Female Head-coverings: Questions and Criticisms (Part 1 of 4)

Through the years as I have studied, written about, taught on, and had discussions concerning 1 Corinthians 11:2-16 with reference to women praying or prophesying with covered heads, I have been asked a number of thought-provoking questions and have also been challenged and criticized. My responses have mostly been in private exchanges, so the current aim is to offer clarity to anyone who might have similar queries or concerns.

Preliminary Considerations

The Bible is the inspired word of God consisting of sixty-six ancient (albeit pertinent) documents produced as a result of our Creator having chosen to communicate through real people in actual historical-geographical-sociocultural-linguistic-literary environments that happen to be fundamentally and unavoidably foreign to our own. Before any biblical text speaks to you or me, it has already spoken to those to whom it was first addressed. A shallow hermeneutic ignores this divine process, gives little attention to the Sitz im Leben (“life setting”) of the sacred writings, and immediately asks, “What is this saying to me, and how does it apply to my life?” 

A sound hermeneutic approaches scripture asking, “What was the inspired writer seeking to convey to his original (targeted) audience, and how were they expected to understand the message in the context in which it was first communicated?” If this is our preliminary concern, we are in a much better position to apprehend the original intent of the passage, less likely to misunderstand or misconstrue it, and better equipped to make application to our often very different circumstances.¹

Contrary to what is sometimes asserted, the head-covering and hair-length discussion in 1 Cor. 11:2-16 (which is without scriptural parallel) is not unique or innovative or countercultural in relation to Corinthian social conventions of Paul’s day. One of the closest contemporary sources relevant to this topic comes from the Greek historian Plutarch (ca. AD 46-120), who served as procurator of the Achaia province of which the Roman colony of Corinth was the capital. In his Moralia, responding to questions from a Greek perspective about irregular practices in special situations among the Romans, he observed as the standard custom: “it is more usual for women to go forth in public with their heads covered and men with their heads uncovered …. for it is usual for men to have their hair cut and for women to let it grow” (Roman Questions 14, vol. 4 LCL). Apparently when Paul addressed hair length and head-coverings, he was not enjoining a distinctively “Christian” peculiarity.

There are clearly teachings and principles in 1 Corinthians applicable to all churches (4:17; 7:17; 14:33), but the correspondence itself is addressed specifically “to God’s church in Corinth” (1:2a),² an actual group of Christians in a real place at a real time in history. While they shared the same spiritual blessings “together with” [σύν] all other believers (1:2b), Paul’s manuscript was produced as an occasional letter dealing with issues and questions particularly relevant to the designated addressees (note, e.g., 1:11; 4:18-21; 7:1; 16:3-12). The discussion in 11:2-16, which is only a tiny segment of a much larger discourse, does not concern what all churches are doing but rather a customary practice all churches “do not have” (v. 16). 

Some commentators make reference to what they call the biblical (even universal) head-covering “command,” yet the only real command in the entire paragraph is the emphatic aorist imperative, “You all judge among yourselves” (v. 13), directed to the Corinth church based on what they already understood as proper.³ When 1 Timothy (2:9-10) and 1 Peter (3:3) were later written and sent to Asia Minor, the issue at hand was different, not cloth headdresses but women’s expensive clothing and ornately braided hairstyles (see further here).

Brief Overview

For those unable or unwilling to read all the detailed materials I have tried to make available over the years,⁴ here is a brief synopsis of my understanding of the passage. 

Paul does not formulate a rule the mid-first-century Corinthian church had to follow but offers a few reasonable premises and then calls on them to make their own judgment. Gender roles are according to God’s design, so a Christian ought to be careful not to do something that might give the impression this arrangement is being disrespected or ignored. In ancient Corinth men were not expected to routinely cover their heads, with the opposite applying to the opposite gender. A Christian woman, therefore, in her demeaner and appearance, especially when engaged in religious activity, should modestly reflect her God-given submissive role. At the same time, she ought to have freedom over her head and be trusted to use it responsibly. In the Lord neither man nor woman is independent of the other, and all things are from God. You [Corinthians] must decide among yourselves, already knowing what is proper. But if it is going to generate strife, be aware that “we do not have such a custom,” i.e., this is not a religious mandate. As a social convention it should not be an issue that causes disputes among brethren.

