Wright Offprint From Boda-Redditt

8/2/2019 Wright Offprint From Boda-Redditt

1/33


2/33

UNITY AND DISUNITY IN EZRANEHEMIAH REDACTION , RHETORIC , AND READER

Edited by

Mark J. Boda and Paul L. Redditt

S HEFFIELD P HOENIX P RESS

2008


3/33

Copyright 2008 Sheffield Phoenix Press

Published by Sheffield Phoenix PressDepartment of Biblical Studies, University of Sheffield

Sheffield S10 2TN

www.sheffieldphoenix.com

All rights reserved.No part of this publication may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any

means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording or any informationstorage or retrieval system, without the publishers permission in writing.

A CIP catalogue record for this bookis available from the British Library

Typeset by ISB TypesettingPrinted on acid-free paper by Lightning Source UK Ltd, Milton Keynes

ISBN 978-1-906055-40-0

ISSN 1747-9614


4/33

1

CONTENTS

List of Contributors viiAbbreviations ix

I NTRODUCTION 1Mark J. Boda and Paul L. Redditt

ARTICLES

THE FUNCTION OF COVENANT ACROSS EZRA N EHEMIAH 8Richard J. Bautch

R EDACTION IN THE BOOK OF NEHEMIAH : A FRESH PROPOSAL 25Mark J. Boda

LEAVE

NEHEMIAH

ALONE

: N

EHEMIAHS

TALES

AND

FIFTH -CENTURY BCE H ISTORIOGRAPHY 55Margaret Cohen

WHO WROTE EZRA N EHEMIAH AND WHY DID THEY ? 75Lisbeth S. Fried

HOLINESS AND PURITY IN EZRA N EHEMIAH 98Hannah K. Harrington

THE CRIES OF JERUSALEM : ETHNIC , CULTIC , LEGAL , AND GEOGRAPHICBOUNDARIES IN EZRA N EHEMIAH 117

David Janzen

SCRUTINIZING THE CONCEPTUAL U NITY OF EZRA AND NEHEMIAH 136Christiane Karrer-Grube

NEHEMIAH WITHOUT EZRA ? 160Kyung-jin Min

THE R ESTORATION OF ISRAEL BY GOD S WORD IN THREE EPISODES FROMEZRA N EHEMIAH 176

Douglas J.E. Nykolaishen


5/33

vi Unity and Disunity in EzraNehemiah

1

THE D ISUNITY OF EZRA N EHEMIAH 200Juha Pakkala

THE DEPENDENCE OF EZRA N EHEMIAH ON 1 AND 2 CHRONICLES 216Paul L. Redditt

NEHEMIAH 8 AND THE AUTHORITY OF TORAH IN EZRA N EHEMIAH 241Titus Reinmuth

CONTEXTUALIZATIONS OF EZRA N EHEMIAH 263Armin Siedlecki

SEEKING , FINDING AND WRITING IN EZRA N EHEMIAH 277Jacob L. Wright

R ESPONSES

EZRA N EHEMIAH : U NITY OR D ISUNITY ? 306Joseph Blenkinsopp

U NITY AND D ISUNITY IN EZRA N EHEMIAH : R ESPONSES ANDR EFLECTIONS 315

Tamara Cohn Eskenazi

MORE U NITY THAN DIVERSITY 329H.G.M. Williamson

Bibliography 344Index of References 362Index of Authors 380


6/33

1

SEEKING, FINDING ANDWRITING INEZRA NEHEMIAH*

Jacob L. Wright

Introduction

In Gen. 25.22-23 Rebecca has nally conceived, but now notices somethingamiss. In order to understand the strange movements within her womb, shegoes to inquire of Y HWH ( h-t) #rdl Kltw) and learns that she was bearingtwo nations (Gen. 25.22-23). In the sapiential work 4QInstruction (4Q415-418,4Q423) we also read about someone inquiring ( #rd). This time it is not a

pregnant mother soliciting that is a divine oracle, but rather students search-ing for wisdom in texts.1

In the centuries between the composition of Genesis and 4QInstruction , theterminology of divination ( #rd and #qb) underwent a semantic shift according to which it signi ed more frequently the study of the written word. 2 This devel -opment has been noticed and studied at length by Michael Fishbane. Drawing upon the work of Max Weber, he points to the emergence of the Israelite state

* Because of space constraints, unfortunately I cannot enter into a detailed discussionwith all the works of my fellow scholars and the reviewers for this volume. I would like,however, to emphasize here that my work is deeply indebted to their many rich insights.

1. Cf. She went to inquire at the beth midrash of Shem in Targum Pseudo-Jonathanand Yerushalmi, Aggadath Bereshit 73, and Rashi. For more instances of the semanticshift in Qumran writings, see 1QS and CD, and the article by A. Steudel, Bereitet denWeg des Herrn. Religises Lernen in Qumran, in B. Ego and H. Merkel (eds.), Religises Lernen in der biblischen, frhjdischen und frhchristlichen berlieferung (WUNT, 1/180; Tbingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2005), pp. 99-116. For a classic treatment of Hebrewexegetical terminology in general, see M. Gertner, Terms of Scriptural Interpretation: AStudy in Hebrew Semantics, BSO(A)S 25 (1962), pp. 1-27.

2. See Isa. 34.16 ( w)rqw h rps-l(m w#rd), one of the rare biblical passages wherein#rd is used for textual study, as well as Deut. 17.8-13 and the comments by B.M. Levinson,

Deuteronomy and the Hermeneutics of Legal Innovation (New York: Oxford University Press, 1997), pp. 127-30. The transition from prophetical oracle to text can be observed in2 Kgs 22. After the discovery and reading of thehrwth rps , Josiah commands Hilkiah andcompany to seek a prophetical oracle ( h-t) w#rd wkl). Once the term is validated by the prophetess Huldah, it assumes the authoritative role in the remaining narrative. For obvi-ous reasons, the mantic terml)# was less suited to this semantic development.


7/33

278 Unity and Disunity in EzraNehemiah

1

and the administrative consolidation of Israelite society, rather than the post-exilic period, as the formative period for this new stage of legal rationality. 3

The formation of the bureaucratic and economic infrastructure of the ancient Israelite state was, however, not the only factor affecting the semantic devel-opment of #rd and related terms. Also thedemiseof the state served as animpulse. In his condemnation of the priests and house of Israel, Hosea pro-claims the nations doom: They shall go with their ocks and herds to seek YHWH( h-t) #qbl ), but they shall not nd (w)cmy )lw). He has withdrawnhimself from them (5.6).4 Hoseas prophecy was ful lled: the states infra-structurewith its cultic and divinatory apparatus supported by their ocksand herdscollapsed in the wake of foreign imperial expansion. But as thestateand Hosea himselfhad vanished from the scene, the record of the h-rbd represented by Hoseas book remained. And it was this book of divinewords among others which, in the process of rebuilding a new societal infra-structure, could serve as anoraculumfor rational-exegetical inquiry.5 Thereader of Hoseas book, which already identi es the prophetical h-rbd (4.1)with the book itself (1.1), now seeks and nds the word of God in the writ-ten tradition.6

3. M. Fishbane, Biblical Interpretation in Ancient Israel (Oxford: Clarendon Press,1988), p. 244. See also his article Torah in Encyclopedia Miqrait (Jerusalem: Bialik,1982), VIII, cols. 469-83. On the administrative-bureaucratic origins of writing, see A.L.Oppenheim, On an Operational Device in Mesopotamian Bureaucracy, JNES 18 (1959), pp. 121-28, and D. Schmandt-Besserat, The Earliest Precursor of Writing,Scienti c American6 (1978), pp. 38-47. For a broad perspective on the cultural impact of this newadministrative-bureaucratic technology, see the articles collected in A. and J. Assmannand C. Hardmeier (eds.),Schrift und Gedchtnis: Archologie der literarischen Kommuni-kation, I (Munich: Willhelm Fink, 1983), and most recently S. Sanders (ed.),Margins of Writing, Origins of Cultures: New Approaches to Writing and Reading in the Ancient Near East (Chicago: Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago, 2006).

4. Compare this verse with Hos. 2.8; 5.6, 15; 12.9; 14.9; Amos 8.11-12; and esp. Jer.29.13.

5. Fishbane, Interpretation, p. 245, which refers in its original context to Ezra 7.10.That the book of Hosea was indeed read in this way is demonstrated by the Hosea Pesh-arim (4QpHosea and 4Qfrag.). In this regard, see the innovative work of R. Vielhauer,Materielle Rekonstruktion und historische Einordnung der beiden Pescharim zumHoseabuch (4QpHos(a) und 4QpHos(b)), RevQ20 (2001), pp. 39-91.

6. W.M. Schniedewind, has studied this phenomenon from the perspective of Chron-icles. See hisThe Word of God in Transition: From the Prophet to Exegete in the Second Temple Period (JSOTSup, 197; Shef eld: JSOT Press, 1995), pp. 130-38, as well as hisrecent work, How the Bible Became a Book: The Textualization of Ancient Israel (Cam-

bridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004). The problem of the cessation of prophecy is directly connected to these developments: After the demise of the last (biblical) prophets Haggai, Zechariah and Malachithe holy spirit ( viz., prophetic inspiration) departed from Israel (t. So a, ed. Zuckermandel, p. 318, 21-23;b. So ah 48b;b. Sanh. 11a); From nowon incline your ear and listen to the instructions of the Sages (Seder Olam Rabbah6 [ed.


8/33

WRIGHT Seeking, Finding and Writing in EzraNehemiah 279

1

The book of Ezra-Nehemiah portrays in more than ten passages how the protagonists of Judahs restoration seek and nd in various written tradi-tions. EzraNehemiah not only presupposes the innovative identi cation of the h-rbd with the writings of the Prophets and the Torah, but also witnessesto the administrative origins of what Fishbane designates rational-exegeticalinquiry. The present paper examines these passages. Its aim is to show thatseeking-and- nding, while constituting a literarytoposand unifying motif, isnot a mere narrative conceit.7 Rather, it is an administrative procedure thatcontributed to Judahs success as she rede ned her political identity in a newera, and it is a method of exegesis that produced the book itself.

