1 Esdras

Septuagint Commentary Series

Editors
Stanley E. Porter
Richard S. Hess
John Jarick

The titles published in this series are listed at brill.nl/sept

 1 Esdras
Introduction and Commentary
on the Greek Text in Codex Vaticanus

By
Michael F. Bird

LEIDEN • BOSTON
2012
Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

Bird, Michael F.
1 Esdras : introduction and commentary on the Greek text in Codex Vaticanus / by Michael
Bird.
p. cm. – (Septuagint commentary series)
Includes the text of 1 Esdras in English translation.
Includes bibliographical references and index.
ISBN 978-90-04-23030-9 (hardback : alk. paper) 1. Bible. O.T. Apocrypha. Esdras,
1st–Commentaries. 2. Bible. O.T. Apocrypha. Esdras, 1st. Greek Manuscript. Vat. Gr.
1209.–Versions–Biblioteca apostolica vaticana. 3. Bible. O.T. Apocrypha. Esdras, 1st. Greek.
Septuagint–Translations into English. I. Bible. O.T. Apocrypha. Esdras, 1st. Greek. Biblioteca
apostolica vaticana. Manuscript. Vat. Gr. 1209. 2012. II. Bible. O.T. Apocrypha. Esdras, 1st.
English. Bird. 2012. III. Title. IV. Title: One Esdras.

BS1715.53.B57 2012
226'.107–dc23
2012009349

ISSN 1572-3755
ISBN 978 90 04 23030 9 (hardback)
ISBN 978 90 04 23031 6 (e-book)

Copyright 2012 by Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, The Netherlands.

Koninklijke Brill NV incorporates the imprints Brill, Global Oriental, Hotei Publishing,
IDC Publishers and Martinus Nijhoff Publishers.

All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, translated, stored in
a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical,
photocopying, recording or otherwise, without prior written permission from the publisher.

Authorization to photocopy items for internal or personal use is granted by Koninklijke Brill NV
provided that the appropriate fees are paid directly to The Copyright Clearance Center,
222 Rosewood Drive, Suite 910, Danvers, MA 01923, USA.
Fees are subject to change.

This book is printed on acid-free paper.

 To my son Markus Xavier Bird
who saved me from being a D.O.D.O.
May he be as brave as Josiah,
as wise as Zerubbabel,
and as learned as Ezra
 CONTENTS

Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ix
Abbreviations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xiii
Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

Text and Translation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35

Commentary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 107

Bibliography . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 285
Index of Modern Authors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 293
Index of Ancient Citations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 295
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

My interest in the Septuagint developed out of my studies relating to the

intertextuality of the New Testament. When the New Testament authors
quote from Israel’s sacred traditions, it is ordinarily the Greek translation
of the Hebrew Scriptures that they draw from. In some cases, it is the spe-
cific nuance of the Septuagintal translation that accounts for the precise
interpretative manoeuvre of the New Testament authors (e.g., Paul offers
a midrashic exegesis in Romans  by bringing together Gen : and
Ps : which are linked by the common word λογºζοµαι, yet there is
no common wordage in the Hebrew version). I often joked with my Old
Testament colleagues at the Highland Theological College that we should
erase Hebrew from the curriculum and replace it with Septuagintal
Greek to reflect the linguistic and canonical inclinations of the New Tes-
tament authors! More seriously, the Septuagint has an important place
in the Christian tradition and even has some claim for constituting part
of the Christian canon (see Hengel & Deines ; Wooden ). One
particular document of the Septuagint, Esdras, included also as part of
the Christian Apocrypha, has been relatively neglected in contrast to the
“canonical” Chronicles, Ezra, and Nehemiah of the Masoretic Text and
the apocalyptic Esdras which is found in an appendix to the Latin Apoc-
rypha. Indeed, C.C. Torrey (: ) said that  Esdras is one of the Old
Testament writings that has been “so inadequately studied … [and] so
seriously misunderstood.” In this woefully neglected piece of writing we
have a prime example of Rewritten Bible and an amusing tale of the sym-
posia of the three bodyguards (Esdr :–:). But there are a few oases
in this desert of disregard. The sundry works of H.G.M. Williamson have
been a goldmine of learning that I have found invaluable. The  Esdras
consultation of the Society of Biblical Literature has also been a bastion of
solid research that fed my interest in the subject for the short time that
it ran. In addition, the commentaries of R.J. Coggins, Jacob M. Myers,
and Zipora Talshir are the most helpful contributions to the scholarly
discussion of Esdras in English. Even so, commentaries on  Esdras are
few and far between. I hope, then, that I am able to fill in this lacuna in
Septuagint/Apocrypha scholarship by my own commentary.
If I may provide a few caveats (especially for would-be book review-
ers), I am not attempting to reproduce the Aramaic Vorlage as little is left
x acknowledgements

to be said after the work of Zipora Talshir in that regard. Likewise, I have
no intention of trying to establish an original text of  Esdras since that
would pointlessly replicate the erudite work of Robert Hanhart on the
text of Esdras. Instead, I am focused on internal dynamics of the story,
the place of Esdras in Diaspora Judaism, the unique features of the
Vaticanus edition of the text, and charting the usage of  Esdras among
early Christian authors where appropriate. That is largely the purpose of
the Septuagint Commentary Series (SCS). The volume is a work in the
reception history of the Greek translation of  Esdras, not a commentary
on an autograph, Ausgangstext, or Ur-text. That is why there is no attempt
to work from the eclectic critical text of Robert Hanhart. The rationale
is that this volume will comment on a text that was used in an actual
community of faith as opposed to a theoretical text that corresponds to
no exact witness or version.
On the translation, I worked from the text of Codex Vaticanus as
available from the facsimiles published by the Vatican. The translation
set forth here is meant to be fairly literal and I have transliterated most
names and places, except in cases where it seemed to verge on silliness
(e.g., I retain “Jerusalem” instead of “Ierousalēm”). Concurrently, I also
produced a more basic and reader-friendly translation of  Esdras for
the Common English Bible. As such, I checked both of my translations
against the NRSV, NETS, NEB, and Myers for clarity and readability. My
reconstruction of Vaticanus was cross checked against the editions and
apparatus of Alfred Rahlfs & Robert Hanhart Septuaginta: Editio altera,
Robert Hanhart Esdrae liber I, and A.E. Brooke & N. McLean The Old
Testament in Greek.
There are several people that I need to thank for bringing this volume
to life. First of all, I’m grateful to Dr. Stanley Porter for the invitation
to contribute to the series and for the editorial oversight of Dr. Richard
Hess. Prof. Michael Holmes of Bethel University provided me with pho-
tos of  & Esdras from Codex Vaticanus, he proof read several sec-
tions, and his help was absolutely invaluable. Prof. H.G.M. Williamson of
Oxford University read the introduction and offered many helpful sug-
gestions for correction. Mr. Martin Cameron, librarian at the Highland
Theological College, successfully obtained several books and journals
for me as I completed this volume. Equally helpful was Miss Andreé
Pusey and Stephen Morton of Crossway College who both tracked down
several resources at late notice. I would also like to thank my research
assistant Nathaniel Barnes for his tireless work and assistance in the pro-
duction of this work. My gratitude also goes to Miss Christie Sharman
and Mrs Naomi Bird for assistance with the indices.
 acknowledgements xi

As a Neutestamentler with much interest but no real training in Ezra-

Nehemiah and Septuagint studies, I am indebted to a friend, who wishes
to remain anonymous, who provided excellent advice and correction.
My thanks go also to Mr. Michael Whitenton, a Ph.D. student at Baylor
University, for his careful checking of my text-critical notes. As always, I
am grateful for the love and support of my family who have tolerated my
scholarly ventures from the beginning. Thanks goes to my wife Naomi,
my daughters Alexis and Alyssa, and especially to my son Markus to
whom this book is dedicated in celebration of his birth. Thanks to him I
am no longer a Dad of daughters only!
 ABBREVIATIONS

AB Anchor Bible
ABD Freedman, D.N. (ed). . Anchor Bible Dictionary ( vols.; New
York: Doubleday).
ANET Pritchard, J.B. (ed.). . Ancient Near Eastern Texts Relating to the
Old Testament (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press).
BDAG Bauer, Walter., F.W. Danker, W.F. Arndt, and F.W. Gingrich. .
A Greek-Lexicon of the New Testgament and Other Early Christian
Literature (rd ed.; Chicago: University of Chicago Press).
CBR Currents in Biblical Research
CBQ Catholic Biblical Quarterly
chs Chapters
CRINT Compendia rerum iudaicarum ad novum testamentum
FRLANT Forschungen zur Religion und Literatur des Alten und Neuen Tes-
taments
GELS Muroaka, Takamitsu. . A Greek-English Lexicon of the Septu-
agint (Louvain: Peeters).
HB Hebrew Bible
HTR Harvard Theological Review
JBL Journal of Biblical Literature
JETS Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society
JGRChJ Journal of Greco-Roman Christianity and Judaism
JJS Journal of Jewish Studies
JNES Journal of Near Eastern Studies
JSNTSup Journal for the Study of the New Testament Supplement
JSP Journal for the Study of the Pseudepigrapha
JTS Journal of Theological Studies
LHJS Library of Historical Jesus Studies
LSTS Libary of Second Temple Studies
LXX Septuagint
L&N Louw, Johannes P., and Eugene Nida. . A Greek-English Lexi-
con of the New Testament Based on Semantic Domains (New York:
United Bible Societies).
L&S Liddell, Henry G., and Robert Scott. . An Intermediate Greek-
English Lexicon (th ed.; Oxford: Clarendon).
mss Manuscripts
MT Masoretic Text
NCB New Century Bible
NovTSup Novum Testamentum Supplement
RHPR Revue d’histoire et de philosophie religieuses
SBLTCS Society of Biblical Literature Text-Critical Studies
SBLSCS SBL Septuagint and Cognate Studies
xiv abbreviations

SNTSMS Society for New Testament Studies Monograph Series

Th Theodotian
TSAJ Texts and Studies in Ancient Judaism
VT Vestus Testamentum
VTSup Vestus Testamentum Supplement
Vulg Vulgate
ZAW Zeitschrift für die Alttestamentliche Wissenschaft
 INTRODUCTION

Esdras at a Glance

The First Book of Esdras, also known as Esdras, Esdras A, or Greek

Ezra, is a text of the Septuagint and Christian Apocrypha. Unfortunately,
in several canonical lists and modern versions, various writings go under
the name “Esdras.” Bruce M. Metzger (Charlesworth : .) pro-
vides a helpful chart of the various works of the Ezraic corpus:

Paraphrase of  Chronicles
chs –; the whole book
Old Testament of Ezra; Nehemiah :–
Version/ Old Testament book of :; plus a tale about The Ezra
Document book of Ezra Nehemiah Darius’s bodyguards Apocalypse
Greek Bible* IIEsdras I Esdras
(Septuagint)
Latin Vulgate IEsdras IIEsdras III Esdras IV Esdras
Bible
Many later Latin IEsdras III Esdras II Esdras =
Manuscripts chs – †
IV Esdras =
chs –
V Esdras =
chs –
Douay English IEsdras IIEsdras III Esdras IV Esdras
Version
(–)
Russian Bible, IEsdras Nehemiah II Esdras III Esdras
Moscow
Patriarchate
()
Geneva Bible The Book of The Book of I Esdras II Esdras ‡
() Ezra Nehemiah
Bishops’ Bible
()
King James
Version ()
Revised Standard
Version ()
 introduction

* In this volume, I shall distinguish  Esdras of the Septuagint (= Ezra/Nehemiah) and

 Esdras of the Latin Apocrypha (= – Ezra) by identifying them as Esdras (LXX)
and  Esdras (Apoc.) respectively.
† Also stratified as  Ezra (chs –),  Ezra (chs –), and  Ezra (chs –) in some
modern versions.
‡ Other writings attributed to or named after Ezra include Greek Apocalypse of Ezra, The
Visions of Ezra, Questions of Ezra, Apocalypse of Sedrach, and the Revelation of Ezra,
which are available in the Old Testament Pseudepigrapha (see introduction in Wright
).
Esdras is a Greek recension of the biblical history of the reforms under
both Josiah and Ezra and spans a period between the seventh to fifth cen-
tury bce. It contains material that overlaps considerably with accounts
in the Hebrew Bible (MT). It also diverges from the MT of Ezra in sev-
eral distinct ways. Esdras includes the story of Josiah from  Chronicles
– as a preface to the Ezra material. The book contains special mate-
rial such as the story of Darius’s three bodyguards in :–: and a few
other smaller sections unique to the document (e.g., :–; :c;
:c; :a; :; :b). There is a reorganization of the letters to and
from King Artaxerxes. At the very end of the book it also adds elements
drawn principally from Nehemiah –. Using the versification of Rahlfs-
Hanhart and the nrsv, the relationship of  Esdras to  Chronicles, Ezra,
and Nehemiah is as follows:
Esdr :– = Chr :–:
Esdr :– = Ezra :–
Esdr :– = Ezra :–
Esdr :–: no parallel in the canonical texts
Esdr :– = Ezra :–
Esdr :– = Ezra :–:
Esdr :–: = Ezra :–:
Esdr :–: = Ezra :–: and Neh :–:
There are some interesting features about  Esdras that make it standout
against its MT counterpart. The parallels with the accounts in the Hebrew
Bible are not always exact. Some material appears in a different order
(e.g., Esdr :– = Ezra :–). Consequently,  Esdras includes
some rather confusing chronology at certain junctures especially in the
order of letters and periods of certain kings. There is an abrupt beginning
and staccato ending to the document. The story of Darius’s bodyguards
is unique to Esdras and stands apart from the rest of the narrative.
The Greek of Esdras is more elegant and refined compared to  Esdras
(LXX). All of which makes for a composition that in its extant form
has its own unique features and special qualities. This leads, as we shall
see, to some very interesting proposals and concerted debates about
 introduction 

the sources, original language, and purpose of  Esdras. (For further

general introductions see Cook : –; Oesterly : –;
Pfeiffer : –; Myers : –; Hanhart ; Coggins &
Knibb : –; McNamara : –; Attridge : –;
Goodman : .–; Harrington : –; Talshir :
–; deSilva : –; Williamson : –; and survey
of literature in De Troyer ).

Text

Discussion and debate about the text of Esdras goes back as far as Justin
Martyr’s accusation verbalised to Trypho that the Jews excised a partic-
ular verse from the text (Dial. ). Origen’s Hexapla probably included a
synopsis of Ezra-Nehemiah traditions in Hebrew, Hebrew transliterated
into Greek, and the Greek translations of Aquila, Symmachus, the Sep-
tuagint, and Theodotion. Greek copies of Esdras are extant principally
in Codex Alexandrinus (A), Codex Vaticanus (B), and Codex Venetus
(V). It is unfortunately missing from Codex Sinaiticus (à), but the sub-
scription Εσδρασ β presupposes an Εσδρασ α. The text of  Esdras is
further attested (often in fragments) in many more Greek minuscules
(                  
              [Hanhart
a: –]). Since P. de Lagarde, it has been recognized that mss 
and  represent a Lucianic recension that attempted to bring  Esdras
into closer conformity with the Hebrew text (Cook : ; Tedesche
: –; Hanhart a: ; though Wevers [: ] states “For
much of what some critics have called ‘L’ for Lucianic text, it would be
better simply to call it a Byzantine text, that text which was used in the
liturgy of the Byzantine Church.” On the Lucianic text see Marcos :
–). Further witnesses are also provided by Josephus, Origen, and
the Latin, Syriac, Armenian, Ethiopic, and Arabic versions (see Hanhart
a: –; b: –). As to the quality of the diverse translations
of the Greek, Hanhart (a: ) states:
Hinsichtlich der fünf erhaltenen Übersetzungen von Esdr I, Lav Lac Sy
Aeth Arm, läßt sich sagen, daß sie im ganzen dermaßen treue Wieder-
gaben ihrer griechischen Vorlage sind—dabei läßt sich die Vorlage von
Aeth eindeutig als der B-Text, die von Lac als der L-Text, die von Sy als in
der Nähe des L-Textes liegend bestimmen,—daß sich aus ihrer Notierung
im App., soweit es der Sprachcharakter der betr. Sprache erlaubt, auch e
silentio auf ihren Text schließen läßt.
 introduction

Most modern Greek editions of Esdras have generally followed B in

their representation of the text (e.g., Swete ; Brooke & McLean ;
Rahlfs ). Bogaert (: ) contends that “B conserve souvent
la bonne leçon et intervient fréquemment dans la reconstruction du
meilleur texte.” Fritzsche (–: .) regarded B as the best “pure”
text of Esdras, “wesentlich der des c. Vatican, im Allegemeinen ist sehr
rein ist.” For Fritzsche the best witnesses included mss B, , and ,
though he adds the qualification: “Der beste liegt in II .  vor, doch
sind auch diese Bücher nicht frei von Schreibfehlern und wilikührlichen
Besserungen.” While B has been the most utlized witness to the text of
Esdras there is debate as to whether B is in fact the most reliable textual
witness to the earliest text of Esdras. Torrey (: ) went so far as to
state that, “B generally yields an inferior text in the Old Testament, and
in this case it is at its very worst.” That is perhaps overstated but generally
true since Esdras in B exhibits numerous divergent readings especially
in relation to names. S.S. Tedesche () argued that A represents a
superior text to B on the grounds that A has suffered less extensive
revisions than B (see similar conclusions by Torrey : –; Jellicoe
: ; Myers : ; Schürer : ..; Goodman : .).
Yet, Hanhart (a: ) seems correct in his assessment of Tedesche’s
treatment:
Der Wert der Ausgabe besteht in einer gerechteren Beurteilung des A-Tex-
tes in seinem Verhältnis zu dem oft übermäßig bevorzugten B-Text und in
den oft überzeugenden, auf paläographischen Kriterien beruhenden Kon-
jekturen, vor allem bei Eigennamen. Die große Schwäche der Ausgabe be-
steht in der Übertreibung von Textänderungen auf Grund postulierter pa-
läographischer Ähnlichkeit und in der methodischen Undeutlichkeit und
weitgehenden sachlichen Unrichtigekeit der Notierungen im Apparat.
The reason why A has fewer revisions than B is most probably because
A represents a revision of B or a text closely related to B.H. Allrik ()
demonstrated this with respect to a comparison of A and B on  Esdr
:–. A comparison of the Hebrew texts of Nehemiah , Ezra , and
also with Esdras (LXX), shows that B has far more deviations in this
section than A. Some of these difficulties in B were inherited from the
exemplary text, some were created by the scribe himself, and yet they
still found their way into A. In light of this, Allrik suggests that three
main features of A and B must be explained including:
() The glaring errors and peculiarites which A and B have in common
() The items in which B is incorrect but A is correct when compared
with Esdras (LXX).
 introduction 

() The places where A has elements which are correct, but where the
A text presupposes the corruption evident in B plus the elements
that are correct by the standard of Esdras (LXX).
The best examples that Allrik cites in favor of A’s dependence on B (or a
B-like text) are the presence in A of the peculiar ∆ΥΟΧΙΛΙΑ∆ΕΣ from
B and the probable incorporation of B’s marginal note Κ(ΑΙ) following it
in  Esdr :. There is also the sharing of a numeral misread as a syllable
(ΡΕΙΘ = ) in Esdr :. In addition, one observes the relative
closeness in the identity of peculiar names such as ΒΕΤΟΛΙΩ [B] and
ΒΗΤΟΛΙΩ [A] against Rahlfs’ conjecture of ΒΑΙΤΟΛΙΩ in  Esdr :.
This leads Allrik (: ) to surmize that the most plausible scenario
is that the basic text of A has been taken over from the text of B, A has
made extensive corrections to B, and A’s changes were made largely by
way of reference to Esdras (LXX). While Allrik’s study on :– is
a small sample, he may well be correct that his study is “valid for the
whole part which we now call ‘Esdras’” (Allrik : ). (One error in
Allrik’s argument is that Esdr : B does not read ΚΕΟΙΕΚΠΕΙΡΑΣ,
but ΟΙΕΚΠΕΙΡΑΣ, so there was no misreading of the letters ΚΕ as
numerals). Consequently, arguments for the superiority of A over B are
effectively torpedoed as neither text is any “superior” to the other (if
we gauge superiority in terms of affinity with an autograph). Codex A
probably depends on B in some form and, though secondary, it may
still contain readings that are potentially earlier if it was influenced by
other textual witnesses as well. The significance of A is its witness to
a Hebraizing recension of Esdras and its contribution to efforts to
produce a standardized text of Esdras. That falsifies Torrey’s (: )
contention that A has not been conformed to the MT, for it has but via
 Esdras (LXX).
On a somewhat different tack, Hanhart (b: –) has given
attention on the relation of B to the Lucianic texts. He supposes that
“der B-Text oft eine Vorstufe bzw. Textgrundlage für den L-Text darstellt”
(b: ). In any case, A and L-Texts and their dependent textual
streams are partly revisions of B. Both A and L attempt to bring  Esdras
in its B text-form into closer conformity with other texts be that either
 Esdras (LXX) or the Hebrew text itself (see Hanhart b: –).
They both testify to further efforts by translators and scribes to bring
the Christian Septuagint into harmony with the Hebrew canon. I will
argue below that Esdras is a loose Greek translation of a proto-MT-
like Semitic text. The tendency of the textual tradition was to tighten
 introduction

upon this “looseness” and to turn the “likeness” into “sameness.” Thus
the significance of B is that it stands as a witness to an intermedi-
ate stage in the transmission of Esdras where its loose translation of
the Hebrew/Aramaic was being assimilated to the more literal text of
Esdras and drawn closer to the Hebrew text.
The purpose of this commentary is not to produce a critical edition of
Esdras by using an eclectic methodology that might bring us conceiv-
ably closer to an autograph or Ausgangstext. In the absence of further
manuscript discoveries and apart from some new and radical innova-
tions in the science of textual criticism of the Septuagint, I think that the
Hanhart (a) edition has put us as close as we can get to the earli-
est recoverable text of Esdras for now. I am focused here instead on the
textual tradition of Codex Vaticanus and the unique contours of that text
within the broader textual tradition of Esdras. This commentary is not
a text-critical study as it will be concerned primarily with the historical
referents of Esdras (i.e., the reign of Josiah and the return of the exiles
to Jerusalem under Ezra), although due attention will be given where
appropriate to the unique features of B as a witness to the text of  Esdras.

Date and Provenance

Esdras covers the historical period dating from the reforms of Josiah
(bce) to the return of the Judean exiles from Babylon to Jerusalem
under the supervision of Ezra (bce). Josephus makes extensive use of
Esdras in his Antiquities of the Jews which sets the outer marker for the
date of the book at the end of the first century (ca.  ce). The story of
the three bodyguards also has affinities with imperial court narratives
like Esther, Judith, Daniel, the Epistle of Aristeas, and is also analo-
gous to Jewish sapiential writings such as Ben Sirach and the Wisdom
of Solomon. Some even suggest that influence from the text of Daniel
(Esd. : = Dan :; Esd. : = Dan :–;  Esd : = Dan
:; Esd : = Dan :) which would necessitate a post- bce date
(e.g., Thackeray : b; : ; Attridge : ). Likewise,
Zerubabbel’s prayer may reflect grandiose hopes resonant with Judea’s
independence under Simon Maccabees  bce (Hengel : ). Over-
all, it would seem that a date somewhere in the (mid-)second century bce
would commend itself as a probable time for the composition/translation
of Esdras (see also Myers : ; Coggins & Knibb : ; McNa-
mara : ; Attridge : ; Gardner ).
 introduction 

The provenance of Esdras is virtually impossible to determine since

anywhere where Jews read in Greek is possible. Though Alexandria is a
preferred option for many (e.g., Torrey : –; Pfeiffer : ;
Williamson : ). The problem is that Esdras includes geographic
terminology familiar to Seleucid (Κοºλµη Συρºα κα½ Φοινºκµη [:, ,
; :; :; :; :) and Ptolemaic (Συρºα κα½ Φοινºκµη [:; :,
, ; :, ]) authors for designating the region of Palestine. Myers
(: ) appropriately states: “Not too much must be made of this
except to note that all sources involved reflect a confusion of termi-
nology coincident with the historical situation.” Even so, I tentatively
lean towards an Egyptian provenance for the Greek translation given
the various verbal linkages between the Greek of  Esdras and the Greek
of Egyptian Jewish literature and secular papyri (e.g., –ν φαºνηταº σοι
[Esd :] and •ν φαºνηται [Ep. Arist. ]).  Esdras could be loosely
associated with the tradition of historiography (however “historical”) by
the Hellenistic Egyptian authors Demetrios, Eupolemos, Artapanos, and
Alexander Polyhistor among others. Yet the provenance for the origi-
nal Aramaic(/Hebrew) source of Esdras remains purely in the realm
of speculation and could range from Alexandria to Babylon to Antioch
to Jerusalem. We have no way of knowing where to place the Semitic
Vorlage of Esdras. We could legitimately surmise that it might be very
similar to the provenance of the Hebrew of Ezra–Nehemiah which is nor-
mally placed somewhere in Palestine.

Genre

Although Esdras is “not easily classified” (Attridge : ), the lit-
erary form of Esdras is strictly speaking a historical narrative and thus
represents a form of biblical historiography.  Esdras is, then, a devel-
opment of earlier historical narrative material (i.e.,  Chronicles-Ezra-
Nehemiah) which proceeds to abbreviate, add, harmonize, and interpret
this material accordingly. Thus, as a secondary composition,  Esdras
qualifies as “Rewritten Bible” (on the genre see Alexander ; on
 Esdras specifically see De Troyer  and Williamson . I should
add that “Rewritten Scripture” is a less anachronistic and freighted desig-
nation than “Rewritten Bible,” on which see Campbell ). It presents
a telescoped chronological framework where events spread throughout
several centuries are collapsed into a relatively short amount of space.
Material is also rearranged in such a way as to construct a particular
 introduction

ideological perspective in a certain socio-religious location for a partic-

ular implied audience.
In this generic category of Rewritten Bible/Scripture,  Esdras stands
beside Jubilees, Ps-Philo’s Biblical Antiquities, Josephus’s Antiquities of the
Jews, and the Genesis Apocryphon (QapGen) from Qumran as instances
of narrative texts that retell and reinterpret the biblical story (I am assum-
ing here that Esdras used a proto-MT version of Ezra-Nehemiah, see
below under “Sources”). Whether “Rewritten Bible” is a homogenous
literary form is disputed (e.g., Bernstein ), but it clearly exhibits lit-
erary traits indicative of rewritten accounts of the biblical history (see
further Alexander ; Williamson ; Tov : –). These
features (Fisk ) include: () biblical narrative where a document is
highly selective in its choice of material to be repeated, summarized, and
expanded. In the case of Esdras, this can be related to the focus on Ezra
rather than Nehemiah and observed in how the narrative accent falls on
the restoration programmes of Josiah, Zerubabbel, and Ezra; () inte-
gration of biblical episodes and non-biblical material most clearly seen in
Esdras with the inclusion of the story of Darius’s three bodyguards; ()
implicit rather than explicit exegesis that seeks to fill in gaps, explain prob-
lems, and make additional connections. That aspect is apparent in the
way that Esdras handles the correspondence with Artaxerxes and the
insertion of Nehemiah material in Esdras ; and () functions as a com-
panion to earlier accounts rather than a replacement for them and  Esdras
presumes much knowledge of laws, details, and events in Deuteronomy,
–Kings, –Chronicles, Ezra-Nehemiah, Jeremiah, Haggai, and there-
fore appears to be a supplementary story written for the purpose of being
read beside the earlier works from Israel’s sacred literary traditions. It
could be objected that the re-ordering of material in  Esdras, principally
that associated with the setting of Zerubbabel’s activitites, counts against
the categorization of Esdras as “Rewritten Bible” since such re-ordering
is not common place in this genre because “Rewritten” documents nor-
mally follow their sources in a sequence with selective summaries and
minor embellishments. Still, there is some evidence for a re-ordering
of materials and chronological liberties being taken in other Re-written
Bible documents such as in Jubilees and QapGen (see Williamson :
–).
 introduction 

Sources

Central to theories about origins, authorship, dependence, and priority

is () source-critical matters as to whether Esdras is dependent on a
pre-existing Greek or Semitic version; and () literary-historical matters
as to whether or not Esdras is a fragment of a single larger work by the
Chronicler or if it is a compilation of several source materials based on
Chronicles-Ezra-Nehemiah.
On the source-critical question, the majority of scholars seem to prefer
postulating a Hebrew-Aramaic Vorlage behind  Esdras given the var-
ious Semitisms in the Greek, the historical priority of Ezra –, and
how Esdras smoothes out the linguistic and narrative complexities of
Ezra (see e.g., Torrey : –; Zimmerman –; Klein :
; Grabbe : –; Talshir , ). Though some like Carrez
() and Coggins (Coggins & Knibb : ) entertain the possibility
that Esdras is a rewritten Greek text, this has generally not been fol-
lowed. Against the possible dependence of Esdras on  Esdras (LXX),
Hanhart (b: ) writes, “Der Vergleich der beiden Übersetzung-
stexte ergib somit, daß unmittelbare literische Abhängigkeit nicht mit
Sicherheit nachzuweisen ist.” Bogaert (: ) suggests that  Esdras
(LXX) was in fact designed to replace and supplant  Esdras with a bet-
ter translation and a more complete work. However, the differences in
language and style between Esdras and Esdras (LXX) cannot accom-
modate literary dependence between them. It seems as if  Esdras is the
earlier text and the translator had no other Greek translations before him
to utilize and was consequently pioneering the choice of Greek vocabu-
lary and style (Grabbe : ). I reckon that  Esdras emerged from a
deliberate rewriting of a Hebrew text along thematic lines done initially
by an Aramaic translator/redactor, so that the Greek version is a trans-
lation of an Aramaic version with perhaps some glosses inserted in its
process of translation and transmission (see Schürer : ..).
Still, whether one can actually reconstruct a Semitic text from the
Greek of Esdras by retroversion is perhaps a more speculative exer-
cise because the Greek translation of Esdras appears to be relatively
free (see Pohlmann : , “Die freiere Übersetzungsweise de 
Esr erschwert es zwar manchmal, den zugrunde liegenden semitischen
Text zu erkennen”). Torrey () and Talshir () have both made
attempts to retrovert either part or the whole book into Aramaic. In
most cases these retroversions appear successful and compelling espe-
cially where the Greek form is best explained by an underlying Semitic
 introduction

idiom. But in the end we have to admit that they are merely educated
guesses. Furthermore, one cannot be absolutely sure to what extent the
Vorlage corresponds to the proto-MT of Ezra-Nehemiah (see Hanhart
b: , “Doch ist Unabhängigkeit der beiden griechischen Texte [i.e.,
Esdras and Esdras] voneinander nur dann möglich, wenn zuweilen
eine gemeinsame von M[T] abweichende hebräisch-aramäische Vorlage
angenommen wird”; and more recently he writes [: ], “Der mir
nach wie vor gleicherweise eindeutig erscheinende Befund, dass der
Text von Esr I die in Quellenarbeitung begründete chronologische Prob-
lematik der Bücher Esra-Nehemia nicht nur voraussetzt, sondern sie
noch kompliziert, bleibt für mich das bedeutsamste Kriterium für die
Annahme der Priorität der masoretisch überlieferten Bücher Esra und
Nehemia.” De Troyer [: ] conjectures that, “The author of the Vor-
lage of Esdras could have interpreted and rewritten the Hebrew text of
Ezra–Nehemiah. In this case, the differences would not be due to a trans-
lator or a different Hebrew Vorlage, but to the editor reworking the MT
text into a new story”).
I would demur from the suggestion that  Esdras and Chronicles-
Ezra-Nehemiah all descend from the same “Ur-Text” taken in different
directions or that we have two very different Vorlagen circulating as the
basis of both documents. What seems probable to me is that  Esdras
is based on a proto-MT-like Vorlage, but is not strictly identical to the
(proto-)MT in every respect as the text has some harmonizing tenden-
cies, interpretive glosses, and interpolations of new material.
Coming to literary-historical issues, the problems remain equally
complex. On the Fragmenthypothese, K.-F. Pohlmann (: –; cf.
Oesterly : –; Cross ; Coggins & Knibb : ; Klein
), building on previous research, argued that  Esdras was a Greek
translation of a fragment of the last part of the Chronicler’s work with
Ezra-Nehemiah emerging as a later rearrangement of that same material.
In which case, Esdras is not a literary work in its own right, but con-
stitutes a Greek translation of a fragment from Chronicles. But several
objections can be stated (Cook : –; Williamson : –;
: –; Grabbe : –, ) and I will enumerate them
further now.
First, against the notion of Esdras as a section of an original transla-
tion of the entire work of the Chronicler is the fact that the extant Greek
text of Παραλειποµ¢νων in the Septuagint was made before bce
and it is improbable that two fully independent Greek versions of the
same document were composed concurrently, particularly if both ver-
 introduction 

sions originated in Alexandria (see Williamson : ; Schürer 

..n). It can be granted that multiple versions of a text can exist
within a single literary community like Genesis and Jubilees at Qum-
ran. But we have no reason to think of Εσδρασ Α and Παραλειποµ¢νων
as competing texts as they reflect no internecine Jewish rivalry within
Greek-speaking communities.
Second, if  Esdras represents the original form of the Chronicler’s
work, then Nehemiah  must have followed on from Ezra . Yet the
most reasonable place for Nehemiah  is in between Ezra  and .
That is because Nehemiah  fits chronologically between Ezra’s arrival in
Jerusalem and the subsequent problem of mixed marriages and logically
with the aim to present the work of the two reformers as part of the one
reforming process.
Third, if Esdras constitutes the original ending of the Chronicler’s
work, then it requires that it exhibit no knowledge of the Nehemiah
material. However, Williamson (: –) has shown that Ezra :–
(= Esd :–) is secondary to Nehemiah – in light of the manner
in which the date is given as the “seventh month” which does not fit
the practice in Ezra – and that Ezra : looks like an expansion
of Neh :. He declares: “Since Neh vii–viii is the point at which the
originally independent accounts concerning Ezra and Nehemiah have
been most clearly interwoven, it follows that the editor responsible for
Ezra ii already knew Ezra vii–x and Nehemiah in substantially its present
shape” (Williamson : ). Thus, if Ezra is dependent upon Nehemiah,
then a fortiori, the author of Esdras must have known both the books
of Ezra and Nehemiah as it drew on both lists. What is more, even
Pohlmann (: ) recognized Esdr : was the Achilles heal of his
argument if it can be shown that it refers to Neh : which it probably
does given the very similar content (Williamson : –; Klein
: ).
Fourth, the unique material in Esd :– stipulates that the reason
for God’s opposition to Israel was caused by the peoples’ sin prior to the
time of Josiah, whereas the Chronicler (Chron :–) attributes the
exile to the sin of Zedekiah and those living in his day (Williamson :
–). The different perspectives on the reason for divine retribution
against Israel distinguish the theology of the Chronicler from that of
 Esdras.
Fifth, the abrupt beginning and sudden ending of  Esdras certainly
are conducive to the fragmentary hypothesis (according to Williamson
: , “Hardly a single modern scholar has sought to justify this
 introduction

as the intended conclusion of a self-contained work”). Even if it is a

fragment of a larger work it may not necessarily be a fragment of the
Chronicler’s work. Alternatively, A. van der Kooij (a, b) has
submitted cogent arguments for the unity and integrity of the ending and
beginning of Esdras in its current form. On the beginning of  Esdras,
he notes that Esd :– has no exact parallel equivalent in the Hebrew
text of Chronicles , but does parallel  Kgs :– and  Chron
:–. The statement in Esd : about τ• νÚν ¹στÊρηται refers to
Josiah’s celebration of the Passover which  Esdras begins with, whereas
τ’ τε προπραχq¢ντα Ñπ’ αÐτοÚ harks back to earlier events in Josiah’s
reign that Esdras does not record, but which Kings and Chronicles
do. In other words, Esdras presupposes Chronicles and Kings, but
obviously did not include them in its own literary context. He concludes:
“Unsere Interpretation von IEsdr ,f. hat zum Schluß geführt, daß
der jetzige Anfang von I Esr auch der ursprüngliche Einsatz war” (van
der Kooij a: ). In addition, the beginning of the book with the
conjunctive καº deriving from the Hebrew å from  Chron :, does not
mean that the opening follows on from something else, it only means
that the authors/translators of Esdras have closely followed its source
text in Chronicles .
On the ending of Esdras, many have supposed that the abrupt close
of Esdras in : with κα½ πισυνªχqησαν corresponds to the new
paragraph begun in Neh : (åôñàð éðùä íåéáå [MT] / κα½ ν τµ² ©µ¢ρα
τµ² δευτ¢ρα συνªχqησαν [Esd : LXX]) which is not completed in
Esdras and thus represents a detached and unfinished translation of
Nehemiah. As van der Kooij notes though, in contradistinction to the
Hebrew text, the Greek of Esdras adds the connective καº after Ìτι
(= éë) to create a “both/and” construction which he renders: “not only
because the teaching given them had been instilled to their mind, but
also because they had gathered together” (van der Kooij b: ).
Instead of being an isolated and incomplete fragment on Neh :,  Esd
: sets forth the reason for the people’s merriment and celebration.
Juha Pakkala (: ) also notes that if  Esdras had been accidentally
broken off from a larger work, then one would expect : to be part
of a new section or new idea as in Esd : that commences a new
section with κα½ ν τµ² δευτ¢ρα συνªχqησαν ο¹ “ρχοντεσ. In which
case, κα½ πισυνªχqησαν in Esd : is meant to be read with what
precedes it and not begin a new section despite the fact that it is a partial
rendering of Neh :. In which case, the author of  Esdras only wanted
to include parts of Ezra-Nehemiah, but he nonetheless left traces of the
 introduction 

larger work that he utilized. Furthermore, the ending of  Esdras :

with the verb πισυν’γω corresponds with the ending of Chronicles
that also rounds off with a verb ìòéå in Chron : (Eskenazi :
–). Both documents, then, close deliberately with an activity in
mind: coming together (Esdras) and going up ( Chronicles). Note
also Gardner (: ) who writes: “[A] short phrase is often clearer
and more to the point than a long, rambling sentence. As the message
contained in the final sentence matches the start of the book, there is
no need to imagine that the text is incomplete.” Grabbe (: –
) also identifies an inclusio as Esdras begins with the first festival
of the year, Passover, and ends with the last festival of the year, the
Feast of Tabernacles. Viewed this way, the opening and beginning of the
document do not require its placement within a larger work.
It is worth considering a number of mediating options that have
been set forth. T.C. Eskenazi () claims that  Esdras is a distinct
composition by the Chronicler (i.e., its persons, circle, or school) derived
from Ezra-Nehemiah and reflecting the same ideological perspectives
and common literary devices as the Book of Chronicles. Accordingly
 Esdras brings the material of Ezra-Nehemiah into closer conformity
with the ideology and style of the Book of Chronicles. She bases that
on: () the centrality of David; () the concept of Israel and Israel’s
relation to others; () retribution and the role of the prophets; and
() heightened emphasis on temple and cult. Eskenazi is quite right to
dispute the assumption of a common authorship of Chronicles-Ezra-
Nehemiah prevalent since L. Zunz () given the linguistic differences
between Chronicles and Ezra-Nehemiah (see Japhet ; Williamson
: –; Throntveit ; but note the objections of D. Talshir ).
While the Davidic links in Esdras are played up and an emphasis on
the renewal of the temple and cultus are certainly discernible, the other
elements of her paradigm seem tenuous. Esdras does exhibit a similar
exclusionary tendency as Ezra and the role of prophets in retribution
is hardly unique to the Chronicler. What is more, the story of the three
bodyguards has no affinities with the material of Chronicles and it is hard
to fit into her tradition-history as it does not square with the ideology or
literary character of Chronicles. The similarities between  Esdras and
Chronicles are apparent, but they can be reasonably attributed to one
document using the other, rather than appealing to a shared authorship.
If it is time to set aside the theory of a common authorship to Chronicles
and Ezra-Nehemiah, then we should do the same with Chronicles and
 Esdras.
 introduction

A significant thesis is that of Dieter Böhler () who noticed how in

Esdras that at the time of Zerubbabel and Ezra the city of Jerusalem is
rebuilt, the returning exiles are able to immediately settle in the city, and
the temple is already furnished with walls, gates, and gatekeepers. In con-
trast, the MT version of Ezra knows of Jerusalem as ruined and depopu-
lated when Zerubbabel and Ezra return (e.g.,  Esd :– = Ezra :;  Esd
: = Ezra :; Esd : = Ezra :). In which case, the MT of Ezra
has reworked Esdras in order to make room for the restoration pro-
gramme of Nehemiah. The purpose is to create a Nehemiah-compatible
text of Ezra. The contrast created by this reworking is that while  Esdras
focuses on Temple and Torah, Ezra-Nehemiah stresses a tripartite motif
of Temple, Torah, and City with the latter as a means of social cohesion.
Böhler (: –) writes:
Esr-Neh will nicht einfach Geschichte nacherzählen, sonder eine Aussage
über das Wesen Israels machen. Esr-Neh ist ein theologische Komposi-
tion, die absichtlich einen impliziten Punkt der alter Erzählung Esdr α*
herauszieht und zu einem eigenen Thema ausbaut … Die Darstellung von
Esdr α*, wonach die Stadt Jerusalem zu Beginn der Restauration, noch
vor dem Tempel wiederhergestellt wurde (vgl. Haggai) und Nehemia mit
Serubbabel und vor Esra nach Jerusalem zurückkehrte, darf nicht einfach
übersehen werden, sondern ist für eine geschichtliche Rekonstruktion kri-
tische auszuwerten.
The differences between Esdras and Ezra that Böhler highlights con-
cerning the depiction of the city are valid and his proposal is eminently
plausible. The major misgiving is that other explanations are equally
possible and perhaps even preferable. For a start,  Esdras has no prob-
lem creating anachronism in the editing of its Vorlage by referring to
Jerusalem as rebuilt prior to Nehemiah. One also has to prove that the
perspective of Ezra is a correction to Esdras rather than simply car-
ried over from a Semitic source. Also, while translation from Greek to
Hebrew was not unheard of in early Judaism, it was relatively infrequent
when it came to sacred literature. Finally, this view requires a fairly early
date for the composition of Esdras whereas a second century date is
preferred by the majority of scholars and the Hebrew of Ezra – most
likely goes back to the fourth century bce.
L. Grabbe (: , –) provides a further option that at-
tempts to cut a path through the complicated textual and source-critical
problems. He proposes that Esdras represents an earlier stage of
the Zerubbabel-Jeshua and Ezra tradition which the compiler of He-
brew Ezra and Nehemiah drew from. Esdras is not the source of the
 introduction 

Hebrew (MT), but merely a stage in the development of that source.

Grabbe states:
My conclusion was that an Ezra tradition lies at its core, in Esdras , –.
This tradition was picked up by the compiler of Ezra-Nehemiah, with a
portion split off to form Nehemiah . But the original tradition continued
to develop on its own, with chapters from Chronicles and a story about
the contest of the guards being added at some point. Also, it seems that the
ending was lost; that ending probably extended at least to the celebration
of Tabernacles (as known in Neh. :–). (Grabbe : )
Yet that requires postulating Esdras  and – as a subsequent addi-
tion when they are more likely to have been embedded in the original
Hebrew/Aramaic Vorlage of Esdras. What is more, it is theoretically
impossible to determine if or how the Vorlage underlying  Esdras is ear-
lier to that of Ezra-Nehemiah. (See diagram  below for a pictorial display
of my understanding of the source-critical relationships).
More convincing, then, is the Kompilationhypothese. We arrive here
not simply by default, but because the seams of sources are clearly
present in Esdras. Esdras evidently knows of Ezra-Nehemiah given
the deliberate rearrangement of material (e.g.,  Esd :– = Ezra :–
) and the author also abridges a Hebrew text at several junctures
(Bayer ; Walde : –; Williamson : –; : –
). The simplification of Ezra material is most apparent by the author’s
rationalization of the number of letters sent (Esd : = Ezra :– and
 Esd :– = Ezra :–) in order to simplify the obscure reports
of correspondence, but this leads to minor inconsistencies within the
narrative in the very process of trying to clarify!
Furthermore, if the story of the three bodyguards is not a later interpo-
lation (as is required by Pohlmann’s and Eskenazi’s theses), but is organic
and original to the document, then we have additional evidence that
 Esdras comprises a unique and unified literary composition formed on
the basis of existing materials. The notion that the story of the body-
guards is a late inclusion has been vigorously contested by W.Th. In der
Smitten (). The Talshirs (Z. Talshir ; ; : ; Z. and
D. Talshir ) have also argued for the unity of the story with the
rest of Esdras on the grounds that: () the story is probably a trans-
lation from an Aramaic original; and () the link between the story
and its context also derives from a Semitic language, in which case, the
story was not added at a later Greek stage of its composition history, but
belongs to the earlier Semitic strata (but note Coggins & Knibb [: ]:
“[I]t seems unnecessary to envisage any Semitic original other than the
 introduction

Diagram : Relationship of Sources

books of Ezra and Nehemiah, perhaps with some textual variations from
the form familiar to us”; in contrast, see Cook : ; D & Z. Talshir
).
In sum, as Williamson (: ) writes: “It therefore seems prefer-
able to hold that Esdras represents a conscious selection and arrange-
ment of source material in what was intended to be a book in its own
right.” Accordingly, it is a version rather than a translation (similarly
Cook : ; Sandoval : ).

Purpose

The purpose of Esdras has been widely disputed for some time (De
Wette & Schrader :  said, “Ein Zweck dieser charakterlosen
Compilation last sich nicht entdecken”). Among the attempts to fix it
to a particular function, Cook (: ) perceived an effort to simply
give an account of a period that was “confused and forgotten” and to
highlight the role of the priest Ezra in contrast to the “secular” Nehemiah.
Myers (: ) asks if it was composed “as a kind of apologia for the
Jews who had assisted him [Antiochus III] in his successful effort to
wrest Coelesyria from the Ptolemaic regime and a claim for his favor
in return?” Alternatively Myers (: –) thinks  Esdras may have
 introduction 

had a more general purpose being the “support and promotion … of a

Jewish institution” or have been extracted for some “liturgical purpose.”
T.C. Vriezen and A.S. van der Woude (: ) see the unifying
focus as being on the temple to the effect that  Esdras was intended
to be a “history of the temple in Jerusalem in which Josiah, Zerubba-
bel, and Ezra were given a prominent role” (noting also the postscript
in Codex Colbertianus: “de templi restutione”). H. Attridge (: )
posits a specific purpose as to “play some role in the polemics of the
second century between the Jerusalem temple and it[s] rivals” (i.e., Leon-
topolis and #Araq-el-Amir), and a more general and didactic role being
to impart “to a Greek reading audience, in a succinct and entertaining
form, the theological lesson of Ezra-Nehemiah, that God watches over
those who piously serve him, as well as the moralistic message that truth
is the most powerful.” Joseph Blenkinsopp (: –) also sees
the centre of gravity in Esdras focused on the temple with due atten-
tion given to “what the temple and its personnel ought to represent and
how they ought to be serviced and provided for” as well as an “implicit
polemic against temples other than the one in Jerusalem” (on the other
temples like the one built by Onias IV in Heliopolis ca.  bce, see Jose-
phus, Ant. .–; .–, –). Deidre N. Fulton (:
) identifies the primary purpose as to describe how three faithful
leaders—Zerubbabel, Sheshbazzar, and Ezra—restored proper worship
in Jerusalem.
A.E. Gardner () advocates that Esdras was written to comfort
people during the Maccabean crisis based largely on parallels between
 Esdras and Maccabees. She believes that the death of Josiah was
redacted to show that his untimely death was in fact due to his dis-
obedience of the prophet Jeremiah. She also detects an emphasis on the
rebuilding of the temple throughout. Gardner believes that the story of
the three bodyguards indicates that all the riches and power of the world
are of no value in comparison to the rebuilding of the temple. Just as God
had not abandoned the people in the Babylonian exile but remembered
his promises to their ancestors and restored them to the land and rebuilt
the temple, so too “during the Syrian occupation a lesson was to be learnt
[that] in time God would restore their Temple” (Gardner : ).
According to Z. Talshir (: ; : –),  Esdras was com-
posed around the story of Darius’s three body guards: “The book of  Esd
was created for the purpose of retelling the history of the Restoration in
such a way that it revolved around the Story of the Three youths and its
hero Zerubbabel.”
 introduction

What is perhaps more compelling is the recent proposal by De Troyer

(: ):
The book of Esdras is written to emphasize the connection between Ezra
and Josiah. The Second Temple community not only continues the com-
munity of the First Temple, but its leaders also continue the emphasis on
the Law as started by King Josiah. Stronger, Ezra succeeds in his mission—
maybe he was even better than King Josiah? Ezra revives and revises
Josiah. Second, the Story of the Three Youths is added to explain how
the building of the Temple was continued after some years. In this story,
Zerubbabel takes the lead. Zerubbabel revives King Solomon. Zerubbabel
resembles King Solomon.

It is worth pointing out that if Esdras is based on a Semitic Vorlage, then

the current Greek version was purposed primarily as a free translation
of the Semitic original. In light of this, the most likely function of Greek
Esdras was to showcase for Greek-speakers the reforms of Josiah (king),
Zerubbabel (governor), Jeshua (priest), and Ezra (priest-scribe) as a
model for the continued reformation of Judean society so as to bring
the web of socio-religious life into closer conformity with post-exilic
interpretations of its Yahwistic religion. As Jellicoe (: ) put it:
“Greek Esdras [is] … the first attempt to present the account of the
Return in Hellenistic dress.”
Martin Hengel (: ) proposed that  Esdras was a paraphrastic
redaction: “The author was concerned with creating, through selection,
expansion and style, a historical account easily read by Greek readers and
more interesting for Greek-speaking Diaspora Jewry than the original
book of Ezra.” Yet the Greek text is a free rendering of a Vorlage that was
based on a prior Semitic text or texts that were creatively redacted. Thus,
the creative and expansionist compononent in the re-writing of the Ezra-
Nehemiah story probably occurred at the level of Aramaic rather than
Greek translation. We do not know what further redaction occurred at
the level of Greek translation, presumably some glosses were added and
details amended. But the capacity of the Greek text to be retroverted into
Aramaic (as Torrey and Talshire have done) would suggest that the most
creative layer of Esdras was its Semitic Vorlage. So while the Greek of
Esdras may have a particular function, the overall literary purpose of
Esdras is best derived from the rationale for the electic composition of
its Semitic Vorlage.
The Semitic original was also probably the first text explicitly to join
together in a continuous single narrative the fall of Jerusalem and the
commencement of restoration. By doing this it shows how God brought
 introduction 

the Judeans from exile to restoration as part of one unfolding divine

purpose. The rebuilding of the temple, reestablishment of the priesthood,
reinstitution of the festivals, and purification of the populace all carry
connotations of a reformist agenda being worked out. Accordingly the
focus falls on Ezra rather than Nehemiah who is absent after  Esd. .,
 (but note how Sir. :– and Macc :–: mention Nehemiah
but not Ezra!). That is not necessarily a polemic against Nehemiah, but
simply recognizes that the two had different tasks and accentuates the
work of the former as a matter of preference. What is more, given that
Ezra and Nehemiah traditions developed separately and independently
during the second temple period, the lack of interaction between the
two in one such document is hardly surprising (Blenkinsopp :
). In any case, the author of Esdras wished to stress the strict
Torah-centred programme of reform instituted and continued by the
scribal class associated with Ezra, the priestly function of Jeshua in the
reinstitution of the cultus, and also the Davidic character of Israel’s
leadership typified by the Davidides Josiah and Zerubbabel (see further
Coggins and Knibb : –, ). If we want to be more specific, we
could say that as a form of “Rewritten Bible” (see above) the author of
 Esdras has contemporized the biblical narratives in order to meet the
social, religious, and political needs of Judeans seeking to re-establish
their traditional religion after returning to Judea and while remaining
under the hegemony of a foreign power.
The story of the three bodyguards probably functions to show that
faithful and wise Judeans can excel even in a pagan context. The minia-
ture narrative, much like Daniel – and Esther, is an example of how to
live wisely in a pagan ruled world and, best of all, how to take advantage
of them. The fact that the Persian kings are portrayed positively or are
at least benign, and given that there is a distinct absence of Judean mil-
itancy in the document, may indicate that Esdras was written prior to
the forced Hellenization of Judea by Antiochus Epiphanes IV and before
the Maccabean revolt. The era of the Syrian monarch Antiochus III (–
 bce) with his apparently benevolent disposition towards the Jewish
people (see Ant. .–) would be a good candidate for a histori-
cal location of this writing. While this is admittedly speculative, it is as a
good a guess as one can make.
 introduction

Outline

The contents of Esdras can be stratified into the following outline:

I. The Beginning and End of the Reforms Under Iōsias (:–)

a. The Passover of Iōsias (:–)
i. Iōsias Commissions the Passover (:–)
ii. Gifts to the People (:–)
iii. The Reinstitution of the Passover (:–)
iv. The Greatness of Iōsias’ Passover (:–)
b. Summary of the Deeds of Iōsias (:–)
c. The Death of Iōsias and the Premature End to the Reforms (:–)
i. Iōsias defeated by Pharaoh (:–)
ii. The People Mourn Iōsias (:–)
d. The Wicked Kings of Judah (:–)
i. Iechonias (:–)
ii. Iōakeim (:–)
iii. Iōakeim2 (:–)
iv. Sedekias (:–)
e. The Wickedness of Judah and the Punishment of God (:–)
II. The Decree of Cyrus and the Beginning of the Return to Judah (:–)
a. The Decree (:–)
b. The Response to the Decree (:–)
III. Opposition to the Rebuilding of Jerusalem (:–)
a. The Letter to Artaxerxēs (:–)
b. The Reply of Artaxerxēs (:–)
c. The Cessation of Reconstruction (:–)
IV. The Contest of Darius’s Three Bodyguards and the Introduction of
Zorobabel
(:–:)
a. Darius’s Banquet (:–)
b. The Design of the Bodyguards (:–)
i. The Wager (:–)
ii. The King Awakes (:–)
c. The Discourse on the Superiority of Wine (:–)
d. The Discourse on the Superiority of the King (:–)
e. The Discourse on the Superiority of Women and Truth (:–)
i. About Women (:–)
ii. About Truth (:–)
f. Darius’s Reward and Zorobabel’s Request (:–)
g. The Decree of Darius on the Return of the Exiles (:–)
h. Zorobabel’s Prayer and the Rejoicing in Jerusalem at the News (:–
)
 introduction 

V. The Continuing Return from Captivity (:–)

a. Preparations for the Journey (:–)
i. Selection of the returnees (:)
ii. The Cavalry and Cavalcade (:–)
iii. The Leaders: Priests and Davidides (:–)
b. The List of Returning Exiles (:–)
i. The Leaders of the Returning Exiles (:–)
ii. The Common Folks (:–)
iii. The Priests (:–)
iv. The Levites (:)
v. The Temple singers (:)
vi. The Gatekeepers (:)
vii. The Temple Servants (:–)
viii.Solōmōn’s Attendants (:–)
ix. The Unregistered (:–)
x. Full Number of Returnees (:–)
c. Votive Offerings (:–)
d. Erection of an Altar and Inaugural Worship (:–)
e. Beginning of the New Temple (:–)
f. Inquiry and Intrusion from Judah’s Neighbours (:–)
VI. The Continued Reconstruction of the Temple and Corporate Resistance
by Judah’s Neighbours (:–:)
a. Reconstruction of the Temple Commences (:–)
b. Intervention by Regional Authorities (:–)
c. The Letter to Darius (:–)
d. Darius’s Commission, Inspection, and Replies (:–)
i. The Book Found in Ecbatana (:–)
ii. The Order to the Governor to Permit the Building (:–)
iii. Darius’s Warning Against Impediment (:–)
e. The Rebuilding of the Temple Flourishes with Royal and Prophetic
Oversight (:–)
f. The Passover of Zorobabel (:–)
VII. The Ministry of Esras (:–:)
a. Esras Arrives in Jerusalem (:–)
b. The Letter of Artaxerxēs (:–)
i. Ordinance of Artaxerxēs (:–)
ii. Artaxerxēs’ Charge to Esras (:–)
c. Esras’s Ejaculation of Praise (:–)
d. The List of Returning Exiles (:–)
e. The Search for Priests and Levites (:–)
f. The Journey to Jerusalem (:–)
i. Fasting and Prayer (:–)
ii. Selection of Vessel Bearers (:–)
iii. Arrival in Jerusalem (:–)
g. The Reports of Mixed Marriages (:–)
h. Esras’s Penitential Prayer (:–)
 introduction

i.The Contrition of the People and Their Oath (:–)

j.The Proclamation of a Gathering (:–)
k.The Gathering and Resolution at Jerusalem (:–)
l.List of Those Taking Foreign Wives (:–a)
i. Priests (:–)
ii. Levites (:)
iii. Temple Singers (:)
iv. Gatekeepers (:)
v. Israelites (:–a)
m.The Reading of the Law at the Gathering (:b–)

Greek of Esdras

Esdras is written in good quality Greek, but as we have seen it is debated

as to whether or not it is a translation of non-MT Hebrew/Aramaic text,
or whether it is a relatively free but polished translation of a proto-MT-
like Hebrew/Aramaic text of Chronicles-Ezra-Nehemiah. The fact that
the Greek is different from the Greek of Esdras (LXX), which is a some-
what mechanical and wooden translation of the Hebrew, gives a point
of contrast between a fairly free (Esdras) and literal ( Esdras LXX)
translation. Unsurprisingly, then, Esdras represents a refined Greek text
with lingering overtones of its Semitic sources. Thackeray (: .–
) regarded Esdras as a free and paraphrastic rendering of a Semitic
text. He also identified a literary affinity between the style of  Esdras
and the Greek of Daniel and Esther given their similar vocabulary and
expansionist approach to composition.
A number of Semitic features are discernible throughout the text
(Wooden : ): () Pleonasm. There is a superfluity of pronouns
at several points usually involving the building up of redundant descrip-
tions, e.g., — µετªγαγε(ν) Ναβουχοδονοσορ ξ )Ιερουσαληµ κα½ πηρεº-
σατο αÐτ• (:), τÍ ¹ερÊν οÜ àνοµ’σqη τÍ Ëνοµα αÐτοÚ π’ αÐτíê (:).
() Hebraism. Characteristic Hebrew idioms are apparent at numerous
places, e.g., frequent use of καº influenced by the Hebrew conjunctive å,
καº γ¢νετο for the Hebrew éäéå (:), and one instance of paronomasia
“νεσιν κα½ “φεσιν (:). () Dependence. In regards to ¦ωσ ναστµ² ρ-
χιερεÕσ νδεδυµ¢νοσ τ­ν δªλωσιν κα½ τ­ν λªqειαν (:), the nouns
δªλωσισ and λªqεια stand for the Hebrew íéîúìå íéøåàì (Ezra :)
and represents a Septuagintal tradition also found in Exod :, Lev
:, and Deut :.
The Greek of Esdras has a number of distinctive traits (see further
Cook : –; Hanhart a: –). This includes the endemic
 introduction 

repeat of the conjunctive καº which ordinarily functions, apart from

lists, as an opening identifier for a new sentence rather than for linking
contiguous constituents. Also apparent is the prevalence of hypotaxis
(compared to the parataxis of the Hebrew). A preference for active verbs.
A frequent use of the conjunction Ìπωσ with a subjunctive verb (e.g.,
:, ; :, ; :, ; :; :). The common employment of
third-class conditional clauses (e.g., :, ; :, ; :–, , , ; :,
; :, , , , ; :) and a recurring use of ÑπÊ with passive
constructions (:, , ; :; :; :, , ; :).

The Vaticanus Text of Esdras

Codex Vaticanus (B/) is a Greek majuscule named after the Vatican

library in Rome where it is stored (see further Aland et al. : ;
Birdsall ). It is a fourth century codex probably copied in Egypt/
Alexandria, although a provenance in Caesarea has also been proposed
(see the debate described in Elliott ). Eusebius (Vit. Const. .)
refers to Constantine’s act of ordering fifty copies of the Scriptures to
be made by the bishop of Caesarea, however, it is no more than a
vague possibility if Vaticanus was one of these copies (see Skeat ;
Gamble : ). In the end, the provenance of Vaticanus remains
indeterminable, although an Egyptian origin is perhaps the marginally
more probable given that the order of books in Vaticanus agrees with that
given in Athanasius’ th Festal Letter of  ce. If this is the case, then
we should situate Vaticanus in the broad context of the fourth century
with the social and political pressures of Constantine’s supremacy over
the empire, the on-going christological struggles of the time, and the still
on-going process of determing the authoritative list of early Christian
books (Elliott ).
Vaticanus is one of the two oldest near-complete copies of the Chris-
tian Greek Bible in existence. The pages are made of vellum and sized
approximated × cm, though they might have been slightly larger
as the original folio numbers in the left verso side are almost all sev-
ered. It is written in uncial letters and scriptio continuo (making it often
weary on the eyes) later retraced by a th–th century scribe, and is
arranged in three parallel columns on the page with usually forty-two
lines per column. Several sections are missing including the first  chap-
ters of Genesis,  folios of the Psalms (:–:b), the second part
of Hebrews after : to the end, the Pastoral Epistles, Philemon, and
 introduction

Revelation. The lost pages, except for the Pastorals, were replaced by
parchment folios written in minuscule script. These sections were either
deliberately removed or more likely were damaged in the handling of the
codex. Two scribes probably produced the Old Testament with Scribe
A completing Genesis–Kings and Psalms–Tobit, while Scribe B com-
pleted Kings–Esdras, Hosea–Daniel, as well as the New Testament.
Esdras is attributed to Scribe B. Two correctors are apparent with one
from the uncial era (perhaps the original scribe) and another correc-
tor whose date is uncertain (ca. th–th centuries). Interesting features
include the use of the nomina sacra to abbreviate key words and the use
of diaresis over initial iota and upsilon letters. To indicate a new section
the scribes normally began a new line slightly indented on the left-hand
margin and left the rest of the last line of the preceding paragraph above
blank. Smaller sub-sections are indicated by a two letter space within the
text sometimes with a bar beneath the first letter of that line (e.g.,  Esd
:). Alternatively, a colon is used to signify a new unit of text as well
(e.g., Esd :).
The B-text of Esdras is based on a textual tradition that is fairly
early and as of yet does not show clear signs of translators and scribes
trying to conform the text to the either an extant Hebrew version of
Ezra-Nehemiah or to the more literal translation of Ezra-Nehemiah in
Esdras. Whereas the witnesses A and the L-texts typify the attempt to
bring Christian Greek texts of the Old Testament into closer conformity
with Hebrew recensions, this has not yet made a significant impact on
Esdras. The text-type underlying Esdras is probably closer to the
pioneering Greek translation of a Semitic original than to subsequent
Greek versions that corrected the Christian Septuagint in accordance
with the Hebrew canon.
Concerning Esdras in Vaticanus, Esdras is immediately preceded
by Chronicles and followed by Esdras (LXX) as per normal canonical
order. On features of the text there is the use of the nomina sacra, but
κÒριοσ is spelled in full when it refers to Persian kings. Macrons are
employed throughout to note the omission of the ν in words at the end
of a line and to note the omission of the αι of και in order to shorten lines
of text. There are many itacisms as the scribe has a particular propensity
to over use epsilons resulting in some peculiar spellings, especially in
the case of names (e.g., Ιωσεºα, Λευεºται), and other general spelling
variations (e.g., £ρρηξα instead of δι¢ρρηξα at :). Similarly, there is
an occasional usage of )Ιερουσαληµ over )ΙεροσολÒµα (:, ; :;
:–). There is also a preference for ending names in ου or ουσ (in the
 introduction 

various genealogies and lists there are different spellings for names in
the textual tradition and many scholars opt for conjectural spellings for
the names in critical editions of the text, though in this commentary I
shall provide only the names given in Vaticanus). In some cases, there
are variations in the spelling of names from one chapter to another (e.g.,
Σαµανασσ’ρω [:, ] and Σαβανασσ’ρω [:] for Σαναβασσ’ρω).
Even more characteristic of Vaticanus is the use of Εσρασ instead of
Εσδρασ (:, , –, , –, ; :, , , –, , , ; but
cf. : with Εσδρασ; other variants for the name include Εζρασ as
found in A) in all but a few instances (and even the hapax Αψ’ρασ for
Εσδρασ at : and Αζαρºασ for Εσδρασ at :). There was a tendency
to employ the dipthong οι for the vowel ω especially in compound
verbs (e.g., :, , ; :; :). There is the absence of prepositional
prefixes, e.g., (δι)εκοµºσqη in :; ( γ)κ¢χηναν in :; (προσ)γελ’σµη
in :; ( ν)¢βλεπον in :; ( ξ)εχâρισεν in :, ; ( π)εφâνησεν
in :. Some numbers are abbreviated as letters (e.g, βυ for δισχºλιαι
τετρακÊσιαι at :) and sometimes there is a resulting confusion of
numeracy due to these abbreviations (see Hanhart b: ). At several
places prepositions are omitted or do not appear when the relationship
between objects is sufficiently implied by the case of the nouns (e.g., ν
is omitted from ν Ìλη. in :). At several places, the personal pronoun
αÐτÊσ is preferred over the reflexive pronoun ¡αυτÊσ (:; :; :).
Twice there appears the use of Ìτι for διÊτι (:, ). Also characteristic
is the omission of the article in the genitival τοÚ κυρºου (e.g., :, ;
:, ; :, , ; :; cf. :). An oscillation between use of κυρºοσ
over q¢οσ appears at points (e.g., :; :; contrasted with :; :).
In temporal prepositional clauses, the τ is often omitted from the genitive
singular article which then becomes a relative pronoun: ¦ωσ τοÚ → ¦ωσ
οÜ and µ¢χρισ τοÚ → µ¢χρισ οÜ (:, ; :; contrasted with :; :;
:; :, ; :).
On errors, the corrector(s) have amended vowels usually above the
text. Several words were omitted in retracing over the text at : (p. ,
column III, second line from the bottom). The symbol ÷ indicates a
marginal gloss at :–, ; :; : and provides corrections partic-
ularly for names in lists. An error is marked at : where the corrector
has changed οÐκ into οÐχ (cf. :; :, ).
Interesting also is the division of text in Esdras which corresponds
largely, though not exactly, to modern versifications of the text. This
might indicate some kind of lectionary that delineates units for read-
ing.
 introduction

Β : • :
Γ : Ζ :
∆ : Η :
Ε : Θ :
ζ : Ι :
Α : Ι∆ :b
Β : ΙΒ :
Γ : ΘΥ :
Significant sections are also marked by a capital eta placed in
the right hand side of a diamond at several places probably to
note passages precious to the reader, i.e. a personal notation of
sorts (Esd :; :, ; :, , ; :; :). There is also
a lowercase omega with a rho symbol through it at : where
it reads “truth is victorious over all things” in order to mark
probably the most famous quotation of the book.

Reception-History

The reception-history of Esdras is relatively brief and uneventful. It was

not cited with any great frequency by Judean and Diasporan authors. The
most significant citation of Esdras was obviously by Josephus in Ant.
.–, who relies on it for his account of Ezra written in the s ce.
Although Josephus is well-aware of a Palestinian canon he still prefers
the Greek version of Esdras over its Hebrew counter-part probably due
to its readabe and polished Greek. Notably Josephus amends  Esdras in
a number of ways principally to emphasize and reinforce the leadership
of Ezra in the return from exile and restoration of the national religion in
Jerusalem (see Feldman : –). On the Christian side,  Esdras
was spasmodically cited in the Church Fathers but mainly with reference
to the story of the three bodyguards (Myers : –). In fact, it is
probably not too much to say that the apocryphal bodyguard legend
is the primary reason why the document was preserved and has been
handed down. Origen included Esdras in his Hexapla though it is
no longer extant, but it would have evidently illuminated the textual
problems that emerge when a juxtaposition of the Hebrew and Greek
texts are made.
Esdras was common in canonical lists of the western and eastern
churches (see McDonald : –), though often we cannot be
certain if it is the Greek of Hebrew versions of “Esdras” that is intended.
In the Western Church, Esdras was first included in a canonical list by
 introduction 

Hillary of Poitiers who referenced Esdras in a prologue on the Book

of Psalms () sometime between  and ce in France. The book
was omitted from a canonical list given by Jerome in a letter (.),
but later included in his preface to the books of Samuel and Kings.
Both the letter and the preface were written ca. ce in Bethelehem.
Augustine mentions Esdras as canonical in his magisterial volume on
Christian doctrine (Chr. Doct. .) written ca.  ce in North Africa.
The “two books of Ezra” are named as canonical Scriptures (canonicae
scripturae) in the biblical canon of the Synod of Carthage ca.  ce. In
the Eastern Church, Esdras was retained in lists by Melito of Sardis
(Eusebius, Hist. Eccl. ..), Origen (Eusebius, Hist. Eccl. ..), and
Cyril of Jerusalem (Catechetical Lectures .). The Council of Laodicea
ca. ce included Esdras in its biblical canon. Athanasius wrote in his
famous th Festal letter of  ce: “And in like manner, the first and
second of Chronicles are with them one book; and the first and second
of Esdras are counted one” (Ep. Fest. .).
Despite Jerome’s preference for the Hebrew canon and text, it was the
Greek text and canon that became normative in the Western Church
and all the additional books crept into Latin versions of the Old Tes-
tament including the Vulgate. As part of the Septuagint,  Esdras has
canonical status in the Greek and Russian Orthodox churches, it is
Deutero-canonical in the Roman Catholic Church’s canon, and in some
Protestant lists Esdras is considered among those books which are use-
ful for “life and instruction” but not for developing “doctrine” (Angli-
can  articles, art. vi). The main reason for  Esdras receding into
relative obscurity in the modern period was probably due to a prefer-
ence for the Hebrew text and on account of a reliance on the MT. This
was the natural outgrowth of the Reformation principle ad fontes that
returned to the Hebrew texts and undercut the “apocryphal” books such
as Esdras.

Esdras as Christian “Scripture”

 Esdras is found in a number of early Christian manuscripts and extant

in various translations of ancient Christian Bibles. For a case in point,
the presence of Esdras in Codex Vaticanus means that it was copied,
read, studied, and preached by Christians and for Christians. But what
does it mean to think of Esdras as Christian Scripture? What is “Chris-
tian” about it? How does it fit into the Christian canon? What does it
 introduction

contribute to Christian thought? (See the brief remarks by Böhler :

– under the heading “Kanontheologische Konsequenzen” espe-
cially in relation to the ethnocentric ideology in  Esdras).
Moving into this area requires some prefatory thoughts on the Septu-
agint as Christian Scripture (see Hengel ; Wooden ). A text that
was initially designed to be the sacred literature of Greek-speaking Jew-
ish communities soon became part of the authorized register of sacred
books for Gentile Christians by the second and third centuries of the
Common Era. The Christian adoption and appropriation of the Sep-
tuagint is really an extension of reliance on it by Jews in the Diaspora
communities and evident within the New Testament which, more or
less, relies almost exclusively on the Septuagint. Many distinctive Chris-
tian readings rely on peculiar Septuagintal glosses (e.g., Acts :–
= Amos :–). Augustine, contra Jerome, follows ecclesial tradition
going so far as to claim that the seventy translators deviated from the
Hebrew, “[m]oved by the divine Spirit … not in the manner of inter-
preters, but in the freedom of those prophesying. Consequently, the
apostles, in their authority, when they appealed to the Scriptures, quite
rightly utilized not only the Hebrew, but also their own—the witness of
the Seventy” (De civitate Dei .). Yet problems with the Septuagint
were manifold and gradually became apparent to Christian exegetes as
Hengel (: ) noted:
Teachers of the church after Justin faced a number of open problems
fundamentally beyond solution: the claim of the authority of the Sev-
enty for the whole Christian Old Testament, whose contents still var-
ied; the fact that the Greek collection of books itself contained portions
of texts and whole books that do not appear in the Jewish canon and
thus were not covered by the translation legend at all, while other works
appear to be abbreviated in comparison to the Hebrew original; and,
finally, the existence of competing Greek text traditions whose contradic-
tions could only be masked, but not removed, by the charge of falsifica-
tion.

The Septuagint possesses immense significance for a Christian doctrine

of Scripture. To begin with there is the presence of Septuagintalisms in
the Greek New Testament itself. There was also the widespread reliance
on the Septuagint in the early church as opposed to a Hebrew text for the
most part. There were serious debates between Jews and Christians over
the “scriptural” status of the Greek translations of the Hebrew Bible. The
Septuagint (or certain parts thereof) is found in the major codices such as
Vaticanus, Sinaitacus, and Alexandrinus. Finally, there is the continued
 introduction 

usage of the Septuagint in the Orthodox churches to this day. All of this
attests the significance of the Septuagint for the church’s hermeneutical,
canonical, and theological formation (see further Holmes : –
).
Although there are dozens of citations and allusions to  Esdras in the
Church Fathers, the most eminent Christian reading of  Esdras is that
supplied by Augustine in De civitate Dei ..
After these three prophets, Haggai, Zechariah, and Malachi, during the
same period of the liberation of the people from the Babylonian servitude
Esdras also wrote, who is historical rather than prophetical, as is also the
book called Esther, which is found to relate, for the praise of God, events
not far from those times; unless, perhaps, Esdras is to be understood as
prophesying of Christ in that passage where, on a question having arisen
among certain young men as to what is the strongest thing, when one had
said kings, another wine, the third women, who for the most part rule
kings, yet that same third youth demonstrated that the truth is victorious
over all [= Esdras –]. For by consulting the Gospel we learn that Christ
is the Truth (italics added).
Augustine sees Esd : (: Vulg.) concerning Zerubbabel’s climactic
remark that “truth is great, and stronger than all things” (© λªqεια
µεγ’λη κα½ ¸σχυροτ¢ρα παρ• π’ντα, magna veritas et praevalet) a
prophecy about Christ fulfilled in the Gospel. The Gospel that Augustine
refers to of course is the Fourth Gospel, in particular, it appears that
he has in mind John : with the Johannine Jesus’ saying: “I am the
way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except
through me.” Augustine knows full well that Esdras is a historical work
and not a prophetic book and there is no question as to whether or
not this was the intended point of Zerubbabel’s speech in the text of
 Esdras—it clearly was not—but Augustine is not engaging in crass
allegory or rank eisegesis. Rather, Augustine is approaching the text
with a canonically shaped imagination. The underlying premise is that
Christian Scripture ultimately has one divine author (God) and it has one
ultimate object of its testimony (Jesus Christ). Given those suppositions
can one attempt to relate the Ezra-story and the Gospel-story together if
one is convinced that the same God stands behind both of them and if
the telos of all Scripture is the revelation of Jesus Christ. No doubt some
scholars with a historical-critical bent will regard such an enterprise as
full of hermeneutical make-believe. Be that as it may, Christians have
read and still read Esdras, not simply to excavate historical data for the
post-exilic period, but also for its typological, spiritual, and devotional
significance. Study of the historical context of an ancient writing will
 introduction

always retain its legitimacy as long as we treat texts as storehouses of

ancient information and not simply as mirrors to hold up to the reader;
still, the reader is part of the process by which meanings are found and
created. The canonical context (of the Old and the New Testaments)
and the communal location of the readers (be they Jews, Christians,
or others) are themselves legitimate variables that impact the reading
of ancient texts that purport to have sacred meaning. In other words,
a Christian reading of Esdras is just as valid as a source-critical one,
perhaps even more so if the enhancement of the human condition is the
goal of all reading.
On the one hand, a plain reading of Esdras with attention given to
its actual historical referent of the exile and return of the Judeans of the
southern kingdom is of panegyric and religious significance in and of
itself. The document narrates a story of the severity of God’s judgment
and the depths of God’s mercy by bringing the people of Judah from
punishment to restoration. It is about faith in the face of adversity, purity
in the midst of pollution, and it heralds the virtues of wisdom, fidelity,
and piety. Esdras also provides elegant examples of individual triumph
and national survival in the context of a particular religious history. All
in all, it is an account rich with material useful for moral exhoration and
religious instruction entirely apart from any explicit christianizing. That
said, Esdras will naturally be of interest to many readers who take time
to consider the potential of the narrative for “canonical interrelatedness”
and “shared testimony” that arises if one reads  Esdras in dialogue
with the New Testament. I want to propose several potential “dialogues”
below.
First, the Matthean genealogy (Matt :–) connects Jesus directly to
key figures of the period related to Esdras by way of mentioning Josiah,
Jechoniah, and Zerubbabel (Matt :–):

10
and Hezekiah the father of
Manasseh, and Manasseh the father
of Amos, and Amos the father of
Josiah,
11
and Josiah the father of Jechoniah
and his brothers, at the time of the
deportation to Babylon.
12
And after the deportation to
Babylon: Jechoniah was the father of
Salathiel, and Salathiel the father of
Zorobabel,
10
(Εζεκºασ δ¥ γ¢ννησεν τÍν
Μανασσ², Μανασσ²σ δ¥ γ¢ννησεν
τÍν )Αµâσ, )Αµâσ δ¥ γ¢ννησεν
)Ιωσºαν,
11
)Ιωσºασ δ¥ γ¢ννησεν τÍν )Ιεχονºαν
κα½ τοÕσ δελφοÕσ αÐτοÚ π½ τ²σ
µετοικεσºασ Βαβυλêνοσ.
12
Μετ• δ¥παρ τ­ν µετοικεσºαν
Βαβυλêνοσ )Ιεχονºασ γ¢ννησεν τÍν
Σαλαqιªλ, Σαλαqι­λ δ¥ γ¢ννησεν
τÍν Ζοροβαβ¢λ,
 introduction 

13
and Zorobabel the father of Abiud,
and Abiud the father of Eliakim, and
Eliakim the father of Azor (NRSV).
13
Ζοροβαβ¥λ δ¥ γ¢ννησεν τÍν
)ΑβιοÒδ, )ΑβιοÕδ δ¥ γ¢ννησεν τÍν
)Ελιακºµ, )Ελιακ½µ δ¥ γ¢ννησεν τÍν
)Αζâρ,

An obvious textual issue is immediately presented in Matt : as Mat-

thew has Jechoniah ()Ιεχονºασ) rather than Jehoiakim ()Ιωακºµ) as the
son of Josiah. Yet Jechoniah was the grandson of Josiah and the son of
Jehoiakim (Chron :–). The source of the confusion may be due to
the fact that Jechoniah’s regnal name was Jehoiachin ( Kgs :) and the
Greek )Ιωακºµ designated both Jehoiakim and Jechoniah/Jehoiachin in
the LXX (e.g., Kgs :; :). It appears that an error crept into  Esd
: which repeats )Ιωακºµ from Esd : when it requires )Ιεχονºασ in
order to differentiate the two persons. Matthean scholars have wrestled
with the textual and scribal problems of this verse and I have no interest
in rehearsing those issues here (though Hood : n suggests that
 Esd : could be an instance of “genealogical telescoping”).
Generally, the purpose of the annotations in the Matthean genealogy
are a storm centre of exegetical debate (Matt :, , ). However, the
annotation “Jechoniah and his brothers” does have some potential for
theological reflection. My own suspicion is that in the case of “Jechoniah
and his brothers,” Matthew represents Jechoniah as the model-king who
suffers on behalf of his people or for “his brothers.” In  Chron :,
Jechoniah/Jehoiakim is known as the “captive” (øé!qà/ασιρ). This image of
a Judean king taken captive by Gentiles parallels the handing over of the
messianic shepherd-king to his Roman captors in the Matthean passion
sequence. The annotation “and his brothers” is attributed to Judah and
Jechoniah in Matt :,  in order to underscore their transformation
from wickedness to righteousness and their vicarious actions on behalf of
the people of God which is partly a typological profile of Jesus as Israel’s
king who leads Israel out of exile through his vicarious sacrifice on the
cross (see further Hood : –).
Second, other possibilities for typological Christ-figures drawn from
 Esdras are of course Josiah, Ezra, and Zerubbabel. It is relatively easy to
coordinate Christ imagery from the New Testament with these figures.
Josiah, as the reforming king who leads his people into battle and dies,
reflects certain themes common to the Gospels in Jesus’ call to national
repentance and his messianic death. As for Ezra, he was remembered
and venerated in Judaism as the quintessential Torah-teacher, and Jesus
is not only a “New Moses” but is an “Eschatological Ezra” in the Gospel of
 introduction

Matthew. In the Matthean testimony, Jesus is portrayed as the exemplary

rabbi who is the teacher and guarantor of Torah in the messianic age
(Matt :–) and is even extolled as the “one” or “only” teacher for
his followers (Matt :). Zerubbabel is a proto-messianic figure as the
rebuilder of the temple (Esd :–; :; Ezra :–; Hag :–;
Zech :–; Sir :–) and he arguably sacralizes the work attributed
to Cyrus as initiating the reconstruction of the temple ( Esd :–). The
diarchic messianism of Zech : describes the Davidide Zerubbabel and
the high priest Jeshua as the “sons of oil” and this priest-king typology
had a large impact on christological imagery in the New Testament (e.g.,
Hebrews). The presence of kingly (Josiah, Jehoiachin), priestly (Ezra,
Jeshua), and prophetic (Jeremiah) figures in  Esdras could easily lend
itself to reflection on the “offices” of Christ embodied in those roles.
As the harbringer of Israel’s eschatological deliverance, the pattern of
leadership figures found in Esdras could be thought to culminate in
Jesus Christ as prophet, priest, and king over God’s people. The undoing
of the exile and the restoration of God’s people in the Ezra-Nehemiah
period was gradual, it suffered set-backs, disappointments, and victories.
However, the ultimate and final end to the exiles’s travails lay in the
future and the New Testament points to Jesus Christ as the ultimate act
of national renewal and covenantal blessing for Israel.
Third, Esdras furnished Christians with resources to reflect upon
and to articulate the nature of God’s mercy. A soteriological summary
of Esdras could be made with the words “we obtained mercy” ( Esd
:) where the returning exiles stress in prayer their reliance on God
for deliverance during their sojourn to Jerusalem. At two key points in
the narrative God is extolled for his mercy ( Esd : εкλατοσ; :
£λεοσ) as he preserved the nation in the slavery of exile and enabled
them to make a safe journey, despite all the perils, back in the land of
Judea. At the beginning of the story the sin of the nation and its leaders
is highlighted (e.g., :, –), yet God’s deliverance returns in the
decree of Cyrus (:–), the triumph of Zerubbabel (:–), and the
call of Ezra (:–). In the midst of the wickedness of the people and
priests (:), God sends them a messenger (i.e., Jeremiah) to call them
because “he was trying to spare them and his dwelling place” (:).
Yet this is met with their mockery and scoffing that earns God’s anger
(:–). In :–, God’s mercy is sandwiched between the impiety
and hard heartedness of the people and the prophetic call that goes
unheeded. Nonetheless, even judgment can ultimately be worked out for
redemptive purposes and the exile is not meant to be permanent (:).
 introduction 

Towards the end of the story in Ezra’s penitential prayer (:–), there
is recognition that God has been merciful and gracious to his people
in that he preserved them in exile. He left them with a “root,” provided
them with sustenance, and turned the favour of the Persian kings towards
them. All of that is despite the fact that the people have sinned like their
forefathers by intermarrying with foreigners since returning to the land.
That in turn leads to contrition among the people, to the rectification of
their misdeeds, and to their offering of the appropriate sacrifices (:–
:).
In sum, Esdras narrates the story of how a people who are “in,” but
who have violated God’s law, take steps in response to their transgression
(Enns : ). It is in response to their experience of divine mercy
that the exiles take measured steps to prevent any further catastrophe
of divine judgment through a strenuous emphasis on separation from
the nations, by concerted efforts to rebuild the temple and Jerualem, and
in their efforts to reconstitute the body of exiles into a Torah-observant
Judean society. So despite the nation’s manifold sin, both pre- and post-
exile, the book focuses on how God did not completely forsake the
nation. The initiative for the return from exile is attributed exclusively
to God and not due to any prayer or petetiton by pious exiles. Yet
preservation in the land appears to be contingent upon rebuilding Judean
life in accordance with the law of Moses (:–; cf. :; :; :, ,
; :–). All in all, Esdras exemplifies the pattern of religion called
“covenantal nomism” where God’s grace precedes the act of obedience
that follows. Enns (: ) aptly summarizes: “We have, in other
words, transgression by the people of God, but for which there is a means
of rectifying their position before God.”
Fourth, complementary to a christocentric reading of  Esdras with its
typological images of Christ is also an ecclesiocentric reading of the story
as typifing the people of God. Christian readings of the Hebrew Scrip-
tures and the Septuagint were just as much ecclesiocentric as they were
christocentric (e.g., Cor :–). Images of the “church” in  Esdras
can be easily related to themes associated with repentance, restora-
tion, opposition, and celebration. Esdras can conceivably help foster an
image of God’s people on a journey from exile towards their final desti-
nation in God’s Kingdom (see Jas :; Pet :;  Pet :). It contributes
further to the moral discourse of the Christian church insofar as that
its panegeric contents parallel Christian moral exhortation as seen in a
comparison with, for example, the Corinthian correspondance.  Esdras
was applicable to Christians by urging the need for continued repentance
 introduction

(Cor :–), emphasizing the separateness of God’s people from the

pagan world (Cor :), and underscoring the sacred presence of God
in his temple (Cor :–) and the necessity of keeping the festival
that God has set before them (Cor :). In this case,  Esdras provides
parrallel and para-canonical support for the exhortation of the people of
God from Israel’s post-exilic history.
Fifth, Esdras also contributed to the collective body of Ezra tradi-
tions that helped activate the apocalyptic imaginations of Jews and Chris-
tians. Though much of the writings that comprise the Old Testament
Pseudepigrapha have a Jewish provenance, their subsequent redaction
and preservation owes much to their sustained Christian usage. The fig-
ure of Ezra remained one of the ancient heroes of the Jewish faith, but
in the course of history he was subsequently Christianized and made a
mouth-piece of Christian beliefs. This is seen clearly in the Vulgate where
Ezra : states, “For my son Jesus shall be revealed with those that be
with him, and they that remain shall rejoice within four hundred years”
(revelabitur enim Filius meus Iesus cum his qui cum eo, et iucundabit qui
relicti sunt annis quadringentis). The developing corpus of Ezra tradi-
tions (Greek Apocalypse of Ezra, The Visions of Ezra, Questions of Ezra,
Apocalypse of Sedrach, and the Revelation of Ezra) constituted ways of
imagining a world where God’s justice, life, and power triumphed over
human structures of evil. Esdras should be placed in the context of
Christian theological disourse that creatively found in the Ezra tradition
patterns for religious life and hopes for the future.
 1 ESDRAS

TEXT AND TRANSLATION

 Key to Textual Markings

{x} text derives from a corrector, usually a correction of mispelled vowels.

hxi scribal spelling variation caused by the presence of an additional letter.
[x] scribal spelling variation corrected by here supplying a missing letter.
(x) insertion of letter because the original letter has not been retraced over
to restore it (usually ε) or else it was omitted due to a macron (usually ν).
> omission of text

Texts and Translations

A Codex Alexandrinus
B Codex Vaticanus
V Codex Venetus
RH Rahlfs-Hanhart Septuaginta
H Hanhart Esrdae Liber I
L Lucian recension of texts
mss manuscripts
CEB Common English Bible
ESVA English Standard Version Apocrypha
NRSV New Revised Standard Version
NEB New English Bible
NETS New English Translation of the Septuagint
NJB New Jerusalem Bible
TNIV Todays New International Version

Nomina Sacra

κω κυρºω. κυ κυρºου κν κÒριον

κσ κÒριοσ κε κÒριε qσ qεÊσ
qω qεê. qυ qεοÚ qν qεÊν
 :–
The Passover of Iōsias
: κα½ «γαγεν Ιωσhεiºασ τÍ πασχα ν )Ιερουσαληµ τíê κω αÐτοÚ: κα½
£qυσ{ε}(ν) τÍ πασχα τµ² τεσσαρ(ε)σκαιδεκ’τµη ©µ¢ρα τοÚ µηνÍσ τοÚ
πρâτου: : στªσασ τοÕσ ¹ερεÂσ κατ’ φηµερºασ στολισµ¢νουσ ν τíê
¹ερíê τοÚ κυ: : κα½ εÃπε(ν) τοÂσ Λευhεiºταισ ¹εροδοÒλοισ τοÚ )Ισραηλ
‘γι’σαι αÐτοÕσ τíê κω ν τµ² q¢σει τ²σ ‘γºασ κιβωτοÚ τοÚ κυ ν τíê
ο»κíω íì íàκοδʵησε(ν) Σαλωµων É τοÚ ∆αυhεiιδ É βασιλεÒσ οÐκ £σται
ѵÂν ›ραι π’ ãµων αÐτªν: : κα½ νÚν λατρεÒετε τíê κω qω ѵêν κα½
qεραπεÒετε τÍ £qνοσ αÐτοÚ )Ισραηλ: κα½παρ ¡τοιµ’σατε κατ• τ•σ
πατρι•σ κα½ τ•σ φυλ•σ ѵêν κατ• τ­ν γραφ­ν ∆αυhεiιδ βασιλ¢ωσ
)Ισραηλ: κα½ κατ• τ­ν µεγαλειÊτητα Σαλωµων τοÚ υ¹οÚ αÐτοÚ: :
κα½ στ’ντεσ ν τíê ‘γºíω κατ• τ­(ν) µεριδαρχºαν τ­ν πατρικ­ν ѵêν
τêν Λευhεiιτêν τêν £µπροσqε(ν) τêν δελφêν ѵêν υ¹êν )Ισραηλ ν
τ’ξει : qÒσατε τÍ πασχα: κα½ τ•σ qυσºασ ¡τοιµ’σατε τοÂσ δελφοÂσ
ѵê(ν): κα½ ποιªσατε τÍ πασχα κατ• τÍ πρÊσταγµα τοÚ κυ τÍ
δοq¥ν τíê Μωυσµ²: : κα½ δωρªσατο Ιωσhεiºασ τíê λαíê τíê εÑρεq¢ντι
ρνêν κα½ ρºφων τρι’κοντα χ(ε)ιλι’δασ: µÊσχουσ τρισχ(ε)ιλºουσ:
ταÚτα κ τêν βασιλ(ε)ικêν δÊqη κατ’ παγγελºα(ν) τíê λαíê: κα½
τοÂσ ¹ερεÚσι(ν) κα½ Λευhεiºταισ: : κα½ £δωκε(ν) Χελκhεiιασ κ(α½)
Ζαχαριασ κα½ Ησυηλδοσ ο¹ πιστ’ται τοÚ ¹εροÚ τοÂσ ¹ερεÚσιν ε¸σ πασχα
πρÊβατα δισχ(ε)ºλια ¡ξακÊσια: µÊσχουσ τριακοσºουσ: : κα½ Ιεχονιασ
κα½ Σαµαιασ κα½ Ναqαναηλ É δελφÍσ κα½ Σαβιασ κα½παρ Οχιηλοσ
κα½ Ιωραµ χhεiιλºαρχοι: £δωκαν τοÂσ Λευhεiºταισ ε¸σ πασχα πρÊβατα
χhεiºλια: µÊσχουσ ¡πτακοσºουσ: : κα½ ταÚτα τ• γενʵενα: εÐπρεπêσ
£στησαν ο¹ ¹ερεÂσ κ(α½) ο¹ ΛευhεiÂται : £χοντεσ τ• “ζυµα κατ• τ•σ
φυλ•σ : κα½ κατ• τ•σ µεριδαρχºασ τêν πατ¢ρω(ν) £µπροσqεν τοÚ
λαοÚ προσενεγκεÂν τíê κω κατ• τ• γεγραµµ¢να ν βιβλºíω Μωυσ²: κα½
οÔτω τÍ πρωινÊν: : κα½ ãπτησαν τÍ πασχα πυρ½παρ áσ καqªκει: κα½
τ•σ qυσºασ ¬ψησαν (ν) τοÂσ χαλκ[ε]ºοισ κα½ λ¢βησι(ν) µετ’ εÐωδºασ:
κα½ πªνεγκαν πšσι τοÂσ κ τοÚ λαοÚ: : µετ• δ¥ ταÚτα ©τοºµασαν
¡αυτοÂσ τε κα½παρ τοÂσ ¹ερεÚσιν δελφοÂσ αÐτê(ν) υ¹οÂσ Ααρων: ο¹ γ•ρ
¹ερεÂσ ν¢φερον τ• στ¢ατα ¦ωσ ωρºασ: κα½ ο¹ ΛευhεiÂται ©τοºµασαν
¡αυτοÂσ κα½παρ τοÂσ ¹ερεÚσιν δελφοÂσ αÐτêν υ¹οÂσ Ααρων: : κα½
ο¹ ¹εροψ’λται υ¹ο½ Ασαφ ³σαν π½ τ²σ τ’ξεωσ αÐτêν κατ• τ• ÑπÍ

: B αÐτοÕσ] RH ¡αυτοÕσ : B ‘γºíω] RH ¹ερíê : B Σαβιασ] RH Ασαβιασ :
B χεºλια] RH πεντακισχºλια
 :–
The Passover of Iōsias
() Iōsias led the Passover in Jerusalem to his Lord and sacrificed the
Passover lamb on the fourteenth day of the first month, () having
arranged the priests according to their orders, arrayed in their vestments
in the temple of the Lord. () And he said to the Levites, the temple
servants of Israel, “Consecrate them to the Lord and secure the holy
ark of the Lord in the house that Salōmōn the son of King Dauid,
built. It is not for you to carry it upon your shoulders. () So now
worship the Lord your God; and serve his nation Israel and prepare
yourselves according to your ancestral houses and tribes, according to
the writing of Dauid, King of Israel and according to the majesty of
Salōmōn his son. () Stand in order in the holy place arranged according
to the groupings of your paternal ancestry the Levites, serving before
your brothers, the sons of Israel. () Sacrifice the Passover lamb and
prepare sacrifices for your brothers and perform the Passover ceremony
according to the commandment of the Lord that was given to Mōyses.”
() And Iōsias granted to the people found there thirty thousand lambs
and kids, and three thousand calves; these from the king’s possessions
were given as promised to the people and priests and Levites. () And
Chelkias, Zacharias, and Ēsyēlos, the chief officials of the temple, gave to
the priests for the Passover two thousand six hundred sheep and three
hundred calves. () Iechonias and Samaias and Nathanaēl his brother,
and Sabias and Ochiēlos and Iōram, commanders over thousands, gave
to the Levites for the Passover a thousand sheep and seven hundred
calves. () And this is what came to pass concerning the Priests and
Levites: () having the unleavened bread, they stood in proper ranks
according to their tribes () and the groupings of their ancestors, before
the people to bring the offerings to the Lord according to that written in
the book of Mōyses; and thus it was early morning. () They roasted
the Passover lamb with fire as fitting and they boiled the sacrifices in
copper pots and cauldrons with a pleasant fragrance and they brought
them to all those from the people. () After these things, they prepared
for themselves and for their brother priests, the sons of Aarōn, for the
priests were offering the fat until nightfall; and the Levites prepared
for themselves and for their brother priests, the sons of Aarōn. ()
The temple singers, the sons of Asaph, were in their arranged places
 text :–

∆αυhεiιδ τεταγµ¢να κα½ Ασαφ κα½ Ζαχαριασ κα½ Εδδhεiινουσ ο¹ παρ•

τοÚ βασιλ¢ωσ: κα½ ο¹ qυρωρο½παρ φ’ ¡κ’στου πυλêνοσ: οÐκ £στÂ(ν)
παραβ²ναι ¦καστον τ­ν ¡αυτοÚ φηµερºαν: ο¹ γ•ρ δελφο½ αÐτêν ο¹
ΛευhεiÂται ©τοºµασαν ¡αυτοÂσ: : κα½ συνετελ¢σqη τ• τ²σ qυσºασ
τοÚ κυ ν κεºνµη τµ² ©µ¢ρα χq²ναι τÍ πασχα: κα½ προσαχq²ναι τ•σ
qυσºασ π½ τÍ τοÚ κυ qυσιαστªριον κατ• τ­ν πιταγ­ν τοÚ βασιλ¢ωσ
Ιωσhεiºου: : κα½ ¨γ’γοσαν ο¹ υ¹ο½παρ )Ισραηλ ο¹ εÑρεq¢ντεσ ν τíê
καιρíê τοÒτíω τÍ πασχα κα½ τ­(ν) ¡ορτ­ν τêν ζÒµων ©µ¢ρασ ¡πτ’: :
κα½ οÐκ «χqη τÍ πασχα τοιοÚτο ν τíê )Ισραηλ πÍ τêν χρÊνων Σαµουηλ
τοÚ προφªτου: : κα½ π’ντεσ ο¹ βασιλεÂσ τοÚ )Ισραηλ οÐκ ¨γ’γοσαν
πασχα τοιοÚτον οÄον «γαγε(ν) Ιωσhεiºασ κα½ ο¹ ¹ερεÂσ κα½ ο¹ ΛευhεiÂται
κα½ ο¹ )ΙουδαÂοι κα½ πšσ )Ισραηλ É εÑρεqε½σ ν τµ² κατοικªσει αÐτêν ν
)Ιερουσαληµ: : Èκτωκαιδεκ’τíω £τει βασιλεÒο(ν)τοσ Ιωσhεiιου «χqη
τÍ πασχα τοÚτο:

:–
Summary of the Deeds of Iōsias
: κα½ àρqâqη τ• £ργα Ιωσhεiºου νâπιον τοÚ κυ αÐτοÚ ν καρδºα
πλªρει εÐσεβεºασ: : κα½ τ• κατ’ αÐτÍ(ν) δ¥ ναγ¢γραπται ν τοÂσ
£µπροσqεν χρÊνοισ περ½ τêν ©µαρτηκÊτω(ν) κα½ ¨σεβηκÊτων ε¸σ τÍ(ν)
κν παρ• πšν £qνοσ κ(α½) βασιλεºαν: κα½ — λÒπησαν αÐτÍν στιν: κα½
ο¹ λÊγοι τοÚ κυ ν¢στησαν π½ )Ισραηλ:

:–
The Death of Iōsias and the Premature End to the Reforms
: κα½ µετ• πšσαν τ­ν πρšξιν ταÒτην Ιωσhεiºου συν¢βη Φαραω
βασιλ¢α Α¸γÒπτου λqÊντα πÊλεµον γεÂραι ν Χαρκαµυσ π½ τοÚ
ΕÐφρ’του: κα½ ξ²λqεν ε¸σ π’ντησιν αÐτíê Ιωσhεiº{α}σ: : κα½
διεπ¢µψατο βασιλεÕσ Α¸γÒπτου πρÍσ αÐτÍν λ¢γων τº µο½ κα½ σοº
στι(ν) βασιλεÚ τ²σ )Ιουδαºασ; : οÐχ½ πρÍσ σ¥ ξαπ¢σταλµαι ÑπÍ
κυ τοÚ qυ π½ γ•ρ τοÚ ΕÐφρ’του É πολεµÊσ µοÒ στιν: κα½ νÚν κσ
µετ’ µοÚ στι(ν): κα½ κσ µετ’ µοÚ πισπεÒδων στºν: πÊστηqι κα½ µ­
ναντιοÚ τíê κω: : κα½ οÐκ π¢στρεψεν ¡αυτÍν Ιωσhεiºασ π½παρ τÍ
”ρµα αÐτοÚ: λλ• πολεµεÂν αÐτÍν πιχειρε οÐ προσ¢χω(ν) üªµασιν

: B ¡αυτοÂσ] RH αÐτοÂσ : B προσαχq²ναι] RH προσενεχq²ναι : B É

εÑρεqε½σ] RH ο¹ εÑρεq¢ντεσ : B — λÒπησαν αÐτÍν £στιν] RH — λÒπησαν ν
α¸σqªσει
 translation :– 

according to the instructions made by Dauid and Asaph, and Zacharias

and Eddinous, the companions of the king. The gatekeepers were at each
gate; no one needed to alter his own daily routine, for their brothers the
Levites had prepared for themselves. () All the things pertaining to the
sacrifice of the Lord were accomplished in that day: the Passover was kept
and the sacrifices were brought upon the Lord’s altar according to the
command of King Iōsias. () And the sons of Israel being found in that
time celebrated the Passover and the feast of unleavened bread for seven
days. () And no Passover like it had been celebrated in Israel since the
times of Samouēl the prophet; () and none of the kings of Israel had
celebrated a Passover such as that celebrated by Iōsias, the priests, the
Levites, the Judeans, and all of Israel who were found in their dwelling
place in Jerusalem. () In the eighteenth year of the reign of Iōsias this
Passover was celebrated.

:–
Summary of the Deeds of Iōsias
() And the deeds of Iōsias were upright before his Lord because his
heart was full of piety. () And the accounts concerning him have been
officially chronicled in earlier times—concerning those who had sinned
and had committed impious acts toward the Lord, more than that of
any other nation and kingdom, such things which grieved him—and the
words of the Lord rose up against Israel.

