UNITY and Disunity in EZRA-NEHEMIAH REDACTION, RHETORIC, AND READER Edited by Mark J. Boda and Paul L. Redditt SHEFFIELD PHOENIX PRESS 2008 Copyright (c) 2008 Sheffield Phoenix Press Department of Biblical Studies, University of Sheffield Sheffield S10 2TN www.sheffieldphoenix.com No part of this publication may be reproduced or transmitted without the publishers' permission in writing
UNITY and Disunity in EZRA-NEHEMIAH REDACTION, RHETORIC, AND READER Edited by Mark J. Boda and Paul L. Redditt SHEFFIELD PHOENIX PRESS 2008 Copyright (c) 2008 Sheffield Phoenix Press Department of Biblical Studies, University of Sheffield Sheffield S10 2TN www.sheffieldphoenix.com No part of this publication may be reproduced or transmitted without the publishers' permission in writing
UNITY and Disunity in EZRA-NEHEMIAH REDACTION, RHETORIC, AND READER Edited by Mark J. Boda and Paul L. Redditt SHEFFIELD PHOENIX PRESS 2008 Copyright (c) 2008 Sheffield Phoenix Press Department of Biblical Studies, University of Sheffield Sheffield S10 2TN www.sheffieldphoenix.com No part of this publication may be reproduced or transmitted without the publishers' permission in writing
Series Editors David J.A. Clines, J. Cheryl Exum, Keith W. Whitelam
Editorial Board A. Graeme Auld, Marc Brettler, Francis Landy, Hugh S. Pyper, Stuart D.E. Weeks
UNITY AND DISUNITY IN EZRANEHEMIAH REDACTION, RHETORIC, AND READER
Edited by
Mark J. Boda and Paul L. Redditt
SHEFFIELD PHOENIX PRESS
2008
Copyright 2008 Sheffield Phoenix Press
Published by Sheffield Phoenix Press Department of Biblical Studies, University of Sheffield Sheffield S10 2TN
www.sheffieldphoenix.com
All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording or any information storage or retrieval system, without the publishers permission in writing.
A CIP catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library
Typeset by ISB Typesetting Printed on acid-free paper by Lightning Source UK Ltd, Milton Keynes
ISBN 978-1-906055-40-0
ISSN 1747-9614
1
CONTENTS
List of Contributors vii Abbreviations ix
INTRODUCTION 1 Mark J. Boda and Paul L. Redditt
ARTICLES
THE FUNCTION OF COVENANT ACROSS EZRANEHEMIAH 8 Richard J. Bautch
REDACTION IN THE BOOK OF NEHEMIAH: A FRESH PROPOSAL 25 Mark J. Boda
LEAVE NEHEMIAH ALONE: NEHEMIAHS TALES AND FIFTH-CENTURY BCE HISTORIOGRAPHY 55 Margaret Cohen
WHO WROTE EZRANEHEMIAHAND WHY DID THEY? 75 Lisbeth S. Fried
HOLINESS AND PURITY IN EZRANEHEMIAH 98 Hannah K. Harrington
THE CRIES OF JERUSALEM: ETHNIC, CULTIC, LEGAL, AND GEOGRAPHIC BOUNDARIES IN EZRANEHEMIAH 117 David Janzen
SCRUTINIZING THE CONCEPTUAL UNITY OF EZRA AND NEHEMIAH 136 Christiane Karrer-Grube
NEHEMIAH WITHOUT EZRA? 160 Kyung-jin Min
THE RESTORATION OF ISRAEL BY GODS WORD IN THREE EPISODES FROM EZRANEHEMIAH 176 Douglas J.E. Nykolaishen
vi Unity and Disunity in EzraNehemiah 1 THE DISUNITY OF EZRANEHEMIAH 200 Juha Pakkala
THE DEPENDENCE OF EZRANEHEMIAH ON 1 AND 2 CHRONICLES 216 Paul L. Redditt
NEHEMIAH 8 AND THE AUTHORITY OF TORAH IN EZRANEHEMIAH 241 Titus Reinmuth
CONTEXTUALIZATIONS OF EZRANEHEMIAH 263 Armin Siedlecki
SEEKING, FINDING AND WRITING IN EZRANEHEMIAH 277 Jacob L. Wright
RESPONSES
EZRANEHEMIAH: UNITY OR DISUNITY? 306 Joseph Blenkinsopp
UNITY AND DISUNITY IN EZRANEHEMIAH: RESPONSES AND REFLECTIONS 315 Tamara Cohn Eskenazi
MORE UNITY THAN DIVERSITY 329 H.G.M. Williamson
Bibliography 344 Index of References 362 Index of Authors 380
1
SEEKING, FINDING AND WRITING IN EZRANEHEMIAH *
Jacob L. Wright
Introduction
In Gen. 25.22-23 Rebecca has nally conceived, but now notices something amiss. In order to understand the strange movements within her womb, she goes to inquire of YHWH ( c _:) and learns that she was bearing two nations (Gen. 25.22-23). In the sapiential work 4QInstruction (4Q415-418, 4Q423) we also read about someone inquiring (c). This time it is not a pregnant mother soliciting that is a divine oracle, but rather students search- ing for wisdom in texts. 1
In the centuries between the composition of Genesis and 4QInstruction, the terminology of divination (c and cz) underwent a semantic shift according to which it signied more frequently the study of the written word. 2 This devel- opment has been noticed and studied at length by Michael Fishbane. Drawing upon the work of Max Weber, he points to the emergence of the Israelite state
* Because of space constraints, unfortunately I cannot enter into a detailed discussion with all the works of my fellow scholars and the reviewers for this volume. I would like, however, to emphasize here that my work is deeply indebted to their many rich insights. 1. Cf. She went to inquire at the beth midrash of Shem in Targum Pseudo-Jonathan and Yerushalmi, Aggadath Bereshit 73, and Rashi. For more instances of the semantic shift in Qumran writings, see 1QS and CD, and the article by A. Steudel, Bereitet den Weg des Herrn. Religises Lernen in Qumran, in B. Ego and H. Merkel (eds.), Religises Lernen in der biblischen, frhjdischen und frhchristlichen berlieferung (WUNT, 1/180; Tbingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2005), pp. 99-116. For a classic treatment of Hebrew exegetical terminology in general, see M. Gertner, Terms of Scriptural Interpretation: A Study in Hebrew Semantics, BSO(A)S 25 (1962), pp. 1-27. 2. See Isa. 34.16 (:: cz:o :c), one of the rare biblical passages wherein c is used for textual study, as well as Deut. 17.8-13 and the comments by B.M. Levinson, Deuteronomy and the Hermeneutics of Legal Innovation (New York: Oxford University Press, 1997), pp. 127-30. The transition from prophetical oracle to text can be observed in 2 Kgs 22. After the discovery and reading of the : cz, Josiah commands Hilkiah and company to seek a prophetical oracle ( :c :z). Once the term is validated by the prophetess Huldah, it assumes the authoritative role in the remaining narrative. For obvi- ous reasons, the mantic term c was less suited to this semantic development. 278 Unity and Disunity in EzraNehemiah 1 and the administrative consolidation of Israelite society, rather than the post- exilic period, as the formative period for this new stage of legal rationality. 3
The formation of the bureaucratic and economic infrastructure of the ancient Israelite state was, however, not the only factor affecting the semantic devel- opment of c and related terms. Also the demise of the state served as an impulse. In his condemnation of the priests and house of Israel, Hosea pro- claims the nations doom: They shall go with their ocks and herds to seek YHWH ( cz), but they shall not nd (:so' :). He has withdrawn himself from them (5.6). 4 Hoseas prophecy was fullled: the states infra- structurewith its cultic and divinatory apparatus supported by their ocks and herdscollapsed in the wake of foreign imperial expansion. But as the stateand Hosea himselfhad vanished from the scene, the record of the z represented by Hoseas book remained. And it was this book of divine words among others which, in the process of rebuilding a new societal infra- structure, could serve as an oraculum for rational-exegetical inquiry. 5 The reader of Hoseas book, which already identies the prophetical z (4.1) with the book itself (1.1), now seeks and nds the word of God in the writ- ten tradition. 6
3. M. Fishbane, Biblical Interpretation in Ancient Israel (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1988), p. 244. See also his article Torah in Encyclopedia Miqrait (Jerusalem: Bialik, 1982), VIII, cols. 469-83. On the administrative-bureaucratic origins of writing, see A.L. Oppenheim, On an Operational Device in Mesopotamian Bureaucracy, JNES 18 (1959), pp. 121-28, and D. Schmandt-Besserat, The Earliest Precursor of Writing, Scientic American 6 (1978), pp. 38-47. For a broad perspective on the cultural impact of this new administrative-bureaucratic technology, see the articles collected in A. and J. Assmann and C. Hardmeier (eds.), Schrift und Gedchtnis: Archologie der literarischen Kommuni- kation, I (Munich: Willhelm Fink, 1983), and most recently S. Sanders (ed.), Margins of Writing, Origins of Cultures: New Approaches to Writing and Reading in the Ancient Near East (Chicago: Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago, 2006). 4. Compare this verse with Hos. 2.8; 5.6, 15; 12.9; 14.9; Amos 8.11-12; and esp. Jer. 29.13. 5. Fishbane, Interpretation, p. 245, which refers in its original context to Ezra 7.10. That the book of Hosea was indeed read in this way is demonstrated by the Hosea Pesh- arim (4QpHosea and 4Qfrag.). In this regard, see the innovative work of R. Vielhauer, Materielle Rekonstruktion und historische Einordnung der beiden Pescharim zum Hoseabuch (4QpHos(a) und 4QpHos(b)), RevQ 20 (2001), pp. 39-91. 6. W.M. Schniedewind, has studied this phenomenon from the perspective of Chron- icles. See his The Word of God in Transition: From the Prophet to Exegete in the Second Temple Period (JSOTSup, 197; Shefeld: JSOT Press, 1995), pp. 130-38, as well as his recent work, How the Bible Became a Book: The Textualization of Ancient Israel (Cam- bridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004). The problem of the cessation of prophecy is directly connected to these developments: After the demise of the last (biblical) prophets Haggai, Zechariah and Malachithe holy spirit (viz., prophetic inspiration) departed from Israel (t. Soa, ed. Zuckermandel, p. 318, 21-23; b. Soah 48b; b. Sanh. 11a); From now on incline your ear and listen to the instructions of the Sages (Seder Olam Rabbah 6 [ed. WRIGHT Seeking, Finding and Writing in EzraNehemiah 279 1 The book of Ezra-Nehemiah portrays in more than ten passages how the protagonists of Judahs restoration seek and nd in various written tradi- tions. EzraNehemiah not only presupposes the innovative identication of the z with the writings of the Prophets and the Torah, but also witnesses to the administrative origins of what Fishbane designates rational-exegetical inquiry. The present paper examines these passages. Its aim is to show that seeking-and-nding, while constituting a literary topos and unifying motif, is not a mere narrative conceit. 7 Rather, it is an administrative procedure that contributed to Judahs success as she redened her political identity in a new era, and it is a method of exegesis that produced the book itself.
