Extracted Text from PDF
The uploaded PDF appears to be a scanned document. I extracted the text using OCR and
placed it below.
--- Page 1 ---
THE JEWISH COMMUNITY IN THE FIFTH CENTURY 369
treasurers to administer them. He also saw to it (v. 31) that a supply of
wood for the altar was maintained. To stop business from going on as
usual on the Sabbath, he ordered the city gates shut all that day; when
merchants then began to set up markets outside the city, he threatened
them with arrest and drove them away (vs. 15-22). When he discovered
children of mixed marriages who could not even speak Hebrew, he flew
into a towering rage, and having cursed, assaulted, and pulled the beards
of such offenders as were handy, he made them all swear to desist from
intermarriage with foreigners in the future (vs. 23-27). When he found
that a grandson of the high priest Eliashib had married the daughter of
none other than Sanballat (vs. 28 f.)— he ran him out of the country!
Perhaps while these actions were being taken, Ezra arrived in Jerusa-
lem. Though Nehemiah’s efforts were not systematic, but rather ad hoc
measures adopted to meet situations as they arose, they showed him to be
an advocate of the strictest religious purity. He would, therefore, have
been fully in sympathy with what Ezra had come to do, if indeed he had
not actually been instrumental in bringing him. As we shall see, he sup-
ported Ezra’s reform and placed his official stamp of approval upon it
(chs. 8:9; 10:1). How long his term of office lasted after this we do not
know; probably it ended within a few years, perhaps about the time his
patron Artaxerxes I died (424). At any rate, by 411 a Persian named
Bagoas occupied his position, as we shall see.
2. Ezra “ the Scribe.” Nehemiah had in a physical sense saved the com-
munity, bringing it recognized political status, security, and an honest
administration. But he had not, in spite of his efforts, radically reformed
its inner life. And this was sorely needed, if the community was ever to
find its direction; without it, indeed, Nehemiah’s measures would have
proved of purely temporary significance. Providentially, however, the
needed reform was provided late in Nehemiah's tenure of office (ca. 428
in the reconstruction here adopted) with the appearance upon the scene
of Ezra“ the scribe.”
a. The Nature of Ezra’s Mission. Ezra’s commission, of which we are
informed in an Aramaic document (Ezra 7:12-26), the authenticity of
which need not be questioned,* was quite different from that of Nehe-
miah. It concerned religious matters only. Ezra came armed with a copy
of the law, together with a rescript from the king granting him extensive
powers to enforce it. Specifically (vs. 25 f.), he was empowered to teach
the law to Jews living in the satrapy of Abar-nahara and to set up an ad-
ministrative system to see that it was obeyed. Ezra’s. authority was thus at
once broader and more restricted than Nehemiah’s. He was not a civil
. 25 Cf. Ch. 9, note 48, above.
--- Page 2 ---
370 A HISTORY OF ISRAEL
governor, but one entrusted with the specific mission of regularizing
Jewish religious practice; he was concerned with secular affairs only to the
extent that sacral law impinged upon the secular (as, in practice, it in-
evitably would!) . On the other hand, his authority was not restricted to
Judah, but extended over all Jews living in Abar-nahara (actually mostly
in Palestine) . This does not mean that Ezra could force all people of Is-
raelite descent to obey his law. To compel conformity in that way would
have been quite contrary to Persian practice. It meant, rather, that all
who claimed allegiance to the cult community of Jerusalem (i.e., all who
called themselves Jews) would have to order their affairs in accordance
with the law brought by Ezra. This was supported by royal decree: for a
Jew to disobey this law was also to disobey “‘ the law of the king” (v. 26).
In addition to this, Ezra was granted the right to receive contributions
from Babylonian Jews for the support of the Temple cult (vs. 15-19) , and
to draw up to a fixed limit on the royal and provincial treasuries for its
further requirements (vs. 20-22). Cult personnel, meanwhile, were as-
sured full exemption from taxes (v. 24).
