The Transposition
in Ezra-Nehemiah
Before getting into the
discussion on the transposition in Ezra-Nehemiah, a brief overview of
the content and make-up of these two books would be beneficial here as it would
help to explain how a transposition of passages could have taken place.
As several textual and
historical traces concerning Ezra-Nehemiah still reveal today, the books
of Ezra and Nehemiah originally formed one book in the ancient Hebrew
Bible. This is seen by the following facts: (1) The oldest Hebrew collections
of scrolls of Old Testament writings (known as "codices," plural for
"codex") refers to Ezra-Nehemiah as one book.R2
(2) In the Jewish rabbinical writings called the Talmud, the activities of
Nehemiah are included in the book of Ezra,R3 and the question is
also asked: "Why then, was the book not called his [Nehemiah’s]
name?"B4 (3) In the ancient Hebrew Bible the combined form
of these two books totaled 685 verses and this total was originally indicated
only after the book of Nehemiah with the "middle verse" or the
midpoint of Ezra-Nehemiah being marked to be between Neh. 3:31 and 3:32.
(4) Jewish scholars in the 6th century A.D. known as the
Masoretes, usually placed their statistics and comments about a Bible book at
the end of the Bible book in question, but they did not do so after the book of
Ezra. They rather placed these notes after the book of Nehemiah. So all of these indications clearly show
that the books of Ezra and Nehemiah, although they included the works of two
distinct people, were originally one canonical book under the name of Ezra.N5
So the question that can now be asked is when did this single book come to be
in its present separated form as seen the English Bibles today and also,
interestingly enough, in the modern Hebrew Bibles?
The earliest mention of
a separation of these two books in a Biblical canonN6 was made by the 3rd
century Church Father Origen (ca. A.D. 185-253).R7
From that time on these two books were known as "1st
Ezra" and "2nd Ezra" until "2nd
Ezra" was renamed as "Nehemiah" by Church Father Jerome in about
405 A.D., in his Latin translation of the Bible called the Vulgate.
The title "Nehemiah" appeared much later, in about 1560 A.D., in an English version called the Geneva Bible. The separation of Ezra-Nehemiah was also
adopted in the canon of the Hebrew Bible around that time, in about 1448 A.D.,R8 and was officially accepted in about 1525 A.D., as it then appeared in the Daniel Bomberg Edition of the Hebrew Bible.
It was more than likely
the mind set of the original composer of Ezra-Nehemiah to combine the
separate works of Ezra and Nehemiah (and, as we will see, also other materials)
as he set out to document the story of Israel’s restoration following their
captivity. Later on, Christians and then Jews, who were both emotionally and
historically removed from these events, probably felt that it was better to
separate the two works and identify them according to their dominant figures:
Ezra and Nehemiah.
The materials that make
up the books of Ezra and Nehemiah can be grouped under four main headings
namely: (a) The account of the temple restoration (Ezra 1-6); (b) The Ezra
Memoirs (Ezra 7-10); (c) The Nehemiah Memoirs (Neh 1; 2; 4-7; parts of
12:27-43; 13:4-31) and (d) other lists, prayers and accounts (e.g., Neh 3;
9:5b-12:26; 44-47).
These categories will
be briefly discussed here in an order that will lead us into the subject of the
transposition in Ezra-Nehemiah, namely in a (c), (d), (a), (b) order,
starting with: (c) the Nehemiah Memoirs.
The Nehemiah Memoirs
The parts of the book
of Nehemiah that are known as the Nehemiah Memoirs (NM) are its parts that were
written in the first person by Nehemiah himself. After much study of the text
of these Memoirs, commentators generally agree that they were originally
written by Nehemiah with the purpose of giving a report of his activities to
King Artaxerxes following the authorization he had received from him and the
Persian Empire to repair the walls of Jerusalem (Neh 1:1-2:8). This report
begins in Neh 2:9-20 and then, following an inserted list in chapter 3, it is
picked up again in Neh 4:1 and continues through Neh 7:5.
The only apparent
opposition to this “report theory” for these Memoirs would be the six
"remember me" prayers or statements that Nehemiah makes to God that
appear in them, as they contradict the theory that this report was only written
for the ear of the king. These statements occur in Neh 5:19; 6:14; 13:14, 22,
29, 31.N10 H.G.M. Williamson has done a careful analysis of these
statements,R11 and has proposed the following
satisfactory explanation for their presence.
Williamson first points
out that what is interesting about all of these six statements is that none of
them actually refer to the rebuilding of the wall itself and only one (Neh 6:14)
explicitly alludes to what is known to be Nehemiah's first term as governor by
mentioning the oppositions of Sanballat and Tobiah (see Neh 2:10ff; 4:1ff;
6:1ff). The context of the rest of these statements allude to incidents that
took place either after the rebuilding of the walls (Neh 5:19; 6:14)
and/or during Nehemiah's second term (432 B.C. ffS12)
as governor (Neh. 13:14, 22, 29, 31). So if the four prayers that occur in the
context of Nehemiah’s second term as
governor (Neh.13:4-31) were removed from the Nehemiah's Memoirs, then only the
presence of the other two "remember me" statements (Neh 5:19; 6:14),
which occurred sometime after the rebuilding of the wall, would have to be
explained here.
The "remember
me" statement that appears in Neh 5:19 comes at the conclusion of a
summary statement that Nehemiah made concerning his entire 12-year term (see
Neh 5:14); so it logically would have had to have been made after Nehemiah’s
first term in office, that is sometime around
432 B.C. So even if verses 14-19 were taken out of Neh 5, that
would in no way affect Nehemiah's report about the work on the wall. So we can
therefore conclude here that these verses were later additions into the Memoirs
by Nehemiah himself sometime after 432 B.C. Also since the
statement in Neh 5:19 very strongly resembles the prayerful style with which
Nehemiah expressed himself during the time of his religious reforms in his
second term in office (Neh 13:4-31), this may then be a further indication that
it was then inserted into the text at that later time.
The "remember
me"statement found in Neh 6:14 seems, at first glance, to fit perfectly
into the narrative of the rebuilding of the wall in 444 B.C., but a closer look at it reveals that it more than likely came out of a
later context than the one that it is presently found in. What seems to tie
this prayer to the context of the rebuilding of the wall is the mention of
Tobiah and Sanballat who were the leaders in the opposition to Nehemiah's work
(see Neh 6:1), but, on the other hand, the mention of ‘Noadiah the prophetess
and the rest of the prophets’ does not have a prior mention in this context. It
may then be, as Williamson suggests, that “when Nehemiah was reworking his
earlier account he inserted this verse, using his later style, with reference
to some more recent event, otherwise unknown to us.”B13
Also the sudden
apparition of this prayer in Neh 6 is also unlike another similar prayer that
Nehemiah made in Neh 4:4, 5. Since this prayer was made in the light of a
previously mentioned context (Neh 6:1-3), it would have no problem in being
thought to have always belonged to this original context. It may also be
significant to note that the statement in Neh 4 was not made in the customary
style of Nehemiah's other "remember me" prayers. This may be further
proof that the statement found in Neh 6:14 was a later addition.
Since none of these
prayers refer to the actual rebuilding of the wall, HGM Williamson has
suggested that these statements were later included in an original version of
the NM during a revision of it by Nehemiah. This conclusion then led Williamson
to suggest that as the NM appear today in our English Bibles, they are the
product of a two-stage writing process. The first stage was a straightforward
report by Nehemiah of his wall rebuilding efforts and it was this first version
that was sent to King Artaxerxes within a year after the completion of the
work.R14 Then later on, a second writing stage of the NM took
place, as Nehemiah reworked his memoirs and included these "remember
me" statements in order to emphasize some of his previous accomplishments
and also, probably, to justify himself against some false reports and
accusations that may have still been circulating about him at that time.R15
(D) Other Materials in Nehemiah
Also included in the
book of Nehemiah are other literary materials such as :
1. A sequential list of
the groups of people who had worked on the wall. (Neh 3:1-32).N16
2. A list of the people who returned from Babylon to Jerusalem under the leadership of Zerubbabel (Neh 7:6-73).
2. A list of the people who returned from Babylon to Jerusalem under the leadership of Zerubbabel (Neh 7:6-73).
3. A list of the people
who signed a covenant-renewal document (Neh. 10:1-39).
4. An account of the dedication of the walls
(parts of Neh 12:27-43). Verses 44-47 may have been arranged by the composer of this historical
book.
(A) The Temple Restoration (Ezra 1-6)
The first part of the
book of Ezra covers the history of Israel's temple restoration activities from
the giving of Cyrus’s decree in 537 B.C. (Ezra 1:2-4; cf.
6:3-5) to the time of the dedication of the rebuilt temple in about 516 B.C. (Ezra 6:15-18).N17 These six chapters contain 6 official
Persian decrees and letters. These are:
1. The Decree of Cyrus
(Ezra 1:2-4; cf. 6:3-5).
2. The Temple inventory
of the vessels (Ezra 1:9-11).
3. A letter from Rehum
the commander to King Artaxerxes (Ezra 4:8-16).
4. Artaxerxes’s reply
letter to Rehum (Ezra 4:17-22).
5. A letter from
Tattenai the governor to King Darius I (Ezra 5:6-17).
6. Darius’s reply
letter to Tattenai (Ezra 6:6-12).
(B) The Ezra Memoirs
The remainder of the
book of Ezra (ch.7-10) is known as the Ezra Memoirs (EM). Like the Nehemiah
Memoirs, the EM are Ezra's personal report to stating how he had faithfully
carried out the commission that had been given to him (Ezra 7:12-26). This is
demonstrated by the following parallels that exist between Artaxerxes’s edict
(7:12-26) and Ezra's Memoir (Ezra 7:27-10:44):
1. Ezra was given
authorization to gather a group of volunteers to return with him to Jerusalem. (Ezra 7:13). He reports the
fulfillment of this command in Ezra 7:28-8:14.
2. Three days into the return journey, Ezra
realized that the priests and the Levites were not a part of the group of returnees
as Artaxerxes’s decree had specified (Ezra 7:13), so he sent some people back to get them.
(See Ezra 8:15-20).
3. In Ezra 8:24-30,
Ezra gives an exact report of the offerings that he was authorized to collect from the royal treasury and from
the people in Babylon. (Ezra 7:15, 16).
4. Ezra reports the delivery “in full” of the
Temple articles as he was told to do. (Comp. Ezra 7:19 with Ezra 8:33, 34).
5. Ezra also reports that he carried out the
King's wish to see the collected funds be used to buy sacrificial animals for
offerings.(Comp. Ezra 7:17 with Ezra 8:35)
6. The decree of the king also required that
the treasurers who were in the region beyond the River Euphrates to
financially assist Ezra in the Temple work and Ezra also reported that this was also
carried out as stipulated. (Comp. Ezra 7:21 with Ezra 8:36).
7. King Artaxerxes also gave Ezra authorization
to fully enforce the Law of God to whatever degree he felt was
necessary and following Israel's disobedience of God's law concerning mix marriages and
other abominations, Ezra uses this power to perform a "divorce
court"and a sort of judgement on the people who were at fault (Comp. Ezra 7:26 and Ezra 9, 10).
The only part of
Artaxerxes’s requirements that was not mentioned here in the EM was the part
that dealt with Ezra's commission to teach the Law to the Israelites (Ezra
7:25). We will deal with the apparent omission of this significant stipulation
in greater detail later as it is one of the key elements in the subject of the
transposition.
It may be significant
to mention at this time a similar extra-biblical memoir/report that was made
for a Persian King by an Egyptian priest and scholar by the name of
Udjahorresnet following a similar commission to Ezra’s that he had received
from King Darius I (522-486 B.C.). This commission authorized
him to restore the cult at the national and dynastic shrine of Sais; and to
reorganize the judicial institutions.R18 Udjahorresnet also
reported to the King how he had been faithful in carrying out the stipulations
of his commission and began his report by saying: "I did as His Majesty
commanded me."B19 As Joseph Blenkinsopp points out,
"the two goals of Ezra's mission correspond to the two phases of
Udjahorresnet's activity.”R20 Also, as Edwin Yamauchi points
out: the close parallel between Ezra’s commission and that of
Udjahorresnet shows that Ezra's commission fitted in perfectly with Persian
policy.R21
With this brief
overview of the books of Ezra and Nehemiah, we can now turn to the subject of
the transposition.
Back in 1883, a Bible
scholar by the name of Charles C. Torrey pointed out, following a two-year
study on the book of Ezra and Nehemiah, that some of the material from the Ezra
Memoirs had been transposed into the account of Nehemiah's reforms. He went on
to publish the result of this finding in a pamphlet which he entitled The
Composition and Historical Value of Ezra-Nehemiah and was so sure of his
discovery that he even went on to compose, in a subsequent book called Ezra
Studies, a chapter entitled: "The Ezra Story in Its Original
Sequence."B23 Although Torrey’s view was slow to
gain acceptance in the scholarly world at first, it was carefully reviewed and
fine tuned by later scholars and today it has been almost unanimously accepted
by modern scholars except for, as Williamson said, “the most extremely
conservative.”R24
In his analysis of this
apparent transposition, Charles Torrey had keenly pointed out that it had been
spotted as early as the second century B.C. by the authors of
the Greek version of the Hebrew Bible, the Septuagint (LXX), as they made
attempts to rearrange the material of the Ezra Memoir into what they thought
was its original sequence.N25 Yet their reconstruction attempts
actually caused some further inconsistencies in the text. So therefore, because
of this, any attempt today to rearrange the Ezra Memoir in its original
sequence cannot depend on the LXX,R26 or for that matter on the
Apocryphal account of 1st Esdras, or the storyline of Jewish
historian Flavius Josephus,R/N27 for when he was writing in
the first century A.D., his account of the Ezra
reforms, he based it on the storyline of the Apocryphal 1st Esdras.
