The Books of Ezra and Nehemiah

By Hannah K. Harrington

The books of Ezra and Nehemiah represent a significant turning point in biblical history. They tell the story not only of the rebuilding of the temple in Jerusalem but also of the resurrection of God’s people from the death of exile. Hannah Harrington thus begins her commentary with an evocative description of these books as “the story of a new Israel forged out of the old” and “the text of a people clinging to their genealogical past and attempting to preserve their heritage while walking forward into uncharted territory.” 

Throughout this commentary, Harrington combines analytical research on the language and culture behind the books of Ezra and Nehemiah with challenging thoughts for the Christian church today, bringing to bear a unique perspective on these books not as the end of Old Testament history but as early documents of the Second Temple period. Accordingly, Harrington incorporates a wealth of information from other Jewish literature of the time to freshly illuminate many of the topics and issues at hand while focusing on the interpretation and use of these books for Christian life today.

• Language: English
• Publisher: Eerdmans
• Release date: May 10, 2022
• ISBN: 9781467464024

Hannah K. Harrington

Hannah K. Harrington is professor of Old Testament at Patten University, Oakland, California. Along with her numerous articles on the Bible, Second Temple Judaism, and Christianity, Harrington's other books include Holiness: Rabbinic Judaism and the Graeco-Roman World and The Purity and Sanctuary of the Body in Second Temple Judaism.

Book preview

Introduction to Ezra and Nehemiah

The events behind Ezra-Nehemiah are situated at a watershed in Jewish history and, consequently, at a turning point in the story of the people of God. Landless and templeless, Jewish exiles experienced the trauma of loss of autonomy due to the Babylonian exile; however, they survived against heavy odds. Their very identity hung in the balance, but they forged new associations while retaining ties to their ancient past. The light of hope shone in the darkness of exile from the unexpected orders of a Persian emperor who allowed Jews to return to their homeland. This is the story of a new Israel forged out of the old. It is the text of a people clinging to its genealogical past and attempting to preserve its heritage while walking forward into uncharted territory. It is also the perennial story of God’s providence and guidance of his people through unusual leaders in times of crisis. The impact of the decisions they made on the subsequent community of faith cannot be overestimated.

This commentary seeks to bring into relief the Second Temple context in which Ezra-Nehemiah was written. Certain concepts, such as institutional penitential prayer and the holiness of the city of Jerusalem, begin in this period, and their embryonic stage is reflected in Ezra-Nehemiah. These and other important religious notions are present in the textual seedbed of Ezra-Nehemiah and continue among later Jewish communities of this era. Some of this development stems from the impact of the text of Ezra-Nehemiah, while some is simply an outgrowth of the times and circumstances of the exilic and postexilic Jewish situation. Whatever the trajectory, Ezra-Nehemiah provides an early repository of valuable information regarding key concepts in Second Temple Judaism. These ideas surface in texts from a variety of Jewish communities, including, but not limited to, the Dead Sea Scrolls and the New Testament.

I. THE TEXT

The original text of Ezra-Nehemiah was not in two books, as in the current version, but was written on one scroll. The language reflects the languages in current use by Jews during the Persian period: Hebrew and Aramaic. Scholars continue to debate the nature of the original version of the text and its underlying sources. The work was copied by the writers of the Dead Sea Scrolls and the Septuagint (LXX) and was included in the early Jewish canon of Scripture.

A. LANGUAGE

The language of Ezra-Nehemiah is predominantly Hebrew, but two substantial sections of Ezra—largely accounts from official documents—are written in Imperial Aramaic (Ezra 4:8–6:18; 7:12–26). This dialect of Aramaic was first internationalized by the Assyrians and remained in use between 700 and 200 BCE.¹ Since Aramaic was the official language of the Babylonian Empire, it became the spoken language of the Jews during the period of their exile in Babylon. Many Jewish names of this period reflect direct Babylonian influence (e.g., Zerubbabel, seed of Babylon). Isolated Aramaic phrases occur in various parts of the Bible (see Gen 31:47; Jer 10:11), but only the books of Ezra and Daniel contain large sections in the language.

The Elephantine documents of the late fifth century BCE also attest to Imperial Aramaic. The Jewish community in Elephantine, an island of the Nile called Yeb in Aramaic, appears to have been a colony of mercenaries founded sometime in the sixth century BCE, after the destruction of Jerusalem.² By the time of Ezra and Nehemiah, this was a community of families with property. The Elephantine papyri, which include over a hundred documents and many ostraca representing correspondence between this Jewish colony in Egypt and the governors of Samaria and Yehud, reveal much regarding the politics, laws, and customs of the time, in particular the syncretistic character of the community’s religion. A Jewish temple was built there, where pagan deities were worshiped alongside Yahweh.³ One Elephantine letter refers to Sanballat, governor of Samaria (cf. Neh 2:10). Another letter, addressed to the Jews at Elephantine, reveals a Persian attempt to enforce laws regarding the Jewish feasts of Unleavened Bread and Passover.

B. SOURCES

Many of the sources of Ezra-Nehemiah are easy to identify. These include official documents, letters, memoirs, and lists (e.g., genealogies, lists of priests, lists of villages). About 70 percent of the book is made up of lists and other archival material.⁴ Below is a list of the most obvious sources under each of the three major sections of the work: Prologue, Ezra Memoir, Nehemiah Memoir.

Prologue: (1) the decree of Cyrus (Ezra 1:2–4); (2) an inventory of temple articles (Ezra 1:9–11); (3) a list of returnees (Ezra 2:1–3:1); (4) two letters of opposition noted (Ezra 4:6–7); (5) the accusation of Rehum against the Jews (Ezra 4:11–16); (6) the reply of Artaxerxes I (Ezra 4:17–22); (7) a report from Tattenai (Ezra 5:7–17); (8) Darius’s reply to Tattenai, including a memorandum of Cyrus’s decree (Ezra 6:2b–22).

Ezra Memoir: (1) a copy of Artaxerxes’s letter to Ezra (Ezra 7:12–26); (2) a list of the returnees with Ezra (Ezra 8:1–14); (3) an inventory of vessels (Ezra 8:26–27); (4) Ezra’s prayer (Ezra 9:6–15); (5) a list of those who had intermarried with foreigners (Ezra 10:18–44). Some scholars place the sources found in Nehemiah 8–10 within the Ezra Memoir, but this is not necessary (see Excursus 17, Should Nehemiah 8 follow Ezra 8?, pp. 355–57).

Nehemiah Memoir: (1) a list of returnees (Neh 7:6–72a); (2) the reading of the Law (Neh 7:73b–8:18); (3) Nehemiah’s prayer of confession (Neh 9:6–37); (4) the list of covenant signatories (Neh 10:1–28); (5) the covenant itself (Neh 10:28–39); (6) a list of the residents of Jerusalem (Neh 11:3–24); (7) a list of villages of Judah and Benjamin (Neh 11:25–36); and (8) a list of priests and Levites (Neh 12:1–26). Genealogies and lists of names and towns were important in this period when people were returning to their ancestral homes and needed to prove their claims and status in the new community.

