthiness ot cliaps. 8 and 15, 149 Maccabees TI, the two prell.ved ofllcial letters, 317 Maccabees III, documents in, 147 Maes, A., his Syr.-Hex. code.x, 1 fl., 99 — his peculium syrt>rum, 3 Malaciii, prophecy ot, 312 fl. Maiiiisseh the renegade, 320, 324 fl., 331 Marquart, J., 41, 43 t., 48, 59 Marti, K., 62, 187 f., 191 ff., 195, 2H6, 292 Massoretic recension, 8 7 fl. — excellence of its to.-it in Aramaic ot Ezra, 183; in tho Ezra stor.\', 264 Median kingdom supposed to procodo I'orsian, 38, 135 f., 2N7. 302 Metrical form in .Aramaic compositions, 17 Meyer, K<\., vii f., 38, J 11 If., 175, 195 fl., 2(11!, 270, 323 Moz. A., 102 Milan codex ot Syr.-Ilc^x. version, 1 f Mil.cliell, If. O., 259 Mooro, (>. If., 331 Moull.oji, J, IT., 51 Nauatkan imiulgranl.s, 309, 328 Nabatean insiTiDtlons, 162, 165 Name's ot persons, their siginflcance among tlio Jews, 166 11'. Neapolitan Synopsis, 49, 254 Nc^lmcliiulnezzar, 166, 17 1, 191 Nehemiah, character ot, 22(i f., 248 — as skotchod by the Chronicler, 218 ff., 259, 263, 298, 330 — .slory of, 14), 227, 3 07 — Chron. 's additions to it in chaps. 1-6 225 fl., 307 — interpolation ot his name in the story ot Ezra, 258, 267, 269, 282 f. Nerab, old Aramaic in.scriptions trom, 164 185 Nosdo, E., 16, 96 Niosc, 13., 149 t. NOldeke, Th., 41, 142, 149, 166, 168, 173, 170, 200 Numerals represented by (Ireek Idllors, 138 Onias the high priest, 83 Orelli, V. von, 241, 244 Origen's text ot the " Ij.X.X," 4, 64 f., 91 fl., 136 t., 339 Palestinian Syr. Lectionary, accidental transposition ot certain passages, 257 Palmyrene Tariff inscription, 165 Papyri, Aramaic, from ICgypt, 140, 161 fl., 170 If., 173 fl., 186, 191 f. Paul of 'I'lilla, 1 If., 96, 99 If. Persian kings, order of, according to Jews of (irook period, 38 t., 135 !., 140 f., 160, 18.|, 287 Persian words in Aramaic ot Ezra, 173 fl. Pohlmann, 16, 66 I'rlest-Codo, the, an imaginary document, • 196 f., 262, 288, 292 P.salms, importanco ot, for the religious history ot Jsrael. 313. 333 Psametik 1 opens ICgypt to foreigners, 294 Ptolemy 1, 4 0 IT. Ptolemy VII, 83 I'unctnallon ot llohrcw OT, US f. Relioion of Israel In the I'or.sian pcrloil, 289, 291, 307 ff. "RemnanI " of Israel, 133, 308 Kenan, 10., 21 Uens.s, Ed., 21 IJ.N'ssol, v., I 12 Sachau, lOd., 163, 167 t., 176 .Samarilans, 112, 147, 151, 163 fl., 160t, 168 (., 171 IT., 178, IN2ir., 186, 209, 212, 226, 235 t., 247, 249, 287, 29.S, 317, 321 ff. Samaritan PeiKatoncli, 323 f., 326, 328 f., 3 32 Saniiliallat 1, t6,s, 212, 226, 250, 330. 334 t. 344 Ezra Studies Sanaballat II, 320, 330 f., 334 "Sanabassar," 123, 136 ff. Sayce, A. H., 163 Schrader, E., vii, 14 SchUrer, E., 14. 21, 82, 153 t. Scythians, invasion of, 295 Seleucus I, 40 ff. "Septuagint," objection to use of the term, 17 — meaning in Syriac MSS., 2 "Servant ot Yahwft," 314 "Seventy years" ot exile, 120, 135 t., 141, 285 f. Shalmanassar, 169 fl., 182 Shechem, 212, 236, 316, 322 fl. Sheshbazzar, 57 1., 60, 123, 136 fl., 158, 168, 171, 175, 263, 306 — Identiflcation with Zerubbabel, 306 Sidon, destruction of, 297 Siegfried, C, vii, 62, Ul, 144, 226 Smith, II. P., vii, 143, 259, 288, 327 Stade, li., 142 Strack, II. L., 14, 187, 198 Susa, 39 t., 45, 57, 59 Swete, H. B,, 37, 68 !., 84 !.. 