Therefore the basis for the original sequence of the account of Ezra's
reforms must be based on a critical analysis of the Hebrew manuscript of
Masoretic Text.
The main reason that
triggered the discovery of a transposition in Ezra-Nehemiah was
originally mostly because, as the account of Ezra's public reading of the Law
appears in Neh 8, it then says that Ezra waited 13 years (until 444 B.C.) to teach the Law in Israel. This seemed highly improbable since this
was specifically what he had been commissioned to do back in 457 B.C. by the Persian Empire (see Ezra 7:25), and the comment of Artaxerxes to
Ezra in Ezra 7:14 of “the Law of God which is in your hand” strongly implied
that Ezra already had the books of the Law in his possession at that time, and
also the comment in the introduction of the Ezra Memoirs (Ezra 7:1-10) that
said that “Ezra had prepared in his heart to seek the Law of the Lord, and to
do it, and to teach statutes and ordinances in Israel” (Ezra 7:10) not only strongly
suggests that Ezra was eager to accomplish this part of the king's commission
but also that the Law was ready to be presented since it was the same Law that
he was putting into practice that he would then teach to those who were
ignorant of it in Israel. Also, while the Law had specified that the reading of
the Law (Deut 31:10-12) should occur at the end of every 7 years at the time of the ‘remission
of debt’ (=Deut 15:1; -which the year 457
B.C. actually exactly was a cumulative 49th year of this Sabbatical Cycle), ‘at the feast of
Booth’, thus around the 15th day of the 7th Jewish month (Tishri - Num
29:12ff), the Law was exceptionally, “unscheduledly”|“emergencily” read as the need was for
it, such as (1) by Joshua (Jos 8:31-35), as especially instructed by Moses
(Deut 27:1-9ff), a little after Israel entering into Canaan, at manifestly
their first occasion, following their initial territorial establishment
securing campaign (Jos 6:1-8:30), and (2) upon Josiah rediscovering it (2 Kgs
23:1, 2) in his 18th year (2 Kgs 22:3ff, 8ff = 623/622 B.C. which was not a Sabbatical year.).
So based on all of this, it then didn’t make any sense that he would wait 13
years to accomplished this. In fact, from what is reported to have transpired upon/ the Law had been read, it is seen/inferred in Neh 8:13-18 that the people, and manifestly even the leadership then, did not even know that they had to celebrate a/the Feast of Booths at this time of the year, -with the entire nation not even having done so in centuries, actually ca. a millennia, before them (Neh 8:17 =i.e. 457 B.C. vs. ca. 1400 B.C.). So they surely were not here/now doing a/the “scheduled” Reading of the Law assembly/observance. This self-evidently was both an emergency, and also first instance, -and in a very long, -decades long, if not centuries long, time Law Reading session. So indeed clearly not ‘a/the first time in 13 years’.
Also, as we stated
earlier, the ‘Teaching of the Law’ is the only stipulation of Ezra's commission
(Ezra 7:11-26) that was not reported in the EM and of all the stipulations
found in these two decrees (Ezra 7:11-24) and that one command (Ezra 7:25, 26) from
Artaxerxes’s edict, this stipulation was perhaps the most important that Ezra
could have fulfilled and reported as soon as possible since it would signal to
the Persian government that Jerusalem was now in a position to fully govern
itself by its own Laws, and thus be independent.
It would now seem that
a simple "re-transposition" of the public reading of the Law of Neh 8
(along with its brief introductory phrase found in the second half of Neh 7:73)
back into the Ezra Memoirs would quickly resolve this problem, but this move
cannot be that easily made since it is, on the surface, held back by the
mentioned of Nehemiah's name in Neh 8:9. As this verse now reads, it suggests
that both Ezra and Nehemiah stood before the people on the day that the Law was
publicly read and taught in Israel; with Ezra being the priest-scribe and
Nehemiah being the “governor” (NKJV). Since, as we have seen, Ezra was in Israel
from the ‘seventh year of King Artaxerxes,’(Ezra 7:7) which was 457 B.C.N28 and Nehemiah’s first trip to Jerusalem did not occur until the 20th
year of King Artaxerxes which was 444 B.C. (Neh 2:1), then a
re-transposition of this passage, as it now reads, back into the Ezra Memoirs
would then have to explain how Nehemiah was an officially-appointed
"governor" and associate of Ezra in Judah, back in 457 B.C.
This apparent
contradiction is resolved by the fact that the Hebraic syntax in Neh 8:9 and
the verses surrounding it reveal that some names, including that of Nehemiah,
were added to the transposed text later on by an apparently confused copyists
or probably by a what-was-considered “responsible” and sincere scribe trying to
“smooth out” the text here, especially if at that time, this account was being
prepared for wide circulation among the people for teaching purposes.N29
Neh 8:9a says:
“And Nehemiah, who was
governor, Ezra the priest and scribe, and the Levites who taught the people
said to all the people,”
The indication that
leads to the conclusion that some names were added to the original version of
this verse is first signaled in the fact that the verb “said” in verse 9 is in
the 3rd person singular but its subject (Nehemiah, Ezra, and the
Levites) is composite and not singular as the following
interlinear transliterated Hebrew text of Neh 8:9 indicates:
waYō⊃mer nehemeyåh hû⊃ haTiresåţå⊃ we⊂ezerå⊃ haKōhën
Then-he-said, Nehemiah he the-governor, and-Ezra the-priest,
haSōpër wehalewiiYm haMebiyniym ⊃et-hå⊂åm lekål-hå⊂åm haYôm
the-scribe, and-the-Levites who-taught *** the-people, to-all the-people ...
This is not
automatically a violation of the Hebrew syntax for verb-subject agreement here,
since a verb that precedes a string of subjects (a composite subject),
can be in a basic third person masculine singular.R30 This is a syntactical
feature that occurs 200+ times in the Hebrew Bible. In about half of these
occurrences (ca. 101x) there is only a single (singular) verb agreeing with a
composite subject, however in about 79 other occurrences, there can also found
additional verbs, which also refer to the same composite subject, but in the
Hebrew text occur after the composite subject and are written in
the plural form thus agreeing in number with their composite subject.N31
Furthermore in 18 of these 79 post-subject agreements, the subsequent verbs
agree even across verse boundaries but as verse divisions were not originally
part of the Hebrew text but were added later, they do not affect the original
text’s subject-verb agreement in any way. Some notable examples of this
subsequent (at times multiple) verb-composite subject agreement are:
2 Samuel 6:2 - ‘David and all the people arose and went’
Note: Two verbs occur before the composite subject and are both singular
waYåqåm waëYlêké Dåwid And (he) arose and (he) went
David
wékål-hå*åm 'àshêr 'iTHô... and all the people who were
with him...
NASB: “And David arose
and went with all the people who were with him ...”
Ezra 5:1 - ‘Haggai and Zecheriah prophesied’
wéhithénaBiy çaGay nébiYå' And (he) prophesied Haggai
the prophet
ûzékaréyåh bar-*iDô' nébiYaYå' and
Zechariah the son of Iddo, the prophet
*al-yéhûdåëy' Diy biyhûd ûbiyrûshélêm to the Jews who were in Judah and
Jerusalem
NASB: “When the prophets, Haggai the prophet and
Zechariah the son of Iddo, prophesied to the Jews who were in Judah and
Jerusalem...”
Note: Ezra 5:2 also has a composite subject (Zerubbabel and Jeshua)
which 2 verbs relating to it, one occurring before (“arose”) and the other
after (“began”) however both verbs are plural.
Nehemiah 3:23 - ‘Benjamin and Hasshub repaired’
Note: In the same verse, the verb “repaired” is used with a composite
subject (“Benjamin and Hasshub”), and also with a single subject (“Azariah”).
Both verbs are in the singular. This also occurs in Neh 3:30.
açàråyw hêçèziyq
Binéyåmin wéçaSHûb After them
(he) repaired Benjamin and Hasshub
nêgêd Bëythåm in
front of their house
'açàråyw hêçèziyq *àzaréyåh After
them (he) repaired Azariah
bên-ma*àšëyåh Bên-*ànånéyåh the
son of Maaseiah, son of Ananiah
'ëtsêl Bëythô beside
his house.
NASB: After them Benjamin and
Hasshub carried out repairs in front of their house. After them Azariah
the son of Maaseiah, son of Ananiah, carried out repairs beside his
house.
Two Subjects
Gen 24:61 Rebekah and her
maids arose (sg.)..., [they] mounted..., [they] followed...
Lev 8:14 ‘Aaron and his
sons shall lay their hands; Lev 8:15 Moses killed and took. (1st verb refers to Moses (Moses
brought blood)
Num 3:4 Nadab and Abihu died (sg.)...,
[they] offered; Eleazar and Ithamar served (sg.)...
Jdg 7:19 Gideon and the 300 men came
(sg.)..., [they] blew...
1 Sam 17:11 Saul and all Israel heard
(sg.)..., they were dismayed and [they]
feared
Neh 3:13 Hanun and inhabitants repaired
(sg.)..., [they] built it..., [they] hung...
Three Subjects
Neh 2:19 Sanballat and Tobiah and Geshem heard
(sg.)..., [they] derided..., [they]
despied..., and [they] said...
2 Kgs 18:37 Eliakin and Schebna and Joah came
(sg.)..., they told...
Jer 41:1-2 Ishmael and one of the chief officers,
along with ten men came (sg.)..., while they ate...,
Four or more Subjects
Gen 9:23 Shem and Japheth took (sg.)...,
[they] laid it..., [they] walked..., [they] covered..., their faces turned
(pl.)...
1 Kgs 1:38 Zadok, Nathan, Benaiah, the Cherethites,
and the Pelethites went down (sg.)..., [they] cause to ride...
Neh 3:1 Eliashib and the priests arose
(sg.)..., [they] built..., [they] consecrated..., [they] set..., [they] consecrated...
Across 2 Vss.
Exod 29:32-33 Aaron and his sons shall eat (sg.)...,
{vs. 33} they shall eat...
1 Chr 19:6-7 Hanun and the sons of Ammon sent
(sg.)..., {vs.7} [they] hired..., [they] came..., [they] encamped...
Jer 39:13-14 Nebuzaradan, Nebushazban, Nergal-sar-ezer
and all the leading officers sent word (sg.)..., {vs, 14} [they]
sent..., [they] took..., [they] entrusted...,
Across 3 Vss.
Gen 14:5-7 Chedorlaomer and the kings came
(sg.), [they] subdued..., {vs.7} [they] turned back..., [they] came..., [they]
subdued...
Num 16:1-3 Dotham, Nadab and Abiram took
(sg.)..., {vs. 2} then [they] rose up..., {vs. 3} [they] gathered..., [they]
said...
Across 4 Vss.
2 Kgs 12:11-14 The secretary and the priest saw (sg.)
and came up (sg.)..., [they] tied up and [they] counted..., {vs.12}
[they] would give and [they] would pay out... {vs.14|Heb. 15} [they] give... [“repair”
refers to the workmen]
Across 5 Vss.
2 Sam 24:4-8 Joab and all commanders went out
(sg.)..., {vs. 5} they crossed... and they encamped... {vs. 6} they came...,
they came {vs. 7} they came..., they went... {vs. 8} they had gone..., they went...,
Across 10 Vss.
Num 4:5-14 Aaron and his sons shall go (sg)..., 26
subsequent verbs across 10 verses which also have “Aaron and his sons” as their
subject are in the plural form.
Exod 16:6-8 Moses and Aaron said (sg.)..., {vs.
8} Moses said (sg.)...
Deu 27:9-11 Moses and Levitical priests said
(sg.)..., {vs. 11} Moses charged (sg.)...
Jer 26:21 King Jehoiakim and all his mighty men
and all the officials heard (sg.)..., the king sought (sg.)...
2 Sam 24:9 after a string of plurals in vss. 4-8
referring to the composite subject of vs. 4 (“Joab and all commanders”) as seen
above, Only Joab is stated in vs. 9 and thus the singular form of the
verb “gave” is used.
Pro 23:25 Father and mother be glad (sg.)...,
‘one who gave birth’ identifies the subject as the mother, therefore “rejoice”
is singular.
All of these numerous
and consistent conversions of the post composite subject verbs to the plural
has therefore led to the Hebrew syntactical rule that “when the [composite]
subject has once been mentioned following verbs are in plural.”B36
Some grammarians prefer to say ‘are usually in the plural’R37
because there does exist some
cases where this rule is not followed. However a closer analysis of these
occurrences seem to indicate that when a clear singular subject from the
previously mentioned composite subject can automatically (i.e, grammatically)
or naturally (i.e., contextually) be
identified, it is not always restated and the subsequent verbs that refer to it
are left in the singular.N38 This can be seen in the following cases
Apparent Contradiction to the Norm
Genesis 21:22-23 - ‘Abimelech and Phicol said’; (vs. 23); “with me”
(3x sg); ‘I have dealt’ (sg.);
While the subject in
this passage is composite, only the 1st person singular is used to
say “with me” 3X in following references to only Abimelech without first
stating him separately as the new non-composite subject. Furthermore the 1st pers. sing. is again used in reference to
only Abimelech in saying "in the way I have dealt." It seems
that the known (i.e., previously written) context of this verse serves as the
identifier of who this lone antecedent is. In the dealings of Abimelech with
Abraham which have just been related in ch. 20, Abraham had never had any
dealings with Philcol at all. So it apparently was not necessary to state that
it was only Abimelech being referred to here when these “dealing” are restated.
Interestingly enough in verse 32 Abimelech and Phicol again make up the
composite subject and according to norm, the two subsequent verbs after the
first pre-subject verb which relates to both of them are in the plural.
Genesis 46:1 - ‘Israel and all that he had set out (sg.),
and [he] came..., [he] offered...’
