translated by S. A. Cook, in R. H. Charles's Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha of the Old Testament (1913)

1 Esdras is a Greek retelling of the biblical story that runs from King Josiah's Passover through the rebuilding of the Jerusalem Temple to Ezra's reading of the Law — the same span of history covered, in Hebrew and Aramaic, by the closing chapters of 2 Chronicles and by Ezra and Nehemiah. It is not a translation of those books so much as a free, literary rewriting of them, in places drawing on an older form of the text than the one that survived into the Hebrew Bible. Its most striking feature has no parallel in the canonical account at all: a court tale in which three young bodyguards of King Darius debate what is strongest in the world, and the winner, Zerubbabel, wins the king's favor and permission to rebuild Jerusalem by arguing for the supremacy of truth. Jewish and Christian tradition alike knew and used 1 Esdras — Josephus follows its order of events, and it stood beside Ezra-Nehemiah in the great Greek Bibles — but it was never accepted into the Hebrew canon, and Jerome's rejection of it eventually pushed it to the margins of both Jewish and Christian scripture. It survives here as a witness to how differently the story of the return from exile could be told.

Introductory Note (1913, S. A. Cook)

§ 1. Preliminary Account of the Book

The first book of the Apocrypha stands in a class by itself in that it is, with the exception of one portion, a somewhat free Greek version of the biblical history from Josiah's Passover (2 Chron. xxxv.) to the Reading of the Law by Ezra (Neh. viii.). It differs, however, in several important particulars both from the corresponding canonical passages and from the more literal Greek translation of them (also preserved in the Septuagint), and an adequate treatment of its text and contents belongs properly to the commentaries and handbooks on Chronicles, Ezra, and Nehemiah. Consequently, in order to keep the Introduction and Notes within limits, it has seemed desirable to print the Revised Version of the "apocryphal" and "canonical" passages side by side in the full edition, and to restrict remarks to those points which appeared to be essential for the study of the relation between the texts and their significance for the period which they cover. Further reference to the commentaries and other works dealing with the period in question is therefore recommended.

The contents of 1 Esdras comprise:

• i. = 2 Chron. xxxv. 1–xxxvi. 21. Josiah's passover and death; the last kings of Judah to the fall of Jerusalem, 586 B.C.
• ii. 1–15 = Ezra i. The decree of Cyrus permitting the rebuilding of the Temple and the return of Sheshbazzar with the temple-vessels and a band of exiles, 538–537.
• ii. 16–30 = Ezra iv. 7–24. The Samaritan opposition to the rebuilding in the reign of Artaxerxes, 465–425.
• iii. 1–v. 6, wanting in Ezra. The successful oration of Zerubbabel, one of the bodyguard of Darius, in the second year of his reign (i.e. Hystaspes, 521–486), and the king's decree permitting a return of exiles to rebuild the city and Temple; brief statement of the journey.
• v. 7–73 = Ezra ii. 1–iv. 5, 24 (v. 6 is wanting). List of Zerubbabel's band, the rebuilding of the Temple hindered by the Samaritans from the time of Cyrus to the second year of Darius (520).
• vi–vii. = Ezra v.–vi. The successful rebuilding of the Temple through the intervention of Darius in 520, and its completion in 516.
• viii. 1–ix. 36 = Ezra vii.–x. The decree of Artaxerxes in his seventh year (458), the return of Ezra and a body of exiles, the separation of the people from the foreign wives.
• ix. 37–55 = Neh. vii. 73–viii. 13a. The reading of the law by Ezra, placed in Nehemiah after the return of Nehemiah in the king's twentieth year (444).

The outstanding features are:

1. The presence of the Artaxerxes record before the reign of Darius, whether after the return of Sheshbazzar (Ezra ii. 16–30) or after the commencement of the rebuilding by Zerubbabel (Ezra iv. 7–24), both of which are placed in the time of Cyrus.
2. The inclusion of iii. 1–v. 6, the story famous for the Praise of Truth and the well-known dictum "magna est veritas et praevalet", and the decree of Darius (which excludes any prior return).
3. The confusion caused by the presence of this section (iii. 1–v. 6) in the history of the exiles who returned in the time of Cyrus (ii. 1–15 = Ezra i.) and at once commenced the work of rebuilding (v. 7–73 = Ezra ii.–iv.).
4. The omission of Nehemiah i.–vii. 72, with the result that the continuation of the story of Ezra (Nehemiah viii.) is placed in immediate connexion with viii.–x., whereas the canonical books leave a gap of twelve years between viii.–x. and Nehemiah i. seqq.
5. Numerous readings of greater or less value, which are often important for the textual criticism of the Massoretic Text, and sometimes affect the literary and historical problems of the sources.

1 Esdras ceases abruptly; compare the close of 2 Chronicles, "and let him go up" (= i. 3), also Mark xvi. 8. The Revised Version rendering of ix. 55 implies that this is intentional (so Ewald, Bissell, Lupton, Bayer, and others). Hence it is often supposed that the book is a self-contained work, written and compiled for some specific purpose — e.g. to influence Gentiles in favour of the Jews, or (Lupton) to prepare the way for the building of the temple of Onias at Alexandria, or simply, perhaps, to bring together narratives relating to the Temple; compare the conclusion of one Latin witness, "explicit Esdrae liber primus de templi restitutione". But the feature may also be explained on the view that the book, which begins somewhat abruptly, is merely a fragment of a larger work (Michaelis, Eichhorn, Trendelenburg, Rödiger, Treuenfels, Howorth, Torrey, and others). This raises several interesting questions; in particular, ix. 38–55 belong, in Nehemiah viii., to the concluding chapters of Ezra's history, and it is very noteworthy that Josephus finishes his account of Ezra before his introduction of Nehemiah — what was the original sequel of 1 Esdras? Moreover, not only was 1 Esdras used by this orthodox Jewish historian, the book was important enough to find a place in the Greek Bible, it was known to early Christian writers, and is referred to in terms which indicate that its canonicity and value were not doubtful (see § 2).

Now, the criticism of the Old Testament has advanced sufficiently to prove that the biblical records Ezra-Nehemiah bristle with the most intricate and serious difficulties, the extent of which is manifest in the widely-differing conclusions that prevail. As can be seen from other sources (see § 4, IV. 2), the history of the Persian period is plunged in obscurity, upon which some light has only recently been shed by contemporary records (Babylonian inscriptions, Jewish-Aramaic papyri from Upper Egypt). It can no longer be assumed that the Massoretic Text necessarily represents a more trustworthy record of the age, and that 1 Esdras is necessarily arbitrary and methodless. Both share fundamental imperfections. 1 Esdras, therefore, in any case deserves impartial consideration, and its problems involve those of Ezra-Nehemiah. These problems, owing to the absence of decisive and independent evidence, can be handled only provisionally; but enough is clear to permit the conclusion that 1 Esdras represents a text in some respects older than the present Massoretic Text, to which, however, some attempt seems to have been made to conform it (compare Ewald, 138 n. 6; Howorth, PSBA, xxiii. 306 seq.). From a comparison of both with Josephus and other sources (notably Daniel) it would further appear that 1 Esdras represents one of the efforts to give an account of a period, the true course of which was confused and forgotten, if not intentionally obscured; different attempts were made to remove difficulties and inconsistencies, and the desire to give greater prominence to the priestly Ezra than to the secular governor Nehemiah is probably responsible for the arrangement of the extant texts.

Ezra-Nehemiah and 1 Esdras (with Josephus) exhibit diverging views of the history. But 1 Esdras, even in its present incomplete form, overlaps with Chronicles-Ezra-Nehemiah, and since it provides a distinctly paraphrastic and free rendering of the Massoretic Text, it seems probable that when it was superseded by the more literal Greek translation — of Theodotion (compare the two Greek texts of Daniel) — this confused and self-contradictory book (or fragment) was preserved mainly on account of the excellent story of Zerubbabel (compare Howorth, PSBA, xxiv. 167). To the Jews, both Zerubbabel and Nehemiah pale before the growing majesty of Ezra; to the early Christians, the Praise of Truth was a familiar passage, and Augustine (de Civ. Dei, xviii. 36) saw in it a prophecy of Christ. Dating, apparently, about the first century B.C., the book's view of history was familiar to Josephus and his readers, to the Hellenist Jews, and to the Christians. The form in Ezra-Nehemiah, with the omission of the story of Zerubbabel (and the chronological confusions which attend it), represents that of the Rabbinical schools, and subsequently (through Jerome) of the Christian Church. Through these vicissitudes 1 Esdras fell into unmerited neglect, and by this omission (apparently intentional) there was removed a story which could not fail to interest the Christians — for it is surely significant that although the two genealogies of Jesus are hopelessly inconsistent, the two lines of ancestry of "David's greater Son" converge in the person of Zerubbabel.

§ 2. Title and Standing

The book is known as (1) Esdras A or 1 Esdras, so certain Greek codices, the Lucianic recension, the Syriac, and English Bibles since the Geneva edition of 1560 (where the name "Ezra" is reserved for the canonical book); or (2) as Esdras B or 2 Esdras, in the reckoning where 1 Esdras equals Ezra and Nehemiah; or (3) as 3 Esdras, so Latin Bibles since Jerome, the "Great Bible" of 1539, and also the Anglican Article VI in the Prayer-book. The name 3 Paraleipomenon (i.e. Chronicles) is found in a Florentine Greek manuscript, compare the title Sermones Dierum (the Hebrew title of Chronicles) Esdrae in Hilary's list (H. B. Swete, Introd. to O.T. in Greek, 210). It is also styled Tertius Neemiae by Franciscus Robles, 1532 (Lupton, 4). A convenient name for the book is the "Greek Ezra", to distinguish it from the other and literal translation of the canonical books.

It is a significant fact that, as emphasized by Whiston in 1722, the Jewish historian Josephus uses 1 Esdras for his account of King Josiah, follows its order of events, and is influenced by its language, although for the other books he employs the Septuagint. Equally significant is the appearance of 1 Esdras with the canonical Ezra-Nehemiah in the best Greek manuscripts, either before or after these. It is quoted by several early Greek and Latin Fathers, and Augustine and Origen cite iv. 41 and 59 respectively from "Esdras" without indicating that another than the canonical book is meant. Moreover, a Greek synopsis and a Syriac Catena treat 1 Esdras as Esdras proper, and give the title 2 Esdras to Nehemiah. But Jerome meanwhile had condemned the two apocryphal books of Esdras with their "dreams" (Praef. Esd. et Neh.), and his ruling was confirmed in due course by the Church. 1 Esdras is wanting in the early manuscripts of the Vulgate, and it was rejected by the Council of Florence (1442). It is found in the Latin bibles of 1474, 1480, etc., but is regarded as apocryphal by De Lyra (1498), Karlstadt (1520), and Stephanus (1528). It is wanting in the Complutensian Polyglot (1514–17), and Luther ignored it — though not perhaps primarily for its triviality (Bayer, 6 seq.). There was even a belief that it did not exist in Greek (Torrey, 13 n. 1). The Council of Trent rejected it in 1546, but it is printed in an appendix in small type in the Tridentine edition of the Vulgate. Although it appears as 1 Esdras in the 1587 edition of the Septuagint (Rome), it was omitted three years later from the Sixtine Vulgate (Rome, 1590). In spite of the occasional attention paid to it by a few scholars, 1 Esdras has since too often been overlooked and neglected, and has only recently come into deserved prominence through the persistence of Sir Henry H. Howorth from 1893 onwards (see further Torrey, 13 seqq.).

1 Esdras, on closer inspection, proves to be no free or less careful treatment of the Greek translation of the canonical books, as had been held by Keil, Zöckler, Bissell, König, and formerly Schürer (contrast his later edition). There is an overwhelming body of opinion that it is translated from a Semitic (Hebrew and Aramaic) original. There are, it is true, various readings, identical or apparently connected with the literal Greek translation, but they do not outweigh the many considerable and characteristic differences of rendering, the variations in the transliteration or translation of proper names, and the numerous readings which can be explained only from the Massoretic Text (see especially Bayer, 156 seqq.). That 1 Esdras is an independent version older than the Greek of the canonical books was suggested by Grotius (1644), Whiston (1722), Pöhlmann (1859), Ewald (1864), Lagarde (1874), and others, and has since been more cogently shown by Howorth and Torrey. It is pointed out that the Greek of Ezra-Nehemiah presents features characteristic of Theodotion's translation (viz. transliteration of gentilics, and of difficult or uncertain words) and parallel to his translation of Daniel. The Greek of 1 Esdras, on the other hand, finds parallels in the "Septuagint" text of Daniel, especially the first six chapters. Moreover, the Syriac of 1 Esdras claims to be made from the Septuagint, and it is very probable that 1 Esdras took the place of the Greek of Ezra-Nehemiah in Origen's Hexapla. Volz, however, has properly drawn attention to the varying quality of the different sections of 1 Esdras, a feature which "excludes the supposition that the Greek version can have been produced aus einem Guss" (in a single casting). In general, all the evidence tends to show that 1 Esdras held a more authoritative position than has usually been conceded to it (in consequence of Jerome), but that its unevenness as a translation and the complexity of its contents make its true origin and structure a more intricate problem.

§ 3. Text, Versions, Date, etc.

(a) Character of Translation. 1 Esdras, on account of its peculiar relationship to the Old Testament, cannot be studied textually apart from the versions based directly upon the Massoretic Text (see more fully, Torrey 62–114). While the Greek of Ezra-Nehemiah is un-Greek, literal and mechanical, that of 1 Esdras is the very reverse of servile, and its language both elegant and idiomatic. The vocabulary is extensive, containing several words that occur nowhere else in "Septuagint" Greek, or only in other books of the Apocrypha, notably 2 Maccabees. Semitic idioms are usually happily replaced by natural Grecisms. There is often a free treatment of the article, pronouns, and conjunctions; hypotaxis for the parataxis of the Massoretic Text; active verbs for passive. Condensation, paraphrase, and re-arrangement are frequent, and the translator has generally made the best of the original text, gliding over or concealing the difficulties. Sometimes he has misunderstood the original; but the rendering is carefully worded and thus presents an apparently plausible result (see e.g. i. 10–12, 38, 51). He manifests his intelligence when the skilful paronomasia of anesin and aphesin (iv. 62), suggestive of a Greek composer, goes back none the less to a Semitic original, and the use of the name Sisinnes (vi. 3) in place of the Massoretic Text's Tattenai is typical of his care. 1 Esdras, it is clear, was made to be read; it is a version rather than a translation, and its value for the criticism of the Massoretic Text must not blind us to its imperfections. Consequently, a mean must be sought between a promiscuous and haphazard use of 1 Esdras and a whole-hearted though indiscriminate reliance upon its readings and paraphrases. The attempt must invariably be made to distinguish between the underlying text and the features which (as in the Septuagint elsewhere) are due to the translator alone, and the difficulty of this task in certain crucial cases is vital for the disentanglement of the problems of the book.

(b) 1 Esdras and the Massoretic Text. It is abundantly plain that 1 Esdras is not derived from the Greek (Theodotion) of the Canonical Books. Where there is agreement, the evidence points to accident or absence of intention, and is not strong enough to prove dependence (see the most recent study by Bayer, 156–61). In certain cases where they agree against the Massoretic Text they sometimes are due to an easy misunderstanding, and sometimes point to a preferable reading; now and then the more literal version alone preserves an older text. It is highly significant that certain manuscripts of 1 Esdras occasionally conflate, and present simple doublets (e.g. ii. 25, vi. 29, ix. 8, 46), or more elaborate combinations made with some little care (e.g. v. 50, 58, 72 seq., vi. 5, 10, etc.). This revision appears to have been made from the Massoretic Text, and vi. 25 actually presents the incorrect "new" of the Massoretic Text by the side of the correct "one". Revision has also been made for the purpose of removing difficulties, or of making identifications (Zerubbabel, vi. 18, 27, 29). These adjustments, which are not found in Theodotion, seem to have been made first in the Greek version, and thus might appear to confirm the view that 1 Esdras is based upon an earlier Greek version (Ewald). The question of the underlying original, however, would still remain, and it is very important to notice that not only does 1 Esdras often presuppose a better text than the Massoretic Text, but that some of the readings raise questions of literary structure and historical criticism. Consequently, 1 Esdras is not directly based either upon Theodotion's literal translation or the extant Massoretic Text; the marks of revision point rather to an attempt to adjust to the Massoretic Text an earlier version which differed from it in some material respects, large and small.

(c) Manuscripts and Versions. The Greek manuscripts fall into two main classes: (1) Lucianic (manuscripts 19, 108), and (2) B, A, etc. The former stand in a class by themselves, reveal many signs of correction and improvement in order to agree with the Massoretic Text, and can be used only with great caution (see Torrey, 106 seqq.). The latter comprise two main subdivisions, B and A. B is distinctly the inferior, but shows fewer traces of correction. For a full grouping of all the manuscripts, see the elaborate discussion by Moulton, ZATW, xix. 211 seqq.

Two old Latin translations were printed by Sabatier, with a collation of a manuscript from Saint-Germain, and a later version which in a revised form was used as the Vulgate. A summary from a Lucca manuscript was edited by Lagarde. These differ from, and, on the whole, are purer than, the Greek.

The Syriac Peshitta is without Chronicles, Ezra, and Nehemiah. The Syro-Hexapla of Paul of Tella, printed in Walton's Polyglot and by Lagarde, is explicitly said to be from the Septuagint, and the same is stated at the head of a collection of excerpts in the old Syriac Catena, British Museum, Add. 12168. The variants of the latter and its selections from Nehemiah are printed by Torrey, and these selections, with a retranslation into Greek, collation, and complete introductory discussion by Gwynn. The Syriac has many points of contact with one branch of the Greek, especially in i. 1–9, but on the whole a relationship with another branch is more distinct.

