How to Recognize a Deuteronomic Text

The theological revolution that is reflected in the fifth book of the Pentateuch (Deuteronomy) and in what scholars call the Deuteronomic History, which consists of the books of Joshua, Judges, Samuel and Kings. To emphasize the differences heralded in the Deuteronomic literature, I contrast the concepts found in this literature with other books of the Bible, especially Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus and Numbers. The reader will notice that sometimes I also contrast the Deuteronomic outlook with other passages in the Former Prophets (Joshua-Kings) that I call pre-Deuteronomic. How do I know that these passages are pre-Deuteronomic? This is a complicated, technical subject, but a brief explanation follows.

An older stratum of tradition is embedded in the Former Prophets. The Deuteronomic author had this earlier tradition before him as he fashioned the Former Prophets. He used this older tradition as a source. He supplemented this with a framework and with speeches that reflected his ideology and his stereotypical phraseology. Thus, for example, the Book of Joshua contains old conquest narratives to which the Deuteronomist added a Deuteronomic framework, including two programmatic speeches. One of these speeches—by God to Joshua—opens the Book of Joshua. The second is Joshua’s valedictory speech in Joshua 23, which abounds in Deuteronomic theology—no anthropomorphisms, no allusions to the Ark leading the Israelites in battle.

Elsewhere in the book (Joshua 10:28–43, 11:11–23, 22:41–43), editorial supplements summarize the author’s views. These editorial supplements can be easily discerned by their phraseology and by dogma based on the concept of a total ban of the Canaanites and a total conquest of the land. This in fact contradicts the older sources that present only a partial conquest (see Joshua 15:63, 16:10, 17:12–13, 14–18). These cited passages clearly reflect the fact that the Israelites were initially unable to conquer all the land:
One or another of the tribes could not disposess the Jebusites in Jerusalem or the Canaanites who dwelled in Gezer or the Canaanites who remained in the midst of Ephraim, etc., and who remain there “to this day.” Especially significant is Joshua 17:16, which explains why the Israelites were not able to conquer all the land: “The Canaanites have chariots of iron.”

All this belongs to an older layer of tradition used by the Deuteronomist as a source.

The Book of Kings was composed in the same way as the Book of Joshua. The Deuteronomic additions consist of speeches and evaluations of the kings in the form of frameworks (1 Kings 8:14–61, 9:2–9, 11:1–13, 31–39, 14:21–24 et al.). The ideology of the book is based on the centralization of the cult, which, however, is not reflected in the older sources. On the contrary, this ideology is contradicted by the older sources. For example, in 1 Kings 19:10 Elijah complains to the Lord that the people have “destroyed your altars.” This directly contradicts the Deuteronomic ideology, according to which the destruction of altars is considered a duty, the only legitimate place for sacrifice being the altar at the Temple in Jerusalem. However, here the Deuteronomist did not dare intervene and change the source that lay before him.

Another telltale method of separating the Deuteronomist’s work from his sources is by style, or, more specifically, phraseology. Deuteronomic phraseology constitutes a specific jargon reflecting the religious upheaval of that period. It is not attested before the seventh century BCE This phraseology revolves around basic Deuteronomic theological tenets, such as (1) the struggle against idolatry and syncretism; (2) the centralization of the cult; (3) the covenant and election of Israel; (4) the monotheistic creed; (5) the observance of the law; (6) the inheritance of the land; (7) retribution; (8) the fulfillment of prophecy; and (9) the Davidic dynasty.

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-Share Alike 3.0 United States Licens

Theological revolutions in the Old Testament-2

 Deuteronomys Theological Revolution 2/3

Pre-Deuteronomic texts invariably speak of the danger of seeing the deity: “[M]an shall not see me and live” (Exodus 33:20). Similarly, in Genesis 32:31, after wrestling all night with someone who turns out to be divine, Jacob expresses his surprise at surviving even though he saw him face-to-face; Jacob names the place Penuel, which the text tell us means “I have seen God face-to-face, yet my life has been preserved” (Genesis 32:31).

Deuteronomy, by contrast, cannot conceive of seeing the divinity. In Deuteronomy the Israelites see only “his great fire” (Deuteronomy 4:24), which symbolizes his essence; God himself remains in his heavenly abode. The danger in Deuteronomy is not in seeing the divinity, but in hearing his voice: “Has any people heard the voice of God speaking out of the midst of a fire, as indeed you have, and survived?” (Deuteronomy 4:33, also 5:23).

Deuteronomy’s endeavor to eliminate the corporeality of the traditional divine imagery also finds expression in Deuteronomy’s conception of the Ark. In the traditional imagery, the Ark not only houses the tablets of the law, but is part of God’s throne, on which he sits between the cherubim while the Ark serves as his footstool. Two three-dimensional cherubim were placed on the Ark (Exodus 25:18–22), thereby endowing the Ark with the semblance of a divine chariot or throne. We have already noted how Deuteronomy insists that the deity dwells in heaven, not in the Temple. That God’s habitation is in heaven is expressed emphatically in order to eradicate the belief that the deity sat enthroned upon the cherubim in the Temple. In a number of non-Deuteronomic texts we find the Ark, with its cherubim, as a kind of divine throne. See, for example, Psalm 80:2: “You who are enthroned on the cherubim” (see also Isaiah 37:16; 2 Kings 19:15; 1 Samuel 4:4; 2 Samuel 6:2).

