among the exiles, which the prophet also followed.
Bantwh also, though following Graf in the main,
comes to the conclusion that a large part of the
Law of Holiness was prior to Ezekiel and was used
by him as a basis of his discourses. This being
admitted, the same should also hold good for the
rest. Otherwise it would be difficult to explain how later men imitated the prophet's style, but boldly opposed his revelations. Baudissin by an impartial comparison arrives at an essential affirmation of the priority of the Law of Holiness and the Priest Code (apart from Lev. xvi. which may be a later interpolation). Dillmann considers the Law of Holiness as much older than Ezekiel, which however (especially Lev. xxvi.) was revised during the exile with the use of Ezekiel's utterances. The main argument for the opposite view is found in xliv. 6‑13, according to which only the Levitical priests of the house of Zadok are the priests proper; the Levites, however, who had worshiped in the high places, were to perform the lower functions. Here may be perceived the first distinction between classes of Levitos. In Deuteronomy such a difference does not exist; the door to the sanctuary at Jerusalem was open for the priests of the high places (Deut. xviii. 6 sqq.). In the Priest Code, however, the sharp distinction between priests and Levites is traced back to Moses; Ezekiel stood between. But it must be remembered that Ezekiel nowhere stated in what respects the new temple was to resemble the present or differ from it. But he certainly censures as a transgression of the covenant, and as a breach of Mosaic order that strangers should perform the lower temple services. This supposes that that order provided for other temple servants, no doubt Levitical (see Lxv1, Lavrm). Another obvious difference is that Ezekiel does not mention the high priest. But from this it can not be certainly inferred that the prophet did not know the office and that in the preexilic period a head of the priesthood did not exist. History proves the contrary. His silence may be explained from the same point of view as the fact that in place of the preexilic king he puts a modest prince (xliv. 3 sqq.). It is possible that xxi. 26 sqq. is an afterthought, where it is acid: "Remove the diadem, and take off the crown." The prophet presupposes an ancient ordinance traced back to Moses (xx. 10‑11, xliv. 7‑8), according to which he reforms depraved practise, but with prophetical liberty he is not afraid to change ordinances to prevent future abuses or to give a purer expression to the spiritual idea. That Mosaic ordinance is nothing else than the Priest Code, whose directions Ezekiel intensifies in many points in the interest of the holiness of God. It is therefore untenable that he is the lawgiver who created this legislation. It must not be forgotten that he established neither a complete code nor one serving for an immediate use; as a teacher of the Mosaic law he could therefore move more freely in order to emphasize those thin which served his prophetic purpose.
C. VON ORELld.
BIRLIOGRAPHr: The best text is by S. Baer, with Aeeyriolocal notes by Friedrich Delitzsch, Leipei0. 1888, of. C. H. Toy in 3BOT, 1899. Commentaries are by H. Ewald, G6ttingen, 1841; F. Hitzig, Leipaie, 1847; P. Fairbaim, Edinburgh, 1861; E. W. Hengetanberg, Berlin, 1867, Eng. transl., Edinburgh, 1869; C. F. Kell, Leipeuc, 1888; E. Henderson, Edinburgh, 1870; G. Curry, in Bible Commentary, vol.vi., London, 1876; R. Smend, Leipeic, 1880; C. von Orelli, Munich, 1896; A. B. David. son, in Cambridge BiW 1892; J. Skinner, in Expositor's Bibls. London, 1896; A. Berthokt, T9bingen, 1897; R.
Bzra and Nehemiah
Kraetzechmar, GSttingen, 1900; P. Schmalzl, Vienna, 1901; C. M. Cobem, New York, 1901; H. A. RedPath, London, 1907. For questions of criticism consult' C. H. Cornill, Das Buch des Propheten Ezechie4 LeiPsic, 1888; H. Graetz, Ennendationes, vol. ii., Breslau, 1893; D. H. Miiller, EzechieGStudien, Berlin 1894; T. K. Cheyne, in Crit%ca Bablroca, London, 1903. Various phases are treated in: J. J. Balmer‑Rinek, Des Propheten Ezechiel Gesieht room Tempel,, Basel, 1858; B. B6nteeh, Das Heiligkeiteoeeetz. Erfurt, 1893; A. Bertholet, Der Ver/assunpsentwur/ des Hesekiel, Freiburg, 1898. More personal are C. H. Cornill, Der Prophet Ezechiel, Heidelberg, 1882; H. Meulenbelt, De Predikang van den profet Ezekiel, Utrecht, 1888; L. Gautier, La Mission du prophke tztchsel, Lausanne, 1891. Consult also DB, i. 814‑820; EB, ii.1450‑72.
EZION‑GEBER (EZIOft‑GABER).See EL&T8.