Ezra 16 The rst movement in EzraNehemiah treats the construction of the Temple(Ezra 16). Its subject, however, is not solely the history of this building project, but alsoand perhaps even more sothe fate of a certain text.8 And inrecounting the story of this text, the narrator highlights the activity of seeking-and- nding.9

In Ezra 1.1 the story begins by introducing this text and its author. Y HWH stirs up the spirit of Cyrus the king of Persia to issue a decree, which wasalso in writing (btkmb-Mgw). In response to his decree (1.2-4), all whose spiritGod had stirred make aliyah and begin building the Temple (1.53.15).After hearing of the building project, their adversaries approach them with

Ratner, p. 2]). Along with the semantic shift of #rd and the identi cation of h-rbd withthe writtennot oral, propheticword, the termh)wbnoriginated. See E.E. Urbach, ytm h)wbnh hqsp, Tarbiz 17 (1946), pp. 1-11; F. Greenspahn, Why Prophecy Ceased, JBL 108 (1989), pp. 37-49; B. Sommer, Did Prophecy Cease? Evaluating a Reevaluation, JBL 115 (1996), pp. 31-47. The study of prophecies (in written form) is not commonamong the societies of the ancient Near East. According to M. Nissinen, the only analogyis to be found in Esarhaddons oracles, which were collected and became a part of writtentradition transcending speci c historical situations and retaining its relevance in changingcircumstances. See P. Machinist and M. Nissinen (eds.),Prophets and Prophecy in the

Ancient Near East (Society of Biblical Literature. Writings from the Ancient World Series, 12; Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2003), p. 98.

7. The terminology for seeking and nding in EzraNehemiah is usuallyrqb/xk# inthe Aramaic sections and#qb/)cmin the Hebrew sections.#qbis replaced by#rd in Ezra7.10 and 10.16, bylk# in Neh. 8.13-14, and by)rq in 13.1-3. Occasionally, one part of the word-pair can be elliptically omitted, as in Ezra 7.10 and Neh. 7.5.

8. For the role of texts in Ezra 16 and throughout EzraNehemiah, see T.C. Eskenazi, In an Age of Prose: A Literary Approach to EzraNehemiah(SBLMS, 36; Atlanta: Schol-ars Press, 1988).

9. With regard to seeking-and- nding in Ezra 16, see the insightful comments of T. Schaack, Die Ungeduld des Papiers(BZAW, 262; Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 1998), pp. 116-57.


9/33


1

the petition to participate in the project (4.1-2). The leaders in Jerusalemreject these offers by appealing to the orders of Cyrus (4.3). In their anger, therebuffed petitioners attempt to thwart the progress on the Temple throughout the years that follow (4.4-5). During the reign of Artaxerxes they write to theking, advising him to search in the royal annals and nd Jerusalems rebelli-ous record (4.6-16). The king follows this advice, commands a search to bemade, and sure enough nds what he was looking for. He then orders the con-struction of the city to cease (4.17-22). Surprisingly this time the Judean lead-ers do not appeal to the Cyrus Edict, which allows the of cials of the provinceto interpret Artaxerxes orders as a prohibition of all building-activities (4.23-24). In the reign of Darius,10 the work on the Temple later resumes with theencouragement of Haggai and Zechariah (5.1-2), but is again impeded untilthe imperial court undertakes another library search. The of cials of the province approach the builders and inquire whether the construction projecthad been authorized (5.3-9). In response the Judean elders provide a generaloverview of their history, now appealing explicitly to the Cyrus Edict (5.9-16). In order to verify their account of Judahs history, the local of cials peti-tion the king to search the geniza in Babylon for the decree of Cyrus (5.17).Following Artaxerxes precedent, Darius orders that a search be made (6.1).Instead of in Babylon, however, the long-lost writing referred to in 1.1 was nally found in Ecbatana (6.2). After it is quoted (6.3-5), Darius issues a newedict (6.6-12), and without further delay the work on the Temple is broughtto completion (6.13-22).11

According to theopinio communis, this tightly drafted narrative, which issustained by the theme of the Cyrus Edict, has at its core historical, authenticsources. Although one should not rule out this possibility, it is important toobserve the extent to which these sources have been tailored to t thenarrative.

10. Here I am following the narrative, not the historical, succession.11. The literary topos of seeking-and- nding in a writing (or geniza), which is employed

in EzraNehemiah, is related toyet probably should be distinguished fromthetoposof the (accidental) discoveryof a book, which we encounter elsewhere. See W. Speyer, Bcherfunde in der Glaubenswerbung der Antike(Gttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht,1970); B.J. Diebner and C. Naurereth, Die Inventio in 2 Knig 22: Struktur, Intentionund Funktion von Auf ndungslegenden, Dielheimer Bltter zum Alten Testament 18(1984), pp. 95-118; H. Schaudig, Nabonid, der Archologe auf dem Knigsthron. ZumGeschichtsbild des ausgehenden neubabylonischen Reiches, in G.J. Selz (ed.), Festschrift fr Burkhart Kienast zu seinem 70. Geburtstage dargebracht von Freunden, Schlern und Kollegen(AOAT, 274; Munster: Ugarit, 2003), pp. 447-97; and K. Stott, Finding theLost Book of the Law: Re-reading the Story of The Book of the Law (Deuteronomy 2 Kings) in Light of Classical Literature, JSOT 30 (2005), pp. 153-69.


10/33


1

With respect to rhetorical technique, the depictions of seeking-and- ndingfunction as literary hinges at pivotal points in the story. For example, Arta-xerxes letter picks up where Rehums and Shimshais concludes. The kingwrites, I commanded, they searched and found that (wrqbw M(+ My# ynmw yd wxk#hw, 4.19). In order to know what he commanded and where theysearched, one must read the letter in tandem with Rehums and Shimshais petition (v. 15).12 In this way, the letters form a running narrative. It is evenmore dif cult to isolate independent sources in Ezra 6. We are told thatDarius follows the advice of Tattenai and Shethar-boznai and commands asearch to be made (6.1-2). The Cyrus Edict is found and quoted (6.3-5). In6.6 Darius then begins speaking with the epistolary transition marker N(k.The narrative here ows seamlessly into the quotation of edict and then into anew edict.13

Ezra 16 also poses a problem when one reads it as a historically factualaccount. Why do the Achaemenid rulers consistently consult their royal annals before making a decision? If Darius was determined to bolster the loyalty of his Judean subjects by allowing them to rebuild the Temple, why did he rstneed to know whether one of his predecessors had done the same? This pointapplies all the more to Ezra 4. That Jerusalem was rebellious and destroyed by the Babylonians would have certainly been of interest to him. And theAchaemenids as a whole were often concerned to draw on precedents estab-lished by earlier rulers.14 But ultimately Artaxerxes policies, as those of anygood ruler, were motivated by contemporary concerns. Thus, when he later decides to allow his cupbearer to rebuild the city-ramparts (Neh. 2), he sig-ni cantly doesnot undertake any historical research.15

12. Although this stylewith elliptical omission of the lengthy objectis not antici- pated in of cial Aramaic correspondence, it is quite customary in Hebrew narrative. See,e.g., Neh. 8.16a and D. Janzen, The Mission of Ezra and the Persian-Period TempleCommunity, JBL119 (2000), pp. 619-43, and R.C. Steiner, Thembqr at Qumran, theepiskoposin the Athenian Empire, and the Meaning of lbqr in Ezra 7:14: On the Relationof Ezras Mission to the Persian Legal Project, JBL120 (2001), pp. 623-46.

13. For a formal analysis of the Aramaic letters in Ezra 46, see most recentlyD. Schwiderski, Handbuch des nordwestsemitischen Briefformulars: Ein Beitrag zur Echtheitsfrage der aramischen Briefe des Esrabuches(BZAW, 295, Berlin: Walter deGruyter, 2000).

14. See, e.g., A. Kuhrt The Cyrus Cylinder and Achaemenid Imperial Policy, JSOT 25 (1983), pp. 83-97.

15. Although the institution of the Laws of the Persians and the Medes (see Schaack,Ungeduld , pp. 198-256) may have informed the use of the seeking-and- nding motif inEzra 56, it has nothing to do with the use of the motif in Ezra 4 and the rest of Ezra Nehemiah. Ezra 46 depicts administrative seeking-and- nding, which may be comparedto Est. 6.1-2. For extra-biblical parallels, cf. the Story of Wenamun 2.8-9, the Aradostracon Letter of Gemaryahu and Nechemyahu, as well as the Elephantine papyrus C7.1. The closest parallel to Ezra 16 is found in 4Q550, which resembles Est. 6.1-2. See


11/33


1

As to why the authors of EzraNehemiah portray the Persian rulers as dili-gent students of their archival records, I suggest that the literary depiction wasdictated less by actual Achaemenid policies than by the ideological agenda of Ezra 16. An important clue to understanding this agenda is found in 2.62,which reports that certain priests sought yet could not nd their genealogicalregister ( My#xytmh Mbtk); they were therefore excluded from the priest-hood.16 In de ning the boundaries of the community and its leadership, theJudeans rst search in their historical records. As in Ezra 46, the writtenword is here absolutely nal or unassailable. Thus the Judeans follow theexample of the empire in mimetic fashion.

On the basis of this analogy, one can begin to appreciate why Ezra Nehemiah focuses on the fate of a text when it depicts the construction of theTemple. After the end of the monarchy, Judah faced the challenge of comingto terms with new institutions of political power (imperial representatives,gubernatorial and priestly leadership, etc.). The authors of EzraNehemiah,in seeking to underscore the continuity of these institutions with those fromthe past, identify the source of authority with the written word.17 By present-ing the Persian kings rst seeking and nding in their archives before making political decisions, they illustrate the point that Judah does not require a mon-archy of its own: The construction project progressed and succeeded not because of a Judean king and the prophet whom he consults for the word of God, but rather by a virtue of an authority mediated through texts.18

the superb article by R. Steiner: Bishlams Archival Search Report in Nehemiahs Archive:Multiple Introductions and Reverse Chronological Order as Clues to the Origin of the Aramaic Letters in Ezra 4-6, JBL125 (2006), pp. 641-85. This study appeared after thecompletion of this manuscript and could only be inserted in the nal edits.

16. For the use of texts in relation to priestly lineages, see Josephus, Apion1.6; 1QS5.23; 6.22-23; 8.19; CD 13.11-12; 14.3-6; M. Weinfeld,The Organizational Pattern and the Penal Code of the Qumran Sect: A Comparison with Guilds and Religious Associ-ations of the HellenisticRoman Period (NTOA, 2; Gttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht,1986); and F. Ntscher, Himmlische Bcher und Schicksalglaube in Qumran, RevQ1(195859), pp. 405-11.

