Thursday, August 15, 2024

Nehemiah must surely be the wise prophet Daniel

by Damien F. Mackey The striking similarities between Nehemiah and Daniel, particularly with regard to prayer life, prompted me to ponder, right at the end of my article of comparisons: Daniel and Nehemiah (DOC) Daniel and Nehemiah | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu WAS NEHEMIAH THE SAME PERSON AS DANIEL? In my own mind I had already come to that very conclusion, based on my view that Nehemiah’s sovereign, “Artaxerxes king of Babylon” (Nehemiah 13:6), was in fact Daniel’s king, “Nebuchednezzar”, and that the walls and gates of Jerusalem, reported to Nehemiah as having been smashed and burned, pertained to the Chaldean sack of the city at the time of Daniel. I have much enlarged on this era, now, in e.g. my article: Ezra heroic in the face of death (1) (DOC) Ezra heroic in the face of death | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu Edwin M. Yamauchi, who has a more conventional view of the identification of Nehemiah’s “Artaxerxes”: “It is certain that Nehemiah served as the cupbearer of Artaxerxes I (Neh. 1:1; 2:1), the Achaemenid king who ruled from 464 to 424 B.C”, has also described Nehemiah in terms that could be well fitted to Daniel (and which Yamauchi, in some cases, cross-references with Daniel): (Edwin M. Yamauchi, “The Archaeological Background of Nehemiah”, Bibliotheca Sacra, October-December, 1980: D:\Dropbox\My Dropbox\For Processing\Bib Sac\BS137.548 [291-304].tif-Page1 (biblicalstudies.org.uk)). Yamauchi writes (pp. 296-297): Classical sources give detailed descriptions of cupbearers at the Persian court. Xenophon describes one of the main duties as follows: "Now, it is a well known 'fact that the cupbearers, when they proffer the cup, draw off some of it with the ladle, pour it into their left hand. and swallow it down - so that, if they should put poison in, they may not profit by it." …. That the cupbearer could have other responsibilities as well is indicated by Tobit 1:22. "Now Aḥikar was cupbearer, keeper of the signet, and in charge of administration of the accounts, for Esarhaddon had appointed him second to himself." From varied sources it may be assumed that Nehemiah as a royal cupbearer would probably have had the following traits: 1. He would have been well trained in court etiquette (cf. Dan. 1 :4_5). …. 2. He was probably a handsome individual (cf. Dan. 1 :4, 13, 15). …. 3. He would certainly know how to select the wines to set before the king. A proverb in the Babylonian Talmud (Baba Qamma 92b) states, "The wine belongs to the master but credit for it is due to his cupbearer." 4. He would have to be a convivial companion to the king with a willingness to lend an ear at all times. North is reminded of Saki, the companion of Omar Khayyam, who served wine to him and listened to his discourses. …. 5. He would be a man of great influence as one with the closest access to the king, and one who could well determine who could see the king. 6. Above all, Nehemiah had to be an individual who enjoyed the unreserved confidence of the king. The great need for trustworthy attendants is underscored by the intrigues which were endemic to the Achaemenid [sic] court. …. On p. 304, Edwin M. Yamauchi describes: Nehemiah as a Leader Nehemiah provides one of the most vivid patterns of leadership in the Scriptures. …. 1. He was a man of responsibility, as shown by his position as the royal cup bearer. 2. He was a man of vision. He knew who God was and what He could do through His servants. Nehemiah was not, however, a visionary [sic], but instead was a man who planned and then acted. 3. He was a man of prayer. He prayed spontaneously and constantly even in the presence of the king (Neh. 2:4-5). 4. He was a man of action and of cooperation. He realized what had to be done, explained it to others, and enlisted their aid. Nehemiah, a layman [sic], was able to cooperate with his contemporary, Ezra, the scribe and priest, in spite of the fact that these two leaders [sic] were of entirely different temperaments. In reaction to the intermarriage of the people, Ezra plucked out his own hair (Ezra 9:3) whereas Nehemiah pulled out the hair of the offenders (Neh. 13:25) …. 5. He was a man of compassion. He was moved by the plight of the poorer members of society so that he renounced his rights (Neh. 5: 18) and denounced the greed of the wealthy (Neh. 5:8). 6. He was a man who triumphed over opposition. His opponents tried ridicule (Neh. 4:3), attempted slander (Neh. 6:5-7), and spread misleading messages (Neh. 6:10-14). But Nehemiah would not be distracted or discouraged. 7. He was a man who was rightly motivated. The last words of Nehemiah, "Remember me, 0 my God, for good" (13 :31), re-capitulate an oft-repeated theme running through the final chapter (vv. 14, 22, 29). His motive throughout his ministry was to please and to serve his divine sovereign Lord. ….

Daniel and Nehemiah

by Damien F. Mackey That Nehemiah was much like Daniel is apparent, for instance, from the following article: https://www.facebook.com/SabbathSchoolBibleStudyGuideHelps/posts/nehemiahs-prayerlike-daniels-prayer-recorded-in-daniel-9-nehemiah-records-for-us/2651964044867134/ NEHEMIAH’S PRAYER Like Daniel’s prayer, recorded in Daniel 9, Nehemiah records for us what he prayed during his time of intense pain and grief over the condition of his beloved Judah. Both prayers include: 1. praise and adoration for God’s power and mercy 2. confession of his sins, along with those of God’s people 3. requests for God’s intervention to preserve His remnant 1. God, You are great and have mercy (Neh. 1:5). 2. Hear me (Neh. 1:6). 3. Confession of sins (Neh. 1:6, 7). 4. Remember Your promises (Neh. 1:8, 9). 3. You have redeemed us (Neh. 1:10). 2. Hear me (Neh. 1:11). 1. God, grant prosperity and mercy (Neh. 1:11). Nehemiah’s prayer focuses on God’s covenant promises. Just the recounting of them helped Nehemiah to remember that God always fulfills His promises. God, of course, doesn’t need the reminder, but the purpose here was to help Nehemiah fill his heart with renewed hope and to strengthen his trust in those promises. Often, we expect answers to prayers right away, but Nehemiah perseveres and prays for more than four months before anything happens. Nehemiah was a man of prayer: “Nehemiah had often poured out his soul in behalf of his people. But now as he prayed a holy purpose formed in his mind. He resolved that if he could obtain the consent of the king, and the necessary aid in procuring implements and material, he would himself undertake the task of rebuilding the walls of Jerusalem and restoring Israel’s national strength. And he asked the Lord to grant him favor in the sight of the king, that this plan might be carried out. ‘Prosper, I pray Thee, Thy servant this day,’ he entreated, ‘and grant him mercy in the sight of this man.’ Four months Nehemiah waited for a favorable opportunity to present his request to the king.” …. And, again, from this one: http://www.jesuswalk.com/greatprayers/9_nehemiah_success.htm …. Nehemiah's terminology seems to have some similarities with Daniel's prayer of confession, which probably isn't surprising since they were part of the same Jewish community in the Persian capital of Susa: Nehemiah 1:5 Daniel 9:4b-5 5O LORD, God of heaven, the great and awesome God, who keeps his covenant of love with those who love him and obey his commands, 4bO Lord, the great and awesome God, who keeps his covenant of love with all who love him and obey his commands... 6alet your ear be attentive and your eyes open to hear the prayer your servant is praying before you day and night for your servants, the people of Israel. 6bI confess the sins we Israelites, including myself and my father's house, have committed against you. 7We have acted very wickedly toward you. We have not obeyed the commands, decrees and laws you gave your servant Moses. 5we have sinned and done wrong. We have been wicked and have rebelled; we have turned away from your commands and laws. Nehemiah begins to pray10to the LORD (that is, God's revealed name, "Yahweh"), whom he describes as "the God of heaven," a phrase commonly used in the Persian empire. Like the Lord's Prayer, Nehemiah's salutation lifts his eyes to view the expansiveness of the Maker of the heavens. The phrase, "great and awesome God" is striking. As mentioned in our study of Daniel 9:4, "awesome" (NIV, NRSV) or "terrible" (KJV) is yārē, "be afraid, revere," which can refer to the emotion of fear as well as to "reverence or awe."11We don't like the idea of a terrible or dreadful God. We would rather think of God as our buddy or "home boy." No! God is awesome. He has immense power under his sole control. I can remember holding my firstborn son on my shoulders as I walked along the beach at Fort Bragg, California. The Pacific breakers crashed upon the shore and rocks with great noise and power. I could feel my son was almost shuddering in fear. "God made the ocean, David," I told him. Yes, God is awesome in his power. He cannot be domesticated or tamed. He is God in all his might and power! The refrain to Rick Mullins' praise chorus has brought this phrase into our worship vocabulary: "Our God is an awesome God He reigns from heaven above With wisdom, power, and love Our God is an awesome God."12 Like Daniel, Nehemiah recalls God's "covenant and steadfast love" (NRSV), which the people of Israel have broken by their disobedience. Then he asks God to give him a hearing. He is about ready to go in before the most powerful monarch of his day, Artaxerxes. But first he begs a hearing from the God of heaven upon whom he depends. …. [End of quotes] The big question now becomes (to be considered in a future article): WAS NEHEMIAH THE SAME PERSON AS DANIEL?

