Ezra-Nehemiah

DNA and other evidence suggests the early history of the Hebrew Old Testament concerns two entirely separate people united by monotheism and military conquest. The first, taking the name of Israelites from Israel (Jacob), the grandson of the Patriarch Jacob, had a brief stay in the Egyptian Eastern Delta before falling out of favour and eventually fleeing to West Arabia in the chaos of Bronze Age collapse ca.1200 BC. There they were overwhelmed in a lengthy campaign by a black Nubian Cushitic-speaking people called the Hebrew, recently converted to the cult of YHWH. The two peoples intermarried but the Nubian priesthood dominated thereafter and eventually reinvented itself as part of the Semitic Abrahamic tradition. Cut off through Babylonian exile from its gene pool in West Arabia, the Nubian high priesthood identified the present-day area of Israel and Palestine as the Promised Land of Moses and portrayed themselves as a special Middle East people who had escaped slavery in the Delta, not as a black Nubian enslaved gold mining force that had fled to Yemen during a time of ecological disaster characterised by severe earthquake and volcanic activity.

I argue, pace Thiessen, that the boundaries of restored Israel in Ezra 1–6 are porous: the texts that establish the community’s exclusivism do so only provisionally, in place of a working temple cult. This is shown especially in Ezra 2:61–63, where priests who cannot find written proof of their ancestry must wait for Urim and Thummim. Thus, during the Passover in Ezra 6:19–21, the cult (rather than written documents) ultimately establishes boundaries, permitting the inclusion of outsiders.

The focus of this presentation is the character of Yhwh in the book of Ezra, specifically the construction of the masculinity of Yhwh. The analytical category I amploy  is drawn from critical studies of masculinities and the growing scholarship on ancient West Asian and biblical masculinities. It speaks to an issue that I suggest, is at stake in the text and is a matter of concern for those who are represented by and in this narrative world: the ability of Yhwh to perform as a supreme male deity. I consider some of the issues in the book of Ezra that might raise doubts concerning the masculinity of Yhwh and then address strategies by which Yhwh is rehabilitated in this narrative world so that he may be proven to be “good at being a male god”.  I then turn to the debate over the marriages to ‘foreign women’ in Ezra 9-10 to consider the significance of Yhwh’s masculinity for the configuration of social and religious power within the golah and for those represented in and by the text.

This paper calls into question the apparent, widespread failure to call into question their failures of the characters in Ezra-Nehemiah. Upon closer examination, Ezra and Nehemiah, along with Zerubbabel, like nearly all other biblical characters, present us with ambivalent portraits. Along with their good traits and actions, there are also numerous, oft-whitewashed actions which we should assiduously avoid. Thus they also teach us how leaders should not behave. Perhaps the main lessons to be learned from Ezra-Nehemiah are from the negative example of these leaders, their mistakes and sins, more than their positive actions. Comparing their actions to other intertexts within Scripture—i.e. aiming the canon at them—is key to this reading. (2011)

In this essay author argue that at the early stage of Ezra book in some scrolls the returning from Babilon has been shifted from the times of King Cyrus to the times of King Darius. This King Darius perhabs was not Persian King Darius I, but mythical Darius the Mede. Biblical writers who shifted the returning from Babilon believed that God's agent was not King Cyrus, but Darius the Mede who (according to historical knowledge of some biblical authors) actually destroyed Babylon.