Ezra 16
The rst movement in EzraNehemiah treats the construction of the Temple (Ezra 16). Its subject, however, is not solely the history of this building pro- ject, but alsoand perhaps even more sothe fate of a certain text. 8 And in recounting the story of this text, the narrator highlights the activity of seeking- and-nding. 9
In Ezra 1.1 the story begins by introducing this text and its author. YHWH stirs up the spirit of Cyrus the king of Persia to issue a decree, which was also in writing (zzozz::). In response to his decree (1.2-4), all whose spirit God had stirred make aliyah and begin building the Temple (1.53.15). After hearing of the building project, their adversaries approach them with
Ratner, p. 2]). Along with the semantic shift of c and the identication of z with the writtennot oral, propheticword, the term :z. originated. See E.E. Urbach, 'o :z. zc, Tarbiz 17 (1946), pp. 1-11; F. Greenspahn, Why Prophecy Ceased, JBL 108 (1989), pp. 37-49; B. Sommer, Did Prophecy Cease? Evaluating a Reevaluation, JBL 115 (1996), pp. 31-47. The study of prophecies (in written form) is not common among the societies of the ancient Near East. According to M. Nissinen, the only analogy is to be found in Esarhaddons oracles, which were collected and became a part of written tradition transcending specic historical situations and retaining its relevance in changing circumstances. See P. Machinist and M. Nissinen (eds.), Prophets and Prophecy in the Ancient Near East (Society of Biblical Literature. Writings from the Ancient World Series, 12; Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2003), p. 98. 7. The terminology for seeking and nding in EzraNehemiah is usually z/zc in the Aramaic sections and cz/so in the Hebrew sections. cz is replaced by c in Ezra 7.10 and 10.16, by zc in Neh. 8.13-14, and by in 13.1-3. Occasionally, one part of the word-pair can be elliptically omitted, as in Ezra 7.10 and Neh. 7.5. 8. For the role of texts in Ezra 16 and throughout EzraNehemiah, see T.C. Eskenazi, In an Age of Prose: A Literary Approach to EzraNehemiah (SBLMS, 36; Atlanta: Schol- ars Press, 1988). 9. With regard to seeking-and-nding in Ezra 16, see the insightful comments of T. Schaack, Die Ungeduld des Papiers (BZAW, 262; Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 1998), pp. 116-57. 280 Unity and Disunity in EzraNehemiah 1 the petition to participate in the project (4.1-2). The leaders in Jerusalem reject these offers by appealing to the orders of Cyrus (4.3). In their anger, the rebuffed petitioners attempt to thwart the progress on the Temple throughout the years that follow (4.4-5). During the reign of Artaxerxes they write to the king, advising him to search in the royal annals and nd Jerusalems rebelli- ous record (4.6-16). The king follows this advice, commands a search to be made, and sure enough nds what he was looking for. He then orders the con- struction of the city to cease (4.17-22). Surprisingly this time the Judean lead- ers do not appeal to the Cyrus Edict, which allows the ofcials of the province to interpret Artaxerxes orders as a prohibition of all building-activities (4.23- 24). In the reign of Darius, 10 the work on the Temple later resumes with the encouragement of Haggai and Zechariah (5.1-2), but is again impeded until the imperial court undertakes another library search. The ofcials of the province approach the builders and inquire whether the construction project had been authorized (5.3-9). In response the Judean elders provide a general overview of their history, now appealing explicitly to the Cyrus Edict (5.9- 16). In order to verify their account of Judahs history, the local ofcials peti- tion the king to search the geniza in Babylon for the decree of Cyrus (5.17). Following Artaxerxes precedent, Darius orders that a search be made (6.1). Instead of in Babylon, however, the long-lost writing referred to in 1.1 was nally found in Ecbatana (6.2). After it is quoted (6.3-5), Darius issues a new edict (6.6-12), and without further delay the work on the Temple is brought to completion (6.13-22). 11
According to the opinio communis, this tightly drafted narrative, which is sustained by the theme of the Cyrus Edict, has at its core historical, authentic sources. Although one should not rule out this possibility, it is important to observe the extent to which these sources have been tailored to t the narrative.
10. Here I am following the narrative, not the historical, succession. 11. The literary topos of seeking-and-nding in a writing (or geniza), which is employed in EzraNehemiah, is related toyet probably should be distinguished fromthe topos of the (accidental) discovery of a book, which we encounter elsewhere. See W. Speyer, Bcherfunde in der Glaubenswerbung der Antike (Gttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1970); B.J. Diebner and C. Naurereth, Die Inventio in 2 Knig 22: Struktur, Intention und Funktion von Aufndungslegenden, Dielheimer Bltter zum Alten Testament 18 (1984), pp. 95-118; H. Schaudig, Nabonid, der Archologe auf dem Knigsthron. Zum Geschichtsbild des ausgehenden neubabylonischen Reiches, in G.J. Selz (ed.), Festschrift fr Burkhart Kienast zu seinem 70. Geburtstage dargebracht von Freunden, Schlern und Kollegen (AOAT, 274; Munster: Ugarit, 2003), pp. 447-97; and K. Stott, Finding the Lost Book of the Law: Re-reading the Story of The Book of the Law (Deuteronomy 2 Kings) in Light of Classical Literature, JSOT 30 (2005), pp. 153-69. WRIGHT Seeking, Finding and Writing in EzraNehemiah 281 1 With respect to rhetorical technique, the depictions of seeking-and-nding function as literary hinges at pivotal points in the story. For example, Arta- xerxes letter picks up where Rehums and Shimshais concludes. The king writes, I commanded, they searched and found that (:z: z:z z'c '.o: ' :zc:, 4.19). In order to know what he commanded and where they searched, one must read the letter in tandem with Rehums and Shimshais petition (v. 15). 12 In this way, the letters form a running narrative. It is even more difcult to isolate independent sources in Ezra 6. We are told that Darius follows the advice of Tattenai and Shethar-boznai and commands a search to be made (6.1-2). The Cyrus Edict is found and quoted (6.3-5). In 6.6 Darius then begins speaking with the epistolary transition marker :z. The narrative here ows seamlessly into the quotation of edict and then into a new edict. 13
Ezra 16 also poses a problem when one reads it as a historically factual account. Why do the Achaemenid rulers consistently consult their royal annals before making a decision? If Darius was determined to bolster the loyalty of his Judean subjects by allowing them to rebuild the Temple, why did he rst need to know whether one of his predecessors had done the same? This point applies all the more to Ezra 4. That Jerusalem was rebellious and destroyed by the Babylonians would have certainly been of interest to him. And the Achaemenids as a whole were often concerned to draw on precedents estab- lished by earlier rulers. 14 But ultimately Artaxerxes policies, as those of any good ruler, were motivated by contemporary concerns. Thus, when he later decides to allow his cupbearer to rebuild the city-ramparts (Neh. 2), he sig- nicantly does not undertake any historical research. 15
12. Although this stylewith elliptical omission of the lengthy objectis not antici- pated in ofcial Aramaic correspondence, it is quite customary in Hebrew narrative. See, e.g., Neh. 8.16a and D. Janzen, The Mission of Ezra and the Persian-Period Temple Community, JBL 119 (2000), pp. 619-43, and R.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 Ezras Mission to the Persian Legal Project, JBL 120 (2001), pp. 623-46. 13. For a formal analysis of the Aramaic letters in Ezra 46, see most recently D. Schwiderski, Handbuch des nordwestsemitischen Briefformulars: Ein Beitrag zur Echtheitsfrage der aramischen Briefe des Esrabuches (BZAW, 295, Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 2000). 14. See, e.g., A. Kuhrt The Cyrus Cylinder and Achaemenid Imperial Policy, JSOT 25 (1983), pp. 83-97. 15. Although the institution of the Laws of the Persians and the Medes (see Schaack, Ungeduld, pp. 198-256) may have informed the use of the seeking-and-nding motif in Ezra 56, it has nothing to do with the use of the motif in Ezra 4 and the rest of Ezra Nehemiah. Ezra 46 depicts administrative seeking-and-nding, which may be compared to Est. 6.1-2. For extra-biblical parallels, cf. the Story of Wenamun 2.8-9, the Arad ostracon Letter of Gemaryahu and Nechemyahu, as well as the Elephantine papyrus C 7.1. The closest parallel to Ezra 16 is found in 4Q550, which resembles Est. 6.1-2. See 282 Unity and Disunity in EzraNehemiah 1 As to why the authors of EzraNehemiah portray the Persian rulers as dili- gent students of their archival records, I suggest that the literary depiction was dictated less by actual Achaemenid policies than by the ideological agenda of Ezra 16. An important clue to understanding this agenda is found in 2.62, which reports that certain priests sought yet could not nd their genealogical register (z'c'o zzz); they were therefore excluded from the priest- hood. 16 In dening the boundaries of the community and its leadership, the Judeans rst search in their historical records. As in Ezra 46, the written word is here absolutely nal or unassailable. Thus the Judeans follow the example of the empire in mimetic fashion. On the basis of this analogy, one can begin to appreciate why Ezra Nehemiah focuses on the fate of a text when it depicts the construction of the Temple. After the end of the monarchy, Judah faced the challenge of coming to terms with new institutions of political power (imperial representatives, gubernatorial and priestly leadership, etc.). The authors of EzraNehemiah, in seeking to underscore the continuity of these institutions with those from the past, identify the source of authority with the written word. 17 By present- ing the Persian kings rst seeking and nding in their archives before making political decisions, they illustrate the point that Judah does not require a mon- archy of its own: The construction project progressed and succeeded not because of a Judean king and the prophet whom he consults for the word of God, but rather by a virtue of an authority mediated through texts. 18
the superb article by R. Steiner: Bishlams Archival Search Report in Nehemiahs Archive: Multiple Introductions and Reverse Chronological Order as Clues to the Origin of the Aramaic Letters in Ezra 4-6, JBL 125 (2006), pp. 641-85. This study appeared after the completion of this manuscript and could only be inserted in the nal edits. 16. For the use of texts in relation to priestly lineages, see Josephus, Apion 1.6; 1QS 5.23; 6.22-23; 8.19; CD 13.11-12; 14.3-6; M. Weinfeld, The Organizational Pattern and the Penal Code of the Qumran Sect: A Comparison with Guilds and Religious Associ- ations of the HellenisticRoman Period (NTOA, 2; Gttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1986); and F. Ntscher, Himmlische Bcher und Schicksalglaube in Qumran, RevQ 1 (195859), pp. 405-11. 17. This idea is to be sure not new. It is found throughout the Tanakh, perhaps expressed most poignantly in Deut. 17.18. 18. In EzraNehemiah textuality does not replace orality. The prophets play a supporting role (Ezra 1.1; 5.1; and 6.14; cf., however, Neh. 6.10-14). The text is also read aloud (see Neh. 8 and 13.1-3). So too, the oral word is necessary in order to publish the fulllment of prophecy (Ezra 1.1) and the ndings of Torah-study (Ezra 10.7; Neh. 8.15) to the commu- nity. Moreover, before the mention of seeking-and-(not)nding in a text (Ezra 2.61-62), we are told of a group that could not tell (':) whether they belonged to the seed of Israel (2.59-60). Ezra 2.63 then follows the mention of textual searching in 2.61-62 with a refer- ence to charismatic divination. According to the provision for the excluded priests to eat of the most holy things, a priest with the Urim and Thummim must rst serve (z o: : z'o: z':). The authors of EzraNehemiah never report the appearance of such a WRIGHT Seeking, Finding and Writing in EzraNehemiah 283 1 Yet it is not just any text which has authority, and the Judeans cannot dis- pense with kingship entirely. In Ezra 1.1 the written word that guarantees the success of the building-project is published by the king of Persia. Moreover, this royal publishing house receives its commission from YHWH, who stirs up the spirit of Cyrus in order to fulll the divine word spoken by Jeremiah ('o' 'co z :z). Taking their departure from Deutero-Isaiah, 19