THE NEW SCHAFF‑HERZOG
His Powers as a Royal Commissioner (I 1).
His Principal Acts and Methods (§ 2).
His Joint Activity with Nehemiah ($ 3).
Apposition and Final Success (4 4)•
Ezra, poatexilic leader of the Jews and lawgiver,
was through his ancestor Seraiah (II Kings xxv.
lS) connected with the Aaronic line (Ezra vii.
5)• Doubtless this relationship induced him to
acquire that familiarity with the law of Mows by
reason of which he is called " a ready scribe "
(verse 6), which can mean only that he had so
mastered its principles and provisions that he was
that he refused to ask an escort from the king (viii.
22). When he arrived at Jerusalem (458 s.c.) he
appeared not only se the king's representative;
he was the leader of a reenforcement of the Jewish
community amounting to 1,600 males and the means of bringing rich gifts. So that his coming meant the material strengthening of the Jewish commonwealth and the conveyance of the king's favor. The way in which he went to work demonstrated that he was concerned not to act according to arbitrary and selfish ends, but was there to follow the recognized order of procedure.
The record of the doings of Ezra after his coming to Jerusalem given by himself possesses great accuracy and completeness, as even the mutilated Hebrew text indicates. He evidently delivered the gifts of the king to the appointed authorities, and the firman of permission to the Persian representatives in the land. There are traces also of a census of the Jews already settled
s. His there, for his next teak was to investiPrincipal gate the condition of the Jews as a
Acts and community. The first discovery was
Methods. that the practise of intermarrying
with the heathen round about had
been so common that it had invaded even the
priestly families. It is characteristic of the man
that he did not deal with this matter as the repre‑
sentative of royal authority but as a religious leader, reminding them of their duty to the God who was recalling the nation from death to a renewed life. His pleadings were effectual, and the
local leaders of the people were induced to join with him in the movement to purify the community from the evil into which it had fallen. A commission was created to look after the matter, and the business was completed within three months (Ezra ix. 1x. 17).
It is a matter of regret that neither in the memoirs of Ezra nor in the words of the author is there any information concerning the twelve years between the event last narrated and the coming of Nehemiah. On the one aide it is clear that the man whose mission was to restore to honor the house of God and who had brought with him a host of those expert in the direction of the services would not be a laggard in the matter of the g. His joint organization of affairs so important Activitywith to the community and in attempting
Nehemiah. to bring the practise of the people into
accord with the religious ideals. In
accordance with the commands given him, he found
as a prime necessity the awakening in the commu
nity .of the sense that the norms of conduct were
expressed in the law. On the other hand it is
admitted that it was after Nehemiah had come
from the king as a prince and with military escort,
had with strong hands seized the reins of direction
and had overborne the opposition which developed, that the full achievement of the desires of Ezra was accomplished. The explanation of this doubtless is that Ezra purposely abstained from appealing to his own authority and from decreeing and ordaining the changes which he wished to bring about by awakening the popular conscience. Another
side of the explanation is the opposition which was naturally aroused on the side of the heathen, and of a part of the community itself. The very rigor of the separation enforced between Jews and heathen did much to sharpen the opposition and
967 RELIGIOUS ENCYCLOPEDIA
Ms and Xehenniah
even to strengthen the enemy. It is not improbable that the attempt to stop the building of the walls of Jerusalem which was denounced as the antecedent of political revolt had some connection with the reform in the marriage customs of the Jews. And the reports of Nehemiah have something to say about a secret agreement of priests and Levites with the opponents and of an antipathy which bad been aroused. It is indeterminable whether under the stress of opposition and hindrance
4. Opposi‑ Ezra was temporarily absent from tion and Jerusalem, or whether he definitely
Final limited himself to the service of those Success. whose allegiance came willingly until the arrival of Nehemiah, or whether these two men had come to an understanding as to the methods to be employed. At any rate, it is clearly stated that Ezra and Nehemiah were united in the work of the restoration of the law at the celebration referred to in Neh. viii. 8 sqq. It was only after repeated effort that the law‑book was established (in 444 B.C.) as the authoritative guide of the people in the feast lasting seven days, which is recorded in Neh. viii.‑x. The one thing which stands out is that Ezra's recourse was not to force and authority, but he awaited, as did Zerubbabel and Joshua, the voluntary submission of the community to the demands of the law itself. And in the institution of the law as the norm of action, he created a close bond between the home community and the Jewish diaspora. Whoever considers with unprejudiced mind the reports by Ezra and about him can not doubt that for him and his companions and for the circle to whom he came, the book of the law, considering its full effect, must have been an authority of long standing. The citations which appear in the books of Ezra and Nehemiah and the references in the prayers establish that what is there adduced is practically the Pentateuch. But even that the Pentateuch was not wholly in its present form in the time of Ezra is disclosed, according to some scholars, by the tax of the half shekel of Ex. xxx. 13 which must belong to a later time than the third of a shekel of Neh. ix. 33. It is to be noticed, however, that a difference should be made between the desires and the possibilities of an oppressed people, which may account for the earlier tax.
