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/

Why is the Timing of Events in Ezra-Nehemiah So Confusing? (Part 2 of 4): Reckoning of Time

Ancient Time Reckoning 

The manner in which time was reckoned by the ancients in general and biblical authors in particular varied considerably, even more so when compared to the customary practices of today. The counting systems of antiquity were much more flexible, starting at various times of the year, calculating part of a year as a whole year, and using different calendars and historical pointers. Some ancient cultures followed a solar calendar, some a lunar calendar, and others a lunisolar calendar, periodically revised for administrative, religious, atmospheric, and/or corrective reasons (intercalary months, leap years, etc.).¹ Time was variously calculated according to a civil year, a regnal year, or a sacred or religious year, comparable to a modern-day fiscal or academic year.

Biblical time references are usually comparative with respect to the lifetimes and activities of prominent figures (e.g., Neh. 12:46, 47), major historical events (e.g., 1 Kings 6:1; Ezek. 40:1), or the reigns of well-known rulers (e.g., Ezra 1:1; 4:6-7; Isa. 1:1). Instead of a simple historical style and unbroken chronological composition, biblical writers often intersperse their own inspired reflections and commentary within the narrative. 

The year a king began his reign was his accession year, overlapping the final year of his predecessor and counted as a full year for each king through the official starting point of the regnal year. Different counting systems involved predating, postdating, or accession dating, i.e., counting a year from one anniversary of accession to the next.² Otherwise, the new regnal year was inaugurated on a particular day of a given month, although the season of the year varied from culture to culture. 

In contrast to the modern Gregorian solar year, the Jewish calendar marked the beginning of the religious year in spring, the first month of Nisan (March-April)³ through the twelfth month of Adar (Feb.-March). This was similar to the Persian spring-to-spring first month of Fravashi through the twelfth month of Spenta Armaiti. At the same time, the Jewish civil calendar began in autumn, the seventh (religious) month of Tishri (Sept.-Oct.) through the sixth (religious) month of Elul (Aug.-Sept.),⁴ ending the agricultural year with the Feast of Ingathering (Ex. 23:16; 34:22).

 

Time Reckoning in Ezra-Nehemiah 

As in the books of 1 Kings (6:1, 38), Esther (3:7), and Zechariah (1:7; 7:1), the Jewish religious or vernal calendar appears to be followed in Ezra-Nehemiah, particularly when alluding to religious holidays.⁵ However, notwithstanding Babylonian-Jewish names of specific months,⁶ the major dating of events coincides with the reigns of Persian kings, most notably Cyrus, Darius, and Artaxerxes,⁷ with passing reference to Ahasuerus.⁸ The question is whether regnal years are counted from spring to spring or from autumn to autumn, or if accession dating is employed. 

When Ezra’s arrival in Jerusalem is documented as “the fifth month” of “the seventh year” of King Artaxerxes (Ezra 7:7-8), assuming Artaxerxes I Longimanus is in view, did the counting begin at the king’s accession year (August 465 BC)⁹ or his first regnal year (presumably March 464 BC)? The difference would mark Ezra’s arrival at either 458 or 457 BC. In Nehemiah’s record, “the month of Chislev” (Nov.-Dec) followed by “the month of Nisan” (March-April) both fall within “the twentieth year” of King Artaxerxes (Neh. 1:1; 2:1), although whose twentieth year is not actually specified in the opening verse. Depending on whether the regnal year is predated to the accession year, or the regnal year is counted autumnally (as in the Jewish civil calendar), or the Persians were using accession dating, this would place Nehemiah’s journey to Jerusalem in either 445 or 444 BC. 

When all is said and done, there is no direct evidence to confirm which regnal dating system the Persians employed in their homeland.¹⁰ And if Ezra, a religious priest-scribe, and Nehemiah, an official of the Persian court, used different calendrical systems,¹¹ precision dating is even more elusive. Nevertheless, among the many reconstructed chronologies of the Persian period involving specific dates, a difference of only one year is relatively insignificant considering such a vast expanse of time.   

--Kevin L. Moore

*Originally prepared for the 2023 FHU Lectures.