Concluding Thoughts

The passage makes sense and is far less confusing when read through mid-first-century Corinthian glasses in the context of the entire letter. Applied in today’s world, the wearing or not wearing of a head-covering is a matter of personal liberty and is not a collective work of the church. Therefore, it still should not be a contentious or divisive issue.

In an attempt to add further clarity, future posts will respond to the more pertinent questions and criticisms I’ve encountered over the past three decades.

--Kevin L. Moore

Endnotes:

     ¹ Among copious hermeneutical models, the Impressionistic Approach equates the meaning of the text with the interpreter’s immediate thoughts, an easy, subjective, and emotive exercise practically guaranteeing missing or misconstruing scripture’s original intent. On the idea of Holy Spirit Illumination, see The Holy Spirit’s Role in Biblical Understanding. The Dogmatic Approach views scripture as a storehouse of proof-texts to be selected and arranged to bolster a preconceived doctrine or set of beliefs, giving little attention to context or authorial intent. The Grammatical-Historical Approach is a concerted attempt to understand what the words of scripture meant in their original setting, i.e., what the inspired author intended to communicate to his targeted audience. For exegetes with a high view of scripture, this methodology is also concerned with current-day application.

     ² Unless noted otherwise, scripture quotations are the author’s own translation. 

     ³ There is no English equivalent to the Greek third person middle imperative (v. 6), so it is difficult to translate and must therefore be somewhat idiomatic, typically rendered “let her …” The context determines how much stress the imperative mood carries, though the present tense (especially in a conditional statement) is far less pressing than the aorist (especially in an emphatic statement). The significance of the term ὀφείλω (“ought”) with a negative (v. 7) can be either “bound not to” or “not bound to.” The only other time this construction occurs in Paul’s extant correspondence to Corinth is 2 Cor. 12:14 (using almost identical wording), where there is no obligation to do a certain thing rather than an obligation not to do it. Before attempts are made to draw a command out of v. 10, the usage of ἐξουσία (“authority”) should be consistently interpreted within the broader context and thematic flow of thought (7:37; 8:9; 9:4, 5, 6, 12, 18) without the distortion of unnecessary added words and subjective surmising. 

     ⁴ See K. L. Moore, “Female Head-coverings (Part 1 of 5),” Moore Perspective (8 June 2013), <Link> and accompanying articles. This five-part series is an abbreviated version of the author’s We Have No Such Custom (Wanganui NZ: By the author, 1998), which is a revised version of the author’s “A Critical Analysis of 1 Corinthians 11.2-16,” FHU Graduate School of Theology Master’s thesis (1996), <Link>, an extension of in-depth personal and congregational studies initiated in Wellington NZ a couple of years earlier that have continued to this day. Also Freed-Hardeman University Bible Lectureship (2010), Polishing the Pulpit (2016), Southeast Institute of Biblical Studies Lectureship (2023).

Related Posts: Female Head-coverings: Questions & Criticisms Part 2, Part 3, Part 4

 

Image credit: https://www.pinterest.com/pin/704109722978732897/

Braided Hair, Jewelry, and Expensive Clothes: Modesty According to 1 Timothy 2:9-10

Aristocratic woman of the Flavian Dynasty

Introduction

From Macedonia Paul wrote 1 Timothy (ca. 62-64), sending the letter to his young colleague who was working with the church in Ephesus at the time (1 Tim. 1:1-3).¹ Although addressed to an individual, it is apparent that behind the apostle’s thought of Timothy was that of the congregation with which he worked, the letter ending with a grace-wish to “you” plural (6:21).

In the main section of the letter, addressing proper conduct in the church (2:1–6:2), the topic of collective prayer (2:1-7) merges with the deportment of men and women (2:8-15). While it was understood that the men of the congregation would be leading the prayers in public assemblies (v. 8), Paul continues: “likewise also that women should adorn themselves in respectable apparel, with modesty and self-control, not with braided hair and gold or pearls or costly attire, but with what is proper for women who profess godliness—with good works” (vv. 9-10).² 

The Issue At Hand

The comparative “likewise also that women” indicates godly attitudes and behaviors are in view with respect to both genders. “Nothing is to take place in the church, neither among the men nor among the women, which can hurt its spiritual dignity.”³ Paul then addresses how women are to “adorn themselves.”

