Ezra and the Second Wilderness (Oxford Theology and Religion Monographs) 9780198791423, 0198791429

Citation preview

OXFORD THEOLOGY AND RELIGION MONOGRAPHS Editorial Committee J. BARTON

M. N. A. BOCKMUEHL

M. J. EDWARDS

P. S. FIDDES

G. D. FLOOD

S. R. I. FOOT

D. N. J. MACCULLOCH

G. WARD

O X F O RD TH EO L O G Y A N D R EL I G I O N MO N O G R A P H S Bede’s Temple An Image and its Interpretation Conor O’Brien (2015) Defending the Trinity in the Reformed Palatinate The Elohistae Benjamin R. Merkle (2015) C. S. Peirce and the Nested Continua Model of Religious Interpretation Gary Slater (2015) The Vision of Didymus the Blind A Fourth-Century Virtue-Origenism Grant D. Bayliss (2015) Selfless Love and Human Flourishing in Paul Tillich and Iris Murdoch Julia T. Meszaros (2016) George Errington and Roman Catholic Identity in Nineteenth-Century England Serenhedd James (2016) Theology and the University in Nineteenth-Century Germany Zachary Purvis (2016) Angels in Early Medieval England Richard Sowerby (2016) Maria Maddalena de’ Pazzi The Making of a Counter-Reformation Saint Clare Copeland (2016) Freedom and Necessity in Modern Trinitarian Theology Brandon Gallaher (2016) Intercessory Prayer and the Monastic Ideal in the Time of the Carolingian Reforms Renie S. Choy (2016) Ottoman Puritanism and its Discontents Aḥ mad al-Rūmī al-Āqḥ iṣārī and the Qāḍīzādelis Mustapha Sheikh (2016)

Ezra and the Second Wilderness PHILIP Y. YOO

1

3

Great Clarendon Street, Oxford, OX2 6DP, United Kingdom Oxford University Press is a department of the University of Oxford. It furthers the University’s objective of excellence in research, scholarship, and education by publishing worldwide. Oxford is a registered trade mark of Oxford University Press in the UK and in certain other countries © Philip Y. Yoo 2017 The moral rights of the author have been asserted First Edition published in 2017 Impression: 1 All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, without the prior permission in writing of Oxford University Press, or as expressly permitted by law, by licence or under terms agreed with the appropriate reprographics rights organization. Enquiries concerning reproduction outside the scope of the above should be sent to the Rights Department, Oxford University Press, at the address above You must not circulate this work in any other form and you must impose this same condition on any acquirer Published in the United States of America by Oxford University Press 198 Madison Avenue, New York, NY 10016, United States of America British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data Data available Library of Congress Control Number: 2016942583 ISBN 978–0–19–879142–3 Printed in Great Britain by Clays Ltd, St Ives plc Links to third party websites are provided by Oxford in good faith and for information only. Oxford disclaims any responsibility for the materials contained in any third party website referenced in this work

For my parents

Acknowledgements This book is a revision of my doctoral thesis submitted to the Faculty of Theology and Religion, University of Oxford in Michaelmas 2014. First and foremost, there are not enough words for me to convey my indebtedness and gratefulness to Hugh Williamson. He guided me through every step in the process of writing this thesis and transforming it into a monograph. I simply could not have asked for a better Doktorvater. The good portions of what follows arose out of his sage advice from our regular formal and informal meetings; any shortcomings are due to my own stubbornness. He encouraged me in all of my academic pursuits and provided an exemplary model for me as a teacher, scholar, and gentleman. Many people have guided me in completing this book, and I express my genuine thanks and appreciation. My two examiners, John Barton and Joachim Schaper, gave their advice, provided valuable comments, and encouraged the publication of my thesis. John Day, Paul Joyce, and John Jarick examined earlier stages of this project and provided helpful critique. Kevin Cathcart freely gave his instruction in Semitic studies to others and me. Diarmaid McCollough, the editorial board, and the Delegates at Oxford University Press gave my thesis a home in the Oxford Theology and Religion Monographs series. I must also thank the anonymous reviewer appointed by Oxford University Press for their insightful comments and suggestions. Tom Perridge, Karen Raith, Céline Louasli, and Caroline Hawley at Oxford University Press, Kim Richardson, and Donald Watt provided advice in the final stages of this book. All remaining errors are, of course, my own. Finally, my sincere thanks to my students and colleagues at the Department of Historical Studies, University of Toronto Mississauga; the Department of Near and Middle Eastern Civilizations, University of Toronto, especially Robert Holmstedt; and the Thomas Jefferson Center for the Study of Core Texts and Ideas at the University of Texas at Austin, especially its co-directors Lorraine Pangle and Thomas Pangle, for providing me with a stimulating environment as I turned my thesis into a book. Financial support for my scholarly endeavours at Oxford was provided by the Faculty of Knox College, Toronto; the Cameron Bursary Committee of the Presbyterian Church in Canada; the Fellows of the Oxford Centre for Hebrew and Jewish Studies; the Provost and Fellows of Oriel College; and the Board of the Faculty of Theology and Religion. Their generosity is appreciated. The faculty and staff at Knox College, Toronto gave me a solid foundation in theological education that continues to serve me well. Further work in biblical studies was encouraged by my teachers at Yale, John Collins, Carolyn Sharp, Robert Wilson, and Joel Baden, who taught me everything I need to

viii

Acknowledgements

know about source criticism. It was also during this time I learned much from Baruch Schwartz. At Oxford, I had the benefit of many discussions that stemmed out of both the Old Testament and graduate seminars. Troy Cudworth, Ekaterina Kozlova, Sonja Noll, and Bradley Marsh Jr offered their thoughts over many spirited conversations. Rachel Breward and Megan Roper at Oriel College cheerfully attended to academic matters. Alexander Blake Ewing, Caroline Knight, Christine Kim Park, Richard Park, Moira Gillis Watson, Ben Watson, and William Wood filled my time and space outside of research, writing, and teaching in Oxford with many happy moments. Those closest to me deserve special thanks. From the day I first met them, Bill Goettler and Maria LaSala quickly became firm pillars of support. During the writing of this book, I had the joy of welcoming Roh Se Young and Lee Mal Deuk into my life. My siblings, Stephen Yoo and Milda Yoo, were always available for a meal after my long journeys. Our grandmother, Cho Ya Soon, had a hand in raising us and her absence is continuously felt. My parents, Yoo Young Sik and Kim Shin Ho, encouraged me throughout my pursuits. Most of all, I owe a special debt of gratitude to the woman who became my fiancée, spouse, and partner, Hannah Roh. She endured prolonged periods of separation and afforded me the time and space to work on this project from beginning to end. Her brilliance is radiant and every day she sparks me in my own thinking.

Contents Abbreviations

Introduction: The Ezra Memoir 1. Ezra and the Pentateuch

x 1 5

2. Reshaping Narrative and Law

32

3. From Babylon to Jerusalem

80

4. The Second Proclamation of God’s Law

120

5. A New Legal Crisis: Foreigners and Mixed Marriages

158

6. Ezra, the Returnees, and the Cult

202

Appendix: The Literary Development of EM

215

Bibliography

219

Index of Modern Authors Index of Ancient Sources General Index

249 254 270

Abbreviations *

section(s) of a verse or chapter(s)

Akk.

Akkadian

Aram.

Aramaic

CBH

Classical (Early) Biblical Hebrew

Chr

Chronicler

Dtr

Deuteronomistic

ET

English translation

Heb.

Hebrew

ni.

nip‘al

pi.

pi‘ēl

pu.

pu‘al

hi.

hip‘îl

ho.

hop‘al

hit.

hitpa‘ēl

pil.

pilpēl

LBH

Late Biblical Hebrew

NJPS

New Jewish Publication Society Version

NRSV

New Revised Standard Version

par.

parallel

Ezra-Nehemiah (in alphabetical order) E-N RE-N EM

Redactor of E-N Ezra Memoir

EM-NM R

Final form of Ezra-Nehemiah

EM-NM

NM

Combined Ezra Memoir and Nehemiah Memoir Redactor of EM-NM Nehemiah Memoir

Pentateuch (in alphabetical order) CC

Covenant Code

D

Deuteronomic

E

Elohist

J

Yahvist JDtr

Deuteronomistic supplement to J

Abbreviations J+

Final form of Yahvist (J + JDtr)

JE

Jehovist (J + E)

PC

Priestly Corpus (P + H)

H

Holiness Legislation

P

Priestly

Pg RPent

xi

Priestly Grundschrift Redactor of the Pentateuch

Primary Literature (alphabetized by source) ANET

Ancient Near Eastern Texts Relating to the Old Testament. Edited by James B. Pritchard. 3rd edn. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1969.

Ant.

Josephus. The Jewish Antiquities: Books 1–20. Translated by H. St. J. Thackeray et al. LCL. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1930–65.

AP

Aramaic Papyri of the Fifth Century BC. Edited and translated by Arthur E. Cowley. Oxford: Clarendon, 1932.

b.

Babylonian Talmud

CH

Code of Hammurabi

COS

The Context of Scripture. Edited by William W. Hallo. 3 vols. Leiden: Brill, 1997–2002.

KTU

Die keilalphabetischen Texte aus Ugarit. Einschliesslich der keilalphabetischen Texte ausserhalb Ugarit. 1. Transkription. AOAT 24. Edited by Manfred Dietrich, Oswald Loretz, and Joaquín Sanmartín. Kevelaer: Butzon und Bercker; Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1976.

LXX

Septuagint

m.

Mishnah

MT

Masoretic Text

OTP

Old Testament Pseudepigrapha. Edited by James H. Charlesworth. 2 vols. New York: Doubleday, 1983–5.

Q

Qumran

SamP

Samaritan Pentateuch

Syr.

Syriac

t.

Tosefta

TADAE

Textbook of Aramaic Documents from Ancient Egypt. Edited by Bezalel Porten and Ada Yardeni. 4 vols. Jerusalem: Hebrew University, 1986–99.

Vg.

Vulgate

y.

Jerusalem Talmud

xii

Abbreviations

Secondary Literature (alphabetized by abbreviation) AB

Anchor Bible

ABS

Archaeology and Biblical Studies

AchH

Achaemenid History

AIL

Ancient Israel and its Literature

ALEIW

Ancient Literature of Eretz Israel and its World

AnBib

Analecta Biblica

AOAT

Alter Orient und Altes Testament

ATANT

Abhandlungen zur Theologie des Alten und Neuen Testaments

ATD

Das Alte Testament Deutsch

AYBRL

Anchor Yale Bible Reference Library

BETL

Bibliotheca Ephemeridum Theologicarum Lovaniensium

BGBE

Beiträge zur Geschichte der biblischen Exegese

BHT

Beiträge zur historischen Theologie

Bib

Biblica

BibInt

Biblical Interpretation

BibInt

Biblical Interpretation Series

BJS

Brown Judaic Studies

BJSUCSD

Biblical and Judaic Studies from the University of California, San Diego

BN n.F.

Biblische Notizen (neue Folge)

BRS

Biblical Resource Series

BSSTB

Biblioteca di storia e storiografia dei tempi biblici

BWANT

Beiträge zur Wissenschaft vom Alten und Neuen Testament

BZ

Biblische Zeitschrift

BZABR

Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für altorientalische und biblische Rechtsgeschichte

BZAW

Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft

CahRB

Cahiers de la Revue biblique

CBET

Contributions to Biblical Exegesis and Theology

CTHP

Cambridge Texts in the History of Philosophy

DCLY

Deuterocanonical and Cognate Literature Yearbook

DIsr

Dine Israel

DJD

Discoveries in the Judaean Desert

ECC

Eerdmans Critical Commentary

EJL

Early Judaism and its Literature

EvT

Evangelische Theologie

FAT

Forschungen zum Alten Testament

Abbreviations

xiii

FAT.II

Forschungen zum Alten Testament 2. Reihe

FRLANT

Forschungen zur Religion und Literatur des Alten und Neuen Testaments

GKC

Gesenius, Wilhelm. Gesenius’ Hebrew Grammar. Edited by Emil F. Kautzsch. Translated by Arthur E. Cowley. 2nd rev. edn. Oxford: Clarendon, 1910.

GTA

Göttinger theologische Arbeiten

HACL

History, Archaeology, and Culture of the Levant

HAT

Handbuch zum Alten Testament

HBAI

Hebrew Bible and Ancient Israel

HBM

Hebrew Bible Monographs

HBS

Herders biblische Studien

HS

Hebrew Studies

HSM

Harvard Semitic Monographs

HTR

Harvard Theological Review

HUCA

Hebrew Union College Annual

ICC

International Critical Commentary

IEJ

Israel Exploration Journal

ISBL

Indiana Studies in Biblical Literature

IVBS

International Voices in Biblical Studies

JAJ

Journal of Ancient Judaism

JAOS

Journal of the American Oriental Society

JBL

Journal of Biblical Literature

JCP

Jewish and Christian Perspectives

JDT

Jahrbuch für deutsche Theologie

JHebS

Journal of Hebrew Scriptures

JJS

Journal of Jewish Studies

JJTP

Journal of Jewish Thought & Philosophy

JLA

Jewish Law Annual

JNES

Journal of Near Eastern Studies

JNSL

Journal of Northwest Semitic Languages

JPSTC

Jewish Publication Society Torah Commentary

JQR

Jewish Quarterly Review

JSJ

Journal for the Study of Judaism in the Persian, Hellenistic, and Roman Periods

JSJSup

Supplements to the Journal for the Study of Judaism

JSNTSup

Journal for the Study of the New Testament Supplement Series

JSOT

Journal for the Study of the Old Testament

xiv

Abbreviations

JSOTSup

Journal for the Study of Old Testament Supplement Series (currently LHBOTS)

JSPSup

Journal for the Study of the Pseudepigrapha Supplement Series

JSS

Journal of Semitic Studies

JTISup

Journal of Theological Interpretation, Supplements

JTS n.s.

Journal of Theological Studies (new series)

KAT

Kommentar zum Alten Testament

LCL

Loeb Classical Library

LD

Lectio Divina

LHBOTS

Library of Hebrew Bible/Old Testament Studies (formerly JSOTSupp)

LSTS

Library of Second Temple Studies

NCBC

The New Century Bible Commentary

NICOT

New International Commentary on the Old Testament

OBO

Orbis Biblicus et Orientalis

OTL

Old Testament Library

OTM

Oxford Theological Monographs

OTR

Old Testament Readings

OTS

Old Testament Studies

OtSt

Oudtestamentische Studiën

RB

Revue Biblique

RevQ

Revue de Qumran

RIDA

Revue internationale des droits de l’antiquité

RTP

Revue de théologie et de philosophie

SBLDS

Society of Biblical Literature Dissertation Series

SBLMS

Society of Biblical Literature Monograph Series

SBS

Stuttgarter Bibelstudien

SBTS

Sources for Biblical and Theological Study

ScrHier

Scripta Hierosolymitana

SCS

Septuagint and Cognate Studies

SDSSRL

Studies in the Dead Sea Scrolls and Related Literature

SemeiaSt

Semeia Studies

SJ

Studia Judaica

SJLA

Studies in Judaism in Late Antiquity

SNVAO.II n.s. Skrifter utgitt av det Norske videnskaps-akademi i Oslo. II. Hist.-filos. klasse (new series) SPOT

Studies on Personalities of the Old Testament

Abbreviations SSEJC

Studies in Scripture in Early Judaism and Christianity

SSN

Studia Semitica Neerlandica

STDJ

Studies on the Texts of the Desert of Judah

SymS

Symposium Series

TB

Theologische Bücherei: Neudrucke und Berichte aus dem 20. Jahrhundert

TBC

Torch Bible Commentaries

Transeu

Transeuphratène

TRu

Theologische Rundschau

TSJTSA

Texts and Studies of the Jewish Theological Seminary of America

UCPNES

University of California Press, Near Eastern Studies

UF

Ugarit-Forschungen

UNRTPFL

Université de Neuchâtel: Recueil de travaux publiés par la Faculté des lettres

UTB

Uni-Taschenbücher

VT

Vetus Testamentum

VTSup

Supplements to Vetus Testamentum

VWGT

Veröffentlichungen der Wissenschaftlichen Gesellschaft für Theologie

WBC

Word Biblical Commentary

xv

WMANT

Wissenschaftliche Monographien zum Alten und Neuen Testament

WUNT

Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament

ZABR

Zeitschrift für altorientalische und biblische Rechtsgeschichte

ZAW

Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft

Introduction The Ezra Memoir

For many premodern and modern critics, the emergence of Ezra marks a significant event in Second Temple Judaism. Ezra’s promulgation of ‘the Torah of Moses’ (‫ )תורת משה‬and his community’s observance of this law remain a popular historical reference point for the final stage(s) of the development of the Pentateuchal corpus. It is generally thought that his activities are preserved in an Ezra Memoir (hereafter, EM), which constitutes some or all of Ezra 7–10 and Nehemiah 8–10. According to Ezra 7–10, Ezra receives a commission from one King Artaxerxes to go to Jerusalem in order to teach the laws, statutes, and judgments to Israel. With this mandate in hand, Ezra and his caravan prepare for their departure from the Ahava in Babylon.1 Sometime after his arrival in Jerusalem, Ezra receives the troubling notice that some of the men in the Jerusalem community married foreign women. Ezra confesses on behalf of the Yehudites and the matter is apparently resolved with the dissolution of these marriages. In Nehemiah 8, Ezra resurfaces and, with Nehemiah present, proclaims ‘the Torah of Moses’ in front of a gathered assembly. After the promulgation of this Torah, the community observes the Feast of Tabernacles (Sukkot). What follows next in Neh. 9:1–5 is another assembly, one in which the returnees are encouraged to bless YHVH. Remarking on the detail of Ezra as the speaker in the early Greek translation of the Hebrew text (hereafter, LXX) Neh. 9:6, some critics include the prayer in vv. 6–37 and the events in 10:1–40 [ET 9:38–10:39] in Ezra’s mission. In both the Hebrew MT and the Greek LXX Neh. 12:26, 36, Ezra makes a final appearance when he is present alongside Nehemiah at the dedication of the Jerusalem city wall. The accounts of Ezra as preserved in the books of Ezra and Nehemiah present difficulties for today’s exegete. Some of the issues are historical. Under

1 The precise location of the Ahava is unknown. It is generally assumed to be an open space by an artificial waterway in close proximity to Babylon; see H. G. M. Williamson, Ezra, Nehemiah, WBC 16 (Waco, TX: Word Books, 1985), 116.

2

Ezra and the Second Wilderness

which Artaxerxes did Ezra receive his mandate? Could Nehemiah have been present when Ezra reads from ‘the Torah of Moses’? Can one speak confidently of the historical Ezra? These accounts also contain literary difficulties. For example, is the order of the Ezra accounts in Ezra-Nehemiah accurate? How much of Ezra 7–10 and Nehemiah 8–10 actually belongs to EM and how much of these chapters can be attributed to redactional activity? Modern critical scholarship on both the Pentateuch and Ezra-Nehemiah upheld the opinion that each corpus is the product of originally individual sources that were gradually combined together over a period of time. Recent scholarship on the Pentateuch and Ezra-Nehemiah has challenged this view through the insights of redaction criticism. This study on EM seeks to address two literary problems in biblical scholarship. The first—and primary focus of this study—is the composition of EM. The second concerns the shape of the Pentateuchal corpus at the time of EM. According to the thesis of this study, significant portions of Ezra 7–10 and Nehemiah 8–10 preserve the base layer EM; furthermore, EM reads, interprets, and fuses multiple literary sources in its presentation of Ezra and the returnees as a second wilderness generation. In Chapter 1, I discuss the state of scholarship on the historical Ezra, Persian imperial support for local laws, and the formation of the Pentateuch. Even if the historical Ezra is reduced to a literary fiction, the materials in Ezra 7–10 and Nehemiah 8–10 can be retained as (near-)contemporary witnesses to the social, political, and religious realities of Achaemenid Yehud. Against the view that Ezra-Nehemiah derives from Chronistic circles, EM is an ideologically charged witness from the Second Temple period that elevates the place and importance of Yehud within the wider world of the Persian Empire. The Artaxerxes Edict (Ezra 7:12–26) contains kernels of historical truth but is for the most part shaped by Yehudite interests and is integral to its surrounding narrative. Following critics who argue that there is little evidence for Persian state support for any of the contents of the Pentateuch or its publication, this study suggests that internal forces within post-exilic Yahvism drove the formation of the Pentateuch. Questions remain concerning the development of the Pentateuch, and one of the major debates within Pentateuchal criticism has recently emerged between post-documentarians and neo-documentarians. Acknowledging that any results are not assured, this study accepts that the modified four-source theory offers a viable explanation for the formation of the Pentateuch. The textual analysis begins in Chapter 2 with what is generally agreed upon: the use of the final or penultimate form of the Pentateuch in Nehemiah 9–10. There is, however, the question of how much of Nehemiah 9–10 belongs to EM. I set aside Neh. 9:1–5aα as original EM materials that were transposed to their current location, and I identify vv. 5aβ–37 and 10:1–40 as materials that postdate EM. Both of these post-EM materials interpret the Pentateuch in its final form. In its historical overview of Genesis-Deuteronomy, the prayer in

Introduction: The Ezra Memoir

3

Neh. 9:5aβ–37 presupposes Pentateuchal narratives that can exist only after the combination of its constituent parts and its latest layer, materials assigned to the redactor of the Pentateuch, RPent. The pledges in Neh. 10:31–40 arise out of the recognition that temporal and ideological gaps exist between contemporary praxis and the prescriptive Pentateuchal laws. Having demonstrated the use of narratives and laws that can only emerge out of the final form of the Pentateuch in the post-EM compositions in Neh. 9:5aα–37 and 10:1–40, the focus of this study shifts to EM. In Chapter 3, the textual analysis moves to the beginning of EM in Ezra 7–8. Interpreting and adapting the multiple Israelite wilderness accounts, EM begins to construct Ezra and the returnees as a group that supersedes Moses and the wilderness generation. In Ezra 7–8, Ezra and the returnees dutifully transport the material goods for their intended service in the House of God in Jerusalem and—unlike the first wilderness generation—everyone survives the journey to their destination. With the hand of God upon them, Ezra’s caravan takes only four months to cover the distance between the Ahava and Jerusalem and without any incidents that would substantially hinder their journey. Chapter 4 covers the events of the seventh month in Neh. 7:72b [ET 73b]– 8:18. In EM, these events were originally in between Ezra 8:36 and 9:1. After Ezra and the caravan arrive in Jerusalem, EM proclaims ‘the Torah of Moses’. This Torah is upheld as containing all of YHVH’s instructions and is a source of supreme authority. Based on the first accounts of YHVH giving the laws to the Israelites on the wilderness mountain, EM presents Ezra’s recital of a scroll as a second proclamation of this law. EM takes pieces of the different visual and auditory theophanies and law-giving episodes contained in Exod. 19:1– Num. 10:11 and, by adapting them to fit the realities of its contemporary time, presents the returnees as a group that immediately consents to uphold God’s law. Whatever Ezra recites is not new law—it is understood to be complete and enforceable since the antiquated past. The proper implementation of this law becomes problematic when the multiple legal codes, with their contradictory prescriptions, compete for supreme authority. For this reason, the impending arrival of Sukkot presents Ezra’s community with the immediate and, in turn, pressing hermeneutical challenge of interpreting multiple prescriptions for a single, yet important, occasion. Sukkot foreshadows another legal crisis among Ezra’s community. In Chapter 5, the episode of the mixed marriages in Ezra 9–10 with, as I will argue, the placement of Neh. 9:1–5aα in its original location between Ezra 10:15 and v. 16 is presented as—anachronistically speaking—a midrash of competing judicial systems. In response to the absence of a single account in the Pentateuch (or if the book of Joshua is included, the Hexateuch) that describes the judiciary in action, EM constructs an actual case through the mixed marriages episode and explores the proper administration of law within the confines of biblical jurisprudence. For EM, the mixed marriages represent

4

Ezra and the Second Wilderness

the extreme and dire possibility that the returnees, who are the true continuing Yahvistic community, will eventually identify themselves not as a ‘holy seed’ or ‘Israel’ but through the lineage of the foreign wives as ‘foreigner’. EM foresees the possibility that an increasingly foreign population in Yehud will forego the obligations for the re-established Yahvistic cult and that the foreign gods (from their respective nations, all of which are more powerful than Yehud) will once again be worshipped in Jerusalem. The legal citations and deliberations from multiple parties in Ezra 9–10 describe the adjudication of competing law codes in order to arrive at a legally acceptable solution, one that is primarily concerned with preventing sancta desecration. Acting as a supreme justice of the court, Ezra ultimately renders the decision that the returnees must separate from all foreigners and those who married foreign wives must expel them along with their offspring from the community. After the execution of Ezra’s decision, EM completes its one-year report of Ezra’s mission. Chapter 6 contains my conclusions on the literary development of Ezra 7–10 and Nehemiah 8–10. The base layer EM reflects a view within Second Temple Yahvism that places authority in the pre-exilic past but acknowledges the hermeneutical challenges of deferring to the past and its use in constructing the present. This study argues that EM is a ‘super-narrative’ of the activities of Ezra and the returnees over a single calendar year that does not presuppose the final form of the Pentateuch but through its use of the originally separate Pentateuchal source documents—in alphabetical order, D, E, J(+), and P(C)—anticipates their eventual collation. In selectively reshaping the different accounts of the Israelite wilderness, EM compares Ezra and the returnees with Moses and the wilderness generation and elevates the returnees from Babylonia as the worthy inheritors of the Yahvistic cult.

1 Ezra and the Pentateuch Critics have long recognized that Ezra and the Pentateuch are intricately linked to each other. In the books of Ezra and Nehemiah, Ezra has a royal mandate to bring ‘the laws of your God’ to Jerusalem (Ezra 7:25) and he proclaims ‘the Torah of God’ in front of a large public gathering (Neh. 8:3). For his role in the publication of the Pentateuch, Ezra enjoys somewhat of a vivid afterlife beyond the biblical witness. Had Moses not preceded him, the Ezra of rabbinic tradition is deemed worthy of receiving the Torah directly from God (b. Sanh. 21b; t. Sanh. 4:7; y. Meg. 1:9, 71b–c). Although some critics have advocated for the chronological priority of LXX 1 Esdras (= Esdras α/Vg. 3 Esdras) over MT Ezra-Nehemiah,1 the account of Ezra in 1 Esd 8:1–9:55 is probably a Greek translation that follows the order in MT (Ezra 7:1–10:44; Neh. 7:72 [ET 73]–8:18).2 In 4 Ezra (= Vg. 2 Esdras), a prequel of sorts to the biblical account dated to the first or second century CE,3 Ezra is in Babylon 1 Sigmund Mowinckel, Studien zu dem Buche Ezra-Nehemia, 3 vols, SNVAO.II n.s. 3, 5, 7 (Oslo: Universitetsforlaget, 1964–5), 1:24–45; Karl-Friedrich Pohlmann, Studien zum dritten Esra: Ein Beitrag zur Frage nach dem ursprünglichen Schluß des chronistischen Geschichtswerkes, FRLANT 104 (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1970); Dieter Böhler, Die heilige Stadt in Esdras α und Esra-Nehemia: Zwei Konzeptionen der Wiederherstellung Israels, OBO 158 (Freiburg: Universitätsverlag; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1997); Böhler, ‘On the Relationship between Textual and Literary Criticism: The Two Recensions of the Book of Ezra; Ezra-Neh. (MT) and 1 Esdras (LXX)’, in The Earliest Text of the Hebrew Bible: The Relationship between the Masoretic Text and the Hebrew Base of the Septuagint Reconsidered, ed. Adrian Schenker, SCS 52 (Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2003), 35–50; Lester L. Grabbe, Ezra-Nehemiah, OTR (London: Routledge, 1998), 109–15; Grabbe, A History of Jews and Judaism in the Second Temple Period, 2 vols, LSTS 47, 68 (London: T&T Clark, 2004–11), 1:83–5; David M. Carr, The Formation of the Hebrew Bible: A New Reconstruction (New York: Oxford University Press, 2011), 78–82, 168–9. 2 See the majority opinion upholding 1 Esdras as an adapted Greek translation of 2 Chronicles 35–6 and parts of Ezra-Nehemiah in Was 1 Esdras First? An Investigation into the Priority and Nature of 1 Esdras, ed. Lisbeth S. Fried, AIL 7 (Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2011). See also Zipora Talshir, I Esdras: From Origin to Translation, SCS 47 (Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 1999), 3–106; Talshir, ‘Ezra-Nehemiah and First Esdras’, Bib 81 (2000): 566–73. At the earliest, LXX can be dated to the third century. Acknowledging that MT and LXX achieved their final forms after the biblical period, here (and afterwards) it would be appropriate to affix ‘proto-’ to MT. The analysis in this study, unless noted otherwise, will be based on MT. 3 In what follows, unless noted otherwise, dates are BCE.

6

Ezra and the Second Wilderness

when he converses with God through ethereal visions and is inspired to produce twenty-four books and—for good measure—another seventy books for the wise (14:37–48). For the most part, critics continue to uphold the importance of Ezra’s contributions during the formative years of early Judaism. In his Tractatus Theologico-Politicus, the Jewish–Dutch philosopher Baruch de Spinoza places Ezra as the second coming of Moses and sees him— and not Moses—as the author of the Pentateuch.4 Klaus Koch, in a famous essay, argues that Ezra personally understood the march from Babylon to Jerusalem as a ritualized second Exodus and fulfilment of prophetic promises.5 In some of the classical witnesses and modern studies, Ezra is elevated to the key figure for the foundation of Judaism. However, not every scholar held this positive evaluation of Ezra. Detractors pointed to the incomplete literary and archaeological evidence and expressed scepticism on Ezra’s importance in the reconstruction period. This scepticism has intensified in the last couple of decades with a proliferation of studies that question the existence of a historical Ezra and argue for the artificiality of the Ezra Memoir or source. Recent developments in the field of Pentateuchal studies, with an ascendant view that the Pentateuch is barely recognizable in fifth- or fourth-century Yehud, lend additional doubt to the classical view that Ezra has the final (or penultimate) form of the Pentateuch in his hand. Before an examination of Ezra 7–10 and Nehemiah 8–10, some remarks are required on the viability of the historical Ezra and the memoir attributed to him in addition to the process in which the Pentateuch achieves its final form.

EZ RA AND THE EZRA MEMOIR Traditionally, Ezra not only has a hand in publishing the Pentateuch but is also the author of Chronicles and Ezra-Nehemiah (b. B. Bat. 15a). Leopold Zunz challenged Ezran authorship of Ezra-Nehemiah and argued that another author, Chr, composed both Ezra-Nehemiah and Chronicles.6 The common authorship of Ezra-Nehemiah and Chronicles remained the dominant view among premodern and modern critics until Sara Japhet demonstrated that linguistic features in Chronicles and Ezra-Nehemiah are also attested in other

4 Originally published in 1670. For an accessible translation, see Baruch de Spinoza, TheologicoPolitical Treatise, trans. Michael Silverthorne and Jonathan Israel, CTHP (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2007), 127–32. 5 Klaus Koch, ‘Ezra and the Origins of Judaism’, JSS 19 (1974): 173–97. 6 Leopold Zunz, Die Gottesdienstlichen Vorträge der Juden, historisch entwickelt: Ein Beitrag zur Altertumskunde und biblischen Kritik, zur Literatur- und Religionsgeschichte (Berlin: A. Asher, 1832), 22.

Ezra and the Pentateuch

7

post-exilic biblical compositions.7 Also opposing the common authorship of Chronicles and Ezra-Nehemiah, H. G. M. Williamson finds only six examples of linguistic forms (which are themselves inconclusive) that are possibly exclusive to these books.8 This study accepts the view that Ezra-Nehemiah and Chronicles are separate witnesses of the Second Temple period.9 Ezra-Nehemiah can be broadly delineated into three major units: a late account of the reconstruction of the Jerusalem temple under Jeshua and Zerubbabel (Ezra 1–6);10 NM (Nehemiah 1–7; 11–13); and EM (Ezra 7–10 and Nehemiah 8–10).11 The commentaries by Loring Batten,12 Wilhelm Rudolph,13 Jacob Myers,14 David Clines,15 Williamson,16 and Joseph Blenkinsopp17 generally reflect the consensus held throughout much of the twentieth 7 Sara Japhet, ‘The Supposed Common Authorship of Chronicles and Ezra-Nehemiah Investigated Anew’, VT 18 (1968): 330–71; Japhet, ‘The Relationship between Chronicles and Ezra-Nehemiah’, in Congress Volume: Leuven, 1989, ed. J. A. Emerton, VTSup 43 (Leiden: Brill, 1991), 293–313. 8 H. G. M. Williamson, Israel in the Books of Chronicles (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1977), 37–59; Williamson, Ezra, Nehemiah, xxxiii–xxxv. See also Mark Throntveit, ‘Linguistic Analysis and the Question of Authorship in Chronicles, Ezra and Nehemiah’, VT 32 (1982): 201–16; Tamara Cohn Eskenazi, In an Age of Prose: A Literary Approach to EzraNehemiah, SBLMS 36 (Atlanta: Scholars, 1988), 14–36. 9 There remains support for Chr authorship of Ezra-Nehemiah; see Peter R. Ackroyd, I & II Chronicles, Ezra, Nehemiah: Introduction and Commentary, TBC (London: SCM, 1973), 22–4; Robert Polzin, Late Biblical Hebrew: Toward an Historical Typology of Biblical Hebrew Prose, HSM 12 (Missoula, MT: Scholars, 1976), 70–2; David J. A. Clines, Ezra, Nehemiah, Esther: Based on the Revised Standard Version, NCBC (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans; London: Marshall, Morgan & Scott, 1984), 9–12; Menahem Haran, ‘Book-Size and the Device of Catch-Lines in the Biblical Canon’, JJS 36 (1985): 1–11; Antonius H. J. Gunneweg, ‘Zur Interpretation der Bücher EsraNehemia: Zugleich ein Beitrag zur Methode der Exegese’, in Congress Volume: Vienna, 1980, ed. J. A. Emerton, VTSup 32 (Leiden: Brill, 1981), 146–61; Gunneweg, Esra, KAT 19.1 (Gütersloh: Gütersloher Verlagshaus Mohn, 1985), 24–6; David Talshir, ‘A Reinvestigation of the Linguistic Relationship between Chronicles and Ezra-Nehemiah’, VT 38 (1988): 165–93; Joseph Blenkinsopp, Ezra-Nehemiah: A Commentary, OTL (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1988), 47–54; Karl-Friedrich Pohlmann, ‘Zur Frage von Korrespondenzen und Divergenzen zwischen den Chronikbüchern und dem Esra/Nehemia-Buch’, in Emerton, Congress Volume: Leuven, 1989, 314–30. 10 This study accepts the argument that Ezra 1–6 was composed after EM and NM and is a retrojection into an earlier period; see H. G. M. Williamson, ‘The Composition of Ezra i–vi’, JTS n.s. 34 (1983): 1–30; pace Blenkinsopp, Ezra-Nehemiah, 43–4. In support of the late provenance of Ezra 1:1–4:5, see Peter R. Bedford, Temple Restoration in Early Achaemenid Judah, JSJSup 65 (Leiden: Brill, 2001), 85–181. 11 An alternative for Ezra 7–Nehemiah 13 is proposed in Dwight R. Daniels, ‘The Composition of the Ezra-Nehemiah Narrative’, in Ernten, was man sät: Festschrift für Klaus Koch zu seinem 65. Geburtstag, ed. Dwight R. Daniels et al. (Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1991), 311–28. Daniels supports an Ezra source in Ezra 7–10 and a Nehemiah source in Nehemiah 1–7; 12:31–43 but asserts that Neh. 8:1–12:30 is a source in which both Ezra and Nehemiah appear. In this study, I contend that Neh. 8:1–10:40 are from multiple sources. 12 Loring W. Batten, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on Ezra-Nehemiah, ICC (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1913). 13 Wilhelm Rudolph, Esra und Nehemia samt 3. Esdra, HAT 20 (Tübingen: Mohr, 1949). 14 Jacob Myers, Ezra. Nehemiah, AB 14 (Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1965). 15 16 Clines, Ezra, Nehemiah, Esther. Williamson, Ezra, Nehemiah. 17 Blenkinsopp, Ezra-Nehemiah.

8

Ezra and the Second Wilderness

century that the constituent parts of Ezra-Nehemiah preserved authentic correspondence and memoirs that accrued independently of each other and, through some degree of editorial reworking, were fused together into the final form of Ezra-Nehemiah. The accounts of Ezra and the returnees in Ezra 7–10 and Nehemiah 8–10 were widely considered to preserve an original Ezra memoir or source. Hans Heinrich Schaeder maintained that this memoir contained reports of Ezra’s activities over a period of one year.18 The majority of critics do not accept Schaeder’s chronology, but—following Schaeder and Williamson19—I will argue that all of the events in EM indeed transpire over a single year. Some critics turn to the transitions from first-person reports to third-person accounts in order to delineate EM’s source materials. In a manner similar to the second-person singular and plural addresses in Deuteronomy,20 its regular occurrence in EM may lie in the literary variations of a single author. Drawing upon parallels from Aḥiqar and Tobit, Sigmund Mowinckel argues that the transitions from first-person narrative to third-person are a stylistic feature of a composer working after Ezra’s activities.21 Although stylistic changes such as a shift in person should not be completely ignored, this line of investigation has yet to produce a secure identification of multiple source materials or the separation of original materials from editorial insertions in the Ezra accounts. Still, most critics agree that the Ezra accounts are not a uniform composition. Opposing the dominant scholarly interest, Brevard Childs cautions against the eager search for sources at the expense of the canonical shape of EzraNehemiah.22 Breaking away from canonical commitments—yet spurred by the literary-critical sensibilities advocated by Meir Sternberg23—Tamara Eskenazi presents a considerable defence for synchronic readings of EzraNehemiah.24 However, it remains difficult to place the book of Ezra (or the

18

Hans Heinrich Schaeder, Esra der Schreiber, BHT 5 (Tübingen: Mohr, 1930), 34–8. Williamson, Ezra, Nehemiah, 310; and the proposed transposition in Frieder Ahlemann, ‘Zur Esra-Quelle’, ZAW 18 (1942–3): 89. 20 Moshe Weinfeld, Deuteronomy 1–11: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary, AB 5 (New York: Doubleday, 1991), 13–15. 21 Sigmund Mowinckel, ‘ “Ich” und “Er” in der Ezrageschichte’, in Verbannung und Heimkehr: Beiträge zur Geschichte und Theologie Israels im 5. und 6. Jahrhundert v. Chr.: Wilhelm Rudolph zum 70. Geburtstage, ed. Arnulf Kuschke (Tübingen: Mohr, 1961), 211–33; Mowinckel, Studien, 3:75–94; similarly, with Chr as the author, C. C. Torrey, Ezra Studies (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1910), 244–6. See the critique and argument for the third-person accounts as adaptations of an original first-person memoir in Williamson, Ezra, Nehemiah, 146–7. 22 Brevard Childs, Introduction to the Old Testament as Scripture (Philadelphia: Fortress; London: SCM, 1979), 624–38. 23 Meir Sternberg, The Poetics of Biblical Narrative: Ideological Literature and the Drama of Reading, ISBL (Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press, 1985). 24 Eskenazi, Age of Prose, 11–14, 37–126; and focusing on the lists of people in Eskenazi, ‘The Structure of Ezra-Nehemiah and the Integrity of the Book’, JBL 107 (1988): 641–56. 19

Ezra and the Pentateuch

9

book of Nehemiah) as part of an ‘Ezra-Nehemiah’ composition.25 The dominant position upholds Ezra-Nehemiah as a composite work that consists of lists, official documents, memoirs, and supplementary materials. Another serious challenge lies in Ezra himself. According to Ezra 7:6, Ezra and his caravan arrive in Jerusalem in the seventh year of one Artaxerxes. If this Artaxerxes can be identified as Artaxerxes I Longimanus (r. 465–424), then the year of Ezra’s arrival in Jerusalem is 458. Sometime afterwards, Nehemiah arrives in Jerusalem in 445, which is the twentieth year of the reign of the same monarch (Neh. 2:1, 11). Support for Ezra’s activities in 458 could be construed from the so-called Passover Papyrus from Elephantine in Egypt (TADAE A4.1) dated to 419. The Passover Papyrus, however, contains regulations that do not wholly align with the Pentateuch, makes no direct reference to Ezra, and is in an advanced fragmentary state. Otherwise, there is little—if any—inscriptional or extra-biblical evidence to support the existence of a historical Ezra. In contrast, on the basis of the references to the Samarian governor Sanballat in a letter from Elephantine dated to 407 (TADAE A4.7:18; A4.8:16; cf. Neh. 2:10, 19), Nehemiah’s arrival in Jerusalem can be securely dated to 445. Ben Sira includes Nehemiah among his ‘men of renown’ (49:13) but not Ezra. Second Maccabees also makes no mention of Ezra but embellishes Nehemiah’s accomplishments by attributing events to him (such as the building of the temple and altar in 1:18–36; 2:13–15) that are absent in EzraNehemiah. If Ezra is indeed an influential figure, then it is somewhat curious that not one of Ben Sira, the composer of 2 Maccabees, or the New Testament evangelists makes even a passing remark on Ezra.26 By the dawn of modern biblical criticism, a few critics questioned the veracity of the biblical chronology—that is, Ezra before Nehemiah. Albin van Hoonacker stands out as the first critic to provide persuasive arguments for the reversal of the biblical order by placing Nehemiah’s mission first and then Ezra’s real mission beginning in 398, the seventh year of another Artaxerxes, Artaxerxes II Mnemon (r. 404–359).27 Van Hoonacker’s suggestion that Ezra was present during Nehemiah’s second mandate (c.428–426) found few supporters; yet the dating of Ezra’s arrival in Jerusalem to 398 gained

25 James C. VanderKam, ‘Ezra-Nehemiah or Ezra and Nehemiah?’, in Priests, Prophets and Scribes: Essays on the Formation and Heritage of Second Temple Judaism in Honour of Joseph Blenkinsopp, ed. Eugene Ulrich et al., JSOTSup 149 (Sheffield: JSOT, 1992), 55–75; David Kraemer, ‘On the Relationship of the Books of Ezra and Nehemiah’, JSOT 59 (1993): 73–92. 26 The importance of Nehemiah to Ben Sira and Second Maccabees can be explained by each author’s interest in the temple state through Nehemiah’s rebuilding projects; see Anne Fitzpatrick-McKinley, ‘What Did Nehemiah Do for Judaism?’, in A Wandering Galilean: Essays in Honour of Seán Freyne, ed. Zuleika Rodgers et al., JSJSup 132 (Leiden: Brill, 2009), 93–119. 27 Albin van Hoonacker, ‘Néhémie et Esdras: nouvelle hypothèse sur la chronologie de l’époque de la restauration’, Muséon 9 (1890): 151–84, 317–51, 389–401; van Hoonacker, ‘La Succession chronologique Néhémie-Esdras’, RB 32 (1923): 481–94.

10

Ezra and the Second Wilderness

acceptance.28 The matter remains undecided, however, as there has been a steady revival of support for Ezra’s arrival in 458.29 In addition to the biblical chronology, some critics expressed doubts on the historicity of Ezra and his mission. Among these critics, C. C. Torrey stands out as the most influential. Outside of Nehemiah, Torrey saw little historical value in Ezra-Nehemiah and put forward Ezra as a fabrication of the Chronicler.30 The role that Torrey assigned to the Chronicler in shaping the accounts of Ezra finds support in the studies by Mowinckel and Arvid Kapelrud.31 Critics who enthusiastically adopted Torrey’s overall sceptical evaluation of Ezra were the exception rather than the norm,32 as these views lost out to William Foxwell Albright and his students’ more positive assessment of Ezra’s historicity.33 Recently, Torrey’s insights have enjoyed a renaissance, with Giovanni Garbini among the first critics to offer a positive reappraisal.34 Much of this revival can be attributed to Martin Noth’s highly influential Überlieferungsgeschichtliche

See, for example, H. H. Rowley, ‘The Chronological Order of Ezra and Nehemiah’, in The Servant of the Lord, 2nd edn (Oxford: Blackwell, 1965), 137–68; Henri Cazelles, ‘La Mission d’Esdras’, VT 4 (1954), 113–40; Ackroyd, I & II Chronicles, Ezra, Nehemiah, 24–6; W. Stewart McCollough, The History and Literature of the Palestinian Jews from Cyrus to Herod: 550 BC to 4 BC (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1975), 43–4; Paolo Sacchi, The History of the Second Temple Period, trans. Thomas Kirk, JSOTSup 285 (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 2000); trans. of Storia del Secondo Tempio: Israele tra VI secolo a.C. e I secolo d.C. (Turin: Società Editrice Internazionale, 1994), 136, 169; Joachim Schaper, Priester und Leviten im achämenidischen Juda: Studien zur Kult- und Sozialgeschichte Israels in persischer Zeit, FAT 31 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2000), 246; Carr, Formation, 208; Lisbeth S. Fried, Ezra and the Law in History and Tradition, SPOT (Columbia, SC: University of South Carolina Press, 2014), 21–2. 29 See, for example, Schaeder, Esra der Schreiber, 5–38; Frank Moore Cross, ‘A Reconstruction of the Judean Restoration’, JBL 94 (1973): 4–11; rev. in From Epic to Canon: History and Literature in Ancient Israel (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1988), 151–64; Williamson, Ezra, Nehemiah, xxxix–xlii; Blenkinsopp, Ezra-Nehemiah, 135; Deborah W. Rooke, Zadok’s Heirs: The Role and Development of the High Priesthood in Ancient Israel, OTM (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000), 155; James C. VanderKam, From Joshua to Caiaphas: High Priests After the Exile (Minneapolis: Fortress; Assen: Van Gorcum, 2004), 100–1. Ulrich Kellermann maintains the order of Ezra before Nehemiah but argues for Ezra’s arrival in 448, see ‘Erwägungen zum Problem der Esradatierung’, ZAW 80 (1968): 55–87. No longer maintained is the year 428, as proposed in William Foxwell Albright, The Biblical Period from Abraham to Ezra (New York: Harper & Row, 1963), 93 (and n. 193); John Bright, A History of Ancient Israel, 3rd edn (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1981), 400–1, and convincingly refuted in John A. Emerton, ‘Did Ezra Go to Jerusalem in 428 B.C.?’ JTS n.s. 17 (1966): 1–19. 30 C. C. Torrey, The Composition and Historical Value of Ezra-Nehemiah, BZAW 2 (Giessen: J. Ricker, 1896); Torrey, Ezra Studies; Torrey, The Chronicler’s History of Israel: ChroniclesEzra-Nehemiah Restored to its Original Form (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1954). 31 Mowinckel, Studien, 3:11–17; Arvid Kapelrud, The Question of Authorship in the Ezra Narrative: A Lexical Investigation (Oslo: Jacob Dybwad, 1944). 32 Notably, Gustav Hölscher, ‘Die Bücher Esra und Nehemia’, in Die Heilige Schrift des Alten Testaments, ed. Alfred Bertholet, 4th edn (Tübingen: Mohr, 1922–3), 2:491–5. 33 Albright, Abraham to Ezra, 90–5. 34 Giovanni Garbini, History and Ideology in Ancient Israel, trans. John Bowden (London: SCM, 1988); trans. of Storia e ideologia nell’Israele antico, BSSTB 3 (Brescia: Paideia, 1986), 151–69. 28

Ezra and the Pentateuch

11

Studien. Noth argues that the Chronicler fashions Ezra after Nehemiah (from NM) and composes the Ezra accounts in their place.35 Most of the scholarly attention on Noth’s Überlieferungsgeschichtliche Studien initially focused on the notion of a Deuteronomistic historian, but Noth’s literary analysis of the Ezra accounts is the precursor to the growing number of studies that present Ezra as a literary invention with Nehemiah as the prototype. In some ways, Ezra could be conceived of as a second Nehemiah. Upholding the Edict in Ezra 7:12–26 (and possibly also 8:26–7) as the only authentic vorchronistisch material, Ulrich Kellermann argues that Ezra 7–10 (and Nehemiah 8–10) is a midrash composed by the Chronicler from a Persian document.36 Wilhelm In der Smitten includes Ezra 8:1–14 with the Edict as the vorchronistisch sources for the Chronicler’s midrashic account of Ezra.37 In a return to Noth, Antonius Gunneweg questions the historical veracity of Ezra 7–10, casts doubt on an actual memoir that can be attributed to Ezra, and confirms NM as the Chronicler’s source material for the Ezra accounts.38 Spurred by Gunneweg’s arguments, Lester Grabbe raises problems with the authenticity of the sources in EM and all of Ezra-Nehemiah.39 Following Ben Sira’s omission of Ezra, Jürgen-Christian Lebram pushes Ezra into the early second century and casts him as a protest figure operating in the background of the Hasmonean temple theocracy and within the struggle for the Law of Moses to be recognized as the constitution of Jerusalem.40 Reinhard Kratz views Ezra 7:21–2 as the only authentic kernel of a fictional travel report in 7:1–6, 11a, 12–13, 21–2, 27–8; 8:15a, 21–36 composed into its place with what remains in Ezra 7–8 along with all of Ezra 9–10 (which postdates Neh. 13:23–31) as supplements.41 35 Martin Noth, Überlieferungsgeschichtliche Studien: Die sammelnden und bearbeitenden Geschichtswerke im Alten Testament, 2nd edn (Tübingen: Max Niemeyer, 1957), 145–8; ET of part 2, The Chronicler’s History, trans. H. G. M. Williamson, JSOTSup 50 (Sheffield: JSOT, 1987), 62–5. 36 Ulrich Kellermann, Nehemia: Quellen, Überlieferung und Geschichte, BZAW 102 (Berlin: Töpelmann, 1967), 56–69; Kellermann, ‘Esradatierung’, 55–61. 37 Wilhelm T. In der Smitten, Esra: Quellen, Überlieferung und Geschichte, SSN 15 (Assen: Van Gorcum, 1973), 56–66. 38 Gunneweg, Esra, 141. 39 Lester L. Grabbe, ‘Reconstructing History from the Book of Ezra’, in Second Temple Studies I: Persian Period, ed. Philip R. Davies, JSOTSup 117 (Sheffield: JSOT, 1991), 98–106; Grabbe, Judaism from Cyrus to Hadrian (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1992), 1:36–8; Grabbe, ‘What Was Ezra’s Mission?’, in Second Temple Studies II: Temple and Community in the Persian Period, ed. Tamara Cohn Eskenazi and Kent H. Richards, JSOTSup 175 (Sheffield: JSOT, 1994), 286–99; Grabbe, Ezra-Nehemiah, 138–52. 40 Jürgen-Christian Lebram, ‘Die Traditionsgeschichte der Esragestalt und die Frage nach dem historischen Esra’, in Sources, Structures, Synthesis: Proceedings of the Groningen 1983 Achaemenid History Workshop, ed. Heleen Sancisi-Weerdenburg, AchH 1 (Leiden: Nederlands Instituut voor het Nabije Oosten, 1987), 103–38, esp. 126–32. 41 Reinhard G. Kratz, Die Komposition der erzählenden Bücher des Alten Testaments: Grundwissen der Bibelkritik, UTB 2157 (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2000), 74–90; ET, The Composition of the Narrative Books of the Old Testament, trans. John Bowden (London: T&T Clark, 2005), 68–83.

12

Ezra and the Second Wilderness

Identifying the complex and conflicting sociopolitical ideologies throughout what she identifies as (in chronological order) the Nehemiaschrift, Esraschrift, and the mediating Gesamtkomposition, Christiane Karrer sees little authenticity in Ezra 7:1–9:5 and identifies the independent Esraschrift in Ezra 7:1*, 6a–c, 8, 28b–d; 8:15–34; 9:6–10:44; Neh. 8:1–18.42 Bob Becking attributes Ezra 7–10 to a fictional account based on Nehemiah 8, which he assigns to the Nehemiah account.43 Two monographs separately published in 2004 by Juha Pakkala and Jacob Wright employ redaction criticism towards solving the literary problems in EM and NM, respectively.44 Wright identifies the core of NM as an original building inscription (no more than several lines) that grew through what he identifies as six editorial layers and through multiple hands. EM is not left untouched, with Wright identifying several layers in Ezra 7–10.45 Persuaded by stylistic indicators that betray editorial insertions and supplementations, Pakkala argues that EM consists of an originally independent Ezra Source scattered throughout twenty-one verses in the original order of Ezra 7–8, Nehemiah 8, and Ezra 9–10 that underwent expansion through no fewer than seven phases.46 The studies that stem from a dwindling confidence in the historical Ezra address the literary difficulties detected in Ezra 7–10 and Nehemiah 8–10. Furthermore, they identify ideologically charged episodes and portrayals of a character named Ezra. There is, however, little consensus on how to divide these materials and how to extract an original kernel and its supplemental layers. Against the major departures from the classical view, this study argues for the integrity of EM throughout most of Ezra 7–10 and Nehemiah 8–10. This study agrees that NM’s influence can be detected in these chapters, but this influence is detectable in only one of the redactional layers to EM. The historical Ezra lurks beneath Ezra 7–10 and Nehemiah 8–10, but how much of this figure can be retrieved from the biblical witness remains for the most part an ideological debate.47 Related to this debate is to what extent EM accurately reflects the affairs of Second Temple Yehud.

42 Christiane Karrer, Ringen um die Verfassung Judas: Eine Studie zu den theologischpolitischen Vorstellungen im Esra-Nehemia-Buch, BZAW 308 (Berlin: de Gruyter, 2001), 227–40. 43 Bob Becking, ‘The Idea of Thorah in Ezra 7–10: A Functional Analysis’, ZABR 7 (2001): 275–6. 44 Juha Pakkala, Ezra the Scribe: The Development of Ezra 7–10 and Nehemiah 8, BZAW 347 (Berlin: de Gruyter, 2004); Jacob L. Wright, Rebuilding Identity: The Nehemiah Memoir and its Earliest Readers, BZAW 348 (Berlin: de Gruyter, 2004). 45 Wright, Rebuilding Identity, 86–93, 248–57. 46 See also Juha Pakkala, ‘The Original Independence of the Ezra Story in Ezra 7–10 and Neh. 8’, BN n.F. 129 (2006): 17–24. 47 For a recent investigation, see the separation of the biblical Ezra from the historical Ezra in Fried, Ezra and the Law, 8–53.

Ezra and the Pentateuch

13

IMPERIAL AUTHORIZATION OF THE TORAH In the search for EM’s value as a (near-)contemporary witness of the social, political, and religious institutions of fifth–fourth-century Yehud, the value of the Artaxerxes Edict in Ezra 7:12–26 is contested. Some critics, as noted in the preceding discussion, question its authenticity as an official Persian document. Pakkala finds a Rescript Editor who inserts the Edict (which itself undergoes three stages of revision) and related expansions in Ezra 8:24a, 25–9*, 33aα, 34.48 Some critics contend that if Ezra 7:12–26 contains an original Persian edict, then its recovery is difficult due to its alleged postImperial Aramaic and scribal interjections.49 Sebastian Grätz goes further and dismisses the authenticity of the Edict by equating it to a Hellenistic royal endowment.50 After David Janzen argues that the Edict contains words unattested outside Palestinian Aramaic, he concludes that the Edict does not conform to official Persian correspondence, but—in what is a reversal of Kellermann’s evaluation—is rather a midrash of the Ezra narrative.51 It would be unusual, though admittedly not impossible, for a midrash to be composed in the form of a royal edict from a non-Yehudite king.52 Richard Steiner challenges Janzen’s linguistic arguments and explains that the legal aspects of Ezra’s mission conform to the Persian imperial apparatus.53 The Edict may preserve an authentic Aramaic document that is consistent with Persian imperial objectives; yet there are also indications that the Edict betrays the reworking of Yehudite hands.54 In light of the references to the ‘people of 48

Pakkala, Ezra the Scribe, 260–2. Lester L. Grabbe, ‘The Law of Moses in the Ezra Tradition: More Virtual than Real?’, in Persia and Torah: The Theory of Imperial Authorization of the Pentateuch, ed. James W. Watts, SymS 17 (Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2001), 92–4; Grabbe, ‘The “Persian Documents” in the Book of Ezra: Are They Authentic?’, in Judah and Judeans in the Persian Period, ed. Oded Lipschits and Manfred Oeming (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2006), 531–70, esp. 551–5. Dirk Schwiderski views the Aramaic documents in Ezra 1–6 as fictive Hellenistic letters but, due to the detected derivations from Imperial Aramaic, leaves open the question for 7:12–26; see Handbuch des nordwestsemitischen Briefformulars: Ein Beitrag zur Echtheitsfrage der aramäischen Briefe des Esrabuches, BZAW 295 (Berlin: de Gruyter, 2000), 343–80; pace H. G. M. Williamson, ‘The Aramaic Documents in Ezra Revisited’, JTS n.s. 59 (2008): 57–62. 50 Sebastian Grätz, Das Edikt des Artaxerxes: Eine Untersuchung zum religionspolitischen und historischen Umfeld von Esra 7,12–26, BZAW 337 (Berlin: de Gruyter, 2004), 147–91. 51 David Janzen, ‘The “Mission” of Ezra and the Persian Period Temple Community’, JBL 119 (2000): 619–43. 52 I maintain that the Edict, within its surrounding narrative, projects the view that any king (here, ‘Artaxerxes’) is essential to maintaining the cosmic order, especially in Persian-period Yehud. My main contention here is with the label of Ezra 7:12–26 as ‘midrash’. 53 Richard C. Steiner, ‘The MBQR at Qumran, the Episkopos in the Athenian Empire, and the Meaning of LBQR’ in Ezra 7:14: On the Relation of Ezra’s Mission to the Persian Legal Project’, JBL 120 (2001): 623–46, esp. 638–43. 54 Rudolph, Esra und Nehemia, 73; Williamson, Ezra, Nehemiah, 98–9; Blenkinsopp, EzraNehemiah, 147; Kenneth G. Hoglund, Achaemenid Imperial Administration in Syria-Palestine and the Missions of Ezra and Nehemiah, SBLDS 125 (Atlanta: Scholars, 1992), 47–8, 226–31. 49

14

Ezra and the Second Wilderness

Israel’ (7:13) or ‘God of Israel’ (v. 15), it is difficult to envision that a Persian monarch (or his representative) would refer to a political entity that ceased to exist.55 Likewise, Artaxerxes’ modest attribution of himself as ‘King of Kings’ (‫מלך מלכיא‬, v. 12; cf. Nebuchadnezzar as ‫מלכא מלך מלכיא‬, Dan. 2:37; ‫מלך מלכים‬, Ezek. 26:7), a title unattested in official Persian documents, suggests a level of artificiality.56 Artaxerxes also refers to the Israelite deity as ‘the God of Heaven’ (‫אלה שמיא‬, vv. 12, 21, 23 (twice); also Cyrus in 2 Chr. 36:22; par. Ezra 1:1). This designation, or its Hebrew equivalent (‫)אלהי השמים‬, usually refers to YHVH in a foreign land or in conversation with a non-Yahvist.57 Some of the quantities of the provisions listed in Ezra 7:22 appear impossibly large. The prohibition on tolls and tributes levied against the Temple and its workers (v. 24) is also probably a fabrication grounded in some historical basis.58 According to Ezra 7:25–6, Ezra is given a royal mandate to teach the law and appoint magistrates and judges. In his ‘Zentralgewalt und Lokalautonomie im Achämenidenreich’, Peter Frei examines multiple examples of Achaemenid intervention in the establishment of the legal codes of its vassal states and opens the possibility that vv. 25–6 fit within the Achaemenid programme.59 Some critics accept the possibility that Ezra’s enforcement of ‘the laws of the king’ to not only Yehud but also the wider satrapy of Eber-Nahara reflects actual practices.60 In the Cyrus Cylinder (COS 2.124) it appears that the Persians systematically employed a policy of repatriating exiled peoples and re-establishing the local cults throughout their vast empire. Comparisons are also made between the mandates of Ezra and those of an Egyptian in the autobiographical Udjahorresnet Inscription dated to the reign of Darius

55

Grabbe, History of the Jews, 325; Bedford, Temple Restoration, 115–16. Bedford, Temple Restoration, 120–2. 57 Cf. Gen. 24:3, 7; Ezra 5:12; Jonah 1:9; TADAE A4.7:2, 15, 27–8. Some critics claim that Abraham calling YHVH ‫ אלהי השמים‬is evidence of Genesis 24 as a post-exilic composition. In defence of its pre-exilic provenance, see Gary A. Rendsburg, ‘Some False Leads in the Identification of Late Biblical Hebrew Texts: The Cases of Genesis 24 and 1 Samuel 2:27–36’, JBL 121 (2002): 23–46, esp. 24–35. 58 As supported by the Gadatas Inscription in Russell Meiggs and David M. Lewis, A Selection of Greek Historical Inscriptions to the End of the Fifth Century B.C. (Oxford: Clarendon, 1969), 20–2; see Williamson, Ezra, Nehemiah, 103; Blenkinsopp, Ezra-Nehemiah, 150. In lines 22–9, Darius condemns Gadatas for extracting tribute from the Apollo cult. Its authenticity is questioned in Lisbeth S. Fried, The Priest and the Great King: Temple-Palace Relations in the Persian Empire, BJSUCSD 10 (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2004), 117–19. 59 Peter Frei, ‘Zentralgewalt und Lokalautonomie im Achämenidenreich’, in Reichsidee und Reichsorganisation im Perserreich, ed. Peter Frei and Klaus Koch, OBO 55 (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1984), 8–43; 2nd rev. edn (1996), 8–131. For a summary, see Frei, ‘Die persische Reichsautorisation: Ein Überblick’, ZABR 1 (1995): 1–35; ET, ‘Persian Imperial Authorization: A Summary’, trans. James W. Watts, in Watts, Persia and Torah, 5–40. 60 Michael Heltzer, ‘The Right of Ezra to Demand Obedience to “The Laws of the King” from Gentiles of the V Satrapy’, ZABR 4 (1998): 192–6; Lisbeth S. Fried, ‘ “You Shall Appoint Judges”: Ezra’s Mission and the Rescript of Artaxerxes’, in Watts, Persia and Torah, 65–88. 56

Ezra and the Pentateuch

15

I (r. 522–486).61 Frei’s influence can be found in studies that present the Yehudite scribes as the group that compiled the Pentateuch under the auspices of the Achaemenid overlords.62 The evidence supports the notion that the Achaemenids employed a pragmatic approach to governing a vast empire by showing interest in the local cults. More precisely, the Achaemenids’ organization of the Jerusalem Temple demonstrates that this interest was primarily economic.63 What remains to be proven is that the Persians were equally benevolent to the religious interests of all of their vassals. Casting doubt on the relevancy of the Cyrus Cylinder to the Jerusalem Temple, Amélie Kuhrt remarks that the Cyrus Cylinder follows the model of a Mesopotamian building inscription from the reign of the Assyrian king Assurbanipal (r. 668–627), projects exclusive devotion to Marduk, and specifies a concern for the affairs of Babylon and its environs.64 Turning to the biblical witness, Peter Bedford argues that the rebuilding of the Jerusalem Temple is a joint venture at the time of Darius that results after Haggai and (First) Zechariah convince both the repatriates and non-repatriates that YHVH’s planned return to Jerusalem is impending.65 The biblical claim for the religious importance of the Jerusalem Temple to the wider empire may be overstated and the theory of persische Reichsautorisation as the explanation for the historical background to the literature of Yehud is no longer widely supported. In its defence, Konrad Schmid counters that Frei advocates the elevation of local laws to the rank of imperial law.66 It remains difficult to conceive that the Pentateuch is formed as the result of an Joseph Blenkinsopp, ‘The Mission of Udjahorresnet and those of Ezra and Nehemiah’, JBL 106 (1987): 417–21. 62 E. Theodore Mullen, Ethnic Myths and Pentateuchal Foundations: A New Approach to the Formation of the Pentateuch, SemeiaSt 35 (Atlanta: Scholars, 1997); Alexander Fantalkin and Oren Tal, ‘The Canonization of the Pentateuch: When and Why?’, ZAW 124 (2012): 1–18, 201–12; Fantalkin and Tal, ‘Judah and its Neighbours in the Fourth Century BCE’, in From Judah to Judaea: Socio-Economic Structures and Processes in the Persian Period, ed. Johannes Unsok Ro, HBM 43 (Sheffield: Sheffield Phoenix, 2012), 169–80; Jacques Vermeylen, ‘Les Deux “Pentateuques” d’Esdras’, VT 62 (2012): 248–75. Furthermore, Persian support is often cited as the historical background for the compilation of the Pentateuch from its constituent parts. See also the argument that late fifth-century Levitical groups composed Ezra-Nehemiah under Persian sponsorship in Kyung-Jin Min, The Levitical Authorship of Ezra-Nehemiah, JSOTSup 409 (London: T&T Clark, 2004). 63 See Joachim Schaper, ‘The Jerusalem Temple as an Instrument of the Achaemenid Fiscal Administration’, VT 45 (1995): 528–39; Schaper, ‘The Temple Treasury Committee in the Times of Nehemiah and Ezra’, VT 47 (1997): 200–6. 64 Amélie Kuhrt, ‘The Cyrus Cylinder and Achaemenid Imperial Policy’, JSOT 25 (1983): 83–97. Specifically, Kuhrt disputes lines 30–4 of the Cyrus Cylinder as describing a programme for restoring local sanctuaries (pp. 87–8). 65 Bedford, Temple Restoration, 85–181. 66 Konrad Schmid, ‘The Persian Imperial Authorization as a Historical Problem and as a Biblical Construct: A Plea for Distinctions in the Current Debate’, in The Pentateuch as Torah: New Models for Understanding its Promulgation and Acceptance, ed. Gary N. Knoppers and Bernard M. Levinson (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2007), 23–38. 61

16

Ezra and the Second Wilderness

Achaemenid imperial initiative to centralize and codify local laws. If the Yehudite scribes canonized the Pentateuch to appease the Achaemenid overlords, then one could ask why is the Pentateuch not written in the lingua franca—that is, Aramaic? Additionally, if Ezra 7 has in mind the elevation of the Pentateuch to the (imperial) law of the land, then why does the Pentateuch contain so little—if any—description of Persian enforcement of this law? Anselm Hagedorn agrees that the Persian context (despite the lack of official interest) stimulates the codification of the biblical legal material, yet—opposing Achaemenid colonial policy—argues that the biblical authors pre-emptively create the Pentateuch in order to avoid an imagined future conflict with the empire.67 Upholding Persian involvement with the local affairs of Yehud, Jean-Louis Ska questions the identification of the Pentateuch with the document that is described in Ezra 7.68 After examining Persian actions in Egypt and Asia Minor, Kyong-Jin Lee accepts Frei’s theory that the Persians intervened in Yehud through legislation but ultimately disagrees that the Persians were involved with the contents or the formation of the Pentateuch.69 The theory of persische Reichsautorisation does not adequately explain how the Pentateuch achieved its final form and there is little, if any, clear evidence that the Persians had any direct involvement with the Pentateuch. The Achaemenids had pressing matters at their frontiers, among them the Inaros rebellion in Egypt (459–454). It is difficult to see how the expenditure of legislative resources towards implementing the local laws and customs of the tiny remote outpost of Yehud offered any strategic benefits for the empire and advanced Pax Persica.70 The Persians indeed had an economic interest in the proper maintenance of the local cults, but it will be shown that the Edict—which is well integrated into EM—is an ideologically constructed ‘document’ that overstates the level of Persian involvement in Yehud.71 Furthermore, if the Pentateuch was conceived of as the authoritative constitution of Yehud, then it remains to be explained why it does not stay static but is rewritten, revised, and reworked along ideological fractures among competing Yahvistic groups. Whereas the Achaemenids were probably not heavily invested in Yehud, the Yehudite witnesses from this period embellish and enhance the significance of their subprovince within the larger world of its surrounding empire. 67 Anselm C. Hagedorn, ‘Local Law in an Imperial Context: The Role of Torah in the (Imagined) Persian Period’, in Knoppers and Levinson, Pentateuch as Torah, 57–76. 68 Jean-Louis Ska, ‘From History Writing to Library Building: The End of History and the Birth of the Book’, in Knoppers and Levinson, Pentateuch as Torah, 146–7; see also Ska, ‘ “Persian Imperial Authorization”: Some Question Marks’, in Watts, Persia and Torah, 169–70. 69 Kyong-Jin Lee, The Authority and Authorization of Torah in the Persian Period, CBET 64 (Leuven: Peeters, 2011), 213–51. 70 See also Pierre Briant, Histoire de l’empire perse: de Cyrus à Alexandre (Paris: Fayard, 1996), 1001; ET, From Cyrus to Alexander: A History of the Persian Empire, trans. Peter T. Daniels (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2002), 976. 71 See Chapter 3.

Ezra and the Pentateuch

17

Regardless of the historical implausibility of a Persian authority’s interest in the minutiae of Yehudite legal customs, both the Edict and EM remain useful as reflections of a Yehudite perspective on the contemporary political, social, and religious institutions. However, on its own, the background of Persian imperial policy can no longer securely establish theories on the conditions that propelled the collation of originally independent sources, fragments, or supplements into the final form of the Pentateuch. Instead, the process in which the Pentateuch is constructed from its constituent parts to its final form should be viewed as an initiative that emerges out of the Yahvistic community in Yehud.72

BEFORE THE PENTATEUCH For some critics, the reports of Ezra’s activities are tied in some way to the publication of the Pentateuch in the restoration community. Premodern and modern critics have long recognized that the origins of the Pentateuch lie in its constituent parts.73 Among the competing models that emerged in the late nineteenth century, what became known as the New Documentary Hypothesis gained acceptance through Julius Wellhausen’s presentation in his epochal Prolegomena zur Geschichte Israels.74 For the most part, the Graf-Wellhausen Hypothesis enjoyed dominance throughout the first half of the twentieth century, with some critics continuing to operate within the classical paradigm of—in chronological order—(ninth century) J, (eighth century) E, (seventh century) D, and (sixth–fifth century) P.75 A challenge was raised by Yehezkel 72 Rejecting the theory of Persian imperial authorization, Ska proposes that the Pentateuch originates from the reorganization of the post-exilic community around the Jerusalem Temple; see Jean-Louis Ska, Introduction to Reading the Pentateuch, trans. Pascale-Dominique Nau (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2006), 225–9; ET of Introduction à la lecture du Pentateuque: clés pour l’interprétation des cinq premiers livres de la Bible (Brussels: Éditions Lessius, 2000). 73 For a history of modern Pentateuchal criticism, see Ernest W. Nicholson, The Pentateuch in the Twentieth Century: The Legacy of Julius Wellhausen (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1998). 74 Julius Wellhausen, Prolegomena zur Geschichte Israels, 2nd edn (Berlin: G. Reimer, 1883); ET, Prolegomena to the History of Israel, trans. J. Sutherland Black and Allan Menzies, with preface by W. Robertson Smith (Edinburgh: Adam & Charles Black, 1885); repr., Prolegomena to the History of Ancient Israel (New York: Meridian, 1957); and the credit to Karl Heinrich Graf in Prolegomena, 3–4; ET, 3–4. Wellhausen engages in a detailed discussion of each source document in Die Composition des Hexateuchs und der historischen Bücher des Alten Testaments, 2nd edn (Berlin: G. Riemer, 1889; 4th repr., Berlin: de Gruyter, 1963); published earlier as ‘Die Composition des Hexateuchs’, JDT 21 (1876): 392–450, 531–602; 22 (1877): 407–79. 75 Notably, Richard Elliot Friedman, Who Wrote the Bible? (New York: Summit, 1987); Friedman, The Hidden Book of the Bible (San Francisco: HarperSanFrancisco, 1998); Friedman, The Bible with Sources Revealed: A New View into the Five Books of Moses (San Francisco: HarperSanFrancisco, 2003); Friedman, ‘Three Major Redactors of the Torah’, in Birkat Shalom: Studies in the Bible, Ancient Near Eastern Literature, and Post-Biblical Judaism: Presented to

18

Ezra and the Second Wilderness

Kaufmann, who, accepting the source documents themselves, disputes the late dating of P and argues for its antiquity in the pre-exilic period.76 On the basis of language,77 depictions of cultic phenomena that suit a pre-exilic setting,78 and parallels from ancient Near Eastern ritual texts,79 this position continues to find its strongest support among Israeli and Israeli-inspired scholarship. Although I find that this position offers the best explanation for the provenance of P (and H),80 it is sufficient for my present purposes to note that the majority of scholars agree that P is pre-exilic, exilic, or (containing earlier traditions) early post-exilic and any of these views aligns with the contention in this study that P precedes EM.81 Shalom M. Paul on the Occasion of His Seventieth Birthday, ed. Chaim Cohen et al. (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2008), 1:31–44. 76 Yehezkel Kaufmann, tôl ǝdôt hā’emûnāh hayiśrā’ēlît: miyǝmê qedem ‘ad sôp bêt šēnî [‫ מימי קדם עד סוף בית שני‬:‫]תולדות האמונה הישראלית‬, 8 parts in 4 vols (Tel Aviv: Mosad Byaliḳ, 1937–56), 1:113–42; ET of parts of vols 1–3, The Religion of Israel: From its Beginnings to the Babylonian Exile, trans. and ab. Moshe Greenberg (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1960), 175–200. For accessible discussions on Kaufmann’s impact, see Thomas M. Krapf, Die Priesterschrift und die vorexilische Zeit: Yehezkel Kaufmanns vernachlässigter Beitrag zur Geschichte der biblischen Religion, OBO 119 (Freiburg: Universitätsverlag; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1992); Job Y. Jindo, ‘Recontextualizing Kaufmann: His Empirical Conception of the Bible and its Significance in Jewish Intellectual History’, JJTP 19 (2011): 95–129. 77 Avi Hurvitz, ‘The Evidence of Language in Dating the Priestly Code’, RB 81 (1974): 24–56; Hurvitz, A Linguistic Study of the Relationship between the Priestly Source and the Book of Ezekiel, CahRB 20 (Paris: J. Gabalda, 1982); Hurvitz, ‘Dating the Priestly Source in Light of the History Study of Biblical Hebrew a Century after Wellhausen’, ZAW 100 Supplement (1988): 88–100; Gary A. Rendsburg, ‘Late Biblical Hebrew and the Date of P’, JANESCU 12 (1980): 65–80; Meir Paran, Forms of the Priestly Style in the Pentateuch: Patterns, Linguistic Usages, Syntactic Structures [‫ מבנים‬,‫ שימושי לשון‬,‫ דבמים‬:‫]דרכי הסגנון הכוהני בתורה‬, intro. Menahem Haran (Jerusalem: Magnes, 1989), esp. 273–305. 78 Menahem Haran, Temples and Temple-Service in Ancient Israel: An Inquiry into the Character of Cult Phenomena and the Historical Setting of the Priestly School (Oxford: Clarendon, 1978), 3–12, 132–48; Haran, ‘Behind the Scenes of History: Determining the Date of the Priestly Source’, JBL 100 (1981): 321–33; Haran, ‘Ezekiel, P, and the Priestly School’, VT 58 (2008): 211–28. 79 Moshe Weinfeld, The Place of the Law in the Religion of Ancient Israel, VTSup 100 (Leiden: Brill, 2004), 3–74; see also Weinfeld, Deuteronomy and the Deuteronomic School (Oxford: Clarendon, 1972), 179–89. 80 For challenges, see Joseph Blenkinsopp, ‘An Assessment of the Alleged Pre-Exilic Date of the Priestly Material in the Pentateuch’, ZAW 108 (1996): 495–518 (pace Jacob Milgrom, ‘The Antiquity of the Priestly Source: A Reply to Joseph Blenkinsopp’, ZAW 111 [1999]: 10–22; Avi Hurvitz, ‘Once Again: The Linguistic Profile of the Priestly Material in the Pentateuch and its Historical Age: A Response to J. Blenkinsopp’, ZAW 112 [2000]: 180–91); Baruch A. Levine, ‘Late Language in the Priestly Source: Some Literary and Historical Observations’, in Proceedings of the Eighth World Congress of Jewish Studies: Panel Sessions—Bible Studies and Hebrew Language, ed. David Krone (Jerusalem: World Union of Jewish Studies, 1983): 69–82. 81 See, for example, editorial interpolations dated to the exilic period in Jacob Milgrom, Leviticus 1–16: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary, AB 3 (New York: Doubleday, 1991), 3–35; Milgrom, ‘The Case for the Pre-Exilic and Exilic Provenance of the Books of Exodus, Leviticus and Numbers’, in Reading the Law: Studies in Honour of Gordon J. Wenham, ed. J. Gordon McConville and Karl Möller, LHBOTS 461 (London: T&T Clark, 2007), 48–56 and the terminus ad quem of 586 in Ziony Zevit, ‘Converging Lines of Evidence Bearing on the Date of P’, ZAW 94 (1982): 481–511.

Ezra and the Pentateuch

19

It is, however, the methodological challenges first raised by Rolf Rendtorff and applied by Erhard Blum that continue to present the greatest opposition to the Graf-Wellhausen paradigm.82 Against the final form of the Pentateuch as the starting point, Rendtorff argues that the process of the formation of the Pentateuch must begin with individual traditions contained in den kleinsten Einheiten.83 Most of continental European Pentateuchal criticism has accepted the view that investigations into the formation of the Pentateuch begin with the identification of literary units. Within the last decade, scholarly debate on the validity of the New Documentary Hypothesis has been reinvigorated with a debate between the ‘post-documentarians’ and the ‘neo-documentarians’.84 On the one hand, post-documentarians build upon the insights of Rendtorff and Blum and argue that kernels of traditions independently accrued over time through redactional activity spurred by a single historical circumstance and with the aim of reorienting the theological interests of a text.85 On the other hand, neo-documentarians also reject some of the key tenets of the GrafWellhausen paradigm, but maintain the existence of four source documents collated by a single redactor with three of the documents (J, E, and P) preserved in Genesis-Numbers and in the last chapters of Deuteronomy.86 82 Rolf Rendtorff, Das überlieferungsgeschichtliche Problem des Pentateuch, BZAW 147 (Berlin: de Gruyter, 1977); ET, The Problem of the Process of Transmission in the Pentateuch, trans. John J. Scullion, JSOTSup 89 (Sheffield: JSOT, 1990); Erhard Blum, Die Komposition der Vätergeschichte, WMANT 57 (Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1984); Blum, Studien zur Komposition des Pentateuch, BZAW 189 (Berlin: de Gruyter, 1990). 83 Rendtorff, Problem, 1–28; ET, 11–42. 84 See the remarks in Baruch J. Schwartz, ‘Does Recent Scholarship’s Critique of the Documentary Hypothesis Constitute Grounds for its Rejection?’, in The Pentateuch: International Perspectives on Current Research, ed. Thomas B. Dozeman, Konrad Schmid, and Baruch J. Schwartz, FAT 78 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2011), 3–16, and Konrad Schmid, ‘Has European Scholarship Abandoned the Documentary Hypothesis? Some Reminders on its History and Remarks on its Current Status’, in Dozeman, Schmid, and Schwartz, The Pentateuch, 17–30. 85 Its practitioners are sometimes labelled ‘non-documentarians’ but this does not accurately capture the return to the classical Documentary, Fragmentary, and Supplementary hypotheses; see (in addition to a response to the ‘neo-Documentary Hypothesis’) Thomas Römer, ‘Zwischen Urkunden, Fragmenten und Ergänzungen: Zum Stand der Pentateuchforschung’, ZAW 125 (2013): 2–24. As such, I prefer the label ‘post-documentarians’. Still, the strong preference for redaction criticism as the means to identify the composition (and historical setting) of the Pentateuch is undeniable. For its use in Pentateuchal criticism and its practitioners, see Jaeyoung Jeon, The Call of Moses and the Exodus Story: A Redactional-Critical Study in Exodus 3–4 and 5–13, FAT.II 60 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2013), 7–70. For a comparison of how redaction is defined by post-documentarians and neo-documentarians, see Jeffrey Stackert, ‘Distinguishing Innerbiblical Exegesis from Pentateuchal Redaction: Leviticus 26 as a Test Case’, in Dozeman, Schmid, and Schwartz, The Pentateuch, 369–74. Challenges against the existence of redactors in antiquity along with methodological critiques against redaction criticism are presented in John Van Seters, The Edited Bible: The Curious History of the ‘Editor’ in Biblical Criticism (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2006), esp. 244–97. 86 See the presentations in Baruch J. Schwartz, ‘The Torah: Its Five Books and Four Documents’ [‫ חמשת חומשיה וארבע תעודותיה‬:‫]התורה‬, in The Literature of the Hebrew Bible: Introductions and Studies [‫ מבואות ומחקרים‬:‫]ספרות המקרא‬, ed. Zipora Talshir, ALEIW 1 (Jerusalem: Yad Ben-Zvi, 2011), 1:161–225; esp. 1:199–218; Schwartz, ‘How the Compiler of the Pentateuch Worked: The Composition of Genesis 37’, in The Book of Genesis: Composition, Reception, and Interpretation, ed.

20

Ezra and the Second Wilderness

There are discernible points of agreement between both camps. Deuteronomic texts are upheld and what is left over in the Pentateuch is non-Priestly and non-Deuteronomic materials, but—as we shall see below—the identification of these texts is disputed. Departing from Rendtorff and Blum,87 P is generally upheld as a continuous narrative. There remains, however, a lack of agreement on P’s end. In response to Lothar Perlitt’s arguments against the classical assignment of Deut. 32:48–52; 34:1a, 7–9 to P,88 critics have identified the end of P(g) to any one of the following verses in which the Israelites are at Sinai: Exod. 29:42–6;89 40:16, 17a, 33b;90 v. 34;91 v. 34b;92 Lev. 16:34.93 Following the opinion that P(g) ends at Sinai, the book of Numbers has attracted recent attention with a growing view that this book contains late redactional layers that give shape to the Pentateuch.94 There Craig A. Evans, Joel N. Lohr, and David L. Petersen, VTSup 152 (Leiden: Brill, 2012), 263–78; Jeffrey Stackert, Rewriting the Torah: Literary Revision in Deuteronomy and the Holiness Legislation, FAT 52 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2007); Joel S. Baden, J, E, and the Redaction of the Pentateuch, FAT 68 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2009), Baden, The Composition of the Pentateuch: Renewing the Documentary Hypothesis, AYBRL (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2012). 87 See also P as an expansion of JE in Frank Moore Cross, Canaanite Myth and Hebrew Epic (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1973), 290–5; and, a revival of this view in the form of early post-exilic Priestly redactions to an original non-Priestly patriarchal history in Genesis 11–50, in Jakob Wöhrle, Fremdlinge im eigenen Land: Zur Entstehung und Intention der priesterlichen Passagen der Vätergeschichte, FRLANT 246 (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2012), 25–164. For the classic rebuttal of this view, see Klaus Koch, ‘P—kein Redaktor! Erinnerung an zwei Eckdaten der Quellenscheidung’, VT 37 (1987): 446–67. 88 Lothar Perlitt, ‘Priesterschrift im Deuteronomium?’, ZAW 100 Supplement (1988): 65–88. 89 Eckart Otto, ‘Forschungen zur Priesterschrift’, TRu 62 (1997): 1–50. 90 Thomas Pola, Die ursprüngliche Priesterschrift: Beobachtungen zur Literarkritik und Traditionsgeschichte von Pg, WMANT 70 (Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1995), 291–7. 91 Kratz, Komposition, 102–8; ET, 100–6. 92 Albert de Pury, ‘PG as the Absolute Beginning’, in Les Dernières Rédactions du Pentateuque, de l’Hexateuque et de l’Ennéateuque, ed. Thomas Römer and Konrad Schmid, BETL 203 (Leuven: Peeters, 2007), 99–128. 93 Christoph Nihan, From Priestly Torah to Pentateuch: A Study in the Composition of the Book of Leviticus, FAT.II 25 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2007), 20–68. 94 Thomas Römer, ‘Das Buch Numeri und das Ende des Jahwisten: Anfragen zur “Quellenscheidung” im vierten Buch des Pentateuch’, in Gertz, Schmid, and Witte, Abschied vom Jahwisten, 220–31; Römer, ‘Israel’s Sojourn in the Wilderness and the Construction of the Book of Numbers’, in Reflection and Refraction: Studies in Biblical Historiography in Honour of A. Graeme Auld, ed. Robert Rezetko, Timothy H. Lim, and W. Brian Aucker, VTSup 113 (Leiden: Brill, 2007), 427–33; Römer, ‘Pentateuchforschung’, 19–20; Reinhard Achenbach, Die Vollendung der Tora: Studien zur Redaktionsgeschichte des Numeribuches im Kontext von Hexateuch und Pentateuch, BZABR 3 (Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz Verlag, 2003); Achenbach, ‘Die Erzählung von der gescheiterten Landnahme von Kadesch Barnea (Numeri 13–14) als Schlüsseltext der Redaktionsgeschichte des Pentateuchs’, ZABR 9 (2003): 56–123; Rainer Albertz, ‘Das Buch Numeri jenseits der Quellentheorie: Eine Redaktionsgeschichte von Num 20–24’, ZAW 123 (2011): 171–83, 336–47; Albertz, ‘A Pentateuchal Redaction in the Book of Numbers? The Late Priestly Layers of Num 25–36’, ZAW 125 (2013): 220–33. See also the summaries in Christian Frevel, ‘The Book of Numbers—Formation, Composition, and Interpretation of a Late Part of the Torah: Some Introductory Remarks’, in Torah and the Book of Numbers, ed. Christian Frevel, Thomas Pola, and Aaron Schart, FAT.II 62 (Tübingen: Mohr

Ezra and the Pentateuch

21

remains, however, support for the continuation of Priestly materials after Leviticus and into the last portions of Deuteronomy.95 Among these proponents, the Israelite assembly at Shiloh in Joshua 18–19 is presented as a possible conclusion to P.96 As noted above, the major point of contention lies in the Pentateuchal materials that are neither Priestly nor Deuteronomic. Among neodocumentarians, these texts are either J or E. In contrast, post-documentarians follow the wider rejection of an independent Elohist source or tradition.97 At the expense of E’s demise, J enjoyed greater acceptance, but Continental European scholarship has now abandoned this document with this result less assured in English-speaking scholarship.98 Post-documentarians view texts classically assigned to J, E, or JE as preservations of independent and competing traditions of Israel’s origins: on the one hand, the patriarchal accounts in Genesis; and on the other hand, the exodus and wilderness accounts that shape Exodus-Numbers.99 A later redactor connected these Siebeck, 2013), 1–37, and Jean-Louis Ska, ‘Old and New in the Book of Numbers’, Bib 95 (2014): 102–16. 95 See Ludwig Schmidt, ‘Die Priesterschrift: Kein Ende am Sinai!’, ZAW 120 (2008): 481–500; Suzanne Boorer, ‘The Place of Numbers 13–14* and Numbers 20:2–12* in the Priestly Narrative (Pg)’, JBL 131 (2012): 45–63. Other suggestions for the end of P(g) include Num. 27:12–13 in Ed Noort, ‘Bis zur Grenze des Landes? Num 27,12–13 und das Ende der Priesterschrift’, in The Books of Leviticus and Numbers, ed. Thomas Römer, BETL 215 (Leuven: Peeters, 2008), 99–119 and Deut 32:48–50, 52; 34:1*, 5*, 7a, 8 in Christian Frevel, Mit Blick auf das Land die Schöpfung erinnern: Zum Ende der Priestergrundschrift, HBS 23 (Freiburg: Herder, 2000), 290–306, 336–41. 96 For the Shiloh Temple as the object of P’s tabernacle legend, see Haran, Temples, 198–201; see also Milgrom, Leviticus 1–16, 30–1; Philippe Guillaume, Land and Calendar: The Priestly Document from Genesis 1 to Joshua 18, LHBOTS 391 (London: T&T Clark, 2009), 157–63. Against the existence of Priestly materials in Joshua, see Rainer Albertz, ‘The Canonical Alignment of the Book of Joshua’, in Judah and the Judeans in the Fourth Century B.C.E., ed. Oded Lipschits, Gary N. Knoppers, and Rainer Albertz (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2007), 287–303; Suzanne Boorer, ‘The Envisioning of the Land in the Priestly Material: Fulfilled Promise or Future Hope?’, in Pentateuch, Hexateuch, or Enneateuch? Identifying Literary Works in Genesis through Kings, ed. Thomas B. Dozeman, Thomas Römer, and Konrad Schmid, AIL 8 (Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2011), 99–125. For challenges in the composition of Joshua, see Thomas B. Dozeman, ‘The Book of Joshua as an Intertext in the MT and LXX Canons’, in Dozeman, Römer, and Schmid, Pentateuch, Hexateuch, or Enneateuch?, 185–209. The extent of sources, fragments, and supplements in Joshua requires a new approach that is beyond the scope of this study. 97 See the classical rejection of E in Paul Volz and Wilhelm Rudolph, Der Elohist als Erzähler: Ein Irrweg der Pentateuchkritik?, BZAW 63 (Giessen: A. Töpplemann, 1933); furthermore, Wilhelm Rudolph, Der ‘Elohist’ von Exodus bis Josua, BZAW 68 (Berlin: A. Töpplemann, 1938). 98 See the essays in Abschied vom Jahwisten: Die Komposition des Hexateuch in der jüngsten Diskussion, ed. Jan Christian Gertz, Konrad Schmid, and Marcus Witte, BZAW 315 (Berlin: de Gruyter, 2002) and in A Farewell to the Yahwist? The Composition of the Pentateuch in Recent European Interpretation, ed. Thomas B. Dozeman and Konrad Schmid, SymS 34 (Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2006). 99 Thomas Römer, Israels Väter: Untersuchungen zur Väterthematik im Deutoronomium und in der deuteronomistischen Tradition, OBO 99 (Freiburg: Universitätsverlag; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1990), 543–68; Römer, ‘Le Deutéronome à la quête des origines’, in Le

22

Ezra and the Second Wilderness

traditions and some critics identify post-exilic P as this redactor. This view of originally competing ancestral traditions is generally accepted among critics who abandon the notion of source documents. To a certain degree, I concur that the Pentateuch preserves competing traditions of Israel’s origins. These differences, I maintain, do not lie within individual units but among the narratives contained in the source documents themselves.100 Following the common view that the Pentateuch is an eclectic composition, there is the question of its constituent parts. What follows is a brief discussion of the modified four-source theory, beginning with the mostly agreed upon Priestly and Deuteronomic materials. Critics agree on the existence of Priestly materials but not on their provenance, parameters, or formation. Since August Klostermann observed that Leviticus 17–26 is not a Priestly supplement but a distinct legal code labelled Heiligkeitsgesetz,101 most critics agree that the Priestly materials are shaped by two distinct, but related, Priestly traditions, H and P. Israel Knohl challenged the classical view that H preceded P by demonstrating that Leviticus 17–26 (the Holiness proper) expands upon the laws in P.102 Likewise, Jacob Milgrom placed H after P.103 According to both Knohl and Milgrom, H’s expansions

Pentateuque: débats et recherches, ed. Pierre Haudebert, LD 151 (Paris: Éditions du Cerf, 1992), 65–98; ET, ‘Deuteronomy in Search of Origins’, trans. Peter T. Daniels, in Reconsidering Israel and Judah: Recent Studies on the Deuteronomistic History, ed. Gary N. Knoppers and J. Gordon McConville, SBTS 8 (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2000), 112–38; Konrad Schmid, Erzväter und Exodus: Untersuchungen zur doppelten Begründung der Ursprünge Israels innerhalb der Geschichtsbücher des Alten Testaments, WMANT 81 (Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1999); ET, Genesis and the Moses Story: Israel’s Dual Origins in the Hebrew Bible, trans. James D. Nogalski, Siphrut 3 (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2010); Erhard Blum, ‘Die literarische Verbindung von Erzvätern und Exodus: Ein Gespräch mit neueren Endredaktionshypothesen’, in Gertz, Schmid, and Witte, Abschied vom Jahwisten, 119–56. 100 For critique of the existence of competing accounts of Israel’s origins, see John Van Seters, ‘The Patriarchs and the Exodus: Bridging the Gap between Two Origin Traditions’, in The Interpretation of Exodus: Studies in Honour of Cornelis Houtman, ed. Riemer Roukema, CBET 44 (Leuven: Peeters, 2006), 1–15; Ludwig Schmidt, ‘Die vorpriesterliche Verbindung von Erzvätern und Exodus durch die Josefsgeschichte (Gen 37; 39–50*) und Exodus 1’, ZAW 124 (2012): 19–37; Graham I. Davies, ‘The Transition from Genesis to Exodus’, in Genesis, Isaiah, and Psalms: A Festschrift to Honour Professor John Emerton for His Eightieth Birthday, ed. Katherine Dell, Graham I. Davies, and Yee Von Koh, VTSup 135 (Leiden: Brill, 2010), 59–78. See also Joel S. Baden, ‘The Continuity of the Non-Priestly Narrative from Genesis to Exodus’, Bib 93 (2012): 161–86, and the response in Konrad Schmid, ‘Genesis and Exodus as Two Formerly Independent Traditions of Origins for Ancient Israel’, Bib 93 (2012): 187–208. 101 August Klostermann, Der Pentateuch: Beiträge zu seinem Verständnis und seiner Entstehungsgeschichte (Leipzig: G. Böhme, 1893), 368–418. 102 Israel Knohl, ‘The Priestly Torah versus the Holiness School’, HUCA 58 (1987): 65–117; Knohl, The Sanctuary of Silence: The Priestly Torah and the Holiness School, trans. Jackie Feldman and Peretz Rodman (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1995; repr., Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2007), 8–45. 103 Milgrom, Leviticus 1–16, 13–35; Milgrom, Leviticus 17–22: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary, AB 3A (New York: Doubleday, 2000), 1349–63.

Ezra and the Pentateuch

23

are also evident in Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus (1–16), and Numbers.104 Knohl contends that the Holiness School (HS) is responsible for the final form of the Priestly materials and the entire Pentateuch.105 The evidence used to support this view is not convincing.106 Although they belong to the same Priestly tradition, both P and H have subtle differences that emerge upon closer scrutiny. P follows an ancient Near Eastern programme for the proper upkeep of sancta and ensures that its own deity is satisfied with its earthly abode. This concern is retrojected to an idealized tabernacle that has its origins in the wilderness.107 Although the Israelites are charged with the upkeep of sancta, P views humans (in the absence of rival deities) as the polluting agent that poses a considerable threat to YHVH’s earthly abode, with the devastating result that YHVH’s presence will depart from the Israelites. This threat is the raison d’être for the Priestly legislation. Following Baruch Schwartz’s argument that H is not independent of P and is better described as legislation rather than a code,108 I accept H as a supplementation of the Priestly laws that aims to extend the demands for holiness from the Temple precincts to the entire land of Canaan and in perpetuity. Through its expansion of the Priestly materials, H upgrades P in order to present the Priestly laws as the supreme legal corpus.109 Although the precise stratification of P and H remains uncertain,110 this study will distinguish between P and H with the recognition that

104

It should be noted that Knohl and Milgrom do not agree on the precise identification of H texts in Genesis-Numbers. Compare the summary in Knohl, Sanctuary of Silence, 104–6 to that in Milgrom, Leviticus 17–22, 1337–44, and the dialogue in Knohl, Sanctuary of Silence, 225–30 and Jacob Milgrom, Leviticus 23–27: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary, AB 3B (New York: Doubleday, 2001), 2440–6. 105 Knohl, Sanctuary of Silence, 101–3; Knohl, ‘Who Edited the Pentateuch?’, in Dozeman, Schmid, and Schwartz, The Pentateuch, 359–67. In assigning substantial portions of Numbers to his ‘Holiness School’ (the latest layer in the Pentateuch), Knohl’s treatment of Numbers is somewhat aligned with recent Continental European scholarship (see n. 94 above). 106 Exod. 20:11 is often cited as such evidence. For the assignment of this verse to RPent, see the discussion of Neh. 9:6 in the next chapter. 107 Haran, Temples, 189–204. A text from Mari gives credence to the antiquity of tent structures in Syria-Palestine; see Daniel E. Fleming, ‘Mari’s Large Public Tent and the Priestly Tent Sanctuary’, VT 50 (2000): 484–98. 108 Baruch J. Schwartz, The Holiness Legislation: Studies in the Priestly Code [‫ עיונים‬:‫תורת הקדושה‬ ‫( ]בחוקה הכוהנית שבתורה‬Jerusalem: Magnes, 1999), 17–24; Schwartz, ‘Introduction: The Strata of the Priestly Writings and the Revised Relative Dating of P and H’, in The Strata of the Priestly Writings: Contemporary Debate and Future Directions, ed. Sarah Shectman and Joel S. Baden, ATANT 95 (Zurich: Theologischer Verlag Zürich, 2009), 6–7; followed in Stackert, Rewriting the Torah, 2 n. 4. 109 For H’s use of P, CC, and D in composing a legal code that preserves the Priestly laws yet marginalizes the other legal corpora, see Stackert, Rewriting the Torah, 31–208; Stackert, ‘The Holiness Legislation and its Pentateuchal Sources: Revision, Supplementation, and Replacement’, in Shectman and Baden, Strata of the Priestly Writings, 188–204. 110 Q (quatuor) and Priestercodex in Wellhausen, Composition, 184, 207; Pg, Ps (supplemental), Px (undefined), H in George Buchanan Gray, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on Numbers, ICC (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1903), xxxiii–xxxiv; pre-exilic P1, P2, P3, pre-exilic

24

Ezra and the Second Wilderness

both form the Priestly Corpus (what I label PC) that is eventually collated with the other Pentateuchal sources. As a result of counterarguments to Wilhelm Martin Leberecht de Wette’s identification of Josiah’s law book (2 Kgs 23:2) with Deuteronomy,111 the dating of Deuteronomy to the late monarchic period has now become less of a linchpin of Pentateuchal criticism.112 Still, there remains support for a seventh-century dating for the legal core of Deuteronomy on the basis of comparative evidence.113 Deuteronomy presupposes the non-Priestly Pentateuchal materials; yet its narratives and laws are composed with the aim of superseding its predecessors. Against the assumption that D revises the JE portions in Exodus and Numbers, Menahem Haran maintains that D’s account of the wilderness generation is solely dependent on E and suggests that ostensible ‘JE’ texts in the Pentateuch can be separated into their constituent parts.114 Joel Baden argues that the narrative portions of D are dependent on separate E and J documents and questions the validity of the Graf-Wellhausen JE document altogether.115 What is debatable is how much of the last chapters of Deuteronomy is indeed Deuteronomic. Both the Song of Moses (the ha’ azînû, Deut. 32:1–43) and the Blessing of Moses (33:1–29) are generally pre-H1, pre-H2, H, and exilic HR in Milgrom, Leviticus 1–16, 61–3; Milgrom, Leviticus 17–22, 1345–7, 1361–4. 111 The origins of de Wette’s hypothesis is often cited as Wilhelm M. L. de Wette, ‘Dissertatio critico-exegetica, qua Deuteronomium a prioribus Pentateuchi libris diversum, alius cuiusdam recentioris auctoris opus esse monstratur’ (PhD diss., Jena, 1805); repr. in Opuscula theologica (Berlin: Apud G. Reimerum, 1833), 149–68. 112 For re-evaluations on the pre-exilic provenance of Deuteronomy, see Kratz, Komposition, 118–38; ET, 114–33; Juha Pakkala, ‘The Date of the Oldest Edition of Deuteronomy’, ZAW 121 (2009): 388–401 (pace Nathan MacDonald, ‘Issues in the Dating of Deuteronomy: A Response to Juha Pakkala’, ZAW 122 [2010]: 431–5); Pakkala, ‘The Dating of Deuteronomy: A Response to Nathan MacDonald’, ZAW 123 (2011): 431–6; Ernest W. Nicholson, ‘Deuteronomy and the Babylonian Diaspora’, in On Stone and Scroll: Essays in Honour of Graham Ivor Davies, ed. James K. Aitken, Katharine J. Dell, and Brian A. Mastin, BZAW 420 (Berlin: de Gruyter, 2011), 269–85; Nicholson, ‘Reconsidering the Provenance of Deuteronomy’, ZAW 124 (2012): 528–40; Nicholson, Deuteronomy and the Judaean Diaspora (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2014), 41–73. 113 Eckart Otto, ‘Das Deuteronomium als archimedischer Punkt der Pentateuchkritik: Auf dem Wege zu einer Neubegründung der de Wette’schen Hypothese’, in Deuteronomy and Deuteronomic Literature: Festschrift C. H. W. Brekelmans, ed. Marc Vervenne and Johan Lust, BETL 133 (Leuven: Peeters, 1997), 321–39; Bernard M. Levinson and Jeffrey Stackert, ‘Between the Covenant Code and Esarhaddon’s Succession Treaty: Deuteronomy 13 and the Composition of Deuteronomy’, JAJ 3 (2012): 123–40 (and the ensuing debate in Joshua Berman, ‘Historicism and its Limits: A Response to Bernard M. Levinson and Jeffrey Stackert’, JAJ 4 [2013]: 297–303 and Bernard M. Levinson and Jeffrey Stackert, ‘The Limitations of “Resonance”: A Response to Joshua Berman on Historical and Comparative Method’, JAJ 4 [2013]: 310–33). 114 Menahem Haran, Ages and Institutions in the Bible [‫ עיונים היסטוריים‬:‫]תקופות ומוסדות במקרא‬ (Tel Aviv: Am Oved, 1972), 37–8; Haran, Temples, 92, 262 n. 4; Haran, The Biblical Collection: Its Consolidation to the End of the Second Temple Times and Changes of Form to the End of the Middle Ages [‫ תהליכי הגיבוש עד סוף ימי בית שני ושינויי הצורה עד מוצאי ימי הביניים‬:‫]האסופה המקראית‬, 3 vols (Jerusalem: Mosad Byaliḳ and Magnes, 2003–8), 2: 197–200. 115 Baden, Redaction, 99–195.

Ezra and the Pentateuch

25

upheld as ancient compositions that predate Deuteronomy. Haran assigns the Song of Moses (and its prelude) to E and the Blessing of Moses to J.116 YHVH’s instruction to Moses to ascend Mount Nebo and prepare for his death in Deut. 32:48–52 is Priestly.117 Finally, Deuteronomy 34 is a composite of multiple sources.118 Through the proclamation of its own legal code and within the narrative frame of Moses’ farewell speech to the children of the wilderness generation at the plains of Moab over a short period of time (apparently, a single day), D’s justification for its existence is grounded in its cult centralization programme and its own conceptions of the Israelite deity. D also assesses the moral standards of the wilderness generation as portrayed in its source materials as inadequate for later generations who inherit the promised land from YHVH. Acknowledging that the results are far from agreed upon, what mostly remains in the Pentateuch—the non-Priestly and non-Deuteronomic materials—is assigned to either J or E, with minimal contributions from JDtr and RPent. The final form of the Yahvist source (what I label as J+) results from JDtr’s revision of J, which is most evident in Exod. 34:1–28. Classically, Exod. 34:1–28 is assigned to J under the assumption that J has a festival calendar and describes the giving of a law code at Sinai.119 Against this assignment, critics convincingly demonstrate that vv. 18–26a are a Deuteronomistic revision of the relevant laws from CC.120 With the removal of vv. 18–26a 116

For Deut. 33:1–29 to J, see Haran, Temples, 67 (also Baden, Composition, 28, 81) and 32:1–43 to E, see Haran, Biblical Collection, 2:76–80. S. R. Driver argues that 31:14–22 is JE; see A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on Deuteronomy, ICC, 3rd edn (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1902), 336–7, but Haran more precisely assigns 31:14–22 to E and v. 23 to D (Biblical Collection, 2:71–3; see also Weinfeld, Deuteronomic School, 10 n. 2, 83 n. 2; Weinfeld, Deuteronomy 1–11, 10). I include v. 23 with the prelude in vv. 14–22 as E. 117 Driver, Deuteronomy, 382; Weinfeld, Deuteronomic School, 177, 181; Baden, Composition, 147, 176; also Frevel (n. 95 above). These verses may not be entirely P. Knohl assigns Deut. 32:48–52 to the Holiness stratum (Sanctuary of Silence, 95–6). I attribute only v. 52bβ (‫אל־הארץ‬ ‫ )אשר אני נתן לבני ישראל‬to H. 118 See E, P, and a Deuteronomic addition (in vv. 11–12) in Haran, Biblical Collection, 2:193 n. 8; the three non-Deuteronomic sources in Baden, Composition, 147–8; and all four sources in Philip Y. Yoo, ‘The Four Moses Death Accounts’, JBL 131 (2012): 423–41. 119 Wellhausen, Composition, 334; Jörn Halbe, Das Privilegrecht Jahwes: Ex 34,10–26: Gestalt und Wesen, Herkunft und Wirken in vordeuteronomischer Zeit, FRLANT 114 (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1975), 256–315; Friedman, Sources Revealed, 177–9; William H. C. Propp, Exodus 19–40: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary, AB 2A (New York: Doubleday, 2006), 150. 120 Shimon Gesundheit (Bar-On), ‘The Festival Calendars in Exodus XXIII 14–19 and XXXIV 18–26’, VT 48 (1998), 161–95; Gesundheit (Bar-On), Three Times a Year: Studies on Festival Legislation in the Pentateuch, FAT 82 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2012), 12–43. See also Michael A. Fishbane, Biblical Interpretation in Ancient Israel (Oxford: Clarendon, 1985; repr., with add., 1989), 194–7; Bernard M. Levinson, Deuteronomy and the Hermeneutics of Legal Innovation (New York: Oxford University Press, 1988), 8–9, 69–71; Erhard Blum, ‘Das sog. “Privilegrecht” in Exodus 34,11–26: Ein Fixpunkt der Komposition der Exodusbuches?’, in Studies in the Book of Exodus, ed. Marc Vervenne, BETL 126 (Leuven: Peeters, 1996), 347–66; David M. Carr, ‘Method in Determination of Direction of Dependence: An Empirical Test of

26

Ezra and the Second Wilderness

(in addition to vv. 26b–27) from J along with the recognition that vv. 1–10 consist of separate J and E materials,121 it becomes apparent that J’s Sinai event lacks the giving of any actual law. Instead, J’s Sinai event is a theophany that directly responds to the Israelites’ challenge to YHVH (Exod 17:7; 19:9b).122 JDtr shields the claim espoused by J that the Israelites knew of a set of the deity’s instructions before Sinai.123 This facet has escaped critics who argue that Abraham keeping YHVH’s commandments, statutes, and laws (‫ )מצותי חקותי ותורתי‬in Gen. 26:5 reflects Deuteronom(ist)ic phraseology and is a Deuteronomistic insertion.124 Moshe Weinfeld disputes this verse as Deuteronomic and remarks that Deuteronomic literature never uses plural tôrôt (‫ )תורות‬but singular tôrāh (‫)תורה‬.125 In support, I add that a Deuteronomistic editor would have been aware that Moses received the laws at Horeb (Deut. 5:2; 18:16) and did not issue them to the Israelites until they arrived in Moab (Deut. 1:5; 28:69 [ET 29:1]). For these reasons, Gen. 26:5 should be source-critically assigned to J and Deuteronomistic insertions lie sporadically elsewhere. J recounts YHVH’s activities in the primeval period,126 Criteria Applied to Exodus 34,11–26 and its Parallels’, in Gottes Volk am Sinai: Untersuchungen zu Ex 32–34 und Dtn 9–10, ed. Matthias Köckert and Erhard Blum, VWGT 18 (Gütersloh: Kaiser, Gütersloher Verlagshaus, 2001), 107–40; Hans-Christoph Schmitt, ‘Das sogenannte jahwistische Privilegrecht in Ex 34,10–28 als Komposition der spätdeuteronomistischen Endredaktion des Pentateuch’, in Gertz, Schmid, and Witte, Abschied vom Jahwisten, 157–71. 121 Exod. 34:1–10 can be divided into a theophany in J (vv. 2–3, 4a* [‫וישכם משה בבקר ויעל אל־הר‬ ‫]סיני‬, 5aβ–10) and the giving of the second tablets of stone in E (vv. 1, 4a* [‫ויפסל שני־לחת אבנים‬ ‫]כראשנים ויעל אל־הר כאשר צוה יהוה אתו‬, 4b, 5aα, and its continuation in v. 28); see Baden, Redaction, 166–72. 122 Accordingly, what YHVH eventually gives to the Israelites is a covenant (‫)ברית‬, which is tersely spelled out in Exod. 34:10. 123 J’s claim is not unique. In E, Moses speaks of YHVH’s ‫ חקים‬and ‫ תורות‬before Horeb (Exod. 18:15–16). Like J, but unlike D and P, these terms reflect the non-technical sense of ‘judgments’ and ‘instructions’, respectively. On this point and the observation that E’s Horeb episode lacks ‫ חקים‬and ‫תורות‬, see Baruch J. Schwartz, ‘The Visit of Jethro: A Case of Chronological Displacement? The Source-Critical Solution’, in Mishneh Todah: Studies in Deuteronomy and its Cultural Environment in Honor of Jeffrey H. Tigay, ed. Nili Sacher Fox, David A. Glatt-Gilad, and Michael J. Williams (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2009), 39–41. 124 Rendtorff, Problem, 60; ET, 78; Blum, Studien, 103, 189. 125 Weinfeld, Deuteronomic School, 75 n. 4, 338. Also John Van Seters, ‘The Theology of the Yahwist: A Preliminary Sketch’, in ‘Wer ist wie du, HERR, unter den Göttern?’ Studien zur Theologie und Religionsgeschichte Israels; für Otto Kaiser zum 70. Geburtstag, ed. Ingo Kottsieper et al. (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1994), 227; Van Seters, ‘In the Babylonian Exile with J: Between Judgment in Ezekiel and Salvation in Second Isaiah’, in The Crisis of Israelite Religion: Transformation of Religious Tradition in Exilic and Post-Exilic Times, ed. Bob Becking and Marjo C. A. Korpel, OtSt 42 (Leiden: Brill, 1999), 71–2 n. 2. 126 For detractors of J, Frank Crüsemann’s conclusion that Gen. 12:1–3 are not J but a late expansion and Genesis 2–11 contains a vorpriesterliche Urgeschichte remains influential; see ‘Die Eigenständigkeit der Urgeschichte: Ein Beitrag zur Diskussion um den “Jahwisten” ’, in Die Botschaft und die Boten: Festschrift für Hans Walter Wolff zum 70. Geburtstag, ed. Jörg Jeremias and Lothar Perlitt (Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1981), 11–29. For a convincing rebuttal and in support of Gen. 12:1–3 to J (and for J’s narrative continuity), see Ronald S. Hendel, ‘Is the “J” Primeval Narrative an Independent Composition? A Critique of

Ezra and the Pentateuch

27

the accounts of the patriarchs, the Exodus, and the wilderness. In J, the relationship between YHVH and humanity is often fractious as the Israelites and YHVH occasionally contemplate abandoning each other. J preserves aetiologies and narratives but does not contain a law code. This law code is supplied and inserted into the Sinai theophany by JDtr, who, dissatisfied with the absence of a law code given to the Israelites at a wilderness mountain, reshapes J into the document that is eventually fused into the final form of the Pentateuch (J+). In spite of the persistent attacks on E, some critics continue to defend the existence of a distinct Elohistic tradition, albeit with different conceptions of its exact contents and unity.127 Proponents of E observe a strong and distinct interest in prophecy and the visionary revelation of the word of YHVH.128 Unlike P and J, E does not contain a primeval account and—in a manner similar to Jeremiah—begins with ‘the word of YHVH’ (‫ )דבר־יהוה‬revealed to Abraham (Gen. 15:1aβ; cf. Jer. 1:1).129 E contains accounts of the patriarchs and how one unparalleled prophet, Moses, led the Israelites out of Egypt and through the wilderness. Among critics who accept a substantial Elohistic source or tradition(s), a difficulty lies with the integrity of E’s law-giving episode in Exodus 19–24*. William Propp argues that the Decalogue in Exod. 20:1–14 is a redactional adaptation of Deut. 5:6–18.130 The removal of the Decalogue from its surrounding narrative, however, results in an incoherent narrative with what remains in Exod. 19:25 and 20:15aα.131 Some critics separate the legal section in Exod. 20:23–23:19, CC, from its surrounding narrative.132 Arguing that CC could not exist in a vacuum, David Wright Crüsemann’s “Die Eigenständigkeit der Urgeschichte” ’, in Dozeman, Schmid, and Schwartz, The Pentateuch, 181–205. 127 Alan W. Jenks, The Elohist and North Israelite Traditions, SBLMS 22 (Missoula, MT: Scholars, 1977); Karl Jaroš, Die Stellung des Elohisten zur kanaanäischen Religion, 2nd rev. edn, OBO 4 (Freiburg: Universitätsverlag, 1982); Axel Graupner, Der Elohist: Gegenwart und Wirksamkeit des transzendenten Gottes in der Geschichte, WMANT 97 (Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 2002); Tzemah Yoreh, The First Book of God, BZAW 402 (Berlin: de Gruyter, 2010); Baden, Composition, 103–28. 128 See, recently, Jeffrey Stackert, A Prophet Like Moses: Prophecy, Law, and Israelite Religion (New York: Oxford University Press, 2014), esp. 70–125. 129 See the discussion in Chapter 3 (in the section ‘The Strata of Ezra 7:1–10’) of Ezra 7:1 for ‫ אחר הדברים האלה‬in Gen. 15:1aα. 130 Propp, Exodus 19–40, 145–6. See also the removal of Exod. 20:1–17 from E in Martin Noth, Das zweite Buch Mose: Exodus, ATD 5 (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1959), 124; ET, Exodus: A Commentary, trans. John S. Bowden, OTL (London: SCM, 1962), 154–5; Jenks, Elohist, 45–6; Graupner, Elohist, 126. 131 ‫וירד משה אל־העם ויאמר אלהם…וכל־העם ראים את־הקולת ואת־הלפידם‬ 132 Martin Noth, Überlieferungsgeschichte des Pentateuch (Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 1948), 39 n. 139; ET, A History of Pentateuchal Traditions, trans. with intro. Bernhard W. Anderson (Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, 1972), 36 n. 139; Noth, Exodus, 139–41; ET, 173–5; Jenks, Elohist, 46–7; Graupner, Elohist, 129. John Van Seters contends that exilic J composed CC out of Deuteronomy and the Holiness Code; see A Law Book for the Diaspora: Revision in the Study of

28

Ezra and the Second Wilderness

identifies texts in Exodus as belonging to a Covenant Code Narrative (CCN) which frames CC.133 I agree that both the Decalogue and CC are integral to E’s recollection of the events at Horeb. Another contested section is Exod. 24:3–8, with critics assigning these verses to a late (Deuteronomistic) addition.134 Despite these challenges, Exod. 24:3–8 describe a covenant that follows the giving of CC and these verses fit well in E.135 In support of an independent E document, I propose that this source contains ideological and historical claims that contradict the other sources to the point where it diverges from commonly held views of Israel’s origins. The dissatisfaction of one of E’s earliest readers led to the revised account of the Israelite wilderness now contained in D’s narrative. Following the above modifications to the four-source theory, what is mostly preserved in the Pentateuch is multiple representations of the First Temple cult that are projected onto an idyllic period prior to the establishment of the Israelite confederacy. These sources share the same basic narrative: YHVH promised Israel’s ancestors that the land of Canaan will be an inheritance for their descendants, Jacob and his family moved to Egypt where the Israelites became numerous, the Israelites left Egypt under YHVH’s protection, and throughout the wilderness journey YHVH was with the Israelites on numerous occasions. These sources, however, recount the details of this grand narrative through their own cultic and ideological bias. In one of the irreconcilable differences in detail, the wilderness tent is either at the physical and spiritual centre of the Israelite encampment (Num. 2:17 [P]) or pitched outside the Israelite encampment (Exod. 33:7 [E]).136 Additionally, CC,

the Covenant Code (New York: Oxford University Press, 2003), esp. 47–81. This argument is unsustainable. See the objections in Bernard M. Levinson, ‘Is the Covenant Code an Exilic Composition? In Response to John Van Seters’, in In Search of Pre-Exilic Israel, ed. John Day, JSOTSup 406 (London: T&T Clark, 2004), 272–325; David P. Wright, Inventing God’s Law: How the Covenant Code of the Bible Used and Revised the Laws of Hammurabi (New York: Oxford University Press, 2009), 22–3. 133 Wright, Inventing God’s Law, 332–44. Wright acknowledges that many of the texts he labels ‘CCN’ are source-critically assigned to E but refrains from identifying these texts as such. Still, his argument that CC could not have existed without a surrounding narrative is persuasive. 134 Noth, Pentateuch, 33 n. 115; ET, 31 n. 115; Jenks, Elohist, 46; Dennis J. McCarthy, Treaty and Covenant: A Study in Form in the Ancient Oriental Documents and in the Old Testament, rev. edn, AnBib 21A (Rome: Biblical Institute, 1981), 266–9; Rendtorff, Problem, 90; ET, 112; Blum, Studien, 50–2; Graupner, Elohist, 131–3; Ska, ‘From History Writing to Library Building’, 160–9; and vv. 4–8 in William M. Schniedewind, How the Bible Became a Book (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2004), 124–7. Jaroš assigns most of Exod. 24:3–8 to E with minor additions in what remains (Stellung, 113–17). 135 For connections between Exod. 24:3–8 and CC, see Ronald S. Hendel, ‘Sacrifice as a Cultural System: The Ritual Symbolism of Exodus 24:3–8’, ZAW 101 (1989): 371–3. For Exod. 24:3–8 to E, see Friedman, Sources Revealed, 160; Baden, Redaction, 168; or ‘proto-Deuteronomic’ in Wright, Inventing God’s Law, 341–2. 136 Menahem Haran, ‘The Nature of the ‘’Ohel Mo‘edh’ in Pentateuchal Sources’, JSS 5 (1960): 50–65; Haran, Temples, 260–75; Benjamin D. Sommer, The Bodies of God and the World of Ancient Israel (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2009), 80–3.