In pre-Deuteronomic texts the Ark is hauled out to signify God’s presence. In Numbers 10:33–36, the Ark leads the Israelites from Mt. Sinai on their desert journey as they moved from camp to camp; it would scatter the enemies of the Lord.

In Deuteronomy, by contrast, the specific and exclusive function of the Ark is to house the tablets of the covenant; no mention is made of the cherubim.

In Deuteronomy, the Lord still leads the Israelites in battle, but this is not associated with the Ark. It is interesting to compare a passage in Numbers with a similar passage in Deuteronomy. At one point the Israelites decide, in opposition to God’s instruction, to try to enter the Promised Land from the south instead of going all the way around, east of the Jordan River, and attacking Jericho from the east. They are defeated at a place called Hormah. In accounting for the defeat, the text of Numbers tells us that the Ark of the Covenant had not stirred from the Israelite camp (Numbers 14:44), somehow relating this to the defeat. In the Deuteronomic account of the defeat at Hormah, no mention is made of the Ark (Deuteronomy 1:42–44).

Similarly, in a pre-Deuteronomic text in 1 Samuel 4, the Israelites bring the Ark of the Covenant to the battle with the Philistines at Aphek/Ebenezer. The Israelite soldiers greet the Ark with “a great shout so that the earth resounded.” The Philistines cry out in fear: “God has come to the camp” (1 Samuel 4:7).

In Deuteronomy God is still a divine presence in the Israelite camp, but no mention is made of the Ark (Deuteronomy 23:15).

Deuteronomy also seeks to eliminate angels from Israelite theology. Again, the contrast between the other four books of the Pentateuch and Deuteronomy is revealing. In Exodus 23:20–23, for example, the Lord sends an angel to guard the people and lead them to the Promised Land. The Deuteronomic parallel, based on this passage in Exodus, omits any reference to an angel (Deuteronomy 7); the Lord himself performs the angelic function.

The same comparison can be found with regard to the Exodus itself. In Numbers 20:15–16, the Israelites at Kadesh recall how, in Egypt, they cried out to the Lord and he “sent an angel” to lead them out of the land. Not so in Deuteronomy: “He himself, in his great might, led you out of Egypt” (Deuteronomy 4:37).

As noted earlier, after Josiah’s Reform sacrifice was limited to the Jerusalem Temple. But, even here, Deuteronomy transforms the significance of sacrifice. In Deuteronomy God has no need of the sacrifice itself; it is only an expression of gratitude to the deity; this constitutes its entire significance. In Deuteronomy we do not hear of the “pleasing odor” (ryh nyhuah) of the burnt sacrifice; no mention is made of the “food of God,” as is found, for example, in Leviticus 1:9, 13, 17, 21:6, 8, 17, 21. Neither is there any mention of the sin-and-guilt offerings designed to atone for involuntary sins, ritual impurity, etc. (Leviticus 4–5).

In Deuteronomy, prayer, rather than sacrificial offerings, expiates sin. Thus, in a ritual for absolving the community of guilt for an unsolved murder (Deuteronomy 21:1–9), the neck of a heifer is broken; the elders of the community are to wash their hands over the heifer and declare: “Our hands did not shed this blood [of the murdered victim], nor did our eyes see it done. Absolve, O Lord, your people Israel whom you redeemed, and do not let guilt for the blood of the innocent remain among your people Israel.”

This ritual actually emphasizes the difference between sacrifice in Deuteronomy and in the rest of the Pentateuch. The rite does not consist of a ceremonial slaughter with blood sprinkling, but calls only for the breaking of the heifer’s neck in an uncultivated valley. Although the priests are present, it is the elders, not the priests, who perform the entire ritual, including breaking the heifer’s neck; the priests’ only function is to guarantee the religious aspect of the ceremony by presiding over it. The elders cleanse their hands only as a purificatory expression of their innocence. There is no laying of the hands on the heifer or transference of the sin to it, as in the case of the ritual scapegoat (Leviticus 16:21). [1]  Absolution comes directly from God without recourse to any priestly intermediary (compare this to the common priestly expression in the Book of Leviticus “and the priest shall make atonement for him”).

Sacrifice, according to Deuteronomy, is not an institutional practice but a personal one, which has two principal objects: the first is humanitarian, to share the sacrificial repast with the destitute; the second, to fulfill a private religious obligation to express one’s gratitude to the deity by means of a votive offering (Deuteronomy 12:6, 11, 17, 26, 23:22–24). Deuteronomy has not so much as a word to say about the presentation of communal sacrifices—the daily and seasonal offerings—that constituted the principal mode of worship at the Temple. [2]  Deuteronomy takes for granted the performance of daily ritual in the Temple; however, the fact that the author does not even allude to this regular sacrifice shows that he is indifferent to it.

Deuteronomic sacrifices are consumed in the sanctuary by the people who offer them; in addition, however, they are to be shared with the slave, the Levite, the alien resident, the orphan and the widow. When you make an offering, “you shall rejoice before the Lord your God with your son and daughter, your male and female slave, the Levite in your communities, and the stranger, the fatherless, and the widow in your midst” (Deuteronomy 16:11). One gets the impression that one of the principal purposes of the offering was to support the destitute elements of Israelite society.  [3] Deuteronomy itself alludes to his when, after prescribing that the joyful nature of the festival be shared with the personae miserae, it goes on to say, “You shall remember that you were slaves in Egypt”  (Deuteronomy 16:12).