The phrase, “in respectable apparel,” is translated from the Greek en katastolē kosmiō, lit. “in respectable⁴ deportment,” involving demeanor and dress. The noun katastolē (its only occurrence in the NT) refers to “deportment, outward, as it expresses itself in clothing … as well as inward … and prob[ably] both at the same time” (BAGD 419), accompanied “with modesty ...” The noun rendered “modesty” [aidōs] (its only occurrence in the NT) carries the sense of “reverence, respect” (BAGD 22), which ought to consume a Christian woman’s entire being, inside and out. “The outward modesty which makes itself known in the dress, is to be accompanied by inward purity and chastity, since the former would otherwise be of no account.”⁵

The associated “self-control” [sōphrosúnē], variously rendered “sobriety” (ASV), “moderation” (NKJV), “discreetly” (NASB), “good sense” (CSB), “propriety” (NIV), is highlighted again at the end of the paragraph (v. 15) and involves soundness of mind, rational thought, and good sense (Acts 26:25). It is the “well-balanced state of mind resulting from habitual self-restraint,” and “speaks of the entire command of the passions and desires, a self-control which holds the reins over these.”⁶

Modesty of Dress, Hair, and Beautification 

With respect to clothing and outward appearance, this passage is mainly concerned about over-dressing and gaudiness, adorning oneself in such a way that draws undue attention to oneself. More specifically, in the cultural setting of ancient Ephesus,⁷ “not with braided hair and gold or pearls or costly attire.” This type of extravagant luxury and adornment was apparently not uncommon among the affluent (cf. 6:9-10, 17) throughout the Roman provinces of Asia Minor at the time (cf. 1 Pet. 1:1; 3:3), while reminiscent of the well-to-do, spiritually anemic, pre-exilic Jews (Isa. 3:24). 

The expression “braided hair” is translated from the single noun plégma (its only occurrence in the NT), alluding to something “interwoven” and comparable to “the external braiding [arranging] of hair” (1 Pet. 3:3), or “elaborate hairstyles” (NIV). Both Paul and Peter issued these directives on the threshold of the Flavian dynasty, a time when women’s hairdos required lengthy grooming sessions and were increasingly ornate.⁸ The arrangement of a woman’s hair, sometimes including hair extensions and wigs, was regarded as a major determinant of her attractiveness and social status, along with leisure, luxury, and vanity.⁹ Clement of Alexandria,¹⁰ promoting practicality over elegance, denounced personal decoration inconsistent with Christian simplicity, including “superficial [artificial] plaiting of hair” (Paedagogus [The Instructor] 3.11). 

Another problem in this cultural environment was the eroticism associated with a woman’s hair, making “it appealing to most male observers and writers (the Christian moralists … are an important exception) …. In the Roman world … hair’s erotic potential made it a lightening rod for anxieties about female sexuality and public behavior. Hence the ancient sources preserve many references to veiling and other strictures regarding female headwear.”¹¹

The “gold or pearls” would include expensive jewelry, like earrings, necklaces, and bracelets (cf. Pliny, Natural History 9.56; 33.12), but also costly ornaments weaved into flamboyant hair designs to exhibit affluence and extravagance.¹² The “costly attire,” along with its adornments, draws attention to the wearer, displays haughtiness and worldliness (cf. Rev. 17:4), and magnifies social distinctions (cf. Luke 7:25; Acts 12:21; 20:33), contrary to the Lord’s design for his church (cf. Jas. 2:1-4; 1 Pet. 3:3). Christian worship assemblies are not intended to be fashion shows. 

Proper Adornment

With the strong adversative allá (“but”), the apostle also affirms that women should adorn themselves “with what is proper [prépō]¹³ for women who profess godliness—with good works.” The noun translated “godliness” [theosébeia], its only occurrence in the NT, conveys the sense of “God-fearing” in a reverential way (an inner conviction), but also the observable lifestyle it produces (cf. Gen. 20:11; Job 28:28, LXX). The word “profess” is rendered from the compound verbal epaggéllomai that usually refers to making or announcing a promise,¹⁴ also carrying the sense of “profess” or “making a claim” (NASB). Although unscrupulous persons make fallacious assertions (6:21), the apostle surely expects God-fearing women to be true to their word, demonstrated “with good works” (cf. 5:10, 25; 6:18; Tit. 2:7, 14; 3:8, 14; Heb. 10:24; 1 Pet. 2:12).

