Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 331

1 Esdras

Septuagint Commentary Series


Editors

Stanley E. Porter
Richard S. Hess
John Jarick

The titles published in this series are listed at brill.nl/sept

1 Esdras
Introduction and Commentary
on the Greek Text in Codex Vaticanus

By

Michael F. Bird

LEIDEN BOSTON
2012

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data


Bird, Michael F.
1 Esdras : introduction and commentary on the Greek text in Codex Vaticanus / by Michael
Bird.
p. cm. (Septuagint commentary series)
Includes the text of 1 Esdras in English translation.
Includes bibliographical references and index.
ISBN 978-90-04-23030-9 (hardback : alk. paper) 1. Bible. O.T. Apocrypha. Esdras,
1stCommentaries. 2. Bible. O.T. Apocrypha. Esdras, 1st. Greek Manuscript. Vat. Gr.
1209.VersionsBiblioteca apostolica vaticana. 3. Bible. O.T. Apocrypha. Esdras, 1st. Greek.
SeptuagintTranslations into English. I. Bible. O.T. Apocrypha. Esdras, 1st. Greek. Biblioteca
apostolica vaticana. Manuscript. Vat. Gr. 1209. 2012. II. Bible. O.T. Apocrypha. Esdras, 1st.
English. Bird. 2012. III. Title. IV. Title: One Esdras.
BS1715.53.B57 2012
226'.107dc23
2012009349

ISSN 1572-3755
ISBN 978 90 04 23030 9 (hardback)
ISBN 978 90 04 23031 6 (e-book)
Copyright 2012 by Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, The Netherlands.
Koninklijke Brill NV incorporates the imprints Brill, Global Oriental, Hotei Publishing,
IDC Publishers and Martinus Nijhoff Publishers.
All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, translated, stored in
a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical,
photocopying, recording or otherwise, without prior written permission from the publisher.
Authorization to photocopy items for internal or personal use is granted by Koninklijke Brill NV
provided that the appropriate fees are paid directly to The Copyright Clearance Center,
222 Rosewood Drive, Suite 910, Danvers, MA 01923, USA.
Fees are subject to change.
This book is printed on acid-free paper.

To my son Markus Xavier Bird


who saved me from being a D.O.D.O.
May he be as brave as Josiah,
as wise as Zerubbabel,
and as learned as Ezra

CONTENTS

Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ix
Abbreviations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xiii
Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Text and Translation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
Commentary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 107
Bibliography . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 285
Index of Modern Authors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 293
Index of Ancient Citations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 295

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

My interest in the Septuagint developed out of my studies relating to the


intertextuality of the New Testament. When the New Testament authors
quote from Israels sacred traditions, it is ordinarily the Greek translation
of the Hebrew Scriptures that they draw from. In some cases, it is the specific nuance of the Septuagintal translation that accounts for the precise
interpretative manoeuvre of the New Testament authors (e.g., Paul offers
a midrashic exegesis in Romans by bringing together Gen : and
Ps : which are linked by the common word , yet there is
no common wordage in the Hebrew version). I often joked with my Old
Testament colleagues at the Highland Theological College that we should
erase Hebrew from the curriculum and replace it with Septuagintal
Greek to reflect the linguistic and canonical inclinations of the New Testament authors! More seriously, the Septuagint has an important place
in the Christian tradition and even has some claim for constituting part
of the Christian canon (see Hengel & Deines ; Wooden ). One
particular document of the Septuagint, Esdras, included also as part of
the Christian Apocrypha, has been relatively neglected in contrast to the
canonical Chronicles, Ezra, and Nehemiah of the Masoretic Text and
the apocalyptic Esdras which is found in an appendix to the Latin Apocrypha. Indeed, C.C. Torrey (: ) said that Esdras is one of the Old
Testament writings that has been so inadequately studied [and] so
seriously misunderstood. In this woefully neglected piece of writing we
have a prime example of Rewritten Bible and an amusing tale of the symposia of the three bodyguards (Esdr ::). But there are a few oases
in this desert of disregard. The sundry works of H.G.M. Williamson have
been a goldmine of learning that I have found invaluable. The Esdras
consultation of the Society of Biblical Literature has also been a bastion of
solid research that fed my interest in the subject for the short time that
it ran. In addition, the commentaries of R.J. Coggins, Jacob M. Myers,
and Zipora Talshir are the most helpful contributions to the scholarly
discussion of Esdras in English. Even so, commentaries on Esdras are
few and far between. I hope, then, that I am able to fill in this lacuna in
Septuagint/Apocrypha scholarship by my own commentary.
If I may provide a few caveats (especially for would-be book reviewers), I am not attempting to reproduce the Aramaic Vorlage as little is left

acknowledgements

to be said after the work of Zipora Talshir in that regard. Likewise, I have
no intention of trying to establish an original text of Esdras since that
would pointlessly replicate the erudite work of Robert Hanhart on the
text of Esdras. Instead, I am focused on internal dynamics of the story,
the place of Esdras in Diaspora Judaism, the unique features of the
Vaticanus edition of the text, and charting the usage of Esdras among
early Christian authors where appropriate. That is largely the purpose of
the Septuagint Commentary Series (SCS). The volume is a work in the
reception history of the Greek translation of Esdras, not a commentary
on an autograph, Ausgangstext, or Ur-text. That is why there is no attempt
to work from the eclectic critical text of Robert Hanhart. The rationale
is that this volume will comment on a text that was used in an actual
community of faith as opposed to a theoretical text that corresponds to
no exact witness or version.
On the translation, I worked from the text of Codex Vaticanus as
available from the facsimiles published by the Vatican. The translation
set forth here is meant to be fairly literal and I have transliterated most
names and places, except in cases where it seemed to verge on silliness
(e.g., I retain Jerusalem instead of Ierousalem). Concurrently, I also
produced a more basic and reader-friendly translation of Esdras for
the Common English Bible. As such, I checked both of my translations
against the NRSV, NETS, NEB, and Myers for clarity and readability. My
reconstruction of Vaticanus was cross checked against the editions and
apparatus of Alfred Rahlfs & Robert Hanhart Septuaginta: Editio altera,
Robert Hanhart Esdrae liber I, and A.E. Brooke & N. McLean The Old
Testament in Greek.
There are several people that I need to thank for bringing this volume
to life. First of all, Im grateful to Dr. Stanley Porter for the invitation
to contribute to the series and for the editorial oversight of Dr. Richard
Hess. Prof. Michael Holmes of Bethel University provided me with photos of & Esdras from Codex Vaticanus, he proof read several sections, and his help was absolutely invaluable. Prof. H.G.M. Williamson of
Oxford University read the introduction and offered many helpful suggestions for correction. Mr. Martin Cameron, librarian at the Highland
Theological College, successfully obtained several books and journals
for me as I completed this volume. Equally helpful was Miss Andre
Pusey and Stephen Morton of Crossway College who both tracked down
several resources at late notice. I would also like to thank my research
assistant Nathaniel Barnes for his tireless work and assistance in the production of this work. My gratitude also goes to Miss Christie Sharman
and Mrs Naomi Bird for assistance with the indices.

acknowledgements

xi

As a Neutestamentler with much interest but no real training in EzraNehemiah and Septuagint studies, I am indebted to a friend, who wishes
to remain anonymous, who provided excellent advice and correction.
My thanks go also to Mr. Michael Whitenton, a Ph.D. student at Baylor
University, for his careful checking of my text-critical notes. As always, I
am grateful for the love and support of my family who have tolerated my
scholarly ventures from the beginning. Thanks goes to my wife Naomi,
my daughters Alexis and Alyssa, and especially to my son Markus to
whom this book is dedicated in celebration of his birth. Thanks to him I
am no longer a Dad of daughters only!

ABBREVIATIONS

AB
ABD

Anchor Bible
Freedman, D.N. (ed). . Anchor Bible Dictionary ( vols.; New
York: Doubleday).
ANET
Pritchard, J.B. (ed.). . Ancient Near Eastern Texts Relating to the
Old Testament (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press).
BDAG
Bauer, Walter., F.W. Danker, W.F. Arndt, and F.W. Gingrich. .
A Greek-Lexicon of the New Testgament and Other Early Christian
Literature (rd ed.; Chicago: University of Chicago Press).
CBR
Currents in Biblical Research
CBQ
Catholic Biblical Quarterly
chs
Chapters
CRINT
Compendia rerum iudaicarum ad novum testamentum
FRLANT Forschungen zur Religion und Literatur des Alten und Neuen Testaments
GELS
Muroaka, Takamitsu. . A Greek-English Lexicon of the Septuagint (Louvain: Peeters).
HB
Hebrew Bible
HTR
Harvard Theological Review
JBL
Journal of Biblical Literature
JETS
Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society
JGRChJ
Journal of Greco-Roman Christianity and Judaism
JJS
Journal of Jewish Studies
JNES
Journal of Near Eastern Studies
JSNTSup Journal for the Study of the New Testament Supplement
JSP
Journal for the Study of the Pseudepigrapha
JTS
Journal of Theological Studies
LHJS
Library of Historical Jesus Studies
LSTS
Libary of Second Temple Studies
LXX
Septuagint
L&N
Louw, Johannes P., and Eugene Nida. . A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament Based on Semantic Domains (New York:
United Bible Societies).
L&S
Liddell, Henry G., and Robert Scott. . An Intermediate GreekEnglish Lexicon (th ed.; Oxford: Clarendon).
mss
Manuscripts
MT
Masoretic Text
NCB
New Century Bible
NovTSup Novum Testamentum Supplement
RHPR
Revue dhistoire et de philosophie religieuses
SBLTCS Society of Biblical Literature Text-Critical Studies
SBLSCS
SBL Septuagint and Cognate Studies

xiv
SNTSMS
Th
TSAJ
VT
VTSup
Vulg
ZAW

abbreviations
Society for New Testament Studies Monograph Series
Theodotian
Texts and Studies in Ancient Judaism
Vestus Testamentum
Vestus Testamentum Supplement
Vulgate
Zeitschrift fr die Alttestamentliche Wissenschaft

INTRODUCTION
Esdras at a Glance
The First Book of Esdras, also known as Esdras, Esdras A, or Greek
Ezra, is a text of the Septuagint and Christian Apocrypha. Unfortunately,
in several canonical lists and modern versions, various writings go under
the name Esdras. Bruce M. Metzger (Charlesworth : .) provides a helpful chart of the various works of the Ezraic corpus:

Version/
Document
Greek Bible*
(Septuagint)
Latin Vulgate
Bible

Paraphrase of Chronicles
chs ; the whole book
Old Testament of Ezra; Nehemiah :
:; plus a tale about
Old Testament
book of
Dariuss bodyguards
book of Ezra
Nehemiah
IIEsdras
IEsdras

Many later Latin


Manuscripts

IIEsdras
IEsdras

The Ezra
Apocalypse

I Esdras
III Esdras

IV Esdras

III Esdras

II Esdras =
chs
IV Esdras =
chs
V Esdras =
chs

Douay English
Version
()

IEsdras

IIEsdras

III Esdras

IV Esdras

Russian Bible,
Moscow
Patriarchate
()

IEsdras

Nehemiah

II Esdras

III Esdras

The Book of
Nehemiah

I Esdras

II Esdras

Geneva Bible
The Book of
()
Ezra
Bishops Bible
()
King James
Version ()
Revised Standard
Version ()

introduction

* In this volume, I shall distinguish Esdras of the Septuagint (= Ezra/Nehemiah) and


Esdras of the Latin Apocrypha (= Ezra) by identifying them as Esdras (LXX)
and Esdras (Apoc.) respectively.
Also stratified as Ezra (chs ), Ezra (chs ), and Ezra (chs ) in some
modern versions.
Other writings attributed to or named after Ezra include Greek Apocalypse of Ezra, The
Visions of Ezra, Questions of Ezra, Apocalypse of Sedrach, and the Revelation of Ezra,
which are available in the Old Testament Pseudepigrapha (see introduction in Wright
).

Esdras is a Greek recension of the biblical history of the reforms under


both Josiah and Ezra and spans a period between the seventh to fifth century bce. It contains material that overlaps considerably with accounts
in the Hebrew Bible (MT). It also diverges from the MT of Ezra in several distinct ways. Esdras includes the story of Josiah from Chronicles
as a preface to the Ezra material. The book contains special material such as the story of Dariuss three bodyguards in :: and a few
other smaller sections unique to the document (e.g., :; :c;
:c; :a; :; :b). There is a reorganization of the letters to and
from King Artaxerxes. At the very end of the book it also adds elements
drawn principally from Nehemiah . Using the versification of RahlfsHanhart and the nrsv, the relationship of Esdras to Chronicles, Ezra,
and Nehemiah is as follows:
Esdr :
Esdr :
Esdr :
Esdr ::
Esdr :
Esdr :
Esdr ::
Esdr ::

= Chr ::
= Ezra :
= Ezra :
no parallel in the canonical texts
= Ezra :
= Ezra ::
= Ezra ::
= Ezra :: and Neh ::

There are some interesting features about Esdras that make it standout
against its MT counterpart. The parallels with the accounts in the Hebrew
Bible are not always exact. Some material appears in a different order
(e.g., Esdr : = Ezra :). Consequently, Esdras includes
some rather confusing chronology at certain junctures especially in the
order of letters and periods of certain kings. There is an abrupt beginning
and staccato ending to the document. The story of Dariuss bodyguards
is unique to Esdras and stands apart from the rest of the narrative.
The Greek of Esdras is more elegant and refined compared to Esdras
(LXX). All of which makes for a composition that in its extant form
has its own unique features and special qualities. This leads, as we shall
see, to some very interesting proposals and concerted debates about

introduction

the sources, original language, and purpose of Esdras. (For further


general introductions see Cook : ; Oesterly : ;
Pfeiffer : ; Myers : ; Hanhart ; Coggins &
Knibb : ; McNamara : ; Attridge : ;
Goodman : .; Harrington : ; Talshir :
; deSilva : ; Williamson : ; and survey
of literature in De Troyer ).
Text
Discussion and debate about the text of Esdras goes back as far as Justin
Martyrs accusation verbalised to Trypho that the Jews excised a particular verse from the text (Dial. ). Origens Hexapla probably included a
synopsis of Ezra-Nehemiah traditions in Hebrew, Hebrew transliterated
into Greek, and the Greek translations of Aquila, Symmachus, the Septuagint, and Theodotion. Greek copies of Esdras are extant principally
in Codex Alexandrinus (A), Codex Vaticanus (B), and Codex Venetus
(V). It is unfortunately missing from Codex Sinaiticus (), but the subscription presupposes an . The text of Esdras is
further attested (often in fragments) in many more Greek minuscules
(
[Hanhart
a: ]). Since P. de Lagarde, it has been recognized that mss
and represent a Lucianic recension that attempted to bring Esdras
into closer conformity with the Hebrew text (Cook : ; Tedesche
: ; Hanhart a: ; though Wevers [: ] states For
much of what some critics have called L for Lucianic text, it would be
better simply to call it a Byzantine text, that text which was used in the
liturgy of the Byzantine Church. On the Lucianic text see Marcos :
). Further witnesses are also provided by Josephus, Origen, and
the Latin, Syriac, Armenian, Ethiopic, and Arabic versions (see Hanhart
a: ; b: ). As to the quality of the diverse translations
of the Greek, Hanhart (a: ) states:
Hinsichtlich der fnf erhaltenen bersetzungen von Esdr I, Lav Lac Sy
Aeth Arm, lt sich sagen, da sie im ganzen dermaen treue Wiedergaben ihrer griechischen Vorlage sinddabei lt sich die Vorlage von
Aeth eindeutig als der B-Text, die von Lac als der L-Text, die von Sy als in
der Nhe des L-Textes liegend bestimmen,da sich aus ihrer Notierung
im App., soweit es der Sprachcharakter der betr. Sprache erlaubt, auch e
silentio auf ihren Text schlieen lt.

introduction

Most modern Greek editions of Esdras have generally followed B in


their representation of the text (e.g., Swete ; Brooke & McLean ;
Rahlfs ). Bogaert (: ) contends that B conserve souvent
la bonne leon et intervient frquemment dans la reconstruction du
meilleur texte. Fritzsche (: .) regarded B as the best pure
text of Esdras, wesentlich der des c. Vatican, im Allegemeinen ist sehr
rein ist. For Fritzsche the best witnesses included mss B, , and ,
though he adds the qualification: Der beste liegt in II . vor, doch
sind auch diese Bcher nicht frei von Schreibfehlern und wilikhrlichen
Besserungen. While B has been the most utlized witness to the text of
Esdras there is debate as to whether B is in fact the most reliable textual
witness to the earliest text of Esdras. Torrey (: ) went so far as to
state that, B generally yields an inferior text in the Old Testament, and
in this case it is at its very worst. That is perhaps overstated but generally
true since Esdras in B exhibits numerous divergent readings especially
in relation to names. S.S. Tedesche () argued that A represents a
superior text to B on the grounds that A has suffered less extensive
revisions than B (see similar conclusions by Torrey : ; Jellicoe
: ; Myers : ; Schrer : ..; Goodman : .).
Yet, Hanhart (a: ) seems correct in his assessment of Tedesches
treatment:
Der Wert der Ausgabe besteht in einer gerechteren Beurteilung des A-Textes in seinem Verhltnis zu dem oft bermig bevorzugten B-Text und in
den oft berzeugenden, auf palographischen Kriterien beruhenden Konjekturen, vor allem bei Eigennamen. Die groe Schwche der Ausgabe besteht in der bertreibung von Textnderungen auf Grund postulierter palographischer hnlichkeit und in der methodischen Undeutlichkeit und
weitgehenden sachlichen Unrichtigekeit der Notierungen im Apparat.

The reason why A has fewer revisions than B is most probably because
A represents a revision of B or a text closely related to B.H. Allrik ()
demonstrated this with respect to a comparison of A and B on Esdr
:. A comparison of the Hebrew texts of Nehemiah , Ezra , and
also with Esdras (LXX), shows that B has far more deviations in this
section than A. Some of these difficulties in B were inherited from the
exemplary text, some were created by the scribe himself, and yet they
still found their way into A. In light of this, Allrik suggests that three
main features of A and B must be explained including:
() The glaring errors and peculiarites which A and B have in common
() The items in which B is incorrect but A is correct when compared
with Esdras (LXX).

introduction

() The places where A has elements which are correct, but where the
A text presupposes the corruption evident in B plus the elements
that are correct by the standard of Esdras (LXX).
The best examples that Allrik cites in favor of As dependence on B (or a
B-like text) are the presence in A of the peculiar from
B and the probable incorporation of Bs marginal note () following it
in Esdr :. There is also the sharing of a numeral misread as a syllable
( = ) in Esdr :. In addition, one observes the relative
closeness in the identity of peculiar names such as [B] and
[A] against Rahlfs conjecture of in Esdr :.
This leads Allrik (: ) to surmize that the most plausible scenario
is that the basic text of A has been taken over from the text of B, A has
made extensive corrections to B, and As changes were made largely by
way of reference to Esdras (LXX). While Allriks study on : is
a small sample, he may well be correct that his study is valid for the
whole part which we now call Esdras (Allrik : ). (One error in
Allriks argument is that Esdr : B does not read ,
but , so there was no misreading of the letters as
numerals). Consequently, arguments for the superiority of A over B are
effectively torpedoed as neither text is any superior to the other (if
we gauge superiority in terms of affinity with an autograph). Codex A
probably depends on B in some form and, though secondary, it may
still contain readings that are potentially earlier if it was influenced by
other textual witnesses as well. The significance of A is its witness to
a Hebraizing recension of Esdras and its contribution to efforts to
produce a standardized text of Esdras. That falsifies Torreys (: )
contention that A has not been conformed to the MT, for it has but via
Esdras (LXX).
On a somewhat different tack, Hanhart (b: ) has given
attention on the relation of B to the Lucianic texts. He supposes that
der B-Text oft eine Vorstufe bzw. Textgrundlage fr den L-Text darstellt
(b: ). In any case, A and L-Texts and their dependent textual
streams are partly revisions of B. Both A and L attempt to bring Esdras
in its B text-form into closer conformity with other texts be that either
Esdras (LXX) or the Hebrew text itself (see Hanhart b: ).
They both testify to further efforts by translators and scribes to bring
the Christian Septuagint into harmony with the Hebrew canon. I will
argue below that Esdras is a loose Greek translation of a proto-MTlike Semitic text. The tendency of the textual tradition was to tighten

introduction

upon this looseness and to turn the likeness into sameness. Thus
the significance of B is that it stands as a witness to an intermediate stage in the transmission of Esdras where its loose translation of
the Hebrew/Aramaic was being assimilated to the more literal text of
Esdras and drawn closer to the Hebrew text.
The purpose of this commentary is not to produce a critical edition of
Esdras by using an eclectic methodology that might bring us conceivably closer to an autograph or Ausgangstext. In the absence of further
manuscript discoveries and apart from some new and radical innovations in the science of textual criticism of the Septuagint, I think that the
Hanhart (a) edition has put us as close as we can get to the earliest recoverable text of Esdras for now. I am focused here instead on the
textual tradition of Codex Vaticanus and the unique contours of that text
within the broader textual tradition of Esdras. This commentary is not
a text-critical study as it will be concerned primarily with the historical
referents of Esdras (i.e., the reign of Josiah and the return of the exiles
to Jerusalem under Ezra), although due attention will be given where
appropriate to the unique features of B as a witness to the text of Esdras.
Date and Provenance
Esdras covers the historical period dating from the reforms of Josiah
(bce) to the return of the Judean exiles from Babylon to Jerusalem
under the supervision of Ezra (bce). Josephus makes extensive use of
Esdras in his Antiquities of the Jews which sets the outer marker for the
date of the book at the end of the first century (ca. ce). The story of
the three bodyguards also has affinities with imperial court narratives
like Esther, Judith, Daniel, the Epistle of Aristeas, and is also analogous to Jewish sapiential writings such as Ben Sirach and the Wisdom
of Solomon. Some even suggest that influence from the text of Daniel
(Esd. : = Dan :; Esd. : = Dan :; Esd : = Dan
:; Esd : = Dan :) which would necessitate a post- bce date
(e.g., Thackeray : b; : ; Attridge : ). Likewise,
Zerubabbels prayer may reflect grandiose hopes resonant with Judeas
independence under Simon Maccabees bce (Hengel : ). Overall, it would seem that a date somewhere in the (mid-)second century bce
would commend itself as a probable time for the composition/translation
of Esdras (see also Myers : ; Coggins & Knibb : ; McNamara : ; Attridge : ; Gardner ).

introduction

The provenance of Esdras is virtually impossible to determine since


anywhere where Jews read in Greek is possible. Though Alexandria is a
preferred option for many (e.g., Torrey : ; Pfeiffer : ;
Williamson : ). The problem is that Esdras includes geographic
terminology familiar to Seleucid ( [:, ,
; :; :; :; :) and Ptolemaic ( [:; :,
, ; :, ]) authors for designating the region of Palestine. Myers
(: ) appropriately states: Not too much must be made of this
except to note that all sources involved reflect a confusion of terminology coincident with the historical situation. Even so, I tentatively
lean towards an Egyptian provenance for the Greek translation given
the various verbal linkages between the Greek of Esdras and the Greek
of Egyptian Jewish literature and secular papyri (e.g.,
[Esd :] and [Ep. Arist. ]). Esdras could be loosely
associated with the tradition of historiography (however historical) by
the Hellenistic Egyptian authors Demetrios, Eupolemos, Artapanos, and
Alexander Polyhistor among others. Yet the provenance for the original Aramaic(/Hebrew) source of Esdras remains purely in the realm
of speculation and could range from Alexandria to Babylon to Antioch
to Jerusalem. We have no way of knowing where to place the Semitic
Vorlage of Esdras. We could legitimately surmise that it might be very
similar to the provenance of the Hebrew of EzraNehemiah which is normally placed somewhere in Palestine.
Genre
Although Esdras is not easily classified (Attridge : ), the literary form of Esdras is strictly speaking a historical narrative and thus
represents a form of biblical historiography. Esdras is, then, a development of earlier historical narrative material (i.e., Chronicles-EzraNehemiah) which proceeds to abbreviate, add, harmonize, and interpret
this material accordingly. Thus, as a secondary composition, Esdras
qualifies as Rewritten Bible (on the genre see Alexander ; on
Esdras specifically see De Troyer and Williamson . I should
add that Rewritten Scripture is a less anachronistic and freighted designation than Rewritten Bible, on which see Campbell ). It presents
a telescoped chronological framework where events spread throughout
several centuries are collapsed into a relatively short amount of space.
Material is also rearranged in such a way as to construct a particular

introduction

ideological perspective in a certain socio-religious location for a particular implied audience.


In this generic category of Rewritten Bible/Scripture, Esdras stands
beside Jubilees, Ps-Philos Biblical Antiquities, Josephuss Antiquities of the
Jews, and the Genesis Apocryphon (QapGen) from Qumran as instances
of narrative texts that retell and reinterpret the biblical story (I am assuming here that Esdras used a proto-MT version of Ezra-Nehemiah, see
below under Sources). Whether Rewritten Bible is a homogenous
literary form is disputed (e.g., Bernstein ), but it clearly exhibits literary traits indicative of rewritten accounts of the biblical history (see
further Alexander ; Williamson ; Tov : ). These
features (Fisk ) include: () biblical narrative where a document is
highly selective in its choice of material to be repeated, summarized, and
expanded. In the case of Esdras, this can be related to the focus on Ezra
rather than Nehemiah and observed in how the narrative accent falls on
the restoration programmes of Josiah, Zerubabbel, and Ezra; () integration of biblical episodes and non-biblical material most clearly seen in
Esdras with the inclusion of the story of Dariuss three bodyguards; ()
implicit rather than explicit exegesis that seeks to fill in gaps, explain problems, and make additional connections. That aspect is apparent in the
way that Esdras handles the correspondence with Artaxerxes and the
insertion of Nehemiah material in Esdras ; and () functions as a companion to earlier accounts rather than a replacement for them and Esdras
presumes much knowledge of laws, details, and events in Deuteronomy,
Kings, Chronicles, Ezra-Nehemiah, Jeremiah, Haggai, and therefore appears to be a supplementary story written for the purpose of being
read beside the earlier works from Israels sacred literary traditions. It
could be objected that the re-ordering of material in Esdras, principally
that associated with the setting of Zerubbabels activitites, counts against
the categorization of Esdras as Rewritten Bible since such re-ordering
is not common place in this genre because Rewritten documents normally follow their sources in a sequence with selective summaries and
minor embellishments. Still, there is some evidence for a re-ordering
of materials and chronological liberties being taken in other Re-written
Bible documents such as in Jubilees and QapGen (see Williamson :
).

introduction

Sources
Central to theories about origins, authorship, dependence, and priority
is () source-critical matters as to whether Esdras is dependent on a
pre-existing Greek or Semitic version; and () literary-historical matters
as to whether or not Esdras is a fragment of a single larger work by the
Chronicler or if it is a compilation of several source materials based on
Chronicles-Ezra-Nehemiah.
On the source-critical question, the majority of scholars seem to prefer
postulating a Hebrew-Aramaic Vorlage behind Esdras given the various Semitisms in the Greek, the historical priority of Ezra , and
how Esdras smoothes out the linguistic and narrative complexities of
Ezra (see e.g., Torrey : ; Zimmerman ; Klein :
; Grabbe : ; Talshir , ). Though some like Carrez
() and Coggins (Coggins & Knibb : ) entertain the possibility
that Esdras is a rewritten Greek text, this has generally not been followed. Against the possible dependence of Esdras on Esdras (LXX),
Hanhart (b: ) writes, Der Vergleich der beiden bersetzungstexte ergib somit, da unmittelbare literische Abhngigkeit nicht mit
Sicherheit nachzuweisen ist. Bogaert (: ) suggests that Esdras
(LXX) was in fact designed to replace and supplant Esdras with a better translation and a more complete work. However, the differences in
language and style between Esdras and Esdras (LXX) cannot accommodate literary dependence between them. It seems as if Esdras is the
earlier text and the translator had no other Greek translations before him
to utilize and was consequently pioneering the choice of Greek vocabulary and style (Grabbe : ). I reckon that Esdras emerged from a
deliberate rewriting of a Hebrew text along thematic lines done initially
by an Aramaic translator/redactor, so that the Greek version is a translation of an Aramaic version with perhaps some glosses inserted in its
process of translation and transmission (see Schrer : ..).
Still, whether one can actually reconstruct a Semitic text from the
Greek of Esdras by retroversion is perhaps a more speculative exercise because the Greek translation of Esdras appears to be relatively
free (see Pohlmann : , Die freiere bersetzungsweise de
Esr erschwert es zwar manchmal, den zugrunde liegenden semitischen
Text zu erkennen). Torrey () and Talshir () have both made
attempts to retrovert either part or the whole book into Aramaic. In
most cases these retroversions appear successful and compelling especially where the Greek form is best explained by an underlying Semitic

introduction

idiom. But in the end we have to admit that they are merely educated
guesses. Furthermore, one cannot be absolutely sure to what extent the
Vorlage corresponds to the proto-MT of Ezra-Nehemiah (see Hanhart
b: , Doch ist Unabhngigkeit der beiden griechischen Texte [i.e.,
Esdras and Esdras] voneinander nur dann mglich, wenn zuweilen
eine gemeinsame von M[T] abweichende hebrisch-aramische Vorlage
angenommen wird; and more recently he writes [: ], Der mir
nach wie vor gleicherweise eindeutig erscheinende Befund, dass der
Text von Esr I die in Quellenarbeitung begrndete chronologische Problematik der Bcher Esra-Nehemia nicht nur voraussetzt, sondern sie
noch kompliziert, bleibt fr mich das bedeutsamste Kriterium fr die
Annahme der Prioritt der masoretisch berlieferten Bcher Esra und
Nehemia. De Troyer [: ] conjectures that, The author of the Vorlage of Esdras could have interpreted and rewritten the Hebrew text of
EzraNehemiah. In this case, the differences would not be due to a translator or a different Hebrew Vorlage, but to the editor reworking the MT
text into a new story).
I would demur from the suggestion that Esdras and ChroniclesEzra-Nehemiah all descend from the same Ur-Text taken in different
directions or that we have two very different Vorlagen circulating as the
basis of both documents. What seems probable to me is that Esdras
is based on a proto-MT-like Vorlage, but is not strictly identical to the
(proto-)MT in every respect as the text has some harmonizing tendencies, interpretive glosses, and interpolations of new material.
Coming to literary-historical issues, the problems remain equally
complex. On the Fragmenthypothese, K.-F. Pohlmann (: ; cf.
Oesterly : ; Cross ; Coggins & Knibb : ; Klein
), building on previous research, argued that Esdras was a Greek
translation of a fragment of the last part of the Chroniclers work with
Ezra-Nehemiah emerging as a later rearrangement of that same material.
In which case, Esdras is not a literary work in its own right, but constitutes a Greek translation of a fragment from Chronicles. But several
objections can be stated (Cook : ; Williamson : ;
: ; Grabbe : , ) and I will enumerate them
further now.
First, against the notion of Esdras as a section of an original translation of the entire work of the Chronicler is the fact that the extant Greek
text of in the Septuagint was made before bce
and it is improbable that two fully independent Greek versions of the
same document were composed concurrently, particularly if both ver-

introduction

sions originated in Alexandria (see Williamson : ; Schrer


..n). It can be granted that multiple versions of a text can exist
within a single literary community like Genesis and Jubilees at Qumran. But we have no reason to think of and
as competing texts as they reflect no internecine Jewish rivalry within
Greek-speaking communities.
Second, if Esdras represents the original form of the Chroniclers
work, then Nehemiah must have followed on from Ezra . Yet the
most reasonable place for Nehemiah is in between Ezra and .
That is because Nehemiah fits chronologically between Ezras arrival in
Jerusalem and the subsequent problem of mixed marriages and logically
with the aim to present the work of the two reformers as part of the one
reforming process.
Third, if Esdras constitutes the original ending of the Chroniclers
work, then it requires that it exhibit no knowledge of the Nehemiah
material. However, Williamson (: ) has shown that Ezra :
(= Esd :) is secondary to Nehemiah in light of the manner
in which the date is given as the seventh month which does not fit
the practice in Ezra and that Ezra : looks like an expansion
of Neh :. He declares: Since Neh viiviii is the point at which the
originally independent accounts concerning Ezra and Nehemiah have
been most clearly interwoven, it follows that the editor responsible for
Ezra ii already knew Ezra viix and Nehemiah in substantially its present
shape (Williamson : ). Thus, if Ezra is dependent upon Nehemiah,
then a fortiori, the author of Esdras must have known both the books
of Ezra and Nehemiah as it drew on both lists. What is more, even
Pohlmann (: ) recognized Esdr : was the Achilles heal of his
argument if it can be shown that it refers to Neh : which it probably
does given the very similar content (Williamson : ; Klein
: ).
Fourth, the unique material in Esd : stipulates that the reason
for Gods opposition to Israel was caused by the peoples sin prior to the
time of Josiah, whereas the Chronicler (Chron :) attributes the
exile to the sin of Zedekiah and those living in his day (Williamson :
). The different perspectives on the reason for divine retribution
against Israel distinguish the theology of the Chronicler from that of
Esdras.
Fifth, the abrupt beginning and sudden ending of Esdras certainly
are conducive to the fragmentary hypothesis (according to Williamson
: , Hardly a single modern scholar has sought to justify this

introduction

as the intended conclusion of a self-contained work). Even if it is a


fragment of a larger work it may not necessarily be a fragment of the
Chroniclers work. Alternatively, A. van der Kooij (a, b) has
submitted cogent arguments for the unity and integrity of the ending and
beginning of Esdras in its current form. On the beginning of Esdras,
he notes that Esd : has no exact parallel equivalent in the Hebrew
text of Chronicles , but does parallel Kgs : and Chron
:. The statement in Esd : about refers to
Josiahs celebration of the Passover which Esdras begins with, whereas
q harks back to earlier events in Josiahs
reign that Esdras does not record, but which Kings and Chronicles
do. In other words, Esdras presupposes Chronicles and Kings, but
obviously did not include them in its own literary context. He concludes:
Unsere Interpretation von IEsdr ,f. hat zum Schlu gefhrt, da
der jetzige Anfang von I Esr auch der ursprngliche Einsatz war (van
der Kooij a: ). In addition, the beginning of the book with the
conjunctive deriving from the Hebrew from Chron :, does not
mean that the opening follows on from something else, it only means
that the authors/translators of Esdras have closely followed its source
text in Chronicles .
On the ending of Esdras, many have supposed that the abrupt close
of Esdras in : with q corresponds to the new
paragraph begun in Neh : ( [MT] /
q [Esd : LXX]) which is not completed in
Esdras and thus represents a detached and unfinished translation of
Nehemiah. As van der Kooij notes though, in contradistinction to the
Hebrew text, the Greek of Esdras adds the connective after
(= ) to create a both/and construction which he renders: not only
because the teaching given them had been instilled to their mind, but
also because they had gathered together (van der Kooij b: ).
Instead of being an isolated and incomplete fragment on Neh :, Esd
: sets forth the reason for the peoples merriment and celebration.
Juha Pakkala (: ) also notes that if Esdras had been accidentally
broken off from a larger work, then one would expect : to be part
of a new section or new idea as in Esd : that commences a new
section with q . In which
case, q in Esd : is meant to be read with what
precedes it and not begin a new section despite the fact that it is a partial
rendering of Neh :. In which case, the author of Esdras only wanted
to include parts of Ezra-Nehemiah, but he nonetheless left traces of the

introduction

larger work that he utilized. Furthermore, the ending of Esdras :


with the verb corresponds with the ending of Chronicles
that also rounds off with a verb in Chron : (Eskenazi :
). Both documents, then, close deliberately with an activity in
mind: coming together (Esdras) and going up ( Chronicles). Note
also Gardner (: ) who writes: [A] short phrase is often clearer
and more to the point than a long, rambling sentence. As the message
contained in the final sentence matches the start of the book, there is
no need to imagine that the text is incomplete. Grabbe (:
) also identifies an inclusio as Esdras begins with the first festival
of the year, Passover, and ends with the last festival of the year, the
Feast of Tabernacles. Viewed this way, the opening and beginning of the
document do not require its placement within a larger work.
It is worth considering a number of mediating options that have
been set forth. T.C. Eskenazi () claims that Esdras is a distinct
composition by the Chronicler (i.e., its persons, circle, or school) derived
from Ezra-Nehemiah and reflecting the same ideological perspectives
and common literary devices as the Book of Chronicles. Accordingly
Esdras brings the material of Ezra-Nehemiah into closer conformity
with the ideology and style of the Book of Chronicles. She bases that
on: () the centrality of David; () the concept of Israel and Israels
relation to others; () retribution and the role of the prophets; and
() heightened emphasis on temple and cult. Eskenazi is quite right to
dispute the assumption of a common authorship of Chronicles-EzraNehemiah prevalent since L. Zunz () given the linguistic differences
between Chronicles and Ezra-Nehemiah (see Japhet ; Williamson
: ; Throntveit ; but note the objections of D. Talshir ).
While the Davidic links in Esdras are played up and an emphasis on
the renewal of the temple and cultus are certainly discernible, the other
elements of her paradigm seem tenuous. Esdras does exhibit a similar
exclusionary tendency as Ezra and the role of prophets in retribution
is hardly unique to the Chronicler. What is more, the story of the three
bodyguards has no affinities with the material of Chronicles and it is hard
to fit into her tradition-history as it does not square with the ideology or
literary character of Chronicles. The similarities between Esdras and
Chronicles are apparent, but they can be reasonably attributed to one
document using the other, rather than appealing to a shared authorship.
If it is time to set aside the theory of a common authorship to Chronicles
and Ezra-Nehemiah, then we should do the same with Chronicles and
Esdras.

introduction

A significant thesis is that of Dieter Bhler () who noticed how in


Esdras that at the time of Zerubbabel and Ezra the city of Jerusalem is
rebuilt, the returning exiles are able to immediately settle in the city, and
the temple is already furnished with walls, gates, and gatekeepers. In contrast, the MT version of Ezra knows of Jerusalem as ruined and depopulated when Zerubbabel and Ezra return (e.g., Esd : = Ezra :; Esd
: = Ezra :; Esd : = Ezra :). In which case, the MT of Ezra
has reworked Esdras in order to make room for the restoration programme of Nehemiah. The purpose is to create a Nehemiah-compatible
text of Ezra. The contrast created by this reworking is that while Esdras
focuses on Temple and Torah, Ezra-Nehemiah stresses a tripartite motif
of Temple, Torah, and City with the latter as a means of social cohesion.
Bhler (: ) writes:
Esr-Neh will nicht einfach Geschichte nacherzhlen, sonder eine Aussage
ber das Wesen Israels machen. Esr-Neh ist ein theologische Komposition, die absichtlich einen impliziten Punkt der alter Erzhlung Esdr *
herauszieht und zu einem eigenen Thema ausbaut Die Darstellung von
Esdr *, wonach die Stadt Jerusalem zu Beginn der Restauration, noch
vor dem Tempel wiederhergestellt wurde (vgl. Haggai) und Nehemia mit
Serubbabel und vor Esra nach Jerusalem zurckkehrte, darf nicht einfach
bersehen werden, sondern ist fr eine geschichtliche Rekonstruktion kritische auszuwerten.

The differences between Esdras and Ezra that Bhler highlights concerning the depiction of the city are valid and his proposal is eminently
plausible. The major misgiving is that other explanations are equally
possible and perhaps even preferable. For a start, Esdras has no problem creating anachronism in the editing of its Vorlage by referring to
Jerusalem as rebuilt prior to Nehemiah. One also has to prove that the
perspective of Ezra is a correction to Esdras rather than simply carried over from a Semitic source. Also, while translation from Greek to
Hebrew was not unheard of in early Judaism, it was relatively infrequent
when it came to sacred literature. Finally, this view requires a fairly early
date for the composition of Esdras whereas a second century date is
preferred by the majority of scholars and the Hebrew of Ezra most
likely goes back to the fourth century bce.
L. Grabbe (: , ) provides a further option that attempts to cut a path through the complicated textual and source-critical
problems. He proposes that Esdras represents an earlier stage of
the Zerubbabel-Jeshua and Ezra tradition which the compiler of Hebrew Ezra and Nehemiah drew from. Esdras is not the source of the

introduction

Hebrew (MT), but merely a stage in the development of that source.


Grabbe states:
My conclusion was that an Ezra tradition lies at its core, in Esdras , .
This tradition was picked up by the compiler of Ezra-Nehemiah, with a
portion split off to form Nehemiah . But the original tradition continued
to develop on its own, with chapters from Chronicles and a story about
the contest of the guards being added at some point. Also, it seems that the
ending was lost; that ending probably extended at least to the celebration
of Tabernacles (as known in Neh. :).
(Grabbe : )

Yet that requires postulating Esdras and as a subsequent addition when they are more likely to have been embedded in the original
Hebrew/Aramaic Vorlage of Esdras. What is more, it is theoretically
impossible to determine if or how the Vorlage underlying Esdras is earlier to that of Ezra-Nehemiah. (See diagram below for a pictorial display
of my understanding of the source-critical relationships).
More convincing, then, is the Kompilationhypothese. We arrive here
not simply by default, but because the seams of sources are clearly
present in Esdras. Esdras evidently knows of Ezra-Nehemiah given
the deliberate rearrangement of material (e.g., Esd : = Ezra :
) and the author also abridges a Hebrew text at several junctures
(Bayer ; Walde : ; Williamson : ; :
). The simplification of Ezra material is most apparent by the authors
rationalization of the number of letters sent (Esd : = Ezra : and
Esd : = Ezra :) in order to simplify the obscure reports
of correspondence, but this leads to minor inconsistencies within the
narrative in the very process of trying to clarify!
Furthermore, if the story of the three bodyguards is not a later interpolation (as is required by Pohlmanns and Eskenazis theses), but is organic
and original to the document, then we have additional evidence that
Esdras comprises a unique and unified literary composition formed on
the basis of existing materials. The notion that the story of the bodyguards is a late inclusion has been vigorously contested by W.Th. In der
Smitten (). The Talshirs (Z. Talshir ; ; : ; Z. and
D. Talshir ) have also argued for the unity of the story with the
rest of Esdras on the grounds that: () the story is probably a translation from an Aramaic original; and () the link between the story
and its context also derives from a Semitic language, in which case, the
story was not added at a later Greek stage of its composition history, but
belongs to the earlier Semitic strata (but note Coggins & Knibb [: ]:
[I]t seems unnecessary to envisage any Semitic original other than the

introduction

Diagram : Relationship of Sources

books of Ezra and Nehemiah, perhaps with some textual variations from
the form familiar to us; in contrast, see Cook : ; D & Z. Talshir
).
In sum, as Williamson (: ) writes: It therefore seems preferable to hold that Esdras represents a conscious selection and arrangement of source material in what was intended to be a book in its own
right. Accordingly, it is a version rather than a translation (similarly
Cook : ; Sandoval : ).
Purpose
The purpose of Esdras has been widely disputed for some time (De
Wette & Schrader : said, Ein Zweck dieser charakterlosen
Compilation last sich nicht entdecken). Among the attempts to fix it
to a particular function, Cook (: ) perceived an effort to simply
give an account of a period that was confused and forgotten and to
highlight the role of the priest Ezra in contrast to the secular Nehemiah.
Myers (: ) asks if it was composed as a kind of apologia for the
Jews who had assisted him [Antiochus III] in his successful effort to
wrest Coelesyria from the Ptolemaic regime and a claim for his favor
in return? Alternatively Myers (: ) thinks Esdras may have

introduction

had a more general purpose being the support and promotion of a


Jewish institution or have been extracted for some liturgical purpose.
T.C. Vriezen and A.S. van der Woude (: ) see the unifying
focus as being on the temple to the effect that Esdras was intended
to be a history of the temple in Jerusalem in which Josiah, Zerubbabel, and Ezra were given a prominent role (noting also the postscript
in Codex Colbertianus: de templi restutione). H. Attridge (: )
posits a specific purpose as to play some role in the polemics of the
second century between the Jerusalem temple and it[s] rivals (i.e., Leontopolis and #Araq-el-Amir), and a more general and didactic role being
to impart to a Greek reading audience, in a succinct and entertaining
form, the theological lesson of Ezra-Nehemiah, that God watches over
those who piously serve him, as well as the moralistic message that truth
is the most powerful. Joseph Blenkinsopp (: ) also sees
the centre of gravity in Esdras focused on the temple with due attention given to what the temple and its personnel ought to represent and
how they ought to be serviced and provided for as well as an implicit
polemic against temples other than the one in Jerusalem (on the other
temples like the one built by Onias IV in Heliopolis ca. bce, see Josephus, Ant. .; ., ). Deidre N. Fulton (:
) identifies the primary purpose as to describe how three faithful
leadersZerubbabel, Sheshbazzar, and Ezrarestored proper worship
in Jerusalem.
A.E. Gardner () advocates that Esdras was written to comfort
people during the Maccabean crisis based largely on parallels between
Esdras and Maccabees. She believes that the death of Josiah was
redacted to show that his untimely death was in fact due to his disobedience of the prophet Jeremiah. She also detects an emphasis on the
rebuilding of the temple throughout. Gardner believes that the story of
the three bodyguards indicates that all the riches and power of the world
are of no value in comparison to the rebuilding of the temple. Just as God
had not abandoned the people in the Babylonian exile but remembered
his promises to their ancestors and restored them to the land and rebuilt
the temple, so too during the Syrian occupation a lesson was to be learnt
[that] in time God would restore their Temple (Gardner : ).
According to Z. Talshir (: ; : ), Esdras was composed around the story of Dariuss three body guards: The book of Esd
was created for the purpose of retelling the history of the Restoration in
such a way that it revolved around the Story of the Three youths and its
hero Zerubbabel.

introduction

What is perhaps more compelling is the recent proposal by De Troyer


(: ):
The book of Esdras is written to emphasize the connection between Ezra
and Josiah. The Second Temple community not only continues the community of the First Temple, but its leaders also continue the emphasis on
the Law as started by King Josiah. Stronger, Ezra succeeds in his mission
maybe he was even better than King Josiah? Ezra revives and revises
Josiah. Second, the Story of the Three Youths is added to explain how
the building of the Temple was continued after some years. In this story,
Zerubbabel takes the lead. Zerubbabel revives King Solomon. Zerubbabel
resembles King Solomon.

It is worth pointing out that if Esdras is based on a Semitic Vorlage, then


the current Greek version was purposed primarily as a free translation
of the Semitic original. In light of this, the most likely function of Greek
Esdras was to showcase for Greek-speakers the reforms of Josiah (king),
Zerubbabel (governor), Jeshua (priest), and Ezra (priest-scribe) as a
model for the continued reformation of Judean society so as to bring
the web of socio-religious life into closer conformity with post-exilic
interpretations of its Yahwistic religion. As Jellicoe (: ) put it:
Greek Esdras [is] the first attempt to present the account of the
Return in Hellenistic dress.
Martin Hengel (: ) proposed that Esdras was a paraphrastic
redaction: The author was concerned with creating, through selection,
expansion and style, a historical account easily read by Greek readers and
more interesting for Greek-speaking Diaspora Jewry than the original
book of Ezra. Yet the Greek text is a free rendering of a Vorlage that was
based on a prior Semitic text or texts that were creatively redacted. Thus,
the creative and expansionist compononent in the re-writing of the EzraNehemiah story probably occurred at the level of Aramaic rather than
Greek translation. We do not know what further redaction occurred at
the level of Greek translation, presumably some glosses were added and
details amended. But the capacity of the Greek text to be retroverted into
Aramaic (as Torrey and Talshire have done) would suggest that the most
creative layer of Esdras was its Semitic Vorlage. So while the Greek of
Esdras may have a particular function, the overall literary purpose of
Esdras is best derived from the rationale for the electic composition of
its Semitic Vorlage.
The Semitic original was also probably the first text explicitly to join
together in a continuous single narrative the fall of Jerusalem and the
commencement of restoration. By doing this it shows how God brought

introduction

the Judeans from exile to restoration as part of one unfolding divine


purpose. The rebuilding of the temple, reestablishment of the priesthood,
reinstitution of the festivals, and purification of the populace all carry
connotations of a reformist agenda being worked out. Accordingly the
focus falls on Ezra rather than Nehemiah who is absent after Esd. .,
(but note how Sir. : and Macc :: mention Nehemiah
but not Ezra!). That is not necessarily a polemic against Nehemiah, but
simply recognizes that the two had different tasks and accentuates the
work of the former as a matter of preference. What is more, given that
Ezra and Nehemiah traditions developed separately and independently
during the second temple period, the lack of interaction between the
two in one such document is hardly surprising (Blenkinsopp :
). In any case, the author of Esdras wished to stress the strict
Torah-centred programme of reform instituted and continued by the
scribal class associated with Ezra, the priestly function of Jeshua in the
reinstitution of the cultus, and also the Davidic character of Israels
leadership typified by the Davidides Josiah and Zerubbabel (see further
Coggins and Knibb : , ). If we want to be more specific, we
could say that as a form of Rewritten Bible (see above) the author of
Esdras has contemporized the biblical narratives in order to meet the
social, religious, and political needs of Judeans seeking to re-establish
their traditional religion after returning to Judea and while remaining
under the hegemony of a foreign power.
The story of the three bodyguards probably functions to show that
faithful and wise Judeans can excel even in a pagan context. The miniature narrative, much like Daniel and Esther, is an example of how to
live wisely in a pagan ruled world and, best of all, how to take advantage
of them. The fact that the Persian kings are portrayed positively or are
at least benign, and given that there is a distinct absence of Judean militancy in the document, may indicate that Esdras was written prior to
the forced Hellenization of Judea by Antiochus Epiphanes IV and before
the Maccabean revolt. The era of the Syrian monarch Antiochus III (
bce) with his apparently benevolent disposition towards the Jewish
people (see Ant. .) would be a good candidate for a historical location of this writing. While this is admittedly speculative, it is as a
good a guess as one can make.

introduction
Outline

The contents of Esdras can be stratified into the following outline:


I.

The Beginning and End of the Reforms Under Iosias (:)


a. The Passover of Iosias (:)
i. Iosias Commissions the Passover (:)
ii. Gifts to the People (:)
iii. The Reinstitution of the Passover (:)
iv. The Greatness of Iosias Passover (:)
b. Summary of the Deeds of Iosias (:)
c. The Death of Iosias and the Premature End to the Reforms (:)
i. Iosias defeated by Pharaoh (:)
ii. The People Mourn Iosias (:)
d. The Wicked Kings of Judah (:)
i. Iechonias (:)
ii. Ioakeim (:)
iii. Ioakeim2 (:)
iv. Sedekias (:)
e. The Wickedness of Judah and the Punishment of God (:)

II.

The Decree of Cyrus and the Beginning of the Return to Judah (:)
a. The Decree (:)
b. The Response to the Decree (:)

III. Opposition to the Rebuilding of Jerusalem (:)


a. The Letter to Artaxerxes (:)
b. The Reply of Artaxerxes (:)
c. The Cessation of Reconstruction (:)
IV.

The Contest of Dariuss Three Bodyguards and the Introduction of


Zorobabel
(::)
a. Dariuss Banquet (:)
b. The Design of the Bodyguards (:)
i. The Wager (:)
ii. The King Awakes (:)
c. The Discourse on the Superiority of Wine (:)
d. The Discourse on the Superiority of the King (:)
e. The Discourse on the Superiority of Women and Truth (:)
i. About Women (:)
ii. About Truth (:)
f. Dariuss Reward and Zorobabels Request (:)
g. The Decree of Darius on the Return of the Exiles (:)
h. Zorobabels Prayer and the Rejoicing in Jerusalem at the News (:
)

introduction
V.

The Continuing Return from Captivity (:)


a. Preparations for the Journey (:)
i. Selection of the returnees (:)
ii. The Cavalry and Cavalcade (:)
iii. The Leaders: Priests and Davidides (:)
b. The List of Returning Exiles (:)
i. The Leaders of the Returning Exiles (:)
ii. The Common Folks (:)
iii. The Priests (:)
iv. The Levites (:)
v. The Temple singers (:)
vi. The Gatekeepers (:)
vii. The Temple Servants (:)
viii.Solomons Attendants (:)
ix. The Unregistered (:)
x. Full Number of Returnees (:)
c. Votive Offerings (:)
d. Erection of an Altar and Inaugural Worship (:)
e. Beginning of the New Temple (:)
f. Inquiry and Intrusion from Judahs Neighbours (:)

VI. The Continued Reconstruction of the Temple and Corporate Resistance


by Judahs Neighbours (::)
a. Reconstruction of the Temple Commences (:)
b. Intervention by Regional Authorities (:)
c. The Letter to Darius (:)
d. Dariuss Commission, Inspection, and Replies (:)
i. The Book Found in Ecbatana (:)
ii. The Order to the Governor to Permit the Building (:)
iii. Dariuss Warning Against Impediment (:)
e. The Rebuilding of the Temple Flourishes with Royal and Prophetic
Oversight (:)
f. The Passover of Zorobabel (:)
VII. The Ministry of Esras (::)
a. Esras Arrives in Jerusalem (:)
b. The Letter of Artaxerxes (:)
i. Ordinance of Artaxerxes (:)
ii. Artaxerxes Charge to Esras (:)
c. Esrass Ejaculation of Praise (:)
d. The List of Returning Exiles (:)
e. The Search for Priests and Levites (:)
f. The Journey to Jerusalem (:)
i. Fasting and Prayer (:)
ii. Selection of Vessel Bearers (:)
iii. Arrival in Jerusalem (:)
g. The Reports of Mixed Marriages (:)
h. Esrass Penitential Prayer (:)

introduction
i.
j.
k.
l.

The Contrition of the People and Their Oath (:)


The Proclamation of a Gathering (:)
The Gathering and Resolution at Jerusalem (:)
List of Those Taking Foreign Wives (:a)
i. Priests (:)
ii. Levites (:)
iii. Temple Singers (:)
iv. Gatekeepers (:)
v. Israelites (:a)
m.The Reading of the Law at the Gathering (:b)

Greek of Esdras
Esdras is written in good quality Greek, but as we have seen it is debated
as to whether or not it is a translation of non-MT Hebrew/Aramaic text,
or whether it is a relatively free but polished translation of a proto-MTlike Hebrew/Aramaic text of Chronicles-Ezra-Nehemiah. The fact that
the Greek is different from the Greek of Esdras (LXX), which is a somewhat mechanical and wooden translation of the Hebrew, gives a point
of contrast between a fairly free (Esdras) and literal ( Esdras LXX)
translation. Unsurprisingly, then, Esdras represents a refined Greek text
with lingering overtones of its Semitic sources. Thackeray (: .
) regarded Esdras as a free and paraphrastic rendering of a Semitic
text. He also identified a literary affinity between the style of Esdras
and the Greek of Daniel and Esther given their similar vocabulary and
expansionist approach to composition.
A number of Semitic features are discernible throughout the text
(Wooden : ): () Pleonasm. There is a superfluity of pronouns
at several points usually involving the building up of redundant descriptions, e.g., () ) (:), q (:).
() Hebraism. Characteristic Hebrew idioms are apparent at numerous
places, e.g., frequent use of influenced by the Hebrew conjunctive ,
for the Hebrew (:), and one instance of paronomasia
(:). () Dependence. In regards to q (:), the nouns
and q stand for the Hebrew (Ezra :)
and represents a Septuagintal tradition also found in Exod :, Lev
:, and Deut :.
The Greek of Esdras has a number of distinctive traits (see further
Cook : ; Hanhart a: ). This includes the endemic

introduction

repeat of the conjunctive which ordinarily functions, apart from


lists, as an opening identifier for a new sentence rather than for linking
contiguous constituents. Also apparent is the prevalence of hypotaxis
(compared to the parataxis of the Hebrew). A preference for active verbs.
A frequent use of the conjunction with a subjunctive verb (e.g.,
:, ; :, ; :, ; :; :). The common employment of
third-class conditional clauses (e.g., :, ; :, ; :, , , ; :,
; :, , , , ; :) and a recurring use of with passive
constructions (:, , ; :; :; :, , ; :).
The Vaticanus Text of Esdras
Codex Vaticanus (B/) is a Greek majuscule named after the Vatican
library in Rome where it is stored (see further Aland et al. : ;
Birdsall ). It is a fourth century codex probably copied in Egypt/
Alexandria, although a provenance in Caesarea has also been proposed
(see the debate described in Elliott ). Eusebius (Vit. Const. .)
refers to Constantines act of ordering fifty copies of the Scriptures to
be made by the bishop of Caesarea, however, it is no more than a
vague possibility if Vaticanus was one of these copies (see Skeat ;
Gamble : ). In the end, the provenance of Vaticanus remains
indeterminable, although an Egyptian origin is perhaps the marginally
more probable given that the order of books in Vaticanus agrees with that
given in Athanasius th Festal Letter of ce. If this is the case, then
we should situate Vaticanus in the broad context of the fourth century
with the social and political pressures of Constantines supremacy over
the empire, the on-going christological struggles of the time, and the still
on-going process of determing the authoritative list of early Christian
books (Elliott ).
Vaticanus is one of the two oldest near-complete copies of the Christian Greek Bible in existence. The pages are made of vellum and sized
approximated cm, though they might have been slightly larger
as the original folio numbers in the left verso side are almost all severed. It is written in uncial letters and scriptio continuo (making it often
weary on the eyes) later retraced by a thth century scribe, and is
arranged in three parallel columns on the page with usually forty-two
lines per column. Several sections are missing including the first chapters of Genesis, folios of the Psalms (::b), the second part
of Hebrews after : to the end, the Pastoral Epistles, Philemon, and

introduction

Revelation. The lost pages, except for the Pastorals, were replaced by
parchment folios written in minuscule script. These sections were either
deliberately removed or more likely were damaged in the handling of the
codex. Two scribes probably produced the Old Testament with Scribe
A completing GenesisKings and PsalmsTobit, while Scribe B completed KingsEsdras, HoseaDaniel, as well as the New Testament.
Esdras is attributed to Scribe B. Two correctors are apparent with one
from the uncial era (perhaps the original scribe) and another corrector whose date is uncertain (ca. thth centuries). Interesting features
include the use of the nomina sacra to abbreviate key words and the use
of diaresis over initial iota and upsilon letters. To indicate a new section
the scribes normally began a new line slightly indented on the left-hand
margin and left the rest of the last line of the preceding paragraph above
blank. Smaller sub-sections are indicated by a two letter space within the
text sometimes with a bar beneath the first letter of that line (e.g., Esd
:). Alternatively, a colon is used to signify a new unit of text as well
(e.g., Esd :).
The B-text of Esdras is based on a textual tradition that is fairly
early and as of yet does not show clear signs of translators and scribes
trying to conform the text to the either an extant Hebrew version of
Ezra-Nehemiah or to the more literal translation of Ezra-Nehemiah in
Esdras. Whereas the witnesses A and the L-texts typify the attempt to
bring Christian Greek texts of the Old Testament into closer conformity
with Hebrew recensions, this has not yet made a significant impact on
Esdras. The text-type underlying Esdras is probably closer to the
pioneering Greek translation of a Semitic original than to subsequent
Greek versions that corrected the Christian Septuagint in accordance
with the Hebrew canon.
Concerning Esdras in Vaticanus, Esdras is immediately preceded
by Chronicles and followed by Esdras (LXX) as per normal canonical
order. On features of the text there is the use of the nomina sacra, but
is spelled in full when it refers to Persian kings. Macrons are
employed throughout to note the omission of the in words at the end
of a line and to note the omission of the of in order to shorten lines
of text. There are many itacisms as the scribe has a particular propensity
to over use epsilons resulting in some peculiar spellings, especially in
the case of names (e.g., , ), and other general spelling
variations (e.g., instead of at :). Similarly, there is
an occasional usage of ) over ) (:, ; :;
:). There is also a preference for ending names in or (in the

introduction

various genealogies and lists there are different spellings for names in
the textual tradition and many scholars opt for conjectural spellings for
the names in critical editions of the text, though in this commentary I
shall provide only the names given in Vaticanus). In some cases, there
are variations in the spelling of names from one chapter to another (e.g.,
[:, ] and [:] for ).
Even more characteristic of Vaticanus is the use of instead of
(:, , , , , ; :, , , , , , ; but
cf. : with ; other variants for the name include as
found in A) in all but a few instances (and even the hapax for
at : and for at :). There was a tendency
to employ the dipthong for the vowel especially in compound
verbs (e.g., :, , ; :; :). There is the absence of prepositional
prefixes, e.g., ()q in :; () in :; ()
in :; () in :; () in :, ; ()
in :. Some numbers are abbreviated as letters (e.g, for
at :) and sometimes there is a resulting confusion of
numeracy due to these abbreviations (see Hanhart b: ). At several
places prepositions are omitted or do not appear when the relationship
between objects is sufficiently implied by the case of the nouns (e.g.,
is omitted from . in :). At several places, the personal pronoun
is preferred over the reflexive pronoun (:; :; :).
Twice there appears the use of for (:, ). Also characteristic
is the omission of the article in the genitival (e.g., :, ;
:, ; :, , ; :; cf. :). An oscillation between use of
over q appears at points (e.g., :; :; contrasted with :; :).
In temporal prepositional clauses, the is often omitted from the genitive
singular article which then becomes a relative pronoun:
and (:, ; :; contrasted with :; :;
:; :, ; :).
On errors, the corrector(s) have amended vowels usually above the
text. Several words were omitted in retracing over the text at : (p. ,
column III, second line from the bottom). The symbol indicates a
marginal gloss at :, ; :; : and provides corrections particularly for names in lists. An error is marked at : where the corrector
has changed into (cf. :; :, ).
Interesting also is the division of text in Esdras which corresponds
largely, though not exactly, to modern versifications of the text. This
might indicate some kind of lectionary that delineates units for reading.

introduction

:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:

:
:
:
:
:
:b
:
:

Significant sections are also marked by a capital eta placed in


the right hand side of a diamond at several places probably to
note passages precious to the reader, i.e. a personal notation of
sorts (Esd :; :, ; :, , ; :; :). There is also
a lowercase omega with a rho symbol through it at : where
it reads truth is victorious over all things in order to mark
probably the most famous quotation of the book.
Reception-History
The reception-history of Esdras is relatively brief and uneventful. It was
not cited with any great frequency by Judean and Diasporan authors. The
most significant citation of Esdras was obviously by Josephus in Ant.
., who relies on it for his account of Ezra written in the s ce.
Although Josephus is well-aware of a Palestinian canon he still prefers
the Greek version of Esdras over its Hebrew counter-part probably due
to its readabe and polished Greek. Notably Josephus amends Esdras in
a number of ways principally to emphasize and reinforce the leadership
of Ezra in the return from exile and restoration of the national religion in
Jerusalem (see Feldman : ). On the Christian side, Esdras
was spasmodically cited in the Church Fathers but mainly with reference
to the story of the three bodyguards (Myers : ). In fact, it is
probably not too much to say that the apocryphal bodyguard legend
is the primary reason why the document was preserved and has been
handed down. Origen included Esdras in his Hexapla though it is
no longer extant, but it would have evidently illuminated the textual
problems that emerge when a juxtaposition of the Hebrew and Greek
texts are made.
Esdras was common in canonical lists of the western and eastern
churches (see McDonald : ), though often we cannot be
certain if it is the Greek of Hebrew versions of Esdras that is intended.
In the Western Church, Esdras was first included in a canonical list by

introduction

Hillary of Poitiers who referenced Esdras in a prologue on the Book


of Psalms () sometime between and ce in France. The book
was omitted from a canonical list given by Jerome in a letter (.),
but later included in his preface to the books of Samuel and Kings.
Both the letter and the preface were written ca. ce in Bethelehem.
Augustine mentions Esdras as canonical in his magisterial volume on
Christian doctrine (Chr. Doct. .) written ca. ce in North Africa.
The two books of Ezra are named as canonical Scriptures (canonicae
scripturae) in the biblical canon of the Synod of Carthage ca. ce. In
the Eastern Church, Esdras was retained in lists by Melito of Sardis
(Eusebius, Hist. Eccl. ..), Origen (Eusebius, Hist. Eccl. ..), and
Cyril of Jerusalem (Catechetical Lectures .). The Council of Laodicea
ca. ce included Esdras in its biblical canon. Athanasius wrote in his
famous th Festal letter of ce: And in like manner, the first and
second of Chronicles are with them one book; and the first and second
of Esdras are counted one (Ep. Fest. .).
Despite Jeromes preference for the Hebrew canon and text, it was the
Greek text and canon that became normative in the Western Church
and all the additional books crept into Latin versions of the Old Testament including the Vulgate. As part of the Septuagint, Esdras has
canonical status in the Greek and Russian Orthodox churches, it is
Deutero-canonical in the Roman Catholic Churchs canon, and in some
Protestant lists Esdras is considered among those books which are useful for life and instruction but not for developing doctrine (Anglican articles, art. vi). The main reason for Esdras receding into
relative obscurity in the modern period was probably due to a preference for the Hebrew text and on account of a reliance on the MT. This
was the natural outgrowth of the Reformation principle ad fontes that
returned to the Hebrew texts and undercut the apocryphal books such
as Esdras.
Esdras as Christian Scripture
Esdras is found in a number of early Christian manuscripts and extant
in various translations of ancient Christian Bibles. For a case in point,
the presence of Esdras in Codex Vaticanus means that it was copied,
read, studied, and preached by Christians and for Christians. But what
does it mean to think of Esdras as Christian Scripture? What is Christian about it? How does it fit into the Christian canon? What does it

introduction

contribute to Christian thought? (See the brief remarks by Bhler :


under the heading Kanontheologische Konsequenzen especially in relation to the ethnocentric ideology in Esdras).
Moving into this area requires some prefatory thoughts on the Septuagint as Christian Scripture (see Hengel ; Wooden ). A text that
was initially designed to be the sacred literature of Greek-speaking Jewish communities soon became part of the authorized register of sacred
books for Gentile Christians by the second and third centuries of the
Common Era. The Christian adoption and appropriation of the Septuagint is really an extension of reliance on it by Jews in the Diaspora
communities and evident within the New Testament which, more or
less, relies almost exclusively on the Septuagint. Many distinctive Christian readings rely on peculiar Septuagintal glosses (e.g., Acts :
= Amos :). Augustine, contra Jerome, follows ecclesial tradition
going so far as to claim that the seventy translators deviated from the
Hebrew, [m]oved by the divine Spirit not in the manner of interpreters, but in the freedom of those prophesying. Consequently, the
apostles, in their authority, when they appealed to the Scriptures, quite
rightly utilized not only the Hebrew, but also their ownthe witness of
the Seventy (De civitate Dei .). Yet problems with the Septuagint
were manifold and gradually became apparent to Christian exegetes as
Hengel (: ) noted:
Teachers of the church after Justin faced a number of open problems
fundamentally beyond solution: the claim of the authority of the Seventy for the whole Christian Old Testament, whose contents still varied; the fact that the Greek collection of books itself contained portions
of texts and whole books that do not appear in the Jewish canon and
thus were not covered by the translation legend at all, while other works
appear to be abbreviated in comparison to the Hebrew original; and,
finally, the existence of competing Greek text traditions whose contradictions could only be masked, but not removed, by the charge of falsification.

The Septuagint possesses immense significance for a Christian doctrine


of Scripture. To begin with there is the presence of Septuagintalisms in
the Greek New Testament itself. There was also the widespread reliance
on the Septuagint in the early church as opposed to a Hebrew text for the
most part. There were serious debates between Jews and Christians over
the scriptural status of the Greek translations of the Hebrew Bible. The
Septuagint (or certain parts thereof) is found in the major codices such as
Vaticanus, Sinaitacus, and Alexandrinus. Finally, there is the continued

introduction

usage of the Septuagint in the Orthodox churches to this day. All of this
attests the significance of the Septuagint for the churchs hermeneutical,
canonical, and theological formation (see further Holmes :
).
Although there are dozens of citations and allusions to Esdras in the
Church Fathers, the most eminent Christian reading of Esdras is that
supplied by Augustine in De civitate Dei ..
After these three prophets, Haggai, Zechariah, and Malachi, during the
same period of the liberation of the people from the Babylonian servitude
Esdras also wrote, who is historical rather than prophetical, as is also the
book called Esther, which is found to relate, for the praise of God, events
not far from those times; unless, perhaps, Esdras is to be understood as
prophesying of Christ in that passage where, on a question having arisen
among certain young men as to what is the strongest thing, when one had
said kings, another wine, the third women, who for the most part rule
kings, yet that same third youth demonstrated that the truth is victorious
over all [= Esdras ]. For by consulting the Gospel we learn that Christ
is the Truth (italics added).