Endnotes:

     ¹ Solar calendar–Egyptians, Persians, Romans; lunar calendar–Jews, with each year eleven or twelve days shorter than a solar year and months varying year to year; lunisolar calendar–Babylonians, Macedonians, Chinese. The Persians did not disturb the dating systems of the Egyptians and Babylonians but were instead influenced by them (Leo Depuydt, “Regnal Years and Civil Calendar in Achaemenid Egypt,” JEA 81 [1995]: 151-73).  

     ² The Babylonians practiced postdating and the Egyptians predating until replaced by accession dating in the second century BC.

     ³ Established in Egypt as a divine directive in connection with the Passover and exodus, originally called Aviv or Abib (“barley ripening”) in the Hebrew language (Ex. 12:1; 13:4; 23:15; 34:18; Deut. 16:1).

     ⁴ This marked the end of the dry and barren summer and the beginning of the early rain season bringing forth new life. The mid-year or “return” [teshubah] was in the spring (2 Sam. 11:1; 1 Kings 20:22, 26; 1 Chron. 20:1; 2 Chron. 36:10).

     ⁵ Ezra 6:19; Neh. 8:14, 18; cf. Ezra 7:8-9; 8:31; 10:9, 16-17; Neh. 7:73; 8:2, 13. Note that Ezra 8:31 approximates the timing of the Egyptian exodus; cf. also Neh. 10:34-35.

     ⁶ Ezra 6:15; Neh. 1:1; 2:1; 6:15; compare Esth. 3:7.

     ⁷ Ezra 1:1; 4:24; 5:13; 6:3, 15; 7:7-8; Neh. 1:1–2:1; 5:14; 13:6; cf. Ezra 4:5-23; 7:1; 8:1; Neh. 12:22.

     ⁸ The Ahasuerus of Ezra 4:6 is probably the same Ahasuerus of Esther 1:1–8:12, contemporary of Mordechai, whose great-grandfather had been exiled by Nebuchadnezzar in 597 BC (Esth. 2:5-6). This Ahasuerus is accordingly to be identified as Xerxes I (485-465 BC), son and successor of Darius I. The Greek version Ξέρξης (Xerxes) is the Persian name Xšayāršā rendered in Babylonian Aḥšiyaršu and borrowed into Hebrew as Ăḥašwêrôš (spelled phonetically according to the unfamiliar sounds of a foreign name), transliterated in Latin Ahasuerus and English Ahasuerus (see W. S. McCullough, “Ahasuerus,” in Encyclopædia Iranica 1.6 [New York: Online Edition, 1996]: 634-35). The Ahasuerus of Daniel 9:1 (father of Darius the Mede), and the Ahasuerus of the apocryphal Tobit 14-15 (in league with Nebuchadnezzar), appear to be different persons.

     ⁹ Assuming he took the throne immediately, although the latest point of transition would have been January 464 BC (Leo Depuydt, “Evidence for Accession Dating under the Achaemenids,” JAOS 115.2 [April-June 1995]: 193-204).

     ¹⁰ Muhammad A. Dandamaev and Vladimir G. Lukonin, The Culture and Social Institutions of Ancient Iran (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1989): 291; Depuydt, “Evidence” 193-204 (though making a case for potential accession dating).

     ¹¹ Aaron Demsky, “Who Came First, Ezra or Nehemiah? The Synchronistic Approach,” Hebrew Union College Annual 64 (1994): 1-17; cf. Hannah K. Harrington, The Books of Ezra and Nehemiah (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2022): 36.  

Related Posts: Timing of Events Ezra-Neh Part 1, Part 3, Part 4, Proposed Chronology of Postexilic Period BC, Alleged Discrepancies in Ezra-Nehemiah Part 1

Image credit: https://about-history.com/the-invention-of-the-calendar-and-its-use-throughout-history/

Why is the Timing of Events in Ezra-Nehemiah So Confusing? (Part 1 of 4): Introduction

 

It is beyond the scope of this study to address the complex and multifaceted questions concerning the composition and authorship of the canonical books of Ezra and Nehemiah. Nevertheless, some preliminary matters warrant our attention.