The language and style of Ezra-Nehemiah’s sources reflect that of the Persian period. C. Hensley compared these sources with thirty-two Persian documents known to date and concluded that, linguistically, stylistically, and historically, the Ezran documents correspond to the non-biblical documents of the Achaemenid period.⁵ K. Hoglund, too, claims general authenticity for these citations based on comparison with Achaemenid documents.⁶ S. Mowinckel argued that the Nehemiah Memoir reveals parallels with ancient Near Eastern royal inscriptions that commemorate achievements. Others have compared the remember sections to votive inscriptions in various Aramaic documents.⁷

C. SECTIONS

The book of Ezra-Nehemiah contains three large sections: the Prologue (Ezra 1–6), the Ezra Memoir (Ezra 7–10), and the Nehemiah Memoir (Nehemiah 1–13). All three sections are written in a straightforward narrative style rather than in the mythical, epic, or annalistic styles of the ancient Near East.⁸ The text moves from narrative prose in Ezra 1–6 to partly autobiographical narrative in the Ezra Memoir to mostly autobiographical narrative in the Nehemiah Memoir. The sections of Ezra (Ezra 1–6 and Ezra 7–10) transition more smoothly than those in Nehemiah, which is sometimes disjunct in subject, literary style, and story line.⁹

1. Ezra Memoir

The last four chapters of Ezra are often known as the Ezra Memoir. Some of the material represents a memoir style (Ezra 7:27–9:15) while the rest is written in third person (Ezra 7:1–26; 10). The latter may reflect the hand of an editor, or it may derive from an independent source.¹⁰ It is also possible that the change of form is just stylistic (cf. Isa 6–7; Hos 1, 3). Elias Bickerman compares the change of person to other ancient Near Eastern texts and concludes that it is a device which served to authenticate the narrative and came into historical writing from the diplomatic style, where exactness of quotation was absolutely necessary. He points to the Cyrus Cylinder, where the author recounts the poor reign of Nabonidus and Cyrus’s subsequent conquest of the city of Babylon and then abruptly changes from third person to first with I am Cyrus … and continues with Cyrus’s personal account of the events.¹¹

The Ezra Memoir chronicles the second return of a large group of Jews from exile in Babylonia under the leadership of Ezra, who is both priest and scribe. Ezra is distinguished by his dedication to study the Torah, observe it, and teach it to the people of Israel (Ezra 7:10). Artaxerxes I, the Persian king, supports Ezra’s mission with financial aid and provisions for the temple service. He also issues a royal edict to Ezra to appoint judges and teach Jewish law (Ezra 7:12–26). The remainder of the Ezra Memoir is devoted to the crisis of intermarriage with those outside of the community. Apparently, Ezra had taught the law sufficiently that by this point the officers understood that certain restrictions applied to intermarriage. Conflating verses from Deuteronomy (e.g., Ezra 9:1–2; Deut 7:1–3; 23:1–9), the officers report to Ezra that there was a large number of intermarriages within the community. Appalled, Ezra applies an unusually strict interpretation of the law to prohibit all forms of intermarriage, and he even orders the dissolution of existing unions with foreigners (Ezra 10:11).

Most scholars think that Neh 8, an account of Ezra reading the Torah to the people, was originally included in the Ezra Memoir (see Excursus 17, Should Nehemiah 8 follow Ezra 8?, pp. 355–57). Although this suggestion has been the reigning theory, recently several scholars have argued that there are better reasons to leave Nehemiah 8 in its present location. This commentary follows that view.

It is curious that the Ezra Memoir (without the addition of Neh 8) does not mention Nehemiah. Williamson suggests that the Ezra Memoir was compiled from temple archives by circles that were favorable to the reforms themselves but less supportive of Nehemiah. He claims that Ezra wrote the original narrative to show as nearly as possible how his activity conformed to his commission.¹²

2. Nehemiah Memoir

The Nehemiah Memoir, a first-person account by Nehemiah or at his direction, includes, according to most scholars, Neh 1:1–7:5 and large parts of chs. 12–13.¹³ The author, either Nehemiah or a later compiler, utilizes lists of cities, inhabitants, builders, signatories, and cultic personnel throughout the work. The long section of Neh 7:5–10:40(39) has been spliced into the Nehemiah Memoir. The first seam is evident at the end of Neh 7:4, where the text raises the issue of repopulating Jerusalem but is interrupted by the presentation of a list of first returnees from exile under Zerubbabel (Neh 7:5–72) and a narrative section reporting Ezra’s public reading of the Torah along with the covenant renewal (Nehemiah 8–10). The author does not resume discussion of the city of Jerusalem until the second seam at the beginning of Neh 11:1.¹⁴

The Nehemiah Memoir was probably originally a report from Nehemiah on his commission as governor and especially on the commission to rebuild the wall of Jerusalem. As Williamson notes, however, it could not have been the original document, since that would have been in Aramaic and probably would not have included the prayers. Nehemiah’s achievements and defense against the neighboring leaders’ criticisms, however, would have been vital for the report to the king.¹⁵

It is interesting to compare the Nehemiah Memoir with other ancient Near Eastern texts. Egyptian votive texts emphasize prayers and donations to temples. Nehemiah reminds the reader of Udjahorresnet, a pious Egyptian under the rules of Cambyses and Darius I. Both Nehemiah and Udjahorresnet adopt an apologetic tone in telling the deity of their goals and the difficulties they have overcome in achieving them.¹⁶

Nehemiah 1–6 has much in common with Ezra 1–6. Both begin with a construction project (temple or wall) inspired and facilitated by the hand of God. Janzen gives an account of the similarities: In both,

a Persian king commissions the work; returnees carry it out; they are opposed by neighbors, at least some of whom worship Yahweh [in some way]; but are successful. In both cases, the community leaders inform their adversaries that they have no right to participate in the building project (Ezra 4.1–3 and Neh 2.20). And to emphasize this statement in the context of the wall construction, Neh 3.1–32 gives a list of the Israelites who build the wall, marking them out as ones who, unlike their enemies, do have shares and rights and historical claims in the city (cf. Neh 2.20). In this story the wall, like the city and temple, is for Israel and by Israel. It marks them out and constructs a boundary around them.¹⁷

The central focus of the Nehemiah Memoir as it stands in the full text of Ezra-Nehemiah, however, is not the wall but the rebuilding of the community by means of the Torah and covenant renewal.¹⁸ After Nehemiah secures the city with the wall (Neh 1–6), Israel can then focus on the more significant matter of rededication to keeping God’s law (Neh 8–10). It is only after the reading of the Torah (Neh 8) and the people’s promise to keep it (Neh 9–10) that the people are fit to move in and repopulate the holy city of Jerusalem (Neh 11:1).