:–
The Death of Iōsias and the Premature End to the Reforms
() And after all these deeds of Iōsias, it happened that Pharaō, king of
Egypt, went to stir up war in Charkamys on the Euphrates, and Iōsias
went out to meet him. () And the king of Egypt sent a message to
him saying, “What do you want with me, O king of Judea? () I have
not been sent out against you by the Lord God, for my war is at the
Euphrates. And now the Lord is with me! And the Lord is with me urging
me on! So withdraw and do not oppose the Lord.” () Iōsias did not
turn himself back to his chariot, but undertook to battle with him; not
heeding the words of the prophet Ieremias from the mouth of the Lord.
 text :–

Ιερεµιου προφªτου κ στʵατοσ κυ: : λλ• συνεστªσατο πρÍσ

αÐτÍν πÊλεµο(ν) ν τíê πεδºíω Ματααδδουσ: κα½παρ κατ¢βησα(ν) ο¹
“ρχοντεσ πρÍσ βασιλ¢α Ιωσhεiºαν : κα½ εÃπεν É βασιλεÕσ τοÂσ παι-
σ½ν αÐτοÚ: ποστªσατ¢ µε πÍ τ²σ µ’χησ ¨σq¢νησα γ•ρ λºαν: κα½παρ
εÐq¢ωσ π¢στησαν αÐτÍν ο¹ παÂδεσ αÐτοÚ πÍ τ²σ παρατ’ξεωσ: :
κα½ ν¢βη π½ τÍ ”ρµα τÍ δευτ¢ριον αÐτοÚ: κα½ ποκατασταqε½παρσ
ε¸σ )Ιερουσαληµ µετªλλαξεν τÍ(ν) βºον αÐτοÚ: κα½ τ’φη ν τíê πατρι-
κíê τ’φíω: : κα½ ν Ìλµη τµ² )Ιουδαºα π¢νqησαν τÍν Ιωσhεiºαν: κα½
qρªνησε(ν) Ιερεµιασ É προφªτησ Ñπ¥ρ Ιωσhεiºου κα½ ο¹ προκαqªµενοι
σÕν γυναιξ½ν qρηνοÚσα(ν) αÐτÍν ¦ωσ τ²σ ©µ¢ρασ ταÒτησ: κα½ ξεδÊqη
τοÚτο γ{ι}ν¢σqαι α¸ε½ ε¸σ πšν τÍ γ¢νοσ )Ισραηλ: : ταÚτα δ¥ ναγ¢γρα-
πται ν τµ² βÒβλíω τêν ¹στορουµ¢νων περ½ τêν βασιλ¢ων τ²σ )Ιουδαºασ:
κα½ τÍ καq’ §ν πραχq¥ν τ²σ πρ’ξεωσ Ιωσ(ε)ºου κα½παρ τ²σ δÊξησ αÐ-
τοÚ κα½ τ²σ συν¢σεωσ αÐτοÚ ν τíê νʵíω κυ: τ’ τε πρ{οπρα}χq¢ντα Ñπ’
αÐτοÚ κα½ τ• νÚν ¹στÊρηται ν τíê βυβλºíω τêν βασιλ¢ων )Ισραηλ κα½
)Ιουδα:

:–
The Wicked Kings of Judah
: κα½ ναλαβÊντεσ ο¹ κ τοÚ £qνουσ τÍν Ιεχονιαν υ¹Íν Ιωσhεiºου
ν¢δειξαν βασιλ¢α ντ½ Ιω(σε)ºου τοÚ πατρÍσ αÐτοÚ Ëντα τê(ν) ε»-
κοσι τριêν: : κα½ βασºλευσεν ν )Ισρα­λ κα½ )Ιερουσαληµ µ²νασ
τρεÂσ: κα½ πεκατ¢στησεν αÐτÍν βασιλεÕσ Α¸γÒπτου βασιλεÒει(ν) ν
)Ιερουσαληµ: : κα½ ζηµºωσεν τÍ £qνοσ ργυρºου ταλ’ντοισ ¡κατÍν
κα½παρ χρυσºου ταλ’ντíω ¡νº: : κα½ ν¢δειξεν É βασιλεÕσ Α¸γÒπτου
βασιλ¢α Ιωακhεiιµ τÍν δελφÍν αÐτοÚ βασιλ¢α τ²σ )Ιουδαºασ κα½ )Ιε-
ρουσαληµ: : κα½ £δησεν Ιωακhεiιµ τοÕσ µεγιστšνασ Ζαριον δ¥ τÍν
δελφÍν αÐτοÚ συλλαβåν νªγαγεν ξ Α¸γÒπτου: : τêν δ¥ ³ν
ε»κοσι π¢ντε Ιωακhεiιµ Ìτε βασºλευσε(ν) τ²σ )Ιουδαºασ κα½ )Ιερουσα-
ληµ: κα½ ποºησε(ν) τÍ πονηρÍν νâπιο(ν) κυ: : µετ’ αÐτÍν δ¥ ν¢βη
Ναβουχοδονοσορ βασιλεÕσ Βαβυλêνοσ κα½ £δªσεν αÐτÍν ν χαλκεºíω
δεσµíê: κα½ πªγαγεν ε¸σ Βαβυλêνα: : κα½ πÍ τêν ¹ερê(ν) σκευêν
τοÚ κυ λαβå(ν) Ναβουχοδονοσορ κα½ πεν¢γκασ πηρεºσατο ν τíê
ναíê αÐτοÚ ν Βαβυλêνι: : τ• δ¥ ¹στορηq¢ντα περ½ αÐτοÚ κα½ τ²σ

: B Ματααδδουσ] RH Μαγεδδαουσ : B πρÍσ βασιλ¢α] RH πρÍσ τÍν βασιλ¢α

: B πšν] RH ”παν : B )Ισρα­λ] RH )Ιουδα : B µετ’ αÐτÍν] RH π’ αÐτÍν
: B £δªσεν] RH δªσασ : B δεσµíê κα½ πªγαγεν] RH δεσµíê πªγαγεν
 translation :– 

() To the contrary, he joined battle with him in the plain of Mataaddaō,
and the rulers came down against King Iōsias. () The King said to his
servants, “Take me away from the battle, for I am exceedingly weak.” And
immediately his servants took him away from the forward edge of the
battle area. () And he got into his second chariot, and after he was
returned to Jerusalem he departed this life and was buried in the tomb
of his ancestors. () And in the whole of Judea they mourned for Iōsias.
And the prophet Ieremias mourned for Iōsias. And the chief leaders,
with the women, mourned for him until this day; and this has become
a tradition for all the race of Israel always to perform. () These things
have been written in the book of the histories concerning the kings of
Judea. And every one of the performed acts of Iōsias—of his splendour,
and his understanding of the law of the Lord, the things done by him
previously, and these things that are now told—are recorded in the book
of the kings of Israel and Judea.

:–
The Wicked Kings of Judah
() And the leaders from the nation took Iechonias son of Iōsias and
appointed him king in place of Iōsias his father; he was twenty-three
years old. () And he reigned in Israel and Jerusalem for three months.
And the king of Egypt deposed him from reigning in Jerusalem ()
and punitively fined the nation one hundred talents of silver and one
talent of gold. () And the king of Egypt appointed king Iōakeim,
his brother, king of Judea and Jerusalem. () And Iōakeim bound the
nobles, but after seizing his brother Zarios he took him from Egypt.
() Iōakeim was twenty-five years old when he began to reign over
Judea and Jerusalem and he did what was evil before the Lord. () Then
Nabouchodonosar, King of Babylon, went up after him and he bound
him with a bronze chain and lead him away to Babylon. () Nabou-
chodonosar also took some of the sacred vessels of the Lord and carried
them away and he deposited them in his temple in Babylon. () But
 text :–

αÐτοÚ καqαρσºασ κα½ δυσσεβεºασ ναγ¢γραπται ν τµ² βºβλíω τêν

χρÊνων τêν βασιλ¢ων: : κα½παρ βασºλευσεν ντ’ αÐτοÚ Ιωακhεiιµ2
É υ¹Íσ αÐτοÚ: Ìτε γ•ρ νεδεºχqη ³ν τêν Èκτâ: : βασιλεÒει δ¥ µ²-
νασ τρεÂσ κα½ ©µ¢ρασ δ¢κα ν )Ιερουσαληµ: κα½ ποºησε(ν) τÍ πονηρÍν
£ναντι κυ: : κα½ µετ’ νιαυτÍν ποστεºλασ Ναβουχοδονοσορ µετª-
γαγεν αÐτÍν ε¸σ Βαβυλêνα ”µα τοÂσ ¹εροÂσ σκεÒεσι(ν) τοÚ κυ : κα½
ν¢δειξε Σεδεκιαν βασιλ¢α τ²σ )Ιουδαºασ κα½ )Ιερουσαληµ Σεδεκιαν
Ëντα τê(ν) ε»κοσι ¡νÊσ: βασιλεÒει δ¥ £τη ¦νδεκα: : κα½ ποºησε(ν)
τÍ πονηρο(ν) νâπιον κυ κα½ οÐκ νετρ’πη πÍ τêν üηq¢ντων λÊγων
ÑπÍ Ιερεµιου τοÚ προφªτου κ στʵατοσ τοÚ κυ: : κα½ Éρκισqε½σ
πο τοÚ βασιλ¢ωσ Ναβουχοδονοσορ τíê Èνʵατι τοÚ κυ {π}ιορκªσασ
π¢στη: κα½ σκληρÒνασ αÐτοÚ τÍν τρ’χηλο(ν) κα½ τ­ν καρδºαν αÐτοÚ
παρ¢βη τ• νʵιµα κυ qυ )Ισραηλ:

:–
The Wickedness of Judah and the Punishment of God
: κα½ ο¹ ©γοÒµενοι δ¥ τοÚ λαοÚ κα½παρ τêν ¹ερ¢ων πολλ• ¨σ¢βησαν
κα½ ¨νʵησαν Ñπ¥ρ π’σασ τ•σ καqαρσºασ π’ντων τêν qνêν:
κα½παρ µºαναν τÍ ¹ερÍν τοÚ κυ τÍ ‘γιαζʵενον ν )Ιερουσα몵: :
κα½ π¢στειλεν É {qσ}τêν πατ¢ρων αÐτê(ν) δι• τοÚ γγ¢λου αÐτοÚ
µετακαλ¢σαι αÐτοÒσ καqÍ φεºδετο αÐτê(ν) κα½παρ τοÚ σκηνâµατοσ
αÐτοÚ: : αÐτο½ δ¥ [ξε]µυκτªρισαν ν τοÂσ γγ¢λοισ αÐτοÚ: κα½
µ´ ©µ¢ρα λ’λησε(ν) κσ ³σαν κπαºζοντεσ τοÕσ προφªτασ αÐτοÚ:
¦ωσ οÜ qυµêντα αÐτÍν π½ τíê £qνει αÐτοÚ δι• τ• δυσσε⪵ατα
προστ’ξαι ναβιβ’σαι π’ αÐτοÕσ τοÕσ βασιλεÂσ τêν Χαλδαºων: :
οÜτοι π¢κτεινα(ν) τοÕσ νεανºσκουσ αÐτêν ν üοµφαºα περικÒκλíω
τοÚ ‘γºου ¹εροÚ: κα½ οÐκ φεºσαντο νεανºσκου κα½ παρq¢νου κα½
πρεσβÒτου κα½ νεωτ¢ρου λλ• π’ντασ παρ¢δωκεν ε¸σ τ•σ χεÂρασ
αÐτê(ν)· : κα½ π’ντα τ• ¹ερhεi• σκεÒη τοÚ κυ τ• µεγ’λα κ(α½)
τ• µhεiικρ•: κα½ τ•σ κιβωτοÕσ τοÚ κυ κα½ τ•σ βασιλικ•σ ποqªκασ
ναλαβÊντεσ πªνεγκαν ε¸σ Βαβυλêνα: : κα½ νεπÒρισαν τÍν
οÃκο(ν) τοÚ κυ κα½ £λυσαν τ• τεºχη )Ιερουσαληµ κ(α½) τοÕσ πÒργουσ
αÐτ²σ νεπÒρισαν ν πυρ½: : κα½ συνετ¢λεσαν π’(ν)τα τ• £νδοξα
αÐτ²σ χρεêσαι: κα½ τοÕσ πιλοºπουσ πªγαγε(ν) µετ• üοµφαºασ ε¸σ

: B τêν Èκτω] RH τêν δ¢κα Èκτω. : B )Ιερουσα몵] RH )ΙεροσολÒµοισ

: B É βασιλεÕσ] RH É qεÍσ : B qυµêντα] RH qυµωq¢ντα : B ‘γºου] RH
‘γºου αÐτêν : B )Ιερουσαληµ] RH )ΙεροσολÒµων : B αÐτ²σ] RH αÐτêν.
 translation :– 

the things reported concerning him, that of his impurity and impiety,
have been written in the book of the times of the kings. () And his son
Iōakeim2 reigned in his place; for when he was appointed king, he was
eight years old. () Now he reigned for three months and ten days in
Jerusalem; and he did what was evil before the Lord. () And then after
a year Nabouchodonosar sent and transported him to Babylon with the
sacred vessels of the Lord, () and he appointed Sedekias king of Judea
and Jerusalem. Sedekias was twenty-one years old; and he reigned for
eleven years, () and he did evil before the Lord and did not honour the
words from the Lord uttered by Ieremias the prophet from the mouth of
the Lord. () Although swearing an oath unto King Nabouchodonosar
in the name of the Lord, violating his oath, he rebelled and he hardened
his neck and his heart and he transgressed the laws of the Lord God of
Israel.

:–
The Wickedness of Judah and the Punishment of God
() Even the leaders of the people and of the priests committed many
impious and lawless deeds far more than all the impure acts of the
nations; they defiled the temple of the Lord that had been consecrated
in Jerusalem. () The God of their ancestors sent his messenger to call
them, because he was trying to spare them and his dwelling place. ()
But they mocked his messengers and on the day that the Lord spoke, they
were scoffing at his prophets, until, in his rage upon his nation because
of their impious acts, he commanded the kings of the Chaldeans to be
brought against them. () These killed their young men by the sword
around the holy temple, and they did not spare young man or young
woman or old man, or child, for he delivered them all into their hands.
() And seizing all the sacred vessels of the Lord, great and small, the
treasure chest of the Lord, and the royal stores, and they carried them off
to Babylon. () And they burned down the house of the Lord, and they
destroyed the walls [of] Jerusalem, and they burned her towers with fire,
() and they finished ruining and rendering useless all of its splendour.
 text :–:

Βαβυλêνα: : κα½ ³σαν παÂδεσ αÐτíê κα½ τοÂσ υ¹οÂσ αÐτοÚ µ¢χρι οÜ
βασιλεÚσαι Π¢ρσασ ε¸σ ναπλªρωσιν τοÚ üªµατοσ τοÚ κυ ν στʵατι
Ιερεµιου: : ¦ωσ τοÚ εÐδοκ²σαι τ­ν γ²ν τ• σ’ββατα αÐτ²σ π’(ν)τα
τÍν χρÊνον τ²σ ρηµâσεωσ αÐτ²σ σαββατιε ε¸σ συ{µ}πλªρωσιν τêν
¡βδﵪκο(ν)τα:

:–
The Decree
: βασιλεÒοντοσ ΚÒρου Περσêν £τουσ πρâτου ε¸σ συντ¢λειαν üªµα-
τοσ κυ ν στʵατι Ιερεµιου: «γειρεν κσ τÍ πνεÚµα ΚÒρου βασιλ¢ωσ
Περσêν: κα½ κªρυξεν Ìλµη τµ² βασιλεºα αÐτοÚ κα½ ”µα δι• γραπτêν λ¢-
γων: : τ’δε λ¢γει É βασιλεÕσ Περσêν ΚÚροσ: µ¥ ν¢δειξεν βασιλ¢α
τ²σ ο¸κουµ¢νησ É κÒριοσ τοÚ )Ισραηλ κσ É Ôψιστοσ: κα½παρ σªµην¢ν
µοι ο¸κοδοµ²σαι αÐτíê οÃκον ν )Ιερουσαληµ τµ² ν τµ² )Ιουδαºα: : ε» τºσ
στι(ν) οÛν ѵêν κ τοÚ £qνουσ αÐτοÚ £στω É κσ αÐτοÚ µετ’ αÐτοÚ κα½
ναβ•σ ε¸σ τ­ν )Ιερουσαληµ τ­ν ν τµ² )Ιουδαºα ο¸κοδοµεºτω τÍν οÃκον
τοÚ κυ: τοÚ )Ισραηλ: οÜτοσ É κσ É κατασκηνâσασ ν )Ιερουσαληµ: :
Ìσοι οÛν κατ• τÊπουσ ο¸κοÚσιν βοηq{ε}ºτωσα(ν) αÐτíê ο¹ ν τíê τÊπíω
αÐτοÚ ν χρυσºíω κα½ ν ργυρºíω κα½ ν δÊσεσιν: µεq ¼ππων κα½παρ
κτηνêν σÕν τοÂσ “λλοισ τοÂσ κατ’ εÐχ•σ προστεqειµ¢νοισ ε¸σ τÍ ¹ερÍν
τοÚ κυ τÍ ν )Ιερουσαληµ:

:–
The Response to the Decree
: κα½ κατα{σ}τησαντεσ ο¹ ρχºφυλοι τêν πατριêν τ²σ )Ιουδα κα½
Βενιαµhεiιν φυλ²σ: κα½ ο¹ ¹ερεÂσ κα½ ο¹ ΛευhεiÂται: κα½ π’ντων ìν
«γειρε(ν) κσ τÍ πνεÚµα ναβ²ναι ο¸κοδοµ²σαι οÃκον τíê κω τÍν ν
)Ιερουσαληµ: : κα½ ο¹ περικÒκλíω αÐτêν βοªqησαν ν πšσιν (ν) ρ-
γυρºíω κα½ χρυσºíω: ¼πποισ κτªνεσι(ν) κα½ εÐχαÂσ áσ πλεºσταισ πολλêν ìν
É νοÚσ ¨γ¢ρqη: : κα½ É βασιλεÕσ ΚÚροσ ξªνεγκε(ν) τ• ”για σκεÒη τοÚ
κυ — µετªγαγε(ν) Ναβουχοδονοσορ ξ )Ιερουσαληµ κα½ πηρεºσατο
αÐτ• ν τíê ε¸δωλºíω αÐτοÚ: : ξεν¢γκασ δ¥ αÐτ• ΚÚροσ É βασιλεÕσ
Περσêν παρ¢δωκεν αÐτ• Μιqριδ’τµη τíê ¡αυτοÚ γαζοφÒλακι: δι• δ¥

: B <] RH ν : B ν ργυρºíω κα½ ν δÊσεσιν] RH ν ργυρºíω ν δÊσεσιν. : B

καταστªσαντεσ] RH καταστ’ντεσ : B ν ργυρºíω] RH ργυρºíω : B κτªνεσιν]
RH κα½ κτªνεσιν : B ”για] RH ¹ερ• : B ε¸δωλºíω αÐτοÚ] RH ¡αυτοÚ ε¸δωλºíω
 translation :–: 

The survivors he led away with the sword to Babylon, () and they were
servants to him and to his sons until the Persians began to reign, in
fulfillment of the word of the Lord by the mouth of Ieremias, () saying,
“Until the land takes pleasure in its sabbaths, all the time of its desolation
it shall sabbatize until the fulfilment of seventy years.”

:–
The Decree
() In the first year of Cyrus’s reign over the Persians, in order that the
word of the Lord by the mouth of Ieremias might be fulfilled, the Lord
aroused the spirit of Cyrus, King of the Persians, and he had proclaimed
in the whole of his kingdom an edict and at the same time put it into
writing, () “Thus says, the king of the Persians, Cyrus: The Lord of Israel,
the Most High Lord, has appointed me king of the inhabited world, and
designated me to build a house for him in Jerusalem in the land of Judea.
() Since, therefore, some of you belong to his nation, let his Lord be
with him; go up to Jerusalem in the midst of Judea, and build the house
of the Lord of Israel—this one is the Lord who resides in Jerusalem. ()
Therefore, as many of you who are dwelling in each place, be a help to
him—those in his place—with gold and with silver, with gifts of horses
and cattle and with other things added as votive offerings for the temple
of the Lord in Jerusalem.”

:–
The Response to the Decree
() And there arose the tribal heads of the ancestral houses of the tribes of
Judah and Benjamin, and the priests and the Levites, and all whose spirit
the Lord stirred up to go up to build a house for the Lord in Jerusalem;
() and those in the immediate vicinity around them helped in many
respects with silver and with gold, with horses, with cattle, and with an
abundance of votive offerings from the many whose minds were stirred.
() And King Cyrus brought out the holy vessels of the Lord which
Nabouchodonosar had carried away from Jerusalem and deposited in
his idolatrous temple. () When Cyrus King of the Persians brought
these out, he delivered them over to Mithridatēs, his own treasurer, and
 text :–

τοÒτου παρεδÊqησαν Σαµανασσ’ρíω προστ’τµη τ²σ )Ιουδαºασ: : É

δ¥ τοÒτων ριqµÍσ ³ν σπονδ{ε}Âα χρυσš χhεiºλια: σπονδεÂα ργυρš
χhεiºλια: qυºσκαι ργυρα ε»κοσι νν¢α: : φι’λαι χρυσα τρι’κοντα
ργυρα βυ δ¢κα: κα½ “λλα σκεÒη χhεiºλια: : τ• δ¥ π’ντα σκεÒη
κοµºσqη χρυσš κα½ ργυρš πεντακισχhεiºλια τετρακÊσια ¡ξªκοντα
(ν)ν¢α: νην¢χqη δ¥ ÑπÍ Σαµανασσ’ρου ”µα τοÂσ κ τ²σ α¸χµαλωσºασ
κ Βαβυλêνοσ ε¸σ )Ιερουσαληµ.

:–
The Letter to Artaxerxēs
: ν δ¥παρ τοÂσ π½ )Αρταξ¢ρξου τοÚ Περσêν βασιλ¢ωσ χρÊνοισ
κατ¢γραψεν αÐτêν κατ• τêν κατοικοÒντων ν τµ² )Ιουδαºα κα½παρ
)Ιερουσαληµ Βηλεµοσ κα½ Μιqρ{ι}δ’τησ κα½ Ταβελλιοσ κα½ Ραqυµοσ κα½
Βε¢λτεqµοσ κα½παρ Σαµ¢λλιοσ É γραµµατεÕσ κα½ ο¹ λοιπο½ ο¹ τοÒτοισ
συντασσʵενοι ο¸κοÚντεσ δ¥ ν Σαµαρεºα κα½παρ τοÂσ “λλοισ τÊποισ
τ­ν Ñπογεγραµµ¢νην πιστολªν: : βασιλε )Αρταξ¢ρξµη κυρºíω ο¹
παÂδ¢σ σου Ραqυµοσ É τ• προσπºπτοντα: κα½ Σαµελλιοσ É γραµµατεÕσ:
κ(α½) ο¹ πºλοιποι τ²σ βουλ²σ αÐτêν: κα½ ο¹ ν Κοºλµη Συρºα κα½
Φοινºκµη: : κα½ νÚν γνωστο(ν) £στω τíê κυρºíω βασιλε Ìτι ο¹ )ΙουδαÂοι
ναβ’ντεσ παρ’ ѵêν πρÍσ ©µšσ λqÊντεσ ε¸σ )Ιερουσαληµ τ­ν πÊλιν
τ­ν ποστ’τιν κα½ πονηρ•ν ο¸κοοÚσ(ιν) τ’σ τε γορ•σ αÐτ²σ κα½
τ• τεºχη qεραπεÒουσι(ν) κα½ ναÍν Ñποβ’λλονται: : •ν οÛν ©
πÊλισ αÔτη ο¸κοδοµηqµ² κα½ τ• τεºχη συντελεσqµ² φορολογºαν οÐ µ­
Ñποµεºνωσι(ν) δοÚναι: λλ• κα½ βασιλεÚσιν ντιστªσονται: : κα½
π{ε}½ νεργεÂται τ• κατ• τÍν ναÊν καλêσ £χει(ν) Ñπολαµβ’νοµεν µ­
ÑπεριδεÂν τÍ τοιοÚτο λλ• προσφων²σαι τíê κυρºíω βασιλε Ìπωσ –ν
φαºνηταº σοι πισκεφqµ² ν τοÂσ πÍ τê(ν) πατ¢ρων σου βιβλºοισ: :
κα½ εÑρªσεισ ν τοÂσ ÑποµνηµατισµοÂσ τ• γεγραµµ¢να περ½ τοÒτων:
κα½παρ γνâσµη Ìτι © πÊλισ ³ν κεºνη ποστ’τισ κα½ βασιλεÂσ κα½
πÊλεισ νοχλοÚσα: κα½ ο¹ )ΙουδαÂοι ποστ’ται: κα½παρ πολιορκºασ
συνε{σ}τ’µενοι ν αÐτµ² £τι ξ α¸êνοσ δι’ ¯ν α¸τºαν © πÊλισ αÔτη

: B Σαµανασσ’ρω] RH Σαναβασσ’ρω : B βυ] RH δισχºλιαι τετρακÊσιαι :

B κοµºσqη] RH διεκοµºσqη : B Σαµανασσ’ρου] RH Σαναβασσ’ρου :
B )Ιερουσαληµ] RH )ΙεροσÊλυµα. : B αÐτêν] RH αÐτíê : B Βηλεµοσ] RH
Βεσλεµοσ : B Ραqυµοσ] RH Ραουµοσ : B Βε¢λτεqµοσ] RH Βεελτ¢εµοσ
: B Σαµ¢λλιοσ] RH ΣαµσαÂοσ : B Ραqυµοσ] RH Ραουµοσ : B Σαµ¢λλιοσ]
RH ΣαµσαÂοσ : B >] RH κριτα½ : B Ìτι] RH διÊτι : B ο¸κοÚσιν] RH
ο¸κοδοµοÚσιν : B συνεστ’µενοι] RH συνιστ’µενοι : B α¸τºαν] RH α¸τºαν
κα½
 translation :– 

through him they were delivered over to Samanassaros the governor of

Judea. () The number of these was: golden libation bowls one thou-
sand, silver libation bowls one thousand, silver censers twenty-nine, ()
golden bowls thirty, silver bowls two thousand fourhundred and ten, and
other vessels one thousand. () All the vessels were received back, gold
and silver, five thousand four hundred and sixty-nine, and it was brought
back by Samanassaros together with the people of captivity returning
from Babylon to Jerusalem.

:–
The Letter to Artaxerxēs
() Then in the time of Artaxerxēs, the King of the Persians, Bēlemos
and Mithridatēs and Tabellios and Rathumos and Beeltethmos and
Samellios the scribe, and those of their retinue dwelling in Samaria and in
other places, wrote to them an epistle, against those who were dwelling
in Judea and Jerusalem: () “To King Artaxerxēs, lord, your servants
Rathumos the reporter, and Samellios the scribe, and the rest of their
council in Coele-syria and Phoenicia: () Now let it be known to the
lord king that the Judeans who came up from you to us have come to
Jerusalem and are building that seditious and evil city, living among its
market places and walls, and laying the foundations for a temple. ()
If, then, this city is built and the walls completed, not only will they not
submit to pay tribute, but they will even oppose kings. () Since the
erection of the temple progresses, we assume it fitting not to overlook
such a thing, but to call to the lord king, so that, if it appears good to you,
a search may be made in the book of your ancestors. () You will dis-
cover in the annals about that which has been written concerning them,
and you will learn that this city was seditious and troublesome to kings
and other cities, and that the Judeans were rebels and set up blockades
in it from ancient times. For which reason this city was made desolate.
 text :–:

¨ρηµâqη: : νÚν οÛν Ñποδεºκνυοµ¢ν σοι κÒριε βασιλεÚ Ìτι •ν ©

πÊλισ αÔτη ο¸κοδοµηqµ² κα½ τ• ταÒτησ τεºχη νασταqµ² £ξοδÊσ σοι
οÐκ¢τι £σται ε¸σ Κοºλην Συρºαν κα½ Φοινºκην:

:–
The Reply of Artaxerxēs and the Cessation of Reconstruction
: τÊτε ντ¢γραψεν É βασιλεÕσ ΡαqÒµíω τíê γρ’φοντι τ• προσπ(ε)ºπ-
τοντα κα½ Βεελτεqµíω κα½ Σαµελλºíω γραµµατε κα½ τοÂσ λοιποÂσ τοÂσ
συντασσοµ¢νοισ: κα½ ο¸κοÚσιν ν τµ² Σαµαρεºα κα½ Συρºα κα½ Φοιν(ε)ºκµη
τ• Ñπογεγραµµ¢να: : ν¢γνων τ­ν πιστολªν ¯ν πεποµφατε πρÊσ µε:
: π¢ταξα οÛν πισκ¢ψασqαι κα½ εÑρ¢qη Ìτι στ½(ν) © πÊλισ κεºνη
ξ α¸êνοσ βασιλεÚσιν ντιπαρατ’σσουσα: κα½ ο¹ “νqρωποι ποστ’-
σεισ κα½ πολ¢µουσ ν αÐτµ² συντελοÚντεσ: : κα½ βασιλεÂσ ¸σχυρο½
κα½ σκληρο½ ³σαν ν )Ιερουσαληµ κυριεÒο(ν)τεσ κα½ φορολογοÚ(ν)τεσ
Κοºλην Συρºαν κ(α½) Φοινhεiºκην: : νÚν οÛν π{¢}ταξα ποκωλÚσαι
τοÕσ νqρâπουσ κεºνουσ τοÚ ο¸κοδοµ²σαι τ­ν πÊλιν: : κα½ προνο-
ηq²ναι Ìπωσ µηq¥ν παρ• ταÚτα γ¢νηται: κα½ µ­ προβµ² π½ πλεÂον τ•
τ²σ κακºασ ε¸σ τÍ βασιλεÂσ νοχλ²σαι: : τÊτε ναγνωσq¢ντων τê(ν)
παρ• τοÚ βασιλ¢ωσ )Αρταξ¢ρξου γραφ¢ντω(ν): É Ρ’qυµοσ κα½ Σαµ¢λ-
λιοσ É γραµµατεÕσ κα½ ο¹ τοÒτοισ συντασσʵενοι ναζεÒξαντεσ κατ•
σπουδ­ν ε¸σ )Ιερουσαληµ µεq’ ¼ππου κα½ Ëχλου παρατ’ξεωσ «ρξαντο
κωλÒειν τοÕσ ο¸κοδοµοÚντασ: : κα½ «ργει © ο¸κοδοµ­ τοÚ ¹εροÚ τοÚ
ν )Ιερουσαληµ µ¢χρι τοÚ δευτ¢ρου £τουσ τ²σ βασιλεºασ ∆αρεºου τοÚ
Περσêν βασιλ¢ωσ:

:–
Darius’s Banquet
: κα½παρ βασιλεÕσ ∆αρεÂοσ ποºησε(ν) δοχ­ν µεγ’λην πšσι(ν) τοÂσ
Ñπ’ αÐτÍν: κα½ πšσι(ν) τοÂσ ο¸κογεν¢σιν αÐτοÚ: κα½ πšσι(ν) τοÂσ µεγι-
στšσι(ν) τ²σ Μηδhεiºασ κα½ τ²σ Περσºδοσ: : κα½ πšσι(ν) τοÂσ σατρ’-
παισ κα½ στρατηγοÂσ κα½παρ τοπ’ρχαισ τοÂσ Ñπ’ αÐτο(ν) πÍ τ²σ
)Ινδικ²σ µ¢χρι Α¸qιοπºασ ν ταÂσ ¡κατÍν ε»κοσι ¡πτ• σατραπ(ε)ºαισ:

: B Ìτι] RH διÊτι : B £ξοδÊσ] RH κ’qοδÊσ. : B ΡαqÒµíω] RH ΡαοÒµω

: B Βεελτεqµíω] RH Βεελτ¢εµíω : B Σαµελλºíω] RH Σαµσαºíω : B É
Ρ’qυµοσ κα½ Σαµ¢λλιοσ] RH É Ραουµοσ κα½ ΣαµσαÂοσ. : B >] RH τ²σ.
 translation :–: 

() Therefore, we now indicate to you, lord king, that if this city is built
and if its walls are erected, you will no longer have a secure way of passage
into Coelesyria and Phoenicia.”

:–
The Reply of Artaxerxēs and the Cessation of Reconstruction
() Then the king wrote in reply to Rathumos the recorder of events
and Beeltethmos and Samellios the scribe, and the rest associated with
them and those dwelling in Samaria and Syria and Phoenicia, and what
had been dictated was: () “I read the epistle which you sent to me.
() Therefore, I ordered a search to be made, and it has been found that
this city from of old has rebelled against kings, that the men in it per-
petuate revolts and wars (), and that strong and harsh kings resided
in Jerusalem lording it over [others] and exacted tribute from Coelesyria
and Phoenicia. () Therefore, then, I issued orders to prevent these men
from building the city () and to take advance measures that nothing
more be done and that such wicked measures go no further to the irrita-
tion of kings.” () Then, after the letter from King Artaxerxēs was read,
Rathumos and Samellios the scribe and their associates marched off in
haste into Jerusalem, with cavalry and a contingent of troops, and began
to prevent those who were building. () And thus the construction of
the temple in Jerusalem was stopped until the second year of the reign of
Darius, the King of the Persians.

:–
Darius’s Banquet
() And King Darius gave a great banquet for all those under him and for
all those born in his house, and for all the nobles of Media and Persia,
() and for all the satraps and governors and toparchs, those under him
from India to Ethiopia in the one hundred and twenty-seven satrapies.
 text :–

: κα½ φ’γοσα(ν) κα½ πºοσαν κα½ µπλησq¢ντεσ ν¢λυσα(ν): É δ¥παρ

∆αρεÂοσ É βασιλεÕσ ν¢λυσεν ε¸σ τÍν κοιτêνα: κα½ κο鵪qη κα½
£ξυπνοσ γ¢νετο:

:–
The Design of the Bodyguards
: τÊτε ο¹ τρεÂσ νεανºσκοι ο¹ σωµατοφÒλακεσ ο¹ φυλ’σσοντεσ τÍ σêµα
τοÚ βασιλ¢ωσ εÃπαν ¦τεροσ πρÍσ τÍν ¦τερον: : ε»πωµεν ¦καστοσ ©µêν
¦να λÊγον Ïσ ÑπερισχÒσει: κα½ οÜ –ν φανµ² τÍ ü²µα αÐτοÚ σοφâτε-
ρον τοÚ ¡τ¢ρου δâσει αÐ{τ}íê ∆αρεÂοσ É βασιλεÕσ δωρε•σ µεγ’λασ κα½
πινºhσiκια µεγ’λα: : κα½ πορφÒραν περιβαλ¢σqαι: κα½ ν χρυσâ-
µασι(ν) πºhεiνειν κα½ π½ χρυσíê καqεÒδειν: κα½ ”ρµα χρυσοχ’λhεiινον:
κ(α½) κºδαριν βυσσºνην: κα½ µανι’κην περ½ τÍν τρ’χηλον: : κα½ δεÒ-
τεροσ καqιεÂται ∆αρεºου δι• τ­ν σοφºαν αÐτοÚ: κα½ συγγεν­σ ∆αρεºου
κληqªσεται: : κα½ τÊτε γρ’ψαντεσ ¦καστοσ τÍν ¡αυτοÚ λÊγον σφρα-
γºσαντο κα½ £qηκαν ÑπÍ τÍ προσκεφ’λαιον ∆αρεºου τοÚ βασιλ¢ωσ: κα½
εÃπαν : Ìτα(ν) γερqµ² É βασιλεÒσ δâσουσιν αÐτíê τÍ γρ’µµα: κα½ Ïν
–ν κρhεiºνµη É βασιλεÕσ κα½παρ ο¹ τρεÂσ µεγιστšνεσ τ²σ Περ{σºδοσ} Ìτι
οÜ É λÊγοσ αÐτοÚ σοφâτεροσ αÐτíê δοqªσεται τÍ νhεiÂκοσ καqåσ γ¢-
γραπται: : É εÄσ £γραψεν ÑπερισχÒει É οÃνοσ: : É ¦τεροσ £γραψεν
ÑπερισχÒει É βασιλεÒσ: : É τρºτοσ £γραψεν ÑπερισχÒουσιν α¹ γυναÂ-
κεσ: Ñπ¥ρ δ¥ π’ντα νhεiιꝚ © λªqεια: : κα½ Ìτε ξηγ¢ρqη É βασιλεÒσ
λαβÊντεσ τÍ γρ’µµα £δωκαν αÐτíê: κα½ ν¢γνω: : κα½ ξαποστεºλασ
κ’λεσε(ν) π’(ν)τασ τοÕσ µεγιστšνασ τ²σ Περσºδοσ κα½ τ²σ Μηδhεiºασ
κα½ σατρ’πασ κα½ στρατηγοÕσ κα½ τοπ’ρχασ κα½ Ñπ’τουσ: κα½ κ’qισεν
ν τíê χρηµατιστηρºíω κα½ νεγνâσqη τÍ γρ’µµα νâπιον αÐτêν: :
κα½ εÃπε(ν) καλ¢σατε τοÕσ νεανºσκουσ κα½ αÐτο½ δηλâσουσι(ν) τοÕσ
λÊγουσ αÐτêν: κα½ κλªqησαν κα½ ε¸σªλqοσαν: : κα½ εÃπαν αÐτοÂσ
παγγεºλατε ©µÂ(ν) περ½ τêν γεγραµµ¢νω(ν)·

:–
The Discourse on the Superiority of Wine
: κα½ «ρξατο É πρêτοσ É ε»πασ περ½ τ²σ ¸σχÒοσ τοÚ ο»νου κα½ £φη
οÔτωσ: : “νδρεσ: πêσ ÑπερισχÒει É οÃνοσ: π’ντασ τοÕσ νqρâπουσ
τοÕσ πº[ν]οντασ αÐτÍν πλα흚 τ­ν δι’νοιαν: : τοÚ τε βασιλ¢ωσ κα½

: B Ìτι οÜ] RH Ìτι. : B πºοντασ] RH πºνοντασ

 translation :– 

() And they ate and drank, and when they were satisfied they departed,
but Darius the King went to his bedroom and slept, until he became
awakened.

:–
The Design of the Bodyguards
() Then the three young men, the body guards guarding the body of the
king, they said each to the other, () “Let us say, each of us, one word for
that which is the most intensely powerful thing; and the one who’s word
appears wiser than the others, Darius the King will give to him lavish gifts
and great honours of triumph. () And to be clothed in purple, to drink
from golden cups and to sleep upon a golden bed and have a chariot with
a gold studded bridle and have a turban of fine linen, and a neckband
around his neck; () and secondly, he shall sit next to Darius because
of his wisdom and shall be called kinsmen of Darius.” () And then
each wrote his own statement, and they sealed it up and placed it under
the pillow of Darius the King, and they said: () “When the king wakes
up, they will give him the statements and whoever’s statement the king
judges—and the three nobles of Persia—to be wiser shall be given the
victory according to what has been written.” () The first wrote, “Wine
is the strongest.” () The second wrote, “The king is the strongest.” ()
The third wrote, “Women are the strongest, but truth is victorious over all
things.” () And when the king awoke, they took what was written and
gave it to him, and he read it. () Then he sent and summoned all the
nobles of Persia and Media and the satraps, and governors, and toparchs
and consuls, and he took his seat in the council chamber, and the writing
was read before them. () And he said, “Call the young men, and they
themselves shall explain their statements.” So they were summoned and
entered in. () And they said to them, “Expound to us about the things
that have been written.”

:–
The Discourse on the Superiority of Wine
() And so began the first, the one having spoken of the strength of
wine, and he said thus: () “Men, how strong is wine? All the men who
drink it are led astray in the mind. () It makes one mind of the king
 text :–:

τοÚ ÈρφανοÚ ποιε τ­ν δι’νοιαν µºαν τªν τε τοÚ ο¸κ¢του κα½ τ­ν τοÚ
λευq¢ρου τªν τε τοÚ π¢νητοσ κα½παρ τ­ν τοÚ πλουσºου: : κα½παρ
πšσαν δι’νοιαν µεταστρ¢φει ε¸σ εÐωχºαν κα½ εÐφροσÒνην: κα½ οÐ
µ¢µνηται πšσαν λÒπην κα½ πšν Èφεºληµα: : κα½ π’σασ καρδºασ
ποιε πλουσºασ: κα½ οÐ µ¢µνηται βασιλ¢α οÐδ¥ σατρ’πην: κα½ π’(ν)τα
δι• ταλ’ντων ποιε λαλεÂν: : κα½ οÐ µ¢µνηται Ìταν πhεiºνωσι(ν)
φιλι’ζειν φºλοισ κα½ δελφοÂσ: κα½ µετ’ οÐ πολÕ σπêνται µαχαºρασ:
: κα½ Ìταν πÍ τοÚ ο»νου γερqêσιν οÐ µ¢µνηται — £πραξαν: :
ë “νδρεσ οÐ{χ} ÑπερισχÒει É οÃνοσ Ìτι οÔτωσ ναγκ’ζει ποιεÂ(ν); κα½
σhεiºγησεν οÔτωσ ε»πασ:

:–
The Discourse on the Superiority of the King
: κα½ «ρξατο É δεÒτεροσ λαλεÂν É ε»πασ περ½ τ²σ ¸σχÒοσ τοÚ βασιλ¢-
ωσ: : ë “νδρεσ: οÐ{χ} ÑπερισχÒουσιν ο¹ “νqρωποι τ­ν γ²(ν) κα½ τ­ν
q’λασσαν κατακρατοÚντεσ κα½ π’(ν)τα τ• ν αÐτοÂσ; : É δ¥ βασι-
λεÕσ ÑπερισχÒει κα½ κυρι{εÒ}ει αÐτêν κα½ δεσπÊζει αÐτêν: κα½ πšν Ï
•ν ε»πµη αÐτοÂσ νακοÒουσιν: : •ν ε»πµη αÐτοÂσ ποι²σαι πÊλεµον ¦τε-
ροσ πρÍσ τÍ(ν) ¦τερον ποιοÚσιν: •ν δ¥παρ ξαποστεºλµη αÐτοÕσ πρÍσ
τοÕσ πολεµºουσ βαδºζουσι(ν): κα½ κατεργ’ζονται τ• Ëρη κα½ τ• τεºχη
κα½ τοÕσ πÒργουσ: : φονεÒουσι(ν) κ(α½) φονεÒονται κα½ τÍν λÊγον
τοÚ βασιλ¢ωσ οÐ παραβαºνουσιν: •(ν) δ¥ νhεiικªσωσι(ν) τíê βασιλεÂ
κοµºζουσι(ν) π’ντα κα½ •ν προνοµεÒσωσι(ν) κα½ τ• “λλα π’(ν)τα: :
κα½ Ìσοι οÐ στρατεÒονται οÐδ¥ πολεµοÚσιν λλ• γεωργοÚσι(ν) τ­ν γ²ν
π’λιν Ìταν σπεºρωσι qερºσαντεσ ναφ¢ρουσιν τíê βασιλεÂ: κα½παρ ¦τε-
ροσ τÍν ¦τερον ναγκ’ζοντεσ ναφ¢ρουσι τοÕσ φÊρουσ τíê βασιλεÂ: :
κα½παρ αÐτÍσ εÄ{σ} µÊνοσ στºν: •ν ε»πµη ποκτεÂναι ποκτ¢ννουσιν:
εÃπεν φεÂναι φºουσιν: : εÃπε πατ’ξαι τÒπτουσιν: εÃπεν ρηµêσαι
ρηµοÚσιν: εÃπεν ο¸κοδοµ²σαι ο¸κοδοµοÚσιν: : εÃπε(ν) κκÊψαι κ-
κÊπτουσιν: εÃπε(ν) φυτεÚσαι φυτεÒουσι(ν)· : κα½ πšσ É λαÍσ αÐτοÚ
κα½ α¹ δυν’µεισ αÐτοÚ νακοÒουσι(ν)· : πρÍσ δ¥ τοÒτοισ αÐτÍσ ν’-
κειται σqºει κα½ πhεiºνει κα½ καqεÒδει: αÐτο½ δ¥ τηροÚσι(ν) κÒκλíω περ½
αÐτÍν: κα½ οÐ δÒνανται ¦καστοσ πελqεÂν κα½παρ ποιεÂν τ• £ργα αÐ-
τοÚ οÐδ¥ παρακοÒουσιν αÐτοÚ: : ë “νδρεσ πêσ οÐ{χ} ÑπερισχÓ{ε}ι
É βασιλεÒσ Ìτι οÔτωσ πακουστÊσ στι(ν); κα½ σhεiºγησεν:

: B γερqêσιν] RH γενηqêσιν. : B κα½ •ν] RH κα½ Ìσα •ν.

 translation :–: 

and of the orphan, of the slave and the free, of the worker and the rich.
() It changes every thought to banqueting and joviality, and does not
remember any grief and any debt. () It makes all hearts rich, does not
remember kings nor satraps, and it makes everyone talk in talents. ()
When people are drinking they do not remember to be friendly with
friends and brothers, and after a while they draw swords. () And when
they arise from the wine, they do not remember what they did. () O
men, is not wine the strongest, because it thus compels people to do such
things?” And he became silent after thus speaking.

:–
The Discourse on the Superiority of the King
() And the second began to speak, the one having spoken of the strength
of the king: () “O men, are not men superior, who prevail over the land
and the sea and all things in them? () But the king is strong as he is
their Lord and their master, and whatever he might say to them they
yield to. () If he tells them to make war one against the other, they do
it; if he sends them out against the enemy, they march and they assault
mountains and walls and towers. () They kill and are killed, and they
do not transgress the word of the king; if they are victorious, they bring
everything to the king, if they seize booty and anything else. () And as
many as those who do not serve in the army or make war, but cultivate
the land; whenever they sow and reap, they bring some to the king; and
they compel one another to pay taxes to the king. () And yet he is only
one man! If he tells them to kill, they kill; if he told them to release, they
release; () if he told them to smite, they smite; if he told them to desolate,
they desolate; if he told them to build, they build; () if he told them to
cut down, they cut down; if he told them to plant, they plant. () All his
people and his forces yield to him. () Then too, he reclines, eats and
drinks, and sleeps, but they keep guard around him, and no one is able
go away and to undertake his own works, nor do they refuse him. ()
O men, is not the king the strongest, because in this way he is obeyed?”
And he was silent.
 text :–

:–
The Discourse on the Superiority of Women and Truth
: É δ¥ τρºτοσ É ε»πασ περ½ τê(ν) γυναικêν κα½ τ²σ ληqεºασ οÜτÊσ
στι(ν) Ζοροβαβελ: «ρξατο λαλεÂν: : “νδρεσ οÐ µ¢γασ É βασιλεÕσ:
κα½ πολλο½ ο¹ “νqρωποι: κα½ É οÃνοσ ¸σχÒ{ε}ι; τºσ οÛν É δεσπÊζων αÐτêν:
® τºσ É κυριεÒων {αÐτê(ν)}: οÐχ α¹ γυναÂκεσ; : α¹ γυναÂκεσ γ¢ννησαν
τÍν βασιλ¢α κα½ π’ντα τÍ(ν) λαÊν Ïσ κυριεÒει τ²σ qαλ’σσησ κα½ τ²σ
γ²σ: : κα½ ξ αÐτêν γ¢νοντο: κα½ αÜται ξ¢qρεψαν αÐτοÕσ τοÕσ
φυτεÒσαντασ τοÕσ µπελêνασ ξ ìν É οÃνοσ γhεiºνεται: : κα½ αÜται
ποιοÚσι(ν) τ•σ στολ•σ τêν νqρâπων: κα½ αÜται ποιοÚσ½(ν) δÊξαν τοÂσ
νqρâποισ: κα½ οÐ δÒνανται ο¹ “νqρωποι εÃναι χωρ½σ τêν γυναικêν:
: •ν δ¥ συναγ’γωσ½(ν) χρυσºον κα½ ργÒριον κα½ πšν πρšγµα
áραÂον: κα½ »δωσι(ν) γυναÂκα µºαν καλ­ν τíê {ε}»δει κ(α½) τíê κ’λλει:
: κα½ ταÚτα π’ντα φ¢ντεσ ε¸σ αÐτ­ν κ¢χηναν: κα½ χ’σκοντεσ τÍ
στʵα qεωροÚσιν αÐτªν: κ(α½) π’ντεσ αÐτ­ν α¹ρετºζουσιν µšλλον ®
τÍ χρυσºον κα½ τÍ ργÒριον κα½ πšν πρšγµα áραÂον: : “νqρωποσ
τÍν ¡αυτοÚ πατ¢ρα {γ}καταλεºπει Ïσ ξ¢qρεψεν αÐτÊν κα½ τ­ν ¸δºαν
χâραν κα½παρ πρÍσ τ­ν ¸δºαν γυναÂκα κολλšται: : κα½παρ µετ•
τ²σ γυναικÍσ φºησι τ­(ν) ψυχ­ν: κα½ οÓτε τÍν πατ¢ρα µ¢µνηται οÓτε
τ­ν µητ¢ρα οÓτε τ­ν χâραν: : κα½ ντεÚqεν δε ѵšσ γνêναι Ìτι
α¹ γυναÂκεσ κυριεÒουσιν ѵêν: οÐχ½ πονεÂτε κα½ µοχqεÂτε κα½ π’ντα
ταÂσ γυναιξ½(ν) δºδοτε κα½ φ¢ρετε: : κα½ λαµβ’νει “νqρωποσ τ­ν
üοµφαºαν αÐτοÚ κα½παρ κπορεÒεται ξοδεÒειν κα½ λµηστεÒειν κα½
κλ¢πτει(ν): κα½ ε¸σ τ­ν q’λασσα(ν) πλεÂν: κα½ ποταµοÒσ: : κα½ τÍν
λ¢οντα qεωρε κα½ ν σκÊτει βαδºζει: κα½ Ìταν κλ¢ψµη κα½ ‘ρπ’σµη
κα½παρ λωποδυτªσµη τµ² ρωµ¢νµη ποφ¢ρει: : κα½ πλεÂο(ν) γαπš
“νqρωποσ τ­ν ¸δºαν γυναÂκα µšλλο(ν) ® τÍν πατ¢ρα κα½ τ­ν µητ¢ρα:
: κα½ πολλο½ πενοªqησαν ταÂσ ¸δºαισ διανοºαισ δι• τ•σ γυναÂκασ:
κα½παρ δοÚλοι γ¢νοντο δι’ αÐτ’σ: : κ(α½) πολλο½ πâλοντο κ(α½)
σφ’λησαν κα½ ©µ’ρτοσαν δι• τ•σ γυναÂκασ: : κα½ νÚν οÐ πιστεÒετ¢
µοι; οÐχ½ µ¢γασ É βασιλεÕσ τµ² ξουσºα αÐτοÚ: οÐχ½ πšσαι α¹ χêραι
εÐλαβοÚνται ”ψασqαι αÐτοÚ; : qεâρου(ν) αÐτÍν κα½ )Απ’µην
τ­(ν) qυγατ¢ρα Βαρτ’κου τοÚ qαυµαστοÚ τ­ν παλλακ­ν τοÚ βασιλ¢ωσ
καqηµ¢νην ν δεξ靚 τοÚ βασιλ¢ωσ : κα½ φαιροÚσαν τÍ δι’δηµα πÍ
τ²σ κεφαλ²σ τοÚ βασιλ¢ωσ κα½παρ πιτιqοÚσαν αÐτµ²: κα½ {ρ}ρ’πιζε(ν)

: B φυτεÒσαντασ] RH φυτεÒοντασ : B κ¢χηναν] RH γκ¢χηναν : B

αÐτµ²] RH ¡αυτ².
 translation :– 

:–
The Discourse on the Superiority of Women and Truth
() Then the third, the one having spoken of women and truth (this is
Zorobabel), began to speak: () “Men, is not the king great and are not
men abundant, and is not wine strong? Who is it, therefore, that masters
them, or lords it over them? Is it not women? () Women gave birth to
the king and to all the people who lord over the sea and the land. ()
And from them they were born; and it was they who brought up those
men who plant the vineyards from which the wine comes. () And they
make the garments of men; they bring glory to men; and men are not
able to exist without women. () If men gather gold and silver or any
lovely thing, and they happen to see one woman lovely in appearance
and in beauty, () they let go of all of those things in order to gape at
her, and with open mouths they stare at her, and they all prefer her over
gold or silver or any other lovely thing. () A man leaves his own father,
who reared him, and his own country, and cleaves to his own wife. ()
And with his wife he releases his soul, and remembers neither his father
nor mother nor country. () Hence, you must know that women lord
it over you! Do you not labour and toil, and carry everything and give
it to women? () And a man takes his sword, goes out to travel and
to take to banditry and to steal and to sail the sea and rivers; () and
he confronts lions, and he walks in darkness, and when he steals and
robs and plunders, he carries it back to the beloved woman. () And a
man loves his own wife more than his father and mother. () And many
men have lost their sense of mind because of women, and have become
slaves because of them. () And many have perished and stumbled and
sinned because of women. () And now, do you not believe me? Is not
the king great in his authority? Do not all countries fear to touch him?
() I saw him and Apame, the concubine of the king, the daughter of the
eminent Bartacus; sitting at the right hand of the king () and taking the
diadem from the head of the king she placed it on her[self], and slapped
 text :–

τÍν βασιλ¢α τµ² ριστερš: : κα½ πρÍσ τοÒτοισ É βασιλεÕσ χ’σκων τÍ
στʵα qεâρει αÐτ{ªν }: κα½ •ν γελ’σµη αÐτíê γε띚: •ν δ¥ πικρανqµ²
π’ αÐτÊν κολακεÒει αÐτªν Ìπωσ διαλλαγµ² αÐτíê: : ë “νδρεσ πêσ
οÐ{κ} ¸σχυρα½παρ α¹ γυναÂκεσ Ìτι οÔτωσ πρ’σσουσι(ν)· : κα½ τÊτε É
βασιλεÕσ κα½ ο¹ µεγιστšνεσ £βλεπον εÄσ τÍν ¦τερο(ν) : κα½ «ρξατο
λαλεÂν περ½ τ²σ ληqεºασ: “νδρεσ: οÐ{κ} ¸σχυρα½ α¹ γυναÂκεσ: µεγ’λη ©
γ²: κα½ ÑψηλÍσ É οÐρανÊσ: κα½ ταχÕσ τíê δρʵíω É ¬λιοσ Ìτι στρ¢φεται
ν τíê κÒκλíω τοÚ οÐρανοÚ κα½ π’λιν ποτρ¢χει ε¸σ τÍν ¡αυ{τοÚ} τÊπον
ν µιš ©µ¢ρα: : οÐχ½ µ¢γασ Ïσ ταÚτα ποιεÂ; κα½παρ © λªqεια µεγ’λη
κα½ ¸σχυροτ¢ρα παρ• π’ντα: : πšσα © γ² τ­ν λªqειαν καλεÂ: κα½
É οÐρανÍσ αÐτ­ν εÐλογεÂ: κ(α½)π’ντα τ• £ργα σεºεται κα½ τρ¢µει: κα½
οÐκ £στι(ν) µετ’ αÐτοÚ “δικον οÐq¢ν: : “δικοσ É οÃνοσ: “δικοσ É
βασιλεÒσ: “δικοι α¹ γυναÂκεσ: “δικοι π’ντεσ ο¹ υ¹ο½ τê(ν) νqρâπων:
κα½ “δικα π’ντα τ• £ργα αÐτêν: π’ντα τ• τοιαÚτα κα½ οÐκ £στιν
ν αÐτοÂσ λªqεια: κα½ ν τµ² δικºα αÐτêν πολοÚνται : και ©
λªqεια µ¢νει κα½ ¸σχÒει ε¸σ τÍν α¸êνα: κα½ ζµ² κα½ κρατε ε¸σ τÍν
α¸êνα τοÚ α¸êνοσ: : κα½ οÐκ £στι(ν) παρ’ αÐτ­ν λαµβ’νειν πρÊσωπα
οÐδ¥ δι’φορα: λλ• τ• δºκαια ποι堐πÍ π’(ν)των τêν δºκων κα½
πονηρêν: κα½ π’ντεσ εÐδοκοÚσι τοÂσ £ργοισ αÐτ²σ: κα½παρ οÐκ £στιν
ν τµ² κρºσει αÐτ²σ οÐq¥ν “δικον: : κα½παρ αÐτµ² © ¸σχÕσ κα½ τÍ
βασºλειο(ν) κα½ © ξουσºα κα½ © µεγαλειÊτησ τêν π’ντων α¸âνων:
εÐλογητÍσ É qσ τ²σ ληqεºασ: : κα½ σhεiιâπησε(ν) τοÚ λαλεÂν: κα½
πšσ É λαÍσ τÊτε φâνησε(ν): κα½ τÊτε εÃπον µεγ’λη © λªqεια κα½
ÑπερισχÒ{ε}ι:

:–
Darius’s Reward and Zorobabel’s Request
: τÊτε É βασιλεÕσ εÃπε(ν) αÐτíê: α»τησαι Ï q¢λεισ πλεºω τêν γεγραµ-
µ¢νων κα½ δâσοµ¢ν σοι Ïν τρÊπον εÑρ¢qησ σοφâτεροσ: κα½ χʵενÊσ
µου καqªσµη: κ(α½) συγγενªσ µου κληqªσµη: : τÊτε εÃπε(ν) τíê βασι-
λεÂ: µνªσqητι τ­(ν) εÐχªν ¯ν ηÓξω ο¸κοδοµ²σαι τ­ν )Ιερουσαληµ ν
τµ² ©µ¢ρα µ´ τÍ βασºλειÊν σου παρ¢λαβεσ: : κα½παρ π’ντα τ• σκεÒη
τ• ληµφq¢ντα ξ )Ιερουσαληµ κα½ κπ¢µψαι — χâρισε(ν) ΚÚροσ Ìτε

: B γελ’σµη] RH προσγελ’σµη : B £βλεπον εÄσ τÍν ¦τερο(ν)] RH ν¢βλεπον

¦τεροσ πρÍσ τÍν ¦τερον : B και © λªqεια] RH © δ¥ λªqεια : B αÐτ­ν]
RH αÐτµ². : B )Ιερουσαληµ κα½ κπ¢µψαι] RH )Ιερουσαληµ κπ¢µψαι : B
χâρισεν] RH ξεχâρισεν
 translation :– 

the king with her left hand. () And at this the king was staring at her
with an open mouth. If she would warmly smile at him, he laughs; but
if she should be embittered by him, he humors her, in order that she
may be reconciled to him. () O men, are not women strong, because
they thus act so?” () And then the king and the nobles were looking
one to the other; () and he began to speak about truth: “Men, are not
women strong? Great is the earth and high is heaven, and swift is the
sun in its course, because it makes the circuit of the heavens and again
returns to its own place in one day. () Is not the one who does these
things great? And truth is great, and stronger than all things. () All the
earth calls upon truth and heaven blesses her. All heaven’s works shake
and tremble, and there is nothing unrighteous with him. () Wine is
unrighteous, the king is unrighteous, women are unrighteous, all the
sons of men are unrighteous, all their works are unrighteous—and all
such things. There is no truth in them and by their unrighteousness they
will destroy themselves. () And the truth remains and is strong over the
ages, and lives and prevails from age to age. () With it there is neither
facade nor indifference, but it does what is righteous rather than things
that are unrighteous and evil. Everyone approves its deeds, and there is
nothing unrighteous in its judgment. () To it belongs the strength and
the kingship and the authority and the majesty of all the ages. Blessed be
the God of truth!” () And he ceased speaking, and all the people then
called out and then said, “Great is truth and is strongest of all!”

:–
Darius’s Reward and Zorobabel’s Request
() Then the king said to him, “Request whatever you wish, even above
what has been written, and we will give it to you, for you have been found
to be the wiser man. You may sit next to me, and be called my kinsman.”
() Then he said to the king, “Remember the oath that you solemnly
made to build Jerusalem, on the day that you received your kingship,
() and to send back all the sacred vessels that were even taken from
Jerusalem, which Cyrus set apart when he vowed to cut down Babylon,
 text :–

ηÓξατο κκÊψαι Βαβυλêνα κα½ ηÓξατο ξαποστεÂλαι κεÂ: : κα½ σÕ

εÓξω ο¸κοδοµ²σαι τÍν ναÊν Ïν νεπÒρισαν ο¹ )ΙουδαÂοι Ìτε ρηµâqη ©
)Ιουδαºα ÑπÍ τêν Χαλδαºων: : κα½ νÚν τοÚτÊ στιν Ìσα ξιê κÒριε
βασιλεÚ κα½ Ï α¸τοÚµαº σε: κα½ αÔτη στ½(ν) © µεγαλωσÒνη © παρ• σοÚ:
δ¢οµαι οÛν ¼να ποιªσµησ τ­ν εÐχªν ¯ν ηÓξω τíê βασιλε τοÚ οÐρανοÚ
ποι²σαι κ στʵατÊσ σου:

:–
The Decree of Darius on the Return of the Exiles
: τÊτε ναστ•σ ∆αρεÂοσ É βασιλεÕσ κατεφºλησεν αÐτÍν κα½ £γραψεν
αÐτíê τ•σ πιστολ•σ πρÍσ π’ντασ ο¸κονʵουσ κα½ τοπ’ρχασ κα½
στρατηγοÕσ κα½ σατρ’πασ ¼να προπ¢µψωσιν αÐτÍν κα½ τοÕσ µετ’ αÐτοÚ
π’ντασ ναβαºνοντασ ο¸κοδοµ²σαι τ­ν )Ιερουσαληµ: : κα½ πšσι τοÂσ
τοπ’ρχαισ ν Κοºλµη Συρºα κα½ Φοινhεiºκµη: κα½ τοÂσ ν τíê Λιβ’νíω κα½
£γραψεν πιστολ•σ µεταφ¢ρειν ξÒλα κ¢δρινα πÍ τοÚ Λιβ’νου ε¸σ
)Ιερουσαληµ: κα½ Ìπωσ ο¸κοδﵪσωσι(ν) µετ’ αÐτοÚ τ­ν πÊλιν: : κα½
£γραψε(ν) πšσι τοÂσ )Ιουδαºοισ τοÂσ ναβαºνουσιν πÍ τ²σ βασιλεºασ
ε¸σ τ­ν )Ιουδαºαν Ñπ¥ρ τ²σ λευqερºασ: π’ντα δυνατÍ(ν) κα½ σατρ’πην
κα½ τοπ’ρχην κα½ ο¸κονʵον µ­ πελεÒ{σ}εσqαι π½ τ•σ qÒρασ αÐτêν:
: κα½ πšσαν τ­ν χâραν ¯ν κρατªσουσιν φορολÊγητον αÐτοÂσ
Ñπ’ρχειν: κα½ ¼να ο¹ ΧαλδαÂοι φºουσι τ•σ κâµασ —σ διακρατοÚσ(ν)
τê(ν) )Ιουδαºων: : κα½ ε¸σ τ­(ν) ο¸κοδοµ­ν τοÚ ¹εροÚ δοq²ναι
κατ’ νιαυτÍ(ν) τ’λαντα ε»κοσι µ¢χρι τοÚ ο¸κοδοµηq²ναι: : κα½
π½παρ τÍ qυσιαστªριον Éλοκαυτâµατα καρποÚσqαι καq’ ©µ¢ραν
καq• £χουσιν ντολ­ν ¡πτα καº δεκα προσφ¢ρειν “λλα τ’λαντα
δ¢κα κατ’ νιαυτÊν: : κα½ πšσι(ν) τοÂσ προσβαºνουσιν πÍ τ²σ
Βαβυλωνºασ κτºσαι τ­ν πÊλιν Ñπ’ρχειν τ­ν λευqερºαν αÐτοÂσ τε κα½
τοÂσ τ¢κνοισ αÐτê(ν) κα½ πšσι τοÂσ ¹ερεÚσι τοÂσ προσβαºνουσιν: :
£γραψε(ν) δ¥ κα½ τ­ν χορηγºαν κα½παρ τ­ν ¹ερατικ­ν στολªν ν τºνι
λατρεÒουσιν ν αÐτµ²: : κα½παρ τοÂσ Λευhεiºταισ £γραψε(ν) δοÚναι
τ­ν χορηγºαν ¦ωσ τ²σ ©µ¢ρασ πιτελεσqµ² É οÃκοσ κα½ )Ιερουσαληµ
ο¸κοδοµηq²ναι: : κα½ πšσι τοÂσ φρουροÚσι τ­ν πÊλιν £γραψε
δοÚναι αÐτοÂσ κλªρουσ κα½ Èψâνια: : κα½ ξαπ¢στειλε(ν) π’ντα τ•

: B ο¹ )ΙουδαÂοι] RH )ΙδουµαÂοι : B ρηµâqη] RH ¨ρηµâqη : B Ìσα] RH

Ì σε. : B π’ντασ ο¸κονʵουσ] RH π’ντασ τοÕσ ο¸κονʵουσ : B Λιβ’νíω κα½
£γραψεν] RH Λιβ’νíω £γραψεν : B ΧαλδαÂοι] RH )ΙδουµαÂοι : B φºουσι]
RH φιêσι : B ¦ωσ τ²σ ©µ¢ρασ] RH ¦ωσ ´σ ©µ¢ρασ
 translation :– 

and vowed to send them back there. () And you solemnly swore to
build the temple, which the Judeans burned when Judea was desolated
by the Chaldeans. () And now, O Lord King, this is what I ask and what
I request of you, and this is the majesty that is yours. I petition therefore
that you execute the vow which you solemnly swore to the King of heaven
with your mouth.”

:–
The Decree of Darius on the Return of the Exiles
() Then King Darius arose and kissed him, and wrote epistles for him to
all [the] treasurers, toparchs, governors, and satraps, so that they would
send him out and all those going up with him to build Jerusalem. ()
And he wrote letters to all the toparchs in Coelesyria and Phoenicia and
to those in Lebanon, to bring cedar trees from Lebanon to Jerusalem,
and thus so they would help him build the city. () He wrote for all
the Judeans going up from the kingdom to Judea, for their freedom, that
no satrap or toparch or treasurer should come upon their doors; ()
and that all the territory that they might seize is for them to exist in
without tribute and so that the Chaldeans should give up the villages
of the Judeans which they took, () and that for the building of the
temple twenty talents a year should be given until it is completely built,
() and an additional ten talents a year for whole burnt offerings to be
offered on the altar daily, according to the commandment they have to
make seventeen offerings; () and that all who come from Babylon to
build the city should have their freedom, both they and their children
and all the priests who come. () He wrote about the expenses and
the priests’ sacred vestments which they were to serve in. () And
he wrote that the expenses for the Levites should be given until the
day when the temple would be completed and Jerusalem built. ()
He wrote that all who guarded the city should be given to them a
portion of land and wages. () And he sent back from Babylon all the
 text :–:

σκεÒη — χâρισε(ν) ΚÚροσ πÍ Βαβυλêνοσ: κα½ π’ντα Ìσα εÃπε(ν)

ΚÚροσ ποι²σαι κα½ αÐτÍσ π¢ταξε(ν) ποι²σαι κα½παρ ξαποστεÂλαι ε¸σ
)Ιερουσαληµ:

:–
Zorobabel’s Prayer and the Rejoicing in Jerusalem at the News
: κα½ Ìτε ξ²λqε(ν) É νεανºσκοσ “ρασ τÍ πρÊσωπον ε¸σ τÍν οÐρανÍν
ναντºον )Ιερουσαληµ εÐλÊγησε(ν) τíê βασιλε τοÚ οÐρανοÚ λ¢γων: :
παρ• σοÚ νºκη κα½ παρ• σοÚ © σοφºα κα½ σ­ © δÊξα κα½ γå σÍσ
ο¸κ¢τησ: : εÐλογητÍσ εà Ïσ £δωκ’σ µοι σοφºαν: κα½ σο½ Éµολογê
δ¢σποτα τêν πατ¢ρων: : κα½ £λαβε(ν) τ•σ πιστολ•σ κα½ ξ²λqε(ν)
ε¸σ Βαβυλêνα: κα½ πªγγειλε(ν) τοÂσ δελφοÂσ αÐτοÚ πšσι(ν)· : κα½
εÐλÊγησαν τÍν qν τêν πατ¢ρων αÐτêν Ìτι £δωκεν αÐτοÂσ “νεσιν κα½
“φεσιν : ναβ²ναι κα½παρ ο¸κοδοµ²σαι )Ιερουσαληµ κα½ τÍ ¹ερÊν
οÜ àνοµ’σqη τÍ Ëνοµα αÐτοÚ π’ αÐτíê: κα½παρ κωqωνºζοντο µετ•
µουσικêν κα½ χαρšσ ©µ¢ρασ ¡πτ’:

:–
Preparations for the Journey
: µετ• δ¥ ταÚτα ξελ¢γησαν ναβ²ναι ρχηγο½ ο»κου πατριêν κατ•
φυλ•σ αÐτêν: κα½ α¹ γυναÂκεσ αÐτêν κα½ ο¹ υ¹ο½ κα½ α¹ qυγατ¢ρεσ κα½ ο¹
παÂδεσ αÐτêν κα½ α¹ παιδºσκαι κα½ τ• κτªνη αÐτêν: : κα½παρ ∆αρεÂοσ
συναπ¢στειλε(ν) µετ’ αÐτêν ¹ππεÂσ χhεiιλºουσ ¦ωσ τοÚ ποκαταστ²σαι
αÐτοÕσ ε¸σ )Ιερουσαληµ µετ’ ε¸ρªνησ: κα½παρ µετ• µουσικêν τυµπ’νων
κα½ αÐλê(ν)· : κα½ π’ντεσ ο¹ δελφο½παρ αÐτêν παºζοντεσ: κα½
ποºησεν αÐτοισ συναναβ²ναι µετ’ κεºνων: : κα½ ταÚτα τ• Èνʵατα
τêν νδρê(ν) τêν ναβαινÊντων κατ• πατρι•σ αÐτêν ε¸σ τ•σ φυλ•σ
π½ τ­(ν) µεριδαρχºαν αÐτêν: : ο¹ ¹ερεÂσ υ¹ο½ Φινεεσ: υ¹οÚ Ααρων
)ΙησοÚσ É τοÚ Ιωσεδεκ τοÚ Σαραιου: κα½ Ιωακhεiιµ É τοÚ Ζοροβαβελ
τοÚ Σαλαqιηλ κ τοÚ ο»κου τοÚ ∆αυhεiιδ κ τ²σ γενεšσ Φαρεσ φυλ²σ
δ¥ )Ιουδα: : Ïσ λ’λησεν π½ ∆αρεºου τοÚ βασιλ¢ωσ Περσêν λÊγουσ
σοφοÕσ ν τíê δευτ¢ρíω £τει τ²σ βασιλεºασ αÐτοÚ µην½ Νισαν τοÚ πρâτου
µηνÊσ:

: B χâρισεν] RH ξεχâρισεν. : B νºκη] RH © νºκη. : B αÐτοισ] RH

αÐτοÕσ.
 translation :–: 

sacred vessels that Cyrus had set apart; and as much as that Cyrus had
said to be done, he himself commanded to be done and to be sent to
Jerusalem.

:–
Zorobabel’s Prayer and the Rejoicing in Jerusalem at the News
() When the young man went out, he lifted up his countenance to
heaven towards Jerusalem, and blessed the King of heaven, saying, ()
“From you comes victory; from you comes wisdom, and yours is the
glory. And I am your domestic servant. () Blessed are you, who have
granted me wisdom; I confess you, Master of our ancestors.” () And
he took the epistles, and went out to Babylon and announced this to all
his brothers. () And they blessed the God of their ancestors, because he
had given them permission and release () to go up and build Jerusalem
and the temple where his name is named on it; and they drank hard, with
music and rejoicing, for seven days.

:–
Preparations for the Journey
() After these things the leaders of the ancestral houses were chosen to
go up, according to their tribes, with their wives and sons and daughters,
and their menservants and maidservants, and their livestock. () And
Darius sent with them a thousand cavalry until they were restored to
Jerusalem in peace, along with the music of drums and oboes; () all
their brothers were making merry. And he made them go up with them.
() These are the names of the men who went up, according to their
paternal ancestry, for the tribes, over their groups: () the priests, the
sons of Phinees, sons of Aarōn; Iēsous the son of Iōsedek of Seraias and
Iōakim the son of Zorobabel of Salathiēl, from the house of Dauid, from
the generation of Phares, of the tribe of Judah, () who spoke to Darius
the King of the Persians wise words, in the second year of his reign, in
the month of Nisan, the first month.
 text :–

:–
The List of Returning Exiles
: ε¸σ½ν δ¥ οÜτοι ο¹ κ τ²σ )Ιουδαºασ ο¹ ναβ’ντεσ κ τ²σ α¸χµαλωσºασ
τ²σ παροικºασ ο×σ µετοºκισεν Ναβουχοδονοσορ βασιλεÕσ Βαβυλêνοσ
ε¸σ Βαβυλêνα : κα½ π¢στρεψα(ν) ε¸σ )Ιερουσαληµ: κα½ τ­(ν) λοιπ­ν
)Ιουδαºαν ¦καστοσ ε¸σ τ­ν ¸δºαν πÊλιν ο¹ λqÊντεσ µετ• Ζοροβαβελ κα½
)ΙησοÚ: Νεεµιου: Ζαραιου: Ρησαιου: Ενηνιοσ Μαρδοχαιου: Βεελσαρου
Ασφαρασου: Βορολhεiιου: Ροhεiιµου Βαανα τêν προηγουµ¢νων αÐ-
τêν: : ριqµÍσ τêν πÍ τοÚ £qνουσ: κα½ ο¹ προηγοÒµενοι αÐτêν
υ¹ο½παρ Φοροσ ¡βδﵪκοντα δÒο χhεiιλι’δεσ: : υ¹ο½ )Αρ¢σ ¡πτα-
κÊσιοι πεντªκο(ν)τα ¦ξ: : υ¹ο½ Φqαλειµω’β ε¸σ: τοÚ υ¹οÚ )ΙησοÚ
κα½(Ροβο’β δισχhεiºλιοι ÈκτακÊσιοι δÒο: : υ¹ο½ )Ιωλαµου: δÒο: υ¹ο½
ΖατÊ(ν) ννακÊσιοι ¡βδﵪκοντα: υ¹ο½ Χορβε ¡πτακÊσιοι π¢ντε: υ¹ο½
Βανhεiι ¡ξακÊσι{οι} τεσσ{α}ρ’κοντα Èκτâ: : υ¹ο½ Βηβαι: ¡ξακÊσιοι
τρι’κο(ν)τα τρεÂσ: υ¹ο½ Ασγαº χhεiºλιοι τριακÊσιοι ε»κοσι δÒο: : υ¹ο½
Αδωνhεiικ’µ τρι’κοντα ¡πτ’: υ¹ο½ Βοσαº δισχhεiºλιοι ¡ξακÊσιοι ¦ξ: υ¹ο½
Αδειλιου τετρακÊσι{οι} πεντªκοντα τ¢σσαρεσ: : υ¹ο½ Αζ­ρ Εζεκιου
υ¹ο½ Κhεiιλαν κα½ Αζητασ ¡ξªκο(ν)τα ¡πτ’: υ¹ο½ Αζαρου τετρακÊσιοι
τρι’κοντα δÒο: : υ¹ο½ Αννεισ ¡κατÍν εÄσ: υ¹ο½ Αροµ: υ¹ο½παρ Βασ-
σαι τριακÊσιοι ε»κοσι τρεÂσ: υ¹ο½ Αρσειφουρεºq: : υ¹ο½ Βαιτηρουσ
τρhεiισχhεiºλιοι π¢ντε: υ¹ο½ κ Ραγεqλωµêν ¡κατÍν ε»κοσι τρεÂσ: : ο¹
κ Νετεβασ πεντªκοντα π¢ντε: ο¹ ξ Ενατου ¡κατÍν πεντªκοντα Èκτâ:
ο¹ κ Βαιτασµêν Ζαµµâqει: : Καρταqειαρειοσ ε»κοσι π¢ντε: ο¹ κ
Πεºρασ κα½ ΒηρÊγ: ¡πτακÊσιοι: : ο¹ Χαδιασαι κα½ Αµµιδιοι τετρακÊ-
σιοι ε»κοσι δÒο: ο¹ κ Κhεiιραµασ Κ’ββησ ¡ξακÊσιοι ε»κοσι εÄσ: : ο¹

: B οÜτοι ο¹ κ] RH οÜτοι κ : B µετοºκισεν] RH µετíâκισεν : B

¡βδﵪκοντα δÒο χιλι’δεσ] RH δÒο χιλι’δεσ κα½ ¡κατÍν ¡βδﵪκοντα δÒο :
B >] RH υ¹ο½ Σαφατ τετρακÊσιοι ¡βδﵪκοντα δÒο υ¹ο½ Αρεε : B Φqαλειµω’β
… (Ροβο’β … δÒο] RH Φααqµωαβ … Ιωαβ … δ¢κα δÒο : B )Ιωλαµου δÒο:
υ¹ο½παρ ΖατÊν ννακÊσιοι ¡βδﵪκοντα] RH Ωλαµου χºλιοι διακÊσιοι πεντªκοντα
τ¢σσαρεσ υ¹ο½ Ζατου ννακÊσιοι τεσσαρ’κοντα π¢ντε : B ¡ξακÊσιοι τρι’κοντα
τρεÂσ: υ¹ο½ Ασγαº] RH ¡ξακÊσιοι ε»κοσι τρεÂσ: υ¹ο½ Ασγαδ : B υ¹ο½ Αδωνεικ’µ
τρι’κοντα ¡πτ’: υ¹ο½ Βοσαº δισχεºλιοι ¡ξακÊσιοι ¦ξ: υ¹ο½ Αδειλιου] RH υ¹ο½ Αδωνικαµ
¡ξακÊσιοι ¡ξªκοντα ¡πτ’ υ¹ο½ Βαγοι δισχºλιοι ¡ξªκοντα ¦ξ υ¹ο½ Αδινου : B Αζ­ρ
Εζεκιου: υ¹ο½ Κειλαν κα½ Αζητασ ¡ξªκο(ν)τα ¡πτ’: υ¹ο½ Αζαρου] RH Ατηρ Εζεκιου
νενªκοντα δÒο υ¹ο½ Κιλαν κα½ Αζητασ ¡ξªκοντα ¡πτ’ υ¹ο½ Αζουρου : B Αννεισ
… Αρσειφουρεºq] RH Αννιασ … Αριφου ¡κατÍν δ¢κα δÒο : B Ραγεqλωµêν]
RH Βαιqλωµων : B Βαιτασµων Ζαµµâqει] RH Βαιτασµων τεσσαρ’κοντα δÒο
: B Καρταqειαρειοσ … Πεºρασ κα½ ΒηρÊγ ¡πτακÊσιοι] RH ο¹ κ Καριαqιαριοσ …
Καπιρασ κα½ Βηροτ ¡πτακÊσιοι τεσσαρ’κοντα τρεÂσ : B Κ’ββησ] RH κα½ Γαββησ
 translation :– 

:–
The List of Returning Exiles
() Now these are the ones from Judea, who came up from the captivity
of exile, whom Nabouchodonosor King of Babylon had expatriated to
Babylon. () And they returned to Jerusalem and the rest of Judea, each
to his own city. Coming up with their leaders, Zorobabel and Iēsous,
Neemias, Zaraias, Rēsaias, Enēnios, Mardochaias, Beelsaros, Asphara-
sos, Borolias, Roimos, and Baana. () The number of those of the nation
and their leaders: the sons of Phoros, one thousand and seventy-two.
() The sons of Ares, seven hundred and fifty-six. () The sons of
Phthaleimōabeis, the son[s] of Iēsous and Rhoboab, two thousand eight
hundred and two. () The sons of Iōlamos, two. The sons of Zatos, nine
hundred and seventy. The sons of Chorbe, seven hundred and five. The
sons of Bani, six hundred and forty-eight. () The sons of Bēbai, six
hundred and thirty-three. The sons of Asgai, one thousand three hun-
dred and twenty-two. () The sons of Adōnikam, thirty-seven. The
sons of Bosai, two thousand and sixty-six. The sons of Adeilos, four
hundred and fifty-four. () The sons of Azēr of Hezekias. The sons of
Kilan and Azētas, sixty-seven. The sons of Azaros, four hundred and
thirty-two. () The sons of Hanneis, one hundred and one. The sons
of Arom. The sons of Bassai, three hundred and twenty-three. The sons
of Arseiphoureith. () The sons of Baitērous, three thousand and five.
The sons of Rhagethlōmōn, one hundred and twenty-three. () Those
from Netebas, fifty-five. Those from Enatos, one hundred and fifty-eight.
Those from Baitasmōn Zammōth. () [From] Kartatheiareios, twenty-
five. Those from Peiras and Bērog, seven hundred. () The Chadia-
sai and Ammidoi, four hundred and twenty-two. Those from Kiramas
Gabbēs, six hundred and twenty-one. () Those from Makalōn, one
 text :–

κ Μακαλων: ¡κατÍν ε»κοσι δÒο: ο¹ κ Βετολιω πεντªκοντα δÒο: {υ¹ο½}

Νhεiιφhεiισ ¡κατÍν πεντªκοντα ¦ξ: : υ¹ο½ Καλαµωκ’λου κα½ Ωνουσ
¡πτακÊσιοι ε»κοσι π¢ντε: υ¹ο½ Ιερhεiιχου: διακÊσιοι τεσσ{α}ρ’κοντα
π¢ντε: : υ¹ο½ Σαµ’: τρhεiισχhεiºλιοι τριακÊσιοι εÄσ: : ο¹ ¹ερε{Âσ}:
ο¹ υ¹ο½ Ιεδδου τοÚ υ¹οÚ )ΙησοÚ ε¸σ τοÕσ υ¹οÕσ Σαναβεºσ Èκτακοσιοι .
¡βδﵪκοντα δÒο: υ¹ο½ Ερµηρου: διακÊσιοι πε(ν)τªκοντα δÒο: :
υ¹ο½ Φασσορου: χhεiºλιοι διακÊσιοι τεσσ{α}ρ’κοντα ¡πτ’: υ¹ο½ Χαρµη:
διακÊσιοι δ¢κα ¡πτ’: : ο¹ δ¥ ΛευhεiÂται υ¹ο½ )Ιησου εºσ Κοδοηλου κα½
Βαννου κα½ Σουδιου: ¡βδﵪκοντα τ¢σσαρεσ: : Ñιο½ ¹εροψ’λται υ¹ο½
Ασαφ ¡κατÍ(ν) ε»κοσι Èκτâ: : ο¹ qυρωροº τετρακÊσιοι ο¹ Ισµαªλου:
υ¹ο½ Λακουβ’του χhεiºλιοι: υ¹οι Τωβεºσ π’ντεσ ¡κατÍν τρι’κοντα νν¢α
: ο¹ ¹ερÊδουλοι υ¹ο½ Ησαυ υ¹ο½ Τασειφ’ υ¹ο½ Ταβαωq υ¹ο½ Κηρασ:
υ¹ο½ Σουα: υ¹ο½ Φαλαιου: υ¹ο½ Λαβανα {υ¹ο½ Αγγαβα}· : υ¹ο½ Ακουδ:
υ¹ο½ Ουτα: υ¹ο½ Κηταβ: υ¹ο½ Ακκαβα: υ¹ο½ Συβαεϊ: υ¹ο½παρ Αναν: υ¹ο½
Κουα: υ¹ο½ Κεδδουρ: : υ¹ο½ Ιαhεiϊρου: υ¹ο½ ∆αισαν: υ¹ο½ Νοεβα:
υ¹ο½ Χασεβα: υ¹ο½ Καζηρα: υ¹ο½ Οζhεiιου: υ¹ο½ Φινοε: υ¹ο½ Ασαρα:
υ¹ο½ Βασqαι: υ¹ο½ Ασσανα: υ¹ο½ Μανει: υ¹ο½ Ναφεισει: υ¹ο½ Ακουφ:
υ¹ο½παρ Αχhεiιβα: υ¹ο½ Ασουρ: υ¹ο½ Φαρακεµ: υ¹ο½ Βασαλεµ: : υ¹ο½
∆εδδα: υ¹ο½ Βαχουσ: υ¹ο½ Σεραρ: υ¹ο½ Θοµqει: υ¹ο½ Νασhεiι: υ¹ο½ Ατεφα:
: υ¹ο½ παºδων Σαλωµω(ν): υ¹ο½ Ασσαφhεiιωq: υ¹ο½ Φαρhεiιδα: υ¹ο½
Ιειηλει: υ¹ο½ Λοζων: υ¹ο½ Ισδαηλ: υ¹ο½παρ Σαφυει: : υ¹ο½ Αγια: υ¹ο½
Φακαρεq–σαβιη: υ¹ο½ Σαρωqιε: υ¹ο½ Μεισαι’σ: υ¹ο½ Γασ: υ¹ο½ Αδδουσ:
υ¹ο½ Σουβασ: υ¹ο½ Αφερρα: υ¹ο½ Βαρωδhεiισ: υ¹ο½ Σαφαγ: υ¹ο½ Αλλâ(ν)·
: π’ντεσ ο¹ ¹ερÊδουλοι κα½ ο¹ υ¹ο½ τêν παºδω(ν) Σαλωµων τριακÊσιοι
¡βδﵪκοντα δÒο: : οÜτοι ναβ’ντεσ πÍ Θερµελεq κα½ Θελερσασ
©γοÒµενοσ αÐτê(ν) Χαρααqαλαν κα½ Αλλ’ρ: : κα½ οÐκ ¨δÒναντο
παγγεÂλαι τ•σ πατρι•σ αÐτêν κα½ γενε•σ áσ κ τοÚ )Ισραηλ ε¸σºν:

: B Βετολιω] RH Βαιτολιω : B Καλαµωκ’λου … διακÊσιοι] RH Καλαµω

“λλου … τριακÊσιοι : B Σαµ’ τρεισχεºλιοι τριακÊσιοι εÄσ] RH Σαναασ τρισχºλιοι
τριακÊσιοι τρι’κοντα : B ο¹ υ¹ο½ Ιεδδου … Σαναβεºσ Èκτακοσιοι
. … Ερµηρου:
διακÊσιοι] RH υ¹ο½ Ιεδδου … Ανασιβ ννακÊσιοι … Εµµηρου χºλιοι : B διακÊσιοι
δ¢κα] RH χºλιοι δ¢κα : B εºσ Κοδοηλου] RH κα½παρ Καδµιηλου : Ñιο½
¹εροψ’λται] RH ο¿ ¹εροψ’λται : B τετρακÊσιοι ο¹ Ισµαªλου υ¹ο½ Λακουβ’του
χεºλιοι: υ¹οι Τωβεºσ] RH υ¹ο½ Σαλουµ υ¹ο½ Αταρ υ¹ο½παρ Τολµαν υ¹ο½ Ακουβ υ¹ο½ Ατητα
υ¹ο½ Σωβαι ο¹ : B Τασειφ’ … Φαλαιου] RH Ασιφα … Φαδαιου : B
Ακκαβα … Κουα … Κεδδουρ] RH Αγαβα … Καqουα … Γεδδουρ : B Καζηρα
… Ασσανα … Μανει … Ναφεισει … Βασαλεµ] RH Γαζηρα … Ασανα … Μαανι …
Ναφισι … Βασαλωq : B ∆εδδα … > … Βαχουσ … Θοµqει] RH Μεεδδα …
Κουqα υ¹ο½ Χαρεα … Βαρχουσ … Θοµοι : B Ιειηλει … Σαφυει] RH Ιεηλι …
Σαφυqι : B Μεισαι’σ … Σαφαγ υ¹ο½ Αλλâν] RH Μασιασ … Σαφατ υ¹ο½ Αµων
: B Χαρααqαλαν κα½ Αλλ’ρ] RH Χαρααq Αδαν κα½ Αµαρ
 translation :– 

hundred and twenty-two. Those from Betoliō, fifty-two. The sons of

Niphis, one hundred and fifty-six. () The sons of Calamōkalos and
Onous, seven hundred and twenty-five. The sons of Jereichou, two hun-
dred and forty-five. () The sons of Sama, three thousand three hundred
and one. () The priests—the sons of Ieddos the son of Iēsous with
respect to the sons of Sanabeis—eight hundred and seventy-two. The
sons of Ermēros, two hundred and fifty-two. () The sons of Phassoros,
one thousand two hundred and forty-seven. The sons of Charmē, two
hundred and seventeen. () The Levites—the sons of Iēsous, Kodoēlos
and Bannos and Soudios—seventy-four. () The sons of the temple
singers—the sons of Asaph—one hundred and twenty-eight. () The
gatekeepers, four hundred. Those of Ismaēl, the sons of Lakoubatos, a
thousand. The sons of Tōbeis, in all, one hundred and thirty-nine. ()
The temple servants—the sons of Esau, the sons of Taseipha, the sons of
Tabaōth, the sons of Kēras, the sons of Soua, the sons of Phalaias, the
sons of Labana, the sons of Aggaba, () the sons of Akoud, the sons
of Outa, the sons of Kētab, the sons of Hakkaba, the sons of Sybai, the
sons of Hanan, the sons of Koua, the sons of Keddour, () the sons of
Iairos, the sons of Daisan, the sons of Noeba, the sons of Cheseba, the
sons of Kazēra, the sons of Ozias, the sons of Phinoe, the sons of Hasara,
the sons of Basthai, the sons of Assana, the sons of Manei, the sons of
Nepheisi, the sons of Akouph, the sons of Hachiba, the sons of Asour,
the sons of Pharakem, the sons of Basalem, () the sons of Dedda, the
sons of Bachous, the sons of Serar, the sons of Tomthei, the sons of Nasi,
the sons of Hatepha. () The sons of Salōmōn’s servants—the sons of
Hassaphiōth, the sons of Pharida, the sons of Ieiēlei, the sons of Lozōn,
the sons of Isdaēl, the sons of Saphyei, () the sons of Agia, the sons of
Pakereth of sabiē, the sons of Sarōthie, the sons of Meisaias, the sons of
Gas, the sons of Addous, the sons of Soubas, the sons of Apherra, the sons
of Barōdeis, the sons of Saphag, the sons of Allōn. () All the temple
servants and the sons of Salōmōn’s servants consisted of three hundred
and seventy-two. () These ones are they who went up from Thermeleth
and Thelersas under the leadership of Charaathalan and Allar, () they
were not able to prove their paternal ancestry or their generation that
 text :–

υ¹ο½ Ασ•ν τοÚ υ¹οÚ τοÚ Βαεναν: υ¹ο½ Νεκωδαν ¡ξακÊσιοι πεντªκοντα
δÒο: : κα½ κ τêν ¹ερ¢ων ο¹ µποιοÒµενοι ¹ερωσÒνησ: κα½ οÐχ
εÑρ¢qησαν υ¹ο½ Οββhεiια υ¹ο½ Ακβâσ υ¹ο½ Ιαδδουσ τοÚ λαβÊντοσ
Αυγιαν γυναÂκα τêν qυγατ¢ρων Φαηζελδαιου κ(α½) κλªqη π½ τíê
Èνʵατι αÐτοÚ: : κα½ τοÒτω(ν) ζητηqεºσησ τ²σ γενικ²σ γραφ²σ
ν τíê καταλοχισµíê κα½ µ­ εÑρεqεºσησ χωρºσqησαν τοÚ ¹ερατεÒειν:
: κα½ εÃπεν αÐτοÂσ Ναιµºασ κα½ Ατqαριασ µ­ µετ¢χειν τêν ‘γºω(ν)
¦ωσ ναστµ² ¹ερεÕσ νδεδυµ¢νοσ τ­ν δªλωσιν κα½ τ­ν λªqειαν: :
ο¹ δ¥ π’ντεσ ³σαν )Ισραηλ πÍ δωδεκαετοÚσ χωρ½σ παºδω(ν) κα½
παιδισκêν µυρι’δεσ τ¢σσαρεσ δισχºλιοι τριακÊσιοι ¡ξªκοντα: παÂδεσ
τοÒτω(ν) κα½παρ παιδºσκαι ¡πτακισχhεiºλιοι τριακÊσιοι τρι’κοντα
¡πτ’: ψ’λται κα½ ψαλτíωδο½ διακÊσιοι τεσσ{α}ρ’κοντα π¢ντε: :
κ’µηλοι τετρακÊσιοι τρι’κοντα π¢ντε: κα½ ¼πποι ¡πτακισχhεiºλιοι
τρι’κοντα ¦ξ: ©µºονοι διακÊσιοι τεσσ{α}ρ’κοντα π¢ντε: ÑποζÒγια
πεντακισχhεiºλια πεντακÊσια ε»κοσι π¢ντε:

:–
Votive Offerings
: κα½ κ τêν ©γουµ¢νων κατ• τ•σ πατρι•σ ν τíê παραγºνεσqαι
αÐτοÕσ ε¸σ τÍ ¹ερÍν τοÚ qυ τÍ ν )Ιερουσαληµ εÓξαντο γεÂραι τÍν
οÃκον π½ τοÚ τÊπου αÐτοÚ κατ• τ­ν αÐτêν δÒναµιν: : κα½ δοÚναι
ε¸σ τÍ ¹ερÍν γαζοφυλ’κιον τêν £ργων χρυσºου µνšσ χhεiιλºασ: κα½
ργυρºου µνšσ πεντακισχhεiιλºασ: κα½ στολ•σ ¹ερατικ•σ ¡κατÊν: :
κα½ κατοικºσqησαν ο¹ ¹ερεÂσ κα½ ο¹ ΛευhεiÂται κα½ ο¹ κ τοÚ λαοÚ αÐτοÚ
(ν) )Ιερουσαληµ κα½ τµ² χâρα: ο¼ τε ¹εροψ’λται κ(α½) ο¹ qυρωρο½: κα½
πšσ )Ισραηλ ν ταÂσ κâµαισ αÐτêν:

:–
Erection of an Altar and Inaugural Worship
: [ν]στ’ντοσ δ¥ τοÚ ¡βδʵου µηνÍσ: κα½ Ëντων τêν υ¹êν )Ισραηλ
¡κ’στου ν τοÂσ ¸δºοισ συνªχqησαν ɵοqυµαδÍν ε¸σ τÍ εÐρÒχωρον τοÚ
πρâτου πυλêνοσ τοÚ πρÍσ τµ² νατολµ²: : κα½ καταστ•σ )ΙησοÚσ
É τοÚ Ιωσεδεκ κα½ ο¹ δελφο½παρ αÐτοÚ ο¹ ¹ερεÂσ κα½ Ζοροβαβελ É

: B Ασ•ν τοÚ υ¹οÚ τοÚ Βαεναν] RH ∆αλαν τοÚ υ¹οÚ Τουβαν : B Ακβâσ …
Ιαδδουσ … Φαηζελδαιου] RH Ακκωσ … Ιοδδουσ … Φαρζελλαιου : B Ναιµºασ
… > … ¹ερεÕσ] RH Νεεµιασ … αÐτοÒσ … ρχιερεÕσ. : B κατοικºσqησαν … λαοÚ
αÐτοÚ] RH κατíωκºσqησαν … λαοÚ.
 translation :– 

they were from Israel: the sons of Asan son of Baenan, and the sons of
Nekōdan, six hundred and fifty-two. () And from the priests those who
had assumed the priesthood but were not proved: the sons of Hobbia, the
sons of Hakbōs, and the sons of Iaddous who had received Augia as wife,
one of the daughters of Phaēzeldaias, and was called by his name. ()
When an inspection was made in the registry and the generation of these
men was not found, they were excluded from serving as priests. ()
And Naimias and Attharias told them not to partake of the consecrated
things until there should arise a priest being adorned in Explanation
and Truth. () All the men who were from Israel, twelve years of age
on, apart from menservants and maidservants, were forty-two thousand
three hundred and sixty; their menservants and maidservants were seven
thousand three hundred and thirty-seven; there were two hundred and
forty-five harpists and psalm-singers. () There were four hundred and
thirty-five camels, seven thousand and thirty-six horses, two hundred
and forty-five mules, and five thousand five hundred and twenty-five
asses.

:–
Votive Offerings
() Some of the leaders of the paternal houses, when they came to
the temple of God that is in Jerusalem, they solemnly vowed that they
would erect the house on its site according to their power, () and
that they would give to the sacred treasury for the works a thousand
minas of gold, and five thousand minas of silver, and one hundred priests’
sacred vestments. () The priests, and the Levites, and those from his
people dwelt in Jerusalem and its territory; and the temple singers, the
gatekeepers, and all Israel in their villages.

:–
Erection of an Altar and Inaugural Worship
() When the seventh month came, and the sons of Israel were all in
their own homes, they assembled in one mind in the open area before
the first gate oriented to the east. () Then Iēsous son of Iōsedek, with
his brothers, the priests, and Zorobabel son of Salthiēl, and his brothers,
 text :–

τοÚ Σαλαqιηλ κα½ ο¹ τοÒτου δελφο½ ©τοºµασαν τÍ qυσιαστªριον τοÚ

qυ τοÚ )Ισραηλ : προσεν¢γκαι π’ αÐτοÚ Éλοκαυτâσεισ κολοÒqωσ
τοÂσ ν τµ² Μωυσ¢ωσ βºβλíω τοÚ νqρâπου τοÚ qυ διηγορευµ¢νοισ:
: κα½ πισυνªχqησαν αÐτοÂσ κ τêν “λλων qνêν τ²σ γ²σ: κα½
κατâρqωqησαν π½ τÍ qυσιαστªριον π½ τοÚ τÊπου αÐτêν: Ìτι ν £χqρα
³σαν αÐτοÂσ: {κ(α½)} κατºσχυσαν αÐτοÕσ π’ντα τ• £qνη τ• π½ τ²σ
γ²σ: κα½ ν¢φερον qυσºασ κατ• τÍν καιρÍν κα½ Éλοκαυτâµατα κω τÍ
πρωινÍν κα½παρ τÍ δειλινÍν: : κα½ ¨γ’γοσαν τ­(ν) τ²σ σκηνοπηγºασ
¡ορτªν áσ πιτ¢τακται ν τíê νʵíω: κα½ qυσºασ καq’ ©µ¢ραν áσ
προσ²κον ³ν: : κα½παρ µετ• ταÚτα προσφορ•σ νδελεχισµοÚ κα½
qυσºασ σαββ’των κα½ νουµηνιêν κα½ ¡ορτêν πασêν ©γιασµ¢νων: :
κα½ Ìσοι εÓξαντο εÐχ­ν τíê qω πÍ τ²σ νουµηνºασ τοÚ πρâτου µηνÍσ
«ρξατο προσφ¢ρειν qυσºασ τíê qω: κα½ É ναÍσ τοÚ qυ οÓπω íàκοδʵητο:

:–
Beginning of the New Temple
: κα½ £δωκαν ργÒριον τοÂσ λατʵοισ κα½ τ¢κτοσι κα½ ποτ• κα½
βρωτ•: κα½ χαρα τοÂσ Σhεiιδωνºοισ κα½ Τυρºοισ ε¸σ τÍ παρ’γειν αÐτοÕσ
κ τοÚ Λιβ’νου ξÒλα κ¢δρινα: διαφ¢ρειν σχεδºασ ε¸σ τÍν Ιοππησ
λιµ¢να: κα½ τÍ πρÊσταγµα τÍ γραφ¥ν αÐτοÂσ παρ• ΚÒρου τοÚ Περσêν
βασιλ¢ωσ: : κα½ τíê δευτ¢ρíω £τει παραγενʵενοσ ε¸σ τÍ ¹ερÍν τοÚ qυ
ε¸σ )Ιερουσαληµ µηνÍσ δευτ¢ρου «ρξατο Ζοροβαβελ É τοÚ Σαλαqιηλ
κα½ )ΙησοÚσ É τοÚ Ιωσεδεκ κα½παρ ο¹ δελφο½ αÐτêν κα½ ο¹ ¹ερεÂσ
ο¹ ΛευhεiÂται κα½ π’ντεσ ο¹ παραγενʵενοι κ τ²σ α¸χµαλωσºασ ε¸σ
)Ιερουσαληµ: : κα½ qεµελºωσαν τÍν ναÍν τοÚ qυ τµ² νουµηνºα τοÚ
δευτ¢ρου µηνÍσ τοÚ δευτ¢ρου £τουσ ν τíê λqεÂν ε¸σ τ­ν )Ιουδαºαν
κα½ )Ιερουσαληµ: : κα½ £στησαν τοÕσ Λευhεiºτασ πÍ ε¸κοσαετοÚσ
π½ τêν £ργων τοÚ κυ: κα½ £στη )ΙησοÚσ κα½ ο¹ υ¹ο½ κα½ ο¹ δελφο½
κα½ É ∆αµαδιηλ É δελφÍσ: κα½ ο¹ υ¹ο½ )ΙησοÚ Ηµαδαβουν: κα½ ο¹ υ¹ο½
ΙοÒδα τοÚ Ε¸λιαδουν σÕν τοÂσ υ¹οÂσ κα½ δελφοÂσ: π’ντεσ ο¹ ΛευhεiÂται
ɵοqυµαδÍν ργοδιêκται ποιοÚντεσ ε¸σ τ• £ργα ν τíê ο»κíω τοÚ κυ:
: κα½ ο¸κοδʵησαν ο¹ ο¸κοδʵοι τÍν ναÍν τοÚ κυ: κα½παρ £στησαν
ο¹ ¹ερεÂσ στολισµ¢νοι µετ• µουσικêν κα½ σαλπºγγων: κα½ ο¹ ΛευhεiÂται

: B κατâρqωqησαν πι … αÐτêν … κυρºíω] RH κατâρqωσαν … αÐτοÚ … τíê κυρºíω

: B πρâτου … «ρξατο] RH ¡βδʵου … «ρξαντο. : B κα½ ποτ• κα½ βρωτα …
λιµ¢να κα½] RH κα½ βρωτ• κα½ ποτ• … λιµ¢να κατ• : B É ∆αµαδιηλ … )ΙοÒδα
τοÚ Ε¸λιαδουν … ΚυριοÚ] RH Καδµιηλ … Ιωδα τοÚ Ιλιαδουν … qεοÚ : B
ο¸κοδʵησαν] RH íàκοδʵησαν
 translation :– 

took their positions and prepared the altar of the God of Israel, () to
offer up whole burnt offerings upon it, in accordance with that prescribed
in the book of Mōyses, the man of God. () And some of the nations
of the land assembled with them. And they erected the altar upon their
place—though all the nations of the land were at enmity with them
and prevailed over them—and they offered sacrifices at the appropriate
times and whole burnt offerings to the Lord, morning and late afteroon.
() And they kept the feast of tabernacles, as it is commanded in the
law, and offered sacrifices daily as was fitting, () and in addition the
scheduled offerings and sacrifices on sabbaths and at new moons and all
the consecrated feasts. () And as many who had made a solemn vow
to God from the new moon of the first month began to offer sacrifices to
God, though the temple of God was not yet built.