The Ethiopic translation (ed. Dillmann) represents the text of the Hexaplaric tradition, and, according to Torrey (101), "is a valuable witness to the Hexaplar text. It must have been made with unusual care from a comparatively trustworthy codex."

The Arabic translation awaits study; the Armenian is valueless (Volz, § 2).

(d) Josephus. The Jewish historian (first century A.D.), with his continuous history of the monarchy and post-exilic age, stands nearest (of extant compilations) to the chronicler in point of antiquity. He is a valuable exponent of the attempt to weave heterogeneous material into a readable and more or less consistent whole, and his greatest claim to attention lies in the evidence he furnishes for a comparative study of the traditions encircling the names and events of the period from Josiah to the Samaritan schism. Josephus is the earliest witness to 1 Esdras; the relationship is unmistakable as regards material and even language. There are several points of agreement with one branch of the Greek as against another; Torrey (103) assigns the text an intermediate position. Unfortunately, Josephus is often extremely paraphrastic, and is therefore no safe guide for restoring the original of 1 Esdras. None the less, it is noteworthy that he is without the faults of i. 29, 34 seq., he presupposes a text more complete and older than that in vi. 18, viii. 55, he uses a slightly different version of iii. seq. (see Büchler, 64, 100), and, while obviously harmonizing in some places, elsewhere presents singular divergences or additions which do not appear to be arbitrary. In particular, his treatment of the stories of Ezra and Nehemiah is highly suggestive (see appendix to note on ix. 55). Besides utilizing the canonical sources (Jeremiah, Daniel, Esther), he has had access (as in Esther) to other Jewish traditions, and possessed some acquaintance with external history. But although Josephus is not a direct witness to 1 Esdras's text — and A. Hölscher has suggested that he made use of Alexander Polyhistor — he testifies to the authority of 1 Esdras's history, and it is unnecessary to assume (Swete, Thackeray, Bayer) that he used it simply because it was written in good Greek.

(e) Date and Place. While Josephus is evidence for the earlier existence of 1 Esdras, it is not certain that it then had precisely its present form. As a translation the linguistic features suggest that it belongs to the time of the old Greek translation of Daniel, and was perhaps due to the same translator (Torrey, 84 seq.). The date of the original is bound up with that of Chronicles-Ezra-Nehemiah, and must be some time after 333 B.C. The Persian period was past, and its history had become obscure, the identity of Darius and Apame (iv. 29) was forgotten, and the points of contact with Daniel and Esther (not necessarily in their present form) would suggest the late Greek age. The problem also involves the question whether iii. 1–v. 6 is a secondary insertion or part of the original compilation, and this naturally affects the discussion of the home of the book. Although the section seems to some scholars to point to the influence of Alexandrian thought and philosophy (Lupton, André, Thackeray, Volz), to others it is Palestinian (Zunz), or not necessarily Alexandrian (Torrey). The identification of Apame speaks for Egypt or Antioch; the knowledge of the topography of Jerusalem (v. 47, ix. 38) is not that of the compiler or translator but of his source, and therefore cannot be claimed to support a Palestinian home. Egypt is suggested by the free irony in iii., iv., the unveiled women (iv. 18), the references to navigation (iv. 15, 23), and piracy (v. 27), and elsewhere by the use of Coelesyria (see ii. 17). Thackeray compares the "friends" of the king (viii. 26) with the "first friends" who were third in scale of the courtiers at Alexandria, and with the phrase "if it seem good to thee" (ii. 21) the corresponding phrase in Aristeas and frequently in Egyptian papyri. In so far as these data point to Egypt one may recall the interest in history-writing among the Hellenists Demetrios, Eupolemos, Artapanos, Alexander Polyhistor and others.

(f) English Versions. It may be added that the old Geneva Bible, according to Lupton (6), is "in some respects closer to the Greek than that of 1611". Various improvements to the Authorized Version are suggested by Ball in the Variorum Apocrypha, and even the Revised Version is not such an advance as might have been anticipated. Note, for example, the archaic "Artaxerxes his letters" (ii. 30), "cousin" (iii. 7), "Jewry" (v. 7), and the gliding over of the obscurities of an imperfect Greek in viii. 8, and especially in the concluding words, ix. 55.

§ 4. Problems of Literary and Historical Criticism

I. The Period. The problems of 1 Esdras and its relation to Ezra-Nehemiah involve that more complete and continuous series Chronicles-Ezra-Nehemiah which is united by sequence of contents and the recurrence throughout of similar features of language, interest, standpoint, and compilation. The "chronicler's history" of the post-exilic period deals with the fall of Jerusalem (586 B.C.), the return from exile under Zerubbabel and Jeshua, the reorganization of the Jewish people, the restoration of the Temple and the furtherance of religious conditions, the separation from the Samaritans and other neighbours, and the inauguration of a church under the Mosaic Law. It is the period during which a considerable portion of the Old Testament, after passing through the hands of Judaean writers and editors, was reaching its present form, and the sole consecutive canonical source for this period, the chronicler's work, cannot be dated before the Greek age (333 B.C.). This source ignores all events between 586 and the decree of Cyrus, and omits other details which also refer to the period (see e.g. 2 Kings xxv. 22–30, Jeremiah xl.–xliv., lii. 28–34, Daniel, Esther). This feature, like the failure to record the history of (north) Israel after the fall of Samaria, cannot be wholly unintentional. Interest is concentrated upon exiles and reformers from Babylon, and upon their labours in rebuilding the Temple and in purifying religious and social conditions in the face of opposition within and without. A new and reformed Jewish community with its new Temple is linked historically with the old Judah of the Monarchy and the Temple of Solomon. The climax is reached partly in the great Covenant inaugurated by Ezra (Nehemiah x.), after the Introduction of the Law (444 B.C.), and partly in the Samaritan schism initiated by Nehemiah (Nehemiah xiii.). But such are the gaps and the one-sided standpoints that the records cannot be said to give us objective history. We have, rather, specific representations of certain events of vast importance for post-exilic Judaism, and, just as the account of the settlement of the old Israelite tribes in the land of their ancestors is found to contain conflicting traditions and the gravest difficulties, so also here, the compilation as a whole is dominated by certain larger views which tend to obscure the contradictions and intricacies that arise in any critical study of the data.

II. The Age of Cyrus and Darius.

(a) Paucity of trustworthy evidence. It is evident that the fall of Jerusalem could not have had the catastrophic effects that the traditional view assumes. We cannot picture Judah between 586 and 537 as half-empty. Neither the number of deported Judaeans nor that of those who returned points to any depopulation, and even the events under Gedaliah's governorship and the account of the flight of the survivors into Egypt indicate that the disasters ending in 586, when taken by themselves, had no ruinous consequences for the land. Subsequent history is ignored in Chronicles, but it is known that Jehoiachin in later years received some favour, and that Tyre had once more a king. The thread is resumed in Ezra i.–vi., in the reigns of Cyrus and Darius, but the narratives contain serious difficulties and conflicting representations which are increased by the independent prophecies of Haggai and Zechariah i.–viii. Not until we reach the time of Artaxerxes are the sources more extensive, and the light they throw upon preceding years renders the value of Ezra i.–vi. extremely doubtful. That is to say, between 586 and 458 (Ezra's return), or rather 444 (Nehemiah's first visit to Jerusalem), there is a lengthy period of the greatest significance for the internal history leading up to Judaism and Samaritanism, and the only continuous source is both scanty and untrustworthy.

(b) The evidence of the prophets. The prophecies of Haggai and Zechariah, dated in the second year of Darius, 520, mention neither any previous important return nor any earlier attempt to rebuild the Temple. Zerubbabel now resumes dynastic history, and the high-priest Jeshua (grandson of Seraiah, 2 Kings xxv. 18–21), whose return in Daniel ix. 24–26 dates an epoch, is now officially installed. Yahweh had been angry seventy years, but is aroused and returns to Jerusalem. He is jealous for Zion and full of wrath against her enemies; they shall be punished and his people shall enjoy increased happiness. City and temple shall be rebuilt and the land re-inhabited. The dispersed shall be rescued and again dwell in Jerusalem. The community in Babylon is bidden to escape to Zion. Babylon is threatened, and a passage which suggests that small bands of exiles might occasionally return heralds the forthcoming building of the temple. Haggai declares that the Temple is waste and he stirs the people to the work of rebuilding. The appeal is to the "remnant" — that is, not the forty thousand of Ezra ii., but those who had escaped deportation. Zerubbabel is the one to rebuild and complete the undertaking. The people fetch wood and the work is begun on the twenty-fourth of the sixth month; as yet one stone had not been set upon another. The foundations are laid on the twenty-fourth of the ninth month, and two years later, in 518, Zechariah viii. 9 seqq. look back upon the happier period which had thus been inaugurated. But the exilic fasts were still being celebrated, the return of the dispersed was still an event to be anticipated. From these data it is reasonable to infer — with an influential number of scholars — that "no considerable band of exiles can have returned — none that was able materially to influence the Jewish community" (Cheyne, Ency. Bib. 1481 n. 4).

(c) Objections. Various counter-arguments, influenced by the chronicler's history in Ezra-Nehemiah, have been brought forward. Those based upon a representation of events which has perplexed a generation of scholars naturally tend to beg the question. For example, it is urged that the prophets address returned exiles and it was unnecessary to describe the people as such; that they do not say that the builders were not returned exiles; that only Ezra i.–iii. explain the events of 520–516 and subsequent history; that the Temple could not have been built by the native "heathen" Judaeans; that the main stream of Jewish life had been diverted to Babylon and only the presence of a Babylonian "leaven" explains the prophecies of Haggai and Zechariah. While some scholars recognize and seek to explain the silence of the prophets touching a return and rebuilding before 520, others contend that there are indeed references to these events. Some, observing the profound difference between the promises of the "Deutero-Isaiah" (xl.–lv.) and the history in Ezra iii. seq., are of opinion that, since "the reality was a bitter disenchantment," the disillusionment so great, the prophets naturally do not refer to the events. But others argue that unless these promises had been essentially fulfilled there would have been so fatal a falsification of popular expectation that the oracles of Isaiah xl. seqq. would scarcely have survived. It is obvious that the preservation of prophecies is hardly conditioned by their fulfilment, however partial, and the difference between the anticipations and the reality was surely sufficient, on the most conservative view, to throw Isaiah xl. seqq. into oblivion. Haggai, it is objected, ignores a future return and may well have ignored previous events — but his contemporary Zechariah excludes a previous return, testifies to the continuation of the exile, and looks forward to a return. The argument from silence is undoubtedly valid here. Zechariah, in appealing to the people to repent, alludes to past experience, but does not refer to the return — which would have been the most immediate proof of the might of Yahweh. Was there a wish to put courage into the poor hearts of the returned exiles? There was one practical illustration of divine grace, but there is no allusion to it. In fact, the urgent supplication to Yahweh is unintelligible had a new era dawned as in Ezra i.–iii.; one may note Daniel's prayer for divine intervention and the prayers of Ezra after his return. In point of fact, Zechariah sees the punishment and misery of the past, and the "decalogue of promises" belong to the future. Did the prophets intentionally refrain from mentioning the material help the exiles had received in the time of Cyrus, in order to emphasize the necessity of relying upon spiritual help? The very passage which has been quoted in support of this view refers to the small beginnings recently inaugurated by Zerubbabel, and ignores Ezra i.–iv.

There is no explanation of the gap between 537 and 520; there is no hint of any hindrance, cessation, or of any more or less continuous rebuilding: the people are negligent and remiss, and according to Haggai the distress caused by the failure of the rains was a punishment for not rebuilding the Temple. It hardly required a Babylonian exile to teach this. Haggai certainly refers to an altar, but this does not prove the accuracy of Ezra iii. 3 or its context. A holy place is not necessarily deserted when the sanctuary is ruined, and Jeremiah xli. 5 already presupposes an altar; to contend that the existence of this altar throughout the exile ought to have been mentioned in the Old Testament is unreasonable. Indeed, the references to priests and sacrifices in Haggai and Zechariah go further and suggest that the cult of Yahweh was independent even of the existence of a Temple. There is, moreover, no good reason for believing that native Judaeans would be "heathenish", and that if they had rebuilt the Temple they would have been treated otherwise by the reformers Ezra and Nehemiah. If Jeremiah and Ezekiel bear witness to low religious conditions, Haggai, Malachi, and Isaiah lvi.–lxvi. indicate no great improvement after the return; and the degenerate community which all scholars recognize in the latter sources and which needed the reforms of Ezra and Nehemiah includes — on the traditional view — the Babylonian "leaven." Yet the Judaeans and Samaritans felt themselves to be heirs of Israel and the latter could claim to worship Yahweh. The fall of Jerusalem and the Exile do not exclude the presence — even among "the poorest of the land" — of men who might follow in the footsteps of the Rechabites, or of such seers as Amos, Hosea, Micah or Jeremiah; and considering the piety of the Jews in distant Elephantine (the Sachau papyri), there is clearly no necessity to deny the possibility of the continuous worship of Yahweh during the exile, or to demand after 538 the presence of a "leaven" which nevertheless did not preclude the abuses confronting Ezra, Nehemiah, Malachi, and the writers in Isaiah lvi. seqq. It is obviously impossible to start with presuppositions of what was orthodox Yahwism and what was heathenism, whether in Elephantine or in Palestine, before or after 536. If, too, Meyer's argument is valid, that the Levitical family of Henadad was indigenous, indigenous also was the family of Iddo to which Zechariah belonged; and this scholar's recognition of the prominence in and around Jerusalem of Calebite and other families who had never tasted exile is extremely important for any estimate of the internal conditions. The evidence of Haggai and Zechariah outweighs other evidence which might appear to be contrary; hence one can hardly assume that the deliverance of Jeshua (Zechariah iii. 2) necessarily refers to his return seventeen years previously, or that the name Zerubbabel suggests that other Jews with him were necessarily "begotten in Babylon". Nor can decisive objections be based upon references in Ezra vii.–x., Nehemiah i. seqq. to an earlier return. That men (exiles?) should come and assist in the rebuilding of the Temple is a promise for the future in Zechariah vi. 15. The references in Ezra ix. 4, x. 6 seq. present their own peculiar difficulties on any view, and in all probability the story of Ezra should come after Nehemiah i.–vi. (see III. a below). Nehemiah i. 2 seq. are inconclusive: they may be used to support a theory, although Ryle, who maintains an independent, though strictly conservative position, refers the passage to the people who had escaped the exile — the passage, in any case, must be considered in the light of evidence for some disaster between the age of Zerubbabel and the return of Nehemiah (see further, § 5 f). It is to be remembered, also, that the belief in a great return under Cyrus (or Darius) might influence the description of subsequent events even as the complete Mosaic legislation appears at first sight to be confirmed by the form which the revised and redacted history has taken in the books that follow the Pentateuch.

(d) Summary. The account of a large return to rebuild the Temple, whether in the time of Cyrus or Darius, must be tested by the independent Haggai and Zechariah. Great weight is often laid upon the circumstantial list in Ezra ii., and its genuineness has been upheld, particularly by Meyer. He, however, rejects in the main the rest of the Cyrus-history, although the decree of Cyrus is in itself entirely plausible, and the list is closely bound up with the whole series Ezra i.–vi. His position appears inconsistent from any traditional standpoint, as well as from one more consistently critical, although his recognition that the list (which contains names recurring throughout Ezra-Nehemiah) is fundamental for the criticism of the post-exilic history is thoroughly sound. But the list stands or falls with its context, and when it is admitted that the success of the opposition in Ezra iv. proves that the return has been exaggerated, or that the list has been re-edited, it is necessary to determine what details in Ezra i.–vi. may be regarded as even essentially accurate. The tolerance and kindness of Amil-Marduk (to Jehoiachin), Nabunaid (who sent back Merbaal to be king of Tyre), Cyrus, Cambyses, and Darius certainly allow the probability of the return of bands of exiles, even as the Sachau papyri show how Cambyses might favour native Jewish communities. But Ezra i.–vi. are so closely interconnected as a piece of history that if we accept — as we must — the testimony of Haggai and Zechariah, it is difficult, if not impossible, to reconstruct from Ezra the course of events. On the one hand, we gain new presuppositions regarding the internal conditions of the age. On the other, there is remarkable confusion in the traditions of Cyrus and Darius in Ezra and 1 Esdras; Ezra i. is repeated in the history of the time of Artaxerxes, and a narrative of this later period is actually inserted in Ezra i.–vi.; these combine with other features to extend the problems of Ezra i.–vi. to those connected with the work of Ezra and Nehemiah.

III. The Work of Ezra and Nehemiah.

(a) Ezra. In the story of Ezra there is considerable intricacy in the description of the separation from the heathen on the part of the "children of the captivity" (i.e. Ezra's small band of exiles, or the congregation presumably formed in 536–516), and the inauguration of the new community, consisting of these and the elect of the "seed of Israel". The whole story is closely interconnected, and much difficulty is caused by Nehemiah i.–vii., which sever Ezra vii.–x. from Nehemiah viii. seqq. by twelve years. There is, moreover, a very strong presumption that the Reading of the Law was originally described shortly after Ezra's arrival, and not (as in Nehemiah viii.) after this lengthy interval, during which we hear nothing of him. Finally, on independent grounds there seems to be no place for Ezra before the first visit, at all events, of Nehemiah. It is indeed allowed that "it is impossible to decide upon the evidence at our disposal" (G. A. Smith), or that this later position of Ezra is only a possibility (Wellhausen); but it seems very doubtful whether the story is trustworthy (H. P. Smith, Torrey, Jahn), and, even if it be historical, many agree that it cannot be placed before Nehemiah i.–vi. (Bertholet, Buhl, Cheyne, Guthe, Van Hoonacker, Kennett, Kent, Kosters, Marquart, Sellin, Wildeboer).