The Nehemiah Memoir contains a long gap between the wall building and the events of ch. 13. Nehemiah was apparently governor of Jerusalem for twelve years, after which he went back to Babylon and then returned later to Jerusalem. Similarly, Arsames, satrap of Egypt, took a three-year leave of absence from his duties.¹⁹ The Nehemiah Memoir describes approximately one year of Nehemiah’s governorship and then treats several isolated topics from as many as fifteen years later during his second term. A lay reformer, Nehemiah mobilizes the lower class into a stable society by instituting various reforms reminiscent of the work of Solon of Athens a century earlier.²⁰ While the particular reforms do not appear long-lived, the stability Nehemiah afforded the Jews at this point made it possible for the Torah to develop and become the guiding authority for the entire Second Temple period and beyond.²¹

3. Prologue

The first six chapters of Ezra are an account of the earliest return from exile under the policy of Cyrus II, the Persian king. The events described occurred decades before the ministry of Ezra. According to the narrative, Cyrus decides to rebuild the temple at Jerusalem in gratitude for divine aid in establishing his empire, and he encourages the Jews in exile to return and fulfill this desire. In response, the Jewish leaders Sheshbazzar and Zerubbabel facilitate a massive return of Jews to Jerusalem in order to rebuild the temple and resettle the land. The text describes the opposition this group faced from the local population in Judah, whom they refused to include in the project (Ezra 4:1–5). The text also records similar kinds of opposition in later years (Ezra 4:6–24a). The Prologue concludes with the resurgence of building activity inspired by the prophets Haggai and Zechariah, its endorsement by Darius I, and finally the completion of the temple in 515/516 BCE.

H. G. M. Williamson has argued persuasively that the author of Ezra-Nehemiah composed Ezra 1–6 after the rest of the book.²² According to Williamson, the purpose of the addition was, first, concerned to trace lines of continuity between the restored community and the Israel of preexilic times, between the second and first temples, and so on. Legitimacy is clearly a fundamental issue. Second, it was to justify the rejection of the offer of northern participation in the restoration itself.²³

Ezra, Nehemiah, or someone else combined these three sections (Prologue, Ezra Memoir, and Nehemiah Memoir) into one document. Williamson’s theory, which has had a large following among scholars, traces three stages of writing: (1) the primary sources contemporary with the events; (2) the compilation of the Ezra Memoir, the Nehemiah Memoir, and other sources to form most of Ezra 7–10 and Neh 1–13 (11:21–12:26 were added separately); and (3) the later addition of the Prologue in Ezra 1–6.²⁴ For Williamson, the author’s purpose in composing the work was to countermand the claims of the Samaritans who had recently built a temple on Mt. Gerizim (in ca. 300 BCE), as well as to demonstrate, by the story of Ezra and Nehemiah, the continuity between the author’s community and that of the First Temple period. Alternatively, some scholars are using a less documentary approach and adopting, as T. C. Eskenazi puts it, a more gradual, incremental process in which scribal activities responded in a continuous fashion to issues internal to the text and those external, historical circumstances that unfolded.²⁵ In any case, the concerns of the temple and the continuity of the holy people are central in Ezra-Nehemiah; but, just as importantly and maybe more so, rebuilding the community by means of the Torah is a primary emphasis (for further discussion, see Torah, Sanctuary: The Second Temple, and Holy People, pp. 62–88).

D. CANONICITY

Ezra-Nehemiah was apparently held in high regard among Second Temple Jews long before the traditional canon was determined. The work is included in LXX and the Dead Sea Scrolls, and it is alluded to in the writings of Josephus.

First Esdras, the version of Ezra included in LXX, is a divergent account of Ezra-Nehemiah written in eloquent Greek of the same era as Judith, Sirach and Maccabees—probably the late second or early first century BCE.²⁶ The compilation is primarily the book of Ezra but also draws from parts of Chronicles and Nehemiah. Chronology is sometimes confused in the book; for example, the author presents the Persian emperor Artaxerxes as the successor to Cyrus. He also places Neh 8 after Ezra 10.

In a striking addition to the biblical text, the author recounts a story about a contest at the court of Darius where Zerubbabel and two other bodyguards of the king are asked the question, What is the strongest thing? Zerubbabel wins by stating that women are stronger even than the king because men owe their lives to women and make fools of themselves for them. He also gives another answer suggesting that Truth is the strongest thing of all. Darius is so impressed with the second answer that he gives Zerubbabel his request. Zerubbabel reminds the king of his vow to give permission for the Jews to return to their homeland and restore their temple. Contrary to the biblical text, in which the beneficence of the Persians is stressed, 1 Esdras gives credit to the wisdom of Zerubbabel. T. C. Eskenazi claims that the story’s purpose was to exalt Zerubbabel and to encourage the rebuilding of the new community under a Davidic descendant.²⁷

First Esdras is important for translators of Ezra-Nehemiah. It supports the canonical Masoretic Text (MT) over LXX in all but one case (1 Esd. 2:25; Ezra 4:23). It also reveals an attempt to put in order the seemingly mislocated account of Torah reading in Neh 7:72–8:12. The author places this section in 1 Esd 8:88–9:36, thereby closing the thirteen-year gap between Ezra’s commission and his partnership with Nehemiah. Other than this section, 1 Esdras ignores Nehemiah completely.

Ezra-Nehemiah is one book, Esdras B, in LXX; 1 Esdras is Esdras A. The table below sets forth the variety of texts and titles.

Four fragments of Ezra-Nehemiah (Ezra 4:2–6, 9–11; Ezra 5:17; Ezra 6:1–5; Neh 3:14–15) are extant in the Dead Sea Scrolls. Most of them contain text from Ezra and are labeled 4QEzra. Comparison of the traditional text with that of the Scrolls reveals a faithful preservation of the canonical text. As E. Ulrich puts it, "4QEzra again simply demonstrates that the Masoretic textus receptus of each of the books has been very faithfully preserved from one of the plural forms of the text which circulated in the Second Temple period."²⁸

The fragment of Nehemiah (4QNeh) has been only recently identified, and although similar to 4QEzra’s handwriting in some ways, it is clearly from a separate scroll.²⁹ 4QNeh indicates that Malchijah repaired the Dung Gate with the help of his sons (Neh 3:14). The text reflects a proto-Masoretic type but preserves the reading and his sons (Neh 3:14), which is found in LXX but not in MT. There is evidence on the scroll, however, that a scribe changed the reading to he built it perhaps to bring it into line with the proto-Masoretic tradition. The spelling of these terms in Hebrew could be easily confused and interchanged (see the commentary on Neh 3:14).

Ezra-Nehemiah apparently made an impact on the sectarian writers of the Scrolls. Language from the book surfaces in some sectarian works, especially in the matter of intermarriage. Ezra’s narrow interpretation of the Torah, which rejects all forms of intermarriage as acts of sacrilege because of the character of God’s people as holy seed (Ezra 9:2), is reflected in several works (e.g., 4QMMTb 75–82; 4Q418 101 ii 5; 4QALD i 17–18; see T. Levi 9:9–10).³⁰

II. DATE

Any good hypothesis regarding the final date of Ezra-Nehemiah hinges on answers to the following questions: (1) the order and date of the memoirs of Ezra and Nehemiah; (2) the date of the final compilation of Ezra-Nehemiah; (3) the relationship of this work to Chronicles; and (4) the relationship of this work to the Pentateuch.