Ezra and the Pentateuch

29

Deuteronomic, and Priestly law contain different—and, when read against each other, often contradictory—requirements for the proper observance of the Yahvistic cult. In the discussion of the composition of Ezra 7–10 and Nehemiah 8–10 that follows in Chapters 2–5, some of the other legal, cultic, and plot differences detected among the Pentateuchal sources will be examined.

E ZR A ’S TORAH Returning to the question of Ezra’s role in the shaping of the Pentateuch from its constituent parts to its final form, this study presumes that, even if Ezra can be relegated to a literary fiction, EM reflects the realities of its contemporary time. EM is aware that the post-exilic Yahvistic cult upholds something authoritative—Torah—that YHVH gave to Moses and the Israelites at a wilderness mountain. According to EM, Ezra and the returnees inherit this Torah from the distant and utopian pre-exilic past. The antiquity of most, if not all, of the Pentateuchal material forms the basis for attributing the formation of the Pentateuch to Ezra in the fifth or fourth century.137 Wellhausen established his chronology of the source documents by arguing that Ezra introduces the Priestly Code and the entire Pentateuch.138 Reflecting the contemporary interest in the New Documentary Hypothesis, Johannes Geissler produced lists of words and phrases that are common to the (Hexateuchal) sources and the Esramemoiren.139 Geissler anticipates the current scepticism over some parts of EM (especially in his removal of Ezra 7:1–10 and vv. 11–26), but his conclusion that Ezra knows the Hexateuch loses most of its force due to his expansive Esramemoiren in Ezra 7:27–10:44; Neh. 7:6–10:40; 13:1–3. Few, if any, critics would now consider Neh. 7:6–72a [ET 73a]; 13:1–3 as part of an Ezra memoir or source and it will be argued in Chapter 2 that Neh. 9:5aβ–10:40 are supplemental to EM. Among critics who agree that Ezra proclaims the Pentateuch in some shape or form, yet disagree on the process of its formation, the theory of Persian 137 Albright, Abraham to Ezra, 94–6; Schaeder, Esra der Schreiber, 69; Mowinckel, Studien, 3:124–41; Grabbe, Ezra-Nehemiah, 147; Myers, Ezra. Nehemiah, lix; Williamson, Ezra, Nehemiah, 92. For Ezra as the redactor of the Pentateuch, see Friedman, Who Wrote the Bible?, 223–5. For Nehemiah 8–10 presupposing Genesis-Joshua, see Thomas Römer and Marc Zvi Brettler, ‘Deuteronomy 34 and the Case for a Persian Hexateuch’, JBL 119 (2000): 416; Timothy L. Lim, The Formation of the Jewish Canon, AYBRL (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2013), 69–72. 138 Wellhausen, Prolegomena, 403–9; ET, 404–10. Disputing the late dating of P, Haran writes, ‘Ezra’s activity was the moment of P’s exposure to the public view, not the moment of its composition’ (Temples, 12 [my emphasis]). 139 Johannes Geissler, Die literarischen Beziehungen der Esramemoiren: Insbesondere zur Chronik und den hexateuchischen Quellenschriften (Chemnitz: J. C. F. Pickenhahn & Sohn, 1899).

30

Ezra and the Second Wilderness

imperial authorization presents an explanation for the publication of the Pentateuch in its final form.140 Other critics raise the possibility that Ezra’s Torah is equivalent to D141 or a combination of D and P.142 A challenge to the relationship between Ezra and the Pentateuch was presented by Cornelis Houtman, who argued that Ezra’s law code is something completely other than the Pentateuch.143 This evaluation has been somewhat sustained by a growing tendency to place most of the Pentateuch (and, for that matter, the biblical corpus) beyond the time of Ezra and into the late Persian period, with increasing support for the Hellenistic and Hasmonean periods.144 As a result, some critics place the Pentateuch as a Jewish product that responds to the pressures of Hellenization.145 It should be noted that the premise that a text can only arise from a single historical event is open to methodological criticism.146 Other critics oppose the dating of biblical materials to the Persian period and afterwards on the basis of available archaeological, socio-economic, and literary evidence.147 The discrepancies between Ezra-Nehemiah and the 140 Blum, Studien, 339–60; Blum, ‘Esra, die Mosetora und die persische Politik’, in Religion und Religionskontakte im Zeitalter der Achämeniden, ed. Reinhard G. Kratz, VWGT 22 (Gütersloh: Gütersloher Verlag, 2002), 231–56; Frank Crüsemann, Die Tora: Theologie und Sozialgeschichte des alttestamentlichen Gesetzes (Munich: Chr. Kaiser, 1992), 387–93; ET, The Torah: Theology and Social History of Old Testament Law, trans. Allan W. Mahnke (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1996), 334–9; David M. Carr, Reading the Fractures of Genesis: Historical and Literary Approaches (Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox, 1996), 327–33; Baden, Redaction, 309–12; Schwartz, ‘Torah’, 215–17. 141 Ulrich Kellermann, ‘Erwägungen zum Esragesetz’, ZAW 80 (1968): 373–85; pace Koch, ‘Origins’, 180–1. 142 Cazelles, ‘Mission’, 139; Williamson, Ezra, Nehemiah, xxxvii–xxxix; Blenkinsopp, EzraNehemiah, 155; Michael L. Satlow, How the Bible Became Holy (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2014), 77–8. 143 Cornelis Houtman, ‘Ezra and the Law: Observations on the Supposed Relation between Ezra and the Pentateuch’, in Remembering all the Way: A Collection of Old Testament Studies Published on the Occasion of the Fortieth Anniversary of the Oudtestamentisch Werkgezelschap in Nederland, ed. Bertil Albrektson, OtSt 21 (Leiden: Brill, 1981), 112–13. 144 See, for example, Konrad Schmid, Literaturgeschichte des Alten Testaments: Eine Einführung (Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 2008), 140–200; ET, The Old Testament: A Literary History, trans. Linda M. Maloney (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2012), 141–209; Carr, Formation, 153–351. 145 Reinhard G. Kratz, ‘Temple and Torah: Reflections on the Legal Status of the Pentateuch between Elephantine and Qumran’, in Knoppers and Levinson, Pentateuch as Torah, 77–103. For the argument that the Pentateuch was a creation of Jewish scholars based in Alexandria in 273–272 (cf. Let. Aris. 307–17 in OTP 2:33–4), see Russell E. Gmirkin, Berossus and Genesis, Manetho and Exodus: Hellenistic Histories and the Date of the Pentateuch, LHBOTS 433 (London: T&T Clark, 2006), but see also its convincing refutation in John Day, ‘The Flood and the Ten Antediluvian Figures in Berossus and in the Priestly Source in Genesis’, in Aitken, Dell, and Mastin, On Stone and Scroll, 221–3. Gmirkin discusses Genesis 1–11 and the Exodus event, yet overstates his claim for the entire Pentateuchal corpus. 146 See Benjamin D. Sommer, ‘Dating Pentateuchal Texts and the Perils of PseudoHistoricism’, in Dozeman, Schmid, and Schwartz, The Pentateuch, 85–108. 147 In support of Judah as the background for the writing of Genesis-Kings, see Israel Finkelstein and Neil Asher Silberman, The Bible Unearthed: Archaeology’s New Vision of Ancient

Ezra and the Pentateuch

31

Pentateuch do not necessarily lead to the conclusion that the latter assumes the former. Instead, the chronological priority of nearly all of the Pentateuchal materials can be defended through plausible explanations. This study supports the opinion that EM employs Priestly (P) and Deuteronomic (D) materials but also demonstrates the use of Pentateuchal materials that I identify as Yahvistic (J) and Elohistic (E). Although the notion of Yahvistic and Elohistic sources or traditions is a contested issue in current Pentateuchal scholarship (some critics substitute KD [vor-priesterliche Komposition]148 or non-P), many critics agree that these disputed materials are neither Priestly nor Deuteronomic. It is my hope that the results of this study will be useful to critics who subscribe to the view that the Pentateuch and Ezra 7–10 and Nehemiah 8–10 are products of multiple hands. Whatever one labels these Pentateuchal materials, this study demonstrates that the literary strata in Ezra 7–10 and Nehemiah 8–10 presuppose the Pentateuch at different stages, from its constituent parts to its final form. Having placed the formation of the Pentateuch in the Second Temple period, this study investigates how EM employs the Pentateuchal materials to construct its narrative of Ezra and the returnees. Before undertaking this examination of EM, it is necessary to identify the compositional layers that underlie Ezra 7–10 and Nehemiah 8–10. This analysis begins in Chapter 2.

Israel and the Origin of its Sacred Texts (New York: Simon and Schuster, 2001). Against the view that most of biblical literature is a product of the Persian and Hellenistic periods, see Schniedewind, How the Bible Became a Book, 165–82. See also the critique against alleged evidence of a late edition of the Hebrew Bible in Ronald S. Hendel, ‘A Hasmonean Edition of MT Genesis? The Implications of the Editions of the Chronology in Genesis 5’, HBAI 1 (2012): 448–64. 148 Following Blum, Studien, 9–218.

2 Reshaping Narrative and Law According to Ezra-Nehemiah, the events in Nehemiah 9–10 occur on the twenty-fourth day of the seventh month and a day after the solemn assembly (‫ )עצרת‬in Neh. 8:18. Some critics consider Nehemiah 9–10 as part of EM or the original continuation of the accounts in Nehemiah 8. As such, an examination of the relationship between Nehemiah 9–10 on the one hand and Ezra 7–10 and Nehemiah 8 on the other hand is significant for this study. In this chapter, I argue that Nehemiah 9 is not a unified whole and that only a small portion belongs with EM in Ezra 7–10 and Nehemiah 8. Accordingly, most of Nehemiah 9 and all of Nehemiah 10 should be recognized as additions to EM. My attention then turns to the use of the Pentateuchal materials in the historical prayer in Neh. 9:5aβ–25 and the pledges in 10:31–40. The following discussion confirms the general view that most of Nehemiah 9–10 presupposes a fully developed Pentateuch and offers a point of comparison for an examination of the use of Pentateuchal materials in EM.

THE P LACE AND UNITY OF NEHEMIAH 9 Textual support for the continuity of Nehemiah 8–9 is found in the mention of Ezra in LXX Neh. 9:6a, καὶ εἶπεν Εσδρας, a detail that is absent in MT. However, καὶ εἶπεν Εσδρας in this verse is generally considered as secondary.1 Upholding the unity (and Chronistic authorship) of Nehemiah 8–10, Wellhausen 1 Batten, Ezra and Nehemiah, 352, 362; Noth, Überlieferungsgeschichtliche Studien, 130, 149 n. 6; ET, in Chronicler’s History, 49, 164; Rudolph, Esra und Nehemia, 154; Mowinckel, Studien, 1:56; Michael W. Duggan, The Covenant Renewal in Ezra-Nehemiah (Neh. 7:72b–10:40): An Exegetical, Literary, and Theological Study, SBLDS 164 (Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2001), 161; Juha Pakkala, ‘The Disunity of Ezra-Nehemiah’, in Unity and Disunity in EzraNehemiah: Redaction, Rhetoric, and Reader, ed. Mark J. Boda and Paul L. Redditt, HBM 17 (Sheffield: Sheffield Phoenix, 2008), 204–5. In support of LXX, and the unlikely supposition that Neh. 9:3–5 is spoken by Ezra, see Paul L. Redditt, ‘The Dependence of Ezra-Nehemiah on 1 and 2 Chronicles’, in Boda and Redditt, Unity and Disunity, 223 n. 29.

Reshaping Narrative and Law

33

draws upon parallels from 2 Kings 22–3 (esp. 23:1–3).2 Similarly, Noth reads Nehemiah 8–10 as a single literary creation, one derived from both EM and NM.3 Other critics lend support for the unity of Nehemiah 8–9 through synchronic readings.4 In my estimation, Nehemiah 9 contains two major points of tension. The first is its place after Nehemiah 8 and the second is the division between prose and prayer in Neh. 9:5.

The Discontinuity of Nehemiah 9 If Nehemiah 8–9 is indeed an original unit, then the transition from celebration in 8:18 to repentance in 9:1 is startling—why the sudden change in mood? Some critics place Nehemiah 9 as a completely separate composition that was appended to Neh. 8:18 by a later redactor.5 This is justified for Neh. 9:6–37 as these verses speak in general terms without explicit reference to the events in Nehemiah 8.6 However, the difficulty lies in the lexical and thematic affinities between Nehemiah 8 and 9:1–5.7 Due to lexical parallels and connections, Michael Duggan supports the unity of Neh. 7:72b [ET 73b]–9:5.8 Many of his examples are not exclusive to Neh. 7:72b–9:5 and can be detected in Ezra 7–10. Chronological notices not only exist in Neh. 7:72b; 8:3; 9:1 but also in Ezra 9:16, 17. Levites occupy a central role in Neh. 8:7–8, 9, 11; 9:4–5; yet their absence at the Ahava in Ezra 8:15–20 is equally crucial for Ezra’s caravan. More telling is what is absent in Neh. 7:72b–8:18. The separation from the foreigners in Neh. 9:2 is closer to the events in Ezra 9–10 (especially 9:1; 10:11). The verb ‫( בד״ל‬ni.) in Neh. 9:2 is unattested in 7:72b–8:18 but is found elsewhere in Ezra 9:1; 10:8, 11, 16. It then follows that Neh. 9:1–5 is not only connected to Nehemiah 8 but also Ezra 7–10 and, in turn, should be included among the EM materials. Following the transposition of Neh. 7:72b–8:18 (see Chapter 4), I do not consider all of 9:1–5 to be in its original place. These verses may fit after Ezra 10:44 but any part of Neh. 9:5 would then become an 2

Wellhausen, Prolegomena, 406–8; ET, 408–10. Noth, Überlieferungsgeschichtliche Studien, 148–9; ET, in Chronicler’s History, 65–6. See also Kratz, Komposition, 88–9; ET, 80–1. 4 Eskenazi, Age of Prose, 96–111; Duggan, Covenant Renewal, 140–289; Mark J. Boda, ‘Redaction in the Book of Nehemiah: A Fresh Proposal’, in Boda and Redditt, Unity and Disunity, 36–7. 5 Mowinckel, Studien, 1:56; Kapelrud, Authorship, 1; Antonius H. J. Gunneweg, Nehemia, KAT 19.2 (Gütersloh: Gütersloher Verlagshaus Mohn, 1987), 120; In der Smitten, Esra, 48–9; Hans-Peter Mathys, Dichter und Beter: Theologen aus spätalttestamentlicher Zeit, OBO 132 (Freiburg: Universitätsverlag; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1994), 20. 6 Batten, Ezra and Nehemiah, 352–3; Mowinckel, Studien, 1:53; Williamson, Ezra, Nehemiah, 308–10; Blenkinsopp, Ezra-Nehemiah, 301. 7 Kellermann, Nehemia, 32–3; Blenkinsopp, Ezra-Nehemiah, 294. 8 Duggan, Covenant Renewal, 73–4. 3

34

Ezra and the Second Wilderness

unsatisfying ending to EM. Clines identifies Nehemiah 8–9 as a unit that was originally in between Ezra 7–8 and Ezra 9–10.9 In addition to the difficulties noted above with Nehemiah 8–9 as an originally single unit, a problem with this reconstruction is that the notice of separation from foreigners in Neh. 9:2 fits poorly before Ezra 9–10. At this point, it is sufficient to note that Neh. 9:1–5 is stylistically closer to EM in Ezra 7–10 and Nehemiah 8 than what follows in Neh. 9:6–37.10 There remains, however, the question of how much of vv. 1–5 is originally EM and, in turn, the precise division between prose and prayer in Nehemiah 9.

The Division of Nehemiah 9:1–5 In Neh. 9:5a, the Levites declare to the gathering of Israelites: ‫קומו ברכו את־יהוה אלהיכם מן־העולם עד־העולם‬ Rise and bless YHVH your God, from eternity to eternity.11

The Levites continue in v. 5b: ‫ויברכו שם כבודך ומרומם על־כל־ברכה ותהלה‬ And may your glorious name be blessed, honoured above all blessing and praise!

This verse contains two notable problems. The first problem is with ‫מן־העולם‬ ‫‘( עד־העולם‬from eternity to eternity’) in v. 5aβ. Torrey asks, ‘how could these people be exhorted to “stand up and bless Yahwè from everlasting to everlasting”? They were not immortal, and had not been eternal.’12 Duggan counters that Neh. 9:5 contains parallel clauses that begin with ‫ ברכו‬and ‫ ויברכו‬and finds support in Ps. 115:18 (‫)ואנחנו נברך יהוה מעתה ועד־עולם‬.13 This proposal for parallelism requires the omission of ‫קומו‬, but this word should be included with ‫ברכו‬. The second problem is more difficult. Due to the conjunction in ‫ ויברכו‬in Neh. 9:5b, it is difficult to read this half-verse as a quotation within a quotation. The Levites exhort the Israelites to rise and bless YHVH (v. 5a) but it is nearly impossible that ‘your glorious name’ (v. 5b) refers to the Israelites. Whereas the second-person plural imperatives in v. 5a address the Israelites, the singular suffix (and what follows) in v. 5b must refer to YHVH.14 9

Clines, Ezra, Nehemiah, Esther, 10, 180–1, 189. Pakkala argues that Neh. 9:1–5 provides a transition between Nehemiah 8 and 9:6–37 (Ezra the Scribe, 181–4). 11 Unless otherwise noted, all translations are mine. 12 13 Torrey, Ezra Studies, 280. Duggan, Covenant Renewal, 146–8. 14 For Neh. 9:5 as a standard beginning of a post-exilic prayer, see Judith H. Newman, Praying by the Book: The Scripturalization of Prayer in Second Temple Judaism, EJL 14 (Atlanta: Scholars, 1999), 59–60. 10

Reshaping Narrative and Law

35

From LXX Neh. 9:6a (καὶ εἶπεν Εσδρας) and Ps. 41:14; 106:48; 1 Chr. 16:36, Torrey inserts ‫ ַוֹּיאֶמר ֶעְז ָרא ָברּוך ַאָּתה יהוה אל ֵֹהינּו‬in between Neh. 9:5a and v. 5b.15 As noted above, the reconstruction of ‫ ויאמר עזרא‬is not widely supported on the ground that καὶ εἶπεν Εσδρας in LXX Neh. 9:6a is secondary. However, Torrey’s insertion of ‫ ברוך אתה יהוה אלהינו‬before ‫ מן־העולם עד־העולם‬in Neh. 9:5aβ cannot be discarded, as this reconstruction finds support in other biblical texts:16 (Ps. 41:14) ‫ברוך יהוה אלהי ישראל מהעולם ועד העלום‬ (Ps. 106:48) ‫ברוך־יהוה אלהי ישראל מן־העולם ועד העולם‬ (1 Chr. 16:36) ‫ברוך יהוה אלהי ישראל מן־העולם ועד העלם‬ (1 Chr. 29:10) ‫ברוך אתה יהוה אלהי ישראל אבינו מעולם ועד עולם‬

Although Ps. 41:14, 106:48; 1 Chr. 16:36 close a unit, Torrey’s reconstruction of Neh. 9:5aβ with ‫ ברוך אתה יהוה אלהינו‬as the beginning of a prayer is supported by 1 Chr. 29:10. Following the reconstruction, the plural ‫ ויברכו‬in Neh. 9:5bα (which follows ‫ ברכו‬in v. 5aα) is awkward on its own and, following Ps. 72:19 (‫)ברוך שם כבודך לעולם‬, I submit that ‫ ויברכו‬in Neh. 9:5aβ originally read ‫ברוך שם‬ ‫כבודך‬. The reason for the change from the original participle (‫ )ברוך‬to a finite verb (‫ )ויברכו‬in Neh. 9:5bα lies in the transposition of the imperative ‫ ברכו‬to its present place in v. 5aα. The original contents in Neh. 9:5 are reconstructed as follows: ‫ויאמרו הלוים ישוע וקדמיאל בני חשבניה שרביה הודיה שבניה פתחיה‬ ‫קומו ברכו את־יהוה‬ ‫ברוך אתה יהוה אלהי ישראל מן־העולם עד־העולם‬ ‫ברוך שם כבודך‬ ‫ומרומם על־כל־ברכה ותהלה‬ The Levites Jeshua, Kadmiel, Bani, Hashabniah, Sherebiah, Hodiah, and Pethahiah said, ‘Rise and bless YHVH your God. Blessed are you, YHVH, God of Israel, from age to age. Blessed is your glorious name, honoured above all blessing and praise!’

15 Torrey, Ezra Studies, 280–2. This addition is absent in his reconstructed text in Chronicler’s History, 120, 176. 16 Kurt Galling, Die Bücher der Chronik, Esra, Nehemia, ATD 12 (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1954), 235; Williamson, Ezra, Nehemiah, 303–4. For ‫ ברוך אתה ה׳‬as a common liturgical phrase in Second Temple/post-biblical Jewish liturgy, see Avi Hurvitz, in collaboration with Leeor Gottlieb, Aaron Hornkohl, and Emmanuel Mastéy, A Concise Lexicon of Late Biblical Hebrew: Linguistic Innovations in the Writings of the Second Temple Period, VTSup 160 (Leiden: Brill, 2014), 77–8.

36

Ezra and the Second Wilderness

Neh. 9:5aα is not originally part of the prayer. Kellermann correctly identifies these words as a terse exhortation directed to the Israelites and the completion of vv. 1–4.17 For now, the original place of vv. 1–5aα can be set aside from the discussion of the historical prayer in Nehemiah 9. As reconstructed above, Neh. 9:5aβ (and v. 5b) forms the introduction to what follows in vv. 6–37.18 What is preserved in Neh. 9:5 results from the work of a later redactor, namely RE-N, who transposed vv. 1–5aα from their original location in EM and attached the originally separate composition in (reworked) vv. 5aβ–37 in order to expand the account of the solemn assembly (‫ )עצרת‬of the seventh month (8:18 [EM]). The final shape of Nehemiah 9 resembles the sequence found in another post-exilic narrative, in which Daniel confesses (Dan 9:1–4a) before his own penitential prayer (vv. 4b–19).19

RECITING HISTORY IN N EHEMIAH 9 Arguments in favour of the separation of Neh. 9:5aβ–37 into original and supplemental layers are for the most part unconvincing and I consider its entirety to be original, and derived from a single hand, who I will hereafter simply refer to as ‘the composer’.20 Julian Morgenstern argues that Nehemiah 9 preserves a (pre-Ezran) synagogue liturgy, but the reverse direction of influence is more likely.21 Nehemiah 9—which I restrict to vv. 5aβ–37—resists any clear label. The proposals are many and include prayer;22 penitential prayer psalm;23 a confession of sins;24 post-exilic scripturalization or learned

17

Kellermann, Nehemia, 32–5. Likewise, Volker Pröbstl sees Neh. 9:5aβ as an original introduction to a prayer but opines that the tensions in v. 5 are minimal; see Nehemia 9, Psalm 106 und Psalm 136 und die Rezeption des Pentateuchs (Göttingen: Cuvillier, 1997), 8. 19 Duggan, Covenant Renewal, 152. For Daniel’s prayer as integral to Daniel 9, see John J. Collins, Daniel: A Commentary on the Book of Daniel, Hermeneia (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1993), 348. 20 For Neh. 9:7–8 as additions, see A. C. Welch, ‘The Source of Nehemiah IX’, ZAW 47 (1929): 132; Rudolph, Esra und Nehemia, 154, 157. For a critique of Welch, see Williamson, Ezra, Nehemiah, 313. Rudolph removes v. 22 as a later addition (Esra und Nehemia, 160); however, for the unity of vv. 22–4, see Williamson, Ezra, Nehemiah, 316. 21 Julian Morgenstern, ‘The Chanukkah Festival and the Calendar of Ancient Israel’, HUCA 20 (1947): 21 n. 34. See the opposite view in Leon J. Liebreich, ‘The Impact of Nehemiah 9:5–37 on the Liturgy of the Synagogue’, HUCA 32 (1961): 227–37. The setting of the synagogue is also unconvincingly claimed for the backdrop to Nehemiah 8. 22 Blenkinsopp, Ezra-Nehemiah, 302; Williamson, Ezra, Nehemiah, 305. 23 Myers, Ezra. Nehemiah, 166. 24 Maurice Gilbert, ‘La Place de la loi dans la prière de Néhémie 9’, in De la Tôrah au Messie: études d’exégèse et d’herméneutique bibliques offertes à Henri Cazelles pour ses 25 années d’enseignement à l’Institut Catholique de Paris (Octobre 1979) (Paris: Desclée, 1981), 307–16. 18

Reshaping Narrative and Law

37

reflection;25 credal summary;26 or post-exilic penitential prayer.27 For now, I designate Neh. 9:5aβ–37 as a ‘historical prayer’. There is also some debate concerning the provenance of Nehemiah 9. In one view, A. C. Welch argues that Nehemiah 9 is influenced by the book of Deuteronomy (which he identifies as a law code of northern Israel) and dates the composition to the Josianic period.28 Disputing the early date, Gary Rendsburg partially supports Welch and identifies multiple linguistic characteristics of a northern Israelian dialect in Nehemiah 9.29 Some critics, however, dispute the existence of a northern dialect altogether and argue that Nehemiah 9 demonstrates linguistic features that are post-exilic.30 Williamson situates Neh. 9:6–37 among the non-exiled communities that remained in Judah.31 Most critics place Nehemiah 9 in the post-exilic period but its precise date finds little agreement.32

25 Judith H. Newman, ‘Nehemiah 9 and the Scripturalization of Prayer in the Second Temple Period’, in The Function of Scripture in Early Jewish and Christian Tradition, ed. Craig A. Evans and James A. Sanders, JSNTSup 154 (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1998), 112–23; Newman, Praying by the Book, 55–116. 26 Manfred Oeming, ‘ “See We Are Serving Today” (Nehemiah 9:36): Nehemiah 9 as a Theological Interpretation of the Persian Period’, in Judah and the Judeans in the Persian Period, ed. Oded Lipschits and Manfred Oeming (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2006), 574; Rolf Rendtorff, ‘Nehemiah 9: An Important Witness of Theological Reflection’, in Tehillah le-Moshe: Biblical and Judaic Studies in Honor of Moshe Greenberg, ed. Mordechai Cogan, Barry L. Eichler, and Jeffrey H. Tigay (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1997), 111–17. 27 Richard Bautch, Developments in Genre between Post-Exilic Penitential Prayers and the Psalms of Communal Lament, ABS 7 (Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2003), 125–35; Rodney A. Werline, Penitential Prayer in Second Temple Judaism: The Development of a Religious Institution, EJL 13 (Atlanta: Scholars, 1998), 56–9; Mark J. Boda, Praying the Tradition: The Origin and Use of Tradition in Nehemiah 9, BZAW 277 (Berlin: de Gruyter, 1999), 32–8; pace Bob Becking, ‘Nehemiah 9 and the Problematic Concept of Context (Sitz im Leben)’, in The Changing Face of Form Criticism for the Twenty-First Century, ed. Marvin Sweeney and Ehud Ben Zvi (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2003), 259–61. 28 Welch, ‘Nehemiah IX’, 130–7. 29 Gary A. Rendsburg, ‘The Northern Origin of Nehemiah 9’, Bib 72 (1991): 348–66. 30 Pröbstl, Nehemia 9, 104–5; Boda, Praying the Tradition, 16. For example, upon a comparison of SamP Lev. 18:5 (‫ )וחיה בהם‬with MT Lev. 18:5 (‫)וחי בהם‬, ‫ וחיה בהם‬in Neh. 9:29 is a feature of LBH (Hurvitz, Linguistic Study, 47). SamP can be dated to the Maccabean period when Judaean– Samaritan relations disintegrated; see Gary N. Knoppers, Jews and Samaritans: The Origins and History of their Early Relations (New York: Oxford University Press, 2013), 178–94. 31 H. G. M. Williamson, ‘Structure and Historiography in Nehemiah 9’, in Proceedings of the Ninth World Congress of Jewish Studies. Panel Sessions: Bible Studies and the Ancient Near East, ed. Moshe Goshen-Gottstein (Jerusalem: World Union of Jewish Studies, 1988), 129. 32 Among the options: the early Persian period in Boda, Praying the Tradition, esp. 188–95; Min, Levitical Authorship, 114; the middle Persian period in Oeming, ‘Nehemiah 9’, 572, 584; the time of Nehemiah in Martin Rehm, ‘Nehemia 9’, BZ 1 (1957): 59–69; the late Persian period in Batten, Ezra and Nehemiah, 363; Mathys, Dichter und Beter, 20; late third century in Jacques Vermeylen, ‘The Gracious God, Sinners and Foreigners: How Nehemiah 9 Interprets the History of Israel’, in History and Identity: How Israel’s Later Authors Viewed its Earlier History, ed. Núria Calduch-Benages and Jan Liesen, DCLY 2006 (Berlin: de Gruyter, 2006), 104–11; or, the Hasmonean period in Kratz, Komposition, 98; ET, 91–2.

38

Ezra and the Second Wilderness

The influence of the biblical corpus on Neh. 9:5aβ–37 is undeniable with observed connections between Nehemiah 9 and Joshua 24,33 Psalm 78,34 Ezekiel 20,35 and Ezra 9:6–15.36 There are also notable connections between Nehemiah 9 and the Pentateuch and Deuteronomistic History.37 Gerhard von Rad includes Neh. 9:13–14 as among the first witnesses of a separate Sinaitradition integrated into the Exodus and Sinai narratives (Deut. 26:5b–9; cf. 6:20–4; Josh. 24:2b–13).38 Gunneweg argues that the prayer not only follows Deuteronomy and Dtr but also presumes JE and P and belongs to the latest parts of the Hebrew Bible.39 In contemporary, yet independent studies on Nehemiah 9, Volker Pröbstl and Mark Boda detect Deuteronomic and Priestly influences to various degrees. Pröbstl argues that Nehemiah 9 is primarily reliant on Deuteronomic traditions with Priestly modifications.40 In support of Priestly and Ezekielian influences in Nehemiah 9, Boda further argues for their supersession of Deuteronomic foundations.41 Among critics who uphold the Pentateuch as a product of predominantly Deuteronomic and Priestly traditions, Nehemiah 9 continues to attract interest as a composition that presupposes the final form of the Pentateuch.42 Most scholars agree that Neh. 9:6–37 follows the narrative in GenesisKings. Setting aside the ‫ ועתה‬statements in vv. 32–7 and the sections that, for the most part, follow Joshua-Kings in vv. 26–31,43 the following discussion of 33 Christophe Nihan, ‘The Torah between Samaria and Judah: Shechem and Gerizim in Deuteronomy and Joshua’, in Knoppers and Levinson, Pentateuch and Torah, 196. 34 Bautch, Post-Exilic Penitential Prayers, 116–21. 35 Waldemar Chrostowski, ‘An Examination of Conscience by God’s People as Exemplified in Neh. 9,6–37’, BZ 34 (1990): 253–61. 36 Michael W. Duggan, ‘Ezra 9:6–15: A Penitential Prayer within its Literary Setting’, in Seeking the Favor of God, vol. 1: The Origins of Penitential Prayer in Second Temple Judaism, ed. Mark J. Boda, Daniel K. Falk, and Rodney A. Werline, EJL 21 (Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2006), 175–7. For arguments against a common relationship between Ezra 9:6–15 and Neh. 9:6–37, see Batten, Ezra and Nehemiah, 365; Clines, Ezra, Nehemiah, Esther, 192. 37 Myers, Ezra. Nehemiah, 167–9; Grabbe, History of the Jews, 1:336; Bautch, Post-Exilic Penitential Prayers, 125–35; Duggan, Covenant Renewal, 224. As is suggested by ‫ולא שמעו‬ ‫ אל־מצותיך‬in Neh. 9:16 (also ‫ולא שמעו‬, v. 29), the composer occasionally injects Deuteronomistic phraseology; see Weinfeld, Deuteronomic School, 337; Duggan, Covenant Renewal, 210. 38 Gerhard von Rad, Das formgeschichtliche Problem des Hexateuch, BWANT 4 (Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 1938), 11; repr., ‘Das formgeschichtliche Problem des Hexateuch’, in Gesammelte Studien zum Alten Testament, TB 8 (Munich: Kaiser, 1958), 19–20; ET, ‘The Form-Critical Problem of the Hexateuch’, in The Problem of the Hexateuch and Other Essays, trans. E. W. Trueman Dicken (Edinburgh: Oliver & Boyd, 1966), 12–13. F. Charles Fensham remarks that the recollection of the molten calf in Neh. 9:18 indicates that Sinai was originally part of the wilderness tradition (‘Neh. 9 and Pss. 105, 106, 135 and 136. Post-exilic Historical Traditions in Poetic Form’, JNSL 9 [1981]: 43; Fensham, The Books of Ezra and Nehemiah, NICOT [Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1982], 230). 39 40 Gunneweg, Nehemia, 129. Pröbstl, Nehemia 9, 7–105, esp. 95–9. 41 Boda, Praying the Tradition, esp. 186–7. 42 Römer, Israels Väter, 539–42; Schmid, Erzväter und Exodus, 302–6; ET, 282–6. 43 These sections draw upon Joshua-Kings with material from the Jeremianic sermons (Rudolph, Esra und Nehemia, 161; Williamson, Ezra, Nehemiah, 316) and Ezekiel 20 (Blenkinsopp, Ezra-Nehemiah, 306; Chrostowski, ‘Neh. 9,6–37’, 253–61). There are few notable allusions

Reshaping Narrative and Law

39

vv. 6–25 examines the episodes from Genesis-Deuteronomy. The focus of the discussion that follows is on the language, motifs, and themes that provide indications of the shape of the Pentateuch known to the composer.

Creation Due to its place at the beginning of the historical prayer, Neh. 9:6 is often compared to the Priestly creation account in Genesis.44 In light of the references in P’s creation account to the Israelite deity as Elohim (‫)אלהים‬, Batten reads YHVH (‫ )יהוה‬in v. 6 as an alteration by ‘an illogical Yahwist’.45 There is little, if any, support for an emendation. ‫‘( כל־צבאם‬all their host’) could refer to Gen. 2:1 [P] but other lexical connections between Neh. 9:6 and Gen. 1:1–2:4a [P] are less than certain. The description of YHVH ‘making’ (‫ עשית‬46‫ )את‬the cosmos in Neh. 9:6 is not decisive. Both P (Gen. 1:7) and J (2:4b) in their respective creation accounts use ‫ עש״ה‬to describe God’s actions. In ‫‘( ואתה מחיה את־כלם‬You gave life to all of them’, Neh. 9:6aβ), Boda sees resonances of YHVH making and bestowing life in J’s creation account.47 However, the sense of ‫( חי״ה‬pi.) does not appear in either one of J or P’s creation accounts.48 Some critics find Deuteronom(ist)ic elements in Neh. 9:6, most notably through the exhortation of ‘the host of the heavens’ worshipping in Neh. 9:26–37 to Pentateuchal literature. ‫ תורתך‬in vv. 26, 29, 34 refers to the Deuteronomic sense of ‘Law’. ‫ וחיה בהם‬in Neh. 9:29 reflects ‫ וחי בהם‬in Lev. 18:5; Ezek. 20:11 (Geissler, Esramemoiren, 21; Rudolph, Esra und Nehemia, 161; Gilbert, ‘Néhémie 9’, 313; Pröbstl, Nehemia 9, 85; Boda, Praying the Tradition, 177; Blenkinsopp, Ezra-Nehemiah, 306). In Neh. 9:32, the attribution of Israel’s deity as ‫ האל הגדול הגבור‬follows Deut. 10:17 (Welch, ‘Nehemia IX’, 132; Myers, Ezra. Nehemiah, 169; for ‫ האל הגדל הגבר‬as Deuteronomic liturgical formula see Weinfeld, Deuteronomic School, 38–41, 331) and the description of the current hardship as ‫את כל־התלאה אשר‬ ‫ מצאתנו‬recalls Exod. 18:8; Num. 20:14 (Myers, Ezra. Nehemiah, 169; Blenkinsopp, EzraNehemiah, 307; Boda, Praying the Tradition, 181). 44 Some critics consider the Priestly account of creation as one of the latest layers of the Pentateuch; see, for example, Joseph Blenkinsopp, The Pentateuch: An Introduction to the First Five Books of the Bible (New York: Doubleday, 1992), 217–25, 237–42. Accordingly, Neh. 9:6 demonstrates the use of a late form of the Pentateuch (Williamson, Ezra, Nehemiah, 312; Blenkinsopp, Ezra-Nehemiah, 303–4; Clines, Ezra, Nehemiah, Esther, 193). Gen. 1:1–2:4a is not necessarily a late layer. Compared to its ancient Near East neighbours, P denies the existence of competing deities and substitutes humans as the polluting agent that threatens YHVH’s earthly abode. The existence of humanity (from the beginning) is integral to P’s programme of cultic purity—if humans are taken out of P, then its legal code collapses. 45 Batten, Ezra and Nehemiah, 365. 46 ǝ k tîb. qǝrê: ’attāh. In support of the kǝtîb as a reflection of Israelian Hebrew, see Rendsburg, ‘Nehemiah 9’, 360. 47 Boda, Praying the Tradition, 99. 48 See elsewhere in Deut. 6:24; Jer. 49:11; Ps. 33:19; 41:3; Qoh 7:12. For ‫( חי״ה‬pi.) conveying the sense of ‘to maintain someone’, see Norbert Lohfink, ‘Deuteronomy 6:24: ‫“ ְלַחֹּיֵתנּו‬to Maintain Us” ’, in ‘Sha’arei Talmon’: Studies in the Bible, Qumran, and the Ancient Near East Presented to Shemaryahu Talmon, ed. Michael Fishbane and Emanuel Tov (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1992), 116–17.

40

Ezra and the Second Wilderness

YHVH49 and the declaration of YHVH’s exclusivity.50 Drawing upon Hezekiah’s proclamation of YHVH as God alone, Hans-Peter Mathys argues that 2 Kgs 19:15 is the Vorlage to Neh. 9:6 but the latter leaves out ‫לכל ממלכות הארץ‬ and expands the creation statements (Schöpfungsaussagen).51 Boda presents a stronger case for the use of Exod. 20:11 in Neh. 9:6 by identifying a common reference to the tripartite cosmos—heaven, earth, and sea (and all that fills their respective domains).52 The resonance is noticeable when the Priestly and Yahvistic creation accounts are included for comparison:53 Neh. 9:6aα ‫אתה־הוא יהוה לבדך‬ ‫את עשית‬ ‫את־השמים שמי השמים‬ ‫וכל־צבאם‬ ‫הארץ וכל־אשר עליה‬ ‫הימים וכל־אשר בהם‬ You are YHVH, you alone. You alone made the heavens, the heaven of heavens, and all their host, the earth and all that is on it, the seas and all that is in them.

Gen. 2:1 [P] ‫ויכלו‬ ‫השמים‬ ‫והארץ וכל־צבאם‬

The heavens and the earth were finished and all their host.

Gen. 2:4b [J]

Exod. 20:11a

‫ביום‬ ‫עשות יהוה אלהים‬

‫כי ששת־ימים‬ ‫עשה יהוה את־השמים‬

‫ארץ ושמים‬

‫ואת־הארץ‬ ‫את־הים ואת־כל־אשר־בם‬

In the day

For in six days

YHVH God made the earth and the heavens

YHVH made the heavens,

the earth, the sea and all that is in them.

The composer expands the cosmos from Exod. 20:11a with the Deuteronom(ist)ic phrase ‫שמי השמים‬54 and includes ‫ וכל־צבאם‬from the Priestly creation account (Gen. 2:1). 49 Welch, ‘Nehemiah IX’, 136; Weinfeld, Deuteronomic School, 320, 321. For a discussion of polytheistic councils in the ancient Near East, their development in the post-exilic period, and influence upon Neh. 9:6b, see Newman, Praying by the Book, 66–70. 50 Cf. Deut. 6:4. See Welch, ‘Nehemiah IX’, 132; Rudolph, Esra und Nehemia, 158; Gunneweg, Nehemia, 125; Mathys, Dichter und Beter, 5; Bautch, Post-Exilic Penitential Prayers, 128; Boda, Praying the Tradition, 94. 51 Mathys, Dichter und Beter, 5–6. See also Bautch, Post-Exilic Penitential Prayers, 128. 52 Boda, Praying the Tradition, 96–101. Duggan argues that in Neh. 9:6 ‘the heavens and the earth’ (cf. Gen. 1:1) is a ‘conventional merism’ that is paralleled with the seas (Covenant Renewal, 171). Boda’s observation on the division of the cosmos remains preferred. 53 Throughout this study, texts are underlined for emphasis. 54 Cf. Deut. 10:14; 1 Kgs 8:27; Ps. 148:4; 2 Chr. 2:5; 6:18; see Geissler, Esramemoiren, 17; Batten, Ezra and Nehemiah, 365; Rudolph, Esra und Nehemia, 158; Myers, Ezra. Nehemiah, 167; Gunneweg, Nehemia, 125; Boda, Praying the Tradition, 97.

Reshaping Narrative and Law

41

With Exod. 20:11 established as the major influence on Neh. 9:6, the provenance of Exod. 20:11 becomes of interest. Exod. 20:11 is in the middle of a classically Elohistic chapter. However, the rationale for a day of cessation rooted in the six days of creation in Exod. 20:11a is foreign to E. Due to Priestly language (notably, ‫ יום השבת‬and ‫)קד״ש‬, Exod. 20:11 is often assigned to H (cf. Lev. 23:3; 26:2).55 In Exod. 31:17b [P], YHVH makes (‫ )עש״ה‬the heavens and the earth over a period of six days and rests on the seventh day.56 Both Priestly verses, Exod. 31:17b and Gen. 2:1, lack any mention of the sea. Exod. 20:11 resembles Holiness ideology but its insertion into Elohistic (or nonPriestly) material supports Richard Elliott Friedman’s assignment of this verse to a redactor who does not belong to a Priestly school.57 I assign this verse to RPent. This redactor supplements the (Elohistic) Sabbath commandment (Exod. 20:8–10) with the (Priestly) six days of creation and seventh-day rest and includes the waters within the cosmos. In Neh. 9:6, the composer’s use of Exod. 20:11 [RPent] suggests that the composer does not presuppose an intermediate stage of the Pentateuch but its final form.

Abr(ah)am In Neh. 9:7, the composer does not use any of the accounts of YHVH’s announcement to Abram in Gen. 12:1 [J]; 15:1 [E]; 17:1–2a [P].58 Rather, Neh. 9:7a uniquely describes YHVH’s revelation to Abram through the Deuteronomic ideology of election (often expressed as ‫)בח״ר‬.59 The change of Abram’s name to Abraham (‫ )אברהם‬in Neh. 9:7 (also 1 Chr. 1:27) follows the

55 Knohl, Sanctuary of Silence, 67. See also the assignment of Exod. 20:11 to the redactor of H in Jacob Milgrom, ‘HR in Leviticus and Elsewhere in the Torah’, in The Book of Leviticus: Composition and Reception, ed. Rolf Rendtorff and Robert A. Kugler, VTSup 93 (Leiden: Brill, 2003), 38–9. 56 See the assignment of Exod. 31:12–17 to H in Haran, Temples, 20 n. 11; Knohl, Sanctuary of Silence, 14–17, 66; Milgrom, Leviticus 1–16, 13; Milgrom, Leviticus 17–22, 1338–9; contra Exod. 20:11 and 31:16–17 to P in Saul Olyan, ‘Exodus 31:12–17: The Sabbath According to H, or the Sabbath According to P and H?’, JBL 124 (2005): 201–9. I argue that Exod. 20:11 and 31:16–17 have different details of the cosmos and are from different hands. 57 Friedman, Sources Revealed, 153. 58 For Genesis 17 lacking a well-defined Priestly theology and the conclusion that Abraham is not in P(g) but in a separate patriarchal history, see Benjamin Ziemer, Abram-Abraham: Kompositionsgeschichtliche Untersuchungen zu Genesis 14, 15 und 17, BZAW 350 (Berlin: de Gruyter, 2005), 280–90. I maintain that Genesis 17 is a Priestly text and P knows of Abraham. 59 Rolf Rendtorff, Die ‘Bundesformel’: Eine exegetisch-theologische Untersuchung, SBS 160 (Stuttgart: Verlag Katholisches Bibelwerk, 1995), 9–11; ET, The Covenant Formula: An Exegetical and Theological Investigation, trans. Margaret Kohl, OTS (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1998), 1–4; Rendtorff, ‘Nehemiah 9’, 112. See also Newman, Praying by the Book, 71; Bautch, Post-Exilic Penitential Prayers, 128; Boda, Praying the Tradition, 101–2. For the Deuteronomic use of ‫ בח״ר‬in YHVH’s election of Israel, Temple, Jerusalem, and David, see Weinfeld, Deuteronomic School, 324, 327, 354.

42

Ezra and the Second Wilderness

Priestly report in Gen. 17:5.60 It is uncertain if the other Pentateuchal sources (or Abraham/patriarchal traditions) originally had a name change—either similar accounts in the other sources or traditions were lost after their collation61 or a redactor reworked every mention of ‘Abraham’ to ‘Abram’ in Genesis 11–16.62 As we shall see in Neh. 9:8, the composer uses material from Genesis 15 and it is likely that Neh. 9:7 reflects a form of the Pentateuch that preserved originally separate traditions about Abr(ah)am in Genesis 11–25, including the Priestly name change in Gen. 17:5. Abraham’s arrival from ‘Ur of the Chaldeans’ (‫ )אור כשדים‬in Neh. 9:7 is reported in Gen. 11:28, 31; 15:7. According to J, in 12:1–4, YHVH calls Abraham in Haran.63 Terah’s genealogy (‫ )תולדות‬in 11:27–8, 31–2 is considered Priestly with the intervening material in vv. 29–30 commonly assigned to J, which leads to the result that in P Abraham departs from Ur, but in J from Haran.64 Accordingly, the claim that YHVH brought Abraham ‘from Ur of the Chaldeans’ (‫ )מאור כשדים‬is problematic in a non-Priestly verse, Gen. 15:7 [J]. This verse is connected to another account of covenant-making in vv. 7–10, in which Abraham burns a sacrifice upon the altar he previously constructed (13:18 [J]).65 Von Rad argues that ‘Ur of the Chaldeans’ is an insertion into Gen. 15:7, which he detects is an originally Elohistic verse, and the reference to this verse in Neh. 9:7 indicates the latter’s use of an edited Pentateuch.66 Although I attribute Gen. 15:7 to a different source [J], I agree with von Rad’s identification of only ‫ אור כשדים‬in this verse as redactional (which

Myers, Ezra. Nehemiah, 167; Williamson, Ezra, Nehemiah, 313; Williamson, ‘Nehemiah 9’, 128 n. 28; Blenkinsopp, Ezra-Nehemiah, 303. The change from ‫( הי״ה‬Gen. 17:5b) to ‫( שי״מ‬Neh. 9:7) is due to narrative voice; see Boda, Praying the Tradition, 103. 61 Geissler, Esramemoiren, 25; also Gerhard von Rad, Das Geschichtsbild des chronistischen Werkes, BWANT 4/3 (Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 1930), 71. 62 Rudolph, Esra und Nehemia, 159; also Friedman, Sources Revealed, 50. It should be noted that another name change is in a non-Priestly episode, Gen. 32:22–32 [E]. In v. 28, an unidentified man informs Jacob that he is no longer ‘Jacob’ but ‘Israel’. 63 Moshe Weinfeld, The Promise of the Land: The Inheritance of the Land of Canaan by the Israelites (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1993), 4 n. 5. Weinfeld suggests that in the original version the patriarchs departed Haran and argues that ‫‘ אור כשדים‬was incorporated at a later stage’. In partial agreement, ‫ אור כשדים‬in Gen. 15:7 is an insertion into a J verse. 64 Friedman, Sources Revealed, 50. More precisely, P knows of Haran as the place where Abram settles before moving to Canaan (Gen. 11:31; 12:5). Milcah in Gen. 11:29 is connected to the notice of her giving birth in Gen. 22:20(aβ)–24, a non-Priestly text [J]; see Sarah Shectman, Women in the Pentateuch: A Feminist and Source-Critical Analysis, HBM 23 (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 2009), 80–1. For Milcah in J, see Wellhausen, Composition, 7 n. 1; Baden, Composition, 70. 65 Rendtorff identifies Gen. 15:7 as Deuteronomistic and vv. 7–21 formulated in view of 11:31, noting the parallels between ‫ הוצאתיך‬in 15:7 and ‫ ויצא‬in both SamP and LXX 11:31 (cf. MT ‫)ויצאו‬ (Problem, 63; ET, 81). SamP and LXX Gen. 11:31, however, are not necessarily original and could be equally viewed as a harmonization based on MT 15:7. 66 Von Rad, Geschichtsbild, 71–2. Friedman suggests that Gen. 15:7 originally had ‫חרן‬, Haran (Sources Revealed, 54). 60

Reshaping Narrative and Law

43

I assign to RPent) and his suggestion that Neh. 9:7 reflects Gen. 15:7 in its edited form. The composer’s use of Genesis 15 continues in Neh. 9:8.67 Abraham trusting (‫[ אמ״נ‬ni.]) YHVH in v. 8aα reflects a similar description in Gen. 15:6 (albeit, ‫[ אמ״נ‬hi.]).68 Source-critically, I attribute Gen. 15:6 as Elohistic and not from the same document as v. 7.69 Turning to YHVH’s establishment of a covenant with Abraham in Neh. 9:8aβ, Pentateuchal literature contains two similar accounts. The first, which follows Abram’s name change to Abraham, is in Gen. 17:10–14, 23–7 [P] with circumcision as a mark of the covenant between YHVH and Abraham. The second is in Gen. 15:7*[minus ‫–]אור הכשדים‬ 11, 17–21 [J]. Here, YHVH instructs Abram to cut animals and he establishes (‫ )כר״ת‬a covenant with Abram to give the land unconditionally to his descendants. Due to the absence of circumcision, Geissler remarks that Neh. 9:8 is not dependent on the Priestly version of the Abrahamic covenant.70 Critics see stronger resonances of Gen. 15:18–21 in Neh. 9:8.71 The correspondence between Gen. 15:18–21 and Neh. 9:8 is not exact, as the list of nations contained in the former is longer than the list in the latter. More noteworthy is the omission in Neh. 9:8 of the description ‘from the river of Egypt to the great river, the river Euphrates’ (‫מנהר מצרים עד־הנהר הגדל נהר־פרת‬, Gen. 15:18), an omission that can be attributed to the geopolitical situation of post-exilic Yehud. The presentation of Abraham in Neh. 9:7–8 is a composite sketch of Abraham from verses in Genesis that are originally Priestly (Gen. 17:5) and non-Priestly (15:6, 7, 18–21).72 Source-critically, the non-Priestly segments in Genesis 15 are divided into J, E, and RPent. The seamless use of these originally disparate traditions, with Gen. 15:7 in its redacted form, suggests that in Neh. 9:7–8 the composer utilizes Pentateuchal materials that do not exist in their constituent parts (however conceived) but only after their collation. 67

Gunneweg, Nehemia, 125; Pröbstl, Nehemia 9, 50. Rendtorff, ‘Nehemiah 9’, 116; Pröbstl, Nehemia 9, 51; Bautch, Post-Exilic Penitential Prayers, 129. See, however, the use of Genesis 22 in later Second Temple literature and the possible source for ‫ נאמן‬in Neh. 9:8 in Newman, Praying by the Book, 72–4. 69 In assigning Gen. 15:1aβ–6 to E, the occurrence of the oracular word (‫ דבר־יהוה‬in v. 1aβ) is an Elohistic theme; see John Skinner, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on Genesis, ICC (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1910), 278; Jenks, Elohist, 34. E, as narrator, is free to call the Israelite deity ‘YHVH’ (‫ )יהוה‬or ‘God’ (‫ )אלהים‬at any time; see Baden, Redaction, 228–9, 234–5. Abraham’s response in v. 2, ‫אדני יהוה מה־תתן־לי‬, may be a redactional insertion to harmonize ‫ דבר־יהוה‬in v. 1 but I believe that E’s patriarchs can address YHVH as ‫יהוה‬. 70 Geissler, Esramemoiren, 25. 71 Rudolph, Esra und Nehemia, 159; Rad, Geschichtsbild, 71–2; Rendtorff, Bundesformel, 10; ET, 2; Myers, Ezra. Nehemiah, 167; Moshe Anbar, ‘Genesis 15: A Conflation of Two Deuteronomic Narratives’, JBL 101 (1982): 53–4; Blenkinsopp, Ezra-Nehemiah, 304; Pröbstl, Nehemia 9, 52. 72 Blum, Vätergeschichte, 423–4; Carr, Fractures, 82–3, with Gen. 15:19–21 as Deuteronomistic in pp. 164–5. 68

44

Ezra and the Second Wilderness

Exodus The Exodus tradition in Neh. 9:9–11 is generally recognized as following the final form of the Pentateuch.73 Although a claim can be put forward for Deut. 26:7, Neh. 9:9 is composed with Exod. 3:7 in mind and follows it almost verbatim:74 Neh. 9:9

Exod. 3:7a, bα

Deut. 26:7

‫ואת־זעקתם שמעת על־ים־סוף‬

‫ויאמר יהוה‬ ‫ראה ראיתי את־עני עמי אשר‬ ‫במצרים‬ ‫ואת־צעקתם שמעתי מפני נגשיו‬

‫ונצעק אל־יהוה אלהי אבתינו‬ ‫וישמע יהוה את־קלנו וירא את־ענינו‬ ‫ואת־עמלנו ואת־לחצנו‬

You saw the distress of our ancestors in Egypt. And you heard their cry at the yam sûp.

YHVH said, ‘I have seen the distress of my people who are in Egypt. And I have heard your cry on account of their taskmasters.’

We cried to YHVH the god of our fathers. YHVH heard our voice and he saw our distress, toil, and affliction.

‫ותרא את־עני אבתינו במצרים‬

Neh. 9:9b departs from Exod. 3:7b by placing the cry of the Israelites at the yam sûp (‫ים סוף‬, commonly ‘Sea of Reeds’ or ‘Red Sea’), which is alluded to in Exod. 14:10, 15a [P]. In Neh. 9:9, the composer combines the cry of the Israelites at the yam sûp with the distress of the Israelites on account of their Egyptian taskmasters (Exod. 3:7 [J]; also Deut. 26:6–7 [D]).75 Deut. 6:22 is considered to be the influence on YHVH giving ‘signs and wonders’ (‫ )אתת ומפתים‬in Neh. 9:10aα.76 Against this view, Boda remarks that the afflicted persons in Deut. 6:22 are not the same as in Neh. 9:10a and argues for influences from the ‘Dtr pattern’ in Deut. 29:1 [ET 2]; 34:11.77 Pröbstl links Neh. 9:10a to Deut. 34:10–12, material he attributes to the Endredaktion of the Pentateuch.78 The provenance of Deut. 34:10–12 is contested, with these verses source-critically assigned to E.79 For now, it is sufficient to note the resonances between Neh. 9:10aα, Deut. 29:1b–2, and 34:11:80 73

Gunneweg, Nehemia, 125; Williamson, Ezra, Nehemiah, 313; Blenkinsopp, Ezra-Nehemiah, 313. The composer’s use of ‫ אבתינו‬in Neh. 9:9 and not ‫( עמי‬Exod. 3:7) is acceptable as the composer recalls a first-person speech from the distant past; contra Pröbstl, Nehemia 9, 56. 75 Boda, Praying the Tradition, 116. 76 Geissler, Esramemoiren, 17; Welch, ‘Nehemiah IX’, 132; Rudolph, Esra und Nehemia, 159; Gunneweg, Nehemia, 125. 77 Boda, Praying the Tradition, 118–19. 78 Pröbstl, Nehemia 9, 57. For Deut. 34:10–11 as a redactional reworking connected to the formation of the Pentateuch, see Lothar Perlitt, ‘Mose als Prophet’, EvT 31 (1971): 591–3. Similarly, see Eckart Otto, Das Deuteronomium im Pentateuch und Hexateuch: Studien zur Literaturgeschichte von Pentateuch und Hexateuch im Lichte des Deuteronomiumrahmens, FAT 30 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2000), 228–30; Römer and Brettler, ‘Deuteronomy 34’, 405–7; Konrad Schmid, ‘The Late Persian Formation of the Torah: Observations on Deuteronomy 34’, in Lipschits, Knoppers, and Albertz, Judah and the Judeans in the Fourth Century B.C.E., 245–7. 79 Baden, Composition, 99–100; Yoo, ‘Four Moses Death Accounts’, 436–8. 80 Weinfeld, Deuteronomic School, 330; Weinfeld, Deuteronomy 1–11, 348. 74

Reshaping Narrative and Law Neh. 9:10aα

Deut. 29:1b–2 ‫אתם ראיתם‬ ‫את כל־אשר עשה יהוה לעיניכם‬ ‫בארץ מצרים‬ ‫לפרעה ולכל־עבדיו ולכל־ארצו‬ ‫המסות הגדלת אשר ראו עיניך‬ ‫האתת והמפתים הגדלים ההם‬

You gave signs and wonders

against Pharaoh, all his servants, and all the people of his land.

Deut. 34:11 ‫לכל־האתות והמופתים‬

‫ותתן אתת ומפתים‬

‫בפרעה ובכל־עבדיו ובכל־עם ארצו‬

45

You have seen all that YHVH has done before you in the land of Egypt against Pharaoh, all his servants, and all his land. The great trials your eyes saw—the signs and those great wonders.

‫אשר שלחו יהוה לעשות בארץ‬ ‫מצרים‬ ‫לפרעה ולכל־עבדיו ולכל־ארצו‬

for all the signs and wonders that YHVH sent him [Moses] to do in the land of Egypt against Pharaoh, all his servants, and all his land.

In Neh. 9:10aα, the composer excludes ‫‘( את כל־אשר עשה יהוה לעיניכם בארץ מצרים‬all that YHVH has done before you in the land of Egypt’) from Deut. 29:1b as, from the perspective of the composer temporally removed from the events in Deuteronomy, the repetition of the visual experiences of the wilderness generation would make little sense in the communal address to YHVH. The composer makes another notable alteration: rather than against the land itself, YHVH acts against the people (‫ )עם‬of the land. The composer’s use of people reflects the many references to Pharaoh’s own people in the Exodus plague narratives.81 For the most part, Neh. 9:10aα also follows Deut. 34:11 but the composer omits ‫‘( אשר שלחו יהוה לעשות בארץ מצרים‬that YHVH sent [Moses] to do in the land of Egypt’), in effect removing Moses as the prime agent who acts against the Egyptians.82 The use of both Deut. 29:1b–2 and 34:11 in Neh. 9:10aα is another example of the composer’s use of a final Pentateuch. Whereas Deut. 29:1b–2 is Deuteronomic, the same is probably not the case for 34:11—a verse that belongs either to the Endredaktion or originally to E— and the integration of materials from these two sections in Neh. 9:10aα reflects the use of the final form of the Pentateuch. 81

Boda, Praying the Tradition, 119. A similar strategy is adopted in the Temple Scroll. Here, the first-person Mosaic discourses (especially in Deuteronomy) are recast into YHVH’s direct revelation of the instructions to the Israelites and effectively remove Moses as the intermediary (compare, for example, 11QT 52:9 with Deut. 15:20; 11QT 53:14 with Num. 30:3); see Yigael Yadin, The Temple Scroll, 3 vols (Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society, 1983), 1:71–3. 82

46

Ezra and the Second Wilderness Pröbstl argues that the parallels between Neh. 9:10 and Exod. 3:7 continue:83 Neh. 9:10aβ

Exod. 3:7bβ ‫כי ידעת כי הזידו עליהם‬

‫כי ידעתי את־מכאביו‬

For you know they acted presumptuously to them.

For I know their sufferings.

Here, Pröbstl might be correct. Both E-N and Chr do not use either ‫מכאב‬ (Exod. 3:7) or ‫ כא״ב‬and the composer replaces ‫ מכאב‬with ‫( זי״ד‬hi.) to express the Egyptians ‘acting presumptuously’. Critics point to Exod. 18:11, in which Jethro describes the Egyptian treatment of the Israelites as ‫( זי״ד‬qal), ‘acting presumptuously’.84 The description of YHVH making a name for himself ‘to this day’ (‫ )ותעש־לך שם כהיום הזה‬in Neh. 9:10b reflects Exod. 9:16 (‫ולמען ספר שמי‬ ‫)בכל־הארץ‬.85 The phrase ‘to this day’, ‫כהיום הזה‬, echoes Deuteronom(ist)ic language that expresses the people’s situation at the present moment.86 Neh. 9:11 recalls the event of the Israelites crossing the sea under pressure from the charging Egyptian cavalry: Neh. 9:11

Exodus 14 ‫ ואתה הרם את־מטך ונטה את־ידך על־הים‬16 …‫ובקעהו‬ …‫ ויבאו בני־ישראל בתוך הים ביבשה‬22 ‫ וירדפו מצרים ויבאו אחריהם כל סוס פרעה רדבו‬23 ‫ופרשיו אל־תוך הים‬

‫והים בקעת לפניהם‬ ‫ויעברו בתוך־הים ביבשה‬ ‫ואת־רדפיהם השלכת‬ ‫במצולת כמו־אבן במים עזים‬ You [YHVH] split the sea before them They crossed through the middle of the sea on dry ground You threw their pursuers

16

But you [Moses] will lift your staff, stretch your hand over the sea, and split it… 22 The Israelites went through the middle of the sea on dry ground… 23 The Egyptians, all of Pharaoh’s horses, his chariots, and his drivers, pursued and went after them into the sea.

into the depths like a stone into the mighty waters.

83

Pröbstl, Nehemia 9, 56. Batten, Ezra and Nehemiah, 366; Rudolph, Esra und Nehemia, 159; Gunneweg, Nehemia, 125; Clines, Ezra, Nehemiah, Esther, 194; Boda, Praying the Tradition, 119. 85 Gunneweg, Nehemia, 125; Williamson, Ezra, Nehemiah, 313. 86 Rudolph, Esra und Nehemia, 159; Duggan, Covenant Renewal, 175. 84

Reshaping Narrative and Law

47

The composer draws upon the Priestly tradition of the splitting of the sea— and not the pushing back of the waters [J]—preserved in Exodus 14.87 The last portion of Neh. 9:11, ‫‘( במצולת כמו־אבן במים עזים‬into the depths like a stone into the mighty waters’), is not from the Priestly tradition but from the Song of the Sea that was incorporated into a non-Priestly source, J (‫תהמת יכסימו ירדו במצולת‬ ‫כמו־אבן‬, Exod. 15:5).88 Neh. 9:11 uses materials that were originally from different sources, P (Exod. 14:16a, 22a, 23) and J (15:5). I include Neh. 9:12 in the composer’s recollection of the Israelite exodus. In two separate verses, Nehemiah 9 refers to both a pillar of cloud (‫)עמוד ענן‬ and a pillar of fire (‫ )עמוד אש‬that led the Israelites throughout their wilderness sojourn: Neh. 9:12 ‫ובעמוד ענן הנחיתם יומם‬ ‫ובעמוד אש לילה להאיר להם‬ ‫את־הדרך אשר ילכו־בה‬ And with a pillar of cloud you led them by day and a pillar of fire by night to give them light on the journey by which they were to go.

Neh. 9:19b ‫את־עמוד הענן לא־סר מעליהם ביומם להנחתם בהדרך‬ ‫ואת־עמוד האש בלילה להאיר להם‬ ‫ואת־הדרך אשר ילכו־בה‬ The pillar of cloud did not depart from them by day to lead them on the journey and the pillar of fire by night to give them light on the journey by which they were to go.

With the exception of ‫ לא־סר מעליהם‬and ‫ בהדרך‬in Neh. 9:19b (underlined above), the descriptions of the pillars in both verses are nearly identical. Most of the descriptions of a pillar (‫ )עמוד‬in the Pentateuch can be eliminated from consideration. Priestly texts do not refer to a pillar of cloud (‫ )עמוד ענן‬and when pillars (‫ )עמודים‬are mentioned, they refer to the pillars constructed for the Tabernacle and its appurtenances.89 In Elohistic texts, a pillar of cloud (‫)עמוד ענן‬ stands at the entrance of the Tent of Meeting (‫ )אהל מועד‬placed outside the Israelite wilderness encampment to signify YHVH’s presence (Exod. 33:9–10; Num. 12:5; Deut. 31:15).90 Exod. 13:21–2 [J] introduces a pillar, ‫עמוד‬, as an instrument that guides the Israelites through the wilderness: 87 Pröbstl, Nehemia 9, 62. See, however, the division of these verses within the wider scheme of a Priestly Exodus narrative, additions, and an Endredaktion composition in Jan Christian Gertz, Tradition und Redaktion in der Exoduserzählung: Untersuchungen zur Endredaktion des Pentateuch, FRLANT 186 (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2000), 189–232. 88 Batten, Ezra and Nehemiah, 344. For the incorporation of the Song of the Sea into J, see Baden, Composition, 28. 89 Haran, Temples, 153–4, 157–8. 90 Jenks, Elohist, 60; Friedman, Sources Revealed, 359; Sommer, Bodies of God, 81–2, 99; Baden, Redaction, 120 n. 63, 185.

48

Ezra and the Second Wilderness ‫ ויהוה הלך לפניהם יומם בעמוד ענן לנחתם הדרך ולילה בעמוד אש להאיר להם ללכת יומם‬21 ‫ לא־ימיש עמוד הענן יומם ועמוד האש לילה לפני העם‬22 ‫ולילה‬

21

YHVH went before them by day in a pillar of cloud to lead them along the way and a pillar of fire to give them light to go by day and night. 22 Neither the pillar of cloud by day nor the pillar of fire by night departed from the people. (Exod. 13:21–2)

This pillar makes its appearance in Exod. 14:19, 24; Num. 10:34 [all J]. After their refusal to enter Canaan, Moses pleads for mercy to YHVH on behalf of the Israelites and reminds YHVH that he led the Israelites through the wilderness by means of a pillar: ‫ובעמד ענן אתה הלך לפניהם יומם ובעמוד אש לילה‬ In a pillar of cloud you go before them by day and a pillar of fire by night. (Num. 14:14bβ)

Setting aside the vexing question of how many pillars are envisioned in Exod. 13:21–2;91 Num. 14:14; Neh. 9:12, 19, in all of these verses the pillar (‫)עמוד‬ performs the same function: to lead the Israelites through their wilderness sojourn.92 Some critics maintain that Deut. 1:33 is the dominant influence on Neh. 9:12.93 In Deut. 1:33b, however, YHVH leads the Israelites on their wilderness sojourn ‘in the fire by night’ (‫ )באש לילה‬and ‘in the cloud by day’ (‫)בענן יומם‬. The absence of the word for pillar, ‫עמוד‬, in Deut. 1:33 (cf. Num. 14:14) reflects the Deuteronomic belief that YHVH did not descend to earth in any manifested way or shape.94 The descriptions of the pillar in Neh. 9:12 and v. 19 follow the tradition of the pillar that guided the Israelites before and after Sinai in Exod. 13:21–2 and Num. 14:14. Specifically, does Exod. 13:21–2 refer to a single ‫ עמוד‬that alternates between cloud and fire or two distinct and separate ‫ ?עמודים‬Exod. 14:24aβ, ‫בעמוד אש וענן‬, further complicates the matter. William H. C. Propp argues that there is a single pillar and Exod. 14:24 describes this pillar in transition; see Exodus 1–18: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary, AB 2 (New York: Doubleday, 1999), 499. Walter Gross argues that vor-P had an original Wolkensäule followed by the creation of a Feuersäule by the redactor who combined P and vor-P; see ‘Die Wolkensäule und die Feuersäule in Ex 13 + 14: Literarkritische, redaktionsgeschichtliche und quellenkritische Erwägungen’, in Biblische Theologie und gesellschaftlicher Wandel: Für Norbert Lohfink SJ, ed. Georg Braulik, Walter Gross, and Sean McEvenue (Freiburg: Herder, 1993), 142–65, but see the response and argument for a single pillar in Exod. 13:21–2; 14:24 [vor-P] in Erhard Blum, ‘Die Feuersäule in Ex 13–14: Eine Spur der “Endredaktion”?’, in Interpretation of Exodus, ed. Riemer Roukema, CBET 44 (Leuven: Peeters, 2006), 117–37. 92 Geissler, Esramemoiren, 26; Gunneweg, Nehemia, 125; Pröbstl, Nehemia 9, 60. 93 Welch, ‘Nehemiah IX’, 132; Rudolph, Esra und Nehemia, 159; Boda, Praying the Tradition, 124–5; Duggan, Covenant Renewal, 176, 207. 94 See Sommer, Bodies of God, 62–8. 91

Reshaping Narrative and Law

49

Sinai In Neh. 9:13a, the composer opens his recollection of the events at Sinai with the following words: ‫ועל הר־סיני ירדת ודבר עמהם משמים‬ You descended upon Mount Sinai and spoke with them from the heavens.

The question arises, how can YHVH descend from the heavens (v. 13aα), yet also speak with the Israelites from the heavens (v. 13aβ)? One explanation is that YHVH touches down on the summit of Sinai, which itself extends into the heavenly realm.95 Another explanation lies in the composer’s use of Pentateuchal materials that describe YHVH descending upon the earth (Exod. 19:11, 18, 20 [J]) and YHVH speaking from the heavens (Exod. 20:22b [RPent]; Deut. 4:36 [D]).96 The Pentateuch preserves conflicting conceptions of YHVH’s manifestation on earth: on the one hand, according to J and E, YHVH is embodied in multiple earthly forms; on the other hand, in P and D—and upheld by RPent— YHVH never leaves the heavenly realm and his earthly presence is represented by the Priestly kābôd (‫כבוד‬, ‘presence’) or Deuteronomic šēm (‫שם‬, ‘name’).97 Although the composer probably does not believe that YHVH leaves the heavenly realm, Neh. 9:13a reflects the preservation of Pentateuchal traditions that either support or reject YHVH’s earthly manifestation.98 Neh. 9:13b–14 contain two nearly parallel descriptions of laws: ‫ …ותתן להם משפטים ישרים ותורות אמת חקים ומצות טובים‬13 ‫ ואת־שבת קדשך הודעת להם ומצוות וחקים ותורה צוית להם ביד משה עבדך‬14 …You gave them upright judgments, true instructions (tôrôt), and good statutes and commandments. 13

14 You made known to them your holy Sabbath and commandments, statutes, and instruction (tôrāh) you commanded them through Moses your servant.

There are three notable differences between v. 13b and v. 14. First, v. 13b contains ‫‘( משפטים‬judgments;’ cf. 2 Kgs 17:37; 2 Chr. 19:10) but Neh. 9:14 has ‫‘( ואת־שבת קדשך הודעת להם‬You made known to them your holy Sabbath’). The

95 Batten, Ezra and Nehemiah, 366. By analogy with a ziggurat: see Bautch, Post-Exilic Penitential Prayers, 130. 96 Geissler, Esramemoiren, 26; Rudolph, Esra und Nehemia, 159; Williamson, Ezra, Nehemiah, 314; Gunneweg, Nehemia, 126; Pröbstl, Nehemia 9, 80–1; Duggan, Covenant Renewal, 208. 97 Weinfeld, Deuteronomic School, 206–7; Weinfeld, Deuteronomy 1–11, 212–13; Sommer, Bodies of God, 38–79. 98 Pröbstl, Nehemia 9, 81; Boda, Praying the Tradition, 126.

50

Ezra and the Second Wilderness

composer includes ‫‘( שבת קדשך‬your holy Sabbath’) in v. 14a due to the growing importance of Sabbath in post-exilic Yahvism.99 Welch contends that Deut. 5:15 is the influence on Neh. 9:14a (‫)ואת־שבת קדשך‬.100 Deuteronomy, however, does not refer to Sabbath as holy or consecrated and Exod. 16:23 (‫שבת־קדש‬ ‫ )ליהוה‬is the more likely influence on Neh. 9:14a.101 The importance of Sabbath as consecrated to YHVH is clear in Exod. 16:23, but this verse precedes Sinai in the final form of the Pentateuch. Geissler argues that Neh. 9:14 is influenced by Exod. 31:13–14a, verses he assigns to the Priestly Heiligkeitsgesetz and a link (Verbindungsglied) between the different origins of Sabbath from a mountain in J, E, D (Exod. 34:21; 20:8; Deut. 5:12–15, respectively) and creation in Pg (Gen. 2:3; Exod. 16:22–6).102 Apart from Geissler’s demarcation of the origins of Sabbath in the Pentateuch, his assignment of Exod. 31:13–14a to H is supported.103 The connection between Neh. 9:14a and Exod. 31:13–14a is convincing due to their common setting at Sinai. The second difference lies in the adjectives that are attached to the law codes in Neh. 9:13b but not in v. 14. Boda argues that v. 13b reflects a Deuteronomistic idiom (‫ )ישר…טוב‬influenced by Ezekielian thought.104 The attributions of judgments (‫ )משפטים‬as upright (cf. Ps. 119:137), instructions (‫ )תורות‬as true (cf. v. 142; Mal 2:6), and statutes and commandments (‫ )חקים ומצות‬as good appear to reflect late motifs. Pröbstl argues that ‫משפטים ישרים‬, ‘upright judgments’, in Neh. 9:13bα follows YHVH speaking from the heavens when the Decalogue is proclaimed.105 The connection that Pröbstl forges between v. 13aβ and Exodus is insightful and helps locate the influence of ‫משפטים ישרים‬. Exod. 20:1, however, refers to the Decalogue not as ‫‘( משפטים‬judgments’) but as ‫‘( הדברים‬the words’). Instead, ‫ משפטים ישרים‬in Neh. 9:13bα refers to what follows the Decalogue—the legal corpus, CC, that is identified as ‫משפטים‬: ‫ואלה המשפטים אשר תשים לפניהם‬ These are the judgments that you shall set before them. (Exod. 21:1)

99 The emphasis on the life-sustaining purpose of Sabbath distinctly marks Ezek. 20 and influences Neh. 9:14; see Rudolph, Esra und Nehemia, 159; Clines, Ezra, Nehemiah, Esther, 194; Pröbstl, Nehemia 9, 81. 100 Welch, ‘Nehemiah IX’, 133. 101 Gilbert, ‘Néhémie 9’, 311; Williamson, Ezra, Nehemiah, 314; Blenkinsopp, EzraNehemiah, 304; Pröbstl, Nehemia 9, 80; Duggan, Covenant Renewal, 209. Boda argues for the stronger influence of other Priestly materials (in Ezek. 20:11–24; Lev. 26:35, 43) (Praying the Tradition, 134–6). 102 Geissler, Esramemorien, 26; also Gunneweg, Nehemia, 126. 103 See also n. 56. In the discussion of the assignment of Exod. 31:16–17 to H or P, I am satisfied that vv. 13–14a are confirmed as H. 104 Boda, Praying the Tradition, 130–2. Pröbstl remarks that ‫ חקים ומצות טבים‬in Neh. 9:13b is the opposite declaration of Ezek. 20:25 (here, ‫( )חקים לא טובים ומשפטים לא יחיו בהם‬Nehemia 9, 81). 105 Pröbstl, Nehemia 9, 80–1.

Reshaping Narrative and Law

51

In his reference to the judgments (‫ )משפטים‬in Neh. 9:13bα, the composer continues to follow the narrative as presented in the Pentateuch, specifically in the book of Exodus. The third and final difference lies in the legal descriptions in v. 13bβ (‫ותורות‬ ‫ )אמת חקים ומצות טובים‬and v. 14bα (‫)ומצוות וחקים ותורה‬. I shall first address Neh. 9:14bα. The mention of commandments (‫)מצווה‬, statutes (‫)חקים‬, and instruction (‫ )תורה‬in Neh. 9:14bα is thought to derive from Lev. 26:46 or Num. 36:13 or some combination of both verses: ‫אלה החקים והמשפטים והתורת אשר נתן יהוה בינו ובין בני ישראל בהר סיני ביד־משה‬ These are the statutes, the judgments, and the instructions that YHVH set between him and the Israelites on Mount Sinai through Moses. (Lev. 26:46) ‫אלה המצות והמשפטים אשר צוה יהוה ביד־משה אל־בני ישראל בערבת מואב על ירדן ירחו‬ These are the commandments and the judgments that YHVH commanded through Moses to the Israelites on the Plains of Moab by the Jordan at Jericho. (Num. 36:13)

Whereas Neh. 9:14 recalls events at Sinai, Num. 36:13 can be discounted as the influence as it occurs at the Plains of Moab, which is in P a location the Israelites reach well after they depart from Sinai. Staying with Neh. 9:14, the influence of Lev. 26:46 can also be discounted as this verse mentions ‘torah’ in the plural, tôrôt (‫)תוֹרת‬. In comparison, Neh. 9:14b uses ‘torah’ in the singular, tôrāh (‫)תורה‬. There is no need to follow Maurice Gilbert’s forced reading of singular Loi against MT Lev. 26:46.106 Priestly literature only refers to ‘torah’ in the sense of Priestly ritual or instruction and not as a singular ‘Law’.107 Each Priestly ‘torah’ is collectively grouped together and referred to in the plural, tôrôt (‫)תורות‬. Lev. 26:46, especially its reference to ‘torah’ in the plural (and ‘statutes’, ‫)חקים‬, does not match Neh. 9:14 but instead v. 13bβ. I argue below that the influence on v. 14 lies elsewhere. The inclusion of commandments, ‫מצות‬, in Neh. 9:13bβ is informed by another Priestly legal summary statement, one that primarily concerns the observation of the commandments: ‫אלה המצות אשר צוה יהוה את־משה אל־בני ישראל בהר סיני‬ These are the commandments that YHVH commanded Moses to the Israelites at Mount Sinai. (Lev. 27:34)

The giving of the commandments at Mount Sinai in Lev. 27:34 matches Neh. 9:13bβ and fits the context of vv. 13–14. Thus, Neh. 9:13bβ is a fusion of Lev. 26:46 [H] and 27:34 [P].108 Gilbert, ‘Néhémie 9’, 311. Milgrom, Leviticus 1–16, 2–3, 382–3; Milgrom, Leviticus 23–7, 2342. 108 Although I favour the use of ‫ משפטים‬in Neh. 9:13bα from Exod. 21:1, the word also arises in Lev. 26:46. The placement of ‫ משפטים‬as the first word in a series of legal terms may be 106 107

52

Ezra and the Second Wilderness

Neh. 9:14b is dependent on another legal notice from YHVH’s mountain, one that refers to a single ‘Torah’: ‫וזאת התורה אשר־שם משה לפני בני ישראל‬ This is the instruction [literally, ‘the Torah’] that Moses placed before the Israelites. (Deut. 4:44)

D never uses ‘torah’ in the plural but always in the singular, and more precisely as ‘the Torah’ to refer to ‘Law’.109 Deuteronomy 4:44 contains the first notice of ‘the Torah’ given to the Israelites at a wilderness mountain, here Horeb. The influence on ‫ומצוות וחקים‬, ‘and commandments, [and] statutes’, in Neh. 9:14b is detected a few verses before Deut. 4:44: ‫ושמרת את־חקיו ואת־מצותיו אשר אנכי מצוך היום אשר ייטב לך ולבניך אחריך‬ You will keep his statutes and his commandments that I commanded you this day so that it will be good for you and your children after you. (Deut. 4:40a)

In Neh. 9:14b, the composer combines ‘his statutes and his commandments’ (‫ )את־חקיו ואת־מצותיו‬from Deut. 4:40 with the introduction of the Torah from v. 44. Neh. 9:13–14 incorporates the summary declarations that are preserved throughout Exodus-Deuteronomy. The composer’s exact use of the plural form tôrôt from Leviticus-Numbers in Neh. 9:13bβ and singular form tôrāh from Deuteronomy in Neh. 9:14b is intentional and for the most part follows the order of the legal declarations in the Pentateuch. Finally, the reference to Moses as YHVH’s servant in Neh. 9:14bβ appears Deuteronomistic (cf. 1 Kgs 8:53, 56) but the tradition of Moses as YHVH’s servant is reflected elsewhere in Exod. 14:31 [J110]; Num. 12:7 [E]; Deut. 3:24 [D]; 34:5 [E111]; Josh. 22:5; Mal. 3:22; Neh. 10:30 [ET 29] (here, ‘servant of God’, ‫)עבד־האלהים‬. Following the use of the legal notices from Deut. 4:40a and v. 44, I consider Deut. 34:5 to be the influence on Neh. 9:14bβ. The multiple Pentateuchal influences on Neh. 9:13–14 may be summarized as follows:

a Janus construction that looks backwards to Exod. 21:1 and, at the same time, forward to Lev. 26:46. 109 Weinfeld, Deuteronomic School, 338. Elsewhere, Weinfeld remarks ‘Deuteronomy… expanded the concept of [Tetrateuchal] tôrâ by giving it the general sense of Mosaic law’ (Deuteronomy 1–11, 129). 110 Friedman, Sources Revealed, 144. 111 Yoo, ‘Four Moses Death Accounts’, 432.

Reshaping Narrative and Law Nehemiah 9 v. 13aα 13aβ 13bα 13bβ 13bβ 14a 14bα 14bα 14bβ

53

Pentateuch ‫ועל הר־סיני ירדת‬ ‫ודבר עמהם משמים‬ ‫משפטים‬ ‫חקים…תורות‬ ‫מצות‬ ‫שבת קדשך‬ ‫מצוות וחקים‬ ‫תורה‬ ‫ביד משה עבדך‬

Exod. 19:11, 18, 20 [J] Exod. 20:22b [E] Exod. 21:1 [E] Lev. 26:46 [H] Lev. 27:34 [P] Exod. 31:13–14a [H] Deut. 4:40 [D] Deut. 4:44 [D] Deut. 34:5 [E]

In Neh. 9:13–14, the composer cites the events and the legal notices pronounced at a mountain that he knows as Sinai. Both J(+) and P(C) locate YHVH’s revelation to the Israelites at a wilderness mountain called Sinai, but E and D refer to the site of this revelation as Horeb. The distinction between Sinai and Horeb appears to be lost upon later composers. According to 1 Kgs 19:18, Elijah fasted on Horeb and, with the exception of Judg. 5:5, Sinai is entirely absent in Joshua-Kings. However, Ben Sira knows Sinai and Horeb as one and the same in his praise of Elijah (Ben Sira 48:7).112 The precision between Sinai and Horeb in the Pentateuchal sources is also lost to the composer, who, in Neh. 9:13–14, fuses Sinai and Horeb into a single location.

The Wilderness After Sinai, the composer recounts the Israelite wanderings in the wilderness (Neh. 9:15–21). Neh. 9:15a contains the first of two recollections of YHVH providing food and water for the Israelites: ‫ולחם משמים נתתה להם לרעבם‬ ‫ומים מסלע הוצאת להם לצמאם‬ You gave them bread from heaven for their hunger. You brought out water from a rock for their thirst.

The second recollection is in v. 20b: ‫ומנך לא־מנעת מפיהם‬ ‫ומים נתתה להם לצמאם‬ You did not withhold your manna from their mouths. You gave them water for their thirst. 112

Patrick W. Skehan and Alexander A. Di Lella, The Wisdom of Ben Sira: A New Translation with Notes, AB 39 (New York: Doubleday, 1987), 533.

54

Ezra and the Second Wilderness

Neh. 9:15a, 20b recall the double accounts of food in Exod. 16:1–36; Num. 11:4–9 and water in Exod. 17:1–7; Num. 20:1–13. The description of bread from heaven in Neh. 9:15a also recalls Exod. 16:4.113 Whereas the bread rains down (‫[ מט״ר‬hi.]) from heaven in Exod. 16:4, Pröbstl explains that in Nehemiah 9 YHVH gives (‫ )נת״נ‬this bread.114 Exod. 16:4 and Neh. 9:15, however, are contextually not the same. In Exod. 16:4, YHVH provides bread from heaven to test the Israelites. In contrast, according to Neh. 9:15aα, the bread from heaven is given to satiate the Israelites’ hunger. The description of YHVH giving (‫ )נת״נ‬the mysterious morning bread and evening flesh to the Israelites is derived from other verses in Exodus 16 and, more specifically, in response to the Israelites’ accusation that Moses and Aaron brought them into the wilderness to kill them with hunger in vv. 3, 8, 12, 15. Exodus 16 is classically divided into two main narratives: a narrative about bread raining down (‫מט״ר‬ [hi.]) from heaven as YHVH’s test for the Israelites [J] and another narrative about a mysterious morning bread (later identified as manna, ‫ )מן‬YHVH gives (‫ )נת״נ‬to the Israelites throughout their forty years in the wilderness [P].115 In Neh. 9:15aα, the composer uses both the ‘bread from heaven’, ‫לחם משמים‬, originally from one source [J: Exod. 16:4] and YHVH giving (‫ )נת״נ‬the morning bread to the Israelites preserved from another source [P: v. 8].116 The composer’s use of the final form of Exodus 16 is strengthened by the classical view that the Priestly sections in this chapter (vv. 2–3, 6–25, 32–5) are not in their natural location but transposed from their original place in P by a later redactor.117 In Neh. 9:15aβ, YHVH brings (‫[ יצ״א‬hi.]) water from a rock, ‫סלע‬, to quench the Israelites’ thirst, ‫צמא‬. Critics see Exodus 17 (vv. 2, 3, 6) and Numbers 20 (vv. 8, 10, 11) as the main influences on Neh. 9:15aβ.118 ‫ סלע‬occurs frequently throughout the biblical text but the description of water coming out (‫[ יצ״א‬hi.]) from a ‫ סלע‬is only in Num. 20:8, 10, 11. These verses, however, do not label the

113 Geissler, Esramemoiren, 13, 27; Batten, Ezra and Nehemiah, 367; Rudolph, Esra und Nehemia, 159; Fensham, Ezra and Nehemiah, 320; Gunneweg, Nehemia, 126; Williamson, Ezra, Nehemiah, 314; Boda, Praying the Tradition, 143. 114 Pröbstl, Nehemia 9, 80. 115 For the source division of Exodus 16 to J and P, see Propp, Exodus 1–18, 588–90; Friedman, Sources Revealed, 146–8. 116 Boda, Praying the Tradition, 143; Duggan, Covenant Renewal, 209. 117 For a reassessment of the transposition of the Priestly verses in Exodus 16 and arguments for their original (post-Sinai) place before Num. 15:17–21, see Joel S. Baden, ‘The Original Place of the Priestly Manna Story in Exodus 16’, ZAW 122 (2010): 491–504; Baden, ‘The Structure and Substance of Numbers 15’, VT 63 (2013): 354–8. In defence of its original location, see Ludwig Schmidt, ‘Die Priesterschrift in Exodus 16’, ZAW 119 (2007): 483–98. 118 Batten, Ezra and Nehemiah, 367; Rudolph, Esra und Nehemia, 159; Gunneweg, Nehemia, 126; Williamson, Ezra, Nehemiah, 314; Clines, Ezra, Nehemiah, Esther, 194.

Reshaping Narrative and Law

55

Israelites’ thirst as ‫צמא‬. Instead, ‫ צמא‬appears elsewhere in Exod. 17:3.119 For this reason, Geissler’s opinion that Neh. 9:15aβ is solely dependent on Num. 20:1–13 is not sustainable.120 The composer’s choice of ‫ סלע‬in Neh. 9:15aβ is deliberate. In a post-exilic historical psalm, water is drawn not from a ‫ סלע‬but from a ‫( צור‬Ps. 105:41), another word that describes a rock. Neh. 9:15aβ is composed with both ‫ צמא‬in Exod. 17:1b–7 and ‫[ יצ״א‬hi.] and ‫ סלע‬in Num. 20:1–13 in mind. These verses are from originally separate traditions.121 In J (Exod. 17:1b–7), Moses draws water from a ‫ צור‬before the Israelites arrive at Sinai but in P (Num. 20:8–13) Moses draws water from a ‫ סלע‬after the Israelites depart from Sinai. The recollection of the spies episode that begins in Neh. 9:15b is generally recognized as a fusion of Deuteronom(ist)ic and Priestly themes. In the Pentateuch, the episode of the spies is reported in both Num. 13:1–14:45 and Deut. 1:19–45. Source-critically, Num. 13:1–14:45 is divided into P and J. Some critics consider the command to go (‫ )בו״א‬and possess (‫ )יר״ש‬the land in Neh. 9:15bα as an example of Deuteronomistic influences.122 Other critics note that ‫ הארץ אשר־נשאת את־ידך‬in v. 15bβ contains a strong Priestly motif (cf. Exod. 6:8; Num. 14:30).123 Boda takes up a mediating position and argues that the composer relies on Deut. 1:19–45 and inserts Priestly vocabulary.124 Descriptions of YHVH swearing (‫ )נש״א‬an oath to give land to the Israelites not only appear in Deuteronom(ist)ic or Priestly traditions but also in other Pentateuchal materials (cf. Gen. 26:3; Exod. 33:1; Num. 14:23; 32:11) and the promise of land is a theme common to all of the Pentateuchal traditions.125 Neh. 9:15b contains resonances from two verses in Numbers 14:

119 See also Pröbstl, Nehemia 9, 80. Boda suggests that rather than Exodus 17, a commonly employed word pair (‫ רעב‬and ‫ )צמא‬may be more influential in Neh. 9:15aβ (Praying the Tradition, 143–4). 120 Geissler, Esramemoiren, 27. With the exception of Num. 20:8bα, Geissler sees vv. 1–13 as uniform. 121 Specifically, the P verses in Num. 20:1–13 are vv. 1aα, 2, 3b–4, 6–13 (contra all of vv. 1–13 to H in Knohl, Sanctuary of Silence, 94–6). For Num. 20:1–13 as a redacted version of Exod. 17:1–7, see Blum, Studien, 271–8; Achenbach, Vollendung, 302–17. 122 Geissler, Esramemoiren, 17; Welch, ‘Nehemiah IX’, 133; Rudolph, Esra und Nehemia, 159; Clines, Ezra, Nehemiah, Esther, 194; Boda, Praying the Tradition, 144. While lacking in Priestly literature, the notion of possessing the land is strongly Deuteronomic (Weinfeld, Deuteronomic School, 342). 123 Batten, Ezra and Nehemiah, 367; Williamson, Ezra, Nehemiah, 314; Pröbstl, Nehemia 9, 82. ‫ יד‬in the singular + ‫ נש״א‬is a distinct Priestly oath expression; see Milgrom, Leviticus 1–16, 586–7. Geissler includes Exod. 6:8 but his assignment of Num. 14:30 to JE is untenable on the basis that Joshua never appears in J’s narrative of the spies and there are no E sections in Numbers 13–14 (see Esramemoiren, 13). 124 Boda, Praying the Tradition, 146. 125 Yoo, ‘Four Moses Death Accounts’, 429–30; Joel S. Baden, The Promise to the Patriarchs (New York: Oxford University Press, 2013), 101–25.

56

Ezra and the Second Wilderness Neh. 9:15b

Numbers 14 ‫ …והביאתיו אל־הארץ אשר־בא שמה וזרעו יורשנה‬24

‫ותאמר להם לבוא לרשת את־הארץ‬ You told them to go and possess the land

24 …And I will bring [Caleb] into the land that he went to and his descendants will possess it.

…‫ אם־אתם תבאו אל־הארץ אשר נשאתי את־ידי לשכן אתכם‬30

‫אשר־נשאת את־ידך לתת להם‬ that you swore to give to them.

30

You will not enter the land that I swore to settle you in…

The parallels between Neh. 9:15bα and Num. 14:24b are not exact. In Neh. 9:15bα, the Israelites are the beneficiaries of YHVH’s promise. In contrast, in Num. 14:24b, YHVH directs his oath to only Caleb and his descendants. More recognizable is the influence of Num. 14:30a upon ‫ אשר־נשאת את־ידך‬in Neh. 9:15bβ. Neh. 9:15b combines Num. 14:24b and v. 30a, verses that are originally from separate documents.126 ‫( לתת להם‬Neh. 9:15bβ) appears Deuteronomistic,127 but this phrase within the context of the promise of land is also in Gen. 15:7* [J]; Exod. 6:4 [P]; 13:5 [E]. In Neh. 9:16 the ancestors128 act presumptuously (‫[ זי״ד‬hi.]), stiffen their necks, and disobey YHVH’s commandments, ‫מצות‬. Unlike the first use of ‫זי״ד‬ (hi.) in Neh. 9:10aβ to portray the Egyptians (cf. Exod. 18:11 [E]), ‫( זי״ד‬hi.) in Neh. 9:16a describes the wilderness generation acting presumptuously (also v. 29). The use of ‫( זי״ד‬hi.) in Neh. 9:16a is derived from the spies episode in Deut. 1:43b:129 Neh. 9:16a ‫והם ואבתינו הזידו‬ But they—our ancestors— acted presumptuously.

Deut. 1:43b ‫ותמרו את־פי יהוה ותזדו ותעלו ההרה‬ You rebelled against the command of YHVH and you presumptuously went up to the hill country.

The difficulty with Deut. 1:43b as the influence on Neh. 9:16a lies in what follows in vv. 16b–17. Pröbstl reckons that Neh. 9:16 alludes to the Israelites’

126 For the assignment of Num. 14:24b to J and v. 30a to P, see Friedman, Sources Revealed, 265; Baden, Redaction, 117. 127 Pröbstl, Nehemia 9, 82. 128 Explicative vav in ‫ ;והם ואבתינו‬see Williamson, Ezra, Nehemiah, 304. 129 Rudolph, Esra und Nehemia, 161; Welch, ‘Nehemiah IX’, 133; Clines, Ezra, Nehemiah, Esther, 195; Boda, Praying the Tradition, 119, 146; Duggan, Covenant Renewal, 210.

Reshaping Narrative and Law

57

presumptuousness in Deut. 1:43 but hesitates to make the connection between these two verses due to the absence of a return to slavery (expected in Neh. 9:17).130 This difficulty is resolved if v. 16a is read immediately after v. 15b and as a single unit: ‫ והם ואבתינו‬16 ‫ …ותאמר להם לבוא לרשת את־הארץ אשר־נשאת את־ידך לתת להם‬15 …‫הזידו‬ …You told them to go and possess the land that you swore to give to them but they—our ancestors—acted presumptuously… (Neh. 9:15b, 16a)

15 16

In support of the separation of v. 16a from v. 16b, the directive to enter Canaan is never framed as a commandment (‫ )מצוה‬in the Kadesh Barnea episodes in Num. 13:1–14:45 or Deut. 1:19–45. A question, however, arises: why does the composer in Neh. 9:16a use ‫( זי״ד‬hi.) from Deut. 1:43 and—in light of the dependency of Neh. 9:15b on Numbers 14 (especially vv. 24b, 30a)—not use ‫( עפ״ל‬hi.) from a similar notice in Num. 14:44a (‫ ?)ויעפלו לעלות אל ראש ההר‬The omission of ‫( עפ״ל‬hi.) in Neh. 9:15b may lie in the influence of Deuteronom(ist)ic thought. Another explanation lies in the observation that the rare and unfamiliar ‫ עפ״ל‬is attested elsewhere only in Hab 2:4 (here, as pu.) and between the choice of ‫ זי״ד‬or ‫ עפ״ל‬the composer selects the more familiar ‫( זי״ד‬hi.) in Neh. 9:15b. Both the stiffening of the necks (‫ )ויקשו את־ערפם‬and the commandment (‫ )מצוה‬in Neh. 9:16b look forward to the rebellious ancestors and YHVH’s wonders (‫ )נפלאות‬in v. 17aα. Nowhere in Num. 13:1–14:45 and Deut. 1:19–45 are the Israelites labelled as a ‘stiff-necked people’ or described as stiffening their necks. From the wilderness narratives, the Israelites stiffen their necks in Exod. 32:9; 33:3, 5; 34:9; Deut. 9:6, 13 but in these descriptions, ‫ קשה‬is an attributive adjective. In Neh. 9:16, 17, 29, the use of ‫( קש״ה‬hi.) as a finite verb is closer to Deut. 10:16; 2 Kgs 17:14; Jer. 7:26; 17:23; 19:15; 2 Chr. 30:8; 36:13.131 Pröbstl recognizes the influence of Deuteronom(ist)ic terminology in Neh. 9:16b, but due to circumcision language does not consider Deut. 10:16 as the direct influence on ‫ויקשו את־ערפם‬.132 Remaining in the spies episode, Neh. 9:17aα contains resonances from the notices of the Israelites’ mistrust of YHVH despite witnessing his signs (‫ )אותות‬in Num. 14:11, 22. Boda opines 130 Pröbstl, Nehemia 9, 63. As a result, Pröbstl sees a stronger connection to Exod. 21:14; Deut. 17:13; 18:20. Exod. 21:14 (a deceitful killer) and Deut. 18:20 (a false prophet) should be eliminated from consideration. Likewise, Deut. 17:13 follows the observance of decisions announced by Levitical priests and a presiding judge. 131 Batten, Ezra and Nehemiah, 367; Duggan, Covenant Renewal, 210. As language rooted in Deuteronomy, see Weinfeld, Deuteronomic School, 337. The use of the idiom continues in postbiblical literature (cf. 1QS 4:11; 5:5; 6:26; 1QH 12:4; see Myers, Ezra. Nehemiah, 167). 132 Pröbstl, Nehemia 9, 64.

58

Ezra and the Second Wilderness

that both Num. 14:11 and v. 22 have few lexical contacts with Nehemiah 9.133 Pröbstl connects the charge that the Israelites forgot YHVH’s wonders (‫)נפלאות‬ to Deut. 7:18; Ps. 78:42; 105:5a (par. 1 Chr. 16:12a); Ps. 106:7.134 The relationship between Neh. 9:17aα and Numbers 14 is contextual and the composer is one among other post-exilic composers who reshape the Israelites forgetting YHVH’s wonders in the wilderness. ‫ ויקשו את־ערפם‬appears a second time in Neh. 9:17aβ and begins a new unit.135 The composer recalls the wilderness generation’s threat to select a new leader and return to Egypt from Numbers 14:136 Neh. 9:17aβ ‫ויקשו את־ערפם ויתנו־ראש לשוב לעבדתם במצרים‬ They stiffened their necks and set a leader to return to their servitude in Egypt.

Num. 14:4 ‫ויאמרו איש אל־אחיו נתנה ראש ונשובה מצרימה‬ They spoke to one another, ‘Let us set a leader and let us return to Egypt.’

Pröbstl argues that Neh. 9:17a does not follow Num. 14:3–4, which he considers Priestly, due to the ancestors not following through on their request to set a leader.137 Num. 14:4, however, conveys the Israelites’ threat of defiance against Moses and, by extension, YHVH. The resonances in ‫ שו״ב‬and ‫נת״נ‬, the geographical location of Egypt, and the threat of a rebellion among the wilderness generation all suggest that Neh. 9:17aβ is dependent on Num. 14:4. In Neh. 9:17b, the composer continues to draw out motifs from Numbers 14. YHVH as a ‘God of forgiveness’, ‫אלוה סליחות‬, recalls the dialogue between Moses and YHVH in Num. 14:19–20 and elsewhere in Exod. 34:9–10aα:

133

Boda, Praying the Tradition, 149. Pröbstl, Nehemia 9, 65. 135 There is little reason to support Batten’s assessment of ‫ ויקשו את־ערפם‬in v. 17aβ as ‘a copyist’s error’ (Ezra and Nehemiah, 367). 136 ‫נתנה ראש‬, literally ‘let us set a head’, in Num. 14:4 is an unusual construction. Most critics agree that this phrase implies an act of defiance. For the sense of turning about or heading back, see Martin Noth, Das vierte Buch Mose: Numeri, ATD 7 (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1966), 95; ET, Numbers: A Commentary, trans. James D. Martin, OTL (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1968), 107; Baruch A. Levine, Numbers 1–20: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary, AB 4 (New York: Doubleday, 1964), 363; Jacob Milgrom, Numbers = Ba-midbar: The Traditional Hebrew Text with the New JPS Translation, JPSTC (Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society, 1990), 108. Gray interprets this phrase as ‘[the people] propose to replace Moses by another leader, who shall lead them back to Egypt’ (Numbers, 152). LXX Num. 14:4, specifically δῶμεν ἀρχηγὸν—likewise, καὶ ἔδωκαν ἀρχὴν in LXX Neh. 9:17—implies the threat of a mutiny against Moses. However one interprets ‫ נתנה ראש‬in Num. 14:4 and ‫ ויתנו־ראש‬in Neh. 9:17, the verbal resonances between these two verses remain strong. 137 Pröbstl, Nehemia 9, 65–6. For the assignment of Num. 14:4 to P, see also Baden, Redaction, 116–17. Following the view that in J the Israelites and YHVH often contemplate abandoning each other, I assign Num. 14:4 to J. 134

Reshaping Narrative and Law Neh. 9:17bα

Num. 14:19–20

‫ואתה אלוה סליחות‬

Exod. 34:9–10aα ‫ ויאמר‬9 ‫אם־נא מצאתי חן בעיניך אדני ילך־‬ ‫נא אדני בקרבנו כי עם־קשה־ערף‬ ‫הוא וסלחת לעוננו ולחטאתנו‬ ‫ונחלתנו‬ ‫ ויאמר הנה אנכי כרת ברית‬10

‫ סלח־נא לעון העם הזה כגדל‬19 ‫חסדך וכאשר נשאתה לעם הזה‬ ‫ממצרים ועד־הנה‬ ‫ ויאמר יהוה סלחתי כדברך‬20

But you are a God of forgiveness…

[Moses:] ‘Forgive the iniquity of this people for your faithfulness is great, just as you have taken this people from Egypt until now.’

19

YHVH said, ‘I forgive as you say.’ 20

59

9

He [Moses] said, ‘If I have found favour in your sight, O Lord, may my Lord go in our midst for this is a stiff-necked people. And forgive our iniquities and our sin, and take us for an inheritance.’ 10 He [YHVH] said, ‘I will make a covenant…’

Num. 14:19–20 employs ‫ סל״ח‬in both Moses’ exhortation (‫ )סלח־נא‬and YHVH’s response (‫)סלחתי‬. In contrast, in Exod. 34:9–10aα Moses asks YHVH for forgiveness (‫ )וסלחת‬but YHVH responds, ‘I will make a covenant’, ‫אנכי כרת ברית‬. Describing YHVH as a ‘God of forgiveness’, Neh. 9:17bα follows Numbers 14 and not Exodus 34.138 The composer’s claim that YHVH is ‘slow to anger and great of steadfastness’, 139‫ארך־אפים ורב־וחסד‬, in Neh. 9:17bβ, is a direct quotation from Num. 14:18aα and Exod. 34:6b. The composer’s praise of YHVH as ‘compassionate and merciful’, ‫חנון ורחום‬, is not in Numbers 14 but in Exodus 34: Neh. 9:17bβ ‫חנון ורחום‬ ‫ארך־אפים ורב־וחסד‬ ‫ולא עזבתם‬

Num. 14:18a ‫יהוה‬ ‫ארך אפים ורב־חסד‬ ‫נשא עון ופשע‬

Exod. 34:6–7a ‫ ויעבר יהוה על־פניו ויקרא יהוה‬6 ‫יהוה אל רחום וחנון‬ ‫ארך אפים ורב־חסד‬ ‫ נצר חסד לאלפים‬7 ‫ואמת‬ ‫נשא עון ופשע וחטאה‬

138 Also Duggan, Covenant Renewal, 211. Pröbstl traces ‫ סל״ח‬in Neh. 9:17 to Deuteronomistic speech which he finds in Exod. 34:9 (Nehemia 9, 67). Boda sees the influence of 1 Kgs 8; 2 Chron. 6 in ‫ סליחות‬in Neh. 9:17 (Praying the Tradition, 151). 139 ǝ k tîb. qǝrê: ḥ esed.

60

Ezra and the Second Wilderness Neh. 9:17bβ

Num. 14:18a

Exod. 34:6–7a 6

…compassionate and merciful, slow to anger and great of steadfastness and you did not abandon them.

[Moses:] YHVH is slow to anger and great of steadfastness,

forgiving iniquity and transgression…

YHVH went before him and proclaimed: ‘YHVH is a merciful and compassionate god; Slow to anger and great of steadfastness and truth, 7 keeping steadfastness for the thousandth generation, forgiving iniquity, transgression, and sin…’

Exod. 34:6 appears to be the influence on Neh. 9:17bβ.140 The order of ‫ חנון‬and ‫רחום‬, however, is reversed. The reversal is explained by the observation that ‫חנון‬ ‫ ורחום‬in Neh. 9:17bβ reflects LBH.141 In Ps. 145:8, Joel 2:13, and Jonah 4:2—all conceivably LBH—the exact phrase ‫ חנון ורחום‬is also followed by ‫ארך־אפים‬ ‫וגדל־חסד‬/‫ורב־‬. Neh. 9:17bβ partially reflects Num. 14:18a and adapts CBH ‫רחום‬ ‫ וחנון‬from Exod. 34:6 to portray YHVH as ‘compassionate and merciful’. The composer expands upon YHVH’s compassion and mercy by freely incorporating another detail of the wilderness generation’s apostasy. From the descriptions of a molten calf in Exod. 32:4, 8 and Deut. 9:12, 16, the composer adapts an established formula from Exod. 32:4:142 Neh. 9:18 ‫אף כי־עשו להם עגל מסכה‬ ‫ויאמרו זה אלהיך אשר העלך ממצרים‬ Indeed they made a molten calf. They said, ‘This is your God who brought you out from Egypt!’

Exod. 32:4 ‫ויקח מידם ויצר אתו בחרט ויעשהו עגל מסכה‬ ‫ויאמרו אלה אלהיך ישראל אשר העלוך מארץ מצרים‬ He [Aaron] took [gold] from them, fashioned it in a mould, and cast a molten calf. They said, ‘These are your gods, O Israel, who brought you out of the land of Egypt!’

140 Batten, Ezra and Nehemiah, 367; Rudolph, Esra und Nehemia, 164; Welch, ‘Nehemiah IX’, 134; Clines, Ezra, Nehemiah, Esther, 195; Williamson, Ezra, Nehemiah, 314; Duggan, Covenant Renewal, 211–12. 141 Avi Hurvitz, Transition Period in Biblical Hebrew: A Study in Post-Exilic Hebrew and its Implications for the Dating of Psalms [‫ לתולדות לשון בימי בית שני‬:‫( ]בין לשון ללשון‬Jerusalem: Mosad Byaliḳ, 1972), 104–6; Rendsburg, ‘Nehemiah 9’, 363. 142 For discussion of the ‘’ĕlōhîm cult-formula’ in Exod. 32:4, 8; 1 Sam. 4:8; 1 Kgs 12:28, see Joel S. Burnett, A Reassessment of Biblical Elohim, SBLDS 183 (Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2001), 79–105.

Reshaping Narrative and Law

61

The change from plural ‘these are your gods’ (‫ )אלה אלהיך‬in Exod. 32:4, 8 to singular ‘this is your God’ (‫ )זה אלהיך‬in Neh. 9:18 is noteworthy. Pröbstl opines that Neh. 9:18 is a modification based on the individuality of YHVH (v. 6a) and the law-giving at Sinai (v. 13).143 Michael Fishbane identifies the change of plural forms from Exod. 32:4, 8 to singular forms in Neh. 9:18 as an example of a later scribal concern to eliminate dubious cultic practices and pagan references.144 The composer eliminates any polytheistic references and, at the same time, charges the wilderness generation with making a physical—and thus, idolatrous—manifestation of YHVH. In Exodus 32, Aaron acquiesces to the Israelites’ demands to fashion a god, procures the raw materials, and makes the molten calf. When confronted by Moses, Aaron pleads ignorance in the affair by explaining that he threw the gold given to him into a fire and out came a calf (v. 24). Still, Exodus 32 is not the sole influence on Neh. 9:18a. In Neh. 9:18a, the composer eliminates Aaron and places the entire blame for the molten calf upon the Israelites, which follows the charge in Deut. 9:12–16 (especially ‫עשיתם לכם עגל מסכה‬, v. 16aβ). The composer harmonizes the two accounts of the molten calf by inserting a quotation from Exod. 32:4 [E] into the narrative of Deut. 9:12–16 [D]. In Neh. 9:18b, the composer returns to the wilderness with the phrase ‘they committed great blasphemies’ (‫ויעשו נאצות‬ ‫גדלות‬, also v. 26b). The composer may be influenced by the noun ‫נאצה‬ (‘contempt’) from 2 Kgs 19:3; Isa. 37:3; or Ezek. 35:12;145 however, the connection to the wilderness accounts is suggested by YHVH’s declaration that the wilderness generation will not see Canaan in Num. 14:11, 23 (‫נא״צ‬ [pi.]; also Num. 16:30; Deut. 31:20). Following its introduction in Neh. 9:12, the pillar in v. 19 is likewise based on Num. 14:14, but the minor additions (when compared to Neh. 9:12) follow Exod. 13:22.146 The change from ‫ מו״ש‬to ‫ סו״ר‬in Neh. 9:19 follows Deuteronom(ist)ic speech or reflects the declining use of ‫ מו״ש‬in later literature. Neh. 9:20–1 recall YHVH’s spiritual and material provisions for the Israelites during their forty years in the wilderness. The description of YHVH’s good spirit, which instructs the wilderness generation in v. 20a, alludes to the tradition of the seventy elders in Num. 11:16–17, 24b–25.147 The spirit (‫)רוח‬ that is placed upon the seventy elders in Numbers 11 is temporary (‫ויתנבאו ולא‬ ‫יספו‬, v. 25bβ) and the composer more closely follows another tradition of YHVH’s spirit (‫ )רוח יהוה‬in the wilderness contained in Isa 63:11–14a.148 The 143

144 Pröbstl, Nehemia 9, 66. Fishbane, Biblical Interpretation, 70. Geissler, Esramemoiren, 27; Myers, Ezra. Nehemiah, 168; Boda, Praying the Tradition, 152. 146 Duggan, Covenant Renewal, 213; contra Boda, Praying the Tradition, 156. 147 Welch, ‘Nehemiah IX’, 134; Rudolph, Esra und Nehemia, 161; Blenkinsopp, EzraNehemiah, 315; Pröbstl, Nehemia 9, 71–2; Boda, Praying the Tradition, 158, 160; Duggan, Covenant Renewal, 213. 148 See connections between Neh. 9:20 and Isa. 63:11 in Batten, Ezra and Nehemiah, 368; H. G. M. Williamson, ‘Isaiah 63,7–64,11: Exilic Lament or Post-Exilic Protest?’, ZAW 102 (1990): 56. 145

62

Ezra and the Second Wilderness

use of Numbers 11 is more noticeable in the description of YHVH providing his manna (‫ )מן‬in Neh. 9:20bα. The composer retains the manna from Num. 11:4–9 but leaves out the conclusion of this unit—the people are sick of this manna, demand meat (vv. 7–9), and YHVH provides quails (vv. 18, 24, 31–4)—in favour of the positive portrayal of manna already given in Neh. 9:15 (cf. Exod. 16:15). In Neh. 9:20a and v. 20bα, the composer’s use of spirit (‫ )רוח‬and manna (‫ )מן‬reflects Numbers 11, which is a chapter composed of two originally different accounts.149 One account, contained in Num. 11:4–9 [J], continues from Exod. 16:4–5, 26–31 and describes how the Israelites are now sick of the manna in the wilderness and want variety in their diet. The other account, in Num. 11:16–17, 24b–25 [E], depicts Moses’ frustrations in leading the people and the place of prophecy among the wilderness generation. In Neh. 9:20bβ, the composer turns to YHVH commanding Moses and Aaron to bring water out of a rock in Num. 20:8 [P], but omits the word rock (‫ )סלע‬and reworks the account in vv. 1–13 in line with the positive portrayal in Neh. 9:15 (cf. Exod. 17:1–7). Like Neh. 9:15, v. 20 is a fusion of materials from originally different sources: manna (‫ )מן‬from Num. 11:4–9 [J], spirit (‫ )רוח‬from vv. 16–17, 24b–25 [E], and water (‫ )מים‬from 20:3aβ–4, 6–13 [P]. In Neh. 9:21, the composer recalls YHVH sustaining (‫[ כו״ל‬pil.]) the Israelites in the wilderness through Deuteronomic imagery and motifs:150 Neh. 9:21

Deut. 2:7b

‫וארבעים שנה‬ ‫כלכלתם במדבר‬ ‫לא חסרו‬ ‫שלמתיהם לא בלו‬ ‫ורגליהם לא בצקו‬

‫זה ארבעים שנה‬ ‫יהוה אלהיך עמך‬ ‫לא חסרת דבר‬

Forty years you sustained them in the wilderness. They did not lack [anything]. Their garments did not wear out, and their feet did not swell.