Because the second part
of this composite subject (“all that he had”) apparently refers to Jacob’s
material possessions and not to people. It is not actually taken into
consideration as the subject of the verbs here.
Jos 10:29-38 - In Joshua 10:29-38, the incursions and conquests of
Joshua and Israel in Southern Canaan/Palestine are recounted with 5 separate
events mentioned in vss. 29, 31, 34, 36, 38. Each of these accounts follow the ‘template’
formula of: “Joshua and Israel with him passed on (3x)|went up|returned (sg.)
from [city named] to [city named]; [they] camped (2X) and fought.
In vss 34, 36 the post-composite subject verbs “camped and fought” agree
in number with the plural composite subject, however, for some reason, in vss.
29, 31, 38 these same verbs, in the identical positions remain in the singular.
As normal/correct occurrences are found in verse 34 and 36, it could be argued
that vss. 29, 31 and 38 are simply grammatical errors. Verses 29 and 38 should
resemble vs. 34 in grammar as the contain the exact same form and key words,
and likewise vs. 31 = vs. 34.
1 Samuel 23:5 - ‘David and his men went (sg.)..., [he]
fought..., [he] led away..., [he] struck...,’
Obviously David did not
do this alone as seen in the previous composite subject but apparently for some
thematic reason, he alone is referred to by the subsequent singular verbs. It
can be argued that because the composite subject is composed of a singular
subject (“David”) and a plural one (“men”), the use of subsequent singular
verbs can only be associated with the singular part of the composite subject,
i.e., David. So while it is understood David and his men doing the work, the
use of singular verbs would help keep the focus on David. The last statement
which say: “Thus David delivered the inhabitants of Keilah.” strongly
suggest that this was indeed the intention here.
2 Samuel 16:14 - ‘The king and all the people arrived (sg.)
weary, the [king] recovered there’
Again like in the
example above, while it is understood that all the people who were with the
king also “recovered” from their weariness there, the focus is kept on the
king. Also the singular subject +plural subject composition of the composite
subject can make the implied reference/focus to the (singular) “king”
understood.
2 Kings 10:23 - ‘Jehu and Jehonadab went (sg)..., [he]
said...,
While the verb “said” is expected to be in the
plural here it is in the singular. This is apparently so because it is only Jehu
is the intended subject here. While Jehonadab is mentioned in the subject he is
really only mentioned in passing as the one who was accompanying Jehu on this
mission but not having any forefront or active role in the events that
developed. Jehu met Jehonadab on his way to this meeting and Jehonadab agreed
to come with him (as a spectator) to ‘see Jehu’s zeal of the Lord’. (2
Kgs 10:15, 16). Then from verse 17 and on only Jehu is named as the active
agent in executing judgement on Baal worshipers. (See vss. 17-22; 24-25,
28-31). It is only in vs. 23 that Jehonadab is mentioned in these verses and it
is only said that ‘he went into the house of Baal with Jehu.’ So clearly the
context shows that the focus of this story is on Jehu alone and thus the
singular, post-composite verb that is
used in vs. 23 does only refer to him.
2 Kgs 23:2 = 2 Chr 34:30 - ‘Then the king and all the men of Judah and
all the inhabitants of Jerusalem with him and the priests and the prophets and
all the people, both small and great went up (sg)..., and [he] read...’
Here again, in these
two parallel verses, the singular verb can only be referring to the only
singular subject of the composite subject, namely the king.
Esther 9:29-30 - ‘Queen Esther and Mordecai wrote (fem.
sg.)..., {vs. 30} he sent (sg.)...’
The use of the feminine
form of the verb “wrote” which undoubtedly refers to Esther may show that in
composite subjects, the first subject named may always be the main subject of
the passage, still the use a masculine singular verb in vs. 10 shows that it is
actually the masculine subject of the composite subject (“Mordecai”) that is
being solely referred to here.N39
Isaiah 7:1 - ‘Rezin and Pekah came up (sg.)..., he could
not conquer it.’
While the subject is
composite in this verse and both Rezin and Pekah came to Jerusalem to wage war
against it, a singular verb is used in to say ‘he could not conquer it.’ The
context of this verse (vss. 1-9) may suggest who alone is being specified by
the second verb here as Rezin (and the Arameans) are repeatedly, explicitly
mentioned while Pekah is only alluded to as “the son of Remaliah” (vss 4b, 5a,
9). Still a much more definitive answer is determined by the fact this same
account is also found in 2 Kgs 16:5 where there the post composite subject verb “conquer”
(lit. ‘able to prevail’ in battle) is rightly in the plural form.
As both passages are
identical and strongly suggest at least a common source (or a dependence of one
on the other) it can be seen that the passage in Isaiah 7:1 is the one lacking
grammatically here for some reason. It can even be suggested that in Isa 7:1,
the phrase ‘Pekah the son of Remaliah, king of Israel’ may have been added to
this verse after the fact (due to the evidence of 2 Kgs 16:5), but the
subsequent verb was not adjusted to concord grammatically to this now composite
subject.
Sole Exception
Exodus 10:3, 6b - ‘Moses and Aaron went (sg.).., [they] said. {vs. 6} [Moses] turned and went out’
Of all the occurrences
of the “abnormal” composite subject- singular (then plural) verb agreements,
the one in Exodus 10:3, 6b is arguably the one that has really no
contextual explanation. (At least not in the Hebrew text). In Exod 10:3 Moses
and Aaron are said to have ‘gone in’ before the presence of Pharaoh using a
singular verb. Then, in agreement with the norm, the post composite subject
verb “said” which refers to both of them is in the plural. However following it
is related what had been said, vs. 6b concluded by (literally) saying: ‘And he
turned and (he) went out from Pharaoh.’ As before the narrative had quite
clearly pointed out that both Moses and Aaron “said” (pl.), it is strange that
now a singular verb is twice used to refer to apparently to the same previously
mentioned composite subject. The common assumption here is that it is Moses who
‘turned and went out,’ but that almost automatically leads to the question: “What
about Aaron?” Apparent attempts to “fix” the text here can be seen in the LXX
where the name of Moses is added to the section of vs. 6b before the two
singular verbs. However in the Syriac OT translation,R40
these two verbs are rather put in the plural. Which “resolution” is correct?
From a further study of the following texts here it becomes evident that more
than just a non-concord of the composite subject-verb has occurred in vss. 3
and 6b. In vs. 8 and 16 it is said that Moses and Aaron were both called before
Pharaoh. Then the use of various plurals in vs. 11b: “they were driven
out,” vs. 16: “your (pl.) God and against you (pl.),” and vs. 17:
“[you (pl.)] make supplication,” “your (pl.) God,” clearly show
that Pharaoh was dealing with and addressing more than one person, i.e., both
Moses and Aaron, simultaneously. However, again in vs. 18, with both Moses and
Aaron present before Pharaoh (see vs. 16), the singular phrase: “He went out
(sg.) from Pharaoh” is again used and along with an adjoining singular
statement “and (he) made supplication (sg.) to the LORD.”N41
All of these inconsistencies combined have led some to come to the conclusion
that the mention of Aaron in this passage (vss. 3, 8 “and perhaps” 16) is “extraneous”
and was a later addition to the text.B42 While this is not
impossible, one still has to answer why would someone later “add” what would
then be the explicit mention of Aaron in this passage,N43
then switch affected terms from the singular to the plural, yet still leave two
key statements in the singular. It would seem logical that all affected terms
would have also been adjusted in this would be edition.
If there is an
edition/addition of the text that has taken place here, could it actually be
the two similar statements “He turned and went out...” that were later added to
the text, but in a parenthetical way,
and (therefore) without an attempt to make them concord with the plural
subjects. If the original reading had made an unqualified transition from vss.
6b to 7 and vss. 17-19, it may have been necessary to later point out
parenthetically that Moses (the main character) had actually previously ‘left
Pharaoh’s presence’ before (1) he and Aaron were called back (vs. 8), and (2) ‘he
made supplications on behalf of Pharaoh (vs. 18) before God caused the plague
of the locusts to be withdrawn (vs. 19).
This non-normal
post-composite subject singular verb is the situation with the number of the
singular verb “said” in Neh 8:10. Just like the verb “said” in verse 9, it is
also in the third person singular, but it actually should not be because it is
here referring to the previous (apparently) composite/plural subject of verse
9.N44
waYō⊃mer låhem
lekû ⊃ikelû masemaNiym . . .
And-he-said to-them: Go eat of-the-fat, etc. . .
Since this verb does
not precede its composite subject, it should therefore have been
expressed in the plural. A similar, but correct occurrence of this
syntactical feature occurs in the book of Nehemiah in Neh 2:19, as the verb “heard”
that precedes its composite subject of: “Sanballat, Tobiah and Geshem,”
is in the third person singular,R45 but the other verbs that follow,
and also refer to, this same composite subject, namely the verbs “mocked,”
“despised,” and “said” [NASB], are all
in the third person plural,R46 as they should be
(see the Hebrew text here).
waiYsema⊂ sanebaLaţ hahōrōniy weţōbiYåh hå⊂ebed hå⊂aMôniy When-he-heard, Sanballat the Horonite and Tobiah the-official the-Ammonite
wegesem hå⊂arebiy waYale⊂igû lånû
waiYbezû ⊂ålëynû waYō⊃merû . . .
and-Geshem the-Arab, then-they-mocked at-us and-they-despised at-us and-they-said ...
This also should have
been the case with the verb "said" in Neh 8:10, but since this is not
the case, it can only be concluded here that there originally was not a
composite subject in Neh 8:9 but rather a lone, singular subject. So in order
to resolve this syntactical contradiction here, we are left with the task of
trying to figure out specifically who was the original, lone subject of this
verse. This can be done by a simple process of elimination.
Since the expression “(he)
said” in Neh 8:10 is in the third person singular, then this therefore
automatically rules out the mention of the plural “Levites” in Neh 8:9, along
with its accompanying qualifying phrase: “who taught (pl.) the people.” This
mention was then a later addition/interpolation to the text. These Levites are
not completely ruled out from this "Public Reading of the Law"
ceremony since they also appear in other verses in Neh 8 (vss 7, 11). So with
the Levites ruled out of this picture, we are left with the names of
"Ezra" and "Nehemiah" to choose from.
Identifying the Tirshatha
Most commentators have opted here for the choice
of "Ezra" and have said that the phrase “Nehemiah who was the
governor” was the addition to this text,R47 but C. C. Torrey had
originally made a significant comment here as he suggested that it was only the
name “Nehemiah” that was added to the text along with the brief phrase “who
was,” but that the title “governor” was always a part of the original text of
this passage.B48 Torrey's
view is the one that is indeed on the right track for several contextual
reasons.
First of all, the
expression that is translated here as 'governor' is the official Persian title
for an appointed governor in Judah: a "Tiresåţå⊃" (a "Tirshatha"
as the KJV has phonetically renders it). This title occurs only 5 times in the
entire Bible and only in the books of Ezra and Nehemiah (Ezra 2:63; Neh 7:65,
70; 8:9; 10:1). Based on these references, it is understood that this "Tirshatha"
figure may have actually been a Jew since, in Ezra 2:63 and Neh 7:65, he
appears to be very familiar with the Jewish religious laws and customs, and also
in Neh 7:70 he is said to have supported a rebuilding work during the time of
Zerubbabel even though no explicit command by the Persian Empire had been given
for him to do so (See Ezra 1, 2). This would therefore show his natural
affection and sympathy toward the Jews.
It is interesting to note that Nehemiah was
not actually referred to with this official Persian title of "Tirshatha"
during his first term in office, but was instead referred to with the common
Hebrew term for "governor" -pehāh.S49
(transliterated phonetically as: pechah). This would then suggest that the title
"Pechah" was applied to someone who was strictly a
political leader or governor while the title "Tirshatha" was
given to a person who also had some authority in religious matters. This then
would lead to the conclusion that Nehemiah was not a "Tirshatha"
during his first term of office in Judah (ca. 444 B.C. [Neh 5:14]). This
title and office was probably held by someone else whose actual name was not
mentioned here.R50 So then the mention of Nehemiah's name to
identify this "Tirshatha" here in Neh 8:9 would be labeled as
a mistaken interpolation. Therefore both the phrases “Nehemiah who was” and “Ezra the
priest and scribe” would also have been later interpolations to Neh 8 :9 and
originally only an unnamed "Tirshatha" was mentioned here. So
then this passage would have originally just said that after Ezra had completed
his reading of the Law (Neh 8:1-8), an unnamed "Tirshatha" had
taken the podium (vs. 9) and had said some words of encouragements to the
people as they had started to weep after
hearing the solemn Law of God (Neh 8:9, 10). So the text, more than likely,
only originally read as:
Now the name “Ezra” itself does appear only 5 more times in the book of Nehemiah, but all in chapter 12 (vss. 1, 13, 26, 33, 36). This is a chapter that dealt mostly with the dedication ceremonies of the walls. Three of these mentions of "Ezra" are found in a list of the priests and the Levites who had previously returned with Zerubbabel (Neh. 12:1, 13 and 26) and the Ezra that is mentioned there is actually another priest or Levite named Ezra since "Ezra the Reformer" wasn't around during Zerubbabel's return in 537 B.C. (Neh 7:5) and He wasn't a “head of an ancestral house” during the days of Joiakim (Neh 12:12, 13). Joiakim was more than likely the high priest before, and during, the time of Ezra's restoration activities, that is if Ezra, upon his arrival in Jerusalem in 457 B.C., had not officially replace him in that office.R52
The mention of Ezra in
Neh 12:26 only refers to ‘Ezra the Reformer’ in a summarizing statement. The
"Ezra" that is mentioned in 12:33 should also considered to be a
different person than the "Ezra the scribe" that is later mentioned
in 12:36 since this "Ezra the scribe" is said here to have led one of
the two processions that ceremonially walked around the walls as a pioneer of
the restoration and rebuilding of Jerusalem, while the other "Ezra"
in 12:33 is only said to have been among the procession group. This "Ezra
the scribe" is more than likely "Ezra the Reformer" and the
qualifying title of "the scribe" that was placed after the mention of
this name in 12:26 and 36, may have been Nehemiah’s way of distinguishing
between two contemporaries named Ezra while he was writing his memoir.