:–
Beginning of the New Temple
() They gave silver to the stone masons and the craftsman, and drink
and food, and carts to the Sidonians and the Tyrians, to bring them
cedar trees from Lebanon and ferrying them in rafts to the harbor of
Ioppa, as per the written commands that they had from Cyrus King of
the Persians. () In the second year after coming to the temple of God
in Jerusalem, in the second month, Zorobabel son of Salathiēl and Iēsous
son of Iōsedek made a beginning, together with their brothers, and the
levitical priests and all who had come back to Jerusalem from captivity;
() and they laid the foundation of the temple of God upon the new
moon of the second month in the second year when they came to Judea
and Jerusalem. () They appointed the Levites who were twenty years
old or more for overseeing the works of the Lord. And Iēsous stood up,
and his sons and brothers and Damadiēl his brother and the sons of
Iēsous Emadaboun and the sons of Iouda son of Eiliadoun, with their
sons and brothers, all the Levites, acting as taskmasters worked with one
mind doing the work in the house of the Lord. () And the builders built
the temple of the Lord. And the priests stood arrayed in their vestments,
with musical instruments and trumpets, and the Levites, the sons of
 text :–

υ¹ο½παρ Ασαφ £χοντεσ τ• κÒµβαλα ѵνοÚντεσ τíê κω κα½ εÐλογοÚντεσ

κατ• ∆αυhεiιδ βασιλ¢α τοÚ )Ισραηλ: : κα½ φâνησαν δι’ Ôµν{ω}ν
εÐλογοÚ(ν)τεσ τíê κω Ìτι © χρηστÊτησ αÐτοÚ κα½ © δÊξα ε¸σ τοÕσ α¸êνασ
παντ½ )Ισραηλ: : κα½ πšσ É λαÍσ σ’λπισαν κα½ βÊησα(ν) φωνµ²
µεγ’λµη ѵνοÚ(ν)τεσ τíê κω π½ τµ² γ¢ρσει τοÚ ο»κου τοÚ κυ: : κα½
«λqοσαν κ τêν ¹ερ¢ω(ν) τêν Λευhεiιτêν κα½ τê(ν) προκαqηµ¢νων
κατ• τ•σ πατρι•σ αÐτêν ο¹ πρεσβÒτεροι ¡ωρακÊτεσ τÍν πρÍ τοÒ{τοÚ}
οÃκο(ν) πρÍσ τ­ν τοÒτου ο¸κοδοµ­ν µετ• κραυγ²σ κα½ κλαυqµοÚ
µεγ’λου: : κα½ πολλο½ δι• σαλπºγγων: κα½ χαρ• µεγ’λµη τµ² φωνµ² :
äστε τÍν λαÍν µ­ κοÒειν τêν σαλπºγγων δι• τÍν κλαυqµÍν τοÚ λαοÚ:
É γ•ρ Ëχλοσ ³ν É σαλπºζων µεγαλωσ äστε µακρÊqε(ν) κοÒεσqαι:

:–
Inquiry and Intrusion from Judah’s Neighbours
: κα½ κοÒσα(ν)τεσ ο¹ χqρο½ τ²σ φυλ²σ )Ιουδα κα½ Βενιαµhεiι(ν)
«λqοσαν πιγνêναι τºσ © φων­ τêν σαλπºγγων: : κα½ π¢γνωσαν Ìτι
ο¹ κ τ²σ α¸χµαλωσºασ ο¸κοδοµοÚσιν τÍ(ν) ναÍν τíê κω qω )Ισραηλ: :
κα½παρ προσελqÊντεσ τíê Ζοροβαβελ: κα½ )ΙησοÚ κα½ τοÂσ ©γουµ¢νοισ:
τêν πατριêν λ¢γουσι(ν) αÐτοÂσ: συνοικοδﵪσοµεν ѵÂν: : ɵοºωσ
γ•ρ ѵÂν κοÒοµεν τοÚ κυ ѵêν κα½ αÐτíê πιqÒσοµεν πÍ ©µερêν
Ασβακαφαq βασιλ¢ωσ )Ασσυρºων Ïσ µετªγαγεν ©µšσ νταÚqα: :
κα½ εÃπεν αÐτοÂσ Ζοροβαβελ κα½ )ΙησοÚσ κα½ ο¹ ©γοÒµενοι τêν πατριêν
τοÚ )Ισραηλ: οÐχ ѵÂν τοÚ ο¸κοδοµ²σαι τÍν οÃκον κω qω ©µê(ν)· :
©µεÂσ γ•ρ µÊνοι ο¸κοδﵪσοµεν τíê κω τοÚ )Ισραηλ κολοÒqωσ οÄσ
προσ¢ταξεν ©µÂν ΚÚροσ É βασιλεÕσ Περσêν: : τ• δ¥ £qνη τ²σ
γ²σ πικοιµâµενα τοÂσ ν τµ² )Ιουδαºα: κα½ πολιορκοÚντεσ εÃργο(ν)
τοÚ ο¸κοδοµεÂν: : κα½ βουλ•σ κα½ δηµαγωγοÚντεσ κα½ συστ’σεισ
ποιοÒµενοι πεκâλυσαν τοÚ πο{τ}ελεσq²ναι τ­ν ο¸κοδοµ­ν π’(ν)τα
τÍν χρÊνον τ²σ ζω²σ τοÚ βασιλ¢ωσ ΚÒρου: : κα½παρ ε»ρχqησαν τ²σ
ο¸κοδοµ²σ £τη δÒο ¦ωσ τ²σ ∆αρεºου βασιλεºασ:

: B εÐλογοÚντεσ] RH ɵολογοÚντεσ : B ¡ωρακÊτεσ] RH ο¹ ¡ωρακÊτεσ :

B χαρ•] RH χαρšσ : B µεγ’λωσ] RH µεγαλωστ½. : B πιqÒσοµεν …
Ασβακαφαq] RH πιqÒοµεν … Ασβασαρεq : B ѵÂν … qεíê] RH ѵÂν κα½ ©µÂν
… τíê qεíê : B πικοιµâµενα] RH πικεºµενα : B βουλ•σ κα½ δηµαγωγοÚντεσ
κα½ συστ’σεισ … ποτελεσq²ναι] RH πιβουλ•σ κα½ δηµαγωγºασ κα½παρ πισυστ’σεισ
… πιτελεσq²ναι.
 translation :– 

Asaph, with cymbals, singing hymns to the Lord and blessings, according
to Dauid, the King of Israel. () And they sang with hymns, blessing
the Lord, “For his goodness and his glory are upon all Israel into the
ages.” () And all the people sounded trumpets and cried out with a
great voice, singing hymns to the Lord upon the erection of the house of
the Lord. () Some of the levitical priests and heads according to those
who presided over paternal houses, the old men who had seen the former
house, came to the building of this one with great crying and weeping,
() and many came with trumpets and a great joyful noise () so that
the people could not hear the trumpets on account of the weeping of
the people. For the crowd was sounding the trumpets loudly, so that the
noise was heard far away.

:–
Inquiry and Intrusion from Judah’s Neighbours
() And after the enemies of the tribe of Judah and Benjamin heard
it, they came to find out what the sound of the trumpets signified. ()
They learned that the ones who were from captivity were building the
temple for the Lord God of Israel. () And they came to Zorobabel
and Iēsous and the heads of the paternal houses and spoke to them, “We
will build with you. () For we, similar to you, obey your Lord and we
will present offerings to him from the days of Asbakaphath King of the
Assyrians, who transported us here.” () And Zorobabel and Iēsous and
the heads of the paternal houses in Israel said to them, “You have no
part in building the house for the Lord our God, () for we alone we
will build it for the Lord of Israel, according to what Cyrus, the king
of the Persians, has ordered us.” () But the nations of the land fell
upon those in Judea, blocking them, and they hindered the building; ()
and by plotting, and demagoguering, and uprisings they prevented the
completion of the building all the time of the life of King Cyrus. ()
They were kept from building for two years, until Darius’s reign.
 text :–

:–
Reconstruction of the Temple Commences
: ν δ¥ τíê δευτ¢ρíω £τει τ²σ ∆αρεºου βασιλεºασ προφªτευσεν
Αγγαιοσ κα½ Ζαχαριασ É τοÚ Εδδεºν ο¹ προφ²ται π½ τοÕσ )Ιουδαºουσ
τοÕσ ν τµ² )Ιουδαºα κα½ )Ιερουσαληµ π½ τíê Èνʵατι κυ qυ )Ισραηλ π’
αÐτοÒσ: : τÊτε στ•σ Ζοροβαβελ É τοÚ Σαλαqιηλ κα½παρ )ΙησοÚσ É
τοÚ Ιωσεδεκ «ρξαντο ο¸κοδοµεÂν τÍν οÃκον τοÚ κυ τÍν ν )Ιερουσαληµ
συνÊντων τêν προφητêν τοÚ κυ βοηqοÒντων αÐτοÂσ:

:–
Intervention by Regional Authorities
: ν αÐτíê τíê χρÊνíω παρ²(ν) πρÍσ αÐτοÕσ Σισºννησ É £παρχοσ Συρºασ
κα½ Φοινºκησ κα½ Σαqραβουζ’νησ κα½ ο¹ συν¢ταιροι: κα½ εÃπεν αÐ-
τοÂσ: : τºνοσ ѵÂν συντ’ξαντοσ τÍν οÃκον τοÚτον ο¸κοδοµεÂτε κα½παρ
τ­ν στ¢γην ταÒτη(ν) κα½ τ“λλα π’ντα πιτελεÂτε; κα½ τºνεσ ε¸σ½(ν) ο¹
ο¸κοδʵοι ο¹ ταÚτα { πι}τελοÚντεσ; : κα½ £σχοσαν χ’ριν πισκοπ²σ
γενʵενοι π½ τ­(ν) α¸χµαλωσºαν παρ• τοÚ ΚΥ ο¹ πρεσβÒτεροι τê(ν)
)Ιουδαºων: : κα½ οÐκ κωλÒqησαν τ²σ ο¸κοδοµ²σ µ¢χρισ οÜ ποση-
µανq²ναι ∆αρεºíω περ½ αÐτêν κα½ προσφωνηq²ναι:

:–
The Letter to Darius
: ντºγραφον πιστολ²σ ´σ £γραψε(ν) ∆αρεºíω κα½ π¢στειλαν: Σισºν-
νησ É £παρχοσ Συρºασ κα½ Φοινºκησ κα½ Σαqραβουζ’νησ κα½ ο¹ συν¢-
ταιροι ο¹ ν Συρºα κα½ Φοινºκµη ©γεµÊνεσ : βασιλε ∆αρεºíω χαºρειν:
π’ντα γνωστ• £στω τíê κω ©µêν τíê βασιλεÂ: Ìτι παραγενʵενοι ε¸σ
τ­(ν) χâραν τ²σ )Ιουδαºασ κ(α½) { λqÊντεσ ε¸σ} )Ιερουσαληµ τ­ν πÊλι(ν)
κατελ’βοµεν τ²σ α¸χµαλωσºασ τοÕσ πρεσβυτ¢ρουσ τêν )Ιουδαºων ν
)Ιερουσαληµ τµ² πÊλει ο¸κοδοµοÚντασ οÃκον τíê κω µ¢γαν καινÍν: δι•
λºqων ξυστê(ν) πολυτελêν ξÒλων τιqεµ¢νων ν τοÂσ ο»κοισ: : κα½ τ•
£ργα κεÂνα π½ σπουδ²σ γινʵενα: κα½ εÐοδοÒµενον τÍ £ργον ν ταÂσ
χερσ½ν αÐτêν: κα½ ν π’σµη δÊξµη κα½ πιµελεºα συντελοÒµενα: : τÊτε

: B τ²σ ∆αρεºου … Εδδεºν] RH τ²σ τοÚ ∆αρεºου … Εδδι. : B εÃπεν] RH εÃπαν
: B γενοµ¢νοι] RH γενοµ¢νησ : B µ¢χρισ οÜ ποσηµανq²ναι] RH µ¢χρι τοÚ
Ñποσηµανq²ναι. : B π¢στειλαν] RH π¢στειλεν : B ο»κοισ] RH τοºχοισ :
B γινʵενα] RH γιγνʵενα
 translation :– 

:–
Reconstruction of the Temple Commences
() Now in the second year of Darius’s reign, the prophets Haggaios
and Zacharias son of Eddein prophesied to the Judeans in Judea and
Jerusalem; in the name of the Lord God of Israel, who is over them. ()
Then Zorobabel son of Salathiēl and Iēsous son of Iōsedek stood up and
began to build the house of the Lord that is in Jerusalem, being assisted
by the prophets of the Lord who were helping them.

:–
Intervention by Regional Authorities
() At the same time, there came to them, Sisinnēs the prefect of Syria
and Phoenicia and Sathrabuzanēs and their associates and he said to
them, () “By whose order are you building this house and this roof
and finishing all these things? And who are the builders those that
are finishing all these other things?” () And the elders of the Judeans
possessed the gracious oversight from the Lord upon the captives; ()
they were not prevented from building until which time Darius could be
notified concerning them and a report be received.

:–
The Letter to Darius
() A copy of the epistle which was written to Darius and sent by
Sisinnēs the prefect of Syria and Phoenicia, and Sathrabuzanēs, and
their associates the local officials in Syria and Phoenicia: () “To King
Darius, greetings. Let it be fully known to our lord the king that, coming
into the territory of Judea and entering into Jerusalem the city, we
found the elders of the Judeans, who had been in captivity, building
in Jerusalem the city, a great new house for the Lord, of hewn stone,
with expensive timber set in the houses. () These works are proceeding
rapidly and the work in their hands is prospering and being completed
with all splendor and thoroughness. () Then we inquired of these
 text :–

πυ(ν)qανʵεqα τêν πρεσβυτ¢ρων τοÒτων λ¢γοντεσ: τºνοσ ѵÂν προ-

στ’ξαντοσ ο¸κοδοµεÂτε τÍν οÃκον τοÚτον κα½ τ• £ργα ταÚτα qεµελι-
οÚτε: : πηρωτªσαµεν οÛν αÐτοÕσ ε{¼}νεκεν τοÚ γνωρºσαι σοι κα½
γρ’ψαι σοι τοÕσ νqρâπουσ τοÕσ φηγουµ¢νουσ: κα½ τ­ν Èνοµατογρα-
φºαν µ¨τοÚµεν αÐτοÕσ τêν προκαqηγουµ¢νων: : ο¹ δ¥ πεκρºqησαν
©µÂν λ¢γοντεσ σµεν παÂδεσ τοÚ κυ τοÚ κτºσαντοσ τÍν οÐρανÍν κα½ τ­ν
γ²ν: : κα½ ο¸κοδʵεÂτο É οÃκοσ £µπροσqεν τêν πλειÊνων δι• βασι-
λ¢ωσ τοÚ )Ισραηλ µεγ’λου κα½ ¸σχυροÚ κα½ πετελ¢σqη: : κα½ πε½
ο¹ πατ¢ρεσ ©µêν παραπικρ’ναντεσ ¬µαρτον ε¸σ τÍν κν τοÚ )Ισραηλ τÍν
οÐρ’νιον παρ¢δωκεν αÐτοÕσ ε¸σ χεÂρασ Ναβουχοδονοσορ βασιλ¢ωσ
Βαβυλêνοσ βασιλ¢ωσ τêν Χαλδαºω(ν)· : τÊν τε οÃκον καqελÊ(ν)τεσ
νεπÒρισαν: κα½ τÍ(ν) λαÍν µ¨χµαλâτευσα(ν) ε¸σ Βαβυλêνα: : ν δ¥
τíê πρâτíω £τει βασιλεÒοντοσ ΚÒρου χâρασ Βαβυλωνºασ £γραψεν βασι-
λεÕσ ΚÚροσ ο¸κοδοµ²σαι τÍν οÃκον τοÚτον: : κα½ τ• ¹ερ• σκεÒη τ•
χρυσš κα½ τ• ργυρš — ξªνεγκεν Ναβουχοδονοσορ κ τοÚ ο»κου τοÚ
ν )Ιερουσαληµ κα½παρ πηρεºσατο αÐτ• (ν) τíê αÐτοÚ ναíê π’λιν ξ-
ªνεγκεν αÐτ• ΚÚροσ É βασιλεÕσ κ τοÚ ναοÚ τοÚ ν Βαβυλêνια: . κα½
παρεδÊqη Ζοροβαβ¥λ κα½ Σαβανασσ’ρω τíê παρχíω : και πετ’γη
αÐτíê κα½ πªνεγκεν π’ντα τ• σκεÒη ταÚτα ποqεÂναι ν τíê ναíê τíê ν
)Ιερουσαληµ: κα½ τÍν ναÍν τοÚ κυ ο¸κοδοµηq²ναι π½ τοÚ τÊπου: :
τÊτε É Σαναβ’σσαροσ παραγενʵενοσ {ν}εβ’λλετο τοÕσ qεµελºουσ
τοÚ ο»κου κυ τοÚ ν )Ιερουσαληµ κ(α½) π’ κεºνου µ¢χρι τοÚ νÚν ο¸κο-
δοµοÒµενοσ οÐκ £λαβεν συντ¢λειαν: : νÚν οÛν κρhεiºνεται βασιλεÚ:
πισκεπªτω ν τοÂσ βασιλικοÂσ βιβλιοφυλακºοισ τοÚ κυ βασιλ¢ωσ τοÂσ
ν Βαβυλêνι: : κα½παρ •ν εÑρºσκηται µετ• τ²σ γνâµησ ΚÒρου τοÚ
βασιλ¢ωσ γενοµ¢νην τ­ν ο¸κοδοµ­ν τοÚ {ο»κου} κυ τοÚ ν )Ιερουσαληµ:
κα½ κρºνηται τíê κω βασιλε ©µêν προσφωνησ’τω ©µÂν περ½ τοÒτων:

:–
Darius’s Commission, Inspection, and Replies
: τÊτε É βασιλεÕσ ∆αρεÂοσ προσ¢ταξεν πισκ¢ψασqαι ν τοÂσ βιβλι-
οφυλακºοισ τοÂσ κειµ¢νοισ ν Βαβυλêνι: κα½ εÑρ¢qη ν )Εκβατ’νοισ
τµ² β’ρει τµ² ν Μηδ{ε}ºα χâρα τÊποσ ν íì Ñποµνηµ’τιστο τ’δε:

: B qεµελιοÚτε] RH qεµελιοÚτε : B λ¢γοντεσ σµεν] RH λ¢γοντεσ ©µεÂσ σµεν

: B ο¸κοδʵεÂτο] RH íàκοδʵητο : B βασιλεÕσ] RH É βασιλεÕσ : B
αÐτοÚ ναíê … Βαβυλêνια. / RH ¡αυτοÚ ναíê … Βαβυλêνι : B κα½ πªνεγκεν …
>] RH πεν¢γκαντι … τοÚτον : B >] RH κεÂνοσ : B >] RH ε¸. :
B βιβλιοφυλακºοισ … τÊποσ ν íì Ñποµνηµ’τιστο] RH βασιλικοÂσ βιβλιοφυλακºοισ …
τʵοσ εÄσ ν íì Ñπεµνηµ’τιστο
 translation :– 

elders saying, ‘By whose command to you are you building this house
and were laying the foundations of these works?’ () Therefore, we
questioned them, for the purpose to inform you and to write to you, as
to who the leading men are, and we asked them for a list of the names
of the chief instigators. () But they answered us, saying: ‘We are the
servants of the Lord, the one creating the heaven and the earth. () And
the house had been built many years before by a great and mighty king of
Israel, and it was completed. () And when our forefathers provocatively
sinned against the Lord of Israel, the one in heaven, he delivered them
into the hands of King Nabouchodonosor King of Babylon, king of
the Chaldeans; () and the house after tearing it down they burned
it, and led the people away captive to Babylon. () But in the first
year of the reign of Cyrus over the country of Babylonia, King Cyrus
decreed this house to be rebuilt. () And the sacred vessels of gold
and of silver, which Nabouchodnosor had carried off from the house in
Jerusalem and deposited in his temple, these Cyrus the King again took
out from the temple in Babylon, and they were delivered to Zorobabel
and Sabanassaros the governor () with the order for him to return
all of these vessels and place them in the temple at Jerusalem, and this
temple of the Lord be built upon its place. () Then this Sanbassaros,
after arriving, laid the foundations of the house of the Lord that is in
Jerusalem. From then until now it has been under construction, though
it has not met completion.’ () Now, therefore, king, let it be just, allow
a search to be made in the royal annals of the Lord King of those who
are in Babylon; () if it be found that the building of the house of the
Lord in Jerusalem transpired with the knowledge of Cyrus the King, if it
be just to our lord the king, let him direct us concerning these things.”

:–
Darius’s Commission, Inspection, and Replies
() Then King Darius commanded that the archives that were kept in
Babylon be searched. And it was found, in Ecbatana within the palace
amidst the region of Mēdia, a passage in which it was recorded: () “In
 text :–

: £τουσ πρâτου βασιλεÒοντοσ ΚÒρου: βασιλεÕσ ΚÚροσ προσ¢ταξεν

τÍ(ν) οÃκον τοÚ κυ τÍν ν )Ιερουσαληµ ο¸κοδοµ²σαι Ìπου πιqÒουσιν
δι• πυρÍσ νδελεχοÚσ: : οÜ τÍ Ôψοσ πªχεων ¡ξªκοντα: πλ’τοσ
πªχεων ¡ξªκοντα: δι• δʵων λιqºνων ξυστê(ν) τριêν: κα½ δʵου
ξυλºνου γχωρºου καινοÚ ¡νÊσ: κα½ τÍ δαπ’νηµα δοq²ναι κ τοÚ
ο»κου ΚÒρου τοÚ βασιλ¢ωσ: : κα½ τ• ¹ερ• σκεÒη τοÚ ο»κου κυ τ’
τε χρυσš κα½ ργυρš — ξªνεγκεν Ναβουχοδονοσορ κ τοÚ ο»κου
τοÚ ν )Ιερουσαληµ πªνεγκεν ε¸σ Βαβυλêνα ποκατασταq²ναι ε¸σ
τÍ(ν) οÃκον τÍν ν )Ιερουσαληµ οÜ ³ν κεºµενα Ìπωσ τεqµ² κεÂ: :
προσ¢ταξεν δ¥ πιµεληq²ναι Σισºννµη π’ρχíω Συρºασ κα½ Φοινºκησ κα½
Σαqραβουζ’νµη κα½ τοÂσ συνεταºροισ κα½ τοÂσ ποτεταγµ¢νοισ ν Συρºα
κα½ Φοινhεiºκµη ©γεµÊσιν π¢χεσqαι τοÚ τÊπου šσαι δ¥ τÍν παÂδα
κυ Ζοροβαβελ Ôπαρχον δ¥ τ²σ )Ιουδαºασ κα½ τοÕσ πρεσβυτ¢ρουσ τêν
)Ιουδαºων τÍν οÃκον τοÚ κυ κεÂνον ο¸κοδοµεÂν π½ τοÚ τÊπου: :
κγå δ¥ π¢ταξα Éλοσχερêσ ο¸κοδοµ²σαι κα½ τενºσαι ¼να συνποιêσιν
τοÂσ κ τ²σ α¸χµαλωσºασ τ²σ )Ιουδαºασ µ¢χρι τοÚ πιτελεσq²ναι τÍν
οÃκον τοÚ κυ: : κα½ πÍ τ²σ φορολογºασ Κοºλησ Συρºασ κα½παρ
Φοινºκησ πιµελêσ σÒνταξιν δºδοσqαι τοÒτοισ τοÂσ νqρâποισ ε¸σ
qυσºαν τíê κω Ζοροβαβελ π’ρχíω ε¸σ ταÒρουσ κα½ κριοÕσ κα½ “ρνασ
: ɵοºωσ δ¥ κα½ πυρÍν κα½ ”λα κα½ οÃνον κα½ £λαιον νδελεχêσ
κατ’ νιαυτÊν καqåσ –ν ο¹ ¹ερεÂσ ο¹ (ν) )Ιερουσαληµ ÑπαγορεÒσωσιν
ναλºσκεσqαι καq’ ©µ¢ραν ναµφισβητªτωσ: : Ìπωσ προσφ¢ρωνται
σπονδα½ τíê qω τíê Ñψºστíω Ñπ¥ρ τοÚ βασιλ¢ωσ κα½ τêν παºδων: κα½
προσεÒχω(ν)ται περ½ τ²σ αÐτêν ζω²σ: : κα½ προστ’ξαι ¼να Ìσοι
•ν παραβêσºν τι τêν γεγραµµ¢νω(ν) κα½ κυρâσωσιν ληµφq²ναι
ξÒλον κ τê(ν) ¸δºων αÐτοÚ κα½ π αÐτοÚ κρεµασq²ναι κα½ τ•
Ñπ’ρχοντα αÐτοÚ εÃναι βασhεiιλικ’: : δι• ταÚτα κα½ É κσ οÜ τÍ
Ëνοµα αÐτοÚ πικ¢κληται κ堐φανºσαι π’ντα βασιλ¢α κα½ £qνοσ
Ïσ κτενε χεÂρα αÐτοÚ κωλÚσαι ® κακοποι²σαι τÍν οÃκον κυ κεÂνον
τÍν ν )Ιερουσαληµ: : γå βασιλεÕσ ∆αρεÂοσ δεδογµ’τικα πιµελêσ
κατ• ταÚτα γºγνεσqαι:

: B κα½ ργυρš … )Ιερουσαληµ πªνεγκεν] RH κα½ τ• ργυρš … )Ιερουσαληµ

κα½παρ πªνεγκεν : B παÂδα κυρºου Ζοροβαβελ Ôπαρχον] RH παÂδα τοÚ
κυρºου Ζοροβαβελ £παρχον : B συνποιêσιν] RH συµποιêσιν : B qυσºαν]
RH qυσºασ : B προστ’ξαι … γεγραµµ¢νων και … π½ αÐτοÚ/ RH προσ¢ταξεν
… προειρηµ¢νων κα½ τêν προσγεγραµµ¢νων ® κα½ … π½ τοÒτου : B χεÂρα …
κυρºου] RH τ­ν χεÂρα … τοÚ κυρºου.
 translation :– 

the first year of the reign of Cyrus, King Cyrus ordered the building of
the house of the Lord that is in Jerusalem, where they make offerings
with perpetual fire; () its height is to be sixty cubits, its width sixty
cubits, with three layers of hewn stone and one layer of new indigenous
timber; the cost is to be paid from the house of Cyrus the King; () and
that the sacred vessels of the Lord’s house, both gold and silver, which
Nabouchodnosor carried off from the house in Jerusalem and deposited
in Babylon, should be restored to the house that is in Jerusalem, to be
kept where they had been.” () Then he ordered Sisinnēs the prefect of
Syria and Phoenicia, and Sathrabuzanēs, and their associates, and those
who were appointed as local officials in Syria and Phoenicia, to keep away
from the place, and to permit Zorobabel, the servant of the Lord and
governor of Judea, and the elders of the Judeans to rebuild this house of
the Lord on its place. () “And I ordered that it be built completely, and
to carefully watch in order that they might assist those who have returned
from the captivity of Judea, until the house of the Lord is finished; ()
and that from the tribute of Coelesyria and Phoenicia a quota of taxes are
carefully arranged to be given to these men, for offerings to the Lord, to
Zorobabel the governor, for bulls and rams and lambs, () and likewise
also wheat and salt and wine and oil, perpetually, every year, without
quarelling, to be consumed for daily use just as the priests in Jerusalem
may indicate, () so that libations may be made to the Most High God
for the king and his servants, and they might offer prayers for their lives.”
() He commanded that if anyone might transgress any of the things
having been written, or attempt to nullify this, a beam should be taken
out of his house, it then shall be hanged upon him, and his property to be
given to the king. () Because of this, may the Lord, whose name is there
invoked, destroy every king and nation that shall stretch out their hands
to prevent or do evil to that house of the Lord that is in Jerusalem. ()
“I, King Darius, have decreed that it be done carefully as here stipulated.”
 text :–

:–
The Rebuilding of the Temple
Flourishes with Royal and Prophetic Oversight
: τÊτε Σισºννησ £παρχοσ Κοºλησ Συρºασ κα½ Φοινhεiºκησ κα½ Σαqρα-
βουζ’νησ κα½ ο¹ συν¢ταιροι κατακολουqªσαντεσ τοÂσ ÑπÍ τοÚ βασιλ¢-
ωσ ∆αρεºου προσταγεÂσιν : πεστ’τουν τêν ¹ερêν £ργων: πιµελ¢στε-
ρον συνεργοÚ(ν)τεσ τοÂσ πρεσβυτ¢ροισ τêν )Ιουδαºων κα½ ¹εροστ’ταισ:
: κα½ εÓοδα γhεiºνετο τ• ¹ερ• £ργα προφητευÊντων Αγγαιου κα½
Ζαχαριου τêν προφητêν: : κα½ συνετ¢λεσαν ταÚτα δι• προστ’γµα-
τοσ τοÚ κυ qυ )Ισραηλ: : κα½ µετ• τ²σ γνâµησ τοÚ ΚÒρου κα½ ∆αρεºου
κα½ )Αρταξ¢ρξου βασιλ¢ωσ Περσêν συνετελ¢σqη É οÃκοσ ¦ωσ τρºτησ κα½
ε¸κ’δοσ µηνÍσ Αδαρ τοÚ ¦κτου £τουσ βασιλ¢ωσ ∆αρεºου: : κα½ ποº-
ησαν ο¹ υ¹ο½ )Ισραηλ κα½ ο¹ ¹ερεÂσ κα½ ο¹ ΛευhεiÂται κα½ ο¹ λοιπο½παρ
ο¹ κ τ²σ α¸χµαλωσºασ ο¹ προστεq¢ντεσ κολοÒqωσ τοÂσ ν τµ² Μωυ-
σ¢ωσ βºβλíω: : κα½ προσªνεγκαν ε¸σ τÍν {γ}καινισµÍν τοÚ ¹εροÚ τοÚ
κυ ταÒρουσ ¡κατÊν: κρhεiιοÕσ διακοσºουσ: “ρνασ τετρακοσºουσ: :
χhεiιµ’ρουσ Ñπ¥ρ ‘µαρτºασ παντÍσ τοÚ )Ισραηλ δâδεκα πρÍσ ριqµÍν
κ τêν φυλ’ρχων τοÚ )Ισραηλ δâδεκα: : κα½ £στησαν ο¹ ¹ερεÂσ κα½ ο¹
ΛευhεiÂται στολισµ¢νοι κατ• φυλ•σ π½παρ τêν £ργων κυ qυ )Ισραηλ
κολοÒqωσ τµ² Μωυσ¢ωσ βºβλíω: κα½ ο¹ qυρωρο½ φ’ ¡κ’στου πυλêνοσ:

:–
The Passover of Zorobabel
: κα½ ¨γ’γοσαν ο¹ υ¹ο½ )Ισραηλ τêν κ τ²σ α¸χµαλωσºασ τÍ πασχα
ν τµ² τεσσαρεσκαιδεκ’τµη τοÚ πρâτου µηνÊσ Ìτε ©γνºσqησα(ν) ο¹
¹ερεÂσ κα½ ο¹ ΛευhεiÂται ”µα : κα½ π’ντεσ ο¹ υ¹ο½ τ²σ α¸χµαλωσºασ
Ìτι ©γνºσqησαν: Ìτι ο¹ ΛευÂται ”µα π’ντεσ ©γνºσqησαν: : κα½παρ
£qυσαν τÍ πασχα πšσιν τοÂσ υ¹οÂσ τ²σ α¸χµαλωσºασ κα½ τοÂσ δελφοÂσ
αÐτêν τοÂσ ¹ερεÚσιν κα½ ¡αυτοÂσ: : κα½ φ’γοσαν ο¹ υ¹ο½ )Ισραηλ ο¹ κ
τ²σ α¸χµαλωσºασ π’ντεσ ο¹ χωρισq¢ντεσ πÍ τê(ν) βδελυγµ’των τêν

: B £παρχοσ] RH É £παρχοσ : B τοÚ ΚÒρου … É οÃκοσ] RH ΚÒρου … É οÃκοσ É

”γιοσ : B κυρºου] RH τοÚ κυρºου. : B Ìτε] RH Ìτι : B Ìτι] RH οÐχ
 translation :– 

:–
The Rebuilding of the Temple
Flourishes with Royal and Prophetic Oversight
() Then Sisinnēs, prefect of Coelesyria and Phoenicia, and Sathrabu-
zanēs, and their associates, following that decreed by King Darius, ()
supervised the sacred works with great care, assisting the elders of the
Judeans and the chief officials of the temple. () The sacred works flour-
ished, while the prophets Haggaios and Zecharios were prophesying;
() and they finished these things through the command of the Lord
God of Israel. () And thus with the knowledge of Cyrus and Darius
and Artaxerxēs, the kings of the Persians, the house was finished by the
twenty-third of the month of Adar, in the sixth year of King Darius. ()
And the sons of Israel and the priests and the Levites, and the rest of
those who returned from captivity who were added to them, did that
which was according to what was written in the book of Mōyses. () They
brought offerings for the consecration of the temple of the Lord one hun-
dred bulls, two hundred rams, four hundred lambs, () and twelve male
goats for the sin of all Israel, corresponding to the number of the twelve
tribal heads of Israel; () and the priests and the Levites stood arrayed
in their vestments, according to tribes, for the works of the Lord God of
Israel in accordance with the book of Mōyses; and the gatekeepers were
at each gate.

:–
The Passover of Zorobabel
() And the sons of Israel, who came from captivity led celebration of
the Passover on the fourteenth of the first month, when the priests and
the Levites were sanctified together. () And all the sons of captivity
were sanctified, because the Levites were all sanctified together, () and
they sacrificed the Passover lamb for all the sons of captivity and for their
brothers the priests and for themselves. () And they ate, the sons of
Israel, who had come from captivity, all who had separated themselves
 text :–:

qνêν τ²σ γ²σ ζητοÚ(ν)τεσ τÍν κν: : κα½ ¨γ’γοσαν τ­ν ¡ορτ­ν τêν
ζÒµων ¡πτ• ©µ¢ρασ εÐφραινʵενοι £ναντι κυ: : Ìτι µετ¢στρεψε(ν)
τ­ν βουλ­ν τοÚ βασιλ¢ωσ )Ασσυρºων π’ αÐτοÕσ κατhεiισχÚσαι τ•σ
χεÂρασ αÐτêν π½ τ• £ργα κυ qυ )Ισραηλ:

:–
Ezra Arrives in Jerusalem
: κα½ µεταγεν¢στεροσ τοÒτων στιν: βασιλεÒοντοσ )Αρταξ¢ρξου τοÚ
βασιλ¢ωσ Περσêν προσ¢βη Εσρασ Αζαραιου τοÚ Ζεχριου τοÚ Χελκιου
τοÚ Σαληµου: : τοÚ Σαδδουλουκου: τοÚ Αχhεiιτωβ τοÚ Αµαρqεºου:
τοÚ Οζhεiιου: τοÚ Βοκκα: τοÚ Αβεισα½: τοÚ Φhεiινεεσ: τοÚ Ελεαζαρ:
τοÚ Ααρων τοÚ πρâτου ¹ερ¢ωσ: : οÜτοσ Εσρασ ν¢βη κ Βαβυλêνοσ
áσ γραµµατεÕσ εÐφυ­σ æν ν τíê Μωυσ¢ωσ νʵíω τíê κδεδοµ¢νíω
ÑπÍ τοÚ qυ τοÚ )Ισραηλ: : κα½ £δωκε(ν) αÐτíê É βασιλεÕσ δÊξα(ν)
εÑρÊντοσ χ’ριν ναντºον αÐτοÚ π½ π’ντα τ• ξιâµατα αÐτοÚ: :
κ(α½) συναν¢βησαν κ τêν υ¹êν )Ισραηλ κα½ τêν ¹ερ¢ων κα½ Λευhεiιτêν
κα½ ¹εροψαλτêν κα½ qυρωρêν κα½ ¹εροδοÒλων ε¸σ )Ιερουσα몵 £τουσ
¡βδʵου βασιλεÒοντοσ )Αρταξ¢ρξου ν τíê π¢µπτíω µηνº: οÜτοσ νιαυτÍσ
É δεÒτεροσ βασιλεÂ: : ξελqÊντοσ γ•ρ κ Βαβυλêνοσ τµ² νουµηνºα τοÚ
πρâτου µηνÍσ παρεγ¢(ν)οτο ε¸σ )Ιερουσα몵 κατ• τ­ν δοqεÂσαν αÐτοÂσ
εÐοδºαν παρ• τοÚ κυ π’ αÐτíê: : É γ•ρ Αψ’ρασ πολλ­ν πιστªµην
περιεÂχεν ε¸σ τÍ µηδ¥(ν) παραλhεiιπεÂν τêν κ τοÚ νʵου κυ κα½ κ τêν
ντολêν π’ντα τÍν )Ισραηλ δικαιâµατα κα½ κρºµατα:

:–
The Letter of Artaxeres
: προσπεσÊντοσ παρ• )Αρταξ¢ρξου βασιλ¢ωσ πρÍσ Εσραν τÍν ¹ερ¢α
κα½ ναγνâστην τοÚ νʵου κυ: οÜ στι(ν) ντºγραφον τÍ Ñποκεºµενον:
: βασιλεÕσ )Αρταξ¢ρξησ Εσρα τíê ¹ερε κα½ ναγνâστµη τοÚ νʵου κυ

: κυρºου B] RH τοÚ κυρºου. : B τοÒτων στιν … τοÚ βασιλ¢ωσ Περσêν … Εσρασ
Αζαραιου τοÚ Ζεχριου] RH τοÒτων … τοÚ Περσêν βασιλ¢ωσ … Εσδρασ Σαραιου
τοÚ Εζεριου : B Σαδδουλουκου … Αµαρqεºου … Αβεισα½] RH Σαδδουκου
… Αµαριου … Αβισουε : B Εσρασ] RH Εσδρασ : B )Ιερουσαληµ … É
δεÒτεροσ βασιλει] RH )ΙεροσÊλυµα … ¦βδοµοσ τíê βασιλε : B ξελqÊντοσ … >
… )Ιερουσα몵] RH ξελqÊντεσ … µηνÍσ ν τµ² νουµηνºα τοÚ π¢µπτου … )ΙεροσÊλυµα
: B Αψ’ρασ … π’ντα τÍν )Ισραηλ] RH Εσδρασ … διδ’ξαι τÍν π’ντα )Ισραηλ. :
B >] RH δ¥ τοÚ γραφ¢ντοσ προστ’γµατοσ : B βασιλ¢ωσ] RH τοÚ βασιλ¢ωσ :–
B Εσραν … Εσρα] RH Εσδραν … Εσδρα
 translation :–: 

from the abominations of the nations of the land and sought the Lord.
() And they kept the feast of unleavened bread seven days, rejoicing
before the Lord, () because he had changed the will of the king of the
Assyrians concerning them, to strengthen their hands for the works of
the Lord God of Israel.

:–
Ezra Arrives in Jerusalem
() And after these things, when Artaxerxēs the king of the Persians
was reigning, Esras came, the son of Azaraias, son of Zechrias, son of
Chelkias, son of Salēmos, () son of Saddouloukos, son of Achitōb, son
of Amartheias, son of Ozias, son of Bokka, son of Abeisai, son of Phinees,
son of Eleazar, son of Aarōn the first priest. () This Ezra came up from
Babylon as a scribe well skilled in the law of Mōyses, which was delivered
by the God of Israel; () and the king gave honor to him, finding grace
before him in all of his worthy petitions. () And there came up with
him some of the sons of Israel and some from the priests and Levites and
temple singers and gatekeepers and temple servants to Jerusalem, in the
seventh year in the reign of Artaxerxēs, in the fifth month (this was the
king’s second year). () For they left Babylon on the new moon of the
first month and arrived in Jerusalem, by the succesful journey that the
Lord gave them. () For Apsaras obtained a vast understanding, that he
omitted nothing from the law of the Lord or from the commandments,
or from all the regulations and judgments for Israel.

:–
The Letter of Artaxeres
A recording from Artaxerxēs the King that was delivered to Esras the
priest and reader of the law of the Lord (this is a copy that is set forth).
() “King Artaxerxēs to Esras the priest and reader of the law of the
 text :–

χαºρειν: : κα½ τ• φιλ’νqρωπα γå κρhεiºνασ προσ¢ταξα τοÕσ βουλο-

µ¢νουσ κ τοÚ £qνουσ τêν )Ιουδαºων α¹ρετºζοντασ κα½ τêν ¹ερ¢ων κ(α½)
τêν Λευhεiιτêν κα½ τê(ν) δ¥ ν τµ² ©µετ¢ρα βασιλεºα συµπορεÒεσqαº σοι
ε¸σ )Ιερουσαληµ: : Ìσοι οÛν νqυµοÚνται συνεξορµ’qωσαν καq’-
περ δ¢δοκται µοº τε κα½ τοÂσ ¡πτ• φºλοισ συµβουλευταÂσ: : Ìπωσ
πισκ¢ψωνται κατ• τ­ν )Ιουδαºαν κ(α½) κατ• )Ιερουσαληµ κολοÒqωσ
íì £χει νʵíω κυ: : κα½ πενεγκεÂν δ(ê)ρα τíê κω — ηÐξ’µην γâ τε
κα½ ο¹ φºλοι ε¸σ )Ιερουσαληµ: κα½ πšν χρυσºον κα½ ργÒριο(ν) Ï •ν
εÑρεqµ² ν τµ² χâρα τ²σ Βαβυλωνºασ τíê κω ε¸σ )Ιερουσαληµ σÕ(ν) τíê
δεδωρηµ¢νíω ÑπÍ τοÚ £qνουσ ε¸σ τÍ ¹ερÍν τοÚ κυ αÐτêν τÍ ν )Ιερου-
σαληµ : συναχq²ναι τÊ τε χρυσºον κα½ ργÒριον ε¸σ ταÒρουσ κα½
κρhεiιοÕσ κα½ “ρνασ κα½ τ• τοÒτοισ κÊλουqα: : äστε προσενεγκεÂν
qυσºασ π½παρ τÍ qυσιαστªριον τοÚ κυρºου αÐτêν τÍ ν )Ιερουσαληµ:
: κα½ π’ντα Ìσα –ν βοÒλµη µετ• τê(ν) δελφêν σου ποι²σαι χρυ-
σºíω κα½ ργυρºíω πιτ¢λει κατ• τÍ q¢ληµα τοÚ qυ σου : κα½ κατ•
τ• ¹ερ• σκεÒη σου τ• διδʵεν’ ε¸σ τ­ν χρεºαν τοÚ ¹εροÚ τοÚ qυ σου
τοÚ ν )Ιερουσαληµ: : κα½παρ τ• λοιπ’ Ìσα –ν Ñποπºπτµη σοι ε¸σ τ­ν
χρεºαν τοÚ ¹εροÚ τοÚ qυ σου δâσεισ κ τοÚ βασιλικοÚ γαζοφυλακºου:
: κα½ εγå ¸δοÕ )Αρταξ¢ρξησ É βασιλεÕσ προσ¢ταξα τοÂσ γαζοφÒλαξι
Συρºασ κ(α½) Φοινhεiºκησ ¼να Ìσα –ν ποστεºλµη Εσδρασ É ¹ερεÕσ κα½
ναγνâστησ τοÚ νʵου τοÚ qυ τοÚ Ñψºστου πιµελêσ διδêσιν αÐτíê
¦ωσ ργυρºου ταλ’ντων ¡κατÊ(ν) : ɵοºωσ δ¥ κα½ ¦ωσ πυροÚ κÊρων
¡κατÍν κα½παρ ο»νου µετρητêν ¡κατÍν: : κατ• τÍν τοÚ qυ νʵον
πιτελεσqªτω τíê qω τíê Ñψºστíω ¦νεκα τοÚ µ­ γεν¢σqαι Èργ­(ν) ε¸σ τ­ν
βασιλεºαν τοÚ βασιλ¢ωσ κα½ τêν υ¹ê(ν)· : κα½ ÑµÂν δ¥ λ¢γεται Ìπωσ
πšσι τοÂσ ¹ερεÚσιν κα½ τοÂσ Λευhεiºταισ κα½ ¹εροψ’λταισ κα½ qυρωροÂσ
κα½ ¹εροδοÒλοισ κα½ πραγµατικοÂσ τοÚ ¹εροÚ τοÒ[του] µηδεµºα φορο-
λογºα µηδ¥ “λλη πιβουλ­ γhεiºνηται: µηδ¢να £χειν ξουσºαν πιβαλεÂν
τοÒτοισ : κα½ σÒ Εσρα κατ• τ­ν σοφºαν τοÚ qυ ν’δειξον κριτ•σ
κα½ δικαστ’σ Ìπωσ δικ’ζωσιν ν Ìλµη Συρºα κα½ Φοινhεiºκµη π’ντασ τοÕσ
πισταµ¢νουσ τÍν νʵον τοÚ qυ σου: κα½ τοÕσ µ­ πισταµ¢νουσ διδ’ξεισ

: B κατ•] RH τ• κατα : B κα½ κατ• )Ιερουσαληµ] RH κα½παρ )Ιερουσαληµ

: B νʵíω κυρºου] RH ν τíê νʵíω τοÚ κυρºου : B >] RH τοÚ )Ισραηλ :
B κα½ κατ• τ• ¹ερ•] RH κα½ τ• ¹ερ• : B σου τ• διδʵεν’] RH τοÚ κυρºου τ•
διδʵεν’ σοι : B κα½ εγå ¸δοÕ] RH κγå δ¥ : B >] RH κα½ ”λα κ πλªqουσ
: B >] RH π’ντα τ• : B >] RH πιµελêσ : B τοÚ] RH τοÒτου :
B γºνηται µηδ¢να £χειν ξουσºαν πιβαλεÂν τοÒτοισ] RH γºγνηται κα½ ξουσºαν µηδ¢να
£χειν πιβαλεÂν τι τοÒτοισ : B Εσρα] RH Εσδρα : B πισταµ¢νουσ διδ’ξεισ]
RH πισταµ¢νουσ δ¥ διδ’ξεισ
 translation :– 

Lord, greetings. () With respect to my benevolent designs, I have given

orders that those who are desirous from the nation of the Judeans and of
the priests, and of the Levites and of those in our kingdom—those who
freely choose to do so—may go with you to Jerusalem. () Therefore,
let as many as are pondering it join with you, just as I and the seven
friends who are my counselors have agreed, () in order that they might
investigate the matters concerning Judea and Jerusalem, in accordance
with what is in the law of the Lord, () and to carry to Jerusalem the gifts
for the Lord that I and my Friends have solemnly vowed; also to obtain
for the Lord in Jerusalem all the gold and silver that may be found in the
region of Babylonia, along with what is being granted by the nation for
the temple of their Lord in Jerusalem, () is to be collected—gold and
silver for bulls and rams and lambs and what goes with them—() so
that sacrificial offerings may be brought upon the altar of their Lord that
is in Jerusalem. () Whatever you and your brothers wish to do with
the gold and silver, undertake it according to the will of your God; ()
deliver the sacred vessels that are given you for the need of the temple
of your God who is in Jerusalem. () And whatever supplication comes
to you for the need of the temple of your God, you will give it from the
royal treasury. () And behold I, King Artaxerxēs, have commanded the
treasurers of Syria and Phoenicia so that whatever Esdras the priest and
reader of the law of the Most High God sends for, they shall carefully give
to him, up to a hundred talents of silver. () And similarly also up to a
hundred cors of wheat and a hundred measures of wine. () In accord
with the law of God let everything be completed for the Most High God,
so that wrath may not come upon the kingdom of the king and his sons.
() And you are also notified that no tribute nor any other imposition
is to be laid upon any of the priests and Levites and temple singers and
gatekeepers and temple servants and officials of this temple, and that no
one has authority to levy these things upon them. () And you, Esras,
according to the wisdom of God, appoint judges and magistrates who
may adjudicate in the whole of Syria and Phoenicia; those who know the
law of your God, shall instruct those who do not know it. () And all
 text :–

: κα½ π’ντεσ Ìσοι •ν παραβαºνωσι κα½ τÍν νʵον τοÚ qυ σου κα½
τοÚ βασιλικοÚ πιµελêσ κολασqªσονται ’(ν) τε κα½ qαν’τíω ’ν τε
κ(α½) τιµωρºα µ­ ργυρºíω ζηµºα: ® παγωγµ²:

:–
Ezra’s Ejaculation of Praise
: εÐλογητÍσ µÊνοσ É κσ É δοÕσ ταÚτα ε¸σ τ­ν καρδºαν µου τοÚ
βασιλ¢ωσ δοξ’σαι τÍν οÃκον αÐτοÚ τÍν ν )Ιερουσαληµ: : κα½
µ¥ τhεiºµησεν £ναντι τêν βασιλευÊντων κα½ π’ντων τêν φºλων
κα½ µεγιστ’ν(ν) αÐτοÚ: : κα½ γå εÐqαρσ­σ γενʵην κατ• τ­(ν)
ντºληµψιν κυ qυ µου κα½ συνªγαγον κ τοÚ )Ισραηλ “νδρασ äστε
συναναβ²ναº µοι:

:–
The List of Returning Exiles
: κα½ οÜτοι ο¹ προηγοÒµενοι κατ• τ•σ πατρι•σ αÐτê(ν) κα½παρ τ•σ
µεριδαρχºασ ο¹ ναβ’ντεσ µετ’ µοÚ κ Βαβυλêνοσ ν τµ² βασιλεºα
)Αρταξ¢ρξου τοÚ βασιλ¢ωσ: : κ τêν υ¹êν Φοροσ Ταροσοτοµοσ:
κ τêν υ¹êν Ιεταµαρου Γαµηλοσ: τêν υ¹êν ∆αυhεiιδ : Φαρ¢σ
Ζαχαριασ: κα½ µετ’ αÐτοÚ πÍ γραφ²σ “νδρεσ ¡κατÍν πεντªκοντα: :
κ τêν Μααqµω’β Ελιαλωνºασ Ζαραιου κα½παρ µετ’ αÐτοÚ “νδρεσ
διακÊσιοι: : κ τêν υ¹êν Ζαqοησ hΕi¸εχονºασ Ιεqηλου κα½ µετ’
αÐτοÚ “νδρεσ διακÊσιοι: τêν υ¹ê(ν) Αδειν ΟÐβην–Ιωναqου κα½παρ
µετ’ αÐτοÚ “νδρεσ διακÊσιοι πεντªκοντα: : κ τêν υ¹êν Λαµ Εσιασ
Γοqολιου κα½ µετ’ αÐτοÚ “νδρεσ ¡βδﵪκοντα: : κ τêν υ¹ê(ν)
Σοφοτιου Ζαραιασ Μhεiιχαηλου κα½ µετ’ αÐτοÚ “νδρεσ ¡βδﵪκο(ν)τα:
: κ τêν υ¹êν Ιωαβ Αβαδιασ Ιεζηλου κα½ µετ’ αÐτοÚ “νδρεσ
διακÊσιοι δ¢κα δÒο: : κ τêν υ¹êν Βανιασ Σαλhεiιµωq Ιωσαφιου

: B κα½ τÍν νʵον] RH τÍν νʵον : B τοÚ βασιλικου] RH τÍν βασιλικÊν :
B µ­ ργυρºíω] RH ® ργυρικµ². : B µου] RH > : B τêν βασιλευÊντων]
RH τοÚ βασιλ¢ωσ κα½ τêν συµβουλευÊντων : B κυρºου qεοÚ] RH κυρºου τοÚ
qεοÚ. : B Φοροσ Ταροσοτοµοσ] RH Φινεεσ Γαρσοµοσ : B τêν υ¹êν
∆αυhεiιδ] RH κ τêν υ¹êν ∆αυιδ : B >] RH Αττουσ É Σεχενιου : B Φαρ¢σ
Ζαχαριασ] RH κ τêν υ¹êν Φοροσ Ζαχαριασ : B Μααqµω’β Ελιαλωνºασ] RH
υ¹êν Φααqµωαβ Ελιαωνιασ : B Ε¸εχονºασ Ιεqηλου] RH Σεχενιασ Ιεζηλου :
B διακÊσιοι] RH τριακÊσιοι : B τêν υ¹êν Αδειν ΟÐβην–Ιωναqου] RH κ τêν
υ¹êν Αδινου Βην–Ιωναqου : B Λαµ Εσιασ] RH Ηλαµ Ιεσιασ : B Σοφοτιου]
RH Σαφατιου
 translation :– 

who transgress the law of your God and the royal law shall be exactingly
punished, whether by death or some other physical punishment, [either]
financial loss or arrest.”

:–
Ezra’s Ejaculation of Praise
() “Blessed be the Lord alone, who placed these things into the heart
of my king, to glorify his house which is in Jerusalem, () and who
honored me before the rulers and all of his Friends and nobles. () I
was heartened by the assistance of the Lord my God, and I gathered men
from Israel to go up with me.”

:–
The List of Returning Exiles
() And these are the leaders, according to their paternal ancestry
and the groups, who went up with me from Babylon, in the reign of
Artaxerxēs the King: () from the sons of Phoros, Tarosotomos. From
the sons of Ietamaros, Gamēlos. Of the sons of Dauid, () Phares,
Zacharias, and with him a hundred and fifty registered men. () From
the sons of Maathmōab, Elialōnias son of Zaraias, and with him two
hundred men. () From the sons of Zathoē, Eiechonias son of Iethēlos,
and with him two hundred men. From the sons of Adeinos, Oubēn
Iōnathos, and with him two hundred and fifty men. () From the sons
of Lam, Esias son of Gotholias, and with him seventy men. () From
the sons of Sophotias, Zaraias son of Michaēlos, and with him seventy
men. () From the sons of Iōab, Abadias son of Iezēlos, and with him
two hundred and twelve men. () From the sons of Banias, Salimōth
 text :–

κα½ µετ’ αÐτοÚ “νδρεσ ¡κατÍν ¡ξªκοντα: : κ τêν υ¹êν Βαιªρ
Ζαχαρια½ Βηµαι κ(α½) µετ’ αÐτοÚ “νδρεσ ε»κοσι Èκτâ: : υ¹ο½ Αστ’q
Ιωανησ Ακαταν κα½ µετ’ αÐτοÚ “νδρεσ ¡κατÍν δ¢κα: : κ τêν υ¹êν
Αδωνιακαιµ ο¹ £σχατοι: κα½ ταÚτα τ• Èνʵατα αÐτê(ν): Ελειφαλα τοÚ
Γεου­λ κα½ Σαµαιασ: κα½ µετ’ αÐτêν “νδρεσ ¡βδﵪκοντα: : κ τêν
υ¹êν Βανα½ου τοÕ Ιστακαλκου κα½ µετ’ αÐτοÚ “νδρεσ ¡βδﵪκοντα:

:–
The Search for Priest and Levites
: κα½ συναγαγåν αÐτοÕσ π½ τÍν λεγʵενον ποταµÊν: κα½ παρενε-
β’λοµεν αÐτÊqι ©µ¢ρασ τρεÂσ: κα½ κατ¢µαqον αÐτοÒσ: : κα½ κ τêν
¹ερ¢ων κα½ κ τêν Λευhεiιτêν οÐχ εÑρåν κε : π¢στειλα πρÍσ Ελε-
αζαρον: κα½ Ιδουηλον: κα½ Μαασµαν: κα½ Ενααταν: κα½ Σαµαιαν: κα½
Ιωριβον: Ναqαν: Ενναταν Ζαχαριαν: κα½ Μεσολαβâν τοÕσ ©γουµ¢-
νουσ κα½ πιστªµονασ : κα½ εÃπα αÐτοÂσ λqεÂν πρÍσ ΛααδαÂον τÍν
©γοÒµενον τÍν ν τíê τÊπíω γαζοφυλακºου : ντειλ’µενοσ αÐτοÂσ
διαλεγ²ναι Λοδαιω. κα½ τοÂσ δελφοÂσ αÐτοÚ κα½παρ τοÂσ ν τíê τÊπíω
γαζοφÒλαξιν ποστεÂλαι ©µÂν τοÕσ ¹ερατεÒσ{ο}ντασ ν τíê ο»κíω τοÚ
κυ ©µêν : “νδρα πιστªµονα τêν υ¹êν Μοολhεiι: τοÚ Λευhεiι τοÚ
)Ισραηλ: Ασεβηβιαν κα½ τοÕσ υ¹οÕσ κα½ τοÕσ δελφοÒσ δ¢κα: : ο¹ κ
τêν υ¹êν Χανουναιου: κα½ ο¹ υ¹ο½ αÐτêν ε»κοσι “νδρεσ: : κα½ κ τêν
¹εροδοÒλων ìν £δωκε(ν) ∆αυhεiιδ κα½παρ ο¹ ©γοÒµενοι ε¸σ τ­ν ργα-
σºαν τêν Λευhεiιτêν ¹ερÊδουλοι διακÊσιοι ε»κοσι: π’ντων σηµ’νqη
Èνοµατογραφºα:

: B Βαιªρ Ζαχαρια½ Βηµαι] RH Βαβι Ζαχαριασ Βηβαι : B υ¹ο½ Αστ’q] RH
κ τêν υ¹êν Ασγαq : B Αδωνιακαιµ … Ελειφαλα τοÚ Γεου­λ] RH Αδωνικαµ
… Ελιφαλατοσ Ιεουηλ : B Βανα½ου τοÕ Ιστακαλκου] RH Βαγο Ουqι É τοÚ
Ισταλκουρου. : B συναγαγåν] RH συνªγαγον : B >] RH Θεραν :
B κ τêν ¹ερ¢ων] RH κ τêν υ¹êν τêν ¹ερ¢ων : B Ενααταν … Μεσολαβâν] RH
Ελναταν … Μεσολαµον : B ΛααδαÂον] RH Αδδαιον : B γαζοφυλακºου]
RH τοÚ γαζοφυλακºου : B Λοδαιω] RH Αδδαιω : B >] RH κα½ «γαγον
©µÂν κατ• τ­ν κραται•ν χεÂρα τοÚ κυρºου ©µêν : B “νδρα πιστªµονα] RH
“νδρασ πιστªµονασ : B δ¢κα] RH δ¢κα Èκτω : B >] RH κα½ Ασεβιαν κα½
Αννουνον κα½ Ωσαιαν δελφÍν : B ο¹] RHi : B ε»κοσι “νδρεσ] RH “νδρεσ
ε»κοσι : B >] RH ©.
 translation :– 

son of Iōsaphias, and with him a hundred and sixty men. () From the
sons of Baiēr, Zachariai son of Bēmai, and with him twenty-eight men.
() The sons of Astath, Iōanēs son of Hakatan, and with him a hundred
and ten men. () From the sons of Adōniakaim, the last ones, and these
men their names were Eleiphala son of Geouēl, and Samaias, and with
them seventy men. () From the sons of Banaios, the son of Istakalkos,
and with him seventy men.

:–
The Search for Priest and Levites
() And gathering them together at the place called “River,” and we
made camp there for three days, and I scrutinized them. () And when
I found there none of the priests or even the Levites, () I sent word
to Eleazaros and Idouēlos and Maasmas and Enaatan and Samaias and
Iōribos, Nathan, Ennatan, Zacharias, and Mesolabōs, who were leaders
and men of intellect. () And I told them to go to Laadaios, who was
the leading official at the location of the treasury, () and ordered them
to discuss with Lodaios and his brothers and those in the location of
the treasury to send for us those that serve as priests in the house of
our Lord. () Learned men from the sons of Mooli son of Leuvi, son of
Israel, namely Asebēbias with his sons and brothers numbering ten. ()
Those from the sons of Chanounaios, and their sons, twenty men; ()
and of the temple servants, whom Dauid and the leaders had given for
the ministry of the Levites, two hundred and twenty temple servants; a
name list of all was recorded.
 text :–

:–
The Journey to Jerusalem
: κα½ εÐξ’µην κε νηστεºαν τοÂσ νεανºσκοισ £ναντι κυ ©µêν :
ζητ²σαι παρ’ αÐτοÚ εÐοδºαν ©µÂν τε κα½ τοÂσ τ¢κνοισ ©µêν κα½
κτªνεσιν: : νετρ’πην γ•ρ ¹ππεÂσ και πεζοÕσ προποµπ­(ν) ¦νεκεν
σφαλεºασ τ²σ πρÍσ τοÕσ ναντºουσ ©µÂν: : ε»παµεν γ•ρ τíê βασιλεÂ
Ìτι ¸σχÕσ τοÚ κυ ©µêν £σται µετ• τêν πιζητοÒντων αÐτÍν ε¸σ πšσαν
πανÊρqωσιν: : κα½ π’λιν δεªqηµεν τοÚ κυ ©µêν π’ντα ταÚτα:
κα½ τÒχοµεν εÐιλ’του: : κα½ χâρισα τêν φυλ’ρχων τêν ¹ερ¢ων
“νδρασ δ¢κα δÒο: κα½ Εσερεβιαν κα½ Ασσαµ½(ν) κα½ µετ’ αÐτêν κ
τê(ν) δελφêν αÐτêν “νδρεσ δ¢κα: : κα½παρ £στησα αÐτοÂσ τÍ
ργÒριον κ(α½) τÍ χρυσºον κα½ τ• ¹ερ• σκεÒη τοÚ ο»κου του κυ ©µêν:
οÔτωσ δωρªσατο É βασιλεÕσ κα½ ο¹ σÒµβουλοι αÐτοÚ κ(α½) µεγιστšνεσ
κα½ πšσ )Ισραηλ: : κα½ παρ¢δωκε(ν) αÐτο{Â}σ στªσασ τ’λα(ν)τα
ργυρºου ¡ξακÊσια πεντªκοντα: κα½ σκεÒη ργυρš ταλ’ντων ¡κατÍν:
κα½ χρυσºου τ’λαντων ¡κατÍν: χρυσâµατα ε»κοσι: κα½ σκεÒη χαλκš
πÍ χαλκοÚ χρηστοÚ στºλβο(ν)τα σκεÒη δ¢κα: : κα½παρ εÃπα αÐτοÂσ:
κα½ ÑµεÂσ ”γιοº στε τíê κω: κα½ τ• σκεÒη τ• ”για: κα½ τÍ ργÒριον
κα½ τÍ χρυσºον εÐχ­ τíê κω κω τê(ν) πατ¢ρων ©µêν: : γρυπνεÂτε
κα½ φυλ’σσετε ¦ωσ τοÚ παραδοÚναι αÐτ• ѵšσ τοÂσ φυλ’ρχοισ τêν
¹ερ¢ω(ν) κα½ τêν Λευhεiιτêν κ(α½) τοÂσ ©γουµ¢νοισ τê(ν) πατριêν τοÚ
)Ισραηλ ν )Ιερουσαληµ: ν τοÂσ παστοφορºοισ τοÚ ο»κου τοÚ κυ ©µêν:
: κα½παρ ο¹ παραλαβÊντεσ ο¹ ¹ερεÂσ κα½ ο¹ ΛευhεiÂται τÍ ργÒριον
κα½ τÍ χρυσºον κα½ τ• σκεÒη τ• ν )Ιερουσαληµ «νεγκαν ε¸σ τÍ ¹ερÍν
τοÚ κυ: : κα½ ναζεÒξαντεσ πÍ τοÚ τοπου Θερα τµ² δωδεκ’τµη τοÚ
πρâτου µηνÍσ ¦ωσ «λqοσαν ε¸σ )Ιερουσαληµ κατ• τ­ν κραται•ν χεÂρα
τοÚ κυ ©µêν τ­ν φ’ ©µÂν: κα½ ρ[ρ]Òσατο ©µšσ πÍ τ²σ ε¸σÊδου πÍ
παντÍσ χqροÚ: κα½ ³λqεν ε¸σ )Ιερουσαληµ: : κα½ γενοµ¢νησ αÐτÊqι

: B Κυρºου] RH τοÚ Κυρºου : B >] RH συνοÚσιν ©µÂν : B >] RH α¸τ²σαι
τÍν βασιλ¢α πεζοÒσ τε και : B ¹ππεÂσ και πεζοÕσ] RH πεζοÒσ τε και ¹ππεÂσ :
B ναντºουσ] RH ναντιουµ¢νουσ : B π’ντα ταÚτα κα½ τÒχοµεν εÐιλ’του] RH
κατ• ταÚτα κα½ εÐιλ’του τÒχοµεν : B Εσερεβιαν κα½ Ασσαµιαν] RH Σερεβιαν
κα½παρ Ασαβιαν : B οÔτωσ] RH — αÐτÍσ : B µεγιστšνεσ] RH ο¹ µεγιστšνεσ
: B παρ¢δωκεν αÐτοÂσ στªσασ τ’λαντα ργυρºου] RH στªσασ παρ¢δωκα αÐτοÂσ
ργυρºου τ’λαντα : B τ’λαντων ¡κατÍν χρυσâµατα] RH τ’λαντα ¡κατÍν κα½
χρυσâµατα : B χαλκοÚ χρηστοÚ στºλβοντα σκεÒη δ¢κα] RH χρηστοÚ χαλκοÚ
στºλβοντα χρυσοειδ² σκεÒη δâδεκα : B τ• ”για] RH ”για : B «νεγκαν]
RH ε¸σªνεγκαν : B τÊπου] RH ποταµοÚ : B ¦ωσ «λqοσαν] RH ε¸σªλqοµεν
: B πÍ] RH πι : B ³λqεν] RH «λqοµεν
 translation :– 

:–
The Journey to Jerusalem
() Then I vowed there a fast for the young men before our Lord, ()
to seek from him a succesful journey for us, our children and livestock.
() For I was ashamed [to ask] for cavalry and infantry as an escort
for security from those opposed to us; () for we had said to the king,
“The strength of our Lord will be with those who seek him, for every
restoration.” () And again we petitioned our Lord unto all these things,
and we obtained mercy. () And I set apart twelve of the tribal leaders of
the priests, Eserebias and Hassamias, and ten of their brothers with them;
() and I weighed out for them the silver and the gold and the sacred
vessels of the house of our Lord, in the manner that the king himself and
his advisors and nobles and all Israel had given. () And I delivered and
weighed for them six hundred and fifty talents of silver and silver vessels
worth a hundred talents and a hundred talents of gold, and twenty golden
bowls, and ten refined bronze vessels that glittered. () And I said to
them, “You are holy to the Lord, and the vessels are holy, and the silver
and the gold are solemnly vowed to the Lord, the Lord of our ancestors.
() Be watchful and on guard until you deliver them to the tribal leaders
of the priests and the Levites, and to the heads of the ancestral houses of
Israel, in Jerusalem, in the inner chambers of the house of our Lord.”
() And the priests and the Levites receiving the silver and the gold
and the vessels brought them to the temple of the Lord in Jerusalem.
() And leaving from the place Theras on the twelfth day of the first
month, until they arrived in Jerusalem according to the mighty hand of
our Lord, which was upon us; he rescued us from the journey from every
enemy, and [they] came to Jerusalem. () And after being in that place
 text :–

©µ¢ρασ τρºτησ σταq¥ν τÍ ργÒριον κα½ τÍ χρυσºον παρεδÊqη ν τíê

ο»κíω κυ Μαρµωqι Ουρhεiια ¹ερεÂ: : κα½ µετ’ αÐτοÚ Ελεαζαρ É τοÚ
Φhεiινεεσ: κα½ ³σαν µετ’ αÐτêν Ιωσαβεεσ )ΙησοÚσ κα½ Μωεq Σαβαννου
ο¹ ΛευhεiÂται: πρÍσ ριqµÍν κα½ Éλκ­ν παντα: κα½ γρ’φη πšσα ©
Éλκ­ αÐτµ² τµ² äρα: : ο¹ δ¥ παραγενʵενοι κ τ²σ α¸χµαλωσºασ
προσªνεγκαν qυσºασ τíê qω τοÚ )Ισραηλ κω νενªκοντα ¦ξ “ρνασ:
¡βδﵪκοντα ¦ξ τρ’γουσ: Ñπ¥ρ σωτηρºου δ¢κα δÒο: ”παντα qυσºαν τíê
κω: : κα½ π¢δωκαν τ• προστ’γµατα τοÚ βασιλ¢ωσ τοÂσ βασιλικοÂσ
ο¸κονʵοισ κα½ τοÂσ π’ρχοισ Συρºασ κα½ Φοινhεiºκησ: κα½ δÊξασαν τÍ
£qνοσ κα½ τÍ ¹ερÍν τοÚ κυ:

:–
The Reports of Mixed Marriages
: κ(α½) [τοÒ]των τελεσq¢ντων προσªλqοσ’ν µοι ο¹ ©γοÒµενοι λ¢γον-
τεσ: : οÐκ χâρισαν κα½ ο¹ “ρχοντεσ κα½ ο¹ ¹ερεÂσ κ(α½) ο¹ ΛευhεiÂται
κα½ λλογεν² £qνη τ²σ γ²σ καqαρσºασ αÐτêν: Χαναναºων κα½ Χετ-
ταºων κα½ Φερεζαºων κα½ Ιεβουσαºων κα½ Μωαβιτêν κα½ Α¸γυπτºων
κ(α½) )Ιδουµαºων: : ξυνíâκισαντασ τêν qυγατ¢ρων αÐτêν κα½ αÐτο½
κα½ ο¹ υ¹ο½ αÐτêν: κα½παρ πεµºγη τÍ σπ¢ρµα τÍ ”γιον ε¸σ τ• λλογεν²
£qνη τ²σ γ²σ: κα½ µετεÂχον ο¹ προηγοÒµενοι κα½παρ ο¹ µεγιστšνεσ τ²σ
νοµºασ ταÒτησ πÍ τ²σ ρχ²σ τοÚ πρ’γµατοσ:

:–
Ezra’s Penitential Prayer
: κα½ ”µα τíê κοÚσαº µε ταÚτα £ρρηξα τ• ¹µ’τια κα½ τ­ν ¹ερ•(ν)
σq²τα κατ¢τεινον τοÚ τριχâµατοσ τ²σ κεφαλ²σ κα½ τοÚ πâγωνοσ:
κα½παρ κ’qισα σÒννουσ κα½ περºλυποσ: : κα½ πισυνªχqησαν πρÊσ
µε Ìσοι ποτ¥ πεκhεiινοÚντο τíê üªµατι κυ τοÚ )Ισραηλ µοÚ πενqοÚντοσ
π½ τµ² νοµºα: κα½ καqªµην περºλυποσ ¦ωσ τ²σ δειλιν²σ qυσºασ: :
κα½ ξεγερqε½σ κ τ²σ νηστεºασ διερρηγµ¢να £χων τ• ¹µ’τια κα½ τ­ν
¹ερ•ν σq²τα: κ’µψασ τ• γÊνατα κα½ κτεºνασ τ•σ χεÂρασ πρÍσ τÍν

: B κυρºου] RH τοÚ κυρºου ©µêν : B Ιωσαβεεσ )ΙησοÚσ] RH Ιωσαβδοσ )ΙησοÚ
: B παντα] RH ”παντα : B >] RH αÐτêν : B >] RH ταÒρουσ δâδεκα
Ñπ¥ρ παντÍσ )Ισραηλ κριοÕσ : B ¦ξ] RH δÒο : B >] RH Κοºλησ. : B
>] RH τÍ £qνοσ τοÚ )Ισραηλ : B κα½] RH τ• : B καqαρσºασ] RH κα½ τ•σ
καqαρσºασ : B ξυνíâκισαντασ] RH συνíâκησαν γ•ρ µετ•. : B £ρρηξα] RH
δι¢ρρηξα : B κατ¢τεινον] RH κα½ κατ¢τιλα
 translation :– 

three days, the silver and the gold were weighed and placed in the house
of the Lord to Marmōthi son of Ourias the priest; () and with him
was Eleazar son of Phinees, and with them were Iōsabees son of Iēsous
and Mōeth son of Sabannos the Levites. All of the vessels were counted
and weighed, and the total weight was recorded in that very hour. ()
And those who had returned from captivity offered sacrifices to the Lord
God of Israel, ninety-six lambs, seventy-six male goats, and twelve as
a peace offering—all as a sacrifice to the Lord. () They delivered the
commands of the king to the royal stewards and to the prefects of Syria
and Phoenicia; and they gave homage to the nation and the temple of the
Lord.

:–
The Reports of Mixed Marriages
() After these things were completed, the leaders came to me saying,
() “The rulers and the priests and the Levites have not separated them-
selves from the foreign nations of the land and from their impurities, the
Chananites, the Chettites, the Pherezites, the Iebousites, the Mōabities,
the Aigyptians, and the Idoumites. () For they and their sons have mar-
ried their daughters, and the holy seed has been contaminated with the
foreign nations of the land; and the leaders and the nobles have been
sharing in this lawless practice from the beginning of the matter.”

:–
Ezra’s Penitential Prayer
() As soon as I heard about these things I ripped open my garments
and my sacred vestment, and pulled out the hair of [my] head and beard,
and sat down meloncholic and griefstricken. () And they gathered
around me, as many as were moved by the word of the Lord of Israel,
while grieving upon this lawlessness, I sat griefstricken until the evening
sacrifice. () And after being roused from the fast, with garments and
sacred vestments still ripped, and kneeling down and stretching out
 text :–

κν £λεγο(ν) : κε: µ«σχυµµαι: ντ¢τραµµαι κατ• πρÊσωπÊν σου: :

α¹ γ•ρ ‘µαρτºαι ©µêν πλεÊνασαν Ñπ¥ρ τ•σ κεφαλ•σ ©µêν: α¹ δ¥παρ
“γνοιαι ©µê(ν) Ñπερªνεγκαν ¦ωσ τοÚ οÐρανοÚ : πÍ τêν χρÊνων
τêν πατ¢ρων ©µêν: καº σµεν ν µεγ’λµη ‘µαρτºα ¦ωσ τ²σ ©µ¢ρασ
ταÒτησ: : κα½ δι• τ•σ ‘µαρτºασ ©µê(ν) κα½ τêν πατ¢ρων ©µê(ν)
παρεδÊqηµεν σÕν τοÂσ δελφοÂσ ©µê(ν) σÕν τοÂσ βασιλεÚσιν ©µêν
κα½ σÕν τοÂσ ¹ερεÚσιν ©µêν τοÂσ βασιλευhουiσιν τ²σ γ²σ: üοµφαºαν
κα½ α¸χµαλωσºαν κα½ προνοµ­(ν) µετ• α¸σχÒνησ µ¢χρι τ²σ σªµερον
©µ¢ρασ: : κα½ νÚν κατ• πÊσον τι ©µÂν γενªqη £λεοσ παρ• τοÚ
κυ κυ: καταλ{ε}ιφq²ναι ©µÂν üºζα(ν) κα½ Ëνοµα ν τíê τÊπíω τοÒτω.
‘γι’σµατÊσ: : κα½ τοÚ νακαλÒψαι φωστ²ρα ©µêν ν τíê ο»κíω τοÚ
κυ ©µêν: δοÚναι ©µÂν τροφ­ν ν τíê καιρíê τ²σ δουλεºασ ©µêν :
κα½ ν τíê δουλεÒειν ©µšσ οÐκ {γ}κατελεºφqηµεν ÑπÍ τοÚ κυ ©µêν:
λλ• ποºησεν ©µšσ ν χ’ριτι νâπιον τêν βασιλ¢ων Περσêν: :
δοÚναι ©µÂν τροφ­ν κα½ δοξ’σαι τÍ ¹ερÍν ©µêν: κα½ γεÂραι τ­ν £ρηµον
Σhεiιων: δοÚναι ©µÂν στερ¢ωµα ν τµ² )Ιουδαºα κα½ )Ιερουσαληµ: :
κα½ νÚν τº ροÚµεν κε £χοντεσ αÐτ’; παρ¢βησαν τ• προστ’γµατ’ σου
— £δωκασ ν χειρ½ τêν παºδων σου τêν προφητêν: λ¢γων Ìτι : © γ²
ε¸σ ¯ν ε¸σ¢ρχεσqε κληρονοµ²σαι £στιν γ² µεµολυσµ¢νη µολυσµíê τêν
λλογενêν τ²σ γ²σ: κα½ τ²σ καqαρσºασ αÐτê(ν) ν¢πλησαν αÐτªν:
: κ(α½) νÚν τ•σ qυγατ¢ρασ ѵêν µ­ συνοικºσητε τοÂσ υ¹οÂσ αÐτêν:
κα½ τ•σ qυγατ¢ρασ αÐτê(ν) µ­ λ’βητε τοÂσ υ¹οÂσ ѵêν: : κα½παρ
οÐ ζητªσετε ε¸ρηνεÚσαι τ• πρÍσ αÐτοÕσ τÍν ”παντα χρÊνον: ¼να
¸σχÒσαντεσ φ’γητε τ• γαq• τ²σ γ²σ κα½παρ κατακληρονﵪσητε
τοÂσ υ¹οÂσ ѵêν ¦ωσ α¸êνοσ: : κα½ τ• συµβαºνοντα π’ντα ©µÂν
γhεiºνεται δι• τ• £ργα ©µêν τ• πονηρ• κα½ τ•σ µεγ’λασ ‘µαρτºασ: :
σÕ γ’ρ κε É κοÒφισασ τ•σ ‘µαρτºασ ©µêν £δωκασ ©µÂν τοιαÒτην üºζαν:
π’λιν νεκ’µψαµεν παραβ²ναι τÍν νʵο(ν) σου ε¸σ τÍ πιµιγ²ναι τµ²
καqαρσºα τêν qνê(ν) τ²σ γ²σ: : οÐχ½παρ àργºσqησ ©µÂν πολ¢σαι
©µšσ ¦ωσ τοÚ µ­ καταλιπεÂ(ν) üºζαν κα½ σπ¢ρµα κα½ Ëνοµα {©µêν: :
κε} τοÚ )Ισραηλ ληqινÍσ εÃ: κατελ{ε}ºφqηµε(ν) γ•ρ üºζα ν τµ² σªµερον:
: ¸δοÕ σµεν νâπιÊν σου ν ταÂσ νοµºαισ ©µêν: οÐ γ•ρ £στιν στ²ναι
£τι £µπροσq¢ν σου π½ τοÒτοισ:

: B >] RH κα½ : B βασιλευουσιν] RH βασιλευσιν : B >] RH ε¸σ :
B ©µÂν γενªqη] RH γενªqη ©µÂν : B τοÚ κυρºου Κυρºου] RH σοÚ κÒριε :
B τοÒτíω ‘γι’σµατÊσ] RH τοÚ ‘γι’σµατÊσ σου : B >] RH τοÚ κυρºου :
B αÐτ’] RH ταÚτα : B παρ¢βησαν] RH παρ¢βηµεν γ•ρ : B γºνεται] RH
γºγνεται : B >] RH ©µêν : B É κοÒφισασ] RH κοÒφισασ : B >] RH
κα½ : B >] RH νÚν.
 translation :– 

hands to the Lord, I spoke: () “O Lord, I am ashamed and mortified

before your face. () For our sins have risen over our heads, and our
ignorance has climbed up to heaven () from the times of our ancestors,
and we are in great sin unto this day. () On account of our sins and that
of our ancestors, we with our brothers with our kings and our priests were
delivered over to the kings of the land, [to] sword and exile and sacked,
and consigned to shame unto this very day. () And now how great has
been the mercy that has come to us from the Lord of Lordship, to leave
to us a root and a name in this holy place, () and to unveil a luminous
star for us in the house of our Lord, and to give us food in the time of
our slavery. () Even while in slavery, we were not utterly cut off by our
Lord, but he acted towards us in grace before the kings of the Persians,
() so that they gave us food and honoured our temple, and raised the
ruins of Zion, to give us a foothold in Judea and Jerusalem. () And now,
what will we say, O Lord, when we have these things? They transgressed
your commandments, which you gave by the hand of your servants the
prophets, saying that () ‘The land which you are entering to inherit
is a land contaminated with the contamination of the foreigners of the
land, and they have filled it with their impurities. () And now, do not
join your daughters in marriage to their sons, and do not receive their
daughters for your sons; () do not seek to make a peace with them
at any time, in order that you may prevail and eat the good things of the
land and bestow it as an inheritance for your sons unto the age.’ () And
all that has happened to us and transpired on account of our evil works
and great sins. () For you, Lord, are the one lightening the load of our
sins, and you have given us such a root as this; but again we turned away
to violate your law by intermarrying with the impurities of the nations
of the land. () Were you not sufficiently angry with us to destroy us
without leaving a root and seed and our name? () O Lord of Israel,
truthful you are; for we are left as a root in this day. () Behold, we are
before you in our lawlessness; for we cannot yet stand before you due to
these things.”
 text :–:

:–
The Contrition of the People and Their Oath
: κα½ Ìτε προσευχʵενοσ Εσρασ νqωµολογεÂτο κλαºων χαµαιπετ­σ
£µπροσqεν τοÚ ¹εροÚ πισυνªχqησαν πρÍσ αÐτÍν πÍ )Ιερουσαληµ
Ëχλοσ πολÕσ σφÊδρα “νδρεσ κα½ γυναÂκεσ νεανºαι κλαυqµÍσ γ•ρ ³ν
µ¢γασ ν τíê πλªqει: : κα½παρ φωνªσασ Ιεχονιασ Ιεηλου τêν υ¹êν
)Ισραηλ εÃπεν: Εσρα: ©µεÂσ ©µ’ρτοµεν ε¸σ τÍν κν: κα½ κατíâκησαν
γυναÂκεσ λλογενεÂσ κ τê(ν) qνêν τ²σ γ²σ κα½ νÚ(ν) στιν π’νω πšσ
)Ισραηλ: : ν τοÒτíω γεν¢σqω ©µÂν Éρκωµοσºα πρÍσ τÍν κν κβαλεÂν
π’σασ τ•σ γυναÂκασ ©µêν τ•σ κ τêν λλογενêν σÕ(ν) τοÂσ τ¢κνοισ
αÐτêν áσ κρºqη σοι: κα½ Ìσοι π{ε}ιqαρχªσουσιν τοÚ νʵου τοÚ κυ
: ναστ•σ πιτ¢λει: πρÍσ σ¥ γ•ρ τÍ πρšγµα: κα½ ©µεÂσ µετ• σοÚ
¸σχÕν ποιεÂν: : κα½ ναστ•σ Εσρασ äρκισε(ν) τοÕσ φυλ’ρχουσ τêν
¹ερ¢ων κα½ τêν Λευhεiιτêν παντÍσ τοÚ )Ισραηλ ποι²σαι κατ• ταÚτα
κ(α½) ãµοσαν:

:–
The Proclamation of a Gathering
: κα½ ναστ•σ Εσρασ πÍ τ²σ αÐλ²σ τοÚ ¹εροÚ πορεÒqη ε¸σ τÍ
παστοφÊριον Ιωνα τοÚ Νασειβου: : κα½ αÐλισqε½{σ} κε “ρτου οÐκ
γεÒσατο οÐδ¥ Ôδωρ £πιεν πενqêν Ñπ¥ρ τê(ν) νοµιêν τêν µεγ’λω(ν)
τοÚ πλªqουσ: : κα½παρ γ¢νετο κªρυγµα ν Ìλµη τµ² )Ιουδαºα κα½ )Ιε-
ρουσαληµ πšσι τοÂσ κ τ²σ α¸χµαλωσºασ συναχq²ναι ε¸σ )Ιερουσαληµ:
: κ(α½) Ìσοι –ν µ­ παντªσουσιν ν δυσ½ν ® τρισ½ν ©µ¢ραισ κατ• τÍ
κρºµα τêν προκαqηµ¢νων πρεσβυτ¢ρων νιερωqªσονται τ• κτªνη αÐ-
τêν: κα½ αÐτÍσ λλοτριωqªσεται πÍ τοÚ πλªqουσ τ²σ α¸χµαλωσºασ:

:–
The Gathering and Resolution at Jerusalem
: κα½ πισυνªχqησαν ο¹ κ τ²σ φυλ²σ )Ιουδα κα½ Βενιαµι(ν) ν
τρισ½ν ©µ¢ραισ ε¸σ )Ιερουσαληµ: οÜτοσ É µ­ν £νατοσ τµ² ε¸κ’δι τοÚ

: B Εσρασ] RH Εσδρασ : B γυναÂκεσ νεανºαι] RH γυναÂκεσ κα½ νεανºαι :
B Εσρα] RH Εσδρα : B κατíâκησαν] RH συνíωκºσαµεν : B π’νω πšσ] RH
λπ½σ τíê : B πειqαρχªσουσιν τοÚ νʵου] RH πειqαρχοÚσιν τíê νʵω : B
Εσρασ] RH Εσδρασ : B τêν] RH >. : B Εσρασ … Ιωνα τοÚ Νασειβου] RH
Εσδρασ … Ιωαναν τοÚ Ελιασιβου.
 translation :–: 

:–
The Contrition of the People and Their Oath
() And when Esras, praying, made his confession, weeping on the
ground before the temple, there gathered around from him Jerusalem
an exceedingly large crowd of men and women, youths; for there was
great weeping among the multitude. () Then Iechonias son of Ieēlos of
the sons of Israel, cried out and said to Esras, “We have sinned against
the Lord, and they have cohabited with foreign women from the nations
of the land; even now it is consuming all of Israel. () In this let us swear
an oath to the Lord, to cast out all of our wives, those who are foreigners,
with their children, as seems right to you and to as many who obey the
law of the Lord. () And rise up and complete it, for it is your task, and
we are with you to undertake strong action.” () Then Esras rose up
and made the leaders of the priests and Levites of all Israel swear to act
appropriately on this, and they declared an oath.

:–
The Proclamation of a Gathering
() And Esras rose up and went out from the court of the temple to the
inner chamber of Iōna son of Naseibos, () and staying the night there,
he did not eat bread nor drink water, as he was mourning for the great
lawlessness of the multitude. () And an edict was issued throughout
the whole of Judea and Jerusalem to all those who had returned from
captivity that they should assemble at Jerusalem, () and that as many
who did not meet there within two or three days, according to the
judgment of the presiding elders, their livestock would be devoted to
sacrifice and the men themselves will be alienated from the multitude
of those who had returned from captivity.

:–
The Gathering and Resolution at Jerusalem
() And the men from the tribe of Judah and Benjamin gathered at
Jerusalem in three days; this was the ninth month, on the twentieth day
 text :–

µηνÊσ: : κα½ συνεκ’qισαν πšν τÍ πλ²qοσ ν τµ² εÐρυχâρíω τοÚ ¹εροÚ
τρ¢µοντεσ τÍν νεστêτα χειµêνα: : κα½ ναστ•σ Εσρασ εÃπεν αÐτοÂσ
ѵεÂσ ¨νﵪσατε: κα½ συνοικησατε γυναιξ½ν λλογεν¢σιν: προσqεÂναι
‘µαρτºαν τíê )Ισραηλ: : κα½ νÚν δÊτε ɵολογºαν δÊξαν τíê κω qω τêν
πατ¢ρων ©µêν: : κα½ ποιªσατε τÍ q¢ληµα αÐτοÚ: κα½ χωρºσqητε πÍ
τêν qνê(ν) τ²σ γ²σ κα½ πÍ τêν λλογενêν: : κα½ φâνησαν πšν
τÍ πλ²qοσ κα½ εÃπον µεγ’λµη τµ² φωνµ²: οÔτωσ áσ ε»ρηκασ ποιªσοµεν:
: λλ• τÍ πλ²qοσ πολÕ: κα½παρ äρα χειµερινª: κα½ οÐκ ¸σχÒσοµεν
στ²ναι α»qριοι κα½ οÐχ εÔροµε(ν): κα½ τÍ £ργον ©µÂν οÐκ £στιν ©µ¢ρασ
µιšσ οÐδ¥ δÒο: π½ πλεÂον γ•ρ ©µ’ρτοµεν ν τοÒτοισ: : στªτωσαν
δ¥ ο¹ προηγοÒµενοι τοÚ πλªqουσ κα½ π’ντεσ ο¹ κ τêν κατοικιêν
©µêν Ìσοι £χουσιν γυναÂκασ λλογενεÂσ παραγενηqªτωσαν λαβÊντεσ
χρÊνον: : ¡κ’στου τÊπου τοÕσ πρεσβυτ¢ρουσ κα½ τοÕσ κριτ•σ ¦ωσ
τοÚ λÚσαι τ­ν Èργ­ν κυ φ’ ©µê(ν) τοÚ πρ’γµατοσ τοÒτου: :
Ιωναqασ Αζαηλου: κα½ Εζειασ Θοκανου πεδ¢ξαντο κατ• ταÚτα: κα½
Μοσολλαµοσ κα½ Λευhεiισ κα½παρ Σαββαταιοσ συνεβρ’βευσαν αÐτοÂσ:
: κα½ ποºησαν κατ• π’(ν)τα ταÚτα ο¹ κ τ²σ α¸χµαλωσºασ: :
κα½ πελ¢ξατο αÐτíê Εσρασ É ¹ερεÕσ “νδρασ ©γουµ¢νουσ τêν πατριêν
αÐτêν π’ντασ κατ’ Ëνοµα: κα½ συνεκλεºσqησαν τµ² νουµηνºα τοÚ µηνÍσ
τοÚ δεκ’του τ’σαι τÍ πρšγµα: : κα½ «χqη π½παρ π¢ρασ τ• κατ•
τοÕσ “(ν)δρασ τοÕσ πισυναχq¢ντασ γυναÂκασ λλογενεÂσ ¦ωσ τ²σ
νουµηνºασ τοÚ πρâτου µηνÊσ:

:–
List of Those Taking Foreign Wives
: κα½ εÑρ¢qησαν τê(ν) ¹ερ¢ων ο¹ πισυναχq¢(ν)τεσ: λλογενεÂσ
γυναÂκασ £χοντεσ : κ τêν υ¹êν )ΙησοÚ τοÚ Ιωσεδεκ κα½ τêν
δελφê(ν) αÐτοÚ: Μαεªλασ κα½ Ελεαζαροσ κα½ Ιωριβοσ κα½ Ιωδανοσ:
: κα½ π¢βαλον τ•σ χεÂρασ κβαλεÂν τ•σ γυναÂκασ αÐτêν: κα½ ε¸σ
ξhεiιλασµÍν κρhεiιοÕσ Ñπ¥ρ τ²σ γνοºασ αÐτêν: : κα½ κ τêν υ¹êν
Εµηρ Ανανιασ κα½ Ζαβδαιοσ κ(α½) Μανησ κα½ Θαµαιοσ κα½ Ιερε­λ

: B >] RH δι’ : B Εσρασ] RH Εσδρασ : B συνοικησατε γυναιξ½ν

λλογεν¢σιν] RH συνíωκºσατε γυναÂκασ λλογενεÂσ του : B >] RH τêν γυναικêν
: B πšν] RH ”παν : B >] RH © : B ¸σχÒσοµεν] RH ¸σχÒοµεν : B
¡κ’στου] RH κα½ ¡κ’στου δ¥ : B κυρºου] RH τοÚ κυρºου : B Εζειασ] RH
Ιεζιασ : B αÐτíê Εσρασ] RH ¡αυτíê Εσδρασ : B π’ντασ κατ’ Ëνοµα κα½
συνεκλεºσqησαν] RH κατ’ Ëνοµα π’ντασ κα½ συνεκ’qισαν : B πισυναχq¢ντασ]
RH πισυν¢χοντασ. : B δελφêν αÐτοÚ Μαεªλασ] RH δελφêν Μασηασ :
B Εµηρ … Θαµαιοσ κα½παρ Ιερε­λ] RH Εµµηρ … Σαµαιοσ κα½ Ιιηλ
 translation :– 

of the month. () And all of the multitude sat in the open area of the
temple, trembling upon the onset of winter. () And Esras stood up and
said to them, “You have violated the law and married foreign women, and
so have added to the sin of Israel. () And now confess and give glory to
the Lord God of our ancestors, () and do his will and separate yourselves
from the nations of the land and from the foreigners.” () Then all the
multitude shouted and spoke with a great voice, “Thus we will do as you
have said. () But the multitude is large and it is time for winter, and we
will not be able to stand in the open. This is not a work we can achieve
in one day or two, for we have sinned too much in these things. ()
So let the leaders of the multitude remain, and allow all those in our
colony, as many as have foreign wives, to come at the time appointed,
() with the elders and judges of each place, until [our] release from
the wrath of the Lord that is against us in this matter.” () Iōnathan
son of Azaēl and Hezeias son of Thokanos approved of these things, and
Mosollamos and Leuvi and Sabbataios worked with them as arbitrators.
() And those who had returned from captivity acted according to all
of these things. () Esras the priest selected for him[self] the leading
men of their ancestral houses, all according to name; and they were shut
in session on the new moon of the tenth month for their examination
of this matter. () And the instances of the men who had taken foreign
wives were brought to an end by the new moon of the first month.