Wednesday, August 14, 2024

A very good reason why Ezra the scribe was not listed amongst the famous men in the Book of Sirach

by Damien F. Mackey In short, the reason why the renowned priest and scribe Ezra is missing, seemingly inexplicably, from the list of “illustrious men” in Sirach 44-50, is because Ezra was the author of the book. At least, that can be concluded from the following argument of mine, identifying Ezra as the author’s ben Sira. Sirach 51:1, 2, 4: “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 …”. Saved “from the heart of a fire”, “hemmed in” by its “stifling heat”. Could Sirach’s be a graphic description by one who had actually stood in the heart of the raging fire? - had stood inside “the burning fiery furnace” of King Nebuchednezzar? (Daniel 3:20) Another translation (GNT) renders the vivid account of the Lord’s saving of Sirach as follows (Sirach 51:3-5): “… from the glaring hatred of my enemies, who wanted to put an end to my life; from suffocation in oppressive smoke rising from fires that I did not light; from death itself; from vicious slander reported to the king”. According to the far more dispassionate account of the same (so I think) incident as narrated in Daniel 3:49-50: … the angel of the Lord came down into the furnace beside Azariah and his companions; he drove the flames of the fire outwards, and fanned into them, in the heart of the furnace, a coolness such as wind and dew will bring, so that the fire did not even touch them or cause them any pain or distress. Note that both texts refer almost identically to “the heart of the [a] fire [the furnace]”. Azariah – {who, unlike “his companions”, Hananiah and Mishael, is named here in Daniel} - I have recently identified as Ezra the scribe: Ezra heroic in the face of death (2) Ezra heroic in the face of death | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu In this article I had noted that: “Ezra [is] a mostly obscure character throughout the Scriptures, despite his immense reputation and status …”. And also that: “… Azariah is always listed as the last of the trio (Daniel 1:6): “Hananiah, Mishael and Azariah”, variously as “Abednego” (cf. vv. 11, 19; 2:17, 49; 3:12-30), perhaps because he was the youngest …”. To which comment, however, I had added, “… it is apparent that it is he [Azariah] who will take the leading part in the confession of guilt and the prayers”. And that would make sense if Azariah were Ezra, for, as also noted in the article with reference to Ezra 7:1-5, “[Ezra was] … a priest in the line of Aaron, hence, potentially, the High Priest”. So why might it be that the Daniel 3 text above names only “Azariah”, he perhaps being the youngest of the trio? Well, if Sirach (Ecclesiasticus) chapter 51 has any relevance to the fiery furnace situation, if Sirach were Azariah-Ezra, then he himself appears to have been the one who had decided to appeal prayerfully to the Divine mercy for help and protection (vv. 6-12): I was once brought face-to-face with death; enemies surrounded me everywhere. I looked for someone to help me, but there was no one there. But then, O Lord, I remembered how merciful you are and what you had done in times past. I remembered that you rescue those who rely on you, that you save them from their enemies. Then from here on earth I prayed to you to rescue me from death. I prayed, O Lord, you are my Father; do not abandon me to my troubles when I am helpless against arrogant enemies. I will always praise you and sing hymns of thanksgiving. You answered my prayer, and saved me from the threat of destruction. And so I thank you and praise you. O Lord, I praise you! The three young Jewish men, Hananiah, Mishael and Azariah, had had no hope whatsoever of obtaining any human deliverance. But once again Azariah alone will be the one to proclaim this (“Then Azariah stood still and there in the fire he prayed aloud”) (Daniel 3:32-33): ‘You have delivered us into the power of our enemies, of a lawless people, the worst of the godless, of an unjust king, the worst in the whole world; today we dare not even open our mouths, shame and dishonour are the lot of those who serve and worship You’. Might Sirach 51 be an echo of this terrifying situation, when Sirach prays to God, “You have redeemed me [v. 3] from the fangs of those who would devour me, from the hands of those seeking my life … [v. 6] From the unclean tongue and the lying word – The perjured tongue slandering me to the king. …. [v. 7] They were surrounding me on every side, there was no one to support me; I looked for someone to help – in vain”. Now, just as it was found (in the “Ezra” article) that the name “Ezra” was related to the name “Azariah”, apparently a shortened version of the latter, so, I think, can the Hebrew (or Aramaïc) name, “Sira” (Greek Sirach), be plausibly connected with Azariah, a name that may appear in the El Amarna letters as Aziru, Azira (= Sira?), or Azaru. Accordingly, in the New World Encyclopedia article, “Ben Sira”, we read: https://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Ben_Sira#:~:text=(%22Jesus%22%20is%20the%20Anglicized,%22the%20thorn%22%20in%20Aramaic. The author is named in the Greek text (l. 27), "Jesus the son of Sirach of Jerusalem." The copy owned by Saadia Gaon had the reading "Shim`on, son of Yeshua`, son of El`azar ben Sira;" and a similar reading occurs in the Hebrew manuscript. By interchanging the positions of the names "Shim`on" and "Yeshua`," the same reading is obtained as in the other manuscripts. The correctness of the name "Shim`on" is confirmed by the Syriac version, which has "Yeshua`, son of Shim`on, surnamed Bar Asira." The discrepancy between the two readings "Bar Asira" and "Bar Sira" is a noteworthy one, "Asira" ("prisoner") being a popular etymology of "Sira." The evidence seems to show that the author's name was Yeshua, son of Shimon, son of Eleazar ben Sira. ("Jesus" is the Anglicized form of the Greek name Ιησους, the equivalent of Syriac Yeshua` and Masoretic Hebrew Yehoshua`.) …. If the one whom we call Sirach was actually Eleazar ben Sira, as in this quote, then that would do no harm whatsoever to my identification, and would likely even enhance it. For, according to Abarim, the Hebrew name, Eleazer, is related to both Azariah and Ezra: https://www.abarim-publications.com/Meaning/Eleazar.html Moreover, the name of Ezra’s father, Seraiah (Ezra 7:1), “… Ezra son of Seraiah …”, can easily be equated with Sira, which would give us the perfect equation: Ezra (= Eleazer) son of Seraiah; = Eleazer son of Sira(ch) Of course any correlation between the young Azariah at the time of King Nebuchednezzar, and Sirach, estimated to have lived early in the Maccabean period, is quite unrealistic in terms of the over-extended conventional chronology. My above-mentioned article on “Ezra”, though, suggests that this is possible, with the holy man living to as late as the wars of Judas Maccabeus. While the Book of Daniel (chapter 3) will recount the story of the three young men in the burning fiery furnace in a somewhat objective and dispassionate fashion, presenting the three young heroes there as respectfully defiant before the Great King, Sirach, on the other hand, reads like a dramatic eye-witness window into the utter fearfulness and terror of the situation – a young man, who had actually experienced it, having been filled with the anxiety of expecting that he was about to lose his life in a most horrifying fashion.

Tuesday, August 13, 2024

Did Nehemiah and Ezra serve the same “King Artaxerxes”?