Augustine sees Esd : (: Vulg.) concerning Zerubbabels climactic


remark that truth is great, and stronger than all things ( q
, magna veritas et praevalet) a
prophecy about Christ fulfilled in the Gospel. The Gospel that Augustine
refers to of course is the Fourth Gospel, in particular, it appears that
he has in mind John : with the Johannine Jesus saying: I am the
way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except
through me. Augustine knows full well that Esdras is a historical work
and not a prophetic book and there is no question as to whether or
not this was the intended point of Zerubbabels speech in the text of
Esdrasit clearly was notbut Augustine is not engaging in crass
allegory or rank eisegesis. Rather, Augustine is approaching the text
with a canonically shaped imagination. The underlying premise is that
Christian Scripture ultimately has one divine author (God) and it has one
ultimate object of its testimony (Jesus Christ). Given those suppositions
can one attempt to relate the Ezra-story and the Gospel-story together if
one is convinced that the same God stands behind both of them and if
the telos of all Scripture is the revelation of Jesus Christ. No doubt some
scholars with a historical-critical bent will regard such an enterprise as
full of hermeneutical make-believe. Be that as it may, Christians have
read and still read Esdras, not simply to excavate historical data for the
post-exilic period, but also for its typological, spiritual, and devotional
significance. Study of the historical context of an ancient writing will

introduction

always retain its legitimacy as long as we treat texts as storehouses of


ancient information and not simply as mirrors to hold up to the reader;
still, the reader is part of the process by which meanings are found and
created. The canonical context (of the Old and the New Testaments)
and the communal location of the readers (be they Jews, Christians,
or others) are themselves legitimate variables that impact the reading
of ancient texts that purport to have sacred meaning. In other words,
a Christian reading of Esdras is just as valid as a source-critical one,
perhaps even more so if the enhancement of the human condition is the
goal of all reading.
On the one hand, a plain reading of Esdras with attention given to
its actual historical referent of the exile and return of the Judeans of the
southern kingdom is of panegyric and religious significance in and of
itself. The document narrates a story of the severity of Gods judgment
and the depths of Gods mercy by bringing the people of Judah from
punishment to restoration. It is about faith in the face of adversity, purity
in the midst of pollution, and it heralds the virtues of wisdom, fidelity,
and piety. Esdras also provides elegant examples of individual triumph
and national survival in the context of a particular religious history. All
in all, it is an account rich with material useful for moral exhoration and
religious instruction entirely apart from any explicit christianizing. That
said, Esdras will naturally be of interest to many readers who take time
to consider the potential of the narrative for canonical interrelatedness
and shared testimony that arises if one reads Esdras in dialogue
with the New Testament. I want to propose several potential dialogues
below.
First, the Matthean genealogy (Matt :) connects Jesus directly to
key figures of the period related to Esdras by way of mentioning Josiah,
Jechoniah, and Zerubbabel (Matt :):
10

and Hezekiah the father of


Manasseh, and Manasseh the father
of Amos, and Amos the father of
Josiah,

(
,
), )
),

11

and Josiah the father of Jechoniah


and his brothers, at the time of the
deportation to Babylon.

11

12

12

And after the deportation to


Babylon: Jechoniah was the father of
Salathiel, and Salathiel the father of
Zorobabel,

10

) )

.

)
q, q
,

introduction
13

and Zorobabel the father of Abiud,


and Abiud the father of Eliakim, and
Eliakim the father of Azor (NRSV).

13


), )
), )
),

An obvious textual issue is immediately presented in Matt : as Matthew has Jechoniah ()) rather than Jehoiakim ()) as the
son of Josiah. Yet Jechoniah was the grandson of Josiah and the son of
Jehoiakim (Chron :). The source of the confusion may be due to
the fact that Jechoniahs regnal name was Jehoiachin ( Kgs :) and the
Greek ) designated both Jehoiakim and Jechoniah/Jehoiachin in
the LXX (e.g., Kgs :; :). It appears that an error crept into Esd
: which repeats ) from Esd : when it requires ) in
order to differentiate the two persons. Matthean scholars have wrestled
with the textual and scribal problems of this verse and I have no interest
in rehearsing those issues here (though Hood : n suggests that
Esd : could be an instance of genealogical telescoping).
Generally, the purpose of the annotations in the Matthean genealogy
are a storm centre of exegetical debate (Matt :, , ). However, the
annotation Jechoniah and his brothers does have some potential for
theological reflection. My own suspicion is that in the case of Jechoniah
and his brothers, Matthew represents Jechoniah as the model-king who
suffers on behalf of his people or for his brothers. In Chron :,
Jechoniah/Jehoiakim is known as the captive (!q/). This image of
a Judean king taken captive by Gentiles parallels the handing over of the
messianic shepherd-king to his Roman captors in the Matthean passion
sequence. The annotation and his brothers is attributed to Judah and
Jechoniah in Matt :, in order to underscore their transformation
from wickedness to righteousness and their vicarious actions on behalf of
the people of God which is partly a typological profile of Jesus as Israels
king who leads Israel out of exile through his vicarious sacrifice on the
cross (see further Hood : ).
Second, other possibilities for typological Christ-figures drawn from
Esdras are of course Josiah, Ezra, and Zerubbabel. It is relatively easy to
coordinate Christ imagery from the New Testament with these figures.
Josiah, as the reforming king who leads his people into battle and dies,
reflects certain themes common to the Gospels in Jesus call to national
repentance and his messianic death. As for Ezra, he was remembered
and venerated in Judaism as the quintessential Torah-teacher, and Jesus
is not only a New Moses but is an Eschatological Ezra in the Gospel of

introduction

Matthew. In the Matthean testimony, Jesus is portrayed as the exemplary


rabbi who is the teacher and guarantor of Torah in the messianic age
(Matt :) and is even extolled as the one or only teacher for
his followers (Matt :). Zerubbabel is a proto-messianic figure as the
rebuilder of the temple (Esd :; :; Ezra :; Hag :;
Zech :; Sir :) and he arguably sacralizes the work attributed
to Cyrus as initiating the reconstruction of the temple ( Esd :). The
diarchic messianism of Zech : describes the Davidide Zerubbabel and
the high priest Jeshua as the sons of oil and this priest-king typology
had a large impact on christological imagery in the New Testament (e.g.,
Hebrews). The presence of kingly (Josiah, Jehoiachin), priestly (Ezra,
Jeshua), and prophetic (Jeremiah) figures in Esdras could easily lend
itself to reflection on the offices of Christ embodied in those roles.
As the harbringer of Israels eschatological deliverance, the pattern of
leadership figures found in Esdras could be thought to culminate in
Jesus Christ as prophet, priest, and king over Gods people. The undoing
of the exile and the restoration of Gods people in the Ezra-Nehemiah
period was gradual, it suffered set-backs, disappointments, and victories.
However, the ultimate and final end to the exiless travails lay in the
future and the New Testament points to Jesus Christ as the ultimate act
of national renewal and covenantal blessing for Israel.
Third, Esdras furnished Christians with resources to reflect upon
and to articulate the nature of Gods mercy. A soteriological summary
of Esdras could be made with the words we obtained mercy ( Esd
:) where the returning exiles stress in prayer their reliance on God
for deliverance during their sojourn to Jerusalem. At two key points in
the narrative God is extolled for his mercy ( Esd : ; :
) as he preserved the nation in the slavery of exile and enabled
them to make a safe journey, despite all the perils, back in the land of
Judea. At the beginning of the story the sin of the nation and its leaders
is highlighted (e.g., :, ), yet Gods deliverance returns in the
decree of Cyrus (:), the triumph of Zerubbabel (:), and the
call of Ezra (:). In the midst of the wickedness of the people and
priests (:), God sends them a messenger (i.e., Jeremiah) to call them
because he was trying to spare them and his dwelling place (:).
Yet this is met with their mockery and scoffing that earns Gods anger
(:). In :, Gods mercy is sandwiched between the impiety
and hard heartedness of the people and the prophetic call that goes
unheeded. Nonetheless, even judgment can ultimately be worked out for
redemptive purposes and the exile is not meant to be permanent (:).

introduction

Towards the end of the story in Ezras penitential prayer (:), there
is recognition that God has been merciful and gracious to his people
in that he preserved them in exile. He left them with a root, provided
them with sustenance, and turned the favour of the Persian kings towards
them. All of that is despite the fact that the people have sinned like their
forefathers by intermarrying with foreigners since returning to the land.
That in turn leads to contrition among the people, to the rectification of
their misdeeds, and to their offering of the appropriate sacrifices (:
:).
In sum, Esdras narrates the story of how a people who are in, but
who have violated Gods law, take steps in response to their transgression
(Enns : ). It is in response to their experience of divine mercy
that the exiles take measured steps to prevent any further catastrophe
of divine judgment through a strenuous emphasis on separation from
the nations, by concerted efforts to rebuild the temple and Jerualem, and
in their efforts to reconstitute the body of exiles into a Torah-observant
Judean society. So despite the nations manifold sin, both pre- and postexile, the book focuses on how God did not completely forsake the
nation. The initiative for the return from exile is attributed exclusively
to God and not due to any prayer or petetiton by pious exiles. Yet
preservation in the land appears to be contingent upon rebuilding Judean
life in accordance with the law of Moses (:; cf. :; :; :, ,
; :). All in all, Esdras exemplifies the pattern of religion called
covenantal nomism where Gods grace precedes the act of obedience
that follows. Enns (: ) aptly summarizes: We have, in other
words, transgression by the people of God, but for which there is a means
of rectifying their position before God.
Fourth, complementary to a christocentric reading of Esdras with its
typological images of Christ is also an ecclesiocentric reading of the story
as typifing the people of God. Christian readings of the Hebrew Scriptures and the Septuagint were just as much ecclesiocentric as they were
christocentric (e.g., Cor :). Images of the church in Esdras
can be easily related to themes associated with repentance, restoration, opposition, and celebration. Esdras can conceivably help foster an
image of Gods people on a journey from exile towards their final destination in Gods Kingdom (see Jas :; Pet :; Pet :). It contributes
further to the moral discourse of the Christian church insofar as that
its panegeric contents parallel Christian moral exhortation as seen in a
comparison with, for example, the Corinthian correspondance. Esdras
was applicable to Christians by urging the need for continued repentance

introduction

(Cor :), emphasizing the separateness of Gods people from the


pagan world (Cor :), and underscoring the sacred presence of God
in his temple (Cor :) and the necessity of keeping the festival
that God has set before them (Cor :). In this case, Esdras provides
parrallel and para-canonical support for the exhortation of the people of
God from Israels post-exilic history.
Fifth, Esdras also contributed to the collective body of Ezra traditions that helped activate the apocalyptic imaginations of Jews and Christians. Though much of the writings that comprise the Old Testament
Pseudepigrapha have a Jewish provenance, their subsequent redaction
and preservation owes much to their sustained Christian usage. The figure of Ezra remained one of the ancient heroes of the Jewish faith, but
in the course of history he was subsequently Christianized and made a
mouth-piece of Christian beliefs. This is seen clearly in the Vulgate where
Ezra : states, For my son Jesus shall be revealed with those that be
with him, and they that remain shall rejoice within four hundred years
(revelabitur enim Filius meus Iesus cum his qui cum eo, et iucundabit qui
relicti sunt annis quadringentis). The developing corpus of Ezra traditions (Greek Apocalypse of Ezra, The Visions of Ezra, Questions of Ezra,
Apocalypse of Sedrach, and the Revelation of Ezra) constituted ways of
imagining a world where Gods justice, life, and power triumphed over
human structures of evil. Esdras should be placed in the context of
Christian theological disourse that creatively found in the Ezra tradition
patterns for religious life and hopes for the future.

1 ESDRAS
TEXT AND TRANSLATION

Key to Textual Markings


{x}
hxi
[x]
(x)
>

text derives from a corrector, usually a correction of mispelled vowels.


scribal spelling variation caused by the presence of an additional letter.
scribal spelling variation corrected by here supplying a missing letter.
insertion of letter because the original letter has not been retraced over
to restore it (usually ) or else it was omitted due to a macron (usually ).
omission of text

Texts and Translations


A
B
V
RH
H
L
mss
CEB
ESVA
NRSV
NEB
NETS
NJB
TNIV

Codex Alexandrinus
Codex Vaticanus
Codex Venetus
Rahlfs-Hanhart Septuaginta
Hanhart Esrdae Liber I
Lucian recension of texts
manuscripts
Common English Bible
English Standard Version Apocrypha
New Revised Standard Version
New English Bible
New English Translation of the Septuagint
New Jerusalem Bible
Todays New International Version

Nomina Sacra
.

q q.



q q


q q
q q

:
The Passover of Iosias
: hi ) :
q{}() ()
: :
: : () hi )
q
() hi
: : q
q q ):
hi
): : :
()
hi q() )
: q : q
():
q : : hi q
(): ():
() q () :
() hi: : () hi ()

() : : :
q
hi: hi
hi: : : :
() hi :
: () q
:
: : q:
q () [] () :
: :
() :
: hi
: :

: B ] RH : B ] RH
B ] RH

: B ] RH

:
The Passover of Iosias
() Iosias led the Passover in Jerusalem to his Lord and sacrificed the
Passover lamb on the fourteenth day of the first month, () having
arranged the priests according to their orders, arrayed in their vestments
in the temple of the Lord. () And he said to the Levites, the temple
servants of Israel, Consecrate them to the Lord and secure the holy
ark of the Lord in the house that Salomon the son of King Dauid,
built. It is not for you to carry it upon your shoulders. () So now
worship the Lord your God; and serve his nation Israel and prepare
yourselves according to your ancestral houses and tribes, according to
the writing of Dauid, King of Israel and according to the majesty of
Salomon his son. () Stand in order in the holy place arranged according
to the groupings of your paternal ancestry the Levites, serving before
your brothers, the sons of Israel. () Sacrifice the Passover lamb and
prepare sacrifices for your brothers and perform the Passover ceremony
according to the commandment of the Lord that was given to Moyses.
() And Iosias granted to the people found there thirty thousand lambs
and kids, and three thousand calves; these from the kings possessions
were given as promised to the people and priests and Levites. () And
elos, the chief officials of the temple, gave to
Chelkias, Zacharias, and Esy
the priests for the Passover two thousand six hundred sheep and three
hundred calves. () Iechonias and Samaias and Nathanael his brother,
and Sabias and Ochielos and Ioram, commanders over thousands, gave
to the Levites for the Passover a thousand sheep and seven hundred
calves. () And this is what came to pass concerning the Priests and
Levites: () having the unleavened bread, they stood in proper ranks
according to their tribes () and the groupings of their ancestors, before
the people to bring the offerings to the Lord according to that written in
the book of Moyses; and thus it was early morning. () They roasted
the Passover lamb with fire as fitting and they boiled the sacrifices in
copper pots and cauldrons with a pleasant fragrance and they brought
them to all those from the people. () After these things, they prepared
for themselves and for their brother priests, the sons of Aaron, for the
priests were offering the fat until nightfall; and the Levites prepared
for themselves and for their brother priests, the sons of Aaron. ()
The temple singers, the sons of Asaph, were in their arranged places

text :

hi hi
: q : ()
:
hi : : q q
q : q
q q
hi: : ) q
() : :
q )
: : )
() hi hi
) ) q
): : () hi q
:

:
Summary of the Deeds of Iosias
: qq hi
: : ()
q () ()
q () : :
):

:
The Death of Iosias and the Premature End to the Reforms
: hi
q
: q hi{}: :

() ); :
q :
(): : q
: : hi
: ()
: B ] RH
q] RH q
q

: B q] RH q
: B
: B ] RH

translation :

according to the instructions made by Dauid and Asaph, and Zacharias


and Eddinous, the companions of the king. The gatekeepers were at each
gate; no one needed to alter his own daily routine, for their brothers the
Levites had prepared for themselves. () All the things pertaining to the
sacrifice of the Lord were accomplished in that day: the Passover was kept
and the sacrifices were brought upon the Lords altar according to the
command of King Iosias. () And the sons of Israel being found in that
time celebrated the Passover and the feast of unleavened bread for seven
days. () And no Passover like it had been celebrated in Israel since the
times of Samouel the prophet; () and none of the kings of Israel had
celebrated a Passover such as that celebrated by Iosias, the priests, the
Levites, the Judeans, and all of Israel who were found in their dwelling
place in Jerusalem. () In the eighteenth year of the reign of Iosias this
Passover was celebrated.
:
Summary of the Deeds of Iosias
() And the deeds of Iosias were upright before his Lord because his
heart was full of piety. () And the accounts concerning him have been
officially chronicled in earlier timesconcerning those who had sinned
and had committed impious acts toward the Lord, more than that of
any other nation and kingdom, such things which grieved himand the
words of the Lord rose up against Israel.
:
The Death of Iosias and the Premature End to the Reforms
() And after all these deeds of Iosias, it happened that Pharao, king of
Egypt, went to stir up war in Charkamys on the Euphrates, and Iosias
went out to meet him. () And the king of Egypt sent a message to
him saying, What do you want with me, O king of Judea? () I have
not been sent out against you by the Lord God, for my war is at the
Euphrates. And now the Lord is with me! And the Lord is with me urging
me on! So withdraw and do not oppose the Lord. () Iosias did not
turn himself back to his chariot, but undertook to battle with him; not
heeding the words of the prophet Ieremias from the mouth of the Lord.

text :

: :
() : ()
hi : : q :
q : :
: q
) () : : : ) q hi:
q() hi q
q() : q
{}q ): : ):
q q () : {}q
)
):

:
The Wicked Kings of Judah
: q hi
() () : : ) )
: ()
): : q
: :
hi ) ): : hi
: :
hi () ) ): () () : :

: : : ()
()
: : q

: B ] RH : B ] RH
: B ] RH : B )] RH ) : B ] RH
: B ] RH : B ] RH

translation :

() To the contrary, he joined battle with him in the plain of Mataaddao,


and the rulers came down against King Iosias. () The King said to his
servants, Take me away from the battle, for I am exceedingly weak. And
immediately his servants took him away from the forward edge of the
battle area. () And he got into his second chariot, and after he was
returned to Jerusalem he departed this life and was buried in the tomb
of his ancestors. () And in the whole of Judea they mourned for Iosias.
And the prophet Ieremias mourned for Iosias. And the chief leaders,
with the women, mourned for him until this day; and this has become
a tradition for all the race of Israel always to perform. () These things
have been written in the book of the histories concerning the kings of
Judea. And every one of the performed acts of Iosiasof his splendour,
and his understanding of the law of the Lord, the things done by him
previously, and these things that are now toldare recorded in the book
of the kings of Israel and Judea.
:
The Wicked Kings of Judah
() And the leaders from the nation took Iechonias son of Iosias and
appointed him king in place of Iosias his father; he was twenty-three
years old. () And he reigned in Israel and Jerusalem for three months.
And the king of Egypt deposed him from reigning in Jerusalem ()
and punitively fined the nation one hundred talents of silver and one
talent of gold. () And the king of Egypt appointed king Ioakeim,
his brother, king of Judea and Jerusalem. () And Ioakeim bound the
nobles, but after seizing his brother Zarios he took him from Egypt.
() Ioakeim was twenty-five years old when he began to reign over
Judea and Jerusalem and he did what was evil before the Lord. () Then
Nabouchodonosar, King of Babylon, went up after him and he bound
him with a bronze chain and lead him away to Babylon. () Nabouchodonosar also took some of the sacred vessels of the Lord and carried
them away and he deposited them in his temple in Babylon. () But

text :

q
: : hi2
: q : : ): ()
: : () :
) )
() : : : ()
() q
: : q
{}
: ()
q ):

:
The Wickedness of Judah and the Punishment of God
:
q q:
): :
{q} ()
q ()
: : [] :
() :
q q
: :
()
: q

() : hi ()
hi: q
: :
() ) ()
: : ()
: ()

: B ] RH .
: B )] RH )
: B ] RH q : B q] RH qq : B ] RH
: B )] RH ) : B ] RH .

translation :

the things reported concerning him, that of his impurity and impiety,
have been written in the book of the times of the kings. () And his son
Ioakeim2 reigned in his place; for when he was appointed king, he was
eight years old. () Now he reigned for three months and ten days in
Jerusalem; and he did what was evil before the Lord. () And then after
a year Nabouchodonosar sent and transported him to Babylon with the
sacred vessels of the Lord, () and he appointed Sedekias king of Judea
and Jerusalem. Sedekias was twenty-one years old; and he reigned for
eleven years, () and he did evil before the Lord and did not honour the
words from the Lord uttered by Ieremias the prophet from the mouth of
the Lord. () Although swearing an oath unto King Nabouchodonosar
in the name of the Lord, violating his oath, he rebelled and he hardened
his neck and his heart and he transgressed the laws of the Lord God of
Israel.
:
The Wickedness of Judah and the Punishment of God
() Even the leaders of the people and of the priests committed many
impious and lawless deeds far more than all the impure acts of the
nations; they defiled the temple of the Lord that had been consecrated
in Jerusalem. () The God of their ancestors sent his messenger to call
them, because he was trying to spare them and his dwelling place. ()
But they mocked his messengers and on the day that the Lord spoke, they
were scoffing at his prophets, until, in his rage upon his nation because
of their impious acts, he commanded the kings of the Chaldeans to be
brought against them. () These killed their young men by the sword
around the holy temple, and they did not spare young man or young
woman or old man, or child, for he delivered them all into their hands.
() And seizing all the sacred vessels of the Lord, great and small, the
treasure chest of the Lord, and the royal stores, and they carried them off
to Babylon. () And they burned down the house of the Lord, and they
destroyed the walls [of] Jerusalem, and they burned her towers with fire,
() and they finished ruining and rendering useless all of its splendour.

text ::

: :

: : ()
{}
():

:
The Decree
: :
: : : :
) :
) ): :
() q
) )
: ): ): :
q{}()
: q
q
):

:
The Response to the Decree
: {} )
hi : hi:
()
): : q () : ()
q: : ()
() )
: :
q :

: B <] RH

: B ] RH . : B
] RH : B ] RH : B ]
RH : B ] RH : B ] RH

translation ::

The survivors he led away with the sword to Babylon, () and they were
servants to him and to his sons until the Persians began to reign, in
fulfillment of the word of the Lord by the mouth of Ieremias, () saying,
Until the land takes pleasure in its sabbaths, all the time of its desolation
it shall sabbatize until the fulfilment of seventy years.
:
The Decree
() In the first year of Cyruss reign over the Persians, in order that the
word of the Lord by the mouth of Ieremias might be fulfilled, the Lord
aroused the spirit of Cyrus, King of the Persians, and he had proclaimed
in the whole of his kingdom an edict and at the same time put it into
writing, () Thus says, the king of the Persians, Cyrus: The Lord of Israel,
the Most High Lord, has appointed me king of the inhabited world, and
designated me to build a house for him in Jerusalem in the land of Judea.
() Since, therefore, some of you belong to his nation, let his Lord be
with him; go up to Jerusalem in the midst of Judea, and build the house
of the Lord of Israelthis one is the Lord who resides in Jerusalem. ()
Therefore, as many of you who are dwelling in each place, be a help to
himthose in his placewith gold and with silver, with gifts of horses
and cattle and with other things added as votive offerings for the temple
of the Lord in Jerusalem.
:
The Response to the Decree
() And there arose the tribal heads of the ancestral houses of the tribes of
Judah and Benjamin, and the priests and the Levites, and all whose spirit
the Lord stirred up to go up to build a house for the Lord in Jerusalem;
() and those in the immediate vicinity around them helped in many
respects with silver and with gold, with horses, with cattle, and with an
abundance of votive offerings from the many whose minds were stirred.
() And King Cyrus brought out the holy vessels of the Lord which
Nabouchodonosar had carried away from Jerusalem and deposited in
his idolatrous temple. () When Cyrus King of the Persians brought
these out, he delivered them over to Mithridates, his own treasurer, and

text :

q ): :
q {} hi:
hi: q : :
: hi: :
q hi
(): q
).

:
The Letter to Artaxerxes
: )
)
) q{} q
q

: : )
q : :
() :
: : () )
q )
()
q() : :
q q
() : : :
{} ()

q () : :
:

: ) :
{}

: B ] RH : B ] RH :
B q] RH q
: B ] RH
:
B )] RH ).
: B ] RH
: B ] RH
: B q] RH

: B q] RH
: B ] RH : B q] RH : B ]
: B ] RH
RH
: B >] RH
: B ] RH

: B ] RH
: B ] RH

translation :

through him they were delivered over to Samanassaros the governor of


Judea. () The number of these was: golden libation bowls one thousand, silver libation bowls one thousand, silver censers twenty-nine, ()
golden bowls thirty, silver bowls two thousand fourhundred and ten, and
other vessels one thousand. () All the vessels were received back, gold
and silver, five thousand four hundred and sixty-nine, and it was brought
back by Samanassaros together with the people of captivity returning
from Babylon to Jerusalem.
:
The Letter to Artaxerxes
() Then in the time of Artaxerxes, the King of the Persians, Belemos
and Mithridates and Tabellios and Rathumos and Beeltethmos and
Samellios the scribe, and those of their retinue dwelling in Samaria and in
other places, wrote to them an epistle, against those who were dwelling
in Judea and Jerusalem: () To King Artaxerxes, lord, your servants
Rathumos the reporter, and Samellios the scribe, and the rest of their
council in Coele-syria and Phoenicia: () Now let it be known to the
lord king that the Judeans who came up from you to us have come to
Jerusalem and are building that seditious and evil city, living among its
market places and walls, and laying the foundations for a temple. ()
If, then, this city is built and the walls completed, not only will they not
submit to pay tribute, but they will even oppose kings. () Since the
erection of the temple progresses, we assume it fitting not to overlook
such a thing, but to call to the lord king, so that, if it appears good to you,
a search may be made in the book of your ancestors. () You will discover in the annals about that which has been written concerning them,
and you will learn that this city was seditious and troublesome to kings
and other cities, and that the Judeans were rebels and set up blockades
in it from ancient times. For which reason this city was made desolate.

text ::

q: :
q q
:

:
The Reply of Artaxerxes and the Cessation of Reconstruction
: q () q
: ()
: : :
: q q ()
: q : :
) () ()
() hi: : {}
q : : q q :
: : q ()
) (): q
) q
: :
)
:

:
Dariuss Banquet
: () ()
: () : () () hi : : () ()
) q ():

: B ] RH
: B ] RH q.
: B q] RH
: B q] RH
: B ] RH
: B
q ] RH . : B >] RH .

translation ::

() Therefore, we now indicate to you, lord king, that if this city is built
and if its walls are erected, you will no longer have a secure way of passage
into Coelesyria and Phoenicia.
:
The Reply of Artaxerxes and the Cessation of Reconstruction
() Then the king wrote in reply to Rathumos the recorder of events
and Beeltethmos and Samellios the scribe, and the rest associated with
them and those dwelling in Samaria and Syria and Phoenicia, and what
had been dictated was: () I read the epistle which you sent to me.
() Therefore, I ordered a search to be made, and it has been found that
this city from of old has rebelled against kings, that the men in it perpetuate revolts and wars (), and that strong and harsh kings resided
in Jerusalem lording it over [others] and exacted tribute from Coelesyria
and Phoenicia. () Therefore, then, I issued orders to prevent these men
from building the city () and to take advance measures that nothing
more be done and that such wicked measures go no further to the irritation of kings. () Then, after the letter from King Artaxerxes was read,
Rathumos and Samellios the scribe and their associates marched off in
haste into Jerusalem, with cavalry and a contingent of troops, and began
to prevent those who were building. () And thus the construction of
the temple in Jerusalem was stopped until the second year of the reign of
Darius, the King of the Persians.
:
Dariuss Banquet
() And King Darius gave a great banquet for all those under him and for
all those born in his house, and for all the nobles of Media and Persia,
() and for all the satraps and governors and toparchs, those under him
from India to Ethiopia in the one hundred and twenty-seven satrapies.

text :

: () q ():
: q
:

:
The Design of the Bodyguards
:
: :
: {}
hi : : q: () hi q: hi:
() : : : q :
q: : q :
: () q :
hi {}
q hi q : : : :
: : : hi q: : q
: : :
() () hi
: q
q : :
() ()
: q q: :
() ()

:
The Discourse on the Superiority of Wine
:
: : : : q
[] : :

: B ] RH .

: B ] RH

translation :

() And they ate and drank, and when they were satisfied they departed,
but Darius the King went to his bedroom and slept, until he became
awakened.
:
The Design of the Bodyguards
() Then the three young men, the body guards guarding the body of the
king, they said each to the other, () Let us say, each of us, one word for
that which is the most intensely powerful thing; and the one whos word
appears wiser than the others, Darius the King will give to him lavish gifts
and great honours of triumph. () And to be clothed in purple, to drink
from golden cups and to sleep upon a golden bed and have a chariot with
a gold studded bridle and have a turban of fine linen, and a neckband
around his neck; () and secondly, he shall sit next to Darius because
of his wisdom and shall be called kinsmen of Darius. () And then
each wrote his own statement, and they sealed it up and placed it under
the pillow of Darius the King, and they said: () When the king wakes
up, they will give him the statements and whoevers statement the king
judgesand the three nobles of Persiato be wiser shall be given the
victory according to what has been written. () The first wrote, Wine
is the strongest. () The second wrote, The king is the strongest. ()
The third wrote, Women are the strongest, but truth is victorious over all
things. () And when the king awoke, they took what was written and
gave it to him, and he read it. () Then he sent and summoned all the
nobles of Persia and Media and the satraps, and governors, and toparchs
and consuls, and he took his seat in the council chamber, and the writing
was read before them. () And he said, Call the young men, and they
themselves shall explain their statements. So they were summoned and
entered in. () And they said to them, Expound to us about the things
that have been written.
:
The Discourse on the Superiority of Wine
() And so began the first, the one having spoken of the strength of
wine, and he said thus: () Men, how strong is wine? All the men who
drink it are led astray in the mind. () It makes one mind of the king

text ::


q : :
:
: :
: : ()
: : hi()
: :
: q : :
{} ();
hi :

:
The Discourse on the Superiority of the King
: : : : {} q ()
q () ; : {} :
: : () :
():
: : () ()
: () hi()
() () (): :
()
q : : :
{} : :
: : :
: : : () : () () :
() : q hi q: ()
: q : : {} {}
(); hi:

: B q] RH q.

: B ] RH .

translation ::

and of the orphan, of the slave and the free, of the worker and the rich.
() It changes every thought to banqueting and joviality, and does not
remember any grief and any debt. () It makes all hearts rich, does not
remember kings nor satraps, and it makes everyone talk in talents. ()
When people are drinking they do not remember to be friendly with
friends and brothers, and after a while they draw swords. () And when
they arise from the wine, they do not remember what they did. () O
men, is not wine the strongest, because it thus compels people to do such
things? And he became silent after thus speaking.
:
The Discourse on the Superiority of the King
() And the second began to speak, the one having spoken of the strength
of the king: () O men, are not men superior, who prevail over the land
and the sea and all things in them? () But the king is strong as he is
their Lord and their master, and whatever he might say to them they
yield to. () If he tells them to make war one against the other, they do
it; if he sends them out against the enemy, they march and they assault
mountains and walls and towers. () They kill and are killed, and they
do not transgress the word of the king; if they are victorious, they bring
everything to the king, if they seize booty and anything else. () And as
many as those who do not serve in the army or make war, but cultivate
the land; whenever they sow and reap, they bring some to the king; and
they compel one another to pay taxes to the king. () And yet he is only
one man! If he tells them to kill, they kill; if he told them to release, they
release; () if he told them to smite, they smite; if he told them to desolate,
they desolate; if he told them to build, they build; () if he told them to
cut down, they cut down; if he told them to plant, they plant. () All his
people and his forces yield to him. () Then too, he reclines, eats and
drinks, and sleeps, but they keep guard around him, and no one is able
go away and to undertake his own works, nor do they refuse him. ()
O men, is not the king the strongest, because in this way he is obeyed?
And he was silent.

text :
:
The Discourse on the Superiority of Women and Truth

: () q
() : : : :
q: {}; :
{()}: ; :
() q
: : : q
hi: :
() q: ()
q: q :
: ()
: () {} () :
: :
q : ()
: : q
{} q
: :
() :
: : q
: q
() : : q

(): q() : : :
q :
: : ()
q () :
: q :
: : () ()
: :
; :
q ; : q() )
() q q
q :
q : {}()

: B ] RH
] RH .

: B ] RH

: B

translation :

:
The Discourse on the Superiority of Women and Truth
() Then the third, the one having spoken of women and truth (this is
Zorobabel), began to speak: () Men, is not the king great and are not
men abundant, and is not wine strong? Who is it, therefore, that masters
them, or lords it over them? Is it not women? () Women gave birth to
the king and to all the people who lord over the sea and the land. ()
And from them they were born; and it was they who brought up those
men who plant the vineyards from which the wine comes. () And they
make the garments of men; they bring glory to men; and men are not
able to exist without women. () If men gather gold and silver or any
lovely thing, and they happen to see one woman lovely in appearance
and in beauty, () they let go of all of those things in order to gape at
her, and with open mouths they stare at her, and they all prefer her over
gold or silver or any other lovely thing. () A man leaves his own father,
who reared him, and his own country, and cleaves to his own wife. ()
And with his wife he releases his soul, and remembers neither his father
nor mother nor country. () Hence, you must know that women lord
it over you! Do you not labour and toil, and carry everything and give
it to women? () And a man takes his sword, goes out to travel and
to take to banditry and to steal and to sail the sea and rivers; () and
he confronts lions, and he walks in darkness, and when he steals and
robs and plunders, he carries it back to the beloved woman. () And a
man loves his own wife more than his father and mother. () And many
men have lost their sense of mind because of women, and have become
slaves because of them. () And many have perished and stumbled and
sinned because of women. () And now, do you not believe me? Is not
the king great in his authority? Do not all countries fear to touch him?
() I saw him and Apame, the concubine of the king, the daughter of the
eminent Bartacus; sitting at the right hand of the king () and taking the
diadem from the head of the king she placed it on her[self], and slapped

text :

: :
q { }: : q
: :
{} () :
() :
q: : {} :
: :
{}
: : ; q
: : q :
: () :
() q: : :
: : () q:
:
q: :
q :
: : ()
: ()
: :
q : :
() :
q q: : hi() :
(): q
{}:

:
Dariuss Reward and Zorobabels Request
: () : q q :
q: () q: : () : q () )
: :
q ) ()

: B ] RH
: B ()] RH

: B q] RH q
: B ]
RH .
: B ) ] RH )
: B
] RH

translation :

the king with her left hand. () And at this the king was staring at her
with an open mouth. If she would warmly smile at him, he laughs; but
if she should be embittered by him, he humors her, in order that she
may be reconciled to him. () O men, are not women strong, because
they thus act so? () And then the king and the nobles were looking
one to the other; () and he began to speak about truth: Men, are not
women strong? Great is the earth and high is heaven, and swift is the
sun in its course, because it makes the circuit of the heavens and again
returns to its own place in one day. () Is not the one who does these
things great? And truth is great, and stronger than all things. () All the
earth calls upon truth and heaven blesses her. All heavens works shake
and tremble, and there is nothing unrighteous with him. () Wine is
unrighteous, the king is unrighteous, women are unrighteous, all the
sons of men are unrighteous, all their works are unrighteousand all
such things. There is no truth in them and by their unrighteousness they
will destroy themselves. () And the truth remains and is strong over the
ages, and lives and prevails from age to age. () With it there is neither
facade nor indifference, but it does what is righteous rather than things
that are unrighteous and evil. Everyone approves its deeds, and there is
nothing unrighteous in its judgment. () To it belongs the strength and
the kingship and the authority and the majesty of all the ages. Blessed be
the God of truth! () And he ceased speaking, and all the people then
called out and then said, Great is truth and is strongest of all!
:
Dariuss Reward and Zorobabels Request
() Then the king said to him, Request whatever you wish, even above
what has been written, and we will give it to you, for you have been found
to be the wiser man. You may sit next to me, and be called my kinsman.
() Then he said to the king, Remember the oath that you solemnly
made to build Jerusalem, on the day that you received your kingship,
() and to send back all the sacred vessels that were even taken from
Jerusalem, which Cyrus set apart when he vowed to cut down Babylon,

text :

: :
) q
) : :
: () :

:

:
The Decree of Darius on the Return of the Exiles
:


): :
hi:

): () : :
() )
) q: ()
{}q q :
:
: ()
() ): : () q
() q: :
q q q
q
: : ()
q
() : :
()
: : hi ()
q )
q: :
: : ()

: B )] RH ) : B q] RH q : B ] RH
. : B ] RH : B
] RH : B ] RH ) : B ]
RH : B ] RH

translation :

and vowed to send them back there. () And you solemnly swore to
build the temple, which the Judeans burned when Judea was desolated
by the Chaldeans. () And now, O Lord King, this is what I ask and what
I request of you, and this is the majesty that is yours. I petition therefore
that you execute the vow which you solemnly swore to the King of heaven
with your mouth.
:
The Decree of Darius on the Return of the Exiles
() Then King Darius arose and kissed him, and wrote epistles for him to
all [the] treasurers, toparchs, governors, and satraps, so that they would
send him out and all those going up with him to build Jerusalem. ()
And he wrote letters to all the toparchs in Coelesyria and Phoenicia and
to those in Lebanon, to bring cedar trees from Lebanon to Jerusalem,
and thus so they would help him build the city. () He wrote for all
the Judeans going up from the kingdom to Judea, for their freedom, that
no satrap or toparch or treasurer should come upon their doors; ()
and that all the territory that they might seize is for them to exist in
without tribute and so that the Chaldeans should give up the villages
of the Judeans which they took, () and that for the building of the
temple twenty talents a year should be given until it is completely built,
() and an additional ten talents a year for whole burnt offerings to be
offered on the altar daily, according to the commandment they have to
make seventeen offerings; () and that all who come from Babylon to
build the city should have their freedom, both they and their children
and all the priests who come. () He wrote about the expenses and
the priests sacred vestments which they were to serve in. () And
he wrote that the expenses for the Levites should be given until the
day when the temple would be completed and Jerusalem built. ()
He wrote that all who guarded the city should be given to them a
portion of land and wages. () And he sent back from Babylon all the

text ::

() : ()
()
):

:
Zorobabels Prayer and the Rejoicing in Jerusalem at the News
: q()
) () : :

: : :
: : () q()
: () () :
q
: )
q : q
:
:
Preparations for the Journey
:
: q
: :
() hi
) :
() : :
: :
()
() : : :
) : hi
q hi
): :

:

: B ] RH .
.

: B ] RH .

: B ] RH

translation ::

sacred vessels that Cyrus had set apart; and as much as that Cyrus had
said to be done, he himself commanded to be done and to be sent to
Jerusalem.
:
Zorobabels Prayer and the Rejoicing in Jerusalem at the News
() When the young man went out, he lifted up his countenance to
heaven towards Jerusalem, and blessed the King of heaven, saying, ()
From you comes victory; from you comes wisdom, and yours is the
glory. And I am your domestic servant. () Blessed are you, who have
granted me wisdom; I confess you, Master of our ancestors. () And
he took the epistles, and went out to Babylon and announced this to all
his brothers. () And they blessed the God of their ancestors, because he
had given them permission and release () to go up and build Jerusalem
and the temple where his name is named on it; and they drank hard, with
music and rejoicing, for seven days.
:
Preparations for the Journey
() After these things the leaders of the ancestral houses were chosen to
go up, according to their tribes, with their wives and sons and daughters,
and their menservants and maidservants, and their livestock. () And
Darius sent with them a thousand cavalry until they were restored to
Jerusalem in peace, along with the music of drums and oboes; () all
their brothers were making merry. And he made them go up with them.
() These are the names of the men who went up, according to their
paternal ancestry, for the tribes, over their groups: () the priests, the
sons of Phinees, sons of Aaron; Iesous the son of Iosedek of Seraias and
Ioakim the son of Zorobabel of Salathiel, from the house of Dauid, from
the generation of Phares, of the tribe of Judah, () who spoke to Darius
the King of the Persians wise words, in the second year of his reign, in
the month of Nisan, the first month.

text :
:
The List of Returning Exiles

: )

: () ): ()
) q
): : : : :
: hi: hi : : q q:
hi: : ) () : : q : )
( hi : : ): :
() : :
hi {} {} : : :
() : hi : :
hi : hi :
{} : :
hi () :
: : : : : q: :
hihi : q : :
: :
q: : q :
: : : : hi : :

: B ] RH
: B ] RH
: B
] RH
:
B >] RH
: B q
( ] RH q
: B ) :
] RH

: B
: ] RH :
: B
: : ] RH
: B
: () : ] RH
: B
q] RH
: B q]
RH q
: B q] RH
: B q ] RH q
: B ] RH

translation :

:
The List of Returning Exiles
() Now these are the ones from Judea, who came up from the captivity
of exile, whom Nabouchodonosor King of Babylon had expatriated to
Babylon. () And they returned to Jerusalem and the rest of Judea, each
to his own city. Coming up with their leaders, Zorobabel and Iesous,
Neemias, Zaraias, Resaias, Enenios, Mardochaias, Beelsaros, Aspharasos, Borolias, Roimos, and Baana. () The number of those of the nation
and their leaders: the sons of Phoros, one thousand and seventy-two.
() The sons of Ares, seven hundred and fifty-six. () The sons of
Phthaleimoabeis, the son[s] of Iesous and Rhoboab, two thousand eight
hundred and two. () The sons of Iolamos, two. The sons of Zatos, nine
hundred and seventy. The sons of Chorbe, seven hundred and five. The
sons of Bani, six hundred and forty-eight. () The sons of Bebai, six
hundred and thirty-three. The sons of Asgai, one thousand three hundred and twenty-two. () The sons of Adonikam, thirty-seven. The
sons of Bosai, two thousand and sixty-six. The sons of Adeilos, four
hundred and fifty-four. () The sons of Azer of Hezekias. The sons of
Kilan and Azetas, sixty-seven. The sons of Azaros, four hundred and
thirty-two. () The sons of Hanneis, one hundred and one. The sons
of Arom. The sons of Bassai, three hundred and twenty-three. The sons
of Arseiphoureith. () The sons of Baiterous, three thousand and five.
The sons of Rhagethlomon, one hundred and twenty-three. () Those
from Netebas, fifty-five. Those from Enatos, one hundred and fifty-eight.
Those from Baitasmon Zammoth. () [From] Kartatheiareios, twentyfive. Those from Peiras and Berog, seven hundred. () The Chadiasai and Ammidoi, four hundred and twenty-two. Those from Kiramas
Gabbes, six hundred and twenty-one. () Those from Makalon, one

text :

: : : {}
hihi : :
: hi: {}
: : : hihi : : {}:
)
.
: : () : :
: hi {} : :
: : hi )
: : :
() : : q :
hi:
: q :
: : { } : :
: : : : :
: : : hi: : :
: : hi: : :
q: : : : :
hi: : : : :
: : : q: hi: :
: (): hiq: hi:
: : : : : :
q: q: : : :
: : hi: : ()
: ()
: : q
() q : :
) :

: B ] RH
: B ] RH
: B ] RH

: B
:
.
] RH : B
] RH
: B ] RH
:
: B
] RH
: ] RH
: B

: B ] RH
] RH q : B
] RH
q
: B > q] RH
q
: B ] RH
q
: B ] RH
: B q ] RH q

translation :

hundred and twenty-two. Those from Betolio, fifty-two. The sons of


Niphis, one hundred and fifty-six. () The sons of Calamokalos and
Onous, seven hundred and twenty-five. The sons of Jereichou, two hundred and forty-five. () The sons of Sama, three thousand three hundred
and one. () The prieststhe sons of Ieddos the son of Iesous with
respect to the sons of Sanabeiseight hundred and seventy-two. The
sons of Ermeros, two hundred and fifty-two. () The sons of Phassoros,
one thousand two hundred and forty-seven. The sons of Charme, two
hundred and seventeen. () The Levitesthe sons of Iesous, Kodoelos
and Bannos and Soudiosseventy-four. () The sons of the temple
singersthe sons of Asaphone hundred and twenty-eight. () The
gatekeepers, four hundred. Those of Ismael, the sons of Lakoubatos, a
thousand. The sons of Tobeis, in all, one hundred and thirty-nine. ()
The temple servantsthe sons of Esau, the sons of Taseipha, the sons of
Tabaoth, the sons of Keras, the sons of Soua, the sons of Phalaias, the
sons of Labana, the sons of Aggaba, () the sons of Akoud, the sons
of Outa, the sons of Ketab, the sons of Hakkaba, the sons of Sybai, the
sons of Hanan, the sons of Koua, the sons of Keddour, () the sons of
Iairos, the sons of Daisan, the sons of Noeba, the sons of Cheseba, the
sons of Kazera, the sons of Ozias, the sons of Phinoe, the sons of Hasara,
the sons of Basthai, the sons of Assana, the sons of Manei, the sons of
Nepheisi, the sons of Akouph, the sons of Hachiba, the sons of Asour,
the sons of Pharakem, the sons of Basalem, () the sons of Dedda, the
sons of Bachous, the sons of Serar, the sons of Tomthei, the sons of Nasi,
the sons of Hatepha. () The sons of Salomons servantsthe sons of
Hassaphioth, the sons of Pharida, the sons of Ieielei, the sons of Lozon,
the sons of Isdael, the sons of Saphyei, () the sons of Agia, the sons of
Pakereth of sabie, the sons of Sarothie, the sons of Meisaias, the sons of
Gas, the sons of Addous, the sons of Soubas, the sons of Apherra, the sons
of Barodeis, the sons of Saphag, the sons of Allon. () All the temple
servants and the sons of Salomons servants consisted of three hundred
and seventy-two. () These ones are they who went up from Thermeleth
and Thelersas under the leadership of Charaathalan and Allar, () they
were not able to prove their paternal ancestry or their generation that

text :

:
: : :
q hi
q () q
: : () q
q q :
: q ()
q: :
) ()
:
() hi
: {} : :
: hi
: {} :
hi :

:
Votive Offerings
: q
q )
: :
hi:
hi: : :
q hi
() ) : () q:
) :

:
Erection of an Altar and Inaugural Worship
: [] : )
q q
: : )

: B ] RH
: B
] RH
: B
> ] RH . : B q
] RH q .

translation :

they were from Israel: the sons of Asan son of Baenan, and the sons of
Nekodan, six hundred and fifty-two. () And from the priests those who
had assumed the priesthood but were not proved: the sons of Hobbia, the
sons of Hakbos, and the sons of Iaddous who had received Augia as wife,
one of the daughters of Phaezeldaias, and was called by his name. ()
When an inspection was made in the registry and the generation of these
men was not found, they were excluded from serving as priests. ()
And Naimias and Attharias told them not to partake of the consecrated
things until there should arise a priest being adorned in Explanation
and Truth. () All the men who were from Israel, twelve years of age
on, apart from menservants and maidservants, were forty-two thousand
three hundred and sixty; their menservants and maidservants were seven
thousand three hundred and thirty-seven; there were two hundred and
forty-five harpists and psalm-singers. () There were four hundred and
thirty-five camels, seven thousand and thirty-six horses, two hundred
and forty-five mules, and five thousand five hundred and twenty-five
asses.
:
Votive Offerings
() Some of the leaders of the paternal houses, when they came to
the temple of God that is in Jerusalem, they solemnly vowed that they
would erect the house on its site according to their power, () and
that they would give to the sacred treasury for the works a thousand
minas of gold, and five thousand minas of silver, and one hundred priests
sacred vestments. () The priests, and the Levites, and those from his
people dwelt in Jerusalem and its territory; and the temple singers, the
gatekeepers, and all Israel in their villages.
:
Erection of an Altar and Inaugural Worship
() When the seventh month came, and the sons of Israel were all in
their own homes, they assembled in one mind in the open area before
the first gate oriented to the east. () Then Iesous son of Iosedek, with
his brothers, the priests, and Zorobabel son of Salthiel, and his brothers,

text :

q q
q ) : q
q q :
: q q :
qq q : q
: {()} q
: q
: : ()
: q q
: :
q : :
q
q q: q :

:
Beginning of the New Temple
:
: hi
:
:
: : q
) q
)
hi
): : q q
q )
): : hi
: )
: ) :
: hi
q :
: :
: hi

: B qq ] RH q
: B ] RH . : B
] RH
: B )
] RH q
: B
] RH

translation :

took their positions and prepared the altar of the God of Israel, () to
offer up whole burnt offerings upon it, in accordance with that prescribed
in the book of Moyses, the man of God. () And some of the nations
of the land assembled with them. And they erected the altar upon their
placethough all the nations of the land were at enmity with them
and prevailed over themand they offered sacrifices at the appropriate
times and whole burnt offerings to the Lord, morning and late afteroon.
() And they kept the feast of tabernacles, as it is commanded in the
law, and offered sacrifices daily as was fitting, () and in addition the
scheduled offerings and sacrifices on sabbaths and at new moons and all
the consecrated feasts. () And as many who had made a solemn vow
to God from the new moon of the first month began to offer sacrifices to
God, though the temple of God was not yet built.
:
Beginning of the New Temple
() They gave silver to the stone masons and the craftsman, and drink
and food, and carts to the Sidonians and the Tyrians, to bring them
cedar trees from Lebanon and ferrying them in rafts to the harbor of
Ioppa, as per the written commands that they had from Cyrus King of
the Persians. () In the second year after coming to the temple of God
in Jerusalem, in the second month, Zorobabel son of Salathiel and Iesous
son of Iosedek made a beginning, together with their brothers, and the
levitical priests and all who had come back to Jerusalem from captivity;
() and they laid the foundation of the temple of God upon the new
moon of the second month in the second year when they came to Judea
and Jerusalem. () They appointed the Levites who were twenty years
old or more for overseeing the works of the Lord. And Iesous stood up,
and his sons and brothers and Damadiel his brother and the sons of
Iesous Emadaboun and the sons of Iouda son of Eiliadoun, with their
sons and brothers, all the Levites, acting as taskmasters worked with one
mind doing the work in the house of the Lord. () And the builders built
the temple of the Lord. And the priests stood arrayed in their vestments,
with musical instruments and trumpets, and the Levites, the sons of

text :


hi ): : {}
()
): : ()
() : :
q () hi () q
{}
() q
: : : :
q :
q() q:

:
Inquiry and Intrusion from Judahs Neighbours
: () q ) hi()
q : :
() q ): :
q : ) :
() : : :
q
q ) q: :
)
): q () :
) q
: : q
): ()
: :
{}q ()
: : q
:

: B ] RH : B ] RH :
: B ] RH .
: B q
B ] RH
q] RH q q
: B q] RH
q : B ] RH : B
q] RH
q.

translation :

Asaph, with cymbals, singing hymns to the Lord and blessings, according
to Dauid, the King of Israel. () And they sang with hymns, blessing
the Lord, For his goodness and his glory are upon all Israel into the
ages. () And all the people sounded trumpets and cried out with a
great voice, singing hymns to the Lord upon the erection of the house of
the Lord. () Some of the levitical priests and heads according to those
who presided over paternal houses, the old men who had seen the former
house, came to the building of this one with great crying and weeping,
() and many came with trumpets and a great joyful noise () so that
the people could not hear the trumpets on account of the weeping of
the people. For the crowd was sounding the trumpets loudly, so that the
noise was heard far away.
:
Inquiry and Intrusion from Judahs Neighbours
() And after the enemies of the tribe of Judah and Benjamin heard
it, they came to find out what the sound of the trumpets signified. ()
They learned that the ones who were from captivity were building the
temple for the Lord God of Israel. () And they came to Zorobabel
and Iesous and the heads of the paternal houses and spoke to them, We
will build with you. () For we, similar to you, obey your Lord and we
will present offerings to him from the days of Asbakaphath King of the
Assyrians, who transported us here. () And Zorobabel and Iesous and
the heads of the paternal houses in Israel said to them, You have no
part in building the house for the Lord our God, () for we alone we
will build it for the Lord of Israel, according to what Cyrus, the king
of the Persians, has ordered us. () But the nations of the land fell
upon those in Judea, blocking them, and they hindered the building; ()
and by plotting, and demagoguering, and uprisings they prevented the
completion of the building all the time of the life of King Cyrus. ()
They were kept from building for two years, until Dariuss reign.

text :
:
Reconstruction of the Temple Commences

:
)
) ) q )
: : q )
)
q :

:
Intervention by Regional Authorities
: ()
q : : :
() ; ()
{}; :
() ()
): : q q q:
:
The Letter to Darius
: () : q : :
:
() ) () {q } ) ()
)
) :
q () q : :
:
: : :

: B ] RH .
: B ] RH
: B ] RH
: B q] RH
q. : B ] RH : B ] RH :
B ] RH

translation :

:
Reconstruction of the Temple Commences
() Now in the second year of Dariuss reign, the prophets Haggaios
and Zacharias son of Eddein prophesied to the Judeans in Judea and
Jerusalem; in the name of the Lord God of Israel, who is over them. ()
Then Zorobabel son of Salathiel and Iesous son of Iosedek stood up and
began to build the house of the Lord that is in Jerusalem, being assisted
by the prophets of the Lord who were helping them.
:
Intervention by Regional Authorities
() At the same time, there came to them, Sisinnes the prefect of Syria
and Phoenicia and Sathrabuzanes and their associates and he said to
them, () By whose order are you building this house and this roof
and finishing all these things? And who are the builders those that
are finishing all these other things? () And the elders of the Judeans
possessed the gracious oversight from the Lord upon the captives; ()
they were not prevented from building until which time Darius could be
notified concerning them and a report be received.
:
The Letter to Darius
() A copy of the epistle which was written to Darius and sent by
Sisinnes the prefect of Syria and Phoenicia, and Sathrabuzanes, and
their associates the local officials in Syria and Phoenicia: () To King
Darius, greetings. Let it be fully known to our lord the king that, coming
into the territory of Judea and entering into Jerusalem the city, we
found the elders of the Judeans, who had been in captivity, building
in Jerusalem the city, a great new house for the Lord, of hewn stone,
with expensive timber set in the houses. () These works are proceeding
rapidly and the work in their hands is prospering and being completed
with all splendor and thoroughness. () Then we inquired of these

text :

()qq : q: : {}
q : q: : q

: : q ) q: :
)

() : q()
: () () : :
: :

) () :
.
q :
q
): q : :
{} q
) () : : hi :

: :
{} ):
:

:
Dariuss Commission, Inspection, and Replies
: q : q )
{} :
: B q] RH q : B ] RH
: B ] RH
: B
: B ] RH
. / RH
: B
:
>] RH
: B >] RH
: B >] RH .
B ] RH

translation :

elders saying, By whose command to you are you building this house
and were laying the foundations of these works? () Therefore, we
questioned them, for the purpose to inform you and to write to you, as
to who the leading men are, and we asked them for a list of the names
of the chief instigators. () But they answered us, saying: We are the
servants of the Lord, the one creating the heaven and the earth. () And
the house had been built many years before by a great and mighty king of
Israel, and it was completed. () And when our forefathers provocatively
sinned against the Lord of Israel, the one in heaven, he delivered them
into the hands of King Nabouchodonosor King of Babylon, king of
the Chaldeans; () and the house after tearing it down they burned
it, and led the people away captive to Babylon. () But in the first
year of the reign of Cyrus over the country of Babylonia, King Cyrus
decreed this house to be rebuilt. () And the sacred vessels of gold
and of silver, which Nabouchodnosor had carried off from the house in
Jerusalem and deposited in his temple, these Cyrus the King again took
out from the temple in Babylon, and they were delivered to Zorobabel
and Sabanassaros the governor () with the order for him to return
all of these vessels and place them in the temple at Jerusalem, and this
temple of the Lord be built upon its place. () Then this Sanbassaros,
after arriving, laid the foundations of the house of the Lord that is in
Jerusalem. From then until now it has been under construction, though
it has not met completion. () Now, therefore, king, let it be just, allow
a search to be made in the royal annals of the Lord King of those who
are in Babylon; () if it be found that the building of the house of the
Lord in Jerusalem transpired with the knowledge of Cyrus the King, if it
be just to our lord the king, let him direct us concerning these things.
:
Dariuss Commission, Inspection, and Replies
() Then King Darius commanded that the archives that were kept in
Babylon be searched. And it was found, in Ecbatana within the palace
amidst the region of Media, a passage in which it was recorded: () In

text :

: :
() ) q
: : :
: q () :
: q
: :

) q
() ) q : :
q
q
hi q
)
) : :

) q
: :
q q
q
:
q () )
q q : :
q :
() : :
() q
() q
hi: :
q

): :
q:

: B ) ] RH )

: B ] RH
: B ] RH : B q]
RH q
: B / RH

: B
] RH .

translation :

the first year of the reign of Cyrus, King Cyrus ordered the building of
the house of the Lord that is in Jerusalem, where they make offerings
with perpetual fire; () its height is to be sixty cubits, its width sixty
cubits, with three layers of hewn stone and one layer of new indigenous
timber; the cost is to be paid from the house of Cyrus the King; () and
that the sacred vessels of the Lords house, both gold and silver, which
Nabouchodnosor carried off from the house in Jerusalem and deposited
in Babylon, should be restored to the house that is in Jerusalem, to be
kept where they had been. () Then he ordered Sisinnes the prefect of
Syria and Phoenicia, and Sathrabuzanes, and their associates, and those
who were appointed as local officials in Syria and Phoenicia, to keep away
from the place, and to permit Zorobabel, the servant of the Lord and
governor of Judea, and the elders of the Judeans to rebuild this house of
the Lord on its place. () And I ordered that it be built completely, and
to carefully watch in order that they might assist those who have returned
from the captivity of Judea, until the house of the Lord is finished; ()
and that from the tribute of Coelesyria and Phoenicia a quota of taxes are
carefully arranged to be given to these men, for offerings to the Lord, to
Zorobabel the governor, for bulls and rams and lambs, () and likewise
also wheat and salt and wine and oil, perpetually, every year, without
quarelling, to be consumed for daily use just as the priests in Jerusalem
may indicate, () so that libations may be made to the Most High God
for the king and his servants, and they might offer prayers for their lives.
() He commanded that if anyone might transgress any of the things
having been written, or attempt to nullify this, a beam should be taken
out of his house, it then shall be hanged upon him, and his property to be
given to the king. () Because of this, may the Lord, whose name is there
invoked, destroy every king and nation that shall stretch out their hands
to prevent or do evil to that house of the Lord that is in Jerusalem. ()
I, King Darius, have decreed that it be done carefully as here stipulated.

text :
:
The Rebuilding of the Temple
Flourishes with Royal and Prophetic Oversight

: hi q q : : () ) :
: hi
: : q ): :
) q
: : ) hi
q q : : {}
: hi : : :
hi ) q
) : :
hi q )
q : q :

:
The Passover of Zorobabel
: )
q()
hi :
q: q: :
q
: : )
q ()

: B ] RH : B ] RH
: B ] RH . : B ] RH : B ] RH

translation :

:
The Rebuilding of the Temple
Flourishes with Royal and Prophetic Oversight
() Then Sisinnes, prefect of Coelesyria and Phoenicia, and Sathrabuzanes, and their associates, following that decreed by King Darius, ()
supervised the sacred works with great care, assisting the elders of the
Judeans and the chief officials of the temple. () The sacred works flourished, while the prophets Haggaios and Zecharios were prophesying;
() and they finished these things through the command of the Lord
God of Israel. () And thus with the knowledge of Cyrus and Darius
and Artaxerxes, the kings of the Persians, the house was finished by the
twenty-third of the month of Adar, in the sixth year of King Darius. ()
And the sons of Israel and the priests and the Levites, and the rest of
those who returned from captivity who were added to them, did that
which was according to what was written in the book of Moyses. () They
brought offerings for the consecration of the temple of the Lord one hundred bulls, two hundred rams, four hundred lambs, () and twelve male
goats for the sin of all Israel, corresponding to the number of the twelve
tribal heads of Israel; () and the priests and the Levites stood arrayed
in their vestments, according to tribes, for the works of the Lord God of
Israel in accordance with the book of Moyses; and the gatekeepers were
at each gate.
:
The Passover of Zorobabel
() And the sons of Israel, who came from captivity led celebration of
the Passover on the fourteenth of the first month, when the priests and
the Levites were sanctified together. () And all the sons of captivity
were sanctified, because the Levites were all sanctified together, () and
they sacrificed the Passover lamb for all the sons of captivity and for their
brothers the priests and for themselves. () And they ate, the sons of
Israel, who had come from captivity, all who had separated themselves

text ::

q () : :
: : ()
) hi
q ):

:
Ezra Arrives in Jerusalem
: : )

: : : hi q:
hi: : : hi: :
: :

q ): : () ()
: :
() ) hi
q )
) :
: : q
() ) q
: :
() hi
) :

:
The Letter of Artaxeres
: )
: () :
: )

: B] RH . : B
] RH

: B q ] RH

: B ] RH
: B )
] RH )
: B q >
)] RH q )
: B )] RH ). :
B >] RH : B ] RH :
B ] RH

translation ::

from the abominations of the nations of the land and sought the Lord.
() And they kept the feast of unleavened bread seven days, rejoicing
before the Lord, () because he had changed the will of the king of the
Assyrians concerning them, to strengthen their hands for the works of
the Lord God of Israel.
:
Ezra Arrives in Jerusalem
() And after these things, when Artaxerxes the king of the Persians
was reigning, Esras came, the son of Azaraias, son of Zechrias, son of
Chelkias, son of Salemos, () son of Saddouloukos, son of Achitob, son
of Amartheias, son of Ozias, son of Bokka, son of Abeisai, son of Phinees,
son of Eleazar, son of Aaron the first priest. () This Ezra came up from
Babylon as a scribe well skilled in the law of Moyses, which was delivered
by the God of Israel; () and the king gave honor to him, finding grace
before him in all of his worthy petitions. () And there came up with
him some of the sons of Israel and some from the priests and Levites and
temple singers and gatekeepers and temple servants to Jerusalem, in the
seventh year in the reign of Artaxerxes, in the fifth month (this was the
kings second year). () For they left Babylon on the new moon of the
first month and arrived in Jerusalem, by the succesful journey that the
Lord gave them. () For Apsaras obtained a vast understanding, that he
omitted nothing from the law of the Lord or from the commandments,
or from all the regulations and judgments for Israel.
:
The Letter of Artaxeres
A recording from Artaxerxes the King that was delivered to Esras the
priest and reader of the law of the Lord (this is a copy that is set forth).
() King Artaxerxes to Esras the priest and reader of the law of the

text :

: : q hi q ) ()
hi () q
): : q q q : :
) () ) q
: : ()
): ()
q ) ()
q ) : q
hi q: :
q q ):
: () q q :
q
): :
q :
: )
() hi
q
() :
: : q
q q q ()
() :
hi q
[] hi:
: q
hi
q :

: B ] RH
: B )] RH )
: B ] RH : B >] RH ) :
B ] RH
: B ] RH
: B ] RH : B >] RH q
: B >] RH
: B >] RH
: B ] RH
:
B ] RH
: B ] RH : B ]
RH

translation :

Lord, greetings. () With respect to my benevolent designs, I have given


orders that those who are desirous from the nation of the Judeans and of
the priests, and of the Levites and of those in our kingdomthose who
freely choose to do somay go with you to Jerusalem. () Therefore,
let as many as are pondering it join with you, just as I and the seven
friends who are my counselors have agreed, () in order that they might
investigate the matters concerning Judea and Jerusalem, in accordance
with what is in the law of the Lord, () and to carry to Jerusalem the gifts
for the Lord that I and my Friends have solemnly vowed; also to obtain
for the Lord in Jerusalem all the gold and silver that may be found in the
region of Babylonia, along with what is being granted by the nation for
the temple of their Lord in Jerusalem, () is to be collectedgold and
silver for bulls and rams and lambs and what goes with them() so
that sacrificial offerings may be brought upon the altar of their Lord that
is in Jerusalem. () Whatever you and your brothers wish to do with
the gold and silver, undertake it according to the will of your God; ()
deliver the sacred vessels that are given you for the need of the temple
of your God who is in Jerusalem. () And whatever supplication comes
to you for the need of the temple of your God, you will give it from the
royal treasury. () And behold I, King Artaxerxes, have commanded the
treasurers of Syria and Phoenicia so that whatever Esdras the priest and
reader of the law of the Most High God sends for, they shall carefully give
to him, up to a hundred talents of silver. () And similarly also up to a
hundred cors of wheat and a hundred measures of wine. () In accord
with the law of God let everything be completed for the Most High God,
so that wrath may not come upon the kingdom of the king and his sons.
() And you are also notified that no tribute nor any other imposition
is to be laid upon any of the priests and Levites and temple singers and
gatekeepers and temple servants and officials of this temple, and that no
one has authority to levy these things upon them. () And you, Esras,
according to the wisdom of God, appoint judges and magistrates who
may adjudicate in the whole of Syria and Phoenicia; those who know the
law of your God, shall instruct those who do not know it. () And all

text :

: q
q () q
() : :
:
Ezras Ejaculation of Praise
:
): :
hi
() : : q ()
q )
:
:
The List of Returning Exiles
: ()

) : : :
: hi :
: : :
q
: : q hi q
: () q
: :
q : : ()
hi ():
:
: : hiq

: B ] RH : B ] RH :
: B ]
B ] RH .
: B ] RH >
RH
: B q] RH
: B ] RH
: B
q.
hi] RH : B >] RH : B
] RH
: B q ] RH
q : B q] RH :
B ] RH
: B q] RH
q : B ] RH : B ]
RH

translation :

who transgress the law of your God and the royal law shall be exactingly
punished, whether by death or some other physical punishment, [either]
financial loss or arrest.
:
Ezras Ejaculation of Praise
() Blessed be the Lord alone, who placed these things into the heart
of my king, to glorify his house which is in Jerusalem, () and who
honored me before the rulers and all of his Friends and nobles. () I
was heartened by the assistance of the Lord my God, and I gathered men
from Israel to go up with me.
:
The List of Returning Exiles
() And these are the leaders, according to their paternal ancestry
and the groups, who went up with me from Babylon, in the reign of
Artaxerxes the King: () from the sons of Phoros, Tarosotomos. From
the sons of Ietamaros, Gamelos. Of the sons of Dauid, () Phares,
Zacharias, and with him a hundred and fifty registered men. () From
the sons of Maathmoab, Elialonias son of Zaraias, and with him two
hundred men. () From the sons of Zathoe, Eiechonias son of Iethelos,
and with him two hundred men. From the sons of Adeinos, Ouben
Ionathos, and with him two hundred and fifty men. () From the sons
of Lam, Esias son of Gotholias, and with him seventy men. () From
the sons of Sophotias, Zaraias son of Michaelos, and with him seventy
men. () From the sons of Ioab, Abadias son of Iezelos, and with him
two hundred and twelve men. () From the sons of Banias, Salimoth

text :

: :
() : : q
: :
: ():
: : :
:

:
The Search for Priest and Levites
: : q : q : :
hi : : : : : :
: q: : : q
:
.
{}
: hi: hi
): : :
: : :
() hi hi : q
:

: B ] RH
: B q] RH
q
: B ] RH

: B ] RH q
.
: B ] RH
: B >] RH
:
B ] RH : B ] RH

: B ] RH : B ]
: B >] RH
RH
: B ] RH

: B ] RH
: B ] RH : B >] RH
: B ] RHi : B ] RH
: B >] RH .