According to early and long-held Jewish tradition, the books of Ezra and Nehemiah were at one time combined as a single volume under the name of Ezra.¹ However, seeing that Ezra and Nehemiah were contemporaries (Neh. 8:9; 12:26-40), and the work includes first-person accounts from each (Ezra 7:27–9:15; Neh. 1:1–7:5; 12:27-43; 13:4-31), the final composition is conceivably the collaborative effort of both men. Linguistic, thematic, and literary differences,² along with uniformity of narration and style,³ support this proposal. The presumption of anonymous compiler(s), editor(s), or chronicler(s) is more speculative. For the purpose of this study we will simply reference the traditional attributions as per the main characters.  

Irrespective of human authorship and whether these writings are viewed as a literary unit or two separate entities, the entire work is clearly a compilation of data from various sources, including extensive lists of names and genealogies,⁴ other itemized catalogues of people, leaders, cities, temple articles, animals, and donations,⁵ official correspondence, including original Aramaic transcripts,⁶ first-person testimonies (memoirs?) of Ezra and Nehemiah,⁷ and even biblical texts.⁸

Long before the present-day copyright mentality, the meticulous documenting of sources was not necessary. In ancient oral cultures an author could reasonably assume his readers or listeners were familiar with and could easily recognize quoted materials and allusions. The Jews of antiquity were also meticulous record keepers,⁹ too much information to compile into a single manuscript, most of which has been lost or destroyed through the ages. Incorporating selected facts and figures into biblical documents has ensured their preservation.¹⁰

Presumptive Accuracy

The prolific use of historical time markers in Ezra-Nehemiah reflects an intentional concern for the historicity of the recorded materials. Moreover, the place of Ezra-Nehemiah in the Hebrew canon is undisputed and therefore implicitly included among “all God-breathed scripture” (2 Timothy 3:15-16).¹¹ If all scripture is divinely inspired, then all scripture, including Ezra-Nehemiah, is necessarily inerrant. How, then, do we account for the confusing ambiguities and apparent discrepancies?

These issues will be addressed in the next few articles.

--Kevin L. Moore

*Originally prepared for the 2023 FHU Lectures.

Endnotes:

     ¹ A single scroll would have been more practical but not necessarily indicative of single authorship. Origin of Alexandria (ca. AD 185-253) reportedly divided the work into two volumes, both bearing Ezra’s name, with the second renamed Nehemiah in the Latin Vulgate. The apocryphal I Esdras is generally regarded as derivative of the canonical books of Chronicles and Ezra-Nehemiah.

     ² Nissim Amzallag, “The Authorship of Ezra and Nehemiah in Light of Differences in Their Ideological Background,” JBL 137:2 (2018): 271-97. Substantial usage of sources, however, significantly challenges arguments based on linguistic and stylistic differences.

     ³ Joseph Blenkinsopp, Ezra-Nehemiah, OTL (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1988): 47-54; Tamara C. Eskenazi, “The Chronicler and the composition of 1 Esdras,” CBQ 48.1 (Jan. 1986): 42-43. Barry L. Bandstra calls Ezra-Nehemiah “two parts of one book” (Reading the Old Testament: An Introduction to the Hebrew Bible. 3rd ed. [Belmont, CA: Thomson-Wadsworth, 2004]: 494).

     ⁴ Ezra 2:2-69; 10:18-43; Neh. 3:1-32; 7:5-63; 10:1-27; 11:1-36; 12:1-26.

     ⁵ Ezra 1:9-11; 2:62-70; 8:2-14; Neh. 7:61-72; 11:25-36; 12:28-29.

     ⁶ Ezra 1:2-4; 4:11-22; 5:7-17; 6:2-12; 7:12-26.

     ⁷ Ezra 7:27–9:15; Neh. 1:1–7:5; 12:27-43; 13:4-31. Other sections betray probable first-hand accounts, viz. Ezra 7:1-10; 10:1-44; Neh. 8:10; 12:44-47; 13:1-3. Switching to third person narration could simply be stylistic (Hannah K. Harrington, The Books of Ezra and Nehemiah [Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2022]: 4-5). Ancient Jewish tradition affirms the preservation of sources “in the records and in Nehemiah’s memoirs, as well as how he founded a library and collected the books about the kings and the prophets, the books of David, and the royal letters about votive offerings” (2 Macc. 2:13).