« Alors tout le peuple s’est rassemblé comme un seul homme sur la place qui fait face à la porte des eaux. Ils ont demandé au scribe Esdras d’apporter le livre de la loi de Moïse, prescrite par l’Éternel à Israël, et Esdras, qui était aussi prêtre, a apporté la loi devant l'assemblée. Celle-ci était composée d’hommes et de femmes, de tous ceux qui étaient aptes à la comprendre. C’était le premier jour du septième mois. Esdras a lu dans le livre depuis le matin jusqu'à la mi-journée, sur la place qui fait face à la porte des eaux, en présence des hommes et des femmes, de ceux qui étaient en âge de comprendre. Le peuple tout entier s’est montré attentif à la lecture du livre de la loi.
« Le scribe Esdras se tenait debout sur une estrade en bois, fabriquée pour l’occasion. À côté de lui, à sa droite, se tenaient Matthithia, Shéma, Anaja, Urie, Hilkija et Maaséja, et à sa gauche Pedaja, Mishaël, Malkija, Hashum, Hashbaddana, Zacharie et Meshullam. Esdras a ouvert le livre de façon visible pour le peuple dans son entier – puisqu’il était surélevé par rapport à lui – et lorsqu’il a fait ce geste, tout le peuple s’est mis debout. Esdras a béni l’Éternel, le grand Dieu, et tous les membres du peuple ont répondu : “Amen ! Amen !” en levant les mains, puis ils se sont prosternés et ont adoré l’Éternel, le visage contre terre. Josué, Bani, Shérébia, Jamin, Akkub, Shabbethaï, Hodija, Maaséja, Kelitha, Azaria, Jozabad, Hanan et Pelaja, qui étaient lévites, expliquaient la loi au peuple, et celui-ci est resté debout sur place. Ils lisaient distinctement dans le livre de la loi de Dieu et ils en donnaient le sens pour faire comprendre ce qu’ils avaient lu. »

Very few Bible scholars believe now in the historicity of the book of Esther, but what is really incomprehensible is that their conclusion is based only on the following prejudice: this story looks like a fairy tale, consequently, it is a fairy tale! There is no chronological investigation despite the fact that chronology is the backbone of history and there has been no historical research among archaeological witnesses despite the fact that apart from ancient texts there is no witness. Worse still, to establish their chronology, historians have blind faith in the Babylonian king lists which are nevertheless false (reporting no usurpation and no co-regency). Additionally, in order to establish historical truth, they regularly quote the official propaganda of the time which is very often misleading. Yet it is easy to check in the tablets of Persepolis that Mordecai was an eminent royal scribe called Marduka who worked with Tatennai, the governor beyond the River, under the direction of Uštanu, the satrap of Babylon, during the years 17 to 32 of Darius. Similarly, the narrative of Herodotus regarding Amestris (a name meaning ‘vigorous woman’ in Old Persian), Xerxes' unique wife and only queen known in Persia, corresponds in many ways to Esther (‘star’ in Old Persian”) despite the unfavourable and biased description of the Persian queen.
https://www.lulu.com/shop/gerard-gertoux/queen-esther-wife-of-xerxes-chronological-historical-and-archaeological-evidence/paperback/product-15egvzwr.html

As for the overall historicity of the book —despite widespread dismissal from skeptics— there is likewise a remarkable body of evidence for it, including the historical identity of Queen Esther herself. For more on this, read a thorough investigation by Gerard Gertoux (The Armstrong Institute of Biblical Archaeology https://armstronginstitute.org/674).

This article challenges popular prevailing opinion that the post-exile characters of Ezra, Nehemiah, and Zebabbabel are intended to serve as positive role models for godly leadership. On closer scrutiny, their sincere and zealous intentions are comprised by significant flaws and sins. The true hope for Israel, and for positive role models for leadership, lie elsewhere.
MIQRA (2011): 8-15

This study finds that the classification of Neh 1:5-11 as a penitential prayer overlooks the distinctive ways it differs from other prayers in the genre and fails to explain its function in the narrative. Literary analysis suggests that Neh 1:5-11 was intentionally designed and placed to function as a key for interpreting the book overall.

<b>Abstract/Intro:</b>  In what follows, I outline a chronology of the activities of Haggai, Zechariah, Ezra, and Nehemiah.  Post-exilic life in Judah has a distinctly Sabbatical rhythm, which is aligned with all the known observances of Sabbatical years in Israel’s intertestamental period.  In particular, post-exilic life in Judah is punctuated by a number of important events when the people gather in a public square and God’s word is ministered in a public manner.