17. This idea is to be sure not new. It is found throughout the Tanakh, perhaps expressedmost poignantly in Deut. 17.18.

18. In EzraNehemiah textuality does not replace orality. The prophets play a supportingrole (Ezra 1.1; 5.1; and 6.14; cf., however, Neh. 6.10-14). The text is also read aloud (see

Neh. 8 and 13.1-3). So too, the oral word is necessary in order to publish the ful llment of prophecy (Ezra 1.1) and the ndings of Torah-study (Ezra 10.7; Neh. 8.15) to the commu-nity. Moreover, before the mention of seeking-and-(not) nding in a text (Ezra 2.61-62), we

are told of a group that could not tell ( dyghl) whether they belonged to the seed of Israel(2.59-60). Ezra 2.63 then follows the mention of textual searching in 2.61-62 with a refer-ence to charismatic divination. According to the provision for the excluded priests to eat of the most holy things, a priest with the Urim and Thummim must rst serve (Nhk dm&(j d( Mymtlw Myrw)l). The authors of EzraNehemiah never report the appearance of such a


12/33


1

Yet it is not just any text which has authority, and the Judeans cannot dis- pense with kingship entirely. In Ezra 1.1 the written word that guarantees thesuccess of the building-project is published by the king of Persia. Moreover,

this royal publishing house receives its commission from YHWH, who stirsup the spirit of Cyrus in order to ful ll the divine word spoken by Jeremiah(hymry ypm h-rbd twlkl ). Taking their departure from Deutero-Isaiah,19 many literary works from the Second Temple period present foreign imperialrulers as direct successors to the Davidic kings.20 By means of these divinelyordained rulers, God providentially realizes a plan for the welfare of Israel.Thus, when Nebuchadnezzar blesses God in Dan. 4.31-37, he acknowledgesthat the divine kingdom is eternal and represents the indispensable basis for his own transient reign (see Dan. 6.26-28 and Ezra 1.1; 6.12; 7.23). Similarly,the Chronicler often alters hisVorlagein order to transform Davids kingdominto a divine kingdom.21 For example, in 2 Chron. 9.8 the queen of Sheba fol-lows her royal counterparts in the book of Daniel and blesses the God of Israel. Yet instead of the throne of Israel as in 1 Kgs 10.9, it is his (Gods)throne which Solomon occupies. Most importantly for the present study, thistransformation of Davids throne to Gods throne is closely tied to the con-struction of the Temple(s). David, in his role as one who makes all the neces-sary preparations for the construction of the Temple, and Solomon, in his roleas Temple builder, are mere incumbents on a throne that also can be occupied by foreign rulers who likewise engage in Temple-construction. Thus, thework concludes in 2 Chron. 36.20-23 with Cyrus assuming the throne andordering the Temple to be built. EzraNehemiah contributes to this concept by presenting the Persian kings as God-appointed rulers whose decisions to build and beautify the Temple are divinely inspired (Ezra 1.1 and 7.28).22

priest; instead, they allow textual studyand in Neh. 8, the iconic textto ll the gapleft by these mantic objects.

19. See R.G. Kratz, Kyros im Deuterojesaja-Buch: Redaktionsgeschichtliche Unter- suchungen zu Entstehung und Theologie von Jes 4055 (FAT, 1; Tbingen: Mohr Siebeck,1991), pp. 183-91. This conception can be traced to kingship ideologies that prevailedthroughout the ancient Near East (e.g. the proclamation at Asshurbanipals investiture-ceremonies, The God Asshur is the king, and Asshurbanipal is his representative [waklu/uklu]). See also M. Liverani, The Fall of the Assyrian Empire: Ancient and Modern Inter- pretations, in Susan E Alcock et al . (eds.), Empires: Perspectives from Archaeology and History(Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2001), pp. 374-99.

20. See R.G. Kratz,Translatio imperii: Untersuchungen zu den aramischen Daniel-erzhlungen und ihrem theologiegeschichtlichen Umfeld (WMANT, 63, Neukirchen Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1991), pp. 161-225; and Kratz, Das Judentum im Zeitalter des Zweiten Tempels(FAT, 42; Tbingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2004), pp. 157-311.

21. 1 Chron. 17.14; 28.5; 29.11, 23; 2 Chron. 6.2, 18, 21, 30, 33, 39; 9.8; 13.6, 8;18.18; etc.

22. In this way the authors can present kings building the Temple in Jerusalem, in


13/33


1

Finally, as a divinely inspired document, the Cyrus Edict is not a staticentity, but rather a rich source which requires interpretation to reveal its fullmessage. Ezra 16 is accordingly a history of its interpretation and impact( Rezeptions- und Wirkungsgeschichte ). In 3.7 we learn that Cyrus had granted the Judeans the building materials for the Temple. In 4.3 the Judeans interpretthe edict in line with the exclusive nature of the building-project.23 In 5.11-16they interpret it anew and within a larger historical framework.24 The Persianrulers also interpret the edict. When Darius seeks and nds, the reader learnsthat Cyrus gave speci c directions for the location, materials, and size of theTemple, as well as for the nancial funding of the building project (6.3-5).Moreover, his discovery inspires him to supplement the edict by making anew decree sponsoring not only the building project but now even the Temple operations.25 The Artaxerxes correspondence in Ezra 4 interprets the CyrusEdict by prohibiting the construction of the Wall until after the completion of the Temple.26 In each instance, the edict expands in its meaning as the interpretations are put into writing.27 Yet they are not put into just any form of

keeping with a ubiquitous tradition in the ancient Near East that assigns the task of temple-construction to pious monarchs. The difference is that instead of a Judean king it is Persian rulers who build the Temple, and above all the most beloved of the Achaemenids, Cyrusthe Great. Similarly the Marduk priests in Babylon acclaimed Cyrus, their patron, 'King of Babylon. While the authors of Ezra 16 seem to follow the Chronicler in his portrayal of the divine throne occupied by Temple builders, they differ from him insofar as they do notchampion the vision of a militarily forti ed Judah. Instead, they are content with a prov-ince centered around the Temple.

23. In Ezra 1, the edict does not contain this exclusivity. Indeed, there Cyrus encour-ages others to support the builders.

24. Here we learn e.g. that Sheshbazzar was both the governor of the province and theone who laid the Temple-foundation. In 4.1-3, the adversaries refer, like the Judeans in5.11-16, to their past history, yet are dismissed on the basis of the edict.

25. Moreover, it de nes the purpose of his donations and contains penalties and cursesfor those who would interfere (6.11-12).

26. The word Wall is capitalized since in EzraNehemiah it represents a symbol andinstitution comparable to the Temple. Other symbols in the book are the Torah in Neh.8.1-12, which is moveable, and Ezra the scribe in Neh. 8.13, which is spatial (cf. Ezra3.1 with Neh. 8.1, 2; 9.1). Below I offer an explanation for the tension between Templeand Wall in Ezra 16. Because the Judeans fail to cite the Cyrus Edict in response, theArtaxerxes correspondence effects the cessation of the work on the Temple (4.24). In thisway, the authors can explain why the Temple was not built before Dariuss reign.

27. That Ezra 16 itself expands in a gradual process of interpreting this edict is arguedin my dissertation, Nehemiahs Account of the Restoration, PhD Dissertation, Universityof Gttingen, 2002), pp. 202-11 (see n. 41). According to the analysis, the earliest editionof these chapters comprised a brief narrative consisting primarily of the Darius-correspon-dence (5.66.15). The bracketing of this Aramaic narrative with the material in 1.14.5 and6.16-22 intends to explain why the Temple was not completed until the reign of Dariuswhen Cyrus had decreed it to be built already in the rst year of his reign. Finally, the


14/33


1

writing; rather they constitute of cial documents. As such, these interpreta-tions represent historical sources for future generations to discover and study.

Ezra 710

After Ezra 6 reports the completion of the Temple and the celebrations thataccompanied it, the Cyrus Edict appears to have been ful lled. However, thestory goes on. Israel has not yet completely returned to the Land. So too, inthe middle of the Temple-building account, Artaxerxes had interrupted theconstruction of the Wall and prohibited any further work until I issue a newdecree (4.21). Before he (implicitly) issues that decree in Nehemiah 2, thesecond movement of the book conveys the reader back to the imperial court,where the king, following in the footsteps of Cyrus, orders Ezra to makealiyah with his compatriots and transport generous funds in order to beau-tify (r)pl , 7.27) the Temple.28

Ezra 710 consists of two parts that are in tension: chs. 78, in which theTemple and its personnel are at the forefront, and chs. 910, in which theTemple moves to the background and the priests constitute the chief offend-ers in a major scandal. What holds these two parts together is the person of Ezra, who follows the example of the kings in Ezra 16 as he engages in the

activity of seeking-and-

nding. By focusing on his person, the authors of Ezra 710 can ll in the gaps left in the preceding section and construct theidentity of one who seeks-and- nds.29

According to 7.1-5, Ezra is a priest in the Aaronite-Zadokite line. But inthe Golah he had also become a scribe expert in the Torah of Moses (7.6),and had dedicated himself to study (#rdl ) the Torah of YHWH, and to per-form and teach laws and rules to Israel (7.11).30 Due to his commitment to

Artaxerxes correspondence was inserted between these two sections. By beginning withthe Cyrus Edict yet not quoting the text in Ezra 1.1-4, the authors gradually disclose itscontents to the reader.

28. That Ezra 16 is older than chs. 710 is argued by R.G. Kratz, Die Komposition der erzhlenden Bcher des Alten Testaments: Grundwissen der Bibelkritik (UTB, 2157;Gttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2000), pp. 56-68.

29. Insofar as Ezra is allowed to speak for himself, he can also tell his readers whatmotivated him. A thorough description of the way the authors construct his identity cannot be provided here. The most interesting work in this regard is a little-known Yiddish Bch by Israel Schur, My#rdm Nw Mydwmlt,K nt +ywl.rpws-)rz((Riga: Bicher for Alemen, 1931).For recent work on Ezras function as a scribe, see Y. Avishur and M. Heltzer, The Scribeand Priest Ezra: A Leader under Achaemenian Rule, Transeuph 29 (2005), pp. 17-36.