These forty years YHVH your God was with you. You did not lack anything.

Deut. 8:4

Deut. 29:4 [ET 5] ‫ואולך אתכם ארבעים שנה‬ ‫במדבר‬

‫שמלתך לא בלתה מעליך‬ ‫ורגלך לא בצקה‬ ‫זה ארבעים שנה‬

‫לא־בלו שלמתיכם‬ ‫מעליכם‬ ‫ונעלך לא־בלתה מעל‬ ‫רגלך‬ I led you forty years in the wilderness.

Your garments upon you did not wear out, and your feet did not swell, these forty years.

Your garments upon you did not wear out and the sandals on your feet did not wear out.

149 Benjamin D. Sommer, ‘Reflecting on Moses: The Redaction of Numbers 11’, JBL 118 (1999): 601–24; Baden, Composition, 82–102. 150 Geissler, Esramemoiren, 18; Rudolph, Esra und Nehemia, 161; Gunneweg, Nehemia, 127; Myers, Ezra. Nehemiah, 168; Duggan, Covenant Renewal, 214; Pröbstl, Nehemia 9, 82–3.

Reshaping Narrative and Law

63

Unlike the traditions preserved in Exodus-Numbers, Deuteronomy mentions the provision of material goods and the physical hardships in the wilderness in order to assert YHVH’s fidelity to the Israelites.151 Neh. 9:21 reflects this Deuteronomic rhetoric; however, the composer’s purpose and context require that the original addressee, the Israelites of the wilderness generation, is now spoken of in the third person.

Conquest Neh. 9:22 recalls the Israelite victories over the Transjordanian kings Sihon and Og. The defeat of Sihon and Og serves as a point of reference for the Israelite infiltration into Canaan (Josh. 2:10; 9:10; 12:2–5; 13:8–12, 21–31; Judg. 11:19–21; 1 Kgs 4:19) and is commemorated in Ps. 135:10–12; 136:17–22. The conquests are first presented in Num. 21:21–35 (also 32:33) and again in Deut. 2:24–3:13 (also 1:4; 4:46–7; 29:6; 31:4). At first glance, the two versions appear to be similar but upon closer inspection they contain different details. In Num. 21:21–35, after a failed attempt to cross Edomite territory in order to appease the increasingly impatient Israelites (20:3a, 5, 14–21), Moses recognizes the need to find another direct path to Canaan from within the Transjordan. The Israelites request safe passage from the Amorite king Sihon through his territory. Sihon unsuccessfully confronts the Israelites at Jahaz and loses Heshbon and his territory. The Israelites then proceed to Bashan, where they are successful against Og and take his territory.152 In Deut. 2:24–3:13, YHVH commands the Israelites to enter the Transjordanian lands and informs them that they will be successful against Sihon and Og. Neh. 9:22 is thought to be shaped by Num. 21:21–35 and/or Deut. 2:24–3:13153 or the Deuteronomistic corpus.154 Boda argues that the composer chooses the Tetrateuchal version of events (Num. 21:21–35) over the Deuteronomic version and demonstrates a Priestly understanding.155 However, the only Priestly affinity that can be detected in Neh. 9:22 is ‫ותחלקם לפאה‬.156 Deut. 2:24–3:13 should be considered as the primary influence on Neh. 9:22 for the following reasons. 151

Weinfeld, Deuteronomic School, 172, 358. The assignment of Num. 21:21–35 is disputed but a case can be made for E (see Baden, Redaction, 136–7; vv. 21–32 to E in Jaroš, Stellung, 16; but with reservations in Graupner, Elohist, 159; contra J in Wellhausen, Composition, 108; Friedman, Sources Revealed, 279). Achenbach views both Sihon narratives as Deuteronomistic recensions with Num. 21:21–6 as a (Hexateuch redactional) Kontrasterzählung for the apparent failure in Edom (Vollendung, 358–66). 153 Geissler, Esramemoiren, 27; Gunneweg, Nehemia, 127; Williamson, Ezra, Nehemiah, 316; Blenkinsopp, Ezra-Nehemiah, 305. 154 Welch, ‘Nehemiah IX’, 133; Fensham, ‘Post-Exilic Historical Traditions’, 44. 155 Boda, Praying the Tradition, 166. 156 See ‫( חל״ק‬ni.) in Num. 26:53, 55-6 [P] and ‫ פאה‬in the Priestly descriptions of the Tabernacle, (Levitical) towns, and land. 152

64

Ezra and the Second Wilderness

First, in Deut. 2:25a, YHVH declares that the dread and fear of the Israelites will be upon the peoples under the heavens. In Num. 21:34, YHVH mentions only Og’s people. Second, the composer’s attribution of Sihon as ‘King of Heshbon’ (‫ )מלך חשבון‬in Neh. 9:22 does not match Num. 21:21–35; 32:33, which consistently refer to Sihon as ‘King of the Amorites’ (‫)מלך האמרי‬. In Deuteronomy, Sihon is both ‘King of the Amorites who resides in Heshbon’ (‫מלך האמרי אשר יושב בחשבון‬, Deut. 1:4; 2:24) and ‘King of Heshbon’ (‫מלך חשבון‬, Deut. 2:26, 30). Third, although Neh. 9:22a and Num. 32:33 both contain ‫נת״נ‬ followed by the preposition ‫ל‬,157 the scenario envisioned in these two verses is different. In Num. 32:33, Moses distributes the conquered land under his own authority but in Neh. 9:22 YHVH allocates the land. Rather than YHVH’s near absence in Num. 21:21–35; 32:33, the portrayal of YHVH’s active role in the conquest of the Transjordanian tribes in Deut. 2:21–35 better suits the composer’s historical prayer and follows his claim for YHVH’s continuous actions among the Israelites. In a manner similar to D’s reworking of E narratives, the composer prefers the Deuteronomic (and not the Tetrateuchal) version of the Transjordanian conquest.158 Neh. 9:23–5 describe the entry into Canaan by the children of the wilderness generation. Unlike the Priestly view that YHVH retains title on the land and the Israelites hold a lease, Deuteronomy insists that the Israelites entered and possessed the land. This facet is reflected in Neh. 9:24: ‘they came…they possessed’ (‫)ויבאו…וירשו‬.159 Pröbstl sees the beginning of the Deuteronomistic influences in the prayer in Neh. 9:23 and links this verse to the formulaic (and in his view Deuteronomistic) promise texts in Exod. 13:5; Deut. 6:1; 31:20; Judg. 2:1.160 Neh. 9:23 may be compared to the multiple promises of progeny that appear in the Pentateuch (Gen. 15:5; 22:17; 26:4), but, following the composer’s shift to Deuteronomy at this point in the prayer, Deut. 1:10 is the likely influence on Neh. 9:23a.161 Some critics view the conquering children in Neh. 9:24 as a reference to Num. 14:31–3.162 According to Num. 14:31–3, however, the children will be brought into the land after the wilderness generation are killed off on account of their disobedience against YHVH. In Neh. 9:24, the composer does not consider the entrance into Canaan as a punishment of any sort but follows the Deuteronomic portrayal

157 Boda, Praying the Tradition, 162; Pröbstl, Nehemia 9, 83. Num. 32:33 contains sourcecritical problems. I assign the entire verse to E with the exception of ‫ ולחצי שבט מנשה בן־יוסף‬to RPent (cf. Josh. 13:29; 22:13, 15). 158 For the reworking of E sections in Num. 20–1 in Deut. 2:2–3:11, see Baden, Redaction, 130–41. 159 Weinfeld, Deuteronomic School, 342. Likewise, ‫ לבוא לרשת‬in Neh. 9:23. 160 Pröbstl, Nehemia 9, 83. 161 Batten, Ezra and Nehemiah, 368; Welch, ‘Nehemiah IX’, 134; Gunneweg, Nehemia, 127; Pröbstl, Nehemia 9, 83. 162 Rudolph, Esra und Nehemia, 161; Gunneweg, Nehemia, 127.

Reshaping Narrative and Law

65

of YHVH dutifully leading the Israelites for forty years in the wilderness (cf. Deut. 2:7b; 8:4; 29:4 [ET 5]). Deuteronomic influences continue in Neh. 9:24–5. ‫ ותכנע‬in Neh. 9:24a recalls the Deuteronomic promise that YHVH will subdue great and many peoples (Deut. 9:1–3).163 The declaration that YHVH handed the kings and peoples of the land over to the Israelites (Neh. 9:24b) is a recurring motif in Deuteronomy (cf. 1:27; 2:24, 30; 3:3; 7:24; etc.).164 Neh. 9:25 contains affinities with multiple verses from the book of Deuteronomy:165 Neh. 9:25 ‫וילכדו ערים בצרות ואדמה שמנה‬

They captured fortified cities and a rich land…(v. 25aα)

Deuteronomy ‫…ונלכד את־כל־עריו בעת ההוא…כל־אלה ערים‬ …‫בצרות‬ …We captured their cities at that time…all these were fortified cities…(3:4aα, 5)

‫ויירשו בתים מלאים־כל־טוב‬ ‫ברות חצובים כרמים וזיתים ועץ מאכל לרב‬

‫ובתים מלאים כל־טוב אשר לא־מלאת‬ ‫וברת חצובים אשר לא־חצבת כרמים וזינים אשר לא־‬ ‫נטעת‬

…and possessed houses filled with goods,

…houses filled with goods which you did not fill, hewn cisterns which you did not hew, vineyards and olive trees which you did not plant…(6:11a)

hewn cisterns, vineyards, olive trees, and fruit trees in abundance…(v. 25aβ)

‫ואכלת ושבעת‬

‫ויאכלו וישבעו וישמינו ויתעדנו בטובך הגדול‬

…and when you eat and are filled…(6:11b) ‫ואכל ושבע ודשן‬ …they ate, became full, grew fat…(31:20)

They ate, became full, became fat, and delighted in your great goodness. (v. 25b)

‫וישמן ישרון ויבעט שמנת עבית כשית‬ Jeshurun grew fat and kicked. You grew fat, thick, and gorged! (32:15a)

163 Welch, ‘Nehemiah IX’, 133; Rudolph, Esra und Nehemia, 161; Gunneweg, Nehemia, 127. Deuteronomic literature is aware of the presence of Canaanites; however, it never uses the appellation ‫ ישבי הארץ‬to represent the Canaanites or any inhabitant of the land. 164 See also Boda, Praying the Tradition, 169. 165 Boda opines that Neh. 9:25 bears a closer resemblance to ‘fortified cities’ (‫ )ערים בצורים‬in Num. 13:28 and ‫ הארץ השמנה‬in v. 20 rather than Deut. 6:10–11 (Praying the Tradition, 170). In favour of the influence from Deuteronomy, it would be unusual—but not entirely impossible— for the composer to integrate the spies episode in Num. 13:1–14:45 in his recollection of the entry into Canaan.

66

Ezra and the Second Wilderness

In shaping Neh. 9:25aβ from his source materials, the composer is dependent on Deut. 6:11a but removes the Deuteronomic reminder that the Israelites received material goods that they themselves did not fill, cut, or plant.166 The Israelites eating and becoming full in Neh. 9:25b recalls Deut. 31:20 and their growing fat (‫[ שמ״נ‬hi.]) and luxuriating in YHVH’s bounty recalls the admonition contained in Deut. 32:15 (‫[ שמ״נ‬qal] twice).167 Deuteronomy provides the source material for Neh. 9:25 but all of the identifiable references are not Deuteronomic. The last four chapters of Deuteronomy consist of J, E, D, and P(C) materials and, within these chapters, both Deut. 31:20 and 32:15 (the latter originally from an ancient poem) are Elohistic. Neh. 9:25 is instructive for the composer’s use of a biblical ‘book’ now labelled Deuteronomy, one that contains both Deuteronomic and non-Deuteronomic materials. To summarize the foregoing analysis, this examination of Neh. 9:5aβ–37, with its focus on vv. 6–25, demonstrates that the composer frames his historical prayer by generally following the sequence of events contained in Genesis-Deuteronomy. Moreover, the composer consistently uses Pentateuchal narratives and motifs that emerge only after the collation of the constituent parts (Priestly materials, Deuteronomic materials, and what remains as neither non-Priestly nor non-Deuteronomic materials—what I label J or E) and, including materials shaped by RPent, in their redacted and final form. It can be deduced that the composer of Neh. 9:5aβ–37 reads and interprets the final form of the Pentateuch. Before examining the use of the Pentateuchal materials in what precedes Neh. 9:5aβ–37, we turn to what follows in Nehemiah 10.

LEGAL I NNOVATION I N NEHEMIAH 1 0 In Ezra-Nehemiah, Neh. 10:1 [ET 9:38] immediately follows the prayer that was recited on the twenty-fourth day of the seventh month (9:1).168 As is the case with Neh. 9:5aβ–37, I will demonstrate that Nehemiah 10 is a literary product that is entirely separate from, and postdates, EM.169 I will also 166 Batten, Ezra and Nehemiah, 368; Welch, ‘Nehemiah IX’, 133; Clines, Ezra, Nehemiah, Esther, 196; Boda, Praying the Tradition, 169. 167 Rudolph, Esra und Nehemia, 161; Blenkinsopp, Ezra-Nehemiah, 305; Clines, Ezra, Nehemiah, Esther, 196; Pröbstl, Nehemia 9, 84. 168 I will refer to the Hebrew versification of Nehemiah 10 in this discussion. For the inclusion of Neh. 10:1 with 9:6–37 see Fredrick C. Holmgren, ‘Faithful Abraham and the ’amānâ Covenant: Nehemiah 9,6–10,1’, ZAW 104 (1992): 249–54; Oeming, ‘Nehemiah 9’, 576–84. I consider Neh. 10:1 as the beginning of a new composition, but its correct place is not integral to this current discussion. 169 Alfred Jepsen raises the possibility that Nehemiah 10 is connected to Ezra and precedes Nehemiah (‘Nehemia 10’, ZAW 66 [1954]: 87–106). See, however, the difficulties with this view in Williamson, Ezra, Nehemiah, 326–7.

Reshaping Narrative and Law

67

demonstrate that vv. 31–40 presupposes the Pentateuch. Neh. 10:1 records a community’s intent to enter into a written ’amānāh, ‫אמנה‬. Boda suggests that ’amānāh in Neh. 10:1 describes the enactment of a covenant, ‫ברית‬.170 Disputing this point, Becking remarks that the use of a word other than ‫ ברית‬in Neh. 10:1 signifies that this verse does not have a covenant in mind.171 If Neh. 10:1 has something akin to a covenant in mind, then it is remarkably different from YHVH instigating a legitimate covenant (cf. Exod. 23:32). In Ezra 10:3, Shecaniah calls for a covenant to be established with YHVH. I will argue later that Shecaniah’s proposal is ritually unacceptable and his call to establish a covenant is appropriately not followed through. Whatever the ’amānāh in Neh. 10:1 points to, it is unlikely something initiated by YHVH. Furthermore, the ’amānāh should not be conceived as a new law because what follows in Neh. 10:31–40 presupposes Pentateuchal legislation. The sense of ’amānāh is closer to an agreement than a covenant. In the other comparable use of ’amānāh in Neh. 11:23, this word conveys the sense of an ordinance.172 Although a precise definition remains elusive, I am of the opinion that ’amānāh is something equivalent to an ‘agreement’ (NRSV) between the involved parties. As the list of signatories in Neh. 10:2–28 is probably an addition,173 the focus of this discussion will be on the individual pledges in vv. 31–40. Before turning to the pledges themselves, vv. 29–30 are noteworthy. These verses encapsulate the purpose of what follows in the pledges by declaring a ‘curse and an oath’ (‫ ;באלה ובשבועה‬cf. Deut. 29:11 [ET 12]) to walk in something twice alluded to as ‘the Torah of God’ (‫)תורת האלהים‬. These verses also promote the separation (‫בד״ל‬ [ni.]) of the pledgees from a group called ‘the peoples of the lands’ (‫;עמי הארצות‬ cf. Leviticus 18–20).174 The use of this term is precise, and should not be confused with ‘the peoples of the land’ (‫)עמי הארץ‬. Both terms appear to be a late term for something foreign or non-Yahvistic.175 In Ezra-Nehemiah, these terms are distinctively employed as subtle references to identify different nonIsraelite entities. Whereas ‫ עמי הארצות‬literally means ‘people of the lands’ (Ezra 10:2, 11), ‫ מעמי הארץ‬follows a flexible expression that represents ‘from 170

Boda, Praying the Tradition, 32–4. Becking, ‘Nehemiah 9 and the Problematic Concept of Context’, 260–1. Williamson, Ezra, Nehemiah, 343. 173 Rudolph, Esra und Nehemia, 173–4; Kellermann, Nehemia, 38; Williamson, Ezra, Nehemiah, 325–30; Blenkinsopp, Ezra-Nehemiah, 311. 174 Milgrom, Leviticus 17–22, 1739. 175 Joel P. Weinberg, ‘Der ‘ammē hā’āreṣ des 6.–4. Jh. v.u.Z.’, Klio 56 (1974): 334; ET, ‘The ‘Am Hā’āreṣ of the Sixth to Fourth Centuries BCE’, in Citizen-Temple Community, 73; also H. Louis Ginsberg, Israelian Heritage of Judaism, TSJTSA 24 (New York: Jewish Theological Seminary of America, 1982), 8–9, 15–16; Sara Japhet, ‘People and Land in the Restoration Period’, in Das Land in biblischer Zeit, ed. Georg Strecker, GTA 25 (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1983), 114–15. Weinberg distinguishes between ‫( עמי הארץ‬strange, non-Yahvistic) and ‫( עם הארץ‬Yahvistic community) in late texts (‘‘ammē hā’āreṣ’, 334; ET, 72–3). However, the presentation of the ‫ עם הארץ‬as opponents of the ‫ עם־יהודה‬in Ezra 4:4 suggests that, at least in this verse, the ‫ עם הארץ‬is not a true Yahvistic community. 171 172

68

Ezra and the Second Wilderness

everyone else’.176 The purpose of these pledges, as we shall see, is to distinguish the practices of those who adhere to the ‘agreement’ from ‘the peoples of the lands’. Some critics consider Neh. 10:31–40 to be a representation of Jewish protosectarianism and a document that not only states the rationale for a welldefined group’s existence but also anticipates later sectarian compositions such as the Community Rule (1QS).177 The pledges in vv. 31–40 appear to draw from Pentateuchal legislation, but few (if any) actual citations are discernible. Frank Crüsemann claims that Neh. 10:31–40 presupposes and uses a pre-canonical Pentateuch.178 Blenkinsopp observes that Nehemiah 10 is more rigorous than the related Pentateuchal legislation and opines that this composer does not have the final form of the Pentateuch.179 Geissler reads ‫ בתורת האלהים‬in Neh. 10:30 as a reference to an early stage of P and argues that the regulations assume Priestly laws but accrue out of the particular requirements of the representative community.180 In my opinion, any discrepancy between the pledges in Nehemiah 10 and Pentateuchal legislation result from the experiences of a post-exilic Yahvism that is temporally and culturally separated from an earlier period that sculpted the Pentateuchal laws. In other words, Neh. 10:31–40 reshapes the Pentateuchal materials and employs strategies to align legislation with particular—and contemporary— ideological concerns. Thus, Nehemiah 10 presupposes the final form of the Pentateuch.181 Neh. 10:31–40 may be akin to halakot that develop Pentateuchal legislation with Neh. 5:1–13 and 13:4–31 in mind.182 Clines identifies exegetical innovations that arise out of previously existing Pentateuchal laws and categorizes them as follows: creation of facilitating law; revision of facilitating law; creation of a new prescription from a precedent in Pentateuchal law; redefinition of categories (towards greater comprehensiveness);

176 Explanations for the shift from ‫ עמי הארצות‬to ‫ עמי הארץ‬include an error (Ginsberg, Israelian Heritage, 16) or different stages of authorship (Pakkala, Ezra the Scribe, 84). For the wider use of ‫עם הארץ‬, see Ernest W. Nicholson, ‘The Meaning of the Expression ‫ עם הארץ‬in the Old Testament’, JSS 10 (1965): 59–66 and upheld in John T. Thames, Jr, ‘A New Discussion of the Meaning of the Phrase ‘am hā’āreṣ in the Hebrew Bible’, JBL 130 (2011): 109–25. 177 Morton Smith, Palestinian Parties and Politics that Shaped the Old Testament (New York: Columbia University Press, 1971; repr., London: SCM, 1987), 132; Shaye J. D. Cohen, From the Maccabees to the Mishnah, 3rd edn (Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox, 2014), 138–40; Blenkinsopp, Ezra-Nehemiah, 312. 178 179 Crüsemann, Tora, 395–8; ET, 340–3. Blenkinsopp, Ezra-Nehemiah, 319. 180 Geissler, Esramemoiren, 31–44. 181 Mowinckel, Studien, 3:148–9; Williamson, Ezra, Nehemiah, 333. 182 Kaufmann, tôlǝdôt, 4:331–2; ET of vol. 4, History of the Religion of Israel: From the Babylonian Captivity to the End of Prophecy, trans. Clarence Efroymsen (New York: Ktav, 1977), 384; Rudolph, Esra und Nehemia, 173; Fishbane, Biblical Interpretation, 114–34; Kellermann, Nehemia, 39–41; David J. A. Clines, ‘Nehemiah 10 as an Example of Early Jewish Exegesis’, JSOT 21 (1981): 111–17; Clines, Ezra, Nehemiah, Esther, 199–200; Williamson, Ezra, Nehemiah, 330–1; contra Eskenazi, Age of Prose, 124–5; Duggan, Covenant Renewal, 271.

Reshaping Narrative and Law

69

and integration of distinct (and competing) prescriptions.183 I agree that the pledges are exegetical innovations that respond to the perceived shortcomings of their source material. Pentateuchal legislation typically overgeneralizes and attempts to anticipate every contingency. These attempts are not always successful and later audiences occasionally update Pentateuchal law through a variety of hermeneutical strategies. Accordingly, Neh. 10:31–40 reflect an attempt to overcome perceived gaps between legislation from a past period on one end and contemporary praxis on the other end. The expression ‫ככתוב‬ ‫בתורה‬, ‘as it is written in the Torah’, in Neh. 10:35, 37 does not refer to the exact words of legal prescriptions from the Torah but acknowledges the existence of an authoritative legal collection.184 The pledges in Neh. 10:31–40 clarify the ambiguities that were identified by a later audience in their own application of completed and sealed Pentateuchal law. Some critics detect multiple layers in Neh. 10:31–40. Disputing some of the observed parallels between Neh. 10:31–40 and Nehemiah 13, Titus Reinmuth reconstructs the literary stages of the pledges from an original layer (10:31–2, 38a [possibly without ‫]ותרומתינו‬, 40b) that is revised with an interest in temple personnel (vv. 38b, 39, 40a) to a final version that incorporates provisions for the cult (vv. 33–4, 36–7).185 Due to the lack of a clear parallel with Pentateuchal law, Neh. 10:35 is thought to be a later addition.186 I contend that Neh. 10:35 is not secondary and is consistent with the legal strategies employed in the other pledges. Some critics uphold Neh. 10:36–40a as the product of supplemental layers;187 however, vv. 36–40a can be read as a single pledge for the support of cultic officials through a variety of contributions depicted in the Pentateuch.188 In support of the unity of Neh. 10:31–40a,189 and setting aside v. 40b as a

Clines, ‘Nehemiah 10’, 112–13. For the post-exilic use of ‫ ככתוב‬in Neh. 10:35, 37 as a citation of legal referents, see Kevin L. Spawn, ‘As It Is Written’ and Other Citation Formulae in the Old Testament: Their Use, Development, Syntax, and Significance, BZAW 311 (Berlin: de Gruyter, 2002), 104–8, 249–50. See also the discussion of ‫ )כ(כתוב‬and EM’s use of an existing authoritative law code in Neh. 8:13–18. 185 Titus Reinmuth, ‘Reform und Tora bei Nehemia: Neh. 10,31–40 und die Autorisierung der Tora in der Perserzeit’, ZABR 7 (2001): 291–4; Reinmuth, Der Bericht Nehemias: Zur literarischen Eigenart, traditionsgeschichtlichen Prägung und innerbiblischen Rezeption des Ich-Berichts Nehemias, OBO 183 (Freiburg: Universitätsverlag; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2002), 213. 186 Reinmuth, ‘Reform und Tora’, 292; Reinmuth, Der Bericht Nehemias, 211; also Ralf Rothenbusch, ‘ …abgesondert zur Tora Gottes hin’: Ethnisch-religiöse Identitäten im Esra/Nehemiabuch, HBS 70 (Freiburg: Koch Neff & Volckmar, 2012), 230. 187 The following supplemental layers are proposed: vv. 38b–39 in Rudolph, Esra und Nehemia, 178; vv. 38b–40a in Blenkinsopp, Ezra-Nehemiah, 318; Rothenbusch, Identitäten, 230; v. 40a in Mowinckel, Studien, 3:145; Kellermann, Nehemia, 39. 188 Williamson, Ezra, Nehemiah, 338–9. 189 There is the question of how many items are actually contained in Neh. 10:31–40. The count ranges from six (Williamson, Ezra, Nehemiah, 334), and ten (David A. Glatt-Gilad, 183 184

70

Ezra and the Second Wilderness

concluding statement, I categorize the legal strategies employed in the pledges as follows: Broadening Legislation Merging Legislation

Closing Gaps in Legislation

Creating a Pledge

Pledges Against intermarriage (Neh. 10:31) Seventh-year produce and debt (v. 32b) Firstborn (v. 37) Gifts for the priests (v. 38a) First fruit (v. 36) Tithes and the Levites’ tithe (vv. 38b–40a) Sabbath (v. 32a) Wood offering (v. 35) Temple tax (vv. 33–4)

Broadening Legislation Among the pledges, Neh. 10:31 contains the single example of broadening Pentateuchal law. The pledge to refrain from giving daughters ‘to the peoples of the land’ (‫ )לעמי הארץ‬and taking daughters from these peoples is influenced by Deut. 7:3 and Exod. 34:12–16.190 Neh. 10:31, however, does not directly quote either law. Although the Deuteronom(ist)ic lawgivers prohibit marriages with nations they identify as abominable, they permit exogamy when the foreigner is from a nation that does not pose a significant threat for an Israelite to renounce YHVH. As we shall see in Ezra 9–10, the ‘holy seed’ is accused of mingling with foreigners and marrying foreign women. This situation is resolved through the separation from all foreigners and the sending away of the foreign wives and their offspring. Informed by the legal precedents in Exod. 34:12–16; Deut. 7:3; Ezra 9–10; and the difficulties Nehemiah faced with the Yehudite males who married Ashdodite, Ammonite, and Moabite women in Neh. 13:23–30a, the pledge in 10:31 goes one step further. This pledge unabashedly prohibits marriage to all foreigners, identified here as ‘the peoples of the land’, ‫עמי הארץ‬, and in a manner similar to Leviticus 18–20 encapsulates the demand for Israel’s ritual separation from all foreign nations.

Merging Legislation In some of the pledges in Neh. 10:31–40a, separate, yet related Pentateuchal laws are harmonized with the sum of their parts becoming a more ‘Reflections on the Structure and Significance of the ’amānāh [Neh. 10,29–40]’, ZAW 112 [2000]: 388–9), to eighteen (Kaufmann, tôlǝdôt, 4:332–8; ET, in History, 384–9). 190 Rudolph, Esra und Nehemia, 177; Myers, Ezra. Nehemiah, 178.

Reshaping Narrative and Law

71

comprehensive regulation. This strategy is necessary due to the preservation and incorporation of multiple legal codes in the Pentateuch that individually impose their own particular ideology and demands upon the commoner and priestly ranks in order to ensure the proper upkeep of the Yahvistic cult. The parade example for this post-exilic strategy is Chr’s description of Josiah’s Passover sacrifice, the pesaḥ : ‫ויבשלו הפסח באש כמשפט והקדשים בשלו בסירות ובדודים ובצלחות ויריצו לכל־בני העם‬ They boiled the pesaḥ in fire, as prescribed, and boiled the qodāšîm in pots, cauldrons, and pans. They rushed them to all the people. (2 Chr. 35:13)

The depiction requires a stretch of logic: how does one boil anything in fire? Although 2 Chr. 35:13 claims that such a prescription exists (‫)כמשפט‬, the Pentateuch lacks any directive to ‘boil a pesaḥ in fire’. Instead, Chr draws upon two similar, yet conflicting prescriptions for the Passover sacrifice: Exod. 12:9

Deut. 16:7

‫אל־תאכלו ממנו נא ובשל מבשל במים כי אם־צלי־אש‬ ‫ראשו על־כרעיו ועל־קרבו‬

‫ובשלת ואכלת במקום אשר יבחר יהוה אלהיך בו ופנית‬ ‫בבקר והלכת לאהליך‬

Do not eat from it raw or boiled in water; but roasted over the fire—its head, legs, and entrails.

You will boil and eat [it] at the place which YHVH your God will choose. You will return the next morning to your tents.

Chr combines the prescriptions from the originally Priestly (Exod. 12:9) and Deuteronomic (Deut. 16:7) legal codes to form a more comprehensive law concerning the preparation of the Passover sacrifice.191 The combination of different, but related laws to create comprehensive legislation continues into post-biblical literature. The prescription against incestuous relationships in the Temple Scroll results after the merger of the relevant Priestly (Lev. 20:21) and Deuteronomic (Deut. 23:1 [ET 22:30]) laws: 11QT 66:11–13192 ‫ איש את אשת‬12 ‫…לוא יקח‬11 ‫אביהו ולוא יגלה כנף אביהו‬ ‫ אחיהו‬13 ‫לוא יקח איש את אשת‬ ‫ולוא יגלה כנף אחיהו‬ ‫בן אביה או בן אמו‬ ‫כי נדה היא‬

191 192

Lev. 20:21 [H]

Deut. 23:1 [ET 22:30] ‫לא־יקח איש את־אשת אביו‬ ‫ולא יגלה כנף אביו‬

‫ואיש אשר יקח את־אשת אחיו‬ ‫נדה הוא‬ ‫ערות אחיו גלה‬ ‫ערירים יהיו‬

Fishbane, Biblical Interpretation, 135–6. Text and versification from Yadin, Temple Scroll, 2:298–9.

72

Ezra and the Second Wilderness 11QT 66:11–13192

Lev. 20:21 [H]

A man shall not take 12 his father’s wife and not expose his father’s cloak. A man shall not take 13 his brother’s wife and not expose his brother’s cloak—his father’s son or his mother’s son— for it is an impurity.

Deut. 23:1 [ET 22:30]

11

A man shall not take his father’s wife and not expose his father’s cloak. If a man takes his brother’s wife, it is an impurity; he has exposed his brother’s nakedness. They will be childless.

Turning to some of the pledges in Neh. 10:31–40a, the pledge to forgo the seventh-year produce and every debt in v. 32b is an example of merging related, yet slightly different laws. Two originally separate seventh-year laws, the land release in CC (Exod. 23:11aα) and the debt release in Deuteronomy (Deut. 15:2), are combined into a single pledge:193 Neh. 10:32b

Exod. 23:11aα

‫ונטש את־השנה השביעית‬ ‫ומשא כל־יד‬

‫והשביעת תשמטנה ונטשתה‬

We will forgo [the produce of] the seventh year and remit every debt.

…but the seventh [year] you will release and forgo it…

Deut. 15:2aβ,bα ‫שמוט כל־בעל משה ידו‬ ‫אשר ישה ברעהו לא־יגש את־רעהו‬ ‫ואת־אחיו‬

Every creditor will remit [the] claim that is held against his neighbour. He shall not oppress his neighbour or kin.

The result in Neh. 10:32 is a pledge to observe the seventh year by relinquishing the produce of that year and forgiving any accrued debts. Likewise, the pledge to bring the firstborn of sons, livestock (v. 37aα), and herds and flocks (v. 37bα) to the priests in the House of God incorporates originally different Pentateuchal laws of the firstborn marked for dedication to the cult:

Rudolph, Esra und Nehemia, 177; Myers, Ezra. Nehemiah, 178; Clines, ‘Nehemiah 10’, 113; Fishbane, Biblical Interpretation, 135. 193

Reshaping Narrative and Law Neh. 10:37

‫ואת־בכרות בנינו‬

Exod. 22:28b–29a [ET 29b– 30a] [CC]

Exod. 34:20a [JDtr]

‫…בכור בניך‬28 ‫תתן־לי‬

‫כל בכור בניך תפדה‬

‫ כן־תעשה‬29 …‫לשרך לצאנך‬

‫ולא־יראו פני ריקם‬

28

…The firstborn of your sons you will give to me.

All the firstborn of your sons you will redeem;

29

None will appear before me empty.

‫ובהמתינו‬ ‫ככתוב בתורה‬ ‫ואת־בכורי‬ ‫בקרינו וצאנינו‬ ‫להביא לבית אלהינו‬ ‫לכהנים המשרתים‬ ‫בבית אלהינו‬ …and all the firstborn of our sons and beasts

as it is written in the tôrāh and all the firstborn of our herds and our flocks to bring to the House of our God for the priests who minister in the House of our God.

You will do the same for your cattle and your flock…

Num. 18:15b [H]

73 Deut. 15:19a [D]

‫אך פדה תפדה‬ ‫את בכור האדם‬ ‫ואת בכור־‬ ‫הבהמה הטמאה‬ ‫ת פד ה‬ ‫כל־הבכור אשר יולד‬ ‫בבקרך ובצאנך‬ ‫הזכר תקדיש ליהוה‬ ‫אלהיך‬ …but you shall redeem the firstborn of humans; and the firstborn of unclean beasts you shall redeem.

All the male firstborn born in your herd and your flock you must consecrate to YHVH your God.

The mention of ‫ככתוב בתורה‬, ‘as it is written in the tôrāh’, in Neh. 10:37 raises a question: what, precisely, is the legal reference to ‫ ?ככתוב בתורה‬Fishbane reads ‫ ככתוב בתורה‬as a ‘shorthand allusion’ to Num. 18:15b–16.194 Num. 18:15b–16

194

Fishbane, Biblical Interpretation, 215.

74

Ezra and the Second Wilderness

set forth regulations for the redemption of the firstborn of human beings and the firstborn of unclean animals but lack any reference to the firstborn of the herds and flocks as pledged in Neh. 10:37b. Duggan suggests that ‫ככתוב בתורה‬ in this verse is an allusion to the sanctification of the firstborn in Exod. 13:2, 12–15.195 Some support for this suggestion can be found in the validation ‘so that this tôrāh of YHVH will be on your lips’, ‫למען תהיה תורת יהוה בפיך‬, in Exod. 13:9aβ [RPent].196 The main difficulty with fully accepting this view lies in the place of v. 9 immediately after the ordinance to refrain from consuming unleavened bread (vv. 3–8) and not the dedication of the firstborn. Neh. 10:37 (and also, as I will explain, in v. 35) lacks a direct reference for ‫ככתוב‬ ‫ בתורה‬but this phrase refers to an authoritative source—one that generally promotes the dedication of the firstborn to YHVH—while skimming over the exact contents of the Torah. Here, this Torah includes the multiple (and originally individual) prescriptions for the dedication of the firstborn in Exod. 22:28b–29; 34:20a; Num. 18:15b; and Deut. 15:19a. I include the obligation to offer tǝrûmāh gifts to the priests in Neh. 10:38a among the examples of merging Pentateuchal legislation. Following Kaufmann, the tǝrûmāh should be understood as a class of contributions of their own and distinct from the first fruits.197 The distinction of the tǝrûmāh is also suggested by the list of tǝrûmāh gifts set aside for the priests (‫ )ותרומת הכהנים‬in Neh. 13:5. In the Deuteronomic legal code, the Israelites are commanded to bring the tǝrûmāh to the central sanctuary (Deut. 12:6, 11) and not leave it in their settlements (v. 17). In Priestly parlance, a gift is offered either as tǝrûmāh, that is to YHVH (‫ )ליהוה‬through a non-ritual dedication outside the sanctuary (sometimes given directly to the priest), or as tǝnûpāh, that is before YHVH (‫ )לפני יהוה‬and in the sanctuary.198 In comparison, Neh. 10:38a does not conceive of the possibility that a gift may be offered tǝnûpāh, an ‘elevated offering’, that is before and in the presence of YHVH inside the sanctuary precincts (the same holds true for D but on account of its view that only YHVH’s ‘name’ resides in his earthly abode), as the cessation of the elevated offering in post-exilic literature reflects the view that it is impossible to offer a gift before YHVH due to his absence either in the earthly realm or in the reconstructed temple. Rather, the declaration ‫בית־אלהינו אל־לשכות‬, ‘to the chambers of the House of our God’, in Neh. 10:38a has the Priestly tǝrûmāh— 195

Duggan, Covenant Renewal, 283. Exod. 13:9 is considered to be Elohistic (Haran, Temples, 345 n. 45; Friedman, Sources Revealed, 141–2) or part of a Deuteronomistic section (Noth, Exodus, 79; ET, 101–2; also Propp, Exodus 1–18, 377–8). I am of the opinion that ‫ למען תהיה תורת יהוה בפיך‬in v. 9aβ, which is the only occurrence of ‫ תורת יהוה‬in the Pentateuch, is a redactional addition (RPent) influenced by the (late) appellation of ‫( תורת יהוה‬see, for example, Ezra 7:10; Neh. 9:3; 2 Chr. 35:26 [cf. 2 Kgs 23:28]) into what is otherwise Elohistic material in vv. 1–16. 197 Kaufmann, tôlǝdôt, 4:336; ET, in History, 387. 198 Milgrom, Leviticus 1–16, 415–16, 461–73; Milgrom, Numbers, 36, 50. 196

Reshaping Narrative and Law

75

supplemented with the list of gifts in 13:5 [NM]—in mind. The absence in 10:38a of some of the tǝrûmāh gifts described in Priestly texts can be explained. In the Priestly texts, gifts are offered tǝrûmāh and set aside for the construction and endowment of the Tabernacle (Exod. 25:2–3; 35:5, 21, 24; 36:3, 6 [all P]), an event that any post-exilic community would solely attribute to the antiquated past. Likewise, Neh. 10:38a omits the Priestly mandate for a portion of war spoils to be set aside as contributions for the sanctuary (Num. 31:29, 41, 52 [P]) for the reason that Second Temple Yehud did not engage in much, if any, warfare.199 Still, Neh. 10:38a conveys some understanding of the tǝrûmāh, as the prime dough is also offered as tǝrûmāh in Num. 15:19–21 (also Ezek. 44:30) and the fruits of every new tree, wine, and oil are likewise offered as tǝrûmāh in Num. 18:11–19.

Closing Gaps in Pentateuchal Law The two remaining descriptions of the gifts (more precisely, tǝrûmāh) in the pledges, the first fruit in Neh. 10:36 and the tithes for the Levites in vv. 38b–39, are likewise grounded in Priestly legislation but both employ another interpretative strategy. Neh. 10:36 contains the obligations to bring the first fruit of the land (v. 36aα) and the first fruit of ‘all fruit of every tree’ (‫ובכורי כל־פרי כל־עץ‬, v. 36aβ) every year to the House of YHVH. These obligations recall Nehemiah’s claim that he made the proper provisions for the first fruits in 13:31 [NM]. In Neh. 10:36aα, the obligation to bring the first fruit of the land to the House of YHVH follows the prescriptions to offer the first fruit to YHVH in Exod. 23:19 [CC]; 34:26 [JDtr]; Num. 28:26 [P]; Deut. 26:1–11 [D]. This obligation also finds its impetus in the allocation of the first fruits for the priests in Num. 18:13 [H].200 The interpretative difficulty that stems from all of the Pentateuchal prescriptions arises: the first fruit of exactly what? Neh. 10:36aα reflects multiple Pentateuchal laws of the first fruit; yet its explicit mention of the first fruit of every fruit tree (v. 36aβ) attempts to remove any ambiguities in fulfilling the yearly offering of first fruits to the cultic officials in the House of YHVH. Support for the cultic officials also takes place in the form of a tithe from the soil brought to the Levites as a gift offered tǝrûmāh (cf. Num. 18:21–4 [P]) and in the presence of an Aaronide priest (Neh. 10:38b–39a). The requirement that ‘a priest, an Aaronide’, ‫הכהן בן־אהרן‬, is present reflects Num. 18:26–9 [P], specifically v. 28, which dictates that the Levites are to give a tithe from the tithes received from the Israelites to Aaron the priest (‫ )לאהרן הכהן‬as tǝrûmāh to YHVH. However, in Neh. 10:39b–40a the Levites do not offer their tithe to an 199

Weinfeld, Deuteronomic School, 185–7.

200

Williamson, Ezra, Nehemiah, 337.

76

Ezra and the Second Wilderness

Aaronide priest. The Levites are indeed required to offer a tithe but, departing from Num. 18:28, this tithe is instead brought to the House of YHVH. Some critics place Neh. 10:39b as a later addition but I consider the instruction for the Levites to present their received tithes as original and based on Num. 18:26–9. The obligation of the tithes in Neh. 10:38b–40a resolves the difficulty with following the requirement in Num. 18:26–9: how do the Levites receive their tithes in the first place?201 Neh. 10:38b–40a fills in this lack of detail with a mechanism that enables the proper observance of the Levitical tithe requirement as prescribed in Num. 18:26–9. In addition to the pledge against intermarriage in Neh. 10:31, ‘the peoples of the land’, ‫עמי הארץ‬, are mentioned in another pledge. Neh. 10:32a contains the pledge not to purchase from ‘the peoples of the land’ who sell goods on Sabbath or another consecrated day.202 This practice is addressed (and warned against) in Amos 8:5; Jer. 17:19–27; Isa. 58:12. Neh. 10:32a upholds the essence of Sabbath prohibitions contained in Exod. 20:8–11 and Deut. 5:12–15.203 Clines identifies the innovation in Neh. 10:32a as ‘work prohibited on the sabbath includes for the first time the business of buying’.204 The greater necessity for this innovation, I contend, lies in closing a gap in both of the Sabbath laws. In general, both Exod. 20:8–10 and Deut. 5:12–14 prohibit work on Sabbath and apply this prohibition to the voluntary resident alien, the sojourner (‫)גר‬. However, neither Exod. 20:8–10 nor Deut. 5:12–14 anticipates the loophole: what about the foreigner (‫—)נכרי‬one among ‘the peoples of the land’—who enters the gates in order to sell goods on Sabbath? This foreigner does not have the same status as the voluntary resident alien and is under no obligation to observe the Sabbath laws. In turn, this foreigner poses a potential threat for the proper observance of Sabbath by a native and, presumably, a voluntary resident alien. Neh. 13:15–22a [NM] portrays one of the problems that arise with proper Sabbath observance. Nehemiah reports that Sabbath laws were broken and Tyrians (who are foreigners and not voluntary resident aliens) sold goods in Jerusalem on Sabbath (vv. 15–16) and, claiming that the profanation of Sabbath was responsible for the destruction of Jerusalem in the past, the current profanation poses the threat of YHVH’s renewed wrath (vv. 17–18).205 In order to stem the flow of goods into Jerusalem on Sabbath, Nehemiah resorts to shutting the city gates (vv. 19–22a). Nehemiah’s actions, as drastic as they may be, are appropriate measures in response to the perceived threat that arises from breaking the Sabbath laws. In a similar vein, Neh. 10:32a prohibits the procurement of goods from all foreigners, 201

See also Duggan, Covenant Renewal, 284. For ‫ ביום קדש‬as a reference to P’s calendar in Num. 28:1–29:38, see Duggan, Covenant Renewal, 275. 203 Myers, Ezra. Nehemiah, 178. In the discussion of Neh. 9:6, I argued that Exod. 20:11 belongs to RPent. 204 205 Clines, ‘Nehemiah 10’, 113, 115. Fishbane, Biblical Interpretation, 131. 202

Reshaping Narrative and Law

77

identified here as ‘the peoples of the land’, in order to eliminate the possibility that conducting business with some foreigners on Sabbath is acceptable. The pledge in Neh. 10:32a is grounded in the shared concern in v. 31 that arises out of the detrimental influence of ‘the peoples of the land’ on the adherents of the Yahvistic cult, but both pledges pursue different strategies to update Pentateuchal law. The final example of closing a perceived gap in Pentateuchal legislation is in the provision of the wood offering for the House of God in Neh. 10:35. This provision recalls Nehemiah’s actions, specifically among his good deeds in Jerusalem, when he provides for the wood offering at the appointed times (13:31a [NM]). Citing the sacrifice of Isaac in Genesis 22 as an example, Mowinckel presumes that the pledge for the wood offering invokes an old custom.206 This is unlikely. Instead, the pledge for the wood offering in Neh. 10:35 is derived from the instructions for the ‘ôlāh (‫)עולה‬, the burnt offering, in Lev. 6:2aβ–6 [ET 9b–13].207 Lev. 6:2aβ–6 is, in Priestly terminology, a ‘torah’ (‫זאת תורת העלה‬, v. 2aβ) and is an appropriate reference point for ‫ ככתוב בתורה‬in Neh. 10:35. As it is written, however, Lev. 6:2αβ–6 lacks an important detail that ensures the proper implementation of the instruction—specifically, who is responsible for providing the wood for the fire? For this reason, Gunneweg remarks, ‘Es ist deshalb unklar, auf welche Vorschrift das “wie im Gesetz geschrieben steht” zu beziehen ist. Auch in dieser Hinsicht lebten die Menschen der Bibel ohne Bibel!’208 This claim is not impossible, but it appears more likely that the pledge reflects a known Pentateuchal law. The notice ‫ככתוב‬ ‫ בתורה‬in Neh. 10:35 (and I claim in v. 37) supports the authority of these laws but accepts their inadequacy. Reading the expansion to Lev. 24:1–2a in 4Q365 fragment 23 (especially lines 9–10), which contains more precise instructions for a wood offering, Hannah Harrington suggests that ‫ ככתוב‬in Neh. 10:35 refers to a version of Leviticus that did have a wood offering.209 It is, however, equally likely that Neh. 10:35 itself is the influence upon the expansion of MT Lev. 24:1–2a in 4Q365 frg. 23, which in turn influences 11QT 23–4.210 The pledge in Neh. 10:35 fills a gap that arises from Lev. 6:2aβ–6 and spreads the responsibility of bringing wood for the altar among the priests, Levites, and (according to set times) the people. In the pledge for the wood offering in Neh. 10:35, ‫ככתוב‬ ‫ בתורה‬acknowledges the existence of an authoritative source (here, Lev. 6:2aβ– 6) and at the same time this pledge recognizes and fixes a deficiency in the legal prescription. 206

Mowinckel, Studien, 3:149–50. Batten, Ezra and Nehemiah, 378; Myers, Ezra. Nehemiah, 179. 208 Gunneweg, Nehemia, 138. 209 Hannah K. Harrington, ‘The Use of Leviticus in Ezra-Nehemiah’, JHebS 13 article 3 (2013): 18–19. 210 Sidnie White Crawford and Christopher A. Hoffmann, ‘A Note on 4Q365, Frg. 23 and Nehemiah 10:33–36’, RevQ 23 (2008): 429–30. 207

78

Ezra and the Second Wilderness

Creating a Pledge Finally, I set apart the pledge of an annual contribution of one-third of a shekel for the upkeep of the House of God in Neh. 10:33–4 as the product of an interpretative strategy that is distinct from the other strategies examined up to this point. Clines attributes Neh. 10:33 to a ‘creation of a new prescription from a precedent in Pentateuchal law’, specifically, Exod. 30:13–16.211 In the Priestly description of the Tabernacle construction, Exod. 30:13–16 dictates that enrolled Israelites over the age of 20 years pay a half-shekel as tǝrûmāh to YHVH, which is then fulfilled in 38:25–6. The Pentateuchal reference is correct but I have one major reservation—Exod. 30:13–16 is never referred to as (Priestly) ‘torah’.212 Instead, the pledge in Neh. 10:33–4 is derived from a narrative, specifically the (Priestly) narrative of the construction of the Tabernacle, which includes Exod. 30:13–16. Jacob Liver argues that the one-time tax in Exod. 30:13–16 is linked to the annual tax in Neh. 10:33–4 and becomes the Second Temple sanctuary tax.213 In Exod. 30:13–16, eligible Israelite males offer one-half of a shekel as a tǝrûmāh gift to YHVH; yet the tax rate of one-third of a shekel in Neh. 10:33–4 goes against the usual tendency for taxes to increase over a period of time. For this reason, Wellhausen assigns Exod. 30:13–16 to a late Priestly layer that postdates Neh. 10:33–4.214 The decrease in taxes is also explained by different monetary systems before and during the Persian period.215 Any relationship between the different taxes in Exod. 30:13–16 and Neh. 10:33–34 may be overstated. Milgrom observes that ‘ abōdāh, ‫עבדה‬, in Neh. 10:33 does not have the same meaning as in Exod. 30:16 and ‘the shekels of Exodus’ one-time census were devoted to the one-time construction (‫ )עבדה‬of the Tabernacle (see Exod. 30:16 and 38:25–28) and have nothing to do with the annual tax’.216 In creating a pledge from its source material and with the addition of ‫בשנה‬, ‘yearly’, in Neh. 10:33, what was originally a onetime tax for the construction of the Tabernacle is reconfigured into an annual pledge for the service of the House of God.

Clines, ‘Nehemiah 10’, 112. For a list of P’s individual ‘torah’, see Milgrom, Leviticus 1–16, 2. 213 Jacob Liver, ‘The Half-Shekel Offering in Biblical and Post-Biblical Literature’, HTR 46 (1963): 181–5. 214 Wellhausen, Prolegomena, 153; ET, 159; recently, Fantalkin and Tal, ‘Canonization’, 15. 215 Myers, Ezra. Nehemiah, 178–9. 216 Jacob Milgrom, Studies in Levitical Terminology, UCPNES 14 (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1970), 86. Gunneweg notes the same discrepancy but completely dismisses the Tabernacle account as the influence for Neh. 10:33–4 (Nehemia, 137). 211 212

Reshaping Narrative and Law

79

INTERPRETING THE PENTATEUCH In this chapter, I first examined the literary composition of Nehemiah 9. I identified Neh. 9:1–5aα as a distinct unit and connected this unit to Ezra 7–10 and Nehemiah 8. It follows that Neh. 9:1–5aα belong to EM, which I will identify in the following chapters. What remains in Nehemiah 9 is an originally independent composition with its beginning in (reconstructed) v. 5aβ reworked to form a near-seamless transition after it is appended to (transposed) v. 5aα. The recital of the events from Genesis-Deuteronomy in Neh. 9:6–25 frequently employs Pentateuchal materials that arise after the collation of its constituent parts. In a substantial number of the events described in Neh. 9:6–25, the composer draws upon Genesis 15; Exodus 14; Numbers 11; 14—Pentateuchal texts that critics consistently uphold as products of multiple hands in the shape of different source materials or an accretion of a base layer and its supplement(s). The prayer frequently presupposes the final form of a Pentateuchal text and not one of its constituent parts (whether it be sources, redactions, or fragments). More decisively, the composer of the historical prayer occasionally employs Pentateuchal materials that do not belong to any of the constituent parts but surface after the source documents are combined. These are the materials I ascribe to RPent. I next examined Nehemiah 10, with a focus on the pledges in vv. 31–40a. As is the case with Nehemiah 9, the pledges also presuppose the Pentateuch in its final form. The pledges are constructed with the recognition that temporal gaps exist between the legal source, which is the Pentateuch, and the ideological praxis of the contemporary period, some of which are reported in Nehemiah 13 [NM]. Various strategies—broadening and merging Pentateuchal laws, closing any perceived gaps in the Pentateuchal laws, and recasting a Pentateuchal narrative into a pledge—are employed in order to ensure the proper observance of the Pentateuchal laws by a Second Temple community. The different uses of the final form of the Pentateuch in Neh. 9:5aβ–37 and 10:31–40 anticipate the multiple interpretive strategies in the later Second Temple period and the resulting fluidity of ‘Pentateuchal’ manuscripts represented by SamP; (arguably) LXX; the Temple Scroll (11QT); and, ‘Rewritten Pentateuch’ (4QRPa-e = 4Q158; 4Q364–7).217 Although I do not include Neh. 9:5aβ–37 and 10:31–40 as part of EM, these compositions employ a variety of strategies in interpreting some of the cultic demands in the Pentateuch and will offer points of comparison for a similar examination of EM. With the insights gained from the use of the final form of the Pentateuch in compositions that in my mind postdate EM, my attention now turns to the identification of EM in Ezra 7–10 and Nehemiah 8 and the interpretative strategies EM employs in its own use of the Pentateuchal materials. For 4QRPa-e as ‘biblical’ and its departures from MT, see Emanuel Tov, ‘4QReworked Pentateuch: A Synopsis of its Contents’, RevQ 16 (1995): 647–53. 217

3 From Babylon to Jerusalem The beginning of EM can be traced to somewhere in Ezra 7–8. Ezra 7–8 contain descriptions of Ezra’s high-priestly genealogy, a copy of a purported official document from the Achaemenid monarch, the gathering of a caravan at the Ahava, a list of returnees, the arrival in Jerusalem, and the preparation and delivery of gifts for the House of God. The diversity of materials, uneasy transitions, and shifts between third-person narrative and first-person memoir initially suggest that Ezra 7–8 are not originally from a single hand. In this chapter, I identify the extent of stratification underneath these chapters and separate EM from its editorial layers. My attention then turns to the place of the Artaxerxes Edict in EM, the relationship between tôrāh and the legal term dāt, and EM’s strategic use of its source materials to portray Ezra and his caravan’s successful journey from Babylon to Jerusalem.

THE COHERENCE OF EZRA 7 – 8 Before an examination on EM’s use of its source materials, it is necessary to identify what precisely constitutes EM in Ezra 7–8. The literary difficulties in Ezra 7–8 are numerous and studies that attempt to delineate EM (if something akin to EM is deemed to have existed in the first place) in these chapters have produced conflicting results. There are two major problems in Ezra 7–8. One problem concerns the place of Ezra 7:1–10 in EM and the separation of a base layer from any additions. The other problem lies in assigning the blocks of diverse materials in Ezra 7:11–8:36 to either EM or the subsequent editorial layers.

The Strata of Ezra 7:1–10 Critics have long suspected that Ezra 7:1–10 is, for the most part, a secondary insertion into its surrounding material. Geissler opines that Ezra 7:1–10 (and

From Babylon to Jerusalem

81

vv. 11–26) contain little originality and finds the beginning of the Esramemoiren in v. 27.1 Rudolph assigns Ezra 7:1–11 to Chr’s introduction to the Esraquelle.2 Identifying ‫ ואחר הדברים האלה‬as material that connects the already combined Ezra and Nehemiah memoirs with Ezra 1–6, Williamson views 7:1aβ–10 as a rewriting of Ezra’s account.3 Other critics sort through the apparent literary problems in Ezra 7:1–10 and detect trace amounts of a memoir within these verses. Noth sees the original text in 7:1a, 6, 10 with secondary additions in vv. 1b–5, 7, 8, 9.4 Karrer sees only vv. 1*, 6*, 8 as original.5 Likewise, Pakkala identifies the base layer Ezra Source in only vv. 1* [‫]במלכות ארתחשסתא מלך־אפרס עזרא בן־שריה‬, 6a* [minus ‫]הוא עזרא‬, 8.6 In the search for EM in Ezra 7:1–10, I begin with what is generally agreed upon. There are awkward transitions in v. 1aα and v. 6 alongside transitions from singular to plural subjects (and vice versa) in vv. 6, 7, 9. Ezra 7:1aα, ‫ואחר הדברים האלה‬, is widely supported as a link that connects vv. 1aβ–5 to the end of Ezra 1–6.7 In support of 7:1aα as redactional, it can be observed that the multiple occurrences of ‫ )ויהי( אחר הדברים האלה‬in Genesis function not as an (Elohistic) introductory phrase but as a redactional insertion that links originally disparate narratives.8 Ezra 7:1aα is a redactional insertion, which I attribute to RE-N, that functions as a transition from Ezra 1–6 to 7:1aβ. Some critics maintain that the genealogical list in Ezra 7:1b–5 that places Ezra as a direct descendant of Aaron, Eleazar,9 and Phinehas is an insertion that recasts the priest Ezra into a high priest.10 The succession of the high 1

2 Geissler, Esramemoiren, 4 (and n. 2). Rudolph, Esra und Nehemia, xxiv. Williamson, Ezra, Nehemiah, 89–91. 4 Noth, Überlieferungsgeschichtliche Studien, 125, 145; ET, in Chronicler’s History, 44, 62; also Gunneweg, Esra, 120. 5 6 Karrer, Verfassung, 234. Pakkala, Ezra the Scribe, 22–81. 7 Batten, Ezra and Nehemiah, 302; Kapelrud, Authorship, 7–8; Williamson, Ezra, Nehemiah, 94; Williamson, ‘The Torah and History in Presentations of Restoration in Ezra-Nehemiah’, in McConville and Müller, Reading the Law, 160; Daniels, ‘Composition’, 312; Grätz, Edikt, 46; Pakkala, Ezra the Scribe, 23–4. 8 In Gen. 15:1; 22:1; 39:7; 40:1; 1 Kgs 17:17; 21:1; Esther 2:1; 3:1; and the insignificant variant ‫( אחרי‬GKC §103o) in Gen. 22:20; 48:1; Josh. 24:29. See also Gunneweg, Esra, 121. As a classically Elohistic phrase, see Wellhausen, Composition, 56; J. Estlin Carpenter and George HarfordBattersby, The Hexateuch According to the Revised Version, 2 vols (London: Longmans, Green, and Co., 1900), 1:190. Space prevents me from a detailed discussion of the sources surrounding this redactional phrase in Genesis. Acknowledging the contentious nature of the debates, I submit the following: Gen. 14:1–24 [J]—15:1aβ–6 [E]; 21:22–34 [J]—22:1aβ–19 [E]—vv. 20aβ–24 [J]; 39:1–6 [J]—vv. 7aβ–23 [J]—40:1aβ–41:57 [E]; 47:29–31 [J]—48:1aβ–2 [E]. 9 Not to be confused with another person of the same name in Ezra 8:33; 10:25. 10 Batten, Ezra and Nehemiah, 306; Clines, Ezra, Nehemiah, Esther, 99; Schaper, Priester und Leviten, 255 n. 102; contra In der Smitten, Esra, 7–8. Against the view that genealogical lists are usually later additions to the text but instead a convention employed in the Jewish or classical world to ascertain correct pedigree or (non-)relations, see Mowinckel, Studien, 3:18–19; Gary N. Knoppers, ‘Ethnicity, Genealogy, Geography, and Change: The Judean Communities of Babylon and Jerusalem in the Story of Ezra’, in Community Identity in Judean Historiography: Biblical and Comparative Perspectives, ed. Gary N. Knoppers and Kenneth A. Ristau (Winona 3

82

Ezra and the Second Wilderness

priesthood finds its strongest expression in P as the office first bestowed on Aaron (Lev. 9:1–24) and secured as a perpetual inheritance by Phinehas (Num. 25:6–18). The placement of Ezra in a high-priestly lineage appears to be informed by EM’s descriptions of Ezra as ‘the priest-scribe’ (Ezra 7:11, 12; Neh. 8:9) and ‘the priest’ (Ezra 10:10, 16–18; Neh. 8:2). What remains to be determined is the relationship between Ezra 7:1b–5 and v. 1aα, which I assigned above to RE-N; specifically, whether or not the former belongs to the same editorial layer as the latter. To solidify the presentation of Ezra as priest, a redactor forges a link that connects Ezra to the first high priest Aaron by, for the most part, following the genealogical tree of high priests in 1 Chr. 5:27–41 [ET 6:1–15].11 Similarly, 1 Esdras adds ὁ ἀρχιερεύς to elevate Ezra to the high priesthood.12 The elevated status of a priest in the post-biblical period is suggested by m. Git .̣ 5:8 in which a priest first reads what is assumed to be Torah followed by a Levite and then an Israelite. I assign both Ezra 7:1aα and vv. 1b* [minus ‫]עזרא‬a–5 to the compiler who gives shape to the final form of Ezra-Nehemiah, RE-N. In what remains of these verses, specifically v. 1aβ and v. 1b* [only ‫]עזרא‬, I consider ‫ במלכות ארתחשסתא מלך־פרס עזרא‬as the beginning of EM.13 Some critics see ‫‘( הוא עזרא‬he, Ezra’) in Ezra 7:6a as an insertion.14 Having assigned ‘Ezra the son of Seriah’ (v. 1) to the base text, Pakkala locates ‫הוא עזרא‬ as an addition.15 In agreement, I place ‫ הוא עזרא‬as a continuation of vv. 1b*–5 [RE-N].16 The motif of the hand of YHVH, ‫ויתן־לו המלך כיד־יהוה אלהיו עליו כל בקשתו‬, in Ezra 7:6b projects the claim that Ezra was granted everything he had

Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2009), 150 n. 12. Rooke suggests that ‫ הכהן הראש‬in Ezra 7:5 places Aaron ‘as a legitimating and an originating figure, and therefore as an authoritative figure, for the priesthood, rather than as a high-priestly figure’ (Zadok’s Heirs, 161). 11 Specifically, only the first eight generations and the last nine as the middle six generations, Amariah to Johanan in 1 Chr. 5:33–6 [ET 6:7–10], are absent. The relationship between Ezra 7:1b–5 and 1 Chr. 5:27–41 remains debated. For all or parts of 1 Chr. 5:27–41 [ET 6:1–15] as the source for Ezra 7:1–5, see Noth, Überlieferungsgeschichtliche Studien, 146; ET, in Chronicler’s History, 63; Rudolph, Esra und Nehemia, 66; Galling, Bücher, 204; Kellermann, Nehemia, 59; Gunneweg, Esra, 120; Blenkinsopp, Ezra-Nehemiah, 136; Kratz, Komposition, 81; ET, 75. The reverse is argued in John R. Bartlett, ‘Zadok and his Successors at Jerusalem’, JTS n.s. 19 (1968): 1–6; Sara Japhet, I and II Chronicles: A Commentary, OTL (Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox, 1993), 151; Schaper, Priester und Leviten, 269 n. 1. For the view that Ezra 7:1b–5 is unaware of 1 Chr. 5:27–41, see Pakkala, Ezra the Scribe, 25. 12 1 Esdras 9:39, 40, 49 (cf. MT Neh. 8:1, 2, 9, respectively). For ὁ ἀρχιερεύς as late, see Juha Pakkala, ‘Why 1 Esdras is Probably Not an Early Version of the Ezra-Nehemiah Tradition’, in Fried, Was 1 Esdras First?, 105. In support of his argument that Ezra was indeed a high priest, Koch states that 1 Esdras is ‘probably correct’ (‘Origins’, 191). 13 Kapelrud, Authorship, 8. 14 Williamson, Ezra, Nehemiah, 89; as Wiederaufnahme, see Rudolph, Esra und Nehemia, 67. 15 Pakkala, Ezra the Scribe, 24. 16 ‫ הוא‬is certainly an addition. Whether or not ‫ עזרא‬in v. 6aα is an addition and in v. 1aβ is original, or vice versa, is splitting hairs. Both are probably not part of the same editorial layer and only one of the two ‫ עזרא‬belongs to EM.

From Babylon to Jerusalem

83

asked for from the Persian monarch and recurs throughout Ezra-Nehemiah and Chronicles. The claim in Ezra 7:6b is inconsistent with Ezra declining a royal escort (in 8:22, which I attribute below to EM) and should be treated as an addition (REM-NM) that presupposes Nehemiah’s claim (‫ויתן־לי המלך כיד־אלהי הטובה עלי‬, Neh. 2:8b).17 Critics generally view all or parts of Ezra 7:7–9 as secondary.18 In der Smitten, for one, attributes vv. 7–9 to a ‘nachchronistischen Zusatz’.19 In the list of temple workers in v. 7, the singers (‫)משררים‬, gatekeepers (‫)שערים‬, and temple servants (‫ )נתינים‬are only in Ezra-Nehemiah and Chronicles.20 Noting the absence of singers and gatekeepers in Ezra 8:1–20, Williamson assigns ‫ והמשררים והשערים‬in 7:7 to the hand of an editor influenced by NM (cf. Neh. 7:44–5; par. Ezra 2:41–2).21 In another depiction of the return from exile, Chr includes both singers (1 Chr. 9:17) and gatekeepers (v. 33) and it follows that ‫ והמשררים והשערים‬in Ezra 7:7 (likewise in 10:24 and Aram. ‫ זמריא תרעיא‬in 7:24) is an addition that presupposes not only NM but also Chr. I attribute ‫ והמשררים והשערים‬in Ezra 7:7 to the work of RE-N. Retaining ‫ נתינים‬in 7:7 as EM, EM upgrades the temple personnel with the ‫ נתינים‬and supplies the notice that David established this class for the service of the Levites (v. 20; cf. v. 17; 1 Chr. 15:16–18).22 Other complications in Ezra 7:7–9 emerge with the appearance of three separate, but somewhat repetitive, chronological notices in each verse. In support of a one-year report, Schaeder includes the chronological notices in

17

As the work of an editor influenced by NM, see Williamson, Ezra, Nehemiah, 90. For the influence of NM upon Chr in Ezra 7:6, see Noth, Überlieferungsgeschichtliche Studien, 147; ET, in Chronicler’s History, 64; In der Smitten, Esra, 9 (only v. 7b); Gunneweg, Esra, 124; Kellermann, Nehemia, 58; Kratz, Komposition, 78; ET, 72. Against the existence of any literary dependence between Ezra 7:6b and Neh. 2:8b, see Rudolph, Esra und Nehemia, 72; Pakkala, Ezra the Scribe, 63–4. 18 Among these critics, Pakkala observes that v. 7 contains the plural ‫ ויעלו‬but v. 8 has singular ‫ ויבא‬and the occurrence of the plural is one reason, among many, to view v. 7 (and v. 6b) as a supplemental addition (Ezra the Scribe, 27). Resolving the tensions between the singular and plural verbs, Williamson supports MT ‫( ויעלו‬v. 7) and proposes ‫( ויבאו‬v. 8) (Ezra, Nehemiah, 88–9) while others prefer to emend ‫( ויעל‬hi.) in v. 7 (Rudolph, Esra und Nehemia, 67; Gunneweg, Esra, 125). 19 In der Smitten, Esra, 11. 20 For the demotion of ‫ נתינים‬to the lowest classes of the post-exilic community, see Joel P. Weinberg, ‘Netînîm und “Söhne der Sklaven Salomos” in 6.–4. Jh. v.u.Z.’, ZAW 87 (1975): 355–71; ET, ‘Netînîm and “Sons of the Slaves of Solomon” in the Sixth to Fourth Century BCE’, in The Citizen-Temple Community, trans. Daniel L. Smith-Christopher, JSOTSup 151 (Sheffield: JSOT, 1992), 75–91. Williamson points out that in Ezra 8:20 the ‫ נתינים‬provide a cultic function (also in Ezra 2; Neh. 10:29 [ET 28]) (see ‘Judah and the Jews’, in Studies in Persian History: Essays in Memory of David M. Lewis, ed. Maria Brosius and Amélie Kuhrt, AchH 11 [Leiden: Nederlands Instituut voor het Nabije Oosten, 1998], 155). It should also be noted that ‫ בני־ישראל‬in Ezra 7:7 implies ‘commoner’ (following Kapelrud, Authorship, 22). 21 Williamson, Ezra, Nehemiah, 93. 22 Williamson, Ezra, Nehemiah, 88–90; pace Blenkinsopp, Ezra-Nehemiah, 138.

84

Ezra and the Second Wilderness

v. 8 and v. 9 as original to Ezra’s Denkschrift.23 Noth identifies vv. 8–9 as the first expansion (upon v. 6) that is then followed by an addendum in v. 7.24 In support of retaining both dates, Koch observes that chronological repetitions also occur in Neh. 7:72b and 8:2 (both verses I attribute to EM).25 Between the two notices of the caravan’s arrival in Jerusalem in the fifth month in Ezra 7:8 and v. 9, some critics argue that the more precise notice (which pinpoints the date of arrival to the first day of the fifth month) in v. 9 is later than v. 8.26 A suspected later layer does not always demonstrate a greater precision of terms. The exact opposite—that is, an original composer’s use of technical terminology could be lost upon a subsequent editor or redactor—is equally possible ceteris paribus.27 In maintaining EM as a one-year report, I consider Ezra 7:8 and the first word in v. 9 (‫ )כי‬as an addition from RE-N that clarifies the date of the returnees’ arrival. Finally, some critics suggest that v. 10 is a midrash to v. 6.28 Upholding this verse as the (admittedly casual) continuation of v. 9, the description of Ezra in v. 10 follows the rhetoric frequently employed by one of EM’s prototypes, the Deuteronomic Moses. The development of Ezra 7:1–10 is therefore as follows. EM begins with Ezra, who, in the seventh year of one Artaxerxes, goes to Jerusalem (vv. 1aβ, bα* [only ‫]עזרא‬a, 6a* [minus ‫]הוא עזרא‬a, 7* [minus ‫]והמשררים והשערים‬a, 9* [minus ‫]כי‬a–10). Following the example of Nehemiah in Neh. 2:8b–9, REM-NM inserts the claim that the Persian king favoured Ezra (Ezra 7:6b). Combining Ezra 1–6 with EM-NM, RE-N provides the connecting link in 7:1aα, includes Ezra in a genealogy of the high priesthood (vv. 1bα* [minus ‫–]עזרא‬6aα* [only ‫]הוא עזרא‬a), follows Chr by expanding EM’s temple workers in v. 7 with ‫והמשררים והשערים‬, and adds another chronological notice (v. 8 and continuing on to only ‫ כי‬in v. 9).

The Integrity of Ezra 7:11–8:36 The variety of materials in Ezra 7:11–8:36 suggests that some of the verses were originally self-contained units. In 7:11, critics note the awkward repetition of ‫ ספר‬and uphold ‫( ספר דברי מצות־יהוה וחקיו‬v. 11b) as a secondary addition.29 Elsewhere in Ezra-Nehemiah, ‫ מצוה‬and ‫ חק‬appear in texts that

23

Schaeder, Esra der Schreiber, 35. Noth, Überlieferungsgeschichtliche Studien, 125; ET, in Chronicler’s History, 44; pace Kellermann, Nehemia, 58. 25 26 Koch, ‘Origins’, 177. Karrer, Verfassung, 228; Pakkala, Ezra the Scribe, 29. 27 For example, H not only expands upon P but also frequently blurs P’s exact and precise terms. See examples in Milgrom, Leviticus 17–22, 1327–8. 28 Kapelrud, Authorship, 9; Kellermann, Nehemia, 58–9; Pakkala, Ezra the Scribe, 30–2. 29 Schaeder, Esra der Schreiber, 50; Williamson, Ezra, Nehemiah, 98; Pakkala, Ezra the Scribe, 32. 24

From Babylon to Jerusalem

85

postdate EM (Neh. 9:13; 10:30 [ET 29]) and in Neh. 1:7.30 It is likely that Ezra 7:11b is an addition from RE-N that expands upon Ezra’s title of ‘priest-scribe’ (7:11a, 12; Neh. 8:9). I argued elsewhere that the Edict in Ezra 7:12–26 reflects an idealized projection of Yehud’s place in the Achaemenid empire. A contested issue is the extent to which the Edict corresponds to the rest of EM. In spite of the arguments for Ezra 7:12–26 as a separate composition, it remains difficult to remove the Edict and maintain a coherent narrative throughout what remains. Ezra’s actions in Ezra 8—and arguably in Ezra 9–10 and Nehemiah 8—can be explained from the instructions contained in the Edict.31 I am of the opinion that the Edict is part of EM, is appropriately placed in Ezra 7:12–26, and is an adaptation of one of EM’s source materials. There is also the question of the integrity of the Edict itself and it is suggested that late Aramaic forms expose a continuous reworking of the Edict. Finding layers within the Edict, Kurt Galling identifies Ezra 7:12–19 as the original document that is later expanded by a Chronistic insertion in vv. 20–3, 26 and ultimately given its final form by a second Chronist in vv. 24–5.32 In der Smitten suggests that vv. 21–4 contain a Sonderdokument from the Seleucid period.33 It will be argued later in this chapter (in the section ‘The Provisions’) that the instructions to the treasurers of Eber-Nahara in vv. 21–4 are connected to the quantity of the provisions listed in vv. 15–20.34 In line with the insertion of ‫ והמשררים והשערים‬in v. 7, I attribute only ‫ זמריא תרעיא‬in v. 24 to a redactor, specifically RE-N. Setting aside Ezra 7:28b as EM, the place of the first-person benediction in Ezra 7:27–8a as originally EM or as a supplemental layer remains debated.35 The short doxology and the claim that YHVH is actively engaged in the affairs of the king and (presumably) Ezra in vv. 27–8a are comparable to Nehemiah’s claim that he acted according to what his deity set (‫ )נת״נ‬in his heart (Neh. 2:12; 7:5).36 Alongside the transposition of royal beneficence from Nehemiah to Ezra in Ezra 7:6b, I locate vv. 27–8a as an insertion from the hand of REM-NM.37 30 Opinions are divided on the assignment of most of Neh. 1:1–11 to NM. In support, see Williamson, Ezra, Nehemiah, 166–74. For arguments against, see Wright, Rebuilding Identity, 9–23. 31 For connections between the Edict and the rest of Ezra 7–10 (but not Nehemiah 8), see Becking, ‘Idea of Thorah’, 279–81. 32 Galling, Bücher, 206. 33 In der Smitten, Esra, 14–19; pace Joseph Blenkinsopp, Judaism: The First Phase. The Place of Ezra and Nehemiah in the Origins of Judaism (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2009), 52–3. 34 See also Kellermann, ‘Esradatierung’, 58–60; Gunneweg, Esra, 134–6 (only vv. 22–3 with v. 24 an addition); Williamson, Ezra, Nehemiah, 98. 35 As original to EM, see Rudolph, Esra und Nehemia, 77; Williamson, Ezra, Nehemiah, 99–100; pace Pakkala, Ezra the Scribe, 53–4. 36 Also Blenkinsopp, Ezra-Nehemiah, 160. 37 Among critics who view Ezra 7:27–8 as reworked NM material (cf. Neh. 2:8, 18), see Noth, Überlieferungsgeschichtliche Studien, 147; ET, in Chronicler’s History, 64; In der Smitten, Esra, 19–20.

86

Ezra and the Second Wilderness

Critics view the list of returnees in Ezra 8:1–14 as original to EM, as an independent list that is one of Chr’s sources, or as a separate list incorporated into the original Ezra memoir. In support of the last view, the list is thought to derive from Ezra 2.38 I follow the view that the census list in Ezra 2 belongs to a separate composition that postdates EM and Nehemiah 7. As a result, Ezra 8:1–14 is not influenced by Ezra 2 (or the near parallel in Nehemiah 7).39 Placing Ezra 8:1–14 as an addition to 7:28, Pakkala argues that the change from ‫ ראשים‬to ‫ ראשי האבות‬could not derive from a single author.40 There is, however, nothing wrong with a single author equating ‫ ראשים‬with ‫ראשי האבות‬. If the list were indeed an entirely secondary addition, one would need to explain the resulting disjunction between 7:28 and 8:15.41 In support of the list in Ezra 8:1–14 as EM, Williamson observes that the list fulfils an instruction contained in the Edict (7:13).42 I will argue that the list of returnees follows one of EM’s source materials and is original to the memoir. In the narrative block that follows, some critics identify 8:15(b)–20 as a secondary layer.43 This may be a hasty conclusion. There is little linguistically abnormal in vv. 15(b)– 20 to distinguish it from its surrounding material.44 For similar reasons as 7:28b–8:14 is included with EM, the search for Levites in vv. 15(b)–20 responds to a provision in the Edict (7:13) and should be included as EM.45 In Ezra 8:21–3, some critics suspect that Ezra’s denial of a royal escort in all or part of v. 22 is a digression that interrupts the observance of a fast in vv. 21, 23.46 Drawing upon Neh. 2:9, in which Nehemiah accepts an escort of army officers and horsemen, critics—especially those who uphold NM as a source for the Ezra account—view all of Ezra 8:21–3 or v. 22 as a later exaltation of Ezra over Nehemiah.47 However, the situation envisioned in Neh. 2:9 is unlike (any part of) Ezra 8:21–3.48 It is curious that Ezra refuses an armed escort for a perilous journey—or that the Achaemenid authorities would not be more insistent on ensuring the safe delivery of precious goods—but this action 38

Mowinckel, Studien, 1:118–22; Kapelrud, Authorship, 45–6; Kratz, Komposition, 79; ET, 72. Myers, Ezra. Nehemiah, 69–70; In der Smitten, Esra, 21; Williamson, Ezra, Nehemiah, 108–10. 40 Pakkala, Ezra the Scribe, 56. 41 Noth, Überlieferungsgeschichtliche Studien, 125; ET, in Chronicler’s History, 44; Rudolph, Esra und Nehemia, 79; Williamson, Ezra, Nehemiah, 109; contra Batten, Ezra and Nehemiah, 318; Mowinckel, Studien, 1:118; Kellermann, Nehemia, 63; Gunneweg, Esra, 144. 42 Williamson, Ezra, Nehemiah, 109. 43 Noth, Überlieferungsgeschichtliche Studien, 125; ET, in Chronicler’s History, 44–5; Kratz, Komposition, 81, 82; ET, 73. Pakkala, Ezra the Scribe, 59–61. 44 Kapelrud, Authorship, 51. 45 46 Blenkinsopp, Ezra-Nehemiah, 164. Pakkala, Ezra the Scribe, 61. 47 Noth, Überlieferungsgeschichtliche Studien, 147; ET, in Chronicler’s History, 64; Kapelrud, Authorship, 52–3; In der Smitten, Esra, 22; Gunneweg, Esra, 154; Kellermann, Nehemia, 65; Kratz, Komposition, 78; ET, 72 (with vv. 22b–23 as a possible expansion); Wright, Rebuilding Identity, 86–7. 48 See Williamson, Ezra, Nehemiah, 120. 39

From Babylon to Jerusalem

87

does not require excising any of Ezra 8:21–3 from EM. Ezra’s waiver of any royal assistance (as virtuous yet questionable as it may be) and observance of a fast are integral to EM’s presentation of the caravan fulfilling a ritually proper journey to Jerusalem. Commentators generally consider the preparations for the safe delivery of the temple treasures in vv. 24–30 as a continuation of vv. 21–3.49 A minor problem lies in the inclusion of ‘the leaders of the clans of Israel’, ‫שרי האבות לישראל‬,aamong the anticipated recipients of the vessels in the House of God (v. 29). When the vessels are delivered, the ‫ שרי האבות לישראל‬are not present (v. 33). Placing ‫ שרי האבות לישראל‬as an insertion, Rudolph remarks ‘die Entgegennahme der Spende nur Sache des Tempelpersonals war’.50 It would be slightly unusual for ‘the heads of the families of Israel’ to be in the Temple precincts but according to Chr, the ‫ שרי האבות‬are among the leaders who present (‫[ נד״ב‬hit.])—but do not receive—offerings in the House of God (1 Chr. 29:6). I am open to the possibility that ‫ שרי האבות לישראל‬in Ezra 8:29 is an addition from RE-N. Finally, some critics argue that the linguistic and ideological differences between the first-person report in Ezra 8:31–4 and third-person narrative vv. 35–6 indicate that the latter is an editorial summary.51 According to In der Smitten, Ezra 8:36 presupposes (and exceeds Nehemiah in) Neh. 2:9–10.52 I concede that the third-person narrative voice is suspicious but note that the giving of ‘the laws of the king’ (‫דתי המלך‬, Ezra 8:36) suits the instructions in the Edict (7:21–4) and Ezra himself is overshadowed by the cultic offerings. Most of Ezra 7:11–8:36 can be attributed to EM. The additions come in two stages. In the first stage, REM-NM follows NM’s report of the monarch’s benevolence to Nehemiah and inserts a similar report in the first person in 7:27–8a (cf. 7:6b [REM-NM]). In the second and final stage, RE-N expands upon Ezra’s duties as priest-scribe in 7:11b and, following Chr, enlarges the temple personnel in vv. 11b, 24aβ* [only ‫]זמריא תרעיא‬, possibly 8:29aα* [only ‫שרי האבות‬ ‫]לישראל‬, and increases the sacrifices offered by the returnees in Jerusalem in v. 35aβ. EM’s narrative frame emerges from what is retained as the original base layer in Ezra 7–8. The journey from Babylon commences on the first day of the first month (7:9) with a planned three-day encampment at the Ahava (8:15). After a slight delay and search for Levites, the caravan departs on the twelfth day (8:31). Ezra and the caravan arrive in Jerusalem on the first day of the fifth month (7:9). Three days later, on the fourth day of this month, material goods are weighed and presented to the temple officers (8:33). Underneath a 49 For the opinion that vv. 24–30 is an intrusion, which itself is reworked, into originally different layers in vv. 23, 31, see Pakkala, Ezra the Scribe, 61–3, 305. 50 Rudolph, Esra und Nehemia, 82. Noting the acceptable absence of absolute consistency in Ezra-Nehemiah, see Williamson, Ezra, Nehemiah, 120; Blenkinsopp, Ezra-Nehemiah, 170. 51 Williamson, Ezra, Nehemiah, 116; Blenkinsopp, Ezra-Nehemiah, 171; Pakkala, Ezra the Scribe, 65–6. 52 In der Smitten, Esra, 24.

88

Ezra and the Second Wilderness

substantial amount of Ezra 7–8 lies EM’s report of the first six months of Ezra’s mission.

EZRA After identifying the base layer and supplements in Ezra 7–8, it is now possible to comment on EM’s depiction of Ezra in these chapters. From what is retained in Ezra 7–8 as EM, Ezra is ‘a scribe expert in the Torah of Moses’ (7:6aβ); ‘priest-scribe’ (v. 11a); and ‘priest, a scribe in the dāt (‘law’, Aram. ‫)דת‬ of the God of Heaven’ (v. 12). The multiple attributions raise the question: is Ezra a scribe or a priest, a scribe and a priest, or a ‘priest-scribe’?53

Ezra, Scribe Examining Ezra’s dual titles in Ezra 7:12, Schaeder views ‘the priest’ (‫ )כהנא‬as Ezra’s function in the Jewish Babylonian community and ‘the scribe of the law of the God of Heaven’ (‫ )ספר דתא די־אלה שמיא‬as the technical title for the minister of Jewish affairs within the Achaemenid chancellery.54 According to Schaeder, Aram. ‫( ספר דתא‬Ezra 7:12, 21) reflects Akk. šāpiru and midPersian dipīr/dawīr; in turn, as Schreiber Ezra serves as ‘Sekretär (oder: Minister) vom Gesetz des Himmelsgottes’.55 Schaeder explains that Heb. sōpēr represents Ezra’s place among the Jewish community as Schriftgelehrter.56 Michael Heltzer and Yitzhak Avishur suggest that the ‘mhyr in the Law of Moses’ (Ezra 7:6) has ‘real administrative and political power over his coreligionists, the Jews, but he was not the High Priest’.57 Questioning the existence of a distinct office for Jewish affairs in Susa or Persepolis, Mowinckel rejects ‫ ספר דתא די־אלה שמיא‬as a marker of Ezra’s (high) place within the Achaemenid chancellery and proposes that the title is the equivalent of a γραμματεύς who studies and learns the law through the wisdom of the God of Heaven.58 Kenneth Hoglund remarks that both the missions of Ezra and Nehemiah reflect the skill and imagination of an interpreter who gives 53 Jon L. Berquist contends that Ezra, like Nehemiah, exercises ‘civil authority under Persian command’ and can be understood as ‘governor’ (Judaism in Persia’s Shadow: A Social and Historical Approach [Minneapolis: Fortress, 1995], 110). Unlike Nehemiah (in Neh. 5:14–15), Ezra—in any compositional layer—never identifies himself as governor (‫ )פחה‬and there is little evidence to support Berquist’s assertion; see also Fried, Priest and the Great King, 216–17. 54 55 56 Schaeder, Esra der Schreiber, 39–59 (esp. 45–55). ibid., 48–9. ibid., 50. 57 Michael Heltzer and Yitzhak Avishur, ‘The Term sōfēr māhīr as Designating a Courtier in the Old Testament and the Aḥ iqar Story’, UF 34 (2002): 217–21 [at 221]. 58 Mowinckel, Studien, 3:117–24.

From Babylon to Jerusalem

89

theological meaning (through the respective intermarriage episodes) to the post-exilic community’s new-found political situation. In Hoglund’s view, neither Ezra nor Nehemiah provides any direct evidence of the inner workings of the Achaemenid administrative apparatus.59 Still, EM’s presentation of Ezra as ‘scribe’ is undeniable (Ezra 7:6; Neh. 8:1, 4, 13). After isolating the base ‘Ezra Source’ in Ezra 7–10 and Nehemiah 8, Pakkala identifies Ezra as originally a scribe.60 Among the multiple depictions of Ezra as scribe, ‫( ספר מהיר‬spr mhyr) in Ezra 7:6 is noteworthy. In Ps. 45:2 [ET 1] the Psalmist boasts, ‘my tongue is the pen of a ‫’ספר מהיר‬. The word ‫ מה)י(ר‬also appears in Isa. 16:9; Prov. 22:29. Outside the biblical corpus, Aḥ iqar is a ‘wise and skilful scribe’ (Aram. spr ḥ kym wmhyr) in the court of Esarhaddon.61 ‫ ספר מהיר‬connotes not just any scribe but appears to designate a scribe as one of exceptional quality. Following Schaeder, Karel van der Toorn agrees that the Hebrew term projects Ezra not as an official but a ‘Torah scholar’.62 Rejecting the label of ‘scribe’ or ‘secretary’, Thomas Willi draws a nearly similar conclusion, presenting Ezra as ‘ein literarischer Gebildeter’.63 The label of Ezra as scribe is tied to the continuing debate on the place of the scribe in the Second Temple period. Rendtorff argues that Judaism does not link the scribe with teaching until long after the Persian period.64 Grabbe suggests that Ezra 7:6 ‘gives a new meaning to the word “scribe” in Israel since there is no suggestion up until now that the scribe had any special connection with the law or teaching of Yhwh’.65 In contrast, Weinfeld remarks that the function of a ‘scribe of the Torah’ is by the time of Ezra not new but ‘an intensification of the process started at the time of Josiah’.66 In my opinion, the label of ‘scribe’ is a remnant of an institution from the time of the First Temple that has undergone necessary changes in the post-exilic period. According to EM, Ezra is not just a scribe—especially in the classical sense—and a complete picture of Ezra’s function in the post-exilic community requires an examination of his other titles.

Ezra, Priest Koch suggests that after the temple treasures are delivered in Ezra 8:32–4, Ezra demotes the priest Meremoth ben Uriah due to Meremoth’s association with a 59

Hoglund, Achaemenid Imperial Administration, 207–40. 61 Pakkala, Ezra the Scribe, 236–43. Aḥ iqar 1:1 in AP, 212; ANET, 427; TADAE C1.1. 62 Karel van der Toorn, Scribal Culture and the Making of the Hebrew Bible (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2007), 78–9. 63 Thomas Willi, Juda–Jehud–Israel: Studien zum Selbstverständnis des Judentums in persischer Zeit, FAT 12 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1995), 107. 64 Rolf Rendtorff, ‘Esra und das “Gesetz” ’, ZAW 96 (1984): 181–2. 65 66 Grabbe, Ezra-Nehemiah, 27. Weinfeld, Deuteronomy 1–11, 11. 60

90

Ezra and the Second Wilderness

disqualified priestly house (cf. Ezra 2:61–3; par. Neh. 7:63–5).67 Ezra thus becomes a legitimate—but not hereditary—high priest. This report, which I attribute to EM, lacks an important cog: P’s high priest, ‫הכהן הגדול‬. Recognizing the absence of the high priest, Koch upholds Num. 31:48–54 as the canonical model for Ezra 8:32–4 and suggests, ‘In his stead, four representatives are waiting for Ezra, two of them priests and two of them Levites.’68 The parallels between Ezra 8:32–4 and Num. 31:48–54 are contextually different. The latter concerns activities after an armed conflict and poorly relates to the setting of the former, EM’s Achaemenid Yehud. More significantly, Ezra 8:32–4 contains few, if any, projections of Meremoth and Ezra as (competing) high priests.69 Koch recognizes that the Edict appears to be unaware of Ezra’s high priesthood but suggests ‘(that) priest (who is the) scribe of the Law of the God of Heaven’ in Ezra 7:12 is an elevated position among the priesthood in the manner Aḥ iqar is supreme among the ministers.70 In Ezra 7:1b–5 [RE-N], ben (‫ )בן‬can refer to a member of a guild (GKC §128v) but the string of personal names suggests that here Ezra is a direct descendant of the first high priest, Aaron. Accordingly, RE-N elevates Ezra to the status of a high priest. Although EM does not conceive of Ezra as a high priest, there remain descriptions of ‘Ezra the Priest’ (‫ )עזרא הכהן‬in Ezra 10:10, 16; Neh. 8:2—all of which I maintain belong to the original base layer—and ‘the priest-scribe’ (‫)הכהן הספר‬. Placing the attributions of Ezra as ‘priest’ among the expansions, Pakkala contends that the omission of Ezra’s title in 1 Esdras 9:7 demonstrates that ‫ הכהן‬in Ezra 10:10 is late.71 In two other parallels, however, 1 Esdras 9:16 (Εσδρας ὁ ἱερεὺς) follows Ezra 10:16 and 1 Esdras 9:40 implies that Ezra holds a higher priestly office (ὁ ἀρχιερεύς) than implied in Neh. 8:2 (‫)הכהן‬. The evidence from 1 Esdras, combined with RE-N, suggests that later traditions tend, but not always, to ascribe a (high-)priestly role to Ezra. If Ezra is a ‘priest’, then some of his actions appear to go beyond the duties of his office. It would be unusual for a priestly figure to be involved in the appointment of secular magistrates and judges (Ezra 7:25–6). Additionally, if EM’s Ezra is strictly a priest, then Ezra’s direct involvement in a legal matter (which I argue shapes EM’s account in Ezra 9–10) is in direct opposition to a priest’s responsibilities as prescribed in PC. Finally, Ezra’s public proclamation 67 Koch, ‘Origins’, 190–3; Koch, ‘Ezra and Meremoth: Remarks on the History of the High Priesthood’, in Fishbane and Tov, ‘Sha‘arei Talmon’, 105–10. 68 Koch, ‘Ezra and Meremoth’, 106. 69 VanderKam, Joshua to Caiaphas, 47. Following her view of ‫ הכהן הגדול‬in Ezra 7:1b–5 as equivalent to a priestly authoritative figure, Rooke argues that EM lacks a serving high priest alongside Ezra and, for that matter, also neglects a high priesthood (Zadok’s Heirs, 159–70). 70 Koch, ‘Origins’, 193. 71 Pakkala, Ezra the Scribe, 42–3. Similarly, Pakkala observes that in Neh. 8:1, Ezra is a scribe but in the next verse a priest and argues that one cannot be original (p. 145).

From Babylon to Jerusalem

91

of Torah can be construed as a political threat to the priesthood.72 Here, Ezra better represents a ‘scribe’ rather than a ‘priest’. Less so than ‘scribe’, Ezra the ‘priest’ does not fully cover EM’s presentation of Ezra.

Ezra, ‘Priest-Scribe’ In the biblical corpus, the title ‘priest-scribe’ (‫ )הכהן הספר‬appears only in Ezra 7:11a, 12 (Aram. ‫)לעזרא כהנא ספר דתא די־אלה שמיא‬a; Neh. 8:9; 12:26. With the exception of ‫ עזרא הכהן הספר‬in Neh. 12:26 [REM-NM], I consider these descriptions of Ezra as ‘priest-scribe’ as belonging to EM.73 From Ezra 7:12, Rudolph (following Schaeder) places a dual title upon Ezra—that is, a ‘priest’ within the Jewish community and a ‘scribe’ within the Persian state chancellery.74 Drawing upon Babylonian temple assemblies, Janzen views the overlap of Ezra’s priestly and scribal activities (outside of Ezra 7:12–26) as equivalent to the t ụ pšarru who acts in both capacities.75 What is debatable is when, in the formation of the Ezra accounts, Ezra is priest and scribe. In detecting the earliest tradition of the literary Ezra in Ezra 7–8*, Kratz places the double title of ‘priest’ and ‘scribe’ upon Ezra.76 Some critics maintain that Ezra is originally depicted as holding one office and later redactors grant him the other office. Pakkala argues that Ezra is first a scribe who takes on the title and associated duties of ‘priest’ throughout the growth of Ezra 7–10 and Nehemiah 8. The opposite development, however, is equally plausible. Mark Leuchter opines that ‘the redactors transformed the earlier image of Ezra as a P-type Moses into a D-type Moses: an exegete, teacher, covenant mediator, and lawgiver’.77 The figure of Ezra can be construed as one that reflects a compromise between the Priestly and Deuteronomic traditions. In some ways Ezra resembles the Priestly Moses as ‘torah’ is promulgated to the masses through both figures. The connections between Ezra and the Deuteronomic Moses require a

72

Cohen, Maccabees to the Mishnah, 136–7. Rendtorff, however, writes ‘daß die Verwendung des Doppeltitels auf eine Redaktionsschicht zurückgeht, die an der Zusammenführung beider ein Interesse hatte’ (‘Esra und das “Gesetz” ’, 174). 74 75 Rudolph, Esra und Nehemia, 73. Janzen, ‘ “Mission” of Ezra’, 642. 76 Reinhard G. Kratz, ‘Ezra: Priest and Scribe’, in Scribes, Sages, and Seers: The Sage in the Eastern Mediterranean World, ed. Leo G. Perdue, FRLANT 219 (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2008): 179–85. 77 Mark Leuchter, ‘Ezra’s Mission and the Levites of Casiphia’, in Knoppers and Ristau, Community Identity and Judean Historiography, 193. Watts remarks that in Deuteronomy, ‘Author, editor, and publisher unite in Moses the scribe, yet the lawgiver remains YHWH alone’ (James W. Watts, ‘The Legal Characterization of Moses in the Rhetoric of the Pentateuch’, JBL 117 [1998]: 422 [my emphasis]). In Deut. 31:24, although Moses writes (‫ )כת״ב‬the ‘words of this “Torah” ’ into a scroll, he is not described as ‘scribe’. 73

92

Ezra and the Second Wilderness

more intricate explanation. Jeffrey Stackert observes that Deuteronomy’s unique construction of Moses as a prophet (‫ )נביא‬promotes its own view that idealized Israelite prophecy—that is, Mosaic prophecy—ceases after the death of Moses.78 The cessation of Mosaic prophecy as a viable institution, combined with the demise of classical Israelite prophecy in the exilic and postexilic periods, is reflected in the presentation of Ezra as a type of ‘scribe’. Within this backdrop Fishbane writes, ‘this presentation of Ezra as one “who enquires of the Torah of YHWH” (Ezra 7:10) is actually preceded by an indication that this scribe and priest of the law was also the recipient of “the hand of YHWH” (v. 6)—a circumlocution used in late texts to indicate prophetic inspiration’.79 Fishbane does not label Ezra as ‘priest-scribe’ but it appears that EM’s unique title responds to the realization that notions of the classical priest, scribe, and prophet (with its permutations of the ‫ )נביא‬undergo changes or cease to exist altogether in the post-exilic period. In creating the character of Ezra from—at the very least—the Priestly and Deuteronomic traditions, EM adapts to the changing duties of ‘priest’ and ‘scribe’, accounts for the diminished role of the prophetic office from its sources, and formulates the title ‘priest-scribe’.80

ARTAXERXES ’ EDICT (EZRA 7 :12 – 2 6 ) Ezra 7:12–26 purports to be a copy of an official Achaemenid document that states Ezra’s mission in Jerusalem. The Edict is a composition inspired by Achaemenid policy, yet betrays its Yehudite origins. What remains in this study is an examination of how this purported official document fits into EM’s narrative.

Permitted Actions In the Edict, the first order of business is to grant anyone among the people of Israel, priests, and Levites who freely offers (‫[ נד״ב‬hit.]) to accompany Ezra 78

Stackert, Prophet Like Moses, 126–67. Fishbane, Biblical Interpretation, 539. For the classical view that prophecy ceased to exist in the exilic and post-exilic periods, see Wellhausen, Prolegomena, 402–4; Kaufmann, tôl ǝdôt, 4:378–408; ET, in History, 449–84; Robert R. Wilson, Prophecy and Society in Ancient Israel (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1980), 306–7; and a defence against challenges to the classical view in Benjamin D. Sommer, ‘Did Prophecy Cease? Evaluating a Reevaluation’, JBL 115 (1995): 31–47. 80 E also demonstrates a strong interest in the institution of prophecy through Moses as the unparalleled prophet. For now, I remark that EM’s ‘priest-scribe’ may derive not only from the Priestly and Deuteronomic traditions but also possibly from the Elohistic tradition. 79

From Babylon to Jerusalem

93

permission to go to Jerusalem (Ezra 7:13). Ezra is commissioned ‘‫ לבקרא‬Judah and Jerusalem according to the law of your God which is in your hand’ (v. 14). Steiner proposes that ‫ לבקרא‬means, ‘to exercise the office of ‫—’מבקר‬that is, the office of a temporary overseer akin to the ‫מבקר‬, the Inspector, as described in CD 13:13, 16; 1QS 6:20.81 In P, if an examining priest finds an eruption on the skin, then he has no need to search (‫ )בק״ר‬for yellow hair (Lev. 13:36). P also prohibits anyone else from distinguishing (‫ )בק״ר‬between good and bad tithes (27:33). In 2 Kgs 16:15, Ahaz informs Uriah, ‘I will inquire (‫ )יהיה־לי לבקר‬about the bronze altar.’ Similarly, ‫ בק״ר‬in Ezra 7:14 connotes a sense of authority given to someone to make decisions in pertinent matters and for it to be done ‘according to the law of your God which is in your hand’, ‫בדת אלהך די בידך‬. Setting aside for now the precise meaning of ‘the law of your God’ in Ezra 7:14, the placement of the deity’s law ‘in your hand’ recalls the notices in PC of legal prescriptions placed ‘in the hand of Moses’ (‫ביד משה‬, Lev. 10:11 [H]; 26:46 [H]; Num. 36:13 [P]). Stronger comparisons are found in the descriptions of Moses carrying physical tablets in his hands in the Elohistic (Exod. 32:15; 34:4b) and Deuteronomic (Deut. 9:17; 10:3; also Exod. 34:29 [JDtr]) accounts. In the Priestly and Yahvistic Sinai accounts, there are no tablets. Although the Priestly traditions speak of laws placed in the hand of Moses, EM’s portrayal of Ezra carrying a physical legal object (whatever law it may be) at the time of his departure from Babylon resembles either one or both of the Elohistic and Deuteronomic Moses carrying tablets from the summit of Horeb.

The Provisions According to the Edict, the caravan is to be provided with silver and gold (Ezra 7:15) for the purchase of bulls, rams, lambs, cereal offerings, and libations (v. 17). Excess funds are permitted to be used with discretion (v. 18) and vessels provided for the service of the House of God (v. 19). In the event that the provisions are insufficient, Ezra is given carte blanche to access treasury funds as he sees necessary (v. 20). According to H, anyone who presents an ’iššeh, a fire gift, to YHVH (either spontaneous or at the appointed times) shall also present a minḥ āh, a cereal offering, and nesek, libation, that correspond to the value of the fire gift (Num. 15:1–16).82 H lifts the sacrificial system from the wilderness mountain (cf. Numbers 7 [P]) and imposes it upon the Israelites in Canaan and in perpetuity—it is an eternal statute for all ages (‫חקת עולם לדרתיכם‬, Num. 15:15). With this prescription imposed upon future generations in mind, Ezra’s Steiner, ‘Meaning of LBQR’’, 623–46 (at 628). Rudolph, Esra und Nehemia, 75; Kapelrud, Authorship, 34; Williamson, Ezra, Nehemiah, 102; Blenkinsopp, Ezra-Nehemiah, 149. For Num. 15:1–16 to H, see Knohl, Sanctuary of Silence, 53, 90. 81 82

94

Ezra and the Second Wilderness

caravan is given the means to fulfil their sacrificial obligations (as expounded in Num. 15:1–16) upon their arrival in Jerusalem. The connection between Ezra 7:17 and PC is strengthened by what is absent in the other festival calendars. Sacrifice is the lifeblood of the Priestly cult but not as crucial in the non-Priestly traditions. Both the Covenant Code (Exod. 23:14–19a) and Deuteronomic legal code (Deut. 16:1–17; cf. Exod. 34:18–26a [JDtr]) lack instructions for any daily burnt or special public offerings. Vessels are also provided to Ezra (Ezra 7:19) but among the accounts of the law-giving at a wilderness mountain it is only P that gives the vessels (‫ )כלים‬a cultic function (Exod. 37:16; Num. 3:31; 4:9; 7:85). Instructions are given to the treasurers of the satrapy of Eber-Nahara to allocate upon Ezra’s request no more than 100 talents of silver, 100 kors of wheat, 100 baths of wine, 100 baths of oil, and unlimited salt (Ezra 7:22)—all generous quantities. Like the provisions for the sacrificial animals, cereal offering, and libations in Ezra 7:17, the provisions for the caravan as described in v. 22 are based on the Holiness legislation. H (Num. 15:1–16) demands that the Israelites offer cereal offerings and libations (cf. Ezra 7:17) upon their arrival in Canaan. These items also feature in P’s Sinai account: in the sanctification of the Aaronide priesthood (Exodus 29; Leviticus 8); the use of holy anointed oil (‫ )שמן משחת־קדש‬for the consecration of the Tent of Meeting (‫)אהל מועד‬, Ark of the Testimony (‫)ארון העדת‬, and its furnishings (Exod. 35:15, 28; cf. 37:29; 39:38; 40:9); the oil (‫ )שמן‬for lamps (cf. 25:6; 35:8) and for the priest’s anointed oil (Num. 4:16); and among the gifts offered by the twelve tribes at the dedication of the altar (Numbers 7). P envisions that the Israelites have these items in abundant quantities at Sinai. The unlimited quantity of salt in Ezra 7:22 is also grounded in the Priestly vision of the wilderness. In Lev. 2:13 [P], YHVH commands the Israelites to season every grain offering with everlasting salt, ‘the salt of the covenant with your God’ (‫ ;ברית מלח אלהיך‬cf. also the sacred gifts in Num. 18:19 [H]). Ezra’s caravan is not the first group of Yahvists that undertake a journey through a wilderness while carrying precious merchandise or obtaining benefits from foreign largesse. In P’s wilderness journey from Egypt to Canaan via Sinai, the Israelites are flush with material wealth. Some of this wealth, such as the ‘gold, silver, and bronze’, is a tǝrûmāh, a gift, to YHVH (Exod. 25:3; 35:5). Gold and silver are among the materials procured for the construction of the wilderness tabernacle (26:32; 36:36) and offered at the altar dedication (Num. 7:84). In the non-Priestly traditions, silver and gold convey idols (Exod. 20:23 [E]; Deut. 7:25; 29:17) or material wealth (Gen. 24:35 [J]; Num. 22:18 [E]). In E’s exodus, the Israelites follow YHVH’s instructions to obtain silver and gold objects from their neighbours before leaving Egypt (Exod. 3:22; 11:2; 12:35).83 83 These verses follow Gen. 15:14 [also E]; see Baden, Redaction, 107; Baden, Composition, 125. Other assignments for these verses include J in George W. Coats, ‘Despoiling the Egyptians’, VT 18 (1968): 450–7; a priestly redactor in Peter Weimar, Die Berufung des Mose:

From Babylon to Jerusalem

95

In E, the gold jewellery reappears in the making of the molten calf at Horeb (Exod. 32:2–4). P and E—albeit by different means—project the Israelites in the wilderness flush with abundant wealth. EM’s portrayal of the wellendowed returnees appears to follow P with the Jerusalem Temple replacing the portable wilderness sanctuary but, as will become apparent in Ezra 8:26, EM not only follows P but also E and demonstrates other connections to E’s provisions. The receipt, safe transport, and delivery of the material goods fit within EM’s positive depiction of Ezra’s caravan. In EM, the silver and gold reach their destination for their rightful dedication to YHVH in the House of God (Ezra 8:33). In contrast, according to E the Israelites use some of the material goods obtained in Egypt to cast idols at Horeb.84 The returnees in EM offer proper sacrifices upon their arrival in Jerusalem in Ezra 8:35, a verse that I discuss below as influenced by not only the Priestly sacrificial system but also other reports of the dedication of the Temple in Second Temple literature (cf. 6:9, 17; 1 Chr. 29:21; 2 Chr. 29:21, 32).

EM’s Artaxerxes According to EM, the Edict is a purported copy of an official document issued by one Artaxerxes. If indeed EM is partially influenced by Deuteronomy, then how does it justify Ezra’s commission under a foreign king? According to Deut. 17:15b the Israelites are forbidden to submit to foreign rulers. Yet its surrounding material (vv. 14–20) mandates that a monarch obtains and reads a copy of the ‘Torah’ on a regular basis. In the Deuteronomistic framework, the law is most effective under a king or a quasi-regal leader as opposed to an individual judge.85 In its endorsement of a native monarch as the guardian of the law, however, the Deuteronomists do not fully anticipate the situation in which the Yahvistic king and cult are eliminated by or fall under the jurisdiction of foreign rule. Deuteronomy lacks a remedy for such a situation and the absence of a contingency plan becomes problematic for its later readers. EM retains the figurehead of a monarch as the guardian of YHVH’s Torah and one

Literaturwissenschaftliche Analyse von Exodus 2,23–5,5, OBO 32 (Freiburg: Universitätsverlag; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1980), 347; or a pre-priestly composition in Exod. 3:22; 11:2 and an older layer in 12:35 in Blum, Studien, 38. 84 It can also be noted that in Exodus only the Egyptians give gifts to the Israelites but the donors in EM are of an ethnic mix; see Melody D. Knowles, ‘Pilgrimage Imagery in the Returns in Ezra’, JBL 123 (2004): 58; Knowles, Centrality Practiced: Jerusalem in the Religious Practice of Yehud and the Diaspora during the Persian Period, ABS 16 (Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2006), 81–4. The provision of gifts by both Judaeans and ‘foreign’ sympathizers reflects the situation of the Judaean diaspora of the Second Temple period. 85 Weinfeld, Deuteronomic School, 170–1.

96

Ezra and the Second Wilderness

who, as the deity’s earthly representative, is essential to the proper reconstruction of ‘Israel’ in the cosmic order.86 As long as Yehud is under Achaemenid rule, it is impossible to uphold the envisaged Deuteronomic kingship. The post-exilic interpreter faces the tension of balancing on one hand the Deuteronomic requirement of (and preference for) a monarch’s guardianship of the ‘Torah’ and on the other hand Deuteronomy’s strict prohibition against a foreign ruler. Denying the immediate restoration of the Davidic monarch, EM’s innovation is to transform the Deuteronomic king into a foreign monarch and present this foreign monarch as divinely inspired to sanction the law (Ezra 7:27).87 This is not to suggest that EM claims Artaxerxes as a practising Yahvist or identifies him as an Israelite or Yehudite. Rudolph comments on a slight dissonance when Ezra praises YHVH and not the king in Ezra 7:27.88 I assign this verse, along with its continuation in v. 28a, to REM-NM with the explanation that REM-NM follows Nehemiah’s praises, of YHVH (Neh. 2:8). EM, however, more closely follows the endorsements of Nebuchadnezzar (Jer. 28:14; MT 43:10 [par. LXX 50:10]) and Cyrus (Isa. 41:1–7, 25–9; 44:24–45:13; 46:8–13; 48:12–16) along with Cyrus proclaiming the divine name (Ezra 1:2) and reflects the new political reality experienced by the post-exilic Yahvistic cult under foreign rule. For the most part, post-exilic literature accepts its contemporary geopolitical realities and finds little problem with a foreign monarch knowing the personal name of Yehud’s deity.89 Although Artaxerxes never utters the personal name of Israel’s deity in EM, he is idealistically portrayed as a foreign monarch who recognizes YHVH as the universal and dominant ‘God of Heaven’ (‫אלה שמיא‬, Ezra 7:23).90 Under Artaxerxes’ purported authority, EM subscribes to the Deuteronomic concern for a ruling monarch’s stewardship of divine legislation but addresses its contemporary situation in which a foreign power dominates the land surrounding the Yahvistic cult. In EM’s view, the existing Jerusalem Temple and the dominion of YHVH are not tied to the reestablishment of the Judaean monarchy. Rather, the Temple is re-established as YHVH’s earthly abode through the proper observance of Torah. In my view, the Edict retains its value as a preservation of a particular Yahvistic ideology rooted in its post-exilic context and demonstrates an

86 For Deutero-Isaiah reflecting an exilic view that the rebuilding of the Jerusalem Temple manifests YHVH’s sovereignty without a Davidic monarch or state but recast under Cyrus’ reign (cf. Isa. 44:28), see Bedford, Temple Restoration, 75–8. 87 88 Lee, Authority and Authorization, 249. Rudolph, Esra und Nehemia, 77–8. 89 Here is a shift from the Pentateuchal traditions in which a foreigner is not expected to know the divine name. For literature, see Philip Y. Yoo, ‘Why Does Joseph Wash His Face?’, JSOT 38 (2013): 8. 90 This recognition is not exclusively post-exilic. In Gen. 20:1–18 [E], YHVH warns the Philistine king Abimelech of his impending doom, resulting in Abimelech pleading for his innocence in his dealings with Abraham.

From Babylon to Jerusalem

97

ancient Near Eastern concern for the proper maintenance of a temple to appease its residing deity. In light of the scholarly debate on the extent of the Achaemenids’ management of Yehud, the proper administration of cultic centres throughout the empire was of varied economic, political, and religious importance to all of the stakeholders. The Edict presupposes an intimate knowledge of the Yahvistic cult from a decidedly Yehudite perspective and is consistent with EM’s interpretation of the requirements from a bygone era for a monarch to remain the divinely sanctioned guardian of the cult on earth.

The Relationship between dāt and tôrāh in EM What remains to be discussed from the Edict is its attitude to ‘law’. The instructions to Ezra in Ezra 7:25–6 contain multiple references to ‘law’ (Aram. ‫דת‬, dāt): ‫ לכל־עמה די בעבר נהרה‬92‫ די־בידך מני שפטין ודינין די־להון דאנין‬91‫ ואנת עזרא כחכמת אלהך‬25 ‫ וכל־די־לה לאוה עבד דתא די־אלהך ודתא די מלכא אספרנה‬26 ‫לכל־ידעי דתי אלהך ודי לא ידע תהודעון‬ ‫ הן־לענש נכסין ולאסורין‬93‫דינה להוא מתעבד מנה הן למות הן לשרשו‬ 25

And you, Ezra, according to the wisdom of your God which you possess, appoint magistrates and judges who will judge all the people in Eber-Nahara who know the laws of your God—and you shall teach those who do not know them. 26 And all who will not obey the law of your God and the law of the king—let judgment be diligently executed upon them whether by death, banishment, confiscation of property, or imprisonment.

The magistrates and judges fall into two categories—those who know ‘the laws of your God’, ‫דתי אלהך‬, and those who do not. Gunneweg remarks that, following Moses’ delegation of capable men as judges (Exod. 18:13–27) and the gathering of seventy elders (Num. 11:14–17), Ezra is a second Moses who appoints magistrates and judges (Ezra 7:25).94 The gathering of the seventy elders in Num. 11:14–17 [E] is an unlikely parallel to Ezra’s activity.95 This episode recalls the sharing of Moses’ burdens that arose from the unruly Israelites, with the resulting prophetic activity (‫[ נב״א‬hit.]) of the seventy elders a short one-time ecstatic event (Num. 11:24–5). More so than Num. 11:14–17, the institution of the judiciary in Exod. 18:13–27 contains stronger parallels with Ezra 7:25.96 EM, however, is not solely dependent on Exod. 91 Myers’s suggestion that ‫ חכמת אלהך‬is equivalent to ‘the Torah of Moses’ or ‘of Yahweh-God’ (Ezra. Nehemiah, 59) is unlikely. Stronger comparisons lie in Deut. 4:6 (Blenkinsopp, EzraNehemiah, 151) or the elevation of Solomon, said to have ‫חכמת אלהים בקרבו‬, in 1 Kgs 3:28. 92 ǝ 93 ǝ 94 k tîb. qǝrê: dā‘yǝnîn. k tîb. qǝrê: lišrōšî. Gunneweg, Esra, 138. 95 These verses are part of E’s narrative of Moses complaining about the Israelites in Numbers 11*. See the discussion of Neh. 9:20 in the section ‘The Wilderness’ in Chapter 2. 96 Grätz, Edikt, 81.

98

Ezra and the Second Wilderness

18:13–27 [E97]. The Deuteronomic revision of this event (Deut. 1:13–18; also 16:18; 17:8–13)98 that renders Moses—and not Jethro—as the instigator of the judicial system also resonates in Ezra 7:25–6:99 Ezra 7:25aβ

Deut. 16:18a [D]

‫מני שפטין ודינין די־להון דאנין לכל־עמה די בעבר נהרה‬ ‫לכל־ידעי דתי אלהך‬

‫שפטים ושטרים תתן־לך בכל־שעריך אשר יהוה אלהיך‬ ‫נתן לך לשבטיך‬

…appoint magistrates and judges who will judge all the people in Eber-Nahara who know the laws of your God…

You shall appoint judges and officials in all your gates which YHVH your God is giving you for your tribes.

