Ezra the Scribe Identified as Nehemiah the Governor
by
Damien F. Mackey
The books of
Ezra and Nehemiah, combined with information from the Maccabees,
may
necessitate a profound revision of Persian (and Greek) history.
Tracing Ezra’s Career
Ezra 1-2
When Cyrus king of Persia issued his famous proclamation
in his first year of rule (Ezra 1:1) - {in c. 539 BC, according to conventional
dating} - then more than 42,000 exiles returned to Jerusalem (2:64), led by
“Zerubbabel, Jeshua, Nehemiah … Mordecai … (2:2).
No mention here of Ezra (qua
Ezra).
Now, according to my biblico-historical revision series
so far for the era of this king Cyrus:
"King Ahasuerus" of [the] Book of Esther
this Great King was also the “King
Ahasuerus” (var. “Artaxerxes”) of the Book of Esther, whom Esther (“Hadassah”)
married, and the “Darius the Mede” of the Book of Daniel.
Ezra 3
“The altar was set up on its old site” (v. 3).
And, afterwards, the foundations of the Temple of Yahweh
were laid (v. 10).
Ezra 4
This chapter 4 provide us with an
historical overview of the work, and the interruptions to it, from the reign of
Cyrus until the Temple’s completion in the reign of Darius king of Persia.
The “Xerxes” referred to in v. 6 can
still be Cyrus, as “Ahasuerus”, since the latter name is thought to equate very
well with the name “Xerxes”. In “The Hadassah File”, Herb Storck has written
regarding this (pp. 1-2):
The question as to which king is
meant by the name Ahasuerus has been met with an impressive list of candidates
over the centuries. Every King from Cyaxares I, ca. 600 B.C., to Artaxerxes
III, ca. 350 B.C., has been advanced in solution to this dilemma. … [An
assessment of these views can be found by L. B. Paton in the International
Critical Commentary (ICC) “Esther”, p. 51-54].
The modern identification has fallen
upon Xerxes, king of Persia from 486-465 B.C., this contention having been
linguistically established. The name Ahasuerus has been demonstrated to be the
equivalent of Xerxes …. [For a discussion in this connection I refer you to
William H. Shea, “Esther and History”, Andrews University Seminary Studies 14
(1976) p. 227-46 and C. Moore, “Archaeology and the Book of Esther”, Biblical
Archaeologist 38 (1975) p. 70]. …
Some versions actually replace
“Xerxes” with “Ahasuerus” in v. 6: “At the beginning of the reign of Xerxes
[Ahasuerus], they lodged an accusation against the people of Judah and
Jerusalem”.
Moreover, since the “Ahasuerus” of
the Esther story is also referred to as “Artaxerxes”, so the same king may
still possibly be the “Artaxerxes” of vv. 7-8:
And in the days of Artaxerxes, Bishlam,
Mithredath, Tabeel and the rest of his colleagues wrote to Artaxerxes king of
Persia; and the text of the letter was written in Aramaic and translated from
Aramaic. Rehum the commander and Shimshai the scribe wrote a letter against
Jerusalem to King Artaxerxes, as follows--…
Rehum and his colleagues denounce
the allegedly “rebellious” Jews to King Artaxerxes in terms highly reminiscent
of Haman’s denunciation (decree) in Esther 3:3-15, which may be a
contemporaneous action. Consequently, by order of the Great King, the work was
“stopped … by force of arms” (v. 23).
Ezra 5-6
Now in the reign of Darius the
Persian, the work resumes, and is finally brought to its completion. (6:15-16):
“This Temple was finished on the twenty-third day of the month of Adar; it was
the sixth year of the reign of king Darius”.
Ezra 7
It is only now, in this chapter 7,
that we are introduce to Ezra qua Ezra.
It is (v. 8) “the seventh year of
the reign of king Artaxerxes”.
Herb Storck has argued forcibly that
this particular “Artaxerxes” was Darius the Persian, and that the seventh year
occurred directly after the completion of the Temple in the sixth year (History and Prophecy: A Study in the Post-Exilic Period, House
of Nabu, 1989, p. 15):
This historical scenario seems to be
fully appreciated by the author of Ezra chapter vii. There is an extraordinary
preoccupation with continuity with the First Temple, and a connection with
Aaron and Moses. This chapter is placed immediately after the completion of the
Temple where it is both historically and logically expected. It moves from the
sixth year of Darius to the seventh year of Artaxerxes without blinking. Everything
is carried out with majesty, a sense of urgency and historical dynamism so
reminiscent of the reign of Darius the Great. Yet the events are chronicled
under a king called Artaxerxes. How is this to be explained? The best
explanation is that Artaxerxes is a title for Darius ….
