Part 30
various kinds of fortresses on Judean territory, as well as the upper gate of the house of the Lord and on the wall of Ophel.
(2) He defeats the Ammonites, who do not have a common border with Judah at the time of Jotham's reign. This note is made slightly more historically plausible (though by no means convincing) by suggestions that he is referring to the Meunites here. (3) Jotham receives an extremely high tribute from the Ammonites for the period of three years. The Chronicler probably had contemporary circumstances in mind when writing these three statements.
Ahaz (2 Chr 28:1-27)
From a historical perspective, Ahaz's reign is dominated by the Syro-Ephraimite war, during which the kingdoms of Israel and Judah were in conflict with each other. The Chronicler, who takes every opportunity to expand on the errant nature of the northern kingdom, does just that here. He wishes to emphasize that reunification is almost possible at this point in time. But whereas Israel was responsible for the original partition of the kingdom, it is Judah that prevents a reunion here. Ahaz is godless and does not regard punishment as an opportunity to convert, indeed even worsening his behaviour following each form of punishment. After its victory over Judah, Israel is humane towards the vanquished, heeding YHWH's word. This chapter is a mirror image of ch. 13, in which Judah and Israel have exchanged their roles. This main goal explains almost all of the (sometimes surprising) changes the Chronicler makes to his source model, including those statements whose meanings he inverts.
w. 16-23, at ^e zenith of his power, Uzziah grows proud and commits a sin. His fall, which is described using typical terminology, is caused by his entrance into the temple. This would have been permitted in pre-exilic times, but post-exilic values forbid such an action. His attempts to burn incense are, however, entirely unacceptable. The priests warn the king, thus serving the same purpose as prophets: according to the Chronicler's logic, every sinner is given the opportunity to turn away from his godless behaviour and be reassured of YHWH's good intentions. Uzziah becomes angry, opposes the priests, and is immediately smitten with leprosy. From this moment on, he must live in a separate house, euphemistically described as the house of freedom. His son rules as regent. This episode, which contrasts with the Chronicler's usually calm and schematic style, shows signs of OT sources which inspire his own imaginative narration: one such source may have been i Kings 13, in which the fallen King Jeroboam burns incense at the altar in Bethel.
v. 3, whilst the source model reports that Ahaz let his 'son pass through fire', the Chronicler has his 'sons'. He thus turns a unique act into a cultic rite known to have been performed more than once by Ahaz. He even specifies the site of the ritual (cf amongst others Jer 7:31—2), simultaneously using it as the place at which Ahaz carries out his (obviously illegitimate) sacrifices. These elements do not exist in the source model, w. 5-8 concern the war against Syria and the Ephraimites. Whereas the source model describes Israel and Aram's campaign against Judah as a minor success and draws no causal links with the southern kingdom's apostasy, the Chronicler transforms this into a series of painful blows to Judah under Ahaz. He does not use an unknown report on the Syrian-Ephraimite war or any other conflict as a source here. He also separates previously coherent factors in order to allow for his description of the lengthy conflict between Israel and Judah (w. 5/7—15), whilst the war against Aram takes up merely half a verse (50). w. 5/7—8, in a battle which is not clearly described, Israel crushes Judah, the number of victims perhaps being an implicit comment on the kingdom's original unity (120,000 = 12 tribes). The Chronicler's explanation for this defeat is stereotypical—because they had forsaken 'the LORD, the God of their ancestors'.
Jotham (2 Chr 27:1-9 J
The Chronicler is unlimited in his praise for Jotham. This explains the changes he makes to his source model. Rezin and Pekah cannot threaten Judah as early as Jotham's reign since he commits no sin. The positive judgement on Uzziah (25:2), which is repeated in the chapter on Jotham (v. 2), is weakened by the Chronicler, using a positive statement on the latter: 'only he did not invade the temple of the LORD'. The statement is linguistically linked to the source model's, 'Nevertheless the high places were not removed' (2 Kings 15:35), which it replaces. Jotham receives threefold reward for the exemplary behaviour described in the Chronicler's unique material in w. 3—6: (i) He builds more than in the source model, namely
w. 9-15: the Good Samaritans. The following report is, as its title suggests, the main source used by Luke for his wellknown story (Lk 10:25—37), as a number of identical details underline. It was conceived exclusively by the Chronicler.
Suggestions that this is not the Chronicler's own narrative, due to its pro-Israelite tone, are not plausible. The Chronicler has nothing against the (all too rare!) YHWH-faithful Israelites, even rejoicing at their existence. Furthermore, his praise
301 I AND 2 C H R O N I C L E S
for their exemplary behaviour is facilitated by the absence of the king's name, as if the northern kingdom had already been destroyed by the Syrians. (The entire chapter makes allusions to the Babylonian Exile: cf. e.g. w. 5, 8.) w. 9-11, Oded's sermon is typical for Chronicles, declaring to his people that YHWH's wrath, rather than they themselves, was responsible for the defeat of the Judeans. Should they continue to live in such an godless fashion, YHWH's wrath would also befall them. Using a keyword for this chapter, Oded describes them as 'brothers' (NRSV, kindred) thereby using the strongest term to describe the political and religious connection between the Israelites and the Judeans. w. 14-15, the prisoners receive clothes, food, water, and medical attention—evidence of their humane treatment. The Chronicler may have been inspired by the description of the Israelites' exemplary behaviour in 2 Kings 6:22 and applied itto Oded's sermon, v. 15, the parallels with Lk 10 are strongest here. Why are the prisoners taken to Jericho of all places? Is it merely because Jericho lies on the border between Judah and Israel?
reign according to v. 17, symbolizes his resolute attempt to restore order. Since the temple is still unclean, Hezekiah is forced to hold the meeting with his priests and Levites elsewhere, at the square on the east. w. 5-11, the frame of the speech (w. 5, n) calls upon the Levites (and priests) to become active. The middle section (w. 6—10) concerns sins (w. 6—7), their effects (w. 8—9), and the consequences the king draws from them. The vocabulary used to describe Judah's situation warns of the forthcoming exile, clearly drawing parallels with the terminology used in Jeremiah.
w. 12—19 describe the cleansing of the temple, w. 12—14,me
Levites immediately begin their work. Two sons of each of the seven families are named. The number seven is a keyword in this chapter (cf. e.g. w. 17, 21) and can be regarded as an aesthetic concept. The last three sons named (Asaph, Heman, and Jeduthun) are the singers ascribed to the Levites. Cf. i Chr 15:5-7 regarding the first three names. The Kohathites are probably priests (who are required for the temple's cleansing, since they alone are permitted to enter). Elizaphan is mentioned elsewhere only in i Chr 15:8; maybe he serves to make up the number, w. 15-17, having sanctified themselves (an act that is not described further), the Levites and priests go straight to work. The king's order is in accordance with YHWH's law as applied by Hezekiah. The tasks are divided in the only way possible: the priests remove unholy material from the temple whilst the Levites carry it from the forecourt into the Kidron valley, v. 17, the chronological statements here do not conform with the information in v. 3. It is, however, an important point that sanctification of the temple was completed on the sixteenth day, forcing a delay in the Passover feast. This could be regarded as early muted criticism of the priests as a precursor to a more overt reproach later on (30:3). w. 18-19, ^e report to Hezekiah indirectly underlines his leading role in the project. For the first time in this chapter, Ahaz is explicitly mentioned. It is no doubt deliberate that the temple equipment is the centre of attention here. The utensils guaranteed continuity with Solomon's temple in post-exilic times for the construction of the second temple; they were returned by the Persians to those who resettled Jerusalem.
