Sara Japhet The Supposed Common Autorship of Chronicles and Ezra Nehemia Investigated Anew

Vetus
Testamentum
Vetus Testamentum IOSOT (2013) 36-76
brill.com/vt
The Supposed Common Authorship of Chronicles

and Ezra-Nehemia Investigated Anew
Sara Japhet
Jerusalem (Isr.)
Dedicated with deep gratitude to Professor I. L. Seeligmann
A basic hypothesis in the study of Chr. and of Ezr.-Neh. is the supposition that
these two books originally formed one continuous work, written or compiled
by one author: the Chronicler. The work in its entirety is generally termed
The Chronistic Historiography. Accordingly, it was only during the process
of transmission and canonization that the book was divided into two and Ezr.Neh. was placed separately, in most Hebrew manuscripts before Chr.1
The basis of this general conviction was laid almost simultaneously by two
scholars: L. Zunz2 and F. C. Movers,3 and at the end of the 19th century it was
accepted as general knowledge.4 It became a point of departure for most of the
studies dealing with Chr., Ezr.-Neh. or their period in general and remained up
1)There is also a general unanimity regarding the reason for the assumed separation. With light
variations it runs as follows: The reason for the division has been seen, and probably rightly,
in the fact that Ezr.-Neh. became canonical before Chr. for their contents did not appear in the
older books which had already become canonical whereas those of Chr. did. When later Chr. too
became canonical Ezr.-Neh. still kept its prior place. O. Eissfeldt, The Old Testament, an Introduction, translated by P. R. Ackroyd, 1965, pp. 530-531. Cf. also J. Myers, I Chronicle s, 1965, p. XVII,
and W. Rudolph, Die Chronikbcher, 1955, p. IV.
2)L. Zunz: Dibre-Hayamim oder die Bcher der Chronik, Die Gottesdienstlichen Vortrge der
Juden, historisch Entwickelt, 1832, pp. 13-36.
3)F. C. Movers: Kritische Untersuchungen ber die biblische Chronik, 1834.
4)Thus it was correctly stated by C. C. Torrey that It is at present generally agreed that Chr.Ez.-Neh. originally formed one book, which was put in its final form by the author of the book
of Chronicles, commonly called the Chronicler. The Composition and Historical Value of Ezra
Nehemiah, B. Z. A. W. 2, 1896, p. I. A systematic summary of the discussion is given by A. Kuenen,
Historisch Kritische Einleitung in die Bcher des A. T. 1890, I 29 p. 111ff., and by S. R. Driver, Introduction to the literature of the O.T. 1891 (Enlarged in the following editions).
Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, 1968
DOI: 10.1163/15685330-99000008
S. Japhet / Vetus Testamentum IOSOT (2013) 36-76
37
to our times unshaken5 and unchanged.6 An immediate result was that each
book was dealt with in constant reference to the other, and the consequences
for the understanding of the books, the historical period they describe and the
religious concepts they contain were enormous.7
The hypothesis is sustained by four main arguments:
1. The presence of the first verses of Ezr. at the end of Chr.8
2.1 Esdras begins with 2 Chr. xxxv-xxxvi and continues through Ezr.9
It is interesting to note that J. Wellhausen, while accepting the general opinion in the introductory words to his famous chapter on Chr. totally ignores it in the investigation itself, and deals
only with Chr. proper.
5)It seems superfluous to mention all the studies that were based on this assumption. On the
other hand, the number of those opposed is quite small. They include: W. M. L. de Wette,
Lehrbuch der historisch-kritische Einleitung in das A.T.6 1845 I, pp. 290-292; E. Knig, Einleitung in
das A.T., 1893, p. 285. W. A. L. Elmslie accepted it in his first commentary (Cambridge Bible, 1916),
but changed his attitude afterwards (Interpreters Bible, 1954, III. pp. 345, 347-8). We should also
mention M. H. Segal: The Books of Ezra-Nehemiah, Tarbiz XIV 1943, pp. 81-86 (Hebrew) and
I. M. Grintz: Aspects of the History of the High Priesthood, Zion XXII-XXIV, 1958-59, pp. 138-140
(Hebrew; English summary, p. II).
6)The position recently advanced by K. Galling, Die Bcher der Chr. Esr. Neh. (ATD, 1954) that
not one author but two are responsible for the present work, is of no consequence from the point
of view of this study. Galling maintains that the two strata in Chr. continue also through Ezr.Neh. as a part of one composition, and thus the main assumption remains unchanged. The same
is true also for the view maintained by A. S. Kapelrud who assumed that The Chronicler is not
one single author personality... By this designation we must rather understand a whole circle or
more probably groups of circles... The Question of Authorship in the Ezra Narrative, 1944, p. 97.
Here, too, Ezr.-Neh. and Chr. are regarded as a linguistic and theological unity.
7)As an example only we could suggest the question of the historical reliability of Ezr.-Neh. The
Chr.s tendentious way of dealing with historical material is famous (although its extent is still in
dispute) as is sharply stated by Torrey: No fact of O.T. criticism is more firmly established than
this: that the Chronicler, as a historian is thoroughly untrustworthy, op. cit., p. 52. If Ezr.-Neh. was
written or edited by the same author, how much can we rely on it as an historical source? On the
other hand, many scholars find in Ezr.-Neh. an anti-Samaritan attitude (Cf. M. Noth, berlieferungsgeschichtliche Studien, I, 1943, p. 164ff.). If the two books are really one, it is only natural to
look for it in Chr. too. But is it really to be found there?
8)Ezr. i 1-3a // 2 Chr. xxxvi 22-23. Cf. Zunz, op. cit., second edition 1892, p. 22, Rudolph, EsraNehemiah, 1949, p. XXII brings it as his sole argument.
9)Zunz, op. cit., p. 30 and others. Rudolph does not mention this argument at all, in either of his
commentaries, as a consequence of his general statement that dass 3 Esra sachlich und in der
Anordnung des Stoffes nirgends vor der kanonischen Darstellung den Vorzug verdient Esr.-Neh.,
p. XV.
38
3.The linguistic resemblance between the books as revealed by common

vocabulary, syntactic phenomena and stylistic peculiarities.10
4.The alleged uniformity of theological conceptions, expressed both in the
material and its selection.11
Most weight is given to the last two arguments, which are internal and relate to
the main elements of the literary unit.
The purpose of the present study is to raise anew the question of the linguistic and stylistic resemblances of the two books.12 We ask whether the two
books could really have been written by one author.
The research of many scholars has resulted in the unequivocal conclusion
that the language of Chr. and Ezr.-Neh. belongs to the same linguistic stratum13
i.e., the late biblical Hebrew which differs in many important respects from
pre-exilic Hebrew, and represents in many aspects the intermediate phase
between biblical and Mishnaic Hebrew. This stratum also includes the biblical
books Daniel, Esther and Eccl. and non-biblical texts.14 However, the strong
resemblance between Chr. and Ezr.-Neh. was regarded not only as the general
similarity of a comprehensive linguistic stratum but as a peculiar stylistic quality which represents the personal stamp of one author.15 It was argued that no
other interpretation could do justice to such a strong resemblance.
The weakness of these studies was their lack of interest in the differences
between the two books, which is only natural. In the attempt to highlight all
the points of similarity, the points of difference were overlooked and neglected.
The study of these differences, both linguistic and stylistic, will show that on
10)These are given in detail by Driver, op. cit., fifth edition 1894, pp. 502-507, and E. L. CurtisA. A. Madsens commentary on Chronicles (I.C.C. 1910), pp. 27-36.
11) Alleged by all studies. Cf. Zunz, p. 22, and all the following studies. They also resemble each
other in the point of view from which the history is treated, in the method followed in the choice
of materials as well as in the preference shown for particular topics. (Driver, op. cit., p. 484).
12)We hope to deal with the question of their theological world in another context.
13)Among others, Torrey, Driver, Curtis and A. Kropat: Die syntax des Autors der Chronik,
B.Z.A.W. XVI, 1909.
14)Mainly the Samaritan Pentateuch, cf. G. Gerleman, Synoptic Studies in the Old Testament,
Lund 1948, pp. 3-7, the Isaiah Scroll, cf. E. Y. Kutscher, The language and linguistic background of
the Isaiah Scroll, Jerusalem, 1959, pp. IX-XII.
15)It is worth noting that A. Kropat differed in this respect from the general opinion, but as
his main concern was to examine the syntactical structure of the language found in Chr. and in
Ezr.-Neh. in comparison with earlier Hebrew he did not insist on this distinction. He states that
Hierbei ist es ohne Belang dass der Chronist aller Wahrscheinlichkeit nach nicht ein einzelnes
Individuum war sondern als Sammelname zu verstehen ist, op. cit., p. V.
39
the background of late biblical Hebrew each book exhibits strong and distinct
traits of its own, some of which reveal a true linguistic opposition and could
not have been written by one author. The study presented here, while fully
aware of the common linguistic basis, is concerned primarily with the differences between the two books, and presents some of the material in this light.
It remains now, as a preliminary requirement to fix the boundaries of the
material in question. Chr. on the one hand, and Ezr.-Neh. on the other are composite works. Both include various types of material which stem from different
sources. Most of the sources used by the Chr. are well-known16 and by studying
the method of their adaptation we are able to establish and define his own
particular goals and aims.17 In Ezr.-Neh. we are less fortunate since the sources
utilized by the author are not known outside the book itself and the question
as to what material in Ezr.-Neh. may be attributed to these sources and what
was actually composed by the author himself is still a matter of debate.18
In order to form the broadest ground for the present study we preferred
to use the narrowest definition, i.e., to consider only the general edition of
Ezr.-Neh. which is regarded as chronistic, and those portions which are not
subject to debate and are accepted as chronistic by general consensus.
16)They consist, in addition to Samuel and Kings, of parts of Genesis (for example Gen. x, xxv,
etc.), lists from Joshua (for example, Jos. xxi), Psalms (for example, Ps. xcvi, cv, and others), and
more.
17)The classical work in this respect is Wellhausens chapter on Chr. in his Prolegomena zur
Geschichte Israel, 1883, English translation by J. S. Black and A. Menzies, 1885, pp. 171-227. A certain shift was made by M. Noth, op. cit., p. 110ff. Noth discerns in Chr. post Chronistic material
which, according to his criteria, is quite prevalent. In addition he attributes great import to the
conceptions of Ezr.-Neh. As a consequence, a certain shift is made in the estimation of the Chr.s
world and goals.
18)The most extreme opinion is held by C. C. Torrey, who attributes to the Chr. the two parts of
the Ezra Narrative, certain parts of Nehemiahs memoirs (as Neh. iii 1-32; vii 1-69; xi 1-xiii 31, etc.)
and also the Aramaic documents found in Ezr.-Neh. (Cf. Composition, pp. 50, 115, and also his
article: The Aramaic portions of Ezra, AJSL 1907-1908, p. 220). On the other hand, Rudolph tries
to narrow the Chronistic portions in Ezr.-Neh. and he ascribes to Ezra himself even those parts
in the Ezra Narrative which are written in the 3 pers. But he also admits a chronistic adaptation.
(Rudolph, Esr.-Neh., pp. 99-100, 163-165).
On the question of the two parts of the Ezra Narrative, see Torrey, op. cit., Kapelrud, op. cit.,
and lately Mowinckel: Ich und Er in der Esra Geschichte Verbannung und Heimkehr, (Festschr. Rudolph), 1961, pp. 211-234.
40
I.Linguistic Opposition
1.Formation of the Imperfect Consecutive
The form of the impf. cons. is attained through the prefixing of the Ww cons.
to the jussive. This means that, wherever possible, the short form of the impf.
is used and the tone is retracted.19 In 1 pers. sing. the use of the short form
and the retraction of the tone occur more rarely, and the full form of the impf.
is used.20
In late biblical Hebrew the distinction between the short and the full forms
of the impf. is gradually lost.21 Thus, the two forms alternate in the formation of
the impf. cons. and we have, for example, both and .22
This phenomenon is found in Ezr.-Neh. and Daniel, as well as in the Samaritan Pentateuch23 and the Isaiah Scroll.24 There is, in fact, only one exception
to the general picture: the book of Chr., contrary to the general tendency of the
period, uses clearly and systematically only the short form of the impf. in the
formation of the impf. cons.
A.Verbs
The Chr. follows two basic rules:
a)Whenever the impf. cons. is represented in his sources by the full form of
the impf. the form is changed and shortened. It appears thus in his sources
six times25 and the rule is rigidly observed: 1 Chr. xi 17 // 2 Sam. xxiii 15
19) Gesenius Hebrew Grammar, edited by E. Kautzsch, translated by A. E. Cowley, 1910, 49d,
pp. 133-134; P. Joon, Grammaire de lHebreu Biblique, 1947, 47a, pp. 105-106.
20)Gesenius, op. cit., 49e, p. 134, Joon, 47d, p. 106.
21) This is one aspect of a more general process of losing the distinction between the moods,
which reached its fulfillment in the new verbal system of Mishnaic Hebrew. Cf. G. Bergstrsser,
Hebrische Grammatik, 1926 II 101, p. 50; Kutscher, op. cit., pp. 30, 251 and M. H. Segal, A Grammar of Mishnaic Hebrew, 1927, p. 150ff.
22)frequently 2 Chr. i 6, iii 6, 14 etc. Jer. x 13, etc.
23)A. Sperber: Hebrew based upon Biblical Passages in Parallel Transmission. HUCA, XIV,
1939, 49, pp. 187-189.
24)Kutscher, op. cit., pp. 252-253.
25)Actually seven, but once it is changed differently: 1 Ki. x 29: 2 chr.
i 17: .
The Qal is changed into Hifil. This is one of the characteristics of the Chr. Cf. Kropat, op. cit.,
pp. 14-15, Gerleman, op. cit., p. 18 and further p. 350, n. 2. The second change from singular to
plural is also typical. Cf. Kropat, p. 8ff.
41
( ;(2 Chr. xviii 23, 33 // 1 Ki. xxii 24, 34 (2 ;(Chr. xviii 34 //