by Damien F. Mackey “Thus Nehemiah did precede Ezra, but not by much, and both men worked jointly in areas of common concern”. Aaron Demsky The numerical over-extension of rulers in king-lists of the ancient world, such as Egypt-Ethiopia, Assyro-Babylonia, Medo-Persia, have caused havoc when set against a biblical timeline. Thus we find ourselves encountering problems such as this one: Why “Darius the Mede” is like a needle in a haystack (4) Why “Darius the Mede” is like a needle in a haystack | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu However, if we can manage to ascertain whatever duplicated sequences are embedded within these king lists, we shall come to the realisation that the: Chaotic King Lists can conceal some sure historical sequences (DOC) Chaotic King Lists can conceal some sure historical sequences | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu In the case of the Medo-Persians, following on directly from the Chaldean (or neo-Babylonian) dynasty, we encounter a lengthy king list that is totally unrealistic when assessed against the: Medo-Persian history [that] has no adequate archaeology (4) Medo-Persian history has no adequate archaeology | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu One of the many problems that this has created in relation to the Old Testament is that it has become virtually impossible to appoint Ezra and Nehemiah to a precise historical period, or to say definitively if Ezra preceded Nehemiah, or vice versa. Sort of, the old chicken and the egg problem. Aaron Demsky is one who has tried to thrash out this problem, with his conclusion being: “Thus Nehemiah did precede Ezra, but not by much, and both men worked jointly in areas of common concern”. Let us take a look at what Demsky has to offer, when viewing the matter from a conventional point of view – which is generally fraught with danger: Aaron Demsky. “Who Returned First—Ezra or Nehemiah?” Bible Review 12, 2 (1996): Aaron Demsky. “Who Returned First—Ezra or Nehemiah?” Bible Review 12, 2 (1996): Center for Online Judaic Studies (cojs.org) Forty-seven years after the Babylonians destroyed Jerusalem and the Temple in 586 B.C.E. and deported many of the people to exile in Babylon, Cyrus the Great, king of Persia, who had conquered the Babylonians and ruled most of the then-known world, allowed the Jews to return to their ancient homeland. They returned in waves. Sheshbazzar, apparently the first Jewish governor of Yehud (Judea), led the first wave and laid the foundation to rebuild the Temple, that is, to construct the Second Temple (Ezra 1:7–11, 5:14–16). Not only did Cyrus permit the rebuilding, he even paid for much of it (Ezra 6:4). Then Zerubbabel, a later governor (521–516 B.C.E.; see Haggai 1:1), returned with a second wave and rebuilt it. The process took some time, continuing after Cyrus’s death. Darius confirmed the earlier monarch’s decree permitting the Temple to be rebuilt, despite Samaritan opposition (see Ezra 4–6). Darius even issued an order that anyone who “alters this decree shall have a beam removed from his house, and he shall be impaled on it and his house confiscated” (Ezra 6:11). Sometime during the fifth century B.C.E. came the priest/scribe Ezra and the great governor/administrator Nehemiah. Or, if not together, first came Ezra and then Nehemiah. Or first came Nehemiah and then Ezra…But which was it? Were they working in Jerusalem at the same time? Or did one come after the other? If so, who came first? Whatever the answers, together the two men, as one scholar has observed, were “the creators of the post-exilic Jewish community in Palestine” and “two of the greatest figures in Jewish history.” …. In printed Bibles, the Book of Ezra precedes the Book of Nehemiah—two separate books. But in ancient Jewish tradition, it is one book—Ezra/Nehemiah. Both books—or both sections of the book—are quite short, 10 chapters in Ezra and 13 in Nehemiah. A couple of other peculiarities: In the Hebrew Scriptures, Ezra and Nehemiah, although historical books, are in the third section of the Bible, the Writings (Ketuvim), instead of in the section with the historical books (such as Joshua, Judges, Samuel and Kings). In this respect Ezra/Nehemiah is like another double historical book, Chronicles, which is also in the third section of the Hebrew Bible. There is another peculiarity: Chronologically, the history that Ezra/Nehemiah recounts comes after the history in Chronicles; yet in the Hebrew Bible, Ezra/Nehemiah comes before Chronicles. These peculiarities are not present in the Christian Old Testament. There the historical books are grouped together and Ezra/Nehemiah follows, rather than precedes, Chronicles. A critical reading of these two books will show that Ezra/Nehemiah consists of three sources: (1) a historical introduction to the period, consisting of Ezra 1–6; (2) the so-called Ezra Source, consisting of Ezra 7–10 and Nehemiah 8–10; and (3) the so-called Nehemiah Memoir, consisting of Nehemiah 1–7, 11–13. The fact that parts of the Ezra Source appear in both books tends to confirm our treatment of the two books (Ezra and Nehemiah) as one. The historical introduction (Ezra 1–6) is the work of the fellow whom scholars call the redactor. He (very unlikely to be she) is the editor who put the two sources together, occasionally making an editorial comment … or inserting information from scattered earlier lists and documents … but most importantly adding the introduction as background for what follows. The historical introduction recounts Cyrus’s proclamation allowing the Jews to return from the Exile and rebuild their destroyed Temple, all in fulfillment of Jeremiah’s prophecy (Ezra 1:1–3; cf. Jeremiah 25:11–12, 29:10). Cyrus even returns the Temple vessels that the Babylonian monarch Nebuchadnezzar had taken to Babylon and placed in the temple of a pagan god (Ezra 1:7; cf. Daniel 5:1ff.). Altogether, 42,360 people returned, not counting singers (!) or servants (the Jews had apparently done quite well in Babylon; they not only had servants, but also beasts of burden, described in some detail, which could be conscripted for communal projects [Ezra 2:66–67]). At the behest of some of the enemies of the Jews (mainly the Samaritans), the work on the Temple was stopped for a spell, but under the inspiration of the prophets Haggai and Zechariah, work soon resumed. There is some confusion about when the Temple was completed. In two successive verses we are told first that the Temple was completed “under the aegis of the God of Israel and by the order of Cyrus and Darius and [Darius’s grandson] King Artaxerxes [I]” and then that the Temple was finished “in the sixth year of the reign of King Darius” (Ezra 6:14–15). When the Temple was completed, the people observed the Passover, “for the Lord had given them cause for joy by inclining the heart of the Assyrian [i.e., Persian] king toward them” (Ezra 6:22). Thus ends the historical introduction. Chapter 7, the beginning of the Ezra Source, opens with these words: “After these events, during the reign of King Artaxerxes…Ezra came up from Babylon, a scribe expert in the Teaching of Moses.” The Ezra Source is written in the first and third person with the priest/scribe at center stage. In contrast, Nehemiah’s Memoir is all in the first person; it presents the personal views of Nehemiah and was probably deposited by him in the Temple when he completed his term of office as governor, a votive offering in the form of an account of his good deeds, emphasized by his recurrent plea “O my God, remember it to my credit” (Nehemiah 13:31). The three sources are easily distinguishable by their different points of view, as well as by particular stylistic and linguistic factors. While there is general agreement as to the sources, there is wide disagreement as to who came first and whether Ezra and Nehemiah worked together in Jerusalem. Some—following the traditional order of the biblical text—say Ezra came first. Others say Nehemiah came first. Most scholars maintain that they worked together while others hold that they never met at all. Problems beset each of the contentions. Even those who champion one view or another admit that their solution is no more than a working hypothesis. And each theory is opposed by a majority of the scholars who have studied the problem. That there is a problem might seem surprising at first because we are told quite specifically that Ezra arrived in Jerusalem “in the fifth month of the seventh year of the king [previously identified as Artaxerxes]” (Ezra 7:7). Assuming, as most scholars do, that this is a reference to Artaxerxes I (464–424 B.C.E.), Ezra came to Jerusalem during the year 458/457 B.C.E. Nehemiah, on the other hand, came to Jerusalem as governor of the Persian satrapy of Yehud (Judea) in the 20th year of a king of the same name and served in this capacity for 12 years (Nehemiah 1:1, 2:1, 5:14, 13:6). This seems to place Nehemiah’s arrival 13 years after Ezra (Nehemiah came in the 20th year and Ezra in the 7th year). But on several occasions the biblical text indicates that the two men were contemporaries in Jerusalem. For example, in Nehemiah 12:26, the text speaks of “the time of Nehemiah the governor, and of Ezra the priest, the scribe.” Both were present at the festive Torah reading (Nehemiah 8:9). Ezra was also at the celebration in Jerusalem when the city wall was rebuilt (Nehemiah 12:36). A few words about the wall. Building a city wall is different from building the Temple. The Temple, as reconstructed by Zerubbabel, could not be used for defensive purposes. Allowing the rebuilding of the city wall reflects either a great deal of benevolence on the part of the king or great confidence in the loyalty of his Jewish subjects—or both. With permission to rebuild the wall (the king even provided the timber for the wall repair [Nehemiah 2:8]), Nehemiah took his famous nighttime tour of the city three days after he arrived in Jerusalem (Nehemiah 2:11–16). The wall lay in ruins, the gates destroyed by fire. The actual rebuilding of various segments of the wall was assigned to different groups. For example, one section next to the Tower of Ovens was assigned to Shallum, who performed the work with his daughters (Nehemiah 3:12). Other segments and/or gates were assigned to other families, townspeople, priests, tradesmen, merchants and, for the more difficult terrain, drafted work gangs (Nehemiah 3:1–32). …. There is a problem here, however. While we are told that Ezra participated in the celebration of the wall’s completion (the last segment was completed in the remarkably short time of 52 days [Nehemiah 6:15]), he and his people are not mentioned in connection with the work of rebuilding. Why are Ezra and those who came with him not mentioned among the builders of the wall (Nehemiah 3)? Did Ezra stay in silence for 13 years until Nehemiah completed the work? Or did Ezra go back to Babylon a failure and return to Jerusalem a second time during Nehemiah’s office? Even more puzzling, Nehemiah found Jerusalem depopulated and in ruins, while Ezra seems to have come to a relatively secure and bustling city (the latter is usually inferred from Ezra 9:9: “[God] has disposed the king of Persia favorably toward us, to furnish us with sustenance and to raise again the House of our God, repairing its ruins and giving us a hold in Judah and Jerusalem”). This would seem to place Nehemiah before Ezra. The dilemma of modern scholars lies in their accepting the seemingly accurate date formulas, which sometimes give day, month and year of a specific event in the careers of Ezra and Nehemiah and in their putting these dates into a sequence so as to overcome textual contradictions and historical inconsistencies. Various theories for solving these problems have been suggested over the years, but none of them seems to work very well. …. Therefore a new approach to the problem may be in order. My proposed solution first occurred to me when I noticed that the months of the year seem to be designated differently in the Ezra Source and Nehemiah’s Memoir. In the Ezra Source they are designated by ordinal numbers (cf. the old Roman calendar: September = the seventh month, etc.). In Nehemiah’s Memoir they have Babylonian names. Thus, in the Ezra Source, Ezra leaves Babylon in the first month (Ezra 7:9, 8:31) and arrives in Jerusalem in the fifth month (Ezra 7:8–9). Later in the Ezra Source, Ezra does