many literary works from the Second Temple period present foreign imperial rulers as direct successors to the Davidic kings. 20 By means of these divinely ordained rulers, God providentially realizes a plan for the welfare of Israel. Thus, when Nebuchadnezzar blesses God in Dan. 4.31-37, he acknowledges that the divine kingdom is eternal and represents the indispensable basis for his own transient reign (see Dan. 6.26-28 and Ezra 1.1; 6.12; 7.23). Similarly, the Chronicler often alters his Vorlage in order to transform Davids kingdom into a divine kingdom. 21 For example, in 2 Chron. 9.8 the queen of Sheba fol- lows her royal counterparts in the book of Daniel and blesses the God of Israel. Yet instead of the throne of Israel as in 1 Kgs 10.9, it is his (Gods) throne which Solomon occupies. Most importantly for the present study, this transformation of Davids throne to Gods throne is closely tied to the con- struction of the Temple(s). David, in his role as one who makes all the neces- sary preparations for the construction of the Temple, and Solomon, in his role as Temple builder, are mere incumbents on a throne that also can be occupied by foreign rulers who likewise engage in Temple-construction. Thus, the work concludes in 2 Chron. 36.20-23 with Cyrus assuming the throne and ordering the Temple to be built. EzraNehemiah contributes to this concept by presenting the Persian kings as God-appointed rulers whose decisions to build and beautify the Temple are divinely inspired (Ezra 1.1 and 7.28). 22
priest; instead, they allow textual studyand in Neh. 8, the iconic textto ll the gap left by these mantic objects. 19. See R.G. Kratz, Kyros im Deuterojesaja-Buch: Redaktionsgeschichtliche Unter- suchungen zu Entstehung und Theologie von Jes 4055 (FAT, 1; Tbingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1991), pp. 183-91. This conception can be traced to kingship ideologies that prevailed throughout the ancient Near East (e.g. the proclamation at Asshurbanipals investiture- ceremonies, The God Asshur is the king, and Asshurbanipal is his representative [waklu / uklu]). See also M. Liverani, The Fall of the Assyrian Empire: Ancient and Modern Inter- pretations, in Susan E Alcock et al. (eds.), Empires: Perspectives from Archaeology and History (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2001), pp. 374-99. 20. See R.G. Kratz, Translatio imperii: Untersuchungen zu den aramischen Daniel- erzhlungen und ihrem theologiegeschichtlichen Umfeld (WMANT, 63, Neukirchen Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1991), pp. 161-225; and Kratz, Das Judentum im Zeitalter des Zweiten Tempels (FAT, 42; Tbingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2004), pp. 157-311. 21. 1 Chron. 17.14; 28.5; 29.11, 23; 2 Chron. 6.2, 18, 21, 30, 33, 39; 9.8; 13.6, 8; 18.18; etc. 22. In this way the authors can present kings building the Temple in Jerusalem, in 284 Unity and Disunity in EzraNehemiah 1 Finally, as a divinely inspired document, the Cyrus Edict is not a static entity, but rather a rich source which requires interpretation to reveal its full message. Ezra 16 is accordingly a history of its interpretation and impact (Rezeptions- und Wirkungsgeschichte). In 3.7 we learn that Cyrus had granted the Judeans the building materials for the Temple. In 4.3 the Judeans interpret the edict in line with the exclusive nature of the building-project. 23 In 5.11-16 they interpret it anew and within a larger historical framework. 24 The Persian rulers also interpret the edict. When Darius seeks and nds, the reader learns that Cyrus gave specic directions for the location, materials, and size of the Temple, as well as for the nancial funding of the building project (6.3-5). Moreover, his discovery inspires him to supplement the edict by making a new decree sponsoring not only the building project but now even the Temple operations. 25 The Artaxerxes correspondence in Ezra 4 interprets the Cyrus Edict by prohibiting the construction of the Wall until after the completion of the Temple. 26 In each instance, the edict expands in its meaning as the inter- pretations are put into writing. 27 Yet they are not put into just any form of
keeping with a ubiquitous tradition in the ancient Near East that assigns the task of temple- construction to pious monarchs. The difference is that instead of a Judean king it is Persian rulers who build the Temple, and above all the most beloved of the Achaemenids, Cyrus the Great. Similarly the Marduk priests in Babylon acclaimed Cyrus, their patron, 'King of Babylon. While the authors of Ezra 16 seem to follow the Chronicler in his portrayal of the divine throne occupied by Temple builders, they differ from him insofar as they do not champion the vision of a militarily fortied Judah. Instead, they are content with a prov- ince centered around the Temple. 23. In Ezra 1, the edict does not contain this exclusivity. Indeed, there Cyrus encour- ages others to support the builders. 24. Here we learn e.g. that Sheshbazzar was both the governor of the province and the one who laid the Temple-foundation. In 4.1-3, the adversaries refer, like the Judeans in 5.11-16, to their past history, yet are dismissed on the basis of the edict. 25. Moreover, it denes the purpose of his donations and contains penalties and curses for those who would interfere (6.11-12). 26. The word Wall is capitalized since in EzraNehemiah it represents a symbol and institution comparable to the Temple. Other symbols in the book are the Torah in Neh. 8.1-12, which is moveable, and Ezra the scribe in Neh. 8.13, which is spatial (cf. Ezra 3.1 with Neh. 8.1, 2; 9.1). Below I offer an explanation for the tension between Temple and Wall in Ezra 16. Because the Judeans fail to cite the Cyrus Edict in response, the Artaxerxes correspondence effects the cessation of the work on the Temple (4.24). In this way, the authors can explain why the Temple was not built before Dariuss reign. 27. That Ezra 16 itself expands in a gradual process of interpreting this edict is argued in my dissertation, Nehemiahs Account of the Restoration, PhD Dissertation, University of Gttingen, 2002), pp. 202-11 (see n. 41). According to the analysis, the earliest edition of these chapters comprised a brief narrative consisting primarily of the Darius-correspon- dence (5.66.15). The bracketing of this Aramaic narrative with the material in 1.14.5 and 6.16-22 intends to explain why the Temple was not completed until the reign of Darius when Cyrus had decreed it to be built already in the rst year of his reign. Finally, the WRIGHT Seeking, Finding and Writing in EzraNehemiah 285 1 writing; rather they constitute ofcial documents. As such, these interpreta- tions represent historical sources for future generations to discover and study.
Ezra 710
After Ezra 6 reports the completion of the Temple and the celebrations that accompanied it, the Cyrus Edict appears to have been fullled. However, the story goes on. Israel has not yet completely returned to the Land. So too, in the middle of the Temple-building account, Artaxerxes had interrupted the construction of the Wall and prohibited any further work until I issue a new decree (4.21). Before he (implicitly) issues that decree in Nehemiah 2, the second movement of the book conveys the reader back to the imperial court, where the king, following in the footsteps of Cyrus, orders Ezra to make aliyah with his compatriots and transport generous funds in order to beau- tify (c, 7.27) the Temple. 28
Ezra 710 consists of two parts that are in tension: chs. 78, in which the Temple and its personnel are at the forefront, and chs. 910, in which the Temple moves to the background and the priests constitute the chief offend- ers in a major scandal. What holds these two parts together is the person of Ezra, who follows the example of the kings in Ezra 16 as he engages in the activity of seeking-and-nding. By focusing on his person, the authors of Ezra 710 can ll in the gaps left in the preceding section and construct the identity of one who seeks-and-nds. 29
According to 7.1-5, Ezra is a priest in the Aaronite-Zadokite line. But in the Golah he had also become a scribe expert in the Torah of Moses (7.6), and had dedicated himself to study (c) the Torah of YHWH, and to per- form and teach laws and rules to Israel (7.11). 30 Due to his commitment to
Artaxerxes correspondence was inserted between these two sections. By beginning with the Cyrus Edict yet not quoting the text in Ezra 1.1-4, the authors gradually disclose its contents to the reader. 28. That Ezra 16 is older than chs. 710 is argued by R.G. Kratz, Die Komposition der erzhlenden Bcher des Alten Testaments: Grundwissen der Bibelkritik (UTB, 2157; Gttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2000), pp. 56-68. 29. Insofar as Ezra is allowed to speak for himself, he can also tell his readers what motivated him. A thorough description of the way the authors construct his identity cannot be provided here. The most interesting work in this regard is a little-known Yiddish Bch by Israel Schur, z'co : z':o,_. z': .c:z: (Riga: Bicher for Alemen, 1931). For recent work on Ezras function as a scribe, see Y. Avishur and M. Heltzer, The Scribe and Priest Ezra: A Leader under Achaemenian Rule, Transeuph 29 (2005), pp. 17-36. 30. See Fishbanes comment (Interpretation, p. 245) on this verse: For whereas the expression to inquire (c:) of YHWH occurs in a mantic context of prophetic inquiry in 1 Kgs 22.8, for example, and the expression to inquire of Elohim occurs in a mantic context of legal inquiry in Exod. 18.15, the expression used in Ezra 7.10 is signicantly 286 Unity and Disunity in EzraNehemiah 1 seeking in the Torah, he also receives a royal commission to inspect (z) Judah and Jerusalem according to the law of his God (_ z), which was entrusted to him (7.14). 31
In comparison to the foregoing section, the depiction of seeking-and-nd- ing in this chapter contains both similarities and differences. As in Ezra 16, the written word is the ultimate source of authority, and a foreign ruler has replaced the Davidic king as the one who enforces it (7.26). Now, however, we are presented with a new gure, namely a person of Judahite origins who is ofcially authorized to seek-and-nd in the written word. In both chs. 16 and 710, seeking-and-nding is an administrative procedure. Yet in contrast to the foregoing account, the text wherein Ezra seeks and which he uses to inspect Judah is not the word of God mediated through the Cyrus Edict, but the Torah. 32 The imperial court thus now turns its attention away from its archives to a body of texts transmitted solely by Judean hands. Beginning in Ezra 7, the theme of the book thus shifts from Temple to Torah. The shift is, to be sure, a gradual one insofar as Ezra 78 focuses pri- marily on the former. Following in the footsteps of Cyrus the Temple builder, Artaxerxes promotes the position of this institution by making large dona- tions. In ch. 8 Ezra tells how he transported these donations to Jerusalem without even mentioning the Torah in his hand. 33 So too, in his blessing (7.27-28), he interprets the royal decree solely in reference to the Temple. 34
In the decree itself, Artaxerxes devotes the greatest amount of space to the Temple and its maintenance; indeed, the decree can be read as an apologia for this institution. 35 Finally, the few verses in ch. 7 that emphasize the posi- tion of the Torah appear to have been added at a later point. 36 Yet in pre- paring the reader for Ezras activities in chs. 910 and Nehemiah 8, these verses have made the deepest impact on the character of the book.
