AUTHOR

The book of Ezra is a history of the early days of the return of the Jewish people from their seventy years of captivity in Babylon. The book covers the period from 538 BC to around 456 BC. Two principal units make up the book. The first is Ezra 1–6, which describes the return under the leadership of Sheshbazzar and Zerubbabel and the rebuilding of the Jerusalem temple. The second is Ezra 7–10, referred to as the Ezra Memoir since it is Ezra’s own account of his activities as priest and scribe to order the life of the returned Jewish community according to biblical standards.

Two features of the Ezra Memoir cause concern for some people. The first is the fact that Ezra 10 changes from first to third person reporting. The second is the realization that another part of this memoir is probably in the book of Nehemiah (Neh 8–10).

However, while it seems unusual to the modern reader for a person to speak of his own actions in the third person, this was not a problem in the ancient Near East. A perfect example of this is the fact that the Cyrus Cylinder (an archaeological artifact recording statements from King Cyrus) uses both first and third person reporting, though all of it is considered to be the statement of Cyrus.

Also, the location of part of the Ezra Memoir in the book of Nehemiah helps to tie the two books together and serves as an indicator of the unity of the two works. Another indicator of this unity is found in Nehemiah 12, where Ezra is present at the dedication of the wall.

The unity of the books of Ezra and Nehemiah is so evident that it is common to hear them referred to as a single work: Ezra/Nehemiah. This is the work of a single individual who, under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, recognized the hand of God at work in this community’s restoration and wrote a history of its emergence, using primary source materials to accentuate the credibility of his work.

The books of Ezra and Nehemiah share a literary bond with the books of Chronicles. The last verses of 2 Chronicles and the first verses of Ezra are nearly identical (see 2Ch 36:22-23 with Ezr 1:1-3). The verses preserve Cyrus’s decree authorizing the return that coincided with the end of the seventy years of captivity as prophesied by Jeremiah (Jr 25:11). This literary bond casts the books of Ezra and Nehemiah as sequels to the events described in Chronicles. Together the three works form a history of Israel from its beginnings to its return from exile.

The literary bond established by the repetition of Cyrus’s decree in 2 Chronicles and Ezra has created considerable speculation about the authorship of the two works. Until recently, the view commonly held was that Chronicles and the two-part Ezra/Nehemiah were written by the same person. Jewish tradition credits Ezra the scribe. Subsequent detailed analysis, however, has revealed a number of significant ideological differences between Chronicles and Ezra/Nehemiah. These differences have led to the prevailing (and probably correct) view of the majority of scholars that Chronicles and Ezra/Nehemiah were written by different people.

Given the significant prominence Jewish tradition places on the importance of Ezra to the emergence of Judaism, and its attribution of authorship of Ezra and Nehemiah to him, it is possible that Ezra was responsible for the final text. However, since it appears certain that the same person did not write both Chronicles and Ezra/Nehemiah, and since there is considerable speculation that Ezra authored the Chronicles, a definitive answer to the question of the authorship of Ezra and Nehemiah cannot be given.

DATING THE TEXT

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.

THE RELIABILITY OF EZRA

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.