<b>Key Words:</b>  <i>Sabbatical years, Sabbatical cycle, dates, week, chronology, Haggai, Zechariah, Ezra, Nehemiah, post-exilic, Second Temple</i>

These notes are covering the main lines of scholarship regarding the character Jahaziel the Levite who prophesies in 2 Chronicles 20:14-17. The mainly come from  the book The Chronicler’s Prophet and the Temple Restoration , lulu.com by the same author: The outline of the book is as follows:
Contents
Abstract 10
Abbreviations 15
Bible Books Abbreviations 19
Transliteration: 21
Time Lines 22
Timeline 1: Rulers Dates BCE 22
Timeline 2: Jubilee Years 25
Timeline 3: Cult dates 26
1.0.0 Introduction 29
1.1 Jahaziel, and Date, Authorship and Audience 38
Conclusion Pillar 1: 68
1.2 Jahaziel and the Unity of Chronicles, Ezra and Nehemiah 69
Conclusion Pillar 2 70
1.3 Jahaziel and the Jubilee factor 70
Conclusion Pillar 3 75
2.0.0 Jahaziel Among the Scholars 76
A Jahaziel No Temple Prophet 76
2.1.0 Wellhausen, Naaman, Stavrakopolou: Jahaziel Imaginary Creation of the Chronicler 76
2.2.0 Von Rad: Jahaziel the Levitical Preacher 88
2.3.0 Rendtorff: Jahaziel A Type not Connected to the Temple 88
B Jahaziel a Real Prophet? 90
2.4.0 Japhet: Jahaziel a Literary Figure with An Artificial Name 90
2.5.0 Nasuti, Miller, Throntveit: Literary Jahaziel a Witness 91
2.6.0 Schniedewind: Jahaziel The Literary Post Exilic Inspired Interpreter 92
2.7.0 Beentjes: Jahaziel A Literary Personage Imitating God’s Decision 98
2.8.0 Amzallag: Jahaziel Ex Choir Member and Not a Genuine Prophet 100
2.9.0 Levin: Jahaziel Not a Professional Prophet 105
2.10.0 Tournay: 108
Jahaziel Prophet of Zion The New Sinai 108
Prophets Like Jahaziel In the Fixed Order of The Cult 112
2.11.0 Hooke and Haldar and Johnson, Jahaziel Intercessor and Spokesman 112
2.12.0 Petersen: Jahaziel As Prophet in Sociological Perspective 113
2.13.0 Hilber: Jahaziel Cultic Prophet or Imitator of Prophetic Style 116
2.14.0 Mowinckel: Jahaziel A Prophetically Gifted Cult Psalmist 116
2.15.0 Jonker: Jahaziel The Voice of Yahweh 120
Conclusion Pillar 4 121
2.16.0 The Necessity of the Investigation 121
Method 125
3.0.0 The Context of Jahaziel 127
Table:Genealogy from Abraham the Prophet 128
3.1.0 Jahaziel as the Turning point 133
3.2.0 Jahaziel’s Place in Cultic Approach to Yahweh 135
3.2.1 Jehoshaphat’s Order of Service (2 Chr 20) 136
3.2.2 The Aim of the Chronicler in Relating the Episode 140
3.2.3 David's First Lesson about the Levites: They Must Bear the Ark and Minister to Yahweh 141
3.2.4 The Disaster of Ignoring the Mishpat Regarding the Levites 141
3.2.5 David Corrects His Mistake According to the Mishpat of the Levites: They Minister to Yahweh forever 142
3.2.6 The Rise of the House of Asaph Under the House of David: Levites Must Play the Music 142
3.2.7 Jehoshaphat Like David Seeks Yahweh According to Mishpat 143
