and ritualistic; the other, more cosmopolitan, extended a freer welcome to strangers, and tolerated the popular elements and the superstitious cults which are vividly depicted (Isa. lxv. seq.). But the former gained the day, and, realizing that the only hope of maintaining a pure worship of Yahweh lay in a forcible isolation from foreign influence, its adherents were prepared to take measures to ensure the religious independence of their assembly. It is related that Ezra, the scribe and priest, returned to Jerusalem with priests and Levites, lay exiles, and a store of vessels for the Temple. He was commissioned to inquire into the religious condition of the land and to disseminate the teaching of the Law to which he had devoted himself (Ezra vii.). On his arrival the people were gathered together, and in due course he read the “book of the Law of Moses” daily for seven days (Neh. viii.). They entered into an agreement to obey its teaching, undertaking in particular to avoid marriages with foreigners (x. 28 sqq.). A special account is given of this reform (Ezra ix. seq.) and the description of Ezra’s horror at the prevalence of intermarriage, which threatened to destroy the distinctive character of the community, sufficiently indicates the attitude of the stricter party. The true seed of Israel separated themselves from all foreigners (not, however, without some opposition) and formed an exclusively religious body or “congregation.” Dreams of political freedom gave place to hopes of religious independence, and “Israel” became a church, the foundation of which it sought in the desert of Sinai a thousand years before.
22. Post-exilic History.—The biblical history for the period in the books of Ezra and Nehemiah is exceptionally obscure, and it is doubtful how far the traditions can be trusted before we reach the reign of Artaxerxes (Ezra vii. sqq., Neh.). The records belonging to this reign represent four different stages: (a) The Samaritans reported that the Jews who had returned from the king to Jerusalem were rebuilding the city and completing its walls, an act calculated to endanger the integrity of the province. Artaxerxes accordingly instructed them to stop the work until he should give the necessary decree, and this was done by force (Ezra iv. 7–23, undated; 1 Esdras ii. 16 sqq. mentions a building of the Temple!). (b) It was in the 7th year (i.e. 458 B.C.) that Ezra returned with a small body of exiles to promulgate the new laws he had brought and to set the Temple service in order.[1] Fortified with remarkable powers, some of which far exceed the known tolerance of Persian kings, he began wide-sweeping marriage reforms; but the record ceases abruptly (vii.–x.). (c) In the 20th year (445 B.C.) Nehemiah returned with permission to rebuild the walls, the citadel and the governor’s house (Neh. ii. 5, 8; see § 21 above). But (d), whilst as governor he accomplishes various needed reforms, there is much confusion in the present narratives, due partly to the resumption of Ezra’s labours after an interval of twelve years, and partly to the closely related events of Nehemiah’s activity in which room must be found for his twelve-years’ governorship and a second visit. The internal literary and historical questions are extremely intricate, and the necessity for some reconstruction is very generally felt (for preliminary details, see Ezra and Nehemiah). The disaster which aroused Nehemiah’s grief was scarcely the fall of Jerusalem in 586 B.C., but a more recent one, and it has been conjectured that it followed the work of Ezra (in b above). On the other hand, a place can hardly be found for the history of Ezra before the appearance of Nehemiah; he moves in a settled and peaceful community such as Nehemiah had helped to form, his reforms appear to be more mature and schematic than those of Nehemiah; and, whilst Josephus handles the two separately, giving Ezra the priority, many recent scholars incline to place Nehemiah’s first visit before the arrival of Ezra.[2] That later tradition should give the pre-eminence to the priestly reforms of Ezra is in every way natural, but it has been found extremely difficult to combine the two in any reconstruction of the period. Next, since there are three distinct sources, for (a) above, and for the work of Nehemiah and of Ezra, implicit reliance cannot be placed upon the present sequence of narratives. Thus (a), with its allusion to a further decree, forms a plausible prelude to the return of either Ezra (vii. 13) or Nehemiah (i. 3, ii. 3); and if it is surprising that the Samaritans and other opponents, who had previously waited to address Artaxerxes (Ezra iv. 14 sqq., v. 5, 17), should now interfere when Nehemiah was armed with a royal mandate (Neh. ii. 7–9), it is very difficult not to conclude that the royal permits, as now detailed, have been coloured by Jewish patriotism and the history by enmity to Samaria. Finally, the situation in the independent and undated record (a) points to a return, a rebuilding (apparently after some previous destruction), and some interference. This agrees substantially with the independent records of Nehemiah, and unless we assume two disasters not widely separated in date—viz. those presupposed in (a) and (c)—the record in (a), may refer to that stage in the history where the other source describes the intrigues of the Samaritans and the letters sent by Tobiah (cf. Tabeel in Ezra iv. 7) to frighten Nehemiah (Neh. vi. 19).[3] Their insinuations that Nehemiah was seeking to be ruler and their representations to Artaxerxes would be enough to alarm the king (cf. Neh. vi. 5–9, 19, and Ezra iv. 15 seq., 20 seq.), and it may possibly be gathered that Nehemiah at once departed to justify himself (Neh. vii. 2, xiii. 4, 6). Nevertheless, since the narratives are no longer in their original form or sequence, it is impossible to trace the successive steps of the sequel; although if the royal favour was endorsed (cf. the account ascribed to the time of Darius, Ezra v. seq.), Nehemiah’s position as a reformer would be more secure.