     ⁸ Ezra 1:1; 3:2, 4, 10-11; 5:1; 6:14; 7:6, 10-12, 14, 21, 25-26; 9:10; Neh. 1:7-9; 8:1-18; 9:3-35; 10:29, 34, 36; 12:45; 13:1; cf. 2 Chron. 26:22; 32:32.

     ⁹ Cf. Gen. 5:1; 1 Chon. 9:1; 27:24; Ezra 8:34; Neh. 7:5. Records would have included “annalistic national histories composed by prophets, partly from the archives of the kingdom and other public documents, partly from prophetic monographs containing prophecy and history, either composed and continued by various prophets in succession during the existence of both kingdoms, or brought together in a connected form shortly before the ruin of the kingdom out of the then existing contemporary historical documents and prophetic records” (C. F. Keil, “The Books of the Chronicles,” in Keil and Delitzch’s Biblical Commentary on the Old Testament [Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1968]: 32-33).

     ¹⁰ Considering the historical continuity and common literary environment that includes 1-2 Chronicles, no fewer than thirty-two sources have been noted, not counting intertextual appropriation from the books of Samuel, Kings, Psalms, Isaiah, Jeremiah, and Lamentations. See David M. Howard, Jr., “Sources in 1 & 2 Chronicles,” in An Introduction to the Old Testament Historical Books (Chicago: Moody, 1993): 271-75; also Keil, “Chronicles” 32, 38. According to rabbinic tradition, Ezra authored the genealogies in the books of Chronicles (Baba Bartha 15a) and a portion of the Psalms (Song of Songs Rabbah 4.19). Approximately 70% of Ezra-Nehemiah is comprised of source material (Joseph Blenkinsopp, Ezra-Nehemiah, OTL [Philadelphia: Westminster, 1988]: 49; Harrington 3).

     ¹¹ Unless noted otherwise, scripture quotations are the author’s own translation. Rather than regarding only some scriptures inspired (ASV, NEB, REB), Paul’s affirmation is applicable to all the sacred writings (CSB, ESV, NASB, NIV, N/KJV). On the canonical placement of Ezra-Nehemiah, see Gregory Goswell, "The Changing Contexts of Ezra-Nehemiah in the Canon,"JETS 67.2 (2024): 207-219. 

Related Posts: Timing of Events Ezra-Neh Part 2, Part 3, Part 4, Proposed Chronology of the Postexilic Period BC, Alleged Discrepancies in Ezra-Nehemiah, Numerical Discrepancies in Ezra-Nehemiah

Image credit: https://angelusnews.com/news/vatican/pope-declares-special-sunday-each-year-dedicated-to-word-of-god/

Alleged Discrepancies in Ezra-Nehemiah (Part 2 of 2)

Historical Anomaly: Elderly Priests and Levites

Among the priests and Levites who accompanied Zerubbabel in the first year of Cyrus, documented in Ezra chap. 2 and Nehemiah chaps. 7 and 12, a number of the names are repeated in the list of those who placed their seal on a document drafted nearly ninety-five years later in the twentieth year of Artaxerxes (Neh. 10:1-27). If each name refers to the same person, this would make the signatories at least 120 years old or older, not impossible but realistically unlikely. 

Even though the accounts in Ezra 2 and Nehemiah 7 concern the bə·nê (“sons” or “people”) of those listed, common usage of patronyms and papponyms (boys named after their fathers, grandfathers, and other male ancestors) and other culturally popular monikers readily account for the same names appearing in subsequent generations.¹

Historical Anomaly: Artaxerxes’ Contribution to the Temple

It is stated in Ezra 6:14 (in the Aramaic section of 4:8–6:18) that the temple was completed by divine decree and according to the order of “Cyrus, Darius, and Artaxerxes king of Persia.” The initial order came from Cyrus around 539 BC (Ezra 1:1-4; 6:3-12), was then reissued by Darius about nineteen years later in his second year (Ezra 4:24; 6:1, 8-13), and the building project was finished around 516 BC, his sixth year (Ezra 6:15). But why would Ezra include Artaxerxes, whose decree in his seventh year (Ezra 7:7-27) was nearly six decades after the temple had been completed? 