In conventional history, of course,
Ezra’s Artaxerxes is well separated from Darius the Great (c. 522-486 BC) if
the former is Artaxerxes I (c. 464-424 BC) - or by considerably more years if
he is Artaxerxes II (c. 404-358 BC). The uncertainty about Ezra is noted in the
following
When Ezra went to Jerusalem is the
subject of great controversy. …. Ezra might have gone to Jerusalem about 458
BC, during the reign of Artaxerxes I, or he might have gone about 398 BC,
during the reign of Artaxerxes II.
No such controversy exists for
dating Nehemiah … there is enough information in the text to make it clear that
it was during the reign of Artaxerxes I that Nehemiah came to Jerusalem --
therefore Nehemiah was appointed governor in 445 BC.
Biblical scholar, A. van Hoonacker,
had strongly argued for Nehemiah’s having actually preceded Ezra, as we learn
in the following quotation from Fr. North again (op. cit.,
24:82):
In his lectures at Louvain from
1880, and especially in a series of publications since 1890 (RB 33
[1924] 33-64), A. van Hoonacker dropped a bombshell into the staid fixity of
exegetical preconceptions by claiming that Ezra first appeared under Artaxerxes
II in 398. His arguments are reduced to eight points: 1) The wall for which
Nehemiah is chiefly renowned already exists when Ezra reaches Jerusalem (9:9; qãdêr). 2) Ezra (10:1) finds Jerusalem already
repopulated (by Nehemiah, 11:1). 3) Nehemiah is put before Ezra in Nehemiah
12:26; 8:1. 4) Eliashib, contemporary of Nehemiah (13:4), is (grand-?)father of
Jehohanan, Ezra’s contemporary (Ezr 10:6 = Neh 12:23?). 5) The silence of
Nehemiah’s memoir about Ezra’s allegedly earlier Torah promulgation is
inexplicable. 6) Nehemiah (11:3) enumerates repatriates led by Sheshbazzar
and/or Zerubbabel, but not those led by Ezra (8:2). 7) Ezra (8:33) makes use of
a committee of four resembling that instituted by Nehemiah (13:13). 8)
Nehemiah’s handling of mixed marriages, delayed until his second tour of duty
(13:23), could not suppose Ezra (9:14) to have preceded.
However, if Ezra were Nehemiah as I am suggesting, then the matter of
precedence becomes a non issue.
Ezra is grandly introduced in
chapter 7 as follows (vv. 1-6):
… during the reign of Artaxerxes king of Persia,
Ezra son of Seraiah, the son of Azariah, the son of Hilkiah, the son of
Shallum, the son of Zadok, the son of Ahitub, the son of Amariah, the son of
Azariah, the son of Meraioth, the son of Zerahiah, the son of Uzzi, the son of
Bukki, the son of Abishua, the son of Phinehas, the son of Eleazar, the son of
Aaron the chief priest— this Ezra came up from Babylon. He was a teacher well
versed in the Law of Moses, which the Lord, the God of Israel, had given.
We go on to read of this most
learned man as highly favoured by the Great King, whose support he had won
owing to the grace of God.
It is very reminiscent of what Tobit
1:13-14 had recorded about himself in relation to king “Shalmaneser” of
Assyria.
Thus Ezra (v. 6): “The king had
granted him everything he asked, for the hand of the Lord his God was on him”
(cf. v. 25, 27-28).
In most similarly terms will
Nehemiah record (Nehemiah 2:8): “And because the gracious hand of my God was on
me, the king granted my requests”.
So, at this point, we can
now begin our task of merging Ezra with Nehemiah.
Name
(Nehemiah 1:1): “The words of
Nehemiah son of Hakaliah”.
Whilst Nehemiah is a Hebrew name, I
have already suggested that Nehemiah may appear in Esther as “Mehuman”. That
would leave open the possibility that, if Nehemiah were Ezra, then the name
“Nehemiah” may have been a Hebraïsed version of his Persian name. In Ezra 7:14
we read of “the king and his seven counsellors”, which may be another
connection with the Book of Esther in which the king’s seven are actually named
(Esther 1:14): “ … Carshena, Shethar, Admatha, Tarshish, Meres, Marsena,
Memucan, seven heads of Persia and Media seeing the face of the king, who are
sitting first in the kingdom”.
Again, “the queen” referred to in
Nehemiah 2:6: “Then the king, with the queen sitting beside him …”, may be - as
some have surmised - Queen Esther herself.
“Hacaliah” and other versions of the
name of Nehemiah’s father’s name (e.g. “Helcias”) are, as we read in The Jerome Biblical Commentary’s article on “Nehemiah”,
highly problematical. Fr. R. North tells of the situation in “Nehemiah” (The Jerome Biblical Commentary, 24:101):
Both Hacaliah (MT) and Halakiah
[var. Helcias] (supposed by LXX) defy known Hebr. patterns. The MT reading is
defended by H. Gotthard (Text des Buches Nehemia
[Wiesbaden, 1958] 1, 19) along with the eunuch hypothesis. H. Ginsberg
(BASOR 80 [1940] 12) doubts that Hakal-yâ
is the correct reading of the Lachish letter 20. I.
