#ezra — Public Fediverse posts

Mysterium Esdrae II: The Curious Case of Nehemiah

This is the second in a series of guest posts by Fenna Capelle (Part I; Part III; Part IV). Fenna studies Hebrew and Aramaic Studies (research) (MA) at Leiden University.

As we concluded at the end of our last blog, the relationship between Ezra-Nehemiah and 1 Esdras, its dark, mysterious, apocryphal look-alike, invites closer examination. It is amusing to notice, even now as I read, research and write for this blog, how much I tend to favour the canonical texts that I grew up with: naturally, apocryphal texts must be secondary to canonical ones, which are ever unaltered and original. There is, however, an overall agreement that the editor(s)/author(s) of both Ezra-Nehemiah (written in Hebrew and interlined with some chapters in Aramaic) and 1 Esdras (composed in Greek) worked from a shared Semitic vorlage, i.e., a hypothetical/reconstructed source text that underlies a later manuscript and that editors or authors work from. The question remains, however, whether the Semitic text underlying 1 Esdras was exactly the same as Ezra-Nehemiah in its present form (Talshir and Talshir 1995; Talshir 1999, 269-270). It would be good, at the outset, to address an obvious question: what are some differences we observe between the two texts and how might we explain these variations?

Nehemiah, a Judean exile and cup-bearer to king Artaxerxes, is granted the king’s permission to return home and help rebuild the city of Jerusalem (Neh. 1:1-2:5), some 13 years after Ezra’s return from exile (see Pakkala 2008, 205-206):

Firstly, it is odd that the character of Nehemiah makes no appearance at all in the book of 1 Esdras, which seems to focus solely on the character of Ezra. As with solving any good mystery, one conjures up possible scenarios: either the author/editor of 1 Esdras has consciously omitted the character of Nehemiah, or 1 Esdras is simply an older, sans-Nehemiah version of the narrative. In this case, another scribe must, at some later stage, have added the Nehemiah material, leading to the form of the text in Ezra-Nehemiah (as Dieter Böhler argues in his 2003 article). I must concede, contrary to this, that most of the extra material (‘pluses’) is found in the book of 1 Esdras, not that of Ezra-Nehemiah – think, for example, of the story of the three guards. Zipporah Talshir, in a monograph dedicated to above matter, argues that 1 Esdras is a section deliberately cut out from the Ezra-Nehemiah sequence to form a framework for the story of the guards, that this lengthy addition is the text’s raison d’être (Talshir 1999). My point is that one would, in most cases, expect a more expansive, elaborate text to be later than a text that is less so — unless, of course, there is a good reason for deletion, as I, and others with me, think might be the case with Nehemiah (see Wright 2011, 145-163; paywalled).

The two texts, however, appear to differ somewhat in their view on these rebuilding efforts. 1 Esdras describes how Zerubbabel and co. “returned to Jerusalem and the rest of Judea, each to his own town” (1 Esd. 5:8 — N.B. all English translations of 1 Esdras taken from A New English Translation of the Septuagint). A few chapters later, when Ezra has returned and confronted the Israelite nation with their missteps, a large crowd gathers around him, weeping and repenting:

While Ezra was praying and making his confession, weeping and lying on the ground before the temple, there gathered around him a very great crowd of men and women and youths from Jerusalem, for there was great weeping among the multitude.

1 Esd. 8:88

1 Esdras makes it seem as if the city of Jerusalem is already repopulated by the time Ezra returns to reinstate YHWH’s law (Böhler 2003, 5). The parallel passage in the canonical book of Ezra, however, describes matters a bit differently:

Then all the people of Judah and Benjamin assembled at Jerusalem within the three days; it was the ninth month, on the twentieth day of the month. All the people sat in the open square before the house of God, trembling because of this matter and because of the heavy rain.