(b) Nehemiah. Nehemiah was governor from the 20th year of Artaxerxes to the 32nd (Nehemiah v. 14), i.e. 444–432, and we hear of a return to the king and a second visit (xiii. 4–6). But Nehemiah xiii. is joined to xii. so closely as to imply that only on the occasion of the later visit were the walls dedicated, although the ceremony is ostensibly the immediate sequel of their completion, two months after his first visit. This must be due to defective compilation, which will also explain the description of Nehemiah's social reforms (v.) amid the intrigues during the hurried rebuilding of the walls, where Nehemiah looks back upon the period of his governorship. In fact, his strong position as reformer in v. seems more in harmony with that in xiii. than with the picture of suspicion and hostility represented in iv., vi., and this serious difficulty touching the course of Nehemiah's work hampers every attempt to trace the history of his period. Consequently Nehemiah, even with the elimination of the Ezra-story, cannot be in its original form, as is clear also from the literary features of xi. and xii.

(c) The list in Nehemiah vii. Nehemiah's proposal to summon the people in order to augment Jerusalem is severed by part of the Ezra-story (Nehemiah viii.–x.) from the list of inhabitants (xi.), other lists (xii. 1–26), the dedication of the walls and arrangements for the Temple officials (xii. 27–47), etc. His story is no longer autobiographical and fresh sources are to be recognized. Since the list found by him (vii. 5) is that of the return of Zerubbabel (Ezra ii.), it is often assumed that the sequel in xi. must also refer to this earlier period. But xi. differs so widely from vii. 6 seqq. that both cannot be authentic. It is more probable, however, that xi. belongs to the story of Nehemiah and follows upon vii. 4, though the narrative is hardly continued smoothly. Yet, on any theory, the presence of Nehemiah vii. 6–73 is inexplicable, since it is difficult to see why even a compiler should quote an ancient list which excluded the more recent return of Ezra. If "a genealogical register was necessary," this would have been out-of-date, and although lapse of time and later adjustment might explain — on this view — the various differences between Ezra ii. and Nehemiah vii., there are far more significant differences in Nehemiah x. 1–27, a list which is referred to Nehemiah's time. Now, its conclusion (Nehemiah vii. 73b) is the proper introduction to the Reading of the Law (viii.), which is in a more natural position between Ezra viii. and ix., and Torrey points out that Nehemiah vii. 70–3, also, are more in harmony after the account of Ezra's return. Accordingly, through compilation and revision the account of Nehemiah's work, with its own chronological embarrassments, has been broken by a portion of the story of Ezra, the first part of which is now found before Nehemiah i., while the list in vii. records details which are not in keeping with the context, whereas in Ezra ii. it is in a consistent context, albeit an unhistorical one. While the Reading of the Law abruptly introduces Ezra, the preceding material is partly connected with Ezra's return, and partly belongs to the (unhistorical) account of Zerubbabel's return. A considerable portion of the Ezra-story is sundered from Nehemiah viii. seqq., but the description of the separation from the heathen is confused and closely interrelated, and the list of those who had married strange women includes families who are not mentioned in Ezra's band, but appear in the list of Ezra ii., which in the parallel in Nehemiah vii. is connected with the return of Ezra. Finally, this great list, though used for the time of Cyrus (or Darius, in 1 Esdras v.) and treated in Nehemiah vii. as a document of that period, reveals traces of the age of Nehemiah himself, and of having been adjusted to the earlier context. Hence it would seem that Ezra ii. and Nehemiah vii. originally belonged to an account of a return in some record of the history of the times of Nehemiah, Ezra, and Artaxerxes.

(d) The Ezra-story. The well-supported view that Ezra came to Jerusalem after Nehemiah i.–vi. implies some rearrangement of the material; and the suitability of Nehemiah vii. (some portion) and viii. between Ezra vii. seq. and ix. suggests, not that the latter part of the Ezra-story has been removed from Ezra x. and placed after Nehemiah vi., but that the whole once stood after that chapter. The complexity of the list in vii. (which overlaps with Ezra viii.) still remains, and it is at this point in the book that the critical problems become most intricate. But it must be noticed that the Ezra-story is certainly composite and not in its original form, and some of the confusion may have arisen when it was divided and part of it placed before Nehemiah i. If, moreover, the Ezra-story stood after Nehemiah vi., it may be observed that there is a certain relationship between the stories of Ezra and Nehemiah: the reference to the son of Eliashib; the suitability of Nehemiah xiii. 1–2 between Ezra x. 9 and 10; the coincidence in the day of arrival of each; the twelve-years' gap in the history of each, and the parallel features in their measures on behalf of temple, priests and people. Ezra, however, is mentioned only incidentally in the story of Nehemiah, and it is impossible that the two laboured together. On the other hand, the Tirshatha is prominent at the Reading of the Law and the signing of the Covenant, and also in the list in vii.; he is identified with Nehemiah, and Nehemiah is equally prominent in his own story (especially v., xiii.). Nehemiah was not the only governor in post-exilic Jerusalem, but it is noteworthy that the Ezra-story, especially in the narrative-portions, shows no interest in either the governor or the high-priest; the story seems to be written from an independent standpoint, and is focussed upon the austere figure of Ezra alone. The story represents a period of divine favour and royal clemency after the sufferings of Israel; it obviously comes after the disappearance of Zerubbabel, but it cannot be placed before the introduction of Nehemiah. There are independent arguments for the tradition of a return under Nehemiah and religious reorganization, and this appears to be supplemented by the account of Ezra. The latter describes the return of Ezra and a representative community to a temple, but one sorely in need of replenishing; to an ecclesiastical body, but a negligent one; to a community that worshipped Yahweh, but had fallen from the ideal. It can hardly be called an Autobiography or a Memoir, and there is no evidence to prove it to be a mere invention or fiction. Rather is it based upon facts which link the energy of Nehemiah with the subsequent appearance of an established orthodox Jewish Church. It may be regarded as an ideal description of the inauguration of Judaism, and the introduction of the "Book of the Law of Moses" (the Pentateuch is probably meant) is a later parallel to the story of the (re-)discovery of the "Book of the Law" (Deuteronomy) in the reign of Josiah; compare also the chronicler's accounts of Asa, Jehoshaphat and Hezekiah. It does not seem to have been written by the compiler of the series Chronicles-Ezra-Nehemiah; it appears rather as a tradition of independent origin, written around the age of Nehemiah, combined with the story of Nehemiah and ultimately with the great post-exilic history of Jerusalem and the Temple.

IV. Interrelation of Data.

(a) Intricacy of parallels. The intricacy of the list Ezra ii., Nehemiah vii. for the history of Cyrus, Darius (in 1 Esdras) and Artaxerxes does not stand alone. The close connexion in the narratives relating to Cyrus and Darius appears in several parallel passages between Ezra and 1 Esdras. The Temple, according to Haggai and Zechariah, was not commenced before the time of Darius, in contrast to Ezra ii.; but the laments in Ezra iii. 12 in the time of Cyrus curiously recall Haggai ii. 3 seqq. The social and religious reorganization implied in Ezra ii. 59, 62, vi. 21 finds a parallel in the reforms of Ezra, and while Ezra ii. 70, iii. 1 introduce the erection of the altar, the text in 1 Esdras v. 46 seq. presupposes a later period, and in fact these verses in Nehemiah vii. 73, viii. 1 form the prelude to the Reading of the Law. The latter event is the sequel to the record of a return which in 1 Esdras ix. is that of Ezra himself. 1 Esdras iii. is unhistorical, and has probably been influenced by material relating to the time of Nehemiah. The account of the opposition in Ezra iv. is untrustworthy, and there is a marked resemblance between the details and Nehemiah iv., vi., enhanced by the insertion in Ezra iv. 7–24 of a record of the time of Artaxerxes. This record attests a return of some importance, which, however, has yet to be identified, and while the decrees of Cyrus and Darius agree (compare also Artaxerxes and 1 Esdras) in presenting several very similar features, the historical basis for any decree on the lines they take cannot be found in their reigns. Such is the interrelation of the contents that it is hardly surprising that later sources should not infrequently combine Zerubbabel and Ezra, and that both should be united with Jeshua in a return in the time of Darius. Even Nehemiah xii. 47 looks back and mentions together Zerubbabel and Nehemiah; and if Hashabiah and Sherebiah in Nehemiah xii. 24 may be identified with the names in Ezra viii. 18 seqq., Joiakim (son of Jeshua) and Ezra appear to be correlated much in the same way that Nehemiah xii. 12–26 seem to confuse the times of Joiakim, Nehemiah and Ezra.

(b) Some modern views. The endeavour to recover the historical facts has led to very divergent conclusions among modern scholars. One favourite view has retained Ahasuerus and Artaxerxes in Ezra iv., between Cyrus and Darius, by the simple device of changing the names or of assuming an alternative nomenclature. Equally popular has been the theory that Artaxerxes and Darius are to be identified with the second bearer of each name, and, indeed, this may have been the view of the compiler or writer. Although this leaves an astonishing gap between Cyrus and Darius II, the belief that the Artaxerxes of the stories of Nehemiah and Ezra was the later king (404–359 B.C.) has found very weighty support. It has also been proposed to identify the Cyrus of the narratives with Darius and Darius with Artaxerxes I, and so close is the interconnexion of events that Nehemiah viii.–x. has been placed in the time of Zerubbabel, and the whole of Ezra-Nehemiah (extending from 537 to 432) has been compressed within a few years. Others hold that Zerubbabel first returned in the time of Darius, and that Ezra iii. 8 seqq. properly belongs to that later period. Moreover, the historical and prophetical writings are necessarily co-ordinated, and thus Haggai and Zechariah have appeared to some to be of or about the time of Cyrus, although if Darius be Darius II they are brought down to about 423–404. So, also, the prophecies in Isaiah xl.–lxvi. are subdivided and connected with the history of the times of Cyrus and Artaxerxes, although, under the influence of another theory of the history, the chapters are once more treated as virtually a whole, either relatively early or relatively late. In contrast to these efforts to overcome the difficulties are the views of those scholars who do not admit the intricacies but continue to maintain the essential trustworthiness of Ezra-Nehemiah, the unhistorical character of Chronicles itself being, nevertheless, almost unanimously realized. In so far as this is based upon the manner in which the narratives appear to be mutually confirmatory, it is necessary to observe that the chronicler's history is singularly simple compared with the forms taken in 1 Esdras, or in Josephus, or in the traditions that prevailed elsewhere in ancient times.

(c) Some ancient views. Josephus, who is well-informed on the last Babylonian kings, asserts that the kingdom fell to Cyrus the Persian and Darius the Mede; the two were kinsmen and the latter, whose father was Astyages, had another name among the Greeks. Cyrus, son of Cambyses, was the father of the better-known Cambyses; his mother, according to tradition, was the sister of Cyaxares and daughter of Astyages. Astyages, the last Median king, was the son of Cyaxares and was defeated by Cyrus. But this name is also given by Alexander Polyhistor and others to Cyaxares (c. 624–584), the founder of the Median empire, who took part with Nabopolassar in the attack upon Assyria. When the father of Darius is called Ahasuerus (Daniel ix. 1), and the latter and Nebuchadrezzar capture Nineveh (Tobit xiv. 15), the names Ahasuerus and Cyaxares have evidently been confused. The Ahasuerus of Esther was certainly placed soon after the deportation of Jehoiachin by Nebuchadrezzar, but in Judith iv. 1–6 the last-mentioned reigns over the Medes at a time when the Jews had recently returned from captivity and the high-priest was one Joiakim. The historical foundation for Esther's king can only be Xerxes, although Josephus, the Septuagint, and early writers identify him with Artaxerxes. Josephus, moreover, states that he was also called Cyrus — in Daniel v. 31, vi. 28, Darius the Mede becomes king after the fall of Babylonia and is followed by Cyrus — and gives the name Xerxes to the Artaxerxes of the stories of Ezra and Nehemiah. The difficulty of distinguishing the names would obviously be increased by the fact that Darius I was actually followed by Xerxes (485–465), and Darius II (423–404) by Artaxerxes II (404–359), and that Darius II had a son Cyrus, famous for the unsuccessful expedition against his elder brother Artaxerxes II. Not to pursue the confusing details further, it is enough to notice that the later historians had behind them a series of events of vital importance. During a relatively brief period the power of Assyria was broken up, Scythians and Medes entered into West Asiatic politics, a new Babylonian empire was restored only to fall before the Persian régime under Cyrus; a little more than a century later another Cyrus created a turmoil in West Asia (400), and finally the Greeks, who had been gradually coming into closer touch with the Oriental world, established a new age under Alexander the Great. How soon history became enwrapped in legend is obvious from Herodotus and Xenophon (fifth century B.C.) and from Ctesias, who is even said to have drawn upon Persian records. Josephus, for his part, endeavoured to reduce the confusion into some order; the Seder Olam ingeniously identifies all the Persian kings — Cyrus, Darius, Ahasuerus and Artaxerxes — Daniel xi. 2 knows only of four — and the whole of the Persian age from the restoration of the Temple to the time of Alexander was even compressed into a few decades. The appearance of simplicity in the chronicler's history of the period is misleading.

§ 5. Data for Reconstruction

The foregoing survey of the intricacies of Ezra-Nehemiah, the prevailing confusion in regard to the period, and the efforts made by ancient and modern writers to present the historical facts, will perhaps be convincing proof that the difficulties in Ezra-Nehemiah are genuine. They concern both Ezra-Nehemiah and 1 Esdras, and any attempt to discuss the origin and structure of 1 Esdras must form some preliminary conception of the underlying history. For this the story of Nehemiah seems most fruitful.

(a) The Samaritans. Nehemiah's age was one of intermarriage and close intercourse between the Jews, Samaritans, and other neighbours. The elliptical repulse of the Samaritans in Nehemiah ii. 20 implies that they, as in Ezra iv. 2 seq., had some claim "to a share in the fortunes of Jerusalem" (Ryle, 171), and that they "would have had no quarrel with the Jews if they had been permitted to unite with the latter in their undertakings and privileges" (Davies, 177). These details, the character of the intermarriages, the efforts to compromise with Nehemiah, the close relationship presupposed by the subsequent bitterness after the schism, the fact that Samaritanism was virtually a sister-sect of Judaism — these preclude the present position of Ezra's return and marriage-reforms and make it extremely doubtful whether there had as yet been any serious Samaritan hostility. They also suggest that the records of Ezra-Nehemiah have been written and revised under the influence of a bitter anti-Samaritan feeling, the date of which can hardly be placed before Nehemiah xiii. Indeed, it is not improbable that the Samaritan schism should be placed at the close of the Persian period.

(b) Place of Ezra iv. 7–23. This undated record of the reign of Artaxerxes, in spite of some internal difficulties, probably illustrates the story of Nehemiah when "Tobiah sent letters to put me in fear" (vi. 19). It points to some new reconstruction of the city by returned exiles — evidently after an earlier disaster — and requires the assumption that the story of Nehemiah is focussed upon the governor alone and that Nehemiah and his military escort brought back a band of exiles (so Josephus). Against this the objection has been brought that Nehemiah, in spite of the royal command (Ezra iv. 21 seq.), continued to build and actually did complete the walls. On the other hand, the walls were already practically finished, and some time would necessarily elapse before letters could reach Artaxerxes and his reply come to hand. The king does not order the walls to be destroyed or weakened; Nehemiah naturally had other building operations to attend to in addition to the walls, and these may well have been stopped "by force and power" (Ezra iv. 23). The letter to Artaxerxes urges that the rebuilding of Jerusalem would be detrimental to the security of the province, and disloyalty was the strongest charge brought against the governor. In fact, Nehemiah vii. 2 seq. may suggest that the perturbed governor left his brother in charge of the city while he visited the king — his leave had been limited — and although the sequence of events is admittedly obscure there is a distinct gap between his position in Nehemiah i.–iv., vi. and that as represented in xiii. All in all, the evidence does not exclude the helpful conjecture that Ezra iv. 7–23 illustrate the troubles of Nehemiah at that stage where the continuation of the book (after vi. 19) is almost inextricably complex.

(c) The semi-Edomite population. In the list of those who helped to rebuild the wall (Nehemiah iii.) it is noteworthy (1) that very few of the names can be at all plausibly identified with the families who apparently returned with either Zerubbabel or Ezra (Kosters, 47), and (2) that some of the names have Calebite affinities. The list is evidence for the poverty of the Babylonian section of population and for the prominence of the Judaeans, who include both the natives and those Calebite and allied groups who moved up from the south of Judah some time after 586. The presence of the latter is only to be expected, and the fact, pointed out by Meyer himself in 1896, is obviously fundamental for the criticism of the book of Ezra. In this Calebite or semi-Edomite Judah — and to call these groups "half heathen" is to beg the question — we may find a starting-point for our conception of the district from the time of their immigration northwards to the date of the far-reaching reorganization associated with the names of Nehemiah and Ezra. Further, the list of the inhabitants of Jerusalem in Nehemiah xi. recurs, though with variations, in 1 Chronicles ix., where it represents the compiler's conception of the post-exilic population after the captivity. According to his perspective of history, there was an old Israel which included a Judah of Calebite and Jerahmeelite origin (1 Chronicles ii. and iv.) and some later stage which corresponds closely with Nehemiah xi. Nehemiah xi., however, differs widely from the lists in Ezra ii. and viii. and ignores the return of Zerubbabel and Ezra. Its disagreement is hardly a proof that these lists are authentic; what is significant is the agreement between the Judaean clans Perez, Shelah and the semi-Edomite Zerah in Nehemiah xi. and the mixed genealogies in 1 Chronicles ii. and iv. The chronicler, it will be observed, knows of no earlier Judah; his evidence in ii., iv. is (in his view) pre-Davidic, and it agrees with this that his lists of the Levitical orders of David's time illustrate the close bond uniting these ecclesiastical bodies with people of south Palestinian and Edomite affinity.

