Monday, June 15, 2020

Adrian Schenker on the Priority of 1 Esdras over Ezra-Nehemiah

 

. . . 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)