w. 16-21, the source model describes how Ahaz is forced to seek Tiglath-pileser's support and thus pay him a tribute from the temple and the palace. Tiglath-pileser accepts the offer, defeats Damascus and deports its citizens, and kills king Rezin. The Chronicler changes the chronology of events, by placing the statement that Rezin had returned Elath to Edomite hands, forcing the Judeans out of the city, before Tiglathpileser's campaign. He also radically rewrites the passage: he describes the Edomites waging war against Judah (deporting further captives—an allusion to the Exile, v. 17), also allows the Philistines to attack Judah (v. 18), all because of Ahaz's godless behaviour (v. 19). This is the reason for Ahaz's appeal to the Assyrian king (v. 16). w. 20-1, contrary to the source model's description (and historical fact), Tiglath-pileser does not come to his aid, he even attacks him. The Chronicler's logic dictates such circumstances, since those who are in difficulties should not appeal to foreign powers, but to the Lord. Ahaz calls upon the Assyrian king for hdp (v. i6),butisnotfie!|iedbyhim (v. 20; another verb in Heb.), nor does it help to offer him a tribute (v. 21). The play on 'help' is obvious. Unlike the source model, the tribute does not stem only from the temple and the palace, but is also financed by the princes—a further, somewhat curious example of the Chronicler's democratic tendencies.
w. 20-36, a great cultic feast, without parallel in the OT, takes place once the consecration of the temple has been completed. It probably represents a mixture of cultic rituals during the Chronicler's lifetime and sacrificial laws laid down in the OT. Besides Leviticus, Ezek 43-5, the procedure for sanctifying altars (Num 7:88), and the report concerning the consecration of the second temple (Ezra 6:17; 8:35) all play an important role. These similarities mainly apply to the sacrificial animals. The feast has three parts: preparations, sacrifices made by the princes (and carried out to purify the temple and free it from sin, along with great musical accompaniment), and the sacrifices made by the people, which are made voluntarily and joyfully, v. 24, it is perhaps a measure of the festive occasion that the priests themselves and not the laymen perform the slaughter. The verse is a further indication of the king's initiative, w. 25—6, the Chronicler emphasizes how Hezekiah reorders the cult (making him almost comparable to David). This new order is secured as rigidly as possible: it refers back not only to David, but also to Gad and Nathan, who lived during his reign. The order of music, however, is from the Lord through his prophets, w. 31-5, once the temple has
w. 22—5 document the cultic sins of the king. According to the source model, Ahaz orders the construction of a copy of the altar he saw in Damascus, giving the priest Uriah comprehensive instructions concerning it. The Chronicler transforms the altar into a place of worship for the gods of Damascus, thereby increasing Ahaz's sin.
Hezekiah (2 Chr 29:1-32:33 J
(29:1—36) Cultic Reform and the Temple's Consecration The Chronicler wrote more extensively about Hezekiah than any other king who ruled Judah alone. He used 2 Kings 18:9-12 as a source model, greatly reworking its middle sections and adding material on the cult. Hezekiah the politician in Kings (only 2 Kings 18:4 concerns the cult) is thereby transformed into Hezekiah the reformer of cult in Chronicles.
w. 3-11 report the king's speech, w. 3-4, immediately after his accession, i.e. without delay, the king opens the doors of the temple: this act, which takes place on the eighth day of his
I AND 2 C H R O N I C L E S 302
vocabulary). This reaction conforms with the usual pattern in Chronicles; only the Judeans react in an exemplary manner, acting with 'one heart' (v. 12—also typical terminology), v. 12, as much as the Chronicler emphasizes the importance of individual responsibility, he does occasionally point out that correct behaviour ultimately stems from God's actions
been made worthy for ordinary worship by sacrifices, the second part of the feast takes place. Hezekiah then calls upon the congregation to make further burnt offerings, to which it responds positively. The Chronicler first mentions the people's voluntary offerings here—they are not mentioned elsewhere in his book.
(cf. i CHR 29). He does not regard this double causality as a contradiction, v. 13, it is surprising that the 'very large assembly' (one of the Chronicler's favourite phrases) gather to celebrate the festival of Unleavened Bread. Passover and Unleavened Bread were originally two independent festivals that grew together in the course of time, as this verse demonstrates more clearly than any other OT text. v. 14, oncethetemple has been cleansed (ch. 29), the city is also freed from all foreign influence: only thus can legitimate rituals take place.
(30:1—27) The Passover The measures described in the previous chapter are closely linked to the Passover feast. It is important for the Chronicler that Hezekiah should carry out all the significant measures in the first year of his reign. His accession comes at a time when the northern kingdom may already have fallen. The Chronicler cannot imagine that there would be anything Hezekiah would not have undertaken to achieve reunification. Since this is impossible by political means, due to the Assyrian threat, he portrays the king making a final attempt to restore the unity of the cult. This description is often considered to contain historically reliable elements, especially since negative aspects are also reported on. But these are limited and probably reflect contemporary problems.
w. 15-20 report the celebration of Passover. A number of aspects are unclear. As may have been the case during the Chronicler's lifetime, many pilgrims have not prepared themselves for the Passover since they have not cleansed themselves as stipulated by the law. But good religious intentions make up for the lack of cultic correctness. Hezekiah calls upon YHWH to pardon the people who have not cleansed themselves and is heard. The Chronicler may deliberately have created a precedent to follow in the future here. The cult officials, the priests and the Levites, also fall short of the usual standards. But they are trying hard to show their change of heart, and that is what seems most important to the Chronicler, v. 17, according to the law, the person making the sacrifice, i.e. a layman, is responsible for its slaughter. But since the people have not been cleansed properly, the Levites assume this role.
Ch. 30 contains the first description of a complete pilgrimage in the OT, perhaps mirroring one as it took place during the Chronicler's time. The first part of the chapter (w. 1—13) describes preparations for the Passover feast, whilst the second, slightly longer section deals with its celebration. It surprisingly coincides with the festival of Unleavened Bread, as does the subsequent festivity.
w. 1—7, in keeping with the Chronicler's democratic convictions, the king, the princes and the people decide to celebrate Passover. Due to the lack of preparation for such a feast (v. 3), they decide to delay it until the second month. This strictly speaking grave aberration from the cultic calendar is not criticized by the Chronicler since he values the basic change in attitudes here and also tacitly refers to a previous occasion when this occurred (Num 9:6—13). According to Deuteronomistic teachings, the Passover was a family celebration until King Josiah centralized it in Jerusalem. This is of no interest to the Chronicler, who refers directly to the duties laid down by the law, describing them comprehensively, though rather unconventionally. Following this successful, indeed unanimous assembly, the king sends messengers all around the country and particularly to the northern kingdom, v. i, in an example of his narrative skill, the Chronicler begins the chapter with calling his readers' attention to this point before mentioning the assembly.
w. 2i—2, this summary again refers to the festival of Unleavened Bread rather than the Passover. It is a typically unanimous and joyful festival (involving priests, Levites, and laymen), a very important factor for a feast in Chronicles, w. 23—7, voluntary action is another important theme in Chronicles. It is underlined here by the fact that the whole assembly remains for a further seven days in celebration. A great sense of unity, joy, and generosity is prevalent amongst the king and the notables, and many animals are sacrificed, v. 26, the Chronicler's statement that such scenes had not been seen since the days of Solomon refers to the manner of the celebration alone and is a logical reference: after Solomon, the kingdom fell apart, but the present festivities give the impression that reunification may be possible. Such scenes are repeated only during Josiah's reign. Thus, the Chronicler mentions the kings with whom Hezekiah is to be compared: Solomon and Josiah. v. 27, at this point it is clear that the Chronicler wrote in post-exilic times: during the monarchical period it was the privilege of the kings, rather than the priests to bless the people, though the Chronicler does not entirely remove this element from his source (cf. 2 Sam 6:18; i Kings 8:14, 54—6; 2 Chr 6:3). The Levite priests bless the people, a concept the Chronicler derived from Josh 8:33 amongst others. (31:1-21) Cultic Reform and the Reorganization of the Temple Service The Chronicler uses 2 Kings 18:4, 5—7 as a source model for this chapter, including the single-versed summary of Hezekiah's reforming measures (v. 4) and the assessment of their effectiveness (w. 5-7). Both of these elements are strongly emended by the Chronicler to suit his purposes.
w. 6-9, the messengers spread across the country and recite a sermon to the audience. Its central message is expressed using a play on words: return to YHWH, he will return to you. The largely unreported demise of the northern kingdom has led to difficult circumstances for those who remain on the land and those who have been deported. If the Israelites turn back to the Lord and express this through a pilgrimage, perhaps even those who have been deported may find the Lord's mercy. Repentance is always possible, v. 6, does such use of messengers and letters to inform the people of royal decisions mirror similar practices in Persia? w. 10-13, reactions to the invitation are varied. Most inhabitants of the northern kingdom react with derision and scorn, though some accept the offer by humbling themselves (typical
303 I AND 2 C H R O N I C L E S
support. They are registered according to their lineage and must have a purely priestly 'pedigree'. Distribution is made on the basis of the number of priests. Payment of Levites is made on the basis of the size of the family, whereby the eligible age is 30 years (see i CHR 23:3). (Levites rather than the priests are referred to in v. 18.) Distribution occurs both in Jerusalem and in the other cities. The main gatekeeper at the eastern gate and his six subordinates are responsible for it. v. 18, 'they were faithful in keeping themselves holy': one of the many statements praising the Levites which characterize Chronicles.