30. See Fishbanes comment ( Interpretation, p. 245) on this verse: For whereas theexpression to inquire (#wrdl) of YHWH occurs in a mantic context of prophetic inquiry in1 Kgs 22.8, for example, and the expression to inquire of Elohim occurs in a manticcontext of legal inquiry in Exod. 18.15, the expression used in Ezra 7.10 is signi cantly


15/33


1

seeking in the Torah, he also receives a royal commission to inspect ( )rqbl )Judah and Jerusalem according to the law of his God ( Khl) tdb ), which was entrusted to him (7.14).31

In comparison to the foregoing section, the depiction of seeking-and- nd-ing in this chapter contains both similarities and differences. As in Ezra 16,the written word is the ultimate source of authority, and a foreign ruler hasreplaced the Davidic king as the one who enforces it (7.26). Now, however,we are presented with a new gure, namely a person of Judahite origins whois of cially authorized to seek-and- nd in the written word. In both chs. 16and 710, seeking-and- nding is an administrative procedure. Yet in contrastto the foregoing account, the text wherein Ezra seeks and which he uses toinspect Judah is not the word of God mediated through the Cyrus Edict, butthe Torah.32 The imperial court thus now turns its attention away from itsarchives to a body of texts transmitted solely by Judean hands.

Beginning in Ezra 7, the theme of the book thus shifts from Temple toTorah. The shift is, to be sure, a gradual one insofar as Ezra 78 focuses pri-marily on the former. Following in the footsteps of Cyrus the Temple builder,Artaxerxes promotes the position of this institution by making large dona-tions. In ch. 8 Ezra tells how he transported these donations to Jerusalemwithout even mentioning the Torah in his hand.33 So too, in his blessing(7.27-28), he interprets the royal decree solely in reference to the Temple.34 In the decree itself, Artaxerxes devotes the greatest amount of space to theTemple and its maintenance; indeed, the decree can be read as an apologiafor this institution.35 Finally, the few verses in ch. 7 that emphasize the posi-tion of the Torah appear to have been added at a later point.36 Yet in pre- paring the reader for Ezras activities in chs. 910 and Nehemiah 8, theseverses have made the deepest impact on the character of the book.

to inquire (#wrdl) of the Torah of Y HWH . Here the text of divine words serves, as it were,as an oraculumfor rational-exegetical inquiry ( Interpretation, p. 245).

31. rqb is the same lexeme used for seeking in 4.15, 19; 5.17; 6.1.32. When building the Temple, the Judeans seek-and- nd in the Torah so that all their

actions merit the approbationbwtkk(3.2, 4; 6.18; on this formula, see Fishbane, Inter- pretation, pp. 213-16). In ch. 7, however, the source for seeking-and- nding is moredirectly identi ed with the Torah.

33. The Klmh ytd in 8.36 seems to be something different from the law in 7.14, 25-26. 34. Cf. Klmh blb t)zk Ntnin 7.27 with the comparable expression Klmxwr-t) h ry(h

in 1.1, which also refers to plans for the Temple.

35. See the newest work on this edict from S. Grtz, Edikt des Artaxerxes: Eine Unter- suchung zum religionspolitischen und historischen Umfeld von Esr 7, 12-26 (BZAW, 337;Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 2004).

36. Verses 6ab b-8, 10, 11b, 14 (Khmlin v. 13 connects better tohlbyhlwin v. 15), and25-26.


16/33


1

Whereas Ezra 7 presents the Torah as the legal basis for Judah, chs. 910address the dif culties that arise when this theory is put into practice. Greatoptimism and excitement had accompanied the aliyah depicted in chs. 78.Yet once the donations for the Temple had been delivered and the sacri ceshad been made, Ezra learns much to his dismay that the inhabitants of Judahdid not share his understanding of the Torahs requirements. For the smalland weak Judah, the speci c problemmixed-marriageswas one of exis-tential proportions, as Ezra demonstrates in his reaction (vv. 3-5) and prayer (vv. 6-15). The Judeans, their kings and priests had been delivered into thehand of the kings of the lands (v. 7). Yet a small remnant had remained, andthey had been given a foothold (tent-peg) in this holy place (v. 8). Theywere still subject to foreign rule, but had also found favor with the kings sothat they could build the Temple and erect a fence in Judah and Jerusalem(v. 9). From this poignant presentation of Judahs fragile position in bothtime and space, one can appreciate the gravity of the problem posed byintermarriage. In turning to the present (vv. 10-15), Ezra proves that he hadlearned to seek-and- nd in the Torah (cf. 7.10) by blending Deut. 7.1-3, 23.4-9 and Leviticus 18, and appropriating them for the situation at hand.37 Hisinterpretation is remarkably lax. For example, he passes over the referencesto destruction and Mrxin Deuteronomy 7,38 focusing instead on the prohibi-tions of intermarriage.39

Rather than pointing his nger at the offenders, Ezra prays, and his prayerperhaps the most beautiful text in the bookevokes deep remorsefrom the community. Their reaction is told in the third-person account inEzra 10. On the basis of both stylistic and conceptual differences, Y. Dor hasconvincingly argued for different authors in chs. 910.40 Although I agree, itseems that these chapters were not compiled at the same time. I think it ismore plausible that ch. 9, which draws upon distinctive features of Neh. 1.1-11 and 13.23-29, has been composed as a new introduction to Nehemiahs

account.41

Before the insertion of the third-person passage of Ezra 10, it is37. Deut. 7, for example, could have been disregarded, since it refers explicitly to the

rst occupation of the Land. By means of sophisticated exegesis, Ezra renders it applicable to his own situation. See Fishbane, Interpretation, pp. 114- 21.

38. Mrxoccurs in Ezra 10.8, but there it functions in a different manner .39. That Ezra does not consider the possibility of integration does not have to be read

as if he were dismissing the alternative presented in Trito-Isaiah or Ezek. 47.22-23. Rather it may simply suggest that the issue was more cultural than cultic or religious. Cf., how-ever, Fishbane, Interpretation, pp. 119-21.

40. Y. Dor, hymxn-)rz( rpsb twyrkwnh My#nh t#rp (PhD dissertation, Hebrew Univer-sity, 2001), pp. 130ff.

41. See Kratz, Komposition,pp. 85-86, and J.L. Wright, Rebuilding Identity: The Nehemiah-Memoir and its Earliest Readers (BZAW, 348, Berlin: Walter de Gruyter 2004), pp. 253-55.


17/33


1

Nehemiah who with his Wall-building project constructs the physical andconceptual boundaries wherein the remnant of Israel can separate itself fromthe surrounding nations and survive (Ezra 9.14).42

With the insertion of Ezra 10, a later author depicts Ezra and the commu-nity tackling the problem of mixed-marriages before the construction of theWall.43 Their aim is to solve this problem according to the Torah (hrwtkw h#(y), and those whom they commission to interpret the Torah are Ezra andthe Mydrx(v. 3).44 The procedures taken include making a proclamationthroughout Judah and Jerusalem ( Ml#wryw hdwhyb lwq wryb(yw, v. 7). Preciselythis expression is what Ezra and his students later nd when they search inthe Torah in Neh. 8.15.45 Ezra and the leaders also sequester themselves toexamine the matter (rbdh #wyrdl, 10.16).46 The exact method of examina-tion is not reported,47 but the authors seem to indicate that the members of thecommission searched in a text, such as the register of the genealogies later discovered by Nehemiah (7.5-69).48 The names are then found ()cmyw) and

42. This point is developed below.43. In contrast to Ezra 9 and most of the book, Ezra 10 (or at least portions of it) seems

to describe a sectarian view of the community (a community within a community; see e.g.hlwgh lhq in Ezra 10.8). Its depiction should not be confused with Judahs actual polity inthe Persian period, as is done for example by the model of theTempel-Brger-Gemeinde.

The closest parallels to this conception are found in the writings of the Qumran community(see n. 16), which suggests that Ezra 10 should be interpreted in light of developing sec-tarian ideas in the Hellenistic period. The development allows the community to adopt astricter interpretation of the Torah, with penal consequences for the failure to adhere to thedecisions of the community (see Ezra 10.8). Here the in uence of the guilds and religiousassociations from the Greco-Roman period studied by M. Weinfeld (see n. 16) is apparent.Contrasting with this, Nehemiah as the political leader of Judah does not punish theoffenders in ch. 13. He only preaches. The most he can do when enforcing the observanceof the Sabbath is to give orders for the closing of Jerusalems gates (13.19-22). In ch. 4 heuses the sword only to defend Jerusalem. With regard to cultic affairs, he takes a more physical approach (13.4-9, 28-29).

44. TheMT replaces my lord (Ezra) with the Lord.45. Deut. 31.12, 28 may be the source here. See also Judg. 21, 1 Chron. 13, 2 Chron.

30, Neh. 5, etc., for evidence that the procedures for invoking an assembly and for theassembly itself were not an unimportant matter.

46. The spelling of to examine (instead of #wrdl) is dif cult to explain. Perhaps it is a play on the name of Darius and his activities in Ezra 6.

47. In contrast to the administrative character of seeking-and- nding in Ezra 16, theaccount in Ezra 10 uses the language of seeking-and- nding to describe legal-juridicalactivities. This persists today in the expression to be found guilty/innocent. See Fishbane, Interpretation, pp. 188-92, 241-44. Est. 2.19-23 portrays the judicial method of seeking-and- nding in order to prepare the reader for the administrative method in 6.1-2.

48. See Fishbane, Interpretation, p. 115. Cf. also the method of determining lineagedescribed in Neh. 7.64, Ezra 2.62. Further evidence is found in Ezra 8.15a-20, where Ezrareviews the people and priests ( Mynhkbw M(b hnyb)w), does not nd (yt)cm-)l ) any Levites,and takes measures to correct this de ciency. Insofar as the expressionNyb+ b is used in


18/33


1

thenwrittenin a long list that concludes the chapter (vv. 18-44). This passageillustrates how the procedure of seeking-and- nding not only is ascribed tothe Torah itself but also once again leads to writingand thus the formationof EzraNehemiah.