Ezra’s status is concealed in the title “ scribe of the law of the God of
heaven” (Ezra 7:12). This does not denote a doctor of the law in the
later sense — though tradition with some justice (cf. v. 6) came to con-
sider Ezra as such — but was Ezra’s official title as a commissioner of the
government. He was “‘ Royal Secretary for the Law of the God of Heaven”
(ie., the God of Israel) or, to modernize somewhat, “ Minister of State
for Jewish Affairs” with specific authority in the satrapy of Abar-nahara.?*
How Ezra came to receive his commission we do not know. He was a priest
(v. 12), and certainly representative of the position of Babylonian Jews
who had been upset by reports of laxity in Judah and desired to see mat-
ters corrected. The fact that such a rescript was issued indicates Jewish in-
fluence at,the court, where Nehemiah was scarcely the only Jew to rise to
high position (cf. Neh. 11:24). Indeed, Nehemiah himself, during his
visit in 433, may have laid the groundwork for such a step. In any event,
the rescript, as its wording shows, was drawn up by Jews; the king merely
approved it and signed it.** In doing this, Artaxerxes merely continued
and extended the policy of his predecessors. The Persians were entirely
tolerant of native cults, as we have seen, insisting only, in order to avert
internal strife and to prevent religion from becoming a mask for rebel-
lion, that these be regularized under responsible authority. This was now
26 Cf. especially H. H. Schaeder, Esra der Schreiber (Tubingen, J. C. B. Mohr,
1980), pp. 89-59.
27 Cf. E. Meyer, Die Entstehung des Judenthums (Halle, M. Niemeyer, 1896) , p. 65;
Schaeder, op. cit., p. 55. e
--- Page 3 ---
THE JEWISH COMMUNITY IN THE FIFTH CENTURY 871
done in Judah where, because of its strategic location, internal tranquil-
lity was especially desired.
Ezra probably came to Jerusalem in or about the year 428. According
to his personal memoirs (Ezra 7:27 to 8:36) ,?* he did not come alone but,
in accordance with permission given him (cf. ch. 7:13), at the head of a
considerable company assembled in Babylon for the purpose. Though the
journey was a dangerous one, Ezra was ashamed to ask for a military es-
cort lest this should seem to indicate want of trust in God. The caravan
set out in April after fasting and prayer; four months later it arrived
safely in Jerusalem (cf. chs. 7:8 £.; 8:31).
b. The Beginning of Ezra’s Reform. Since the Chronicler'’s account
may not follow chronological order (see Excursus II) , we cannot be sure
precisely when Ezra took the various steps recorded of him. But since his
commission was to instruct the people in the law and to regulate religious
affairs accordingly (Ezra 7:25f.), one would expect him to have pre-
sented the law publicly as soon as possible. Probably he did so. If, as is
likely, the account of Neh., ch. 8, follows chronologically on the story of
Ezra’s arrival, this was done two months later, in connection with the
Feast of Tabernacles, From a wooden platform erected for the purpose in
one of the public squares, Ezra read from the law from daybreak till
noon. To make sure that the people would understand (vs. 7 £.), he and
his assistants gave an Aramaic translation of the Hebrew text section by
section, possibly with explanation.» So moved were the people that they
broke down and wept. Only with difficulty was Ezra, with reminders of
the gladness of the day, able to restrain them. On the next day, after pri-
vate instruction to the leaders of the people in the requirements of the
law, the Feast of Tabernacles was celebrated, with further readings from
the law on each of its days.
But in spite of initial enthusiasm, Ezra’s reforming work was not easily
accomplished. The abuses that had so shocked Nehemiah, particularly
mixed marriages, continued, with many leading citizens, clergy, and laity
alike — including members of the high-priestly family (Ezra 10:18; Neh.