something of extreme importance: In the seventh month, he assembles all the people and, standing on a wooden platform with a group of named notables, he reads a “scroll in the sight of all the people” (Nehemiah 8:5). What he reads is variously called the Book (or scroll) of the Teaching (or law) of Moses (Sefer Torath Moshe; Nehemiah 8:1), or the Book of the Teaching (Sefer ha-Torah; Nehemiah 8:3), or simply the Teaching (ha-Torah; Nehemiah 8:2, 9, 13, 14), or the Book (Sefer; Nehemiah 8:5), and sometimes the Book of the Teaching of God (Sefer Torath ha-Elohim; Nehemiah 8:8). Ezra reads the book to both men and women, and the people are attentive. When he opens the book (or scroll), all the people stand. Ezra blesses the Lord and the people reply, “Amen, amen.” They lift up their hands and bow their heads and worship. Some of the leaders (the Levites) explain the Torah (Teaching) to the people so that they understand. The day is declared holy, and the people weep. In essence, Ezra creates the main feature of the later synagogue service, which is the Torah reading and its explanation. The source of this innovation is the public Torah reading (Haqhel) prescribed in Deuteronomy 31:10–13 to be carried out during the holiday of Tabernacles at the conclusion of the sabbatical year. Two points are relevant for our purposes. First, both Ezra and Nehemiah were present at this ceremony, and Nehemiah, as well as Ezra, participated in it (Nehemiah 8:9). Second, as recounted in the Ezra Source, it occurred in the seventh month (Nehemiah 8:2)—that is, in the Ezra Source, once again, the months are designated by ordinal numbers. In Nehemiah’s Memoir, by contrast, the months are called by name: Kislev (Nehemiah 1:1); Nisan (Nehemiah 2:1); and Elul (Nehemiah 6:15). All earlier attempts to solve the puzzle of the chronological relationship between Ezra and Nehemiah have assumed that both the Ezra Source and Nehemiah’s Memoir used the same calendrical system. I believe, however, that the key to the solution is that they used different calendrical systems. In the Torah and the Prophets (the first two major segments of the Hebrew Bible), the months are numbered and designated as ordinals—first, fifth, seventh, etc.—just as in the Ezra Source (see Exodus 12:2, 19:1; Ezekiel 1:1–2; Zechariah 8:19). In Nehemiah’s Memoir, however, the months are listed according to their civil, Babylonian names—Nisan, Elul and Kislev—which were adopted by the Jews in the Exile and already appear in other books of the Bible that were composed in Second Temple times (Zechariah 7:1; Esther 3:7). This overlooked detail should not come as a surprise, for it reflects the different backgrounds of the two leaders. Ezra, the priest/scribe, is steeped in the literature of the Torah. On the other hand, Nehemiah, the governor of Judea, is first of all a civil servant whose source of authority derives from his status as a high official in the Persian Empire and a confidant of the king (he had even served as the king’s cupbearer [Nehemiah 1:11]). Quite naturally, he uses the month names commonly used in that milieu. Another telltale sign: The historical introduction to the work (Ezra 1–6) contains Hebrew and Aramaic sections. In the Hebrew part, the redactor (disclosing his priestly background) uses the traditional names, “the seventh month” (Ezra 3:1) and “the second month” (Ezra 3:8); but in the official, Aramaic section, he records the Babylonian name, “Adar” (Ezra 6:15). In short, the Ezra Source uses the religious calendar; Nehemiah’s Memoir uses the civil calendar. What about the designation of the years? Nehemiah’s Memoir naturally counts the years according to the reign of his monarch, Artaxerxes I (e.g., Nehemiah 1:1, 2:1, 5:14, 13:6). On the other hand, we would expect the Ezra Source to follow the traditional Torah method of seven-year sabbatical cycles (Leviticus 25:1–7). Therefore, I suggest that “the seventh year” in which Ezra came to Jerusalem was a sabbatical year. The obvious difficulty in this proposal is that the Ezra Source says that the Jews who came to Jerusalem with Ezra set out “in the seventh year of King Artaxerxes” (Ezra 7:7; italics added). And in the next verse we are told that they arrived “in the fifth month of the seventh year of the king [referring back to Artaxerxes]” (Ezra 7:8; italics added). This seems to contradict my contention that the seventh year referred to in this text is the seventh year of the sabbatical cycle. I believe the italicized words were added by the redactor or a later copyist, either in an attempt to anchor the short-term sabbatical cycle within a longer, royal time frame or in order to coordinate the date formula with that of Nehemiah (Nehemiah 1:1; 2:1). Once these editorial glosses are seen as later, explanatory additions, everything fits. It may even be possible to fix which sabbatical year is referred to by the “seventh year” when Ezra returned to Jerusalem. The earliest documented sabbatical year is the fall 164 to the summer 163 B.C.E. …. If we calculate back from 164/163 B.C.E., we find that the year 444/443 B.C.E. was also a sabbatical year [see the sidebar to this article]. If we assume that this was the sabbatical year when Ezra returned, all the chronological difficulties are resolved. The text then tells us that Ezra came to Jerusalem at the end of the seventh year on the first day of the fifth month (Ab), that is, August 443 B.C.E., just before the beginning of the last stage in the rebuilding of the city walls by Nehemiah. The latter had arrived almost two-and-a-half years earlier, in Nisan or Iyar 445 B.C.E. (Nehemiah 2), and had overcome innumerable difficulties in administering and securing his project, as well as challenges to his authority by local and foreign adversaries. The construction of the wall did not proceed uninterrupted, but rather in stages of unknown length: “It was continuous all around to half its height…the breached parts had begun to be filled” (Nehemiah 3:38; 4:1); “I had rebuilt the wall and not a breach remained in it—though at that time I had not yet set up doors in the gateways” (Nehemiah 6:1). Ezra and his people came in August 443, some two years after the rebuilding of the wall had begun. They were not needed for the actual construction, which is why they are not mentioned in connection with the rebuilding. The last stage of construction ended on the 25th of Elul (the sixth month) and lasted 52 days (Nehemiah 6:15). The celebration and dedication that accompanied completion of the wall probably took place, with no delay, at that time. Both Ezra and Nehemiah were present for the occasion (Nehemiah 12:36, 38). Thus Nehemiah did precede Ezra, but not by much, and both men worked jointly in areas of common concern. For further details, see Aaron Demsky, “Who Came First, Ezra or Nehemiah? The Synchronistic Approach,” Hebrew Union College Annual 65, 1994. Posted in: Jewish Literature and Culture in the Persian Period Whilst this is a most valiant attempt by Aaron Demsky to sort out the mess from a conventional point of view, he must deal with an “Artaxerxes” supposedly about a century after King Cyrus. This suggestion will be found, further on in this article, to be very wide of the mark, chronologically speaking. Demsky’s conclusion that Nehemiah had arrived first accords with A. van Hoonacker’s more rigorous textual assessment of the era, about which I wrote in my article: Nehemiah, and a cracker from A. van Hoonacker (DOC) Nehemiah, and a cracker from A. van Hoonacker | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu Van Hoonacker’s “arguments are reduced to eight points”: 1) The wall for which Nehemiah is chiefly renowned already exists when Ezra reaches Jerusalem (9 gader). 2) Ezra (10:1) finds Jerusalem already repopulated (by Nehemiah, 11:1). 3) Nehemiah is put before Ezra in Nehemiah 12:26; 8:1. 4) Eliashib, contemporary of Nehemiah (13:4), is (grand-?) father of Jehohanan, Ezra’s contemporary. (Ezr 10:6 = Nehemiah 12:33?) 5) The silence of Nehemiah’s memoirs about Ezra’s allegedly earlier Torah promulgation is inexplicable. 6) Nehemiah (11:3) enumerates repatriates led by Sheshbazzar and/or Zerubabbel, but not those led by Ezra (8:2). 7) Ezra (8:33) makes use of a committee of four resembling that instituted by Nehemiah (13:13). 8) Nehemiah’s handling of mixed marriages, delayed until his second tour of duty (13:23), could not suppose Ezra (9:14) to have preceded. Fr. North further notes (The Jerome Biblical Commentary, 1968, 24:104): “The work was shared by no single fellow traveller of Ezra (8:1-24) - one of the proofs that he came after Nehemiah”. Fr. North, again, after giving a list of those critics who accept or reject van Hoonacker’s revised dating and sequence, then makes the further telling point that: “Neither dating really comes to grips with the problem of Nehemiah and Ezra working together in Nehemiah 8:9; 10:1”. “Artaxerxes” of Nehemiah and “Artaxerxes” of Ezra “With respect for Torrey, we can say that no one maintains Nehemiah’s Artaxerxes to be Artaxerxes II; hence his dates are secure – 445 and 432 (Neh 1:1; 13:6). A 20th-century unanimity of tradition has, in accord with the surface tenor of our text, dated Ezra’s return under Artaxerxes I before Nehemiah in 458”. Fr. Robert North Did Nehemiah precede Ezra, Nehemiah coming to Jerusalem during the reign of Artaxerxes I (c. 445 BC), while Ezra came later, during the reign of Artaxerxes II (c. 400 BC)? This is the conclusion at which A. van Hoonacker had arrived. The alternative and more common view is that both Ezra and Nehemiah arrived in Jerusalem during the reign of Artaxerxes I, Nehemiah some 13 years after Ezra. Thus Fr. Robert North (S.J.) in “Ezra and Nehemiah” (The Jerome Biblical Commentary, 1968, 24:82): The first statement Ezra makes about himself in the book which bears his name is that he and some other late-comers finally leave Babylon in the seventh regnal year of King Artaxerxes (Ezr 7:8). That would be 458 BC, if Artaxerxes I was meant – a thing that the biblical text neither affirms or denies. Nehemiah’s narrative follows Ezra’s, except for Neh 8-10, in which a few explicit but perplexing verses make them contemporary. With respect for Torrey, we can say that no one maintains Nehemiah’s Artaxerxes to be Artaxerxes II; hence his dates are secure – 445 and 432 (Neh 1:1; 13:6). A 20th-century unanimity of tradition has, in accord with the surface tenor of our text, dated Ezra’s return under Artaxerxes I before Nehemiah in 458. …. [End of quote] Either view presupposes the conventional structure of Medo-Persian history, according to which kings “Artaxerxes” are multiplied – Artaxerxes I-III listed as having arrived upon the scene well later even than the reign of Darius ‘the Great’. As noted earlier, however, the Medo-Persian archaeology cannot possibly sustain such a weight of successive kings. I, following A. van Hoonacker, would have Nehemiah’s expedition to Jerusalem under “Artaxerxes”, who was my Nebuchednezzar (and accompanied by Ezra, see): Ezra heroic in the face of death (7) Ezra heroic in the face of death | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu preceding Ezra’s expedition to Jerusalem under the “Artaxerxes” of Ezra 7:1-7, who, I believe, was Darius the Persian. But I would completely differ with van Hoonacker as to his BC dates and kingly identifications. Nehemiah’s “Artaxerxes”, for instance, was not even a Medo-Persian king. He, a “king of Babylon” (Nehemiah 13:6), was Nebuchednezzar, a Chaldean monarch. The scene in the Book of Nehemiah is shortly after the Chaldeans (Babylonians) had destroyed Jerusalem and broken down its walls. That would most likely make Nehemiah the king’s high and most trusted official, Daniel himself: Daniel and Nehemiah (DOC) Daniel and Nehemiah | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu Comparisons between Daniel and Nehemiah are frequently made. Now, if the prophet Daniel were Nehemiah, then this would account for the shocking, seemingly, omission of Daniel from the Book of Sirach’s roll call of ‘famous ancestral men’ (ch’s 44-50). This revision greatly shifts the whole argument regarding the historical setting of Ezra-Nehemiah. Ezra’s arrival in Jerusalem occurs in Year 7 of “Artaxerxes” (Ezra 7:1, 8), seamlessly following on from the completion of the Temple of Yahweh in Year 6 of “Darius even Artaxerxes”, king of Persia (6:14, 15), the successor of King Cyrus.