With the conclusion
that Nehemiah was not in the original text of Neh 8:9, we then also have to
explain the other mention of Nehemiah as a 'Tirshatha' in Neh10:1. There
are two probable explanations that could be made here.
The first probability
is a popular one among commentators and that is that the term "Tirshatha"
was a later interpolation based on the way it is awkwardly located between
the name Nehemiah and the patronym (the name of Nehemiah’s father) here.R53 But nonetheless, since this arrangement is
not an abnormality in Jewish writings,R54 this point cannot
be used as conclusive basis for an argument of an interpolation.
The second probability
is one that results from the suggestion of HGM Williamson in regards to the
self-evident, original location of Neh 10 in the NM. Williamson has
conclusively argued that since the content of Neh 10 is the signing of a
covenant renewal which one refers to issues that Nehemiah only took care of
during his second term of office (cf. Neh 13:6, 7), during the reforms
mentioned in chapter 13,N55 then Neh 10 must have originally stood
after Neh 13 and served as a "transcript" of the covenant renewal
that was signed after these reforms.B56 This would also
mean that the historical prayer mentioned in chapter 9 (9:5b-38), that smoothly
introduces the signing of this covenant renewal would also have been transposed
from after Neh 13, along with chapter 10, to its present location. The
relocation of these two passages (Neh 9:5b-38 and Neh 10) after chapter 13
would then explain why Nehemiah was specifically referred to in Neh 10:1 with
the religious-leader title of "Tirshatha" since his reforms in
Neh 13 dealt with religious issues.
This "second"
transposition theory is further supported by the fact that in Neh 12:26,
Nehemiah is referred to as a "Pekah" and not a "Tirshatha"
This can only be explained if indeed Neh 10 originally stood after Neh 13 and
that at this point in Neh 12 (the dedication of the walls in 444 B.C.) Nehemiah was still not being referred to as a "Tirshatha"
since he had not yet been given that role and title.
Going back to the
subject of the transposition of Neh 8, as it was mentioned in passing earlier,
the last remnant of chapter 7, namely Neh 7:73b, should also be included with
the transposition of Neh 8 as it provided a reference, although brief,
to the settlement in Judah of those who had accompanied Ezra from Babylon.R57
As Williamson suggests:
“When,
therefore, the editor wished, for theological reasons, to include Ezra's
reading of the Law in his account of the climax of the work of both Ezra and
Nehemiah, his attention was drawn to this particular point by this close
similarity. There is enough overlap of content between the two halves of this
verse as they stand to account for his choice of setting once it is accepted
that he was consciously seeking a point of connection. ... In its present
setting, the circumstantial clause ‘and the Israelites were in their own towns’
serves both as a link with the previous chapter and as a prelude to the opening
act of assembly in this one.” [Neh 8].B58
This conclusion is
supported by the fact that the first part of Neh 7:73 is needlessly repeated in
the last part of this same verse.
In a similar way, Neh 9:1-5a, which, as we
will later demonstrate, was also previously a part of the Ezra Memoirs,
provided an excellent introduction for the historical prayer of Neh 9:5b-38 as
the presiding officials mentioned in the first half of verse 5 said to the
people: “Stand up and bless the Lord your God forever and ever” and then the
historical prayer that was placed after it started off by saying “Blessed be
Your glorious name forever...,” but although these two passages blend together
beautifully, this does not necessarily mean that they were originally related.N59
The most “natural”
explanation as to why a transposition was made would be that of the Reading of
the Law, would be that, as the Biblical account/history of these times show,
the work of Reform by Ezra was suddenly stopped by the official complaints of
Jerusalem’s neighbors to the King. (Ezra 4:7-23).N60 Therefore leaving
this “cloturing” ceremony in a position where the work of reform had not yet
complete did not make sense thematically. It was therefore “transposed” to
after the work had been fully completed by the Nehemiah.R61
Since, as we have seen, the books of Ezra and Nehemiah were originally one
book, then this really would not have been an "illegal" move on his
part as he was probably trying to fulfill, at that time, a particular
theological agenda; but still, as Neh 8/9/10 now stand, they interrupt the
account of Nehemiah’s repopulation effort that was first mentioned in Neh 7:4,
5, (followed by the list of returnees of Zerubbabel (7:6-73a)), and
which was only picked up again in Neh 11:1 thru 12:26, following this
"covenant renewal interlude" of Neh 7:73b-10:39.
The composer of Ezra-Nehemiah
may have also tried to retain a chronological order in his transposition
activities, and he was indeed able to do so as the reading of the Law, which
took place in a seventh Jewish month [Tishri] (Neh 8:1), followed the mention
in Neh 6:15 of the date when the work on the walls ended, namely the
twenty-fifth of Elul, which was the sixth Jewish month. But as Williamson
points out, this formula in Neh 8:1 for dating events by the number of the
month (“the seventh month”) does not harmonize with the typical way in which
Nehemiah had previously dated other events in his memoirs (the name of
the month).B62 (Compare with, e.g., Neh 1:1; 2:1; 6:15).
This method was more in agreement with the dating method in the Ezra Memoirs
(see Ezra 7:8, 9; 8:31; 10:9, 16, 17).
Also, as Williamson
further pointed out, the event of the public reading of the Law which would
have allegedly taken place about 5 days after the completion of the work on the
walls would not have left sufficient time (1) for the people, after a hasty and
rigorous rebuilding work to return home (Neh 7:73b); (2) for Nehemiah to gather
the leaders for the census (Neh 7:5); (3) for these leaders to return
home too as Neh 7:73b implies; and (4) for arrangements to be made for “all the
people” to reassemble in Jerusalem to invite Ezra to read the Law (Neh 8:1).R63
So having established
that the accounts in Neh 7:73b-10:39 were actually transposed from varying
original contexts, we can now attempt to find their original locations. That
is, more specifically, the original location of
Neh 7:73b-9:5a in the Ezra Memoirs, since we have already seen that Neh 9:5b-10:39
was originally located after Neh 13.
The
Re-Transposition of Neh. 7:73b-9:5a into the EM
Finding the original
location of Neh 7:73b-9:5a in the Ezra Memoirs is not quite a complicated task
due to the way that the Ezra Memoirs were written in a dated and chronological
way. It was first said that he arrived in Jerusalem on the first day of the
fifth month (Ezra 7:8, 9; cf. 8:32) and then following an inventory of the gold
and temple articles that Ezra and the returnees had brought back with them from
Babylon (Ezra 8:33, 34), and also following a ceremony of sacrifices and
offerings (Ezra 8:35), he then delivered the king's commissions to the king's
satraps (governors) in the region Beyond the River (Ezra 8:36).
Now between this last
event in Ezra 8:36 and the events mentioned in chapters Ezra 9ff there is an
unaccounted-for gap of about 4½ months (comp. Ezra 7:8, 9 with Ezra 10:9) and also a
sudden, unintroduced, change of moods and events in the storyline transition
from chapter 8 to chapter 9. This sudden and drastic "change in
moods" really begs some more background information as it is suddenly
brought to view in Ezra 9:1 by the phrase “When these things were done,” and
then the leaders of the people of Israel are said to have come to Ezra with the
report that “the people, the priests and the Levites had not separated
themselves from the peoples of the lands, with respect to the abominations of
the Canaanites, the Hittites, etc.” (Ezra 9:1) Judging from Ezra's furious and
incredulous reaction (Ezra 9:3) and his immediate long passionate and contrite
prayer of confession and intercession in (Ezra 9:4-15), we are then logically
left to suspect that something major had taken place before this event. Also
since, apparently, the Law had not been taught yet to the people then, what
then were they guilty of still not following?N64
This is where, between
Ezra 8 and 9, that the events of the public reading of the Law mentioned in Neh
7:73b-8:18 best fit into the Ezra Memoirs, both chronologically and
contextually, as it would then be seen that even after the solemn event of the
reading of the Law, the people still continued in their old ways of
"abominations" (Ezra 9:1) and forbidden mix marriages (Ezra 9:2)
which were a violation of the Law (=Deut 7:3; Exod 34:16; cf. Jos 23:12-13).
These "abominations" could include evil deeds such as sacrifices of
imperfect animals to God, human sacrifices, witchcraft and sorcery,
"cross-dressing," impure offering monies (see Deut 17:1; 18:9-12;
22:5; 23:18). So based on these contextual indications it can be seen that the
Public reading of the Law in the seventh month actual would have taken place
shortly after Ezra’s arrival in Jerusalem, which in the fifth Jewish month
(July/August) (Ezra 8:32-36), and before this report of persistence in
violations against the Law (Ezra 9:1). Then when all of the Israelites would
have come to Jerusalem in the seventh Jewish month to celebrate the fall
feasts, Ezra would then have read the Law to them (see Neh 8:1, 2).
Now the original
location of Neh 9:1-5a in the Ezra Memoirs could also be readily located
because of the date that is attached to this event and also because what this
event in itself was referring to. It is first of all said to have taken place
on the 24th day of a previously specified month (Neh 9:1). At that
time the people were mourning for their past sin of not having separated
themselves from "all foreigners" and following their evil ways (cf. Neh 9:2). This then led to another session of the Public reading of the Law (Neh 9:3) which was followed by an appeal to prayer by the Levites (Neh 9:4, 5a).
Because this passage
mentions here that the people had separated themselves from the
foreigners following a period of mourning and fasting, we can therefore
conclude that this event occurred after the accusations mentioned in Ezra 9:1,
2 that had said that the people were still continuing in their evil ways. If we then follow the dated storyline of the
events in Ezra 10 we can then locate the most probable original location of the
events mentioned in Neh 9:1-5a in the Ezra Memoirs.
Chapter 10 of Ezra
picks up where chapter 9 left off with Ezra still offering his prayer of
confession (Ezra 9:5-15). At that time, some of the people came to him and proposed
that a new covenant be made again with God. Ezra agreed to this solution
(Ezra 10:1-6), and a covenant renewal was announced on the 17th day of
this same ninth month (compare Ezra 10:7, 8 with Ezra 10:9). Three days later,
on the 20th day of this ninth month, the people gathered in the
square in front of the house of God to renew the covenant but because they were
too many and because of a heavy rainfall at that time prevented the people from
standing in the open air, and also because the people felt that they had
'transgressed greatly' this time and that a proportional confession was
therefore necessary, they felt that this "matter" of the Reading of
the Law and the renewing of a new covenant would not be adequately resolved in
only a “day or two” (Ezra 10:13; cf. Neh 8: 2, 13).
The parallels that
exist between the first reading of the law in Neh 8 and this covenant renewal
in Neh 9:1-5a show that Ezra did indeed have in mind to redo the whole
"Reading of the Law ceremony" again.N65 The people
therefore suggested to him that only the leaders of the people should present
themselves as representatives of the people and also that only those who had transgressed the previous covenant should attend this covenant
renewal ceremony (Ezra 10:14). Since everyone (except apparently four people) agreed
with this new proposal (Ezra 10:15), Ezra went ahead and did as the people had
suggested (Ezra 10:16). A four-month investigation period then followed and then a
list of those who were still married to foreign/pagan wives was written up
(Ezra 10:18-44). These investigations ended by the first of Nisan (March/April)
in what was now 456 B.C.
Based on this
development of events, it therefore appear that the second covenant renewal
ceremony of Neh 9:1-5a best fits back into the Ezra Memoirs, both contextually
and chronologically, after Ezra 10:44.N66 This proposed original
location for Neh 9:1-5a is further supported by the fact that Ezra’s list of
transgressors names mainly the “sons” (Neh 9:1) who had transgressed just as
the people who proposed this renewal had requested. This location also provides
a fitting conclusion for the report of Ezra’s reforms as it would show to the
Persian King that he had not failed in his mission to capably and thoroughly
administer the Law in Israel and preserve order.
In Neh 9:1, it is also
stated that this ceremony took place on the 24th day of a previously specified
month. If these verses are indeed placed after Ezra 10:44, then this date in
Neh 9:1 would be the 24th day of the first month (Nisan) in 456 B.C.R67 A question that could be asked now is: Why would Ezra and the people
wait 24 days before holding this reading of the law ceremony since the
interrogation were said to have been completed by the first of that month? This
twenty-four day delay could be explained by the fact that it probably took a
while for the final decisions of the interrogation committee to be finalized,
and then circulated throughout the people, and with the feast of the Passover
and Unleaven Bread coming up on the 14th through the 21st day of this month, it
was probably decided that the ceremony should be held three days after these
festivities, on the 24th. This would also have been a good time to hold this
major convention since all those who would have needed to make a trip to
Jerusalem for this meeting would have already been there because of the recent
pilgrimage Passover festivities.