3.2.8 Five Main Covenantal Authorities in Determining Mishpat: Yahweh, Levi, Moses, David, Solomon 143
3.2.9 Jehoshaphat: Abraham as Friendאהב of Yahweh 144
3.2.10 Jehoshaphat and Asaph 147
3.2.11 David a Servant, Solomon a Son of Yahweh 148
3.2.12 David's Covenant of Grace from Yahweh for his Son 149
3.2.13 Asaph, David and the Psalter 151
3.2.14 Asaph and the Psalms 151
3.2.15 Jahaziel a "Professional Prophet" I 152
3.2.16  Conclusion Pillar 5 159
3.2.17 Jahaziel and the Psalmists 167
3.2.18 Jahaziel Standing Before Yahweh 168
3.2.19 Houses with Specific Jobs: The House of Levi and the House of David 176
3.2.20 The Chronicler's Prophets 183
3.2.21 The Origin of the Sons of the Prophets 195
3.3.0 Jahaziel a Son of Asaph 201
3.4.0 Jahaziel and the Formal Schools in ANE Mesopotamia 203
3.5.0 Jahaziel’s  Informal Prophetic Education in Judah 204
3.6.0 Jahaziel in the Davidic Calendar Based on Heads of the Father’s Houses 212
3.7.0 Jahaziel: The Spirit of Yahweh was on Him in the Midst of the Qahal 218
3.8.0 Hebrew Text of 2 Chronicles 20:15-17 223
3.8.1הַקְשִׁ֤יבוּ 229
3.8.2 כָל־יְהוּדָה֙ 230
3.8.3 ְיֹשְׁבֵ֣י יְרוּשָׁלִַ֔ם 231
3.8.4 וְהַמֶּ֖לֶך 234
3.8.5 יְהוֹשָׁפָ֑ט 235
3.8.5a כֹּֽה־אָמַ֙ר יְהוָ֜ה 235
3.8.6 לָכֶ֗ם אַ֠תֶּם 237
3.8.7 אַל־תִּֽירְא֤וּ 239
3.8.8 וְאַל־תֵּחַ֙תּוּ 240
3.8.9 מִפְּנֵ֙י 241
3.8.10  הֶהָמ֤וֹן הָרָב֙ 241
3.8.10 a כִּ֣י לֹ֥א לָכֶ֛ם הַמִּלְחָמָ֖ה 242
3.8.11 מָחָר֙ 243
3.8.12 רְד֣וּ 244
3.8.13 עֲלֵיהֶ֔ם 249
3.8.14 הִנָּ֥ם עֹלִ֖ים 249
3.8.15 בְּמַעֲלֵ֣ה 249
3.8.16 הַצִּ֑יץ 250
3.8.17 וּמְצָאתֶ֤ם אֹתָם֙ 250
3.8.18 בְּס֣וֹף 251
3.8.19 הַנַּ֔חַל 251
3.8.20 פְּנֵ֖י מִדְבַּ֥ר 253
3.8.21 יְרוּאֵֽל 253
3.8.22 לֹ֥א לָכֶ֖ם לְהִלָּחֵ֣ם 253
3.8.23 בָּזֹ֑את 254
3.8.24 הִתְיַצְּב֣וּ 255
3.8.25 עִמְד֡וּ 256
3.2.26 וּרְא֣וּ 258
3.2.27 Other Words 258
3.9.0 The Language of Jahaziel 260
3.10.0 Sources in Chronicles 261
3.11.0 The Message of Jahaziel 267
3.10.1 Sources Behind Jahaziel 272
3.12.0 Jahaziel in Relation to Others 277
Table: Yahweh’s Metaphorical Body Parts 280
3.13.0 Jahaziel in Covenantal Perspective 289
3.14.0 The Navi’ and the Covenant of David 299
3.15.0 Jahaziel in the Structure of Chronicles 303
3.16.0  Jahaziel and  Abrahamic Covenant and the Inheritiance 311
3.17.0 Jahaziel and Mosaic Authority in the Covenant of Yahweh 323
3.18.0 Jahaziel and David’s Brit Olam: Prophet’s Organiser 325
3.19.0 Jahaziel and the Ways of a Father’s house 339
3.19.1  Jahaziel and the Size of a Father’s House 340
3.20.0 Jahaziel ben Asaph on Mount Zion? 344
3.21.0 Jahaziel among the Prophets of the Chronicler 346
3.21.1 Synonyms for Prophets 352
3.21.2 Prophets as Writers 353
3.21.3 Jobs of a Prophet 360
3.21.4 Psalmists Transformed to Prophets 361
3.21.5 Prophesying Families 364
3.21.6 The Sons of the Prophets 366
Conclusion 373
ביבליוגרפיה 375