The allowance from the Persian monarch for Ezra to choose magistrates and judges (‫ )שפטין ודינין‬in Ezra 7:25aβ recalls YHVH’s instruction (delivered through Moses) to select judges and officials (‫ )שפטים ושטרים‬in Deut. 16:18.100 In E, the appointees arbitrate (‫שפ״ט‬, Exod. 18:22, 26) the relevant cases but they are called ‘capable men’ (‫ )אנשי־חיל‬and never ‘judges’. Equally noteworthy is Deuteronomy’s referral process. In E, referrals for important cases are directly brought to Moses (Exod. 18:22). In D, if a case is too difficult to establish (‫בין־דם לדם בין־דין לדין ובין נגע לנגע‬, Deut. 17:8), then it is to be moved to the chosen place before the Levitical priests or the presiding judge (‫)שפט‬. In contrast, in E a difficult case is brought to an altar (Exod. 22:7, 8). Similarly, in PC a difficult case is brought either before YHVH (‫לפני יהוה‬, Num. 5:16, 18, 30; 27:5) or before the priest adorned in his breastplate of justice (Exod. 28:15–30; Lev. 8:8). Unlike E, Deuteronomy anticipates that a single party will not accept the higher verdict and cautions all affected parties to observe this decree as final and binding. If one disregards the verdict of the priest in charge (‫הכהן‬ ‫ )העמד‬or the judge (‫)שפט‬, then that person is subject to death (Deut. 17:9b–13). Deuteronomy further warns that failure to observe ‘all the words of this Torah’ (‫כל־דברי־התורה הזאת‬, Deut. 28:58) will result in many inflictions, which is similar to a claim in Ezra 7:26 (here, including death).101 EM transposes Deuteronomy’s centralized judiciary onto the Achaemenid legal apparatus and

97 Wellhausen, Composition, 80–1; Jenks, Elohist, 44; Propp, Exodus 1–18, 627 and n. 95; Schwartz, ‘Visit of Jethro’, 35–6. 98 For the dependency of Deut. 1:13–18 on Exod. 18:13–27 [E], see Weinfeld, Deuteronomy 1–11, 139–40; Baden, Redaction, 106. 99 Blenkinsopp, Ezra-Nehemiah, 150–1; Grätz, Edikt, 99. Deut. 16:18–17:7 is a unit that concerns the administration of justice in the local cult. For a defence of the integrity of Deut. 16:18–17:7 with 17:8–13, see Levinson, Legal Innovation, 98–143. 100 Williamson, Ezra, Nehemiah, 104; Blenkinsopp, Judaism: The First Phase, 53; Leuchter, ‘Levites of Casiphia’, 185–6. 101 Grätz, Edikt, 100.

From Babylon to Jerusalem

99

updates the punishments by adding imprisonment, confiscation, and banishment (for the last two, see Ezra 10:8) to the punishment of death. A well-known crux is in Ezra 7:26 in which the relationship between ‘the law of your God’ (‫ )דתא די־אלהך‬and ‘the law of the King’ (‫ )דתא די מלכא‬is contested. Does v. 26 have in mind one legal code (‘the law of your God’ is equal to ‘the law of the King’) or two (the laws are separate)? The question addresses the relationship between civil and religious law and serves as a point of departure for a discussion of Aram./Heb. dāt (‫ )דת‬and EM’s use of Hebrew legal terminology, including tôrāh.

dāt Frei observes that the biblical corpus does not contain a ‘law of the king’ and suggests that ‫ דתא די־אלהך ודתא די מלכא‬in Ezra 7:26 conveys a single law—that is, the law of God is the law of the king.102 It is possible that cultic law was once considered as equal to royal law—the Deuteronomic command for the Israelite monarch to meditate upon Torah alone indeed suggests that the law of YHVH is the law of Deuteronomy’s king (Deut. 17:18–20). How one views the extent of Persian involvement in the affairs of Yehud influences one’s acceptance of this proposal. The traditional view that Ezra 7:26 presents two distinct legal codes—the law of the Israelite god and royal Achaemenid law—remains the preferred explanation.103 If religious law was once equal to civil law (as envisioned in Deuteronomy), then the situation changes after Yehud is subsumed under Persian hegemony. The recognition that v. 26 has two separate legal codes in mind reflects this post-exilic situation. For instance, in Esther 3:8 Haman seeks the destruction of the Jews by invoking the claim that the Jews follow their own laws (‫ )דתיהם‬and not the laws of the king (‫)דתי המלך‬. Likewise, Chr distinguishes between ‘matter of God/YHVH’ and ‘matter of the King’ (1 Chr. 26:31–2; 2 Chr. 19:11).104 Finally, Prov. 24:21 (‫ירא־את־יהוה בני ומלך‬ ‫ )עם־שונים אל־תתערב‬implies that cult and state are separate and distinct

102 Frei, ‘Zentralgewalt und Lokalautonomie’, 17; 2nd edn, 20–1, 51–61; Frei, ‘Reichsauthorisation’, 7; ET, 12. 103 On the purpose and function of these separate law codes in Achaemenid Yehud, suggestions include a new distinction between ‘church’ and ‘state’ (Williamson, Ezra, Nehemiah, 105–6; also pp. xlvi–xlviii; Williamson, ‘Judah and the Jews’, 162); both apply to ‘all the people in the satrapy west of the Euphrates’ (Grabbe, Ezra-Nehemiah, 140); ‘natural law’ and ‘positive law, created by edict’ and ‘natural law’ (Fried, ‘ “You Shall Appoint Judges” ’, 88–9); and socioreligious laws and the official Persian law system (Gösta W. Ahlström, A History of Ancient Palestine from the Palaeolithic Period to Alexander’s Conquest, JSOTSup 146 [Sheffield: JSOT, 1993], 875). 104 See Gary N. Knoppers, ‘An Achaemenid Imperial Authorization of Torah in Yehud?’, in Watts, Persia and Torah, 123–8.

100

Ezra and the Second Wilderness

authorities.105 The post-exilic distinction between religious dāt and civil dāt is clear.106 What is unclear is EM’s use of Aram. dāt in relation to Heb. tôrāh.

tôrāh and Other Legal Terminology What, exactly, is the tôrāh that EM has in mind? It is proposed that tôrāh— whether it is specified as ‘the Torah of Moses’ (‫תורת משה‬, Ezra 7:6), ‘the Torah of YHVH’ (‫תורת יהוה‬, v. 10; Neh. 9:3), ‘the Torah of God’ (‫תורת האלהים‬, Neh. 8:8,18),107 or ‘the Torah’ (‫התורה‬, Ezra 10:3; Neh. 8:2, 3, 9, 13, 14)—consistently refers to the same legal document.108 Not all of EM’s labels of Torah are found in Pentateuchal literature. It would be awkward (but not impossible) for Moses to refer to Torah as his own. In the Pentateuch, ‘the Torah of YHVH’ (‫ )תורת יהוה‬appears only in Exod. 13:9 but this description reflects a late usage and should be viewed as secondary. The expression ‘the Torah of God’ (‫תורת‬ ‫ )האלהים‬is absent in the Pentateuchal corpus but ‫ תורת אלהים‬appears in Josh. 24:26 [E]. Out of EM’s depictions of tôrāh, ‘the Torah’ (‫ )התורה‬is akin to Deuteronomy’s frequent references to its own torah as ‘the Torah’ (‫;התורה הזאת‬ cf. Deut. 1:5; 4:8) and its contents as authoritative, unparalleled, and superior to other law codes.109 Although all of EM’s descriptions of tôrāh cannot be traced to the Pentateuchal corpus, all of these descriptions uphold Torah as an authoritative document from the distant past.110 In addition to tôrāh, EM employs ‘statute’ (‫חק‬, Ezra 7:10); ‘judgment’ (‫משפט‬, v. 10; Neh. 8:18); and ‘commandment(s)’ (‫מצות‬, Ezra 9:10, 14; 10:3).111 As I will discuss in Ezra 9:10–11, EM’s use of ‘commandment’ (‫ )מצוה‬has in mind the commandments issued by the Deuteronomic prophets. Comparisons to Exod. 15:25; Josh. 24:25 are noteworthy but Ezra 7:10b (‫ )ולעשות וללמד בישראל חק ומשפט‬contains strong resonances with the Deuteronomic Moses’ many exhortations of teaching (‫ )למ״ד‬the statutes and judgments (Deut. 4:1, 5, 14), which constitute the Deuteronomic legal corpus Lebram, ‘Traditionsgeschichte der Esragestalt’, 110. Excluded in this discussion is Deut. 33:2, as the suggested emendation from MT ‫מימינו‬ ‫ אשדת למו‬to ‫( מימינו אש דת למו‬supported by Vul.: in dextera eius ignea lex) is soundly rejected; see Richard C. Steiner, ‘‫ ָּד ת‬and ‫ ֵעין‬: Two Verbs Masquerading as Nouns in Moses’ Blessing (Deuteronomy 33:2, 28)’, JBL 115 (1996): 693–6; Richard C. Steiner and Sid Z. Leiman, ‘The Lost Meaning of Deuteronomy 32 as Preserved in the Palestinian Targum to the Decalogue’, in Fox, Glatt-Gilad, and Williams, Mishneh Todah, 157–66; Theodore J. Lewis, ‘Divine Fire in Deuteronomy 32’, JBL 132 (2013): 791–803; Hurvitz, Late Biblical Hebrew, 102. 107 Also in Neh. 10:28, 29, which is secondary to EM. 108 109 Kapelrud, Authorship, 21. See also Rendtorff, ‘Esra und das “Gesetz” ’, 178. 110 Becking proposes an abstract concept of Torah in the book of Ezra, one that is not concerned with a rigid law-religion but symbolic of the relationship between its representative post-exilic Yahvistic community, its Judaean/Israelite predecessors, and YHVH (‘Idea of Thorah’, 285–6). 111 Ezra 7:11b contains ‫מצות־יהוה וחקיו‬, which I assign to RE-N. 105 106

From Babylon to Jerusalem

101

(12:1–26:16).112 Deuteronomic influence on Ezra 7:10 is also evident in ‘statute’ (‫)חק‬, ‘judgment’ (‫)משפט‬, and Ezra seeking (‫‘ )דר״ש‬the Torah’ (‫)התורה‬. All of these terms indeed appear in Lev. 26:46 [H] but ‘the tôrōt’ (‫ )התוֹרת‬in this verse connotes neither ‘Teaching’ nor ‘Law’ but, as is the case elsewhere in PC, priestly instructions.113 The description of ‘the Torah’ (‫)התורה‬ in Ezra 7:10 recalls Deut. 4:8. In Deut. 4:8, the Deuteronomic Moses asks, ‘who is this great nation that has statutes and judgments as righteous (‫חקים ומשפטים‬ ‫ )צדיקם‬as this entire Torah (‫ )ככל התורה הזאת‬that I set before you this day?’. D subsumes ‘statutes and judgments’ (‫ )חקים ומשפטים‬under ‘the Torah’ (‫)התורה‬. EM adopts this hierarchy and, through its multiple labels of tôrāh, upholds ‘the Torah’ as ‘Law’.

‘The Laws of God’ as Torah Following the discussion up to this point, Ezra 7:26 does not have in mind a single law code that is one and the same but instead two law codes. One is religious (‫ )דתי אלה‬and the other civil (‫)דתי המלך‬. I now turn to the relationship between the laws in Ezra 7:26 and (the) Torah in the Edict. Rendtorff challenges the widely held presupposition that the events in Ezra 7 and Nehemiah 8 are related to each other and maintains that Aram. dāt in Ezra 7:12–26 is not the same Gesetz as Heb. tôrāh in Nehemiah 8.114 As a result, Rendtorff distinguishes the legal dāt (here, Persian Recht) given to Ezra as Schreiber from the religious tôrāh (that is, the Pentateuch) that Ezra as Priester takes with him to Jerusalem. Kratz criticizes Rendtorff ’s dismissal of Dan. 6:6; 7:25 in which Aram. dāt is used in a clear religious context and argues that dāt is likewise identical to tôrāh in Ezra-Nehemiah.115 A mediating position is proposed by Willi, who partially supports Rendtorff ’s differentiation of dāt from tôrāh but cautions against completely purging dāt of any religious connotations.116 The above discussion does not take into consideration that ‘the law of God’ and ‘the law of the king’ in Ezra 7:26 describe independent religious and civil laws, respectively. Elsewhere in the Edict, Ezra is ‘priest, a scribe in the law of the God of Heaven’ (‫ספר דתא די־אלה שמיא‬, v. 12) who is to make inquiries ‘in the law of your God which is in your hand’ (‫בדת‬ ‫אלהך די בידך‬, v. 14). Ezra is an expert in only one set of laws—the law of his Rendtorff, ‘Esra und das “Gesetz” ’, 175; Grätz, Edikt, 85. Milgrom, Leviticus 1–16, 382–3. 114 Rendtorff, ‘Esra und das “Gesetz” ’, 165–84; Rendtorff, ‘Noch einmal: Esra und das “Gesetz” ’, ZAW 111 (1999): 89–91. 115 Reinhard G. Kratz, Translatio imperii: Untersuchungen zu den aramäischen Danielerzählungen und ihrem theologiegeschichtlichen Umfeld, WMANT 63 (Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1991), 225–41, esp. 227–9. 116 Willi, Juda, 90–117. 112 113

102

Ezra and the Second Wilderness

deity—and does not consult civil (or royal) law. In describing separate religious and civil laws, a Yehudite composer (here, EM) has little choice but to use the appropriate Aramaic technical terminology, dāt. In Ezra 8:36, the delivery of ‘the laws of the king’ (‫ )דתי המלך‬to the king’s satraps (‫ )אחשדרפני המלך‬and governors (‫ )פחוות‬of Eber-Nahara—with no mention of priests—suggests that ‘the laws of the king’ are not religious laws. In the Edict, EM acknowledges the existence of both religious law and civil law but puts forward the claim that the Persian representatives in Jerusalem are only concerned with civil law.117 EM does not equate civil law (known here as ‫ )דתי המלך‬to Torah. Instead, the religious law, what EM refers to as ‘the laws of God’ (‫)דתי אלה‬, is the only legal code that can be considered as identical to Torah. The recognition that some of Ezra’s appointees, specifically the magistrates and judges, know ‘the laws of God’ but others are not cognizant of this law code (Ezra 7:25) fits quite well with the proclamation of Torah in Neh. 8:1–12. As I will argue in Chapter 4, the assembly gathered in Jerusalem is aware of the existence of something authoritative called Torah but upon hearing its words is apparently uninformed of its contents. Furthermore, whatever is Torah in Nehemiah 8 presupposes the Pentateuchal laws in their final or penultimate form and what happens after Ezra’s proclamation of Torah can be construed as Ezra teaching the uninformed, as he is commissioned to do in the Edict.

THE DEPARTURE FROM THE AHAVA ( EZRA 7 :28B– 8:30) After the Edict, the narrative moves on to Ezra’s preparations for the caravan’s journey to Jerusalem. Among the returnees gathered at the Ahava (Ezra 8:1–14), Ezra notices the absence of Levites and dispatches an envoy to find members of this class to join the caravan (vv. 15–20). Ezra then proclaims a fast (vv. 21–3) and entrusts gold, silver, and vessels to the priests and Levites (vv. 24–30). Reading 7:28b–8:30 as a complete unit (with possibly a minor addition in 8:29aα), EM fuses and adapts the Pentateuchal accounts of the Israelites’ departure from the wilderness mountain in order to present Ezra’s caravan as one that is ritually superior to its predecessors.

The List of Returnees In constructing the returnees from Babylon as a second wilderness generation, EM selects and builds upon motifs from the Pentateuchal wilderness accounts. 117

See also Rendtorff, ‘Esra und das “Gesetz” ’, 173.

From Babylon to Jerusalem

103

In both E and D, YHVH reminds the Israelites that he brought them out of Egypt with a strong hand (‫בחזק יד‬, Exod. 13:3, 14, 16 [E]; ‫ביד חזקה‬, v. 9 [E]; Deut. 5:15; 6:21 [D]). In Ezra 7:28, Ezra reports that he was empowered by the hand of YHVH (‫ )ואני התחזקתי כיד־יהוה עלי‬and gathers chiefs from Israel to accompany him on the journey (‫ואקבצה מישראל ראשים לעלות עמי‬, v. 28b). EM uses the technical terminology for ‫ ראשים‬from its source materials, Exod. 18:25 [E] and Deut. 1:15 [D]. In Deut. 1:15, Moses designates the tribal chiefs (‫ )ראשי שבטיכם‬as chiefs (‫ )ראשים‬over the Israelites; similarly, the chiefs (‫)ראשים‬ in Ezra 7:28b should be equated to the clan chiefs (‫ )ראשי אבתיהם‬in 8:1. Ezra 8:1–14 contain a list of clan chiefs and peoples who departed with Ezra according to their genealogy (‫)יח״ש‬. The beginning of this list in v. 1 recalls the registration of the Israelite tribes at Sinai: Ezra 8:1 ‫ואלה ראשי אבתיהם‬ ‫והתיחשם העלים עמי במלכות ארתחשסתא המלך מבבל‬ These are the clan chiefs and their genealogical enrolment who came up with me in the reign of King Artaxerxes from Babylon.

Num. 1:18aβ [P] ‫ויתילדו על־משפחתם לבית אבתם‬

They registered themselves in their clans, by their ancestral houses.

EM clarifies the rare (and older) use of ‫( יל״ד‬hit.) from its source material in Num. 1:18 and replaces it with the more familiar ‫יח״ש‬.a118 The list of returnees consists of clan chiefs, accompanying males, the priestly clans of Phinehas and Itamar, and one Davidic group (Ezra 8:2). In P, Aaron has four sons named Nadab, Abihu, Eleazar, and Itamar (Exod. 6:23; 28:1; Num. 3:2; 26:20). Nadab and Abihu carelessly offer unholy fire to YHVH and suffer a fiery demise (Lev. 10:1–2). Not surprisingly, EM omits these names among the returnees. The obligations of the Aaronide priesthood fall upon Eleazar, whose son Phinehas secures the high priesthood for his clan (Num. 25:6–18). Itamar becomes in charge of the Gershonites and Merarites in their service of the wilderness tabernacle (4:28, 33). Just as Eleazar (and his son Phinehas) and Itamar accompany the Israelites on their journey through the wilderness, EM includes members of the clans under the same names in Ezra’s caravan. The inclusion of Hattush, a Davidide, is largely symbolic. EM sees divinely sanctioned royal Hurvitz distinguishes CBH ‫שפ״ח‬, ‫יל״ד‬, ‫פק״ד‬, ‫ ספ״ר‬from late ‫( יח״ש‬also Ezra 8:3; outside of EM, 19 times in E-N and Chr) and (Aram.) ‫ יח״ס‬in rabbinic literature (‘Evidence of Language in Dating the Priestly Code’, 27–9; Hurvitz, Late Biblical Hebrew, 122–4). For ‫ ויתילדו‬in Num. 1:18 as an Aramaism and indicative of late dating, see Levine, Numbers 1–20, 139; pace Avi Hurvitz, ‘The Chronological Significance of “Aramaisms” in Biblical Hebrew’, IEJ 18 (1962): 234–40. 118

104

Ezra and the Second Wilderness

authority in Artaxerxes and it is unlikely that Hattush’s purpose is to restore the Davidic monarchy. The list of the returnees in Ezra 8:3–14 follows the pattern ‘from the clan of A, Y ben Z, and with him x males’. The twelve clans allude to the traditional number of pre-exilic tribes.119 Among the tribal lists in Pentateuchal literature, 603,550 males over the age of 20 are recorded in P’s Sinai census (Num. 1:20–43, 46; 2:32; cf. P’s census at Moab in Num. 26:1–65). In comparison, EM’s tally is a more modest figure of 1,513 males.120 Other differences between P and EM arise as the latter reshapes the former to suit its own post-exilic situation. P’s census is saturated with militaristic language and its purpose is to report the conscription of eligible Israelite males. Furthermore, P’s wilderness camp is akin to a war camp (cf. Num. 10:35) and acts accordingly.121 In its adaption of the Priestly Sinaitic census, EM condenses its own census by stripping P’s recurring ‫במספר שמות )לגלגלתם כל־זכר( מבן שערים שנה ומעלה‬ ‫ כל יצא צבא‬in Numbers 1 (for example, vv. 20, 24). An armed Judaean caravan is implausible within the political realities of Achaemenid Yehud and any militaristic overtures would be inconsistent with EM’s presentation of Ezra’s journey. P’s census contains first-person directives from YHVH to Moses and Aaron but the lack of a divine command in Ezra 8:1–14—Ezra simply administers the census—indicates that EM upholds the view that YHVH’s direct and unmediated revelation has ceased by the time of the reconstructed Second Temple.

The Search for Levites The returnees gather at a body of water called the Ahava (Ezra 8:21) that shares its name with its location (cf. v. 15) and encamp (‫ )חנ״ה‬there for three days. EM’s motif of three days (vv. 15, 32; 10:7–9) may be based on an established tradition.122 In P’s wilderness narrative, the Israelites frequently encamp (‫ )חנ״ה‬at a site, including Sinai (Exod. 19:2). EM adopts P’s encampment language for its own gathering at the Ahava but the three days is from elsewhere. P’s Sinai encampment lasts much longer than three days— 119 Rudolph, Esra und Nehemia, 79; Williamson, Ezra, Nehemiah, 111; Pakkala, Ezra the Scribe, 57. Koch opines that Ezra desires to establish one Israel out of the twelve tribes in Judah and Samaria (‘Origins’, 193–4). 120 The count in 1 Esdras 8:28–40 amounts to 1,690. For the authenticity of the list in Ezra 8:2–14, see Blenkinsopp, Ezra-Nehemiah, 161; Williamson, Ezra, Nehemiah, 109–10; (with some reservations) Koch, ‘Origins’, 173; contra Ahlström, History of Ancient Palestine, 877; Pakkala, Ezra the Scribe, 56–8. 121 Haran, Temples, 78 n. 28. For P’s encampment in Numbers 2 as a representation of an Egyptian war camp from the second half of the second millennium, see Milgrom, Leviticus 17–22, 340–1. 122 Blenkinsopp, Ezra-Nehemiah, 164.

From Babylon to Jerusalem

105

the Israelites arrive in the third month after the Exodus (Exod. 19:1), the ‘presence’ (kābôd) covers Sinai for six days, and Moses is called out on the seventh day (24:16). After the construction of the tabernacle and the giving of most of the laws, the Israelites finally depart Sinai on the twentieth day of the second month of the second year (Num. 10:11). The description of the Israelites spending three days on a mountain is found in a non-Priestly text, Exod. 19:10–15 [J]. Among the Pentateuchal documents, J contains the only notice of a three-day waiting period at the wilderness mountain. In Ezra 8:15, the three-day waiting period at the beginning of the caravan’s journey is patterned after the ritualistic preparatory period of the same length of time in Exod. 19:10–15 [J]. Some critics attribute the delay at the Ahava in Ezra 8:15–20 to an editorial addition spurred by Levitical interests. I disagree. Ezra’s search for Levites to minister (‫ )שר״ת‬to the House of God properly fulfils the royal fiat (7:13). A question then arises: why would EM have an interest in a class that, by its time, pales in comparison to the large number of priests?123 Observing that Levites are already present in Jerusalem (Ezra 8:29, 30, 31), Koch remarks that Ezra’s delay at the Ahava on account of the absence of Levites in the caravan is conceivable in light of P’s inclusion of Levites, priests, and laity in the wilderness.124 EM’s Levite is, in fact, a fusion of the Levite as conceived in the Priestly and Deuteronomic traditions.125 Both of the traditions agree that members of the tribe of Levi carry a sacred object—the portable tabernacle and its appurtenances in P (Num. 3:5–39) or the ‘ark of the covenant’ in D (Deut. 10:8–9)— but differ on the status and cultic employability of the Levite. In the Priestly Corpus, only the Aaronides may minister (‫ )שר״ת‬in the sanctuary as priests, rendering the rest of the Levites as ineligible for the priesthood but remaining dedicated to YHVH (Num. 3:40–5). In P, the Levites are not included in the Sinai census (1:49) but their exemption from conscription emphasizes their crucial service for the proper maintenance of the wilderness tabernacle. They transport the tabernacle and its vessels (vv. 50–1), encamp as a barrier between the stationary (holy) tabernacle and the (less holy, if not impure) surrounding tribes (vv. 52–3), and perform duties under Aaron’s authority (3:6–10). Without the service of the Priestly Levites, the Israelites cannot travel

123 In Ezra-Nehemiah, there are far fewer Levites than priests. The list of returnees in Neh. 7:39–42 (par. Ezra 2:36–9) contains 4,289 priests but 74 Levites. In the Jerusalem census in Neh. 11:10–18, NM lists 1,192 priests and 284 Levites. 124 Koch, ‘Origins’, 187. 125 In Exod. 4:14 [J], Aaron is identified as ‘the Levite’ (‫)הלוי‬. However, ‫ הלוי‬is not attested elsewhere in J and in E but instead as ‫ בני־לוי‬or ‫( בת־לוי‬cf. Gen. 29:34; 34:25, 30; Exod. 2:1; 32:26, 28). I place ‫ הלוי‬in Exod. 4:14 as redactional; contra J in Baden, Redaction, 219–20; E in Propp, Exodus 1–18, 191; Friedman, Sources Revealed, 124.

106

Ezra and the Second Wilderness

from Sinai to Canaan with the tabernacle and its appurtenances. As their service is limited to the above duties, the Levites are threatened with death should they minister (‫ )שר״ת‬as priests (Num. 18:3 [H]). Ezekiel likewise accuses the Levites of improperly officiating for Israel before the idols and contrasts their disservice with the Zadokites’ righteous maintenance of YHVH’s sanctuary (Ezek. 44:9–16).126 The separation of a Levitical class from the priesthood is only in PC and Ezekiel. According to the Priestly tradition, Levites would not be permitted to minister (‫ )שר״ת‬at all in a legitimate cultic centre in Casiphia. In Deuteronomy, any male from the tribe of Levi is entitled to be a priest as long as he is in the central sanctuary (Deut. 12:5–18). When a Levite chooses to remain outside the chosen place, there is nothing that distinguishes him from the citizen, sojourner, fatherless, or widow (12:18–19; 16:11, 14). Otherwise, when a Levite arrives at the chosen place, he may minister (‫ )שר״ת‬there (18:6–7). Ezra’s discovery of Levites at a place called ‘Casiphia the place’ (‫כספיא‬ ‫ )המקום‬runs counter to Deuteronomy’s promotion of the centralized Jerusalem cult. However, the acknowledgement of the presence of temple workers (‫)נתינים‬ alongside Levites suggests that EM considers Casiphia to be a legitimate sanctuary.127 The presence of a sanctuary outside Jerusalem would be anathema to Deuteronomy. For this reason, Batten maintains that Ezra 8:17 is influenced by Deuteronomic thought but argues for the removal of ‫ המקום‬in this verse.128 The deletion is unwarranted. Deuteronomy certainly does not uphold the legitimacy of cultic centres outside Jerusalem but it could not anticipate the establishment of Second Temple Yahvistic sanctuaries in Gerizim, Elephantine, Leontopolis, and Arâq el-Emîr.129 Although EM upholds Jerusalem as the unparalleled Yahvistic sanctuary, EM does not share Deuteronomy’s strict cult centralization programme, which becomes impossible to promote after the deportations result in scattered Judaean communities in the exilic and Second Temple periods.130

126

Haran, Temples, 103–11. For Casiphia as a hub of exilic Israelite deportees and the realistic selection of Levites from that place, see Leuchter, ‘Levites of Casiphia’, 179–83. 128 Batten, Ezra and Nehemiah, 321. 129 Houtman, ‘Ezra and the Law’, 112–13; Haran, Temples, 46–8. 130 In support of Deuteronomic charges to Ezra and the Levites, Leuchter invokes Seidel’s Law and reads the charge to the messengers (following the qǝrê: ‫ ָוֲאַצֶּוה‬and ‫ )בפיהם דברים‬in Ezra 8:17 as reversing language from Deut. 18:18 (‫ דברי בפיו‬followed by ‫‘( )צו״ה‬Levites of Casiphia’, 184). The kǝtîb ‫ואוצאה‬, however, also makes good sense; see Williamson, Ezra, Nehemiah, 113. Additionally, even if the qǝrê in Ezra 8:17 is preferred, then there still remains a thematic gap between the search for Levites in Ezra 8:17 and the promise of the succession of (Deuteronomic) prophets in Deut. 18:18. I do not place the post-exilic Levite as the successor to the diminished office of the classical prophet. 127

From Babylon to Jerusalem

107

In EM’s presentation of the departure from the Ahava as a second Sinai event, the Casiphian Levites are necessary for Ezra’s caravan and the search for these Levites emphasizes EM’s view that their participation is essential for a successful journey to Jerusalem.131 In Ezra 8:20, EM explains the inclusion of the temple servants (‫)נתינים‬, who are unattested in the Pentateuchal corpus, as a class instituted by David ‘for the service of the Levites’ (‫)לעבדת הלוים‬.132 Both EM and P speak of ‘service’ (‫ )עבדה‬but with different meanings in mind. Milgrom remarks that in Priestly writings ‘the service of the Levites’ (‫עבדת‬ ‫ )הלוים‬denotes a ‘physical task’—that is, the Levites’ primary task of transporting the portable tabernacle—but in post-exilic texts this same phrase refers to ‘cultic service’.133 EM constructs the cultic service of the Casiphian Levites by modelling them on the Deuteronomic Levites but includes them in the caravan due to the symbolic, yet important, service performed by the Priestly Levites in the journey from Sinai to Canaan.

The Fast at the Ahava In the Hebrew Bible, a fast is observed before approaching the deity, initiating a request to the deity, or mourning the dead.134 The technical use of ‫צו״מ‬, however, is absent in the Pentateuch. Against the background of ancient Near Eastern mourning rituals, Thomas Podella locates the emergence of ‫צום‬, fast, as a ritual that addresses divine hiddenness. Specific to Ezra 8:21–3, Podella explains that Ezra’s observance of a fast functions as a means to request divine assistance on the journey and can be theologically understood as a preventive measure against incurring divine wrath.135 Before the departure of the caravan for Jerusalem, Ezra proclaims a fast in order for the caravan to deny themselves (‫[ ענ״ה‬hit.]) before YHVH (Ezra 8:21a, 23). ‫( ענ״ה‬hit.) in Ezra 8:21 (cf. Dan. 10:12) reflects a usage in LBH that is more precise than the wide semantic variety of CBH ‫( ענ״ה‬pi., pu.), in which fasting can only be implied out of multiple meanings.136 The preference in LBH for ‫( ענ״ה‬hit.) can be detected in the Temple Scroll. In the laws pertaining to the Day of Atonement in 11QT 25:11–12, the legalist uses ‫( ענ״ה‬hit.) to upgrade his source material, Lev. 23:29: Kaufmann, tôlǝdôt, 1:182–3; ET, in Religion, 199–200. Williamson, Ezra, Nehemiah, 117. 133 Milgrom, Leviticus 1–16, 7; see also the meaning of ‫ עבדה‬in Neh. 10:32. 134 For the appearance of penitential fasting in post-biblical Judaism, see David Lambert, ‘Fasting as a Penitential Rite: A Biblical Phenomenon?’, HTR 96 (2003): 477–512. 135 Thomas Podella, Ṣôm-Fasten: Kollektive Trauer um den verborgenen Gott im Alten Testament, AOAT 224 (Kevelaer: Verlag Butzon & Bercker; Neukirchen-Vlyun: Neukirchener Verlag, 1989), 196–8. 136 Milgrom, Leviticus 1–16, 1054. 131 132

108

Ezra and the Second Wilderness Lev. 23:29

11QT 25:11–12137

‫כי כל־הנפש אשר לא־תענה בעצם היום הזה ונכרתה‬ ‫מעמיה‬

‫ תתענה בעצם היום‬12 ‫כי כול הנפש אשר לוא‬a…11 ‫הזה ונכרתה מעמיה‬

Like Ezra 8:21 (and Dan. 10:12), ‫( ענ״ה‬hit.) in 11QT 25:11–12 expresses the technical language of fasting not explicitly conveyed in ‫( ענ״ה‬pi., pu.).138 The Priestly Corpus, as expressed in Lev. 23:29, frequently employs the expression ‫‘( ענ״ה נפש‬afflicting the soul’), which finds its way into Third Isaiah (Isa. 58:3, 5, 10). Other writings that use ‫ ענ״ה‬with a fast (‫ )צום‬or hunger (‫ )רעב‬do not mention ‫‘( נפש‬soul’).139 It follows that Ezra 8:21 lacks the ‫ ענ״ה נפש‬terminology specific to P and employed by Third Isaiah. A better comparison could be made with Deut. 8:3, where Moses remarks, ‘[YHVH] afflicted (‫[ ענ״ה‬pi.]) you by making you go hungry. Then he fed you with manna which neither you nor your ancestors knew.’ In Ezra 8:21, EM updates the variegated use of ‫( ענ״ה‬pi.) from the Deuteronomic tradition (cf. Deut. 8:3) with the contemporary and more precise ‫( ענ״ה‬hit.) and includes the technical term ‫ צום‬that is absent in the Pentateuchal corpus. The mention of a fast in Ezra 8:21–3 requires further comment. As Podella observes, Ezra’s fast is a request for divine assistance for the upcoming journey. In P, there is no need for such a request at any time the Israelites are encamped at Sinai. In P’s view, the Israelites demonstrate their fidelity to YHVH at Sinai by building the tabernacle as revealed to them by YHVH and dutifully following YHVH’s precise instructions. When intentional or unintentional infractions against YHVH do happen in P, they are remedied through sacrificial expiation and not by anything that can be construed as a fast. The ritual observance of anything that could be construed as a fast in the presence of the deity occurs in the non-Priestly accounts, specifically E and D. In both E and D, Moses abstains from food and drink before receiving the tablets (Exod. 24:18b; 31:18* [E]; Deut. 9:9b, 10a [D]) and pleads the Israelites’ case before YHVH after their apostasy (Exod. 34:28 [E]; Deut. 9:18 [D]). The technical language ‫‘( צום‬fast’) is absent in these episodes.140 In Ezra 8:21, EM

137

Text and versification from Yadin, Temple Scroll, 2:113. Lawrence H. Schiffman, ‘The Case of the Day of Atonement Ritual’, in Biblical Perspectives: Early Use and Interpretation of the Bible in Light of the Dead Sea Scrolls. Proceedings of the First International Symposium of the Orion Center for the Study of the Dead Sea Scrolls and Associated Literature, 12–14 May 1996, ed. Michael E. Stone and Esther G. Chazon, STDJ 28 (Leiden: Brill, 1998), 183–4. 139 Paran, Priestly Style, 334–5. 140 Baden notes that E lacks Moses abstaining from food and drink during his first ascent (Exod. 24:18b; 31:18*) and suggests that this detail was transposed from E’s account of Moses’ second ascent (Exod. 34:28b) into Deut. 9:9b (Redaction, 160). It is unclear if in D, Moses ascends Horeb and prostrates before YHVH. An ascent is clear in E but ambiguous in D, which suits the 138

From Babylon to Jerusalem

109

upgrades the Elohistic and Deuteronomic portrait of Moses’ first fast with the technical language of ‫ צום‬that emerges out of an Israelite concern for divine hiddenness and finds its way into Second Temple literature.141

Divine Protection In between the proclamation and observance of a fast (Ezra 8:21a, 23), Ezra seeks from YHVH a ‘straight journey for ourselves, our children, and our possessions’, does not place a request for soldiers and a cavalry to accompany the caravan, and insists that ‘the hand of our God’ is upon those who seek (‫[ בק״ש‬pi.]) YHVH (vv. 21b–22). Why does Ezra not place a seemingly sensible request? Avishur and Heltzer suggest that ‘a large number of people could defend themselves’.142 This could be said for P, where 600,550 eligible men enlist and capably engage in warfare (cf. Num. 31:1–54) or Chr reports that over a million men who drew the sword (‫ )שלף חרב‬were found in Israel upon David’s request (1 Chr. 21:5). In contrast, EM’s caravan is a paltry amount that includes no more than 1,500 men. EM’s inclusion of children (who are an afterthought in P; see Exod. 12:37) and possessions suggests that this caravan is vulnerable. EM’s absence of imperial soldiers or an accompanying cavalry is not pragmatic but rather informed by ideology. Critics who uphold NM’s priority over Ezra 7–10 read Ezra 8:22 as boasting Ezra’s moral or religious superiority over Nehemiah. There are, however, other possible influences. Ezra speaking of ‘all who seek him’ and ‘all who forsake him’ (v. 22b) is attested elsewhere in post-exilic literature143 and his request can be understood as a fulfilment of prophecy.144 Another explanation for the omission of Ezra’s request lies in EM’s use of the Sinai accounts. The Pentateuchal traditions present different depictions of YHVH’s accessibility and presence among the Israelites in the wilderness. In P, YHVH is inaccessible to the general population. The ‘presence’ (kābôd) inhabits the Holy of Holies that is in the middle of the encampment and is buffered by Levites on all sides (Numbers 1–4). Even the high priest must take precautionary measures before entering the Holy of Holies (Lev. 16:13). In E,

Deuteronomic contention that YHVH remains in the (inaccessible) heavenly realm; see Sommer, Bodies of God, 62–8. 141 In Ezra 10:6, Ezra refrains from food and water. Here, Moses’ second fast serves as the prototype for Ezra’s actions. 142 Yitzhak Avishur and Michael Heltzer, ‘The Scribe and Priest Ezra: A Leader under Achaemenian Rule’, Transeu 29 (2005): 28. 143 1 Chr. 28:9; 2 Chr. 15:2; Isa. 58:2; 65:1, 11; see Williamson, Ezra, Nehemiah, 118; Blenkinsopp, Ezra-Nehemiah, 169. 144 For Isa. 52:11, see Koch, ‘Origins’, 187–8. For Jer. 31:9; Isa. 40:3, see Blenkinsopp, EzraNehemiah, 168.

110

Ezra and the Second Wilderness

after the Israelites agree to the laws at Horeb, YHVH graciously sends a divine messenger (‫ )מלאך‬to guide the Israelites in their upcoming journey (Exod. 23:20, 23; 32:34). D demystifies the journey from Horeb to Canaan, as a divine messenger is nowhere found among the Israelites. Rather, YHVH remotely leads the Israelites from the heavenly realm (Deut. 8:2; 11:23; 29:4 [ET 5]).145 Ezra’s request for divine guidance before the departure has traces of J’s theophany at Sinai. In Exod. 19:10–15, 20–3 [J], when YHVH descends upon Sinai, the Israelites are warned about the fatal consequences that will result from encroaching upon the mountain. Before departing Sinai, YHVH declares himself to be a threat to the Israelites and in his place sends a messenger (‫מלאך‬, Exod. 33:2–3).146 Dissatisfied with the circumstances and the messenger itself, Moses requests YHVH ‘to make known your ways’ (‫הודעני‬ ‫נא את־דרכך‬, v. 13). YHVH acquiesces and for a fleeting moment permits Moses a quick glance at his goodness (v. 19). At the end of J’s theophany, YHVH forbids Moses from seeing his face with the threat of death (33:20). EM follows the notion that YHVH responds positively to those who demonstrate their fidelity to him. Ezra’s insistence that ‘the hand of our God’ is upon them at the Ahava is not only aligned with the demystification of the deity but also follows the Yahvistic Moses’ plea for YHVH’s presence and the deity’s positive, albeit fleeting, response before the Israelites depart from Sinai.147

The Free-Will Offerings After the observance of a fast at the Ahava, Ezra selects twelve men from ‘the heads of the priests’ (‫שרי הכהנים‬, Ezra 8:24; cf. 10:5; 2 Chr. 36:14)—Sherebiah, Hashabiah, and ten unnamed persons—to guard the vessels until their

145 For D’s programme of demystification, see Weinfeld, Deuteronomy 1–11, 45–6. MT Deut. 29:4a, ‫ואולך אתכם ארבעים שנה במדבר‬, is difficult. ‫ אולך‬could grammatically refer to Moses, but context (‫כי אני יהוה אלהיכם‬, v. 5 [ET 6]) suggests that YHVH is speaking. Vg. and Syr. remove the ambiguity. 146 Baruch J. Schwartz, ‘Reexamining the Fate of the “Canaanites” in the Torah Traditions’, in Sefer Moshe: The Moshe Weinfeld Jubilee Volume. Studies in the Bible and the Ancient Near East, Qumran, and Post-Biblical Judaism, ed. Chaim Cohen et al. (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2004), 154, 157; Schwartz, ‘Torah’, 201; Baden, Redaction, 131 n. 78. In a subsequent publication, Baden argues that Exod. 33:2 is a redactional insertion influenced by 34:11 (see Joel S. Baden, ‘On Exodus 33,1–11’, ZAW 124 [2012]: 332–3). I place Exod. 33:2a, including ‫מלאך‬, as J but v. 2b as a Deuteronomistic insertion [JDtr] that overwrites J’s original imperative ‫ עלה‬and, along with 34:11[–26], is consistent with the Deuteronom(ist)ic demystification of the deity. 147 Other than First Zechariah’s ‫( המלאך הדבר בי‬who is not YHVH; for discussion of its identification and clarification from the ‫ איש רכב על־סוס‬in Zech 1:9, see Carol L. Meyers and Eric M. Meyers, Haggai, Zechariah 1–8: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary, AB 25B [Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1987], 114), the lack of a divine ‫ מלאך‬in (middle to late) post-exilic literature is noticeable (note that the ‫ מלאכים‬in Neh. 6:3 must be human).

From Babylon to Jerusalem

111

delivery to a similar group of priests (‫)שרי הכהנים‬148 and Levites in Jerusalem. The ‘silver, gold, and vessels’ in Ezra 8:25 correspond to the items listed in the Edict (cf. 7:15, 19).149 Within the wide semantic range of ‘talent’ (‫ככר‬, Ezra 8:26; also v. 22), its technical meaning as a unit of measurement appears in P’s provisions for YHVH’s earthly abode (‫ככר זהב‬, Exod. 25:39; 37:24; ‫ככר הכסף‬, Exod. 29:23). The ‘two vessels of fine polished bronze’, ‫כלי נחשת מצהב טובה שנים‬, in Ezra 8:27 may refer to the rare use of ‫ צהב‬in Priestly texts that describes an affliction of a thin yellow hair on the head or beard (Lev. 13:30, 32, 36).150 The free-will offering, ‫נדבה‬, in Ezra 8:28 is connected to the already mentioned gold and silver, ‫התנדבות עמא וכהניא‬, in 7:16.151 Ezra 8:25 describes ‘the tǝrûmāh of the House of our God’ that is raised (‫רו״מ‬ [hi.]) by the king, counsellors, lords, and Israel. In later texts, the tǝrûmāh is commonly brought forward (‫[ בו״א‬hi.]); however, the tǝrûmāh is raised (‫רו״מ‬ [hi.]) in Priestly texts (including Ezekiel).152 In the Priestly Corpus, offerings are presented as either tǝnûpāh (‘an elevation offering’) before YHVH, which is within the sanctuary, or tǝrûmāh (‘a gift’) to YHVH, which is without ritual or outside the sanctuary.153 The depiction of the offerings in Ezra 8:25 as a tǝrûmāh reflects the usage in P—as a raised offering that is transferred to YHVH outside the House of God in Jerusalem. In spite of the correlation between the raised offerings in Ezra 8:25 and P, some of P’s offerings are absent in Ezra 8:24–30. Among the absences are ‘a round of bread’ (‫ ;ככר לחם‬cf. Exod. 29:23). EM includes vessels presumably known in its time but unknown to P, such as ‘gold bowls’ (‫כפרי זהב‬, Ezra 8:27; cf. Ezra 1:10; 1 Chr. 28:17), which possibly replaces P’s ‘bowls’ (‫מנקית‬, Exod. 25:29; 37:16; Num. 4:7; also Jer 52:19). EM’s ‘vessels of silver’ (‫כלי־כסף‬, Ezra 8:26) does not match P’s ‘silver of vessels’ (‫כסף הכלים‬, Num. 7:85) but instead ‘silver jewellery’ (‫ )כלי־כסף‬in J (Gen. 24:53) and E (Exod. 3:22; 11:2; 12:35). Following the observation that the Edict (Ezra 7:15) projects the Israelites’ wealth in the wilderness in both P and E, the precise description of ‫ כלי־כסף‬in Ezra 8:26 suggests that EM has the Israelites’ material wealth depicted in E—and not P—in mind. In the Elohistic tradition of the wilderness, the Israelites squander the wealth they obtained in Egypt by building idols at Horeb. In contrast, EM’s returnees take the necessary precautions to ensure that the wealth they accumulated in Babylon is promptly delivered to the House of God for its intended purpose. In Ezra 8:28–9, Ezra declares that the priests are holy to YHVH (‫)קדש ליהוה‬, the vessels are holy, and the silver and gold are a free-will offering (‫ )נדבה‬to For ‫ שרי הכהנים‬as heads of priestly families, see Rooke, Zadok’s Heirs, 168. 150 Williamson, Ezra, Nehemiah, 119. Blenkinsopp, Ezra-Nehemiah, 169. 151 In P, the free-will offering (‫ )נדבה‬is offered for the construction of the Tabernacle. In Exod. 35:29, these free-will offerings are perhaps given to Moses, who in turn gives them to Bezalel and Oholiab (36:3). See elsewhere in Lev. 7:16; Num. 29:39; in H: Lev. 22:18, 21, 23, 38; Num. 15:3. 152 Paran, Priestly Style, 297–8. 153 See the discussion of Neh. 10:38a in Chapter 2. 148 149

112

Ezra and the Second Wilderness

YHVH. Haran observes that holy to YHVH ‘is most probably a standard formula to indicate the sanctity of the offerings’.154 P’s priests (Exod. 29:1; 39:30) and Levites (Num. 3:12–13) are consecrated (‫ )קד״ש‬for YHVH.155 The high priest wears a diadem (‫ )ציץ‬that is inscribed with the words ‘holy to YHVH’ (Exod. 28:36–8; 39:30). Koch remarks that the connections between Ezra 8:28 and Exod. 28:36 suggest that the former corresponds to the latter.156 I agree that EM’s declaration of ‘holy to YHVH’ in Ezra 8:28 follows P. Exod. 28:36, however, specifically has the high priest in mind, which cannot be said for EM. A stronger comparison can be drawn with P’s preparations for the departure from Sinai. In Ezra 8:24, EM’s use of the number twelve (specifically, twelve of ‘the heads of the priests’) and the responsibility given to the priests and Levites for the vessels originate from P’s instructions for the upkeep and transport of the tabernacle and its appurtenances (Numbers 3–4).157 Among these instructions, YHVH remarks that the Kohathites are never to touch these holy items due to the lethal potency of the tabernacle and its vessels (4:15). Following the first wilderness (according to P), EM needs something quantifiably holy to accompany the caravan. In a similar way to how Moses is not directly in charge of the vessels (it is in the Priestly sense a physical ‘service’, ‫עבדה‬, assigned to the Levites), Ezra assigns the guarding of the holy vessels to selected priests who are deemed ‘holy to YHVH’. Absent in Ezra’s instructions is the threat of death for mishandling the vessels. Recognizing that the high degree of lethal potency P places upon certain cultic objects highlights the intense sanctity of the deity and, in turn, the wilderness generation’s inability to meet the deity’s requirements, the absence of the threat of death in EM can be explained. EM affirms that the vessels that accompany Ezra’s caravan are holy objects, but the potency of these vessels does not match that of the wilderness tabernacle and its furnishings. Even if it can be disputed that EM attaches a high degree of potency to these cultic objects, EM does not consider the possibility that Ezra and the returnees were under any serious threat of extermination from the deity and the cultic objects—or for that matter, other humans—at any time during their journey between Babylon and Jerusalem. As the depiction of the returnees’ swift and uneventful journey indicates, EM does not place Ezra or the returnees under any threat of danger, including death, due to their meticulous preparations before departing the Ahava.

154

Haran, Temples, 215. In addition to the priesthood and the Tabernacle, the following are ‘holy to YHVH’: Sabbath (Exod. 16:23 [P]; 31:35 [H]); houses (Lev. 27:14); fields (vv. 21–3); tithes of land (v. 30), herds and flocks (v. 32) [all P]. 156 Koch, ‘Origins’, 187. 157 Williamson, Ezra, Nehemiah, 118–19. Note also the instructions for the construction of these items in Exod. 29:36; 30:29; 40:9, 10, which are issued at Sinai. 155

From Babylon to Jerusalem

113

ARRIVAL I N J ERUSALEM (EZRA 8 :31 – 6 ) Ezra praises YHVH for a safe journey, one that was completed without any threat or incident (Ezra 8:31; cf. v. 22). The caravan arrives in Jerusalem after only four months with all the cultic vessels intact and delivers them safely to the House of God. There are two major problems that arise from EM’s report of the caravan’s arrival. First, the departure of the caravan is recorded on the twelfth day of the first month but EM lacks a Passover observance on the scheduled fourteenth day. If EM is dependent on any of the Pentateuchal traditions, then the omission of this pilgrimage requires an explanation.158 Second, what is the purpose of the offerings in Ezra 8:35? The fifth month does not feature in the Pentateuchal cultic calendars but offerings are dutifully presented days after the caravan arrives in Jerusalem in that month.

The Absence of Passover According to Ezra 8:31, the caravan eventually departs for Jerusalem on the twelfth day of the first month (cf. 7:9).159 In P, the Israelites observe Passover on the mandated fourteenth day of the first month in Egypt (Exod. 12:6, 18) and exactly one year later at Sinai (Num. 9:1–5). After this observance, the Israelites depart Sinai on the twentieth day of the second month of the same calendar year (10:11–13). If the Priestly Sinai account is one of EM’s source materials, then the discrepancy between the above events in EM and P requires an explanation.160 The Priestly Corpus mandates the observance of Passover on the fourteenth day of the first month (Exod. 12:6, 18 [P]; Lev. 23:5 [H]; Num. 9:3, 5; 28:16 [P]; Josh. 5:10 [P]; cf. Ezek. 45:21).161 Blenkinsopp comments that ‘The actual date of departure is two days before Passover, which means that they [the Whereas ‫ חג‬is commonly translated as ‘festival’ (NRSV), I employ ‘pilgrimage’ as the more precise translation; see Haran, Temples, 289–90; Baruch J. Schwartz, ‘Miqra’ Qodesh and the Structure of Leviticus 23’, in Purity and Holiness in Ancient Israel, Judaism, and Christianity: Essays in Memory of Susan Haber, ed. Carl S. Ehrlich et al., WUNT 305 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2013), 19. 159 Commentators do not see a difficulty with the differences in the departure dates in Ezra 7:9 and 8:31 (see, for example, Pakkala, Ezra the Scribe, 74). The delay could be explained on account of Ezra’s unexpected search for Levites (Williamson, Ezra, Nehemiah, 120). 160 Koch suggests that Ezra’s departure from Babylon ‘at the beginning of a new year’ recalls P’s Exodus (‘Origins’, 186). According to Num. 33:3, the Israelites depart Rameses on the fifteenth day of the first month (the day after Passover). P includes significant events on the first day of the year (the end of the Flood [Gen. 8:13] and the inauguration of the cult [Exod. 40:1]) but it appears that Sinai—and not the exodus from Egypt—primarily occupy EM. 161 In the event that an Israelite fails to observe Passover on its scheduled date, PC allows for a ‘Second Passover’ on the fourteenth day of the second month (Num. 9:9–13 [H; see Knohl, Sanctuary of Silence, 90]). For discussion of the unique construction of a deferred rite and its 158

114

Ezra and the Second Wilderness

returnees] also imitated the ancient Israelites by celebrating the festival at the beginning of their journey to the promised land’.162 If this indeed is the case, then EM should either mention a departure date that comes after the scheduled Passover or describe a Passover celebrated after the departure date. There is neither. The lack of a scheduled Passover observance (in either the first month or the second month)—coupled with, as we shall see in Chapter 4, the absence of another significant observance in Nehemiah 8— reflects EM’s interpretative strategies. EM’s omission of Passover is not due to ignorance or the late development of a pilgrimage but rather EM negotiating between different, and sometimes conflicting, cultic prescriptions for the same pilgrimage. Competing with the Priestly prescription for Passover is the Deuteronomic legal code. Deuteronomy agrees with P that Passover takes place on the month of Abib (the first month), but mandates that Passover is observed at a centralized location (Deut. 16:5–6). For an adherent of the Deuteronomic programme, it would be anathema for a Torah-abiding priest-scribe such as Ezra to observe Passover anywhere else than Jerusalem. In other post-exilic texts, the observance of Passover follows the Deuteronom(ist)ic programme: in only one place, specifically the House of God in Jerusalem (Ezra 6:19; 2 Chr. 30:1–27; 35:1–19). For these reasons, Melody Knowles argues that ‘If one wanted to keep Passover, at least according to Ezra, one had to travel to Jerusalem’.163 If EM were fully committed to the Deuteronomistic programme, then I would expect it to explicitly mention a Passover observance in Jerusalem. Instead, EM negotiates between the Deuteronomic centralization programme that promotes the Jerusalem Temple and the Priestly descriptions of Passover celebrations outside Jerusalem—in Egypt (Exod. 12:6, 18) and Canaan (Josh. 5:10). It then emerges that EM’s departure date, the twelfth day of the first month, is a compromise between the competing Passover legislation, specifically where Passover may or may not be celebrated.

The Delivery of the Offerings From Ezra 7:9, it can be assumed that the caravan arrives in Jerusalem on the first day of the fifth month. This date raises few contradictions in EM’s chronology. In 8:32, the caravan remains in Jerusalem for three days (cf. v. 15).

historical circumstances, see Simeon Chavel, ‘The Second Passover, Pilgrimage, and the Centralized Cult’, HTR 102 (2009): 1–24. 162 Blenkinsopp, Ezra-Nehemiah, 139. 163 Melody D. Knowles, ‘Pilgrimage to Jerusalem in the Persian Period’, in Approaching Yehud: New Approaches to the Study of the Persian Period, ed. Jon L. Berquist, SemeiaSt 50 (Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2007), 12.

From Babylon to Jerusalem

115

Aaron Demsky observes that the three-day requirement in vv. 32–3 (also Neh. 2:11–12) represents the purification ritual depicted in 11QT 45:7–12, which in turn transports the sanctity of Sinai in Exod. 19:10–15 to the Temple Mount.164 The stronger parallel lies with the Israelites pausing for three days after crossing the Jordan into Canaan (Josh. 3:1–2).165 In Ezra 8:33–4, the priests and Levites completed their duties by weighing (‫[ שק״ל‬ni.]) the silver, gold, and vessels before Meremoth the priest, Eleazar, and the Levites Jozabad and Noadiah. If, as Koch suspects, P (Num. 31:48–54) is the source for this account, then EM has significantly modified its source by replacing P’s high priest with a committee of priests and removing the Priestly materials from their original warfare context. After the delivery of the vessels, the activities of the returnees are recounted in Ezra 8:35–6. They present offerings to YHVH, deliver only the ‘laws of the king’ (‫ )דתי המלך‬to the satraps and governors,166 and support the people and the House of God. Ezra’s absence is noteworthy but not significant. The presentation of the offerings in v. 35 fulfils the provisions contained in the Edict (7:17).167 Differences in Hebrew and Aramaic vocabulary aside, Ezra 8:35–6 mostly agrees with 7:17 in the named animals (bulls, rams, and lambs) and the manner in which they are presented (‫)קר״ב‬.168 The Edict does not make clear the intent for these animals but it is doubtful that a Persian monarch or authority (either real or fabricated by a Yehudite composer) had any knowledge of the finer intricacies of the Yahvistic sacrificial system. For this reason, the correspondence between the Edict and the narrative does not have to be perfect. Both the cereal offerings and the libations from the Edict (Ezra 7:17) are not in 8:35–6. The question, however, remains: what is the occasion for the returnees to present the offerings to YHVH upon their arrival in Jerusalem in the fifth month? As a starting point, it should be noted that the fifth month does not feature in any of the cultic calendars. Additionally, the offerings in Ezra 8:35 should not be viewed against the background of the Priestly scheduled offerings in Lev. 23:1–44 [H] or Num. 28:1–29:39 [P]. The proposed solution to the above question requires the resolution of two recognized difficulties in Ezra 8:35. The first difficulty lies in the summary statement. ‘All a burnt offering (‘ôlāh) to YHVH’ (‫הכל עולה ליהוה‬, v. 35b) follows not only the ‘ôlāh of twelve bulls, ninetysix rams, and seventy-seven lambs but also the ḥ at ṭ ạ̄ ’t (‫ )חטאת‬of twelve male

164 Aaron Demsky, ‘The Three-Day Period of Purification before Entering the Temple’, in Cohen et al., Birkat Shalom, 2:775–85. 165 Williamson, Ezra, Nehemiah, 120; Blenkinsopp, Ezra-Nehemiah, 171. 166 Neither ‘satrap’ (‫ )פחה‬nor ‘governor’ (‫ )אחשדרפן‬is in Pentateuchal literature and both titles should be viewed against the background of EM’s contemporary period. 167 Galling, Bücher, 210; Williamson, Ezra, Nehemiah, 122. 168 Kapelrud, Authorship, 57–8.

116

Ezra and the Second Wilderness

goats (‫צפירי חטאת שנים עשר‬, v. 35aβ).169 However, the ḥ at ṭ ạ̄ ’t (purification offering) is not an ‘ôlāh (burnt offering) as the distinction between the purification offering and the burnt offering is made clear in PC and upheld by Ezekiel (cf. Ezek. 45:17).170 Unlike the burnt offering, Priestly legislation requires that only the priests slaughter the purification offering (Lev. 9:15 [P]; 16:15 [H]). Recognizing the difficulty of the summary statement in Ezra 8:35, Norman Snaith shifts ‫ הכל עולה ליהוה‬and proposes the reading ‫הכל עולה‬ ‫ ליהוה צפירי חטאת שנים עשר‬.171 This proposal separates the ‘ôlāh from the ḥ at ṭ ạ̄ ’t in Ezra 8:35 but another question emerges—why offer a purification offering, a ḥ at ṭ ạ̄ ’t, in the first place? The purification offering in Ezra 8:35 appears to be grounded in the Priestly remedy for unintentional guilt (‫)שגגה‬, specifically the requirement of a chieftain to present an unblemished male goat (‫שעיר עזים זכר‬ ‫ )תמים‬in Lev. 4:22–6 or an ordinary person to offer an unblemished female goat (‫ )שעירת עזים תמימה נקבה‬or unblemished ewe (‫ )כבש…נקבה תמימה‬in vv. 27–35. If the purification offering in Ezra 8:35 expiates unintentional guilt, then this unintentional guilt could be construed as ritual defilement after a journey172 or acknowledging a period of infidelity.173 Another solution, I put forward, lies in the omission of goats in the Edict in light of the mention of bulls, rams, and lambs in both Ezra 7:17 and 8:35. Rather than transposing any part of Ezra 8:35, it appears to me that ‫צפירי חטאת‬ ‫( שנים עשר‬v. 35aβ) is not originally part of the base layer but rather an insertion by a later hand. In Ezra 6:17, after the reconstruction of Jerusalem Temple, the Israelites, priests, Levites, and other exiles offer twelve goats as a purification offering for all of Israel. Likewise, in Chr’s own report of Hezekiah rededicating the Jerusalem Temple, goats are communally offered as a purification offering (2 Chr. 29:23) and the purification offering is offered alongside the burnt offering (v. 24). I attribute the insertion of ‫ צפירי חטאת שנים עשר‬to RE-N, who viewed the report of the returnees’ dedication to the House of God in Ezra 8:35*–6 [EM], with its original description of returnees offering a burnt offering, as incomplete. Accordingly, in Ezra 8:35, EM has in mind only the spontaneous burnt offering, the ‘ôlāh. Herein lies the second difficulty in this verse. In the tally of

169 For ‫ צפיר‬as LBH (cf. ‫עתוד‬, ‘male goats’, in Gen. 31:10, 12; Num. 7:17, 23), see Kapelrud, Authorship, 58; also Hurvitz, Late Biblical Hebrew, 209. 170 The ḥ at ṭ ạ̄ ’t is best understood as a purification, and not a sin, offering; see Milgrom, Leviticus 1–16, 253–64. P has two ḥ at ṭ ạ̄ ’t in mind: as a purification rite intended for the sanctuary and its attending priesthood from contamination or as an expiatory rite for offences of non-cultic officials, namely, the laity and their leaders; see Jacob Milgrom, ‘Two Kinds of ḥ at ṭ ạ̄ ’t’, VT 26 (1976): 333–7; Milgrom, Leviticus 1–16, 263. 171 Norman Snaith, ‘A Note on Ezra viii. 35’, JTS n.s. 22 (1971): 150–2. 172 173 Williamson, Ezra, Nehemiah, 122. Blenkinsopp, Ezra-Nehemiah, 173.

From Babylon to Jerusalem

117

twelve bulls, ninety-six rams, and seventy-seven lambs, the last number is not a multiple of twelve. Rudolph attributes the last number to an error in MT.174 If the count of seventy-two lambs in 1 Esdras 8:65 (also Ant. 11 §137) is preferred over MT, then these numbers—alongside the twelve clans in Ezra 8:1–14—appear to be a symbolic reference to the twelve tribes of Israel. Kapelrud offers a defence of MT by noting the symbolism of the number seven.175 In short, the tally of animals in Ezra 8:35 accurately reflects who offers the burnt offering. The participants in this verse are presumably of a non-priestly status, which limits this discussion to prescriptions for the laity. In P’s prescription for the individual, private, and spontaneous burnt offering, the animals are listed in decreasing value: a bull (Lev. 1:3–9), sheep or goats (vv. 10–13), and turtledoves or pigeons (vv. 14–17).176 In Ezra 8:35, EM retains bulls and sheep (lambs) but not turtledoves and pigeons due to their poor quality. What is overlooked in this verse is that only the description of ‘twelve bulls for all Israel’, ‫פרים שנים־עשר על־כל־ישראל‬, is representative of traditional Israel and offered by the named leaders of the clans. Thus, the tally in Ezra 8:35 reflects the twelve clan leaders offering the more expensive bulls on behalf of each clan. It then follows that some among the lower socioeconomic classes offer the less expensive rams and lambs. Still the correspondence between Ezra 8:35 and Lev. 1:2b–17 is not exact: why does EM include rams? Lev. 1:2b–17 lacks any mention of a ram as an acceptable burnt offering. A ram does feature in P’s ’āšām (‫)אשם‬, reparation offering, which addresses unintentional sancta desecration in Lev. 5:15–19, but in Ezra 10:19 EM is well aware of P’s reparation offering as a well-defined remedy and it is unlikely that EM confuses the ram of a reparation offering with that of a burnt offering. In spite of its absence in Lev. 1:2b–17, elsewhere P conceives that a ram is offered as a burnt offering. In the instructions given to the Israelites concerning the consecration of the priests, two unblemished rams are offered and one is slaughtered as a burnt offering to YHVH (Exod. 29:15–18). Although from a non-Priestly text, Gen. 22:13 [E] implies that Abraham offering a ram as a burnt offering follows an acceptable cultic practice. By turning to multiple prescriptions for the burnt offering, EM projects the view that upon their arrival in Jerusalem the returnees—both commoners and officials—responsibly used the animals provided for them by royal fiat as a spontaneous, yet appropriately prescribed burnt offering to the God of Israel.

174

Rudolph, Esra und Nehemia, 84. Kapelrud, Authorship, 58. 176 Noting that Lev. 1:1–2 only speaks of a burnt offering from the herd or flock, Milgrom raises the possibility that vv. 14–17 may be a later addition but recognizes that ‘the antiquity of birds as burnt offerings is well attested in extrabiblical and prebiblical sources’ (Leviticus 1–16, 166–8 [at 167]). Even if construed as a Priestly addition, vv. 14–17 predate EM. 175

118

Ezra and the Second Wilderness

E Z R A’ S F I R S T S I X MO N T H S In this chapter, I demonstrate that after the insertions by both REM-NM and RE-N are identified, significant portions of Ezra 7–8 contain EM’s account of the first six months of Ezra’s mission. Drawing upon observed parallels between Priestly literature and Ezra, Koch observes, ‘Ezra’s march from Babylon to Jerusalem was a cultic possession which Ezra understood as a second Exodus and a partial fulfilment of prophetic expectations.’177 The preceding discussion partially supports Koch’s depiction of Ezra’s caravan but argues that EM’s account of Ezra’s journey is better understood as an interpretation and fusion of the accounts of the Israelites at the wilderness mountain. Which of these accounts does EM have in mind? The Israelites’ encounter with YHVH at a wilderness mountain in Exod. 19:1–Num. 10:11 is generally agreed to be composite. For the most part, EM follows the basic frame of the Priestly Sinai account in its presentation of Ezra’s caravan as a second wilderness. In both P and EM, preparations are undertaken before the departure to the destination. EM, however, does not replicate the Priestly Sinai account down to its minutiae. Often, EM adapts the Priestly account to its contemporary situation. P lists priests and Levites as the tabernacle officers and labourers but in Ezra 7:7 EM includes temple servants (‫ )נתינים‬among Ezra’s caravan with the explanation that this class originates from David’s cult. I argue that some of the other details in EM that are absent in its Priestly counterpart are derived from the non-Priestly accounts of the events at the wilderness mountain, either Sinai in J or Horeb in E and D. EM’s acceptance of a foreign king can be explained through a post-exilic interpretation of the Deuteronomic law of the king. To a lesser degree, EM includes details from the wilderness that are exclusively Elohistic or Yahvistic in order to supplement its adaptation of the Priestly or Deuteronomic traditions. As a second Moses, EM’s Ezra the priest-scribe is not dependent on a single portrait but is a figure derived from the multiple Pentateuchal depictions of Moses. Unlike the originally independent accounts of the events at Sinai or Horeb, EM does not describe the giving of actual law at any time before Ezra and his caravan depart the Ahava. In its place is a copy of a purported edict from one Artaxerxes that dictates permissible actions, provisions for the caravan, and instructions for Ezra. Missing in this edict are the contents of ‘the laws of God’. This is not an oversight. EM sees no need to make known any of ‘the laws of God’ because this law was already proclaimed at the wilderness mountain. When EM speaks of ‘the laws of God’, or Torah, it has in mind something authoritative in which its contents were already revealed and given to the Israelites. Everyone, however, does not know this ‘Law’ as some apparently Koch, ‘Origins’, 184. On the latter point, see J. Gordon McConville, ‘Ezra-Nehemiah and the Fulfilment of Prophecy’, VT 36 (1986): 205–24. 177

From Babylon to Jerusalem

119

know it but others need to be taught its contents. The caravan enjoys the privilege of inheriting this ‘Law’ but, as we shall see in the second half of Ezra’s mission, there is a caveat attached. EM also excludes something comparable to the Tent of Meeting, ‫אהל מועד‬, and its furnishings. According to Priestly tradition, this edifice accompanies the Israelites through the wilderness and is the forerunner to the Temple sanctuary complex. In EM, when Ezra departs Babylon there is already a functioning House of God in Jerusalem. EM omits the portable tabernacle, replaces the tabernacle furnishings with lesser objects that retain some quality of being ‘holy to YHVH’, and upholds the ritualistic importance of cultic personnel on the journey. The absence of both a law-giving episode at the Ahava and a portable tabernacle that accompanies the caravan suggests that EM makes certain narratival—alongside the occasional lexical—choices to present Ezra as the leader of an idealized second wilderness generation but is also confined to the cultic and political realities of Achaemenid Yehud. EM’s most significant divergence from some of its source materials is the manner in which it compresses the length of Ezra’s journey. EM presents Ezra and the caravan as the true Yahvistic community, one that is faithful and obedient. Neither Ezra rebels against YHVH (as Moses does occasionally) nor the returnees clash with Ezra or YHVH (unlike the wilderness generation in their frequent complaints against Moses and YHVH). As is demonstrated by his search for Levites and his petitionary fast for a safe journey, Ezra goes to great lengths to ensure that YHVH’s protection for the journey is secured. Unlike the lengthy forty years the Israelites take to complete the journey from Egypt to Canaan in separate Priestly and Deuteronomic traditions, Ezra’s caravan takes only four months to undertake the journey from the Ahava to Jerusalem. More significantly, in stark contrast to Moses and nearly everyone from the generation that left Sinai who eventually perish in the wilderness, Ezra and the caravan complete the journey to their intended destination.178 EM’s dependency on its source materials does not end with the caravan’s arrival in Jerusalem. From the point of departure and throughout the journey, Ezra’s mission is more harmonious than that of his predecessor, Moses. However, as I will discuss in Chapter 4, Ezra will be confronted with serious challenges in the second half of his mission. The same difficulties the wilderness generation faced in upholding the legal demands of its deity will also be experienced by the returnees after Ezra produces a legal document. 178 It appears that in E a sizeable portion of the wilderness generation (with the exception of Moses) survives the journey from Egypt and settles in the Transjordan or in Canaan. In Gen. 15:16 YHVH promises Abram that the generation that leaves Egypt will be the same generation that arrives in Canaan; see Joel S. Baden, ‘From Joseph to Moses: The Narratives of Exodus 1–2’, VT 62 (2012): 146–51. Still, in no way does E absolve this generation. Consistent with its concern for the ominous presence of non-Yahvistic cults among the Israelites, E forebodes that the Israelites will stray towards foreign deities even after their arrival in Canaan (Deut. 31:16–18).

4 The Second Proclamation of God’s Law In Chapter 3, I argued that the Ezra Memoir presents Ezra and the returnees as a group that surpasses the wilderness generation by swiftly travelling to their destination and dutifully delivering the cultic vessels for their proper use in the House of God in Jerusalem. Critics do not agree on what exactly happens after Ezra 8:36. In this chapter, I support the opinion that Neh. 7:72b [ET 73b]–8:18 was originally in between Ezra 8:36 and 9:1. Within two months of the caravan’s arrival in Jerusalem, Ezra is asked to bring out and read a scroll (‫ )ספר‬in front of a public gathering. After hearing the contents of this scroll, the assembly expresses its remorse and a concern for the proper observation of a scheduled pilgrimage arises. The episode of Ezra’s proclamation of an authoritative scroll enjoys prominence in many discussions concerning the development of Torah in the fifth– fourth century. Most critics view Ezra’s announcement as a fundamental and important shift in the liturgical and legislative use of the Pentateuch.1 Liturgically, some critics view the events in Nehemiah 8 as a (proto-)synagogue account.2 There are, however, difficulties with this association. The first attestation of an institution that resembles a synagogue (συναγωγή) emerges out of Jewish communities in Egypt in the third century (BCE) with its emergence in Judaea at least two centuries later.3 Accordingly, the perceived references in Nehemiah 8 to synagogue practices should be viewed as anachronistic.4 Furthermore, elements Among recent discussions, see James W. Watts, ‘Using Ezra’s Time as a Methodological Pivot for Understanding the Rhetoric and Functions of the Pentateuch’, in Dozeman, Schmid, and Schwartz, The Pentateuch, 489–506; and a more cautious evaluation in John J. Collins, ‘The Transformation of the Torah in Second Temple Judaism’, JSJ 43 (2012): 459–62. 2 Hölscher, ‘Esra und Nehemia’, 543; In der Smitten, Esra, 39–47; Kellermann, Nehemia, 29–30; Gunneweg, Nehemia, 110; Smith, Palestinian Parties, 127; Rendtorff, ‘Esra und das “Gesetz” ’, 178–9. 3 Cohen, Maccabees to the Mishnah, 110–14; Lee I. Levine, The Ancient Synagogue: The First Thousand Years, 2nd edn (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2005), 21–44. 4 These concerns are alleviated if a late dating for Ezra-Nehemiah is followed. For example, Konrad Schmid writes: ‘The idea that Torah reading itself is a form of cultic veneration appears clearly in Neh. 8:5–8, a text arising from a setting proximate to synagogue worship and that, consequently, hardly fits a date before the second or third century B.C.E.’ (‘The Canon and the 1

The Second Proclamation of God’s Law

121

from common synagogue practice are absent in Nehemiah 8.5 It is more likely that Nehemiah 8 informs later liturgical practices and the notion that synagogue worship is embedded in EM should be set aside. In terms of ‘legal’ praxis, I do not uphold the Pentateuch as a civic mechanism employed by the Achaemenids to achieve their imperial goals in the subprovince of Yehud. Here, I employ the term ‘legal’ to refer to the systematic laws, regulations, and obligations—and the listed penalties and consequences declared within—that best express and represent a community’s service and obligations to its deity. My focus in this chapter will be on the legal implications that arise among Ezra’s community after Torah is proclaimed and the manner in which Torah is employed to address cultic concerns. In this case, there is nothing new about EM’s use of authoritative materials. EM follows the tradition continued from its predecessors—legislators, prophets, and historians—of interpreting and reformulating ‘Scripture’ to address its own legal, religious, and social concerns. What separates EM from its predecessors is the access to a wider selection of authoritative materials.

THE CONTINUATION O F EM Ezra 8 ends with the returnees’ support of the House of God in Jerusalem in the fifth month. In Ezra-Nehemiah, Ezra is again called into action in the ninth month due to a concern that some of the males in the community have entered into exogamous marriages (Ezra 9–10). After a gap of some thirteen years covered by the intervening accounts of Nehemiah, Ezra resurfaces in the seventh month alongside Nehemiah and the Levites, proclaims Torah, and declares a holy day to YHVH. There are, however, notable difficulties with the presentation of Ezra’s mission in Ezra-Nehemiah and critics remain divided over the exact sequence of Ezra’s activities.

The Place of Nehemiah 8 How one views the composition of Nehemiah 8–10 is crucial to one’s views on the contents and shape of EM. In my opinion, both Neh. 9:5aβ–37 and 10:1–40 postdate EM and were appended after the transposition of 9:1–5aα from its original location by RE-N. Some critics defend the order in EzraNehemiah and contend that Nehemiah 8–10 were composed in their current Cult: The Emergence of Book Religion in Ancient Israel and the Gradual Sublimation of the Temple Cult’, JBL 131 [2012]: 294). 5 Rudolph, Esra und Nehemia, 149; Williamson, Ezra, Nehemiah, 281–2; Schaper, Priester und Leviten, 259; Pakkala, Ezra the Scribe, 179.

122

Ezra and the Second Wilderness

place. Eskenazi argues that Ezra disappears after proclaiming Torah but due to popular demand resurfaces with Nehemiah at a later date.6 Following Noth, some critics view Nehemiah 8 as the first stage (followed by gradual additions in Nehemiah 9–10) of an insertion that presupposes NM (and Ezra 7–10).7 There remain reasons to uphold the separation of Nehemiah 8 from its surrounding materials and place it within Ezra 7–10. In my opinion, the strongest arguments are as follows.8 First, it is unlikely—but not impossible— that after Ezra arrives in Jerusalem, thirteen years should elapse before he opens the scroll.9 There is little reason to suggest that Ezra requires any time to draft and publish this scroll. It is my contention that EM considers Ezra’s scroll—whatever its contents may be—as complete from the time of Moses and the wilderness generation.10 Second, the concern for and centrality of Torah in Nehemiah 8 is also reflected in Ezra 7–10 but is of little, if any, significance to NM. Explanations in support of what would amount to being a supplemental insertion of a Torah episode in its current location remain unconvincing. Third, Ezra is presented as ‘a scribe skilled in the Torah of Moses’ (‫ )ספר מהיר בתרות משה‬in Ezra 7:6 and, following vv. 12–26 (which, for the most part, I maintain are integral to EM), one of Ezra’s objectives is to make known ‘the laws of your God’ (‫דתי אלהך‬, v. 25). Even if the historical veracity of Artaxerxes’ Edict or Ezra’s mission is contested, a sensible reading requires some actual teaching of ‘the laws of your God’. There is, however, little elsewhere in Ezra 7–10 that depicts Ezra teaching Torah. At a minimum, Neh. 8:1–8 fulfils the instructions from Ezra 7:25. Ezra as the one who brings forward an existing scroll that contains Torah is consistent with the depiction of him as learned in ‘the laws of your God’. Finally, the numerical dates in Nehemiah 8 follow the system employed in Ezra 7–10, which differs from the calendar system used in NM (Neh. 1:1; 2:1; 6:15). If Nehemiah 8 were indeed grafted onto the end of Nehemiah 1–7, then it would be reasonable to expect that the calendar system should continue into this chapter. For these reasons (among others), Nehemiah 8 (specifically Neh. 7:72b–8:18) bears a closer resemblance to EM and originally belongs with the material in Ezra 7–10. 6

Eskenazi, Age of Prose, 141–4. Noth sees Neh. 7(:6–72); 8–10 as additions (Überlieferungsgeschichtliche Studien, 127–8; ET, in Chronicler’s History, 47–8). 8 For a comprehensive discussion, see Pakkala, Ezra the Scribe, 167–75. I concur with Pakkala on all points in his discussion with the exception of the redaction history that he detects in both Ezra 7–10 and Nehemiah 8. 9 Rudolph, Esra und Nehemia, 142–3; Williamson, Ezra, Nehemiah, 282–3; Blenkinsopp, Ezra-Nehemiah, 286. 10 Likewise, Gunneweg writes: ‘in Sinne des Chr nicht an ein neues, dem Volk bislang unbekannt gebliebenes oder ein von Esra neu formuliertes oder redigiertes Gesetz zu denken ist, sondern an das alte, seit Mose für Israel verbindliche Gesetz, das seit eh und je im “Buch des Gesetzes Moses” aufgeschrieben steht ([Neh] 8:1)’ (Nehemia, 110). I add that as products of separate authorship both Chr and EM hold this view of the Torah of Moses. 7

The Second Proclamation of God’s Law

123

Critics who group Nehemiah 8 together with Ezra 7–10 agree that this chapter was transposed to its current location. Opinion on the original location of Nehemiah 8 is divided between two major views. The first view places Nehemiah 8 after Ezra 9–10.11 Support for this order is in 1 Esdras, in which 8:91–9:55 follows MT Ezra 10:1–44; Neh. 7:72–8:18 but this evidence is not decisive.12 Mowinckel places Nehemiah 8 as a Bundeserneuerung that follows an annual covenant renewal tied to the New Year and Sukkot and one that appropriately responds to the crisis in Ezra 9–10.13 This view upholds the canonical order and places the NM materials as separate materials that intervene into EM. The other view places Nehemiah 8 in between Ezra 7–8 and Ezra 9–10.14 However, there is no consensus on how much of Nehemiah 8 and the last verses of the preceding chapter were transposed. Torrey includes Neh. 7:69–72 [ET 70–3] with 8:1–18.15 This reconstruction, however, requires the unlikely retention of ‫‘( התרשתא‬the governor’) in Neh. 8:9. Other critics include Neh. 7:72a with 7:72b–8:18.16 There is little illogical about the notice of priests, Levites, gatekeepers, singers, some of the people, temple servants, and all Israel settling in towns immediately after the caravan’s arrival in Ezra 8:36. However, in addition to the observation that the singers and the gatekeepers (‫והשמררים והשוערים‬, Ezra 7:7 [RE-N]) are unknown to EM, Neh. 7:72a (par. Ezra 2:70) is better suited as a summary of the preceding list in Neh. 7:6–71 [ET 6–72] (par. Ezra 2:1–69). Kapelrud detaches Neh. 8:1a and presents v. 1b as the original start of the chapter.17 I will argue that, as the location where Ezra publicly proclaims Torah, the mention of the Water Gate in v. 1a is a crucial detail in EM. I accept that the chronological notice of the seventh month and only the summary statement of a settlement in Jerusalem in Neh. 7:72b are the appropriate continuation from Ezra 8:36. It then follows that in their original place in EM, the events of Neh. 7:72b–8:18 transpire two months after Ezra arrives in Jerusalem, recall Ezra’s activities during the important 11 Kaufmann, tôlǝdôt, 4:287–9; ET, in History, 333–5; Kapelrud, Authorship, 14; Koch, ‘Origins’, 179, 192; Grabbe, Ezra-Nehemiah, 53, 139; Ralf Rothenbusch, ‘The Question of Mixed Marriages between the Poles of Diaspora and Homeland: Observations in Ezra/Nehemiah’, in Mixed Marriages: Intermarriage and Group Identity in the Second Temple Period, ed. Christian Frevel, LHBOTS 547 (London: T&T Clark, 2011), 66; Rothenbusch, Identitäten, 165–70. Attributing Ezra 10:18–44 to a post-Chr redaction, In der Smitten places Nehemiah 8 immediately after Ezra 10:17 (Esra, 35–8). 12 Although some critics propose that the Heb. Vorlage of 1 Esdras is the precursor to EM, I follow the opinion that 1 Esdras is a later translation (and interpretation) of MT. 13 Mowinckel, Studien, 3:45–6; see also 1:19–27, 3:7–11. 14 Schaeder, Esra der Schreiber, 12; Smith, Palestinian Parties, 90; Williamson, Ezra, Nehemiah, 127–8, 286–7; Blenkinsopp, Ezra-Nehemiah, 44–5, 286; Otto, Deuteronomium, 196. Pakkala places the base layers of Nehemiah 8 in between Ezra 8 and Ezra 9 (Ezra the Scribe, 167–77). 15 Torrey, Composition, 29–31; Torrey, Ezra Studies, 255–8; Torrey, Chronicler’s History, 114, 168. 16 Schaeder, Esra der Schreiber, 17–23; Rudolph, Esra und Nehemia, 144–5. 17 Kapelrud, Authorship, 80.

124

Ezra and the Second Wilderness

seventh month, and occur before the proceedings that commence sometime in the ninth month in Ezra 9–10. The question of who transposed Neh. 7:72b– 8:18 to its current place cannot be answered before examining any possible additions to these verses.

Literary Considerations in Nehemiah 7:72b–8:18 In comparison to Ezra 7–8, most critics see little editorial reworking in Nehemiah 8.18 A comparison between MT and 1 Esdras reveals a couple of textual inconsistencies. Neh. 8:4 names thirteen persons who stand alongside Ezra when he ascends the wooden platform (‫)מגדל־עץ‬. Support for MT Neh. 8:4 could be construed from the same number of Levites who stand with Ezra in v. 7. The comparable list in 1 Esdras 9:44 lacks the last name in MT, Meshullam. Accordingly, some critics argue that Neh. 8:4 originally contained twelve names.19 In support of twelve names, Koch opines that Ezra’s account demonstrates a strong preference for the number twelve through the number of lay representatives in Ezra 8:1–14, 24, and the sacrifices in v. 35.20 Ezra 8:35(* [EM]), however, does not strictly adhere to a scheme based on the number twelve and the use of this number as a considerable motif in EM is overstated. Neh. 8:9 contains another problem that is more relevant to the compositional history of Ezra-Nehemiah. Here, Nehemiah the governor, Ezra the priest-scribe, and the Levites address the community. Nehemiah is absent in Neh. 8:1–8 and apparently recedes from the scene in vv. 10–18. The single appearance of ‫‘( התרשתא‬the governor’) in Nehemiah 8 requires an explanation. Torrey, following his reconstruction of Neh. 7:69–72 [ET 70–3] as the beginning of this unit, retains ‫( התרשתא‬here, ‘the Tirshatha’) as the original subject.21 Support may be found in 1 Esdras 9:49 (καὶ εἶπεν Ἀτθαράτης Ἔσδρᾳ τῷ ἀρχιερεῖ καὶ ἀναγνώστῃ καὶ τοῖς Λευίταις) and the translation of the Aramaic term for an official title into the personal name ‘Attharates’. Against the placement of Nehemiah 8 within Ezra 7–10, Kratz remarks that the singular vav-consecutive, ‫ויאמר‬, in both Neh. 8:9 and v. 10 can point only to one subject and identifies Nehemiah as the original subject (cf. Neh. 10:2 [ET 1]).22 The insistence that a Persian-appointed governor is present to appease the gathered assembly after the scroll is read, whether it is Nehemiah

18

For example, Karrer sees substantial reworking in Ezra 7–8 but little in Nehemiah 8 (Verfassung, 227–40). 19 Torrey, Ezra Studies, 268, 279–80; Batten, Ezra and Nehemiah, 355; Myers, Ezra. Nehemiah, 150; Gunneweg, Nehemia, 109; Pakkala, Ezra the Scribe, 155 n. 73. 20 Koch, ‘Origins’, 194. 21 Torrey, Ezra Studies, 269; also Noth, Überlieferungsgeschichtliche Studien, 130; ET, in Chronicler’s History, 49; Blenkinsopp, Ezra-Nehemiah, 284. 22 Kratz, Komposition, 76, 89; ET, 70, 81–2.

The Second Proclamation of God’s Law

125

or not, presumes that the base layer envisions a moderate degree of Persian involvement in the religious laws of the Jerusalem community. This, I contend, does not appear to be the case. According to Ezra 8:36 the satraps and civic officials receive only ‘the laws of the king’ (‫—)דתי המלך‬which EM differentiates as a legal code separate from ‘the laws of God’ or ‘the Torah of God’ (Aram. ‫דתי אלה‬ and Heb. ‫תורת האלהים‬, respectively)—from the returnees. There is little in EM to suggest that the Persian representatives in Jerusalem had any direct interest in religious law. Most critics correctly view ‫ נחמיה הוא התרשתא ו‬in Neh. 8:9 as a later editorial gloss.23 I attribute this addition to REM-NM, who presents Ezra and Nehemiah as contemporaries in the reconstruction period. After this insertion, Nehemiah becomes a leading partner who is also present when the law is proclaimed. Similarly, REM-NM inserts ‫ ועזרא הכהן הסופר‬in Neh. 12:26 and ‫ועזרא‬ ‫ הסופר לפניהם‬in v. 36 in order to include Ezra with Nehemiah at the dedication of the Jerusalem city wall. The original account in EM, however, envisions only Ezra as the leader of the gathering in Neh. 8:9. A question still remains: was Ezra, as leader, the only person who stood in front of the gathering? Upon the suspicion that Ezra 8:15(b)–20 is supplemental, some critics uphold the depictions of Levites in Nehemiah 8 as accretions that were driven by a late developing Levitical agenda to usurp the authority of the original teacher(s) of Torah.24 Blenkinsopp raises the suspicion that Nehemiah 8 contains originally separate narrative layers that he detects in vv. 3, 4, 9 (an early Ezra narrative) and vv. 8, 11 (a later Levite strand).25 Pakkala supports the original placement of the base layers of Nehemiah 8 in between Ezra 8 and Ezra 9 and argues that Levitical editors are ultimately responsible for the final form of this chapter.26 Two of the suggested breaks are in between Neh. 8:7 and v. 8 and within vv. 9, 10, and 11. In the first alleged break, the Levites explain the Torah to the people (v. 7) and unnamed persons read from the scroll (v. 8). Batten presents the dilemma as such: ‘the usual rendering, caused the people to understand the law [‫מבינים את־העם לתורה‬, v. 7], is impossible, for that puts the cart before the horse with a vengeance’.27 This narrative concern can be alleviated after v. 8 is recognized as a summary statement that refers to Ezra and the named Levites from v. 4.28 Against the view that Ezra 7–8 (specifically, 7:13, 24; 8:15–20, 23 Batten, Ezra and Nehemiah, 357; Rudolph, Esra und Nehemia, 148; Cross, ‘Reconstruction’, 8; In der Smitten, Esra, 43; Kellermann, Nehemia, 28; Williamson, Ezra, Nehemiah, 279; Blenkinsopp, Ezra-Nehemiah, 288; Min, Levitical Authorship, 106; Rothenbusch, Identitäten, 53. Pakkala retains ‫( ויאמר‬with Ezra as the subject) in his ‘Ezra Source’ and assigns the list of Nehemiah, Ezra, and the Levites in Neh. 8:9 to ‘an editor to whom the NM and EM were already in the same composition’ (Ezra the Scribe, 156). In defence of retaining Nehemiah in Neh. 8:9, see Daniels, ‘Composition’, 322–3. 24 Kratz, Komposition, 89 n. 88; ET, 86 n. 35. 25 26 Blenkinsopp, Ezra-Nehemiah, 45, 284–7. Pakkala, Ezra the Scribe, 153–6. 27 Batten, Ezra and Nehemiah, 356 [italics in original]. 28 Williamson, Ezra, Nehemiah, 290. As a result, the proposed emendation of ‫ ויקראו‬in MT Neh. 8:8 to ‫( ויקרא‬in Hölscher, ‘Esra und Nehemia’, 546; Schaeder, Esra der Schreiber, 52–3; Rudolph, Esra und Nehemia, 147; Pakkala, Ezra the Scribe, 149) is unnecessary.

126

Ezra and the Second Wilderness

28–30) contain supplements that promote specific Levitical interests, EM recognizes the cultic importance of the Levites through its own post-exilic lens. By the time of Chr, the importance of this class as learned interpreters and teachers in the post-exilic Yahvistic cult is firmly established.29 In 2 Chr. 17:7–9, Jehoshaphat dispatches Levites throughout Judah to provide instruction in ‘the scroll of the Torah of YHVH’ (‫)ספר תורת יהוה‬. More suggestive is Chr’s own description of a Passover observance in 2 Chr. 35:3 (cf. 2 Kgs 23:21–3) in which Josiah instructs the Levites—who are now recognized as teachers for Israel—to set aside the physical task of transporting the holy ark (‫ )ארון־קדש‬and commands them to serve YHVH and the people. Following the importance of Levites in EM’s portrayal of Ezra’s caravan, Neh. 8:7 is original to EM and reflects a developing post-exilic acceptance of the Levites as teachers of Torah. In the second alleged break, the Levites are present in v. 9 but in the next verse are absent when Ezra offers reassurances to the people. The Levites are mentioned again in v. 11, when they alone calm (‫[ חש״ה‬hi.]) the people. Some critics identify v. 11 (and ‫ והלוים‬in v. 7) as an expansion of the original Ezra narrative.30 The intrusiveness of v. 11 is suggested by its interruption of a command (‫לכו‬, v. 10) and its fulfilment (‫וילכו‬, v. 12) but narrative snippets (original or supplemental and of various lengths) do regularly interrupt these sequences.31 I remain unconvinced that v. 11 must be viewed as an insertion into the base layer.32 There is little to suggest that the Levites’ reassurances in v. 11 are intended to supplant Ezra’s words in the previous verse. Instead, the Levites’ words are complementary to those of Ezra and the Levites’ assistance is consistent with their post-exilic service as teachers of Torah. Although there are indications of post-exilic Levitical interests scattered throughout Nehemiah 8, arguments for these verses as additions to the base layer that elevate the Levitical class are not conclusive. EM places a high importance on the place of the Levites in Ezra’s community and, equating the importance of the Levites to those described in some of the Pentateuchal wilderness traditions, updates their legal service. Most critics uphold Neh. 8:13–18 as a continuation from vv. 1–12, but insights from redaction criticism have led to recent presumptions that vv. 13–18 supplement vv. 1–12.33 Wright points to suspected redactional clues and terminological differences and explains that vv. 13–18 are added to show that the community promptly executed a commandment after they read

29 In support of Neh. 8:7, 8 as integral to this chapter, see Noth, Überlieferungsgeschichtliche Studien, 129; ET, in Chronicler’s History, 48; Kapelrud, Authorship, 93; Rudolph, Esra und Nehemia, 147. Although these critics attribute Nehemiah 8 to Chr, they recognize the importance of the Levites’ role in the proclamation and interpretation of Torah. 30 See also Rudolph, Esra und Nehemia, 148; Pakkala, Ezra the Scribe, 150. 31 Joel S. Baden, ‘A Narrative Pattern and its Role in Source Criticism’, HS 49 (2008): 42. 32 Following Kellermann, Nehemia, 28; In der Smitten, Esra, 43–4; Williamson, Ezra, Nehemiah, 292. 33 Kratz, Komposition, 89; ET, 82.

The Second Proclamation of God’s Law

127

Torah.34 Likewise, Pakkala points to the heads of families (‫)ראשי האבות‬ becoming the lead actors after v. 12—with Ezra now pushed aside—in addition to only the leaders studying the law after the people understood (cf. vv. 2, 8–9) and suggests that an author with an interest in the returning Gola community adds most of vv. 13–18.35 In response to these views, the Sukkot episode originally follows the proclamation of a scroll and Ezra’s near absence is explainable. Accordingly, Neh. 7:72b–8:18 is a coherent unity attributed to EM with the exception of minimal additions. The only additions to the base layer I detect are in Neh. 8:9 and, I explain later in this chapter (in the section ‘Ezra’s Scroll’), a minor, yet noteworthy one in v. 8. What remains to be determined is the stage in which Neh. 7:72b–8:18* [EM] were transposed to its current location. Is this transposition the work of REM-NM or RE-N? It would make little sense for REM-NM to insert Nehemiah into Neh. 8:9* [EM] in its original place (in between Ezra 8:36 and 9:1) before a proper introduction of Nehemiah (REM-NM having attached NM after Ezra 10:44). More probably, REM-NM transposes Neh. 7:72b–8:18* [EM] to its current place and then inserts ‫ נחמיה הוא התרשתא ו‬in Neh. 8:9. For this reason, REM-NM and not RE-N is responsible for the transposition of Neh. 7:72b–8:18* [EM]. After REM-NM moves Neh. 7:72b–8:18* [EM] from its original place (after Ezra 8:36), EM’s original chronology was preserved as much as possible but the frame of one calendar year gave way to other ideological and historiographical interests. The transposition of Neh. 7:72b–8:18* [EM] to its current place and the insertion of ‫ נחמיה הוא התרשתא ו‬in 8:9 resolve REM-NM’s dissatisfaction with the absence of a Torah episode in NM and close the gap between the original Ezra and Nehemiah accounts. A later redactor, RE-N, reworks Neh. 7:72b–8:18* [EM-NM] into a larger unit, the climatic narrative of a covenantal renewal overseen by both Ezra and Nehemiah in the seventh month. RE-N employs the prototypes of both the Dtr and Chr accounts of Josiah reading from the rediscovered covenant scroll (esp. 2 Kgs 23:1–3; 2 Chr. 34:29–31) in shaping Nehemiah 8–10 from originally different materials.36

E Z R A’ S P ROCLAMATION OF TORAH (NEHEMIAH 7:72b–8 : 8 ) In Neh. 7:72b–8:8, all of the people gather as one in a square before the Water Gate. This gathering includes men, women, and ‘those who understand’ (‫)מבינים‬. 34

35 Wright, Rebuilding Identity, 317–18. Pakkala, Ezra the Scribe, 151–3, 156. Wellhausen observes that similarities exist between Nehemiah 8–10; 2 Kgs 23:1–3; 2 Chr. 34:29–31 (Prolegomena, 406; ET, 408). For Nehemiah 8–10 as a covenant renewal ceremony, see Dennis J. McCarthy, ‘Covenant and Law in Chronicles-Nehemiah’, CBQ 44 (1982): 34–5; Duggan, Covenant Renewal, 68–78. 36

128

Ezra and the Second Wilderness

Ezra opens the scroll in the sight of the people and the people respond and worship YHVH by lifting their hands and bowing their face to the ground.

The Reshaped First Day of the Seventh Month EM’s account of the seventh month mentions gatherings that have strong connections to the prescribed sacred convocations (individually, ‫ )מקרא־קדש‬of the seventh month in the Priestly cultic calendars (Num. 29:1–39 [P]; Lev. 23:23–43 [H]).37 In both calendars, the first day of the seventh month is marked with a tǝrû‘āh (‫ )תרועה‬blast: Num. 29:1–6 [P]

Lev. 23:23–5 [H] ‫וידבר יהוה אל־משה לאמר‬a23 ‫דבר אל־בני ישראל לאמר‬a24 ‫בחדש השביעי באחד לחדש‬a ‫יהיה לכם שבתון‬ ‫זכרון תרועה מקרא־קדש‬ ‫כל־מלאכת עבדה לא תעשו‬a25

‫ובחדש השביעי באחד לחדש‬a1 ‫מקרא־קדש יהיה לכם‬ ‫כל־מלאכת עבדה לא תעשו‬ ‫יום תרועה יהיה לכם‬ ‫ועשיתם עלה לריח ניחח ליהוה‬a2 …description of offerings, vv. 2aβ–6bα… ‫כמשפטם לריח ניחח אשה ליהוה‬

‫והקרבתם אשה ליהוה‬ 23

YHVH spoke to Moses: Speak to the Israelites— On the seventh month, the first day of the month, you will have complete rest; commemorative blasts for a sacred convocation. 25 You shall not do any work; 24

On the seventh month, the first day of the month, you will have a sacred convocation. 1

2

You shall not do any work. You will have a day of blasts. You shall make an ‘ōlāh offering, a pleasing odour for YHVH …description of offerings, vv. 2aβ–6bα… according to its ordinance, a pleasing ’iššeh to YHVH.

37

you shall bring an ’iššeh.

For a discussion of the unique qualities of the Priestly special occasions—which are unrelated and distinct from the evolution of the festivals in the non-Priestly calendars—as YHVH’s ‘proclaimed sacred times’, see Schwartz, ‘Miqra’ Qodesh’, 11–24.

The Second Proclamation of God’s Law

129

Despite H’s alterations of P,38 the general purpose and requirements of the first day of the seventh month are consistent throughout PC: no work is to be done (‫ )כל־מלאכת עבדה לא תעשו‬and the day, a sacred convocation (‫)מקרא קדש‬, is marked by an instrumental blast (tǝrû‘āh) and sacrificial offerings to YHVH.39 EM follows PC’s prescribed sacred convocation for the first day of the seventh month without many difficulties. The absence of both the Priestly instrumental blast and sacrificial offerings in EM, however, requires additional discussion.40 According to PC, two silver trumpets (‫ )שתי חצוצרת‬are to be made before the Israelites depart from Sinai. When these trumpets are blown (‫)רו״ע‬, they signal an assembly or a departure (Num. 10:2b–8a [P], 8b [H]), serve as a remembrance (‫ )זכרון‬before armed hostilities commence (v. 9 [P]; cf. Num. 31:6 [P]; 2 Chr. 13:12), and as reminders on fixed festivals (‫ )מועדים‬and the first of each month (Num. 10:10 [H]; cf. Lev. 23:24 [H]).41 Embedded in these prescriptions is the blowing of an object explicitly labelled a tǝrû‘āh in order to signal an alarm (Num. 10:5–6). A blast of the tǝrû‘āh on the first day of the seventh month would not fit Ezra’s situation in Jerusalem. Unlike Nehemiah stationing someone beside him ready to sound a trumpet when danger arises (Neh. 4:12–14 [ET 18–20]), there is foreseeably no threat of militaristic hostilities against Ezra or his community. According to EM, Ezra is dutifully reliant on only YHVH for protection (Ezra 8:22). Also, if there were any imminent danger for Ezra’s community, it would be strange for Ezra to encourage the people to eat, drink, and be merry at the end of the day (Neh. 8:10).42 For these reasons, EM does not take account of Num. 10:2–9. There still remains the Priestly instruction to blow a trumpet over the burnt offerings and well-being offerings (‫ )זבחי שלמים‬on the first day of the month in Num. 10:10 [H]. Likewise, both Num. 29:1–6 [P] and Lev. 23:23–5 [H] prescribe blasts and sacrificial offerings on the first day of the seventh month. An explanation for the absence of these Priestly instructions in EM is tied to

38 Among H’s changes: (1) the addition of a narrative frame in Lev. 23:23; (2) the alteration of P’s ‫יום תרועה‬, ‘Day of Blasts’, to ‫זכרון תרועה‬, ‘commemorative blasts’; (3) the addition of its exclusive ‫שבתון‬, ‘a complete rest’, terminology; see Milgrom, Leviticus 23–27, 2013–14; (4) commanding a fire offering (’iššeh) and not a burnt offering (‘ōlāh); and (5) the omission of P’s required sacrifices in Num. 29:2aβ–6bα. 39 For the tǝrû‘āh as an original war clamour which develops into liturgy that acclaims YHVH, see Paul Humbert, La ‘terou‘a’: analyse d’un rite biblique, UNRTPFL 23 (Neuchâtel: Secrétariat de l’Université, 1946), esp. 15–21, 41. Humbert views the late use of tǝrû‘āh (which he observes in Leviticus and Numbers) as normally a human cry and not instrumental. This is the case in Ezra 3:10–12, where the assembly raises a ‘great shout’ (‫)תרועה גדולה‬. It is, however, difficult to read a human cry into tǝrû‘āh in Lev. 23:24; Num. 10:5, 6; 29:1 (Priestly texts Humbert dates as late). 40 For these reasons, it is suggested that Nehemiah 8 does not refer to the New Year. See Duggan, Covenant Renewal, 100–1; Pakkala, Ezra the Scribe, 163 n. 98. 41 Knohl assigns Num. 10:1–10 to H (Sanctuary of Silence, 52–3). In these verses, however, I consider the notice of an eternal statute (‫לחקת עולם לדרתיכם‬, v. 8b) and the inclusion of joyous occasions (‫ובים שמחתכם‬, v. 10) as the only H insertions. 42 See also Milgrom, Leviticus 23–27, 2017–18.

130

Ezra and the Second Wilderness

location. According to MT Neh. 8:1a, the gathering takes place at a square adjacent to the Water Gate. On the basis of 1 Esdras 9:38 (τοῦ πρὸς ἀνατολὰς τοῦ ἱεροῦ πυλῶνος), Mowinckel equates the Water Gate with the temple complex. Accordingly, the gathering on the first day takes place at the Temple and a description of offered sacrifices is unnecessary since the intended audience already presumes this a regular event.43 A stronger explanation is offered by MT. MT Neh. 8:1 lacks any mention of a temple complex and in this verse the Water Gate is a location that is physically separated from the Temple. It is difficult to envision that an altar—whose sole function is for the place of sacrifice—was in operation at the Water Gate and in competition with another altar in the temple complex.44 The absence of an altar renders the Water Gate as a ritually inappropriate location to fulfil the Priestly instructions to sound an instrumental blast (tǝrû‘āh) and offer sacrifices on the first day of the seventh month. EM follows its sources but omits the expected instrumental blast and sacrificial offerings in order to avoid the impression that Ezra and the gathering fulfilled a cultic obligation at an unsuitable location.45 As we have seen with EM’s lack of a Passover report in Ezra 7–8, EM displays a concern for the fulfilment of cultic obligations in its proper place. In both the Passover and the first day of the seventh month, EM omits expected prescriptions when a particular location is a hindrance to Ezra and the returnees’ complete, and thus proper, fulfilment of a cultic obligation. The location of a square near the Water Gate is important to EM as it is the appropriate place for the public proclamation of a scroll in Neh. 8:1–12. In contrast, PC depicts the revelation of statutes, judgments, and instructions as a private affair between YHVH and Moses that occurs inside the private and highly guarded inner sanctum. In Deut. 31:10–13, Deuteronomy contains the stipulation that the law should be publicly read every seventh year at Sukkot. EM, however, does not mention a seventh year. Even if it can be inferred, it would be speculative to align Ezra’s reading of the scroll with the seven-year cycles in Deut. 31:10–13.46 To explain the dissonance, Pakkala offers the solution that Deut. 31:9–13 is a late innovation dependent on Nehemiah 8.47 Against the late dating of Deuteronomy, I will show that EM presupposes and modifies D’s Sukkot legislation for its own Sukkot account.48 It is evident that 43 Mowinckel, Studien, 3:47–52; also 1:38. Mowinckel also invokes this point in explaining the lack of the Day of Atonement on the tenth day of the seventh month in Nehemiah 8. I argue in this chapter that Mowinckel is partially correct about the absence of the Day of Atonement but the complete explanation lies in EM’s use of its source materials. 44 For a discussion of the distinction between altars and temples, see Haran, Temples, 15–17. 45 This is not to suggest that EM has no use for sacrifices. As we shall see with the ’āšām in Ezra 10:19, EM agrees with the expiatory power of sacrifices. 46 47 Blenkinsopp, Ezra-Nehemiah, 293. Pakkala, Ezra the Scribe, 157. 48 See, for example, Deut. 31:9–13 as a late addition attributed to the Pentateuchredaktor in Otto, Deuteronomium, 180–93. Otto follows the view that Ezra knows the Pentateuch in its final (or near-final) form and reads Nehemiah 8 not as a reproduction of Deut. 31:9–13 but as an

The Second Proclamation of God’s Law

131

neither the Priestly nor the Deuteronomic proclamations of YHVH’s laws are the prototype for EM’s account of Ezra reading the scroll. Instead, EM follows another Pentateuchal tradition that presents the proclamation of YHVH’s laws as a public spectacle.

Public Proclamations of ‘Law’ In the final form of the Israelites’ encampment at a wilderness mountain in Exod. 19:1–Num. 10:11, the Israelites respond in unison to YHVH on two occasions. On the first, YHVH—through his intermediary Moses—reminds the Israelites of his saving acts. The people unanimously accept YHVH’s demands: ‫ויענו כל־העם יחדו ויאמרו כל אשר־דבר יהוה נעשה‬ All the people answered as one, ‘All that YHVH has spoken we will do’. (Exod. 19:8a)

After the pyrotechnic display at the mountain, YHVH first gives the Israelites the Decalogue (‫דברים‬, Exod. 20:1–17). The Israelites are terrified of the shofar blasts and the mountain engulfed in smoke, collectively tell Moses that they are terrified of YHVH, and keep a safe distance from the scene (vv. 18–21). More cultic instructions follow in CC (20:23–23:19). Afterwards, the people accede to YHVH’s demands a second time: ‫ויען כל־העם קול אחד ויאמרו כל־הדברים אשר־דבר יהוה נעשה‬ All the people answered in one voice, ‘All the words that YHVH has spoken we will do’. (Exod. 24:3)

Both ‫ יחדו‬and ‫ קול אחד‬convey the same meaning: the people are a single entity. On both occasions, the people collectively affirm YHVH’s words. Exodus 19 and 24 contain materials source-critically assigned to J, E, and P. The visual theophany (without a law code) is in J’s Sinai event in Exod. 19:9b–16aα, 18, 20–5* (minus ‫ואהרן עמך‬, v. 24aβ [RPent]). What remains in Exodus 19 is, on the one hand, a Priestly chronological notice (vv. 1–2a) and, on the other hand, events that anticipate the giving of the Decalogue and CC (vv. 2b–9a, 16aβ–17, 19). This event, along with the contents of the Decalogue and CC, and the brief narrative in between (20:18–22) all belong to E’s Horeb event. The Israelites’ affirmation of YHVH’s demands in 24:3–8, including their auditory participation (‫באזני העם‬, v. 7), also belongs to E. The Elohistic narrative places the Israelites within auditory range of the deity and they respond twice to the interpretation that applies this description of the Sukkot celebration for its own purpose (Deuteronomium, 196–211).

132

Ezra and the Second Wilderness

proclamation of their deity’s ordinances. The other traditions preserved in Exodus 24 project a different picture. In J, YHVH calls only Moses, Aaron, Nadab, Abihu, and seventy elders to ascend Sinai—leaving the people at the foot of the mountain—and worship at a distance (v. 1). In P, YHVH’s presence (kābôd) is visible to the Israelites (v. 17) but only for the revelation of the blueprint for the Tabernacle. After the Tabernacle is built to YHVH’s specifications, the presence enters (40:34) and it is only from within the sacred precincts the Priestly instructions (tôrôt) are given to Moses. According to D, the Israelites are present at the foot of Horeb for the Decalogue (‫)עשרת הדברים‬ and statutes and judgments (‫ )חקים ומשפטים‬but, despite their close proximity, they only hear YHVH’s voice from a fire (Deut. 4:10–14; 5:4). Following E, D presents the events at Horeb as primarily an auditory affair. D also follows E in presenting the people as fearful of the divine voice and, terrified of YHVH, delegating Moses as the mediator (Deut. 5:22–7; cf. Exod. 20:18–21). Unlike E, however, in D the Israelites do not respond uniformly (or in any way) in anticipation of the Decalogue (Deut. 5:6–21) or immediately after YHVH gives the legal code, as Moses expounds these laws to the Israelites not at Horeb but closer to the end of the Israelite wilderness journey at Moab. It could be argued that there is a difference between responding either ‫( קול אחד‬Exod. 19:8a) or ‫( יחדו‬24:3) and gathering ‫‘( כאיש אחד‬as one person’, Neh. 8:1). This difference can be explained by EM recasting E’s account into its contemporary period. Compared to the Pentateuchal traditions, YHVH is noticeably absent in EM and the contents of Ezra’s scroll are not specified. EM recognizes that YHVH already revealed his ordinances to the wilderness generation of the distant past and, following the claim preserved in PC, what was revealed to this generation is to be observed in perpetuity—they are, in the words of H, an eternal statue (‫חקת עולם‬, Lev. 24:9 et al.). There remains an overhanging question: if EM bases its account on the wilderness narratives—even if Torah was already revealed in some form— then why does Ezra proclaim Torah in Jerusalem and not at the Ahava? Unlike the wilderness generation, Ezra’s caravan arrives at their intended destination without any complications. According to the relevant Pentateuchal traditions, the wilderness generation can only receive YHVH’s instructions in the desert because nearly everyone fails to survive the entire journey. EM reinforces the righteousness of Ezra’s returnees over the exodus generation by shifting the proclamation of Torah to where it perceives is the appropriate and rightful location: Jerusalem.49 Recognizing the existence of ‘the Torah of Moses’, EM pushes its proclamation from the first month at the Ahava to the seventh month in Jerusalem. Furthermore, EM presents this proclamation as one conducted 49 Among later biblical traditions, Zion absorbs Sinai and becomes the earthly place of YHVH’s revelation to Israel and the nations; see Jon D. Levenson, Sinai and Zion: An Entry into the Jewish Bible (New York: Seabury, 1985).

The Second Proclamation of God’s Law

133

among the masses and finds its precedent in the exclusively Elohistic depiction of the wilderness generation’s explicit acceptance of YHVH’s laws. Rather than anticipate or respond to a newly revealed ‘law’, the people collectively ask Ezra to bring out ‘the scroll of the Torah of Moses’ (‫)ספר תורת־משה‬. Whatever this ‘scroll of the Torah of Moses’ refers to was not a new invention and does not require YHVH’s revelatory speech. Members of Ezra’s community may have already known some of the scroll’s contents.50 EM, however, distinguishes knowing the existence of something called ‘the Torah of Moses’ from knowing its actual contents. Following the acknowledgement that some judges and magistrates might require instruction in ‘the laws of your God’ (Ezra 7:26), the upcoming episodes of Sukkot in Neh. 8:13–18 and the mixed marriages in Ezra 9–10 reflect the concern that uncertainty exists with the precise demands of ‘the Torah of Moses’.

Ezra’s Scroll EM consistently refers to ‘Torah’ as divine law; yet the label ‘Torah’ encapsulates a variety of meanings, including Priestly instructions, the unparalleled Deuteronomic law code, or the ‘law’ of Moses. Do EM’s multiple descriptions of ‘scroll’ also refer to a single identifiable object? Nehemiah 8 contains four precise, yet diverse, labels of ‘scroll’—all of which, as I explain below, reflect somewhat different objects—that EM employs to shield the existence of other scrolls but collectively give the impression that Ezra proclaims Torah from an authoritative source. First, in Neh. 8:1 the people ask Ezra to bring out ‘the scroll of the Torah of Moses that YHVH commanded to Israel’ (‫)ספר תורת משה אשר־צוה יהוה את־ישראל‬. According to EM, in Ezra 7:6, Ezra is ‘a scribe skilled in the Torah of Moses that YHVH the God of Israel had given’ (‫)ספר מהיר בתורת משה אשר־נתן יהוה אהלי ישראל‬. Like the relative clause in Ezra 7:6, ‫ אשר־צוה יהוה את־ישראל‬in Neh. 8:1 suggests that EM presumes that this scroll was something already made known to the Israelites. A similar description of the scroll in Neh. 8:1 is found elsewhere, in Josh. 8:31b; 23:6 (‘as it is written in the scroll of the Torah of Moses’, ‫;)ככתוב בספר תורת משה‬ 2 Kgs 14:6. Out of these descriptions, 2 Kgs 14:6 and its parallel in 2 Chr. 25:4 offer an intriguing suggestion as to the shape of EM’s source material. In its revision of 2 Kgs 14:6, Chr replaces ‫ ספר תורת‬with ‫תורה בספר‬: ‫ככתוב בספר תורת־משה אשר־צוה יהוה‬ …as it is written in the scroll of the Torah of Moses, where YHVH commanded… (2 Kgs 14:6bα) 50

Rudolph, Esra und Nehemia, 145; Mowinckel, Studien, 3:129, 135, 140; Gunneweg, Nehemia, 110.

