Ezra and Nehemiah, Books of

The Encyclopedia of Ancient History, 2012

Verbum et Ecclesia, 2021

The OT books, Ezra and Nehemiah, are to be considered as one book. This is more or less the common conviction of most OT scholars today. However, their redaction process raises many questions. What is their relation to the book of Chronicles, and how is their actual structure to be understood? Why do we find two almost identical lists of returnees from exile in Ezra 2 and Nehemiah 7? What about the differences between these lists? This article understands the structure of Ezra-Nehemiah as a consciously created literary unit, where the two lists of returnees serve as an important part of the literary structure. The author works on the assumption of the so-called new literary criticism, understanding the narrative in the book on a synchronic basis. He shows that the book of Ezra-Nehemiah can indeed be understood as one literary unit, and that the two lists of returnees function as a literary means to structure the book. There is therefore no need to ‘re-organise’ the narrated events i...

Unity and Disunity in Ezra-Nehemiah: Redaction, Rhetoric, and Reader, Mark J. Boda and Paul L. Reddittt (Eds.); Hebrew Bible Monographs 17, 2008

In this paper I compare several parallel passages in the Masoretic Ezra-Nehemiah with 1 Esdras. Several technical and other considerations suggest that 1 Esdras cannot be older than the Masoretic version.

The way we understand the books of Chronicles and Ezra-Nehemiah is deeply influenced by what we perceive to be the right sequence of their relationship. If we think that Ezra-Nehemiah (E-N) flows out of the ending of Chronicles and continues the storyline, then the temple built by Zerubbabel and the later ministries of Ezra and Nehemiah represent "fulfillment" and a glorious (albeit short-lived) time of success and spiritual fervor. On the other hand, there are compelling reasons for why E-N should be read first, with Chronicles standing not only after E-N but as the intended, concluding closure (Abschluss) of the OT canon. It would then suggest that the temple built by Zerubbabel and the attempts at spiritual reforms were not the "fulfillment" of Cyrus' edict. Chronicles would then be seen as anticipating a new, different person from the house (dynasty) of David to build yet another house (temple) of God. And E-N then are seen as an underwhelming, dismal attempt by the post-exilic community that was destined to failure because they didn't comply with the guidelines laid out in the latter prophets.

In this paper, I will try to show that the final text of Ezra-Nehemiah cannot be regarded as a unity. Even the sub-sections of the composition (Ezra 1-6, Ezra material and the Nehemiah memoir) are the result of heavy editing and cannot be used in the final form for historical purposes. The only possibility to use the text for historical purposes is to try to identify the directions of textual development by a careful literary and redaction critical approach. Already the differences between the three main witnesses (the Masoretic text, Esdras a and Esdras b) imply considerable editorial activity. There is, therefore, ‘empirical evidence’ that the text was exposed to additions and reorganization of text in the early stages of its textual transmission. The merger of three originally unrelated texts (Ezra 1-6, Ezra material and the Nehemiah memoir) into one composition created even more tensions and confusion. The text of Ezra-Nehemiah can be characterized as a constantly expanding corpus, a “snowball”. Since the editors did not rewrite the older text, the final text contains conceptions from various authors and editors who were active in different periods and who primarily wrote to an audience in their own historical context. In the final text, these additions are mixed and remain partly in contradiction with one another.

The books of Ezra and Nehemiah were recorded by one author and unified on a single scroll in the Hebrew Bible, which suggests that the two books should be read in tandem, at least with one another if not in light of all Scripture. This essay argues that the biblical theological approach to reading the books of Ezra and Nehemiah is absolutely crucial in comprehending their unique contribution to God’s big plans n redemptive history. In doing so, this essay seeks to show that such an approach is much more than an enriching methodology or supplemental hermeneutical option. In this regard, the essay considers how the disappointment of the Second Temple in Ezra vis-à-vis all other mentions of God’s Temple in Scripture distinguishes its unique role in God’s salvation plan. Further, I will also examine how the deflating conclusion of Judah’s covenant-breaking in Nehemiah suggests that the end of Israel’s physical exile at the close of Old Testament history changed little about their spiritual exile from Yahweh.