Название «4-я книга Эзры» 1 , или «Апокалипсис Эзры», носит в научной литературе основная часть (главы 3-14) второканонической библейской 3-й книги Ездры 2 . Согласно мнению современных исследователей, первоначально 4-я книга Эзры была написана на еврейском языке, однако не сохранился ни сам подлинник, ни цитаты из него 3 . Все имеющиеся переводы книги восходят к ее греческой версии, которая являлась, в свою очередь, переводом с еврейского оригинала. Греческая версия также не сохранилась, однако в сочинениях церковных авторов (Апостольские постановления, Послание Варнавы, «Строматы» Климента Александрийского) присутствуют цитаты из нее 4 .

ABSTRACT

NEHEMIAH’S BRICKS AND MORTAR STORY: STRATEGY FOR A SUCCESSFUL BUILDING PROJECT

Carla M. Antoine

Liberty University Baptist Theological Seminary, 2014

Mentor: Dr. Charles N. Davidson

    Nehemiah was given a task to rebuild the walls of Jerusalem.  His leadership was effective, essential, strategic, and successful.  Nehemiah's methodology provides a perfect model for completing church construction projects.  This thesis project will examine aspects of Nehemiah's leadership and its effects on the various facets of construction. This project will review the theological, sociological, and philosophical views of Nehemiah, as well as the vision elements of a project, mobilization of workers, provision, and a structured guide for successfully completing the project.  Research will be conducted on 100 church leaders, and congregations who have started a building project, completed a project, or experienced difficulties in the building process.  The goal is to provide a practical blueprint for successful completion of church building projects. 

Abstract length: 123 words.

Esdras 4.13 offre deux points de départ pour explorer le rapport entre la traduction biblique et les études bibliques. Dans l’araméen de ce verset le traducteur tombe sur deux mots dont le sens était moins clair pour les spécialistes des générations précédentes et, chose étonnante, continue ainsi dans des versions contemporaines – notamment celles en français – malgré des découvertes éclairantes au cours des cent dernières années. Le premier but de cet article est de survoler l’histoire de l’interprétation du premier de ces deux mots araméens, soit ךְָלֲה halâk. En raison de l’espace disponible, je dois forcément me limiter à sa traduction dans les versions françaises et anglaises. Deuxièmement, cet article soulignera quelques défauts des méthodes exégétiques qui se basent sur la comparaison des versions, méthodes qui sont considérées comme des raccourcis, du moins selon un spécialiste. Troisièmement, on explorera le rapport entre des éclairages grâce aux études bibliques et des facteurs sociologiques qui ont un rôle incontournable à jouer dans les projets de traduction de la Bible dans les langues vernaculaires.

In this study I examine the linguistic and theological contours of the term  תורה (tôrâ) in Ezra-Nehemiah—particularly the identification of תורה with the law (דת\דתא) of God promulgated by Ezra (Ezra 7:14)—through the lens of Old Persian and Avestan notions of “the law set down (dāta)” by Ahura Mazda and revealed through Zarathustra. While the basic notion of divine revelation of laws through the mediation of Moses emerges already in preexilic biblical texts, I posit that the innovative link drawn by the authors of Ezra-Nehemiah between the Old Persian and Avestan term dāta (via Aramaic דת\דתא) and the Hebrew  תורה reflects a broader and more comprehensive impact of Avestan traditions, mediated by Achaemenid ideology, on the construction and conceptualization of Mosaic  תורה in Ezra-Nehemiah. Weighing in on the ongoing debate over the range of imperial authorization of local legislation and cult in Judea, Egypt, and Asia Minor, I argue that the Achaemenids, who were probably involved in certain aspects of the codification and canonization of textual, legal, and theological manifestations of Zoroastrianism, functioned as agents (whether actively or passively) in facilitating and reinforcing the adaptation by the Babylonian-Judean scribes of Avestan notions of divine revelation of the law and scriptural unity linked to personal authority.

