The independence of the book cannot be main tained. The identity of the termination of Chroni cles with the commencement of Ezra skews one writer ; and in connection with the abruptness of the former, that both at first were parts of the same work. It is likely that Ezra (with Nehe miah) was first put to the collection of sacred historical books ; and that the portion now called the Chronicles was appended to it as the last part, some time afterwards. This agrees with the posi tion of Chronicles in the Hagiographa as the closing book. When the Chronicles were thus disposed in the canonical list, the last two verses now in 2 Chron. xxxvi., which stood already at the beginning of Ezra, were repeated, for the purpose of reminding the reader that the continuation of the narrative was to be found elsewhere. At the time of the LXX. the separation already existed, because the book of Ezra has a distinct title in their version. The beginning of the apocryphal Ezra or Esdras favours this view ; the writer pass ing at once from the history in 2 Chron. xxxvi. 21 to Ezra i., using the now separated books as one. The same conclusion is confirmed by the prevailing belief of the Jews that Ezra wrote both. The Tal mud asserts in one place that Ezra wrote the work bearing his name, and the genealogies (in the Chronicles) as far as the word 19 (2 Chron. xxi. 2), but that Nehemiah completed the book of Ezra. In another place this is contradicted, and the whole ascribed to Nehemiah.
Some, perhaps, will object to the statement that the Artaxerxes in iv. 7 and vii. t-ii were the same, and allege that the compiler thought them different, by giving the names a somewhat different orthography. It is observable that is twice spelled with in iv. 7 ; while in vii.
it has P instead of (j; the compiler finding it so written in the Chaldee pieces respectively. This, however, seems too small a point to insist upon. If it be of any weight, it makes no differ ence in our argument ; for in any case the redac tor was mistaken. There was no Artaxerxes before Darius, as well-attested history shews ; or, to speak more correctly, none called In Ezra i. 7-it, the sacred vessels which Nebu chadnezzar had carried away at several limes from the temple are enumerated! as-3o chargers of gold, moo of silver. 20 knives, 30 cups of gold.
410 silver double cups, and moo other vessels. The whole number is stated to be 540o, whereas the sum of those specified is only 2499. The Pseudo-Ezra mentions moo cups of gold, and moo of silver, 29 silver knives, 3o chargers of gold, and 24 to chargers of silver, with woo other vessels, making together 5469. Josephus, again, makes up the number 540o. Both the apocryphal Ezra and Josephus arbitrarily alter the Hebrew.
There are three lists of the number of re turned exiles, viz., in Ezra ii. 1-67 ; in the apocry phal Esdras v. ; and Neh. vii. 6-69. The three vary here and there in relation to single names and the sum total. In Ezra the aggregate
of the numbers is 29,818, in Nehemiah, 31,089. In the Septuagint Ezra it is 29,627, and in the Septuagint Nehemiah 31,199. In Esdras of the rrou41 it is 30,043, of the Alexandrian codex 33,932, of the Aldine, 33,949. But none of these, even the highest, reaches the given total, viz., Josephus reckons the priests without a family register, 525, but their number is not in the O. T. Doubtless the three lists are imperfect ; both names and numbers being deficient in all. It is impossible to tell which is, on the whole, the most accurate.
The number of men who returned under Zenib babel or Sheshbazzar is 42,360. Including their families, the sum total probably amounted to 200,000 persons, provided the statement in I Esdras v. 41 be incorrect in placing all boys above twelve years of age among the men ; for if that writer be correct, the sum total would not exceed 17o, 000. Of the whole, 4289 were priests be longing to four great races or families, and a num ber of priests who, not being able to adduce their registers, were excluded from office on that ac count (525, according to Josephus). The Levites among them were but few, 360 or 341. There were 392 nethinim. The people brought with them upwards of 750o slaves of both saxes, and a number of horses, mules, camels, and asses, amounting to upwards of 7000. The number of returning exiles belonged almost entirely to the tribes of Judah, Benjamin, and Levi. According to Ezra ii. 1, and Neh. vii. 6, they returned every one unto his city,' a statement which hardly allows of the conjecture that a great many Israelites of the Assyrian exile joined the Jews. Comparatively few joined their brethren. In the course of 200 years their attachment to heathen customs and manners had been confirmed ; and had they come back in great numbers they would have settled again in their old abodes in Israel, a fact unknown to It is an unfortunate conjecture of Prideaux's that 12,000 of the returning exiles be longed to Israel ; and it is still more incorrect to infer that the whole of such as preferred to remain in Assyria.was six times the number of those who. returned, because four courses only of the priests returned out of the twenty-four. If we reckon that nearly the half returned, we shall not be far from the truth (See the Introductions of Haver nick, Keil, De Wette, and Bleek ; Davidson's In troduction to the Old Testament, vol. ii. ; Keil's Apologearcher Verszeth weber die Belcher Chronik, u. s. w. 1833 ; Kleinert in the Dorpat Beitrligen, s. w., vol. i., p. 1, et seyg., 1832 ; Ewald's Ges des Volkes Israel, vols. i. and iv.; Zunz's Die Gottesdiewstlichen Vortraege der ?idea, 1832; Herz feld's Geschichte des Volkes Isnzel, voL i., 1847 ; Mover's Kritische Untersuchungen ueber die Bib. lische Chronik, 1834.—S. D.