to inquire (c:) of the Torah of YHWH. Here the text of divine words serves, as it were, as an oraculum for rational-exegetical inquiry (Interpretation, p. 245). 31. z is the same lexeme used for seeking in 4.15, 19; 5.17; 6.1. 32. When building the Temple, the Judeans seek-and-nd in the Torah so that all their actions merit the approbation z:zz (3.2, 4; 6.18; on this formula, see Fishbane, Inter- pretation, pp. 213-16). In ch. 7, however, the source for seeking-and-nding is more directly identied with the Torah. 33. The _o ' in 8.36 seems to be something different from the law in 7.14, 25-26. 34. Cf. _o zz z . in 7.27 with the comparable expression _o: ': in 1.1, which also refers to plans for the Temple. 35. See the newest work on this edict from S. Grtz, Edikt des Artaxerxes: Eine Unter- suchung zum religionspolitischen und historischen Umfeld von Esr 7, 12-26 (BZAW, 337; Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 2004). 36. Verses 6abb-8, 10, 11b, 14 (_o in v. 13 connects better to z': in v. 15), and 25-26. WRIGHT Seeking, Finding and Writing in EzraNehemiah 287 1 Whereas Ezra 7 presents the Torah as the legal basis for Judah, chs. 910 address the difculties that arise when this theory is put into practice. Great optimism and excitement had accompanied the aliyah depicted in chs. 78. Yet once the donations for the Temple had been delivered and the sacrices had been made, Ezra learns much to his dismay that the inhabitants of Judah did not share his understanding of the Torahs requirements. For the small and weak Judah, the specic problemmixed-marriageswas one of exis- tential proportions, as Ezra demonstrates in his reaction (vv. 3-5) and prayer (vv. 6-15). The Judeans, their kings and priests had been delivered into the hand of the kings of the lands (v. 7). Yet a small remnant had remained, and they had been given a foothold (tent-peg) in this holy place (v. 8). They were still subject to foreign rule, but had also found favor with the kings so that they could build the Temple and erect a fence in Judah and Jerusalem (v. 9). From this poignant presentation of Judahs fragile position in both time and space, one can appreciate the gravity of the problem posed by intermarriage. In turning to the present (vv. 10-15), Ezra proves that he had learned to seek-and-nd in the Torah (cf. 7.10) by blending Deut. 7.1-3, 23.4- 9 and Leviticus 18, and appropriating them for the situation at hand. 37 His interpretation is remarkably lax. For example, he passes over the references to destruction and z in Deuteronomy 7, 38 focusing instead on the prohibi- tions of intermarriage. 39
Rather than pointing his nger at the offenders, Ezra prays, and his prayerperhaps the most beautiful text in the bookevokes deep remorse from the community. Their reaction is told in the third-person account in Ezra 10. On the basis of both stylistic and conceptual differences, Y. Dor has convincingly argued for different authors in chs. 910. 40 Although I agree, it seems that these chapters were not compiled at the same time. I think it is more plausible that ch. 9, which draws upon distinctive features of Neh. 1.1- 11 and 13.23-29, has been composed as a new introduction to Nehemiahs account. 41 Before the insertion of the third-person passage of Ezra 10, it is
37. Deut. 7, for example, could have been disregarded, since it refers explicitly to the rst occupation of the Land. By means of sophisticated exegesis, Ezra renders it applicable to his own situation. See Fishbane, Interpretation, pp. 114- 21. 38. z occurs in Ezra 10.8, but there it functions in a different manner . 39. That Ezra does not consider the possibility of integration does not have to be read as if he were dismissing the alternative presented in Trito-Isaiah or Ezek. 47.22-23. Rather it may simply suggest that the issue was more cultural than cultic or religious. Cf., how- ever, Fishbane, Interpretation, pp. 119-21. 40. Y. Dor, 'o.: czz :'z:. z'c. cc (PhD dissertation, Hebrew Univer- sity, 2001), pp. 130ff. 41. See Kratz, Komposition, pp. 85-86, and J.L. Wright, Rebuilding Identity: The Nehemiah-Memoir and its Earliest Readers (BZAW, 348, Berlin: Walter de Gruyter 2004), pp. 253-55. 288 Unity and Disunity in EzraNehemiah 1 Nehemiah who with his Wall-building project constructs the physical and conceptual boundaries wherein the remnant of Israel can separate itself from the surrounding nations and survive (Ezra 9.14). 42
With the insertion of Ezra 10, a later author depicts Ezra and the commu- nity tackling the problem of mixed-marriages before the construction of the Wall. 43 Their aim is to solve this problem according to the Torah (:z: c:'), and those whom they commission to interpret the Torah are Ezra and the z' (v. 3). 44 The procedures taken include making a proclamation throughout Judah and Jerusalem (zc:': :'z : :'z:':, v. 7). Precisely this expression is what Ezra and his students later nd when they search in the Torah in Neh. 8.15. 45 Ezra and the leaders also sequester themselves to examine the matter (z c:', 10.16). 46 The exact method of examina- tion is not reported, 47 but the authors seem to indicate that the members of the commission searched in a text, such as the register of the genealogies later discovered by Nehemiah (7.5-69). 48 The names are then found (so':) and
42. This point is developed below. 43. In contrast to Ezra 9 and most of the book, Ezra 10 (or at least portions of it) seems to describe a sectarian view of the community (a community within a community; see e.g. :: in Ezra 10.8). Its depiction should not be confused with Judahs actual polity in the Persian period, as is done for example by the model of the Tempel-Brger-Gemeinde. The closest parallels to this conception are found in the writings of the Qumran community (see n. 16), which suggests that Ezra 10 should be interpreted in light of developing sec- tarian ideas in the Hellenistic period. The development allows the community to adopt a stricter interpretation of the Torah, with penal consequences for the failure to adhere to the decisions of the community (see Ezra 10.8). Here the inuence of the guilds and religious associations from the Greco-Roman period studied by M. Weinfeld (see n. 16) is apparent. Contrasting with this, Nehemiah as the political leader of Judah does not punish the offenders in ch. 13. He only preaches. The most he can do when enforcing the observance of the Sabbath is to give orders for the closing of Jerusalems gates (13.19-22). In ch. 4 he uses the sword only to defend Jerusalem. With regard to cultic affairs, he takes a more physical approach (13.4-9, 28-29). 44. The MT replaces my lord (Ezra) with the Lord. 45. Deut. 31.12, 28 may be the source here. See also Judg. 21, 1 Chron. 13, 2 Chron. 30, Neh. 5, etc., for evidence that the procedures for invoking an assembly and for the assembly itself were not an unimportant matter. 46. The spelling of to examine (instead of c:) is difcult to explain. Perhaps it is a play on the name of Darius and his activities in Ezra 6. 47. In contrast to the administrative character of seeking-and-nding in Ezra 16, the account in Ezra 10 uses the language of seeking-and-nding to describe legal-juridical activities. This persists today in the expression to be found guilty/innocent. See Fishbane, Interpretation, pp. 188-92, 241-44. Est. 2.19-23 portrays the judicial method of seeking- and-nding in order to prepare the reader for the administrative method in 6.1-2. 48. See Fishbane, Interpretation, p. 115. Cf. also the method of determining lineage described in Neh. 7.64, Ezra 2.62. Further evidence is found in Ezra 8.15a-20, where Ezra reviews the people and priests (z'.zz: z:z .'z:), does not nd ('so) any Levites, and takes measures to correct this deciency. Insofar as the expression 'z + z is used in WRIGHT Seeking, Finding and Writing in EzraNehemiah 289 1 then written in a long list that concludes the chapter (vv. 18-44). This passage illustrates how the procedure of seeking-and-nding not only is ascribed to the Torah itself but also once again leads to writingand thus the formation of EzraNehemiah.