:–
List of Those Taking Foreign Wives
() And there was found from among the priests those who had taken
foreign wives: () from the sons of Iēsous, the son of Iōsedek and his
brothers, Maeēlas and Eleazaros and Iōribos, and Iōdanos. () They
placed their hands to expel their wives, and to sacrifice rams as expi-
ation for their ignorance. () From the sons of Emēr: Ananias and
 text :–

κα½ Αζαριασ: : κα½ κ τêν υ¹êν Φαισουρ: Ελιωναισ Ασσειασ Ισµα-
ηλοσ κα½ Ναqαναηλοσ κα½ Ωκαιληδοσ κα½ Σαλqασ: : κα½ κ τêν
Λευhεiιτêν: Ιωζαβδοσ κα½ Σενσε½σ κα½ Κêνοσ οÜτοσ Καλειταισ κ(α½)
Παqαιοσ: κα½ Ωουδασ κ(α½) Ιωανšσ: : κ τêν ¹εροψαλτêν Ελιασε-
βοσ Βακχουροσ: : κ τêν qυγατερêν [= qυρωρêν] Σαλλουµοσ κα½
Τολβανησ: : κ τοÚ )Ισραηλ: κ τêν υ¹êν Φοροσ Ιερµα κα½ Ιεζhεiιασ
κα½ Μελχhεiιασ κα½ Μºληλοσ κα½ Ελεαζαροσ κα½ Ασεβεºασ κα½ Βαν-
ναιασ: : κ τêν υ¹êν Ηλα κα½ Ματαν κα½ Ζαχαριασ Ιεζορικλοσ κα½
ΩαβδεÂοσ κα½ Ιερεµωq κα½ Αηδειασ: : κα½ κ τê(ν) υ¹êν Ζαµοq
Ελιαδασ Ελhεiιασhεiιµοσ: Οqονιασ Ιαρhεiιµωq: κα½ Σαβαqοσ κα½ Ζερα-
λιασ: : κα½ κ τê(ν) υ¹êν Βηβαι Ιωαννησ κα½ Ανανιασ κα½ Ζαβδοσ
κα½ Εµαqqισ: : κα½ κ τê(ν) υ¹êν Μανι Ωλαµοσ Μαµουχοσ Ιεδαιοσ
Ιασουβοσ κα½ Ασαηλοσ κα½ Ιερεµωq: : κα½ κ τê(ν) υ¹êν Αδδεºν
Λ’qοσ κ(α½) Μοοσσhεiιασ Λακκουνοσ κα½ Ναϊδοσ κα½ Βεσκασπασµυσ
κα½ Σεσqηλ κα½ ΒαλνοÚσ κα½ Μανασσηασ: : κα½ κ τêν υ¹ê(ν) Ανναν
Ελιωδασ κα½ Ασαιασ κα½ Μελχhεiιασ κ(α½) Σαββαιασ κα½ Σιµων Χοσα-
µαοσ: : κα½ κ τê(ν) υ¹êν Ασοµ Μαλτανναιοσ κα½ Ματταqιασ κα½
Σαβανναιουσ κα½ Ελhεiιφαλατ κα½ Μανασση κ(α½) Σεµεεº: : κα½ κ
τêν υ¹êν Βαανhεiι Ιερεµιασ Μοµδhεiιοσ Μαηροσ Ιουν’ Μαµδαι κα½
Πεδιασ κα½ Ανωσ Καραβασhεiιων κα½ Ενασειβοσ κα½ Μαµταναιµοσ
Ελιασhεiισ Βαννουσ Εδιαλεισ Σοµεεºσ Σελεµιασ Ναqανιασ: κα½ κ τêν
υ¹ê(ν) Εζωρα Σεσεισ Εζρhεiιλ Αζαηλοσ Σαµατοσ Ζαµβρει ΦÊσηποσ
: κ τê(ν) Οοµα Ζειτιασ Ζαβαδαιασ Ηδοσ Ουηλ: Βαναιασ: :
π’ντεσ οÜτοι συνíâκησαν γυναιξ½ν λλογεν¢σιν: κα½ π¢λυσα(ν) αÐτ•σ
σÕν τ¢κνοισ:

: B Ασσειασ … Ωκαιληδοσ] RH Μασσιασ … Ωκιδηλοσ : B Σενσε½σ κα½ Κêνοσ

… Καλειταισ] RH Σεµεϊσ κα½ Κωλιοσ … Καλιτασ : B Ελιασεβοσ] RH Ελιασιβοσ
: B Ιερµα … Μºληλοσ … Ασεβεºασ] RH Ιερµασ … Μιαµινοσ … Ασιβιασ :
B Ηλα κα½ Ματαν … Ιεζορικλοσ κα½ ΩαβδεÂοσ … Αηδειασ] RH Ηλαµ Ματανιασ …
Ιεζριηλοσ κα½ Ωβαδιοσ … Ηλιασ : B Ζεραλιασ] RH Ζερδαιασ : B
Εµαqqισ] RH Εµαqισ : B Αδδεºν Λ’qοσ … ΒαλνοÚσ] RH Αδδι Νααqοσ …
Βαλνουοσ : B Ελιωδασ … Χοσαµαοσ] RH Ελιωνασ … Χοσαµαιοσ :
B Μανασση κα½ Σεµεει] RH Μανασσησ κα½ Σεµει : B Ιουν’ … Ενασειβοσ
κα½ Μαµταναιµοσ … Εδιαλεισ Σοµεεºσ … Σεσεισ … Ζαµβρει ΦÊσηποσ] RH Ιουηλ …
Ελιασιβοσ κα½ Μαµνιταναιµοσ … Ελιαλισ Σοµεϊσ … Σεσσισ … Ζαµβρισ Ιωσηποσ :
B κ τêν Οοµα Ζειτιασ … Ηδοσ Ουηλ] RH κα½παρ κ τêν υ¹êν Νοοµα Μαζιτιασ …
Ηδαισ Ιουηλ : B συνíâκησαν γυναιξ½ν λλογεν¢σιν] RH συνíâκισαν γυναÂκασ
λλογενεÂσ.
 translation :– 

Zebdaios and Manēs and Thamaios and Iereēl and Azarias. () From
the sons of Phaisour: Eliōnais, Asseias, Ismaēlos, and Nathanaēlos and
Ōkailēdos and Salthas. () And from the Levites: Jōzabdos and Senseis
and Kōnos (that is Kaleitais) and Pathaios and Ōoudas and Iōanas.
() From the temple singers: Eliasebos and Bakchouros. () From
the gatekeepers: Salloumos and Tolbanēs. () From Israel: of the sons
of Pharos: Ierma and Iezias and Melchias and Milēlos and Eleazaros
and Asebeias and Bannaias. () From the sons of Ēla: also Matan
and Zacharias, Iezoriklos and Ōabdeios and Ieremōth, and Aēdeias.
() From the sons of Zamoth: Eliadas, Eliasimos, Othonias, Iarimōth
and Zabathos and Zeralias. () From the sons of Bēbai: Iōannēs and
Hananias and Zabdos and Emaththis. () From the sons of Mani:
Ōlamus, Mamouchos, Iedaios, Iasoubos and Asaēlos, and Ieremōth. ()
From the sons of Addein: Lathos and Moossias, Lakkounos and Naidos
and Beskaspasmos and Sesthēl and Balnous and Manassēas. () From
the sons of Annan: Eliōdas and Asaias and Melchias and Sabbaias and
Simōn Chosamaos. () From the sons of Hasom: Maltannaios and
Mattathias and Sabannaios and Eliphalat and Manassē and Semeei. ()
From the sons of Baani: Ieremias, Momdios, Maēros, Iouna, Mamdai
and Pedias and Anōs, Karabasiōn and Enaseibos and Mamtanaimos,
Eliasis, Bannous, Edialeis, Someeis, Selemias, Nathanias. From the sons
of Ezōra: Seseis, Ezril, Azaēlos, Samatos, Zambrei, Phosēpos. () From
the sons of Nooma: Mazitias, Zabadaias, Ēdais, Ioēl, Banaias. () All
these had married foreign women, and they drove them out with their
children.
 text :–

:–
The Reading of the Law at the Gathering
: κ(α½) κατíâκησαν ο¹ ¹ερεÂσ κα½ ο¹ ΛευhεiÂται: κα½ ο¹ κ τοÚ )Ισραηλ:
ν )Ιερουσαληµ κα½ ν τµ² χâρα τµ² νουµηνºα τοÚ ¡βδʵου µηνÊσ: κα½ ο¹
υ¹ο½ )Ισραηλ ν ταÂσ κατοικºαισ αÐτêν: : κα½ συνªχqη πšν τÍ πλ²qοσ
ɵοqυµαδÍν π½ τÍ εÐρÒχωρον τοÚ πρÍσ νατολ•σ ¹εροÚ πυλêνοσ: :
κα½ εÃπεν Εσρα τíê ¹ερε κα½ ναγνâστµη: κοµºσαι τÍν νʵον Μω[υ]σ¢ωσ
τÍν παραδοq¢ντα ÑπÍ τοÚ qυ )Ισραηλ: : κα½ δοκιµασεν [= κʵι-
σεν] Εσρασ É ρχιερεÕσ τÍν νʵον παντ½ τíê πλªqει πÍ νqρâπου ¦ωσ
γυναικÍσ: κα½ πšσιν τοÂσ ¹ερεÚσι{ν} κοÚσαι τÍν νʵον νουµηνºα τοÚ
¡βδʵου µηνÊσ: : κα½ νεγhεiºνωσκεν ν τíê πρÍ τοÚ ¹εροÚ πυλêνοσ
εÐρυχâρου πÍ Ëρqρου ¦ωσ µεσηµβρινοÚ νâπιον τêν νδρêν κα½παρ
γυναικêν: κ(α½) π¢δωκαν π’ντα τÍν νοÚν ε¸σ τÍν νʵον: : κα½ £στη
Εσρασ É ¹ερεÕσ κα½ ναγνâστησ τοÚ νʵου π½ τοÚ ξυλºνου ⪵ατοσ
τοÚ κατασκευασq¢ντοσ: : κα½ £στησε(ν) αÐτíê Ματταqιασ: ΣαµµοÒ:
Ανανιασ: Αζαριασ: Ουρhεiιασ: Εζεκιασ: Βααλσαµοσ κ δεξιêν: :
κ(α½) ξ εÐωνÒµων ΦαλαδαÂοσ: Μhεiισαηλ: Μελχhεiιασ: Λωqασουβοσ:
Ναβαρhεiιασ: Ζαχαριασ: : κα½παρ ναλαβåν Εσρασ τÍ βιβλºο(ν)
τοÚ πλªqουσ νâπιο(ν) προεκ’qητο γ•ρ πιδÊξωσ νâπιον π’ντω(ν)·
: κα½ ν τíê λÚσαι τÍν νʵον π’ντεσ Èρqο½ £στησαν: κα½ εÐλÊγησε(ν)
Αζαρºασ τíê Ñψºστíω qυ παντοκρ’τορι: : κ(α½) φâνησεν πšν τÍ
πλ²qοσ µην µην: κα½ “ραντεσ “νω τ•σ χεÂρασ προσπεσÊντεσ π½
τ­(ν) γ²ν προσεκÒνησαν τíê qυ: :)ΙησοÚσ κα½ Αννιουq κα½ Σαραβι-
ασ Ιαδhεiινοσ Ιαρσουβοοσ ΑβταÂοσ ΑÑταιασ Μαιαννασ κα½ Καλhεiιτασ
Αζαριασ Κατ¢qζαβδοσ Αννºασ Φαλιασ ο¹ ΛευhεiÂται δºδασκον τÍν
νʵον κυ κα½ πρÍσ τÍ πλ²qοσ νεγºνωσκον τÍν νʵον τοÚ κυ µφυ-
σιοÚντεσ ”µα τ­(ν) ν’γνωσιν: : κα½ εÃπε(ν) Ατταρατη Εσρα. τíê
ρχιερε κα½ ναγνâστµη κα½ τοÂσ Λευhεiºταισ τοÂσ διδ’σκουσι τÍ πλ²qοσ

: B >] RH τοÚ : B εÃπεν Εσρα τíê ¹ερεÂ] RH εÃπον Εσδρα τíê ρχιερει :
B >] RH κυρºου : B Εσρασ] RH Εσδρασ : B τÍν νʵον] RH τοÚ νʵου
: B νεγεºνωσκεν] RH νεγºγνωσκεν : B εÐρυχâρου] RH εÐρυχâρω. :
B τêν νδρêν] RH νδρêν τε : B π’ντα τÍν νοÚν] RH πšν τÍ πλ²qοσ τÍν νοÚν
: B Εσρασ] RH Εσδρασ : B £στησεν αÐτíê] RH £στησαν παρ’ αÐτíê :
B ΣαµµοÒ] RH Σαµµουσ : B ΦαλαδαÂοσ] RH Φαδαιοσ : B Εσρασ] RH
Εσδρασ : B τοÚ πλªqουσ νâπιον] RH τοÚ νʵου νâπιον τοÚ πλªqουσ :
B Αζαρºασ] RH Εσδρασ : B τíê Ñψºστíω qεíê παντοκρ’τορι] RH τíê κυρºíω qεíê
Ñψºστíω qεíê σαβαωq παντοκρ’τορι : B φâνησεν] RH πεφâνησεν : B
µην µην] RH µην : B qεíê] RH κυρºíω : B Ιαρσουβοοσ ΑβταÂοσ …
Κατ¢qζαβδοσ Αννºασ] RH Ιακουβοσ Σαββαταιοσ … κα½ Ιωζαβδοσ Ανανιασ : B
Εσρα] RH Εσδρα : B Ατταρατη] RH Ατταρατησ
 translation :– 

:–
The Reading of the Law at the Gathering
() And the priests and the Levites and those of Israel, dwelt in Jerusa-
lem and in the countryside. On the new moon of the seventh month,
when the people of Israel were in their dwellings, () the whole mul-
titude gathered in one mind in the open area before the east gate of
the temple; () and it told Esras the priest and reader to receive the
law of Mōyses that had been delivered by the God of Israel. () And
Esras the chief priest received the law, for all of the multitude, from men
unto women, and all the priests to hear the law, on the new moon of
the seventh month. () And he read in the open area before the gate of
the temple from dawn until midday, before the men and women; and
they all gave consideration to the law. () And Esras the priest and
reader of the law stood on the wooden judgment seat that had been
set up; () and there stood with him Mattathias, Sammou, Ananias,
Azarias, Uorias, Hezekias, Baalsamos at his right hand, () and at his
left hand [stood] Phaladaios, Misaēl, Melchias, Lōthasuobos, Nabarias,
and Zacharias. () And Esras took up the book before the multitude,
for he was presiding in the position of honor before everyone. () And
while he opened the law, they all stood up straight. And Azarias blessed
the Most High God, Almighty, () and all of the multitude replied,
“Amen, amen.” Lifting up their hands high, falling to the ground, they
worshiped God. () Iēsous and Anniouth and Sarabias, Iadinos, Iarsou-
boos, Abtaios, Hautaias, Maiannas and Kalitas, Azarias, Katethzabdos,
Hannias, Phalias, the Levites, were teaching the law of the Lord and read-
ing the law of the Lord to the multitude at the same time, instructing
about what was read. () Then Attaratēs said to Esras the chief priest
and reader, and to the Levites who were instructing the multitude, and
 text :–

π½ π’ντασ: : © ©µ¢ρα αÔτη στ½ν ‘γºα τíê κω: κ(α½) π’ντεσ £κλαιον
ν τíê κοÚσαι τÍν νʵον: : βαδºσαντεσ οÛν φ’γετε λιπ’σµατα:
κα½ ποστεºλατε ποστολ•σ τοÂσ µ­ £χουσιν: : ‘γºα γ•ρ © ©µ¢ρα
τíê κω: κα½ µ­ λυπεÂσqε: É γ•ρ κσ δοξ’σει ѵšσ: : κα½ ο¹ ΛευhεiÂται
κ¢λευο(ν) τíê 䪵íω παντ{½} λ¢γο(ν)τεσ © ©µ¢ρα αÔτη ‘γºα: µ­ λυπεÂσqε:
: κα½ íãχο(ν)το π’ντεσ φαγεÂν κα½παρ πιεÂ(ν) κα½παρ εÐφραºνεσqαι
κα½ δοÚναι ποστολ•σ τοÂσ µ­ £χουσιν κα½ εÐφρα(ν)q²ναι µεγ’λωσ:
: Ìτι κ(α½) νεφυσιâqησαν ν τοÂσ üªµασιν οÄσ διδ’χqησαν κα½
πισυνªχqησαν:

: B τÍν νʵον] RH τοÚ νʵου : B >] RH κα½ πºετε γλυκ’σµατα.
 translation :– 

to all, () “This day is holy to the Lord,” and they were all weeping as
they heard the law, () “therefore, in your lifestyle, eat the fat, and send
portions to those who have nothing; () for the day is holy to the Lord;
and do not be full of grief, for the Lord will glorify you.” () The Levites
orded all the people, saying, “This day is holy; do not be grieved.” ()
Then they all went out hence, to eat and drink and to rejoice, and to give
portions to those who had nothing, and to make much rejoicing; ()
because they were inspired by the words which they were taught. And
they came together.
 1 ESDRAS

COMMENTARY
 The Beginning and End of the Reforms under Iōsias (:–)

 Esdras commences by narrating the beginning and the end of the

reforms under Iōsias based on Chronicles  (:–). The opening
sequence includes the renewal of the Passover (:–), a summary of
Iōsias’s virtuous deeds (:–), a description of the death of Iōsias
(:–), records the wickedness of the subsequent Judean kings (:–
), and narrates the judgment of God that falls upon Judah because
of their wickedness (:–). The Iōsias story is placed at the head of
 Esdras as a deliberate anti-climax. The Iōsias section becomes a false
crest in the hope of national restoration. Iōsias renews the cultus and
the Passover festival and represents a pious and exemplary model of
kingship. Yet he remains a fallible king who brings misfortune upon
himself and his people by disobeying the prophetic word. In many
ways, Iōsias, despite all his virtue, becomes one of many Judean kings
who spurn the word of the Lord and bring judgment on the nation.
An observation confirmed by the subsequent history of Judah in the
monarchs that follow.

:–. The Passover of Iōsias

The story begins with Iōsias’s reign and the reforms instituted by him.
This section assumes knowledge of Chronicles/Παραλειποµ¢νων and
the material leading up to the events of Iōsias’ death. Iōsias (åäéùàé, Ιωσεº-
ασ) reigned from ca. – bce and he was remembered in biblical
historiography as a stark contrast to Manasseh’s all-embracing idolatry
recounted in the deuteronomic history. Iōsias’s reforms are modelled
along the lines of those under Hezekiah relating to the abolition of the
foreign gods, the renewal of the covenant, and the reform of the cultus
(Kgs :–; Chronicles –). According to  Chronicles , Iōsias
came to the throne when he was eight years old and “He did what was
right in the sight of the LORD, and walked in the ways of his ancestor
David; he did not turn aside to the right or to the left” ( Chron :). He
is subsequently depicted as a pious traditionalist who purged Judea and
Jerusalem of Asherah poles and altars to Baal ( Chron :–). Iōsias
 commentary

also commanded that the land and temple be purified. Thereafter the
temple was repaired and restored in the aftermath of previous kings who
permitted it to fall into ruin (Chron :–). During the refurbish-
ments the Book of the Law, that lay dormant and unread, was discovered
by the priest Hilkiah who read it to the king. Iōsias heard the words of
the Law and grieved knowing that its precepts have not been kept. He
immediately despatched a delegation to inquire of the Lord as to what its
rediscovery meant for the people. The prophetess Huldah reported that
disaster is forecast to fall upon Judah because of its disobedience and
idolatry. But she adds that Iōsias, because of his responsive and hum-
ble heart, will not see this disaster and instead he will be gathered to his
ancestors (Chron :–). In response to this prophetic word, the
elders of Judah are summoned to the temple of Jerusalem with the priest
and Levites. Before all the people the “Book of the Covenant” was read,
so that the covenant was renewed with the people in the Lord’s presence,
and the people pledged themselves to keep the commandments of the
covenant (Chron :–). Finally, Iōsias embarked on a further cam-
paign against idols in the territories belonging to Israel ( Chron :).
Iōsias was also a contemporary of Ieremias (Jer :;  Chron :) who
figures prominently in Esdras (:, , , ; :) in continuity with
Chronicles (:, –).
This is the background material immediately assumed by  Esdras
in its subsequent narration. A more sanguine and even dispassionate
evaluation of Iōsias’s reign is described in  Kings :–: where
the events of Iōsias’s death appear as little more than an appendix. The
celebration of Iōsias’s reign in Esdras may have been influenced by the
eulogizing of Iōsias by Ben Sirach (ca. bce) who thinks that Iōsias
was great, but still a bit of a disappointment in the end like his royal
ancestors:
The name of Josiah is like blended incense prepared by the skill of the
perfumer; his memory is as sweet as honey to every mouth, and like music
at a banquet of wine.
He did what was right by reforming the people, and removing the wicked
abominations.
He kept his heart fixed on the Lord; in lawless times he made godliness
prevail.
Except for David and Hezekiah and Josiah, all of them were great sinners,
for they abandoned the law of the Most High; the kings of Judah came to
an end. (Sir :–)
 commentary 

The initial actions of Iōsias in Esdras are threefold. First, Iōsias

“led” (“γω) the Passover in Jerusalem (see ESVA; NRSV; NEB “kept
the Passover”; NETS, CEB “celebrated the Passover”; Cook “held the
Passover”). This as an act of devotion to “his Lord” and the pronoun αÐ-
τοÚ draws attention to the distinctive piety of Iōsias himself as instigator
and director of the festival. As king, Iōsias represents the people before
the Lord and thus initiates the proper proceedings to secure their obedi-
ence and favour before the God of the covenant. Second, he “sacrificed
the Passover Lamb” (£qυσεν τÍ πασχα) in the sense of arranging for the
ceremonial slaughter of the animals for the people (NETS transcribes
rather than translates π’σχα as “pascha”). This is all carried out, thirdly,
with due and deliberate attention given to the arrangement of the Priests,
Levites, and Israelites so that the festival is obeyed properly. Hence the
large emphasis on “order” in :,  (τ’ξισ) and “groupings” in :, 
(µεριδαρχºαν found only in Esdras in the LXX).
Iōsias’s commission to the Levites and priests centres on the specific
duties of each group as a lead up to the Passover celebration (vv. –).
The commission is dominated by a number of verbs including “conse-
crate” (‘γι’ζω), “worship” (λατρεÒω), “serve” (qεραπεÒω), “prepare”
(¡τοιµ’ζω), and “sacrifice” (qÒω). These actions all indicate a deliber-
ate intention to bring the cultus of the temple and the religion of Judea
into conformity with the “writing of David” (τ­ν γραφ­ν ∆αυιδ), the
“majesty of Solomon” (µεγαλειÊτητα Σαλωµων), and the “command-
ments of the Lord that were given to Mōyses” (τÍ πρÊσταγµα τοÚ κυρºου
τÍ δοq¥ν τíê Μωυσµ²). This presents a return to what is regarded as the
primitive, normative, and glorious period of Israel’s national worship.
The reference to the “ark” (κιβωτÊσ) is peculiar as we have no grounds
for thinking that it was ever removed from the temple (unless the Chron-
icler, the source of Esdras, thought that it had been removed under
Manasseh). Talshir states, “the command to place the Ark in the Tem-
ple makes no sense at this point in the sequence of events” (: ). It
cannot mean to put or leave the ark where it is because it is assumed that
the ark is being carried around on their “shoulders” and thus mobile and
outside of the temple (see discussion in Williamson : ; Myers
: ; Talshir : –). Most likely the anachronism is designed to
recapitulate what happened under Solomon’s construction of the temple
whereby the Ark of the Covenant was finally given a permanent dwelling
place in the temple.
The subsequent narration describes the provision of sacrifical animals
by Iōsias and his cohort of leaders (vv. –). Iōsias provides for the people
 commentary

“being found there” who include a wide cross section of laity, priests, and
Levites. The temple officials ( πιστ’τησ) in turn provide for the priests,
while the commanders (χιλºαρχοσ = military tribune) provide for the
Levites. The emphasis falls on the liberality of the provisions given to
the people by the ruling class. The generous act of the royal court is
reminiscient of the action of Hezekiah and his officials who also provided
an abundant provision of sacrifices for the people ( Chron :).
The Passover celebration itself is described in some detail with stress
laid on the correct ordering of the event and the inclusivity of the festi-
val meal (vv. –). The celebrations began with the priests and Levites
taking up their respective positions. While the priests offered up the sac-
rifices, the Levites engaged in paschal duties and took care of the needs of
those officiating at their posts: priests, temple singers, gatekeepers. This
emphasizes the ubiquity of the Levites and the heightening of their role
in the sources of Esdras (Myers : ). The sacrifices offered by the
priests may have also included peace offerings (Lev :–) while the
Passover preparations were delegated to the Levites. Unlike Hezekiah’s
Passover where the role of the Levites was a thing of necessity, here it is
treated as a normal and permanent function that they perform (Talshir
: ). Just like v. , the conformity of the event to the Mosaic leg-
islation is again repeated in v.  when it is said that things transpired
“according to that written in the book of Mōyses” (κατ• τ• γεγραµµ¢να
ν βιβλºíω Μωυση). That is because the consumption of the meal took
place in Jerusalem for the appropriate duration as required by Deut :–
.
The meal itself is described in full. The words given for the cooking
of the Passover in v.  are “roasted” (Èπτ’ω) and “boiled” (¦ψω). The
description most likely represents a conflation of Exod :– and Deut
: where the details for the cooking and consumption of the Passover
meal are prescribed. Importantly nobody is left out of the national cel-
ebration as even those who prepared the sacrifice and the meal still
are able to partake of it. The clause “they prepared for themselves”
(©τοºµασαν ¡αυτοÂσ) in v.  and “they prepared for them” (©τοºµασαν
αÐτοÂσ) in v.  refers to preparations to partake of the Passover meal. The
verb ¡τοιµ’ζω is intransitive, but the implied object is τÊ π’σχα since it
was the Passover meal that was prepared. Concurrent with the offerings
and sumptuous eating is that the “temple singers” return to their orches-
trated positions following the “instructions made by David and Asaph.”
The presence of the temple singers most probably refers to the singing of
the Psalms as part of the celebrations in the temple. Also the gatekeep-
 commentary 

ers retained their duties and it is noted that “no one needed to alter his
own daily routine” due to the combined efforts underway for the new
Passover festival. Everything pertaining to the “sacrifice of the Lord” was
“accomplished” in the sense of being finished and fulfilled (συνεστελ¢-
σqη). Accomplished here means that the Passover was celebrated and the
appropriate sacrifices offered upon the altar of the Lord. The reference to
the proceeding being in concordance with the “command of King Iōsias”
(τ­ν πιταγ­ν τοÚ βασιλ¢ωσ Ιωσεºου) provides an inclusio that rounds
off this section in relation to v. . The intention of Iōsias to celebrate/keep
the Passover is fulfilled when the regulations pertaining to the sacrifices
were properly accomplished (v. ).
A summary of the Josianic Passover follows on from the narration of
the Passover’s celebration where there is a lauding of Iōsias’s achievement
in the context of Israel’s sacred history (vv. –). After noting the
celebration of the Passover and the Feast of Unleavened Bread for “seven
days” the author identifies its significance in light of Israel’s national
history in two ways. First, it is said that “no Passover like it had been
celebrated in Israel since the times of Samouel the prophet” (οÐκ «χqη
τÍ πασχα τοιοÚτο ν τíê )Ισραηλ πÍ τêν χρÊνων Σαµουηλ τοÚ
προφªτου). This commends Iōsias’s Passover as at least equal to those
that were celebrated in the final stages of the time of the Judges since
Samuel was one of the Judges (see Kgs :). Second, it is also stated
that “none of the kings of Israel had celebrated a Passover such as that
celebrated by Iōsias” (κα½ π’ντεσ ο¹ βασιλεÂσ τοÚ )Ισραηλ οÐκ ¨γ’γοσαν
πασχα τοιοÚτον οÄον «γαγεν Ιωσºασ) which implies the superiority
of this cultic celebration over other the previous kings of the united
and divided monarchies (even beyond that of Hezekiah). Iōsias proves
himself to be greater than David and more glorious than Solomon in this
sense that he led the Judeans back to the heart of their religious devotion
to the Lord, as stipulated in the Law of Mōyses, in the face of religious
and political adversity. A final chronological marker is provided in v. 
as the celebration took place in the “eighteenth year” of Iōsias’s reign
(ca.  bce). This was the same year that the temple was purified ( Kgs
:; Chron :). The accent at the end is not on the centralization of
Israel’s worship in Jerusalem, rather (much like Hezekiah’s Passover in
 Chron :) on the fact that it is a combined feast joined by those of
Judah and Israel (Talshir : ).
The primary textual features of B in this section include the differences in
pronouns in vv. , . In B, the Levites do not consecrate “themselves” (RH
¡αυτοÕσ), but “them” (αÐτοÕσ). This is either a variant known to the scribes
 commentary

of B, an error caused by omitting the epsilon, or else ΑΥΤΟΣ was used in a

reflexive form as ‘υτÊσ. A similar variation occurs in v. , but in reverse with
B employing the reflexive pronoun ¡αυτοÂσ over the intensive pronoun αÐτοÂσ,
making the Levites prepare for “themselves” rather than for “them,” being the
Gatekeepers which the context requires. Finally, in v. , B (and L) reads not
¹ερíê (“temple”), but ‘γºíω which needs to be read as “holy place” indicating the
same location. Hanhart supposes that ν τíê ‘γºíω is a later adaption of ùã÷á
from Chron : because the translator does not use the noun τÍ ”γιον, thus
Hanhart prefers an original reading of ν τíê ¹ερíê (Hanhart b: ). Talshir
(: –) agrees that ν τíê ¹ερíê is original, but does not think it equivalent
to ùã÷á. She thinks that it reflects instead úéáá indicative of ν τíê ο»κíω in the
LXX. In my view, it is possible that, given the prevalence of ”γιοσ as an adjective
in Esdras (e.g., for the temple :; :), the scribe or his source originally
intended to add ‘γºω as an adjective resulting in ν τíê ‘γºíω ¹ερíê, but for some
reason (error or redundancy) he failed then to insert ¹ερíê following it.

:–. Summary of the Deeds of Iōsias

The content of Esd :– is unparalleled in the MT. According to
Talshir (: ): “The expansion could not have been written originally
in Greek. The Vorlage keeps springing up from underath the translation;
the phraseology repeatedly demonstrates the dependence on the source
… Even so, reconstructing the Vorlage is a difficult chore, and much
remains uncertain.” The passage presents a further summary of Iōsias’s
actions in relation to the wickedness that typified the monarchs and
people of Israel in its sacred history. These verses reflect generally on the
events described in Chronicles /Kings  which is referred to as
another work in the past different from the one composed here (further
implying that Chronicles was not originally part of  Esdras). It was
a necessary addition made, perhaps, to show that Iōsias’s misfortune
was despite his reforming activity and not due to any terrible character
deficiency on his part. The disaster that fell upon the nation was entirely
due to their sin and not the result of divine caprice. Such emphasis
is made by the compressed co-location of the three perfect verbs in
: (ναγ¢γραπται, ©µαρτηκÊτων, ¨σεβηκÊτων), which underscore
the recording for the purpose of detailing the state of affairs pertaining
to the people’s sinfulness and impiety. The prepositional intensifier ν’
added to γ¢γραπται serves to indicate the official nature of the registering
of the events (BDAG, ; L&S, ), hence its connection with the βºβλοσ
of the kings of Judea (:, ). In  Edras perfect tense-form participles
and verbs are consistently used for nominating written documents with
γεγραµµ¢να (:; :; :), γ¢γραπται (:), ναγ¢γραπται (:,
 commentary 

, ), and Ñπογεγραµµ¢να (:, ). The perfect indicates a state of
authoritative “writtenness” that has immediate import for its designated
audience.
The brief description of Iōsias’s deeds resolves the anomaly of Iōsias’s
premature death since it shows that his life was mostly pleasing to God
and did not actually deserve death as a form of divine punishment (Klein
: ). The wickedness of the Judean nation was such that even
Iōsias’s piety and reforms were not sufficient to save the nation from
divine judgment (Kgs :–). The sharp contrast between the peo-
ple and the king goes further than in the biblical material and seems to
reflect the tradition described in Sir :– that exalts David, Hezekiah,
and Josiah as the only kings who weren’t “sinners” (Williamson :
).
The summary in :– was sufficient to close off the opening peri-
cope, but in Esdras an additional summary is provided to enhance the
ending of this unit. It functions rhetorically as a conplexio or a con-
densed précis of the proceeding narrative interpreted in light of Israel’s
primary problem being the wickedness of the people and their rulers. It
further exonerates Iōsias from having any part in the subsequent judg-
ment exerted upon the Judean nation. It bridges the account of Iōsias’s
reforms (:–) and the description of his death (:–). The “deeds
of Iōsias” were “upright” which extols Iōsias once more (ÈρqÊω as “being
in line with belief or teaching” BDAG, ; see in LXX Gen :;  Esdr
:; Esth :; Pss Sol :; Jer :; Ep Jer :). This is because “his
heart was full of piety.” The word εÐσ¢βεια denotes piety, reverence, loy-
alty, and godliness and is used frequently in Jewish, Christian, and pagan
literature for religious virtue (BDAG, –; GELS, ; L&N, –
). This is something that Diasporan Jews would readily identify as a
key word describing the quintessential devout Jew (e.g., Philo Migr. Abr.
, ).
There is a reference to an earlier recording of the events of Iōsias’s
reign, possibly the “Annals of the Kings of Judah” attested in – Kings
(see Esd :). This chronicle is said to refer to others who “sinned
and had committed impious acts” (‘µαρτ’νω, σεβ¢ω) which are the
exact antithesis to εÐσ¢βεια. The question is, “why is Iōsias’s history
included among the deeds of the impious, and just who would these
impious people be?” Probably it reflects the view that Iōsias was a pious
king in an impious age (see Sir :) and his own destiny is tragically
interlocked with the wicked kings of Israel and Judah despite his own
moral qualities (see Talshir : –). Whereas Iōsias is upright
 commentary

and pious “before the Lord” these others (presumably kings and the
people) are sinful and impious “towards the Lord.” Indeed, the impiety
is said to be comparatively beyond (παρ’ as comparative preposition)
“any other nation and kingdom” placing the transgression and impiety
of the nation in an international context which resultantly shames the
elect nation for their wickedness. The nation of Israel who was made
elect for the sake of projecting God’s saving purposes to the nations,
has simply become another one of the nations. Even worse, Israel has
even exceeded the other nations in their disobedience and perversity
(see Kgs :/Chron :). The result is imminent as it is unavoidable:
judgment, seen in the phrase “the words of the Lord rose up against
Israel” (ο¹ λÊγοι τοÚ κυρºου ν¢στησαν π½ )Ισραηλ).
B (and L) varies only slightly from RH with the reading — λÒπησαν αÐτÍν
στιν instead of — λÒπησαν ν α¸σqªσει in :. The noun α»σqησισ means
a capacity to be effected by external stimuli or an ability to discern something
(BDAG, ). It could relate to the degree of the grieving God (NRSV “deeply,”
NETS “conspicuously,” ESVA “perceptibly,” Cook “exceedingly”) or the manner
in which they grieved him (“intentionally” as a translation of úòãá). It is hard to
explain the absence of α¸σqªσει apart from a desire to lessen the effect of Israel’s
sin upon God.

:–. The Death of Iōsias and the Premature End to the Reforms
Esdras returns to the source material from  Chronicles (:–)
which itself is an expansion of Kgs :–. The narrative takes on a
tragic and even dark note by shifting immediately to the demise of Iōsias.
The attempt of Iōsias to intercept Pharoah Neco II at Meggido ca. bce
was unsuccessful and the reason provided is that Iōsias ignored the warn-
ing of Neco (vv. –) and the words of the prophet Ieremias (v. ).
In contrast to his earlier piety (vv. –), Iōsias becomes rash and
foolish and his disobedience is emphasized (vv. –). Iōsias is mor-
tally wounded in battle, subsequently buried, and nationally mourned.
Ieremias offers a eulogy for him and his remembrance becomes an
enacted tradition in Israel’s religious history. Despite being, much like
Davidides before him, a bad finisher, Iōsias is still extolled for his actions
and qualities. Overall, the success of his reign becomes a false crest in the
ascent towards national restoration as the anger of the Lord prepares to
descend upon the people. The end of Iōsias’s reign means that the process
leading towards exile begins to advance more quickly.
The “deeds of Iōsias” (£ργα Ιωσºου) refers to the Passover just de-
scribed, but a contrast is made as to what he did in the renewal of
 commentary 

the cultus with how he unsuccessfully set out against Pharoah Neco.
The reason for Iōsias’s attempted intervention is at one level hard to
understand since he was obviously fighting a superior force. Neco was en
route to reinforce this Assyrian ally against the Babylonians and Medes
(Josephus Ant. .; not to fight against Assyria contra  Kgs :).
The Egyptians garrisoned forces at Carchemish on the Euphrates, which
resisted the Babylonians until bce. The Babylonian Chronicle refers
to Egyptians crossing and then retreating back across the Euphrates after
a failed campaign. Perhaps Iōsias’s strategy was premised on the idea
that Babylon would be a more amicable regional power than Assyria
and Iōsias boldly endeavoured to interdict or at least delay the arrival
of the Egytpian aid. Myers supposes that Iōsias “may have altered Neco’s
timetable to such an extent that the Assyrians failed in their attempt to
retake Haran, the capital of Assyria after the fall of Nineveh” (Myers :
).
Unlike Chron :, Iōsias does not disguise himself for battle.
The omission is deliberate perhaps because disguising oneself implied
deception or cowardice and was unfitting of Iōsias. Though more likely
the omission is made to disassociate Iōsias from the wicked Israelite
King Ahab who also disguised himself for battle against Aram in  Chron
:/Kgs :. The agreement between Ahab (an impious king) and
Iōsias (a pious king) may have been too much for the author and Iōsias
was consequently de-Ahabized by not making him disguise himself for
battle. This separates the character of the noble Iōsias from the actions
of the wicked Ahab (van der Kooij : –).
In any case, Iōsias is twiced warned not to proceed into battle. First,
Neco sends a message to the effect that “my beef is not with you” (note
the idiomatic τº µο½ κα½ σοι [see Mark :; Luke :; John :],
based on a semitic idiom [e.g., Jdgs :; Sam :]). Neco considers
himself as sent by the “Lord” and the Lord is “with me” and “urging
me on” (vv. –). Thus by opposing Pharoah, Iōsias is resisting the
very Lord that he is supposed to serve. Second, neither does Iōsias heed
“the words of the prophet Ieremias from the mouth of the Lord” (v. ).
Unlike Chron. :, Iōsias does not disobey “the words of Neco from
the mouth of the Lord.” Instead he does not heed the “words of the
prophet Ieremias from the mouth of the Lord” (v. ). It could be the
case that the original authors of Esdras changed Neco to Ieremias due
to the “disturbing reference to God’s words to a foreign king” (Talshir
: ). That is perhaps so, but there may be a more specific echo
of Ieremias’s prophecy of the defeat of Pharoah Neco at Carchemish
 commentary

by king Nebuchadnezzar of Babylon (Jer :–). According to van

der Kooij (: ): “The passage means that if Josiah had listened
well to these words, he would have been reminded of the words of the
prophecy, and if he had realized this and had paid heed to that oracle
of Jeremiah he would not have waged war with the king of Egypt.” By
adding a warning from Ieremias, the author emphasizes the guilt of
Iōsias. Iōsias’s error was not simply his inability to recognize God’s hand
in the campaign waged by Pharoah Neco (Coggins & Knibb : ),
but a genuine disobedience to the prophetic word (see the ambivalent
remarks about Iōsias in Jer :–). The Babylonian force that Iōsias
sides with will be the same one that eventually wreaks terror and sacrilege
on Judah.
Iōsias’s response to Neco and Ieremias is summarily stated (vv. –):
“Iōsias did not turn himself back to his chariot, but undertook to battle
with him; not heeding the words of the prophet Ieremias from the mouth
of the Lord. To the contrary, he joined battle with him in the plain of
Mataaddaō” (οÐκ π¢στρεψεν ¡αυτÍν Ιωσºασ π½ τÍ ”ρµα αÐτοÚ: λλ•
πολεµεÂν αÐτÍν πιχειρε οÐ προσ¢χων üªµασιν Ιερεµιου προφªτου κ
στʵατοσ κυρºου: λλ• συνεστªσατο πρÍσ αÐτÍν πÊλεµον ν τíê πεδºíω
Ματααδδουσ). The negation of the verbs ποστρ¢φω and προσ¢χω
underscore the recalcitrance of Iōsias in the matter by neither turning
nor heeding the warnings and admonitions. The location “Mataaddaō”
(= “Meggido”) was an ancient city of the Canaanites and lay within the
territory of Isaachar, but was one of the cities assigned to Manasseh
(Josh :; Chron :). It was included in one of the distrincts of
Solomon’s kingdom (Kgs :). In the aftermath of Iōsias’s defeat, “The
mourning of Hadadrimmon in the valley of Megiddon” (Zech :)
became a poetic expression for the deepest and most despairing of
griefs.
King Iōsias is wounded in the engagement (by archers in  Chron
:) and is removed from the field of battle (though in  Kgs :
he dies at Meggido). Upon returning to Jerusalem it is said, “he departed
this life and was buried in the tomb of his ancestors” or more literally
that “he exchanged his life” (µετªλλαξεν τÍν βºον αÐτοÚ). This results
in a period of mourning for Iōsias by the people corporately and by
Ieremias specifically who composes a dirge in Iōsias’s honour (see Jer
:–). The mourning is said to continue as a national memorial
with the statement “and this has become a tradition for all the race of
Israel always to perform” (v. ). It does not make sense to think of this
as an event “that should always be done” (NRSV, ESVA) unless some
 commentary 

kind of repeated memorial is implied. The verb κδºδωµι is probably not

meant in the sense of “lease” or “hire” (e.g., Matt :), but in the more
general sense of δºδωµι with a “tradition” (CEB) or “custom” (NEB) that
is “handed on” between generations (NETS). This includes some form of
annual memorial for the remembrance of Iōsias like an annual reading of
his “deeds” and/or a reading from portions of Lamentations (see  Chron
:). That is confirmed by Josephus (Ant. .) who refers to a eulogy
composed by Ieremias “which is extant to this time also” (Ì κα½ µ¢χρι νÚν
διαµ¢νει).
The death of Iōsias is ameliorated somewhat by the concluding re-
marks about his reign. His place among the “book of the kings of Israel
and Judea” (while Chron : adds that the laments for Iōsias were
recorded in “the Laments”) is secured because Iōsias stood out by virtue
of the “performed acts of Iōsias,” “his splendor,” “his understanding of
the law of the Lord,” and “the things done by him previously, and these
things that are now told” (:). The mention of “his splendour” (δÊξησ
αÐτοÚ) and “his understanding of the law” (συν¢σεωσ αÐτοÚ ν τíê
νʵíω) underscores that Iōsias was as close as Israel and Judah came to
rehearsing the reign of Solomon and David.
In B the scribe or corrector had to make a correction in : with πρ{οπρα}χ-
q¢ντα having initially written πρoχq¢ντα. B’s Ματααδδαουσ is one of several
variants for Μαγεδδαουσ which is a translation of åãâî. As elsewhere in B (e.g.,
:; :) there is a preference for παν over ”παν at :.

:–. The Wicked Kings of Judah

Attention turns to the post-Iōsias era and the final four kings of the
southern kingdom. The account once more follows the source  Chroni-
cles (:–) relatively closely and presents an incremental advance in
the wickedness of the Judean kings. The order runs Iechonias, Iōakeim,
Iōakeim2 (= Iehoiachin), and climaxing in Sedekias. The kings who
were meant to be shepherds of the people and guardians of the cultus,
degenerate into evil despots that do not know God like Iōsias did. This
in turn prepares the way for the author to indict also the priests and the
people for their impiety and lawlessness as well. It takes a corporate effort
of rulers, priests, and the people to bring the course of judgment to full
measure. There is also an emphasis on the pillaging of the “sacred vessels”
of the temple by Nabouchodnosor (:, ) which looks ahead to the
return of the sacred vessels and the rebuilding of the temple under Ezras
and Zorobabel.
 commentary

Upon the death of Iōsias the leaders of the nation, that is the land
owners and Judean aristocracy (“people of the land” in  Chron :),
appointed his son Iechonias as king in place of his father (:). Iecho-
nias is elsewhere called Jehoahaz (Kgs :–;  Chron :–) and
Shallum (Jer :). His reign has no negative comment placed upon it
unlike the monarchs that follow. Pharoah Neco removed Iechonias from
the Judean throne and took him to Egypt where he presumably died (Jer
:–). There was also a “punitive tribute” (ζηµιÊω literally “suffered
loss”) as a penalty for the appointment. Neco installed in his stead Iōsias’s
elder son Eliakim and changed his name to Iōakeim (Ιωακειµ).
The events described : create a “highly bizarre situation” (Tal-
shir : ). It seems that the author has misunderstood  Chron
:,  about Iōakeim in three ways. First, when he says that Iōakeim
seized “his brother Zarios [and] he took him from Egypt” (:) he
gets the name wrong. He probably means Sedekias or “Zedekiah” since
the name Zarios (Ζαριοσ) appears to have emerged from an ortho-
graphic corruption caused through confusing the letters ã and ø (the
Hebrew for Sedekias/Zedekiah is åäé÷ãö). The confusion was increased
by the fact that Iōakeim and Iōakeim2 both had brothers with the name
Sedekias/Zedekiah (see Chron :–). Second, the Zarios/Sedekias
referred to is drawn from Chron :, yet he was the brother of
Iōakeim2 (= “Jehoiachin,” Ιωακειµ2) not the elder Iōakeim. Third, it was
Neco who took Iechonias/Jehoahaz to Egypt and no-one brought him
from Egypt back to Jerusalem. The L-text offers a more plausible narra-
tion in its reading: κα½ £δησεν τοÕσ µεγιστšνασ Ιωακε½µ Ζαρ¢σ ³ν δ¥ τÍν
δελφÍν αÐτοÚ συλλαβåν νªγαγεν ε¸σ Α¸γÒπτον (“[Neco] bound the
leading men and Iōakeim’s brother Zares [Sedekias?] was arrested and
led to Egypt”); but the literary effort to bring clarity to confusion makes
it obviously secondary to B.
The first task Iōakeim went about was to bind or imprison the nobles
(v. ). Talshir (: ) finds this action “decidedly strange” and won-
ders if “the author of Esd [is] thinking in terms of a coup d’ état?”
It probably is along these lines that the author of  Esdras is thinking
and Iōakeim arrests the nobles who supported Iechonias/Jehoahaz and
brings his own brother up from Egypt to lend him support (which is
either a misreading of Chron :– or else sheer imagination). It is
said of Iōakeim that “he did what was evil before the Lord” (:) and
“his impurity and impiety” have been recorded in the “book of the times
of the kings” (:). In Iōakeim is the beginning of the downward spi-
ral in the religious qualties of the kings. Implied but not stated is that
 commentary 

during this period there was a geopolitical transition from Judah’s status
as a vassal of Egypt to being a vassal of Babylon (see Williamson :
). Iōakeim was subsequently deposed by Nabouchodnosar and taken
into exile in Babylon with a “bronze chain” (:).
When Iōakeim (Ιωακειµ) was deposed his son Iōakeim2 (Ιωακειµ2) or
Jehoiachin “reigned in his place” (:). The age of Iōakeim2 at the start
of his reign is a matter of textual and historical confusion. It is reported
in Esd : (B) that he was “eight years old” when his reign began
which follows Chron :, but Kgs : has him at “eighteen.” The
textual contradiction followed itself into the textual witnesses of  Esd
: with B and its family of texts omiting δ¢κα, but other manuscripts
reading δ¢κα Èκτâ (see full apparatus in Hanhart a: ). Most
English translations read “eighteen” (Cook; NRSV; ESVA; CEB; NEB;
NETS) which is correct and makes better sense of the description of
Iōakeim2 that “he did what was evil before the Lord” (:). Iōakeim2 was
also deposed and deported by Nabouchodnosor continuing the cycle of
appointment, sin, and deposition by a foreign power (:).
The fourth and final king of Judah was Sedekias. More material is given
to describe the reign of Sedekias than those listed before him. His reign
marks a climax in the evil of the Judean kings that follow after Iōsias. Like
others before him (vv. , ), he “did evil before the Lord” but beyond
them “he did not honour the words from the Lord uttered by Ieremias
the prophet from the mouth of the Lord” (v. ). The reference to
Ieremias whose words came from the “mouth of the Lord” recapitulates
the same sin of Iōsias who also spurned the words from the “mouth of
the Lord” (v. ). The description of Sedekias’ disloyalty and impiety is
emphasized at length in “violating his oath” to king Nabouchodnosor
and how “he rebelled and he hardened his neck and his heart and he
transgressesed the laws of the Lord” (v. ). The participles πιορκªσασ
(“swearing falsely”) σκληρÒνασ (“hardening”) relates back to the oath
that he violated (φºστηµι literally “withdraws from”). The offence is
treated as a transgression of the “law” (νʵιµοσ occurring only here at
v. , while νʵοσ is used elsewhere esp. in Esdras –). The hardness
of neck is prominent in Ieremias’s condemnation of his contemporaries
and it typifies Sedekias (e.g., Jer :; :; :).  Chronicles (:)
and Esdras (:), both highlight Sedekias’s refusal to submit to the
word of the Lord. The phrase “Lord God of Israel” (κυρºου qεοÚ )Ισραηλ)
reappears again (:, :, , ; :) and is a favourite term of the author.
Sedekias becomes the quintessential model of the unrighteous king and
is much like a post-Iōsias Manasseh.
 commentary

The capture of Jerusalem by the Babylonians is passed over in relative

silence and without comment (Coggins & Knibb : ). The focus
falls on the gradual decline in the spiritual state of the monarchy and
the concomitant effect of divine judgment. As the kings of Judah fail to
emulate the piety of Iōsias, the nation and the temple become plunder
for Egypt and then Babylon.
The major textual variant in this section is, as discussed above, the omission
of δ¢κα from B in :, probably because it follows Chron : very closely
and subsequent translators recognized the contradiction with Kgs :. The
inconsistency is maintained throughout in B, while RH consistently render his
age as eighteen in all accounts. Retension of this error underscores the primi-
tive form of B over later texts that sought to iron out any inconsistencies in the
accounts. Hanhart (a: ) prefers Ιεχονιαν attested singularly by B, over
Ιωαχασ (V) and Ιωχαζ (A) with the latter agreeing with Chron :. I con-
cur on the grounds that Ιεχονιαν cannot be a correction whereas Ιωχαζ et al.
probably is. The only other significant feature is that in : B reads )Ισρα­λ
instead of )Ιουδα which is found in A. The designation “Judah and Jerusalem”
is common in the OT and may be original (e.g., Chron :; Isa :; Joel
:; Mal :). The preference for )Ισρα­λ is perhaps due to influence from the
description of YHWH as the κυρºου qεοÚ )Ισρηλ throughout Esdras (see
above). Finally, in : the corrector has amended φιορκªσασ into πιορκª-
σασ.

:–. The Wickedness of Judah and the Punishment of God

This section is closely linked to what precedes it and many commentators
and translators link Sedekias’s reign with the description of the wicked-
ness of the Judean people (see paragraphing of NRSV; ESVA; NETS).
Along with the NEB and CEB, I prefer to see a new section here shifting
from the wickedness of the kings to that of the nobility and the people in
general. Whereas Chron :– is confined to the last kings of Judah,
in Esd :– the narrative is broadened to reflect the entire history
of Judah (Talshir : ). Esd :– catalogues the wickedness of
the leaders, priests, and people, the mocking of prophecy, and the dese-
cration of the temple. It then describes the violent judgment that came
upon the nation corporately as a result of their transgression. The sin of
the inhabitants of Jerusalem is played up at several points (esp. vv. –)
from the source text. Both priesthood and prophecy are treated with con-
tempt by the populace and consequently the Jeremian judgement oracles
come to pass. The perspective drawn here is exactly as Williamson (:
) describes: “With the passage of time, history becomes more rigidly
‘black and white,’ and the author wants to present in the starkest form
 commentary 

how low the nation had sunk in order that in the remainder of his
work this might more effectively point up the contrast with the steady
unraveling of the work of restoration of all that is here described as long.”
A ray of hope does emerge at the very end of narrative in vv. – as
the author looks ahead to the reign of the Persians over Palestine which
will mark the commencement of the period of restoration. Similarly, the
exile is depicted as a kind of Sabbath for the land that is necessary though
temporary.
After the account of Sedekias’s demise, the author proceeds to describe
the complicity of the people in a sway of national wickedness (vv. –
). Attention is given to the “leaders of the people” and the “priests”
whose deeds are described by the verbs σεβ¢ω (“to be impious”) and
νοµ¢ω (“to act lawlessly”). Indeed, the actions of these leaders is said
to exceed “all the impure acts of the nations.” The language here of
impiety and sinning beyond that of the nations is reminiscient of :
where those in ancient times sinned and acted impiously more than
any other nation. Yet in v.  the description of national wickedness
become more acute as they now include the allegation that they “defiled
the temple of the Lord that had been consecrated in Jerusalem” ( µºα-
ναν τÍ ¹ερÍν τοÚ κυρºου τÍ ‘γιαζʵενον ν )Ιερουσα몵). As Ezekiel
 makes clear, the cultic reforms of Iōsias did not last long. What God
makes holy the people (even the priests) have made profane by their
impious acts. The divine response to this defilement and degradation
is mercy insofar as “The God of their ancestors sent his messenger to
call them, because he was trying to spare them and his dwelling place”
(π¢στειλεν É qεÍσ τêν πατ¢ρων αÐτêν δι• τοÚ γγ¢λου αÐτοÚ µετα-
καλ¢σαι αÐτοÒσ καqÍ φεºδετο αÐτêν κα½ τοÚ σκηνâµατοσ αÐτοÚ)
stated in v. . The “God of their ancestors” is obviously the God of the
patriarchs who elected Israel as his people. God sends them a “messen-
ger” (“γγελοσ) in the distinct singular probably implying Ieremias (note
the plural “γγελοι below in v. , but against Talshir [: ] this is
not necessarily a mistake as the author places Ieremias in the broader
horizon of Israel’s and Judah’s prophetic history). This prophetic mes-
senger is commissioned to “call” the people to repentance and covenant
righteousness. The verb µετακαλ¢ω with the prepositional intensifier
µετα means to “call to another place” (L&S, ). The prophet specifi-
cally utters his pronouncement in order “to spare them and his dwelling
place” from judgment. It is possible to avoid a cataclysmic judgment,
though the prospects do not seem hopeful in light of previous history
and current events. The temple is evidently a key concern of the author
 commentary

here as its defilement and destruction are noted. This may relate to
issues in the author’s own day about the restoration of the temple from
the time of its destruction (see Myers : ). The response of the
people to the prophetic messenger is interpreted generally against the
backdrop of Judah’s longstanding rejection of the prophets hence the
switch to plural forms for the messengers in v.  (“γγελοι and προφ²-
ται). The people “mocked” ( κµυκτηρºζω) the messengers and “scoffed”
( κπαºζω) at the prophets and thus invited recompense upon them-
selves. The rejection of the specific messenger Ieremias is indicative of the
rejection of all the prophets before him. Whereas God initially intended
to spare them, now “in his rage” and because of their “impious acts”
he commands “the Chaldeans to be brought against them.” ΧαλδαÂοσ
was known since the times of Herodotus to designate the inhabitants of
Chaldea and it was the place of Abram’s origins (Gen :, ; :).
While Nabouchodnosor has already been identified in the narrative,
the “kings of the Chaldeans” are named here as the divinely appointed
destroyers of Judah and Jerusalem of whom Nabouchodnosor is only
one.
Attention turns to the havoc and destruction wrought by the Chaldean
kings on Judah including the massacre of the population and the razing
of the Jerusalem temple (vv. –a). The Chaldeans kill Judeans in the
preccints of the “holy temple.” Their slaughter knows no discrimination
as “young man or young woman or old man, or child” are not spared in
the relentless carnage. The reason for this is that God (the implied subject
of παρ¢δωκεν) “delivered them into their hands” as a means of judgment.
The picture is a rather vivid one of the ruinous violence of warfare in the
ancient near east where whole populations could be destroyed or else
enslaved and forcibly removed from their lands.
In what follows the author focuses on the fall of the temple. A descrip-
tion is given of the looting of the “sacred vessels of the Lord, great and
small, the treasure chest of the Lord” which are carried off to Baby-
lon (v. ). This is the third time that the plundering of the temple by
the Babylonians has been reported with earlier descriptions given dur-
ing the time of Ιωακειµ (v. ) and Ιωακειµ2 (v. ). Then, somewhat
climatically, “the house of the Lord is burned down and the walls of
Jerusalem destroyed with fire” ( νεπÒρισαν τÍν οÃκον τοÚ κυρºου κα½
£λυσαν τ• τεºχη )Ιερουσαληµ κα½παρ τοÕσ πÒργουσ αÐτ²σ νεπÒρι-
σαν ν πυρ½). After that, in an ominous tone, it is reported that “they
finished ruining and rendering useless all of its splendour” in v.  (see
NRSV, ESVA “utterly destroyed all of its glorious things”). The holy city is
 commentary 

reduced to rubble, the temple is desecrated and destroyed, and the glory
of the Davidic kings that temporarily resurged with Iōsias is finally extin-
guished.
The aftermath of the destruction is recounted in vv. b– and the
servitude of the populace to the Chaldeans is underscored. At the same
time the first notes of hope for restoration begin to appear as well with
the mention of the Persians and the fulfillment of Ieremias’s oracle about
a Sabbath for the land. The “survivors” ( πºλοιποσ) are led away with
the “sword” (i.e., by force) to Babylon where they exist as “servants to
him and to his sons” (i.e., to Nabouchodnosor). The duration is to be
for “seventy-years,” a number full of significance for Ieremias (Jer :–
). The symbolic richness of the number seventy is maintained in Zech
:; : and reinterpreted in Dan :,  as seventy weeks of years.
Torrey (: ) says that the real interval between the Babylonian
sacking of Jerusalem (bce) and the Persian victory over Babylon
accompanied by Cyrus’s decree ( bce) was only forty-nine years so
that the seventy years is not a real computation of time. Yet this period
extends only until the time of the “Persians” (Π¢ρσησ). In the Persian
and Macedonian periods περºζειν “to persianize” was the opposite of
¡λληνºζειν “to hellenize” and the two dynasties and cultures competed
with one another for a number of centuries. It may be that at the time of
the Aramaic Vorlage of Esdras, Israel was still under Persian hegemony.
The arrival of the Persian empire which conquered the Babylonians
is regarded as the fulfillment of Ieremias’s prophecy that, “Until the
land takes pleasure in its sabbaths, all the time of its desolation it shall
sabbatize until the fulfilment of seventy years” (¦ωσ τοÚ εÐδοκ²σαι τ­ν
γ²ν τ• σ’ββατα αÐτ²σ π’ντα τÍν χρÊνον τ²σ ρηµâσεωσ αÐτ²σ
σαββατιε ε¸σ συµπλªρωσιν τêν ¡βδﵪκοντα [v. ]). The precise
wording is probably a conflation of Jer :, :, and Lev :–
and the point is that though the exile was a cathartic necessity, as the
Law and Prophets say, it would not be the end of the nation (Myers :
). The subject of the verb εÐδοκ¢ω (“to take pleasure”) is probably
γ² (“land, earth, ground”) and represents the land taking pleasure in
its own Sabbath. However, it is equally possible that there is an ellipsis
and “God” is the implied subject of εÐδοκ¢ω just as he is the implied
subject of παραδ¢δωµι in v.  (for a similar use of εÐδοκ¢ω with an
equally ambiguous subject of the verb see Col :). This would imply
that God takes pleasure in the land during the time of its sabbatical which
is a time of freedom from transgression. During the time of “desolation”
( ρªµωσισ connoting also devastation and depopulation [BDAG, ;
 commentary

GELS, ]) the land is said to “sabbatize.” The verb σαββατºζω is rare
(see in the LXX, Exod :; Lev :; :–;  Chron :;  Macc
:) and it means to keep the Sabbath or to rest on the Sabbath (GELS,
). Talshir thinks that underlying εÐδοκ¢ω is the Aramaic noun äöø
with the idea of repayment that would imply a translation of “until the
land paid back its Sabbaths” (Talshir : ). That is quite possible, but
as always, still speculative. It is perhaps because the people had not made
provision for observing the Sabbath in the pre-exilic period that rest for
the land was provided by the exile (Klein : ). The chief point is
that the land is laid waste exactly as Ieremias prophesied, but the land
also enjoys a rest during the time of desolation which will last seventy-
years associated with the term of exile.
At two places B uses )Ιερουσα몵 for “Jerusalem” (:, ) whereas different
nouns are found in RH drawn from A that imply the inhabitants of Jerusalem
and not just the place ()ΙεροσολÒµοισ and )ΙεροσολÒµων). In : the original
scribe of B made É βασιλεÕσ the person who sent his messenger to the Israelites
and this was rightly changed by a corrector to É qεÍσ. The corrector has also
amended συνπλªρωσιν to συµπλªρωσιν in :.

The Decree of Cyrus and the

Beginning of the Return to Judah (:–)

The perspective of Esdras changes suddenly as the reader is projected

into the Persian period. This becomes apparent with the description of
the decree of Cyrus that permited the peoples exiled by the Babylonians
to return to their native lands. The author turns now from  Chronicles 
to Ezra  in his sources and omits any mention of the overlapping period
between the end of Chronicles and the beginning of Ezra. The author
connects the late monarchic, exilic, and restoration periods together so
as to emphasize the continuity between the two temples (Williamson
: ). Indeed, the history of Judah is highly compressed, almost
telescoped in the narration. The disruption of the exile is not denied, but
relativized, as the narrative quickly accelerates into the time of restora-
tion in fulfilment of Ieremias’s prophecy about the seventy-years of exile.
It is in this account of restoration, including its challenges and set backs,
that the interests of the author are to be found. It is in the sequence of
exile and restoration that the author discerns the purposes of God for
the Judean nation.
The rise and fall of Iōsias and the sacking of Jerusalem by the Baby-
lonians furnished a pessimistic and bleak picture for the nation up to
 commentary 

this point. However, even the final verses of  Esdras  (vv. –)
finished with a glimmer of hope as the exile was temporary and would
serve in fact to preserve a remnant of the nation. That hope begins to
bloom in full as the Persian conquest of Babylon enables the exiles to
return to Jerusalem and to start rebuilding the temple.  Esdras  records
the decree of Cyrus to rebuild the temple in Jerusalem and his permission
for the exiles to return to Judah (:–). Then it is recorded as to how
many of the exiles were roused to undertake such a journey, how they
were suitably equipped for their travel with many gifts, and how they
took back with them the sacred vessels of the temple that were seized by
Nabouchodosor (:–). That in turn sets the scene for the opposition
to the rebuilding of the temple by the regional inhabitants that follows
afterwards (:–).

:–. The Decree

The setting in the book shifts from the destruction of Judea to the Persian
conquest of Babylon and Cyrus’s policy of permitting exiles to return
to their native territories (see other accounts of the decree in  Esd
:–; Chron :–; Ezra :–; :–; Josephus, Ant. .). A
temporal transition is indicated by the Gentive Absolute βασιλεÒοντοσ
ΚÒρου Περσêν, providing an independent clause to mark the new
period (see Porter : ). The clause is constructed so in order
to signal important prior background information for the following
narrative and to describe the accompanying circumstances to Cyrus’s
decree (Fuller ). The decree that Cyrus makes portrays him as an
agent of Israel’s God who is commissioned to rebuild the temple as their
God has made him Lord of the inhabitable world. As such, the Judean
exiles are invited to embark on a journey back to Jerusalem to participate
in this rebuilding project. Under imperial sponsorship they are equipped
with appropriate provisions and lavish gifts for their journey.
Cyrus became king of Anshan in  bce and he succeeded in defeat-
ing both the Median, Lydian, and Babylonian forces by  bce. Thus,
the “first year of Cyrus’s reign” is bce when Cyrus’s rule over Baby-
lon and Mesopotmia began. It is stated that his reign began “in order
that the word of the Lord by the mouth of Ieremias might be fulfilled”
and the reference is obviously to the prediction by Ieremias of the end of
exile after seventy-years (Jer :, “For thus says the Lord: Only when
Babylon’s seventy years are completed will I visit you, and I will fulfill to
you my promise and bring you back to this place”). The problem being of
 commentary

course that if the exile began ca. bce it is only  years until  bce.
Alternatively, it is possible that the seventy-years were thought to extend
to the completion of the temple in bce. There again, perhaps “sev-
enty” is a round number approximating to a single lifetime. Or else the
prophecy of Ieremias includes the period of Babylon’s domination of the
east from ca. bce with the fall of Nineveh in bce with the sur-
render of Babylon. Either way the seventy years is an approximation of
somekind (see Fensham : –).
Although Cyrus is the principal actor he is ultimately an agent of a
higher power for effecting Judah’s restoration (vv. –). It is said that
“Lord aroused the spirit of Cyrus” («γειρεν κÒριοσ τÍ πνεÚµα ΚÒρου).
This has the effect of making Israel’s God the final cause of Cyrus’s
decree and his benevolence towards the Judean exiles. This Lord is not a
territorial deity limited to one geographical point, but he is the Lord over
Persia and Babylon as well. This Lord can inspire foreign kings to do his
will as the God of Judah and Israel is the Lord of the nations. Accolades
are bestowed upon Cyrus in Isa : where Cyrus is his [i.e., the Lord’s]
“annointed” and he is “called” to subdue kings and perform other tasks
for “the sake of my servant Jacob, and Israel my chosen” (Isa :–). It
may be precisely because Cyrus allowed the rebuilding of the temple that
he is called “annointed” (çéùî) since it is the role of an anointed king to
build a temple for the Lord (see Sam :–).
Building new temples was only to be undertaken with divine consent
as approved by religious intermediaries like priests and seers. Josephus
speculates that Cyrus was prompted to rebuild the temple by the oracles
of Isaiah (Ant. .–) which Clines (: ) thinks possible since
some of Cyrus’s highest officials were Jews. Jewish officials in the Perian
administrative apparatus may have interceded on behalf of the nation,
but it is impossible to say if any of the prophetic literature, Isaiah or
Jeremiah, specifically influenced Cyrus’s decision (see Myers : ).
It is asserted that the Lord “aroused” (Cook; NETS, NRSV, ESVA
“stirred”; NEB “moved”) Cyrus to have an edict “proclaimed” and “put
into writing” (found in two versions in Ezra: one in Hebrew [Ezra :–]
and one in Aramaic [Ezra :–], and see also  Chron :–. On the
differences between the Hebrew and Aramaic edicts see the summary
in Clines : . Myers :  suggests that they are not variants of
the same document, but independent documents dealing with the same
official act). The image is that of heralds being despatched to announce
news to Judean communities and it is then formally documented as proof
of the proclamation (see Chron :; Ezra :; Neh :). The opening
 commentary 

formula τ’δε λ¢γει (lit. “there it is saying”) was common in prophetic

words from the Lord (e.g., Exod :; Sam :; Amos :; Acts :;
Rev :, , , ; :, , ) and in ancient near eastern royal decrees as
prefaces to authoritative and binding speech (e.g.,  Kgs :; Jdt :). In
Koine Greek it was obsolete and archaic, rather like, “Thus saith,” from
the Elizabethan period. For instance, τ’δε λ¢γει )Αµµων (“Thus saith,
Ammon” [Plato, Alc. .b) introduces an oracle from Zeus/Ammon.
The expression has an antique yet authoritative ring about it (see Aune
: , –).
The divine power commissioning Cyrus is designated as “The Lord of
Israel, the Most High Lord” (É κÒριοσ τοÚ )Ισραηλ κÒριοσ É Ôψιστοσ)
which indicates the majesty of Israel’s national deity. The adjective Ôψι-
στοσ “most high” signifies not Cyrus’s assent to Jewish monotheism, but
was a common honorific description for gods in the ancient east. Such
language could often render the lines between henotheism and monothe-
ism somewhat malleable and plastic as they could be used of monotheists
and polytheists alike. The designation was particularly common in Hel-
lenistic Judaism (e.g., Jdt :; Wisd :; :; and esp. Sir :; :,
; :, , etc.) and it occurs later in Esdras (:; :, ; :). The
“Most High God” is a more Hellenized and religiously ambiguous title
of praise compared to Ezra : which refers to “the God of heaven” (éäìà
íéîùä).
Esdras plays up Cyrus’s role in acting on behalf of God more than
what Ezra :– does (Talshir : ). Cyrus’s edict involved (a) recog-
nition that Israel’s God had appointed him (ναδεºκνυµι, see  Esd :
for the appointment of judges) king of the “inhabited world” (ο¸κουµ¢νη
suggests the world as an administrative theatre of an international mil-
itary power); and (b) that he had been “designated” (σηµαºνω) to build
a house for him in Jerusalem. The mention of “king of the inhabited
world” is more than politically charged rhetoric as the Persian kingdom
stretched from the Indus River to the Mediterranean and touched three
continents (Asia, Europe, Africa). The Cyrus cylinder records Cyrus’s
political self-representation of himself: “I am Cyrus, king of the world,
great king, legitimate king, king of Babylon, king of Sumer and Akka-
dia of the four rims (of the earth)” (ANET ). The master of the
largest empire of the ancient east is aroused, appointed, and designated
in the service of the Judean God. This act was not unique to the Judean
diaspora living in Babylon as other exiled peoples were also allowed to
return to their lands and the sacred vessels returned to shrines and sanc-
tuaries. To cite the Cyrus cylinder again: “I returned to (these) sacred
 commentary

cites on the other side of the Tigris, the sanctuaries of which have been
in ruins for a long time, the images which (used) to live therein and
established for them permanent sanctuaries, I (also) gathered all their
(former) inhabitants and returned (to them) their habitations” (ANET
). Still, Cyrus’s decree was interpreted in Jewish literature as a fulfill-
ment of the prophetic promises about the end of exile and in the very
least a sign of divine providence in favor of the Judean people.
The second element of Cyrus’s decree is that the exiles are encouraged
to return to Jerusalem in order to carry out this rebuilding project
(vv. :–). The interrogative ε» is permissive rather than conditional
and may be fittingly rendered, “Since, therefore, some of you belong to
his nation,” affirming that the exiles belong to God rather than asking
after it, or setting a condition for their return. The sentence is dominated
by the imperative verbs “be” (£στω) and “rebuild” (ο¸κοδοµεºτω) and
directs the actions of the returning exiles towards restorations (see Porter
: –). The decree assumes that Jerusalem is the special residence
of Judah’s God, but also that this God has a special presence among
his people. Wherever the exiles are “dwelling” they are asked to be a
help to “him.” It is unclear who the personal pronoun αÐτÊσ refers
to as the one requiring help. It could be either for the Lord (CEB)
or those who choose to go up to Jerusalem (NRSV) that assistance
is requested for. Most likely, it is the former as the focus is on doing
things for the Lord and that is achieved instrumentally by returning
to Judea and contributing provisions for those who are undertaking
the sojourn. Several gifts are suggested such as “gold with silver, with
gifts of horses and cattle.” Found also is the first reference to “votive
offerings” (εÐχ•σ) which occurs throughout (see  Esd :; :, ; :;
:).
In accordance with Persian policy, Cyrus permited the exiles to return
to Judea from Babylon in order to rebuild the temple of the Lord. Cyrus
is portrayed as a servant of Israel’s Lord summoned to do this restoration
work. This would be naturally perceived from one angle as evidence
of God’s providential ordering of human history by using kings to do
his bidding. But from another perspective, the Lord is invoked as the
legitimator of the Persian Empire with Cyrus mediating and distributing
the saving acts of the Lord to the people. The decree was less about
Cyrus’s religious devotion and more about Persian propaganda than
anything else. It was an act of genuine polytheistic piety insofar as it
sought the favor of the territorial gods in the territories that Cyrus
governed over. Cyrus’s polytheism recognized the existence of other gods
 commentary 

and to some degree revered them, but these were subordinate to the
supreme gods Bel and Nebo: “May all the gods who I have resettled
in their sacrted cities ask daily Bel and Nebo for a long life for me
and may they recommend me (to him)” (ANET ). For Hellenistic
Jews who lived under the Seleucid empire reading this decree might
be reminiscient of the actions undertaken by Antiochus III (ca. –
 bce) who settled some two thousand Jewish families from Babylon
and Mesopotamia in the region of Lydia and Phrygia (Ant. ., –
).
Overall, the decree of Cyrus indicates God’s superintending of a for-
eign king for the purpose of securing favor and good will towards “those
of his nation.” The decree is given its first mention at :–, but it is
rehearsed again in compressed form at Esd :–. This pragmatic
release of subjugated peoples by the Persians is seen as a fulfillment of
the prophetic word of the Lord given to Ieremias. Jewish and Christian
readers of Esdras might have conceivably read here a scriptural prece-
dent for socio-political realities that were familiar to them. The Lord
directs the hearts of kings like a watercourse (Prov :) and so trans-
forms the estate of his people under the reign of kings from Antiochus
Epiphanus IV to Julius Caesar or from Nero to Constantine.
Few textual problems affect this pericope. B omits the preposition ν in : as it
often does when followed by a dative noun. Hanhart (b: ) thinks that
the B and L texts added a conjuctive κα½ in : because it was mistaken for
a counterpart of the following ùåöøáå. The corrector has inserted an epsilon
to amend the text to βοηq{ε}ºτωσα(ν). In : we find the only point in the
document where the scribe fails to render κÒριοσ for YHWH with the nomina
sacrum κσ.

:–. The Response to the Decree

Following the decree of :– is the reception of the decree among the
Judean exiles and the Persian sanction of the return of the sacred vessels
to the temple in Jerusalem. Whereas the continuity between the first and
second temples had been made in literature before  Esdras, the current
presentation accentuates the continuity between the two monuments.
The continuity of this order effectively relativizes the interruption of the
exile as seen in the advent of the prophetic word (v. ) and the return of
the vessels of the temple which receive even stronger emphases (vv. –
). It results in a “bold presentation” (Williamson : ) that marks
the undoing of the exile and narrates the gracious benefaction lavished
upon the exiles by a Persian monarch.
 commentary

The response of the exiles to the decree, of both their leadership and
the general populace, is depicted as being entirely positive and highly
enthusiastic. Three groups are mentioned as being stimulated by the
decree. First, the “tribal heads of the ancestral houses” of Judah and
Benjamin understood as the family and clan chiefs of the Judean exiles.
Second, the “priests and the Levites” denoting the religious apparatus,
albeit a non-functioning one dislocated from the temple while they are
in Babylon. Third, more generally, “all whose spirit the Lord stirred up
to go up to build a house for the Lord in Jerusalem” (κα½ π’ντων ìν
«γειρεν κÒριοσ τÍ πνεÚµα ναβ²ναι ο¸κοδοµ²σαι οÃκον τíê κυρºíω τÍν
ν )Ιερουσαληµ). Whereas the Lord stirred up the spirit of King Cyrus
to make the decree (v. ), now the the Lord stirs up the spirit of the
people to positively respond to the decree and to go and rebuild the
temple (v. ). This is the only mention of “spirit” (πνεÚµα) in  Esdras
and God’s Spirit has no particular attention given to it thereafter. The
group who is suitably aroused to return from exile are not acting alone,
but are supported by “those in the immediate vicinity” (ο¹ περικÒκλíω).
This group probably signifies Judeans who elected to remain in Babylon
and did not undertake the sojourn, rather than native Babylonians who
are coerced into supporting them. It is unlikely that one should read here
an allusion to the “plundering” of the Egyptians (Exod :) because
those assisting the returnees are Judean and the gifts are rendered entirely
voluntarily (contra Coggins & Knibb : ). The assistance rendered
by this circle consists of religious gifts for the temple comprising of “silver
and gold,” practical provisions of “horses” and “cattle” for the trip, and
finally a pious gift of “votive offerings” to be deposited at the temple. All
of the Judean exiles, those returning and those not, contribute in various
ways to the refurbishment of the temple as enabled and lead by their
spirits being prompted by the Lord. The Lord becomes the chief actor
by whom these events are providentially ordered and executed in the
opening scenes of the drama of restoration.
Following on in vv. – is an account of the returning of the vessels
to the temple (see Kgs :; :–;  Chron :, ; Jer :–
). King Cyrus undoes what Nabouchodnosar did in looting the Jew-
ish temple. Nabouchodnosar committed not only theft but sacrilege by
depositing the sacred vessels in “his idolatrous temple” (NRSV, ESVA
“temple of idols”; NETS “idol temple”). The sacrilege of the seizure of
the vessels away from the temple was intensified by their placement in a
temple of a pagan god. Cyrus’s act is not in the order of a conversion
or out of steadfast devotion to the Lord, but simply occurs as a deed
 commentary 

of cosmpolitan piety and political propaganda in respecting the indige-

nous god of Syro-Palestine. The transfer of property is narrated as being
delivered to Mithridates the royal treasurer and finally to Samanassaros
the governor of Judea. The later figure is called “Sheshbazzar” in Ezra.
It is not certain how he relates to Zorobabel who takes a similar role as
“governor” later on (Steinmann [: –] argues that Zorobabel
was one of the prominent men in the return under Sheshbazzar and suc-
ceeded after Sheshbazzar). Most likely, Samanassaros was the first leader
of the exilic community who laid the foundations of the temple (see Ezra
:, ; :–). According to Chron :, Samanassaros was a son of
Jehoiachin and he was, as far as we can tell, succeeded by Zorobabel his
nephew. The items returned are listed in detail and the numbers do not
correspond with the numbers given in Ezra :–. In Ezra :– the
vessels add up to , or , (depending if íéðùî is taken as ,)
whereas the amount of items is designated as , in  Esdras. Most
likely, this is due to a textual corruption that occurred in the revision
of Ezra from Aramaic to Hebrew (see Fensham : –).  Esdras
smooths out the anomaly by changing Ezra’s “thirty” golden libation
bowls to a “thousand” and by correctly adding the sum of items as ,
in :, . The vessels are returned with the people of “captivity” as they
go from “Babylon to Jerusalem.” The words used here are deliberate and
are meant to highlight the reversal of fortunes and mark the beginning of
restoration. Temple and people go hand in hand and the reconstitution
of the Judean tribes entails the rebuilding of the Jerusalem temple and
the reinstitution of its cultus.
The restoration narrative begins to enter full swing and one detects
the literary effort to depict both a reversal of current circumstances and
a restoration of the Judean kingdom to its former state. The interconnect-
edness of people and temple is underscored as their purpose in returning
is to rebuild the temple and all their resources are injected into this
endeavour. The return of the exiles and the release of the sacred vessels
occur due to the good will of the Persians towards displaced peoples, and
yet, the real instigator behind the event is the Lord who stirs up hearts to
act in a way that is providentially and positively well-disposed towards
his people.
B has ”για instead of the more widely attested ¹ερ• at : (see also :). Whereas
the Hebrew of Ezra has “Sheshbazzar” (øöáùù) which is translated as Σαµανασ-
σ’ροσ by B, other witnesses translate this as Σαναβασσαροσ (see discussion in
Torrey : –). At :, B abbreviates the numerals δισχºλιαι τετρακÊ-
σιαι as βυ but no other numbers in this section are abbreviated.
 commentary

Opposition to the Rebuilding of Jerusalem (:–)

The initial joy relating to the return of the exiles to Judea does not last
long before the returnees experience militant opposition from a Samar-
itan led coalition in the region. The version of the events in  Esdras
highlights the false crest to restoration that the Cyrus decree represented
and the failure of prophetic promises to materialize during this period.
The hopes for the Judeans must be oriented towards a deeper future and
rest not in the whim of Persian kings, but in the God who alone can bring
them out of exile.
The author of Esdras significantly rearranges the material from MT
Ezra. To begin with, he passes over Ezra – concerning the list of the
returning exiles and the rebuilding of the temple. Both units appear
much later in Esdras and instead the author immediately proceeds
to detail the opposition to the rebuilding of the temple starting with
the correspondence between the Samaritans and Artaxerxēs found in
Ezra :–. Consciously omitted then is the prelude to the opposi-
tion described in Ezra :– since it concerns Zorobabel and Zorob-
abel has not yet entered the narrative fray until after the story of the
three bodyguards in Esdras –. In the revised chronology Zoroba-
bel returns to Jerusalem not during the reign of Cyrus (–bce)
as in Ezra , but during the reign of Darius (– bce) according to
Esdras . Hence the redaction and reorganizaton of the Ezra material
is obviously deliberate. The genealogical record of the returning exiles,
the account of the refurbishment of the temple, and the involvement of
Zorobabel in the rebuilding process are projected to later in the narra-
tive in order to set-up the entrance of Zorobabel. Talshir (: )
perhaps asserts too much when she claims that the reorganisation of
material is entirely due to the desire to introduce Zorobabel after the
story of the bodyguards. More likely, the material is rewritten in light
of accentuating the reconstruction of the temple, especially its founda-
tions (:; cf. :– where only the temple is spoken about and not
the rebuilding of the city), and the delay of Zorobabel’s entrance into the
narrative is subservient to that theme. A further reason for the deviation
is because Ezra  is chronologically confusing as it locates between the
reigns of Cyrus and Darius correspondence from the much later period
of Artaxerxēs (–bce). The Ezra material is arguably arranged the-
matically rather than chronologically. In any case, the author of  Esdras
has attempted to smooth over these perceived conflicts by projecting
Zorobabel’s appearance from the reign of Cyrus to that of Darius and
 commentary 

also by several subtle modifications such as omitting reference to the cor-

respondence of Xerxes (Ezra :) and conflating the two letters of Ezra
:– in Esd :. Overall, the redaction is meant to underscore that
the reconstruction of the city and especially the rebuilding of the temple
and has not, despite Cyrus’s decree, proceeded very far. Reference to the
temple is added at particular junctures in Esdras where no such refer-
ence occurs in the parallel Ezra accounts (i.e., Ezra :,  and  Esd
:, ). Thus the scene is set for the arrival of Zorobabel and the min-
istry of Esras.
The literary purpose of this unit is probably to describe the gathering
storms that accompany the restoration process and the genuine strug-
gle of the exiles to re-establish their social and religious life in Judea.
The continuity between the old and new temples has been reiterated, the
Lord’s hand was visibly at work in arousing the heart of Cyrus, and stir-
ring the people up to do the restorative work, but it is not plain sailing
thereafter. God’s people remain opposed and oppressed by their neigh-
bours and it sets up the question as to how Israel’s Lord will yet deliver
them from the threats of those who would prevent them from fulfill-
ing the prophetic hope of restoration. The rebuilding process is stifled
no sooner than it began. What is needed, then, is further intervention
for the Judeans and this of course takes place in the arrival of Ezra and
Zorobabel.
The sequence that unfolds includes the letter to Artaxerxēs written
by the Samaritan led coalition (:–), the reply of Artaxerxēs rec-
ognizing the validity of the objection (:–), and the cessation of
reconstruction and the looming military threat from Judah’s neighbours
(:–). The reconstruction process had no sooner begun by royal
decree than it is ended also by royal decree, and so demonstrates the
shakey fortunes of the Judeans under the Persians.

:–. The Letter to Artaxerxēs

The chronological framework of the narrative shifts from the decree
of Cyrus and its reception among the Judean exiles to a later period
when the exiles have begun returning to Jerusalem and have already
commenced the rebuilding process. The author notably omits any ref-
erence to Xerxes from the Ezra material and anachronistically places
the reign of Artaxerxēs between that of Cyrus and Darius despite the
fact that Artaxerxēs reigned after Darius. Josephus substitutes Cambyses
(– bce) for Artaxeres in his version of the correspondence (Ant.
 commentary

.–). That is chronologically more correct as Cyrus was succeeded

by Cambyses who was himself succeeded by Darius I (–bce).
Ezra’s cluttered and dense opening in Ezra : is transformed in  Esd
: into a more structured and succinct account where Hebrew and
Aramaic documents are telescoped together (Talshir : ). As the
story unfolds it is evident that the returnees are experiencing hostility
from the surrounding populace because their reconstructive efforts are
thought to be a threat to the security and prosperity of the inhabitants
around them. Local Samaritan officials object to the rebuilding process
and write a letter to Artaxerxēs informing him of the reconstruction
activities. Furthermore, they inform Artaxerxēs that Jerusalem has been
a seditious and troublesome city in the past and its leaders have pre-
viously opposed both local rulers in adjacent cites and even suzerain
monarchs, as the king’s royal records will confirm. The reconstruction
of the city, its walls, and the erection of the temple, in their view, will
provoke further opposition from the Jerusalmites. That will include a
refusal to pay tribute and blockading lines of communication from Per-
sia into Coele-Syria and Phoenicia. Stated this way a negative response
from Artaxerxēs would be understandably expected.

Table : List of Persian Kings After the Exile

Cyrus –
Cambyses –
Smerdis 
Darius I –
Xerxes –
Artaxerxese I –

The shift from Cyrus’s decree to a setting during the reign of Artaxerxēs is
abrupt and no information in between is filled in as the story moves from
the decree to the objection of the local Samaritan rulers to the recon-
structive process (something akin to Ezra :–: is assumed though
not stated). The opposition derives from several key leaders named as
“Bēlemos and Mithridatēs and Tabellios and Rathumos and Beelteth-
mos and Samellios” (v. ). Among those explicitly identified are only
Samellios who is specified as a “scribe” (γραµµατεÒσ) and Rathumos
who is identified as a “reporter” (προσπºπτω). Myers (: ) specu-
lates that, apart from the dubious names of Bēlemos and Beeltethmos,
the ring leaders probably included Mithridatēs (the Persian consul in
Samaria), Tabellios (the chief Samartian representative of the people),
 commentary 

Rathumos (the commanding officer [not scribe]), and Samellios (secre-

tary of the Persian consulate). The persons named are mostly Samaritan
leaders said to be assisted by a clientele of “those of their retinue” that
support their measures against the resettled Judeans and Jerusalemites.
The council (βουλª) who collectively sent the letter to Artaxerxēs had
some administrative jurisdiction over Coele-Syria and Phoenicia which
is a geographically wide area (v. ). The terms of association here are
very broad and the inclusion of “Coele-Syria and Phoenica” in addition
to the Samarian officials may indicate that the opposition extended as
far as all of the fifth Persian satrapy (Myers : ). The region was
known simply as that “beyond the [Euphrates] river” (Ezra :) in Per-
sian terminology and that designated the eastern most province of the
Persian Empire and its most vulnerable flank. “Coele-Syria” was a name
for the region only in the Greek period. The word κοºλη meaning “hol-
low” and thus “Coele-Syria” was so named for the valleys and geograph-
ical depressions west of the Euphrates River lying east of the Orontes.
“Coele-Syria” is named with “Phoenica” fourteen times in  Esdras (:,
–, ; :; :, , , ; :; :, , ) and was the significant
eastern seaboard of the Persian empire. Phoenicia fell to Macedonian
control after a seven month siege in bce and represented a sigificant
incursion of Greek forces into Persian territory and effectively isolated
the Persian armada. Palestine was strategically significant to the Persian,
Greek, and Roman empires not due to any natural resource in the region,
but because of its significance as a land bridge connecting Egypt and Asia
Minor.
The letter ( πιστολª) greets Artaxerxēs as the master of the Persian
Empire and proceeds to detail the basis of the complaint against the
Jerusalem reconstruction process (v. ). A significant document is again
described with an adjectival participle (Ñπογεγραµµ¢νην πιστολªν)
indicating its import. The verb Ñπογρ’φω can be used with reference to
making a charge or accusation against someone (L&S, ). Artaxerxēs
is addressed as “lord king” (κυρºíω βασιλεÂ) which was a familiar form
of address for monarchs in the ANE where kingship and divinity were
commonly integrated. It is reported that “the Judeans who came up
from you to us have come to Jerusalem and are building that seditious
and evil city, living among its market places and walls, and laying the
foundations for a temple” (ο¹ )ΙουδαÂοι ναβ’ντεσ παρ’ ѵêν πρÍσ
©µšσ λqÊντεσ ε¸σ )Ιερουσαληµ τ­ν πÊλιν τ­ν ποστ’τιν κα½ πονηρ•ν
ο¸κοοÚσιν τ’σ τε γορ•σ αÐτ²σ κα½παρ τ• τεºχη qεραπεÒουσιν κα½ ναÍν
Ñποβ’λλονται). The reference to the reconstruction of the temple is not
 commentary

found in the parallel Ezra account that focuses only on the rebuilding
of the city. In Josephus’s version of the events (Ant. .) he refers to
the “zeal” for the temple’s rebuilding among the Judeans. In mentioning
these things, the council brings a number of allegedly alarming facts
to the attention of Artaxerxēs in order to persuade him to inhibit the
reconstruction of the city (v. ). These warnings include: () A rebuilt
and refortified Jerusalem will not submit tribute and will oppose kings
(v. ); () The royal archives will confirm that Jerusalem had earlier
been a troublesome city for local kings and that the Judeans have set
up blockades in the past (vv. –); and () Consequently, if the city
is rebuilt and if its walls are erected, then the king will “no longer have a
secure way of passage into Coelesyria and Phoenicia” (v. ). Crucial for
their case is that in order to prevent “sedition” (ποστ’τησ) the king must
not allow the city to be rebuilt (νºστηµι). The security of the region is
contingent upon Jerusalem remaining “desolate.” Exactly what rebellions
are intented is difficult to determine. Those of Hezekiah and Zedekiah
(and the Maccabeans and Zealots would emulate this later for diaspora
readers) would obviously come to mind for Jewish audiences. Whether
Persian monarchs would actually hold records of the various rebellions
under Assyrian and Babylonian rule is an open question. Less likely is
the possibility that it refers to rebellions during the time of Xerxes in
 bce (see Fensham : ). In any case, the Samaritans play on the
well-known reputation of Jerusalem for rebelling and resisting foreign
overlords and they seek to ensure that the city remain in its decrepit
state. No precise motivation for their action is given, other than obviously
eliminating a potential competitor in the region. Josephus claims (Ant.
.) that they were motivated by greed in their actions against the
Judeans.
The narrative might well strike a chord with Diaspora Jews who expe-
rienced occasional pogroms from their Gentile majority neighbours.
Expulsions from cities, riots, and legal discrimination were not infre-
quent incurrences in cities such Alexandria, Antioch, and Rome in
the second century bc. Syrian soldiers could be exceptionally harsh in
recrimination against the Judeans in Palestine after suffering under Has-
monean hegemony in the region for so long. This included the forced
conversion of neighbouring tribes in Idumean and Iturea. In the first cen-
turies of the Common Era, Christian readers could also identify with the
narrative as they themselves experienced hostility and various forms of
persecution at the hands of local and imperial officials prior to Constan-
tine’s decree legalizing Christianity.
 commentary 

The most textually significant features are the differences between B on the
one hand and RH and Göttingen editions on the other hand for the names
stated in :–. The names printed in the Göttingen edition of the Septuagint
are conjectural emmandations based on the original Hebrew/Aramaic forms
of Ezra (Talshir : ). For instance, βεσλεµοσ (over βηλεµοσ) appearing
in the Göttingen and RH editions is based on a conjecture by J.A. Bewer.
Ραουµοσ (over Ραqυµοσ) is a conjecture by C.C. Torrey even though Ραqυµοσ is
supported by Josephus (Ant. .). Βεελτεεµοσ (over Βε¢λτεqµοσ) is another
conjecture from Bewer, while ΣαµσαÂοσ (over Σαµ¢λλιοσ) derives again from
Torrey (see Bewer : ; Torrey :  cited in Rahlfs a: ). In
many cases, B and A agree on the names or have only minor variations among
them (e.g., both have βηλεµοσ; Ραqυµοσ [B] and Ραqυοσ [A]; βεελτεqµοσ [B]
and βαελτεqµοσ [A], as well as Σαµ¢λλιοσ [B] and Σεµ¢λλιοσ [A]). While I
have no major problem with reasoned eclectisim (see Holmes ), one must
wonder if subjugating the text to the tyranny of Torrey’s and Bewer’s conjectural
emmandations is really the best way to (re)construct an “original” text. That
aside, B may attest to an earlier stage of the text where the author of Esdras
was pioneering the translation and transliteration of Aramaic and Hebrew
names into Greek, whereas other textual witnesses have sought more accurate
translations/transliterations of the names in light of other Greek editions of
the Ezra material (cf. Esd :– [LXX]). Clearly some of the names emerge
from a mistaken translation of the Vorlage. For instance, Βε¢λτεqµοσ in Esd
: is mistranslated as a proper name when the original íòè­ìòá means
“commanding officer” (Myers : ) or “high comissioner” (Coggins &
Knibb : ) in Ezra :. Later íòè­ìòá from Ezra : is mistranslated as
τ• προσπºπτοντα (“the reporter”) in Esd :. Also, Βηλεµοσ in : may be a
mistranslation of íìùá (biše lôm) meaning “in agreement with” (i.e., Artaxerxēs
in agreement with Mithredath for Ezra :, rather than being a proper name [see
NJB which omits “Bishlam”]). The omission of κριτα½ in : is most probably
accidental or perhaps it was left out because the word was superfluous beside
the description of the group as βουλª.

:–. The Reply of Artaxerxēs and the Cessation of Reconstruction

The letter from the Samaritan officials is duely received by Artaxerxēs
and he acts immediately upon their warning that Persian holdings in
the region are threatened by a rebuilt Jerusalem. The investigation of the
royal archives reveals that Jerusalem has indeed consistently interfered
with the peace and populace of the region. Consequently Artaxerxēs
gives orders to prevent the rebuilding of the city upon at which Rathu-
mos and Samellios take the initiative and lead a cohort of troops to
Jerualem in order to to stop the reconstruction efforts. The cessation
of the rebuilding of the city and the temple is said to have lasted until
the second year of King Darius (ca.  bce). The passage confirms that
an interruption of the rebuilding project was due to interference by
 commentary

Samaritan leaders, rather than due to indifference within the restoration

community as in Haggai and Zechariah (see Ezra :).
Artaxerxēs writes back to the scribal intermediaries of Rathumos,
Beeltethmos, and Samellios and those of Samaria, Syria and Phoenicia
that they represent (Συρºα appears here in : for the first time with-
out the geographical prefix Κοºλη and similarly in :, , ; :, ).
In vv. – the contents of the letter is recorded and it affirms the sub-
stance of the accusation made against the Jerusalemites by the Samaritan
officials. Specifically, that “this city from of old has rebelled against kings”
(© πÊλισ κεºνη ξ α¸êνοσ βασιλεÚσιν ντιπαρατ’σσουσα), “the men in
it perpetuate revolts and wars” (ο¹ “νqρωποι ποστ’σεισ κα½ πολ¢µουσ
ν αÐτµ² συντελοÚντεσ), “strong and harsh kings resided in Jerusalem
lording it over [others]” (βασιλεÂσ ¸σχυρο½ κα½ σκληρο½ ³σαν ν )Ιερου-
σαληµ κυριεÒοντεσ), and the monarchs of Jerusalem “exacted tribute
from Coelesyria and Phoenicia” (φορολογοÚντεσ Κοºλην Συρºαν κα½
Φοινºκην). The “strong and harsh kings” in question are not nominated
but David, Solomon, Hezekiah, and Iōsias would be obvious choices for
Jewish readers to think of. Similar rhetoric might have been used as a
reason for Syrian forces acting against Jerusalem during the Maccabean
crisis (e.g., the words of Demetrius narrated in  Macc :, “Those of
the Jews who are called Hasideans, whose leader is Judas Maccabeus, are
keeping up war and stirring up sedition, and will not let the kingdom
attain tranquility” [see Macc :]).
The course of action that Artaxerxēs directs his subjects in Samaria
to undertake as a response (νÚν οÛν) is then stated in vv. –. That
includes orders to “prevent these men from building the city” and taking
“advance measures that nothing more be done.” This is so that there
would be no further “irritation” ( νοχλ¢ω as in NJB “nuisance,” NETS
“annoy,” ESVA “annoyance”) to kings. The Judean attempt “to build”
(ο¸κοδοµ²σαι) the city is matched by Persian orders “to prevent” it
(ποκωλÚσαι). The prevention could have involved either desisting or
else undoing what was already done. Notably, whereas vv. – stresses
the objection to both the rebuilding of the temple and the city, v.  only
restricts the rebuilding of the city by Artaxerxēs. Yet v.  concludes that
construction of the temple was halted with immediacy and it is the fate
of the temple rather than the city that appears to be the most unfortunate
result of the intervention against the restoration efforts.
The Samaritans wasted no time in responding to the imperial order
(v. ). Rathumos and Samellios “march off in haste into Jerusalem”
(ναζεÒξαντεσ κατ• σπουδ­ν ε¸σ )Ιερουσαληµ) accompanied by their
 commentary 

associates as well as cavalry and a contingent of troops. Once in location

they “began to prevent those who were building” («ρξαντο κωλÒειν τοÕσ
ο¸κοδοµοÚντασ). So it is then narrated that constructon of the temple
was stopped until the second year in the reign of Darius. And it is under
Darius that the reader is now prepared for the entrance of Zorobabel.
The precise spelling of the names of the Samaritan protagonists in :,  in
B diverge once more from RH much the same as in :. In :, the corrector
amends ι for ε in π{¢}ταξα.

The Contest of Darius’s Three Bodyguards

and the Introduction of Zorobabel (:–:)

The story of Darius’s three bodyguards is the longest section of the

book with no parrallel in the Hebrew Bible. Here King Darius hosts
a festive banquet and then retires to his quarters for sleep. His three
bodyguards pass their time by dreaming up a contest about what is the
strongest entity in the world. They let their imaginations run wild in
dreaming further about what kind of prize might await the winner of
such a contest. Taking courage they place their answers under the king’s
pillow and anxiously await the king’s summons to hear their accounts.
One wrote “wine,” another “king,” and the third “women” and “truth.”
Darius, arising from his slumber, reads the words and calls for his royal
officials. They join together and Darius questions the bodyguards with
respect to their explanation for their engimatic words. This leads to a
dialogue where the three youths argue for the strength of their respective
entities. In the end, it is the third speaker, identified as Zorobabel, who
triumphs with his discourse on truth. Rather than seek a monetary
reward, Zorobabel reminds Darius of an earlier royal vow to restore
the Jerusalem temple and to rebuild the city of Jerusalem. The king
accordingly grants the request which results in Zorobabel’s effusion of
praise to God and much rejoicing and merriment among the Judeans.
In Esdras the story of the three bodyguards functions much like
the place of the popsong “Don’t Cry for Me Argentina” in the musical
Evita. Both appear to be slightly intrusive in their immediate context,
they are of a different genre to the materials that envelope them, and
yet they are also the highlights of their respective pieces. You would not
want to see Evita without hearing “Don’t Cry for Me Argentina” and
you would not want to read Esdras if it were not for the story of the
three bodyguards. Indeed, it is no stretch of the imagination to suggest
 commentary

that Esdras would not have survived the passage of time or garnered
any interests apart from the short narrative about the philosophical
reflections on that which is most powerful thing by the three bodyguards.
This short narrative may not necessarily be the raison d’ être for the
entire work (contra Z. Talshir : –; : ; Sandoval :
), but it constitutes the literary summit of the document and shows
how a wise and pious Judean exile can appear as an exemplar sage at a
pagan court (on the literary typos of the Jew at the court of a royal king
see Wills ). Thus, the author introduces Zorobabel and his Davidic
line into the story of restoration and so connects the rebuilding of the
temple with the reestablishment of the Davidic monarchy. It shows how
Zorobabel, just like Ezra and Nehemiah, was granted permission by a
Persian king to rebuild the homeland of his people and that he earned
this privilege through his individual wisdom (Talshir : ). In light
of this, Klein (: ) rightly states that: “Thanks to the story of the
three bodyguards, Zorobabel becomes in  Esdras the most important
person of the restoration period.”
However, very much unlike the source material in Ezra, the return
under Cyrus changed very little in the fortunes of the Judeans and effec-
tively nothing happens until the reign of Darius according to  Esdras.
Yet with the story of the three bodyguards the author begins to unfold
the dramatic events that lead to Judah’s inevitable restoration under the
Persians. The dialogue between Zorobabel and Darius in :– is a
microcosm of the entire story whereby bold intercession is rewarded
with a gracious concession for God’s exiled people. After this episode the
promises of restoration, after the false starts and set backs, can finally
reach fruition. Williamson (: ) correctly notes: “Viewed with
theological hindsight, the restoration is a single act of God in the life
of his people, not a haphazard series of chance events.”
The narrative falls between the two “worlds” of the Semitic east and the
Hellenistic west in regards to its literary form and content. On the one
hand, the story of the wise Jewish sage at the Persian court was a famil-
iar enough literary type. The shape of the story is similar to other Jewish
court-tales from Daniel  and Esther  and so constitutes a Weisheits-
dichtung drafted in the framework of near eastern court history (Vriezen
& Woude : ). Other elements of the story are thoroughly Jew-
ish as well. The prayer of Zorobabel (Esd :–) and the rejoicing
in Jerusalem (Esd :–) are more or less indicative of Jewish style
prayers and doxologies. The apppeals to the enduring nature of truth,
the affirmation of truth’s manifold attributes, and the beatitude to the
 commentary 

“God of Truth” (:–) is likewise very at home in Jewish wisdom tra-

ditions (e.g., Ps :; :; :; :, ; Prov :; :; Dan :
[see Torrey : ]). The last speaker, Zorobabel, breaks the rules of
the contest by giving two words not one. This  +  pattern is a literary
device not unfamiliar to biblical stories for highlighting the last item in
a series as in Amos – and Prov :– (Williamson : ). The
topics of wine, women, and kings are common subjects of discourse in
Jewish sapiential traditions as well. Crenshaw (: –; : ;
cf. Talshir : –; : ) goes so far as to assert dependence
on Sirach, Qoheleth, and Proverbs by the author of  Esdras (esp. Prov
:-- which mentions the women, kings, and wine in close proxim-
ity).
On the other hand, Hellenistic themes, forms, and motifs are apparent.
The third speech about women and truth with its references to captivity
to the beauty of a woman (:–), going on seafaring raids for her
(:–) and the description of the cosmological elements that lack
God’s providential guidance (:–) are without concrete parallel in
Jewish tradition (see Zimmerman : , –). No wonder then
that the unit shows signs of influence from Hellenistic topoi. To begin
with, the social location of the debate resembles a symposium, that is,
a banquet or drinking party. Descriptions of the event are found in
works by Plato and Xenophon. They discuss the events that take place
on such a social occasion. The activities in a symposium could be entirely
frivolous and sensual, but sometimes serious and even austere. Though
many symposium were of a rapacious and indulgent nature, intellectual
pursuits could be discussed as indicated by Plato (Sym. e): “Very well,
then, said Eryximachus, since it is agreed that we need none of us drink
more than we think is good for us, I also propose that we dispense with
the services of the flute girl who has just come in, and let her go and play
to herself or to the women inside there, whichever she prefers, while we
spend our evening in the discussion of a subject which, if you think fit, I
am prepared to name.” While a symposium could be serviced by flute girls
(prostitutes), they could also feature bards (travelling poets) who would
perform songs for the participants, and also symposiasts (performers)
who competed in rhetorical contests. Looking at the narrative of  Esdras
–, the invited guests to the banquet, the pillows, and the entertaining
contest all appear analogous to a Greek symposium. Darius plays the role
of the symposiarch (symposium leader) and the three youths are the
symposiasts (performers) competing for a prize. In addition, the form
of the various speeches about the virtues of their respective subjects,
 commentary

resemble a style of epideictic rhetoric familiar to Greek orators. In an

epideictic discourse the speaker aims to highlight the praiseworthiness
of a particular person, thing, or virtue. The speeches in  Esdras –
certainly fit that description. The purpose of their speeches was to win
by entertaining the audience, which dovetails with what Quintilian (Inst.
Or. ..) stated about the rhetorical art: “When our audience finds
[a speech] a pleasure to listen to, their attention and their readiness
to believe what they hear are both increased.” Furthermore, the lavish
language in the speeches is arguably indicative of the Asiatic rather than
Attic or Rhodian styles of rhetoric. Asiatic rhetoric was considered to
be “copious, ornamental, verbose, flowery, lingering, and more liable to
linguistic corruption” by its critics (Menon : ). Asiatic rhetoric
was criticized by Tacitus’s Messalla (Dial. .) as an overly labored
effort at winning the crowd and Cicero (Orat. ) dismissed it as full
of excessive modulations and sing-song techniques. In other words, it
was considered theatrical and effeminate. Though we might note that
Goldhill (: ) thinks that there was no actual school of Asiatic
rhetoric and Asiatic was simply a vitriolic label one rhetorician could
apply to another. The performative and poetic nature of the language
might be identified by subsequent readers as Asiatic in style (note the
assonance in Esd : and :– as examples).
All in all, the narrative is rather electic in regards to its influences
and form. The generic category of the narrative of the three bodyguards
probably represents an assimilation of various elements including the
classic Persian court-tale, Greek symposia, Jewish prophetic-wisdom-
restoration traditions, and additional features drawn from an Asiatic
rhetorical style of epideictic discourse. That eclecticism is probably due
to the provenance of the story in Persian Palestine that was a cross
road of cultural influences from Egypt, Asia, Persia, and the eastern
Mediterranean.
The story of the three bodyguards has been regarded as an interpola-
tion into the work at a later stage of its formation by a Greek redactor
due to the tale’s generic variance with the rest of  Esdras, on account
of its lack of attestation outside of Esdras, and in light of its similar-
ity to Hellenistic literary motifs (see e.g., Fritzsche –: .: “Ein
hebr[äisches] Original lag nicht zu Grunde, die Sprache verräth sich dur-
chaus als ursprünglich hellenistisch”). Such a view is ordinarily held by
those who regard Esdras as a fragment of the Chronicler’s work that has
been subsequently glossed by a Greek editor. Yet given our earlier argu-
ments for Esdras being an eclectic compilation from several sources
 commentary 

(Chronicles, Ezra, Nehemiah, and unique materials) it may be the case

that the narrative has been placed artificially albeit quite deliberately into
its current place at an early stage by the author of  Esdras in order to
draw Zorobabel into the narrative and to show that the restoration story
really began under Darius. Thus the story is an interpolation, but not a
later one deriving from a Greek redactor; instead it was probably inserted
deliberately during the initial compilation of Ezra-Nehemiah materi-
als into Esdras during its Semitic stage of development. Talshir (:
) states: “While the story lacks coherence, its incoherence should not
be explained as the result of a complicated process of transmission and
redaction.” Where such a story came from in the first place cannot con-
fidently be demonstrated, though Torrey (: –), Zimmerman
(), and Talshir (; : ) put forward a good case that it
was known to the author in Aramaic. What is particularly convincing on
this point is the use of τÊτε eight times in this section ( Esd :, ; :,
, , , , ) that probably reflects the Aramaic ïéãà(á) and speaks
against a Greek or Hebrew origin. Other isolated instances suggest an
Aramaic original such as the use of πολλοº in : which is probably
based on an Aramaic word for “strong” and “many” (e.g., ïéàéâù [cf. Dan
:]) and makes better sense in the context.
The notion that the story was originally a pagan folk tale about king,
wine, and women is likewise very plausible and it could have a near
eastern or Hellenistic provenance (see discussion in Torrey : –
; Rudolph –: –; Akroyd : ; Zimmerman :
–; Myers : nn–). If the author adapted a previous story
in circulation then the original order was probably king, wine, and
women since the discourses on wine and women appear to build on
themes from a previous discourse whereas the discourse on kingship
does not refer to prior topics (see :; :). The story may have orig-
inally been an ironic critique of kingship by showing the king’s sucepti-
bility to the power of wine and women. Going beyond that Zimmerman
(: ) finds the description of the king exhibiting “a sly contemptu-
ous touch” as the speeches compare the mind of the king to a fatherless
child (:), he is openly mocked by his mistress (:–), and the king
is even called “wicked” (:). Such a critique of kingship could be either
comic or solemn. Though it is unlikely that the discourse on truth was
originally part of the story. Its origins could come from a number of
places as it has parallels in Persian, Egyptian, Greek, and Israelite liter-
ature. The author of Esdras probably added the section on “truth” to
religionize a philosophical discussion on what is the “strongest.”
 commentary

Accordingly, the inclusion of the tale was not haphazard and it was
carefully inserted into the book and coloured with Jewish restoration
traditions at the time of the initial compilation of  Esdras (see Torrey
[: ] who maintains that “it was originally a separate composition,
albeit of popular wisdom-literature complete in itself, and its first estate
having nothing to do with the history of the Jews; that it was composed in
Palestine, probably soon after  bc … and has been preserved in what
is substantially its original form”). This is clear from the chronological
re-ordering of the material preceeding the story of the bodyguards in
Esd :– (i.e., the omission of Ezra :– concerning Zorobabel).
Such a redaction prepares for the bodyguard story and the introduc-
tion of Zorobabel suggesting that the inclusion of material was carefully
designed as opposed to an off hand insertion of additional content. Simi-
larly, the entire narrative seems reminiscient and perhaps even reliant on
other elements of the restoration narratives that have been written into
the passage as well, e.g., Neh :– (Esd :–), Ezra : ( Esd :),
Ezra :–, :– ( Esd :–) and Ezra :– ( Esd :–
). Timothy Sandoval () proposes that the speech on women and
truth also anticipates and underpins several themes from Ezra’s reforms
such as the expulsion of foreign women given the strong affirmation of
patriarchalism in the third speech. Also, Talshir’s (; ) retrover-
sion of the text into Aramaic shows the coherence and plausibility of a
Semitic origination for the text rather than a Greek narrative that has
been redacted and inserted into the book at a penultimate stage. In sup-
port of that premise, the book of Daniel shows that Greek language and
literary forms can be adopted into a Semitic genre without requiring that
the entire passage derive from a Hellenistic source (see Niskanen 
and his comparison of Daniel and Herodotus and on Greek loan-words
see Coxon –). In sum, our source-critical observation is that
the story has undoubtedly a developed pre-history of some form in its
Semitic origins, it remains highly indebted to its the Aramaic Vorlage
of Esdras, and was not incorporated as an after thought or at a later
stage of development after its translation into Greek (see Zimmerman
: – who detects “on the one hand the Aramaic document
underlying the story, and [on] the other hand the non-Jewish character
of the tale reworked with some touches by a Jewish editor”). The Semitic
and Hellenistic features should not be played off against each other and
turned into tradition-historical layers. Instead, we should identify the
provenance of the story in the swirling of cultures and influences that
took place in the Ancient East and Eastern Mediterranean. Therefore,
 commentary 

the story of the three bodyguards was part of “the original plan of the
book” and presumably introduced at the Semitic level of the composi-
tion (Talshir : ).
Josephus repeats the content of the speeches (Ant. .–) though
he adds his own transitions between them. He significantly expands
the first speech on wine with embellishments in keeping with the main
theme of the piece, he essentially follows the second speech about the
king, but reduces the length of the final speech by Zorobabel on women
and truth. Notable is the absence of Esd : about the unrighteousness
of women, wine, and the king in Ant. ., and the absence of  Esd :
containing the doxology to the “God of Truth” in Ant. .. Josephus
hatchets the final discourse of anything that might be offensive or too
Jewish for Roman readers.
The discourse on truth is the crescendo of the speeches and it would
be of natural interest to readers of the Jewish Diaspora and also to
Christians. Tobit begins, “I, Tobit, walked in the ways of truth and
righteousness all the days of my life” (Tob :; cf. :, ; :). The Wisdom
of Solomon states, “Those who trust in him will understand truth” (Wis
:; cf. :; :). In Sirach one finds, “Fight to the death for truth, and the
Lord God will fight for you” (Sir :; cf. :; :; :). According to
 Maccabees, a philosopher is someone who thinks in accordance with
the “truth” (Macc :–; :). Philo, who says a great deal about
truth, eulogizes truth with the words “Now of all existing things there
is nothing clearer than the truth” (Leg All .). In the Epistle of Aristeas
() the king is advised: “In addition to this you must always remember,
O King, that God is a lover of the truth.” In Christian literature,  Clement
closes with the doxology, “To the only God invisible, the Father of truth,
who sent forth to us the Savior and Prince of incorruption, through
whom also He manifested to us the truth and the heavenly life, to Him
be the glory for ever and ever” (Clem :). Truth is also the basis of
exhortation by the Shepherd, “Love the truth, and let nothing but truth
proceed from your mouth, that the spirit which God has placed in your
flesh may be found truthful before all men; and the Lord, who dwells
in you, will be glorified, because the Lord is truthful in every word, and
in Him is no falsehood” (Herm Man .). Clement of Alexandria had
much to say on the subject of truth also, but he notably tips his hat to
its presence in Greek philosophy, “As, then, he who is fond of hunting
captures the game after seeking, tracking, scenting, hunting it down with
dogs; so truth, when sought and got with toil, appears a delicious thing”
(Strom .). Jewish and Christian authors frequently idealized truth in
 commentary

their estimations of the most genuine of realities, as that which comes

forth from God, and as the standard of conduct that God requires. In
Christian philosophical discourse from the Beloved Disciple (John :)
to Augustine, Jesus Christ is the highest ideal of truth: “The truth alone
declares what is true: Christ is the truth; let us come to Him that we
may be released from labour” (Augustine, Letter .). Unsurprisingly
the reception of Esdras – among Christians was univerally positive
as it could easily be made to fit with a distinctly Christian notion of
truth as divine, confessional, ethical, and christological. Crenshaw (:
) concludes: “This combination of subject matter and piety made the
dialogue a favourite of Jews and Christians. The rhetoric and traditional
material incorporated into the dialogue with consummate artistry set
in Judaism is the best light possible for Greek and Roman readers, and
hence was a favourite of men like Josephus. And the religious fervor
clothing the praise of truth especially appealed to Christians, many of
whom, like Augustine, found therein prophecy of the Christ.”
The narrative moves in several distinct segments including: the de-
scription of Darius’s banquet that introduces the king and his officials
(:–); the design of the three bodyguards to elicit a reward from Darius
for the word that is judged the wisest (:–); the speech about the supe-
riority of wine (:–); the speech about the superiority of the king
(:–); the speech about the superiority of women and truth (:–
); Darius’s reward and Zorobabel’s request that Jerusalem be rebuilt
and the temple restored (:–); and Darius’s subsequent decree and
financing of the rebuilding of Jerusalem (:–). Zorobabel becomes
the zenith of the narrative so far and the fulcrum upon which the nar-
rative turns as the journey towards the restoration of the temple begins
anew.
The unit is marked out with distinct segments signified by a letter with a macron
at : (ζ), : (Α), : (Β), and : (Γ). Breaks are also indicated by a double
space at : and a colon at :.

