Ezr 10 is the proper continuation of the pre- ceding section of E, but Ezra is spoken of in the third person. All efibrts to explain this change of person as due to Ezra have been hopeless failures.! The force of the fact lies in the change taking place right in the middle of the narrative without any explicable cause. Moreover, we find one conspicuous anachronism : a room in the temple is called after Jehohanan, the son of Eliashib (10*) ; but Eliashib was a prominent priest in 432 (Neh 12- 13^), and a room could not have been called his son's in 458.§ Yet there are points of resem- blance with E. 'The passage is probably a revision and abbreviation of E, the work of the compiler.
Neh T^i'-IO. Of this portion 9«-10»» is regarded by Stade II as an original portion of E. The prayer gj-sa jg suited to Ezra, and the words prefixed in the LXX ' and Ezra said ' may be an original note of the compUer's to explain his extract from E. The remainder of the section, 7'*''-9°, is usually ac- coimted for in the same way as Ezr 10, to which it bears strikin" resemblance. There is room for grave doubt about the chronology.H There is practically no guide except the position of the passage. A comparison of 7" and Ezr 3' shows that the compiler has made a false connexion of this passage with N, and he does not appear to have been an expert in chronology. The section took its present form long after the events de- scribed, so that confusion of order was easily possible. Sayce has pointed out that the names in Neh 10 are for the most part found also in Ezr 2.** He regards this section as the work of ' a layman,' and not a priest like Ezra, since he classes himself with ' the people ' (19'-- "■ »»). ft
Neh ll>-12^is made up of lists extracted from the temple registers, with explanatory notes by the compiler. Ch. 11 is closely connected >vith 7 , and may be based on N. Kcinig says that ch. ll ' might indeed have been incorporated by Neh. into his writings,' but that 12'--* ' on account of Jaddua (12--) falls into the time of Alexander the Great. ' Xt
Neh 12"-13' cannot be from N, for it uses the expression ' in the days of Neh.' (12"), as of a time long past. Konig admits that 12""" comes from a later hand, but holds that N begins with 13' instead of 13*, as most critics maintain. \V. R. Smith, OTJC p. 427 n., stig.'ests that 13'- » origin- ally stood between Ezr lO"- '".
"There remains for consideration Ezr 1-6. Ch. 1 is very likely due to the compiler, though he may have used written sources. . . Vv.'-'» are found also in 2 Ch 36-"- The differences are very slight,
• Einl. p. 264. See also Kuenen, Critique de L'A. T. p. 607, for details of the alleged colouring, t LO'lVp. 650.
t See, e.g., Keil, Ezra, tTeh., Eeth. 1873, p. Ut § See Cornill, Einl. p. 2ti8.
I Gmh. d. V. Itr. iL 153 fl.
II See art. Ezra.
•• Introd. to Ezra, Neh., and Bit. 1888, p. ».
tt lb. p. SO.
tJ Einl. in dai AT, 1893. p. 278. On the relation of Neh 11 14 1 Ch 9' 2», see Sayce, Introd. p. 32 ; Oettli, op. cit. p. 150 Bertheau-Byssel, ' Kgf. Exeg. Handb. z. AT.' 1887, Ezr., fieh., u E»t. p. 12.
EZRA AND NEHEMIAH
EZRA AND NEHEMIAH
82a
ftnd are due to accident in copying, Vv.*** con- tain the edict of Cyrus. From a comparison fl,*ith the inscriptions of Cyrus,* it appears to bo strongly coloured bv Jewish ideas. Cyrus attributes his success to Slerodach, not to J".
2'-3'* is found also in Keh 7'*^. In the latter place it is appended to Neheiniah's memoirs with this preface : ' And I found the book of tlie genea- lofeT ^^ those who hrst came up : and I found ■WTitten in it ' (7^). There are more than a hundred variations in the two versions. The numbers esp. differ oftener than they agree.+ Such variation is always found in duplicates. Cf. Pss 14 and 53, Ps 18 and 2 S 22. This does not destroy identity of origin. It appears from the large number of such lists that the Jews were in the habit of keeping registers of important names. From such a regis- ter the Chronicler has incorporated the list into its present place. These lists have been but poorly preserved in the transmission of the original docu- ments, as we lind many errors wherever we have data to test them. This list was already a part of a narrative when copied by Neh., since both versions end with narrative. This ending in Ezr introduces tlie assembling at Jerus. for the setting up of the altar, in Neh the assembling for the pi om nidation of the law.
3*-4* IS very generally assigned to the Chronicler (so Cornill, Schrader, Ryssel, Driver, etc. For the grounds of this see LO'I^ 547 f.).
4*'- These are two fragments from unknown sources. They cannot be from the Chronicler, for they are out of joint with the context. V.** con- tains a statement about an accusation made against the Jews in the beg. of the reign of Xerxes. There is no hint of tliis elsewhere. 4' may have been placed here on the supposition that it was intro- kuctory to the passage following, but we shall see cha'j this is not so. There is no reason, however, to doubt the genuineness or authenticity of these verses.