Ezr. 10:9 (all Biblical quotations taken from the New Revised Standard Version)

People gather from all over the place to hear Ezra speak. Jerusalem appears unpopulated as of yet, the rebuilding of which will eventually be Nehemiah’s task (Böhler 2003, 5).
Some years ago, Jacob Wright, professor of Hebrew at Candler School of Theology, published an article responding to this exact matter (Wright 2011, 145-163). He argues, in my opinion rather convincingly, that 1 Esdras has consciously eliminated Nehemiah from the historical record of the restoration. Given the array of exilic Biblical prophecies foretelling the rebuilding of Jerusalem (see, for example, Jer. 30:18; 31:38-40; Isa. 44:26-28; 49:14-20), it seems suspicious that the writer of 1 Esdras would fail to make the rebuilding explicit (apart from the few cases in which we may infer a rebuilt Jerusalem, as we have seen above). The reason for omission, Wright argues, may lie in the character of Nehemiah himself:

His explicit polemics against the priesthood (Neh.13), his presentation of a gubernatorial jurisdiction that extended to the temple (Neh.10), and his advocacy of a strong, militarized Judah that threatened the alliances of the aristocratic priests —these are just a few of the things that would have undoubtedly provoked the consternation of 1 Esdras’ pro-priestly authors.

Wright 2011, 150

Indeed, 1 Esdras seems, above all else, concerned with temple-service and priesthood. To return to the story of the three guards (of course missing from the canonical book): the insertion of this story allows for a buildup towards Zerubbabel’s temple-related quest: rebuilding of YHWH’s house, returning of the temple-vessels and rededication of the altar. If we follow Wright’s thinking, it seems probable that 1 Esdras relies on an already existing tradition where Ezra and Nehemiah were a two-for-one deal! The question, then, is how far this reshaping extends and what other traces of editorial intervention we might detect in the text. I propose we focus our next blogpost on one of these editorial interventions: the correspondence with king Artaxerxes to block construction of the temple and city.

Mysterium Esdrae II: The Curious Case of Nehemiah

This is the second in a series of guest posts by Fenna Capelle (Part I; Part III). Fenna studies Hebrew and Aramaic Studies (research) (MA) at Leiden University.

As we concluded at the end of our last blog, the relationship between Ezra-Nehemiah and 1 Esdras, its dark, mysterious, apocryphal look-alike, invites closer examination. It is amusing to notice, even now as I read, research and write for this blog, how much I tend to favour the canonical texts that I grew up with: naturally, apocryphal texts must be secondary to canonical ones, which are ever unaltered and original. There is, however, an overall agreement that the editor(s)/author(s) of both Ezra-Nehemiah (written in Hebrew and interlined with some chapters in Aramaic) and 1 Esdras (composed in Greek) worked from a shared Semitic vorlage, i.e., a hypothetical/reconstructed source text that underlies a later manuscript and that editors or authors work from. The question remains, however, whether the Semitic text underlying 1 Esdras was exactly the same as Ezra-Nehemiah in its present form (Talshir and Talshir 1995; Talshir 1999, 269-270). It would be good, at the outset, to address an obvious question: what are some differences we observe between the two texts and how might we explain these variations?

Nehemiah, a Judean exile and cup-bearer to king Artaxerxes, is granted the king’s permission to return home and help rebuild the city of Jerusalem (Neh. 1:1-2:5), some 13 years after Ezra’s return from exile (see Pakkala 2008, 205-206):

Firstly, it is odd that the character of Nehemiah makes no appearance at all in the book of 1 Esdras, which seems to focus solely on the character of Ezra. As with solving any good mystery, one conjures up possible scenarios: either the author/editor of 1 Esdras has consciously omitted the character of Nehemiah, or 1 Esdras is simply an older, sans-Nehemiah version of the narrative. In this case, another scribe must, at some later stage, have added the Nehemiah material, leading to the form of the text in Ezra-Nehemiah (as Dieter Böhler argues in his 2003 article). I must concede, contrary to this, that most of the extra material (‘pluses’) is found in the book of 1 Esdras, not that of Ezra-Nehemiah – think, for example, of the story of the three guards. Zipporah Talshir, in a monograph dedicated to above matter, argues that 1 Esdras is a section deliberately cut out from the Ezra-Nehemiah sequence to form a framework for the story of the guards, that this lengthy addition is the text’s raison d’être (Talshir 1999). My point is that one would, in most cases, expect a more expansive, elaborate text to be later than a text that is less so — unless, of course, there is a good reason for deletion, as I, and others with me, think might be the case with Nehemiah (see Wright 2011, 145-163; paywalled).

The two texts, however, appear to differ somewhat in their view on these rebuilding efforts. 1 Esdras describes how Zerubbabel and co. “returned to Jerusalem and the rest of Judea, each to his own town” (1 Esd. 5:8 — N.B. all English translations of 1 Esdras taken from A New English Translation of the Septuagint). A few chapters later, when Ezra has returned and confronted the Israelite nation with their missteps, a large crowd gathers around him, weeping and repenting:

While Ezra was praying and making his confession, weeping and lying on the ground before the temple, there gathered around him a very great crowd of men and women and youths from Jerusalem, for there was great weeping among the multitude.