1 Ki. xxii 35 ( ;(2 Chr. xxi 9 // 2 Ki. viii 21 ( ;(2 Chr. xxxiv 27 //
2 Ki. xxii 19 )).
b) If the full form is in the 1 pers. sing. it remains unaltered. This occurs
three times:26 1 Chr. xvii 5, 8 // 2 Sam. vii 6, 9 ( ;(2 Chr. vi 10 // 1 Ki. viii 20
().
Those parts which are not drawn from any known source keep systematically to the same rule. The short form in the impf. cons. occurs over a hundred
times.27 This pedantic and rigid use is specially prominent where the words
occur only once or are unusual, as for example 2 Chr. xxi 11 , 2 Chr. xxxiii 9
, 2 Chr. xxxvi 13 .
This consistent procedure, found both in the adaptation of the earlier texts
and in his own independent work, leaves no room for doubt that this is a definite feature of the Chr.s language. Moreover, it can be interpreted as a deliberate effort to retain a certain linguistic norm.
In Ezr.-Neh. on the other hand, as well as in the Samaritan Pentateuch28 and
the Isaiah Scroll29 the main characteristic in this matter is the absence of any
rule or system.30
a)In 1 pers. sing. both the short and full forms occur: 1) full forms: Neh. i 4,
vii 2, xii 31, xiii 25; 2) short forms: Neh. iv 14 (8), i 4, ii 11, 13, 15.31
26)These are the only instances where 1 pers. sing. in the Impf. consec. of occur in Chr. Therefore, nothing further can be said about his own usage.
27)It is unnecessary to quote all the material since it can be seen at a glance. , ,
, , and many others. There are only two exceptions to the rigid rule in the whole book of
Chr.: 2 Chr. xxi 13 ;2 Chr. xxvi 6 . In view of the Chr.s consistent system it can only be
due to later transmission. Another example is 2 Chr. xvi 12 . As it stands this is a partial
analogy of to , finding expression in the consonants only. But the usual tendency of late
and Mishnaic Hebrew is contrary, i.e., the analogy of to . (Cf. Segal, op. cit., 198, p. 90
stated more clearly in the Hebrew edition of the book, 1936, 273, p. 150). We prefer to accept
Rudolphs suggestion ad. loc. to regard this form as a dittography of the . The original phrase
was accordingly .
28)A. Sperber, op. cit., pp. 188-189 cites sixteen instances where the short form of the MT is long
in the Sam. Pent. in Verbs of .
29)Kutscher, op. cit., pp. 252-253 cites twelve instances of such changes in the Isaiah Scroll
against MT, in verbs of .
30)Another instance exists only in the Qre. in Ezr. viii 17, Qre Kethib which is probably and belongs to the next paragraph.
31) In the last four instances the form is . This example demonstrates in a more specific way
the opposition to Chr. There only the form is found.
42
b)In the other pers., although the short form is still more prevalent,32 the
full form occurs twice: Ezr. viii 15 ( ;)Neh. iv 6 (iii 38) ().
It is in Ezr.-Neh., and not in Chr. that the general linguistic state is reflected.
The tendency to lengthen the short forms exists, but it is still in its beginnings,
at least in written documents.
B.Verbs /
The process of lengthening the short forms in the impf. cons. is here much less
developed than in , as is shown by the various texts.33 The Chr.s sources
still preserve the short forms, and this is true in general also for Ezr.-Neh. However, even here the distinctions mentioned above are preserved:
a)The 1 pers. sing. occurs in Chr. only twice. Both instances are taken from his
sources and are changed into the full form: 2 Chr. vi 10, 11 (1 Ki. viii, 20, 21).34 All
the other forms in Chr. are short.35
b)In Ezr.-Neh., although the material is meagre, we do find one example of
the full form:36 Neh. iv 15 (9) .37
32)But their number in general is of course much smaller than in Chr. We find altogether nine
examples of various verbs and fifteen times the form .
33)Sperber, op. cit., pp. 188 brings only two examples of such a change in the Samaritan Pentateuch, compared to sixteen in . They are: 1) Gen. xxv 17, MT Sam. ;2) Num.
xvii 15: MT Sam.. The examples from the Isaiah Scroll are classified by Kutscher
as orthographic changes (p. 108), and here he cites six examples. Kutscher himself is not completely positive about this classification and it seems more likely that the presence of the ww
is not a sign of introducing the mater lectionis in a short unaccented syllable, but of the shifting
forward of the tone, with analogy to the regular forms of the impf., i.e., , ,
etc. If this distinction is right, the place of these examples is really in another paragraph (p. 253).
34)The question is, of course, whether it should rather be classified as an orthographic change
for the syllable is in any case accented. Even so, it serves as an illustration to the consequent use
in Chr.
35)For example: 26 times, four times, five times, 11 times, etc.
36)The full forms in 1 pers. sing. are more numerous in Ezr.-Neh. than in Chr. They are:
Neh. ii 12, iv 14 (8) , Neh. ix 15, 15 Neh. xiii 24. In addition to these only the form
is found. (Ezr. iii 2, x 5, 6, 10, Neh. iii 1, ix 4).
37)So the Kethib. The Qre is . The introduction of the Qre in this matter points no doubt
to a linguistic editing of the text. Other examples of the same type are: (1) Jd. xix 21, Kethib
Qre) ;2( 2 Sam. xiii 8, Kethib, Qre( ;3) Ez. xviii 28, Kethib
Qre.
43
C.Hifil
The same rules apply here too:
)In Chr. the form which exists in the 1 pers. sing. is full: 1 Chr. xvii 8 .38
In all other instances, without any exception, the form is short.39
b)In Ezr.-Neh. as well as in the Sam. Pent. and the Isaiah Scroll,40 short and
full forms appear together. The full form occurs twice: Neh. iv 9 (3) ;and
Neh. viii 2 .
We may conclude that:
1)The general tendency of late biblical Hebrew is towards a developing use of
full forms in the impf. cons.
2)This tendency is demonstrated in Ezr.-Neh. where short and full forms
stand together.
3)In clear opposition to the general rule and the practice of Ezr.-Neh.,
the Chr. applies rules of his own: full forms in 1 pers. sing. and short forms
elsewhere.
4)The astonishing accuracy and consistency in Chr. gives the impression of
a conscious awareness of the problem. Actually, the Chr. does not express the
genuine state of the language, but deliberately opposes it.
2.The Lengthened Imperfect Consecutive
Another result of the growing lack of distinction between the moods is the
undifferentiated use of and . Thus the form replaces the
form and a new form emerges: 41 which has no semantic value
of its own.42 is very common in Ezr.-Neh. and Daniel. In Ezr.-Neh.
alone, it occurs almost fifty times.43 In the Sam. Pent. and in the Isaiah Scroll
38)See further p. 338. A further example, which is a subject of a textual debate is in 1 Chr. xvii
10. The parallel form is ) 2 Sam. xvii 11). Cf. I. L. Seeligmann: Indications of editorial alteration and adaptation.... V.T. XI: 1961, p. 208ff.; Rudolph, Chronikbcher, p. 130f.
39)For example: 7t 7t 5t, etc.
40)Kutscher brings only one instance of such a transition: Isa. xxxi 2, MT I. S.. He
notes however that this is the only example of this form in this verb in the whole book of Isaiah
(op. cit., p. 265). Sperber presents fifteen examples for such a change in the Sam. Pent., op. cit.,
49, 1, pp. 187-188.
41) Cf. Bergstrsser, op. cit., p. 23.
42)Cf. Joon, 47d, p. 107.
43)They are: Ezr. vii 28; viii 15, 16, 17 (twice, once in the Kethib alone), 23 (twice), 24, 25, 26, 28, 31;
ix 3 (twice), 5 (twice), 6. Neh. i 4; ii 1, 6, 9, 13; v 7 (twice), 8, 13; vi 3, 8, 11, 12; vii 5; xiii 7, 8, 9 (twice),
10, 11 (twice), 13, 17 (twice), 19 (twice), 21 (twice), 22, 30.
44
it replaces the forms of the M.T.44 However, neither of the forms is

exclusive in these texts. In Ezr.-Neh. ( 13 times) appears alongside
(7 times)45 ( 3 times) with ,46 and so on.47 The main feature is the
absence of uniformity in the linguistic usage.
The opposite is true in Chr. Here is totally absent. Not once does
the Chr. lengthen a full form found in his sources and not once does he utilize
it himself.48 Moreover, the form does occur once in his sources and it
is altered.
1 Chr. xvii 8
2 Sam. vii 9
The difference between Ezr.-Neh. and Chr. is not one of measure but of principle. The main point is not the existence of these forms in Ezr.-Neh. and their
absence in Chr. but the presence of a normative linguistic principle which is
applied in Chr. in contrast to all the other texts of the same period.49
44)Sperber cites nineteen examples of such changes, op. cit., p. 228-232. Kutscher brings about
twenty, but has no intention of exhausting all the examples. Op. cit., p. 250-252.
45)Neh. i 5; ii 3, 5; iv 14 (8); 19 (13).
46)Neh. v 7.
47)As Neh. xiii 11, 17 and Neh. xiii 25; Neh. xiii 15, Neh. xiii 21.
Both examples are in the same chapter.
48)The fact is well known, cf. Bergstrsser, op. cit., p. 23, Kropat, op. cit., p. 75. Nevertheless, it has escaped Gerlemans attention when dealing with the same question. He states that:
A peculiarity common to Samaritanus and Chronicles is found in the formation of Imperfectum
consecutivum... As we know the first person singular and plural sometimes having the ending
being thus formed in analogy to the so-called cohortative... The same form of the imperfect
is typical also of Samaritanus (op. cit., p. 15). Among the examples, taken from Deut. Gerleman cites also the following: Deut. iii 1, MT , Sam. . First of all it should be
stated that this last example does not belong here. The is not a part of the cohortative as
in , but belongs to the root itself. The form is therefore a full form and not a lengthened
one. Secondly, and this is much more important, Gerlemans opinion does not do justice to the
linguistic facts. It was stated before by Kropat and Bergstrsser that is nowhere to be
found in Chronicles. It can hardly be described as a peculiarity common to Samaritanus and
Chronicles. The same is true about the example . Although it does not belong here,
it was shown above that Chr. deliberately avoids such forms! (Supr. p. 334 f.).
49)This raises the question whether the much used terms very common now in textual studies,
such as vulgar text and vulgar language can be applied in connection with Chr. (Cf. Gerleman.
op. cit., pp. 3-7).
45
3.Theophoric Names Ending with

The names in this category are known to us in three variations, i.e., those
with the endings ,, ,, as , , .50
The question of their distribution was taken up by N. H. Tur-Sinai (H. Torczyner) who studied the epigraphic material known up to 1938.51 His conclusion was that the form with the ending is Ephraimite in origin, while the two
others were dominant in Judah; the long one with before and the short one
with after the exile.52
This conclusion was strongly confirmed by the DSS, where the tendency to
apply the short ending instead of is seen very clearly.53
A study of Ezr.-Neh. and Chr. provides the following facts:
a)In Ezr.-Neh. the number of names belonging to this category is very high;
eighty names mentioned altogether almost two hundred and seventy times; all
the names are written with the short ending .54 Thus, Ezr.-Neh. is a faithful
reflection of the actual linguistic conditions.
b)The case is much more complicated in Chr. The first outstanding fact is
the variety of material in which both short and long endings occur.
At first glance the situation may be interpreted thus: It is a result of the
Chr.s composite character, i.e., the old sources preserved in Chr. still retain
the long form, while in the new material, the short form with the ending is
to be found. In fact the opposite is true. There is an obvious tendency in Chr.
to lengthen the short endings which do appear in.55 There are fourteen such
50) 1 Ki. xiv 5, etc. 1 Ki. xiv 2, etc. 2 Sam. vi 3, etc.
51)N. H. Tur-Sinai (H. Torczyner), The Lachish Letters. London, 1938, pp. 24ff. Besides the Lachish Letters themselves, Tur-Sinai made use of all the epigraphic material found in D. Diringer,
Le Iscrizione Antico-Ebraiche Palestinensi, 1934, of the Elephantine letters, the ostraca of Samaria
and others.
52)Op. cit., p. 25. Accordingly the emergence of the shorter ending is a result of Aramaic influence. Cf. also G. R. Driver: The original form of the name Yahweh, ZAW 46, 1928, pp. 16-19.
53)Cf. Burrows, JBL LXVIII, pp. 204-205. Kutscher, op. cit., p. 5. In the Isaiah Scroll the regular
form is the short one, which occurs tens of times, while constantly shortening the ending .
Only twice, and one of them presumably added by a second hand, is the longer to be found.
Cf. Kutscher, op. cit., p. 93.
54)There is only one exception among this great number which is no doubt a result of textual
error. In Ezr. x 41, has to be read , with a better division of the word. Cf. Rudolph, Esra-Neh., p. 100.
55)The fact was recognized by A. Sperber, and taken over by Burrows. Sperbers list contains
nine examples. One of them seems to me inaccurate (2 Chr. xxvi 1 , 2 Ki. xiv 21 ( )Op. cit.,
46
changes in ten names: , , , , , , ,