Nehemiah 7
Ezra 910 is occupied with issues related to the population of Israel. The same concern governs Nehemiah 7. 49 Once the Wall had been erected, Nehe- miah commences the second phase of his restoration project during which he turns to the task of repopulating the city. 50 Now the city was large and great, but the people were few therein, and the houses were not yet built (': z':.z z'z, v. 4). The statement that Jerusalem was devoid of any houses con- tradicts the immediately preceding verse. 51 Nevertheless, it serves an important literary function inasmuch as it empties the city so that Nehemiah can tell how he populated it: And I found a register of the genealogy of them who came up in the beginning, and I found written in it. 52
As in 2 Kings 22 with regard to the Torah scroll which Hilkiah found and which provokes both a deep transformation in Josiah and radical changes
Dan. 9.2 to describe textual study, it quite likely that Ezra is here inspecting the genealogi- cal record quoted in vv. 1-14, and is registering the names of the Levites. That vv. 1-14 purport to represent an independent literary document seems likely when one compares its heading (8.1) and format with Ezra 2//Neh. 7. See also :ocz :z. zz in 8.20b and zz: :ocz in 10.16. 49. Y. Kaufmann perceptively noted that Nehemiah comes close here to taking the stance of Ezra. See his History of the Religion of Israel. IV. From the Babylonian Captivity to the End of Prophecy (New York: Ktav, 1977), p. 377. Kaufmanns insight may be compared to the interpretation of Moses Kimhi (usually attributed to Ibn Ezra) when the latter adds zo:co from Ezra 9.3b, 4b to 'zc' in Neh. 1.4. In view of Kimhis general reading of EzraNehemiah, this blending of Ezra 9 and Neh. 1 seems to suggestin Kimhis typically allusive mannerthat what troubles Nehemiah is the very problem faced by Ezra. The relationship of Ezra 9 to Neh. 1 is developed in Wright, Rebuilding Identity, pp. 253-57. 50. That the repopulation constitutes a second phase of the building project is indicated by the use of the phrase 'z ' ': in 7.5. This statement appears earlier in 2.12 in reference to the plans to build Jerusalem, which God was beginning to inspire within Nehe- miah ('z . ' o). Cf. the use of this expression in Ezra 7.27 with reference to Artaxerxes himself and his plans to build the Temple! 51. and appoint watches of the inhabitants of Jerusalem, every one in his watch, and everyone over against his house (7.3b; cf. 4.8 with 4.17). It also contradicts Hag. 1.4. 52. The structure of the text resembles Ezra 10 insofar as a lengthy list follows the activity of seeking-and-nding. In contrast to the administrative-bureaucratic and legal- juridical character of seeking-and-nding elsewhere in EzraNehemiah, the account in Neh. 7, by not referring to a prior search, resembles accounts in other literary works of adventitious book-discoveries. See n. 11. 290 Unity and Disunity in EzraNehemiah 1 in Judah, 53 Nehemiah expands his historical consciousness after he nds a book and studies its contents. His stated intention in studying the record was to enroll the people according to their genealogies (c'). What seems to have originally concerned Nehemiah was the political welfare and honor of the Judeans, 54 and when attempting to motivate them to build, he signicantly does not appeal to their history (2.17-18). The only time he does address the issue of the Judeans origins is in 1.1-3, yet there he only refers to the rem- nant that had survived the captivity ('zco :c.c z'c z':') and remained in the Land, not the Golah. Now, after the Wall is nished, he discovers a book and learns about the origins of the builders. Whether the text implies that all the Judeans were none other than the z'::, or that Nehemiah is now including the z':: (7.5) with the z'c. (1.3) who originally concerned him, is not clear. 55 Help is provided in 11.1ff. This text appears to have been originally connected to 7.1-3 and to have come to its present literary position after a gradual process of expansion beginning with 7.4-72. 56 The insertion of 7.4-72 presents Nehemiah establishing the demographic pool from which the community in 11.1ff. casts lots in order to offer a human tithe of inhabitants in Jerusalem. 57 O. Lipschits has shown that
53. See Stott, Finding the Lost Book. 54. Cf. : and c in 1.3 and 2.17. 55. For a discussion of the issue for the whole of EzraNehemiah, see S. Japhet, The Prohibition of the Habitation of Women: The Temple Scrolls Attitude toward Sexual Impurity and its Biblical Precedents, JANESCU 22 (1993), pp. 69-87; Japhet, The People and the Land in the Period of the Restoration, in D.R. Schwartz (ed.), Studies in Jewish History of the Second Temple Period (Jerusalem: Zalman Shazar Center for the History of Israel, 1995), pp. 127-45; Japhet, The Concept of the Remnant in the Restoration Period: On the Vocabulary of Self-Denition, in F.-L. Hossfeld and L. Schwienhorst- Schnberger (eds.), Das Manna fllt auch heute noch. Beitrge zur Geschichte und The- ologie des Alten, Ersten Testaments (Festschrift Erich Zenger; Herders biblische Studien, 44; Freiburg: Herder, 2004), pp. 340-61; and E. Blum, Volk oder Kultgemeinde? Zum Bild des nachexilischen Judentums in der alttestamentlichen Wissenschaft, Kirche und Israel 10 (1995), pp. 24-42. 56. See Wright, Rebuilding Identity, pp. 297-309. The chief reason for claiming an origi- nal connection between 7.1-3 and 11.1ff. is the emphasis upon the defense of the city in both of these texts (cf. e.g. 'z c and the :oco in 7.2-3 with z:'c and z'z.o in 11.1-2; the military sense of the latter term is explicit in Judg. 5.2[9]; 2 Chron. 17.16). See also the ' ':z: in Neh. 11.6,14. 57. In analogy to the semantic shift of c examined by Fishbane, a charismatic pro- cedure (lot-casting) is here superceded, yet not supplanted, by the more rational method of seeking-and-nding in the textual tradition. The semantic shift is to be sure not merely an analogy, but the conceptual forerunner, to the precedence given here to seeking-and- nding over lot-casting. WRIGHT Seeking, Finding and Writing in EzraNehemiah 291 1 the the numbers of Jerusalems residents in 11.1ff. corresponds to the subtotals of Judahs inhabitants in 7.4-72 as an exact 1:10 ratio. 58 This means that the Jerusalemites are exclusively the z'::. Are the authors then saying that everyone else was excluded? Probably not. According to 7.4 the houses had not been built; nevertheless, there were at least a few people residing in the city (z:z z:o z::, cf. 7.1-3 and 11.1a). Insofar as we are never told that these residents had to leave their homes, Nehemiah seems here to be iden- tifying the z':: with all the Judeans. Accordingly, the text seems to under- score Nehemiahs intention not to exclude any Judean. 59
Not only does Nehemiah 7 integrate a Golah-oriented understanding of the communitys identity; it also reects the notion of heavenly books or divine book-keeping. This notion is already presupposed by the many short prayers for remembrance which demarcate passages in the Nehemiah-Memoir. 60 In contrast to these prayers, however, the book referred to in Nehemiah 7 is not stored away in heaven for future reference; rather it is found in the newly built Jerusalem. In place of the sectarian hopes in a future Temple and a new Jerusalem, EzraNehemiah emphasizes the here-and-now. 61 Nehemiahs use
58. See O. Lipschits, Literary and Ideological Aspects of Neh 11, JBL 121 (2002), pp. 423-40. Lipschits argues, however, that Neh. 11 has been inserted after Neh. 7.4ff. Although I would date Nehemiah 11 (or at least its primary stratum) earlier than Neh. 7.4ff., the use of lot-casting by the Qumran community (see e.g. 1QS 6.22) must be borne in mind when considering the questions of the dating and social (sectarian?) setting for the composition of 11.1-2. 59. The passages portraying strict exclusion refer solely to cultic affairs: 7.63-64; 13.1- 3, 4-9, 28-29. In 7.61-62, those who could not tell whether they belonged to Israel are merely listed by name. In 13.23-27 the Judeans are severely reprimanded for marrying foreign women, but they are not required to divorce them. The z in Neh. 10.1, 30; 13.3 as well as Ezra 10, in contrast to e.g. Deut. 29.20, may not even intend to suggest a physical exclusion (see however 10.8), but a legal-ritual ceremony; otherwise it is difcult to explain why Ezra is also an object of the z in 10.16. The only clear reference to banishment is 's: in 10.3, which resembles the usage of this term in texts such as Num. 15.36; 19.3; Deut. 13.10 and 17.5. In Ezra 10.19, the ones who follow through with this commitment are priests; the women are sent away probably because the priests live in the Temple precincts. See n. 55. For a similar view, see the excellent discussion by Dor, cc z'c., pp. 155ff. See also I. Frhlich, Mamzer in Qumran TextsThe Problem of Mixed Marriages from Ezras Time. Law, Literature and Practice, Transeuph 29 (2005), pp. 103-16. 60. Neh. 5.19; 6.13; 13.14, 22, 29 and 31. Nehemiahs good deeds and the evil deeds of his enemies are remembered (z) insofar as they are written down. This is clearly indi- cated by the reference to blotting out (o) in 13.14 (also in 3.37). 61. In response to EzraNehemiah, Daniel (9.2) studies in the books and learns that the rebuilding of Jerusalem will take much longer than expected from Jeremiahs prophecy, which introduces the book of EzraNehemiah. The sectarian circles behind Dan. 9 thus relativize Nehemiahs efforts to populate Jerusalem properly, and by referring to Jeremiahs prophecy they challenge the entire history of the Restoration beginning in Ezra 1. 292 Unity and Disunity in EzraNehemiah 1 of the book he discovered resembles the use of heavenly books insofar as only those whose names are found in this book later inhabit the the Holy City (Neh. 11.1; cf. e.g. Dan. 12.1). 62 Yet once again this passage differs from the later apocalyptic conception, since the book Nehemiah nds includes the names of all Judeans. Where did Nehemiah nd this book which he calls z':: c' cz .:cz? According to Baruch Spinoza, whose ideas sparked the historical- critical interpretation of EzraNehemiah, this is the title Nehemiah gives to the book of Ezra. Spinoza presumed that Ezra originally existed as an inde- pendent work and that the author of Nehemiah 7 quotes it. 63 Although not attributing their view to Spinoza, several scholars have recently followed him in arguing that EzraNehemiah constitute two literary works, 64 and their views have been an impetus for the formation of the present volume. 65
As usually formulated, this thesis is problematic. The presentation of Ezra in Nehemiah 8 most likely presupposes the introduction of this gure in Ezra 7. On the other hand, most EzraNehemiah scholars maintain that Nehemiah 89 were not originally part of Nehemiah 113. 66 If so, Spinozas view could
62. See Schaacks insightful comments on Ezra 2.62 in Ungeduld, pp. 126-44. 63. Baruch Spinoza, Tractatus theologico-politicus, II.10.46-47, 56-81 (Opera [ed. G. Gawlick and F. Niewhner. Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 1979], I, 1670), pp. 133-34. Concluding the point that the writer of Neh. 7 has merely copied a passage from the book of Ezra, Spinoza censures the attempts of exegetes to harmonize Scripture: Those, therefore, who explain these passages otherwise, deny the plain meaning of Scriptureno, they deny Scripture itself. They think it pious to reconcile one passage of Scripture with anothera pretty piety indeed which accommodates the clear passages to the obscure, the correct to the faulty, the sound to the corrupt. Far be it from me to call such commentators blasphemers, if their motives be pure: for to err is human [nam errare humanum quidem est]. But let me return to my subject (pp. 79-81). 64. See D. Kraemer, On the Relationship of the Books of Ezra and Nehemiah, JSOT 59 (1993), pp. 73-92; B. Becking, Continuity and Community: The Belief System of the Book of Ezra, in B. Becking and M.C.A. Korpel (eds.), The Crisis of Israelite Religion. Transformation of Religious Tradition in Exilic and Post-Exilic Times (OTS, 42; Leiden: Brill, 1999), pp. 256-75; and J.C. VanderKam, Ezra-Nehemiah or Ezra and Nehemiah?, in his From Revelation to Canon: Studies in the Hebrew Bible and Second Temple Literature (Supplements to the JSJSup, 62; Leiden: Brill, 2000), pp. 60-80. 65. See the introduction to this Volume, as well as the contributions of M. Boda, H. Harrington, and K. Min. 66. I would agree. But instead of speculating that an editor reformulated Neh. 89 from the rst to third person and then transposed these chapters from an earlier context in Ezra 910, I contend that they were composed ad hoc for their present context. My working assumption has been that later generations of readers, rather than reformulating, deleting and transposing the material they were transmitting, respected it to such an extent that they limited themselves to expanding it with passages which were the product of their deep reection on the material and which rendered it more relevant to new circumstances. That lines have been lost or reduced here or there is quite likely, yet once one allows for WRIGHT Seeking, Finding and Writing in EzraNehemiah 293 1 still be espoused. There is, however, another problem: Ezra 9 appears to have been drafted with Nehemiah 113 in view. Yet also this problem dissipates if the original Ezra account included only chs. 78 and ch. 9 has been added as literary bridge between Ezra 8 and Nehemiah 1. 