A. ORDER

One major issue dividing scholars on the dating of Ezra and Nehemiah is the chronological order in which they lived. While there is general agreement that Nehemiah worked under Artaxerxes I, the jury is still out on the placement of Ezra. The text states that he began his ministry during the seventh year of Artaxerxes, but it is unclear if Artaxerxes I or II is intended. If he began to work under Artaxerxes I, his ministry would begin in 458 BCE; if under Artaxerxes II, then it would start in 398 BCE.

The clearest reading of the Scripture without emendation indicates that Ezra and Nehemiah were not only contemporaries but worked together (Neh 8:9; 12:26, 36), thus, a joint career under Artaxerxes I is most likely. Nevertheless, not all scholars agree. Some claim that the compiler placed Ezra in a few places in the text of Nehemiah in order to give the two leaders the same level of honor and that they were not, in fact, contemporaries.³¹ Arguments for both sides are compelling and have been published repeatedly; thus, only the most significant ones will be presented below.³²

First, the correlation of Ezra and Nehemiah with the list of high priests recorded in Neh 12:10–12:22 is argued in opposite ways. According to the text, the following priests held office in the order listed below:³³

The list of priests in Neh 12:22 substitutes Johanan for Jonathan (Neh 12:11). Indeed, the Elephantine papyri (410 BCE) also include a letter addressed to Jehohanan as high priest (TAD 1:68–75). Furthermore, a recently discovered coin from the Persian period gives further evidence of a Johanan who was the high priest in the early fourth century BCE. An inscription on the coin reads, Yoḥanan the priest.³⁶ Among the priests, only the high priest would have had the authority to issue coins.

Proponents of a late date for Ezra note that he visits the room of Jehohanan, the son of Eliashib (Ezra 10:6) and thus argue that Ezra’s ministry occurs in the early fourth century.³⁷ However, the names Eliashib and Johanan were popular during this period and do not necessarily indicate a relationship with the high priest. Johanan (also called Jonathan), who served as the high priest from ca. 410 BCE–ca. 370 BCE, was the son of Joiada (Neh 12:11).

Some scholars suggest that the lists of Neh 12 are incomplete. Rather than emending them to agree with each other and trying to cover 200 years with six high priests, Frank Cross notes that papponymy, or the practice of naming a son after his grandfather, was popular and thus that more than one Eliashib and Johanan probably served as high priest during this time.³⁸ This would account for the different referents in Ezra-Nehemiah bearing the same name but having different fathers. In fact, Josephus refers to five Johanans, some of whom may be the same person. In the same vein, Josephus’s reference to a high priest named Jaddua, who was a contemporary of Alexander the Great, may be to a later Jaddua than the one referred to in Neh 12.³⁹ This understanding of the list, while possible, is not necessary. The terms of the six high priests, who are installed in the office for life, could have spanned the entire two hundred years.⁴⁰

A second issue that is often raised is that if Ezra began his ministry in 458 BCE, there would be a thirteen-year gap before his public reading of the law (Neh 8:1–8). Would this mean that Ezra waited thirteen years before going public with the Torah reading? Proponents of an Ezra who postdates Nehemiah take him out of Neh 8, but this emendation is not necessary either. Ezra could have still been teaching the law during the thirteen-year period before Neh 8. The reading of the law in Neh 8 could have been the climax, not the beginning, of a sustained program of education in the law.⁴¹ Others point out that Ezra may have returned to Mesopotamia during this gap due to his position as a sort of foreign minister for Jewish affairs.⁴²

Third, the mixed-marriage crisis also raises an issue regarding the chronology. Ezra calls for dissolution of mixed marriages (Ezra 10), but Nehemiah simply calls for doing it right in the future (Neh 13). Some argue that the most logical order is the less severe decree before the more extreme one. According to this reasoning, Ezra’s harsh injunction follows the failure of Nehemiah’s milder approach. Also, one wonders how the children in Nehemiah’s time could be raised by foreign mothers when Ezra had just dissolved mixed marriages, unless his measure simply failed.

Nehemiah’s approach to those who had intermarried with foreigners, however, is not gentle. Rather, he becomes physical in his opposition by beating and cursing the offenders (Neh 13:25). It is unknown whether he dissolves the marriages or not. In any case, as the text stands, there is a gap of several years between Ezra’s initial return (458 BCE) and the second tenure of Nehemiah, when he deals with intermarriage (see Neh 13:6, 23–30). The intermarriage problem under Nehemiah was probably at least twenty-six years after Ezra’s decree, in ca. 432 BCE. This calculation allows time for Nehemiah to return to the Persian king for a while and then take on another term of office in Yehud, correcting several other social and religious problems that had occurred in his absence. The matter of intermarriage, often an issue in the Second Temple period, may have simply cropped up again. Nehemiah may have reassessed Ezra’s response as too drastic and not as successful in the long term.

The major difficulty with dating Ezra at 398 BCE is that Ezra would have had no contact with Nehemiah, a contradiction of the text as it stands. Ezra and Nehemiah are mentioned together in Neh 8:9 at the reading of law and in Neh 12:26, 36 at the dedication of the wall. Apparently, they worked together. Since Nehemiah’s name is missing in the 1 Esd 9:49 parallel, some think it is a gloss in Neh 8:9, but that still leaves two references in Neh 12 unaccounted for. The reference to Ezra in Neh 12:36 is clearly not a gloss since deleting Ezra’s name would leave one of the processions without a leader. It is curious that Nehemiah is not mentioned in the book of Ezra, but a similar situation exists in the writings of Haggai and Zechariah. Although the two prophets worked together (Ezra 5:1), neither mentions the other in the separate works attributed to them.

In this commentary, I take the commission of Ezra as predating Nehemiah and adopt the simplest reading of the texts, which presents them as contemporaries with overlapping ministries. It would appear that both worked under Artaxerxes I.⁴³ As Hoglund points out, the juridical role of Ezra in establishing legal reforms more likely precedes the administrative role of Nehemiah.⁴⁴ Ezra brings the law formally to the people and teaches them to observe it in practice. Nehemiah builds upon this effort, assuming the authority of the law as he works to strengthen the community. To argue otherwise requires emendations that prove to be unnecessary. In sum, there are good reasons for placing Nehemiah before Ezra. The majority of scholars continue to support the traditional order.⁴⁵

B. EZRA-NEHEMIAH AND CHRONICLES

As to the relationship between Ezra-Nehemiah and Chronicles, scholars are again divided. Some see Ezra-Nehemiah as part of a larger work including Chronicles, while others regard Ezra-Nehemiah as a separate compilation, and still others regard all three as separate books with different authors.⁴⁶ In the literature regarding authorship of Ezra-Nehemiah, many of the arguments focus on language and theme.⁴⁷ Language experts have made lists of parallel and dissimilar vocabulary between the books, and literary scholars have tried to uncover underlying themes that connect the books or to argue that the agenda of each book is too different for single authorship.