Nehemiah 7

Ezra 910 is occupied with issues related to the population of Israel. Thesame concern governs Nehemiah 7.49 Once the Wall had been erected, Nehe-miah commences the second phase of his restoration project during which heturns to the task of repopulating the city.50 Now the city was large and great, but the people were few therein, and the houses were not yet built (Ny)w Mywnb Mytb, v. 4). The statement that Jerusalem was devoid of any houses con-tradicts the immediately preceding verse. 51 Nevertheless, it serves an important literary function inasmuch as it empties the city so that Nehemiah can tell how he populated it: And I found a register of the genealogy of them who cameup in the beginning, and I found written in it.52

As in 2 Kings 22 with regard to the Torah scroll which Hilkiah foundand which provokes both a deep transformation in Josiah and radical changes

Dan. 9.2 to describe textual study, it quite likely that Ezra is here inspecting the genealogi-cal record quoted in vv. 1-14, and is registering the names of the Levites. That vv. 1-14 purport to represent an independent literary document seems likely when one compares itsheading (8.1) and format with Ezra 2//Neh. 7. See alsotwm#b wbqn Mlkin 8.20b and Mlkw twm#bin 10.16.

49. Y. Kaufmann perceptively noted that Nehemiah comes close here to taking the stanceof Ezra. See his History of the Religion of Israel . IV. From the Babylonian Captivity to the End of Prophecy(New York: Ktav, 1977), p. 377. Kaufmanns insight may be comparedto the interpretation of Moses Kimhi (usually attributed to Ibn Ezra) when the latter adds Mmw#mfrom Ezra 9.3b, 4b toytb#yin Neh. 1.4. In view of Kimhis general reading of EzraNehemiah, this blending of Ezra 9 and Neh. 1 seems to suggestin Kimhis typically allusive mannerthat what troubles Nehemiah is the very problem faced by Ezra. Therelationship of Ezra 9 to Neh. 1 is developed in Wright, Rebuilding Identity, pp. 253-57.

50. That the repopulation constitutes a second phase of the building project is indicated by the use of the phrase ybl-l) yhl) Ntywin 7.5. This statement appears earlier in 2.12 inreference to the plans to build Jerusalem, which God was beginning to inspire within Nehe-miah (ybl-l) Nt' nO & yhl) hm). Cf. the use of this expression in Ezra 7.27 with reference toArtaxerxes himself and his plans to build the Temple!

51. and appoint watches of the inhabitants of Jerusalem, every one in his watch,and everyone over against his house (7.3b; cf. 4.8 with 4.17). It also contradicts Hag. 1.4.

52. The structure of the text resembles Ezra 10 insofar as a lengthy list follows theactivity of seeking-and- nding. In contrast to the administrative-bureaucratic and legal- juridical character of seeking-and- nding elsewhere in EzraNehemiah, the account in Neh. 7, by not referring to a prior search, resembles accounts in other literary works of adventitious book-discoveries. See n. 11.


19/33


1

in Judah,53 Nehemiah expands his historical consciousness after he nds a book and studies its contents. His stated intention in studying the record wasto enroll the people according to their genealogies (#xythl ). What seems tohave originally concerned Nehemiah was the political welfare and honor of the Judeans,54 and when attempting to motivate them to build, he signi cantlydoes not appeal to their history (2.17-18). The only time he does address theissue of the Judeans origins is in 1.1-3, yet there he only refers to the rem-nant that had survived the captivity (yb#h-Nm wr)#n-r#) h+ylph Mydwhyh) andremained in the Land, not the Golah. Now, after the Wall is nished, hediscovers a book and learns about the origins of the builders.

Whether the text implies that all the Judeans were none other than the Mylw(, or that Nehemiah is now including the Mylw((7.5) with the Myr)#nh (1.3) who originally concerned him, is not clear. 55 Help is provided in 11.1ff.This text appears to have been originally connected to 7.1-3 and to have cometo its present literary position after a gradual process of expansion beginningwith 7.4-72.56 The insertion of 7.4-72 presents Nehemiah establishing thedemographic pool from which the community in 11.1ff. casts lots in order tooffer a human tithe of inhabitants in Jerusalem. 57 O. Lipschits has shown that

53. See Stott, Finding the Lost Book.54. Cf.h(rh and hprx in 1.3 and 2.17.55. For a discussion of the issue for the whole of EzraNehemiah, see S. Japhet, The

Prohibition of the Habitation of Women: The Temple Scrolls Attitude toward SexualImpurity and its Biblical Precedents, JANESCU 22 (1993), pp. 69-87; Japhet, The Peopleand the Land in the Period of the Restoration, in D.R. Schwartz (ed.), Studies in Jewish

History of the Second Temple Period (Jerusalem: Zalman Shazar Center for the History of Israel, 1995), pp. 127-45; Japhet, The Concept of the Remnant in the RestorationPeriod: On the Vocabulary of Self-De nition, in F.-L. Hossfeld and L. Schwienhorst-Schnberger (eds.), Das Manna fllt auch heute noch. Beitrge zur Geschichte und The-ologie des Alten, Ersten Testaments(Festschrift Erich Zenger; Herders biblische Studien,44; Freiburg: Herder, 2004), pp. 340-61; and E. Blum, Volk oder Kultgemeinde? ZumBild des nachexilischen Judentums in der alttestamentlichen Wissenschaft, Kirche und Israel 10 (1995), pp. 24-42.

56. See Wright, Rebuilding Identity , pp. 297-309. The chief reason for claiming an origi-nal connection between 7.1-3 and 11.1ff. is the emphasis upon the defense of the city in

both of these texts (cf. e.g. hrybh r# and the twrm#min 7.2-3 with M(h-yr#and Mybdntmhin 11.1-2; the military sense of the latter term is explicit in Judg. 5.2[9]; 2 Chron. 17.16). Seealso thelyx yrwbgin Neh. 11.6,14.

57. In analogy to the semantic shift of #rd examined by Fishbane, a charismatic pro-cedure (lot-casting) is here superceded, yet not supplanted, by the more rational methodof seeking-and- nding in the textual tradition. The semantic shift is to be sure not merelyan analogy, but the conceptual forerunner, to the precedence given here to seeking-and- nding over lot-casting.


20/33


1

the the numbers of Jerusalems residents in 11.1ff. corresponds to the subtotalsof Judahs inhabitants in 7.4-72 as an exact 1:10 ratio.58 This means that theJerusalemites are exclusively the Mylw(. Are the authors then saying that everyone else was excluded? Probably not. According to 7.4 the houses had not been built; nevertheless, there were at least a few people residing in the city (hkwtb +(m M(hw, cf. 7.1-3 and 11.1a). Insofar as we are never told that these residents had to leave their homes, Nehemiah seems here to be iden-tifying the Mylw(with all the Judeans. Accordingly, the text seems to under-score Nehemiahs intention not to exclude any Judean.59

Not only does Nehemiah 7 integrate a Golah-oriented understanding of thecommunitys identity; it also re ects the notion of heavenly books or divine book-keeping. This notion is already presupposed by the many short prayersfor remembrance which demarcate passages in the Nehemiah-Memoir.60 Incontrast to these prayers, however, the book referred to in Nehemiah 7 is notstored away in heaven for future reference; rather it is found in the newly built Jerusalem. In place of the sectarian hopes in a future Temple and a newJerusalem, EzraNehemiah emphasizes the here-and-now.61 Nehemiahs use

58. See O. Lipschits, Literary and Ideological Aspects of Neh 11, JBL 121 (2002), pp.423-40. Lipschits argues, however, that Neh. 11 has been inserted after Neh. 7.4ff. Although I would date Nehemiah 11 (or at least its primary stratum) earlier than Neh. 7.4ff., the use of lot-casting by the Qumran community (see e.g. 1QS 6.22) must be borne in mind whenconsidering the questions of the dating and social (sectarian?) setting for the compositionof 11.1-2.

59. The passages portraying strict exclusion refer solely to cultic affairs: 7.63-64; 13.1-3, 4-9, 28-29. In 7.61-62, those who could not tell whether they belonged to Israel aremerely listed by name. In 13.23-27 the Judeans are severely reprimanded for marryingforeign women, but they are not required to divorce them. Thehldbh in Neh. 10.1, 30;13.3 as well as Ezra 10, in contrast to e.g. Deut. 29.20, may not even intend to suggest a physical exclusion (see however 10.8), but a legal-ritual ceremony; otherwise it is dif cultto explain why Ezra is also an object of thehldbh in 10.16. The only clear reference to

banishment is )ycwhlin 10.3, which resembles the usage of this term in texts such as Num.15.36; 19.3; Deut. 13.10 and 17.5. In Ezra 10.19, the ones who follow through with this commitment are priests; the women are sent away probably because the priests live in theTemple precincts. See n. 55. For a similar view, see the excellent discussion by Dor,t#rp My#nh, pp. 155ff. See also I. Frhlich, Mamzer in Qumran TextsThe Problem of MixedMarriages from Ezras Time. Law, Literature and Practice,Transeuph 29 (2005), pp.103-16.

60. Neh. 5.19; 6.13; 13.14, 22, 29 and 31. Nehemiahs good deeds and the evil deeds of his enemies are remembered (rkz) insofar as they arewritten down. This is clearly indi-cated by the reference to blotting out (hxm) in 13.14 (also in 3.37).

61. In response to EzraNehemiah, Daniel (9.2) studies in the books and learns thatthe rebuilding of Jerusalem will take much longer than expected from Jeremiahs prophecy,which introduces the book of EzraNehemiah. The sectarian circles behind Dan. 9 thus relativize Nehemiahs efforts to populate Jerusalem properly, and by referring to Jeremiahs

prophecy they challenge the entire history of the Restoration beginning in Ezra 1.


21/33


1

of the book he discovered resembles the use of heavenly books insofar as onlythose whose names are found in this book later inhabit the the Holy City(Neh. 11.1; cf. e.g. Dan. 12.1). 62 Yet once again this passage differs from the later apocalyptic conception, since the book Nehemiah nds includes thenames of all Judeans.

Where did Nehemiah nd this book which he calls Mylw(h #xyh rps hnw#)rb? According to Baruch Spinoza, whose ideas sparked the historical-critical interpretation of EzraNehemiah, this is the title Nehemiah gives tothe book of Ezra. Spinoza presumed that Ezra originally existed as an independent work and that the author of Nehemiah 7 quotes it.63 Although notattributing their view to Spinoza, several scholars have recently followed himin arguing that EzraNehemiah constitute two literary works,64 and their views have been an impetus for the formation of the present volume.65

As usually formulated, this thesis is problematic. The presentation of Ezrain Nehemiah 8 most likely presupposes the introduction of this gure in Ezra7. On the other hand, most EzraNehemiah scholars maintain that Nehemiah89 were not originally part of Nehemiah 113.66 If so, Spinozas view could

62. See Schaacks insightful comments on Ezra 2.62 inUngeduld , pp. 126-44.63. Baruch Spinoza,Tractatus theologico-politicus, II.10.46-47, 56-81 (Opera [ed. G.