1 Esd. 8:88

1 Esdras makes it seem as if the city of Jerusalem is already repopulated by the time Ezra returns to reinstate YHWH’s law (Böhler 2003, 5). The parallel passage in the canonical book of Ezra, however, describes matters a bit differently:

Then all the people of Judah and Benjamin assembled at Jerusalem within the three days; it was the ninth month, on the twentieth day of the month. All the people sat in the open square before the house of God, trembling because of this matter and because of the heavy rain.

Ezr. 10:9 (all Biblical quotations taken from the New Revised Standard Version)

People gather from all over the place to hear Ezra speak. Jerusalem appears unpopulated as of yet, the rebuilding of which will eventually be Nehemiah’s task (Böhler 2003, 5).
Some years ago, Jacob Wright, professor of Hebrew at Candler School of Theology, published an article responding to this exact matter (Wright 2011, 145-163). He argues, in my opinion rather convincingly, that 1 Esdras has consciously eliminated Nehemiah from the historical record of the restoration. Given the array of exilic Biblical prophecies foretelling the rebuilding of Jerusalem (see, for example, Jer. 30:18; 31:38-40; Isa. 44:26-28; 49:14-20), it seems suspicious that the writer of 1 Esdras would fail to make the rebuilding explicit (apart from the few cases in which we may infer a rebuilt Jerusalem, as we have seen above). The reason for omission, Wright argues, may lie in the character of Nehemiah himself:

His explicit polemics against the priesthood (Neh.13), his presentation of a gubernatorial jurisdiction that extended to the temple (Neh.10), and his advocacy of a strong, militarized Judah that threatened the alliances of the aristocratic priests —these are just a few of the things that would have undoubtedly provoked the consternation of 1 Esdras’ pro-priestly authors.

Wright 2011, 150

Indeed, 1 Esdras seems, above all else, concerned with temple-service and priesthood. To return to the story of the three guards (of course missing from the canonical book): the insertion of this story allows for a buildup towards Zerubbabel’s temple-related quest: rebuilding of YHWH’s house, returning of the temple-vessels and rededication of the altar. If we follow Wright’s thinking, it seems probable that 1 Esdras relies on an already existing tradition where Ezra and Nehemiah were a two-for-one deal! The question, then, is how far this reshaping extends and what other traces of editorial intervention we might detect in the text. I propose we focus our next blogpost on one of these editorial interventions: the correspondence with king Artaxerxes to block construction of the temple and city.

Mysterium Esdrae II: The Curious Case of Nehemiah

This is the second in a series of guest posts by Fenna Capelle (Part I; Part III; Part IV). Fenna studies Hebrew and Aramaic Studies (research) (MA) at Leiden University.

As we concluded at the end of our last blog, the relationship between Ezra-Nehemiah and 1 Esdras, its dark, mysterious, apocryphal look-alike, invites closer examination. It is amusing to notice, even now as I read, research and write for this blog, how much I tend to favour the canonical texts that I grew up with: naturally, apocryphal texts must be secondary to canonical ones, which are ever unaltered and original. There is, however, an overall agreement that the editor(s)/author(s) of both Ezra-Nehemiah (written in Hebrew and interlined with some chapters in Aramaic) and 1 Esdras (composed in Greek) worked from a shared Semitic vorlage, i.e., a hypothetical/reconstructed source text that underlies a later manuscript and that editors or authors work from. The question remains, however, whether the Semitic text underlying 1 Esdras was exactly the same as Ezra-Nehemiah in its present form (Talshir and Talshir 1995; Talshir 1999, 269-270). It would be good, at the outset, to address an obvious question: what are some differences we observe between the two texts and how might we explain these variations?