67 Insofar as Nehemiah 810 and Ezra 910 have been inserted at a late stage in the books formation, it is possible that Spinoza was correct in claiming the book of Ezra (chs. 18) was originally transmitted independently of a book of Nehemiah. While this is only possible, it is quite probable that Spinoza was correct in contending that the author of Nehemiah 7 found the quoted list in Ezra 2, rather than as an independent document in the Temple archives. When copying the ending of Ezra 2, the author has included the rst line of the narrative in Ezra 3, while making the repetitive three lines in Ezra 2.70, 3.1 into two lines in Neh. 7.73. In view of this and other evidence, 68 I nd it difcult to accept the claim that Ezra 2 and Nehemiah 7 were each drawn from an independent source. Moreover, the list of the returnees in Ezra 2 and Nehemiah 7, as well as the differences between Nehemiah 810 and Ezra 1 10, have been the main reasons for postulating two books. If Nehemiah 710 represent late supplements which develop the storyline of EzraNehemiah, then one lacks the grounds for questioning the unity of Nehemiah. Such considerations assist us in appreciating the dynamics of Nehemiah 7. This chapter contains a threefold sequence of seeking-and-nding. In ensuring that all the Judeans are included in the lot-casting procedures (described in 11.1-2), Nehemiah tells about his discovery of a book which he designates
large Umstellungen and reformulations, the Pandoras box is opened to hypotheses that one can neither conrm nor negate. 67. See Wright, Rebuilding Identity, pp. 248-55. A further problem is posed by the prayer in Neh. 1.5-11a, which represents, I suggest, one of the latest additions to Ezra Nehemiah (see Wright, Rebuilding Identity, pp. 9-23). On the seams of the book, the prayer binds Neh. 113 securely to Ezra 110 by recalling the return of the dispersed. Conversely, it prepares the reader for a major shift in accent, namely from the Temple and altar in Ezra 110 to the Torah and Wall in Neh. 113. (This shift is presaged, according to my analysis, by the amplication of the priestly holiness to the people as a whole in Ezra 9.) Whether the prayer serves more to connect or to sever Ezra 110 and Neh. 113 is a difcult question, which presents itself for the literary seams of other books, such as Gen. 50Exod. 1 or Josh. 24Judg. 13. (For the former, see J.C. Gertz, The Transition between the Books of Genesis and Exodus, in T. Dozeman and K. Schmid [eds.], A Farewell to the Yahwist [SBL Symposium Series; Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2006]); and for the latter, see E. Blum, Der kompositionelle Knoten am bergang von Josua zu Richter: Ein Entechtungsvorschlag, in M. Vervenne and J. Lust [eds.], Deuteronomy and Deuteronomic Literature (Festschrift C.H.W. Brekelmans; BETL, 132; Leuven: Peters, 1997], pp. 181-212). However, if the prayer has indeed been inserted at the latest stage in the formation of the book, it would not pose a problem for those who postulate the existence of two separate works (Ezra and Nehemiah). 68. See Wright, Rebuilding Identity, pp. 301-307. 294 Unity and Disunity in EzraNehemiah 1 .:cz z':: c' cz. He then discovers a passage within this book (:z z:z so:, 7.5). Finally, the passage he quotes reports that several priests who unsuccessfully searched but did not nd their genealogical record ( so. : z'c'o zzz :cz, 7.64). Herewith EzraNehemiah depicts the layered nature of seeking-and-nding: The substratum is a text, referred to as z'c'o zzz (Ezra 2.62; Neh. 7.64), which perhaps never existed and was created by the authors of EzraNehemiah. 69 Or perhaps it did exist, yet failed to suit their needs. Whatever the case may be, this imagined text assumes (a new) form as the authors refer to it in their writing. And after entering the historical record in Ezra 2, it becomes a source for new searches and discoveries. Thus, the authors of Nehemiah 7 depict the builder of Jeru- salem later nding this genealogical record and learning about the builders origins. The discovery likewise leads to writing insofar as Nehemiah cites the textwith several minor, yet signicant changes. 70 By forming an inclusio with Ezra 2, Nehemiah 7, the text nally constructs a new framework for EzraNehemiah in which future generations of readers can seek and nd.
Nehemiah 810
What these readers nd in their seeking they also write. Working within the new framework created by Nehemiah 7, they embellish the analogy between this text and Ezra 23 by portraying the cultic activities of the seventh month in a much different manner than Ezra 3.2-6. This literary complex, wherein the high priest, altar and sacrices are conspicuously absent, amplies its context by showing that those who cast lots in Nehemiah 11 to decide who was to reside in Jerusalem both represented all Judah (Neh. 7) and had rst learned to seek-and-nd in the Torah. In the rst scene of Nehemiah 8, all the people (v. 1), whose names are listed in Nehemiah 7, 71 implore Ezra to bring the Torah. What follows is a very precise description of when, where, and how Ezra complies with this public petition. He stands upon a wooden tower (v. 4). When he opens the scroll, all the people stand (v. 5). He then pronounces a blessing, and the con- gregation responds Amen, Amen with raised hands. They then prostrate themselves (v. 6). After the scroll is read and interpreted (vv. 7-8), Nehemiah,
69. See E.W. Conrad, Heard but Not Seen: The Representation of Books in the Old Testament, JSOT 54 (1992), pp. 45-59. 70. For example, the numbers have been changed so that Neh. 11 corresponds exactly in a 1:10 ratio to Neh. 7. See n. 58. 71. The author is of course not saying that all the people mentioned in Neh. 7 were still living, but that the entire Restoration community, as in Ezra 3, was symbolically present on this important occasion. See Eskenazi, In an Age of Prose, pp. 88-94. WRIGHT Seeking, Finding and Writing in EzraNehemiah 295 1 Ezra and the Levites pronounce the day holy (vv. 9-11). The people nally depart to celebrate because they had understood the things declared to them (v. 12). 72
Whereas in Ezra 710 the Torah constitutes the legal basis for the commu- nity and is the object of meticulous study, in this account it has become much more. One could perhaps best describe its character as an iconic book. 73
How are we to explain this development? Of course one must take into account the long history of the written word replacing the void left by the ban on images (e.g. in the form of ::o and ''c in Deut. 11.18ff. or the 'z: as a military palladium comparable to the statues carried by the Babylonian army). Nevertheless, one must still explain why the Torah is not presented in this manner earlier in the book of EzraNehemiah. A response to this problem should consider the tensions between parti- cularistic and universalistic tendencies in EzraNehemiah. In Rebuilding Identity I suggest that the book constitutes a literary discourse corresponding to the political struggles to redene Judahs identity from the mid-Persian to Hellenistic periods. This discourse takes its point of departure from, and responds directly to, Nehemiahs account. 74 After hearing about the distress of his people, Nehemiah undergoes a deep personal transformation, and he realizes that his position of advantage in the imperial court must be used to bring about change in Judah (ch. 1). Once Artaxerxes grants him a leave of absence, he comes to Jerusalem and convinces the Judeans to repair the damaged city rampartsthe cause of Judahs disgrace and reproach (: and c, 2.17). Each phase in the construction of the Wall is simultaneously a stage in the rebuilding of Judahs identity. For example, after accepting Nehemiahs initiative, the group of builders face ridicule from Sanballat, Tobiah and Geshem. Nehemiahs public response, dening only the builders as the servants of God, then forties the internal solidarity (2.18-20), and
72. It is no coincidence that in portraying this pivotal point in the history of Second Temple Judaism the composers of this scene have embellished it with a rich variety of details and technical vocabulary related to the study of the Torah. The best treatment of this language is found throughout Fishbanes Interpretation. For a recent study of the composition of the account, see G. Steins, Inszenierungen des Lesens und Lernens in Neh. 8,1-12, in B. Ego and H. Merkel (eds.), Religises Lernen in der biblischen, frh- jdischen und frhchristlichen berlieferung (WUNT, 180; Tbingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2005), pp. 83-97. 73. See K. van der Toorn, The Iconic Book: Analogies between the Babylonian Cult of Images and the Veneration of the Torah, in his edited volume, The Image and the Book (Leuven: Peters, 1997), pp. 229-48. 74. For a more accessible presentation of the analyses in the book, see J.L. Wright, A New Model for the Composition of EzraNehemiah, in O. Lipschits, R. Albertz and G. Knoppers (eds.), Judah and the Judeans in the 4th Century BCE (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2007), pp. 333-48. 296 Unity and Disunity in EzraNehemiah 1 they can continue until the antagonists contrive a new scheme for the next building phase. 75 In ch. 3 Judahs solidarity is expressed by the long list of clans and groups who sponsored the construction project. 76 The Wall thus consists of a circle of unied people demarcating Judah from its neighbors, who are equally unied in their animosity and arrogance (3.33ff.; 4.1ff.; 6.16). As later generations noticed that political reproach remained after the com- pletion of the Wall, they updated Nehemiahs account with passages treating internal abuses. Now, in the midst of the construction activities, Nehemiah points his nger at the builders themselvesabove all at the aristocracy and priesthood, who are presented as contributing to Judahs and Jerusalems des- perate condition. 77 In these passages he exposes the unholy alliances between the enemy and the high-priesthood (6.17-19, 13.4-9, 28-29), fails otherwise to give much attention to the rebuilt Temple, and identies the construction of the Wall with the restoration of Judah. To set the record straight, pro-priestly circles composed Ezra 16, which presents the Temple, not the Wall, as the center of Judean society. In contrast to the autochthonous conception of the peoples origins in Nehemiahs account, these chapters espouse an allochthonous view. 78 As the :the
75. See the discussion of the building accounts :oc-schema in Wright, Rebuilding Identity, pp. 28-29, 109-18, 130-33. 76. This list contains implicitly the names of those who, in contrast to the opponents of the building project, have a portion, right and memorial in Jerusalem (2.20). 77. See e.g. 5.8-9; 13.18. Before the insertion of the date in 13.6 (as well as the material in 7.113.3), the paragraphs beginning in 13.4ff., which share the form and style of ch. 5, were probably originally connected to 6.17-19. According to this reconstruction, they describe additional reforms that Nehemiah instituted during the fty-two days of construc- tion referred to in 6.15-16 (cf. in those days in 13.15, 23 with 6.17). Beginning with ch. 5, each paragraph ends with a prayer for remembrance (5.19; 6.14; 13.14, 22, 29, 31) and each paragraph after the notice of completion in 6.15-16 begins with the expression in those days (6.17; 13.15, 23). 78. The tension between autochthonous and allochthonous conceptions of Israels origins is found also in Genesis and 12 Samuel versus ExodusJoshua. According to the latter, Israels collective identity is already formed before it crosses the Jordan. The stories in Judges represent some of the best evidence of an autochthonous view, but they have been edited to construct a literary bridge between Joshua and Samuel. See R.G. Kratz, Die Komposition der erzhlenden Bcher des Alten Testaments (UTB, 2157; Gttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2000), pp. 286-88; and K. Schmid, Erzvter und Exodus: Untersuchungen zur doppelten Begrundung der Ursprunge Israels innerhalb der Geschichtsbcher des Alten Testaments (WMANT, 81; NeukirchenVluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1999), pp. 56-165. For a helpful discussion of the historical aspects, see P. Mach- inist, Outsiders or Insiders: The Biblical View of Emergent Israel and its Contexts, in L.J. Silberstein and R.L. Cohn (eds.), The Other in Jewish Thought and History: Con- structions of Jewish Culture and Identity (New Perspectives on Jewish Studies; New WRIGHT Seeking, Finding and Writing in EzraNehemiah 297 1 viva voxmoves throughout Cyruss kingdom, it resonates with the Rem- nant, consolidating them into a unity. 79 Instead of the motley building crew that gradually emerges as the Wall is built, the group of Temple builders consisting of the entire Remnanthad already been formed in the Golah. The efcacy of Cyruss consolidating voice consists in its call to build the Tem- ple. 80 When the sacred seventh month comes around (Ezra 3.1), all Israel assembles as one man ( c'z), poised and ready to erect the altar in Jerusalem so that they can perform the prescribed sacrices. In Nehemiahs account, Judah consists of all those who are willing to build; in Ezra 16, the people, who are already unied before they commence the construction, spurn groups which wish to join them. 81