A similar theme is sounded in Deuteronomy’s formulation of the command to observe the Sabbath, the fifth commandment. It differs somewhat from the formulation of this commandment in Exodus. In Exodus the rationale for the Sabbath is that God worked six days in creating the world and rested on the seventh (Exodus 20:11, see also Exodus 31:17). By Sabbath rest, man reenacts, so to speak, God’s rest on the seventh day. Like the formulation in Exodus, Deuteronomy’s commandment requires everyone, including male and female slaves, to rest on the Sabbath; but in Deuteronomy the reason is different: not because God rested on the seventh day, but because “you were slaves in the land of Egypt” (Deuteronomy 5:15). The Israelite is obligated to rest on the Sabbath to provide a respite for his servants. Alongside this social motivation appears the religious one: “The Lord your God commanded you to observe the Sabbath day” (Deuteronomy 5:15). In short, Deuteronomy derives the Sabbath, not from the creation, but from the Exodus; although the social motivation existed alongside the sacral, the two could easily coexist.

There are many other differences between the theology and law found in Deuteronomy and in earlier texts. Deuteronomy always presents a more abstract, moral, rational, even more democratic face, whether dealing with tithes, the Passover sacrifice, the laws of slavery, the sabbatical year, the laws of asylum or the notions of holiness. In short, Deuteronomy marks a turning point in Israelite religion. It is not too much to call it a theological revolution.

NOTES:

[1]  True, the custom originated as an elimination rite (see D.P. Wright, “Deuteronomy 21:1–9 as a Rite of Elimination,” Catholic Biblical Quarterly 49 [1987], pp. 387–403). In the present form, however, nothing is said about removal of impurity or sin by the priest (as in Leviticus 14:53, 16:22) or about the transferal of evil to the open country (Leviticus 16:22 and Mesopotamian incantations [cf. Wright, “Deuteronomy,” p. 402]).
[2]  Ritual detail is apparently of no importance to Deuteronomy’s author; it is possible that he deliberately ignored it because it did not accord with his religious frame of mind. This is reflected in the only passage in Deuteronomy (12:27) that describes the manner in which sacrifices are to be offered. The verse differentiates between nonburnt offerings and burnt offerings (‘olah) and ordains that the flesh and blood of the burnt offering be offered entirely on the altar, whereas the blood of the nonburnt is to be poured upon the altar and the meat eaten. Surprisingly, the author makes no mention of the burning of the suet, the fat piece that is set aside for God, thus rendering the meat permissible for priestly and lay consumption (1 Samuel 2:12–17). The blood and fat were deemed to be the food of God (cf. Ezekiel 44:7), which is why the priestly literature forbids the eating of fat, just as it forbids the “eating” of blood (Leviticus 7:22–27) (cf. Jacob Milgrom, Leviticus, Anchor Bible 3 [Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1991], pp. 214–216). The author of Deuteronomy completely ignores that the suet was to be offered upon the altar, the very reason for offering the sacrifice at the Temple.
[3]  On the distinction between the poor and those deprived of inheritance—the slave, the Levite, the alien resident, the orphan and the widow—see N. Lohfink, “Opfer and Sakularisierung im Deuteronomium,” in Studien zu Opfer und Kult im Alten Testament, ed. A. Schenker (Tübingen, 1992), pp. 32–35.

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-Share Alike 3.0 United States Licens

Theological revolutions in the Old Testament

Deuteronomys Theological Revolution 1/3

King Josiah of Judah instituted a religious reform in 622 BCE that scholars refer to simply as Josiah’s Reform. It might well be called the Deuteronomic Reform. Israelite religion would never be the same.

As the Bible tells it, in the course of repairing the Temple, which had apparently been considerably neglected, the high priest at this time, one Hilkiah, “found” an important scroll. The biblical text calls it the “Book of the Law” (Sepher ha-Torah) (2 Kings 22:8). In a later retelling of this event, in Chronicles 34:14, it is called the “Book of the Law of the Lord given by the hand of Moses” (Sepher Torat Yahweh b-yad Moshe). [1] Virtually all scholars agree that this book (or, more precisely, this scroll) was a form, probably an early version, [2]  of Deuteronomy, the fifth book of the Pentateuch.

The name Deuteronomy derives from Greek and means a second telling of the law. The name is appropriate because Deuteronomy repeats the law and history contained in the other four Pentateuchal books (sometimes called the Tetrateuch), presented as a long farewell speech by Moses. As we shall see, however, some radical changes are introduced into this second telling.

The Book of Deuteronomy incorporates significant changes in both beliefs and worship as well as in social and moral values. The full impact of these changes can best be appreciated by comparing them to parallel provisions in earlier non-Deuteronomic texts.