Within this frame, he inserts detailed descriptions of the temple tithes and their distribution (w. 2—19).
v. i details the destruction of the cultic images. The brief mention of Hezekiah's reforming measures in the source model becomes a small part of the Chronicler's report on Hezekiah's reorganization here. Furthermore, the snake Nehushtan is ignored in Chronicles, perhaps because the idea that it derived from Moses was unpleasant to the Chronicler. Otherwise, the source model is greatly extended upon. The destruction of local cults by the entire population is unique in the OT and extends into the territory of the fallen northern kingdom, though this may be a reflection of events during the Chronicler's lifetime.
w. 20—i, the verdict on Hezekiah: the source model upon which the Chronicler partly bases this chapter has more praise for Hezekiah than for any other king. The Chronicler's version seems weak by comparison, even though his praise is also great. This is, however, made good by his extensive description of Hezekiah's reign and the implicit praise within it. '[gjood and right and faithful before the LORD': Hezekiah alone is given this threefold praise, and he alone is described as someone who was faithful.
w. 2—10, once the king has reinstalled the temple service, in which priests and Levites are mentioned in connection with their main duties (cf 8:14; 23:18-19), he prepares orders regarding the tithes. These partly conform with the regulations found in the Pentateuch, though they no doubt reflect contemporary practice (or the Chronicler's ideal conception). The king is responsible for the sacrifices, whilst laymen undertake to support the priests and Levites financially. It is impossible to determine to what extent this really was the case during the monarchical period. The king after all carried the main responsibility for maintaining the cult. Reports from Persian times, which might have inspired the Chronicler, contradict each other. Whilst Darius states that the cult is financed by the state coffers, the book of Nehemiah (10:32— 3) mentions a temple tithe for this purpose which is paid by everyone. The Chronicler spreads responsibility amongst the king and his people, thereby conforming with his own ideals, w. 5—6, the king's word spreads with extreme speed and the first tithes are paid in abundance, i.e. correctly. This is another example of what the Chronicler might regard as lacking in his own society and what he expected from it. v. 7, the third month is the month of the grain harvest and at the same time the month of the harvest festival (Feast of weeks) whereas the Feast of Ingathering is celebrated in the seventh month which is the period of vine and fruit harvesting, w. 9—10, the generosity also causes problems: the king approaches the priests and Levites and asks them to explain the great piles of donations (though the wording is vague). They repeat the message of v. 8 using different terms: generosity is rewarded by wealth and the Lord's blessing. Azariah: the chief priest under Solomon is also called Azariah. This may be the reason why the present chief priest has this name. Although David (and Solomon) are not explicitly mentioned in this chapter, it is clear that Hezekiah is portrayed in a similar light to them.
(32:1-33) Jerusalem Saved from Sennacherib; Testing of Hezekiah What is true in many parts of Chronicles is particularly true in ch. 32: this chapter cannot be understood without knowledge of its source model (and of Isaiah's statements on Judah's behaviour whilst under threat from Sennacherib). The Chronicler uses his source texts as a framework for all important components of the story, but rewrites them to a great extent. He also makes severe cuts, especially regarding concrete information such as figures. According to the Chronicler, Sennacherib does not conquer the towns of Judah, nor does he besiege Jerusalem, but remains in Lachish. Moreover, Hezekiah, who, unlike the source model, has no fear, does not have to pay a tribute to the Assyrian king. The Chronicler even converts the two advances made by Rabshakeh and Sennacherib into a single event. It is notable that Hezekiah's prayer, in which the king underlines YHWH's exclusive existence, is also omitted. Beyond this, the Chronicler shortens the text further by almost entirely ignoring Isaiah, the protagonist of the source model and of the book named after him. He merely portrays Isaiah praying with Hezekiah and cites him in his list of sources at the end of the chapter.
Whilst the source model portrays a political Hezekiah, the Chronicler's king is a religious figure. In this sense it is surprising that he diverges from the source model to add extensive details concerning the defensive measures taken in w. 2-6,30 (though he does give military details elsewhere). He may have reinterpreted information given in Isa 22:8—11 in a curious way to come up with this information, though the critical consensus believes that he used his own sources to do so. w. 23, 27-9 (especially concerning the economy), w. 7-8 (a speech by Hezekiah), and w. 25—6, 31/7 (theological comments), are the Chronicler's original material.
w. 11-19,me tithes are stored and duties allocated, w. 11-13, the king orders chambers either to be built or renovated in order to store the tithes. It is difficult to determine which of these two options is the case. Two Levites administer the tithes, offerings, and dedicated things (terms stemming from priestly literature and used slightly differently by the Chronicler here). They command ten men, leading to the round sum of twelve (which may be an organizational formula), w. 14-19 describe the distribution of the offerings amongst the priests and Levites. Priests and Levites have the right to financial support, as carried out here. Several points in this text are difficult to comprehend, but the basic guidelines are clear: from the age of 3, all priests have the right to
v. i is transitional. 'After these things and these acts of faithfulness': owing to his exemplary behaviour in connection with the cultic reforms, Hezekiah must immediately be rewarded—in the form of deliverance from Sennacherib—and not have to wait until the fourteenth year of his reign, as in the source model. Unlike in the earlier text, Sennacherib does not manage to conquer the fenced cities in Judah, but only intends to do so. w. 2-6, defensive measures are taken. Since
I AND 2 C H R O N I C L E S 304
only mentions this visit in v. 31, without describing Hezekiah's behaviour. Despite knowing of Hezekiah's illness, the Chronicler knew of no sin he had committed. Is this the reason for describing his failing (arrogance and ingratitude) so briefly and vaguely? Hezekiah also behaves correctly by praying to his Lord and humbling himself. Such explanations can only be vague speculation. See comment on v. 31 regarding his miraculous recovery, w. 27-9, God-fearing kings are wealthy and economically active, as the Chronicler confirms once more here. Such unspecific descriptions cannot stem from any nonbiblical sources, but are his own invention.