Following the Talmud (b. B. Bat. 15a), Albright and Bright argued that Ezra was the Chronicler, but few scholars today follow this view.⁴⁸ Arguments supporting this notion include (1) the common verses at the end of 2 Chronicles and the beginning of Ezra; (2) the common words (e.g., Netinim, singer, gatekeeper, father’s houses (for families), and house of God, which is Late Hebrew language); and (3) the common themes (e.g., emphasis on the temple with a similar description of its music, sacrifices, sacred vessels, Levitical personnel, and religious festivals; also, endowment is by ancestral house rather than just the royal house as in Kings). Joseph Blenkinsopp explains that the author may stand for a plurality or school rather than an individual, that is, a group sharing the same concerns, convictions, and idioms, perhaps active over several generations.⁴⁹

The purpose of the supposed compilation of Chronicles-Ezra-Nehemiah has been discussed as well. According to Jacob Myers, The purpose of the Chronicler was to present the history of Israel (Judah) from a cultic point of view, showing how the nation prospered when the cultus was maintained in purity and vitality and how it fared when that was not the case.⁵⁰ Indeed, the cult, with its emphasis on the priesthood, Levites, ritual, holiness, and worship, plays a strong role in both Ezra-Nehemiah and Chronicles.

Nevertheless, the view that Chronicles and Ezra-Nehemiah share the same author or editor has been strongly contested in recent years, especially by S. Japhet and H. G. M. Williamson.⁵¹ Japhet points out that many words used in Ezra-Nehemiah are not found in Chronicles and that some that are in both works are used differently.⁵² Theophoric names are used in short form in Ezra-Nehemiah (e.g., Joram) but both short and long forms in Chronicles (e.g., Joram/Jehoram). The separatist theology so obvious in Ezra-Nehemiah is absent in Chronicles, which has an international flavor with a much more open attitude toward the Northern tribes.⁵³ While the mixed-marriage issue is life-threatening in Ezra-Nehemiah, Chronicles downplays its effect, mentioning only one of Solomon’s foreign marriages (2 Chr 8:11). This stands in contrast to the accusation of 1 Kings that Solomon’s efforts to please his pagan wives brought about Solomon’s own apostasy (1 Kgs 11:1–13); Nehemiah repeats the view of Kings (Neh 13:26). Prophecy is more emphasized in Chronicles than in Ezra-Nehemiah, although it is present in both works. The Sabbath is important to Nehemiah but noticeably absent in Chronicles (see 2 Chr 36:11–16). Furthermore, the prominent emphasis on David and his royal dynasty in Chronicles is absent in Ezra-Nehemiah and, conversely, the prominent exodus traditions in Ezra-Nehemiah are lacking in Chronicles. Finally, the Chronicler’s sense of immediate retribution is lacking in Ezra-Nehemiah.⁵⁴ Overall, the disparity of vision between the two works is too great for them to derive from the same author.

The book of Chronicles was probably penned later than Ezra-Nehemiah, following the order of the Hebrew canon. Steinmann argues on orthographic grounds that 2 Chr 36:22–23 is copied from Ezra 1:1–3.⁵⁵ This would place the redaction of Chronicles after the Prologue of Ezra, which, according to many scholars, was the last section to be included in the book of Ezra-Nehemiah (see Prologue, pp. 7–9).

C. SEPARATE AUTHORSHIP THEORY

A current trend on the thorny subject of authorship is simply to separate all three books, giving each its own author.⁵⁶ J. VanderKam offers a list of linguistic differences between Ezra and Nehemiah and posits a different perspective for each, such as is found in the four Gospels. Moreover, David Kraemer points out ideological differences between the two books. His main thesis is that the book of Ezra is a priestly book; its concerns are the Temple, the priesthood and Levites, and purity—that is, the cult. The book of Nehemiah, in contrast, is a lay book, sometimes exhibiting antagonism to priestly concerns and supporting, instead, what might be called scribal values.⁵⁷ He also notes different motifs. Ezra is more concerned with the temple-building project and Nehemiah with the wall; Ezra emphasizes the holiness of lineage, and Nehemiah enacts Torah observance. According to Kraemer, in Ezra, governors and scribes serve priestly purposes; in Nehemiah, priests serve the governors and scribes.⁵⁸

Other features of the separate authorship view include: (1) Nehemiah’s introduction, which suggests an independent composition;⁵⁹ (2) the identical lists of returnees that appear in Ezra 2 and Neh 7 (this argument can go both ways); (3) that it is easier to explain the absence of Ezra in Neh 1–7 if one does not attach Ezra 1–10 to Nehemiah (this argument, too, can be reversed, since Ezra’s presence in Neh 8 is better understood with Ezra 1–10 attached); (4) stylistic differences such as Ezra, but not Nehemiah, including Aramaic and the Ezra Memoir being primarily written in first person, whereas Ezra material in Neh 8 is presented in third person; and (5) the opinion of some (at least by Origen’s time) that they should be two books.

Nevertheless, Jewish tradition supports the notion that Ezra and Nehemiah were originally one work separate from Chronicles. The earliest roster of the Hebrew Bible composed by Melito of Sardis in the second century CE regards Ezra and Nehemiah as one unit, as does LXX.⁶⁰ The Masoretes give their traditional paragraph count only at the end of Nehemiah, and it includes both Ezra and Nehemiah; their midpoint is at Neh 3:32, not at the end of Ezra. Josephus (Against Apion 1.40) and the Talmud (b. B. Bat. 15a) refer only to one work (i.e., Ezra). L. S. Fried expresses the implausibility of one of these books without the other: Moreover, it is inconceivable that a story of Ezra would have been complete without an account of Ezra reading the law to the gathered populace. That story is told only in the book of Nehemiah. Nor could the story of Ezra’s reading the Torah have been told in the book of Nehemiah without an account of Ezra’s coming to Jerusalem. That story is not in Nehemiah, but only in the book of Ezra.⁶¹

Thus, each book is needed in order to understand the other. Ezra and Nehemiah were originally simply Ezra in the earliest Hebrew manuscripts from the tenth century. Origen distinguishes between 1 Ezra and 2 Ezra but says that in Hebrew they are one book. Jerome, too, separates Nehemiah, the liber secundus Esdrae, from Ezra. Thus, the division apparently begins with the church fathers.