Conclusion

The modern-day application is to avoid dressing in such a way that would unnecessarily direct the focus of onlookers to one’s outward appearance as opposed to one’s inward character. “The body is the shell of the soul, and dress the husk of that shell; but the husk often tells what the kernel is” (Anonymous).¹⁵ A person does not have to expose a lot of skin to be immodestly dressed (cf. Mark 12:38; Luke 20:46). Immodesty in today’s westernized world would include skimpy outfits, excessive makeup and jewelry, outlandish hairstyles, countercultural attire and body art, etc. “Culture should never change the basic principle of modesty in that the Christian woman should always seek to draw more attention to God than to her own beauty and body. Christian women and men on every continent should be mindful of how their speech, actions, and dress can potentially affect others.”¹⁶

--Kevin L. Moore

Endnotes:

     ¹ See K. L. Moore, “What Happened After Acts?” in Entrusted With The Faith, ed. D. Y. Burleson (Henderson, TN: FHU, 2018): 79-82.

     ² Unless noted otherwise, scripture quotations are from the English Standard Version (2016).

     ³ Johann E. Huther, in H. A. W. Meyer’s Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the NT: Handbook to the Epistles of St. Paul to Timothy and Titus, <Web>. C. J. Ellicott observes that the duties of these women were “sobriety of deportment and simplicity of dress, at all times, especially at public prayers. It would seem almost as if the apostle intended only to allude to demeanor and dress at the latter, but concluded with making the instructions general” (Critical and Grammatical Commentary 50, emp. in text).

     ⁴ The adj. kósmios (“respectable,” “virtuous”) occurs only twice in the NT, both in this letter (2:9; 3:2).

     ⁵ J. E. Huther, op cit. Compare 1 Cor. 7:34; 1 Pet. 3:3-5.

     ⁶ C. J. Ellicott, Critical and Grammatical Commentary 51; K. S. Wuest, Pastoral Epistles 46. Cognate with sōphrōn (3:2; Tit. 1:8; 2:2, 5), it would be comparable to egkráteia (“self-mastery,” “self-restraint,” “self-control”), cf. Acts 24:25; Gal. 5:23; 2 Pet. 1:6.

     ⁷ Ephesus was located on the west coast of Asia Minor (modern-day western Turkey), the principal city of the province of Asia, controlled by the Romans since 129 BC. Augustus appointed Ephesus as the capital of the province, replacing the former capital of Pergamum. Ephesus, because of its strategic location, wealth, and influence, was greater in prominence. The city was a commercial center, a wealthy metropolis, and home of many nationalities. The Romans conferred upon it the status of “a free city,” with the right of self-government under Roman supervision.

     ⁸ See Elizabeth Bartman, “Hair and the Artifice of Roman Female Adornment,” JSTOR 105:1 (Jan. 2001): 1-25. The above image is the bust of an aristocratic woman (ca. 69-96) on display at the Capitoline Museum in Rome. “Apparently hairstyles from this period were made to be flamboyant with hair arranged in high layers of ringlets and then braided and coiled in the back” <Link>.

     ⁹ E. Bartman, “Hair” 1-4; “its appearance derived as much from culture (cultus) as from nature” (5). The hair arrangements of aristocratic women included abundant shaped curls in the front, elaborate braids in the back, as well as crafted buns.

     ¹⁰ In the latter part of the 2nd century Clement of Alexandria, a convert from paganism to Christianity, was well-traveled and well-studied in Greece, Asia Minor, Palestine, and Egypt.

     ¹¹ E. Bartman, “Hair” 4-5. See K. L. Moore, We Have No Such Custom 9-26. 

     ¹² E. Bartman, “Hair” 3. Pliny the Elder, a late contemporary of Paul, writes, “let women wear gold upon their arms and all their fingers, their necks, their ears, the tresses of their hair … let sachets filled with pearls hang suspended from the necks …” (Natural History 33.12.3).