In my revised context, “Hacaliah”
would find its resolution in “[Ezra … ] son of Hilkiah”.
Administration
Ezra, like Nehemiah, will administer,
command and appoint, by command of the Great King, in the province of
Trans-Euphrates (vv. 21-26):
And I, even I Artaxerxes the king, do make a
decree to all the treasurers which are beyond the river, that whatsoever Ezra
the priest, the scribe of the law of the God of heaven, shall require of you,
it be done speedily, Unto an hundred talents of silver, and to an hundred
measures of wheat, and to an hundred baths of wine, and to an hundred baths of
oil, and salt without prescribing how much.
Whatsoever is commanded by the God of heaven, let
it be diligently done for the house of the God of heaven: for why should there
be wrath against the realm of the king and his sons?
Also we certify you, that touching any of the
priests and Levites, singers, porters, Nethinims, or ministers of this house of
God, it shall not be lawful to impose toll, tribute, or custom, upon them.
And thou, Ezra, after the wisdom of thy God, that
is in thine hand, set magistrates and judges, which may judge all the people
that are beyond the river [var. “the province of Trans-Euphrates”], all such as
know the laws of thy God; and teach ye them that know them not.
And whosoever will not do the law of thy God, and
the law of the king, let judgment be executed speedily upon him, whether it be
unto death, or to banishment, or to confiscation of goods, or to imprisonment.
Likewise, when we turn to 2
Maccabees, we learn that Nehemiah was in charge of the priests (1:20-21, 30):
But after many years had passed, when it pleased
God, Nehemiah, having been commissioned by the king of Persia, sent the
descendants of the priests who had hidden the fire to get it. And when they
reported to us that they had not found fire but only a thick liquid, he ordered
them to dip it out and bring it. When the materials for the sacrifices were
presented, Nehemiah ordered the priests to sprinkle the liquid on the wood and
on the things laid upon it.
…. Then the priests sang the hymns.
Ezra 8
Continuing in this same vein, of
priestly and liturgical administration, Ezra tells (vv. 15-17):
When I checked among the people and the priests,
I found no Levites there. So I summoned Eliezer, Ariel, Shemaiah, Elnathan,
Jarib, Elnathan, Nathan, Zechariah and Meshullam, who were leaders, and Joiarib
and Elnathan, who were men of learning, and I ordered them to go to Iddo, the
leader in Kasiphia. I told them what to say to Iddo and his fellow Levites, the
temple servants in Kasiphia, so that they might bring attendants to us for the
house of our God.
Some thirteen years later, now in
the 20th year of this same Persian king (Nehemiah 1:1), Nehemiah (my
Ezra) will again take royal instructions to the governors of Trans-Euphrates.
But, whereas he formerly (as Ezra) had not been accompanied by any of the
king’s cavalry (Ezra 8:21-22):
Then, there at the Ahava River, I proclaimed a
fast; so that we could humble ourselves before our God and ask a safe journey
of him for ourselves, our little ones and all our possessions. For I would have
been ashamed to ask the king for a detachment of soldiers and horsemen to
protect us from enemies along the road, since we had said to the king,
"The hand of our God is on all who seek him, for good; but his power and
fury is against all who abandon him."[,]
he now, as Nehemiah, did have a military escort
(Nehemiah 2:9): “So I went to the governors of Trans-Euphrates and gave them
the king’s letters. The king had also sent army officers and cavalry with me”.
Fasting
And, just as Ezra had proclaimed a
fast at the outset “before our God” (above), so would Nehemiah (Nehemiah 1:4):
“For some days I mourned and fasted and prayed before the God of heaven”. (Cf.
Nehemiah 9:1)
Three days
Upon their arrival at Jerusalem, Ezra
and his party (v. 32) “rested for three days”.
Likewise Nehemiah (2:11) “went to
Jerusalem, and after staying there three days …”.
Everything Recorded
Ezra (8:33, 34): “… we weighed out
the silver and gold and the sacred articles …. Everything was accounted for by
number and weight, and the entire weight was recorded at that time”.
Nehemiah 10 is a detailed record of
the promises made by the community. And it, in turn, reflects Ezra 10.
Ezra 9
Ezra, shamefaced and overcome at the
news that the people had been marrying foreign wives (vv. 1-7):
… the leaders came to me and said, “The people of
Israel, including the priests and the Levites, have not kept themselves
separate from the neighboring peoples with their detestable practices, like
those of the Canaanites, Hittites, Perizzites, Jebusites, Ammonites, Moabites,
Egyptians and Amorites. They have taken some of their daughters as wives for
themselves and their sons, and have mingled the holy race with the peoples
around them. And the leaders and officials have led the way in this
unfaithfulness.”