In a monograph on Levitical authorship of both Ezra and Nehemiah, Kyung-Jin Min skillfully argues against the separate books view.⁶² He points out that, as it stands, part of the story is in one book and part in the other. The introduction in Neh 1:1 is paralleled by subheadings in the Psalms, and in fact the second half of 1:1 is a defective date with no mention of the king, which must be assumed from Ezra. Also, the heading indicates the following first-person material will now be given by Nehemiah, not Ezra. Min endorses two scholarly views for the repetition of the lists. First, repetition of the lists was devised to show the continuity between the community which first returned and built the temple (Ezra 2) and the purified community (Nehemiah 7). Second, the lists provide authorization for those who would rebuild the temple (Ezra 2) as well as supply a genealogical register for those who would take up residence in Jerusalem and other cities of Judah (Neh 7). Against VanderKam’s different word lists, Min notes that the two books share technical terms too—for example, Temple Servants or Netinim (nətînîm) and the hand of God upon (yad-’elōhîm ‘āl) a person; both are rarely found elsewhere in the Hebrew Bible.⁶³ Also, while the house of God is a less-emphasized fait accompli in Nehemiah, the theme of the restoration of the community is shared by both books.

Other scholars, too, have argued for the connection of Ezra and Nehemiah in one compilation based on narrative integrity.⁶⁴ The inclusion of an Ezra story within Nehemiah, by its assumption that the reader is familiar with Ezra, supports the idea that Nehemiah and Ezra are a unitary compilation. Eskenazi uncovers underlying themes throughout the two books. Throntveit’s work on literary devices (concentricity, parallel panels, and repetitive resumptions) has also further demonstrated the link between the two books (see Literary Techniques, pp. 29–30).

The two books use parallel collocations as well. For instance, the use of the hand of Yahweh my God was upon me (Ezra 7:28) parallels the good hand of my God that was upon me (Neh 2:8). Other hand imagery in both books includes stretching out the hand in force against someone (dî yiślaḥ yədēh, will stretch out his hand, Ezra 6:12; yād ʾešlaḥ bākem, I will stretch out a hand against you, Neh 13:21) and efforts to strengthen hands or weaken them (i.e., encourage or discourage; Ezra 4:4; 6:22; Neh 6:9).

In addition to the above arguments for the compilation of Ezra-Nehemiah without Chronicles, the priestly material of the Bible uses technical language that conveys specific meanings in the context of the Israelite cult. In Ezra-Nehemiah, this vocabulary is used quite differently than in earlier Jewish traditions, and this distinct usage is shared between both books.⁶⁵ One concept shared by both but otherwise unique in the Hebrew Bible is the sacrilege of intermarriage (see Ezra 9:2; 10:2; Neh 13:27; see Excursus 9, The Sacrilege of Intermarriage, pp. 244–54). The root qdš, to be holy, is used in an expansive way. Ezra represents the holiness of the entire community of returned exiles, not just the priests, as biological by the reference to the holy seed (zeraʿ haqqōdeš, Ezra 9:2), and Nehemiah corroborates this outlook (Neh 9:2). Like the holiness of the priests, the holy seed can be desecrated (maʿal; Ezra 9:2; 10:2, 10; Neh 1:8; 13:27), an innovation over against earlier norms. Ezra records the dimensions of the temple as larger than Solomon’s (Ezra 6:3). Over the course of the two books, the holiness of the temple reaches out to encompass the entire city of Jerusalem, requiring purification of its walls (Neh 7:1; 13:22). The people find themselves in the house of God, although they are merely within the walls of the city, not the sanctuary itself (Neh 12:40). More striking than earlier traditions, the label of impurity is applied directly to outsiders. Unlike the purity system of Lev 11–15, separating (bādal) from impurity in both Ezra and Nehemiah usually means disassociating from foreigners or people of the land(s) (Ezra 6:21; 9:11; 10:11; Neh 10:28; 13:26, 30). Furthermore, the term gāʾal (nauseating, revolting, defiling) describes the defilement of the priests by intermarriage (Ezra 2:61–62; Neh 7:64; 13:29).

D. COMPILATION

The date of the final compilation of Ezra-Nehemiah continues to trouble scholars. The matter revolves, to a great extent, around the genealogical lists of Neh 12. Jaddua of Neh 12:10–11 may be the same Jaddua, known from Josephus, who came into contact with Alexander the Great. Further support for a Hellenistic context may come from the word used for coins in Ezra 2:69; 8:27 and Neh 7:70–72, which may refer to the Greek drachma.⁶⁶ From a philosophical perspective, the tone of Ezra-Nehemiah ends with greater skepticisim than the earlier optimism under Cyrus and Darius and may reflect a Hellenistic rather than a Persian context.⁶⁷ On the other hand, there is no mention in Ezra-Nehemiah of Alexander’s conquest or even the suffering of the mid-fourth century BCE, when Judah joined the Phoenician rebellion and was harshly put down by Artaxerxes III.⁶⁸

The redaction and final compilation of Ezra-Nehemiah remains a matter of debate among scholars. According to some, large identifiable sources were compiled at different times during the fifth to fourth centuries BCE; others regard the process as incremental, arguing that there was a continual process of editing as scribes responded to various issues of the community.⁶⁹ In my view, an early editor combined material regarding Ezra and Nehemiah (of whom Nehemiah lived later) no earlier than 430 BCE and no later than the death of Artaxerxes in 424 BCE. One example of an early setting for this material is its emphasis on Judah and Benjamin, a postexilic rather than a Hellenistic issue.⁷⁰ Nevertheless, later editing is also discernible (e.g., Neh 12:10). The lists of the high priests of Neh 12 discussed above reveals that the book’s final compilation could not have been before Darius the Persian—most likely Darius III (335–331 BCE).

The motive for this compilation revolves around matters of identity and ethnicity. In the Persian period, and even more so in the Hellenistic period, Jews were increasingly concerned with legitimacy and continuity. Who is a Jew? becomes a key question, and Ezra-Nehemiah provides the earliest narrative dealing with the matter. Ezra and Nehemiah are heroes who maintain an ethnically pure Jewish community that is legitimately linked to the Israelite past, attestable by genealogy, and guided by the Torah in the present despite persecution and the dominance of a foreign regime.

III. METHODOLOGY

The increasing frustration with a diachronic approach to Ezra-Nehemiah has led many scholars to examine other methodologies. The diachronic method views the writing of Ezra-Nehemiah as a process with many stages of adding or editing literary sources. This long-standing method is helpful in that it often provides an answer for internal inconsistencies by pointing to various sources, text layers, and editing. However, the disadvantage of the diachronic method is that emendations and large rearrangements of the text are often subjective, as the scholar tries to create a smooth, chronological narrative from a modern point of view.