Hezekiah has proved his God-fearing behaviour through his cultic reforms, he does not need to pray to YHWH, as would have normally been the case under such threatening circumstances. Instead he can concentrate his efforts on military defence measures. The Chronicler knew from his sources roughly what kind of measures these were (see 2 Kings 20:20 and particularly Isa 22:8—11). This is not contradicted by the fact that he describes and interprets them differently, especially by comparison with Isaiah (v. n: 'But you did not look to him who did it'). Hezekiah concentrates on the water supply, carries out the necessary building works, acquires the weaponry required, and organizes his army. The general nature of his statements also suggests the absence of additional sources, w. 6b—8, Hezekiah's encouraging speech is a patchwork of biblical expressions and statements, even using Isaiah to contradict Isaiah, v. 9, unlike the source model, Jerusalem is not besieged. This statement is an extreme and hardly justifiable interpretation of 2 Kings 19:32: 'He shall not come into this city'.
v. 31, 2 Kings 20:12 specifically reports that the Babylonian delegation came to Jerusalem because they had heard of Hezekiah's illness. The Chronicler probably assumes knowledge of this fact. 'The sign that had been done in the land': does he mean the reverse movement of the sundial (2 Kings 20:8-11) or the king's recovery? Perhaps the two events should not be separated too strictly. Since the Babylonians were famous for their astrology, the reader at least initially would have thought of the sundial's reversal. The nature of Hezekiah's temptation is stated explicitly ('God left him to himself; in order to... know all that was in his heart') and is taken from Deut 8:2. Is Hezekiah's humility (v. 26) being tested here? The verse does not state the outcome, though it is obvious.
w. 10-17, mis sPeech by Sennacherib's servants summarizes the speeches made by Rabshakeh and the Assyrian king in the source model, whilst emphasizing different aspects, v. 10, unlike 2 Kings 18:21, the Assyrians are not even permitted to claim that Judah is reliant upon Egypt. It is almost as if they had heard Hezekiah's speech and respected it. Ironically, they phrase the most important question correctly: 'On what are you relying... ?' v. 12, 'Before one altar': a clarification and strengthening of the source model ('before this altar'). Just as there can be only one God, there can also be only one altar. If God wants to help, king Hezekiah has destroyed his altars! This is the logic used by Rabshakeh in 2 Kings 18:22. By making a slight change in the text, the Chronicler changes its emphasis: Can Hezekiah be trusted?
w. 32-3 are the concluding verdict on the king. v. 32, instead of 'all his power' (source text) that Hezekiah is reported to have obtained, the Chronicler describes his 'good deeds', a term used elsewhere only to describe Josiah (35:26). According to the Hebrew text (and unlike some translations), the History of the Prophet Isaiah forms part of the Book of the Kings of Judah and Israel. The author is therefore the most important prophet of that period. It is impossible to determine whether the Hebrew text is meant to refer to Hezekiah's burial-site (Galling: 1954: 166: the upper level of a double-layered royal burial site situated on a hill to the south-west) or whether it serves to emphasize the special honour his funeral received. Whatever is the case, Hezekiah receives one of the most impressive burials given to kings in Chronicles.
v. 18, even Rabshakeh's speech threatening Hezekiah and his people is alluded to: cf. 2 Kings 18:28, 27 (in that order), v. 19, this verse curiously breaks with the source model, following a very complicated line of interpretation. Unlike the source text, the conflict is based on nothing other than theological principles. The Assyrians speak of the God of Jerusalem as they do of all foreign deities (since they assume that Jerusalem will be conquered in a similar manner). They do not realize, however, that the deities of the peoples of the world are merely human creations. The Assyrians' speech and the Chronicler's comments on it are also summarized here. v. 20, unlike the account in the book of Isaiah, the prophet and King Hezekiah are not opponents here, but pray together side by side. This must be so since Hezekiah is a God-fearing man and therefore (like all prophets) on the right side. v. 21, cf. 2 Kings 19:35-7. 'And the LORD sent an angel': the source model makes the angel the active party, but this is not possible in the eyes of the Chronicler. He also omits the number of men killed and shortens the report on the unrest within the Babylonian royal family, mentioning no names, w. 22-3, the Chronicler uses these two verses to interpret events, naturally emphasizing that Hezekiah's and Jerusalem's (aid and) salvation is due to YHWH.
Manasseh and Amon (2 Chr 33.'1-25 J
(33:1-20) Manasseh Manasseh, who is historically regarded as having been an exceptionally skilful ruler, remained on David's throne longer than any other king, for 55 years. The books of Kings portray him as the most godless king of all and describe at great length his disgraceful behaviour which leads to the downfall of Judah (2 Kings 21:1—18). The Chronicler changes none of the account's factual content, but rewrites Manasseh's biography to conform with his implicit principle that a long reign is a result of God-fearing behaviour. He therefore causes Manasseh to repent during his deportation to Babylon. On his return to Jerusalem, he removes all foreign images and carries out the usual construction measures. The story of Manasseh is a spectacular indication of the strict dogma of retribution applied in Chronicles, combined with the constant opportunity to repent. It serves as an image with which to comment on the forthcoming theme of exile and return, stressing that the Judeans will always have the chance to return to their homeland. The chapter also contains a hidden reference to the Babylonian Exile. This theory is sup-
w. 24-6, according to the Chronicler, Hezekiah's illness must have been caused by a previous failing on his part. This sin may be his boastful behaviour during the Babylonian delegation's visit (2 Kings 20:12-15). The Chronicler, however,
3°5 I AND 2 C H R O N I C L E S
ported by the fact that Manasseh is deported to Babylon, instead of the historically more plausible Assyrian capital.
delay would constitute a sin. His reforms must also be different from those in the source model, since in Chronicles, Manasseh had already taken similar measures and his son Amon had not resumed all of Manasseh's old, godless rituals.
The historical reliability of Manasseh's deportation to Babylon has occasionally been claimed on the basis of the following points: Manasseh was encouraged by the unrest led by Ashurbanipal's brother Shamash-shum-ukin in 652—648 and became unruly himself. He was thereupon deported to Babylon before being allowed to return as ruler. Some commentaries have referred to the Egyptian pharaoh Neco, who was deported by Ashurbanipal and later returned to his homeland. This assumption is contradicted by the fact that the Assyrian annals describe Manasseh as a consistently loyal vassal, and that his journey to Babylon would certainly have been mentioned in Kings if it had any historical basis. However convincing the story seems, it is therefore more probably an invention inspired by the Babylonian Exile and biblical material.
Since the Chronicler did not wish to change the date at which the book is found (it is the entire Pentateuch, rather than simply Deuteronomy here), he weakens the significance of the discovery by making Josiah's reforms pre-empt it. It is thus not a case of coincidence, but the king's God-fearing will that brings improvement. This explains the changes to the source text undertaken by the Chronicler. Many points are summarized descriptions of the source model, in which details are omitted, whilst other areas are expanded to accommodate some of his favourite theologoumena and opinions, i.e. the Levites, the inclusion of the north, etc. At first sight, his somewhat weaker praise for Josiah may be surprising, since he is one of his favourite kings. But Josiah died on the battlefield and therefore must have committed some previous sin. The Chronicler's description of the process of reforms is more historically reliable than his source. All alterations are dictated by the Chronicler's own specific profile.
w. 1—9, the Chronicler closely follows his source model here, with a few minor changes, v. 10, at this point in the source model (2 Kings 21:10—15) there is a lengthy prophetic speech to Manasseh predicting Judah's downfall. It is followed by a comment that Manasseh shed innocent blood in abundance. The Chronicler omits the last comment completely and replaces the speech (which he cannot include due to its content) with a comment that Manasseh and the people did not heed God's warning.
w. 3—7 detail cultic reforms. Since Manasseh had already cleansed the temple (33:15) and Amon had hardly changed this, the present king must concentrate on cleansing the country, first Judah and Jerusalem (w. 3-5), and later also the north (w. 6—7). Unlike the source model, Chronicles merely summarizes this report, v. 3, although still young (16 years old), Josiah already begins to seek God (one of the Chronicler's favourite phrases). Since he is not yet of age, he does not undertake any public measures. These are carried out in the twelfth year of his reign, i.e. in adulthood, w. 6—7, the inclusion of the north in his reform of the legitimate kingdom plays a central role in Chronicles here (cf. w. 9, 21, 33) and later in 35:17—18. v. 7, 'he returned to Jerusalem': with this statement, which relates to 2 Kings 23:20, the Chronicler underlines that the king is personally responsible for the named undertaking.
w. 11—13, me advancing Assyrians' treatment of Manasseh is based on the similar treatment of Jehoiachin (Ezek 19:9; 2 Chr 36:10). The Chronicler probably also used 2 Kings 19:28 as a literary source: the Assyrian king is called upon to wear a ring through his nose so that he could be dragged back up the road down which he was advancing, w. 12—13, Manasseh does exactly what is expected of a sinful king. He humbles himself and prays to God, as instructed by the temple-consecration prayer (cf. 6:36—9; 7:14). The reaction is swift: the Lord (and not the Assyrian king!) allows the king to return to Jerusalem.