translation :

son of Iosaphias, and with him a hundred and sixty men. () From the
sons of Baier, Zachariai son of Bemai, and with him twenty-eight men.
() The sons of Astath, Ioanes son of Hakatan, and with him a hundred
and ten men. () From the sons of Adoniakaim, the last ones, and these
men their names were Eleiphala son of Geouel, and Samaias, and with
them seventy men. () From the sons of Banaios, the son of Istakalkos,
and with him seventy men.
:
The Search for Priest and Levites
() And gathering them together at the place called River, and we
made camp there for three days, and I scrutinized them. () And when
I found there none of the priests or even the Levites, () I sent word
to Eleazaros and Idouelos and Maasmas and Enaatan and Samaias and
Ioribos, Nathan, Ennatan, Zacharias, and Mesolabos, who were leaders
and men of intellect. () And I told them to go to Laadaios, who was
the leading official at the location of the treasury, () and ordered them
to discuss with Lodaios and his brothers and those in the location of
the treasury to send for us those that serve as priests in the house of
our Lord. () Learned men from the sons of Mooli son of Leuvi, son of
Israel, namely Asebebias with his sons and brothers numbering ten. ()
Those from the sons of Chanounaios, and their sons, twenty men; ()
and of the temple servants, whom Dauid and the leaders had given for
the ministry of the Levites, two hundred and twenty temple servants; a
name list of all was recorded.

text :
:
The Journey to Jerusalem

: :

: : ()
: :

q: : q :
: :
: ()
() : :
() :
()
): : () {} ()
: :
: :
() : : :
: :
() : :

() hi () ()
) ): :
: hi
)
: :
q )
: []
q: q ): : q

: B ] RH : B >] RH : B >] RH
: B ] RH :
B ] RH
: B ] RH

: B ] RH
: B ] RH : B ] RH
: B ] RH

: B ] RH

: B ] RH

: B ] RH
: B ]
RH : B ] RH : B q] RH q
: B ] RH : B q] RH q

translation :

:
The Journey to Jerusalem
() Then I vowed there a fast for the young men before our Lord, ()
to seek from him a succesful journey for us, our children and livestock.
() For I was ashamed [to ask] for cavalry and infantry as an escort
for security from those opposed to us; () for we had said to the king,
The strength of our Lord will be with those who seek him, for every
restoration. () And again we petitioned our Lord unto all these things,
and we obtained mercy. () And I set apart twelve of the tribal leaders of
the priests, Eserebias and Hassamias, and ten of their brothers with them;
() and I weighed out for them the silver and the gold and the sacred
vessels of the house of our Lord, in the manner that the king himself and
his advisors and nobles and all Israel had given. () And I delivered and
weighed for them six hundred and fifty talents of silver and silver vessels
worth a hundred talents and a hundred talents of gold, and twenty golden
bowls, and ten refined bronze vessels that glittered. () And I said to
them, You are holy to the Lord, and the vessels are holy, and the silver
and the gold are solemnly vowed to the Lord, the Lord of our ancestors.
() Be watchful and on guard until you deliver them to the tribal leaders
of the priests and the Levites, and to the heads of the ancestral houses of
Israel, in Jerusalem, in the inner chambers of the house of our Lord.
() And the priests and the Levites receiving the silver and the gold
and the vessels brought them to the temple of the Lord in Jerusalem.
() And leaving from the place Theras on the twelfth day of the first
month, until they arrived in Jerusalem according to the mighty hand of
our Lord, which was upon us; he rescued us from the journey from every
enemy, and [they] came to Jerusalem. () And after being in that place

text :

q q
q hi : :
hi: ) q
hi: q :
: :
q q ) :
: : q
: :
hi:
q :

:
The Reports of Mixed Marriages
: () [] q q : : () hi
q q :
() ): : q
:
q :
:

:
Ezras Penitential Prayer
: ()
q :
q : : q
hi ) q
: q q: :
q
q:

: B ] RH : B )] RH )
: B >] RH
: B >] RH
: B ] RH
)
: B ] RH
: B >] RH .
: B
>] RH q ) : B ] RH : B q] RH
q : B ] RH . : B ] RH
: B ] RH

translation :

three days, the silver and the gold were weighed and placed in the house
of the Lord to Marmothi son of Ourias the priest; () and with him
was Eleazar son of Phinees, and with them were Iosabees son of Iesous
and Moeth son of Sabannos the Levites. All of the vessels were counted
and weighed, and the total weight was recorded in that very hour. ()
And those who had returned from captivity offered sacrifices to the Lord
God of Israel, ninety-six lambs, seventy-six male goats, and twelve as
a peace offeringall as a sacrifice to the Lord. () They delivered the
commands of the king to the royal stewards and to the prefects of Syria
and Phoenicia; and they gave homage to the nation and the temple of the
Lord.
:
The Reports of Mixed Marriages
() After these things were completed, the leaders came to me saying,
() The rulers and the priests and the Levites have not separated themselves from the foreign nations of the land and from their impurities, the
Chananites, the Chettites, the Pherezites, the Iebousites, the Moabities,
the Aigyptians, and the Idoumites. () For they and their sons have married their daughters, and the holy seed has been contaminated with the
foreign nations of the land; and the leaders and the nobles have been
sharing in this lawless practice from the beginning of the matter.
:
Ezras Penitential Prayer
() As soon as I heard about these things I ripped open my garments
and my sacred vestment, and pulled out the hair of [my] head and beard,
and sat down meloncholic and griefstricken. () And they gathered
around me, as many as were moved by the word of the Lord of Israel,
while grieving upon this lawlessness, I sat griefstricken until the evening
sacrifice. () And after being roused from the fast, with garments and
sacred vestments still ripped, and kneeling down and stretching out

text :

() : : : : :
:
() :
:
: : () ()
q ()
hi :
()
: : q
: {}q () .
: :
: :
{}q :
: :
:
hi: ) ): :
;
: :
q
: q () :
: () q :
q () : :
:
q
: :
hi : :
:
()
q q() : : q
() {: :
} ) q : {}q() :
: :
q :

: B >] RH
: B ] RH
: B >] RH
:
B q] RH q : B ] RH :
B ] RH
: B >] RH
:
: B ] RH
: B ] RH
B ] RH

: B >] RH : B ] RH : B >] RH
: B >] RH .

translation :

hands to the Lord, I spoke: () O Lord, I am ashamed and mortified


before your face. () For our sins have risen over our heads, and our
ignorance has climbed up to heaven () from the times of our ancestors,
and we are in great sin unto this day. () On account of our sins and that
of our ancestors, we with our brothers with our kings and our priests were
delivered over to the kings of the land, [to] sword and exile and sacked,
and consigned to shame unto this very day. () And now how great has
been the mercy that has come to us from the Lord of Lordship, to leave
to us a root and a name in this holy place, () and to unveil a luminous
star for us in the house of our Lord, and to give us food in the time of
our slavery. () Even while in slavery, we were not utterly cut off by our
Lord, but he acted towards us in grace before the kings of the Persians,
() so that they gave us food and honoured our temple, and raised the
ruins of Zion, to give us a foothold in Judea and Jerusalem. () And now,
what will we say, O Lord, when we have these things? They transgressed
your commandments, which you gave by the hand of your servants the
prophets, saying that () The land which you are entering to inherit
is a land contaminated with the contamination of the foreigners of the
land, and they have filled it with their impurities. () And now, do not
join your daughters in marriage to their sons, and do not receive their
daughters for your sons; () do not seek to make a peace with them
at any time, in order that you may prevail and eat the good things of the
land and bestow it as an inheritance for your sons unto the age. () And
all that has happened to us and transpired on account of our evil works
and great sins. () For you, Lord, are the one lightening the load of our
sins, and you have given us such a root as this; but again we turned away
to violate your law by intermarrying with the impurities of the nations
of the land. () Were you not sufficiently angry with us to destroy us
without leaving a root and seed and our name? () O Lord of Israel,
truthful you are; for we are left as a root in this day. () Behold, we are
before you in our lawlessness; for we cannot yet stand before you due to
these things.

text ::
:
The Contrition of the People and Their Oath

: q
q q )
q
q: :
) : : :
() q ()
): : q
()
q : {}q
: : :
: : ()
hi )
() :

:
The Proclamation of a Gathering
: q
: : q{}
q () ()
q: : ) ) q ):
: ()
q q : q q :

:
The Gathering and Resolution at Jerusalem
: q ) ()
):

: B ] RH : B ] RH :
B ] RH : B ] RH : B ] RH
: B

: B q ] RH q
] RH
: B ] RH >. : B ] RH
.

translation ::

:
The Contrition of the People and Their Oath
() And when Esras, praying, made his confession, weeping on the
ground before the temple, there gathered around from him Jerusalem
an exceedingly large crowd of men and women, youths; for there was
great weeping among the multitude. () Then Iechonias son of Ieelos of
the sons of Israel, cried out and said to Esras, We have sinned against
the Lord, and they have cohabited with foreign women from the nations
of the land; even now it is consuming all of Israel. () In this let us swear
an oath to the Lord, to cast out all of our wives, those who are foreigners,
with their children, as seems right to you and to as many who obey the
law of the Lord. () And rise up and complete it, for it is your task, and
we are with you to undertake strong action. () Then Esras rose up
and made the leaders of the priests and Levites of all Israel swear to act
appropriately on this, and they declared an oath.
:
The Proclamation of a Gathering
() And Esras rose up and went out from the court of the temple to the
inner chamber of Iona son of Naseibos, () and staying the night there,
he did not eat bread nor drink water, as he was mourning for the great
lawlessness of the multitude. () And an edict was issued throughout
the whole of Judea and Jerusalem to all those who had returned from
captivity that they should assemble at Jerusalem, () and that as many
who did not meet there within two or three days, according to the
judgment of the presiding elders, their livestock would be devoted to
sacrifice and the men themselves will be alienated from the multitude
of those who had returned from captivity.
:
The Gathering and Resolution at Jerusalem
() And the men from the tribe of Judah and Benjamin gathered at
Jerusalem in three days; this was the ninth month, on the twentieth day

text :

: : q q
: :
: : q
): : q
: : q : q
q() : :
q : :
: q : :
q ():
: : :
q
q
: :
() : :
q : :
hi :
: () : :

: q
: : q
() q
:

:
List of Those Taking Foreign Wives
: q () q():
: )
() : :
: :
hi hi : :
()
: B >] RH
: B ] RH
: B
: B >] RH
] RH
: B ] RH
: B >] RH
: B ] RH
: B
] RH
: B ] RH : B ] RH

: B ] RH
: B
q] RH q : B q]
RH . : B ] RH :
B ] RH

translation :

of the month. () And all of the multitude sat in the open area of the
temple, trembling upon the onset of winter. () And Esras stood up and
said to them, You have violated the law and married foreign women, and
so have added to the sin of Israel. () And now confess and give glory to
the Lord God of our ancestors, () and do his will and separate yourselves
from the nations of the land and from the foreigners. () Then all the
multitude shouted and spoke with a great voice, Thus we will do as you
have said. () But the multitude is large and it is time for winter, and we
will not be able to stand in the open. This is not a work we can achieve
in one day or two, for we have sinned too much in these things. ()
So let the leaders of the multitude remain, and allow all those in our
colony, as many as have foreign wives, to come at the time appointed,
() with the elders and judges of each place, until [our] release from
the wrath of the Lord that is against us in this matter. () Ionathan
son of Azael and Hezeias son of Thokanos approved of these things, and
Mosollamos and Leuvi and Sabbataios worked with them as arbitrators.
() And those who had returned from captivity acted according to all
of these things. () Esras the priest selected for him[self] the leading
men of their ancestral houses, all according to name; and they were shut
in session on the new moon of the tenth month for their examination
of this matter. () And the instances of the men who had taken foreign
wives were brought to an end by the new moon of the first month.
:
List of Those Taking Foreign Wives
() And there was found from among the priests those who had taken
foreign wives: () from the sons of Iesous, the son of Iosedek and his
brothers, Maeelas and Eleazaros and Ioribos, and Iodanos. () They
placed their hands to expel their wives, and to sacrifice rams as expiation for their ignorance. () From the sons of Emer: Ananias and

text :

: : : q q: :
hi: ()
q: () : : : : q [= q]
: : ): hi
hi : :
q : : () q
hihi: q hiq: q : : ()
qq: : ()
q: : ()
q () hi
q : : ()
hi () : : () q
hi () : :
hi hi
hi
hi q:
() hi
: () : : :
: ()
:

: B ] RH : B
] RH : B ] RH
: B ] RH
:
B ] RH

: B ] RH
: B
qq] RH q
: B q ] RH q
:

: B ] RH
B ] RH
: B
] RH
:
B ] RH

: B ] RH
.

translation :

Zebdaios and Manes and Thamaios and Iereel and Azarias. () From
the sons of Phaisour: Elionais, Asseias, Ismaelos, and Nathanaelos and

Okail
edos and Salthas. () And from the Levites: Jozabdos and Senseis

and Konos (that is Kaleitais) and Pathaios and Ooudas


and Ioanas.
() From the temple singers: Eliasebos and Bakchouros. () From
the gatekeepers: Salloumos and Tolbanes. () From Israel: of the sons
of Pharos: Ierma and Iezias and Melchias and Milelos and Eleazaros
also Matan
and Asebeias and Bannaias. () From the sons of Ela:

and Zacharias, Iezoriklos and Oabdeios and Ieremoth, and Aedeias.


() From the sons of Zamoth: Eliadas, Eliasimos, Othonias, Iarimoth
and Zabathos and Zeralias. () From the sons of Bebai: Ioannes and
Hananias and Zabdos and Emaththis. () From the sons of Mani:

Olamus,
Mamouchos, Iedaios, Iasoubos and Asaelos, and Ieremoth. ()
From the sons of Addein: Lathos and Moossias, Lakkounos and Naidos
and Beskaspasmos and Sesthel and Balnous and Manasseas. () From
the sons of Annan: Eliodas and Asaias and Melchias and Sabbaias and
Simon Chosamaos. () From the sons of Hasom: Maltannaios and
Mattathias and Sabannaios and Eliphalat and Manasse and Semeei. ()
From the sons of Baani: Ieremias, Momdios, Maeros, Iouna, Mamdai
and Pedias and Anos, Karabasion and Enaseibos and Mamtanaimos,
Eliasis, Bannous, Edialeis, Someeis, Selemias, Nathanias. From the sons
of Ezora: Seseis, Ezril, Azaelos, Samatos, Zambrei, Phosepos. () From

the sons of Nooma: Mazitias, Zabadaias, Edais,


Ioel, Banaias. () All
these had married foreign women, and they drove them out with their
children.

text :
:
The Reading of the Law at the Gathering

: () hi: ):
) :
) : : q q
q : :
: []
q q ): : [= ] q q
: {}
: : hi
q
: () : :

q: : () q: :
: : hi: : : :
() : hi: hi: q:
hi: : : ()
q () q ()
: q : ()
q : : ()
q :
() q: :) q hi hi
q hi
q () : : () .
hi q

: B >] RH : B ] RH :
B >] RH
: B ] RH
: B ] RH
: B ] RH : B ] RH .
:
B ] RH : B ] RH q
: B ] RH
: B ] RH
:
: B ] RH
: B ] RH
B ] RH
: B q ] RH q :
B ] RH
: B q ] RH q
q q
: B ] RH
: B
: B
] RH
: B q] RH
q ] RH : B
] RH : B ] RH

translation :

:
The Reading of the Law at the Gathering
() And the priests and the Levites and those of Israel, dwelt in Jerusalem and in the countryside. On the new moon of the seventh month,
when the people of Israel were in their dwellings, () the whole multitude gathered in one mind in the open area before the east gate of
the temple; () and it told Esras the priest and reader to receive the
law of Moyses that had been delivered by the God of Israel. () And
Esras the chief priest received the law, for all of the multitude, from men
unto women, and all the priests to hear the law, on the new moon of
the seventh month. () And he read in the open area before the gate of
the temple from dawn until midday, before the men and women; and
they all gave consideration to the law. () And Esras the priest and
reader of the law stood on the wooden judgment seat that had been
set up; () and there stood with him Mattathias, Sammou, Ananias,
Azarias, Uorias, Hezekias, Baalsamos at his right hand, () and at his
left hand [stood] Phaladaios, Misael, Melchias, Lothasuobos, Nabarias,
and Zacharias. () And Esras took up the book before the multitude,
for he was presiding in the position of honor before everyone. () And
while he opened the law, they all stood up straight. And Azarias blessed
the Most High God, Almighty, () and all of the multitude replied,
Amen, amen. Lifting up their hands high, falling to the ground, they
worshiped God. () Iesous and Anniouth and Sarabias, Iadinos, Iarsouboos, Abtaios, Hautaias, Maiannas and Kalitas, Azarias, Katethzabdos,
Hannias, Phalias, the Levites, were teaching the law of the Lord and reading the law of the Lord to the multitude at the same time, instructing
about what was read. () Then Attarates said to Esras the chief priest
and reader, and to the Levites who were instructing the multitude, and

text :

: : : ()
: : :
: :
: q: : : hi
() {} () : q:
: () () q
()q :
: () q q
q:

: B ] RH

: B >] RH .

translation :

to all, () This day is holy to the Lord, and they were all weeping as
they heard the law, () therefore, in your lifestyle, eat the fat, and send
portions to those who have nothing; () for the day is holy to the Lord;
and do not be full of grief, for the Lord will glorify you. () The Levites
orded all the people, saying, This day is holy; do not be grieved. ()
Then they all went out hence, to eat and drink and to rejoice, and to give
portions to those who had nothing, and to make much rejoicing; ()
because they were inspired by the words which they were taught. And
they came together.

1 ESDRAS
COMMENTARY

The Beginning and End of the Reforms under Iosias (:)


Esdras commences by narrating the beginning and the end of the
reforms under Iosias based on Chronicles (:). The opening
sequence includes the renewal of the Passover (:), a summary of
Iosiass virtuous deeds (:), a description of the death of Iosias
(:), records the wickedness of the subsequent Judean kings (:
), and narrates the judgment of God that falls upon Judah because
of their wickedness (:). The Iosias story is placed at the head of
Esdras as a deliberate anti-climax. The Iosias section becomes a false
crest in the hope of national restoration. Iosias renews the cultus and
the Passover festival and represents a pious and exemplary model of
kingship. Yet he remains a fallible king who brings misfortune upon
himself and his people by disobeying the prophetic word. In many
ways, Iosias, despite all his virtue, becomes one of many Judean kings
who spurn the word of the Lord and bring judgment on the nation.
An observation confirmed by the subsequent history of Judah in the
monarchs that follow.
:. The Passover of Iosias
The story begins with Iosiass reign and the reforms instituted by him.
This section assumes knowledge of Chronicles/ and
the material leading up to the events of Iosias death. Iosias (, ) reigned from ca. bce and he was remembered in biblical
historiography as a stark contrast to Manassehs all-embracing idolatry
recounted in the deuteronomic history. Iosiass reforms are modelled
along the lines of those under Hezekiah relating to the abolition of the
foreign gods, the renewal of the covenant, and the reform of the cultus
(Kgs :; Chronicles ). According to Chronicles , Iosias
came to the throne when he was eight years old and He did what was
right in the sight of the LORD, and walked in the ways of his ancestor
David; he did not turn aside to the right or to the left ( Chron :). He
is subsequently depicted as a pious traditionalist who purged Judea and
Jerusalem of Asherah poles and altars to Baal ( Chron :). Iosias

commentary

also commanded that the land and temple be purified. Thereafter the
temple was repaired and restored in the aftermath of previous kings who
permitted it to fall into ruin (Chron :). During the refurbishments the Book of the Law, that lay dormant and unread, was discovered
by the priest Hilkiah who read it to the king. Iosias heard the words of
the Law and grieved knowing that its precepts have not been kept. He
immediately despatched a delegation to inquire of the Lord as to what its
rediscovery meant for the people. The prophetess Huldah reported that
disaster is forecast to fall upon Judah because of its disobedience and
idolatry. But she adds that Iosias, because of his responsive and humble heart, will not see this disaster and instead he will be gathered to his
ancestors (Chron :). In response to this prophetic word, the
elders of Judah are summoned to the temple of Jerusalem with the priest
and Levites. Before all the people the Book of the Covenant was read,
so that the covenant was renewed with the people in the Lords presence,
and the people pledged themselves to keep the commandments of the
covenant (Chron :). Finally, Iosias embarked on a further campaign against idols in the territories belonging to Israel ( Chron :).
Iosias was also a contemporary of Ieremias (Jer :; Chron :) who
figures prominently in Esdras (:, , , ; :) in continuity with
Chronicles (:, ).
This is the background material immediately assumed by Esdras
in its subsequent narration. A more sanguine and even dispassionate
evaluation of Iosiass reign is described in Kings :: where
the events of Iosiass death appear as little more than an appendix. The
celebration of Iosiass reign in Esdras may have been influenced by the
eulogizing of Iosias by Ben Sirach (ca. bce) who thinks that Iosias
was great, but still a bit of a disappointment in the end like his royal
ancestors:
The name of Josiah is like blended incense prepared by the skill of the
perfumer; his memory is as sweet as honey to every mouth, and like music
at a banquet of wine.
He did what was right by reforming the people, and removing the wicked
abominations.
He kept his heart fixed on the Lord; in lawless times he made godliness
prevail.
Except for David and Hezekiah and Josiah, all of them were great sinners,
for they abandoned the law of the Most High; the kings of Judah came to
an end.
(Sir :)

commentary

The initial actions of Iosias in Esdras are threefold. First, Iosias


led () the Passover in Jerusalem (see ESVA; NRSV; NEB kept
the Passover; NETS, CEB celebrated the Passover; Cook held the
Passover). This as an act of devotion to his Lord and the pronoun draws attention to the distinctive piety of Iosias himself as instigator
and director of the festival. As king, Iosias represents the people before
the Lord and thus initiates the proper proceedings to secure their obedience and favour before the God of the covenant. Second, he sacrificed
the Passover Lamb (q ) in the sense of arranging for the
ceremonial slaughter of the animals for the people (NETS transcribes
rather than translates as pascha). This is all carried out, thirdly,
with due and deliberate attention given to the arrangement of the Priests,
Levites, and Israelites so that the festival is obeyed properly. Hence the
large emphasis on order in :, () and groupings in :,
( found only in Esdras in the LXX).
Iosiass commission to the Levites and priests centres on the specific
duties of each group as a lead up to the Passover celebration (vv. ).
The commission is dominated by a number of verbs including consecrate (), worship (), serve (q), prepare
(), and sacrifice (q). These actions all indicate a deliberate intention to bring the cultus of the temple and the religion of Judea
into conformity with the writing of David ( ), the
majesty of Solomon ( ), and the commandments of the Lord that were given to Moyses (
q ). This presents a return to what is regarded as the
primitive, normative, and glorious period of Israels national worship.
The reference to the ark () is peculiar as we have no grounds
for thinking that it was ever removed from the temple (unless the Chronicler, the source of Esdras, thought that it had been removed under
Manasseh). Talshir states, the command to place the Ark in the Temple makes no sense at this point in the sequence of events (: ). It
cannot mean to put or leave the ark where it is because it is assumed that
the ark is being carried around on their shoulders and thus mobile and
outside of the temple (see discussion in Williamson : ; Myers
: ; Talshir : ). Most likely the anachronism is designed to
recapitulate what happened under Solomons construction of the temple
whereby the Ark of the Covenant was finally given a permanent dwelling
place in the temple.
The subsequent narration describes the provision of sacrifical animals
by Iosias and his cohort of leaders (vv. ). Iosias provides for the people

commentary

being found there who include a wide cross section of laity, priests, and
Levites. The temple officials () in turn provide for the priests,
while the commanders ( = military tribune) provide for the
Levites. The emphasis falls on the liberality of the provisions given to
the people by the ruling class. The generous act of the royal court is
reminiscient of the action of Hezekiah and his officials who also provided
an abundant provision of sacrifices for the people ( Chron :).
The Passover celebration itself is described in some detail with stress
laid on the correct ordering of the event and the inclusivity of the festival meal (vv. ). The celebrations began with the priests and Levites
taking up their respective positions. While the priests offered up the sacrifices, the Levites engaged in paschal duties and took care of the needs of
those officiating at their posts: priests, temple singers, gatekeepers. This
emphasizes the ubiquity of the Levites and the heightening of their role
in the sources of Esdras (Myers : ). The sacrifices offered by the
priests may have also included peace offerings (Lev :) while the
Passover preparations were delegated to the Levites. Unlike Hezekiahs
Passover where the role of the Levites was a thing of necessity, here it is
treated as a normal and permanent function that they perform (Talshir
: ). Just like v. , the conformity of the event to the Mosaic legislation is again repeated in v. when it is said that things transpired
according to that written in the book of Moyses (
). That is because the consumption of the meal took
place in Jerusalem for the appropriate duration as required by Deut :
.
The meal itself is described in full. The words given for the cooking
of the Passover in v. are roasted () and boiled (). The
description most likely represents a conflation of Exod : and Deut
: where the details for the cooking and consumption of the Passover
meal are prescribed. Importantly nobody is left out of the national celebration as even those who prepared the sacrifice and the meal still
are able to partake of it. The clause they prepared for themselves
( ) in v. and they prepared for them (
) in v. refers to preparations to partake of the Passover meal. The
verb is intransitive, but the implied object is since it
was the Passover meal that was prepared. Concurrent with the offerings
and sumptuous eating is that the temple singers return to their orchestrated positions following the instructions made by David and Asaph.
The presence of the temple singers most probably refers to the singing of
the Psalms as part of the celebrations in the temple. Also the gatekeep-

commentary

ers retained their duties and it is noted that no one needed to alter his
own daily routine due to the combined efforts underway for the new
Passover festival. Everything pertaining to the sacrifice of the Lord was
accomplished in the sense of being finished and fulfilled (q). Accomplished here means that the Passover was celebrated and the
appropriate sacrifices offered upon the altar of the Lord. The reference to
the proceeding being in concordance with the command of King Iosias
( ) provides an inclusio that rounds
off this section in relation to v. . The intention of Iosias to celebrate/keep
the Passover is fulfilled when the regulations pertaining to the sacrifices
were properly accomplished (v. ).
A summary of the Josianic Passover follows on from the narration of
the Passovers celebration where there is a lauding of Iosiass achievement
in the context of Israels sacred history (vv. ). After noting the
celebration of the Passover and the Feast of Unleavened Bread for seven
days the author identifies its significance in light of Israels national
history in two ways. First, it is said that no Passover like it had been
celebrated in Israel since the times of Samouel the prophet ( q
)
). This commends Iosiass Passover as at least equal to those

that were celebrated in the final stages of the time of the Judges since
Samuel was one of the Judges (see Kgs :). Second, it is also stated
that none of the kings of Israel had celebrated a Passover such as that
celebrated by Iosias ( )
) which implies the superiority
of this cultic celebration over other the previous kings of the united
and divided monarchies (even beyond that of Hezekiah). Iosias proves
himself to be greater than David and more glorious than Solomon in this
sense that he led the Judeans back to the heart of their religious devotion
to the Lord, as stipulated in the Law of Moyses, in the face of religious
and political adversity. A final chronological marker is provided in v.
as the celebration took place in the eighteenth year of Iosiass reign
(ca. bce). This was the same year that the temple was purified ( Kgs
:; Chron :). The accent at the end is not on the centralization of
Israels worship in Jerusalem, rather (much like Hezekiahs Passover in
Chron :) on the fact that it is a combined feast joined by those of
Judah and Israel (Talshir : ).
The primary textual features of B in this section include the differences in
pronouns in vv. , . In B, the Levites do not consecrate themselves (RH
), but them (). This is either a variant known to the scribes

commentary

of B, an error caused by omitting the epsilon, or else was used in a


reflexive form as . A similar variation occurs in v. , but in reverse with
B employing the reflexive pronoun over the intensive pronoun ,
making the Levites prepare for themselves rather than for them, being the
Gatekeepers which the context requires. Finally, in v. , B (and L) reads not
(temple), but which needs to be read as holy place indicating the
same location. Hanhart supposes that is a later adaption of
from Chron : because the translator does not use the noun , thus
Hanhart prefers an original reading of (Hanhart b: ). Talshir
(: ) agrees that is original, but does not think it equivalent
to . She thinks that it reflects instead indicative of in the
LXX. In my view, it is possible that, given the prevalence of as an adjective
in Esdras (e.g., for the temple :; :), the scribe or his source originally
intended to add as an adjective resulting in , but for some
reason (error or redundancy) he failed then to insert following it.

:. Summary of the Deeds of Iosias


The content of Esd : is unparalleled in the MT. According to
Talshir (: ): The expansion could not have been written originally
in Greek. The Vorlage keeps springing up from underath the translation;
the phraseology repeatedly demonstrates the dependence on the source
Even so, reconstructing the Vorlage is a difficult chore, and much
remains uncertain. The passage presents a further summary of Iosiass
actions in relation to the wickedness that typified the monarchs and
people of Israel in its sacred history. These verses reflect generally on the
events described in Chronicles /Kings which is referred to as
another work in the past different from the one composed here (further
implying that Chronicles was not originally part of Esdras). It was
a necessary addition made, perhaps, to show that Iosiass misfortune
was despite his reforming activity and not due to any terrible character
deficiency on his part. The disaster that fell upon the nation was entirely
due to their sin and not the result of divine caprice. Such emphasis
is made by the compressed co-location of the three perfect verbs in
: (, , ), which underscore
the recording for the purpose of detailing the state of affairs pertaining
to the peoples sinfulness and impiety. The prepositional intensifier
added to serves to indicate the official nature of the registering
of the events (BDAG, ; L&S, ), hence its connection with the
of the kings of Judea (:, ). In Edras perfect tense-form participles
and verbs are consistently used for nominating written documents with
(:; :; :), (:), (:,

commentary

, ), and (:, ). The perfect indicates a state of


authoritative writtenness that has immediate import for its designated
audience.
The brief description of Iosiass deeds resolves the anomaly of Iosiass
premature death since it shows that his life was mostly pleasing to God
and did not actually deserve death as a form of divine punishment (Klein
: ). The wickedness of the Judean nation was such that even
Iosiass piety and reforms were not sufficient to save the nation from
divine judgment (Kgs :). The sharp contrast between the people and the king goes further than in the biblical material and seems to
reflect the tradition described in Sir : that exalts David, Hezekiah,
and Josiah as the only kings who werent sinners (Williamson :
).
The summary in : was sufficient to close off the opening pericope, but in Esdras an additional summary is provided to enhance the
ending of this unit. It functions rhetorically as a conplexio or a condensed prcis of the proceeding narrative interpreted in light of Israels
primary problem being the wickedness of the people and their rulers. It
further exonerates Iosias from having any part in the subsequent judgment exerted upon the Judean nation. It bridges the account of Iosiass
reforms (:) and the description of his death (:). The deeds
of Iosias were upright which extols Iosias once more (q as being
in line with belief or teaching BDAG, ; see in LXX Gen :; Esdr
:; Esth :; Pss Sol :; Jer :; Ep Jer :). This is because his
heart was full of piety. The word denotes piety, reverence, loyalty, and godliness and is used frequently in Jewish, Christian, and pagan
literature for religious virtue (BDAG, ; GELS, ; L&N,
). This is something that Diasporan Jews would readily identify as a
key word describing the quintessential devout Jew (e.g., Philo Migr. Abr.
, ).
There is a reference to an earlier recording of the events of Iosiass
reign, possibly the Annals of the Kings of Judah attested in Kings
(see Esd :). This chronicle is said to refer to others who sinned
and had committed impious acts (, ) which are the
exact antithesis to . The question is, why is Iosiass history
included among the deeds of the impious, and just who would these
impious people be? Probably it reflects the view that Iosias was a pious
king in an impious age (see Sir :) and his own destiny is tragically
interlocked with the wicked kings of Israel and Judah despite his own
moral qualities (see Talshir : ). Whereas Iosias is upright

commentary

and pious before the Lord these others (presumably kings and the
people) are sinful and impious towards the Lord. Indeed, the impiety
is said to be comparatively beyond ( as comparative preposition)
any other nation and kingdom placing the transgression and impiety
of the nation in an international context which resultantly shames the
elect nation for their wickedness. The nation of Israel who was made
elect for the sake of projecting Gods saving purposes to the nations,
has simply become another one of the nations. Even worse, Israel has
even exceeded the other nations in their disobedience and perversity
(see Kgs :/Chron :). The result is imminent as it is unavoidable:
judgment, seen in the phrase the words of the Lord rose up against
Israel ( )).
B (and L) varies only slightly from RH with the reading
instead of q in :. The noun q means
a capacity to be effected by external stimuli or an ability to discern something
(BDAG, ). It could relate to the degree of the grieving God (NRSV deeply,
NETS conspicuously, ESVA perceptibly, Cook exceedingly) or the manner
in which they grieved him (intentionally as a translation of ). It is hard to
explain the absence of q apart from a desire to lessen the effect of Israels
sin upon God.

:. The Death of Iosias and the Premature End to the Reforms


Esdras returns to the source material from Chronicles (:)
which itself is an expansion of Kgs :. The narrative takes on a
tragic and even dark note by shifting immediately to the demise of Iosias.
The attempt of Iosias to intercept Pharoah Neco II at Meggido ca. bce
was unsuccessful and the reason provided is that Iosias ignored the warning of Neco (vv. ) and the words of the prophet Ieremias (v. ).
In contrast to his earlier piety (vv. ), Iosias becomes rash and
foolish and his disobedience is emphasized (vv. ). Iosias is mortally wounded in battle, subsequently buried, and nationally mourned.
Ieremias offers a eulogy for him and his remembrance becomes an
enacted tradition in Israels religious history. Despite being, much like
Davidides before him, a bad finisher, Iosias is still extolled for his actions
and qualities. Overall, the success of his reign becomes a false crest in the
ascent towards national restoration as the anger of the Lord prepares to
descend upon the people. The end of Iosiass reign means that the process
leading towards exile begins to advance more quickly.
The deeds of Iosias ( ) refers to the Passover just described, but a contrast is made as to what he did in the renewal of

commentary

the cultus with how he unsuccessfully set out against Pharoah Neco.
The reason for Iosiass attempted intervention is at one level hard to
understand since he was obviously fighting a superior force. Neco was en
route to reinforce this Assyrian ally against the Babylonians and Medes
(Josephus Ant. .; not to fight against Assyria contra Kgs :).
The Egyptians garrisoned forces at Carchemish on the Euphrates, which
resisted the Babylonians until bce. The Babylonian Chronicle refers
to Egyptians crossing and then retreating back across the Euphrates after
a failed campaign. Perhaps Iosiass strategy was premised on the idea
that Babylon would be a more amicable regional power than Assyria
and Iosias boldly endeavoured to interdict or at least delay the arrival
of the Egytpian aid. Myers supposes that Iosias may have altered Necos
timetable to such an extent that the Assyrians failed in their attempt to
retake Haran, the capital of Assyria after the fall of Nineveh (Myers :
).
Unlike Chron :, Iosias does not disguise himself for battle.
The omission is deliberate perhaps because disguising oneself implied
deception or cowardice and was unfitting of Iosias. Though more likely
the omission is made to disassociate Iosias from the wicked Israelite
King Ahab who also disguised himself for battle against Aram in Chron
:/Kgs :. The agreement between Ahab (an impious king) and
Iosias (a pious king) may have been too much for the author and Iosias
was consequently de-Ahabized by not making him disguise himself for
battle. This separates the character of the noble Iosias from the actions
of the wicked Ahab (van der Kooij : ).
In any case, Iosias is twiced warned not to proceed into battle. First,
Neco sends a message to the effect that my beef is not with you (note
the idiomatic [see Mark :; Luke :; John :],
based on a semitic idiom [e.g., Jdgs :; Sam :]). Neco considers
himself as sent by the Lord and the Lord is with me and urging
me on (vv. ). Thus by opposing Pharoah, Iosias is resisting the
very Lord that he is supposed to serve. Second, neither does Iosias heed
the words of the prophet Ieremias from the mouth of the Lord (v. ).
Unlike Chron. :, Iosias does not disobey the words of Neco from
the mouth of the Lord. Instead he does not heed the words of the
prophet Ieremias from the mouth of the Lord (v. ). It could be the
case that the original authors of Esdras changed Neco to Ieremias due
to the disturbing reference to Gods words to a foreign king (Talshir
: ). That is perhaps so, but there may be a more specific echo
of Ieremiass prophecy of the defeat of Pharoah Neco at Carchemish

commentary

by king Nebuchadnezzar of Babylon (Jer :). According to van


der Kooij (: ): The passage means that if Josiah had listened
well to these words, he would have been reminded of the words of the
prophecy, and if he had realized this and had paid heed to that oracle
of Jeremiah he would not have waged war with the king of Egypt. By
adding a warning from Ieremias, the author emphasizes the guilt of
Iosias. Iosiass error was not simply his inability to recognize Gods hand
in the campaign waged by Pharoah Neco (Coggins & Knibb : ),
but a genuine disobedience to the prophetic word (see the ambivalent
remarks about Iosias in Jer :). The Babylonian force that Iosias
sides with will be the same one that eventually wreaks terror and sacrilege
on Judah.
Iosiass response to Neco and Ieremias is summarily stated (vv. ):
Iosias did not turn himself back to his chariot, but undertook to battle
with him; not heeding the words of the prophet Ieremias from the mouth
of the Lord. To the contrary, he joined battle with him in the plain of
Mataaddao ( :

:
). The negation of the verbs and

underscore the recalcitrance of Iosias in the matter by neither turning


nor heeding the warnings and admonitions. The location Mataaddao
(= Meggido) was an ancient city of the Canaanites and lay within the
territory of Isaachar, but was one of the cities assigned to Manasseh
(Josh :; Chron :). It was included in one of the distrincts of
Solomons kingdom (Kgs :). In the aftermath of Iosiass defeat, The
mourning of Hadadrimmon in the valley of Megiddon (Zech :)
became a poetic expression for the deepest and most despairing of
griefs.
King Iosias is wounded in the engagement (by archers in Chron
:) and is removed from the field of battle (though in Kgs :
he dies at Meggido). Upon returning to Jerusalem it is said, he departed
this life and was buried in the tomb of his ancestors or more literally
that he exchanged his life ( ). This results
in a period of mourning for Iosias by the people corporately and by
Ieremias specifically who composes a dirge in Iosiass honour (see Jer
:). The mourning is said to continue as a national memorial
with the statement and this has become a tradition for all the race of
Israel always to perform (v. ). It does not make sense to think of this
as an event that should always be done (NRSV, ESVA) unless some

commentary

kind of repeated memorial is implied. The verb is probably not


meant in the sense of lease or hire (e.g., Matt :), but in the more
general sense of with a tradition (CEB) or custom (NEB) that
is handed on between generations (NETS). This includes some form of
annual memorial for the remembrance of Iosias like an annual reading of
his deeds and/or a reading from portions of Lamentations (see Chron
:). That is confirmed by Josephus (Ant. .) who refers to a eulogy
composed by Ieremias which is extant to this time also (
).
The death of Iosias is ameliorated somewhat by the concluding remarks about his reign. His place among the book of the kings of Israel
and Judea (while Chron : adds that the laments for Iosias were
recorded in the Laments) is secured because Iosias stood out by virtue
of the performed acts of Iosias, his splendor, his understanding of
the law of the Lord, and the things done by him previously, and these
things that are now told (:). The mention of his splendour (
) and his understanding of the law (
) underscores that Iosias was as close as Israel and Judah came to
rehearsing the reign of Solomon and David.
In B the scribe or corrector had to make a correction in : with {}q having initially written oq. Bs is one of several
variants for which is a translation of . As elsewhere in B (e.g.,
:; :) there is a preference for over at :.

:. The Wicked Kings of Judah


Attention turns to the post-Iosias era and the final four kings of the
southern kingdom. The account once more follows the source Chronicles (:) relatively closely and presents an incremental advance in
the wickedness of the Judean kings. The order runs Iechonias, Ioakeim,
Ioakeim2 (= Iehoiachin), and climaxing in Sedekias. The kings who
were meant to be shepherds of the people and guardians of the cultus,
degenerate into evil despots that do not know God like Iosias did. This
in turn prepares the way for the author to indict also the priests and the
people for their impiety and lawlessness as well. It takes a corporate effort
of rulers, priests, and the people to bring the course of judgment to full
measure. There is also an emphasis on the pillaging of the sacred vessels
of the temple by Nabouchodnosor (:, ) which looks ahead to the
return of the sacred vessels and the rebuilding of the temple under Ezras
and Zorobabel.

commentary

Upon the death of Iosias the leaders of the nation, that is the land
owners and Judean aristocracy (people of the land in Chron :),
appointed his son Iechonias as king in place of his father (:). Iechonias is elsewhere called Jehoahaz (Kgs :; Chron :) and
Shallum (Jer :). His reign has no negative comment placed upon it
unlike the monarchs that follow. Pharoah Neco removed Iechonias from
the Judean throne and took him to Egypt where he presumably died (Jer
:). There was also a punitive tribute ( literally suffered
loss) as a penalty for the appointment. Neco installed in his stead Iosiass
elder son Eliakim and changed his name to Ioakeim ().
The events described : create a highly bizarre situation (Talshir : ). It seems that the author has misunderstood Chron
:, about Ioakeim in three ways. First, when he says that Ioakeim
seized his brother Zarios [and] he took him from Egypt (:) he
gets the name wrong. He probably means Sedekias or Zedekiah since
the name Zarios () appears to have emerged from an orthographic corruption caused through confusing the letters and (the
Hebrew for Sedekias/Zedekiah is ). The confusion was increased
by the fact that Ioakeim and Ioakeim2 both had brothers with the name
Sedekias/Zedekiah (see Chron :). Second, the Zarios/Sedekias
referred to is drawn from Chron :, yet he was the brother of
Ioakeim2 (= Jehoiachin, 2) not the elder Ioakeim. Third, it was
Neco who took Iechonias/Jehoahaz to Egypt and no-one brought him
from Egypt back to Jerusalem. The L-text offers a more plausible narration in its reading:
([Neco] bound the
leading men and Ioakeims brother Zares [Sedekias?] was arrested and
led to Egypt); but the literary effort to bring clarity to confusion makes
it obviously secondary to B.
The first task Ioakeim went about was to bind or imprison the nobles
(v. ). Talshir (: ) finds this action decidedly strange and wonders if the author of Esd [is] thinking in terms of a coup d tat?
It probably is along these lines that the author of Esdras is thinking
and Ioakeim arrests the nobles who supported Iechonias/Jehoahaz and
brings his own brother up from Egypt to lend him support (which is
either a misreading of Chron : or else sheer imagination). It is
said of Ioakeim that he did what was evil before the Lord (:) and
his impurity and impiety have been recorded in the book of the times
of the kings (:). In Ioakeim is the beginning of the downward spiral in the religious qualties of the kings. Implied but not stated is that

commentary

during this period there was a geopolitical transition from Judahs status
as a vassal of Egypt to being a vassal of Babylon (see Williamson :
). Ioakeim was subsequently deposed by Nabouchodnosar and taken
into exile in Babylon with a bronze chain (:).
When Ioakeim () was deposed his son Ioakeim2 (2) or
Jehoiachin reigned in his place (:). The age of Ioakeim2 at the start
of his reign is a matter of textual and historical confusion. It is reported
in Esd : (B) that he was eight years old when his reign began
which follows Chron :, but Kgs : has him at eighteen. The
textual contradiction followed itself into the textual witnesses of Esd
: with B and its family of texts omiting , but other manuscripts
reading (see full apparatus in Hanhart a: ). Most
English translations read eighteen (Cook; NRSV; ESVA; CEB; NEB;
NETS) which is correct and makes better sense of the description of
Ioakeim2 that he did what was evil before the Lord (:). Ioakeim2 was
also deposed and deported by Nabouchodnosor continuing the cycle of
appointment, sin, and deposition by a foreign power (:).
The fourth and final king of Judah was Sedekias. More material is given
to describe the reign of Sedekias than those listed before him. His reign
marks a climax in the evil of the Judean kings that follow after Iosias. Like
others before him (vv. , ), he did evil before the Lord but beyond
them he did not honour the words from the Lord uttered by Ieremias
the prophet from the mouth of the Lord (v. ). The reference to
Ieremias whose words came from the mouth of the Lord recapitulates
the same sin of Iosias who also spurned the words from the mouth of
the Lord (v. ). The description of Sedekias disloyalty and impiety is
emphasized at length in violating his oath to king Nabouchodnosor
and how he rebelled and he hardened his neck and his heart and he
transgressesed the laws of the Lord (v. ). The participles
(swearing falsely) (hardening) relates back to the oath
that he violated ( literally withdraws from). The offence is
treated as a transgression of the law ( occurring only here at
v. , while is used elsewhere esp. in Esdras ). The hardness
of neck is prominent in Ieremiass condemnation of his contemporaries
and it typifies Sedekias (e.g., Jer :; :; :). Chronicles (:)
and Esdras (:), both highlight Sedekiass refusal to submit to the
word of the Lord. The phrase Lord God of Israel ( q ))
reappears again (:, :, , ; :) and is a favourite term of the author.
Sedekias becomes the quintessential model of the unrighteous king and
is much like a post-Iosias Manasseh.

commentary

The capture of Jerusalem by the Babylonians is passed over in relative


silence and without comment (Coggins & Knibb : ). The focus
falls on the gradual decline in the spiritual state of the monarchy and
the concomitant effect of divine judgment. As the kings of Judah fail to
emulate the piety of Iosias, the nation and the temple become plunder
for Egypt and then Babylon.
The major textual variant in this section is, as discussed above, the omission
of from B in :, probably because it follows Chron : very closely
and subsequent translators recognized the contradiction with Kgs :. The
inconsistency is maintained throughout in B, while RH consistently render his
age as eighteen in all accounts. Retension of this error underscores the primitive form of B over later texts that sought to iron out any inconsistencies in the
accounts. Hanhart (a: ) prefers attested singularly by B, over
(V) and (A) with the latter agreeing with Chron :. I concur on the grounds that cannot be a correction whereas et al.
probably is. The only other significant feature is that in : B reads )
instead of ) which is found in A. The designation Judah and Jerusalem
is common in the OT and may be original (e.g., Chron :; Isa :; Joel
:; Mal :). The preference for ) is perhaps due to influence from the
description of YHWH as the q ) throughout Esdras (see
above). Finally, in : the corrector has amended into .

:. The Wickedness of Judah and the Punishment of God


This section is closely linked to what precedes it and many commentators
and translators link Sedekiass reign with the description of the wickedness of the Judean people (see paragraphing of NRSV; ESVA; NETS).
Along with the NEB and CEB, I prefer to see a new section here shifting
from the wickedness of the kings to that of the nobility and the people in
general. Whereas Chron : is confined to the last kings of Judah,
in Esd : the narrative is broadened to reflect the entire history
of Judah (Talshir : ). Esd : catalogues the wickedness of
the leaders, priests, and people, the mocking of prophecy, and the desecration of the temple. It then describes the violent judgment that came
upon the nation corporately as a result of their transgression. The sin of
the inhabitants of Jerusalem is played up at several points (esp. vv. )
from the source text. Both priesthood and prophecy are treated with contempt by the populace and consequently the Jeremian judgement oracles
come to pass. The perspective drawn here is exactly as Williamson (:
) describes: With the passage of time, history becomes more rigidly
black and white, and the author wants to present in the starkest form

commentary

how low the nation had sunk in order that in the remainder of his
work this might more effectively point up the contrast with the steady
unraveling of the work of restoration of all that is here described as long.
A ray of hope does emerge at the very end of narrative in vv. as
the author looks ahead to the reign of the Persians over Palestine which
will mark the commencement of the period of restoration. Similarly, the
exile is depicted as a kind of Sabbath for the land that is necessary though
temporary.
After the account of Sedekiass demise, the author proceeds to describe
the complicity of the people in a sway of national wickedness (vv.
). Attention is given to the leaders of the people and the priests
whose deeds are described by the verbs (to be impious) and
(to act lawlessly). Indeed, the actions of these leaders is said
to exceed all the impure acts of the nations. The language here of
impiety and sinning beyond that of the nations is reminiscient of :
where those in ancient times sinned and acted impiously more than
any other nation. Yet in v. the description of national wickedness
become more acute as they now include the allegation that they defiled
the temple of the Lord that had been consecrated in Jerusalem ( )). As Ezekiel
makes clear, the cultic reforms of Iosias did not last long. What God
makes holy the people (even the priests) have made profane by their
impious acts. The divine response to this defilement and degradation
is mercy insofar as The God of their ancestors sent his messenger to
call them, because he was trying to spare them and his dwelling place
( q q )
stated in v. . The God of their ancestors is obviously the God of the
patriarchs who elected Israel as his people. God sends them a messenger () in the distinct singular probably implying Ieremias (note
the plural below in v. , but against Talshir [: ] this is
not necessarily a mistake as the author places Ieremias in the broader
horizon of Israels and Judahs prophetic history). This prophetic messenger is commissioned to call the people to repentance and covenant
righteousness. The verb with the prepositional intensifier
means to call to another place (L&S, ). The prophet specifically utters his pronouncement in order to spare them and his dwelling
place from judgment. It is possible to avoid a cataclysmic judgment,
though the prospects do not seem hopeful in light of previous history
and current events. The temple is evidently a key concern of the author

commentary

here as its defilement and destruction are noted. This may relate to
issues in the authors own day about the restoration of the temple from
the time of its destruction (see Myers : ). The response of the
people to the prophetic messenger is interpreted generally against the
backdrop of Judahs longstanding rejection of the prophets hence the
switch to plural forms for the messengers in v. ( and ). The people mocked () the messengers and scoffed
() at the prophets and thus invited recompense upon themselves. The rejection of the specific messenger Ieremias is indicative of the
rejection of all the prophets before him. Whereas God initially intended
to spare them, now in his rage and because of their impious acts
he commands the Chaldeans to be brought against them.
was known since the times of Herodotus to designate the inhabitants of
Chaldea and it was the place of Abrams origins (Gen :, ; :).
While Nabouchodnosor has already been identified in the narrative,
the kings of the Chaldeans are named here as the divinely appointed
destroyers of Judah and Jerusalem of whom Nabouchodnosor is only
one.
Attention turns to the havoc and destruction wrought by the Chaldean
kings on Judah including the massacre of the population and the razing
of the Jerusalem temple (vv. a). The Chaldeans kill Judeans in the
preccints of the holy temple. Their slaughter knows no discrimination
as young man or young woman or old man, or child are not spared in
the relentless carnage. The reason for this is that God (the implied subject
of ) delivered them into their hands as a means of judgment.
The picture is a rather vivid one of the ruinous violence of warfare in the
ancient near east where whole populations could be destroyed or else
enslaved and forcibly removed from their lands.
In what follows the author focuses on the fall of the temple. A description is given of the looting of the sacred vessels of the Lord, great and
small, the treasure chest of the Lord which are carried off to Babylon (v. ). This is the third time that the plundering of the temple by
the Babylonians has been reported with earlier descriptions given during the time of (v. ) and 2 (v. ). Then, somewhat
climatically, the house of the Lord is burned down and the walls of
Jerusalem destroyed with fire (
) ). After that, in an ominous tone, it is reported that they

finished ruining and rendering useless all of its splendour in v. (see


NRSV, ESVA utterly destroyed all of its glorious things). The holy city is

commentary

reduced to rubble, the temple is desecrated and destroyed, and the glory
of the Davidic kings that temporarily resurged with Iosias is finally extinguished.
The aftermath of the destruction is recounted in vv. b and the
servitude of the populace to the Chaldeans is underscored. At the same
time the first notes of hope for restoration begin to appear as well with
the mention of the Persians and the fulfillment of Ieremiass oracle about
a Sabbath for the land. The survivors () are led away with
the sword (i.e., by force) to Babylon where they exist as servants to
him and to his sons (i.e., to Nabouchodnosor). The duration is to be
for seventy-years, a number full of significance for Ieremias (Jer :
). The symbolic richness of the number seventy is maintained in Zech
:; : and reinterpreted in Dan :, as seventy weeks of years.
Torrey (: ) says that the real interval between the Babylonian
sacking of Jerusalem ( bce) and the Persian victory over Babylon
accompanied by Cyruss decree ( bce) was only forty-nine years so
that the seventy years is not a real computation of time. Yet this period
extends only until the time of the Persians (). In the Persian
and Macedonian periods to persianize was the opposite of
to hellenize and the two dynasties and cultures competed
with one another for a number of centuries. It may be that at the time of
the Aramaic Vorlage of Esdras, Israel was still under Persian hegemony.
The arrival of the Persian empire which conquered the Babylonians
is regarded as the fulfillment of Ieremiass prophecy that, Until the
land takes pleasure in its sabbaths, all the time of its desolation it shall
sabbatize until the fulfilment of seventy years (

[v. ]). The precise

wording is probably a conflation of Jer :, :, and Lev :


and the point is that though the exile was a cathartic necessity, as the
Law and Prophets say, it would not be the end of the nation (Myers :
). The subject of the verb (to take pleasure) is probably
(land, earth, ground) and represents the land taking pleasure in
its own Sabbath. However, it is equally possible that there is an ellipsis
and God is the implied subject of just as he is the implied
subject of in v. (for a similar use of with an
equally ambiguous subject of the verb see Col :). This would imply
that God takes pleasure in the land during the time of its sabbatical which
is a time of freedom from transgression. During the time of desolation
( connoting also devastation and depopulation [BDAG, ;

commentary

GELS, ]) the land is said to sabbatize. The verb is rare


(see in the LXX, Exod :; Lev :; :; Chron :; Macc
:) and it means to keep the Sabbath or to rest on the Sabbath (GELS,
). Talshir thinks that underlying is the Aramaic noun
with the idea of repayment that would imply a translation of until the
land paid back its Sabbaths (Talshir : ). That is quite possible, but
as always, still speculative. It is perhaps because the people had not made
provision for observing the Sabbath in the pre-exilic period that rest for
the land was provided by the exile (Klein : ). The chief point is
that the land is laid waste exactly as Ieremias prophesied, but the land
also enjoys a rest during the time of desolation which will last seventyyears associated with the term of exile.
At two places B uses ) for Jerusalem (:, ) whereas different
nouns are found in RH drawn from A that imply the inhabitants of Jerusalem
and not just the place () and )). In : the original
scribe of B made the person who sent his messenger to the Israelites
and this was rightly changed by a corrector to q. The corrector has also
amended to in :.

The Decree of Cyrus and the


Beginning of the Return to Judah (:)
The perspective of Esdras changes suddenly as the reader is projected
into the Persian period. This becomes apparent with the description of
the decree of Cyrus that permited the peoples exiled by the Babylonians
to return to their native lands. The author turns now from Chronicles
to Ezra in his sources and omits any mention of the overlapping period
between the end of Chronicles and the beginning of Ezra. The author
connects the late monarchic, exilic, and restoration periods together so
as to emphasize the continuity between the two temples (Williamson
: ). Indeed, the history of Judah is highly compressed, almost
telescoped in the narration. The disruption of the exile is not denied, but
relativized, as the narrative quickly accelerates into the time of restoration in fulfilment of Ieremiass prophecy about the seventy-years of exile.
It is in this account of restoration, including its challenges and set backs,
that the interests of the author are to be found. It is in the sequence of
exile and restoration that the author discerns the purposes of God for
the Judean nation.
The rise and fall of Iosias and the sacking of Jerusalem by the Babylonians furnished a pessimistic and bleak picture for the nation up to

commentary

this point. However, even the final verses of Esdras (vv. )


finished with a glimmer of hope as the exile was temporary and would
serve in fact to preserve a remnant of the nation. That hope begins to
bloom in full as the Persian conquest of Babylon enables the exiles to
return to Jerusalem and to start rebuilding the temple. Esdras records
the decree of Cyrus to rebuild the temple in Jerusalem and his permission
for the exiles to return to Judah (:). Then it is recorded as to how
many of the exiles were roused to undertake such a journey, how they
were suitably equipped for their travel with many gifts, and how they
took back with them the sacred vessels of the temple that were seized by
Nabouchodosor (:). That in turn sets the scene for the opposition
to the rebuilding of the temple by the regional inhabitants that follows
afterwards (:).
:. The Decree
The setting in the book shifts from the destruction of Judea to the Persian
conquest of Babylon and Cyruss policy of permitting exiles to return
to their native territories (see other accounts of the decree in Esd
:; Chron :; Ezra :; :; Josephus, Ant. .). A
temporal transition is indicated by the Gentive Absolute
, providing an independent clause to mark the new
period (see Porter : ). The clause is constructed so in order
to signal important prior background information for the following
narrative and to describe the accompanying circumstances to Cyruss
decree (Fuller ). The decree that Cyrus makes portrays him as an
agent of Israels God who is commissioned to rebuild the temple as their
God has made him Lord of the inhabitable world. As such, the Judean
exiles are invited to embark on a journey back to Jerusalem to participate
in this rebuilding project. Under imperial sponsorship they are equipped
with appropriate provisions and lavish gifts for their journey.
Cyrus became king of Anshan in bce and he succeeded in defeating both the Median, Lydian, and Babylonian forces by bce. Thus,
the first year of Cyruss reign is bce when Cyruss rule over Babylon and Mesopotmia began. It is stated that his reign began in order
that the word of the Lord by the mouth of Ieremias might be fulfilled
and the reference is obviously to the prediction by Ieremias of the end of
exile after seventy-years (Jer :, For thus says the Lord: Only when
Babylons seventy years are completed will I visit you, and I will fulfill to
you my promise and bring you back to this place). The problem being of

commentary

course that if the exile began ca. bce it is only years until bce.
Alternatively, it is possible that the seventy-years were thought to extend
to the completion of the temple in bce. There again, perhaps seventy is a round number approximating to a single lifetime. Or else the
prophecy of Ieremias includes the period of Babylons domination of the
east from ca. bce with the fall of Nineveh in bce with the surrender of Babylon. Either way the seventy years is an approximation of
somekind (see Fensham : ).
Although Cyrus is the principal actor he is ultimately an agent of a
higher power for effecting Judahs restoration (vv. ). It is said that
Lord aroused the spirit of Cyrus ( ).
This has the effect of making Israels God the final cause of Cyruss
decree and his benevolence towards the Judean exiles. This Lord is not a
territorial deity limited to one geographical point, but he is the Lord over
Persia and Babylon as well. This Lord can inspire foreign kings to do his
will as the God of Judah and Israel is the Lord of the nations. Accolades
are bestowed upon Cyrus in Isa : where Cyrus is his [i.e., the Lords]
annointed and he is called to subdue kings and perform other tasks
for the sake of my servant Jacob, and Israel my chosen (Isa :). It
may be precisely because Cyrus allowed the rebuilding of the temple that
he is called annointed () since it is the role of an anointed king to
build a temple for the Lord (see Sam :).
Building new temples was only to be undertaken with divine consent
as approved by religious intermediaries like priests and seers. Josephus
speculates that Cyrus was prompted to rebuild the temple by the oracles
of Isaiah (Ant. .) which Clines (: ) thinks possible since
some of Cyruss highest officials were Jews. Jewish officials in the Perian
administrative apparatus may have interceded on behalf of the nation,
but it is impossible to say if any of the prophetic literature, Isaiah or
Jeremiah, specifically influenced Cyruss decision (see Myers : ).
It is asserted that the Lord aroused (Cook; NETS, NRSV, ESVA
stirred; NEB moved) Cyrus to have an edict proclaimed and put
into writing (found in two versions in Ezra: one in Hebrew [Ezra :]
and one in Aramaic [Ezra :], and see also Chron :. On the
differences between the Hebrew and Aramaic edicts see the summary
in Clines : . Myers : suggests that they are not variants of
the same document, but independent documents dealing with the same
official act). The image is that of heralds being despatched to announce
news to Judean communities and it is then formally documented as proof
of the proclamation (see Chron :; Ezra :; Neh :). The opening

commentary

formula (lit. there it is saying) was common in prophetic


words from the Lord (e.g., Exod :; Sam :; Amos :; Acts :;
Rev :, , , ; :, , ) and in ancient near eastern royal decrees as
prefaces to authoritative and binding speech (e.g., Kgs :; Jdt :). In
Koine Greek it was obsolete and archaic, rather like, Thus saith, from
the Elizabethan period. For instance, ) (Thus saith,
Ammon [Plato, Alc. .b) introduces an oracle from Zeus/Ammon.
The expression has an antique yet authoritative ring about it (see Aune
: , ).
The divine power commissioning Cyrus is designated as The Lord of
Israel, the Most High Lord ( ) )
which indicates the majesty of Israels national deity. The adjective most high signifies not Cyruss assent to Jewish monotheism, but
was a common honorific description for gods in the ancient east. Such
language could often render the lines between henotheism and monotheism somewhat malleable and plastic as they could be used of monotheists
and polytheists alike. The designation was particularly common in Hellenistic Judaism (e.g., Jdt :; Wisd :; :; and esp. Sir :; :,
; :, , etc.) and it occurs later in Esdras (:; :, ; :). The
Most High God is a more Hellenized and religiously ambiguous title
of praise compared to Ezra : which refers to the God of heaven (
).
Esdras plays up Cyruss role in acting on behalf of God more than
what Ezra : does (Talshir : ). Cyruss edict involved (a) recognition that Israels God had appointed him (, see Esd :
for the appointment of judges) king of the inhabited world (
suggests the world as an administrative theatre of an international military power); and (b) that he had been designated () to build
a house for him in Jerusalem. The mention of king of the inhabited
world is more than politically charged rhetoric as the Persian kingdom
stretched from the Indus River to the Mediterranean and touched three
continents (Asia, Europe, Africa). The Cyrus cylinder records Cyruss
political self-representation of himself: I am Cyrus, king of the world,
great king, legitimate king, king of Babylon, king of Sumer and Akkadia of the four rims (of the earth) (ANET ). The master of the
largest empire of the ancient east is aroused, appointed, and designated
in the service of the Judean God. This act was not unique to the Judean
diaspora living in Babylon as other exiled peoples were also allowed to
return to their lands and the sacred vessels returned to shrines and sanctuaries. To cite the Cyrus cylinder again: I returned to (these) sacred

commentary

cites on the other side of the Tigris, the sanctuaries of which have been
in ruins for a long time, the images which (used) to live therein and
established for them permanent sanctuaries, I (also) gathered all their
(former) inhabitants and returned (to them) their habitations (ANET
). Still, Cyruss decree was interpreted in Jewish literature as a fulfillment of the prophetic promises about the end of exile and in the very
least a sign of divine providence in favor of the Judean people.
The second element of Cyruss decree is that the exiles are encouraged
to return to Jerusalem in order to carry out this rebuilding project
(vv. :). The interrogative is permissive rather than conditional
and may be fittingly rendered, Since, therefore, some of you belong to
his nation, affirming that the exiles belong to God rather than asking
after it, or setting a condition for their return. The sentence is dominated
by the imperative verbs be () and rebuild () and
directs the actions of the returning exiles towards restorations (see Porter
: ). The decree assumes that Jerusalem is the special residence
of Judahs God, but also that this God has a special presence among
his people. Wherever the exiles are dwelling they are asked to be a
help to him. It is unclear who the personal pronoun refers
to as the one requiring help. It could be either for the Lord (CEB)
or those who choose to go up to Jerusalem (NRSV) that assistance
is requested for. Most likely, it is the former as the focus is on doing
things for the Lord and that is achieved instrumentally by returning
to Judea and contributing provisions for those who are undertaking
the sojourn. Several gifts are suggested such as gold with silver, with
gifts of horses and cattle. Found also is the first reference to votive
offerings () which occurs throughout (see Esd :; :, ; :;
:).
In accordance with Persian policy, Cyrus permited the exiles to return
to Judea from Babylon in order to rebuild the temple of the Lord. Cyrus
is portrayed as a servant of Israels Lord summoned to do this restoration
work. This would be naturally perceived from one angle as evidence
of Gods providential ordering of human history by using kings to do
his bidding. But from another perspective, the Lord is invoked as the
legitimator of the Persian Empire with Cyrus mediating and distributing
the saving acts of the Lord to the people. The decree was less about
Cyruss religious devotion and more about Persian propaganda than
anything else. It was an act of genuine polytheistic piety insofar as it
sought the favor of the territorial gods in the territories that Cyrus
governed over. Cyruss polytheism recognized the existence of other gods

commentary

and to some degree revered them, but these were subordinate to the
supreme gods Bel and Nebo: May all the gods who I have resettled
in their sacrted cities ask daily Bel and Nebo for a long life for me
and may they recommend me (to him) (ANET ). For Hellenistic
Jews who lived under the Seleucid empire reading this decree might
be reminiscient of the actions undertaken by Antiochus III (ca.
bce) who settled some two thousand Jewish families from Babylon
and Mesopotamia in the region of Lydia and Phrygia (Ant. .,
).
Overall, the decree of Cyrus indicates Gods superintending of a foreign king for the purpose of securing favor and good will towards those
of his nation. The decree is given its first mention at :, but it is
rehearsed again in compressed form at Esd :. This pragmatic
release of subjugated peoples by the Persians is seen as a fulfillment of
the prophetic word of the Lord given to Ieremias. Jewish and Christian
readers of Esdras might have conceivably read here a scriptural precedent for socio-political realities that were familiar to them. The Lord
directs the hearts of kings like a watercourse (Prov :) and so transforms the estate of his people under the reign of kings from Antiochus
Epiphanus IV to Julius Caesar or from Nero to Constantine.
Few textual problems affect this pericope. B omits the preposition in : as it
often does when followed by a dative noun. Hanhart (b: ) thinks that
the B and L texts added a conjuctive in : because it was mistaken for
a counterpart of the following . The corrector has inserted an epsilon
to amend the text to q{}(). In : we find the only point in the
document where the scribe fails to render for YHWH with the nomina
sacrum .