Ezra 16 responds to Nehemiahs account in other ways. Whereas Arta- xerxes allows the Wall to be built out of sympathy for his cupbearer, Cyrus needs no prodding (except from YHWH) when he commands the Temple to be built. By means of the Artaxerxes correspondence (Ezra 4), the authors of Ezra 16 make it clear that the Temple takes precedence over the Wall, which represents an aspiration for Judahs political autonomy. 82 In order to survive in a new age, Judah must instead rally around the Temple, since this institu- tion enjoyed the favor of the imperial court. 83 Conversely, as Nehemiahs account matures into its present form, it comes to champion a strong and inde- pendent Judah. This work highlights the military strength of Judah (4.7-17; 7.1-3; 11.1ff.), the fraternity of the Judeans (5.1-13), a strong c (5.14-19), the threat posed by political alliances with Judahs neighbors (6.1-4, 17-19; 13.4-9, 28-29), strict observance of the Sabbath throughout the province
York: New York University Press, 1994), pp. 35-60; Machinist, Before Israel: The Canaan- ites as Other in Biblical Tradition, in Silberstein and Cohn, The Other in Jewish Thought, pp. 74-90; Machinist, Negotiating (with) the Natives: Ancestors and Identity in Genesis, HTR 96 (2003), pp. 147-66. 79. See also Ezra 10.7 and 2 Chron. 30.5. 80. See the wordplay between to go up and to sacrice throughout Ezra 16 (and 7 8). The Remnant must rst make :': before they can offer ::. 81. For example, Ezra 4.1ff. draws on the vocabulary and form of Neh. 2.19-20 in order to present the adversaries desiring to build, yet being turned away. Neh. 2.19-20, con- versely, describes how a group of builders is formed as they separate themselves from dissidents. 82. See not only the wording of the letters, but also Neh. 2.19 and 6.5-9. Ezra 4 intends to disparage any move towards political autonomy by showing the permission to build the Temple and the good relations with the imperial court were jeopardized by the work on the Wall. 83. This is also historically true since the Temple was the institution with money and served as an intermediary to foreign rulers. For this very reason, its leadership was prone to corruption and was therefore subjected to criticism, as one can observe in Josephuss Antiquities. 298 Unity and Disunity in EzraNehemiah 1 (13.15-22), the danger represented by foreign traders (13.16, 20-22), one language (13.24), 84 and endogamous marriage practices (13.23-31). 85 Ezra 1 6 underscores the harmony that characterized the relationship between the imperial court and the Temple, as well as between high priest and lay leader. It thus calls into question the particularistic stance taken in Nehemiahs account, which appeals to the lower classes (ch. 5), while disparaging the contribu- tions of the aristocracy and Eliashib. The account in Ezra 78 shares this opposition to Nehemiahs account. Constructing a literary bridge between Ezra 16 and Nehemiah 113 * , these chapters integrate the pro-priestly Tendenz of the Temple-building account with the setting and rst-person form of Nehemiahs Memoir. In this way the authors of EzraNehemiah can upstage Nehemiah and his Wall. Before Arta- xerxes rescinds his prohibition in Ezra 4 and allows his cupbearer to rebuild the Wall, he rst takes the initiative himself to beautify the Temple and commands Ezra to transport imperial donations. In Ezra 9 the authors of the book begin to shift their sympathies toward Nehemiahs Wall. Ezra transfers the holiness of the priests to the people as a whole, 86 so that his problem is to ensure that the holy seed did not lose its distinctive identity. 87 He shows in his prayer that intermarriage imperiled the success Judah had hitherto witnessed in building the Temple (vv. 8-9). The liberal cosmopolitanism of the aristocracy and priests (Neh. 6.17-19; 13.4-9, 28-29), and the universalism of the Temple-oriented, hierocratic polity, 88 had its limits. Judah was small, yet it must also be strong. The solution was to fortify the line demarcating Judah from its neighbors. 89 Before the insertion of the third-person account in Ezra 10, the reader is once again conveyed back
84. For the use of language in constructing identity, see J.E. Joseph, Language and Identity: National, Ethnic, Religious (Houndmills, Hants.: Palgrave Macmillan, 2004). 85. In 6.1-4 Nehemiah demonstrates the evil intentions behind Sanballats putative desire to collaborate. This isolationist message then provokes the question in 6.5-9 whether Judah should go so far as to establish a monarchy. Speaking as the hero of the Restoration, Nehe- miah strongly eschews this possibility (6.8). A strong, fortied Judah does not mean a politically autonomous one. 86. See Fishbane, Interpretation, pp. 121-23. 87. z: in 9.2 refers to various forms of social contact (BDB, s.v. z: II: to fellow- ship or to exchange pledges). 88. The cosmopolitanism of the priests, which is criticized in Nehemiahs account and the sources in Josephuss Antiquities, is not apparent in Ezra 16 and 78. To the con- trary, these accounts espouse an allochthonous Golah-view. Nevertheless, their authors support the Temple against Nehemiahs criticism of the high-priesthood, and they com- pose their exclusivist history of the construction of the Temple as a counterpoise to Nehemiahs account. 89. This point is discussed throughout Wright, Rebuilding Identity; see, e.g., pp. 255, 339. WRIGHT Seeking, Finding and Writing in EzraNehemiah 299 1 to the imperial court, where Nehemiah hears about the troubles in the prov- ince and responds in the same way his predecessor did. 90 He then comes to Jerusalem in order to rebuild its Wall, the symbol of Judahs separation from its neighbors. In the nal passage of his account, which describes the time before the completion of the Wall (in those days), 91 he rips out the hair of the Judean men (13.25, see Ezra 9.3) and makes them swear to not give your daughters in marriage to their sons, or take any of their daughters for your sons or yourselves marriages with foreign women (see Ezra 9.12). Conse- quently, the Judeans can say of Ezra and Nehemiah what Aristeas said of Moses: He has fenced us about with impregnable palisades with walls of iron to the end that we should mingle in no way with the nations (Letter of Aristeas 139). 92
From the composition history of EzraNehemiah, we can understand why the Torah appears in the middle of Nehemiahs account. In the semiotics of the book, the Wall had already served as a symbol for proponents of particu- laristic and even isolationistic policies. During the construction activities, Nehemiah had criticized the priesthood and aristocracy for a number of infrac- tions of the Torah (chs. 5 and 13). So too, Ezra had realized the limits of the liberal Temple-oriented policy. In Nehemiah 8 the two gures join forces in the fortied (7.1-3) Jerusalem to organize the ceremonies for the seventh month, which differ starkly from those some 90 years earlier (Ezra 3). The entire restoration community was present also on the earlier occasion (Ezra 2, Neh. 7), yet here the Torah and confession (Neh. 9) have replaced the Temple and sacrices. And while the lay-leader and high priest form a diarchy in Ezra 3, in Nehemiah 8 Eliashib is not present. His place beside Nehemiah (8.9) is occupied by a scribe (= priest; see 8.1, 2, etc.). In the days that follow, the Torah continues to occupy the center of the com- munitys attentionboth as an iconic book and a source for seeking-and- nding. Whereas on the rst day all the people gather at the plaza before the Water Gate to hear the Torah read, on the second day, the lay-leaders, priests, and Levites gather to Ezra the scribe (cz ::cz., v. 13), who represents concretum pro abstracto the institution of Torah-learning. Their intention is to understand the Torah (: 'z 'zc:). On this occasion, as well as later (13.1-3), 93 they nd written (z:z :so':) things that support their Temple-critical, particularistic viewpoint. Curiously, some
90. They both hear, sit down, and pray. 91. See n. 76. 92. In Jer. 1.18 the prophet, as the messenger of the divine word, is a fortied city and bronze walls against Judah. 93. Before the expansions in 9.110.40 and 12.1-26, the paragraph in 13.1-3 (as well as 13.4-31) would have stood much closer to ch. 8, separated only by ch. 11 and the account of the dedication of the wall in 12.27ff. 300 Unity and Disunity in EzraNehemiah 1 of the things they nd are not in the Torahor at least not overtly there. 94
Therefore, the authors of these passages make them explicit by putting them into writing, and in doing so, they follow the example of important gures in the history of the restoration, such as Darius in Ezra 6. As Ezra and Nehemiah join forces in these nal passages of the book, the various themes that have developed in the formation of this work converge. Thus it is z:z who assemble and petition Ezra to bring the Torah in 8.1. This emphasis on the entire community (see 7.6-72) takes its point of depar- ture from older portions of the book. Although several passages in Ezra Nehemiah underscore the participation of all the people, it is Nehemiahs account which has a distinctive communal, egalitarian accent. This work stresses the rst-person plural as the subject of the building activities and reports how the Judeans had acknowledged their fraternity before the Wall was completed. The solidarity of the people goes hand-in-hand with a critique of the aristocracy and priests. So too, the holiness that was conned to the altar, priests and Temple in Ezra 16 is transferred to the leadership in Ezra 8.28, to Israel as a whole in Ezra 9, and then to the entire city in Neh. 3.1-32; 11.2; 12.27-47. 95 Finally, and most importantly for our investigation, the activ- ity of seeking-and-nding begins in Ezra 16 as the work of the Persian kings, who, in searching in their archives before making a policy-decision, demon- strate the point that the Judeans do not need a native king so long as they have their written traditions. As the book develops and the people mature in their reading skills, Ezra transfers this royal activity from both its original function to support the Temple (Ezra 16) and from his own scribal profes- sion (Ezra 7, Neh. 8) to the entire community. 96 Whereas on the rst day of the seventh month the people are in their places (zo:: z::) and listen to the Torah read (Neh. 8.8), on the 24th day they arise in their places and read for themselves (:': zo:: :o::, 9.3). 97 The Torah is thus now in
94. See Fishbanes discussion of Y. Kaufmann in Interpretation, pp. 109-13, and for 13.1-3, pp. 126-29. With respect to building aspects in 8.15-16 (:':::'z: :s c:), see also the command to build the Temple in Hag. 1.8 (:.z: : zz: ::). Signicantly, they nd nothing regarding sacrices. 95. See Eskenazi, In an Age of Prose, pp. 112-21; S. Japhet, From the Kings Sanc- tuary to the Chosen City, in L.I. Levine (ed.), Jerusalem: Its Sanctity and Centrality to Judaism, Christianity, and Islam (New York: Continuum, 1999), pp. 3-15; Japhet, Some Biblical Concepts of Sacred Place, in R.J. Zwi Werblowsky and B.Z. Kedar (eds.), Sacred Space: Shrine, City, Land (New York: New York University Press, 1998). 96. See Eskenazi, In an Age of Prose, pp. 98-100. 97. I attempt to show that 13.1-3 is older than 9.1ff. in Rebuilding Identity, pp. 315-17. In view of the presentation of texts in EzraNehemiah, I cannot follow W. Schniede- winds otherwise helpful work, How the Bible Became a Book, when it pits orality against textuality as if the former were inherently more egalitarian and less rigid than the latter (see, e.g., pp. 15-16). The relationship between the two is probably more complex, as WRIGHT Seeking, Finding and Writing in EzraNehemiah 301 1 the hands of the people. At a time when the high-priesthood is corrupt, they stand in the midst of the fortied Jerusalem surrounded by the sanctied Wall (3.1ff.; see also 12.27ff.) and engage in the activity of seeking-and-nding with the help of a c devoted to the Torah and a c:z at his side.