:–. Darius’s Banquet

The story anachronistically shifts from the reign of Artaxerxēs to the
reign of Darius Hypstaspis with a brief description of a lavish banquet
that Darius gave for his nobles and Darius’s subsequent sleep. Josephus’s
account provides a smoother transition from the reign of Cambyses to
Darius detailing the precise circumstances leading to Darius’s election
by the leading families of Persia. Josephus makes mention of a vow that
 commentary 

Darius made to God that “if he became king, that he would send all
of the vessels of God that were held in Babylon back to the temple in
Jerusalem” (Ant. .). Josephus also adds that Zorobabel was already
a “governor of the Jews that had been in exile” and that there had
already been “an old friendship between him and the king” which is why
Zorobabel was considered worthy to guard Darius (Ant. .). In  Esd
:–, the narration provides the occasion for the three bodyguards,
bemused or bored, to hatch a plot to win a great prize from the king.
The setting in :– is stereotypical of Persian court life (Esth :–;
Dan :–) and typically sets the scene for momentous events follow on
from royal festivites. The opening description of Darius’s court, probably
located in Susa, provides an introductory context familiar to readers
of antiquity whereby a clever and shrewd servant triumphs over his
master. Appropriated by Jewish authors, the pattern was taken up in
Jewish literature of the Persian period to describe how faithful and
pious Judeans were able to succeed at court in the face of opposition
due to their acumen and wits, and thus secure royal favour for their
people.
Mention of “Darius” carries over naturally from : which closed the
previous section by way of reference to the reconstruction of the temple
ceasing until the second year of the reign of Darius (against Coggins &
Knibb :  who think nothing in the story connects it with the wider
context of the book). In the introductory setting (vv. –), Darius gave
a banquet for “all those under him” and that identification (τοÂσ Ñπ’ αÐ-
τÍν) is elaborated in three groups introduced by “and all” (κα½ πšσιν).
The first sub-group is “those born in his house” (πšσιν τοÂσ ο¸κογεν¢-
σιν αÐτοÚ) including family and retainers. The second sub-group are the
“nobles of Media and Persia” (µεγιστšσιν τ²σ Μηδºασ κα½ τ²σ Περσº-
δοσ) encompassing the aristocracy of the united Persian kingdom. The
third sub-group contains three elements of “satraps and governors and
toparches” (see :; :). Josephus has a fourfold grouping of “gover-
nors of Media and Satraps of Persia and toparchs of India and Ethiopia
and generals of the  satrapies” (Ant. .). A “satrap” (σατρ’πησ
from the Persian xšaqrapāvan) was a Persian governor of a designated
region and viceregent of the king. The Persian empire was divided into
twenty-three satraps under Darius and the role of Satraps was to pro-
vide governance, security, and to collect royal taxes from their region
(see Neh :; Xenophon, Anabasis –; Josephus Ant. . records “
satrapies”). A “governor” (στρατηγÊσ) was an appointed civil leader or
a military general over a province, while a “toparch” (τοπ’ρχησ) was a
 commentary

local district ruler. These rulers (τοÂσ Ñπ’ αÐτον modifying the whole set
and not just the toparchs) extend from “India to Ethiopia” (see Esth :;
:; Add Esth E:) and marks an empire that encompasses sections of
Africa and Asia. All in all, the scene reads like a “who’s who” of Persian
civic life with persons close to the king and the leaders from the upper
and lower rungs of Persian political life all in attendance.
That list of dignatories present at the banquet accentuates the ideal set-
ting for the narrative to unfold. The account here probably gave rise to Sib
Or. .– which describes how the kings of the Persians assisted the
rebuilding of the temple (“And all the kings of the Persians will liberate it
with gold and brass and well made iron. For God Himself will give a holy
dream by night. And then the Temple will be again as it was before”). The
banquet proceeds well as the guests “ate and drank, and when they were
satisfied they departed” ( φ’γοσαν κα½ πºοσαν κα½ µπλησq¢ντεσ ν¢-
λυσαν [v. ]). Afterwards (δ¢), Darius retires to his bedroom and sleeps
until he is “awakened.” £ξυπνοσ γ¢νετο is ambiguous in meaning and it
is not clear as to exactly when the king awoke: during the night or in the
morning. The problem is the amibigutiy of £ξυπνοσ γ¢νετο and its rela-
tion to the adverb τÊτε. The verb γ¢νετο could be ingressive (“began to
be awakened”) or iterative (“was constantly awoken”). Torrey (: )
opts for a conjecture “Thereupon the three youths bestirred themselves”
and removes the apparent complexity by making the youths the subject
of the verb. Josephus (Ant. .) attributes the awakening to insomia or
“not being able to sleep anymore” (µηκ¢τι κατακοιµηq²ναι δυν’µοσ).
Royal sleeplessness appears in other court narratives in the Hebrew Bible
(Gen :–; Esth :; Dan :). Yet Josephus’s account of the king’s
noctural disturbance is clearly in contradiction to the implication of :–
,  where the bodyguards place a note under Darius’s pillow while he
sleeps and he then awakes to find it. Josephus probably took the adverb
τÊτε as sequential and adds the gloss about the king being aroused from
his sleep in the night so that he “conversed with the three bodyguards”
during the night (Ant. .). More likely, τÊτε is an adverb of time and
makes the sleeping and rousing of the king co-terminus with the concoc-
tion of the plan by the bodyguards. In any case, in  Esdras while Darius
wrestles with sleep the reader soon learns that his bodyguards are about
to wrestle among themselves on how to win a great prize from the Persian
monarch.
At :, B omits the article τ²σ following µ¢χρι found in other mss. The L-text
is more in keeping with the style of the author by beginning with τÊτε over the
simple καº of B.
 commentary 

:–. The Design of the Bodyguards

The scene moves from Darius to the three bodyguards outside of his bed
chamber. All of a sudden they hatch a plan to impress the king with a
contest as to what is the most powerful thing. They do this in the hope
that Darius will reward one of them with lavish gifts and great triumph
for the one whose word is deemed to be the wisest. The three go off
and write their respective statements, seal it up, and place it under the
pillow of the king. They assume that when the king wakes from his sleep
he will be handed the note by his attendants. It is further assumed that
he will, as a matter of course, reward the person who made the wisest
statement. The first youth advocates the superiority of wine, the second
youth the superiority of the king, and the third youth (i.e., Zorobabel) the
superiority of women and the uber-superiority of truth. The king awakes,
reads the three statements, and then summons the nobles of Persia and
Media to the council chamber. The three young men are then called in
to expound their statements to the royal party.
Josephus’s account differs once more from the version in  Esdras. In
Josephus’s retelling it is the king who, during his late night conversation
with the three youths, promises that should one of them make an out-
standing oration about a specific topic that he shall give abundant gifts
to the champion and adopt him into his household. The king himself
nominates the topics of wine, king, women, and truth. He then returns
to sleep and in the morning summons the nobles of Persia and Media
back to his royal palace. The bodyguards are then enjoined at the royal
court to declare the virtues of their nominated subjects (Ant. .–).
Josephus’s account is unique in that the initiative for the contest comes
from Darius. On top of that the contest more readily resembles a Greek
banquet featuring symposiasts in a contest of rhetoric and poetry in Jose-
phus’s version. Another difference is that in Josephus’s account the king
summons the nobles after conversing with the three youths rather than
before as in Esd :–.
The three speeches are ultimately a contest about wisdom. In extant
accounts (Esd :; Ant. .), the contest concerns the word that is
considered “wiser” (σοφâτερον) or that word which is “esteemed as the
truer and cleverer” (τÍν ληq¢στερον κα½ συνετâτερον τοÒτíω). It is
a wisdom contest in which Zorobabel is destined to excel and to find
“victory” in his speech on the triumph of truth.
Commencing with a temporal marker (τÊτε) in :, the attention
moves from the sleep deprived king to the three young men who are
 commentary

defined in the tautological expression, “the bodyguards guarding the

body of the king” (ο¹ σωµατοφÒλακεσ ο¹ φυλ’σσοντεσ τÍ σêµα τοÚ
βασιλ¢ωσ). Between themselves (εÃπαν ¦τεροσ πρÍσ τÍν ¦τερον) it is
proposed (hence the subjunctive ε»πωµεν ¦καστοσ) that they all pro-
vide “one word” (¦να λÊγον) about the “most intensely powerful thing”
(Ïσ ÑπερισχÒσει). Here λογÊσ may carry the sense of “discourse” rather
than single “word” since it is paralleled by the implied plural γρ’µµατα
(“statement”) in :, – (also Talshir : ). In other words, each
proposes a speech based on a single word. Each word is meant to relate to
that which is “the most intensely powerful thing” and the prepositional
intensifier of the verb ÑπερισχÒω hints at something of a superlative
strength (cf. Cook, NEB, NRSV, ESVA “strongest”; NETS “prove supe-
rior”; CEB “most superior thing”). The appearances of cognates derived
from the ¸σχυ- root underscores how the semantic field of “strength”
is employed to create the dialectics of this debate: ¸σχÒσ in :, :,
; ¸σχÒω in :, ; and ¸σχυρÊσ in :, ,  (Talshir : ).
The question of “what is the most superlative thing” (τº µ’λιστα) was
a common subject of Greek literature (Herodotus, Hist. .; Plutarch
Alexander, ) and the presence of an analogous theme here suggests
that Esdras – exhibits a creative interface of Hellenistic, Jewish, and
Persian narrative traditions in its source. The contest is that whoever can
identify the entity that is the “strongest” will in turn be considered the
“wiser” (σοφâτερον).
The presumption of the trio is that, “Darius the King will give to him
lavish and great honours of triumph” (v. ). Zimmerman (: )
wrote that, “This is a presumptuousness on their part that can scarecely
be conceivable.” That is why Josephus changes the story so that Darius is
the one who promises rewards in line with a device of kings at banquets
promising riches for certain tasks (see Dan :–; Mk :–). The
greatness of the rewards envisaged is emphasized with the double use
of µ¢γασ as an adjective in both feminine and neuter forms to get a
polyptotonic effect (µεγ’λασ … µεγ’λα). The listing of rewards falls into
two parts (vv. –):
And to be clothed in purple
to drink from golden cups
and to sleep upon a golden bed
and have a chariot with a gold studded bridle
and have a turban of fine linen
and a neckband around his neck
and secondly, he shall sit next to Darius because of his wisdom
and shall be called kinsmen of Darius.
 commentary 

κα½ πορφÒραν περιβαλ¢σqαι

κα½ ν χρυσâµασιν πºνειν
κα½ π½ χρυσíê καqεÒδειν
κα½ ”ρµα χρυσοχ’λινον
κα½ κºδαριν βυσσºνην
κα½ µανι’κην περ½ τÍν τρ’χηλον
κα½ δεÒτεροσ καqιεÂται ∆αρεºου δι• τ­ν σοφºαν αÐτοÚ
κα½ συγγεν­σ ∆αρεºου κληqªσεται

The gifts coveted are trappings from the royal household and include
luxury items possessed only by the elite few. These include fine materi-
als, abundant gold, and even adoption into Darius’s own household is
imagined for the winner of the contest. Parallels can be found in Hel-
lenistic Jewish literature about royal gifts for servants with lists of similar
items (Macc :–, ; :–; Ep. Arist. ). The wording in this
instance is very similar to the Aramaic of Dan :, “Whoever can read
this writing and tell me its interpretation shall be clothed in purple, have a
chain of gold around his neck, and rank third in the kingdom.” In v. , the
adjective δεÒτεροσ enumerates a second category of reward comprising
of royal and relational proximity to Darius himself. The noun συγγενªσ
at the Persian court “was a title bestowed by the king as a mark of hon-
our (like a Cousin)” (L&S, ). The list thus progresses from material
reward to familial benefaction by Darius. The summit of the reward is
to sit (καqιεÂται) with Darius and be called (κληqªσεται) a kinsmen of
Darius. This is the “jewel in the crown” that is reserved for the winner and
is made good at the end of the story for Zorobabel at : when it is said,
“You may sit next to me, and be called my kinsman” (Talshir : ).
The basis of reward is simply “wisdom” (σοφºα) which in this context
requires a mix of intellectual brilliance and abilities in oratorial enter-
tainment.
The three youths proceed to enact their plan and write down their
three words which they place under his pillow (vv. –). The author
states that “each wrote his own statement” (γρ’ψαντεσ ¦καστοσ τÍν
¡αυτοÚ λÊγον) which are sealed up and placed under the pillow of
Darius, who has evidently gotten over his insomia at this point. The
participle γρ’ψαντεσ probably modifies the aorist verbs σφραγºσαντο
and £qηκαν and links together the act of writing, sealing, and placing the
“word” under Darius’s pillow. A. Hilhorst () notes the incongruity
of the story with the youths having access to the king’s bedchamber and
deftly walking in and placing a note under his pillow without disturbing
the king. Hilhorst thinks that προσκεφ’λαιον means something other
 commentary

than a piece of bedding and could be idiomatic for “bring to personal

attention.” He also notes a fragment of the historian Chares Mytilene
(a companion to Alexander the Great) quoted by Athenaeus about the
luxury of Persian kings who at the head of the royal bed had, “a chamber
large enough to contain five couches, wherein were stored , talents
of gold coin … and it was called the royal cushion (προσκεφ’λαιον
βασιλικÊν).” In which case, προσκεφ’λαιον is the treasure chamber
adjacent to the bedchamber of the king. A plausible scenario, then, is that
the king is contacted through the “cushion” (= treasure chamber) where
they hand their writings to the servants in the chamber asking them to
present it to the king when he awakes. That fits with the procedure of
the unapproachableness of the Persian kings, but one still has to wonder
if the reference to “sleep” and “awaken” means that a literal pillow is
meant.
In any event, the plan is formally executed when the king rises in the
morning and it is said that “they will give him the statements.” It is not
clear who is the subject of the verb δâσουσιν. The persons implied in
“they” most likely denotes personal attendants to the king rather than the
youths themselves (with Myers :  against Zimmerman : ;
Talshir :) who supply the king with the “statements” (γρ’µµα).
The young men recognize that the adjudicators in the contest will be the
“king” and the “three nobles of Persia” with the latter category probably a
special counsel to the king. This group determines who is the “wiser” and
bestows a “victory” on the basis of “what has been written.” Although it
is the oral defense of what is written that will count for more in the end.
The author then lists for the reader what the three young men wrote:

The first wrote, “Wine is the strongest.”

The second wrote, “The king is the strongest.”
The third wrote, “Women are the strongest,
but truth is victorious over all things.”
É εÄσ £γραψεν ÑπερισχÒει É οÃνοσ
É ¦τεροσ £γραψεν ÑπερισχÒει É βασιλεÒσ
É τρºτοσ £γραψεν ÑπερισχÒουσιν α¹ γυναÂκεσ
Ñπ¥ρ δ¥ π’ντα νιꝚ © λªqεια

King, wine, and women naturally meet in episodes from Jewish literature
that feature the consumption of wine and the presence of women at
the royal court (Esth :–; Dan :–; Neh :, ). The third youth
provides two words in his speech (hence the plural ÑπερισχÒουσιν)
rather than one. That is because the author has probably added the
 commentary 

discourse on truth to a tripartite narrative that originally featured king,

wine, and women (see above).
The plan of the three bodyguards succeeds as the king is given the
statements, he summons his nobles and governing officials, and calls the
three youths to expound upon the things that they wrote (vv. –).
This section begins with notice that the king received the “statements”
and “they” (i.e., his personal attendents rather than the bodyguards)
gave it to him (τÍ γρ’µµα £δωκαν αÐτíê). The plan of the trio is
immediately effective. The king then sends and calls for the very officials
who have only just left the imperial residence the evening before. That
group consists of “satraps and governors and toparches” (see :; :),
but the list is also expanded to include a fourth group of “consuls” who
come to the gathering (Ôπατοσ [CEB “civil authorities”; NRSV; ESVA
“prefects”; Cook, NEB “chief officers”]; the word is used in LXX [Dan :,
] and the Theodotian version of Daniel [:, ; :] to render several
Persian words, and in the Roman period it meant “consul” [cf.  Macc
:]). Darius takes his seat in the “council chamber” (χρηµατιστªριον
was a place of business or financial affairs [GELS, ]; cf. L&S, :
“seat of judgment”). After that the young men are called and enter into
the chamber so that they may “explain their statements” (δηλâσουσιν
τοÕσ λÊγουσ αÐτêν) and “expound to us about the things that have
been written” (παγγεºλατε ©µÂν περ½ τêν γεγραµµ¢νων). The switch
from a third person plural future verb (δηλâσουσιν) to a second person
plural imperative verb (παγγεºλατε) shifts the summons from request
to command. The three youths are ordered to provide a performance of
their “words” for the royal audience. The use of the perfect participle
γεγραµµ¢να (“things being written”), instead of a present or aorist verb,
conveys not on-going significance, but the authoritative state of the
document.
A summary of the contest can be made with three words: “strengthen”
(ÑπερισχÒω), “wisdom” (σοφºα), and “victory” (νικ’ω). The contest is
that whoever can establish the strongest entity will be judged to be the
wiser man and will receive great prizes of victory. On this linguistic
vantage point the prize appears headed to the third speaker as he is the
one noted for trying to demonstrate that truth is the most victorious
(νικ’ω). Though it still waits to be seen as to exactly how this will be
achieved and when Zorobabel will be revealed as the third speaker.
In : B has a pleonasm with the superfluous inclusion of the relative pronoun
οÜ after Ìτι. There are numerous itacisms in the section with additional epsilons
in several words. Also in :, B reads νεÂκοσ whereas νεκηµα is found in A,
 commentary

νικη in L, and Josephus (Ant. .) has νικητªριοσ. At :, RH prefers B and
Josephus with τρºτοσ to A’s “λλοσ. At :, RH sides with B, A, and the majority
of mss in favour of the reading εÃπαν in contrast to εÃπεν, even though the third
person singular probably makes better sense in the context with the king as the
protagonist (cf. Talshir : ).

:–. The Discourse on the Superiority of Wine

The speeches follow roughly the same pattern with a common introduc-
tory formula (κα½ «ρξατο … É ε»πασ περ½ [: has λαλεÂν in addition to
É ε»πασ]) and a similar closing about the cessation of the speech (κα½ σ-
ºγησεν). Each speaker uses a mixture of rhetorical questions, examples,
and comparisons to make their point. The climax is obviously the third
speech which is significantly longer than the preceding two speeches.
The third speech includes a pause where the king and nobles reflect for a
moment and then the speaker changes the subject from women to truth
(:). The third speech also ends with a sudden doxology that elicits the
one and only response from the audience, “Great is truth and is strongest
of all!” (:). In Zorobabel’s speech rhetorical questions are prominent
throughout the discourse (:, , , , , ), whereas the other
speeches only begin and end with rhetorical quesitons. The first two
speeches remain logically focused and fittingly brief, whereas the third
speech responds to the arguments of the previous speakers (:, )
and the speech encompasses a broad range of topics including childbirth,
agriculture, textiles, family life, voyerurism, outlandish female behaviour
at court, cosmology, and even the wickedness of wine, kings, and women.
Overall, the three speeches each emerge as well orchestrated feats of
rhetorical play designed to entertain and sway the audience. They were
well-remembered and preserved precisely for those reasons (see Cren-
shaw : –).
The primary tool at work in the speeches is that of synkrisis, which is
a simple rhetorical trope of comparison (see Seid : ). Quintilian
(Inst. ..) refers to the practice of comparing the merits of two or more
characters in a discourse in order to highlight one particular character.
The Greek author Isocrates wrote a lengthy encomium for Evagoras who
was a governor of Cyprus. Isocrates compared Evagoras with the Persian
king Cyrus and claimed that despite Cyrus’s greatness, “no one, whether
mortal, demigod, or immortal, will be found to have obtained his throne
more nobly, more splendidly, or more piously [than Evagoras]” (Evag
). The device of synkrisis was well-suited to epideictic rhetoric and fits
comfortably in here. In essence, we have three comparisons between the
 commentary 

king and the drunkard (the first speech), the king and other men (second
speech), and the king and women/truth/God (third speech). Their aim
is to show the relative strength of one thing in contradistinction to a list
of several others things.
By way of summary, the first discourse asserts the preeminence and
superiority of wine. The discourse is morally mixed (see Myers :
; contra Talshir : , who sees wine as portrayed “throughout
the speech as a negative incentive in human life disrupting all orderly
conduct and causing total mental confusion”) since on the one hand, it
highlights the praiseworthiness of wine as something to be enjoyed and
delighted in (cf. Ps :; Sir :, ). Yet on the other hand, wine
is also an intoxicating force and inebriation is to be shunned as it leads
to dire consequences as per other admonitions in Jewish literature (Prov
:; :–; Tob :; Sir :–). Wine is said to be strong because:
it leads minds astray (v. ), it puts the mind of the rich and poor on equal
terms (v. ), it fosters joviality and suppresses worry (v. ), it enriches
the mood and exhibits disregard for status and reality (v. ), it leads
people to fight even their friends (v. ), and the day after a drinking bout
men are oblivious to what they did the night before (v. ). Central to the
power of wine is its immense effect upon one’s reasoning/mind (δι’νοια)
and memory/regard (µιµνµªσκοµαι). Noteworthy is the emphasis on the
superiority of wine over the king, which suggests that the original form
of the poem was preceded rather than followed by a discourse on the
strength of the king (on wine in oriental social life, see Esth :–; Dan
:–; T. Jud .–).
The first speaker begins his discourse about wine and the adverb
οÔτωσ (“thus”) defines the manner and content of what follows. The
address commences with a call to attention through the vocative address
“O men” (ë “νδρεσ) appealing to the king’s court. He opens with a
rhetorical question, “how strong is wine?” (πêσ ÑπερισχÒει É οÃνοσ)
which summarizes the point of his speech. The strength of wine is
then proved by way of several arguments. First, all men who drink
in excess are “led astray in the mind” (πλα흚 τ­ν δι’νοιαν), which
pictures men as easily enticed and controlled by its power. Second,
it is said to make “one mind” (δι’νοιαν µºαν) of the binary pairs of
king and orphan, slave and free, worker and richman. Drink is the
great egalitarian leveller that puts the great, powerful, and affluent in
a position no better than the weakest, most impotent, and poorest of
men. Third, wine is powerful in that it noetically transforms the minds
of everyone (πšσαν δι’νοιαν µεταστρ¢φει) towards “banqueting and
 commentary

joviality” (εÐωχºαν κα½ εÐφροσÒνην) and it “does not remember any

grief and any debt” (οÐ µ¢µνηται πšσαν λÒπην κα½ πšν Èφεºληµα).
Wine is the ultimate party drink for fostering euphoria and driving away
meloncholy. In v.  there is also a shift from an emphasis on wine’s
effect on the “mind” (δι’νοια) to its capacity to inhibit someone from
remembering key things (µιµνµªσκοµαι). Fourth, the potential for wine to
ferment frivolity and discord is emphasized again by several elements. In
addition to cheering the mind, wine can also “make hearts rich” (καρδºασ
ποιε πλουσºασ) in the sense of gladening one’s perspective in the short
term (see Eccl :; Ps :; Zech :; Sir :; :). Next, wine
does not “remember kings nor satraps” (οÐ µ¢µνηται βασιλ¢α οÐδ¥
σατρ’πην) and it fosters disrespect and a lack of regard for those of a
higher rank. Beyond that “it makes everyone talk in talents” (π’ντα δι•
ταλ’ντων ποιε λαλεÂν) meaning that wine leads to boastful exaggeration
(NRSV, NEB “makes everyone talk in millions”; ESVA “makes everyone
talk in vast sums”; Myers “everything in colossal figures”; NETS “make
everyone talk in talents”; cf. discussion in Talshir [: ] on the
possible underlying Aramaic text which gave rise to the confusion).
Fifth, the power of wine is also seen in its capacity to generate needless
confrontation and violence between friends. After too much wine people
fail to remember to be friendly with “friends and brothers” (φºλοισ κα½
δελφοÂσ) to the point that “they draw swords” (σπêνται µαχαºρασ) at
the lightest whim. Wine’s power to produce cheerfulness is here matched
by its capacity to inspire random and mindless violence. Sixth, the after
effects of wine is that those who arise from a night of drunkeness do
not “remember what they did” (οÐ µ¢µνηται — £πραξαν). Wine can
transform the mind (vv. –), but it can also erase the memory. Finally
the speech closes with an additional rhetorical question, “O men, is not
wine the strongest, because it thus compels people to do such things?”
(ë “νδρεσ οÐχ ÑπερισχÒει É οÃνοσ Ìτι οÔτωσ ναγκ’ζει ποιεÂν). The
nominative address also has the emphatic interjection ë (“O”) not found
in v. . The strength of wine consists in its ability to compel and cause
the behaviours and attitudes listed above which all men, even the king,
are powerless to withstand. At that point the speech ends when the
speaker “became silent” ( σºγησεν [see Cook’s translation, “he held his
peace”]) after all that he said (ε»πασ functions as an inclusio marking the
commencement of the speech in v.  and closing it off in v. ).
It is notable that besides the description of the beginning of the speech
in : and the failure to remember what was done the night before in
:, the majority of verbs in :– are in the present tense form. The
 commentary 

shift from the aorist tense form to those in the present tense form rep-
resents a shift from perfective to imperfective aspect. This highlights the
inside perspective of the reader to the imagery evoked, creating a more
vivid account of the power of wine over the persons therein described.
The use of the perfect tense form with the negation οÐ µ¢µνηται three
times in :– intensifies the state of forgetfulness and so underscores
the negative effects of wine further (see Porter : –).
In the argument of the first speaker wine is held up as something
initially praiseworthy since it effects a release from anxiety and care.
But as the speech unfolds it is equally clear that wine is a consuming
and destructive power over those who appear to be powerful when they
succumb to its influence (Coggins & Knibb : ). Thus, wine is
strong insofar as it facilitates unexpected and inappropriate behaviours
in men. The man who is called a rational animal becomes utterly irra-
tional under the influence of wine. The man who is a social animal can
become either more socialable or anti-social under the influence of too
much wine. The man who is a political animal sees the distinctions of sta-
tus and power rendered pointless in the midst of drinking wine. Whereas
brotherhood and the bonds of fraternal love were well-known and cel-
ebrated in the ancient world, those bonds are flouted and broken when
wine takes hold of a person. The power of memory to recall and recre-
ate the past is nullified after an intoxicating encounter with too much
wine. Crenshaw (: –) adequately captures the pathos of the
discourse:
Wine, then, functions as the great leveller; its mighty floodwaters sweep
in the swirling maelstrom all human rationality, memory, psychic states,
distinctions both real and artificial, and bonds of friendship and broth-
erhood. From the murky waters left by the subsiding flood one can pull
their corpses, newly tranformed into perverted thought, forgetfulness,
joviality, boasting, camraderie, and bellicosity. “Gentlemen, is not wine the
strongest, since it forces people to do these things?” Such was the brief, but
truly cogent, argument of Darius’s first guard.

Distinct readings of B include πºοντασ over πºνοντασ at :, which arises out
of a mispelling of the participle form of πºνω. In addition, B reads γερqêσιν
instead of γενηqêσιν at : with the latter reading attested principally by the
L-texts. In context, γºνοµαι is perhaps idiomatic for the commencement of an
action (cf. Macc :; :) and γερqêσιν was probably introduced to
underscore the act of being aroused or awoken which is unclear with γενηqêσιν.
B also has µ¢µνηται in the singular whereas most mss prefer the plural in :–
 (see Hanhart b: ). The corrector has also amended the κ to χ at :
for ου{χ}.
 commentary

:–. The Discourse on the Superiority of the King

The second speaker (É δεÒτεροσ) address the topic of the strength of
the king. Like the previous discourse, this one both opens and closes
with a question. It ends with an affirmation of the king’s strength that
is proved by his authority over his subjects. The speech commences by
asking whether humans are sovereign over the realms of land and water.
If so, then, a fortiori, the king is greater because he is lord and master
over humans and is obeyed by them (vv. –). The strength of the king is
further attested by his ability to command people to do manifold things
such as make war, kill, and plunder for his benefit (vv. –). Those who
do not engage in warcraft, but tend crops still have to send their crops
and taxes to the king (v. ). The total sovereignty of this one man is seen
in his power to order the destruction of cities or the cultivation of crops
for his own ends (vv. –). Thus, everyone yields to his will (v. ). The
king dines, rests, and is guarded before anyone can think of their own
needs (v. ).
The main body of the discourse is structured around six third-class
conditional clauses marked by the subordinating conjunction •ν and a
subjunctive verb (vv b–a). These clauses present actions for hypothet-
ical consideration (see Porter : –), which fits well with the
speech about the purported superiority of the king:
[A]nd whatever he might say to them they yield to.
If he tells them to make war one against the other, they do it;
[I]f he sends them out against the enemy, they march …
[I]f they are victorious, they bring everything to the king,
[I]f they seize booty and anything else …
If he tells them to kill, they kill;
κα½ πšν Ï •ν ε»πµη αÐτοÂσ νακοÒουσιν:
•ν ε»πµη αÐτοÂσ ποι²σαι πÊλεµον ¦τεροσ πρÍσ τÍν ¦τερον ποιοÚσιν:
•ν δ¥παρ ξαποστεºλµη αÐτοÕσ πρÍσ τοÕσ πολεµºουσ βαδºζουσιν:
•ν δ¥παρ νεικªσωσιν τíê βασιλε κοµºζουσιν π’ντα
κα½ •ν προνοµεÒσωσιν κα½ τ• “λλα π’ντα:
•ν ε»πµη ποκτεÂναι ποκτ¢ννουσιν:
This list of hypothetical questions is utilized for the purpose of showing
the absolute control of the king over the people and the complete fealty of
his subjects before him. The assumed affirmative answer to the questions
underscores the true depths of the king’s authority over death (war) and
life (agriculture) and all in between.
A further characteristic of the speech is the change from the aorist
infinitive to third person plural present active verbs in vv. – (πο-
 commentary 

κτεÂναι ποκτ¢ννουσιν … φεÂναι φºουσιν … πατ’ξαι τÒπτουσιν

… ρηµêσαι ρηµοÚσιν … ο¸κοδοµ²σαι ο¸κοδοµοÚσιν … κκÊψαι
κκÊπτουσιν … φυτεÚσαι φυτεÒουσιν). The literary effect is to bring
to mind the immediacy of the king’s commands being performed and to
create a sense of verbal alliteration that is memorable.
From a source-critical perspective, it is quite likely that an earlier form
of the speech originally comprised of :–, , a, . It is possible that
vv. b– was added at a later stage since: (a) αÐτÍσ εÄσ µÊνοσ στºν (“he
is only one man”) in v. a is a penultimate climax to the discourse before
the final question of v. ; (b) The contents of vv. b– essential recaps
the preceding section for emphasis or to fill out the speech in length; (c)
Semitic features of the text are notably stronger in vv. b– than in vv. –
a (see details in Talshir :– and note the thematic parallels
of vv. – with Eccl :–). In addition, v.  follows on more naturally
from v.  as it suits the temporal framing and thematic development of
the narration from revenues to respite (see below). I tentatively surmise
that the Aramaic redactor of the discourse has added or expanded on
segments to create vv. b– that emphasizes even further the tyrannical
power of the king over his subjects.
With little or no pause from the first discourse, the second bodyguard
comes to speak concerning the “strength of the king” (¸σχÒοσ τοÚ βασι-
λ¢ωσ). The presence of the infinitive λαλεÂν (“to speak”) in addition to
the substantive participle É ε»πασ is a more lucid introduction to the
beginning of an oral discourse. That is a further reason why the speech
of the king was probably the first of the speeches in the original form of
the narrative. λαλεÂν only appears again at the beginning of the speech
about women and truth in the third address in :,  where its appear-
ance is equally as emphatic as the opening of the second discourse in :.
Whereas the first and third speeches only have the interjection and voca-
tive form of address ë “νδρεσ at the end of their respective discourses
about wine and women (:; :), the second speech is bracketed by
the emphatic form of address at beginning and end (:, ).
In contradistinction to the first and third speeches that begin with
questions about their subjects (:; :, ), the second speech has
a rhetorical question about the superiority of men over land and sea
(arguably reminiscient of Gen :). The reason for that approach is
rhetorical juxtaposition (i.e., synkrisis). If humans are superior to and
sovereign over land, sea, and all that is in them, then, a fortiori, the
person who is sovereign over humans must then be the most superior
entity of them all. The response given to the question is, of course,
 commentary

that: “But the king is strong as he is their Lord and their master, and
whatever he might say to them they yield to.” Though men rule the
earth and waves, the king exercises lordship (κυριεÒω) and mastery
(δεσπÊζω) over them (:; cf. : where women hold lordship and
mastery over wine and kings!). Indeed, it is κυριεÒω and δεσπÊζω that
define exactly how the king is ÑπερισχÒω. This rhetorical form is entirely
appropriate for describing the superiority of a king as synkrisis was a
common device for drawing attention to the honor and virtue of one’s
benefactor and for expressing gratitude to a patron (this is analogous to
what Zeba Crook [: –] calls “patronal synkrisis.” In a setting
of patronage and clientele, patronal synkrisis functions, “[T]o honor the
the patron on behalf of an interested party, the client; it is part of the
client’s expression of gratitude for benefactions received. The comparison
being drawn is always intended to honor the patron” [Crook :
; on its applicability to Philo and the Septuagint, see Crook :
–]). The speaker begins to underscore the unqualified obedience
offered to the king and the vast extant of his command over his kingdom
(see Dan :; :). The comparison here obviously honours the king
as the supreme power of human society, but as one reads on it is possible
to also detect a tacit critique of kingship related to the deuteronomistic
misgivings about the office of the king.
The succeeding contents describe the precise ways that the king’s
strength is proven through a number of examples structured in a series
of conditional clauses (vv. –). The obedience of the subjects is empha-
sized by doing what they are told. Here ε»πµη carries the sense not of
possibility, but the “full weight of a royal command” (Crenshaw :
). The king’s subject “yield to” ( νακοÒουσιν) whatever he orders and
his soldiers “do not transgress the word of the king” (τÍν λÊγον τοÚ
βασιλ¢ωσ οÐ παραβαºνουσιν). The king is able to command his forces
to “make war” (ποι²σαι πÊλεµον) by going out “against the enemy”
( ξαποστεºλµη αÐτοÕσ πρÍσ τοÕσ πολεµºουσ) where they “kill and are
killed” (φονεÒουσιν κα½ φονεÒονται). For the soldiers they face being
killed, but should victory ensue even then the spoils go to the king and
not to themselves. That is why even “if they are victorious, they bring
everything to the king, if they seize booty and anything else” ( •ν δ¥
νικªσωσιν τíê βασιλε κοµºζουσιν π’ντα). The picture here that emerges
is that of a king sending his army out to war where his forces march long
distances, engage in siege warfare, perform many killings, suffer many
casualties, and the purpose of the entire campaign is for nothing more
than enriching the king.
 commentary 

The description of military battles and the sacking of cities end in

v. . Thereafter the attention turns to agriculture and taxation. For those
“who do not serve in the army or make war” there is no exemption
from the obligation to provide service to the king. Instead, those that
“cultivate the land; whenever they sow and reap, they bring some to the
king.” A peculiar statement is that which follows where it is said that the
citizenry “compel one another to pay taxes to the king” (κα½ ¦τεροσ τÍν
¦τερον ναγκ’ζοντεσ ναφ¢ρουσι τοÕσ φÊρουσ τíê βασιλει). It is an
almost comic picture of citizens compelling and urging each other to pay
revenues to the royal household (NETS “one compels the other to pay
to bring levies to the king”; NEB “they compel each other to bring him
their tribute”). The subjects are portrayed as eager to provide the king
with crippling taxation. The speech then makes an ironic quip that “he
is only one man” (αÐτÍσ εÄσ µÊνοσ στºν) and yet all of this ascendency,
service, and power is unquestionably his and his alone.
There is a brief description in vv. b– of persons doing exactly
what the king commands. The first protasis in the series employs •ν
ε»πµη while the other protases embed the question in the simple aorist
verb εÃπεν. The series operates in terms of “if he told them to”: kill,
they kill; to release, they release; to smite, they smite; to desolate, they
desolate; to build, they build; to cut down, they cut down; to plant,
they plant. Whether it pertains to the army or to agriculture, what is
said is soon done. The series is closed with the remark in v.  that,
“All his people and his forces yield to him” (πšσ É λαÍσ αÐτοÚ κα½
α¹ δυν’µεισ αÐτοÚ νακοÒουσιν). The verb νακοÒω is repeated from
v.  to underscore the complete and virtual blind obedience that the
king receives. Here δυν’µεισ is a metonym for his military might (Myers
“hosts”; NEB “troops”; NRSV, Cook, ESVA “armies”; NETS “forces”; CEB
“military powers”). In other words, the king always gets what he wants
from anyone and everyone.
It is unclear what the link is between v.  and vv. b–. The contents
of v.  relate to the king reclining, dining, resting, and being guarded and
no-one able to attend to their own needs while the king’s needs require
attention (cf. Luke :–). The clause πρÍσ δ¥ τοÒτοισ could be logical
(NETS; CEB “furthermore”; NEB “besides this”; ESVA “moreover”) or
temporal (Myers “then too”). The construction appears again in :, but
without the coordinating conjunction δ¢, and it seems there to have a
temporal force (“And at this,” κα½ πρÍσ τοÒτοισ). In  Maccabees there
are both logical (:; :, ) and temporal (:) uses of the same
contruction. In light of usage in v.  and the immediate context here, I
 commentary

suggest that the temporal sense is the most plausible. Notably the content
of v.  follows on more naturally from v.  rather than from v. . Thus
I propose that vv. –, , a,  is the original order of the narrative. In
the original series the service of royal taxation was probably followed by
services for the king’s relaxation.
Three pictures are then strung together to indicate again the authority
of the king over those around him. First, that “he reclines, eats and
drinks, and sleeps” (πρÍσ δ¥ τοÒτοισ αÐτÍσ ν’κειται σqºει κα½ πºνει
κα½ καqεÒδει) and the imagery is of the rest and respite of the king in
contrast to his subject who wait on him unceasingly. The conjunctive
δ¥ is coordinating rather than adversative and the king reclines, eats,
drinks, and sleeps while “they guard around him.” The Greek is more
literally rendered “they keep a circle around him” (αÐτο½ δ¥ τηροÚσιν
κÒκλíω περ½ αÐτÍν) signifying a cordon of protection around the king
for his safety. The king is pampered and protected which underscores the
irony of: “Absolute obedience despite the king’s vulnerability” (Crenshaw
: ). The second remark is that “no one is able go away and to
undertake his own works” (οÐ δÒνανται ¦καστοσ πελqεÂν κα½ ποιεÂν
τ• £ργα αÐτοÚ). The speaker draws attention to the fact that the king
is subject to the same necessities of his subjects, but no one ventures
to slip away to attend to their own needs or business (Crenshaw :
). This might well refer to the situation of the bodyguards themselves
around the king rather than represent a general statement about the
plight of his attendants (Talshir : ). It is a comic complaint:
we have to wait on him hand and foot. Third, it is also said of his
attendants, specifically his bodyguards, that “nor do they refuse him”
(οÐδ¥ παρακοÒουσιν αÐτοÚ) which repeats the primary motif of the
passage that is echoed in vv. vv. , , ,  viz., that the king must always
be obeyed.
The speech lauds the power of the king, but only by magnifiying
the most violent and depleting effects of kingship on others. He orders
murder, pillage, and destruction. His subjects are pawns before him. His
people are worthless and opinionless. The king is “only one man” and
he is the only one that matters. This king is not a shepherd, but is a brute
butcher who lives only for the purposes of gratifying his insatiable lust for
power and pleasure. This king is the very thing that the deuteronomistic
historian warned about (e.g., Sam :–): the malevolent vestiges of
royal power inflicted upon the populace. The discourse looks much like
an epideictic address on the praiseworthiness of the king for his might,
and for Greek and Oriental auditors that is probably exactly how it would
 commentary 

have been perceived. But for Jewish readers familiar with the perceived
abuses of kingship from Israel’s covenant history and from the list in
 Esd :–, it is clear that kingship here is far from praiseworthy. For
Jewish readers the speech is indeed epideictic, but in highlighting the
blame rather than the virtue of the king.
At :, B and the L-texts omit Ìσα and RH follows the majority of witnesses in
the preference for Ìσα κα½ •ν. The corrector has made an usually high number
of corrections in this section including the changing of οÐκ to οÐχ at :, 
(cf. :). He also inserted σ to create εÄ{σ} at : which changes the meaning
from the interrogative “and if he is only a man” to the assertion “he is only one
man!” At : the addition of the dipthong ευ changes the meaning from the
misspelt noun κυριει to the verb κυριεÒει. B and derivative texts are the only
witness to νακοÒουσιν at : (see v. ) and the word appears only in the LXX
in Esdras (A’s preference for ποιησουσιν is perhaps a clarification of an obscure
word). Whereas the beginning of :– is marked off from :– in B by a
double letter space, :– closes with a colon (:) to mark the beginning of the
discourse on women and truth at :.

:–. The Discourse on the Superiority of Women and Truth

The literary summit of Esdras is found in the speech of the third speaker
about the superiority of women and then truth. The speech breaks down
into two main sections concerning women (vv. –) and truth (vv. –
) which is enclosed with remarks that introduce the setting of the
speech (v. ) and the resulting verdict from the Persian nobles (v. ).
The discouse on women begins with a series of rhetorical questions that
leads to the assertion of female mastery over men (v. ). That is followed
up with references to women as the progenitors of men (vv. –), the
folly of men on account of their infatuation with a woman (vv. –), a
man’s relationship with his wife is stronger than with a father or mother
(vv. –), men are often enslaved to women and do nearly anything
for them (vv. –), and even the king allows his concubine to mock
him in court as a further example of male submission to women (vv. –
). At what should be the end of the speech and the completion of the
competition, the nobles look to each other to deliberate (v. ). However,
at this point the speaker surprisingly launches into another subject,
that of truth (v. ). Truth is said to be superior to the cosmological
ordering of the universe since all the earth and heavens pay homage
to truth (vv. b–a). Truth is singularly characterized as inherently
virtuous as contrasted with the inherent unrighteousness of wine, kings,
and women (vv. b–). Consequently, truth is fittingly praised for its
might and majesty leading to praise for the “God of Truth” (v. ). The
 commentary

discouse is received with a chorus of approval from the audience about

the superiority of truth over all things (v. ).
The third discourse is obviously a synthetic construction developed
from pre-existing materials about the strength of women with the addi-
tion of truth tacked on at the end very creatively albeit intrusively. The
influence of women upon men, often toward their demise, was well
known to Jewish (e.g., Judges ; Kings –;  Kings ; Prov :–
; :–:; Isa :–:) and Hellenistic authors (Myers [: ]
draws attention to Herodotus’s story of Atossa who persuaded Dar-
ius I to invade Greece [Herodotus, Hist. . ff.]; Queen Artemesia who
was a naval commander of Xerxes I [Hist. .–, –, –];
Cyrus was wary of Panthea “the most beautiful woman in the world”
[Xenophon, Cryopaedia ..]—all of which provide Persian examples
of prominent women and set the backdrop to Apame’s antics at the king’s
court in Esd :–). The story assumes the superiority of men over
women, and yet, the threat that the sexuality of women poses to men
remains just below the surface (Eron : ).
The material on king, wine, and women most likely was an integral
unit with a pre-literary history. Yet whether the same is true for the
speech on truth is disputed. Rudolph (–: –) conceived
the origination of Esdras :–: out of a piece of Greek entertain-
ment literature with a pagan redactor adding the discourse on truth to
give it a more dignified philosophical closure. Pohlmann (: –;
: –) regards the discourse on truth as an independent unit
with an oriental or Israelite point of origin. Likewise, a Greek source
is plausible especially given Plato’s personification of truth in Crito a
(“Then, most excellent friend, we must not consider at all what the many
will say of us, but what he who knows about right and wrong, the one
man, and truth herself will say” [cited from Hillhorst : ]). The
material about truth has had a Persian provenance ascribed to it (Myers
: ; Hillhorst ; cf. Pfeiffer [: ] who looks to the sage
Ahiqar for the background of the story). Herodotus (Hist. ..) noted
that the Persians taught their children three things: riding, archering, and
speaking the truth. Also in the background maybe the Avestan principle
of aša which designates sacred truth in the cosmic, social, and moral
order. In the teachings of Zoraster aša is a divine being that personifies
truth. Plutarchus (De Is. Et Os ) shows knowledge of this religious syt-
sem when he refers to the “god of truth” as the second god created by
Ahura Mazda (Hillhorst : –). The problem is that just about
every culture east or west of Palestine has a concept of personified truth
 commentary 

and exhorts the virtues of truth. Talshir (: ) contests the view that
the speech on truth existed independently and was appended to  Esdras
since it is clearly designed in close connection with the previous speeches
and has the same literary character. In all probability the discourse on
truth is indebted to the literary creativity of the Aramaic author due to
the widespread Semitisms (e.g., ε¸σ τÍν α¸êνα τοÚ α¸êνοσ in v. ) and
the appearance of Jewish creational monotheism. There is also a genuine
parity of the speech with Jewish sapiential traditions like that found in
Wisdom (:; :), Sirach (:, ; :), Philo (Imm. ; Plant. ;
Ling. ; Migr. ), and the Epistle of Aristeas (). While there is no
doubt an amalgam of intellectual influences on the speech on truth, prin-
cipally we might say Persian, there is no need to attribute the remarks on
truth to a fixed source or to a later Hellenistic redaction of  Esdras. That
is because reflection about the virtues and pragmatic necessity of truth
are clearly at home in Hebraic thought. What is more, the religious over-
tones in the speech are undoubtedly Jewish as well. Crenshaw (: )
observes:
That spontaneous celebration of truth introduces a religious dimension
into the story, for all eyes turn toward the one before whom even eternal
truth does obeisance. Here entertaining dialogue function in the service
of religious instruction; furthermore, nothing demands a hypothesis of
Greek origin for this exaltation of abstract truth. The Israelite sages were
certainly capable of praising abstract concepts like truth, righteousness,
and wisdom.
Unlike the preceding material, the opening rhetorical questions in both
sections include topics other than those covered in the speech. The entrée
into the two subjects of discussion involves discrediting the previous
speakers’ arguments about the purported strength of wine and of the
king. In v. , the statement “Men, are not women strong?” may con-
stitute an interpolation as it repeats the same point made in v.  which
was a fitting conclusion to the section on the strength of women, but
comprises an exceedingly awkward point upon which to begin the dis-
couse on truth. The commencement of the speech about truth calls for
a rhetorical question about the qualities of truth and the speech reads
quite naturally if the recalling of the strength of women is omitted.
While the speech on women and truth is at one level entertaining, we
should not reduce it to a sapiential novelty interjected into an Aramaic
source of Ezra materials. The narrative has been preparing for and build-
ing up to the speech of Zorobabel about truth all along. In the section
on truth there is a religious point being made as truth here is virtually a
 commentary

hypostasis of God (see Wasserstein : –; Talshir : –).

In fact, “God” could easily be substituted for “truth” with little variation
in meaning. Truth here seems to refer to Gods’ ordering of the world
both morally and cosmologically. The praiseworthiness of truth is conse-
quently praise for God’s character. This means that the divine beatitude,
“Blessed be the God of Truth” (εÐλογητÍσ É qεÍσ τ²σ ληqεºασ) is not a
departure from the main theme of the discourse.
In addition, the speech on truth brings Zorobabel into the picture
and his performance in the contest is crucial in realizing the restoration
of Jerusalem amidst the travails faced by the returning exiles from the
Samaritan opposition. As Enns (: ) writes: “This is no mere contest
of wits. For Esdras, Zorobabel’s answer is the means by which the
Israelites are permitted to return and rebuild the temple. This is the focus
of this curious story, and it is a significant indication of the covenantal
purpose of the book as a whole.” The story is situated in a redemptive-
historical context by Clement of Alexandria who wrote: “At that time
Zorobabel, having by his wisdom overcome his opponents, and obtained
leave from Darius for the rebuilding of Jerusalem, returned with Esdras
to his native land; and by him the redemption of the people and the
revival and restoration of the inspired oracles were effected; and the
Passover of deliverance celebrated, and marriage with aliens dissolved”
(Strom. .). The redemption of the nation and the renewal of their
covenantal life, is attributed to Zorobabel’s success in the wisdom contest
meaning much more is riding on the event than merely royal riches and
individual honour.
The subject of the third speaker is “women and truth” and the speaker
is identified somewhat parenthetically as Zorobabel (οÜτÊσ στιν Ζορο-
βαβελ). Zorobabel was the son of Shealtiel (Ezra :, : :; Neh :;
Hag :, , ; Matt :; Luke :). In fact the L-text and Syriac ver-
sion designate him as son of Shealtiel from the tribe of Judah at this point,
a reading probably derived from Esd : (cf.  Esd : [LXX]). Most of
that which is known about Zorobabel is drawn from the canonical books
of Zechariah, Haggai, and the Ezra-Nehemiah materials. According to
these materials, Zorobabel and Iēsous the high priest, led a group of
exiles from Babylon to Jerusalem and began rebuilding the temple in the
second year of Darius Hystaspis. According to Josephus, Zorobabel was
a friend (φιλºα) of Darius (Ant. .). Zorobabel was also made a gov-
ernor of Jerusalem, and performed the duties of the tirshatha (àúùøú),
a governing official who was probably the Persian collector of taxes in
Judea.
 commentary 

The speech begins with two rhetorical questions about the greatness
of the king and the strength of wine. The opening questions assume a
positive answer, viz., that the king is indeed great and wine is indeed
strong. But such an affirmation is qualified through a series of further
questions as to what masters them or lords it over them, there indicating
a further power somehow superior to the aformentioned governor and
satrap? The answer is given, again, in the form of a question: “Is it not
women?” (vv. –). After introducing the subject, the author proceeds
to justify this conclusion based on several lines of evidence. First, with
reference to human procreation, women give birth to the kings who
reign and to those who plant vineyards that produce wine (vv. –).
Second, women make garments for men and bring glory to men. The
first and second arguments are then summarized as, “men are not able
to exist without women” (κα½ οÐ δÒνανται ο¹ “νqρωποι εÃναι χωρ½σ
τêν γυναικêν) (v. ). Thus, the superiority of women is observed in
their origination of men and the dependence of men upon women for
existence, daily necessities, and glory.
Third, the power of women over men is emphasized by the willingness
of men to abandon precious things just to gaze at a beautiful woman
(vv. –). Men are twice said to prefer women over “gold, silver or any
other lovely thing” (χρυσºον κα½ ργÒριον κα½ πšν πρšγµα áραÂον)
indicating the superlative worth of women to precious metals in the
value scale of men. There might even be an echo of Prov : that a
capable wife is more precious than “rubies” (NIV) or “jewels” (NRSV;
ESV; NASB) or “pearls” (NJB). The portrait of men as pining over a
woman in a mezmirized or catatonic state is probably humourous as men
are described as those who “gape at her, and with open mouths they stare
at her” (χ’σκοντεσ τÍ στʵα qεωροÚσιν αÐτªν). This looks much like
a comic spin on images from the Hebrew Bible about the precious wife
(Proverbs ) and the attractive wife (Song of Solomon , , ) in service
of suggesting the reality of the subjugation of men to women biologically
and relationally.
Fourth, a man’s relationship with his wife is superior to that with
his parents (vv. –). The text clearly alludes to Gen : as to how
a man will leave his father and his mother and cling to his wife (the
common linkage between Gen : LXX and Esd : besides the man-
father/man-wife relationships is mainly through καταλεºπω). Yet unlike
Gen : further information is given about the extent of a man’s aban-
donment of his prior familial bonds. A man not only leaves “his father
who reared him,” but also leaves “his own country” which nominates
 commentary

the relational and geographical fracture often caused by taking a wife.

This is the exact opposite of Tob :– where Tobit begs his father-in-
law to allow him to return to his father immediately after his wedding.
In addition, he fails to remember (µ¢µνηται) neither “father nor mother
nor country” (οÓτε τÍν πατ¢ρα µ¢µνηται οÓτε τ­ν µητ¢ρα οÓτε τ­ν
χâραν). That is not in the sense of an erasure of past memories, but a
lack of concern for his parents and homeland due to a change of pri-
orities in his care giving. In addition, it is said that “And with his wife
he releases his soul” (κα½ µετ• τ²σ γυναικÍσ φºησι τ­ν ψυχ­ν; see
similar translation in NETS) which is probably a euphemism for death
(i.e., “and with his wife he ends his days” cf. RSV; NRSV; ESVA; Talshir
: ; largely based on Gen : [LXX]). But in this context, it
could have an additional meaning that in union with a woman a man
releases himself of his obligations to his parents or else that he departs
from the persons who imparted life into him. Myers (: ) opts for
the translation: “he resigns himself to his wife.” It depends on the mean-
ing of φºηµι which is ambivalent, though in  Esd : it clearly has the
meaning of the physical separation of two entities. The net force of the
argument is that man-wife relationships are stronger than man-parent
relationships and the point was important enough to be repeated again
in v. .
The fifth argument in favour of the superiority of women over men
begins with an editorial remark affirming the conclusion ahead of the
presentation of all of the evidence, “Hence, you must know that women
lord it over you!” (κα½ ντεÚqεν δε ѵšσ γνêναι Ìτι α¹ γυναÂκεσ κυριεÒ-
ουσιν ѵêν) in v. a. The following segments proceeds to demonstrate
the subjugation of men to women based the extent to which men are
willing go in order to furnish women with possessions (vv. b–). The
point is made in the question, “Do you not labour and toil, and carry
everything and give it to women?” (οÐχ½ πονεÂτε κα½ µοχqεÂτε κα½ π’ντα
ταÂσ γυναιξ½ν δºδοτε κα½ φ¢ρετε). The answer is affirmed in the example
that follows as to how, “a man takes his sword, goes out to travel and to
take to banditry and to steal and to sail the sea and rivers; and he con-
fronts lions, and he walks in darkness, and when he steals and robs and
plunders, he carries it back to the beloved woman” (κα½ λαµβ’νει “ν-
qρωποσ τ­ν üοµφαºαν αÐτοÚ κα½ κπορεÒεται ξοδεÒειν κα½ λµηστεÒειν
κα½ κλ¢πτειν: κα½ ε¸σ τ­ν q’λασσαν πλεÂν: κα½ ποταµοÒσ: κα½ τÍν λ¢-
οντα qεωρε κα½ ν σκÊτει βαδºζει: κα½παρ Ìταν κλ¢ψµη κα½ ‘ρπ’σµη κα½
λωποδυτªσµη τµ² ρωµ¢νµη ποφ¢ρει: κα½ πλεÂον γα𝚠“νqρωποσ τ­ν
¸δºαν γυναÂκα). Compare a similar thought in Macc :: “so that they
 commentary 

might go out and make raids along the highways of Judea.” We could say,
with comic anachronism, that a man here is willing to become a Viking
in order to acquire further possessions for his beloved bride. Given that
seafaring was not the strength of the Israelites (the Greeks especially the
Phoenicians were more known for their seafaring abilities in the near
east), this section probably derives from a non-Hebrew source. The chief
point of course is that men are willing to even take to banditry and piracy
in order to please their women.
The sixth movement in the discourse is more eclectic and includes a
list of miscellaneous comments urging the strength of women over men.
A man loves his wife more than his father or mother (v. ). Men lose
their minds because of women or over women and become enslaved by
them. As Talshir (: ) puts it: “While wine only confuses men’s
minds, :, women drive men out of their mind” (v. ). Women cause
men to perish, stumble, or sin (v. ). The list is fairly comprehensive and
whether it is family relations, mental health, or ethics, women hold men
in the grip of their power.
A rhetorical interjection is made (v. ), “And now, do you not believe
me? Is not the king great in his authority? Do not all countries fear to
touch him?” (κα½ νÚν οÐ πιστεÒετ¢ µοι; οÐχ½ µ¢γασ É βασιλεÕσ τµ²
ξουσºα αÐτοÚ: οÐχ½ πšσαι α¹ χêραι εÐλαβοÚνται ”ψασqαι αÐτοÚ;). Yet
this is merely the point of contrast for the story that follows concerning
how the king allows his mistress Apame to openly mock him at court
and how he surrenders to her whim (vv. –). Apame is known
as the “daughter of the eminent Bartacus” (qυγατ¢ρα Βαρτ’κου τοÚ
qαυµαστοÚ), though qαυµαστÊσ may be a proper name rather than an
adjective for “wonderful, marvelous, remarkable” (BDAG, ), which
is why Josephus describes her as the ‘daughter of Rabsases Themasius’
(Ant. .). The name “Thamasios” (qαµασιοσ) is attested by Herodotus
(Hist. .). In either case her father was obviously a Persian noble
or a figure of some stature and the identity of both persons is not
known in literary history. Her role as a concubine may not be straight
forward. Here παλλακºσ perhaps possesses more of a sense of “consort”
or “mistress” and Josephus calls her the king’s “wife” or “woman” (γυνª)
in Ant. .. Given her eminent family she is probably not a member of
the royal harem, but is less than a legal wife (on the attempt to identify
her with historical figures see discussion in Torrey : –).
The bodyguard refers to an episode where he witnessed ( qεâρουν)
Apame engaging in outrageous and frivilous behavior towards the king—
at least outrageous and frivilous if performed by anyone else—and
 commentary

geting away with it. The anecdotal evidence marks a departure from
the generalizations that typified most of the arguments in the various
discourses (Talshir : ). To begin with, what is startling about
her behavior is that she is found “sitting at the right hand of the king”
(καqηµ¢νην ν δεξ靚 τοÚ βασιλ¢ωσ) which is obviously a symbolic
possession of power, authority, privilege, and succession (though see
similar positions of women at courts in  Kgs :; Ps :; Neh :).
Next, she takes the diadem from the head of the king and places it on
herself (B has αÐτµ² instead of ¡αυτµ²). Seizing the diadem was collo-
quial for an act of ambition, treachery, and usurpation (see Josephus,
Ant. .; ., ; ., ; .; Wars ., , ). On
a queen wearing a diadem see Add. Esth. : and :. A royal dia-
dem was not something ordinarily shared and Josephus reports how
Pheroras was partner with Herod the Great in all affairs of the king-
dom “excepting his diadem” (Wars .). Finally, she “slapped the king
in the face with her left hand.” Slapping itself was insulting and using
the left hand was dishonoring for oriental cultures (see Jdgs :; Hos
: [LXX]; Matt :; John :; Cor :). Whereas no one dares
to “touch” the king (v. ), Apame slaps him around for her playful
amusement (Talshir : ). In effect, Apame is allowed to sit as
the king’s vice-regent, usurp his authority by wearing his diadem, and
insult him, and she gets away with it. While for the courtiers this is
something done in jest, Zorobabel sees it as further evidence for the
superiority of women over men. But even more is at stake, from a socio-
cultural perspective: “His words demonstrate the strength of women not
merely over men generally, but even over the patriarchal order itself,
which the emperor represents … the woman Apame threatens overly,
if playfully and symbolically, the continued existence of the patriar-
chal order by taking significant liberties with a primary icon of patri-
archal power and authority—the monarchy itself ” (Sandoval : ,
).
What is even more astounding is that Apame’s actions are not met
with rebuke, correction, or jest. The king can only remain motionless
as he is captivated by her beauty. It is said that “at this the king was
staring at her with an open mouth” and the imperfect qεâρει is both
continuous and iterative, i.e., he simply kept on staring at her as she
is doing all of this. The king has simply become one of the many men
that “gape” (χ’σκοντεσ τÍ στʵα [v. ] and χ’σκων τÍ στʵα [v. ])
at women mezmirized by the power of their beauty. The inversion of
authority is underscored by what measures the king takes to appease
 commentary 

her temperament. In two conditional clauses ( •ν) it is said that, “If she
would warmly smile at him, he laughs; but if she should be embittered
by him, he humors her.” That is for the purpose (Ìπωσ) “that she may
be reconciled to him.” The verb διαλλ’σσοµαι (see  Sam :) means
to be restored to normal or harmonious relations and is semantically
related to καταλλ’σσω which is the preferred term for reconciliation
in the New Testament (see BDAG, ; L&N, ). If any estrangement
occurs it is the king who takes the initiative to reconcile the two rather
than vice-versa. The picture is richly ironic as the king, for all his power,
is powerless before his own concubine. And so ends the first half of the
discourse with the conclusion, “O men, are not women strong, because
they thus act so?” (v. ).
Though a conclusion is stated this is not the end of the discourse
because there is no mention of “he became silent” until :. In the mean
time, “the king and the nobles were looking one to the other” (É βασιλεÕσ
κα½ ο¹ µεγιστšνεσ £βλεπον εÄσ τÍν ¦τερον) in the sense of beginning their
delibarations and preparing to announce their verdict (v. ). Whereas
it seems that they are prepared to grant victory to the third speaker
because of his remarks about women, Zorobabel has more in store for the
audience. Not an encore, but rather the climax of his discourse, is still to
come. No sooner had he finished the first segment of the discourse on the
strength of women than “he began to speak about the truth” (v. ). Truth
is a quality of God and is an attribute of his character that represents
his person in the speech. Truth connotes rightness, steadfastness, and
uprightness in addition to all of its more usual meanings (Klein :
).
The launch into another subject obviously violates the rules of the con-
test (Esd :). The speech is narratively extrinsic to the development
of the plot since the remarks about women were probably sufficient to
win the contest. Also, source-critically this segment of the discourse was
probably added onto the king, wine, and women frame at a later stage,
probably at its inclusion in Esdras. Talshir (: ) comments that
“it is difficult to imagine a scenario in which the speech on truth was
added to the first three speeches before the story was given its present his-
torical setting.” What is unique about the discourse on truth is its sober
moral tone in contrast to the more jocular nature of the three preced-
ing speeches. The speech on truth presupposes the former answers and
indicts them, even the women of Zorobabel’s own speech, for “unrigh-
teousness” (Esd :). The content is also stridently theological as the
cosmic and moral order of the universe is beholden to truth with truth
 commentary

being a hypostasis for God (see Talshir [: ]: “The virtue of truth
is described in close connection with God, to the point of identification
between the two”).
The speech on truth begins with a contrast of the preceding argument,
“Men are not women strong?” (οÐκ ¸σχυρα½ α¹ γυναÂκεσ [v. ]). The
restatement is for the purpose of contrast since it is followed with a
description of the position and movement of earth, heaven, and sun in
the cosmic order:
Great is the earth
And high is heaven,
And swift is the sun in its course,
because it makes the circuit of the heavens
and again returns to its own place in one day.
µεγ’λη © γ²
κα½ ÑψηλÍσ É οÐρανÊσ
κα½ ταχÕσ τíê δρʵíω É ¬λιοσ
Ìτι στρ¢φεται ν τíê κÒκλíω τοÚ οÐρανοÚ
κα½ π’λιν ποτρ¢χει ε¸σ τÍν ¡αυτοÚ τÊπον ν µιš ©µ¢ρα

The speaker heaps praise on the elements of earth, heaven, and sun,
which were appreciated as much for their religious significance as for
their astronomical wonder by the ancients. According to the Testament
of Judah the advent of the eschatological age will result in divine bless-
ings for the patriarchs, angelic powers, and for the earth, heaven, and
sun, which shows how for some Jewish authors the renewal of creation
could be bound up with the renewal of Israel (T.Jud. .; perhaps based
on Gen :). Attention is given mostly to the sun, its circuit and con-
stancy, perhaps in opposition to sun worship in Egypt where  Esdras was
probably compiled (on an explanation for and description of the sun’s
journey see Ps :–; Eccl :–; Bar .; Frag. Arist. .; Ep. Diog. .;
Q .iii.). For all the praise heaped on the cosmic arrangement in
Israel’s sacred literature (e.g., Ps :–), there is a strong Jewish tradi-
tion against worship of the heavenly elements (e.g., Deut :; :). In
the discourse the spectacular journey of the sun is simply the warm up
act to the real star of the speech, viz., the “God of truth.”
The theology of Esdras is built on a conception of God as covenanter
and creator. Later on in Esdras the Judeans in the story tell the governor
of Coele-Syria that they are servants of the “Lord who created heaven
and earth” (Esd :). Jewish monotheism was very much a creational
monotheism as Israel’s God was not identified with creation, as creation,
or in creation, but as the author and architect of creation. The God
 commentary 

of Israel was not simply a national or tribal deity, but the maker of
the entire universe including all of its elements and inhabitants. This is
reitereated in the Hebrew Bible with the constant reference to the “Lord
who made heaven and earth” (on the tradition-history of this phrasing
see Habel  who points out its liturgical usage in Pss :; :;
:; :; :). The expression was appropriated by Christians in
their creeds and hymody (e.g., Nicene creed, “Credo in unum Deum,
Patrem omnipotentem, factorem caeli et terrae, visibilium omnium et
invisibilium”). This juncture of Esdras thus fits comfortably into the
doctrinal norms of the Catholic faith as it had developed at least by the
third century. A poignant expression of this belief in God’s sovereignty
over the created order is found in the Psalms with: “Whatever the Lord
pleases he does, in heaven and on earth, in the seas and all deeps.
It is he who makes the clouds rise at the end of the earth; he makes
lightnings for the rain and brings out the wind from his storehouses”
(Ps :–). Philo also emphasizes God’s ordering of the universe in
his exposition of the creation narratives (esp. Opif. ; ; Vit. Mos.
.; Spec. Leg. .–; .–). Whatever might be said about
the appropriateness of “monotheism” to describe ancient Israelite faith
and worldview, there is no doubting the attribution of the visible and
invisible realities to the one God of Abraham in Israel’s sacred traditions
and among Jews of the second temple period.
Zorobabel adds (v. a) “Is not the one who does these things great?”
(οÐχ½ µ¢γασ Ïσ ταÚτα ποιεÂ;). Whereas I and others (e.g., Pohlmann
: n) contend that the implied subject here is God, Hillhorst
(: –) believes that the subject is the sun. He writes: “However,
the mention of earth, heaven, and sun was not meant to refer to God’s
creatorship, but rather to provide, besides the women, examples of things
which are strong, all of which serve as a background to make the superior
strength of truth stand out all the better.” He bases that on: () Like the
second and third discourses (:–, , ), the speaker here endorses
a thing to be praised only to trump it by their own candidates. Thus,
in his view, women and heaven-earth-sun are contrasted with truth
and not with Truth’s/God’s power over creation. Response: Hillhorst is
right about the literary form, but wrong on the extent of its usage in
v. . Just as in the other speeches the quality that is lauded and then
trumped is always marked by a negation (οÐ[κ]). But in v.  the negation
only applies to women because it is the preceding subject. The rest of
v.  about the cosmic order is introducing the first argument for the
superiority of truth by establishing the sphere of its operation. () In
 commentary

v. c “Blessed is the God of Truth” is considered an interpolation (so

also Torrey : , n.f; Rudolph : vi, n. ) because it mismatches
the preceding sentence and the reaction of the audience in v. , “Great is
truth and strong above all things” totally ignores the theological aspect.
Response: This is indeed possible, but the reasons adduced are not as
persuasive as they appear to be. The doxology in v. c is merely an
extension of v. ab which lists qualities that are all capable of being
predicated of God (strength, kingship, authority, and majesty, not to
mention the Semitism of “from age to age”). In addition, while truth is the
main theme of the speech, God is the encoded subtext embedded within
the discourse and it is no surprise that the audience praises the main
apparent theme of the speech, truth, instead of its cryptic referent, God.
() Hillhorst argues that in v. d “there is nothing unrighteousness with
him” (οÐκ £στιν µετ’ αÐτοÚ “δικον οÐq¢ν), the textual variant αÐτ²σ
is more likely than αÐτοÚ meaning that the original reference was to
“truth” (feminine pronoun) rather than to “God” (masculine pronoun).
But the manuscript evidence for αÐτ²σ is weak (V and other isolated
minuscules) and αÐτοÚ is the lectio difficilior (see Hanhart : ).
Hillhorst concedes all this, but his fall back is that αÐτοÚ disturbs the
logic of the argument, whereas in my mind it does not. In either case it is
incidental, because regardless as to whether the pronoun was originally
feminine or masculine, an identification of truth with God is implied
by the context. Unsurprisingly in Josephus’s version the maneouvre of
the sun is done “according to the will of God” (κατ• βοÒλησιν τοÚ
qεοÚ) indicating a theocentric interpretation as the earliest (Ant. .).
Furthermore, the link between God and truth reappears later in  Esdras
: in Ezra’s prayer that κÒριε τοÚ )Ισραηλ ληqινÍσ (“O Lord of
Israel, truthful you are”) and the theme is being deliberately overtured in
Zorobabel’s discourse. In addition, although É ¬λιοσ in v.  is the nearest
grammatical antecedent of Ïσ in v. a, the sun cannot be the subject of
the “one who does these things” (Ïσ ταÚτα ποιεÂ) because the sun is just
one of three agents in the cosmic order along with heaven and earth that
display a marvelous operation and quality. More likely, and in keeping
with the not so subtle motif of the speech, it is a tacit reference to God.
That would break the contrast between “Is not the one who does these
things great” and “And truth is great, and stronger than all these things” if
the “one who does these things” (Ïσ ταÚτα ποιεÂ) is a periphrasis for God
and if “truth” (ληqεºα) is a personification of God. Talshir (: )
comments: “It is possible … that the text does not intend a contrast at
all. The question may refer to God as the creator of earth and heaven and
 commentary 

sun, mentioned earlier, while the rest of the text would then refer to truth
as a facet of God: Is not God great who created all this? [A]nd truth is
great and surpasses everything.” Read this way, Zorobabel’s remarks are
firmly rooted in the tradition of creational monotheism so pervasive in
Israel’s sacred literature. The result is that the speech lauds God for the
order and beauty of creation and for his faithfulness, truthfulness, and
justice that pervades it.
After the opening praise of creation and its creator, the speaker asserts
in v. b that: “And truth is great, and stronger than all things” (κα½ ©
λªqεια µεγ’λη κα½ ¸σχυροτ¢ρα παρ• π’ντα). The reference to “all
things” does not mean God, the implied subject of ποι¢ω in v. a,
but the created order of earth, heaven, and sun. Perhaps “truth” here
exists as an intermediary entity that represents God like Wisdom or
the Logos as described in Sirach and Philo which are fertile soils for
comparison. Truth is depicted as a personal power to which even cre-
ation itself must acknowledge its inferiority to (noteworthy also is the
link between “truth” and “justice” in Job :; Isa :–; Jer :;
Dan :; Pss :–; :; Tob :; Wis :). That is evidenced in
three ways with “all the earth calls upon truth” (πšσα © γ² τ­ν λª-
qειαν καλεÂ), “heaven blesses her” (É οÐρανÍσ αÐτ­ν εÐλογεÂ)), and
“all heaven’s works shake and tremble, and there is nothing unrighteous
with her” (π’ντα τ• £ργα σεºεται κα½ τρ¢µει: κα½ οÐκ £στιν µετ’ αÐ-
τοÚ “δικον οÐq¢ν) in v.  (Codex Venetus and other manuscripts read
more correctly the feminine αÐτ²σ at :c instead of the masculine αÐ-
τοÚ for the reference to the feminine noun ληqεºα, but usage of the
masculine is more conducive to an implied reference to God). The per-
sonification of earth and heaven as beseeching truth stands in analogy
to statements in Jewish literature about the earth praising God (e.g., Ps
:). The trembling of “heaven’s works” in the presence of truth, once
more is parallel with other statements where heaven and earth are shaken
in the presence of the Lord (e.g., Ps :; Isa :; :; Joel :; Sir
:; Esd : [Apoc.]). Also, truth, like God, is free from unrigh-
teousness (e.g., Ps :). That justifies Sandoval’s (: ) claim that
v.  is a “pastiche of biblical terminology and sentiments” that praises
truth in a manner reminiscent of the way that the Hebrew Bible praises
YHWH.
The mention of the lack of any “unrighteous” (“δικοσ) quality in
truth then forms a catchword that introduces a series of phrases that
emphasizes the contrast further by highlighting that which is unrigh-
teousness, viz., wine, king, women, all the sons of men, and all of their
 commentary

works. (v. ) The absence of the verb “to be” (i.e., “δικοσ É οÃνοσ:
“δικοσ É βασιλεÒσ: “δικοι α¹ γυναÂκεσ:) in the listing means that “δι-
κοσ is predicated of the various subjects. By placing the anarthrous
adjective at the head of the clause the quality of unrighteousness is
ascribed to the subjects (Porter : ). The ascription of unrigh-
teousness to wine, king, women etc. is as a refutatio comprised of an ad
hominem appeal against the preceding subjects influenced by the anthro-
pological pessimism of certain strands of Jewish thought that identified
an evil impulse within human nature (e.g., Jer :; :; Job :;
Prov :); what later rabbinic authors called the yetzer hara. The epi-
deictic discourse shifts from the praiseworthiness of wine, king, and
women to their blameful and shameful character. The indictment is fur-
ther meted out by the assertion that “there is no truth in them and by
their unrighteousness they will destroy themselves” (οÐκ £στιν ν αÐ-
τοÂσ λªqεια: κα½ ν τµ² δικºα αÐτêν πολοÚνται). In other words,
they lack the praiseworthy qualities attributed to truth and result in
unrighteous behaviours that, reduced to their simplest form, entail self-
destruction.
Beyond arraigning the unrighteous and destructive qualities of wine,
king, and women, the discourse then turns back to the superlative qual-
ities of truth with a focus on its enduring character and moral supe-
riority (v. ). A resounding note of praise is given to truth: “And the
truth remains and is strong [A reads ¸σχÒσει “will be strong”] over the
ages, and lives and prevails from age to age. With it there is neither
facade nor indifference, but it does what is righteous rather than things
that are unrighteous and evil. Everyone approves its deeds, and there is
nothing unrighteous in its judgment. To it belongs the strength and the
kingship and the authority and the majesty of all the ages (vv. –).
This language would naturally suggest God to a Jewish reader, though
the expression is sufficiently subtle enough to be accommodated to dif-
ferent religious ideas of any number of Hellenistic or eastern religions
(Hillhorst : ; Williamson : ). Almost every descrip-
tive modifier in this set could be predicated of God. The final acco-
lade to truth for its “strength” (¸σχÒσ), “kingship” (βασºλειοσ), “author-
ity” ( ξουσºα), and “majesty” (µεγαλειÊτησ) gives the game away that
the author is really talking about God or at least a personification of
a divine attribute given the same language used of God elsewhere in
Judeo-Christian literature (cf. e.g., Chron :; :–; Pss :–
; :; Mic :; Tob :; Jude ; Matt : [KJV]; cf. Dan : where
Nebuchadnezzar is given the kingdom, the power, the might, and the
 commentary 

glory). This is confirmed by the doxology at the end of the discourse

(v. ): “Blessed be the God of truth” (εÐλογητÍσ É qεÍσ τ²σ ληqεº-
ασ) and the genitive is ambiguous but probably denotes a genitive of
source and/or a genitive of apposition (though Klein [: ] sug-
gests that vv. – implies that God remains greater than truth). Similar
phrasings are found in the LXX in Ps :, λυτρâσω µε κÒριε É qεÍσ
τ²σ ληqεºασ (“You have redeemed me Lord God of truth”) and Sir
:, πÍ ληqεºασ qεοÚ κα½ διαqªκησ (“From the God of truth and
covenant”).
The end of the speech is marked by “and he ceased speaking” (κα½
σειâπησεν τοÚ λαλεÂν). Unlike the other speeches this one affords a
huge response concurring with the central thesis, “and all the people then
called out and said, ‘Great is truth and is strongest of all!’ ” (κα½ τÊτε εÃπον
µεγ’λη © λªqεια κα½ ÑπερισχÒει). The consensus reached by the court
is that Zorobabel has prevailed in the wisdom contest and won a victory
by showing that “truth” is genuinely ÑπερισχÒει.
The final verses of Zorobabel’s speech were particularly appealing to
Christian authors in the later centuries. Athanasius interjects a quotation
of this passage in his Defence before Constantinus () where he wrote:
“She [Truth] is the defence of Kings, and especially of Christian Kings;
with her you will reign most securely, for holy Scripture says, ‘Mercy and
truth preserve the king, and they will encircle his throne in righteousness’
(Prov :). And the wise Zerubabbel gained a victory over the others
by setting forth the power of Truth, and all the people cried out, ‘Great
is the truth, and mighty above all things’.” Worthy of mention is also
Cyprian in his Epistles (.) who declares: “On which account, let us
forsake the error and follow the truth, knowing that in Esdras also the
truth conquers, as it is written: ‘Truth endureth and grows strong to
eternity, and lives and prevails for ever and ever. With her there is no
accepting of persons or distinctions; but what is just she does: nor in her
judgments is there unrighteousness, but the strength, and the kingdom,
and the majesty, and the power of all ages. Blessed be the Lord God of
truth!’ This truth Christ showed to us in His Gospel, and said, ‘I am the
truth.’ Wherefore, if we are in Christ, and have Christ in us, if we abide in
the truth, and the truth abides in us, let us keep fast those things which
are true.” The praise of truth in Esdras was conducive to informing both
the moral discourse and christological confession of the early church.
The Latin translation of the cheer of the court in v.  has become a well-
known proverb, Magna est veritas et paevalet (“Great is truth and it will
prevail”).
 commentary

This section has a number of differences from the RH edition of the text. At
:, φυτεÒοντασ is attested by B, L, and Josephus, though φυτεÒοντασ from A
is preferred by Hanhart. Typical of B is the omission of preposition intensifiers
from the verbs γκ¢χηναν (resulting in κ¢χηναν) at :, προσγελ’σµη (resulting
in γελ’ση. ) at :, and ν¢βλεπον (resulting in £βλεπον) at :. The use of the
personal pronoun αÐτµ² over the reflexive pronoun ¡αυτµ² at : is also typical of
B (cf. :; :). Whereas references to group consultation on ideas ordinarily
takes the form of ¦τεροσ πρÍσ τÍν ¦τερον (cf. :; :, ), at : B’s εÄσ τÍν ¦τερον
substitutes εÄσ for the first ¦τεροσ probably to intensify the sense of consultation
and agreement.

:–. Darius’s Reward and Zorobabel’s Request

The victory of Zorobabel now meets its due reward before Darius in
vv. –. Darius handsomely rewards the most learned orator with
gifts envisaged by the trio during their design of the contest ( Esd :–
). Darius offers Zorobabel the desire of his heart and fellowship in
his household (v. ). However, personal benefits are replaced with the
national cause (Talshir : ) as Zorobabel responds by asking the
king to make good his vow to rebuild Jerusalem and to return the sacred
vessels back to Jerusalem (vv. –). By doing so, the restoration of
Jerusalem will return to its progress despite the set backs that it has faced.
Thus, Zorobabel’s victory in the contest is not a personal achievement,
but turns out to be a national one.
The account suffers from one major historical problem, viz., that the
vessels of the temple had already returned to Jerusalem under Cyrus as
administrated by the treasurer Mithridatēs and the governor Samanas-
saros (Esd :–; Ezra :; cf. Esd :–; Ezra :–). That
return is either forgotten or, perhaps, was thought to be only partial
under Cyrus with further vessels still waiting to be returned. Most likely,
the request of Zorobabel in v.  was included in order to emphasize
Zorobabel’s role in effecting the restoration process even if this fea-
ture created an obvious anachronism. As to when Zorobabel actually
returned to Jerusalem is a matter of debate and  Esdras may well be cor-
rect in identifying his work during the time of Darius rather than Cyrus
(see Coggins & Knibb : ).
Following the acclaim of the people at court (É λαÊσ) for Zorobabel’s
speech on truth (v. ), the king subsequently addresses him (É βασιλεÕσ
εÃπεν αÐτíê). Because Zorobabel has been found to be the “wiser man”
(σοφâτεροσ) of the trio, he is able to “request whatever you wish, even
above what has been written, and we will give it to you” (α»τησαι Ï q¢λεισ
 commentary 

πλεºω τêν γεγραµµ¢νων κα½ δâσοµ¢ν σοι). The things concerning “what
has been written,” obviously refers to the prizes anticipated by the three
bodyguards when they concocted their plan and dreamed of the possible
rewards that might follow. Zorobabel is invited to look even beyond
those gifts for his reward. What is more, in continuity with what the
trio envisaged (:), Zorobabel is invited (the subjunctives καqªσµη and
κληqªσµη are permissive) to “sit next to me, and be called my kinsman”
( χʵενÊσ µου καqªσµη: κα½ συγγενªσ µου κληqªσµη). The invitation is
one of wealth and adoption into the imperial household.
Zorobabel’s response (τÊτε) is to take up the first part of the offer and
to ask for whatever he wishes. Instead of seeking gold, honour, or land,
what he wishes is for Darius to honour his coronation vow and to permit
the rebuilding of Jerusalem and the return of the vessels to the temple
from Babylon. The vow made by Cyrus is unknown to our sources and
it might be a literary device to turn Darius into a neo-Cyrus. Whereas
Cyrus’s decree focused only on rebuilding the temple, Darius supposedly
vowed to rebuild the temple and Jerusalem, which is either a conflation
or expansion of a source, both are typical of Esdras. Zorobabel speaks
to the king (εÃπεν τíê βασιλεÂ) and requests, first, that he, “Remember
the oath that you solemnly made to build Jerusalem, on the day that you
received your kingship” (µνªσqητι τ­(ν) εÐχªν ¯ν ηÓξω ο¸κοδοµ²σαι
τ­ν )Ιερουσαληµ ν τµ² ©µ¢ρα µ´ τÍ βασºλειÊν σου παρ¢λαβεσ). The
imperative verb µνªσqητι has the force of earnest request and not a
stringent command. But the king is asked to make good a solemn vow
that can be traced back to his accession to the throne. The request is,
second, that he “send back all the sacred vessels that were even taken
from Jerusalem, which Cyrus set apart when he vowed to cut down
Babylon, and vowed to send them back there” (π’ντα τ• σκεÒη τ•
ληµφq¢ντα ξ )Ιερουσαληµ κα½ κπ¢µψαι — χâρισεν ΚÚροσ Ìτε ηÓξατο
κκÊψαι Βαβυλêνα κα½ ηÓξατο ξαποστεÂλαι κεÂ). Darius is petitioned
to not only fulfil his own vow, but also that of his predecessor Cyrus that
as of yet goes unfulfilled. The internal contradiction is that  Esd :–
 assumes that the vessels were returned under Cyrus, though they are
returned again under Darius in :, and yet again under Artaxerxēs in
:–. Then, third, “to build the temple” to which Darius also swore
an oath at his coronation. What is interesting is that Vaticanus refers to
the temple “which the Judeans burned when Judea was desolated by the
Chaldeans.” Although the ο¹ )ΙουδαÂοι (“the Judeans”) are mentioned it
was actually the ο¹ )ΙδουµαÂοι (“the Edomites”) who were the arsonists
according to most manuscripts (a tradition known to Ezek :, Ps :,
 commentary

and Obad –, whereas Esd :– and  Chron :– attribute
the destruction of the temple to the Chaldeans). It is possible that the
implied referents are contemporary “Idumeans” who had ambivalent
relations with the Hasmoneans (Josephus, Ant. ., ; ., ;
.–). In any case, in keeping with the decree of Cyrus ( Esd :–
), Zorobabel seeks the rebuilding of Jerusalem, the return of the sacred
vessels, and the reconstruction of the temple; that was the purpose of his
victory.
Zorobabel’s request ends with a further impassioned plea to Darius to
commit to these things (v. ). The emphasis is made by way of three
verbs (ξιê, α¸τ¢ω, and δ¢οµαι) that all add pathos and emotional depth
to the request. If the appeal to Darius’s vow at his accession and the vow
of Cyrus is not enough, Zorobabel follows that up with mention of the
“majesty that is yours” (© µεγαλωσÒνη © παρ• σοÚ) if he should do
this (Myers [: ] translates µεγαλωσÒνη as “generosity” in light
of Sam : and Chron : which contain äìåãâ). The subsequent
remark is that by allowing the reconstruction of city and temple and the
refurbishingment of the sacred vessels, Darius will be executing the vow
which he swore to the “King of Heaven” (βασιλε τοÚ οÐρανοÚ), who is
obviously Israel’s God.
The textual variations between B and the eclectic text of RH are mostly minor.
At :, B adds a conjunctive καº between )Ιερουσαληµ and κπ¢µψαι. In the
same verse, B omits the prepositional intensifier ξ with χâρισεν instead of
ξεχâρισεν (cf. :). B prefers the aorist subjunctive ρηµâqη to the aorist
indicative ¨ρηµâqη at :, but the indicative must be correct due to the tem-
poral sequence envisaged. RH follows A in reading the relative pronoun and
personal pronoun with Ì σε, whereas B renders it as a comparative adjective
with Ìσα in :. The most intriguing variant is that B reads ο¹ )ΙουδαÂοι in
sharp contrast to )ΙδουµαÂοι in other mss. B mistakenly attributes the burning
of the Judean temple to the Judeans! That is no doubt due to a phonetic misread-
ing/mishearing of )ΙδουµαÂοι or an “internal Greek corruption” (Talshir :
).

:–. The Decree of Darius on the Return of the Exiles

The response to Zorobabel’s request is favourably met by Darius who
despatches letters so that the rebuilding of Jerusalem and the temple
could not only recommence, but that it would do so with imperial bene-
faction. His reply combines elements of the decree of Cyrus ( Esd :–;
Ezra :–; :–), Darius’s affirmation of this decree (Ezra :–); and
Artaxerxēs’ authorization of Nehemiah (Neh :, ). In outline, Dar-
ius kisses Zorobabel and writes letters to the associated administrators
 commentary 

of Coele-Syria (v. ). The letters detail the material support that the
Jerusalemites will receive for rebuilding the city (v. ). Darius writes
concerning the freedom of the Judeans from interference from the gover-
nors and the repatriation of land back to the Judeans (vv. –). Darius
also stipulates financial support for the rebuilding of the temple and for
the operation of the cultus (vv. –). The freedom of passage and cov-
erage of expenses for the priests and Levites are explicitly mandated,
while wages and land is granted to guards of the city (vv. –). It is also
stipulated that the sacred vessels will be returned to Jerusalem (v. ). The
most important aspect of the account is that it brings fulfillment to the
statement made in Esd : that the reconstruction efforts were halted
until “the second year of the reign of Darius, King of the Persians.”
The sequel to Zorobabel’s audacious and yet humble request is that
“Darius arose and kissed him” (ναστ•σ ∆αρεÂοσ É βασιλεÕσ κατεφº-
λησεν αÐτÍν) which was culturally symbolic of acceptance and bless-
ing (e.g., Gen :; :; :; :; Exod :;  Sam :; Acts
:; Rom :; Cor :; Cor :;  Thess :;  Pet :).
The immediate outcome, practically speaking, is that he “wrote epis-
tles for him to all the treasurers, toparchs, governors, and satraps, so
that they would send him out and all those going up with him to build
Jerusalem” (£γραψεν αÐτíê τ•σ πιστολ•σ πρÍσ π’ντασ ο¸κονʵουσ
κα½ τοπ’ρχασ κα½ στρατηγοÕσ κα½ σατρ’πασ ¼να προπ¢µψωσιν αÐ-
τÍν κα½ τοÕσ µετ’ αÐτοÚ π’ντασ ναβαºνοντασ ο¸κοδοµ²σαι τ­ν )Ιε-
ρουσαληµ). Throughout the narration the verb £γραψεν (“he wrote”)
carries overtones of stipulation rather than simply imparting informa-
tion (vv. –, –). The list of Persian administrators mentioned
is comprehensive and includes civil servants, provincial rulers, military
officials, and local leaders presumbably in charge of the region “Across
the River.” They are to grant Zorobabel and his retinue a safe passage
for their trip (προπ¢µπω means to assist someone making a journey, see
 Macc :, Cor :). It is thus assumed in the letters that Zoroba-
bel’s return will be in a caravan with others who will also be joining him
to not only deliver the news, but to assist in the renewed construction
process. No mention of the previous efforts at rebuilding are made and
for all intensive purposes they are forgotten. The reconstruction under
Darius appears, at the literary level at least, as an entirely new beginning,
or as if Cyrus’s decree had never happened. Specific mention in the com-
position of letters is given to the toparchs of Coele-Syria, Phoenicia, and
Lebanon, as they are to provide rebuilding materials for the Jerusalemites
in “trees from Lebanon” (note the use of cedars of Lebanon to build the
 commentary

temple during the time of Solomon in Kgs :–). Ironically, the civic
leaders of Coele-Syria and Phoenica who were protagonists in the oppo-
sition to the Judean reconstruction efforts under Artaxerxēs ( Esd :,
) now have to assist in the programme of reconstruction by imperial
order.
Another set of addressees that Darius writes to are the Judeans (v. ).
These Judeans who are yet to return to Jerusalem and are designated as
those “Judeans going up from the kingdom” (τοÂσ )Ιουδαºοισ τοÂσ να-
βαºνουσιν πÍ τ²σ βασιλεºασ). The participle modifies the preceding
noun so as to imply the Judeans who are ready to return to Jerusalem
or at least are volunteering to do so. The “kingdom” in question is obvi-
ously the Persian kingdom. The purpose of their return is recognized
as being “for their freedom” (Ñπ¥ρ τ²σ λευqερºασ) and freedom was a
major element of exilic prophecy (see Isa :; :; :). Their “free-
dom” entails two key aspects. First, “no satrap or toparch or treasurer
should come upon their doors” (π’ντα δυνατÍν κα½ σατρ’πην κα½
τοπ’ρχην κα½παρ ο¸κονʵον µ­ πελεÒσεσqαι π½ τ•σ qÒρασ αÐτêν).
The reference to “doors” reflects an idiom of some form to the effect of
attacking the city gates. Second, “all the territory that they might seize
is for them to exist in without tribute and so that the Chaldeans should
give up the villages of the Judeans which they took” (πšσαν τ­ν χâραν
¯ν κρατªσουσιν φορολÊγητον αÐτοÂσ Ñπ’ρχειν: κα½ ¼να ο¹ ΧαλδαÂοι
φºουσι τ•σ κâµασ —σ διακρατοÚσ(ν) τê(ν) )Ιουδαºων). The future
indicative verb κρατªσουσιν edges in meaning towards the subjunc-
tive mood (see NRSV, ESVA “they would occupy”; NETS “they would
seize”; NEB “they should acquire”; Myers “were to occupy”) aided by the
fact that the future tense-form can sometimes have a deliberative sense
(Porter : ). The context implies a virtual conquest of the land as
the returning Judeans abruptly seize rather than just inhabit the terri-
tory. To that end, the Chaldeans (“Edomites” is better attested textually
and a more logical referent) are accordingly ordered to vacate the land
that was taken over either by force or by absence during the period of
the Babylonian exile (Josephus [Ant. .] mentions that the “Idumeans
and Samaritans and the inhabitants of Coele-Syria” were commanded to
return villages to Judean settlers). A futher benefit is that they are to be
free from the obligations of tribute (φορολÊγητοσ) during this period
of resettlement. A similar request for the freedom of Judea and Samaria
from tribute was made by Jonathan to Demetrius ( Macc :, –
). In sum, it is hard to avoid seeing New Exodus/Conquest imagery
being delibratley utilized here. The theme of freedom, leaving a pagan
 commentary 

kingdom to go up to Jerusalem, and taking the land from the Edomites

(Chaldeans), are all reminiscent of motifs from the Exodus story. With
imperial sponsorship, then, the returning Judeans will finally have a land
“to exist in” (Ñπ’ρχειν) free from military threats, taxation, and foreign
peoples.
A further piece of news for the Judeans concerns financial support
for the rebuilding of the city, temple, and expenses paid for the priestly
classes (vv. –). Twenty talents a year is given for the building of
the temple until it is completed. There is also an additional “ten talents
a year for whole burnt offerings to be offered on the altar daily.” The
details of the “burnt offerings” (qυσιαστªριον Éλοκαυτâµατα) are found
in Leviticus and Deuteronomy (Lev :–; Deut :, –, , ;
:) and it is closely related to the “sin offering” (‘µαρτºα) in Leviticus
(e.g., Lev :–; :; :–, , ). More curious is the claim that
these sacrifices exist “according to the commandment they have to make
seventeen offerings.” There is no known “commandment” ( ντολª) that
mandates “seventeen offerings” (¡πτα καº δεκα προσφ¢ρειν) and it is not
stated whether this is daily or yearly. The offerings might have something
to do with sacrifices and prayers for the king and his sons ( Esd :;
Ezra :). Accordingly variants either omit ¡πτα καº δεκα (L La Sy)
or replace it with something else (δεκατην [V] and λεπτα κα½ δεκα
[]). As the lectio difficilior the reading of ¡πτα καº δεκα is most likely
to be original. Talshir (: ) thinks that “twelve” would be more
appropriate given the references to twelve sacrificial victims elsewhere
(see Esd :; :; Ezra :; :).
In a parenethetical remark in v.  it is reiterated that those who come
from Babylon to rebuild the city should have their “freedom” ( λευqε-
ρºα), which encompasses children of the returnees and the priests that
join them as well. Later on, finding priests to accompany the returning
exiles will prove to be a matter of much concern (see  Esd :–).
The focus on priests in the document is often underrated. Yet in  Esdras
much attention is given to the priests and Levities including: the proper
order of priests and Levites in their temple rituals (:, ; :; :), their
inclusion in the Passover meal (:–, –), their role in the renwal
of the Law under Iōsias (:), their sin under the wicked kings (:;
:), their presence in the first cohort of returnees under Cyrus (:)
and under Darius (:, , , ), the remuneration for their services in
the temple (:–), the problem of unregistered priests (:–), the
association of Iēsous the High Priest and Zorobabel the governor (:),
their role as witnesses to the former temple (:), their leading the
 commentary

worship of the new temple (:–), their freedom from taxation (:),
the search for them to be part of the restoration process (:–),
their role as custodians of the sacred vessels (:–), their intermar-
riage with foreign women (:; :–), and the priestly leaders who
assist Esras in purifying the people from contamination (:; :). The
author of Esdras then has a special concern about the priesthood that
focuses on the proper order of their worship, the importance of their
sustenance, their freedom from taxation, their role in the restoration pro-
cess, and the importance of their purity. In :, Darius wrote concerning
the daily expenses of the priests and their sacred vestments (τ­ν χορη-
γºαν κα½ τ­ν ¹ερατικ­ν στολªν—but if the conjunctive καº is explicative
then it refers to the expenses pertaining to the priestly vestments). What
is more, he wrote/stipulated concerning the vestments “which they were
to serve in” (τºνι λατρεÒουσιν ν αÐτη). If the interrogative τºνι is given its
full force then Darius mandates the way in which the priests were to serve
(see NETS, “in what way they would serve in it”; contrast Myers, NRSV,
ESVA, and NEB that translate τºνι as a relative pronoun. Torrey [:
] treats the verse as a continuation of the previous one, “and to all the
priests he also promised their needs and holy garments.” Josephus [Ant.
.] adds a relative clause µ´ qεραπευουσι τÍν qεÍν to clarify that the
vestments are the means by which the priests worship God). The same
treatment is extended to the Levites who also have their expenses paid
and this treatment extends until “the day when the temple would be com-
pleted and Jerusalem built” which is presumably when the cultus would
become self-supporting through the financial provision of priests and
Levites according to the Mosaic law (Josephus Ant. . adds that “the
musical instruments which the Levites used in singing hymns to God
should be given to them”). A final remark is that all those who “guarded
the city” (τοÂσ φρουροÚσι τ­ν πÊλιν) were to receive land and wages in
exchange for their duty as watchkeepers. Though in an Aramaic Vorlage
it is more probable that doorkeepers of the temple were meant (see Neh
:; :)
The final specification of Darius is that the sacred vessels taken from
Jerusalem to Babylon be sent back (v. ). These vessels were those that
“Cyrus had set apart” ( χâρισεν ΚÚροσ) and it is difficult to determine
whether this refers to the original vessels that Cyrus had set apart for
some purpose or those which he had kept apart from the other vessels
that returned to Jerusalem in his decree. Nevertheless, what Darius
orders is all “that Cyrus had said to be done” now will be done because
“he himself commanded [it] to be done and to be sent to Jersusalem.”
 commentary 

The repatriation and restoration under Cyrus was partial or incomplete,

but under Darius it is now entering its full realization.
The textual distinctiveness of B is insignificant for the most part. B omits the
article τοÕσ prior to ο¸κονʵουσ and it includes the conjunctive κα½ between
Λιβ’νω and £γραψεν. B reads φºουσι over φιêσι probably as a result of :
(φºουσιν), though the subjunctive makes better sense as it is set within a ¼να
clause and is attested by A and N. As per :, B has ΧαλδαÂοι instead of the
better attested )ΙδουµαÂοι (A N) in :. Carried over from :, B again omits
the prepositional prefix from χâρισεν whereas RH follows the majority with
ξεχâρισεν in :. At : B adds a τ to the relative pronoun ´σ creating the
article τ²σ resulting in ¦ωσ τ²σ ©µ¢ρασ. The RH reading for the relative pronoun
is attested only by , while other witnesses omit the ambiguous construction
altogether (A V  L). Between τε and και in : is a gap of several letters which
have not been retraced over. Finally, at : the corrector has appropriately
added a σ in the middle of πελεÒ{σ}εσqαι to correct a misspelling.

