rexrex4

Did Ezra even exist?

In volume 3 of The Interpreters Bible on page 552 it says under section heading, Author: Then on the next page under the date heading section, it discusses when these books were thought to have been written. Guesses range from 350 BCE to at the extreme range 180 BCE. It gives the reasons for these dates. It then says at the top of the second column,: On page 563 under section headed Historicity, reading through The whole of it, one can be astounded to find that, as it says on page 565 in the last paragraph of column 1, that some scholars consider that Ezra may be an entirely fictional character.


The Interpreter’s Bible in twelve volumes was used by me at my local public library.

Diogenes the Cynic

I split this because I think it's an interesting question unto itself and is somewhat tangential to the original thread.

DtC

spin

Your Honour,

I'd like to call the first witness, Jesus ben Sira, writer of the famous wisdom book known to us as Ecclesiasticus (aka Sirach). Mr ben Sira includes in his book a section, chapters 44 to 49, about illustrious figures in Jewish tradition. He lists them all through Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Moses, David, and all the good guys down to Zerubbabel, Jeshua and Nehemiah. What is painfully obvious is that Ezra didn't rate a mention among these illustrious people. Ezra is the figure responsible for purifying the religion of evil Canaanite influences, of maintaining the purity of Jewish blood, of reading the full law to all Israel, yet Mr ben Sira inadvertantly passes over him. This is so strange that people have had to theorize that Mr ben Sira had something against Ezra and so claim that the omission was polemic, yet Mr ben Sira has shown no problems with any of the other figures he mentions. Thank you, Mr ben Sira.

Now Your Honour, I'd like to proffer exihibit A, some tiny fragments of the book we know today as Ezra. They were found among the Dead Sea Scrolls and consist of slivers of text from chapters 4 and 5. First we cannot be sure that these fragments were connected then to the book we now call Ezra. They don't contain any information about Ezra. They do not evince support for the existence of the central figure of the book of Ezra, a figure who doesn't appear in that book until chapter 7.

The first writer who shows knowledge of Ezra is the Jewish apologist/historian Josephus. Mr Josephus knows a lot about Ezra, all of which he derived from a work known to us as 1 Esdras, a Greek text based on a Hebrew original, which is different from today's Ezra. In fact Mr Josephus includes in his summary of 1 Esdras the reading of the law by Ezra, now found in our modern book of Nehemiah chapter 8. If I understand Mr Josephus correctly, his summary suggests that the passage was originally part of the Ezra tradition, but was moved to Nehemiah after the time Mr Josephus wrote his history.

I'd like to call for a recess now, Your Honour, to allow my colleagues to reassess the situation.

Thank you.


spin

Wallener

Without having looked at it too closely, I'm inclined to believe Ezra existed as a concept rather than as an individual. It's quite unlikely the Great Redaction was done by one individual - that's a lot of writing! - but nobody wants The Word transmitted through a committee - so a collective pseudonym seems like an obvious choice.

Celsus

Too funny, spin! Two questions: What do you make of 2 Esdras 19:45-46, and what does one do with Sirach's other notable omission, Joseph? The first almost reads like an acknowledgement of multiple sectarian interests, while the second tends to support the view of the Joseph cycle as a wisdom unit (Egyptian?).

Joel

spin

The English apocryphal book that I have access to has 16 chapters. The LXX and Vulgate versions I have in software have only 37 verses in chapter 19. It seems I'm not going have it easy dealing with your first question. The English text is an apocalytic work, whereas the Greek and Latin works are a combined Erza and Nehemiah. What's the version you're citing and what does it say?

You tax my brain with the second question. With a few exceptions all the prophets know about is the house or tribe of Joseph. While we are talking about omission though, another one is perhaps not quite so startling as reflecting on Joseph. Where is Daniel? Another good believer in another foreign court making headway interpreting dreams.

But you're throwing a few tangents to the thread. Don't you have anything to say about umm, Ezra?


spin

Celsus

D'oh. It's terrible when you can't even read your own handwriting, and worse when it's not the first time it's happened. I meant 2 Esdras 14:45-46...

• And when the forty days were ended, the Most High spoke to me, saying, "Make public the twenty-four books that you wrote first, and let the worthy and unworthy read them; but keep the seventy that were written last, in order to give them to the wise among your people." (NRSV)

While not conclusive perhaps, 2 Esdras 14:21-22 is also relevant, indicating the rewriting of history. Still, it's hard to see the authority of Ezra being based entirely on a legendary figure, even if the stories are clearly fictional.
I think there's a lot more similarity to Joseph and Daniel than most people (let alone apologists) recognise at first glance (and both are omitted by Sirach). To me, both are late wisdom narratives that flesh out the characters purportedly behind the traditions (and I'm separating it from the apocalyptic aspect of Daniel here). I'm thinking that this Jew in a foreign land who wows the Gentiles is a running theme of a Diaspora community, which makes the omission by Sirach even more surprising, suggesting a terminus post quem for both cycles at the start of the second century BCE. Of course, it's speculative, but I believe von Rad said similar things.
Sorry, still had the Daniel thread in mind... I agreed with what you said, hence I have little to add on Ezra.

Joel