, , .56
Only once does the opposite occur.57
All these examples are taken from exact parallels. But the same tendency
is exhibited also in paraphrastic presentations.58 Moreover, not all the texts
of Kings have their parallel in Chr., for example: The name occurs in
Kings eight times as .59 while in Chr. the only form (42 times) is ( or
). Nevertheless this is expressed in the above list only once; and so on.60
In the other parts of Chr. the picture is not homogeneous, as both forms of
the names occur, even in one list. Regarding the names with long ending the
variety of material might be classified as follows:
a)One group includes such names which are found in their long form elsewhere
and exist also in Chr. To this group belong such names as , , etc.
b)The second group includes those names which do occur in other biblical
texts but only in the short form. The only text where they are long is Chr. This
group might be divided into two: names which occur, in addition to Chr., only
in Ezr.-Neh., where all the names are short. To this category belong names such
as , , , , , ,,61 and others
which are known from other books, but nevertheless only in short form. Here
we can list names as: , , , , , ,.62
131a, p. 249). In any case, Sperbers list is not exhaustive, and the added instances are marked
by an asterisk.
56)2 Chr. xxii 11* (2 Ki. xi 2); 2 Chr. x 15 (1 Ki. xii 15); 2 Chr. xxiv 27*; xxv 17 (2 Ki. xii 21 (22); xiv 8);
2 Chr. xxix 1 (2 Ki. xviii 2); 2 Chr. xxix 1* (2 Ki. xviii 1); 2 Chr. xxxiv 15*, 18 (2 Ki. xxii 8, 10); 2 Chr. xxxvi
22 (Ezr. i 1); 2 Chr. xxii 10; 12*, 13* (2 Ki. xi 1, 13, 14); 2 Chr. xviii 10 (1 Ki. xxii 11); 2 Chr. xi 2 (1 Ki. xii 22).
57)1 Chr. xi 30 (2 Sam. xxiii 30): . It is possible that the short form was already found in the
Chr.s source, since all the other names in this list, in Sam. and Chr. end with . Vs. 36
39 41 44 46. The text in Sam. is corrupt and the ww
might have been the result of the misdivision of the words.
58)For example: 2 Chr. xxii 7 // 2 Ki. ix 27 where the name is changed into .
59)2 Ki. xviii 1, 10, 13, 14 (twice), 15, 16 (twice).
60) is found four times in Kings in a short form (2 Ki. xii, 22; xiii 12; xiv 8; xv 1), but only
two are represented in the list, and is always long in Chr. is written in Kings twice as
and in Chr. always as , but the fact is not represented at all and so with other names.
61)Cf. among others: 1 Chr. xxiv 18Ezr. ii 60; 1 Chr. iii 24Ezr. ii 40; 1 Chr. xxvi 2Ezr. viii 8;
1 Chr. xxv 3Ezr. viii 19; 1 Chr. xxiv 19Neh. x 8 (9); 1 Chr. xxv 3Ezr. x 43; 1 Chr. xv 24Neh. ix
4; 1 Chr. xxiv 11Ezr. viii 3.
62)Cf. among others: 2 Chr. xiii 201 Sam. viii 2; 1 Chr. xxiv 23Zeph. i 1; 2 Chr. xvii 8Zech.
vi 10; 1 Chr. xxv 42 Ki. xxiv 17; 2 Chr. xxiii 12 Ki. xxii 1; 1 Chr. xxvii 202 Ki. xxiii 36; 1 Chr. xii
52 Sam. iii 4.
47
c)The last group includes names which occur only in Chr. and here they
are long. For example, , , , , , ,
, , ,.63
In spite of the existence of names with the ending it is impossible to deny
the general tendency to use the long ending .64 The difference between
Chr. and Ezr.-Neh. is clearly expressed in a parallel text:
2 Chr. xxxvi 22
1 Ezr. i 1
To sum up: In our discussion of the formation of the impf. cons. and the lengthened impf. cons. we were able to discern a rigid and uniform method in Chr.,
in contrast to the plurality of forms and absence of method in Ezr.-Neh. In the
question of personal names the picture was reversed. Unequivocal uniformity
is found in Ezr.-Neh. as against diversity and plurality of forms in Chr. Nonetheless, the underlying principle of all these distinctions is the same: the actual
linguistic reality in all these instances is reflected in Ezr.-Neh. while Chr. stands
alone as an exception and even as opposition to this same reality.
II.Specific Technical Terms
1.65
Before discussing the matter as it pertains to Chr. and Ezr.-Neh. some words of
introduction are in order.
( purify) and ( sanctify) have originally different meanings. ,
usually as , relates to the state of a person or an object as being clean
from some impurity and possessing its true and unadulterated nature.66
describes a positive quality added to the basic nature of a person or an object.
However, because the state of cleanliness is an essential condition of holiness
63)Among others: 1 Chr. xxv 4; 1 Chr. xxiv 20; 2 Chr. xxxi 13; 1 Chr. xxiv 26f.; 1 Chr. xv 22; 1 Chr. xvi
18; 1 Chr. xxvi 1; 1 Chr. xxvii 20; 1 Chr. xv 17; 1 Chr. xxvi 7; 1 Chr. xxiv 21.
64)The variety of forms is explained by Kutscher thus: The Chr. prefers the long form when he
deals with a personality of the first Temple Period and he prefers the short form when it is not so.
(op. cit., p. 93). As a matter of fact, Chr. is meant to be a history of the first Temple only and the
personalities named are all supposed to belong to that period. Preference for a short form could
not be found here, if the criterion is right, but this is rather doubtful.
65)For all biblical quotations, we have utilized the RSV, except where explicitly stated.
66)Cf. L. E. Toombs, Interpreters Dictionary of the Bible, I, p. 641ff.
48
the two terms show a tendency to interchange and their specific meaning is
not always strictly kept.67
The demand for cleanliness and sanctification is mentioned very often
in connection with the cultic ritual. The conception held by P regarding the
priests is that they were consecrated by a singular ritual of anointing68 but
must also perform a certain act of cleansing before each ceremonial act.69
The demand for the ritual cleanliness of the Levites and the laymen is not
stated generally, but from the descriptions of actual rites70 as well as other
texts, we may deduce that a certain procedure was required.
The act of sanctification before the ritual is strongly emphasized in Chr. and
relates both to the priests and the Levites. It is mentioned before any ceremony, and is added to the descriptions of Sam. and Kings. The technical term to
describe it is always without any exception, : 1 Chr. xv 12-14;71 2 Chr. v 11;
xxix 5, 15, 34; xxx 3, 15, 24; xxxv 6.
The term is found in Chr. only once, in reference to the people and,
even here, it tends to interchange with . For there were many in the
assembly who had not sanctified themselves ()... for a multitude of
people had not cleansed themselves (( )2 Chr. xxx 17-18).
In all other instances in Chr. is confined to acts of cleansing the land
and the Temple: 2 Chr. xxix 15ff. (three times); 2 Chr. xxxiv 3ff. (three times).
Two points are noteworthy in Ezr.-Neh. The interest in the act of consecration is much less prominent; in the most important ceremonies it is not
even mentioned!72 Secondly, the term is totally absent. When the
67)A good example is 2 Sam. xi 4; which is actually translated: Now she

was purifying herself from her uncleanness.
68)Exod. xxx 30.
69)Exod. xxx 17-21.
70)Samuels sacrifice in Beth-Lehem is one example: I have come to sacrifice to the Lord. Consecrate yourselves and come with me to the sacrifice, and he consecrated Jesse and his sons and
invited them to the sacrifice. 1 Sam. xvi 5. An explicit demand for sanctification is found in ceremonies occurring only once, as the revelation at Sinai, Exod. xix 10, and others. But there is no
doubt that the actions described were those regular in the cult in general.
71)The present verses form a part of the additions made by the Chr. to the original story of 2 Sam.
thereby changing its original character. In the following example (2 Chr. v 11), the Chr.s addition
deals mainly with this point, the consecration of the priests.
72)Cf.: The dedication of the altar and the foundation of the tempelEzr. iii; the dedication of
the templeEzr. vi 16-18, and more.
49
consecration of priests and Levites is mentioned the verb is used exlusively: Ezr. vi 20;73 Neh. xii 30; xiii 22.74
To sum up: the opposition in the use of these terms is very clear. The special preparation of the priests and Levites for the ritual acts is designated by
Ezr.-Neh. as , while is absent. In Chr. the same act is always called
and never . The use of in Chr. is confined to the cleansing of
the temple, the land and the people.
2.
The object of this section is not a general discussion of these terms and their
development, but only their use in Chr. and Ezr.-Neh.
Of all the titles denominating the High Priest in the O.T.75 the Chr. chooses
the title .76 This expression is found in Chr. six times and very seldom
in the other parts of the O.T.77
Once the Chr. changes the of his sources into ; 2 Chr. xxiv 11
(2 Ki. xxii 10). The other instances are: 1 Chr. xxvii 5; 2 Chr. xix 11; xxiv 6;78
xxvi 20; xxxi 10.
The preference for in Chr. becomes more conspicuous when we
compare it to the use of the parallel title .79 is found in the
Chr.s sources four times. It was shown above that one of these is deliberately
changed into ( 2 Chr. xxiv 11 // 2 Ki. xxii 10). The other three are dealt
with as follows: in one instance the whole section is missing in Chr. (2 Ki. xxii 4).
In another, the title alone is omitted: 2 Chr. xxxiv 15 (2 Ki. xxii 8).
Only once does the title remain untouched: 2 Chr. xxxiv 9 // 2 Ki.
xxii 4. In the other parts of Chr., not taken from his sources, the term
is never used.
73)Many scholars have commented on the great resemblance of this passage which describes
the Passover of the returned exiles to 2 Chr. xxx (Cf. J. M. Myers, Ezra-Nehemiah, 1965, pp. 53-54;
W. Rudolph, Esra-Nehemia, pp. 61-62). This similarity makes the contrast in the use of the terms
even more prominent.
74)In another passage dealing with a similar matter but presenting the subject more generally:
Neh. xiii 30: Thus I cleansed them ( )from everything foreign and I established the duties
of the priests and Levites....
75)For example: , , and others. Cf. J. Baily: The Usage in the Post-Restoration Period of Terms Descriptive of the Priest and High Priest; JBL 70, 1951, pp. 217-227.
76)We take for granted that is indeed the title of the High Priest (compare: 2 Ki. xxv 18
with 2 Ki. xxiii 4). This opinion is disputed by I. M. Grintz, op. cit., p. 133.
77)2 Ki. xxv 18 and its parallel in Jer. lii 24. As to Ezr. vii 5, cf. further above.
78)The chief is no doubt an eliptic phrase for the chief priest.
79)Cf. also Baily, op. cit., pp. 220-221.
50
The opposite is true in the other books of the same period. is found
five times in Haggai, three times in Zechariah and three times in Ezr.-Neh.80
These last are indeed found in Nehemiahs memoirs but yet the redactor has
not altered them. is mentioned once in Ezr.-Neh., at least at first
sight. In Ezr. vii 1ff. the text runs as follows: Now after this in the reign of
Ar-ta-xerxes, king of Persia, Ezra the son of Seraiah, son of... Phinehas, son
of Eleazar, son of Aaron the chief priestthis Ezra... etc. The Hebrew text
is . It seems that the RSV has wrongly understood the
words as a fixed title for Aaron. What it really means is: The son of
Aaron the first priest. It has nothing to do with the priests rank.81 We might
ask whether the expression originated here and then crystallized
into a fixed term.
In conclusion: The Chr. deliberately avoids the title and prefers
, which is a characteristic trait of his style. In Ezr.-Neh., as well as in other
books of the same period, alone is used. When is mentioned
once, in Ezr.-Neh., it is not a title and its meaning is different.82
3.)(
According to the Chr.s view the people of Israel were organised into smaller
administrative units. The schematic organization was established by David
and it included both the people and the different classes of the cult personnel.83
The term used to designate the single unit is division.84
80)Haggai i 1, 12, 14; ii 2, 4; Zach. iii 1, 8; vi 11; Neh. iii 1, 20; xiii 28.
81)So Batten, Ezra and Nehemia, p. 304 and others. In Hebrew the meaning first or beginning
for is quite frequent, cf. Exod. xii 2, and others. Although it is here a question of interpretation, it is worthwhile comparing the various versions of the Septuagint. 1 Esd. viii 2 renders:
. Since the usual translation of in 1 Esd. is (ix 39, 40, 49) the
deviating use of in this verse is not without significance. The version of Ezr. in Vaticanus
is: . If is not a mere textual error for it should be
translated as the priest of the fathers.
82)An interesting aspect, which is outside this present study, is the various stages through which
these terms have passed. became dominant in the Rabbinic literature, while
was taken over by the sect of the Judean desert. Cf. The War of the Sons of Light, ii 1, xv 4,
xvi 11, xviii 5.
83)In the schematic picture drawn by the Chr. three main elements can be traced: I. An historical
nucleus from the first Temple, such as the division of the land into twelve tax districts. II. Orders
of the Second Temple, such as the ramified organisations of cult personnel, even if we admit to
some historical nucleus even here. III. Unrealistic elements which issue from the Chr.s inclination to schematisation and to exaggerated numbers.
84)The word is found in the O.T. 42 times, and only 6 in addition to Chr. The other instances are:
Jos. xi 23; xii 7; xviii 10; Ez. xlviii 29; Neh. xi 36, once more in the Aramaic portion, Ezr. vi 18.
51
a)The division of the people: 1.1 Chr. xxvii 1-1585This is the list of the
people of Israel... and their officers who served the king in all matters concerning the divisions that came and went... each division numbering twenty-four
thousand. Jashobeam... was in charge of the first division in the first month.
In his division were twenty-four thousand... and so on to the end of the list.
2.1 Chr. xxviii 1David assembled at Jerusalem all the officials of Israel... the
officers of the divisions that served the king....
b)The division of the cult personnel: This division is much more emphasized in Chr. and is mentioned in the various parts of the book: 1 Chr. xxiii 6;
xxiv 1; xxvi 1, 12, 19; xxviii 13, 21; 2 Chr. v. 11; viii 14; xxiii 8; xxxi 2, 15, 17; xxxv 4, 10.
The abundance of material and the frequent repetition demonstrate the
Chr.s interest in these matters as one aspect of his vital concern with the cult
in general. The second outstanding point is the use of a fixed term, to
designate these units, which as a technical term does not occur elsewhere.
In Ezr.-Neh. the division of the people does not exist. The evidence relating
to the division of the cult personnel is much more complicated. First of all,
we can notice the lack of interest in these matters: In the descriptions of the
ceremonies, and in particular those which are designated as chronistic, the
organization of the cult personnel into units is overlooked.86
As to the word itselfit does occur once in Ezr.-Neh., similar in
meaning to Chr., but in the Aramaic part of the book.87 It is confined here to
the units of Levites alone.
85)As the present study proves it is very difficult to accept Noths opinion, followed also by
Rudolph, which regards 1 Chr. xxiii-xxvii as non-chronistic. (Noth, op. cit., p. 112ff., Rudolph,
Chronikbcher, p. 152ff.). Noth, in a more general way, and Rudolph in greater detail have shown
that these chapters are not homogeneous and contain many inconsistencies. Nevertheless, we
can only conclude that the various materials used by the Chr. were not thoroughly reworked and
harmonized, and in particular, where the material comprises lists of various sorts. Both linguistically and ideologically these chapters form a part of the characteristic world of the Chr. and cannot be separated from it.
86)In the erection of the altar and its dedication (Ezr. iii), in the celebration of the Passover
(Ezr. vi 19 and 22), etc.
87)Ezr. vi 18 translated as and they set the priests
in their divisions and the Levites in their courses. The translation is not consistent in rendering
here as course. The word is found once more in Neh. xi 36, in an eliptic and
obscure verse. After enumerating the dwelling places of Judah and Benjamin it reads
. The RSV translation is And certain divisions of the Levites in Judah were
joined to Benjamin and lately J. Myers reads it more freely as Some of the Levitical groups of
Judah were assigned to Benjamin. The meaning of the verse is most unclear, speaking about
Levitical groups of Judah or the like. But from the general context it is assumed that: a) the
description is confined to the Levites, b) it deals with the question of their dwelling places and
52
On the other hand, it would be too rash to conclude that the division of
the cult personnel is not known at all in Ezr.-Neh. Some of the lists in Neh.,
i.e., Neh x 1-8 (2-9); xii 1-7; xii 12-21 do testify to such a division, at least among
the priests, as each of them contain twenty two88 names of priests, who are
designated The chiefs of the priests (Neh. xi 17) or Heads of fathers houses
(Neh. xii 12). Moreover, in Neh. xii 12-21 the priests are enumerated according to
their families, whose names are already quite fixed.89 A hint to such a division
among the Levites could be found in the eliptic statement of Neh. xii 22-23.
Without attempting to solve the problem concerning the development of
these orders, we might say that the above mentioned lists in Neh. testify that,
although some division did exist, it was still in its beginnings and there was no
fixed term to designate it.
In later sources the division of the cult personnel into fixed units is wellknown. It is attested to in Rabbinic literature,90 in the Piyyutim91 and even
on pieces of marble plate from Caesarea.92 It is also found in the literature of
the Qumran sect, although the units are there twenty-six in number and not
twenty-four.93
In all this vast literary realm the only term which designates these units
is ( courses) and, in sing., or .94 Nowhere is the term
has nothing to do with the cult organisation. However, from a textual point of view it should be
asked whether this isolated and unconnected obscure verse is actually original.
88)In the third list, Neh. xii 12-21, only twenty-one names occur at present. But it seems very likely
that one name has fallen out in v. 18. Cf. Rudolph ad. loc. and B.H.
89)While comparing the lists in Neh. xii 1-7 and 12-21 we find that all the twenty-two names
(except Hattush which has fallen) are found in both lists, although some of them are differently
written. Kaufmann emphasizes that The priests... are divided into fathers houses but there
is no hint of the fact that these fathers houses serve in the Temple in changing courses (Toledoth Haemunah Haisraelit VIII, 1960, p. 361 (Hebrew). But even the fact that the number of the
fathers houses is fixed, although their names do change, cannot be so easily dismissed.
90)Mishnah Taanit iv 2, Tosefta Taanit II, Talmud Yerushalmi Taanit iv 2, Babylonian Talmud
Taanit 27a, b.
91)Cf. S. Klein, Beitrge zur Geographie und Geschichte Galilas, Leipzig 1909, pp. 102-108; idem:
Neue Beitrge, Wien 1923: M. Zulay, Contribution to the History of the Liturgical Poetry in
Palestine, Studies of the Research Institute for Hebrew Poetry in Jerusalem (Hebrew), V, 1937, p. 107ff.
92)M. Avi-Yonah: The Caesarea Inscription of the 24 Priestly Courses, Eretz-Israel VII, 1964,
pp. 24-25. S. Talmon: The Calendar Reckoning of the sect from the Judean Desert, Scripta Hierosolymitana IV, 1958, p. 171.
93)Y. Yadin, The Scroll of the War of the Sons of Light Against the Sons of Darkness, 1962, pp. 202206. P. Winter: Twenty-six Priestly Courses, VT 6, 1956, pp. 215-217. S. Talmon, op. cit., pp. 168ff.
94)The masc. is the regular term in the Mishnah and the Talmud. In the inscription from
Caesarea is applied and both are used in the Piyyutim. No sing. form has yet been found
in the DSS.
53
, so widely and consistently applied by the Chr., to be found, although