Ezra heroic in the face of death

Part One: Ezra as the young Azariah of the Book of Daniel by Damien F. Mackey “Then Nebuchadnezzar said, ‘Praise be to the God of Shadrach, Meshach and Abednego, who has sent his angel and rescued his servants! They trusted in him and defied the king’s command and were willing to give up their lives rather than serve or worship any god except their own God’.” Daniel 3:28 My purpose here will be to attempt to create a basic reconstruction of the life of Ezra the scribe, a most famous personage in biblical-Jewish history, but of whose early life, at least, we have virtually no information at all according to Mendel Adelman, in his article “Ezra the Scribe”: Ezra the Scribe - Jewish History (chabad.org) Very little is known about the early life of Ezra the Scribe. He was born in Babylon to a priestly family, and dedicated himself to the study of the Torah. By trade he was a scribe, writing books of the Torah and Prophets. He lived in Babylon for the first decades of his life, studying under Baruch ben Neriah. …. Whilst, according to the Jewish Encyclopedia article of the same title, our first definite introduction to Ezra will occur as late as 458 BC, during the reign of King Artaxerxes: EZRA THE SCRIBE - JewishEncyclopedia.com Though Ezra was one of the most important personages of his day, and of far-reaching influence upon the development of Judaism, his biography has to be reconstructed from scanty material, furnished in part by fragments from his own memoirs (see Ezra, Book of). The first definite mention of him is in connection with a royal firman granting him permission to lead a band of exiles back to Jerusalem (Ezra vii. 12-26). This edict was issued in the seventh year of King Artaxerxes, corresponding to 458 B.C. I, who accept neither the conventional reconstruction of Medo-Persian history and archaeology, nor the dates assigned to its various kings, see e.g. my: Medo-Persian history has no adequate archaeology (4) Medo-Persian history has no adequate archaeology | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu and: Chaotic King Lists can conceal some sure historical sequences (DOC) Chaotic King Lists can conceal some sure historical sequences | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu do not believe in this conventional ‘Artaxerxes in 458 BC’. The identification of the kings, “Artaxerxes”, and otherwise, who I consider to be relevant to the life of Ezra the scribe, will become clear as this article progresses. A first encounter with Ezra Far from this having occurred in 458 BC, I would re-date our first meeting with a young Ezra in the Bible about 150 years earlier, to 606 BC. It is the 3rd year of king Jehoiakim of Judah, which would correspond with the Accession Year of king Nebuchednezzar of Babylon (cf. Jeremiah 25:1). {606 BC would be the approximate conventional date for the 3rd year of Jehoiakim, but not the significantly lower date that I would estimate for it} Ezra first emerges there, in Daniel 1, as the young Azariah, a name that is perfectly compatible with Ezra: Ezra(h) | The amazing name Ezra(h): meaning and etymology (abarim-publications.com) As we learn in Daniel 1 about Azariah and his young companions, they were: 3 … Israelites from the royal family and the nobility— 4 young men without any physical defect, handsome, showing aptitude for every kind of learning, well informed, quick to understand, and qualified to serve in the king’s palace. …. 6 Among those who were chosen were some from Judah: Daniel, Hananiah, Mishael and Azariah. 7 The chief official gave them new names: to Daniel, the name Belteshazzar; to Hananiah, Shadrach; to Mishael, Meshach; and to Azariah, Abednego. …. 17 To these four young men God gave knowledge and understanding of all kinds of literature and learning. …. 19 The king talked with them, and he found none equal to Daniel, Hananiah, Mishael and Azariah; so they entered the king’s service. 20 In every matter of wisdom and understanding about which the king questioned them, he found them ten times better than all the magicians and enchanters in his whole kingdom. Quite impressive CV’s. These youths were educated, wise, learned, intelligent, and competent. And that type of description would fit perfectly what we know of Ezra, “the ready scribe”: Ezra, a Ready Scribe – Ready Scribe Ezra is called a “ready” scribe, meaning he is competent, able to “quickly” do the work of a scribe. Having prepared himself to do the work of God by transcribing so many copies of the Word of God, Ezra is an expert concerning the Old Testament Scriptures …. While his education and diligent work certainly has helped to prepare him, what really sets Ezra apart from the other scribes of his day is his preparation of his heart: “For Ezra had prepared his heart to seek the Law of the Lord, and to do it, and to teach statutes and ordinances in Israel” (Ezr 7:10). The word translated “prepare” means Ezra “directed” his heart, and the word translated “seek” means he “inquired, investigated, or studied” God’s Law. Notice that Ezra is not just seeking more knowledge; his desire is to “do” the will of God and to teach others so that they also can please Him. …. Although Azariah is always listed as the last of the trio (Daniel 1:6): “Hananiah, Mishael and Azariah”, variously as “Abednego” (cf. vv. 11, 19; 2:17, 49; 3:12-30), perhaps because he was the youngest, it is apparent that it is he who will take the leading part in the confession of guilt and the prayers. Again, this is very much like Ezra, who intones the prayers and reads from the Book of the Law (cf. Nehemiah 8:1-18; Ezra 8:15-36; ch’s. 9-10), and who organises the priests and the Levites. Azariah, then, could well be - as Ezra was (Ezra 7:1-5) - a priest in the line of Aaron, hence, potentially, the High Priest. Mary Jane Chaignot has written of Azariah’s leadership here, telling that Azariah “speaks for the people of Israel”: The Prayer of Azariah and the Song of the Three Jews - Bible Study - BibleWise The Prayer of Azariah and the Song of the Three Jews By Mary Jane Chaignot According to the Hebrew Bible, Daniel 3:23 states that the three Hebrew men, Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego, fell down bound into the midst of the burning fiery furnace. This happened because they refused to bow down and worship the golden statue that Nebuchadnezzar had set up. The plan was that whenever people heard the sound of music, they were all supposed to bow down and worship the statue, which was ninety feet tall and nine feet wide. Anyone who refused would be thrown into the fiery furnace. After a few practice sessions, some of the locals complained to the king that the three Hebrew men refused to bow down and worship. The king, of course, couldn't let them snub his command. So he called them together and offered them a second chance to right the wrong they had committed. The consequences were clear if they refused. They would be tossed into the fiery furnace, and the king asked, "Who is the God who can save you?" Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego pretty much didn't care what the king threatened to do. They knew that the God they served could rescue them, but even if He didn't, they would refuse to worship the golden statue. Needless to say, the king turned purple at this point and ordered the furnace to be heated seven times hotter than usual. He commanded that the three men be bound and thrown into the furnace. Unfortunately, the furnace was so hot that the guards who threw them in were killed. Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego fell into the midst of the fire. The prayer of Azariah would be inserted at this point. After a short introduction, the prayer proceeds as a communal lament with a request for deliverance. In so doing, Azariah (Abednego) speaks for the people of Israel by confessing their sins and affirming God's justice. The exile itself was an example of God's justice. This is doubly interesting considering that these three men are in the fiery furnace precisely because they refused to worship a golden image made by the king. In so doing, they were able to remain true to their God; nonetheless they now speak for sinful/idolatrous Israel. What is interesting about this prayer is that since there is no opportunity for sacrifice, Azariah offers a contrite heart. This would demonstrate a considerable advance in the thinking of how to mediate with God. In the absence of sacrifices, a "contrite heart" might suffice in order to assure their acceptance before God. The next section of the addition focuses on the fiery furnace. It describes how the king's servants stoked the fire to comply with the king's request to heat it "seven times hotter." They piled on more naphtha, pitch, and brush until the flames rose seventy feet above the furnace. Ultimately, it would kill those servants who were too close. The three Hebrew men, however, were saved by the presence of an angel. The angel drove the blaze out of the middle and made it as if a dew-laden breeze were blowing through it. Obviously, they were completely protected from the fire. Some scholars think this section should precede the first. It is difficult to understand how the men survived the fall into the furnace without being burned to death, especially if the fire was so hot that it killed their executioners. It would make more sense for the angel to be present from the beginning to protect them. The dew-laden breeze would then have kept them safe even while they were falling through the flames to the bottom. Despite such logic, this appears as the second section. Then all three men joined in praising God. Their voices were as one. They invoke all of creation to join in the praise of God, repeating the phrase "Bless the Lord…sing his praise and highly exalt him forever" with each verse except one (see v. 52). This repetition can also be found in some of the Psalms (see Ps. 103, 136, 148). The repetition adds solemnity and a majestic rhythm to the refrain. Then the next verse (Dan. 3:24) states that King Nebuchadnezzar was astonished and rose up suddenly, saying to his advisers, "Didn't we throw three men into the fire?" The advisers answered, "Yes, we did." But now Nebuchadnezzar (and presumably everyone else as well) sees four men walking around in the midst of the flames, to say nothing of the fact that the three somehow survived without being simply consumed by the fire. And the king states that the fourth looks like a son of the gods. The addition of the prayers has the effect of keeping the focus on the three men and the greatness of their God, instead of on the king and his outrageous commands. Previously, these three men were rather colorless characters. Now, however, they shine as faithful followers. It also highlights the idea that God is a God of justice. The exile was the result of Israel's sin. When people sin against God, God hands them over to their enemies. This thought is rooted in the premise of the Deuteronomistic history. The irony, of course, is that the Hebrew Masoretic Text omits these verses, and Christians have tended to ignore them. Some scholars wonder why this is the case, since there is nothing in them that could be considered remotely offensive to Judaic theology. Most concur that it might simply be a matter of length. The prayer is simply too long and too disruptive within the context of the story. Nonetheless, Greek versions can be found in Orthodox and Catholic Bibles. …. These verses can be divided into three sections: 1:1-22 -- The Prayer of Azariah; 1:23-28 – Description of the Furnace; 1:29-68 – The Song of the Three Jews. I – 1:1-22 – The Prayer of Azariah o 1:1-2 o Introduction o As they walked around in the flames, they sang hymns to God o Then Azariah stopped and said this prayer o 1:3-15 o Confession of sins o Azariah begins by praising God o He is the God of our fathers and always just in whatever He has done o His deeds and judgments are true o The exile was "just" on account of the sins of