Artaxerxes I Longimanus did in fact contribute to the continued restoration and beautification of the temple,² and Ezra affirms the contemporary king’s support of Jewish interests in line with other prominent rulers. Ezra simply summarizes the entire history of the temple to his present day.

--Kevin L. Moore

Endnotes:

     ¹ See A. Philip Brown II, “Chronological Anomalies in Ezra,” Bibliotheca Sacra 162 (Jan.-March 2005): 68-84.

     ² If Ezra had given the impression that the temple was completely finished in the distant past, opponents could have challenged what Artaxerxes did for the temple’s ongoing restoration – silver, gold, utensils, offerings, and whatever else was needed to “beautify” (ESV), “glorify” (CSB), “adorn” (NASB 1995), or “bring honor to” (NIV) the temple (Ezra 7:27).

Related Posts: Alleged Discrepancies Ezra-Neh. Part 1, Numerical Discrepancies in Ezra-Nehemiah, Proposed Chronology of Postexilic Period BC 

Image Credit: https://aleteia.org/2020/12/11/the-most-read-bible-verses-in-2020/

 

Alleged Discrepancies in Ezra-Nehemiah (Part 1 of 2)

Genealogical Incongruities 

Ezra is said to be the “son of Seraiah” (Ezra 7:1), yet Seraiah was killed when Jerusalem was overthrown by the Babylonians in 596 BC (2 Kings 25:18-25) and his son Jehozadak was taken into captivity (1 Chron. 6:14-15). Ezra does not appear in the historical narrative until approximately 138 years later in the seventh year of Artaxerxes (Ezra 7:7-8). This seems chronologically implausible. 

The word “son” (Heb. ben) does not always denote direct offspring but is also applicable to grandsons (Gen. 31:17, 28, 55) and more remote lines of descent (Josh. 22:24-27; 2 Kings 10:30; Ezra 2:3-61). Lengthy genealogical tables are characteristically incomplete. While names could be skipped or lost inadvertently, they were usually omitted intentionally to keep the preservation of a sizeable family tree manageable, especially when certain individuals were considered insignificant or inconsequential to the chronographer’s purpose. Many names would fall outside the main lines of descent, and genealogies were naturally segmented rather than unbroken links.¹ This is evident in Ezra 7:1-5 when compared to 1 Chronicles 6:3-15. In fact, Ezra 7:3 skips six generations listed in 1 Chronicles 6:7-10.

Historical Anomaly: Johanan and Jaddua 

The conventional dating of Ezra-Nehemiah has been challenged due to names such as Johanan and Jaddua appearing much later in other historical records. In the time period of Ezra and Nehemiah, the high priest was Eliashib (Neh. 3:1-21; 13:28), whose son was Johanan (Ezra 10:6; Neh. 12:22-23) and great-grandson Jaddua (Neh. 12:10-11, 22), with Nehemiah’s reporting concurrent with the reign of Darius the Persian (Neh. 12:22, 26). About twenty-six years after Nehemiah’s account, the Elephantine papyri confirm Johanan as high priest in Sanballat’s later years (Sachau, Pap. 1.29), posing no chronological difficulty. However, Josephus mentions Jaddua as high priest not long before Darius III lost the empire to Alexander the Great in 330 BC (Ant. 11.8.2-5), about a century after Nehemiah’s report. While it is possible that the Jaddua of Nehemiah was quite young and the Jaddua of Josephus was quite old, this still seems like an improbable stretch. 

Critics who challenge the integrity of Ezra-Nehemiah apparently do not judge secular sources with the same level of scrutiny.² Nonetheless, name matching alone does not take into account the recurrence of identical names of different people in alternate generations. The Jaddua of Nehemiah is not referred to as high priest, and if one assumes he is the high priest of Josephus’ narrative, one would also have to explain the inclusion of Sanballat, still alive, albeit advanced in years, in the same historical setting (Ant. 11.8.2-4). Either Josephus has made a chronological mistake, or there was more than one Jaddua and more than one Sanballat.³ The name Sanballat was in fact worn by multiple persons, historically confirmed as Nehemiah’s adversary and, according to Samaria papyri, another in the mid-fourth century BC.⁴ There are even two different men in Nehemiah’s report by the name of Jaddua – a descendant of Jeshua the high priest (Neh. 12:11, 22), and a Levite who sealed the covenant with Nehemiah (Neh. 10:21).⁵