the institution is identical and even the names of the units are the same.95
If we turn now to study the meaning of and in Chr. and in
Ezr.-Neh., we find that both have a wide range of meanings, and mainly: guards,
office, function, duty,96 being more frequent in Chr., while is
more prevalent in Ezr.-Neh. The question is whether their use as technical
terms, as divisions of service, is already in evidence here. Both lexicons of
Biblical Hebrew answer affirmatively, but the verses they quote to prove it are
different. BDB finds it in Neh. xii 9 and KBL in Neh. xiii 34.
It seems that in both instances the interpretation is not certain, and the difference between the lexicons could serve as proof. In any case, even if we do
accept it, what is suggested is the beginning of the use of as a technical
term in Ezr.-Neh. and not in Chr.a fact which might carry the contrast
between the terms even further.
To sum up: The division of the cult-personnel into small units is explicitly stated in Chr. and very often referred to, while in Ezr.-Neh., although it
is presumably known, it is much less emphasized and is different in details.
The single unit is designated in Chr. by a fixed term: which is found in
Ezr.-Neh. only once, in the Aramaic text.
If we do agree that the later term has already assumed its technical connotation in Ezr.-Neh., then the opposition between Ezr.-Neh. is that
of two different terms. However, it seems more likely that the terminology in
Ezr.-Neh., as well as the institution itself, is not yet stabilized.
The division of the people into units is mentioned only in Chr.
95)The word continues to exist in the language with different meanings. In the Rabbinic
literature its meaning is separation, strife, etc. M. Jastrow, A Dictionary of the Targumim, etc. II,
1903, p. 762. In the DSS does preserve its meaning as a technical term but its exact interpretation is still disputed. Most famous is the phrase in the Scroll of the War, of
the Sons of Light II 10, which is translated by Yadin as the war of the separate divisions and is
strongly connected by him with 1 Chr. xxvii (op. cit., pp. 79ff.). J. van der Ploeg translates it as
guerre de divisions and lately A. M. Gazov-Ginzberg as the war in parts (The Structure of the
Army of the Sons of Light, Revue de Qumran 18, 1965, p. 164). Another point of dispute is
in the Covenant of Damascus. In any case, the use of the term to signify the units
of priests and Levites is absent here too. It is found in this meaning in the Targum. In Targum
Jonathan to Gen. 11 which reads .
The verse as a whole seems to be influenced by Ezr. vi 18.
96)Cf. BDB, p. 1038, KBL, p. 578.
54
4.
The basic meaning of is presumably pasture land, a place of cattle
driving.97 are the untilled grounds surrounding the cities which
were used as pasture lands.98
In most of its occurrences in the O.T. is connected with the Levites,
i.e., in the explicit commandment to give the Levites cities with their pasture
lands (Num. xxxv 2ff.) in the law concerning the redemption of lands (Lev. xxv
32-34) and in the list of the Levitical cities (Jos. xxi 3ff.).99
In Chr. the word is used in several ways:
a)In its basic meaning as pasture land: 1 Chr. v. 16;
b)To denote the pasture lands which surround the Levitical cities: 1 Chr. vi
54ff. (39ff.)100 which is a doublet of the list of the Levitical cities, in Jos. xxi 3ff.101
97)Cf. KBL, p. 494.