:. The Response to the Decree


Following the decree of : is the reception of the decree among the
Judean exiles and the Persian sanction of the return of the sacred vessels
to the temple in Jerusalem. Whereas the continuity between the first and
second temples had been made in literature before Esdras, the current
presentation accentuates the continuity between the two monuments.
The continuity of this order effectively relativizes the interruption of the
exile as seen in the advent of the prophetic word (v. ) and the return of
the vessels of the temple which receive even stronger emphases (vv.
). It results in a bold presentation (Williamson : ) that marks
the undoing of the exile and narrates the gracious benefaction lavished
upon the exiles by a Persian monarch.

commentary

The response of the exiles to the decree, of both their leadership and
the general populace, is depicted as being entirely positive and highly
enthusiastic. Three groups are mentioned as being stimulated by the
decree. First, the tribal heads of the ancestral houses of Judah and
Benjamin understood as the family and clan chiefs of the Judean exiles.
Second, the priests and the Levites denoting the religious apparatus,
albeit a non-functioning one dislocated from the temple while they are
in Babylon. Third, more generally, all whose spirit the Lord stirred up
to go up to build a house for the Lord in Jerusalem (

)). Whereas the Lord stirred up the spirit of King Cyrus

to make the decree (v. ), now the the Lord stirs up the spirit of the
people to positively respond to the decree and to go and rebuild the
temple (v. ). This is the only mention of spirit () in Esdras
and Gods Spirit has no particular attention given to it thereafter. The
group who is suitably aroused to return from exile are not acting alone,
but are supported by those in the immediate vicinity ( ).
This group probably signifies Judeans who elected to remain in Babylon
and did not undertake the sojourn, rather than native Babylonians who
are coerced into supporting them. It is unlikely that one should read here
an allusion to the plundering of the Egyptians (Exod :) because
those assisting the returnees are Judean and the gifts are rendered entirely
voluntarily (contra Coggins & Knibb : ). The assistance rendered
by this circle consists of religious gifts for the temple comprising of silver
and gold, practical provisions of horses and cattle for the trip, and
finally a pious gift of votive offerings to be deposited at the temple. All
of the Judean exiles, those returning and those not, contribute in various
ways to the refurbishment of the temple as enabled and lead by their
spirits being prompted by the Lord. The Lord becomes the chief actor
by whom these events are providentially ordered and executed in the
opening scenes of the drama of restoration.
Following on in vv. is an account of the returning of the vessels
to the temple (see Kgs :; :; Chron :, ; Jer :
). King Cyrus undoes what Nabouchodnosar did in looting the Jewish temple. Nabouchodnosar committed not only theft but sacrilege by
depositing the sacred vessels in his idolatrous temple (NRSV, ESVA
temple of idols; NETS idol temple). The sacrilege of the seizure of
the vessels away from the temple was intensified by their placement in a
temple of a pagan god. Cyruss act is not in the order of a conversion
or out of steadfast devotion to the Lord, but simply occurs as a deed

commentary

of cosmpolitan piety and political propaganda in respecting the indigenous god of Syro-Palestine. The transfer of property is narrated as being
delivered to Mithridates the royal treasurer and finally to Samanassaros
the governor of Judea. The later figure is called Sheshbazzar in Ezra.
It is not certain how he relates to Zorobabel who takes a similar role as
governor later on (Steinmann [: ] argues that Zorobabel
was one of the prominent men in the return under Sheshbazzar and succeeded after Sheshbazzar). Most likely, Samanassaros was the first leader
of the exilic community who laid the foundations of the temple (see Ezra
:, ; :). According to Chron :, Samanassaros was a son of
Jehoiachin and he was, as far as we can tell, succeeded by Zorobabel his
nephew. The items returned are listed in detail and the numbers do not
correspond with the numbers given in Ezra :. In Ezra : the
vessels add up to , or , (depending if is taken as ,)
whereas the amount of items is designated as , in Esdras. Most
likely, this is due to a textual corruption that occurred in the revision
of Ezra from Aramaic to Hebrew (see Fensham : ). Esdras
smooths out the anomaly by changing Ezras thirty golden libation
bowls to a thousand and by correctly adding the sum of items as ,
in :, . The vessels are returned with the people of captivity as they
go from Babylon to Jerusalem. The words used here are deliberate and
are meant to highlight the reversal of fortunes and mark the beginning of
restoration. Temple and people go hand in hand and the reconstitution
of the Judean tribes entails the rebuilding of the Jerusalem temple and
the reinstitution of its cultus.
The restoration narrative begins to enter full swing and one detects
the literary effort to depict both a reversal of current circumstances and
a restoration of the Judean kingdom to its former state. The interconnectedness of people and temple is underscored as their purpose in returning
is to rebuild the temple and all their resources are injected into this
endeavour. The return of the exiles and the release of the sacred vessels
occur due to the good will of the Persians towards displaced peoples, and
yet, the real instigator behind the event is the Lord who stirs up hearts to
act in a way that is providentially and positively well-disposed towards
his people.
B has instead of the more widely attested at : (see also :). Whereas
the Hebrew of Ezra has Sheshbazzar () which is translated as by B, other witnesses translate this as (see discussion in
Torrey : ). At :, B abbreviates the numerals as but no other numbers in this section are abbreviated.

commentary
Opposition to the Rebuilding of Jerusalem (:)

The initial joy relating to the return of the exiles to Judea does not last
long before the returnees experience militant opposition from a Samaritan led coalition in the region. The version of the events in Esdras
highlights the false crest to restoration that the Cyrus decree represented
and the failure of prophetic promises to materialize during this period.
The hopes for the Judeans must be oriented towards a deeper future and
rest not in the whim of Persian kings, but in the God who alone can bring
them out of exile.
The author of Esdras significantly rearranges the material from MT
Ezra. To begin with, he passes over Ezra concerning the list of the
returning exiles and the rebuilding of the temple. Both units appear
much later in Esdras and instead the author immediately proceeds
to detail the opposition to the rebuilding of the temple starting with
the correspondence between the Samaritans and Artaxerxes found in
Ezra :. Consciously omitted then is the prelude to the opposition described in Ezra : since it concerns Zorobabel and Zorobabel has not yet entered the narrative fray until after the story of the
three bodyguards in Esdras . In the revised chronology Zorobabel returns to Jerusalem not during the reign of Cyrus (bce)
as in Ezra , but during the reign of Darius (bce) according to
Esdras . Hence the redaction and reorganizaton of the Ezra material
is obviously deliberate. The genealogical record of the returning exiles,
the account of the refurbishment of the temple, and the involvement of
Zorobabel in the rebuilding process are projected to later in the narrative in order to set-up the entrance of Zorobabel. Talshir (: )
perhaps asserts too much when she claims that the reorganisation of
material is entirely due to the desire to introduce Zorobabel after the
story of the bodyguards. More likely, the material is rewritten in light
of accentuating the reconstruction of the temple, especially its foundations (:; cf. : where only the temple is spoken about and not
the rebuilding of the city), and the delay of Zorobabels entrance into the
narrative is subservient to that theme. A further reason for the deviation
is because Ezra is chronologically confusing as it locates between the
reigns of Cyrus and Darius correspondence from the much later period
of Artaxerxes (bce). The Ezra material is arguably arranged thematically rather than chronologically. In any case, the author of Esdras
has attempted to smooth over these perceived conflicts by projecting
Zorobabels appearance from the reign of Cyrus to that of Darius and

commentary

also by several subtle modifications such as omitting reference to the correspondence of Xerxes (Ezra :) and conflating the two letters of Ezra
: in Esd :. Overall, the redaction is meant to underscore that
the reconstruction of the city and especially the rebuilding of the temple
and has not, despite Cyruss decree, proceeded very far. Reference to the
temple is added at particular junctures in Esdras where no such reference occurs in the parallel Ezra accounts (i.e., Ezra :, and Esd
:, ). Thus the scene is set for the arrival of Zorobabel and the ministry of Esras.
The literary purpose of this unit is probably to describe the gathering
storms that accompany the restoration process and the genuine struggle of the exiles to re-establish their social and religious life in Judea.
The continuity between the old and new temples has been reiterated, the
Lords hand was visibly at work in arousing the heart of Cyrus, and stirring the people up to do the restorative work, but it is not plain sailing
thereafter. Gods people remain opposed and oppressed by their neighbours and it sets up the question as to how Israels Lord will yet deliver
them from the threats of those who would prevent them from fulfilling the prophetic hope of restoration. The rebuilding process is stifled
no sooner than it began. What is needed, then, is further intervention
for the Judeans and this of course takes place in the arrival of Ezra and
Zorobabel.
The sequence that unfolds includes the letter to Artaxerxes written
by the Samaritan led coalition (:), the reply of Artaxerxes recognizing the validity of the objection (:), and the cessation of
reconstruction and the looming military threat from Judahs neighbours
(:). The reconstruction process had no sooner begun by royal
decree than it is ended also by royal decree, and so demonstrates the
shakey fortunes of the Judeans under the Persians.
:. The Letter to Artaxerxes
The chronological framework of the narrative shifts from the decree
of Cyrus and its reception among the Judean exiles to a later period
when the exiles have begun returning to Jerusalem and have already
commenced the rebuilding process. The author notably omits any reference to Xerxes from the Ezra material and anachronistically places
the reign of Artaxerxes between that of Cyrus and Darius despite the
fact that Artaxerxes reigned after Darius. Josephus substitutes Cambyses
(bce) for Artaxeres in his version of the correspondence (Ant.

commentary

.). That is chronologically more correct as Cyrus was succeeded


by Cambyses who was himself succeeded by Darius I (bce).
Ezras cluttered and dense opening in Ezra : is transformed in Esd
: into a more structured and succinct account where Hebrew and
Aramaic documents are telescoped together (Talshir : ). As the
story unfolds it is evident that the returnees are experiencing hostility
from the surrounding populace because their reconstructive efforts are
thought to be a threat to the security and prosperity of the inhabitants
around them. Local Samaritan officials object to the rebuilding process
and write a letter to Artaxerxes informing him of the reconstruction
activities. Furthermore, they inform Artaxerxes that Jerusalem has been
a seditious and troublesome city in the past and its leaders have previously opposed both local rulers in adjacent cites and even suzerain
monarchs, as the kings royal records will confirm. The reconstruction
of the city, its walls, and the erection of the temple, in their view, will
provoke further opposition from the Jerusalmites. That will include a
refusal to pay tribute and blockading lines of communication from Persia into Coele-Syria and Phoenicia. Stated this way a negative response
from Artaxerxes would be understandably expected.
Table : List of Persian Kings After the Exile
Cyrus
Cambyses
Smerdis
Darius I
Xerxes
Artaxerxese I

The shift from Cyruss decree to a setting during the reign of Artaxerxes is
abrupt and no information in between is filled in as the story moves from
the decree to the objection of the local Samaritan rulers to the reconstructive process (something akin to Ezra :: is assumed though
not stated). The opposition derives from several key leaders named as
Belemos and Mithridates and Tabellios and Rathumos and Beeltethmos and Samellios (v. ). Among those explicitly identified are only
Samellios who is specified as a scribe () and Rathumos
who is identified as a reporter (). Myers (: ) speculates that, apart from the dubious names of Belemos and Beeltethmos,
the ring leaders probably included Mithridates (the Persian consul in
Samaria), Tabellios (the chief Samartian representative of the people),

commentary

Rathumos (the commanding officer [not scribe]), and Samellios (secretary of the Persian consulate). The persons named are mostly Samaritan
leaders said to be assisted by a clientele of those of their retinue that
support their measures against the resettled Judeans and Jerusalemites.
The council () who collectively sent the letter to Artaxerxes had
some administrative jurisdiction over Coele-Syria and Phoenicia which
is a geographically wide area (v. ). The terms of association here are
very broad and the inclusion of Coele-Syria and Phoenica in addition
to the Samarian officials may indicate that the opposition extended as
far as all of the fifth Persian satrapy (Myers : ). The region was
known simply as that beyond the [Euphrates] river (Ezra :) in Persian terminology and that designated the eastern most province of the
Persian Empire and its most vulnerable flank. Coele-Syria was a name
for the region only in the Greek period. The word meaning hollow and thus Coele-Syria was so named for the valleys and geographical depressions west of the Euphrates River lying east of the Orontes.
Coele-Syria is named with Phoenica fourteen times in Esdras (:,
, ; :; :, , , ; :; :, , ) and was the significant
eastern seaboard of the Persian empire. Phoenicia fell to Macedonian
control after a seven month siege in bce and represented a sigificant
incursion of Greek forces into Persian territory and effectively isolated
the Persian armada. Palestine was strategically significant to the Persian,
Greek, and Roman empires not due to any natural resource in the region,
but because of its significance as a land bridge connecting Egypt and Asia
Minor.
The letter () greets Artaxerxes as the master of the Persian
Empire and proceeds to detail the basis of the complaint against the
Jerusalem reconstruction process (v. ). A significant document is again
described with an adjectival participle ( )
indicating its import. The verb can be used with reference to
making a charge or accusation against someone (L&S, ). Artaxerxes
is addressed as lord king ( ) which was a familiar form
of address for monarchs in the ANE where kingship and divinity were
commonly integrated. It is reported that the Judeans who came up
from you to us have come to Jerusalem and are building that seditious
and evil city, living among its market places and walls, and laying the
foundations for a temple ( )
q )
q
). The reference to the reconstruction of the temple is not

commentary

found in the parallel Ezra account that focuses only on the rebuilding
of the city. In Josephuss version of the events (Ant. .) he refers to
the zeal for the temples rebuilding among the Judeans. In mentioning
these things, the council brings a number of allegedly alarming facts
to the attention of Artaxerxes in order to persuade him to inhibit the
reconstruction of the city (v. ). These warnings include: () A rebuilt
and refortified Jerusalem will not submit tribute and will oppose kings
(v. ); () The royal archives will confirm that Jerusalem had earlier
been a troublesome city for local kings and that the Judeans have set
up blockades in the past (vv. ); and () Consequently, if the city
is rebuilt and if its walls are erected, then the king will no longer have a
secure way of passage into Coelesyria and Phoenicia (v. ). Crucial for
their case is that in order to prevent sedition () the king must
not allow the city to be rebuilt (). The security of the region is
contingent upon Jerusalem remaining desolate. Exactly what rebellions
are intented is difficult to determine. Those of Hezekiah and Zedekiah
(and the Maccabeans and Zealots would emulate this later for diaspora
readers) would obviously come to mind for Jewish audiences. Whether
Persian monarchs would actually hold records of the various rebellions
under Assyrian and Babylonian rule is an open question. Less likely is
the possibility that it refers to rebellions during the time of Xerxes in
bce (see Fensham : ). In any case, the Samaritans play on the
well-known reputation of Jerusalem for rebelling and resisting foreign
overlords and they seek to ensure that the city remain in its decrepit
state. No precise motivation for their action is given, other than obviously
eliminating a potential competitor in the region. Josephus claims (Ant.
.) that they were motivated by greed in their actions against the
Judeans.
The narrative might well strike a chord with Diaspora Jews who experienced occasional pogroms from their Gentile majority neighbours.
Expulsions from cities, riots, and legal discrimination were not infrequent incurrences in cities such Alexandria, Antioch, and Rome in
the second century bc. Syrian soldiers could be exceptionally harsh in
recrimination against the Judeans in Palestine after suffering under Hasmonean hegemony in the region for so long. This included the forced
conversion of neighbouring tribes in Idumean and Iturea. In the first centuries of the Common Era, Christian readers could also identify with the
narrative as they themselves experienced hostility and various forms of
persecution at the hands of local and imperial officials prior to Constantines decree legalizing Christianity.

commentary

The most textually significant features are the differences between B on the
one hand and RH and Gttingen editions on the other hand for the names
stated in :. The names printed in the Gttingen edition of the Septuagint
are conjectural emmandations based on the original Hebrew/Aramaic forms
of Ezra (Talshir : ). For instance, (over ) appearing
in the Gttingen and RH editions is based on a conjecture by J.A. Bewer.
(over q) is a conjecture by C.C. Torrey even though q is
supported by Josephus (Ant. .). (over q) is another
conjecture from Bewer, while (over ) derives again from
Torrey (see Bewer : ; Torrey : cited in Rahlfs a: ). In
many cases, B and A agree on the names or have only minor variations among
them (e.g., both have ; q [B] and q [A]; q [B]
and q [A], as well as [B] and [A]). While I
have no major problem with reasoned eclectisim (see Holmes ), one must
wonder if subjugating the text to the tyranny of Torreys and Bewers conjectural
emmandations is really the best way to (re)construct an original text. That
aside, B may attest to an earlier stage of the text where the author of Esdras
was pioneering the translation and transliteration of Aramaic and Hebrew
names into Greek, whereas other textual witnesses have sought more accurate
translations/transliterations of the names in light of other Greek editions of
the Ezra material (cf. Esd : [LXX]). Clearly some of the names emerge
from a mistaken translation of the Vorlage. For instance, q in Esd
: is mistranslated as a proper name when the original means
commanding officer (Myers : ) or high comissioner (Coggins &
Knibb : ) in Ezra :. Later from Ezra : is mistranslated as
(the reporter) in Esd :. Also, in : may be a
mistranslation of (bise lm) meaning in agreement with (i.e., Artaxerxes
in agreement with Mithredath for Ezra :, rather than being a proper name [see
NJB which omits Bishlam]). The omission of in : is most probably
accidental or perhaps it was left out because the word was superfluous beside
the description of the group as .

:. The Reply of Artaxerxes and the Cessation of Reconstruction


The letter from the Samaritan officials is duely received by Artaxerxes
and he acts immediately upon their warning that Persian holdings in
the region are threatened by a rebuilt Jerusalem. The investigation of the
royal archives reveals that Jerusalem has indeed consistently interfered
with the peace and populace of the region. Consequently Artaxerxes
gives orders to prevent the rebuilding of the city upon at which Rathumos and Samellios take the initiative and lead a cohort of troops to
Jerualem in order to to stop the reconstruction efforts. The cessation
of the rebuilding of the city and the temple is said to have lasted until
the second year of King Darius (ca. bce). The passage confirms that
an interruption of the rebuilding project was due to interference by

commentary

Samaritan leaders, rather than due to indifference within the restoration


community as in Haggai and Zechariah (see Ezra :).
Artaxerxes writes back to the scribal intermediaries of Rathumos,
Beeltethmos, and Samellios and those of Samaria, Syria and Phoenicia
that they represent ( appears here in : for the first time without the geographical prefix and similarly in :, , ; :, ).
In vv. the contents of the letter is recorded and it affirms the substance of the accusation made against the Jerusalemites by the Samaritan
officials. Specifically, that this city from of old has rebelled against kings
( ), the men in
it perpetuate revolts and wars ( q
), strong and harsh kings resided in Jerusalem
lording it over [others] ( ) ), and the monarchs of Jerusalem exacted tribute
from Coelesyria and Phoenicia (
). The strong and harsh kings in question are not nominated
but David, Solomon, Hezekiah, and Iosias would be obvious choices for
Jewish readers to think of. Similar rhetoric might have been used as a
reason for Syrian forces acting against Jerusalem during the Maccabean
crisis (e.g., the words of Demetrius narrated in Macc :, Those of
the Jews who are called Hasideans, whose leader is Judas Maccabeus, are
keeping up war and stirring up sedition, and will not let the kingdom
attain tranquility [see Macc :]).
The course of action that Artaxerxes directs his subjects in Samaria
to undertake as a response ( ) is then stated in vv. . That
includes orders to prevent these men from building the city and taking
advance measures that nothing more be done. This is so that there
would be no further irritation ( as in NJB nuisance, NETS
annoy, ESVA annoyance) to kings. The Judean attempt to build
() the city is matched by Persian orders to prevent it
(). The prevention could have involved either desisting or
else undoing what was already done. Notably, whereas vv. stresses
the objection to both the rebuilding of the temple and the city, v. only
restricts the rebuilding of the city by Artaxerxes. Yet v. concludes that
construction of the temple was halted with immediacy and it is the fate
of the temple rather than the city that appears to be the most unfortunate
result of the intervention against the restoration efforts.
The Samaritans wasted no time in responding to the imperial order
(v. ). Rathumos and Samellios march off in haste into Jerusalem
( )) accompanied by their

commentary

associates as well as cavalry and a contingent of troops. Once in location


they began to prevent those who were building (
). So it is then narrated that constructon of the temple
was stopped until the second year in the reign of Darius. And it is under
Darius that the reader is now prepared for the entrance of Zorobabel.
The precise spelling of the names of the Samaritan protagonists in :, in
B diverge once more from RH much the same as in :. In :, the corrector
amends for in {}.

The Contest of Dariuss Three Bodyguards


and the Introduction of Zorobabel (::)
The story of Dariuss three bodyguards is the longest section of the
book with no parrallel in the Hebrew Bible. Here King Darius hosts
a festive banquet and then retires to his quarters for sleep. His three
bodyguards pass their time by dreaming up a contest about what is the
strongest entity in the world. They let their imaginations run wild in
dreaming further about what kind of prize might await the winner of
such a contest. Taking courage they place their answers under the kings
pillow and anxiously await the kings summons to hear their accounts.
One wrote wine, another king, and the third women and truth.
Darius, arising from his slumber, reads the words and calls for his royal
officials. They join together and Darius questions the bodyguards with
respect to their explanation for their engimatic words. This leads to a
dialogue where the three youths argue for the strength of their respective
entities. In the end, it is the third speaker, identified as Zorobabel, who
triumphs with his discourse on truth. Rather than seek a monetary
reward, Zorobabel reminds Darius of an earlier royal vow to restore
the Jerusalem temple and to rebuild the city of Jerusalem. The king
accordingly grants the request which results in Zorobabels effusion of
praise to God and much rejoicing and merriment among the Judeans.
In Esdras the story of the three bodyguards functions much like
the place of the popsong Dont Cry for Me Argentina in the musical
Evita. Both appear to be slightly intrusive in their immediate context,
they are of a different genre to the materials that envelope them, and
yet they are also the highlights of their respective pieces. You would not
want to see Evita without hearing Dont Cry for Me Argentina and
you would not want to read Esdras if it were not for the story of the
three bodyguards. Indeed, it is no stretch of the imagination to suggest

commentary

that Esdras would not have survived the passage of time or garnered
any interests apart from the short narrative about the philosophical
reflections on that which is most powerful thing by the three bodyguards.
This short narrative may not necessarily be the raison d tre for the
entire work (contra Z. Talshir : ; : ; Sandoval :
), but it constitutes the literary summit of the document and shows
how a wise and pious Judean exile can appear as an exemplar sage at a
pagan court (on the literary typos of the Jew at the court of a royal king
see Wills ). Thus, the author introduces Zorobabel and his Davidic
line into the story of restoration and so connects the rebuilding of the
temple with the reestablishment of the Davidic monarchy. It shows how
Zorobabel, just like Ezra and Nehemiah, was granted permission by a
Persian king to rebuild the homeland of his people and that he earned
this privilege through his individual wisdom (Talshir : ). In light
of this, Klein (: ) rightly states that: Thanks to the story of the
three bodyguards, Zorobabel becomes in Esdras the most important
person of the restoration period.
However, very much unlike the source material in Ezra, the return
under Cyrus changed very little in the fortunes of the Judeans and effectively nothing happens until the reign of Darius according to Esdras.
Yet with the story of the three bodyguards the author begins to unfold
the dramatic events that lead to Judahs inevitable restoration under the
Persians. The dialogue between Zorobabel and Darius in : is a
microcosm of the entire story whereby bold intercession is rewarded
with a gracious concession for Gods exiled people. After this episode the
promises of restoration, after the false starts and set backs, can finally
reach fruition. Williamson (: ) correctly notes: Viewed with
theological hindsight, the restoration is a single act of God in the life
of his people, not a haphazard series of chance events.
The narrative falls between the two worlds of the Semitic east and the
Hellenistic west in regards to its literary form and content. On the one
hand, the story of the wise Jewish sage at the Persian court was a familiar enough literary type. The shape of the story is similar to other Jewish
court-tales from Daniel and Esther and so constitutes a Weisheitsdichtung drafted in the framework of near eastern court history (Vriezen
& Woude : ). Other elements of the story are thoroughly Jewish as well. The prayer of Zorobabel (Esd :) and the rejoicing
in Jerusalem (Esd :) are more or less indicative of Jewish style
prayers and doxologies. The apppeals to the enduring nature of truth,
the affirmation of truths manifold attributes, and the beatitude to the

commentary

God of Truth (:) is likewise very at home in Jewish wisdom traditions (e.g., Ps :; :; :; :, ; Prov :; :; Dan :
[see Torrey : ]). The last speaker, Zorobabel, breaks the rules of
the contest by giving two words not one. This + pattern is a literary
device not unfamiliar to biblical stories for highlighting the last item in
a series as in Amos and Prov : (Williamson : ). The
topics of wine, women, and kings are common subjects of discourse in
Jewish sapiential traditions as well. Crenshaw (: ; : ;
cf. Talshir : ; : ) goes so far as to assert dependence
on Sirach, Qoheleth, and Proverbs by the author of Esdras (esp. Prov
:-- which mentions the women, kings, and wine in close proximity).
On the other hand, Hellenistic themes, forms, and motifs are apparent.
The third speech about women and truth with its references to captivity
to the beauty of a woman (:), going on seafaring raids for her
(:) and the description of the cosmological elements that lack
Gods providential guidance (:) are without concrete parallel in
Jewish tradition (see Zimmerman : , ). No wonder then
that the unit shows signs of influence from Hellenistic topoi. To begin
with, the social location of the debate resembles a symposium, that is,
a banquet or drinking party. Descriptions of the event are found in
works by Plato and Xenophon. They discuss the events that take place
on such a social occasion. The activities in a symposium could be entirely
frivolous and sensual, but sometimes serious and even austere. Though
many symposium were of a rapacious and indulgent nature, intellectual
pursuits could be discussed as indicated by Plato (Sym. e): Very well,
then, said Eryximachus, since it is agreed that we need none of us drink
more than we think is good for us, I also propose that we dispense with
the services of the flute girl who has just come in, and let her go and play
to herself or to the women inside there, whichever she prefers, while we
spend our evening in the discussion of a subject which, if you think fit, I
am prepared to name. While a symposium could be serviced by flute girls
(prostitutes), they could also feature bards (travelling poets) who would
perform songs for the participants, and also symposiasts (performers)
who competed in rhetorical contests. Looking at the narrative of Esdras
, the invited guests to the banquet, the pillows, and the entertaining
contest all appear analogous to a Greek symposium. Darius plays the role
of the symposiarch (symposium leader) and the three youths are the
symposiasts (performers) competing for a prize. In addition, the form
of the various speeches about the virtues of their respective subjects,

commentary

resemble a style of epideictic rhetoric familiar to Greek orators. In an


epideictic discourse the speaker aims to highlight the praiseworthiness
of a particular person, thing, or virtue. The speeches in Esdras
certainly fit that description. The purpose of their speeches was to win
by entertaining the audience, which dovetails with what Quintilian (Inst.
Or. ..) stated about the rhetorical art: When our audience finds
[a speech] a pleasure to listen to, their attention and their readiness
to believe what they hear are both increased. Furthermore, the lavish
language in the speeches is arguably indicative of the Asiatic rather than
Attic or Rhodian styles of rhetoric. Asiatic rhetoric was considered to
be copious, ornamental, verbose, flowery, lingering, and more liable to
linguistic corruption by its critics (Menon : ). Asiatic rhetoric
was criticized by Tacituss Messalla (Dial. .) as an overly labored
effort at winning the crowd and Cicero (Orat. ) dismissed it as full
of excessive modulations and sing-song techniques. In other words, it
was considered theatrical and effeminate. Though we might note that
Goldhill (: ) thinks that there was no actual school of Asiatic
rhetoric and Asiatic was simply a vitriolic label one rhetorician could
apply to another. The performative and poetic nature of the language
might be identified by subsequent readers as Asiatic in style (note the
assonance in Esd : and : as examples).
All in all, the narrative is rather electic in regards to its influences
and form. The generic category of the narrative of the three bodyguards
probably represents an assimilation of various elements including the
classic Persian court-tale, Greek symposia, Jewish prophetic-wisdomrestoration traditions, and additional features drawn from an Asiatic
rhetorical style of epideictic discourse. That eclecticism is probably due
to the provenance of the story in Persian Palestine that was a cross
road of cultural influences from Egypt, Asia, Persia, and the eastern
Mediterranean.
The story of the three bodyguards has been regarded as an interpolation into the work at a later stage of its formation by a Greek redactor
due to the tales generic variance with the rest of Esdras, on account
of its lack of attestation outside of Esdras, and in light of its similarity to Hellenistic literary motifs (see e.g., Fritzsche : .: Ein
hebr[isches] Original lag nicht zu Grunde, die Sprache verrth sich durchaus als ursprnglich hellenistisch). Such a view is ordinarily held by
those who regard Esdras as a fragment of the Chroniclers work that has
been subsequently glossed by a Greek editor. Yet given our earlier arguments for Esdras being an eclectic compilation from several sources

commentary

(Chronicles, Ezra, Nehemiah, and unique materials) it may be the case


that the narrative has been placed artificially albeit quite deliberately into
its current place at an early stage by the author of Esdras in order to
draw Zorobabel into the narrative and to show that the restoration story
really began under Darius. Thus the story is an interpolation, but not a
later one deriving from a Greek redactor; instead it was probably inserted
deliberately during the initial compilation of Ezra-Nehemiah materials into Esdras during its Semitic stage of development. Talshir (:
) states: While the story lacks coherence, its incoherence should not
be explained as the result of a complicated process of transmission and
redaction. Where such a story came from in the first place cannot confidently be demonstrated, though Torrey (: ), Zimmerman
(), and Talshir (; : ) put forward a good case that it
was known to the author in Aramaic. What is particularly convincing on
this point is the use of eight times in this section ( Esd :, ; :,
, , , , ) that probably reflects the Aramaic () and speaks
against a Greek or Hebrew origin. Other isolated instances suggest an
Aramaic original such as the use of in : which is probably
based on an Aramaic word for strong and many (e.g., [cf. Dan
:]) and makes better sense in the context.
The notion that the story was originally a pagan folk tale about king,
wine, and women is likewise very plausible and it could have a near
eastern or Hellenistic provenance (see discussion in Torrey :
; Rudolph : ; Akroyd : ; Zimmerman :
; Myers : nn). If the author adapted a previous story
in circulation then the original order was probably king, wine, and
women since the discourses on wine and women appear to build on
themes from a previous discourse whereas the discourse on kingship
does not refer to prior topics (see :; :). The story may have originally been an ironic critique of kingship by showing the kings suceptibility to the power of wine and women. Going beyond that Zimmerman
(: ) finds the description of the king exhibiting a sly contemptuous touch as the speeches compare the mind of the king to a fatherless
child (:), he is openly mocked by his mistress (:), and the king
is even called wicked (:). Such a critique of kingship could be either
comic or solemn. Though it is unlikely that the discourse on truth was
originally part of the story. Its origins could come from a number of
places as it has parallels in Persian, Egyptian, Greek, and Israelite literature. The author of Esdras probably added the section on truth to
religionize a philosophical discussion on what is the strongest.

commentary

Accordingly, the inclusion of the tale was not haphazard and it was
carefully inserted into the book and coloured with Jewish restoration
traditions at the time of the initial compilation of Esdras (see Torrey
[: ] who maintains that it was originally a separate composition,
albeit of popular wisdom-literature complete in itself, and its first estate
having nothing to do with the history of the Jews; that it was composed in
Palestine, probably soon after bc and has been preserved in what
is substantially its original form). This is clear from the chronological
re-ordering of the material preceeding the story of the bodyguards in
Esd : (i.e., the omission of Ezra : concerning Zorobabel).
Such a redaction prepares for the bodyguard story and the introduction of Zorobabel suggesting that the inclusion of material was carefully
designed as opposed to an off hand insertion of additional content. Similarly, the entire narrative seems reminiscient and perhaps even reliant on
other elements of the restoration narratives that have been written into
the passage as well, e.g., Neh : (Esd :), Ezra : ( Esd :),
Ezra :, : ( Esd :) and Ezra : ( Esd :
). Timothy Sandoval () proposes that the speech on women and
truth also anticipates and underpins several themes from Ezras reforms
such as the expulsion of foreign women given the strong affirmation of
patriarchalism in the third speech. Also, Talshirs (; ) retroversion of the text into Aramaic shows the coherence and plausibility of a
Semitic origination for the text rather than a Greek narrative that has
been redacted and inserted into the book at a penultimate stage. In support of that premise, the book of Daniel shows that Greek language and
literary forms can be adopted into a Semitic genre without requiring that
the entire passage derive from a Hellenistic source (see Niskanen
and his comparison of Daniel and Herodotus and on Greek loan-words
see Coxon ). In sum, our source-critical observation is that
the story has undoubtedly a developed pre-history of some form in its
Semitic origins, it remains highly indebted to its the Aramaic Vorlage
of Esdras, and was not incorporated as an after thought or at a later
stage of development after its translation into Greek (see Zimmerman
: who detects on the one hand the Aramaic document
underlying the story, and [on] the other hand the non-Jewish character
of the tale reworked with some touches by a Jewish editor). The Semitic
and Hellenistic features should not be played off against each other and
turned into tradition-historical layers. Instead, we should identify the
provenance of the story in the swirling of cultures and influences that
took place in the Ancient East and Eastern Mediterranean. Therefore,

commentary

the story of the three bodyguards was part of the original plan of the
book and presumably introduced at the Semitic level of the composition (Talshir : ).
Josephus repeats the content of the speeches (Ant. .) though
he adds his own transitions between them. He significantly expands
the first speech on wine with embellishments in keeping with the main
theme of the piece, he essentially follows the second speech about the
king, but reduces the length of the final speech by Zorobabel on women
and truth. Notable is the absence of Esd : about the unrighteousness
of women, wine, and the king in Ant. ., and the absence of Esd :
containing the doxology to the God of Truth in Ant. .. Josephus
hatchets the final discourse of anything that might be offensive or too
Jewish for Roman readers.
The discourse on truth is the crescendo of the speeches and it would
be of natural interest to readers of the Jewish Diaspora and also to
Christians. Tobit begins, I, Tobit, walked in the ways of truth and
righteousness all the days of my life (Tob :; cf. :, ; :). The Wisdom
of Solomon states, Those who trust in him will understand truth (Wis
:; cf. :; :). In Sirach one finds, Fight to the death for truth, and the
Lord God will fight for you (Sir :; cf. :; :; :). According to
Maccabees, a philosopher is someone who thinks in accordance with
the truth (Macc :; :). Philo, who says a great deal about
truth, eulogizes truth with the words Now of all existing things there
is nothing clearer than the truth (Leg All .). In the Epistle of Aristeas
() the king is advised: In addition to this you must always remember,
O King, that God is a lover of the truth. In Christian literature, Clement
closes with the doxology, To the only God invisible, the Father of truth,
who sent forth to us the Savior and Prince of incorruption, through
whom also He manifested to us the truth and the heavenly life, to Him
be the glory for ever and ever (Clem :). Truth is also the basis of
exhortation by the Shepherd, Love the truth, and let nothing but truth
proceed from your mouth, that the spirit which God has placed in your
flesh may be found truthful before all men; and the Lord, who dwells
in you, will be glorified, because the Lord is truthful in every word, and
in Him is no falsehood (Herm Man .). Clement of Alexandria had
much to say on the subject of truth also, but he notably tips his hat to
its presence in Greek philosophy, As, then, he who is fond of hunting
captures the game after seeking, tracking, scenting, hunting it down with
dogs; so truth, when sought and got with toil, appears a delicious thing
(Strom .). Jewish and Christian authors frequently idealized truth in

commentary

their estimations of the most genuine of realities, as that which comes


forth from God, and as the standard of conduct that God requires. In
Christian philosophical discourse from the Beloved Disciple (John :)
to Augustine, Jesus Christ is the highest ideal of truth: The truth alone
declares what is true: Christ is the truth; let us come to Him that we
may be released from labour (Augustine, Letter .). Unsurprisingly
the reception of Esdras among Christians was univerally positive
as it could easily be made to fit with a distinctly Christian notion of
truth as divine, confessional, ethical, and christological. Crenshaw (:
) concludes: This combination of subject matter and piety made the
dialogue a favourite of Jews and Christians. The rhetoric and traditional
material incorporated into the dialogue with consummate artistry set
in Judaism is the best light possible for Greek and Roman readers, and
hence was a favourite of men like Josephus. And the religious fervor
clothing the praise of truth especially appealed to Christians, many of
whom, like Augustine, found therein prophecy of the Christ.
The narrative moves in several distinct segments including: the description of Dariuss banquet that introduces the king and his officials
(:); the design of the three bodyguards to elicit a reward from Darius
for the word that is judged the wisest (:); the speech about the superiority of wine (:); the speech about the superiority of the king
(:); the speech about the superiority of women and truth (:
); Dariuss reward and Zorobabels request that Jerusalem be rebuilt
and the temple restored (:); and Dariuss subsequent decree and
financing of the rebuilding of Jerusalem (:). Zorobabel becomes
the zenith of the narrative so far and the fulcrum upon which the narrative turns as the journey towards the restoration of the temple begins
anew.
The unit is marked out with distinct segments signified by a letter with a macron
at : (), : (), : (), and : (). Breaks are also indicated by a double
space at : and a colon at :.

:. Dariuss Banquet
The story anachronistically shifts from the reign of Artaxerxes to the
reign of Darius Hypstaspis with a brief description of a lavish banquet
that Darius gave for his nobles and Dariuss subsequent sleep. Josephuss
account provides a smoother transition from the reign of Cambyses to
Darius detailing the precise circumstances leading to Dariuss election
by the leading families of Persia. Josephus makes mention of a vow that

commentary

Darius made to God that if he became king, that he would send all
of the vessels of God that were held in Babylon back to the temple in
Jerusalem (Ant. .). Josephus also adds that Zorobabel was already
a governor of the Jews that had been in exile and that there had
already been an old friendship between him and the king which is why
Zorobabel was considered worthy to guard Darius (Ant. .). In Esd
:, the narration provides the occasion for the three bodyguards,
bemused or bored, to hatch a plot to win a great prize from the king.
The setting in : is stereotypical of Persian court life (Esth :;
Dan :) and typically sets the scene for momentous events follow on
from royal festivites. The opening description of Dariuss court, probably
located in Susa, provides an introductory context familiar to readers
of antiquity whereby a clever and shrewd servant triumphs over his
master. Appropriated by Jewish authors, the pattern was taken up in
Jewish literature of the Persian period to describe how faithful and
pious Judeans were able to succeed at court in the face of opposition
due to their acumen and wits, and thus secure royal favour for their
people.
Mention of Darius carries over naturally from : which closed the
previous section by way of reference to the reconstruction of the temple
ceasing until the second year of the reign of Darius (against Coggins &
Knibb : who think nothing in the story connects it with the wider
context of the book). In the introductory setting (vv. ), Darius gave
a banquet for all those under him and that identification ( ) is elaborated in three groups introduced by and all ( ).
The first sub-group is those born in his house ( ) including family and retainers. The second sub-group are the
nobles of Media and Persia ( ) encompassing the aristocracy of the united Persian kingdom. The
third sub-group contains three elements of satraps and governors and
toparches (see :; :). Josephus has a fourfold grouping of governors of Media and Satraps of Persia and toparchs of India and Ethiopia
and generals of the satrapies (Ant. .). A satrap (
from the Persian xsaqrapavan) was a Persian governor of a designated
region and viceregent of the king. The Persian empire was divided into
twenty-three satraps under Darius and the role of Satraps was to provide governance, security, and to collect royal taxes from their region
(see Neh :; Xenophon, Anabasis ; Josephus Ant. . records
satrapies). A governor () was an appointed civil leader or
a military general over a province, while a toparch () was a

commentary

local district ruler. These rulers ( modifying the whole set


and not just the toparchs) extend from India to Ethiopia (see Esth :;
:; Add Esth E:) and marks an empire that encompasses sections of
Africa and Asia. All in all, the scene reads like a whos who of Persian
civic life with persons close to the king and the leaders from the upper
and lower rungs of Persian political life all in attendance.
That list of dignatories present at the banquet accentuates the ideal setting for the narrative to unfold. The account here probably gave rise to Sib
Or. . which describes how the kings of the Persians assisted the
rebuilding of the temple (And all the kings of the Persians will liberate it
with gold and brass and well made iron. For God Himself will give a holy
dream by night. And then the Temple will be again as it was before). The
banquet proceeds well as the guests ate and drank, and when they were
satisfied they departed ( q [v. ]). Afterwards (), Darius retires to his bedroom and sleeps
until he is awakened. is ambiguous in meaning and it
is not clear as to exactly when the king awoke: during the night or in the
morning. The problem is the amibigutiy of and its relation to the adverb . The verb could be ingressive (began to
be awakened) or iterative (was constantly awoken). Torrey (: )
opts for a conjecture Thereupon the three youths bestirred themselves
and removes the apparent complexity by making the youths the subject
of the verb. Josephus (Ant. .) attributes the awakening to insomia or
not being able to sleep anymore ( q ).
Royal sleeplessness appears in other court narratives in the Hebrew Bible
(Gen :; Esth :; Dan :). Yet Josephuss account of the kings
noctural disturbance is clearly in contradiction to the implication of :
, where the bodyguards place a note under Dariuss pillow while he
sleeps and he then awakes to find it. Josephus probably took the adverb
as sequential and adds the gloss about the king being aroused from
his sleep in the night so that he conversed with the three bodyguards
during the night (Ant. .). More likely, is an adverb of time and
makes the sleeping and rousing of the king co-terminus with the concoction of the plan by the bodyguards. In any case, in Esdras while Darius
wrestles with sleep the reader soon learns that his bodyguards are about
to wrestle among themselves on how to win a great prize from the Persian
monarch.
At :, B omits the article following found in other mss. The L-text
is more in keeping with the style of the author by beginning with over the
simple of B.

commentary

:. The Design of the Bodyguards


The scene moves from Darius to the three bodyguards outside of his bed
chamber. All of a sudden they hatch a plan to impress the king with a
contest as to what is the most powerful thing. They do this in the hope
that Darius will reward one of them with lavish gifts and great triumph
for the one whose word is deemed to be the wisest. The three go off
and write their respective statements, seal it up, and place it under the
pillow of the king. They assume that when the king wakes from his sleep
he will be handed the note by his attendants. It is further assumed that
he will, as a matter of course, reward the person who made the wisest
statement. The first youth advocates the superiority of wine, the second
youth the superiority of the king, and the third youth (i.e., Zorobabel) the
superiority of women and the uber-superiority of truth. The king awakes,
reads the three statements, and then summons the nobles of Persia and
Media to the council chamber. The three young men are then called in
to expound their statements to the royal party.
Josephuss account differs once more from the version in Esdras. In
Josephuss retelling it is the king who, during his late night conversation
with the three youths, promises that should one of them make an outstanding oration about a specific topic that he shall give abundant gifts
to the champion and adopt him into his household. The king himself
nominates the topics of wine, king, women, and truth. He then returns
to sleep and in the morning summons the nobles of Persia and Media
back to his royal palace. The bodyguards are then enjoined at the royal
court to declare the virtues of their nominated subjects (Ant. .).
Josephuss account is unique in that the initiative for the contest comes
from Darius. On top of that the contest more readily resembles a Greek
banquet featuring symposiasts in a contest of rhetoric and poetry in Josephuss version. Another difference is that in Josephuss account the king
summons the nobles after conversing with the three youths rather than
before as in Esd :.
The three speeches are ultimately a contest about wisdom. In extant
accounts (Esd :; Ant. .), the contest concerns the word that is
considered wiser () or that word which is esteemed as the
truer and cleverer ( q ). It is
a wisdom contest in which Zorobabel is destined to excel and to find
victory in his speech on the triumph of truth.
Commencing with a temporal marker () in :, the attention
moves from the sleep deprived king to the three young men who are

commentary

defined in the tautological expression, the bodyguards guarding the


body of the king (
). Between themselves ( ) it is
proposed (hence the subjunctive ) that they all provide one word ( ) about the most intensely powerful thing
( ). Here may carry the sense of discourse rather
than single word since it is paralleled by the implied plural
(statement) in :, (also Talshir : ). In other words, each
proposes a speech based on a single word. Each word is meant to relate to
that which is the most intensely powerful thing and the prepositional
intensifier of the verb hints at something of a superlative
strength (cf. Cook, NEB, NRSV, ESVA strongest; NETS prove superior; CEB most superior thing). The appearances of cognates derived
from the - root underscores how the semantic field of strength
is employed to create the dialectics of this debate: in :, :,
; in :, ; and in :, , (Talshir : ).
The question of what is the most superlative thing ( ) was
a common subject of Greek literature (Herodotus, Hist. .; Plutarch
Alexander, ) and the presence of an analogous theme here suggests
that Esdras exhibits a creative interface of Hellenistic, Jewish, and
Persian narrative traditions in its source. The contest is that whoever can
identify the entity that is the strongest will in turn be considered the
wiser ().
The presumption of the trio is that, Darius the King will give to him
lavish and great honours of triumph (v. ). Zimmerman (: )
wrote that, This is a presumptuousness on their part that can scarecely
be conceivable. That is why Josephus changes the story so that Darius is
the one who promises rewards in line with a device of kings at banquets
promising riches for certain tasks (see Dan :; Mk :). The
greatness of the rewards envisaged is emphasized with the double use
of as an adjective in both feminine and neuter forms to get a
polyptotonic effect ( ). The listing of rewards falls into
two parts (vv. ):
And to be clothed in purple
to drink from golden cups
and to sleep upon a golden bed
and have a chariot with a gold studded bridle
and have a turban of fine linen
and a neckband around his neck
and secondly, he shall sit next to Darius because of his wisdom
and shall be called kinsmen of Darius.

commentary

q

q



q
q

The gifts coveted are trappings from the royal household and include
luxury items possessed only by the elite few. These include fine materials, abundant gold, and even adoption into Dariuss own household is
imagined for the winner of the contest. Parallels can be found in Hellenistic Jewish literature about royal gifts for servants with lists of similar
items (Macc :, ; :; Ep. Arist. ). The wording in this
instance is very similar to the Aramaic of Dan :, Whoever can read
this writing and tell me its interpretation shall be clothed in purple, have a
chain of gold around his neck, and rank third in the kingdom. In v. , the
adjective enumerates a second category of reward comprising
of royal and relational proximity to Darius himself. The noun
at the Persian court was a title bestowed by the king as a mark of honour (like a Cousin) (L&S, ). The list thus progresses from material
reward to familial benefaction by Darius. The summit of the reward is
to sit (q) with Darius and be called (q) a kinsmen of
Darius. This is the jewel in the crown that is reserved for the winner and
is made good at the end of the story for Zorobabel at : when it is said,
You may sit next to me, and be called my kinsman (Talshir : ).
The basis of reward is simply wisdom () which in this context
requires a mix of intellectual brilliance and abilities in oratorial entertainment.
The three youths proceed to enact their plan and write down their
three words which they place under his pillow (vv. ). The author
states that each wrote his own statement (
) which are sealed up and placed under the pillow of
Darius, who has evidently gotten over his insomia at this point. The
participle probably modifies the aorist verbs
and q and links together the act of writing, sealing, and placing the
word under Dariuss pillow. A. Hilhorst () notes the incongruity
of the story with the youths having access to the kings bedchamber and
deftly walking in and placing a note under his pillow without disturbing
the king. Hilhorst thinks that means something other

commentary

than a piece of bedding and could be idiomatic for bring to personal


attention. He also notes a fragment of the historian Chares Mytilene
(a companion to Alexander the Great) quoted by Athenaeus about the
luxury of Persian kings who at the head of the royal bed had, a chamber
large enough to contain five couches, wherein were stored , talents
of gold coin and it was called the royal cushion (
). In which case, is the treasure chamber
adjacent to the bedchamber of the king. A plausible scenario, then, is that
the king is contacted through the cushion (= treasure chamber) where
they hand their writings to the servants in the chamber asking them to
present it to the king when he awakes. That fits with the procedure of
the unapproachableness of the Persian kings, but one still has to wonder
if the reference to sleep and awaken means that a literal pillow is
meant.
In any event, the plan is formally executed when the king rises in the
morning and it is said that they will give him the statements. It is not
clear who is the subject of the verb . The persons implied in
they most likely denotes personal attendants to the king rather than the
youths themselves (with Myers : against Zimmerman : ;
Talshir :) who supply the king with the statements ().
The young men recognize that the adjudicators in the contest will be the
king and the three nobles of Persia with the latter category probably a
special counsel to the king. This group determines who is the wiser and
bestows a victory on the basis of what has been written. Although it
is the oral defense of what is written that will count for more in the end.
The author then lists for the reader what the three young men wrote:
The first wrote,
The second wrote,
The third wrote,
but



Wine is the strongest.


The king is the strongest.
Women are the strongest,
truth is victorious over all things.

King, wine, and women naturally meet in episodes from Jewish literature
that feature the consumption of wine and the presence of women at
the royal court (Esth :; Dan :; Neh :, ). The third youth
provides two words in his speech (hence the plural )
rather than one. That is because the author has probably added the

commentary

discourse on truth to a tripartite narrative that originally featured king,


wine, and women (see above).
The plan of the three bodyguards succeeds as the king is given the
statements, he summons his nobles and governing officials, and calls the
three youths to expound upon the things that they wrote (vv. ).
This section begins with notice that the king received the statements
and they (i.e., his personal attendents rather than the bodyguards)
gave it to him ( ). The plan of the trio is
immediately effective. The king then sends and calls for the very officials
who have only just left the imperial residence the evening before. That
group consists of satraps and governors and toparches (see :; :),
but the list is also expanded to include a fourth group of consuls who
come to the gathering ( [CEB civil authorities; NRSV; ESVA
prefects; Cook, NEB chief officers]; the word is used in LXX [Dan :,
] and the Theodotian version of Daniel [:, ; :] to render several
Persian words, and in the Roman period it meant consul [cf. Macc
:]). Darius takes his seat in the council chamber (
was a place of business or financial affairs [GELS, ]; cf. L&S, :
seat of judgment). After that the young men are called and enter into
the chamber so that they may explain their statements (
) and expound to us about the things that have
been written ( ). The switch
from a third person plural future verb () to a second person
plural imperative verb () shifts the summons from request
to command. The three youths are ordered to provide a performance of
their words for the royal audience. The use of the perfect participle
(things being written), instead of a present or aorist verb,
conveys not on-going significance, but the authoritative state of the
document.
A summary of the contest can be made with three words: strengthen
(), wisdom (), and victory (). The contest is
that whoever can establish the strongest entity will be judged to be the
wiser man and will receive great prizes of victory. On this linguistic
vantage point the prize appears headed to the third speaker as he is the
one noted for trying to demonstrate that truth is the most victorious
(). Though it still waits to be seen as to exactly how this will be
achieved and when Zorobabel will be revealed as the third speaker.
In : B has a pleonasm with the superfluous inclusion of the relative pronoun
after . There are numerous itacisms in the section with additional epsilons
in several words. Also in :, B reads whereas is found in A,

commentary

in L, and Josephus (Ant. .) has . At :, RH prefers B and


Josephus with to As . At :, RH sides with B, A, and the majority
of mss in favour of the reading in contrast to , even though the third
person singular probably makes better sense in the context with the king as the
protagonist (cf. Talshir : ).

:. The Discourse on the Superiority of Wine


The speeches follow roughly the same pattern with a common introductory formula ( [: has in addition to
]) and a similar closing about the cessation of the speech ( ). Each speaker uses a mixture of rhetorical questions, examples,
and comparisons to make their point. The climax is obviously the third
speech which is significantly longer than the preceding two speeches.
The third speech includes a pause where the king and nobles reflect for a
moment and then the speaker changes the subject from women to truth
(:). The third speech also ends with a sudden doxology that elicits the
one and only response from the audience, Great is truth and is strongest
of all! (:). In Zorobabels speech rhetorical questions are prominent
throughout the discourse (:, , , , , ), whereas the other
speeches only begin and end with rhetorical quesitons. The first two
speeches remain logically focused and fittingly brief, whereas the third
speech responds to the arguments of the previous speakers (:, )
and the speech encompasses a broad range of topics including childbirth,
agriculture, textiles, family life, voyerurism, outlandish female behaviour
at court, cosmology, and even the wickedness of wine, kings, and women.
Overall, the three speeches each emerge as well orchestrated feats of
rhetorical play designed to entertain and sway the audience. They were
well-remembered and preserved precisely for those reasons (see Crenshaw : ).
The primary tool at work in the speeches is that of synkrisis, which is
a simple rhetorical trope of comparison (see Seid : ). Quintilian
(Inst. ..) refers to the practice of comparing the merits of two or more
characters in a discourse in order to highlight one particular character.
The Greek author Isocrates wrote a lengthy encomium for Evagoras who
was a governor of Cyprus. Isocrates compared Evagoras with the Persian
king Cyrus and claimed that despite Cyruss greatness, no one, whether
mortal, demigod, or immortal, will be found to have obtained his throne
more nobly, more splendidly, or more piously [than Evagoras] (Evag
). The device of synkrisis was well-suited to epideictic rhetoric and fits
comfortably in here. In essence, we have three comparisons between the

commentary

king and the drunkard (the first speech), the king and other men (second
speech), and the king and women/truth/God (third speech). Their aim
is to show the relative strength of one thing in contradistinction to a list
of several others things.
By way of summary, the first discourse asserts the preeminence and
superiority of wine. The discourse is morally mixed (see Myers :
; contra Talshir : , who sees wine as portrayed throughout
the speech as a negative incentive in human life disrupting all orderly
conduct and causing total mental confusion) since on the one hand, it
highlights the praiseworthiness of wine as something to be enjoyed and
delighted in (cf. Ps :; Sir :, ). Yet on the other hand, wine
is also an intoxicating force and inebriation is to be shunned as it leads
to dire consequences as per other admonitions in Jewish literature (Prov
:; :; Tob :; Sir :). Wine is said to be strong because:
it leads minds astray (v. ), it puts the mind of the rich and poor on equal
terms (v. ), it fosters joviality and suppresses worry (v. ), it enriches
the mood and exhibits disregard for status and reality (v. ), it leads
people to fight even their friends (v. ), and the day after a drinking bout
men are oblivious to what they did the night before (v. ). Central to the
power of wine is its immense effect upon ones reasoning/mind ()
and memory/regard (). Noteworthy is the emphasis on the
superiority of wine over the king, which suggests that the original form
of the poem was preceded rather than followed by a discourse on the
strength of the king (on wine in oriental social life, see Esth :; Dan
:; T. Jud .).
The first speaker begins his discourse about wine and the adverb
(thus) defines the manner and content of what follows. The
address commences with a call to attention through the vocative address
O men ( ) appealing to the kings court. He opens with a
rhetorical question, how strong is wine? ( )
which summarizes the point of his speech. The strength of wine is
then proved by way of several arguments. First, all men who drink
in excess are led astray in the mind ( ), which
pictures men as easily enticed and controlled by its power. Second,
it is said to make one mind ( ) of the binary pairs of
king and orphan, slave and free, worker and richman. Drink is the
great egalitarian leveller that puts the great, powerful, and affluent in
a position no better than the weakest, most impotent, and poorest of
men. Third, wine is powerful in that it noetically transforms the minds
of everyone ( ) towards banqueting and

commentary

joviality ( ) and it does not remember any


grief and any debt ( ).
Wine is the ultimate party drink for fostering euphoria and driving away
meloncholy. In v. there is also a shift from an emphasis on wines
effect on the mind () to its capacity to inhibit someone from
remembering key things (). Fourth, the potential for wine to
ferment frivolity and discord is emphasized again by several elements. In
addition to cheering the mind, wine can also make hearts rich (
) in the sense of gladening ones perspective in the short
term (see Eccl :; Ps :; Zech :; Sir :; :). Next, wine
does not remember kings nor satraps (
) and it fosters disrespect and a lack of regard for those of a
higher rank. Beyond that it makes everyone talk in talents (
) meaning that wine leads to boastful exaggeration
(NRSV, NEB makes everyone talk in millions; ESVA makes everyone
talk in vast sums; Myers everything in colossal figures; NETS make
everyone talk in talents; cf. discussion in Talshir [: ] on the
possible underlying Aramaic text which gave rise to the confusion).
Fifth, the power of wine is also seen in its capacity to generate needless
confrontation and violence between friends. After too much wine people
fail to remember to be friendly with friends and brothers (
) to the point that they draw swords ( ) at
the lightest whim. Wines power to produce cheerfulness is here matched
by its capacity to inspire random and mindless violence. Sixth, the after
effects of wine is that those who arise from a night of drunkeness do
not remember what they did ( ). Wine can
transform the mind (vv. ), but it can also erase the memory. Finally
the speech closes with an additional rhetorical question, O men, is not
wine the strongest, because it thus compels people to do such things?
( ). The
nominative address also has the emphatic interjection (O) not found
in v. . The strength of wine consists in its ability to compel and cause
the behaviours and attitudes listed above which all men, even the king,
are powerless to withstand. At that point the speech ends when the
speaker became silent ( [see Cooks translation, he held his
peace]) after all that he said ( functions as an inclusio marking the
commencement of the speech in v. and closing it off in v. ).
It is notable that besides the description of the beginning of the speech
in : and the failure to remember what was done the night before in
:, the majority of verbs in : are in the present tense form. The

commentary

shift from the aorist tense form to those in the present tense form represents a shift from perfective to imperfective aspect. This highlights the
inside perspective of the reader to the imagery evoked, creating a more
vivid account of the power of wine over the persons therein described.
The use of the perfect tense form with the negation three
times in : intensifies the state of forgetfulness and so underscores
the negative effects of wine further (see Porter : ).
In the argument of the first speaker wine is held up as something
initially praiseworthy since it effects a release from anxiety and care.
But as the speech unfolds it is equally clear that wine is a consuming
and destructive power over those who appear to be powerful when they
succumb to its influence (Coggins & Knibb : ). Thus, wine is
strong insofar as it facilitates unexpected and inappropriate behaviours
in men. The man who is called a rational animal becomes utterly irrational under the influence of wine. The man who is a social animal can
become either more socialable or anti-social under the influence of too
much wine. The man who is a political animal sees the distinctions of status and power rendered pointless in the midst of drinking wine. Whereas
brotherhood and the bonds of fraternal love were well-known and celebrated in the ancient world, those bonds are flouted and broken when
wine takes hold of a person. The power of memory to recall and recreate the past is nullified after an intoxicating encounter with too much
wine. Crenshaw (: ) adequately captures the pathos of the
discourse:
Wine, then, functions as the great leveller; its mighty floodwaters sweep
in the swirling maelstrom all human rationality, memory, psychic states,
distinctions both real and artificial, and bonds of friendship and brotherhood. From the murky waters left by the subsiding flood one can pull
their corpses, newly tranformed into perverted thought, forgetfulness,
joviality, boasting, camraderie, and bellicosity. Gentlemen, is not wine the
strongest, since it forces people to do these things? Such was the brief, but
truly cogent, argument of Dariuss first guard.
Distinct readings of B include over at :, which arises out
of a mispelling of the participle form of . In addition, B reads q
instead of q at : with the latter reading attested principally by the
L-texts. In context, is perhaps idiomatic for the commencement of an
action (cf. Macc :; :) and q was probably introduced to
underscore the act of being aroused or awoken which is unclear with q.
B also has in the singular whereas most mss prefer the plural in :
(see Hanhart b: ). The corrector has also amended the to at :
for {}.

commentary

:. The Discourse on the Superiority of the King


The second speaker ( ) address the topic of the strength of
the king. Like the previous discourse, this one both opens and closes
with a question. It ends with an affirmation of the kings strength that
is proved by his authority over his subjects. The speech commences by
asking whether humans are sovereign over the realms of land and water.
If so, then, a fortiori, the king is greater because he is lord and master
over humans and is obeyed by them (vv. ). The strength of the king is
further attested by his ability to command people to do manifold things
such as make war, kill, and plunder for his benefit (vv. ). Those who
do not engage in warcraft, but tend crops still have to send their crops
and taxes to the king (v. ). The total sovereignty of this one man is seen
in his power to order the destruction of cities or the cultivation of crops
for his own ends (vv. ). Thus, everyone yields to his will (v. ). The
king dines, rests, and is guarded before anyone can think of their own
needs (v. ).
The main body of the discourse is structured around six third-class
conditional clauses marked by the subordinating conjunction and a
subjunctive verb (vv ba). These clauses present actions for hypothetical consideration (see Porter : ), which fits well with the
speech about the purported superiority of the king:
[A]nd whatever he might say to them they yield to.
If he tells them to make war one against the other, they do it;
[I]f he sends them out against the enemy, they march
[I]f they are victorious, they bring everything to the king,
[I]f they seize booty and anything else
If he tells them to kill, they kill;
:
:
:

:
:

This list of hypothetical questions is utilized for the purpose of showing


the absolute control of the king over the people and the complete fealty of
his subjects before him. The assumed affirmative answer to the questions
underscores the true depths of the kings authority over death (war) and
life (agriculture) and all in between.
A further characteristic of the speech is the change from the aorist
infinitive to third person plural present active verbs in vv. (-

commentary



). The literary effect is to bring

to mind the immediacy of the kings commands being performed and to


create a sense of verbal alliteration that is memorable.
From a source-critical perspective, it is quite likely that an earlier form
of the speech originally comprised of :, , a, . It is possible that
vv. b was added at a later stage since: (a) (he
is only one man) in v. a is a penultimate climax to the discourse before
the final question of v. ; (b) The contents of vv. b essential recaps
the preceding section for emphasis or to fill out the speech in length; (c)
Semitic features of the text are notably stronger in vv. b than in vv.
a (see details in Talshir : and note the thematic parallels
of vv. with Eccl :). In addition, v. follows on more naturally
from v. as it suits the temporal framing and thematic development of
the narration from revenues to respite (see below). I tentatively surmise
that the Aramaic redactor of the discourse has added or expanded on
segments to create vv. b that emphasizes even further the tyrannical
power of the king over his subjects.
With little or no pause from the first discourse, the second bodyguard
comes to speak concerning the strength of the king ( ). The presence of the infinitive (to speak) in addition to
the substantive participle is a more lucid introduction to the
beginning of an oral discourse. That is a further reason why the speech
of the king was probably the first of the speeches in the original form of
the narrative. only appears again at the beginning of the speech
about women and truth in the third address in :, where its appearance is equally as emphatic as the opening of the second discourse in :.
Whereas the first and third speeches only have the interjection and vocative form of address at the end of their respective discourses
about wine and women (:; :), the second speech is bracketed by
the emphatic form of address at beginning and end (:, ).
In contradistinction to the first and third speeches that begin with
questions about their subjects (:; :, ), the second speech has
a rhetorical question about the superiority of men over land and sea
(arguably reminiscient of Gen :). The reason for that approach is
rhetorical juxtaposition (i.e., synkrisis). If humans are superior to and
sovereign over land, sea, and all that is in them, then, a fortiori, the
person who is sovereign over humans must then be the most superior
entity of them all. The response given to the question is, of course,

commentary

that: But the king is strong as he is their Lord and their master, and
whatever he might say to them they yield to. Though men rule the
earth and waves, the king exercises lordship () and mastery
() over them (:; cf. : where women hold lordship and
mastery over wine and kings!). Indeed, it is and that
define exactly how the king is . This rhetorical form is entirely
appropriate for describing the superiority of a king as synkrisis was a
common device for drawing attention to the honor and virtue of ones
benefactor and for expressing gratitude to a patron (this is analogous to
what Zeba Crook [: ] calls patronal synkrisis. In a setting
of patronage and clientele, patronal synkrisis functions, [T]o honor the
the patron on behalf of an interested party, the client; it is part of the
clients expression of gratitude for benefactions received. The comparison
being drawn is always intended to honor the patron [Crook :
; on its applicability to Philo and the Septuagint, see Crook :
]). The speaker begins to underscore the unqualified obedience
offered to the king and the vast extant of his command over his kingdom
(see Dan :; :). The comparison here obviously honours the king
as the supreme power of human society, but as one reads on it is possible
to also detect a tacit critique of kingship related to the deuteronomistic
misgivings about the office of the king.
The succeeding contents describe the precise ways that the kings
strength is proven through a number of examples structured in a series
of conditional clauses (vv. ). The obedience of the subjects is emphasized by doing what they are told. Here carries the sense not of
possibility, but the full weight of a royal command (Crenshaw :
). The kings subject yield to () whatever he orders and
his soldiers do not transgress the word of the king (
). The king is able to command his forces
to make war ( ) by going out against the enemy
( ) where they kill and are
killed ( ). For the soldiers they face being
killed, but should victory ensue even then the spoils go to the king and
not to themselves. That is why even if they are victorious, they bring
everything to the king, if they seize booty and anything else (
). The picture here that emerges
is that of a king sending his army out to war where his forces march long
distances, engage in siege warfare, perform many killings, suffer many
casualties, and the purpose of the entire campaign is for nothing more
than enriching the king.

commentary

The description of military battles and the sacking of cities end in


v. . Thereafter the attention turns to agriculture and taxation. For those
who do not serve in the army or make war there is no exemption
from the obligation to provide service to the king. Instead, those that
cultivate the land; whenever they sow and reap, they bring some to the
king. A peculiar statement is that which follows where it is said that the
citizenry compel one another to pay taxes to the king (
). It is an
almost comic picture of citizens compelling and urging each other to pay
revenues to the royal household (NETS one compels the other to pay
to bring levies to the king; NEB they compel each other to bring him
their tribute). The subjects are portrayed as eager to provide the king
with crippling taxation. The speech then makes an ironic quip that he
is only one man ( ) and yet all of this ascendency,
service, and power is unquestionably his and his alone.
There is a brief description in vv. b of persons doing exactly
what the king commands. The first protasis in the series employs
while the other protases embed the question in the simple aorist
verb . The series operates in terms of if he told them to: kill,
they kill; to release, they release; to smite, they smite; to desolate, they
desolate; to build, they build; to cut down, they cut down; to plant,
they plant. Whether it pertains to the army or to agriculture, what is
said is soon done. The series is closed with the remark in v. that,
All his people and his forces yield to him (
). The verb is repeated from
v. to underscore the complete and virtual blind obedience that the
king receives. Here is a metonym for his military might (Myers
hosts; NEB troops; NRSV, Cook, ESVA armies; NETS forces; CEB
military powers). In other words, the king always gets what he wants
from anyone and everyone.
It is unclear what the link is between v. and vv. b. The contents
of v. relate to the king reclining, dining, resting, and being guarded and
no-one able to attend to their own needs while the kings needs require
attention (cf. Luke :). The clause could be logical
(NETS; CEB furthermore; NEB besides this; ESVA moreover) or
temporal (Myers then too). The construction appears again in :, but
without the coordinating conjunction , and it seems there to have a
temporal force (And at this, ). In Maccabees there
are both logical (:; :, ) and temporal (:) uses of the same
contruction. In light of usage in v. and the immediate context here, I

commentary

suggest that the temporal sense is the most plausible. Notably the content
of v. follows on more naturally from v. rather than from v. . Thus
I propose that vv. , , a, is the original order of the narrative. In
the original series the service of royal taxation was probably followed by
services for the kings relaxation.
Three pictures are then strung together to indicate again the authority
of the king over those around him. First, that he reclines, eats and
drinks, and sleeps ( q
q) and the imagery is of the rest and respite of the king in
contrast to his subject who wait on him unceasingly. The conjunctive
is coordinating rather than adversative and the king reclines, eats,
drinks, and sleeps while they guard around him. The Greek is more
literally rendered they keep a circle around him (
) signifying a cordon of protection around the king
for his safety. The king is pampered and protected which underscores the
irony of: Absolute obedience despite the kings vulnerability (Crenshaw
: ). The second remark is that no one is able go away and to
undertake his own works ( q
). The speaker draws attention to the fact that the king
is subject to the same necessities of his subjects, but no one ventures
to slip away to attend to their own needs or business (Crenshaw :
). This might well refer to the situation of the bodyguards themselves
around the king rather than represent a general statement about the
plight of his attendants (Talshir : ). It is a comic complaint:
we have to wait on him hand and foot. Third, it is also said of his
attendants, specifically his bodyguards, that nor do they refuse him
( ) which repeats the primary motif of the
passage that is echoed in vv. vv. , , , viz., that the king must always
be obeyed.
The speech lauds the power of the king, but only by magnifiying
the most violent and depleting effects of kingship on others. He orders
murder, pillage, and destruction. His subjects are pawns before him. His
people are worthless and opinionless. The king is only one man and
he is the only one that matters. This king is not a shepherd, but is a brute
butcher who lives only for the purposes of gratifying his insatiable lust for
power and pleasure. This king is the very thing that the deuteronomistic
historian warned about (e.g., Sam :): the malevolent vestiges of
royal power inflicted upon the populace. The discourse looks much like
an epideictic address on the praiseworthiness of the king for his might,
and for Greek and Oriental auditors that is probably exactly how it would

commentary

have been perceived. But for Jewish readers familiar with the perceived
abuses of kingship from Israels covenant history and from the list in
Esd :, it is clear that kingship here is far from praiseworthy. For
Jewish readers the speech is indeed epideictic, but in highlighting the
blame rather than the virtue of the king.
At :, B and the L-texts omit and RH follows the majority of witnesses in
the preference for . The corrector has made an usually high number
of corrections in this section including the changing of to at :,
(cf. :). He also inserted to create {} at : which changes the meaning
from the interrogative and if he is only a man to the assertion he is only one
man! At : the addition of the dipthong changes the meaning from the
misspelt noun to the verb . B and derivative texts are the only
witness to at : (see v. ) and the word appears only in the LXX
in Esdras (As preference for is perhaps a clarification of an obscure
word). Whereas the beginning of : is marked off from : in B by a
double letter space, : closes with a colon (:) to mark the beginning of the
discourse on women and truth at :.