Josiah’s Reform was mainly concerned with centralizing worship in the Jerusalem Temple. All outlying shrines were ordered dismantled and destroyed. This centralization of the cult in the Jerusalem Temple was itself a sweeping innovation of revolutionary proportions. The Levites who served in the provincial towns lost their status after the reform. Whether out of humane or political considerations, the Deuteronomic legislator allowed dispossessed Levites to continue to serve, but only at the Jerusalem Temple, where they were to receive equal shares with their Jerusalem fellows (Deuteronomy 18:6–8); the provincial Levites were also included in the benefits of the holy feasts and gifts in Jerusalem (Deuteronomy 12:12, 18, 14:27, 29, 16:11, 14).

More importantly, sacrifice was no longer allowed outside the chosen place, that is, the Temple in Jerusalem. Sacrifice lay at the basis of every ancient religion. With Josiah’s Reform, however, Israelite religion in the provinces was freed from its dependence on sacrifice. This vacuum in religious worship paved the way for a religion of prayer and book. Worship thus underwent a transition from sacrifice to a kind of abstract worship. Sacrifice continued in Jerusalem until the Babylonian destruction of the Temple in 586 BCE, but Josiah’s Reform was the first step in its elimination.

The transformation of Israel’s religion into a more abstract religion may also be seen in the laws of Deuteronomy. Together with a centralization of worship in Jerusalem, we discern in Deuteronomy an effort to curtail and circumvent the cult rather than to extend or enhance it.

Deuteronomy repeatedly describes the Temple as “the place where Yahweh chose to cause his name to dwell” (Deuteronomy 12:11, see also Deuteronomy 12:21, 14:23–24, 16:2, 6, 11, 26:2). This expression “to cause his name to dwell” (lsáaken sámo)—reflects a new theological conception of the deity. It is intended to combat the popular ancient belief that the deity actually dwelled within the Temple. That it is the name that dwells in the sanctuary, rather than the deity, is followed in a very consistent manner without the slightest deviation. This is true not only of the Book of Deuteronomy but of the entire Deuteronomic literature [3] . There is not a single example in this literature of God’s “dwelling in the Temple” or of the building of a “house of God.” The Temple is always the “dwelling of his name,” and the house is always built “for his name.”

In 2 Samuel 7, the prophet Nathan, at God’s prompting, tells King David that he is not the one to build the Temple. Scholars have identified Nathan’s words as coming from an earlier, pre-Deuteronomic text that does not know the “name” theology: “Thus says the Lord: ‘Are you [David] the one to build a house for Me to dwell in? From the day that I brought the people of Israel out of Egypt to this day, I have not dwelt in a house [but in a tent]’” (2 Samuel 7:5–6). However, in a subsequent verse attributed to the Deuteronomist, we learn that David’s issue will “build a house for My name” (2 Samuel 7:13). (This actually contradicts the ancient prophecy that considers it illegitimate to build a permanent house for God.) Similarly, the original account of the Temple’s construction and the ancient story of its dedication speak of building a house for God (1 Kings 6:1, 2, 8:13), while the Deuteronomist always describes the Temple as built “for the name of God” (1 Kings 3:2, 8:17, 18, 19, 20, 44, 48).

The clearest expression of this theology is in Solomon’s long prayer at the dedication of the Temple, which is recognized as a Deuteronomic composition.  There the Temple is not God’s dwelling place; on the contrary, when Israelites and foreigners come to pray at the Temple, Solomon asks that their prayers be heard in heaven: “Hear thou in heaven thy dwelling place” (1 Kings 8:43).

Calling on the Lord, Solomon asks that when Israel takes the field against its enemies and prays “in the direction of the house that I have built for thy name, then hear their prayer in heaven” (1 Kings 8:44–45).

In Deuteronomic texts, whenever the expression “your dwelling place” is used, it is accompanied by the word “in heaven” (1 Kings 8:30, 39, 43, 49). The Deuteronomist is clearly disputing the view implied by the ancient song that opens the prayer (1 Kings 8:13):

I have now built for You
A stately House,
A place where You
May dwell forever.

Similarly, the original account of the Temple’s construction and the ancient story of its dedication speak of building a house for God (1 Kings 6:1, 2, 8:13), while the Deuteronomist always describes the Temple as built “for the name of God” (1 Kings 3:2, 8:17, 18, 19, 20, 44, 48).

In this original ancient song, God’s dwelling place refers to the Temple. The Deuteronomist is attempting to alter this concept and thereby wrest the song from its original sense. This theological corrective—the addition of the words “in heaven”—also appears in Deuteronomy itself. In Deuteronomy 26:15, the text imagines how an Israelite will pray when he reaches the Promised Land; his prayer-confession will include a plea to the Lord to “look down from your holy habitation, from heaven.” The addition of the words “from heaven” seems to be an explanatory gloss intended to prevent misconstruing the expression “holy habitation” as a reference to the Temple.

This abstract view of the deity’s heavenly abode is also reflected in the Deuteronomic account of the revelation at Mt. Sinai. In the Exodus account, the Lord actually comes down upon the mountain: “Mount Sinai was all in smoke, for the Lord had come down upon it in fire” (Exodus 19:18, 20). In Deuteronomy, however, the theophany shifts from the visual to the aural; God himself remains in heaven: “From the heavens, he let you hear his voice…; on earth he let you see his great fire; and from the midst of the fire you heard his words” (Deuteronomy 4:36).