98)Cf. Num. xxxv 1-3: The cities shall be theirs to dwell in and their pasture lands shall be for
their cattle and for their livestock and for all their beasts.
99)In addition to these and the verses in Chr. the word is mentioned also in Ez. xlv 2, xlviii
15, 17, Jos. xiv 4.
100)M. Noth regards the list in 1 Chr. vi 54ff. as post-chronistic. His argument is that its geographical content is not in harmony with the other lists (op. cit., p. 120). Rudolph agrees with
Noth, but differs in his reasons. To him the list cannot be chronistic as the sons of Aaron are
preferred to the Levites (Rudolph, Chronikbcher, p. 61). The assumption itself is not proved
since it is difficult to see how the list prefers the priests to the Levites. But even so, it should
be said that the considerations are rather general, and do not take into account the peculiar
signs of the Chr.s work. A comparison of all the verses in which the cities of priests and Levites are mentioned reveals that they all belong together and are composed of consistent groups
of words and terms. On the other hand, each of them is related to its context. For example:
1 Chr. xiii 2 is dependent directly upon the list in 1 Chr. vi 54ff. This causes Rudolph to doubt
its originality (op. cit., p. 110). But is it possible, if we view the matter from the Chr.s standpoint,
that the priests and Levites were not invited to the ceremony of bringing the ark to Jerusalem?
And further: 2 Chr. xi 13: is dependent
on the list too, as the phrase is found only in this list and nowhere else in Chr. (1 Chr.
vi 54 (39), 66 (51)) and is also absent from the list in Jos. xxi. Should we regard this verse too
as secondary? Rudolph does not. There is no doubt that the list in 1 Chr. vi 54 (39ff.) was not
composed by the Chr. but it was incorporated in the book by the Chr. himself who gave it some
touches of his own, but did not thoroughly rework it.
101)A summation of the different views regarding the origin of this list and its relation to the parallel list in Jos. xxi is given by B. Mazar: The Levitical and Priestly Cities (Hebrew), Encyclopedia
Biblica (Hebrew) IV, p. 476ff.
55
c)The word alone and the phrase are turned in Chr. into
technical terms denoting the levitical and priestly cities themselves. This last
meaning is peculiar to the Chr. and is found nowhere else in the O.T.
1)1 Chr. xiii 2. . The RSV translation is literal:
The priests and Levites in the cities that have pasture lands. But in
Chr. means levitical and priestly cities, and so the whole verse is: Let us send
abroad to our brethren who remain in all the land of Israel, and with them to
the priests and Levites in their cities that they may come....
2)2 Chr. xi 13-14: Here again,
is not only the pasture lands surrounding the cities but the cities themselves. It
should be translated: The Levites left their cities and their possessions.
3)2 Chr. xxi 19 This, again is translated literally by RSV, ...The priests who were in the fields of common land
belonging to their cities. In fact, the text does not refer to the priests in the
common land but to the priests who were not present in Jerusalem.
is taken over as a whole from Lev. xxv 34 and refers to the cities themselves. Here again it should be translated: The priests... in their cities, and
thus it continues: there were men in the several cities who were designated by
name to distribute portions....
The technical term is found, as a fixed term for the cities themselves, in later literature.102
In Ezr.-Neh. we find neither the word nor the technical term. Ezr.-Neh.
describes the settlement of the returned exiles, and among them the priests
and the Levites. Nehemiah mentions that ...The Levites and the singers who
did the work, had fled each to his field (Neh. xiii 40) but the cities are not
mentioned. This is all the more significant because we do have evidence in
Ezr.-Neh. for the existence of these cities.103 And at the dedication of the wall
of Jerusalem they sought the Levites in all their places to bring them to Jerusalem.... And the sons of the singers gathered together from the circuit round
Jerusalem and from the villages of Netophathites... for the singers had built
themselves villages around Jerusalem (Neh. xii 27-29).
102)Tosefta Sota 13 II.
( Very similar in the Babylonian Talmud Sota 48 b). The Mishna Maser Sheni xiv 5:
: . ... :. The translations here too
overlook the special technical significance of the construct state which is literally cities
of a pasture land and translate it cities with pasture land. Actually it should be translated as a
unit: levitical cities.
103)Cf. S. Klein: The Priestly and Levitical cities, etc. (Hebrew), 1934, p. 19.
56
The long and complicated description, which tries so hard to define the
exact places of the Levites, is due to the fact that a concise and well-defined
term is lacking. The absence of the term in Ezr.-Neh. is not an accident. The term is not known, either in that period in general or to the author
in particular.
5.
The root has in Chr. two meanings: a) as a general term for the burning
of sacrifices in smoke; b) more specifically as burning of incense. In this connection the altar of incense ( ) and the censers ( )are also
mentioned.
The root in various forms occurs in Chr. twenty-six times, of which
two are taken from his sources: 2 Chr. xxviii 4 // 2 Ki. xvi 4; 2 Chr. xxxiv 25 //
2 Ki. xxii 17.104
All the other instances belong to the Chr.s own language. Some of them
might be cited here.105
1)1 Chr. xxiii 13: Aaron was set apart... that he and his sons forever should
burn incense before the Lord ( ) and minister to him and pronounce blessings in his name forever.
The affinities with Deut. x 8 are immediately apparent, but two changes are
prominent. The place of the tribe of Levi is taken by Aaron and his sons and
instead of to stand before the Lord their first task is to burn incense before
the Lord.
2)In the letter written by Solomon to Hiram, Solomon states his intention
to build a house for the Lord. In Kings the statement is brief: And so I purpose
to build a house for the name of the Lord my God (1 Ki. v. 5). In the parallel
account in Chr. it is elaborated: I am about to build a house for the name of the
Lord my God and dedicate it to him for the burning of incense and sweet spices
before Him () .
104)In 2 Ki. xxii 17 . In 2 Chr. xxxiv 17 Kethib Qre These variations reflect
two divergent tendencies. On one hand, the transition to Hifil, which is also demonstrated in
other strata of late Hebrew (cf. above p. 334, n. 7). On the other hand, we could trace the attempt
to distinguish between the Piel as describing illegitimate sacrifice and Hifil for the legitimate
one. This distinction is, however, not observed systematically in Chr., cf. 2 Chr. xxviii 3 (against
KBL).
105)The other occurrences are in Chr.: 1 Chr. vi 34, xxviii 18, 2 chr. xiii 11, xxv 14, xxvi 16-19 (frequently), 2 Chr. xxix 7, 11, xxx 14.
57
3)In enumerating the sins of Ahaz, the Chr. finds it necessary to add twice
to his sources in Kings that he burned incense to other gods (2 Chr. xxviii 3, as
against 2 Ki. xvi 3 and 2 Chr. xxviii 25).
The root , as a verb or as a noun, does not occur in Ezr.-Neh. at all.
The material problems involved cannot be dealt with here. But it is worth
noting that the altar of incense, called also the altar of gold, which is mentioned several times in Chr., is not mentioned at all in the building of the second temple described in Ezr.-Neh. The sacrifice of incense is not mentioned
either,106 not even among the responsibilities undertaken by the people while
making the covenant described in Neh.
6.
The ( Nethinim) and ( the sons of Solomons servants)
form a part of the Jewish community which returned to Jerusalem in the Restoration period, as described in Ezr.-Neh. They are a distinct group, belonging
to the cult personnel. But, in spite of their relatively large number,107 they are
always placed at the end of the list. Their names are unusual and probably
foreign.108 The Nethinim and the sons of Solomons servants are mentioned,
together or separately, in all the literary strata of Ezr.-Neh. as follows:
a)In the lists: Ezr. ii 43, 55, 58 (Neh. vii 46, 57, 60); Ezr. ii 70; Neh. vii 73; xi
3, 21.
b)In Ezras memoirs: Ezr. viii 20.
c)In Nehemiahs memoirs: Neh. iii 26, 31.
d)In Aramaic: Ezr. vii 24.
e)In parts attributed to the Chr.: Ezr. vii 7; Neh. x 28 (29).
We have presented all of the material at length so as to have no room for doubt
that the Nethinim and the sons of Solomons servants were a social reality in
the discussed period. They were two closed classes of temple-servants, similar
to one another. The sons of Solomons servants traced their origin, as can be
deduced from their name, to the Solomonic period; the Nethinim are explicitly
106)In Nehemiahs memoirs the frankincense ( )is mentioned twice, in Neh. xiii 5, 9.
107)Their number among the returnees was three hundred and ninety-two (Ezr. ii 58) which is
more than the Levites, singers and gatekeepers together (Ezr. ii 40, 41, 42).
108)Cf. M. Noth: Die israelitischen Personennamen im Rahmen der gemeinsemitischen Namengebung, 1928, pp. 63-64.
58
connected with David: ...the Nethinim, who David and his officials had set
apart ( )to attend the Levites (Ezr. viii 20).
The tradition regarding their origin and place among the cult personnel
is generally accepted as reliable.109 Accordingly, reference is made to 1 Ki. ix
20-21: All the people who were left of the Amorites, the Hittites, the Perizites... who were not of the people of Israel... these Solomon made a forced
levy of slaves and so they are to this day. The information casually given here,
surely accounts for the presence of . And although similar information regarding the Nethinim is not given in Sam.-Ki., the tradition of Ezr. viii 20,
in its main point, is however, accepted as historical. Now, the inclination to
rely on Ezr. viii 20 as historical proof derives, among other things, from the
parallel phenomenon of the sons of Solomons servants and from the widespread tradition that the beginnings and basis of the cult-organisations were
laid by David. It is therefore only natural to look for an explicit mention of the
Nethinim, their origin and functions, in Chr., where most of the cult institutions are legitimatized through their attribution to David. It is rather a surprise
to find that there are no Nethinim in Chr.110 In all the many and diversified
descriptions of cultic orders scattered throughout the book they are not even
hinted at.111
Some further remarks of clarification are required:
a)The sons of Solomons servants are totally absent from Chr., but the
Nethinim are mentioned once in 1 Chr. ix 2-3: Now the first to dwell again
in their possessions in their cities were Israel, the priests, the Levites, and the
Nethinim, and some of the people of Judah, Benjamin, Ephraim and Manasseh
dwelt in Jerusalem. These verses serve as a heading to a list, found in two
editions, here and in Neh. xi 3ff.112 The same heading in Neh. runs as follows:
These are the chiefs of the province who lived in Jerusalem, but in the towns
of Judah everyone lived on his property in their towns, Israel, the priests, the
109)Cf. R. Kittel, Geschichte des Volkes Israel, III 2, 1929 507, pp. 417-419; M. Haran: The
Gibeonites, their place in the war of conquest and in the history of Israel (Hebrew), Studies in
Joshua, 1960, pp. 106-110.
110)The fact was already noted by M. H. Segal, Tarbiz XIV, 1943, p. 88.
111)For example, 1 Chr. vi 16ff.; ix 22ff.; xxiii 2-6 and others.
112)The presence of one list in two different recensions in two books which are, according to the
general supposition, one continuous book, caused not a little embarrassment. Some solutions are
proposed by Curtis (op. cit., p. 168) and Rudolph, Chronikbcher, p. 83ff. The general solution is
that the list in 1 Chr. ix is post-chronistic, but the changes presented in the list, and mainly in its
heading, show clear traces of the Chr.s adaptation.
59
Levites, the Nethinim and the descendants of Solomons servants and in Jerusalem lived certain of the sons of Judah and of the sons of Benjamin.113
The Chr. has made some changes in his version. He omitted the sons of
Solomons servants, he changed the chiefs of the Province ()
into the first to dwell again ( ( 114 and added the sons of
Ephraim and Manasseh to the dwellers of Jerusalem, although their names do
not appear in the list itself.115 The Nethinim are left in the heading as a mere
survival, they are mentioned, but in the list itself the verses which give some
details relating to them (Neh. xi 21) are omitted in Chr.
b)It was stated above that Ezr. viii 20 traces the origin of the Nethinim to
Davids times. We have also assumed that the sons of Solomons servants were
actually those remnants of the Canaanite population which were taken by
Solomon as forced levy workers. In this connection we do have in Chr. a divergent and interesting information. The Chr. attributes the origin of these levy
workers not to the days of Solomon but to the Davidic period: 1. 1 Chr. xxii 2:
David commanded to gather together the aliens (Heb: )who were in the
land of Israel and he set stonecutters to prepare dressed stones for building
the house of God. 2. 2 Chr. ii 16: Then Solomon took a census of all the aliens
(Heb: )who were in the land of Israel after the census of them which David
his father has taken... Seventy thousand of them he assigned to bear burden,
eighty thousand to quarry in the hill country and three thousand and six hundred as overseers to make the people work.
A comparison of these verses with 2 Chr. ii 2, viii 7-9 and 1 Ki. v. 29-30,
ix 20-22, reveals that it is the remnant of the Amorites which are described
here, but they are traced back to the days of David. The inevitable conclusion is that the Chr. does recognize such a group, which is traced back both to
the days of David and Solomon. The fact itself is attested to both by Chr. and
Ezr.-Neh. but the difference between them is therefore more prominent.
113)The affinities between the two headings are obscured because of the inconsistencies of the
translation, and are much clearer in Hebrew. For example, in 1 Chr. ix 2 is
translated: In their possessions in their cities, In Neh. xi 3 is translated on his
property in their towns of is translated in Chr.: and
some or the people of Judah, Benjamin, etc., dwelt in Jerusalem and the same is translated in
Neh.: and in Jerusalem lived certain of the sons of Judah and of the sons of Benjamin.
114)Cf. below, p. 355.
115)The Chr.s attitude to the people of northern Israel is also a matter which needs some revision. In any case, cf. 1 Chr. xii, 2 Chr. xi 16-17, xv 9, xxviii 9ff., xxx 1ff.
60
a)In Ezr.-Neh. they are designated as Nethinim and the sons of Solomons
servants. In Chr. these names are absent. The title in Chr. is 116 and this title
is totally absent from Ezr.-Neh.
b)In Ezr.-Neh. they form a class among the Temple servants. In Chr. they
have no function in the cult, or in the temple. They are mobilized at a certain
historical period to execute the building of the temple and afterwards they disappear. The fact that they were given by David... to the Levites is not even
hinted at in Chr. According to Chr. they have no connection, whatsoever to
the cultic orders. The question remains open as to whether the Chr.s attitude
towards the Nethinim is a result of mere misinformation, or whether it is to
be interpreted as deliberate polemics against this same situation which is
described in Ezr.-Neh.
7.8.9.
The common denominator which units all these terms is the fact that they are
taken from the realm of state affairs in the period of Persian rule.
7.
In the writings of the Persian period is a technical term designating an
administrative unit in the empire, either the satrapy or its subdivisions.117 The
use of the term is common to Ezr.-Neh., Dan., and Esther.118 In the various
strata of Ezr.-Neh. it is the title of the province of Judah: Ezr. ii 1 (Neh. vii 6);
Neh. i 3; xi 3; Ezr. v. 8 (Aramaic).
In other instances, all of them in the Aramaic portion, the term relates to
other provinces, i.e., Ezr. vi 2relating to the province of Media, in Ezr. vii 16
to the province of Babylonia, and in iv 15 to provinces in general.
In a later phase of Hebrew the term came to have two meanings: province
and town.119
In contrast to all the writings from this period the word is not to be
found in Chr. The argument that the Chr. limits his description to the period
of the First Temple loses its validity in view of the abundance of anachronisms
116)Translated by the RSV as aliens. In 2 Chr. xxx 25 the word is translated sojourners.
117)Cf. J. Liver, Encyclopedia Biblica IV (Hebrew), p. 593.
118)The term is very current in Esther, where it appears over thirty times. It appears in Dan. in the
following verses: ii 48, 49; iii 1, 2, 3, 12, 30; viii 2; xi 24. In Eccl. it occurs twice: ii 8, v 5.
119)Cf. Jastrow, op. cit., II, p. 734.
61
in Chr. Moreover, the word continued its existence in the language after
the Persian period, but in Chr. it is absent.
These finds are supported by a parallel text. The list of Neh. xi 3ff. is repeated
in 1 Chr. ix 2ff.120 Among the changes which the Chr. introduced in the lists
heading we also find the transformation of ( these are the
chiefs of the province) into ( the first to dwell again...).
It follows that the absence of the term in Chr. is not due to a mere
coincidence; this conclusion is strengthened by the following.
8.
The word is a loan word from Accadian121 and is found in Hebrew only from
the sixth century B.C. and onwards.122 It serves mainly as a title of certain officials in the service of a foreign king, Babylonian or Persian, but it also becomes
a more general term, as a title of an official in general.123
The term is found in Ezr.-Neh. ten times, mostly in Nehemiahs memoirs but
also elsewhere: Ezr. ix 2; Neh. ii 16; iv 14 (8), 19 (13); v. 7; vii 5; xii 40; xiii 11.
In Chr. we do not find the term at all. Moreover, there is a series
of foreign titles which do occur in his sources such as 124
, , 125 but they are all missing in Chr. When the Chr.
describes the disaster which befell the Assyrian army he enlarges upon the
description of his sources and adds some titles to the narrative. But all of them
are taken from his own storehouse and the authentic titles are absent.
9.
The term as well is a loan word from Accadian. It is used mainly in
the Persian period and it is in the writings from this period that it is most
120)Cf. above, p. 352.
121)Cf. KBL, p. 649.
122)In addition to Ezr.-Neh., it occurs in Isa. xli 25; Jer. li 23, 28, 57; Ez. xxiii 6, 12, 23 and in Aramaic
in Dan. ii 48; iii, 2, 27; vi 8. In Jer. and Ez. it is always connected with .
123)It has this general meaning in Ezr. ix 2 where it is parallel to , in Neh. xii 40, and presumably also in Isa. xli 25.
124)2 Ki. xxv 8, 10, 11, 12, 15, 18, 20. It is the title of Nebuzaradan, and is translated by RSV as the
captain of the body guard or the captain of the guard. All the description of his actions in Jerusalem, given in 2 Ki. xxv is absent from Chr.
125)All these titles, in 2 Ki. xviii 17ff. are given in RSV in transliteration. The comparison of 2 Ki.
xviii 17 with its parallel text in Chr. shows that their omission is deliberate. (2 Chr. xxxii 9). The
name is repeated in this narrative in Kings eight times, but it is omitted in the parallel
account in Chr.
62
rominent126 In the various strata of Ezr.-Neh. it is repeated several times, in