Gawlick and F. Niewhner. Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 1979], I,1670), pp. 133-34. Concluding the point that the writer of Neh. 7 has merely copied a passage from the book of Ezra, Spinoza censures the attempts of exegetes to harmonize Scripture: Those, therefore, who explain these passages otherwise, deny the plain meaningof Scriptureno, they deny Scripture itself. They think it pious to reconcile one passage of Scripture with anothera pretty piety indeed which accommodates the clear passages tothe obscure, the correct to the faulty, the sound to the corrupt. Far be it from me to callsuch commentators blasphemers, if their motives be pure: for to err is human [nam errarehumanum quidem est ]. But let me return to my subject (pp. 79-81).

64. See D. Kraemer, On the Relationship of the Books of Ezra and Nehemiah, JSOT 59 (1993), pp. 73-92; B. Becking, Continuity and Community: The Belief System of theBook of Ezra, in B. Becking and M.C.A. Korpel (eds.),The Crisis of Israelite Religion.Transformation of Religious Tradition in Exilic and Post-Exilic Times(OTS, 42; Leiden:Brill, 1999), pp. 256-75; and J.C. VanderKam, Ezra-Nehemiah or Ezra and Nehemiah?,in his From Revelation to Canon: Studies in the Hebrew Bible and Second Temple Literature (Supplements to the JSJSup, 62; Leiden: Brill, 2000), pp. 60-80.

65. See the introduction to this Volume, as well as the contributions of M. Boda, H.Harrington, and K. Min.

66. I would agree. But instead of speculating that an editor reformulated Neh. 89 fromthe rst to third person and then transposed these chapters from an earlier context in Ezra910, I contend that they were composed ad hoc for their present context. My workingassumption has been that later generations of readers, rather than reformulating, deletingand transposing the material they were transmitting, respected it to such an extent thatthey limited themselves to expanding it with passages which were the product of their deep re ection on the material and which rendered it more relevant to new circumstances.That lines have been lost or reduced here or there is quite likely, yet once one allows for


22/33


1

still be espoused. There is, however, another problem: Ezra 9 appears to have been drafted with Nehemiah 113 in view. Yet also this problem dissipates if the original Ezra account included only chs. 78 and ch. 9 has been added asliterary bridge between Ezra 8 and Nehemiah 1.67 Insofar as Nehemiah 810and Ezra 910 have been inserted at a late stage in the books formation, it is possible that Spinoza was correct in claiming the book of Ezra (chs. 18)was originally transmitted independently of a book of Nehemiah.

While this is only possible, it is quite probable that Spinoza was correct incontending that the author of Nehemiah 7 found the quoted list in Ezra 2,rather than as an independent document in the Temple archives. Whencopying the ending of Ezra 2, the author has included the rst line of thenarrative in Ezra 3, while making the repetitive three lines in Ezra 2.70, 3.1into two lines in Neh. 7.73. In view of this and other evidence,68 I nd itdif cult to accept the claim that Ezra 2 and Nehemiah 7 wereeach drawnfrom an independent source. Moreover, the list of the returnees in Ezra 2 and Nehemiah 7, as well as the differences between Nehemiah 810 and Ezra 1 10, have been the main reasons for postulating two books. If Nehemiah 710represent late supplements which develop the storyline of EzraNehemiah,then one lacks the grounds for questioning the unity of Nehemiah.

Such considerations assist us in appreciating the dynamics of Nehemiah 7.This chapter contains a threefold sequence of seeking-and- nding. In ensuringthat all the Judeans are included in the lot-casting procedures (described in11.1-2), Nehemiah tells about his discovery of a book which he designates

large Umstellungenand reformulations, the Pandoras box is opened to hypotheses thatone can neither con rm nor negate.

67. See Wright, Rebuilding Identity, pp. 248-55. A further problem is posed by the prayer in Neh. 1.5-11a, which represents, I suggest, one of the latest additions to Ezra Nehemiah (see Wright, Rebuilding Identity, pp. 9-23). On the seams of the book, the prayer binds Neh. 113 securely to Ezra 110 by recalling the return of the dispersed.Conversely, it prepares the reader for a major shift in accent, namely from the Temple andaltar in Ezra 110 to the Torah and Wall in Neh. 113. (This shift is presaged, accordingto my analysis, by the ampli cation of the priestly holiness to the people as a whole inEzra 9.) Whether the prayer serves more to connect or to sever Ezra 110 and Neh. 113is a dif cult question, which presents itself for the literary seams of other books, such asGen. 50Exod. 1 or Josh. 24Judg. 13. (For the former, see J.C. Gertz, The Transition between the Books of Genesis and Exodus, in T. Dozeman and K. Schmid [eds.], A Farewell to the Yahwist [SBL Symposium Series; Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature,2006]); and for the latter, see E. Blum, Der kompositionelle Knoten am bergang vonJosua zu Richter: Ein Ent echtungsvorschlag, in M. Vervenne and J. Lust [eds.], Deuteronomy and Deuteronomic Literature(Festschrift C.H.W. Brekelmans; BETL, 132;Leuven: Peters, 1997], pp. 181-212). However, if the prayer has indeed been inserted atthe latest stage in the formation of the book, it would not pose a problem for those who postulate the existence of two separate works (Ezra and Nehemiah).

68. See Wright, Rebuilding Identity, pp. 301-307.


23/33


1

hnw#)rb Mylw(h #xyh rps . He then discovers a passage within this book (wb bwtk )cm)w, 7.5). Finally, the passage he quotes reports that several priestswho unsuccessfully searched but did not nd their genealogical record (hl) )cmn )lw My#xytmh Mbtk w#qb, 7.64). Herewith EzraNehemiah depicts thelayered nature of seeking-and- nding: The substratum is a text, referred toas My#xytmh Mbtk(Ezra 2.62; Neh. 7.64), which perhaps never existed andwas created by the authors of EzraNehemiah.69 Or perhaps it did exist, yetfailed to suit their needs. Whatever the case may be, this imagined textassumes (a new) form as the authors refer to it in their writing. And after entering the historical record in Ezra 2, it becomes a source for new searchesand discoveries. Thus, the authors of Nehemiah 7 depict the builder of Jeru-salem later nding this genealogical record and learning about the buildersorigins. The discovery likewise leads to writing insofar as Nehemiah cites thetextwith several minor, yet signi cant changes.70 By forming aninclusiowith Ezra 2, Nehemiah 7, the text nally constructs a new framework for EzraNehemiah in which future generations of readers can seek and nd.

Nehemiah 810

What these readers nd in their seeking they also write. Working within the

new framework created by Nehemiah 7, they embellish the analogy betweenthis text and Ezra 23 by portraying the cultic activities of the seventh monthin a much different manner than Ezra 3.2-6. This literary complex, whereinthe high priest, altar and sacri ces are conspicuously absent, ampli es itscontext by showing that those who cast lots in Nehemiah 11 to decide whowas to reside in Jerusalem both represented all Judah (Neh. 7) and had rstlearned to seek-and- nd in the Torah.

In the rst scene of Nehemiah 8, all the people (v. 1), whose names arelisted in Nehemiah 7,71 implore Ezra to bring the Torah. What follows is a

very precise description of when, where, and how Ezra complies with this public petition. He stands upon a wooden tower (v. 4). When he opens thescroll, all the people stand (v. 5). He then pronounces a blessing, and the con-gregation responds Amen, Amen with raised hands. They then prostratethemselves (v. 6). After the scroll is read and interpreted (vv. 7-8), Nehemiah,

69. See E.W. Conrad, Heard but Not Seen: The Representation of Books in the OldTestament, JSOT 54 (1992), pp. 45-59.

70. For example, the numbers have been changed so that Neh. 11 corresponds exactlyin a 1:10 ratio to Neh. 7. See n. 58.

71. The author is of course not saying that all the people mentioned in Neh. 7 were stillliving, but that the entire Restoration community, as in Ezra 3, was symbolically presenton this important occasion. See Eskenazi, In an Age of Prose, pp. 88-94.


24/33


1

Ezra and the Levites pronounce the day holy (vv. 9-11). The people nallydepart to celebrate because they had understood the things declared to them(v. 12).72

Whereas in Ezra 710 the Torah constitutes the legal basis for the commu-nity and is the object of meticulous study, in this account it has become muchmore. One could perhaps best describe its character as an iconic book.73

How are we to explain this development? Of course one must take intoaccount the long history of the written word replacing the void left by the banon images (e.g. in the form of twzwzmand Nylyptin Deut. 11.18ff. or thetyrbh-Nwr)as a military palladium comparable to the statues carried by theBabylonian army). Nevertheless, one must still explain why the Torah is not presented in this manner earlier in the book of EzraNehemiah.

A response to this problem should consider the tensions between parti-cularistic and universalistic tendencies in EzraNehemiah. In Rebuilding IdentityI suggest that the book constitutes a literary discourse correspondingto the political struggles to rede ne Judahs identity from the mid-Persian toHellenistic periods. This discourse takes its point of departure from, andresponds directly to, Nehemiahs account.74 After hearing about the distressof his people, Nehemiah undergoes a deep personal transformation, and herealizes that his position of advantage in the imperial court must be used to bring about change in Judah (ch. 1). Once Artaxerxes grants him a leave of absence, he comes to Jerusalem and convinces the Judeans to repair thedamaged city rampartsthe cause of Judahs disgrace and reproach (h(r andhprx , 2.17). Each phase in the construction of the Wall is simultaneously astage in the rebuilding of Judahs identity. For example, after accepting Nehemiahs initiative, the group of builders face ridicule from Sanballat,Tobiah and Geshem. Nehemiahs public response, de ning only the buildersas the servants of God, then forti es the internal solidarity (2.18-20), and

72. It is no coincidence that in portraying this pivotal point in the history of SecondTemple Judaism the composers of this scene have embellished it with a rich variety of details and technical vocabulary related to the study of the Torah. The best treatment of this language is found throughout Fishbanes Interpretation. For a recent study of thecomposition of the account, see G. Steins, Inszenierungen des Lesens und Lernens in Neh. 8,1-12, in B. Ego and H. Merkel (eds.),Religises Lernen in der biblischen, frhjdischen und frhchristlichen berlieferung (WUNT, 180; Tbingen: Mohr Siebeck,2005), pp. 83-97.