:. The Discourse on the Superiority of Women and Truth


The literary summit of Esdras is found in the speech of the third speaker
about the superiority of women and then truth. The speech breaks down
into two main sections concerning women (vv. ) and truth (vv.
) which is enclosed with remarks that introduce the setting of the
speech (v. ) and the resulting verdict from the Persian nobles (v. ).
The discouse on women begins with a series of rhetorical questions that
leads to the assertion of female mastery over men (v. ). That is followed
up with references to women as the progenitors of men (vv. ), the
folly of men on account of their infatuation with a woman (vv. ), a
mans relationship with his wife is stronger than with a father or mother
(vv. ), men are often enslaved to women and do nearly anything
for them (vv. ), and even the king allows his concubine to mock
him in court as a further example of male submission to women (vv.
). At what should be the end of the speech and the completion of the
competition, the nobles look to each other to deliberate (v. ). However,
at this point the speaker surprisingly launches into another subject,
that of truth (v. ). Truth is said to be superior to the cosmological
ordering of the universe since all the earth and heavens pay homage
to truth (vv. ba). Truth is singularly characterized as inherently
virtuous as contrasted with the inherent unrighteousness of wine, kings,
and women (vv. b). Consequently, truth is fittingly praised for its
might and majesty leading to praise for the God of Truth (v. ). The

commentary

discouse is received with a chorus of approval from the audience about


the superiority of truth over all things (v. ).
The third discourse is obviously a synthetic construction developed
from pre-existing materials about the strength of women with the addition of truth tacked on at the end very creatively albeit intrusively. The
influence of women upon men, often toward their demise, was well
known to Jewish (e.g., Judges ; Kings ; Kings ; Prov :
; ::; Isa ::) and Hellenistic authors (Myers [: ]
draws attention to Herodotuss story of Atossa who persuaded Darius I to invade Greece [Herodotus, Hist. . ff.]; Queen Artemesia who
was a naval commander of Xerxes I [Hist. ., , ];
Cyrus was wary of Panthea the most beautiful woman in the world
[Xenophon, Cryopaedia ..]all of which provide Persian examples
of prominent women and set the backdrop to Apames antics at the kings
court in Esd :). The story assumes the superiority of men over
women, and yet, the threat that the sexuality of women poses to men
remains just below the surface (Eron : ).
The material on king, wine, and women most likely was an integral
unit with a pre-literary history. Yet whether the same is true for the
speech on truth is disputed. Rudolph (: ) conceived
the origination of Esdras :: out of a piece of Greek entertainment literature with a pagan redactor adding the discourse on truth to
give it a more dignified philosophical closure. Pohlmann (: ;
: ) regards the discourse on truth as an independent unit
with an oriental or Israelite point of origin. Likewise, a Greek source
is plausible especially given Platos personification of truth in Crito a
(Then, most excellent friend, we must not consider at all what the many
will say of us, but what he who knows about right and wrong, the one
man, and truth herself will say [cited from Hillhorst : ]). The
material about truth has had a Persian provenance ascribed to it (Myers
: ; Hillhorst ; cf. Pfeiffer [: ] who looks to the sage
Ahiqar for the background of the story). Herodotus (Hist. ..) noted
that the Persians taught their children three things: riding, archering, and
speaking the truth. Also in the background maybe the Avestan principle
of asa which designates sacred truth in the cosmic, social, and moral
order. In the teachings of Zoraster asa is a divine being that personifies
truth. Plutarchus (De Is. Et Os ) shows knowledge of this religious sytsem when he refers to the god of truth as the second god created by
Ahura Mazda (Hillhorst : ). The problem is that just about
every culture east or west of Palestine has a concept of personified truth

commentary

and exhorts the virtues of truth. Talshir (: ) contests the view that
the speech on truth existed independently and was appended to Esdras
since it is clearly designed in close connection with the previous speeches
and has the same literary character. In all probability the discourse on
truth is indebted to the literary creativity of the Aramaic author due to
the widespread Semitisms (e.g., in v. ) and
the appearance of Jewish creational monotheism. There is also a genuine
parity of the speech with Jewish sapiential traditions like that found in
Wisdom (:; :), Sirach (:, ; :), Philo (Imm. ; Plant. ;
Ling. ; Migr. ), and the Epistle of Aristeas (). While there is no
doubt an amalgam of intellectual influences on the speech on truth, principally we might say Persian, there is no need to attribute the remarks on
truth to a fixed source or to a later Hellenistic redaction of Esdras. That
is because reflection about the virtues and pragmatic necessity of truth
are clearly at home in Hebraic thought. What is more, the religious overtones in the speech are undoubtedly Jewish as well. Crenshaw (: )
observes:
That spontaneous celebration of truth introduces a religious dimension
into the story, for all eyes turn toward the one before whom even eternal
truth does obeisance. Here entertaining dialogue function in the service
of religious instruction; furthermore, nothing demands a hypothesis of
Greek origin for this exaltation of abstract truth. The Israelite sages were
certainly capable of praising abstract concepts like truth, righteousness,
and wisdom.

Unlike the preceding material, the opening rhetorical questions in both


sections include topics other than those covered in the speech. The entre
into the two subjects of discussion involves discrediting the previous
speakers arguments about the purported strength of wine and of the
king. In v. , the statement Men, are not women strong? may constitute an interpolation as it repeats the same point made in v. which
was a fitting conclusion to the section on the strength of women, but
comprises an exceedingly awkward point upon which to begin the discouse on truth. The commencement of the speech about truth calls for
a rhetorical question about the qualities of truth and the speech reads
quite naturally if the recalling of the strength of women is omitted.
While the speech on women and truth is at one level entertaining, we
should not reduce it to a sapiential novelty interjected into an Aramaic
source of Ezra materials. The narrative has been preparing for and building up to the speech of Zorobabel about truth all along. In the section
on truth there is a religious point being made as truth here is virtually a

commentary

hypostasis of God (see Wasserstein : ; Talshir : ).


In fact, God could easily be substituted for truth with little variation
in meaning. Truth here seems to refer to Gods ordering of the world
both morally and cosmologically. The praiseworthiness of truth is consequently praise for Gods character. This means that the divine beatitude,
Blessed be the God of Truth ( q q) is not a
departure from the main theme of the discourse.
In addition, the speech on truth brings Zorobabel into the picture
and his performance in the contest is crucial in realizing the restoration
of Jerusalem amidst the travails faced by the returning exiles from the
Samaritan opposition. As Enns (: ) writes: This is no mere contest
of wits. For Esdras, Zorobabels answer is the means by which the
Israelites are permitted to return and rebuild the temple. This is the focus
of this curious story, and it is a significant indication of the covenantal
purpose of the book as a whole. The story is situated in a redemptivehistorical context by Clement of Alexandria who wrote: At that time
Zorobabel, having by his wisdom overcome his opponents, and obtained
leave from Darius for the rebuilding of Jerusalem, returned with Esdras
to his native land; and by him the redemption of the people and the
revival and restoration of the inspired oracles were effected; and the
Passover of deliverance celebrated, and marriage with aliens dissolved
(Strom. .). The redemption of the nation and the renewal of their
covenantal life, is attributed to Zorobabels success in the wisdom contest
meaning much more is riding on the event than merely royal riches and
individual honour.
The subject of the third speaker is women and truth and the speaker
is identified somewhat parenthetically as Zorobabel ( ). Zorobabel was the son of Shealtiel (Ezra :, : :; Neh :;
Hag :, , ; Matt :; Luke :). In fact the L-text and Syriac version designate him as son of Shealtiel from the tribe of Judah at this point,
a reading probably derived from Esd : (cf. Esd : [LXX]). Most of
that which is known about Zorobabel is drawn from the canonical books
of Zechariah, Haggai, and the Ezra-Nehemiah materials. According to
these materials, Zorobabel and Iesous the high priest, led a group of
exiles from Babylon to Jerusalem and began rebuilding the temple in the
second year of Darius Hystaspis. According to Josephus, Zorobabel was
a friend () of Darius (Ant. .). Zorobabel was also made a governor of Jerusalem, and performed the duties of the tirshatha (),
a governing official who was probably the Persian collector of taxes in
Judea.

commentary

The speech begins with two rhetorical questions about the greatness
of the king and the strength of wine. The opening questions assume a
positive answer, viz., that the king is indeed great and wine is indeed
strong. But such an affirmation is qualified through a series of further
questions as to what masters them or lords it over them, there indicating
a further power somehow superior to the aformentioned governor and
satrap? The answer is given, again, in the form of a question: Is it not
women? (vv. ). After introducing the subject, the author proceeds
to justify this conclusion based on several lines of evidence. First, with
reference to human procreation, women give birth to the kings who
reign and to those who plant vineyards that produce wine (vv. ).
Second, women make garments for men and bring glory to men. The
first and second arguments are then summarized as, men are not able
to exist without women ( q
) (v. ). Thus, the superiority of women is observed in
their origination of men and the dependence of men upon women for
existence, daily necessities, and glory.
Third, the power of women over men is emphasized by the willingness
of men to abandon precious things just to gaze at a beautiful woman
(vv. ). Men are twice said to prefer women over gold, silver or any
other lovely thing ( )
indicating the superlative worth of women to precious metals in the
value scale of men. There might even be an echo of Prov : that a
capable wife is more precious than rubies (NIV) or jewels (NRSV;
ESV; NASB) or pearls (NJB). The portrait of men as pining over a
woman in a mezmirized or catatonic state is probably humourous as men
are described as those who gape at her, and with open mouths they stare
at her ( q ). This looks much like
a comic spin on images from the Hebrew Bible about the precious wife
(Proverbs ) and the attractive wife (Song of Solomon , , ) in service
of suggesting the reality of the subjugation of men to women biologically
and relationally.
Fourth, a mans relationship with his wife is superior to that with
his parents (vv. ). The text clearly alludes to Gen : as to how
a man will leave his father and his mother and cling to his wife (the
common linkage between Gen : LXX and Esd : besides the manfather/man-wife relationships is mainly through ). Yet unlike
Gen : further information is given about the extent of a mans abandonment of his prior familial bonds. A man not only leaves his father
who reared him, but also leaves his own country which nominates

commentary

the relational and geographical fracture often caused by taking a wife.


This is the exact opposite of Tob : where Tobit begs his father-inlaw to allow him to return to his father immediately after his wedding.
In addition, he fails to remember () neither father nor mother
nor country (
). That is not in the sense of an erasure of past memories, but a
lack of concern for his parents and homeland due to a change of priorities in his care giving. In addition, it is said that And with his wife
he releases his soul ( ; see
similar translation in NETS) which is probably a euphemism for death
(i.e., and with his wife he ends his days cf. RSV; NRSV; ESVA; Talshir
: ; largely based on Gen : [LXX]). But in this context, it
could have an additional meaning that in union with a woman a man
releases himself of his obligations to his parents or else that he departs
from the persons who imparted life into him. Myers (: ) opts for
the translation: he resigns himself to his wife. It depends on the meaning of which is ambivalent, though in Esd : it clearly has the
meaning of the physical separation of two entities. The net force of the
argument is that man-wife relationships are stronger than man-parent
relationships and the point was important enough to be repeated again
in v. .
The fifth argument in favour of the superiority of women over men
begins with an editorial remark affirming the conclusion ahead of the
presentation of all of the evidence, Hence, you must know that women
lord it over you! ( q ) in v. a. The following segments proceeds to demonstrate
the subjugation of men to women based the extent to which men are
willing go in order to furnish women with possessions (vv. b). The
point is made in the question, Do you not labour and toil, and carry
everything and give it to women? ( q
). The answer is affirmed in the example
that follows as to how, a man takes his sword, goes out to travel and to
take to banditry and to steal and to sail the sea and rivers; and he confronts lions, and he walks in darkness, and when he steals and robs and
plunders, he carries it back to the beloved woman ( q
: q : : q :
: q
). Compare a similar thought in Macc :: so that they

commentary

might go out and make raids along the highways of Judea. We could say,
with comic anachronism, that a man here is willing to become a Viking
in order to acquire further possessions for his beloved bride. Given that
seafaring was not the strength of the Israelites (the Greeks especially the
Phoenicians were more known for their seafaring abilities in the near
east), this section probably derives from a non-Hebrew source. The chief
point of course is that men are willing to even take to banditry and piracy
in order to please their women.
The sixth movement in the discourse is more eclectic and includes a
list of miscellaneous comments urging the strength of women over men.
A man loves his wife more than his father or mother (v. ). Men lose
their minds because of women or over women and become enslaved by
them. As Talshir (: ) puts it: While wine only confuses mens
minds, :, women drive men out of their mind (v. ). Women cause
men to perish, stumble, or sin (v. ). The list is fairly comprehensive and
whether it is family relations, mental health, or ethics, women hold men
in the grip of their power.
A rhetorical interjection is made (v. ), And now, do you not believe
me? Is not the king great in his authority? Do not all countries fear to
touch him? ( ;
: q ;). Yet
this is merely the point of contrast for the story that follows concerning
how the king allows his mistress Apame to openly mock him at court
and how he surrenders to her whim (vv. ). Apame is known
as the daughter of the eminent Bartacus (q
q), though q may be a proper name rather than an
adjective for wonderful, marvelous, remarkable (BDAG, ), which
is why Josephus describes her as the daughter of Rabsases Themasius
(Ant. .). The name Thamasios (q) is attested by Herodotus
(Hist. .). In either case her father was obviously a Persian noble
or a figure of some stature and the identity of both persons is not
known in literary history. Her role as a concubine may not be straight
forward. Here perhaps possesses more of a sense of consort
or mistress and Josephus calls her the kings wife or woman ()
in Ant. .. Given her eminent family she is probably not a member of
the royal harem, but is less than a legal wife (on the attempt to identify
her with historical figures see discussion in Torrey : ).
The bodyguard refers to an episode where he witnessed (q)
Apame engaging in outrageous and frivilous behavior towards the king
at least outrageous and frivilous if performed by anyone elseand

commentary

geting away with it. The anecdotal evidence marks a departure from
the generalizations that typified most of the arguments in the various
discourses (Talshir : ). To begin with, what is startling about
her behavior is that she is found sitting at the right hand of the king
(q ) which is obviously a symbolic
possession of power, authority, privilege, and succession (though see
similar positions of women at courts in Kgs :; Ps :; Neh :).
Next, she takes the diadem from the head of the king and places it on
herself (B has instead of ). Seizing the diadem was colloquial for an act of ambition, treachery, and usurpation (see Josephus,
Ant. .; ., ; ., ; .; Wars ., , ). On
a queen wearing a diadem see Add. Esth. : and :. A royal diadem was not something ordinarily shared and Josephus reports how
Pheroras was partner with Herod the Great in all affairs of the kingdom excepting his diadem (Wars .). Finally, she slapped the king
in the face with her left hand. Slapping itself was insulting and using
the left hand was dishonoring for oriental cultures (see Jdgs :; Hos
: [LXX]; Matt :; John :; Cor :). Whereas no one dares
to touch the king (v. ), Apame slaps him around for her playful
amusement (Talshir : ). In effect, Apame is allowed to sit as
the kings vice-regent, usurp his authority by wearing his diadem, and
insult him, and she gets away with it. While for the courtiers this is
something done in jest, Zorobabel sees it as further evidence for the
superiority of women over men. But even more is at stake, from a sociocultural perspective: His words demonstrate the strength of women not
merely over men generally, but even over the patriarchal order itself,
which the emperor represents the woman Apame threatens overly,
if playfully and symbolically, the continued existence of the patriarchal order by taking significant liberties with a primary icon of patriarchal power and authoritythe monarchy itself (Sandoval : ,
).
What is even more astounding is that Apames actions are not met
with rebuke, correction, or jest. The king can only remain motionless
as he is captivated by her beauty. It is said that at this the king was
staring at her with an open mouth and the imperfect q is both
continuous and iterative, i.e., he simply kept on staring at her as she
is doing all of this. The king has simply become one of the many men
that gape ( [v. ] and [v. ])
at women mezmirized by the power of their beauty. The inversion of
authority is underscored by what measures the king takes to appease

commentary

her temperament. In two conditional clauses () it is said that, If she


would warmly smile at him, he laughs; but if she should be embittered
by him, he humors her. That is for the purpose () that she may
be reconciled to him. The verb (see Sam :) means
to be restored to normal or harmonious relations and is semantically
related to which is the preferred term for reconciliation
in the New Testament (see BDAG, ; L&N, ). If any estrangement
occurs it is the king who takes the initiative to reconcile the two rather
than vice-versa. The picture is richly ironic as the king, for all his power,
is powerless before his own concubine. And so ends the first half of the
discourse with the conclusion, O men, are not women strong, because
they thus act so? (v. ).
Though a conclusion is stated this is not the end of the discourse
because there is no mention of he became silent until :. In the mean
time, the king and the nobles were looking one to the other (
) in the sense of beginning their
delibarations and preparing to announce their verdict (v. ). Whereas
it seems that they are prepared to grant victory to the third speaker
because of his remarks about women, Zorobabel has more in store for the
audience. Not an encore, but rather the climax of his discourse, is still to
come. No sooner had he finished the first segment of the discourse on the
strength of women than he began to speak about the truth (v. ). Truth
is a quality of God and is an attribute of his character that represents
his person in the speech. Truth connotes rightness, steadfastness, and
uprightness in addition to all of its more usual meanings (Klein :
).
The launch into another subject obviously violates the rules of the contest (Esd :). The speech is narratively extrinsic to the development
of the plot since the remarks about women were probably sufficient to
win the contest. Also, source-critically this segment of the discourse was
probably added onto the king, wine, and women frame at a later stage,
probably at its inclusion in Esdras. Talshir (: ) comments that
it is difficult to imagine a scenario in which the speech on truth was
added to the first three speeches before the story was given its present historical setting. What is unique about the discourse on truth is its sober
moral tone in contrast to the more jocular nature of the three preceding speeches. The speech on truth presupposes the former answers and
indicts them, even the women of Zorobabels own speech, for unrighteousness (Esd :). The content is also stridently theological as the
cosmic and moral order of the universe is beholden to truth with truth

commentary

being a hypostasis for God (see Talshir [: ]: The virtue of truth


is described in close connection with God, to the point of identification
between the two).
The speech on truth begins with a contrast of the preceding argument,
Men are not women strong? ( [v. ]). The
restatement is for the purpose of contrast since it is followed with a
description of the position and movement of earth, heaven, and sun in
the cosmic order:
Great is the earth
And high is heaven,
And swift is the sun in its course,
because it makes the circuit of the heavens
and again returns to its own place in one day.




The speaker heaps praise on the elements of earth, heaven, and sun,
which were appreciated as much for their religious significance as for
their astronomical wonder by the ancients. According to the Testament
of Judah the advent of the eschatological age will result in divine blessings for the patriarchs, angelic powers, and for the earth, heaven, and
sun, which shows how for some Jewish authors the renewal of creation
could be bound up with the renewal of Israel (T.Jud. .; perhaps based
on Gen :). Attention is given mostly to the sun, its circuit and constancy, perhaps in opposition to sun worship in Egypt where Esdras was
probably compiled (on an explanation for and description of the suns
journey see Ps :; Eccl :; Bar .; Frag. Arist. .; Ep. Diog. .;
Q .iii.). For all the praise heaped on the cosmic arrangement in
Israels sacred literature (e.g., Ps :), there is a strong Jewish tradition against worship of the heavenly elements (e.g., Deut :; :). In
the discourse the spectacular journey of the sun is simply the warm up
act to the real star of the speech, viz., the God of truth.
The theology of Esdras is built on a conception of God as covenanter
and creator. Later on in Esdras the Judeans in the story tell the governor
of Coele-Syria that they are servants of the Lord who created heaven
and earth (Esd :). Jewish monotheism was very much a creational
monotheism as Israels God was not identified with creation, as creation,
or in creation, but as the author and architect of creation. The God

commentary

of Israel was not simply a national or tribal deity, but the maker of
the entire universe including all of its elements and inhabitants. This is
reitereated in the Hebrew Bible with the constant reference to the Lord
who made heaven and earth (on the tradition-history of this phrasing
see Habel who points out its liturgical usage in Pss :; :;
:; :; :). The expression was appropriated by Christians in
their creeds and hymody (e.g., Nicene creed, Credo in unum Deum,
Patrem omnipotentem, factorem caeli et terrae, visibilium omnium et
invisibilium). This juncture of Esdras thus fits comfortably into the
doctrinal norms of the Catholic faith as it had developed at least by the
third century. A poignant expression of this belief in Gods sovereignty
over the created order is found in the Psalms with: Whatever the Lord
pleases he does, in heaven and on earth, in the seas and all deeps.
It is he who makes the clouds rise at the end of the earth; he makes
lightnings for the rain and brings out the wind from his storehouses
(Ps :). Philo also emphasizes Gods ordering of the universe in
his exposition of the creation narratives (esp. Opif. ; ; Vit. Mos.
.; Spec. Leg. .; .). Whatever might be said about
the appropriateness of monotheism to describe ancient Israelite faith
and worldview, there is no doubting the attribution of the visible and
invisible realities to the one God of Abraham in Israels sacred traditions
and among Jews of the second temple period.
Zorobabel adds (v. a) Is not the one who does these things great?
( ;). Whereas I and others (e.g., Pohlmann
: n) contend that the implied subject here is God, Hillhorst
(: ) believes that the subject is the sun. He writes: However,
the mention of earth, heaven, and sun was not meant to refer to Gods
creatorship, but rather to provide, besides the women, examples of things
which are strong, all of which serve as a background to make the superior
strength of truth stand out all the better. He bases that on: () Like the
second and third discourses (:, , ), the speaker here endorses
a thing to be praised only to trump it by their own candidates. Thus,
in his view, women and heaven-earth-sun are contrasted with truth
and not with Truths/Gods power over creation. Response: Hillhorst is
right about the literary form, but wrong on the extent of its usage in
v. . Just as in the other speeches the quality that is lauded and then
trumped is always marked by a negation ([]). But in v. the negation
only applies to women because it is the preceding subject. The rest of
v. about the cosmic order is introducing the first argument for the
superiority of truth by establishing the sphere of its operation. () In

commentary

v. c Blessed is the God of Truth is considered an interpolation (so


also Torrey : , n.f; Rudolph : vi, n. ) because it mismatches
the preceding sentence and the reaction of the audience in v. , Great is
truth and strong above all things totally ignores the theological aspect.
Response: This is indeed possible, but the reasons adduced are not as
persuasive as they appear to be. The doxology in v. c is merely an
extension of v. ab which lists qualities that are all capable of being
predicated of God (strength, kingship, authority, and majesty, not to
mention the Semitism of from age to age). In addition, while truth is the
main theme of the speech, God is the encoded subtext embedded within
the discourse and it is no surprise that the audience praises the main
apparent theme of the speech, truth, instead of its cryptic referent, God.
() Hillhorst argues that in v. d there is nothing unrighteousness with
him ( q), the textual variant
is more likely than meaning that the original reference was to
truth (feminine pronoun) rather than to God (masculine pronoun).
But the manuscript evidence for is weak (V and other isolated
minuscules) and is the lectio difficilior (see Hanhart : ).
Hillhorst concedes all this, but his fall back is that disturbs the
logic of the argument, whereas in my mind it does not. In either case it is
incidental, because regardless as to whether the pronoun was originally
feminine or masculine, an identification of truth with God is implied
by the context. Unsurprisingly in Josephuss version the maneouvre of
the sun is done according to the will of God (
q) indicating a theocentric interpretation as the earliest (Ant. .).
Furthermore, the link between God and truth reappears later in Esdras
: in Ezras prayer that ) q (O Lord of
Israel, truthful you are) and the theme is being deliberately overtured in
Zorobabels discourse. In addition, although in v. is the nearest
grammatical antecedent of in v. a, the sun cannot be the subject of
the one who does these things ( ) because the sun is just
one of three agents in the cosmic order along with heaven and earth that
display a marvelous operation and quality. More likely, and in keeping
with the not so subtle motif of the speech, it is a tacit reference to God.
That would break the contrast between Is not the one who does these
things great and And truth is great, and stronger than all these things if
the one who does these things ( ) is a periphrasis for God
and if truth (q) is a personification of God. Talshir (: )
comments: It is possible that the text does not intend a contrast at
all. The question may refer to God as the creator of earth and heaven and

commentary

sun, mentioned earlier, while the rest of the text would then refer to truth
as a facet of God: Is not God great who created all this? [A]nd truth is
great and surpasses everything. Read this way, Zorobabels remarks are
firmly rooted in the tradition of creational monotheism so pervasive in
Israels sacred literature. The result is that the speech lauds God for the
order and beauty of creation and for his faithfulness, truthfulness, and
justice that pervades it.
After the opening praise of creation and its creator, the speaker asserts
in v. b that: And truth is great, and stronger than all things (
q ). The reference to all
things does not mean God, the implied subject of in v. a,
but the created order of earth, heaven, and sun. Perhaps truth here
exists as an intermediary entity that represents God like Wisdom or
the Logos as described in Sirach and Philo which are fertile soils for
comparison. Truth is depicted as a personal power to which even creation itself must acknowledge its inferiority to (noteworthy also is the
link between truth and justice in Job :; Isa :; Jer :;
Dan :; Pss :; :; Tob :; Wis :). That is evidenced in
three ways with all the earth calls upon truth ( q ), heaven blesses her ( )), and
all heavens works shake and tremble, and there is nothing unrighteous
with her ( : q) in v. (Codex Venetus and other manuscripts read
more correctly the feminine at :c instead of the masculine for the reference to the feminine noun q, but usage of the
masculine is more conducive to an implied reference to God). The personification of earth and heaven as beseeching truth stands in analogy
to statements in Jewish literature about the earth praising God (e.g., Ps
:). The trembling of heavens works in the presence of truth, once
more is parallel with other statements where heaven and earth are shaken
in the presence of the Lord (e.g., Ps :; Isa :; :; Joel :; Sir
:; Esd : [Apoc.]). Also, truth, like God, is free from unrighteousness (e.g., Ps :). That justifies Sandovals (: ) claim that
v. is a pastiche of biblical terminology and sentiments that praises
truth in a manner reminiscent of the way that the Hebrew Bible praises
YHWH.
The mention of the lack of any unrighteous () quality in
truth then forms a catchword that introduces a series of phrases that
emphasizes the contrast further by highlighting that which is unrighteousness, viz., wine, king, women, all the sons of men, and all of their

commentary

works. (v. ) The absence of the verb to be (i.e., :


: :) in the listing means that is predicated of the various subjects. By placing the anarthrous
adjective at the head of the clause the quality of unrighteousness is
ascribed to the subjects (Porter : ). The ascription of unrighteousness to wine, king, women etc. is as a refutatio comprised of an ad
hominem appeal against the preceding subjects influenced by the anthropological pessimism of certain strands of Jewish thought that identified
an evil impulse within human nature (e.g., Jer :; :; Job :;
Prov :); what later rabbinic authors called the yetzer hara. The epideictic discourse shifts from the praiseworthiness of wine, king, and
women to their blameful and shameful character. The indictment is further meted out by the assertion that there is no truth in them and by
their unrighteousness they will destroy themselves ( q: ). In other words,
they lack the praiseworthy qualities attributed to truth and result in
unrighteous behaviours that, reduced to their simplest form, entail selfdestruction.
Beyond arraigning the unrighteous and destructive qualities of wine,
king, and women, the discourse then turns back to the superlative qualities of truth with a focus on its enduring character and moral superiority (v. ). A resounding note of praise is given to truth: And the
truth remains and is strong [A reads will be strong] over the
ages, and lives and prevails from age to age. With it there is neither
facade nor indifference, but it does what is righteous rather than things
that are unrighteous and evil. Everyone approves its deeds, and there is
nothing unrighteous in its judgment. To it belongs the strength and the
kingship and the authority and the majesty of all the ages (vv. ).
This language would naturally suggest God to a Jewish reader, though
the expression is sufficiently subtle enough to be accommodated to different religious ideas of any number of Hellenistic or eastern religions
(Hillhorst : ; Williamson : ). Almost every descriptive modifier in this set could be predicated of God. The final accolade to truth for its strength (), kingship (), authority (), and majesty () gives the game away that
the author is really talking about God or at least a personification of
a divine attribute given the same language used of God elsewhere in
Judeo-Christian literature (cf. e.g., Chron :; :; Pss :
; :; Mic :; Tob :; Jude ; Matt : [KJV]; cf. Dan : where
Nebuchadnezzar is given the kingdom, the power, the might, and the

commentary

glory). This is confirmed by the doxology at the end of the discourse


(v. ): Blessed be the God of truth ( q q) and the genitive is ambiguous but probably denotes a genitive of
source and/or a genitive of apposition (though Klein [: ] suggests that vv. implies that God remains greater than truth). Similar
phrasings are found in the LXX in Ps :, q
q (You have redeemed me Lord God of truth) and Sir
:, q q q (From the God of truth and
covenant).
The end of the speech is marked by and he ceased speaking (
). Unlike the other speeches this one affords a
huge response concurring with the central thesis, and all the people then
called out and said, Great is truth and is strongest of all! (
q ). The consensus reached by the court
is that Zorobabel has prevailed in the wisdom contest and won a victory
by showing that truth is genuinely .
The final verses of Zorobabels speech were particularly appealing to
Christian authors in the later centuries. Athanasius interjects a quotation
of this passage in his Defence before Constantinus () where he wrote:
She [Truth] is the defence of Kings, and especially of Christian Kings;
with her you will reign most securely, for holy Scripture says, Mercy and
truth preserve the king, and they will encircle his throne in righteousness
(Prov :). And the wise Zerubabbel gained a victory over the others
by setting forth the power of Truth, and all the people cried out, Great
is the truth, and mighty above all things. Worthy of mention is also
Cyprian in his Epistles (.) who declares: On which account, let us
forsake the error and follow the truth, knowing that in Esdras also the
truth conquers, as it is written: Truth endureth and grows strong to
eternity, and lives and prevails for ever and ever. With her there is no
accepting of persons or distinctions; but what is just she does: nor in her
judgments is there unrighteousness, but the strength, and the kingdom,
and the majesty, and the power of all ages. Blessed be the Lord God of
truth! This truth Christ showed to us in His Gospel, and said, I am the
truth. Wherefore, if we are in Christ, and have Christ in us, if we abide in
the truth, and the truth abides in us, let us keep fast those things which
are true. The praise of truth in Esdras was conducive to informing both
the moral discourse and christological confession of the early church.
The Latin translation of the cheer of the court in v. has become a wellknown proverb, Magna est veritas et paevalet (Great is truth and it will
prevail).

commentary

This section has a number of differences from the RH edition of the text. At
:, is attested by B, L, and Josephus, though from A
is preferred by Hanhart. Typical of B is the omission of preposition intensifiers
from the verbs (resulting in ) at :, (resulting
in . ) at :, and (resulting in ) at :. The use of the
personal pronoun over the reflexive pronoun at : is also typical of
B (cf. :; :). Whereas references to group consultation on ideas ordinarily
takes the form of (cf. :; :, ), at : Bs
substitutes for the first probably to intensify the sense of consultation
and agreement.

:. Dariuss Reward and Zorobabels Request


The victory of Zorobabel now meets its due reward before Darius in
vv. . Darius handsomely rewards the most learned orator with
gifts envisaged by the trio during their design of the contest ( Esd :
). Darius offers Zorobabel the desire of his heart and fellowship in
his household (v. ). However, personal benefits are replaced with the
national cause (Talshir : ) as Zorobabel responds by asking the
king to make good his vow to rebuild Jerusalem and to return the sacred
vessels back to Jerusalem (vv. ). By doing so, the restoration of
Jerusalem will return to its progress despite the set backs that it has faced.
Thus, Zorobabels victory in the contest is not a personal achievement,
but turns out to be a national one.
The account suffers from one major historical problem, viz., that the
vessels of the temple had already returned to Jerusalem under Cyrus as
administrated by the treasurer Mithridates and the governor Samanassaros (Esd :; Ezra :; cf. Esd :; Ezra :). That
return is either forgotten or, perhaps, was thought to be only partial
under Cyrus with further vessels still waiting to be returned. Most likely,
the request of Zorobabel in v. was included in order to emphasize
Zorobabels role in effecting the restoration process even if this feature created an obvious anachronism. As to when Zorobabel actually
returned to Jerusalem is a matter of debate and Esdras may well be correct in identifying his work during the time of Darius rather than Cyrus
(see Coggins & Knibb : ).
Following the acclaim of the people at court ( ) for Zorobabels
speech on truth (v. ), the king subsequently addresses him (
). Because Zorobabel has been found to be the wiser man
() of the trio, he is able to request whatever you wish, even
above what has been written, and we will give it to you ( q

commentary

). The things concerning what

has been written, obviously refers to the prizes anticipated by the three
bodyguards when they concocted their plan and dreamed of the possible
rewards that might follow. Zorobabel is invited to look even beyond
those gifts for his reward. What is more, in continuity with what the
trio envisaged (:), Zorobabel is invited (the subjunctives q and
q are permissive) to sit next to me, and be called my kinsman
( q: q). The invitation is
one of wealth and adoption into the imperial household.
Zorobabels response () is to take up the first part of the offer and
to ask for whatever he wishes. Instead of seeking gold, honour, or land,
what he wishes is for Darius to honour his coronation vow and to permit
the rebuilding of Jerusalem and the return of the vessels to the temple
from Babylon. The vow made by Cyrus is unknown to our sources and
it might be a literary device to turn Darius into a neo-Cyrus. Whereas
Cyruss decree focused only on rebuilding the temple, Darius supposedly
vowed to rebuild the temple and Jerusalem, which is either a conflation
or expansion of a source, both are typical of Esdras. Zorobabel speaks
to the king ( ) and requests, first, that he, Remember
the oath that you solemnly made to build Jerusalem, on the day that you
received your kingship (q ()
) ). The
imperative verb q has the force of earnest request and not a
stringent command. But the king is asked to make good a solemn vow
that can be traced back to his accession to the throne. The request is,
second, that he send back all the sacred vessels that were even taken
from Jerusalem, which Cyrus set apart when he vowed to cut down
Babylon, and vowed to send them back there (
q )
). Darius is petitioned

to not only fulfil his own vow, but also that of his predecessor Cyrus that
as of yet goes unfulfilled. The internal contradiction is that Esd :
assumes that the vessels were returned under Cyrus, though they are
returned again under Darius in :, and yet again under Artaxerxes in
:. Then, third, to build the temple to which Darius also swore
an oath at his coronation. What is interesting is that Vaticanus refers to
the temple which the Judeans burned when Judea was desolated by the
Chaldeans. Although the ) (the Judeans) are mentioned it
was actually the ) (the Edomites) who were the arsonists
according to most manuscripts (a tradition known to Ezek :, Ps :,

commentary

and Obad , whereas Esd : and Chron : attribute


the destruction of the temple to the Chaldeans). It is possible that the
implied referents are contemporary Idumeans who had ambivalent
relations with the Hasmoneans (Josephus, Ant. ., ; ., ;
.). In any case, in keeping with the decree of Cyrus ( Esd :
), Zorobabel seeks the rebuilding of Jerusalem, the return of the sacred
vessels, and the reconstruction of the temple; that was the purpose of his
victory.
Zorobabels request ends with a further impassioned plea to Darius to
commit to these things (v. ). The emphasis is made by way of three
verbs (, , and ) that all add pathos and emotional depth
to the request. If the appeal to Dariuss vow at his accession and the vow
of Cyrus is not enough, Zorobabel follows that up with mention of the
majesty that is yours ( ) if he should do
this (Myers [: ] translates as generosity in light
of Sam : and Chron : which contain ). The subsequent
remark is that by allowing the reconstruction of city and temple and the
refurbishingment of the sacred vessels, Darius will be executing the vow
which he swore to the King of Heaven ( ), who is
obviously Israels God.
The textual variations between B and the eclectic text of RH are mostly minor.
At :, B adds a conjunctive between ) and . In the
same verse, B omits the prepositional intensifier with instead of
(cf. :). B prefers the aorist subjunctive q to the aorist
indicative q at :, but the indicative must be correct due to the temporal sequence envisaged. RH follows A in reading the relative pronoun and
personal pronoun with , whereas B renders it as a comparative adjective
with in :. The most intriguing variant is that B reads ) in
sharp contrast to ) in other mss. B mistakenly attributes the burning
of the Judean temple to the Judeans! That is no doubt due to a phonetic misreading/mishearing of ) or an internal Greek corruption (Talshir :
).

:. The Decree of Darius on the Return of the Exiles


The response to Zorobabels request is favourably met by Darius who
despatches letters so that the rebuilding of Jerusalem and the temple
could not only recommence, but that it would do so with imperial benefaction. His reply combines elements of the decree of Cyrus ( Esd :;
Ezra :; :), Dariuss affirmation of this decree (Ezra :); and
Artaxerxes authorization of Nehemiah (Neh :, ). In outline, Darius kisses Zorobabel and writes letters to the associated administrators

commentary

of Coele-Syria (v. ). The letters detail the material support that the
Jerusalemites will receive for rebuilding the city (v. ). Darius writes
concerning the freedom of the Judeans from interference from the governors and the repatriation of land back to the Judeans (vv. ). Darius
also stipulates financial support for the rebuilding of the temple and for
the operation of the cultus (vv. ). The freedom of passage and coverage of expenses for the priests and Levites are explicitly mandated,
while wages and land is granted to guards of the city (vv. ). It is also
stipulated that the sacred vessels will be returned to Jerusalem (v. ). The
most important aspect of the account is that it brings fulfillment to the
statement made in Esd : that the reconstruction efforts were halted
until the second year of the reign of Darius, King of the Persians.
The sequel to Zorobabels audacious and yet humble request is that
Darius arose and kissed him ( ) which was culturally symbolic of acceptance and blessing (e.g., Gen :; :; :; :; Exod :; Sam :; Acts
:; Rom :; Cor :; Cor :; Thess :; Pet :).
The immediate outcome, practically speaking, is that he wrote epistles for him to all the treasurers, toparchs, governors, and satraps, so
that they would send him out and all those going up with him to build
Jerusalem (
)). Throughout the narration the verb (he wrote)

carries overtones of stipulation rather than simply imparting information (vv. , ). The list of Persian administrators mentioned
is comprehensive and includes civil servants, provincial rulers, military
officials, and local leaders presumbably in charge of the region Across
the River. They are to grant Zorobabel and his retinue a safe passage
for their trip ( means to assist someone making a journey, see
Macc :, Cor :). It is thus assumed in the letters that Zorobabels return will be in a caravan with others who will also be joining him
to not only deliver the news, but to assist in the renewed construction
process. No mention of the previous efforts at rebuilding are made and
for all intensive purposes they are forgotten. The reconstruction under
Darius appears, at the literary level at least, as an entirely new beginning,
or as if Cyruss decree had never happened. Specific mention in the composition of letters is given to the toparchs of Coele-Syria, Phoenicia, and
Lebanon, as they are to provide rebuilding materials for the Jerusalemites
in trees from Lebanon (note the use of cedars of Lebanon to build the

commentary

temple during the time of Solomon in Kgs :). Ironically, the civic
leaders of Coele-Syria and Phoenica who were protagonists in the opposition to the Judean reconstruction efforts under Artaxerxes ( Esd :,
) now have to assist in the programme of reconstruction by imperial
order.
Another set of addressees that Darius writes to are the Judeans (v. ).
These Judeans who are yet to return to Jerusalem and are designated as
those Judeans going up from the kingdom ( ) ). The participle modifies the preceding
noun so as to imply the Judeans who are ready to return to Jerusalem
or at least are volunteering to do so. The kingdom in question is obviously the Persian kingdom. The purpose of their return is recognized
as being for their freedom ( q) and freedom was a
major element of exilic prophecy (see Isa :; :; :). Their freedom entails two key aspects. First, no satrap or toparch or treasurer
should come upon their doors (
q q ).
The reference to doors reflects an idiom of some form to the effect of
attacking the city gates. Second, all the territory that they might seize
is for them to exist in without tribute and so that the Chaldeans should
give up the villages of the Judeans which they took (
:
() () )). The future
indicative verb edges in meaning towards the subjunc-

tive mood (see NRSV, ESVA they would occupy; NETS they would
seize; NEB they should acquire; Myers were to occupy) aided by the
fact that the future tense-form can sometimes have a deliberative sense
(Porter : ). The context implies a virtual conquest of the land as
the returning Judeans abruptly seize rather than just inhabit the territory. To that end, the Chaldeans (Edomites is better attested textually
and a more logical referent) are accordingly ordered to vacate the land
that was taken over either by force or by absence during the period of
the Babylonian exile (Josephus [Ant. .] mentions that the Idumeans
and Samaritans and the inhabitants of Coele-Syria were commanded to
return villages to Judean settlers). A futher benefit is that they are to be
free from the obligations of tribute () during this period
of resettlement. A similar request for the freedom of Judea and Samaria
from tribute was made by Jonathan to Demetrius ( Macc :,
). In sum, it is hard to avoid seeing New Exodus/Conquest imagery
being delibratley utilized here. The theme of freedom, leaving a pagan

commentary

kingdom to go up to Jerusalem, and taking the land from the Edomites


(Chaldeans), are all reminiscent of motifs from the Exodus story. With
imperial sponsorship, then, the returning Judeans will finally have a land
to exist in () free from military threats, taxation, and foreign
peoples.
A further piece of news for the Judeans concerns financial support
for the rebuilding of the city, temple, and expenses paid for the priestly
classes (vv. ). Twenty talents a year is given for the building of
the temple until it is completed. There is also an additional ten talents
a year for whole burnt offerings to be offered on the altar daily. The
details of the burnt offerings (q ) are found
in Leviticus and Deuteronomy (Lev :; Deut :, , , ;
:) and it is closely related to the sin offering () in Leviticus
(e.g., Lev :; :; :, , ). More curious is the claim that
these sacrifices exist according to the commandment they have to make
seventeen offerings. There is no known commandment () that
mandates seventeen offerings ( ) and it is not
stated whether this is daily or yearly. The offerings might have something
to do with sacrifices and prayers for the king and his sons ( Esd :;
Ezra :). Accordingly variants either omit (L La Sy)
or replace it with something else ( [V] and
[]). As the lectio difficilior the reading of is most likely
to be original. Talshir (: ) thinks that twelve would be more
appropriate given the references to twelve sacrificial victims elsewhere
(see Esd :; :; Ezra :; :).
In a parenethetical remark in v. it is reiterated that those who come
from Babylon to rebuild the city should have their freedom (q), which encompasses children of the returnees and the priests that
join them as well. Later on, finding priests to accompany the returning
exiles will prove to be a matter of much concern (see Esd :).
The focus on priests in the document is often underrated. Yet in Esdras
much attention is given to the priests and Levities including: the proper
order of priests and Levites in their temple rituals (:, ; :; :), their
inclusion in the Passover meal (:, ), their role in the renwal
of the Law under Iosias (:), their sin under the wicked kings (:;
:), their presence in the first cohort of returnees under Cyrus (:)
and under Darius (:, , , ), the remuneration for their services in
the temple (:), the problem of unregistered priests (:), the
association of Iesous the High Priest and Zorobabel the governor (:),
their role as witnesses to the former temple (:), their leading the

commentary

worship of the new temple (:), their freedom from taxation (:),
the search for them to be part of the restoration process (:),
their role as custodians of the sacred vessels (:), their intermarriage with foreign women (:; :), and the priestly leaders who
assist Esras in purifying the people from contamination (:; :). The
author of Esdras then has a special concern about the priesthood that
focuses on the proper order of their worship, the importance of their
sustenance, their freedom from taxation, their role in the restoration process, and the importance of their purity. In :, Darius wrote concerning
the daily expenses of the priests and their sacred vestments ( but if the conjunctive is explicative
then it refers to the expenses pertaining to the priestly vestments). What
is more, he wrote/stipulated concerning the vestments which they were
to serve in ( ). If the interrogative is given its
full force then Darius mandates the way in which the priests were to serve
(see NETS, in what way they would serve in it; contrast Myers, NRSV,
ESVA, and NEB that translate as a relative pronoun. Torrey [:
] treats the verse as a continuation of the previous one, and to all the
priests he also promised their needs and holy garments. Josephus [Ant.
.] adds a relative clause q q to clarify that the
vestments are the means by which the priests worship God). The same
treatment is extended to the Levites who also have their expenses paid
and this treatment extends until the day when the temple would be completed and Jerusalem built which is presumably when the cultus would
become self-supporting through the financial provision of priests and
Levites according to the Mosaic law (Josephus Ant. . adds that the
musical instruments which the Levites used in singing hymns to God
should be given to them). A final remark is that all those who guarded
the city ( ) were to receive land and wages in
exchange for their duty as watchkeepers. Though in an Aramaic Vorlage
it is more probable that doorkeepers of the temple were meant (see Neh
:; :)
The final specification of Darius is that the sacred vessels taken from
Jerusalem to Babylon be sent back (v. ). These vessels were those that
Cyrus had set apart ( ) and it is difficult to determine
whether this refers to the original vessels that Cyrus had set apart for
some purpose or those which he had kept apart from the other vessels
that returned to Jerusalem in his decree. Nevertheless, what Darius
orders is all that Cyrus had said to be done now will be done because
he himself commanded [it] to be done and to be sent to Jersusalem.

commentary

The repatriation and restoration under Cyrus was partial or incomplete,


but under Darius it is now entering its full realization.
The textual distinctiveness of B is insignificant for the most part. B omits the
article prior to and it includes the conjunctive between
and . B reads over probably as a result of :
(), though the subjunctive makes better sense as it is set within a
clause and is attested by A and N. As per :, B has instead of the
better attested ) (A N) in :. Carried over from :, B again omits
the prepositional prefix from whereas RH follows the majority with
in :. At : B adds a to the relative pronoun creating the
article resulting in . The RH reading for the relative pronoun
is attested only by , while other witnesses omit the ambiguous construction
altogether (A V L). Between and in : is a gap of several letters which
have not been retraced over. Finally, at : the corrector has appropriately
added a in the middle of {}q to correct a misspelling.

:. Zorobabels Prayer and Rejoicing in Jerusalem at the News


The renewal of Cyruss decree by Darius leads to Zorobabels prayer of
victory and his praise to God. The announcement of the news to the
Judeans of Babylon occasions an equally prompt ejaculation of praise
followed with much merriment. The praise offered by Zorobabel is higly
reminiscent of similar acclamations offered by Jewish heroes (e.g., David
in Chron : and Daniel in Dan :). The description of
seven days of feasting is hyperbolic and takes historical liberties with
what probably was the actual Judean response to the news (see Ezra :
). The key word for this unit, which is why vv. and vv.
should be joined together rather than separated, is (vv. , ,
). The blessed God of truth is blessed here by the individual recipient
of divine wisdom and the corporate beneficiaries of Gods providential
actions for his exiled people.
Sometime after () Zorobabel departs from Dariuss presence and
praises God for his victory and for the wisdom that gave him for this
victory (vv. ). Zorobabel is now identified as the young man
( ) stemming from the earlier description of the trio as the
three young men (Esd :, ). In a typical posture of prayer he lifted
his countenance to heaven towards Jerusalem (
)) and a similar technique of
prayer is performed by Daniel who prayed facing towards Jerusalem
from an upper room (:). Zorobabel praises the King of heaven
which is Jewish language of authority and adoration (see Dan :; Tob
:).

commentary

God is then praised with the words () uttered by Zorobabel


from, first, a verbless sentence about divine gifts: From you comes
victory; from you comes wisdom, and yours is the glory. And I am your
domestic servant (
). Zorobabel praises God for victory in the
contest and the contest itself was concerning that which is the wisest
(Esd :, , ) which he successfully won ( Esd :). While Zorobabel
is praised for his display of wisdom, he nonetheless recognizes that
wisdom of this order is a gift from God (see Prov :; Eccl :; Dan :
; Sir :; :; Eph :; Jas :). Indeed, it is not an over statement
to say that here wisdom is a salvific power and manifests itself amongst
receptive audiences in order to deliver them from the foolishness of
pagans (see Cor :). The logic of the prayer requires the transposition
of the first two nouns so that Gods wisdom () is the efficient cause
of victory (), which is why he is worthy of glory (). The thought
is similar to Sirach, to him who gives wisdom, I will give glory (:).
Attached to that word of praise is Zorobabels profession of servitude
before his heavenly master, And I am your domestic servant (NRSV,
ESVA, I am your servant; NETS, I am your domestic; CEB, I am
your household servant; Myers, I am your household slave). The noun
means household slave/servant in a domestic setting (see Prov
: [LXX]; Acts :; GELS, ). The word is usually set in relation
to either the master identified as (e.g., Philo, Poster C. ; Luke
:; Rom :; Clem .) or as in Esd : with (e.g., Prov
:; Philo, Deus. Imm. ; Pet :). The word showcases Zorobabels
submission to the God who equipped him for his task.
The second element of Zorobabels prayer repeats much of the first part
with a reiteration of the fact that God granted me wisdom (
). The response beyond that is conveyed in Zorobabels claim
that, I confess you, O Master of our ancestors (
). The confession can be related to the substance of Zorobabels speech which, in the final movement, was unashamedly theocentric
and affirmed the blessedness of the God of truth. Like Daniel, Esther,
and the Maccabean martyrs, Zorobabel has confessed in the presence of
a pagan monarch Israels God as the Lord of the nations ancestors and
consequently his own Lord as well.
The subsequent action of Zorobabel is to make the announcement
known to the Judean exiles where praise and celebration appropriately
follows in their response to the good news (vv. ). Zorobabel took
the letters and went into Babylon and announced () this to

commentary

all his brothers. Their reaction, just like Zorobabels, is to bless God as
the God of their forefathers. The basis for that adoration is because ()
their God had given them permission and release to go up and build
Jerusalem and the temple (
) ). The nouns
are an instance of paronomasia that colourfully express a sense
of liberty resulting from Gods action. The thought is similar to Esth
: about, relief and deliverance for the Jews will arise from another
place. The freedom that they are granted is denoted by the infinitives
which are best understood as part of an
implied purpose clause (i.e., God grants them permission and release
in order to go up and build the temple). The temple is then described
with the redundant expression where his name is named on it (
q ) which most probably reflects an
Aramaic idiom to the effect that the temple is the place of Gods holy
name (see Chron :; Ps :; Rev :).
No Jewish celebration is finished without a party and the Judean exiles
proceed to make merriment at the news. It is said that they drank hard,
with music and rejoicing, for seven days (q
). The verb q, which means to
get drunk (NRSV, NEB, ESVA they feasted; Myers, they celebrated;
NETS, they drank hard; cf Esth : [LXX] where it says the king and
Haman sat down and drank; GELS, to drink hard), dominates the
sentence. The present tense of the verb suits the context as the picture
is that of the people really committing themselves to thorough-going
celebration through festive drinking and music that encouraged their
sense of joy and gladness (). Thus the story of the three bodyguards
ends as it had commenced, with a feast (Coggins & Knibb : ).
The only difference between B and the text of RH is that B omits the feminine
article before . : has its beginning marked with a large dot in the left
hand column in B and a space of a single letter marks a break between : and
:.

The Continuing Return from Captivity (:)


The story of the three bodyguards, with the triumph of Zorobabel who
moved Darius to make a decree for the rebuilding of both Jerusalem and
the temple, has as its sequel the return of the exiles to Judah and the
resumption of the rebuilding process.

commentary

The author returns to the Ezra material and follows it very closely
(Esd : = Ezra ::). The primary differences between Ezra and
Esdras accounts are that: () the presentation of the return narrated
in Esdras is preceded by a unit of material unique to Esdras which
functions as a bridging section between the description of the euphoria following Dariuss decree to the listing of the exiles that returned
with Zorobabel (Esd :). It is the authors own creation composed
in order to shift the narrative back towards the Ezra account. () There
are several textual differences between the list of names and numbers
in the Greek of Esdras , Esdras , , Josephus Antiquities , and
the Hebrew of MT Ezra and Nehemiah with further variations in
the associated manuscript witnesses (see Myers : ; and note
that Klein : argues for the textual superiority of Esdras
). The author of Esdras has evidently copied his account from an
Ezra source very similar if not identicial to MT Ezra. The discrepencies
among the lists may arise from variations in transliterating names, confusion as to who was who, errors caused by numerical notations, and
due to textual variants in the manuscript witnesses (see Myers :
). In many cases it seems that it is no longer possible to determine
which, if either [Ezra or Nehemiah ], form of the text is original
(Williamson : ; though Williamson [: ] himself favours
the priority Nehemiah ). () The author also departs from the chronology of Ezra concerning Zorobabels return to Jerusalem. Whereas
Ezra implies that Zorobabel returned and began the reconstructive
work during the reign of Cyrus, the author of Esdras locates it during the time of Darius. The outstanding question is whether Esdras
has rightfully corrected the chronology of Ezra (according to Talshir
[: ] IEsd puts the events in proper order), or whether Esdras
is a creative revision to accentuate the role of Zorobabel (Kaiser [:
] identifies three returns with the first one under Jeshua and Zerubbabel in /bce, the second under Ezra / bce, and the third
under Nehemiah in bce). () Ezra is very much a rollercoaster
ride towards restoration with manifold ups and downs. In contrast,
Esdras retains all the negative components in the struggle of the initial return to Judah early on (Esd :) and projects the positive
elements of the restoration process to the period after Zorobabel is introduced (Esd :). This redactional activity highlights that the author
has worked with his own form of logic and with broader theological
intent to recast his sources into the present narrative (Williamson :
).

commentary

Taken as a literary whole, the function of Esd : is to highlight


the effectiveness of Judahs return and the restoration under Zorobabel.
The false start during the reign of Cyrus gives way to a fuller movement
of restoration under Zorobabel during the reign of Darius/Artaxerxes.
Even though it also faces opposition (:, ) there is now a more
grounded hope for triumph over their hostile neighbours given Zorobabels earlier triumph at Dariuss court. The narration includes the preparations for the jouney (:); the list of the returning exiles and their
eventual arrival in Jersualem (:); the votive offerings made in the
temple to mark the occasion (:); the erection of an altar and the
inaugural session of worship (:); the beginnings of the new temple
(:); and the inquiry and intrusion of Judahs neighbours concurrent with the resumption of temple worship (:).
:. Preparations for the Journey
In order to facilitate a shift from the celebrations in Babylon by the
Judean exiles at Zorobabels announcement (:), the author has
inserted some material in : to mark a transition back to the narration
in Ezra about the list of the returnees and the sequence of events that
immediately followed them. The unit is largely redactional and links the
bodyguard story and the list of the returnees from exile together. Talshir
(: ; : , ) proposes that : was originally
composed in Hebrew or Aramaic and interpolated by a redactor. That
is because, in her view, the Greek does not conform to the pattern
of the Greek elsewhere, the repeated use of the consecutive is a
Semitic feature, and the mistake in : about Zorobabel being the father
of Ioakim is possible only in Hebrew/Aramaic (see below). The short
unit breaks down into three small sub-sections including: the selection
of the returnees (v. ); the cavalary for protection and the cavalcade
of musicians for celebration (vv. ); and the ancestry of the leaders,
priests, and Davidides who returned (vv. ).
After the bodyguard contest and the promulgation of Dariuss decree
( ), a group of leaders from the exiles is chosen to go up
to Jerusalem (v. ). The verb (chose) is a favourite in the
Septuagint for a choice made with a particular preference (
with the infinitive also appears in Chron :, :). Leaders from the
ancestral houses among the tribes are selected to go up with Zorobabel
along with their retinue of wives and sons and daughters, and their
menservants and maidservants, and their livestock indicating what is

commentary

to be a complete and permanent change of territory. Unlike the earlier


return described in Esd :, there is no mention of the Spirit of
the Lord stiring up people to go up to Jerusalem and no rendering of
assistance from their neighbours.
A description of the actual caravan is provided in the subsequent
narration (vv. ). Darius sends a cohort of a thousand cavalry as
a protection party for the long and perilous journey. The number is
undoubtedly hyperbolic, but the cavalrys role is to provide security and
well-being (i.e., , peace) for the Judean sojourners as they head to
Jerusalem. The verb q (restore, bring back, return [GELS,
]) marks a return to a former state of affairs and is used regularly in the
Septuagint with that sense (e.g., Kgdm :; Esd :; Job :; Jer :;
Macc :). Darius is restoring the Judeans to Jerusalem to restart the
reconstruction of the city. But it is not strictly a military operation as
the festivities begun at the news of Dariuss decree are continued in the
journey. Hence the music of drums and oboes (
) and all their brothers were making merry (
). Though is often translated as
flute, since it was played with a mouthpiece it is better translated oboe
(see L&S, , contra BDAG, ). Although Darius made them go up
with them ( ), in the sense
that he mandated their return, the musical gaiety indictates that it was
not under duress (that is assuming that refers back to ).
In other words, the musical procession to the temple already began all
the way back in Babylon (see Coggins & Knibb [: ], The picture
is of a religious procession rather than a journey of some miles).
The identity of the tribal leaders who participated in the journey is
then listed with particular attention given to the priestly and Davidic
heritage of the travellers (vv. ). In keeping with the view of the
importance of the cultic offices in Esdras, the priests are accordingly
nominated first, even ahead of Zorobabel, indicating their preeminence
(see Coggins & Knibb : ; Williamson : ). From among
the priests are the sons of Phinees, sons of Aaron, who descend from
one known for his great zeal for the holiness of the people amidst racial
intermarriage within Israel (see Num :; Sir :). There is
also Iesous the son of Iosedek of Seraias who was, or was to be, the
high priest. Iesous (i.e., Jeshua) will have a prominent role to play further
as the head of the priestly line in Jerusalem in the rest of Esdras (see
:, , , , ; :; :). The attribution of sonship to Ioakim with
Zorobabel as his father ( ) is most likely based

commentary

on a misreading of the Hebrew (or Aramaic). Ioakim was probably a


son or relative of Iesous (see the conjectures of the NEB: Jeshua son
of Josedek son of Saraeas, and Joakim his son; and Zorobabel; and
Talshir [: ]: Jeshua, the son of Jozadak, the son of Seraiah, and
his son Joiakim, and Zorobabel). The error arose perhaps through a
mistakenly taken as a conjunctive rather than as a pronoun in the
conjectured turning Ioakim into Zorobabels son (Myers
[: , ] follows Torrey in preferring the conjecture Zorobabel
went up with him, but see objections of Talshir : ).
It is notable that Zorobabel is described as Zorobabel of Salathiel,
from the house of David, from the generation of Phares, of the tribe
of Judah, who spoke to Darius the King of the Persians wise words, in
the second year of his reign, in the month of Nisan, the first month.
That Zorobabels father was Salathiel is widely attested enough even if
his actual ancestry is unclear (see Chron : [LXX]; Hag :, , ;
:, , ). His origins in the house of David (
) is obviously a prestige term indicating status, both royal and
divine, in the restoration process. Although we are still far away from
anything resembling messianism in the technical sense, Zorobabel
the son of David figures prominently in the hopes for the future of
Judah (but see comments below on the root and star of Esd :
). Additional reflections on the restablishment of a Davidic dynasty
in Israel with eschatological connotations continued in the Hasmonean
and Roman eras (e.g., Psalms of Solomon ). What is more, the duo of
Zorobabel and Iesous led to the rise of what Craig Evans calls diarchic
restoration centred on two anointed figures of Davidic ruler and priestly
leader in the Dead Sea Scrolls and Testament of the Twelve Patriarchs
(Evans :). In Zechariah, these two figures are the sons of oil
(Zech :) and it is likely that their two anointed offices are even
collapsed together later on (Zech :). No mention of Zorobabels
Davidic heritage is found in Ezra. Klein (: ) conjectures that it
was because the author [of Ezra] was receptive to Persian domination
and attached no hopes for deliverance to the house of David. It is lastly
emphasized that Zorobabel was the one who spoke to Darius the King
of the Persians wise words (
) highlighting Zorobabels connection to the
royal power and his impressive wisdom at a pagan court. The author
at this point finally provides a chronological marker for when this took
place, in the second year of his reign, in the month of Nisan, the first
month.

commentary

Thus, under the auspices of royal protection, a vanguard of returnees


begins to make their way to Jerusalem with much fanfare and hope.
Among their ranks are leading priests, tribal leaders, and Zorobabel a
son of David. These persons constitute the primary building blocks for
the rebuilding and reconstitution of Judean society. What is left is to
designate is the rest of those embarking on the journey out of exile.
On textual variants, at : B contains the dative , whereas RH prefer
supported by A and the L texts. The section is marked out in B by a
with a macron on the left-hand of the column.

:. The List of Returning Exiles


Like most Hebrew genealogies the list of the returning exiles is not
designed to provide detailed records for posterity among those with
antiquarian interests. The purpose of genealogies is largely rhetorical and
ideological. Genealogies can serve a number of functions (Johnson :
) including: () societal construction where genealogies explain
historical or contemporous relationships through a common ancestry;
() origination that places ancestry lists into a coherent form accounting
for Israelite ancestry; () narrative bridge where genealogies serve to link
disparate units in a text; () chronology and periodization that links
people to nation shaping events; () military preparedness that listed
fighting forces in tribal sub-divisions; () legitimation by linking names
with property or offices; () racial homogeneity whereby the purity of
a family or individual is described; () continuity that demonstrates the
unity of peoples across time; and () narrative where the list accelerates
the story towards a certain goal.
The list in Esd : can be linked, to varying degrees, with all of
these elements with the exception of () concerning military preparedness. The list of returnees is a form of societal reconstruction insofar as it
provides a bond of unity among the designated returnees by coming out
of exile together and by beginning to restore Jerusalem together. The list
provides a unified and authorized account of those originating in Israel
who came out of Babylon en masse as opposed to those who returned
in dribs and drabs without sponsorship (that might conceivably have
accompanied the major repatriations). The list also provides a bridge
between the story of the three bodyguards and the reinstitution of temple
worship. The people are also linked with the movement of God among
the exiles and upon the Persian kings who are deliberately moved to
release them. There is also a resolute intention to demonstrate the purity

commentary

of the Israelite line by nominating those who could not demonstrate their
Israelite ancestry or priestly heritage (vv. ). The racial purity of the
returnees is all the more important given the problems of intermarriage
that become apparent after Ezras arrival in Jerualem. There is a sense of
organic unity between the Josianic pre-exile reforms and the post-exile
reconstruction under Zorobabel insofar as both renewals endeavoured
to rededicate and reorganize people and worship before the Lord. Finally,
the list serves to accelerate the story by bringing closure to the problem caused by the Samaritan intervention, it introduces Iesous into the
narrative, and highlights the renovations made to the temple and the
reinstitution of the cultus.
The head line of the list provides a setting for the return: Now these
are the ones from Judea who came up from the captivity of exile, whom
Nabouchodonosor King of Babylon, had expatriated to Babylon. And
they returned to Jerusalem and the rest of Judea, each to his own city
( )

): )
) in vv. a. The geographical designator
) is omitted by a couple of minuscules (, ) probably
due to its redundancy next to . Yet the emphasis on

the Judean heritage of the returnees is significant and they now return
full circle to the land from which Nabouchodnosor transferred them
( means forcibly remove in several places [Acts :; Chron
:; Amos : {LXX}]). Their time in exile in Babylon is literally a
sojourn (). The word was used to describe both the habitation
of the Hebrews in Egypt (Wis :; Acts :) and the Judeans in
Babylon (Esd : [LXX]). The participle going up is
more properly defined as ) (they returned
to Jerusalem). It may well be that in we are also meant
to hear echoes of repentance given how the word is used in adjacent
literature (see Chron :; :; Esd :; :; :) and in light
of the prayer of Zorobabel and the praise of the people that was implicitly
penitential (Esd :).
The next tier of leaders in the group are nominated (v. b): Coming up with Zorobabel and Iesous, Neemias, Zaraias, Resaias, Enenios,
Mardochaias, Beelsaros, Aspharasos, Borolias, Roimos, and Baana, their
leaders ( q ): : :
: : : :
). These are the leaders (

commentary

) of those coming ( q) out of Babylon. Esd

: has twelve names compared to eleven names in Ezra : and


some names have different spellings and occur in a different order (the
additional name in Esd : is ). The two key protagonists are
Zorobabel and Iesous (= Zerubbabel and Jeshua in English translations) who form a diumvirate of davidic and priestly leadership over the
returnees. The second segment of the leadership includes in its retinue
who is to be idenfied Nehemiah since he is not referred elsewhere in Esdras beyond :, . In Esdras (LXX) there seems to be
a differentiation between the who returned with Zorobabel in
: (see in :) and in the
subscription of :, who is listed again in :, and is associated with
in :. Yet a similar differentiation is not necessarily made in
Esdras even if a chronological absurdity is the result. As Williamson
(: ) states, it is most probable that he [Nehemiah] is [intended
here], and that this is another example of the chronological telescoping for theological reasons. Later in v. , it is said that Naimias and
Attharias told them [the unregistered priests] not to partake of the consecrated things. At : B has a slightly different spelling with
in contrast to of A and V (see [L ], [
Armte], []), but the textual tradition is otherwise
unanimous in making it the same person from Esd :. The second person q (Attharias) is quite likely a mistranslation of the Hebrew
for governor (Ezra :; Neh :). Hence the Vorlage referred
to Nehemiah the governor (see Neh :; :) and a singular person is
further implied by the singular verb preceding the two names in
the Greek. Whether Esdras seeks to marginalize Nehemiah is an open
question and it should not be too quickly assumed. However, it would
appear that in the Vorlage of Esdras the governor Nehemiah was subordinated to Zorobabel, while in the Greek text Neemias/Naimias and
Attharis examine the genealogical claims of the priests without any honorary title.
The next tier of appointees includes those from among the number
of the nation and their leaders (q q
) which is then enumerated at length (vv.
). This includes the common folk (:), the priests (:),
the Levites (:), the temple singers (:), the gatekeepers (:),
the temple servants (:), Solomons attendants (:), and the
unregistered (:). The listing is then summarized at the very end
with Israelites, servants, and livestock recorded (:). For the most

commentary

part, the list in Esdras agrees with Ezra , but Esdras does have its
own peculiarities. That is seen primarily in the expansive lists of temple
servants and Solomons servants (see Myers : ).
The matter of the unregistered persons and priests is highlighted
at the very end undoubtedly for its theological and social importance
(vv. ). The list establishes the identity and rights of the individuals
mentioned, but also functions to show the continuity between pre-exilic
Israel and the new Israel of restoration (Johnson : ; Clines
: ; Williamson : ). It was the responsibility of the family
heads to record and maintain the genealogical records of their families
(see Chron :; :). It is noted that the group Thermeleth and
Thelersas under the leadership of Charaathalan and Allar were not
able to prove their paternal ancestry or their generation that they were
from Israel. The reason for their inability to demonstrate their lineage
is not given, but we may assume that the pater familias no longer had
access to records of their ancestral origins. No conquence is noted, but
it is implied that their ability to participate in the restoration process is
thereby retarded to some degree.
The matter of the priests without genealogical record is treated at fuller
length. It concerns the priests those who had assumed the priesthood
but were not proved ( q). The verb is rare in the LXX, but denotes something like
produce or create with a state of mind (L&S, ) or lay claim to
(GELS, ). Supposedly there was some form of registry for priests
and inspection of it did not yield up their family names. Two consequences are drawn for them. First, that they were excluded from serving
as priests (q ) and therefore not able to officiate in the cultus. Second, two leaders, Naimias and Attharias, explicitly
instructed them not to partake of the consecrated things until there
should arise a priest being adorned in Explanation and Truth (
q q). In Ezra : the governor (i.e.,

Zorobabel), orders them not to partake of the most holy food, until
there should be a priest to consult Urim and Thummim. It is possible
that Esdras inserts Naimias in order to indicate the subordination of
Nehemiah benneath Zorobabel. In addition, the identity and function
of this future priest remains mysterious, although we have to wonder if
the arrival of Esdras is somehow a fulfillment of this role. B reads
in contrast to A and V which read , and pontifex is attested in
Lv. One can understand how such a text easily led to speculation about

commentary

an eschatological priest in the order of Aaron or Melchizedek and also


lend itself to christological interpretation at the hands of Christian readers. The (high)priest referred to is to be clothed in
q (Explanation and Truth) which represents a Septuagintal tradition also found in Exod :, Lev :, and Deut :. Here it is
based on the Hebrew (Ezra :) with Urim and Thummim. These were sacred lots used to make decisions beyond the reach
of human understanding. It was used during the time of Saul ( Sam
:) and Josephus alleges that it persisted until the Hasmonean era (Ant.
.). The advent of prophets may have rendered the lots superfluous
which is why they disappeared. Philo offered an allegorical reading of
q from Exod : where they are manifested
in the oracle of judgment of which he says: Now by the oracle is here
meant the organs of speech which exist in us, which is in fact the power
of language. Now language is either inconsiderate, and such as will not
stand examination, or else it is judicious and well approved, and it brings
us to form a notion of discreet speech (Leg. .). According to
the Babylonian Talmud until there should be a priest to consult Urim
and Thummim means until the dead rise and the Messiah, the son of
David comes (b.Sot b) underscoring its utility for speculation about

eschatological and messianic


deliverers.
The list rounds up with a closing calculation of the total numbers
of Israelites, servants, musicians, and livestock (vv. ). If added
together the total number exceeds that of the groups listed. Hence it is
probably assumed that others were present who were not specified in the
first mention of the list. The purpose is to describe the significant number
of persons embarking on the journey and the virtual emptying of Judeans
from Babylon.
The text of Esdr : is the most significant text-critical problem for the
whole of Esdras. The list of differences between B and the eclectic text of
RH has already been given (see above). Suffice to say the differences are of
five varieties: () Minor differences concerning the omissions of insignificant
words (e.g., B adds between and at : which is absent from A and
V) and different spellings (e.g., B contains in contrast to
supported by A and V). () Minor differences in names (e.g., B reads ,
while RH opts for at : from A and V as the most original spelling
from the many options among the variants [e.g., , , ]).
() Major differences in names (e.g., B contains q at : against its
omission from RH because the reading is only attested by B and the Ethiopic).
() Minor discrepencies concerning numbers (e.g., at : B [and Eth, Syr, Lav]
ends with , A and V have , whereas RH ends with influenced

commentary

primarily by the parallel version in Esdras : [LXX] and the prominence of


[, ] in Esd :; :, , , ). () Major discrepencies
concerning numbers (e.g., at : RH reads from Lac and in
light of Esd :, : [LXX], but is entirely absent from B). All in all, from a
textual vantage point, it is a very messy and complicated affair and there seems
little chance of precisely reconstructing an original version of Esdras here. A
futher study on the textual tradition behind Esdras , Esdras (LXX), and
Ezra (MT) might one day shed further light on both the Aramaic Vorlage and
the Greek Ausgangstext of Esdras.
Given the relative instability of the text, the correctors found opportunity to
amend errors and point to marginal readings. The most common correction is a
minor one which required swapping an for an in {} (:, ,
, , ). Similar corrections are made at : with the mending of the ending
of {} and : where there is an insertion of . The correctors have
also added an obelisk at :, :, and : to indicate marginal readings. These
include: (:), () (:), and
(:). The first two marginalia receive little external support apart from another
marginal note in (see also Esd : [LXX]), while the latter is attested
principally by A but with variants forms of in Armenian, Latin, and
Ethiopic witnesses hence the inclusion of in RH.
Endemic throughout are the itacisims caused by the superfluous inclusion of
epsilons, most often prior to an iota. In :, depending on how one takes ,
q ) could mean the The sons of Phthaleimoab
with respect to the son of Iesous (NETS). However, the fact that in B has a circumflex accent over the iota () means that it is either a number (one descendent from Phthaleimoab) or more likely a name (Phthaleimoabeis). The
section naturally lends itself to conjectural emendations. Brooke and McLean
(: ) propose which is more grammatically correct in :
than the singular genitive (found also in ). In :, RH follows A and
B on the plural (see Esd :; : [LXX]), while Hanhart (a:
; b: ) prefers the singular since it agrees more properly
with ; contra Hanhart, I suggest that we should be reluctant to equate
best grammar with most original reading.