The intent of this paper is to provide a model for understanding a particular biblical book – Ezra-Nehemiah – in its culture and historical context. To this end, the paper is divided into four main sections. First, a method of understanding cultural similarities using the ideas of affinity and proximity will be presented. Second, the geography and material culture of the three regions of the book will be examined. Third, the literature of the period will be compared to Ezra-Nehemiah. Fourth, the iconography and cultural expression of both Yehud and Achaemenid Persia will be considered. After these explorations, the paper will conclude with a short section dealing with an approach to presenting this material in a Bible study setting with non-specialists.

See the longer treatment in Early Jewish and Christian Memories of Moses' Wives: Exogamist Marriage and Ethnic Identity (Mellen, 2005).

In contrast to the book of Ezra, whose protagonists demand that Jews expel “foreign” wives, the story of the Midianite Zipporah, Moses’ wife, affirms that foreign women are beneficial to Israel. Zipporah’s circumcision of her son in Exodus 4 is the climax of a pattern in which females thwart attacks on endangered males. Later, Zipporah’s Midianite father confessed faith in Moses’ God and ate a meal with Israel in the presence of God. Zipporah and her father represent a household that originated outside of Israel’s ideological boundaries, but became positively allied to Israel through marriage, circumcision, confession, and sacrifice. This and similar stories suggest that, among those who selected and shaped the narratives of the Tanakh, there was considerable and persuasive dissent from what has often been assumed to be the dominant position in Second Temple Judaism. This paper is a precursor to a book that explores the origins of circumcision, celibacy and textual ethnicity construction, as well as Jewish and Christian interpretations of Moses’ exogamy.

Regnant documentary theories do not account for the large amount of Aramaic narrative framing seen in Ezra 4–6. The discourse employed by this narrator shows him to be a
Samarian in orientation. The implied author constructs this narrative perspective as a poetic device through which the reader/listener learns the foes of his time—Samarian and
Persian—are not as formidable as he may have thought them to be, and that the God of Israel works in ways that he may not have appreciated without this external testimony.

This paper explores Ezra and what he brought with him from Babylonia to the Land of Israel, examining the view of rabbis of both locales. Using as an organizing principle the phrase "Hu Ezra Alah mi-Bavel" (Ezra 7:6), this study considers the framing of Ezra as exemplary of the superiority of alternatively Babylonia or the Land of Israel in the realms of Torah knowledge, Temple restoration, and genealogical purity.

The present study of the numerical features of the Book of Ezra-Nehemiah demonstrates that it is a well-planned literary unity consisting of an Ezra section and a Nehemiah section. It has not been written in time order, but is a non-chronological collage of sources available to the author. It appears to be a sophisticated numerical composition: 66% of the 9065 words are shaped and highlighted by the divine name numbers 17 and 26, to signify the presence of YHWH in what is described in it, showing that it is conceived as a religious writing.
A special feature of the book is the prolific use of the number of fulfilment, 11, which shapes and highlights 63% of the words (taking into consideration that there are some overlappings). It functions as a device to symbolize the fulfilment of YHWH’s promise to bring his people back to their country, as foretold by Jeremiah (29,10). To give a few examples: Ezra 1 has 11 verses and the very first paragraph (1,1-6) is made up of 121 (11x11) words. Nehemiah 1 has likewise 11 verses, and Chapters 1-2 are made up 572 (2x26x11) words. Ezra’s concluding chapter (10) has 44 verses, while Nehemiah 13 has 473 (43x11) words. It is clearly The Book of Accomplishment.