w. 14—17 relate Manasseh's actions after his return to the throne. Like many God-fearing kings, Manasseh is shown God's blessing by being allowed to carry out construction projects and build fortresses in Jerusalem and Judah. It is unlikely that this report is based on historically reliable sources, although it would not be surprising if he strengthened his fortification following Sennacherib's campaigns in Judah.
w. 8—13 describe donations for the temple's improvement. The Chronicler extends a relatively brief order to collect money to pay for the necessary improvements to the temple, transforming it into an extensive report, v. 9, in his description of the collection of tithes (from the entire population)— cf. 24:5—9 and David's approach in connection with the temple's construction (i Chr 29), the Chronicler emphasizes the co-operation of all the people more strongly than does the source text, listing those involved (including people from the north), w. 12—13,me workmen work honestly (source model: deal honestly). The Chronicler highly esteems good work. Going beyond his source model, the Chronicler names those responsible. They are naturally Levites who have similar duties to those in i Chr 26, though they perform these tasks for Josiah only in Chronicles. One would expect from 29:12 that Gershonites were among them. Perhaps the singers mentioned here dictated the rhythm of their work with their music.
(33:21—5) Amon The description of Amon's rule is also brief in the source model. The Chronicler makes slight changes to make it conform with his depiction of Manasseh, as a godless king.
Josiah (2 Chr 34:1-35:27)
(34:1—33) Renewal of the Cult; Reinstatement of the Law; Confirmation of the Covenant 2 Kings 22-3 describes how in the eighteenth year of his reign, Josiah coincidentally discovers a book (which can easily be identified as Deuteronomy), upon which he undertakes a comprehensive reform of the cult, combined with its centralization in Jerusalem. The Chronicler could not use this version without changing it, for several reasons. Josiah, who is judged positively, cannot begin his reforms as late as his eighteenth year of reign, since the
w. 14-33, document the discovery of the book of the law, its study, and the renewal of the covenant. Apart from some minor details, the Chronicler follows his source text here. v. 14, first the money for the temple, then the book: this amendment to the source model once again underlines the
I AND 2 C H R O N I C L E S 306
result of textual damage, w. 4, 6, cf. comments on David (i Chr 23—7) and Solomon (2 Chr 8:14) concerning the ancestral houses and their order. Moses did not lay down a law regarding this aspect, unlike the Passover procedure itself, to which the last verse exclusively refers (cf. v. 13). w. 7—9, as with the temple construction and King Hezekiah's Passover feast, King Josiah and his officials (in this case the princes and the notable Levites—but not priests) are characterized by their generosity. One of the Chronicler's keywords, 'willingly', is repeated here.
Chronicler's outlook. The book is found because Josiah and his people behave in an exemplary manner. It is not clear where the book of the law, which was written by Moses
(though only in the Chronicles version), was discovered. Since not only Deuteronomy, but the entire Pentateuch is discovered in Chronicles, it is not surprising that Shaphan reads 'from' it (in Heb. text; source model: read it) rather than all of it, before the king (cf. v. 18). v. 24 has 'all the curses that are written in the book', instead of the source model's 'all the words of the book'. Perhaps the Chronicler was thinking of Lev 26; Deut 27—9 here. v. 30, 'the Levites' (source model: 'the prophets'): this slight change displays the Chronicler's conviction that the Levites have 'replaced' the prophets to some extent by his own lifetime and fulfil their role of announcing God's word. This replacement does not, however, represent a demotion of the prophets, who still have their place of honour in Chronicles, v. 33 is an extremely shortened summary of 2 Kings 23:4—20 and seems to contradict w. 3—7, which already mention the cult's cleansing. The two passages use different terms, however, so it is possible that the Chronicler is describing two different forms of cleansing.
w. 10—15,once the king's instructions have been carried out, the actual sacrifice takes place. Here the priests are limited to their central role of performing the blood ritual and offering the sacrifice, whilst the Levites make all the necessary preparations (a role reserved for laymen according to Leviticus). This included slaughtering the animals, skinning them, receiving the roasted/boiled meat, and distributing it amongst themselves and the musicians so that they can continue their own duties. The Levites are therefore presented as an essential part of the ritual, v. 13, 'they boiled in the fire' (literal translation from the Heb.); the Chronicler uses this unusual phrase to combine the two contradictory instructions in Ex 12:8-9 and Deut 16:7. '[Qjuickly' emphasizes the Levites' good work whilst simultaneously referring to Exodus' instructions to consume the Passover quickly (Ex 12:11). v. 15, the musicians are first called the 'descendants of Asaph' after their most important ancestor and are then listed according to their families.
(35:1-27) The Passover and Josiah's Death This chapter can be divided into three parts: the extensive description of the Passover feast, which Josiah feels obliged to celebrate after his reforms, the report on Josiah's death, and the concluding verdict upon him. The Chronicler uses his source model for all three parts of the chapter, but greatly changes and extends the material in the first two parts in order to apply his cultic and theological priorities to the king he loved so much. It is unlikely that these additions (regarding the Passover feast) and alterations (in connection with Josiah's death) are based on older sources not present in the OT
w. 16-17 actually summarize the re-establishment of a religious service which was probably also attended by people from the northern kingdom. The Feast of Unleavened Bread follows immediately after the Passover, though, unlike in Hezekiah's account, is not dealt with in detail.
w. 18-19, ^e unique nature of this Passover feast in Kings is due to its central celebration in Jerusalem. This is not the case in Chronicles since Hezekiah's Passover had also been performed in the capital. The unique aspect here is its place in cultic history, since Hezekiah's feast was not correctly prepared for. v. 18, 'since the days of the prophet Samuel' replaces 'since the days of the judges' in the source model. The Chronicler hardly mentions the judges period in general. Since Samuel is regarded as the final judge of the period, the Chronicler is relatively correct in his statement, but is able to simultaneously mention one of the prophets he likes so much.
w. 1-19, the special features of the Passover feast carried out by Josiah can be explained almost entirely by the following factors: (i) The OT contains contradictory instructions regarding the Passover. Whilst it is a feast celebrated within the family in Ex 12, during which sacrificial animals are roasted, Deut 16 describes it as a ritual performed in the central holy place (in Jerusalem) at which the sacrificial animals are boiled. (2) The main difference between the Passover feasts of Hezekiah and Josiah is that Josiah's is not celebrated with such great haste. Its liturgy is also described more extensively. To a certain extent, Josiah represents a solid, legal version of what Hezekiah put into place. This is emphasized by the Chronicler's lengthy explanation of the 'legal' basis of the feast (Moses, David/Solomon, Josiah). This order is probably both the Chronicler's concept of an ideal procedure and common practice during his lifetime, though it is difficult to determine which factor is decisive. (3) The Chronicler firmly places his beloved Levites (and musicians) into the Passover procedures. (4) He links well-being offerings with the Passover procedures in an obscure way. (5) As so often, he uses speeches to express his own theological convictions.