:. Votive Offerings
The account of the return from exile under Zorobabel next describes
the arrival of the pilgrims in Jerusalem. That includes a description of
their votive offerings to contribute to the temples reconstruction and the
reinhabiting of Judah by the exiles. Disparity exists between the various
versions of the gift lists in Nehemiah , Ezra , Esdras , Esdras ,
, and Josephus Antiquties (see Myers : ). The gifts by the
family heads are obviously indebted to the Exodus tradition (Exod :
; :) where the Israelites made contributions for the ark, tabernacle,
vestments, and so forth.

commentary

The narrator does not provide an account of the journey or the actual
entrance to Jersualem. Instead, the narrator nominates the central characters at the return as Some of the leaders of the paternal houses (
) in v. . The group designated is
probably those leaders of the nation listed in :, although the word
nominating the ruling class changes from a participle form of in : to a participle form of in :. In Esdras and in
the Septuagint, is a far more common designation than for leadership (e.g., Gen :; Deut :; cf. Esd :; :, , ,
; :, , , ; :). The dative is ubiquitious in Esdras
and its placement in an articular infinitive q
(when they came) recalls the same construction in Esd : and Esd
: (LXX) that operates as a temporal marker for key events. It is at this
juncture that the exiles come to the temple of God ( q).
The temple is redundantly specified as that is in Jerusalem ( )) and the neuter article is anaphoric and refers back to the
temple.
While at the temple, the first act of the returnees is to solemnly vow
to participate in its reconstruction and to that end they all donate large
sums of money to the task. They solemnly vow () to give gifts
to the temple treasury. In Esdras is central to the descriptions
of piety and devotion in the context of cultic worship (see Esd :;
:, ; :, ) and it denotes a pledge made to the deity (GELS, ;
BDAG, ). The vows are made according to their abilities or power
( modifies rather than the
following ). The contributions listed
include a thousand minas of gold, and five thousand minas of silver,
and one hundred priests sacred vestments (v. ). The Hebrew of Ezra
: is basically the same except for the first item and reads, sixty-one
thousand darics of gold, five thousand minas of silver, and one hundred
priestly robes (NRSV). The precise value of the drachma () is
unknown and probably was unknown to the Greek translators too (see
Coggins & Knibb : ).
The final remark of the pericope describes the return of the people
( , his people in B and is arguably synonymous with )
rather than a group distinct from it). The people inhabit the territory
of Jerusalem with specific attention given to the priestly apparatus and
their supporting retinue including the priests, Levites, temple singers,
and gatekeepers (v. ). This might imply that Jerusalem had already
been rebuilt in the mind of the author (Cook : ), but reference

commentary

to inhabiting Jerusalem and its environs is too ambiguous to assign an


exact period of reconstruction to the literary setting since it might signify
villages around or proximate to Jerusalem (Myers : ). However,
reference to the gifts of priestly sacred vestments would be more appropriate if the temple was operating even if only partially. Esdras then is
probably anachronistic in assigning the period of restoration to Zorobabel under Darius rather than to Sheshbazzar under Cyrus (see Klein
: ). Esd : was based on an Aramaic version essentially
identical to Ezra : and in the original document the author probably added Ezra : to his own Vorlage and abbreviated : from Neh
: (Williamson : ).
On :, RH prefers q on the strength of V, whereas V*, A, and
B all read q. A similar variant is found in : with
(B) contrasted with (RH). B often prefers the dipthong over the
long vowel in compound verbs, however in : the witnesses including B are
unanimous for . Still, the multiple-attestion of q in A,
B, and V* is weighty and it probably was the original reading. In the same verse
B adds the personal pronoun creating that stands against RH that
opts for without the pronoun since it is omitted from A and V (see Hanhart
b: ).

:. Erection of an Altar and Inaugural Worship


The arrival of the exiles in Jerusalem includes not only the making of
votive offerings, but also the reinstigation of cultic worship. The people
gather for worship around Iesous and Zorobabel in order to make burnt
offerings and to keep the feast of tabernacles. The emphasis is firmly on a
return to observance of the Mosaic ordinances and the session resembles
the Josianic reforms by returning to the teaching of the law. However,
the religious ceremonies arouse the interest of the people of the land
who wish to participate in the proceedings and are, to some degree,
successful. The primary point is Israels return to law-keeping as seen
in their dedication to rightful worship through ritual sacrifice.
The story now looks ahead to a later point when the seventh month
came ( ). The time elapse indicates
a telescoping of events (Myers : ) about the progress made in
the restoration of Israels cultic worship with the commencement of
the reconstruction of the temple in Jerusalem by the returnees (v. ).
Notably this occurs during the reign of Darius and not, as in Ezra :
, during the reign of Cyrus. However, in : we are transported back
to the time of Cyrus and the time of Darius is still future showing the

commentary

confused chronology of Esdras (see Talshir : ) The designation


the sons of Israel ( )) is ubiquitious in the LXX and
appears in Esdras when Israel gathers to renew their worship and
bond to the covenant God (:; :; :, , ; :). The exiles are
only sons of Israel when in a penitent state and ready to worship
their God as he has stipulated. The group that assembles is described
as being in one mind (q) and it is a favourite Lucan term
for the unity and single minded purpose of Gods people (Acts :;
:, ; :). The gathering takes place in the open area before the
first gate oriented to the east (
) that accommodates the masses in front of the
temple.
The reinstitution of sacrificial worship is led by Iesous and Zorobabel
who take assigned positions and follow the stipulations laid down in the
Mosaic code (vv. ). Iesous is singled out first as the temple is his
priestly domain. Named with both of them, however, are his brothers
( and ). In the case of Iesous it means
the fellow priests, but with respect to Zorobabel it is not his family
members who are present, but the general populace of Israel. Much like
the genealogy of Matt : with the mention of Judah and his brothers (Matt :) and Jechoniah and his brothers (Matt :), the annotation his brothers in Esd : has more depth than initially meets
the eye. It places Zorobabel as the representative leader and savior of his
people. The leaders took up their positions () which is reminiscient of Iosias ordering of priestly orders and Levites in the reforms
narrated in Esd :. In the ancient world, right religion was very
much tied to right ritual and performed in a meticulously regimented
manner. It is not clear whether the altar was rebuilt or dedicated as the
verb could mean either. A dedication is probably to be preferred as rebuilding activites did transpire prior to the interruption ( Esd
:), but then again, Esdras as a whole is not devoid of anachronism.
Sacrificies, specifically burnt offerings (), are offered at
the altar. The object of worship is the God of Israel (q ))
which is a common epithet for God in Esdras (:; :; :, , ;
:, ; :) and often joined to (Lord). The most important
description of the process is that all was undertaken in accordance with
that prescribed in the book of Moyses, the man of God (q
q q ). It is
the law of Moyses (i.e., Moses) that was central to the reforms of Iosias
(Esd :, ), the reinstitution of worship under Zorobabel ( Esd :;

commentary

:, ), and the reforming ministry of Esdras (:; :). The description of Moyses as a man of God is taken over from the Chroniclers
work (Chron :; :; cf. Esdr : [LXX]) and here signifies the
intimacy of Moyses with God and consequently the appropriateness of
aligning Israels religious worship with its most revered religious authority.
Just like the earlier narration of the return under Cyrus, the return
from exile under Zorobabel experiences interference from Israels surrounding neighbours (v. ad). It is reported that some of the nations
of the land assembled with them (q
q ). The gathering is as much out of desire for participation
as it is for mere curiosity. The local peoples are interested in the worship of the local deity and wish to honour him as the Judeans do. Most
likely the subject in the subsequent description they erected the altar
upon their place ( qq q ) is the Israelites and not the peoples of the land. A further
parenthetical remark contrasts Israel with the actions of the nations as
the nations of the land were at enmity with them and prevailed over
them ( q
q ). The meaning of is based on assocations of prevailment, domination, advantage, capability, and victory (see
BDAG, ; GELS, ). Other translations handle the verb differently
in its current location (NRSV, NETS, ESVA, were stronger than they;
NEB were too strong for them; CEB dominated them; Myers supported them). The plainest meaning of Ezra : is that returnees feared
the locals rather than participated with them in a joint exercise of worship. Josephuss version (Ant. .) accentuates the negative reception
from among the local tribesfolks: But while they did this, they did not
please the surrounding nations, who all incurred hatred against them
( q
q). From the context in Esd : it
is most likely that the surrounding nations were pressuring (and perhaps
prevailing) upon the Israelites to allow them to participate in the cultic
celebrations. Their action as is an extension of their q with
the Israelites. Myerss translation of supported them could only work if
there was an exceptive particle prior to q and if the temple or Israel
was the object of the verb (Williamson [:] also places
the other peoples in the land in a positive light and Talshir [: ]
thinks that the text of Esdras is confused and implies a mix of hostility
and cooperation).

commentary

Further description of the sacrificial worship is given with due emphasis laid upon its rectitude and the obedience of the people to proper
manner of undertaking cultic observances (vv. e). There is a repetition of words and phrases indicating that the ritual proceedings were
lawful. Sacrifices were offered at appropriate times (), as commanded (), and as fitting (). The full cycle of cultic
ceremonies are briefly mentioned (daily, weekly, monthly, and yearly)
because, in addition to them, the Israelites who made their votive offerings earlier on (B has first month whereas most witnesses have seventh
month in line with :) now bring them forward and make good their
oaths. Noteworthy is the final description of the section, though the
temple of God was not yet built ( q ). The reconstruction is evidently incomplete, but this does not
prevent a new beginning to Israels task of keeping the regulations of its
national worship. Esdras gives due importance to Israels ritual calendar
as it begins with festival celebrations under Iosias and ends with Esrass
reading of the law. The feast of tabernacles observed under Zorobabel is
a third high point in the narrative (Coggins & Knibb : ).
In B the beginning of the section is marked by the symbol in the left hand
column. There is an omission of in the first word of the first sentence in :.
There B (though curiously followed by A*) reads , though
must be the correct reading because, as Hanhart (a: ) rightly notes,
is a Falsche Formen. Then, in :, B presents a reading of the
singular instead of the better attested plural preferred by RH,
and the plural obviously suits the context better (see in : and
in :). Four differences exist between B and RH in :. B includes an additional
before q probably due to a scribal error; B reads the aorist
passive plural (qq) over the aorist active plural (q); B
witnesses to the plural personal pronoun () over the singular personal
pronoun (); and B omits the article that is included in RH for .
In these last three instances RH prefers the readings of A and V over B. Also, in
:, the B witness of stands against A, V, Ethiopic, and Josephus (Ant.
.) in favour of . The pericope also contains several nomina sacra
set densely together.

:. Beginning of the New Temple


In this section the formal preparations for the temple begins with due
emphasis given to parallels between the making of the first and second temples. The rebuilding takes place with priestly and Levitical oversight and occasions much praise and celebration at its completion. The
account follows Ezra : very closely save that Esd : has no

commentary

parallel in Ezra : as well as the differences in names between Ezra :


and Esd :. Evidently the reconstruction under Zorobabel and Iesous
did not begin in bce, but in bce as the book of Haggai makes
clear (Hag :, ). Esdras hints at a correction to Ezra : by placing
Zorobabels return and reconstruction efforts during Dariuss reign (note
that in : the L text adds to underscore this fact further).
The first act is a pay-before-you-pray contract with the craftmens
( ) from Sidon and Tyre who are given wages and
supplies in order to bring cedar trees from Lebanon by ferry via the
harbour of Joppa (v. ). The account in Esdras, via Ezra, is largely
dependent upon descriptions of the first temple narrated in Chron
: and Chron :. The rebuilding is said to be congruent with
the written commands that they had from Cyrus King of the Persians
( )
which relates back to Esd : with the first pronouncement of the
decree for the rebuilding the temple by Cyrus.
The narrative then provides a setting that recapitulates the story so
far by restating the arrival of Zorobabel and Iesous in Jerusalem with
their priestly entourage who formally began the temple reconstruction
in the second year (vv. ). This is the real beginning ()
of reconstruction under the diumvirate with the assistance of their
brothers ( ) who include the priestly class and their
retinue (on the names see Myers : ). What is emphasized is
that those who led the reconstruction were those who had come back
to Jerusalem from captivity (
)). The first act is the most important one, they laid
the foundation of the temple of God (q
q) in the second month of the second year (on second month
see Chron :). Although some time elapse has occurred between
Cyruss and Dariuss reigns and for the building materials to arrive from
northern Palestine, the rebuilding sounds almost instantaneous with the
description that it happened when they came to Judea and Jerusalem
( q ) )).
The precise details of the rebuilding project are described including
the identity of those overseeing the project and the priestly procession
that accompanied the reconstruction (vv. ). There were Levites
appointed () for overseeing the work. The work in question
is described as the works of the Lord ( ) and the
description is repeated in :, but not found anywhere else in the LXX
(see q in Ps : , Tob :). That is undoubtedly an

commentary

objective genitive as work for the Lord. The minimum age for Levitical
duties here is twenty years old (see Chron :, ; Chron :),
but in the account of Davids organisation of the Levites the age according the Chronicler is thirty (Chron :) which comports with the
priestly legislation (Num :, , ). The lowering of the age limit may
be explained by the paucity of Levites at this time (Clines : ; Talshir : ). There also stood (or was appointed [again ])
Iesous with a number of others (Damadiel his brother and the sons of
Iesous Emadaboun and the sons of Iouda son of Eiliadoun). There are
differences between the list of names in Ezra :, Esd :, Esd :,
and Josephus Ant. (see Myers : ). In Esd : [LXX] there is
instead of in Esdras, both are transliterations of
in the MT. Esd : also makes no mention of ) or the heritage of ) as . Josephus includes the two unattested
names in Zodmielos () and Aminadabos ().
These named persons acted as taskmasters ( meant in the
sense of building supervisors like Chron : and Chron :, not
slave-drivers like Exod :; :, , [LXX]). This was done in one
mind (on q see Esd : and :; it was a common image
in intertestamental literature for the single minded purpose of Gods people at times of instability and peril [see in LXX, Exod :; Jdt :; :;
:; :, , ; Macc :, ; :; :]). The singledmindedness pertains to the work performed in, on, and for (hence the dative )
the house of the Lord ( [though others manuscripts
have q]).
Unlike Ezra that focuses on the laying of the foundations (or at least
their repair [so Clines : ; cf. Talshir : ]), in contrast
Esdras emphasizes the full rebuilding that has taken place. This is a
further example of how the author views the restoration process as moving unstoppablly forward after Zorobabels victory at the Persian court
(Williamson : ). As the builders built the temple of the Lord
( ), the priests stood
() in full vestments equipped with musicals instruments and trumpets. Music plays while the work proceeds. Concurrently the Levites, the
Sons of Asaph, played cymbols as part of the musical accompaniment.
The priestly onlookers were reportedly engaging in singing hymns to the
Lord and blessings, according to David, the King of Israel (
)). The meaning of could be a reference to the regulations of worship in
Chronicles , though in all likelihood it points to the Davidic qual-

commentary

ity of the Psalter and it appears as if the Psalms are remembered at this
juncture as part of Israels sacred music that begins playing again. Thus,
the Psalter is an instrument of continuity between Israels pre- and postexilic worship. The content of the musical praise is enumerated as: And
they sang with hymns, blessing the Lord, For his goodness and his glory
are upon all Israel into the ages (
)) which is phraseology common to several Psalms (:; :;

:; :; :). This hymnic praise is reminiscient of Zorobabels


exclamation of praise upon his victory at the contest in Dariuss court
(Esd :).
Attention moves from the builders and priests to the populace more
generally who share in the celebrations for the erection of the temple
(vv. ). At the erection of the house of the Lord (
) the populace also partake of the celebration with
trumpets and by loudly singing hymns to the Lord (on the prescription
for blowing trumpets at festivals see Num :, ). The worshipful festivity is juxtaposed with the old men who had seen the former house
( ) and approach the
refurbished temple with great crying and weeping ( q ) at the memory of the former temple. Josephuss expansion makes mention of the deficiency of the new temple compared to
the old one of Solomon which is the reason for the weeping (Ant. .
). The new temple was on the one hand a shadow of its former glory
(Hag :), but some could consider that the temples rebuilding was no
small thing to be despised (Zech :). Again, these Levitical and patriarchal leaders who saw the former temple provide a further element of
continuity between the pre- and post-exilic eras. The raucus of wailing
and lament (or was it weeping in joy [see Myers : ]) effectively
drowned the trumpets creating a noise that was heard far away (
q q), though in Ezra : it was impossible to distinguish the weeping from the worship. It is precisely the noise coming from
Jerusalem which will lead to a further confrontation with the surrounding tribes people.
read by A is transposed by B, L, and the Syriac to the order
in :. In the same verse, B and V* reads the conjunctive
after in contrast to the preposition found in A and Vb. Also in
: Hanhart opts for (carts) from the majority of mss, whereas RH
reads from B, Lav, Syr, and Eth (though in context a reading of
[nuts {L}] or [fruit {}] would be equally plausible [see Talshir

commentary

: ]). The name of Iesouss brother who acted as a levitical overseer in


: is diverse in the witnesses. B reads , whereas RH opts for the
reading from V of , while other readings include (L),
(A, ), admial (Eth), Chodeiel (Lac), and (Syr). See earlier Esd :
where B has in contrast to that is adopted by RH. Overall,
is probably the best Greek transliteration of the Hebrew of Ezra
:. A similar range of variations is met with another set of sons identified in the
same verse. B reads ) , though RH in an electic manner
renders it (from A, V) (conjectured spelling, although
is attested by B, V, and A; but note the omission in Esd :). Though
the witnesses are fairly divided over (B, Lcv, Syr) and q (A, V) in
:, RH decided in favor of q. It is hard to say which was original here since
both and q are found throughout this section. Typical of B in :
is the preference for a dipthong instead of a long vowel at the start of a word
with instead of (A, V) preferred by RH (see earlier
:, ). The only other significant variant is that in :, RH follows A and V
with over Bs . While is found earlier in Esd
:, , ; :, and :, a later scribe has probably switched to
in : order to avoid the repeitition of from :. A corrector has
made changes at two points: adding a to {} in : and inserted the
genitive suffix to {} in :.

:. Inquiry and Intrusion from Judahs Neighbours


The sequel to the preceding pericope is that all the commotion associated
with the rededication of the temple draws the attention of the surrounding populace who in turn request to participate in the rebuilding of the
temple (vv. ). When their request is rejected by the Judean leadership, the peoples respond by hindering the completion of the rebuilding
process (vv. ). At this point in the narrative the interruption to the
rebuilding of the temple under Artaxerxes in : either has no significance or is forgotten.
The inhabitants of the land around Judea are designated with the
description enemies of the tribe of Judah and Benjamin ( q
) ), which is a further unpacking of their enmity
with the returned exiles (see :). The enemies arrive in Jerusalem
virtually summoned by the trumpets and seek to learn what the sound
of the trumpets signified. They discover that the ones who were from
captivity were building the temple for the Lord God of Israel (
q )). On
q see Esd : below and :, :, , and here q
) stands for the Hebrew from Ezra : identifying
the covenant God and the covenant people in the one description. A

commentary

delegation is sent to Zorobabel, Iesous, and the leaders of the ancestral house and an appeal is made on the basis that, we, similar to you,
obey your Lord and we will present offerings to him from the days of
Asbakaphath King of the Assyrians, who transported us here ( q
q ) ). The
Assyrian king Asbakaphath (q [with various spellings in
the mss, e.g., q {c}, q {}, and q {}]) is Esarhaddon in Ezra : ( [MT],

[Esd LXX]). Josephus who usually follows Esdras in his narrative


(Ant. .) substitutes the name for an earlier Assyrian king Shalmaneser ( [see arm reading salmanasar]). B also reads
the distinct future tense q with other witnesses like A and V
attesting a present tense verb q. The difference is that B envisages the peoples as hoping to present sacrifices in the future, whereas
other manuscripts posit the peoples already performing sacrifices to
the local deity (see q in Esd : [LXX]). The peoples were
forcibly brought to Judea by the Assyrians in their own transportation () from other lands. They have attempted to adopt the local
religious customs and wish to continue to do so further, but with the
guidance from the former occupants of the land (see Kgs :).
However, there is no known resettlement of peoples in Judah under the
reign of Esarhaddon and the historical reality was perhaps a spillover
of peoples from Samaria into the vacuum left by the forced expatriation of the Judeans to Babylon (Myers : ; Talshir : ; but
see Williamson : who, on the basis of Isa :, thinks that an
importation of people into Palestine under Esarhaddon remains possible).
The Judean response does not mince words and is a forthright rejection of the request. Zorobabel and colleagues blankly state: You have
no part in building the house for the Lord our God ( q ). The response is justified not
by a zealous animosity towards the foreign peoples of the land, though
no doubt implied, but from the decree of Cyrus who ordered it to be
built by the exiles. The excuse for exclusion is not met with satisfaction and the nations of the land (q ) proceed to interfere
with the rebuilding process. That is emphasized by a number of participles, some unique to B, including (falling upon), (hindering), and (demagoguering), with
net result that the rebuilding was halted (). What is prevented

commentary

is not the entire undertaking as in Ezra :, but only the completion


( [in other mss ]) of the refurbishment (Williamson
: ). Then, in what is quite simply the mother-of-all anachronisms
and sure proof that the author of Esdras has compilated the narrative,
it is reported that they were kept from building for two years, until
Dariuss reign (q
). The statement is straight out of Ezra :, but is out of sync
with the earlier return of Zorobabel under Darius and not before Darius
as stated here. In addition, it was not two years that separated the reigns
of Cyrus and Darius because in between Cyruss son Cambyses reigned
for several years prior to Darius. Adding further confusion is that Esd
: envisages Artaxerxes (perhaps mistaken for Cambyses) following
on from Cyrus and it was purportedly during his reign that the abortive
attempt to rebuild the temple was started and promptly halted ( Esd
:). The confusion is created either by historical ineptitude or by
a failed attempt to project Ezra : into : by turning Dariuss second year into two years in order to reduce the time delay and make
things get better quicker than they really did (Williamson : ).
Alternatively, Klein (: ) proposes that Esd : originally
read two months limited to a time within Dariuss reign and the confusion occurs due to an attempt to assimilate the text with Ezra :. More
likely, the second year of Ezra : ( ) has been misread as
two years (see Hag : which Myers [: ] thinks influenced Ezra
:).
In :, B reads the future verb q with RH following A and V on the
present tense q. In the same verse B has q and RH once
more opts for the reading attested by A and V being q. The idiomatic
phrasing (see in Matt :) in : is adopted by
RH from a number of later mss and supported by Esd : though in reverse
order ( ), while B omits . Hanhart (a: ) follows
B and A in contrast to RH in preferring over the conjecture of
by Fritzsche, Rahlfs, and Tedesche in :. In :, RH applies the
prepositional prefix to two verbs ( and ) from A
and V in contrast to Bs and . For similar reasons RH reads
the noun on the strength of A and V instead of the participle
in B. The corrector has amended the text by adding a in
q in :. The passage ends with a colon marking the end of the
section.

commentary

The Continued Reconstruction of the Temple and


Corporate Resistance by Judahs Neighbours (::)
The account of reconstruction under Zorobabel is recapitulated again
with a further description of the temples rebuilding. The rebuilding of
the temple is set against the backdrop of the prophetic ministries of
Haggai and Zechariah and from the inquiry by the Persian governors
of the region, Sisinnes and Sathrabuzanes. Correspondence with Darius
ensues and there is found a copy of the decree of Cyrus that marks the
validation of the rebuilding process. Thereafter, the Persian authorities
assist in the building process and the entire edifice is finally completed.
The completion of the rebuilding project culminates with a Passover led
by Zorobabel.
The account follows Ezra very fairly closely but with several
variations. The haphazard integration of sources is apparent because
in Esd : Darius has already issued a decree for rebuilding. Yet
in Esd :, following Ezra :, Darius has the royal archives
searched for Cyruss decree before ratifying it with his own decree. The
most distinctive element of the Esdras account is that, in contrast to
Ezra, the resumption of work is not a new start but the completion of
the work already begun (Esd :). The enquiry by Sisinnes and
Sathrabuzanes does not delay the reconstruction but only monitors its
validity with correspondence sent to the king about the matter. What
is more, in accordance with earlier features of Esdras, where less distinction is made between the building of the temple and city ( Esd
:), here Jerusalem itself become slightly more prominent in the
reconstruction process (Esd :). Also, Zorobabel is named alongside Sanabassaros (Esd : contrasted with Ezra :) underpinning
his prominence in the narrative.
The climax of the section is obviously the Passover under Zorobabel
that rehearses the celebrations under Iosias and prepares the way for
Esrass return. This Passover becomes the third high point of the narrative
and a successful step towards the rejuvenation of the Judeans under
imperial, davidic, priestly, and prophetic oversight.
:. Reconstruction of the Temple Commences
The opening sequence provides the setting that locates the story of the
continuation of restoration in face of interference within the orbit of the
prophetic ministries of Haggai and Zechariah.

commentary

The introductory prepositional phrase is atypical in Hellenistic Greek, it appears again in :, and it serves to transition to a new
section set during Dariuss reign (see Esth :, ; :, ; :; Sir :;
Obad ; Ezek :). Here the prophetic agents provide assistance to
Zorobabel and Iesous in the rebuilding of the temple, though without
stipulating how (see Hag :). Josephus attempted to fill in some of
these blanks by stating: Haggai and Zachariah, who encouraged them,
and wished them to be enthused, and not to be suspicious of the Persians,
for that God foretold this to them. So, in deference to those prophets,
they applied themselves dilligently to building, and did not miss one
day (Ant. .). Myers (: ) proposes that the prophetic assistance in the reconstruction was a turning point in the enterprise, but it
had repercussions as the prophets took advantage of imperial unrest during the Perian interregnum and announced the downfall of the empire
(Hag :) and excited messianic enthusiasm for Zorobabel (Hag :).
Esdras carries over the reference to the second year of Darius from
Ezra : in contrast to the two years of delay just mentioned in Esd
:. Likewise, the statement began to build the house of the Lord ( ) is an anachronism inherited
from the use of disparate sources.
The commencement of the section in B is designated with a theta with a macron
(q). Variants revolve around the father of Zacharias who is known in B as
, as in A and V (cf. Esd :), Addin in Lav and Sadoc in Lac.
Rahlfs conjectures for with Hanhart and Tedesche favoring from
the L text. With no vowel pointings, the Hebrew was obviously open to
variation in pronunciation in Greek.

:. Intervention by Regional Authorities


Despite the progressive advance of the rebuilding of the temple and, to
a lesser extent, the city of Jerusalem, inhibitions to the reconstruction
process continue to take place.
A temporal setting is provided by the phrase At the same time ( ) in v. . Interference in the rebuilding comes through the
arrival of Sisinnes the prefect of Syria and Phoenicia and Sathrabuzanes
and their associates (
q ). Either due to their own initiative
or in the course of their regular duties, the Persian authorities of the
region discover unscheduled building operations taking place. In Ezra
: the lead governor is Tattenai () of the Province Beyond the
River but identified here simply as Syria and Phoenicia. This is the

commentary

first occurrence of in Esdras and it means prefect or commanding officer (several words for regional authorities in the imperial
apparatus are used including and ). The original
delegation was probably imperial troubleshooters, armed with powers
of punishment (Clines : ). The regional delegation speaks to
the Judeans through the prefect Sisinnes because B has the singular verb
, whereas other witnesses have the plural . That the subject of
in B is Sisinnes is probable since he is mentioned first even when
he is mentioned with other persons (see :, ; : and Ant. .).
The delegation is perhaps less concerned with the roof () than
with the other things ( ) that might involve constructing
fortifications around Jerusalem. That would be all the more plausible if
the investigation took place sometime after the Babylonian revolt under
Cambyses which would have made the reconstruction look suspicious to
the new regime directed by Darius. In Josephuss account (Ant. ., )
the Samaritans wrote to Darius concerning how the Jews had fortified
the city ( ) because it looked more like a fortress than a
temple ( ), and they cited a letter from Cambyses that
strictly prohibited the rebuilding of the temple. That complaint is prima
facie historically plausible (Myers : ).
Sisinnes enquires about the basis of authority upon which the rebuilding of the temple is being performed (vv. ). His questions concern,
By whose order are you building this house (
) and who are the builders (
)? Josephus adds a great deal more dialogue between
Zorobabel and Iesous with Sisinnes (Ant. .) which condenses
the material in Esd : (Ezra :). The mention of the roof
() and the twice mention of finishing all these things ( / ) suggests that the rebuilding was very
close to completion but faces a final testing before it can be brought
to an end. Nothing else about the delegation is said other than their
enquiries on those matters. But the author adds an editorial comment
about how the rebuilding activities were able to continue despite this
question/protest from the regional governors. It is said: And the elders
of the Judeans possessed the gracious oversight from the Lord upon the
captives (
)). The subject of the sentence is disputed and Talshir (: ) thinks it derives from a double
translation generated by reading the same word for both (from !") and (from &). Most translations locate

commentary

elders of the Judeans with the preceding description of the gracious


act of God over the captives (NRSV, ESVA, Yet the elders of the Jews
were dealt with kindly, for the providence of the Lord was over the captives; NETS, And the elders of the Judeans had favor with the captives,
due to consideration from the Lord), while the NEB links the elders
to what follows: But, thanks to the Lord who protected the returned
exiles, the elders of the Jews were not prevented from building during
the time that Darius was being informed. The elders are probably the
subject of the verbs in : and q in :. However,
in B, the elders are clearly the subject of the preceding clause because
(a) ) is separted from q by
the paratactic conjunctive and by a colon before q; and (b) B also contains the masculine participle matching
though most other witnesses have the feminine
matching with . In other words, the Lord grants a gracious oversight to the elders over the captives to lead and guide them at
this tumultuous time.
The eventual outcome of the meeting is that reconstruction was not
hindered as all parties awaited official notification from king Darius
(v. ). A further manifestation of the grace from the Lord (
) is in the failure of any actual intervention to inhibit the supervisory work of the elders over the temples final stages of completion.
The work could continue until which time (B has the distinctive relative clause q) that a report was received from
Darius. Although the narrative itself would probably have been simpler
if Darius only had to recall events narrated from a few chapters earlier.
Josephus accentuates the point by stressing that Sisinnes did not resolve
to hinder the building, until they had informed King Darius of all this.
RH follows A and V with the plural verb as opposed to the singular
attested only by B and a few other minuscules (, ) in :. The context
clearly supports the plural as the more appropriate reading. At : the corrector
has added the prepositional prefix to . In : B reads
q (on see :) against q
attested elsewhere and accepted by RH.

:. The Letter to Darius


The enquiry by the Persian officials from Syria and Phoenicia results in a
letter being written to Darius to ascertain if there really was a decree by
Cyrus permitting the rebuilding of the Jerusalem temple and to seek his
direction on how to handle the matter. As to the function of the account

commentary

Myers (: ) correctly observes that, this chapter accentuates the


position of the Jews vis-a-vis the Persians, but it was for the glorification
of the templea characteristic of this book.
There is a close following of Ezra :. The subtle differences are
that in Ezra : (= Esd :) the Persian leaders specifically request
the names of the Judean elders who were organizing the reconstructive
work. Josephus does not record the letter written to Darius by the Persian
leaders as most of the content is interjected into the verbal exchange
between Zorobabel and Iesous and the Persian authorities (Ant. .
). Instead Josephus (Ant..) simply notes: At once they wrote
to him about these matters (
).
The section runs in four major parts: the introduction of the letter
written by Sisinnes, Sathrabuzanes, and their associates (v. ); the letter
including the state of affairs in Jerusalem detailing the reconstruction of
the temple (vv. ); the second part of the letter outling the response
of the Judean elders to the Syrian/Phoenician delegations enquiry with
respect to the history of their temple (vv. ); and the request that a
search be made in the royal archives for a decree by Cyrus as the Judeans
allege (vv. ).
The introduction identifies the senders of the letter to Darius as Sisinnes the prefect of Syria and Phoenicia, and Sathrabuzanes, and their
associates the local officials in Syria and Phoenicia (v. ). The nomination of the officials repeats v. verbatim with the exception of further
defining their associates () as the local officials in Syria and
Phoenicia ( ). What is provided in
the subsequent account is a copy () of their letter that was
sent to Darius, though how such a letter could fall into the hands of the
Judeans is anyones guess.
The first half of the letter describes the circumstances leading to the
occasion of the letter, viz., the Persian investigation of the rebuilding
activities and what they discovered upon coming to Jerusalem (vv.
). Beyond the honorific greetings to King Darius the senders aim to
impart important information to the regal head, Let it be fully known to
our lord the king ( ). A
similar permissive sense is adopted in Esd : (LXX) with the same
imperative verb and same adjective: . The substance of
what follows recapitulates the visitation of the delegation to the city,
especially notes the work that has gone on, and reports that the Judeans
were building a great new house for the Lord, of hewn stone, with

commentary

expensive timber set in the houses ( :


q q ). The impression conveyed is that of a lavish and fulsome rebuilding project going
on in Jerusalem and the Persian authorities caught entirely unawares
as to its purpose and validity. Of concern it was not only the fact and
scale of the rebuilding of the temple that gave cause for alarm. It is further noted in the letter that work is proceeding rapidly and the work
in their hands is prospering and being completed with all splendor and
thoroughness ( : : ). The combination of surprise, quality, and speed
of work leads the Persian governors to inquire (q) of the

elders as to whose command authorized the building of the temple and


the laying of the foundations. The present tense-form of
is contrasted with the imperfect tense-form of q (found in
B). Both verbs are aspectivally imperfective with an interiorized viewpoint, and in B q probably serves to show the progressive
nature of the building project. The inquiry also sought the names of
the protagonists in the reconstruction effort, taken no doubt, in case
that the refurbishments proved to be illegal or treasonous and worthy
of reprisal.
The second half of the letter narrates the response of the elders to the
questions by the Persian authorities (vv. ). The form of the description is a Summary of Israels Story (Hood : ), which recapitulates
the history of Israel from a particular perspective. In this case, history is
described from the vantage point of the temple as the measure of Gods
favour or disfavour with his people. The Judeans identify themselves as
servants of the Lord ( ) and the notion of Israel as the
Lords servant is part of an ancient tradition (see Ps :; Isa :; :,
; :; :). Whereas exile made the Israelites servants of Nabouchodnosor (Esd :), through restoration they have been reinstituted
as servants of the Lord. The lordship to whom they are bound is to the
one creating the heaven and the earth (
) which is similar to Zorobabels speech where heaven is
a circumlocution for God (Esd :) and the Lord is king of heaven
(Esd :, ). As for the house that they are building, it is thereafter
stated that it had been built many years before by a great and mighty
king of Israel, and it was completed ( q
)
q). The great and mighty king of Israel is a tacit reference

commentary

to Solomon who was earlier described as builder of the original temple (Esd :) though it was also built with directions deriving from
David (Esd :). The temple under Solomon was completed and the
new temple also stands on the verge of completion as well if the rebuilding continues uninterrupted. The net point is to emphasize the temples
ancient origins and to demonstrate that its appearance is not a recent
innovation.
In order to explain the temples reappearance after its demise, it is necessary to describe the events surrounding its destruction by the Babylonians. The account is Deuteronomic in theology as the defeat of Judah is a
form of punishment attributed to their violation of the covenant stipulations. It is stated that: when our forefathers provocatively sinned against
the Lord of Israel, the one in heaven, he delivered them into the hands
of Nabouchodonosor King of Babylon, king of the Chaldeans (
)
). The sins of the forefathers

leading to exile is mentioned earlier in Esdras (:) and emphasized


in other second temple literature (e.g., Jdt :; :, ; Bar :). The
tearing down and burning of the house and the fact that people were led
away captive to Babylon in essence summarizes Esd : and the
events of the Babylonian interventions there described.
The portentous events of the Babylonian captivity are contrasted with
the change of fortunes for the Israelites under the Persian regime marked
with the adversative . A summary of Esd : is given concerning
the decree of Cyrus for the rebuilding of the temple and the return of the
sacred vessels to the temple in Jerusalem. The account here, in contrast
to Ezra :, has Sanabassaros (Shesbazzar) and Zorobabel receiving the
sacred vessels looted by the Babylonians in Esd :. That is despite
the fact that Esd : rehearses Ezra : by having Sanabassaros
rather than Zorobabel lay the foundations of the temple, and that is
in stark contrast to Esd : where Zorobabel and his associates
were said to a have performed that act (see Steinmann : ). In
Esd :, a prepositional phrase again marks a transition
of reigns, this time to the reign of Cyrus (see earlier Esd :). The
interjection of Zorobabel in :, even if only in passing, is to accentuate
his role in the restoration event, although in the process it creates a
wildly outrageous anachronism since Zorobabel entered the scene with
Darius not Cyrus (Talshir [: ] suggests that the gloss may have
been intended to identify Sanabassaros and Zorobabel together, even

commentary

if this was incongruous within the overall chronology of Esdras [see


Fensham : ]). Emphasized in any case is Cyruss decree that the
house of the Lord be rebuilt, the sacred vessels taken to Babylon be
returned, and the role of Sabanassaros and Zorobabel as executors of
his purpose. Yet the Judeans are able to complain that From then until
now it has been under construction, though it has not met completion
( ).
A completion hindered again and again by local interference in the
rebuilding designs.
After stating the facts as they stand the Persian letter then seeks
direction from Darius as to the verification of their claim about the
decree from Cyrus and the direction on how to proceed further (vv.
). The royal annals ( ) located in Babylon
refers to imperial archives. The reason why they might be found in
Babylon rather than in Media is because Babylon was the location from
which the exiles were liberated and presumably a decree was made
and filed there under the administration of the Babylonian satrapy (see
Clines : ). The third-class conditional clause of a (if it be
found [ ]) is followed in b by a clause controlled by
a subjunctive verb rendering the sense deliberative (if it be just to our
lord the king [ ]). The question requires
further direction ( as lit. summons or call) on how to deal
with the matter pending the results of the search.
Several minor differences exist between B and RH. The most significant of
these are that B (and Syr, Eth) attests in contrast to supported
by A and V and adopted by RH in :. Elsewhere, at : B has the first verb
singular () and the second verb plural () perhaps reflecting
Ezras (Talshir : ). In : B with A also reads the imperfect
q in contrast to the present tense q known to V and some
Latin witnesses (see Hanhart b: ). As elsewhere (see earlier :, ,
), B prefers the dipthong in the prefix to certain verbs like in
: against found in other mss. Typical of B (see :; :) is the
omission of the first letter in to create a personal pronoun instead of a
reflexive one at :. Also in :, B has an alternative spelling of
instead of the more usual (cf. :). In the last few verses of the
section, B omits several words compared to RH including (:),
(:), and (:). In the latter case in :, the omission of the interrogative
particle changes the sense from a question to a request for permission. A double
letter space exists between v. and v. to indicate a paragraph break in the
description of the letter. Itacisms are apparent with a superfluous epsilon that has
not been retraced over, but remains visible on the codex page (i.e., hi).
A corrector has provided an for {} at :, a for {} at :,

commentary

while an additional corrector has inserted at : as signified by an oblisk.


At :, the scribe has put the honorific titles and into the
nomina sacra abbreviated form of and even though the latter refers to
Darius and not to the Lord.

:. Dariuss Commission, Inspection, and Replies


The request from the Persian delegation receives a response from Darius
to the effect that the decree of Cyrus does exist as the Judeans contend.
What is more, the Persian officials are not only to avoid obstructing
the rebuilding process, they are to assist in its completion and provide
financial support to the operation of sacrifices in the temple. Darius
further threatens punishment to anyone who disobeys his stipulations in
regards to the rebuilding of the Jerusalem temple. In distinction to Ezra
:b, Esd : does not give a verbatim transcript of the official
correspondence from Darius. It is a more freely flowing style and perhaps
unaware of the literary conventions governing Aramaic epistolary style
in the Persian period (Williamson : ). The scheme of the passage
runs as the discovery of the book in Ecbatana (vv. ), Dariuss order
to permit the continuation of the rebuilding process (vv. ), and
Darius warns of capital punishment against anyone further impeding the
constructiong process (vv. ).
In response to the request for the provincial governors of CoeleSyria (i.e., the province beyond the river), Darius commanded a search
to be made within the archives in Babylon. It is then stated that a
passage was found in Ecbatana within the palace amidst the region
of Media () ). While this could
indicate that a failed search in Babylon meant turning to a wider search
area in the archives of the Persian capital, it is probable that the author
of Esdras has mistakenly located Ecbatana in proximity to Babylon
(Coggins & Knibb : ). A passage in an annal states that Cyrus
did indeed in his first year order the rebuilding of the Lords house in
Jerusalem. In addition, he orded that the Judeans were to make offerings
in the temple with perpetual fire ( ). The adjective
means continually or perpetually (L&S, ; GELS, ; see
ESVA, NETS, NRSV perpetual fire; NEB with fire continually; Cook,
Myers continual fire). Idiomatically one could say that the sacrifice is
to be constantly ablaze. The sacrifice in question is probably the burnt
offerings which were meant to be continually offered (see Lev :; Num
:, ). The decree of Cyrus, unlike its counterpart in Esd :, also

commentary

stipulated the dimensions of the temple, the materials to be used in the


reconstruction, and the financial support for the project is specified as
to be drawn from the house of Cyrus. Finally, the sacred articles taken
away by Nabouchodnosor were to be restored to Jerusalem as per Esd
:.
Confirming the decree of Cyrus, Darius addresses the question of the
Persian governors as to their need for direction concerning these things
(v. ) in light of the discovery of Cyruss edict (vv. ). The order
given to the cohort of provincial leaders of Sisinnes the prefect of Syria
and Phoenicia, and Sathrabuzanes, and their associates, and those who
were appointed as local officials in Syria and Phoenicia (see :, ; :;
only : here refers to those who were appointed as local officials [
]) takes the form of two infinitive clauses: to keep away
from the place (q ) and to permit Zorobabel, the
servant of the Lord to rebuild this house (
). A central factor is the recognition
of Jerusalem as a place () of sacred space making it singularly
inappropriate for any interference in the religious undertakings therein.
In contrast to Ezra :, the governor is identified as Zorobabel and he is
further called the servant of the Lord ( ) and in Hag
: Zorobabel is similarly called my servant. Yet in light of Esd :
(we are servants of the Lord [ ]) inclusion of
the elders might be implicit under the epithet servant as they share
the load of supervising the proceedings.
There is a shift from the third person (he ordered [])
of v. to the first person in v. (And I ordered [ ])
concerning the description of additional royal decrees by Darius. The tertiary instructions for the Persian officials include their task of observing
and assisting in the building operations, though without loitering about
in the vicinity in light of the charge to stay away from the place in v. .
The purpose clause sums up the intent: in order that they might assist
those who have returned from the captivity of Judea (
[other mss read ] ))
through giving the repatriated Judeans a means of reconnecting with
their ancestral god. Darius wants to bring the temple reconstruction to
completion so that it is built completely ( )
and finished (q) and so reverses the process by which the
rebuilding of the temple was prevented from being finished (see :;
:, ). Talshir (: ) summarizes the main point: Now the king
orders the finishing of what has been delayed for too long.

commentary

Added to that in vv. is that sums of money from the tribute


collected by Coele-Syria and Phoenicia are to be given to Zorobabel in
order to supply sacrifices for the temple and provisions for the priests.
The intent is so that libations may be made to the Most High God
for the king and his servants, and they might offer prayers for their
lives ( q
: ).
That accords with the extant inscription from Cyrus that declares: May
all the gods whom I have resettled in their sacred cities daily ask Bel and
Nebo for a long life for me (ANET ). Generally speaking, prayers for
the king and his family were practiced by Jews in lieu of participating
in the imperial religion under foreign hegemony. The Judeans could
not engage in a swap of gods whereby the conquering nation and the
conquered ensured future peace by adding each others gods to their
pantheon. It was refusal to offer up sacrifices on the behalf of the Roman
emperor in the Jerusalem temple that provided the catalyst for the war
with Rome in ce (Josephus, War .). The description of the
Most High God ( q; see Esd :; :, ; :) was
a feat of ambiguous monotheism that Jews and pagans could accept as
a fitting designation for god or the otiose god and it was common in
Jewish prayers and doxologies and also found in pagan literature and
inscriptions (see Bird : ).
The authority of the decree is bolstered by a heinous punishment that
is mandated for those who violate what has been ordered (vv. ). The
consequences are given in a conditional clause pertaining to those who
transgress () or try to nullify () the order concerning the things having been written (). Other manuscripts (i.e., A and V) include variations of the longer phrasing (the things foresaid and written
above [cf. CEB, the things decreed before or the things written before).
The penalty to be carried out is given as, a beam should be taken out of
his house, it then shall be hanged upon him, and his property to be given
to the king ( q
). In other manuscripts the punishment is the other way around and the victim is hanged upon the beam
(see also Esd : [LXX]). According to Coggins the punishment looks
more Roman than Persian (Coggins & Knibb : ) which is perhaps
true of the description in Esd : with the beam being placed upright
(q) before being hung upon the victim; though in either case Jewish
and Christian readers could readily identify the penalty with crucifixion.

commentary

Confiscation of property and capital punishment were common Persian


sentences for disobeying a royal edict (see Briant : ) and destruction of a persons house is attested in Daniel (:; :). The warning of
dire punishment is followed with a further warning or perhaps more of
a petition that the Lord would destroy every king and nation that shall
stretch out their hands to prevent or do evil to that house of the Lord
that is in Jerusalem ( q

)). The infinitives function more or less like subjunctives

suggesting what the Lord might or should do to those who oppose the
holy place (see Esd : [LXX] which has the future verb [he will destroy]). Unlike Ezra : which refers to God who has
established his name there, Esd : refers to the Lord whose name
is there invoked ( ). Dariuss
cosmopolitan piety envisages the Lord acting to preserve the holy house
in Jerusalem from kings and nations that would do them evil which is
part of the Persian kings role as an emissary of the gods (see Esd :
on the Lord of Israel making Cyrus king of the whole world). The final
exhortation in the letter to the Persian leaders across the river is that
everything be done carefully as here stipulated (
q).
The B and L texts omit the adjective that is attested by A and V and
adopted by RH in :. In the same verse, B reads (place or passage)
instead of (scroll or tablet see Isa : LXX). Again in :, B and L
also omit delineating the scroll as a singular and B has the alternative reading
(see Josephus, Ant. .; Esd :; Esd : [LXX]; Macc
:, ) over in other mss. In :, B misspells Zorobabels
office of with the participle . A much shorter statement is
found in B in : with in place of the more extensive description
of and following that B omits the
coordinating conjunction lessening the contrast. In the same sentence, B also
reads the pronoun over the demonstrative resulting in a different
reading of it then shall be hanged upon him as opposed to he then shall be
hanged upon it (see similarly Esd : [LXX]
q ). The corrector in : has added an to
{} that was originally missed on first draft.

:. The Rebuilding of the Temple Flourishes with Royal and Prophetic


Oversight
The reception of Dariuss reply and decree in favour of the Judeans means
that the temple can finally be finished. The Persian officials become

commentary

supervisors of the work rather than opponents of it. The emphasis in


this section falls upon the combined effect of the royal authorisations
for the rebuilding by Cyrus, Darius, and Artaxerxes, in conjunction with
the prophetic ministries of Haggai and Zechariah. As a result the temple
begins to function again with the reinstitution of the sacrificial cultus
and with repeated mention of things being down in accordance with the
book of Moyses.
Esd : follows Ezra : for the most part. The exceptions are
that the involvement of the provincial Persian officials is more detailed
in Esdras as they not only did what Darius ordered (Ezra :), but
they supervised the continuing work with much care ( Esd :). In addition, the section in Esdras (:) closes with mention of the gatekeepers
undertaking their duties which is absent from Ezra :. Over all the
author of Esdras so slavishly follows his source that he even mentions
Artaxerxes after Cyrus and Darius (Ezra :; Esd :) despite the
fact that in the narrative of Esdras, Artaxerxes anachronistically precedes Darius (Esd :). Josephus sensibly omits any reference to
Artaxerxes in his rewriting of Esdras (Ant. .). In terms of historical veracity, Esdras is more historical, or at least featuring historical
realism, by identifying the completion of the temple as occurring on the
twenty-third day of Adar (Esd :) as opposed to the third day of
Adar in Ezra :. As Adar is the last month of the year, a week of celebratory dedication would lead naturally into the new year festival at the
start of the resumed temple service (Williamson : ).
The unit contains a description of the receipt of Dariuss letter by
the Persian officials and the joint effort of finnishing off the rebuilding
efforts with imperial support and prophetic oversight (vv. ). That is
followed with a concluding remark that the rebuilding of the temple was
completed with the knowledge of the three Persian kings identified in
the narrative, viz., Cyrus, Darius, and Artaxerxes (v. ). The rest of the
section proceeds to describe the reinstitution of the cultic sacrifices by
the Israelites in accordance with the book of Moyses (vv. ).
The impact of Dariuss letter upon the Persian officials led by Sisinnes
is marked by the adverb indicating the subsequent and immediate
effect of his decree upon their actions. The participle q (following) modifies the verb (supervised) indicating the manner in which the Persian officials followed the decree, viz., by
providing imperial oversight to the work. In light of Esd : it meant
a light handed feat of supervision. Their work is described as being done
with great care () and assisting () the elders of

commentary

the Jews and the temple officials. This is the first time that the temple
officials () are mentioned in Esdras and their presence suggests that temple operations are soon to recommence. It is then reported
that the sacred works flourished ( ) in the
sense that it took place with due freedom of action. An additional reason for the success of the rebuilding efforts was that it was concurrent
with the prophetic ministries of Haggai and Zacharias. The gentive absolute construction marked by the participle , indicates
that their prophetic vocation was active while the rebuilding was going
on. Although the rebuilding activities may have transpired thanks to the
commands of Darius (see in :), the author is under no illusions as to whom the real commander behind the scenes is. The Judeans
only finished the rebuilding through the command of the Lord God of
Israel ( q )). The preposition
implies agency and the agent of reconstruction is the command of
the Lord God of Israel (on q ) see :; :, ; :;
:, ; :; :).
In conformity with the decrees of Cyrus and Darius (and somehow
Artaxerxes who halted the rebuilding project) it is said that the house
was finished with the knowledge of Cyrus and Darius and Artaxerxes,
the kings of the Persians (
) ). Here is meant in the
mixed sense of consent and command. The disparity between the agents
of rebuilding, that is the Persian kings and the Lord God of Israel,
disappears when it is remembered that the Persian kings were appointed
by God to build a temple for him (Esd :). Josephus adds that the
temple was completed in the ninth year of the reign of Darius as opposed
to the sixth in Esd : and he mentions parenthetically that the month
of Adar is called Dystros () by the Macedonians (Ant. .).
In any case, the event of restoration from the Babylonian captivity to
return to the land and refurbishment of the city and reconstruction of the
temples takes place within the sphere of the Persian Empire and through
Gods superintending of human kings.
The substance of vv. concerns the reinstitution of cultic sacrifices
in the Jerusalem temple just prior to the New Year festival. It is reported
that the sons of Israel and the priests and the Levites, and the rest
of those who returned from captivity who were added to them, did
that which was according to what was written in the book of Moyses
( )
q q

commentary

). The categories of persons nominated occur throughout the book

(:; :; :, ), although unique here is the class of those who were


added (q). The same verb is used in Jdt : in reference
to the conversion of Achior to Judaism and we are left wondering if it
could be a possible allusion to certain peoples of the land (see :) who
became proselytes in order to join in the rebuilding process. However,
q q is an attributive participle clause modifying
and it denotes those who joined
the restoration process in addition to the officially sanctioned return
from Babylon under Sisinnes and Zorobabel. They are, so to speak, the
dribs and drabs that made the sojourn back to Judea as life returned to
the city and momentum towards the finalization of the temples rebuilding increased. What the group did was return to the ordinances that
were written in the book of Moyses (q ). The Mosaic ordinances are prominent in Esdras and are
described as commandments of the Lord (:), the book of Moyses
(:; :; :, ), and law of Moyses (:; :). In Esdras the Pentateuch was recognized as the guiding principle of the Jewish communitys
life, and the loyalty of its leaders to its requirements is here emphasized
(Coggins & Knibb : ). The reforms of Iosias, the rebuilding under
Zorobabel, and the renewal by Esras have as their centre pieces returns
to the Mosaic ordinances in the life of Israels worship. That is part of the
over arching purpose of Esdras which is to pursue the reformation of
Judean society in order to place the web of socio-religious commitments
of the audience into closer conformity with post-exilic interpretations
of the Judean religion in a medium rhetorically persuasive to Greekspeaking Jews of principally of Hellenistic Egypt.
The collective entity of returnees followed the Mosaic legislation
through their special offerings to the Lord. Upon the dedication () of the temple the corporate body of returnees featuring Israelites,
priests, and Levities offered bulls, rams, lambs, and goats as sacrifices.
The same word is used in the Maccabean literature for the
purification and rededication of the temple during the successful insurrection against the Seleucids (Macc :, ; Macc :). That event,
and perhaps the dedication under Solomon ( Chron :; Macc :),
would perhaps come to mind for Hellenistic Jewish readers conversant
with the Septuagint who read this portion of Esdras. Triumph over
pagan nations whether it is by wisdom (Solomon), war (Judas Maccabees), or wit (Zorobabel) is accompanied with a rededication of the
temple.

commentary

The selection of twelve male goats for the sin of all Israel, corresponding to the number of the twelve tribal heads of Israel (
) q ) ) provides a snippet of Esdrass eschatology.

The end of the Babylonian exile meant the return only of the southern kingdom comprising of the tribes of Judah and Benjamin who were
deported to Babylon. The other ten tribes had gone into exile as a consequence of the Assyrian conquest in the eighth century. By incorporating
the symbolism of the twelve tribes the restoration process envisaged in
Esdras invokes what was a mainstay hope in Jewish restoration eschatology: the return of the twelve tribes to Israel to resettle the land and
to participate in an age of unprecedented blessing and prosperity (e.g.,
Isa :; :; Zech :; Bar :; Tob :; Philo, Praem.
Poen. ). That is why Josephus adds a parenthetical comment
that for so many are the tribes of the Israelites so as to explain the
reference to the twelve tribes (Ant. .). The pattern of sacrifices is
indebted to that associated with Solomons dedication of the first temple
that was accompanied with sacrifices and festivities (see Kgs :;
Chron :). The offering of he-goats is probably indicative of a sinoffering (Lev :; :) that was offered in order to remove any impurity
brought upon the altar during its time of rebuilding (see Ezek :
).
In keeping with the interest of the book, after the organisation and
orchestration of the temple officials (see :, , ; :), it is added that
amidst the recommencement of sacrifices the priests and the Levites
stood arrayed in their vestments, according to tribes, for the works of
the Lord God of Israel (
q )). The ministration
that they perform in the temple is described as an for the Lord
of Israel. The sacrifice for sins probably relates to fellowship offerings
or the Day of Atonement that result in restored communion between
God and his people. A unique feature of Esd : is that it is reported
that the gatekeepers were at their posts. Josephus (Ant. .) also adds
more information about The Jews also rebuilt the porticos of the inner
sanctuary that were all around the temple itself. In net effect, everyone
was about their proper duties as Israel began to renew its covenantal
worship within the refurbished temple.
B customarily omits the genitival article at two points (:, ) for and
respectively. A and V add the adjective to which is
omitted by B. Two section markers are apparent in the margins of B. The section

commentary

begins with double vertical lines (||) signifying a paragraph break. Then an
with a macron is found at : higlighing the beginning of a new major section.
A corrector has added a for {} in :.

:. The Passover of Zorobabel


The account of the celebration of the refurbishment of the temple next
turns to the celebration of the Passover and the Feast of Unleavened
Bread. The connection between Passover and Unleavened Bread is set out
in Lev : and they are linked together as well in the renewal under
Iosias in Esd : (= Chron :). This celebration marks the climax
and close of the Zorobabel narrative in Esdras. The version in Esdras
follows the account in Ezra : with minor embellishments. In the
original of Ezra :, the book switches from Aramaic to Hebrew at
this point.
The celebrations are undertaken by the sons of Israel, who came from
captivity ( ) ). The emphasis in
this section falls squarely on the celebration by those who came from
captivity though it is shortened to the sons of captivity (
) in the middle section (vv. ). This creates a somewhat
chiastic pattern in the account:
) (:)
(:)
(:)
) (:)

the sons of Israel, who came from captivity (:)


the sons of captivity (:)
the sons of captivity (:)
the sons of Israel, who came from captivity (:)

Sandwiched in the centre is reference to the Levites and priests who were
consecrated and set apart within this process of national celebration.
They are set apart from the sons of captivity and not defined by the
odious term. In Hebraic thought, sonship indicates ones origins and
character. Up to this point in the story, the sons of Israel have been
sons of captivity not just geographically but ideologically as well. They
have been exiled from God in the geographical and theological sense.
The rebuilding of the temple, the reinstitution of its worship, and the
reestablishment of the cultic calendar marks a shift in their identity from
sons of captivity to sons of God as per Exod : and Hos :.
Israels sojourn out of captivity is a mirror to their escape from slavery in

commentary

Egypt. The time in Egypt was captivity in the house of slavery (LXX:
[Exod :, ; :; Deut :; :; :; :; :; Jdg
:; Jer :; Mic :]).
The Passover (v. ) and Feast of Unleavened Bread (v. ) are celebrated (on with this usage see :, ; :) by the Israelites consisting of the returnees from exile and the priestly entourage. Williamson
(: ) rightly thinks that the description in Ezra was composed with
a sidelong glance at the accounts in Chronicles and with the
Passovers of Hezekiah and Iosias, which also followed a temple restoration of sorts. The Passover took place on the the fourteenth of the first
month and in B that is identified as the time when () the priests
and the Levites were sanctified ( ) and
thus consecrated for their acts of service to the Lord. Somewhat more
confusing is v. where it is stated that, And all the sons of captivity
were sanctified, because the Levites were all sanctified together (
q:
q). The problems here are, first, that the sentence

does not occur in Ezra :, which simply states that the priests and
Levites purified themselves in readiness to perform the Passover sacrifices. It is thus possible that we have in v. a doublet on Ezra :.
Yet v. is not a doublet as it is no more tautological than Chron
:. As such v. explains the fact while v. provides the context for the celebration of the Passover (Talshir : ). Along this
line Hanhart (b: ) writes: Die Wiederholung hat ihren Grund
in der hebrischen Vorlage Esdr II 20, die der Aussage ber dei Heiligung von Priestern und Leviten appositionell den Ausdruck
anfngt. Als freie Paraphrase dieses Audrucks kann die Wiederholung
in Esdr I darum nicht sekundr sein und ist ihre Tilgung durch die
Zeugen B A L La Sy Aeth Sixt entweder durch Homoioteleuton-Ausfall
(q ) oder durch flschliche Annahme einer Dublette zu
erklren.
Second, some mss read a negation q instead of the
explanatory clause q in v. a. On vs. it is not
that the Greek is confusing because the mss that read the negation state
plainly that the Levites were purified, but the returnees from captivity
were not (e.g., NRSV: Not all of the returned captives were purified, but
the Levites were all purified together). The meaning is then similar to
Chron :, For there were many in the assembly who had not sanctified themselves ( q); therefore the Levites had to slaughter
the Passover lamb for everyone who was not clean, to make it holy to the

commentary

LORD. Alternatively, B and supporting texts seem to suggest that the


consecration of the returnees was based upon the consecration of the
Levites. In support of the B reading is the version from Josephus (Ant.
.) who clearly sees all of the general populace purifying themselves
to participate in the Feast of Unleavened Bread and then the Passover.
After that the people, including their wives and children, were purifying () themselves according to the law of their ancestors. My
proposal is that the original authors of Esdras introduced a statement
into the Aramaic text drawn from the pattern in Chron : that
set apart the Levites from the general populace so as to emphasize the
cultic status of the Levites which accords with a running theme throughout the book concerning the importance of the priestly and Levitical
offices. However, early on in the transmission, a scribe changed the negation to the conjunction in order make the priestly laws of purity applicable to the Israelites in general. That comports with a feature of pharisaic
piety that attempted to mandate the observation purity regulations for
the general populace that were ordinarily reserved for priests in order to
turn the nation into a literal kingdom of priests.
After the ritual purification of the priests, Levites, and the returnees,
next the Passover lambs are sacrificed, and then all involved eat the
Passover meal (vv. ). Unlike Ezra :, Esdras provides no place
in the Passover celebration for those that joined them () and the text
here insinuates that only those who returned from exile participated in
the festive celebrations. The redactor of the materials omits anything that
might suggest that some the surrounding peoples became proselytes to
Yahwehism. The sons of Israel are defined not only by their sojourn
from captivity, but further described as all those who had separated
themselves from the abominations of the nations of the land and sought
the Lord ( q q
). In the Septuagint is most
usually associated with idolatry conceived of the revulsive practice of
idol worship that is an affront to the Lord (Deut :; Kgs :, ;
Kgs :; Chron :; Dan :; :; :; Macc :; see GELS,
). The participle clause is coordinate
and describes how the separation from the surrounding nations was an
expression of the returnees religious devotion by means of seeking the
Lord through living in accordance with the Book of Moyses (see Esd
:).
In addition to the Passover celebration, the Feast of Unleavened Bread
is also celebrated and all this is said to be possible only because God

commentary

changed the heart of the Assyrian king (vv. ). Back to back celebrations of Passover and Unleavened bread give occasion for much rejoicing before the Lord ( ) which is reminiscient of the celebrations described in relation to Dariuss announcement
that the exile could return to Judea (:). In fact, one could make a case
that the three highest points in Esdras are the descriptions of national
rejoicing at :, :, and :. It is this post-exilic joy under Zorobabel
and Esras that distinguishes them from the Josianic festival that lacked
descriptions of merriment. The account espouses a theocentric perspective by declaring that it was a work of God in turning the will of the
king of the Assryians in favor of the Judeans. This turning ()
enabled these festivals (lit. works []) to recommence (see Prov :
on the Lord directing the kings heart).
The identification of the Persian king as Assyrian () certainly sounds odd (Myers [: ] calls it a careless use of the phrase
and Coggins [& Knibb : ] think of it as an unexplained reference) and Josephus sensing the same incongruity (Ant. .) changed
it to king of Persia. But it must be remembered that the Persian kingdom encompassed territories belonging to the former Assyrian and neoBabylonian empires. At the same time the reference to Assyria again casts
the restoration of the southern Judean kingdom in the context of wider
ANE history that included the exile of the northern Israelite kingdom
under the Assyrians (see :). The pagan regimes that continue to dominate Israel in the present time or in memory are telescoped into the
Assyrian entity (see similarly the book of Judith where Nebuchadnezzar is King of the Assyrians, he conquers parts of Persia, and then attacks
Israel with a coalition of Syrian and Canaanite mercanarieshe is all
of Israels enemies rolled into one). Here the restoration of the tribes of
Judah and Benjamin from the Babylonian captivity are a small piece of a
larger restoration narrative that will one day include the northern tribes
of Israel as well.
In :, B and the L texts reads a temporal clause beginning with , while A
and V read a dependent clause commencing with . An important difference
is found in : where B and A reads a causal clause marked by , whereas
several witness (L, , Eth, Syr) have a negation , and q is
omitted altogether by .

commentary

The Ministry of Esras (::)


The final section of the book narrates the arrival of Esras in Jerusalem
with a further cohort of returnees and his role in returning the Judeans
to the roots of their religion in the ordinances of Moyses. Esras is finally
introduced into the narrative, however, he is referred to diversely as
and in the text of B. The chronological time frame moves
beyond the Cyrus-Darius period to the reign of Artaxerxes where Esras
is to be located (Josephus [Ant. .] has Xerxes the son of Darius
instead). Esras is the central character and all events that subsequently
unfold do so in some relation to himself. Artaxerxes grants Ezra permission to return to Jerusalem with a full cohort of travellers with lavish
gifts for the temple in Jerusalem. The arrival in Jerusalem soon becomes
more disturbing than celebratory as Esras discovers that all tiers of the
populationlaity, Levites, and priestshave intermarried with foreign
peoples and so polluted the sacred bloodline of Israel making them liable
again to divine retribution. Esrass task then becomes to break the intermarriages and to proclaim the law (Coggins & Knibb : ). In turn,
Esrass penitential prayer spurs the people to repentance and confession
as they take an oath to expel their foreign wives and their children from
their midst. The reform of Judean society is then established through
Esrass reading of the law whereby the people rededicate themselves to
obedience to their Lord.
For a book named ' surprisingly little of the text actually
focuses on Esras, only the final two chapters in all. That is attributable
to the eclectic nature of the document and its incorporation of various
sources, principally a proto-MT-like Ezra document in Aramaic, in order
to urge the continued reform of Judean society along the lines of the Ezra
tradition. Still the figure of Esras certainly represents the quintessential
priest-scribe who provides an important function in the narrative and
contributes to the socio-religious vision of the book. Though the narrative surrounding Zorobabel occasioned Gods providential design for
the rebuilding of the temple, thereafter it is the rebuilding of Judean
society upon the foundations of the Torah that must accordingly follow if the restoration from exile is to be anything more than temporary.
Esdras is based on Ezra :: and Neh ::. The Ezra
narrative is found intact in Esdras , but in the MT version the
account of Ezras work is split between Ezra and Nehemiah . Ezra
concludes on a rather dour note concerning a list of those who partook

commentary

of mixed marriages and produced mix offspring in the union, whereas


Nehemiah ameliorates the negativity of Ezra through a reading
of the law to the people prior to an account of their confession and
the dissolution of the mixed marriages. That is in contrast to Esdras
where the unfortunate affair of the mixed marriages and their dissolution
is immediately followed by a reading of the law. Hence the Esdras
version provides a smooth transition and quick resolution to the crisis
in contrast to the Ezra reversion. That suggests to some scholars that
the Aramaic Vorlage behind Esdras might conceivably contain source
material earlier than that of Ezra given the unity and coherence
of Esdras . Though what I regard as more likely is that the authors
of Esdras have redacted accounts known to them from proto-MT-like
Ezra and Nehemiah sources in order to streamline them into the one
continuous narrative.
The date for the events depend on which Artaxerxes is referred to in
the text of Ezra. If the seventh year of Artaxerxes I is envisaged then
a date of bce is probable, but if the seventh year of Artaxerxes II is
meant then a time of bce is likely. Given the ambiguity of after these
things in Esd : (= Ezra :) either are possible, although a gap of
twenty-seven years leading to the reign of Artaxerxes I fits the sequence
better assuming that Nehemiah arrived in Judea later sometime around
bce (see Merrill : --).
Geo Widengren (: ) asserted: Nehemiah and Ezra, the creators of the post-exilic Jewish community, in Palestine, are two of the
greatest figures in Jewish history. Of course that assumes the reliability
and unity of that history. The fact is, however, that the importance of Ezra
in the history of Israel and the development of Judaism is debated (see
Blenkinsopp ). Rabbinic tradition attributed the creation of Judaism
to him (Ezra and the Torah surpassed in importance the building of
the temple [b.Meg b]; Ezra would have been worthy of receiving
the Torah had Moses not preceded him [b.Sanh b]). Equally extreme
is an earlier generation of Pentateuchal critics who assigned Ezra the
role of inventor of the Mosaic tradition (see North : ). Likewise,
the historical verisimilitude of the restoration programmes attributed
to him that purportedly began refashioning post-exilic YHWH worship towards a distinctive Judaism are all up for deliberation. As such
Lester Grabbe (: ) writes: To assume that a figure Ezra existed
is not a great leap of faith, but precisely what he did and how his activities fit with those of Nehemiah cannot be gleamed with any confidence
from the present traditions. Juha Pakkala (: ) still believes that

commentary

behind the Ezra source lays a great deal of genuine information about
Torah scribes and the use of Torah in the fifth century. In the memory of restoration as narrated in the Ezra-Nehemiah materials, Ezra was
revered for his efforts to lead the fledging Judean nation in a return
to observance of the Torah and he reacted against intermarriage with
foreigners by vigorously stipulating separation in order to ensure the
ethnic and religious purity of the Judeans. That memory obviously developed into a tradition of Ezra as the quintessential scribe, and in rabbinic
lore Ezra was a practical second Moses who brought the Torah back to
Israel.
Too often post-exilic Judaism has been regarded as a tragic descent
into a religion of merit and legalism due to the emphasis upon the law as
the centre of religious life that is then attributed to Esras and his party.
The truth is that the tension between election and obedience in Jewish
thought was handled differently by Jewish authors and the degree of
nomism prescribed by Jewish teachers was variegated. Yet in ::
election and redemption clearly precede the re-giving of the law. Just
like the first exodus from Egypt, in the new exodus from Babylon, God
gives the law to a redeemed people not to redeem the people. The law
is the crowning achievement of Gods intention to restore and purify his
people. As Williamson (: ) comments: The law does not create
the community, but it is received with joy as Gods final benevolent act
toward them. This is a far cry from the legalism with which postexilic
Judaism has been charged.
The narration encompasses Esrass arrival in Jerusalem (:), Artaxerxes letter to Esras (:), Esrass response of praise to Artaxerxes
decree (:), the list of those who returned with Esras (:),
the search for temple servants (:), the journey made by Esras and
his associates to Jerusalem (:), the subsequent reports of mixed
marriages among the Judeans (:), the prayer of Esras on behalf of
the people (:), the contrite response of the people and their oath
to expel the foreigners from their midst (:), the announcement of
a gathering of Judeans to resolve the matter of mixed marriages (:
), the account of the gathering and its result in Jerusalem (:),
the list of those who took foreign wives (:), and the narration of
the reading of the Torah at the gathering in Jerusalem (:). Also,
the text of Esdras in B here is among the most fluid in the book with
manifold variants in the names and numbers.

commentary

:. Ezra Arrives in Jerusalem


Now that the section on Zorobabel has finished the story moves to
Esras and his scribal reforms over the religious life of Judea and an
interval of some fifty-eight years occurs. However, the author may not
be quite aware of the chronological distance that separates Zorobabel
and Esras from each other. This is because history is viewed through
a theological rather than political perspective and even events distant
in time can still be closely related when viewed through the prism of
Gods plan for the restoration of the nation (Williamson : ).
The circumstances surrounding Esrass arrival in Jerusalem are provided
in :. It is reported that Esras was honoured by the king and was
granted permission to return to Judea with a cohort of priests, Levites,
temple singers, gatekeepers, and temple servants. Highlighted also are
the qualities of Esras as a priestly descendent and the quintessential
interpreter of the law.
The opening description locates Esras within the reign of Artaxerxes
(I) and describes his genealogical heritage (vv. ). The phrase And
after these things ( ) is vague
and the time lapse between the activities of Zorobabel and Esras is not
explicitly given, but sometime around ca. bce for Esrass journey to
Jerusalem is plausible. Artaxerxes I (ca. bce) has already been
mentioned earlier in the book in connection with the letter sent by the
Samaritan coalition that led to the cessation of the rebuilding project
in Jerusalem (Esd :). The genealogy of Esras is provided in v.
and variants of the names can be found in the manuscript tradition
and in Esd : (LXX). The version of names in Esd : is three
names shorterexcluding Meraioth, Zerahiah, Uzzithan Ezra :
(cf. Chron :) and the translation of the Hebrew names was handled differently by Esd : (see Myers : ). The climax of the
genealogy is the final three names that figure in Esrass heritage: son
of Phinees, son of Eleazar, son of Aaron the first priest ( :
: ). The description here is
arguably dependent upon Exod : which links Aaron, Eleazar, and Phinees (Phinehas) together in the one family line and this familial association is continued in biblical tradition (e.g., Num :; Chron :;
Esd :). Phinees was most widely remembered for his zeal (,
) in killing an Israelite man and a Midianite woman who intermarried (Num :) which has obvious relevance for the reforms of Esras
who intended to maintain the separateness of the Judeans from their

commentary

ethnically mixed neighbours (see Ps :; Sir :; Macc


:, ; Macc :). Esras then represents the priestly line and is a
priestly supplement (or replacement) for Iesous the High Priest.
Unlike the story of Nehemiah and his return to Jerusalem (Neh :
), the actual circumstances surrounding the occasion and motivation
for Esrass journey to Jerusalem are not given. Josephus (Ant. .
) expands the opening sequence and enhances the portrait of Esras
even further by setting the scene with the words: Moreover, there was
now in Babylon a righteous man, and one that enjoyed a great reputation
among the multitude; he was the principal priest of the people, and his
name was Esdras. He was very skilful in the laws of Moyses, and was well
acquainted with king Xerxes. He had determined to go up to Jerusalem,
and to take with him some of those Jews that were in Babylon; and
he desired that the king would give him an epistle to the governors of
Syria, by which they might know who he was. Yet in Esdras we are
simply informed in vv. that: This Esras came up from Babylon as
a scribe well skilled in the law of Moyses, which was delivered by the
God of Israel; and the king gave honor to him, finding grace before him
in all of his worthy petitions (

q ):
). Esras is identified as a
scribe () and while in Greek this meant a clerk (e.g., Esd

:, , ), in Judean society this referred to an expert instructor in the


the Law of Moyses (BDAG, ; GELS, ). As a scribe Esras had a
dual function of administrator in the Persian kingdom and then a legal
reformer in Judean society. This scribal work is something that Esras
excelled in ( means able, good, naturally enabled [see Wis :,
As a child I was naturally gifted, and good soul fell to my lot]). Those
are high Jewish credentials that would be important to Diasporan Jewish
communities which held the law and the science of its interpretation in
high esteem. In addition, Esras is also highly regarded by the Persian
authorities. In language drawn from patron-client relationships of the
ancient east, Esras is given honour () and finds grace () by
the king. These terms denote the public recognition of Esrass position
and his achievements at the royal court. often means something
like reputation, e.g., Pss. Sol. .; .; Sir :; Lk :; Jn :, ;
Cor :; cf. Polyaenus q (eternal renown [BDAG, ])
and can be synonymous with (honour) and (praise)
in Greek literature (L&N, ). Honour was an important Hellenistic

commentary

quality denoting a persons recognizable worth in the public sphere.