Although there was a stock of tradition for the post-exilic age (cf. Daniel, Esther, 1 Esdras, Josephus), the historical narratives are of the scantiest and vaguest until the time of Artaxerxes, when the account of a return (Ezra iv. 12), which otherwise is quite ignored, appears to have been used for the times of Darius (1 Esdras iv. seq.) and subsequently of Cyrus (Ezra i.–iii.). Moreover, although general opinion identifies our Artaxerxes with the first of that name, certain features suggest that there has been some confusion with the traditions of the time of Artaxerxes II. and III. (§ 19). But the problems are admittedly complicated, and since one is necessarily dependent upon scanty narratives arranged and rearranged by later hands in accordance with their own historical theories, it is difficult to lay stress upon internal evidence which appears to be conclusive for this or that reconstruction.[4] The main facts, however, are clear. Jerusalem had suffered some serious catastrophe before Nehemiah’s return; a body of exiles returned, and in spite of interference the work of rebuilding was completed; through their influence the Judaean community underwent reorganization, and separated itself from its so-called heathen neighbours. How many years elapsed from beginning to end can hardly be said. Tradition concentrated upon Ezra and his age many events and changes of fundamental importance. The canonical history has allowed only one great destruction of Jerusalem, and the disaster of 586 B.C. became the type for similar disasters, but how many there were criticism can scarcely decide.[5] Allusions to Judah’s sufferings at the hands of Edom, Moab and Ammon often imply conditions which are not applicable to 586. A definite series knows of an invasion and occupation by Edom (q.v. end), a people with whom Judah, as the genealogies show, had once been intimately connected. The unfriendliness of the “brother” people, which added so much to the bitterness of Judah, although associated with the events of 586 (so especially 1 Esdras iv. 45), probably belongs to a much later date.[6] The tradition that Edomites burned the Temple and occupied part of Judah (ib. vv. 45, 50) is partially confirmed by Ezek. xxxv. 5, 10, xxxvi. 5; Ps. cxxxvii. 7; but the assumption that Darius, as in 1 Esdras, helped the Jews against them can with difficulty be maintained. The interesting conjecture that the second Temple suffered another disaster in the obscure gap which follows the time of Zerubbabel has been urged, after Isa. lxiii. 7–lxiv. 12, by Kuenen (afterwards withdrawn) and by Sellin, and can be independently confirmed. In the records of Nehemiah the ruins of the city are extensive (ii. 8, 17, iii.; cf. Ecclus. xlix. 13), and the tradition that Nehemiah rebuilt this Temple (Jos. Ant. xi. 5, 6; 2 Macc. i. 18) is supported (a) by the explicit
- ↑ The statement that the king desired to avoid the divine wrath may possibly have some deeper meaning (e.g. some recent revolt, Ezra vii. 23).
- ↑ It must suffice to refer to the opinions of Bertholet, Buhl, Cheyne, Guthe, Van Hoonacker, Jahn, Kennett, Kent, Kosters, Marquart, Torrey, and Wildeboer.
- ↑ C. F. Kent, Israel’s Hist. and Biog. Narratives (1905), p. 358 seq. The objections against this very probable view undervalue Ezra iv. 7–23 and overlook the serious intricacies in the book of Nehemiah.
- ↑ There are three inquiries: (a) the critical value of 1 Esdras, (b) the character of the different representations of post-exilic internal and external history, and (c) the recovery of the historical facts. To start with the last before considering (a) and (b) would be futile.
- ↑ For example, to the sufferings under Artaxerxes III. (§ 19) have been ascribed such passages as Isa. lxiii. 7–lxiv. 12; Ps. xliv., lxxiv., lxxix., lxxx., lxxxiii. (see also Lamentations). In their present form they are not of the beginning of the 6th century and, if the evidence for Artaxerxes III. proves too doubtful, they may belong to the history preceding Nehemiah’s return, provided the internal features do not stand in the way (e.g. prior or posterior to the formation of the exclusive Judaean community, &c.). Since the book of Baruch (named after Jeremiah’s scribe) is now recognized to be considerably later (probably after the destruction of Jerusalem A.D. 70), it will be seen that the recurrence of similar causes leads to a similarity in the contemporary literary productions (with a reshaping of earlier tradition), the precise date of which depends upon delicate points of detail and not upon the apparently obvious historical elements.
- ↑ See H. Winckler, Keil. u. Alte Test., 295, and Kennett, Journ. Theol. Stud. (1906), p. 487; Camb. Bib. Essays, p. 117. The Chaldeans alone destroyed Jerusalem (2 Kings xxv.); Edom was friendly or at least neutral (Jer. xxvii. 3, xl. 11 seq.). The proposal to read “Edomites” for “Syrians” in the list of bands which troubled Jehoiakim (2 Kings xxiv. 2) is not supported by the contemporary reference, Jer. xxxv. 11.