:–. Zorobabel’s Prayer and Rejoicing in Jerusalem at the News

The renewal of Cyrus’s decree by Darius leads to Zorobabel’s prayer of
victory and his praise to God. The announcement of the news to the
Judeans of Babylon occasions an equally prompt ejaculation of praise
followed with much merriment. The praise offered by Zorobabel is higly
reminiscent of similar acclamations offered by Jewish heroes (e.g., David
in Chron :– and Daniel in Dan :–). The description of
seven days of feasting is hyperbolic and takes historical liberties with
what probably was the actual Judean response to the news (see Ezra :–
). The key word for this unit, which is why vv. – and vv. –
should be joined together rather than separated, is εÐλογ¢ω (vv. , ,
). The blessed God of truth is blessed here by the individual recipient
of divine wisdom and the corporate beneficiaries of God’s providential
actions for his exiled people.
Sometime after (Ìτε) Zorobabel departs from Darius’s presence and
praises God for his victory and for the wisdom that gave him for this
victory (vv. –). Zorobabel is now identified as “the young man”
(É νεανºσκοσ) stemming from the earlier description of the trio as the
three young men (Esd :, ). In a typical posture of prayer “he lifted
his countenance to heaven towards Jerusalem” (“ρασ τÍ πρÊσωπον
ε¸σ τÍν οÐρανÍν ναντºον )Ιερουσαληµ) and a similar technique of
prayer is performed by Daniel who prayed facing towards Jerusalem
from an upper room (:). Zorobabel praises the “King of heaven”
which is Jewish language of authority and adoration (see Dan :; Tob
:).
 commentary

God is then praised with the words (λ¢γων) uttered by Zorobabel

from, first, a verbless sentence about divine gifts: “From you comes
victory; from you comes wisdom, and yours is the glory. And I am your
domestic servant” (παρ• σοÚ νºκη κα½ παρ• σοÚ © σοφºα κα½παρ σ­ ©
δÊξα κα½ γå σÍσ ο¸κ¢τησ). Zorobabel praises God for victory in the
contest and the contest itself was concerning that which is the wisest
(Esd :, , ) which he successfully won ( Esd :). While Zorobabel
is praised for his display of wisdom, he nonetheless recognizes that
wisdom of this order is a gift from God (see Prov :; Eccl :; Dan :–
; Sir :; :; Eph :; Jas :). Indeed, it is not an over statement
to say that here wisdom is a salvific power and manifests itself amongst
receptive audiences in order to deliver them from the foolishness of
pagans (see Cor :). The logic of the prayer requires the transposition
of the first two nouns so that God’s wisdom (σοφºα) is the efficient cause
of victory (νºκη), which is why he is worthy of glory (δÊξα). The thought
is similar to Sirach, “to him who gives wisdom, I will give glory” (:).
Attached to that word of praise is Zorobabel’s profession of servitude
before his heavenly master, “And I am your domestic servant” (NRSV,
ESVA, “I am your servant”; NETS, “I am your domestic”; CEB, “I am
your household servant”; Myers, “I am your household slave”). The noun
ο¸κ¢τησ means household slave/servant in a domestic setting (see Prov
: [LXX]; Acts :; GELS, ). The word is usually set in relation
to either the master identified as κÒριοσ (e.g., Philo, Poster C. ; Luke
:; Rom :; Clem .) or as in Esd : with δεσπÊτησ (e.g., Prov
:; Philo, Deus. Imm. ; Pet :). The word showcases Zorobabel’s
submission to the God who equipped him for his task.
The second element of Zorobabel’s prayer repeats much of the first part
with a reiteration of the fact that God “granted me wisdom” (Ïσ £δωκ’σ
µοι σοφºαν). The response beyond that is conveyed in Zorobabel’s claim
that, “I confess you, O Master of our ancestors” (σο½ Éµολογê δ¢σποτα
τêν πατ¢ρων). The confession can be related to the substance of Zoroba-
bel’s speech which, in the final movement, was unashamedly theocentric
and affirmed the blessedness of the “God of truth.” Like Daniel, Esther,
and the Maccabean martyrs, Zorobabel has confessed in the presence of
a pagan monarch Israel’s God as the Lord of the nation’s ancestors and
consequently his own Lord as well.
The subsequent action of Zorobabel is to make the announcement
known to the Judean exiles where praise and celebration appropriately
follows in their response to the good news (vv. –). Zorobabel took
the letters and went into Babylon and announced (παγ¢λλω) this “to
 commentary 

all his brothers.” Their reaction, just like Zorobabel’s, is to bless God as
the God of their forefathers. The basis for that adoration is because (Ìτι)
their God “had given them permission and release to go up and build
Jerusalem and the temple” (£δωκεν αÐτοÂσ “νεσιν κα½ “φεσιν ναβ²ναι
κα½ ο¸κοδοµ²σαι )Ιερουσαληµ κα½παρ τÍ ¹ερÊν). The nouns “νεσιν κα½
“φεσιν are an instance of paronomasia that colourfully express a sense
of liberty resulting from God’s action. The thought is similar to Esth
: about, “relief and deliverance for the Jews will arise from another
place.” The freedom that they are granted is denoted by the infinitives
ναβ²ναι κα½ ο¸κοδοµ²σαι which are best understood as part of an
implied purpose clause (i.e., God grants them permission and release
in order to go up and build the temple). The temple is then described
with the redundant expression “where his name is named on it” (οÜ
àνοµ’σqη τÍ Ëνοµα αÐτοÚ π’ αÐτíê) which most probably reflects an
Aramaic idiom to the effect that the temple is the place of God’s holy
name (see Chron :; Ps :; Rev :).
No Jewish celebration is finished without a party and the Judean exiles
proceed to make merriment at the news. It is said that they “drank hard,
with music and rejoicing, for seven days” ( κωqωνºζοντο µετ• µουσικêν
κα½παρ χαρšσ ©µ¢ρασ ¡πτα). The verb κωqωνºζοµαι, which means to
get drunk (NRSV, NEB, ESVA “they feasted”; Myers, “they celebrated”;
NETS, “they drank hard”; cf Esth : [LXX] where it says “the king and
Haman sat down and drank”; GELS,  “to drink hard”), dominates the
sentence. The present tense of the verb suits the context as the picture
is that of the people really committing themselves to thorough-going
celebration through festive drinking and music that encouraged their
sense of joy and gladness (χαρ’). Thus the story of the three bodyguards
ends as it had commenced, with a feast (Coggins & Knibb : ).
The only difference between B and the text of RH is that B omits the feminine
article before νºκη. : has its beginning marked with a large dot in the left
hand column in B and a space of a single letter marks a break between : and
:.

The Continuing Return from Captivity (:–)

The story of the three bodyguards, with the triumph of Zorobabel who
moved Darius to make a decree for the rebuilding of both Jerusalem and
the temple, has as its sequel the return of the exiles to Judah and the
resumption of the rebuilding process.
 commentary

The author returns to the Ezra material and follows it very closely
(Esd :– = Ezra :–:). The primary differences between Ezra and
Esdras accounts are that: () the presentation of the return narrated
in Esdras is preceded by a unit of material unique to  Esdras which
functions as a bridging section between the description of the eupho-
ria following Darius’s decree to the listing of the exiles that returned
with Zorobabel (Esd :–). It is the author’s own creation composed
in order to shift the narrative back towards the Ezra account. () There
are several textual differences between the list of names and numbers
in the Greek of Esdras , Esdras , , Josephus Antiquities , and
the Hebrew of MT Ezra  and Nehemiah  with further variations in
the associated manuscript witnesses (see Myers : –; and note
that Klein : – argues for the textual superiority of  Esdras
). The author of Esdras has evidently copied his account from an
Ezra source very similar if not identicial to MT Ezra. The discrepencies
among the lists may arise from variations in transliterating names, con-
fusion as to who was who, errors caused by numerical notations, and
due to textual variants in the manuscript witnesses (see Myers :
). In many cases it seems that “it is no longer possible to determine
which, if either [Ezra  or Nehemiah ], form of the text is original”
(Williamson : ; though Williamson [: ] himself favours
the priority Nehemiah ). () The author also departs from the chronol-
ogy of Ezra – concerning Zorobabel’s return to Jerusalem. Whereas
Ezra – implies that Zorobabel returned and began the reconstructive
work during the reign of Cyrus, the author of  Esdras locates it dur-
ing the time of Darius. The outstanding question is whether  Esdras
has rightfully corrected the chronology of Ezra (according to Talshir
[: ] “IEsd puts the events in proper order”), or whether  Esdras
is a creative revision to accentuate the role of Zorobabel (Kaiser [:
] identifies three returns with the first one under Jeshua and Zerub-
babel in /bce, the second under Ezra / bce, and the third
under Nehemiah in bce). () Ezra – is very much a rollercoaster
ride towards restoration with manifold ups and downs. In contrast,
Esdras retains all the negative components in the struggle of the ini-
tial return to Judah early on (Esd :–) and projects the positive
elements of the restoration process to the period after Zorobabel is intro-
duced (Esd :–). This redactional activity highlights that the author
has “worked with his own form of logic and with broader theological
intent to recast his sources into the present narrative” (Williamson :
).
 commentary 

Taken as a literary whole, the function of Esd :– is to highlight

the effectiveness of Judah’s return and the restoration under Zorobabel.
The false start during the reign of Cyrus gives way to a fuller movement
of restoration under Zorobabel during the reign of Darius/Artaxerxēs.
Even though it also faces opposition (:, –) there is now a more
grounded hope for triumph over their hostile neighbours given Zoroba-
bel’s earlier triumph at Darius’s court. The narration includes the prepa-
rations for the jouney (:–); the list of the returning exiles and their
eventual arrival in Jersualem (:–); the votive offerings made in the
temple to mark the occasion (:–); the erection of an altar and the
inaugural session of worship (:–); the beginnings of the new temple
(:–); and the inquiry and intrusion of Judah’s neighbours concur-
rent with the resumption of temple worship (:–).

:–. Preparations for the Journey

In order to facilitate a shift from the celebrations in Babylon by the
Judean exiles at Zorobabel’s announcement (:–), the author has
inserted some material in :– to mark a transition back to the narration
in Ezra  about the list of the returnees and the sequence of events that
immediately followed them. The unit is largely redactional and links the
bodyguard story and the list of the returnees from exile together. Talshir
(: –; : , –) proposes that :– was originally
composed in Hebrew or Aramaic and interpolated by a redactor. That
is because, in her view, the Greek does not conform to the pattern
of the Greek elsewhere, the repeated use of the consecutive καº is a
Semitic feature, and the mistake in : about Zorobabel being the father
of Iōakim is possible only in Hebrew/Aramaic (see below). The short
unit breaks down into three small sub-sections including: the selection
of the returnees (v. ); the cavalary for protection and the cavalcade
of musicians for celebration (vv. –); and the ancestry of the leaders,
priests, and Davidides who returned (vv. –).
After the bodyguard contest and the promulgation of Darius’s decree
(µετ• δ¥ ταÚτα), a group of leaders from the exiles is chosen to go up
to Jerusalem (v. ). The verb κλ¢γοµαι (“chose”) is a favourite in the
Septuagint for a choice made with a particular preference ( κλ¢γοµαι
with the infinitive also appears in Chron :, :). Leaders from the
ancestral houses among the tribes are selected to go up with Zorobabel
along with their retinue of “wives and sons and daughters, and their
menservants and maidservants, and their livestock” indicating what is
 commentary

to be a complete and permanent change of territory. Unlike the earlier

return described in Esd :–, there is no mention of the Spirit of
the Lord stiring up people to go up to Jerusalem and no rendering of
assistance from their neighbours.
A description of the actual caravan is provided in the subsequent
narration (vv. –). Darius sends a cohort of a thousand cavalry as
a protection party for the long and perilous journey. The number is
undoubtedly hyperbolic, but the cavalry’s role is to provide security and
well-being (i.e., ε¸ρªνη, “peace”) for the Judean sojourners as they head to
Jerusalem. The verb ποκαqιστ’νω (“restore, bring back, return” [GELS,
]) marks a return to a former state of affairs and is used regularly in the
Septuagint with that sense (e.g.,  Kgdm :;  Esd :; Job :; Jer :;
Macc :). Darius is restoring the Judeans to Jerusalem to restart the
reconstruction of the city. But it is not strictly a military operation as
the festivities begun at the news of Darius’s decree are continued in the
journey. Hence “the music of drums and oboes” (µουσικêν τυµπ’νων
κα½ αÐλêν) and “all their brothers were making merry” (κα½παρ π’ντεσ
ο¹ δελφο½ αÐτêν παºζοντεσ). Though αÐλÊσ is often translated as
“flute,” since it was played with a mouthpiece it is better translated “oboe”
(see L&S, , contra BDAG, ). Although Darius “made them go up
with them” ( ποºησεν αÐτοÂσ συναναβ²ναι µετ’ κεºνων), in the sense
that he mandated their return, the musical gaiety indictates that it was
not under duress (that is assuming that αÐτοισ refers back to δελφο½).
In other words, the musical procession to the temple already began all
the way back in Babylon (see Coggins & Knibb [: ], “The picture
is of a religious procession rather than a journey of some  miles”).
The identity of the tribal leaders who participated in the journey is
then listed with particular attention given to the priestly and Davidic
heritage of the travellers (vv. –). In keeping with the view of the
importance of the cultic offices in Esdras, the priests are accordingly
nominated first, even ahead of Zorobabel, indicating their preeminence
(see Coggins & Knibb : ; Williamson : ). From among
the priests are “the sons of Phinees, sons of Aarōn,” who descend from
one known for his great zeal for the holiness of the people amidst racial
intermarriage within Israel (see Num :–; Sir :–). There is
also “Iēsous the son of Iōsedek of Seraias” who was, or was to be, the
high priest. Iēsous (i.e., Jeshua) will have a prominent role to play further
as the head of the priestly line in Jerusalem in the rest of  Esdras (see
:, , , , ; :; :). The attribution of sonship to Iōakim with
Zorobabel as his father (Ιωακειµ É τοÚ Ζοροβαβελ) is most likely based
 commentary 

on a misreading of the Hebrew (or Aramaic). Iōakim was probably a

son or relative of Iēsous (see the conjectures of the NEB: “Jeshua son
of Josedek son of Saraeas, and Joakim his son; and Zorobabel”; and
Talshir [: ]: “Jeshua, the son of Jozadak, the son of Seraiah, and
his son Joiakim, and Zorobabel”). The error arose perhaps through a
å mistakenly taken as a conjunctive rather than as a pronoun in the
conjectured ìááåøæå åðá turning Iōakim into Zorobabel’s son (Myers
[: , ] follows Torrey in preferring the conjecture “Zorobabel
went up with him,” but see objections of Talshir : ).
It is notable that Zorobabel is described as “Zorobabel of Salathiēl,
from the house of David, from the generation of Phares, of the tribe
of Judah, who spoke to Darius the King of the Persians wise words, in
the second year of his reign, in the month of Nisan, the first month.”
That Zorobabel’s father was Salathiēl is widely attested enough even if
his actual ancestry is unclear (see Chron : [LXX]; Hag :, , ;
:, , ). His origins in the “house of David” ( κ τοÚ ο»κου τοÚ
∆αυιδ) is obviously a prestige term indicating status, both royal and
divine, in the restoration process. Although we are still far away from
anything resembling “messianism” in the technical sense, Zorobabel
the son of David figures prominently in the hopes for the future of
Judah (but see comments below on the root and star of  Esd :–
). Additional reflections on the restablishment of a Davidic dynasty
in Israel with eschatological connotations continued in the Hasmonean
and Roman eras (e.g., Psalms of Solomon ). What is more, the duo of
Zorobabel and Iēsous led to the rise of what Craig Evans calls “diarchic
restoration” centred on two anointed figures of Davidic ruler and priestly
leader in the Dead Sea Scrolls and Testament of the Twelve Patriarchs
(Evans :–). In Zechariah, these two figures are the “sons of oil”
(Zech :–) and it is likely that their two anointed offices are even
collapsed together later on (Zech :–). No mention of Zorobabel’s
Davidic heritage is found in Ezra. Klein (: ) conjectures that it
was because “the author [of Ezra] was receptive to Persian domination
and attached no hopes for deliverance to the house of David.” It is lastly
emphasized that Zorobabel was the one who “spoke to Darius the King
of the Persians wise words” (Ïσ λ’λησεν π½ ∆αρεºου τοÚ βασιλ¢ωσ
Περσêν λÊγουσ σοφοÕσ) highlighting Zorobabel’s connection to the
royal power and his impressive wisdom at a pagan court. The author
at this point finally provides a chronological marker for when this took
place, “in the second year of his reign, in the month of Nisan, the first
month.”
 commentary

Thus, under the auspices of royal protection, a vanguard of returnees

begins to make their way to Jerusalem with much fanfare and hope.
Among their ranks are leading priests, tribal leaders, and Zorobabel a
son of David. These persons constitute the primary building blocks for
the rebuilding and reconstitution of Judean society. What is left is to
designate is the rest of those embarking on the journey out of exile.
On textual variants, at : B contains the dative αÐτοÂσ, whereas RH prefer
αÐτοÕσ supported by A and the L texts. The section is marked out in B by a
Ζ with a macron on the left-hand of the column.

:–. The List of Returning Exiles

Like most Hebrew genealogies the list of the returning exiles is not
designed to provide detailed records for posterity among those with
antiquarian interests. The purpose of genealogies is largely rhetorical and
ideological. Genealogies can serve a number of functions (Johnson :
–) including: () societal construction where genealogies explain
historical or contemporous relationships through a common ancestry;
() origination that places ancestry lists into a coherent form accounting
for Israelite ancestry; () narrative bridge where genealogies serve to link
disparate units in a text; () chronology and periodization that links
people to nation shaping events; () military preparedness that listed
fighting forces in tribal sub-divisions; () legitimation by linking names
with property or offices; () racial homogeneity whereby the purity of
a family or individual is described; () continuity that demonstrates the
unity of peoples across time; and () narrative where the list accelerates
the story towards a certain goal.
The list in Esd :– can be linked, to varying degrees, with all of
these elements with the exception of () concerning military prepared-
ness. The list of returnees is a form of societal reconstruction insofar as it
provides a bond of unity among the designated returnees by coming out
of exile together and by beginning to restore Jerusalem together. The list
provides a unified and authorized account of those originating in Israel
who came out of Babylon en masse as opposed to those who returned
in dribs and drabs without sponsorship (that might conceivably have
accompanied the major repatriations). The list also provides a bridge
between the story of the three bodyguards and the reinstitution of temple
worship. The people are also linked with the movement of God among
the exiles and upon the Persian kings who are deliberately moved to
release them. There is also a resolute intention to demonstrate the purity
 commentary 

of the Israelite line by nominating those who could not demonstrate their
Israelite ancestry or priestly heritage (vv. –). The racial purity of the
returnees is all the more important given the problems of intermarriage
that become apparent after Ezra’s arrival in Jerualem. There is a sense of
organic unity between the Josianic pre-exile reforms and the post-exile
reconstruction under Zorobabel insofar as both renewals endeavoured
to rededicate and reorganize people and worship before the Lord. Finally,
the list serves to accelerate the story by bringing closure to the prob-
lem caused by the Samaritan intervention, it introduces Iēsous into the
narrative, and highlights the renovations made to the temple and the
reinstitution of the cultus.
The head line of the list provides a setting for the return: “Now these
are the ones from Judea who came up from the captivity of exile, whom
Nabouchodonosor King of Babylon, had expatriated to Babylon. And
they returned to Jerusalem and the rest of Judea, each to his own city”
(ε¸σ½ν δ¥ οÜτοι ο¹ κ τ²σ )Ιουδαºασ ο¹ ναβ’ντεσ κ τ²σ α¸χµαλωσºασ τ²σ
παροικºασ ο×σ µετοºκισεν Ναβουχοδονοσορ βασιλεÕσ Βαβυλêνοσ ε¸σ
Βαβυλêνα κα½ π¢στρεψαν ε¸σ )Ιερουσαληµ: κα½ τ­ν λοιπ­ν )Ιουδαºαν
¦καστοσ ε¸σ τ­ν ¸δºαν πÊλιν) in vv. –a. The geographical designator κ
τ²σ )Ιουδαºασ is omitted by a couple of minuscules (, ) probably
due to its redundancy next to κ τ²σ α¸χµαλωσºασ. Yet the emphasis on
the Judean heritage of the returnees is significant and they now return
full circle to the land from which Nabouchodnosor transferred them
(µετοικºζω means “forcibly remove” in several places [Acts :;  Chron
:; Amos : {LXX}]). Their time in “exile” in Babylon is literally a
“sojourn” (παροικºα). The word was used to describe both the habitation
of the Hebrews in Egypt (Wis :; Acts :) and the Judeans in
Babylon (Esd : [LXX]). The participle ο¹ ναβ’ντεσ “going up” is
more properly defined as π¢στρεψαν ε¸σ )Ιερουσαληµ (“they returned
to Jerusalem”). It may well be that in πεστρ¢φω we are also meant
to hear echoes of repentance given how the word is used in adjacent
literature (see Chron :; :; Esd :; :; :) and in light
of the prayer of Zorobabel and the praise of the people that was implicitly
penitential (Esd :–).
The next tier of leaders in the group are nominated (v. b): “Com-
ing up with Zorobabel and Iēsous, Neemias, Zaraias, Rēsaias, Enēnios,
Mardochaias, Beelsaros, Aspharasos, Borolias, Roimos, and Baana, their
leaders” (ο¹ λqÊντεσ µετ• Ζοροβαβελ κα½ )ΙησοÚ: Νεεµιου: Ζαραιου:
Ρησαιου: Ενηνιοσ Μαρδοχαιου: Βεελσαρου Ασφαρασου: Βορολιου:
Ροιµου Βαανα τêν προηγουµ¢νων αÐτêν). These are the leaders (ο¹
 commentary

προηγουµ¢νοι) of those “coming” (ο¹ λqÊντεσ) out of Babylon.  Esd

: has twelve names compared to eleven names in Ezra :– and
some names have different spellings and occur in a different order (the
additional name in Esd : is Ενηνιοσ). The two key protagonists are
“Zorobabel and Iēsous” (= Zerubbabel and Jeshua in English transla-
tions) who form a diumvirate of davidic and priestly leadership over the
returnees. The second segment of the leadership includes in its retinue
Νεεµιασ who is to be idenfied Nehemiah since he is not referred else-
where in Esdras beyond :, . In Esdras (LXX) there seems to be
a differentiation between the Νεεµιασ who returned with Zorobabel in
: (see Νεεµιασ υ¹Íσ Αζαβουχ in :) and Νεεµια υ¹Íσ Αχαλια in the
subscription of :, who is listed again in :, and is associated with
Εσδρασ in :. Yet a similar differentiation is not necessarily made in
Esdras  even if a chronological absurdity is the result. As Williamson
(: ) states, “it is most probable that he [Nehemiah] is [intended
here], and that this is another example of the chronological telescop-
ing for theological reasons.” Later in v. , it is said that “Naimias and
Attharias told them [the unregistered priests] not to partake of the con-
secrated things.” At : B has a slightly different spelling with Ναιµºασ
in contrast to Νεεµιασ of A and V (see Νεαιµιασ [L ], Νεµιασ [
   Armte], Νεωµιασ []), but the textual tradition is otherwise
unanimous in making it the same person from  Esd :. The second per-
son Ατqαριασ (“Attharias”) is quite likely a mistranslation of the Hebrew
àúùøú for “governor” (Ezra :; Neh :). Hence the Vorlage referred
to “Nehemiah the governor” (see Neh :; :) and a singular person is
further implied by the singular verb εÃπεν preceding the two names in
the Greek. Whether Esdras seeks to marginalize Nehemiah is an open
question and it should not be too quickly assumed. However, it would
appear that in the Vorlage of Esdras the governor Nehemiah was sub-
ordinated to Zorobabel, while in the Greek text Neemias/Naimias and
Attharis examine the genealogical claims of the priests without any hon-
orary title.
The next tier of appointees includes those from among the “number
of the nation and their leaders” (ριqµÍσ τêν πÍ τοÚ £qνουσ κα½
ο¹ προηγοÒµενοι αÐτêν) which is then enumerated at length (vv. –
). This includes the common folk (:–), the priests (:–),
the Levites (:), the temple singers (:), the gatekeepers (:),
the temple servants (:–), Solomon’s attendants (:–), and the
unregistered (:–). The listing is then summarized at the very end
with Israelites, servants, and livestock recorded (:–). For the most
 commentary 

part, the list in Esdras  agrees with Ezra , but  Esdras does have its
own peculiarities. That is seen primarily in the expansive lists of temple
servants and Solomon’s servants (see Myers : ).
The matter of the unregistered persons and priests is highlighted
at the very end undoubtedly for its theological and social importance
(vv. –). The list establishes the identity and rights of the individuals
mentioned, but also functions to show the continuity between pre-exilic
Israel and the new Israel of restoration (Johnson : –; Clines
: ; Williamson : ). It was the responsibility of the family
heads to record and maintain the genealogical records of their families
(see Chron :; :). It is noted that the group “Thermeleth and
Thelersas under the leadership of Charaathalan and Allar” were “not
able to prove their paternal ancestry or their generation that they were
from Israel.” The reason for their inability to demonstrate their lineage
is not given, but we may assume that the pater familias no longer had
access to records of their ancestral origins. No conquence is noted, but
it is implied that their ability to participate in the restoration process is
thereby retarded to some degree.
The matter of the priests without genealogical record is treated at fuller
length. It concerns “the priests those who had assumed the priesthood
but were not proved” (¹ερ¢ων ο¹ µποιοÒµενοι ¹ερωσÒνησ κα½ οÐχ εÑρ¢-
qησαν). The verb µποι¢ω is rare in the LXX, but denotes something like
“produce” or “create” with a state of mind (L&S, ) or “lay claim to”
(GELS, ). Supposedly there was some form of “registry” for priests
and inspection of it did not yield up their family names. Two conse-
quences are drawn for them. First, that “they were excluded from serving
as priests” ( χωρºσqησαν τοÚ ¹ερατεÒειν) and therefore not able to offi-
ciate in the cultus. Second, two leaders, Naimias and Attharias, explicitly
instructed them “not to partake of the consecrated things until there
should arise a priest being adorned in Explanation and Truth” (Ναιµºασ
κα½ Ατqαριασ µ­ µετ¢χειν τêν ‘γºων ¦ωσ ναστµ² ¹ερεÕσ νδεδυµ¢-
νοσ τ­ν δªλωσιν κα½ τ­ν λªqειαν). In Ezra : the “governor” (i.e.,
Zorobabel), orders them “not to partake of the most holy food, until
there should be a priest to consult Urim and Thummim.” It is possible
that Esdras inserts Naimias in order to indicate the subordination of
Nehemiah benneath Zorobabel. In addition, the identity and function
of this future priest remains mysterious, although we have to wonder if
the arrival of Esdras is somehow a fulfillment of this role. B reads ¹ερεÕσ
in contrast to A and V which read ρχιερεÕσ, and pontifex is attested in
Lv. One can understand how such a text easily led to speculation about
 commentary

an eschatological priest in the order of Aaron or Melchizedek and also

lend itself to christological interpretation at the hands of Christian read-
ers. The (high)priest referred to is to be clothed in τ­ν δªλωσιν κα½
τ­ν λªqειαν (“Explanation and Truth”) which represents a Septuagin-
tal tradition also found in Exod :, Lev :, and Deut :. Here it is
based on the Hebrew íéîúìå íéøåàì (Ezra :) with “Urim and Thum-
mim.” These were sacred lots used to make decisions beyond the reach
of human understanding. It was used during the time of Saul ( Sam
:) and Josephus alleges that it persisted until the Hasmonean era (Ant.
.). The advent of prophets may have rendered the lots superfluous
which is why they disappeared. Philo offered an allegorical reading of
δªλωσιν κα½ τ­ν λªqειαν from Exod : where they are manifested
in the “oracle of judgment” of which he says: “Now by the oracle is here
meant the organs of speech which exist in us, which is in fact the power
of language. Now language is either inconsiderate, and such as will not
stand examination, or else it is judicious and well approved, and it brings
us to form a notion of discreet speech” (Leg. .–). According to
the Babylonian Talmud “until there should be a priest to consult Urim
and Thummim” means “until the dead rise and the Messiah, the son of
David comes” (b.Sot b) underscoring its utility for speculation about
˙
eschatological and messianic deliverers.
The list rounds up with a closing calculation of the total numbers
of Israelites, servants, musicians, and livestock (vv. –). If added
together the total number exceeds that of the groups listed. Hence it is
probably assumed that others were present who were not specified in the
first mention of the list. The purpose is to describe the significant number
of persons embarking on the journey and the virtual emptying of Judeans
from Babylon.
The text of Esdr :– is the most significant text-critical problem for the
whole of Esdras. The list of differences between B and the eclectic text of
RH has already been given (see above). Suffice to say the differences are of
five varieties: () Minor differences concerning the omissions of insignificant
words (e.g., B adds ο¹ between οÜτοι and κ at : which is absent from A and
V) and different spellings (e.g., B contains µετοºκισεν in contrast to µετíâκισεν
supported by A and V). () Minor differences in names (e.g., B reads Αννεισ,
while RH opts for Αννιασ at : from A and V as the most original spelling
from the many options among the variants [e.g., Ανιασ, Ανανιασ, Αννανιασ]).
() Major differences in names (e.g., B contains Ζαµµâqει at : against its
omission from RH because the reading is only attested by B and the Ethiopic).
() Minor discrepencies concerning numbers (e.g., at : B [and Eth, Syr, Lav]
ends with δÒο, A and V have δ¢κα, whereas RH ends with δ¢κα δÒο influenced
 commentary 

primarily by the parallel version in Esdras : [LXX] and the prominence of
“” [δâδεκα, δ¢κα δÒο] in Esd :; :, , , ). () Major discrepencies
concerning numbers (e.g., at : RH reads ¡κατÍν δ¢κα δÒο from Lac and in
light of Esd :, : [LXX], but is entirely absent from B). All in all, from a
textual vantage point, it is a very messy and complicated affair and there seems
little chance of precisely reconstructing an original version of Esdras here. A
futher study on the textual tradition behind Esdras , Esdras  (LXX), and
Ezra  (MT) might one day shed further light on both the Aramaic Vorlage and
the Greek Ausgangstext of Esdras.
Given the relative instability of the text, the correctors found opportunity to
amend errors and point to marginal readings. The most common correction is a
minor one which required swapping an ε for an α in τεσσ{α}ρ’κοντα (:, ,
, , ). Similar corrections are made at : with the mending of the ending
of τετρακÊσι{οι} and : where there is an insertion of υ¹ο½. The correctors have
also added an obelisk at :, :, and : to indicate marginal readings. These
include: µαιαιναµινιοσ (:), κ(α½) Ροβ υ¹ο½ Ασαφ Τοβ (:), and υ¹ο½ Αγγαβα
(:). The first two marginalia receive little external support apart from another
marginal note in  (see also Esd : [LXX]), while the latter is attested
principally by A but with variants forms of Αγγαβα in Armenian, Latin, and
Ethiopic witnesses hence the inclusion of υ¹οι Αγγαβα in RH.
Endemic throughout are the itacisims caused by the superfluous inclusion of
epsilons, most often prior to an iota. In :, depending on how one takes ε¸σ,
Φqαλειµω’β ε¸σ τοÚ υ¹οÚ )ΙησοÚ could mean the “The sons of Phthaleimoab
with respect to the son of Iesous” (NETS). However, the fact that in B εισ has a cir-
cumflex accent over the iota (εÂσ) means that it is either a number (“one descen-
dent from Phthaleimoab”) or more likely a name (“Phthaleimoabeis”). The
section naturally lends itself to conjectural emendations. Brooke and McLean
(: ) propose τοÕσ υ¹οÕσ which is more grammatically correct in :
than the singular genitive τοÚ υ¹οÚ (found also in ). In :, RH follows A and
B on the plural π¢στρεψαν (see Esd :; : [LXX]), while Hanhart (a:
; b: ) prefers the singular π¢στρεψεν since it agrees more properly
with ¦καστοσ; contra Hanhart, I suggest that we should be reluctant to equate
best grammar with most original reading.

:–. Votive Offerings

The account of the return from exile under Zorobabel next describes
the arrival of the pilgrims in Jerusalem. That includes a description of
their votive offerings to contribute to the temple’s reconstruction and the
reinhabiting of Judah by the exiles. Disparity exists between the various
versions of the gift lists in Nehemiah , Ezra ,  Esdras ,  Esdras ,
, and Josephus Antiquties  (see Myers : ). The gifts by the
family heads are obviously indebted to the Exodus tradition (Exod :–
; :–) where the Israelites made contributions for the ark, tabernacle,
vestments, and so forth.
 commentary

The narrator does not provide an account of the journey or the actual
entrance to Jersualem. Instead, the narrator nominates the central char-
acters at the return as “Some of the leaders of the paternal houses” (κα½
κ τêν ©γουµ¢νων κατ• τ•σ πατρι•σ) in v. . The group designated is
probably those leaders of the nation listed in :–, although the word
nominating the ruling class changes from a participle form of προηγ¢ο-
µαι in :– to a participle form of ©γ¢οµαι in :. In  Esdras and in
the Septuagint, ©γ¢οµαι is a far more common designation than προηγ¢-
οµαι for leadership (e.g., Gen :; Deut :; cf.  Esd :; :, , ,
; :–, , , ; :). The dative ν τíê is ubiquitious in  Esdras
and its placement in an articular infinitive ν τíê παραγºνεσqαι αÐτοÕσ
(“when they came”) recalls the same construction in  Esd : and  Esd
: (LXX) that operates as a temporal marker for key events. It is at this
juncture that the exiles come to the “temple of God” (¹ερÍν τοÚ qεοÚ).
The temple is redundantly specified as “that is in Jerusalem” (τÍ ν )Ιε-
ρουσαληµ) and the neuter article τÍ is anaphoric and refers back to the
temple.
While at the temple, the first act of the returnees is to solemnly vow
to participate in its reconstruction and to that end they all donate large
sums of money to the task. They “solemnly vow” (εÓχοµαι) to give gifts
to the temple treasury. In Esdras εÓχοµαι is central to the descriptions
of piety and devotion in the context of cultic worship (see  Esd :–;
:, ; :, ) and it denotes a pledge made to the deity (GELS, ;
BDAG, ). The vows are made according to their abilities or power
(κατ• τ­ν αÐτêν δÒναµιν modifies εÓξαντο γεÂραι rather than the
following δοÚναι ε¸σ τÍ ¹ερÍν γαζοφυλ’κιον). The contributions listed
include “a thousand minas of gold, and five thousand minas of silver,
and one hundred priests’ sacred vestments” (v. ). The Hebrew of Ezra
: is basically the same except for the first item and reads, “sixty-one
thousand darics of gold, five thousand minas of silver, and one hundred
priestly robes” (NRSV). The precise value of the drachma (íéðåîëøã) is
unknown and probably was unknown to the Greek translators too (see
Coggins & Knibb : ).
The final remark of the pericope describes the return of the people
(λαοÚ αÐτοÚ, “his people” in B and is arguably synonymous with )Ισραηλ
rather than a group distinct from it). The people inhabit the territory
of Jerusalem with specific attention given to the priestly apparatus and
their supporting retinue including the priests, Levites, temple singers,
and gatekeepers (v. ). This might imply that Jerusalem had already
been rebuilt in the mind of the author (Cook : ), but reference
 commentary 

to inhabiting Jerusalem and its environs is too ambiguous to assign an

exact period of reconstruction to the literary setting since it might signify
villages around or proximate to Jerusalem (Myers : ). However,
reference to the gifts of priestly sacred vestments would be more appro-
priate if the temple was operating even if only partially.  Esdras then is
probably anachronistic in assigning the period of restoration to Zorob-
abel under Darius rather than to Sheshbazzar under Cyrus (see Klein
: ). Esd :– was based on an Aramaic version essentially
identical to Ezra :– and in the original document the author prob-
ably added Ezra : to his own Vorlage and abbreviated : from Neh
:– (Williamson : ).
On :, RH prefers κατíωκºσqησαν on the strength of V, whereas V*, A, and
B all read κατοικºσqησαν. A similar variant is found in : with µετοºκισεν
(B) contrasted with µετíâκισεν (RH). B often prefers the dipthong over the
long vowel in compound verbs, however in : the witnesses including B are
unanimous for κατíωκησαν. Still, the multiple-attestion of κατοικºσqησαν in A,
B, and V* is weighty and it probably was the original reading. In the same verse
B adds the personal pronoun creating λαοÚ αÐτοÚ that stands against RH that
opts for λαοÚ without the pronoun since it is omitted from A and V (see Hanhart
b: ).

:–. Erection of an Altar and Inaugural Worship

The arrival of the exiles in Jerusalem includes not only the making of
votive offerings, but also the reinstigation of cultic worship. The people
gather for worship around Iēsous and Zorobabel in order to make burnt
offerings and to keep the feast of tabernacles. The emphasis is firmly on a
return to observance of the Mosaic ordinances and the session resembles
the Josianic reforms by returning to the teaching of the law. However,
the religious ceremonies arouse the interest of the people of the land
who wish to participate in the proceedings and are, to some degree,
successful. The primary point is Israel’s return to law-keeping as seen
in their dedication to rightful worship through ritual sacrifice.
The story now looks ahead to a later point “when the seventh month
came” ( νστ’ντοσ δ¥ τοÚ ¡βδʵου µηνÍσ). The time elapse indicates
a telescoping of events (Myers : ) about the progress made in
the restoration of Israel’s cultic worship with the commencement of
the reconstruction of the temple in Jerusalem by the returnees (v. ).
Notably this occurs during the reign of Darius and not, as in Ezra :–
, during the reign of Cyrus. However, in : we are transported back
to the time of Cyrus and the time of Darius is still future showing the
 commentary

confused chronology of Esdras (see Talshir : ) The designation

“the sons of Israel” (τêν υ¹êν )Ισραηλ) is ubiquitious in the LXX and
appears in Esdras when Israel gathers to renew their worship and
bond to the covenant God (:; :; :, , ; :). The exiles are
only “sons of Israel” when in a penitent state and ready to worship
their God as he has stipulated. The group that assembles is described
as being “in one mind” (ɵοqυµαδÊν) and it is a favourite Lucan term
for the unity and single minded purpose of God’s people (Acts :;
:, ; :). The gathering takes place in the “open area before the
first gate oriented to the east” (τÍ εÐρÒχωρον τοÚ πρâτου πυλêνοσ
τοÚ πρÍσ τµ² νατολη) that accommodates the masses in front of the
temple.
The reinstitution of sacrificial worship is led by Iēsous and Zorobabel
who take assigned positions and follow the stipulations laid down in the
Mosaic code (vv. –). Iēsous is singled out first as the temple is his
priestly domain. Named with both of them, however, are “his brothers”
(ο¹ δελφο½ αÐτοÚ and ο¹ τοÒτου δελφο½). In the case of Iēsous it means
the fellow “priests,” but with respect to Zorobabel it is not his family
members who are present, but the general populace of Israel. Much like
the genealogy of Matt :– with the mention of “Judah and his broth-
ers” (Matt :) and “Jechoniah and his brothers” (Matt :), the anno-
tation “his brothers” in Esd : has more depth than initially meets
the eye. It places Zorobabel as the representative leader and savior of his
people. The leaders “took up their positions” (καταστ•σ) which is rem-
iniscient of Iōsias’ ordering of priestly orders and Levites in the reforms
narrated in Esd :–. In the ancient world, right religion was very
much tied to right ritual and performed in a meticulously regimented
manner. It is not clear whether the altar was rebuilt or dedicated as the
verb ¡τοιµ’ζω could mean either. A dedication is probably to be pre-
ferred as rebuilding activites did transpire prior to the interruption ( Esd
:), but then again, Esdras as a whole is not devoid of anachronism.
Sacrificies, specifically “burnt offerings” (ÉλοκαÒτωσισ), are offered at
the altar. The object of worship is the “God of Israel” (qεοÚ τοÚ )Ισραηλ)
which is a common epithet for God in  Esdras (:; :; :, , ;
:, ; :) and often joined to κÒριοσ (“Lord”). The most important
description of the process is that all was undertaken “in accordance with
that prescribed in the book of Mōyses, the man of God” (κολοÒqωσ τοÂσ
ν τµ² Μωυσ¢ωσ βºβλíω τοÚ νqρâπου τοÚ qειοÚ διηγορευµ¢νοισ). It is
the law of Mōyses (i.e., Moses) that was central to the reforms of Iōsias
(Esd :, ), the reinstitution of worship under Zorobabel ( Esd :;
 commentary 

:, ), and the reforming ministry of Esdras (:; :). The descrip-
tion of Mōyses as a “man of God” is taken over from the Chronicler’s
work (Chron :; :; cf. Esdr : [LXX]) and here signifies the
intimacy of Mōyses with God and consequently the appropriateness of
aligning Israel’s religious worship with its most revered religious author-
ity.
Just like the earlier narration of the return under Cyrus, the return
from exile under Zorobabel experiences interference from Israel’s sur-
rounding neighbours (v. a–d). It is reported that “some of the nations
of the land assembled with them” ( πισυνªχqησαν αÐτοÂσ κ τêν “λλων
qνêν τ²σ γ²σ). The gathering is as much out of desire for participation
as it is for mere curiosity. The local peoples are interested in the wor-
ship of the local deity and wish to honour him as the Judeans do. Most
likely the subject in the subsequent description “they erected the altar
upon their place” (κα½ κατâρqωqησαν π½ τÍ qυσιαστªριον π½ τοÚ τÊ-
που αÐτêν) is the Israelites and not the peoples of the land. A further
parenthetical remark contrasts Israel with the actions of the nations as
“the nations of the land were at enmity with them and prevailed over
them” (Ìτι ν £χqρα ³σαν αÐτοÂσ κα½ κατºσχυσαν αÐτοÕσ π’ντα τ•
£qνη τ• π½ τ²σ γ²σ). The meaning of κατισχÒω is based on assoca-
tions of prevailment, domination, advantage, capability, and victory (see
BDAG, ; GELS, ). Other translations handle the verb differently
in its current location (NRSV, NETS, ESVA, “were stronger than they”;
NEB “were too strong for them”; CEB “dominated them”; Myers “sup-
ported them”). The plainest meaning of Ezra : is that returnees feared
the locals rather than participated with them in a joint exercise of wor-
ship. Josephus’s version (Ant. .) accentuates the negative reception
from among the local tribesfolks: “But while they did this, they did not
please the surrounding nations, who all incurred hatred against them”
(ταÚτα δ¥παρ ποιοÚντεσ οÐκ ³σαν ν ©δονµ² τοÂσ προσχωρºοισ £qνεσιν
π’ντων αÐτοÂσ πεχqανοµ¢νων). From the context in  Esd :– it
is most likely that the surrounding nations were pressuring (and perhaps
prevailing) upon the Israelites to allow them to participate in the cultic
celebrations. Their action as κατισχÒω is an extension of their £χqρα with
the Israelites. Myers’s translation of “supported them” could only work if
there was an exceptive particle prior to £χqρα and if the temple or Israel
was the object of the verb κατισχÒω (Williamson [:] also places
the “other peoples in the land” in a positive light and Talshir [: ]
thinks that the text of Esdras is confused and implies a mix of hostility
and cooperation).
 commentary

Further description of the sacrificial worship is given with due empha-

sis laid upon its rectitude and the obedience of the people to proper
manner of undertaking cultic observances (vv. e–). There is a rep-
etition of words and phrases indicating that the ritual proceedings were
lawful. Sacrifices were offered at “appropriate times” (καιρÊσ), as “com-
manded” ( πιτ’σσω), and “as fitting” (προσªκω). The full cycle of cultic
ceremonies are briefly mentioned (daily, weekly, monthly, and yearly)
because, in addition to them, the Israelites who made their votive offer-
ings earlier on (B has “first month” whereas most witnesses have “seventh
month” in line with :) now bring them forward and make good their
oaths. Noteworthy is the final description of the section, “though the
temple of God was not yet built” (κα½ É ναÍσ τοÚ qεοÚ οÓπω íàκο-
δʵητο). The reconstruction is evidently incomplete, but this does not
prevent a new beginning to Israel’s task of keeping the regulations of its
national worship. Esdras gives due importance to Israel’s ritual calendar
as it begins with festival celebrations under Iōsias and ends with Esras’s
reading of the law. The feast of tabernacles observed under Zorobabel is
a third high point in the narrative (Coggins & Knibb : ).
In B the beginning of the section is marked by the symbol Η in the left hand
column. There is an omission of ν in the first word of the first sentence in :.
There B (though curiously followed by A*) reads στ’ντοσ, though νστ’ντοσ
must be the correct reading because, as Hanhart (a: ) rightly notes,
στ’ντοσ is a “Falsche Formen.” Then, in :, B presents a reading of the
singular «ρξατο instead of the better attested plural «ρξαντο preferred by RH,
and the plural obviously suits the context better (see «ρξατο in : and «ρξαντο
in :). Four differences exist between B and RH in :. B includes an additional
π½ before τÍ qυσιαστªριον probably due to a scribal error; B reads the aorist
passive plural (κατâρqωqησαν) over the aorist active plural (κατâρqωσαν); B
witnesses to the plural personal pronoun (αÐτêν) over the singular personal
pronoun (αÐτοÚ); and B omits the article that is included in RH for τíê κυρºíω.
In these last three instances RH prefers the readings of A and V over B. Also, in
:, the B witness of πρâτου stands against A, V, Ethiopic, and Josephus (Ant.
.) in favour of ¡βδʵου. The pericope also contains several nomina sacra
set densely together.

:–. Beginning of the New Temple

In this section the formal preparations for the temple begins with due
emphasis given to parallels between the making of the first and sec-
ond temples. The rebuilding takes place with priestly and Levitical over-
sight and occasions much praise and celebration at its completion. The
account follows Ezra :– very closely save that  Esd : has no
 commentary 

parallel in Ezra : as well as the differences in names between Ezra :
and Esd :. Evidently the reconstruction under Zorobabel and Iēsous
did not begin in  bce, but in  bce as the book of Haggai makes
clear (Hag :, ). Esdras hints at a correction to Ezra :– by placing
Zorobabel’s return and reconstruction efforts during Darius’s reign (note
that in : the L text adds δαρειου to underscore this fact further).
The first act is a pay-before-you-pray contract with the craftmens
(λατʵοισ κα½ τ¢κτοσι) from Sidon and Tyre who are given wages and
supplies in order to bring cedar trees from Lebanon by ferry via the
harbour of Joppa (v. ). The account in Esdras, via Ezra, is largely
dependent upon descriptions of the first temple narrated in  Chron
:– and Chron :–. The rebuilding is said to be congruent with
“the written commands that they had from Cyrus King of the Persians”
(τÍ πρÊσταγµα τÍ γραφ¥ν αÐτοÂσ παρ• ΚÒρου τοÚ Περσêν βασιλ¢ωσ)
which relates back to Esd :– with the first pronouncement of the
decree for the rebuilding the temple by Cyrus.
The narrative then provides a setting that recapitulates the story so
far by restating the arrival of Zorobabel and Iēsous in Jerusalem with
their priestly entourage who formally began the temple reconstruction
in the second year (vv. –). This is the real “beginning” («ρξατο)
of reconstruction under the diumvirate with the assistance of “their
brothers” (ο¹ δελφο½ αÐτêν) who include the priestly class and their
retinue (on the names see Myers : ). What is emphasized is
that those who led the reconstruction were those who “had come back
to Jerusalem from captivity” (ο¹ παραγενʵενοι κ τ²σ α¸χµαλωσºασ
ε¸σ )Ιερουσαληµ). The first act is the most important one, “they laid
the foundation of the temple of God” ( qεµελºωσαν τÍν ναÍν τοÚ
qεοÚ) in the second month of the second year (on “second month”
see Chron :). Although some time elapse has occurred between
Cyrus’s and Darius’s reigns and for the building materials to arrive from
northern Palestine, the rebuilding sounds almost instantaneous with the
description that it happened “when they came to Judea and Jerusalem”
( ν τíê λqεÂν ε¸σ τ­ν )Ιουδαºαν κα½ )Ιερουσαληµ).
The precise details of the rebuilding project are described including
the identity of those overseeing the project and the priestly procession
that accompanied the reconstruction (vv. –). There were Levites
“appointed” (¼στηµι) for overseeing the work. The work in question
is described as the “works of the Lord” (£ργων τοÚ κυρºου) and the
description is repeated in :, but not found anywhere else in the LXX
(see £ργων τοÚ qεοÚ in Ps : , Tob :). That is undoubtedly an
 commentary

objective genitive as work for the Lord. The minimum age for Levitical
duties here is twenty years old (see Chron :, ;  Chron :),
but in the account of David’s organisation of the Levites the age accord-
ing the Chronicler is thirty (Chron :) which comports with the
priestly legislation (Num :, , ). The lowering of the age limit may
be explained by the paucity of Levites at this time (Clines : ; Tal-
shir : ). There also “stood” (or was “appointed” [again ¼στηµι])
Iēsous with a number of others (“Damadiēl his brother and the sons of
Iēsous Emadaboun and the sons of Iouda son of Eiliadoun”). There are
differences between the list of names in Ezra :,  Esd :,  Esd :,
and Josephus Ant.  (see Myers : ). In  Esd : [LXX] there is
Ηναδαδ instead of Ηµαδαβουν in Esdras, both are transliterations of
ããðç in the MT. Esd : also makes no mention of )ΙησοÚσ or the her-
itage of )ΙοÒδα as τοÚ Ε¸λιαδουν. Josephus includes the two unattested
names in “Zodmiēlos” (Ζοδµο²λον) and “Aminadabos” (Αµιναδ’βοσ).
These named persons acted as “taskmasters” ( ργοδιωκτησ meant in the
sense of building supervisors like Chron : and  Chron :, not
slave-drivers like Exod :; :, ,  [LXX]). This was done in “one
mind” (on ɵοqυµαδÊν see Esd : and :; it was a common image
in intertestamental literature for the single minded purpose of God’s peo-
ple at times of instability and peril [see in LXX, Exod :; Jdt :; :;
:; :, , ; Macc :, ; :; :]). The singledmindedness per-
tains to the work performed in, on, and for (hence the dative ν τíê ο»κíω)
the “house of the Lord” (ο»κíω τοÚ κυρºου [though others manuscripts
have ο»κíω τοÚ qεου]).
Unlike Ezra that focuses on the laying of the foundations (or at least
their repair [so Clines : ; cf. Talshir : ]), in contrast
Esdras emphasizes the full rebuilding that has taken place. This is a
further example of how the author views the restoration process as mov-
ing unstoppablly forward after Zorobabel’s victory at the Persian court
(Williamson : ). As the “builders built the temple of the Lord”
(ο¸κοδʵησαν ο¹ ο¸κοδʵοι τÍν ναÍν τοÚ κυρºου), the priests “stood”
(¼στηµι) in full vestments equipped with musicals instruments and trum-
pets. Music plays while the work proceeds. Concurrently the Levites, the
Sons of Asaph, played cymbols as part of the musical accompaniment.
The priestly onlookers were reportedly engaging in “singing hymns to the
Lord and blessings, according to David, the King of Israel” (ѵνοÚντεσ τíê
κυρºíω κα½ εÐλογοÚντεσ κατ• ∆αυιδ βασιλ¢α τοÚ )Ισραηλ). The mean-
ing of κατ• ∆αυειδ could be a reference to the regulations of worship in
Chronicles –, though in all likelihood it points to the Davidic qual-
 commentary 

ity of the Psalter and it appears as if the Psalms are remembered at this
juncture as part of Israel’s sacred music that begins playing again. Thus,
the Psalter is an instrument of continuity between Israel’s pre- and post-
exilic worship. The content of the musical praise is enumerated as: “And
they sang with hymns, blessing the Lord, ‘For his goodness and his glory
are upon all Israel into the ages’” (κα½ φâνησαν δι’ Ôµνων εÐλογοÚντεσ
τíê κυρºíω Ìτι © χρηστÊτησ αÐτοÚ κα½ © δÊξα ε¸σ τοÕσ α¸êνασ παντ½ )Ισ-
ραηλ) which is phraseology common to several Psalms (:–; :;
:; :; :). This hymnic praise is reminiscient of Zorobabel’s
exclamation of praise upon his victory at the contest in Darius’s court
(Esd :).
Attention moves from the builders and priests to the populace more
generally who share in the celebrations for the erection of the temple
(vv. –). At “the erection of the house of the Lord” (τµ² γ¢ρσει τοÚ
ο»κου τοÚ κυρºου) the populace also partake of the celebration with
trumpets and by loudly singing hymns to the Lord (on the prescription
for blowing trumpets at festivals see Num :, ). The worshipful fes-
tivity is juxtaposed with the “old men who had seen the former house”
(ο¹ πρεσβÒτεροι ¡ωρακÊτεσ τÍν πρÍ τοÒτοÚ οÃκον) and approach the
refurbished temple with “great crying and weeping” (κραυγ²σ κα½ κλαυ-
qµοÚ µεγ’λου) at the memory of the former temple. Josephus’s expan-
sion makes mention of the deficiency of the new temple compared to
the old one of Solomon which is the reason for the weeping (Ant. .–
). The new temple was on the one hand a shadow of its former glory
(Hag :), but some could consider that the temple’s rebuilding was no
small thing to be despised (Zech :). Again, these Levitical and patri-
archal leaders who saw the former temple provide a further element of
continuity between the pre- and post-exilic eras. The raucus of wailing
and lament (or was it weeping in joy [see Myers : ]) effectively
drowned the trumpets creating a noise that “was heard far away” (äστε
µακρÊqεν κοÒεσqαι), though in Ezra : it was impossible to distin-
guish the weeping from the worship. It is precisely the noise coming from
Jerusalem which will lead to a further confrontation with the surround-
ing tribes people.
βρωτ• κα½ ποτ• read by A is transposed by B, L, and the Syriac to the order
ποτ•παρ κα½ βρωτα in :. In the same verse, B and V* reads the conjunctive
κα½ after λιµ¢να in contrast to the preposition κατ’ found in A and Vb. Also in
: Hanhart opts for καρρα (“carts”) from the majority of mss, whereas RH
reads χαρα from B, Lav, Syr, and Eth (though in context a reading of καπυα
[“nuts” {L}] or καρπουσ [“fruit” {}] would be equally plausible [see Talshir
 commentary

: ]). The name of Iēsous’s brother who acted as a levitical overseer in
: is diverse in the witnesses. B reads ∆αµαδιηλ, whereas RH opts for the
reading from V of Καδµιηλ, while other readings include Κεδµιηλ (L), Καδωηλ
(A, ), admial (Eth), Chodeiel (Lac), and ìàéîã (Syr). See earlier Esd :
where B has Κοδοηλου in contrast to Καδµιηλου that is adopted by RH. Overall,
Καδµιηλ is probably the best Greek transliteration of the Hebrew ìàéîã÷ of Ezra
:. A similar range of variations is met with another set of sons identified in the
same verse. B reads )ΙοÒδα τοÚ Ε¸λιαδουν, though RH in an electic manner
renders it Ιωδα (from A, V) τοÚ Ιλιαδουν (conjectured spelling, although
Ε¸λιαδουν is attested by B, V, and A; but note the omission in Esd :). Though
the witnesses are fairly divided over Κυρºου (B, Lcv, Syr) and qεοÚ (A, V) in
:, RH decided in favor of qεοÚ. It is hard to say which was original here since
both Κυρºου and qεοÚ are found throughout this section. Typical of B in :
is the preference for a dipthong instead of a long vowel at the start of a word
with ο¸κοδʵησαν instead of íàκοδʵησαν (A, V) preferred by RH (see earlier
:, ). The only other significant variant is that in :, RH follows A and V
with ɵολογοÚντεσ over B’s εÐλογοÚντε. While εÐλογ¢ω is found earlier in Esd
:, , ; :, and :, a later scribe has probably switched to ɵολογοÚντεσ
in : order to avoid the repeitition of εÐλογοÚντεσ from :. A corrector has
made changes at two points: adding a ω to Ôµν{ω}ν in : and inserted the
genitive suffix to τοÒτ{οÚ} in :.

:–. Inquiry and Intrusion from Judah’s Neighbours

The sequel to the preceding pericope is that all the commotion associated
with the rededication of the temple draws the attention of the surround-
ing populace who in turn request to participate in the rebuilding of the
temple (vv. –). When their request is rejected by the Judean leader-
ship, the peoples respond by hindering the completion of the rebuilding
process (vv. –). At this point in the narrative the interruption to the
rebuilding of the temple under Artaxerxēs in :– either has no sig-
nificance or is forgotten.
The inhabitants of the land around Judea are designated with the
description “enemies of the tribe of Judah and Benjamin” (ο¹ χqρο½ τ²σ
φυλ²σ )Ιουδα κα½ Βενιαµιν), which is a further unpacking of their enmity
with the returned exiles (see :). The enemies arrive in Jerusalem
virtually summoned by the trumpets and seek to learn what the sound
of the trumpets signified. They discover that “the ones who were from
captivity were building the temple for the Lord God of Israel” (Ìτι ο¹ κ
τ²σ α¸χµαλωσºασ ο¸κοδοµοÚσιν τÍν ναÍν τíê κυρºíω qεíê )Ισραηλ). On
κυρºíω qεíê see Esd : below and :, :, , and here κυρºíω qεíê
)Ισραηλ stands for the Hebrew ìàøùé éäìà äåäé from Ezra : identifying
the covenant God and the covenant people in the one description. A
 commentary 

delegation is sent to Zorobabel, Iēsous, and the leaders of the ances-

tral house and an appeal is made on the basis that, “we, similar to you,
obey your Lord and we will present offerings to him from the days of
Asbakaphath King of the Assyrians, who transported us here” (ɵοº-
ωσ γ•ρ ѵÂν κοÒοµεν τοÚ κυρºου ѵêν κα½ αÐτíê πιqÒσοµεν πÍ
©µερêν Ασβακαφαq βασιλ¢ωσ )Ασσυρºων Ïσ µετªγαγεν ©µšσ). The
Assyrian king “Asbakaphath” (Ασβακαφαq [with various spellings in
the mss, e.g., Ασβασσαρεq {c}, Ασβασαρωq {}, and Αβασσα-
ρεq {}]) is “Esarhaddon” in Ezra : (ïãç­øñà [MT], Ασαραδδων
[Esd LXX]). Josephus who usually follows  Esdras in his narrative
(Ant. .) substitutes the name for an earlier Assyrian king “Shal-
maneser” (Σαλµανασσ’ρησ [see arm reading salmanasar]). B also reads
the distinct future tense πιqÒσοµεν with other witnesses like A and V
attesting a present tense verb πιqÒοµεν. The difference is that B envis-
ages the peoples as hoping to present sacrifices in the future, whereas
other manuscripts posit the peoples already performing sacrifices to
the local deity (see qυσι’ζοµεν in Esd : [LXX]). The peoples were
forcibly brought to Judea by the Assyrians in their own “transporta-
tion” (µετ’γω) from other lands. They have attempted to adopt the local
religious customs and wish to continue to do so further, but with the
guidance from the former occupants of the land (see  Kgs :–).
However, there is no known resettlement of peoples in Judah under the
reign of Esarhaddon and the historical reality was perhaps a spillover
of peoples from Samaria into the vacuum left by the forced expatria-
tion of the Judeans to Babylon (Myers : ; Talshir : ; but
see Williamson : – who, on the basis of Isa :, thinks that an
importation of people into Palestine under Esarhaddon remains possi-
ble).
The Judean response does not mince words and is a forthright rejec-
tion of the request. Zorobabel and colleagues blankly state: “You have
no part in building the house for the Lord our God” (οÐχ ѵÂν τοÚ ο¸-
κοδοµ²σαι τÍν οÃκον κυρºου qεíê ©µêν). The response is justified not
by a zealous animosity towards the foreign peoples of the land, though
no doubt implied, but from the decree of Cyrus who ordered it to be
built by the exiles. The excuse for exclusion is not met with satisfac-
tion and the “nations of the land” (£qνη τ²σ γ²σ) proceed to interfere
with the rebuilding process. That is emphasized by a number of partici-
ples, some unique to B, including πικοιµâµενα (“falling upon”), πολι-
ορκοÚντεσ (“hindering”), and δηµαγωγοÚντεσ (“demagoguering”), with
net result that the rebuilding was halted (ποκωλÒω). What is prevented
 commentary

is not the entire undertaking as in Ezra :, but only the “completion”
(ποτελ¢ω [in other mss πιτελ¢ω]) of the refurbishment (Williamson
: ). Then, in what is quite simply the mother-of-all anachronisms
and sure proof that the author of Esdras has compilated the narrative,
it is reported that they “were kept from building for two years, until
Darius’s reign” (ε»ρχqησαν τ²σ ο¸κοδοµ²σ £τη δÒο ¦ωσ τ²σ ∆αρεºου
βασιλεºασ). The statement is straight out of Ezra :, but is out of sync
with the earlier return of Zorobabel under Darius and not before Darius
as stated here. In addition, it was not two years that separated the reigns
of Cyrus and Darius because in between Cyrus’s son Cambyses reigned
for several years prior to Darius. Adding further confusion is that  Esd
: envisages Artaxerxēs (perhaps mistaken for Cambyses) following
on from Cyrus and it was purportedly during his reign that the abortive
attempt to rebuild the temple was started and promptly halted ( Esd
:–). The confusion is created either by historical ineptitude or by
a failed attempt to project Ezra : into : by turning Darius’s “sec-
ond year” into “two years” in order to reduce the time delay and make
things get better quicker than they really did (Williamson : ).
Alternatively, Klein (: –) proposes that  Esd : originally
read “two months” limited to a time within Darius’s reign and the confu-
sion occurs due to an attempt to assimilate the text with Ezra :. More
likely, the “second year” of Ezra : (ïéúøú úðù) has been misread as
“two years” (see Hag : which Myers [: ] thinks influenced Ezra
:).
In :, B reads the future verb πιqÒσοµεν with RH following A and V on the
present tense πιqÒοµεν. In the same verse B has Ασβακαφαq and RH once
more opts for the reading attested by A and V being Ασβασαρεq. The idiomatic
phrasing ѵÂν κα½ ©µÂν (see ©µÂν κα½ ÑµÂν in Matt :) in : is adopted by
RH from a number of later mss and supported by Esd : though in reverse
order (©µÂν και ѵÂν), while B omits κα½ ©µÂν. Hanhart (a: ) follows
B and A in contrast to RH in preferring πικοιµωµενα over the conjecture of
πικειµενα by Fritzsche, Rahlfs, and Tedesche in :. In :, RH applies the
prepositional prefix πι to two verbs ( πιβουλ•σ and πισυστ’σεισ) from A
and V in contrast to B’s βουλ•σ and συστ’σεισ. For similar reasons RH reads
the noun δηµαγωγºασ on the strength of A and V instead of the participle
δηµαγωγοÚντεσ in B. The corrector has amended the text by adding a τ in
ποτελεσq²ναι in :. The passage ends with a colon marking the end of the
section.
 commentary 

The Continued Reconstruction of the Temple and

Corporate Resistance by Judah’s Neighbours (:–:)

The account of reconstruction under Zorobabel is recapitulated again

with a further description of the temple’s rebuilding. The rebuilding of
the temple is set against the backdrop of the prophetic ministries of
Haggai and Zechariah and from the inquiry by the Persian governors
of the region, Sisinnēs and Sathrabuzanēs. Correspondence with Darius
ensues and there is found a copy of the decree of Cyrus that marks the
validation of the rebuilding process. Thereafter, the Persian authorities
assist in the building process and the entire edifice is finally completed.
The completion of the rebuilding project culminates with a Passover led
by Zorobabel.
The account follows Ezra – very fairly closely but with several
variations. The haphazard integration of sources is apparent because
in Esd :– Darius has already issued a decree for rebuilding. Yet
in Esd :–, following Ezra :–, Darius has the royal archives
searched for Cyrus’s decree before ratifying it with his own decree. The
most distinctive element of the Esdras account is that, in contrast to
Ezra, the resumption of work is not a new start but the completion of
the work already begun (Esd :–). The enquiry by Sisinnēs and
Sathrabuzanēs does not delay the reconstruction but only monitors its
validity with correspondence sent to the king about the matter. What
is more, in accordance with earlier features of  Esdras, where less dis-
tinction is made between the building of the temple and city ( Esd
:–), here Jerusalem itself become slightly more prominent in the
reconstruction process (Esd :–). Also, Zorobabel is named along-
side Sanabassaros (Esd : contrasted with Ezra :) underpinning
his prominence in the narrative.
The climax of the section is obviously the Passover under Zorobabel
that rehearses the celebrations under Iōsias and prepares the way for
Esras’s return. This Passover becomes the third high point of the narrative
and a successful step towards the rejuvenation of the Judeans under
imperial, davidic, priestly, and prophetic oversight.

:–. Reconstruction of the Temple Commences

The opening sequence provides the setting that locates the story of the
continuation of restoration in face of interference within the orbit of the
prophetic ministries of Haggai and Zechariah.
 commentary

The introductory prepositional phrase ν δ¥ τíê is atypical in Hellenis-

tic Greek, it appears again in :, and it serves to transition to a new
section set during Darius’s reign (see Esth :, ; :, ; :; Sir :;
Obad ; Ezek :). Here the prophetic agents provide assistance to
Zorobabel and Iēsous in the rebuilding of the temple, though without
stipulating how (see Hag :–). Josephus attempted to fill in some of
these blanks by stating: “Haggai and Zachariah, who encouraged them,
and wished them to be enthused, and not to be suspicious of the Persians,
for that God foretold this to them. So, in deference to those prophets,
they applied themselves dilligently to building, and did not miss one
day” (Ant. .). Myers (: ) proposes that the prophetic assis-
tance in the reconstruction was a “turning point in the enterprise,” but it
had repercussions as the prophets took advantage of imperial unrest dur-
ing the Perian interregnum and announced the downfall of the empire
(Hag :) and excited messianic enthusiasm for Zorobabel (Hag :).
Esdras carries over the reference to the “second year of Darius” from
Ezra : in contrast to the two years of delay just mentioned in  Esd
:. Likewise, the statement “began to build the house of the Lord” («ρ-
ξαντο ο¸κοδοµεÂν τÍν οÃκον τοÚ κυρºου) is an anachronism inherited
from the use of disparate sources.
The commencement of the section in B is designated with a theta with a macron
(q). Variants revolve around the father of Zacharias who is known in B as
Εδδεºν, as Αδδω in A and V (cf. Esd :), Addin in Lav and Sadoc in Lac.
Rahlfs conjectures for Εδδι with Hanhart and Tedesche favoring Εδδω from
the L text. With no vowel pointings, the Hebrew àåãò was obviously open to
variation in pronunciation in Greek.

:–. Intervention by Regional Authorities

Despite the progressive advance of the rebuilding of the temple and, to
a lesser extent, the city of Jerusalem, inhibitions to the reconstruction
process continue to take place.
A temporal setting is provided by the phrase “At the same time” ( ν αÐ-
τíê τíê χρÊνíω) in v. . Interference in the rebuilding comes through the
arrival of “Sisinnēs the prefect of Syria and Phoenicia and Sathrabuzanēs
and their associates” (Σισºννησ É £παρχοσ Συρºασ κα½ Φοινºκησ κα½
Σαqραβουζ’νησ κα½ ο¹ συν¢ταιροι). Either due to their own initiative
or in the course of their regular duties, the Persian authorities of the
region discover unscheduled building operations taking place. In Ezra
: the lead governor is “Tattenai” (éðúú) of the “Province Beyond the
River” but identified here simply as “Syria and Phoenicia.” This is the
 commentary 

first occurrence of £παρχοσ in Esdras and it means “prefect” or “com-

manding officer” (several words for regional authorities in the imperial
apparatus are used including προστ’τησ and σατρ’πησ). The original
delegation was probably “imperial troubleshooters, armed with powers
of punishment” (Clines : –). The regional delegation speaks to
the Judeans through the prefect Sisinnēs because B has the singular verb
εÃπεν, whereas other witnesses have the plural εÃπαν. That the subject of
εÃπεν in B is Sisinnēs is probable since he is mentioned first even when
he is mentioned with other persons (see :, ; : and Ant. .).
The delegation is perhaps less concerned with the “roof ” (στ¢γη) than
with the “other things” (τ“λλα π’ντα) that might involve constructing
fortifications around Jerusalem. That would be all the more plausible if
the investigation took place sometime after the Babylonian revolt under
Cambyses which would have made the reconstruction look suspicious to
the new regime directed by Darius. In Josephus’s account (Ant. ., )
the Samaritans wrote to Darius concerning how the Jews had “fortified
the city” (πÊλιν ÈχυροÚσι) because it looked more like a “fortress than a
temple” (ναÍν áσ φροÒριον), and they cited a letter from Cambyses that
strictly prohibited the rebuilding of the temple. That complaint is prima
facie historically plausible (Myers : ).
Sisinnēs enquires about the basis of authority upon which the rebuild-
ing of the temple is being performed (vv. –). His questions concern,
“By whose order are you building this house” (τºνοσ ѵÂν συντ’ξαντοσ
τÍν οÃκον τοÚτον ο¸κοδοµεÂτε) and “who are the builders” (τºνεσ ε¸σ½ν ο¹
ο¸κοδʵοι ο¹ ταÚτα)? Josephus adds a great deal more dialogue between
Zorobabel and Iēsous with Sisinnēs (Ant. .–) which condenses
the material in Esd :– (Ezra :–). The mention of the “roof ”
(στ¢γη) and the twice mention of “finishing all these things” (π’ντα πι-
τελεÂτε / ο¹ ταÚτα πιτελοÚντεσ) suggests that the rebuilding was very
close to completion but faces a final testing before it can be brought
to an end. Nothing else about the delegation is said other than their
enquiries on those matters. But the author adds an editorial comment
about how the rebuilding activities were able to continue despite this
question/protest from the regional governors. It is said: “And the elders
of the Judeans possessed the gracious oversight from the Lord upon the
captives” (κα½ £σχοσαν χ’ριν πισκοπ²σ γενʵενοι π½ τ­ν α¸χµαλωσºαν
παρ• τοÚ κυρºου ο¹ πρεσβÒτεροι τêν )Ιουδαºων). The subject of the sen-
tence is disputed and Talshir (: ) thinks it derives from a double
translation generated by reading the same word éáù for both α¸χµαλω-
σºα (from é!á"Ö) and ο¹ πρεσβÒτεροι (from éá&ù). Most translations locate
 commentary

“elders of the Judeans” with the preceding description of the gracious

act of God over the captives (NRSV, ESVA, “Yet the elders of the Jews
were dealt with kindly, for the providence of the Lord was over the cap-
tives”; NETS, “And the elders of the Judeans had favor with the captives,
due to consideration from the Lord”), while the NEB links the elders
to what follows: “But, thanks to the Lord who protected the returned
exiles, the elders of the Jews were not prevented from building during
the time that Darius was being informed.” The elders are probably the
subject of the verbs £σχοσαν in : and κωλÒqησαν in :. However,
in B, the “elders” are clearly the subject of the preceding clause because
(a) ο¹ πρεσβÒτεροι τêν )Ιουδαºων is separted from οÐκ κωλÒqησαν by
the paratactic conjunctive κα½ and by a colon before κα½ οÐκ κωλÒqη-
σαν; and (b) B also contains the masculine participle γενʵενοι matching
πρεσβÒτεροι though most other witnesses have the feminine γενοµ¢νησ
matching with τ­ν α¸χµαλωσºαν. In other words, the Lord grants a gra-
cious oversight to the elders over the captives to lead and guide them at
this tumultuous time.
The eventual outcome of the meeting is that reconstruction was not
hindered as all parties awaited official notification from king Darius
(v. ). A further manifestation of the grace “from the Lord” (παρ• τοÚ
κυριου) is in the failure of any actual intervention to inhibit the super-
visory work of the elders over the temple’s final stages of completion.
The work could continue “until which time” (B has the distinctive rela-
tive clause µ¢χρισ οÜ ποσηµανq²ναι) that a report was received from
Darius. Although the narrative itself would probably have been simpler
if Darius only had to recall events narrated from a few chapters earlier.
Josephus accentuates the point by stressing that Sisinnēs “did not resolve
to hinder the building, until they had informed King Darius of all this.”
RH follows A and V with the plural verb εÃπαν as opposed to the singular εÃπεν
attested only by B and a few other minuscules (, ) in :. The context
clearly supports the plural as the more appropriate reading. At : the corrector
has added the prepositional prefix πι to πιτελοÚντεσ. In : B reads µ¢χρισ
οÜ ποσηµανq²ναι (on µ¢χρι οÜ see :) against µ¢χρι τοÚ Ñποσηµανq²ναι
attested elsewhere and accepted by RH.

:–. The Letter to Darius

The enquiry by the Persian officials from Syria and Phoenicia results in a
letter being written to Darius to ascertain if there really was a decree by
Cyrus permitting the rebuilding of the Jerusalem temple and to seek his
direction on how to handle the matter. As to the function of the account
 commentary 

Myers (: ) correctly observes that, “this chapter accentuates the
position of the Jews vis-a-vis the Persians, but it was for the glorification
of the temple—a characteristic of this book.”
There is a close following of Ezra :–. The subtle differences are
that in Ezra : (= Esd :) the Persian leaders specifically request
the names of the Judean elders who were organizing the reconstructive
work. Josephus does not record the letter written to Darius by the Persian
leaders as most of the content is interjected into the verbal exchange
between Zorobabel and Iēsous and the Persian authorities (Ant. .–
). Instead Josephus (Ant..) simply notes: “At once they wrote
to him about these matters” (παραχρ²µα δ’ αÐτíê περ½παρ τοÒτων
£γραψαν).
The section runs in four major parts: the introduction of the letter
written by Sisinnēs, Sathrabuzanēs, and their associates (v. ); the letter
including the state of affairs in Jerusalem detailing the reconstruction of
the temple (vv. –); the second part of the letter outling the response
of the Judean elders to the Syrian/Phoenician delegation’s enquiry with
respect to the history of their temple (vv. –); and the request that a
search be made in the royal archives for a decree by Cyrus as the Judeans
allege (vv. –).
The introduction identifies the senders of the letter to Darius as “Sisin-
nēs the prefect of Syria and Phoenicia, and Sathrabuzanēs, and their
associates the local officials in Syria and Phoenicia” (v. ). The nomina-
tion of the officials repeats v.  verbatim with the exception of further
defining their associates (συν¢ταιροσ) as “the local officials in Syria and
Phoenicia” (ο¹ ν Συρºα κα½ Φοινºκµη ©γεµÊνεσ). What is provided in
the subsequent account is a “copy” (ντºγραφον) of their letter that was
sent to Darius, though how such a letter could fall into the hands of the
Judeans is anyone’s guess.
The first half of the letter describes the circumstances leading to the
occasion of the letter, viz., the Persian investigation of the rebuilding
activities and what they discovered upon coming to Jerusalem (vv. –
). Beyond the honorific greetings to “King Darius” the senders aim to
impart important information to the regal head, “Let it be fully known to
our lord the king” (π’ντα γνωστ• £στω τíê κυρºíω ©µêν τíê βασιλεÂ). A
similar permissive sense is adopted in Esd : (LXX) with the same
imperative verb and same adjective: γνωστÍν £στω. The substance of
what follows recapitulates the visitation of the delegation to the city,
especially notes the work that has gone on, and reports that the Judeans
were building “a great new house for the Lord, of hewn stone, with
 commentary

expensive timber set in the houses” (οÃκον τíê κυρºíω µ¢γαν καινÍν: δι•
λºqων ξυστêν πολυτελêν ξÒλων τιqεµ¢νων ν τοÂσ ο»κοισ). The impres-
sion conveyed is that of a lavish and fulsome rebuilding project going
on in Jerusalem and the Persian authorities caught entirely unawares
as to its purpose and validity. Of concern it was not only the fact and
scale of the rebuilding of the temple that gave cause for alarm. It is fur-
ther noted in the letter that work is “proceeding rapidly and the work
in their hands is prospering and being completed with all splendor and
thoroughness” (κα½ τ• £ργα κεÂνα π½ σπουδ²σ γινʵενα: κα½ εÐοδοÒ-
µενον τÍ £ργον ν ταÂσ χερσ½ν αÐτêν: κα½ ν π’σµη δÊξµη κα½ πιµε-
λεºα συντελοÒµενα). The combination of surprise, quality, and speed
of work leads the Persian governors to “inquire” (πυνq’νοµαι) of the
elders as to whose command authorized the building of the temple and
the laying of the foundations. The present tense-form of ο¸κοδοµεÂτε
is contrasted with the imperfect tense-form of qεµελιοÚτε (found in
B). Both verbs are aspectivally imperfective with an interiorized view-
point, and in B qεµελιοÚτε probably serves to show the progressive
nature of the building project. The inquiry also sought the names of
the protagonists in the reconstruction effort, taken no doubt, in case
that the refurbishments proved to be illegal or treasonous and worthy
of reprisal.
The second half of the letter narrates the response of the elders to the
questions by the Persian authorities (vv. –). The form of the descrip-
tion is a “Summary of Israel’s Story” (Hood : ), which recapitulates
the history of Israel from a particular perspective. In this case, history is
described from the vantage point of the temple as the measure of God’s
favour or disfavour with his people. The Judeans identify themselves as
“servants of the Lord” (παÂδεσ τοÚ κυρºου) and the notion of Israel as the
Lord’s servant is part of an ancient tradition (see Ps :; Isa :; :,
; :; :–). Whereas exile made the Israelites servants of Nabou-
chodnosor (Esd :), through restoration they have been reinstituted
as servants of the Lord. The lordship to whom they are bound is to “the
one creating the heaven and the earth” (τοÚ κτºσαντοσ τÍν οÐρανÍν
κα½ τ­ν γ²ν) which is similar to Zorobabel’s speech where heaven is
a circumlocution for God (Esd :) and the Lord is king of heaven
(Esd :, ). As for the “house” that they are building, it is thereafter
stated that it “had been built many years before by a great and mighty
king of Israel, and it was completed” (ο¸κοδʵεÂτο É οÃκοσ £µπροσqεν
τêν πλειÊνων δι• βασιλ¢ωσ τοÚ )Ισραηλ µεγ’λου κα½ ¸σχυροÚ κα½
πετελ¢σqη). The “great and mighty king of Israel” is a tacit reference
 commentary 

to Solomon who was earlier described as builder of the original tem-

ple (Esd :) though it was also built with directions deriving from
David (Esd :). The temple under Solomon was “completed” and the
new temple also stands on the verge of completion as well if the rebuild-
ing continues uninterrupted. The net point is to emphasize the temple’s
ancient origins and to demonstrate that its appearance is not a recent
innovation.
In order to explain the temple’s reappearance after its demise, it is nec-
essary to describe the events surrounding its destruction by the Babylo-
nians. The account is Deuteronomic in theology as the defeat of Judah is a
form of punishment attributed to their violation of the covenant stipula-
tions. It is stated that: “when our forefathers provocatively sinned against
the Lord of Israel, the one in heaven, he delivered them into the hands
of Nabouchodonosor King of Babylon, king of the Chaldeans” ( πε½ ο¹
πατ¢ρεσ ©µêν παραπικρ’ναντεσ ¬µαρτον ε¸σ τÍν κÒριον τοÚ )Ισραηλ
τÍν οÐρ’νιον παρ¢δωκεν αÐτοÕσ ε¸σ χεÂρασ Ναβουχοδονοσορ βασι-
λ¢ωσ Βαβυλêνοσ βασιλ¢ωσ τêν Χαλδαºων). The sins of the forefathers
leading to exile is mentioned earlier in Esdras (:) and emphasized
in other second temple literature (e.g., Jdt :; :, ; Bar :). The
tearing down and burning of the house and the fact that people were led
away captive to Babylon in essence summarizes  Esd :– and the
events of the Babylonian interventions there described.
The portentous events of the Babylonian captivity are contrasted with
the change of fortunes for the Israelites under the Persian regime marked
with the adversative ν δ¥. A summary of Esd :– is given concerning
the decree of Cyrus for the rebuilding of the temple and the return of the
sacred vessels to the temple in Jerusalem. The account here, in contrast
to Ezra :, has Sanabassaros (Shesbazzar) and Zorobabel receiving the
sacred vessels looted by the Babylonians in  Esd :. That is despite
the fact that Esd : rehearses Ezra : by having Sanabassaros
rather than Zorobabel lay the foundations of the temple, and that is
in stark contrast to Esd :– where Zorobabel and his associates
were said to a have performed that act (see Steinmann : ). In
 Esd :, a prepositional phrase ν δ¥ τíê again marks a transition
of reigns, this time to the reign of Cyrus (see earlier  Esd :). The
interjection of Zorobabel in :, even if only in passing, is to accentuate
his role in the restoration event, although in the process it creates a
wildly outrageous anachronism since Zorobabel entered the scene with
Darius not Cyrus (Talshir [: ] suggests that the gloss may have
been intended to identify Sanabassaros and Zorobabel together, even
 commentary

if this was incongruous within the overall chronology of  Esdras [see

Fensham : ]). Emphasized in any case is Cyrus’s decree that the
house of the Lord be rebuilt, the sacred vessels taken to Babylon be
returned, and the role of Sabanassaros and Zorobabel as executors of
his purpose. Yet the Judeans are able to complain that “From then until
now it has been under construction, though it has not met completion”
(π’ κεºνου µ¢χρι τοÚ νÚν ο¸κοδοµοÒµενοσ οÐκ £λαβεν συντ¢λειαν).
A completion hindered again and again by local interference in the
rebuilding designs.
After stating the facts as they stand the Persian letter then seeks
direction from Darius as to the verification of their claim about the
decree from Cyrus and the direction on how to proceed further (vv. –
). The “royal annals” (βασιλικοÂσ βιβλιοφυλακºοισ) located in Babylon
refers to imperial archives. The reason why they might be found in
Babylon rather than in Media is because Babylon was the location from
which the exiles were liberated and presumably a decree was made
and filed there under the administration of the Babylonian satrapy (see
Clines : –). The third-class conditional clause of a (“if it be
found” [ •ν εÑρºσκηται]) is followed in b by a clause controlled by
a subjunctive verb rendering the sense deliberative (“if it be just to our
lord the king” [κρºνηται τíê κυρºíω βασιλε ©µêν]). The question requires
further direction (προσφων¢ω as lit. summons or call) on how to deal
with the matter pending the results of the search.
Several minor differences exist between B and RH. The most significant of
these are that B (and Syr, Eth) attests ο»κοισ in contrast to τοºχοισ supported
by A and V and adopted by RH in :. Elsewhere, at : B has the first verb
singular (£γραψεν) and the second verb plural (π¢στειλαν) perhaps reflecting
Ezra’s åçìù (Talshir : ). In : B with A also reads the imperfect
qεµελιοÚτε in contrast to the present tense qεµελιοÚτε known to V and some
Latin witnesses (see Hanhart b: ). As elsewhere (see earlier :, ,
), B prefers the dipthong in the prefix to certain verbs like ο¸κοδʵεÂτο in
: against íàκοδʵητο found in other mss. Typical of B (see :; :) is the
omission of the first letter ε in ¡αυτοÚ to create a personal pronoun instead of a
reflexive one at :. Also in :, B has an alternative spelling of Σαβανασσ’ρω
instead of the more usual Σαναβ’σσαροσ (cf. :). In the last few verses of the
section, B omits several words compared to RH including τοÚτον (:), κεÂνοσ
(:), and ε¸ (:). In the latter case in :, the omission of the interrogative
particle changes the sense from a question to a request for permission. A double
letter space exists between v.  and v.  to indicate a paragraph break in the
description of the letter. Itacisms are apparent with a superfluous epsilon that has
not been retraced over, but remains visible on the codex page (i.e., κρhεiºνεται).
A corrector has provided an ι for ε{¼}νεκεν at :, a ν for {ν}εβ’λλετο at :,
 commentary 

while an additional corrector has inserted ο»κου at : as signified by an oblisk.

At :–, the scribe has put the honorific titles κυρºοσ and κυρºíω into the
nomina sacra abbreviated form of κυ and κω even though the latter refers to
Darius and not to the Lord.

:–. Darius’s Commission, Inspection, and Replies

The request from the Persian delegation receives a response from Darius
to the effect that the decree of Cyrus does exist as the Judeans contend.
What is more, the Persian officials are not only to avoid obstructing
the rebuilding process, they are to assist in its completion and provide
financial support to the operation of sacrifices in the temple. Darius
further threatens punishment to anyone who disobeys his stipulations in
regards to the rebuilding of the Jerusalem temple. In distinction to Ezra
:b–, Esd :– does not give a verbatim transcript of the official
correspondence from Darius. It is a more freely flowing style and perhaps
unaware of the literary conventions governing Aramaic epistolary style
in the Persian period (Williamson : ). The scheme of the passage
runs as the discovery of the book in Ecbatana (vv. –), Darius’s order
to permit the continuation of the rebuilding process (vv. –), and
Darius warns of capital punishment against anyone further impeding the
constructiong process (vv. –).
In response to the request for the provincial governors of Coele-
Syria (i.e., the province beyond the river), Darius commanded a search
to be made within the archives in Babylon. It is then stated that a
passage was found in “Ecbatana within the palace amidst the region
of Mēdia” ()Εκβατ’νοισ τµ² β’ρει τµ² ν Μηδεºα). While this could
indicate that a failed search in Babylon meant turning to a wider search
area in the archives of the Persian capital, it is probable that the author
of Esdras has mistakenly located Ecbatana in proximity to Babylon
(Coggins & Knibb : ). A passage in an annal states that Cyrus
did indeed in his first year order the rebuilding of the Lord’s house in
Jerusalem. In addition, he orded that the Judeans were to make offerings
in the temple with “perpetual fire” (πυρÍσ νδελεχοÚσ). The adjective
νδελεχªσ means continually or perpetually (L&S, ; GELS, ; see
ESVA, NETS, NRSV “perpetual fire”; NEB “with fire continually”; Cook,
Myers “continual fire”). Idiomatically one could say that the sacrifice is
to be “constantly ablaze.” The sacrifice in question is probably the burnt
offerings which were meant to be continually offered (see Lev :; Num
:, ). The decree of Cyrus, unlike its counterpart in  Esd :–, also
 commentary

stipulated the dimensions of the temple, the materials to be used in the

reconstruction, and the financial support for the project is specified as
to be drawn from the house of Cyrus. Finally, the sacred articles taken
away by Nabouchodnosor were to be restored to Jerusalem as per  Esd
:–.
Confirming the decree of Cyrus, Darius addresses the question of the
Persian governors as to their need for direction “concerning these things”
(v. ) in light of the discovery of Cyrus’s edict (vv. –). The order
given to the cohort of provincial leaders of “Sisinnēs the prefect of Syria
and Phoenicia, and Sathrabuzanēs, and their associates, and those who
were appointed as local officials in Syria and Phoenicia” (see :, ; :;
only : here refers to “those who were appointed as local officials” [τοÂσ
ποτεταγµ¢νοισ]) takes the form of two infinitive clauses: “to keep away
from the place” (π¢χεσqαι τοÚ τÊπου) and “to permit Zorobabel, the
servant of the Lord … to rebuild this house” ( šσαι δ¥ τÍν παÂδα κυρºου
Ζοροβαβελ … κεÂνον ο¸κοδοµεÂν). A central factor is the recognition
of Jerusalem as a “place” (τÊποσ) of sacred space making it singularly
inappropriate for any interference in the religious undertakings therein.
In contrast to Ezra :, the governor is identified as Zorobabel and he is
further called “the servant of the Lord” (τÍν παÂδα κυρºου) and in Hag
: Zorobabel is similarly called “my servant.” Yet in light of  Esd :
(“we are servants of the Lord” [ σµεν παÂδεσ τοÚ κυρºου]) inclusion of
the “elders” might be implicit under the epithet “servant” as they share
the load of supervising the proceedings.
There is a shift from the third person (“he ordered” [προσ¢ταξεν])
of v.  to the first person in v.  (“And I ordered” [κγå δ¥ π¢ταξα])
concerning the description of additional royal decrees by Darius. The ter-
tiary instructions for the Persian officials include their task of observing
and assisting in the building operations, though without loitering about
in the vicinity in light of the charge to stay away from the place in v. .
The purpose clause sums up the intent: “in order that they might assist
those who have returned from the captivity of Judea” (¼να συνποιêσιν
[other mss read συµποιêσιν] τοÂσ κ τ²σ α¸χµαλωσºασ τ²σ )Ιουδαºασ)
through giving the repatriated Judeans a means of reconnecting with
their ancestral god. Darius wants to bring the temple reconstruction to
completion so that it is “built completely” (Éλοσχερêσ ο¸κοδοµ²σαι)
and “finished” ( πιτελεσq²ναι) and so reverses the process by which the
rebuilding of the temple was prevented from being finished (see :;
:, ). Talshir (: ) summarizes the main point: “Now the king
orders the finishing of what has been delayed for too long.”
 commentary 

Added to that in vv. – is that sums of money from the tribute
collected by Coele-Syria and Phoenicia are to be given to Zorobabel in
order to supply sacrifices for the temple and provisions for the priests.
The intent is “so that libations may be made to the Most High God
for the king and his servants, and they might offer prayers for their
lives” (Ìπωσ προσφ¢ρωνται σπονδα½ τíê qεíê τíê Ñψºστíω Ñπ¥ρ τοÚ
βασιλ¢ωσ κα½ τêν παºδων: κα½ προσεÒχωνται περ½ τ²σ αÐτêν ζω²σ).
That accords with the extant inscription from Cyrus that declares: “May
all the gods whom I have resettled in their sacred cities daily ask Bel and
Nebo for a long life for me” (ANET ). Generally speaking, prayers for
the king and his family were practiced by Jews in lieu of participating
in the imperial religion under foreign hegemony. The Judeans could
not engage in a swap of gods whereby the conquering nation and the
conquered ensured future peace by adding each other’s gods to their
pantheon. It was refusal to offer up sacrifices on the behalf of the Roman
emperor in the Jerusalem temple that provided the catalyst for the war
with Rome in  ce (Josephus, War .–). The description of “the
Most High God” (É Ôψιστοσ É qεÊσ; see Esd :; :, ; :) was
a feat of ambiguous monotheism that Jews and pagans could accept as
a fitting designation for god or the otiose god and it was common in
Jewish prayers and doxologies and also found in pagan literature and
inscriptions (see Bird : ).
The authority of the decree is bolstered by a heinous punishment that
is mandated for those who violate what has been ordered (vv. –). The
consequences are given in a conditional clause pertaining to those who
“transgress” (παραβαºνω) or try to “nullify” (κυρÊω) the order con-
cerning the “things having been written” (γεγραµµ¢νων). Other manu-
scripts (i.e., A and V) include variations of the longer phrasing προει-
ρηµ¢νων κα½ τêν προσγεγραµµ¢νων (“the things foresaid and written
above” [cf. CEB, “the things decreed before or the things written before”).
The penalty to be carried out is given as, “a beam should be taken out of
his house, it then shall be hanged upon him, and his property to be given
to the king” (ξÒλον κ τêν ¸δºων αÐτοÚ κα½ π’ αÐτοÚ κρεµασq²ναι κα½
τ• Ñπ’ρχοντα αÐτοÚ εÃναι βασιλικα). In other manuscripts the punish-
ment is the other way around and the victim is hanged upon the beam
(see also Esd : [LXX]). According to Coggins the punishment looks
more Roman than Persian (Coggins & Knibb : ) which is perhaps
true of the description in Esd : with the beam being placed “upright”
(ÈρqÊω) before being hung upon the victim; though in either case Jewish
and Christian readers could readily identify the penalty with crucifixion.
 commentary

Confiscation of property and capital punishment were common Persian

sentences for disobeying a royal edict (see Briant : ) and destruc-
tion of a person’s house is attested in Daniel (:; :). The warning of
dire punishment is followed with a further warning or perhaps more of
a petition that the Lord would “destroy every king and nation that shall
stretch out their hands to prevent or do evil to that house of the Lord
that is in Jerusalem” (φανºσαι π’ντα βασιλ¢α κα½ £qνοσ Ïσ κτενεÂ
χεÂρα αÐτοÚ κωλÚσαι ® κακοποι²σαι τÍν οÃκον κυρºου κεÂνον τÍν
ν )Ιερουσαληµ). The infinitives function more or less like subjunctives
suggesting what the Lord might or should do to those who oppose the
holy place (see Esd : [LXX] which has the future verb καταστρ¢-
ψει [“he will destroy”]). Unlike Ezra : which refers to “God who has
established his name there,” Esd : refers to “the Lord whose name
is there invoked” (É κÒριοσ οÜ τÍ Ëνοµα αÐτοÚ πικ¢κληται). Darius’s
cosmopolitan piety envisages the Lord acting to preserve the holy house
in Jerusalem from kings and nations that would do them evil which is
part of the Persian king’s role as an emissary of the gods (see  Esd :–
on the Lord of Israel making Cyrus king of the whole world). The final
exhortation in the letter to the Persian leaders across the river is that
everything “be done carefully as here stipulated” ( πιµελêσ κατ• ταÚτα
γºγνεσqαι).

The B and L texts omit the adjective βασιλικοÂσ that is attested by A and V and
adopted by RH in :. In the same verse, B reads τοποσ (“place” or “passage”)
instead of τοµοσ (“scroll” or “tablet” see Isa : LXX). Again in :, B and L
also omit εÄσ delineating the scroll as a singular and B has the alternative reading
Ñποµνηµ’τιστο (see Josephus, Ant. .; Esd :; Esd : [LXX]; Macc
:, ) over Ñπεµνηµ’τιστο in other mss. In :, B misspells Zorobabel’s
office of £παρχον with the participle Ôπαρχον. A much shorter statement is
found in B in : with γεγραµµ¢νων in place of the more extensive description
of προειρηµ¢νων κα½ τêν προσγεγραµµ¢νων and following that B omits the
coordinating conjunction ® lessening the contrast. In the same sentence, B also
reads the pronoun αÐτοÚ over the demonstrative τοÒτοÚ resulting in a different
reading of “it then shall be hanged upon him” as opposed to “he then shall be
hanged upon it” (see similarly Esd : [LXX] ξÒλον κ τ²σ ο¸κºασ αÐτοÚ
κα½ àρqωµ¢νοσ παγªσεται π’ αÐτου). The corrector in : has added an ε to
Μηδ{ε}ºα that was originally missed on first draft.