IV. SETTING

The narrative of Ezra-Nehemiah takes place primarily within the Persian province of Yehud (= Judah, Judea). The geographical boundaries and population of this province, especially that of its central city Jerusalem, continue to be a matter of debate among scholars. According to O. Lipschits, Yehud lost about 60 percent of its population in the Babylonian deportations of the sixth century BCE. Compared with about 110,000 before the Babylonian conquest, Yehud in the time of Zerubbabel contained only about 60,000 persons.⁷¹

A. YEHUD

The Persians organized Yehud as part of a huge administrative district, or satrapy, that included Babylon and all of the Near East west of the Euphrates River. The satrapy was given the name, Babili-Ebirnari, Babylon and Across the River (i.e., the River Euphrates; see Ezra 8:36; Neh 2:7, 9; 3:7). Herodotus describes it as the Fifth Satrapy, which included the nations of Syria, Phoenicia, Cyprus, and Israel to the border of Egypt (Histories 1.114). According to Ezra-Nehemiah, Judah was surrounded by hostile enemies: Samaria to the north, governed by Sanballat; Ammon-Gilead on the east, governed by Tobiah; and Arabia-Idumea in the south, where Geshem was in control. To the west lay the province of Ashdod.⁷²

Yehud was much smaller than the Judah of the Babylonian period, encompassing approximately 800 square miles. Its boundaries, according to the biblical rosters of place names, are confirmed to a large degree by the presence of (1) forts on the southern and western boundaries, and (2) coins and seal impressions stamped with the name Yehud. E. Stern states the boundaries as follows: The southern border of this area of distribution would appear to be at Beth-Zur; the northern limit is at Tell en-Nasbeh; the eastern limit is a line extending from Jericho to En-Gedi; in the west, some seal impressions were recovered at Gezer, which is definitely located in the district of Lod, and at Tel Harasim, which belonged to the Keilah district. Thus, the distribution of coins and impressions of the Judaean province encompasses the entire area mentioned in the Bible.⁷³

The expanded version of Yehud’s boundaries has been contested. O. Lipschits estimates a somewhat smaller area of settlement in Persian Yehud, especially on the western extent.⁷⁴ Admittedly, archaeological remains do not establish clear boundaries of the province of Yehud but simply provide isolated pieces of evidence.⁷⁵ (See the map on p. 96.)

Discussion continues regarding the status of Yehud as a province. A. Alt believed that Yehud was under the rulership of the province of Samaria and that the establishment of Yehud as an independent province was a new idea which began with the appointment of Nehemiah as governor.⁷⁶ This would explain the hostility of the Samarians during this time. However, Scripture refers to both Sheshbazzar (Ezra 5:14) and Zerubbabel (Hag 1:1, 14; 2:2, 21) as governors and Yehud as some kind of independent province (mədînâ; see Esth 1:1).⁷⁷ In addition, over seventy bullae (clay seal impressions) were found in a jar near Jerusalem made from twelve seals, with the name of the province Yehud. Several of them contain the name of a Jew who was designated governor. Also, two seals, possibly from the sixth century BCE, were discovered, one of which belonged to Shelomith, maidservant of Elnathan the Governor.⁷⁸ Nehemiah also points to governors prior to him that, unlike himself, took the governor’s allowance of food, and laid a heavy burden on the people (Neh 5:14–15). Thus, it appears Yehud was an independent province as early as the late sixth century BCE.

B. JERUSALEM

There was a large difference in the impact of the deportations on residents of the hill country and of Jerusalem. While large estates in the rural areas were relatively untouched, Jerusalem and its environs were devastated. Nehemiah describes such ruin that his animal can barely find footing while he investigates the site (Neh 2:14). It was his vision and self-imposed mission to repopulate and secure the city with a defensive wall.

The Scripture gives some hint as to the extent of Jerusalem in its description of the city’s repopulation under Nehemiah’s administration (Neh 11:1–24). One out of ten Judean settlers volunteer to move into its borders. Steinmann, pointing out that the total of those associated with the city’s government in Neh 11 comes to 3,044, estimates a total population of between 10,000 and 15,000 persons, which allows for the families of these men and for others who were not leaders.⁷⁹ On the other hand, Broshi, on the basis of the area of Jerusalem being 120 dunams, estimates its population at 40 persons a dunam to a total of about 4,800 people in Jerusalem in Nehemiah’s time.⁸⁰ In either case, the population of Jerusalem is drastically less than during the time of the first return. According to the earlier lists of Ezra-Nehemiah, the number of men alone whose ancestry is associated with Jerusalem in Zerubbabel’s day was around 16,000 (Ezra 2:3–20; Neh 7:8–25). (See the image of Nehemiah’s Jerusalem on p. 97.)

A large factor in determining the population of Jerusalem is the extent of its area in early Persian times. A few scholars place the wall in the late Hellenistic period and identify it with the Hasmonean city wall. However, this view runs into difficulty because the various toponyms described in the text (e.g., the temple with an adjacent royal palace, the upper king’s house, the courtyard of the guard, the Horse Gate) reflect the layout of the city in early Second Temple, not Hasmonean, times (see Neh 3:25–28).⁸¹ According to the minimalists, who are the majority of scholars, the area of Jerusalem in the Persian period was limited to the eastern hill.⁸² They note that excavations of the Jewish Quarter on the western hill reveal Hellenistic remains directly on top of First Temple finds. Most buildings in this period were constructed in an open-court style—that is, as a courtyard with rooms surrounding it on all or most sides, a typical design for the Assyrian, Babylonian, and Persian periods.⁸³ Along with the lack of archaeological finds from the Persian period on the southwestern hill, the description of the wall building also supports the minimalist position. The list of task forces is roughly equal on both sides of the wall, divided on a north/south axis from the Sheep Gate in the north to the Dung Gate in the south, with nineteen crews on the west side of the city and twenty-two crews on the east side. Many more crews would have been needed on the west side if it included the southwestern hill.⁸⁴

The matter of Jerusalem’s physical size, however, is not a closed case. The scholars referred to as maximalists argue that the borders of the preexilic city included not only the eastern hill with its Temple Mount and City of David but the southwestern hill as well.⁸⁵ Proponents of this view point out that there is not sufficient evidence for a wall on the western side of the City of David dating to Nehemiah’s period. David Ussishkin explains that there is evidence in the southern section of the western boundary of the City of David that it was fortified in the Middle Bronze II period but that it was not fortified at all in later times.⁸⁶ Rather, the preexilic size of Jerusalem, from the eighth century forward, included the southwestern hill. He also points to the large number of gates in the wall described in Nehemiah, which makes better sense for a larger perimeter. Also, the biblical description of the site before Jerusalem’s repopulation seems to fit better with a settlement larger than the eastern hill, The city was wide and spacious but the people in it were few and the houses had not been rebuilt (Neh 7:4). According to Nehemiah 11, one-tenth of the Jewish population moved inside the city walls (Neh 11:1–2).