13:28) 8° — deeply involved. Something over two months later, in Decem-
ber (cf. Ezra 10:9; Neh. 8:2), Ezra was forced to take drastic action (Ezra,
chs. 9; 10). It is unlikely that he had been so long ignorant of the situa-
28 Cf. Excursus II, p. 383.
29 Cf. W. Rudolph, Esra und Nehemia (HAT, 1949), pp. 146-149; R. A. Bowman,
IB, UI (1954), pp. 786 £.; Schaeder, op. cit. pp. 52f. But cf. G. von Rad, Studies in
Deuteronomy (Eng. tr., London, S.C.M. Press, Ltd., 1958), pp. 18 £.
80 It is not certain who was now high priest, Eliashib having probably died, per-
haps before Nehemiah’s return (cf. Neh. 13:4-9). Perhaps it was his son Joiada (Neh.
12:10, 22; 13:28), perhaps even his grandson Johanan. The latter, who was in office
after 410, was by this time a mature man (Ezra 10:6).
--- Page 4 ---
872 A HISTORY OF ISRAEL
tion. Indeed, he was probably aware of it in general even before his ar-
rival, and certainly soon after. Possibly he had hoped that Nehemiah’s
measures, some of which were probably taken during this interval, plus
the reading of the law, would suffice. Possibly preliminary measures of
his own have not been reported. Even so, sorely provoked though he was,
Ezra still chose the way of moral suasion. With a great show of emotion,
he wept and confessed the sin of the congregation before Yahweh until
the people themselves, smitten in their consciences, acknowledged their
trespass against the law (Ezra 10:1-5), voluntarily suggested a covenant
to divorce their foreign wives, and swore to support Ezra in whatever
move he suggested.
Then, while Ezra continued to fast and pray, the princes and elders
ordered all the people to present themselves in Jerusalem in three days
on pain of ostracism and confiscation of property (Ezra 10:6-8) . Ezra had
this authority (ch. 7:25 £.) ; but he used it only through the leaders of the
people, whom he had now won over. This had its effect. A great crowd
assembled and, in spite of a downpour of rain, stood docilely in the open
to receive Ezra’s rebuke. With but few opposing, they agreed to do as
Ezra said, pleading only for time since the inclemency of the weather, plus
the magnitude of the task of investigating cases, precluded settling the
matter at once (Ezra 10:9-15). Investigation of cases, carried out by a
commission appointed by Ezra, began almost at once; three months later
(March, 427?) their work was finished (vs. 16£.), All mixed marriages
were dissolved (vy. 44).
c. The Completion of Ezra’s Reform: The Reconstitution of the Com-
munity on the Basis of the Law, According to the reconstruction adopted
bere (see Excursus I) , the climax of Ezra’s career came only a few weeks
later (cf. Neh. 9:1) in the events recorded in Neh,, chs, 9; 10. The matter
of mixed marriages disposed of, the people gathered for solemn confession
of sin, after which they engaged in covenant to live according to the law
(chs. 9:38; 10:29). Specifically, they bound themselves (ch. 10:30-89) to
enter into no more marriages with foreigners, to refrain from work on the
Sabbath, and to let the land lie fallow and forego collection of debts
every seventh year, They also agreed to levy on themselves an annual tax
for the maintenance of the sanctuary, and to see to it that wood for the
altar, first fruits, and tithes were regularly presented according to the de-
mands of the law. :
Since the things here agreed to are for the most part the very things for
which Nehemiah strove (cf. Neh., ch. 13) , and since Nehemiah (ch. 10:1)
is represented as heading the list of those who signed, it is often thought
that Neh., ch. 10, in spite of the impression conveyed by the Chronicler,
--- Page 5 ---
THE JEWISH COMMUNITY IN THE FIFTH CENTURY 873
actually describes the culmination of Nehemiah’s efforts rather than Ez-
ra's.8+ This is, of course, not impossible. Yet it is equally reasonable to
suppose that just here the work of the two men converged, and each sup-
ported the other. The abuses that Nehemiah had been attacking were
precisely those which Ezra would have wished corrected. If the recon-
struction adopted here is correct (i,e., that Ezra’s arrival fell during Nehe-
miah’s second term as governor), it is idle to ask whether Nehemiah’s
reforms preceded Ezra’s or vice versa, for they ran in good part simulta-
neously and culminated at the same point. The covenant described in
Neh., ch. 10, represents the conclusion of the efforts of both men. In ch.