(d) A decree and a return. The introduction to the Jerusalem list reads like the sequel to the account of some return. The list itself, after dealing with priests, Levites, etc., proceeds to refer to those who dwelt in the country, and it is noteworthy that Nehemiah xi. 23 seq. have in view the fulfilment of some royal decree touching the singers. The singers, also, are subsequently collected from the Netophathite and other villages which they had built at some unspecified period, and the explicit references to the rest of Israel and their cities, before the assembling at the dedication of the walls, recall the situation before the exiles were assembled in Jerusalem after their return and settlement in the Zerubbabel-story. Thus, the difficult and much revised narratives of Nehemiah's work, between vi. and xiii., are connected with the list of the return in vii., with the return of Ezra, and with some return associated with the figure of Nehemiah himself. G. A. Smith observes that the reforms of Nehemiah "are best explained through his reinforcement by just so large a number of Babylonian Jews under just such a leader as Ezra." On the other hand, there is insufficient historical evidence for the presence of Ezra and his band, and the above details strongly suggest that there was an account of some other return in connexion with the activity of Nehemiah, although it is still impossible to reconstruct the course of Nehemiah's work.

(e) The Temple. The history after the rise of the Davidic Zerubbabel is a blank which can be filled only by conjecture. The situation in Jerusalem at the return of Nehemiah cannot be explained by the disasters at the fall of Jerusalem about 140 years previously. The city was in great affliction and reproach, and Nehemiah's grief, confession, and prayer recall Ezra's behaviour at the tidings of the heathen marriages. The ruins of Jerusalem were extensive, and it is disputed whether the "birah" (ii. 8) refers to the fortress on the north side of the Temple, or the Temple itself. According to 2 Maccabees i. 18, Nehemiah built both the Temple and the Altar, and Josephus (independently) asserts that he received permission to build the walls of the city and to finish the Temple. An old Latin synopsis states that Ezra restored the foundations of Zerubbabel's temple, and an old Greek summary of "Second Esdras" refers to Nehemiah as a builder of the Temple. These can scarcely all be based upon the references to the Temple in the Artaxerxes-record in Ezra ii. 18, 20. It is at least noteworthy that, both in 1 Esdras and Ezra, compilers have placed this episode in the history of the Temple, and the different readings in Ezra iv. 12, 14, might be due to the alternative position of the story after the account of the opposition in the time of Cyrus. Moreover, the mention of the "decree of Cyrus, and Darius, and Artaxerxes king of Persia" (Ezra vi. 14) is unintelligible — for even a gloss or interpolation must express some plausible belief — unless there was a tradition associating Artaxerxes with the building of the Temple. Again, in view of the parallels between Ezra iv. and Nehemiah ii., iv., vi., in the account of the Samaritan opposition, it is surely significant that the abrupt allusion in Nehemiah ii. 20 to the repudiation of the Samaritans can only be explained in the light of Ezra iv. 3, where the building of the Temple is concerned. Finally, the Ezra-story represents a period of favour during which the Temple had been restored or repaired through God's mercy and the clemency of Persia. This brief "moment" cannot date back from the decree of Cyrus and the work of Zerubbabel; rather must one read the whole situation — the strengthening of a neglectful community, the furthering of a poor temple — as a supplement to the disorganization and confusion in the story of Nehemiah's measures. Hence, it may be concluded that there is sufficient evidence for some tradition of a rebuilding of the Temple and of a return in the time of Nehemiah.

(f) The recent disaster. The disaster which explains Nehemiah's grief, anxiety, and energetic labours may probably be ascribed in part at least to Edom. Friendly or neutral relations between Judah (and its semi-Edomite population) and the "brother" Edom appear to have continued at a relatively late period, until for some reason Edom is denounced for its unbrotherly conduct. The origin of the enmity is generally connected with the fall of Jerusalem in 586. But it cannot be found in the time of Jehoiakim, or of Zedekiah (when Edom was among the allies of Judah); the Chaldeans alone destroyed the Temple, and Jews had even taken refuge in Edom and elsewhere. The very explicit statement that the Edomites burned the Temple "when Judaea was made desolate by the Chaldeans", and occupied Judaean territory (1 Esdras iv. 45, 50), points to the reality of a tradition which, however, has been connected with the events of 586. The various allusions to Edom, though possibly referring to different periods, cannot be based upon the history of the Chaldean invasion. The very circumstantial references to Edomite aggression have led to the view that the Jewish exiles recovered their land through Persian aid. This, however, finds no support in the history of either Cyrus or Darius. But may it not be later, before the prophecy of Malachi i. 2–5, and between the times of Zerubbabel and Nehemiah? If so, it is tempting to associate the relatively simple and unadorned decree attributed to Darius in 1 Esdras iv. 48–56 (which points to a return to rebuild the Temple after a period of Edomite hostility) with the situation that underlies the narratives of Nehemiah.

(g) Summary. The internal difficulties of Ezra-Nehemiah are exceedingly complex owing to the numerous untrustworthy features, the remarkable and suspicious parallels, and the intricacies of rearrangement, adjustment, and revision. The sources throw little (if any) light on the period before the return of Nehemiah, and traditions originally associated with him or his age appear to underlie the rest. His story forms the starting-point for the problems of Ezra-Nehemiah, but it has too many serious difficulties for any confident theory of the order of events. Yet it seems clear that in Nehemiah's time there had not as yet been any previous Samaritan hostility of any extent, any separation from the "heathen", any important return of exiles. It is not improbable that in the time of Zerubbabel there was a monarchy of some size, and it is interesting to notice that the Samaritan opposition in the time of Artaxerxes is aimed especially at the apparent political pretensions of Nehemiah. The population in and around Jerusalem consisted partly of the old indigenous stock and partly of the southern groups of Edomite affinity who moved northwards after 586. This semi-Edomite people had suffered from a disaster, due, in some measure, to the "brother" Edomites who had burned the Temple and occupied Jewish territory, and to repair the lamentable conditions was the object of Nehemiah's return. The southern groups in question are only to be expected after 1 Chronicles ii. and iv., and the history in Chronicles seems to reveal some traces of their perspective: their presence in the Levitical bodies, the stories of the reconstruction of Temple and cult, and the traditions of invasions of hostile southern peoples. On independent grounds it is probable that other traces of the presence and prominence of these groups may be observed elsewhere, and we may notice that the Old Testament preserves the tradition of the high reputation of the eponymous Caleb, the "servant of Yahweh", and that late traditions even ascribe a southern origin to some of the prophets.

In the chronicler's compilation the rise of the new Jewish Church and the opposition of the Samaritans are dated at the commencement of the Persian age, and in the light of this the later history was meant to be read, even as other writers presuppose the patriarchal ancestors of pre-Mosaic days or the elaborate Levitical ritual associated with Moses and Aaron. Although this view shapes the compilation, the study of the age of Artaxerxes throws a different light upon its value. There are persistent and independent traditions of some return in his reign, and of some reconstruction of the people. Subsequent to the situation represented in Nehemiah iii. a new community was formed, and since it would be composed of elements of exilic (Babylonian) and non-exilic ancestry, some of the names of the latter class might naturally recur in (the later) lists referring to earlier periods. From 1 Chronicles ii. and iv., and from the place of Caleb and Jerahmeel among the "sons" of Perez, it is obvious that there has been a genealogical readjustment of the groups of southern origin. Moreover, elsewhere, the specific traditions of such groups as these have been revised or mutilated, and it is probable that all these features may be connected with the intricate development of the priestly and Levitical figures, suggestive of rival representations and compromise.

Ezra-Nehemiah is written from the standpoint of a reorganized community which admitted no relationship with the semi-Edomite or native Judaean groups. The Babylonian exiles piqued themselves on their superiority to the Judaeans, who none the less could boast of their father Abraham — the hero of the Calebite city of Hebron. To the exiles from Babylon and thence to the old Judah which fell in 586, the community persistently attributed its origin. The Jews of the post-exilic theocracy laid most weight upon an ancestry from the deportation by Nebuchadrezzar, even as the old Israel ignored the large indigenous and mixed element in Palestine, and descent was claimed from the immigrant tribes from Egypt and thence from the pre-Mosaic sons of Israel. Different disasters were focussed upon 586, and traditions of return and rebuilding were concentrated upon the return of Zerubbabel. Consequently, by thus passing over the native groups, whether akin or not to the hated Edomites, the mixed origin of the Jews was rendered less conspicuous. The significance of this has been well pointed out by Torrey. Both Jews and Samaritans were of mingled ancestry, but the latter could at all events claim to have been associated with the land longer than the former. The question of kinship between the two divisions was, as we see from Josephus, always a debatable one, and the knowledge of past history would only increase the bitter enmity at the rise of the rival cult on Mount Gerizim. But the chronicler's compilation very carefully conceals the course of events and upholds for Judah alone the sole right to be the legitimate descendant of the ancient confederation of Israel.

§ 6. Structure of the Sources

It may often be possible to point out conflicting data, to indicate traditions which seem to be older or more original, and to arrive at positive or negative conclusions regarding the underlying facts; but the endeavour to trace the literary growth of complex sources which are certainly the result of intricate reshaping and revision is a delicate problem of literary criticism and distinct from the historical criticism of the period they describe.

(a) The Sheshbazzar-Cyrus Tradition. The story of Zerubbabel and the first return of the Jews in the time of Darius (1 Esdras iii. 1–v. 6) is the pivot upon which the problems turn. Our starting-point is the Aramaic section Ezra v. seq., where Darius confirms and extends a decree of Cyrus, who had ordered the rebuilding of the Temple and had sent back the vessels with Sheshbazzar. This tradition is supported by Ezra i., which refers also to Mithredath the treasurer who apparently was once mentioned in Ezra v. But Ezra i. is written in a different style and in Hebrew; it gives a highly-coloured form of the decree, and tends to minimize the importance of Cyrus by emphasizing the direct influence of Yahweh. Consequently, Ezra v. seq., which have various marks of incompleteness, presuppose an account of Cyrus and the return of Sheshbazzar (probably also in Aramaic), some part of which at least has been replaced by Ezra i. Further, Sheshbazzar returned to build the Temple, but instead of any account of his work, Jeshua and Zerubbabel are abruptly introduced in the great list, Ezra ii. 2. These two erect the altar, and commence the rebuilding, repulse the "adversaries", and subsequently, in the time of Darius, are encouraged by the prophets to begin operations. Zerubbabel, as in 1 Esdras iii.–v. 6, is the leading figure, whereas the Sheshbazzar tradition in v. seq. refers to the "elders". From the point of view of historical criticism Sheshbazzar and Zerubbabel are two distinct individuals, but it seems obvious that the compiler of Ezra i.–vi. regarded them as the same, although it was left for ancient and modern harmonists to make the identification. And in fact it is implied and made in 1 Esdras vi. 18, 27, 29, after the introduction of Zerubbabel in iii. seq., but naturally not in ii. 1–15 (= Ezra i.); yet in Ezra, strangely enough, it is nowhere made, although the return of Sheshbazzar in Ezra i. 11 evidently corresponds to the appearance of Zerubbabel in ii. 2. Hence Josephus is obliged to harmonize. Moreover, it is noteworthy that the Aramaic sources do not clearly indicate that the Jewish builders were exiles, and that there is no explicit reference in Ezra v. 15 to any return of exiles under Sheshbazzar; on the other hand, the conflate text of 1 Esdras vi. 5 clearly alludes to the Jews as being of the Captivity, and 1 Esdras ii. 15 shows more distinctly than Ezra i. 11 that exiles returned with Sheshbazzar. That there is a gap after this verse has often been suspected. Accordingly, there are two important features: (1) the Sheshbazzar tradition has been mutilated and otherwise adjusted in order to give the greater prominence to Zerubbabel and his return, and (2) while it is not certain that Sheshbazzar was originally the leader of a band of exiles, the text in 1 Esdras partly identifies him with the more illustrious Zerubbabel, and partly seems to treat his return as that of the "captivity" also. Finally, the Sheshbazzar tradition is that of a continuous building of the Temple since the time of Cyrus. This may be supported by Ezra iv. 4, 5, which refer to unceasing troubles and intrigues, and by v. 6, where the accusation in the reign of Ahasuerus means, in this context, that the Temple was still under construction. On the other hand, the presence of the Artaxerxes-episode would imply that the work was definitely brought to a stop, and with this agrees the statement in v. 2 that Zerubbabel and Jeshua, encouraged by the prophets, "rose up . . . and began to build the house of God". Since the presence of these conflicting views can hardly be original, the Artaxerxes-episode and the cessation of the building may probably be regarded as foreign to the Sheshbazzar tradition. Hence, although 1 Esdras does not present Ezra's remarkable confusion of the sequence of events in the reigns of Cyrus and Darius — a confusion which Josephus has done his best to remedy — it contains, on closer inspection, a very singular combination of conflicting traditions of the Temple, and of Sheshbazzar and Zerubbabel.

(b) The Zerubbabel-Darius tradition. Since Jewish tradition has it that Darius was the son of Ahasuerus the Mede, and the Ahasuerus in Esther was called Artaxerxes (although, historically, Xerxes must be meant), and since the sequence Artaxerxes-Darius is true of Artaxerxes I-Darius II (or even of Artaxerxes III-Darius III), compilers might be justified in placing the story of the opposition before a tradition of Darius, whether in 1 Esdras ii. 16 seqq., iii., or Ezra iv. 7–24, v. But it is not easy to decide which of the two is the earlier position. The cessation of the building of the Temple would be intelligible before Ezra iv., which really describes a new era in the history, and would equally agree with the commencement of work mentioned in Ezra v. 2. In either case it leads up to Zerubbabel. But whereas in 1 Esdras it forms a necessary link between Cyrus and Darius, in Ezra it breaks the connexion and conflicts with the Sheshbazzar tradition. The assumption that 1 Esdras gives the older position of the episode may be suggested by the fact that its text presents some features distinctly sounder than that in Ezra iv. On the other hand, in 1 Esdras v. 66 seqq. (Ezra iv. 1 seqq.) the compiler has made use of iv. 1–5, 24, and it is possible that he found iv. 7–24 before him, but naturally omitted the passage he had already used. In any case, iv. 1–5 is obviously most closely connected with the preceding chapters, and since these presuppose certain material found only in 1 Esdras iii. 1–v. 6, Ezra's account of Sheshbazzar and Zerubbabel in the time of Cyrus thus presupposes data in 1 Esdras of the time of Darius. The simplest explanation of these intricacies is that the Massoretic Text has suffered by excision, and it remains to determine whether the material in question originally belonged to the Darius period (as in 1 Esdras) or to that of Cyrus (as in Ezra). Torrey alone has discussed this problem fully, and he has presented a complete, clever, and attractive hypothesis. He treats the Darius-Zerubbabel story in 1 Esdras iii. 1–iv. 42 as an interpolation in the history of Cyrus, rejects or emends all that is impossible in such a context, and regards 1 Esdras ii. 16 seqq. as a transposition from Ezra iv. made by the interpolator. But this leaves the complexity of Ezra i.–vi. untouched. It treats as redactional certain passages that have by no means that appearance, and if Ezra iv. 7–24 was deliberately borrowed, it is strange that no effort was made to form a reasonable link between ii. 15 and 16, as Josephus has done. The compiler used 1 Esdras ii. 16 seqq. to link Cyrus and Darius, but this theory assumes that for no apparent reason whatsoever a story of Darius has been introduced into the Cyrus-history and combined with it by (redactional?) material, which is partly of considerable independent value, and partly introduces a new tradition of Cyrus in conflict with all other evidence. The story, moreover, would hardly have been used in Jewish history unless it was associated with Zerubbabel, Darius, and the return of the Jews; hence its presence, general character, independence, and the confusion arising from the attempt to unite it with other traditions plead for the view (also held by Howorth and Bayer) that it is original.

(c) Result of combination. On this alternative theory, then, 1 Esdras preserves a Zerubbabel-Darius nucleus corresponding to a Sheshbazzar-Cyrus nucleus in Ezra, and it seems probable that the intricacies in 1 Esdras and Ezra have arisen from the endeavour to combine and compromise. 1 Esdras iii. 1–v. 6 commences like an independent story, presupposes no prelude, and quite excludes any current story of Cyrus. iv. 44, 57, it is true, refer to his inability to fulfil a vow, but this has neither any foundation in history nor support in extant tradition, and appears to be an early effort to connect the section with Cyrus. Thenceforth we apparently have the building-up of narratives. The Artaxerxes episode was taken from a source relating to the time of Nehemiah, and the sequel of the story, the list v. 7 seqq., also has a Nehemian background. The connexion between v. 1–6 and 7 seqq. is not close, and it is possible that iii. 1–v. 6 once had another sequel, or that there has been later adjustment. In any case, the references to Cyrus, the treatment of the Sheshbazzar tradition, and the fact that 1 Esdras ii. 1–15 are not in their original form, unite to show that there has been much revision, the stages in which cannot be traced. The list itself, partly connected with Ezra's return in Nehemiah vii., has been applied to the return of Zerubbabel, and then treated (in Nehemiah) by the compiler of Ezra-Nehemiah as a quotation from the earlier period. It presents a materially older text, and its immediate continuation in 1 Esdras v. 47 seqq. (Ezra iii.) is also based upon Nehemiah viii. 1, and describes events in which one may recognize the influence of other passages in Nehemiah. But the material is adjusted to Zerubbabel and Cyrus, with the result that while 1 Esdras v. 8 (the introduction of Zerubbabel) is explained by the preceding story, and v. 47 (the date) by v. 6, v. 55 has in view iv. 48 (Darius), but its context is of the time of Cyrus.