p
sing. and in plural forms:127 Ezr. viii 36; Neh. ii 7, 9; iii 7; v 14;128 15, 18; In Aramaic
Ezr. v 3, 6, 14; vi, 6, 7.
Besides Ezr.-Neh. it is known from other books of the Persian period, i.e.,
Haggai, Mal., Esther and Dan.129 In Chr. it is found only once in a text which is
taken word for word from his sources in Kings. 2 Chr. ix 14 // 1 Ki. x 15.
All these terms, and others which were not discussed,130 demonstrate the
fact that foreign terms taken from the realm of government and administration entered the language and became a living part of it. Most of the terms were
thoroughly absorbed into the language and their use in Ezr.-Neh. is widespread
and natural.
In the book of Chr. there is not even a trace of all this world. On one hand
, which has no special foreign color about it but is closely related with
the Persian rule, and on the other hand terms such as , ,
which were fully absorbed into the languageall these are absent from the
book of Chr. The question which naturally follows, and cannot be answered in
this context, is whether this lack is a result of linguistic limitations or whether
there is some deliberate tendency in their ommission. In any event, the opposition between Chr. and Ezr.-Neh. is conspicuously stated.
III.Peculiarities of Style
The purpose of the following discussion is the study of characteristic stylistic
traits. It should be noted beforehand that the general deficiencies of stylistic
investigation are present here as well, and among them the fact that a personal style is a unified whole, and not every aspect of it has its equivalent in
126)In addition to these it is found only in 2 Ki. xviii 24 // Isa. xxxvi 9; 1 Ki. xx 24; 1 Ki. x 15 // 2 Chr.
ix 19 and as a parallel to in Ez. xxiii 6, 12, 23; Jer. li 23, 28, 57.
127)To the forms and , their meaning and relation, cf. E. Y. Kutscher: and its
cognates, Tarbiz xxx, 1961, p. 112ff. (Hebrew, with an English summary).
128) is a corrupted form of . Cf. B.H.
129)Haggai i 1, 14; ii 2, 21; Mal. i 8; Esther iii 12; viii 9; ix 3; Dan. iii 2, 3, 27; vi 8.
130)Such as 1) which is also translated by RSV as governor. It is mentioned in
Ezr.-Neh. only five times: Ezr. ii 63; Neh. vii 65, 70; viii 9, x 2 and is not known from other biblical sources and might be more restricted in meaning. 2) . Satraps, which is found in
Ezr.-Neh. only onceEzr. viii 36, and otherwise in Esther iii 12; viii 9; ix 3 and in Aramaic in Dan.
nine times. 3) which is found only in Nehemiahs memoirs, in the narrative about the wall
building: Neh. iii 9, 12, 14, 15, 17, 18. All these do add to the general picture, but the sparsity of material renders their support limited.
63
another style. Thus the basis for comparison is very much reduced. Another
point, which is restricted to our subject, is the fact that Ezr.-Neh. cannot be
defined as a stylistic whole and is, at least from a literary point of view, a
much variegated book. Even so there are some traits which do characterize
this book and mark it as an independent composition.
The following discussion deals at first with traits peculiar to Chr. and secondly with Ezr.-Neh.
1.Chr.
A.
The adverb with its own special nuance is a favourite of the Chr. The basic
meaning upwards131 is broadened and the word serves as a general adverb
meaning much, exceedingly, highly, etc. This enlarged meaning is confined to the Chr.s style132 and is found both in additions to his sources and regularly in other parts. These are: 1 Chr. xiv 2 (2 Sam. v 12); 2 Chr. xvi 12 (1 Ki. xv 23);
1 Chr. xxii 5; xxiii 17; xxix 3, 25; 2 Chr. i 1, xvii 12; xx 19; xxvi 8.
In the translation every instance is rendered differently, thus emphasizing
the wide range of the meanings given to the single phrase.
There is no such use of in Ezr.-Neh. A superficial glance is likely to
bring forth the once-mentioned in Ezr. ix 6: But, the meaning here
does not differ from all the other instances of this adverb in the O.T. denoting
above. The verse should be translated as follows: Our iniquities have risen
above the head.133 It has nothing to do with the specific use of Chr.134
B.
The word recurs in Chr. over thirty times having a special nuance.135
With a verb it is parallel to and is actually an adverb. With a noun it
approximates an adjective, and means great.
131)Cf. BDB, p. 751; KBL, p. 548.
132)Cf. Driver, op. cit., p. 503. This metaphorical use of upwards as a mere intensive
exceedingly is exlusively a late one and confined to these passages (i.e., to Chr. alone).
133)RSVs translation is our iniquities have risen higher than our heads. The Septuagints version both here and in I Esd. viii 72 is our iniquities [sins] are multiplied above our heads and
is translated as . It might be conjectured that the original version was ( cf.
Ps. xxxviii 4 (5) ), and only by a misdivision was it changed into and then the
was added.
134)Cf. also Driver, op. cit., p. 504.
135)Driver, op. cit., p. 502.
64
Once it is taken over from his sources: 2 Chr. i 15 // 1 Ki. x 27.

Three times the sources are slightly changed and is introduced; 2 Chr.
iv 18 // 1 Ki. vii 47 ( ;(2 Chr. ix 1 // 1 Ki. x 2 ( ;(2 Chr. ix 9 //
1 Ki. x 10 ().
The word recurs thirty-one other times, and it might be said that there is no
section in which it does not appear. It is variously translated as: great, greatly,
great quantities, great numbers, abundant, abundantly, in abundance, much,
plenty, etc.136
In Ezr.-Neh. it occurs once, in an independent text which was incorporated
into the book, i.e., in the congregations prayer in Neh. ix 25137 and fruit trees
in abundance.
The text of this prayer belongs to a more elevated linguistic stratum than the
usual prose account of Ezr.-Neh.138 In the prose parts of the book it is not found
at all. On the other hand, it belongs to the basic style of the prose accounts in
Chr. and there it is abundantly used. We can discern here both a linguistic difference and a peculiar stylistic quality of the Chr.
C.
This particular form of the verb functions as a characteristic way of
address at the opening of speeches in Chr.: 1 Chr. xxviii 2; 2 Chr. xiii 4; xv 2;
xx 20; xxviii 11; xix 5.
It is defined by Driver as One of the many marks which the speeches in
Chr. contain of the compilers hand.139
There are speeches, addresses, etc. in Ezr.-Neh. as well, but none of them
opens with this special way of address,140 which occurs, as a matter of fact, only
once more outside of Chr.141
136)Cf. 1 Chr. iv 38; xii 40 (41); xxii 3, 4, 5, 8, 14. 15; xxix 2, 21; 2 Chr. ii 8; xi 23, xiv 14; xv 9; xvi 8; xvii 5;
xviii 1, 2; xx 25; xxiv 11, 24; xxvii 3; xxix 35; xxx 5, 13, 24; xxxi 5, 10; xxxii 5, 29.
137)Cf. Myers, Ezra-Nehemiah, pp. 166-170.
138)Another instance, of approximately the same period is Zach. xiv 14, here too in a prophecy,
i.e., in an elevated linguistic stratum.
139)Op. cit., p. 504.
140)As to the origin and character of these speeches cf G. v. Rad: Die Levitische Predigt in den
Bchern der Chronik, Gesammelte Studien 1958. p. 248ff. v. Rad finds an actual situation for such
a preaching in Neh. viii 7. But all the speeches he deals with are found in Chr. proper. Actually
the peculiar type of speech described by v. Rad is confined to Chr. and is not found in Ezr.-Neh.
at all.
141)Gen. xxiii 6.
65
D.
appears in Hifil and Nifal with the meaning to subdue or to be subdued, mainly in war.142 This basic meaning occurs in Chr. too,143 but in addition it also takes on another significance: is used spiritually, denoting
humility before God and His laws.144 It describes the inner quality of the pious
man in general, as resignation and repentance before God:145 Then the princes
and the king humbled themselves and said The Lord is righteous when the
Lord saw that they humbled themselves the word of the Lord came to Shemaiah. They have humbled themselves, I will not destroy them (2 Chr. xii 6-7).
And further in 2 Chr. vii 14; xii 12; xxx 11; xxxii 26; xxxiii 12, 19, 23.
Outside Chr. we find such a use only twice: 1 Ki. xxi 29;146 2 Ki. xxii 19.
In Ezr.-Neh. the root itself does occur once, denoting submission in war.147
But the peculiar use of the Chr. which, in its essence and its spirit is so much in
harmony with the spirit of penitence found in Ezr.-Neh. is totally absent.148
E.
The peculiar phrase is found only in late Hebrew, in Chr. and Dan.149 Its meaning is presumably to retain the strength within the body, and henceto have
strength.150 It is found in several places in Chr. but not in Ezr.-Neh.151
142)Cf. Jud. iii 30; viii 28; xi 33; 1 Sam. vii 13, etc.
143)In four places: 1 Chr. xx 4, where the addition of were subdued is one of the main
divergencies form the parallel text in 2 Sam. xxi 18. 1 Chr. xvii 10: = And I will subdue all
your enemies in place of I will give you rest from all your enemies in 2 Sam. vii 11.
And also in 2 Chr. xxviii 19 and 2 Chr. xiii 18.
144)Cf. Driver, op. cit., p. 504.
145)The link between these two usages seems to be found in Lev. xxvi 41 and Ps. cvii 12 in the
phrases and where is used metaphorically. From here only one step is
required to use itself in the thoroughly spiritual meaning found in Chr.
146)The presence of this usage in the context of Elijahs stories is one more argument in favour of
the secondary origin of the whole episode of Ahabs repentance. Cf. J. Gray, I and II Kings, 1963,
pp. 393-394.
147)In the congregations prayer of Neh. ix which is, in any case, an independent text, Neh. ix 24.
148)The continuation of this use is found in Hebrew in the DSS. Besides the general use of the
root in Hifil there is one example of the Nifal in the Manual of Discipline, x 27. It is mostly translated as humbled (cf. for example, A. R. C. Leaney: The Rule of Qumran and its meaning, 1966,
p. 235). But J. Licht suggests that it is rather a title of the members of the sect. (J. Licht, The Rule
Scroll, 1965, p. 222 (Hebrew)).
149)1 Chr. xxix 14; 2 Chr. ii 6; xiii 20; xxii 9; Dan. x 16, 18; xi 11.
150)Zimmermann proposed that the phrase is a mistranslation from Aramaic (JQR 42, 1951/2,
p. 144ff.). The presence of this phrase in DSS is another argument against his proposal (for example, Hodayot x 10-11).
151)Although similar expressions exist, such as in Ezr. x 3. But here it should be taken into
account that its absence could be due to chance only because it is used relatively little.
66
The phrase is usually translated paraphrastically with to be able, and

occurs twice with the omission of .
F.
This phrase, as well, is found only in Chr.:152 2 Chr. xiv 14 (13); xvii 10; xix 7;153
xx 20. Its origins are not known, but there is no reason to classify it as specifically late. Its most frequent parallel is : The fear fell upon.154 It
should be asked whether we have here further evidence for the meaning fall
for in Hebrew.155 A positive answer to this question also suggests that this
meaning for was extant at a relatively late phase of biblical Hebrew.156
This phrase is also not found in Ezr.-Neh.
G.
The phrase to build a house for Gods name is an expression of the theological
conception that Gods name abides in the temple. The origin of the conception
itself and the phrases that issue from it is presumably to be found in the Deuteronomistic school.157 The Chr. has found the phrase in his sources in Kings,
adapted it and made it a constructive element in his own style.
He copies almost literally the following sections where the phrase occurs
seven times: 2 Chr. ii 3 // 1 Ki. iv 19; 2 Chr. vi 7-10 // 1 Ki. viii 17-20; 2 Chr. vi 34 //
1 Ki. viii 44; 2 Chr. vi 38 // 1 Ki. viii 48.
In addition he uses it in his own narrative: 1 Chr. xxii 7, 8, 10, 19; xxviii 3;
xxix 16; 2 Chr. i 18; xx 8, 9.
The phrase is absent from Ezr.-Neh. although the description given there of
the construction of the temple is designated by general opinion as chronistic.
152)Cf. Driver, op. cit., p. 504.
153)The use of in this context seems strange. The whole account is clearly influenced
by Deut. x 17. We would have expected, therefore, because of the literary influence as well as the
subject itself, to find here rather than . Indeed we do find immediately
after in 2 Chr. xix 9. We can clearly see how fixed literary phrases stand side by side with others,
framed by the Chr.s own style.
154)For example: 1 Sam. xi 7; Exod. xv 16, etc., related to it terror fell upon as in
Gen. xv 12; Ps. lv 4 (5). The difference is sometimes obscured by the RSV.
155)Cf. S. E. Loewenstamm, Thesaurus of the language of the Bible II, 1959, p. 359d. G. R. Driver,
Biblica XIX, 61.
156)Another instance might be added from Ez. The phrase the hand of the Lord
was upon is very common in Ez. (i 3, iii 22, etc.), but once we have instead
The hand of the Lord God fell there upon meEz. viii 1. The two parallel expressions
explain each other. Similarly it is possible that the phrase And the spirit of
the Lord fell upon meEz. xi 5 is the equivalent in Ez. of the common as Num.
xxiv 2, Jud. iii 10, and more.
157)G. v. Rad, Studies in Deuteronomy, 1953 (translated from the German), p. 37ff.
67
Both the phrase and the theological conception it expresses are missing. The
temple is built for God and not for his name as in Ezr. i 2;158 iv 1, 3.159
The question as whether the stylistic change is due to theological differences must remain unanswered for the time being. But the stylistic fact itself is
nonetheless conspicuous.
H. ,
A specific theological trait peculiar to the Chr. is the constant insistence on
the piety of the Judean kings and people.160 Not only are their pious deeds
fully described but strong stress is laid upon the fact that all their deeds were
done with a whole heart. The religious disposition is described mainly by
with a whole heart. with all his heart and with
all his soul, with their whole desire and others. These expressions are not specifically late but they are peculiar to the Chr.s style.