18, we have Nehemiah’s own summary account of the correction of certain
abuses — far which he takes full credit. In chs. 9; 10 (and Ezra, chs. 9;
10) , the Chronicler tells how the same abuses were dealt with; although
he allows Nehemiah a modest part in this (Neh. 10:1), he gives the credit
primarily to his hero Ezra. Actually both men played indispensable roles.
Nehemiah, although he had already taken vigorous action against reli-
gious laxity, needed the authority of Ezra’s law, supported as it was by
royal decree, to make his measures permanently effective. But, since he
did take such action and, moreover, assumed the leadership in bringing
the people into covenant to observe the law (Neh. 10:1), he could — not
being an overly modest man, as his memoirs show — claim the reform as
his own. Ezra, on the other hand, though possessing full authority from
the government to impose the law, needed the backing of the civil gov-
ernor if his reform was actually to be enforced in any effective. manner.
But, since the law that Ezra brought furnished the basis for reform, and
since it was his moral authority that created a popular willingness to ac-
cept it, the Chronicler is not wrong in giving major credit to him. The
fact that Nehemiah says nothing of Ezra’s part, and the Chronicler almost
nothing of Nehemiah’s, may be explained on the plausible assumption
that the two men, both decided personalities, came to have little love for
each other.** Moreover, Nehemiah intended his memoirs purely as a per-
sonal apologia, whereas the Chronicler’s predominantly ecclesiastical in-
terests doubtless led him to regard the role of the civil governor as a sub-
sidiary one.
d. The Significance of Ezra’s Work. Ezra’s reform seems to have been
completed within the year of his arrival in Jerusalem. Thereafter we hear
81 So; e.g,, Bowman, op. cit., p..757; Rudolph, op. cit., pp. 167, 178. Rudolph, whose
reconstruction is at many points similar to. the one adopted here, thinks that the
Chronicler. has attempted to conceal the fact that Ezra’s efforts ended in a fiasco. I can
myself see no reason whatsoever to believe that Ezra failed.
82 So, Albright, Alex. Marx Jubilee Volume. (Jewish Theological Seminary, 1950),
Pp. 73. 4g
--- Page 6 ---
374 A HISTORY OF ISRAEL
of him no more. Quite possibly he was already advanced in years, and
died not too long after his mission was accomplished. Josephus (Ant. XI,
V, 5) so states, adding that he was buried in Jerusalem. But there is also
the tradition that he died in Babylon; his supposed grave at ‘Uzair, in
southern Iraq, remains a holy site until today.** We do not know. Ezra
was, in any event, a figure of towering importance. Though the exaggera-
tions whereby legend made of him no less than a second Moses * are fan-
tastic, they are nevertheless not wholly without justification. If Moses
was Israel’s founder, it was Ezra who reconstituted Israel and gave her
faith a form in which it could survive through the centuries.
Ezra’s work was to reorganize the Jewish community about the law.
The desperate need for such a reorganization has already been indicated.
Though the rebuilding of the Temple had given Jews a rallying place
after the interim of exile, and status as a cultic community, as the affair
of Zerubbabel made clear, there could be no reviving of the old national
institutions. Israel was no longer a nation, and had little immediate hope
of becoming one. Still less could she, in spite of the tenacity of amphicty-
onic traditions, so set back the clock as to re-create herself as a tribal or-
ganization. Had not some new external form been found, Israel would
not long have survived, but would have broken herself in futile national-
ism (for which, however, there was no longer the will), or would have
disintegrated into the pagan world — as she threatened to do, and as the
Elephantine community did. How parlous her situation was, internally
and externally, we have seen, It was Ezra who, within the framework of
the political stability provided by Nehemiah, supplied the needed reor-
ganization, the basis of which was the law.
