Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
Stanley E. Porter
Richard S. Hess
John Jarick
1 Esdras
Introduction and Commentary
on the Greek Text in Codex Vaticanus
By
Michael F. Bird
LEIDEN BOSTON
2012
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.
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
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
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
= 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
introduction
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
introduction
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
introduction
introduction
introduction
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
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
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
introduction
introduction
introduction
Outline
II.
The Decree of Cyrus and the Beginning of the Return to Judah (:)
a. The Decree (:)
b. The Response to the Decree (:)
introduction
V.
introduction
i.
j.
k.
l.
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
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
:
:
introduction
introduction
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).
introduction
(
,
), )
),
11
11
12
12
10
) )
.
)
q, q
,
introduction
13
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
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
1 ESDRAS
TEXT AND TRANSLATION
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 :
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 :
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 :
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 :
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 :
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 :
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
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
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
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
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
commentary
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.
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
commentary
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
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
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
commentary
commentary
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
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 .
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
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 .
commentary
commentary
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
commentary
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
:. 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
commentary
commentary
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
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
commentary
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
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
commentary
). The literary effect is to bring
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
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 :.
commentary
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.
commentary
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
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
commentary
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
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
commentary
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.
commentary
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
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
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
commentary
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
:.
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
commentary
commentary
commentary
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
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
commentary
:. 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
commentary
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.
commentary
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 (:; :;
commentary
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],
commentary
commentary
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.
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
commentary
commentary
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
commentary
commentary
commentary
commentary
commentary
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.
commentary
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
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 :.
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
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
commentary
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
commentary
commentary
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)
commentary
commentary
commentary
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
commentary
commentary
commentary
commentary
commentary
RH
>
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
q
q
commentary
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
:
:
:
RH
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 {}.
commentary
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
commentary
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
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
commentary
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: ).
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
commentary
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 :
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 :
Deut :
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
commentary
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.
commentary
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
:
).
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
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.
commentary
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
commentary
commentary
commentary
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
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
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
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
RH
:
:
:
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).
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
bibliography
bibliography
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
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. , , , , , ,
, , , , , , ,
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. .
, , , ,
. 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.)
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
Exodus
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
: (LXX)
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
Leviticus
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
Numbers
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
Deuteronomy
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
Joshua
:
:
:
Judges
:
:
:
:
:
:
Samuel
:
:
:
:
Samuel
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
Kings
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
: (LXX)
Kings
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
::
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
, ,
Chronicles
:
:
:
: (LXX)
:
:
:
:
:
: (LXX)
:
Chronicles (cont.)
:
Chronicles
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
::
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
Ezra
:
:
:
:
:
, ,
,
,
, , ,
, ,
::
:
:
:
:
:
::
::
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
::
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
, , ,
,
, , ,
,
,
,
, ,
, ,
:
:
:
:
:
:
:b
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
::
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
, ,
,
,
,
Ezra (cont.)
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
Nehemiah
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
, , ,
, ,
,
:
:
:
::
::
:
:
:
:
:
:
:b
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
, ,
, , ,
Esther
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
Job
:
:
:
:
:
:
: (LXX)
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
: (LXX)
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
::b
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
Proverbs
:
:
::
:
:
:
:
:
: (LXX)
:
:
:
:
Ecclesiastes
:
:
:
:
Song of Solomon
Isaiah
:
:
::
:
: (LXX)
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
Isaiah (cont.)
:
:
:
:
:
Jeremiah
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
Ezekiel
:
:
:
:
:
:
Daniel
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
, ,
Hosea
:
:
:
: (LXX)
Joel
:
:
Amos
:
: (LXX)
:
Obadiah
Jonah
:
Haggai
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
,
,
,
, ,
Zechariah
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
Malachi
:
:
Additions to Esther
:
Baruch
::
:
:
Esdras
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
,
,
,
,
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
, , ,
, ,
,
, , ,
, , , ,
, , ,
Esdras (cont.)