     ¹³ Acting appropriately in a way that is suitable, fitting, proper (Matt. 3:15; 1 Cor. 11:13; Eph. 5:3; 1 Tim. 2:10; Tit. 2:1; Heb. 2:10; 7:26).

     ¹⁴ Mark 14:11; Acts 7:5; Rom. 4:21; Gal. 3:19; Tit. 1:2; Heb. 6:13; 10:23; 11:11; 12:26; Jas. 1:12; 2:5; 2 Pet. 2:9; 1 John 2:25.

     ¹⁵ Tryon Edwards, A Dictionary of Thoughts: Being a Cyclopedia of Laconic Quotations (Detroit, MI: F. B. Dickerson, 1902): 127.

     ¹⁶ Ryan and Sarah Davis, quoted in Chad and Amanda Garrett’s To the Ends of the World 92. 

 

Related Posts: How is "Modest" Apparel to be Measured?, Supply in Your Faith Godliness, A Woman can be a Preacher?, Female Head-coverings: Questions and Criticisms Part 1, Part 4 

 

Image credit: https://www.reddit.com/r/pics/comments/2yap1k/a_bust_of_an_aristocratic_flavian_woman_showing_a/

Why is the Timing of Events in Ezra-Nehemiah So Confusing? (Part 4 of 4): Original Purpose

Historically Relevant Historiography

Historians, interested in real people and actual events, are naturally limited to the amount of information that can realistically be put into writing. It has always been necessary, therefore, to be discerning and to restrict reporting to what is deemed most significant. The aim of the ancient historian was to depict historical accounts so that readers could learn political, moral, or religious principles.¹ While completeness and accuracy were important, materials were commonly arranged thematically rather than chronologically. There was no preoccupation with linear thinking and little concern for chronological symmetry and precision of dating. Ancient historians were decidedly selective, ideological, and creative in narrating the facts available to them. 

No biblical author claims to be exhaustive, nor is the Bible designed as a well-ordered, chronological arrangement of history. A wealth of historical data is provided but not a complete, continuous record. The focus is rather on specific and detached periods.² Any chronological and historical allusions, including what might be perceived as ambiguous or puzzling, are merely secondary, supplementing and supporting the primary spiritual, instructional, and life-transforming message. 

The Purpose of Ezra-Nehemiah

If we fail to understand the purpose of Ezra-Nehemiah, we will likely wonder why the chronological arrangement and timing of events are so perplexing. It was clearly not the Lord’s intention to describe this block of history according to a modern-day-westernized agenda in order to cater to our idiosyncratic expectations and curiosities. The seemingly disjointed temporal components of Ezra-Nehemiah are better understood as intentional strategies in forming the main theological themes.³

Ezra and Nehemiah were more than just chroniclers of history. They were theological historians. Viewed as “a space of collection rather than a linear story,”⁴ the combined narrative is a work of religious history and is patently theological. It recounts the rebuilding of a religious community, providing the historical background for the spiritual and procedural reforms that established the postexilic Jews as a unified theocratic nation. It serves as a spiritual foundation and model for the continuity of Jewish communities committed to God’s law and confirms their identity. It further verifies the fulfillment of God’s promises, with theological explanations of political policies favoring God’s people.⁵

Conclusion 

Why is the timing of events in Ezra-Nehemiah so confusing? The bottom line is, the biblical writings are the result of God having chosen to communicate in real historical-sociocultural-literary environments that are fundamentally and unavoidably foreign to our own. Confusion and frustration are inevitable when modern-day, linear-thinking westerners approach the scriptures expecting a detailed historical account, unfolding in exact and precisely-dated sequences of events, catering to twenty-first-century-Anglo-European interests and curiosities.

Ongoing debates about the timing of events and chronological arrangement are comparatively recent, not particularly relevant to the original purpose of the Bible itself. Proposed chronologies of the distant past are almost always exercises in estimations, probabilities, and uncertainties. For those holding a high view of the sacred text, near approximations ought to be sufficient as long as the integrity of the biblical record is not compromised and the greater spiritual truths are not overshadowed.

--Kevin L. Moore

*Originally prepared for the 2023 FHU Lectures.