all the people o The people did not obey God's commandments o Nor have they done "what was good for them" o Because of this, God's actions were justified o Israel has been delivered into the hands of their enemies o These enemies are lawless and hateful o Their king is completely unjust o Yet, the people of Israel cannot complain o Shame and disgrace are their lot – even for those who still worship him o All are culpable o Azariah prays that God will not abandon them forever or annul His covenant o He pleads that God will not withdraw His mercy from them o He refers to the promises made to Abraham and Isaac o They were promised descendants more numerous than the stars of the sky and of the sands of the seashore o He realizes Israel's smallness of importance and knows it is a result of their sin o In exile they have no king, no prophet, no leader [Technically, during the reign of Nebuchadnezzar, Jeremiah and Ezekiel were both actively prophesying, which suggests that this was written much later.] o They have no temple or anyplace to make an offering o 1:16-22 o Plea for deliverance o Azariah asks God to accept their contrite souls and humble spirits o Like the previous sacrifices of rams and bulls, he prays that God will see their sacrifice o All he wants is to be able to follow God wholeheartedly o He does not want those who trust in God to be disappointed o He avows that they earnestly follow God and fear Him and seek His face o He prays that God will not put them to shame but treat them leniently o This would be in accordance with God's great mercy Anyone who abuses them should be put to shame and stripped of power o Their strength should be broken o Then even the pagans will know that He "alone is Lord, God" o God is glorious over the whole world Compare, for example, Ezra’s confession of the guilt of Israel (Ezra 9:5-15): Then, at the evening sacrifice, I rose from my self-abasement, with my tunic and cloak torn, and fell on my knees with my hands spread out to the LORD my God and prayed: “I am too ashamed and disgraced, my God, to lift up my face to you, because our sins are higher than our heads and our guilt has reached to the heavens. From the days of our ancestors until now, our guilt has been great. Because of our sins, we and our kings and our priests have been subjected to the sword and captivity, to pillage and humiliation at the hand of foreign kings, as it is today. But now, for a brief moment, the LORD our God has been gracious in leaving us a remnant and giving us a firm place in his sanctuary, and so our God gives light to our eyes and a little relief in our bondage. Though we are slaves, our God has not forsaken us in our bondage. He has shown us kindness in the sight of the kings of Persia: He has granted us new life to rebuild the house of our God and repair its ruins, and he has given us a wall of protection in Judah and Jerusalem. But now, our God, what can we say after this? For we have forsaken the commands you gave through your servants the prophets when you said: ‘The land you are entering to possess is a land polluted by the corruption of its peoples. By their detestable practices they have filled it with their impurity from one end to the other. Therefore, do not give your daughters in marriage to their sons or take their daughters for your sons. Do not seek a treaty of friendship with them at any time, that you may be strong and eat the good things of the land and leave it to your children as an everlasting inheritance.’ What has happened to us is a result of our evil deeds and our great guilt, and yet, our God, you have punished us less than our sins deserved and have given us a remnant like this. Shall we then break your commands again and intermarry with the peoples who commit such detestable practices? Would you not be angry enough with us to destroy us, leaving us no remnant or survivor? LORD, the God of Israel, you are righteous! We are left this day as a remnant. Here we are before you in our guilt, though because of it not one of us can stand in your presence.” Likewise, Azariah again (in vv. 2-10): Then Azari′ah stood and offered this prayer; in the midst of the fire he opened his mouth and said: “Blessed art thou, O Lord, God of our fathers, and worthy of praise; and thy name is glorified for ever. For thou art just in all that thou hast done to us, and all thy works are true and thy ways right, and all thy judgments are truth. Thou hast executed true judgments in all that thou hast brought upon us and upon Jerusalem, the holy city of our fathers, for in truth and justice thou hast brought all this upon us because of our sins. For we have sinfully and lawlessly departed from thee, and have sinned in all things and have not obeyed thy commandments; we have not observed them or done them, as thou hast commanded us that it might go well with us. So all that thou hast brought upon us, and all that thou hast done to us, thou hast done in true judgment. Thou hast given us into the hands of lawless enemies, most hateful rebels, and to an unjust king, the most wicked in all the world. And now we cannot open our mouths; shame and disgrace have befallen thy servants and worshippers. Part Two: Ezra when Jerusalem’s wall was re-built If this is a right conjunction, then we would have at the Dedication of the Wall … (i) Daniel (= Nehemiah); (ii) Azariah (= Ezra); and (iii) Mishael (= Meshullam). So far in this article a youthful Ezra has been identified with Azariah, re-named Abed-nego by the Chaldeans, who led the prayers, confessions of guilt, and Divine praises, within the heart of king Nebuchednezzar’s burning fiery furnace. And, regarding the latter, we now know that Nebuchednezzar’s alter ego, king Ashurbanipal, actually had, and indeed used for execution, “a burning fiery furnace”. See e.g. my article: Ashurbanipal and Nabonidus (4) Ashurbanipal and Nabonidus | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu The burning fiery furnace is a vivid symbol of the Sacred Heart of Jesus, abyss of fiery love: St. John Vianney put it this way: “Let us open the door of the Sacred Heart and shut ourselves in for a moment amidst the divine flames. We shall then realize what God’s love means.” If our difficulties put us right in the center of the Sacred Heart of Jesus, then instead of complaining about the heat, instead of moaning about the flames … we can take refuge there. The flames become victory. They become freedom. As our reading just said: “God chastises those who are close to him.” If we want to be close to God, then we must willingly go inside this furnace. The Crucible of the Heart of Jesus - Casting Out Fear We move on from king Nebuchednezzar’s Accession Year to his 20th year. Nebuchednezzar, though, is now to be found under an alternate name, “Artaxerxes”. Mid-way through the reign of Nebuchednezzar Here we encounter our first “King Artaxerxes” (Nehemiah 2:1), who, as further enquiry informs us, was “king of Babylon” (13:6). Despite that vital piece of information, critics argue over whether this monarch - as well as the “Artaxerxes king of Persia” in Ezra 7:1 - was meant as a reference to Artaxerxes I (c. 464 to 425 BC) or to Artaxerxes II (c. 404 to 358 BC). It was neither. This verse does not refer to an Achaemenid king at all, but to a Chaldean king. The king in question was, in fact, Nebuchednezzar the king of Babylon. The wall of Jerusalem had recently been destroyed by the Chaldeans. With the Great King’s permission, Nehemiah will rebuild it. He was an obvious favourite of the Chaldean king: Daniel and Nehemiah (3) Daniel and Nehemiah | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu Did Daniel’s learned friend, Azariah (= Ezra), accompany him on this brief mission? Though the paths of Nehemiah and Ezra barely seem to cross, which had caused me for a long time to imagine that Ezra was Nehemiah, I can identify a few verses in the Book of Nehemiah that definitely seem to place Ezra and Nehemiah side by side. Firstly, there is the well-known one - most controversial for those who try to separate Ezra and Nehemiah chronologically (8:9): “Then Nehemiah the governor, Ezra the priest and teacher of the Law, and the Levites who were instructing the people said to them all, ‘This day is holy to the LORD your God. Do not mourn or weep’. For all the people had been weeping as they listened to the words of the Law”. I used to try to read this verse as a waw consecutive, “Then Nehemiah … even Ezra …”, thereby fusing two names into the one person. But a second verse seems to militate right against that notion. At the Dedication of the Wall, the very incident upon which we are focussed here, we read that (12:36): “Ezra the teacher of the Law led the procession”. That this “Ezra” could not be a reference to Nehemiah himself is apparent from this combination of verses in Nehemiah 12: 27 At the dedication of the wall of Jerusalem …. 31 I [Nehemiah] had the leaders of Judah go up on top of the wall. I also assigned two large choirs to give thanks. 36 Ezra the teacher of the Law led the procession. The seemingly obscure Ezra likely ‘peeps out’ again in verse 33: “… along with Azariah, Ezra, Meshullam …”. Of possible great interest, regarding the last name here, “Meshullam”, is that William H. Shea has proposed an historical identification of Azariah’s friend, Mishael (Meshach), with Nebuchednezzar’s official, Mušallim-Marduk: William H. Shea's hopeful historical evidence for Daniel's three friends, Shadrach, Meshach and Abednego (2) (DOC) William H. Shea's hopeful historical evidence for Daniel's three friends, Shadrach, Meshach and Abednego | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu If this is a conjunction, then we would have at the Dedication of the Wall (my reconstruction): (i) Daniel (= Nehemiah); (ii) Azariah (= Ezra); and (iii) Mishael (= Meshullam). Just to complicate matters, though, in Nehemiah 8:4 both a Mishael and a Meshullam stand on the left side of Ezra: “Ezra the teacher of the Law stood on a high wooden platform built for the occasion. … on his left were Pedaiah, Mishael, Malkijah, Hashum, Hashbaddanah, Zechariah and Meshullam”. Part Three: One named Ezra returned with Zerubbabel and Jeshua “These were the priests and Levites who returned with Zerubbabel son of Shealtiel and with Joshua [Jeshua]: Seraiah, Jeremiah, Ezra …”. Nehemiah 12:1 Tradition would have it that Ezra the scribe was not part of this important return of Jewish exiles to Jerusalem from Babylon when king Cyrus issued his famous decree in c. 535 BC (conventional dating, not mine) ordering for the Temple of Yahweh to be re-built (Ezra 1:1-4). I referred to this extraordinary situation in my article: Did Ezra leave Babylon only after Baruch died? (3) (DOC) Did Ezra leave Babylon only after Baruch died? | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu Ezra, who had previously returned to Jerusalem with governor Nehemiah in the 20th year of king Nebuchednezzar (that is, “Artaxerxes king of Babylon”: Nehemiah 13:6), to rebuild the Wall that the Chaldeans had wrecked - while Baruch was actually away in Egypt with Jeremiah - would be expected to re-visit Jerusalem for this once-in-a-lifetime occasion, Year 1 of Cyrus. By now, Ezra would have been almost 30 years older than when he had accompanied Nehemiah to Jerusalem on the Wall building expedition. True to form, though, the obscure Ezra does not stand out in any accounts of this great event. I would see him as one of the leading priests-Levites referred to in Nehemiah 12:1: “These were the priests and Levites who returned with Zerubbabel son of Shealtiel and with Joshua: Seraiah, Jeremiah, Ezra …”. Ezra the scribe, even though he was of the priestly line of Aaron (Ezra 7:1-5), would not actually assume the rôle of the High Priest in Jerusalem, however. No doubt this was because of his official commitments. Had not king Nebuchednezzar appointed Ezra (as the young Azariah), and his two fiery furnace companions, Hananiah and Mishael, to be high officials in the kingdom (Daniel 3:30): “Then