Haggai and Zechariah, in the second year of Darius, know of no return or earlier rebuilding. So far this agrees with the Zerubbabel story, which, however, while excluding any earlier rebuilding, describes the first return of the Jews. The Sheshbazzar story throws back the commencement of the temple, but in Ezra does not clearly point to any return (contrast 1 Esdras). In so far as Darius is concerned, these stories are mutually contradictory, and neither is supported by the prophets, and in so far as the fortunes of the temple are concerned, it is possible that a compromise was found in the belief that the work was brought to a stop and that the building was re-commenced in the time of Darius. This explains the motive of the Artaxerxes episode, and if the references to the Temple in 1 Esdras ii. 18, 20 are reliable, their absence in Ezra iv. 12, 14 may be due to its new position. Thus, 1 Esdras partly presents material in an older text and form than Ezra, partly shows signs of revision (apparently in the Greek), either to harmonize details or to conform with the Massoretic Text, and partly is influenced by the form of Ezra, whose imperfections it shares. The root of the problem lies in the two nuclei — Zerubbabel-Darius, Sheshbazzar-Cyrus-Darius — and in the endeavour to co-ordinate them; but in addition to the complexity touching Cyrus and Darius, it is obvious that the present form of the narratives cannot be viewed apart from the literary treatment of the events of the time of Artaxerxes.

(d) The Ezra-story. The narratives involved are an account of Nehemiah's work, partly autobiographical, but now in a much revised and intricate form, which is divided by the Ezra-story, also not from one hand, and itself split into two. These have suffered various changes and adjustments in the course of being combined with each other and with the great history of the "chronicler". On both literary and historical grounds we may postulate a stage when the whole of the Ezra-story was found after the first appearance of Nehemiah. To suppose that Nehemiah viii.–x. also once stood before Nehemiah i. only increases the difficulties. Ezra appears relatively late in tradition, but continues to grow in reputation. He is absent from both Ben Sira xlix. 12 seq. and 2 Maccabees i. seq., and here Nehemiah is particularly prominent; but Nehemiah's prominence, though in agreement with all the evidence, has not been made so obvious in the Ezra-story. Moreover, the effort has apparently been made to give greater significance to Ezra by placing the most important part of his mission — the Reading of the Law (and the sequel, the Covenant) — in the account of the completion of the walls of Jerusalem, and also by introducing the rest of the story before Nehemiah's arrival. 1 Esdras has gone further, and in ix. 37 seqq. has read part of Nehemiah viii. after Ezra x. Now, although 1 Esdras presents in some cases a better text, it is noteworthy that in reproducing Nehemiah viii. and the introductory vii. 73b, the compiler has also unnecessarily removed v. 73a, which can hardly stand after ix. 36 = Ezra x. 44. This deliberate transference perhaps explains the text in vv. 38, 49, and suggests that 1 Esdras's recension is here based upon the Massoretic Text, with the Ezra-story divided as at present. Consequently, both 1 Esdras and Ezra-Nehemiah share that complicated treatment of the purification of Israel which seems to have arisen when the story of Ezra was rearranged. It is uncertain how 1 Esdras, if more complete, would have continued. There is indeed some evidence, perhaps not of great value, for an account of Ezra's passover, suggesting that some portion of the story has been lost. However, if the whole of the present story had been placed before Nehemiah i., both Nehemiah i.–vi., xi.–xiii. and Ezra vii.–x., Nehemiah viii.–x. (or in any rearranged form) would still be in a confused, and certainly not original shape. The one source which actually effects this transposition is Josephus, who finishes the life of Ezra before dealing with Nehemiah. His treatment is brief and paraphrastic, but it seems to be extremely significant that he does not point to the existence of the story of Nehemiah in either the form or the sequence which it now has. To reconstruct the continuation of 1 Esdras is to make the overlapping with Nehemiah more conspicuous; it is interesting to notice that an old Syriac catena, which follows 1 Esdras, endeavours to readjust to Nehemiah — it passes from 1 Esdras ix. 1–10 to 46b–47 (= Nehemiah viii. 6) and thence to Nehemiah i. 1–4, and places the Reading of the Law in the context it now has in the Massoretic Text. 1 Esdras, it is evident, does not enable us to go behind the Massoretic Text, but, together with Josephus, it tends to show that the Massoretic Text is the late outcome of a very intricate literary development.

(e) The Compilation. At the stage when the stories of Ezra and Nehemiah were shaped in their present form, and when the traditions of the time of Artaxerxes had been used directly or indirectly for the age of Cyrus and Darius, we reach the complete historical work Chronicles-Ezra-Nehemiah, and the structure of Ezra-Nehemiah really involves close attention to that of Chronicles itself. Here it must suffice to observe that both Chronicles and Ezra-Nehemiah furnish evidence representing different stages in the vicissitudes of the priests and Levites, and it is noteworthy that there are several traces of textual variation and confusion where these are concerned. It is also significant of the relative lateness of Ezra-Nehemiah that the age at which the Levites serve agrees with secondary passages in Chronicles, and that an apparent anti-Aaronite bias has found its way into both. Perhaps the most important feature in the compilation is the presence of gaps (e.g. before Ezra v. 1, Nehemiah i.), the more striking when we observe that the chronicler has ignored pertinent material in Kings, Jeremiah, Daniel, and Esther. The book of Daniel was familiar in the Greek age and later, and was used by Josephus. The story in 1 Esdras iii. seq. has literary points of contact with both Daniel and Esther, and the former of these records traditions of the Temple-vessels. The sacrilegious use of the holy objects by Belshazzar was followed by the fall of Babylon to the Medes and Persians, and forthwith Darius the Mede, son of Ahasuerus, became king. He was led to proclaim the God of Daniel, and to the first year of his reign is ascribed the prayer of Daniel (ix.). Here, the seventy years of desolation foretold by Jeremiah are complete, and Daniel prays on behalf of the Jews in Jerusalem and afar off, and on behalf of the ruined sanctuary. The tradition — irrespective of its present setting — is so far in harmony with 1 Esdras iii. seq., the story of Zerubbabel in the second year of Darius, where, as in Daniel's prayer, an earlier return is excluded. It is difficult not to believe that these traditions are related, and it is noteworthy that while the references to Cyrus in the story of Zerubbabel appear to be due to later revision, Cyrus, according to Daniel vi. 28, x. 1, reigned after Darius. Thus, not only is it more intelligible that the Cyrus tradition is relatively the later, and probably grew out of the Darius tradition, than the reverse, but a tradition evidently once prevailed which placed Darius before Cyrus.

But it was also known that Cyrus preceded Darius, and in Bel and the Dragon he follows after Astyages and — like Darius in Daniel vi. — becomes convinced of Daniel's God. This correct sequence is that represented by Josephus and the "chronicler", with one important difference, that while the former does his best to combine all the varying traditions of Cyrus and Darius, the present Massoretic Text ignores Daniel and 1 Esdras iii. 1–v. 6 and the complications these would introduce into the history. Accuracy of sequence does not necessarily prove greater antiquity of source. It depends upon accuracy of information, and if Josephus knows that Cambyses and not Artaxerxes reigned before Darius, he is confused in his treatment of Xerxes and Artaxerxes, and while the chronicler wrongly retains these two between Cyrus and Darius, he has, however, avoided the incorrect sequence of the latter two in Daniel. The traditions of this period combine in an inextricable manner trustworthy and untrustworthy data with the result that mere mechanical rearrangement of material or correction of names is inadequate for the recovery of the historical facts. Whether or no there was a continuous chronicle of the Kings of Media and Persia, if a compiler of Jewish history followed the tradition which also appears in Daniel, Darius the Mede reigned before Cyrus, and Darius, after 1 Esdras iii. seq., was the first to permit the Jews to return. On the other hand, Cyrus was really the first king, and it is easy to understand the endeavours to adjust the traditions. It may not be possible to trace all the steps in the process; nevertheless, 1 Esdras's recension is a valuable witness to the efforts made to effect a compromise, and it is significant that while all the evidence points to the relative lateness of the Cyrus tradition in the form it now has in 1 Esdras ii. 1–15 or Ezra i., the immediate prelude in 1 Esdras i. represents a text materially older in some respects (though more corrupt in others) than the corresponding 2 Chronicles xxxv. seq.

(f) Conclusion. In the nature of the case, any explanation of the structure of 1 Esdras and Ezra-Nehemiah must be a provisional one. At all events, Bayer's view, that 1 Esdras is a secondary and deliberate self-contained compilation dealing with the Temple, is inadequate, in that it accounts for only a small proportion of the textual features. Howorth, whose merit it has been to force the attention of biblical students to the importance of 1 Esdras, undoubtedly goes too far in championing the textual and historical value of the book. As regards its text, used by Jahn with a certain lack of discrimination and by Bayer somewhat unduly underestimated, Torrey and Volz support an intermediate position, pointing out the general relative superiority of the Massoretic Text. Torrey justly observes, also, that as a history 1 Esdras is not in its original form, and he has proposed a hypothesis of its relationship with Ezra-Nehemiah which he works out with much skill and thoroughness. He starts from the chronicler's history in almost its present form (dated c. third century B.C.), and assumes two important changes: (1) the transference of Nehemiah vii. 70–x. 39 from their "original" position between Ezra viii. and ix. to the place where they now stand, and (2) the interpolation of the story 1 Esdras iii. 1–iv. 42 in the history of Cyrus, with redactional expansion, alteration, etc., and with the transposition of the Artaxerxes episode from Ezra iv. 6–24 to 1 Esdras ii. 16–30. Subsequently, two rival forms arose: one with the retransposition of Nehemiah vii. 73–x. 40, this time between 1 Esdras x. and Nehemiah i.; the other with the excision of the Story of the Three Youths together with a part of the "original" history. The latter is represented by the Massoretic Text; the former, after being translated into Greek, survives only in the fragmentary 1 Esdras, which is defined as "simply a piece taken without change out of the middle of a faithful Greek translation of the chronicler's History of Israel in the form which was generally recognized as authentic in the last century B.C." This hypothesis is complicated, though not unduly so. On the other hand, there are objections to the view that the Story of the Three Youths is an interpolation in the alleged original Cyrus-history, and to the assumption that the place of the Ezra-story before Nehemiah i. is the earlier. Further, although 1 Esdras is obviously imperfect, to restore a complete work in which it should correspond to Ezra in the chronicler's series necessitates the belief that Josephus, the only early source which places the Ezra-story before Nehemiah, is witness to the Massoretic Text form of the stories of both Ezra and Nehemiah, and this cannot be said to be certain. The latter part of 1 Esdras presupposes the present structure of Ezra vii.–x., Nehemiah vii. 73–viii. 13, whereas the first half presents older traits in i., ii. 16 seqq. (the position of the Artaxerxes episode), iii.–v. 6 (the Zerubbabel story), v. 7–70 (the background of the list, Ezra ii.), and v. 71 (the immediate sequel, the prelude to the work of the returned exiles). Finally, the criticism of 1 Esdras inevitably raises the problem of the entire series Chronicles-Ezra-Nehemiah, which at one stage was a literary whole, and consequently we cannot take the chronicler's history as a fixed starting-point. As a matter of fact, apart from the literary questions arising out of Chronicles alone, it seems that the books were regarded by the Rabbis with some suspicion, and now stand after Ezra-Nehemiah "as if it were an afterthought to admit them to equal authority" (W. R. Smith). It is not improbable that this severance involved some subsequent alteration and revision. Moreover, the recurrence of 1 Chronicles ix., Nehemiah xi., in a single work hardly looks like an original feature; like the more remarkable repetition of the list in Ezra ii., Nehemiah vii., the feature seems to point to the combination of sources which were primarily distinct.

All the data suggest that 1 Esdras and Ezra-Nehemiah represent concurrent forms which have influenced each other in the earlier stages of their growth. They are rivals, and neither can be said to be wholly older or more historical than the other. The endeavour was made to correct 1 Esdras to agree with the Massoretic Text — and one recension is a conspicuous example of the extent to which the revisers could go — and the presence of such efforts, and in particular the doublets, are of essential importance in indicating that 1 Esdras's text does not precisely represent a Hebrew-Aramaic work, and that when all allowance is made for correction and revision of the Greek, problems of the underlying original text still remain. But it was impossible to make any very satisfactory adjustment; 1 Esdras diverged too seriously from the Massoretic Text, which had cut the chronological knot by the excision of the story of Zerubbabel, and we may suppose that this facilitated the desire for the more literal translation of Theodotion.

§ 7. Value

Although our Old Testament has lost the story of Zerubbabel and the Praise of Truth, there is no doubt that there is something "unbiblical" in the orations. In the course of the growth of the Old Testament, compilers and revisers have not unfrequently obscured or omitted that to which they took exception, and some light is thus often thrown upon other phases of contemporary Palestinian or Jewish thought. While the orations themselves remind us of the old "Wisdom" literature (Proverbs, Ben Sira, Wisdom), their combination with narrative will recall the interesting story of Ahikar. 1 Esdras remains "apocryphal" in so far as it was deliberately rejected by Jewish and Christian schools. It had indeed found a place in the Bible of the Greek-speaking Jews, and was familiar to Jews and Christians, either indirectly through Josephus, or directly as a separate work. To the Christians the prominence of Zerubbabel must have been of no little interest (see § 1, end). But the value of 1 Esdras does not lie merely in this story. The book (or fragment) furnishes useful evidence for the criticism of the text and contents of the canonical passages, and illustrates methods of compilation and revision, the swing of traditions, and play of motives. It clearly indicates the importance of the comparison of related traditions as apart from the ultimate question of the underlying facts, and shows, in conjunction with Josephus, how a relatively straightforward account of history as in Ezra-Nehemiah may be the last stage in the effort to cut the knots formed by imperfect compilation. In its final form, the Massoretic Text, the result of "Rabbinical redaction", is ascribed by Howorth to the School of Jamnia in the time of Rabbi Akiba, and although it is difficult to find decisive arguments in favour of this conjecture — or against it — it is not impossible that the chronicler's history, as it now reads, may be dated about the beginning of the Christian era. It is significant that it is wanting in the Syriac Peshitta. Such a view, it should be observed, no more expresses an opinion on the dates of the component sources or sections than it would were the work in question a composite and much edited portion of Mishnah or Midrash.

Chapter 1

1 And Josias held the passover in Jerusalem unto his Lord, and offered the passover the fourteenth day of the first month; 2 having set the priests according to their daily courses, being arrayed in their vestments, in the temple of the Lord. 3 And he spake unto the Levites, the temple-servants of Israel, that they should hallow themselves unto the Lord, to set the holy ark of the Lord in the house that king Solomon the son of David had built: 4 and said, Ye shall no more have need to bear it upon your shoulders: now therefore serve the Lord your God, and minister unto his people Israel, and prepare you after your fathers' houses and kindreds, according to the writing of David king of Israel, and according to the magnificence of Solomon his son: 5 and standing in the holy place according to the several divisions of the families of you the Levites, who minister in the presence of your brethren the children of Israel, 6 offer the passover in order, and make ready the sacrifices for your brethren, and keep the passover according to the commandment of the Lord, which was given unto Moses. 7 And unto the people which were present Josias gave thirty thousand lambs and kids, and three thousand calves: these things were given of the king's substance, 8 according as he promised, to the people, and to the priests and Levites. 9 And Helkias, and Zacharias, and Esyelus, the rulers of the temple, gave to the priests for the passover two thousand and six hundred sheep, and three hundred calves. And Jeconias, and Samaias, and Nathanael his brother, and Sabias, and Ochielus, and Joram, captains over thousands, gave to the Levites for the passover five thousand sheep, and seven hundred calves. 12 And when these things were done, the priests and Levites, having the unleavened bread, stood in comely order according to the kindreds, 11 and according to the several divisions by fathers' houses, before the people, to offer to the Lord, as it is written in the book of Moses: and thus did they in the morning. 12 And they roasted the passover with fire, as appertaineth: and the sacrifices they sod in the brasen vessels and caldrons with a good savour, and set them before all the people: 13 and afterward they prepared for themselves, and for the priests their brethren, the sons of Aaron. 14 For the priests offered the fat until night: and the Levites prepared for themselves, and for the priests their brethren, the sons of Aaron. 15 The holy singers also, the sons of Asaph, were in their order, according to the appointment of David, to wit, Asaph, Zacharias, and Eddinus, who was of the king's retinue. 16 Moreover the porters were at every gate; none had need to depart from his daily course: for their brethren the Levites prepared for them. 17 Thus were the things that belonged to the sacrifices of the Lord accomplished in that day, in holding the passover, and offering sacrifices upon the altar of the Lord, according to the commandment of king Josias. 19 So the children of Israel which were present at that time held the passover, and the feast of unleavened bread seven days. 20 And such a passover was not held in Israel since the time of the prophet Samuel. 21 Yea, all the kings of Israel held not such a passover as Josias, and the priests, and the Levites, and the Jews, held with all Israel that were present in their dwelling place at Jerusalem. 22 In the eighteenth year of the reign of Josias was this passover held. 23 And the works of Josias were upright before his Lord with a heart full of godliness. 24 Moreover the things that came to pass in his days have been written in times past, concerning those that sinned, and did wickedly against the Lord above every people and kingdom, and how they grieved him exceedingly, so that the words of the Lord were confirmed against Israel.

25 Now after all these acts of Josias it came to pass, that Pharaoh the king of Egypt came to raise war at Carchemish upon Euphrates: and Josias went out against him. 26 But the king of Egypt sent to him, saying, What have I to do with thee, O king of Judea? 27 I am not sent out from the Lord God against thee; for my war is upon Euphrates: and now the Lord is with me, yea, the Lord is with me hasting me forward: depart from me, and be not against the Lord. 28 Howbeit Josias did not turn back unto his chariot, but undertook to fight with him, not regarding the words of the prophet Jeremy spoken by the mouth of the Lord: 29 but joined battle with him in the plain of Megiddo, and the princes came down against king Josias. 30 Then said the king unto his servants, Carry me away out of the battle; for I am very weak. And immediately his servants carried him away out of the host. 31 Then gat he up upon his second chariot; and being brought back to Jerusalem he died, and was buried in the sepulchre of his fathers. 32 And in all Jewry they mourned for Josias; and Jeremy the prophet lamented for Josias, and the chief men with the women made lamentation for him, unto this day: and this was given out for an ordinance to be done continually in all the nation of Israel. 33 These things are written in the book of the histories of the kings of Judaea, and every one of the acts that Josias did, and his glory, and his understanding in the law of the Lord, and the things that he had done before, and the things now recited, are reported in the book of the kings of Israel and Judah.