Based on all of this,
the events in a reconstructed Ezra Memoir would have occurred as follows:
Julian
#1 Nisan 1 March 27, 457 Ezra 7:9 Ezra’s Departure for Jerusalem
#5 Ab 1 July 24, 457 Ezra 8:34, 35 (cf.7:9) Ezra’s Arrival in
Jerusalem
---------- Ezra 8:36 The commissions of the king
delivered
#7 Tishri ---------- Neh.7:73b People are settled in their
cities by the 7th month
#7 Tish. 1 Sep. 21, 457 Neh. 8:1-12 The reading of the Law to all the
people
#7 Tish. 2 Sep. 22, 457 Neh. 8:13-18 A gathering of some religious
leaders
#9 Kislev 17? Dec. 5, 457 Ezra 10:8 (cf.9:1) Report of a continued violation of the
covenant
#9 Kislev 20 Dec. 8, 457 Ezra 10:9 A reassembly and plans for an
interrogation session
#10 Tebeth
1 Dec. 18, 457 Ezra 10:16 The beginning of the
interrogation period
#1 Nisan 1 April 15, 456 Ezra 10:17 The conclusion of interrogations
period
#1
Nis 14-21 Apr 28-May
4 -------- Passover and Feast of Unleaven Bread
#1 Nisan 24 May 7, 456 Neh. 9:1-5a A second Reading of the Law
ceremony
Based on this
re-transposition, an orderly and more detailed outline of all the materials in Ezra-Nehemiah
would now look like this:
Ezra Outline
The Restoration
Period (538-515 B.C.)
The Ezra Commission
and His Activities (457-456 B.C.)
2. Ezra 7:1-10 -A Brief Introduction to the Commission of
Ezra
3. Ezra 7:11-26 -The Edict of King
Artaxerxes
4. Ezra 7:27-28 -Ezra’s Prayer of
Thanks
5. Ezra 8:1-31 -The Return Trip Back to Jerusalem
6. Ezra 8:32-36 -Activities Upon
Arrival in Jerusalem
7. Neh 7:73b -Returnees Settle in Their Cities
8. Neh 8[1-18] -Public Reading of the Law
9. Ezra 9:1-4 -Ezra is told that the Law was
still not being observed by all
10. Ezra 9:5-15 -Ezra’s Prayer
of Confession
11. Ezra 10:1-11 -Initial plan for a renewing of the covenant
12. Ezra 10:12-16a --Revised plans for the renewing of the covenant
13. Ezra 10:16b-17 -A four-month investigation period
14. Ezra 10:18-44 -List of those who were still in mixed marriages
15. Neh 9:1-5a --A Second Reading of
the Law for the violators of the first covenant
Opposition to
Rebuilding Work (between 452-450 B.C.)
16. Ezra 4:7-23 -Opposition to the Rebuilding of the City and Walls.
[For full text of the reforms
of Ezra in their original sequence see Appendix B]
Nehemiah Outline
Nehemiah’s
Rebuilding Activities (444-432 B.C.)
1. Neh 1-2:8 -Request by Nehemiah and Preparation for
mission
2. Neh 2:9-20 -The
Rebuilding of the wall started
3. Neh 3:1-32 -A Summary of the Entire Rebuilding Work
4. Neh 4/5/6 -Oppositions to the Rebuilding Work
5. Neh 7:1-5 -Plans to Repopulate Jerusalem
6. Neh 7:6-73 -List from Zerubbabel’s Return (Ezra
2:1-63)
7. Neh 11 -A List of the division of the
population during Nehemiah’s time
The Dedication of
the Walls (444 B.C.)
8. Neh 12:1-26 -List
of the Priests and Levites who had return with Zerubbabel (537 B.C.)
9. Neh 12:27-30 -Introduction to
the Dedication of the Rebuilt Wall
10. Neh 12:31-43 -Account of the Dedication of the Wall Procedures
11. Neh 12:44-47 -Conclusion to the Dedication of the Rebuilt Wall
The Reforms of
Nehemiah (432 B.C.- 4?? B.C.)
12. Neh 13:1-3
-Introduction to the Reforms of Nehemiah during his second term
13. Neh 13:4-14 -The Temple
Service Reforms
14. Neh 13:15-22 -Sabbath Observance Reforms
15. Neh 13:23-29 -Mixed Marriage Reforms
16. Neh 13:30, 31-Nehemiah’s summary statement of the reforms which he
had done
17. Neh 9:5b-38 -Historical Prayer
leading up to the Covenant Renewal
18. Neh 10 -A Sealed Document
of Nehemiah’s Covenant Renewal
It can now be seen
that this relocation of the "judicial matter" [dabar] of the
public reading of the Law mentioned in Neh 8 had taken place in the seventh
Jewish month of 457 B.C. and not the seventh Jewish
month of 444 B.C. as its incorrect transposed position had indicated.
So Jerusalem was officially “restored” politically as the prediction in Dan
9:25 had stipulated, in the same year of Ezra’s journey to Jerusalem in 457.
The
question that could now be answered would be in relation to the physical
rebuilding of the city, since as we have seen from the Hebraic syntax in the
prediction of Dan 9:25 that the physical rebuilding of a city would
historically follow the “judicial matter” that would restore Jerusalem
politically.
The Rebuilding of
Jerusalem
In Ezra 4:7-23, there is an account of a period
of opposition to a rebuilding work in
Jerusalem which commentators and scholars across the board agree that it
historically took place after the commission and return of Ezra to Jerusalem in
457 B.C. N70 It was placed there, out of chronological
order, for thematic reasons as it also mentions an opposition to the rebuilding
work. This passage contains a letter of complaint that was sent by a Samaritan
commander named Rehum to King Artaxerxes concerning the activities of ‘the jews
who had come from him.’ (Ezra 4:12). This is, no doubt, a reference to the
group who had returned under the leadership of Ezra.N71
Rehum’s letter in Ezra
4 stated that the Jews were “rebuilding the rebellious and evil city” and were “finishing
its wall and repairing its foundations” (Ezra 4:12). He then went on to express
the reason why he was reporting this to the king by saying that: ‘If that city
is rebuilt and the walls are finished, then the Jews would not pay tribute,
custom, or toll and it will damage the revenue of the kings’ and also the King
would no longer have “possession in the province beyond the
River.” (Ezra 4:13, 16). He then recommended to the king that a search be
conducted in the governmental ‘record books’ to review the past, rebellious
history of Jerusalem so that the King could see for himself the past rebellious
history of Jerusalem and see that it was because they had incited revolts in
past days that the city had been laid waste in the first place. (Ezra 4:15).
King Artaxerxes
took Rehum's advice seriously and after a search was made, it was discovered
that Jerusalem had been rebellious in the past.72
What is interesting about Rehum's letter is
that, no where does it question if this
rebuilding of the city and its walls was an officially authorized
activity and the King also does not appear to be surprised that a rebuilding of
Jerusalem was going on at that time. The
primary concerns of Rehum and the King in this exchange is whether or not this
rebuilding would eventually lead to a loss of fiscal revenue and political
possession and control to the Persian in that part of the Empire. Surely, if
Ezra did not have official permission from Artaxerxes to the rebuild the city
and its walls, that this would have been mentioned a the forefront in this
exchange between Rehum and the King. Back in the year ca. 520 B.C. (Ezra
4:24-5:5ff), the Persian governor Tattenai had sent a similar letter of request
to King Darius (Hytaspes) complaining about the Jews’ rebuilding activities on
the Temple. He also had asked the king to “let a search be conducted in the
kings treasure house (or archives)” to see if these Jews really had a formal
and official permission to do this (Ezra 5:6-17). This search was made, and it
was found that the Jews had indeed been given an official Persian authorization
to rebuild their Temple (Ezra 6:1-15). If such deliberations could be taken in
order to produce an official "proof" of a Persian authorization for
the rebuilding of the Temple, then how much more would a formal permission be
necessary for the rebuilding of the city and its walls of defense which would
result in the city become somewhat autonomous. This comparison therefore
strongly suggests that Ezra and the Jewish returnees did indeed have official
Persian permission to rebuild the city and its walls.
The
existence of such an official authorization is also implied in the fact that
Artaxerxes had to issue a formal Persian decree in order to put a stop the
Ezra's rebuilding activities. This then suggests that the authorization
previously given to Ezra had proportional "weight." Also, the fact
that Artaxerxes said that the work should be stopped until a further decree is
issued by him (Ezra 4:21) is an implicit suggestion that this rebuilding had
fully been his intention in the first place and that it had been fully
sanctioned by his official permission, whether in a concrete form or
"understood"N73 form. This statement also further showed
that it was still in his intention to have this work be done, and in the near
future (or at least, during his own lifetime). As we have already stated, this
all could have been out of personal governmental concern for the Persian Empire
as Jerusalem was located in a strategically crucial part of the Empire.R74
So it was important for them to keep Jerusalem in good terms with them and on
"their side.”N75
Concerning the dating of this letter and work
stoppage, based on Biblical data, it can
generally be said to have occurred between the years 457 and 444 B.C. The starting date of 457 B.C. is based on the fact that, as
mentioned above, the letter makes mention to King Artaxerxes and of the Jews
who had come from him (Ezra 4:12). This is a clear reference to the group who
returned under Ezra (Ezra 7:28b-8:14ff). The ending date of 444 B.C. is based on the extreme reaction of Nehemiah upon hearing of the state
of the building of Jerusalem and its walls. When the news was communicated to
him from (apparently) his blood brother Hannani and some other men who had
returned for Judah, and reported that “the wall of Jerusalem is broken down and
that its gates are burned with fire.” (Neh 1:3 cf. vs. 4 & 2:1, 2). Since
the calender dates and storyline from Neh 1:1 and 2:1 seems to suggest that
Nehemiah was in a state of mourning for an astonishing period of six months,N76
H.G.M. Williamson has concluded, like many other commentators, that:
“Nehemiah’s reaction to the news (vs. 4) is so
strong that this report cannot refer to the destruction of Jerusalem by
Nebuchadnezzar some 140 years previously. A recent event, as yet unconfirmed in
Susa, must be intended, and for this the destruction mentioned in Ezra 4:23
presents itself as the ideal, and indeed only possible, candidate.”B|R77
This is
also an implicit evidence that a major rebuilding since Ezra’s return had
indeed been done in Jerusalem.
Now the range of 457-444 B.C. can be further narrowed down by a few years based on
known surrounding events going on a that time in the Persian Empire.
From records of the Persian history for that period found in the works of
several Greek historiansR78, it can be determined that during the
time of Ezra’s return the ‘Governor (Heb. Pekah) of the provinces
Region Beyond the [Euphrates] River’ (cf. Ezra 8:36), i.e., the satrapy
(province) of Syria and its surroundings, was a Persian official by the name of
Megabyzus. However this Megabyzus is complete absent here in the official
governmental exchanges concerning the rebuilding of Jerusalem. His absence
becomes more glaring by the fact that the letter in Ezra 5 concerning the
inquiry of the temple rebuilding was written by Darius’s ‘Governor of the
provinces Beyond the River,’ Tattenai (Ezra 5:3). Surely the letter in Ezra 4,
concerning the work of the rebuilding of a potentially dangerous city would
have been a civil/political matter that would have also been brought before and
addressed to by the Governor of that region, but instead it was Rehum, who was
a Samaritan leader, and some of his colleagues (Ezra 4:9) who took on this responsibility.
Also, Artaxerxes addresses them directly in his return letter and forwards to
them an official Persian decree (Ezra 4:21), and also gives them full authority to
enforce it (Ezra 4:22, 23).N79 That the Persian governor beyond
the River was to have a close and personal authority and oversight into the
affairs of the province of Judah can be seen from the statement in Neh 3:7
where is alludes to the fact that he had an established official seat/residence
in the province itself, which, in the time of Nehemiah’s reconstruction needed
repairs.N80 This “seat/headquarters” was located in a city called
Mizpah, about 8 miles north of Jerusalem,N81 which, since the initial
subjugation of Judah by Babylon, had become the administrative center for Judah’s
foreign ruling power.S82 Therefore, the only acceptable reason why
it is not Megabyzus who undertakes this matter could simply be that he was not
present at this time, and looking into the Persians history of these times,
there are three connected events that could have caused Megabyzus to be absent
here.R83
First of
all, around this time (ca. 462 B.C. R|N84) a major rebellion
led by a Libyan named Inarus, and assisted by the Athenians, broke out in
Egypt. As the Persian first military delegation failed to quench the rebellion,
another one led by Megabyzus was sent there later that year. At first,
Megabyzus had the mission to trying to
bribe the Lacedaemonians into opening a second front in the city of Athens in
order to draw the Athenians away from Egypt. When that failed to materialize,
he was recalled to Persia and then sent to Egypt with a military force.R85
Finally after six years of warR86 the Egyptian-Athenian
rebellion came to an end in 457 B.C. (considering these years to
have been reckoned inclusivelyN87), as the following chart shows.N88
Year
#1 - 462 B.C. Year #4 - 459 B.C.
Year
#2 - 461 B.C. Year #5 - 458 B.C.
Year
#3 - 460 B.C. Year #6 - 457 B.C.
In the
stand/battle of the war, the Persians had come to terms with Inarus to surrender
peacefully as Megabyzus, then faced with the formidable task of having to fight
a valiant Inarus and 6000+ Greek soldiers in now a seemingly impregnable
stronghold, agreed that if Inarus and the Greeks surrendered their lives would
be spared and that the Greeks would be allowed to return home whenever they
wanted. Megabyzus accepted these terms and later pleaded with King Artaxerxes
to also adhere to them. Artaxerxes was initially enraged with Inarus for having
taken the life of his uncle AchaemenesN89 but eventually did indeed
acknowledge and honor the agreement made by Megabyzus. However the Queen-Mother
Amestris was not so forgiving and her consistent requests to allow her
to have Inarus and his generals executed finally ended up exasperating (or
convincing) Artaxerxes to change his mind after an astonishing 5 years. He
therefore allowed her to have Inarus and fifty of his generals killed- Inarus
according to the main Persian method of capital punishment -impalement (cf.
