Another Daniel Issue-- please help!

[Kris]

"overspreading abomination"-- sounds like more apologetic bullshit.

[spin]

Anyone tying to tie in Daniel with Ezra should be looking at 1 Esdras instead. Hebrew Ezra didn't exist yet when Daniel was written.

I think Greek 1 Esdras is derived from a Hebrew version, a version that was modified to become canonical Ezra, excising a bit that went to Nehemiah, another book that is a later construction from earlier material. I work on the notion that Ezra is an early Pharisaic work and the whole Ezra tradition is nowhere to be seen in Ben Sira, suggesting it didn't exist. People make excuses, saying that Ben Sira may have been in a different faction, but hey, Ezra supposedly taught the whole population to respect the torah.

[Tenorikuma]

Semiopen: For the love of Zeus don't go by what Wikipedia says.

Numerous scholars have shown that the character of Ezra is a late invention. The priestly genealogies of Chronicles 5 are silent on Ezra. Ben Sira (180 BCE) mentions no Ezra in his list of famous men of Israel, despite listing every name of significance from Enoch to Nehemiah, Zerubbabel, Joshua the son of Jozedek, and Simon the Just. II Maccabees has Nehemiah as its hero in place of Ezra. In short, not a single datable Jewish work prior to Josephus knows of Ezra. Ezra has numerous contradictions and conflicts with the known dates and sequence of Persian kings, meaning (like Daniel) it cannot possibly date from the Persian period.

Josephus, our earliest external witness, has no extra-biblical knowledge of Ezra. His information follows the account in 1 Esdras and not the Hebrew/Aramaic book of Ezra. There are also various textual reasons why 1 Esdras, which presents a more coherent version of the Ezra story, is thought by many to predate the heavily redacted Hebrew book of Ezra-Nehemiah.

Addressing what Spin said: Garbini thinks there was an earlier (now lost) version of the Ezra legend that made it into 1 Esdras. He discusses the theological motivations of the text in History and Ideology in Ancient Israel. I don't know if his conclusions are correct, but it's some of the most fascinating analysis I've ever read.

[spin]

Ezra has numerous contradictions and conflicts with the known dates and sequence of Persian kings, meaning (like Daniel) it cannot possibly date from the Persian period.

I've looked at the sequence of Persian kings in Ezra and cannot find any problem in it. There are a few minor kings missing, but that doesn't have any impact, though I don't agree with the christian restructuring of the evidence. If you have anything specific as to the Persian kings I'd be interested.

Josephus, our earliest external witness, has no extra-biblical knowledge of Ezra. His information follows the account in 1 Esdras and not the Hebrew/Aramaic book of Ezra. There are also various textual reasons why 1 Esdras, which presents a more coherent version of the Ezra story, is thought by many to predate the heavily redacted Hebrew book of Ezra-Nehemiah.

The only Nehemiah content in Josephus seems to me to be the memoir material early in the book, but I agree with the notion that he used the forerunner to 1 Esdras as his source rather than canonical Ezra.

Garbini thinks there was an earlier (now lost) version of the Ezra legend that made it into 1 Esdras. He discusses the theological motivations of the text in History and Ideology in Ancient Israel. I don't know if his conclusions are correct, but it's some of the most fascinating analysis I've ever read.

Garbini's a great stone thrower. If you're in a glass house, you'd better watch out.

I think we have to start looking at the time of the restoration of the temple under Judas or even later for an emergence of the Ezra tradition.

[semiopen]

Semiopen: For the love of Zeus don't go by what Wikipedia says.

I used wiki to show the date issues that your post didn't address, and believe I did a good job of noting that I was confused.

It turns out that the wikis note that there are various debatable issues between Ezra, First Esdras, and Daniel.

Was 1 Esdras First?: An Investigation into the Priority and Nature of 1 Esdras edited by one of my heroines - Lisbeth Fried. for example discusses this.

http://books.google.com/books?id=scpOzZ ... as&f=false

...the argument has been advanced, and seems to be widely held, for a Semitic Vorlage

This seems to be Spin's view. Perhaps your view has merit but Semitic Vorlage sounds so cool, I've got to back that.

Anyway, it's nice to find something worthy of further research in a topic that typically attracts religious weirdos.

The idea of a Greek work written prior to the Hebrew version is reminiscent of the idea of Professor Mouse that the Septuagint was written before any of the Hebrew bible. Interesting that there is a chance for this to be partially true.

[Tenorikuma]

I've looked at the sequence of Persian kings in Ezra and cannot find any problem in it. There are a few minor kings missing, but that doesn't have any impact, though I don't agree with the christian restructuring of the evidence. If you have anything specific as to the Persian kings I'd be interested.

It's more that the story is confused about the order of Persian kings whenever it ties events to certain kings or regnal years. The order of events in Ezra-Nehemiah according to the kings referenced is:

Cyrus – Ahasuerus (Xerxes) – Artaxerxes – Darius – Artaxerxes

The actual order of kings was:

Cyrus – Cambyses – Darius – Xerxes – Artaxerxes – Darius II – Artaxerxes II

Sure, it's possible that nothing of interest happened for 44 years under Cambyses and Darius I, and we can preserve the chronology of the story if we assume the temple was finished under Darius II, and that Ezra and Nehemiah arrived in Jerusalem under Artaxerxes II. But that doesn't work with other elements of the story, since you then have Zerubbabel and Joshua coming to Jerusalem under the first year of Cyrus (540 BCE) and leading the temple rebuilding in the second year of Darius II, 119 years later (421 BCE). And then you have Ezra reading the law and the Jews celebrating the Feast of Booths for the first time somewhere between the 20th and 32nd years of Artaxerxes II — between 384 and 372 BCE, 168 years after the return under Cyrus. The text does not plausibly allow for that time span. Ezra is said to have come to Jerusalem with Zerubbabel in the time of Cyrus (Nehemiah 12).

It seems much more likely that the author simply didn't know what the order of the kings was or how long they reigned. He thinks there was only one Darius and one Artaxerxes. You simply cannot place the story within the actual chronology of the kings of Persia and have it make any sense. It's Hellenistic fiction, like Daniel, Esther and Judith.

I think we have to start looking at the time of the restoration of the temple under Judas or even later for an emergence of the Ezra tradition.

That seems plausible to me.

[andrewcriddle]

This was the understanding of other early writers too. An early Church statement says:
"For we have ascertained beyond doubt that God is much rather displeased with the sacrifices which you offer, the time of sacrifices having now passed away; and because ye will not acknowledge that the time for offering victims is now past, therefore the temple shall be destroyed." (Clement)

This is from the Recognitions of Clement i.e. it is part of the pseudo-Clementine literature falsely attributed to Clement of Rome.

Andrew Criddle