Biblical Criticism & History Forum - earlywritings.com

DCHindley wrote:I put a lot of work into study of the Books of Ezra-Nehemiah, its Greek version (Lxx Esdras beta & gamma) the end of 2 Chronicles, and 1 Esdras (Lxx Esdras alpha) and have uploaded a table comparing English translations these books (RSV for the MT, Brenton's Septuagint for 1 & 2 Esdras), where they overlap and where they don't to Ben Smith's Text Excavation website (search on my last name, as my stuff tends to be tucked away in the corner).

Ben C. Smith wrote:

DCHindley wrote:I put a lot of work into study of the Books of Ezra-Nehemiah, its Greek version (Lxx Esdras beta & gamma) the end of 2 Chronicles, and 1 Esdras (Lxx Esdras alpha) and have uploaded a table comparing English translations these books (RSV for the MT, Brenton's Septuagint for 1 & 2 Esdras), where they overlap and where they don't to Ben Smith's Text Excavation website (search on my last name, as my stuff tends to be tucked away in the corner).

These pages link to your synopsis: http://www.textexcavation.com/nehemiah.html; http://www.textexcavation.com/ezra.html; http://www.textexcavation.com/esdras.html.

And here is the synopsis itself: http://www.textexcavation.com/documents ... ehezra.pdf.

To the question whether there may not have been some facts at the basis of this story of Ezra and the Law, the answer, so far as any can be given, must be in the negative, for the following reasons:

1. Because of the improbability of the story itself. It is a kind of narrative of which we have abundant examples in the so-called “priestly stratum” of the Ο. T. The representation is mechanical and unnatural to the last degree. It is understood in Babylonia that Ezra is to proceed to Jerusalem and reinstate the Law, as an officer would serve a writ. Jerusalem was a city of some size, with rulers, nobles (Neh. 2, 16, &c.; cf. 1, 2), [60] native priests (Zech. 3, 8, &c.), a population partly, at least, in very good circumstances (Hag. 1, 4), and with old and well established religious traditions. But Ezra conducts matters with a high hand, and the people of the city, priests and laymen alike, stand huddled together like frightened sheep while the ceremony of “restoring the Law” is being carried through. This is the Chr.’s own way of manufacturing history. To suppose, as is now commonly done, that a new law-code was introduced (i.e., made canonical) on this occasion involves still greater difficulties. It is not in itself a probable theory that the Priestly Law should have been written — or edited — in Babylonia; and there is certainly nothing in the law itself that could be regarded as proof of such an origin. The sole witness to this theory is the story told in Ezra-Neh. As for the way in which the Law came to be regarded as sacred and binding, it may be that there are those who can see how it would be easier for Babylonian priests to suddenly foist a “canonical” law-code upon the people of Jerusalem, than for native priests gradually to gain for it its place of authority.

2. The second reason for believing that the Ezra story has no basis of fact need only be stated. It is because of what we already know concerning the Chr.’s talent for manufacturing just such stories in favor of his own view of the history of Israel. The wealth of incident with which the narrative is set forth (e. g. Neh. 8, 4; Ezra 10, 6. 9) will not deceive those who have read the Chronicles.

3. The motive for composing such a story at this point in the history is especially plain to see. The Law was carried to Babylonia with the children of Israel. Now that the temple was rebuilt, and it was once more possible to observe [61] the Law, it was fitting that it should be brought, with due ceremony, to Jerusalem. It had been sadly neglected, moreover, and here was the opportunity to exhibit the fact in a most impressive way. It was necessary, too, to create a fitting character to do this work. Nehemiah could not be used for the purpose; for he was not suited, either by birth or by profession, for the task; besides, everybody knew who he was and what he had done. To a history written from the standpoint of this one, an Ezra was indispensable. The Chr. certainly took the simplest and most direct way to provide one, concerning himself only with the immediate object, and leaving the rest to his readers. A lineal descendant of Aaron, an “expert scribe”, the absolute power of a dictator—these were the necessary properties of the character.

4. A fourth reason is derived from the significant silence concerning Ezra in Sirach 49, 11—13 (written about 180 B. C. ?). The more carefully one reads this long hymn (ch. 44—50) in praise of the names revered in the Jewish church, the more remarkable the omission of Ezra seems. Zerubbabel, Joshua and Nehemiah receive appreciative mention. Notice also the writer’s enthusiasm over Josiah and his reforms, 49, 1—4. It is hardly credible that Bar Sira, with his zeal for the [62] Jewish Law, should have intentionally slighted Ezra; the one satisfactory explanation of his silence is, that he had never heard of him. And this is in every way probable. The Chronicler’s book of history was not one that would be often copied or widely circulated.

The account of Ezra’s social reforms is quite as destitute of any internal probability or external support. The inhabitants of Jerusalem here presented to us are puppets, made to act according to a theory (as in Num. 31, Judg. 20 f., I Chr.13, &c.), not men and women of flesh and blood. The monstrous proceeding described in Ezr. 9, 10 would be sufficiently incredible even if it were demanded by the Jewish Law, which is not the case. Race exclusiveness is not brought about suddenly and violently, by a wave of the hand. Whether the Chr.’s purpose in this part of his narrative was to account for this same exclusiveness, or to work in its interests, or to deal a blow at the founders of the Samaritan church, need not here be conjectured.

The Composition and Historical Value of Ezra-Nehemiah (1896)