Ezra 6:11), and the generals by decapitation.B90
This
execution of Inarus and the 50 Athenians greatly angered Megabyzus who felt
embarrassed and betrayed. He secretly had the rest of the Greeks sent to Syria
and then asked the King’s permission to retire to his satrapy of Syria. Upon
his arrival he raised up an army of 150,000 men and launched a revolt against
Artaxerxes and the Persian Empire which routed two Persian armies sent against
him (the first of 200,000), until he agreed to come to peace terms with
Artaxerxes.N91
Therefore
base on all of this reconstruction of surrounding events in the Persian Empire
which personally involved the Persian’s ‘Governor of the province of Syria,’ it
can be seen how he would have not led in the serious accusations against
Jerusalem and the formal communications with Persia. Therefore the dates of the
letter in Ezra 4:7-23 was more than likely written between the years of 457-449
B.C. as Megabyzus, who would have already been on a
military expedition when Ezra made his return, was:
(1) Absent
from his post (being mostly in Persia) from 457-452 B.C.;
(2) On a
revolt from ca. 452-450 B.C.; and
(3) On a
military expedition in 450 and 449 B.C.
In which of
these periods did the rebuilding occur? There are a couple of statements within
the exchange between the Samaritan leaders and Artaxerxes that can help
pinpoint the time period here.
Secondly
definite reference to “the sundering” assumes a known and existing situation
that will be increased here. It cannot be a reference to something done by
Judah for, as the accusation clearly states, it is a probable future
rebellion that is being warned of here and not an existing one. Base on this,
it can be assumed that this exchange was made during a time when the Persian
empire was in major crisis. This would be either near the end of the
Egyptian-Athenian war in late 457 B.C. or during
Megabyzus revolt in 452-450 B.C. However since Megabyzus had
been away on a military expedition to Egypt since 460 B.C. and, according to
the account of Ctesias, he remained in Babylon for 5 years after before
(deceptively) “asking for permission to retire his satrapy,”R92
it can be assumed that the Persian government would have had appointed someone to temporarily occupy his
position while he was away for a prolonged period of time on authorized Persian
affairs, who should have appeared in the official letter discussed here.
Therefore the most likely time when this rebuilding would taken place would be
when Persian had lost control in the region beyond the River, thus during the
revolt of Megabyzus in 452-450 B.C.N93
The second
statement was made in the accusation of the Samaritan leaders as the said:
“We inform the king that if
that city is rebuilt and the walls finished, as a result you will have no
possession in the province beyond the River.” Ezra 4:16 (NASB)
This
accusation is commonly viewed as being an “exaggeration” and/or “absurd” by
most commentatorsR94 for it would indeed seem impossible that
the Jewish community then could cause a revolt that would result in the Persian
King losing control of the entire Trans-Euphrates Region, however when this
verse is (1) accurately translated, (2) viewed within the apparent historical
context of Megabyzus’ Revolt and (3) when the geographical “composition” of
this Trans-Euphrates Region is also taken into consideration, then the concerns
that are raised here actually make perfect sense. These three points are
examined here.
First of
all, concerning the accurate rendering of the verse. A key term that needs to
be properly translated here is the one that is rendered as “possession” (NASB,
NRSV), “dominion” (NJKV), “territory” (NJB), “nothing” (i.e., ‘no
territory’- NIV). The underlying term is the noun hëleq which
occurs both in the Aramaic {#02508} and Hebrew {#02506}. Combined, these terms
occur 65 times in the Old Testament (3x and 62x respectively), and its clear
meaning refers to something that has been divided for the purpose of “sharing,”
“apportioning,” etc. It also consistently makes an allusion to a bestowal
aspect in regards to the giving of this “share” or “portion,”R95
As the TWOT points out, with this inherent sense of “granting,” it “differs
radically from the many Hebrew roots for “divide” used in the sense of “to
break into parts.”R96, N97 The noun hëleq is
related to the verbal form hàlåq {#02505a} which is most times
simply rendered as “divide,”S98 however many of these translations could easily
be replaced by the other more thematically specific translations that are used
for this verb namely: “share,” “apportion,” “allot,” “(re)distribute,” etc.,
which more accurately express the inherent notion that something is not simply
being split into parts, but ‘beneficially (re)distributed.’ The granting aspect
of hëleq is also seen in the fact that it is also many times used
almost synonymously with the ‘giving’ or ‘receiving’ of an inheritance.S99, N100
Furthermore, the clear Hebrew term for a “possession/property,” even a ‘territorial
posssession’ such as the “Promised Land,” is ⊃àhuZåh {#0272},R|S101
which in its verbal form {#0270} has the meaning: “to take a hold of.”R|S102
It can be seen that while hëleq emphasizes a sharing or granting
aspect, ⊃àhuZåh refers more to the
ownership aspect. So in Ezra 4:16, if the intended meaning was the loss of
outright Persian “property” or “possession,” it is more than likely that ⊃àhuZåh would have been
used rather than hëleq. In fact, in the NASB, the rendering of hëleq
as “possession” is unique to this passage.
All of
these observations leads to the conclusion that what the intended meaning of
this statement by the accusers of Judah was that King Artaxerxes would not have
a (given) “share” or a “portion” in the region Beyond the River. So this Hebrew
phrase in Ezra 4:16 (using initially the NASB translation):
låqãbël Denåh hàlåq
Ba⊂àbar nahàrå⊃ lå⊃ ⊃iytay låke
for-then this
possession in-beyond the-River
not there-will for-you
can be (literally) translated as:
“... as a result of this there
will not be a share in the region Beyond the River belonging to you.”
This leads
to the question which will be answered later of who is the territory of the
Region Beyond the River being “shared” with; and also who is doing the “granting”
here?
Now
concerning the second point, in the historical situation of Megabyzus’s revolt,
Megabyzus had managed to take control of this Persian Region. However from the
statement of accusation here, it was apparent that only the province of Judah
was left in the control of Persian King. Also, as we have seen before, two
large Persian military expeditions had failed in their attempt to reclaim this
territory from Megabyzus. So if this statement was made sometime after these
two failed attempts, which had resulted in the settled situation of the sharing
of this territory by both the Persian King and Megabyzus, with, apparently a “concession”
by Megabyzus of the Judean province.
Thirdly,
though this ‘Region Beyond the Euphrates River’ was a vast territory, which
according to historical Persian tributes listings consisted mainly of ‘Phoenicia, the part of Syria called Palestine, and the
island of Cyprus,’R103 most of this area “westward” the
Euphrates River was mostly barren and
uninhabited as a large part of it consisted of the Arabian and Syrian desert
(known today as the Syro-Arabian Desert). Population centers and cities were
mostly established along the shore of the Euphrates river. Also with the
Arabian area being exempt from paying taxes,R104 there really wasn’t much “concrete” (i.e., inhabited)
territory within this region upon which to rule over. So if Megabyzus
controlled most of these population centers and only the province of Judah
being left, then it can now be seen that if Judah also revolted, then the King
would indeed ‘no longer have a share belonging to him in this Region.’
The statement that
Artaxerxes made when he responded to the alleged potential rebellion of
Jerusalem in Ezra 4:22. A more accurate translation of this statement which
accentuates the Hebrew vocabulary and syntax would (woodenly) read as:
“Why should this corruptionE105 be made to grow
the greatestE106 resulting in (the cause of) the
detriment of (the) kings.E107”
With all of
these points taken into consideration here, the rebuilding activities of the
Ezra returnees can be further narrowed down to towards the end of Megabyzus’s
revolt, after his two decisive victories, when then a shared state of
this region beyond the River had become the existing state.N108
The Reversal of Artaxerxes
Some have
wondered how King Artaxerxes could so greatly oppose the work on Jerusalem
which he had previously wholeheartedly allowed and supported, and it has
therefore be said that, based on his decision mentioned above to have Inarus
and others executed and another incident in his regnal years, that he was a
somewhat “fickle” king.R109 However a closer inspection of these
incidents including the Ezra reversal may not necessarily lead to this
conclusion.
As
mentioned above, the decision to have the captives of the revolt executed came
at the long and unceasing requests of the Queen Mother. Here the king was faced
with the justifiable indignation of the Queen-Mother concerning what had been
done to her royal family and the pardon/promise he gave to a rebel who,
according to Greek Historian Herodotus, ‘had caused the greatest harm to the
Persians.’R110 Artaxerxes therefore here, after holding
out for 5 years, sided with royal family honor.
The second
incident that has led to a conclusion that the King was fickle was another one
involving Megabyzus, sometime after events of 449 B.C.R111 While on a hunting expedition, Megabyzus slew
a lion that was rearing back and about to attack King Artaxerxes. While his
actions may have saved the King’s life, he in the same time had violated a
Persian custom and/or law that the King was suppose to make the first kill.
Artaxerxes became enraged with Megabyzus and would have had him decapitated
however he was talked into only banishing him. First of all, the superstitions
in Persian culture, many in regards to the King, may prevent people today from
understanding the gravity of the whole situation, in the same manner that one
could wrongly judge some of the judgements mentioned in the Old Testament like
the God of Israel striking down Uzzah (2 Sam 6:3-11ff). If the King’s belief
was that a lion could not kill him and/or that his gods would protect him, then
Megabyzus actions would at the very least show a lack of faith in this power of
the King. It could also be that Artaxerxes never felt threatened by the lion
and was ready to slay it himself before Megabyzus would have moved ahead of
him. It can be seen that Artaxerxes considered himself to be a worthy field
warrior as he had initially endeavored to head the first military against
Inarus and the Athenians back in 462 B.C. before being
talked into allowing his uncle Achaemenes, who would be murdered there, to go.R112 Whatever
the case even the pleadings of the Queen-Mother and Megabyzus wife (Amytis), among
others could only lessen the penalty to a banishment.R113
Again, he the King, was faced with judging between an apparent flagrant
insolence to him, the King and his, at times rocky, friendship with Megabyzus.
Here again he sided with the overall interests of the Persian Empire and not
personal ties.
Now
concerning the reversal of Ezra’s permission, the stability of the Persian was
put in question here and after doing his own research on the matter, he saw
that it was a valid accusation. He therefore decided to protect his Greater
Empire instead of taking a risk with Jerusalem. However, as it was stated
before Artaxerxes statement in Ezra 4:21 suggests that he would later resume
this work of rebuilding, probably after the civil/political disturbances in his
Empire were taken care of. Hence the mission of Nehemiah (Neh 1, 2).
Therefore based on all
of these factors, it can be concluded that the full-blown rebuilding activities
in Jerusalem mentioned in Ezra 4:7-23, took place within a few years after Ezra’s
arrival in Jerusalem in 457 B.C. and that it was carried with
the full, though implicit, (or not Biblically recorded) permission of the
Persian Empire. So, just like the prophet Daniel had been told about 80 years
before, Jerusalem was to be physically rebuilt after it would first be
politically restored.
It is also in the light
of all of these historical upheavals, frustrations and reversals surrounding
these restoration and rebuilding activities that we can better understand the
brief statement that was made at the end of the restoration and rebuilding
predictions in Dan 9:25, where it is literally said that:
Jerusalem would be
restored and then be built-“but in the strait (or difficult) times.”
Summary
In this now
reconstructed account for the Ezra Memoirs and the historical fulfillment of the
“judicial matter” mentioned in Dan 9:25, it can be seen that the “starting
point,” the mōşā⊃, of the Seventy
Week prophecy was the time when Ezra "started to" carry out of the
command of Artaxerxes found in Ezra 7:25, 26 by publicly reading of the Law to
Israel in the seventh Jewish month (Tishri) of 457 B.C., and which shortly
thereafter led to the beginning of the rebuilding of the city of Jerusalem.
 |
| Chronology of the 70 Weeks [457 B.C.] |
Notes to
"Transposition"
1. Based on: J. Blenkinsopp, Ezra-Nehemiah
(London: SCM press Ltd, 1989), 38, 39; G. A. Buttrick, ed. TIBC Vol. 3. (Nashville, TN: Abingdon
Press, 1989), 551-552; Jacob M. Myers, Ezra-Nehemiah, Anchor Bible. Vol
14. (Garden City, NY: Doubleday & Company, 1965), xxxviii; HGM. Williamson,
Ezra, Nehemiah, xxi-xxiii.
2.. Cf. G. B. Rossi, Variae
lectiones Veteris Testamenti* (Parma: Ex regio typographo, 1784-88), 4:157.
3.. See (Babylonian Talmud): Baba
Bathra 15a.
4.. (Babylonian Talmud):
Sanhedrin 93b.
5. This choice of “Ezra” in
the Ancient Hebrew Bible as the title for the two works is almost similar to
the overall title of the first five books of the Bible, that are known as
"the Law" or the "books of Moses"as most of the material
there came from the hand of Moses and/or focused on him. In a similar way, Ezra
was the one who "gave" Israel the Law during the Second Temple period
and was thus considered to be a second Moses.
[Cf. Charles H.H. Wright, Daniel and His Prophecies (London:
Williams and Norgate, 1906), 230]. Ancient
Hebrew tradition also credits Ezra with the general arrangement of the OT Canon
in the present order of The Law, The Prophets and The Writings
[cf. Luke 24:44]; (Cf. G. Rawlinson, Ezra and Nehemiah: Their Lives and
Times (New York: Fleming H. Revell Co, 1891), 59).
6. In the Greek version of
the Old Testament- the Septuagint (LXX).
7.. See Eusebius, Historia
Ecclesiastica,* 6.25.2.
8. See Robert H. Pfeiffer, Introduction
to the Old Testament 2nd ed. (New
York: Harper & Brothers, 1948), 813;
Judah J. Slotki, "Introduction to Ezra," Daniel, Ezra,
and Nehemiah, 107.
9. Based on: Blenkinsopp, Ezra-Nehemiah,
39-54; G.A. Buttrick, TIBC, Vol. 3. 552-560; Myers, Ezra-Nehemiah,
xlviii-lii; Williamson, Ezra, Nehemiah, xxiii-xxxvi; idem.
Ezra and Nehemiah, 14-47.
