Damien F. Mackey
That there was some question in antiquity about the authorship
of the Book of Malachi is apparent from the Targum of
Jonathan ben Uzziel, which added the explanatory gloss
“whose name is Ezra the Scribe” to Malachi 1:1.
Who, exactly,
was the great man, Ezra?
He, so I
believe, was far more than is generally thought.
In e.g. my
article:
Wanting
to know more about Ezra
(3) Wanting to
know more about Ezra
I extended this long-lived Jewish sage (120 years, according
to tradition) to embrace some important biblical characters, who, collectively,
would have ranged – in terms of the conventional biblico-history – over
hundreds of years.
But not so in my revised system that greatly shortens the
succession of Chaldean, Medo-Persian and Hellenistic Greek rulers, and that collapses
the Maccabean period, partly, into the time of the Infancy of Jesus Christ.
Ezra was, so
I have determined, the young Azariah of Daniel 3, rescued from the fire; the
high priest Jesus (Joshua), “a brand plucked out of the fire” (Zechariah 3:2);
and Jesus ben Sirach, who was in “the heart of a fire”:
‘I
will give thanks to you, Lord and King … for you have been protector and
support
to me, and redeemed my body from destruction … from the stifling
heat
which hemmed me in, from the heart of a fire which I had not kindled’.
Sirach
51:1, 2, 4
Ezra was,
therefore, the Jewish High Priest.
Finally, and
most incredibly, the Torah reading Ezra was still alive in early Maccabean
times, as Esdrias (2 Maccabees 8:23; 12:36), and as Razis (14:37-46):
Ezra
‘Father of the Jews’ dying the death of Razis
(5) Ezra 'Father
of the Jews' dying the death of Razis
Now, there
are certain Jewish traditions that would also identify our Ezra the scribe with
the mysterious prophet, Malachi.
Thus we read
at: Malachi - Encyclopedia of
The Bible - Bible Gateway
1. Background.
With the prophecies of Haggai and Zechariah, the Book of Malachi is of great
importance in supplying information about the period between the return from
exile and the work of Ezra and Nehemiah because of the scarcity of sources,
both secular and religious, which relate to this period of Heb. history. While
the prophecy is not dated in the opening verses in the manner of some others,
it is possible from an examination of the internal evidence to locate the
activities of the author within the period of Pers. suzerainty over Pal. This
latter is evident from the mention in Malachi 1:8 of
the peḥāh or
office of civil governor in the Pers. empire, to which further references are
found in Nehemiah 5:14; Haggai 1:1.
Obviously then, the historical background of the prophecy is that of the
postexilic period in Judea. Yet the book portrays religious and social
conditions which point to a time subsequent to that of Haggai and Zechariah.
The fact that sacrifices were spoken of as being offered in the Temple (Mal 1:7-10; 3:8) implies
not merely that the structure had at last been completed, but also that it had
been standing for a considerable time.
In
addition, the rituals of the cultus had become well established once more (Mal 1:10; 3:1, 10), and
this would point to a date later than 515 b.c. That the prophet may
actually have uttered his complaints against the priests and people in the
following cent. seems highly probable from the fact that a certain degree of
laxity had crept into cultic worship. The priests were not observing the
prescriptions relating to the nature and quality of the animals offered for
sacrifice (Mal 1:8),
and had gone one step further in their attitude of indifference to the
sacrificial requirements of the Lord by offering polluted bread before Him.
Indeed, the pr ophet rebuked them sharply because their general attitude showed
that they had become tired of the ritual procedures connected with worship (Mal 1:13).
Clearly the initial enthusiasm which must have attended the opening of the
second Temple had diminished, and with a lessening of zeal came a more casual
attitude toward the prescriptions of cultic worship. This degree of neglect
also extended to the payment of requisite tithes (Mal 3:8-10),
which were important for the support of both the Temple and the priesthood in
the postexilic period. The way in which Malachi inveighed against mixed
marriages (Mal 2:10-16)
suggests the traditional conservatism of the Mosaic Torah rather than the
infraction of legislation already in existence relating to this matter. The
expression “the daughter of a strange god” (ASV, RSV has “the daughter of a
foreign god”) means “a woman of foreign or strange religion,” and its usage
would seem to imply that the practice of intermarriage with women of alien
religious beliefs and traditions had become so commonplace that the earlier
Heb. ideals which looked with disfavor upon such unions had long since been
forgotten. Since Malachi does not seem to appeal to specific regulations in
this matter, it can be assumed with reasonable certainty that he was
proclaiming his prophetic oracles at some point prior to 444 b.c., when
Nehemiah legislated for this particular problem during his second term of
office. The historical background of the Book of Malachi, therefore, is that of
the period following the work of Haggai and Zechariah, and preceding the period
of Ezra and Nehemiah.
Damien Mackey’s comment: No problems for my
timeline with the Second Temple standing during the life of Ezra.
2.
Unity. The prophecy consists of six sections or oracles,
which can be distinguished quite clearly. They reflect an accredited historical
background, and deal in a uniform manner with interrelated problems. The series
of questions and answers in the prophecy has obviously been arranged in such a
manner as to convey an overall message relating to divine judgment and
blessing, and the book bears all the marks of a single author. The only serious
question as to the unity and integrity of the prophecy has been raised in
relation to its final words (Mal 4:4-6),
which may actually be an integral part of the sixth oracle. Some scholars have
taken the reference to Elijah as constituting a later addition by the editor of
the minor prophets, who may have believed that, with the end of prophecy, it
was more than ever necessary for the precepts of the Torah to be followed as a
preliminary to the advent of the divine herald. While this view has certain
points in its favor, not the least of which was the attitude of the Qumran
sectaries toward prophecy and the law, it does not admit of objective
demonstration.
3. Authorship.
The traditional ascription of the prophecy to an individual named Malachi was
derived from the superscription in Malachi 1:1.
Considerable scholarly debate has surrounded the question as to whether or not
“Malachi” is a genuine proper name, since the LXX, unlike the Heb., took the
word not as a cognomen but as a common noun. Thus the LXX rendered it by “my
messenger,” which is in fact the meaning of the Heb., but which gave an
anonymous quality to the authorship of the prophecy in the process.
….
That
there was some question in antiquity about the authorship of the Book of
Malachi is apparent from the Targum of Jonathan ben Uzziel, which added the
explanatory gloss “whose name is Ezra the Scribe” to Malachi 1:1.
… this tradition was accepted by Jerome ….
Consistent
with our theme of fire:
Ezra was, so I have
determined, Azariah of Daniel 3, rescued from the fire; the high priest Jesus
(Joshua), “a brand plucked out of the fire” (Zechariah 3:2); and Jesus ben
Sirach, who was in “the heart of a fire” ….
is Malachi (3:2-3):
But who can
endure the day of his coming? Who can stand when he appears? For
he will be like a refiner’s fire or a launderer’s soap. He will sit
as a refiner and purifier of silver; he will purify the Levites and
refine them like gold and silver.
After
six days Jesus took with him Peter, James and John the brother of James,
and led them up a high mountain by themselves. There he was transfigured
before them. His face shone like the sun, and his clothes became as white
as
the light. Just then there appeared before them Moses and Elijah,
talking
with Jesus.
Matthew
17:1-3