The expression is found only in Kings (5 times)161 and Chr. (8 times). It was
presumably taken by the Chr. from Kings162 but only once does it occur in Chr.
in a parallel text (2 Chr. xv 17 // 1 Ki. xv 15). All the other instances are his own:
1 Chr. xii 38; xxviii 9; xxix 9; 19; 2 Chr. xv 9; xix 9; xxv 2.163

This expression, as well, is frequent in Deuteronomistic style;164 it was adopted
by the Chr. and became a conspicuous sign of his style.
158)The verse is taken from the edict of Cyrus which belongs in every respect to Ezr.-Neh. The
insertion of a part of it into 2 Chr. xxxvi 23-24 is no doubt secondary.
159)The phrase to build a house for/to God does occur occasionally in Chr. but is secondary in
importance and use. In the parallel texts it occurs a few times in 1 Chr. xvii // 2 Sam. vii and also
in 1 Chr. xxii 5, 6; 2 Chr. ii 5, 11.
160)Great stress is laid upon religious reformations (Asa, Jehoshapat, Hezekiah), cultic activities,
etc. Some of the kings, as Abia and Menassah, even receive rehabilitation and the evils of others,
as Rehoboam, are mitigated. Cf. Y. Kaufmann, op. cit. (p. 346, n. 2) VIII p. 457, p. 480.
161)1 Ki. viii 61; xi 4; xv 3, 14; 2 Ki. xx 3 // Isa. xxxviii 3.
162)The expression belongs, it seems, to the Deuteronomistic framework of Kings, but is not
found in Deuteronomy. It is a further example, though a minor one, of the difference between
the two.
163)It differs in this point from the parallel text in 2 Ki. xiv 3.
164)In Deut. itself it recurs about ten times. The phrase in full is: with all your heart and with all
your soul and with all your might (Deut. vi 5). But the full expression does not appear in Chr.
68
Besides the parallel texts,165 it is found six times in his own narrative, in
several variations.166
All these modes of expression are not found in Ezr.-Neh. The stylistic difference is strongly felt where the subject and purpose of the descriptions are the
same. Two examples will suffice to demonstrate this:
1)The two books tell us about the free-will donations for the execution of
the temple. In Ezr. ii 68-69, the description is Some of the heads of families,
when they came to the house of the Lord which is in Jerusalem, made free-will
offerings for the house of the Lord to erect it on its site; according to their ability they gave to the treasury of the work sixty-one thousand darics of gold, five
thousands mine of silver and one hundred priests garments. In Chr. xxix 6ff.,
it is as follows: Then the heads of father houses made their freewill offerings as
did also the leaders of the tribes, the commanders... and the officers... They
gave... five thousand talents of silver, eighteen thousand talents of bronze
and a hundred thousand talents of iron167 and whoever had precious stones
gave them to the treasury of the house of the Lord.... Then the people rejoiced
because they had given willingly, for with a whole heart they had offered freely
to the Lord. David the King also rejoiced grately.
2)The other occasion is the making of a covenant, which again is described
in both books: In Neh. x 28-29 (29-30): The rest of the people... all who have
knowledge and understanding join with their brethren, their nobles and enter
into a curse and an oath to walk in Gods law which was given by Moses... and
to observe and do all the commandments of the Lord, our Lord, and his ordinances and his statutes. And in 2 Chr. xv 12-15: And they entered into a covenant to seek the Lord the God of their fathers with all their heart and with all
their soul and that whoever would not seek the Lord, the God of Israel should
be put to death. They took oath to the Lord with a loud voice and with shouting
and with trumpets and with horns, and all Judah rejoiced over the oath for they
had sworn with all their heart and had sought him with all their desire and he
was found by them and the Lord gave them rest round about.
The difference is immediately apparent. The descriptions of Ezr.-Neh. are
short, dry and matter of fact. They describe only external facts and minimize
the description of the ceremony. Those of Chr. are elaborate and pompous,
describing in detail the inner feeling of the participants and giving a tinge
165)2 Chr. vi 14, 38 // 1 Ki. viii 23, 48; 2 Chr. xxxiv 31 // 2 Ki. xxiii 3.
166)1 Chr. xxii 19; 2 Chr. xv 12, 15; xxii 9, xxx 19; xxxi 21.
167)On the difference in the numbers, cf. M. H. Segal, Tarbiz XIV (Hebrew), p. 85.
69
of exaggeration to every aspect mentioned. The special style of the Chr. is

achieved, among other things, through the abundant use and repetition of
fixed pregnant literary formulas.
I.
The root , mainly in Hifil, is quite frequent in the O.T. Nevertheless, it can
be regarded as a favourite of the Chr., as it frequently occurs in his account.
In two places he depends on his sources: 1 Chr. xxi 15 (2 Sam. xxiv 16);168
2 Chr. xxi 7 // 2 Ki. viii 19.
In several places displaces another root of the sources or is added to
the original text. For example: To 2 Sam. xxiv 3: Or shall there be three days
pestilence in your land, the Chr. adds (in 1 Chr. xxi 12): and the angel of the
Lord destroying (). In 2 Kings viii 27: and he did what was evil in the
sight of the Lord for he was son-in-law to the house of Ahab, here, again,
the Chr. adds: for... they were his counselors to his undoing ((
(2 Chr. xxiv 4).
A similar procedure is followed in 2 Chr. xxvii 2 (2 Ki. xv 35); 2 Chr. xxxiv 11
(2 Ki. xxii 5-6).
Apart from these, the verb is used in the Chr.s own narrative.169 In Ezr.-Neh.
it is totally absent, although the opportunities to use it are many.
K.
From earlier literature the Chr. derives the phrase Be strong and
of good courage as well as the verb itself, and weaves it into his composition. 1 Chr. xxii 13 is taken literally from Jos. 25,
Deut. xxxi 6 and other verses;170 2 Chr. xxxvi 13: He stiffened his neck and
hardened ( )his heart is clearly dependent on Deut. ii 30.171
168)There are some differences between these texts. The parallel in 2 Sam. xxiv 16 is somewhat
different. The main linguistic difference is between in Piel and in Hifil. The
Hifil in this root is generally more frequent than the Piel. It should be asked, however, whether
it is additional proof of the strengthening of Hifil. Cf. above p. 348 n. 2.
169)2 Chr. xii 7, 12, xx 23; xxiv 23; xxv 16; xxvi 16; xxxv 21; xxxvi 19.
170)The same phrase occurs also in 2 Chr. xxviii 20 and 2 Chr. xxxii 7. The phrase
in itself occurs twice more in Chr., in 2 Chr. xx 15, 17. This phrase as well is absent from
Ezr.-Neh.
171)The dependence on Deut. is not felt in the RSV which translates differently in those places. In
Hebrew it runs as follows: 2 Chr. xxxvi 13: Deut. v 30:
.
70
In the use of the verb as parallel to two places are noteworthy:

2 Chr. xxiv 13, where the subject of they strengthened it is the
house of God, and 2 Chr. xiii 7, where is translated and...
defied Rehoboam, and is rather they tried to overcome him.172
The root is not found in the vocabulary of late biblical prose, including
Ezr.-Neh.
L.
The noun is rare in early prose173 but is quite frequent in poetry. As in
other instances it was transferred by the Chr. to his prose and was absorbed
there.174 Its meaning in Chr. is stability and faithfullness. But it also has the
peculiar connotation permanent office,175 or being in charge of something.
The first meaning, faithfulness, is exemplified by: 2 Chr. xxiv 12 // 2 Ki. xxii 7;
2 Chr. xix 9; xxxi 12.
The second is exemplified by 1 Chr. ix 22: David and Samuel... established
them in their permanent office ()176 and also by 1 Chr. ix 26, 31;
xxxi 15.177
The problematic verse is 2 Chr. xxxi 18 . It is translated by RSV as for they were faithful in keeping themselves holy which is
rather paraphrastic. It seems that here too we should translate for in their
office ) (they should be sanctified.
The noun , in either of its meanings, is not found at all in Ezr.-Neh.178
172)The other instances are: 2 Chr. xi 17; xiii 18; 2 Chr. x 18 // 1 Ki. xiii 18.
173)Exod. xvii 12, 1 Sam. xxvi 23, and twice in Kings in similar contexts and wording: 2 Ki. xii 16,
xxii 7.
174)To a lesser degree it is shown also in the use of the verb, . The utterance of Isaiah (vii 9)
is utilized in Jehoshaphats sermon:
. In three instances the root substitutes for another in the parallel text or is
added to it: 1 Chr. xvii 23: in place of in 2 Sam. vii 25, a nd in the following verse ,
found in place of alone. The same addition is made also in 2 Chr. i 9 in comparison to 1 Ki. iii
6. All these sections are related to Gods promise to David and his house, and in this connection
it does occur once in Kings, and in the parallel text in Chr. (1 Ki. viii 26 // 2 Chr. vi 17). The consistent use of the verb in this context in Chr. suggests that its origin is in Chr. and it was secondarily
transferred to 1 Ki. viii 26. On the other hand, it might have been taken by the Chr. from this place
in Kings and used in all the other sections dealing with the same subject. The case is complicated
by the fact that the Septuagints version of 2 Sam. vii contains a trace of the same verb there.
175)Cf. Thesaurus of the Language of the Bible, p. 197.
176)Translated by RSV: In their office of trust.
177)It seems that it should rather be translated here in their office instead of faithfully (RSV).
178)Neither the verb. We do have in Ezr.-Neh. twice the adj. in non-chronistic parts
(Neh. ix 8, xiii 13) and the noun . Neither are found in Chr.
71
M.
In early biblical literature the noun is more prevalent in poetry than in
prose.179 In the prose of Chr. it occurs ten times in various contexts180 and
nowhere in Ezr.-Neh.181
N.
This is another phrase which the Chr. has taken from earlier sources182 and
absorbed into his style. The of 1 Ki. iii 11 and the of 1 Ki. iii 13 are
turned into in 2 Chr. i 11, 12.
The riches and honour form an important part of success: David has died
in a good old age full of days, riches and honour () 183
(1 Chr. xxix 28) and it was also the sign of success of Jehoshaphat and Hezekiah
(2 Chr. xvii 5; xviii 1; xxxii 27). It is explicitly described as Gods blessing: Both
riches and honour come from thee (1 Chr. xxix 12). This phrase too does not
occur in Ezr.-Neh.
2.Ezra-Nehemiah
A.
The expression the hand of my God was good upon me is a characteristic
phrase of Ezr.-Neh. It recurs several times in the various literary parts of the
book, and it is not found elsewhere in the O.T.
The full phrase occurs in Ezr. vii 9; viii 18, 22; Neh. ii 8, 18.
Twice more it is used eliptically, with the omission of good: Ezr. vii 28;
viii 31.
The exact semantic development which formed this peculiar expression is
not attested to in the O.T.184 However, its use in Ezr.-Neh. is variegated, lively,
179)But we cannot regard its use in early prose as exceptional. It does occur once in Jud. 5 times
in Sam. and 5 times in Kings. It is, however, most typical of Ez.s style, where it occurs over
25 times.
180)1 Chr. xxix 16; 2 Chr. xi 23; xiii 8; xiv 10; xx 2, 12, 15, 24; xxxi 10; xxxii 7. Cf. Driver, op. cit.,
p. 504.
181)It does occur in Dan.: in x 6, xi 10, 11 (twice), 12, 13.
182)Found mainly in the Wisdom Literature, i.e., Prov. iii 16, viii 18, etc. Cf. also Driver, op. cit.,
p. 504.
183)Cf. Gen. xxv 8: and died in a good old age, an old man and full of days. The specific Chr.s
addition is made to a literary formula.
184)In its wording it resembles most closely the phrase and actually it does occur
twice in this form (Ezr. vii 28, viii 31). However, generally denotes the power of
God which is resting on a person and compels him to perform certain actions. For example: And
72
and frequent. On the other hand, it is totally limited to Ezr.-Neh. It might be