What law Ezra brought is a question to which there is no certain an-
swer. There is no reason to assume that it was altogether a new law en-
tirely unknown to the people. Since it was already accepted by Baby-
lonian Jews as the law of Moses, much of it at least may have been long
known by Jews in Palestine as well. Some have supposed that it was the
Priestly Code, which preserves the official traditions of the pre-exilic
Temple as these had been handed down, collected, and given fixed form,
presumably in the exile. Others think that it was the completed Penta-
teuch, which, all its components having long been in existence, had al-
most certainly been compiled in roughly its present form before Ezra’s
day, although no one standard recension as yet existed. Still others be-
88 Cf, Schaeder, op. cit., p. 14, for references.
84 In I (IV) Esdras (cf. ch. 14) Ezra by divine inspiration re-creates the entire
Scripture, which had supposedly been destroyed. Cf. Sanh,.2Ib: “Ezra would have
“been worthy of receiving the Torah for {srael, had not Moses ‘preceded him.”
--- Page 7 ---
THE JEWISH COMMUNITY IN THE FIFTH CENTURY 375
lieve that it was a collection of laws, perhaps including various cultic and
other regulations secondarily attached to the Priestly narrative, the exact
limits of which can no longer be determined.** We cannot, of course, say
which laws Ezra actually read aloud. But it is most probable that the com-
pleted Pentateuch was in his possession, and that it was he who imposed
it on the community, as the normative rule of faith and practice.** The
Torah certainly had this status soon after Ezra’s time, and it is plausible
to suppose that this was the law which he brought.
The law, in any event, was accepted by the people in solemn covenant
before Yahweh and thus become the constitution of the community. Since
it was also imposed with the sanction of the Persian government, Jews
were given a status that permitted them, though lacking national identity,
to exist as a definable entity, Politically subject to Persia, they formed a
recognized community licensed to regulate internal affairs in accordance
with the law of their God. Israel's transition from a nation to a Jaw com-
munity had been made. As such she would thenceforth exist, and this she
could do without statehood and even though scattered all over the world.
The distinguishing mark of a Jew would not be political nationality, nor
primarily ethnic background, nor even regular participation in the Tem-
ple cult (impossible for Jews of the Diaspora), but adherence to the
Jaw of Moses. The great watershed of Israel’s history had been crossed, and
her future secured for all time to come.
EXCURSUS II
The Date of Ezra’s Mission to Jerusalem
The most perplexing problem relating to the history of the Persian pe-
riod is that of the chronological order of the careers of Ezra and Nehe-
miah. There has so far been no agreement regarding its solution. Al-
though full discussion of the problem cannot be attempted here, some
justification of the position adopted in the text is desirable.
The problem revolves about the date of Ezra’s coming to Jerusalem.
The date of Nehemiah’s activity seems quite certain. The Elephantine
texts show that the sons of Nehemiah’s arch-foe, Sanballat, were active in
the last decade of the fifth century, Sanballat being then apparently ad-
vanced in years. They also show that the high priest at that time was Jo-
hanan, grandson of Nehemiah’s contemporary, Eliashib (cf. Neh. 3:1;
85 For various points of view, and further references, see, e.g., Bowman, op. cit., pp.
738 £.; Noth, HI, pp. 833-335; H, H. Rowley, BJRL, 88 (1955), pp. 198-198.
36 Proposed by J. Wellhausen, Geschichte Israels I (Berlin, G. Reimer, 1878),
p. 421, this is accepted by various scholars today; eg., Schaeder, op. cit., pp. 63 £.; Al-
bright, BP, p. 54; H. Cazelles, “La mission d’Esdras” (VT, IV [1954], pp. 113-140):
cf, p. 131 ,etc.