--Kevin L. Moore

Endnotes:

     ¹ When Jesus is called “the son of David, the son of Abraham” (Matt. 1:1), obviously immediate parentage is not in view. Matthew neatly arranges the Lord’s ancestry in three sets of fourteen generations apiece. In fourteen generations there are literally 8,192 twelfth-great-grandfathers. As was typical in long genealogical tables, a number of names are omitted, e.g., three kings of Judah (Matt. 1:8, 17; cf. 2 Kings 8:24; 1 Chron. 3:11; 2 Chron. 22:1), maintaining this symmetrical balance. Having been written in a predominantly oral culture where few would have had the opportunity to own a copy of the text, this arrangement makes memorization easier.

     ² Edward Mack candidly observes, “all fair-minded men should recognize that a clear and straightforward declaration of the Sacred Scriptures is not to be summarily rejected because of its apparent contradiction by some unknown and irresponsible person, who could stamp clay or chisel stone” (“Chronology of the Old Testament,” rev. Melvin Grove Kyle, in ISBE, ed. James Orr [Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1980]: 1:636).

     ³ On the proclivity of Josephus to make factual mistakes or to record information unsubstantiated elsewhere, see Carl G. Tuland, “Josephus, Antiquities, Book XI: Correction or Confirmation of Biblical Post-Exilic Records?” AUSS 4.2 (31 Dec. 1966): 176-92; also Derek Kidner, Ezra and Nehemiah: An Introduction and Commentary (Westmont, IL: Inter-Varsity Press, 1979): 145-46.

     ⁴ F. M. Cross, Jr., “The Discovery of the Samaria Papyri,” BA 26 (1963): 119-21.

     ⁵ Note the distinction between the priests and the Levites (Neh. 10:8-9; 12:7-8, 12, 22, 24; cf. Num. 18:1-6), with at least two other men named Jeshua among the latter in Nehemiah’s record (Neh. 10:9; 12:8, 24).

Related Posts: Alleged Discrepancies in Ezra-Nehemiah Part 2, Numerical Discrepancies in Ezra-Nehemiah, Chronology of Postexilic Period 

Image Credit: https://olsenpark.com/Bulletins22/FS24.44.html

Numerical Discrepancies in Ezra-Nehemiah

According to the biblical records of both Ezra and Nehemiah, the total number of Israelites who returned from Babylonian exile to rebuild the Jerusalem temple was 42,360, with 7,337 additional singers and servants (Ezra 2:64-65; Neh. 7:66-67). Ezra and Nehemiah provide almost identical lists of these people, but their numbers are not consistent. Those listed by Ezra add up to 29,818 (Ezra 2:1-58), whereas Nehemiah’s listing adds up to 31,089 (Neh. 7:5-61), a difference of 1,271. In total there are seventeen divergences in numbering between the two lists.¹ 

EZRA 2	NEHEMIAH 7	Difference
v.5 sons of Arah: 775	v.10 sons of Arah: 652	-123
v.6 sons of Pahath-moab: 2,812	v.11 sons of Pahath-moab: 2,818	+6
v.8 sons of Zattu: 945	v.13 sons of Zattu: 845	-100
v.10 sons of Bani: 642	v.15 sons of Binnui: 648	+6
v.11 sons of Bebai: 623	v.16 sons of Bebai: 628	+5
v.12 sons of Azgad: 1,222	v.17 sons of Azgad: 2,322	+1,100
v.13 sons of Adonikam: 666	v.18 sons of Adonikam: 667	+1
v.14 sons of Bigvai: 2,056	v.19 sons of Bigvai: 2,067	+11
v.15 sons of Adin: 454	v.20 sons of Adin: 655	+201
v.17 sons of Bezai: 323	v.23 sons of Bezai: 324	+1
v.28 men of Bethel and Ai: 223	v.32 men of Bethel and Ai: 123	-100
v.33 sons of Lod, Hadid, Ono: 725	v.37 sons of Lod, Hadid, Ono: 721	-4
v.35 sons of Senaah: 3,630	v.38 sons of Senaah: 3,930	+300
v.41 sons of Asaph: 128	v.44 sons of Asaph: 148	+20
v.42 gatekeepers’ sons: 139	v.45 gatekeepers’ sons: 138	-1
v.60 miscellaneous: 652	v.62 miscellaneous: 642	-10
v.65 singers: 200	v.67 singers: 245	+45