73. See K. van der Toorn, The Iconic Book: Analogies between the Babylonian Cult of Images and the Veneration of the Torah, in his edited volume,The Image and the Book (Leuven: Peters, 1997), pp. 229-48.

74. For a more accessible presentation of the analyses in the book, see J.L. Wright, A New Model for the Composition of EzraNehemiah, in O. Lipschits, R. Albertz andG. Knoppers (eds.),Judah and the Judeans in the 4th Century BCE (Winona Lake, IN:Eisenbrauns, 2007), pp. 333-48.


25/33


1

they can continue until the antagonists contrive a new scheme for the next building phase.75 In ch. 3 Judahs solidarity is expressed by the long list of clans and groups who sponsored the construction project.76 The Wall thusconsists of a circle of uni ed people demarcating Judah from its neighbors,who are equally uni ed in their animosity and arrogance (3.33ff.; 4.1ff.;6.16).

As later generations noticed that political reproach remained after the completion of the Wall, they updated Nehemiahs account with passages treatinginternal abuses. Now, in the midst of the construction activities, Nehemiah points his nger at the builders themselvesabove all at the aristocracy and priesthood, who are presented as contributing to Judahs and Jerusalems des- perate condition.77 In these passages he exposes the unholy alliances betweenthe enemy and the high-priesthood (6.17-19, 13.4-9, 28-29), fails otherwiseto give much attention to the rebuilt Temple, and identi es the constructionof the Wall with the restoration of Judah.

To set the record straight, pro-priestly circles composed Ezra 16, which presents the Temple, not the Wall, as the center of Judean society. In contrastto the autochthonous conception of the peoples origins in Nehemiahsaccount, these chapters espouse an allochthonous view.78 As the lwq the

75. See the discussion of the building accounts (m#-schema in Wright, Rebuilding Identity, pp. 28-29, 109-18, 130-33.

76. This list contains implicitly the names of those who, in contrast to the opponents of the building project, have a portion, right and memorial in Jerusalem (2.20).

77. See e.g. 5.8-9; 13.18. Before the insertion of the date in 13.6 (as well as the materialin 7.113.3), the paragraphs beginning in 13.4ff., which share the form and style of ch. 5,were probably originally connected to 6.17-19. According to this reconstruction, theydescribe additional reforms that Nehemiah instituted during the fty-two days of construc-tion referred to in 6.15-16 (cf. in those days in 13.15, 23 with 6.17). Beginning with ch.5, each paragraph ends with a prayer for remembrance (5.19; 6.14; 13.14, 22, 29, 31) andeach paragraph after the notice of completion in 6.15-16 begins with the expression inthose days (6.17; 13.15, 23).

78. The tension between autochthonous and allochthonous conceptions of Israelsorigins is found also in Genesis and 12 Samuel versus ExodusJoshua. According tothe latter, Israels collective identity is already formed before it crosses the Jordan. Thestories in Judges represent some of the best evidence of an autochthonous view, but theyhave been edited to construct a literary bridge between Joshua and Samuel. See R.G.Kratz, Die Komposition der erzhlenden Bcher des Alten Testaments(UTB, 2157;Gttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2000), pp. 286-88; and K. Schmid, Erzvter und Exodus: Untersuchungen zur doppelten Begrundung der Ursprunge Israels innerhalb der Geschichtsbcher des Alten Testaments (WMANT, 81; NeukirchenVluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1999), pp. 56-165. For a helpful discussion of the historical aspects, see P. Mach-inist, Outsiders or Insiders: The Biblical View of Emergent Israel and its Contexts, inL.J. Silberstein and R.L. Cohn (eds.),The Other in Jewish Thought and History: Con- structions of Jewish Culture and Identity(New Perspectives on Jewish Studies; New


26/33


1

viva vox moves throughout Cyruss kingdom, it resonates with the Rem-nant, consolidating them into a unity.79 Instead of the motley building crewthat gradually emerges as the Wall is built, the group of Temple builders consisting of the entire Remnanthad already been formed in the Golah. Theef cacy of Cyruss consolidating voice consists in its call to build the Tem- ple.80 When the sacred seventh month comes around (Ezra 3.1), all Israelassembles as one man (dx) #y)k), poised and ready to erect the altar inJerusalem so that they can perform the prescribed sacri ces. In Nehemiahsaccount, Judahconsistsof all those who are willing to build; in Ezra 16, the people, who are already uni ed before they commence the construction, spurn groups which wish to join them.81

Ezra 16 responds to Nehemiahs account in other ways. Whereas Arta-xerxesallowsthe Wall to be built out of sympathy for his cupbearer, Cyrusneeds no prodding (except from YHWH) when hecommandsthe Temple to be built. By means of the Artaxerxes correspondence (Ezra 4), the authors of Ezra 16 make it clear that the Temple takes precedence over the Wall, which represents an aspiration for Judahs political autonomy.82 In order to survivein a new age, Judah must instead rally around the Temple, since this institu-tion enjoyed the favor of the imperial court.83 Conversely, as Nehemiahs account matures into its present form, it comes to champion a strong and inde - pendent Judah. This work highlights the military strength of Judah (4.7-17;7.1-3; 11.1ff.), the fraternity of the Judeans (5.1-13), a stronghxp (5.14-19),the threat posed by political alliances with Judahs neighbors (6.1-4, 17-19;13.4-9, 28-29), strict observance of the Sabbath throughout the province

York: New York University Press, 1994), pp. 35-60; Machinist, Before Israel: The Canaan-ites as Other in Biblical Tradition, in Silberstein and Cohn, The Other in Jewish Thought , pp. 74-90; Machinist, Negotiating (with) the Natives: Ancestors and Identity in Genesis, HTR96 (2003), pp. 147-66.

79. See also Ezra 10.7 and 2 Chron. 30.5.80. See the wordplay between to go up and to sacri ce throughout Ezra 16 (and 7

8). The Remnant must rst maketwyl(before they can offer twl( .81. For example, Ezra 4.1ff. draws on the vocabulary and form of Neh. 2.19-20 in order

to present the adversaries desiring to build, yet being turned away. Neh. 2.19-20, con-versely, describes how a group of builders is formed as they separate themselves fromdissidents.

82. See not only the wording of the letters, but also Neh. 2.19 and 6.5-9. Ezra 4 intendsto disparage any move towards political autonomy by showing the permission to build theTemple and the good relations with the imperial court were jeopardized by the work onthe Wall.

83. This is also historically true since the Temple was the institution with money andserved as an intermediary to foreign rulers. For this very reason, its leadership was proneto corruption and was therefore subjected to criticism, as one can observe in Josephuss Antiquities.


27/33


28/33


1

to the imperial court, where Nehemiah hears about the troubles in the prov-ince and responds in the same way his predecessor did.90 He then comes toJerusalem in order to rebuild its Wall, the symbol of Judahs separation fromits neighbors. In the nal passage of his account, which describes the time before the completion of the Wall (in those days),91 he rips out the hair of the Judean men (13.25, see Ezra 9.3) and makes them swear to not give your daughters in marriage to their sons, or take any of their daughters for your sons or yourselves marriages with foreign women (see Ezra 9.12). Conse-quently, the Judeans can say of Ezra and Nehemiah what Aristeas said of Moses: He has fenced us about with impregnable palisades with walls of iron to the end that we should mingle in no way with the nations ( Letter of Aristeas139).92

From the composition history of EzraNehemiah, we can understand whythe Torah appears in the middle of Nehemiahs account. In the semiotics of the book, the Wall had already served as a symbol for proponents of particu-laristic and even isolationistic policies. During the construction activities,

Nehemiah had criticized the priesthood and aristocracy for a number of infrac-tions of the Torah (chs. 5 and 13). So too, Ezra had realized the limits of theliberal Temple-oriented policy. In Nehemiah 8 the two gures join forces inthe forti ed (7.1-3) Jerusalem to organize the ceremonies for the seventhmonth, which differ starkly from those some 90 years earlier (Ezra 3). Theentire restoration community was present also on the earlier occasion (Ezra 2,

Neh. 7), yet here the Torah and confession (Neh. 9) have replaced the Templeand sacri ces. And while the lay-leader and high priest form a diarchy in Ezra3, in Nehemiah 8 Eliashib is not present. His place beside Nehemiah (8.9) isoccupied by a scribe (= priest; see 8.1, 2, etc.).

In the days that follow, the Torah continues to occupy the center of the com-munitys attentionboth as an iconic book and a source for seeking-and- nding. Whereas on the rst day all the people gather at the plaza before

the Water Gate to hear the Torah read, on the second day, the lay-leaders, priests, and Levites gather to Ezra the scribe (rpsh )rz(-l) wps)n, v. 13),who representsconcretum pro abstractothe institution of Torah-learning.Their intention is to understand the Torah (trwth yrbd-l) lyk#hlw). On thisoccasion, as well as later (13.1-3),93 they nd written (bwtk w)cmyw) thingsthat support their Temple-critical, particularistic viewpoint. Curiously, some

90. They both hear, sit down, and pray.91. See n. 76.92. In Jer. 1.18 the prophet, as the messenger of the divine word, is a forti ed city and

bronze walls against Judah.93. Before the expansions in 9.110.40 and 12.1-26, the paragraph in 13.1-3 (as well as

13.4-31) would have stood much closer to ch. 8, separated only by ch. 11 and the accountof the dedication of the wall in 12.27ff.


29/33


1

of the things they nd are not in the Torahor at least notovertlythere.94 Therefore, the authors of these passages make them explicit by putting theminto writing, and in doing so, they follow the example of important gures inthe history of the restoration, such as Darius in Ezra 6.