Honour is the claim to a certain status and the acknowledgement of that
status by group consensus. Honour can be either ascribed (by gender,
rank, noble birth, etc) or acquired through social advancement in public
accomplishments and excelling over others (see deSilva : ).
Honour was an important subject of discourse in philosophical writings
and rhetorical speeches. Aristotle listed two primary motives for action:
honour and pleasure (Nic. Eth. ..). The honour and status of Esras
is established through a mixture of ascription and accumulation. Esras
is ascribed honour by virtue of his membership in the royal retinue, but
he also acquired honour through excelling over others in his respective
achievements (hence his worthiness signified by ).
Here grace is not a religious word for umerited mercy, rather, it is a
social term whereby grace means a favorable disposition bestowed by a
patron as a means of assistance to his client. Aristotle (Rhet. ..) wrote:
Grace [] may be defined as helpfulness toward someone in need,
not in return for anything, nor for the advantage of the helper himself,
but for that of the person helped and this fits the context here perfectly
(see deSilva : ). Esras is both reputable and advantaged in
his ambitions.
The group that travelled with Esras is identified as Israelites involved
in the administration and function of the temple (vv. ). A group
from among the sons of Israel ( )) includes priests, Levites,
temple singers, gatekeepers, and temple servants. The cohort of returnees
constitutes a priestly class who travel to Jerusalem for the purpose of
supplementing and supplying the cultic and administrative operation
of the temple. The chronological marker for their journey is identified
as the seventh year in the reign of Artaxerxes which is bce and
B then blunders by adding a parenthetical remark that this was the
kings second year, unlike Ezra : where it is clear that it was in
the seventh year of Artaxerxes. An explanatory clause describes the
circumstances of their departure, For they left Babylon on the new
moon of the first month (q
), and if bce was the year he left then the carvan
departed Babylon on April and arrived on August (Clines : ).
The result of the passage is framed in positive terms as they arrived in
Jerusalem according to the succesful journey that the Lord gave them
( q ). The noun
is rare in the Septuagint, but it conveys a sense of prosperity and
triumph (Esd :; Tob :; Sir :; :; :).

commentary

The rationale for Esras as the chief agent in this next stage of restoration is then provided (v. ). A second explanatory clause () describes
Esras (erroneously written as in B) as a Torah teacher. It is said
that Esras obtained a vast understanding ( ) and that is explicated further in a subordinate prepositional clause.
First, that he omitted nothing from the law of the Lord (
), and the subsequent conjunctive
() is antithetical rather than connective. Then, or from the commandments, or from all the regulations and judgments for Israel (
) ). The nouns
, , , and are functionally synonymous and
underscore the prescribed and didactic content of the Mosaic code that
Esras excels in the instruction thereof (see Clines : ).
At : the B and L texts transpose into .
B utilizes ) for ) in :. RH follows A in opting for
over in : as to the year of Artaxerxes reign. B also contains
a shorter reading in : as it omits accepted
by RH on the basis of A and V. At :, A and V also retain the aorist infinitive
absent from B. As for names, in RH Ezra is transliterated as ,
though it is in B (see :, , , , , , ; :, , , , , , ,
), in and Jos. Ant. ., and in A and other minuscules.
A very odd variant is that in : there appears the name instead of
. Other significant name differences include:

:
:

RH (mostly from A)

In B a paragraph break is signified with a three letter space at :a and in the


left hand side indicates the beginning of a new section.

:. The Letter of Artaxeres


The authorisation of the carvan led by Esras to take a cohort of priestly
retainers to Jerusalem from Babylon is given in an official document
from Artaxerxes. The account follows Ezra :, which is an Aramaic
section of text, and the Vorlage of Esd : was almost identicial.
However, there are some minor differences between Ezra and Esdras.
First, Esdras (:) adds remarks about the kings friendly disposition
towards Esras and/or the Judeans. Second, Esdras emphasizes the law

commentary

of the Lord (:, , , , , , ) much like Ezra (:, , , , ,


, ), but Esdras uses (:, , , , , , ) more frequently
than Ezra uses (:, , , , ).
In this section, the introductory remarks set the scene for the edict and
make clear that it is a royal decree that is about to be described (v. ). The
edict itself grants permission to volunteers to join Esras on his carvan to
Jersuaelm (vv. ). It provides a rationale for the journey in regards
to Esrass investigation of matters in Judea and Jerusalem concerning
the proper observation of the law of the Lord (v. ). Most of the letter
focuses attention on the regulations for the transport of provisions for
the temple granted from the royal treasury (vv. ) and it climaxes in
Artaxerxes personal charge to Esras for the appointment of local officials
(vv. ). The primary purpose of this letter is to show, again, how a
pagan monarch is seconded to do the work of Israels God.
The opening statement in v. is a header for the subsequent letter
quoted below. The participle is not used in the ordinary
sense of prostrating (Esd :), but of recording official correspondence with the king (Esd :, ; Esth :; Macc :). In Esd
: (LXX) the decree is described as an explanation ()
which is clearer still. B omits found in
other mss resulting in B reading somewhat awkwardly a recording from
Artaxerxes ( ). Although the fact that
we are dealing with royal correspondence becomes sufficiently clear by
the end of the verse with (see
NETS, a copy of which follows).
As a preface to the royal edict about the temple and its provision,
Artaxerxes addresses Esras and narrates the circumstances leading to his
granting of permission for the priests and Levites to return with Esras
to Jerusalem (vv. ). Unlike Ezra :, Artaxerxes is simply called
king Artaxerxes ( ) rather than Artaxerxes, king
of kings ( / qq ).
Esras is addressed as the priest and reader of the law of the Lord (
). This is the first appearance of
in Esdras and it perhaps implies his imperial and religious
duties as a reader, recorder, or scribe in the royal Persian household.
The infinitive (greetings) is a typical address in Hellenistic
literature (e.g., Macc :, ; Macc :; Acts :; P. Petr. ..;
P. Bris. Mus. ), different from the Aramaic (Peace be
now), which is mistranslated in Esd : as
(Let the order be answered and accomplished). The author

commentary

of Esdras introduces a unique statement by Artaxerxes, With respect


to my benevolent designs ( q ), taking
as an adverbial participle modifying , which makes
the command formal. The actual edict () pertains to: those
who are desirous from the nation of the Judeans and of the priests,
and of the Levites and of those in our kingdomthose who freely
choose to do somay go with you to Jerusalem (
q )
q
)). The persons addressed in the decree are characterized
as literally wishing () and choosing () to

return to Jerusalem. The participles bracket and therefore identify a


subsection of those from the nation of Judeans who are permitted to join
Esrass carvan to Jerusalem.
The grounds for this imperial decree are stated with respect to the
proper observance of the law being undertaken in Jerusalem and Judea
(v. ). The reason for permitting Esrass return begins with a coordinating conjunction and the subjunctive verb that
together indicate purpose. The omission of the neuter plural article from
B and L (RH: ) )) creates an ellipsis as there is nothing that Esras or his colleagues may inquire about.
Although in B the implied object is the matters in relation to observation of the law in Judea and Jerusalem as signified by the double use
of the preposition ( ) )).
Esrass fact-finding mission will explore the degree of obedience to the
law in Judea and Jerusalem and whether the conduct of worship in the
temple accords () with the law of the Lord ( ). Esras
is thus a Torah-teacher concerned with the legal adherence, social purity,
and cultic observance of the Judean restoration process.
A further set of purposes for the caravan to Jerusalem are then specified as carrying gifts to the temple in Jerusalem, acquiring financial
support for its operation from the royal treasurey, and immunity from
taxation for the priestly classes (vv. ). Gifts for the Lord (and note
the close correlation between Lord and Jerusalem in : and
even earlier in :; :, , , , , ) are gifts for the temple that
are solemnly offered by the king and his Friends (). The
are most probably a close circle of advisors to the king (see Esth :,
the seven princes of Persia and Media, who saw the kings face, and
sat first in the kingdom). According to Talshir (: ), The
are not strictly officials but part of the kings (personal) entourage, one

commentary

of the lower honorary titles in the Seleucid and Ptolemaic kingdoms.


The royal gift comprises gold and silver from Babylonia and this supplements whatever offerings are made to the Lord by the nation for the
temple of their Lord in Jerusalem (
)). Esd : is clearer than Ezra : concerning the differentiation of the royal gifts of silver and gold and that were collected in
Babylon from Judean loyalists (Talshir : ). The gifts are purposed
() in v. with a view to supplying livestock for the sacrificial altar
in Jerusalem with a collection of bulls, rams, and lambs as nominated in
v. .
Two additional instructions are given relating to the management of
the gifts and the relative freedom of action which Esras has in using
them for the operation of the temple signified by a third-class like conditional clause ( and subjunctive verb). First, in v. it is said:
Whatever you and your brothers wish to do with the gold and silver,
undertake it according to the will of your God (
q q ). The shift in verbs from from
present middle subjunctive () to aorist active infinitive ()
to a present active imperative () places the emphasis upon the

last as the aspectivally imperfect action defines how the gifts are to be
managed. The same verb is implicitly carried over to v. in relation
to the delivery of the sacred vessels for the needs of Gods temple. We
can note also how the will of your God is discerned through Esras,
whose immense learning uniquely qualifies him to speak as to the nature
of the divine will in matters concerning sacrifices. Second, v. begins,
And whatever supplication comes to you for the need of the temple of
your God, you will give it from the royal treasury (
q
) and this indicates the access of Esras

to additional means to be drawn upon if required. The net point is the


imperial benefaction that supports Esrass journey, mission, and gifts for
Jerusalem.
There is a tacit shift of perspective from the description of events
offered in vv. to the commands and injunctions made in vv.
. The former are largely decrees that matter only retrospectively, while
the latter have enduring significance for the rest of Esrass term as a
priestly scribe. New emphasis is given to the commands with the words,
And behold I, King Artaxerxes ( ) ) and the interjection is found only in B. The subsequent com-

commentary

mands () in vv. pertain to, first, the governors of Syria


and Phoenicia who are to carefully furnish Esras ( in B) with
whatever he sends for including up to a hundred talents of silver, a hundred cors of wheat, and a hundred measures of wine. In other words,
Es(d)ras is to be lavishly supplied by the governors from the province
across the river. The manner and purpose of these requests are given
in v. . Everything is to be completed (q) in accordance
with the with the law of God for the sake of the Most High God
(on q see Esd :; :; :; :). The political
motivation for Artaxerxes generosity is hardly altruistic or disinterested, but so that: wrath may not come upon the kingdom of the king
and his sons ( q ). It is hoped that the Persian gifts to the Judean
god will assuage any anger posed against the king and put the Persian
king and his dynasty in positive relations with the local tribal deity of
the Judeans. In the Old Testament wrath is frequently used of Gods
intervention in battle (Josh :; Kings :; Chron :; :
), and in view of Judahs strategic position it is perhaps intended here
too. A second element of the decrees are then stated with the milder
wording of notified () in v. and the present tense-form
compensates for the absence of a verb like (see :, )
through its imperfective aspect which characterized the action as still
in progress. A composite group comprising of the priests and Levites
and temple singers and gatekeepers and temple servants and officials
of this temple (
q [])
are exempted from taxation. Their freedom from taxation is underscored with three emphatic negations: no tribute nor any other no
one has authority to levy these things upon them (
: ).

The kings final instruction turns to Esras personally and concerns


the administration of the region according to the laws of God (vv.
). Unlike Ezra : where Ezra and his colleagues are to teach the
law, in Esd : that task falls to Esras alone highlighting his role as
teacher of the law all the more (hence the singular contrasted
with the plural forms [Esd :] and [MT]). Esras is
exhorted to act according to the wisdom of God ( q),
which in this context can mean nothing other than the law of God
(on law and wisdom see Sir :; :; :; :; Esd :). Esras has

commentary

a civil task in appointing judges and magistrates who may adjudicate


( ) and / carries
the sense of condemn or execute judgment (see Luke :; Josephus,
Apion .). The jurisdiction of Esrass legal reforms is not restricted to
Judea ()), but the whole of Syria and Phoenicia (
). The direction may be no more than requiring that judges
be appointed for all Judeans who live in the area beyond the river, though
we might rightly suspect that this is a Jewish perspective that sees Eretz
Israel as constituting a wider area than Judea. The purpose of the appointments it that those who know the law of your God shall instruct those
who do not know it ( q :
). The final injunction makes the Mosaic
law the virtual Persian law of the land in Syria and Phoenicia by way of
reference to the law of your God and the royal law ( q
). As Myers (: ) puts it, the law of God and
the law of the king are placed virtually on par (but note objections of
Williamson : ). Any transgression () of the law
requires retribution and the perpetrator shall be exactingly punished,
whether by death or some other physical punishment, [either] financial
loss or arrest ( q q
: ). B places a negation
before , although a coordinating conjunction is required. In
sum, the capital punishment mandated in the Mosaic law and its various
other sentences receive royal sanction. In Josephuss account only capital
punishment and financial penalties are mentioned (Ant. .). Esras is
charged with transforming religious and civil life in Judea and bringing
it into conformity with the law of God.
A significant characteristic of B in this section is the number of omissions that
it makes compared to other witnesses. Omissions include: () In :,
, and a similar omission is found in L, though the B
text becomes opaque by the omission. () In :, ), which is also
omitted from L, Syr, and Eth, whereas Ezra : and Esd : have God of
Israel. () In :, q, and the L text and Syr also omit
q, and it is hard to identify the origin and occasion for the omission. ()
In :, , omitted also by L Lav Syr Eth Arm, but retained by RH on
the strength of its attestation in A and V as well as its proximate usage in vv. ,
(see Esd :, ).
At :, B reads , contrasted with
accepted by RH. The sense of Ezra : evidently created confusion with
several Greek witnesses unsure where to place the genitival pronoun and some
inserted to define ownership of the vessels rather than mark their

commentary

reception with Esras, and then placed with q (contrast


Esd : LXX). However, the double use of the genitival pronoun in B is
probably closer to the original Aramaic. Typical of B is the simplificication of
genitival and prepositional phrases into a condensed form ( over
in :; instead of in :). A
spelling error occurs in : of B where stands, but it requires demonstrative
pronoun . An additional error is that B reads the negation in
contrast to the coordinating conjunction (and V attests the simple
conjunctive ).

:. Esrass Ejaculation of Praise


The announcement from Artaxerxes that Esras is able to return to Jerusalem occasions an outburst of praise from the priestly scribe which is
narrated in the distinctive first person (hence use of , , ,
and ). The language of praise has been used earlier in Esdras with
reference to Zorobabels eulogy to the God of truth (:) and Zorobabels gratitude to God for giving him wisdom in the contest (:).
The doxology in Esd : is differentiated from Ezra : by
stressing that God alone () is blessed and by omitting any reference to the God of our forefathers. Esd : also makes no mention
of Gods steadfast love () and unlike Esd : (LXX) it employs
hearten (q) instead of strengthen () and assistance () instead of Gods hand ( q). The celebration
is based on two key acts by the Lord. These include God placing a desire
in () the heart of the king to glorify his house that is in Jerusalem
(v. ) and honouring Esras before () the king and his friends and
nobles (v. ). Thereafter Esras notes the sequal where he was heartened
or emboldened and gathered together men from Israel to accompany
him on the journey (v. ). In the Babylonian Talmud (b.Qidd. b),
Ezra : was taken to mean that Ezra accepted only pure and bonafide
Judeans on his journey like pure sifted flower, whereas the word gathered ( [MT], [Esd :; Esd :]) means simply that he
assembled the caravan (Clines : ).
RH follows the B and L texts in omitting
found in A, V, and several minuscules, but also not found in Esd : (LXX).
B includes the possessive pronoun in : that identifies the king as Esrass
king. On : several variants are found in the witnesses. A and V read
, the whole contruct is omitted by ,
RH follow Lv with , and B reads the
substantive participle . B, as elsewhere (e.g., :), omits the
article in q.

commentary

:. The List of Returning Exiles


The transition to the list of returning exiles with Esras is abrupt and the
list of names given follows Ezra : very closely. Differences occur
mainly in the names and their spellings as well as in actual numbers
(Esd : comes to , Esd : to , and Ezra :
to [see Myers : ]). Talshir (: ) even thinks that the
list of names has been better preserved in Esdras. Josephus omits the
list of names who returned with Esras (Ant. .). In its place,
Josephus recounts how the letter from Artaxerxes was disseminated
by Esras to the Judeans in Babylon and Media and he further notes
how the Judeans were impressed with the kings piety towards God and
kindness towards Esras ( q
). While Esd : says that Esras gathered
() men from Israel in Babylon for the caravan, Josephus adds
further commentary: [They] came to Babylon, as exceedingly eager of
going down to Jerusalem; but then all the people of Israel remained
in that country; therefore there are but two tribes in Asia and Europe
subject to the Romans, while the ten tribes are beyond Euphrates even
till now, are an immense myriad of people, and not able to be numerically
estimated. Josephuss point is that the return from Babylon was not
complete and he points out that Judean life under the post-Persian
empire essentially continues with only a small percentage of Judeans
under the hegemony of the Romans.
The leaders (on see :, :; :) are those who
preside over the paternal houses and family groups ( is
linked with at :, ; :). Continuing the first person from
:, it is reported that these leaders went up with me from Babylon
( ) indicating the biographical
nature of the section and why it is often linked with a hypothetical
Ezra Memoir. The fact that priestly figures are named first in the list
accentuates their role in the journey and their authority in Jerusalem.
Unlike the list of names in Esd :, the initial leaders nominated
are Aaronic rather than Zadokite priests (e.g., on Ietamaros [= Ithamar
in Ezra :] see Chron :).
Two significant names stand out in the list in :. First, there is
Phoros (), although probably meant was Phinees since
is attested in A and V, and occurs elsewhere in Esdras (B) at :;
:, (though usually misspelt as ). Pheinees/Phoros was the
progeninator of the priestly line whom God rewarded with a covenant

commentary

of perpetual priesthood for his service in protecting the purity of the


bloodline of Israel from foreign contamination (Num :). A role
that is much relevant with what Esras will soon encounter in Jerusalem
with rampant intermarriage of foreigners among all classes in Judea. In
the priestly line also is Maathmoab (q [= q]) who
is probably part of the branch of Iesous. Second, mentioned also are the
sons of David ( ) implying the continuation of the
Davidic line as God had promised David with a covenant ( Sam :
). At the head of the list of returning exiles, then, we find the chief
recipients of the two major post-Mosaic covenants. The descendents of
Pheinees(/Phoros) with their perpetual priestly covenant and the sons of
David with their Davidic covenant of kingship. Thus, the perspective of
diarchic restoration through a priest and davidide did not end with the
disappearance of Zorobabel and Iesous from the narrative, but continues
under Esras, albeit in subdued form and subordinate to the scribal
revisions of Judeas Yahwehistic faith. The purpose of the list is to validate
the legitimacy of the leaders who embarked on the journey with Esras by
setting forth their genealogical credentials (Coggins & Knibb : ).
A two letter gap between : and : marks the start of a new section. At :,
B reads , whereas A and V attest adopted by RH (though
it is omitted by L and Tedesche influenced by Esd : [= Ezra :] which reads
only ). The B text also omits the and/or in several places.
Differences in names between B and RH include:

RH

>
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:

q
q

commentary

Where there are differences, RH generally prefer A and/or V over B. However,


there are two conjectures made in reference to names. First, in :,
is a conjecture by Rahlfs in view of the diverse witnesses, but still very similar to
Gersomus (Lv) and (V [= Esd :]). Second, in :, Rahlfs proposed
q over q (B, A), (V), and (L). In :, Brooke &
McLean (: ) erroneously read B as instead of
(RH).

:. The Search for Priests and Levites


The exact details about the gathering of the caravan is narrated next.
This leads to a discovery that among their number there are no priests
or Levites. Esras subsequently sends a message through his emissaries
to several priestly families in Babylon with a request to provide him
with additional Levites and temple servants so that they can accompany
him on the journey to Jerusalem. A number of suitable persons are then
provided and a list of their names recorded.
The assemblying of persons referred to back in :, that was interrupted by the list of returnees in :, finally takes place here (v. ).
The gathering () occurs at the River () and in most
manuscripts this is designated as the river Theras () with a few
variants (e.g., [], [], [], and Thia [Lav]),
but omitted from B. In Ezra : this place is the river that runs to
Ahava ( ) and in Esd : (LXX) it is to the river
that comes to Evi ( ).
The place envisaged is one of the many canals or streams running off
the Euphrates in the vicinity of an open area that a large body of travellers could assemble in. The group camps by the River and Esras, again
in first person narrative, states I scrutinized them (q ). The word q means to thoroughly investigate (GELS,
[see ESVA, NEB, NRSV, NETS, I inspected them; Cook, I surveyed them]). The result of the inspection given in v. is that no one
from among the priests and Levites was found in that place (lit. there
[]). Though Ezra : refers only to a lack of Levites, not priests. This
absence of priests and Levites creates a dilemma as priestly representatives will be required to account for and deliver the sacred vessels to the
temple and to properly fulfil the decree of Artaxerxes concerning the
temple and its operation.
The response of Esras to the deficit of priests and Levites is to send a
delegation of learned leaders to priestly families among the Babylonian
Judeans to ask for the release of additional persons to join the caravan

commentary

(vv. ). Esrass deputies are said to be men of intellect ( [NETS, men of knowledge; NRSV, ESVA, men of understanding; NEB, discerning men; Myers, learned men]). There is an ellipsis
in as no object is given for the transitive
and we are meant to imagine a word or message given to
them that encompasses the subsequent instructions described in what
follows. The ten persons nominated (Eleazaros and Idouelos and Maasmas and Enaatan and Samaias and Ioribos, Nathan, Ennatan, Zacharias,
and Mesolabos) differs from the nine persons named plus the two wise
men, Joirab and Elthnathan, bringing the total to eleven in Ezra :
(MT)/Esd : (LXX) (see Myers : ).
Esrass instruction (I said to them [ ]) is that his emissaries are to go to Laadaios, who was the leading official at the location of the treasury (q
). Several issues are encountered here. First,
it is unclear who exactly is and what his function is. The
fact that he is a leader and a brother of the priests implies that he
is an authority figure among the priestly class in this particular location. Second, B is somewhat confusing as the name of the character in
question differs from in v. to in v. , although
the same person is undoubtedly intended (preferable is arguably the
L text with in vv. ). The name is based on the Hebrew
Iddo () as found in the MT, whereas no name is given in Esd
: (LXX) and the designated recipients of the letter are their brothers the temple servants ( q). On Esd
:, note that q is a Greek transliteration of the Hebrew
from Ezra :. Thus, Esd : actually enhances the status of the
recipients by making them priests rather than simply temple servants
(on the relationship of Iddo to the temple servants in Ezra : see
Clines : ). Third, the location that the delegation is to go to in
order to meet Laadaios/Lodaios ( ) is
obscure. Ezra : nominates the location as Casiphia (), but
no equivalent occurs in either Esd : or Esd :. That the delegates are sent to a cultic centre for priestly activity, somewhat like the
Elephantine temple in Egypt, is plausible given that place () designates sanctuaries of worship (Esd :, ; :, ; :). The are not persons (contra NRSV, treasurers; see more properly NETS, ESVA, place of the treasury). The substance of what is to
be discussed () with Laadaios/Lodaios concerns a request
for he and his associates to send for us those that serve as priests in

commentary

the house of our Lord (


).

There is a positive reponse from Laadaios/Lodaios and his associates


as thirty men from the Levites (thirty-eight in other mss) and two
hundred and twenty temple servants are seconded to Esrass caravan
(vv. ). B omits :a concerning how the request was granted and
moves straight into the list of learned men ( ) who
are enlisted into Esrass cohort. The Levites are learned in the Torah
just like Esrass delegation and thus uniquely suited for this role (see
in :). In v. , the temple servants, who also join the
returnees, are described as those whom David and the leaders had given
for the ministry of the Levites (
). The mention of David and the temple
servants may recall Chron : where David assembled priests and
Levites for the accession of Solomon. It is also stated that the name of
all the persons joining Esrass caravan was recorded in a list of names
() and this parallels the statement of Chron : that
after the exile, the first to live again in their possessions in their towns
were Israelites, priests, Levites, and temple servants. The acquisition
of Levites and temple servants brings sufficient close to the story and
enables the sojourn of exiles back to Jerusalem to proceed under Esrass
supervision.
Beyond a number of minor deviations between B and A V (e.g., in : B reads
the aorist participle with Arm and Jos. Ant. . over the aorist
verb ; B transposes in : and RH follows A and V on
both), the most significant differences are the number of omissions of text found
in B, including: () in :, (with Eth) is omitted making the
so-named () rendezvous point; () in :,
is omitted though found in A and V; () in
:, B attests only in contrast to read by A and V; and () also
missing from B in : is .
Differences in names include:

:
:
:

RH

Note should be taken of conjectural emmandations in RH. To begin with, in


:, is a conjecture of Rahlfs, whereas A and V read q. Likewise, is also a conjecture by Rahlfs, but Hanhart (a: ) opts

commentary

for the A reading of (other variations include e.g., [V], [], [], Mosolamun [Lav], Mosolamum
[Lac], []). Similarly, in :, is a conjecture by Bewer
adopted by RH (other variant readings include, e.g., [A] and []) and the same is true in : of (variants include, e.g.,
[A], [], and [Syr]). Finally, at :, the corrector
has introduced to {}.

:. The Journey to Jerusalem


After the successful search for priests and Levites, the caravan recommences its preparations for the journey. The exiles accompanying Esras
travel from Theras to Jerusalem with a great amount of silver and gold
gifts which are to be delivered to the temple as well as delivering the
decrees of Artaxerxes concerning Esrass ministry there. It follows Ezra
: fairly closely with the difference that Esd : makes no mention of Gods wrath referred to in Ezra :. Also, Ezra : mentions one
hundred silver vessels with the talent value omitted, whereas Esd :
has silver vessels worth a hundred talents. Then Ezra : describes two
vessels of fine bronze in contrast to Esd : that has ten according to
B (twelve in other mss). Josephus (Ant. .) describes six hundred
and fifty talents of silver, one hundred talents in vessels of silver, vessels of gold worth twenty talents, vessels of brass, that was more precious
than gold, weighing twelve talents. The passage underscores the reliance
upon divine providence that the sojourners have upon their Lord for a
safe journey and the importance of providing further opulent gifts for
the temple. The narrative moves in three major sections including: fasting and prayer for a successful journey (vv. ); the charge to the
twelve priests to safely deliver the gold and silver vessels to Jerusalem
(vv. ); and the account of the journey to Jerusalem including the
deliverance of the silver and golden vessels and the sacrifices offered by
the returning exiles (vv. ).
The religious preparation for the carvan continues with Esras calling for a fast and seeking Gods protection for the duration of the trip
(vv. ). The vow () is a fast of self-humbling before the
Lord (see Ps :; Isa :; Jdt :) and fasting is often linked with
prayer in Jewish tradition (e.g., Dan :; Tob :; Macc :; Luke
:; Acts :). The purpose of the fast is to seek from him a succesful journey for us, our children and livestock ( ). The dative
cases are datives of advantage as the supplication seeks blessings and

commentary

prosperity from the Lord in their travel (on as safe journey


see GELS, ; cf. q [Esd :]). B does not contain the
dependent participle phrase , though no sense is lost by
the absence.
The reason for the prayer and petition is given in the following explanatory clause. In its current form, the clause it is elliptical because it
lacks a direct object following the infinitive , yet this is designated
in the other witnesses with the infinitive clause (to
ask the king). Viewed this way, the infinitives of vv. naturally
juxtapose each other as Esras would rather seek () from the
Lord than ask () for assistance from the king. The shame in
question () is not simply Esrass own (how can a priest rely on
the king rather than on God), but corporate (Israel must rely on their
God), and even theological as the honour and shame of God is at stake
if the people do not prevail in the end (e.g., Dan :; Luke :).
Despite the fact that many are said to oppose us ( ; other
mss read the participle ), which probably harkens back
to the Samaritan opposition narrated earlier, Esras makes no request
to the king for cavalry and infantry. That is because The strength of
our Lord will be with those who seek him, for every restoration (

q). Shame will be accrued to Esras, the travelers, and God

if Esras does not live up to his claim that their security and protection
() comes from the Lords strength rather than a pagan king.
The word q means restoration and was used in Macc :
for the restoration of the law and in Macc : for the resettlement of
Judeans in northern Palestine. Reliance on God rather than on military
strength, especially that of a foreign kingdom, is not unknown in Israels
sacred literature (e.g., Isa :; Ps :), though somewhat paradoxical
in Esdras as it is the agency of Cyrus, Darius, and Artaxerxes who
are instruments of Israels God for the liberation of the exiles and the
restoration of the Judean territory in the first place. Nehemiah had so
such hesitations in asking the king for a military escort (Neh :). Here
it is the direct and unmediated care of the Lord that is looked for as a
testimony to the king of the strength of their God. In any event, if Esras
and his associates trust in the Lord (in the LXX can mean to
pursue something as an object of devotion [Hos :; :; GELS, ])
then they shall be successful in the trip. The author looks ahead and
identifies the outcome of the trip before its details are fully described
(cf. v. ). Esrass memoire records that we petitioned our Lord unto

commentary

all these things, and we obtained mercy (q


: ). That is an apt summary of
the soteriological framework of Esdras where God grants mercy and
favor to the covenant people when they are contrite and reliant upon
him.
Attention shifts to the priests and their duties to be custodians for the
silver and gold to be delivered to the temple authorities (vv. ). The
primary actions are seen in the first person aorist verbs that describe
the main activities of Esras: setting apart the priests ( [v. ]),
weighing the silver and gold ( [v. ]), and commissioning the
priests ( [v. ]). The twelve priests are obviously symbolic for all
of Israel who are represented in the caravan. The items weighed and
entrusted to the priests include silver and the gold and the sacred
vessels ( ). The vessels in
particular are from the house of our Lord ( )
and are part of the goods looted by Nabouchodnosor that are yet to be
returned to Jerusalem. The gifts and vessels were donated in the manner
that the king himself and his advisors and nobles and all Israel had given
(
)). The gifts donated by the king, his officials, and Israel is
reminiscent of the gifts by the family heads and military commanders at
the Solomonic temple (Chron :). Royal Persian patronage ensures
the legitimacy of the temple under Persian authorities (Myers : ).
The adverb (see from adopted by RH that makes the
kings role in giving the gifts more emphatic) describes the manner in
which the king, his associates, the leading men, and the Israelites gave
gifts for the caravan.
After the list of talents and vessels are given in v. , then in vv.
Esras addresses the priests and their duties. First, it includes an
exhortation that You are holy to the Lord, and the vessels are holy
( : ). That set-apart-ness
of the priestly class is why they alone were uniquely suited to deliver
the sacred vessels that were solemnly dedicated to the Lord. Second,
there is an admonition to Be watchful and on guard (
) until such time as the vessels are delivered through
the various mediating channels of tribal leaders of the priests and the
Levites, and to the heads of the ancestral houses of Israel, in Jerusalem,
in the inner chambers of the house of our Lord. That is the convoluted
path of official recognition that the sacred vessels must travel through
before they are desposited in the temple. Just like v. , in v. there

commentary

is a flash forward to the successful completion of the charge given to the


priests when it is said: And the priests and the Levites receiving the silver
and the gold and the vessels brought them to the temple of the Lord in
Jerusalem (
)
). The priestly deliverance of the vessels is highlighted by the

fact that whereas most of the verbs in the surrounding context are aorist,
present tense-form verbs and participles are used in this section for
describing either the vessels or the priests themselves (
[v. ]; [v. ]; [v. ]).
This effectively zooms in on their role in the process by shifting the verbal
aspect from perfective to imperfective. In any case, the restoration of the
sacred vessels from Babylon back to the temple, despite the partial return
of vessels under Cyrus and Darius previously, is finally accomplished
here.
The journey and arrival of the caravan of exiles is described very briefly
with attention focused on the safe delivery of the vessels and the sacrifices
made by the travelers upon their arrival (vv. ). Unlike : in
B, which omitted and reads , here the
travelers leave from the place Thera ( ). The group arrives
in Jerusalem safely according to the mighty hand of our Lord, which
was upon us ( )
and a similar expression mighty hand of the Lord is found : though
not in the text of B (see Deut :; :; :; :; Chron :). That
strength (v. ) or mighty hand (v. ) is seen in the claim that, he
rescued us from the journey from every enemy (
q) indicating that God met the concerns
raised in v. about the threat posed by those who opposed them. B
reads, however, and he came to Jerusalem (q )). At
the very least, the context requires a plural verb (hence the plural q
in Brooke & McLean : ) and the better attested reading is the first
person plural q. Although q could still make sense if read as
a reference to Esras.
The subsequent description makes it clear that the silver and gold did
arrive in the house of the Lord and was appropriately delivered to the official priestly leadership comprising of, Marmothi son of Ourias the priest
and with him was Eleazar son of Phinees, and with them were Iosabees
son of Iesous and Moeth son of Sabannos the Levites. The vessels were
then counted, weighed, and recorded. Following that, the returnees from
captivity offered sacrifices to the Lord God of Israel including a number

commentary

of lambs and male goats. B contains no reference to the bulls and rams as
found in other mss. Although numbers usually precede their subject, the
twelve ( ) relates to the preceding peace offering ()
in v. . In addition to participating in the sacrifices, the returnees also
delivered the decrees () of Artaxeres to the royal stewards
and prefects of Syria and Phoenicia (unlike other mss omitted from B is
). Homage is then paid () to both the nation and temple of the Lord ( q ), and in the story of
Esdras the fate and fortunes of the former are very much bound up with
the latter.
Thus far, Esrass journey marks a completion of the story of Zorobabel.
Whereas Zorobabels work focused on rebuilding the temple and marked
a major move towards restoration, it was as yet still incomplete. The
decree of Artaxerxes in : looked to rectify that and the restoration
process accelerates towards these stated goals in : under Esras.
The symbolism of twelve (v. ) and constant mention of Israel
(vv. , , ), and the fact that all the sacrifices are multiples of twelve
(v. ), gives the impression that under Esras Israel has finally and
fully arrived back in Jerusalem (Klein : ). Indeed, the notion
of rebuilding and refurbishing the temple would continue to have a
major role in shaping the religious and nationalistic hopes of Judeans
in the centuries to come, especially during the Maccabean and Herodian
periods. But in addition to the refurbishment of the temple, there was
another aspect of Judean life that was of course still awaiting reform. That
was of course, the Torah and its role in Judean society. It is to that subject
that the story now turns.
B contains several omissions in contrast to RH including: (:);
(:); (:; cf. Esd :);
) (:); (:). In all cases RH
follows A and V. These omissions are mostly due to scribal error given that
certain parts are incoherent without the additions (e.g., omission of the infinitive
in :). B also transposes several words: (:);
(:); (:); and contains a slightly
different word order in : with
against RHs . As elsewhere, B
omits the genitive article before a genitive noun in : (RH: ) and
in : with the additional excision of the personal pronoun (RH:
; other minor variants include q and q
). The article is also omitted in : from the substantive participle (RH:
). Though B, contrasted with A and V, includes the article for
at :. The variations in names continue:

:
:

commentary
B

RH

is a conjecture from Rahlfs and Tedesche, while Hanhart (a: )


thinks that might represent a homoiteleuton. RH adopts
from L, while Hanhart (a: ) accepts from B (see in
A ). RH accepts the A reading of over Bs . Several
numbers are different and B continues its preference for over at
: (cf. []). At : there is some support for (B, Lac, Eth) over
(A, V) adopted by RH.

Characteristic of B in : is the use of third person verbs over first person


for the arrival of Esras and the exiles in Jerusalem despite the fact that much
of the section is told in the first person. The B reading is q (with
Eth, Lac), RH contains q (, ), and Hanhart (a: ) records
q. In the same verse, Bs q evidently does not agree in number
with the context (hence Brooke and McLean change it to q), and RH rightly
prefers A and V with q. Also in :, B includes the name (omitted
from :), but reads over the better attested and Talshir (:
) is probably correct that its an internal Greek corruption. There is spelling
error in : with [] misspelt by lacking a rho. The reading of in
: is testified by A and B, though RH prefers from , while L attests
. The corrector has inserted to {} in :. There is also a doubling up
of the nomina sacra in : with .

:. The Reports of Mixed Marriages


The successful return of Esras and his caravan to Jerusalem with additional priests, gifts, and good news from Artaxerxes would have constituted a perfectly good conclusion to the narrative. Apart from the continuing Persian hegemony, which is viewed as largely benign and even
positively in Esdras, the promises about restoration were drawing to
fulfilment. In any case, in Zorobabel a Davidide was in place already to
take over should the house of David ever accede to power again. However, the story continues with a further cycle of sin that is perpetuated
by the nation rendering them liable once more to divine judgment, and
thus preventing the priestly/scribal vision for the restoration of Judea
from being fully implemented. The problem is that of mixed marriages
and the pollution of the covenant people due to excessive fraternizing
with the surrounding populace. Josephus also captures the climate of
Esdras when he points out that the ultimate problem was the corruption
of the priesthood by intermarriage (Ant. .). The rest of the narrative

commentary

focuses on this problem until the very end of the book. The requirement to not intermarry with foreign peoples was a frequent injunction
in Israels sacred traditions and was often said to be the cause of their
downfall as seen definitively in the demise of King Solomon (e.g., Gen
:; Deut :; Josh :; Kgs :; Ezra :; Neh :; Tob
:). The concern for racial purity was not at all unique to the Judaism
of Persian period, but the notion of purity as separation from Gentile
sinners became increasingly important to the piety of the Hasidim, a
group of pious Jews who attached themselves to the Maccabean opposition against the Seleucids, and were very likely the predecessors of the
Pharisees. The concept of purity as a personal and national commodity
was even more crucial during the Hellenistic and Roman periods among
dispersed Jewish community. The need to maintain purity, where possible, was a constant matter of concern for Jews of the Graeco-Roman
Diaspora who had to think through the issues of keeping their Jewish
identity while engaging the social realities of living in a non-Jewish city.
This required separation from iconic worship, avoiding shared meals
with Gentiles, and forbidding intermarriage with Gentiles (see Barclay
: ). That is not to say that all Diaspora Jews were equally
scrupulous in their adherence to the laws of kashrut or that they entirely
avoided excessive fraternizing with Gentiles. The common sense reality is that individuals would have varied on levels of assimilation and
sectarianism in their particular context. But a concern for purity as a
status necessary for worship was part of the socio-religious identity of
dispersed Jewish groups and Esdras would speak much to Diaspora
Jews encountering those issues.
After Esrass arrival he is informed by certain leaders that the rulers,
priests, and leaders have failed to separate themselves from the land and
from the impurities of the neighboring tribes (vv. ). The opening in B is textually awkward as the conjunctive is abbreviated to
a kappa with a macron () and is followed with a plural genitive article , whereas the context requires (and hence other mss attest) the
demonstrative pronoun . It stated that after these things were
completed ( [] q), which is a vague chronological introduction. The setting obviously refers to Esrass successful journey
and the succeeding temple sacrifices after which certain leaders approach
Esras. Just like Ezra :, it is emphasized in Esd : that the initiative
for seeking to remedy the unfortunate state of affairs within the nation
comes from the community, not from Esras himself (Coggins & Knibb
: ). It is not spelled out who the leaders ( ) were,

commentary

but they are obviously representatives from the tribal heads resident in
Jerusalem. Those listed in the complaint who have not separated themselves ( ) from the other peoples of the land include persons
from among the rulers, priests, and Levites (notably absent from B is
mention of q ) as culprits, though Israelite men are
listed in : as perpetrators of this offence). In any case, the impression that we are given is that the offence was confined primarily to the
upper classes and involved only a small percentage of the population
(Klein : ). This is the first mention of the other peoples of the
land ( q ) in Esdras and they are the backdrop
for what follows. Intermarriage with foreigners was common among the
patriarchs (e.g. Gen :; :; Exod :; Num :, etc.), yet intermarriage with the Canaanite inhabitants of Palestine was thought to pose a
particular risk to the religious integrity of Israel as it would ultimately
lead to syncretism and apostasy (e.g., Exod :; Deut :; :
). The chief problem with the peoples of the land was their impurities
(q). Purity was important for religions of the ancient world
because it provided holy space for human subjects to interact with the
divine realm. Laws and rituals for purity and purification are attested in
ANE law-codes and also in the Graeco-Roman rites of religious. While
the Jewish concern for purity was distinctive in many regards, especially in terms of the abstinence from certain foods like pork, the Jewish
religion was not distinctive for being concerned with purity itself. The
reason for the refusal to intermarry is thus religious not racial in Pentateuchal teaching (Williamson : ). The peoples of the land
that are exposing their impurities to the Israelites include several groups
listed as: the Chananites, the Chettites, the Pherezites, the Iebousites,
the Moabities, the Aigyptians, and the Idoumites ( )), all of whom were traditional enemies of Israel at

some point in their history. The list of surrounding nations attempts to


follow Kgs : which in turn is echoed in Neh :. Solomons
sin of intermarriage with foreign women is thus repeated and recapitulated in the post-exilic community. Missing from the list here are only
the Amorites included in Ezra : who are replaced with the Idoumites
(= Edomites). Accordings to Coggins (& Knibb : ; cf. Talshir
: ) the list in Esd : preserves a better text than Ezra as it
is much more natural to find the Idoumeans/Edomitesagainst whom
the Old Testament shows much hostilitythan the Amorites as enemies of Israel. The Amorites are included already under the designation

commentary

(Canaanites). Esdras : (LXX) offers effectively the same


list as Ezra :, but with several alternative spellings to Esd : (
q
).

B does not begin with an explanatory prepositional clause as do other


mss detailing the cause of the impurities coming upon the nation ( ), but it commences instead with reference to the
offence of intermarriage itself, For they and their sons have married
their daughters ( q
). The result of this union is twofold. First, that the holy seed
has been contaminated with the foreign nations of the land (
q ). The word
means here to mingle oneself and later in v. it means to have dealings with (GELS, ). The Pentateuchal purity laws were embedded
in the covenantal code in order to protract Israels capacity to serve God
and thus a pure Israel served as a means of projecting the covenant Gods
salvific purposes into all of creation (e.g., Exod :; Isa :, :).
The contraction of impurity, in terms of becoming like the nations and
adopting their religious practices, did not simply retard that ordained
role for Israel, but it effectively negated it. Only an Israel separate from
the nations could be a light to the nations. Second, it is stated that, the
leaders and the nobles have been sharing in this lawless practice from the
beginning of the matter ( ). Esd : is
more detailed than its source text Ezra : in that it identifies two groups
(leaders and nobles [ ]) who partake of this behaviour. Furthermore, the leaders and nobles have done
this from the beginning ( ) indicating their key role with
respect to setting the precedent and defining a norm for socio-religious
life within the covenantal community. Whereas Ezra : and Esd :
refer to the faithlessness (/q) of these leaders, in contrast,
Esdras refers to their deeds as an act of lawlessness (). Josephus
(Ant. .) offers a similar description that the offenders had broken
the ancestral laws ( ). The charge was
an important one especially in the context of second temple Judaism. The
language of being a law-breaker was typical in intra-Jewish polemics
about whose interpretation of the law mattered before God. For example, in the Damascus Document there is the remark against the Pharisees
that they had sought flattery, choosing travesties of true religion; they
looked for ways to break the law; they favoured the fine neck. They

commentary

called the guilty innocent, and the innocent guilty. They overstepped
the covenant, violated the law; and they conspired to kill the innocent
(CD .). In the Maccabean writings, the Hellenizers are described
with scorn and contempt. Menelaus, the high priest, is labelled a traitor
of the laws and the fatherland (Macc. .). He is further denounced as
a law-breaker () who died a shameful death ( Macc. .).
Another high priest, Jason brother of Onias, is said to have destroyed
the lawful ways of living and introduced new customs against the law
() (Macc. .) and changed the nations way of life and
altered its form of government in every lawless way ( ) (Macc. .). Referring to the s ce, Josephus narrates how the
High Priest Ananus arranged to have James the brother of Jesus and his
companions summarily executed on a charge of being breakers of the
law () (Ant. .). Thus, the charge of being lawless in
Esd : represents a vituperative term for the quintessential covenant
violator (see Bird ).
In B a new section is marked by at :. The only major deviations between
the text of B and RH are, first, that B omits q ) in : perhaps
to exclusively impugn the leadership as opposed to the nation as a whole (see
Jos. Ant. .). Second, that in :, Hanhart prefers the conjecture
q, to the conjecture of Rahlfs of q, while L has
q, and B reads the simple q. Third, in :, B
reads in place of RHs from V (A reads
; Brooke & McLean [: ] conjecture a reading of
; on for see Hanhart a: ).

:. Ezras Penitential Prayer


Esras is made privy to the report that among the people, especially its
leaders, men have taken foreign wives. He is naturally alarmed because
it could potentially lead to idol worship within the Judean community.
Resultantly Esras takes to mourning and to self-humiliation to show his
objection and contrition at this national act of sacrilege. Esras expresses
great shock and regret that this has occurred and he confesses the lawlessness of Israel to the Lord. Concurrently, Esras recognizes Gods merciful provision in sparing the nation and providing for them during their
period of exile. It was God, afterall, who granted them favour before Persian kings and enabled them to rebuild the temple of the Lord. But in this
transgression of national purity there was a real danger that God might
again destroy the community and leave it without root, seed, or name.
The section is parallel to Ezra : which it follows closely. Unlike

commentary

Neh :, Esras does not use direct coercion to make his point.
Instead, he encourages the people to recognize the problem, repent
of its occurrence, and to renew their commitment to the law of the
Lord. The form of the prayer is most similar to other Jewish penitential
prayers such as Dan :, Neh :; :; Q; Macc :;
Prayer of Azariah; Tob ::; and Bar :: that generally makes
lament for sin, expresses contrition, celebrates Gods mercy, and vows
future obedience. Generally these follow a pattern of confession of sin,
contemplation of punishment, and hope for restoration. In its present
form the prayer can be regarded as word of exhortation (Coggins &
Knibb : ), a prayer sermon (Myers : ), or a sermon
(Talshir : ); though I prefer the designation penitential prayer
with a homiletical function.
The prayer continues the first person narrative indicative of a possible
Ezra Memoire that lies at the historical kernel of the tradition-history of
the text. Josephus significantly abbreviates the prayer and describes it in
the third person (Ant. .). In terms of narration, the passage
contains Esrass dramatic response to the sin of intermarriage by tearing
his garments and grieving aloud which attracts the notice of onlookers
(vv. ). It also includes Esrass prayer conceding the guilt of the
people and the depths of Gods mercy (vv. ), the recapitulation
of the prophetic warning not to intermarry with foreigners when Israel
entered the promised land (vv. ), and further denunciation of the
nation for their lawlessness despite divine mercy (vv. ). What this
pericope creates in this literary setting is a further cycle of tension caused
by the dissonance between the peoples behaviour and the ideal of how
the recently returned exiles were supposed to live in their restored state.
The nation is in desperate need of repentance and reform if divine wrath
is to be avoided and, as it turns out, Esras is the man to lead them in this
enterprise.
After being informed of the intermarriages by the Judean leaders
(i.e., these things []), Esras reacts with bewailment and selfdebasement (vv. ). The effect of the news is instantaneous with
(As soon as I heard). The dative preposition
makes the hearing and acting almost concurrent with Esras reacting
immediatly upon hearing the report (for similar constructions of
with an infinitive, see Jdgs :; :; :; Macc :; Ps :; Jon
:; Ezek :; :; Bel [Th]). Esrass action is given in three verbs.
First, he ripped (Bs is a misspelt version of ) his
garments and sacred vestments, which was a token gesture of humiliation

commentary

and mourning (e.g., Gen :; Num :; Sam :; Job :; Esth


:). Second, Esras pulled (Bs is a misspelt version of
) his head and beard, which exemplified the same attitude of
sorrow and shame. The third gesture of Esras is that he sat down
(q) in state described as melancholic and griefstricken (
) and the words convey a mix of gloom, sadness, and
disgust (on sitting appalled see Ezek :; Job :). Although Esras
himself was not a participant, nor complicit with the mixed marriages,
his actions identify himself with the lawless deeds and he accordingly
confesses their communal guilt. Observing this very visual and public
show of indignity and contrition it is reported that people gathered
around me (q ). Hereafter the word
is used in Esdras when the people come together at key moments in
their religious life (Esd :, , ). The people gathered are described
of a certain quality, viz., as many as were moved by the word of the
Lord of Israel ( )).
Those equally concerned about the intermarriages among the upper
eschelons of leadership and priestly class gravitate to Esras and the
reason given is that they were moved ( is perhaps an
inceptive imperfective, they began to be moved; Ezra : [MT] has
tremble [] and Esd : [LXX] has pursue []) due to
their high regard for the word of the Lord (see earlier reference to
word of the Lord in Esd :; :; and on the form
see Deut :; :; Kgs : [LXX]). The participle q
(mourning) describes Esras and not the people and he laments at
the lawlessness (). Ezra : and Esd : make reference again
(see Ezra :/Esd :) to the faithlessness (/q) of the
returned exiles. Esras remains sitting in his state of despair as both a
testimony against the sin of the leaders and to help his supporters keep
their disgust fresh. The imperfect verb q is probably iterative
(i.e., he kept on sitting) which lasted until the evening sacrifices which
is the ninth hour or approximately .pm (see Kgs :; Matt :;
Acts :).
After a description of Esrass posture, the prayer itself is narrated and
the emphasis on the opening section is upon Israels history of rebellion
and Gods mercy (vv. ). Esras is roused from the fast (q
). The scene emphatically describes his state of humility.
While still wearing his torn vestments, it is reported that he was kneeling
down and stretching out hands to the Lord. Quite literally Esras was
stooping the knees ( ). The position of bent knees

commentary

and oustretched hands was a common one in worship of the ancient


world (e.g., Kgs :; Chron :; Macc :). Esras then speaks
() in the first person with his confession and petition to the Lord
beginning with the vocative address O Lord (). Esras in turn
announces his shock and shame at the actions of his compatriots. The
difference between and is minor, but the distinction is
probably that the former denotes a sense of shame and the latter a turning
away in shame (see L&N, ). The fact that both verbs are in the perfect
tense arguably indicates that they are aspectivally stative underscoring
the state, quality, and condition of shame as Esras kneels in the Lords
presence ( , lit. to your face).
The reason for this shame is then given in two sentences each beginning with explanatory clauses. The first sentence details the literal height
of the peoples transgression, For our sins have risen over our heads,
and our ignorance has climbed up to heaven (
: ). The underlying Semitic text probably spoke of

something along the lines of iniquities () and guilt () as per


several translations of Ezra : (e.g., NRSV; ESV; RSV; NJB; NASB). A
link between sin and ignorance is found elsewhere in the LXX (Sir
:; Dan :) and in Socratic tradition ignorance is the root of sin
(There is only one good, knowledge, and one evil, ignorance [Diogenes
Laertius, Lives .]). Not only does the sin of the nation stretch vertically towards the heaven, but horizontally as well it reaches into the
past. Hence Esras opines that from the times of our ancestors we are
in great sin unto this day ( :
). Esrass solidarity
extends not only to his contemporaries but also spans several generations of Israelites who strayed from their Lord. Reference to the sins of
the ancestors occurs earlier in Esdras (:; :) and it not only
prefigures the present sin of the post-exilic community, it is a continuation of it. Talshir (: ) notes how in Esd : the addition of
changes the meaning of Ezra : [MT]. In Ezra the
reference appears to be the peoples sinfulness over the generations and
the punishment that they accordingly suffered as a consequence. In contrast, Esd : claims that they are punished because of the sins of their
ancestors as well as their own sins. There was a debate in Jewish thought
whether God punished later generations for the sins of their fathers (e.g.,
Exod :; :; Num :; Deut :; Jer :; Tob :; Jdt :; Bar
:), yet there was a legal stipulation that children could not be made

commentary

liable for the sin of their parents (e.g., Deut :; Kgs :; Chron
:). The chief theme is that the current cycle of sin signifies continuity
with the former sins of the ancestors and the danger exists that a similar judgment will again engulf the nation. In Myerss (: ) words:
Corporate liability of the nation extends beyond the present back to the
fathers.
Somewhat bleakly it is intimated that nothing has changed in Israels
spiritual temperment and that the same condition is perpertuated unto
this day ( ). The second sentence explains the
reason why divine judgment came upon the nation in the distant and
recent past by fusing together the sins of the ancestors with those of
Israels recent pre-exilic history: On account of our sins and that of
our ancestors, we with our brothers with our kings and our priests were
delivered over to the kings of the land, to sword and exile and sacked,
and consigned to shame unto this very day (
q

:
). Divine retribution operated through the agency

of foreign kings who brought with them sword, captivity, sacking, and
shame and was occasioned by the sin of the people (
). These are the same punishments mentioned earlier in the story as
well (Esd :). The sins of long ago and those committed in living
memory are viewed as a continuous act of rebellion by the people against
their God. Consequently, Israels new day of liberation from exile turns
out to be just another day of sin (v. ) and shame (v. ).
A further element of shame in Israels recent expedition in rebellion
against God is that it has occurred after they have experienced an abudance of divine mercy and divine provision from the Lord during the
time of their exile (vv. ). The greatness of Israels sin ( [v. ]) was matched only by the greatness of Gods mercy (
q [v. ]). This is an expression of the saving reign of
the covenant God who is, in Bs unique description, the Lord of lordship ( ). The manner of Gods mercy is expressed by
several infinitive clauses. First, God is said to leave us a root and a name
in this holy place (q
. ) indicating the preservation of the nation through a
remnant that survived the Babylonian disaster. Second, God managed
to unveil a luminous star for us in the house of our Lord (
[NRSV, ESVA, to uncover

commentary

a light for us in the house of our Lord; NEB, thou hast rekindled our
light in the house of our Lord). In contrast, Ezra :/ Esd : refer to
an inward illumination with the enlightening of their eyes and not to any
astral entity ( can mean either a heavenly body or a radiance of
light [BDAG, ]). The most literal sense of the underlying Semitic
text could indicate a rapid sense of physical revival following a period
of hunger and thirst (Williamson : ). Yet the Greek of Esdras
is conveying cosmological imagery or at least a metaphor of luminosity. The star in Esd : may be metaphorical for the hope aroused by
the rebuilding of the temple. Alternatively it could be messianic and connote the service of Zorobabel in rebuilding the foundations of the temple
which was the task of the true Davidide (Sam :). We can note
that star and root are messianic terms for an eschatological deliverer
(e.g., Num :; Sir :). Both images dovetail in Rev :, It is I,
Jesus, who sent my angel to you with this testimony for the churches. I
am the root and the descendant of David, the bright morning star. Third,
God provided for them during their captivity and acted to give us food
in the time of our slavery ( ). Fourth, the time spent languishing in captivity did not mean
that Israel was utterly cut off by our Lord ( q
). On the contrary, God acted in grace for them ( ) by inclining the hearts of the Persian kings towards
them. Under the Persian monarch, the people received food, the temple was honoured, the ruins of Zion were raised, and they were given a
footfold in Judea and Jerusalem (
: :
) )). In sum, Israels sin was met by Gods mercy

and grace, which shames the the nation all the more now given their
lapse in obedience and devotion to the Lord who brought them out of
exile.
There is a change of direction as the prayer moves to a citation from a
compilation of Penteuchal texts that enjoined the Israelites not to intermix with the Canaanites when they entered the land of Israel (vv. ).
There is a pause for thought with the words, And now, what will we say,
O Lord, when we have these things? ( ). The things in question are the demonstrations of the Lords
mercy and grace mentioned above. And yet, in contrast, the people have
only transgressed your commandments, which you gave by the hand of
your servants the prophets ( ). The prophets is in the

commentary

plural and this includes mainly Moyses (with echoes of Isaiah, Ezekiel,
and the Deuteronomistic historian) as the commandments enumerated
in vv. represent a medley of several texts.
The land which you are entering to inherit

Deut :

a land contaminated with the contamination of the foreigners of the land


Lev :
they have filled it with their impurities

Kgs :

do not join your daughters in marriage to their sons, and do not receive
their daughters for your sons
Deut :
do not seek to make a peace with them at any time

Deut :

in order that you may prevail

Deut :

eat the good things of the land


bestow it as an inheritance to your sons unto the age

Deut :; Isa :
Deut :

The net point is that Israels intermarriage with foreigners violates its
covenantal obligations to remain separate from the indigenous groups of
Palestine and to avoid their religious impurities. Or else their religious
integrity and ethnic identity will be compromised by the point that
it will incur divine judgment. Also, the idea that the land had been
contaminated by peoples of the lands due to their contamination or
abomination ( as defilment of the land, cf. Jer :, Macc
: [GELS, ]) is expressed more forcefully than in other texts (e.g.,
Lev :) and represents a development and intensification of the
warnings of mixing with the peoples of the land (Williamson :
). The mosiac of texts is then contemporized by its application to
the post-exilic situation of returning exiles who have spurned Gods
mercy by their rebellious actions (vv. ). The traumatic event of exile
happened to us and transpired on account of our evil works and great
sins (
), which vindicates the Deuteronomic threats
of exile for disobedience (Dt :).
Then in a direct address to God it is said, with a warm homiletical
tone, that, For you, Lord, are the one lightening the load of our sins,
and you have given us such a root as this (
). The lightening
entails a forgiveness and expiation of sins accompanied by the preservation of a remnant to survive the exile that reiterates v. . In contrast
to such mercy, the returnees from exile have continued in the rebellion

commentary

of their ancestors and now violate your law by intermarrying with the
impurities of the nations of the land (
q q ). During the exile,
the Lord did not eradicate Israel and he instead left them with a root
and seed and our name ( ). Gods
mercy triumphed over his anger when it came to the survival of Israel
despite their sin. That in turn leads to further doxological reflection to
the end that, O Lord of Israel, truthful you are; for we are left as a root
in this day ( ) q : q
). The truthfulness of God parallels his justness as expressed
in Ezra :/Esd : (/). It carries over from Zorobabels
speech in Esd : where truth is predicated of God. The truthfulness of God is not only his cosmic greatness, as in Zorobabels speech,
but his salvific actions in sparing the nation during the exile and not
immediately punishing them for their post-exilic sins. As a final comment on the contrition of Esras and the people the author states that
the people are in complete reliance upon their God to sustain them in
the face of their own sin: Behold, we are before you in our lawlessness; for we cannot yet stand before you due to these things (
: q ). The meaning of stand before you (
q ) is equivalent to acquit and there is no means of acquit-

tal for the nation at this point. If lawless Israel is to stand before their
covenant God, it is only because God himself reconciles them and sustains them.
The B text has several minor spelling deviations from the RH text. These
include singular attested readings of instead of (:; cf. :),
for (:)obvious phonetic variations in
place of (:), instead of (:), and in
contrast to (:)many of these appear due to copyist errors. Only
B and attest in contrast to found in
A and V (:). Only B and its derivative Eth text read in place of
; although the conjunctive is also omitted by L Syr (:).
At :, RH transposes q from B (cf. v. ). Hanhart switches around
the pronouns and in :. At :, Hanhart opts for the B reading
of as opposed to accepted by Rahlfs on the basis of A. Hanhart
(a: ; b: ) also proposes that : started with , which he thinks
was mistaken for (in : V reads for ), though it is unattested in B
and L and omitted from Rahlfs. B creates a couple of asyndetisms by omitting
(:, esp. ). Also left out is the preposition where the accusative case
of suffices for the spatial force (:), the personal pronoun
as possession is already suitably implied by the preceding , though

commentary

is found in vv. , (:), and (:). On the divine


name, at : B reads ) which is generally characteristic of
Esdras, though other mss read q ). At :, B attests
, whereas RH prefers from A and V. At :, B
omits attested by A and V. The corrector has made several changes
to the text that include fixing misspellings of at :, , . And an
oblisk marks an insertion of at :. The section begins with in
the margin of : and marks a significant reading at :.