NOTES:

[1] In Joshua and Kings this book is referred to as the “Book of the Law of Moses” (Sepher Torat Mosheh) (Joshua 8:31, 23:6; 2 Kings 14:6).
[2]  It probably consisted of an introduction, a law code (certainly chapters 12–19, which embody the principles of the reform) and the admonition in chapter 28 regarding the rewards for obedience and punishments for violation of the “terms of the covenant which the Lord commanded Moses to conclude with the Israelites” (Deuteronomy 28:69).
[3]  Scholars attribute to someone—or perhaps a school—called Deuteronomic not only the Book of Deuteronomy but also the books of Joshua, Judges, Samuel and Kings. These books are called the Deuteronomic History. They incorporate the same viewpoint and philosophy as the Book of Deuteronomy and reflect the thinking of what is often called the Deuteronomic School.

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-Share Alike 3.0 United States Licens

The Significance of the Sabbatical Year

The sabbatical year is mentioned three times in the Torah. The first is in Exodus 23:10–11: “Six years you shall sow your land and gather in its yield; but in the seventh you shall let it rest and lie fallow. Let the needy among your people eat of it.” The emphasis in this passage is on letting the land lie fallow and the social benefits for the poor and impoverished. The second passage is in the context of sacred time, in which the seventh year is referred to as a Sabbath rest for the land (Leviticus 25:1–7). This passage is followed by one describing the jubilee year (Leviticus 25:8–17), which is the 50th year after seven sabbatical cycles (49 years). The jubilee year was one of a general release from debts and a return of all purchased real estate to its original tribal owners. Actually, this passage emphasizes the novel biblical belief that “the land must not be sold beyond reclaim, for the land is Mine” (Leviticus 25:23). Similar to the weekly Sabbath, the land too has its cyclical respite with social benefits, agricultural advantages and religious renewal for the whole nation.

In Deuteronomy 15:1–6 the term shmittah is applied to the release from indebtedness, that is, a moratorium on debts at the end of the seventh year. (The Hebrew word for “let it rest” is tishmet ennah, from which is derived the term shmittah year [see Deuteronomy 31:10].) Though not mentioning agricultural aspects, Deuteronomy 15:1–6 is understood as referring to the abstention from farm work that year and the resulting lack of income in an agrarian society. The shmittah year is identical with the agricultural year in ancient Israel, which began with the rainy season in the fall and concluded at the end of the summer. Another feature of the sabbatical year is the public reading of the Torah during the holiday of Booths (Sukkoth-Tabernacles), which concludes the year (Deuteronomy 31:10–13).

There is no textual evidence attesting to the observance of the sabbatical and jubilee years in First Temple times. In fact, the author of Chronicles, interpreting Jeremiah’s prophesies of the 70 years of the Babylonian Exile (Jeremiah 25:11–12, 29:10), explains the number 70 according to Leviticus 26:34 and makes the claim that the 70 sabbatical years from the conquest of Canaan by the Israelites until the destruction of the Temple were not observed. However, there seems to be some evidence that a calendrical reckoning based on septads and jubilees was probably kept in priestly circles (Ezekiel 1:1; 40:1). Attention to the seven-year cycle was resumed during the Second Temple period in historical calculations and computations of the End of Days (Daniel 9:24ff., Book of Jubilees and the later Seder Olam) as well as in the renewal of the agrarian and economic aspects of the shmittah year (1 Maccabees 16:14ff.; Josephus Antiquities 14.475). If the theoretical jubilee year was noted, then it was counted as a 49-year cycle of seven septads. Among the commitments which the Jews accepted at the signing of the Amanah (covenant) in the time of Ezra and Nehemiah was the promise to observe the sabbatical year, formulated to include both the agricultural rest as well as the release from debts: “We will forgo [the produce of] the seventh year and every outstanding debt” (Nehemiah 10:32). It would seem that Nehemiah 5 also describes such a social setting of financial burdens, indebtedness and child indenture that would be the subject of a moratorium identical with that of the shmittah year. According to our theory of a dual chronology in the books of Ezra and Nehemiah, the period in which the two men worked together began toward the end of a sabbatical year (i.e., August 443 BCE).

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-Share Alike 3.0 United States Licens

The Second Temple-Who Returned First?

Forty-seven years after the Babylonians destroyed Jerusalem and the Temple in 586 BCE and deported many of the people to exile in Babylon, Cyrus the Great, king of Persia, who had conquered the Babylonians and ruled most of the then-known world, allowed the Jews to return to their ancient homeland. They returned in waves. Sheshbazzar, apparently the first Jewish governor of Yehud (Judea), led the first wave and laid the foundation to rebuild the Temple, that is, to construct the Second Temple (Ezra 1:7–11, 5:14–16). Not only did Cyrus permit the rebuilding, he even paid for much of it (Ezra 6:4). Then Zerubbabel, a later governor (521–516 BCE; see Haggai 1:1), returned with a second wave and rebuilt it. The process took some time, continuing after Cyrus’s death. Darius confirmed the earlier monarch’s decree permitting the Temple to be rebuilt, despite Samaritan opposition (see Ezra 4–6). Darius even issued an order that anyone who “alters this decree shall have a beam removed from his house, and he shall be impaled on it and his house confiscated” (Ezra 6:11).

