Ezra Introduction

A number of suggestions have been offered for the date of the composition of Ezra and Nehemiah from 400 BC to 100 BC. Much of this speculation rests on conjectures about the reason for the composition and the number of revisions the text went through. Certainly much of the material found in the books (e.g., the Ezra Memoir, the Nehemiah Memoir, the decree of Cyrus, and the letters to and from the Persian royal court in Ezra) predates the composition of the books.

In the absence of any definitive statements resolving the question, it becomes necessary to rely on clues from the text itself. Nehemiah was still active in 433 BC, so he must have written his own memoir sometime after that. This gives an approximate date of 400 BC as a likely early date for the final composition. If the Jaddua mentioned in Nehemiah 12:22 was the same person whom the first-century AD Jewish historian Josephus says was high priest when Alexander the Great invaded Persia, then it would make him the last mentioned high priest in Nehemiah’s list of priests, and it would mean that the final composition of Ezra/Nehemiah would have to have been after 333 BC. This identification is not certain; it serves merely to provide the latest possible date for the final composition.

Prominent in Ezra are texts of official proclamations of the Persian government (see Ezr 1:1-5; 4:8-10,11-16,17-22; 5:6-17; 6:6-12; 7:11-26). Until recently many scholars doubted the authenticity of these texts. They claimed that the language sounded too theological or that they didn’t follow standard Persian form. However, recent studies have silenced these criticisms. Study of the letters from the Jewish community at Elephantine, Egypt, reveals that the theological sound of the royal edicts is probably the result of the interaction of the Jewish people with the king prior to the issue of his edicts. In other words, the king (or his scribe) used language that would be familiar to the recipients. The official letters in the book are now known to be comparable in style to typical letters of the day, varying partly in whether they were written from inferiors to superiors or vice versa.

Another question that has occupied scholars is the chronological order of Ezra and Nehemiah. Some scholars have concluded that Nehemiah arrived in Jerusalem before Ezra. This has significant bearing on the historical reliability of the works since they clearly contend that Ezra preceded Nehemiah. Those who make this claim use two principal arguments.

First, there is the supposed evidence from archaeology. Some scholars argue that the archaeological data suggest that the geopolitical climate during the reign of Artaxerxes II (404–359 BC) was more suited to the kinds of activity in which Ezra engaged. It is certainly true that the situation with Egypt had declined considerably by the time of Artaxerxes II and that it would have been in Persia’s best interest to strengthen its relationship with this buffer region as a result. But Egypt had also revolted around 459 BC, and that rebellion was not put down until 454 BC. So it is equally plausible that Persia could have seen the value in a stronger relationship with this outlying region at an earlier time.

Furthermore, the adherents to a late date for Ezra must remove from the biblical text the two instances in which Ezra appeared in Jerusalem with Nehemiah (Neh 8:1–10:39; 12:27-47) since Nehemiah was governor from 445–433 BC. While some scholars differ about the date of Nehemiah’s mission, most agree that he arrived in Jerusalem in the twentieth year of the reign of Artaxerxes I (445 BC; Neh 1:1; 2:1). The first time Ezra and Nehemiah appeared together occurred less than two months after Nehemiah arrived in Jerusalem. Nehemiah recorded that he was in Jerusalem three days before he challenged the people to rebuild the wall (Neh 2:11). It took fifty two days to complete the wall (Neh 6:15). The dedication, at which Ezra was present, would most likely have occurred shortly afterward (Neh 12:27-36). In any event, Nehemiah recorded that he returned to Babylon in the thirty-second year of Artaxerxes’s reign (433 BC), and the dedication most certainly would have been conducted before he left. Ezra’s significance in these events is totally unexplained if he had not already been active in Jerusalem.

The second line of argument is based on supposed discrepancies in the two texts. Critics argue the following points: (1) Jerusalem was better populated during Ezra’s time than during Nehemiah’s time (see Ezr 10:1; Neh 11:1). (2) The high priest during Ezra’s activity was Jehohanan, who appears to have been the grandson of Eliashib, who was high priest during Nehemiah’s activity (Neh 3:1,20). (3) Nehemiah had to appoint temple treasurers (Neh 13:13), whereas they were already present in Ezra’s time (Ezr 8:33). (4) Ezra thanked God for giving them a wall in Judah and Jerusalem, whereas Nehemiah is credited with building Jerusalem’s wall (Neh 6:15).

For many reasons, these arguments do not hold up. For example, Ezra 10:1 refers to a large gathering of Israelite men. It does not say they all were inhabitants of Jerusalem. It is probable that the Eliashib mentioned in Nehemiah 3:1 and 20 was Eliashib II, a later priest. Nehemiah 13:13 does not say there were no treasurers. Verse 10 says only that the Levites and singers had not received their allocation from the temple storehouse. Nehemiah said that he appointed trustworthy men to assure this didn’t happen again. It is possible that the previous treasurers were simply not trustworthy and had to be replaced. The wall Ezra referred to was probably a figurative wall, that is, God’s hedge of protection, since it refers to Judah as well as Jerusalem. Obviously, Nehemiah’s wall pertained only to Jerusalem. The arguments for reversing the missions of Ezra and Nehemiah are not adequate to overrule the biblical chronology.