:–. The Rebuilding of the Temple Flourishes with Royal and Prophetic
Oversight
The reception of Darius’s reply and decree in favour of the Judeans means
that the temple can finally be finished. The Persian officials become
 commentary 

supervisors of the work rather than opponents of it. The emphasis in

this section falls upon the combined effect of the royal authorisations
for the rebuilding by Cyrus, Darius, and Artaxerxēs, in conjunction with
the prophetic ministries of Haggai and Zechariah. As a result the temple
begins to function again with the reinstitution of the sacrificial cultus
and with repeated mention of things being down in accordance with the
“book of Mōyses.”
Esd :– follows Ezra :– for the most part. The exceptions are
that the involvement of the provincial Persian officials is more detailed
in Esdras as they not only did what Darius ordered (Ezra :), but
they supervised the continuing work with much care ( Esd :). In addi-
tion, the section in Esdras (:) closes with mention of the gatekeepers
undertaking their duties which is absent from Ezra :. Over all the
author of Esdras so slavishly follows his source that he even mentions
Artaxerxēs after Cyrus and Darius (Ezra :;  Esd :) despite the
fact that in the narrative of Esdras, Artaxerxēs anachronistically pre-
cedes Darius (Esd :–). Josephus sensibly omits any reference to
Artaxerxēs in his rewriting of Esdras  (Ant. .). In terms of his-
torical veracity, Esdras is more historical, or at least featuring historical
realism, by identifying the completion of the temple as occurring on the
“twenty-third” day of Adar (Esd :) as opposed to the “third day” of
Adar in Ezra :. As Adar is the last month of the year, a week of cele-
bratory dedication would lead naturally into the new year festival at the
start of the resumed temple service (Williamson : ).
The unit contains a description of the receipt of Darius’s letter by
the Persian officials and the joint effort of finnishing off the rebuilding
efforts with imperial support and prophetic oversight (vv. –). That is
followed with a concluding remark that the rebuilding of the temple was
completed with the knowledge of the three Persian kings identified in
the narrative, viz., Cyrus, Darius, and Artaxerxēs (v. ). The rest of the
section proceeds to describe the reinstitution of the cultic sacrifices by
the Israelites in accordance with the book of Mōyses (vv. –).
The impact of Darius’s letter upon the Persian officials led by Sisinnēs
is marked by the adverb τÊτε indicating the subsequent and immediate
effect of his decree upon their actions. The participle κατακολουqªσαν-
τεσ (“following”) modifies the verb πεστ’τουν (“supervised”) indicat-
ing the manner in which the Persian officials followed the decree, viz., by
providing imperial oversight to the work. In light of  Esd : it meant
a light handed feat of supervision. Their work is described as being done
with “great care” ( πιµελêσ) and “assisting” (συνεργ¢ω) the elders of
 commentary

the Jews and the temple officials. This is the first time that the temple
officials (¹εροστ’τησ) are mentioned in Esdras and their presence sug-
gests that temple operations are soon to recommence. It is then reported
that the “sacred works flourished” (εÓοδα γºνετο τ• ¹ερ• £ργα) in the
sense that it took place with due freedom of action. An additional rea-
son for the success of the rebuilding efforts was that it was concurrent
with the prophetic ministries of Haggai and Zacharias. The gentive abso-
lute construction marked by the participle προφητευÊντων, indicates
that their prophetic vocation was active “while” the rebuilding was going
on. Although the rebuilding activities may have transpired thanks to the
commands of Darius (see προστ’σσω in :), the author is under no illu-
sions as to whom the real commander behind the scenes is. The Judeans
only finished the rebuilding “through the command of the Lord God of
Israel” (δι• προστ’γµατοσ τοÚ κυρºου qεοÚ )Ισραηλ). The preposition
δι• implies agency and the agent of reconstruction is the “command” of
the Lord God of Israel (on κυρºου qεοÚ )Ισραηλ see :; :, ; :;
:, ; :; :).
In conformity with the decrees of Cyrus and Darius (and somehow
Artaxerxēs who halted the rebuilding project) it is said that the house
was finished “with the knowledge of Cyrus and Darius and Artaxerxēs,
the kings of the Persians” (µετ• τ²σ γνâµησ τοÚ ΚÒρου κα½ ∆αρεºου
κα½ )Αρταξ¢ρξου βασιλ¢ωσ Περσêν). Here γνâµη is meant in the
mixed sense of consent and command. The disparity between the agents
of rebuilding, that is the Persian kings and the Lord God of Israel,
disappears when it is remembered that the Persian kings were appointed
by God to build a temple for him (Esd :). Josephus adds that the
temple was completed in the ninth year of the reign of Darius as opposed
to the “sixth” in Esd : and he mentions parenthetically that the month
of Adar is called “Dystros” (∆Òστροσ) by the Macedonians (Ant. .).
In any case, the event of restoration from the Babylonian captivity to
return to the land and refurbishment of the city and reconstruction of the
temples takes place within the sphere of the Persian Empire and through
God’s superintending of human kings.
The substance of vv. – concerns the reinstitution of cultic sacrifices
in the Jerusalem temple just prior to the New Year festival. It is reported
that “the sons of Israel and the priests and the Levites, and the rest
of those who returned from captivity who were added to them, did
that which was according to what was written in the book of Mōyses”
( ποºησαν ο¹ υ¹ο½ )Ισραηλ κα½ ο¹ ¹ερεÂσ κα½ ο¹ ΛευεÂται κα½ ο¹ λοιπο½ ο¹
κ τ²σ α¸χµαλωσºασ ο¹ προστεq¢ντεσ κολοÒqωσ τοÂσ ν τµ² Μωυσ¢ωσ
 commentary 

βºβλω). The categories of persons nominated occur throughout the book

(:; :; :, ), although unique here is the class of those who were
“added” (προστºqηµι). The same verb is used in Jdt : in reference
to the conversion of Achior to Judaism and we are left wondering if it
could be a possible allusion to certain “peoples of the land” (see :) who
became proselytes in order to join in the rebuilding process. However, ο¹
προστεq¢ντεσ κολοÒqωσ is an attributive participle clause modifying
ο¹ λοιπο½παρ ο¹ κ τ²σ α¸χµαλωσºασ and it denotes those who joined
the restoration process in addition to the officially sanctioned return
from Babylon under Sisinnēs and Zorobabel. They are, so to speak, the
“dribs and drabs” that made the sojourn back to Judea as life returned to
the city and momentum towards the finalization of the temple’s rebuild-
ing increased. What the group “did” was return to the ordinances that
were “written in the book of Mōyses” (κολοÒqωσ τοÂσ ν τµ² Μωυσ¢-
ωσ βºβλω). The Mosaic ordinances are prominent in  Esdras and are
described as “commandments of the Lord” (:), the “book of Mōyses”
(:; :; :, ), and “law of Mōyses” (:; :). In  Esdras the Penta-
teuch was “recognized as the guiding principle of the Jewish community’s
life, and the loyalty of its leaders to its requirements is here emphasized”
(Coggins & Knibb : ). The reforms of Iōsias, the rebuilding under
Zorobabel, and the renewal by Esras have as their centre pieces returns
to the Mosaic ordinances in the life of Israel’s worship. That is part of the
over arching purpose of Esdras which is to pursue the reformation of
Judean society in order to place the web of socio-religious commitments
of the audience into closer conformity with post-exilic interpretations
of the Judean religion in a medium rhetorically persuasive to Greek-
speaking Jews of principally of Hellenistic Egypt.
The collective entity of returnees followed the Mosaic legislation
through their special offerings to the Lord. Upon the “dedication” ( γκαι-
νισµÊσ) of the temple the corporate body of returnees featuring Israelites,
priests, and Levities offered bulls, rams, lambs, and goats as sacrifices.
The same word γκαινισµÊσ is used in the Maccabean literature for the
purification and rededication of the temple during the successful insur-
rection against the Seleucids (Macc :, ;  Macc :). That event,
and perhaps the dedication under Solomon ( Chron :;  Macc :),
would perhaps come to mind for Hellenistic Jewish readers conversant
with the Septuagint who read this portion of  Esdras. Triumph over
pagan nations whether it is by wisdom (Solomon), war (Judas Mac-
cabees), or wit (Zorobabel) is accompanied with a rededication of the
temple.
 commentary

The selection of “twelve male goats for the sin of all Israel, correspond-
ing to the number of the twelve tribal heads of Israel” (χιµ’ρουσ Ñπ¥ρ
‘µαρτºασ παντÍσ τοÚ )Ισραηλ δâδεκα πρÍσ ριqµÍν κ τêν φυλ’ρ-
χων τοÚ )Ισραηλ δâδεκα) provides a snippet of  Esdras’s eschatology.
The end of the Babylonian exile meant the return only of the south-
ern kingdom comprising of the tribes of Judah and Benjamin who were
deported to Babylon. The other ten tribes had gone into exile as a conse-
quence of the Assyrian conquest in the eighth century. By incorporating
the symbolism of the “twelve tribes” the restoration process envisaged in
Esdras invokes what was a mainstay hope in Jewish restoration escha-
tology: the return of the twelve tribes to Israel to resettle the land and
to participate in an age of unprecedented blessing and prosperity (e.g.,
Isa :–; :–; Zech :–; Bar :; Tob :–; Philo, Praem.
Poen. –). That is why Josephus adds a parenthetical comment
that “for so many are the tribes of the Israelites” so as to explain the
reference to the twelve tribes (Ant. .). The pattern of sacrifices is
indebted to that associated with Solomon’s dedication of the first temple
that was accompanied with sacrifices and festivities (see  Kgs :–;
Chron :–). The offering of he-goats is probably indicative of a sin-
offering (Lev :; :) that was offered in order to remove any impurity
brought upon the altar during its time of rebuilding (see Ezek :–
).
In keeping with the interest of the book, after the organisation and
orchestration of the temple officials (see :, , ; :), it is added that
amidst the recommencement of sacrifices “the priests and the Levites
stood arrayed in their vestments, according to tribes, for the works of
the Lord God of Israel” (£στησαν ο¹ ¹ερεÂσ κα½ ο¹ ΛευÂται στολισµ¢νοι
κατ• φυλ•σ π½ τêν £ργων κυρºου qεοÚ )Ισραηλ). The ministration
that they perform in the temple is described as an £ργα for the Lord
of Israel. The sacrifice for sins probably relates to fellowship offerings
or the Day of Atonement that result in restored communion between
God and his people. A unique feature of  Esd : is that it is reported
that the gatekeepers were at their posts. Josephus (Ant. .) also adds
more information about “The Jews also rebuilt the porticos of the inner
sanctuary that were all around the temple itself.” In net effect, everyone
was about their proper duties as Israel began to renew its covenantal
worship within the refurbished temple.
B customarily omits the genitival article at two points (:, ) for τοÚ ΚÒρου and
τοÚ κυρºου respectively. A and V add the adjective É ”γιοσ to É οÃκοσ which is
omitted by B. Two section markers are apparent in the margins of B. The section
 commentary 

begins with double vertical lines (||) signifying a paragraph break. Then an Ι
with a macron is found at : higlighing the beginning of a new major section.
A corrector has added a γ for {γ}καινισµÍν in :.

:–. The Passover of Zorobabel

The account of the celebration of the refurbishment of the temple next
turns to the celebration of the Passover and the Feast of Unleavened
Bread. The connection between Passover and Unleavened Bread is set out
in Lev :– and they are linked together as well in the renewal under
Iōsias in Esd : (= Chron :). This celebration marks the climax
and close of the Zorobabel narrative in Esdras. The version in  Esdras
follows the account in Ezra :– with minor embellishments. In the
original of Ezra :–, the book switches from Aramaic to Hebrew at
this point.
The celebrations are undertaken by “the sons of Israel, who came from
captivity” (ο¹ υ¹ο½ )Ισραηλ τêν κ τ²σ α¸χµαλωσºασ). The emphasis in
this section falls squarely on the celebration by those who came from
captivity though it is shortened to “the sons of captivity” (τοÂσ υ¹οÂσ τ²σ
α¸χµαλωσºασ) in the middle section (vv. –). This creates a somewhat
chiastic pattern in the account:
ο¹ υ¹ο½ )Ισραηλ τêν κ τ²σ α¸χµαλωσºασ (:)
ο¹ υ¹ο½ τ²σ α¸χµαλωσºασ (:)
ο¹ υ¹ο½ τ²σ α¸χµαλωσºασ (:)
ο¹ υ¹ο½ )Ισραηλ ο¹ κ τ²σ α¸χµαλωσºασ (:)
the sons of Israel, who came from captivity (:)
the sons of captivity (:)
the sons of captivity (:)
the sons of Israel, who came from captivity (:)

Sandwiched in the centre is reference to the Levites and priests who were
consecrated and set apart within this process of national celebration.
They are set apart from the sons of “captivity” and not defined by the
odious term. In Hebraic thought, sonship indicates one’s origins and
character. Up to this point in the story, the “sons of Israel” have been
“sons of captivity” not just geographically but ideologically as well. They
have been exiled from God in the geographical and theological sense.
The rebuilding of the temple, the reinstitution of its worship, and the
reestablishment of the cultic calendar marks a shift in their identity from
“sons of captivity” to “sons of God” as per Exod :– and Hos :.
Israel’s sojourn out of captivity is a mirror to their escape from slavery in
 commentary

Egypt. The time in Egypt was captivity in the “house of slavery” (LXX:
ο»κοσ δουλεºασ [Exod :, ; :; Deut :; :; :; :; :; Jdg
:; Jer :; Mic :]).
The Passover (v. ) and Feast of Unleavened Bread (v. ) are “cele-
brated” (on “γω with this usage see :, –; :) by the Israelites con-
sisting of the returnees from exile and the priestly entourage. Williamson
(: ) rightly thinks that the description in Ezra was composed with
a sidelong glance at the accounts in Chronicles  and  with the
Passovers of Hezekiah and Iōsias, which also followed a temple restora-
tion of sorts. The Passover took place on the “the fourteenth of the first
month” and in B that is identified as the time when (Ìτε) “the priests
and the Levites were sanctified” (ο¹ ¹ερεÂσ κα½ ο¹ ΛευÂται ”µα) and
thus consecrated for their acts of service to the Lord. Somewhat more
confusing is v.  where it is stated that, “And all the sons of captivity
were sanctified, because the Levites were all sanctified together” (κα½
π’ντεσ ο¹ υ¹ο½παρ τ²σ α¸χµαλωσºασ Ìτι ©γνºσqησαν: Ìτι ο¹ ΛευÂται
”µα π’ντεσ ©γνºσqησαν). The problems here are, first, that the sentence
does not occur in Ezra :, which simply states that the priests and
Levites purified themselves in readiness to perform the Passover sac-
rifices. It is thus possible that we have in v.  a doublet on Ezra :.
Yet v.  is not a doublet as it is no more tautological than  Chron
:–. As such v.  explains the fact while v.  provides the con-
text for the celebration of the Passover (Talshir : ). Along this
line Hanhart (b: ) writes: “Die Wiederholung hat ihren Grund
in der hebräischen Vorlage Esdr II 20, die der Aussage über dei Heili-
gung von Priestern und Leviten appositionell den Ausdruck íéøåäè íìë
anfüngt. Als freie Paraphrase dieses Audrucks kann die Wiederholung
in Esdr I darum nicht sekundär sein und ist ihre Tilgung durch die
Zeugen B’ A L La Sy Aeth Sixt entweder durch Homoioteleuton-Ausfall
(©γνºσqησαν ° ∩ °) oder durch fälschliche Annahme einer Dublette zu
erklären.”
Second, some mss read a negation οÐχ ©γνºσqησαν instead of the
explanatory clause Ìτι ©γνºσqησαν in v. a. On οÐχ vs. Ìτι it is not
that the Greek is confusing because the mss that read the negation state
plainly that the Levites were purified, but the returnees from captivity
were not (e.g., NRSV: “Not all of the returned captives were purified, but
the Levites were all purified together”). The meaning is then similar to
Chron :, “For there were many in the assembly who had not sanc-
tified themselves (οÐχ ©γνºσqη); therefore the Levites had to slaughter
the Passover lamb for everyone who was not clean, to make it holy to the
 commentary 

LORD.” Alternatively, B and supporting texts seem to suggest that the

consecration of the returnees was based upon the consecration of the
Levites. In support of the B reading is the version from Josephus (Ant.
.) who clearly sees all of the general populace purifying themselves
to participate in the Feast of Unleavened Bread and then the Passover.
After that the people, including their wives and children, were “purify-
ing (‘γνεÒοντεσ) themselves according to the law of their ancestors.” My
proposal is that the original authors of Esdras introduced a statement
into the Aramaic text drawn from the pattern in  Chron :– that
set apart the Levites from the general populace so as to emphasize the
cultic status of the Levites which accords with a running theme through-
out the book concerning the importance of the priestly and Levitical
offices. However, early on in the transmission, a scribe changed the nega-
tion to the conjunction in order make the priestly laws of purity applica-
ble to the Israelites in general. That comports with a feature of pharisaic
piety that attempted to mandate the observation purity regulations for
the general populace that were ordinarily reserved for priests in order to
turn the nation into a literal “kingdom of priests.”
After the ritual purification of the priests, Levites, and the returnees,
next the Passover lambs are sacrificed, and then all involved eat the
Passover meal (vv. –). Unlike Ezra :,  Esdras provides no place
in the Passover celebration for “those that joined them” (ìëå) and the text
here insinuates that only those who returned from exile participated in
the festive celebrations. The redactor of the materials omits anything that
might suggest that some the surrounding peoples became proselytes to
Yahwehism. The “sons of Israel” are defined not only by their sojourn
from captivity, but further described as all those “who had separated
themselves from the abominations of the nations of the land and sought
the Lord” (π’ντεσ ο¹ χωρισq¢ντεσ πÍ τêν βδελυγµ’των τêν qνêν
τ²σ γ²σ ζητοÚντεσ τÍν κÒριον). In the Septuagint βδ¢λυγµα is most
usually associated with idolatry conceived of the revulsive practice of
idol worship that is an affront to the Lord (Deut :;  Kgs :, ;
 Kgs :; Chron :; Dan :; :; :;  Macc :; see GELS,
–). The participle clause ζητοÚντεσ τÍν κÒριον is coordinate
and describes how the separation from the surrounding nations was an
expression of the returnees’ religious devotion by means of seeking the
Lord through living in accordance with the Book of Mōyses (see  Esd
:).
In addition to the Passover celebration, the Feast of Unleavened Bread
is also celebrated and all this is said to be possible only because God
 commentary

changed the heart of the Assyrian king (vv. –). Back to back celebra-
tions of Passover and Unleavened bread give occasion for much “rejoic-
ing before the Lord” (εÐφραινʵενοι £ναντι κυρºου) which is remini-
scient of the celebrations described in relation to Darius’s announcement
that the exile could return to Judea (:). In fact, one could make a case
that the three highest points in Esdras are the descriptions of national
rejoicing at :, :, and :. It is this post-exilic joy under Zorobabel
and Esras that distinguishes them from the Josianic festival that lacked
descriptions of merriment. The account espouses a theocentric perspec-
tive by declaring that it was a work of God in turning the will of the
king of the Assryians in favor of the Judeans. This turning (µεταστρ¢φω)
enabled these festivals (lit. “works” [£ργα]) to recommence (see Prov :
on the Lord directing the king’s heart).
The identification of the Persian king as “Assyrian” (ΑσσÒριοσ) cer-
tainly sounds odd (Myers [: ] calls it “a careless use of the phrase”
and Coggins [& Knibb : ] think of it as an “unexplained refer-
ence”) and Josephus sensing the same incongruity (Ant. .) changed
it to “king of Persia.” But it must be remembered that the Persian king-
dom encompassed territories belonging to the former Assyrian and neo-
Babylonian empires. At the same time the reference to Assyria again casts
the restoration of the southern Judean kingdom in the context of wider
ANE history that included the exile of the northern Israelite kingdom
under the Assyrians (see :). The pagan regimes that continue to dom-
inate Israel in the present time or in memory are telescoped into the
Assyrian entity (see similarly the book of Judith where Nebuchadnez-
zar is King of the Assyrians, he conquers parts of Persia, and then attacks
Israel with a coalition of Syrian and Canaanite mercanaries—he is all
of Israel’s enemies rolled into one). Here the restoration of the tribes of
Judah and Benjamin from the Babylonian captivity are a small piece of a
larger restoration narrative that will one day include the northern tribes
of Israel as well.
In :, B and the L texts reads a temporal clause beginning with Ìτε, while A
and V read a dependent clause commencing with Ìτι. An important difference
is found in : where B and A reads a causal clause marked by Ìτι, whereas
several witness (L, , Eth, Syr) have a negation οÐχ, and οÐχ ©γνºσqησαν is
omitted altogether by .
 commentary 

The Ministry of Esras (:–:)

The final section of the book narrates the arrival of Esras in Jerusalem
with a further cohort of returnees and his role in returning the Judeans
to the roots of their religion in the ordinances of Mōyses. Esras is finally
introduced into the narrative, however, he is referred to diversely as
Εσρασ and Εσδρασ in the text of B. The chronological time frame moves
beyond the Cyrus-Darius period to the reign of Artaxerxēs where Esras
is to be located (Josephus [Ant. .] has “Xerxes” the son of Darius
instead). Esras is the central character and all events that subsequently
unfold do so in some relation to himself. Artaxerxēs grants Ezra per-
mission to return to Jerusalem with a full cohort of travellers with lavish
gifts for the temple in Jerusalem. The arrival in Jerusalem soon becomes
more disturbing than celebratory as Esras discovers that all tiers of the
population—laity, Levites, and priests—have intermarried with foreign
peoples and so polluted the sacred bloodline of Israel making them liable
again to divine retribution. Esras’s task then becomes to break the inter-
marriages and to proclaim the law (Coggins & Knibb : ). In turn,
Esras’s penitential prayer spurs the people to repentance and confession
as they take an oath to expel their foreign wives and their children from
their midst. The reform of Judean society is then established through
Esras’s reading of the law whereby the people rededicate themselves to
obedience to their Lord.
For a book named ΕΣ∆ΡΑΣ Α' surprisingly little of the text actually
focuses on Esras, only the final two chapters in all. That is attributable
to the eclectic nature of the document and its incorporation of various
sources, principally a proto-MT-like Ezra document in Aramaic, in order
to urge the continued reform of Judean society along the lines of the Ezra
tradition. Still the figure of Esras certainly represents the quintessential
priest-scribe who provides an important function in the narrative and
contributes to the socio-religious vision of the book. Though the nar-
rative surrounding Zorobabel occasioned God’s providential design for
the rebuilding of the temple, thereafter it is the rebuilding of Judean
society upon the foundations of the Torah that must accordingly fol-
low if the restoration from exile is to be anything more than tempo-
rary.
Esdras – is based on Ezra :–: and Neh :–:. The Ezra
narrative is found intact in Esdras –, but in the MT version the
account of Ezra’s work is split between Ezra – and Nehemiah . Ezra
 concludes on a rather dour note concerning a list of those who partook
 commentary

of mixed marriages and produced mix offspring in the union, whereas

Nehemiah  ameliorates the negativity of Ezra – through a reading
of the law to the people prior to an account of their confession and
the dissolution of the mixed marriages. That is in contrast to  Esdras
where the unfortunate affair of the mixed marriages and their dissolution
is immediately followed by a reading of the law. Hence the  Esdras
version provides a smooth transition and quick resolution to the crisis
in contrast to the Ezra reversion. That suggests to some scholars that
the Aramaic Vorlage behind Esdras might conceivably contain source
material earlier than that of Ezra – given the unity and coherence
of Esdras –. Though what I regard as more likely is that the authors
of Esdras have redacted accounts known to them from proto-MT-like
Ezra and Nehemiah sources in order to streamline them into the one
continuous narrative.
The date for the events depend on which Artaxerxēs is referred to in
the text of Ezra. If the seventh year of Artaxerxēs I is envisaged then
a date of bce is probable, but if the seventh year of Artaxerxēs II is
meant then a time of  bce is likely. Given the ambiguity of “after these
things” in Esd : (= Ezra :) either are possible, although a gap of
twenty-seven years leading to the reign of Artaxerxēs I fits the sequence
better assuming that Nehemiah arrived in Judea later sometime around
 bce (see Merrill : --).
Geo Widengren (: ) asserted: “Nehemiah and Ezra, the cre-
ators of the post-exilic Jewish community, in Palestine, are two of the
greatest figures in Jewish history.” Of course that assumes the reliability
and unity of that history. The fact is, however, that the importance of Ezra
in the history of Israel and the development of “Judaism” is debated (see
Blenkinsopp ). Rabbinic tradition attributed the creation of Judaism
to him (“Ezra and the Torah surpassed in importance the building of
the temple” [b.Meg b]; “Ezra would have been worthy of receiving
the Torah had Moses not preceded him” [b.Sanh b]). Equally extreme
is an earlier generation of Pentateuchal critics who assigned Ezra the
role of inventor of the Mosaic tradition (see North : ). Likewise,
the historical verisimilitude of the restoration programmes attributed
to him that purportedly began refashioning post-exilic YHWH wor-
ship towards a distinctive “Judaism” are all up for deliberation. As such
Lester Grabbe (: ) writes: “To assume that a figure Ezra existed
is not a great leap of faith, but precisely what he did and how his activi-
ties fit with those of Nehemiah cannot be gleamed with any confidence
from the present traditions.” Juha Pakkala (: ) still believes that
 commentary 

behind the Ezra source lays a great deal of genuine information about
Torah scribes and the use of Torah in the fifth century. In the mem-
ory of restoration as narrated in the Ezra-Nehemiah materials, Ezra was
revered for his efforts to lead the fledging Judean nation in a return
to observance of the Torah and he reacted against intermarriage with
foreigners by vigorously stipulating separation in order to ensure the
ethnic and religious purity of the Judeans. That memory obviously devel-
oped into a tradition of Ezra as the quintessential scribe, and in rabbinic
lore Ezra was a practical second Moses who brought the Torah back to
Israel.
Too often post-exilic Judaism has been regarded as a tragic descent
into a religion of merit and legalism due to the emphasis upon the law as
the centre of religious life that is then attributed to Esras and his party.
The truth is that the tension between election and obedience in Jewish
thought was handled differently by Jewish authors and the degree of
nomism prescribed by Jewish teachers was variegated. Yet in :–:
election and redemption clearly precede the re-giving of the law. Just
like the first exodus from Egypt, in the new exodus from Babylon, God
gives the law to a redeemed people not to redeem the people. The law
is the crowning achievement of God’s intention to restore and purify his
people. As Williamson (: ) comments: “The law does not create
the community, but it is received with joy as God’s final benevolent act
toward them. This is a far cry from the legalism with which postexilic
Judaism has been charged.”
The narration encompasses Esras’s arrival in Jerusalem (:–), Arta-
xerxēs’ letter to Esras (:–), Esras’s response of praise to Artaxerxēs’
decree (:–), the list of those who returned with Esras (:–),
the search for temple servants (:–), the journey made by Esras and
his associates to Jerusalem (:–), the subsequent reports of mixed
marriages among the Judeans (:–), the prayer of Esras on behalf of
the people (:–), the contrite response of the people and their oath
to expel the foreigners from their midst (:–), the announcement of
a gathering of Judeans to resolve the matter of mixed marriages (:–
), the account of the gathering and its result in Jerusalem (:–),
the list of those who took foreign wives (:–), and the narration of
the reading of the Torah at the gathering in Jerusalem (:–). Also,
the text of Esdras in B here is among the most fluid in the book with
manifold variants in the names and numbers.
 commentary

:–. Ezra Arrives in Jerusalem

Now that the section on Zorobabel has finished the story moves to
Esras and his scribal reforms over the religious life of Judea and an
interval of some fifty-eight years occurs. However, the author may not
be quite aware of the chronological distance that separates Zorobabel
and Esras from each other. This is because history is viewed through
a theological rather than political perspective and even events distant
in time can still be closely related when viewed through the prism of
God’s plan for the restoration of the nation (Williamson : ).
The circumstances surrounding Esras’s arrival in Jerusalem are provided
in :–. It is reported that Esras was honoured by the king and was
granted permission to return to Judea with a cohort of priests, Levites,
temple singers, gatekeepers, and temple servants. Highlighted also are
the qualities of Esras as a priestly descendent and the quintessential
interpreter of the law.
The opening description locates Esras within the reign of Artaxerxēs
(I) and describes his genealogical heritage (vv. –). The phrase “And
after these things” (κα½παρ µεταγεν¢στεροσ τοÒτων στιν) is vague
and the time lapse between the activities of Zorobabel and Esras is not
explicitly given, but sometime around ca. bce for Esras’s journey to
Jerusalem is plausible. Artaxerxēs I (ca. – bce) has already been
mentioned earlier in the book in connection with the letter sent by the
Samaritan coalition that led to the cessation of the rebuilding project
in Jerusalem (Esd :). The genealogy of Esras is provided in v. 
and variants of the names can be found in the manuscript tradition
and in Esd :– (LXX). The version of names in  Esd :– is three
names shorter—excluding Meraioth, Zerahiah, Uzzi—than Ezra :–
(cf. Chron :–) and the translation of the Hebrew names was han-
dled differently by Esd :– (see Myers : ). The climax of the
genealogy is the final three names that figure in Esras’s heritage: “son
of Phinees, son of Eleazar, son of Aarōn the first priest” (τοÚ Φινεεσ:
τοÚ Ελεαζαρ: τοÚ Ααρων τοÚ πρâτου ¹ερ¢ωσ). The description here is
arguably dependent upon Exod : which links Aaron, Eleazar, and Phi-
nees (“Phinehas”) together in the one family line and this familial asso-
ciation is continued in biblical tradition (e.g., Num :;  Chron :;
Esd :). Phinees was most widely remembered for his “zeal” (úàð÷,
ζηλÊω) in killing an Israelite man and a Midianite woman who intermar-
ried (Num :–) which has obvious relevance for the reforms of Esras
who intended to maintain the separateness of the Judeans from their
 commentary 

ethnically mixed neighbours (see Ps :–; Sir :–;  Macc

:, ; Macc :). Esras then represents the priestly line and is a
priestly supplement (or replacement) for Iēsous the High Priest.
Unlike the story of Nehemiah and his return to Jerusalem (Neh :–
), the actual circumstances surrounding the occasion and motivation
for Esras’s journey to Jerusalem are not given. Josephus (Ant. .–
) expands the opening sequence and enhances the portrait of Esras
even further by setting the scene with the words: “Moreover, there was
now in Babylon a righteous man, and one that enjoyed a great reputation
among the multitude; he was the principal priest of the people, and his
name was Esdras. He was very skilful in the laws of Mōyses, and was well
acquainted with king Xerxes. He had determined to go up to Jerusalem,
and to take with him some of those Jews that were in Babylon; and
he desired that the king would give him an epistle to the governors of
Syria, by which they might know who he was.” Yet in  Esdras we are
simply informed in vv. – that: “This Esras came up from Babylon as
a scribe well skilled in the law of Mōyses, which was delivered by the
God of Israel; and the king gave honor to him, finding grace before him
in all of his worthy petitions” (οÜτοσ Εσρασ ν¢βη κ Βαβυλêνοσ áσ
γραµµατεÕσ εÐφυ­σ æν ν τíê Μωυσ¢ωσ νʵíω τíê κδεδοµ¢νíω ÑπÍ τοÚ
qεοÚ τοÚ )Ισραηλ: κα½ £δωκεν αÐτíê É βασιλεÕσ δÊξαν εÑρÊντοσ χ’ριν
ναντºον αÐτοÚ π½ π’ντα τ• ξιâµατα αÐτοÚ). Esras is identified as a
“scribe” (γραµµατεÒσ) and while in Greek this meant a clerk (e.g.,  Esd
:, , ), in Judean society this referred to an expert instructor in the
the Law of Mōyses (BDAG, ; GELS, ). As a “scribe” Esras had a
dual function of administrator in the Persian kingdom and then a legal
reformer in Judean society. This scribal work is something that Esras
excelled in (εÐφυªσ means able, good, naturally enabled [see Wis :,
“As a child I was naturally gifted, and good soul fell to my lot”]). Those
are high Jewish credentials that would be important to Diasporan Jewish
communities which held the law and the science of its interpretation in
high esteem. In addition, Esras is also highly regarded by the Persian
authorities. In language drawn from patron-client relationships of the
ancient east, Esras is given “honour” (δÊξα) and finds “grace” (χ’ρισ) by
the king. These terms denote the public recognition of Esras’s position
and his achievements at the royal court. δÊξα often means something
like “reputation,” e.g., Pss. Sol. .; .; Sir :; Lk :; Jn :, ;
 Cor :; cf. Polyaenus δÊξα q’νατοσ (“eternal renown” [BDAG, ])
and can be synonymous with τ鵪 (“honour”) and £παινοσ (“praise”)
in Greek literature (L&N, ). Honour was an important Hellenistic
 commentary

quality denoting a person’s recognizable worth in the public sphere.

Honour is the claim to a certain status and the acknowledgement of that
status by group consensus. Honour can be either ascribed (by gender,
rank, noble birth, etc) or acquired through social advancement in public
accomplishments and excelling over others (see deSilva : –).
Honour was an important subject of discourse in philosophical writings
and rhetorical speeches. Aristotle listed two primary motives for action:
honour and pleasure (Nic. Eth. ..). The honour and status of Esras
is established through a mixture of ascription and accumulation. Esras
is ascribed honour by virtue of his membership in the royal retinue, but
he also acquired honour through excelling over others in his respective
achievements (hence his worthiness signified by τ• ξιâµατα αÐτοÚ).
Here “grace” is not a religious word for umerited mercy, rather, it is a
social term whereby grace means a “favorable disposition” bestowed by a
patron as a means of assistance to his client. Aristotle (Rhet. ..) wrote:
“Grace [χ’ρισ] may be defined as helpfulness toward someone in need,
not in return for anything, nor for the advantage of the helper himself,
but for that of the person helped” and this fits the context here perfectly
(see deSilva : –). Esras is both reputable and advantaged in
his ambitions.
The group that travelled with Esras is identified as Israelites involved
in the administration and function of the temple (vv. –). A group
from among the “sons of Israel” (υ¹êν )Ισραηλ) includes priests, Levites,
temple singers, gatekeepers, and temple servants. The cohort of returnees
constitutes a priestly class who travel to Jerusalem for the purpose of
supplementing and supplying the cultic and administrative operation
of the temple. The chronological marker for their journey is identified
as the “seventh year in the reign of Artaxerxēs” which is  bce and
B then blunders by adding a parenthetical remark that this was the
king’s “second year,” unlike Ezra :– where it is clear that it was in
the seventh year of Artaxerxēs. An explanatory clause describes the
circumstances of their departure, “For they left Babylon on the new
moon of the first month” ( ξελqÊντοσ γ•ρ κ Βαβυλêνοσ τµ² νουµηνºα
τοÚ πρâτου µηνÍσ), and if bce was the year he left then the carvan
departed Babylon on April  and arrived on August  (Clines : ).
The result of the passage is framed in positive terms as they arrived in
Jerusalem according to “the succesful journey that the Lord gave them”
(τ­ν δοqεÂσαν αÐτοÂσ εÐοδºαν παρ• τοÚ κυρºου π’ αÐτíê). The noun
εÐοδºαν is rare in the Septuagint, but it conveys a sense of prosperity and
triumph (Esd :; Tob :; Sir :; :; :).
 commentary 

The rationale for Esras as the chief agent in this next stage of restora-
tion is then provided (v. ). A second explanatory clause (γ•ρ) describes
Esras (erroneously written as Αψρασ in B) as a Torah teacher. It is said
that Esras “obtained a vast understanding” (πολλ­ν πιστªµην περιεÂ-
χεν) and that is explicated further in a subordinate prepositional clause.
First, “that he omitted nothing from the law of the Lord” (ε¸σ τÍ µηδ¥ν
παραλιπεÂν τêν κ τοÚ νʵου κυρºου), and the subsequent conjunctive
(καº) is antithetical rather than connective. Then, “or from the com-
mandments, or from all the regulations and judgments for Israel” (κα½ κ
τêν ντολêν π’ντα τÍν )Ισραηλ δικαιâµατα κα½ κρºµατα). The nouns
νʵοσ, ντολª, δικαºωµα, and κρºµα are functionally synonymous and
underscore the prescribed and didactic content of the Mosaic code that
Esras excels in the instruction thereof (see Clines : ).
At : the B and L texts transpose Περσêν βασιλ¢ωσ into βασιλ¢ωσ Περσêν.
B utilizes )Ιερουσαληµ for )ΙεροσÊλυµα in :–. RH follows A in opting for
¦βδοµοσ over δεÒτεροσ in : as to the year of Artaxerxēs’ reign. B also contains
a shorter reading in : as it omits µηνÍσ ν τµ² νουµηνºα τοÚ π¢µπτου accepted
by RH on the basis of A and V. At :, A and V also retain the aorist infinitive
διδ’ξαι absent from B. As for names, in RH Ezra is transliterated as Εσδρασ,
though it is Εσρασ in B (see :, , , , , , ; :, , , , , , ,
), Εζδρασ in  and Jos. Ant. ., and Εζρασ in A and other minuscules.
A very odd variant is that in : there appears the name Αψ’ρασ instead of
Εσρασ. Other significant name differences include:

B RH (mostly from A)
: Εσρασ Αζαραιου τοÚ Ζεχριου Εσδρασ Σαραιου τοÚ Εζεριου
: Σαδδουλουκου Σαδδουκου
Αµαρqεºου Αµαριου
Αβεισα½ Αβισουε

In B a paragraph break is signified with a three letter space at :a and Ι∆ in the
left hand side indicates the beginning of a new section.

:–. The Letter of Artaxeres

The authorisation of the carvan led by Esras to take a cohort of priestly
retainers to Jerusalem from Babylon is given in an official document
from Artaxerxēs. The account follows Ezra :–, which is an Aramaic
section of text, and the Vorlage of Esd :– was almost identicial.
However, there are some minor differences between Ezra and  Esdras.
First, Esdras (:) adds remarks about the king’s friendly disposition
towards Esras and/or the Judeans. Second, Esdras emphasizes the law
 commentary

of the Lord (:, , , , , , ) much like Ezra (:, , , , ,
, ), but Esdras uses νʵοσ (:, , , , , , ) more frequently
than Ezra uses úã (:, , , , ).
In this section, the introductory remarks set the scene for the edict and
make clear that it is a royal decree that is about to be described (v. ). The
edict itself grants permission to volunteers to join Esras on his carvan to
Jersuaelm (vv. –). It provides a rationale for the journey in regards
to Esras’s investigation of matters in Judea and Jerusalem concerning
the proper observation of the law of the Lord (v. ). Most of the letter
focuses attention on the regulations for the transport of provisions for
the temple granted from the royal treasury (vv. –) and it climaxes in
Artaxerxēs’ personal charge to Esras for the appointment of local officials
(vv. –). The primary purpose of this letter is to show, again, how a
pagan monarch is seconded to do the work of Israel’s God.
The opening statement in v.  is a header for the subsequent letter
quoted below. The participle προσπεσÊντοσ is not used in the ordinary
sense of “prostrating” (Esd :), but of “recording” official correspon-
dence with the king (Esd :, ; Esth :;  Macc :). In  Esd
: (LXX) the decree is described as an “explanation” (διασ’φησισ)
which is clearer still. B omits δ¥ τοÚ γραφ¢ντοσ προστ’γµατοσ found in
other mss resulting in B reading somewhat awkwardly “a recording from
Artaxerxēs” (προσπεσÊντοσ παρ• Αρταξ¢ρξου). Although the fact that
we are dealing with royal correspondence becomes sufficiently clear by
the end of the verse with οÜ στιν ντºγραφον τÍ Ñποκεºµενον (see
NETS, “a copy of which follows”).
As a preface to the royal edict about the temple and its provision,
Artaxerxēs addresses Esras and narrates the circumstances leading to his
granting of permission for the priests and Levites to return with Esras
to Jerusalem (vv. –). Unlike Ezra :, Artaxerxēs is simply called
“king Artaxerxēs” (βασιλεÕσ Αρταξ¢ρξησ) rather than “Artaxerxēs, king
of kings” (àéëìî êìî àúñùçúøà / Αρqασασqα βασιλεÕσ Βασιλ¢ων).
Esras is addressed as “the priest and reader of the law of the Lord” (τíê
¹ερε κα½ ναγνâστµη τοÚ νʵου κÒριου). This is the first appearance of
ναγνâστησ in Esdras and it perhaps implies his imperial and religious
duties as a reader, recorder, or scribe in the royal Persian household.
The infinitive χαºρειν (“greetings”) is a typical address in Hellenistic
literature (e.g., Macc :, ; Macc :; Acts :; P. Petr. ..;
P. Bris. Mus. ), different from the Aramaic úðòëå øéîâ (“Peace be
now”), which is mistranslated in Esd : as τελ¢σται É λÊγοσ κα½ ©
πÊκρισισ (“Let the order be answered and accomplished”). The author
 commentary 

of Esdras introduces a unique statement by Artaxerxēs, “With respect

to my benevolent designs” (κα½ τ• φιλ’νqρωπα γå κρºνασ), taking
κρºνασ as an adverbial participle modifying προσ¢ταξα, which makes
the command formal. The actual edict (προσ¢ταξα) pertains to: “those
who are desirous from the nation of the Judeans and of the priests,
and of the Levites and of those in our kingdom—those who freely
choose to do so—may go with you to Jerusalem” (τοÕσ βουλοµ¢νουσ
κ τοÚ £qνουσ τêν )Ιουδαºων α¹ρετºζοντασ κα½ τêν ¹ερ¢ων κα½ τêν
Λευιτêν κα½ τêν δ¥ ν τµ² ©µετ¢ρα βασιλεºα συµπορεÒεσqαº σοι ε¸σ
)Ιερουσαληµ). The persons addressed in the decree are characterized
as literally “wishing” (βουλοµ¢νουσ) and “choosing” (α¹ρετºζοντα) to
return to Jerusalem. The participles bracket and therefore identify a
subsection of those from the nation of Judeans who are permitted to join
Esras’s carvan to Jerusalem.
The grounds for this imperial decree are stated with respect to the
proper observance of the law being undertaken in Jerusalem and Judea
(v. ). The reason for permitting Esras’s return begins with a coordi-
nating conjunction Ìπωσ and the subjunctive verb πισκ¢ψωνται that
together indicate purpose. The omission of the neuter plural article from
B and L (RH: τ• κατ• τ­ν )Ιουδαºαν κα½ )Ιερουσαληµ) creates an ellip-
sis as there is nothing that Esras or his colleagues may inquire about.
Although in B the implied object is the matters in relation to observa-
tion of the law in Judea and Jerusalem as signified by the double use
of the preposition κατ’ (κατ• τ­ν )Ιουδαºαν κα½ κατ• )Ιερουσαληµ).
Esras’s fact-finding mission will explore the degree of obedience to the
law in Judea and Jerusalem and whether the conduct of worship in the
temple accords (κατ’) with the “law of the Lord” (νʵíω κυρºου). Esras
is thus a Torah-teacher concerned with the legal adherence, social purity,
and cultic observance of the Judean restoration process.
A further set of purposes for the caravan to Jerusalem are then spec-
ified as carrying gifts to the temple in Jerusalem, acquiring financial
support for its operation from the royal treasurey, and immunity from
taxation for the priestly classes (vv. –). Gifts for the Lord (and note
the close correlation between “Lord” and “Jerusalem” in :– and
even earlier in :; :, , , , , ) are gifts for the temple that
are solemnly offered by the king and his “Friends” (φºλοι). The φºλοι
are most probably a close circle of advisors to the king (see Esth :,
“the seven princes of Persia and Media, who saw the king’s face, and
sat first in the kingdom”). According to Talshir (: ), “The φºλοι
are not strictly officials but part of the king’s (personal) entourage, one
 commentary

of the lower honorary titles in the Seleucid and Ptolemaic kingdoms.”

The royal gift comprises gold and silver from Babylonia and this sup-
plements whatever offerings are made to the Lord by the nation “for the
temple of their Lord in Jerusalem” (ε¸σ τÍ ¹ερÍν τοÚ κυρºου αÐτêν τÍ ν
)Ιερουσαληµ). Esd : is clearer than Ezra :– concerning the dif-
ferentiation of the royal gifts of silver and gold and that were collected in
Babylon from Judean loyalists (Talshir : ). The gifts are purposed
(äστε) in v.  with a view to supplying livestock for the sacrificial altar
in Jerusalem with a collection of bulls, rams, and lambs as nominated in
v. .
Two additional instructions are given relating to the management of
the gifts and the relative freedom of action which Esras has in using
them for the operation of the temple signified by a third-class like con-
ditional clause (Ìσα –ν and subjunctive verb). First, in v.  it is said:
“Whatever you and your brothers wish to do with the gold and silver,
undertake it according to the will of your God” (κα½παρ π’ντα Ìσα
–ν βοÒλµη µετ• τêν δελφêν σου ποι²σαι χρυσºíω κα½ ργυρºíω πι-
τ¢λει κατ• τÍ q¢ληµα τοÚ qεοÚ σου). The shift in verbs from from
present middle subjunctive (βοÒλµη) to aorist active infinitive (ποι²σαι)
to a present active imperative ( πιτ¢λει) places the emphasis upon the
last as the aspectivally imperfect action defines how the gifts are to be
managed. The same verb is implicitly carried over to v.  in relation
to the delivery of the sacred vessels for the needs of God’s temple. We
can note also how the “will of your God” is discerned through Esras,
whose immense learning uniquely qualifies him to speak as to the nature
of the divine will in matters concerning sacrifices. Second, v.  begins,
“And whatever supplication comes to you for the need of the temple of
your God, you will give it from the royal treasury” (κα½ τ• λοιπ• Ìσα
–ν Ñποπºπτµη σοι ε¸σ τ­ν χρεºαν τοÚ ¹εροÚ τοÚ qεοÚ σου δâσεισ κ
τοÚ βασιλικοÚ γαζοφυλακºου) and this indicates the access of Esras
to additional means to be drawn upon if required. The net point is the
imperial benefaction that supports Esras’s journey, mission, and gifts for
Jerusalem.
There is a tacit shift of perspective from the description of events
offered in vv. – to the commands and injunctions made in vv. –
. The former are largely decrees that matter only retrospectively, while
the latter have enduring significance for the rest of Esras’s term as a
priestly scribe. New emphasis is given to the commands with the words,
“And behold I, King Artaxerxēs” (κα½ γå ¸δοÕ )Αρταξ¢ρξησ É βασι-
λεÕσ) and the interjection ¸δοÕ is found only in B. The subsequent com-
 commentary 

mands (προσ¢ταξα) in vv. – pertain to, first, the governors of Syria
and Phoenicia who are to carefully furnish Esras (Εσδρασ in B) with
whatever he sends for including up to a hundred talents of silver, a hun-
dred cors of wheat, and a hundred measures of wine. In other words,
Es(d)ras is to be lavishly supplied by the governors from the province
across the river. The manner and purpose of these requests are given
in v. . Everything is to be “completed” ( πιτελεσqªτω) in accordance
with the with the law of God for the sake of the “Most High God”
(on τíê qεíê τíê Ñψºστω see Esd :; :; :; :). The political
motivation for Artaxerxēs’ generosity is hardly altruistic or disinter-
ested, but so that: “wrath may not come upon the kingdom of the king
and his sons” (τοÚ µ­ γεν¢σqαι Èργ­ν ε¸σ τ­ν βασιλεºαν τοÚ βασι-
λ¢ωσ κα½ τêν υ¹êν). It is hoped that the Persian gifts to the Judean
god will assuage any anger posed against the king and put the Persian
king and his dynasty in positive relations with the local tribal deity of
the Judeans. In the Old Testament “wrath” is frequently used of God’s
intervention in battle (Josh :; Kings :;  Chron :; :–
), and in view of Judah’s strategic position it is perhaps intended here
too. A second element of the decrees are then stated with the milder
wording of “notified” (λ¢γεται) in v.  and the present tense-form
compensates for the absence of a verb like προσ¢ταξα (see :, )
through its imperfective aspect which characterized the action as still
in progress. A composite group comprising of the “priests and Levites
and temple singers and gatekeepers and temple servants and officials
of this temple” (πšσι τοÂσ ¹ερεÚσιν κα½ τοÂσ Λευºταισ κα½ ¹εροψ’λταισ
κα½ qυρωροÂσ κα½ ¹εροδοÒλοισ κα½ πραγµατικοÂσ τοÚ ¹εροÚ τοÒ[του])
are exempted from taxation. Their freedom from taxation is under-
scored with three emphatic negations: “no tribute nor any other … no
one has authority to levy these things upon them” (µηδεµºα φορολογºα
µηδ¥ “λλη πιβουλ­ γºνηται: µηδ¢να £χειν ξουσºαν πιβαλεÂν τοÒ-
τοισ).
The king’s final instruction turns to Esras personally and concerns
the administration of the region according to the laws of God (vv. –
). Unlike Ezra : where Ezra and his colleagues are to teach the
law, in Esd : that task falls to Esras alone highlighting his role as
teacher of the law all the more (hence the singular διδ’ξεισ contrasted
with the plural forms γνωριεÂτε [Esd :] and ïåòãåäú [MT]). Esras is
exhorted to act according to the “wisdom of God” (σοφºαν τοÚ qεοÚ),
which in this context can mean nothing other than the “law” of God
(on law and wisdom see Sir :; :; :; :;  Esd :). Esras has
 commentary

a civil task in appointing “judges and magistrates who may adjudicate”

(κριτ•σ κα½ δικαστ•σ Ìπωσ δικ’ζωσιν) and δικαστªσ/δικ’ζω carries
the sense of condemn or execute judgment (see Luke :; Josephus,
Apion .). The jurisdiction of Esras’s legal reforms is not restricted to
“Judea” ()Ιουδαºα), but “the whole of Syria and Phoenicia” ( ν Ìλµη Συρºα
κα½ Φοινºκµη). The direction may be no more than requiring that judges
be appointed for all Judeans who live in the area beyond the river, though
we might rightly suspect that this is a Jewish perspective that sees Eretz
Israel as constituting a wider area than Judea. The purpose of the appoint-
ments it that “those who know the law of your God shall instruct those
who do not know it” (τοÕσ πισταµ¢νουσ τÍν νʵον τοÚ qεοÚ σου: κα½
τοÕσ µ­ πισταµ¢νουσ διδ’ξεισ). The final injunction makes the Mosaic
law the virtual Persian law of the land in Syria and Phoenicia by way of
reference to “the law of your God and the royal law” (τÍν νʵον τοÚ qεοÚ
σου κα½ τοÚ βασιλικου). As Myers (: ) puts it, “the law of God and
the law of the king are placed virtually on par” (but note objections of
Williamson : –). Any transgression (παραβαºνω) of the law
requires retribution and the perpetrator “shall be exactingly punished,
whether by death or some other physical punishment, [either] financial
loss or arrest” ( πιµελêσ κολασqªσονται ’ν τε κα½ qαν’τíω ’ν τε
κα½ τιµωρºα µ­ ργυρºíω ζηµºα: ® παγωγµ²). B places a negation µª
before ργυρºíω, although a coordinating conjunction ® is required. In
sum, the capital punishment mandated in the Mosaic law and its various
other sentences receive royal sanction. In Josephus’s account only capital
punishment and financial penalties are mentioned (Ant. .). Esras is
charged with transforming religious and civil life in Judea and bringing
it into conformity with the law of God.
A significant characteristic of B in this section is the number of omissions that
it makes compared to other witnesses. Omissions include: () In :, δ¥ τοÚ
γραφ¢ντοσ προστ’γµατοσ, and a similar omission is found in L, though the B
text becomes opaque by the omission. () In :, τοÚ )Ισραηλ, which is also
omitted from L, Syr, and Eth, whereas Ezra : and Esd : have “God of
Israel.” () In :, κα½ ”λα κ πλªqουσ, and the L text and Syr also omit κ
πλªqουσ, and it is hard to identify the origin and occasion for the omission. ()
In :, πιµελêσ, omitted also by L  Lav Syr Eth Arm, but retained by RH on
the strength of its attestation in A and V as well as its proximate usage in vv. ,
 (see Esd :, ).
At :, B reads σου τ• διδʵεν’, contrasted with τοÚ κυρºου τ• διδʵεν’
σοι accepted by RH. The sense of Ezra : evidently created confusion with
several Greek witnesses unsure where to place the genitival pronoun and some
inserted τοÚ κυρºου to define ownership of the vessels rather than mark their
 commentary 

reception with Esras, and then placed σου with τοÚ ¹ερου τοÚ qεοÚ σου (contrast
Esd : LXX). However, the double use of the genitival pronoun in B is
probably closer to the original Aramaic. Typical of B is the simplificication of
genitival and prepositional phrases into a condensed form (βασιλ¢ωσ over τοÚ
βασιλ¢ωσ in :; νʵíω κυρºου instead of ν τíê νʵíω τοÚ κυρºου in :). A
spelling error occurs in : of B where του stands, but it requires demonstrative
pronoun τοÒτου. An additional error is that B reads the negation µ­ ργυρºíω in
contrast to the coordinating conjunction ® ργυρικµ² (and V attests the simple
conjunctive καº).

:–. Esras’s Ejaculation of Praise

The announcement from Artaxerxēs that Esras is able to return to Jerusa-
lem occasions an outburst of praise from the priestly scribe which is
narrated in the distinctive first person (hence use of µου, µε, γâ,
and µοι). The language of praise has been used earlier in  Esdras with
reference to Zorobabel’s eulogy to the God of truth (:) and Zorob-
abel’s gratitude to God for giving him wisdom in the contest (:).
The doxology in Esd :– is differentiated from Ezra :– by
stressing that God “alone” (µÊνοσ) is blessed and by omitting any refer-
ence to the “God of our forefathers.” Esd : also makes no mention
of God’s steadfast love (ãñç) and unlike Esd : (LXX) it employs
“hearten” (εÐqαρσªσ) instead of “strengthen” (κραταιÊοµαι) and “assis-
tance” (ντºληµψισ) instead of “God’s hand” (χε½ρ qεοÚ). The celebration
is based on two key acts by the Lord. These include God placing a desire
in (ε¸σ) the heart of the king to glorify his house that is in Jerusalem
(v. ) and honouring Esras before (£ναντι) the king and his friends and
nobles (v. ). Thereafter Esras notes the sequal where he was heartened
or emboldened and gathered together men from Israel to accompany
him on the journey (v. ). In the Babylonian Talmud (b.Qidd. b),
Ezra : was taken to mean that Ezra accepted only pure and bonafide
Judeans on his journey “like pure sifted flower,” whereas the word “gath-
ered” (õá÷ [MT], συν’γω [Esd :; Esd :]) means simply that he
assembled the caravan (Clines : ).
RH follows the B and L texts in omitting κα½ εÃπεν †Εσδρασ É γραµµατεÒσ
found in A, V, and several minuscules, but also not found in Esd : (LXX).
B includes the possessive pronoun µου in : that identifies the king as Esras’s
king. On : several variants are found in the witnesses. A and V read τοÚ
βασιλ¢ωσ κα½παρ τêν συµβασιλευÊντων, the whole contruct is omitted by ,
RH follow Lv with τοÚ βασιλ¢ωσ κα½ τêν συµβουλευÊντων, and B reads the
substantive participle τêν βασιλευÊντων. B, as elsewhere (e.g., :), omits the
article in κυρºου τοÚ qεου.
 commentary

:–. The List of Returning Exiles

The transition to the list of returning exiles with Esras is abrupt and the
list of names given follows Ezra :– very closely. Differences occur
mainly in the names and their spellings as well as in actual numbers
(Esd :– comes to , Esd :– to , and Ezra :–
to  [see Myers : ]). Talshir (: ) even thinks that the
list of names has been better preserved in  Esdras. Josephus omits the
list of names who returned with Esras (Ant. .–). In its place,
Josephus recounts how the letter from Artaxerxēs was disseminated
by Esras to the Judeans in Babylon and Media and he further notes
how the Judeans were impressed with the king’s piety towards God and
kindness towards Esras (παρ•παρ τοÚ βασιλ¢ωσ κα½ τÍν q¥ον εÐσ¢βειαν
κα½ τÍν ƒΕζδραν εÓνοιαν). While Esd : says that Esras “gathered”
(συν’γω) men from Israel in Babylon for the caravan, Josephus adds
further commentary: “[They] came to Babylon, as exceedingly eager of
going down to Jerusalem; but then all the people of Israel remained
in that country; therefore there are but two tribes in Asia and Europe
subject to the Romans, while the ten tribes are beyond Euphrates even
till now, are an immense myriad of people, and not able to be numerically
estimated.” Josephus’s point is that the return from Babylon was not
complete and he points out that Judean life under the post-Persian
empire essentially continues with only a small percentage of Judeans
under the hegemony of the Romans.
The leaders (on προηγ¢οµαι see :–, :; :) are those who
preside over the paternal houses and family groups (µεριδαρχºαν is
linked with πατρι’ at :, ; :). Continuing the first person from
:–, it is reported that these leaders “went up with me from Babylon”
(ο¹ ναβ’ντεσ µετ’ µοÚ κ Βαβυλêνοσ) indicating the biographical
nature of the section and why it is often linked with a hypothetical
“Ezra Memoir.” The fact that priestly figures are named first in the list
accentuates their role in the journey and their authority in Jerusalem.
Unlike the list of names in Esd :–, the initial leaders nominated
are Aaronic rather than Zadokite priests (e.g., on Ietamaros [= Ithamar
in Ezra :] see Chron :–).
Two significant names stand out in the list in :. First, there is
“Phoros” (Φοροσ), although probably meant was “Phinees” since Φινεεσ
is attested in A and V, and Φινεεσ occurs elsewhere in  Esdras (B) at :;
:,  (though usually misspelt as Φεινεεσ). Pheinees/Phoros was the
progeninator of the priestly line whom God rewarded with a covenant
 commentary 

of perpetual priesthood for his service in protecting the purity of the

bloodline of Israel from foreign contamination (Num :–). A role
that is much relevant with what Esras will soon encounter in Jerusalem
with rampant intermarriage of foreigners among all classes in Judea. In
the priestly line also is Maathmōab (Μααqµω’β [= Φααqµωαβ]) who
is probably part of the branch of Iēsous. Second, mentioned also are the
“sons of David” (τêν υ¹êν ∆αυειδ) implying the continuation of the
Davidic line as God had promised David with a covenant ( Sam :–
). At the head of the list of returning exiles, then, we find the chief
recipients of the two major post-Mosaic covenants. The descendents of
Pheinees(/Phoros) with their perpetual priestly covenant and the sons of
David with their Davidic covenant of kingship. Thus, the perspective of
diarchic restoration through a priest and davidide did not end with the
disappearance of Zorobabel and Iēsous from the narrative, but continues
under Esras, albeit in subdued form and subordinate to the scribal
revisions of Judea’s Yahwehistic faith. The purpose of the list is to validate
the legitimacy of the leaders who embarked on the journey with Esras by
setting forth their genealogical credentials (Coggins & Knibb : ).
A two letter gap between : and : marks the start of a new section. At :,
B reads διακÊσιοι, whereas A and V attest τριακÊσιοι adopted by RH (though
it is omitted by L and Tedesche influenced by Esd : [= Ezra :] which reads
only πεντªκοντα). The B text also omits the κ and/or τêν υ¹êν in several places.
Differences in names between B and RH include:

B RH
: Φοροσ Φινεεσ
Ταροσοτοµοσ Γαρσοµοσ
> Αττουσ É Σεχενιου
: Φαρ¢σ Φοροσ
: Μααqµω’β Φααqµωαβ
Ελιαλωνºασ Ελιαωνιασ
: Ε¸εχονºασ Ιεqηλου Σεχενιασ Ιεζηλου
Αδειν ΟÐβην–Ιωναqου Αδινου Βην–Ιωναqου
: Λαµ Ηλαµ
Εσιασ Ιεσιασ
: Σοφοτιου Σαφατιου
: Βαιªρ Βαβι
Ζαχαρια½ Βηµαι Ζαχαριασ Βηβαι
: Αστ’q Ασγαq
: Αδωνιακαιµ Αδωνικαµ
Ελειφαλα τοÚ Γεου­λ Ελιφαλατοσ Ιεουηλ
: Βανα½ Βαγο
ΟÐτοÕ Ιστακαλκου Ουqι É τοÚ Ισταλκουρου
 commentary

Where there are differences, RH generally prefer A and/or V over B. However,

there are two conjectures made in reference to names. First, in :, Γαρσοµοσ
is a conjecture by Rahlfs in view of the diverse witnesses, but still very similar to
Gersomus (Lv) and Γηρσωµ (V [= Esd :]). Second, in :, Rahlfs proposed
Ασγαq over Αστ’q (B, A), Αστατ (V), and Ασγαδ (L). In :, Brooke &
McLean (: ) erroneously read B as Βανα½ ΟÐτοÕ instead of Βανα½ου
τοÕ (RH).

:–. The Search for Priests and Levites

The exact details about the gathering of the caravan is narrated next.
This leads to a discovery that among their number there are no priests
or Levites. Esras subsequently sends a message through his emissaries
to several priestly families in Babylon with a request to provide him
with additional Levites and temple servants so that they can accompany
him on the journey to Jerusalem. A number of suitable persons are then
provided and a list of their names recorded.
The assemblying of persons referred to back in :, that was inter-
rupted by the list of returnees in :–, finally takes place here (v. ).
The gathering (συναγαγâν) occurs at the “River” (ποταµÊσ) and in most
manuscripts this is designated as the river “Theras” (Θεραν) with a few
variants (e.g., Θερα [], Θερραν [], Θουε [], and Thia [Lav]),
but omitted from B. In Ezra : this place is the “river that runs to
Ahava” (àåäà­ìà àáä øäðä­ìà) and in Esd : (LXX) it is “to the river
that comes to Evi” (πρÍσ τÍν ποταµÍν τÍν ρχʵενον πρÍσ τÍν Ευι).
The place envisaged is one of the many canals or streams running off
the Euphrates in the vicinity of an open area that a large body of trav-
ellers could assemble in. The group camps by the River and Esras, again
in first person narrative, states “I scrutinized them” (κατ¢µαqον αÐ-
τοÒσ). The word καταµαq’νω means to thoroughly investigate (GELS,
 [see ESVA, NEB, NRSV, NETS, “I inspected them”; Cook, “I sur-
veyed them”]). The result of the inspection given in v.  is that no one
from among the priests and Levites was found in that place (lit. “there”
[ κει]). Though Ezra : refers only to a lack of Levites, not priests. This
absence of priests and Levites creates a dilemma as priestly representa-
tives will be required to account for and deliver the sacred vessels to the
temple and to properly fulfil the decree of Artaxerxēs concerning the
temple and its operation.
The response of Esras to the deficit of priests and Levites is to send a
delegation of learned leaders to priestly families among the Babylonian
Judeans to ask for the release of additional persons to join the caravan
 commentary 

(vv. –). Esras’s deputies are said to be “men of intellect” ( πιστª-

µων [NETS, “men of knowledge”; NRSV, ESVA, “men of understand-
ing”; NEB, “discerning men”; Myers, “learned men”]). There is an ellipsis
in π¢στειλα πρÍσ Ελεαζαρον as no object is given for the transitive
ποστ¢λλω and we are meant to imagine a word or message given to
them that encompasses the subsequent instructions described in what
follows. The ten persons nominated (“Eleazaros and Idouēlos and Maas-
mas and Enaatan and Samaias and Iōribos, Nathan, Ennatan, Zacharias,
and Mesolabōs”) differs from the nine persons named plus the two wise
men, Joirab and Elthnathan, bringing the total to eleven in Ezra :
(MT)/Esd : (LXX) (see Myers : ).
Esras’s instruction (“I said to them” [εÃπα αÐτοÂσ]) is that his emis-
saries are “to go to Laadaios, who was the leading official at the loca-
tion of the treasury” ( λqεÂν πρÍσ ΛααδαÂον τÍν ©γοÒµενον τÍν ν
τíê τÊπíω γαζοφυλακºου). Several issues are encountered here. First,
it is unclear who ΛααδαÂον exactly is and what his function is. The
fact that he is a “leader” and a “brother” of the priests implies that he
is an authority figure among the priestly class in this particular loca-
tion. Second, B is somewhat confusing as the name of the character in
question differs from ΛααδαÂον in v.  to Λοδαιíω in v. , although
the same person is undoubtedly intended (preferable is arguably the
L text with Αδδαι in vv. –). The name is based on the Hebrew
“Iddo” (åãà) as found in the MT, whereas no name is given in  Esd
: (LXX) and the designated recipients of the letter are “their broth-
ers the temple servants” (δελφοÕσ αÐτêν τοÕσ ναqινιµ). On  Esd
:, note that ναqινιµ is a Greek transliteration of the Hebrew íéðéúð
from Ezra :. Thus, Esd : actually enhances the status of the
recipients by making them priests rather than simply temple servants
(on the relationship of Iddo to the temple servants in Ezra : see
Clines : ). Third, the location that the delegation is to go to in
order to meet Laadaios/Lodaios (τÍν ν τíê τÊπíω γαζοφυλακºου) is
obscure. Ezra : nominates the location as “Casiphia” (àéôñë), but
no equivalent occurs in either Esd : or  Esd :. That the dele-
gates are sent to a cultic centre for priestly activity, somewhat like the
Elephantine temple in Egypt, is plausible given that “place” (τÊποσ) des-
ignates sanctuaries of worship (Esd :, ; :, ; :). The γαζο-
φυλακºον are not persons (contra NRSV, “treasurers”; see more prop-
erly NETS, ESVA, “place of the treasury”). The substance of what is to
be discussed (διαλ¢γοµαι) with Laadaios/Lodaios concerns a request
for he and his associates “to send for us those that serve as priests in
 commentary

the house of our Lord” (ποστεÂλαι ©µÂν τοÕσ ¹ερατεÒσοντασ ν τíê ο»κíω
τοÚ κυρºου ©µêν).
There is a positive reponse from Laadaios/Lodaios and his associates
as thirty men from the Levites (thirty-eight in other mss) and two
hundred and twenty temple servants are seconded to Esras’s caravan
(vv. –). B omits :a concerning how the request was granted and
moves straight into the list of “learned men” (“νδρα πιστªµονα) who
are enlisted into Esras’s cohort. The Levites are learned in the Torah
just like Esras’s delegation and thus uniquely suited for this role (see
πιστªµων in :). In v. , the temple servants, who also join the
returnees, are described as those “whom David and the leaders had given
for the ministry of the Levites” (ìν £δωκεν ∆αυιδ κα½ ο¹ ©γοÒµενοι
ε¸σ τ­ν ργασºαν τêν Λευιτêν). The mention of David and the temple
servants may recall Chron : where David assembled priests and
Levites for the accession of Solomon. It is also stated that the name of
all the persons joining Esras’s caravan was “recorded” in a list of names
(Èνοµατογραφºα) and this parallels the statement of  Chron : that
after the exile, “the first to live again in their possessions in their towns
were Israelites, priests, Levites, and temple servants.” The acquisition
of Levites and temple servants brings sufficient close to the story and
enables the sojourn of exiles back to Jerusalem to proceed under Esras’s
supervision.
Beyond a number of minor deviations between B and A V (e.g., in : B reads
the aorist participle συναγαγåν with Arm and Jos. Ant. . over the aorist
verb συνªγαγον; B transposes “νδρεσ ε»κοσι in : and RH follows A and V on
both), the most significant differences are the number of omissions of text found
in B, including: () in :, Θεραν (with Eth) is omitted making ποταµÊν the
so-named (λεγʵενον) rendezvous point; () in :, κα½ «γαγον ©µÂν κατ• τ­ν
κραται•ν χεÂρα τοÚ κυρºου ©µêν is omitted though found in A and V; () in
:, B attests only δ¢κα in contrast to δ¢κα Èκτω read by A and V; and () also
missing from B in : is κα½ Ασεβιαν κα½ Αννουνον κα½ Ωσαιαν δελφÍν.
Differences in names include:

B RH
: Ενααταν Ελναταν
Μεσολαβâν Μεσολαµον
: ΛααδαÂον Αδδαιον
: Λοδαιω. Αδδαιω

Note should be taken of conjectural emmandations in RH. To begin with, in

:, Ελναταν is a conjecture of Rahlfs, whereas A and V read Ελναqαν. Like-
wise, Μεσολαµον is also a conjecture by Rahlfs, but Hanhart (a: ) opts
 commentary 

for the A reading of Μοσολλαµον (other variations include e.g., Μοσολλα-

µων [V], Μοσολοµον [], Μοσολαµον [], Mosolamun [Lav], Mosolamum
[Lac], Μοσσολαµον []). Similarly, in :, Αδδαιον is a conjecture by Bewer
adopted by RH (other variant readings include, e.g., ∆ολδαιον [A] and Ολα-
δαιον []) and the same is true in : of Αδδαιω (variants include, e.g.,
∆ολδαιω [A], Λοδδαιου [], and ïãòì [Syr]). Finally, at :, the corrector
has introduced ο to ¹ερατεÒσ{ο}ντασ.

:–. The Journey to Jerusalem

After the successful search for priests and Levites, the caravan recom-
mences its preparations for the journey. The exiles accompanying Esras
travel from Theras to Jerusalem with a great amount of silver and gold
gifts which are to be delivered to the temple as well as delivering the
decrees of Artaxerxēs concerning Esras’s ministry there. It follows Ezra
:– fairly closely with the difference that  Esd : makes no men-
tion of God’s wrath referred to in Ezra :. Also, Ezra : mentions one
hundred silver vessels with the talent value omitted, whereas  Esd :
has silver vessels worth a hundred talents. Then Ezra : describes two
vessels of fine bronze in contrast to Esd : that has ten according to
B (twelve in other mss). Josephus (Ant. .) describes “six hundred
and fifty talents of silver, one hundred talents in vessels of silver, ves-
sels of gold worth twenty talents, vessels of brass, that was more precious
than gold, weighing twelve talents.” The passage underscores the reliance
upon divine providence that the sojourners have upon their Lord for a
safe journey and the importance of providing further opulent gifts for
the temple. The narrative moves in three major sections including: fast-
ing and prayer for a successful journey (vv. –); the charge to the
twelve priests to safely deliver the gold and silver vessels to Jerusalem
(vv. –); and the account of the journey to Jerusalem including the
deliverance of the silver and golden vessels and the sacrifices offered by
the returning exiles (vv. –).
The religious preparation for the carvan continues with Esras call-
ing for a fast and seeking God’s protection for the duration of the trip
(vv. –). The vow (εÐχοµαι) is a fast of self-humbling before the
Lord (see Ps :; Isa :; Jdt :) and fasting is often linked with
prayer in Jewish tradition (e.g., Dan :; Tob :;  Macc :; Luke
:; Acts :). The purpose of the fast is “to seek from him a suc-
cesful journey for us, our children and livestock” (ζητ²σαι παρ’ αÐ-
τοÚ εÐοδºαν ©µÂν τε κα½ τοÂσ τ¢κνοισ ©µêν κα½ κτªνεσιν). The dative
cases are datives of advantage as the supplication seeks blessings and
 commentary

prosperity from the Lord in their travel (on εÐοδºα as “safe journey”
see GELS, ; cf. ÉδÍσ εÐqεÂα [Esd :]). B does not contain the
dependent participle phrase συνοÚσιν ©µÂν, though no sense is lost by
the absence.
The reason for the prayer and petition is given in the following explan-
atory γ•ρ clause. In its current form, the clause it is elliptical because it
lacks a direct object following the infinitive α¸τ²σαι, yet this is designated
in the other witnesses with the infinitive clause α¸τ²σαι τÍν βασιλ¢α (“to
ask the king”). Viewed this way, the infinitives of vv. – naturally
juxtapose each other as Esras would rather “seek” (ζητ²σαι) from the
Lord than “ask” (α¸τ²σαι) for assistance from the king. The shame in
question ( ντρ¢πω) is not simply Esras’s own (how can a priest rely on
the king rather than on God), but corporate (Israel must rely on their
God), and even theological as the honour and shame of God is at stake
if the people do not prevail in the end (e.g., Dan :–; Luke :).
Despite the fact that many are said to “oppose us” ( ναντºουσ ©µÂν; other
mss read the participle ναντιουµ¢νουσ), which probably harkens back
to the Samaritan opposition narrated earlier, Esras makes no request
to the king for cavalry and infantry. That is because “The strength of
our Lord will be with those who seek him, for every restoration” (¸σχÕσ
τοÚ κυρºου ©µêν £σται µετ• τêν πιζητοÒντων αÐτÍν ε¸σ πšσαν
πανÊρqωσιν). Shame will be accrued to Esras, the travelers, and God
if Esras does not live up to his claim that their security and protection
(σφαλεºα) comes from the Lord’s strength rather than a pagan king.
The word πανÊρqωσισ means “restoration” and was used in  Macc :
for the restoration of the law and in Macc : for the resettlement of
Judeans in northern Palestine. Reliance on God rather than on military
strength, especially that of a foreign kingdom, is not unknown in Israel’s
sacred literature (e.g., Isa :; Ps :), though somewhat paradoxical
in Esdras as it is the agency of Cyrus, Darius, and Artaxerxēs who
are instruments of Israel’s God for the liberation of the exiles and the
restoration of the Judean territory in the first place. Nehemiah had so
such hesitations in asking the king for a military escort (Neh :). Here
it is the direct and unmediated care of the Lord that is looked for as a
testimony to the king of the strength of their God. In any event, if Esras
and his associates trust in the Lord (in the LXX πιζητ¢ω can mean to
pursue something as an object of devotion [Hos :; :; GELS, ])
then they shall be successful in the trip. The author looks ahead and
identifies the outcome of the trip before its details are fully described
(cf. v. ). Esras’s memoire records that “we petitioned our Lord unto
 commentary 

all these things, and we obtained mercy” ( δεªqηµεν τοÚ κυρºου ©µêν
π’ντα ταÚτα: κα½ τÒχοµεν εÐιλ’του). That is an apt summary of
the soteriological framework of Esdras where God grants mercy and
favor to the covenant people when they are contrite and reliant upon
him.
Attention shifts to the priests and their duties to be custodians for the
silver and gold to be delivered to the temple authorities (vv. –). The
primary actions are seen in the first person aorist verbs that describe
the main activities of Esras: setting apart the priests ( χâρισα [v. ]),
weighing the silver and gold (£στησα [v. ]), and commissioning the
priests (εÃπα [v. ]). The twelve priests are obviously symbolic for all
of Israel who are represented in the caravan. The items weighed and
entrusted to the priests include “silver and the gold and the sacred
vessels” (ργÒριον κα½ τÍ χρυσºον κα½ τ• ¹ερ• σκεÒη). The vessels in
particular are from the “house of our Lord” (ο»κου τοÚ κυρºου ©µêν)
and are part of the goods looted by Nabouchodnosor that are yet to be
returned to Jerusalem. The gifts and vessels were donated “in the manner
that the king himself and his advisors and nobles and all Israel had given”
(οÔτωσ δωρªσατο É βασιλεÕσ κα½ ο¹ σÒµβουλοι αÐτοÚ κα½ µεγιστšνεσ
κα½ πšσ )Ισραηλ). The gifts donated by the king, his officials, and Israel is
reminiscent of the gifts by the family heads and military commanders at
the Solomonic temple (Chron :). Royal Persian patronage ensures
the legitimacy of the temple under Persian authorities (Myers : ).
The adverb οÔτωσ (see — αÐτÍσ from  adopted by RH that makes the
king’s role in giving the gifts more emphatic) describes the manner in
which the king, his associates, the leading men, and the Israelites gave
gifts for the caravan.
After the list of talents and vessels are given in v. , then in vv. –
 Esras addresses the priests and their duties. First, it includes an
exhortation that “You are holy to the Lord, and the vessels are holy”
(ѵεÂσ ”γιοº στε τíê κυρºíω: κα½ τ• σκεÒη τ• ”για). That set-apart-ness
of the priestly class is why they alone were uniquely suited to deliver
the sacred vessels that were solemnly dedicated to the Lord. Second,
there is an admonition to “Be watchful and on guard” (γρυπνεÂτε
κα½ φυλ’σσετε) until such time as the vessels are delivered through
the various mediating channels of “tribal leaders of the priests and the
Levites, and to the heads of the ancestral houses of Israel, in Jerusalem,
in the inner chambers of the house of our Lord.” That is the convoluted
path of official recognition that the sacred vessels must travel through
before they are desposited in the temple. Just like v. , in v.  there
 commentary

is a flash forward to the successful completion of the charge given to the

priests when it is said: “And the priests and the Levites receiving the silver
and the gold and the vessels brought them to the temple of the Lord in
Jerusalem” (κα½ ο¹ παραλαβÊντεσ ο¹ ¹ερεÂσ κα½ ο¹ ΛευÂται τÍ ργÒριον
κα½ τÍ χρυσºον κα½ τ• σκεÒη τ• ν )Ιερουσαληµ «νεγκαν ε¸σ τÍ ¹ερÍν
τοÚ κυρºου). The priestly deliverance of the vessels is highlighted by the
fact that whereas most of the verbs in the surrounding context are aorist,
present tense-form verbs and participles are used in this section for
describing either the vessels or the priests themselves (στºλβον τ• σκεÒη
δ¢κα [v. ]; ѵεÂσ ”γιοº στε [v. ]; γρυπνεÂτε κα½ φυλ’σσετε [v. ]).
This effectively zooms in on their role in the process by shifting the verbal
aspect from perfective to imperfective. In any case, the restoration of the
sacred vessels from Babylon back to the temple, despite the partial return
of vessels under Cyrus and Darius previously, is finally accomplished
here.
The journey and arrival of the caravan of exiles is described very briefly
with attention focused on the safe delivery of the vessels and the sacrifices
made by the travelers upon their arrival (vv. –). Unlike : in
B, which omitted Θερα and reads τÍν λεγʵενον ποταµÊν, here the
travelers leave from the “place Thera” (τÊπου Θερα). The group arrives
in Jerusalem safely “according to the mighty hand of our Lord, which
was upon us” (κατ• τ­ν κραται•ν χεÂρα τοÚ κυρºου ©µêν τ­ν φ’ ©µÂν)
and a similar expression “mighty hand of the Lord” is found : though
not in the text of B (see Deut :; :; :; :;  Chron :). That
strength (v. ) or mighty hand (v. ) is seen in the claim that, “he
rescued us from the journey from every enemy” ( ρρÒσατο ©µšσ πÍ
τ²σ ε¸σÊδου πÍ παντÍσ χqρου) indicating that God met the concerns
raised in v.  about the threat posed by those who opposed them. B
reads, however, “and he came to Jerusalem” (³λqεν ε¸σ )Ιερουσαληµ). At
the very least, the context requires a plural verb (hence the plural ³λqον
in Brooke & McLean : ) and the better attested reading is the first
person plural «λqοµεν. Although ³λqεν could still make sense if read as
a reference to Esras.
The subsequent description makes it clear that the silver and gold did
arrive in the house of the Lord and was appropriately delivered to the offi-
cial priestly leadership comprising of, “Marmōthi son of Ourias the priest
and with him was Eleazar son of Phinees, and with them were Iōsabees
son of Iēsous and Mōeth son of Sabannos the Levites.” The vessels were
then counted, weighed, and recorded. Following that, the returnees from
captivity offered sacrifices to the Lord God of Israel including a number
 commentary 

of lambs and male goats. B contains no reference to the bulls and rams as
found in other mss. Although numbers usually precede their subject, the
“twelve” (δ¢κα δÒο) relates to the preceding “peace offering” (σωτηρºοσ)
in v. . In addition to participating in the sacrifices, the returnees also
delivered the decrees (προστ’γµατα) of Artaxerēs to the royal stewards
and prefects of Syria and Phoenicia (unlike other mss omitted from B is
Κοºλησ). Homage is then paid ( δÊξασαν) to both the nation and tem-
ple of the Lord (τÍ £qνοσ κα½ τÍ ¹ερÍν τοÚ κυρºου), and in the story of
 Esdras the fate and fortunes of the former are very much bound up with
the latter.
Thus far, Esras’s journey marks a completion of the story of Zorobabel.
Whereas Zorobabel’s work focused on rebuilding the temple and marked
a major move towards restoration, it was as yet still incomplete. The
decree of Artaxerxēs in :– looked to rectify that and the restoration
process accelerates towards these stated goals in :– under Esras.
The symbolism of “twelve” (v. ) and constant mention of “Israel”
(vv. , , ), and the fact that all the sacrifices are multiples of twelve
(v. ), gives the impression that under Esras Israel has finally and
fully arrived back in Jerusalem (Klein : ). Indeed, the notion
of rebuilding and refurbishing the temple would continue to have a
major role in shaping the religious and nationalistic hopes of Judeans
in the centuries to come, especially during the Maccabean and Herodian
periods. But in addition to the refurbishment of the temple, there was
another aspect of Judean life that was of course still awaiting reform. That
was of course, the Torah and its role in Judean society. It is to that subject
that the story now turns.
B contains several omissions in contrast to RH including: συνοÚσιν ©µÂν (:);
α¸τ²σαι τÍν βασιλ¢α πεζοÒσ τε και (:); αÐτêν (:; cf. Esd :); ταÒρουσ
δâδεκα Ñπ¥ρ παντÍσ )Ισραηλ κριοÕσ (:); Κοºλησ (:). In all cases RH
follows A and V. These omissions are mostly due to scribal error given that
certain parts are incoherent without the additions (e.g., omission of the infinitive
α¸τ²σαι in :). B also transposes several words: ¹ππεÂσ κα½ πεζοÕσ (:);
τÒχοµεν εÐιλ’του (:); χαλκοÚ χρηστοÚ (:); and contains a slightly
different word order in : with παρ¢δωκεν αÐτοÂσ στªσασ τ’λαντα ργυρºου
against RH’s στªσασ παρ¢δωκα αÐτοÂσ ργυρºου τ’λαντα. As elsewhere, B
omits the genitive article before a genitive noun in : (RH: τοÚ Κυρºου) and
in : with the additional excision of the personal pronoun (RH: τοÚ κυρºου
©µêν; other minor variants include τοÚ qεοÚ ©µêν and τοÚ κυρºου qεοÚ
©µêν). The article is also omitted in : from the substantive participle (RH:
ο¹ µεγιστšνεσ). Though B, contrasted with A and V, includes the article for τ•
”για at :. The variations in names continue:
 commentary

B RH
: Εσερεβιαν Σερεβιαν
Ασσαµιαν Ασαβιαν
: Ιωσαβεεσ Ιωσαβδοσ

Σερεβιαν is a conjecture from Rahlfs and Tedesche, while Hanhart (a: )
thinks that Σερεβιαν might represent a homoiteleuton. RH adopts Ασαβιαν
from L, while Hanhart (a: ) accepts Ασσαµιαν from B (see Ασαµιαν in
A   ). RH accepts the A reading of Ιωσαβδοσ over B’s Ιωσαβεεσ. Several
numbers are different and B continues its preference for δ¢κα over δâδεκα at
: (cf. δ¢κα δυο []). At : there is some support for ¦ξ (B, Lac, Eth) over
δÒο (A, V) adopted by RH.
Characteristic of B in : is the use of third person verbs over first person
for the arrival of Esras and the exiles in Jerusalem despite the fact that much
of the section is told in the first person. The B reading is ¦ωσ «λqοσαν (with
Eth, Lac), RH contains ε¸σªλqοµεν (, ), and Hanhart (a: ) records
¦ωσ ε¸σªλqοµεν. In the same verse, B’s ³λqεν evidently does not agree in number
with the context (hence Brooke and McLean change it to ³λqον), and RH rightly
prefers A and V with «λqοµεν. Also in :, B includes the name Θερα (omitted
from :), but reads τοπου over the better attested ποταµου and Talshir (:
) is probably correct that it’s an internal Greek corruption. There is spelling
error in : with ρ[ρ]Òσατο misspelt by lacking a rho. The reading of οÔτωσ in
: is testified by A and B, though RH prefers — αÐτÍσ from , while L attests
Ìσα. The corrector has inserted ι to αÐτο{Â}σ in :. There is also a doubling up
of the nomina sacra in : with κω κω.

:–. The Reports of Mixed Marriages

The successful return of Esras and his caravan to Jerusalem with addi-
tional priests, gifts, and good news from Artaxerxēs would have consti-
tuted a perfectly good conclusion to the narrative. Apart from the con-
tinuing Persian hegemony, which is viewed as largely benign and even
positively in Esdras, the promises about restoration were drawing to
fulfilment. In any case, in Zorobabel a Davidide was in place already to
take over should the house of David ever accede to power again. How-
ever, the story continues with a further cycle of sin that is perpetuated
by the nation rendering them liable once more to divine judgment, and
thus preventing the priestly/scribal vision for the restoration of Judea
from being fully implemented. The problem is that of mixed marriages
and the pollution of the covenant people due to excessive fraternizing
with the surrounding populace. Josephus also captures the climate of
Esdras when he points out that the ultimate problem was the corruption
of the priesthood by intermarriage (Ant. .). The rest of the narrative
 commentary 

focuses on this problem until the very end of the book. The require-
ment to not intermarry with foreign peoples was a frequent injunction
in Israel’s sacred traditions and was often said to be the cause of their
downfall as seen definitively in the demise of King Solomon (e.g., Gen
:–; Deut :; Josh :; Kgs :; Ezra :; Neh :–; Tob
:). The concern for racial purity was not at all unique to the Judaism
of Persian period, but the notion of purity as separation from Gentile
sinners became increasingly important to the piety of the Hasidim, a
group of pious Jews who attached themselves to the Maccabean oppo-
sition against the Seleucids, and were very likely the predecessors of the
Pharisees. The concept of purity as a personal and national commodity
was even more crucial during the Hellenistic and Roman periods among
dispersed Jewish community. The need to maintain purity, where pos-
sible, was a constant matter of concern for Jews of the Graeco-Roman
Diaspora who had to think through the issues of keeping their Jewish
identity while engaging the social realities of living in a non-Jewish city.
This required separation from iconic worship, avoiding shared meals
with Gentiles, and forbidding intermarriage with Gentiles (see Barclay
: –). That is not to say that all Diaspora Jews were equally
scrupulous in their adherence to the laws of kashrut or that they entirely
avoided excessive fraternizing with Gentiles. The common sense real-
ity is that individuals would have varied on levels of assimilation and
sectarianism in their particular context. But a concern for purity as a
status necessary for worship was part of the socio-religious identity of
dispersed Jewish groups and Esdras would speak much to Diaspora
Jews encountering those issues.
After Esras’s arrival he is informed by certain leaders that the rulers,
priests, and leaders have failed to separate themselves from the land and
from the impurities of the neighboring tribes (vv. –). The open-
ing in B is textually awkward as the conjunctive κα½ is abbreviated to
a kappa with a macron (κ) and is followed with a plural genitive arti-
cle τêν, whereas the context requires (and hence other mss attest) the
demonstrative pronoun τοÒτων. It stated that “after these things were
completed” (κα½ [τοÒ]των τελεσq¢ντων), which is a vague chronologi-
cal introduction. The setting obviously refers to Esras’s successful journey
and the succeeding temple sacrifices after which certain leaders approach
Esras. Just like Ezra :, it is emphasized in Esd : that the initiative
for seeking to remedy the unfortunate state of affairs within the nation
comes from the community, not from Esras himself (Coggins & Knibb
: ). It is not spelled out who the leaders (ο¹ ©γοÒµενοι) were,
 commentary

but they are obviously representatives from the tribal heads resident in
Jerusalem. Those listed in the complaint who have not separated them-
selves (οÐκ χâρισαν) from the other peoples of the land include persons
from among the rulers, priests, and Levites (notably absent from B is
mention of τÍ £qνοσ τοÚ )Ισραηλ as culprits, though Israelite men are
listed in :– as perpetrators of this offence). In any case, the impres-
sion that we are given is that the offence was confined primarily to the
upper classes and involved only a small percentage of the population
(Klein : ). This is the first mention of the “other peoples of the
land” (λλογεν² £qνη τ²σ γ²σ) in  Esdras and they are the backdrop
for what follows. Intermarriage with foreigners was common among the
patriarchs (e.g. Gen :; :; Exod :; Num :, etc.), yet intermar-
riage with the Canaanite inhabitants of Palestine was thought to pose a
particular risk to the religious integrity of Israel as it would ultimately
lead to syncretism and apostasy (e.g., Exod :–; Deut :–; :–
). The chief problem with the peoples of the land was their “impurities”
(καqαρσºα). Purity was important for religions of the ancient world
because it provided holy space for human subjects to interact with the
divine realm. Laws and rituals for purity and purification are attested in
ANE law-codes and also in the Graeco-Roman rites of religious. While
the Jewish concern for purity was distinctive in many regards, espe-
cially in terms of the abstinence from certain foods like pork, the Jewish
religion was not distinctive for being concerned with purity itself. The
reason for the refusal to intermarry is thus religious not racial in Pen-
tateuchal teaching (Williamson : –). The peoples of the land
that are exposing their impurities to the Israelites include several groups
listed as: “the Chananites, the Chettites, the Pherezites, the Iebousites,
the Mōabities, the Aigyptians, and the Idoumites” (Χαναναºων κα½ Χετ-
ταºων κα½ Φερεζαºων κα½παρ Ιεβουσαºων κα½ Μωαβιτêν κα½ Α¸γυ-
πτºων κα½ )Ιδουµαºων), all of whom were traditional enemies of Israel at
some point in their history. The list of surrounding nations attempts to
follow Kgs :– which in turn is echoed in Neh :–. Solomon’s
sin of intermarriage with foreign women is thus repeated and recapitu-
lated in the post-exilic community. Missing from the list here are only
the Amorites included in Ezra : who are replaced with the Idoumites
(= Edomites). Accordings to Coggins (& Knibb : ; cf. Talshir
: ) the list in Esd : preserves a better text than Ezra as it
is much more natural to find the Idoumeans/Edomites—against whom
the Old Testament shows much hostility—than the Amorites as ene-
mies of Israel. The Amorites are included already under the designation
 commentary 

Χετταºων (“Canaanites”). Esdras : (LXX) offers effectively the same

list as Ezra :, but with several alternative spellings to  Esd : (τíê
Χανανι É Εqι É Φερεζι É Ιεβουσι É Αµµωνι É Μωαβι É Μοσερι κα½ É
Αµορι).
B does not begin with an explanatory prepositional clause as do other
mss detailing the cause of the impurities coming upon the nation (συν-
íâκησαν γ•ρ µετα), but it commences instead with reference to the
offence of intermarriage itself, “For they and their sons have married
their daughters” (ξυνíâκισαντασ τêν qυγατ¢ρων αÐτêν κα½ αÐτο½ κα½ ο¹
υ¹ο½ αÐτêν). The result of this union is twofold. First, that “the holy seed
has been contaminated with the foreign nations of the land” ( πεµºγη τÍ
σπ¢ρµα τÍ ”γιον ε¸σ τ• λλογεν² £qνη τ²σ γ²σ). The word πιµºγνυµι
means here “to mingle oneself ” and later in v.  it means “to have deal-
ings with” (GELS, ). The Pentateuchal purity laws were embedded
in the covenantal code in order to protract Israel’s capacity to serve God
and thus a pure Israel served as a means of projecting the covenant God’s
salvific purposes into all of creation (e.g., Exod :–; Isa :, :).
The contraction of impurity, in terms of becoming like the nations and
adopting their religious practices, did not simply retard that ordained
role for Israel, but it effectively negated it. Only an Israel separate from
the nations could be a light to the nations. Second, it is stated that, “the
leaders and the nobles have been sharing in this lawless practice from the
beginning of the matter” (κα½ µετεÂχον ο¹ προηγοÒµενοι κα½ ο¹ µεγιστš-
νεσ τ²σ νοµºασ ταÒτησ πÍ τ²σ ρχ²σ τοÚ πρ’γµατοσ).  Esd : is
more detailed than its source text Ezra : in that it identifies two groups
(“leaders” and “nobles” [προηγοÒµενοι κα½ ο¹ µεγιστšνεσ]) who par-
take of this behaviour. Furthermore, the leaders and nobles have done
this “from the beginning” (πÍ τ²σ ρχ²σ) indicating their key role with
respect to setting the precedent and defining a norm for socio-religious
life within the covenantal community. Whereas Ezra : and  Esd :
refer to the “faithlessness” (ìòî/συνqεσºα) of these leaders, in contrast,
 Esdras refers to their deeds as an act of “lawlessness” (νοµºα). Josephus
(Ant. .) offers a similar description that the offenders had “broken
the ancestral laws” (λελÒκασιν τοÕσ πατρºουσ νʵουσ). The charge was
an important one especially in the context of second temple Judaism. The
language of being a “law-breaker” was typical in intra-Jewish polemics
about whose interpretation of the law mattered before God. For exam-
ple, in the Damascus Document there is the remark against the Pharisees
that “they had sought flattery, choosing travesties of true religion; they
looked for ways to break the law; they favoured the fine neck. They
 commentary

called the guilty innocent, and the innocent guilty. They overstepped
the covenant, violated the law; and they conspired to kill the innocent”
(CD .–). In the Maccabean writings, the Hellenizers are described
with scorn and contempt. Menelaus, the high priest, is labelled “a traitor
of the laws and the fatherland” (Macc. .). He is further denounced as
a “law-breaker” (παρ’νοµοσ) who died a shameful death ( Macc. .).
Another high priest, Jason brother of Onias, is said to have “destroyed
the lawful ways of living and introduced new customs against the law
(παρ’νοµοσ)” (Macc. .) and “changed the nation’s way of life and
altered its form of government in every lawless way ( π½ πšσαν παρανο-
µºαν)” (Macc. .). Referring to the s ce, Josephus narrates how the
High Priest Ananus arranged to have James the brother of Jesus and his
companions summarily executed on a charge of being “breakers of the
law (παρανοµ¢ω)” (Ant. .). Thus, the charge of being “lawless” in
Esd : represents a vituperative term for the quintessential covenant
violator (see Bird ).
In B a new section is marked by ΙΒ at :. The only major deviations between
the text of B and RH are, first, that B omits τÍ £qνοσ τοÚ )Ισραηλ in : perhaps
to exclusively impugn the leadership as opposed to the nation as a whole (see
Jos. Ant. .). Second, that in :, Hanhart prefers the conjecture κατ• τ•σ
καqαρσºασ, to the conjecture of Rahlfs of κα½ τ•σ καqαρσºασ, while L has
πο τ²σ καqαρσºασ, and B reads the simple καqαρσºασ. Third, in :, B
reads ξυνíâκισαντασ in place of RH’s συνíâκησαν γ•ρ µετα from V (A reads
συνηκησαν; Brooke & McLean [: ] conjecture a reading of ξυνíâκισ’ν
τινασ; on ξυν for συν see Hanhart a: ).

