. . . two passages seem to establish the
priority of 1Esd 2:5-7 in comparison with Ezra 2-6. First, Ezra 3:12 reports
that many old people among the priests, Levites, and leaders who had known the
previous temple long ago destroyed by the Babylonians, wept when they saw the foundations of the new one. In the parallel
passage of 1 Esd 5:60, however, these persons saw the new temple almost
completely rebuilt. This coheres with the whole account. Indeed, in 5:43 they
prepared the reconstruction; in 5:56 they laid the foundations; in 5:60, “they
were building the temple”; while in 5:59, “they sang hymns to the LORD for the
erection of the house of the LORD.” From 5:43 to 5:60 the whole range of the
successive building phases is described from the beginning nearly to the
completion of their temple.
The disappointment with the new temple, so
much poorer than the preceding one, is unlikely to have been caused only by the
sight of the foundations (Ezra 3:12). It is much more likely that the people
were disappointed when they saw the poor new temple building in its complete
reality. Therefore, the narrative element of the disappointment of the old
leaders implies the setting up of the temple building rather than its mere foundation. This must have been the
original form of the narrative, and this is the form found in 1 Esd 5:60.
Moreover, the difference at this point in the
narrative is linked with two further textual differences between the Hebrew and
Greek books. Both Ezra and 1 Esdras agree in reporting that the leaders had
made vows to rebuild the temple on its location, Ezra 2:68 = 1 Esd 5:43, and
that Zerubbabel and Joshua laid its foundation in the second year of Cyrus.
This second year was also the second year of the return of the golah from the Babylonian exile (Ezra
3:8-10 = 1 Esd 5:53-54), since we must understand, according to 1 Esd 2:2 and
5:53, that the returning exiles came back immediately after Cyrus’ firman and
his first year. Ezra and 1 Esdras disagree, however, concerning the further
progress of the construction. In 1 Esd 5:56, the next step was setting up the
building, while Ezra 3:10, in the parallel passage, continues to speak only of
the foundations that had been laid. Similarly, 1 Esd 5:59 mentions the erected
temple, while Ezra 3:11, in the parallel verse, knows only of the foundations existing.
The three textual differences are coherent in their meaning. They suggest together
that only the foundation and nothing else could be built. Because of their
coherence in meaning, the three differences may not be explained as merely
textual. They amount to a different narrative, that is, a different literary patterns in Ezra in comparison
with 1 Esdras.
To summarize, from Ezra 2:68 to 3:11 only one
step was taken in the restoration of the destroyed temple: the foundations were
laid, nothing more. In 1 Esd 5:43-62, on the contrary, the building is set up. It
is thus quite natural that those who had seen the previous house of the LORD
were moved to tears of disappointment when they saw the new one. It is
stranger, however, that they should have shed tears seeing only the foundations of the future building.
Therefore the first account, that of 1 Esdras, is likely to be more original,
while that of Ezra is secondary. Consequently, the whole section of Ezra
2;68-3:11, in which we are told three times that only the foundations of the
new temple were laid, is likely to be secondary on a literary or redactional
level as well.
The second reason for accepting the priority
of 1 Esdras is the mention of the period of two years between the reigns of
Cyrus and Darius (1 Esd 5:70). First Esdras 5:70 consists of two sentences. Sentence 1: the opposition against the restoration
of the temple lasted the whole time of
Cyrus. Sentence 2: the opposition
lasted two years, until Darius.
Because of sentence 1, and because of the preposition εως, “until,” it seems impossible to
apply the two years of sentence 2 exclusively to the time of Darius. First
Esdras 6:1 will add that the end of the obstruction took place in the second
year. Taken together, the obstruction lasted from Cyrus to the second year of
Darius, and the whole duration amounts to two years.
This double statement of 1Esd 5:70 is missing
in the parallel passages of Ezra 4:5, 23. The effect of this absence is to
allow time or two reigns of Persian kings. In fact, Ezra 4:6 mentions Xerxes as
a first successor of King Cyrus, and 4:7-24 mentions Artaxerxes as a second
one. In the parallel passages, 1 Esdras does not mention King Xerxes (1 Esd
2:14-15, 25). According to Ezra 4:5-24, thee two kings had stopped all
restoration activities in Jerusalem. The intervention of Artaxerxes, leading to
the building stop, is suggested by Ezra 4:23-24. Only under Darius could the
work be resumed again. Thus there was no blaming of the leaders of Judah for
the long interruption of the temple construction after the restoration of the
altar and the laying of the temple foundations (Ezra 3). Immediately after the
arrival of the golah, under the
leadership of Zerubbabel and Joshua, the altar is rebuilt and the sacrificial
service can start (3:1-6). Then they began to organize at once, without any
delay, the rebuilding of the temple (3:7-13). They lose no time, since
everything is done between the seventh month of the first year and the second
year after their arrival in Jerusalem. They are stopped by the enemies in the
country (4:1-3), and these plot against the Jews at the court of the Persian
kings Xerxes and Artaxerxes and the latter’s successor Darius (4:6-24). The
Jews could not do anything else than obey the Persian power. But then came the
prophets Haggai and Zechariah, and now obeying God more than men, they resume
their work (5:12). They are questioned by the governor Tattenai and his
colleagues, but King Darius, in unconscious accordance with the two prophets,
allows them to pursue their projects of reconstruction (5:3-6:12).
From the perspective of textual (and
literary) criticism, there is no reason why someone should have added such a
difficult chronological note, while it is easy to see why somebody would have
canceled it. Therefore, it is more likely that 1 Esdras has the more original text
here. (Adrian Schenker, “The Relationship Between Ezra-Nehemiah and 1 Esdras,” in
Lisbeth S. Fried, ed. Was 1 Esdras First?
An Investigation into the Priority and Nature of 1 Esdras [Ancient Israel
and Its Literature 7; Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2011], 45-58, here,
pp. 52-55)