Out of the curiously embellished recollection of the epoch‑making service of the real Ezra and from the fact that after the time of Ezra and Nehemiah the Jews and Samaritans remained strictly separate communities, and that the Samaritans possessed the law in the old character while the Jews had it in the square character, many of the statements concerning the traditional form of the books of the law have originated. Some of these attribute the newer form to Ezra, others to Ezra and the Great Synagogue, who affixed the punctuation (Neh. viii. 8), and others assert that since the law had been forgotten by the Jews Ezra had come from Babylon and reestablished it de novo.
BIHLI0u6APHr: Consult, besides the literature given under
ELRA AND NEHEMIAH, BOOKS OF, DB, i. 820‑821; BB, ii.
1473‑78; JR, v. 821 eqq.
EZRA AND NEHEMIAH~ BOOKS OF.
I. Transmission of the Text. The Corrections Traced
1. The Arabic Version. to Their Source (§ 2).
Ears Based on the Septu‑ 4. The Latin Version.
agint (§ 1). 5. The Hebrew Text.
Nehemiah a Revised Syr‑ II. Composition of the Books.
iac (§ 2). Analysis of the Books
2. The Syriac Version. (§ 1).
3. The Greek Version. The Sources Employed
Its Fidelity to the Hebrew (§ 2).
(§ 1) The Author's Purpose
L Transmission of the Text.‑1. TheArabic Version: In the London Polyglot the two books bear the title " First and Second Books of Ezra the Priest," and there are indications that the two books were translated by different hands. This is substantiated by the fact that Ezra was translated from the Septuagint and Nehe‑
1. Ezra miah from the Syriac. AB a result,
Based on the text is untrustworthy. But while the Septna‑misunderstanding of the basal text fit' is frequent and mistakes are numerous, it is clear that the Septuagint was by the translator regarded as authoritative, especially the recension represented by the Alexandrine and Vatican codices, particularly by the former.
The text of Nehemiah is much shortened, and that this is not due to gaps in the exemplar before the translator is shown by his especial dislike for the lists of names; e.g., Neh. vii. 6‑72 is omitted for the stated reason that it duplicates Ezra ii., and for the names given after Pashhur (Neh. x. 3) to xii. 27 he substitutes " and the remainder of their company," and similar omissions occur in the lists of the builders in chap. iii. as also in chap. xii.
2. Nehe‑ 33‑34, 41. The traces of origin from miah a Re‑ the Syriac are exceedingly numerous, vised
consisting not merely in the transference of renderings peculiar to that version but in construction and arrangement and in misunderstanding of the original text. To these must be added the fact that the Arabic has errors which can be explained only from a misreading or misunderstanding of the Syriac. Yet it must be remarked that in the passages in Nehemiah which have parallels in Ezra, the Arabic translator of the former was influenced by the Arabic of the latter.
While the principal dependence of the translator of Nehemiah was the Syriac, there are evidences also of other influences. This is shown by the form the name Geshem takes in ii. 13, by the departure from the Syriac text in the corrupt passage iv. 23, by agreement with the Septuagint against the Syriac in vi. 18, by the late form of the word " Siloam " in iii. 15; by the probability that " Bethlehem " in iii. 14 is derived from the Greek Bethacham (for Hebr. BethrHakkarem), and by the fact that in xii. 39"strong‑gate" (for Hebr. " fish‑gate ") misreads the Greek ischuran "strong" for ichthuran "fish." There appears in a number of cases reference to the original Hebrew, often accompanied by true exegetical insight, correcting the sometimes senseless reading of the Syriac and of the Septuagint. Such a case is presented in the literal rendering of the Hebrew " behind their backs" (ix. 26), and another in iv. 10 in the rendering "The heart of the Jews was bold and the
Dww and lffehemiah THE NEW SCHAFF‑HERZOG .. ,
bearers of rubbish were many, but we could not build." So an attempt is made to improve on the Syriac rendering of xiii. 24 by translating " spake half Hebrew, half Aramaic, according to the language of the heathen." The Arabic translation has therefore a mixed character and varying worth.
2. The Syriac Version: Here the printed text is
often untrustworthy. An arbitrary change is made
in pointing "kingdoms " as plural in Neh• ix. 22
against all the witnesses, while Ndamyahis read for
Hebrew I'ramyah and Syriac Nramyah in Neh. xii. 34.