The crux remains that archaeologists have not uncovered clear evidence of Jewish settlement on the southwestern hill during the Persian period. Whether or not Nehemiah’s wall extended to the western hill, the population of the city was still concentrated on the eastern hill. The city, even at the minimalist size, could have easily accommodated one to two thousand people.⁸⁷

C. LITERARY CRITICISM

Literary criticism goes beyond historical concerns and begs for the rationale behind the work as a whole. It asks why the book exists in its present form. The work is not just the next stop on a train of sources that were compiled and edited at different moments in history. Instead, like scholars of other literatures, literary critics take note of literary conventions in the text, seeking undergirding themes as well as overarching frameworks and plots. They are also sensitive to symbols and their meanings, which highlight key values of these early Jewish communities.⁸⁸

1. Themes and Purpose

Literary critics differ regarding what the major themes are in Ezra-Nehemiah and what the overall purpose of the book is. Eskenazi, in a ground-breaking monograph, In an Age of Prose, concluded that the three major parts of Ezra-Nehemiah were intentionally composed and sequenced to make a point: the extension of holiness in Israel from the establishment of the holy house to the sanctification of the entire city.⁸⁹

Sara Japhet, too, urges that chronology in Ezra-Nehemiah is tied to composition. According to Japhet, the author is making a historical statement by sequencing key events in a particular way. In each of the three major events of the book, the restoration begins with Persian authorization and continues with a group of returnees from exile. Japhet states: By the means of this time-structuring, the author expresses his historical view—which he also expresses in other ways—that change and renewal in the life of Judah were the result of initiative on the part of the Persian kings and the Jews of Babylonia rather than any action in Judah itself, whether political or spiritual. God extended grace to Israel—that is to those who returned from exile—by means of the kings of Persia.⁹⁰

Throntveit suggests a paradigm that focuses on the crucial theological moments of the restoration as three parallel returns—those led by Zerubbabel, Ezra, and Nehemiah, each of whom fulfilled his own mission: the reconstruction of the temple, community, and walls. In each case, there was a return from exile prompted by God and authorized by the Persian emperor, opposition from the local authorities, and a meeting of the challenge with God’s help.⁹¹

Shemaryahu Talmon notes that all three narrative blocks display a similar structure and, with one exception, are composed of the same types of subunits: (1) royal documents worded in Aramaic or in Hebrew (Ezra only); (2) letters in a common epistolary style, written in Aramaic by Persian officials to the king and in Hebrew between Nehemiah and Sanballat; (3) diverse lists of returnees, inhabitants, builders, and signatories, as well as inventories.⁹²

Several scholars have noticed the recollection of the exodus narrative in the language and themes of Ezra-Nehemiah.⁹³ The writer views the return from exile as a second exodus from slavery. The giving of the law and the journey to the land of promise are central in both stories, and Ezra’s part in these endeavors puts him forward as a sort of second Moses. Blenkinsopp refers to this use of Israelite history in a contemporary way as a trend in the second historical corpus (Chronicles-Ezra-Nehemiah) of gathering up of the past and reshaping it in such a way as to allow for a future.⁹⁴

There are other suggestions for the text’s main themes and purpose. Some scholars regard Ezra-Nehemiah as establishing a line of continuity with the First Temple period, its royalty, and its priesthood. Others view its purpose as a corrective to overly liberal, inclusive prophets like Isaiah, instead promoting a hardline approach toward outsiders, especially with regard to the cult. According to Lester Grabbe, one of the book’s main messages is that eternal vigilance is required to keep outsiders from leading the community astray, and he notes the unsettling ending of the book, which leaves in the mind of the reader the open-ended danger that remains against which one must be constantly vigilant.⁹⁵

2. Literary Techniques

Various literary conventions are employed in Ezra-Nehemiah that delineate the structure of the text. Two of the most obvious of these are concentricity and resumptive repetition. Concentricity, or chiastic structure—sometimes referred to as staircase parallelism or ring composition—refers to the arrangement of a section of the text (whether a verse or a group of chapters) in which the members of the second half of a bicolon, sentence, or other literary unit echo, repeat, or recall the members of the first half in inverted order, in the form AB … B′A′.⁹⁶ As an example, Ezra 9:3–10:1 records in a chiastic structure Ezra’s intercessory prayer for the community that has intermarried with outsiders:

A Narrative action: Ezra’s mourning (9:3–5)

B General confession (9:6–7)

C Present evidence of divine mercy (9:8–9)

X Specific confession (9:10–12)

C′ Questioned continuance of divine mercy (9:13–14)

B′ General confession (9:15)

A′ Narrative action: Ezra’s mourning (10:1a)⁹⁷

The most significant part of the confession, that the community has violated divine laws against intermarriage, appears at the center of the passage (X). This is framed by the supporting parts of Ezra’s prayer: his affirmation of divine mercy both currently (C, C′) and historically (B, B′). Further out (A, A′), the unit begins and ends by setting forth the narrative details of the context: the mourning posture of Ezra and those who gathered around him.

Noss and Thomas focus on the phenomenon of concentricity on a macro scale, which they refer to as expanded chiasmus or mirror image in which one set of paragraphs or lines builds up toward a climax from which a second set of paragraphs or lines moves away in opposite fashion (see Neh 3:3–32).⁹⁸ Often the main point of the passage is highlighted by its placement at the center of one of these chiasms. For Throntveit too, concentricity is the primary structural device employed in Ezra-Nehemiah, appearing at every level of the text.⁹⁹

The presence of resumptive repetition and summaries in Ezra-Nehemiah was first brought into relief by Shemaryahu Talmon.¹⁰⁰ Resumptive repetition is a technique by which an earlier phrase is repeated or continued after the interruption of other material. A good example is Ezra 2:1b (= Neh 7:6b): These are the people of the province who came up from the captivity … [and] returned to Jerusalem and Judah, each to his own city. Here it breaks off for the list of people but summarizes and resumes at Ezra 2:70 (= Neh 7:73) with So the priests, Levites, some of the people … settled in their cities. More pointedly, Ezra 4:6–24a is framed by 4:5b (until the reign of King Darius of Persia) and 4:24b (until the second year of the reign of King Darius of Persia"). This framing of material by a similar phrase at its beginning and end is also called an inclusio or envelope. Thus, rather than insisting that Ezra-Nehemiah is wrong historically in introducing Artaxerxes in the time of Cyrus and Darius, the readers realize that by describing local opposition to the Jews under Darius, the author reminds them of a more recent, similar experience in more recent times under Artaxerxes. The theme of overcoming opposition by local authorities who complain to the emperor, not the chronology, is the organizing factor here.¹⁰¹

It is possible to identify particular textual units in Ezra-Nehemiah based on summaries. For example, Ezra 4:4–5 summarizes the preceding chapter, relating the troubles of rebuilding the temple.¹⁰² Ezra 6:13–14 summarizes 5:1–6:12, recounting the progress and completion of the temple. Nehemiah 12:26 concludes the list of priests in 12:10–25, and, similarly, Neh 12:47 refers back to 12:44–46. Significantly, Neh 13:29b–31a only summarizes Neh 10–13, marking this section off as a separate source from the rest of the Nehemiah Memoir (see also summaries in Neh 12:26, 47; Ezra 6:13–14).¹⁰³

Prayers too are used to mark off structure. For example, at the end of ch. 5 Nehemiah prays, Remember for my good, O my God, all that I have done for this people. This concludes the previous section, and a new episode is begun in ch. 6. Other invocations follow in Neh 6:14; 13:14, 22, 29, and, finally bringing closure to the book, 31.¹⁰⁴ As this discussion demonstrates, the techniques of literary criticism can work in tandem with those of source criticism.

3. Literature and History