the king promoted Shadrach, Meshach and Abednego in the province of Babylon”? (Refer back to the William H. Shea article) The High Priest for this period, from the commencement of the construction of the Temple in the 1st year of Cyrus, until its completion, in the 6th year of king Darius, was Joshua, or Jeshua (cf. Ezra 3:2; 6:15), apparently the grandfather of Eliashib (Nehemiah 12:10) who had been the High Priest at the time of Nehemiah’s first visit (3:1). Part Four: Ezra returns again as soon as the Temple is completed “After these things, during the reign of Artaxerxes king of Persia, Ezra son of Seraiah, the son of Azariah, the son of Hilkiah, the son of Shallum, the son of Zadok, the son of Ahitub, the son of Amariah, the son of Azariah, the son of Meraioth, the son of Zerahiah, the son of Uzzi, the son of Bukki, the son of Abishua, the son of Phinehas, the son of Eleazar, the son of Aaron the chief priest— this Ezra came up from Babylon”. Ezra 7:1-6 Though Ezra was of the line of the chief priests, being descended from Aaron, it will be Jeshua, not Ezra, who will serve as the High Priest (Kohen Gadol) at the beginnings of the second Temple. Ezra, likely, as I have suggested, had high official duties in Babylon. Now, the prophet Zechariah would have a most dramatic vision of Jeshua (or Joshua) as clothed in utterly filthy garments, and being judicially accused by Satan (Zechariah 3:1-10): https://bible.ucg.org/bible-commentary/Zechariah/Vision-concerning-Joshua-the-high-priest-and-the-coming-Branch/ The high priest Joshua stands before the Angel of the Lord (3:1). As this particular figure is able to remove iniquity (see verses 3-4), the reference is apparently to the preincarnate Christ. Indeed, in verse 2 we see the "Lord" calling a rebuke down from the "Lord"—evidently Christ calling a rebuke down from God the Father. The rebuke is called down on Satan. "The Hebrew is literally 'the Satan,' meaning 'the Accuser'" (Nelson Study Bible, note on verse 1)—or, similarly, "the Adversary" or "the Opponent." The word "oppose" in verse 1 could also, in a legal setting, be rendered "accuse." "Satan's accusation invests [the scene] with a judicial character. The position of standing at the right side was the place of accusation under the law (Ps 109:6). Satan knows the purposes of God concerning Israel and therefore has always accused the Jews and accuses them still.... Satan is the accuser, not only of Joshua (i.e., Israel), but also of all believers (Job 1-2; Rev 12:10)" (Expositor's Bible Commentary, note on Zechariah 3:1). It is interesting to recall that the Samaritans, as agents of Satan to thwart the restoration of Judah and its worship, had constantly brought the Jews before the Persian imperial court (Ezra 4:4-5). The reason for Satan's accusation in Zechariah 3 is evidently Joshua's impurity, as symbolized by his defiled garments. Expositor's states in its note on verse 3: "The Hebrew word soim ('filthy') is 'the strongest expression in the Hebrew language for filth of the most vile and loathsome character' (Feinberg...). Some interpreters maintain that Joshua was covered with excrement—only in the vision, of course! Such clothes represent the pollution of sin (cf. Isa 64:6). To compound the problem, Joshua (i.e., Israel), contaminated by sin, was ministering in this filthy condition before the Angel of the Lord." Joshua had been guilty of sin, having previously abandoned the reconstruction of the temple while continuing in priestly service. "The high priest represented the people before God (see Ex. 28:29) and under no circumstances was to become defiled or unclean (Ex. 28:2; Lev. 21:10-15)" (Nelson, note on Zechariah 3:3). It is interesting to consider the high priest as representative of the nation, for the figure of Joshua is clearly being used that way in this passage. The whole nation, this priestly nation (see Exodus 19:6), stood guilty before God. The national identification is clear from verse 2. Responding to Satan's accusation against Joshua, the One who would later become Jesus Christ responds, "The Lord who has chosen Jerusalem rebuke you!" He follows with "Is this not a brand plucked from the fire?" God had earlier told the people of Israel in Amos 4:11, "I overthrew some of you, as God overthrew Sodom and Gomorrah, and you were like a firebrand plucked from the burning." That prophecy was dual, referring to both ancient and end-time Israel. The current vision is the same in this regard. Expositor's notes: "The reference to the burning stick snatched from the fire is an additional indication that Israel, not Joshua, is ultimately in view. Israel was retrieved to carry out God's future purpose for her (cf. Amos 4:11). The 'fire' refers to the Babylonian captivity. Metaphorically, Israel was snatched as a burning stick from that fire. However, this event may also look back to the deliverance from Egypt (cf. Deut 4:20; 7:7-8; Jer 11:4) and forward to the rescue from the coming tribulation period (cf. Jer 30:7; Zech 13:8-9; Rev 12:13-17)" (note on Zechariah 3:2). …. Whilst the description of Jeshua as “a brand plucked from the fire” might immediately make me think of Ezra - as the young Azariah delivered from the fiery furnace - the prophet Zechariah’s account of a High Priest covered with filth can by no means, one would think, be applicable to the saintly Azariah-Ezra. So far we have had Ezra return to Jerusalem on two important occasions, namely: (i) Year 20 of king Nebuchednezzar, when governor Nehemiah rebuilt the Wall; and (ii) Year 1 of king Cyrus, when official permission was given to the Jews to re-build the Temple of Yahweh. A little less than 30 years separated these two events according to my revision. Having settled the identification, as Nebuchednezzar, of the “Artaxerxes … king of Babylon” named in the Book of Nehemiah, we must now identify the “Artaxerxes king of Persia” mentioned in Ezra 7:1, who is absolutely key to the chronology of Ezra the scribe. For it was in “the seventh year of King Artaxerxes” when Ezra returned to Jerusalem (Ezra 7:7-8). As a useful commentator like Herb Storck (History and Prophecy: A Study in the Post-Exilic Period, House of Nabu, 1989) has insisted, this particular “Artaxerxes” can only be the Darius king of Persia in whose 6th year the Temple was completed (6:15). Ezra came back immediately afterwards, in the 7th year of Darius the Persian. Ezra was now bringing silver and gold, for which priestly purposes the King of Persia had decreed (Ezra 7:12-17): Artaxerxes, king of kings, To Ezra the priest, teacher of the Law of the God of heaven: Greetings. Now I decree that any of the Israelites in my kingdom, including priests and Levites, who volunteer to go to Jerusalem with you, may go. You are sent by the king and his seven advisers to inquire about Judah and Jerusalem with regard to the Law of your God, which is in your hand. Moreover, you are to take with you the silver and gold that the king and his advisers have freely given to the God of Israel, whose dwelling is in Jerusalem, together with all the silver and gold you may obtain from the province of Babylon, as well as the freewill offerings of the people and priests for the temple of their God in Jerusalem. With this money be sure to buy bulls, rams and male lambs, together with their grain offerings and drink offerings, and sacrifice them on the altar of the Temple of your God in Jerusalem. On the return journey home, Ezra would also have a delegation collect, from Kasiphia, Levites, who were completely lacking in the original group that had departed from Babylon (8:15-20). One amongst the “leaders” whom Ezra sent there was Meshullam (v. 16), a possible candidate, as we have found, for Mishael of the fiery furnace episode. The usually obscure scribe Ezra was this time, at the completion of the Temple, a major player (Ezra 7-10) - this visit of his occurring almost twenty years after his previous return to Jerusalem in Year 1 of Cyrus. In this article, three returns of Ezra have been identified: (i) Year 20 of Nebuchednezzar the Chaldean, to rebuild the broken Wall of Jerusalem; (ii) Year 1 of Cyrus, the Medo-Persian, to commence the building of the Temple; and (iii) Year 7 of Darius, just after the completion of the second Temple. This new chronology solves, I believe, the problem of who came first, Ezra or Nehemiah? They both came together to rebuild the Wall, and were there together again when the Temple’s reconstruction had commenced. But by the time that Ezra had returned on the third occasion, in Year 7 of Artaxerxes, which incident, as some commentators argue, actually pre-dated Nehemiah’s return in Year 20 of Artaxerxes – {and though this might seem logical, these were, in fact, two different kings “Artaxerxes”} – much of the work and reform that one finds in the Book of Nehemiah, had, of course, been completed – with Ezra himself also having played a significant part in it all. In the context of Ezra the scribe’s third return to Jerusalem only (Year 7 of Artaxerxes), the events narrated in the Book of Nehemiah would generally pre-date those of the Book of Ezra. For more on this, see e.g. my article: Nehemiah, and a cracker from A. van Hoonacker (3) (DOC) Nehemiah, and a cracker from A. van Hoonacker | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu Part Five: Ezra endured an horrific death in Maccabean times Judas Maccabeus asked this Esdrias (8:23) “to read the sacred book aloud …”. Is this not precisely what Ezra would do? (Nehemiah 8:1-3) …” Ezra, a mostly obscure character throughout the Scriptures, despite his immense reputation and status, will now (according to my much revised chronology) emerge in 2 Maccabees. We firstly encounter him there as Esdrias, a name very close to Esdras, a version of Ezra. In 2 Maccabees, in chapter 12, we read that this Esdrias was even commanding Jewish troops (v. 36). “… Esdrias and his men had been fighting for a long time and were exhausted …”. Then, more characteristically of Ezra, we learn that, after a Maccabean victory over Nicanor, Judas Maccabeus asked this Esdrias (8:23) “to read the sacred book aloud …”. Is this not precisely what Ezra would do? (Nehemiah 8:1-3): “… all the people … asked Ezra the scribe to bring the Book of the Law of Moses which Yahweh had prescribed for Israel. … Ezra the priest brought the Law before the assembly …. On the square before the Water Gate … he read from the book from early morning till noon …”. Finally, as according to my multi-part series: Ezra ‘Father of the Jews’ dying the death of Razis beginning with: Ezra ‘Father of the Jews’ dying the death of Razis. Part One: Introductory section | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu Ezra was the same as the Jewish elder, Razis, whose spectacular but gory death - surely one of the most dramatic in history - is narrated in 2 Maccabees 14. He has been described by one commentator as a “madman”, and his suicidal manner of death has been deemed “cowardly”. But, whatever one may conclude about the manner of his death, this Razis was no coward. The Maccabean account tells that Razis “bravely threw himself down into the crowd”. And, a few verses earlier, it had recalled how this man had, in bygone days, sacrificed himself fearlessly for his people: “In former times, when there was no mingling with the Gentiles, he had been accused of Judaism, and he had most zealously risked body and life for Judaism”. Owing to this, Razis, “a man who loved his compatriots and was very well thought of”, was, “for his goodwill … called Father of the Jews”. Ezra, of course, is similarly known as “Father of Judaïsm”. Tradition has Ezra dying “at the age of 120”: https://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/5967-ezra-the-scribe All of these years would be needed to cover the lengthy life that I have attributed to Ezra in this article, from his young manhood, as the wise Azariah, at the beginning of the reign of the Chaldean king, Nebuchednezzar, until the wars of Judas Maccabeus against the Seleucids.