96 f., 106 Symmachus, 66 t., 104, 107 f., 129, 274 Syro-Palestinian recension, 43, 86 1., 101 ff., 127, 136 ff., 170, 179 Taunit inscription, 85, 1H5 Tendency of early Jewish narrators, 117, 150 ff. Tetrapolis, 171, 183 Thamasios, 44 Theodoret, 67, 105 Theodotion, author of canonical Greek ver sion ot Chron.-Ezr.-Neh., 3 f., 11, 17, 66 ff., 87 ff., 91 fl., 169, 183, 264, 280 — his habit ot transliteration, 69 fl., 78 ff., 339 — gradual removal ot his transliterations trom Greek te-xts, 78 ff., 93, 98, 339 — occasional superiority ot his Hebrew text, 72 fl., 87 t. — his version ot Daniel, 68, 78 — traces ot his work in other OT books' 80 f., 339 Three Youths, Story ot the, 37 fl. — effect of its presence in I Esdras, 12, 19, 33 f. — evidence ot its interjiolatlon, IS fl. — character ot its Greek, 21 fl. — interpolated in original Semitic text, 20 fl., 161 — written in Aramaic, 23 fl. — how attached to the Chronicler's nar rative, 25 ff., 66 ff. — little altered by interpolator, 25 fl., 37, 45, 56 fl. — Its date, 42, 44, 162 — date ot interpolation, 37, 44, 49 — not a Jewish composition, 45 f. — belongs to "wisdom literature," 46 f. Thucydides, 148 f. "Tirshatha," non-committal title used only by the Chronicler, 257, 2 63, 267, 282 t., 306 Traditions ot Persian period, lacking iu Jerusalem, 141, 156, 228, 319 Transposition, accidental, ot passages in copying MSS., 257 Transposition, indicated iu old Syriac MSS . by diacritical-marks, 7 Twelve, the Ohronlcler's favorite number, 222, 246 t., 250, 260, 266 fl., 274, 276, 280, 284 Vessels ot the temple, their number, 138 Wellhausen, J., 38, 142 t., 149, 156, 254, 298 Whiston, 16, 66 Wilcken, 41 Xerxes, 38 t., 48, 69, 141, 200 YIwJn (Javan), as a designation ot the Seleucid Empire, 45 Zechariah, Book ol, historical data from, 285 f., 303 fl. Zenjirli, old Aramaic inscriptions from, 164, 340 Zerubbabel, 38 f., 46, 48 t., 58 ff., 131, 168, 175, 283, 285, 300, 306 ZOckler, 15, 21 II. LEXICAL AND GRAMMATICAL apxofiai (as an Aramaism) 51, 57 pia 76 f. .dlaijiopov 56 i-yKaif ta 78 elxaSaptotra 107, 340 efaXeijU 79 i^Ta\^6^l-r}l' 107 tTrapxo? 125, 174 f. eifcuSlal 78 Koi'Atj Xvpia 83 Aci// 78 (Tvi' (rendering nS) with accusative 107 trvveTi^eLU 78 Tore (rendering •^•i^iH) 231., 50 ^diretc 67, 76 S interchanged with ^ , as preformative 186 X supplanting preformative n 162, 165 35{ "counselor" 222 bunas «paTw 123 •JlSmS? JapetKci! 77, 266 S^SDISX iirapxoi 174 f., 190 OriDS eirifleiTu 175, 187 h"''a"lS (gloss) 185, 200 n*1BS " flre off erings " 192 DTJJS governing direct object 274 "IlliX omitted by Chron. 122 Indices 345 KSIWS "colonnade" 81, 175 f., 189 3 of accompaniment 131, 840 •JinSa 23 f., 50 521 Babylonia 120, 151, 191, 265 Dyt3 byi "reporter" 171, 181, igo, 200 nibj "Dispersion" 297 SIJIT "judges" 180 fl. ¦jTaDIT ^ax^V 77, 266 n- as ending ot inlln. (Heb. qnl. Aram. peoZ stem) 190 Dh- 162 1 explicative 50, 194, 265 1 and 1 c-onfused by scribes 69 !)— as ending of imperf. 3d plur. in Aram. 186 f., ISS nDrsr nysn i46, i86, i88 njjiyi 146" l:t3n "lay" 1S7 S)ayt3 "offlcial report" (also Dan. 6:3) 200 S7.bS1t3 ToTpao-oArrai 171, 183 i{l— Aram. [plur. ending, sur\-h ing in names of Syrian towns 191, 340 y[l Seleucid ICmpire 4 5 ©n"! {Iiillip-) 131 bjl jussive (Tabnit) 85 bap bs 187 nb— 162 S{73:D 185 b "namely" 121, 124, 273 b used to continue constructions intro duced In another way 125, 193, 197, 199 Kjab 189 iB-na 228 f. DisbnB 123 riDn'a "raid" 74 CIS "jbia 160 TtinbTa "distinctly" 268 bu (Phoen. and Aram.) 85 ibiD 84 f. bg'lD (saphc!) 