Nehemiah, a Judean exile and cup-bearer to king Artaxerxes, is granted the king’s permission to return home and help rebuild the city of Jerusalem (Neh. 1:1-2:5), some 13 years after Ezra’s return from exile (see Pakkala 2008, 205-206):

Firstly, it is odd that the character of Nehemiah makes no appearance at all in the book of 1 Esdras, which seems to focus solely on the character of Ezra. As with solving any good mystery, one conjures up possible scenarios: either the author/editor of 1 Esdras has consciously omitted the character of Nehemiah, or 1 Esdras is simply an older, sans-Nehemiah version of the narrative. In this case, another scribe must, at some later stage, have added the Nehemiah material, leading to the form of the text in Ezra-Nehemiah (as Dieter Böhler argues in his 2003 article). I must concede, contrary to this, that most of the extra material (‘pluses’) is found in the book of 1 Esdras, not that of Ezra-Nehemiah – think, for example, of the story of the three guards. Zipporah Talshir, in a monograph dedicated to above matter, argues that 1 Esdras is a section deliberately cut out from the Ezra-Nehemiah sequence to form a framework for the story of the guards, that this lengthy addition is the text’s raison d’être (Talshir 1999). My point is that one would, in most cases, expect a more expansive, elaborate text to be later than a text that is less so — unless, of course, there is a good reason for deletion, as I, and others with me, think might be the case with Nehemiah (see Wright 2011, 145-163; paywalled).

The two texts, however, appear to differ somewhat in their view on these rebuilding efforts. 1 Esdras describes how Zerubbabel and co. “returned to Jerusalem and the rest of Judea, each to his own town” (1 Esd. 5:8 — N.B. all English translations of 1 Esdras taken from A New English Translation of the Septuagint). A few chapters later, when Ezra has returned and confronted the Israelite nation with their missteps, a large crowd gathers around him, weeping and repenting:

While Ezra was praying and making his confession, weeping and lying on the ground before the temple, there gathered around him a very great crowd of men and women and youths from Jerusalem, for there was great weeping among the multitude.

1 Esd. 8:88

1 Esdras makes it seem as if the city of Jerusalem is already repopulated by the time Ezra returns to reinstate YHWH’s law (Böhler 2003, 5). The parallel passage in the canonical book of Ezra, however, describes matters a bit differently:

Then all the people of Judah and Benjamin assembled at Jerusalem within the three days; it was the ninth month, on the twentieth day of the month. All the people sat in the open square before the house of God, trembling because of this matter and because of the heavy rain.

Ezr. 10:9 (all Biblical quotations taken from the New Revised Standard Version)

People gather from all over the place to hear Ezra speak. Jerusalem appears unpopulated as of yet, the rebuilding of which will eventually be Nehemiah’s task (Böhler 2003, 5).
Some years ago, Jacob Wright, professor of Hebrew at Candler School of Theology, published an article responding to this exact matter (Wright 2011, 145-163). He argues, in my opinion rather convincingly, that 1 Esdras has consciously eliminated Nehemiah from the historical record of the restoration. Given the array of exilic Biblical prophecies foretelling the rebuilding of Jerusalem (see, for example, Jer. 30:18; 31:38-40; Isa. 44:26-28; 49:14-20), it seems suspicious that the writer of 1 Esdras would fail to make the rebuilding explicit (apart from the few cases in which we may infer a rebuilt Jerusalem, as we have seen above). The reason for omission, Wright argues, may lie in the character of Nehemiah himself:

His explicit polemics against the priesthood (Neh.13), his presentation of a gubernatorial jurisdiction that extended to the temple (Neh.10), and his advocacy of a strong, militarized Judah that threatened the alliances of the aristocratic priests —these are just a few of the things that would have undoubtedly provoked the consternation of 1 Esdras’ pro-priestly authors.

Wright 2011, 150

Indeed, 1 Esdras seems, above all else, concerned with temple-service and priesthood. To return to the story of the three guards (of course missing from the canonical book): the insertion of this story allows for a buildup towards Zerubbabel’s temple-related quest: rebuilding of YHWH’s house, returning of the temple-vessels and rededication of the altar. If we follow Wright’s thinking, it seems probable that 1 Esdras relies on an already existing tradition where Ezra and Nehemiah were a two-for-one deal! The question, then, is how far this reshaping extends and what other traces of editorial intervention we might detect in the text. I propose we focus our next blogpost on one of these editorial interventions: the correspondence with king Artaxerxes to block construction of the temple and city.

‘Run Lola Run’, Tom Tykwer’s Experimental Thriller, Takes Victory Lap In Rerelease- Specialty Box Office
#News #EvilDoesNotExist #Ezra #Flipside #IUsedToBeFunny #InAViolentNature #RachelSennot #RobotDreams #RunLolaRun #SpecialtyBoxOffice #Tuesday

https://deadline.com/2024/06/run-lola-run-tom-tykwer-at-indie-film-box-office-1235963828/