Sometime during the fifth century BCE came the priest/scribe Ezra and the great governor/administrator Nehemiah. Or, if not together, first came Ezra and then Nehemiah. Or first came Nehemiah and then Ezra…But which was it? Were they working in Jerusalem at the same time? Or did one come after the other? If so, who came first?

Whatever the answers, together the two men, as one scholar has observed, were “the creators of the post-exilic Jewish community in Palestine” and “two of the greatest figures in Jewish history.”[1]

In printed Bibles, the Book of Ezra precedes the Book of Nehemiah—two separate books. But in ancient Jewish tradition, it is one book—Ezra/Nehemiah. Both books—or both sections of the book—are quite short, 10 chapters in Ezra and 13 in Nehemiah. A couple of other peculiarities: In the Hebrew Scriptures, Ezra and Nehemiah, although historical books, are in the third section of the Bible, the Writings (Ketuvim), instead of in the section with the historical books (such as Joshua, Judges, Samuel and Kings). In this respect Ezra/Nehemiah is like another double historical book, Chronicles, which is also in the third section of the Hebrew Bible.

There is another peculiarity: Chronologically, the history that Ezra/Nehemiah recounts comes after the history in Chronicles; yet in the Hebrew Bible, Ezra/Nehemiah comes before Chronicles. These peculiarities are not present in the Christian Old Testament. There the historical books are grouped together and Ezra/Nehemiah follows, rather than precedes, Chronicles.

A critical reading of these two books will show that Ezra/Nehemiah consists of three sources: (1) a historical introduction to the period, consisting of Ezra 1–6; (2) the so-called Ezra Source, consisting of Ezra 7–10 and Nehemiah 8–10; and (3) the so-called Nehemiah Memoir, consisting of Nehemiah 1–7, 11–13. The fact that parts of the Ezra Source appear in both books tends to confirm our treatment of the two books (Ezra and Nehemiah) as one.

The historical introduction (Ezra 1–6) is the work of the fellow whom scholars call the redactor. He (very unlikely to be she) is the editor who put the two sources together, occasionally making an editorial comment [2]  or inserting information from scattered earlier lists and documents [3],  but most importantly adding the introduction as background for what follows.

The historical introduction recounts Cyrus’s proclamation allowing the Jews to return from the Exile and rebuild their destroyed Temple, all in fulfillment of Jeremiah’s prophecy (Ezra 1:1–3; cf. Jeremiah 25:11–12, 29:10). Cyrus even returns the Temple vessels that the Babylonian monarch Nebuchadnezzar had taken to Babylon and placed in the temple of a pagan god (Ezra 1:7; cf. Daniel 5:1ff.). Altogether, 42,360 people returned, not counting singers (!) or servants (the Jews had apparently done quite well in Babylon; they not only had servants, but also beasts of burden, described in some detail, which could be conscripted for communal projects [Ezra 2:66–67]).

At the behest of some of the enemies of the Jews (mainly the Samaritans), the work on the Temple was stopped for a spell, but under the inspiration of the prophets Haggai and Zechariah, work soon resumed. There is some confusion about when the Temple was completed. In two successive verses we are told first that the Temple was completed “under the aegis of the God of Israel and by the order of Cyrus and Darius and [Darius’s grandson] King Artaxerxes [I]” and then that the Temple was finished “in the sixth year of the reign of King Darius” (Ezra 6:14–15).

When the Temple was completed, the people observed the Passover, “for the Lord had given them cause for joy by inclining the heart of the Assyrian [i.e., Persian] king toward them” (Ezra 6:22). Thus ends the historical introduction.  Chapter 7, the beginning of the Ezra Source, opens with these words: “After these events, during the reign of King Artaxerxes…Ezra came up from Babylon, a scribe expert in the Teaching of Moses.”

The Ezra Source is written in the first and third person with the priest/scribe at center stage. In contrast, Nehemiah’s Memoir is all in the first person; it presents the personal views of Nehemiah and was probably deposited by him in the Temple when he completed his term of office as governor, a votive offering in the form of an account of his good deeds, emphasized by his recurrent plea “O my God, remember it to my credit” (Nehemiah 13:31). The three sources are easily distinguishable by their different points of view, as well as by particular stylistic and linguistic factors.

While there is general agreement as to the sources, there is wide disagreement as to who came first and whether Ezra and Nehemiah worked together in Jerusalem. Some—following the traditional order of the biblical text—say Ezra came first. Others say Nehemiah came first. Most scholars maintain that they worked together while others hold that they never met at all. Problems beset each of the contentions. Even those who champion one view or another admit that their solution is no more than a working hypothesis. And each theory is opposed by a majority of the scholars who have studied the problem.

That there is a problem might seem surprising at first because we are told quite specifically that Ezra arrived in Jerusalem “in the fifth month of the seventh year of the king [previously identified as Artaxerxes]” (Ezra 7:7). Assuming, as most scholars do, that this is a reference to Artaxerxes I (464–424 BCE), Ezra came to Jerusalem during the year 458/457 BCE Nehemiah, on the other hand, came to Jerusalem as governor of the Persian satrapy of Yehud (Judea) in the 20th year of a king of the same name and served in this capacity for 12 years (Nehemiah 1:1, 2:1, 5:14, 13:6).