10. Four of
them are in a positive light (Neh 5:19; 13:14, 22, 31); while two are negative
(Neh 6:14; 13:29).
11.. See Williamson,
Ezra, Nehemiah, xxvi -xxviii.
12.. Cf. Neh 1:1
and 13:6.
13.. Williamson, Ezra,
Nehemiah, xxvii.
14. Ibid.,
xxviii.
15. Ibid.
16. This is
an orderly account that begins and ends at Jerusalem’s Sheep Gate (vss. 1, 32).
17. H.G.M.
Williamson (Ezra, Nehemiah, xxxiii-xxxv) suggests that the
combined book of Ezra-Nehemiah originally started in Chapter 7 of Ezra with the
EM and that Ezra 1-6 was of a later composition from about 300 B.C. that was later attached to the EM in order to form a continuation of the
history of Israel’s Second Temple restoration. (This would have been a polemic
account to counteract the claims of the Samaritans at that time concerning
their recently built Temple on Mount Gerizim.) This restoration was first
mentioned at the end of the historical book of Chronicles (2 Chr 36:22, 23).
This latter passage would then have been purposely restated at the beginning of
Ezra 1-6 to help “stitch” the two works together in order to have a smooth
continual, historical transition.
18.. See Joseph
Blenkinsopp, "The Mission of Udjahorresnet and Those of Ezra and
Nehemiah," JBL 106 (1987),
419.
19.. See A. B.
Lloyd, "The Inscription of Udjahorresnet: A Collaborator’s
Testament," 68 (1982), 166-180, [lines 51-52].
21. See
Yamauchi, Persia and the Bible, 256.
22. Based on:
Williamson, Ezra, Nehemiah, xxx; C.C. Torrey, The Composition and
Historical Value of Ezra-Nehemiah, BZAW (1896): 29-34; idem. Ezra
Studies, 252-284.
23.. Cf. C. C.
Torrey, Ezra Studies, (Chicago: University Press 1910), 252-284.
24. Williamson,
Ezra, Nehemiah, xxx.
25.. See Ibid., xi.
26.. For a more
detail discussion on the value of the LXX version of Ezra-Nehemiah see
Williamson’s comments in: Israel in the Book of Chronicles (Cambridge :
University Press, 1977), 5-70; and: idem. 1 and 2 Chronicles,
NCB (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans and London: Marshall, Morgan & Scott,
1982), 4-11.
27.. See Josephus, Antiquities
of the Jews, 11:5.1-5 [#120-#158]. His is a Ezra 7-10-Neh 8
order. What appears to
have been the case here is that, in rearranging the text here, the author of 1st
Esdras simply took all that he himself knew had been transposed in the
Ezra-Nehemiah account and just placed them with the Ezra passages.
29. See
Waltke and O’Connor, IBHS, 17, [1.5.2e], who discuss this “authorized”
activity of the scribes of the years up to 400 B.C. This period covers that probable years that the original form of
the combined book Ezra-Nehemiah (Ezra 7-Neh 13) was composed; that is
prior to the addition of Ezra 1-6 which was a later composition as mentioned in
Note #17. As it was
alluded to earlier, the fact that there was an attempt in the LXX to make a
correction of the text here supports the conclusion that the text was
questionable here. The period of 400 B.C. - 100 B.C. was characteristic as the ‘Preservation and Revising Period’ in the
history of Israel’s Scripture. (Cf. Ibid. 18, 19 [1.5.3]).
30.. See GKC,
465 [#145o].
31. This is the norm
for all but 3 examples in the Hebrew Bible where this grammatical “norm” is not
followed. However they seem to have a reason why they do not apply this rule.
36. J.C.L. Gibson, Davidson’s
Introductory Hebrew Grammar Syntax, 4th ed.
(Edingburgh: T&T Clark, 1994), 21, 22 [#24b]. Cf. GKC, 466 [#145s].
Cf. Ronald J. Williams, Hebrew Syntax: An Outline 2nd ed.
(Canada: University of Toronto Press, 1976), 41, 42 [#230];
37. E.g., Putnam, F. C. Hebrew Bible Insert: A Student's Guide to the Syntax
of Biblical Hebrew. Quakertown, PA: Stylus Publishing. 2002. 6, 7.
38. Usually Bible translators
indicate this inactive/passing role of the (secondary) subject from the
composite subject by using the word “with” instead of the conjunction “and”
however the literal translation would be “and” as a Hebrew conjunction is used
in these composite subjects.
39. The use of the feminine form
of verbs for feminine composite subjects in Gen 24:61 (“Rachel and her maids”);
31:14 (“Rachel and Leah”); 33:7 (“Leah and her children”) shows that a 3rd person masculine form of a verb is not ‘generically’
used for composite subjects. Interestingly, in Gen 33:7 two mixed
composite subjects are found. The first of these, “Leah and her children” is
composed of a feminine subject followed a masculine (plural) subject while the
second “Joseph and Rachel” is a masculine then feminine subject. Still the
singular verbs that accompany these subjects respectively (both “came”) agree
in gender with the first subject named. Still in the case of the mixed subject “Leah
and her children” a masculine plural form is used for the post-composite
subject verb “bowed down.” (By the way, the unspecified subject of the
masculine singular verb in Gen 33:8 is determined in the context to be Esau,
and vss. 6, 7 are seen as a brief parentheses in the conversation that Jacob
and Esau were having).
41. Again the LXX has “fixed”
this verse by adding the name of Moses to this verse.
42. Durham, J. I. Vol.
3: Word Biblical Commentary: Exodus. Word Biblical Commentary. Dallas: Word,
2002. 132.
43. It is doubtful
that Aaron did not always accompany Moses when visiting Pharaoh, as Aaron had
earlier been clearly designated by God as Moses’ associate and “mouthpiece.”
(See Exod 4:10-17; cf 6:28-7:2) and throughout the account of the plagues they
are repeatedly mentioned together when called upon to appear before Pharaoh.
(See Exod 7:10; 8:8, 25; 9:27). It must be noted that unless the use of Aaron
as Moses’ mouthpiece as describe in Exod 7:1 was always implied in the text,
Moses actually communicated directly with Pharaoh and also the whole assembly
of Israel. (See Exod 8:9, 26, 29; 9:29; 10:9, 25, 29; 11:4). Therefore God
would have had accurately judged the capabilities of Moses when He commissioned
him (Exod 4:10ff & 6:28ff).
44. The fact
that this concord occurs over what is now seen as two verses cannot be seen as
an exception to this rule for we are dealing on a clausal level here and
not a verse division level as there were no verse divisions in the
original text. So since the verbal clause in question here follows the
composite subject it is referring to from verse 9, then it should have agreed
with its plural number.
45.. See Owens, Analytical
Key OT, 3:53.
46. Ibid.
47.. Cf. e.g.,
Blenkinsopp, Ezra-Nehemiah, 288; Rita J. Burns, Ezra, Nehemiah
(Collegeville, MN: The Liturgical Press, 1985), 73; Myers, Ezra-Nehemiah,
151.
48.. Torrey, Ezra
Studies, 269.
49.. See Neh 2:7;
5:14, 15, 18; 12:26; See also the use of this word as such in Ezra 5:14; 6:7;
Hag 1:1, 14; 2:2, 21.
50.. Cf. Blenkinsopp, Ezra-Nehemiah, 285.
51.. Cf. Ibid., 284
note "I.”
52.. Cf. Ibid.,
339-340; Williamson, Ezra-Nehemiah,
364.
53.. Cf. e.g.,
Buttrick, TIBC, 738; Loring W. Batten, The Book of Ezra and Nehemiah (New
York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1913), 374; etc.
54.. See the
examples given by Myers, 173.
55.. These
parallels are seen in the matter of mixed marriages (comp. Neh 13:23-31 with
10:28-30), of buying and selling on the
Sabbath (13:15-22/10:31) and support for the house and workers of God
(13:4-14/10:32-39).
56.. Williamson, Ezra,
Nehemiah, 330, 331.
57.. Cf. Ibid.,
286.
58. Ibid.
59. The NKJV
graphically indicates this by the way it has separated these two passages in
its text.
60. The exact Biblical
location and historical context of this passage is explained fully later in
this chapter.
61. Cf.
Williamson, Ezra-Nehemiah, 275-276.
63. Cf. Ibid.,
286. See
also Nehemiah’s other activities in 7:1-4.
64. Cf. Josephus’s
account of the command give to Ezra’s which says: "... do instruct
those also which are ignorant of it, that if anyone of your countrymen
transgress the law of God, or that of the king, he may be punished, as not
transgressing it out of ignorance, but as one that knows it indeed, but boldly
despises and condemns it; and such may be punished by death, or by paying
fines." (Antiquities of
the Jews, 11:5.1 [#129-#130] = Ezra 7:25-26).
Clearly only those who
boldly despised and disobeyed that Law would be considered as being at fault
and not those who transgressed it ignorantly. It is therefore very unlikely
that Ezra would have reacted in this dejected way had the people then still
been in their state of being “ignorant” of the requirements of the Law.
65.. Compare
Nehemiah 8:3, 4, 5 &7 and Neh 9:3, 4 as there was: (1) an assembly
(8:3//9:3); (2) a public reading of the law, which occupies the same space of
time (8:3//9:3); (3) a raised platform is used again (8:4//9:4); and (4) the
people were on their feet (8:5//9:3), and “in their place” (8:7//9:3).
66.. Some commentators want to re-transpose Neh
9:1-5a in between verses 15 and 16 of Ezra 10 because of an apparent textual
emendation that has taken place at that location in the original manuscripts
but they would then have to explain why a covenant renewal would take place before
the matter of mix marriages were actually investigated and resolved, and also
before the list of transgressors had been made.
67.. Cf. Ezra 10:17.
68. These
Julian Dates are according to the ancient calender reconstruction of Richard A.
Parker and Waldo H. Dubberstein, Babylonian Chronology 626 B.C.-A.D. 75.
2d ed. (Providence, RI: Brown University
Press, 1956). Since the calendrical system of the Jews was equivalent to the
one that was used by the Babylonians, this reconstruction is also applicable in
the conversion of Jewish dates. Parker and Dubberstein however warn that a
possible day’s error in some of the months for Babylonian dates, and more days
for Jewish dates may exist. (See page 25).
69.. See “The Building of Jerusalem” (pp.
) below for an explanation.
70. This
corrects the account of Flavius Josephus who in Antiquities 11:2.1
[#21-#30] also had thought that these developments had occurred during the
reign of [the ruthless] King Cambyses II (529-522 B.C.).
71. It could not be
referring to a return at the time of Nehemiah’s mission in 444 B.C. because Nehemiah seems to have been the only Jew who had returned at
that time accompanied by a royal escort. (Neh 2:5-9).
72. As Judah had not
had a rebellion against the Persian Empire after now 80+ years of Persian
authority (538-457 B.C. and on), Artaxerxes probably
found records of (1) the rebellion of Jerusalem against the Babylonian Empire
in 586 B.C. (2 Kgs 24:20ff), while already having been subjected
to them back in 605 B.C. (Dan 1:1-2) and 597 B.C. (2 Kgs 24:10-16), which resulted in Nebuchadnezzar completely
destroying the city; and even (2) the rebellion against the Empire of Assyria
(2 Kgs 18:7-12ff) back in ca. 724 B.C.
73. The fact
that such a permission for a grand scale rebuilding could have been given in an
"understood" manner is seen in the fact that, as we have seen, the
rebuilding of Jerusalem was great dependent on its political restoration. So
the granting of its political restoration (which was given in a concrete form (Ezra
7:25, 26)) would then automatically mean that the city could also be rebuilt.
74. See
Ch. 3, pp. , & also Note #119
there.
75.. It should also
be noted here that Artaxerxes could freely go back on his word to Ezra in this
situation because his permission to Ezra to rebuild Jerusalem was probably, at
the most, only an official Persian decree and had not been established as a law
in the Persian Empire. (If the "word" to "restore"
Jerusalem had not become a "Law in the Persian Empire," then this
"word" to rebuild Jerusalem, more than likely, had not become a law
either.) It was only a Persian decree or command that had been established in
the law of the Persians that could not be reversed (see Dan 6:8 and Esther 3:9,
14; Cf. 1:19). That is why in the story of Daniel and the lion's den and in
Esther's story, the jealous "co-workers" of Daniel, and Haman,
respectively, forced the king to establish their decrees as laws. At
that point not even the king could reverse it.
In Esther 8:8, King Xerses told Esther to write a "decree" in
the name of the King and seal it with his ring so that no one could revoke it, but that didn't mean that the King
himself could not reverse it since it had not been established as a law
(compare Esther 3:14 with 8:13).
76. It may
seem strange that Nehemiah would mourn for so deeply and so long the simple
fact that Jerusalem’s walls and its gate had been destroyed but the account of
Flavius Josephus concerning this exchange here adds to the actual severity of
the present condition of Jerusalem and explains Nehemiah’s strong determination
to do something to fix this problem as he says that the Jews also reported to
Nehemiah that ‘the neighboring nations did a great deal of mischief to them for
in the day time they overran the country, and pillaged it, and in the night they
did them mischief and a few jews were led away captive out of Jerusalem and the
country and in the day the roads they found the roads full of dead men.’ (See Antiquities
of the Jews, 11:5.6 [#161]).
77.. Williamson, Ezra-Nehemiah,
172; cf. e.g., Yamauchi, 270; Maxwell, 252, 253; etc.
78. Namely: Diodorus
Siculus, Library of World History,11.74-75; 11.77, 12.3-4; Thucydides, The
Peloponnesian War, 1.109-1.110; Ctesias, (Summary Excerpts found in Photius’
Persica) #36-#42; Herodotus, The
Histories, 3.15, 7.7.