When I heard this, I tore my tunic and cloak,
pulled hair from my head and beard and sat down appalled. Then everyone who
trembled at the words of the God of Israel gathered around me because of this
unfaithfulness of the exiles. And I sat there appalled until the evening
sacrifice.
Then, at the evening sacrifice, I rose from my
self-abasement, with my tunic and cloak torn, and fell on my knees with my
hands spread out to the Lord my God and prayed:
‘I am too ashamed and disgraced, my
God, to lift up my face to you, because our sins are higher than our heads and
our guilt has reached to the heavens. From the days of our ancestors until now,
our guilt has been great. Because of our sins, we and our kings and our priests
have been subjected to the sword and captivity, to pillage and humiliation at
the hand of foreign kings, as it is today. …’.
He, as Nehemiah, will later “in the
thirty-second year of Artaxerxes king of Babylon” (13:6) face the same problem
again. And this time he - still calling it ‘sin’ - will react most angrily
(13:23-27):
… in those days I saw men of Judah who had
married women from Ashdod, Ammon and Moab. Half of their children spoke the
language of Ashdod or the language of one of the other peoples, and did not
know how to speak the language of Judah. I rebuked them and called curses down
on them. I beat some of the men and pulled out their hair. I made them take an
oath in God’s name and said: ‘You are not to give your daughters in marriage to
their sons, nor are you to take their daughters in marriage for your sons or
for yourselves. Was it not because of marriages like these that Solomon king of
Israel sinned? Among the many nations there was no king like him. He was loved
by his God, and God made him king over all Israel, but even he was led into sin
by foreign women. Must we hear now that you too are doing all this terrible
wickedness and are being unfaithful to our God by marrying foreign women?’
Part of Ezra’s prayer on the above
occasion, Ezra 9:6-15, mirrors both that of Nehemiah 9 and that which is
attributed to Nehemiah in 2 Maccabees 1:24-30:
And the prayer was after this manner; O Lord,
Lord God, Creator of all things, who art fearful and strong, and righteous, and
merciful, and the only and gracious King,
The only giver of all things, the only just,
almighty, and everlasting, thou that deliverest Israel from all trouble, and
didst choose the fathers, and sanctify them: Receive the sacrifice for thy
whole people Israel, and preserve thine own portion, and sanctify it. Gather
those together that are scattered from us, deliver them that serve among the
heathen, look upon them that are despised and abhorred, and let the heathen
know that thou art our God.
Punish them that oppress us, and with pride do us
wrong.
Plant thy people again in thy holy place, as
Moses hath spoken.
And the priests sang psalms of thanksgiving.
Nehemiah and Ezra Named
Separately?
In Nehemiah 8:9, one reads a verse
that could distinguish Ezra from Nehemiah.
The NIV renders it as: “Then
Nehemiah the governor, Ezra the priest and teacher of the Law, and the Levites
…”. However, in The Jerusalem Bible
that I have been chiefly following in this case because it had seemed to
present a coherent overview, the reference to Nehemiah is given in brackets, as
follows: “Then (Nehemiah – His Excellency – and) Ezra, priest and scribe … said
to all the people …”. With the brackets removed, this becomes: “Then Ezra,
priest and scribe … said …”.
Given the Hebrew use of waw consecutive, with “and” to be replaced by “even” in
translation, then the sense of Nehemiah 8:9 might actually be: “Then Nehemiah …
even Ezra …”.
The same comment may apply to
Nehemiah 12:26: “They served … in the days of Nehemiah the governor and of Ezra
the priest, the teacher of the Law”.
Concluding Note
My argument for Ezra and Nehemiah as
just the one person, if legitimate, would add weight to the early view that the
two separate books, Ezra and Nehemiah, were actually a unity.
Postscript
My revision of Ezra and Nehemiah
re-locates the terminus ad quem for
these events in the 32nd year of Darius the Great (in c. 490 BC
conventional dating). The problem is that, according to 2 Maccabees, Nehemiah
appears to have been communicating with priests who were actually
contemporaneous with the Maccabean period. Thus 1:20:
Years later, when it pleased God, the Persian
emperor sent Nehemiah back to Jerusalem, and Nehemiah told the descendants
of those priests to find the fire. They reported to us that they had found
no fire but only some oily liquid. Nehemiah then told them to scoop
some up and bring it to him.
In conventional terms, 2 Maccabees
is supposed to begin in c. 180 BC.
That is a long, long way from 490
BC! What, then, is the extent of the revision required for properly
co-ordinating the Persian period and the early Greek (Macedonian) period?
Comments