134

Ezra and the Second Wilderness ‫כי ככתוב בתורה בספר־משה אשר־צוה יהוה‬

…because it is written in the Torah in the scroll of Moses, where YHVH commanded… (2 Chr. 25:4bα)

This change is subtle, as both accounts refer to the same legal prescription in Deut. 24:16, but Chr’s revision is instructive of the changing shape of the source material. ‫ בתורה בספר־משה‬could be read in apposition (‘in the Torah, [that is,] the scroll of Moses’) but the distinctiveness of ‘the scroll of Moses’ (‫ )ספר משה‬as an entity in its own right (separate from ‫התורה‬, ‘the Torah’) is implied in texts that arguably postdate EM: Ezra 6:18; Neh. 13:1; 2 Chr. 35:12. In 2 Chr. 25:4, ‘the Torah’ (‫ )התורה‬appears as a distinct entity within a late developing and defined corpus, ‘the scroll of Moses’ (‫)ספר משה‬a.51 EM (along with its source materials) does not refer to anything called ‘the scroll of Moses’ and—following the different uses of tôrāh employed by different composers— its own reference to ‫( התורה‬in Neh. 8:1, more specifically ‘the Torah of Moses’) is different from Chr’s all-encompassing ‫( התורה‬the ‘Torah’, here also understood as ‘the Law’). Second, Neh. 8:3 contains the notice that the people are attentive to ‘the scroll of the Torah’ (‫)ספר התורה‬. According to Deut. 31:26, this ‘scroll of the Torah’ is to be placed in the Ark of the Covenant as a witness for the Israelites. Descriptions of ‘the scroll of the Torah’ are found elsewhere in D (Deut. 28:61; 29:20 [ET 21]; 30:10) and Dtr (Josh. 1:8; 8:34; 2 Kgs 22:8 [par. 2 Chr. 34:15], 11). EM recognizes that Torah was entrusted to Moses and its label of ‘the scroll of the Torah’ is equivalent to ‘the scroll of the Torah of Moses’ (‫ספר תורת משה‬, Neh. 8:1). Third, ‘the scroll’ (‫ )הספר‬in Neh. 8:5 probably refers to the other, yet more precise, labels of ‘scroll’ throughout EM. The Pentateuchal law-giving accounts contain multiple references to ‘scroll’ but each one is precisely defined. In the aftermath of E’s molten calf episode, Moses intercedes on behalf of the Israelites by asking YHVH to remove his name ‘from your scroll’ (‫מספרך‬, Exod. 32:32) if the people are not forgiven. YHVH refuses, maintaining that whoever sins will be removed ‘from my scroll’ (‫מספרי‬, v. 33). In P, a priest writes curses against a suspected adulteress on a scroll (Num. 5:23). D refers to the writing of a copy of the Torah on a scroll that the monarch is required to read all his life (Deut. 17:18–19). ‫ הספר‬in Neh. 8:5 does not have in mind the Pentateuchal references to ‘scroll’. In 2 Kgs 22:8 (par. 2 Chr. 34:15), ‘the scroll of the Torah’ (‫ )ספר התורה‬is rediscovered and Hilkiah gives ‘the scroll’, ‫הספר‬, to Shaphan. Likewise, ‘the scroll’ in Neh. 8:5 undoubtedly refers to previous mentions of a scroll in vv. 1, 3. See Armin Lange, ‘Authoritative Literature in the Chronistic Corpus’, in ‘The Words of a Wise Man’s Mouth are Gracious’ (Qoh 10,12), ed. Mauro Perani, SJ 32 (Berlin: de Gruyter, 2005), 34. The contents of ‘the scroll of Moses’ are never identified but this label is apparently one appellation (of possibly many) of the final form of the Pentateuch that postdates EM. 51

The Second Proclamation of God’s Law

135

Fourth, both Neh. 8:8 and v. 18 contain separate descriptions of reading (‫‘ )קר״א‬in the scroll, (in) the Torah of God’ (‫)בספר ]ב[תורת האלהים‬. I consider Neh. 9:1–5aα to belong originally to EM and thus include a near similar description in v. 3.52 In MT, these three descriptions slightly diverge from one another: Neh. 8:8 Neh. 8:18 Neh. 9:3

‫ויקראו ַבספר בתורת האלהים‬ ‫ויקרא ְבספר תורת האלהים‬ ‫ויקראו ְבספר תורת יהוה האלהיהם‬

In MT Neh. 8:8, ‫ בספר בתורת האלהים‬presents a difficulty, as it is the only occurrence of the double preposition that describes a scroll usually labelled as ‫ספר תורת משה‬ (Josh. 8:31; 23:6; 2 Kgs 14:6) or ‫( בספר תורת אלהים‬Josh. 24:26). Rudolph emends the vocalization and consonantal text in Neh. 8:8 to resemble v. 18.53 Following Rudolph, the original reading in Neh. 8:8 is probably ‫ְבספר תורת האלהים‬.a54 I am less convinced of the need to emend the plural ‫ ויקראו‬in this verse to singular ‫ויקרא‬. The plural ‫ ויקראו‬also occurs in Neh. 9:3 without much difficulty and 8:8 should be read as a summary statement. There remains ‘the scroll of the Torah of YHVH their God’, ‫ספר תורת יהוה אלהיהם‬, in Neh. 9:3. Descriptions of ‘the scroll of the Torah of YHVH’, ‫ספר תורת יהוה‬, are in 2 Chr. 17:9; 34:14 but the Pentateuchal traditions do not know of something called ‘the Torah of YHVH’.55 After the transposition of Neh. 9:1–5aα* [EM] to its current location, RE-N adds ‫ יהוה‬and changes ‫ אלהים‬to ‫ אלהיהם‬in v. 3 to give the scroll that is read on the (now) reshaped seventh month a description more commonly used at a later period. If these above reconstructions are acceptable, then EM has in mind something called ‘the scroll of the Torah of God’ (‫ )ספר תורת האלהים‬in Neh. 8:8, 18; 9:3. This label is also given to the scroll Joshua produces in Josh. 24:26. Classically, Josh. 24:1–28 is assigned to E, JE, or—among opponents of an E source—J. Most critics deny the continuation of Pentateuchal sources into Joshua and some recognize Joshua 24 as Deuteronomistic.56 If Josh. 24:26 is Deuteronomistic, 52

Some critics place Neh. 9:3 as part of a secondary addition; see Rudolph, Esra und Nehemia, 156; Pakkala, Ezra the Scribe, 181. 53 Rudolph, Esra und Nehemia, 147. Followed by In der Smitten, Esra, 41; Gunneweg, Nehemia, 109. 54 The emergence of a distinct scroll, ‫ספר‬, one that originated from Moses, occurs in Chr (see above) and I place the preposition ‫ ב‬in MT ‫ בתורת‬as an addition by RE-N. 55 I attribute the sole occurrence of ‫( תורת יהוה‬Exod. 13:9aβ) in the Pentateuch to a redactional insertion [RPent]. 56 For an examination of six major literary-critical positions for Joshua 24 (basic E; basic JE; J; D/Dtr; a redacted covenant account; an eye-witness account), see William T. Koopmans, Joshua 24 as Poetic Narrative, JSOTSup 93 (Sheffield: JSOT, 1990), 104–17. Koopmans’s survey ultimately leads to his rejection of all of these literary-critical solutions and is the starting point for his argument that Joshua 24 represents a distinct genre of poetry.

136

Ezra and the Second Wilderness

then an argument can be made that all of EM’s references to a scroll derive from a single tradition. The notion of substantial Dtr authorship or redaction, however, is no longer widely agreed upon and there is a growing view that Josh. 24:1–28 is a concluding post-Dtr summary of the Hexateuch. Thomas Römer and Marc Zvi Brettler suggest that the reference to ‫ ספר תורת האלהים‬in Josh. 24:26 is the title of a short-lived Persian-period Hexateuch.57 There remain reasons to revisit the classical assignment of (at least parts of ) Joshua 24. I agree that the compositional history of Joshua 24 is complex and surmise that its final form is the product of a base layer and supplements. Looking at only vv. 19–27, the events of the Israelites expressing their fidelity to YHVH (despite Joshua’s scepticism) followed by the establishment of a covenant resemble E’s public acceptance of YHVH’s terms established at Horeb. Furthermore, Joshua’s warning that the Israelites will abandon YHVH for foreign gods (‫אהלי‬ ‫נכר‬, v. 20; ‫את־אלהי הנכר‬, v. 23) resembles E’s concern for the ominous presence of these other gods.58 EM’s descriptions of ‫( ספר תורת משה‬Neh. 8:1), ‫( ספר התורה‬v. 3), ‫( הספר‬v. 5), and ‫( ספר תורת האלהים‬v. 18; reconstructed in v. 8 and Neh. 9:3) point to other scrolls that were produced after the Israelites pledged their allegiance to YHVH, especially in the Deuteronomic and Elohistic traditions. In D, this scroll is ‘the scroll of the Torah’ (‫ ;ספר התורה‬also ‫ ספר תורת משה‬in Dtr) and in E, ‘the scroll of the Torah of God’ (‫)ספר תורת אלהים‬. EM does not explicitly equate its scroll with any one of these scrolls but it upholds the legacy of a piece of writing entrusted to the Israelites and presents Ezra’s community as the inheritors of a document given by YHVH to its distant ancestors. Like the claims of its inherited traditions, EM insists that a ‘scroll’ (and not multiple scrolls) that contains God’s Torah was produced in the distant past.

Opening the Scroll An apparent contradiction arises in Neh. 8:3–5. In v. 3, Ezra reads the scroll but immediately after this verse, Ezra ascends a wooden platform (‫מגדל־עץ‬, v. 4) and opens the scroll (v. 5). The illogical sequence of events is resolved after

Römer and Brettler, ‘Deuteronomy 34’, 415–16. In Gen. 35:2, 4, Jacob instructs his household to purge the foreign gods and then buries the confiscated idols under a tree near Shechem. These verses are identified as E; see Friedman, Sources Revealed, 89; Jules F. Gomes, The Sanctuary of Bethel and the Configuration of Israelite Identity, BZAW 368 (Berlin: de Gruyter, 2006), 90–1; Baden, Composition, 233. Graupner argues that the reference to the giving of earrings (Gen. 35:4) is a circumlocutory reference to the earrings used to construct the molten calf in Exod. 32:2–3 [E] (Elohist, 299). The prediction in Deut. 31:16 that the Israelites will follow foreign gods (‫ )וזנה אחרי אלהי נכר־הארץ‬shortly after their arrival in Canaan aligns with Gen. 35:2, 4; Exod. 32:2–3 and is also part of an E narrative. 57 58

The Second Proclamation of God’s Law

137

v. 3 is recognized as a summary statement.59 In v. 3, Ezra reads ‘from sunrise until midday’ (‫)מן־האור עד־מחצית היום‬, which is a period of five, six, or seven hours.60 Support for six hours can be found in Neh. 9:3*, which I consider as EM, where the scroll is read for a ‘fourth of the day’ (‫)רבעית היום‬. According to J+, E,61 and D (cf. Deut. 11:32), the law-giving takes place within a relatively short period of time, no longer than a single day. In contrast, the law-giving in PC is drawn out over a longer period of time from Sinai until the Israelites reach the plains of Moab.62 The contents of Ezra’s scroll—what is described as ‘the scroll of the Torah’ (Neh. 8:3; cf. Deut. 31:26 [D]) or ‘the scroll of the Torah of God’ (Neh. 9:3; cf. Josh. 24:26 [E])—is probably not the entire Pentateuch. Timothy Lim calculates that Ezra would have to maintain a phenomenal rate of sixteen verses per minute to read the entire Pentateuch in six hours.63 At both public readings of the scroll, it is likely that only a portion—not the entirety—of what is preserved in the Pentateuch is read. The ‫מגדל־עץ‬, ‘wooden platform’, that Ezra stands on was made for a specific purpose (‫אשר עשו לדבר‬, Neh. 8:4).64 The precise meaning of ‫ מגדל־עץ‬is uncertain.65 It is evident that this ‫ מגדל־עץ‬is something elevated (‫כי־מעל כל־העם היה‬, v. 5). EM’s portrayal of Ezra proclaiming Torah from a raised position is akin to the Pentateuchal narratives of Moses receiving YHVH’s ordinances on elevated ground; specifically, a mountain called Sinai (in J+, P) or Horeb (in E, D). When Ezra opens the scroll from this elevated position, the assembly stands (‫)עמ״ד‬. By the time the Levites explain (‫[ בי״נ‬hi.]) Torah (Neh. 8:7) and the scroll is read (v. 8), the assembly is again standing.66 Among the Pentateuchal law-giving accounts, E (Exod. 20:18, 21) and D (Deut. 4:10–14) present the Israelites as standing (‫ )עמ״ד‬when YHVH and Moses give the ordinances, respectively. In 59

Rudolph, Esra und Nehemia, 146; Kellermann, Nehemia, 27; Williamson, Ezra, Nehemiah, 288. The relationship between Neh. 8:3 and its surrounding verses is contested. For v. 3 as original, see Batten, Ezra and Nehemiah, 355 (v. 5 duplicates v. 3); Wright, Rebuilding Identity, 321 (v. 3 continues from v. 1 with v. 2 an addition); Pakkala, Ezra the Scribe, 146–7 (v. 3 is original and vv. 4–8 from a later editor); contra ‘ein später hinzugefügter Zusatz’ in Mowinckel, Studien, 3:52. 60 Williamson, Ezra, Nehemiah, 288; Blenkinsopp, Ezra-Nehemiah, 287. 61 Specifically, the proclamation of the Decalogue and CC and not the giving of the tablets, which according to E takes place for at least forty days (Exod. 34:28). 62 Baruch J. Schwartz, ‘The Priestly Account of the Theophany and Lawgiving at Sinai’, in Texts, Temples, and Traditions: A Tribute to Menahem Haran, ed. Michael V. Fox et al. (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1996), 124. 63 Lim, Formation, 68. 64 Batten, Ezra and Nehemiah, 354–5; Kapelrud, Authorship, 82; Williamson, Ezra, Nehemiah, 288. 65 Among the suggestions: tower (Batten, Ezra and Nehemiah, 354) or pulpit (Kapelrud, Authorship, 81; Gunneweg, Nehemia, 110). The depiction of Solomon standing on a bronze platform (‫ )כיור נחשת‬in the court of the House of YHVH in 2 Chr. 6:13 may offer a comparable example; see Williamson, Ezra, Nehemiah, 288; Blenkinsopp, Ezra-Nehemiah, 287. 66 The act of the assembly arising from their prostration is inferred from EM; see Rudolph, Esra und Nehemia, 147; Williamson, Ezra, Nehemiah, 289.

138

Ezra and the Second Wilderness

Neh. 8:6a, Ezra blesses YHVH as ‘the great God’ (‫)האלהים הגדול‬a.67 The people pledge their allegiance to YHVH with the response ‘amen, amen’ and raise their hands (v. 6bα).68 From v. 6bβ, ‫‘( קד״ד‬bow down’) is always paired with ‫חו״ה‬ (‘worship’) to express an act of obeisance. In the Pentateuch, the only report of bowing and worshipping is in Exod. 34:8 [J]. Here in J, Moses bows and worships not in response to any revelation of YHVH’s laws or on receiving any tablets (cf. vv. 1, 4a*, 4b, 5aα [E]) but to implore YHVH to accompany the Israelites through the reminder of their wilderness journey despite their shortcomings (v. 9 [J]). Nowhere in this episode does Moses bless YHVH. A stronger parallel is in 1 Chr. 29:20, in which David exhorts the assembly to bless YHVH and this assembly communally responds by bowing (‫ )קד״ד‬and worshipping (‫ )חו״ה‬with their faces to the ground. The description of ‫ קד״ד‬and ‫ חו״ה‬in Neh. 8:6 may similarly reflect the actions of a post-exilic assembly. In MT Neh. 8:7, there are thirteen named persons and Levites (‫)והלוים‬. The conjunction may be omitted and the list actually consists of thirteen named Levites.69 Even if the literal meaning of the conjunction is retained, Levites are undoubtedly present to explain Torah to the people. EM, alongside post-exilic literature, views the Levites as integral transmitters of Torah to the community. In contrast, the Levites do not have a teaching role in the Pentateuchal law-giving accounts. The Levites are completely absent in E. According to D and PC, the Levites provide physical labour for the transport of the ark (‫ארון‬, Deut. 10:8–9) or the wilderness tabernacle (Numbers 1–4), respectively.70 The investiture of the Levites in Exod. 32:26–9, source-critically assigned to J, appears in the final form of the Pentateuch at the end of the ‘Sinai’ account but these verses do not fit well within the surrounding (Elohistic) episode of the molten calf. Noting the connections with the tribal blessing of Levi in Deut. 33:8–11 (especially vv. 8b–9) [J], Baden argues that Exod. 32:26–9 was transposed from its original location in J after 17:1bβ–7.71 As a result, the Levites do not feature in J’s Sinai account. Well after the events at Sinai and before his YHVH as ‫ האלהים הגדול‬reflects a late expression (Kapelrud, Authorship, 82). Similar attributions of YHVH include: ‫( האל )ה(גדול ונורא‬Neh. 1:5; 1QM 10:1); ‫( אל גדול הגב)ו(ר ונורא‬Deut. 10:17; Neh. 9:32); ‫( האל הגדול הגבור‬Jer. 32:18); ‫( אלהא רבא‬Ezra 5:8; cf. ‫‘[ לנקיה קדם אפתח אלהא רבא‬For libation before Ptaḥ the great god’], TADAE C3.12:26). 68 Batten views the raising of hands as an act of prayer akin to Exod. 17:11 (Ezra and Nehemiah, 355). Moses lifting his hands is not an act of prayer and the narrative of the battle against Amalek is unlike EM’s proclamation of Torah. 69 Williamson, Ezra, Nehemiah, 278; Blenkinsopp, Ezra-Nehemiah, 284. 1 Esdras 9:48 (οἱ Λευῖται) lacks the conjunction. 70 Furthermore in Deuteronomy, the Levitical priests who are present in the central cult enjoy their right to perform priestly duties but they are not engaged in writing or teaching. For a full discussion, and critique of classical views, see Weinfeld, Deuteronomic School, 53–8. 71 Joel S. Baden, ‘The Violent Origins of Levites: Text and Tradition’, in Levites and Priests in Biblical History and Tradition, ed. Mark Leuchter and Jeremy M. Hutton, AIL 9 (Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2011), 109–11. Deut. 33:1–29 is an originally independent poem incorporated into J. 67

The Second Proclamation of God’s Law

139

death, Moses praises the Levites as teachers: ‘They shall instruct your judgments to Jacob, and your tôrāh to Israel’ (‫יורו משפטיך ליעקב ותורתך לישראל‬, Deut. 33:10a [J]). The role of the Levites in Neh. 8:7 is consistent with the post-exilic teaching Levite (cf. 2 Chr. 17:7–9; 35:3), but in light of the tradition retained in Deut. 33:10 [J], this teaching role is not a later innovation. Although the Levites are absent in any of the Sinai or Horeb law-giving accounts, EM follows an earlier tradition of the Levites as teachers of YHVH’s judgments (‫ )משפטים‬and ‘torah’ (‫)תורה‬. The post-exilic innovation is not so much the teaching Levite; rather, both EM (Neh. 8:8) and Chr (2 Chr. 35:3) recast the Levites performing their teaching duties for the people when Torah is proclaimed. An important aspect of this teaching is contained in the summary statement in Neh. 8:8, which describes the communal reading of (reconstructed) ‘the scroll of the Torah of God’ with the passive participle ‫( מפרש‬pu.). The precise meaning of ‫( מפרש‬pu.) is debated, with the commonly held view that the Levites translate a law written in Hebrew into the lingua franca of the time, Aramaic (cf. Ezra 4:18). The meaning of ‫( מפרש‬pu.) as ‘(already) declared’ can be extracted from the two Priestly oracular episodes in Lev. 24:12 [H] and Num. 15:34 [H] that employ ‫( פר״ש‬qal and pu., respectively).72 When any legal ambiguities arose in the wilderness, the Israelites had a direct channel to YHVH and the resulting oracular pronouncement ensures that the Israelites have the legal backing to eliminate any suspected offenders. The same cannot be said for Ezra and the returnees. In Neh. 8:8, the ‘scroll of the Torah of God (already) declared’ (‫ )ספר תורת האלהים מפרש‬alludes to a scroll that contains all of YHVH’s instructions revealed to the wilderness generation.73 For the most part, Second Temple Yahvism did not envision YHVH’s manifestation on earth or in the Temple (Isa. 66:1 [cf. Acts 7:48]; b. Yoma 21b).74 Likewise, EM does not foresee YHVH handing down any new judicial decisions in Ezra’s time. Whenever any suspected act of cultic desecration arose, neither Ezra nor anyone in his community had the option to wait for divine intervention. They had to render, on their own, the proper legal decision based on their reading and understanding of the scroll that was declared in the past.75 EM upholds 72 Num. 15:32–6 is certainly Priestly material and may be precisely assigned to H; see Knohl, Sanctuary of Silence, 18; Milgrom, Leviticus 17–22, 1341–2. 73 For a discussion of the meaning of what follows next, ‫שום שכל‬, see ‘instructing a divine command’ in Uri Gabbay, ‘Hebrew śôm śekel (Neh. 8:8) in Light of Aramaic and Akkadian’, JSS 59 (2014): 47–51. 74 For Moses and the Mosaic Torah as the ancient and surviving authority in Ezra-Nehemiah, see Hindy Najman, ‘Torah of Moses: Pseudonymous Attribution in Second Temple Writings’, in The Interpretation of Scripture in Early Judaism and Christianity: Studies in Language and Tradition, ed. Craig A. Evans, JSPSupp 33, SSEJC 7 (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 2000), 202–16; Najman, Seconding Sinai: The Development of Mosaic Discourse in Second Temple Judaism, JSJSup 77 (Leiden: Brill, 2003), 111–17. 75 For reasons stated above, I do not consider ‫ מפרש‬as a later redactional insertion influenced by Aram. ‫ מפרש‬in Ezra 4:18. It should also be noted that in Ezra 7:10 [EM], Ezra sets his heart to seek (‫ )דר״ש‬not YHVH but ‘the Torah of YHVH’.

140

Ezra and the Second Wilderness

this scroll as containing the instructions YHVH revealed to a past generation for posterity. As we shall examine in both the Sukkot and the mixed marriages episodes, EM’s replacement of the divine oracle with the proclaimed scroll (and one from a distant past) propels the legal strategies that Ezra’s community employs in order to resolve any future cultic mishaps.

R E S PO N SE S TO TH E S C R O L L ( N E H E M I A H 8: 9– 18 ) After Ezra reads the scroll, the people react with remorse but Ezra moves swiftly and proclaims a time of eating and drinking (Neh. 8:10–12). In what follows after the scroll is proclaimed, EM envisions the proper implementation of Torah within the social, cultic, and political milieu of the post-exilic Jerusalem community. This being close to the middle of the seventh month, the proper observance of a mandated pilgrimage in light of Ezra’s proclaimed scroll quickly becomes a pressing exegetical concern (vv. 13–18).

The Initial Response Accompanied by the Levites, Ezra responds to the assembly’s remorse upon hearing Torah with the words: ‘This day is holy to YHVH your God. Do not mourn or weep’ (Neh. 8:9aβ).76 Mowinckel argues that the assembly’s actions resemble Canaanite influences and are expected during the New Year celebrations.77 2 Kgs 22:11 contains a very similar account in which Josiah becomes distraught after he realizes that the contents of the newly discovered ‘scroll of the Torah’ were neglected.78 The difference between Dtr and EM is that Josiah is the only one who is filled with regret. People are summoned afterwards and they accept Josiah’s covenant (23:3b).79 Williamson points out that Neh. 8:9 does not necessarily project a regular part of a ritual but instead describes the spontaneous remorse that the law was inadequately upheld.80 EM’s involvement of the people at the proclamation of Torah resembles the wider cast of characters in E’s law-giving account. In E, the wilderness generation is present for the proclamation of the Decalogue but—horrified by the pyrotechnic display at the mountain—they stand at a distance and 76

In Neh. 8:9, Nehemiah is a secondary insertion [REM-NM]. Mowinckel, Studien, 3:47–59, 128. 78 Batten, Ezra and Nehemiah, 357–8; Rudolph, Esra und Nehemia, 149; Blenkinsopp, EzraNehemiah, 289. 79 Likewise in Chr, Josiah expresses remorse (2 Chr. 34:19) and then the people accept the covenant (v. 32b). 80 Williamson, Ezra, Nehemiah, 291. 77

The Second Proclamation of God’s Law

141

delegate Moses as the intermediary (Exod. 20:18–19). Moses then offers words of reassurance to the people: ‫אל־תיראו כי לבעבור נסות אתכם בא האלהים ובעבור תהיה יראתו על־פניכם לבלתי תחטאו‬ Do not fear, for God has come in order to test you and in order for his fear to be upon you so that you do not go astray. (Exod. 20:20)

After the Elohistic Moses’ assurances, the laws in CC are given and the Israelites agree to YHVH’s demands by way of a covenant (Exod. 24:3–8) and a feast of some sort: ‫ויאכלו וישתו‬ They ate and drank. (Exod. 24:11bβ)81

E’s events at Horeb are not repeated in D. In Deut. 5:5, Moses recounts the Israelites’ fear of YHVH but D lacks a communal feast at Horeb. In P, when Moses first descends from Sinai with the covenant (‫ )עדות‬in his hands, he is unaware of the radiation emanating from his face, due to which Aaron and the Israelites are afraid to approach Moses (Exod. 34:29*–30). In order to allay the people’s fear, Moses puts on a veil to cover his face in his future visits to YHVH (vv. 32–5). What follows next in P is nothing that resembles a feast but the execution of the instructions for the construction of the Tabernacle (35:1–40:33). EM’s proclamation of Torah follows the Elohistic version of the law-giving at Horeb. In Neh. 8:10 Ezra instructs the despondent assembly to depart, consume fat (‫)משמנים‬, drink sweet wine (‫)ממתקים‬, and send portions (‫ )מנות‬to those who lack any.82 Ezra’s instructions exhibit shades of the Deuteronomic concern for the poor,83 but Exod. 24:11bβ [E] is the more direct reference to Ezra’s instructions to the gathered assembly and their fulfilment.84 EM’s narrative frame of Ezra proclaiming the scroll, the 81

What precedes Exod. 24:11bβ in vv. 9–11bα, the depiction of a select group that includes Moses, Aaron, Nadab, Abihu, and seventy elders, belongs to J (Baden, Composition, 134). Following the assignment of vv. 3–8 to E, it is acceptable for a feast as described in v. 11bβ to follow the establishment of a covenant rather than a theophany; see Baden, Composition, 118; contra vv. 9(*)– 11 to E in Jenks, Elohist, 49–50; Graupner, Elohist, 133–7. For other views, see Ernest W. Nicholson, ‘The Interpretation of Exodus 24:9–11’, VT 24 (1974): 77–97; and the revised view in Nicholson, ‘The Antiquity of the Tradition in Exodus 24:9–11’, VT 26 (1976): 148–60; and as a post-exilic composition in Jean-Louis Ska, ‘Le Repas de Ex 24,11’, Bib 74 (1993): 305–27. 82 Among these gifts, ‫מנות‬/‫ מנה‬are also mentioned in P’s cultic affairs (Exod. 29:26; Lev. 7:33; 8:29). Paran remarks, ‘later literature, in contrast, often has no connection to matters of the cult, as in Esther and Nehemiah (8:10), where mānāh is like a gift; it is sent from one to a companion or given as an allowance by the king’ (Priestly Style, 284 [my translation]; see also Milgrom, Leviticus 1–16, 432). 83 Geissler, Esramemoiren, 17; Myers, Ezra. Nehemiah, 154; Williamson, Ezra, Nehemiah, 292. 84 I see nothing disjunctive about EM’s presentation of the laity experiencing initial fear followed by joy; see also Pakkala, Ezra the Scribe, 151.

142

Ezra and the Second Wilderness

assembly’s initial distress after hearing this scroll, and Ezra reassuring this assembly in Neh. 8:9–12 recalls E’s version of the law-giving at Horeb. Both EM and E share the basic narrative: a law is proclaimed, the people’s immediate reaction is not exuberant, the leadership offers words of reassurance, and a special meal marks the people’s acceptance of YHVH’s legal code.

An Immediate Legal Challenge: Sukkot After the events of the first day of the seventh month, Ezra, the ‘clan chieftains of all the people’, priests, and Levites remain behind to study Torah (Neh. 8:13). The absence of the people’s participation in vv. 13–15 does not present a serious problem. It would be difficult for ‘all the people’ to engage in detailed study and the clan chieftains (‫ )ראשי האבות‬act as a proxy for the people. They find ‘as it is written in the Torah commanded to Moses’ (‫ )כתוב בתורה אשר צוה יהוה ביד־משה‬that the Israelites must dwell in booths during the pilgrimage of the seventh month (v. 14). In response, they issue a proclamation for the inhabitants of Jerusalem and the surrounding towns to go into the hill country to acquire olive trees, šemen trees, myrtles, palms, and ‘ābōt trees and construct booths ‘as it is written’ (v. 15). The people collect the required materials and construct booths on roofs, in (private) courts, in the court of the House of God, and in the squares of the Water Gate and Ephraim Gate (vv. 16–17). The pilgrimage is celebrated for seven days and followed by another gathering on the eighth day (v. 18), the twenty-third day of the seventh month. 2 Kgs 23:22 and its parallel in 2 Chr. 35:18 present a fairly similar scenario in which Passover had not been observed since a former time. Neh. 8:17 should not be viewed as a conscious imitation of Deuteronomistic reform.85 In fact, in this verse EM is not primarily concerned with the prolonged lapse of a Sukkot observance. Rather, the main issue lies in the claim that the construction of booths at Sukkot has not been observed ‫ככתוב‬, ‘as it is written’. The requirement to construct booths for the upcoming Sukkot is informed by an authoritative source. EM mentions ‘the words of the Torah’ (‫דברי־התורה‬, v. 13), refers to a written text (‫כתוב‬, v. 14; ‫ככתוב‬, v. 15), and something legally prescribed (‫כמשפט‬, v. 18). Out of these descriptions, Neh. 8:14 emphatically refers to a written Torah YHVH commanded to Moses (‫ )כתוב בתורה אשר צוה יהוה ביד־משה‬as the authority behind the construction of booths. PC frequently employs the expression ‫ביד־משה‬, literally ‘in the hand of Moses’, to convey the revelation of YHVH’s laws and directives through his intermediary, Moses.86 The 85

Following Rudolph, Esra und Nehemia, 151 n. 2. Pakkala identifies ‫ אשר צוה יהוה ביד־משה‬as a secondary addition due to the repetition of ‫אשר‬ (Ezra the Scribe, 152). ‫ ביד משה‬is a common Priestly expression in both legal materials (Exod. 35:29 [P]; Lev. 8:36 [P]; 10:11 [H]; Num. 4:31, 45, 49 [P]; 15:23 [H]; 36:13 [P]) and narrative texts 86

The Second Proclamation of God’s Law

143

observance of Sukkot over a period of seven days is mandated in Lev. 23:34 [H]; Num. 29:12 [P]; Deut. 16:13 [D]. Kaufmann argues that Neh. 8:14–19 blends the Sukkot prescriptions in Lev. 23:39–42 with Deut. 16:13–15.87 Fishbane contests the use of Deut. 16:13–15 in Neh. 8:14–19 and argues that the erection of booths in Jerusalem and Judah in Nehemiah 8 contradicts the Deuteronomic centralization programme.88 In favour of Lev. 23:39–42 as the source for Neh. 8:14–17, Fishbane explains that the observed dissimilarities between these two texts result from a later interpreter making sense of an earlier law.89 Milgrom explains that Ezra’s innovation in building booths is derived from a custom that originated among the Babylonian exiles as represented in Lev. 23:42–3.90 In partial support of Milgrom, I add that the reference in Neh. 8:17 to a group referred to as ‘all the assembly of the returnees from the captivity’ (‫כל־הקהל‬ ‫ )השבים מן־השבי‬who construct the booths alludes to the reintroduction of a practice unobserved since, at the very latest, the exile. However, as I shall explain in Chapter 5, EM’s specific reference to this group reflects its view that an exclusive group has the obligation to observe all of the mandated obligations for the reconstructed Yahvistic cult. There are three major problems with upholding Lev. 23:39–43 as the sole legal basis for Neh. 8:13–18. The first problem lies in the precise meaning of ‫ככתוב‬, ‘as it is written’. Williamson notes that the reference to Jerusalem in v. 15 indicates that ‫ ככתוב‬probably does not refer to a direct quotation from Lev. 23:39–43 and supports the partial influence of Deut. 16:15.91 Kevin Spawn concludes that ‫‘ ככתוב‬is comprised of a reference to the law and a contemporary interpretation’.92 In whatever manner one reads ‫( ככתוב‬v. 15) and ‫( כתוב‬v. 14), it is apparent that both terms are references to ancient law but not their exact quotation.93 These observations partially explain the second (Exod. 9:35 [contra R in Friedman, Sources Revealed, 135; Graupner, Elohist, 66; Propp, Exodus 1–18, 318; pace Propp in Baden, Redaction, 279–80]; Num. 9:23; 10:13; 27:23—all P texts). 87 Kaufmann, tôlǝdôt, 4:328–9; ET, in History, 380–1. 88 For Fishbane’s treatment of this issue, see Biblical Interpretation, 109–11; see also Kapelrud, Authorship, 89; Pakkala, Ezra the Scribe, 163; Grabbe, ‘Law of Moses in the Ezra Tradition’, 95. 89 Also Michael LeFebvre, Collections, Codes, and Torah: The Re-Characterization of Israel’s Written Law, LHBOTS 451 (London: T&T Clark, 2006), 108–12. 90 Milgrom, Leviticus 1–16, 27–8; Milgrom, Leviticus 23–27, 2036–8, esp. 2048–53. Karl William Weyde agrees that the erection of booths is observed in the exile but, against Milgrom, questions its exilic provenance; see The Appointed Festivals of YHWH: The Festival Calendar in Leviticus 23 and the Sukkôt Festival in Other Biblical Texts, FAT.II 4 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2004), 129, 133–4. 91 Williamson, Ezra, Nehemiah, 294–5; Williamson, ‘History’, in It Is Written: Scripture Citing Scripture: Essays in Honour of Barnabas Lindars, ed. D. A. Carson and H. G. M. Williamson (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1988), 29–30. 92 Spawn, ‘As It Is Written’, 101–4 [at 103]. The same observation holds for ‫ ככתוב בתורה‬in Neh. 10:35, 37. 93 Knohl, ‘Priestly Torah versus the Holiness School’, 97 n. 103; Knohl, Sanctuary of Silence, 39 n. 88; Karl William Weyde, ‘ “And They Found it Written in the Law”: Exegetical Procedures Reflected in Neh. 8:13–18’, in Shai le-Sara Japhet: Studies in the Bible, its Exegesis and its

144

Ezra and the Second Wilderness

problem: the dissonance between Lev. 23:39–43 and the phrase ‘as it is written in the Torah commanded to Moses’ in Neh. 8:14. Neither of the constituent strands in PC, P or H, refers to itself as the Torah. Instead, D explicitly claims that its Torah—which it calls the Torah (‫—)התורה‬is the supreme authority over other existing legal codes (cf. Deut. 4:44). EM’s deference to something it calls ‘the Torah’ in Neh. 8:14 more appropriately suits D’s all-encompassing and unparalleled Torah (that is, the Torah) rather than PC’s instructional ‘torah’. For this reason, EM’s use of D’s Sukkot prescriptions in Deut. 16:13–15; 31:9–13 cannot be completely dismissed. EM’s appeal to an authoritative source for the building of booths is a fusion of—at a minimum—Priestly and Deuteronomic prescriptions. The third problem is that EM does not completely follow the Sukkot prescription in Lev. 23:39–42. Whereas H lists four broadly defined types of trees (Lev. 23:40), EM lists five types of trees (Neh. 8:15).94 H does not make known the exact purpose of the assorted produce and parts from the trees but it can be inferred that these trees are used for the construction of booths (Lev. 23:42–3). In contrast, EM specifies the use of its named trees for constructing booths. The tensions between H and Neh. 8:13–18 lead some critics to question the influence of the former upon the latter.95 Houtman takes the discrepancy between the Sukkot legislation in Lev. 23:39–42 and its practice in Neh. 8:14–18 as one piece of evidence that the law book in Ezra-Nehemiah is not the Pentateuch.96 Pakkala presents the mediating position that Neh. 8:13–18* refer to an intermediate version of Lev. 23:39–43; as a result, the final form of Lev. 23:39–43 postdates Neh. 8:13–18*.97 Christoph Nihan writes, ‘A terminus ad quem for the composition of H is given by the reception of Lev. 23:39–43 in Neh. 8 (v. 13–18). Yet the dating of Neh. 8 is disputed and this text should not be taken as a reliable historical source prima facie.’98 In spite of the above discussion, which places the chronological priority of Neh. 8:13–18(*) before Lev. 23:39–43 [H], there remain arguments for upholding the latter as a source for the former. To begin, any dissonance between EM and the texts in the Pentateuch arises because Pentateuchal law, despite its best attempt to anticipate every situation, Language [‫ בפרשנותו ובלשונו‬,‫מחקרים במקרא‬: ‫]ש״י לשרה יפת‬, ed. Mosheh Bar-Asher et al. (Jerusalem: Mosad Byaliḳ, 2007), 151*. 94 For other explanations concerning the discrepancy of the trees between Lev. 23:40 and Neh. 8:15, see Mowinckel, Studien, 3:166–70; Yahuda Feliks, Nature and Man in the Bible: Chapters in Biblical Ecology (London: Soncino, 1981), 276–7; Milgrom, Leviticus 23–27, 2038. 95 For connections between Nehemiah 8 and both Lev. 23:33–6 and vv. 39–43, see Otto, Deuteronomium, 197–8. 96 Houtman, ‘Ezra and the Law’, 104–5. 97 Pakkala, Ezra the Scribe, 158–64; Pakkala, ‘The Quotations and References of the Pentateuchal Laws in Ezra-Nehemiah’, in Changes in Scripture: Rewriting and Interpreting Authoritative Traditions in the Second Temple Period, ed. Hanne von Weissenberg, Juha Pakkala, and Marko Marttila, BZAW 419 (Berlin: de Gruyter, 2011), 204–6. 98 Nihan, Priestly Torah to Pentateuch, 548 n. 602.

The Second Proclamation of God’s Law

145

generally requires its audience to work out the minutiae of its demands within a particular ideological and legal framework. This facet was observed in the use of the Pentateuch in Neh. 10:31–40. In EM’s report of a Sukkot observance, the dissonance between Lev. 23:39–43 (or for that matter, any of the other relevant Pentateuchal legislation) and Neh. 8:13–18 exists because EM consults not only one legal code on the matter but also another legal code that deals with the proper observance of Sukkot. In other words, H’s Sukkot legislation—and in turn, PC—was one of the authoritative legal sources for EM and any dissonance between the two is explained by EM’s incorporation of D’s own (and originally separate) Sukkot legislation. EM includes the detail that the booths had not been constructed since the days of one ‘Jeshua bin Nun’ (‫ישוע בן־נון‬, Neh. 8:17). Karl William Weyde argues that Jeshua bin Nun refers to Joshua ben Nun and suggests that the mention of Jeshua invokes a past period in which every Israelite tribe occasionally gathered to celebrate cultic events.99 This point is contested on the observation that there is no biblical account of Joshua ben Nun celebrating Sukkot. In support of a broad reference to Joshua ben Nun in Neh. 8:17b, Yahuda Feliks observes that Joshua instructs the Israelites to go into the hill country and cut down trees in Josh. 17:15, 18.100 The continuation of the classical Pentateuchal documents into Joshua is a contentious issue but it should be noted that Josh. 17:15, 18 does not follow the Deuteronomic prohibition against the cutting down of trees (albeit in wartime) in Deut. 20:19–20. Josh. 17:14–18 is also probably not Priestly. Following the view that Joshua is absent in J, I suspect that Josh. 17:14–18 is Elohistic.101 I maintain that Elohistic influences exist throughout EM but if, as Feliks maintains, EM has Joshua’s instruction to cut down trees in mind (Neh. 8:17b), then it is an unusual reference. Josh. 17:14–18 certainly do not have a Sukkot celebration in mind and E does not know the term ‘Sukkot’. At the very least, EM mentions Joshua ben Nun to project a particular view that the Israelites—and not the wilderness generation led by Moses—actually followed YHVH’s command to dwell in booths for a short period of time in the land. According to EM, the proper observance of Sukkot in the land was short-lived and it is Ezra’s assembly, specifically the assembly of the returnees, which will correctly undertake this pilgrimage. Finally, Neh. 8:18 recalls a daily reading from ‘the scroll of the Torah of God’ (cf. Josh. 24:26 [E]) over seven days followed by a solemn assembly (‫ )עצרת‬on

99 Weyde, ‘Neh. 8:13–18’, 157*–58*. For changes from CBH ‫ יהושע‬to LBH ‫ישוע‬, see Hurvitz, Late Biblical Hebrew, 130–1. 100 Feliks, Nature and Man, 276. 101 Against the reservations and proposed textual restorations to JE in Wellhausen, Composition, 131; William E. Addis, The Documents of the Hexateuch: Translated and Arranged in Chronological Order, 2 vols (London: D. Nutt; New York: G. P. Putnam’s Sons, 1893), 1:228–9, or J in Carpenter and Harford-Battersby, Hexateuch, 2:348.

146

Ezra and the Second Wilderness

the eighth day. The eighth-day solemn assembly is also in P (Num. 29:38) and H (Lev. 23:36) but a sacrifice is commanded on this day. The absence of sacrifice at the solemn assembly in Neh. 8:18 is explainable on the basis that—like the assembly on the first day of the seventh month—sacrifice is only conducted at a legitimate altar in the temple complex. EM envisions Sukkot as the first significant legal crux experienced by Ezra’s post-exilic community. This crux arises due to the acknowledgement of multiple legal codes that compete, to various degrees, for authority. Contained within these legal codes are Sukkot prescriptions that lack uniformity when compared to one another. The existence of the Sukkot prescriptions in Lev. 23:33–6, especially vv. 39–43, and Num. 29:12–38 that are different from other Sukkot prescriptions in Deut. 16:13–15; 31:9–13 raises the hermeneutical dilemma of how to observe properly this pilgrimage without the future services of a divine oracle. The problems multiply when similar prescriptions in Exod. 23:16b; 34:22b are also considered. After reading the scroll on the second day of the seventh month, the need to arbitrate between the different Sukkot prescriptions becomes urgent due to the impending arrival of this pilgrimage on the scheduled fifteenth day of the same month.102 For Ezra’s community, the matter is life or death. The importance of Sukkot is rooted in its traditional place as the pilgrimage par excellence.103 The improper observance of this important cultic pilgrimage—either intentional or accidental—carries with it the same fatal consequences that struck down the wilderness generation and led, later on, to the divine abandonment of the Jerusalem Temple and its subsequent destruction. EM mediates between its inherited Sukkot prescriptions and formulates a ritualistically acceptable account of the celebration of this important pilgrimage. The concern leads to a proclamation, a ‫קול‬, issued throughout the cities and in Jerusalem (‫ויעבירו קול בכל־עריהם ובירושלם‬, Neh. 8:15). In the mixed marriages episode, another proclamation, here also called ‫קול‬, is issued throughout Judah and Jerusalem (‫ויעבירו קול ביהודה וירושלם‬, Ezra 10:7). In both occurrences, EM utilizes the mechanism of a public proclamation to address the concern that legal prescriptions are improperly observed and to resolve any resulting quagmires.

102 Håkan Ulfgard questions both the ‘ancient calendrical practice of associating the festival (sukkôt) with the New Year’ in Nehemiah 8 and the presumed lapse of nearly two weeks in vv. 15–16 and suggests that Sukkot was observed on the third to tenth days of the seventh month (The Story of Sukkot: The Setting, Shaping and Sequel of the Biblical Feast of Tabernacles, BGBE 34 [Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1998], 131). If Ulfgard’s reconstruction is acceptable, then the need to forge an acceptable Sukkot observance from the disparate legal sources becomes more immediate. 103 Haran, Temples, 298; Weinfeld, Deuteronomic School, 219. See also the elevation of Sukkot in 1 Kgs 8:2, 65; 12:32; Ezek. 45:2.

The Second Proclamation of God’s Law

147

Sukkot in the Pentateuchal Laws The above discussion reveals that EM envisions Sukkot as the legal crisis that emerges shortly after Ezra’s public proclamation of the scroll. The differences that are eventually crystallized in the competing Sukkot legislation partially explain the manner in which EM uses its available source materials in order to construct its own Sukkot account. The following examination of the Pentateuchal Sukkot laws, albeit brief, reveals how each of the Pentateuchal legal corpora envisioned the proper observance of the pilgrimage par excellence.104 Classically, Sukkot is thought to have its roots in an original Canaanite festival (cf. Judg. 9:27) that is adopted by the Israelites, developed through the institution of centralization, and becomes the designated occasion for the regular proclamation of the Torah.105 KTU 1.41:50–1 mentions dwellings of cut foliage (mt ̱bt . ’azmr, line 51) as part of the Ugaritic New Year festival. The development of Sukkot within the Pentateuchal legal corpora requires modifications of the classical model after the internal revisions are detected in these Sukkot laws. In light of these revisions, each one of the authoritative legal codes maintains a distinct view on the proper observance of this pilgrimage. In Exod. 23:14–17, CC dictates that three times a year all the Israelite males shall undertake a pilgrimage (‫ )חג‬and appear before YHVH at designated times: Unleavened Bread (‫)מצות‬, Harvest (‫)קציר‬, and Ingathering (‫)אס]י[ף‬. The pilgrimage of Ingathering is observed at the end of the year: ‫וחג האסף בצאת השנה באספך את־מעשיך מן־השדה‬ …and the pilgrimage of Ingathering at the end of the year when you gather your work from the field. (Exod. 23:16b)

CC’s Ingathering is revised and expanded upon in both the Deuteronomistic supplement in Exod. 34:11–26 [JDtr] and the Deuteronomic law, specifically in Deut. 16:13–15 [D]. Both legal codes retain the number of annual pilgrimages and command all Israelite males to appear before YHVH at these occasions (Exod. 34:23 [JDtr]; Deut. 16:16 [D]). However, both JDtr and D also make changes to CC’s scheduled pilgrimages. JDtr replaces CC’s Unleavened Bread with Weeks (‫)שבעת‬, incorporates the first fruits of CC’s Harvest into ‘first fruits of wheat harvest’ (‫ קציר‬into ‫בכורי קציר חטים‬, Exod. 34:22a; cf. 23:15–16a [E]), and retains CC’s label of Ingathering but modifies the time: 104 It should be noted that the comparable assembly of the people gathered ‫ כאיש אחד‬to celebrate Sukkot in Ezra 3:1–7 belongs to an originally separate tradition (one that postdates EM). Other descriptions of Sukkot in the biblical corpus are instructive (see elsewhere in Weyde, Appointed Festivals, 145–236; Ulfgard, Story of Sukkot, 96–102, 146–51); however, due to space I restrict this discussion to the Pentateuchal Sukkot laws. 105 Wellhausen, Prolegomena, 82–117; ET, 83–120.

148

Ezra and the Second Wilderness ‫וחג האסיף תקופת השנה‬

And the pilgrimage of Ingathering at the turn of the year. (Exod. 34:22b)

Shimon Gesundheit observes that the omission of the agricultural aspect of CC’s Ingathering in Exod. 34:22b appeases the tension between the separate prescribed times for this pilgrimage—in CC, it is specifically ‘when you gather your work from the field’ (‫באספך את־מעשיך מן־השדה‬, Exod. 23:16b); yet in D it is ‘when you gather from your threshing floor and wine vat’ (‫באספך מגרנך ומיקבך‬, Deut. 16:13).106 JDtr’s revision of CC’s ‘at the end of the year’ to ‘at the turn of the year’ reflects a tension between an autumnal and a vernal calendar.107 Although JDtr’s conception of the pilgrimage of Ingathering modifies CC, the change in the time of year is not contradictory in the sense that JDtr’s revision is composed and grafted not into its source (CC) but into an entirely different document (J). The Deuteronomic revision of CC’s Ingathering in Deut. 16:13–15 (also 12:13) reflects its rejection of CC’s altar law (Exod. 20:24), which arises from its grand programme of cult centralization.108 In renaming CC’s pilgrimage of Ingathering as Booths (‫)חג הסכות‬, D’s presentation of this pilgrimage reflects its own social and religious agenda: ‫ ושמחת בחגך אתה ובנך ובתך‬14 ‫חג הסכת תעשה לך שבעת ימים באספך מגרנך ומיקבך‬x13 ‫ שבעת ימים תחג ליהוה אלהיך‬15 ‫ועבדך ואמתך והלוי והגר והיתום והאלמנה אשר בשעריך‬ ‫במקום אשר־יבחר יהוה כי יברכך יהוה אלהיך בכל תבואתך ובכל מעשה ידיך והיית אך שמח‬ 13

You shall hold the pilgrimage of Booths for seven days when you gather from your threshing floor and wine vat. 14 You shall rejoice in your pilgrimage—you, your son, your daughter, your male servant, your female servant, the Levite, the sojourner, the fatherless, and the widow—who are inside your gates. 15 Seven days you shall hold the pilgrimage to YHVH your God at the place YHVH will choose; for YHVH your God will bless you through all your crops, and all the works of your hands, and you will surely have joy. (Deut. 16:13–15)

Spurred on by its socio-religious concerns, D mandates that the pilgrimage of Booths is to be observed over a period of seven days, retains the agricultural origins of this pilgrimage, expands the observance of this pilgrimage to nonkin, and locates this pilgrimage at YHVH’s chosen place (v. 15a). After the 106

Gesundheit, Three Times a Year, 26. This change may have been initiated by Deuteronomic legislation or a calendar which begins in the spring (cf. Exod. 12:2 [P]); see Gesundheit, ‘Festival Calendars’, 175; Gesundheit, Three Times a Year, 26–7; Baruch A. Levine, Numbers 21–36: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary, AB 4A (New York: Doubleday, 1964), 409–10. 108 For the complexities of D’s centralization programme, which eschews the technical term ‫ חג‬for its hybrid ‫מצות‬/‫( פסח‬Deut. 16:1–8) and retains ‫ שבוע‬and ‫סכות‬, see Levinson, Legal Innovation, 34–43, 53–97. 107

The Second Proclamation of God’s Law

149

remainder of the (Deuteronomic) laws are given, Deuteronomy revisits Sukkot with an interest in incorporating Torah into this pilgrimage: ‫ בבוא כל־ישראל‬11 ‫ויצו משה אותם לאמר מקץ שבע שנים במעד שנת השמטה בחג הסכות‬x10 ‫לראות את־פני יהוה אלהיך במקום אשר יבחר תקרא את־התורה הזאת נגד כל־ישראל באזניהם‬ ‫ הקהל את־העם האנשים והנשים והטף וגרך אשר בשעריך למען ישמעו ולמען ילמדו ויראו‬12 ‫ ובניהם אשר לא־ידעו ישמעו‬13 ‫את־יהוה אלהיכם ושמרו לעשות את־כל־דברי התורה הזאת‬ ‫ולמדו ליראה את־יהוה אלהיכם כל־הימים אשר אתם חיים על־האדמה אשר אתם עברים את־‬ ‫הירדן שמה לרשתה‬ Moses commanded them, ‘At the end of seven years, in the appointed year of remission, on the pilgrimage of Booths, 11 when all Israel comes to appear before YHVH your God at the place which he will choose, you will read this tôrāh before all Israel in their hearing. 12 Assemble the people—men, women, children, and the sojourner who is inside your gates—so that they will hear, learn, and fear YHVH your God, and they will observe diligently all the words of this tôrāh. 13 Their children who do not know will hear and learn to fear YHVH your God all the days that they live on the land that you are crossing the Jordan to possess.’ (Deut. 31:10–13) 10

In addition to the explanations for Sukkot stated in Deut. 16:13–15, D includes the requirement for a public reading of the Torah at every seventh Sukkot. The placement of Deut. 31:10–13 outside the main Deuteronomic legal section (classically, Urdeuteronomium) raises the suspicion that these verses are a late supplement to 16:13–15. However, D’s commandment to read Torah in any assembly is appropriately placed in its current location as it could only appear after all of the actual contents of this Torah (including its own Sukkot prescription) are disclosed in the form of the statutes and judgments (‫אלה החקים והמשפטים‬, Deut. 12:1) and after Moses charges the Israelites with explicit warnings to heed this Torah in the form of curses and blessings (27:1–28:69). What is contained in Deut. 31:10–13 is not an actual statute (‫ )חוק‬or judgment (‫ )משפט‬concerning Sukkot. It dictates when and how the Torah must be recited in the public forum. The Deuteronomic lawgiver envisions Sukkot as a pilgrimage observed over a period of seven days at a centralized location and in every seventh year accompanied by a public reading of Torah. Although the Sukkot laws in CC, J+, and D are related, when read alone and within the ideological framework of their respective legal codes, each Sukkot law claims authority over the others. Entirely separate from the non-Priestly prescriptions is the Priestly Sukkot. In both P and H, offerings are presented to YHVH throughout the pilgrimage, but there is no mention of the agricultural aspect of this pilgrimage and no work is performed on the first and eighth days, which are identified as a ‘solemn assembly’ (‫עצרת‬a):109 There are many suggestions for what exactly the Priestly ‫ עצרת‬constitutes, including a distinct celebratory day in Levine, Numbers 21–36, 391; Milgrom, Leviticus 23–27, 2029–32; a 109

150

Ezra and the Second Wilderness Num. 29:12–38 [P]

‫ובחמשה עשר יום לחדש השביעי‬x12

‫מקרא־קדש יהיה לכם‬ ‫כל־מלאכת עבדה לא תעשו‬ ‫וחגתם חג ליהוה‬ ‫שבעת ימים‬ ‫והקרבתם עלה אשה ריח ניחח ליהוה‬x13 …offerings for days 1–7, vv. 13aβ–34… ‫ביום השמיני‬x35

Lev. 23:33–6 [H] ‫ דבר אל־בני ישראל‬34 ‫וידבר יהוה אל־משה לאמר‬x33 ‫לאמר‬ ‫בחמשה עשר יום לחדש השביעי‬ ‫הזה חג הסכות שבעת ימים ליהוה‬ ‫ביום הראשון‬x35 ‫מקרא־קדש‬ ‫כל־מלאכת עבדה לא תעשו‬ ‫שבעת ימים‬x36 ‫תקריבו אשה ליהוה‬ ‫ביום השמיני‬ ‫מקרא־קדש יהיה לכם והקרבתם אשה ליהוה‬ ‫עצרת הוא‬ ‫כל־מלאכת עבדה לא תעשו‬

‫עצרת תהיה לכם‬ ‫כל־מלאכת עבדה לא תעשו‬ …offerings for day 8, vv. 36–8

YHVH spoke to Moses, 34 ‘Speak to the Israelites: On the fifteenth day of this seventh month there will be the pilgrimage of Booths for seven days for YHVH. 35 On the first day is a sacred convocation. You shall not do any arduous work. 33

On the fifteenth day of the seventh month

12

you will have a sacred convocation. You shall not do any arduous work. You shall hold a pilgrimage to YHVH for seven days. 13 You shall bring an ‘ōlāh, an ’iššeh pleasing to YHVH …offerings for days 1–7, vv. 13aβ–34… 35 The eighth day

shall be a solemn assembly for you; you shall not do any arduous work. …offerings for day 8, vv. 36–8

36

For seven days you shall bring an ’iššeh to YHVH.

The eighth day is a sacred convocation for you; you shall bring an ’iššeh to YHVH. It is a solemn assembly, you shall not do any arduous work.’

‘closing day’ in Christoph Nihan, ‘Israel’s Festival Calendars in Leviticus 23, Numbers 28–9 and the Formation of “Priestly” Literature’, in Römer, Books of Leviticus and Numbers, 186 n. 24; a ‘concluding festal assembly’ in Ulfgard, Story of Sukkot, 101, 105; and ‘a gathering of some kind at the cultic place’ in Weyde, Appointed Festivals, 113–30 [at 113].

The Second Proclamation of God’s Law

151

H fundamentally agrees with the nature of P’s pilgrimage on the fifteenth day of the seventh month but makes three major alterations. First, H eliminates P’s description of the offerings. Second, H gives the solemn assembly on the eighth day the label of a ‘sacred convocation’ (‫מקרא־קדש‬, Lev. 23:36). Third, whereas P refers to the pilgrimage as ‘the pilgrimage to YHVH’ (‫חג ליהוה‬, Num. 29:12), H calls it ‘the pilgrimage of Booths’ (‫חג הסכות‬, Lev. 23:34).110 Despite H’s revisions of P, the resulting differences are slight, and the existence of the two Priestly prescriptions of Sukkot in Lev. 23:33–6 and Num. 29:12–38 present few interpretative difficulties. H provides additional instructions for the pilgrimage of Booths: ‫אך בחמשה עשר יום לחדש השביעי באספכם את־תבואת הארץ תחגו את־חג־יהוה שבעת‬x39 ‫ ולקחתם לכם ביום הראשון פרי עץ הדר‬40 ‫ימים ביום הראשון שבתון וביום השמיני שבתון‬ ‫ וחגתם אתו‬41 ‫כפת תמרים וענף עץ־עבת וערבי־נחל ושמחתם לפני יהוה אלהיכם שבעת ימים‬ ‫ בסכת תשבו‬42 ‫חג ליהוה שבעת ימים בשנה חקת עולם לדרתיכם בחדש השביעי תחגו אתו‬ ‫ למען ידעו דרתיכם כי בסכות הושבתי את־בני‬43 ‫שבעת ימים כל־האזרח בישראל ישבו בסכת‬ ‫ישראל בהוציאי אותם מארץ מצרים אני יהוה אלהיכם‬ Surely, on the fifteenth day of the seventh month, when you have gathered the yield of your land, you shall observe the pilgrimage of YHVH for seven days—a complete rest on the first day and a complete rest on the eighth day. 40 You shall take on the first day produce of hādār trees, branches of palm trees, boughs of ’ābōt trees, and willows of the brook and you shall rejoice before YHVH your God for seven days. 41 You shall observe a pilgrimage to YHVH for seven days a year as an eternal statute for your generations. 42 In booths you shall dwell for seven days. All the citizens in Israel shall dwell in booths 43 so that your generations will know that I made the Israelites dwell in booths when I brought them out from the land of Egypt. I am YHVH your God. (Lev. 23:39–43) 39

Most critics agree that Lev. 23:39–43 is supplemental material to what immediately precedes it.111 Here, ritual practices (on the first and eighth days) are expanded, the distinctly H term ‘complete rest’ (‫ )שבתון‬is incorporated into the first and eighth days, and the agricultural significance of the pilgrimage is acknowledged. The major innovation, unknown in the other Pentateuchal legal corpora, is the construction of booths at Sukkot and the association of this pilgrimage with the Exodus. Milgrom does not view the entire unit as an 110

Milgrom, Leviticus 23–27, 2036–7. Karl Elliger, Leviticus, HAT 4 (Tübingen: Mohr, 1966), 304–6; Martin Noth, Das dritte Buch Mose: Leviticus, ATD 6 (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1962), 152–3; ET, Leviticus: A Commentary, trans. and rev. J. E. Anderson, OTL (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1977), 175–6; Knohl, Sanctuary of Silence, 36; Nihan, Priestly Torah to Pentateuch, 498–9; Weyde, Appointed Festivals, 131–42. Geissler anticipates this division in the conclusion that Ezra refers to different strata in Leviticus 23: Pg (v. 36) and a Holiness stratum, Ph (vv. 40–2) (Esramemoiren, 30). 111

152

Ezra and the Second Wilderness

addition but identifies different hands—pre-exilic H1 (vv. 39a [minus ‫]אך‬, 40), pre-exilic H (vv. 41a, bα), and the exilic redactor of H (HR) (vv. 39b [plus ‫]אך‬, 42–3)—and concludes that the pre-exilic seven-day autumn pilgrimage to YHVH (‫ )חג ליהוה‬celebrated in the sanctuary becomes Booths (‫)חג הסכות‬ among the Babylonian exiles.112 Regardless of the influences and origins of the changing Priestly understanding of this custom, even after the construction of booths is incorporated into the pilgrimage, the comprehensive Sukkot prescriptions in PC (Lev. 23:33–6, 39–43; Num. 29:12–38) result in few significant internal contradictions. The Holiness legalist probably does not envision any potential ecological changes that might affect the construction of booths in the future but, in shaping a consistent set of Sukkot prescriptions, certainly does not foresee any competition from rival legal codes for a later readership’s undivided attention. In sum, the Sukkot laws as preserved in the Pentateuch contain two detectable lines of revision. The first stems from CC’s pilgrimage of Ingathering. In separate documents, JDtr and D rework this pilgrimage to meet their own cultic sensibilities. Each of the Sukkot laws in E, J+, D—and its accompanying legal corpus—was intended to be read on its own and without any consultation of the others. The second line of revision consists of P and its supplementation by H. This revision is internal (within the same document) and the resulting Sukkot laws in PC are understood—without any significant contradictions between the different P and H tradents—through the lens of Priestly ideology. Individually, the Sukkot prescriptions in E, J+, D, and PC represent a particular conception of the proper observance of this pilgrimage and are consistent with the rituals and ideologies of their surrounding legal corpus. Each of the legal codes in the Pentateuchal documents claims authority to some degree (with at least D explicitly over J[+] and E). When isolated from each other, and when viewed as separate legal codes, these prescriptions do not present significant interpretative problems for their intended audiences. However, interpretative difficulties arise when the multiple Sukkot prescriptions (and their representative legal codes) are read alongside one another and are concurrently consulted as authoritative sources for the proper, yet onetime, execution of a mandated pilgrimage. According to EM, herein lies the legal quagmire for the returnees. This dilemma becomes more acute when, as it is portrayed in Neh. 8:8, there are no future oracular declarations forthcoming to mediate between these different codes. EM’s report of the Sukkot observance in Neh. 8:13–18 reflects the necessity of adjudicating between existing, yet competing, legal prescriptions in order to observe and incorporate all of the Pentateuchal Sukkot laws and, ultimately, to arrive at a ritually acceptable solution.

112

Milgrom, Leviticus 23–27, 2037, 2048–53.

The Second Proclamation of God’s Law

153

The Absent Day of Atonement In the preceding discussion, I argued that EM’s report of a Sukkot observance arises from the competing demands contained in the relevant legal prescriptions that must be resolved before the scheduled observance of this pilgrimage on the fifteenth day of the seventh month. If, however, EM closely follows the Pentateuchal laws, then what about the absence of an expected Day of Atonement (‫ )יום הכפרים‬observance, one that should have occurred five days before Sukkot? As discussed in Chapter 3, EM’s omission of the scheduled Passover observance in Ezra 8 recognizes the existence of divergent and conflicting Priestly and Deuteronomic laws. The absence of the expected Day of Atonement observance in Nehemiah 8 is dictated by another hermeneutical strategy employed by EM. In the Pentateuch, a scheduled observance on the tenth day of the seventh month is mandated as follows: Num. 29:7 [P] ‫ובעשור לחדש השביעי הזה‬ ‫מקרא־קדש יהיה לכם‬x ‫ועניתם את־נפשתיכם‬x ‫כל־מלאכה לא תעשו‬x

Lev. 23:27 [H] ‫אך‬ ‫בעשור לחדש השביעי הזה‬x ‫יום הכפרים הוא‬ ‫מקרא־קדש יהיה לכם‬x ‫ועניתם את־נפשתיכם‬

Lev. 16:29 [H]113 ‫והיתה לכם לחקת עולם‬ ‫בחדש השביעי בעשור לחדש‬x

‫תענו את־נפשתיכם‬x ‫וכל־מלאכה לא תעשו‬ ‫האזרח והגר הגר בתוככם‬

‫והקרבתם אשה ליהוה‬ Surely On the tenth day of this seventh month you will have a sacred convocation for yourselves. You will deny yourselves; you will not do any work.

the tenth day of this seventh month is the Day of Atonement. You will have a sacred convocation for yourselves. You will deny yourselves

and present an ’iššeh to YHVH.

This will be an eternal statute for you: on the seventh month, the tenth day of the month,

you will deny yourselves and you will not do any work— neither the citizen nor the resident alien in your midst.

113 For Lev. 16:29–34a as an addition that follows H language, see Knohl, Sanctuary of Silence, 27–9; Milgrom, Leviticus 1–16, 1064–5; Nihan, Priestly Torah to Pentateuch, 340–50; Nihan, ‘Israel’s Festival Calendars’, 207–9.

154

Ezra and the Second Wilderness

Whereas P requires a sacred convocation (‫מקרא קדש‬, Num. 29:7) on the tenth day of the seventh month, H identifies this sacred convocation as the Day of Atonement (‫יום הכפרים‬, Lev. 23:27; also 25:9) observed after Blasts (Lev. 23:23–5) and before Sukkot (Lev. 23:33–6, 39–43). If EM follows the schedule of the seventh month, then the omission of the Day of Atonement in between the first day (Neh. 8:2) and the fifteenth day (vv. 13–18) raises an obvious question: how could EM omit this sacred convocation? Surely Ezra or the leaders were not preoccupied with building booths and unintentionally forgot the prescribed observance of a sacred convocation on the tenth day of the seventh month? Arguments that Ezra shifted this sacred convocation from one calendar date to another fail to offer a sufficient explanation.114 Another explanation is that there was no fixed Day of Atonement for Ezra to observe or EM to report. Rudolph contends ‘daß der große Versöhnungstag damals noch nicht auf den 10.7. festgelegt und deshalb mit der uns vorliegenden Tora nicht in völliger Übereinstimmung war’.115 Gunneweg argues that the Day of Atonement was not entirely fixed in the festival calendar.116 Due to the absence of the Day of Atonement in Nehemiah 8, Morton Smith questions the identification of Ezra’s ‘Book of the Law of Moses’ with the final Pentateuch or even the complete Priestly materials.117 Blenkinsopp argues that the incongruences between Nehemiah 8 and Pentateuchal law are an indication ‘that the latter had not attained its final form’.118 Pakkala states that the author of Neh. 8:13–18* (a later Gola editor) did not have a completed Pentateuch.119 Håkan Ulfgard reads Nehemiah 8 as a narrative that contains traces of an ancient calendric system that is unaware of the Day of Atonement.120 These suggestions keep Ezra in the fifth–fourth century and, in growing support for a low chronology of the final form of the Pentateuch, support the eventual inclusion of this sacred convocation in the Pentateuchal corpus to (at the latest) the third century (cf. the Day of Atonement observance in 11QT 25:10–27:10; Jub. 34:18–19). As an explanation for its omission in Nehemiah 8, the suspected late evolution of the Day of Atonement overlooks an important aspect: the exclusive roots of this sacred convocation within priestly, and not lay, practice. Kaufmann dismisses the late dating of the Day of Atonement, one after EzraNehemiah, and remarks that the ‘ancient day of atonement was, essentially, a temple holy day when the Temple was purged of “the uncleanliness of the children of Israel” and a time of atonement for unintentional day-to-day

114 115 117 119

See, for example, in Wellhausen, Prolegomena, 106; ET, 112. 116 Rudolph, Esra und Nehemia, 153. Gunneweg, Nehemia, 119. 118 Smith, Palestinian Parties, 93. Blenkinsopp, Ezra-Nehemiah, 291. 120 Pakkala, Ezra the Scribe, 162. Ulfgard, Story of Sukkot, 131.

The Second Proclamation of God’s Law

155

transgressions’.121 Likewise, Milgrom writes, ‘The observance of Yom Kippur is a problem only for the priests, who must fill the prescriptions of Lev. 16 scrupulously.’122 Williamson points out that ‘the Day of Atonement bears no relationship to the reading, teaching, or application of the Law. Moreover, its celebration at this time was very much a priestly affair, largely conducted within parts of the temple from which the laity were excluded.’123 Schwartz observes that the Priestly calendar neither reflects a concern for the Israelites making regular visits to YHVH nor does it impose a pilgrimage upon the laity on the sacred tenth day of the seventh month.124 Mowinckel rejects any suggestion that the Day of Atonement had not yet emerged and argues that the author of Nehemiah 8 purposely omitted the observance: Die nicht seltene kritische Folgerung aus dem Schweigen des Verfassers, dass damals der jährliche Sühnetag noch nicht aufgekommen sei, und/oder dass nichts von ihm in dem Gesetz Ezras zu lesen stände, ist grundlos…Was da stattfand, was eben nur das, was an diesem Tage immer geschah, und was das war, wussten alle seine Leser. Das war alles lauter rituelle, von den Priestern und ihren Mithelfern ausgeführte Sachen…Der Verfasser schweigt von dem Tage, weil damals nichts stattfand, was seinem Anliegen und den Zweck seines Buches anging.125

I accept the explanation that the Day of Atonement was originally conceived within Priestly circles. The scheduled observance of a sacred convocation on the tenth day of the seventh month exists only in the Priestly Corpus and its prescriptions contain few, if any, significant internal contradictions between the Priestly [P] and Holiness [H] strata. As a result, EM’s difficulties in interpreting the laws concerning the tenth day of the seventh month should be minimal—only one Pentateuchal document addresses this observance and in a fairly consistent manner. As I have discussed above with Sukkot, challenges arise when multiple Pentateuchal documents present different and contradictory instructions that must, in theory, all be applied to a single mandated event. This is not a problem with the Day of Atonement. Although the silence of a cultic observance on the tenth day of the seventh month in Nehemiah 8 is somewhat troublesome, what amounts to an exclusively Priestly prescription with few internal contradictions does not conflict with the other law codes and should create few interpretative problems. To put it another way, if anyone of Ezra, the Levites, or the clan chieftains consults the one and only document that contains prescriptions for a cultic observance on the tenth day of the seventh month, then there would be little reason for anyone to hold out for the divine oracle—if it is even accessible—or confer with the other documents for clarification on the legal 121 122 124 125

Kaufmann, tôlǝdôt, 4:339; ET, in History, 390; also in 1:217–18; ET, in Religion, 210 n. 17. 123 Milgrom, Leviticus 1–16, 1070–1. Williamson, Ezra, Nehemiah, 293. Schwartz, ‘Miqra’ Qodesh’, 19–20. Mowinckel, Studien, 3:59; supported in Cross, ‘Restoration’, 16 n. 66.

156

Ezra and the Second Wilderness

requirements for the Day of Atonement. Finally, it should be noted that the people have a minor role in the Day of Atonement but this minor role becomes impractical in EM. P prohibits work on this day and includes a list of sacrifices (Num. 29:7–11). Likewise, in H the people are to present a fire offering (’iššeh) to YHVH (Lev. 23:27). As was the case on the first day of the seventh month, the prescribed sacrifices (and the people’s role) on the tenth day are absent in EM because EM views the place where the people gather, the Water Gate (Neh. 8:1), as an inappropriate place of sacrifice. For these reasons, the Day of Atonement does not merit significant mention in Nehemiah 8. In EM, the legal crisis that requires immediate attention and clarification after the proclamation of Torah on the first day of the seventh month is not the proper observance of the Day of Atonement on the tenth day but Sukkot on the fifteenth day of the same month.

E Z R A’S S E V E N T H M ONTH After identifying the supplemental layers, in what remains in most of Neh. 7:72b–8:18, EM presents Ezra’s activities in the seventh month of his mission. In support of the unity and coherence of most of its contents, the events contained in Neh. 7:72b–8:18 broadly follow the Priestly prescriptions for the important seventh month of the year. Several weeks after his arrival in Jerusalem, Ezra reads ‘the scroll of the Torah of Moses’, pacifies this community’s anxiety over its contents, and is present for the preparation and observance of the Sukkot pilgrimage. EM presents Ezra’s reading of a scroll as a second proclamation of Torah based on the Pentateuchal wilderness traditions. In E, J+, D, and PC, the Israelites encounter YHVH at a mountain and it is at that place where they receive the deity’s laws. To various degrees, EM is dependent on each one of these accounts. By filling in the gaps that arise after these separate accounts are compared with each other, EM composes a supreme law-giving account that integrates elements of the auditory theophany at Horeb (in E and D) with the visual theophany at Sinai (in J+ and PC). Out of the divergent descriptions of the Israelites’ encounter with YHVH at a mountain, EM takes a particular interest in the people gathering at the Water Gate as active participants—through their ears (Neh. 8:3) and eyes (v. 5)— when Torah is publicly proclaimed. Of the originally separate Pentateuchal law-giving accounts, only E’s Horeb account contains the people’s active participation when YHVH gives a law code. Although EM uses earlier sources and adapts them to continue its presentation of Ezra and the returnees as a group that surpasses Moses and the wilderness generation, discrepancies are unavoidable due to changes in social and religious institutions over long periods of time. Unlike the Pentateuchal

The Second Proclamation of God’s Law

157

wilderness accounts, EM does not contain any actual law—proclaimed in Jerusalem or at the Ahava—because EM upholds the legal contents of the first proclamation(s) of Torah to the wilderness generation as complete and enforceable. In EM’s view, YHVH’s instructions, statutes, and judgments were already declared in the distant past and the divine oracle is no longer available to break any future legal impasses. Left to their own devices, the existence of competing authoritative law codes creates confusion among Ezra’s post-exilic community when multiple, and sometimes conflicting, prescriptions address a single cultic requirement or observance. Rather than completely suppressing any of the inherited legal traditions, the hermeneutical strategy is to mediate between all of the existing traditions by retaining and supplementing the legal prescription that is judged as the most complete. EM is not the first composition that reads, reshapes, and reformulates Pentateuchal materials; however, EM is the first to consult thoroughly all of the preserved Pentateuchal materials at one time and, in doing so, presents Ezra’s community as the first to execute the demands of all of the known legal codes simultaneously. The omission of the Day of Atonement in Nehemiah 8 is explained on the basis that few, if any, contradictions arise within the single document that requires an observance on the tenth day of the seventh month. EM’s report of a Sukkot observance at its scheduled time recognizes the exegetical challenges that arise when two or more documents contain competing prescriptions for a single mandated cultic observance. EM’s concern for the proper observance of Sukkot in Neh. 8:13–18 emerges due to the recognition of different and conflicting prescriptions contained in originally separate legal corpora. For this reason, after Torah is proclaimed on the first day of the seventh month, EM addresses the upcoming Sukkot pilgrimage—not the Day of Atonement—and considers the proper observance of this pilgrimage as the first legal crisis that surfaces after Ezra reads a scroll in front of his post-exilic community. According to EM, Ezra’s community observes all of the known Sukkot prescriptions without many complications. For this reason, Ezra is somewhat silent and distant in the implementation of the Sukkot laws. Several weeks after Sukkot, however, sometime in the ninth month of his mission Ezra will take on a more active role in the community and will be called upon to resolve an even more complicated legal crisis.

5 A New Legal Crisis Foreigners and Mixed Marriages

In Chapter 4, I argued that Neh. 7:72b–8:18 was originally in between Ezra 8:36 and 9:1. Nehemiah 8 recounts Ezra’s proclamation of a scroll and the legal and hermeneutical crux that surrounds the upcoming Sukkot pilgrimage. An acceptable solution is extrapolated from the Pentateuchal legal corpora and Sukkot, the pilgrimage par excellence, is properly observed. In what follows afterwards in Ezra 9–10, EM recounts another legal crisis that reaches Ezra several weeks after Sukkot. Ezra 9 begins with some officials approaching Ezra with the charge that members of the community are mingling with foreigners and are married to foreign women. These officials select passages from the Pentateuchal legal corpora to support their case. After hearing the initial complaint, Ezra expresses his grief over the matter and prays to YHVH. In Ezra 10, a crowd joins Ezra and one Shecaniah proposes that the foreign wives and the children born to them should be sent away. Before this plan is accepted, a proclamation is issued for all the returnees to assemble in Jerusalem. At this gathering, Ezra announces his verdict and it is fully executed by the beginning of the New Year. Ezra 9–10 continues to attract attention from a variety of methodological interests into issues including, but not limited to, ethics;1 return migration;2

1 David Janzen, Witch-Hunts, Purity and Social Boundaries: The Expulsion of the Foreign Women in Ezra 9–10, JSOTSup 350 (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 2002). 2 Tamara Cohn Eskenazi and Eleanor P. Judd, ‘Marriage to a Stranger in Ezra 9–10’, in Eskenazi and Richards, Second Temple Studies II, 266–85; Katherine E. Southwood, ‘The Holy Seed: The Significance of Endogamous Boundaries and Their Transgression in Ezra 9–10’, in Judah and Judeans in the Achaemenid Period: Negotiating Identity in an International Context, ed. Oded Lipschits, Gary N. Knoppers, and Manfred Oeming (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2011), 189–224; Southwood, Ethnicity and the Mixed Marriage Crisis in Ezra 9–10: An Anthropological Approach, OTM (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2012).

A New Legal Crisis: Foreigners and Mixed Marriages

159

ethnicity;3 ritual;4 and social class5 experienced by the original composers, their intended audiences, and by subsequent readers and interpreters.6 There is not enough space in this discussion to engage with all of the issues that arise from the episode of the mixed marriages in Ezra 9–10 in significant detail. In this discussion, my treatment of Ezra 9–10 will focus on this episode as one that is fully integrated into EM and how this episode responds to changing notions of ‘biblical’ jurisprudence.

THE COMPOSITION OF EZRA 9 – 10 Ezra 9:1–10:44 is usually considered to be a self-contained narrative that contains minimal supplementation. Still, some critics have argued that there is more reworking in these chapters than previously thought. Less certain is the provenance of this narrative. Following the view that Ezra is a literary creation based on NM’s Nehemiah, proponents argue that Ezra 9 (and some include Ezra 10) is a layer that supplements Ezra 7–8, composed for its current place, and is dependent upon Nehemiah’s beginnings in Susa (Nehemiah 1),7 or Nehemiah’s response to the deteriorated state of affairs in Jerusalem (vv. 1–4),8 or Nehemiah’s challenge against the mixed marriages (13:23–9).9 Cheryl B. Anderson, ‘Reflections in an Interethnic/Racial Era on Interethnic–Racial Marriage in Ezra’, in They Were All Together in One Place: Toward Minority Biblical Criticism, ed. Randall C. Bailey, Tat-Siong Benny Liew, and Frenando F. Segovia, SemeiaSt 57 (Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2009), 47–64; Nasili Vaka’uta, Reading Ezra 9–10 Tu’a-Wise: Rethinking Biblical Interpretation in Oceania, IVBS 3 (Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2011); Makhosazana Nzimande, ‘Imbokodo Explorations of the Prevalence of Historical Memory and Identity Contestations in the Expulsion of the Nāšîm Nokriyyōt in Ezra 9–10’, in Texts, Contexts and Readings in Postexilic Literature, ed. Louis Jonker, FAT.II 53 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2011), 269–94; Willa M. Johnson, The Holy Seed Has Been Defiled: The Interethnic Marriage Dilemma in Ezra 9–10, HBM 33 (Sheffield: Sheffield Phoenix, 2011). 4 Yonina Dor, Have the ‘Foreign Women’ Really Been Expelled? Separation and Exclusion in the Restoration Period [‫( ]האומנם גורשו ’הנשים הנכרית‘? שאלת ההיבדלות בימי שיבת ציון‬Jerusalem: Magnes, 2006). 5 Daniel L. Smith-Christopher, ‘The Mixed Marriage Crisis in Ezra 9–10 and Nehemiah 13: A Study of the Sociology of the Post-Exilic Judaean Community’, in Eskenazi and Richards, Second Temple Studies II, 243–65; Donald P. Moffat, Ezra’s Social Drama: Identity Formation, Marriage and Social Conflict in Ezra 9 and 10, LHBOTS 579 (London: Bloomsbury, 2013). 6 Csilla Saysell, ‘According to the Law’: Reading Ezra 9–10 as Christian Scripture, JTISup 4 (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2012), 129–224. 7 Kratz, Komposition, 84–6; ET, 77–9. 8 Wright, Rebuilding Identity, 253–7. Specifically, Wright argues that Ezra 9 was first composed in its place and Ezra 10 is a later composition based on Nehemiah 5. 9 Noth, Überlieferungsgeschichtliche Studien, 147 (and n. 2); ET, in Chronicler’s History, 64, 163 n. 77; Gunneweg, Esra, 162–3; Christian Frevel and Benedikt J. Conczorowski, ‘Deepening the Water: First Steps to a Diachronic Approach on Intermarriage in the Hebrew Bible’, in Frevel, Mixed Marriages, 28–35; contra Neh. 13:23–9 as dependent on a late version of Ezra 10 in Pakkala, Ezra the Scribe, 223–4. 3

160

Ezra and the Second Wilderness

It was observed in Ezra 7–8 that a small number of the depictions of Ezra presuppose NM and are inserted by the hand of a redactor, REM-NM. There is, however, little of Ezra in Ezra 9–10 that is shaped by NM. Due to the place of the mixed marriages as the final episode for both Ezra and Nehemiah and similar use of Pentateuchal prescriptions (specifically, Deut. 7:3–4), some critics argue for a complicated literary relationship between Ezra 9–10 and Neh. 13:23–9.10 The similarities between Neh. 13:23–9 and Ezra 9–10 can be attributed to a common source of legal traditions but Nehemiah’s specific issues are different from those that preoccupy Ezra.11 Neh. 13:23–9 contain Nehemiah’s own report that Yehudite males married Ashdodite, Ammonite, and Moabite women and half of these children were unable to speak Yehudit. In Ezra 9:1, the report of the mixed marriages is brought to Ezra; yet, according to 10:3, Ezra is not the first person to include the children as part of the problem. The identification of the foreign nations in Ezra 9–10 does not result from Ezra’s own personal observation, but is framed within a legal strategy to repudiate the existing mixed marriages. Another important distinction between the two accounts is that Nehemiah does not resort to divorce as a solution to the problem. Nehemiah only expresses his frustration and curses everyone involved. Ezra 9–10 contain specific issues that developed independently from NM. For EM, the issues surrounding the foreigners and mixed marriages materialize out of an interest in Ezra’s scroll and the proper application of its contents to Ezra’s Jerusalem community.

The Unity of Ezra 9–10 One of the literary problems in Ezra 9–10 is the shift from first-person speech in Ezra 9 to third-person narrative in Ezra 10. Arguing for Chronistic authorship of Ezra-Nehemiah, Zunz upholds Ezra 10:1–17 as one of the numerous segments in Ezra-Nehemiah that demonstrates a style closer to Chr and not the Ezra materials.12 Koch argues that the third-person report in Ezra 10 (and Nehemiah 8–10) results from Chr’s revisions.13 In support of Ezra 9–10 as a unit, Noth argues that the changes in person should be attributed to the inconsistency of Chr.14 Mowinckel attributes the changes from ‘I’ to ‘he’ to a natural consequence that arises from the accumulation and repeated revision of traditions.15 10

In addition to Pakkala (see n. 9 above), Wright, Rebuilding Identity, 244–53. See also Dor, ‘Foreign Women’, 94–8; Katherine E. Southwood, ‘ “And They Could Not Understand Jewish Speech”: Language, Ethnicity, and Nehemiah’s Intermarriage Crisis’, JTS n.s. 62 (2011): 1–19. 12 13 Zunz, Die Gottesdienstlichen Vorträge, 29. Koch, ‘Origins’, 177–8. 14 Noth, Überlieferungsgeschichtliche Studien, 146–7; ET, in Chronicler’s History, 63–4. 15 Mowinckel, ‘Ezrageschichte’, 223–4; Mowinckel, Studien, 3:90–4. This view is adopted by Rudolph (Esra und Nehemia, 93, 163). 11

A New Legal Crisis: Foreigners and Mixed Marriages

161

The change from first-person to third-person should not be the sole basis for detecting separate layers. Critics point to different literary features in support of composite authorship in Ezra 9–10. Yonina Dor detects repetitions, inconsistencies, and differences in narrative style and argues that the three original compositions now preserved in Ezra 9:6–15; 10:2–6, and vv. 7–44 were at one time connected by a frame story in 9:1–5 and 10:1.16 Furthermore, Dor maintains that these originally separate narratives are independent of three other episodes in Neh. 9:1–3; 10:31; and 13:1–3, 23–30 and explains that these six separate events merely depict rituals as opposed to actual separation from ‘foreign women’.17 This conclusion appeases modern sensibilities but Ezra 10:44 strongly implies divorce from all foreign wives in Ezra’s community. As will be discussed in this chapter, EM is preoccupied with the proper and swift execution of the performative commandments and regards the removal of the foreign women (and children) from Ezra’s community as an act that prevents sancta desecration. Pakkala reduces the base text in Ezra 9–10 to 9:1 [‫ וככלות אלה‬only]; 10:1bα*, 2a*, 3–4*, 10–14a*, 16b–17.18 The priority of Ezra 10 is also upheld by Ralf Rothenbusch, who distinguishes between an older account of divorce in vv. 1, 2*, 3*, 7–9, 12*, 15, 16*, 17–18, 20–2, 25–43 and a younger Ezra narrative.19 Wright, however, maintains that the base layer lies in Ezra 9 and the supplemental material in Ezra 10.20 In support of the integrity of (most of) Ezra 9–10, Karrer sees the episode of the mixed marriages as a type of Verfahrensprotokoll for conflict resolution that involves the intertwining of Ezra, the officials (‫)שרים‬, and the assembly (‫ )קהל‬played out over three scenes.21 I agree that Ezra 9–10 is a narrative that portrays multiple participants involved in a continuous discourse that reaches its climax with the resolution of a suspected problem. What drives this episode, I believe, is a concern among stakeholders for the proper observance of different legal codes and the recognition that failure to do so will result in dire consequences for the reconstructed Yahvistic cult. Turning to other suspect sections in Ezra 9–10, Blenkinsopp remarks that Ezra keeping vigil in Ezra 10:6–8 after the issue is resolved is peculiar and suggests that these verses reflect the incorporation of parallel versions of the same account.22 Pakkala goes further, arguing that vv. 6–9 belong to a later

16 Yonina Dor, ‘The Composition of the Episode of the Foreign Women in Ezra IX–X’, VT 53 (2003): 26–47; and the more detailed discussion in Dor, ‘Foreign Women’, 11–93. 17 Dor, ‘Foreign Women’, 94–8, 127–54, 246. 18 Pakkala, Ezra the Scribe, 83–9, 103; see also the revised views on the mixed marriages in each additional layer in Pakkala, ‘Intermarriage and Group Identity in the Ezra Tradition [Ezra 7–10 and Neh. 8]’, in Frevel, Mixed Marriages, 78–88. 19 Rothenbusch, ‘Question of Mixed Marriages’, 67 n. 23; and the detailed discussion in Rothenbusch, Identitäten, 127–42. 20 21 See Wright, Rebuilding Identity, 253–7. Karrer, Verfassung, 243–51. 22 Blenkinsopp, Ezra-Nehemiah, 187.

162

Ezra and the Second Wilderness

expansion to v. 5, which is itself an earlier expansion composed in between vv. 4, 10.23 Although Pakkala suspects that ‫דבר‬, here ‘affair’, in Ezra 10:5 does not refer to the ‫ דבר‬in v. 4 but rather to vv. 10–14, it appears to me that EM consistently uses ‫ דבר‬to connote an affair or a matter, especially throughout Ezra 10 (vv. 4, 5, 9, 13, 14, 16). The single exception lies in Ezra 9:4, in which ‫ דברי אלהי־ישראל‬refers not to an affair or matter but ‘the words of the God of Israel’.24 In support of narrative continuity from Ezra 10:4 to v. 5, ‫ ויקם עזרא‬in v. 5 directly fulfils Shecaniah’s appeal to Ezra, expressed by the imperative ‫קום‬, in v. 4. ‫ ויקם עזרא‬in v. 6 is neither an addition nor from any parallel source but continues the narrative from v. 5. In Ezra 10, I detect two minor additions to EM. The first lies in v. 16. Setting aside the apparent difficulty with MT ‫ ַו ִּי ָּב ְדלּו‬in this verse for now, the ‘clan chiefs, according to their ancestral houses’, ‫ראשי האבות לבית אבתם‬, participate in the three-month-long investigation. In this study, I have maintained that subsequent redactors who incorporate elements from their own source material upgrade EM. In Ezra 8:1, EM lists the returnees by the clan chieftains (‫)ראש אבתיהם‬, but from 10:16, (‫ בית אב)ות‬appears elsewhere only in texts that are outside EM (Ezra 2:59; Neh. 1:6; 7:61; 10:34 [ET 35]) and in Chr.25 ‫ לבית אבתם‬in Ezra 10:16 is an addition by RE-N, one based on his own sources, which specifies the clan chiefs as belonging to the ancestral houses.26 The second addition in Ezra 10 lies in the list of named priests (vv. 18, 20–2), Levites (v. 23), singers (v. 24a), gatekeepers (v. 24b), and Israelites (vv. 25–43). Like the other lists in Ezra 7–8 and Nehemiah 8, some critics place all or most of Ezra 10:18–43 as supplemental material. Following the identification of the temple singers and the gatekeepers as a later addition to EM in Ezra 7:7, 24, I assign the named singers and gatekeepers in Ezra 10:24 to RE-N. Some critics suspect another addition in Ezra 10. The ’āšām, reparation offering, in v. 19 that follows the high-priestly clan disrupts the list of names in 23 Pakkala, Ezra the Scribe, 96. Accordingly, ‫ ויקם עזרא‬in v. 10 directly fulfils ‫ קום‬in v. 4. However, ‫ ויקם עזרא‬v. 5 can also function as the appropriate fulfilment. 24 I place ‫ דברי מצות־יהוה‬in Ezra 7:11b as part of an addition from RE-N. 25 For the continuity from pre-exilic ‫ בית אב‬to ‫ בית אבות‬as a basic structural unit of the postexilic citizen-temple community, see Joel P. Weinberg, ‘Das Beit ’Abot im 6.–4. Jh. v.u.Z.’, VT 23 (1973): 400–14; ET, ‘The Bêt Ābôt in the Sixth to Fourth Century BCE’, in Citizen-Temple Community, 49–61; pace Bedford, Temple Restoration, 207–30; Charles E. Carter, The Emergence of Yehud in the Persian Period: A Social and Demographic Study, JSOTSup 294 (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1999), 299–307. For the ‫ בית אבות‬as a development due to changing historical circumstances, especially the Babylonian exile, see H. G. M. Williamson, ‘The Family in Persian Period Judah: Some Textual Reflections’, in Symbiosis, Symbolism, and the Power of the Past: Canaan, Ancient Israel, and Their Neighbors from the Late Bronze Age through Roman Palaestina. Proceedings of the Centennial Symposium, W. F. Albright Institute of Archaeological Research and American Schools of Oriental Research, Jerusalem, May 29/31, 2000, ed. William G. Dever and Seymour Gitin (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2003), 469–85. 26 Karrer identifies Ezra 8:1–14 (cf. ‫ראשי אבתיהם‬, v. 1) as an insertion and maintains that ‫ ראשי האבות‬is unoriginal to EM (Verfassung, 242).

A New Legal Crisis: Foreigners and Mixed Marriages

163

vv. 18–43. None of the other groups in vv. 18–43 offers a sacrifice. Noth maintains that v. 19 is the direct continuation from v. 17 and assigns vv. 18, 20–43, 44 to post-Chr additions.27 If v. 17 directly preceded v. 19, then there is an implausible change of subject.28 Pakkala argues that v. 19 is another layer of expansion upon vv. 18, 20–44.29 It remains difficult to excise either vv. 18, 20–43 or v. 19 and retain a coherent narrative. Furthermore, I will argue later in this chapter (in the section ‘The Second Action’) that both the reparation offering and the list of names (with the exception of v. 24) are integral to EM.30 Finally, the syntax of Ezra 10:44 is awkward. Torrey perceives Ezra 10:44 to be an unsatisfactory ending and transposes Nehemiah 9–10 after this verse.31 Rudolph recognizes that Neh. 9:1–2 belongs with 7:72b–8:18 and places these verses after Ezra 10:44.32 Against this view, I contend that the placement of Neh. 9:1–2 after Ezra 10:44 results in Ezra’s command—to separate from all foreigners and divorce the foreign wives (Ezra 10:11)—being fulfilled in the reverse order. Ezra 10:44 is a serviceable ending to EM and Ezra 9–10 preserves a nearly coherent narrative with minor additions in Ezra 10:16, 24. There is, however, a gap in what is retained in Ezra 9–10 as EM. This gap is filled with the transposition of (most of) Neh. 9:1–5aα into Ezra 9–10.

Nehemiah 9:1–5aα and EM’s Chronology I have argued that Neh. 9:1–5aα* (minus the minor additions in v. 3) is EM material but have not yet discussed the original place of these verses. Following Ezra’s command to separate from the surrounding peoples and the foreign women in Ezra 10:11, the actual separation from all foreigners in Neh. 9:2 should occur before the issue of the foreign women is addressed (Ezra 10:17). Thus, the original place of Neh. 9:1–5aα* must be somewhere in between Ezra 10:11 and v. 17. Some critics consider the separate lists of Levites in Neh. 9:4–5aα as problematic. There is little basis to support Torrey’s argument that this list originally consists of eleven Levites with Ezra as the twelfth celebrant due to Chr’s fondness for the number twelve.33 Recognizing that portions of Neh. 9:1–5 bear a close resemblance to the Esra-Quelle, Frieder Ahlemann argues that the emphasis placed on the Levites in vv. 4–5 is supplemental and transposes vv. 1–3 into what he perceives as a lacuna in between Ezra 10:15

27 Noth, Überlieferungsgeschichtliche Studien, 126, 146; ET, in Chronicler’s History, 45, 63; also Mowinckel, Studien, 1:124–30; Blenkinsopp, Ezra-Nehemiah, 197 (but including v. 44 as original). 28 In der Smitten, Esra, 34; Williamson, Ezra, Nehemiah, 148. 29 Pakkala, Ezra the Scribe, 101–2. 30 Following Williamson, Ezra, Nehemiah, 148; Gunneweg, Esra, 185. 31 Torrey, Ezra Studies, 254–6; Torrey, Chronicler’s History, 119–23, 176–82. 32 33 Rudolph, Esra und Nehemia, 155, 163. Torrey, Ezra Studies, 279–80.

164

Ezra and the Second Wilderness

and v. 16.34 Ahlemann questions v. 15 as an actual opposition to the suggestion in vv. 12b–14 and emends MT ‫ על־זאת‬to ‫ על־צום‬in anticipation of the fast, ‫צום‬, in Neh. 9:1. Critics, for the most part, reject Ahlemann’s emendation and the transposition altogether.35 I agree with Ahlemann that Ezra 10:15 does not portray an opposition, but his proposed emendation is unnecessary and it should be noted that there is nothing unusual about ‫על־זאת‬, as this phrase exists elsewhere in EM (Ezra 8:23; 9:15; 10:2). Williamson disputes the proposed emendation but supports Ahlemann’s transposition, noting that if accepted, then all of the dates in EM reasonably fit within a single calendar year.36 The transposition of Neh. 9:1–5aα* adequately addresses the suspected resemblance between these verses and EM in Ezra 7–10 and Nehemiah 8. After Neh. 9:1–5aα* is transposed to its original place in between Ezra 10:15 and v. 16, ‫ ויעשו־כן בני־הגולה‬in v. 16aα fulfils the dual commandments ‫ קומו וברכו‬in Neh. 9:5aα.37 As Williamson observes, the transposition of both Neh. 9:1–5aα and 7:72b– 8:18 to their original locations in EM results in the dates of Ezra’s mission fitting within a single calendar year. In EM, major events transpire in the first (Ezra 7:9a; 8:31), fifth (7:9b),38 seventh (Neh. 7:72b [ET 73b]; 8:2, 14), ninth (Ezra 9:1; 10:9; Neh. 9:1), and tenth (Ezra 10:16) months, and the last chronological notice is the first month of the second year (v. 17). Ezra’s activities in Ezra 9–10, including the transposition of Neh. 9:1–5aα* in between Ezra 10:15 and v. 16, are as follows. Sometime after the solemn assembly on the twenty-third day of the seventh month (Neh. 8:18), the issue of the foreigners and mixed marriages is brought to Ezra’s attention sometime before the seventeenth day of the ninth month (Ezra 9:1; 10:9). Ezra reacts to the reports and is provoked by Shecaniah ben Jehiel to take action (vv. 2–4). Before doing so, he spends a night at the place of one Jehohanan ben Eliashib (v. 6). A proclamation that all the returnees shall assemble in Jerusalem within three days is then issued. The assembly convenes on the twentieth day of the ninth month (v. 9) and at this assembly Ezra announces his verdict (v. 11). The

Ahlemann, ‘Esra-Quelle’, 89. Blenkinsopp, Ezra-Nehemiah, 294; Pakkala, Ezra the Scribe, 180. 36 Williamson, Ezra, Nehemiah, 308–10. Grabbe also arrives at this conclusion but without including any of Neh. 9:1–5aα (Ezra-Nehemiah, 33; see also Satlow, How the Bible Became Holy, 84). Noth contends that the dates in Ezra 10 do not arise from a source but instead from Chr’s calculations (Überlieferungsgeschichtliche Studien, 147; ET, in Chronicler’s History, 64). Pakkala argues that, due to variations in the order of month and date, a single editor could not be responsible for all of the dates (Ezra the Scribe, 171–3). Consistency in chronological notices is desirable but—as can be demonstrated by the variable and disjointed chronological notices in Jeremiah, and less so in Numbers and Ezekiel—is the exception rather than the rule. 37 For ‫ ויעש־כן‬as a Priestly stock phrase that fulfils a command, see Baden, ‘Narrative Pattern’, 42. 38 Ezra 7:8, which contains the notice of the caravan’s arrival on the fifth month, is assigned to RE-N. 34 35

A New Legal Crisis: Foreigners and Mixed Marriages

165

congregation accedes but remarks that additional time is required (v. 14). On the twenty-fourth day of the ninth month (Neh. 9:1), the Israelites reassemble and fulfil the first part of Ezra’s directive by separating from ‘the peoples of the land’ (v. 2). There is then another reading from the scroll and more confession (v. 3*). The Levites encourage the Israelites to bless YHVH (vv. 4–5) and the returnees oblige (Ezra 10:16a). After the complete separation from ‘the peoples of the land’, there still remains the issue of the marriages to the foreign women. On the first day of the tenth month, a commission begins to examine the matter and their work is complete by the first day of the New Year (vv. 16b–17). The result is the sending away of foreign women and their offspring. After Ezra’s directives are fulfilled, EM completes its account of Ezra’s activities over a single calendar year. The confession in Neh. 9:1–5aα* was originally in EM’s report of Ezra’s activities in the ninth month of his mission. In order to create an account of a covenant renewal, RE-N moved and placed this segment immediately after the slightly expanded and transposed account of the seventh month (Neh. 7:72b– 8:18) in EM-NM.39 The relocation of the confession in Neh. 9:1–5aα* [EM] facilitates a narrative link between Ezra’s and (now) Nehemiah’s oversight of the superlative seventh month (as shaped by REM-NM) and the historical prayer in 9:5aβ–37 that is immediately followed by the agreement in 10:1–40.

THE LEGAL C HALLENGE In Ezra 9:1–2, a group of officials report to Ezra that members of the community have not separated from foreigners and have married foreign women. For some critics, the main issue in Ezra 9–10 is ethnic purity.40 Arguing that Gentiles were not a source of defilement in biblical, Second Temple, or rabbinic literature, Christine Hayes argues that Ezra focuses on genealogical impurity and—with conversion of a profane people ruled out as a

39

In sum, Neh. 7:72b–9:5aα (in its current place) is the result of two separate transpositions: R moves (and supplements) Neh. 7:72b–8:18* [EM] and then RE-N moves 9:1–5aα* [EM] (with minor supplementation in v. 3). There is growing support for the transposition of source material as a literary tool employed to remove any dissonance that arises from the combination of sources at the compilation stage. In addition to the views on the original locations of the Priestly sections in Exodus 16 and Exod. 32:26–9 [J], see also the transposition of Exod. 33:6b–11 [E] from its original place before the Elohistic sections in Numbers 11 in Stackert, Prophet Like Moses, 83–92. 40 Smith, Palestinian Parties, 137; Janzen, Witch-Hunts, 161–3; Pakkala, Ezra the Scribe, 109–10. Saul Olyan initially supported this view (Rites and Rank: Hierarchy in Biblical Representations of Cult [Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2000], 83) but revised it to ‘illegitimate desacralization’ (Olyan, ‘Purity and Ideology in Ezra-Nehemiah as a Tool to Reconstitute the Community’, JSJ 35 [2004]: 4 n. 7). EM-NM

166

Ezra and the Second Wilderness

suitable option—removes this impurity by sending away the foreign spouses and their impure children.41 Other critics view the polemics against the foreign nations in Ezra 9–10 as reflections of an inner-Yehudite struggle over the true Yahvistic community between returnees and non-exiles, or however else they may be defined.42 These arguments are attractive for their acknowledgement of the significance of identity politics and religious motivations. The plain meaning of the text, however, cautions against interpreting the dispute as one that strictly involves only Yehudites. Instead, I will present the case that the arguments, citations, and actions in Ezra 9–10 address the undesirability of foreign assimilation into post-exilic Yahvistic ritual and cult.

References to Pentateuchal Law After the passage of an unspecified length of time (Ezra 9:1aα), the officials (‫ )שרים‬approach Ezra and inform him of a problem: ‫לא־נבדלו העם ישראל והכהנים והלוים מעמי הארצות כתעבתיהם לכנעני החתי הפרזי‬a…1 ‫ כי־נשאו מבנותיהם להם ולבניהם והתערבו זרע הקדש‬2 ‫היבוסי העמני המאבי המצרי והאמרי‬ ‫בעמי הארצות ויד השרים והסגנים היתה במעל הזה ראשונה‬ …The people of Israel, the priests, and the Levites have not separated themselves from the peoples of the land—with their abominations like those of the Canaanites, Hittites, Perizzites, Jebusites, Ammonites, Moabites, Egyptians, and Amorites. 2 They have taken some of their daughters for themselves and their sons, the holy seed has mixed itself with the peoples of the lands, and the officers and the leaders have been first in this act of sacrilege (ma‘al). (Ezra 9:1aβ–2) 1

Citing evidence that local governance was absent in Achaemenid Egypt and Mesopotamia, Lisbeth Fried argues that Yehud was not any different and the officials (‫שרים‬, Ezra 9:2; elsewhere in 10:7–8, 14, 16) are royally appointed Persian figures.43 If the Persians did indeed install their own people as officials 41 Christine E. Hayes, Gentile Impurities and Jewish Identities: Intermarriage and Conversion from the Bible to the Talmud (New York: Oxford University Press, 2002), 26–34. 42 Daniel L. Smith-Christopher, ‘Between Ezra and Isaiah: Exclusion, Transformation and Inclusion of the “Foreigner” in Post-Exilic Biblical Theology’, in Ethnicity and the Bible, ed. Mark G. Brett, BibInt 19 (Leiden: Brill, 1996), 122–7; Grabbe, Jews and Judaism, 1:285–8, 313–16; Dor, ‘Foreign Women’, 127–54; Dor, ‘Rite of Separation of the Foreign Wives in Ezra-Nehemiah’, in Lipschits, Knoppers, and Oeming, Judah and the Judeans in the Achaemenid Period, 173–88; Lena-Sofia Tiemeyer, Priestly Rites and Prophetic Rage, FAT.II 19 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2006), 184–9; Bob Becking, ‘On the Identity of the “Foreign” Women in Ezra 9–10’, in Exile and Restoration Revisited: Essays on the Babylonian and Persian Periods in Memory of Peter R. Ackroyd, ed. Lester L. Grabbe and Gary N. Knoppers, LSTS 73 (London: Continuum, 2009), 42–3; Katherine E. Southwood, ‘An Ethnic Affair? Ezra’s Intermarriage Crisis against a Context of “Self-Ascription” and “Ascription of Others” ’, in Frevel, Mixed Marriages, 46–59. 43 Fried, ‘ “You Shall Appoint Judges” ’, 84–9; Fried, Priest and the Great King, 220–1.

A New Legal Crisis: Foreigners and Mixed Marriages

167

in Yehud (which I agree is likely), then EM reduces their role to administrators of only civil and not religious law. The officials (‫ )שרים‬are not the same as the royal satraps (‫ )אחשדרפני המלך‬or the governors (‫ )פחוות‬who received ‘the laws of the king’ (‫)דתי המלך‬, that is civil law, in Ezra 8:36 [EM]. Instead, EM envisions the officials (‫ )שרים‬as high-ranking Yehudites who partake in the administration of religious law. By addressing Ezra with the situation as described in Ezra 9:1aβ–2, these officials are part of a legal process that follows D’s judicial system in which difficult legal cases are brought to a high committee (Deut. 17:9) as opposed to a single individual in E (Exod. 18:22–3). In EM’s judiciary, the higher court includes Ezra and, as I shall discuss later in this chapter (in the section ‘The Ones Who Tremble’), another pious group mentioned in Ezra 9:4; 10:3. Whereas the time-sensitive problem of Sukkot in Neh. 8:13–18 was addressed with legal expediency due to its relative simplicity, the related issues of assimilation with foreigners and marriages to foreign women undergo a judicial review through the lower ranks of the judges and magistrates (cf. Ezra 7:25) that takes several weeks after Ezra reveals the contents of the scroll. Unable to render an effective decision themselves, the officials bring the complex cases to Ezra. The legal challenge is twofold. First, a group identified as ‘the people of Israel’, priests, and Levites (cf. Ezra 10:5) continue to mingle with ‘the peoples of the land’. Second, these groups—along with presumably other officials (‫ )שרים‬and leaders (‫—)סגנים‬have married themselves or their sons to foreign women.44 The result is that the ‘holy seed’ has mixed itself with ‘the peoples of the lands’, ‫עמי הארצות‬, a late term for something foreign or non-Yahvistic. Combined with the charge that ‘the peoples of the lands’ have abominations (‫ )תועבות‬along with the prohibition of associating with named foreign nations from relevant Pentateuchal legislation, the officials raise the charge of ma‘al (‫)מעל‬, an act of sacrilege, against the suspects. Although multiple Pentateuchal traditions speak of the abominations of foreign nations,45 the reference in Ezra 9:1 to the abominations of the pre-Israelite nations recalls H’s repeated warnings against following any of the practices of the foreign nations:46

44 For the ‫ סגנים‬as members of the temple administration, see Joel P. Weinberg, ‘Zentral- und Partikulargewalt im achämenidischen Reich’, Klio 59 (1977): 38; ET, ‘Central and Local Administration in the Achaemenid Empire’, in Citizen-Temple Community, 120–21. The ‫ סגנים‬are leaders with a status lower than that of the ‫( שרים‬Williamson, Ezra, Nehemiah, 132) and adapted from an original Persian office (Kellermann, Nehemia, 161; Edward Lipiński, ‘skn et sgn dans le sémitique occidental du nord’, UF 5 [1973]: 204–5). 45 For ‫ תועבה‬in J, D, H, and Ezra, see Paul Humbert, ‘Le Substantif to‘ēbā et le verbe t‘b dans l’Ancien Testament’, ZAW 72 (1960): 217–37. The dating of these materials is open to discussion but the diverse, and sometimes contrasting, views of the ‫ תועבה‬among these traditions are evident. 46 Fishbane, Biblical Interpretation, 119; Olyan, Rites and Rank, 84.

168

Ezra and the Second Wilderness ‫ ותטמא הארץ‬25 ‫אל־תטמאו בכל־אלה כי בכל־אלה נטמאו הגוים אשר־אני משלח מפניכם‬a24 ‫ ושמרתם אתם את־חקתי ואת־משפטי ולא תעשו‬26 ‫ואפקד עונה עליה ותקא הארץ את־ישביה‬ ‫ כי את־כל־התועבת האל עשו אנשי־הארץ‬27 ‫מכל התועבת האלה האזרח והגר הגר בתוככם‬ ‫ ולא־תקיא הארץ אתכם בטמאכם אתה כאשר קאה את־הגוי אשר‬28 ‫אשר לפניכם ותטמא הארץ‬ 30 ‫ כי כל־אשר יעשה מכל התועבות האלה ונכרתו הנפשות העשת מקרב עמם‬29 ‫לפניכם‬ ‫ושמרתם את־משמרתי לבלתי עשות מחקות התועבת אשר נעשו לפניכם ולא תטמאו בהם אני‬ ‫יהוה אלהיכם‬

24

Do not defile yourselves in these [practices] because through all these [practices] the nations that I am throwing out before you have defiled themselves. 25 The land became defiled, I punished it for its iniquity, and the land spewed out its inhabitants. 26 You shall observe my statutes and judgments. You shall never do any of these abominations—[either] the citizen or the alien that resides among you—27 for the men of the land who were before you did all of these abominations and the land became defiled. 28 Let not the land spew you out for defiling it, as it spewed out the nation that was before you. 29 For all who do any of these abominations will be cut from the midst of their people. 30 You will observe my prohibitions and not commit the statutory abominations that were done before you. Do not defile yourselves through them. I am YHVH your God. (Lev. 18:24–30)

H’s insistence that the land will spew out (‫ )קי״א‬the Israelites just as it did the previous inhabitants magnifies the onus H places upon the laity to uphold the purity of the land. According to H, YHVH separated (‫[ בד״ל‬hi.]) the Israelites from other peoples and, in turn, the Israelites must respond by actively distinguishing the clean from the profane: ‫ ואמר לכם‬24 ‫ולא תלכו בחקת הגוי אשר־אני משלח מפניכם כי את־כל־אלה עשו ואקץ בם‬a23 ‫אתם תירשו את־אדמתם ואני אתננה לכם לרשת אתה ארץ זבת חלב ודבש אני יהוה אלהיכם‬ ‫ והבדלתם בין־הבהמה הטהרה לטמאה ובין־העוף הטמא‬25 ‫אשר־הבדלתי אתכם מן־העמים‬ ‫לטהר ולא־תשקצו את־נפשתיכם בבהמה ובעוף ובכל אשר תרמש האדמה אשר־הבדלתי לכם‬ ‫ והייתם לי קדשים כי קדוש אני יהוה ואבדל אתכם מן־העמים להיות לי‬26 ‫לטמא‬ 23

You shall not follow the statutes of the nation that I am driving out before you, for they did all these things and I abhorred them. 24 I say to you: You shall possess their land and I will give it to you to possess, a land flowing with milk and honey. I am YHVH your God who separated you from the peoples. 25 You shall distinguish between the clean animal and the profane and between the unclean bird from the pure. You shall not bring abomination upon yourselves by animal, by bird, and by anything that creeps on the ground that I distinguished for you as profane. 26 You shall be holy to me for I, YHVH, am holy. I have separated you from the other peoples as mine. (Lev. 20:23–6)

By extending holiness to all of the people and the land of Israel, H contrasts the Israelites’ practices with those of the foreign nations.47 EM adapts H’s 47 Knohl, Sanctuary of Silence, 180–1; James L. Kugel, ‘The Holiness of Israel and the Land in Second Temple Times’, in Fox et al., Texts, Temples, and Traditions, 23.

A New Legal Crisis: Foreigners and Mixed Marriages

169

language of separation (‫[ בד״ל‬hi.]) from Lev. 20:23–26 to present the charge that some in the community have not separated from ‘the peoples of the lands’ and, as a result, have broken a legal command.48 Accordingly, the officials begin the charge of sacrilege (ma‘al) against the accused with the words ‫( לא־נבדלו‬Ezra 9:1aβ). Collectively, all of the named peoples in Ezra 9:1—Canaanites, Hittites, Perizzites, Jebusites, Ammonites, Moabites, Egyptians, and Amorites—would have created little cause for concern among the inhabitants of post-exilic Yehud.49 The officials do not attempt to identify their contemporary ‘peoples of the lands’ but by naming these pre-Israelite nations they invoke the situation of the wilderness generation. The Pentateuchal traditions agree that peoples mightier than the Israelites once inhabited Canaan and that these peoples were extinguished due to their abominations. Although the lists of peoples in Gen. 15:19–21 [J]; Exod. 3:8,17 [J]; 13:5 [E]; 23:23 [E]; 33:2b [JDtr]; 34:11 [JDtr]; Deut. 7:1; 20:17 [D] do not agree on the precise number or exact identification of these foreign nations, they all acknowledge that other nations inhabited Canaan before the Israelites.50 According to J, the scouts report that they saw the descendants of Anak along with the Amalekites, Hittites, Jebusites, Amorites, and Canaanites (Num. 13:28b–29). In P’s version of this account—despite the absence of any pre-Israelite list of nations in either P or H—the spies remark that stronger people reside in Canaan (v. 32).51 Ezra 9:1 does not completely match any of the Pentateuchal lists of nations. Instead, EM’s list of nations is derived from separate lists in Deuteronomy: one in Deut. 7:1–5 and another in 23:4–7 [ET 3–6].52 Deut. 7:1–5 contains an unabashed condemnation of marriage with seven foreign nations:53 48

Olyan, Rites and Rank, 90. These nations are original and not additions; contra Rudolph, Esra und Nehemia, 86, 89; Mowinckel, Studien, 3:34 n. 2; Pakkala, Ezra the Scribe, 91. 50 For the early provenance of the ‘six-name’ lists, see Tomoo Ishida, ‘The Structure and Historical Implications of the Lists of Pre-Israelite Nations’, Bib 60 (1979): 461–90. For the argument that the labels Amorite and Hittite are anachronisms of late monarchic writers, see John Van Seters, ‘The Terms “Amorite” and “Hittite” in the Old Testament’, VT 22 (1972): 64–81. See also the mention of prior inhabitants in Exod. 23:31 [E]; Deut. 9:1–3 [D]. 51 Note the other Priestly notices of prior inhabitants in Canaan in Lev. 18:25 [H]; Num. 32:17; 33:52, 55 [P]. 52 Kaufmann, tôlǝdôt, 4:292; ET, in History, 337–8; Japhet, ‘People and Land’, 127 n. 57; Ginsberg, Israelian Heritage, 15–16; Williamson, Ezra, Nehemiah, 131; Blenkinsopp, EzraNehemiah, 175; Fishbane, Biblical Interpretation, 114–21; Dor, ‘Foreign Women in Ezra IX–X’, 31; Dor, ‘Foreign Women’, 52–3; Gary N. Knoppers and Paul Harvey, ‘The Pentateuch in Ancient Mediterranean Context: The Publication of Local Lawcodes’, in Knoppers and Levinson, Pentateuch as Torah, 135. 53 The list of nations in Deut. 7:1 presents few source- or redaction-critical difficulties. See, however, the argument that Völkerlisten (in Exod. 23:23; 34:11; Deut. 7:1) are indications of a late Deuteronomistic layer in Hans-Christoph Schmitt, ‘Das spätdeuteronomistische Geschichtswerk Genesis I–2 Regum XXV und seine theologische Intention’, in Congress Volume, Cambridge 1995, ed. J. A. Emerton, VTSup 66 (Leiden: Brill, 1997), 269. 49

170

Ezra and the Second Wilderness ‫כי יביאך יהוה אלהיך אל־הארץ אשר־אתה בא־שמה לרשתה ונשל גוים־רבים מפניך החתי‬a1 ‫ ונתנם יהוה‬2 ‫והגרגשי והאמרי והכנעני והפרזי והחוי והיבוסי שבעה גוים רבים ועצומים ממך‬ ‫ ולא תתחתן בם בתך‬3 ‫אלהיך לפניך והכיתם החרם תחרים אתם לא־תכרת להם ברית ולא תחנם‬ ‫ כי־יסיר את־בנך מאחרי ועבדו אלהים אחרים וחרה אף־‬4 ‫לא־תתן לבנו ובתו לא־תקח לבנך‬ ‫ כי־אם־כה תעשו להם מזבחתיהם תתצו ומצבתם תשברו ואשירהם‬5 ‫יהוה בכם והשמידך מהר‬ ‫תגדעון ופסיליהם תשרפון באש‬

1

For YHVH your God will bring you into the land that you will enter to possess and he will clear many nations before you—Hittites, Girgashites, Amorites, Canaanites, Perizzites, Hivites, and Jebusites, seven nations greater and mightier than you—2 and YHVH your God will give them to you. You shall strike them and surely destroy them. You shall not make a covenant with them and never show compassion to them. 3 You shall not marry with them. You shall not give your daughters to their sons and you must never take their daughters for your sons, 4 for that would turn your sons toward others. They will serve other gods and the anger of YHVH will kindle against you and quickly destroy you. 5 For this you shall do against them: their altars you shall break, their pillars you shall smash, their sacred poles you shall hew, and their idols you shall burn in fire. (Deut. 7:1–5)

Deut. 7:1–5 prohibits marriages with five of the nations named in Ezra 9:1— Canaanites, Hittites, Perizzites, Jebusites, and Amorites. In Ezra 9:1, however, EM also includes Ammonites, Moabites, and Egyptians. For these nations, EM incorporates the list from Deut. 23:4–9 [ET 3–8] that prescribes the place of the Ammonites, Moabites, Edomites, and Egyptians in the assembly of YHVH. According to D, the prohibitions against the Ammonites and Moabites are to be observed in perpetuity: ‫ על־דבר‬5 ‫לא־יבא עמוני ומואבי בקהל יהוה גם דור עשירי לא־יבא להם בקהל יהוה עד־עולם‬a4 ‫אשר לא־קדמו אתכם בלחם ובמים בדרך בצאתכם ממצרים ואשר שכר עליך את־בלעם בן־בעור‬ ‫ ולא־אבה יהוה אלהיך לשמע אל־בלעם ויהפך יהוה אלהיך לך את־‬6 ‫מפתור ארם נהרים לקללך‬ ‫ לא־תדרש שלמם וטבתם כל־ימיך לעולם‬7 ‫הקללה לברכה כי אהבך יהוה אלהיך‬ 4 An Ammonite or Moabite shall never enter the assembly of YHVH, even to the tenth generation. They shall never enter the assembly of YHVH for eternity, 5 on account of which they did not meet you with bread and water on your journey from out of Egypt and they hired Bilaam son of Pethor of Aram-Naharaim against you to curse you. 6 But YHVH your God did not heed Bilaam. YHVH your God turned the curse into a blessing because YHVH your God loved you. 7 You shall not seek their welfare or their prosperity all your days for eternity. (Deut. 23:4–7 [ET 3–6])

The Deuteronomic prohibition justifies the rejection of Ammonites and Moabites from the assembly of YHVH because of their refusal to aid the Israelites in the wilderness.54 What follows next in D is two nations that may be admitted—the Edomites and the Egyptians: 54 D, however, does not record an Israelite request for Ammonite or Moabite assistance in the wilderness. Instead, YHVH commands the Israelites to avoid hostilities with the Moabites

A New Legal Crisis: Foreigners and Mixed Marriages

171

‫ בנים אשר־יולדו להם דור‬9 ‫לא־תתעב אדמי כי אחיך אוה לא־תתעב מצרי כי־גר היית בארצו‬a8 ‫של י שי י ב א ל הם בק הל י ה ו ה‬ 8

You shall never abhor the Edomite, for he is your kin. You shall never abhor an Egyptian, for you were aliens in their land. 9 Children born to them—the third generation—may enter the assembly of YHVH. (Deut. 23:8–9 [ET 7–8])

Deuteronomy has no qualms about the admissibility of any Edomite or an Egyptian two generations removed. In its list of abominable nations in Ezra 9:1, EM omits the Edomites and includes the Egyptians. If EM is indeed following the list of nations in Deuteronomy, then its interpretation of Deut. 23:8–9 requires an explanation. Addressing the omission of Edomites in Ezra 9:1, some critics prefer 1 Esdras 8:66—specifically, its inclusion of Ιδουμαίων— over MT ‫האמרי‬, ‘the Amorites’.55 The Edomites are singled out as a detestable nation in many, but not all, of the biblical traditions. In addition to the unfavourable aetiology of the Edomites in the sibling rivalry between Jacob and Esau (Gen. 27:1–45 [J]), Edom is portrayed as a detestable nation in 1 Kgs 11:1–8; Ezek. 32:29; Mal 1:4; 2 Chr. 21:10. In E, the Israelites appeal to the Edomite king as kin in their request for safe passage through his territory but are refused with armed force (Num. 20:14–21). In contrast, D revises and presents the Edomites in a more favourable light: the Israelites are forbidden by divine fiat to cross into Edomite territory (Deut. 2:3–8a).56 EM’s omission of the Edomites and inclusion of the Amorites (cf. Deut. 7:1) is explainable on the basis that it is consistent with D’s portrayal of both groups. D has a positive (or, at the very least, neutral) view of the Edomites, yet shows no mercy to the Amorites, a nation that it claims was hostile to the Israelites in the wilderness (Deut. 2:24–36). As a result, ‫ האמרי‬in MT Ezra 9:1 is supported.57 Concerning the admissibility of an Egyptian into the assembly, EM differs from D and takes on what amounts to a more radical position. Deuteronomy does not accuse the Egyptians of committing abominations and even grants Egyptians (Deut. 2:9) and the Ammonites (v. 19) because their land is a divine gift. The Ammonites and Moabites are often unfavourably mentioned in the biblical corpus (cf. Gen. 19:30–8; 2 Chr. 24:26). For the influence of Ezra 9–10 upon the identification of two of Joash’s assassins as an Ammonite and a Moabite in 2 Chr. 24:26, see M. Patrick Graham, ‘A Connection Proposed between II Chr. 24,26 and Ezra 9–10’, ZAW 97 (1985): 256–8. 55 See Batten, Ezra and Nehemiah, 331; Rudolph, Esra und Nehemia, 86; Japhet, ‘People and Land’, 124 n. 55; Ginsberg, Israelian Heritage, 15; Blenkinsopp, Ezra-Nehemiah, 174; Kugel, ‘Holiness of Israel’, 24; Milgrom, Leviticus 1–16, 360. Talshir observes that 1 Esdras demonstrates a preoccupation with the Edomites (cf. 4:45) (Zipora Talshir, I Esdras: A Text Critical Commentary, SCS 50 [Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2001], 441). 56 For the dependency of Deut. 2:3–8a on Num. 20:14–21 [E], see Baden, Redaction, 130–2; Baden, Composition, 137. In E, the ‫ מלאך‬that leads the Israelites out of Egypt (Num. 20:16) is sent by YHVH to guide the Israelites out of Horeb (cf. Exod. 23:20–2). In contrast, in J, YHVH sends the ‫ מלאך‬because otherwise YHVH will consume the Israelites (cf. Exod. 33:1–2a, 3, 15–17). 57 See also Williamson, Ezra, Nehemiah, 131.