This seems to place Nehemiah’s arrival 13 years after Ezra (Nehemiah came in the 20th year and Ezra in the 7th year). But on several occasions the biblical text indicates that the two men were contemporaries in Jerusalem. For example, in Nehemiah 12:26, the text speaks of “the time of Nehemiah the governor, and of Ezra the priest, the scribe.” Both were present at the festive Torah reading (Nehemiah 8:9). Ezra was also at the celebration in Jerusalem when the city wall was rebuilt (Nehemiah 12:36).

A few words about the wall. Building a city wall is different from building the Temple. The Temple, as reconstructed by Zerubbabel, could not be used for defensive purposes. Allowing the rebuilding of the city wall reflects either a great deal of benevolence on the part of the king or great confidence in the loyalty of his Jewish subjects—or both. With permission to rebuild the wall (the king even provided the timber for the wall repair [Nehemiah 2:8]), Nehemiah took his famous nighttime tour of the city three days after he arrived in Jerusalem (Nehemiah 2:11–16). The wall lay in ruins, the gates destroyed by fire.
The actual rebuilding of various segments of the wall was assigned to different groups. For example, one section next to the Tower of Ovens was assigned to Shallum, who performed the work with his daughters (Nehemiah 3:12). Other segments and/or gates were assigned to other families, townspeople, priests, tradesmen, merchants and, for the more difficult terrain, drafted work gangs (Nehemiah 3:1–32).  [4]

There is a problem here, however. While we are told that Ezra participated in the celebration of the wall’s completion (the last segment was completed in the remarkably short time of 52 days [Nehemiah 6:15]), he and his people are not mentioned in connection with the work of rebuilding. Why are Ezra and those who came with him not mentioned among the builders of the wall (Nehemiah 3)? Did Ezra stay in silence for 13 years until Nehemiah completed the work? Or did Ezra go back to Babylon a failure and return to Jerusalem a second time during Nehemiah’s office?

Even more puzzling, Nehemiah found Jerusalem depopulated and in ruins, while Ezra seems to have come to a relatively secure and bustling city (the latter is usually inferred from Ezra 9:9: “[God] has disposed the king of Persia favorably toward us, to furnish us with sustenance and to raise again the House of our God, repairing its ruins and giving us a hold in Judah and Jerusalem”). This would seem to place Nehemiah before Ezra.

The dilemma of modern scholars lies in their accepting the seemingly accurate date formulas, which sometimes give day, month and year of a specific event in the careers of Ezra and Nehemiah and in their putting these dates into a sequence so as to overcome textual contradictions and historical inconsistencies. Various theories for solving these problems have been suggested over the years, but none of them seems to work very well. [5] Therefore a new approach to the problem may be in order.

The proposed solution first occurred  when we noticed that the months of the year seem to be designated differently in the Ezra Source and Nehemiah’s Memoir. In the Ezra Source they are designated by ordinal numbers (cf. the old Roman calendar: September = the seventh month, etc.). In Nehemiah’s Memoir they have Babylonian names. Thus, in the Ezra Source, Ezra leaves Babylon in the first month (Ezra 7:9, 8:31) and arrives in Jerusalem in the fifth month (Ezra 7:8–9). Later in the Ezra Source, Ezra does something of extreme importance: In the seventh month, he assembles all the people and, standing on a wooden platform with a group of named notables, he reads a “scroll in the sight of all the people” (Nehemiah 8:5). What he reads is variously called the Book (or scroll) of the Teaching (or law) of Moses (Sefer Torath Moshe; Nehemiah 8:1), or the Book of the Teaching (Sefer ha-Torah; Nehemiah 8:3), or simply the Teaching (ha-Torah; Nehemiah 8:2, 9, 13, 14), or the Book (Sefer; Nehemiah 8:5), and sometimes the Book of the Teaching of God (Sefer Torath ha-Elohim; Nehemiah 8:8). Ezra reads the book to both men and women, and the people are attentive. When he opens the book (or scroll), all the people stand. Ezra blesses the Lord and the people reply, “Amen, amen.” They lift up their hands and bow their heads and worship. Some of the leaders (the Levites) explain the Torah (Teaching) to the people so that they understand. The day is declared holy, and the people weep. In essence, Ezra creates the main feature of the later synagogue service, which is the Torah reading and its explanation. The source of this innovation is the public Torah reading (Haqhel) prescribed in Deuteronomy 31:10–13 to be carried out during the holiday of Tabernacles at the conclusion of the sabbatical year.

Two points are relevant for our purposes. First, both Ezra and Nehemiah were present at this ceremony, and Nehemiah, as well as Ezra, participated in it (Nehemiah 8:9). Second, as recounted in the Ezra Source, it occurred in the seventh month (Nehemiah 8:2)—that is, in the Ezra Source, once again, the months are designated by ordinal numbers.  In Nehemiah’s Memoir, by contrast, the months are called by name: Kislev (Nehemiah 1:1); Nisan (Nehemiah 2:1); and Elul (Nehemiah 6:15).

All earlier attempts to solve the puzzle of the chronological relationship between Ezra and Nehemiah have assumed that both the Ezra Source and Nehemiah’s Memoir used the same calendrical system. I believe, however, that the key to the solution is that they used different calendrical systems.