34 And the people took Joachaz the son of Josias, and made him king instead of Josias his father, when he was twenty and three years old. 35 And he reigned in Judah and in Jerusalem three months: and then the king of Egypt deposed him from reigning in Jerusalem. 36 And he set a tax upon the people of a hundred talents of silver and one talent of gold. 37 The king of Egypt also made king Joakim his brother king of Judaea and Jerusalem. 38 And Joakim bound the nobles: but Zarakes his brother he apprehended, and brought him up out of Egypt.

39 Five and twenty years old was Joakim when he began to reign in Judaea and Jerusalem; and he did that which was evil in the sight of the Lord. 40 And against him Nabuchodonosor the king of Babylon came up, and bound him with a chain of brass, and carried him unto Babylon. 41 Nabuchodonosor also took of the holy vessels of the Lord, and carried them away, and set them up in his own temple at Babylon. 42 But those things that are reported of him, and of his uncleanness and impiety, are written in the chronicles of the kings.

43 And Joakim his son reigned in his stead: for when he was made king he was eighteen years old; 44 and he reigned three months and ten days in Jerusalem; and did that which was evil before the Lord. 45 So after a year Nabuchodonosor sent and caused him to be brought unto Babylon with the holy vessels of the Lord; 46 and made Sedekias king of Judaea and Jerusalem, when he was one and twenty years old; and he reigned eleven years: 47 and he also did that which was evil in the sight of the Lord, and cared not for the words that were spoken by Jeremy the prophet from the mouth of the Lord. 48 And after that king Nabuchodonosor had made him to swear by the name of the Lord, he forswore himself, and rebelled; and hardening his neck, and his heart, he transgressed the laws of the Lord, the God of Israel. 49 Moreover the governors of the people and of the priests did many things wickedly, and passed all the pollutions of all nations, and defiled the temple of the Lord, which was sanctified in Jerusalem. 50 And the God of their fathers sent by his messenger to call them back, because he had compassion on them and on his dwelling place. 51 But they mocked his messengers; and in the day when the Lord spake unto them, they scoffed at his prophets: 52 so far forth, that he, being wroth with his people for their great ungodliness, commanded to bring up the kings of the Chaldeans against them; 53 who slew their young men with the sword, round about their holy temple, and spared neither young man nor maid, old man nor child; but he delivered all into their hands. 54 And they took all the holy vessels of the Lord, both great and small, with the vessels of the ark of the Lord, and the king's treasures, and carried them away unto Babylon. 55 And they burnt the house of the Lord, and brake down the walls of Jerusalem, and burnt the towers thereof with fire: 56 and as for her glorious things, they never ceased till they had brought them all to nought: and the people that were not slain with the sword he carried unto Babylon: and they were servants unto him and to his children, till the Persians reigned, to fulfil the word of the Lord by the mouth of Jeremy: 58 Until the land hath enjoyed her sabbaths, the whole time of her desolation shall she keep sabbath, to fulfil threescore and ten years.

Chapter 2

1 In the first year of Cyrus king of the Persians, that the word of the Lord by the mouth of Jeremy might be accomplished, 2 the Lord stirred up the spirit of Cyrus king of the Persians, and he made proclamation through all his kingdom, and also by writing, saying, 3 Thus saith Cyrus king of the Persians; The Lord of Israel, the Most High Lord, hath made me king of the whole world, and commanded me to build him a house at Jerusalem that is in Judaea. 4 If therefore there be any of you that are of his people, let the Lord, even his Lord, be with him, and let him go up to Jerusalem that is in Judaea, and build the house of the Lord of Israel: he is the Lord that dwelleth in Jerusalem. 5 Of such therefore as dwell in divers places, let them that are in his own place help each one with gold, and with silver, with gifts, with horses also and cattle, beside the other things which have been added by vow for the temple of the Lord which is in Jerusalem.

6 Then the chief of the families of Judah and of the tribe of Benjamin stood up; the priests also, and the Levites, and all they whose spirit the Lord had stirred to go up, to build the house for the Lord which is in Jerusalem. 7 And they that dwelt round about them helped them in all things with silver and gold, with horses and cattle, and with very many gifts that were vowed of a great number whose minds were stirred up thereto.

8 King Cyrus also brought forth the holy vessels of the Lord, which Nabuchodonosor had carried away from Jerusalem, and had set up in his temple of idols. 9 Now when Cyrus king of the Persians had brought them forth, he delivered them to Mithradates his treasurer, 10 and by him they were delivered to Sanabassar the governor of Judaea. 11 And this was the number of them: A thousand golden cups, a thousand cups of silver, censers of silver twenty nine, vials of gold thirty, and of silver two thousand four hundred and ten, and other vessels a thousand. 14 So all the vessels of gold and of silver were brought up, even five thousand four hundred threescore and nine, and were carried back by Sanabassar, together with them of the captivity, from Babylon to Jerusalem.

16 But in the time of Artaxerxes king of the Persians, Belemus, and Mithradates, and Tabellius, and Rathumus, and Beeltethmus, and Samellius the scribe, with the others that were in commission with them, dwelling in Samaria and other places, wrote unto him against them that dwelt in Judaea and Jerusalem the letter following: 17 To king Artaxerxes our Lord, Thy servants, Rathumus the storywriter, and Samellius the scribe, and the rest of their council, and the judges that are in Coelesyria and Phoenicia. 18 Be it now known to our lord the king, that the Jews that are come up from you to us, being come unto Jerusalem, do build that rebellious and wicked city, and do repair the marketplaces and the walls of it, and do lay the foundation of a temple. 19 Now if this city be builded and the walls thereof be finished, they will not only refuse to give tribute, but will even stand up against kings. 20 And forasmuch as the things pertaining to the temple are now in hand, we think it meet not to neglect such a matter, 21 but to speak unto our lord the king, to the intent that, if it be thy pleasure, search may be made in the books of thy fathers: 22 and thou shalt find in the chronicles what is written concerning these things, and shalt understand that that city was rebellious, troubling both kings and cities: 23 and that the Jews were rebellious, and raised always wars therein of old time; for the which cause even this city was laid waste. 24 Wherefore now we do declare unto thee, O lord the king, that if this city be builded again, and the walls thereof set up anew, thou shalt from henceforth have no passage into Coelesyria and Phoenicia.

25 Then the king wrote back again to Rathumus the storywriter, and Beeltethmus, and Samellius the scribe, and to the rest that were in commission, and dwelt in Samaria and Syria and Phoenicia, after this manner: 26 I have read the epistle which ye have sent unto me: therefore I commanded to make search, and it hath been found that that city of old time hath made insurrection against kings; 27 and the men were given to rebellion and war therein: and that mighty kings and fierce were in Jerusalem, who reigned and exacted tribute in Coelesyria and Phoenicia. 28 Now therefore I have commanded to hinder those men from building the city, and heed to be taken that there be nothing done contrary to this order; 29 and that those wicked doings proceed no further to the annoyance of kings. 30 Then king Artaxerxes his letters being read, Rathumus, and Samellius the scribe, and the rest that were in commission with them, removing in haste unto Jerusalem with horsemen and a multitude of people in battle array, began to hinder the builders; and the building of the temple in Jerusalem ceased until the second year of the reign of Darius king of the Persians.

Chapter 3

1 Now king Darius made a great feast unto all his subjects, and unto all that were born in his house, and unto all the princes of Media and of Persia, 2 and to all the satraps and captains and governors that were under him, from India unto Ethiopia, in the hundred twenty and seven provinces. 3 And when they had eaten and drunken, and being satisfied were gone home, then Darius the king went into his bedchamber, and slept, and awaked out of his sleep. 4 Then the three young men of the body-guard, that kept the king's person, spake one to another: 5 Let every one of us say one thing which shall be strongest: and he whose sentence shall seem wiser than the others, unto him shall Darius the king give great gifts, and great honours in token of victory: 6 as, to be clothed in purple, to drink in gold, and to sleep upon gold, and a chariot with bridles of gold, and a headtire of fine linen, and a chain about his neck: 7 and he shall sit next to Darius because of his wisdom, and shall be called Darius his cousin. 8 And then they wrote every one his sentence, and set to their seals, and laid the writing under king Darius his pillow, and said, When the king is risen, some shall give him the writing; 9 and of whose side the king and the three princes of Persia shall judge that his sentence is the wisest, to him shall the victory be given, as it is written. 10, 11, 12 The first wrote, Wine is the strongest. The second wrote, The king is strongest. The third wrote, Women are strongest: but above all things Truth beareth away the victory.

13 Now when the king was risen up, they took the writing, and gave it unto him, and so he read it: 14 and sending forth he called all the princes of Persia and of Media, and the satraps, and the captains, and the governors, and the chief officers; and sat him down in the royal seat of judgement; and the writing was read before them. 15,16 And he said, Call the young men, and they shall explain their own sentences. So they were called, and came in. 17 And they said unto them, Declare unto us your mind concerning the things ye have written.

18 Then began the first, who had spoken of the strength of wine, and said thus, O sirs, how exceeding strong is wine! it causeth all men to err that drink it: 19 it maketh the mind of the king and of the fatherless child to be all one; of the bondman and of the freeman, of the poor man and of the rich: 20 it turneth also every thought into jollity and mirth, so that a man remembereth neither sorrow nor debt: 21 and it maketh every heart rich, so that a man remembereth neither king nor satrap; and it maketh to speak all things by talents: 22 and when they are in their cups, they forget their love both to friends and brethren, and a little after draw their swords: 23 but when they awake from their wine, they remember not what they have done. 24 O sirs, is not wine the strongest, seeing that it enforceth to do thus? And when he had so spoken, he held his peace.

Chapter 4

1, 2 Then the second, that had spoken of the strength of the king, began to say, O sirs, do not men excel in strength, that bear rule over the sea and land, and all things in them? 3 But yet is the king stronger: and he is their lord, and hath dominion over them; and in whatsoever he commandeth them they obey him. 4 If he bid them make war the one against the other, they do it: 5 and if he send them out against the enemies, they go, and overcome mountains, walls, and towers. 6 They slay and are slain, and transgress not the king's commandment: if they get the victory, they bring all to the king, as well the spoil, as all things else. 7 Likewise for those that are no soldiers, and have not to do with wars, but use husbandry, when they have reaped again that which they had sown, they bring it to the king, and compel one another to pay tribute unto the king. 8 And he is but one man: if he command to kill, they kill; if he command to spare, they spare; if he command to smite, they smite; if he command to make desolate, they make desolate; if he command to build, they build; 9, 10 if he command to cut down, they cut down; if he command to plant, they plant. So all his people and his armies obey him: furthermore he lieth down, he eateth and drinketh, and taketh his rest; 11 and these keep watch round about him, neither may any one depart, and do his own business, neither disobey they him in anything. 12 O sirs, how should not the king be strongest, seeing that in such sort he is obeyed? And he held his peace.

13 Then the third, who had spoken of women, and of truth, (this was Zorobabel) began to speak. 14 O sirs, is not the king great, and men are many, and wine is strong? who is it then that ruleth them, or hath the lordship over them? are they not women? 15 Women have borne the king and all the people that bear rule by sea and land. 16 Even of them came they: and they nourished them up that planted the vineyards, from whence the wine cometh. 17 These also make garments for men; these bring glory unto men; and without women cannot men be. 18 Yea, and if men have gathered together gold and silver and every other goodly thing, and see a woman which is comely in favour and beauty, 19 they let all those things go, and gape after her, and even with open mouth fix their eyes fast on her; and have all more desire unto her than unto gold or silver, or any goodly thing whatsoever. 20 A man leaveth his own father that brought him up, and his own country, and cleaveth unto his wife. 21 And with his wife he endeth his days, and remembereth neither father, nor mother, nor country. 22 By this also ye must know that women have dominion over you: do ye not labour and toil, and give and bring all to women? 23 Yea, a man taketh his sword, and goeth forth to make outroads, and to rob and to steal, and to sail upon the sea and upon rivers; 24 and looketh upon a lion, and walketh in the darkness; and when he hath stolen, spoiled, and robbed, he bringeth it to his love. 25 Wherefore a man loveth his wife better than father or mother. 26 Yea, many there be that have run out of their wits for women, and become bondmen for their sakes. 27 Many also have perished, have stumbled, and sinned, for women. 28 And now do ye not believe me? is not the king great in his power? do not all regions fear to touch him? 29 Yet did I see him and Apame the king's concubine, the daughter of the illustrious Bartacus, sitting at the right hand of the king, and taking the crown from the king's head, and setting it upon her own head; 30, 31 yea, she struck the king with her left hand: and therewithal the king gaped and gazed upon her with open mouth: if she laughed upon him, he laughed also: but if she took any displeasure at him, he was fain to flatter, that she might be reconciled to him again. 32 O sirs, how can it be but women should be strong, seeing they do thus?

33 Then the king and the nobles looked one upon another: so he began to speak concerning truth. 34 O sirs, are not women strong? great is the earth, high is the heaven, swift is the sun in his course, for he compasseth the heavens round about, and fetcheth his course again to his own place in one day. 35 Is he not great that maketh these things? therefore great is truth, and stronger than all things. 36 All the earth calleth upon truth, and the heaven blesseth her: all works shake and tremble, but with her is no unrighteous thing. 37 Wine is unrighteous, the king is unrighteous, women are unrighteous, all the children of men are unrighteous, and unrighteous are all such their works; and there is no truth in them; in their unrighteousness also they shall perish. 38 But truth abideth, and is strong for ever; she liveth and conquereth for evermore. 39 With her there is no accepting of persons or rewards; but she doeth the things that are just, and refraineth from all unrighteous and wicked things; and all men do well like of her works. 40 Neither in her judgement is any unrighteousness; and she is the strength, and the kingdom, and the power, and the majesty, of all ages. Blessed be the God of truth. And with that he held his tongue. And all the people then shouted, and said, Great is truth, and strong above all things.

42 Then said the king unto him, Ask what thou wilt more than is appointed in writing, and we will give it thee, inasmuch as thou art found wisest; and thou shalt sit next me, and shalt be called my cousin. 43 Then said he unto the king, Remember thy vow, which thou didst vow to build Jerusalem, in the day when thou camest to thy kingdom, 44 and to send away all the vessels that were taken out of Jerusalem, which Cyrus set apart, when he vowed to destroy Babylon, and vowed to send them again thither. 45 Thou didst also vow to build up the temple, which the Edomites burned when Judea was made desolate by the Chaldeans. 46 And now, O lord the king, this is that which I require, and which I desire of thee, and this is the princely liberality that shall proceed from thee: I pray therefore that thou make good the vow, the performance whereof thou hast vowed to the King of heaven with thine own mouth.

47 Then Darius the king stood up, and kissed him, and wrote letters for him unto all the treasurers and governors and captains and satraps, that they should safely bring on their way both him, and all those that should go up with him to build Jerusalem. 48 He wrote letters also unto all the governors that were in Coelesyria and Phoenicia, and unto them in Libanus, that they should bring cedar wood from Libanus unto Jerusalem, and that they should build the city with him. 49 Moreover he wrote for all the Jews that should go out of his realm up into Jewry, concerning their freedom, that no officer, no governor, no satrap, nor treasurer, should forcibly enter into their doors; 50 and that all the country which they occupied should be free to them without tribute; and that the Edomites should give over the villages of the Jews which then they held: 51 and that there should be yearly given twenty talents to the building of the temple, until the time that it were built; and other ten talents yearly, for burnt offerings to be presented upon the altar every day: 53 and that all they that should come from Babylonia to build the city should have their freedom, as well they as their posterity, and all the priests that came. 54 He wrote also to give them their charges, and the priests' vestments wherein they minister; and for the Levites he wrote that their charges should be given them until the day that the house were finished, and Jerusalem builded up. 56 And he commanded to give to all that kept the city lands and wages. 57 He sent away also all the vessels from Babylon, that Cyrus had set apart; and all that Cyrus had given in commandment, the same charged he also to be done, and sent unto Jerusalem.

58 Now when this young man was gone forth, he lifted up his face to heaven toward Jerusalem, and praised the King of heaven, and said, 59 From thee cometh victory, from thee cometh wisdom, and thine is the glory, and I am thy servant. 60 Blessed art thou, who hast given me wisdom: and to thee I give thanks, O Lord of our fathers. 61 And so he took the letters, and went out, and came unto Babylon, and told it all his brethren. 62 And they praised the God of their fathers, because he had given them freedom and liberty to go up, and to build Jerusalem, and the temple which is called by his name: and they feasted with instruments of music and gladness seven days.

Chapter 5

1 After this were the chiefs of fathers' houses chosen to go up according to their tribes, with their wives and sons and daughters, with their menservants and maidservants, and their cattle. 2 And Darius sent with them a thousand horsemen, till they had brought them back to Jerusalem safely, and with musical instruments, tabrets and flutes. 3 And all their brethren played, and he made them go up together with them.

4 And these are the names of the men which went up, according to their families amongst their tribes, after their several divisions. 5 The priests, the sons of Phinees, the sons of Aaron: Jesus the son of Josedek, the son of Saraias, and Joakim the son of Zorobabel, the son of Salathiel, of the house of David, of the lineage of Phares, of the tribe of Judah; 6 who spake wise sentences before Darius the king of Persia in the second year of his reign, in the month Nisan, which is the first month.