Endnotes:

     ¹ Roberto Nocolai, “The Place of History in the Ancient World,” in A Companion to Greek and Roman Historiography. Ed. John Marincola (Chichester, West Sussex: Wiley-Blackwell, 2011): 13-26.

     ² See John M’Clintock and James Strong, Cyclopædia of Biblical, Theological and Ecclesiastical Literature (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 1982): 2:292-97.

     ³ See esp. A. Philip Brown II, “Chronological Anomalies in Ezra,” Bibliotheca Sacra 162 (Jan.-March 2005): 68-84.

     ⁴ Laura Carlson Hasler, “The Cited Documents of Ezra-Nehemiah: Does Their Authenticity Matter?” Biblical Interpretation 27.3 (Nov. 2019): 372-89.

     ⁵ While the motivation of the Persians was most likely to ensure stability and control of this strategic area in a remote region of their empire, God’s purpose was far greater. See Robert J. Littman, “Athens, Persia and the Book of Ezra,” TAPA 125 (1995): 251-59.

Related Posts: Timing of Events Ezra-Neh Part 1. Part 2, Part 3

Related articles: Neal Pollard, The Restorers

 

Image credit: Adapted from <https://disciple.org.au/resources/ezraandnehemiah/>

Why is the Timing of Events in Ezra-Nehemiah So Confusing? (Part 3 of 4): Non-Chronological Arrangement

Chronological Confusion 

From the starting point of Ezra’s historical record to that of Nehemiah’s is an interval of roughly ninety-five years. Ezra relocated to Jerusalem approximately eighty years following the decree of Cyrus, and Nehemiah around ninety-four years after the decree. The entire period recounted in Ezra-Nehemiah is just over a century, from the inaugural return of exiles led by Sheshbazzar and Zerubbabel (ca. 538 BC) to Nehemiah’s second return to Jerusalem (ca. 432 BC),¹ although reference to “the reign of Darius the Persian” (Neh. 12:22) would add at least another decade if Darius II Nothus is in view.² The reporting, however, is limited to particular occasions of importance and is intermittent, nonsequential, and disproportional, including extended spans of silence. 

Ezra 1:1–4:5 reviews about a fifteen-year period (ca. 537-522 BC), then vv. 6-23 jump ahead approximately thirty-six years and cover just over six decades of history (ca. 486-424 BC). The record jumps back in v. 24 nearly a century to 520 BC,³ and the rebuilding of the temple, recounted in 4:24–6:22, is completed over the next four years (to 516 BC). Almost sixty years are then bypassed with the brief statement, “after these things” (7:1a), bringing the narrative to 458/7 BC (7:1b-7). Up to this point roughly eighty years of history have been covered, and the final section (7:7–10:44) documents only a single year.⁴

Nehemiah overlaps Ezra’s account, albeit arriving in Jerusalem about a dozen years later, and continues the story for at least another quarter of a century. His narrative begins in 445/4 BC, the twentieth year of Artaxerxes (1:1–5:14a), and after a brief twelve-year overview and reflection on previous years (5:14b-15), the story resumes and recounts the completion of the city wall by mid-445/4 BC (5:16–7:5a). The record then reaches back to 538 BC, listing the first group of returning refugees (7:5b-73a), leaps forward to 445/4 BC when the Law was publicly read and reforms enacted (7:73b–11:36), then back again to 538 BC (12:1-9). Next is a concise review of the subsequent generation (12:10-12), listing the priests “in the days of Joiakim” (12:13-21), followed by a summary of the record of Levites and priests of the third generation extending through to the sixth, documented “in the reign of Darius the Persian⁵ … in the days of Eliashib, Joiada, Johanan, and Jaddua⁶ … until the days of Johanan the son of Eliashib” (12:22-25).⁷ The section concludes by noting those who lived “in the days of Joiakim … and [in addition] in the days of Nehemiah the governor and of Ezra the priest, the scribe” (12:26), particularly the thirteen years or so between 445 and 432 BC (12:27–13:31).