79.. Cf. Neh
2:7 and 9 where Nehemiah had to request letters of authorization from
Artaxerxes for the 'governors in the provinces Beyond the River' in
order that his wall rebuilding mission would not be interfered with.
80. For an explanation
of this statement in this verse, which mainly depends on how the Hebrew
preposition “le” is understood to be functioning here, see
the “Translation,” “Notes,” and “Comments,” in Williamson,
Ezra, Nehemiah. WBC 16, 196ff.
81. The location of
Mizpah has been disputed among scholar with some suggesting a place called Nebi-Samwil,
about 4½ NW of Jerusalem, and Tell en-Nasbeh (ca. 8 mi. N); however
several discoveries in the excavation of the Tell en-Nasbeh site have
favored it as the original location. (See
Freedman, D. N. The Anchor Bible Dictionary. New York: Doubleday.
1996. 4:879; SDABD, 748 “Mizpah
4").
82. See 2 Kgs 25:23;
Jer 40:5-12.
83. These three major
events are:
1. The Egyptian-Athenian
War with the Persians: Ctesias, #36-#38; Diodorus Siculus, 11.74-11.75;
11.77; Thucydides, 1.109-1.110; Herodotus, 7.7.
2. The Revolt of
Megabyzus: Ctesias #39-#42; Herodotus, 3.15.
3. A War and then
the Peace Agreement of Callias: Diodorus Siculus, 12.3-12.4
84. Diodorus Siculus
dates this event by saying: “When Conon was archon in Athens, in Rome the
consulship was held by Quintus Fabius Vibulanus and Tiberius Aemilius Mamercus.”
(11.74.1). Here, and elsewhere in his work (mainly in book 11 and the early
part of book 12), Diodorus Siculus (writing in ca. 1st century B.C.) uses this dating formula of naming (1) the chief magistrate in Athens
for that year (the Archon), (2) the Greek Olympiad, when applicable, and
(3) the elected Roman consuls of that year, however the dates for the Archons
and the Olympiads are almost consistently off by 5-7 years with the dates of
the Roman consuls stated. Here in this case, Conon was archon in Athens in 462 B.C., but the two Roman consuls were elected to office in the year 467 B.C. Since Siculus’ dates for the Roman consuls result in conflicts with the
chronology of other firmly dated events in history, unlike the use of the
dating for the Archons, it therefore self-evident that it is his listing of
roman consuls that was offset, lacking and/or inaccurate. Therefore his dates
for the Archons, and the Olympiads, when given, have chronological priority.
Diodorus Siculus, himself being a Greek, may explain why his Grecian dates were
more accurate.
85. Diodorus Siculus,
11.74.5-6; Thucydides, 1.109.1, 2.
86. Thucydides,
1.110.1.
87. Inclusive
reckoning may be considered out of place in a Greek work, yet there is evidence
of inclusive reckoning among the Ancient Greeks from the reckoning of
Olympiads. The fifth year which was the year in which the Olympiad took place
was also the first year of the next Olympiad period. (For Olympiads reckoning
see Finegan, 92-98 #185-#187).
Inclusive reckoning is
also considered to be applicable here for more logical reasons than for
methodological ones. The logical reason simply being that the Greeks of that
time clearly used a dating system which attaches an annual event to a year
(i.e., the names of people in office that year and the Olympiads), and not
numbered years (i.e, 462 B.C. 461 B.C., etc.,). So if the
first year of this war was considered to be when “Official A 1 and Official B 1”
were in office then the last year, year 6, of the war would be when “Official A
6 and Official B 6” were in office. Therefore the total years to “Officials A-B
6" is precisely 6 years. Today we would calculate these years in the
general way of automatically/mathematically subtracting 6 years from his
beginning year of 462 B.C. and this results in an end
date of 456 B.C., but in actuality, this is 7 years. Similarly, if it
is said today that an event lasted for 5 years from, e.g., 2000-2005, actually
6 years have gone by. In the light of this actual inconsistency, one has to
wonder if the method, or better the expression of this method, today is “innately”
inaccurate, and we today should normally say, e.g., 6 years for a period of
2000-2005 and not 5. So if Thucydides was also using numbered years, then our
way today of expressing such a time interval would also be considered to be
applicable, but as he wasn’t, then it logically should not. It could be argued
that the internal naming nature of the Greeks annual reckoning virtually makes
it an inclusive reckoning method by default.
88. Most commentators
give the dates of 460-454 B.C. for this war between the
Egyptians+Athenians vs. the Persian, but as Peter Green (Diodorus Siculus,
books 11-12.37.1 : Greek History 480-431 B.C., the alternative version. Austin:
University of Texas Press, 2006. 150-151 n.302) says this dating scheme, “now
hallowed by long acceptance, depends not on evidence, but on theory” and “interrelated
assumptions”. He then succinctly makes the case to uphold the chronology of
Diodorus Siculus here. This carefully dated accounts of Diodorus Siculus
(11.74, 11.75, 11.77), collated with the storyline from other related
historical accounts, clearly indicate the Egyptians and the Athenians began
fighting together against the Persians starting in 462 B.C. According to
Diodorus Siculus (11.74.2), Inarus was awaiting his Athenian allies who had
been on a naval expedition in Cyprus (Thucydides 1.104.1-2) which was only 250
miles away by sea. Then once they arrived in Egypt, they joined in the fight
against the first Persian expedition which was led by Achaemenes. They
proceeded to defeat this Persian contingent (Thucydides 1.109.2), and hold them
hostage in a place called White Castle/Fortress (Siculus, 11.74.2-4; Thucydides
1.104.2) for a year, through 461 B.C. (Siculus, 11.75.4). As a
result of this Persian defeat sometime earlier in 461 B.C., the second Persian
expedition led by Megabyzus was sent to Egypt, where they arrived in late 461 B.C. and after taking a year for preparation, they engaged the Egyptians and
the Athenians in battle starting in 460 B.C. (Siculus, 11.77.1ff).
They eventually broke the siege of White Fortress (Siculus, 11.77.2-3ff), and
then, eventually, this entire ‘expedition/enterprise of the Hellenes’ and ‘their
allies to Egypt’ came to “ruin” after six years of war (Thucydides, 1.110.1),
thus in 457 B.C. Therefore the correct years of this 6-year war are
to be reckoned from 462 B.C. to 457 B.C. Others who support
a similar dating (e.g. 462-456 B.C.) include: Robertson, N. “The
True Nature of the ‘Delian League,’ 478-461 B.C.,” pt. 2. AJAH 1980,
5.2:112-119; Paršikov, A. E. “On the Chronology of the Athenian Campaign in
Egypt.” VDI 1970
III:100-112 (English resume) and Yardley J.C., and R. Devin, Justin: Epitome
of the Philippic History of Pompeius Trogus. Translated and edited.
Atlanta, 1994. 50 n.10.
89. He is incorrectly
called “Achaemenides” by Ctesias who also wrongly labels him as Artaxerxes’
brother (#36-#39). Herodotus (3.12.4; 7.7.1) and Diodorus Siculus (11.74.1) say
Achaemenes was the son of Darius [II] (Hytaspes) 522-486 B.C., and thus the brother of King Xerxes I (Esther’s husband) 486-465 B.C., and thus the uncle of King Artaxerxes I (Longimanus) 465–425 B.C.
90. Ctesias, #38b,
#39.
91. The credibility
and chronology of Ctesias has been questioned by modern commentators because
the events that triggered Megabyzus’ rebellion were said to have taken place 5
years after the end of this Persian War. (Ctesias #39). This is
mainly because the dates of this war were thought to end in 455/4 B.C. as opposed to 457 B.C., as it has been corrected
here, which would come to make Megabyzus’ revolt to have begun somewhere
between 451-449 B.C. This then would come in
conflict with a well-dated event in Persian history which were the war leading
up to the Peace Treaty of Callias of 450-449 B.C., a war in which one
of the ‘Supreme Commanders’ was none other than a now restored Megabyzus.
However, the corrected chronology of the Egypt revolt/war, perfectly
accommodates Ctesias’ 5 years and Megabyzus’ revolt as the following corrected
chronology shows:
Egyptian-Athenian
vs. Persian War: (462-457 B.C.)
Five years of
Queen-Mother’s pleadings: (456-452 B.C.)
Megabyzus’ Revolt:
(ca. 452-450 B.C.)
War with Cimon and
the Athenians (450-449 B.C.).
92. Ctesias, #40.
93. If the gap between
the year of Ezra’s return in 457 B.C. and this proposed date for
the start of the rebuilding sometime in 452-450 B.C. (=5-7 years) seems
too long, one has to take into consideration that the Persian government did
not make any material provision to Ezra for the rebuilding of the city (see the
Ezra permission in Ezra 7:11-26), unlike the permission given to Nehemiah (Neh
2:7-9). So the initial rebuilding under Ezra’s time may have needed these 5-7
years in order to first organize establish the newly independent nation
and then prepare the materials and
workers for the physical rebuilding of the city.
94. E.g, SDABC, 3:345;
Williamson, Ezra-Nehemiah, 60.
95. Cf. TWOT, 292-93
[#669].
96. TWOT, 292 [#669].
97. Other Hebrews word
that refer to a more straightforward “division” include:
håşåh {#01234} e.g., Gen
32:7, 33:1; Jdg 7:16; 2Ki 2:14; Eze 37:22.
Palag|Pelag {#06385|6} e.g, Gen 10:25; Job
38:25; Psa 55:9 | Dan 2:41.
Pårås
{#06536} e.g., Lev 11:3; Deu 14:8; Isa 58:7; Lam 4:4.
98. E.g., Gen 49:27;
Num 26:56; Jos 19:51; 2Sa 19:29; 1Ch 24:4; Job 27:17; Psa 68:12; Isa 53:12; Eze
47:21; Zec 14:1.
99. See in: Gen 31:14;
Num 18:20; Deu 10:9, 12:12, 14:27, 29, 18:1, 32:9; Jos 18:7, 19:9; 2Sa 20:1;
1Ki 12:16; 2Ch 10:16; Job 20:29, 27:13, 31:2; Jer 10:16, 51:19; Zec 2:12.
100. Cf. TWOT, 292 [#669] which says that this
Hebrew word translated as “portion/share” (Heb: heleq) has legal connotations
similar to the word for “inheritance” (Heb: nåhàlå {#05159}), “but
with the more specific implication of what is granted.”
101. TWOT, 32
[#64a]. See e.g., Gen 17:8, 47:11, 48:4;
Lev 14:34, 27:24; Num 27:4, 32:5, 22, 35:28; Jos 21:12, 22:4; 2Ch 31:1; Eze
45:8.
102. Ibid. See e.g., Gen 47:27; Exod 15:15; 2Sa 2:21;
1Ki 1:51; Job 38:13.
103. Herodotus, History,
3.91.1; cf. 7.89.2.
104. Herodotus, History,
3.91.1a.
105. The Hebrew root
behind this translation is hbl and which is classified here as hbl
III (TDOT 4:185-188). While this root is translated here as a (physical) “damage,”
the other uses of this root show that it can also refer specifically to an internal
damage on the scale of a “corruption.” This then often ends up leading to a
physical destruction. So what the King would have been worried of here is the
beginning of a “corruption” within the province of Judah which could end up
leading to greater loss. (Occurrences of hbl III: Ezr 4:22, 6:12;
Neh 1:7 [3X]; Job 17:1, 21:17, 34:31; Ecc 5:6; Sol 2:15; Isa 10:27, 13:5, 32:7,
54:16; Dan 2:44, 3:25, 4:23, 6:22, 23, 26, 7:14; Mic 2:10 [3X]).
106. The Hebrew
expression here śågå⊃ {Ara. #07680; Heb #07679} has a somewhat superlative
sense. It is related to the expression śågab {#07682} which has the meaning of ‘being
inaccessibly high.’ (TWOT, 871 #2234). It therefore does not simply indicate
e.g., ‘becoming great’ or “even greater,’ as the common expression Gådal (“great”)
would {Heb #01419; Ara #01420}, but ‘becoming
the greatest.’
107. The word “kings”
is interestingly enough both in the absolute form and in the plural resulting
in the possible, but somewhat awkward translation “(the) kings.” (cf. NASB,
NJKV). Clearly here King Artaxerxes does not have in mind foreign kings outside
of the Persian empire, but future Persian kings. If he thus expects a revolt of
the Jewish community to cause such long term damage, as it had been stated by
the Jewish accusers using this same expression (Ezra 4:15) and verified by
Artaxerxes (vs. 19), then this adds support to the conclusion here that other
stronger “rebels” were being taken into consideration here, i.e., Megabyzus and
his unbeaten militia.
108. It could be argued
here that if this entire episode of the accusation by the Samaritans and the
complying response by Artaxerxes is viewed as having occurred with the revolt
of Megabyzus and its results in the background then, if we today can categorize
it as “absurd,” “exaggerated,” “preposterous,” etc then how could Artaxerxes
literally “fall for it.” He would have had to have absolutely no confidence in
(1) his judgement as a King, (2) the loyalty of his appointed officials, (3)
the stability of his kingdom, and (4) the power of his military in order to
even begin to take this accusation seriously and then later it as true.
Therefore he must indeed have had a much more compelling argument in the
background that swayed him here.
109. E.g., Maxwell,
251.
110. Herodotus, History,
3.15.3.
111. Ctesias, #43.
112. Ibid., #36.
113. Ibid., #43.
No comments:
Post a Comment
This blog aims to be factual and, at the very least, implicitly documented. Therefore if applicable, any comment which contains unsubstantiated/unsupportable ideas will not be allowed to be published on this blog. Therefore make the effort to be Biblical, truthful and factual.
-It typically takes 1-2 days for an accepted submitted comment to be posted and/or responded to.
[If you leave an "anonymous" comment and, if applicable, would like to know why it may not have been published, resend the comment via email (see profile) to receive the response.]