As Ezra and Nehemiah join forces in these nal passages of the book, thevarious themes that have developed in the formation of this work converge.Thus it is M(h-lkwho assemble and petition Ezra to bring the Torah in 8.1.This emphasis on the entire community (see 7.6-72) takes its point of depar-ture from older portions of the book. Although several passages in Ezra Nehemiah underscore the participation of all the people, it is Nehemiahsaccount which has a distinctive communal, egalitarian accent. This work stresses the rst-person plural as the subject of the building activities andreports how the Judeans had acknowledged their fraternity before the Wallwas completed. The solidarity of the people goes hand-in-hand with a critiqueof the aristocracy and priests. So too, the holiness that was con ned to thealtar, priests and Temple in Ezra 16 is transferred to the leadership in Ezra8.28, to Israel as a whole in Ezra 9, and then to the entire city in Neh. 3.1-32;11.2; 12.27-47. 95 Finally, and most importantly for our investigation, the activ -ity of seeking-and- nding begins in Ezra 16 as the work of the Persian kings,who, in searching in their archives before making a policy-decision, demon-strate the point that the Judeans do not need a native king so long as theyhave their written traditions. As the book develops and the people mature intheir reading skills, Ezra transfers this royal activity from both its originalfunction to support the Temple (Ezra 16) and from his own scribal profes-sion (Ezra 7, Neh. 8) to the entire community.96 Whereas on the rst day of the seventh month the people are in their places ( Mdm(-l( M(hw) andlisten to the Torah read (Neh. 8.8), on the 24th day they arise in their places andread for themselves(w)rqyw Mdm(-l( wmwqw, 9.3).97 The Torah is thus now in

94. See Fishbanes discussion of Y. Kaufmann in Interpretation, pp. 109-13, and for 13.1-3, pp. 126-29. With respect to building aspects in 8.15-16 ( C(-yl(ww)ybhw rhh w)c t#(l ), see also the command to build theTemplein Hag. 1.8 (wnbw C( Mt)bhw rhh wl().Signi cantly, they nd nothing regarding sacri ces.

95. See Eskenazi, In an Age of Prose, pp. 112-21; S. Japhet, From the Kings Sanc-tuary to the Chosen City, in L.I. Levine (ed.), Jerusalem: Its Sanctity and Centrality to Judaism, Christianity, and Islam(New York: Continuum, 1999), pp. 3-15; Japhet, SomeBiblical Concepts of Sacred Place, in R.J. Zwi Werblowsky and B.Z. Kedar (eds.),Sacred Space: Shrine, City, Land (New York: New York University Press, 1998).

96. See Eskenazi, In an Age of Prose, pp. 98-100.97. I attempt to show that 13.1-3 is older than 9.1ff. in Rebuilding Identity, pp. 315-17.

In view of the presentation of texts in EzraNehemiah, I cannot follow W. Schniede-winds otherwise helpful work, How the Bible Became a Book, when it pits orality againsttextuality as if the former were inherently more egalitarian and less rigid than the latter (see, e.g., pp. 15-16). The relationship between the two is probably more complex, as


30/33


1

the hands of the people. At a time when the high-priesthood is corrupt, theystand in the midst of the forti ed Jerusalem surrounded by the sancti ed Wall(3.1ff.; see also 12.27ff.) and engage in the activity of seeking-and- ndingwith the help of ahxp devoted to the Torah and arpwsat his side.

Conclusions

With respect to the issue of the (dis-)unity of EzraNehemiah, which has been the impetus for the present volume, the book of EzraNehemiah contains many different opinions regarding the best way to rebuild Judahs identity. Nevertheless, it represents a unity, and this unity has emerged from a dialogi-cal process in which authors of the book sought to rede ne Judahs identity.

On a synchroniclevel, this dialogical process is personi ed by the voice of EzraNehemiahs anonymous narrator, which tells the reader how the restora-tion progressed from a focus on the Temple (Ezra 16; 78), to a crisis whichthreatened the survival of the Judeans (Ezra 910), to the construction of theWall around Judah by means of the Torah (Neh. 113).98 From adiachronic perspective, this voice provides the framework for the various authors of the book to construct Judahs identity by negotiating between various universal-istic and particularistic forces that governed the political development of

the province.99

These authors realize that the Temple, and the cosmopolitan-ism of the priests and aristocracy, had their limits,100 and in the nal form

J. Assmanns work demonstrates (see, e.g., Das kulturelle Gedchtnis: Schrift, Erinnerung und politische Identitt in frhen Hochkulturen[Munich: Beck, 3rd edn, 2000]); see alsothe recent book by D. Carr,Writing on the Tablets of the Heart (Oxford: Oxford Univer-sity Press, 2005). While literacy may have been con ned to the upper, educated classes,the written word nevertheless can function to decentralize society away from a singlecultic center, as the social history of middle Europe during the 15th and 16th centuries, aswell as EzraNehemiah, illustrate. On the other hand, textsby means of letterscanalso function to support centers of authority, as the history of the responses, as well asEzraNehemiah, illustrate. Orality and textuality seem therefore to lack essential fea-tures. See the introduction to Niko Besniers Literacy, Emotion, and Authority: Reading and Writing on a Paci c Atoll (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1995).

98. With regard to the development of Temple and Torah as duality in Jewish identity,S. Schwarz remarks, the centrality of Temple and Torah in ancient Jewish self-de nitionrequires argumentation because it is not a priori an eternal truth of Jewish identity, uncon-tingent on changing social and political conditions. Rather, it was the result of a long andobscure series of historical processes (S. Schwartz, Imperialism and Jewish Society: 200 BCE to 640CE [Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2001], pp. 50-51).

99. The dialogical nature of EzraNehemiah takes its point of departure from the dialec-tical character of the progress on the Wall. See Wright, Rebuilding Identity , pp. 28-30.

100. For the recent discussion in ethics and political philosophy on the limits of cosmopolitanism, see J. Cohen, For Love of Country: Martha C. Nussbaum with Respondents (Boston: Beacon, 1996); and K.A. Appiah,Kosmopolitische Patriotismus(Frankfurt:


31/33


1

of the book, they demarcate these limits with the help of the Wall andTorah.101

Although criticized, the Temple continues to play a role in the nal por-tions of EzraNehemiah. To be sure, the lengthy prayer in Nehemiah 9reviews Israels history at length without mentioning the Temple; in its placeit emphasizes the Land and adherence to the Torah as the precondition for possession of it. Responding to its clarion call for liberation from Israels bondage (vv. 36-37),102 the people pledge themselves to the Torah (10.1-30).Yet in spelling out what this pledge entails, they recognize not only that theymust maintain the boundaries separating them from the peoples of the land(vv. 31-32), but also that theTempleshould still occupy a central place intheir society (vv. 33-40). In the end Nehemiah proves that the communitysconcluding promise not to forsake the Temple of our God (tyb-t) bz(n )lw wnyhl), 10.40) is meaningless without a strong-handed leader who can enforce

Suhrkamp, 2002); and Appiah,Cosmopolitanism: Ethics in a World of Strangers(NewYork: W.W. Norton, 2006).

101. I should reiterate here the point made in nn. 85 and 88: Judean politics during thePersian and Hellenistic periods did not consist merely of two parties corresponding to thedichotomy TempleTorah. The variety of opinion was naturally much wider, and many priests would have also supported an independent Judah. Even in the later period, as Josephus and his sources demonstrate, the world of Judah was much different from the one portrayed in EzraNehemiah (in its nal form). The authors of the latter read their views back into Judahs history, presenting the Judeans as if they all longed to build the Temple(cf., however, Hag. 1) and read the Torah. Nevertheless, the book does accurately re ect ahistorical tension between particularistic and universalistic tendencies. (These terms areadmittedly inadequate.) The authors of Ezra 16 and 78 are critical of the politics identi- ed with the Wall, showing that it jeopardized the favor of the imperial court (Ezra 4). Inemphasizing the Temple, they provoke critiques in Ezra 910 and Neh. 113. The authorsof the latter expand their purview to the province as a whole. They conclude the book (Neh.13.4-30) that, given the high priesthoods and the aristocracys tendencies to be corrupt, alay leader committed to the Torah must have the oversight of the province. In the frame-work of the book, these authors draw upon characteristic features of Ezra 16 in order tomake their point clear (cf. e.g. Ezra 23 with Neh. 78). Their critique is accordingly notaimed so much at the history presented in Ezra 16, but at those who stood to pro t fromits pro-Temple stance. The tension between particularism and universalism can be tracedfar back into the history of Judahs foreign politics (e.g., to the struggle between propo-nents of collaboration and proponents of autonomy), and it intensi es in the late Hellenisticand Roman periods.

102. Cf. these statements with Ezra 9.9, which presents Judahs bondage in the contextof Persias favor . See H. van Grol, Indeed, Servants We Are: Ezra 9, Nehemiah 9 and 2Chronicles 12 Compared, in Bob Becking and M.C.A. Korpel (eds.),The Crisis of Israel-ite Religion: Transformation of Religious Tradition in Exilic and Post-Exilic Times(OTS,42; Leiden: Brill, 1999), pp. 209-27.


32/33


1

it. After returning from Babylon and personally entering the sacred Temple- precincts in order to banish Tobiah, he indicts (byr) the rulers by quoting thevery promise which concludes the community-pledge: Myhl)h-tb bz(n (wdm (13.11).103

In this chapter I have examined the struggle between Temple and Torah inEzraNehemiah by focusing on its motif of seeking-and- nding. After the h-rbd was identi ed with the written word, rather than solely an oraclespoken by a medium or prophet,#rd and#qb began to refer more to textualstudy than oracular divination. Presupposing these developments, the authorsof EzraNehemiah use the motif of seeking-and- nding to portray the centralrole played by texts and textual study in the history of the restoration. The book depicts a shift from the study of texts and Torah as a means of reestablishing the Temple cult to the study of Torah as an end in itself.

In EzraNehemiah seeking-and- nding is the activity of creative exegesisthat guides Judah into a new era. This creativity can be witnessed in the interpretations recorded in EzraNehemiah. But EzraNehemiah, I submit, ismore than just a record of interpretations. It is the product of a discourse inwhich generations of readers re ect on the works of their predecessors andadd their re ections to these works, thus composing a history of the restora-tion. The narrative of EzraNehemiah is an imaginative construct that doesnot correspond to the history of the restoration, yet by studying the process of the books formation, one can trace important political developments withinJudah.

The authors of EzraNehemiah are exegetes, and they imbue their activi-ties with greater authority by creating a historical memory according towhich the heroes of the restoration did long ago what they are doing now. Indeciding how to proceed with the restoration without their own king, andlater when the high-priesthood is corrupt, the Judeans follow the example of the Persian kings and submit themselves to the absolute authority of their

written traditions. They sea

Wright Offprint From Boda-Redditt

Documents

Transcript of Wright Offprint From Boda-Redditt