w. 20-7, the Chronicler takes the brief note concerning Josiah's death in his source, whilst altering and greatly extending it. Some commentaries have regarded this report as historically more reliable than the source text, although most of its inconsistencies can be explained by the Chronicler's personal perspective. The source model incorrectly states that the Egyptian pharaoh led a campaign against the Assyrians. In fact the pharaoh advanced in support of the Assyrian king, a fact that the Chronicler does not explicitly state. The reference to Carchemish on the Euphrates (v. 20) probably stems from Jer 46:2, since the wording is similar to this passage. However, another interpretation has been suggested: the Assyrian King Ashuruballit founded his new capital city in 610 BCE. The Egyptians supported the Assyrians at this time, as can be seen from the counter-offensive against the Babylonians in 609. Ch. 35 must therefore be regarded in the light of these
w. 1—9 (10) detail the preparations, v. i, as implicitly suggested in Deut 16, the feast takes place in Jerusalem on the appointed day. v. 3. 'Put the holy ark in the house ...': does this appeal suggest that the ark had been removed from the temple, perhaps during Manasseh's reign, or is it a literary technique to mark the renewal of the cult? It could even be the
3°7 I AND 2 C H R O N I C L E S
events. We suggest, however, that the entire section must be understood from the perspective of Josiah's violent death. According to the Chronicler's logic, it is an indication of the king's previous sin. Since there is no mention of such a sin in the source model, the Chronicler is forced to invent one. He has great affection for the king, however, so he places his fall from grace as late as possible, upon the battlefield. Thus he creates the rather unconvincing literary construction by which Josiah rejects the word of God. (The heathen Neco is naturally not permitted to use his name and thus uses the word 'God' instead.) Josiah, who is expected to believe the heathen king's claims (!), insists on meeting him in battle (of which there is no description in the source model) and is killed. His armour, his wounding, and his order to be taken to Jerusalem are not an indication of supplementary information, since the description is based on Ahab's fate. He too dressed for battle, defied God's warning, was wounded, and ordered his men to withdraw (i Kings 22:30, 34). The astonishing comparison between Josiah and the godless Ahab is probably due to the fact that he was the closest comparable figure who committed a sin on the battlefield.
allowing the Chronicler to close his work with an image of the temple.
(36:1—4) Jehoahaz The Chronicler's description of Jehoahaz is extremely brief and omits details concerning his journey to the land of Hamath. The concluding judgement upon him is completely ignored (as is the case with Abijah, the only other king to receive such treatment). Is this the result ofhis short reign, a damaged text, or perhaps the fact that Jeremiah gives him a positive verdict (Jer 22:15-16)? (36:5-8) Jehoiakim This section contains the usual omissions from the source model. The advance of an alliance of Chaldeans, Arameans, Moabites, and Ammonites (which God had incited!—2 Kings 24:2) is replaced in Chronicles by the claim that Nebuchadnezzar attacked the king, placed him in fetters and deported him to Babylon. The Chronicler probably extracted this information from Dan 1:1—2 and it can hardly be regarded as historically reliable. The last kings of Judah were all deported. Here, Jehoiakim receives the same treatment as Manasseh, though it is unclear whether he is actually deported or whether the Babylonians merely intend to do so, since the Hebrew text allows both interpretations, v. 7, the Chronicler is most interested in the fate of the temple and its equipment (see also w. 10, 18—19) an(^ uses Dan 1:2 as a source for his description.
w. 24/7—25, ultimately, the Chronicler regards Josiah's (only!) sin as not sufficiently grave to deny him an honourable funeral, although this contradicts his own logic. Indeed all Judah and Jerusalem mourn for him, a unique description in Chronicles. Jeremiah even composes a lament to commemorate him which is still included in all laments 'to this day'. Thus the song must be included in all future laments. This may be the biblical parallel to the tradition maintained in the Talmud ascribing Lamentations to Jeremiah. Perhaps the Chronicler is referring to Zech 12:9—14 here, since it also seems to refer to Josiah's death.
(36:9—10) Jehoiachin The source model portrays a comprehensive deportation (597 BCE) which does not differ completely from the second transportation. The Chronicler, however, reduces Jehoiachin's description to an absolute minimum, concentrating on the king's deportation and the (valuable— note the emphasis compared to v. 7) temple equipment. (36:11-16) Zedekiah The Chronicler applies the same editing principles for Zedekiah as he used for the previous three kings, describing events as briefly as possible. He does, however, introduce new emphases compared with the previous kings. He does not directly report Zedekiah's deportation (cf. the three previous kings), which disappears in the mass of deportations carried out. This is probably an attempt to protect the Davidic monarchy, to which he still clings. Nor is his description of the pillage of the cultic vessels extensive (cf. v. 18 and 2 Kings 25:13-17), since the central issue of importance to the Chronicler is the mere fact of the deportation, rather than individual details. He is of course more extensive in his description of Zedekiah and the people democratically bound to him than in the description of the three previous kings, but there is one reason for this: since each generation and every king is responsible for their own fate, the sins committed by Zedekiah, his notables, and the people must have been great. The source model has little to report here (since the Exile is seen as the result of Manasseh's sin): 'He did what was evil in the sight of the LORD, just as Jehoiakim had done' (2 Kings 24:19). The Chronicler uses this reference to Jehoiakim to make further additions. He (explicitly) points out Zedekiah's disobedience towards Jeremiah (who plays a central role in the background of the entire chapter) and the king's lack of willingness to repent. Furthermore he makes general criticisms, such as that the princes and people were disobedient towards the prophets. This section contains many references to biblical texts, which cannot all be listed here. One reason for this
The Last Kings of Judah, the Fall of Judah, and Cyrus's Edict (2 Chr36:1-23)
The Chronicler further reduces his source's rather brief description of the history of Judah's final four kings (to less than half its original length), although he not only deletes material, but also adds a small amount ofhis own. Above all, he omits the details concerning Jerusalem's destruction, the names of the queen mothers, part of the verdicts on the kings, even certain death announcements (because the relevant kings died in a foreign land), and further Deuteronomistic interpretations of Jerusalem's destruction (as due to Manasseh's sins, 2 Kings 24:3; cf v. 20). Thus the kings are shifted closely together— forming a kind of indistinguishable massa perditionis—giving the story greater unity than its source model. The Chronicler's additions refer to the temple, whose fate is important to the author. His descriptions of the people's responsibility (and their forthcoming downfall) are characterized not so much by colourful details as by strong theological argument.
The deportation of the survivors of Judah is described in one verse (v. 20) which also contains mention of the Persian successors to Babylon. Only v. 21 contains an interpretation (and not a description) of the Exile ('until the land had made up for its sabbaths') and part of the edict of Cyrus as described in the book of Ezra, which allowed deported Jews to return to Jerusalem and rebuild the temple. This description has the effect of concealing the Exile whilst not denying its existence,
EZRA-NEHEMIAH 308
may encourage the reader to refer to the events described in Ezra and Nehemiah, but can also be regarded as a reference to the future in general.
plethora is the notion that what the prophets predicted, based on the law, has come about.
v. 14 underlines the fact that the people and the people's leading ranks (perhaps with the exception of the Levites, who remain unnamed) are responsible for their own exile. The accusations are extremely harsh since active spoiling of the temple—consecrated by God—is described only here. w. 15— 16, apart from Jeremiah, other (unnamed) prophets are mentioned, whose mission is not described by the Chronicler
Albertz, R. (1992), Religionsgeschichte Israels in alttestamentlicher Zeit,
Grundrisse zum Alten Testament 8 (Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht). Avigad, N. (1976), Bullae and Seals from a Post-Exilic Judaen Archive,
(perhaps because it would in any case have been unsuccessful), but can only be to bring the king and his people to repentance. The motive behind God's invitation to repent is stated, however: compassion for both the people and the temple. It is significant that the people and the temple have the same status here. The language is once again strongly influenced by the book of Jeremiah. (36:17-21) The End of Judah v. 18, the plundering of the temple reaches a climax: 'All the vessels of the house of God'. In addition, the king's and princes' private treasures are taken, v. 19, Jerusalem's actual destruction is portrayed in a few words. Thus the Chronicler's mention of the 'palaces' is even more striking, v. 20, the Chronicler intentionally omits the source model's mention of vineyard and field workers who remained on the land, concentrating his description of this last phase on Jerusalem, leaving the question of those who remained unanswered. The experience of the Exile is not described at all. v. 21, this sentence combines Jeremiah's announcement of 70 years of exile (Jer 25:11—12) with the warning made in Lev 26, in which the land spits out disobedient dwellers, to restore peace and enable the long-abused sabbath to be observed.