172

Ezra and the Second Wilderness

of a third generation admission into the Israelite confederacy (23:8b–9). EM’s position on the Egyptians is informed not only by D but also by another legal code. It will be demonstrated below that P allows for marriage between an Israelite and Egyptian under certain circumstances. Having referred to the warnings against following the abominable nations in Lev. 18:24–30 [H], EM also draws from the prior warning ‘You shall not do as they do in the land of Egypt where you dwelt’ (‫כמעשה ארץ־מצרים אשר ישבתם־בה לא תעשו‬, v. 3)58 and, by including all Egyptians in its list of detestable nations, EM removes any potential ambiguities in the inclusion of Egyptians that may arise when Deuteronomy is consulted alongside Priestly legislation.

Exogamy in the Pentateuch In order to glean a better understanding of the issue of exogamy and the resulting separation from the foreign women in Ezra 9–10, critics have turned to the relevant Pentateuchal texts. According to the classical view, Deuteronomy’s general prohibition against the practice of exogamy marks a transitional point between its acceptance in pre-exilic Israel and its taboo by the time of Ezra and the post-exilic period.59 Critics, however, struggle to account for the exceptions when discussing the general background to Ezra’s actions. Rudolph explains that an Israelite in a foreign land can marry a non-Israelite in order to have offspring (Gen. 41:45; Exod. 2:21; Num. 12:1; Ruth 1:4).60 This view is disputed on the grounds that Abraham’s marriage to the Egyptian Hagar and the birth of their son Ishmael take place in Canaan (Gen. 16:3, 15 [P]).61 In another example from Deut. 21:10–14, D allows for marriage to a woman (who is presumed to be a foreigner) taken from a conquered town. Mowinckel argues that prohibitions against mixed marriages first arise in the post-exilic period and explains away the allowance in Deut. 21:14 as theoretical.62 It will 58

Ibid. For the view that intermarriage was not a disputed issue before the Babylonian exile but mostly rejected (an exception is noted in the book of Ruth) in Persian and early Hellenistic Jewish literature, see Armin Lange, ‘Your Daughters Do Not Give to Their Sons and Their Daughters Do Not Take for Your Sons (Ezra 9,12): Intermarriage in Ezra 9–10 and in the PreMaccabean Dead Sea Scrolls’, BN n.F. 137 (2008): 17–39 (Part 1); 139 (2008): 79–98 (Part 2). 60 Rudolph, Esra und Nehemia, 87. 61 For Gen. 16:3 as P, see Friedman, Sources Revealed, 55; Baden, Composition, 170–1. The description of Hagar as Abraham’s ‫ אשה‬presents a difficulty. Does it connote ‘wife’ or ‘concubine’? Some critics propose the latter; see E. A. Speiser, Genesis: Introduction, Translation, and Notes, AB 1 (Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1964), 117; Bernard S. Jackson, ‘The “Institutions” of Marriage and Divorce in the Hebrew Bible’, JSS 56 (2011): 227 n. 23. The solution is a source-critical one as the documents disagree on the marital status of Hagar. In short, Hagar is Sarah’s ‫ שפחה‬in J (Gen. 16:1–2, 4–14), or Abraham’s (protected) ‫ אמה‬in E (21:9–14), or Abraham’s ‫ אשה‬and—at the same time—Sarah’s ‫ שפחה‬in P (16:3, 15–16). 62 Mowinckel, Studien, 3:35. 59

A New Legal Crisis: Foreigners and Mixed Marriages

173

be argued below that Deut. 21:14 properly adheres to Deuteronomy’s fundamental concern that underlies its own position on exogamy. Upholding a strict division between pre-exilic and post-exilic views of mixed marriages, some critics employ this dichotomy as the sole criterion for dating Pentateuchal texts. Francesco Bianchi places Abraham’s marriage to Keturah in Gen. 25:1–6 as a pre-exilic text that permits mixed marriages and identifies 24:1–67; 26:1–5; 34:1–31; Exod. 34:14–18; Num. 12:1–2; Deut. 7:1–3 as late compositions that follow the post-exilic polemical stand against such unions in Ezra 9–10 and Nehemiah 10.63 In Gen. 25:1–6 [E], however, there is little if anything that is said about Keturah’s ethnicity and some of the other texts Bianchi lists do not primarily deal with the question of exogamy at all. Based on the premise that later biblical writers upheld earlier support for endogamy, yet at the same time condemned exogamy, Michael Satlow divides Genesis 34 into a base account of the rape of Dinah and a Priestly supplement that polemicizes against marriage between Jacob’s sons and the Shechemites.64 It remains difficult to date any biblical text on the basis of a particular ethnological stand at the expense of other ideological and literary considerations. Attempts to separate or date texts solely on their perceived attitudes on the practice of exogamy are for the most part unconvincing. The Deuteronom(ist)ic stand against exogamy is informed out of a cultic necessity. In Exod. 23:23–4, CC forbids obedience to foreign gods and commands the destruction of their pillars (‫)מצבות‬a.65 Deuteronom(ist)ic legislators, however, adjudge Exod. 23:23–4 as abstract and revise it with more concrete prohibitions. JDtr forbids the Israelites from entering into covenants with a list of inhabitants and prohibits taking foreign daughters for their sons (Exod. 34:11–16).66 D emphatically warns against marriage (‫ולא תתחתן‬, Deut. 7:3) with the named foreign nations for the reason that such unions will lead the Israelites away from YHVH. The allowance for marriage to a woman captured in battle in Deut. 21:10–14 is neither an exception nor a contradiction, but is Francesco Bianchi, ‘ “La Semence sacrée”: la polémique sur les mariages mixtes dans les textes bibliques d’époque achéménide et hellénistique’, Transeu 29 (2005): 83–102. 64 Michael L. Satlow, Jewish Marriage in Antiquity (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2001), 134–5. For Genesis 34 as a composite text (not based solely on any view on exogamy), see a base narrative with additions in Blum, Vätergeschichte, 213–16; J with additions in John Van Seters, Prologue to History: The Yahwist as Historian in Genesis (Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox, 1992), 278; and J and E in Baden, Composition, 233–4. For the assignment of Genesis 34 to a single source [J], see Friedman, Sources Revealed, 88–9. 65 Exod. 21:8 prohibits the sale of a daughter to a foreign people but the concern here is not the giving of a daughter for marriage but the giving of a daughter as a slave (or perhaps as a concubine) to a foreigner; see Ephraim Neufeld, Ancient Hebrew Marriage Laws: With Specific References to General Semitic Laws and Customs (London: Longmans, Green, 1944), 68–75. 66 For CC as the influence on both Deut. 7:1–5 and Exod. 34:11–16, see Weinfeld, Deuteronomic School, 46; Weinfeld, Deuteronomy 1–11, 379–82; Carr, ‘Method in Determination of Direction of Dependence’, 107–40. The opposite direction of influence is argued for in Ginsberg, Israelian Heritage, 64; Van Seters, Law Book for the Diaspora, 81. 63

174

Ezra and the Second Wilderness

consistent with D’s greater concern for apostasy. Deuteronomy permits marriages to women captured from foreign nations because they and, in turn, their deities are perceived as less threatening to the Israelites.67 According to D, the Israelites face fewer pressures from a conquered people but are single-handedly unable to overcome the larger and mightier nations named in Deut. 7:1 (also 20:16–18). For the Deuteronomists, exogamy is acceptable only when an Israelite’s fidelity to YHVH is not threatened and the practice is only deplored with nations who are more likely to sway the Israelites away from worshipping YHVH. In spite of the numerous reconstructions, texts classically assigned to J and E do not have a clear stand on exogamy. In J, Abraham commands his servant not to select a Canaanite for Isaac but to find a wife for his son from his ancestral land. Here is a vehemently negative opinion against the practice of exogamy (Gen. 24:3–4). There is, however, no condemnation of the practice elsewhere in J when Judah takes his widowed Canaanite daughter-in-law into his household out of familial duty (Gen. 38:2) or Moses marries a Midianite (Exod. 2:21). E reflects its incorporated legal code (cf. Exod. 23:23–4 [CC]) and does not explicitly prohibit exogamy. Jacob’s sons impose the demand upon the Shechemites to undergo circumcision before any discussion of marriage between the clans (Gen. 34:14–16).68 In another Elohistic narrative, Miriam and Aaron speak out against Moses and his Cushite wife (Num. 12:1) but this complaint is a ruse to draw out YHVH so that they can raise their more serious charge against the deity (v. 2). As it turns out, YHVH’s response to Miriam and Aaron addresses their charge against the deity and not their initial complaint (vv. 5–9). Finally, the account of the sexual relations with Moabite women and the ensuing slaughter of the Baal Peor devotees in Num. 25:1–5 has less to do with mixed marriages and more to do with censuring intimate relations with adherents of other non-Yahvistic cults.69 Some critics maintain that P strictly condemns the practice of exogamy.70 Mary Douglas presents the opposing argument that priestly editors for the most part defended the practice of exogamy and, through their post-exilic redaction of Leviticus and Numbers, repudiated the doctrinal views on

67

Smith, Palestinian Parties, 12–13; Weinfeld, Deuteronomy 1–11, 365. For the source-critical assignment of these verses to E, see Baden, Composition, 233. 69 A claim for compound (priestly) redaction in Num. 25:1–5 is stated in Young Hye Kim, ‘The Finalization of Num. 25,1–5’, ZAW 122 (2010): 260–4. These verses are neither Priestly (in any sense) nor Deuteronomic; see also Jenks, Elohist, 58; Levine, Numbers 21–36, 279–85; Friedman, Sources Revealed, 287. Despite the resonances with Exod. 32:26–9 [J], J places the Israelites in the valley of Moab near Pisgah before crossing the Jordan (Num. 21:20; Deut. 34;1*; see Baden, Composition, 80–1). In Num. 25:1–5, the Israelites are in Shittim before crossing the Jordan (cf. Josh 2:1; 3:1), leaving its assignment to E as a viable option. 70 Mowinckel, Studien, 3:35. See note 64 for Satlow’s treatment of Genesis 34. 68

A New Legal Crisis: Foreigners and Mixed Marriages

175

impurity held by government officials (as represented by Ezra).71 The absence of any prohibition against intermarriage in the list of sexual offences in Leviticus 18 and 20 supports the view that P did not oppose the practice.72 In reality, the Priestly view on exogamy is slightly more complicated. If P indeed has a position on intermarriage, then it is usually informed by proper ritual practices. Esau’s marriage to two Hittite women draws the ire of Isaac and Rebekah (Gen. 26:34–5), who respond by instructing Jacob to go to PaddanAram in order to find a wife from his uncle’s household (27:46–28:5). Mindful of his parents’ displeasure at his Hittite wives, Esau goes to Ishmael and takes a wife from his household (28:6–9). In this episode, P opposes marriage to some outsiders (Hittites) but not others (Egyptians). P does not criticize Abraham for taking Hagar the Egyptian as wife (‫ )אשה‬in the land of Canaan (Gen. 16:3). Similarly, Joseph’s marriage to Aseneth, the daughter of an Egyptian priest, raises no concerns (Gen. 41:45).73 P accepts these marriages and upholds the status of children born to these Egyptian mothers as rightful heirs.74 Both Ishmael and Isaac bury Abraham (25:9) and Jacob blesses both of Joseph and Aseneth’s two sons, Ephraim and Manasseh (48:20). Here, a question arises: why do the Priestly legalists accept marriage with Egyptians but (as evidenced by Esau’s Hittite wives) not others? The answer partially lies in common ritual practice, specifically, circumcision. Jer 9:25 [ET 26] lists Egyptians, Edomites, Ammonites, Moabites, and desert dwellers as peoples who practise circumcision. For P, circumcision marks the covenant between YHVH and Abraham (Gen. 17:9–14) and includes Ishmael (vv. 23, 25–6). The importance of this practice explains the prohibition of an uncircumcised male from partaking in the Passover sacrifice (Exod. 12:43–9 [H]; Josh. 5:2–10 [P]). Outside of PC, J upholds the high regard for circumcision in the perplexing designation of Moses as ‘a bridegroom of blood by circumcision’ (‫חתן דמים למולת‬, Exod. 4:26). In E, the absence of circumcision marks the Shechemite as a foreigner (Gen. 34:14–16). According to the Priestly writers, marriage to a member of a ritually acceptable foreign nation is—as in the case of Egyptians—generally acceptable. Here, I shall remark upon two Priestly accounts that I do not view as primarily concerned with exogamy. In the first account, in Lev. 24:10–16, 23 [H], the offspring of an Israelite woman and an Egyptian man is found guilty of blasphemy and stoned to death. If the concern is racial purity, then the

71

Mary Douglas, ‘Responding to Ezra: The Priests and the Foreign Wives’, BibInt 10 (2002):

2–23. 72

Milgrom, Leviticus 17–22, 1584–5. Post-biblical interpreters of Gen. 41:45 would question how Joseph could marry the daughter of a pagan priest. The (likely) Hellenistic composition Joseph and Aseneth sets out to address this concern. 74 Olyan, Rites and Rank, 85. 73

176

Ezra and the Second Wilderness

suspected blasphemer’s Israelite woman and Egyptian father should have been reprimanded. The suspected infraction, however, is blasphemy against YHVH and this snippet reinforces H’s view that anyone—resident alien or native— who blasphemes the divine name deserves death.75 In the second Priestly account, Phinehas ben Eleazar follows a Hebrew man and a Midianite woman into the Tent of Meeting and kills them (Num. 25:6–15 [P]). George Buchanan Gray assigns this episode to P on the basis that ‘the sin is intercourse with foreign women (cf. Ezr. 10); it is punished by the priest’.76 The sin in Num. 25:6–15 that P has in mind, however, is unrelated to Ezra 10 and interracial relations. P even permits marriage to captured Midianite women (Num. 31:18). Additionally, Phinehas is not yet a priest (Num. 25:12–13); instead, that title belongs to his father, Eleazar. In Num. 25:6–15, P is more concerned with promoting both the pristine condition of the Tent of Meeting and Phinehas, who, through his swift and decisive actions, proves to be a worthy heir to the high priesthood. Ritually, P accepts exogamy among the laity but not the priesthood. In P, the high priest Aaron is married to Elisheba bat Amminadab, a Judahite (Exod. 6:23; cf. Num. 1:7), and H mandates that the priest must take only a maiden (‫ )בתולה‬from his own kin as wife (‫אשה‬, Lev. 21:14). The above survey, albeit short, suggests that if there is indeed a ‘Pentateuchal’ stand against exogamy, then it can be construed as a prohibition against an Israelite’s marriage to an ‘outsider’. The Pentateuchal traditions maintain different criteria for identifying this outsider. An outsider can be identified along ethnographic lines but also according to ritual practices. As long as one poses a considerable threat to an Israelite—especially an Israelite’s fidelity to YHVH or an Israelite’s ability to uphold their cultic obligations to YHVH—that person will be recognized as an outsider and inadmissible into the Israelite nation. EM does not name the foreign nations that threaten Ezra’s own Jerusalem community but it follows D and identifies ‘the peoples of the land(s)’ as foreign inhabitants (which, I conceive, includes the Persians) in Yehud that, due to their militaristic or economic superiority, pose the considerable threat of apostasy upon a Yehudite. The fear that an outsider will take an Israelite away from their obligations to YHVH is not only a perceived threat held by the Pentateuchal traditions but also supported by EM and reflects post-exilic Yehud’s low status and perilous place among its surrounding nations.

See also Jacob Weingreen, ‘The Case of the Blasphemer (Leviticus XXIV 10 ff.)’, VT 22 (1972): 120; contra Lev. 24:10–16, 23 as an exilic critique of Solomon’s Egyptian affiliation in Mark Leuchter, ‘The Ambiguous Details in the Blasphemer Narrative: Sources and Redaction in Leviticus 24:10–23’, JBL 130 (2011): 440–2. 76 Gray, Numbers, 380. 75

A New Legal Crisis: Foreigners and Mixed Marriages

177

An Act of Sacrilege In EM, the officials claim that the intermingling of the holy seed with ‘the peoples of the lands’ constitutes a ma‘al (‫—)מעל‬an act of sacrilege (Ezra 9:2). This charge of sacrilege attracts the attention of persons identified as ‘all who trembled at the words of the God of Israel’ (‫כל חרד בדברי אלהי־ישראל‬, v. 4) and is the source of Ezra’s remorse (10:6). In separate speeches by Shecaniah (v. 2) and Ezra (v. 10), ‫ מע״ל‬describes the deplorable act of marrying foreign women. From where does EM’s cast of characters obtain the idea that the mixed marriages constitute sacrilege, ma‘al? Milgrom argues that the technical term ma‘al constitutes a sin against YHVH either through sancta trespass or covenant oath violation, which in turn must be redressed by an ’āšām, a ‘reparation offering’.77 In P, sacrilege against YHVH—whether it is against sancta or the violation of a covenant oath—is distinguished as ma‘al (Lev. 5:15, 21 [ET 6:2]; Num. 5:6, 12, 27; 31:16; Deut. 32:51; cf. Lev. 26:40 [H]). Between these two categories, Milgrom considers the trespass against sancta in Lev. 5:14–16 as the legal background for Ezra’s charge of sacrilege and the reparation offering in Ezra 10:19.78 In Lev. 5:14–16, when one commits unintentional sacrilege against something ‘dedicated to YHVH’, ‫קודש יהוה‬, the restitution is a reparation offering plus an additional fifth of the value of the sacrifice. P continues with the provision that anyone who imagines the worst—that they themselves have somehow contaminated sancta by breaking any of the divine commandments (‫)מצות־יהוה‬, which is not to be done (‫לא תעשינה‬, a prohibitive commandment)—is given the legal remedy to rectify the unintentional, yet still deadly, shortcoming (vv. 17–19). Japhet reckons Lev. 5:17–18 as the influence on Ezra’s charge of sacrilege.79 The differences between vv. 15–16 and vv. 17–18 are the impact upon something that has the quality of being dedicated to YHVH (‫)קדש־יהוה‬, the intentional breaking of a commandment, and the additional one-fifth of the value of the required sacrifice. There is little to suggest that the Priestly legalists disallowed exogamous relationships, especially for anyone other than the priests, through any systematic legislation. If P (or any of its subsequent readers) has any misgivings about the potency of exogamous relationships among the non-Priestly classes to defile, then it would not fall under breaking any one of YHVH’s commandments (‫ )מצות־יהוה‬but rather fall under suspected

77 Jacob Milgrom, ‘The Concept of Ma‘al in the Bible and the Ancient Near East’, JAOS 96 (1976): 236–47; Milgrom, Leviticus 1–16, 345–6. 78 Jacob Milgrom, Cult and Conscience: The Asham and the Priestly Doctrine of Repentance, SJLA 18 (Leiden: Brill, 1976), 71–80; Milgrom, Leviticus 1–16, 359–61. 79 Sara Japhet, ‘Law and “the Law” in Ezra-Nehemiah’, in Proceedings of the Ninth World Congress of Jewish Studies: Panel Sessions, ed. Moshe Goshen-Gottstein (Jerusalem: Magnes, 1988), 112.

178

Ezra and the Second Wilderness

sancta desecration and its prescribed remedy in Lev. 5:15–16. Csilla Saysell accepts Milgrom’s distinction of a ma‘al between sancta trespass and covenant oath but, challenging the applicability of sancta trespass, argues that Ezra’s charge of sacrilege refers to a covenant-breaking and oath violation that is rooted in the covenant at Moab in Deut. 29:11 [ET 12].80 D, however, lacks either the technical terminology ma‘al to refer to an oath violation or the ’āšām, the reparation offering. The charge of sacrilege in Ezra 9–10 addresses a concern that reflects Priestly ideology. Additional support for foreigners as the cause of sancta desecration is found in Malachi lambasting Judah for polluting YHVH’s sanctuary through marriage to the daughter of a foreign deity (‫בת אל נכר‬, Mal 2:11) and Ezekiel prohibiting any foreigner (‫ )בן־נכר‬from crossing the temple confines (Ezek. 44:9). EM equates the ma‘al of the mixed marriages—and its redress through a reparation offering—to P’s unintentional (‫ )שגגה‬sacrilege against sancta.

‘Insider’ vs ‘Outsider’ in EM The key, I propose, to understanding the meaning of the mixed marriages is identifying who EM deems is responsible for the proper and ritualistic upkeep of sancta and, in turn, is liable for ma‘al. To recap the charge brought forward by the officials, ‘the people of Israel, the priests, and the Levites’ have not separated from ‘the peoples of the lands’ (Ezra 9:1) and the holy seed, led by the officers and the leaders, has mingled with ‘the peoples of the lands’ (v. 2b). This infraction is labelled as ma‘al, ‘sacrilege’. EM implies that priests, Levites, officers, and leaders (all Yehudite) are bound by the demands of the Yahvistic cult, whether it is observing instructions (tôrôt), the proper offering of sacrifice, or adjudicating difficult cases. When the upper echelons of cult and society do not follow the prescribed legislation, their service to the cult becomes ineffective and the cult is threatened with extinction. What about the people of Israel or the holy seed who are also accused of committing sacrilege? In EM, the Israelites gather on the twenty-fourth day of the ninth month (Neh. 9:1) and ‘the seed of Israel’ (‫ )זרע ישראל‬separates from all foreigners (v. 2).81 Although Pentateuchal literature does not label any group as ‘the seed of Israel’, ‘the people of Israel’ (‫)עם ישראל‬, or the ‘holy seed’ (‫)זרע הקדש‬, YHVH claims the Israelites as his exclusive possession (Exod. 19:3–6 [E]). The Pentateuchal traditions agree that Abraham is the recipient of the divine promise that his descendants (‘seed’, ‫ )זרע‬will be numerous and

Saysell, ‘According to the Law’, 100–5. Kapelrud suggests that ‫( זרע הקודש‬Ezra 9:2) and ‫( זרע ישראל‬Neh. 9:2) refer to a single group (Authorship, 61; pace Duggan, Covenant Renewal, 151). I agree they are one and the same. 80 81

A New Legal Crisis: Foreigners and Mixed Marriages

179

inherit land (Gen. 12:7 [J]; 15:5, 13, 18 [E]; 17:7–8 [P]; Deut. 1:8 [D]).82 The Pentateuchal traditions also agree that the Israelites, on account of their holiness (‫)קד״ש‬, belong to or are designated for YHVH (Exod. 19:10, 14 [J]; 19:6; 22:30 [E]; Lev. 11:44 [H]; Deut. 7:6 [D]).83 Lena-Sofia Tiemeyer suggests that the officials’ repulsion of a ‘mixed seed’ is taken from Lev. 19:19.84 In Ezra 9:2, the officials report that ‘the holy seed’ has mixed itself, ‫( ער״ב‬hit.), with ‘the peoples of the lands’. ‫ער״ב‬, however, is absent in Lev. 19:19 and it is difficult to read intermarriage into H’s prohibition against the sowing (‫ )זר״ע‬of a field with two different seeds.85 Spurred by the similarities between Deut. 7:1–5 and Ezra 9:1–2, ‫‘( זרע הקדש‬the holy seed’) in Ezra 9:2 is thought to derive from ‫עם קדוש‬ (‘holy people’) in Deut. 7:6.86 Both ‫ עם קדוש‬and ‫ זרע הקדש‬uphold the sense of ‫ קד)ו(ש‬as ‘holy’ or ‘sacred’ but originate from different and irreconcilable claims. According to Deuteronomy, YHVH chooses (‫ )בח״ר‬the Israelites as a holy people out of the nations not due to any superior quality (Deut. 7:6–7; cf. 14:2; 26:19) and reserves the right to cancel their holiness if the Israelites fail to observe his commandments.87 The notion that the people of Israel are inherently holy is emphatically quashed in P. Korah protests against Moses and Aaron’s leadership with his claim that the entire congregation is holy and thus YHVH is among the masses (Num. 16:3). This claim is soundly rejected with the supernatural fiery demise of Korah and his followers (v. 35; 17:5 [ET 16:40]). P restricts holiness to the sanctuary, sancta, persons authorized to serve in the sanctuary, and anything anointed with sacred oil.88 H extends the notion of holiness to the Israelite and the land of Israel for the reason that YHVH is holy (Lev. 19:2; cf. 20:7) and, due to the dynamic quality of holiness, commands Israel to be actively holy (‫[ קד״ש‬pi.]). EM also rejects the notion of holiness as a static quality and upholds it as something that is achieved by the people through action. In Ezra 9–10, this action is—following PC and specifically H—separation, ‫( בד״ל‬ni.). For EM, holiness is required from not only the priestly classes and social leaders but also everyone who identifies as a 82

Baden, Promise, 101–25; contra Suzanne Boorer, The Promise of the Land as Oath: A Key to the Formation of the Pentateuch, BZAW 205 (Berlin: de Gruyter, 1992), 38–99. 83 For the distinction between ‫קד״ש‬-I (holy, sacred) and ‫קד״ש‬-II (clean, purified), see Baruch J. Schwartz, ‘Israel’s Holiness: The Torah Traditions’, in Purity and Holiness: The Heritage of Leviticus, ed. Marcel Poorthuis and Joshua Schwartz, JCP 2 (Leiden: Brill, 2000), 47–59; Schwartz, Holiness Legislation, 250–66. Here, these references fall under ‫קד״ש‬-I. 84 Tiemeyer, Priestly Rites, 187–8. 85 Milgrom, Leviticus 17–22, 1660–2. See also Deut. 22:9. 86 See Pakkala, ‘Pentateuchal Laws in Ezra-Nehemiah’, 208. Other critics attribute ‫ זרע הקדש‬to a combination of different traditions: (Deuteronomy’s) ‘holy nation’ and ‘seed of Abraham’ in Bob Becking, ‘Continuity and Community: The Belief System of the Book of Ezra’, in Becking and Korpel, Crisis of Israelite Religion, 270–1; P and non-P in David M. Carr, ‘The Rise of Torah’, in Knoppers and Levinson, Pentateuch as Torah, 52. 87 Weinfeld, Deuteronomic School, 227–8; Weinfeld, Deuteronomy 1–11, 367–8; Schwartz, ‘Israel’s Holiness’, 52. 88 Milgrom, Leviticus 17–22, 1712.

180

Ezra and the Second Wilderness

member of YHVH’s exclusive community. When holiness is not observed, the charge is ma‘al—it is sacrilege against YHVH and sancta. In Ezra 9:4; 10:6, the charge of sacrilege that is issued to the returnees (‫ )גולה‬furthers the point that an exclusive group is responsible for actively upholding holiness. Both the desired separation of the Israelite or ‘the holy seed’ from ‘the people of the lands’ and the divorce from foreign women suggest that EM excludes anyone from ‘the peoples of the lands’ or foreigner, a nokrî (‫)נכרי‬, as part of the continuing ‘Israelite’ or Yahvistic community. The status of the foreigner as one who is not Israelite is upheld by the biblical traditions.89 Malachi and Ezekiel consider the foreigner as a polluting agent that threatens the sanctity of sacred objects. Solomon’s marriages to foreign women (‫ )נשים נכריות‬and his resulting fidelity to their deities inform Dtr’s explanation for the eventual downfall of his kingdom (1 Kgs 11:1–13). Deuteronomy forbids the installation of a foreigner as the Israelite monarch (Deut. 17:15). In Priestly texts, just as a foreigner (‫ )בן נכר‬is explicitly prohibited from partaking in the Passover sacrifice (Exod. 12:43 [H]), there are no obligations placed upon a foreigner (‫ )בן נכר‬to uphold the purity of sancta. They are personae non gratae in the Priestly cult. The status of a foreigner as an undesirable is also illustrated when Leah and Rachel remark that their father sold them, used up their purchase price, and without any entitlement to an inheritance they pass as foreigners (‫ )נכריות‬in his household (Gen. 31:14–15 [E]).90 The above examples arise out of a general concern that a foreigner in the land of Israel does not subscribe to the cultic laws and their presence anywhere near the cult inevitably leads to sancta desecration. Shecaniah’s proposal to expel the foreign women from the peoples of the land along with their children (Ezra 10:2–4) and Ezra’s command to separate ‘from the peoples of the land’ (‫מעמי הארץ‬, v. 11) acknowledge the ritual impurity of a nonIsraelite. This non-Israelite represents a segment of the Jerusalem community. Whereas Ezra’s caravan consisted of just the returnees, EM follows the view held by the Pentateuchal traditions, in which Canaan was populated with other peoples before the Israelites first arrived, and alludes to the community in Jerusalem as a more diverse group that includes the returnees and other peoples. In a sense, EM does not see Yehud as an empty land before the arrival of Ezra

89 To designate the foreigner, H employs the term ‫בן נכר‬, whereas D uses ‫ ;נכרי‬see Jan Joosten, People and Land in the Holiness Code: An Exegetical Study of the Ideational Framework of the Law in Leviticus 17–26, VTSup 67 (Leiden: Brill, 1996), 75–6. See also ‫ בן נכר‬as a specific Priestly term, and disputing the view that P’s term refers to ethnicity and D’s term refers to territory, in Paran, Priestly Style, 301–3. 90 The source-critical division of the Jacob–Laban account is contentious. For the importance of Bethel in E’s Jacob cycle (cf. Gen. 31:13), see Gomes, Sanctuary of Bethel, 66; and the assignment of vv. 11–16 to E in Jenks, Elohist, 36–7; Friedman, Sources Revealed, 82. In support of assigning these verses to E, Jacob tells his wives that a messenger of God (‫)מלאך האלהים‬ appeared to him in a dream (v. 11). Both tropes—the messenger and YHVH’s revelation in dreams—are particular to E.

A New Legal Crisis: Foreigners and Mixed Marriages

181

and the caravan. EM’s cultic reason for disassociating from any one from ‘the peoples of the land(s)’ and separation from the foreign wives is the fear of foreign infiltration into the reconstructed Yahvistic cult. The worst-case scenario is that the foreigners will grow to a sizeable population and overtake the Yahvistic cult-abiding Israelites and the reconstructed house of YHVH. The threat of outsiders thriving in overwhelming numbers is also pronounced in the Egyptians’ fear of an exploding Israelite population in their own land (Exod. 1:8–10 [E]). What remains to be discussed is if EM makes any further distinctions between ‘insider’ and ‘outsider’. In its congregation (‫)עדה‬, H extends the protection enjoyed by the native, the ’ezraḥ (‫)אזרח‬, to the resident alien, the gēr (‫גר‬, Exod. 12:49; Lev. 24:22; Num. 15:16; cf. Ezek. 47:22–3). Although a foreigner is prohibited from partaking in the Passover sacrifice, a circumcised resident alien may participate (Exod. 12:48 [H]). In exchange for legal protection, the resident alien is required to fulfil sacrificial obligations (Lev. 17:8–9; Num. 15:14, 30–1 [H]) and—alongside the native—to observe the prohibitive commandments (ex. Lev. 4:2) but not the performative commandments demanded from only the native (ex. 23:42).91 D also upholds the legal rights and obligations of the resident alien (Deut. 24:17; 31:12) in its own assembly (‫)קהל‬ with the rationale that the Israelites were once resident aliens (‫ )גרים‬in Egypt (10:19; 23:8b [ET 7b]). The status of a resident alien is upheld in later literature (Mal. 3:5; Zech. 7:10; 2 Chr. 2:16 [ET 17]; 30:25). EM (and for that matter Ezra-Nehemiah), however, lacks any explicit mention of the resident alien, the gēr. Despite this absence, it can be inferred from EM’s multiple, yet varied, descriptions of a gathered assembly that it conceives of a class of resident aliens, with certain legal privileges and obligations, among the ‘insiders’ in Ezra’s Jerusalem community. EM describes the gathering of an assembly (‫ )קהל‬in Neh. 8:2, 17; Ezra 10:1, 8, 12, 14. All of these descriptions do not refer to the same entity. Herbertus Vogt categorizes these descriptions into three groups: ‫( קהל רב־מאד‬Ezra 10:1) as Menge;92 ‫( קהל הגולה‬v. 8) as a secular politische Bürgervertretung; and the rest as Versammlung.93 These groups may be further defined. Ezra 10:1 undeniably refers to a large crowd that weeps bitterly upon their recognition of the existing mixed marriages. In Neh. 8:2, the inclusion of men, women, and ‘all who understand’ (‫ )כל מבין‬suggests that this description of an assembly is a large crowd that expresses their remorse upon hearing ‘the words of the 91 For the distinction between the prohibitive (‘don’t’) and performative (‘do’) commandments, see Milgrom, Leviticus 1–16, 229–30, 1055–7; Milgrom, Leviticus 17–22, 1417, 1496; Milgrom, Numbers = Ba-midbar, 399–401; pace Rolf Rendtorff, ‘The gēr in the Priestly Laws of the Pentateuch’, in Brett, Ethnicity in the Bible, 83–4. 92 Also Rudolph, Esra und Nehemia, 92. 93 Herbertus C. M. Vogt, Studie zur nachexilischen Gemeinde in Esra-Nehemia (Werl: Kommissionsverlag Dietrich Coelde, 1966), 90–9.

182

Ezra and the Second Wilderness

Torah’ (v. 9b). Ezra’s proclamation of a scroll and the communal remorse over the mixed marriages occur in front of a large assembly, one referred to as ‘Israel’ (Ezra 9:1; 10:2, 5, 11, 25–43) or ‘the people’ (‫העם‬a, 10:1, 9, 13).94 In contrast, the more narrowly construed ‘all the assembly of the returnees from the captivity’, ‫כל־הקהל השבים מן־השבי‬, in Neh. 8:17 is similar to ‘the assembly of the exiles’, ‫קהל‬ ‫הגולה‬, in Ezra 10:8. The descriptions of ‘all the assembly’, ‫כל־הקהל‬, in Ezra 10:12, 14 refer to the gathering of ‘Judah and Benjamin’,95 who respond to the proclamation among the exiles (‫ )בני הגולה‬to arrive in Jerusalem within three days or risk confiscation and banishment from ‘the assembly of the exiles’ (vv. 7–9).96 EM’s assembly has in mind two different groups that can be precisely defined: a large crowd that encompasses all of the ‘insiders’ and a smaller, more exclusive, assembly among the ‘insiders’ made up of only the returnees. EM bestows on anyone from ‘the assembly of the exiles’ the status equivalent to the pre-exilic native and grants them the full rights and obligations to uphold both the prohibitive and performative commandments. In PC, the building of the booths falls upon the native with no mention of the resident alien (Lev. 23:42).97 Accordingly, in Neh. 8:17 [EM], it is only the returnees, ‫כל־הקהל השבים מן־השבי‬, and not the larger assembly who construct the booths. The absence of P’s technical terms for assembly, ‫קהל‬, and native, ‫אזרח‬, in EM is explained through linguistic changes. P frequently calls the Israelite assembly ‫ עדה‬but this term is gradually replaced by ‫ קהל‬in post-exilic literature.98 Likewise, the Priestly term ‫ אזרח‬falls into disuse due to its obsolescence.99 The lack of any explicit mention of a resident alien in EM is a different matter. The status of a resident alien is upheld in post-exilic texts but only implied in EM. Due to the resident alien’s transient status and the legal obligations to uphold only the prohibitive commandments, the resident alien is not granted a prominent place in EM’s idealized community. From a legal standpoint,

94

Karrer, Verfassung, 240–1. See ‘Judah and Benjamin’ as a representation of the surviving southern kingdom in Kapelrud, Authorship, 75; all of Israel in Gunneweg, Esra, 178; a geographical reference in Myers, Ezra. Nehemiah, 86; Fensham, Ezra and Nehemiah, 138; or the elevation of Levites (‘Benjamin’) to a status equal to that of the priests (‘Judah’) in Min, Levitical Authorship, 85. 96 Blenkinsopp, Ezra-Nehemiah, 292. 97 Also Milgrom, Numbers, 399. 98 Jacob Milgrom, ‘Priestly Terminology and the Political and Social Structure of PreMonarchic Israel’, JQR 69 (1978): 68; Milgrom, Leviticus 1–16, 242–3; Hurvitz, Linguistic Study, 66. 99 The etymology of ‫ אזרח‬is unknown and, although the term is never applied to the preIsraelite inhabitants of Canaan, it is suggested that it refers to someone with roots in the land (cf. Ps. 37:35); see Baruch A. Levine, Leviticus = Va-yikrah: The Traditional Hebrew Text with the New JPS Translation, JPSTC (Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society, 1989), 134; contra the influence of the Priestly term ‫( אזרח‬all in H texts and Priestly editing in Josh. 8:33) on only Ezek. 47:22 in Paran, Priestly Style, 299. If this suggestion is acceptable, then the disappearance of ‫אזרח‬ by the post-exilic period and its replacement with ‫קהל הגולה‬/‫ בני‬is well explained by the returnees’ claim as the continuing and legitimate assembly of YHVH. 95

A New Legal Crisis: Foreigners and Mixed Marriages

183

EM’s concern over the foreigners and the mixed marriages lies in the identification and the (in)ability of the respective parties to uphold properly all of the legal and covenantal obligations—both the prohibitive and performative commandments—to YHVH.

E Z R A’ S INITIAL REACTION ( EZRA 9:3 – 1 0: 1 ) Reacting to what is described as ma‘al, an act of sacrilege, Ezra tears his garment (‫ )בגד‬and robe (‫ )מעיל‬and expresses his anguish by plucking his beard and hair (Ezra 9:3).100 Ezra’s actions are impulsive and not in response to any Priestly instructions (Lev. 13:40), mourning rituals (21:5–6), or instructions concerning the Nazirite’s consecrated hair (Num. 6:5, 18). Ezra reports that he sat desolate (‫ )משומם‬until the evening sacrifice (‫)מנחת־הערב‬, when he arises from his fasting (‫תענית‬a).101 Texts from the Maccabean period (Dan. 9:21; Judith 9:1) and the first century CE (Luke 1:10; Acts 3:1) bear witness to the evening sacrifice as the appropriate time for prayer.102

The Ones Who Tremble EM refers to a group of people as ‘all who trembled [‫חרד‬, ḥ ārēd] at the words of the God of Israel’ (‫כל חרד בדברי אלהי־ישראל‬, Ezra 9:4). In Ezra 10:3, Shecaniah addresses ‘the ones who tremble [ḥ arēdîm] at the commandment of our God’ (‫ )והחרדים במצות אלהינו‬as a group that shares counsel with Ezra.103 Critics The ‫ מעיל‬is included as an inner garment among P’s sacred vestments for the high priest (Exod. 28:4, 31–4; 29:5; 39:22–6; Lev. 8:7; see Haran, Temples, 165–9). Exod. 39:23 implies that a priest’s ‫ מעיל‬is tightened at the opening so that it cannot be torn (‫)לא יקרע‬. Ezra tearing off (‫ )קר״ע‬a tightly bounded ‫ מעיל‬could demonstrate his intense anguish over the situation but it is difficult to see P’s ‫ מעיל‬on Ezra. The design of the Priestly ‫ מעיל‬serves a practical purpose. The golden bells along the hem of P’s ‫ מעיל‬robe function as an aural signal to ascertain that Aaron is alive and not consumed by the ‘presence’ when he ministers inside the restricted inner sanctum. It is unlikely that Ezra would have a need for a ‫ מעיל‬as exactly described in P. For plucking hair as an act that represents literal or symbolic mourning, see Susan Niditch, ‘My Brother Esau is a Hairy Man’: Hair and Identity in Ancient Israel (New York: Oxford University Press, 2008), 105–6. 101 For the association of the hapax ‫ תענית‬with a religious fast, see Kapelrud, Authorship, 63; Blenkinsopp, Ezra-Nehemiah, 178; Hurvitz, Late Biblical Hebrew, 242. Support is found in Ezra 8:21 with LBH ‫( ענ״ה‬hit.) acquiring the technical meaning of a fast. 102 Cohen, Maccabees to the Mishnah, 61. There is, however, no description of what exactly is offered but following the prescription only of an evening sacrifice from PC, it could be assumed that EM takes for granted the regular ‫ תמיד‬offering (Exod. 29:41; Lev. 6:13 [ET 20]; Num. 28:8). 103 As it is pointed, MT ‫‘( אד ָני‬my [divine] Lord’) in Ezra 10:3 (‫ )בעצת אד ָני והחרדים‬improbably refers to Ezra. Critics suggest an emendation to ‫‘( אד ִני‬my [human] lord’; cf. 1 Esdras 8:94 [ὡς ἐκρίθη σοι]); see Batten, Ezra and Nehemiah, 340; Rudolph, Esra und Nehemia, 92; Kapelrud, Authorship, 73; Williamson, Ezra, Nehemiah, 143; Gunneweg, Esra, 173; Blenkinsopp, Ezra-Nehemiah, 187; Fensham, Ezra and Nehemiah, 135; Fishbane, Biblical Interpretation, 114 n. 26. Due to the 100

184

Ezra and the Second Wilderness

remark that the description of ‘the ones who tremble’ recalls a pious clique labelled as ḥ arēdîm in Isa. 66:2, 5.104 Although the references in Isa. 66:2, 5 are noteworthy, there are other plausible influences on EM’s description of a group who trembles at ‘the words of the God of Israel’ (Ezra 9:4) and ‘at the commandment of our God’ (10:3). In Exodus 19, ‫( חר״ד‬qal) appears twice but with different subjects. In v. 18, Sinai is described as trembling intensely (‫ויחרד כל־ההר‬ ‫)מאד‬. This description belongs to J’s theophany. The other description in v. 16 belongs to E. Here, it is not a mountain that trembles but the Israelites: ‫ויהי ביום השלישי בהית הבקר ויהי קלת וברקים וענן כבד על־ההר וקל שפר חזק מאד ויחדר‬ ‫כל־העם אשר במחנה‬a On the third day, in the morning, thunder and lightning and a thick cloud were on the mountain. The sound of a trumpet was extremely loud and all the people in the camp trembled. (Exod. 19:16)

In E, Moses brings the Israelites to meet YHVH but they do not ascend Horeb (Exod. 19:17). A trumpet blows louder and when Moses speaks, YHVH answers in thunder (v. 19). What immediately follows next is YHVH’s proclamation of the Decalogue (20:1–17), which includes YHVH showing kindness to those who keep his commandments (v. 6). EM’s depiction of the ḥ arēdîm upholding YHVH’s words in Ezra 9:4 and commandments in 10:3 resonates with E’s description of the events at the wilderness mountain. The sense of ‫( חר״ד‬hi.) in Lev. 26:6 [H]; Deut. 28:26 is unlike that in any of Exod. 19:16(, 18); Ezra 9:4; 10:3. D recalls the gathering of the Israelites at Horeb (Deut. 4:10), but here they do not tremble when they hear YHVH’s voice (v. 12). In P, the Israelites are more subdued when YHVH’s presence covers the summit of Sinai (Exod. 24:17) and even then it is only Moses who receives the instructions for the Tabernacle (25:1). Furthermore, according to P, the Israelites are not participants when the instructions (tôrôt) are given to Moses. The description of the people as ‫ חר״ד‬when YHVH reveals his laws is exclusively E’s material and the verbal similarities between Ezra 9:4 [EM] and Exod. 19:16; 20:1 [E] are strong. Both accounts describe a group who ‫ חר״ד‬at YHVH’s word. The description of ‘the words of the God of Israel’, ‫דברי‬ ‫אלהי־ישראל‬, in Ezra 9:4 does not refer to different passages of the ‘Law’.105 conjunctive vav, an alternative pointing of ‫‘( אד ַני‬my [human] lords’; cf. Gen. 19:2, 18; see GKC §135q) is unlikely. 104 Fishbane, Biblical Interpretation, 114 n. 27; Pakkala, Ezra the Scribe, 127–8; Blenkinsopp, Ezra and Nehemiah, 178–9; Blenkinsopp, A History of Prophecy in Israel, 2nd edn (Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox, 2003), 220–1. Blenkinsopp’s views have evolved, with him now arguing that the ḥ arēdîm are a proto-sectarian group; see Judaism: The First Phase, 84–5, 199–201. 105 Contra Kapelrud, Authorship, 62. It should be recalled that ‫ דברי אלהי־ישראל‬does not have the same meaning as EM’s other uses of ‫דבר‬.

A New Legal Crisis: Foreigners and Mixed Marriages

185

Instead, ‫ דברי אלהי־ישראל‬in this verse alludes to YHVH’s first proclamations from Exod. 20:1–14 (cf. Deut. 5:22). From the only Pentateuchal law-giving account that describes the people trembling at the ‘words of the God of Israel’, EM identifies a pious group that accompanies Ezra. The interest that the ḥ arēdîm have in the entire affair and their place alongside Ezra suggest that they also partake in any legal discourse that reaches the upper ranks of the judiciary.106 In EM, the ḥ arēdîm are members of the highest religious court who deliberate alongside the chief justice, Ezra the priest-scribe.

Ezra’s Prayer Ezra 9:6–15 has drawn interest as an example of post-exilic penitential prayer (cf. Neh. 1:5–11; 9:6–37).107 There appear to be scattered allusions to Pentateuchal literature in these verses. Near the end of the prayer, Ezra asks, ‘shall we return to break your commandments?’ (‫הנשוב להפר מצותיך‬, Ezra 9:14). Breaking (‫[ פר״ר‬hi.]) YHVH’s covenant is a recurring concern (Gen. 17:14 [P]; Lev. 26:15, 44 [H]; Deut. 31:16, 20 [E]) but the only description of breaking a commandment is in Num. 15:31 [H]. EM also uses a wider range of materials in Ezra’s prayer. For example, the metaphorical tent peg (‫ )יתד‬in Ezra 9:8 not only elicits P’s numerous descriptions of tent pegs used for the Tabernacle (cf. Exod. 27:15; 35:18 etc.) but also Jael’s weapon of choice (Judg. 4:21–2). Additionally, the pairing of shame (‫ )בו״ש‬and dismay (‫ )כל״מ‬in Ezra 9:6 is a possible allusion to Ezek. 36:32.108 These are specific references to Ezra’s situation in Ezra 9:6–15 and these verses are integral to its surrounding material.109 Ezra deliberates over the ’ašmāh (‫אשמה‬, vv. 13, 15; which also connotes ‘guilt’ elsewhere in 10:10, 19 [EM]; 2 Chr. 24:18) and ‘āvōn (‫עון‬, ‘iniquity’) of his community (Ezra 9:6, 7, 13) and recognizes that the status quo has dire consequences (vv. 14–15). The Priestly Corpus refers to both a guilty act and its reparative offering as ’āšām (cf. Lev. 4:3 [P]).110 The possibility that both ’ašmāh and ’āšām convey guilt is suggested by the unique phrase ‫ עון אשמה‬in Lev. 22:16 [H].111 Likewise, in Ezra 106 For the inclusion of the ḥ arēdîm among those suspected of taking foreign wives, see Tiemeyer, Priestly Rites, 185. The absence of anyone identified as from the ḥ arēdîm among the named offenders in Ezra 10:18, 20–43 suggests that none of the ḥ arēdîm is implicated. 107 See Werline, Penitential Prayer, 46–53; Bautch, Post-Exilic Penitential Prayers, 65–100; Duggan, ‘Ezra 9:6–15’, 165–80. 108 Harm W. M. van Grol, ‘Exegesis of the Exile—Exegesis of Scripture? Ezra 9:6–9’, in Intertextuality in Ugarit and Israel, ed. Johannes C. de Moor, OtSt 40 (Leiden: Brill, 1998), 38–48. 109 Williamson, Ezra, Nehemiah, 128. 110 Milgrom, Cult and Conscience, 13–21; Milgrom, Leviticus 1–16, 231–2. Milgrom contends that ‫ אשמה‬in Lev. 4:3; 5:24 [ET 6:5], 26 [ET 6:7] is infinitival (‘to feel guilt’) rather than nominal. 111 Milgrom, Leviticus 17–22, 1869.

186

Ezra and the Second Wilderness

10:19, a reparation offering (here, ’āšām in the plural) of a ram of the flock is offered for a guilty act (’ašmāh). EM updates the Priestly terminology of ’āšām with ’ašmāh but only with regard to the act and not the accompanying sacrifice. In the non-Priestly traditions, an ‘āvōn is an iniquity that leads to either YHVH’s mercy and forgiveness (Gen. 4:13–15 [J]; Exod. 34:7, 9 [J]; Num. 14:18–19 [J]) or YHVH’s wrath (Exod. 20:5 [E]; Deut. 5:9 [D]). H establishes the recognition of one’s own and an ancestor’s iniquity as an act of sacrilege (ma‘al) against YHVH and its accompanying confession as preconditions for YHVH restoring his covenant with the Israelites (Lev. 26:39–45). In Ezra 9:10–12, Ezra remarks that they have forsaken YHVH’s commandments: ‫אשר צוית ביד עבדיך הנביאים לאמר הארץ אשר אתם באים לרשתה ארץ נדה היא בנדת‬a11 ‫ ועתה בנותיכם אל־תתנו‬12 ‫עמי הארצות בתועבתיהם אשר מלאוה מפה אל־פה בטמאתם‬ ‫לבניהם ובנתיהם אל־תשאו לבניכם ולא־תדרשו שלמם וטובתם עד־עולם למען תחזקו ואכלתם‬ ‫את־טוב הארץ והורשתם לבניכם עד־עולם‬ which you commanded through your servants the prophets: ‘The land which you are going to possess—it is a land of impurity through the impurities of the peoples of the lands, through their abominations which they filled from end to end with their uncleanness. 12 Now do not give your daughters to their sons and do not take their daughters for your sons. You shall never seek their peace or goodness so that you will be strong and you will consume the good of the land and possess it for your children forever.’ (Ezra 9:11–12) 11

The commandments that Ezra recites are almost identical to those spoken by the officials in Ezra 9:1–2. It was observed above that Ezra 9:1–2 is a pastiche of Pentateuchal laws, mainly from D and PC. Likewise, Ezra 9:11–12 does not replicate specific commandments but adapts Deut. 7:1–5; 23:4–9 [D]112 and Lev. 18:24–30 [H].113 Ezra remarks that the commandments were given through YHVH’s servants, the prophets (‫ביד עבדיך הנביאים‬, Ezra 9:11). For some critics, this reference places Ezra within the line of prophetic succession 112 In der Smitten, Esra, 27–8; Fishbane, Biblical Interpretation, 116; Olyan, Rites and Rank, 88. Although the technical term ‫ מצות‬is absent in Deut. 7:1–5, D still occasionally refers to an exhortation as ‫( מצוה‬cf. Deut. 8:1; 11:8). See, however, the direction of influence from Neh. 13:22–7 (which itself modifies Deut. 7:3) to Ezra 9:12 in Wright, Rebuilding Identity, 248–9. A case can also be made for the influence of Deuteronomic phraseology in Ezra 9:11, ‫( הארץ אשר אתם באים לרשתה‬cf. Deut. 7:1; 11:10, 29; 23:21; 30:16; see Pakkala, Ezra the Scribe, 110) and in v. 12, ‫( טוב הארץ‬cf. Deut. 6:11; see Blenkinsopp, Ezra-Nehemiah, 185). Unconvincing is any claim for a connection to ‫( את־טוב ארץ מצרים‬Gen. 45:18) in Myers, Ezra. Nehemiah, 79; Kapelrud, Authorship, 68. 113 Pakkala, Ezra the Scribe, 115. According to Ezra 9:11, the land becomes ‫ ארץ נדה‬due to the abominations of the peoples of the land. In Lev. 18:24–30 the land will become ‫טמ״א‬. EM’s use of ‫ נדה‬is explained on the basis that this early technical term for menstrual discharge (Lev. 12:2 [P] etc.) becomes a metaphor for moral impurity (20:21 [H]; cf. Ezek. 7:19, 20); see Milgrom, Leviticus 1–16, 38.

A New Legal Crisis: Foreigners and Mixed Marriages

187

that originates with Moses, the prophet sine pari (Deut. 18:15; 34:10–12).114 EM’s Ezra is an appropriation from the multiple Pentateuchal traditions of Moses; however, this appropriation is selective, and Ezra is never described as a ‘prophet’, ‫נביא‬, for the reason that classical notions of prophecy cease by this time. Ezra’s reference to YHVH’s servants the prophets in Ezra 9:11 serves to legitimize the efficacy and antiquity of the commandments. In Ezra 10:1, Ezra appeals on behalf of his community after learning of the mixed marriages and pleads (‫[ פל״ל‬hit.]) and prostrates (‫[ נפ״ל‬hit.]) before the House of God (Ezra 10:1).115 In Deuteronomy’s recapitulation of E’s molten calf episode in Exod. 32:30–4, Moses claims that he prostrated (‫[ נפ״ל‬hit.]) before YHVH (Deut. 9:18, 25) and pleaded (‫[ פל״ל‬hit.]) on behalf of the apostates (vv. 20, 26). Here, the similarities between EM and D end. Moses directly pleads the Israelites’ case before YHVH but Ezra spreads his hands out to YHVH and offers a prayer at the House of God. The absence of YHVH’s response after Ezra’s petition is consistent with EM’s understanding that, as was observed in Nehemiah 8, the divine oracle is no longer directly accessible in the earthly realm. Ezra not only pleads and prostrates but also confesses (‫[ יד״ה‬hit.]). Sometime after Ezra’s personal act of confession, he instructs an assembly to undertake confession (‫תודה ליהוה‬, Ezra 10:11).116 The assembly complies in Neh. 9:2–3*. The lack of a direct object specifying guilt in EM’s descriptions of confession follows the common use of ‫( יד״ה‬hit.) in post-exilic literature.117 In the Priestly Corpus, ‫( יד״ה‬hit.) is an act of confession that specifies guilt (Lev. 5:5; 16:21; Num. 5:7 [P]) or a confession with its sacrificial requirement waived (Lev. 26:40 [H]).118

CONTINUING DELIBERATIONS (EZRA 1 0:2– 8 ) After a large crowd joins Ezra, one Shecaniah ben Jehiel arrives at the scene and proposes that the foreign wives and their children should be sent

114 As suggested in Rudolph, Esra und Nehemia, 92; Blenkinsopp, Ezra-Nehemiah, 184; Pakkala, Ezra the Scribe, 118. 115 Kapelrud, Authorship, 72; Weinfeld, Deuteronomic School, 301; Weinfeld, Deuteronomy 1–11, 410. 116 Kapelrud, Authorship, 76; Williamson, Ezra, Nehemiah, 155; Guy Couturier, ‘Sens de tôdâh en Jos 7,19 et en Esdras 10,11’, in La Vie de parole: de l’Ancien au Nouveau Testament. Études d’exégèse et d’herméneutique bibliques offertes à Pierre Grelot (Paris: Desclée, 1987), 121–7. Despite the best efforts to read ‘praise’ (Batten, Ezra and Nehemiah, 344; Blenkinsopp, Ezra-Nehemiah, 193), why and for what the community should give praise to YHVH is not apparent. 117 118 Paran, Priestly Style, 304–5. Milgrom, Leviticus 23–27, 2330.

188

Ezra and the Second Wilderness

away. Shecaniah’s solution is not immediately followed. Some within the community agree to a future course of action and Ezra retires for another night. A proclamation is then issued for the assembly of the returnees to gather in Jerusalem within three days.

Shecaniah’s Proposal Shecaniah joins in the legal discussion and agrees with the officials that sacrilege has been committed (‫ )מע״ל‬against YHVH. His position, however, is more moderate when compared to the one held by the officials who brought the initial charge to Ezra. Shecaniah optimistically declares that there remains hope, and limiting the concern to the marriages with foreign women, proposes that a covenant (‫ )ברית‬be established with YHVH that involves sending away only the foreign wives and their children. According to Shecaniah, this course of action is to be done through the counsel of Ezra and the ḥ arēdîm and ‘according to Torah’ (Ezra 10:3; cf. 9:4). However, ‫( יצ״א‬hi.) is not a common word for divorce (cf. 10:19) and the divorce proceedings as proposed in Ezra 10:3 are unknown in the Pentateuchal corpus.119 Bernard Jackson suggests that the legal status of the divorcee and the institution of divorce are late in the biblical tradition.120 The textual evidence does not fully support these claims. Deut. 24:1 allows for a man to send away (‫ )של״ח‬a woman for any reason by simply executing a bill of divorcement, ‫ספר כריתת‬. Although Deut. 24:1–4 does not legislate general divorce proceedings and probably has the specific situation of palingamy in mind,121 the execution of a bill of divorcement appears to be simply part of any divorce proceeding. A similar document is also described in Isa. 50:1; Jer. 3:8; TADAE B6.4:2 (restored as ‫)דין שנאה‬. Divorce proceedings may also be initiated through a verbal declaration (Hos. 2:4; CH §141; TADAE B2.6:21, 27).

119 Williamson, Ezra, Nehemiah, 150; Fishbane, Biblical Interpretation, 117; Blenkinsopp, Ezra-Nehemiah, 189; Blenkinsopp, ‘Was the Pentateuch the Civic and Religious Constitution of the Jewish Ethnos in the Persian Period?’, in Watts, Persia and Torah, 58; Sebastian Grätz, ‘The Second Temple and the Legal Status of Torah: The Hermeneutics of the Torah in the Books of Ruth and Ezra’, in Knoppers and Levinson, Pentateuch as Torah, 274. 120 Jackson, ‘Marriage and Divorce’, 242–4; see also the literary-critical separation of Deut. 24:1 from vv. 2–4 in Arie Toeg, ‘Does Deuteronomy XXIV 1–4 Incorporate a General Law on Divorce?’, DIsr 2 (1970): 7; and, the ‫ ספר כתיתת‬in Deut. 24:1–4 as a late innovation in Reuven Yaron, ‘Divorce in Old Testament Times’, RIDA 4 (1957): 124–7; Alexander Rofé, Deuteronomy: Issues and Interpretation, OTS (London: T&T Clark, 2002), 189. 121 There is a myriad of proposals for the rationale behind Deut. 24:1–4, but as an economical concern that prevents the first man from using a woman to take advantage of a second man, see Raymond Westbrook, ‘The Prohibition on Restoration of Marriage in Deuteronomy 24:1–4’, ScrHier 31 (1986): 387–405.

A New Legal Crisis: Foreigners and Mixed Marriages

189

The Pentateuchal narratives contain few, if any, specific instructions for Israelite divorce proceedings.122 Among these instructions, in addition to Deut. 24:1–4, D refuses a man’s right to divorce when he defames (22:19) or violates a virgin (v. 29). Under the presumption that divorce is a common practice in ancient Israel, these laws anticipate any potential abuses.123 The Priestly legislators also understand divorce as a common reality in ancient Israel and account for issues that arise out of the practice. Num. 30:10–13 legitimizes the vows of a divorcee (‫ )גרושה‬or widow who is without a man who can assume responsibility for vows and obligations. H also recognizes the status of a divorcee but keeps the divorcee away from the vicinity of the cult by forbidding the marriage of the divorcee to a priest (Lev. 21:7) or the high priest (v. 14). Some critics believe that Moses’ marital status prompts Jethro’s visit to Moses in Exod. 18:1–6, but if divorce is the main interest, then I find it surprising that the rest of this episode does not address the issue but rather focuses on Jethro’s sage advice to Moses to establish a system of legal courts.124 Generally, a divorce may be initiated by a written document or an oral declaration with exceptional cases noted. EM does not mention something that resembles either a bill of divorcement or a verbal act of divorce but instead creates an additional wrinkle in the proceedings: Shecaniah’s proposal to expel the children born to the foreign women (Ezra 10:3) and its eventual execution (v. 44). Japhet suggests that what is at stake is an economic interest centred on inheritance. In her view, the expulsion of mothers and their offspring draws upon both CH §§170–1 and Gen. 21:9–23; 25:1–6 and incorporates the post-exilic innovation of defining ethnicity through the maternal line.125

122 From the presupposition that narrative is the basis for law, Calum Carmichael argues that Genesis 20 is the background to Deut. 24:1–4; see The Laws of Deuteronomy (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1974), 208; Carmichael, Law and Narrative in the Bible: The Evidence of the Deuteronomic Laws and the Decalogue (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1985), 254–7. This argument is soundly rejected in Gordon Wenham, ‘The Restoration of Marriage Reconsidered’, JJS 30 (1979): 37. 123 The absence of a ‫ מהר‬in Deut. 22:19, 29 suggests that the interest is not financial (especially for the father) but a moral concern for the wrong committed against the woman; see Weinfeld, Deuteronomic School, 285. 124 Propp speculates that ‘The Elohist, then, probably had a particular reason to ignore Zipporah’ (Exodus 1–18, 635). This reason is unclear. For ‫ שלחויה‬in Exod. 18:2 as divorce (cf. ‫ של״ח‬in Deut. 24:1; Mal. 2:16), see Yair Zakovitch, ‘The Woman’s Rights in the Biblical Law of Divorce’, JLA 4 (1981): 38; Jackson, ‘Marriage and Divorce’, 230. For some critics, Moses’ Cushite wife in Num. 12:1 [E] implies that Moses divorced Zipporah; see, however, Zipporah and the Cushite woman as one and the same in Donald J. Wiseman, Peoples of Old Testament Times (Oxford: Clarendon, 1973), 13. I believe that the issue is a source-critical one, as Zipporah appears in J and the unnamed Cushite woman in E. 125 Sara Japhet, ‘The Expulsion of the Foreign Women (Ezra 9–10): The Legal Basis, Precedents, and Consequences for the Jewish Identity’, in Sieben Augen auf einem Stein (Sach 3,9): Studien zur Literatur des zweiten Tempels. Festschrift für Ina Willi-Plein zum 65. Geburtstag, ed. Friedhelm Hartenstein and Michael Pietsch (Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 2007), 144–52.

190

Ezra and the Second Wilderness

Shecaniah’s rationale may lie in economic interests, but in light of EM’s use of Deut. 23:4–9 [ET 3–8] in Ezra 9:1–2, 11–12 the expulsion of the children is, on principle, based on the exclusion of someone born of an illicit union, ‫ממזר‬, from the assembly of YHVH in Deut. 23:3 [ET 2]. The expulsion of children born to foreign women prevents an increasing foreign (nokrî) population from being realized in Yehud. Although Shecaniah identifies the problem and proposes a solution that is reasonably grounded in Pentateuchal legislation, his proposal is not completely accepted. He addresses only the marriages and his insistence on initiating a covenant (‫ )ברית‬with YHVH is not followed through. Pentateuchal literature does not attest to a human initiating a covenant with YHVH. In CC, when a human attempts to establish a covenant with a deity, it is an unacceptable covenant established with Hivites, Canaanites, Hittites, and their respective deities (Exod. 23:32–3). Instead, the instigator of a true covenant with the Israelites is YHVH. If Shecaniah’s proposal for a covenant represents the belief held by some in post-exilic Yehud that the divine oracle is readily accessible, then EM soundly rejects this principle. Ezra partially incorporates Shecaniah’s solution but, informed by notions of a ritually acceptable covenant and consistent with YHVH’s increased distance—if not, complete removal— from the earthly sphere, does not exhort the community to enter into a covenant with YHVH. Appropriately, Ezra does not immediately accept Shecaniah’s suggestion (Ezra 10:5). Instead, he makes the priests, Levites, and ‘all Israel’ swear to act accordingly at an anticipated future meeting.126 He leaves the House of God and goes to the room of Jehohanan.127 Ezra neither eats nor drinks due to his continued distress over the suspected act of sacrilege. In Ezra 8:21–3, EM shaped Ezra’s proclamation of a fast (‫ )צום‬after the first time Moses refrained from food and drink in his preparations for receiving the tablets (Exod. 24:18b; 31:18* [E]; Deut. 9:9b, 10a [D]). In Ezra 10:6b, EM recalls the Elohistic and Deuteronomic descriptions of the second time Moses refrains from food and drink after the apostasy of the molten calf:

126

Blenkinsopp, Ezra-Nehemiah, 189. The double occurrence of ‫ וילך‬in MT Ezra 10:6 is odd but the emendation to ‫( וילן‬cf. καὶ αὐλισθεὶς ἐκεῖ [1 Esdras 9:2]) does not alter the essence of what happens: Ezra goes to Jehohanan. Who exactly is this Jehohanan—if he can be identified at all—is unknown. Identifying the priest Yōḥ anan I, son of ’Elyašīb I, as a contemporary of Ezra, Cross reconstructs the list of post-exilic high priests (through papponymy) by arguing for two pairs of yōḥ anan and ’elyašīb, one which was lost through haplography; see ‘Reconstruction’, 10; rev. in From Epic to Canon: History and Literature in Ancient Israel (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1988), 162–3; pace Geo Widengren, ‘The Persian Period’, in Israelite and Judean History, ed. John H. Hayes and J. Maxwell Miller, OTL (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1977), 507–9; VanderKam, Joshua to Caiaphas, 85–99; Pakkala, Ezra the Scribe, 129–30. 127

A New Legal Crisis: Foreigners and Mixed Marriages Ezra 10:6b ‫לחם לא־אכל ומים לא־שתה‬a ‫כי מתאבל על־מעל הגולה‬ He did not eat bread or drink water, for he was distressed over the ma‘al of the returnees.

Exod. 34:28b [E] ‫לחם לא אכל ומים לא שתה‬a ‫ויכתב על־הלחת את דברי הברית‬ ‫עשרת הדברים‬ He did not eat bread or drink water. He wrote on the tablets the words of the covenant, the ten words.

191

Deut. 9:18b [D] ‫לחם לא אכלתי ומים לא שתיתי על‬a ‫כל־חטאתכם אשר חטאתם לעשות‬ ‫הרע בעיני יהוה להכעיסו‬ I did not eat bread and I did not drink water because of all the ḥ aṭtạ̄ ’t that you have done, to do (this) evil before YHVH, to anger him.

Unlike E, D explicitly states that Moses refrains from bread and water because of the wrong, the ḥ aṭtạ̄ ’t, and the evil the Israelites did before YHVH. EM likewise claims that Ezra neither eats nor drinks due to the returnees’ suspected act of sacrilege. In EM, however, Ezra does not observe a period of forty days (in contrast with Moses in Exod. 34:28a [E]; Deut. 9:18a [D]) because the act of sacrilege that is recognized among Ezra’s community must be dealt with expeditiously and before it overwhelms the cult.

The Proclamation In Ezra 10:7–8, the ‘chiefs and elders’ issue (‫[ עב״ר‬hi.]) a proclamation, ‫קול‬, throughout Judah and Jerusalem. The proclamation demands that all the returnees (‫ )בני הגולה‬assemble in Jerusalem within three days.128 EM’s public imprecation follows the proclamation, ‫קול‬, in Lev. 5:1 [P]. According to Lev. 5:1, a person commits a wrong (‫ )חט״א‬when they do not respond to a proclamation and—having been a witness to, or seeing, or knowing the matter—does not testify. That person must bear their punishment, which consists of confession (v. 5) and reparation (vv. 6–13). It was observed in Neh. 8:15 that a proclamation, here also ‫קול‬, was proclaimed throughout the towns and in Jerusalem to go into the hill country to gather materials for the construction of booths. In response, the returnees (‫ )כל־הקהל השבי מן־השבי‬follow the legal obligations to respond to a performative commandment and, in doing so, make the booths and dwell in them (v. 17). Ezra 10:7–8 contain EM’s second report of a proclamation, ‫קול‬. As it turns out, it is also only the returnees who will respond to this second proclamation. According to Ezra 10:7–8, whoever fails to respond positively to the proclamation is subject to the council of officials and elders (‫)כעצת השרים והזקנים‬. The 128 Three days would have been an adequate amount of time for travel to Jerusalem; see Rudolph, Esra und Nehemia, 95; Williamson, Ezra, Nehemiah, 154; Blenkinsopp, EzraNehemiah, 190.

192

Ezra and the Second Wilderness

officials and elders are present in consecutive E episodes. First in E’s judicial council, capable men are appointed as officials (‫שרים‬, Exod. 18:13–26; cf. Deut. 1:15 [D]) to adjudicate over small cases. Immediately afterwards, Moses relays YHVH’s declaration that the Israelites are to be his treasured possession to ‘the elders of the people’ (‫זקני העם‬, Exod. 19:2b–8).129 Alongside the officials and elders, however, E’s judicial council lacks the temple personnel that are themselves a Deuteronomic innovation (Deut. 17:8–13; cf. 2 Chr. 19:8).130 PC also removes the temple personnel from judicial proceedings. According to the Priestly writers, the priests are strictly responsible for distinguishing between holy and common, clean and unclean, teaching statutes (Lev. 10:10–11 [P]; cf. Ezek. 44:23), and the proper upkeep of the cult (Lev. 21:1–22:33). In P, priests rarely, if ever, resolve any legal disputes.131 The Priestly narrative in Num. 27:1–11 [H] illustrates the point that legal decisions are rendered by Moses alone. Although the daughters of Zelophehad take up their inheritance claims with Moses, Eleazar the priest, leaders, and the congregation (vv. 1–4), it is only Moses who presents their case to YHVH and relays the oracular decision to the Israelites (vv. 5–11).132 In the Artaxerxes Edict, failure to follow either religious or civil law is punishable by death, banishment, confiscation of goods, or imprisonment (Ezra 7:26). EM selectively applies the threats from the Artaxerxes Edict to the second proclamation in Ezra 10:7–8.133 Imprisonment is not an attested remedy in the Pentateuchal legal corpora. In the Priestly legislation, capital punishment is reserved for only the severest of offences, namely sancta trespass. Failure to respond to a public proclamation (‫ )קול‬is not by itself chargeable under the death penalty. Instead, P demands confession and an appropriate reparation offering that correlates to the guilty party’s economic capabilities. EM lists the consequences for not reporting within three days of the proclamation as confiscation (‫[ חר״מ‬ho.]) of property and banishment (‫[ בד״ל‬ni.]) (Ezra 10:8b).134 The language of ‫ חר״מ‬implies an end result in which confiscated persons or objects become the property of the temple (cf. 1 Esdras 9:4).135 In PC, the failure to observe the covenantal stipulations or the breaking of the cultic purity obligations requires purification or expulsion (‫)כר״ת‬ The ‫ זקנים‬are present elsewhere in E; see Num. 11:16–17, 24–5; 16:25. Weinfeld, Deuteronomic School, 235; James W. Watts, ‘The Torah as the Rhetoric of Priesthood’, in Knoppers and Levinson, Pentateuch as Torah, 324. 131 D, however, grants priests (specifically, the Levites) the right to decide cases of dispute and assault (Deut. 21:5). 132 In P, Moses occasionally supersedes Aaron; see Milgrom, Leviticus 1–16, 56–7. 133 Williamson, Ezra, Nehemiah, 154. 134 For the influence of ancient Greek law upon LXX (Lucianic) Ezra 10:8 (ἀτιμι´ᾳ), see Gerald J. Blidstein, ‘ˈAtimia: A Greek Parallel to Ezra X 8 and to Post-Biblical Exclusion from the Community’, VT 24 (1974): 357–60. 135 Batten, Ezra and Nehemiah, 342; Williamson, Ezra, Nehemiah, 154; Blenkinsopp, EzraNehemiah, 190. From the Pentateuchal legal corpora, ‫ חר״מ‬is tied to the destruction of offensive 129 130

A New Legal Crisis: Foreigners and Mixed Marriages

193

for the most deviant offences (cf. Num. 15:30–1 [H]). The punishment of confiscation followed by banishment, however, is unattested in Pentateuchal literature. Returning to Num. 27:1–11 [H], this episode reflects a legal concern for a surviving woman without any brothers becoming unjustly ineligible to receive the inheritance of her deceased, yet righteous, father. Baruch Levine remarks that P prevents a ḥ erem, ‫—חרם‬here also defined as the transfer of property to the state or the temple.136 I remark that the surviving woman’s impending poverty would prevent her from obtaining an acceptable sacrifice and participating in the cult community. If this is so, P addresses an unspoken reality in the ancient world: confiscation without proper recourse leads to economic destitution and inevitable banishment (imposed by others or individually) from the cult community. In Ezra 10:8, EM reflects this reality (as expounded in Num. 27:1–11) and illustrates the serious consequences for an offender who is no longer able to perform any of the performative commandments and offer any sacrifice for the expiation of intentional or unintentional guilt against sancta.137

THE RESOLUTION ( EZRA 10:9 – 4 4 + NEHEMIAH 9:1 – 5a α ) Responding to Ezra’s proclamation, the returnees gather again in Jerusalem within three days and Ezra issues a verdict. Ezra’s decision follows the legal arguments launched by both the officials and Shecaniah and after his own actions and deliberations. In essence, Ezra agrees that the inability to separate from the peoples of the land and the foreign women constitutes ma‘al, ‘sacrilege’. After Ezra announces his verdict, some time is required to implement the entire decision but the matter will be eventually resolved.

Ezra’s Final Verdict The people of ‘Judah and Benjamin’ convene on the twentieth day of the ninth month in an open space in the House of God, trembling (‫[ רע״ד‬hi.]) because of persons (Exod. 22:19 [ET 20] [CC]) or abhorrent persons or items (Num. 21:2, 3 [P]; Deut. 3:6; 20:17, etc. [D]) and devoting persons or objects to YHVH (Lev. 27:21, 28 [P]). 136 Levine, Numbers 21–36, 356. 137 Blenkinsopp suggests that Num. 27:1–11 informs a concern over the possible transfer of property to a non-Israelite in Ezra 9:2 (Ezra-Nehemiah, 176). David Janzen remarks that Num. 27:1–11 concerns daughters and is unlike the situation of the foreign wives in Ezra 9:1–2 (‘Scholars, Witches, Ideologues, and What the Text Said: Ezra 9–10 and its Interpretation’, in Berquist, Approaching Yehud, 57).

194

Ezra and the Second Wilderness

the affair and the rain (Ezra 10:9).138 Ezra renders a final verdict in front of the returnees: ‫ ועתה תנו תודה ליהוה‬11 ‫ אתם מעלתם ותשיבו נשים נכריות להוסיף על־אשמת י שראל‬a…10 ‫אלהי־אבתיכם ועשו רצונו והבדלו מעמי האר ץ ומן־הנשים הנכריות‬ …You have committed a sacrilege [ma‘al] and married foreign women and increased the guilt of Israel. 11 Now, make confession to YHVH, the God of your ancestors, and do his will. Separate yourselves from the peoples of the land and from the foreign women. (Ezra 10:10b–11) 10

Ezra affirms that the people have committed a sacrilege and incurred guilt. Ezra’s solution involves confession and separation from both ‘the peoples of the land’ and the foreign wives. Ezra accepts the legal arguments presented by the officials for separation from all foreigners and rejects Shecaniah’s more moderate position of sending away only the foreign wives and their children. Although Ezra’s assembly instantly accepts this final verdict, they point out the realities of the current situation: the matter is complicated and cannot be resolved in a day or two (Ezra 10:12–13).139 The assembly proposes that officials should adjudicate the cases alongside elders and judges of every town. Following the appearance of officials and elders in both EM (Ezra 10:8) and E (Exod. 18:13–26; 19:2b–8), the reappearance of officials and elders—now as adjudicators—in Ezra 10:14 is another connection to E. However, in E, it is Jethro who proposes the judicial system and Moses who imposes it upon the Israelites (Exod. 18:17–26). In D, it is Moses who first suggests a system of legal courts, which is then accepted by the Israelites (Deut. 1:9–18). According to EM, the gathered assembly approves Ezra’s legal verdict, a situation that more closely resembles the involvement of the Israelites in D. Furthermore, a group labelled ‘judges’ (‫שפטים‬, Ezra 8:14; cf. Aram. ‫שפטין‬,a 7:25) in EM does not appear in E’s judicial system (despite the reccurrence of ‫שפ״ט‬, Exod. 18:22, 26) but is included in D’s judiciary (Deut. 1:16; cf. 17:8–13). The acknowledgement that something has to be done ‘in order to avert the burning wrath of our God from us’ (‫עד להשיב‬ ‫חרון אף־אלהינו ממנו‬, Ezra 10:14b) not only recalls E’s event of the apostasy at Horeb (Exod. 32:12) but also shares a concern expressed elsewhere in P (Num. 25:4); D (Deut. 13:18 [ET 17]); Dtr (2 Kgs 23:26); Dan. 9:16. Ezra 10:15 presents a crux. Some critics argue that this verse is an addition.140 Whether original or supplemental, other critics point to the particle 138 This open space is the same public square where Ezra proclaims the scroll; see Williamson, Ezra, Nehemiah, 155; Blenkinsopp, Ezra-Nehemiah, 193. The description of ‫ ומהגשמים‬is realistic for the time of year (Smith, Palestinian Parties, 93; Blenkinsopp, Ezra-Nehemiah, 193; contra proposed emendations and additions in ‫ על־הדבר ומהגשמים‬in Gunneweg, Esra, 179.) 139 Min contends that these verses express an immediate opposition to Ezra’s ‘very radical and somewhat impractical request’ (Levitical Authorship, 102). 140 Torrey, Ezra Studies, 273; Rudolph, Esra und Nehemia, 95, 96; Gunneweg, Esra, 181; Pakkala, Ezra the Scribe, 99.

A New Legal Crisis: Foreigners and Mixed Marriages

195

‫ אך‬in v. 15 as marking an opposition to the proposed measures.141 The concern is not with the demand itself but for more expediency.142 P’s graduated ḥ aṭtạ̄ ’t offences address the concern that corporal culpability must be promptly dealt with before any initial traces of sancta desecration surface.143 In Lev. 5:1–5, after one hears a public proclamation and becomes aware of any guilt, that person then confesses and repents with a reparation offering. If, however, that proclamation is ignored and the guilt against YHVH is not remedied, then the unchecked and unpunished guilt becomes detrimental to sancta. The concern among the rigorists in Ezra 10:15 is similar. Even if one person does not arrive in Jerusalem to testify against a guilty act (’ašmāh), and in effect withholds evidence of guilt, then the guilt against YHVH remains among the people. Although Ezra 10:15 does not explicitly refer to any of the Priestly laws, the perceived need for expediency follows P’s measures against suspected sancta desecration.

The First Action Following the transposition of Neh. 9:1–5aα* [EM] to its original place in between Ezra 10:15 and v. 16, EM reports that the assembly reconvenes on the twenty-fourth day of the ninth month. EM does not clarify if the three days in between the assemblies on the twentieth day (Ezra 10:9) and twenty-fourth day (Neh. 9:1) of the ninth month completely appease the concern for expediency that was raised in Ezra 10:15. Whatever the case may be, the Israelites gather with fasting, sackcloth, and earth over them (Neh. 9:1). They fulfil the first part of Ezra’s command from Ezra 10:11: ‫ויבדלו זרע ישראל מכל בני נכר ויעמדו ויתודו על־חטאתיהם ועונות אבתיהם‬ The seed of Israel separated themselves from the foreigners. They stood and confessed over their ḥ aṭtạ̄ ’t (wrong) and the ‘ avōnôt (iniquities) of their ancestors. (Neh. 9:2)

The efficacy of confession without sacrifice for both ḥ aṭtạ̄ ’t and ‘ avōn is also acknowledged in Daniel 9. Like Ezra, Daniel pleads to YHVH at the time of the evening sacrifice (Dan. 9:21; cf. Ezra 9:4, 5) with ‘fasting, sackcloth, and 141

Batten, Ezra and Nehemiah, 346; Blenkinsopp, Ezra-Nehemiah, 194; Pakkala, Ezra the Scribe, 99. Contra Sabbethai as a supporter of Ezra in Min, Levitical Authorship, 74. 142 Myers, Ezra. Nehemiah, 86; In der Smitten, Esra, 32; Williamson, Ezra, Nehemiah, 156–7; Karrer, Verfassung, 249. 143 The exception actually proves the rule. In P, when a person touches a corpse or is in transit, that person’s observance of Passover may be deferred to the next month (Num. 9:1–14). Failure to observe Passover at its scheduled time does not adversely affect the cult right away—it is a performative commandment. The provisions for the Passover highlight the required expediency of the ḥ aṭtạ̄ ’t (‘purification offering’) and ’āšām (‘reparation offering’) for addressing the failure to follow a prohibitive commandment and prevent impending sancta desecration.

196

Ezra and the Second Wilderness

ashes’ (‫בצום ושק ואפר‬, Dan. 9:3; cf. Neh. 9:1b) and undertakes acts of confession (‫[ יד״ה‬hit.]) for himself and the Israelites (Dan. 9:4, 20; cf. Ezra 9:1; 10:11; Neh. 9:2–3) with the hope that YHVH’s anger and wrath will be turned aside (Dan. 9:16; cf. Ezra 10:14) despite the wrong they have committed and their ancestors’ iniquities (Dan. 9:16; Neh. 9:2). In Dan. 9:22b–27, Gabriel appears with words of reassurance for the eventual restoration of the holy: ‫שבעים שבעים נחתך על־עמך ועל־עיר קדשך לכלא הפשע ולחתם חטאות ולכפר עון ולהביא‬ ‫צדק עלמים ולחתם חזון ונביא ולמשח קדש קדשים‬ Seventy weeks are decreed for your people and your holy city—to finish the transgression, to seal the ḥ aṭtạ̄ ’t,144 to expiate the ‘āvōn, to bring in eternal righteousness, to seal vision and prophet, and to anoint the Holy of Holies. (Dan. 9:24)

Daniel understands that iniquities must undergo some sort of expiation in order for the holy to be restored. Expiation, although unspecified, involves confession and not sacrifice. The basis for both actions in Neh. 9:2145 and Dan. 9:24146 lies in the waiver of the sacrificial requirement and its replacement with confession as depicted in Lev. 26:40a [H]. EM includes the obligations to confess for transgressions and ancestral iniquities. There is, however, a notable absence in the confession of the Israelites for the wrong they committed what exactly was said? Passing over this detail, EM goes straight into another reading from Ezra’s scroll for a quarter of the day and confession (‫[ יד״ה‬hit.]) for another quarter (Neh. 9:3*). Named Levites stand on the ‘ascent of the Levites’ (‫מעלה‬ ‫ )הלוים‬and exhort the assembly to bless YHVH (vv. 4–5aα).147 After the returnees’ succinct response (‫ויעשו־כן בני הגולה‬, Ezra 10:16aα), Ezra’s first directive—separation from the foreigners—is swiftly completed. In the Priestly sacrificial system, specifically Lev. 4:1–5:26 [ET 6:7], a wrong (precisely, ḥ aṭtạ̄ ’t) must be acknowledged with the guilty party bringing forward a purification offering (ḥ aṭtạ̄ ’t) in order to undergo expiation (‫)כפ״ר‬. There is, however, no mention of an expiating sacrifice in EM.148 EM

145 Reading the qǝrê. Duggan, Covenant Renewal, 152. Fishbane, Biblical Interpretation, 488; Collins, Daniel, 347–8. 147 The ‫ מעלה הלוים‬is a permanent structure (Williamson, Ezra, Nehemiah, 311; Duggan, Covenant Renewal, 152; contra Batten, Ezra and Nehemiah, 364), which is not the ‫מגדל־עץ‬ (Neh. 8:4). This structure should be regarded as an ‘ascent of the Levites’ rather than ‘steps of the Levites’ (‫)מעלת הלוים‬. The distinction between ‫( מעֶלה‬ascent) and ‫( מעָלה‬step) is evident in Neh. 12:37: ‫על־מעלות עיר דויד במעֶלה לחומה‬. EM follows CC’s prohibition against ascending an altar by steps (‫ )מעלת‬out of a concern for exposing any nakedness (Exod. 20:26). PC is silent on the issue but the priestly undergarments address any concern about exposing an officiating priest’s nakedness (Exod. 28:42; 39:28; Lev. 6:3; 16:4; cf. Ezek. 44:18). The ‘ascent of the Levites’ in Neh. 9:4a is a cultic apparatus that follows CC. 148 This same problem exists even if Neh. 9:1–5aα is retained in its final place. The next mention of any offering is in 10:33–4; 13:5, 9, 31, but these are the regular and non-expiatory grain, burnt, and wood offerings. 144 146

A New Legal Crisis: Foreigners and Mixed Marriages

197

categorizes mingling with foreigners—which is identified as an infraction that is separate from intermarriage—as an infraction that requires only confession. This view of confession was rejected elsewhere. After E’s molten calf episode at Horeb, Moses declares that the Israelites have committed a wrong (ḥ aṭtạ̄ ’t) and he will go to YHVH and perhaps make expiation (‫ )כפ״ר‬for their great ḥ aṭtạ̄ ’t (Exod. 32:30). Moses asks YHVH to forgive the Israelites’ sin but his pleas for absolution are rejected (vv. 31–5). E reckons that direct pleading to YHVH does not adequately atone for one’s sin and, at best, only delays the inevitable punishment. In contrast, EM upholds the efficacy of confession for what it categorizes as less serious infractions.

The Second Action The fulfilment of the second part of Ezra’s directive in Ezra 10:11, separation from foreign wives, requires more time and a different legal remedy from the first. Critics remark that MT Ezra 10:16aβ is difficult (‫ַו ִיָּב ְדלּו עזרא הכהן אנשים ראשי האבות‬ ‫ )לבית אבתם‬and, following 1 Esdras 9:16 (και ἐπελέξατο ἑαυτῷ Εσδρας), propose its emendation to ‫‘( ַו ַּיְב ֵּדל־לו‬they [Ezra] set aside’).149 In favour of ‫( בד״ל‬ni.) in MT Ezra 10:16aβ, Ezra’s inclusion on the committee follows E’s judiciary in which Moses himself serves as the head of the supreme court and adjudicates the referred cases. Accordingly, Ezra and the clan chieftains (‫)ראשי האבות‬ ‘sequestered themselves’ (NJPS) to examine the matter.150 The commission begins its work on the first day of the tenth month and its work is completed by the new year (Ezra 10:16aβ–17).151 After the commission completes its work, the offenders are identified (vv. 18–23, 25–43). Kaufmann contends that the list is too insignificant to constitute a ‘national peril’.152 Some critics conclude that the list is incomplete.153 Williamson argues that any reconstructed list is purely speculative and misses the point: EM’s ritualistic concern is that any number of offenders—no matter how few—poses a real threat to the community.154 The potential for a single individual to threaten the welfare of the community and sancta is a concern shared by both EM and PC.

149 Rudolph, Esra und Nehemia, 96; In der Smitten, Esra, 33; Williamson, Ezra, Nehemiah, 143–4; Gunneweg, Esra, 177; Blenkinsopp, Ezra-Nehemiah, 192. 150 For the preference of ‫ לדרש‬over MT ‫ לדריוש‬in Ezra 10:16, see Rudolph, Esra und Nehemia, 96; In der Smitten, Esra, 177; Williamson, Ezra, Nehemiah, 144; Blenkinsopp, Ezra-Nehemiah, 192. Ezra 7:10 may contain a similar use of ‫( דר״ש‬Kapelrud, Authorship, 78). There, however, the interest is in ‘the Torah of YHVH’ and not an affair. 151 Pakkala argues that ‫ ראשי האבות‬is an attempted replacement for ‫ שרים‬in Ezra 10:14 (Ezra the Scribe, 99–100). 152 Kaufmann, tôlǝdôt, 4:290–1; ET, in History, 336–7. 153 Rudolph, Esra und Nehemia, 97; Myers, Ezra. Nehemiah, 87. 154 Williamson, Ezra, Nehemiah, 158.

198

Ezra and the Second Wilderness

The single mention of a sacrifice in Ezra 10:19 requires a closer inspection. Of all of the named persons, it is only the members of the high-priestly clan of Jeshua who offer a sacrifice: ‫ויתנו ידם להוציא נשיהם ואשמים איל־צאן על־אשמתם‬ They set their power [literally, ‘gave their hand’] to send away their wives. The ’āšāmîm was a ram of the flock for their ’āšmāh. (Ezra 10:19)

The priestly offering that consists of a ram of the flock to atone for a mixed marriage is not directly from any of the Pentateuchal legal corpora. It is deduced from different parts of P’s sacrificial system, specifically Lev. 4:1–12 (for an anointed priest) and 5:14–16 (for anyone else who commits sacrilege, ma‘al).155 The seriousness of the anointed priest’s errant—yet unintentional—ways adversely affects the entire people (4:3). Similarly, the discovery of a priest who erred by marrying a foreign woman would alarm Ezra and his colleagues.156 P, however, commands the priest to offer an unblemished bull from the herd (‫ )פר בן־בקר תמים‬as a purification offering. Under suspected sancta desecration (Lev. 5:14–16), expiation through the reparation offering consists of an unblemished ram from the flock (v. 15; cf. vv. 18, 25 [ET 6:6]). EM’s reparation offering, ’āšām, of a ram of the flock in Ezra 10:19 follows the Priestly sacrificial system, either without blemish (Lev. 5:15) or unspecified as such (cf. Ezek. 43:23, 25). Although the mixed marriages are considered a serious threat, EM does not call for capital punishment. The reparation offering in Ezra 10:19 demonstrates that exogamy was a failure—one greater than associating with foreigners—by those obligated to uphold the cult. Nevertheless, this failure was unwittingly committed and only revealed as such after Ezra’s scroll is proclaimed, consulted a second time, and deliberated upon in what amounts to a lengthy judicial review. Although one person’s guilt is potent enough, EM considers the priestly clan to be its severest offenders; yet their sacrifice adequately relinquishes the communal guilt. Ezra 10:44 contains some difficulties but this verse conveys the sense that the foreign women and their children were dispatched from Ezra’s Jerusalem community. 1 Esdras 9:36 and Josephus (Ant. 11 §152) unequivocally state that the Yehudite men involved sent away their foreign women and children.

T H E L A S T MO N T H S OF E Z R A’S MI S S I O N As the continuation of the events of the seventh month in Neh. 7:72b [ET 73b]–8:18, the episode of the foreigners and the mixed marriages is the final 155

Grabbe, Ezra-Nehemiah, 33.

156

Tiemeyer, Priestly Rites, 181–5.

A New Legal Crisis: Foreigners and Mixed Marriages

199

instalment of EM’s account of Ezra’s mission. In this chapter, I argued that EM constitutes most of Ezra 9–10. I also argued that the original location of Neh. 9:1–5aα* is in between Ezra 10:15 and v. 16. In EM’s recollection of the events that take place in the last four months of Ezra’s mission, EM continues to use and reshape its source materials in order to present Ezra and the returnees as a group that is more devoted to YHVH than the wilderness generation. Following the Pentateuchal traditions, EM acknowledges that Achaemenid Jerusalem and Yehud were inhabited before the arrival of Ezra and the returnees. EM concedes that the returnees experienced setbacks after their arrival and settlement but, due to Ezra’s astute judicial skill, eventually took proactive measures to rectify their situation through the appropriate and prescribed legal channels. After a lengthy debate that involves multiple parties, Ezra ultimately formulates a decision and declares that the returnees must separate from all foreigners and divorce any foreign wives. The problem of the mixed marriages in Ezra 9–10 is magnified by the small number of returnees relative to ‘everyone else’ in Jerusalem and Yehud. The inability of the returnees to separate from the peoples of the land did not have any readily available remedies. Several weeks after Ezra initially proclaimed the scroll (Neh. 8:8), there emerged a critical mass that made complete separation from the peoples of the land a difficult task for many of the returnees. A quick resolution of the suspected problem proved to be difficult as there were some who knew ‘the laws of God’ but others who did not know this religious law. As a result, some of the officials referred these cases to a higher court, which consisted of Ezra and the ḥ arēdîm. The difficulty with foreign assimilation that first arises in Ezra 9 is explained on the basis that Ezra’s proclamation of the scroll resulted in new and unanticipated legal questions that arose from the competing Pentateuchal legal codes and their respective documents. Sukkot presented a time-sensitive challenge, but a solution based on the separate Pentateuchal Sukkot laws was quickly found with the construction of the booths. Not so with the mixed marriages. The officials muster most of the language of their initial charge through a patchwork of originally separate laws: especially Deut. 7:1–5; 23:4–9; Lev. 18:24–30; 20:23–6. This charge is also framed as ma‘al, sacrilege, which follows the Priestly notion of sancta desecration. Each of the relevant laws, however, was originally composed for its own contemporary situation and despite their best attempts to cover every contingency none of the Pentateuchal legal corpora completely anticipates the situation as described in any of Ezra 9–10. For this reason, EM accounts for the inadequacy of each of the Pentateuchal legal corpora for addressing Ezra’s situation on its own merits and builds a sort of supreme law by combining selected snippets from the different codes. Scattered throughout most of Ezra 9:1–10:15; (transposed) Neh. 9:1–5aα*; Ezra 10:16–44 are charges, proposals, personal actions, and penitential acts

200

Ezra and the Second Wilderness

from multiple characters that link together to form a continuous dialogue that intricately weaves through the legal complexities of the situation. As the initial charge of the officials works its way to Ezra’s final verdict, EM shifts between the originally separate and competing Elohistic and Deuteronomic judicial systems. Although E (Exod. 18:13–27) and D (Deut. 1:9–18) prescribe the proper operation of the judiciary, there is no account in the Pentateuch (or, including Joshua, the Hexateuch) that describes the execution of either the Elohistic or Deuteronomic judicial system. The existence of these two originally separate prescriptions and the lack of an actual case law in either one present EM with the challenge of undertaking a midrash—to use the term anachronistically—in order to explain how law rooted in the tenets of ‘biblical’ jurisprudence is dutifully administered. EM demonstrates how difficulties that arise from competing law codes are negotiated through the proper legal channels in order to arrive at a solution that upholds the sanctity of the Yahvistic cult. In comparison, the later witnesses in 4QpaleoExodm and SamP acknowledge the differences between the judicial systems in Exod. 18:13–27 and Deut. 1:9–18 but conflate these two sections by inserting MT Deut. 1:9–18 in between MT Exod. 18:24 and v. 25.157 The episode of the mixed marriages anticipates the extreme scenario in which all of the people of Israel, especially the returnees, enter into mixed marriages and—by virtue of maternal lineage—there comes a day when all in Yehud are identified as ‘foreigner’ and neither ‘the holy seed’ nor ‘Israel’. From a particular cultic point of view, the results would be disastrous. No one would then be liable for observing the prohibitive, let alone performative, commandments and ensuring the upkeep of the Yahvistic cult. In a similar way to how Solomon married foreign women and turned to their deities, the land would be overrun by foreigners and the worship of foreign deities. Sancta contagion, as well as the accompanying severe repercussions for the reconstructed Jerusalem Temple and cult, becomes a greater threat, with few, if any, adherents in Yehud liable for observing YHVH’s performative and prohibitive commandments. After the many deliberations and arguments, the legal recourse available to Ezra is separation from all foreigners and the foreign women and their offspring. Assimilation or conversion of foreigners was not pursued as a legal remedy due to their absence in the Pentateuchal narratives or laws. Circumcision occasionally arises as a possible means for a change in status (cf. Gen. 34:14–16; Exod. 12:48) but for the foreign women this option is not available as female circumcision is unknown to both ancient Israel and the ancient

Jeffrey Tigay, ‘An Empirical Basis for the Documentary Hypothesis’, JBL 94 (1975): 333–5; Tigay, ‘Conflation as a Redactional Technique’, in Empirical Models for Biblical Criticism, ed. Jeffrey Tigay (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1985), 53–95, esp. 61–8; Emanuel Tov, Textual Criticism of the Hebrew Bible, 2nd rev. edn (Minneapolis: Fortress; Assen: Royal Van Gorcum, 2001), 86–7; 3rd rev. exp. edn (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2012), 81 n. 132. 157

A New Legal Crisis: Foreigners and Mixed Marriages

201

Near East.158 The separation of all foreigners to eliminate the potential polluting effects of an unattended act of sacrilege supports EM’s portrayal of Ezra and the returnees as a generation that supersedes their wilderness predecessors in every way possible. By separating from all foreigners and expelling the foreign wives and their offspring, Ezra purifies his assembly— and future assemblies—in Jerusalem by sending away all present and future non-Yahvists. With the separation from all foreigners and the completion of Ezra’s mission within a single calendar year, EM presents Ezra as a more capable and effective legislator than Moses. By extension, the returnees are presented as not only a more faithful community than the wilderness generation but also the ideal representation of the post-exilic Yahvistic cult.

158 Shaye J. D. Cohen, Why Aren’t Jewish Women Circumcised? Gender and Covenant in Judaism (Berkeley: University of California Press, 2005), 58–9.

6 Ezra, the Returnees, and the Cult This study stems from the question: did Ezra promulgate and publish the Pentateuch? What was once a widely accepted view among premodern and modern critics remains under examination within the renewed debates on the historicity of Ezra and the formation of both Ezra-Nehemiah and the Pentateuch. In the foregoing chapters, I tried to demonstrate that EM reads, interprets, and fuses its multiple literary sources in its presentation of Ezra and the returnees as a second wilderness generation. From the literary analysis of Ezra 7–10 and Nehemiah 8–10, I determined that there are three identifiable layers in these chapters. The base layer is the original Ezra Memoir (EM), which contains accounts of Ezra and the returnees over the course of a single calendar year, beginning with their departure from Babylon and continuing on to their arrival and activities in Jerusalem. The next layer consists of insertions by the redactor, REM-NM, who combined EM with the Nehemiah Memoir (NM). The final layer is from the hand of a later redactor, RE-N, who attached Ezra 1–6 to the beginning of the combined EM-NM. Focusing on EM, I described how EM revises its source materials by closing the gap between the First and Second Temple cults, updating lexical terminology, and recognizing the wide temporal geopolitical distance between the First Temple sources and the post-exilic audience. In Chapter 1, I discussed the state of scholarship concerning the historical Ezra, the notion of imperial state-sanctioned support for the Pentateuch, and the formation of the Pentateuch. EM is based on a historical figure named Ezra, who is probably not recoverable. Even if Ezra and all of the events associated with him can be reduced to nothing but a literary fiction, the materials in Ezra 7–10 and Nehemiah 8–10 retain their value as contemporary witnesses to the social, political, and religious realities of Achaemenid Yehud. EM is an ideologically charged witness that aggrandizes the place and importance of Yehud within the wider world of the Achaemenid Empire. Likewise, the so-called Artaxerxes Edict in Ezra 7:12–26 is integral to its surrounding narrative and contains kernels of historical truth but is also shaped by Yehudite interests. The Persians had little involvement with the intricate details of the Jerusalem cult and there was little, if any, state support for any of the contents of the Pentateuch

Ezra, the Returnees, and the Cult

203

or its publication. It is more likely that internal forces within the post-exilic Yahvistic cult shaped the compilation of the Pentateuch from its constituent parts to its final form. In this chapter, I also discussed the decisive question of the development of the Pentateuch itself. Within contemporary Pentateuchal criticism, a major debate has emerged between post-documentarians and neodocumentarians. Acknowledging that any results are not assured and contested from many sides, this study accepts that the revised four-source theory offers a viable explanation for the formation of the Pentateuch. The textual analysis of Ezra 7–10 and Nehemiah 8–10 was presented in the following chapters. Each chapter opened with a discussion of the identification of EM and its supplementary materials, REM-NM and RE-N. I then proceeded to discuss the use and adaptation of the Pentateuchal materials in these chapters. In Chapter 2, I began with what is generally agreed upon: the use of the final form of the Pentateuch in Nehemiah 9–10. Nehemiah 9 can be divided into vv. 1–5aα, (for the most part) original EM material that was transposed to its current place, and (restored) vv. 5aβ–37, a composition that was appended to (transposed) v. 5aα. Both the historical prayer in Neh. 9:5aβ–37 and the agreement in 10:1–40 are supplemental materials that postdate EM. In its recollection of the events in Genesis-Deuteronomy, Neh. 9:6–25 employs Pentateuchal narratives that are shaped after the combination of its constituent parts and the addition of the latest layer of the Pentateuch, materials I assigned to RPent. The pledges in Neh. 10:31–40 arise out of the recognition that temporal and ideological gaps exist between contemporary praxis and the prescriptive Pentateuchal laws. Through an examination of the various strategies used to interpret Pentateuchal narratives and laws, both Neh. 9:6–25 and 10:31–40 offer insights into the shape of the Pentateuchal corpus at the time of their composition. After an examination of the materials that postdate EM, I turned to the Ezra accounts contained in Ezra 7–10 and Nehemiah 8. In Chapter 3, I identified the redactional activity in Ezra 7:1–8:36 and, in what mostly remains in these verses, I discussed EM’s conception of Ezra the priest-scribe and Ezra’s caravan as undertaking a ritualized second wilderness journey. EM uses the Priestly Sinai account as its frame, adapts Deuteronomic ideology, and supplements its report of the departure from the Ahava with the Yahvistic and Elohistic descriptions of the Israelites’ encounter with YHVH at a wilderness mountain. It is possible that EM equated Horeb with Sinai, as this is ultimately the case in the final form of the Pentateuch, Neh. 9:5aβ–37, and Ben Sira. The motif of a second Exodus and wilderness is not an entirely new innovation in EM as it can be observed elsewhere in Hos. 2:17; Mic. 7:14–15; Isa. 11:11; Jer. 16:14–15.1 Likewise, both Ezekiel (Ezek. 20:33–44) and the ‘Isaiah’ of the exile 1

Cross, Canaanite Myth and Hebrew Epic, 345; Michael A. Fishbane, Text and Texture: Close Readings of Selected Biblical Texts (New York: Schocken Books, 1979), 121–40.

204

Ezra and the Second Wilderness

(Isa. 40:1–11; 43:14–19; 50:11–12) envision a new exodus out of Babylon and the return of Israel to Zion. EM, however, constructs the second Exodus in a different manner. Whereas some of the other depictions of a second Exodus employ a single tradition, and Ezekiel’s presentation of the Israelite exodus and wilderness is a synthesis of terms and expressions from the Priestly and Deuteronomic sources,2 EM’s construction of Ezra and the returnees incorporates the four Pentateuchal sources. EM takes on a strong interest in the law by upholding the event of the law-giving on the wilderness mountain as the all-important event in which YHVH reveals the instructions, commandments, and statutes that ensure divine protection for those who dutifully uphold them. Through its interpretation and adaption of the Israelite wilderness accounts, EM opens its case for placing Ezra and the returnees as a group that supersedes Moses and the wilderness generation in every way possible. They dutifully transport the obtained material goods for their intended service in the House of God in Jerusalem and, unlike the first wilderness generation, survive the journey to their destination. The caravan takes only four months to cover the distance between Babylon and Jerusalem and, with the hand of God upon them, without any incidents that would substantially hinder their journey. In Chapter 4, I agreed with critics who argued that Neh. 7:72b [ET 73b]–8:18 was originally in between Ezra 8 and Ezra 9. After Ezra arrives in Jerusalem with the caravan, he proclaims ‘the Torah of Moses’. Breaking from the wilderness traditions, the proclamation of Torah is absent when the caravan departs Babylon because EM upholds Jerusalem as the only acceptable place for such an event. This Torah is upheld as containing all of YHVH’s instructions to the Israelites at a wilderness mountain in the distant, yet authoritative past and is thus a source of supreme authority. Ezra’s reading of a scroll is presented as a second proclamation of law that is based on the first accounts of YHVH giving the law to the Israelites on the wilderness mountain. EM incorporates elements from each of the source documents by taking pieces of the different visual and auditory theophanies and law-giving episodes. EM’s own episode is one that reflects the realities of its contemporary time and presents the returnees as a group that immediately consents to uphold ‘the Torah of Moses’. The contents of Ezra’s scroll are not made known and it is unlikely that Ezra recites the entire Pentateuch. Whatever Ezra recites is not new law—it is something that is understood to be complete and remains enforceable ever since its past preexilic origins. After Ezra’s proclamation of Torah, its proper implementation becomes problematic when multiple legal codes, with notable contradictory

2 Risa Levitt Kohn, A New Heart and a New Soul: Ezekiel, the Exile, and the Torah, JSOTSup 358 (London: Sheffield Academic, 2002), esp. 30–104; Levitt Kohn, ‘A Prophet Like Moses? Rethinking Ezekiel’s Relationship to the Torah’, ZAW 114 (2002): 236–54.

Ezra, the Returnees, and the Cult

205

prescriptions, compete for supreme authority. For this reason, the uniformity of the prescriptions for a sacred convocation on the tenth day of the seventh month in only one of the legal codes offers an explanation for the absence of an expected Day of Atonement observance in Nehemiah 8. The inclusion of Sukkot in Nehemiah 8 recognizes the expediency that is required to adjudicate between the different Sukkot prescriptions in multiple legal codes in time for its scheduled observance days after Ezra reads from his scroll. In support of the continuation of EM into Ezra 9–10, and the transposition of Neh. 9:1–5aα* in between Ezra 10:15 and v. 16, I argued in Chapter 5 that the mixed marriages episode fits well after Ezra proclaims the scroll and is— anachronistically speaking—a midrash of the judiciary systems as preserved in the Pentateuchal sources. Both E (Exod. 18:13–27) and D (Deut. 1:9–18) describe judiciary systems that differ in their details. There is, however, not a single account in the Pentateuch (or, including Joshua, the Hexateuch) that describes the judiciary in action. Through the mixed marriages episode, EM constructs an actual case and explores the proper administration of ‘law’ within the confines of biblical jurisprudence. The existence of mixed marriages in Yehud represents the extreme and dire possibility that the returnees, who are the true continuing Yahvistic community, will no longer identify themselves as a ‘holy seed’ or ‘Israel’ but instead—through the lineage of the foreign wives—as one of ‘the peoples of the land’. EM foresees the possibility that an increasingly foreign population in Yehud will forgo the obligations for the reestablished Yahvistic cult, and the foreign gods (from their respective nations, all of whom are more powerful than Yehud) will once again be worshipped in Jerusalem. The legal citations and deliberations in Ezra 9–10 reflect the adjudication of originally separate and competing law codes in order to arrive at a legally acceptable solution, one that is primarily concerned with preventing sancta desecration and YHVH forsaking the re-established cult. Acting as a supreme justice of the court, Ezra the priest-scribe ultimately renders the decision that the returnees must separate from all foreigners and those who married foreign wives must expel them along with their offspring from the community. From the foregoing literary analysis, I argued that Ezra 7–10 and Nehemiah 8–10 contain a well-constructed and coherent base layer, EM, which presents Ezra and the Babylonian returnees as a second wilderness generation and modelled after the Pentateuchal accounts of Moses and the Israelites. This study agrees with the view that EM does not presuppose the Pentateuch in its final form. Rather, what EM knows of the Pentateuch is its constituent parts before their collation and arrangement by a later redactor. EM not only has access to P and D but also to the Pentateuchal materials that are neither Priestly nor Deuteronomic, materials I ascribe to E and J. Operating in a period far removed from the antiquated past, EM ascribes authority to all of its available sources; yet its own idealized vision of the single event of the second

206

Ezra and the Second Wilderness

wilderness is a synthesis of these sources. Upholding their efficacy for posterity, EM recasts theses sources to suit its own agenda. None of the Pentateuchal accounts of the first wilderness generation proved to be the ideal prototype. Recognizing the limitations of some of their demands on its own contemporary Yahvistic cult, EM does not fully follow the ideological and historical claims of its source materials. Each of the source documents, in its final form, contains a set of laws YHVH gave to the Israelites at the wilderness mountain. Upholding the efficacy of these laws, EM does not contain any actual law. In its place, EM includes a royal decree that enforces the laws of Ezra’s deity. In P, the Israelites construct a tabernacle in the wilderness and this tabernacle functions as YHVH’s earthly abode. In contrast, the returnees in EM do no such thing, as there already exists the (reconstructed) temple in Jerusalem. The Priestly Corpus—and for that matter, D, E, and J (+)—promotes YHVH’s presence and activity among the Israelites. Against this view, EM is informed by the post-exilic view that YHVH is absent on earth and that the divine oracle is inaccessible. Still, in order to construct Ezra and the returnees as a second wilderness generation, one more devoted than the first, EM relies on the presentations of the Israelite wilderness in D, E, J(+), and PC. In EM’s view, the Israelite wilderness was a one-time event; however, due to the divergent ideological and historical claims of these four equally authoritative accounts, EM employs a variety of interpretative strategies to incorporate his source materials into his presentation of the second wilderness generation as the worthy inheritors of the pre-exilic Yahvistic cult. Often, EM is solely dependent on the claims of any one of the source documents, especially when that source document contains exclusive material that EM deems important enough to include in certain sections of its own report. P—and only P—thoroughly employs chronological notices to mark the Israelites’ journey through the wilderness. Likewise, EM frames its own account with chronological notices to demonstrate the efficiency with which the returnees complete their journey and Ezra fulfils his mission. In P and H, YHVH gives the Israelites specific requirements for proper sacrifice and commandments for the upkeep of sancta. EM, for the most part, demonstrates an understanding of the Priestly sacrificial system and picks up on the relevant technical terms found only in the Priestly Corpus. Of the Pentateuchal sources, it is only D that requires the Israelite monarch to read and meditate upon Torah on a daily basis. EM also uses the figure of a monarch to support the laws of the Israelite deity, but this monarch is necessarily recast as a foreign monarch. Ezra is surrounded by a group ‘who trembled at the words of God’, which recalls E’s description of the Israelites before the laws are given at the wilderness mountain. Of D, E, J(+), and P, it is only E that conceives of the event of YHVH giving laws to the Israelites, with Moses as the mediator, as a public affair. Adapting E’s portrayal of this event, EM likewise presents Ezra’s proclamation of ‘the Torah of God’

Ezra, the Returnees, and the Cult

207

as a public event performed in a public square. In its adaptation of E, EM does not confuse E with the other sources. Nowhere does EM entertain the possibility that this proclamation is a private affair as espoused by D, J(+), or P. At times, EM fuses divergent details from multiple Pentateuchal sources in its own presentation of Ezra and the returnees. This use of sources is possible when the final result does not end in a serious incongruity. Whereas the Levites are entirely absent in E and given the task of physical labour in D and P(C), they are praised as teachers only in J (Deut. 33:10a). EM picks up on the teaching duties of the Levites when they are present alongside Ezra at the time he proclaims ‘the Law of God’. EM not only uses J’s description of the Levite but also P’s and D’s portrayal of the Levite in order to provide a more complete sketch of the post-exilic Levite ministering among the returnees and in Jerusalem. In both D and E, a scroll is produced, one called ‘the scroll of the Torah’ and ‘the scroll of the Torah of God’, respectively. Among the descriptions of Ezra’s scroll, EM also calls this scroll ‘the scroll of the Torah’ and ‘the scroll of the Torah of God’. At other times, however, EM is unable to harmonize all of the details from its multiple sources and occasionally selects one Pentateuchal episode over the other. According to E and D, YHVH gave laws to the Israelites at a wilderness mountain called Horeb. It is, however, only in E that the Israelites partake in a feast after they receive a set of laws (Exod. 24:11bβ). In EM, Ezra’s instructions to consume fat and wine after ‘the Torah of God’ is proclaimed follow the sequence of events in E. At Horeb, Moses refrains from bread and water in both E (Exod. 34:28b) and D (Deut. 9:18b), but it is only in D that Moses’ actions are a response to the Israelites’ behaviour. Like the Deuteronomic Moses, Ezra refrains from bread and water due to his distress over the sacrilege of the returnees. Although EM frequently selects portions of one or more Pentateuchal sources to its own liking, an exception is detected in its interpretation and use of the laws. Unlike its selective use of the relevant narratives from the Pentateuchal sources, EM encounters a difficulty when it incorporates Pentateuchal laws into its report of Ezra and the returnees. For EM, all of the laws YHVH gave to the Israelites gained their authority in the wilderness and remained enforceable to future generations, including the returnees. The complications arise due to the existence of multiple, yet equally authoritative, legal prescriptions embedded in each of the four received source materials. According to EM, Ezra and the returnees dutifully observed all of the commandments, instructions, and statutes YHVH gave to the Israelites through the widest, and often an extreme, interpretation of these laws. In recasting the divergent Pentateuchal laws, EM anticipates the early rabbinic mantra ‘to make a protective fence for the Torah’ (‫ועשו סייג לתורה‬, m. ’Avot 1:1). The returnees’ observance of Sukkot on its scheduled date is a conflation of, at the very least, D and H. The charge of sacrilege against those accused of mingling with foreigners and marrying their daughters is a confluence and radicalization

208

Ezra and the Second Wilderness

of Deuteronomic and Priestly laws. The involvement of officials, judges, elders, and Ezra in the legal question of the mixed marriages is a conflation and exposé of separate prescriptions for the judiciary in D and E. Throughout EM, whatever can be detected from the Pentateuch is a patchwork of its narratives and laws. At times, EM follows any one of the source documents or conflates any two or even three of the source documents. Unlike the fluidity of the laws and narratives that emerge out of the final form of the Pentateuch that was used in Neh. 9:5aβ–10:40, which postdates EM, there is no indication that EM presupposes any of the Pentateuchal laws or narratives as the product of their constituent parts. In short, there are no obvious traces of RPent’s work in EM. EM may be labelled a ‘super-narrative’ that does not presuppose the final form of the Pentateuch, but in its use of independent— in alphabetical order—Deuteronomic, Elohist, Priestly, and Yahvist sources, points to their eventual collation. In essence, the methods EM employs in constructing Ezra and the returnees from its source materials anticipates the phenomena of rewritten Scripture and biblical interpretation that is observed in later Second Temple scribal production.