Similar mistakes appear in Ezra vii. 5‑6, viii. 1; Neh.
iv. 23, and elsewhere. Instances occur, however, in
which the original Syriac is corrected after the He
brew text, se in Neh.viii.15‑18 in the alteration of the
words" when they heard" to " that they should
hear" while inNeh•ii•13the Syriac "hill‑fountain"
is a slip of the pen for "dragon‑fountain." But the
Syriac has also a preference for the ending " ‑el "
of translations as in vii. 9, 28, viii. 18, 31. The
rendering is not consistent, the same word in the
original being translated by different words in
different passages. Parallels in other books of the
Bible are drawn upon for illustration by way of
paraphrase, as when hum. xiv. 4 is employed in
Neh. ix. 17. Misunderstandings of the original
are numerous; as when the plane‑name Adrian is
translated " at that time " (Ezra ii. 59), or "the
tower of the furnaces " is displaced by "the neg
lected tower" (Neh. iii. 11), while the figure of
"shaking the lap " in Neh. v. 13 is totally mis
apprehended. The word "servants " presented
such difficulties for the translator that he trans
lated it atone time "sons " (N eh. v. lfi), at another
time as a proper name (Ezra ii. 58), though in the
parallel to the last passage (Neh• vii. 57) he trans
8. The Greek Version:There are many indications that the work of the translators Aquila and Theodotion have been embodied in the text of the Septuagint. But the character of the translation in the two books is so different that evidently two hands have done the work. Nehemiah often shows a strong feeling for the Septuagint method of rendering as opposed to that of Aquila, as when in
ix. 7 all the manuscripts read for " Ur 1. its Fi‑ of the Chaldeea " "the land of the
delity to dees•" This tendency is obscured
the8ebrew.both in Swete's text and in Lagarde's;
and unfortunately Swete's undertaking to give the text of codex B as the groundwork of his text is not consistently carried out, a fault which is somewhat mitigated by the giving of notes which enable one to correct the text. Lagarde'atext is especially full of errors, particularly such as seem due to oversight in proof‑reading. A comparison of the texts of codices A B with S from Ezra ix. 9 on shows that in the first there is an endeavor to reproduce the Hebrew or Aramaic with so great fidelity that regard for Greek grammar has often gone by the board, and when even that would fail, the original is transliterated. This attempt at fidelity is especially
notable in proper names, as when SbnwrEn is
instead of the usual Greek form Samareia. A further result of this comparison shows that the three codices go back upon a common exemplar. This conclusion is not vitiated by the differences which exist between these codices, since many of them are explicable by mistakes of the eye and the ear, by dittography, or omission caused by catching the sameword in a passage further along. And further, the archetype of these three codices must have exhibited the qualities noted, especially an intelligent and well‑directed desire for a faithful reproduction of the Hebrew and Aramaic text. Many of the changes in the individual codices are due to attempts to correct and make intelligible the strange combinations brought about by this desire for fidelity.
Of this class are the corrections noted by Tiachendorf and Swete in the St. Petersburg codex, and the source of these corrections has been discovered in a manuscript seen by Pamphilus. These correc‑
tions are seen at their best in Neh. xi., 2. The Cor‑ in which the gaps are filled in which
rections mere of the Greek text a mere torso,
Traced to and in Neh. xii. where only the first Their of the four classes of priests were given.
So that the extant Greek text has reached its present condition through processes of smoothing, of correction by comparison with the original and through glosses which have been incorporated into the text. Under the Lucian text moat be seen the text of Origen, and into the latter were taken the additions of Theodotion. In this way can be explained the differences between the Lucian text and that of the manuscript of Pamphilus.
In the Greek, as in the Syrian, there are numerous double renderings, explainable on the ground of glosses brought into the text, a notable case of which is found in which " nor we " is introduced before " kept thy law" (Neh• ix. 34.) Sometimes the lengthened text is due to a comparison of a parallel text or to reference to a passage which was thought illustrative.
4. The Latin Version: This exemplifies very much the same errors in transmission as have come to light in examination of the other versions. Inconsistent translations of the same expression occur (cf. Neh. xii. 31, 40 with verse 38). On the other hand Jerome renders by the same expression different words (cf. Neh. viii. ? and 11, silentiurn faciebant). And apparent lacunae are filled in to make the Latin construction complete. He did not follow blindly the instruction of his Jewish teachers, often following the Greek; sometimes rendering mistakenly, as when he wrote de igne Chaldcsorurra for " Ur of the Chaldeea." But his main reliance was the Hebrew text and the Greek versions which came nearest to it. Sometimes he combined in a conflate reading the rendering of two versions, as in Ezra i. 11, where the readings of Lucian and the Septuagint are united. Occasionally where a word was ambiguous, two possible renderings are presented (Neh. v. 10 b, 11 b).