conjectured that it was rather common in a certain period or vicinity. To the
Chr., however, it is no longer known and it finds no place in his work.
B.
In its meaning is parallel to the more common and
185 and is translated as marry.186 It is peculiar to Ezr.-Neh. where it freely
interchanges with the two others. It is not found elsewhere in the O.T.187
In Ezr.-Neh. it occurs in two different literary portions. In Nehemiahs memoirs (Neh. xiii 23, 27) and in what is termed the chronistic parts (Ezr. x 2, 10,
14, 17, 18). However, in Chr. it is absent.
We might assume that here again the somewhat strange expression was
common in a certain linguistic phase, and disappeared later. To the Chr. it is
already unknown, or at least disliked.
C.
The description of the temple as The house of God which is in Jerusalem is
found in Ezr.-Neh. several times with small variations and first in the edict of
Cyrus: Ezr. i 3: Whoever is among you of all his people... let him go up to Jerusalem which is in Judah, and rebuild the house of the Lord, the God of Israel,
he is the god which is in Jerusalem.
The dispute about the authenticity of this declaration is still going on.188
However, even those who consider it a mere fiction are inclined to regard some
the hand of the Lord was on Elijah and he girded his loins and ran before Ahab to the entrance of
Jezreel (1 Ki. xviii 46) or The hand of the Lord was upon me and he brought me out by the spirit
of the Lord... (Ez. xxxvii 1). In Ezr.-Neh. it denotes rather Gods permanent help and grace which
rest upon a person or a congregation. The expression was presumably formed when was
semantically changed and lost its specific meaning as strength, power.
185)On the mutual relation of these two, cf. E. Y. Kutscher, Leonenu XXX, 1965, p. 21ff.
(Hebrew).
186)Gcsenius-Buhl suggests a similar use in Ethiopic (p. 322). It is followed by Rudolph
(Esr.-Neh.), p. 92.
187)With perhaps the exception of the problematical Ps. cxiii 9.
188)Not only did the extreme criticism of C. C. Torrey deny it any historical value, but also
E. Meyer, who considered all the state-documents in Ezr.-Neh. as genuine and reliable, excluded
Ezr. i 2-4, E. Meyer, Die Entstehung des Judentums, 1896, p. 49; E. J. Bickermann in his detailed
discussion, The Edict of Cyrus in Esra 1, JBL 65, 1946, p. 249-275 had strongly argued for its originality. His conclusion was that Esra 1 preserves a genuine edict of Cyrus (p. 175). This conviction
was accepted by H. Tadmor: The historical background of the edict of Cyrus in Jubilee Volume
in Honour of D. Ben-Gurion, 1964, pp. 450-473 (Hebrew). However, K. Galling has lately returned
73
phrases in it, such as The God which is in Jerusalem and Jerusalem which is
in Judah as authentic formulas which were taken and copied by the author
from the style of the Persian court.
The origin of these expressions was explained in detail by E. J. Bickermann189
who asserts that For the ancients a city was the dominion of its tutelary gods190
and thus The God which is in Jerusalem, equals titles such as Sin of Ur and
others. It is not a geographical indication but a theological conviction, and
expresses the close relationship between the God and the city which is the
center of His cult.
The title of God is the origin of the sanctuarys title: the expression The
house of the God which is in Jerusalem recurs in various parts of Ezra: i 4, 5; ii
68; vii 27 and in Aramaic in Ezr. iv, 24, v 2, 14; vi 12, vii 15, 17.
In Chr. the title attributed to God and to his temple are completely absent;
both the theological conception and the external expression do not occur
even once.191 The difference is accentuated by such examples which seemingly
resemble it, and they are three: 1 Chr. vi 32 (17); 2 Chr. iii 1, xxx 1.
In all these instances in Jerusalem is a geographical indication and nothing
more. In 2 Chr. iii 1 it is a part of an accurate designation: In Jerusalem, on the
Mount Moriah, etc. In 2 Chr. xxx 1 the emphasis is on the fact that the Passover
was celebrated in Jerusalem by the whole people.
The opposition between Ezr.-Neh. and Chr. is clear-cut. An expression which
is frequent in the different parts of Ezr.-Neh., and which is clearly a product of a
certain period, is absolutely missing in Chr.
to the older view, cf., Die Proklamation des Kyros in Esra I, Studien zur Geschichte Israels, etc.,
1964, pp. 61-77.
189)Op. cit., pp. 256-258; 262-268.
190)Op. cit., p. 263.
191)It is probable that the expression the house of the Lord which is in Jerusalem does not have
the same theological significance when spoken by the Jews on one hand, and the Persian emperors on the other. The same is also probable as regards the title God of heaven which
is currently used by Neh. and Dan. (Neh. i 4, 5, 9; ii 4, 20; Dan. ii 18, 19, 37, 44) and is frequent also
in the Aramaic parts of Ezr. (v 11, 12; vi 9, 10; vii 12, 21, 23). Here, as well, there might be a difference
between the same title when used by Cyrus in The Lord, the God of heaven has given to me all
the kingdoms of the earth (Ezr. i 2). However, the very fact that the writer does not hesitate to
use it is significant. (In Chr. the title is absent as well, except in the citation from Ezr.
in 2 Chr. xxxvi 23).
74
D.
The Hithpael of is found in the O.T. eleven times, four in the priestly parts
of the Pentateuch192 and the others in Ezr.-Neh., Dan. and Chr. Its meaning is
to confess and it is thus correctly translated in ten out of the eleven times. In
Ezr.-Neh. it is found four times in three occasions:
1)Ezr. x 1: While Ezra prayed and made confession (), weeping
and casting himself down before the Lord....
2)Neh. i 6: Confessing the sins of the people of Israel;
3)Neh. ix 2-3: And the Israelites separated themselves... and stood and
confessed ( )their sins and the iniquities of their fathers... and...
they made confession ( )and worshipped the Lord their God.
In all the three events described in the different literary portions, the confession is explicity connected with prayer, and with external acts of mourning
such as fasting, weeping, wearing sackcloth, etc. The same type of confession
is also attested to in Dan.193
The verb appears once in Chr. but its meaning is different, as is
also shown in the translation: So the people ate the food of the festival for
seven days, sacrificing peace-offerings and giving thanks ( )to the Lord194
(2 Chr. xxx 22).
The general context is the description of the great joy and happiness during the festival of unleavened bread, which was celebrated in great throngs,
including the northern tribes. The parallel to is Praised
the Lord, a further support to the suggested meaning.
The full significance of this difference would be clarified by discussion of the
subject matter itself. In Chr. the very phenomenon of confession of sins, which
is essentially connected with consciousness of sin, is absent. It is typical of the
general atmosphere of Ezr.-Neh. and opposed to that of Chr.
E.
The adj. occurs altogether six times in the O.T.; it has two basic meanings:
a) trembling, be afraid of;195 b) to feel awe and reverence towards Gods word.
192)Lev. v 5; xvi 21; xxvi 40; Num. v 7.
193)Dan. ix 4, 20.
194)Ehrlich has suggested a text amendation to ( Randglossen VII, p. 378) but his
arguments are not convincing. It is equally probable that it was a specific semantic development
in Chr. The ancient versions testify to the interpretation of thanksgiving.
195)Which is the basic meaning of the root, cf. BDB, p. 353; KBL, p. 331.
75
In the last meaning it is found in two places, both in the form of a fixed
idiom:196 In Isa. lxvi 2, 5, as and and in Ezr. ix 4,
x 3, as .197
is a fixed idiom in Ezr.-Neh. and possibly, although this cannot
be proved, a technical term, but in Chr. it is lacking.
F.
The word is a loan word from Aramaic198 and belongs to late biblical
Hebrew.199 From it the form and the phrase are derived.
The phrase is peculiar to Ezr.-Neh. and there it occurs in different literary parts;
Ezr. 14; Neh. 34, xiii 31.
The word and the derived phrase are not found in Chr.
G.
God has extended his love to someone before someone occurs in the O.T.
twice, both in Ezr.: 1) Ezr. viii 28: Blessed be the Lord... who extended to me
his steadfast love before the king and his counsellors. 2) Ezr. ix 9: Yet our
God has not forsaken us... but has extended to us his steadfast love before the
kings of Persia to grant us some reviving.
The peculiar phrase has no parallel in the O.T.200 but its use in Ezr. is free
and organic. However, it is quite limited and in other places, including Chr., it
is absent.
196)It seems, although the material is meagre, that the form found in Ezr. is later. The earlier
usage of the verb is or and not as in 2 Sam. iv 13 or 2 Ki. vi 13.
197)The difference between ( (in Isa. and in Ezr. is not revealed by the translation.
198)Its origin, whether from Persian or Accadian, is not agreed upon. Cf. KBL, p. 1072.
199)Eccl. iii 1; Neh. ii 6; Esther ix 26, 27. In Aramaic, Ezr. v 3; Dan. ii 16, 21; iii 7, 8; iv 33; iv 11, 14; vii
12, 22, 25.
200)The development of the peculiar expression might have been as follows: In one instance
in the O.T. we find a similar expression:
But the Lord was with Joseph and showed him (lit: extended to him) steadfast love and
gave him favour in the sight (lit: in the eyes) of the keeper of the prison (Gen. xxxix 21). The
phrases compounded with the word such as find, obtain favour, give favour or
cause to obtain favour are connected, in earlier Hebrew, with in the eyes of. Cf. Gen. vi 8,
xviii 3, etc., Exod. iii 21, etc. In Esther the regular usage (sometimes with the substitution of
for Esther ii 15, v 2, vii 8) interchanges with ( Esther vii 5) and
(Esther ii 17)before. If we turn now to our expression in Ezr. we might suppose that it is actually an eliptic expression, omitting the words and parallel to Gen. xxxix 21. It should be
understood thus: Ezr. vii 28[ [ ...who extended to
me his steadfast love [and gave me favour] before the King.... Likewise in Ezr. ix 6 ...and has
extended to us his steadfast love [and gave us favour] before the kings of Persia.
76
H.
The word appears only in Neh. and there twice: Neh. ix 38 (x 1); xi 23. The
two instances are found in sections attributed to the Chr. In Chr., however, the
word is missing.
Conclusions
Certain parts of the material discussed revealed conspicuous stylistic differences between Ezr.-Neh. and Chr. Other parts exhibit actual opposition
between the two. From the linguistic point of view the book of Chr. deviates
in some important points from the tendencies and phenomena of its period,
which are extant in Ezr.-Neh. A further question is whether we should see here
a specific personal trait of a single author or a wider and more general phenomenon.
In the use of terms we saw that Ezr.-Neh. is rather confined to a limited
historical provenance. In Chr., a later stage in the use of terms is revealed, later
even than the latest stratum of Ezr.-Neh.
Our investigation of the differences between the two books, which was
restricted to one field, has proven that the books could not have been written or compiled by the same author. It seems rather that a certain period of
time must separate the two. We are certain that a further study of the literary
characteristics, the attitude to the sources and their use and the theological
conceptions of the two books will greatly support our conclusions.

Sara Japhet The Supposed Common Autorship of Chronicles and Ezra Nehemia Investigated Anew

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Sara Japhet The Supposed Common Autorship of Chronicles and Ezra Nehemia Investigated Anew

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Vetus

Vetus Testamentum IOSOT (2013) 36-76

The Supposed Common Authorship of Chronicles

S. Japhet / Vetus Testamentum IOSOT (2013) 36-76

S. Japhet / Vetus Testamentum IOSOT (2013) 36-76

3.The linguistic resemblance between the books as revealed by common

S. Japhet / Vetus Testamentum IOSOT (2013) 36-76

S. Japhet / Vetus Testamentum IOSOT (2013) 36-76

S. Japhet / Vetus Testamentum IOSOT (2013) 36-76

( ;(2 Chr. xviii 23, 33 // 1 Ki. xxii 24, 34 (2 ;(Chr. xviii 34 //

S. Japhet / Vetus Testamentum IOSOT (2013) 36-76

S. Japhet / Vetus Testamentum IOSOT (2013) 36-76

S. Japhet / Vetus Testamentum IOSOT (2013) 36-76

it replaces the forms of the M.T.44 However, neither of the forms is

S. Japhet / Vetus Testamentum IOSOT (2013) 36-76

3.Theophoric Names Ending with

S. Japhet / Vetus Testamentum IOSOT (2013) 36-76

changes in ten names: , , , , , , ,

S. Japhet / Vetus Testamentum IOSOT (2013) 36-76

S. Japhet / Vetus Testamentum IOSOT (2013) 36-76

67)A good example is 2 Sam. xi 4; which is actually translated: Now she

S. Japhet / Vetus Testamentum IOSOT (2013) 36-76

S. Japhet / Vetus Testamentum IOSOT (2013) 36-76

S. Japhet / Vetus Testamentum IOSOT (2013) 36-76

S. Japhet / Vetus Testamentum IOSOT (2013) 36-76

S. Japhet / Vetus Testamentum IOSOT (2013) 36-76

, so widely and consistently applied by the Chr., to be found, although

S. Japhet / Vetus Testamentum IOSOT (2013) 36-76

97)Cf. KBL, p. 494.

S. Japhet / Vetus Testamentum IOSOT (2013) 36-76

S. Japhet / Vetus Testamentum IOSOT (2013) 36-76

S. Japhet / Vetus Testamentum IOSOT (2013) 36-76

S. Japhet / Vetus Testamentum IOSOT (2013) 36-76

S. Japhet / Vetus Testamentum IOSOT (2013) 36-76

S. Japhet / Vetus Testamentum IOSOT (2013) 36-76

S. Japhet / Vetus Testamentum IOSOT (2013) 36-76

S. Japhet / Vetus Testamentum IOSOT (2013) 36-76

rominent126 In the various strata of Ezr.-Neh. it is repeated several times, in

S. Japhet / Vetus Testamentum IOSOT (2013) 36-76

S. Japhet / Vetus Testamentum IOSOT (2013) 36-76

Once it is taken over from his sources: 2 Chr. i 15 // 1 Ki. x 27.

S. Japhet / Vetus Testamentum IOSOT (2013) 36-76

S. Japhet / Vetus Testamentum IOSOT (2013) 36-76

The phrase is usually translated paraphrastically with to be able, and

S. Japhet / Vetus Testamentum IOSOT (2013) 36-76

S. Japhet / Vetus Testamentum IOSOT (2013) 36-76

S. Japhet / Vetus Testamentum IOSOT (2013) 36-76

of exaggeration to every aspect mentioned. The special style of the Chr. is

S. Japhet / Vetus Testamentum IOSOT (2013) 36-76

In the use of the verb as parallel to two places are noteworthy:

S. Japhet / Vetus Testamentum IOSOT (2013) 36-76

S. Japhet / Vetus Testamentum IOSOT (2013) 36-76

and frequent. On the other hand, it is totally limited to Ezr.-Neh. It might be

S. Japhet / Vetus Testamentum IOSOT (2013) 36-76

S. Japhet / Vetus Testamentum IOSOT (2013) 36-76

S. Japhet / Vetus Testamentum IOSOT (2013) 36-76

S. Japhet / Vetus Testamentum IOSOT (2013) 36-76

You might also like

3.The linguistic resemblance between the books as revealed by common