Qedem 4 (Jerusalem: Institute of Archaeology, Hebrew University of Jerusalem). Cross, F. M. (1975): 'A Reconstruction of the Judean Restoration', JBL
94:4-18. Galling, K. (1954), Die Bucher der Chronik, Esra, Nehemia, Das Alte-
Testament Deutsch 12 (Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht). Japhet, S. (1993), I el II Chronicles: A Commentary, OTL (London:
SCM).
(1997), Th£ Ideology of the Book of Chronicles and Its Place in Biblical Thought, 2nd edn. BEAT 9 (Frankfurt a.M.). Junge, E. (1937), Der Wiederaufbau des Heerwesens des Reiches Juda
unterjosia, Beitrage zur Wissenschaft vom Alten und Neuen Testament 75 (Stuttgart: Kohlhammer). Knauf E. A. (1995), 'Zum Verhaltnis von Esra i, i ZU2 Chronik 36,20—
23', Biblische Notizen, 78:16—17. Noth, M. (1944-5), 'Eine palastinische Lokaluberlieferung in 2. Chr.
20', Zeitschrift des Deutschen Paldstina-Vereins, 67: 45-71. Rad, G. von (1958), 'Die levitische Predigt in den Buchern der
Chronik' in Gesammelte Studien zum Alten Testament, Theologische Biicherei 8 (Munich: Christian Kaiser), 248-61. Rudolph, W. (1955), Chronikbiicher, HAT 21 (Tubingen: Mohr [Sie-
beck]). Tarn, W. W. (1941), Hellenistic Civilisation, 2nd edn. (London: Edward
(36:22—3) Cyrus's Edict w. 22—3, after the extremely brief treatment of the Exile, the Chronicler moves directly on to the Persian King Cyrus's order enabling a return, a central theme of which is his permission to rebuild the temple. The Chronicler bases his text on Ezra here, even quoting it occasionally (cf Ezra 1:1—3). This is nevertheless no proof that Chronicles, Ezra, and Nehemiah form a Chronicler's history and were only separated at a later date. The Paraleipomena have an open ending, with the appeal, 'Let him go up'. This
Arnold). Wellhausen, J. (1886), Prolegomena zur Geschichte Israels, 3rd edn.
(Berlin: Georg Reimer). Welten, P. (1973), Geschichte und Geschichtsdarstellung in den Chro-
nikbuchern, WMANT42 (Neukirchen-Vluyn: NeukirchenerVerlag). Willi, T. (1972), Die Chronik als Auslegung: Untersuchungen zur litera-
rischen Gestaltung der historischen Uberlieferungen Israels, FRLANT 106 (Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht). Williamson, H. G. M. (1987), i and 2 Chronicles, NCB (Grand Rapids:
Eerdmans).
15. Ezra-Nehemiah D A N I E L L. SMITH-CHRISTOPHER
4:2-6 in Heb.; 4:9-11; 5:17-6:5 in Aramaic). The text occasionally reflects Old Persian vocabulary (for a list: Fensham 1982: 22), but there is little significant influence from Greek.
A. Text and Language. 1. Originally one work (b. B. Bat. 14!)- 153); Eusebius, Hist. ecd. 4.26.14), the books of Ezra and Nehemiah share themes, and even specific texts (the most obvious being what is called the Golah List, Ezra 2 | Neh 7, gold meaning 'exile'). In addition, the main character changes from Ezra, then to Nehemiah, and then back to Ezra, etc. The short books are composed largely in late biblical Hebrew, but contain significant sections (Ezra 4:8-6:18; 7:12-26) written in what is often referred to as imperial or official Aramaic (Rosenthal 1974). By general consensus, the texts are well preserved (Rudolph 1949: p. xix). There are fragments of Ezra among the Dead Sea scrolls (4QEzra) which are quite close to the Hebrew and Aramaic sections of the MT (only
2. There are two translations in Greek, known as Esdras alpha (i Esdras) and Esdras beta. Esdras beta is quite close to the canonical work, but i Esdras is an independent work which reproduces only the Ezra materials (including the reading ofthe law which appears in MT Neh 7:72—8:13 (i Esd 9:37— 55; see the helpful discussion in Myers 1974: 1-19)). i Esdras includes a charming court tale of Zerubbabel very much in the Daniel tradition. Certain readings in i Esdras can be used to correct difficulties in the MT (note list in Rudolph, 1949: p. xvi) but in general it is considered a later text featuring a free rendering into Greek.
3°9 EZRA-NEHEMIAH
B. Subject-Matter and Literary Genre. Contemporary scholarship has formed an uneasy consensus around the notion that Ezra and Nehemiah had their origin in two separate 'memoirs' from the two historical figures in £.460-440 BCE. But why were they written? Some have suggested comparisons with official reports written to the Persian monarch (Blenkinsopp 1988: 262), while others have suggested that, at least in the case of the Nehemiah memoirs, they were originally written as a defence against accusations of sedition. Others have suggested biblical precedents such as psalms of lament or defence (so Kellermann 1967). To these memoirs were joined two sorts of supporting materials. First, older correspondence and documents involving both local and imperial Persian authorities provided the material for Ezra chs. i—6. Secondly, a series of lists was added (the dates are debated), most prominently the Golah List of Ezra ch. 2 Neh ch. 7. The many lists form one of the most perplexing features of the work.
unstable era in the Persian empire (Dandamaev 1989: 351-4). Despite this, the memoirs surely arose within a short time of the work of both Ezra and Nehemiah, and the correspondence between local and imperial Persian officials in Ezra 1-6 may well date from the time of the Persian emperors named. Thus, the events mentioned give us an earliest possible date for the traditions, beginning with the conquest of Babylon by Cyrus in 539 BCE. The last clear reference, Neh 12:22-3, is to Jaddua, high priest at the time of Alexander the Great, according to Josephus, and dated to roughly 323 (Clines 1984: 222; Blenkinsopp 1988: 340), but this reference is almost universally considered to be an insertion by a very late hand, in order to bring the list down to the editor's time. It would therefore be hazardous to use this as an indication of the completion of most of the book, which was undoubtedly in more or less present form by the late fifth century (430-400 BCE).
E. Literary and Historical Problems. 1. Among the more vexed problems of Ezra-Nehemiah scholarship is the problem of determining the historical relationship of the presumed historical figures of Ezra and Nehemiah: Who came first? Did their time in Judah overlap? Another problem has been the possible relationship to the writings of the Chronicler. We can only briefly review these questions here, beginning with the latter question on the relationship to Chronicles.
C. The Religious Teaching. The main issue in Ezra and Nehemiah is the restoration of the post-exilic Judean community. There is a contrast established between the 'official' methods and attitudes of Nehemiah, whatever his title or authority may have actually been, and the more theologically based authority of the priest/scribe Ezra. Nehemiah's focus is on the physical infrastructure—particularly the city wall around Jerusalem. Ezra, on the other hand, is intent on the restoration of the Mosaic law as the spiritual centre of the post-exilic community. Otherwise, both are Jewish officials or leaders (Ezra 7:1— 10; Neh 2:1—2) who become concerned about the state of affairs amongst the Jews in Jerusalem; both seek permission from the Persian monarch to carry out their mission (Ezra, implied in 7:6; Neh 2:1—4); both preside over a number of significant reforms in the Jewish communities in Jerusalem; both write of their experiences in the first person. Noting this,
2. Chronicles ends with the same phrases with which Ezra begins—the suggestion has often been made that they are originally intended to be parts of one work. Among modern commentators, Blenkinsopp (1988: 47—54) defends this unity on both lexical and thematic grounds (David as founder of temple, interest in the details of temple construction and worship, etc.). But as Williamson (1985: pp. xx-xxii), in agreement with the arguments of Japhet (1968), concludes, there are good historical grounds for considering Ezra—Nehemiah as a single work that predates the creation of i Esdras, and therefore i Esdras cannot be used as an argument that EzraNehemiah were originally the ending of a large work that included Chronicles. These arguments tend towards surveys of lexical comparisons between the two works, including stylistic features. Williamson further argues that EzraNehemiah was completed in three stages: (i) the writing of the primary memoirs of Ezra and Nehemiah, close to their actual lifetimes; (2) a combination of materials that resulted in Ezra 7~Neh 13 (with some parts added later); and (3) the final addition of Ezra 1-6. Although admittedly without great confidence, the presumption of this commentary on Ezra—Nehemiah tends towards reading it separately from Chronicles, except for some thematic and historical similarities which need not depend on common authorship, but simply common historical and sociological circumstances.