:–. Ezra’s Penitential Prayer

Esras is made privy to the report that among the people, especially its
leaders, men have taken foreign wives. He is naturally alarmed because
it could potentially lead to idol worship within the Judean community.
Resultantly Esras takes to mourning and to self-humiliation to show his
objection and contrition at this national act of sacrilege. Esras expresses
great shock and regret that this has occurred and he confesses the law-
lessness of Israel to the Lord. Concurrently, Esras recognizes God’s mer-
ciful provision in sparing the nation and providing for them during their
period of exile. It was God, afterall, who granted them favour before Per-
sian kings and enabled them to rebuild the temple of the Lord. But in this
transgression of national purity there was a real danger that God might
again destroy the community and leave it without root, seed, or name.
The section is parallel to Ezra :– which it follows closely. Unlike
 commentary 

Neh :–, Esras does not use direct coercion to make his point.
Instead, he encourages the people to recognize the problem, repent
of its occurrence, and to renew their commitment to the law of the
Lord. The form of the prayer is most similar to other Jewish penitential
prayers such as Dan :–, Neh :–; :–; Q;  Macc :–;
Prayer of Azariah; Tob :–:; and Bar :–: that generally makes
lament for sin, expresses contrition, celebrates God’s mercy, and vows
future obedience. Generally these follow a pattern of confession of sin,
contemplation of punishment, and hope for restoration. In its present
form the prayer can be regarded as “word of exhortation” (Coggins &
Knibb : ), a “prayer sermon” (Myers : ), or a “sermon”
(Talshir : ); though I prefer the designation “penitential prayer
with a homiletical function.”
The prayer continues the first person narrative indicative of a possible
Ezra Memoire that lies at the historical kernel of the tradition-history of
the text. Josephus significantly abbreviates the prayer and describes it in
the third person (Ant. .–). In terms of narration, the passage
contains Esras’s dramatic response to the sin of intermarriage by tearing
his garments and grieving aloud which attracts the notice of onlookers
(vv. –). It also includes Esras’s prayer conceding the guilt of the
people and the depths of God’s mercy (vv. –), the recapitulation
of the prophetic warning not to intermarry with foreigners when Israel
entered the promised land (vv. –), and further denunciation of the
nation for their lawlessness despite divine mercy (vv. –). What this
pericope creates in this literary setting is a further cycle of tension caused
by the dissonance between the people’s behaviour and the ideal of how
the recently returned exiles were supposed to live in their restored state.
The nation is in desperate need of repentance and reform if divine wrath
is to be avoided and, as it turns out, Esras is the man to lead them in this
enterprise.
After being informed of the intermarriages by the Judean leaders
(i.e., “these things” [ταÚτα]), Esras reacts with bewailment and self-
debasement (vv. –). The effect of the news is instantaneous with
”µα τíê κοÚσαº (“As soon as I heard”). The dative preposition ”µα
makes the hearing and acting almost concurrent with Esras reacting
immediatly upon hearing the report (for similar constructions of ”µα
with an infinitive, see Jdgs :; :; :;  Macc :; Ps :; Jon
:; Ezek :; :; Bel  [Th]). Esras’s action is given in three verbs.
First, he “ripped” (B’s £ρρηξα is a misspelt version of δι¢ρρηξα) his
garments and sacred vestments, which was a token gesture of humiliation
 commentary

and mourning (e.g., Gen :; Num :;  Sam :; Job :; Esth
:–). Second, Esras “pulled” (B’s κατ¢τεινον is a misspelt version of
κατ¢τιλα) his head and beard, which exemplified the same attitude of
sorrow and shame. The third gesture of Esras is that he “sat down”
( κ’qισα) in state described as “melancholic and griefstricken” (σÒννουσ
κα½ περºλυποσ) and the words convey a mix of gloom, sadness, and
disgust (on sitting appalled see Ezek :; Job :–). Although Esras
himself was not a participant, nor complicit with the mixed marriages,
his actions identify himself with the lawless deeds and he accordingly
confesses their communal guilt. Observing this very visual and public
show of indignity and contrition it is reported that people “gathered
around me” ( πισυνªχqησαν πρÊσ µε). Hereafter the word πισυν’γω
is used in Esdras when the people come together at key moments in
their religious life (Esd :, , ). The people gathered are described
of a certain quality, viz., “as many as were moved by the word of the
Lord of Israel” (Ìσοι ποτ¥ πεκινοÚντο τíê üªµατι κυρºου τοÚ )Ισραηλ).
Those equally concerned about the intermarriages among the upper
eschelons of leadership and priestly class gravitate to Esras and the
reason given is that they were “moved” ( πεκινοÚντο is perhaps an
inceptive imperfective, “they began to be moved”; Ezra : [MT] has
“tremble” [ãøú] and Esd : [LXX] has “pursue” [διâκω]) due to
their high regard for the “word of the Lord” (see earlier reference to
“word of the Lord” in Esd :; :; and on the form üªµατι κυρºου
see Deut :; :; Kgs : [LXX]). The participle πενqοÚντοσ
(“mourning”) describes Esras and not the people and he laments at
the “lawlessness” (νοµºα). Ezra : and  Esd : make reference again
(see Ezra :/Esd :) to the “faithlessness” (ìòî/συνqεσºα) of the
returned exiles. Esras remains sitting in his state of despair as both a
testimony against the sin of the leaders and to help his supporters keep
their disgust fresh. The imperfect verb καqªµην is probably iterative
(i.e., he kept on sitting) which lasted until the evening sacrifices which
is the ninth hour or approximately .pm (see  Kgs :; Matt :;
Acts :).
After a description of Esras’s posture, the prayer itself is narrated and
the emphasis on the opening section is upon Israel’s history of rebellion
and God’s mercy (vv. –). Esras is “roused from the fast” ( ξεγερqε½σ
κ τ²σ νηστεºασ). The scene emphatically describes his state of humility.
While still wearing his torn vestments, it is reported that he was “kneeling
down and stretching out hands to the Lord.” Quite literally Esras was
“stooping the knees” (κ’µψασ τ• γÊνατα). The position of bent knees
 commentary 

and oustretched hands was a common one in worship of the ancient

world (e.g., Kgs :; Chron :; Macc :). Esras then speaks
(£λεγον) in the first person with his confession and petition to the Lord
beginning with the vocative address “O Lord” (κÒριε). Esras in turn
announces his shock and shame at the actions of his compatriots. The
difference between α¸σχÒνω and ντρ¢πω is minor, but the distinction is
probably that the former denotes a sense of shame and the latter a turning
away in shame (see L&N, ). The fact that both verbs are in the perfect
tense arguably indicates that they are aspectivally stative underscoring
the state, quality, and condition of shame as Esras kneels in the Lord’s
presence (κατ• πρÊσωπÊν σου, lit. “to your face”).
The reason for this shame is then given in two sentences each begin-
ning with explanatory clauses. The first sentence details the literal height
of the people’s transgression, “For our sins have risen over our heads,
and our ignorance has climbed up to heaven” (α¹ γ•ρ ‘µαρτºαι ©µêν
πλεÊνασαν Ñπ¥ρ τ•σ κεφαλ•σ ©µêν: α¹ δ¥ “γνοιαι ©µêν Ñπερªνεγ-
καν ¦ωσ τοÚ οÐρανοÚ). The underlying Semitic text probably spoke of
something along the lines of “iniquities” (ïåò) and “guilt” (äîùà) as per
several translations of Ezra : (e.g., NRSV; ESV; RSV; NJB; NASB). A
link between “sin” and “ignorance” is found elsewhere in the LXX (Sir
:; Dan :) and in Socratic tradition ignorance is the root of sin
(“There is only one good, knowledge, and one evil, ignorance” [Diogenes
Laertius, Lives .]). Not only does the sin of the nation stretch ver-
tically towards the heaven, but horizontally as well it reaches into the
past. Hence Esras opines that “from the times of our ancestors … we are
in great sin unto this day” (πÍ τêν χρÊνων τêν πατ¢ρων ©µêν: καº
σµεν ν µεγ’λµη ‘µαρτºα ¦ωσ τ²σ ©µ¢ρασ ταÒτησ). Esras’s solidarity
extends not only to his contemporaries but also spans several genera-
tions of Israelites who strayed from their Lord. Reference to the sins of
the ancestors occurs earlier in Esdras (:–; :) and it not only
prefigures the present sin of the post-exilic community, it is a continu-
ation of it. Talshir (: ) notes how in  Esd : the addition of
τêν πατ¢ρων ©µêν changes the meaning of Ezra : [MT]. In Ezra the
reference appears to be the people’s sinfulness over the generations and
the punishment that they accordingly suffered as a consequence. In con-
trast, Esd : claims that they are punished because of the sins of their
ancestors as well as their own sins. There was a debate in Jewish thought
whether God punished later generations for the sins of their fathers (e.g.,
Exod :; :; Num :; Deut :; Jer :; Tob :; Jdt :; Bar
:), yet there was a legal stipulation that children could not be made
 commentary

liable for the sin of their parents (e.g., Deut :;  Kgs :;  Chron
:). The chief theme is that the current cycle of sin signifies continuity
with the former sins of the ancestors and the danger exists that a simi-
lar judgment will again engulf the nation. In Myers’s (: ) words:
“Corporate liability of the nation extends beyond the present back to the
fathers.”
Somewhat bleakly it is intimated that nothing has changed in Israel’s
spiritual temperment and that the same condition is perpertuated “unto
this day” (¦ωσ τ²σ ©µ¢ρασ ταÒτησ). The second sentence explains the
reason why divine judgment came upon the nation in the distant and
recent past by fusing together the sins of the ancestors with those of
Israel’s recent pre-exilic history: “On account of our sins and that of
our ancestors, we with our brothers with our kings and our priests were
delivered over to the kings of the land, to sword and exile and sacked,
and consigned to shame unto this very day” (κα½ δι• τ•σ ‘µαρτºασ ©µêν
κα½ τêν πατ¢ρων ©µêν παρεδÊqηµεν σÕν τοÂσ δελφοÂσ ©µêν σÕν τοÂσ
βασιλεÚσιν ©µêν κα½ σÕν τοÂσ ¹ερεÚσιν ©µêν τοÂσ βασιλευουσιν τ²σ
γ²σ: üοµφαºαν κα½ α¸χµαλωσºαν κα½ προνοµ­ν µετ• α¸σχÒνησ µ¢χρι
τ²σ σªµερον ©µ¢ρασ). Divine retribution operated through the agency
of foreign kings who brought with them sword, captivity, sacking, and
shame and was occasioned by the sin of the people (δι• τ•σ ‘µαρτºασ
©µêν). These are the same punishments mentioned earlier in the story as
well (Esd :–). The sins of long ago and those committed in living
memory are viewed as a continuous act of rebellion by the people against
their God. Consequently, Israel’s new day of liberation from exile turns
out to be just another day of sin (v. ) and shame (v. ).
A further element of shame in Israel’s recent expedition in rebellion
against God is that it has occurred after they have experienced an abu-
dance of divine mercy and divine provision from the Lord during the
time of their exile (vv. –). The greatness of Israel’s sin (µεγ’λµη ‘µαρ-
τºα [v. ]) was matched only by the greatness of God’s mercy (πÊσον τι
©µÂν γενªqη £λεοσ [v. ]). This is an expression of the saving reign of
the covenant God who is, in B’s unique description, “the Lord of lord-
ship” (τοÚ κυρºου Κυρºου). The manner of God’s mercy is expressed by
several infinitive clauses. First, God is said “to leave us a root and a name
in this holy place” (καταλειφq²ναι ©µÂν üºζαν κα½ Ëνοµα ν τíê τÊπíω
τοÒτω. ‘γι’σµατÊσ) indicating the preservation of the nation through a
remnant that survived the Babylonian disaster. Second, God managed
“to unveil a luminous star for us in the house of our Lord” (νακαλÒψαι
φωστ²ρα ©µêν ν τíê ο»κíω τοÚ κυρºου ©µêν [NRSV, ESVA, “to uncover
 commentary 

a light for us in the house of our Lord”; NEB, “thou hast rekindled our
light in the house of our Lord”). In contrast, Ezra :/ Esd : refer to
an inward illumination with the enlightening of their eyes and not to any
astral entity (φωστªρ can mean either a heavenly body or a radiance of
light [BDAG, ]). The most literal sense of the underlying Semitic
text could indicate a rapid sense of physical revival following a period
of hunger and thirst (Williamson : ). Yet the Greek of  Esdras
is conveying cosmological imagery or at least a metaphor of luminos-
ity. The star in Esd : may be metaphorical for the hope aroused by
the rebuilding of the temple. Alternatively it could be messianic and con-
note the service of Zorobabel in rebuilding the foundations of the temple
which was the task of the true Davidide (Sam :–). We can note
that “star” and “root” are messianic terms for an eschatological deliverer
(e.g., Num :; Sir :). Both images dovetail in Rev :, “It is I,
Jesus, who sent my angel to you with this testimony for the churches. I
am the root and the descendant of David, the bright morning star.” Third,
God provided for them during their captivity and acted “to give us food
in the time of our slavery” (δοÚναι ©µÂν τροφ­ν ν τíê καιρíê τ²σ δουλεº-
ασ ©µêν). Fourth, the time spent languishing in captivity did not mean
that Israel was “utterly cut off by our Lord” (οÐκ γκατελεºφqηµεν ÑπÍ
τοÚ κυρºου). On the contrary, God acted in grace for them (λλ• ποºη-
σεν ©µšσ ν χ’ριτι) by inclining the hearts of the Persian kings towards
them. Under the Persian monarch, the people received food, the tem-
ple was honoured, the ruins of Zion were raised, and they were given a
footfold in Judea and Jerusalem (δοÚναι ©µÂν τροφ­ν κα½ δοξ’σαι τÍ
¹ερÍν ©µêν: κα½ γεÂραι τ­ν £ρηµον Σιων: δοÚναι ©µÂν στερ¢ωµα ν τµ²
)Ιουδαºα κα½ )Ιερουσαληµ). In sum, Israel’s sin was met by God’s mercy
and grace, which shames the the nation all the more now given their
lapse in obedience and devotion to the Lord who brought them out of
exile.
There is a change of direction as the prayer moves to a citation from a
compilation of Penteuchal texts that enjoined the Israelites not to inter-
mix with the Canaanites when they entered the land of Israel (vv. –).
There is a pause for thought with the words, “And now, what will we say,
O Lord, when we have these things?” (κα½ νÚν τº ροÚµεν κÒριε £χον-
τεσ αÐτ•). The “things” in question are the demonstrations of the Lord’s
mercy and grace mentioned above. And yet, in contrast, the people have
only “transgressed your commandments, which you gave by the hand of
your servants the prophets” (παρ¢βησαν τ• προστ’γµατ’ σου — £δω-
κασ ν χειρ½ τêν παºδων σου τêν προφητêν). The “prophets” is in the
 commentary

plural and this includes mainly Mōyses (with echoes of Isaiah, Ezekiel,
and the Deuteronomistic historian) as the commandments enumerated
in vv. – represent a medley of several texts.
The land which you are entering to inherit Deut :
a land contaminated with the contamination of the foreigners of the land
Lev :–
they have filled it with their impurities Kgs :
do not join your daughters in marriage to their sons, and do not receive
their daughters for your sons Deut :
do not seek to make a peace with them at any time Deut :
in order that you may prevail Deut :
eat the good things of the land Deut :; Isa :
bestow it as an inheritance to your sons unto the age Deut :–

The net point is that Israel’s intermarriage with foreigners violates its
covenantal obligations to remain separate from the indigenous groups of
Palestine and to avoid their religious impurities. Or else their religious
integrity and ethnic identity will be compromised by the point that
it will incur divine judgment. Also, the idea that the land had been
contaminated by peoples of the lands due to their contamination or
abomination (µολυσµÊσ as defilment of the land, cf. Jer :,  Macc
: [GELS, ]) is expressed more forcefully than in other texts (e.g.,
Lev :–) and represents a development and intensification of the
warnings of mixing with the peoples of the land (Williamson :
). The mosiac of texts is then contemporized by its application to
the post-exilic situation of returning exiles who have spurned God’s
mercy by their rebellious actions (vv. –). The traumatic event of exile
“happened to us and transpired on account of our evil works and great
sins” (τ• συµβαºνοντα π’ντα ©µÂν γεºνεται δι• τ• £ργα ©µêν τ• πονηρ•
κα½ τ•σ µεγ’λασ ‘µαρτºασ), which vindicates the Deuteronomic threats
of exile for disobedience (Dt :).
Then in a direct address to God it is said, with a warm homiletical
tone, that, “For you, Lord, are the one lightening the load of our sins,
and you have given us such a root as this” (σÕ γ’ρ κÒριε É κοÒφισασ
τ•σ ‘µαρτºασ ©µêν £δωκασ ©µÂν τοιαÒτην üºζαν). The “lightening”
entails a forgiveness and expiation of sins accompanied by the preser-
vation of a remnant to survive the exile that reiterates v. . In contrast
to such mercy, the returnees from exile have continued in the rebellion
 commentary 

of their ancestors and now “violate your law by intermarrying with the
impurities of the nations of the land” (παραβ²ναι τÍν νʵον σου ε¸σ
τÍ πιµιγ²ναι τµ² καqαρσºα τêν qνêν τ²σ γ²σ). During the exile,
the Lord did not eradicate Israel and he instead left them with “a root
and seed and our name” (üºζαν κα½ σπ¢ρµα κα½ Ëνοµα ©µêν). God’s
mercy triumphed over his anger when it came to the survival of Israel
despite their sin. That in turn leads to further doxological reflection to
the end that, “O Lord of Israel, truthful you are; for we are left as a root
in this day” (κÒριε τοÚ )Ισραηλ ληqινÍσ εÃ: κατελεºφqηµεν γ•ρ üºζα ν
τµ² σªµερον). The truthfulness of God parallels his justness as expressed
in Ezra :/Esd : (÷éãö/δºκαιοσ). It carries over from Zorobabel’s
speech in Esd :– where truth is predicated of God. The truthful-
ness of God is not only his cosmic greatness, as in Zorobabel’s speech,
but his salvific actions in sparing the nation during the exile and not
immediately punishing them for their post-exilic sins. As a final com-
ment on the contrition of Esras and the people the author states that
the people are in complete reliance upon their God to sustain them in
the face of their own sin: “Behold, we are before you in our lawless-
ness; for we cannot yet stand before you due to these things” (¸δοÕ σµεν
νâπιÊν σου ν ταÂσ νοµºαισ ©µêν: οÐ γ•ρ £στιν στ²ναι £τι £µπρο-
σq¢ν σου π½ τοÒτοισ). The meaning of “stand before you” (στ²ναι £τι
£µπροσq¢ν σου) is equivalent to “acquit” and there is no means of acquit-
tal for the nation at this point. If lawless Israel is to stand before their
covenant God, it is only because God himself reconciles them and sus-
tains them.
The B text has several minor spelling deviations from the RH text. These
include singular attested readings of £ρρηξα instead of δι¢ρρηξα (:; cf. :),
κατ¢τεινον for κατ¢τιλα (:)—obvious phonetic variations—βασιλευουσιν in
place of βασιλευσιν (:), αÐτ’ instead of ταÚτα (:), and É κοÒφισασ in
contrast to κοÒφισασ (:)—many of these appear due to copyist errors. Only
B and  attest τοÒτíω ‘γι’σµατÊσ in contrast to τοÚ ‘γι’σµατÊσ σου found in
A and V (:). Only B and its derivative Eth text read παρ¢βησαν in place of
παρ¢βηµεν; although the conjunctive γ•ρ is also omitted by L   Syr (:).
At :, RH transposes ©µÂν γενªqη from B (cf. v. ). Hanhart switches around
the pronouns αÐτêν and ѵêν in :. At :, Hanhart opts for the B reading
of γºνεται as opposed to γºγνεται accepted by Rahlfs on the basis of A. Hanhart
(a: ; b: ) also proposes that : started with £τι, which he thinks
was mistaken for Ìτι (in : V reads Ìτι for £τι), though it is unattested in B
and L and omitted from Rahlfs. B creates a couple of asyndetisms by omitting
κα½ (:, esp. ). Also left out is the preposition ε¸σ where the accusative case
of üοµφαºαν suffices for the spatial force (:), the personal pronoun ©µêν
as possession is already suitably implied by the preceding £ργα ©µêν, though
 commentary

‘µαρτºασ ©µêν is found in vv. ,  (:), and νÚν (:). On the divine
name, at : B reads κυρºου τοÚ )Ισραηλ which is generally characteristic of
Esdras, though other mss read κυρºου τοÚ qεοÚ )Ισραηλ. At :, B attests
τοÚ κυρºου Κυρºου, whereas RH prefers σοÚ κÒριε from A and V. At :, B
omits τοÚ κυρºου attested by A and V. The corrector has made several changes
to the text that include fixing misspellings of καταλεºπω at :, , . And an
oblisk marks an insertion of ©µêν κε at :–. The section begins with Η in
the margin of : and ΘΥ marks a significant reading at :.

:–. The Contrition of the People and Their Oath

The spectacle of Esras’s pious actions as well as his sermonic prayer of
confession has an immense impact on the surrounding onlookers. It
leads to weeping by the multitude for the sin of the leaders. Immediately
it is suggested to Esras by Iechonias that the people take an oath to expel
from their ranks their foreign wives and half-bred off-spring. Esras is
admonished to be the person who leads the purification of the people
from this impurity and he subsequently forces the leadership and all of
Israel to swear an oath to do just this. The unit is based on Ezra :–
 and like its source text Esd :– switches to the third person to
describe the events. Josephus (Ant. .–) abbreviates the material
especially the content of Iechonias’s confession and the substance of his
commission to Esras.
Esras’s prostrated and humble state that accompanies his prayerful
confession and exhortation draws in the crowd. The surrounding partici-
ples (προσευχʵενοσ [“praying”], κλαºων [“weeping”]) modify the pri-
mary verb νqωµολογεÂτο (confess) and the middle voice denotes Esras’s
own participation in the confession, not merely for others, but genuine
solidarity with the nation. In other words, his confession is prayerful and
emotional and he is doing what the people should be doing. As per :,
it is said again that a crowd gathered around him, except now the crowd
joins Esras in his weeping and lament ( πισυνªχqησαν πρÍσ αÐτÍν πÍ
)Ιερουσαληµ Ëχλοσ πολÕσ σφÊδρα “νδρεσ κα½ γυναÂκεσ νεανºαι κλαυ-
qµÍσ γ•ρ ³ν µ¢γασ ν τíê πλªqει).
The lament is interrupted by the words of Iechonias son of Ieēlos who
approaches Esras with an affirmation of Esras’s actions and a solution to
the problem. Once more (see :) persons other than Esras take the
initiative in addressing the problem within the community. Iechonias
(named “Sheconiah” [äðéëù] in Ezra : [MT]; “Sechenias” [Σεχενιασ]
in Esd : [LXX]; and “Achonias” [ΑχÊνιοσ] in Jos. Ant. .) was
probably one of the “leaders” (ο¹ ©γοÒµενοι) who approached Esras
 commentary 

in the first instance and perhaps a descendent of King Iechonias (=

Jehoahaz, see :, ). Iechonias concurs that the nation has “sinned
against the Lord” (©µ’ρτοµεν ε¸σ τÍν κÒριον) by cohabiting with foreign
women from the peoples of the land. In most texts it is said that “even
now there is hope for Israel” (κα½ νÚν στιν λπ½σ τíê )Ισραη), whereas B
and A read “even now it is consuming all of Israel” (κα½ νÚν στιν π’νω
πšσ )Ισραηλ), and Esd : attests “even now there is endurance for
Israel” (κα½ νÚν στιν Ñποµονη τíê )Ισραηλ). This reflects the ambiguity
of the underlying word äå÷î that can convey either a collective entity
or hope. The B and A reading presuppose the comprehensive nature of
the sin engulfing the nation, though this was probably not the intended
sense of the Vorlage. Iechonias then suggests that the people (pl. ©µÂν)
take an “oath” (Éρκωµοσºα; cf. “covenant” in Ezra : [úéøá] and  Esd
: [διαqªκη]) to expel the foreign wives and their children. What is
to be done is that which “seems right to you and to as many who obey
the law of the Lord” (áσ κρºqη σοι: κα½παρ Ìσοι πειqαρχªσουσιν τοÚ
νʵου τοÚ κυρºου). The many who “obey the law of the Lord” in v.  are
probably identical to those who were “moved by the word of the Lord” in
v.  and it denotes a core supporters of Esras and his actions. The final
element of Iechonias’s plea to Esras is that he “rise up and complete it, for
it is your task, and we are with you to undertake strong action” (ναστ•σ
πιτ¢λει: πρÍσ σ¥ γ•ρ τÍ πρšγµα: κα½ ©µεÂσ µετ• σοÚ ¸σχÕν ποιεÂν). It is
a call for Esras to now practice what he preaches and to lead the people in
the reform of their religious life under God. Esras’s “task” or “deed” will
be to purify the people from the impurity that has entered the assembly.
Josephus’s version of the events adds that Iechonias advocated punishing
those who did not obey the law (Ant. .).
The exhortation by Iechonias is successful and meets with immediate
effect as it is reported, “Then Esras rose up and made the leaders of the
priests and Levites of all Israel swear to act appropriately on this, and they
declared an oath” (κα½ ναστ•σ Εσρασ äρκισεν τοÕσ φυλ’ρχουσ τêν
¹ερ¢ων κα½ τêν Λευιτêν παντÍσ τοÚ )Ισραηλ ποι²σαι κατ• ταÚτα κα½
ãµοσαν). The leaders of the priestly establishment including the chief
priests and Levites, as well as all Israel are bound to act according to
the oath. The inclusion of the “all Israel” is in contrast to its omission
from B in :. The scene is now set for Esras to begin his reforms within
the post-exilic community. Coggins (& Knibb : ) remarks: “The
reaction may not appear attractive to us, but it is motivated by a strong
concern to establish the true meaning of being the people of God in the
midst of hostile surroundings. This had been important when Ezra was
 commentary

written; it may have been still more important if  Esdras came from a
Jewish community away from Palestine and surrounded by adherents of
other religions who were suspicious of the Jews.”
B continues its preference for Εσρασ over Εσδρασ (:, , ). B has an itacism
with its misspelling of πειqαρχªσουσιν in : and the corrector had added ε
but did not omit the superfluous η. The word in B has as its object a genitive
(πειqαρχªσουσιν τοÚ νʵου) rather than a dative (πειqαρχοÚσιν τíê νʵω)
which is Rahlfs’s conjecture (cf. :), and Hanhart follows the genitive in his
edition. Hanhart also sides with B (and Jos. Ant. .) against RH by including
the article τêν before Λευιτêν omitted from RH due to its absence from A and
V. At :, B has the unique reading κατíâκησαν instead of the better attested
συνíωκºσαµεν found in A and V. Furthermore, B and A attest π’νω πšσ against
λπ½σ τíê adopted by RH from L, , and Syr.

:–. The Proclamation of a Gathering

After the people’s oath to expel their foreign wives a decree is issued to
everyone in the the land ordering that all of the returnees from captivity
must assemble in Jerusalem with the threat of penalty to their property
and expulsion from the community should anyone fail to present them-
selves at the meeting.
Esras again rises (see νºστηµι in :–), this time from the court-
yard of the temple that he has been praying towards. After that, he enters
into the “inner chamber of Iōna son of Naseibos” (τÍ παστοφÊριον Ιωνα
τοÚ Νασειβου). That is probably the private quarters of one of the lead-
ing priests where Esras goes to pray and fast for the purification of the
people from the contamination of the intermarriages. The retirement to
the priestly quarters might also be motivated by waiting for the people
themselves to take responsibility for the state of affairs and to implement
the repatriation of the foreign wives (Talshir : ) or perhaps Esras
himself initiated the formulation and propagation of the decree (Myers
: ). The person Iōna son of Naseibos (Ezra : [MT] “Jehohanan
son of Eliashib” [áéùéìà­ïá ïðçåäé]) may be identified as an ancestor of
Eliashib who was high priest in time of Nehemiah (Neh :). He may
represent a priest sympathetic to Esras’s reforms. Esras spends the night
there and it is said that he did not consume bread or drink water. The
reason offered is that “he was mourning for the great lawlessness of the
multitude” (πενqêν Ñπ¥ρ τêν νοµιêν τêν µεγ’λων τοÚ πλªqουσ).
Nothing more is immediately said about Esras and the narrative moves
on to announce the next major incident when it reports that an edict
was issued summoning all the returnees to assemble in Jerusalem. The
 commentary 

introductory formula κα½ γ¢νετο is common in the LXX, it occurs only

here in Esdras, but appears frequently in Esdras. It is not said who
issued the edict, but we are to imagine Esras, Iechonias, and Naseibos as
being involved along with the leaders of Israel. The edict is sent through
the whole of Judea and Jerusalem and is aimed at “all those who had
returned from captivity” (πšσι τοÂσ κ τ²σ α¸χµαλωσºασ) with the spe-
cific instruction to gather (συν’γω) in Jerusalem. The presiding body
of elders (προκαqηµ¢νων πρεσβυτ¢ρων) are tasked with rendering a
severe financial penalty against anyone who does not assemble within
two or three days. The mandatory penalty is twofold. First, their live-
stock would be seized and “devoted to sacrifice” (νιερÊω [L&S, , note
that the word is used for dedication or devotion in sacrifice). In papyri it
is used for persons invoking the wrath of the gods in the case of breach
of faith. Second, the persons themselves “will be alienated from the mul-
titude of those who returned from captivity” (αÐτÍσ λλοτριωqªσεται
πÍ τοÚ πλªqουσ τ²σ α¸χµαλωσºασ). The reforming process thus begins
with official sanction and due pressure placed upon the people to comply.
There are several variations for the names in : with B attesting Ιωνα τοÚ
Νασειβου. Ιωναν is found in the majority of mss. Νασειβου is read by B and Lav
in contrast to Ελιασιβου attested in A, V, and Jos. Ant. .. L and Lac omit the
name altogether. At : a corrector has added σ on the end of αÐλισqε½{σ}. There
is an itacism in B at : where it reads παντªσουσιν instead of παντªσωσιν.
Though RH follows B in adopting the particle –ν in :, Hanhart prefers the
conjunction •ν given its better attesting in A, L, and several minuscules.

:–. The Gathering and Resolution at Jerusalem

The account of the assemblying of the repatriated exiles in Jerusalem
and their decision to expel their wives is narrated next. Persons from
the tribes of Judah and Benjamin assemble on the twentieth day of the
nineth month and, amidst the cold winter, agree to divorce their foreign
wives. Precisely because of the inclement weather and the large num-
ber of persons involved, they request more time for the proceedings to
take place. At the meeting it is also decided to hand over the investi-
gation to a special commission appointed by Esras at the new moon of
the tenth month. The work of the commission is completed by the new
moon of the first month. Significantly, within a year of Esras’s depar-
ture from Babylon to Jerusalem (Esd :) a purified community has
been created in Jerusalem (Klein : ). The account is based on
Ezra :– which is followed with only minor deviation. It breaks
down into segments concerning the setting and date for the gathering
 commentary

(vv. –), Esras’s address to the crowd with their response (vv. –), and
the commission of the elders culminating in the resolution of the matter
(vv. –).
The arrival of the people in Jerusalem is described with attention given
to its date and weather conditions (vv. –). It was undoubtedly the
“men” (see masculine plural article ο¹) who attended as familial leaders
and they are the main the culprits in the transgression. The foreign
women would hardly have had a voice in a public debate concerning their
status and future. The gathering (signified again by πισυν’γω) includes
those from the southern tribes that went into exile, i.e., Judah and
Benjamin. The gathering was assembled within three days, as specified
by the edict in :, and took place on “the ninth month, on the twentieth
day of the month” (É µ­ν £νατοσ τµ² ε¸κ’δι τοÚ µηνÊσ). The chronological
details given bracket the text (vv. , –) and point to the relative
speed and efficiency in which the matter was handled. The assembled
crowd is described as sitting “in the open area of the temple” ( ν τµ²
εÐρυχâρíω τοÚ ¹εροÚ) equivalent to a temple court. There they sat
“trembling upon the onset of winter” (τρ¢µοντεσ τÍν νεστêτα χειµêνα
[see NRSV, ESVA, “shivering because of the bad weather that prevailed”;
NEB, “winter had set in”; NETS, “present winter”; Cook, “present foul
weather”]) though Ezra : [MT] refers to “rain” (íùâ). The ninth month
Kislev approximates to December and was the occasion for winter rains
in Judea. In the narrative scheme the bleak weather provided a symbolic
context for the bleakness of the rebuke that was now to be issued upon
the populace by Esras.
The details of the people’s offence is pointed out by Esras and the
people in turn seek to rectify their transgression even given the due
constraints of their environment and the magntitude of their rebellion
against God (vv. –). Esras rises and speaks (εÃπεν) to the multitude
gathered in Jerusalem. The description of their sin, using aorist indica-
tive verbs, is followed with aorist imperative verbs concerning how they
are to turn back to the Lord. Esras states: “You have violated the law
and married foreign women, and so have added to the sin of Israel. And
now confess and give glory to the Lord God of our ancestors, and do his
will and separate yourselves from the nations of the land and from the
foreigners” (ѵεÂσ ¨νﵪσατε: κα½ συνοºκησατε γυναιξ½ν λλογεν¢σιν:
προσqεÂναι ‘µαρτºαν τíê )Ισραηλ: κα½ νÚν δÊτε ɵολογºαν δÊξαν τíê
κυρºíω qεíê τêν πατ¢ρων ©µêν: κα½ ποιªσατε τÍ q¢ληµα αÐτοÚ: κα½
χωρºσqητε πÍ τêν qνê(ν) τ²σ γ²σ κα½ πÍ τêν λλογενêν). The
only difference from Ezra :– [MT] is that  Esd : adds the idea
 commentary 

of “glory” and the B text omits the specific reference to foreign “wives”
(γυναικêν) being put away in :. The terms indicate the lawlessness of
Israel when leaders within their ranks took foreign wives. Their deed
added to the “sin of Israel” (Ezra : reads “guilt” of Israel [äîùà])
that has typified Israel’s history as Esras’s earlier prayer made clear ( Esd
:–). Confession of God’s honor requires obedience to God’s stipu-
lations for the nation. Following his “will” is emblematic for separation
from the surrounding nations and avoiding intermarriage.
The response of the multitude is a pious and contrite affirmation of
Esras’s rebuke. Their response, in chorus, is too detailed and orchestrated
to be in actual vocal unision, and represents either an editorial summary
or a cacophony of voices expressing remorse. All the multitude replies
with “a great voice” (µεγ’λµη τµ² φωνµ²) and the substance of their answer
is that, “Thus we will do as you have said” (áσ ε»ρηκασ ποιªσοµεν), signi-
fying agreement and submission to Esras’s judgment. The vast majority
were innocent of the affair and had nothing to lose with the expulsion
of foreign wives. The only complication is that the current inclement
weather, their exposure in the open, and the sheer number of intermar-
riages does not make it conducive for an immediate action on the subject.
Instead it is suggested that: “So let the leaders of the multitude remain,
and allow all those in our colony, as many as have foreign wives, to come
at the time appointed, with the elders and judges of each place, until
[our] release from the wrath of the Lord that is against us in this matter”
(στªτωσαν δ¥ ο¹ προηγοÒµενοι τοÚ πλªqουσ κα½παρ π’ντεσ ο¹ κ τêν
κατοικιêν ©µêν Ìσοι £χουσιν γυναÂκασ λλογενεÂσ παραγενηqªτωσαν
λαβÊντεσ χρÊνον: ¡κ’στου τÊπου τοÕσ πρεσβυτ¢ρουσ κα½ τοÕσ κριτ•σ
¦ωσ τοÚ λÚσαι τ­ν Èργ­ν κυρºου φ’ ©µêν τοÚ πρ’γµατοσ τοÒτου).
The solution is an eminently practical one as it allows for the delegation
of responsibility. It also permits the case-by-case adjudication of matters
by local magistrates over a set period of time. Furthermore, this becomes
the means by which Israel can avoid exposure to the punitive wrath of
God and return to a way of covenantal obedience and communal holi-
ness. A tacit irony is that while king Artaxerxēs permitted the carvan of
Esras with its vast array of gifts for the temple in order to expressly pre-
vent wrath coming upon the kingdom and sons of the king ( Esd :),
here it is Israel who scurries to make sure that they escape the judicial
consequences of their lawlessness.
A short epilogue narrates the actual enactment of the people’s request
for the elders and leaders to deal with the matter proficiently (vv. –).
The terms were agreeable ( πιδ¢χοµαι) to the key leaders Iōnathan son
 commentary

of Azaēl and Hezeias son of Thokanos with the result that Mosollamos
and Leuvi and Sabbataios worked as “arbiters” (συνεβρ’βευσαν from
βρ’βευω with connotations of umpiring and adjudication as in Col
:, “let the peace of Christ arbitrate in your hearts.” The word is a
hapax in the LXX. Talshir [: ] assigns it a special meaning of
“to be assessor with”). Though Ezra : is ambiguous as to whether
the decision was opposed or supported by Iōnathan and Hezeias (on
the meaning of ãîò in Ezra : see Williamson : –), the
Greek translations are clear that they supported the measures (see  Esd
: [LXX] with βοηq¢ω). The pact by the people turns from assent to
action as “those who had returned from captivity acted according to all
of these things” ( ποºησαν κατ• π’ντα ταÚτα ο¹ κ τ²σ α¸χµαλωσºασ).
On ο¹ κ τ²σ α¸χµαλωσºασ as a phrase designating the returnees from
Babylon, see earlier Esd :, , ; :, , ; :. It describes the
identity of the golah community including those who returned directly
from exile and their descendents now with them. Concurrently, Esras
chooses ( πιλ¢γω) for himself (B reads αÐτíê instead of ¡αυτíê) the
leading men who would oversee the proceedings. His hand picking of the
magistrates assures the reader that all the proceedings will be undertaken
with meticulous attention to the law as Esras has already proved a
successful recruiter for the task of delivering sacred vessels and gifts to
the temple treasury from Babylon. Perhaps the most important remark
is the final one: “And the instances of the men who had taken foreign
wives were brought to an end by the new moon of the first month” (κα½
«χqη π½ π¢ρασ τ• κατ• τοÕσ “νδρασ τοÕσ πισυναχq¢ντασ γυναÂκασ
λλογενεÂσ ¦ωσ τ²σ νουµηνºασ τοÚ πρâτου µηνÊσ). Here the matter
is resolved on the anniversary of Esras’s departure from Babylon (see
Esd :). Thus within one year of the departure of Esras’s caravan the
temple is furnished with lavish gifts and the community is purified from
contamination.
This section of text has several distinctive traits unique to B: the presence of
Εσρασ for Εσδρασ (:); κυρºου for τοÚ κυρºου (:); and αÐτíê for ¡αυτíê
(:). In :, RH follows A with συνíωκºσατε γυναÂκασ λλογενεÂσ over B’s συν-
οικησατε γυναιξ½ν λλογεν¢σιν. The same is true also in : with RH following
A with ¸σχÒοµεν over ¸σχÒσοµεν attested in B. The preference for A extends
also to : with A’s πισυν¢χοντασ over B’s πισυναχq¢ντασ (though enough
confusion exists in the textual witnesses with alternative readings including πι-
συναγαγοντασ [L ] and συνεχοντασ []). B also omits τêν γυναικêν at
:. At :, B reads the name Εζειασ whereas RH follows the conjecture of
Bewer for Ιεζιασ (other variants include Ιωζιασ [], Ιαζιασ [], Ozias [La]).
B contains a different order of the words in : with π’ντασ κατ’ Ëνοµα κα½
 commentary 

συνεκλεºσqησαν compared to A’s κατ’ Ëνοµα π’ντασ κα½ συνεκ’qισαν followed

by RH. Hanhart supports the inclusion of π’ντεσ in : though it is omitted from
B and RH. Talshir (: , n. ) is probably correct that its disagreement with
Ezra : supports the originality of the omission.

:–. List of Those Taking Foreign Wives

The list of those taking foreign wives constitutes a rhetorical “hall of
shame” concerning the men who permitted the intrusion of impurity
into the post-exilic community (based on Ezra :–). The list
includes priests (:–), Levites (:), temple singers (:), gate-
keepers (:), and Israelites (:–a). The list brings shame on the
perpetrators and ushers a stern warning against all those who would
emulate their practice. The question of intermarriage between Jews and
non-Jews and between Christians and non-Christians was a burning
matter for Jewish and Christian communities in Hellenistic cities. The
book Joseph and Aseneth speaks to this issue in the Alexandrian con-
text and it largely provides an explanation as to how a patriarchal hero
like Joseph could marry an Egyptian woman Aseneth. The answer pro-
vided by the story is that she became a proselyte first (see Jos. & Asen.
.–.). Paul only allows widows to marry believers “in the Lord”
(Cor :). Still, the prohibitions against marrying Canaanites (Gen
:, ) are counter-balanced with accounts of pagan women like Ruth
from Moab and Bathsheba (probably a Hittite) who married Hebrew
men and had significant roles in Israelite sacred history.
The only other significant element of the list is the annotation in v. 
and the conclusion in v. a. It is narrated that some of the priests “placed
their hands to expel their wives, and to sacrifice rams as expiation for
their ignorance” ( π¢βαλον τ•σ χεÂρασ κβαλεÂν τ•σ γυναÂκασ αÐτêν:
κα½ ε¸σ ξιλασµÍν κριοÕσ Ñπ¥ρ τ²σ γνοºασ αÐτêν). The placing of
hands on the women is reminiscient of the scapegoat sacrifice in Lev
: where sins are imputed to the scapegoat by the laying on of hands
and the goat is expelled from the community into the widerness for
atonement. Or perhaps the image simply denotes a “man-handling” of
their brides who are removed from the community (on this usage of
πιβ’λλω see Macc :; Mark :; Acts :; :; :). A double
entendre is arguably intended as the women are made scapegoats for
the sins of their male counterparts and their expulsion is eventful, if not
forceful. They are cast out from the community under duress (though
κβαλεÂν probably connotes divorce as well and “to sever a relationship”
 commentary

[GELS, ] as per Lev :; Sir :; :). The concluding comment
in v.  rounds out the list with, “All these had married foreign women,
and they drove them out with their children” (π’ντεσ οÜτοι συνíâκησαν
γυναιξ½ν λλογεν¢σιν: κα½ π¢λυσαν αÐτ•σ σÕν τ¢κνοισ). The exclu-
sion of the mix-bred children constitutes a further insurance against the
intrusion of impurity and paganism into the community. All in all, the
account of the expulsion of the women and children is not an attractive
or uplifting portion of Chrisitan Scripture to read if readers value pro-
tecting the vulnerable and upholding the covenant of marriage. Myers
(: ) notes that only  person are mentioned as offenders which
is a small minority in a population of over , . He wonders if the
“religious leaders overacted” or if we do not have the complete list. The
apprehensiveness one experiences in reading this can be somewhat mit-
igated by a few factors. If we understand the ethnographic integrity of
Israel as a necessity for the survival of the golah community within the
Persian Empire, then the action becomes an unfortunate necessity as the
ethos and identity of the community is in danger of disappearing alto-
gether. Furthermore, Mal :– suggests that some Jewish men from
roughly the same period divorced their Jewish wives precisely in order
to enter into partnerships with wealthy landowners among the peoples
of the land. Also, the solution of Esras was not imposed top down by
some Judean magisterium, but had the support and encouragement of
the genuine populace. The expulsion of the foreign wives and the chil-
dren was necessary for protracting Israel’s capacity to worship God, it
severed business arrangements that treated Jewish women as expend-
able items to be set aside at a whim, and it represented the will of the
general populace who knew that transgressing the divine command-
ments would lead to something far worse than marital estrangement,
viz., national destruction. Viewed this way, the expulsion of the foreign
women was the lesser of two evils (see discussion in Williamson :
–).
This section concludes the portion of  Esdras containing Ezra mate-
rial and the book then closes with an account of Esras’s reading of the
law taken up from Neh :–:.
Apart from the sundry differences in names, the distinctive elements of B
include the addition of the personal pronoun αÐτοÚ in v.  designating Iōsedek
and his brothers (see also L La Syr Esd : [LXX] and omitted by A). In v. 
there is a scribal error of writing qυγατερêν instead of qυρωρêν. Then at the
end of the section in v. , B reads συνíâκησαν γυναιξ½ν λλογεν¢σιν in contrast
to συνíâκισαν γυναÂκασ λλογενεÂσ from A. The differences in the names
 commentary 

between RH, Hanhart, and B are based on variant spellings and conjectural
emandations. The variants between B and the editions include (differences
between Hanhart and RH in bold):

Verse B RH Hanhart
: Μαεªλασ Μασηασ Μασηασ
: Εµηρ Εµµηρ Εµµηρ
Θαµαιοσ κα½ Ιερε­λ Σαµαιοσ κα½ Ιιηλ Σαµαιοσ και Ιερε­λ
: Ασσειασ Μασσιασ Μαεσºασ
Ωκαιληδοσ Ωκιδηλοσ Ωκιδηλοσ
: Σενσε½σ κα½ Κêνοσ Σεµεϊσ κα½ Κωλιοσ Σεµεϊσ κα½ Κωλιοσ
Καλειταισ Καλιτασ Καλιτασ
: Ελιασεβοσ Ελιασιβοσ Ελιασιβοσ
: Ιερµα Ιερµασ Ιερµασ
Μºληλοσ Μιαµινοσ Μιαµινοσ
Ασεβεºασ Ασιβιασ Ασιβιασ
: Ηλα κα½ Ματαν Ηλαµ Ματανιασ Ηλαµ Ματqανιασ
Ιεζορικλοσ κα½ Ιεζριηλοσ κα½ Ιεζριηλοσ κα½
ΩαβδεÂοσ Ωβαδιοσ Ωβαδιοσ
Αηδειασ Ηλιασ Ηλιασ
: Ζεραλιασ Ζερδαιασ Ζερδαιασ
: Εµαqqισ Εµαqισ Εµαqισ
: Αδδεºν Λ’qοσ Αδδι Νααqοσ Αδδι Νααqοσ
ΒαλνοÚσ Βαλνουοσ Βαλνουοσ
: Ελιωδασ Ελιωνασ Ελιωνασ
Χοσαµαοσ Χοσαµαιοσ Χοσαµαιοσ
: Μανασση κα½ Σεµεει Μανασσησ κα½ Σεµει Μανασσησ κα½ Σεµει
: Ιουν’ Ιουηλ Ιουηλ
Ενασειβοσ Ελιασιβοσ Ελιασιβοσ
Μαµταναιµοσ Μαµνιταναιµοσ Μαµνιταναιµοσ
Εδιαλεισ Ελιαλισ Ελιαλισ
Σοµεεºσ Σοµεϊσ Σοµεϊσ
Σεσεισ Σεσσισ Σεσισ
Ζαµβρει Ζαµβρισ Ζαµβρισ
ΦÊσηποσ Ιωσηποσ Ιωσηποσ
: κ τêν Οοµα Ζειτιασ κα½ κ τêν υ¹êν κα½ κ τêν υ¹êν
Νοοµα Μαζιτιασ Νοοµα Μαζιτιασ
Ηδοσ Ουηλ Ηδαισ Ιουηλ Ηδαισ Ιουηλ

In v. , Hanhart sides with A and B in favor of Ιερε­λ against Rahlfs’s opting
for Ι(ε)ι­λ from L. In v. , Μαεσºασ is a conjecture by Tedesche accepted by
Hanhart and only B and Lav attest Ασσειασ. Finally, in v. , Ηλαµ is a conjecture
by Bewer, Ματqανιασ is attested by A, and Ματανιασ is derivation from B’s
Ματαν found in  and Eth. For further lists with tabulized comparisons
between the MT and LXX see Myers : – and on the Semitic texts
underlying the names see Talshir : –.
 commentary

:b–. The Reading of the Law at the Gathering

Ezra : is a rather subdued and vague note to end the story on since
it does not actually state the resolution of the matter. Though some
English translations give the indication that the wives were formally sent
away, the Hebrew text is not so clear (e.g., compare TNIV, “All these had
married foreign women, and some of them had children by these wives”
with NJB, “All these had married foreign wives but sent them away with
their children”). Esdras, however, seeks to provide a transparent and full
resolution to the matter. It makes clear that a separation did take place,
i.e., “they released them” (π¢λυσαν αÐτ•σ) in  Esd :. This forms a
suitable inclusio with Esd : (= Ezra :) concerning the fulfillment
of the decision to expel the foreign wives from the covenant community
(Talshir : ). There is certainly closure, but it is hardly climactic.
As such, the author seeks to weave a more dramatic garment upon which
to iron out the final creases of the story.
While it might have been natural to include material from Nehemiah
 concerning the oath of the people as a supplement to the Ezra story at
this point, that will not do since the matter of mixed marriages is resolved
in Esd :. As such, Neh :–: represents a more fitting movement
upon which to hang the final melody of the symphonic story of Iōsias,
Zorobabel, and Esras. The interpolation of Ezra material in Nehemiah
– does seem somewhat laboured and thematically awkward. Yet
Esdras solves this incongruity with its own equally artificial construct: it
makes the prequel to Esras’s ministry in Jerusalem recorded in Nehemiah
the sequel to Esras’s ministry after the mass divorces in  Esdras. The
fracturing of material is clearly secondary to Nehemiah, but rhetorically
effective. The entire book becomes bracketed with two things: Torah and
Festival. The book began with Iōsias’s reestablishment of the Torah in
cultic worship and his celebration of the Passover ( Esd :–). Now
it ends with Esras’s reading of the law and celebration of the Feast of
Tabernacles (Esd :–). Sandwiched right in the middle of the book
is the act of Zorobabel in laying of the foundation of the temple ( Esd
:).
Esdras then gives us a narrative edifice built upon the pillars of
Torah, Temple, and Festival that stand as monuments heralding the good
news of God’s redeeming work seen in the rebuilding of the Judean
community after the time of their captivity. Put another way, the story
closes completely in accordance with its socio-rhetorical purpose, viz.,
to advocate the renewal of Mosaic religion in Judah through Torah
 commentary 

observance as defined by scribal tradition and under the aegis of the

priestly leadership concerning the cultus. To establish that vision for
covenant life in the post-exilic community, a final pericope is inserted
in Esd :– in order to nominate the supreme place of the law in
the golah community. An outline of the unit runs: () The gathering
of the multitude to hear Esras read the law (vv. –); () The actual
account of Esras’s reading of the law (vv. –); and () The impact of
the reading of the law upon the multitude and the celebration of the Feast
of Tabernacles (vv. –). Esdras ends with a community suitably
renewed in its commitment to live a life of holiness and obedience under
God’s covenant-law and covenant-love.
A crowd again gathers in Jersualem at the east gate of the temple to
hear instruction from the Law of Mōyses by Esras (vv. –). The open-
ing verse in Esd :, though clearly indebted to Neh : diverges from
it as well (“And the priests and the Levites and those of Israel, dwelt in
Jerusalem and in the countryside.”). Neh : concludes the account of
the list of the returnees and their gifts and then notes that they found
suitable dwellings in various Israelite towns. Yet  Esd : makes this
material the introduction for the return of the Judeans to Jerusalem
after the unfortunate affair requiring the expulsion of the foreign wives.
In addition, Neh : refers to the classes of priests, Levites, gatekeep-
ers, temple singers, temple servants, and Israelites, whereas  Esd :
makes only mention of the priests, Levites, and Israelites. Given that
 Esd :– included a list of priests, Levites, temple singers, gatekeep-
ers, and Israelites as those guilty of taking foreign wives, one would have
thought that inclusion of this extended list of classes would represent
an appropriate continuation of the preceding unit in  Esdras with the
perpetrators of the intermarriages now coming to Jerusalem for some
remedial instruction in the Torah. That opportunity for character devel-
opment is missed by the authors of Esdras and the book settles for a
general description of those who inhabited Jerusalem and the Judean
towns at the time of Esras’s reforms. The temporal reference to the “the
new moon of the seventh month” (τµ² νουµηνºα τοÚ ¡βδʵου µηνÊσ)
could describe when the Israelites took to dwelling in Jerusalem and in
the countryside, yet taken over from Neh : it more likely provides the
chronological marker for when those dwelling in the city and country
gathered again in the open area adjacent to the Jerusaelm temple. That is
confirmed by the reappearance of νουµηνºα τοÚ ¡βδʵου µηνÊσ in :
to designate the occasion for the gathering of the multitude to hear the
law from Esras.
 commentary

The description of the gathering as, “the whole multitude gathered in

one mind in the open area before the east gate of the temple” (κα½ συνª-
χqη πšν τÍ πλ²qοσ ɵοqυµαδÍν π½ τÍ εÐρÒχωρον τοÚ πρÍσ νατολ•σ
¹εροÚ πυλêνοσ) is reminiscient of a similar gathering of the multitude
in the same place to resolve the matter of the intermarriages (:–). The
crowd again experiences a single mindedness (ɵοqυµαδÍν) not seen
since Iēsous and Zorobabel began the reinstitution of the cultic sacri-
fices (:, ). Concerning the exhortation of the multitude to Esras,
the text of B is unclear at this point. The B text could be understood as
having Esras address a priest (εÃπεν Εσρα τíê ¹ερει) though the majority
of manuscripts have the plural verb and make it clear that it is the mul-
titude addressing Esras himself (εÃπον Εσδρα τíê ρχιερει). As such it is
necessary to take Esras’s singular verb εÃπεν in B as an inclusive singular,
i.e., “it told Esras” (see εÃπαν τíê Εσδρα in  Esd : [LXX]). The cor-
porate response to Esras is not a request, but polite command. Esras the
priest (“chief priest” in some mss at v. ) and reader (on Esras as “priest
and reader” [É ¹ερεÕσ κα½ ναγνâστησ] see  Esd :, , ; :, ) is
exhorted, “to receive the Law of Mōyses that had been delivered by the
God of Israel” (κοµºσαι τÍν νʵον Μωυσ¢ωσ τÍν παραδοq¢ντα ÑπÍ τοÚ
qεοÚ )Ισραηλ). Esras here is depicted as a new Mōyses standing between
the people and God as the mediator and interpreter of the divinely given
law.
The actual account of the reading of the law gives specific attention
to the positioning of Esras before the crowd, the pious response of the
crowd, as well as the exposition of the law by the Levites, though no part
of the law is actually quoted (vv. –). When Esras is charged to take up
the law he accordingly does so (though B erroneously reads δοκιµασεν
instead of κʵισεν) and in the process he is promoted to “chief priest”
(ρχιερεÕσ) here in v.  and in v. . Though elsewhere he is simply
“priest and reader of the law” (e.g., v. ). Only in  Esdras is Esras called
a “chief priest” which is indicative of the tendency to magnify Esras’s
role and status in Judaism (Knibb & Coggins : ). The purpose
of Esras’s taking-up of the law is given as being for the benefit “for all
of the multitude, from men unto women, and all the priests to hear
the law” (παντ½ τíê πλªqει πÍ νqρâπου ¦ωσ γυναικÍσ: κα½ πšσιν
τοÂσ ¹ερεÚσιν κοÚσαι τÍν νʵον). In the absence of a conjunctive
or explanatory clause the phrase παντ½ τíê πλªqει signifies a dative of
advantage. The audience is comprehensive as it includes men and women
and laity and priests. The reading of the law to the people lasted until
midday and the response to this public reading by the crowd was “and
 commentary 

they all gave it consideration” (κα½ π¢δωκαν π’ντα τÍν νοÚν ε¸σ τÍν
νʵον). The word πιδºδωµι is normally used in a sense of transfer,
dedicate, or yielding up of control (BDAG, –; GELS, ). Thus
the populace yielded up their minds to the law read by Esras. During
the reading, Esras stood “on the wooden judgment seat that had been
set up” ( π½ τοÚ ξυλºνου ⪵ατοσ τοÚ κατασκευασq¢ντοσ). The Graeco-
Roman β²µα was a raised dais or platform for the settlement of judicial
cases (see Macc :; Acts :, ; :, , ; Rom :) and the
term became a loan word in rabbinic Judaism as the äîéá.
In vv. – is a parenthetical remark listing those who stood at his
left and right: “and there stood with him Mattathias, Sammou, Ana-
nias, Azarias, Uorias, Hezekias, Baalsamos at his right hand, and at his
left hand [stood] Phaladaios, Misaēl, Melchias, Lōthasuobos, Nabarias,
and Zacharias” (κα½παρ £στησεν αÐτíê Ματταqιασ: ΣαµµοÒ: Ανανιασ:
Αζαριασ: Ουριασ: Εζεκιασ: Βααλσαµοσ κ δεξιêν: κα½ ξ εÐωνÒµων
ΦαλαδαÂοσ: Μισαηλ: Μελχιασ: Λωqασουβοσ: Ναβαριασ: Ζαχαριασ).
The verb £στησεν is implied in v.  as those on his left also stand with
him and the list is asyndetic unlike Neh :. The list is meant to indi-
cate that Esras speaks for a wider circle of leaders and to exemplify the
solidarity of the leaders with Esras’s vision for Israel.
The podium of Esras and the posture of the people are largely symbolic
for the honorific status of the law and the justness of the law that they hear
read to them in vv. –. Esras takes up the book (ναλαβåν Εσρασ
τÍ βιβλºον) and the explanation for this action (γ•ρ) is that Esras was
“presiding in the position of honor before everyone” (προεκ’qητο …
πιδÊξωσ νâπιον π’ντων). The adverb πιδÊξωσ, a hapax in the LXX,
designates something that pertains to the qualities of being “glorious” or
“honorable.” In context the word relates to both Esras’s act of exercising
leadership from his position (see GELS, , “in a manner deserving
high regard”), but also to the glorious content of what his leadership
advocated: the glorious law (on glory and law see  Esdras [Apoc]: “Your
glory passed through the four gates of fire and earthquake and wind and
ice, to give the law to the descendants of Jacob, and your commandment
to the posterity of Israel” [:]; “the law, however, does not perish but
survives in its glory” [:]). The point of view shifts by way of an
articular infinitive ( ν τíê λÚσαι τÍν νʵον [“while he opened the law”])
to the crowd to whom the law was read. At Esras’s opening of the law
(i.e., the commencement of his reading) it is noted that “they all stood up
straight” (π’ντεσ Èρqο½ £στησαν). The uprightness of the people mirrors
the common claim in Israel’s sacred literature and liturgical worship that
 commentary

God’s laws and ways are “upright” (e.g., Ps :; :; :). A prayer
is offered to mark the beginning of the law’s reading. In contrast to
most textual witnesses, B attributes the prayer to “Azariah” (Αζαρºασ)
in v.  rather than to Esras. The prayer is a blessing to the “Most High
God, Almighty” (τíê Ñψºστíω qεοÚ παντοκρ’τορι) and this is the only
attribution of the title “Almighty” (lit. pantocrator) to the Lord in  Esdras
and it is a translation of úåàáö. The response of the crowd is stated with
the double solemn affirmation, “Amen, amen” [from ïîà ïîà] and is
accompanied with postures of devotion and praise as they were “lifting
up their hands high, falling to the ground, [and] they worshiped God”
(κα½ φâνησεν πšν τÍ πλ²qοσ µην µην: κα½ “ραντεσ “νω τ•σ χεÂρασ
προσπεσÊντεσ π½ τ­ν γ²ν προσεκÒνησαν τíê qεοÚ). Concurrent with
the act of reading by Esras (”µα τ­ν ν’γνωσιν) and the expression of
worship by the crowd, a group of Levites (“Iēsous and Anniouth and
Sarabias, Iadinos, Iarsouboos, Abtaios, Hautaias, Maiannas and Kalitas,
Azarias, Katethzabdos, Hannias, Phalias”) began teaching the law of
the Lord to the multitude (with δºδασκον as an inceptive imperfect,
“they began teaching the law”). Their role was to provide instruction
(διδ’σκω) with the sense of instilling or implanting knowledge of the
law’s commands.
The response of the multitude switches from contrition to celebration
as the significance of the momentous occasion finally becomes apparent
(vv. –). The figure of Attaratēs addresses both Esras and the Levitical
teachers in regards to the import of the events that they are witnessing.
The multitude weep over the sin of the nation when they hear the
law and the articular infinitive ν τíê κοÚσαι τÍν νʵον indicates
the concurrent nature of the reading and mourning. Then Attaratēs
(Ατταρατη is regarded as a proper name though it is a translation of
àúùøú for “governor” from Neh : [see discussion in Talshir : –
]) states that, “This day is holy to the Lord” and “therefore, in your
lifestyle, eat the fat, and send portions to those who have nothing; for
the day is holy to the Lord; and do not be full of grief, for the Lord will
glorify you” (© ©µ¢ρα αÔτη στ½ν ‘γºα τíê κυρºíω … βαδºσαντεσ οÛν
φ’γετε λιπ’σµατα: κα½ ποστεºλατε ποστολ•σ τοÂσ µ­ £χουσιν: ‘γºα
γ•ρ © ©µ¢ρα τíê κυρºíω: κα½ µ­ λυπεÂσqε: É γ•ρ κÒριοσ δοξ’σει ѵšσ).
The holiness of the day is apparent due to the recognition by the people
of the sin that has entangled the nation and their resovle to make amends
for it.
Their “lifestyle” (on βαδºζω see Esd :,  and its lexical meaning is
usually along the lines of a figurative “walk” [BDAG, ], but when used
 commentary 

with the aorist imperative it urges somebody to action [GELS, ]) is

mostly an issue of resolve and attitude adjustment concerning the matter
at hand. Their mourning is to turn to joy and their grief to celebration.
Sacrifices are to be offered, then consumed, and shared with all and
sundry. Fasting gives way to feasting as a new leaf in the people’s attitude
towards their God is turned. The future tense of δοξ’σει expresses a hope
that God will praise and vindicate the people for their return to properly
prescribed covenantal behavior. The semantic feature of expectation is
grammaticalized by the future form of the verb. The Levites confirm the
proposal and disseminate it to the crowd with the exhortation: “This day
is holy; do not be grieved” (© ©µ¢ρα αÔτη ‘γºα: µ­ λυπεÂσqε). The final
report of the passage and of the book of Esdras concerns the jubilant
celebration of the populace in their festive activities: “The Levites orded
all the people, saying, ‘This day is holy; do not be grieved.’ Then they
all went out hence, to eat and drink and to rejoice, and to give portions
to those who had nothing, and to make much rejoicing; because they
were inspired by the words which they were taught” (κα½ íãχοντο π’ντεσ
φαγεÂν κα½ πιεÂν κα½ εÐφραºνεσqαι κα½ δοÚναι ποστολ•σ τοÂσ µ­
£χουσιν κα½ εÐφρανq²ναι µεγ’λωσ: Ìτι κα½ νεφυσιâqησαν ν τοÂσ
üªµασιν οÄσ διδ’χqησαν κα½ πισυνªχqησαν). The verb µφυσιÊω is
not found elsewhere in the LXX. At this juncture the word can be suitably
rendered as to “implant, to be rooted in” (L&S, ), with a connotation
of an infusion of something (L&N, ). Pohlmann (: –)
cogently explains why Esdras ends with the celebration at the reading
of the Torah:
Ein besserer Schluss dieses Werkes, dem es um die Legitimierung der
Jerusalemer Kultgemeinde als der Nachfolgerin jenes alten Israel geht,
dürfte kaum vorstellbar sein. Die Entstehungsgeschichte des neuen Got-
tesvolkes klingt hier aus mit der Feststellung, dass sich die neue Gemeinde
mit gottesdienstlichen Feier, mit Gesetzeslesung und Festjubel konstituiert
hat.
The staccato ending of the book will always prompt debate as to whether
or not Esd : was the intended conclusion of the book. That is because
the final word πισυνªχqησαν is an odd way to end the narrative and
might imply that something followed (we might note an analogy with
debates about the ending of Mark : with the coordinating conjunction
γ’ρ). It is certainly possible that the original text of  Esdras extended as
far down as Neh :. If the ending was broken off mid-sentence then
πισυνªχqησαν would naturally describe any additional actions that fol-
lowed such as coming before Esras to study the words of the law as
 commentary

narrated in Neh :b. Although the additions in the L text and Latin
versions are most likely secondary, Josephus (Ant. .–) includes
down to Neh : in his account where he records that the people kept
the feast for eight days. In counter-point, we should remember that Jose-
phus may have engaged in some harmonizing of the obscure ending of
Esdras with a Greek version of Nehemiah available to him. In light of
all this, I would respond that the ending as we have it is both the only
one and the deliberate one. The ending in its current form constitutes a
simple inclusio on the theme of communal celebration. At the head of
the story, Iōsias’s celebration (“γω) of the Passover in : is then mir-
rored in the communal celebration of the feast of tabernacles in :
( πισυν’γω). Thus, at the narrative horizon, the journey of the book
is complete when we come to :. The incomplete reforms of Iōsias
are surpassed in the reforming ministries of Zorobabel and Esras, who
together succeeded in taking the nation from the darkness of exile to
brightness of a new dawn through the renewal of the bond of obedi-
ence in the covenantal relationship. Viewed this way, both grammati-
cally and conceptually, :– is an appropriate ending to the book.
Williamson (: ) rightly notes: “Far from being a mere torso [of
a larger work], Esdras traces the history of loss and recovery in a man-
ner that requires no further continuation. It is a retelling of a key period
in the history of the people of God, told at a later time for their encour-
agement and strengthening in faith.” Overall, many hurdles were faced
along the way including scheming Samaritans, marauding bandits from
Babylon to Jerusalem, fortunes rising and falling with Persian kings, and
contamination by way of intermarriage with foreigners. But in the end,
the Judean remnant of Israel has passed through the waters of the Jor-
dan and come into a new hope that God’s mercy shall avail for them and
God’s glory shall again shine upon them.  Esdras, though under appre-
ciated as a literary work and theological exhortation, acclaims the God
who faithfully guided his community when they remained loyal to him
(Coggins & Knibb : ). In this last pericope, there is a recognition
of the hope that they may continue to have intimate fellowship with their
God. Much like the people of the first Exodus, after experiencing God’s
provision and power in a new time, they could say that “they actually
gazed on God and then ate and drank” (Exod : [NJB]).
On general variations, B’s use of the singular εÃπεν in v.  could make Esras
the speaker to the priest, though more likely it is Esras who is spoken to by the
multitude even if the number of the verb is incorrect (a similar confusion of
number occurs with B’s £στησεν over £στησαν in v. ). In the same verse, B
 commentary 

makes Esras a ¹ερει rather than ρχιερει with (L and ), though immediately
in v.  he is promoted to ρχιερει (though L and  retains ¹ερει in v. ). The
omission of κα½ πºετε γλυκ’σµατα in v.  is peculiar to B and Eth. In vv.  and
, B prefers τÍν νʵον over τοÚ νʵου.
The largest divergence between B and other mss occurs on the co-location of
divine names strung together at points. In v. , B omits κυρºου and B reads qεíê
instead of κυρºíω at v. . Then in v. , B again offers a shorter reading with τíê
Ñψºστíω qεíê παντοκρ’τορι in contrast to τíê κυρºíω qεíê Ñψºστíω qεíê σαβαωq
παντοκρ’τορι. Several variations of the address exist in the witnesses and B’s
omissions are supported by the Eth and Syr versions. B doubles the solemn
antiphon µην µην in v.  that is not found elsewhere.
The name Εσρασ is used characteristically at vv. , , , , and , even
though the final folio includes the title ΕΣ∆ΡΑΣ Α at the very end. More peculiar
in B (and Eth) is the attestion of Αζαρºασ for RH’s Εσδρασ in v.  that marks
Azariah as the petitioner of prayer rather than Esras (on the name see :;
:). As per the manuscript tradition variations in the names can be found
in the assorted manuscripts and version with RH preferring A to the B forms of
spelling (and note also that in v.  Hanhart adopts the conjecture Αννιουσ over
B’s Αννιουq):

Verse B RH
: Σαµµου Σαµµουσ
: ΦαλαδαÂοσ Φαδαιοσ
: Ιαρσουβοοσ Ιακουβοσ
ΑβταÂοσ Σαββαταιοσ
Κατ¢qζαβδοσ Ιωζαβδοσ
Αννºασ Ανανιασ
: Ατταρατη Ατταρατησ

Several phonetic variations occur including the presence of δοκιµασεν rather

than κʵισεν at v. . The υ from Μω{υ}σ¢ωσ is omitted in v.  (but note the
similar spelling in L and ). A corrector has introduced ι in v.  for παντ{½}.
More interesting is that at v.  there is the letter Η set in a diamond in the
far right hand column with a marginal reading that is no longer fully legible
(perhaps Μ∆ΟΕΙΡΝΤΑΙΛ …).
 BIBLIOGRAPHY

Primary Sources

Old Testament, Apocrypha, and New Testament

BHS.  []. Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia (Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelge-
sellschaft).
ESV. . English Standard Version Bible with Apocrypha (New York: OUP).
NEB.  []. The New English Bible with the Apocrypha (Oxford: OUP).
NRSV.  []. The Holy Bible: New Revised Standard Version: Containing
The Old Testament and The New Testament with Apocrypha (Nashville, TN:
Thomas Nelson).
UBS4.  []. The Greek New Testament. Edited by B. Aland, K. Aland,
C.M. Martini, J. Karavidopoulos, and B.M. Metzger (th ed.; Stuttgart: UBS).

Septuagint
Pietersma, A., and B.G. Wright. . A New English Translation of the Septu-
agint (Oxford: OUP).
Rahlfs, A., and R. Hanhart. Septuaginta: Editio altera (Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibel-
gesellschaft,  []).
Swete, H.B. – []. The Old Testament in Greek according to the
Septuagint ( vols.; Cambridge: CUP).

Pseudepigrapha
Charles, R.H. . The Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha of the Old Testament
in English with Introductions and Critical and Explanatory Notes ( vols.;
Oxford: Clarendon).
Charlesworth, J.H. . The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha ( vols.; ABRL; New
York: Doubleday).

 Esdras
Brooke, A.E., and N. McLean. . IEsdras, Ezra-Nehemiah. The Old Testament
in Greek according to the text of Codex Vaticanus, supplemented from other
uncial manuscripts, with a critical apparatus containing the variants of the chief
ancient authorities for the text of the Septuagint (Vol. , Part ; Cambridge).
Cook, S.A. . “Esdras.” In The Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha of the Old
Testament in English with Introductions and Critical and Explanatory Notes:
Volume I—Apocrypha. Edited by R.H. Charles ( vols.; Oxford: Clarendon),
.–.
 bibliography

Hanhart, R. a. Septuaginta: Vestus Testamentum Graecum Auctoritate Aca-

demiae Scientiarum Gottingensis editum .: Esdrae Liber I (Göttingen: Van-
denhoeck & Ruprecht).
Wooden, R.G. . “Esdras: To the Reader.” In A New English Translation
of the Septguagint. Edited by A. Pietersma and B.G. Wright (Oxford: OUP),
–.

Josephus
Thackeray, J., R. Marcus, A. Wikgren, and L.H. Feldman. – ( vols;
LCL; Cambridge: Harvard University Press).

Philo
Colson, F.H., G.H. Whitaker, J.W. Earp, and R. Marcus. – ( vols;
LCL; London/Cambridge: Harvard University Press/William Heinemann).

Dead Sea Scrolls

Vermes, G.  []. The Complete Dead Sea Scrolls in English (th ed.;
London: Penguin).
Wise, M., M, Abegg Jr., and E. Cook. . The Dead Sea Scrolls: A New
Translation (Australia: Hodder & Stoughton).

Inscriptions, Papyri, and Ancient Texts

Pritchard, James B. . Ancient Near Eastern Texts: Relating to the Old Testa-
ment (rd ed.; Princeton: Princeton University Press).

Secondary Sources

Akroyd, P. . “Two Old Testament Historical Problems of the Early Persian
Period.” JNES :–.
Aland, K., with M. Welte, B. Köster, and K. Junack . Kurzgefasste Liste der
grieschen Handschirften des Neuen Testaments (nd ed.; Berlin: Walter de
Gruyter).
Alexander, P.S. . “Retelling the Old Testament.” In It Is Written: Scripture
Citing Scripture. Edited by D.A. Carson and H.G.M. Williamson (Cambridge:
CUP), –.
Allrik, H L. . “Esdras according to Codex B and Codex A as appearing in
Zorobabel’s list in Esdras :–.” ZAW : –.
Attridge, H.W. . “Historiography.” In Jewish Writings of the Second Tem-
ple Period: Apocrypha, Pseudepigrapha, Qumran Sectarian Writings, Philo,
Josephus. Edited by M.E. Stone (CRINT .; Philadelphia: Fortress), –
.
Aune, David. . Revelation – (WBC; Dallas, TX: Word).
 bibliography 

Barclay, J.M.G. . Jews in the Mediterranean Diaspora: From Alexander to

Trajan (Berkeley: University of California Press).
Bayer, E. . Das dritte Buch Esdras und sein Verhältnis zu den Büchern Esra-
Nehemia (Freiburg: Herder).
Bernstein, M.J. . “‘Rewritten Bible’: A Generic Category which has Outlived
its Usefulness?” Textus : –.
Bewer, J.A. . Der Text des Buches Ezra (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ru-
precht).
Bird, M.F. . “Jesus the Law-Breaker.” In Who Do My Opponents Say That I
Am? An Investigation of the Accusations Against Jesus. Edited by J.B. Modica
and S. McKnight (LHJS; London: T&T Clark/Continuum), –.
———. . Crossing Over Sea and Land: Jewish Missionary Activity in the
Second Temple Period (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson).
Birdsall, J.N. . “The Codex Vaticanus: Its History and Significance.” In The
Bible as Book: The Transmission of the Greek Text. Edited by S. McKendrick
and O. O’Sullivan (London: British Library), –.
Blenkinsopp, J. . Judaism, the First Phase: The Place of Ezra and Nehemiah
in the Origins of Judaism (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans).
Bogaert, Pierre-Maurice. “Le Texte De L’Ancien Testament.” In Prolegomena
to Codex Vaticanus B: Codex Vaticanus Graecus . Edited by P. Canart,
P. Bogaert, and S. Pisano (Roma: Istituto Poligrafico e Zecca dello Stato), –
.
Böhler, Dieter. Die heilig Stadt in Esdras a und Esra-Nehemia: zwei Konzeptionen
der Wiederherstellung Israels (Orbis Biblicus et Orientalis ; Freiburg/
Göttingen: Universitätsverlag/Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, ).
Briant, P. . Cyrus to Alexander: A History of the Persian Empire (Wiona Lake,
Ind: Eisenbrauns).
Campbell, J.G. . “‘Rewritten Bible’ and ‘Parabiblical texts’: A Terminologi-
cal and Ideological Critique.” In New Directions in Qumran Studies: Proceed-
ings of the Bristol Colloquium on the Dead Sea Scrolls, – September .
Edited by J.G. Campbell, W.J. Lyons, and K. Pietersen; (LSTS ; London:
T&T Clark), –.
Carrez, M. . “. Esdras Septante.” RHPR : –.
Clines, David J. . Ezra, Nehemiah, Esther (NCB; Grand Rapids, MI: Eerd-
mans).
Coggins, R.J., and M.A. Knibb. . The First and Second Books of Esdras
(CBCNEB; Cambridge: CUP).
Coxon, P.W. –. “Greek Loan-Words and Alleged Greek Loan Transla-
tions in the Book of Daniel.” Transactions of the Glasgow University Oriental
Society : –.
Crenshaw, J.L.  []. “The Contest of Darius’ Guards.” In Urgent Advice
and Probing Questions: Collected Writings on Old Testament Wisdom. Edited
by J.L. Crenshaw (Macon, GA: Mercer University Press), –.
———. . Old Testament Wisdom: An Introduction (Louisville, KY: Westmin-
ster John Knox).
Crook, Z.A. . Reconceptualising Conversion: Patronage, Loyalty, and Conver-
sion in the Religions of the Ancient Mediterranean (Berlin: Walter de Gruyter).
 bibliography

Cross, F.M. . “A Reconstruction of the Judean Restoration.” JBL : –.
deSilva, D.A. . Honor, Patronage, Kinship and Purity (Downers Grove, IL:
IVP).
———. . Introducing the Apocrypha: Message, Context, and Significance
(Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans).
der Smitten, W.Th. In. . “Zur Pagenzählung im . Esra ( Esr. iii –v ).” VT
: –.
De Troyer, K. . “Zorobabel and Ezra: A Revived and Revised Solomon and
Josiah? A Survey of Current Esdras Research.” CBR : –.
———. . Rewriting the Sacred Text: What the Old Greek Texts Tell Us about
the Literary Growth of the Bible (SBLTCS ; Atlanta: Society of Biblical
Literature/Leiden: Brill).
De Wette, W.M.L., and E. Schrader. . Die Einleitung in das A.T. und in die
Biblesammlung überhaupt enthaltend (th edn.; Berlin: Reimer).
Elliott, J.K. “T.C. Skeat on the Dating and Origin of Codex Vaticanus.” In The
Collected Biblical Writings of T.C. Skeat. Edited by J.K. Elliott (NovTSup, ;
Leiden: Brill, ), –.
Enns, P. “Expansions of Scripture,” in Justification and Variegated Nomism: Vol-
ume —the Complexities of Second Temple Judaism. Edited by D.A. Car-
son, P.T. O’Brien, and M.A. Seifrid (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, ), –
.
Eron, L.J. . “‘That Women Have Mastery Over Both King and Beggar’
(T.Jud. .) the Relationship of the Fear of Sexuality to the Status of Women
in Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha: Esdras (Ezra) –, Ben Sira and the
Testament of Judah.” JSP : –.
Eskenazi, T.C. . “The Chronicler and the Composition of Esdras.” CBQ
: –.
Evans, C.A. . “Messianic Hopes and Messianic Figures in Late Antiquity.”
JGRChJ : –.
Feldman, Louis H. . Studies in Josephus’ Rewritten Bible (JSJSup ; Atlanta,
SBL).
Fensham, F. Charles. . The Books of Ezra and Nehemiah (NICOT; Grand
Rapids, MI: Eerdmans).
Fisk, B.N. . “Rewritten Bible in the Pseudepigrapha and Qumran.” In Dic-
tionary of New Testament Background. Edited by C.A. Evans and S.E. Porter
(Downers Grove, IL: IVP), –.
Fritzsche, O.F., and C.L.W. Grimm. –. Kurzgefasstes exegetisches Hand-
buch zu den Apokryphen des Alten Testamentes ( vols.; Leipzig: S. Hirzel).
Fuller, Lois K. “The ‘Genitive Absolute’ in the New Testament/Hellenistic Greek:
A Proposal for Clearer Understnading.” JGRChJ  (): –.
Fulton, D.N. . “Esdras, First Book of.” In The Eerdmans Dictionary of
Early Judaism. Edited by J.J. Collins and D.C. Harlow (Grand Rapids, MI:
Eerdmans, ), –.
Gamble, H.Y. “The New Testament Canon: Recent Research and the Status
Quaestionis.” In The Canon Debate. Edited by L.M. McDonald and J.A. San-
ders (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, ), –.
Gardner, A.E. “The Purpose and Date of Esdras.” JJS  (): –.
 bibliography 

Goldhill, Simon. . Who Needs Greek? Contests in the Cultural History of
Hellenism (Cambridge: CUP).
Goodman, W.R. . “Esdras, First Book Of.” In ABD. Edited by D.N. Freed-
man (ABRL;  vols.; New York: Doubleday), .–.
Grabbe, L. . Ezra-Nehemiah (OTR; London: Routledge).
———. . “‘Mind the Gaps’: Ezra and Nehemiah and Restoration.” In Restora-
tion: Old Testament, Jewish, and Christian Perspectives. Edited by J.M. Scott
(Leiden: Brill) –.
Habel, N. . “Yahweh, Maker of Heaven and Earth.” JBL : –.
Hanhart, R. b [republished ]. Text und Textgeschichte des . Esrabuches
(MSU : Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht).
———. . “Zu Text und Textgeschichte des ersten Esrabuches” Proceedings
of the Sixth World Congress of Jewish Studies (Jerusalem ). Edited by
I.A. Shinan (Jerusalem: World Union of Jewish Studies), –.
Harrington, D.J. . Invitation to the Apocrypha (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerd-
mans).
Hengel, M., with R. Deines. . The Septuagint as Christian Scripture: Its
Prehistory and the Problem of Its Canon (Edinburgh: T&T Clark).
Hilhorst, A. . “Darius’ pillow (Esdras :).” JTS  (): –.
———. . “The Speech on Truth in Esdras , –.” In The Scriptures and
the Scrolls Studies in Honour of A.S. van der Woude on the Occasion of his th
Birthday. Edited by F. García Martínez, A. Hilhorst, and C.J. Labuschagne
(VTSup ; Leiden: Brill), –.
Holmes, M.W. . “Reasoned Eclecticism.” In The Text of the New Testa-
ment in Contemporary Research: Essays on the Status Quaestionis. Edited by
B.D. Ehrman and M.W. Holmes (Studies and Documents ; Grand Rapids:
Eerdmans, ), –.
———. . “Biblical Canon.” In The Oxford Handbook of Early Christian Stud-
ies. Edited by S.A. Harvey and D.G. Hunter (Oxford: OUP), –.
Hood, J. . Matthew :– as a Summary of Israel’s Story, The King, His
Brothers and the Nations. (Unpublished Ph.D Dissertation, Aberdeen Uni-
versity).
Japhet, S. . “The Supposed Common Authorship of Chronicles and Ezra-
Nehemiah Investigated Anew.” VT : –.
Jellicoe, B.S. . The Septuagint in Modern Study (Oxford: Clarendon).
Johnson, Marshall. . The Purpose of Biblical Genealogies (SNTSMS ; Cam-
bridge: CUP).
Jongkind, Dirk. . Scribal Habits in Codex Sinaiticus (T&S .; Piscataway,
NJ: Gorgias).
Kaiser, Walter C. . A History of Israel from the Bronze Age Through the Jewish
Wars (Nashville, TN: Broadman & Holman).
Klein, Ralph W. . “Old Readings in Esdras: The List of Returnees from
Babylon.” HTR : –.
———. . “Esdras.” In Harper’s Bible Commentary. Edited by James L. Mays
(San Francisco: Harper & Row), –.
Marcos, Natalio M. . The Septuagint in Context: An Introduction to the Greek
Version of the Bible (Leiden: Brill).
 bibliography

McDonald, L.M. . The Biblical Canon: Its Origin, Transmission and Author-
ity (rd ed.; Peabody, MA: Hendrickson).
McNamara, Martin. . Intertestamental Literature (Wilmington: Michael
Glazier).
Menon, Madhavi. . Wanton Words: Rhetoric and Sexuality in English
Renaissance Drama (Toronto: Toronto University).
Merrill, E.H. . A Kingdom of Priests: A History of Old Testament Israel
(Grand Rapids, MI: Baker).
Myers, J.M. I & IIEsdras: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary
(AB; New York: Doubleday, ).
Niskanen, Paul. . The Human and the Divine in History: Herodotus and the
Book of Daniel (London: T&T Clark).
North, R. . “Ezra.” In ABD. Edited by D.N. Freedman (ABRL;  vols.; New
York: Doubleday), –.
Oesterley, W.O.E. . An Introduction to the Books of the Apocrypha (London:
SPCK).
Pakkala, J. . Ezra the Scribe: The Development of Ezra – and Nehemiah 
(Berlin: Walter de Gruyter).
Pfeiffer, R.H. . History of New Testament Times with an Introduction to the
Apocrypha (New York: Harper).
Pohlmann, K.-F. . Studien zum dritten Esra: Ein Beitrag zur Frage nach dem
ursprünglichen Schluß des chronistischen Geschichtswerkes (FRLANT ;
Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht).
———. . . Esra-Buch (JSHRZ ; Gütersloh: Gütersloh Verlaghaus/Gerd
Mohn).
Porter, Stanley E. Idioms of the Greek New Testament. nd ed.; Sheffield: Sheffield
Academic Press, .
Rudolph, W. –. “Der Wettstreit der Leibwächter des Darius  Esr 1—
6.” ZAW : –.
———. . Esra und Nehemia samt . Esra (Tübingen: Mohr/Siebeck).
Sandoval, Timothy J. . “The strength of women and truth: the tale of the
three bodyguards and Ezra’s prayer in First Esdras.” JJS : –.
Schürer, Emil. –. The History of the Jewish People in the Age of Jesus
Christ. Revised and edited by G. Vermes, F. Millar, and M. Black ( vols.;
Edinburgh: T&T Clark).
Seid, Timothy. W. . “Synkrisis in Hebrews : The Rhetorical Structure and
Strategy.” In The Rhetorical Interpretation of Scripture: Essays from the 
Malibu Conference. Edited by S.E. Porter and D.L. Stamps (JSNTSup ;
Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, ), –.
Skeat, T.C. . “The Codex Sinaiticus, the Codex Vaticanus, and Constantine.”
JTS : –.
Steinmann, A.E. . “A Chronological Note: The Return of the Exiles Under
Shesbazzar and Zorobabel (Ezra –).” JETS : –.
Tedesche, S.S. . A Critical Edition of Esdras. (Unpublished Ph.D Disserta-
tion, Yale University).
Talshir, D. “A Reinvestigation of the Linguistic Relationship Between Chronicles
and Ezra-Nehemiah.” VT  (): –.
 bibliography 

Talshir, Z. “The Milieu of Esdras in the Light of its Vocabulary.” In De Septu-

aginta. Edited by C. Cox and A. Pietersma (Mississauga, Ontario: Benben,
), –.
———. . “The Three Deaths of Josiah and the Strata of Biblical Historiogra-
phy (Kings xxiii –. Chronicles xxxv –, Esdras i –).” VT :
–.
———. . IEsdras From Origin to Translation (SBLSCS ; Atlanta: SBL).
———. . “Esdras.” In Dictionary of New Testament Background. Edited by
C.A. Evans and S.E. Porter (Downers Grove, IL: IVP), –.
———. IEsdras: A Text Critical Commentary (Septuagint and Cognate Studies
Series; Atlanta: SBL, ).
Talshir, Z., and D. Talshir. . “The Original Language of the Story of the Three
Youths (Esdras –).” In “Sha"arei Talmon”: Studies in the Bible, Qumran,
and the Ancient Near East Presented to Shemaryahu Talmon. Edited by E. Tov,
M. Fishbane, S. Talmon, and W. Fields (Wiona Lake, Ind: Eisenbrauns), –
.
Thackeray, H. . “Esdras.” In A Dictionary of the Bible: Dealing with Its
Language, Literature, and Contents. Edited by James Hasting (Edinburgh:
T&T Clark).
———. . A Grammar of the Old Testament in Greek According to the Sep-
tuagint: Volume : Introduction, Orthnography and Accidence (Cambridge:
CUP).
Throntveit, M.A. . “Linguistic Analysis and the Question of the Authorship
of Chronicles, Ezra and Nehemiah.” VT : –.
Torrey, C. . Ezra Studies (Chicago: University of Chicago Press).
Tov, E. . “Three Strange Books of the LXX: Kings, Esther, and Daniel
Compared with with Similar Rewritten Compositions form Qumran.” In
Hebrew Bible, Greek Bible, and Qumran: Collected Essays (TSAJ, ; Tübin-
gen: Mohr/Siebeck), –.
van der Kooij, A. a. “Zur Frage des Anfangs des  Esrabuches.” ZAW :
–.
———. b. “On the Ending of the Book of Esdras.” In VIII Congress of
the International Organization for Septuagint and Cognate Studies. Edited by
C.E. Cox (Atlanta: Scholars), –.
———. . “The Death of Josiah According to Esdras.” Textus : –.
Vriezen, Theodoor Christian., and A.S. van der Woude. . Ancient Israelite
and Early Jewish Literature (trans. Brian Doyle; Leiden: Brill).
Walde, B. . Die Esdrasbücher der Septuaginta: Ihr gegenseitiges Verhältnis
untersucht (Freiburg: Herder).
Wasserstein, A. . “Greek Elements in Ancient Jewish Literature.” In Essays
on the Bible and the Ancient East, I.L. Seeligmann Volume. Edited by A. Rofé
and Y. Zakovitch ( vols.; Jerusalem: E. Rubinstein), –.
Wevers, J.W. . “The Future of Septuagint Studies.” In The Bible as Book: The
Transmission of the Greek Text. Edited by S. McKendrick and O. O’Sullivan
(London: British Library), –.
Widengren, G. . “The Persian Period.” In Israelite and Judaean History.
Edited by J.H. Hayes and J.M. Miller (London: SCM), –.
 bibliography

Williamson, H.G.M. . Israel in the Books of Chronicles (Cambridge: CUP).

———. .  and Chronicles (NCB; Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans).
———. . “The Composition of Ezra i–vi.” JTS ns : –.
———. . Ezra, Nehemiah (WBC; Waco, TX: Word).
———. . “The Problem with First Esdras.” In After the Exile: Essays in Honour
of Rex Mason. Edited by J. Barton and D.J. Reimer (Macon, GA: Mercer
University Press), –.
———. . “Esdras.” In Eerdmans Commentary on the Bible. Edited by J.D.G.
Dunn and J.W. Rogerson (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans), –.
———. . “Esdras as Rewritten Bible?” Unpublished Paper Presented at the
Society of Biblical Literature in Boston.
Wills, L.M. . The Jew in the Court of the Foreign King: Ancient Jewish Court
Legends (HDR, ; Mineapolis: Fortress).
Wooden, R.G. . “The Role of the ‘Septuagint’ in the Formation of Biblical
Canons.” In Exploring the Origins of the Bible: Canon Formation in Historical,
Literary and Theological Perspective (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker), –.
Wright, J.E. . “Esdras, Books of.” In Dictionary of New Testament Back-
ground. Edited by C.A. Evans and S.E. Porter (Downers Grove, IL: IVP),
–.
Zimmermann, F. . “The Story of the Three Guardsmen.” JQR : –.
Zunz, L.  []. “Dibre hajamim oder die Bücher der Chronik.” Die
gottesdienstlichen Vorträge der Juden, historisch entwickelt (Berlin: Lamm),
–.
 INDEX OF MODERN AUTHORS

Akroyd, P. . Elliott, J.K. .

Aland, K. . Enns, P. , .
Alexander, P.S. , . Eron, L.J. .
Allrik, B.H. , . Eskenazi, T.C. , .
Attridge, H.W. , , , . Evans, C.A. .
Aune, D. .
Feldman, L.H. .
Barclay, J.M.G. . Fensham, F.C. , , .
Bayer, E. . Fisk, B.N. .
Bernstein, M.J. . Fritzsche, O.F. , .
Bewer, J.A. . Fuller, L.K. .
Bird, M.F. , . Fulton, D.N. .
Birdsall, J.N. .
Blenkinsopp, J. , , . Gardner, A.E , , .
Bogaert, P-N. , . Goldhill, S. .
Böhler, D. , . Goodman, W.R. , .
Briant, P. . Grabbe, L. , , , , , .
Brooke, A.E. , , , .
Habel, N. .
Campbell, J.G. . Hanhart, R. , , , , , , ,
Charlesworth, J.H. . , , , , , , ,
Clines, D.J. , , , , , , , , , .
, , , , . Harrington, D.J. .
Coggins, R.J. , , , , , , Hengel, M. , , .
, , , , , , , Hillhorst, A. , , , ,
, , , , , , , .
, , , , , , , Holmes, M.W. , .
, . Hood, J. , .
Cook, S.A. , , , , , ,
, . In der Smitten, W.Th. .
Coxon, P.W. .
Crenshaw, J.L. , , , , Japhet, S. .
, , . Jellicoe, B.S. , .
Crook, Z.A. . Johnson, M. , .
Cross, F.M. .
Kaiser, W.C. .
de Lagarde, P. . Klein, R.W. , , , , ,
deSilva, D.A. , . , , , , , , ,
De Troyer, K. , , , . , .
De Wette, W.M.L. . Knibb, M.A. , , , , , ,
, , , , , , ,
 index of modern authors
Knibb, M.A. (cont.) , , ,
, , , , , , ,
, , , , , .
Marcos, N.M. .
McDonald, L.M. .
McLean, N. , , , .
McNamara, M. , .
Menon, M. .
Merrill, E.H. .
Metzger, B.M. .
Myers, J.M. , , , , , ,
, , , , , , ,
, , , , , , ,
, , , , , , ,
, , , , , , ,
, , , , , , ,
, , , , , .
Niskanen, P. .
North, R. .
Oesterley, W.O.E , .
Pakkala, J. , .
Pfeiffer, R.H. , , .
Pohlmann, K.F. , , , , ,
, .
Porter, S.E. , , , ,
, .
Radolph, W. , , .
Rahlfs, A. , , , .
Sandoval, T.J. , , , , .
Schradwe, E. .
Schürer, E. , , .
Seid, T.W. .
Skeat, T.C. .
Steinmann, A.E. , .
Swete, H.B. .
Talshir, D. , , .
Talshir, Z. , , , , , ,
, , , , , , ,
, , , , , , ,
, , , , , , ,
, , , , , , ,
, , , , , , ,
, , , , , , ,
, , , , , , ,
, , , , , , ,
, .
Tedesche, S.S. , .
Thackeray, H. , .
Throntveit, M.A. .
Torrey, C. , , , , , , ,
, , , , , .
Tov, E. .
van der Kooij, A. , , .
van der Woude, A.S. , .
Vriezen, T.C. , .
Walde, B. .
Wasserstein, A. .
Wevers, J.W. .
Widengren, G. .
Williamson, H.G.M. , , , ,
, , , , , , , ,
, , , , , , ,
, , , , , , ,
, , , , , , ,
, , , , .
Wills, L.M. .
Wooden, R.G. , .
Wright, N.T. .
Zimmerman, F. , , , ,
, .
Zunz, L. .
 INDEX OF ANCIENT CITATIONS

. Classical Sources

Aristotle Plato
Ethica Nicomachea Alcibiades
..  .b 
Rhetorica Crito
..  a 
Symposium
Cicero e 
De Oratore
  Plutarch
Alexander
Diogenes Laertius  
Vitae
.  Quintilian
Institutio Oratoria
Herodotus .. 
Historiae .. 
.  Cryopaedia
..  .. 
. 
.  Tacitus
.–  Dialogue
.–  . 
.– 
Xenophon
Isocrates Anabasis
Evagoras – 
 

. Jewish Scriptures

Genesis :– 

:  : 
:  : 
:  : 
:  : 
:  : 
:  : (LXX) 
 index of ancient citations

Genesis (cont.) : 

:  :– 
:  : 
:  :– 
:–  : 
:  :– , 
: 
:  Numbers
: 
Exodus : 
:  : 
:  : 
:–  : 
:  : 
:  : 
:  : 
:  : 
:  :– 
:  :– 
:–  : 
:  :– 
:  : 
:  : 
: 
:–  Deuteronomy
: (LXX)  : 
:  : 
:  :– 
:  : 
:–  : 
: ,  : 
:  : 
:–  : 
:–  : 
:– 
Leviticus : 
:–  : 
:–  : 
:  : 
:–  : 
:  : 
:  : 
: ,  : 
:–  : 
:  : 
:  :– 
:  : 
 index of ancient citations 

:  :– 

:  : 
:–  :– 
:  : 
:  : 
:–  : 
:  : (LXX) 
:  – 
:  : 
: 
:  Kings
: ,  : 
:  :– 
 
Joshua : 
:  :– 
:  :– 
:  : 
: 
Judges :–: 
:   
:  : 
:  :– 
:  : 
  : 
:  : 
:  :– 
:– 
Samuel : , 
:–  :– 
:  : 
:  : , , 
:  : 
:– 
Samuel
:  Chronicles
:  :– 
:–  : 
:–  : 
:–  : (LXX) 
:  : 
:  : 
:– 
Kings : 
:  : 
:  : (LXX) 
:  : 
 index of ancient citations

Chronicles (cont.) : 

:  : 
:  : 
:–  :– 
:  : 
:   , 
:  : 
:  :– 
:  :– 
:–  : 
:  :– 
:–  :– 
:–  :– 
  : 
:   , , 
:  :–: 
:  : 
:  : 
:– 
Chronicles : 
:  : 
:–  : , 
:   
:  :– 
:–  :– 
:  : 
:  :– 
:  : , 
:–  : , 
:  :– 
–  : , 
:  : 
:  :– 
:  :– 
:  : 
:  :– 
:  :– , 
:  : 
: 
–  Ezra
:  – , , , 
   
:  :– 
:  :– , , 
:–  :– 
:–  : 
:  : 
 index of ancient citations 

:–  :– 

: ,  :– 
–  : , 
 , , ,  : 
:–:  :– 
:– ,  :– 
: , , ,  :b –  
:–  :– , , 
: ,  :– , 
: ,  : 
  : 
:–:  : 
:–:  :– , 
:–  : 
:–  : 
:  : 
:  : 
:–  : 
:  :– 
:–  : 
: ,  : 
: , ,  – , 
:  :–: , 
  :– 
:– ,  : 
:  :– 
:  :– 
:  : 
:  :– 
:–  : 
:  : 
:– , ,  :– 
:–  : 
: ,  : 
:  : 
:  : 
:  :– 
:–:  : , 
: ,  : 
–  : 
:–  – 
:  :– 
:  :– 
:–  : 
:  : 
:  : 
:  : 
 index of ancient citations

Ezra (cont.) : 

:  :– 
:–  : 
:  :–: , , 
:  :–: 
:  : , 
:–  – 
:   , , , 
–  : 
: , , , : 
 : , 
: ,  :– 
:–  : 
:  :b 
:  : 
:  : , 
:  :– 
:   
:  : 
:  : 
 ,  : 
:–  : 
:  :– , 
:  :– 
: , 
:  Esther
:–  :– 
: ,  : 
:–  :– 
:  :– 
:  : 
:–  : 
:  : 
: 
Nehemiah :– 
:–  : 
:–  : 
:   
:–  : 
:  : 
: ,  : 
:  : 
:  : 
: 
:  Job
 , ,  : 
– ,  :– 
 index of ancient citations 

:  Proverbs

:  : 
:  :– 
:–: 
Psalms : 
  : 
:–  : 
:–  : 
:  : , 
:  : (LXX) 
: (LXX)  :– 
:  :– 
:   
:  :– 
:  : 
: 
:  Ecclesiastes
:  :– 
: (LXX)  : 
:–  :– 
:  : 
: , 
:–  Song of Solomon
:   
:   
:–   
: , 
:–:b Isaiah
 : 
:  : 
:–  :–: 
:  : 
:  : (LXX) 
:  :– 
:  : 
:  : 
:  : 
:  : 
:  : 
:  :– 
:–  : 
:  : 
:  : 
:  :– 
:  : 
:  : 
:– 
 index of ancient citations

Isaiah (cont.) : , 

:  : 
:  : 
:  : 
:–  : 
:  : 
: , ,
Jeremiah 
:   
:  :– , 
:  :– 
:  :– 
:  : 
:  : 
:  : 
:  : 
:–  : 
:–  : 
:  :– 
:–  :– 
:  : 
:–  : 
:  : 
: ,  : 
: 
:  Hosea
:  : 
:–  : 
:–  : 
: (LXX) 
Ezekiel
  Joel
:  : 
:  : 
: 
:  Amos
:  – 
:–  : 
: (LXX) 
Daniel :– 
– 
: ,  Obadiah
:–  – 
:–   
:– 
: ,  Jonah
:  : 
 index of ancient citations 

Micah Zechariah
:  : 
:  : 
:– 
Haggai : 
: ,  :– 
:  : 
:  :– 
:– ,  : 
: ,  : 
: , 
:  Malachi
:  :– 
:  : 
: 
: , , 

. Old Testament Apocrypha

Kingdoms : 

:  : , , ,
, , 
Additions to Esther : , 
:  :– 
:  :– 
: 
Baruch :– 
:–:  : , 
: ,  : 
:  : , , , 
:– 
Bel and the Dragon : , 
  :– 
: 
Esdras :– 
:– ,  : 
:– ,  :– 
:–  :– , , , ,
:–  
:–  :– 
:–  : , , , 
: ,  :– 
: ,  :– 
:–  :– 
:  : 
 index of ancient citations

Esdras (cont.) :– , 

:– ,  :– 
: , , , , :– , 
 :– 
:c  :– , , 
: , ,  : , , , ,
: , , , , , 
,  : , , , 
:–  :– 
:– ,  :– , 
: , ,  : , 
:  :– 
: ,  : , 
: ,  : 
:  :– , , 
: ,  :– 
:–  :– 
: , ,  : , 
: , , ,  : 
:  : 
: , ,  : , 
: , ,  : , , , 
: , , ,  :– , , , ,
:– ,  , , 
:– ,  :– 
: , , , , :– 
, ,  :– 
:–  : , , , ,
:–  , , ,
: , , , , , , 
 : , , , ,
:–  , 
:–  :– 
: , ,  : , , , ,
:–  
:–a  :c 
: ,  : , 
:  :– 
: ,  : , , 
:  :b 
:b –   : , , 
:– ,  :– 
: , , ,  : , , , 
: , , ,  :– 
 ,  : , , , ,
:–  , , 
 index of ancient citations 

:–  : 

: ,  :– 
:–  : , 
: ,  : , , 
:  : , , , 
:– ,  :– , 
: , ,  :–a 
: , , ,  :– , 
– , , , , : , , , ,
,  , , 
:–:  :– , 
:– ,  : 
:–  :– 
: ,  :– 
: ,  : , , , 
:  :b – a 
:–  :– 
: , , ,  : , 
:–  : , 
: , , , , :– 
,  : , , , 
:–  :– , 
: , ,  : , , 
:–  :a , 
:–  :b –  , 
:  : , , 
: , , , , : , , , 
 : , , , 
:  :– 
: ,  : , , , ,
:– ,  
:–  :– 
: ,  :– 
:  :– 
:–:  : , ,, ,
: ,  , 
:– ,  :– 
: , , , , : 
,  : 
:–  :– 
:–  :– , 
: , , ,  : 
:–  : , , 
: ,  :– , 
: ,  : 
:–  :– 
 index of ancient citations

Esdras (cont.) :– , , 

:  :– 
:a  : , 
:b –   : , , , 
:–  : , 
:  : , , , 
: ,  :– , 
: ,  :– 
:  : , , , 
:–  : , , , ,
: , , ,  
:– ,  :– 
:–  :– 
: , ,  : , 
: , , ,  : , 
: , , , :– 
,  :– 
: , , , , :– 
,  : , , 
:–  :– , 
:–  : 
:–  : , 
: , , , :– 
, , , : , , , ,
, , ,  , 
:b – a  :– , 
: , , ,  :– , 
:a ,  : , , , 
:b  :– 
: ,  : 
:b –   : , 
:c  :– , , 
:d  : 
: , , , : , , , 
,  : , 
:– ,  – 
: , ,   , , , 
:–  (LXX)
: , , , , :– 
, ,  :– , 
:c  : , 
: , , , , :– , 
, , , : 
,  : 
:– , ,  :– , 
: , , ,  : 
 index of ancient citations 

: , , , ,  :– 

:–  : , 
:–  : , 
:– ,  : , , ,
:– , , ,  , , 
: , , , , :e –  
,  : , 
:–  : , , 
:– , ,  :– 
: , ,  : , 
:b  :– 
:–  :– , 
:–  : , , ,
: ,  , , 
: ,  : , , , 
:  :– 
:  :– 
: , ,  : , , , ,
:  , 
:  : , , , 
: ,  : 
:  :– 
:–  : , , 
:  : , 
:  :– 
:  :– 
:  : , 
:  : , 
:–  : 
: ,  :– 
:–  : , , ,
:– , ,  , 
:  : 
:–  : , 
: , ,  : 
:– ,  : , 
: ,  :–: 
:  : , , , ,
:– ,  
: ,  : , , , 
:  :– 
: , , , ,  : , , , ,
:–  , , 
:– ,  :– 
: , , , : , 
,  : 
 index of ancient citations

Esdras (cont.) :– 

: ,  : , , , ,
: , , , , , , 
, ,  : 
:–  : 
:– ,  : , , , ,
: ,  
:b  :– 
: , ,  :– , 
:  : , , , 
:– ,  : , 
: ,  (LXX) : , , 
: , , ,  : , , , ,
:  , , ,
:  , , , 
: , ,  : , , ,
:–  , 
: , , , ,  :– 
: , ,  : , , 
: , ,  :a 
:– , ,  :– 
:  : 
: , , ,  : , , 
:a  :– 
:b  : , 
:–  : , , 
:–  – , 
:  :–: , , 
:–  :– , , 
:– ,  :– 
:  : , , , 
: ,  :a 
:–  :b 
:– ,  : , , 
: , , , , :– 
, ,  : , , , ,
: ,  , 
:–  :– , , 
: , ,  : , , ,
: , , ,  
:– ,  : 
: ,  : , , 
: , ,  :– , 
:  :– 
  : , , , ,
:–  , 
 index of ancient citations 

:–  : 

:–  :– 
: , ,  : , , 
:–  : , , 
: ,  :– 
: , , ,  : , , 
:– ,  :a 
:–  : 
: , , ,  : , 
:–  :– 
:  :– 
:  : , , , 
: ,  :– 
: ,  : , 
: ,  : , , 
:–  : 
:–  : , , 
: , , , , , :– , , 
, , , , : , , , 
, ,  :– 
:  : , , 
:–  : , , ,
: , , , , , 
, ,  :– 
: , ,  : , , ,
:–  , 
: , , , , , : , , , 
, , ,  : , 
: , , ,  :– , 
:– ,  : , , 
: ,  :– 
:  : 
: , , , , : , , , 
,  : , , ,
:– , ,  , , 
:  : , , 
: ,  :– 
:  :– 
:  : , , , ,
:  
:  : , , ,
:– , ,  , , 
: , , ,  : , , 
:  :– 
:–  :– 
:–  :– 
 index of ancient citations

Esdras (cont.) : , , 

: , , ,  :– 
: ,  : , , 
:–  : , , 
:–  : , 
:  : 
:–  : 
:–  : 
: ,  : , 
: ,  :– , 
: , , , : 
,  :– 
:–  : , , , ,
:–  , 
: , , , , : 
,  :– 
:  :– 
: ,  :– 
: , ,  : 
:– ,  :– 
:  : , 
:–  : 
:  : , 
:– ,  : 
: ,  : 
: , , ,  : 
:–  : , 
:  :– , 
: ,  : 
:  : 
:–:  : , 
:– ,  :a 
:–  :– , , 
: , ,  :– 
: , ,  :– 
: , , ,  : , , 
:–  : 
: , , ,  :– 
  : , , , ,
:–  , , ,
: , ,  , , 
:  :– , 
:  : , , , 
: , ,  : 
:–  : , , , , 
:– ,  :– 
 index of ancient citations 

: ,  : 

: ,  : 
:–  : 
: , ,  : 
: , , , , : 
, ,  : 
: , , ,  : 
:  : 
:– ,  : 
: , , ,  : 
:  : 
:  : 
:  : , 
:–  : 
:  : 
: , , , , : 
 : , 
:  : 
: 
Esdras (LXX) : 
 ,   
:  : 
:  : 
:  : 
:  : 
:  : 
:  : 
:  : 
: ,  : 
:  : 
: 
:–  Esdras Latin (= Ezra)
:  : 
:  : 
:  : 
: , ,  : 
: 
:  Judith
:–  : 
:  : 
:  : 
:  : , 
:  : 
:  : 
:  : 
:–  : 
 index of ancient citations

Judith (cont.) : 

:  : 
:  : 
:  : 
:  : 
:  : 
: 
Epistle of Jeremiah
:  Maccabees
:– 
Maccabees : 
:  : 
:  : 
:  : 
:  : 
:  : 
: 
:  Maccabees
:  : 
:–  :– 
:  : 
:  : 
:  : 
:– 
:–  Wisdom of Ben Sirach
:  : 
:  : 
:  : 
:  : , 
: , 
Maccabees : 
:  : 
:–:  : 
:  : 
:  : 
:  : 
:  : 
:  : 
:  : 
:  : 
:  : 
:  : 
:  : 
:  :– 
:  : 
:  : 
 index of ancient citations 

:  : 

:  : 
: ,  : 
:  : , , 
:  : 
:  : 
:  :– 
:–  : 
:–  : 
:  : 
:–  : 
:–  :– 
: 
:–  Wisdom of Solomon
:–  : 
:  : , 
:  : 
: 
Tobit : 
:  : 
:–:  : 

. Old Testament Pseudepigrapha

Baruch Psalms of Solomon

.  . 
 
Epistle of Aristeas . 
 
 ,  Sybilline Oracles
  .– 

Joseph and Asenath Testament of Judah

.–.  .– 
. 

. Other Jewish Sources

Josephus  , 

Against Apion .– 
.  .– 
Antiquities of the Jews . 
.  . 
.  . , 
.  . 
 index of ancient citations

Antiquities of the Jews (cont.) .– 

.  . 
.  . 
.  .– 
.–  . 
.  . 
.  . 
.–  . 
.  . 
.  .– 
. , ,  .– 
.–  .– 
.–  . 
. ,  . 
.  . 
.  . 
.–   
.  Jewish Wars
.  . 
.  . 
.–  .– 
.  . 
. ,  . 
. 
.  Philo
.–  De Migratione Abrahami
. ,   
.–   
.   
. ,  De Opificio Mundi
.   
.   
.  De Plantatione
.   
.  De Posteritate Caini
.–   
.  De Praemiis et Poenis
.–  – 
.  De Specialibus Legibus
.–  .– 
. ,  .– 
.  De Vita Mosis
.  . 
.  Legum Allegoriae
.  .– 
.–  . 
 index of ancient citations 

Quod Deus Sit Immutabilis Babylonian Talmud

  b.Megilla
b 
Dead Sea Scrolls b.Qiddusin
b 
Q b.Sanhedrin
.iii.  b 
Q  b.Sota
b 

. Christian Scriptures

Matthew John
:–  : 
:–  : 
: ,  : 
:  : , 
:–  : 
: , 
:  Acts
:–  : 
:  : 
:  : 
:  : 
:  : 
:  : 
:  : 
: 
Mark : 
:  : 
:–  : 
:  :– 
:  : 
: 
Luke : 
:  : 
:  : 
:  : 
:  : 
:  : 
:  : 
: 
:–  Romans
: 
: 
: 
 index of ancient citations

Corinthians Hebrews
:  : 
:– 
:  James
:  : 
:  : 
:– 
:  Peter
: 
Corinthians : 
:  : 
: 
:–  Peter
:  : 
: 
Jude
Ephesians  
: 
Revelation
Colossians : 
:  : 
:  : 
: 
Thessalonians : 
:  : 
: 
: 

. Other Christian Sources

Athanasius Clement of Alexandria

Defense before Constantinus Stromateis
  . 
Epistulae Festales . 
. 
Clement of Rome
Augustine Clement
Christian Doctrine : 
.  : 
De civitate Dei
.  Cyprian
.  Epistulae
Epistulae . 
. 
 index of ancient citations 

Cyril of Jerusalem Jerome

Catechetical Lectures Epistulae
.  . 

Eusebius Justin Martyr

De vita Constantini Dialogue with Trypho
.   
Historica Ecclesiastica
..  Shepherd of Hermas
..  Mandates
. 

. Papyri

P.Bris.Mus. P. Petr.
  .. 