Conclusions
With respect to the issue of the (dis-)unity of EzraNehemiah, which has been the impetus for the present volume, the book of EzraNehemiah contains many different opinions regarding the best way to rebuild Judahs identity. Nevertheless, it represents a unity, and this unity has emerged from a dialogi- cal process in which authors of the book sought to redene Judahs identity. On a synchronic level, this dialogical process is personied by the voice of EzraNehemiahs anonymous narrator, which tells the reader how the restora- tion progressed from a focus on the Temple (Ezra 16; 78), to a crisis which threatened the survival of the Judeans (Ezra 910), to the construction of the Wall around Judah by means of the Torah (Neh. 113). 98 From a diachronic perspective, this voice provides the framework for the various authors of the book to construct Judahs identity by negotiating between various universal- istic and particularistic forces that governed the political development of the province. 99 These authors realize that the Temple, and the cosmopolitan- ism of the priests and aristocracy, had their limits, 100 and in the nal form
J. Assmanns work demonstrates (see, e.g., Das kulturelle Gedchtnis: Schrift, Erinnerung und politische Identitt in frhen Hochkulturen [Munich: Beck, 3rd edn, 2000]); see also the recent book by D. Carr, Writing on the Tablets of the Heart (Oxford: Oxford Univer- sity Press, 2005). While literacy may have been conned to the upper, educated classes, the written word nevertheless can function to decentralize society away from a single cultic center, as the social history of middle Europe during the 15th and 16th centuries, as well as EzraNehemiah, illustrate. On the other hand, textsby means of letterscan also function to support centers of authority, as the history of the responses, as well as EzraNehemiah, illustrate. Orality and textuality seem therefore to lack essential fea- tures. See the introduction to Niko Besniers Literacy, Emotion, and Authority: Reading and Writing on a Pacic Atoll (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1995). 98. With regard to the development of Temple and Torah as duality in Jewish identity, S. Schwarz remarks, the centrality of Temple and Torah in ancient Jewish self-denition requires argumentation because it is not a priori an eternal truth of Jewish identity, uncon- tingent on changing social and political conditions. Rather, it was the result of a long and obscure series of historical processes (S. Schwartz, Imperialism and Jewish Society: 200 BCE to 640 CE [Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2001], pp. 50-51). 99. The dialogical nature of EzraNehemiah takes its point of departure from the dialec- tical character of the progress on the Wall. See Wright, Rebuilding Identity, pp. 28-30. 100. For the recent discussion in ethics and political philosophy on the limits of cosmo- politanism, see J. Cohen, For Love of Country: Martha C. Nussbaum with Respondents (Boston: Beacon, 1996); and K.A. Appiah, Kosmopolitische Patriotismus (Frankfurt: 302 Unity and Disunity in EzraNehemiah 1 of the book, they demarcate these limits with the help of the Wall and Torah. 101
Although criticized, the Temple continues to play a role in the nal por- tions of EzraNehemiah. To be sure, the lengthy prayer in Nehemiah 9 reviews Israels history at length without mentioning the Temple; in its place it emphasizes the Land and adherence to the Torah as the precondition for possession of it. Responding to its clarion call for liberation from Israels bondage (vv. 36-37), 102 the people pledge themselves to the Torah (10.1-30). Yet in spelling out what this pledge entails, they recognize not only that they must maintain the boundaries separating them from the peoples of the land (vv. 31-32), but also that the Temple should still occupy a central place in their society (vv. 33-40). In the end Nehemiah proves that the communitys concluding promise not to forsake the Temple of our God ('z z:. : :.', 10.40) is meaningless without a strong-handed leader who can enforce
Suhrkamp, 2002); and Appiah, Cosmopolitanism: Ethics in a World of Strangers (New York: W.W. Norton, 2006). 101. I should reiterate here the point made in nn. 85 and 88: Judean politics during the Persian and Hellenistic periods did not consist merely of two parties corresponding to the dichotomy TempleTorah. The variety of opinion was naturally much wider, and many priests would have also supported an independent Judah. Even in the later period, as Josephus and his sources demonstrate, the world of Judah was much different from the one portrayed in EzraNehemiah (in its nal form). The authors of the latter read their views back into Judahs history, presenting the Judeans as if they all longed to build the Temple (cf., however, Hag. 1) and read the Torah. Nevertheless, the book does accurately reect a historical tension between particularistic and universalistic tendencies. (These terms are admittedly inadequate.) The authors of Ezra 16 and 78 are critical of the politics identi- ed with the Wall, showing that it jeopardized the favor of the imperial court (Ezra 4). In emphasizing the Temple, they provoke critiques in Ezra 910 and Neh. 113. The authors of the latter expand their purview to the province as a whole. They conclude the book (Neh. 13.4-30) that, given the high priesthoods and the aristocracys tendencies to be corrupt, a lay leader committed to the Torah must have the oversight of the province. In the frame- work of the book, these authors draw upon characteristic features of Ezra 16 in order to make their point clear (cf. e.g. Ezra 23 with Neh. 78). Their critique is accordingly not aimed so much at the history presented in Ezra 16, but at those who stood to prot from its pro-Temple stance. The tension between particularism and universalism can be traced far back into the history of Judahs foreign politics (e.g., to the struggle between propo- nents of collaboration and proponents of autonomy), and it intensies in the late Hellenistic and Roman periods. 102. Cf. these statements with Ezra 9.9, which presents Judahs bondage in the context of Persias favor. See H. van Grol, Indeed, Servants We Are: Ezra 9, Nehemiah 9 and 2 Chronicles 12 Compared, in Bob Becking and M.C.A. Korpel (eds.), The Crisis of Israel- ite Religion: Transformation of Religious Tradition in Exilic and Post-Exilic Times (OTS, 42; Leiden: Brill, 1999), pp. 209-27. WRIGHT Seeking, Finding and Writing in EzraNehemiah 303 1 it. After returning from Babylon and personally entering the sacred Temple- precincts in order to banish Tobiah, he indicts (z') the rulers by quoting the very promise which concludes the community-pledge: z'z z:. ::o (13.11). 103
In this chapter I have examined the struggle between Temple and Torah in EzraNehemiah by focusing on its motif of seeking-and-nding. After the z was identied with the written word, rather than solely an oracle spoken by a medium or prophet, c and cz began to refer more to textual study than oracular divination. Presupposing these developments, the authors of EzraNehemiah use the motif of seeking-and-nding to portray the central role played by texts and textual study in the history of the restoration. The book depicts a shift from the study of texts and Torah as a means of reestablishing the Temple cult to the study of Torah as an end in itself. In EzraNehemiah seeking-and-nding is the activity of creative exegesis that guides Judah into a new era. This creativity can be witnessed in the inter- pretations recorded in EzraNehemiah. But EzraNehemiah, I submit, is more than just a record of interpretations. It is the product of a discourse in which generations of readers reect on the works of their predecessors and add their reections to these works, thus composing a history of the restora- tion. The narrative of EzraNehemiah is an imaginative construct that does not correspond to the history of the restoration, yet by studying the process of the books formation, one can trace important political developments within Judah. The authors of EzraNehemiah are exegetes, and they imbue their activi- ties with greater authority by creating a historical memory according to which the heroes of the restoration did long ago what they are doing now. In deciding how to proceed with the restoration without their own king, and later when the high-priesthood is corrupt, the Judeans follow the example of the Persian kings and submit themselves to the absolute authority of their written traditions. They search in their respective recordswhether it be lists, the Torah or the book of EzraNehemiah itself. They then write what they nd, and when they do, they amplify the earlier texts and apply them to their contemporary situations. Ultimately their writings become sources for
103. The fact that laymen could reinterpret or challenge priestly rules of purity was the great inheritance of Nehemiah (Fishbane, Interpretation, p. 128). After the addition of Neh. 10 and the date in 13.6, Nehemiah comes to Jerusalem in prophetic fashion, execu- ting z' lawsuits and citing the specic formulations of the peoples pledge to the Torah. The paragraphs in ch. 13 thus present Nehemiah no longer making progressive reforms but ratheraccording to the principle nullum crimen sine legeenforcing what the people had already acknowledged to be the demands of the Torah. See Eskenazi, In an Age of Prose, p. 151, and Wright, Rebuilding Identity, pp. 191-97. 304 Unity and Disunity in EzraNehemiah 1 new searches and discoveries. Seeking-and-nding in its bureaucratic-admin- istrative, legal-juridical and cultic-religious contexts is thus inseparably con- nected in EzraNehemiah to literary productionboth of other texts and the book of itself. 104
104. My study of EzraNehemiah supports B.M. Levinsons critique of any simple dichotomy between composition history and reception history, between an original source and its reinterpretation, or between the intellectual models normally employed for the study of pre-exilic literature and those used for the literature of the Second Temple period (The Birth of the Lemma: The Restrictive Reinterpretation of the Covenant Codes Manumission Law by the Holiness Code [Leviticus 25.44-46], JBL 124 [2005], pp. 617- 39 [639]).
Katherine M. Stott (2008) - Why Did They Write This Way? Reflections On References To Written Documents in The Hebrew Bible and Ancient Literature. T&T Clark (Ebook, I)