Eskenazi (1988) points out that the editorial tendency is towards a preference for Ezra: 'The Omniscient narrator... corroborates Ezra's assessment of reality by repeated references to divine support for Ezra' (ibid. 134). The contrast between the two figures can, however, be taken in other directions. Kapelrud (1944) based his doubts about the very existence of a historical Ezra on this same literary parallelism. Smitten
(1973: 88; echoing the earlier work of Torrey (1970)) agrees, considering Ezra a pious fiction created from priestly imagination in order to contrast proper religious conduct against that of Nehemiah (objections include Williamson 1985: 115—16, and Blenkinsopp 1988: 216).
D. Date and Place of Composition. 1. Despite the fact that many of the scenes of the Ezra and Nehemiah story take place in the eastern diaspora in the Persian empire (so reminiscent of court stories such as Daniel and Esther), the movement of the narratives is clearly towards the resettled community in Judah. The narrative ends rather suddenly after the rededication of the temple in Neh 11-12, followed by some afterthoughts in ch. 13. We do not know the fate of either Ezra or Nehemiah.
3. The problem of when Ezra and Nehemiah arrived in Jerusalem is also complex, and made more so by the number of rulers named Artaxerxes, and the popularity of similar Jewish names among the exilic communities! In short, the same name cannot always be taken to be the same person. For example, the seventh year of Artaxerxes I would be the traditional date for Ezra of 458 BCE, before the date of Nehemiah's opening memoirs, which would be 446 BCE (there is little debate that Nehemiah served under Artaxerxes I). But if it is
2. Although we know of important events in the Persian period from Greek sources (pre-eminently Herodotus, Hist.), none of these is explicitly referred to in Ezra or Nehemiah. This is particularly problematic given that this was a notably
EZRA-NEHEMIAH 3IO
Artaxerxes II, then the major alternative argument suggests that Ezra arrived in Jerusalem years after Nehemiah, in 398 BCE. Arguments between these options are not decisive, but more recent trends have accepted that Nehemiah's actions make more sense following the precedent of Ezra's legal reforms, rather than preceding them. Nehemiah's reforms on mixed marriage, for example, seem more focused than Ezra's general actions, and tend towards heightening the severity of Nehemiah's judgement against local authorities who still did not comply with what the local population had already dealt with! Williamson (1985: p. xliv), too, notes that Nehemiah's actions did not raise the local controversies that Ezra's actions did, suggesting that by Nehemiah's time these were not generally perceived as controversial actions. Still, Ezra 9:9 raises questions about whether a wall had already been built. Again, risking a position on shifting sands, this commentary will presume that Ezra arrived before Nehemiah, and both engaged in their work (or, to be more precise, the text represents their work) during the reign of Artaxerxes I Longimanus
example of a standard element of Hebrew diaspora legend, so reminiscent of the tales of Daniel, Joseph, and Esther. Cook (1983:132) reports that 'The King lived largely in seclusion; he is said by Xenophon to have prided himself on being inaccessible'. Georges (1994: 49) discusses that fact that the Persian court fascinated the Greeks—mainly because of the mystery of court life—the Persians in general remained a 'tabula rasa upon which the Greeks drew a portrait in their own idiom'. Persians kept aloof from their subjects 'by the gorgeous and impermeable carapace of formal protocol'. When the few Greeks that did attend court were there, they were 'buffered by courtiers and interpreters' to maintain the remove of the emperor surrounded by the symbols of power and control over his slaves or bondsmen (as all subjects were considered: Cook 1983: 132, 249 n. 3). Indeed, Xenophon (Cyro. 8.2.7) admired such power, 'Who else but the King has ever had the power to punish enemies at many months distance?' Georges comments that even Ctesias, who supposedly had close connections to the emperor as a court physician, probably reads like so much harem gossip precisely because his contact with the court (even if authentic) was not so direct as we may imagine (Georges 51). Finally, Dandamaev (1989: 12) raises the prospect of court tales being concocted within the Persian court itself to discredit former royal lines or figures in order to justify changes in administration or policy. One is left with the impression of a Jewish lower official, whose actual relationship to the emperor (if any of the court tale is historical) has become at the very least highly exaggerated in ancient Hebrew imagination—and thus we are more alert to the more negative elements of this story, such as Nehemiah's fear before the emperor, and the reference to God's protection when he stood before 'this man'.
(465-424 BCE) as opposed to the later Artaxerxes II Arsakes (405-359 BCE).
F. The Sociology of Reading Ezra and Nehemiah. 1. Recent work on Ezra and Nehemiah has focused on the presumed relationship between the post-exilic returning Golah community, and the Persian administration. Nehemiah's mission was part of Persian attempts to shore up their western flank in the face of growing Greek involvement in Egyptian rebellions (Hoglund 1992). Berquist (1995) goes further in arguing that the Jewish officials were enthusiastic supporters of Persian goals, and that the court of Darius may have been the workroom for the Torah itself as a civil code for the Jewish subjects. Related to this, Richards (forthcoming) argues for a recognition of'the ideological collusion of the Ezra-Nehemiah text with Persian colonial ideology'. To a greater or lesser degree, these recent statements share an assumption of complicity with Persian imperial policy in both Ezra and Nehemiah. But it is possible to read Ezra, particularly, in a different light.
H. The Walls of Jerusalem. 1. Discussions about the possible royal associations of Nehemiah often overlook the fact that wall-building is seen as royal responsibility par excellence in the late historical work of the Chronicler (2 Chr 8:5; 11:11; 14:6; 17:2; 26:9; 27:3—4; 32:4—5; 33:14, 34; cf Ps 51:18 and i Mace 4:60—1; 12:38; 14:32—4). Further, breaches in the walls of Jerusalem are causes for painful reflection (2 Kings 25:4; Ps 144:14; Lam 2:8, 18). Visions of peace speak of Jerusalem without walls, or with doors always open (Ezek 38:11; Zech 2:5; less certainly Isa 60:11). In his classic study, Mumford (1961) writes of the significance of the wall as part of social and political symbolism: 'what we now call "monumental architecture" is first of all the expression of power... the purpose of this art was to produce respectful terror'.
2. If one reads from an assumption of the social realities of occupied Judah under Persian imperial power, then one ought to read with attention to the vastly underestimated varieties of ways in which subordinated peoples resist a militarily superior force other than open confrontation (cf Scott 1985). Reading Ezra's prayer (Neh 9) surely gives one pause ('Here we are, slaves in our own land!'). Further, the only occasion in Ezra— Nehemiah that actually gives us a reason for drawing up a list of personal names is Ezra 5:4, where the situation is of a Persian official wanting to report specific names because he suspects them of rebellious activity. When read in the context of minority strategies of resistance and circumstances of colonialism (see also Fanon 1963; Raboteau 1978; White 1983; Lanternari 1963, and Memmi 1965), Ezra and Nehemiah can be understood quite differently, and it is precisely this postcolonial sociology of resistance that informs the critical reading of Ezra and Nehemiah that is presumed in this commentary.
2. A great deal of effort has been expended on the geographical references in Nehemiah, but Avigad (1983: 62) concludes: 'no generally accepted solution for the problem of Nehemiah's wall has emerged'. The importance of wallbuilding for city defence is reviewed in the classic work of Yadin (1963: 19, 70-1, 313-28). Notably, city gates were the most vulnerable section of the wall, not only because of the weakness of the fortification, but also because battering-rams could cross hostile terrain without siege ramps. Nehemiah's later attention to the gates, therefore, was a necessary precaution (Neh 7:3). Their vulnerability may also explain why gates change location and name frequently (which is a difficulty of