In the Torah and the Prophets (the first two major segments of the Hebrew Bible), the months are numbered and designated as ordinals—first, fifth, seventh, etc.—just as in the Ezra Source (see Exodus 12:2, 19:1; Ezekiel 1:1–2; Zechariah 8:19). In Nehemiah’s Memoir, however, the months are listed according to their civil, Babylonian names—Nisan, Elul and Kislev—which were adopted by the Jews in the Exile and already appear in other books of the Bible that were composed in Second Temple times (Zechariah 7:1; Esther 3:7).

This overlooked detail should not come as a surprise, for it reflects the different backgrounds of the two leaders. Ezra, the priest/scribe, is steeped in the literature of the Torah. On the other hand, Nehemiah, the governor of Judea, is first of all a civil servant whose source of authority derives from his status as a high official in the Persian Empire and a confidant of the king (he had even served as the king’s cupbearer [Nehemiah 1:11]). Quite naturally, he uses the month names commonly used in that milieu.

Another telltale sign: The historical introduction to the work (Ezra 1–6) contains Hebrew and Aramaic sections. In the Hebrew part, the redactor (disclosing his priestly background) uses the traditional names, “the seventh month” (Ezra 3:1) and “the second month” (Ezra 3:8); but in the official, Aramaic section, he records the Babylonian name, “Adar” (Ezra 6:15).  In short, the Ezra Source uses the religious calendar; Nehemiah’s Memoir uses the civil calendar.

What about the designation of the years? Nehemiah’s Memoir naturally counts the years according to the reign of his monarch, Artaxerxes I (e.g., Nehemiah 1:1, 2:1, 5:14, 13:6). On the other hand, we would expect the Ezra Source to follow the traditional Torah method of seven-year sabbatical cycles (Leviticus 25:1–7). Therefore, I suggest that “the seventh year” in which Ezra came to Jerusalem was a sabbatical year. 

The obvious difficulty in this proposal is that the Ezra Source says that the Jews who came to Jerusalem with Ezra set out “in the seventh year of King Artaxerxes” (Ezra 7:7; italics added). And in the next verse we are told that they arrived “in the fifth month of the seventh year of the king [referring back to Artaxerxes]” (Ezra 7:8; italics added). This seems to contradict my contention that the seventh year referred to in this text is the seventh year of the sabbatical cycle. I believe the italicized words were added by the redactor or a later copyist, either in an attempt to anchor the short-term sabbatical cycle within a longer, royal time frame or in order to coordinate the date formula with that of Nehemiah (Nehemiah 1:1; 2:1). Once these editorial glosses are seen as later, explanatory additions, everything fits.

It may even be possible to fix which sabbatical year is referred to by the “seventh year” when Ezra returned to Jerusalem. The earliest documented sabbatical year is the fall 164 to the summer 163 BCE  If we calculate back from 164/163 BCE, we find that the year 444/443 BCE was also a sabbatical year. If we assume that this was the sabbatical year when Ezra returned, all the chronological difficulties are resolved.

The text then tells us that Ezra came to Jerusalem at the end of the seventh year on the first day of the fifth month (Ab), that is, August 443 BCE, just before the beginning of the last stage in the rebuilding of the city walls by Nehemiah. The latter had arrived almost two-and-a-half years earlier, in Nisan or Iyar 445 BCE (Nehemiah 2), and had overcome innumerable difficulties in administering and securing his project, as well as challenges to his authority by local and foreign adversaries. 

The construction of the wall did not proceed uninterrupted, but rather in stages of unknown length: “It was continuous all around to half its height…the breached parts had begun to be filled” (Nehemiah 3:38; 4:1); “I had rebuilt the wall and not a breach remained in it—though at that time I had not yet set up doors in the gateways” (Nehemiah 6:1).

Ezra and his people came in August 443, some two years after the rebuilding of the wall had begun. They were not needed for the actual construction, which is why they are not mentioned in connection with the rebuilding. The last stage of construction ended on the 25th of Elul (the sixth month) and lasted 52 days (Nehemiah 6:15). The celebration and dedication that accompanied completion of the wall probably took place, with no delay, at that time. Both Ezra and Nehemiah were present for the occasion (Nehemiah 12:36, 38).  Thus Nehemiah did precede Ezra, but not by much, and both men worked jointly in areas of common concern.

NOTES:

[1]  Geo Widengren in John H. Hayes and J. Maxwell Miller, eds., Israelite and Judean History (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1977), p. 538.
[2] For example, Nehemiah 12:10–11, 22, 47.
[3] For example, Nehemiah 7:6–72, 11:3–36, 12:1–26.
[4] Aaron Demsky, “Pelekh in Nehemiah 3, ” Israel Exploration Journal 33 (1983), pp. 242–244.
[5] For example, those who place Nehemiah before Ezra will delete the references to the two being contemporaries as late glosses that are historically unreliable. Or they will emend the 7th year of Artaxerxes to the 37th year (the three Hebrew words in “37th year” all begin with the letter S, so, the theory goes, the “thirty” element was accidentally dropped). Other scholars suggest that the reference to Artaxerxes at the time of Ezra’s return is to Artaxerxes II (404–358 BCE). For a summary of the different theories, see Widengren in Israelite and Judean History, pp. 503–509.

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-Share Alike 3.0 United States Licens