:. The Contrition of the People and Their Oath


The spectacle of Esrass pious actions as well as his sermonic prayer of
confession has an immense impact on the surrounding onlookers. It
leads to weeping by the multitude for the sin of the leaders. Immediately
it is suggested to Esras by Iechonias that the people take an oath to expel
from their ranks their foreign wives and half-bred off-spring. Esras is
admonished to be the person who leads the purification of the people
from this impurity and he subsequently forces the leadership and all of
Israel to swear an oath to do just this. The unit is based on Ezra :
and like its source text Esd : switches to the third person to
describe the events. Josephus (Ant. .) abbreviates the material
especially the content of Iechoniass confession and the substance of his
commission to Esras.
Esrass prostrated and humble state that accompanies his prayerful
confession and exhortation draws in the crowd. The surrounding participles ( [praying], [weeping]) modify the primary verb q (confess) and the middle voice denotes Esrass
own participation in the confession, not merely for others, but genuine
solidarity with the nation. In other words, his confession is prayerful and
emotional and he is doing what the people should be doing. As per :,
it is said again that a crowd gathered around him, except now the crowd
joins Esras in his weeping and lament (q
) q q).

The lament is interrupted by the words of Iechonias son of Ieelos who


approaches Esras with an affirmation of Esrass actions and a solution to
the problem. Once more (see :) persons other than Esras take the
initiative in addressing the problem within the community. Iechonias
(named Sheconiah [] in Ezra : [MT]; Sechenias []
in Esd : [LXX]; and Achonias [] in Jos. Ant. .) was
probably one of the leaders ( ) who approached Esras

commentary

in the first instance and perhaps a descendent of King Iechonias (=


Jehoahaz, see :, ). Iechonias concurs that the nation has sinned
against the Lord ( ) by cohabiting with foreign
women from the peoples of the land. In most texts it is said that even
now there is hope for Israel ( )), whereas B
and A read even now it is consuming all of Israel (
)), and Esd : attests even now there is endurance for
Israel ( )). This reflects the ambiguity
of the underlying word that can convey either a collective entity
or hope. The B and A reading presuppose the comprehensive nature of
the sin engulfing the nation, though this was probably not the intended
sense of the Vorlage. Iechonias then suggests that the people (pl. )
take an oath (; cf. covenant in Ezra : [] and Esd
: [q]) to expel the foreign wives and their children. What is
to be done is that which seems right to you and to as many who obey
the law of the Lord ( q : q
). The many who obey the law of the Lord in v. are
probably identical to those who were moved by the word of the Lord in
v. and it denotes a core supporters of Esras and his actions. The final
element of Iechoniass plea to Esras is that he rise up and complete it, for
it is your task, and we are with you to undertake strong action (
: : ). It is
a call for Esras to now practice what he preaches and to lead the people in
the reform of their religious life under God. Esrass task or deed will
be to purify the people from the impurity that has entered the assembly.
Josephuss version of the events adds that Iechonias advocated punishing
those who did not obey the law (Ant. .).
The exhortation by Iechonias is successful and meets with immediate
effect as it is reported, Then Esras rose up and made the leaders of the
priests and Levites of all Israel swear to act appropriately on this, and they
declared an oath (
)
). The leaders of the priestly establishment including the chief

priests and Levites, as well as all Israel are bound to act according to
the oath. The inclusion of the all Israel is in contrast to its omission
from B in :. The scene is now set for Esras to begin his reforms within
the post-exilic community. Coggins (& Knibb : ) remarks: The
reaction may not appear attractive to us, but it is motivated by a strong
concern to establish the true meaning of being the people of God in the
midst of hostile surroundings. This had been important when Ezra was

commentary

written; it may have been still more important if Esdras came from a
Jewish community away from Palestine and surrounded by adherents of
other religions who were suspicious of the Jews.
B continues its preference for over (:, , ). B has an itacism
with its misspelling of q in : and the corrector had added
but did not omit the superfluous . The word in B has as its object a genitive
(q ) rather than a dative (q )
which is Rahlfss conjecture (cf. :), and Hanhart follows the genitive in his
edition. Hanhart also sides with B (and Jos. Ant. .) against RH by including
the article before omitted from RH due to its absence from A and
V. At :, B has the unique reading instead of the better attested
found in A and V. Furthermore, B and A attest against
adopted by RH from L, , and Syr.

:. The Proclamation of a Gathering


After the peoples oath to expel their foreign wives a decree is issued to
everyone in the the land ordering that all of the returnees from captivity
must assemble in Jerusalem with the threat of penalty to their property
and expulsion from the community should anyone fail to present themselves at the meeting.
Esras again rises (see in :), this time from the courtyard of the temple that he has been praying towards. After that, he enters
into the inner chamber of Iona son of Naseibos (
). That is probably the private quarters of one of the leading priests where Esras goes to pray and fast for the purification of the
people from the contamination of the intermarriages. The retirement to
the priestly quarters might also be motivated by waiting for the people
themselves to take responsibility for the state of affairs and to implement
the repatriation of the foreign wives (Talshir : ) or perhaps Esras
himself initiated the formulation and propagation of the decree (Myers
: ). The person Iona son of Naseibos (Ezra : [MT] Jehohanan
son of Eliashib [ ]) may be identified as an ancestor of
Eliashib who was high priest in time of Nehemiah (Neh :). He may
represent a priest sympathetic to Esrass reforms. Esras spends the night
there and it is said that he did not consume bread or drink water. The
reason offered is that he was mourning for the great lawlessness of the
multitude (q q).
Nothing more is immediately said about Esras and the narrative moves
on to announce the next major incident when it reports that an edict
was issued summoning all the returnees to assemble in Jerusalem. The

commentary

introductory formula is common in the LXX, it occurs only


here in Esdras, but appears frequently in Esdras. It is not said who
issued the edict, but we are to imagine Esras, Iechonias, and Naseibos as
being involved along with the leaders of Israel. The edict is sent through
the whole of Judea and Jerusalem and is aimed at all those who had
returned from captivity ( ) with the specific instruction to gather () in Jerusalem. The presiding body
of elders (q ) are tasked with rendering a
severe financial penalty against anyone who does not assemble within
two or three days. The mandatory penalty is twofold. First, their livestock would be seized and devoted to sacrifice ( [L&S, , note
that the word is used for dedication or devotion in sacrifice). In papyri it
is used for persons invoking the wrath of the gods in the case of breach
of faith. Second, the persons themselves will be alienated from the multitude of those who returned from captivity ( q
q ). The reforming process thus begins
with official sanction and due pressure placed upon the people to comply.
There are several variations for the names in : with B attesting
. is found in the majority of mss. is read by B and Lav
in contrast to attested in A, V, and Jos. Ant. .. L and Lac omit the
name altogether. At : a corrector has added on the end of q{}. There
is an itacism in B at : where it reads instead of .
Though RH follows B in adopting the particle in :, Hanhart prefers the
conjunction given its better attesting in A, L, and several minuscules.

:. The Gathering and Resolution at Jerusalem


The account of the assemblying of the repatriated exiles in Jerusalem
and their decision to expel their wives is narrated next. Persons from
the tribes of Judah and Benjamin assemble on the twentieth day of the
nineth month and, amidst the cold winter, agree to divorce their foreign
wives. Precisely because of the inclement weather and the large number of persons involved, they request more time for the proceedings to
take place. At the meeting it is also decided to hand over the investigation to a special commission appointed by Esras at the new moon of
the tenth month. The work of the commission is completed by the new
moon of the first month. Significantly, within a year of Esrass departure from Babylon to Jerusalem (Esd :) a purified community has
been created in Jerusalem (Klein : ). The account is based on
Ezra : which is followed with only minor deviation. It breaks
down into segments concerning the setting and date for the gathering

commentary

(vv. ), Esrass address to the crowd with their response (vv. ), and
the commission of the elders culminating in the resolution of the matter
(vv. ).
The arrival of the people in Jerusalem is described with attention given
to its date and weather conditions (vv. ). It was undoubtedly the
men (see masculine plural article ) who attended as familial leaders
and they are the main the culprits in the transgression. The foreign
women would hardly have had a voice in a public debate concerning their
status and future. The gathering (signified again by ) includes
those from the southern tribes that went into exile, i.e., Judah and
Benjamin. The gathering was assembled within three days, as specified
by the edict in :, and took place on the ninth month, on the twentieth
day of the month ( ). The chronological
details given bracket the text (vv. , ) and point to the relative
speed and efficiency in which the matter was handled. The assembled
crowd is described as sitting in the open area of the temple (
) equivalent to a temple court. There they sat
trembling upon the onset of winter (
[see NRSV, ESVA, shivering because of the bad weather that prevailed;
NEB, winter had set in; NETS, present winter; Cook, present foul
weather]) though Ezra : [MT] refers to rain (). The ninth month
Kislev approximates to December and was the occasion for winter rains
in Judea. In the narrative scheme the bleak weather provided a symbolic
context for the bleakness of the rebuke that was now to be issued upon
the populace by Esras.
The details of the peoples offence is pointed out by Esras and the
people in turn seek to rectify their transgression even given the due
constraints of their environment and the magntitude of their rebellion
against God (vv. ). Esras rises and speaks () to the multitude
gathered in Jerusalem. The description of their sin, using aorist indicative verbs, is followed with aorist imperative verbs concerning how they
are to turn back to the Lord. Esras states: You have violated the law
and married foreign women, and so have added to the sin of Israel. And
now confess and give glory to the Lord God of our ancestors, and do his
will and separate yourselves from the nations of the land and from the
foreigners ( : :
q ):
q : q :
q q() ). The

only difference from Ezra : [MT] is that Esd : adds the idea

commentary

of glory and the B text omits the specific reference to foreign wives
() being put away in :. The terms indicate the lawlessness of
Israel when leaders within their ranks took foreign wives. Their deed
added to the sin of Israel (Ezra : reads guilt of Israel [])
that has typified Israels history as Esrass earlier prayer made clear ( Esd
:). Confession of Gods honor requires obedience to Gods stipulations for the nation. Following his will is emblematic for separation
from the surrounding nations and avoiding intermarriage.
The response of the multitude is a pious and contrite affirmation of
Esrass rebuke. Their response, in chorus, is too detailed and orchestrated
to be in actual vocal unision, and represents either an editorial summary
or a cacophony of voices expressing remorse. All the multitude replies
with a great voice ( ) and the substance of their answer
is that, Thus we will do as you have said ( ), signifying agreement and submission to Esrass judgment. The vast majority
were innocent of the affair and had nothing to lose with the expulsion
of foreign wives. The only complication is that the current inclement
weather, their exposure in the open, and the sheer number of intermarriages does not make it conducive for an immediate action on the subject.
Instead it is suggested that: So let the leaders of the multitude remain,
and allow all those in our colony, as many as have foreign wives, to come
at the time appointed, with the elders and judges of each place, until
[our] release from the wrath of the Lord that is against us in this matter
( q
q
:
).

The solution is an eminently practical one as it allows for the delegation


of responsibility. It also permits the case-by-case adjudication of matters
by local magistrates over a set period of time. Furthermore, this becomes
the means by which Israel can avoid exposure to the punitive wrath of
God and return to a way of covenantal obedience and communal holiness. A tacit irony is that while king Artaxerxes permitted the carvan of
Esras with its vast array of gifts for the temple in order to expressly prevent wrath coming upon the kingdom and sons of the king ( Esd :),
here it is Israel who scurries to make sure that they escape the judicial
consequences of their lawlessness.
A short epilogue narrates the actual enactment of the peoples request
for the elders and leaders to deal with the matter proficiently (vv. ).
The terms were agreeable () to the key leaders Ionathan son

commentary

of Azael and Hezeias son of Thokanos with the result that Mosollamos
and Leuvi and Sabbataios worked as arbiters ( from
with connotations of umpiring and adjudication as in Col
:, let the peace of Christ arbitrate in your hearts. The word is a
hapax in the LXX. Talshir [: ] assigns it a special meaning of
to be assessor with). Though Ezra : is ambiguous as to whether
the decision was opposed or supported by Ionathan and Hezeias (on
the meaning of in Ezra : see Williamson : ), the
Greek translations are clear that they supported the measures (see Esd
: [LXX] with q). The pact by the people turns from assent to
action as those who had returned from captivity acted according to all
of these things ( ).
On as a phrase designating the returnees from
Babylon, see earlier Esd :, , ; :, , ; :. It describes the
identity of the golah community including those who returned directly
from exile and their descendents now with them. Concurrently, Esras
chooses () for himself (B reads instead of ) the
leading men who would oversee the proceedings. His hand picking of the
magistrates assures the reader that all the proceedings will be undertaken
with meticulous attention to the law as Esras has already proved a
successful recruiter for the task of delivering sacred vessels and gifts to
the temple treasury from Babylon. Perhaps the most important remark
is the final one: And the instances of the men who had taken foreign
wives were brought to an end by the new moon of the first month (
q q
). Here the matter

is resolved on the anniversary of Esrass departure from Babylon (see


Esd :). Thus within one year of the departure of Esrass caravan the
temple is furnished with lavish gifts and the community is purified from
contamination.
This section of text has several distinctive traits unique to B: the presence of
for (:); for (:); and for
(:). In :, RH follows A with over Bs . The same is true also in : with RH following
A with over attested in B. The preference for A extends
also to : with As over Bs q (though enough
confusion exists in the textual witnesses with alternative readings including [L ] and []). B also omits at
:. At :, B reads the name whereas RH follows the conjecture of
Bewer for (other variants include [], [], Ozias [La]).
B contains a different order of the words in : with

commentary

q compared to As q followed
by RH. Hanhart supports the inclusion of in : though it is omitted from
B and RH. Talshir (: , n. ) is probably correct that its disagreement with
Ezra : supports the originality of the omission.

:. List of Those Taking Foreign Wives


The list of those taking foreign wives constitutes a rhetorical hall of
shame concerning the men who permitted the intrusion of impurity
into the post-exilic community (based on Ezra :). The list
includes priests (:), Levites (:), temple singers (:), gatekeepers (:), and Israelites (:a). The list brings shame on the
perpetrators and ushers a stern warning against all those who would
emulate their practice. The question of intermarriage between Jews and
non-Jews and between Christians and non-Christians was a burning
matter for Jewish and Christian communities in Hellenistic cities. The
book Joseph and Aseneth speaks to this issue in the Alexandrian context and it largely provides an explanation as to how a patriarchal hero
like Joseph could marry an Egyptian woman Aseneth. The answer provided by the story is that she became a proselyte first (see Jos. & Asen.
..). Paul only allows widows to marry believers in the Lord
(Cor :). Still, the prohibitions against marrying Canaanites (Gen
:, ) are counter-balanced with accounts of pagan women like Ruth
from Moab and Bathsheba (probably a Hittite) who married Hebrew
men and had significant roles in Israelite sacred history.
The only other significant element of the list is the annotation in v.
and the conclusion in v. a. It is narrated that some of the priests placed
their hands to expel their wives, and to sacrifice rams as expiation for
their ignorance ( :
). The placing of
hands on the women is reminiscient of the scapegoat sacrifice in Lev
: where sins are imputed to the scapegoat by the laying on of hands
and the goat is expelled from the community into the widerness for
atonement. Or perhaps the image simply denotes a man-handling of
their brides who are removed from the community (on this usage of
see Macc :; Mark :; Acts :; :; :). A double
entendre is arguably intended as the women are made scapegoats for
the sins of their male counterparts and their expulsion is eventful, if not
forceful. They are cast out from the community under duress (though
probably connotes divorce as well and to sever a relationship

commentary

[GELS, ] as per Lev :; Sir :; :). The concluding comment


in v. rounds out the list with, All these had married foreign women,
and they drove them out with their children (
: ). The exclusion of the mix-bred children constitutes a further insurance against the
intrusion of impurity and paganism into the community. All in all, the
account of the expulsion of the women and children is not an attractive
or uplifting portion of Chrisitan Scripture to read if readers value protecting the vulnerable and upholding the covenant of marriage. Myers
(: ) notes that only person are mentioned as offenders which
is a small minority in a population of over , . He wonders if the
religious leaders overacted or if we do not have the complete list. The
apprehensiveness one experiences in reading this can be somewhat mitigated by a few factors. If we understand the ethnographic integrity of
Israel as a necessity for the survival of the golah community within the
Persian Empire, then the action becomes an unfortunate necessity as the
ethos and identity of the community is in danger of disappearing altogether. Furthermore, Mal : suggests that some Jewish men from
roughly the same period divorced their Jewish wives precisely in order
to enter into partnerships with wealthy landowners among the peoples
of the land. Also, the solution of Esras was not imposed top down by
some Judean magisterium, but had the support and encouragement of
the genuine populace. The expulsion of the foreign wives and the children was necessary for protracting Israels capacity to worship God, it
severed business arrangements that treated Jewish women as expendable items to be set aside at a whim, and it represented the will of the
general populace who knew that transgressing the divine commandments would lead to something far worse than marital estrangement,
viz., national destruction. Viewed this way, the expulsion of the foreign
women was the lesser of two evils (see discussion in Williamson :
).
This section concludes the portion of Esdras containing Ezra material and the book then closes with an account of Esrass reading of the
law taken up from Neh ::.
Apart from the sundry differences in names, the distinctive elements of B
include the addition of the personal pronoun in v. designating Iosedek
and his brothers (see also L La Syr Esd : [LXX] and omitted by A). In v.
there is a scribal error of writing q instead of q. Then at the
end of the section in v. , B reads in contrast
to from A. The differences in the names

commentary

between RH, Hanhart, and B are based on variant spellings and conjectural
emandations. The variants between B and the editions include (differences
between Hanhart and RH in bold):
Verse B

RH

Hanhart

:
:

q
q

q
q

:
:
:
:
:

:
:
:
:
:
:

qq
q

In v. , Hanhart sides with A and B in favor of against Rahlfss opting


for () from L. In v. , is a conjecture by Tedesche accepted by
Hanhart and only B and Lav attest . Finally, in v. , is a conjecture
by Bewer, q is attested by A, and is derivation from Bs
found in and Eth. For further lists with tabulized comparisons
between the MT and LXX see Myers : and on the Semitic texts
underlying the names see Talshir : .

commentary

:b. The Reading of the Law at the Gathering


Ezra : is a rather subdued and vague note to end the story on since
it does not actually state the resolution of the matter. Though some
English translations give the indication that the wives were formally sent
away, the Hebrew text is not so clear (e.g., compare TNIV, All these had
married foreign women, and some of them had children by these wives
with NJB, All these had married foreign wives but sent them away with
their children). Esdras, however, seeks to provide a transparent and full
resolution to the matter. It makes clear that a separation did take place,
i.e., they released them ( ) in Esd :. This forms a
suitable inclusio with Esd : (= Ezra :) concerning the fulfillment
of the decision to expel the foreign wives from the covenant community
(Talshir : ). There is certainly closure, but it is hardly climactic.
As such, the author seeks to weave a more dramatic garment upon which
to iron out the final creases of the story.
While it might have been natural to include material from Nehemiah
concerning the oath of the people as a supplement to the Ezra story at
this point, that will not do since the matter of mixed marriages is resolved
in Esd :. As such, Neh :: represents a more fitting movement
upon which to hang the final melody of the symphonic story of Iosias,
Zorobabel, and Esras. The interpolation of Ezra material in Nehemiah
does seem somewhat laboured and thematically awkward. Yet
Esdras solves this incongruity with its own equally artificial construct: it
makes the prequel to Esrass ministry in Jerusalem recorded in Nehemiah
the sequel to Esrass ministry after the mass divorces in Esdras. The
fracturing of material is clearly secondary to Nehemiah, but rhetorically
effective. The entire book becomes bracketed with two things: Torah and
Festival. The book began with Iosiass reestablishment of the Torah in
cultic worship and his celebration of the Passover ( Esd :). Now
it ends with Esrass reading of the law and celebration of the Feast of
Tabernacles (Esd :). Sandwiched right in the middle of the book
is the act of Zorobabel in laying of the foundation of the temple ( Esd
:).
Esdras then gives us a narrative edifice built upon the pillars of
Torah, Temple, and Festival that stand as monuments heralding the good
news of Gods redeeming work seen in the rebuilding of the Judean
community after the time of their captivity. Put another way, the story
closes completely in accordance with its socio-rhetorical purpose, viz.,
to advocate the renewal of Mosaic religion in Judah through Torah

commentary

observance as defined by scribal tradition and under the aegis of the


priestly leadership concerning the cultus. To establish that vision for
covenant life in the post-exilic community, a final pericope is inserted
in Esd : in order to nominate the supreme place of the law in
the golah community. An outline of the unit runs: () The gathering
of the multitude to hear Esras read the law (vv. ); () The actual
account of Esrass reading of the law (vv. ); and () The impact of
the reading of the law upon the multitude and the celebration of the Feast
of Tabernacles (vv. ). Esdras ends with a community suitably
renewed in its commitment to live a life of holiness and obedience under
Gods covenant-law and covenant-love.
A crowd again gathers in Jersualem at the east gate of the temple to
hear instruction from the Law of Moyses by Esras (vv. ). The opening verse in Esd :, though clearly indebted to Neh : diverges from
it as well (And the priests and the Levites and those of Israel, dwelt in
Jerusalem and in the countryside.). Neh : concludes the account of
the list of the returnees and their gifts and then notes that they found
suitable dwellings in various Israelite towns. Yet Esd : makes this
material the introduction for the return of the Judeans to Jerusalem
after the unfortunate affair requiring the expulsion of the foreign wives.
In addition, Neh : refers to the classes of priests, Levites, gatekeepers, temple singers, temple servants, and Israelites, whereas Esd :
makes only mention of the priests, Levites, and Israelites. Given that
Esd : included a list of priests, Levites, temple singers, gatekeepers, and Israelites as those guilty of taking foreign wives, one would have
thought that inclusion of this extended list of classes would represent
an appropriate continuation of the preceding unit in Esdras with the
perpetrators of the intermarriages now coming to Jerusalem for some
remedial instruction in the Torah. That opportunity for character development is missed by the authors of Esdras and the book settles for a
general description of those who inhabited Jerusalem and the Judean
towns at the time of Esrass reforms. The temporal reference to the the
new moon of the seventh month ( )
could describe when the Israelites took to dwelling in Jerusalem and in
the countryside, yet taken over from Neh : it more likely provides the
chronological marker for when those dwelling in the city and country
gathered again in the open area adjacent to the Jerusaelm temple. That is
confirmed by the reappearance of in :
to designate the occasion for the gathering of the multitude to hear the
law from Esras.

commentary

The description of the gathering as, the whole multitude gathered in


one mind in the open area before the east gate of the temple ( q q q
) is reminiscient of a similar gathering of the multitude

in the same place to resolve the matter of the intermarriages (:). The
crowd again experiences a single mindedness (q) not seen
since Iesous and Zorobabel began the reinstitution of the cultic sacrifices (:, ). Concerning the exhortation of the multitude to Esras,
the text of B is unclear at this point. The B text could be understood as
having Esras address a priest ( ) though the majority
of manuscripts have the plural verb and make it clear that it is the multitude addressing Esras himself ( ). As such it is
necessary to take Esrass singular verb in B as an inclusive singular,
i.e., it told Esras (see in Esd : [LXX]). The corporate response to Esras is not a request, but polite command. Esras the
priest (chief priest in some mss at v. ) and reader (on Esras as priest
and reader [ ] see Esd :, , ; :, ) is
exhorted, to receive the Law of Moyses that had been delivered by the
God of Israel ( q
q )). Esras here is depicted as a new Moyses standing between
the people and God as the mediator and interpreter of the divinely given
law.
The actual account of the reading of the law gives specific attention
to the positioning of Esras before the crowd, the pious response of the
crowd, as well as the exposition of the law by the Levites, though no part
of the law is actually quoted (vv. ). When Esras is charged to take up
the law he accordingly does so (though B erroneously reads
instead of ) and in the process he is promoted to chief priest
() here in v. and in v. . Though elsewhere he is simply
priest and reader of the law (e.g., v. ). Only in Esdras is Esras called
a chief priest which is indicative of the tendency to magnify Esrass
role and status in Judaism (Knibb & Coggins : ). The purpose
of Esrass taking-up of the law is given as being for the benefit for all
of the multitude, from men unto women, and all the priests to hear
the law ( q q :
). In the absence of a conjunctive
or explanatory clause the phrase q signifies a dative of
advantage. The audience is comprehensive as it includes men and women
and laity and priests. The reading of the law to the people lasted until
midday and the response to this public reading by the crowd was and

commentary

they all gave it consideration (


). The word is normally used in a sense of transfer,
dedicate, or yielding up of control (BDAG, ; GELS, ). Thus
the populace yielded up their minds to the law read by Esras. During
the reading, Esras stood on the wooden judgment seat that had been
set up ( q). The GraecoRoman was a raised dais or platform for the settlement of judicial
cases (see Macc :; Acts :, ; :, , ; Rom :) and the
term became a loan word in rabbinic Judaism as the .
In vv. is a parenthetical remark listing those who stood at his
left and right: and there stood with him Mattathias, Sammou, Ananias, Azarias, Uorias, Hezekias, Baalsamos at his right hand, and at his
left hand [stood] Phaladaios, Misael, Melchias, Lothasuobos, Nabarias,
and Zacharias ( q: : :
: : : :
: : : q: : ).
The verb is implied in v. as those on his left also stand with

him and the list is asyndetic unlike Neh :. The list is meant to indicate that Esras speaks for a wider circle of leaders and to exemplify the
solidarity of the leaders with Esrass vision for Israel.
The podium of Esras and the posture of the people are largely symbolic
for the honorific status of the law and the justness of the law that they hear
read to them in vv. . Esras takes up the book (
) and the explanation for this action () is that Esras was
presiding in the position of honor before everyone (q
). The adverb , a hapax in the LXX,
designates something that pertains to the qualities of being glorious or
honorable. In context the word relates to both Esrass act of exercising
leadership from his position (see GELS, , in a manner deserving
high regard), but also to the glorious content of what his leadership
advocated: the glorious law (on glory and law see Esdras [Apoc]: Your
glory passed through the four gates of fire and earthquake and wind and
ice, to give the law to the descendants of Jacob, and your commandment
to the posterity of Israel [:]; the law, however, does not perish but
survives in its glory [:]). The point of view shifts by way of an
articular infinitive ( [while he opened the law])
to the crowd to whom the law was read. At Esrass opening of the law
(i.e., the commencement of his reading) it is noted that they all stood up
straight ( q ). The uprightness of the people mirrors
the common claim in Israels sacred literature and liturgical worship that

commentary

Gods laws and ways are upright (e.g., Ps :; :; :). A prayer


is offered to mark the beginning of the laws reading. In contrast to
most textual witnesses, B attributes the prayer to Azariah ()
in v. rather than to Esras. The prayer is a blessing to the Most High
God, Almighty ( q ) and this is the only
attribution of the title Almighty (lit. pantocrator) to the Lord in Esdras
and it is a translation of . The response of the crowd is stated with
the double solemn affirmation, Amen, amen [from ] and is
accompanied with postures of devotion and praise as they were lifting
up their hands high, falling to the ground, [and] they worshiped God
( q :
q). Concurrent with
the act of reading by Esras ( ) and the expression of
worship by the crowd, a group of Levites (Iesous and Anniouth and
Sarabias, Iadinos, Iarsouboos, Abtaios, Hautaias, Maiannas and Kalitas,
Azarias, Katethzabdos, Hannias, Phalias) began teaching the law of
the Lord to the multitude (with as an inceptive imperfect,
they began teaching the law). Their role was to provide instruction
() with the sense of instilling or implanting knowledge of the
laws commands.
The response of the multitude switches from contrition to celebration
as the significance of the momentous occasion finally becomes apparent
(vv. ). The figure of Attarates addresses both Esras and the Levitical
teachers in regards to the import of the events that they are witnessing.
The multitude weep over the sin of the nation when they hear the
law and the articular infinitive indicates
the concurrent nature of the reading and mourning. Then Attarates
( is regarded as a proper name though it is a translation of
for governor from Neh : [see discussion in Talshir :
]) states that, This day is holy to the Lord and therefore, in your
lifestyle, eat the fat, and send portions to those who have nothing; for
the day is holy to the Lord; and do not be full of grief, for the Lord will
glorify you (
: :
: q: ).

The holiness of the day is apparent due to the recognition by the people
of the sin that has entangled the nation and their resovle to make amends
for it.
Their lifestyle (on see Esd :, and its lexical meaning is
usually along the lines of a figurative walk [BDAG, ], but when used

commentary

with the aorist imperative it urges somebody to action [GELS, ]) is


mostly an issue of resolve and attitude adjustment concerning the matter
at hand. Their mourning is to turn to joy and their grief to celebration.
Sacrifices are to be offered, then consumed, and shared with all and
sundry. Fasting gives way to feasting as a new leaf in the peoples attitude
towards their God is turned. The future tense of expresses a hope
that God will praise and vindicate the people for their return to properly
prescribed covenantal behavior. The semantic feature of expectation is
grammaticalized by the future form of the verb. The Levites confirm the
proposal and disseminate it to the crowd with the exhortation: This day
is holy; do not be grieved ( : q). The final
report of the passage and of the book of Esdras concerns the jubilant
celebration of the populace in their festive activities: The Levites orded
all the people, saying, This day is holy; do not be grieved. Then they
all went out hence, to eat and drink and to rejoice, and to give portions
to those who had nothing, and to make much rejoicing; because they
were inspired by the words which they were taught (
q
q : q
q q). The verb is

not found elsewhere in the LXX. At this juncture the word can be suitably
rendered as to implant, to be rooted in (L&S, ), with a connotation
of an infusion of something (L&N, ). Pohlmann (: )
cogently explains why Esdras ends with the celebration at the reading
of the Torah:
Ein besserer Schluss dieses Werkes, dem es um die Legitimierung der
Jerusalemer Kultgemeinde als der Nachfolgerin jenes alten Israel geht,
drfte kaum vorstellbar sein. Die Entstehungsgeschichte des neuen Gottesvolkes klingt hier aus mit der Feststellung, dass sich die neue Gemeinde
mit gottesdienstlichen Feier, mit Gesetzeslesung und Festjubel konstituiert
hat.

The staccato ending of the book will always prompt debate as to whether
or not Esd : was the intended conclusion of the book. That is because
the final word q is an odd way to end the narrative and
might imply that something followed (we might note an analogy with
debates about the ending of Mark : with the coordinating conjunction
). It is certainly possible that the original text of Esdras extended as
far down as Neh :. If the ending was broken off mid-sentence then
q would naturally describe any additional actions that followed such as coming before Esras to study the words of the law as

commentary

narrated in Neh :b. Although the additions in the L text and Latin
versions are most likely secondary, Josephus (Ant. .) includes
down to Neh : in his account where he records that the people kept
the feast for eight days. In counter-point, we should remember that Josephus may have engaged in some harmonizing of the obscure ending of
Esdras with a Greek version of Nehemiah available to him. In light of
all this, I would respond that the ending as we have it is both the only
one and the deliberate one. The ending in its current form constitutes a
simple inclusio on the theme of communal celebration. At the head of
the story, Iosiass celebration () of the Passover in : is then mirrored in the communal celebration of the feast of tabernacles in :
(). Thus, at the narrative horizon, the journey of the book
is complete when we come to :. The incomplete reforms of Iosias
are surpassed in the reforming ministries of Zorobabel and Esras, who
together succeeded in taking the nation from the darkness of exile to
brightness of a new dawn through the renewal of the bond of obedience in the covenantal relationship. Viewed this way, both grammatically and conceptually, : is an appropriate ending to the book.
Williamson (: ) rightly notes: Far from being a mere torso [of
a larger work], Esdras traces the history of loss and recovery in a manner that requires no further continuation. It is a retelling of a key period
in the history of the people of God, told at a later time for their encouragement and strengthening in faith. Overall, many hurdles were faced
along the way including scheming Samaritans, marauding bandits from
Babylon to Jerusalem, fortunes rising and falling with Persian kings, and
contamination by way of intermarriage with foreigners. But in the end,
the Judean remnant of Israel has passed through the waters of the Jordan and come into a new hope that Gods mercy shall avail for them and
Gods glory shall again shine upon them. Esdras, though under appreciated as a literary work and theological exhortation, acclaims the God
who faithfully guided his community when they remained loyal to him
(Coggins & Knibb : ). In this last pericope, there is a recognition
of the hope that they may continue to have intimate fellowship with their
God. Much like the people of the first Exodus, after experiencing Gods
provision and power in a new time, they could say that they actually
gazed on God and then ate and drank (Exod : [NJB]).
On general variations, Bs use of the singular in v. could make Esras
the speaker to the priest, though more likely it is Esras who is spoken to by the
multitude even if the number of the verb is incorrect (a similar confusion of
number occurs with Bs over in v. ). In the same verse, B

commentary

makes Esras a rather than with (L and ), though immediately


in v. he is promoted to (though L and retains in v. ). The
omission of in v. is peculiar to B and Eth. In vv. and
, B prefers over .
The largest divergence between B and other mss occurs on the co-location of
divine names strung together at points. In v. , B omits and B reads q
instead of at v. . Then in v. , B again offers a shorter reading with
q in contrast to q q q
. Several variations of the address exist in the witnesses and Bs
omissions are supported by the Eth and Syr versions. B doubles the solemn
antiphon in v. that is not found elsewhere.
The name is used characteristically at vv. , , , , and , even
though the final folio includes the title at the very end. More peculiar
in B (and Eth) is the attestion of for RHs in v. that marks
Azariah as the petitioner of prayer rather than Esras (on the name see :;
:). As per the manuscript tradition variations in the names can be found
in the assorted manuscripts and version with RH preferring A to the B forms of
spelling (and note also that in v. Hanhart adopts the conjecture over
Bs q):
Verse

RH

:
:
:

Several phonetic variations occur including the presence of rather


than at v. . The from {} is omitted in v. (but note the
similar spelling in L and ). A corrector has introduced in v. for {}.
More interesting is that at v. there is the letter set in a diamond in the
far right hand column with a marginal reading that is no longer fully legible
(perhaps ).

BIBLIOGRAPHY
Primary Sources
Old Testament, Apocrypha, and New Testament
BHS. []. Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia (Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft).
ESV. . English Standard Version Bible with Apocrypha (New York: OUP).
NEB. []. The New English Bible with the Apocrypha (Oxford: OUP).
NRSV. []. The Holy Bible: New Revised Standard Version: Containing
The Old Testament and The New Testament with Apocrypha (Nashville, TN:
Thomas Nelson).
UBS4. []. The Greek New Testament. Edited by B. Aland, K. Aland,
C.M. Martini, J. Karavidopoulos, and B.M. Metzger (th ed.; Stuttgart: UBS).

Septuagint
Pietersma, A., and B.G. Wright. . A New English Translation of the Septuagint (Oxford: OUP).
Rahlfs, A., and R. Hanhart. Septuaginta: Editio altera (Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, []).
Swete, H.B. []. The Old Testament in Greek according to the
Septuagint ( vols.; Cambridge: CUP).

Pseudepigrapha
Charles, R.H. . The Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha of the Old Testament
in English with Introductions and Critical and Explanatory Notes ( vols.;
Oxford: Clarendon).
Charlesworth, J.H. . The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha ( vols.; ABRL; New
York: Doubleday).

Esdras
Brooke, A.E., and N. McLean. . IEsdras, Ezra-Nehemiah. The Old Testament
in Greek according to the text of Codex Vaticanus, supplemented from other
uncial manuscripts, with a critical apparatus containing the variants of the chief
ancient authorities for the text of the Septuagint (Vol. , Part ; Cambridge).
Cook, S.A. . Esdras. In The Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha of the Old
Testament in English with Introductions and Critical and Explanatory Notes:
Volume IApocrypha. Edited by R.H. Charles ( vols.; Oxford: Clarendon),
..

bibliography

Hanhart, R. a. Septuaginta: Vestus Testamentum Graecum Auctoritate Academiae Scientiarum Gottingensis editum .: Esdrae Liber I (Gttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht).
Wooden, R.G. . Esdras: To the Reader. In A New English Translation
of the Septguagint. Edited by A. Pietersma and B.G. Wright (Oxford: OUP),
.

Josephus
Thackeray, J., R. Marcus, A. Wikgren, and L.H. Feldman. ( vols;
LCL; Cambridge: Harvard University Press).

Philo
Colson, F.H., G.H. Whitaker, J.W. Earp, and R. Marcus. ( vols;
LCL; London/Cambridge: Harvard University Press/William Heinemann).

Dead Sea Scrolls


Vermes, G. []. The Complete Dead Sea Scrolls in English (th ed.;
London: Penguin).
Wise, M., M, Abegg Jr., and E. Cook. . The Dead Sea Scrolls: A New
Translation (Australia: Hodder & Stoughton).

Inscriptions, Papyri, and Ancient Texts


Pritchard, James B. . Ancient Near Eastern Texts: Relating to the Old Testament (rd ed.; Princeton: Princeton University Press).

Secondary Sources
Akroyd, P. . Two Old Testament Historical Problems of the Early Persian
Period. JNES :.
Aland, K., with M. Welte, B. Kster, and K. Junack . Kurzgefasste Liste der
grieschen Handschirften des Neuen Testaments (nd ed.; Berlin: Walter de
Gruyter).
Alexander, P.S. . Retelling the Old Testament. In It Is Written: Scripture
Citing Scripture. Edited by D.A. Carson and H.G.M. Williamson (Cambridge:
CUP), .
Allrik, H L. . Esdras according to Codex B and Codex A as appearing in
Zorobabels list in Esdras :. ZAW : .
Attridge, H.W. . Historiography. In Jewish Writings of the Second Temple Period: Apocrypha, Pseudepigrapha, Qumran Sectarian Writings, Philo,
Josephus. Edited by M.E. Stone (CRINT .; Philadelphia: Fortress),
.
Aune, David. . Revelation (WBC; Dallas, TX: Word).

bibliography

Barclay, J.M.G. . Jews in the Mediterranean Diaspora: From Alexander to


Trajan (Berkeley: University of California Press).
Bayer, E. . Das dritte Buch Esdras und sein Verhltnis zu den Bchern EsraNehemia (Freiburg: Herder).
Bernstein, M.J. . Rewritten Bible: A Generic Category which has Outlived
its Usefulness? Textus : .
Bewer, J.A. . Der Text des Buches Ezra (Gttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht).
Bird, M.F. . Jesus the Law-Breaker. In Who Do My Opponents Say That I
Am? An Investigation of the Accusations Against Jesus. Edited by J.B. Modica
and S. McKnight (LHJS; London: T&T Clark/Continuum), .
. . Crossing Over Sea and Land: Jewish Missionary Activity in the
Second Temple Period (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson).
Birdsall, J.N. . The Codex Vaticanus: Its History and Significance. In The
Bible as Book: The Transmission of the Greek Text. Edited by S. McKendrick
and O. OSullivan (London: British Library), .
Blenkinsopp, J. . Judaism, the First Phase: The Place of Ezra and Nehemiah
in the Origins of Judaism (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans).
Bogaert, Pierre-Maurice. Le Texte De LAncien Testament. In Prolegomena
to Codex Vaticanus B: Codex Vaticanus Graecus . Edited by P. Canart,
P. Bogaert, and S. Pisano (Roma: Istituto Poligrafico e Zecca dello Stato),
.
Bhler, Dieter. Die heilig Stadt in Esdras a und Esra-Nehemia: zwei Konzeptionen
der Wiederherstellung Israels (Orbis Biblicus et Orientalis ; Freiburg/
Gttingen: Universittsverlag/Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, ).
Briant, P. . Cyrus to Alexander: A History of the Persian Empire (Wiona Lake,
Ind: Eisenbrauns).
Campbell, J.G. . Rewritten Bible and Parabiblical texts: A Terminological and Ideological Critique. In New Directions in Qumran Studies: Proceedings of the Bristol Colloquium on the Dead Sea Scrolls, September .
Edited by J.G. Campbell, W.J. Lyons, and K. Pietersen; (LSTS ; London:
T&T Clark), .
Carrez, M. . . Esdras Septante. RHPR : .
Clines, David J. . Ezra, Nehemiah, Esther (NCB; Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans).
Coggins, R.J., and M.A. Knibb. . The First and Second Books of Esdras
(CBCNEB; Cambridge: CUP).
Coxon, P.W. . Greek Loan-Words and Alleged Greek Loan Translations in the Book of Daniel. Transactions of the Glasgow University Oriental
Society : .
Crenshaw, J.L. []. The Contest of Darius Guards. In Urgent Advice
and Probing Questions: Collected Writings on Old Testament Wisdom. Edited
by J.L. Crenshaw (Macon, GA: Mercer University Press), .
. . Old Testament Wisdom: An Introduction (Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox).
Crook, Z.A. . Reconceptualising Conversion: Patronage, Loyalty, and Conversion in the Religions of the Ancient Mediterranean (Berlin: Walter de Gruyter).

bibliography

Cross, F.M. . A Reconstruction of the Judean Restoration. JBL : .


deSilva, D.A. . Honor, Patronage, Kinship and Purity (Downers Grove, IL:
IVP).
. . Introducing the Apocrypha: Message, Context, and Significance
(Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans).
der Smitten, W.Th. In. . Zur Pagenzhlung im . Esra ( Esr. iii v ). VT
: .
De Troyer, K. . Zorobabel and Ezra: A Revived and Revised Solomon and
Josiah? A Survey of Current Esdras Research. CBR : .
. . Rewriting the Sacred Text: What the Old Greek Texts Tell Us about
the Literary Growth of the Bible (SBLTCS ; Atlanta: Society of Biblical
Literature/Leiden: Brill).
De Wette, W.M.L., and E. Schrader. . Die Einleitung in das A.T. und in die
Biblesammlung berhaupt enthaltend (th edn.; Berlin: Reimer).
Elliott, J.K. T.C. Skeat on the Dating and Origin of Codex Vaticanus. In The
Collected Biblical Writings of T.C. Skeat. Edited by J.K. Elliott (NovTSup, ;
Leiden: Brill, ), .
Enns, P. Expansions of Scripture, in Justification and Variegated Nomism: Volume the Complexities of Second Temple Judaism. Edited by D.A. Carson, P.T. OBrien, and M.A. Seifrid (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, ),
.
Eron, L.J. . That Women Have Mastery Over Both King and Beggar
(T.Jud. .) the Relationship of the Fear of Sexuality to the Status of Women
in Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha: Esdras (Ezra) , Ben Sira and the
Testament of Judah. JSP : .
Eskenazi, T.C. . The Chronicler and the Composition of Esdras. CBQ
: .
Evans, C.A. . Messianic Hopes and Messianic Figures in Late Antiquity.
JGRChJ : .
Feldman, Louis H. . Studies in Josephus Rewritten Bible (JSJSup ; Atlanta,
SBL).
Fensham, F. Charles. . The Books of Ezra and Nehemiah (NICOT; Grand
Rapids, MI: Eerdmans).
Fisk, B.N. . Rewritten Bible in the Pseudepigrapha and Qumran. In Dictionary of New Testament Background. Edited by C.A. Evans and S.E. Porter
(Downers Grove, IL: IVP), .
Fritzsche, O.F., and C.L.W. Grimm. . Kurzgefasstes exegetisches Handbuch zu den Apokryphen des Alten Testamentes ( vols.; Leipzig: S. Hirzel).
Fuller, Lois K. The Genitive Absolute in the New Testament/Hellenistic Greek:
A Proposal for Clearer Understnading. JGRChJ (): .
Fulton, D.N. . Esdras, First Book of. In The Eerdmans Dictionary of
Early Judaism. Edited by J.J. Collins and D.C. Harlow (Grand Rapids, MI:
Eerdmans, ), .
Gamble, H.Y. The New Testament Canon: Recent Research and the Status
Quaestionis. In The Canon Debate. Edited by L.M. McDonald and J.A. Sanders (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, ), .
Gardner, A.E. The Purpose and Date of Esdras. JJS (): .

bibliography

Goldhill, Simon. . Who Needs Greek? Contests in the Cultural History of


Hellenism (Cambridge: CUP).
Goodman, W.R. . Esdras, First Book Of. In ABD. Edited by D.N. Freedman (ABRL; vols.; New York: Doubleday), ..
Grabbe, L. . Ezra-Nehemiah (OTR; London: Routledge).
. . Mind the Gaps: Ezra and Nehemiah and Restoration. In Restoration: Old Testament, Jewish, and Christian Perspectives. Edited by J.M. Scott
(Leiden: Brill) .
Habel, N. . Yahweh, Maker of Heaven and Earth. JBL : .
Hanhart, R. b [republished ]. Text und Textgeschichte des . Esrabuches
(MSU : Gttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht).
. . Zu Text und Textgeschichte des ersten Esrabuches Proceedings
of the Sixth World Congress of Jewish Studies (Jerusalem ). Edited by
I.A. Shinan (Jerusalem: World Union of Jewish Studies), .
Harrington, D.J. . Invitation to the Apocrypha (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans).
Hengel, M., with R. Deines. . The Septuagint as Christian Scripture: Its
Prehistory and the Problem of Its Canon (Edinburgh: T&T Clark).
Hilhorst, A. . Darius pillow (Esdras :). JTS (): .
. . The Speech on Truth in Esdras , . In The Scriptures and
the Scrolls Studies in Honour of A.S. van der Woude on the Occasion of his th
Birthday. Edited by F. Garca Martnez, A. Hilhorst, and C.J. Labuschagne
(VTSup ; Leiden: Brill), .
Holmes, M.W. . Reasoned Eclecticism. In The Text of the New Testament in Contemporary Research: Essays on the Status Quaestionis. Edited by
B.D. Ehrman and M.W. Holmes (Studies and Documents ; Grand Rapids:
Eerdmans, ), .
. . Biblical Canon. In The Oxford Handbook of Early Christian Studies. Edited by S.A. Harvey and D.G. Hunter (Oxford: OUP), .
Hood, J. . Matthew : as a Summary of Israels Story, The King, His
Brothers and the Nations. (Unpublished Ph.D Dissertation, Aberdeen University).
Japhet, S. . The Supposed Common Authorship of Chronicles and EzraNehemiah Investigated Anew. VT : .
Jellicoe, B.S. . The Septuagint in Modern Study (Oxford: Clarendon).
Johnson, Marshall. . The Purpose of Biblical Genealogies (SNTSMS ; Cambridge: CUP).
Jongkind, Dirk. . Scribal Habits in Codex Sinaiticus (T&S .; Piscataway,
NJ: Gorgias).
Kaiser, Walter C. . A History of Israel from the Bronze Age Through the Jewish
Wars (Nashville, TN: Broadman & Holman).
Klein, Ralph W. . Old Readings in Esdras: The List of Returnees from
Babylon. HTR : .
. . Esdras. In Harpers Bible Commentary. Edited by James L. Mays
(San Francisco: Harper & Row), .
Marcos, Natalio M. . The Septuagint in Context: An Introduction to the Greek
Version of the Bible (Leiden: Brill).

bibliography

McDonald, L.M. . The Biblical Canon: Its Origin, Transmission and Authority (rd ed.; Peabody, MA: Hendrickson).
McNamara, Martin. . Intertestamental Literature (Wilmington: Michael
Glazier).
Menon, Madhavi. . Wanton Words: Rhetoric and Sexuality in English
Renaissance Drama (Toronto: Toronto University).
Merrill, E.H. . A Kingdom of Priests: A History of Old Testament Israel
(Grand Rapids, MI: Baker).
Myers, J.M. I & IIEsdras: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary
(AB; New York: Doubleday, ).
Niskanen, Paul. . The Human and the Divine in History: Herodotus and the
Book of Daniel (London: T&T Clark).
North, R. . Ezra. In ABD. Edited by D.N. Freedman (ABRL; vols.; New
York: Doubleday), .
Oesterley, W.O.E. . An Introduction to the Books of the Apocrypha (London:
SPCK).
Pakkala, J. . Ezra the Scribe: The Development of Ezra and Nehemiah
(Berlin: Walter de Gruyter).
Pfeiffer, R.H. . History of New Testament Times with an Introduction to the
Apocrypha (New York: Harper).
Pohlmann, K.-F. . Studien zum dritten Esra: Ein Beitrag zur Frage nach dem
ursprnglichen Schlu des chronistischen Geschichtswerkes (FRLANT ;
Gttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht).
. . . Esra-Buch (JSHRZ ; Gtersloh: Gtersloh Verlaghaus/Gerd
Mohn).
Porter, Stanley E. Idioms of the Greek New Testament. nd ed.; Sheffield: Sheffield
Academic Press, .
Rudolph, W. . Der Wettstreit der Leibwchter des Darius Esr 1
6. ZAW : .
. . Esra und Nehemia samt . Esra (Tbingen: Mohr/Siebeck).
Sandoval, Timothy J. . The strength of women and truth: the tale of the
three bodyguards and Ezras prayer in First Esdras. JJS : .
Schrer, Emil. . The History of the Jewish People in the Age of Jesus
Christ. Revised and edited by G. Vermes, F. Millar, and M. Black ( vols.;
Edinburgh: T&T Clark).
Seid, Timothy. W. . Synkrisis in Hebrews : The Rhetorical Structure and
Strategy. In The Rhetorical Interpretation of Scripture: Essays from the
Malibu Conference. Edited by S.E. Porter and D.L. Stamps (JSNTSup ;
Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, ), .
Skeat, T.C. . The Codex Sinaiticus, the Codex Vaticanus, and Constantine.
JTS : .
Steinmann, A.E. . A Chronological Note: The Return of the Exiles Under
Shesbazzar and Zorobabel (Ezra ). JETS : .
Tedesche, S.S. . A Critical Edition of Esdras. (Unpublished Ph.D Dissertation, Yale University).
Talshir, D. A Reinvestigation of the Linguistic Relationship Between Chronicles
and Ezra-Nehemiah. VT (): .

bibliography

Talshir, Z. The Milieu of Esdras in the Light of its Vocabulary. In De Septuaginta. Edited by C. Cox and A. Pietersma (Mississauga, Ontario: Benben,
), .
. . The Three Deaths of Josiah and the Strata of Biblical Historiography (Kings xxiii . Chronicles xxxv , Esdras i ). VT :
.
. . IEsdras From Origin to Translation (SBLSCS ; Atlanta: SBL).
. . Esdras. In Dictionary of New Testament Background. Edited by
C.A. Evans and S.E. Porter (Downers Grove, IL: IVP), .
. IEsdras: A Text Critical Commentary (Septuagint and Cognate Studies
Series; Atlanta: SBL, ).
Talshir, Z., and D. Talshir. . The Original Language of the Story of the Three
Youths (Esdras ). In Sha" arei Talmon: Studies in the Bible, Qumran,
and the Ancient Near East Presented to Shemaryahu Talmon. Edited by E. Tov,
M. Fishbane, S. Talmon, and W. Fields (Wiona Lake, Ind: Eisenbrauns),
.
Thackeray, H. . Esdras. In A Dictionary of the Bible: Dealing with Its
Language, Literature, and Contents. Edited by James Hasting (Edinburgh:
T&T Clark).
. . A Grammar of the Old Testament in Greek According to the Septuagint: Volume : Introduction, Orthnography and Accidence (Cambridge:
CUP).
Throntveit, M.A. . Linguistic Analysis and the Question of the Authorship
of Chronicles, Ezra and Nehemiah. VT : .
Torrey, C. . Ezra Studies (Chicago: University of Chicago Press).
Tov, E. . Three Strange Books of the LXX: Kings, Esther, and Daniel
Compared with with Similar Rewritten Compositions form Qumran. In
Hebrew Bible, Greek Bible, and Qumran: Collected Essays (TSAJ, ; Tbingen: Mohr/Siebeck), .
van der Kooij, A. a. Zur Frage des Anfangs des Esrabuches. ZAW :
.
. b. On the Ending of the Book of Esdras. In VIII Congress of
the International Organization for Septuagint and Cognate Studies. Edited by
C.E. Cox (Atlanta: Scholars), .
. . The Death of Josiah According to Esdras. Textus : .
Vriezen, Theodoor Christian., and A.S. van der Woude. . Ancient Israelite
and Early Jewish Literature (trans. Brian Doyle; Leiden: Brill).
Walde, B. . Die Esdrasbcher der Septuaginta: Ihr gegenseitiges Verhltnis
untersucht (Freiburg: Herder).
Wasserstein, A. . Greek Elements in Ancient Jewish Literature. In Essays
on the Bible and the Ancient East, I.L. Seeligmann Volume. Edited by A. Rof
and Y. Zakovitch ( vols.; Jerusalem: E. Rubinstein), .
Wevers, J.W. . The Future of Septuagint Studies. In The Bible as Book: The
Transmission of the Greek Text. Edited by S. McKendrick and O. OSullivan
(London: British Library), .
Widengren, G. . The Persian Period. In Israelite and Judaean History.
Edited by J.H. Hayes and J.M. Miller (London: SCM), .

bibliography

Williamson, H.G.M. . Israel in the Books of Chronicles (Cambridge: CUP).


. . and Chronicles (NCB; Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans).
. . The Composition of Ezra ivi. JTS ns : .
. . Ezra, Nehemiah (WBC; Waco, TX: Word).
. . The Problem with First Esdras. In After the Exile: Essays in Honour
of Rex Mason. Edited by J. Barton and D.J. Reimer (Macon, GA: Mercer
University Press), .
. . Esdras. In Eerdmans Commentary on the Bible. Edited by J.D.G.
Dunn and J.W. Rogerson (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans), .
. . Esdras as Rewritten Bible? Unpublished Paper Presented at the
Society of Biblical Literature in Boston.
Wills, L.M. . The Jew in the Court of the Foreign King: Ancient Jewish Court
Legends (HDR, ; Mineapolis: Fortress).
Wooden, R.G. . The Role of the Septuagint in the Formation of Biblical
Canons. In Exploring the Origins of the Bible: Canon Formation in Historical,
Literary and Theological Perspective (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker), .
Wright, J.E. . Esdras, Books of. In Dictionary of New Testament Background. Edited by C.A. Evans and S.E. Porter (Downers Grove, IL: IVP),
.
Zimmermann, F. . The Story of the Three Guardsmen. JQR : .
Zunz, L. []. Dibre hajamim oder die Bcher der Chronik. Die
gottesdienstlichen Vortrge der Juden, historisch entwickelt (Berlin: Lamm),
.

INDEX OF MODERN AUTHORS

Akroyd, P. .
Aland, K. .
Alexander, P.S. , .
Allrik, B.H. , .
Attridge, H.W. , , , .
Aune, D. .
Barclay, J.M.G. .
Bayer, E. .
Bernstein, M.J. .
Bewer, J.A. .
Bird, M.F. , .
Birdsall, J.N. .
Blenkinsopp, J. , , .
Bogaert, P-N. , .
Bhler, D. , .
Briant, P. .
Brooke, A.E. , , , .
Campbell, J.G. .
Charlesworth, J.H. .
Clines, D.J. , , , ,
, , , , .
Coggins, R.J. , , , , , ,
, , , , , , ,
, , , , , , ,
, , , , , , ,
, .
Cook, S.A. , , , , , ,
, .
Coxon, P.W. .
Crenshaw, J.L. , , , ,
, , .
Crook, Z.A. .
Cross, F.M. .
de Lagarde, P. .
deSilva, D.A. , .
De Troyer, K. , , , .
De Wette, W.M.L. .

Elliott, J.K. .
Enns, P. , .
Eron, L.J. .
Eskenazi, T.C. , .
Evans, C.A. .
Feldman, L.H. .
Fensham, F.C. , , .
Fisk, B.N. .
Fritzsche, O.F. , .
Fuller, L.K. .
Fulton, D.N. .
Gardner, A.E , , .
Goldhill, S. .
Goodman, W.R. , .
Grabbe, L. , , , , , .
Habel, N. .
Hanhart, R. , , , , , , ,
, , , , , , ,
, , , , , .
Harrington, D.J. .
Hengel, M. , , .
Hillhorst, A. , , , ,
.
Holmes, M.W. , .
Hood, J. , .
In der Smitten, W.Th.

Japhet, S. .
Jellicoe, B.S. , .
Johnson, M. , .
Kaiser, W.C. .
Klein, R.W. , , , , ,
, , , , , , ,
, .
Knibb, M.A. , , , , , ,
, , , , , , ,

index of modern authors

Knibb, M.A. (cont.) , , ,


, , , , , , ,
, , , , , .
Marcos, N.M. .
McDonald, L.M. .
McLean, N. , , , .
McNamara, M. , .
Menon, M. .
Merrill, E.H. .
Metzger, B.M. .
Myers, J.M. , , , , , ,
, , , , , , ,
, , , , , , ,
, , , , , , ,
, , , , , , ,
, , , , , , ,
, , , , , .

van der Kooij, A. , , .


van der Woude, A.S. , .
Vriezen, T.C. , .

Niskanen, P. .
North, R. .
Oesterley, W.O.E

Talshir, D. , , .
Talshir, Z. , , , , , ,
, , , , , , ,
, , , , , , ,
, , , , , , ,
, , , , , , ,
, , , , , , ,
, , , , , , ,
, , , , , , ,
, , , , , , ,
, .
Tedesche, S.S. , .
Thackeray, H. , .
Throntveit, M.A. .
Torrey, C. , , , , , , ,
, , , , , .
Tov, E. .

, .

Pakkala, J. , .
Pfeiffer, R.H. , , .
Pohlmann, K.F. , , , , ,
, .
Porter, S.E. , , , ,
, .
Radolph, W. , , .
Rahlfs, A. , , , .
Sandoval, T.J. , , , , .
Schradwe, E. .
Schrer, E. , , .
Seid, T.W. .
Skeat, T.C. .
Steinmann, A.E. , .
Swete, H.B. .

Walde, B. .
Wasserstein, A. .
Wevers, J.W. .
Widengren, G. .
Williamson, H.G.M. , , , ,
, , , , , , , ,
, , , , , , ,
, , , , , , ,
, , , , , , ,
, , , , .
Wills, L.M. .
Wooden, R.G. , .
Wright, N.T. .
Zimmerman, F.
, .
Zunz, L. .

, , , ,

INDEX OF ANCIENT CITATIONS

. Classical Sources
Aristotle
Ethica Nicomachea
..

Rhetorica
..

Cicero
De Oratore

Diogenes Laertius
Vitae
.

Herodotus
Historiae
.
..
.
.
.
.
.
Isocrates
Evagoras

Plato
Alcibiades
.b
Crito
a
Symposium
e
Plutarch
Alexander

Quintilian
Institutio Oratoria
..

..

Cryopaedia
..

Tacitus
Dialogue
.

Xenophon
Anabasis

. Jewish Scriptures

Genesis
:
:
:
:
:
:

:
:
:
:
:
:
: (LXX)


Genesis (cont.)
:
:
:
:
:
:
:

index of ancient citations

Exodus
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
: (LXX)
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:

Leviticus
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:

:
:
:
:
:
:

Numbers
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:

Deuteronomy
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:

index of ancient citations


:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:

Joshua
:
:
:

Judges
:
:
:
:

:
:

Samuel
:
:
:
:

Samuel
:
:
:
:
:
:
:

Kings
:
:
:

:
:
:
:
:
:
: (LXX)

Kings
:
:

:
:
:
:
:
::

:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:

, ,

Chronicles
:
:
:
: (LXX)
:
:
:
:
:
: (LXX)
:

index of ancient citations

Chronicles (cont.)
:

Chronicles
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:

:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:

:
:
:
:
:

:
:
:
:
:

:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:

::
:
:
:
:
:
:

:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
Ezra

:
:
:
:
:

, ,

,
,

, , ,

, ,

index of ancient citations


:
:

::
:
:
:
:
:

::
::
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:

:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
::
:

:
:
:
:
:
:
:

, , ,

,
, , ,

,
,

,
, ,

, ,

:
:
:
:
:
:
:b
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:

::
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:

:
:
:
:
:
:

, ,
,

,
,


Ezra (cont.)
:
:
:
:
:
:
:

:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:

:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
Nehemiah
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:

index of ancient citations

, , ,

, ,
,

:
:
:
::
::
:

:
:
:
:
:
:b
:
:
:

:
:
:
:
:
:

, ,

, , ,

Esther
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:

:
:
:
:
:

Job
:
:

index of ancient citations


:
:
:
Psalms

:
:
:
:
: (LXX)
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
: (LXX)
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
::b
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:

Proverbs
:
:
::
:
:
:
:
:
: (LXX)
:
:

:
:

Ecclesiastes
:
:
:
:

Song of Solomon

Isaiah
:
:
::
:
: (LXX)
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:

index of ancient citations

Isaiah (cont.)
:
:
:
:
:

Jeremiah
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:

Ezekiel

:
:
:
:
:
:

Daniel

:
:
:
:
:
:

:
:
:
:
:
:
:

:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:

, ,

Hosea
:
:
:
: (LXX)

Joel
:
:

Amos

:
: (LXX)
:

Obadiah

Jonah
:

index of ancient citations


Micah
:
:

Haggai
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:

,
,
,

, ,

Zechariah
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:

Malachi
:
:

. Old Testament Apocrypha


Kingdoms
:

Additions to Esther
:

Baruch
::
:
:

Bel and the Dragon

Esdras
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:

,
,

,
,

:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:

, , ,
, ,
,

, , ,

, , , ,

, , ,


Esdras (cont.)
:
:
:c
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:a
:
:
:
:
:b
:
:
:

index of ancient citations

,
, , , ,

, ,
, , , ,
,

,
, ,

,
,

, ,
, , ,

, ,
, ,
, , ,
,
,
, , , ,
, ,

, , , ,

, ,

,
, , ,
, , ,
,

:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:c
:
:
:
:b
:
:
:
:
:

, ,
, , , ,
,
, , ,

,
,

, ,

,
, , ,
, , , ,
, ,

, , , ,
, , ,
, ,
, , , ,
,

, , , ,

, ,

, ,

, , ,

, , , ,
, ,

index of ancient citations


:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:

::
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
::
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:

,
, ,
, , ,
, , , ,
,

,
,

, , ,

, , , ,
,

, ,

, , , ,

,
,

,
,
, , , ,
,

, , ,

,
,

:
:
:
:
:
:
:a
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:b a
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:a
:b
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:

,
, ,
, , ,
,

,
, , , ,
, ,
,

, , ,

,
,

, , ,
,
, ,
,
,
, ,
, , ,
, , ,

, , , ,

, ,, ,
,

, ,
,


Esdras (cont.)
:
:a
:b
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:b a
:
:a
:b
:
:b
:c
:d
:
:
:
:
:
:c
:
:
:

index of ancient citations

,
,

, , ,
,

, ,
, , ,
, , ,
,
, , , ,
,

, , ,
, , ,
, , ,

, , ,
,

, , ,
,
,
, ,

, , , ,
, ,

, , , ,
, , ,
,
, ,
, , ,

:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:

:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:

, ,

,
, , ,
,
, , ,
,

, , ,
, , , ,

,
,

, ,
,

, , , ,
,
,
,
, , ,

,
, ,

, , ,
,

, , ,
(LXX)

,
,
,

index of ancient citations


:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:b
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:

, , , ,

,
, , ,
, , , ,
,

, ,
, ,

,
,

, ,

, ,

, ,
,
,

,
,

, , , ,

,
, , ,
,

:
:
:
:
:e
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
::
:
:
:
:
:
:
:

,
,
, , ,
, ,

,
, ,

,
, , ,
, ,
, , ,

, , , ,
,
, , ,

, ,
,

,
,

, , ,
,

, , , ,

, , ,

, , , ,
, ,


Esdras (cont.)
:
:
:
:
:
:b
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:a
:b
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:

index of ancient citations

,
, , , ,
, ,

,
,

, ,

,
, (LXX)
, , ,

, ,

, , , ,
, ,
, ,
, ,

, , ,

,
, , , ,
, ,
,

, ,
, , ,
,
,
, ,

:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:a
:
:
:
:
:
:

::
:
:
:
:a
:b
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:

, , , ,
, ,

, , , ,

,
, , ,
,
, ,
, , , ,
, , ,
, , ,
, , ,
,

, ,

, ,

,
, ,
,
, ,
, ,

, , ,

, ,

, , , ,
,
, ,
, , ,

, ,
,

, , , ,
,

index of ancient citations


:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:

, ,

,
, , ,
,

, , ,

,
,
,

, , , , ,
, , , ,
, ,

, , ,
, ,
, ,

, , , , ,
, , ,
, , ,
,
,

, , , ,
,
, ,

, ,
, , ,

:
:
:
:
:
:
:a
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:

, ,
, ,

, ,

, , ,

,
, ,

, ,
, ,
, , ,

, ,
, , ,
, ,

, , ,
,
, , ,
,
,
, ,

, , ,
, , ,
, ,
, ,

, , , ,

, , ,
, ,
, ,


Esdras (cont.)
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
::
:
:
:
:
:
:
:

:
:
:
:
:
:
:

index of ancient citations

, , ,
,

,
,
, , ,
,

, , , ,
,

,
, ,
,

,
,
, , ,

, ,
, ,
, , ,

, , ,

, ,

, ,

:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:a
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:

, ,

, ,
, ,
,

,
,

, , , ,
,

,
,

, ,

, ,

, , , ,
, , ,
, ,
,
, , ,

, , , ,

index of ancient citations


:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
Esdras (LXX)

:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:

,
,

, ,
, , , ,
, ,
, , ,

,
, , ,

, , , ,

, ,

:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:

:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:

Esdras Latin (= Ezra)


:

Judith
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:


Judith (cont.)
:
:
:
:
:

index of ancient citations

Epistle of Jeremiah
:

Maccabees
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:

Maccabees
:
::
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:

:
:
:
:
:
:
:

Maccabees
:
:
:
:
:
:
:

Maccabees
:
:
:
:
:

Wisdom of Ben Sirach


:

:
,
:
,
:

index of ancient citations


:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
Tobit
:
::

:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:

, ,

Wisdom of Solomon
:

:
,
:

. Old Testament Pseudepigrapha


Baruch
.

Epistle of Aristeas

Joseph and Asenath


..

Psalms of Solomon
.

Sybilline Oracles
.

Testament of Judah
.

. Other Jewish Sources

Josephus
Against Apion
.

Antiquities of the Jews


.

.
.
.
.
.
.

index of ancient citations

Antiquities of the Jews (cont.)


.

.
, ,
.

.
,
.

.
,
.

.
,
.

.
,
.

.
,
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

Jewish Wars
.
.
.
.
.

Philo
De Migratione Abrahami

De Opificio Mundi

De Plantatione

De Posteritate Caini

De Praemiis et Poenis

De Specialibus Legibus
.

De Vita Mosis
.

Legum Allegoriae
.

index of ancient citations


Quod Deus Sit Immutabilis

Dead Sea Scrolls


Q
.iii.
Q

Babylonian Talmud
b.Megilla
b

b.Qiddusin
b

b.Sanhedrin
b

b.Sota
b

. Christian Scriptures

Matthew
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:

Mark
:
:
:
:

Luke
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:

John
:
:
:
:
:

Acts
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:

Romans
:
:
:


Corinthians
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
Corinthians
:
:
:
:
:
Ephesians
:

index of ancient citations

Hebrews
:

James
:
:

Peter
:
:
:

Peter
:

Jude

Revelation
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:

Colossians
:
:

Thessalonians
:

. Other Christian Sources


Athanasius
Defense before Constantinus

Epistulae Festales
.

Augustine
Christian Doctrine
.

De civitate Dei
.

Epistulae
.

Clement of Alexandria
Stromateis
.

Clement of Rome
Clement
:

Cyprian
Epistulae
.

index of ancient citations

Cyril of Jerusalem
Catechetical Lectures
.

Jerome
Epistulae
.

Eusebius
De vita Constantini
.

Historica Ecclesiastica
..

..

Justin Martyr
Dialogue with Trypho

Shepherd of Hermas
Mandates
.

. Papyri
P.Bris.Mus.

P. Petr.
..

Вам также может понравиться