            

Ezra’s itemized list of 29,818 people is short of the grand total by 12,542. Nehemiah’s itemized list of 31,089 is short of the grand total by 11,271. Moreover, each includes individuals not mentioned in the other account. Ezra references 494 persons not found in Nehemiah, and Nehemiah has 1,765 persons missing from Ezra. Adding Nehemiah’s additional names to Ezra’s equals 31,583, which is the same amount when adding Ezra’s additional names to Nehemiah’s. However, the combined numbers are still 10,777 short of the total 42,360 as affirmed in each account (Ezra 2:64; Neh. 7:66). 

Qualifying Variables

·      Each listing is representative, and neither claims to be exhaustive.

·      Ezra’s list seems to have been compiled in Babylon before departure (cf. Ezra 2:1),² while Nehemiah’s much larger list (accessed approx. 13 years later) focuses on those who actually arrived in Jerusalem (cf. Neh. 7:5). Births, deaths, and other circumstances would surely have altered these figures. 

·      The entire congregation consisted of men, women, and children, whereas only the “men” are specifically numbered (Ezra 2:2; Neh. 7:7). The conventional counting of males 20 years of age and above,³ along with the considerable time involved in preparing, relocating, and settling the multitude, must allow for the maturation of boys to men during the process.

·      Since the primary focus of both Ezra and Nehemiah is Jerusalem in the land of Judah (Ezra 1:2-3; 2:1; 4:6; 5:1; Neh. 1:2; 2:5; 7:6), they document families of the tribes of “Judah and Benjamin” (Ezra 1:5; 4:1; Neh. 11:4, 36), along with prominent Levites (Ezra 2:40, 70; 6:18; Neh. 7:43). The whole congregation of Israel then included other tribes (numbering 10,777 persons) located in other cities (Ezra 2:70; 3:1; 6:16-17, 21; Neh. 7:73).

Contextual Perspective 

While there will always be critics attempting to microscopically find fault, any questions or concerns that might be raised regarding the divine inspiration and integrity of the biblical record are unfounded. The primary aim of Ezra-Nehemiah is clearly theological, albeit within a real historical context, providing a spiritual foundation for future generations of God’s restored people. 

Narrative details that might capture our interest, whether historical, chronological, statistical, et al., are merely secondary to this higher purpose and not designed to satisfy our superficial curiosities. Mathematical precision was obviously not the purpose of the respective reports, although the meticulous numbering does reflect the enormity of the task and demonstrates the careful attention to organization. 

All things considered, the similarities between Ezra 2 and Nehemiah 7 are much more remarkable than the variations. While itemized differences reflect independent reporting, the fact that Ezra and Nehemiah both end up with the same exact number of repatriated Israelites surely confirms divine consistency.

--Kevin L. Moore

Endnotes:

     ¹ Thanks to Joseph R. Nally, Jr., “Q&A Knowledgebase,” Thirdmill (retrieved 24 Sept. 2021), <Link>.

     ² The masculine plural participle הָֽעֹלִים֙ [hā·‘ō·lîm] in Ezra 2:1 is more literally rendered “went up out of” (ASV) rather than “came up out of” (NASB).

     ³ Ezra 3:8; cf. Ex. 30:14; 38:26; Num. 1:3, 18-45; 14:29; 26:2, 4; 32:11; 1 Chron. 23:24, 27; 27:23; 2 Chron. 25:5; 31:17. 

Related Posts: Alleged Discrepancies in Ezra-Nehemiah Part 1, Proposed Chronology of Postexilic Period BC 

Related articles: Neal Pollard, The Restorers

 

Image credit: https://www.masterfile.com/search/en/confusing+math+equation+on+blackboard