:
:
:c
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:a
:
:
:
:
:b
:
:
:
,
, , , ,
, ,
, , , ,
,
,
, ,
,
,
, ,
, , ,
, ,
, ,
, , ,
,
,
, , , ,
, ,
, , , ,
, ,
,
, , ,
, , ,
,
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:c
:
:
:
:b
:
:
:
:
:
, ,
, , , ,
,
, , ,
,
,
, ,
,
, , ,
, , , ,
, ,
, , , ,
, , ,
, ,
, , , ,
,
, , , ,
, ,
, ,
, , ,
, , , ,
, ,
::
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
::
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
,
, ,
, , ,
, , , ,
,
,
,
, , ,
, , , ,
,
, ,
, , , ,
,
,
,
,
, , , ,
,
, , ,
,
,
:
:
:
:
:
:
:a
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:b a
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:a
:b
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
,
, ,
, , ,
,
,
, , , ,
, ,
,
, , ,
,
,
, , ,
,
, ,
,
,
, ,
, , ,
, , ,
, , , ,
, ,, ,
,
, ,
,
Esdras (cont.)
:
:a
:b
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:b a
:
:a
:b
:
:b
:c
:d
:
:
:
:
:
:c
:
:
:
,
,
, , ,
,
, ,
, , ,
, , ,
,
, , , ,
,
, , ,
, , ,
, , ,
, , ,
,
, , ,
,
,
, ,
, , , ,
, ,
, , , ,
, , ,
,
, ,
, , ,
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
, ,
,
, , ,
,
, , ,
,
, , ,
, , , ,
,
,
, ,
,
, , , ,
,
,
,
, , ,
,
, ,
, , ,
,
, , ,
(LXX)
,
,
,
, , , ,
,
, , ,
, , , ,
,
, ,
, ,
,
,
, ,
, ,
, ,
,
,
,
,
, , , ,
,
, , ,
,
:
:
:
:
:e
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
::
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
,
,
, , ,
, ,
,
, ,
,
, , ,
, ,
, , ,
, , , ,
,
, , ,
, ,
,
,
,
, , ,
,
, , , ,
, , ,
, , , ,
, ,
Esdras (cont.)
:
:
:
:
:
:b
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:a
:b
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
,
, , , ,
, ,
,
,
, ,
,
, (LXX)
, , ,
, ,
, , , ,
, ,
, ,
, ,
, , ,
,
, , , ,
, ,
,
, ,
, , ,
,
,
, ,
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:a
:
:
:
:
:
:
::
:
:
:
:a
:b
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
, , , ,
, ,
, , , ,
,
, , ,
,
, ,
, , , ,
, , ,
, , ,
, , ,
,
, ,
, ,
,
, ,
,
, ,
, ,
, , ,
, ,
, , , ,
,
, ,
, , ,
, ,
,
, , , ,
,
, ,
,
, , ,
,
, , ,
,
,
,
, , , , ,
, , , ,
, ,
, , ,
, ,
, ,
, , , , ,
, , ,
, , ,
,
,
, , , ,
,
, ,
, ,
, , ,
:
:
:
:
:
:
:a
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
, ,
, ,
, ,
, , ,
,
, ,
, ,
, ,
, , ,
, ,
, , ,
, ,
, , ,
,
, , ,
,
,
, ,
, , ,
, , ,
, ,
, ,
, , , ,
, , ,
, ,
, ,
Esdras (cont.)
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
::
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
, , ,
,
,
,
, , ,
,
, , , ,
,
,
, ,
,
,
,
, , ,
, ,
, ,
, , ,
, , ,
, ,
, ,
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:a
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
, ,
, ,
, ,
,
,
,
, , , ,
,
,
,
, ,
, ,
, , , ,
, , ,
, ,
,
, , ,
, , , ,
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
,
,
, ,
, , , ,
, ,
, , ,
,
, , ,
, , , ,
, ,
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
Judith
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
Judith (cont.)
:
:
:
:
:
Epistle of Jeremiah
:
Maccabees
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
Maccabees
:
::
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
Maccabees
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
Maccabees
:
:
:
:
:
:
,
:
,
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
, ,
Wisdom of Solomon
:
:
,
:
Epistle of Aristeas
Psalms of Solomon
.
Sybilline Oracles
.
Testament of Judah
.
Josephus
Against Apion
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
, ,
.
.
,
.
.
,
.
.
,
.
.
,
.
.
,
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
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
.
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
:
Hebrews
:
James
:
:
Peter
:
:
:
Peter
:
Jude
Revelation
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
Colossians
:
:
Thessalonians
:
Epistulae Festales
.
Augustine
Christian Doctrine
.
De civitate Dei
.
Epistulae
.
Clement of Alexandria
Stromateis
.
Clement of Rome
Clement
:
Cyprian
Epistulae
.
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.
..