THE L ITERARY DEVELOPMENT OF EZRA 7 – 1 0 AND NEHEMIAH 8– 1 0 In response to studies that atomize Ezra 7–10 and Nehemiah 8–10 and reduce the Ezra accounts to smaller units of texts composed by active readers who reshape and reorient the base text, I argued that EM can be recovered from larger portions of Ezra 7:1–10:44 and Neh. 7:72b [ET 73b]–9:5aα. I agree that ideologically driven supplemental layers exist in these chapters but consider these insertions to be minimal, yet necessary to align EM with the combined EM-NM composition that is then followed by the incorporation of EM-NM into the final form of Ezra-Nehemiah. Underneath EM lies perhaps a historical Ezra but this figure is difficult to extract due to the embellishment of Ezra as a second Moses. The lack of an account in EM of what happens to Ezra after the mixed marriages episode might be an intentional omission. At one extreme, Josephus reports, ‘And it was [Ezra’s] fate, after being honoured by the people, to die an old man and to be buried with great magnificence in Jerusalem’ (Ant. 11 §158). Josephus reports nearly the same for Nehemiah (§183) and it is likely that his concluding accounts of Ezra and Nehemiah are free compositions.3 At the other

3

Williamson, Israel in the Books of Chronicles, 24.

Ezra, the Returnees, and the Cult

209

extreme, Smith suggests that Ezra’s mission ultimately becomes a failure when Ezra ends up in disgrace after he assists in the rebuilding of city fortifications without imperial authorization (cf. Ezra 4:7–23).4 There is little evidence to support this view. If anything can be gleaned from EM, it is a high reverence for Ezra as the one leader who not only promulgated Torah but also zealously maintained the sanctity of the Yahvistic cult and guarded it from foreign intrusions. According to EM, the resolution of the mixed marriages arises from Ezra’s skilful and judicious interpretation of YHVH’s laws and the returnees’ unquestioned acceptance and implementation of this law. After EM is identified in Ezra 7–10 and Nehemiah 8–10, what remains in these chapters is either redactional insertions or entirely separate compositions that postdate EM. The shape of EM changes as it is incorporated into the growing Ezra-Nehemiah corpus. Stemming from an interest in presenting Ezra and Nehemiah as contemporaries in the reconstruction period, REM-NM combines EM with the originally separate accounts of Nehemiah in NM. The figure of Nehemiah lurks beneath REM-NM’s reshaping of EM. Addressing the lack of a Torah reading in the Nehemiah accounts, REM-NM transposes Neh. 7:72b–8:18* [EM] to its current place and—after Nehemiah’s introduction in 1:1—inserts Nehemiah into the scene where Ezra proclaims Torah in Neh. 8:9. In doing so, REM-NM achieves its goal of placing these two leaders side by side for this important event.5 Whereas EM presents Ezra as a priest-scribe who is dependent solely on YHVH (Ezra 8:21–3), REM-NM follows NM’s claim that Nehemiah received royal support and inserts the same claim for Ezra in Ezra 7:6b, 27–8. Dissatisfied with the events of the restoration as projected in EM-NM, a later redactor, RE-N, shapes the final form of Ezra-Nehemiah. RE-N attaches an account of the rebuilding of the Jerusalem Temple in Ezra 1–6 to the beginning of EM-NM and adds the introductory phrase ‘And after these things’ (‫ואחר הדברים האלה‬, Ezra 7:1aα) to connect the beginning of EM-NM with Ezra 1–6.6 Perhaps influenced by Josiah’s discovery of a law code and the following covenant-renewal ceremony (2 Chr. 34:29–31; cf. 2 Kgs 23:1–3), RE-N transposes Neh. 9:1–5aα* [EM] to its current location and attaches 9:5aβ–37 and 10:1–40 to forge a new and expanded presentation of the important seventh month. RE-N updates the social institutions described in the reworked EM by Smith, Palestinian Parties, 122–4; followed by Douglas, ‘Responding to Ezra’, 4–5. Recognizing that the place of Nehemiah 12 in the development of NM is contentious, I include ‫ עזרא הכהן הספר‬in v. 26 and ‫ ועזרא הסופר‬in v. 36 as insertions by REM-NM. 6 Williamson observes that the resulting chronology of the twenty-fifth day of the sixth month (Elul) in Neh. 6:15 followed by the first day of the seventh month in 7:72b is logical but the number of days would be too few to accommodate all of the activities described in 6:16–7:71 (Ezra, Nehemiah, 286). The chronology appears difficult but as long as the dates follow a logical sequence, RE-N preserves as much of its source material as possible and retains the original dates. 4 5

210

Ezra and the Second Wilderness

inserting groups Chr mentions in the reconstructed cult: singers, gatekeepers, doorkeepers, and the ancestral house (‫)בית אבות‬. Chr mentions ‘the scroll of the Torah of YHVH’ and the influence of Chr upon RE-N is detected in the modification of EM’s description of ‘the scroll of the Torah of God’ to ‘the scroll of the Torah of YHVH their God’ in Neh. 9:3. Following the arguments for separate authorship of Ezra-Nehemiah and Chronicles, I do not consider Chr and RE-N as one and the same. Before further remarks on EM, I shall briefly address the issue of dating. Many arguments, some based on assigning a text to a specific historical situation, have been presented for dating Ezra and/or EM anywhere from the fifth to the second century. If there is indeed a case to be made for a historical Ezra somewhere beneath EM, Ezra’s activities could be dated to either 458 or 398 and EM composed during or after the time of Ezra. An exact dating of both Ezra and EM is beyond the scope of this study but I am unconvinced that the late date is the only conclusion that can be drawn from the textual evidence. Instead, the foregoing analysis permits at most a short comment on the relative dating of EM with other biblical materials. The results of this study support dating EM before RPent, (restored) Neh. 9:5aβ– 10:40 after EM and RPent, REM-NM after NM, and RE-N after Chr.

EM AND THE SOURCES OF AUTH ORITY EM subscribes to a view of Second Temple Yahvism that grants authority to the Mosaic past. EM, however, acknowledges the hermeneutical challenges of deferring to the past and its use in constructing the present. As a result, the correspondence between EM and the Pentateuchal materials is imperfect and sometimes results in a wide disparity. A growing number of critics point to the absence of the Day of Atonement in Nehemiah 8 or the incongruities between the Pentateuchal marriage laws (especially in Deuteronomy) and Ezra 9–10 and contend that Ezra does not have the final form of the Pentateuch but rather a penultimate form that is still developing and awaiting its final layers. I partially agree. The results of this study demonstrate that the compositions in Neh. 9:5aβ–10:40 know the Pentateuch in its final form but EM does not know of such a source. I grant that EM does not have access to the latest layer of the Pentateuch. However, rather than placing entire narratives or laws (which some critics argue are influenced by Ezra-Nehemiah) among the latest layers of the Pentateuch, I limit this layer to only the insertions and factual corrections made by the compiler of the Pentateuch, RPent. In support of EM presupposing all of the Pentateuchal laws and narratives, EM’s apparent omissions and divergences from the relevant Pentateuchal materials result

Ezra, the Returnees, and the Cult

211

from the recognition of a temporal gap between the authoritative source materials and its contemporary time. The necessary adaptation of source materials is evident in EM. To recall one example, the edict attributed to one Artaxerxes in Ezra 7:12–26 is composed with an understanding that a monarch, who is the earthly benefactor of temple and cult, is essential for the proper and effective sanctioning and safekeeping of law. This projection follows the Deuteronomic law of the king in Deut. 17:14–20. The Deuteronomic law not only instructs the Israelites to provide its king with a copy of this law but also includes the prohibition against placing a foreigner as king. Rather than follow Deuteronomy’s demand for a native king, EM appropriately casts the Persian king Artaxerxes as the monarch who supports the law of YHVH due to the geopolitical situation of post-exilic Yehud as a vassal state under the rule of a foreign power. Turning to cultic matters, EM’s omission of many of the institutions from a prior age—among them the ark, cherubim, urim, and tummim—suggests that EM agrees that instruments from the pre-exilic cult were lost after the destruction of the First Jerusalem Temple and are absent in the Second Jerusalem Temple. EM also subscribes to the notion that YHVH’s earthly manifestation is absent in the Second Temple. Whereas the Pentateuchal traditions allude to YHVH’s presence in the midst of the wilderness generation at a mountain or in the wilderness, EM does not conceive of YHVH as present among the returnees anywhere in between Babylon and Jerusalem. Moses has direct access to the divine oracle itself but by the time of First Zechariah an otherworldly messenger who speaks through ethereal visions can represent the phenomenon of direct divine revelation (Zech. 1:9 etc.). According to EM, Ezra has no access to the divine oracle or messenger. Instead, he has access to relics from the past—collectively known as ‘the law of YHVH’. At the time the Pentateuchal sources are combined, each one projects the basic claim that YHVH revealed all of his statutes, commandments, and laws through the mediation of Moses to the Israelites at a wilderness mountain. Each source contains the contents of ‘the law of YHVH’ and this facet contributes towards their authoritative status. The source documents, however, do not agree on the exact laws.7 J does not contain any actual law as it assumes that Abraham knew this law in the distant past. The contents of the Elohistic, Deuteronomic, Deuteronomistic (as presented in J+), and the Priestly law codes are shaped by their own requirements for the proper operation and safekeeping of the Yahvistic cult. The source documents also agree upon 7 In the foregoing discussion, I base my analysis on EM from the wilderness accounts as preserved in Exodus-Deuteronomy but I am open to the possibility that some of the source documents continue into Joshua and that EM employs these materials. The book of Joshua presents literary and textual challenges that are different from those of Genesis-Deuteronomy and a thorough examination of the classical view that some of the source documents extend into Joshua is beyond the scope of this study. I believe that this question deserves renewed investigation.

212

Ezra and the Second Wilderness

the basic narrative of Israel’s origins but, like the legal materials, the exact details of these narratives are shaped by distinct ideologies within pre-exilic Yahvism. The representative ideologies among the sources can be generalized as follows: J supports the visionary revelation of the deity, E has an interest in the institution of prophecy, D promotes the centralization of the cult, and P considers the priesthood as vital to the proper functioning of the cult which, in turn, ensures the Israelites’ prosperity on its surrounding land. The mention of other sources that at one time were in circulation (such as ‘the Book of the Wars of YHVH’ in Num 21:14) remotely suggests that there existed other preexilic accounts of Israel’s origins. If these sources existed at all in the Second Temple period, then RPent did not preserve them. The destruction of the First Temple not only resulted in the loss of Israelite political autonomy but also induced reflections on the past institutions and their relevancy for a post-First Temple world. For the most part, none of the Pentateuchal sources anticipates the actual destruction of its sanctuaries and the accompanying social, political, and cultic upheaval. The cessation or disruption of many of these pre-exilic institutions offers a partial explanation for the collation of the sources into a single document by the post-exilic compiler, RPent. The collation of these sources into the final form of the Pentateuch diffuses the fundamental differences and flattens the respective ideological slants that were shaped by a bygone era, yet also preserves the occurrences and authority of the divine proclamations, laws, and oracles for its current time. This process of redaction, its impetus, and the literary strategies that led to the collation of the sources into the final form of the Pentateuch are rooted in the literary practices of the Second Temple period. Although a secure explanation remains elusive, the impetus for the collation of these sources lies in mediating between the increasingly competing claims that the adherents of the postYahvistic cult upheld as rooted in a distant authoritative past. Working before this compiler, EM interprets and combines the multiple accounts of the wilderness generation as preserved in the Pentateuchal source documents. In doing so, EM has a different purpose from RPent. Rather than reshape the different traditions of Israel’s origins, EM’s main goal is to take the accounts of the first wilderness generation and project them onto a single narrative of a later wilderness generation, specifically, the returnees. EM’s use of the Pentateuchal wilderness accounts is not only a literary enterprise but also serves an ideological purpose. In its strategic adaptation and combination of the Israelite wilderness accounts, EM presents Ezra and the returnees as a second wilderness generation that supersedes its predecessors by faithfully responding to YHVH and upholding all of the laws issued by the deity. The impetus for EM and RPent does not lie in external pressures (namely, Persian influence or sponsorship) but instead was driven by interests that were informed by their respective visions of Second Temple Yahvism. Separately, the works of RPent and EM address the challenges that were experienced by

Ezra, the Returnees, and the Cult

213

post-exilic readers of harmonizing multiple accounts of the distant past and planting the roots of their idealized Second Temple Yahvistic cult in the Mosaic past. Finally, it can be noted that the Second Temple period redactors who I identify as RPent, REM-NM, and RE-N operate in a nearly consistent manner. Each one of these redactors has an interest in reorienting the received text(s) but does not significantly alter the actual contents of their source materials. These redactors retain the basic frame of the base narrative in their received source material(s), preserve their source(s) as much as possible, and make minimal but necessary intrusions into the text in order to align it with its surrounding and expanded corpus.

E M’ S REPRESENTATION OF THE YAHVISTIC CULT In the foregoing analysis, I attempted to demonstrate that EM constructs its account of Ezra and the returnees from the motifs and imagery found in the multiple accounts of the wilderness generation as preserved in the classical Pentateuchal source documents. In a manner similar to the composer in Nehemiah 9 and the pledgees in Nehemiah 10, and in later Second Temple literature that includes Ben Sira and the Wisdom of Solomon, EM sees the period of the Israelite wilderness as a past utopia—it is the period in which YHVH was active in the earthly realm and gave the Israelites his statutes, commandments, and instructions for all eternity. EM envisions that the period of the Israelite wilderness and the First Temple period—a time marked by YHVH’s presence in the earthly abode and activity on earth—has completely passed by and does not foresee a return to this idyllic period. Still, EM’s vision of Yahvism inherits and incorporates the programme of its predecessors but at the same time reinvigorates some of the expressions from a bygone era. The focus EM places for proper worship in the House of God in Jerusalem reflects a belief within Second Temple Yahvism that follows the Deuteronomic programme of cult centralization. EM not only grants legitimacy to Jerusalem as the only place for proper worship or the recitation of Torah but also discounts the other Yahvistic sanctuaries. Although EM acknowledges the existence of other fully functioning sanctuaries, such as the one in the Ahava that is complete with legitimate priests and Levites and perhaps in competition with the one in Jerusalem, EM moves the Yahvistic cult from Babylonia to Jerusalem. Like the manner in which Sinai (which is outside the land) is transposed to Zion (inside the land), EM places the important event of the proclamation of Torah inside the land, specifically Jerusalem. EM’s fidelity to the Jerusalem cult is accepted and popularized by its first readers as EM is reshaped, revised, and incorporated into the growing Ezra-Nehemiah corpus, in

214

Ezra and the Second Wilderness

which the reconstituted Jerusalem Temple and its cult are upheld as the sole inheritor of the First Temple cult. To a certain degree, EM’s idealized Second Temple cult is one that is more extreme when compared to its predecessors. Some of the Pentateuchal traditions grant the foreigner a place in the Yahvistic cult, as long as they uphold their cultic obligations. Informed by the trauma of the destruction of the First Jerusalem Temple, and its tenuous place in its contemporary geopolitical situation, EM takes no chances. EM completely removes the foreigner and leaves the Yahvistic cult to ‘the holy seed’, a group it expects to follow all of YHVH’s commandments and actively prevent sancta desecration. In some ways, EM falls within a continuum that originates from a past period, one in which a community declares their fidelity to YHVH, and ultimately evolves into the claims of exclusivity as the true Yahvistic community among competing sectarian groups of the late Second Temple period. Like EM, the competing groups that emerge in the late Second Temple period saw themselves as the true inheritors of the authoritative Mosaic past in order to support their claim as the unsurpassed community of YHVH.8 In the preceding discussion, I have sought to offer an analysis of EM’s use and interpretation of its source materials, namely the Pentateuchal documents, as a literary endeavour that is well situated within the emerging ideology of Second Temple Judaism. Its fruit, I hope, is a greater appreciation of the hermeneutical strategies EM employs in reading, interpreting, and reshaping authoritative literature and the manner in which EM venerates Ezra and the Babylonian returnees as the divinely ordained inheritors of the Yahvistic cult.

8

For the Israelite wilderness period—and especially the encampment at the foot of Sinai (especially Exodus 19–20 and 24)—as the key scriptural foundation for 1QS and, in turn, the model for the Qumran community, see James C. VanderKam, ‘Sinai Revisited’, in Biblical Interpretation at Qumran, ed. Matthias Henze, SDSSRL (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2005), 44–60.

‫‪OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 27/1/2017, SPi‬‬

‫‪Appendix: The Literary Development of EM‬‬ ‫‪The following source division of Ezra 7:1–10:44; Neh. 7:72b–9:5aα is provided for the‬‬ ‫‪convenience of the reader. Key: EM (regular); REM-NM (italics, underlined); RE-N (bold).‬‬ ‫‪Ezra 7‬‬ ‫‪ 1‬ואחר הדברים האלה במלכות ארתחשסתא מלך פרס עזרא בן שריה בן עזריה בן חלקיה ‪ 2‬בן שלום בן צדוק‬ ‫בן אחיטוב ‪ 3‬בן אמריה בן עזריה בן מריות ‪ 4‬בן זרחיה בן עזי בן בקי ‪ 5‬בן אבישוע בן פינחס בן אלעזר בן אהרן‬ ‫הכהן הראש ‪ 6‬הוא עזרא עלה מבבל והוא ספר מהיר בתורת משה אשר נתן יהוה אלהי ישראל ויתן לו המלך‬ ‫כיד יהוה אלהיו עליו כל בקשתו‬ ‫‪ 7‬ויעלו מבני ישראל ומן הכהנים והלוים והמשררים והשערים והנתינים אל ירושלם בשנת שבע לארתחשסתא‬ ‫המלך ‪ 8‬ויבא ירושלם בחדש החמישי היא שנת השביעית למלך ‪ 9‬כי באחד לחדש הראשון הוא יסד המעלה‬ ‫מבבל ובאחד לחדש החמישי בא אל ירושלם כיד אלהיו הטובה עליו ‪ 10‬כי עזרא הכין לבבו לדרוש את תורת‬ ‫יהוה ולעשת וללמד בישראל חק ומשפט‬ ‫‪ 11‬וזה פרשגן הנשתון אשר נתן המלך ארתחשסתא לעזרא הכהן הספר ספר דברי מצות יהוה וחקיו על ישראל‬ ‫‪ 12‬ארתחשסתא מלך מלכיא לעזרא כהנא ספר דתא די אלה שמיא גמיר וכענת ‪ 13‬מני שים טעם די כל מתנדב‬ ‫במלכותי מן עמה ישראל וכהנוהי ולויא למהך לירושלם עמך יהך ‪ 14‬כל קבל די מן קדם מלכא ושבעת יעטהי‬ ‫שליח לבקרא על יהוד ולירושלם בדת אלהך די בידך ‪ 15‬ולהיבלה כסף ודהב די מלכא ויעטוהי התנדבו לאלה‬ ‫ישראל די בירושלם משכנה ‪ 16‬וכל כסף ודהב די תהשכח בכל מדינת בבל עם התנדבות עמא וכהניא מתנדבין‬ ‫לבית אלההם די בירושלם ‪ 17‬כל קבל דנה אספרנא תקנא בכספא דנה תורין דכרין אמרין ומנחתהון ונסכיהון‬ ‫ותקרב המו על מדבחה די בית אלהכם די בירושלם ‪ 18‬ומה די עליך ]עלך[ ועל אחיך ]אחך[ ייטב בשאר כספא‬ ‫ודהבה למעבד כרעות אלהכם תעבדון ‪ 19‬ומאניא די מתיהבין לך לפלחן בית אלהך השלם קדם אלה ירושלם ‪20‬‬ ‫ושאר חשחות בית אלהך די יפל לך למנתן תנתן מן בית גנזי מלכא ‪ 21‬ומני אנה ארתחשסתא מלכא שים טעם‬ ‫לכל גזבריא די בעבר נהרה די כל די ישאלנכון עזרא כהנה ספר דתא די אלה שמיא אספרנא יתעבד ‪ 22‬עד כסף‬ ‫ככרין מאה ועד חנטין כרין מאה ועד חמר בתין מאה ועד בתין משח מאה ומלח די לא כתב ‪ 23‬כל די מן טעם‬ ‫אלה שמיא יתעבד אדרזדא לבית אלה שמיא די למה להוא קצף על מלכות מלכא ובנוהי ‪ 24‬ולכם מהודעין די כל‬ ‫כהניא ולויא זמריא תרעיא נתיניא ופלחי בית אלהא דנה מנדה בלו והלך לא שליט למרמא עליהם ‪ 25‬ואנת‬ ‫עזרא כחכמת אלהך די בידך מני שפטין ודינין די להון דאנין ]דאינין[ לכל עמה די בעבר נהרה לכל ידעי דתי אלהך‬ ‫ודי לא ידע תהודעון ‪ 26‬וכל די לא להוא עבד דתא די אלהך ודתא די מלכא אספרנא דינה להוא מתעבד מנה הן‬ ‫למות הן לשרשו ]לשרשי[ הן לענש נכסין ולאסורין ‪ 27‬ברוך יהוה אלהי אבותינו אשר נתן כזאת בלב המלך לפאר‬ ‫את בית יהוה אשר בירושלם ‪ 28‬ועלי הטה חסד לפני המלך ויועציו ולכל שרי המלך הגברים ואני התחזקתי כיד‬ ‫יהוה אלהי עלי ואקבצה מישראל ראשים לעלות עמי‬

‫‪Ezra 8‬‬ ‫‪ 1‬ואלה ראשי אבתיהם והתיחשם העלים עמי במלכות ארתחשסתא המלך מבבל ‪ 2‬מבני פינחס גרשם מבני‬ ‫איתמר דניאל מבני דויד חטוש ‪ 3‬מבני שכניה מבני פרעש זכריה ועמו התיחש לזכרים מאה וחמשים ‪ 4‬מבני‬ ‫פחת מואב אליהועיני בן זרחיה ועמו מאתים הזכרים ‪ 5‬מבני שכניה בן יחזיאל ועמו שלש מאות הזכרים ‪ 6‬ומבני‬ ‫עדין עבד בן יונתן ועמו חמשים הזכרים ‪ 7‬ומבני עילם ישעיה בן עתליה ועמו שבעים הזכרים ‪ 8‬ומבני שפטיה‬ ‫זבדיה בן מיכאל ועמו שמנים הזכרים ‪ 9‬מבני יואב עבדיה בן יחיאל ועמו מאתים ושמנה עשר הזכרים ‪ 10‬ומבני‬ ‫שלומית בן יוספיה ועמו מאה וששים הזכרים ‪ 11‬ומבני בבי זכריה בן בבי ועמו עשרים ושמנה הזכרים ‪ 12‬ומבני‬ ‫עזגד יוחנן בן הקטן ועמו מאה ועשרה הזכרים ‪ 13‬ומבני אדניקם אחרנים ואלה שמותם אליפלט יעיאל ושמעיה‬ ‫ועמהם ששים הזכרים ‪ 14‬ומבני בגוי עותי וזבוד ]וזכור[ ועמו שבעים הזכרים ‪ 15‬ואקבצם אל הנהר הבא אל אהוא‬

‫‪OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 27/1/2017, SPi‬‬

‫‪Appendix: The Literary Development of EM‬‬

‫‪216‬‬

‫ונחנה שם ימים שלשה ואבינה בעם ובכהנים ומבני לוי לא מצאתי שם ‪ 16‬ואשלחה לאליעזר לאריאל לשמעיה‬ ‫ולאלנתן וליריב ולאלנתן ולנתן ולזכריה ולמשלם ראשים וליויריב ולאלנתן מבינים ‪ 17‬ואוצאה ]ואצוה[ אותם על‬ ‫אדו הראש בכספיא המקום ואשימה בפיהם דברים לדבר אל אדו אחיו הנתונים ]הנתינים[ בכספיא המקום להביא‬ ‫לנו משרתים לבית אלהינו ‪ 18‬ויביאו לנו כיד אלהינו הטובה עלינו איש שכל מבני מחלי בן לוי בן ישראל ושרביה‬ ‫ובניו ואחיו שמנה עשר ‪ 19‬ואת חשביה ואתו ישעיה מבני מררי אחיו ובניהם עשרים ‪ 20‬ומן הנתינים שנתן דויד‬ ‫והשרים לעבדת הלוים נתינים מאתים ועשרים כלם נקבו בשמות ‪ 21‬ואקרא שם צום על הנהר אהוא להתענות‬ ‫לפני אלהינו לבקש ממנו דרך ישרה לנו ולטפנו ולכל רכושנו ‪ 22‬כי בשתי לשאול מן המלך חיל ופרשים לעזרנו‬ ‫מאויב בדרך כי אמרנו למלך לאמר יד אלהינו על כל מבקשיו לטובה ועזו ואפו על כל עזביו ‪ 23‬ונצומה ונבקשה‬ ‫מאלהינו על זאת ויעתר לנו ‪ 24‬ואבדילה משרי הכהנים שנים עשר לשרביה חשביה ועמהם מאחיהם עשרה ‪25‬‬ ‫ואשקולה ]ואשקלה[ להם את הכסף ואת הזהב ואת הכלים תרומת בית אלהינו ההרימו המלך ויעציו ושריו וכל‬ ‫ישראל הנמצאים ‪ 26‬ואשקלה על ידם כסף ככרים שש מאות וחמשים וכלי כסף מאה לככרים זהב מאה ככר ‪27‬‬ ‫וכפרי זהב עשרים לאדרכנים אלף וכלי נחשת מצהב טובה שנים חמודת כזהב ‪ 28‬ואמרה אלהם אתם קדש‬ ‫ליהוה והכלים קדש והכסף והזהב נדבה ליהוה אלהי אבתיכם ‪ 29‬שקדו ושמרו עד תשקלו לפני שרי הכהנים‬ ‫והלוים ושרי האבות לישראל בירושלם הלשכות בית יהוה ‪ 30‬וקבלו הכהנים והלוים משקל הכסף והזהב והכלים‬ ‫להביא לירושלם לבית אלהינו ‪ 31‬ונסעה מנהר אהוא בשנים עשר לחדש הראשון ללכת ירושלם ויד אלהינו‬ ‫היתה עלינו ויצילנו מכף אויב ואורב על הדרך ‪ 32‬ונבוא ירושלם ונשב שם ימים שלשה ‪ 33‬וביום הרביעי נשקל‬ ‫הכסף והזהב והכלים בבית אלהינו על יד מרמות בן אוריה הכהן ועמו אלעזר בן פינחס ועמהם יוזבד בן ישוע‬ ‫ונועדיה בן בנוי הלוים ‪ 34‬במספר במשקל לכל ויכתב כל המשקל בעת ההיא ‪ 35‬הבאים מהשבי בני הגולה‬ ‫הקריבו עלות לאלהי ישראל פרים שנים עשר על כל ישראל אילים תשעים וששה כבשים שבעים ושבעה צפירי‬ ‫חטאת שנים עשר הכל עולה ליהוה ‪ 36‬ויתנו את דתי המלך לאחשדרפני המלך ופחוות עבר הנהר ונשאו את‬ ‫העם ואת בית האלהים‬

‫‪Nehemiah 7–8‬‬ ‫‪ 7:72‬ויגע החדש השביעי ובני ישראל בעריהם ‪ 8:1‬ויאספו כל העם כאיש אחד אל הרחוב אשר לפני שער המים‬ ‫ויאמרו לעזרא הספר להביא את ספר תורת משה אשר צוה יהוה את ישראל ‪ 2‬ויביא עזרא הכהן את התורה‬ ‫לפני הקהל מאיש ועד אשה וכל מבין לשמע ביום אחד לחדש השביעי ‪ 3‬ויקרא בו לפני הרחוב אשר לפני שער‬ ‫המים מן האור עד מחצית היום נגד האנשים והנשים והמבינים ואזני כל העם אל ספר התורה ‪ 4‬ויעמד עזרא‬ ‫הספר על מגדל עץ אשר עשו לדבר ויעמד אצלו מתתיה ושמע ועניה ואוריה וחלקיה ומעשיה על ימינו ומשמאלו‬ ‫פדיה ומישאל ומלכיה וחשם וחשבדנה זכריה משלם ‪ 5‬ויפתח עזרא הספר לעיני כל העם כי מעל כל העם היה‬ ‫וכפתחו עמדו כל העם ‪ 6‬ויברך עזרא את יהוה האלהים הגדול ויענו כל העם אמן אמן במעל ידיהם ויקדו וישתחו‬ ‫ליהוה אפים ארצה ‪ 7‬וישוע ובני ושרביה ימין עקוב שבתי הודיה מעשיה קליטא עזריה יוזבד חנן פלאיה והלוים‬ ‫מבינים את העם לתורה והעם על עמדם ‪ 8‬ויקראו בספר בתורת האלהים מפרש ושום שכל ויבינו במקרא ‪9‬‬ ‫ויאמר נחמיה הוא התרשתא ועזרא הכהן הספר והלוים המבינים את העם לכל העם היום קדש הוא ליהוה‬ ‫אלהיכם אל תתאבלו ואל תבכו כי בוכים כל העם כשמעם את דברי התורה ‪ 10‬ויאמר להם לכו אכלו משמנים‬ ‫ושתו ממתקים ושלחו מנות לאין נכון לו כי קדוש היום לאדנינו ואל תעצבו כי חדות יהוה היא מעזכם ‪ 11‬והלוים‬ ‫מחשים לכל העם לאמר הסו כי היום קדש ואל תעצבו ‪ 12‬וילכו כל העם לאכל ולשתות ולשלח מנות ולעשות‬ ‫שמחה גדולה כי הבינו בדברים אשר הודיעו להם ‪ 13‬וביום השני נאספו ראשי האבות לכל העם הכהנים והלוים‬ ‫אל עזרא הספר ולהשכיל אל דברי התורה ‪ 14‬וימצאו כתוב בתורה אשר צוה יהוה ביד משה אשר ישבו בני‬ ‫ישראל בסכות בחג בחדש השביעי ‪ 15‬ואשר ישמיעו ויעבירו קול בכל עריהם ובירושלם לאמר צאו ההר והביאו‬ ‫עלי זית ועלי עץ שמן ועלי הדס ועלי תמרים ועלי עץ עבת לעשת סכת ככתוב ‪ 16‬ויצאו העם ויביאו ויעשו להם‬ ‫סכות איש על גגו ובחצרתיהם ובחצרות בית האלהים וברחוב שער המים וברחוב שער אפרים ‪ 17‬ויעשו כל‬ ‫הקהל השבים מן השבי סכות וישבו בסכות כי לא עשו מימי ישוע בן נון כן בני ישראל עד היום ההוא ותהי‬ ‫שמחה גדולה מאד ‪ 18‬ויקרא בספר תורת האלהים יום ביום מן היום הראשון עד היום האחרון ויעשו חג שבעת‬ ‫ימים וביום השמיני עצרת כמשפט‬

‫‪Ezra 9‬‬ ‫‪ 1‬וככלות אלה נגשו אלי השרים לאמר לא נבדלו העם ישראל והכהנים והלוים מעמי הארצות כתועבתיהם‬ ‫לכנעני החתי הפרזי היבוסי העמני המאבי המצרי והאמרי ‪ 2‬כי נשאו מבנתיהם להם ולבניהם והתערבו זרע‬

‫‪OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 27/1/2017, SPi‬‬

‫‪217‬‬

‫‪Appendix: The Literary Development of EM‬‬

‫הקדש בעמי הארצות ויד השרים והסגנים היתה במעל הזה ראשונה ‪ 3‬וכשמעי את הדבר הזה קרעתי את בגדי‬ ‫ומעילי ואמרטה משער ראשי וזקני ואשבה משומם ‪ 4‬ואלי יאספו כל חרד בדברי אלהי ישראל על מעל הגולה‬ ‫ואני ישב משומם עד למנחת הערב ‪ 5‬ובמנחת הערב קמתי מתעניתי ובקרעי בגדי ומעילי ואכרעה על ברכי‬ ‫ואפרשה כפי אל יהוה אלהי ‪ 6‬ואמרה אלהי בשתי ונכלמתי להרים אלהי פני אליך כי עונתינו רבו למעלה ראש‬ ‫ואשמתנו גדלה עד לשמים ‪ 7‬מימי אבתינו אנחנו באשמה גדלה עד היום הזה ובעונתינו נתנו אנחנו מלכינו‬ ‫כהנינו ביד מלכי הארצות בחרב בשבי ובבזה ובבשת פנים כהיום הזה ‪ 8‬ועתה כמעט רגע היתה תחנה מאת יהוה‬ ‫אלהינו להשאיר לנו פליטה ולתת לנו יתד במקום קדשו להאיר עינינו אלהינו ולתתנו מחיה מעט בעבדתנו ‪ 9‬כי‬ ‫עבדים אנחנו ובעבדתנו לא עזבנו אלהינו ויט עלינו חסד לפני מלכי פרס לתת לנו מחיה לרומם את בית אלהינו‬ ‫ולהעמיד את חרבתיו ולתת לנו גדר ביהודה ובירושלם ‪ 10‬ועתה מה נאמר אלהינו אחרי זאת כי עזבנו מצותיך‬ ‫‪ 11‬אשר צוית ביד עבדיך הנביאים לאמר הארץ אשר אתם באים לרשתה ארץ נדה היא בנדת עמי הארצות‬ ‫בתועבתיהם אשר מלאוה מפה אל פה בטמאתם ‪ 12‬ועתה בנותיכם אל תתנו לבניהם ובנתיהם אל תשאו‬ ‫לבניכם ולא תדרשו שלמם וטובתם עד עולם למען תחזקו ואכלתם את טוב הארץ והורשתם לבניכם עד עולם‬ ‫‪ 13‬ואחרי כל הבא עלינו במעשינו הרעים ובאשמתנו הגדלה כי אתה אלהינו חשכת למטה מעוננו ונתתה לנו‬ ‫פליטה כזאת ‪ 14‬הנשוב להפר מצותיך ולהתחתן בעמי התעבות האלה הלוא תאנף בנו עד כלה לאין שארית‬ ‫ופליטה ‪ 15‬יהוה אלהי ישראל צדיק אתה כי נשארנו פליטה כהיום הזה הננו לפניך באשמתינו כי אין לעמוד‬ ‫לפניך על זאת‬

‫‪Ezra 10‬‬ ‫‪ 1‬וכהתפלל עזרא וכהתודתו בכה ומתנפל לפני בית האלהים נקבצו אליו מישראל קהל רב מאד אנשים ונשים‬ ‫וילדים כי בכו העם הרבה בכה ‪ 2‬ויען שכניה בן יחיאל מבני עולם ]עילם[ ויאמר לעזרא אנחנו מעלנו באלהינו ונשב‬ ‫נשים נכריות מעמי הארץ ועתה יש מקוה לישראל על זאת ‪ 3‬ועתה נכרת ברית לאלהינו להוציא כל נשים והנולד‬ ‫מהם בעצת אדני והחרדים במצות אלהינו וכתורה יעשה ‪ 4‬קום כי עליך הדבר ואנחנו עמך חזק ועשה ‪ 5‬ויקם‬ ‫עזרא וישבע את שרי הכהנים הלוים וכל ישראל לעשות כדבר הזה וישבעו ‪ 6‬ויקם עזרא מלפני בית האלהים וילך‬ ‫אל לשכת יהוחנן בן אלישיב וילך שם לחם לא אכל ומים לא שתה כי מתאבל על מעל הגולה ‪ 7‬ויעבירו‬ ‫קול ביהודה וירושלם לכל בני הגולה להקבץ ירושלם ‪ 8‬וכל אשר לא יבוא לשלשת הימים כעצת השרים והזקנים‬ ‫יחרם כל רכושו והוא יבדל מקהל הגולה ‪ 9‬ויקבצו כל אנשי יהודה ובנימן ירושלם לשלשת הימים הוא חדש‬ ‫התשיעי בעשרים בחדש וישבו כל העם ברחוב בית האלהים מרעידים על הדבר ומהגשמים ‪ 10‬ויקם עזרא הכהן‬ ‫ויאמר אלהם אתם מעלתם ותשיבו נשים נכריות להוסיף על אשמת ישראל ‪ 11‬ועתה תנו תודה ליהוה אלהי‬ ‫אבתיכם ועשו רצונו והבדלו מעמי הארץ ומן הנשים הנכריות ‪ 12‬ויענו כל הקהל ויאמרו קול גדול כן כדבריך‬ ‫]כדברך[ עלינו לעשות ‪ 13‬אבל העם רב והעת גשמים ואין כח לעמוד בחוץ והמלאכה לא ליום אחד ולא לשנים כי‬ ‫הרבינו לפשע בדבר הזה ‪ 14‬יעמדו נא שרינו לכל הקהל וכל אשר בערינו ההשיב נשים נכריות יבא לעתים‬ ‫מזמנים ועמהם זקני עיר ועיר ושפטיה עד להשיב חרון אף אלהינו ממנו עד לדבר הזה ‪ 15‬אך יונתן בן עשהאל‬ ‫ויחזיה בן תקוה עמדו על זאת ומשלם ושבתי הלוי עזרם‬

‫‪Nehemiah 9‬‬ ‫‪ 1‬וביום עשרים וארבעה לחדש הזה נאספו בני ישראל בצום ובשקים ואדמה עליהם ‪ 2‬ויבדלו זרע ישראל מכל‬ ‫בני נכר ויעמדו ויתודו על חטאתיהם ועונות אבתיהם ‪ 3‬ויקומו על עמדם ויקראו בספר תורת יהוה אלהיהם‬ ‫רבעית היום ורבעית מתודים ומשתחוים ליהוה אלהיהם ‪ 4‬ויקם על מעלה הלוים ישוע ובני קדמיאל שבניה בני‬ ‫שרביה בני כנני ויזעקו בקול גדול אל יהוה אלהיהם ‪ 5‬ויאמרו הלוים ישוע וקדמיאל בני חשבניה שרביה הודיה‬ ‫שבניה פתחיה קומו ברכו את יהוה‬

‫‪Ezra 10‬‬ ‫‪ 16‬ויעשו כן בני הגולה ויבדלו עזרא הכהן אנשים ראשי האבות לבית אבתם וכלם בשמות וישבו ביום אחד‬ ‫לחדש העשירי לדריוש הדבר ‪ 17‬ויכלו בכל אנשים ההשיבו נשים נכריות עד יום אחד לחדש הראשון ‪ 18‬וימצא‬ ‫מבני הכהנים אשר השיבו נשים נכריות מבני ישוע בן יוצדק ואחיו מעשיה ואליעזר ויריב וגדליה ‪ 19‬ויתנו ידם‬ ‫להוציא נשיהם ואשמים איל צאן על אשמתם ‪ 20‬ומבני אמר חנני וזבדיה ‪ 21‬ומבני חרם מעשיה ואליה ושמעיה‬ ‫ויחיאל ועזיה ‪ 22‬ומבני פשחור אליועיני מעשיה ישמעאל נתנאל יוזבד ואלעשה ‪ 23‬ומן הלוים יוזבד ושמעי‬ ‫וקליה הוא קליטא פתחיה יהודה ואליעזר ‪ 24‬ומן המשררים אלישיב ומן השערים שלם וטלם ואורי ‪ 25‬ומישראל‬ ‫מבני פרעש רמיה ויזיה ומלכיה ומימן ואלעזר ומלכיה ובניה ‪ 26‬ומבני עילם מתניה זכריה ויחיאל ועבדי וירמות‬

‫‪OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 27/1/2017, SPi‬‬

‫‪Appendix: The Literary Development of EM‬‬

‫‪218‬‬

‫ואליה ‪ 27‬ומבני זתוא אליועני אלישיב מתניה וירמות וזבד ועזיזא ‪ 28‬ומבני בבי יהוחנן חנניה זבי עתלי ‪ 29‬ומבני‬ ‫בני משלם מלוך ועדיה ישוב ושאל ירמות ]ורמות[ ‪ 30‬ומבני פחת מואב עדנא וכלל בניה מעשיה מתניה בצלאל‬ ‫ובנוי ומנשה ‪ 31‬ובני חרם אליעזר ישיה מלכיה שמעיה שמעון ‪ 32‬בנימן מלוך שמריה ‪ 33‬מבני חשם מתני‬ ‫מתתה זבד אליפלט ירמי מנשה שמעי ‪ 34‬מבני בני מעדי עמרם ואואל ‪ 35‬בניה בדיה כלהי ]כלוהו[ ‪ 36‬וניה‬ ‫מרמות אלישיב ‪ 37‬מתניה מתני ויעשו ]ויעשי[ ‪ 38‬ובני ובנוי שמעי ‪ 39‬ושלמיה ונתן ועדיה ‪ 40‬מכנדבי ששי שרי‬ ‫‪ 41‬עזראל ושלמיהו שמריה ‪ 42‬שלום אמריה יוסף ‪ 43‬מבני נבו יעיאל מתתיה זבד זבינא ידו ]ידי[ ויואל בניה ‪44‬‬ ‫כל אלה נשאו ]נשאו[ נשים נכריות ויש מהם נשים וישימו בנים‬

Bibliography Achenbach, Reinhard. ‘Die Erzählung von der gescheiterten Landnahme von Kadesch Barnea (Numeri 13–14) als Schlüsseltext der Redaktionsgeschichte des Pentateuchs’. ZABR 9 (2003): 56–123. Achenbach, Reinhard. Die Vollendung der Tora: Studien zur Redaktionsgeschichte des Numeribuches im Kontext von Hexateuch und Pentateuch. BZABR 3. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz Verlag, 2003. Ackroyd, Peter R. I & II Chronicles, Ezra, Nehemiah: Introduction and Commentary. TBC. London: SCM, 1973. Addis, William E. The Documents of the Hexateuch: Translated and Arranged in Chronological Order. 2 vols. London: D. Nutt; New York: G. P. Putnam’s Sons, 1893. Ahlemann, Frieder. ‘Zur Esra-Quelle’. ZAW 18 (1942–3): 77–98. Ahlström, Gösta W. A History of Ancient Palestine from the Palaeolithic Period to Alexander’s Conquest. JSOTSup 146. Sheffield: JSOT, 1993. Albertz, Rainer. ‘A Pentateuchal Redaction in the Book of Numbers? The Late Priestly Layers of Num 25–36’. ZAW 125 (2013): 220–33. Albertz, Rainer. ‘Das Buch Numeri jenseits der Quellentheorie: Eine Redaktionsgeschichte von Num 20–24’. ZAW 123 (2011): 171–83, 336–47. Albertz, Rainer. ‘The Canonical Alignment of the Book of Joshua’. Pages 287–303 in Judah and the Judeans in the Fourth Century B.C.E. Edited by Oded Lipschits, Gary N. Knoppers, and Rainer Albertz. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2007. Albright, William Foxwell. The Biblical Period from Abraham to Ezra. New York: Harper & Row, 1963. Anbar, Moshe. ‘Genesis 15: A Conflation of Two Deuteronomic Narratives’. JBL 101 (1982): 39–55. Anderson, Cheryl B. ‘Reflections in an Interethnic/Racial Era on Interethnic-Racial Marriage in Ezra’. Pages 47–64 in They Were All Together in One Place: Toward Minority Biblical Criticism. Edited by Randall C. Bailey, Tat-Siong Benny Liew, and Fernando F. Segovia. SemeiaSt 57. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2009. Avishur, Yitzhak and Michael Heltzer. ‘The Scribe and Priest Ezra: A Leader under Achaemenian Rule’. Transeu 29 (2005): 17–36. Baden, Joel S. The Promise to the Patriarchs. New York: Oxford University Press, 2013. Baden, Joel S. ‘The Structure and Substance of Numbers 15’. VT 63 (2013): 351–67. Baden, Joel S. The Composition of the Pentateuch: Renewing the Documentary Hypothesis. AYBRL. New Haven: Yale University Press, 2012. Baden, Joel S. ‘The Continuity of the Non-Priestly Narrative from Genesis to Exodus’. Bib 93 (2012): 161–86. Baden, Joel S. ‘From Joseph to Moses: The Narratives of Exodus 1–2’. VT 62 (2012): 133–58. Baden, Joel S. ‘On Exodus 33,1–11’. ZAW 124 (2012): 329–40.

220

Bibliography

Baden, Joel S. ‘The Violent Origins of Levites: Text and Tradition’. Pages 103–16 in Levites and Priests in Biblical History and Tradition. Edited by Mark Leuchter and Jeremy M. Hutton. AIL 9. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2011. Baden, Joel S. ‘The Original Place of the Priestly Manna Story in Exodus 16’. ZAW 122 (2010): 491–504. Baden, Joel S. J, E, and the Redaction of the Pentateuch. FAT 68. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2009. Baden, Joel S. ‘A Narrative Pattern and its Role in Source Criticism’. HS 49 (2008): 41–54. Bartlett, John R. ‘Zadok and his Successors at Jerusalem’. JTS n.s. 19 (1968): 1–18. Batten, Loring W. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Books of Ezra and Nehemiah. ICC. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1913. Bautch, Richard. Developments in Genre between Post-Exilic Penitential Prayers and the Psalms of Communal Lament. ABS 7. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2003. Becking, Bob. ‘On the Identity of the “Foreign” Women in Ezra 9–10’. Pages 31–49 in Exile and Restoration Revisited: Essays on the Babylonian and Persian Periods in Memory of Peter R. Ackroyd. Edited by Lester L. Grabbe and Gary N. Knoppers. LSTS 73. London: Continuum, 2009. Becking, Bob. ‘Nehemiah 9 and the Problematic Concept of Context (Sitz im Leben)’. Pages 253–65 in The Changing Face of Form Criticism for the Twenty-First Century. Edited by Marvin Sweeney and Ehud Ben Zvi. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2003. Becking, Bob. ‘The Idea of Thorah in Ezra 7–10: A Functional Analysis’. ZABR 7 (2001): 273–86. Becking, Bob. ‘Continuity and Community: The Belief System of the Book of Ezra’. Pages 256–67 in The Crisis of Israelite Religion: Transformation of Religious Tradition in Exilic and Post-Exilic Times. Edited by Bob Becking and Marjo C. A. Korpel. OtSt 42. Leiden: Brill, 1999. Bedford, Peter R. Temple Restoration in Early Achaemenid Judah. JSJSup 65. Leiden: Brill, 2001. Berman, Joshua. ‘Historicism and its Limits: A Response to Bernard M. Levinson and Jeffrey Stackert’. JAJ 4 (2013): 297–303. Berquist, Jon L. Judaism in Persia’s Shadow: A Social and Historical Approach. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1995. Bianchi, Francesco. ‘ “La Semence sacrée”: la polémique sur les mariages mixtes dans les textes bibliques d’époque achéménide et hellénistique’. Transeu 29 (2005): 83–102. Blenkinsopp, Joseph. Judaism: The First Phase: The Place of Ezra and Nehemiah in the Origins of Judaism. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2009. Blenkinsopp, Joseph. A History of Prophecy in Israel. 2nd edn. Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox, 2003. Blenkinsopp, Joseph. ‘Was the Pentateuch the Civic and Religious Constitution of the Jewish Ethnos in the Persian Period?’ Pages 41–62 in Persia and Torah: The Theory of Imperial Authorization of the Pentateuch. Edited by James W. Watts. SymS 17. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2001. Blenkinsopp, Joseph. ‘An Assessment of the Alleged Pre-Exilic Date of the Priestly Material in the Pentateuch’. ZAW 108 (1996): 495–518.

Bibliography

221

Blenkinsopp, Joseph. The Pentateuch: An Introduction to the First Five Books of the Bible. New York: Doubleday, 1992. Blenkinsopp, Joseph. Ezra-Nehemiah: A Commentary. OTL. Philadelphia: Westminster, 1988. Blenkinsopp, Joseph. ‘The Mission of Udjahorresnet and Those of Ezra and Nehemiah’. JBL 106 (1987): 409–21. Blidstein, Gerald J. ‘ˈAtimia: A Greek Parallel to Ezra X 8 and to Post-Biblical Exclusion from the Community’. VT 24 (1974): 357–60. Blum, Erhard. ‘Die Feuersäule in Ex 13–14: Eine Spur der “Endredaktion”?’ Pages 117–37 in Interpretation of Exodus: Studies in Honour of Cornelis Houtman. Edited by Riemer Roukema. CBET 44. Leuven: Peeters, 2006. Blum, Erhard. ‘Esra, die Mosetora und die persische Politik’. Pages 231–56 in Religion und Religionskontakte im Zeitalter der Achämeniden. Edited by Reinhard G. Kratz. VWGT 22. Gütersloh: Gütersloher Verlag, 2002. Blum, Erhard. ‘Die Literarische Verbindung von Erzvätern und Exodus: Ein Gespräch mit neueren Endredaktionshypothesen’. Pages 119–56 in Abschied vom Jahwisten: Die Komposition des Hexateuch in der jüngsten Diskussion. Edited by Jan Christian Gertz, Konrad Schmid, and Markus Witte. BZAW 315. Berlin: de Gruyter, 2002. Blum, Erhard. ‘Das sog. “Privilegrecht” in Exodus 34,11–26: Ein Fixpunkt der Komposition der Exodusbuches?’ Pages 347–66 in Studies in the Book of Exodus. Edited by Marc Vervenne. BETL 126. Leuven: Peeters, 1996. Blum, Erhard. Studien zur Komposition des Pentateuch. BZAW 189. Berlin: de Gruyter, 1990. Blum, Erhard. Die Komposition der Vätergeschichte. WMANT 57. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1984. Boda, Mark J. ‘Redaction in the Book of Nehemiah: A Fresh Proposal’. Pages 25–54 in Unity and Disunity in Ezra-Nehemiah: Redaction, Rhetoric, and Reader. Edited by Mark J. Boda and Paul L. Redditt. HBM 17. Sheffield: Sheffield Phoenix, 2008. Boda, Mark J. Praying the Tradition: The Origin and Use of Tradition in Nehemiah 9. BZAW 277. Berlin: de Gruyter, 1999. Böhler, Dieter. ‘On the Relationship between Textual and Literary Criticism: The Two Recensions of the Book of Ezra; Ezra-Neh (MT) and 1 Esdras (LXX)’. Pages 35–50 in The Earliest Text of the Hebrew Bible: The Relationship between the Masoretic Text and the Hebrew Base of the Septuagint Reconsidered. Edited by Adrian Schenker. SCS 52. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2003. Böhler, Dieter. Die heilige Stadt in Esdras α und Esra-Nehemia: Zwei Konzeptionen der Wiederherstellung Israels. OBO 158. Freiburg: Universitätsverlag; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1997. Boorer, Suzanne. ‘The Place of Numbers 13–14* and Numbers 20:2–12* in the Priestly Narrative (Pg)’. JBL 131 (2012): 45–63. Boorer, Suzanne. ‘The Envisioning of the Land in the Priestly Material: Fulfilled Promise or Future Hope?’ Pages 99–125 in Pentateuch, Hexateuch, or Enneateuch? Identifying Literary Works in Genesis through Kings. Edited by Thomas B. Dozeman, Thomas Römer, and Konrad Schmid. AIL 8. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2011. Boorer, Suzanne. The Promise of the Land as Oath: A Key to the Formation of the Pentateuch. BZAW 205. Berlin: de Gruyter, 1992.

222

Bibliography

Briant, Pierre. Histoire de l’empire perse: de Cyrus à Alexandre. Paris: Fayard, 1996. English translation, From Cyrus to Alexander: A History of the Persian Empire. Translated by Peter T. Daniels. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2002. Bright, John. A History of Ancient Israel. 3rd edn. Philadelphia: Westminster, 1981. Burnett, Joel S. A Reassessment of Biblical Elohim. SBLDS 183. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2001. Carmichael, Calum M. Law and Narrative in the Bible: The Evidence of the Deuteronomic Laws and the Decalogue. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1985. Carmichael, Calum M. The Laws of Deuteronomy. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1974. Carpenter, J. Estlin and George Harford-Battersby. The Hexateuch According to the Revised Version. 2 vols. London: Longmans, Green, and Co., 1900. Carr, David M. The Formation of the Hebrew Bible: A New Reconstruction. New York: Oxford University Press, 2011. Carr, David M. ‘The Rise of Torah’. Pages 39–56 in The Pentateuch as Torah: New Models for Understanding its Promulgation and Acceptance. Edited by Gary N. Knoppers and Bernard M. Levinson. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2007. Carr, David M. ‘Method in Determination of Direction of Dependence: An Empirical Test of Criteria Applied to Exodus 34,11–26 and its Parallels’. Pages 107–40 in Gottes Volk am Sinai: Untersuchungen zu Ex 32–34 und Dtn 9–10. Edited by Matthias Köckert and Erhard Blum. VWGT 18. Gütersloh: Kaiser, Gütersloher Verlagshaus, 2001. Carr, David M. Reading the Fractures of Genesis: Historical and Literary Approaches. Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox, 1996. Carter, Charles E. The Emergence of Yehud in the Persian Period: A Social and Demographic Study. JSOTSup 294. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1999. Cazelles, Henri. ‘La Mission d’Esdras’. VT 4 (1954): 113–40. Charlesworth, James H., ed. Old Testament Pseudepigrapha. 2 vols. New York: Doubleday, 1983–5. Chavel, Simeon. ‘The Second Passover, Pilgrimage, and the Centralized Cult’. HTR 102 (2009): 1–24. Childs, Brevard. Introduction to the Old Testament as Scripture. Philadelphia: Fortress; London: SCM, 1979. Chrostowski, Waldemar. ‘An Examination of Conscience by God’s People as Exemplified in Neh 9,6–37’. BZ 34 (1990): 253–61. Clines, David J. A. Ezra, Nehemiah, Esther: Based on the Revised Standard Version. NCBC. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans; London: Marshall, Morgan & Scott, 1984. Clines, David J. A. ‘Nehemiah 10 as an Example of Early Jewish Exegesis’. JSOT 21 (1981): 111–17. Coats, George W. ‘Despoiling the Egyptians’. VT 18 (1968): 450–7. Cohen, Shaye J. D. From the Maccabees to the Mishnah. 3rd edn. Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox, 2014. Cohen, Shaye J. D. Why Aren’t Jewish Women Circumcised? Gender and Covenant in Judaism. Berkeley: University of California Press, 2005. Collins, John J. ‘The Transformation of the Torah in Second Temple Judaism’. JSJ 43 (2012): 455–74.

Bibliography

223

Collins, John J. Daniel: A Commentary on the Book of Daniel. Hermeneia. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1993. Couturier, Guy. ‘Sens de tôdâh en Jos 7,19 et en Esd 10,11’. Pages 121–7 in La Vie de parole: de l’Ancien au Nouveau Testament. Études d’exégèse et d’herméneutique bibliques offertes à Pierre Grelot. Paris: Desclée, 1987. Cowley, Arthur. Aramaic Papyri of the Fifth Century B.C. Oxford: Clarendon, 1932. Cross, Frank Moore. Canaanite Myth and Hebrew Epic: Essays in the History of the Religion of Israel. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1973. Cross, Frank Moore. ‘A Reconstruction of the Judean Restoration’. JBL 94 (1973): 4–18. Rev., pages 151–72 in From Epic to Canon: History and Literature in Ancient Israel. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1988. Crüsemann, Frank. Die Tora: Theologie und Sozialgeschichte des alttestamentlichen Gesetzes. Munich: Chr. Kaiser, 1992. English translation, The Torah: Theology and Social History of Old Testament Law. Translated by Allan W. Mahnke. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1996. Crüsemann, Frank. ‘Die Eigenständigkeit der Urgeschichte: Ein Beitrag zur Diskussion um den “Jahwisten”’. Pages 11–29 in Die Botschaft und die Boten: Festschrift für Hans Walter Wolff zum 70. Geburtstag. Edited by Jörg Jeremias and Lothar Perlitt. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1981. Daniels, Dwight R. ‘The Composition of the Ezra-Nehemiah Narrative’. Pages 311–28 in Ernten, was man sät: Festschrift für Klaus Koch zu seinem 65. Geburtstag. Edited by Dwight R. Daniels, Uwe Glessmer, and Martin Rösel. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1991. Davies, Graham I. ‘The Transition from Genesis to Exodus’. Pages 59–78 in Genesis, Isaiah, and Psalms: A Festschrift to Honour Professor John Emerton for His Eightieth Birthday. Edited by Katherine Dell, Graham I. Davies, and Yee Von Koh. VTSup 135. Leiden: Brill, 2010. Day, John. ‘The Flood and the Ten Antediluvian Figures in Berossus and in the Priestly Source in Genesis’. Pages 211–23 in On Stone and Scroll: Essays in Honour of Graham Ivor Davies. Edited by James K. Aitken, Katharine J. Dell, and Brian A. Mastin. BZAW 420. Berlin: de Gruyter, 2011. Demsky, Aaron. ‘The Three-Day Period of Purification before Entering the Temple’. Pages 2:775–85 in Birkat Shalom: Studies in the Bible, Ancient Near Eastern Literature, and Post-Biblical Judaism: Presented to Shalom M. Paul on the Occasion of His Seventieth Birthday. 2 vols. Edited by Chaim Cohen, Victor A. Hurowitz, Avi Hurvitz, Yochanan Muffs, Baruch J. Schwartz, and Jeffrey H. Tigay. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2008. Dietrich, Manfried, Osward Loretz, and Joaquín Sanmartín. Die keilalphabetischen Texte aus Ugarit: Einschliesslich der keilalphabetischen Texte ausserhalb Ugarit. 1. Transkription. AOAT 24. Kevelaer: Butzon und Bercker; Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1976. Dor, Yonina. ‘Rite of Separation of the Foreign Wives in Ezra-Nehemiah’. Pages 173–88 in Judah and Judeans in the Achaemenid Period: Negotiating Identity in an International Context. Edited by Oded Lipschits, Gary N. Knoppers, and Manfred Oeming. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2011.

224

Bibliography

Dor, Yonina. Have the ‘Foreign Women’ Really Been Expelled? Separation and Exclusion in the Restoration Period [‫]האומנם גורשו ’הנשים הנכרית‘? שאלת ההיבדלות בימי שיבת ציון‬a. Jerusalem: Magnes, 2006. Dor, Yonina. ‘The Composition of the Episode of the Foreign Women in Ezra IX–X’. VT 53 (2003): 26–47. Douglas, Mary. ‘Responding to Ezra: The Priests and the Foreign Wives’. BibInt 10 (2002): 2–23. Dozeman, Thomas B. ‘The Book of Joshua as an Intertext in the MT and the LXX Canons’. Pages 185–209 in Pentateuch, Hexateuch, or Enneateuch? Identifying Literary Works in Genesis through Kings. Edited by Thomas B. Dozeman, Thomas Römer, and Konrad Schmid. AIL 8. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2011. Dozeman, Thomas B. and Konrad Schmid, eds. A Farewell to the Yahwist? The Composition of the Pentateuch in Recent European Interpretation. SymS 34. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2006. Driver, S. R. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on Deuteronomy. ICC. 3rd edn. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1902. Duggan, Michael W. ‘Ezra 9:6–15: A Penitential Prayer within its Literary Setting’. Pages 165–80 in Seeking the Favor of God, vol. 1: The Origins of Penitential Prayer in Second Temple Judaism. Edited by Mark J. Boda, Daniel K. Falk, and Rodney A. Werline. EJL 21. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2006. Duggan, Michael W. The Covenant Renewal in Ezra-Nehemiah (Neh 7:72b–10:40): An Exegetical, Literary, and Theological Study. SBLDS 164. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2001. Elliger, Karl. Leviticus. HAT 4. Tübingen: Mohr, 1966. Emerton, John A. ‘Did Ezra Go to Jerusalem in 428 B.C.?’ JTS n.s. 17 (1986): 1–19. Eskenazi, Tamara Cohn. In an Age of Prose: A Literary Approach to Ezra-Nehemiah. SBLMS 36. Atlanta: Scholars, 1988. Eskenazi, Tamara Cohn. ‘The Structure of Ezra-Nehemiah and the Integrity of the Book’. JBL 107 (1988): 641–56. Eskenazi, Tamara Cohn and Eleanor P. Judd. ‘Marriage to a Stranger in Ezra 9–10’. Pages 266–85 in Second Temple Studies II: Temple and Community in the Persian Period. Edited by Tamara Cohn Eskenazi and Kent H. Richards. JSOTSup 175. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1994. Fantalkin, Alexander and Oren Tal. ‘The Canonization of the Pentateuch: When and Why?’ ZAW 124 (2012): 1–18, 201–12. Fantalkin, Alexander and Oren Tal. ‘Judah and its Neighbours in the Fourth Century BCE’. Pages 134–97 in From Judah to Judaea: Socio-economic Structures and Processes in the Persian Period. Edited by Johannes Unsok Ro. HBM 43. Sheffield: Sheffield Phoenix, 2012. Feliks, Yahuda. Nature and Man in the Bible: Chapters in Biblical Ecology. London: Soncino, 1981. Fensham, F. Charles. The Books of Ezra and Nehemiah. NICOT. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1982. Fensham, F. Charles. ‘Neh. 9 and Pss. 105, 106, 135 and 136. Post-Exilic Historical Traditions in Poetic Form’. JNSL 9 (1981): 35–51.

Bibliography

225

Finkelstein, Israel and Neil Asher Silberman. The Bible Unearthed: Archaeology’s New Vision of Ancient Israel and the Origin of its Sacred Texts. New York: Simon and Schuster, 2001. Fishbane, Michael A. Biblical Interpretation in Ancient Israel. Oxford: Clarendon, 1985. Repr., with addendum, 1989. Fishbane, Michael A. Text and Texture: Close Readings of Selected Biblical Texts. New York: Schocken Books, 1979. Fitzpatrick-McKinley, Anne. ‘What Did Nehemiah Do for Judaism?’ Pages 93–119 in A Wandering Galilean: Essays in Honour of Seán Freyne. Edited by Zuleika Rodgers, Margaret Daly-Denton, and Anne Fitzpatrick-McKinley. JSJSup 132. Leiden: Brill, 2009. Fleming, Daniel E. ‘Mari’s Large Public Tent and the Priestly Tent Sanctuary’. VT 50 (2000): 484–98. Frei, Peter. ‘Die persische Reichsautorisation: Ein Überblick’. ZABR 1 (1995): 1–35. English translation, ‘Persian Imperial Authorization: A Summary’. Pages 5–40 in Persia and Torah: The Theory of Imperial Authorization of the Pentateuch. Translated and edited by James W. Watts. SymS 17. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2001. Frei, Peter. ‘Zentralgewalt und Lokalautonomie im Achämenidenreich’. Pages 8–43 in Reichsidee und Reichsorganisation im Perserreich. Edited by Peter Frei and Klaus Koch. OBO 55. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1984. 2nd rev. edn, pages 8–131 (1996). Frevel, Christian. ‘The Book of Numbers—Formation, Composition, and Interpretation of a Late Part of the Torah: Some Introductory Remarks’. Pages 1–37 in Torah and the Book of Numbers. Edited by Christian Frevel, Thomas Pola, and Aaron Schart. FAT.II 62. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2013. Frevel, Christian. Mit Blick auf das Land die Schöpfung erinnern: Zum Ende der Priestergrundschrift. HBS 23. Freiburg: Herder, 2000. Frevel, Christian and Benedikt J. Conczorowski. ‘Deepening the Water: First Steps to a Diachronic Approach on Intermarriage in the Hebrew Bible’. Pages 15–45 in Mixed Marriages: Intermarriage and Group Identity in the Second Temple Period. Edited by Christian Frevel. LHBOTS 547. London: T&T Clark, 2011. Fried, Lisbeth S. Ezra and the Law in History and Tradition. SPOT. Columbia: University of South Carolina Press, 2014. Fried, Lisbeth S., ed. Was 1 Esdras First? An Investigation into the Priority and Nature of 1 Esdras. AIL 7. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2011. Fried, Lisbeth S. The Priest and the Great King: Temple–Palace Relations in the Persian Empire. BJSUCSD 10. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2004. Fried, Lisbeth S. ‘ “You Shall Appoint Judges”: Ezra’s Mission and the Rescript of Artaxerxes’. Pages 63–89 in Persia and Torah: The Theory of Imperial Authorization of the Pentateuch. Edited by James W. Watts. SymS 17. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2001. Friedman, Richard Elliott. ‘Three Major Redactors of the Torah’. Pages 1:31–44 in Birkat Shalom: Studies in the Bible, Ancient Near Eastern Literature, and Post-Biblical Judaism: Presented to Shalom M. Paul on the Occasion of His Seventieth Birthday.

226

Bibliography

2 vols. Edited by Chaim Cohen, Victor A. Hurowitz, Avi Hurvitz, Yochanan Muffs, Baruch J. Schwartz, and Jeffrey H. Tigay. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2008. Friedman, Richard Elliott. The Bible with Sources Revealed: A New View into the Five Books of Moses. San Francisco: HarperSanFrancisco, 2003. Friedman, Richard Elliott. The Hidden Book of the Bible. San Francisco: HarperSanFrancisco, 1998. Friedman, Richard Elliott. Who Wrote the Bible? New York: Summit, 1987. Gabbay, Uri. ‘Hebrew śôm śekel (Neh. 8:8) in Light of Aramaic and Akkadian’. JSS 59 (2014): 47–51. Galling, Kurt. Die Bücher der Chronik, Esra, Nehemia. ATD 12. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1954. Garbini, Giovanni. History and Ideology in Ancient Israel. English translation of Storia e ideologia nell’Israele antico. BSSTB 3. Brescia: Paideia, 1986. Translated by John S. Bowden. London: SCM, 1988. Geissler, Johannes. Die literarischen Beziehungen der Esramemoiren insbesondere zur Chronik und den hexateuchischen Quellenschriften. Chemnitz: J. C. F. Pickenhahn & Sohn, 1899. Gertz, Jan Christian. Tradition und Redaktion in der Exoduserzählung: Untersuchungen zur Endredaktion des Pentateuch. FRLANT 186. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2000. Gertz, Jan Christian, Konrad Schmid, and Marcus Witte, eds. Abschied vom Jahwisten: Die Komposition des Hexateuch in der jüngsten Diskussion. BZAW 315. Berlin: de Gruyter, 2002. Gesenius, Wilhelm. Gesenius’ Hebrew Grammar. Edited by Emil F. Kautzsch. Translated by Arthur E. Cowley. 2nd rev. edn. Oxford: Clarendon, 1910. Gesundheit (Bar-On), Shimon. Three Times a Year: Studies on Festival Legislation in the Pentateuch. FAT 82. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2012. Gesundheit (Bar-On), Shimon. ‘The Festival Calendars in Exodus XXIII 14–19 and XXXIV 18–26’. VT 48 (1998): 161–95. Gilbert, Maurice. ‘La Place de la loi dans la prière de Néhémie 9’. Pages 307–16 in De la Tôrah au Messie: études d’exégèse et d’herméneutique bibliques offertes à Henri Cazelles pour ses 25 années d’enseignement à l’Institut Catholique de Paris (Octobre 1979). Paris: Desclée, 1981. Ginsberg, H. Louis. Israelian Heritage of Judaism. TSJTSA 24. New York: Jewish Theological Seminary of America, 1982. Glatt-Gilad, David A. ‘Reflections on the Structure and Significance of the ’amānāh (Neh 10,29–40)’. ZAW 112 (2000): 386–95. Gmirkin, Russell E. Berossus and Genesis, Manetho and Exodus: Hellenistic Histories and the Date of the Pentateuch. LHBOTS 433. London: T&T Clark, 2006. Gomes, Jules F. The Sanctuary of Bethel and the Configuration of Israelite Identity. BZAW 368. Berlin: de Gruyter, 2006. Grabbe, Lester L. ‘The “Persian Documents” in the Book of Ezra: Are They Authentic?’ Pages 531–70 in Judah and Judeans in the Persian Period. Edited by Oded Lipschits and Manfred Oeming. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2006. Grabbe, Lester L. A History of Jews and Judaism in the Second Temple Period. 2 vols. LSTS 47, 68. London: T&T Clark, 2004–11.

Bibliography

227

Grabbe, Lester L. ‘The Law of Moses in the Ezra Tradition: More Virtual than Real?’ Pages 91–113 in Persia and Torah: The Theory of Imperial Authorization of the Pentateuch. Edited by James W. Watts. SymS 17. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2001. Grabbe, Lester L. Ezra-Nehemiah. OTR. London; New York: Routledge, 1998. Grabbe, Lester L. ‘What Was Ezra’s Mission?’ Pages 286–99 in Second Temple Studies II: Temple and Community in the Persian Period. Edited by Tamara Cohn Eskenazi and Kent H. Richards. JSOTSup 175. Sheffield: JSOT, 1994. Grabbe, Lester L. Judaism from Cyrus to Hadrian. 2 vols. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1992. Grabbe, Lester L. ‘Reconstructing History from the Book of Ezra’. Pages 98–106 in Second Temple Studies I: Persian Period. Edited by Philip R. Davies. JSOTSup 117. Sheffield: JSOT, 1991. Graham, M. Patrick. ‘A Connection Proposed between II Chr 24,16 and Ezra 9–10’. ZAW 97 (1985): 256–8. Grätz, Sebastian. ‘The Second Temple and the Legal Status of Torah: The Hermeneutics of the Torah in the Books of Ruth and Ezra’. Pages 273–87 in The Pentateuch as Torah: New Models for Understanding its Promulgation and Acceptance. Edited by Gary N. Knoppers and Bernard M. Levinson. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2007. Grätz, Sebastian. Das Edikt des Artaxerxes: Eine Untersuchung zum religionspolitischen und historischen Umfeld von Esra 7,12–26. BZAW 337. Berlin: de Gruyter, 2004. Graupner, Axel. Der Elohist: Gegenwart und Wirksamkeit des transzendenten Gottes in der Geschichte. WMANT 97. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 2002. Gray, George Buchanan. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on Numbers. ICC. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1903. Grol, Harm W. M. van. ‘Exegesis of the Exile—Exegesis of Scripture? Ezra 9:6–9’. Pages 31–61 in Intertextuality in Ugarit and Israel. Edited by Johannes C. de Moor. OtSt 40. Leiden: Brill, 1998. Gross, Walter. ‘Die Wolkensäule und die Feuersäule in Ex 13 + 14: Literarkritische, redaktionsgeschichtliche und quellenkritische Erwägungen’. Pages 142–65 in Biblische Theologie und gesellschaftlicher Wandel: Für Norbert Lohfink SJ. Edited by Georg Braulik, Walter Gross, and Sean McEvenue. Freiburg: Herder, 1993. Guillaume, Philippe. Land and Calendar: The Priestly Document from Genesis 1 to Joshua 18. LHBOTS 391. London: T&T Clark, 2009. Gunneweg, Antonius H. J. Nehemia. KAT 19.2. Gütersloh: Gütersloher Verlagshaus Mohn, 1987. Gunneweg, Antonius H. J. Esra. KAT 19.1. Gütersloh: Gütersloher Verlagshaus Mohn, 1985. Gunneweg, Antonius H. J. ‘Zur Interpretation der Bücher Esra-Nehemia: Zugleich ein Beitrag zur Methode der Exegese’. Pages 146–61 in Congress Volume: Vienna, 1980. Edited by John A. Emerton. VTSup 32. Leiden: Brill, 1981. Hagedorn, Anselm C. ‘Local Law in an Imperial Context: The Role of Torah in the (Imagined) Persian Period’. Pages 57–76 in The Pentateuch as Torah: New Models for Understanding its Promulgation and Acceptance. Edited by Gary N. Knoppers and Bernard M. Levinson. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2007.

228

Bibliography

Halbe, Jörn. Das Privilegrecht Jahwes: Ex 34,10–26: Gestalt und Wesen, Herkunft und Wirken in vordeuteronomischer Zeit. FRLANT 114. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1975. Hallo, William W., ed. The Context of Scripture. 3 vols. Leiden: Brill, 1997–2002. Haran, Menahem. ‘Ezekiel, P, and the Priestly School’. VT 58 (2008): 211–18. Haran, Menahem. The Biblical Collection: Its Consolidation to the End of the Second Temple Times and Changes of Form to the End of the Middle Ages [:‫האסופה המקראית‬a ‫]תהליכי הגיבוש עד סוף ימי בית שני ושינויי הצורה עד מוצאי ימי הביניים‬a. 3 vols. Jerusalem: Mosad Byaliḳ and Magnes, 2003–8. Haran, Menahem. ‘Book-Size and the Device of Catch-Lines in the Biblical Canon’. JJS 36 (1985): 1–11. Haran, Menahem. ‘Behind the Scenes of History: Determining the Date of the Priestly Source’. JBL 100 (1981): 321–33. Haran, Menahem. Temples and Temple-Service in Ancient Israel: An Inquiry into the Character of Cult Phenomena and the Historical Setting of the Priestly School. Oxford: Clarendon, 1978. Haran, Menahem. Ages and Institutions in the Bible [‫ עיונים היסטוריים‬:‫]תקופות ומוסדות במקרא‬. Tel Aviv: Am Oved, 1972. Haran, Menahem. ‘The Nature of the “’Ohel Mo‘edh” in Pentateuchal Sources’. JSS 5 (1960): 50–65. Harrington, Hannah K. ‘The Use of Leviticus in Ezra-Nehemiah’. JHebS 13 art. 3 (2013): 1–20. Hayes, Christine E. Gentile Impurities and Jewish Identities: Intermarriage and Conversion from the Bible to the Talmud. New York: Oxford University Press, 2002. Heltzer, Michael. ‘The Right of Ezra to Demand Obedience to “The Laws of the King” from Gentiles of the V Satrapy’. ZABR 4 (1998): 192–6. Heltzer, Michael and Yitzhak Avishur. ‘The Term sōfēr māhīr as Designating a Courtier in the Old Testament and the Aḥiqar Story’. UF 34 (2002): 217–21. Hendel, Ronald S. ‘A Hasmonean Edition of MT Genesis? The Implications of the Editions of the Chronology in Genesis 5’. HBAI 1 (2012): 448–64. Hendel, Ronald S. ‘Is the “J” Primeval Narrative an Independent Composition? A Critique of Crüsemann’s “Die Eigenständigkeit der Urgeschichte”’. Pages 181–205 in The Pentateuch: International Perspectives on Current Research. Edited by Thomas B. Dozeman, Konrad Schmid, and Baruch J. Schwartz. FAT 78. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2011. Hendel, Ronald S. ‘Sacrifice as a Cultural System: The Ritual Symbolism of Exodus 24:3–8’. ZAW 101 (1989): 366–90. Hoglund, Kenneth G. Achaemenid Imperial Administration in Syria-Palestine and the Missions of Ezra and Nehemiah. SBLDS 125. Atlanta: Scholars, 1992. Holmgren, Fredrick C. ‘Faithful Abraham and the ’amānâ Covenant: Nehemiah 9,6–10,1’. ZAW 104 (1992): 249–54. Hölscher, Gustav. ‘Die Bücher Esra und Nehemia’. Pages 491–562 in vol. 1 of Die Heilige Schrift des Alten Testaments. Edited by Alfred Bertholet. 4th edn. 2 vols. Tübingen: Mohr, 1922–3. Hoonacker, Albin van. ‘La Succession chronologique Néhémie-Esdras’. RB 32 (1923): 481–94.

Bibliography

229

Hoonacker, Albin van. ‘Néhémie et Esdras: nouvelle hypothèse sur la chronologie de l’époque de la restauration’. Muséon 9 (1890): 151–84, 317–51, 389–401. Houtman, Cornelis. ‘Ezra and the Law: Observations on the Supposed Relation between Ezra and the Pentateuch’. Pages 91–115 in Remembering all the Way: A Collection of Old Testament Studies Published on the Occasion of the Fortieth Anniversary of the Oudtestamentisch Werkgezelschap in Nederland. Edited by Bertil Albrektson. OtSt 21. Leiden: Brill, 1981. Humbert, Paul. ‘Le Substantif to‘ēbā et le verbe t‘b dans l’Ancien Testament’. ZAW 72 (1960): 217–37. Humbert, Paul. La ‘terou‘a’: analyse d’un rite biblique. UNRTPFL 23. Neuchâtel: Secrétariat de l’Université, 1946. Hurvitz, Avi. ‘Once Again: The Linguistic Profile of the Priestly Material in the Pentateuch and its Historical Age: A Response to J. Blenkinsopp’. ZAW 112 (2000): 180–91. Hurvitz, Avi. ‘Dating the Priestly Source in Light of the History Study of Biblical Hebrew a Century after Wellhausen’. ZAW 100 Supplement (1988): 88–100. Hurvitz, Avi. A Linguistic Study of the Relationship between the Priestly Source and the Book of Ezekiel: A New Approach to an Old Problem. CahRB 20. Paris: J. Gabalda, 1982. Hurvitz, Avi. ‘The Evidence of Language in Dating the Priestly Code: A Linguistic Study in Technical Idioms and Terminology’. RB 81 (1974): 24–56. Hurvitz, Avi. Transition Period in Biblical Hebrew: A Study in Post-Exilic Hebrew and its Implications for the Dating of Psalms [‫ לתולדות לשון בימי בית שני‬:‫]בין לשון ללשון‬a. Jerusalem: Mosad Byaliḳ, 1972. Hurvitz, Avi. ‘The Chronological Significance of “Aramaisms” in Biblical Hebrew’. IEJ 18 (1962): 234–40. Hurvitz, Avi, in collaboration with Leeor Gottlieb, Aaron Hornkohl, and Emmanuel Mastéy. A Concise Lexicon of Late Biblical Hebrew: Linguistic Innovations in the Writings of the Second Temple Period. VTSup 160. Leiden: Brill, 2014. In der Smitten, Wilhelm T. Esra: Quellen, Überlieferung und Geschichte. SSN 15. Assen: Van Gorcum, 1973. Ishida, Tomoo. ‘The Structure and Historical Implications of the Lists of Pre-Israelite Nations’. Bib 60 (1979): 461–90. Jackson, Bernard S. ‘The “Institutions” of Marriage and Divorce in the Hebrew Bible’. JSS 56 (2011): 231–51. Janzen, David. ‘Scholars, Witches, Ideologues, and What the Text Said: Ezra 9–10 and its Interpretation’. Pages 49–70 in Approaching Yehud: New Approaches to the Study of the Persian Period. Edited by Jon L. Berquist. SemeiaSt 50. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Studies, 2007. Janzen, David. Witch-Hunts, Purity and Social Boundaries: The Expulsion of the Foreign Women in Ezra 9–10. JSOTSup 350. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 2002. Janzen, David. ‘The “Mission” of Ezra and the Persian Period Temple Community’. JBL 119 (2000): 619–43. Japhet, Sara. ‘The Expulsion of the Foreign Women (Ezra 9–10): The Legal Basis, Precedents, and Consequences for the Jewish Identity’. Pages 141–61 in Sieben Augen auf einem Stein (Sach 3,9): Studien zur Literatur des zweiten Tempels.

230

Bibliography

Festschrift für Ina Willi-Plein zum 65. Geburtstag. Edited by Friedhelm Hartenstein and Michael Pietsch. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 2007. Japhet, Sara. I and II Chronicles: A Commentary. OTL. Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox, 1993. Japhet, Sara. ‘The Relationship between Chronicles and Ezra-Nehemiah’. Pages 293–313 in Congress Volume: Leuven, 1989. Edited by John A. Emerton. VTSupp 43. Leiden: Brill, 1991. Japhet, Sara. ‘Law and “the Law” in Ezra-Nehemiah’. Pages 99–115 in Proceedings of the Ninth World Congress of Jewish Studies: Panel Sessions. Edited by Moshe Goshen-Gottstein. Jerusalem: Magnes, 1988. Japhet, Sara. ‘People and Land in the Restoration Period’. Pages 103–25 in Das Land in biblischer Zeit: Jerusalem-Symposium 1981 der Hebräischen Universität und der Georg-August-Universität. Edited by Georg Strecker. GTA 25. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1983. Japhet, Sara. ‘The Supposed Common Authorship of Chronicles and Ezra-Nehemia Investigated Anew’. VT 18 (1968): 330–71. Jaroš, Karl. Die Stellung des Elohisten zur kanaanäischen Religion. 2nd rev. edn. OBO 4. Freiburg: Universitätsverlag, 1982. Jenks, Alan W. The Elohist and North Israelite Traditions. SBLMS 22. Missoula, MT: Scholars, 1977. Jeon, Jaeyoung. The Call of Moses and the Exodus Story: A Redactional-Critical Study in Exodus 3–4 and 5–13. FAT.II 60. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2013. Jepsen, Alfred. ‘Nehemia 10’. ZAW 66 (1954): 87–106. Jindo, Job Y. ‘Recontextualizing Kaufmann: His Empirical Conception of the Bible and its Significance in Jewish Intellectual History’. JJTP 19 (2011): 95–129. Johnson, Willa M. The Holy Seed Has Been Defiled: The Interethnic Marriage Dilemma in Ezra 9–10. HBM 33. Sheffield: Sheffield Phoenix, 2011. Joosten, Jan. People and Land in the Holiness Code: An Exegetical Study of the Ideational Framework of the Law in Leviticus 17–26. VTSup 67. Leiden: Brill, 1996. Josephus. The Jewish Antiquities: Books 1–20. Translated by Henry St. John Thackeray, R. Marcus, A. Wikgren, and L. H. Feldmann. LCL. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1930–65. Kapelrud, Arvid S. The Question of Authorship in the Ezra Narrative: A Lexical Investigation. Oslo: Jacob Dybwad, 1944. Karrer, Christiane. Ringen um die Verfassung Judas: Eine Studie zu den theologischpolitischen Vorstellungen im Esra-Nehemia-Buch. BZAW 308. Berlin: de Gruyter, 2001. Kaufmann, Yehezkel. tôlǝdôt hā’emûnāh hayiśrā’ēlît: miyǝmê qedem ‘ad sôp bêt šēnî [‫ מימי קדם עד סוף בית שני‬:‫]תולדות האמונה הישראלית‬a. 8 parts in 4 vols. Tel Aviv: Mosad Byaliḳ, 1937–56. English translation of vols 1–3, The Religion of Israel: From its Beginnings to the Babylonian Exile. Translated and abridged by Moshe Greenberg. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1960. English translation of vol. 4, History of the Religion of Israel: From the Babylonian Captivity to the End of Prophecy. Translated by Clarence Efroymsen. New York: Ktav, 1977. Kellermann, Ulrich. ‘Erwägungen zum Esragesetz’. ZAW 80 (1968): 373–85. Kellermann, Ulrich. ‘Erwägungen zum Problem der Esradatierung’. ZAW 80 (1968): 55–87.

Bibliography

231

Kellermann, Ulrich. Nehemia: Quellen, Überlieferung und Geschichte. BZAW 102. Berlin: Töpelmann, 1967. Kim, Young Hye. ‘The Finalization of Num 25,1–5’. ZAW 122 (2010): 260–4. Klostermann, August. Der Pentateuch: Beiträge zu seinem Verständnis und seiner Entstehungsgeschichte. Leipzig: G. Böhme, 1893. Knohl, Israel. ‘Who Edited the Pentateuch?’ Pages 359–67 in The Pentateuch: International Perspectives on Current Research. Edited by Thomas B. Dozeman, Konrad Schmid, and Baruch J. Schwartz. FAT 78. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2011. Knohl, Israel. The Sanctuary of Silence: The Priestly Torah and the Holiness School. Translated by Jackie Feldman and Peretz Rodman. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1995. Repr., Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2007. Knohl, Israel. ‘The Priestly Torah versus the Holiness School’. HUCA 58 (1987): 65–111. Knoppers, Gary N. Jews and Samaritans: The Origins and History of their Early Relations. New York: Oxford University Press, 2013. Knoppers, Gary N. ‘Ethnicity, Genealogy, Geography, and Change: The Judean Communities of Babylon and Jerusalem in the Story of Ezra’. Pages 147–71 in Community Identity in Judean Historiography: Biblical and Comparative Perspectives. Edited by Gary N. Knoppers and Kenneth A. Ristau. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2009. Knoppers, Gary N. ‘An Achaemenid Imperial Authorization of Torah in Yehud?’ Pages 115–34 in Persia and Torah: The Theory of Imperial Authorization of the Pentateuch. Edited by James W. Watts. SymS 17. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2001. Knoppers, Gary N. and Paul Harvey. ‘The Pentateuch in Ancient Mediterranean Context: The Publication of Local Lawcodes’. Pages 105–41 in The Pentateuch as Torah: New Models for Understanding its Promulgation and Acceptance. Edited by Gary N. Knoppers and Bernard M. Levinson. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2007. Knowles, Melody D. ‘Pilgrimage to Jerusalem in the Persian Period’. Pages 7–24 in Approaching Yehud: New Approaches to the Study of the Persian Period. Edited by Jon L. Berquist. SemeiaSt 50. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2007. Knowles, Melody D. Centrality Practiced: Jerusalem in the Religious Practice of Yehud and the Diaspora during the Persian Period. ABS 16. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2006. Knowles, Melody D. ‘Pilgrimage Imagery in the Returns in Ezra’. JBL 23 (2004): 57–74. Koch, Klaus. ‘Ezra and Meremoth: Remarks on the History of the High Priesthood’. Pages 105–10 in Sha‘arei Talmon: Studies in the Bible, Qumran, and the Ancient Near East. Edited by Michael Fishbane and Emanuel Tov. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1992. Koch, Klaus. ‘P—kein Redaktor! Erinnerung an zwei Eckdaten der Quellenscheidung’. VT 37 (1987): 446–67. Koch, Klaus. ‘Ezra and the Origins of Judaism’. JSS 19 (1974): 173–97. Koopmans, William T. Joshua 24 as Poetic Narrative. JSOTSup 93. Sheffield: JSOT, 1990. Kraemer, David. ‘On the Relationship of the Books of Ezra and Nehemiah’. JSOT 59 (1993): 73–92. Krapf, Thomas M. Die Priesterschrift und die vorexilische Zeit: Yehezkel Kaufmanns vernachlässigter Beitrag zur Geschichte der biblischen Religion. OBO 119. Freiburg: Universitätsverlag; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1992.

232

Bibliography

Kratz, Reinhard G. ‘Ezra: Priest and Scribe’. Pages 163–88 in Scribes, Sages, and Seers: The Sage in the Eastern Mediterranean World. Edited by Leo G. Perdue. FRLANT 219. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2008. Kratz, Reinhard G. ‘Temple and Torah: Reflections on the Legal Status of the Pentateuch between Elephantine and Qumran’. Pages 77–103 in The Pentateuch as Torah: New Models for Understanding its Promulgation and Acceptance. Edited by Gary N. Knoppers and Bernard M. Levinson. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2007. Kratz, Reinhard G. Die Komposition der erzählenden Bücher des Alten Testaments: Grundwissen der Bibelkritik. UTB 2157. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2000. English translation, The Composition of the Narrative Books of the Old Testament. Translated by John Bowden. London: T&T Clark, 2005. Kratz, Reinhard G. Translatio imperii: Untersuchungen zu den aramäischen Danielerzählungen und ihrem theologiegeschichtlichen Umfeld. WMANT 63. NeukirchenVluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1991. Kugel, James L. ‘The Holiness of Israel and the Land in Second Temple Times’. Pages 21–32 in Texts, Temples, and Traditions: A Tribute to Menahem Haran. Edited by Michael V. Fox, Victor A. Hurowitz, Avi Hurvitz, Michael L. Klein, Baruch J. Schwartz, and Nili Shupak. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1996. Kuhrt, Amélie. ‘The Cyrus Cylinder and Achaemenid Imperial Policy’. JSOT 25 (1983): 83–97. Lambert, David. ‘Fasting as a Penitential Rite: A Biblical Phenomenon?’ HTR 93 (2003): 477–512. Lange, Armin. ‘Your Daughters Do Not Give to Their Sons and Their Daughters Do Not Take for Your Sons (Ezra 9,12): Intermarriage in Ezra 9–10 and in the PreMaccabean Dead Sea Scrolls’. BN n.F. 137 (2008): 17–39 (Part 1); 139 (2008): 79–98 (Part 2). Lange, Armin. ‘Authoritative Literature in the Chronistic Corpus’. Pages 29–52 in ‘The Words of a Wise Man’s Mouth Are Gracious’ (Qoh 10,12). Edited by Mauro Perani. SJ 32. Berlin: de Gruyter, 2005. Lebram, Jürgen-Christian. ‘Die Traditionsgeschichte der Esragestalt und die Frage nach dem historischen Esra’. Pages 103–38 in Sources, Structures, Synthesis: Proceedings of the Groningen 1983 Achaemenid History Workshop. Edited by Heleen SancisiWeerdenburg. AchH 1. Leiden: Nederlands Instituut voor het Nabije Oosten, 1987. Lee, Kyong-Jin. The Authority and Authorization of Torah in the Persian Period. CBET 64. Leuven: Peeters, 2011. LeFebvre, Michael. Collections, Codes, and Torah: The Re-Characterization of Israel’s Written Law. LHBOTS 451. London: T&T Clark, 2006. Leuchter, Mark. ‘The Ambiguous Details in the Blasphemer Narrative: Sources and Redaction in Leviticus 24:10–23’. JBL 130 (2011): 431–50. Leuchter, Mark. ‘Ezra’s Mission and the Levites of Casiphia’. Pages 173–95 in Community Identity and Judean Historiography: Biblical and Comparative Perspectives. Edited by Gary N. Knoppers and Kenneth A. Ristau. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2009. Levenson, Jon D. Sinai and Zion: An Entry into the Jewish Bible. New York: Seabury, 1985. Levine, Baruch A. Leviticus = Va-yikrah: The Traditional Hebrew Text with the New JPS Translation. JPSTC. Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society, 1989.

Bibliography

233

Levine, Baruch A. ‘Late Language in the Priestly Source: Some Literary and Historical Observations’. Pages 69–82 in Proceedings of the Eighth World Congress of Jewish Studies: Panel Sessions—Bible Studies and Hebrew Language. Edited by David Krone. Jerusalem: World Union of Jewish Studies, 1983. Levine, Baruch A. Numbers 1–20: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary. AB 4. New York: Doubleday, 1964. Levine, Baruch A. Numbers 21–36: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary. AB 4A. New York: Doubleday, 1964. Levine, Lee I. The Ancient Synagogue: The First Thousand Years. 2nd edn. New Haven: Yale University Press, 2005. Levinson, Bernard M. ‘Is the Covenant Code an Exilic Composition? In Response to John Van Seters’. Pages 272–325 in In Search of Pre-Exilic Israel. Edited by John Day. JSOTSup 406. London: T&T Clark, 2004. Levinson, Bernard M. Deuteronomy and the Hermeneutics of Legal Innovation. New York: Oxford University Press, 1988. Levinson, Bernard M. and Jeffrey Stackert. ‘The Limitations of “Resonance”: A Response to Joshua Berman on Historical and Comparative Method’. JAJ 4 (2013): 310–33. Levinson, Bernard M. and Jeffrey Stackert. ‘Between the Covenant Code and Esarhaddon’s Succession Treaty: Deuteronomy 13 and the Composition of Deuteronomy’. JAJ 3 (2012): 123–40. Levitt Kohn, Risa. A New Heart and a New Soul: Ezekiel, the Exile, and the Torah. JSOTSup 358. London: Sheffield Academic, 2002. Levitt Kohn, Risa. ‘A Prophet Like Moses? Rethinking Ezekiel’s Relationship to the Torah’. ZAW 114 (2002): 236–54. Lewis, Theodore J. ‘Divine Fire in Deuteronomy 32’. JBL 132 (2013): 791–803. Liebreich, Leon J. ‘The Impact of Nehemiah 9:5–37 on the Liturgy of the Synagogue’. HUCA 32 (1961): 227–37. Lim, Timothy H. The Formation of the Jewish Canon. AYBRL. New Haven: Yale University Press, 2013. Lipiński, Edward. ‘skn et sgn dans le sémitique occidental du nord’. UF 5 (1973): 191–207. Liver, Jacob. ‘The Half-Shekel Offering in Biblical and Post-Biblical Literature’. HTR 46 (1963): 181–5. Lohfink, Norbert. ‘Deuteronomy 6:24: ‫“ ְלַחֹּיֵתנּו‬to Maintain Us”’. Pages 111–19 in ‘Sha’arei Talmon’: Studies in the Bible, Qumran, and the Ancient Near East Presented to Shemaryahu Talmon. Edited by Michael Fishbane and Emanuel Tov. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1992. McCarthy, Dennis J. ‘Covenant and Law in Chronicles-Nehemiah’. CBQ 44 (1982): 25–44. McCarthy, Dennis J. Treaty and Covenant: A Study in Form in the Ancient Oriental Documents and in the Old Testament. Rev. edn. AnBib 21A. Rome: Biblical Institute, 1981. McCollough, W. Stewart. The History and Literature of the Palestinian Jews from Cyrus to Herod: 550 BC to 4 BC. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1975. McConville, J. Gordon. ‘Ezra-Nehemiah and the Fulfilment of Prophecy’. VT 36 (1986): 205–24.

234

Bibliography

MacDonald, Nathan. ‘Issues in the Dating of Deuteronomy: A Response to Juha Pakkala’. ZAW 122 (2010): 431–5. Mathys, Hans-Peter. Dichter und Beter: Theologen aus spätalttestamentlicher Zeit. OBO 132. Freiburg: Universitätsverlag; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1994. Meiggs, Russell and David M. Lewis. A Selection of Greek Historical Inscriptions to the End of the Fifth Century B.C. Oxford: Clarendon, 1969. Meyers, Carol L. and Eric M. Meyers. Haggai, Zechariah 1–8: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary. AB 25B. Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1987. Milgrom, Jacob. ‘The Case for the Pre-Exilic and Exilic Provenance of the Books of Exodus, Leviticus and Numbers’. Pages 48–56 in Reading the Law: Studies in Honour of Gordon J. Wenham. Edited by J. Gordon McConville and Karl Möller. LHBOTS 461. London: T&T Clark, 2007. Milgrom, Jacob. ‘HR in Leviticus and Elsewhere in the Torah’. Pages 24–40 in The Book of Leviticus: Composition and Reception. Edited by Rolf Rendtorff and Robert A. Kugler. VTSup 93. Leiden: Brill, 2003. Milgrom, Jacob. Leviticus 23–27: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary. AB 3B. New York: Doubleday, 2001. Milgrom, Jacob. Leviticus 17–22: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary. AB 3A. New York: Doubleday, 2000. Milgrom, Jacob. ‘The Antiquity of the Priestly Source: A Reply to Joseph Blenkinsopp’. ZAW 111 (1999): 10–22. Milgrom, Jacob. Leviticus 1–16: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary. AB 3. New York: Doubleday, 1991. Milgrom, Jacob. Numbers = Ba-midbar: The Traditional Hebrew Text with the New JPS Translation. JPSTC. Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society, 1990. Milgrom, Jacob. ‘Priestly Terminology and the Political and Social Structure of PreMonarchic Israel’. JQR 69 (1978): 65–81. Milgrom, Jacob. ‘The Concept of Ma‘al in the Bible and the Ancient Near East’. JAOS 96 (1976): 236–47. Milgrom, Jacob. Cult and Conscience: The Asham and the Priestly Doctrine of Repentance. SJLA 18. Leiden: Brill, 1976. Milgrom, Jacob. ‘Two Kinds of ḥat ṭ ạ̄ ’t’. VT 26 (1976): 333–7. Milgrom, Jacob. Studies in Levitical Terminology. UCPNES 14. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1970. Min, Kyung-Jin. The Levitical Authorship of Ezra-Nehemiah. JSOTSupp 409. London: T&T Clark, 2004. Moffat, Donald P. Ezra’s Social Drama: Identity Formation, Marriage and Social Conflict in Ezra 9 and 10. LHBOTS 579. London: Bloomsbury, 2013. Morgenstern, Julian. ‘The Chanukkah Festival and the Calendar of Ancient Israel’. HUCA 20 (1947): 1–136; 21 (1948): 365–496. Mowinckel, Sigmund. Studien zu dem Buche Ezra-Nehemia. 3 vols. SNVAO.II n.s. 3, 5, 7. Oslo: Universitetsforlaget, 1964–5. Mowinckel, Sigmund. ‘ “Ich” und “Er” in der Ezrageschichte’. Pages 211–33 in Verbannung und Heimkehr: Beiträge zur Geschichte und Theologie Israels im 6. und 5. Jahrhundert v. Chr.: Wilhelm Rudolph zum 70. Geburtstage. Edited by Arnulf Kuschke. Tübingen: Mohr, 1961.

Bibliography

235

Mullen, E. Theodore. Ethnic Myths and Pentateuchal Foundations: A New Approach to the Formation of the Pentateuch. SemeiaSt 35. Atlanta: Scholars, 1997. Myers, Jacob. Ezra. Nehemiah. AB 14. Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1965. Najman, Hindy. Seconding Sinai: The Development of Mosaic Discourse in Second Temple Judaism. JSJSup 77. Leiden: Brill, 2003. Najman, Hindy. ‘Torah of Moses: Pseudonymous Attribution in Second Temple Writings’. Pages 202–16 in The Interpretation of Scripture in Early Judaism and Christianity: Studies in Language and Tradition. Edited by Craig A. Evans. JSPSup 33. SSEJC 7. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 2000. Neufeld, Ephraim. Ancient Hebrew Marriage Laws: With Specific References to General Semitic Laws and Customs. London: Longmans, Green, 1944. Newman, Judith H. Praying by the Book: The Scripturalization of Prayer in Second Temple Judaism. EJL 14. Atlanta: Scholars, 1999. Newman, Judith H. ‘Nehemiah 9 and the Scripturalization of Prayer in the Second Temple Period’. Pages 112–23 in The Function of Scripture in Early Jewish and Christian Tradition. Edited by Craig A. Evans and James A. Sanders. JSNTSup 154. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1998. Nicholson, Ernest W. Deuteronomy and the Judaean Diaspora. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2014. Nicholson, Ernest W. ‘Reconsidering the Provenance of Deuteronomy’. ZAW 124 (2012): 528–40. Nicholson, Ernest W. ‘Deuteronomy and the Babylonian Diaspora’. Pages 269–85 in On Stone and Scroll: Essays in Honour of Graham Ivor Davies. Edited by James K. Aitken, Katharine J. Dell, and Brian A. Mastin. BZAW 420. Berlin: de Gruyter, 2011. Nicholson, Ernest W. The Pentateuch in the Twentieth Century: The Legacy of Julius Wellhausen. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1998. Nicholson, Ernest W. ‘The Antiquity of the Tradition in Exodus 24:9–11’. VT 26 (1976): 148–60. Nicholson, Ernest W. ‘The Interpretation of Exodus 24:9–11’. VT 24 (1974): 77–97. Nicholson, Ernest W. ‘The Meaning of the Expression ‫ עם הארץ‬in the Old Testament’. JSS 10 (1965): 59–66. Niditch, Susan. ‘My Brother Esau is a Hairy Man’: Hair and Identity in Ancient Israel. New York: Oxford University Press, 2008. Nihan, Christoph. ‘Israel’s Festival Calendars in Leviticus 23, Numbers 28–29 and the Formation of “Priestly” Literature’. Pages 177–231 in The Books of Leviticus and Numbers. Edited by Thomas Römer. BETL 215. Leuven: Peeters, 2008. Nihan, Christoph. From Priestly Torah to Pentateuch: A Study in the Composition of the Book of Leviticus. FAT.II 25. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2007. Nihan, Christoph. ‘The Torah between Samaria and Judah: Shechem and Gerizim in Deuteronomy and Joshua’. Pages 187–223 in The Pentateuch and Torah: New Models for Understanding its Promulgation and Acceptance. Edited by Gary N. Knoppers and Bernard M. Levinson. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2007. Noort, Ed. ‘Bis zur Grenze des Landes? Num 27,12–13 und das Ende der Priesterschrift’. Pages 99–119 in The Books of Leviticus and Numbers. Edited by Thomas Römer. BETL 215. Leuven: Peeters, 2008.

236

Bibliography

Noth, Martin. Das vierte Buch Mose: Numeri. ATD 7. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1966. English translation, Numbers: A Commentary. Translated by James D. Martin. OTL. Philadelphia: Westminster, 1968. Noth, Martin. Das dritte Buch Mose: Leviticus. ATD 6. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1962. English translation, Leviticus: A Commentary. Translated and revised by J. E. Anderson. OTL. Philadelphia: Westminster, 1977. Noth, Martin. Das zweite Buch Mose: Exodus. ATD 5. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1959. English translation, Exodus: A Commentary. Translated by John S. Bowden. OTL. Philadelphia: Westminster, 1962. Noth, Martin. Überlieferungsgeschichtliche Studien: Die sammelnden und bearbeitenden Geschichtswerke im Alten Testament. Tübingen: Max Niemeyer, 1957. Reprint of Überlieferungsgeschichtliche Studien I: Die sammelnden und bearbeitenden Geschichtswerke im Alten Testament. Schriften der Königsberger Gelehrten Gesellschaft. Geisteswissenschaftliche Klasse 18:2. Halle: Max Niemeyer, 1943. English translation of Part 1, The Deuteronomistic History. Translated by Jane Doull, John Barton, Michael D. Rutter, and D. R. Ap-Thomas. JSOTSup 15. Sheffield: JSOT, 1981. English translation of Part 2, The Chronicler’s History. Translated by H. G. M. Williamson. JSOTSup 50. Sheffield: JSOT, 1987. Noth, Martin. Überlieferungsgeschichte des Pentateuch. Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 1948. English translation, A History of Pentateuchal Traditions. Translated by Bernhard W. Anderson. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, 1972. Nzimande, Makhosazana. ‘Imbokodo Explorations of the Prevalence of Historical Memory and Identity Contestations in the Expulsion of the Nāšîm Nokriyyōt in Ezra 9–10’. Pages 269–94 in Texts, Contexts and Readings in Postexilic Literature. Edited by Louis Jonker. FAT.II 53. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2011. Oeming, Manfred. ‘ “See We Are Serving Today” (Nehemiah 9:36): Nehemiah 9 as a Theological Interpretation’. Pages 571–88 in Judah and the Judeans in the Persian Period. Edited by Oded Lipschits and Manfred Oeming. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2006. Olyan, Saul M. ‘Exodus 31:12–17: The Sabbath According to H, or the Sabbath According to P and H?’ JBL 124 (2005): 201–9. Olyan, Saul M. ‘Purity and Ideology in Ezra-Nehemiah as a Tool to Reconstitute the Community’. JSJ 35 (2004): 1–16. Olyan, Saul M. Rites and Rank: Hierarchy in Biblical Representations of Cult. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2000. Otto, Eckart. Das Deuteronomium im Pentateuch und Hexateuch: Studien zur Literaturgeschichte von Pentateuch und Hexateuch im Lichte des Deuteronomiumrahmens. FAT 30. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2000. Otto, Eckart. ‘Das Deuteronomium als archimedischer Punkt der Pentateuchkritik: Auf dem Wege zu einer Neubegründung der de Wette’schen Hypothese’. Pages 321–39 in Deuteronomy and Deuteronomic Literature: Festschrift C. H. W. Brekelmans. Edited by Marc Vervenne and Johan Lust. BETL 133. Leuven: Peeters, 1997. Otto, Eckart. ‘Forschungen zur Priesterschrift’. TRu 62 (1997): 1–50. Pakkala, Juha. ‘The Dating of Deuteronomy: A Response to Nathan MacDonald’. ZAW 123 (2011): 431–6.

Bibliography

237

Pakkala, Juha. ‘Intermarriage and Group Identity in the Ezra Tradition [Ezra 7–10 and Neh 8]’. Pages 78–88 in Mixed Marriages: Intermarriage and Group Identity in the Second Temple Period. Edited by Christian Frevel. LHBOTS 547. London: T&T Clark, 2011. Pakkala, Juha. ‘The Quotations and References of the Pentateuchal Laws in EzraNehemiah’. Pages 193–221 in Changes in Scripture: Rewriting and Interpreting Authoritative Traditions in the Second Temple Period. Edited by Hanne von Weissenberg, Juha Pakkala, and Marko Marttila. BZAW 419. Berlin: de Gruyter, 2011. Pakkala, Juha. ‘Why 1 Esdras is Probably Not an Early Version of the Ezra-Nehemiah Tradition’. Pages 93–107 in Was 1 Esdras First? An Investigation into the Priority and Nature of 1 Esdras. Edited by Lisbeth S. Fried. AIL 7. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2011. Pakkala, Juha. ‘The Date of the Oldest Edition of Deuteronomy’. ZAW 121 (2009): 388–401. Pakkala, Juha. ‘The Disunity of Ezra-Nehemiah’. Pages 200–15 in Unity and Disunity in Ezra-Nehemiah: Redaction, Rhetoric, and Reader. Edited by Mark J. Boda and Paul L. Redditt. HBM 18. Sheffield: Sheffield Phoenix, 2008. Pakkala, Juha. ‘The Original Independence of the Ezra Story in Ezra 7–10 and Neh 8’. BN n.F. 129 (2006): 17–24. Pakkala, Juha. Ezra the Scribe: The Development of Ezra 7–10 and Nehemia 8. BZAW 347. Berlin: de Gruyter, 2004. Paran, Meir. Forms of the Priestly Style in the Pentateuch: Patterns, Linguistic Usages, Syntactic Structures [‫ מבנים‬,‫ שימושי לשון‬,‫ דגמים‬:‫]דרכי הסגנון הכוהני בתורה‬a. Introduction by Menahem Haran. Jerusalem: Magnes, 1989. Perlitt, Lothar. ‘Priesterschrift im Deuteronomium?’ ZAW 100 Supplement (1988): 65–88. Perlitt, Lothar. ‘Mose als Prophet’. EvT 31 (1971): 588–608. Podella, Thomas. Ṣôm-Fasten: Kollektive Trauer um den verborgenen Gott im Alten Testament. AOAT 224. Kevelaer: Verlag Butzon & Bercker; Neukirchen-Vlyun: Neukirchener Verlag, 1989. Pohlmann, Karl-Friedrich. ‘Zur Frage von Korrespondenzen und Divergenzen zwischen den Chronikbüchern und dem Esra/Nehemia-Buch’. Pages 314–30 in Congress Volume: Leuven, 1989. Edited by John A. Emerton. VTSup 43. Leiden: Brill, 1991. Pohlmann, Karl-Friedrich. Studien zum dritten Esra: Ein Beitrag zur Frage nach dem ursprünglichen Schluß des chronistischen Geschichtswerkes. FRLANT 104. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1970. Pola, Thomas. Die ursprüngliche Priesterschrift: Beobachtungen zur Literarkritik und Traditionsgeschichte von Pg. WMANT 70. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1995. Polzin, Robert. Late Biblical Hebrew: Toward an Historical Typology of Biblical Hebrew Prose. HSM 12. Missoula, MT: Scholars, 1976. Porten, Bezalel and Ada Yardeni, eds. Textbook of Aramaic Documents from Ancient Egypt. 4 vols. Jerusalem: Hebrew University, 1986–99. Prichard, James B., ed. Ancient Near Eastern Texts Relating to the Old Testament. 3rd edn. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1969.

238

Bibliography

Pröbstl, Volker. Nehemia 9, Psalm 106 und Psalm 136 und die Rezeption des Pentateuchs. Göttingen: Cuvillier, 1997. Propp, William H. C. Exodus 19–40: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary. AB 2A. New York: Doubleday, 2006. Propp, William H. C. Exodus 1–18: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary. AB 2. New York: Doubleday, 1999. Pury, Albert de. ‘PG as the Absolute Beginning’. Pages 99–128 in Les Dernières Rédactions du Pentateuque, de l’Hexateuque et de l’Ennéateuque. Edited by Thomas Römer and Konrad Schmid. BETL 203. Leuven: Peeters, 2007. Rad, Gerhard von. Das formgeschichtliche Problem des Hexateuch. BWANT 4. Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 1938. Repr., ‘Das formgeschichtliche Problem des Hexateuch’. Pages 9–86 in Gesammelte Studien zum Alten Testament. TB 8. Munich: Kaiser, 1958. English translation, ‘The Form-Critical Problem of the Hexateuch’. Pages 1–78 in The Problem of the Hexateuch and Other Essays. Translated by E. W. Trueman Dicken. Edinburgh; London: Oliver & Boyd, 1966. Rad, Gerhard von. Das Geschichtsbild des chronistischen Werkes. BWANT 4/3. Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 1930. Redditt, Paul L. ‘The Dependence of Ezra-Nehemiah on 1 and 2 Chronicles’. Pages 216–40 in Unity and Disunity in Ezra-Nehemiah: Redaction, Rhetoric, and Reader. Edited by Mark J. Boda and Paul L. Redditt. HBM 18. Sheffield: Sheffield Phoenix, 2008. Rehm, Martin. ‘Nehemia 9’. BZ 1 (1957): 59–69. Reinmuth, Titus. Der Bericht Nehemias: Zur literarischen Eigenart, traditionsgeschichtlichen Prägung und innerbiblischen Rezeption des Ich-Berichts Nehemias. OBO 183. Freiburg: Universitätsverlag; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2002. Reinmuth, Titus. ‘Reform und Tora bei Nehemia. Neh 10,31–40 und die Autorisierung der Tora in der Perserzeit’. ZABR 7 (2001): 287–317. Rendsburg, Gary A. ‘Some False Leads in the Identification of Late Biblical Hebrew Texts: The Cases of Genesis 24 and 1 Samuel 2:27–36’. JBL 121 (2002): 23–46. Rendsburg, Gary A. ‘The Northern Origin of Nehemiah 9’. Bib 72 (1991): 348–66. Rendsburg, Gary A. ‘Late Biblical Hebrew and the Date of P’. JANESCU 12 (1980): 65–80. Rendtorff, Rolf. ‘Noch einmal: Esra und das “Gesetz”’. ZAW 111 (1999): 89–91. Rendtorff, Rolf. ‘Nehemiah 9: An Important Witness of Theological Reflection’. Pages 111–17 in Tehillah le-Moshe: Biblical and Judaic Studies in Honor of Moshe Greenberg. Edited by Mordechai Cogan, Barry L. Eichler, and Jeffrey H. Tigay. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1997. Rendtorff, Rolf. ‘The gēr in the Priestly Laws of the Pentateuch’. Pages 77–87 in Ethnicity and the Bible. Edited by Mark G. Brett. BIS 19. Leiden: Brill, 1996. Rendtorff, Rolf. Die ‘Bundesformel’: Eine exegetisch-theologische Untersuchung. SBS 160. Stuttgart: Verlag Katholisches Bibelwerk, 1995. English translation, The Covenant Formula: An Exegetical and Theological Investigation. Translated by Margaret Kohl. OTS. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1998. Rendtorff, Rolf. ‘Esra und das “Gesetz”’. ZAW 96 (1984): 165–84. Rendtorff, Rolf. Das überlieferungsgeschichtliche Problem des Pentateuch. BZAW 147. Berlin: de Gruyter, 1977. English translation, The Problem of the Process of Transmission in the Pentateuch. Translated by John J. Scullion. JSOTSup 89. Sheffield: JSOT, 1990.