7 And these are they of Jewry that came up from the captivity, where they dwelt as strangers, whom Nabuchodonosor the king of Babylon had carried away unto Babylon. 8 And they returned unto Jerusalem, and to the other parts of Jewry, every man to his own city, who came with Zorobabel, with Jesus, Nehemias, and Zaraias, Resaias, Eneneus, Mardocheus, Beelsarus, Aspharasus, Reelias, Roimus, and Baana, their leaders.

9 The number of them of the nation, and their leaders: the sons of Phoros, two thousand a hundred seventy and two: the sons of Saphat, four hundred seventy and two: 10 the sons of Ares, seven hundred fifty and six: 11 the sons of Phaath Moab, of the sons of Jesus and Joab, two thousand eight hundred and twelve: 12 the sons of Elam, a thousand two hundred fifty and four: the sons of Zathui, nine hundred forty and five: 13 the sons of Chorbe, seven hundred and five: the sons of Bani, six hundred forty and eight: the sons of Bebai, six hundred twenty and three: the sons of Astad, a thousand three hundred twenty and two: 14 the sons of Adonikam, six hundred sixty and seven: the sons of Bagoi, two thousand sixty and six: 15 the sons of Adinu, four hundred fifty and four: the sons of Ater, of Ezekias, ninety and two: the sons of Kilan and Azetas, threescore and seven: 16 the sons of Azaru, four hundred thirty and two: the sons of Annis, a hundred and one: the sons of Arom: the sons of Bassai, three hundred twenty and three: 17 the sons of Arsiphurith, a hundred and twelve: the sons of Baiterus, three thousand and five: the sons of Bethlomon, a hundred twenty and three: 18 they of Netophas, fifty and five: they of Anathoth, a hundred fifty and eight: they of Bethasmoth, forty and two: 19 they of Kariathiarius, twenty and five: they of Caphira and Beroth, seven hundred forty and three: 20 the Chadiasiai and Ammidioi, four hundred twenty and two: they of Kirama and Gabbe, six hundred twenty and one: 21 they of Macalon, a hundred twenty and two: they of Betolion, fifty and two: the sons of Niphis, a hundred fifty and six: 22 the sons of Calamolalus and Onus, seven hundred twenty and five: 23 the sons of Jerechu, three hundred forty and five: 24 the sons of Sanaas, three thousand three hundred and thirty. The priests: the sons of Jeddu, the son of Jesus, among the sons of Sanasib, nine hundred seventy and two: the sons of Emmeruth, a thousand fifty and two: 25 the sons of Phassurus, a thousand two hundred forty and seven: the sons of Charme, a thousand and seventeen. 26 The Levites: the sons of Jesus, and Kadmiel, and Bannas, and Sudias, seventy and four. 27 The holy singers: the sons of Asaph, a hundred twenty and eight. 28 The porters: the sons of Salum, the sons of Atar, the sons of Tolman, the sons of Dacubi, the sons of Ateta, the sons of Sabi, in all a hundred thirty and nine.

29 The temple-servants: the sons of Esau, the sons of Asipha, the sons of Tabaoth, the sons of Keras, the sons of Sua, the sons of Phaleas, 30 the sons of Labana, the sons of Aggaba, the sons of Acud, the sons of Uta, the sons of Ketab, the sons of Accaba, the sons of Subai, the sons of Anan, the sons of Cathua, the sons of Geddur, the sons of Jairus, the sons of Daisan, the sons of Noeba, the sons of Chaseba, the sons of Gazera, the sons of Ozias, the sons of Phinoe, the sons of Asara, the sons of Basthai, the sons of Asana, the sons of Maani, the sons of Naphisi, the sons of Acub, the sons of Achipha, the sons of Asur, 31 the sons of Pharakim, the sons of Basaloth, the sons of Allon, the sons of Meedda, the sons of Cutha, the sons of Charea, the sons of Barchus, the sons of Serar, the sons of Thomei, the sons of Nasi, the sons of Atipha. 32 The sons of the servants of Solomon: the sons of Assaphioth, the sons of Pharida, the sons of Jeeli, the sons of Lozon, the sons of Isdael, the sons of Saphuthi, 33 the sons of Agia, the sons of Phacareth, the sons of Sabie, the sons of Sarothie, the sons of Masias, the sons of Gas, the sons of Addus, the sons of Subas, the sons of Apherra, the sons of Barodis, the sons of Saphat, 34 the sons of Allon. All the temple-servants, and the sons of the servants of Solomon, were three hundred seventy and two.

35 These came up from Thermeleth, and Thelersas, Charaathalan leading them, and Allar; and they could not shew their families, nor their stock, how they were of Israel: 36 the sons of Dalan the son of Ban, the sons of Nekodan, six hundred fifty and two. 37 And of the priests, they that usurped the office of the priesthood and were not found: the sons of Obdia, the sons of Akkos, the sons of Jaddus, who married Augia one of the daughters of Zorzelleus, and was called after his name. 38 And when the description of the kindred of these men was sought in the register, and was not found, they were removed from executing the office of the priesthood: for unto them said Nehemias and Attharias, that they should not be partakers of the holy things, till there arose up a high priest wearing Urim and Thummim.

40 So all they of Israel, from twelve years old and upward, beside menservants and womenservants, were in number forty and two thousand three hundred and sixty. 41 Their menservants and handmaids were seven thousand three hundred thirty and seven: the minstrels and singers, two hundred forty and five: 42 four hundred thirty and five camels, seven thousand thirty and six horses, two hundred forty and five mules, five thousand five hundred twenty and five beasts of burden.

44 And certain of the chief men of their families, when they came to the temple of God that is in Jerusalem, vowed to set up the house again in its own place according to their ability, 45 and to give into the holy treasury of the works a thousand pounds of gold, five thousand of silver, and a hundred priestly vestments. 46 And the priests and the Levites and they that were of the people dwelt in Jerusalem and the country; the holy singers also and the porters and all Israel in their villages.

47 But when the seventh month was at hand, and when the children of Israel were every man in his own place, they came all together with one consent into the broad place before the first porch which is toward the east. 48 Then stood up Jesus the son of Josedek, and his brethren the priests, and Zorobabel the son of Salathiel, and his brethren, and made ready the altar of the God of Israel, 49 to offer burnt sacrifices upon it, according as it is expressly commanded in the book of Moses the man of God. 50 And certain were gathered unto them out of the other nations of the land, and they erected the altar upon its own place, because all the nations of the land were at enmity with them, and oppressed them; and they offered sacrifices according to the time, and burnt offerings to the Lord both morning and evening. 51 Also they held the feast of tabernacles, as it is commanded in the law, and offered sacrifices daily, as was meet: and after that, the continual oblations, and the sacrifices of the sabbaths, and of the new moons, and of all the consecrated feasts. 52 And all they that had made any vow to God began to offer sacrifices to God from the new moon of the seventh month, although the temple of God was not yet built. 53 And they gave money unto the masons and carpenters; and meat and drink, and cars unto them of Sidon and Tyre, that they should bring cedar trees from Libanus, and convey them in floats to the haven of Joppa, according to the commandment which was written for them by Cyrus king of the Persians.

55 And in the second year after his coming to the temple of God at Jerusalem, in the second month, began Zorobabel the son of Salathiel, and Jesus the son of Josedek, and their brethren, and the priests the Levites, and all they that were come unto Jerusalem out of the captivity: and they laid the foundation of the temple of God on the new moon of the second month, in the second year after they were come to Jewry and Jerusalem. 56 And they appointed the Levites from twenty years old over the works of the Lord. Then stood up Jesus, and his sons and brethren, and Kadmiel his brother, and the sons of Jesus, Emadabun, and the sons of Joda the son of Iliadun, and their sons and brethren, all the Levites, with one accord setters forward of the business, labouring to advance the works in the house of God. So the builders builded the temple of the Lord. 59 And the priests stood arrayed in their vestments with musical instruments and trumpets, and the Levites the sons of Asaph with their cymbals, singing songs of thanksgiving, and praising the Lord, after the order of David king of Israel. 61 And they sang aloud, praising the Lord in songs of thanksgiving, because his goodness and his glory are for ever in all Israel. 62 And all the people sounded trumpets, and shouted with a loud voice, singing songs of thanksgiving unto the Lord for the rearing up of the house of the Lord. 63 Also of the priests the Levites, and of the heads of their families, the ancients who had seen the former house came to the building of this with lamentation and great weeping. 64 But many with trumpets and joy shouted with loud voice, 65 insomuch that the people heard not the trumpets for the weeping of the people: for the multitude sounded marvellously, so that it was heard afar off.

66 Wherefore when the enemies of the tribe of Judah and Benjamin heard it, they came to know what that noise of trumpets should mean. 67 And they perceived that they that were of the captivity did build the temple unto the Lord, the God of Israel. 68 So they went to Zorobabel and Jesus, and to the chief men of the families, and said unto them, We will build together with you. 69 For we likewise, as ye, do obey your Lord, and do sacrifice unto him from the days of Asbasareth the king of the Assyrians, who brought us hither. 70 Then Zorobabel and Jesus and the chief men of the families of Israel said unto them, It is not for you to build the house unto the Lord our God. 71 We ourselves alone will build unto the Lord of Israel, according as Cyrus the king of the Persians hath commanded us. 72 But the heathen of the land lying heavy upon the inhabitants of Judea, and holding them strait, hindered their building; and by their secret plots, and popular persuasions, and commotions, they hindered the finishing of the building all the time that king Cyrus lived: so they were hindered from building for the space of two years, until the reign of Darius.

Chapter 6

1 Now in the second year of the reign of Darius, Aggeus and Zacharias the son of Addo, the prophets, prophesied unto the Jews in Jewry and Jerusalem; in the name of the Lord, the God of Israel, prophesied they unto them. 2 Then stood up Zorobabel the son of Salathiel, and Jesus the son of Josedek, and began to build the house of the Lord at Jerusalem, the prophets of the Lord being with them, and helping them.

3 At the same time came unto them Sisinnes the governor of Syria and Phoenicia, with Sathrabuzanes and his companions, and said unto them, 4 By whose appointment do ye build this house and this roof, and perform all the other things? and who are the builders that perform these things? 5 Nevertheless the elders of the Jews obtained favour, because the Lord had visited the captivity; 6 and they were not hindered from building, until such time as communication was made unto Darius concerning them, and his answer signified.

7 The copy of the letter which Sisinnes, governor of Syria and Phoenicia, and Sathrabuzanes, with their companions, the rulers in Syria and Phoenicia, wrote and sent unto Darius; 8 To king Darius, greeting: Let all things be known unto our lord the king, that being come into the country of Judaea, and entered into the city of Jerusalem, we found in the city of Jerusalem the elders of the Jews 9 that were of the captivity building a house unto the Lord, great and new, of hewn and costly stones, with timber laid in the walls. 10 And those works are done with great speed, and the work goeth on prosperously in their hands, and with all glory and diligence is it accomplished. 11 Then asked we these elders, saying, By whose commandment build ye this house, and lay the foundations of these works? 12 Therefore, to the intent that we might give knowledge unto thee by writing who were the chief doers, we questioned them, and we required of them the names in writing of their principal men. 13 So they gave us this answer, We are the servants of the Lord which made heaven and earth. 14 And as for this house, it was builded many years ago by a king of Israel great and strong, and was finished. 15 But when our fathers sinned against the Lord of Israel which is in heaven, and provoked him unto wrath, he gave them over into the hands of Nabuchodonosor king of Babylon, king of the Chaldeans; 16 and they pulled down the house, and burned it, and carried away the people captives unto Babylon. 17 But in the first year that Cyrus reigned over the country of Babylon, king Cyrus wrote to build up this house. 18 And the holy vessels of gold and of silver, that Nabuchodonosor had carried away out of the house at Jerusalem, and had set up in his own temple, those Cyrus the king brought forth again out of the temple in Babylonia, and they were delivered to Zorobabel and to Sanabassarus the governor, 19 with commandment that he should carry away all these vessels, and put them in the temple at Jerusalem; and that the temple of the Lord should be built in its place. 20 Then Sanabassarus, being come hither, laid the foundations of the house of the Lord which is in Jerusalem; and from that time to this being still a-building, it is not yet fully ended. 21 Now therefore, if it seem good, O king, let search be made among the royal archives of our lord the king that are in Babylon: 22 and if it be found that the building of the house of the Lord which is in Jerusalem hath been done with the consent of king Cyrus, and it seem good unto our lord the king, let him signify unto us thereof.

23 Then commanded king Darius to seek among the archives that were laid up at Babylon: and so at Ecbatana the palace, which is in the country of Media, there was found a roll wherein these things were recorded. 24 In the first year of the reign of Cyrus king Cyrus commanded to build up the house of the Lord which is in Jerusalem, where they do sacrifice with continual fire: 25 whose height shall be sixty cubits, and the breadth sixty cubits, with three rows of hewn stones, and one row of new wood of that country; and the expenses thereof to be given out of the house of king Cyrus: 26 and that the holy vessels of the house of the Lord, both of gold and silver, that Nabuchodonosor took out of the house at Jerusalem, and carried away to Babylon, should be restored to the house at Jerusalem, and be set in the place where they were before. 27 And also he commanded that Sisinnes the governor of Syria and Phoenicia, and Sathrabuzanes, and their companions, and those which were appointed rulers in Syria and Phoenicia, should be careful not to meddle with the place, but suffer Zorobabel, the servant of the Lord, and governor of Judaea, and the elders of the Jews, to build that house of the Lord in its place. 28 And I also do command to have it built up whole again; and that they look diligently to help those that be of the captivity of Judea, till the house of the Lord be finished: 29 and that out of the tribute of Coelesyria and Phoenicia a portion be carefully given these men for the sacrifices of the Lord, that is, to Zorobabel the governor, for bullocks, and rams, and lambs; and also corn, salt, wine, and oil, and that continually every year without further question, according as the priests that be in Jerusalem shall signify to be daily spent: 31 that drink offerings may be made to the Most High God for the king and for his children, and that they may pray for their lives. 32 And that commandment be given that whosoever shall transgress, yea, or neglect anything therein written, out of his own house shall a tree be taken, and he thereon be hanged, and all his goods seized for the king. 33 The Lord therefore, whose name is there called upon, utterly destroy every king and nation, that shall stretch out his hand to hinder or endamage that house of the Lord in Jerusalem. 34 I Darius the king have ordained that according unto these things it be done with diligence.

Chapter 7

1 Then Sisinnes the governor of Coelesyria and Phoenicia, and Sathrabuzanes, with their companions, following the commandments of king Darius, did very carefully oversee the holy works, assisting the elders of the Jews and rulers of the temple. 2 And so the holy works prospered, while Aggeus and Zacharias the prophets prophesied. 3 And they finished these things by the commandment of the Lord, the God of Israel, and with the consent of Cyrus, Darius, and Artaxerxes, kings of the Persians. 4 And thus was the house finished by the three and twentieth day of the month Adar, in the sixth year of king Darius. 5 And the children of Israel, the priests, and the Levites, and the other that were of the captivity, that were added unto them, did according to the things written in the book of Moses. 6 And to the dedication of the temple of the Lord they offered a hundred bullocks, two hundred rams, four hundred lambs; 7 and twelve he-goats for the sin of all Israel, according to the number of the twelve princes of the tribes of Israel. 8 The priests also and the Levites stood arrayed in their vestments, according to their kindreds, for the services of the Lord, the God of Israel, according to the book of Moses: and the porters at every gate.

9 And the children of Israel that came out of the captivity held the passover the fourteenth day of the first month, when the priests and the Levites were sanctified together, and all they that were of the captivity; for they were sanctified. 10 For the Levites were all sanctified together, and they offered the passover for all them of the captivity, and for their brethren the priests, and for themselves. 11 And the children of Israel that came out of the captivity did eat, even all they that had separated themselves from the abominations of the heathen of the land, and sought the Lord. 12 And they kept the feast of unleavened bread seven days, making merry before the Lord, 13 for that he had turned the counsel of the king of Assyria toward them, to strengthen their hands in the works of the Lord, the God of Israel.

Chapter 8

1 And after these things, when Artaxerxes the king of the Persians reigned, came Esdras the son of Azaraias, the son of Zechrias, the son of Helkias, the son of Salem, the son of Sadduk, the son of Ahitob, 2 the son of Amarias, the son of Ozias, the son of Memeroth, the son of Zaraias, the son of Savias, the son of Boccas, the son of Abisue, the son of Phinees, the son of Eleazar, the son of Aaron the chief priest. 3 This Esdras went up from Babylon, as being a ready scribe in the law of Moses, that was given by the God of Israel. 4 And the king did him honour: for he found grace in his sight in all his requests.

5 There went up with him also certain of the children of Israel, and of the priests, and Levites, and holy singers, and porters, and temple-servants, unto Jerusalem, in the seventh year of the reign of Artaxerxes, in the fifth month, this was the king's seventh year; 6 for they went from Babylon on the new moon of the first month, and came to Jerusalem, according to the prosperous journey which the Lord gave them for his sake. 7 For Esdras had very great skill, so that he omitted nothing of the law and commandments of the Lord, but taught all Israel the ordinances and judgements.