192 mn: -iar 83, i74f., 206 b ~iy used by Chron. 126, 130 mit"l>{n I'ay Samaritans 184, 236 QSmS *9bvm» 177 DiTlJIp 74, 88 li? (Phoen.) e'lK^t, 185 Di:p («yr.)=N'n + iip i85 TX^'yp (plural) "cities" 186 iBiai "goods" 121 laiU "Dispersion" 297 Siyillj (intrans.) "bellnished" 195 IliP 130 iBlic for TlJ'aiC 138 nblli (stative peal) 192 'i'^IUTB the proi'incc Samaria 186, 188, 220 QlJliJ following a dual 139 ¦T^pTS substituted by massoretes 88 l^lij (.Vram.) used redundantly 51, 189 "jTffi (Phoen.) "colonnade" 176 ilBnii) "banishment" 199 ISiaffiTB 138 .\ccusatlve, adverbial iss, 197, 268 (note d) Article omitted after bD 124, 272, 274 Construct state, noun governing two or more co-ordinate genitives 276, 278 EUlpsis 195, 197, 270 t., 273 fl., 340 Epistolary perfect tense 188 Ilaphcl signifj'iiig entrance Into a con dition 187, 195 Hebraisms in Aramaic ot Ezra and Daniel 189 Infln. construct ending in aih, in .\ramaic 165 f. PasslNo voice replaced by indef. third plur. active 50, 280 Plural of compounds 188 Sibilants replaced by dentals in Aramaic 163 ff. Subject, indef., e.xpressed by thu-d sing. ot verb 269 Suffix, proleptic, in late Hebrew 222 Third person instead ot second, in direct address 193 Verbs signifying precaution, etc., con strued without a negative particle iss Vocalization, massoretic. dlstinguishhig divine from human 195 Vowel il occasionally becoming a In later pronunciation ot Jewish .\ raniaic 194 346 Ezra Studies III. PASSAGES INCIDENTALLY DISCUSSED (Passages marked with an asterisk * are those in which some emendation of the Hebrew text is suggested.) Leviticus Micah Nehemiah PAGE PAGE PAGE 26;34f. 286 1:2 193 7:43* 279 26:43 286 Haggai 7:48* 89 Deuteronomy 10: 17 46. 55 1:1*1:14* 306 306 11:8*11:17* no 110 11:30* 322f. 326 2:2* 306 12:11* 319 ff. 27:4 * 322 f. 326 2:3 285, 303 12:23 141 32:21 326 2:16* 304 12:36 249, 260, 280 Joshua 2:21* 306 13:28f 142, 249, 321 328 ff. 8:30* 322 f. 326 Zechariah I Chronicles Judges 1:12 285 f., 303 2:52 1. 71, 73, 76 18:30 331 6:10 292 9:1* 229 7:5 285 f. 21:20 75. 112 I Samuel 7:7 286 28: 19 276. 282 10:27* 119 30:8 72 Malachi 28:20* 73, 87 II Samu 1 1:11 313;f. 29:6fl. 255, 262, 266 t., 268 3:22 72 Psalms II Chronicles I Kings 29:2 53 2:12fl. 82, 146, 222 10:24* 216 Esther 4:16 222 15:10* 217 1 : 1-3 48, 50 13:2* 217 13:9 fl.* 235 f. II Kings Daniel 14: 13 f 74 5:6 10:2f. 17:24ff. 146 146 327 f. 2:42:53:29 185 84 84 f. 19:719:8*22: 1 56 238 74 21:18, 26 23:24fl.24:13 t. 24:14 fl. 7288 299209 3:96 (LXX) 4:16, 25 fl. 4:34 85 146 57 24:2626:6ff. 32:32* 212216220 25:8fl. 25:9* 209 300 5: 30 6:16:2 5a 38, 48, 135 f., 141 48, 141 33:19*35:19*35:21 ff 74 229 , 87 ff. 221 Isaiah 6:29 38, 48 36:8* 72, 39, 217 25:8 314 9:1 38, 287 36:21 286 42: 6 f. 314 9:25 136 36:22 f 116 1. 42:22fl. * 309 10:1 ¦38 43:14* 288 11:1 38 Tobit 44:28 288 11:2* 45 3:llf. 59 45:1*46:11* 288 314 2:40 Ezra 279 7:1114:5 2, 36 161 48:9ff.* 309 2:46* 89 I Maccabees 48:14* 288 7:9 190 1:54 85 48:20* 288 10:6 264, 321 5:49 74 49:8 ff. 61: Iff. Jeremiah 314314 l:2t.1 : 3 f . Nehemiah 301334 14:9*16:23t [I Maccabees 24, 53 231 25: lit. 209, 286 302 2:7-9a 225 2:13 249 29:10 209, 286 302 3; 15 1 nc 29:14 286 3:33-38 225 t.. 335 Ecclesiasticus 52:28 Amos 290 299 4:17* 5:13 112224 50:26 Enoch 326 6:1 f.* 294 6:16fl. 226 f., 248 89:72 258