Canonical Vs. Chronological Order 

Which came first, Ezra or Nehemiah? The reverse-order hypothesis was developed from what appears to be duplications and interpolations of personalities and story lines between the two accounts, with perceived anomalies in the traditional arrangement.⁸  There is general agreement about the historical period of Nehemiah and his service under Artaxerxes I Longimanus (465-424 BC), marking Nehemiah’s arrival in Jerusalem at around 445/4 BC. But if the Artaxerxes of Ezra 7:1-11 is Artaxerxes II Mnēmōn (404-359 BC), then Ezra began his work in Jerusalem in about 397 BC. The record of Nehemiah would therefore precede that of Ezra, making the conventional order backwards. 

The clearest reading of the Ezra-Nehemiah narrative, without the unnecessary and unprovable assumption of literary emendation, patently supports the traditional order.⁹ Ezra and Nehemiah were contemporaries during the reign of Darius the Persian (Neh. 12:22-26). Ezra had begun his work in Jerusalem in the seventh year of Artaxerxes (Ezra 7:7), and Nehemiah in the twentieth year (Neh. 2:1). Nehemiah’s tenure in Jerusalem coincided with Eliashib the high priest and his son Johanan,¹⁰ and Nehemiah had to contend with Sanballat, his cohorts, and the Samaritan army.¹¹ To claim that any of these reported details are spurious, especially in light of the earliest known transmission and preservation of the biblical text, is unfounded.

Papyri documents discovered on the Egyptian island of Elephantine, predating all extant Hebrew and Aramaic manuscripts pertaining to the fifth-century BC Jewish people, include a letter dated ca. 407 BC, “the seventeenth year of Darius the King” (Sachau, Pap. 1.29). The reference is to none other than Darius II (423-404 BC), who succeeded Artaxerxes I (465-424 BC) and Xerxes II (424/3 BC). The letter names Johanan as high priest and Sanballat as governor of Samaria at an advanced age, his two sons being the primary recipients of previous correspondence.¹² This validates the Ezra-Nehemiah narrative and confirms the conventional chronology, Ezra having arrived in Jerusalem in 458/7 BC, followed by Nehemiah thirteen years later in 445/4 BC.

--Kevin L. Moore

*Originally prepared for the 2023 FHU Lectures.

Endnotes:

     ¹ Some separate Sheshbazzar and Zerubbabel into two different waves, with four stages documented under the leadership of Sheshbazzar (538 BC), Zerubbabel (520-516 BC), Ezra (458/7 BC), and Nehemiah (445/4 BC), in three identifiable sections: (a) book of Zerubbabel in Ezra 1–6; (b) memoirs of Ezra in Ezra 7–10 and possibly Neh. 8–9 (unless these two chapters belong to the following); and (c) memoirs of Nehemiah in Neh. 1–7, 10–13. Cf. Barry L. Bandstra, Reading the Old Testament: An Introduction to the Hebrew Bible, 3rd ed. (Belmont, CA: Thomson-Wadsworth, 2004): 494-98; Hannah K. Harrington, The Books of Ezra and Nehemiah (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2022): 3-7.

     ² The conservate estimate of Ezra-Nehemiah having been completed by 400 BC is based on (a) the latest historical indicator in Ezra, the year after Artaxerxes’ seventh year, ca. 457/6 BC (Ezra 7:7-9; 8:31; 10:9, 17); (b) the latest historical indicators in Nehemiah, sometime during or not long after the thirty-second year of Artaxerxes, ca. 432 BC (Neh. 13:6), and referencing the fifth generation of returnees “in the reign of Darius the Persian” (Neh. 12:22), corresponding to Darius II Nothus (423-404 BC); and (c) if documented within a comparable timeframe (cf. 2 Chron. 36:22-23; Ezra 1:1-4), the six generations of Zerubbabel’s genealogy (1 Chron. 3:19-24), approximating ca. 520–400 BC.

     ³ Between “the days of Cyrus” and “the reign of Darius” (Ezra 4:5) is a parenthetical thematic review of continual opposition, including the period of Ahasuerus’ reign and the days of Artaxerxes (vv. 6-23), then resuming the report of the situation in “year two of the reign of Darius king of Persia” (v. 24). The seemingly disjointed chronology is not a problem if “the purpose of the writer is taken into account, namely, to finish one subject before going on to the next, even at the expense of chronological sequence …” (Edward J. Young, An Introduction to the Old Testament [Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1970]: 381-82).