Bibliography

239

Rofé, Alexander. Deuteronomy: Issues and Interpretation. OTS. London: T&T Clark, 2002. Römer, Thomas. ‘Zwischen Urkunden, Fragmenten und Ergänzungen: Zum Stand der Pentateuchforschung’. ZAW 125 (2013): 2–24. Römer, Thomas. ‘Israel’s Sojourn in the Wilderness and the Construction of the Book of Numbers’. Pages 419–45 in Reflection and Refraction: Studies in Biblical Historiography in Honour of A. Graeme Auld. Edited by Robert Rezetko, Timothy H. Lim, and W. Brian Aucker. VTSup 113. Leiden: Brill, 2007. Römer, Thomas. ‘Das Buch Numeri und das Ende des Jahwisten: Anfragen zur “Quellenscheidung” im vierten Buch des Pentateuch’. Pages 215–31 in Abschied vom Jahwisten: Die Komposition des Hexateuch in der jüngsten Diskussion. Edited by Jan Christian Gertz, Konrad Schmid, and Markus Witte. BZAW 315. Berlin: de Gruyter, 2002. Römer, Thomas. ‘Le Deutéronome à la quête des origines’. Pages 65–98 in Le Pentateuque: débats et recherches. Edited by Pierre Haudebert. LD 151. Paris: Éditions du Cerf, 1992. English translation, ‘Deuteronomy in Search of Origins’. Translated by Peter T. Daniels. Pages 112–38 in Reconsidering Israel and Judah: Recent Studies on the Deuteronomistic History. Edited by Gary N. Knoppers and J. Gordon McConville. SBTS 8. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2000. Römer, Thomas. Israels Väter: Untersuchungen zur Väterthematik im Deuteronomium und in der deuteronomistischen Tradition. OBO 99. Freiburg: Universitätsverlag; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1990. Römer, Thomas and Marc Z. Brettler. ‘Deuteronomy 34 and the Case for a Persian Hexateuch’. JBL 119 (2000): 401–19. Rooke, Deborah W. Zadok’s Heirs: The Role and Development of the High Priesthood in Ancient Israel. OTM. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000. Rothenbusch, Ralf. ‘…abgesondert zur Tora Gottes hin’: Ethnisch-religiöse Identitäten im Esra/Nehemiabuch. HBS 70. Freiburg: Koch Neff & Volckmar, 2012. Rothenbusch, Ralf. ‘The Question of Mixed Marriages between the Poles of Diaspora and Homeland: Observations in Ezra/Nehemiah’. Pages 60–77 in Mixed Marriages: Intermarriage and Group Identity in the Second Temple Period. Edited by Christian Frevel. LHBOTS 547. London: T&T Clark, 2011. Rowley, H. H. ‘The Chronological Order of Ezra and Nehemiah’. Pages 137–68 in The Servant of the Lord. 2nd edn. Oxford: Blackwell, 1965. Rudolph, Wilhelm. Esra und Nehemia samt 3. Esra. HAT 20. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1949. Rudolph, Wilhelm. Der ‘Elohist’ von Exodus bis Josua. BZAW 68. Berlin: A. Töpplemann, 1938. Sacchi, Paolo. The History of the Second Temple Period. English translation of Storia del Secondo Tempio: Israele tra VI secolo a.C. e I secolo d.C. (Turin: Società Editrice Internazionale, 1994) by Thomas Kirk. JSOTSup 285. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 2000. Repr., London: T&T Clark, 2004. Satlow, Michael L. How the Bible Became Holy. New Haven: Yale University Press, 2014. Satlow, Michael L. Jewish Marriage in Antiquity. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2001.

240

Bibliography

Saysell, Csilla. ‘According to the Law’: Reading Ezra 9–10 as Christian Scripture. JTISup 4. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2012. Schaeder, Hans Heinrich. Esra der Schreiber. BHT 5. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1930. Schaper, Joachim. Priester und Leviten im achämenidischen Juda: Studien zur Kultund Sozialgeschichte Israels in persischer Zeit. FAT 31. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2000. Schaper, Joachim. ‘The Temple Treasury Committee in the Times of Nehemiah and Ezra’. VT 47 (1997): 200–6. Schaper, Joachim. ‘The Jerusalem Temple as an Instrument of the Achaemenid Fiscal Administration’. VT 45 (1995): 528–39. Schiffman, Lawrence H. ‘The Case of the Day of Atonement Ritual’. Pages 181–8 in Biblical Perspectives: Early Use and Interpretation of the Bible in Light of the Dead Sea Scrolls. Proceedings of the First International Symposium of the Orion Center for the Study of the Dead Sea Scrolls and Associated Literature, 12–14 May 1996. Edited by Michael E. Stone and Esther G. Chazon. Leiden: Brill, 1998. Schmid, Konrad. ‘The Canon and the Cult: The Emergence of Book Religion in Ancient Israel and the Gradual Sublimation of the Temple Cult’. JBL 131 (2012): 289–305. Schmid, Konrad. ‘Genesis and Exodus as Two Formerly Independent Traditions of Origins for Ancient Israel’. Bib 93 (2012): 187–208. Schmid, Konrad. ‘Has European Scholarship Abandoned the Documentary Hypothesis? Some Reminders on its History and Remarks on its Current Status’. Pages 17–30 in The Pentateuch: International Perspectives on Current Research. Edited by Thomas B. Dozeman, Konrad Schmid, and Baruch J. Schwartz. FAT 78. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2011. Schmid, Konrad. Literaturgeschichte des Alten Testaments: Eine Einführung. Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 2008. English translation, The Old Testament: A Literary History. Translated by Linda M. Maloney. Minneapolis: Fortress, 2012. Schmid, Konrad. ‘The Late Persian Formation of the Torah: Observations on Deuteronomy 34’. Pages 237–50 in Judah and the Judeans in the Fourth Century B.C.E. Edited by Oded Lipschits, Gary N. Knoppers, and Rainer Albertz. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2007. Schmid, Konrad. ‘The Persian Imperial Authorization as a Historical Problem and as a Biblical Construct: A Plea for Distinctions in the Current Debate’. Pages 23–38 in The Pentateuch as Torah: New Models for Understanding its Promulgation and Acceptance. Edited by Gary N. Knoppers and Bernard M. Levinson. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2007. Schmid, Konrad. Erzväter und Exodus: Untersuchungen zur doppelten Begründung der Ursprünge Israels innerhalb der Geschichtsbücher des Alten Testaments. WMANT 81. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1999. English translation, Genesis and the Moses Story: Israel’s Dual Origins in the Hebrew Bible. Translated by James D. Nogalski. Siphrut 3. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2010. Schmidt, Ludwig. ‘Die vorpriesterliche Verbindung von Erzvätern und Exodus durch die Josefsgeschichte (Gen 37; 39–50*) und Exodus 1’. ZAW 124 (2012): 19–37. Schmidt, Ludwig. ‘Die Priesterschrift: Kein Ende am Sinai!’ ZAW 120 (2008): 481–500.

Bibliography

241

Schmidt, Ludwig. ‘Die Priesterschrift in Exodus 16’. ZAW 119 (2007): 483–98. Schmitt, Hans-Christoph. ‘Das sogenannte jahwistische Privilegrecht in Ex 34,10–28 als Komposition der spätdeuteronomistischen Endredaktion des Pentateuch’. Pages 157–71 in Abschied vom Jahwisten: Die Komposition des Hexateuch in der jüngsten Diskussion. Edited by Jan Christian Gertz, Konrad Schmid, and Markus Witte. BZAW 315. Berlin: de Gruyter, 2002. Schmitt, Hans-Christoph. ‘Das spätdeuteronomistische Geschichtswerk Genesis I–2 Regum XXV und seine theologische Intention’. Pages 261–79 in Congress Volume, Cambridge 1995. Edited by John A. Emerton. VTSup 66. Leiden: Brill, 1997. Schniedewind, William M. How the Bible Became a Book: The Textualization of Ancient Israel. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2004. Schwartz, Baruch J. ‘Miqra’ Qodesh and the Structure of Leviticus 23’. Pages 11–24 in Purity and Holiness in Ancient Israel, Judaism, and Christianity: Essays in Memory of Susan Haber. Edited by Carl S. Ehrlich, Anders Runesson, and Eileen Schuller. WUNT 305. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2013. Schwartz, Baruch J. ‘How the Compiler of the Pentateuch Worked: The Composition of Genesis 37’. Pages 263–78 in The Book of Genesis: Composition, Reception, and Interpretation. Edited by Craig A. Evans, Joel N. Lohr, and David L. Petersen. VTSup 152. Leiden: Brill, 2012. Schwartz, Baruch J. ‘Does Recent Scholarship’s Critique of the Documentary Hypothesis Constitute Grounds for its Rejection?’ Pages 3–16 in The Pentateuch: International Perspectives on Current Research. Edited by Thomas B. Dozeman, Konrad Schmid, and Baruch J. Schwartz. FAT 78. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2011. Schwartz, Baruch J. ‘The Torah: Its Five Books and Four Documents’ [‫ חמשת‬:‫התורה‬ ‫]חומשיה וארבע תעודותיה‬a. Pages 1:161–225 in The Literature of the Hebrew Bible: Introductions and Studies [‫ מבואות ומחקרים‬:‫]ספרות המקרא‬a. 2 vols. Edited by Zipora Talshir. ALEIW 1. Jerusalem: Yad Ben-Zvi, 2011. Schwartz, Baruch J. ‘Introduction: The Strata of the Priestly Writings and the Revised Relative Dating of P and H’. Pages 1–12 in The Strata of the Priestly Writings: Contemporary Debate and Future Directions. Edited by Sarah Shectman and Joel S. Baden. ATANT 95. Zürich: Theologischer Verlag Zürich, 2009. Schwartz, Baruch J. ‘The Visit of Jethro: A Case of Chronological Displacement? The Source-Critical Solution’. Pages 29–48 in Mishneh Todah: Studies in Deuteronomy and its Cultural Environment in Honor of Jeffrey H. Tigay. Edited by Nili Sacher Fox, David A. Glatt-Gilad, and Michael J. Williams. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2009. Schwartz, Baruch J. ‘Reexamining the Fate of the “Canaanites” in the Torah Traditions’. Pages 151–70 in Sefer Moshe: The Moshe Weinfeld Jubilee Volume. Studies in the Bible and the Ancient Near East, Qumran, and Post-Biblical Judaism. Edited by Chaim Cohen, Avi Hurvitz, and Shalom M. Paul. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2004. Schwartz, Baruch J. ‘Israel’s Holiness: The Torah Traditions’. Pages 47–59 in Purity and Holiness: The Heritage of Leviticus. Edited by Marcel Poorthuis and Joshua Schwartz. JCP 2. Leiden: Brill, 2000. Schwartz, Baruch J. The Holiness Legislation: Studies in the Priestly Code [:‫תורת הקדושה‬ ‫]עיונים בחוקה הכוהנית שבתורה‬. Jerusalem: Magnes, 1999.

242

Bibliography

Schwartz, Baruch J. ‘The Priestly Account of the Theophany and Lawgiving at Sinai’. Pages 112–32 in Texts, Temples, and Traditions: A Tribute to Menahem Haran. Edited by Michael V. Fox, Victor A. Hurowitz, Avi Hurvitz, Michael L. Klein, Baruch J. Schwartz, and Nili Shupak. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1996. Schwiderski, Dirk. Handbuch des nordwestsemitischen Briefformulars: Ein Beitrag zur Echtheitsfrage der aramäischen Briefe des Esrabuches. BZAW 295. Berlin: de Gruyter, 2000. Shectman, Sarah. Women in the Pentateuch: A Feminist and Source-Critical Analysis. HBM 23. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 2009. Ska, Jean-Louis. ‘Old and New in the Book of Numbers’. Bib 95 (2014): 102–16. Ska, Jean-Louis. ‘From History Writing to Library Binding: The End of History and the Birth of the Book’. Pages 145–69 in The Pentateuch as Torah: New Models for Understanding its Promulgation and Acceptance. Edited by Gary N. Knoppers and Bernard M. Levinson. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2007. Ska, Jean-Louis. ‘ “Persian Imperial Authorization”: Some Question Marks’. Pages 161–82 in Persia and Torah: The Theory of Imperial Authorization of the Pentateuch. Edited by James W. Watts. SymS 17. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2001. Ska, Jean-Louis. Introduction to Reading the Pentateuch. English translation of Introduction à la lecture du Pentateuque: clés pour l’interprétation des cinq premiers livres de la Bible. Brussels: Éditions Lessius, 2000. Translated by Pascale-Dominique Nau. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2006. Ska, Jean-Louis. ‘Le Repas de Ex 24,11’. Bib 74 (1993): 305–27. Skehan, Patrick W. and Alexander A. Di Lella. The Wisdom of Ben Sira: A New Translation with Notes. AB 39. New York: Doubleday, 1987. Skinner, John. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on Genesis. ICC. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1910. Smith, Morton. Palestinian Parties and Politics that Shaped the Old Testament. New York: Columbia University Press, 1971. Repr., London: SCM, 1987. Smith-Christopher, Daniel L. ‘Between Ezra and Isaiah: Exclusion, Transformation and Inclusion of the “Foreigner” in Post-Exilic Biblical Theology’. Pages 117–42 in Ethnicity and the Bible. Edited by Mark G. Brett. BibInt 19. Leiden: Brill, 1996. Smith-Christopher, Daniel L. ‘The Mixed Marriage Crisis in Ezra 9–10 and Nehemiah 13: A Study of the Sociology of the Post-Exilic Judaean Community’. Pages 243–65 in Second Temple Studies II: Temple and Community in the Persian Period. Edited by Tamara Cohn Eskenazi and Kent H. Richards. JSOTSup 175. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1994. Snaith, Norman. ‘A Note on Ezra viii. 35’. JTS n.s. 22 (1971): 150–2. Sommer, Benjamin D. ‘Dating Pentateuchal Texts and the Perils of PseudoHistoricism’. Pages 85–108 in The Pentateuch: International Perspectives on Current Research. Edited by Thomas B. Dozeman, Konrad Schmid, and Baruch J. Schwartz. FAT 78. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2011. Sommer, Benjamin D. The Bodies of God and the World of Ancient Israel. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2009. Sommer, Benjamin D. ‘Reflecting on Moses: The Redaction of Numbers 11’. JBL 118 (1999): 601–24.

Bibliography

243

Sommer, Benjamin D. ‘Did Prophecy Cease? Evaluating a Reevaluation’. JBL 115 (1995): 31–47. Southwood, Katherine E. Ethnicity and the Mixed Marriage Crisis in Ezra 9–10: An Anthropological Approach. OTM. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2012. Southwood, Katherine E. ‘ “And They Could Not Understand Jewish Speech”: Language, Ethnicity, and Nehemiah’s Intermarriage Crisis’. JTS n.s. 62 (2011): 1–19. Southwood, Katherine E. ‘An Ethnic Affair? Ezra’s Intermarriage Crisis against a Context of “Self-Ascription” and “Ascription of Others”’. Pages 46–59 in Mixed Marriages: Intermarriage and Group Identity in the Second Temple Period. Edited by Christian Frevel. LHBOTS 547. London: T&T Clark, 2011. Southwood, Katherine E. ‘The Holy Seed: The Significance of Endogamous Boundaries and Their Transgression in Ezra 9–10’. Pages 189–224 in Judah and Judeans in the Achaemenid Period: Negotiating Identity in an International Context. Edited by Oded Lipschits, Gary N. Knoppers, and Manfred Oeming. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2011. Spawn, Kevin L. ‘As It Is Written’ and Other Citation Formulae in the Old Testament: Their Use, Development, Syntax, and Significance. BZAW 311. Berlin: de Gruyter, 2002. Speiser, E. A. Genesis: Introduction, Translation, and Notes. AB 1. Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1964. Spinoza, Baruch de. Theologico-Political Treatise. Translated by Michael Silverthorne and Jonathan Israel. CTHP. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2007. Stackert, Jeffrey. A Prophet Like Moses: Prophecy, Law, and Israelite Religion. New York: Oxford University Press, 2014. Stackert, Jeffrey. ‘Distinguishing Innerbiblical Exegesis from Pentateuchal Redaction: Leviticus 26 as a Test Case’. Pages 369–86 in The Pentateuch: International Perspectives on Current Research. Edited by Thomas B. Dozeman, Konrad Schmid, and Baruch J. Schwartz. FAT 78. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2011. Stackert, Jeffrey. ‘The Holiness Legislation and its Pentateuchal Sources: Revision, Supplementation, and Replacement’. Pages 188–204 in The Strata of the Priestly Writings: Contemporary Debate and Future Directions. Edited by Sarah Shectman and Joel S. Baden. AThANT 95. Zürich: Theologischer Verlag Zürich, 2009. Stackert, Jeffrey. Rewriting the Torah: Literary Revision in Deuteronomy and the Holiness Legislation. FAT 52. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2009. Steiner, Richard C. ‘The MBQR at Qumran, the Episkopos in the Athenian Empire, and the Meaning of LBQR’ in Ezra 7:14: On the Relation of Ezra’s Mission to the Persian Legal Project’. JBL 120 (2001): 623–46. Steiner, Richard C. ‘‫ ָּדת‬and ‫ֵעין‬: Two Verbs Masquerading as Nouns in Moses’ Blessing (Deuteronomy 33:2, 28)’. JBL 115 (1996): 693–8. Steiner, Richard C. and Sid Z. Leiman. ‘The Lost Meaning of Deuteronomy 32 as Preserved in the Palestinian Targum to the Decalogue’. Pages 157–66 in Mishneh Todah: Studies in Deuteronomy and its Cultural Environment in Honor of Jeffrey H. Tigay. Edited by Nilli S. Fox, David A. Glatt-Gilad, and Michael J. Williams. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2009. Sternberg, Meir. The Poetics of Biblical Narrative: Ideological Literature and the Drama of Reading. ISBL. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press, 1985.

244

Bibliography

Talshir, David. ‘A Reinvestigation of the Linguistic Relationship between Chronicles and Ezra-Nehemiah’. VT 38 (1988): 165–93. Talshir, Zipora. I Esdras: A Text-Critical Commentary. SCS 50. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2001. Talshir, Zipora. ‘Ezra-Nehemiah and First Esdras’. Bib 81 (2000): 566–73. Talshir, Zipora. I Esdras: From Origin to Translation. SCS 47. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 1999. Thames, John T., Jr. ‘A New Discussion of the Meaning of the Phrase ‘am hā’āreṣ in the Hebrew Bible’. JBL 130 (2011): 109–25. Throntveit, Mark. ‘Linguistic Analysis and the Question of Authorship in Chronicles, Ezra and Nehemiah’. VT 32 (1982): 201–16. Tiemeyer, Lena-Sofia. Priestly Rites and Prophetic Rage. FAT.II 19. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2006. Tigay, Jeffrey. ‘Conflation as a Redactional Technique’. Pages 53–95 in Empirical Models for Biblical Criticism. Edited by Jeffrey Tigay. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1985. Tigay, Jeffrey. ‘An Empirical Basis for the Documentary Hypothesis’. JBL 94 (1975): 329–42. Toeg, Arie. ‘Does Deuteronomy XXIV 1–4 Incorporate a General Law on Divorce?’ DIsr 2 (1970): 5–24. Toorn, Karel van der. Scribal Culture and the Making of the Hebrew Bible. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2007. Torrey, C. C. The Chronicler’s History of Israel: Chronicles-Ezra-Nehemiah Restored to its Original Form. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1954. Torrey, C. C. Ezra Studies. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1910. Torrey, C. C. The Composition and Historical Value of Ezra-Nehemiah. BZAW 2. Giessen: J. Ricker, 1896. Tov, Emanuel. Textual Criticism of the Hebrew Bible. 2nd. rev. edn. Minneapolis: Fortress; Assen: Royal Van Gorcum, 2001. 3rd. rev. exp. edn. Minneapolis: Fortress, 2012. Tov, Emanuel. ‘4QReworked Pentateuch: A Synopsis of its Contents’. RevQ 16 (1995): 647–53. Ulfgard, Håkan. The Story of Sukkot: The Setting, Shaping and Sequel of the Biblical Feast of Tabernacles. BGBE 34. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1998. Vaka’uta, Nasili. Reading Ezra 9–10 Tu’a-Wise: Rethinking Biblical Interpretation in Oceania. IVBS 3. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2011. VanderKam, James C. ‘Sinai Revisited’. Pages 44–60 in Biblical Interpretation at Qumran. Edited by Matthias Henze. SDSSRL. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2005. VanderKam, James C. From Joshua to Caiaphas: High Priests after the Exile. Minneapolis: Fortress; Assen: Van Gorcum, 2004. VanderKam, James C. ‘Ezra-Nehemiah or Ezra and Nehemiah?’ Pages 55–75 in Priests, Prophets and Scribes: Essays on the Formation and Heritage of Second Temple Judaism in Honour of Joseph Blenkinsopp. Edited by Eugene Ulrich, John W. Wright, Robert P. Carroll, and Philip R. Davies. JSOTSup 149. Sheffield: JSOT, 1992. Van Seters, John. The Edited Bible: The Curious History of the ‘Editor’ in Biblical Criticism. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2006.

Bibliography

245

Van Seters, John. ‘The Patriarchs and the Exodus: Bridging the Gap between Two Origin Traditions’. Pages 1–15 in The Interpretation of Exodus: Studies in Honour of Cornelis Houtman. Edited by Riemer Roukema. CBET 44. Leuven: Peeters, 2006. Van Seters, John. A Law Book for the Diaspora: Revision in the Study of the Covenant Code. New York: Oxford University Press, 2003. Van Seters, John. ‘In the Babylonian Exile with J: Between Judgment in Ezekiel and Salvation in Second Isaiah’. Pages 71–89 in The Crisis of Israelite Religion: Transformation of Religious Tradition in Exilic and Post-Exilic Times. Edited by Bob Becking and Marjo C. A. Korpel. OtSt 42. Leiden: Brill, 1999. Van Seters, John. ‘The Theology of the Yahwist: A Preliminary Sketch’. Pages 219–28 in ‘Wer ist wie du, HERR, unter den Göttern?’: Studien zur Theologie und Religionsgeschichte Israels; für Otto Kaiser zum 70. Geburtstag. Edited by Ingo Kottsieper, Jürgen van Oorschot, Diethard Römheld, and Harald Martin Wahl. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1994. Van Seters, John. Prologue to History: The Yahwist as Historian in Genesis. Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox, 1992. Van Seters, John. ‘The Terms “Amorite” and “Hittite” in the Old Testament’. VT 22 (1972): 64–81. Vermeylen, Jacques. ‘Les Deux “Pentateuques” d’Esdras’. VT 62 (2012): 248–75. Vermeylen, Jacques. ‘The Gracious God, Sinners and Foreigners: How Nehemiah 9 Interprets the History of Israel’. Pages 77–114 in History and Identity: How Israel’s Later Authors Viewed its Earlier History. Edited by Núria Calduch-Benages and Jan Liesen. DCLY 2006. Berlin: de Gruyter, 2006. Vogt, Herbertus C. M. Studie zur nachexilischen Gemeinde in Esra-Nehemia. Werl: Kommissionsverlag Dietrich Coelde, 1966. Volz, Paul and Wilhelm Rudolph. Der Elohist als Erzähler: Ein Irrweg der Pentateuchkritik? BZAW 63. Giessen: A. Töpplemann, 1933. Watts, James W. ‘Using Ezra’s Time as a Methodological Pivot for Understanding the Rhetoric and Functions of the Pentateuch’. Pages 489–506 in The Pentateuch: International Perspectives on Current Research. Edited by Thomas B. Dozeman, Konrad Schmid, and Baruch J. Schwartz. FAT 78. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2011. Watts, James W. ‘The Torah as the Rhetoric of Priesthood’. Pages 319–31 in The Pentateuch as Torah: New Models for Understanding its Promulgation and Acceptance. Edited by Gary N. Knoppers and Bernard M. Levinson. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2007. Watts, James W. ‘The Legal Characterization of Moses in the Rhetoric of the Pentateuch’. JBL 117 (1998): 415–26. Weimar, Peter. Die Berufung des Mose: Literaturwissenschaftliche Analyse von Exodus 2,23–5,5. OBO 32. Freiburg: Universitätsverlag; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1980. Weinberg, Joel P. ‘Zentral- und Partikulargewalt im achämenidischen Reich’. Klio 59 (1977): 25–43. English translation, ‘Central and Local Administration in the Achaemenid Empire’. Pages 105–26 in Citizen-Temple Community. Translated by Daniel L. Smith-Christopher. JSOTSup 151. Sheffield: JSOT, 1992. Weinberg, Joel P. ‘Netînîm und “Söhne der Sklaven Salomos” in 6.–4. Jh. v.u.Z’. ZAW 87 (1975): 355–71. English translation, ‘Netînîm and “Sons of the Slaves of Solomon” in

246

Bibliography

the Sixth to Fourth Century BCE’. Pages 75–91 in The Citizen-Temple Community. Translated by Daniel L. Smith-Christopher. JSOTSup 151. Sheffield: JSOT, 1992. Weinberg, Joel P. ‘Der ‘ammē hā’āreṣ des 6.–4. Jh. v.u.Z’. Klio 56 (1974): 325–35. English translation, ‘The ‘Am Hā’āreṣ of the Sixth to Fourth Centuries BCE’. Pages 62–74 in The Citizen-Temple Community. Translated by Daniel L. SmithChristopher. JSOTSup 151. Sheffield: JSOT, 1992. Weinberg, Joel P. ‘Das Beit ’Abot im 6.–4. Jh. v.u.Z’. VT 23 (1973): 400–14. English translation, ‘The Bêt Ābôt in the Sixth to Fourth Century BCE’. Pages 49–61 in The Citizen-Temple Community. Translated by Daniel L. Smith-Christopher. JSOTSup 151. Sheffield: JSOT, 1992. Weinfeld, Moshe. The Place of the Law in the Religion of Ancient Israel. VTSup 100. Leiden: Brill, 2004. Weinfeld, Moshe. The Promise of the Land: The Inheritance of the Land of Canaan by the Israelites. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1993. Weinfeld, Moshe. Deuteronomy 1–11: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary. AB 5. New York: Doubleday, 1991. Weinfeld, Moshe. Deuteronomy and the Deuteronomic School. Oxford: Clarendon, 1972. Weingreen, Jacob. ‘The Case of the Blasphemer (Leviticus XXIV 10 ff.)’. VT 22 (1972): 118–23. Welch, A. C. ‘The Source of Nehemiah IX’. ZAW 47 (1929): 130–7. Wellhausen, Julius. Prolegomena zur Geschichte Israels. 2nd edn. Berlin: G. Reimer, 1883. English translation, Prolegomena to the History of Israel. Translated by J. Sutherland Black and Allan Menzies, with preface by W. Robertson Smith. Edinburgh: Adam & Charles Black, 1885. Repr., Prolegomena to the History of Ancient Israel. New York: Meridian Books, 1957. Wellhausen, Julius. ‘Die Composition des Hexateuchs,’ JDT 21 (1876): 392–450, 531–602; 22 (1877): 407–79. Repr., Die Composition des Hexateuchs und der historischen Bücher des Alten Testaments. 2nd edn. Berlin: G. Reimer, 1889. 4th repr., Berlin: de Gruyter, 1963. Wenham, Gordon. ‘The Restoration of Marriage Reconsidered’. JJS 30 (1979): 36–40. Werline, Rodney A. Penitential Prayer in Second Temple Judaism: The Development of a Religious Institution. EJL 13. Atlanta: Scholars, 1998. Westbrook, Raymond. ‘The Prohibition on Restoration of Marriage in Deuteronomy 24:1–4’. ScrHier 31 (1986): 387–405. Wette, Wilhelm M. L. de. ‘Dissertatio critico-exegetica, qua Deuteronomium a prioribus Pentateuchi libris diversum, alius cuiusdam recentioris auctoris opus esse monstratur’. Ph.D. diss. Jena, 1805. Repr., pages 149–68 in Opuscula theologica. Berlin: Apud G. Reimerum, 1833. Weyde, Karl William. ‘ “And They Found It Written in the Law”: Exegetical Procedures Reflected in Neh 8:13–18’. Pages 143*–163* in Shai le-Sara Japhet: Studies in the Bible, its Exegesis and its Language [‫ בקרשנותו ובלשונו‬,‫ מחקרים במקרא‬:‫]ש״י לשרה יפת‬. Edited by Mosheh Bar-Asher, Dalit Rom-Shiloni, Emanuel Tov, and Nili Wazana. Jerusalem: Mosad Byaliḳ, 2007. Weyde, Karl William. The Appointed Festivals of YHWH: The Festival Calendar in Leviticus 23 and the Sukkôt Festival in Other Biblical Texts. FAT.II 4. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2004.

Bibliography

247

White Crawford, Sidnie and Christopher A. Hoffmann. ‘A Note on 4Q365, Frg. 23 and Nehemiah 10:33–36’. RevQ 23 (2008): 429–30. Widengren, Geo. ‘The Persian Period’. Pages 489–538 in Israelite and Judean History. Edited by John H. Hayes and J. Maxwell Miller. OTL. Philadelphia: Westminster, 1977. Willi, Thomas. Juda–Jehud–Israel: Studien zum Selbstverständnis des Judentums in persischer Zeit. FAT 12. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1995. Williamson, H. G. M. ‘The Aramaic Documents in Ezra Revisited’. JTS n.s. 59 (2008): 41–62. Williamson, H. G. M. ‘The Torah and History in Presentations of Restoration in EzraNehemiah’. Pages 156–70 in Reading the Law: Studies in Honour of Gordon J. Wenham. Edited by J. Gordon McConville and Karl Möller. LHBOTS 461. London: T&T Clark, 2007. Williamson, H. G. M. ‘The Family in Persian Period Judah: Some Textual Reflections’. Pages 469–85 in Symbiosis, Symbolism, and the Power of the Past: Canaan, Ancient Israel, and Their Neighbors from the Late Bronze Age through Roman Palaestina. Proceedings of the Centennial Symposium, W. F. Albright Institute of Archaeological Research and American Schools of Oriental Research, Jerusalem, May 29/31, 2000. Edited by William G. Dever and Seymour Gitin. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2003. Williamson, H. G. M. ‘Judah and the Jews’. Pages 145–63 in Studies in Persian History: Essays in Memory of David M. Lewis. Edited by Maria Brosius and Amélie Kuhrt. AchH 11. Leiden: Nederlands Instituut voor het Nabije Oosten, 1998. Williamson, H. G. M. ‘Isaiah 63,7–64,11. Exilic Lament or Post-Exilic Protest?’ ZAW 102 (1990): 48–58. Williamson, H. G. M. ‘History’. Pages 25–38 in It Is Written: Scripture Citing Scripture. Essays in Honour of Barnabas Lindars. Edited by D. A. Carson and H. G. M. Williamson. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1988. Williamson, H. G. M. ‘Structure and Historiography in Nehemiah 9’. Pages 117–31 in Proceedings of the Ninth World Congress of Jewish Studies. Panel Sessions: Bible Studies and Ancient Near East. Edited by Moshe Goshen-Gottstein. Jerusalem: World Union of Jewish Studies, 1988. Williamson, H. G. M. Ezra, Nehemiah. WBC 16. Waco, TX: Word, 1985. Williamson, H. G. M. ‘The Composition of Ezra i–vi’. JTS n.s. 34 (1983): 1–30. Williamson, H. G. M. Israel in the Books of Chronicles. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1977. Wilson, Robert R. Prophecy and Society in Ancient Israel. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1980. Wiseman, Donald J. Peoples of Old Testament Times. Oxford: Clarendon, 1973. Wöhrle, Jakob. Fremdlinge im eigenen Land: Zur Entstehung und Intention der priesterlichen Passagen der Vätergeschichte. FRLANT 246; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2012. Wright, David P. Inventing God’s Law: How the Covenant Code of the Bible Used and Revised the Laws of Hammurabi. New York: Oxford University Press, 2009. Wright, Jacob L. Rebuilding Identity: The Nehemiah Memoir and its Earliest Readers. BZAW 348. Berlin: de Gruyter, 2004. Yadin, Yigael. The Temple Scroll. 3 vols. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society, 1977–83.

248

Bibliography

Yaron, Reuven. ‘Divorce in Old Testament Times’. RIDA 4 (1957): 117–28. Yoo, Philip Y. ‘Why Does Joseph Wash His Face?’ JSOT 38 (2013): 3–14. Yoo, Philip Y. ‘The Four Moses Death Accounts’. JBL 131 (2012): 423–41. Yoreh, Tzemah. The First Book of God. BZAW 402. Berlin: de Gruyter, 2010. Zakovitch, Yair. ‘The Woman’s Rights in the Biblical Law of Divorce’. JLA 4 (1981): 28–46. Zevit, Ziony. ‘Converging Lines of Evidence Bearing on the Date of P’. ZAW 94 (1982): 481–511. Ziemer, Benjamin. Abram-Abraham: Kompositionsgeschichtliche Untersuchungen zu Genesis 14, 15 und 17. BZAW 350. Berlin: de Gruyter, 2005. Zunz, Leopold. Die Gottesdienstlichen Vorträge der Juden, historisch entwickelt: Ein Beitrag zur Altertumskunde und biblischen Kritik, zur Literatur- und Religionsgeschichte. Berlin: A. Asher, 1832.

Index of Modern Authors Achenbach, Reinhard 20 n. 94, 55 n. 121, 63 n. 152 Ackroyd, Peter R. 7 n. 9, 10 n. 28 Addis, William E. 145 n. 101 Ahlemann, Frieder 8 n. 19, 163–4 Ahlström, Gosta W. 99 n. 103, 104 n. 120 Albertz, Rainer 20 n. 94, 21 n. 96 Albright, William F. 10, 29 n. 137 Anbar, Moshe 43 n. 71 Anderson, Cheryl B. 159 n. 3 Avishur, Yitzhak 88, 109 Baden, Joel S. 20 n. 86, 22 n. 100, 24, 25 nn. 116, 117, 118, 26 n. 121, 27 n. 127, 28 n. 135, 30 n. 140, 42 n. 64, 43 n. 69, 44 n. 79, 47 n. 88, 47 n. 90, 54 n. 117, 55 n. 125, 56 n. 126, 58 n. 137, 62 n. 149, 63 n. 152, 64 n. 158, 94 n. 83, 98 n. 98, 105 n. 125, 108 n. 140, 110 n. 146, 119 n. 178, 126 n. 31, 136 n. 58, 138, 141 n. 81, 143 n. 86, 164 n. 37, 171 n. 56, 172 n. 61, 173 n. 64, 174 nn. 68, 69, 179 n. 82 Bartlett, John R. 82 n. 11 Batten, Loring W. 7, 32 n. 1, 33 n. 6, 37 n. 32, 38 n. 36, 39, 40 n. 54, 46 n. 84, 47 n. 88, 49 n. 95, 54 n. 113, 55 n. 123, 57 n. 131, 58 n. 135, 60 n. 140, 61 n. 148, 64 n. 161, 66 n. 166, 77 n. 207, 81 n. 7, 86 n. 41, 106, 124 n. 19, 125, 137 n. 59, 138 n. 68, 140 n. 78, 171 n. 55, 183 n. 103, 187 n. 116, 192 n. 135, 195 n. 141, 196 n. 147 Bautch, Richard 37 n. 27, 38 n. 34, 38 n. 37, 40 n. 50, 40 n. 51, 41 n. 59, 43 n. 68, 49 n. 95, 185 n. 107 Becking, Bob 12, 26 n. 125, 37 n. 27, 67, 85 n. 31, 100 n. 110, 166 n. 42, 179 n. 86 Bedford, Peter R. 7 n. 10, 14 nn. 55, 56, 15, 96 n. 86, 162 n. 25 Berman, Joshua 24 n. 113 Berquist, Jon L. 88 n. 53 Bianchi, Francesco 173 Blenkinsopp, Joseph 7, 10 n. 29, 13 n. 54, 14 n. 58, 15 n. 61, 18 n. 80, 30 n. 142, 33 nn. 6, 7, 36 n. 22, 38 n. 43, 39 n. 44, 42 n. 60, 43 n. 71, 44 n. 73, 50 n. 101, 61 n. 147, 63 n. 153, 66 n. 167, 67 n. 173, 68, 69 n. 187, 82 n. 11, 83 n. 22, 85 n. 33, 85 n. 36, 86 n. 45, 87 nn. 50, 51, 93 n. 82, 97 n. 91, 98 nn. 99, 100, 104 n. 120, 104 n. 122, 109 nn. 143, 144, 111 n. 150, 113, 114 n. 162, 115 n. 165,

116 n. 173, 122 n. 9, 123 n. 14, 124 n. 21, 125, 130 n. 46, 137 n. 60, 137 n. 65, 138 n. 69, 140 n. 78, 154, 161, 163 n. 27, 164 n. 35, 169 n. 52, 171 n. 55, 182 n. 96, 183 n. 101, 183 n. 103, 184 n. 104, 186 n. 112, 187 n. 114, 187 n. 116, 188 n. 119, 190 n. 126, 191 n. 128, 192 n. 135, 193 n. 137, 194 n. 138, 195 n. 141, 197 nn. 149, 150 Blidstein, Gerald J. 192 n. 134 Blum, Erhard 19, 20, 22 n. 99, 25 n. 120, 28 n. 134, 30 n. 140, 31 n. 148, 43 n. 72, 48 n. 91, 55 n. 121, 95 n. 83, 173 n. 64 Boda, Mark J. 33 n. 4, 37 n. 27, 37 n. 30, 37 n. 32, 38, 39, 40, 41 n. 59, 42 n. 60, 44, 45 n. 81, 46 n. 84, 48 n. 93, 49 n. 98, 50, 54 n. 113, 54 n. 116, 55, 56 n. 129, 57, 58 n. 133, 59 n. 138, 61 nn. 145, 146, 147, 63, 64 n. 157, 65 nn. 164, 165, 66 n. 166, 67 Böhler, Dieter 5 n. 1 Boorer, Suzanne 21 nn. 95, 96, 179 n. 82 Brettler, Marc Z. 29 n. 137, 44 n. 78, 136 Briant, Pierre 16 n. 70 Bright, John 10 n. 29 Burnett, Joel S. 60 n. 142 Carmichael, Calum M. 189 n. 122 Carpenter, J. Estlin 81 n. 8, 145 n. 101 Carr, David M. 5 n. 1, 10 n. 28, 25 n. 120, 30 n. 140, 30 n. 144, 43 n. 72, 173 n. 66, 179 n. 86 Carter, Charles E. 162 n. 25 Cazelles, Henri 10 n. 28, 30 n. 142 Chavel, Simeon 114 n. 161 Childs, Brevard 8 Chrostowski, Waldemar 38 n. 35, 38 n. 43 Clines, David J. A. 7, 34, 38 n. 36, 39 n. 44, 46 n. 84, 50 n. 99, 54 n. 118, 55 n. 122, 56 n. 129, 60 n. 140, 66 nn. 166, 167, 68, 69 n. 183, 72 n. 193, 76, 78, 81 n. 10 Coats, George W. 94 n. 83 Cohen, Shaye J. D. 68 n. 177, 91 n. 72, 120 n. 3, 183 n. 102, 201 n. 158 Collins, John J. 36 n. 19, 120 n. 1, 196 n. 146 Conczorowski, Benedikt J. 159 n. 9 Couturier, Guy 187 n. 116 Cross, Frank M. 10 n. 29, 20 n. 87, 125 n. 23, 155 n. 125, 190 n. 127, 203 n. 1 Crüsemann, Frank 26 n. 126, 30 n. 140, 68

250

Index of Modern Authors

Daniels, Dwight R. 7 n. 11, 81 n. 7, 125 n. 23 Davies, Graham I. 22 n. 100 Day, John 30 n. 145 Demsky, Aaron 115 Di Lella, Alexander A. 53 n. 112 Dor, Yonina 159 n. 4, 160 n. 11, 161, 166 n. 42, 169 n. 52 Douglas, Mary 175 n. 71, 209 n. 4 Dozeman, Thomas B. 21 n. 96 Driver, S. R. 25 nn. 116, 117 Duggan, Michael W. 32 n. 1, 33, 34, 36 n. 19, 38 nn. 36, 37, 40 n. 52, 46 n. 86, 48 n. 93, 49 n. 96, 50 n. 101, 54 n. 116, 56 n. 129, 57 n. 131, 59 n. 138, 60 n. 140, 61 nn. 146, 147, 62 n. 150, 68 n. 182, 74, 76 nn. 201, 202, 127 n. 36, 129 n. 40, 178 n. 81, 185 n. 107, 196 n. 145, 196 n. 147 Elliger, Karl 151 n. 111 Emerton, John A. 10 n. 29 Eskenazi, Tamara C. 7 n. 8, 8, 33 n. 4, 68 n. 182, 122, 158 n. 2 Fantalkin, Alexander 15 n. 62, 78 n. 214 Feliks, Yahuda 144 n. 94, 145 Fensham, F. Charles 38 n. 38, 54 n. 113, 63 n. 154, 182 n. 95, 183 n. 103 Finkelstein, Israel 30 n. 147 Fishbane, Michael A. 25 n. 120, 61, 68 n. 182, 71 n. 191, 72 n. 193, 73, 76 n. 205, 90 n. 67, 92, 143, 167 n. 46, 169 n. 52, 183 n. 103, 184 n. 104, 186 n. 112, 188 n. 119, 196 n. 146, 203 n. 1 Fitzpatrick-McKinley, Anne 9 n. 26 Fleming, Daniel E. 23 n. 107 Frei, Peter 14–16, 99 Frevel, Christian 20 n. 94, 21 n. 95, 25 n. 117, 159 n. 9, Fried, Lisbeth S. 10 n. 28, 12 n. 47, 14 n. 58, 14 n. 60, 88 n. 53, 99 n. 103, 166 Friedman, Richard E. 17 n. 75, 25 n. 119, 28 n. 135, 29 n. 137, 41, 42 n. 62, 42 n. 64, 42 n. 66, 47 n. 90, 52 n. 110, 54 n. 115, 56 n. 126, 63 n. 152, 74 n. 196, 105 n. 125, 136 n. 58, 143 n. 86, 172 n. 61, 173 n. 64, 174 n. 69, 180 n. 90 Gabbay, Uri 139 n. 73 Galling, Kurt 35 n. 16, 82 n. 11, 85, 115 n. 167 Garbini, Giovanni 10 Geissler, Johannes 29, 39 n. 43, 40 n. 54, 42 n. 61, 43, 44 n. 76, 48 n. 92, 49 n. 96, 50, 54 n. 113, 55, 61 n. 145, 62 n. 150, 63 n. 153, 68, 80–1, 141 n. 83, 151 n. 111 Gertz, Jan C. 47 n. 87 Gesundheit (Bar-On), Shimon 25 n. 120, 148 Gilbert, Maurice 36 n. 24, 39 n. 43, 50 n. 101, 51

Ginsberg, H. Louis 67 n. 175, 68 n. 176, 169 n. 52, 171 n. 55, 173 n. 66 Glatt-Gilad, David A. 69 n. 189 Gmirkin, Russell E. 30 n. 145 Gomes, Jules F. 136 n. 58, 180 n. 90 Grabbe, Lester L. 5 n. 1, 11, 13 n. 49, 14 n. 55, 29 n. 137, 38 n. 37, 89, 99 n. 103, 123 n. 11, 143 n. 88, 164 n. 36, 166 n. 42, 198 n. 155, Graham, M. Patrick 171 n. 54 Grätz, Sebastian 13, 81 n. 7, 97 n. 96, 98 n. 99, 98 n. 101, 101 n. 112, 188 n. 119 Graupner, Axel 27 n. 127, 28 n. 134, 63 n. 152, 136 n. 58, 141 n. 81, 143 n. 86 Gray, George B. 23 n. 110, 58 n. 136, 176 Grol, Harm W. M. van 185 n. 108 Gross, Walter 48 n. 91 Guillaume, Phillipe 21 n. 96 Gunneweg, Antonius H. J. 7 n. 9, 11, 33 n. 5, 38, 40 n. 50, 40 n. 54, 43 n. 67, 44 n. 73, 44 n. 76, 46 nn. 84, 85, 48 n. 92, 49 n. 96, 50 n. 102, 54 n. 113, 54 n. 118, 62 n. 150, 63 n. 153, 64 nn. 161, 162, 65 n. 163, 77, 78 n. 216, 81 n. 4, 81 n. 8, 82 n. 11, 83 nn. 17, 18, 85 n. 34, 86 n. 41, 86 n. 47, 97, 120 n. 2, 122 n. 10, 124 n. 19, 133 n. 50, 135 n. 53, 137 n. 65, 154, 159 n. 9, 163 n. 30, 182 n. 95, 183 n. 103, 194 n. 138, 194 n. 140, 197 n. 149 Hagedorn, Anselm C. 16 Halbe, Jörn 25 n. 119 Haran, Menahem 7 n. 9, 18 n. 78, 21 n. 96, 23 n. 107, 24, 25, 28 n. 136, 29 n. 138, 41 n. 56, 42, 47 n. 89, 74 n. 196, 104 n. 121, 106 n. 126, 106 n. 129, 112, 113 n. 158, 130 n. 44, 146 n. 103, 183 n. 100 Harford-Battersby, George 81 n. 8, 145 n. 101 Harrington, Hannah K. 77 Hayes, Christine E. 165, 166 n. 41 Heltzer, Michael 14 n. 60, 88, 109 Hendel, Ronald S. 26 n. 126, 28 n. 135, 31 n. 147 Hoffman, Christopher A. 77 n. 210 Hoglund, Kenneth G. 13 n. 54, 88–9 Holmgren, Fredrick C. 66 n. 168 Hölscher, Gustav 10 n. 32, 120 n. 2, 125 n. 28 Hoonacker, Albin van 9 Houtman, Cornelis 30, 106 n. 129, 144 Humbert, Paul 129 n. 39, 167 n. 45 Hurvitz, Avi 18 n. 77, 18 n. 80, 35 n. 16, 37 n. 30, 60 n. 141, 100 n. 106, 103 n. 118, 116 n. 169, 145 n. 99, 182 n. 98, 183 n. 101 In der Smitten, Wilhelm T. 11, 33 n. 5, 81 n. 10, 83, 85, 86 n. 38, 86 n. 47, 87, 120 n. 2, 123 n. 11, 125 n. 23, 126 n. 32, 135 n. 53, 163 n. 28, 186 n. 112, 195 n. 142, 197 nn. 149, 150 Ishida, Tomoo 169 n. 50

Index of Modern Authors Jackson, Bernard S. 172 n. 61, 188, 189 n. 124 Janzen, David 13, 91, 158 n. 1, 165 n. 40, 193 n. 137 Japhet, Sara 6–7, 67 n. 175, 82 n. 11, 169 n. 52, 171 n. 55, 177, 189 Jaroš, Karl 27 n. 127, 28 n. 134, 63 n. 152 Jenks, Alan W. 27 n. 127, 28 n. 134, 43 n. 69, 47 n. 90, 98 n. 97, 141 n. 81, 174 n. 69, 180 n. 90 Jeon, Jaeyoung 19 n. 85 Jepsen, Alfred 66 n. 169 Jindo, Job Y. 18 n. 76 Johnson, Willa M. 159 n. 3 Joosten, Jan 180 n. 89 Judd, Eleanor P. 158 n. 2 Kapelrud, Arvid S. 10, 33 n. 5, 81 n. 7, 82 n. 13, 83 n. 20, 84 n. 28, 86 n. 38, 86 n. 44, 86 n. 47, 93 n. 82, 100 n. 108, 115 n. 168, 116 n. 169, 117, 123, 126 n. 29, 137 nn. 64, 65, 138 n. 67, 143 n. 88, 178 n. 81, 182 n. 95, 183 n. 101, 183 n. 103, 184 n. 105, 186 n. 112, 187 nn. 115, 116, 197 n. 150 Karrer, Christiane 12, 81, 84 n. 26, 124 n. 18, 161, 162 n. 26, 182 n. 94, 195 n. 142 Kaufmann, Yehezkel 17–18, 68 n. 182, 70 n. 189, 74, 92 n. 79, 107 n. 131, 123 n. 11, 143, 154–5, 169 n. 52, 197 Kellermann, Ulrich 10 n. 29, 11, 13, 30 n. 141, 33 n. 7, 36, 67 n. 173, 68 n. 182, 69 n. 187, 82 n. 11, 83 n. 17, 84 n. 24, 84 n. 28, 85 n. 33, 86 n. 41, 86 n. 47, 120 n. 2, 125 n. 23, 126 n. 32, 137 n. 59, 167 n. 44 Kim, Young H. 174 n. 69 Klostermann, August 22 Knohl, Israel 22–3, 25 n. 117, 41 nn. 55, 56, 55 n. 121, 93 n. 82, 113 n. 161, 129 n. 41, 139 n. 72, 143 n. 93, 151 n. 111, 153 n. 113, 168 n. 47 Knoppers, Gary N. 37 n. 30, 81 n. 10, 99 n. 104, 169 n. 52 Knowles, Melody D. 95 n. 84, 114 Koch, Klaus 6, 20 n. 87, 30 n. 141, 82 n. 12, 84, 89–90, 104 nn. 119, 120, 105, 109 n. 144, 112, 113 n. 160, 115, 118, 123 n. 11, 124, 160 Koopmans, William T. 135 n. 56 Kraemer, David 9 n. 25 Krapf, Thomas M. 18 n. 76 Kratz, Reinhard G. 11, 20 n. 91, 24 n. 112, 30 n. 145, 33 n. 3, 37 n. 32, 82 n. 11, 83 n. 17, 86 n. 38, 86 n. 43, 86 n. 47, 91, 101, 124, 125 n. 24, 126 n. 33, 159 n. 7 Kugel, James L. 168 n. 47, 171 n. 55 Kuhrt, Amélie 15, 83 n. 20 Lambert, David 107 n. 134 Lange, Armin 134 n. 51, 172 n. 59

251

Lebram, Jürgen-Christian 11, 100 n. 105 Lee, Kyong-Jin 16, 96 n. 87 LeFebvre, Michael 143 n. 89 Leuchter, Mark 91, 98 n. 100, 106 n. 127, 106 n. 130, 176 n. 75 Levenson, Jon D. 132 n. 49 Levine, Baruch A. 18 n. 80, 58 n. 136, 103 n. 118, 148 n. 107, 149 n. 109, 174 n. 69, 182 n. 99, 193 Levine, Lee I. 120 n. 3 Levinson, Bernard M. 24 n. 113, 25 n. 120, 28 n. 132, 98 n. 99, 148 n. 108 Levitt Kohn, Risa 204 n. 2 Lewis, Theodore J. 100 n. 106 Liebreich, Leon J. 36 n. 21 Lim, Timothy H. 29 n. 137, 137 Lipiński, Edward 167 n. 44 Liver, Jacob 78 Lohfink, Norbert 39 n. 48 McCarthy, Dennis J. 28 n. 133, 127 n. 36 McCollough, W. Stewart 10 n. 28 McConville, J. Gordon 118 n. 177 MacDonald, Nathan 24 n. 112 Mathys, Hans-Peter 33 n. 5, 37 n. 32, 40 Meyers, Carol L. 110 n. 147 Meyers, Eric M. 110 n. 147 Milgrom, Jacob 18 nn. 80, 81, 21 n. 96, 22, 23 n. 104, 24 n. 110, 41 nn. 55, 56, 51 n. 107, 55 n. 123, 58 n. 136, 67 n. 174, 74 n. 198, 78, 84 n. 27, 101 n. 113, 104 n. 121, 107, 116 n. 170, 117 n. 176, 129 n. 38, 129 n. 42, 139 n. 72, 141 n. 82, 143, 144 n. 94, 149 n. 109, 151–2, 153 n. 113, 155, 171 n. 55, 175 n. 72, 177–8, 179 n. 85, 179 n. 88, 181 n. 91, 182 nn. 97, 98, 185 nn. 110, 111, 186 n. 113, 187 n. 118, 192 n. 132 Min, Kyung-Jin 15 n. 62, 37 n. 32, 125 n. 23, 182 n. 95, 194 n. 139, 195 n. 141 Moffat, Donald P. 159 n. 5 Morgenstern, Julian 36 Mowinckel, Sigmund 5 n. 1, 8, 10, 29 n. 137, 32 n. 1, 33 nn. 5, 6, 68 n. 181, 69 n. 187, 77, 81 n. 10, 86 n. 38, 86 n. 41, 88, 123, 130, 133 n. 50, 137 n. 59, 140, 144 n. 94, 155, 160, 163 n. 27, 169 n. 49, 172, 174 n. 70 Mullen, E. Theodore 15 n. 62 Myers, Jacob 7, 29 n. 137, 36 n. 23, 38 n. 37, 39 n. 43, 40 n. 54, 42 n. 60, 43 n. 71, 57 n. 131, 61 n. 145, 62 n. 150, 70 n. 190, 72 n. 193, 76 n. 203, 77 n. 207, 78 n. 215, 86 n. 39, 97 n. 91, 124 n. 19, 141 n. 83, 182 n. 95, 186 n. 112, 195 n. 142, 197 n. 153 Najman, Hindy 139 n. 74 Neufeld, Ephraim 173 n. 65

252

Index of Modern Authors

Newman, Judith H. 34 n. 14, 37 n. 25, 40 n. 49, 41 n. 59, 43 n. 68 Nicholson, Ernest W. 17 n. 73, 24 n. 112, 68 n. 176, 141 n. 81 Niditch, Susan 183 n. 100 Nihan, Christoph 20 n. 93, 38 n. 33, 144, 150 n. 109, 151 n. 111, 153 n. 113 Noort, Ed 21 n. 95 Noth, Martin 10–11, 27 n. 130, 27 n. 132, 28 n. 134, 32 n. 1, 33, 58 n. 136, 74 n. 196, 81, 82 n. 11, 83 n. 17, 84, 85 n. 37, 86 n. 41, 86 n. 43, 86 n. 47, 122, 124 n. 21, 126 n. 29, 151 n. 111, 159 n. 9, 160, 163, 164 n. 36 Nzimande, Makhosazana 159 n. 3 Oeming, Manfred 37 n. 26 Olyan, Saul M. 41 n. 56, 165 n. 40, 167 n. 46, 169 n. 48, 175 n. 74, 186 n. 112 Otto, Eckart 20 n. 89, 24 n. 113, 44 n. 78, 123 n. 14, 130 n. 48, 144 n. 95 Pakkala, Juha 12, 13, 24 n. 112, 32 n. 1, 34 n. 10, 68 n. 176, 81, 82, 83 nn. 17, 18, 84 n. 26, 84 nn. 28, 29, 85 n. 35, 86, 87 n. 49, 87 n. 51, 89, 90, 91, 104 nn. 119, 113 n. 159, 120, 121 n. 5, 122 n. 8, 123 n. 14, 124 n. 19, 125, 126 n. 30, 127, 129 n. 40, 130, 135 n. 52, 137 n. 59, 141 n. 84, 142 n. 86, 143 n. 88, 144, 154, 159 n. 9, 160 n. 10, 161–2, 163, 164 nn. 35, 36, 165 n. 40, 169 n. 49, 179 n. 86, 184 n. 104, 186 nn. 112, 113, 187 n. 114, 190 n. 127, 194 n. 140, 195 n. 141, 197 n. 151 Paran, Meir 18 n. 77, 108 n. 139, 111 n. 152, 141 n. 82, 180 n. 89, 182 n. 99, 187 n. 117 Perlitt, Lothar 20, 44 n. 78 Podella, Thomas 107, 108 Pohlmann, Karl-Friedrich 5 n. 1, 7 n. 9 Pola, Thomas 20 n. 90 Polzin, Robert 7 n. 9 Pröbstl, Volker 36 n. 18, 37 n. 30, 38, 39 n. 43, 43 nn. 67, 68, 43 n. 71, 44, 46, 47 n. 87, 48 n. 92, 49 n. 96, 49 n. 98, 50, 54, 55 n. 119, 55 n. 123, 56–7, 58, 59 n. 138, 61, 62 n. 150, 64, 66 n. 167 Propp, William H. C. 25 n. 119, 27, 48 n. 91, 54 n. 115, 74 n. 196, 98 n. 97, 105 n. 125, 143 n. 86, 189 n. 124 Pury, Albert de 20 n. 92 Rad, Gerhard von 38, 42, 43 n. 71 Reditt, Paul L. 32 n. 1 Rehm, Martin 37 n. 32 Reinmuth, Titus 69 Rendsburg, Gary A. 14 n. 57, 18 n. 77, 37, 39 n. 46, 60 n. 141 Rendtorff, Rolf 19, 20, 26 n. 124, 28 n. 134, 37 n. 26, 41 n. 59, 42 n. 65, 43 n. 68, 43 n. 71,

89, 91 n. 73, 100 n. 109, 101, 102 n. 117, 120 n. 2, 181 n. 91 Rofé, Alexander 188 n. 120 Römer, Thomas 19 n. 85, 20 n. 94, 21 n. 99, 29 n. 137, 38 n. 42, 44 n. 78, 136 Rooke, Deborah 10 n. 29, 82 n. 10, 90 n. 69, 111 n. 148 Rothenbusch, Ralf 69 nn. 186, 187, 123 n. 11, 125 n. 23, 161 Rowley, H. H. 10 n. 28 Rudolph, Wilhelm 7, 13 n. 54, 21 n. 97, 32 n. 1, 36 n. 20, 38 n. 43, 40 n. 50, 40 n. 54, 42 n. 62, 43 n. 71, 44 n. 76, 46 n. 84, 46 n. 86, 48 n. 93, 49 n. 96, 50 n. 99, 54 n. 113, 54 n. 118, 55 n. 122, 56 n. 129, 60 n. 140, 61 n. 147, 62 n. 150, 64 n. 162, 65 n. 163, 66 n. 167, 67 n. 173, 68 n. 182, 69 n. 187, 70 n. 190, 72 n. 193, 81, 82 n. 11, 82 n. 14, 83 nn. 17, 18, 85 n. 35, 86 n. 41, 87, 91, 93 n. 82, 96, 104 n. 119, 117, 121 n. 5, 122 n. 9, 123 n. 16, 125 n. 23, 125 n. 28, 126 nn. 29, 30, 133 n. 50, 135, 137 n. 59, 137 n. 66, 140 n. 78, 142 n. 85, 154, 160 n. 15, 163, 169 n. 49, 171 n. 55, 172, 181 n. 92, 183 n. 103, 187 n. 114, 191 n. 128, 194 n. 140, 197 nn. 149, 150, 197 n. 153 Sacchi, Paolo 10 n. 28 Satlow, Michael L. 30 n. 142, 164 n. 36, 173, 174 n. 70 Saysell, Csilla 159 n. 6, 178 Schaeder, Hans H. 8, 10 n. 29, 29 n. 137, 83–4, 88–9, 91, 123 n. 14, 123 n. 16, 125 n. 28 Schaper, Joachim 10 n. 28, 15 n. 63, 81 n. 10, 82 n. 11, 121 n. 5 Schiffman, Lawrence H. 108 n. 138 Schmid, Konrad 15, 19 n. 84, 22 nn. 99, 100, 30 n. 144, 38 n. 42, 44 n. 78, 120 n. 4 Schmidt, Ludwig 21 n. 95, 22 n. 100, 54 n. 117 Schmitt, Hans-Christoph 26 n. 120, 169 n. 53 Schniedewind, William M. 28 n. 134, 31 n. 147 Schwartz, Baruch J. 19 n. 84, 19 n. 86, 23, 26 n. 123, 30 n. 140, 98 n. 97, 110 n. 146, 113 n. 158, 128 n. 37, 137 n. 62, 155, 179 n. 83, 179 n. 87 Schwiderski, Dirk 13 n. 49 Shectman, Sarah 42 n. 64 Silberman, Neil A. 30 n. 147 Ska, Jean-Louis 16, 17 n. 72, 21 n. 94, 28 n. 134, 141 n. 81 Skehan, Patrick W. 53 n. 112 Skinner, John 43 n. 69 Smith, Morton 68 n. 177, 120 n. 2, 123 n. 14, 154, 165 n. 40, 174 n. 67, 194 n. 138, 209 Smith-Christopher, Daniel L. 159 n. 5, 166 n. 42 Snaith, Norman 116

Index of Modern Authors Sommer, Benjamin D. 28 n. 136, 30 n. 146, 47 n. 90, 48 n. 94, 49 n. 97, 62 n. 149, 92 n. 79, 109 n. 140 Southwood, Katherine E. 158 n. 2, 160 n. 11, 166 n. 42 Spawn, Kevin L. 69 n. 184, 143 Speiser, E. A. 172 n. 61 Spinoza, Baruch de 6 Stackert, Jeffrey 19 n. 85, 20 n. 86, 23 nn. 108, 109, 24 n. 113, 27 n. 128, 92, 165 n. 39 Steiner, Richard C. 13, 93, 100 n. 106 Sternberg, Meir 8 Tal, Oren 15 n. 62, 78 n. 214 Talshir, David 7 n. 9 Talshir, Zipora 5 n. 2, 171 n. 55 Thames, John T., Jr. 68 n. 176 Thronveit, Mark 7 n. 8 Tiemeyer, Lena-Sofia 166 n. 42, 179, 185 n. 106, 198 n. 156 Tigay, Jeffrey 200 n. 157 Toeg, Arie 188 n. 120 Toorn, Karel van der 89 Torrey, C. C. 8 n. 21, 10, 34–5, 123, 124, 163, 194 n. 140 Tov, Emanuel 79 n. 217, 200 n. 157 Ulfgard, Håkan 146 n. 102, 147 n. 104, 150 n. 109, 154 Vaka’uta, Nasili 159 n. 3 Van Seters, John 19 n. 85, 22 n. 100, 26 n. 125, 27 n. 132, 169 n. 50, 173 n. 64, 173 n. 66 VanderKam, James C. 9 n. 25, 10 n. 29, 90 n. 69, 190 n. 127, 214 n. 8 Vermeylen, Jacques 15 n. 62, 37 n. 32 Vogt, Herbertus C. M. 181 Volz, Paul 21 n. 97 Watts, James W. 91 n. 77, 120 n. 1, 192 n. 130 Weimar, Peter 94 n. 83 Weinberg, Joel P. 67 n. 175, 83 n. 20, 162 n. 25, 167 n. 44 Weinfeld, Moshe 8 n. 20, 18 n. 79, 25 nn. 116, 117, 26, 38 n. 37, 39 n. 43, 40 n. 49, 41 n. 59, 42 n. 63, 44 n. 80, 49 n. 97, 52 n. 109, 55 n. 122, 57 n. 131, 63 n. 151, 64 n. 159, 75 n. 199, 89, 95 n. 85, 98 n. 98, 110 n. 145, 138 n. 70, 146 n. 103, 173 n. 66, 174 n. 67, 179 n. 87, 187 n. 115, 189 n. 123, 192 n. 130 Weingreen, Jacob 176 n. 75 Welch, A. C. 36 n. 20, 37, 39 n. 43, 40 nn. 49, 50, 44 n. 76, 48 n. 93, 50, 55 n. 122, 56

253

n. 129, 60 n. 140, 61 n. 147, 63 n. 154, 64 n. 161, 65 n. 163, 66 n. 166 Wellhausen, Julius 17, 23 n. 110, 29, 32–3, 42 n. 64, 63 n. 152, 78, 81 n. 8, 92 n. 79, 98 n. 97, 127 n. 36, 154 n. 114 Wenham, Gordon 189 n. 122 Werline, Rodney A. 37 n. 27, 185 n. 107 Westbrook, Raymond 188 n. 121 Wette, Wilhelm M. L. de 24 Weyde, Karl W. 143 n. 90, 143 n. 93, 145, 147 n. 104, 150 n. 109, 151 n. 111 White Crawford, Sidnie 77 n. 210 Widengren, Geo 190 n. 127 Willi, Thomas 89, 101 Williamson, H. G. M. 1 n. 1, 7, 8, 10 n. 29, 13 n. 49, 13 n. 54, 14 n. 58, 29 n. 137, 30 n. 142, 33 n. 6, 35 n. 16, 36 n. 20, 36 n. 22, 37, 38 n. 43, 39 n. 44, 42 n. 60, 44 n. 73, 46 n. 85, 49 n. 96, 50 n. 101, 54 n. 113, 54 n. 118, 55 n. 123, 56 n. 128, 60 n. 140, 61 n. 148, 63 n. 153, 66 n. 169, 67 nn. 172, 173, 68 nn. 181, 182, 69 nn. 188, 189, 75 n. 200, 81, 82 n. 14, 83, 84 n. 29, 85 n. 30, 85 nn. 34, 35, 86, 87 nn. 50, 51, 93 n. 82, 98 n. 100, 99 n. 103, 104 nn. 119, 120, 106 n. 130, 107 n. 132, 109 n. 143, 111 n. 149, 112 n. 157, 113 n. 159, 115 n. 165, 115 n. 167, 116 n. 172, 121 n. 5, 122 n. 9, 123 n. 14, 125 n. 23, 125 n. 28, 126 n. 32, 137 n. 59, 138 n. 69, 140, 141 n. 83, 143, 155, 162 n. 25, 163 n. 28, 163 n. 30, 164, 167 n. 44, 169 n. 52, 171 n. 57, 183 n. 103, 185 n. 109, 187 n. 116, 188 n. 119, 191 n. 128, 192 n. 133, 192 n. 135, 194 n. 138, 195 n. 142, 196 n. 147, 197, 208 n. 3, 209 n. 6 Wilson, Robert R. 92 n. 79 Wiseman, Donald J. 189 n. 124 Wöhrle, Jakob 20 n. 87 Wright, David P. 27–8 Wright, Jacob L. 12, 85 n. 30, 86 n. 47, 126–7, 137 n. 59, 159 n. 8, 160 n. 10, 161, 186 n. 112 Yadin, Yigael 45 n. 82, 71 n. 192, 108 n. 137 Yaron, Reuven 188 n. 120 Yoo, Philip Y. 25 n. 118, 44 n. 79, 52 n. 111, 55 n. 125, 96 n. 89 Yoreh, Tzemah 27 n. 127 Zakovitch, Yair 189 n. 124 Zevit, Ziony 18 n. 81 Ziemer, Benjamin 41 n. 58 Zunz, Leopold 6, 160

Index of Ancient Sources MASORETIC TEXT

Genesis 1–11 30 n. 145 1:1 40 n. 52 1:1–2:4 39 1:7 39 2–11 26 n. 126 2:1 39, 40, 41 2:3 50 2:4 39, 40 4:13–15 186 8:13 113 n. 160 11–16 42 11–25 42 11:27–28 42 11:28 42 11:29–30 42 11:31 42 11:31–32 42 12:1 41 12:1–3 26 n. 126 12:1–4 42 12:5 42 n. 64 12:7 179 13:18 42 14:1–24 81 n. 8 15 42–43, 79 15:1 27, 41, 43 n. 69, 81 n. 8 15:1–6 43 n. 69, 81 n. 8 15:2 43 n. 69 15:5 64, 179 15:6 43 15:7 42–3, 56 15:7–10 42 15:7–11 43 15:7–21 42 n. 65 15:13 179 15:14 94 15:16 119 15:17–21 43 15:18 179 15:18–21 43 15:19–21 169 16:1–2 172 n. 61 16:3 172, 175 16:4–14 172 n. 61 16:15 172

16:15–16 172 n. 61 17 41 n. 58 17:1–2 41 17:5 42, 43 17:7–8 179 17:9–14 175 17:10–14 43 17:14 185 17:23 175 17:23–7 43 17:25–6 175 19:2 184 n. 103 19:18 184 n. 103 19:30–8 171 n. 54 20 189 n. 122 20:1–18 96 21:9–14 172 n. 61 21:9–23 189 21:22–34 81 n. 8 22 43 n. 69, 77 22:1 81 n. 8 22:1–19 81 n. 8 22:13 117 22:17 64 22:20 81 n. 8 22:20–4 42 n. 64, 81 n. 8 24 14 n. 57 24:1–67 173 24:3 14 n. 57 24:3–4 174 24:7 14 n. 57 24:35 94 24:53 111 25:1–6 173, 189 25:9 175 26:1–5 173 26:3 55 26:4 64 26:5 26 26:34–5 175 27:1–45 171 27:46–28:5 175 28:6–9 175 29:34 105 n. 125 31:10 116 n. 169 31:11 180 n. 90 31:11–16 180 n. 90 31:12 116 n. 169

Index of Ancient Sources 31:13 180 n. 90 31:14–15 180 32:22–32 42 n. 62 32:28 42 n. 62 34 173 34:1–31 173 34:14–16 174, 175, 200 34:25 105 n. 125 34:30 105 n. 125 35:2 136 n. 58 35:4 136 n. 58 38:2 174 39:1–6 81 n. 8 39:7 81 n. 8 39:7–23 81 n. 8 40:1 81 n. 8 40:1–41:57 81 n. 8 41:45 172, 175 45:18 186 n. 112 47:29–31 81 n. 8 48:1 81 n. 8 48:1–2 81 n. 8 48:20 175 Exodus 1:8–10 181 2:1 105 n. 125 2:21 172, 174 3:7 44, 46 3:8 169 3:17 169 3:22 94, 111 4:14 105 n. 125 4:26 175 6:4 56 6:8 55 6:23 103, 176 9:35 143 n. 86 11:2 94, 111 12:2 148 n. 107 12:6 113, 114 12:9 71 12:18 113, 114 12:35 94, 111 12:37 109 12:43 180 12:43–9 175 12:48 181, 200 12:49 181 13:1–16 74 n. 196 13:2 74 13:3 103 13:3–8 74 13:5 56, 64, 169 13:9 74, 100, 103 13:12–15 74

13:14 103 13:16 103 13:21–2 47–8 13:22 61 14 46–7, 79 14:10 44 14:15 44 14:16 46, 47 14:19 48 14:22 46, 47 14:23 46, 47 14:24 48 14:31 52 15:5 47 15:25 100 16 165 n. 39 16:1–36 54 16:2–3 54 16:3 54 16:4 54 16:4–5 62 16:6–25 54 16:8 54 16:12 54 16:15 54, 62 16:22–6 50 16:23 50, 112 n. 155 16:26–31 62 16:32–5 54 17:1–7 54–5, 62, 138 17:2 54 17:3 54, 55 17:6 54 17:7 26 17:11 138 n. 68 18:1–6 189 18:2 189 n. 124 18:8 39 n. 43 18:11 56 18:13–26 192, 194 18:13–27 97–8, 200, 205 18:15–16 26 n. 123 18:17–26 195 18:22 98, 194 18:22–3 167 18:24 200 18:25 103, 200 18:26 98, 194 19–20 214 n. 8 19–24 27 19:1 105 19:1–2 131 19:1–Num. 10:1 3, 118, 131 19:2 104 19:2–8 192, 194 19:2–9 131

255

256 MASORETIC TEXT

Index of Ancient Sources (cont.)

19:3–6 178 19:6 179 19:8 131, 132 19:9 26 19:9–16 131 19:10 179 19:10–15 105, 110, 115 19:11 49, 53 19:14 179 19:16 184 19:16–17 131 19:17 184 19:18 49, 53, 131, 184 19:19 131, 184 19:20 49, 53 19:20–3 110 19:20–5 131 19:24 131 19:25 27 20:1 50, 184 20:1–14 27, 185 20:1–17 27 n. 130, 131, 184 20:5 186 20:6 184 20:8 50 20:8–10 41, 76 20:8–11 76 20:11 23 n. 106, 40–1 20:15 27 20:18 137 20:18–20 141 20:18–21 131, 132 20:21 137 20:22 49, 53 20:23 94 20:23–23:19 27, 131 20:24 148 20:26 196 n. 147 21:1 50, 51 n. 108, 53 21:8 173 n. 65 21:14 57 n. 130 22:7 98 22:8 98 22:19 193 n. 135 22:28–9 73, 74 22:30 179 23:11 72 23:14–17 147 23:14–19 94 23:15–16 147 23:16 146, 147, 148 23:19 75 23:20 110 23:20–2 171 n. 56 23:23 110, 169

23:23–4 173, 174 23:31 169 n. 50 23:32 67 23:32–3 190 24 214 n. 8 24:1 132 24:3 131, 132 24:3–8 28, 131, 141 24:4–8 28 n. 134 24:7 131 24:9–11 141 n. 81 24:11 141, 207 24:16 105 24:17 132, 184 24:18 108, 190 25:1 184 25:2–3 75 25:3 94 25:6 94 25:29 111 25:39 111 26:32 94 27:15 185 28:1 103 28:4 183 n. 100 28:15–30 98 28:31–4 183 n. 100 28:36–8 112 28:42 196 n. 147 29 94 29:1 112 29:5 183 n. 100 29:15–18 117 29:23 111 29:26 141 n. 82 29:36 112 n. 157 29:41 183 n. 102 29:42–6 20 30:13–16 78 30:16 78 30:29 112 n. 157 31:12–17 41 n. 56 31:13–14 50, 53 31:16–17 41 n. 56, 50 n. 103 31:17 41 31:18 108, 190 31:35 112 n. 155 32:2–3 136 n. 58 32:2–4 95 32:4 60–1 32:8 60–1 32:9 57 32:12 194 32:15 93 32:24 61 32:26 105 n. 125

Index of Ancient Sources 32:26–9 138, 165 n. 39, 174 n. 69 32:28 105 n. 125 32:30 197 32:30–4 187 32:31–5 197 32:32–3 134 32:34 110 33:1 55 33:1–2 171 n. 56 33:2 169 33:2–3 110 33:3 57, 171 n. 56 33:5 57 33:6–11 165 n. 39 33:7 28 33:9–10 47 33:13 110 33:15–17 171 n. 56 33:19–20 110 34:1 26 n. 121, 138 34:1–10 26 34:1–28 25 34:2–3 26 n. 121 34:4 26 n. 121, 93, 138 34:5 26 n. 121, 138 34:5–10 26 n. 121 34:6 59–60 34:6–7 59–60 34:7 186 34:8 138 34:9 57, 138, 186 34:9–10 58–9 34:10 26 n. 122 34:11 110 n. 146, 169 34:11–16 173 34:11–26 147 34:12–16 70 34:14–18 173 34:18–26 25, 94 34:20 73, 74 34:21 50 34:22 146, 147–8 34:23 147 34:26 75 34:26–7 26 34:28 26 n. 121, 108, 137 n. 61, 191, 207 34:29 93 34:29–30 141 35:1–40:33 141 35:5 75, 94 35:8 94 35:15 94 35:18 185 35:21 75 35:24 75

35:28 94 35:29 111 n. 151, 142 n. 86 36:3 75, 111 n. 151 36:6 75 36:36 94 37:16 94, 111 37:24 111 37:29 94 38:25–6 78 38:25–8 78 39:22–6 183 n. 100 39:23 183 n. 100 39:28 196 n. 147 39:30 112 39:38 94 40:1 113 n. 160 40:9 94, 112 n. 157 40:10 112 n. 157 40:16 20 40:17 20 40:33 20 40:34 20, 132 Leviticus 1–16 23 1:1–2 117 n. 176 1:2–17 117 1:3–9 117 1:10–13 117 1:14–17 117 2:13 94 4:1–5:26 196 4:1–12 198 4:2 181 4:3 185, 198 4:22–6 116 4:27–35 116 5:1 191 5:1–5 95 5:5 187, 191 5:6–13 191 5:14–16 177, 198 5:15 177, 198 5:15–16 177–8 5:15–19 117 5:17–18 177 5:17–19 177 5:18 198 5:21 177 5:24 185 n. 110 5:25 198 5:26 185 n. 110 6:2–6 77 6:3 196 n. 147 6:13 183 n. 102 7:16 111 n. 151

257

258 MASORETIC TEXT

Index of Ancient Sources (cont.)

7:33 141 n. 82 8 94 8:7 183 n. 100 8:8 98 8:29 141 n. 82 8:36 142 n. 86 9:1–24 82 9:15 116 10:1–2 103 10:10–11 192 10:11 93, 142 n. 86 11:44 179 12:2 186 n. 113 13:30 111 13:32 111 13:36 93, 111 13:40 183 16 155 16:4 196 n. 147 16:13 109 16:15 116 16:21 187 16:29 153 16:29–34 153 n. 113 16:34 20 17–26 22 17:8–9 181 18 175 18–20 67, 70 18:3 172 18:5 37 n. 30, 39 n. 43 18:24–30 168, 172, 186, 199 18:25 169 n. 51 19:2 179 19:19 179 20 175 20:7 179 20:21 71–2, 186 n. 113 20:23–6 168–9, 199 21:1–22:33 192 21:5–6 183 21:7 189 21:14 176, 189 22:16 185 22:18 111 n. 151 22:21 111 n. 151 22:23 111 n. 151 22:38 111 n. 151 23:1–44 115 23:3 41 23:5 113 23:23 129 n. 38 23:23–5 128, 129, 154 23:23–43 128 23:24 129, 143

23:27 154, 156 23:29 107, 108 23:33–6 144 n. 94, 146, 150–1, 152, 154 23:34 151 23:36 146, 151 23:37 153–4 23:39 152 23:39–42 143 23:39–43 143–5, 146, 151–2, 154 23:40 144, 152 23:40–2 151 n. 111 23:41 152 23:42 181, 182 23:42–3 143, 144, 152 24:1–2 77 24:9 132 24:10–16 175, 176 n. 75 24:12 139 24:22 181 24:23 175, 176 n. 75 25:9 154 26:2 41 26:6 184 26:15 185 26:39–45 186 26:40 177, 187, 196 26:44 185 26:46 51, 53, 93, 101 27:14 112 n. 155 27:21 193 n. 135 27:21–3 112 n. 155 27:28 193 n. 135 27:30 112 n. 155 27:32 112 n. 155 27:33 93 27:34 51, 53 Numbers 1 104 1–4 109, 138 1:7 176 1:18 103 1:20 104 1:20–43 104 1:24 104 1:46 104 1:49 105 1:50–1 105 1:52–3 105 2 104 n. 121 2:17 28 2:32 104 3–4 112 3:2 103 3:5–39 105 3:6–10 105 3:12–13 112

Index of Ancient Sources 3:31 94 3:40–5 105 4:7 111 4:9 94 4:15 112 4:16 94 4:28 103 4:31 142 n. 86 4:33 103 4:45 142 n. 86 4:49 142 n. 86 5:6 177 5:7 187 5:12 177 5:16 98 5:18 98 5:23 134 5:27 177 5:30 98 6:5 183 6:18 183 7 93, 94 7:17 116 n. 169 7:23 116 n. 169 7:84 94 7:85 94, 111 9:1–5 113 9:1–14 195 n. 143 9:3 113 9:5 113 9:9–13 113 n. 161 9:23 143 n. 86 10:1–10 129 n. 41 10:2–8 129 10:2–9 129 10:5–6 129 10:8 129 n. 41 10:9 129 10:10 129 10:11 105 10:11–13 113 10:13 143 n. 86 10:34 48 10:35 104 11 79, 97 n. 95, 165 n. 39 11:4–9 54, 62 11:7–9 62 11:14–17 97 11:16–17 61, 62, 192 n. 129 11:18 62 11:24 62 11:24–5 61, 62, 97, 192 n. 129 11:25 61 11:31–4 62 12:1 172, 189 n. 124 12:1–2 173, 174

12:5 47 12:5–9 174 12:7 52 13:1–14:45 55, 57, 65 n. 165 13:20 65 n. 165 13:28 65 n. 165 13:28–9 169 13:32 169 14 79 14:3–4 58 14:4 58 14:11 57–8, 61 14:14 48, 61 14:18–19 186 14:19–20 58–9 14:22 57–8 14:23 55, 61 14:24 56, 57 14:30 55, 56, 57 14:31–3 64 14:44 57 15:1–16 93–4 15:3 111 n. 151 15:14 181 15:15 93 15:16 181 15:17–21 54 n. 117 15:19–21 75 15:23 142 n. 86 15:30–1 181, 193 15:31 185 15:32–6 139 n. 72 15:34 139 16:3 179 16:25 192 n. 129 16:30 61 16:35 179 17:5 179 18:3 106 18:11–19 75 18:13 75 18:15 73–4 18:19 94 18:21–4 75 18:26–9 75, 76 18:28 75–6 20–1 64 n. 158 20:1 55 n. 121 20:1–13 54–5, 62 20:2 55 n. 121 20:3 63 20:3–4 55 n. 121, 62 20:5 63 20:6–13 55 n. 121, 62 20:8 54, 55 n. 120, 62 20:8–13 55

259

260 MASORETIC TEXT

Index of Ancient Sources (cont.)

20:10 54 20:11 54 20:14 39 n. 43 20:14–21 63, 171 20:16 171 n. 56 21:2 193 n. 135 21:3 193 n. 135 21:14 212 21:20 174 n. 69 21:21–6 63 21:21–32 63 21:21–35 63–4 21:34 64 22:18 94 25:1–5 174 25:4 194 25:6–15 176 25:6–18 82, 103 25:12–13 176 26:1–65 104 26:20 103 26:53 63 n. 156 26:55–6 63 n. 156 27:1–11 192, 193 27:5 98 27:23 143 n. 86 28:1–29:39 115 28:8 183 n. 102 28:16 113 28:26 75 29:1 129 n. 39 29:1–6 128, 129 29:1–39 128 29:2–6 129 n. 38 29:7 153 29:7–11 156 29:12 143, 151 29:12–38 146, 150–1, 152 29:38 146 29:39 111 n. 151 30:3 45 n. 82 30:10–13 189 31:1–54 109 31:6 129 31:16 177 31:18 176 31:29 75 31:41 75 31:48–54 90, 115 31:52 75 32:11 55 32:17 169 n. 51 32:33 63–4 33:3 113 n. 160

33:52 169 n. 51 33:55 169 n. 51 36:13 51, 93, 142 n. 86 Deuteronomy 1:4 63, 64 1:5 26, 100 1:8 179 1:9–18 194, 200, 205 1:10 64 1:13–18 98 1:15 103, 192 1:16 194 1:19–45 55, 57 1:27 65 1:33 48 1:43 56–7 2:2–3:11 64 n. 158 2:3–8 171 2:7 62, 65 2:9 171 n. 54 2:19 171 n. 54 2:24 64, 65 2:24–36 171 2:24–3:13 63 2:25 64 2:26 64 2:30 64, 65 3:3 65 3:4 65 3:5 65 3:6 193 n. 135 3:24 52 4:1 100 4:5 100 4:6 97 n. 91 4:8 100, 101 4:10 184 4:10–14 132, 137 4:12 184 4:14 100 4:36 49 4:40 52, 53 4:44 52, 53, 144 4:46–7 63 5:2 26 5:4 132 5:5 141 5:6–18 27 5:6–21 132 5:9 186 5:12–14 76 5:12–15 50, 76 5:15 50, 103 5:22 185 5:22–7 132

Index of Ancient Sources 6:1 64 6:4 40 n. 50 6:10–11 65 n. 165 6:11 65–6, 186 n. 112 6:20–4 38 6:21 103 6:22 44 6:24 39 n. 48 7:1 169, 174, 186 n. 112 7:1–3 173 7:1–5 169–70, 173 n. 66, 179, 186, 199 7:3 70, 173, 186 n. 112 7:3–4 160 7:6 179 7:6–7 179 7:18 58 7:24 65 7:25 94 8:1 186 n. 112 8:2 110 8:3 108 8:4 62, 65 9:1–3 65, 169 n. 50 9:6 57 9:9 108, 190 9:10 108, 190 9:12 60 9:12–16 61 9:13 57 9:16 60, 61 9:17 93 9:18 108, 187, 191, 207 9:20 187 9:25 187 9:26 187 10:3 93 10:8–9 105, 138 10:14 40 n. 54 10:16 57 10:17 39 n. 43, 138 n. 67 10:19 181 11:8 186 n. 112 11:10 186 n. 112 11:23 110 11:29 186 n. 112 11:32 137 12:1 149 12:1–26:16 101 12:5–18 106 12:6 74 12:7 74 12:11 74 12:13 148 12:18–19 106 13:18 194 14:2 179

15:2 72 15:19 73–4 15:20 45 n. 82 16:1–8 148 n. 108 16:1–17 94 16:5–6 114 16:7 71 16:11 106 16:13 143, 148 16:13–15 143, 144, 146, 147, 148–9 16:14 106 16:15 143, 148 16:16 147 16:18 98 16:18–17:7 98 n. 99 17:8 98 17:8–13 98, 192, 194 17:9 169 17:13 57 n. 130 17:14–20 95, 211 17:15 95, 180 17:18–19 134 17:18–20 99 18:6–7 106 18:15 187 18:16 26 18:18 106 n. 130 18:20 57 n. 130 20:16–18 174 20:17 169, 193 n. 135 20:19–20 145 21:10–14 172, 173 21:14 172–3 22:19 189 22:29 189 23:1 71–2 23:3 190 23:4–7 169–70 23:4–9 170, 186, 190, 199 23:8 181 23:8–9 171–2 23:21 186 n. 112 24:1 188, 189 n. 124 24:1–4 188, 189 24:2–4 188 n. 120 24:16 134 24:17 181 26:1–11 75 26:5–9 38 26:6–7 44 26:7 44 26:19 179 27:1–28:69 149 28:26 184 28:58 98 28:61 134

261

262 MASORETIC TEXT

Index of Ancient Sources (cont.)

28:69 26 29:1 44 29:1–2 44–5 29:4 62, 65, 110 29:5 110 n. 145 29:6 63 29:11 67, 178 29:17 94 29:20 134 30:10 134 30:16 186 n. 112 31:4 63 31:9–13 130, 144, 146 31:10–13 130, 149 31:12 181 31:14–22 25 n. 116 31:15 47 31:16 136 n. 58, 185 31:16–18 119 31:20 61, 64, 65–6, 185 31:23 25 n. 116 31:24 91 n. 77 31:26 134, 137 32:1–43 24, 25 n. 116 32:15 65–6 32:48–52 20, 24 32:51 177 33:1–29 24, 25 n. 116, 138 n. 71 33:2 100 n. 106 33:8–9 138 33:8–11 138 33:10 13, 207 34 25 34:1 20, 174 n. 69 34:5 52, 53 34:7–9 20 34:10–11 44 n. 78 34:10–12 44, 187 34:11 44–45 34:11–12 25 n. 116 Joshua 1:8 134 2:1 174 n. 69 2:10 63 3:1 174 n. 69 3:1–2 115 5:2–10 175 5:10 113, 114 8:31 133, 135 8:33 182 n. 99 8:34 134 9:10 63 12:2–5 63 13:8–12 63

13:21–32 63 13:29 64 n. 157 17:14–18 145 17:15 145 17:18 145 18–19 21 22:5 52 22:13 64 n. 157 22:15 64 n. 157 23:6 133, 135 24 38 24:1–28 135–6 24:2–13 38 24:19–27 136 24:20 136 24:23 136 24:25 100 24:26 100, 135–6, 137, 145 24:29 81 n. 8 Judges 2:1 64 4:21–2 185 5:5 53 9:27 147 11:19–21 63 1 Samuel 4:8 60 n. 142 1 Kings 3:28 97 n. 91 4:19 63 8 59 n. 138 8:2 146 n. 103 8:27 40 n. 54 8:53 52 8:56 52 8:65 146 n. 103 11:1–8 171 11:1–13 180 12:28 60 n. 142 12:32 146 n. 103 17:17 81 n. 8 19:18 53 21:1 81 n. 8 2 Kings 14:6 133, 146 16:15 93 17:14 57 17:37 49 19:3 61 19:15 40 22–3 33 22:8 134 22:11 134, 140

Index of Ancient Sources 23:1–3 33, 127, 209 23:2 24 23:3 140 23:22 142 23:26 194 23:28 74 n. 196 Isaiah 11:11 203 16:9 89 37:3 61 40:1–11 204 40:3 109 n. 144 41:1–7 96 41:25–9 96 43:14–19 204 44:24–45:13 96 44:28 96 n. 86 46:8–13 96 48:12–16 96 50:1 188 50:11–12 204 52:11 109 n. 144 58:2 109 n. 143 58:3 108 58:5 108 58:10 108 58:12 76 63:11–14 61 65:1 109 n. 143 65:11 109 n. 143 66:1 139 66:2 184 66:5 184 Jeremiah 1:1 27 3:8 188 7:26 57 9:25 175 16:14–15 203 17:19–27 76 17:23 57 19:15 57 29:14 96 31:9 109 n. 144 32:18 138 n. 67 43:10 96 49:11 39 n. 48 52:19 111 Ezekiel 7:19 186 n. 113 7:20 186 n. 113 20 38 20:11 39 n. 43 20:25 50 n. 104

20:33–44 203 26:7 14 32:29 171 35:12 61 36:32 185 43:23 198 43:25 198 44:9 178 44:9–16 106 44:18 196 n. 147 44:23 192 44:30 75 45:2 146 n. 103 45:17 116 45:21 113 47:22 182 n. 99 47:22–3 181 Hosea 2:4 188 2:17 203 Joel 2:13 60 Amos 8:5 76 Jonah 1:9 14 n. 57 4:2 60 Micah 7:14–15 203 Habakkuk 2:4 57 Zechariah 1:9 110 n. 147, 211 7:10 181 Malachi 1:4 171 2:6 50 2:11 178 2:16 189 3:5 181 3:22 52 Psalms 33:19 39 n. 48 37:35 182 n. 99 41:3 39 n. 48 41:14 35 45:12 89 72:19 35 78 38 78:42 58

263

264 MASORETIC TEXT

Index of Ancient Sources (cont.)

105:5 58 105:41 55 106:7 58 106:48 35 115:18 34 119:137 50 119:142 50 135:10–12 63 136:17–22 63 145:8 60 148:4 40 n. 54 Proverbs 22:29 89 24:21 99 Ruth 1:4 172 Qohelet 7:12 39 n. 48 Esther 2:1 81 n. 8 3:1 81 n. 8 3:8 99 Daniel 2:37 14 6:6 101 7:25 101 9 195 9:1–4 36 9:3 196 9:4 196 9:4–19 36 9:16 194, 196 9:21 183, 195 9:22–7 196 9:24 196 10:12 107, 108 Ezra 1–6 7, 81, 84, 202, 209 1:1 14 1:2 96 1:10 111 2 83 n. 20, 86 2:1–69 123 2:36–9 105 n. 123 2:41–2 83 2:59 162 2:61–3 90 2:70 123 3:1–7 147 n. 104 3:10–12 129 n. 39 4:4 67 n. 175 4:7–23 209

4:18 139 5:8 138 n. 67 5:12 14 n. 57 6:9 95 6:17 95, 116 6:18 134 6:19 114 7 16, 101 7–8 3, 11, 12, 34, 91, 130, 159, 162 7–10 5, 7, 11, 33, 34, 79, 85 n. 31, 122, 202, 203, 205, 208, 209 7:1 12, 27 n. 129, 81, 82, 84, 209 7:1–5 81, 82, 90 7:1–6 11 7:1–10 29, 80–4 7:1–11 81 7:1–8:36 203 7:1–9:5 12 7:1–10:44 208 7:6 9, 12, 81, 82–3, 84, 85, 87, 88, 89, 92, 100, 122, 133, 209 7:7 81, 83, 84, 85, 123, 162 7:7–9 83–4 7:8 12, 81, 83 n. 18, 84, 164 n. 38 7:8–9 84 7:9 81, 84, 113, 114, 164 7:10 74 n. 196, 81, 84, 92, 100, 101, 139 n. 75, 197 n. 150 7:11 11, 82, 84, 85, 87, 88, 91, 100 n. 111, 162 n. 24 7:11–26 29, 81 7:11–8:36 80, 84–8 7:12 14, 82, 85, 88, 90, 91, 101 7:12–13 11 7:12–19 85 7:12–26 2, 11, 13, 85, 91, 101, 122, 202, 211 7:13 14, 86, 93, 105, 125 7:14 93, 101 7:15 14, 93, 111 7:15–20 85 7:16 111 7:17 83, 93, 94, 115, 116 7:18 93 7:19 93, 94, 111 7:20 83, 93 7:20–3 85 7:21 14, 88 7:21–2 11 7:21–4 85, 87 7:22 14, 94 7:22–3 85 n. 34 7:23 14, 96 7:24 14, 83, 85, 87, 125, 162 7:24–5 85 7:25 5, 97–8, 102, 122, 167, 194 7:25–6 14, 90, 97–102 7:26 85, 98–101, 133, 192

Index of Ancient Sources 7:27 81, 96 7:27–8 11, 85, 87, 209 7:27–10:44 29 7:28 12, 85, 86, 96, 103 7:28–8:14 86 7:28–8:30 102 8 153, 204 8:1 103, 162 8:1–14 11, 86, 103–4, 117, 124, 162 n. 26 8:1–20 83 8:2 103 8:2–14 104 n. 120 8:3 103 n. 118 8:3–14 104 8:14 194 8:15 11, 86, 104, 105, 114 8:15–20 33, 86, 105, 125 8:15–34 12 8:17 106 8:20 83 n. 20, 107 8:21 86, 104, 107–8, 183 n. 101 8:21–2 109 8:21–3 86–7, 107–10, 190, 209 8:21–36 11 8:22 83, 86, 109, 111, 113, 129 8:22–3 86 n. 47 8:23 86, 107, 164 8:24 13, 110, 112, 124 8:24–30 87, 111 8:25 111 8:25–9 13 8:26 95, 111 8:26–7 11 8:27 111 8:28 111, 112 8:28–9 111–12 8:28–30 126 8:29 87, 102, 105 8:30 105 8:31 105, 113, 164 8:31–4 87 8:32 104, 114 8:32–3 115 8:32–4 89–90 8:33 13, 81 n. 9, 87, 95 8:33–4 115 8:34 13 8:35 95, 115–16, 124 8:35–6 87, 115–17 8:36 3, 87, 102, 120, 123, 125, 127, 158, 167 9 159, 161, 199, 204 9–10 11, 12, 33, 34, 70, 90, 133, 158–66, 171 n. 54, 173, 179, 199, 205, 210 9:1 3, 33, 120, 127, 158, 160, 161, 164, 166, 167, 169, 171, 182, 196 9:1–2 165–6, 178, 179, 186, 190 9:1–5 161

265

9:1–10:15 199 9:2 166, 177, 178 n. 81, 179, 193 n. 137 9:4 162, 167, 177, 180, 183, 184, 188, 195 9:5 195 9:6 185 9:6–10:44 12 9:6–15 38, 161, 185 9:7 185 9:8 185 9:10 100 9:10–11 100 9:10–12 186 9:11 186–7 9:11–12 186, 190 9:12 186 n. 112 9:13 185 9:14 100, 185 9:14–15 185 9:15 164, 185 9:16 33 9:17 33 10 159, 161, 164 n. 36 10:1 161, 181, 182, 187 10:1–17 160 10:1–44 123 10:2 67, 161, 164, 177, 182 10:2–4 164, 180 10:2–6 161 10:3 67, 100, 160, 161, 167, 183, 184, 188, 189 10:3–4 161 10:4 162 10:5 110, 162, 167, 182, 190 10:6 109 n. 141, 162, 164, 177, 180, 190–1 10:6–8 161 10:6–9 161 10:7 146 10:7–8 166, 191, 192 10:7–9 104, 161, 182 10:7–44 161 10:8 33, 99, 181, 182, 192, 193, 194 10:9 162, 164, 182, 194, 195 10:10 82, 90, 162, 177, 185 10:10–11 194 10:10–14 161, 162 10:11 33, 67, 163, 164, 180, 182, 187, 195, 196, 197 10:12 161, 181, 182 10:12–13 194 10:12–14 164 10:13 162, 182 10:14 162, 165, 166, 181, 182, 193, 197 n. 150 10:15 3, 161, 163–4, 194–5, 199, 205 10:16 3, 33, 90, 161, 162, 163, 164, 165, 166, 195, 196, 197, 199, 205 10:16–17 161, 165, 197 10:16–18 82 10:16–44 199

266 MASORETIC TEXT

Index of Ancient Sources (cont.)

10:17 123 n. 11, 163, 164 10:17–18 161 10:18 162, 163, 185 10:18–23 197 10:18–43 162, 163 10:18–44 123 n. 11 10:19 117, 130, 162, 163, 177, 185–6, 188, 198 10:20–2 161, 162 10:20–43 163, 185 10:20–44 163 10:23 162 10:24 83, 162, 163 10:25 81 n. 9 10:25–43 161, 162, 182, 197 10:44 33, 127, 161, 163, 189, 198 Nehemiah 1 159 1–7 7 1:1 209 1:1–4 159 1:1–11 85 n. 30 1:5 138 n. 67 1:5–11 185 1:6 162 1:7 85 2:1 9 2:8 83, 85 n. 37, 96 2:8–9 84 2:9 86 2:9–10 87 2:10 9 2:11 9 2:12 85 2:18 85 n. 37 2:19 9 4:12–14 129 5 159 n. 8 5:1–13 68 5:14–15 88 n. 53 6:3 110 n. 147 6:15 209 n. 6 6:16–7:71 209 n. 6 7 86 7:5 85 7:6–71 123 7:6–72 29, 122 n. 7 7:6–10:40 29 7:39–42 105 n. 123 7:44–5 83 7:61 162 7:63–5 90 7:69–72 123, 124 7:72 33, 84, 123, 164, 209 n. 6 7:72–8:18 3, 6, 33, 120, 122, 123, 127, 156, 158, 163, 164, 165 n. 39, 198, 204, 209

7:72–9:5 33, 165 n. 39, 208 8 12, 33, 34, 85 n. 31, 101–2, 122, 129 n. 40, 130, 162, 187, 205, 210 8–9 32, 33, 34 8–10 7, 11, 32, 33, 79, 127, 202, 203, 205, 208, 209 8:1 82 n. 12, 89, 90 n. 71, 122 n. 10, 123, 130, 133, 134, 136, 137 n. 59, 156 8:1–8 122, 124 8:1–12 102, 126, 130 8:1–18 12, 123 8:1–10:40 7 n. 11, 121–2 8:1–12:30 7 n. 11 8:2 82, 84, 90, 100, 127, 137 n. 59, 154, 164, 181 8:3 5, 33, 100, 125, 134, 136–7, 156 8:4 89, 124, 125, 136, 137, 196 n. 147 8:4–8 137 n. 59 8:5 134, 136, 137, 156 8:5–8 120 n. 4 8:6 138 8:7 124, 125, 126, 137, 138, 139 8:7–8 33 8:8 100, 125, 126 n. 29, 127, 135, 136, 137, 139, 152, 199 8:8–9 127 8:9 33, 82, 85, 91, 100, 123, 124–5, 126, 127, 140, 182, 209 8:9–12 142 8:10 124, 125, 126, 129, 141 8:10–18 124 8:11 33, 125, 126 8:12 126, 127 8:13 89, 100, 142 8:13–18 69 n. 184, 126, 127, 133, 143–5, 152, 154, 157, 167 8:14 100, 142, 143–4, 164 8:14–17 143 8:14–18 144 8:14–19 143 8:15 142, 143–4, 146, 191 8:15–16 146 n. 102 8:16–17 142 8:17 143, 145, 181, 182, 191 8:18 32, 33, 36, 100, 135, 136, 142, 145–6, 164 9 32–34, 36, 37, 122, 203, 213 9–10 2, 32, 163, 203 9:1 33, 66, 164, 165, 195 9:1–2 163, 178 9:1–3 161 9:1–5 2, 3, 33, 34–6, 79, 135, 163–5, 195, 196 n. 148, 199, 203, 205, 209 9:2 33, 34, 163, 165, 178 n. 81, 195, 196 9:2–3 187, 196 9:3 74 n. 196, 100, 135, 136, 137, 163, 165, 196, 210 9:3–5 32 n. 1 9:4 196 n. 147

Index of Ancient Sources 9:4–5 33, 163, 165, 196 9:5 33–7, 79, 203 9:5–25 32 9:5–37 2–3, 36–8, 121, 165, 203, 209 9:5–10:40 29, 208, 210 9:6 1, 39–41, 61 9:6–25 39, 203 9:6–37 1, 33, 34, 36, 37, 66 n. 168, 185 9:7 41–3 9:8 43, 185 9:9 44 9:10 44–6 9:11 46–7 9:12 47–8, 61 9:13 61, 85 9:13–14 38, 49–53 9:14 185 9:15 53–6, 57, 62 9:16 38 n. 36, 56–7 9:17 57–60 9:18 38 n. 38, 60–1 9:19 47, 61 9:20 53–4, 61–2, 97 n. 95 9:21 62–3 9:22 63–4 9:23 64 9:24 64–5 9:25 65–6 9:26 39 n. 43, 61 9:26–37 39 n. 43 9:29 37 n. 30, 38 n. 36, 39 n. 43, 56, 57 9:32 138 n. 67 9:34 39 n. 43 10 173, 213 10:1 66–7 10:1–40 1, 2–3, 121, 165, 209 10:2 124 10:2–28 67 10:28 100 n. 107 10:29 83 n. 20, 100 n. 107 10:29–30 67 10:30 52, 68, 85 10:31 70, 76, 77, 161 10:31–2 69 10:31–40 3, 32, 68–9, 79, 203 10:32 70, 72, 76–7, 107 n. 133 10:33 78 10:33–4 69, 70, 78, 196 n. 148 10:34 162 10:35 69, 70, 74, 77, 143 n. 92 10:36 70, 75 10:36–7 69 10:36–40 69 10:37 69, 70, 72–4, 77, 143 n. 92 10:38 69, 70, 74–5, 111 n. 151 10:38–9 69 n. 187, 75

10:38–40 69 n. 187, 70, 76 10:39 69, 76 10:40 69 11–13 7 11:10–18 105 n. 123 11:23 67 12:26 1, 91, 125, 209 n. 5 12:31–43 7 n. 11 12:36 1, 125, 209 n. 5 12:37 196 n. 147 13 69, 79 13:1 134 13:1–3 29, 161 13:4–31 68 13:5 74, 75, 196 n. 148 13:9 196 n. 148 13:15–22 76 13:22–7 186 n. 112 13:23–9 159, 160 13:23–30 70, 161 13:23–31 11 13:31 75, 77, 196 n. 148 1 Chronicles 1:27 41 5:27–41 82 5:33–6 82 n. 11 9:17 83 9:33 83 15:16–18 83 16:12 58 16:36 35 21:5 109 26:31–2 99 28:9 109 n. 143 28:17 111 29:6 87 29:10 35 29:21 95 2 Chronicles 2:5 40 n. 54 2:16 181 6 59 n. 138 6:13 137 n. 65 6:18 40 n. 54 9:11 99 13:12 129 15:2 109 n. 143 17:7–9 126, 139 17:9 135 19:8 192 19:10 49 21:10 171 24:18 185 24:26 171 n. 54 25:4 133–4

267

268

Index of Ancient Sources

MASORETIC TEXT

Ezra (Esdras β) 10:8 192 n. 134

(cont.)

29:21 95 29:23–4 116 29:32 95 30:1–27 114 30:8 71 30:25 181 34:14 135 34:15 134 34:19 140 n. 79 34:29–31 127, 209 34:32 140 n. 79 35:1–19 114 35:3 126, 139 35:12 134 35:13 74 n. 196 35:18 142 35:26 57 36:13 57 36:14 110 36:22 14 SAMARITAN PENTATEUCH

Genesis 11:31 42 n. 65 Leviticus 18:5 37 n. 30 SEPTUAGINT

5, 79

Genesis 11:31 42 n. 65 Numbers 14:4 58 n. 136 1 Esdras (Esdras α) 4:45 171 n. 55 8:1–9:55 5 8:28–40 104 n. 120 8:65 117 8:66 171 8:91–9:55 123 8:94 183 n. 103 9:2 190 n. 127 9:4 192 9:7 90 9:16 90, 197 9:36 198 9:38 130 9:39 82 n. 12 9:40 82 n. 12, 90 9:44 124 9:48 138 n. 69 9:49 82 n. 12, 124

Nehemiah (Esdras β) 9:6 1, 32, 35 9:17 58 n. 136 12:26 1 12:36 1 Jeremiah 50:10 96 APOCRYPHA

Ben Sira 213 48:7 53 49:13 9 2 Maccabees 1:18–36 9 2:13–15 9

79, 200

Judith 9:1 183 Wisdom of Solomon 213 DEUTEROCANONICAL LITERATURE

4 Ezra 14:37–48 6 Joseph and Aseneth 175 n. 73 Jubilees 34:18–19 154 DEAD SEA SCROLLS

CD 13:13 93 13:16 93 1QH 12:4 57 n. 131 1QM 10:1 138 n. 67 1QS 68, 214 n. 8 4:11 57 n. 131 5:5 57 n. 131 6:20 93 6:26 57 n. 131 4QpaleoExodm 200 4Q158; 4Q364–7 79 4Q365 fg. 23

Index of Ancient Sources ll. 9–10 77 11QT 79 23–4 77 25:10–27:10 154 25:11–12 107–8 45:7–12 115 52:9 45 n. 82 53:14 45 n. 82 66:11–13 71–72

ANCIENT TEXTS

CH §141 188 §§170–1 189 COS 2.124 14 Josephus Ant.

NEW TESTAMENT

Luke 1:10 183 Acts 3:1 183 7:48 139 RABBINIC LITERATURE

Mishnah ’Avot 1:1 207 Git ̣ 5:8 82 Tosefta Sanh. 4:7 5 Jerusalem Talmud Meg. 1:9, 71b–c 5 Babylonian Talmud B. Bat. 15a 6 Sanh. 21b 5 Yoma 21b 139

11 §137 11 §152 11 §158 11 §183 KTU

117 198 208 208

1.41:50–1 147 Let. Aris. 307–17 30 n. 145 TADAE A4.1 9 A4.7:2 14 n. 57 A4.7:15 14 n. 57 A4.7:18 9 A4.7:27–8 14 n. 57 A4.8:16 9 B2.6:21 188 B2.6:27 188 B6.4:2 188 C1.1 89 n. 60 C3.12:26 138 n. 67

269

General Index Achaemenids, see Persians agreement (’amānāh) 67 Ahava: absence of law-giving 118–19, 132–3 location 1 preparations at 102–12 Aḥ iqar 89 Artaxerxes: Artaxerxes I Longimanus 9 Artaxerxes II Mnemon 9 as YHVH’s representative 13 n. 52, 14, 95–7 see also Edict Casiphia 106 commandments 177, 181–3, 193, 195 n. 143 compilers, see redactor/redactors (compiler/ compilers) confession 165, 186–7, 194–7 conquest 63–6 creation 39–41 D (Deuteronomic) 24–5 dating 24 distinction from Deuteronomy (book) 24–5, 44, 65–6 literary relation to J and E 24 dāt 99–102, 115, 167; see also Torah (tôrāh) Day of Atonement 107–8, 130 n. 43, 153–6 Day of Blasts 128–31 divorce 160, 161, 188–90 Documentary Hypothesis 17–19 challenges to classical expressions 19, 21–2 connections to EM 29–31 E (Elohist) 27–8 debate over existence 21 Edict 92–102 additions 85 authenticity 13–14 fulfilment in EM 85–7, 102, 105, 115–16, 122, 192 see also Artaxerxes Ezra: arrival in Yehud 9–10 authorship of Pentateuch 5–6, 29–30 and foreigners 193–4 high priest 81–2, 89–90

priest 89–91 priest-scribe 91–2, 205 scholarship on 10–12 scribe 88–9 as second Moses 6, 97, 118–9, 187, 190–1 as second Nehemiah 11, 86 see also redactor/redactors (compiler/ compilers): of Ezra Memoir-Nehemiah Memoir (REM-NM) Ezra Memoir (EM): absence of actual law 118–19, 156–7 Chronistic authorship 6–7, 10–11 combination with NM, see redactor/ redactors (compiler/compilers): of Ezra Memoir-Nehemiah Memoir (REM-NM) dating of 210 divine absence in the earthly realm 104, 139–40, 187, 211 divine protection 109–10 first-person and third-person 8, 160–1 omission of wilderness tabernacle 119 one-year report 8, 83–4, 86–7, 164–5 first month 87, 113–14, 132 fifth month 87, 114–15 seventh month 36, 123–4, 128–30, 142, 155–7, 164 ninth month 164–5, 178, 193–5 tenth month 165, 197 second year 158, 165, 197 proper upkeep of cult 113–14, 129–30, 146, 178–83 supplemental insertions into 84, 87, 127, 202, 209–10 transposed materials 34, 121–4, 163–5 use of Pentateuchal sources 205–8 Ezra-Nehemiah, book of: authorship 6–7, 15 n. 62, 160 formation of 2, 7–9 relationship to First Esdras 5 see also redactor/redactors (compiler/ compilers): of Ezra-Nehemiah (RE-N) fast: in EM 86–7 request for divine assistance 107–9 response to sacrilege 183, 190–1, 195 Feast of Tabernacles (Sukkot): Ingathering in CC 147

General Index origins 147 in P and H 149–52 proper observance in EM 126–7, 142–6, 152 revision in D 130, 148–9 revision in J 147–8 First Esdras: comparisons to MT 5, 117, 123, 130, 171, 197, 198 Ezra as high-priest 82, 90 omission of Nehemiah 124 foreigner (nokrî): expulsion of children 189–90 as ‘people(s) of the land(s)’ 67–8, 76–7, 181 separation from 70, 165–72, 194–6, 197; see also intermarriage status in Pentateuchal sources 180 threat to sancta 76–7, 176, 178, 180–1 gifts, see sacrifices guilt (’ašmāh) 116, 185–6, 193, 195, 198 H (Holiness legislation), see P (Priestly) ḥ arēdîm 183–5 iniquity (‘āvōn) 185–6 intermarriage: dissolution of 197–8; see also divorce legislation 70, 166–72 in the Pentateuchal sources 169–70, 172–6 as unintentional sacrilege 177–8 J (Yahvist) 25–7 debate over existence 21 Deuteronomistic revision of 25–6, 27 Jerusalem: centrality of 106, 114, 132, 204, 213–4 ‘House of God’ 72, 77, 78, 114, 119, 142, 187, 213 ‘non-Israelite’ inhabitants 180–1 rebuilding of Temple 7, 15, 96 n. 86, 116 threats to community 76, 176, 205 Water Gate 130, 156 judiciary: as envisioned by EM 185, 197, 200 in the Pentateuchal sources 97–8, 167, 191–2, 194 Levites: and cultic vessels 112, 115 in D 106, 138 importance to EM 33, 86, 104–7, 115 in J 138–9 leadership with Ezra 34–5, 124–6, 137–8, 165, 196 lists of 138, 163–4 in P 105–6, 109, 112, 118, 138

271

as recipients of tithes 75–6 as teachers 126, 138–9 linguistic shifts: ‫ אזרח‬182 n. 99 ‫ חנון‬and ‫ רחום‬59–60 ‫ יד״ה‬187 ‫ יהושע‬and ‫ ישוע‬145 n. 99 ‫ יל״ד‬and ‫ יח״ש‬103 ‫ נדה‬186 n. 113 ‫ עבדה‬107 ‫ עדה‬and ‫ קהל‬182 ‫ ענ״ה‬107–8, 183 n. 101 Meremoth ben Uriah 89–90, 115 Nehemiah: activity in Yehud 9, 70, 75, 76, 77, 88–9, 129, 160 alongside Ezra 2, 121, 122, 124–5, 127, 165 commemorations of 9, 208 historical 10–11 insertions into EM 83, 84, 85, 96 offerings, see sacrifices P (Priestly): dating of 17–18 ending to 20–1 relationship to H 22–4 Passover (pesaḥ ): absence in EM 113–14, 130 in Chr 71, 126, 142 in D 71, 114 in P and H 71, 113–14, 175, 180–1, 195 n. 143 Pentateuch: authorship 5–6, 15–16 dating of 6, 30, 154 as imperial law 14–17 in modern critical scholarship 2, 17–31 use of final form 36–66, 70–9 see also Torah (tôrāh) Persians: administration of Yehud 14–15, 92, 97, 124–5 appointment of officials 166–7 Imperial Authorization of Torah 13–17, 29–30, 121 Priestly Corpus, see P (Priestly) prophecy: cessation of classical expressions of 186–7 fulfilment by Ezra 6, 109, 118 Mosaic prophecy in D 92 Moses as prophet in E 27, 62 motifs of Second Exodus 203–4

272

General Index

public participation in the cult: in D 149 in E 136, 140, 206 in EM 90–1, 130–3, 137, 146, 164, 191–3 in J 132 in P 184, 191, 195 redactor/redactors (compiler/compilers): activity in the Second Temple period 210, 212–13 of Ezra Memoir-Nehemiah Memoir (REM-NM): Ezra and Nehemiah in Yehud 209 Ezra as second Nehemiah 12, 82–3, 84, 85, 87, 96 insertions of Ezra 91, 209 n. 5 insertions of Nehemiah 125, 127, 140 n. 76 transposition of source material 127, 165 n. 39 of Ezra-Nehemiah (RE-N): compiler of Ezra-Nehemiah 209–10 elevations to Ezra’s status 82, 85, 90 insertions 81, 84, 100 n. 111, 116, 162, 164 n. 38 revisions 36, 135 transposition of source material 121, 127, 135, 165 updates to temple personnel 83, 85, 87, 162 of the Pentateuch (RPent): compilation of Pentateuchal sources 19, 212 insertions 23 n. 106, 41, 42–3, 64 n. 157, 74, 76 n. 203, 81 n. 8, 131, 135 n. 55 transpositions of source materials 54, 165 n. 39 views on divine presence 49 resident alien ( gēr) 76, 176, 181–2 returnees: activities in Jerusalem 115–17, 125, 145 as ‘holy seed’ 178–80, 205 inheritors of Torah 29, 132, 139, 152, 156–7 and material goods 94–5, 111 obligations to commandments 130, 143, 145, 164, 182, 191, 193–6 record in EM 103–5, 162 return from exile 102–3, 112, 211 as second wilderness generation 119, 206–8 separation from foreigners 179–80, 199–201 successors to ‘native’ (’ezraḥ ) 181–2 Sabbath 49–50, 76–7 sacrifices: burnt (‘ôlāh) 77, 115–17, 129

cereal (minḥāh) 93, 94, 115 elevated (tǝnûpāh) 74, 111 fire (’iššeh) 93, 129 n. 38, 156 free-will (nǝdābāh) 111–12 libations (nesek) 93, 94, 115 omissions in EM 130, 95–6 proper location in EM 130, 146, 156 purification (ḥ aṭtạ̄ ’t) 115–16, 195, 196 raised (tǝrûmāh) 74–6, 78, 94, 111 regular (tāmîd) 183 n. 102 reparation (’āšām) 117, 177–8, 185–6, 195, 198 well-being (šelem) 129 wood (qurbān hā‘eṣîm) 77 sacrilege (ma‘al) 177–8, 180, 190–1 sancta desecration 117, 161, 178, 180, 195, 197, 198 service (‘abōdāh) 78, 107, 112 Shecaniah ben Jehiel 67, 177, 187–90 solemn assembly 145–6, 149–51 Sukkot, see Feast of Tabernacles (Sukkot) Torah (tôrāh): ‘as it is written in the Torah’ 69, 73, 74, 77, 133–4, 142–4 guardianship of 95–6 ‘instructions’ in P and H 51, 77, 78, 101, 132, 133, 144, 184 ‘Law’ in D 26, 52, 98, 99, 101, 133, 144, 149 as the law of Moses 29, 133 as religious law 100–2 as scroll in EM 122, 132–40, 145, 156, 207 see also dāt; Pentateuch wilderness, the Israelite: divine guidance 48, 109–10 law-giving 29, 93, 105 material wealth 94, 111 militarism 104, 109, 129 mountain: departure from 103–5 distinction between Sinai and Horeb 25–7, 53, 131–2, 140–2 as place of law-giving 27, 29, 52–3, 131, 156, 204, 206–7 in the Pentateuch 53–65 pre-Israelite nations in Canaan 169–70 Tabernacle and furnishings 105–6, 112 Transjordanian nations 63–4, 170–1 YHVH: divine oracle 74, 108–9, 139–40, 146, 157, 187, 190, 192 in the Pentateuchal sources 49, 109–10 return to Jerusalem Temple 15, 139