Le but de ce guide est de guider le traducteur à comprendre le texte biblique et des différences d’interprétation représentés par les versions. Le traducteur trouvera aussi des suggestions pour la traduction.

Ce guide a également été conçu pour le conseiller en traduction.

This paper looks at the chronology of Ezra 4-6 as it relates to the identity of the Persian king "Artaxerxes" mentioned in Ezra 6:14. In this paper I explain why I believe the evidence suggests that this "Artaxerxes" was the Persian king Darius I.

This paper explores the basis for the claim that the Persian word "Artaxerxes" was only used as a throne name by Persian kings starting with Longimanus. This author believes that a reasonable case can be made for the more general use of this word as a title by Persian kings before Longimanus. This paper also explores the origins of the word arta / xsaca and provides evidence to show why the Jewish author of Ezra may have used this title to refer to Persian king Darius I.

The textbooks on the textual criticism of the Hebrew Bible, while discussing all kinds of textual errors, rarely attempt to quantify the number of errors it might be reasonable to suppose exist in our Masoretic Bibles. The heyday of emendation is past, and there are some tendencies today to minimize or disregard alleged textual errors. But the commentator and the classroom teacher are faced every day with problems in the Hebrew text, and often wonder whether they are right to accept amendments to the traditional text. How often might it be appropriate to resort to emendation, how many errors in a chapter of  Bible would it be reasonable to expect to find? Surprisingly, there is an empirical method for answering the question in broad terms, though it has been almost totally overlooked. It consists of comparing passages in the Hebrew Bible that are located in two different places (texts in ‘double transmission’) and counting the number of variants. I have published my results from such a comparison of the psalm of David in 2 Samuel 22 and Psalm 18 (Studia theologica 56 [2002] 76-95), where I concluded that as many as one word in four may be textually corrupt. In the present paper I will apply the same approach to the parallel passages in Ezra 2 and Nehemiah 7, less interesting as texts than the psalm of David, but equally rewarding for the empirical data they contain about the likelihood of textual corruption.

After the temple was rebuilt, the golah community celebrated the Passover where “the sons of Israel” and “all those who had separated from the uncleanness of the nations of the land” partook of the Passover meal (Ezra 6:21). A critical question from this Passover account is whether the golah community in the book of Ezra, which is generally seen to be exclusive, permitted non-golah to participate in their Passover. And if they did, what did that mean? While some understand the “others” here to be non-Israelites, some others interpret them to be non-exiled Israelites, thus the issue to be simply inner-Yahwistic issue. Still others read it as an expression of the golah community itself. This paper offers a literary analysis of the passage and limited textual evidence to identify the “other” participants in the Passover and how that implies the golah community’s welcoming of “others” to their community.

The textual material of the book(s) of Ezra-Nehemiah has been approached from several viewpoints, from the historical to the redactional, and has been recently investigated through sociological and anthropological methods.
The present paper, focusing rather on intertextual biblical relationships, aims to give an answer to the following question: should the return from the exile in Ezra-Nehemiah be read as a second exodus, as a re-conquest or as a re-establishment of the status quo ante? Which pattern fits better with the texts at our disposal?
After a critical assessment of previous attempts to interpret these stories as a ‘second Exodus’, the re-conquest and re-establishment patterns in Ezra-Nehemiah will then be examined. For the sake of time and space, the focus of the paper will be on the main characters of the narrative, particularly on Ezra. In that connection, the post-biblical (rabbinical and apocryphal) traditions about Ezra as a ‘second Moses’, will be compared with other possible comparable paradigms, such as Joshua (Jos 1 and 8) or Josiah (2 Ki 22-23). The appreciation of intertextual relationships with other texts of the Hebrew Bible/Old Testament could provide interesting hints on the socio-historical situation of the scribal circles responsible for the final redaction of the book(s). A particular emphasis will be laid on the issue of community-identity shaping as one of the implied aims of the analyzed narratives.