8 Now the commission, which was written from Artaxerxes the king, came to Esdras the priest and reader of the law of the Lord, whereof this that followeth is a copy; 9 King Artaxerxes unto Esdras the priest and reader of the law of the Lord, greeting: Having determined to deal graciously, I have given order, that such of the nation of the Jews, and of the priests and Levites, and of those within our realm, as are willing and desirous, should go with thee unto Jerusalem. 10 As many therefore as have a mind thereunto, let them depart with thee, as it hath seemed good both to me and my seven friends the counsellors; 11 that they may look unto the affairs of Judea and Jerusalem, agreeably to that which is in the law of the Lord, and carry the gifts unto the Lord of Israel to Jerusalem, which I and my friends have vowed; 12 and that all the gold and silver that can be found in the country of Babylonia for the Lord in Jerusalem, with that also which is given of the people for the temple of the Lord their God that is at Jerusalem, be collected: even the gold and silver for bullocks, rams, and lambs, and things thereunto appertaining; 13 to the end that they may offer sacrifices unto the Lord upon the altar of the Lord their God, which is in Jerusalem. 14 And whatsoever thou and thy brethren are minded to do with gold and silver, that perform, according to the will of thy God. 15 And the holy vessels of the Lord, which are given thee for the use of the temple of thy God, which is in Jerusalem: 16 and whatsoever thing else thou shalt remember for the use of the temple of thy God, thou shalt give it out of the king's treasury. 17 And I king Artaxerxes have also commanded the keepers of the treasures in Syria and Phoenicia, that whatsoever Esdras the priest and reader of the law of the Most High God shall send for, they should give it him with all diligence, to the sum of a hundred talents of silver, likewise also of wheat even to a hundred measures, and a hundred firkins of wine, and salt in abundance. 21 Let all things be performed after the law of God diligently unto the Most High God, that wrath come not upon the kingdom of the king and his sons. 22 I command you also, that no tax, nor any other imposition, be laid on any of the priests, or Levites, or holy singers, or porters, or temple-servants, or any that have employment in this temple, and that no man have authority to impose anything upon them. 23 And thou, Esdras, according to the wisdom of God ordain judges and justices, that they may judge in all Syria and Phoenicia all those that know the law of thy God; and those that know it not thou shalt teach. 24 And whosoever shall transgress the law of thy God, and of the king, shall be punished diligently, whether it be by death, or other punishment, by penalty of money, or by imprisonment.

25 Then said Esdras the scribe, Blessed be the only Lord, the God of my fathers, who hath put these things into the heart of the king, to glorify his house that is in Jerusalem: 26 and hath honoured me in the sight of the king, and his counsellors, and all his friends and nobles. 27 Therefore was I encouraged by the help of the Lord my God, and gathered together out of Israel men to go up with me.

28 And these are the chief according to their families and the several divisions thereof, that went up with me from Babylon in the reign of king Artaxerxes: of the sons of Phinees, Gerson: of the sons of Ithamar, Gamael: of the sons of David, Attus the son of Sechenias: 29 of the sons of Phoros, Zacharias; and with him were counted a hundred and fifty men: 30 of the sons of Phaath Moab, Eliaonias the son of Zaraias, and with him two hundred men: 31 of the sons of Zathoes, Sechenias the son of Jezelus, and with him three hundred men: of the sons of Adin, Obeth the son of Jonathan, and with him two hundred and fifty men: 33 of the sons of Elam, Jesias son of Gotholias, and with him seventy men: 34 of the sons of Saphatias, Zaraias son of Michael, and with him threescore and ten men: 35 of the sons of Joab, Abadias son of Jezelus, and with him two hundred and twelve men: 36 of the sons of Banias, Salimoth son of Josaphias, and with him a hundred and threescore men: 37 of the sons of Babi, Zacharias son of Bebai, and with him twenty and eight men: 38 of the sons of Astath, Joannes son of Akatan, and with him a hundred and ten men: 39 of the sons of Adonikam, the last, and these are the names of them, Eliphalat, Jeuel, and Samaias, and with them seventy men: 40 of the sons of Bago, Uthi the son of Istalcurus, and with him seventy men.

41 And I gathered them together to the river called Theras; and there we pitched our tents three days, and I surveyed them. 42 But when I had found there none of the priests and Levites, then sent I unto Eleazar, and Iduel, and Maasmas, and Elnathan, and Samaias, and Joribus, Nathan, Ennatan, Zacharias, and Mosollamus, principal men and men of understanding. 43 And I bade them that they should go unto Loddeus the captain, who was in the place of the treasury: 44 and commanded them that they should speak unto Loddeus, and to his brethren, and to the treasurers in that place, to send us such men as might execute the priests' office in the house of our Lord. 45 And by the mighty hand of our Lord they brought unto us men of understanding of the sons of Mooli the son of Levi, the son of Israel, Asebebias, and his sons, and his brethren, who were eighteen, 48 and Asebias, and Annuus, and Osaias his brother, of the sons of Chanuneus, and their sons were twenty men; and of the temple-servants whom David and the principal men had appointed for the service of the Levites, two hundred and twenty temple-servants, the catalogue of all their names was shewed.

50 And there I vowed a fast for the young men before our Lord, to desire of him a prosperous journey both for us and for our children and cattle that were with us: 51 for I was ashamed to ask of the king footmen, and horsemen, and conduct for safeguard against our adversaries. 52 For we had said unto the king, that the power of our Lord would be with them that seek him, to support them in all ways. 53 And again we besought our Lord as touching these things, and found him favourable unto us.

54 Then I separated twelve men of the chiefs of the priests, Eserebias, and Assamias, and ten men of their brethren with them: 55 and I weighed them the silver, and the gold, and the holy vessels of the house of our Lord, which the king, and his counsellors, and the nobles, and all Israel, had given. 56 And when I had weighed it, I delivered unto them six hundred and fifty talents of silver, and silver vessels of a hundred talents, and a hundred talents of gold, 57 and twenty golden vessels, and twelve vessels of brass, even of fine brass, glittering like gold. 58 And I said unto them, Both ye are holy unto the Lord, and the vessels are holy, and the gold and the silver are a vow unto the Lord, the Lord of our fathers. 59 Watch ye, and keep them till ye deliver them to the chiefs of the priests and Levites, and to the principal men of the families of Israel, in Jerusalem, in the chambers of the house of our Lord. 60 So the priests and the Levites, who received the silver and the gold and the vessels which were in Jerusalem, brought them into the temple of the Lord.

61 And from the river Theras we departed the twelfth day of the first month, until we came to Jerusalem, by the mighty hand of our Lord which was upon us: and the Lord delivered us from assault by the way, from every enemy, and so we came to Jerusalem. 62 And when we had been there three days, the silver and gold was weighed and delivered in the house of our Lord on the fourth day unto Marmoth the priest the son of Urias. 63 And with him was Eleazar the son of Phinees, and with them were Josabdus the son of Jesus and Moeth the son of Sabannus, the Levites: all was delivered them by number and weight. And all the weight of them was written up the same hour.

65 Moreover they that were come out of the captivity offered sacrifices unto the Lord, the God of Israel, even twelve bullocks for all Israel, fourscore and sixteen rams, 66 threescore and twelve lambs, goats for a peace offering, twelve; all of them a sacrifice to the Lord. 67 And they delivered the king's commandments unto the king's stewards, and to the governors of Coelesyria and Phoenicia; and they honoured the people and the temple of the Lord.

68 Now when these things were done, the principal men came unto me, and said, The nation of Israel, and the princes, and the priests and the Levites, have not put away from them the strange people of the land, nor the uncleannesses of the Gentiles, to wit, of the Canaanites, Hittites, Pherezites, Jebusites, and the Moabites, Egyptians, and Edomites. 70 For both they and their sons have married with their daughters, and the holy seed is mixed with the strange people of the land; and from the beginning of this matter the rulers and the nobles have been partakers of this iniquity. 71 And as soon as I had heard these things, I rent my clothes, and my holy garment, and plucked the hair from off my head and beard, and sat me down sad and full of heaviness. 72 So all they that were moved at the word of the Lord, the God of Israel, assembled unto me, whilst I mourned for the iniquity: but I sat still full of heaviness until the evening sacrifice. 73 Then rising up from the fast with my clothes and my holy garment rent, and bowing my knees, and stretching forth my hands unto the Lord, I said, 74 O Lord, I am ashamed and confounded before thy face; for our sins are multiplied above our heads, and our errors have reached up unto heaven, 76 ever since the time of our fathers; and we are in great sin, even unto this day. 77 And for our sins and our fathers' we with our brethren and our kings and our priests were given up unto the kings of the earth, to the sword, and to captivity, and for a prey with shame, unto this day.

78 And now in some measure hath mercy been shewed unto us from thee, O Lord, that there should be left us a root and a name in the place of thy sanctuary; 79 and to discover unto us a light in the house of the Lord our God, and to give us food in the time of our servitude. 80 Yea, when we were in bondage, we were not forsaken of our Lord; but he made us gracious before the kings of Persia, so that they gave us food, 81 and glorified the temple of our Lord, and raised up the desolate Sion, to give us a sure abiding in Jewry and Jerusalem.

82 And now, O Lord, what shall we say, having these things? for we have transgressed thy commandments, which thou gavest by the hand of thy servants the prophets, saying, 83 That the land, which ye enter into to possess as an heritage, is a land polluted with the pollutions of the strangers of the land, and they have filled it with their uncleanness. 84 Therefore now shall ye not join your daughters unto their sons, neither shall ye take their daughters unto your sons. 85 Neither shall ye seek to have peace with them for ever, that ye may be strong, and eat the good things of the land, and that ye may leave it for an inheritance unto your children for evermore. 86 And all that is befallen is done unto us for our wicked works and great sins: for thou, O Lord, didst make our sins light, and didst give unto us such a root: but we have turned back again to transgress thy law, in mingling ourselves with the uncleanness of the heathen of the land. 88 Thou wast not angry with us to destroy us, till thou hadst left us neither root, seed, nor name. 89 O Lord of Israel, thou art true: for we are left a root this day. 90 Behold, now are we before thee in our iniquities, for we cannot stand any longer before thee by reason of these things.

91 And as Esdras in his prayer made his confession, weeping, and lying flat upon the ground before the temple, there gathered unto him from Jerusalem a very great throng of men and women and children: for there was great weeping among the multitude. 92 Then Jechonias the son of Jeelus, one of the sons of Israel, called out, and said, O Esdras, we have sinned against the Lord God, we have married strange women of the heathen of the land, and now is all Israel aloft. 93 Let us make an oath unto the Lord herein, that we will put away all our wives, which we have taken of the strangers, with their children, 94 like as seemeth good unto thee, and to as many as do obey the law of the Lord. Arise, and put in execution: for to thee doth this matter appertain, and we will be with thee to do valiantly. 96 So Esdras arose, and took an oath of the chief of the priests and Levites of all Israel to do after these things; and so they sware.

Chapter 9

1 Then Esdras rising from the court of the temple went to the chamber of Jonas the son of Eliasib, and lodged there, and did eat no bread nor drink water, mourning for the great iniquities of the multitude. 3 And there was made proclamation in all Jewry and Jerusalem to all them that were of the captivity, that they should be gathered together at Jerusalem: 4 and that whosoever met not there within two or three days, according as the elders that bare rule appointed, their cattle should be seized to the use of the temple, and himself cast out from the multitude of them that were of the captivity.

5 And in three days were all they of the tribe of Judah and Benjamin gathered together at Jerusalem: this was the ninth month, on the twentieth day of the month. 6 And all the multitude sat together trembling in the broad place before the temple because of the present foul weather. 7 So Esdras arose up, and said unto them, Ye have transgressed the law and married strange wives, thereby to increase the sins of Israel. 8 And now make confession and give glory unto the Lord, the God of our fathers, 9 and do his will, and separate yourselves from the heathen of the land, and from the strange women. 10 Then cried the whole multitude, and said with a loud voice, Like as thou hast spoken, so will we do. 11 But forasmuch as the multitude is great, and it is foul weather, so that we cannot stand without, and this is not a work of one day or two, seeing our sin in these things is spread far: 12 therefore let the rulers of the multitude stay, and let all them of our habitations that have strange wives come at the time appointed, 13 and with them the rulers and judges of every place, till we turn away the wrath of the Lord from us for this matter.

14 Then Jonathan the son of Azael and Ezekias the son of Thocanus accordingly took the matter upon them: and Mosollamus and Levis and Sabbateus were assessors to them. 15 And they that were of the captivity did according to all these things.

16 And Esdras the priest chose unto him principal men of their families, all by name: and on the new moon of the tenth month they were shut in together to examine the matter. 17 So their cause that held strange wives was brought to an end by the new moon of the first month.

18 And of the priests that were come together, and had strange wives, there were found; of the sons of Jesus the son of Josedek, and his brethren; Mathelas, and Eleazar, and Joribus, and Joadanus. 20 And they gave their hands to put away their wives, and to offer rams to make reconcilement for their error. 21 And of the sons of Emmer; Ananias, and Zabdeus, and Manes, and Sameus, and Hiereel, and Azarias. 22 And of the sons of Phaisur; Elionas, Massias, Ismael, and Nathanael, and Ocidelus, and Saloas. 23 And of the Levites; Jozabdus, and Semeis, and Colius, who was called Calitas, and Patheus, and Judas, and Jonas. 24 Of the holy singers; Eliasibus, Bacchurus. 25 Of the porters; Sallumus, and Tolbanes.

26 Of Israel, of the sons of Phoros; Hiermas, and Ieddias, and Melchias, and Maelus, and Eleazar, and Asibias, and Banneas. 27 Of the sons of Ela; Matthanias, Zacharias, and Jezrielus, and Oabdius, and Hieremoth, and Aedias. 28 And of the sons of Zamoth; Eliadas, Eliasimus, Othonias, Jarimoth, and Sabathus, and Zardeus. 29 Of the sons of Bebai; Joannes, and Ananias, and Jozabdus, and Ematheis. 30 Of the sons of Mani; Olamus, Mamuchus, Jedeus, Jasubus, and Jasaelus, and Hieremoth. 31 And of the sons of Addi; Naathus, and Moossias, Laccunus, and Naidus, and Matthanias, and Sesthel, Balnuus, and Manasseas. 32 And of the sons of Annas; Elionas, and Aseas, and Melchias, and Sabbeus, and Simon Chosameus. 33 And of the sons of Asom; Maltanneus, and Mattathias, and Sabanneus, Eliphalat, and Manasses, and Semei. 34 And of the sons of Baani; Jeremias, Momdis, Ismaerus, Juel, Mamdai, and Pedias, and Anos, Carabasion, and Enasibus, and Mamnitanemus, Eliasis, Bannus, Eliali, Someis, Selemias, Nathanias: and of the sons of Ezora; Sesis, Ezril, Azaelus, Samatus, Zambri, Josephus. 35 And of the sons of Nooma; Mazitias, Zabadeas, Edos, Juel, Banaias. 36 All these had taken strange wives, and they put them away with their children.

37 And the priests and Levites, and they that were of Israel, dwelt in Jerusalem, and in the country, on the new moon of the seventh month, and the children of Israel in their habitations.

38 And the whole multitude were gathered together with one accord into the broad place before the porch of the temple toward the east: 39 and they said unto Esdras the priest and reader, Bring the law of Moses, that was given of the Lord, the God of Israel. 40 So Esdras the chief priest brought the law unto the whole multitude both of men and women, and to all the priests, to hear the law on the new moon of the seventh month. 41 And he read in the broad place before the porch of the temple from morning unto midday, before both men and women; and all the multitude gave heed unto the law.

42 And Esdras the priest and reader of the law stood up upon the pulpit of wood, which was made for that purpose. And there stood up by him Mattathias, Sammus, Ananias, Azarias, Urias, Ezekias, Baalsamus, upon the right hand: 44 and upon his left hand, Phaldeus, Misael, Melchias, Lothasubus, Nabarias, Zacharias. 45 Then took Esdras the book of the law before the multitude, and sat honourably in the first place before all. 46 And when he opened the law, they stood all straight up. So Esdras blessed the Lord God Most High, the God of hosts, Almighty. 47 And all the people answered, Amen; and lifting up their hands they fell to the ground, and worshipped the Lord. 48 Also Jesus, Annus, Sarabias, Iadinus, Jacubus, Sabateus, Auteas, Maiannas, and Calitas, Azarias, and Jozabdus, and Ananias, Phalias, the Levites, taught the law of the Lord, and read to the multitude the law of the Lord, making them withal to understand it.

49 Then said Attharates unto Esdras the chief priest and reader, and to the Levites that taught the multitude, even to all, This day is holy unto the Lord; (now they all wept when they heard the law:) 50 go then, and eat the fat, and drink the sweet, and send portions to them that have nothing; for the day is holy unto the Lord: and be not sorrowful; for the Lord will bring you to honour. 51 So the Levites published all things to the people, saying, This day is holy; be not sorrowful. 52 Then went they their way, every one to eat and drink, and make merry, and to give portions to them that had nothing, and to make great cheer; 53 because they understood the words wherein they were instructed, and for the which they had been assembled.

55 And on the second day were gathered together . . .

(The text breaks off here, in mid-sentence, in the 1913 edition itself — not through any damage to this scan. Cook's introduction addresses this abrupt ending at length in § 1 above.)

Colophon

Prepared from R. H. Charles (ed.), The Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha of the Old Testament in English, Vol. 1: Apocrypha (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1913), translation and introduction by S. A. Cook. Source: archive.org item apocryphapseudep01charuoft (University of Toronto copy). This edition's per-verse textual-critical apparatus — comparing the Greek, Hebrew, Aramaic, and Latin manuscript witnesses, and printing the parallel Revised Version text of 2 Chronicles, Ezra, and Nehemiah alongside the 1 Esdras translation — is omitted from this transcription; it survives complete in the 1913 printed edition and in the cited scan. Cook's purely mechanical bibliography and abbreviations list (§ 8 of his introduction) is likewise omitted as a citation directory rather than argument; all of his explanatory and argumentative content in §§ 1–7 is retained. No passage of the translation text itself was found illegible in the scan; the book's own abrupt mid-sentence ending at 9:55 is original to the 1913 edition, not a scanning gap.

Prepared for the Good Work Library by the New Tianmu Anglican Church with AI-assisted transcription and editorial work.

🌲