     ⁴ See A. Philip Brown II, “Chronological Anomalies in Ezra,” Bibliotheca Sacra 162 (Jan.-March 2005): 68-84; S. R. Driver, An Introduction to the Literature of the Old Testament, ITL 8th ed. (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1909): 540-44.

     ⁵ Without the presumption of textual emendation, this was “in” (MT) or “during” (LXX) rather than “until” the reign of Darius. But is “Darius the Persian” to be identified as Darius I (522-486 BC), Darius II (423-404 BC), or Darius III (336-330 BC)? The latter would require editorial emendation or a much later date for Nehemiah, while Darius I would be a matter of historical record and Darius II within Nehemiah’s lifetime. Nehemiah traces the history of the first generation of returnees (vv. 1-9) and includes a concise genealogy up to his present day (vv. 10-11), goes back to the second generation (vv. 12-21), and then makes a summary statement about the third generation through to his own time (vv. 22-23), without explicit reference to the office of high priest (unnecessarily assumed by many commentators). In the immediate context, the reference to “Darius the Persian” more readily fits the reign of Darius II and is too late for Darius I and much too early for Darius III. The section ends by briefly alluding to some in the second generation (v. 26a) and concludes in the time of Ezra and Nehemiah (v. 26b). 

     ⁶ Eliashib, son of Joiakim (Neh. 12:10), had at least two sons, Joiada and Johanan (Ezra 10:6; Neh. 12:10, 23), while Jaddua was his great-grandson (Neh. 12:10-11). If twenty years are allowed per generation and Joiakim was born the year his father returned to Jerusalem, Jaddua is feasibly present by 458 BC, around the time Ezra arrived. If thirty years are counted as a generation, and if Joiakim accompanied his father to Jerusalem as an adult, Jaddua could have been present by 448 BC, about a decade after Ezra arrived and just a few years before Nehemiah came. Boys as young as three years old were included in genealogies of priests (2 Chron. 31:16). The book of Nehemiah, therefore, presents “no historical information and no single remark which Nehemiah might not himself have written” (C. F. Keil, “The Books of Ezra, Nehemiah, and Esther,” in Keil and Delitzsch’s Biblical Commentary on the Old Testament [Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1969]: 150). 

     ⁷ The book of the chronicles mentioned here is probably not the canonical books of Chronicles (Derek Kidner, Ezra and Nehemiah: An Introduction and Commentary [Westmont, IL: Inter-Varsity Press, 1979]: 124), but cf. 1 Chron. 9:14-22.

     ⁸ George Widengren, “The Persian Period,” in Israelite and Judean History, eds. John H. Hayes and James M. Miller (London: SCM, 1977): 503-509.

     ⁹ For helpful analysis, see John Stafford Wright, The Date of Ezra’s Coming to Jerusalem (London: Tyndale Press, 1958): 5-32; Edwin M. Yamauchi, “Ezra and Nehemiah,” in The Expositor’s Bible Commentary, ed. T. Longman III and D. E. Garland, rev. ed. (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2010): 4:7-13; also Harrington 11-15; Kidner 146-58. An alternative theory marks Ezra’s arrival in Jerusalem in the thirty-seventh year of Artaxerxes (428 BC), assuming textual emendation. For a thorough review and response, see Gleason L. Archer, Jr., A Survey of Old Testament Introduction (Chicago: Moody Press, 1970): 396-401.

     ¹⁰ Neh. 3:1, 20; 12:10-26; 13:28; cf. Ezra 10:6. Unfortunately some English translations (JB, NAB, NLT) and a number of commentators conflate “Jonathan” (Neh. 12:11) and “Johanan” (v. 23), making Johanan the grandson of Eliashib rather than his son, which is an unwarranted assumption (see Kidner 124, 153-55).

     ¹¹ Neh. 2:10, 19; 4:1-8; 6:1-14.

     ¹² See Archer 396-97; Kidner 146-58; Young 384.

 

Related Posts: Timing of Events Ezra-Neh Part 1, Part 2, Part 4, Chronology of Postexilic Period, Alleged Discrepancies in Ezra-Nehemiah Part 1

 

Image credit: Adapted from https://thejohnfox.com/2021/10/how-to-write-a-non-chronological-plot/