EZRA, BOOK OF The present hook of Ezra, consists of two parts, viz., i. -vi. and vii. -x ; the first containing a history of the company of exiles who returned under Zerubbabel and Joshua, from the first year of Cyrus till the completion of the temple in the sixth year of Darius Hystaspis ; the second, communicating particulars relative to the return of the second caravan under Ezra, and his proceedings in Jerusalem.
The first chapter begins with the closing words of the Chronicles, as far as the middle of the third verse, which belong, therefore, to the Chronicle writer ; and the whole chapter proceeds from one person. The edict of Cyrus, given in the 2d, 3d, and 4th verses, must be a Judaising paraphrase of the original, else Cyrus could not speak of him self in such language as, The Lord God of hea ven hath given me all the kingdoms of the earth ;' which does not harmonise with his treatment of Cyaxares. This is corroborated by the fact that the decree is not the same here as in the 6th chap ter ; though it should be identical in words, if accu rately given. The language and style of the chap ter resemble those of the Chronist. Whether the narrative be an extract from Ezra v. 13-16, vi. 3-5, as Zunz supposes, is doubtful.
The second chapter was found as an original document, and inserted by the Chronicle-writer.
The third chapter belongs to the Chronist, as the manner and language skews. From iv. 6 to 24 is an interpolation, apparently put in the wrong place by the redactor ; for it belongs to Nehe rniah's, not E zra's time. It relates wholly to the building of the city, not the temple. It is impos sible to say where it should be placed. The 6th verse passes suddenly to Xerxes (called Ahasue rus) ; and then Artaxerxes appears in the 7th. The 24th verse is the redactor's, resuming the narrative which had been interrupted by the in terpolated piece. In consequence, however, of the word then, which, in its place at the commencement of the verse can only refer to what immediately precedes, the redactor makes the nar rative state what is incorrect, by transferring to the building of the temple what relates merely to the rebuilding of the city, and so putting Arta xerxes before Darius Hystaspis. The first five verses of chap. iv. belong to Ezra himself, as Zunz has rightly perceived, though he is wrong in including the 6th verse.
We assume that the name Artachschascht must be Artaxerxes Longirnanus, not Smerdis as some have thought ; which agrees with the letter sent to him, given in iv. 11-16, and the king's answer,
17-23 ; for we know from Nehemiah that the building of the walls was thought of under Ar taxerxes ; and the passages in question refer only to the rebuilding of the city. If they referred to the rebuilding of the temple, the case would be otherwise. But there is not a word of that The language in iv. 12, the Jews which come up from thee to us are come unto Jerusalem,' can only re fer to the colony that came under Ezra in the time of Artaxerxes, not to that under Nehemiah in the same reign, because of iv. 23, which does not agree with the record of the building under Nehe miah ; and it would have been meaningless to write to Smerdis in that strain, understanding the caravan under Zerubbabel in the time of Cyrus. Besides, the adversaries write to the king to have search made in the book of the record of thy fathers ; ' whereas, at the time of Smerdis, they had been no more than fifteen years under the Persian dominion. Thus Artachschaschta cannot mean Smerdis, with whom the name does not agree, but Artaxerxes. The writers of the letter carefully abstain from mentioning the previous building of the temple, the more effectually to prejudice the king's mind against the rebuilding of the city. Nothing is plainer than that iv. 11 '6, 17-23, relate to the rebuilding of the walls, not the temple ; and therefore Artaxerxes is meant. At iv. 8 the Chaldee language begins ; v. r-vi. IS is another Chaldee document which existed before the compiler's time. But in vi. 14 the last clause is the redactor's work, viz., and Artaxerxes king of Persia,' to make the passage agree with his insertion of iv. 6-24. Here the name Artaxerxes occurs again in connection with the completion of the temple, and could not therefore have come from him that wrote v. r-vi. IS. The name is a later insertion, as Havernick perceived ; though we cannot believe with him that Ezra added it, because he must have known that Artaxerxes did not promote the building of the temple, and would not even have appended his name out of gratitude for the great gifts that monarch made to the temple, nor because he favoured the Jews gene rally, since, by putting Artaxerxes along with Cyrus and Darius in this connection, Ezra would have misled the reader. Artaxerxes is here the addition of a later hand than that of the Chaldee author of the fragment presented in v. r-vi. 18, because it clashes with what he had just written. To ascribe it to Ezra is to make him employ an unsuitable expression.