Monday, August 12, 2024

Ezra heroic in the face of death

Part One: Ezra as the young Azariah of the Book of Daniel by Damien F. Mackey “Then Nebuchadnezzar said, ‘Praise be to the God of Shadrach, Meshach and Abednego, who has sent his angel and rescued his servants! They trusted in him and defied the king’s command and were willing to give up their lives rather than serve or worship any god except their own God’.” Daniel 3:28 My purpose here will be to attempt to create a basic reconstruction of the life of Ezra the scribe, a most famous personage in biblical-Jewish history, but of whose early life, at least, we have virtually no information at all according to Mendel Adelman, in his article “Ezra the Scribe”: Ezra the Scribe - Jewish History (chabad.org) Very little is known about the early life of Ezra the Scribe. He was born in Babylon to a priestly family, and dedicated himself to the study of the Torah. By trade he was a scribe, writing books of the Torah and Prophets. He lived in Babylon for the first decades of his life, studying under Baruch ben Neriah. …. Whilst, according to the Jewish Encyclopedia article of the same title, our first definite introduction to Ezra will occur as late as 458 BC, during the reign of King Artaxerxes: EZRA THE SCRIBE - JewishEncyclopedia.com Though Ezra was one of the most important personages of his day, and of far-reaching influence upon the development of Judaism, his biography has to be reconstructed from scanty material, furnished in part by fragments from his own memoirs (see Ezra, Book of). The first definite mention of him is in connection with a royal firman granting him permission to lead a band of exiles back to Jerusalem (Ezra vii. 12-26). This edict was issued in the seventh year of King Artaxerxes, corresponding to 458 B.C. I, who accept neither the conventional reconstruction of Medo-Persian history and archaeology, nor the dates assigned to its various kings, see e.g. my: Medo-Persian history has no adequate archaeology (4) Medo-Persian history has no adequate archaeology | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu and: Chaotic King Lists can conceal some sure historical sequences (DOC) Chaotic King Lists can conceal some sure historical sequences | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu do not believe in this conventional ‘Artaxerxes in 458 BC’. The identification of the kings, “Artaxerxes”, and otherwise, who I consider to be relevant to the life of Ezra the scribe, will become clear as this article progresses. A first encounter with Ezra Far from this having occurred in 458 BC, I would re-date our first meeting with a young Ezra in the Bible about 150 years earlier, to 606 BC. It is the 3rd year of king Jehoiakim of Judah, which would correspond with the Accession Year of king Nebuchednezzar of Babylon (cf. Jeremiah 25:1). {606 BC would be the approximate conventional date for the 3rd year of Jehoiakim, but not the significantly lower date that I would estimate for it} Ezra first emerges there, in Daniel 1, as the young Azariah, a name that is perfectly compatible with Ezra: Ezra(h) | The amazing name Ezra(h): meaning and etymology (abarim-publications.com) As we learn in Daniel 1 about Azariah and his young companions, they were: 3 … Israelites from the royal family and the nobility— 4 young men without any physical defect, handsome, showing aptitude for every kind of learning, well informed, quick to understand, and qualified to serve in the king’s palace. …. 6 Among those who were chosen were some from Judah: Daniel, Hananiah, Mishael and Azariah. 7 The chief official gave them new names: to Daniel, the name Belteshazzar; to Hananiah, Shadrach; to Mishael, Meshach; and to Azariah, Abednego. …. 17 To these four young men God gave knowledge and understanding of all kinds of literature and learning. …. 19 The king talked with them, and he found none equal to Daniel, Hananiah, Mishael and Azariah; so they entered the king’s service. 20 In every matter of wisdom and understanding about which the king questioned them, he found them ten times better than all the magicians and enchanters in his whole kingdom. Quite impressive CV’s. These youths were educated, wise, learned, intelligent, and competent. And that type of description would fit perfectly what we know of Ezra, “the ready scribe”: Ezra, a Ready Scribe – Ready Scribe Ezra is called a “ready” scribe, meaning he is competent, able to “quickly” do the work of a scribe. Having prepared himself to do the work of God by transcribing so many copies of the Word of God, Ezra is an expert concerning the Old Testament Scriptures …. While his education and diligent work certainly has helped to prepare him, what really sets Ezra apart from the other scribes of his day is his preparation of his heart: “For Ezra had prepared his heart to seek the Law of the Lord, and to do it, and to teach statutes and ordinances in Israel” (Ezr 7:10). The word translated “prepare” means Ezra “directed” his heart, and the word translated “seek” means he “inquired, investigated, or studied” God’s Law. Notice that Ezra is not just seeking more knowledge; his desire is to “do” the will of God and to teach others so that they also can please Him. …. Although Azariah is always listed as the last of the trio (Daniel 1:6): “Hananiah, Mishael and Azariah”, variously as “Abednego” (cf. vv. 11, 19; 2:17, 49; 3:12-30), perhaps because he was the youngest, it is apparent that it is he who will take the leading part in the confession of guilt and the prayers. Again, this is very much like Ezra, who intones the prayers and reads from the Book of the Law (cf. Nehemiah 8:1-18; Ezra 8:15-36; ch’s. 9-10), and who organises the priests and the Levites. Azariah, then, could well be - as Ezra was (Ezra 7:1-5) - a priest in the line of Aaron, hence, potentially, the High Priest. Mary Jane Chaignot has written of Azariah’s leadership here, telling that Azariah “speaks for the people of Israel”: The Prayer of Azariah and the Song of the Three Jews - Bible Study - BibleWise The Prayer of Azariah and the Song of the Three Jews By Mary Jane Chaignot According to the Hebrew Bible, Daniel 3:23 states that the three Hebrew men, Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego, fell down bound into the midst of the burning fiery furnace. This happened because they refused to bow down and worship the golden statue that Nebuchadnezzar had set up. The plan was that whenever people heard the sound of music, they were all supposed to bow down and worship the statue, which was ninety feet tall and nine feet wide. Anyone who refused would be thrown into the fiery furnace. After a few practice sessions, some of the locals complained to the king that the three Hebrew men refused to bow down and worship. The king, of course, couldn't let them snub his command. So he called them together and offered them a second chance to right the wrong they had committed. The consequences were clear if they refused. They would be tossed into the fiery furnace, and the king asked, "Who is the God who can save you?" Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego pretty much didn't care what the king threatened to do. They knew that the God they served could rescue them, but even if He didn't, they would refuse to worship the golden statue. Needless to say, the king turned purple at this point and ordered the furnace to be heated seven times hotter than usual. He commanded that the three men be bound and thrown into the furnace. Unfortunately, the furnace was so hot that the guards who threw them in were killed. Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego fell into the midst of the fire. The prayer of Azariah would be inserted at this point. After a short introduction, the prayer proceeds as a communal lament with a request for deliverance. In so doing, Azariah (Abednego) speaks for the people of Israel by confessing their sins and affirming God's justice. The exile itself was an example of God's justice. This is doubly interesting considering that these three men are in the fiery furnace precisely because they refused to worship a golden image made by the king. In so doing, they were able to remain true to their God; nonetheless they now speak for sinful/idolatrous Israel. What is interesting about this prayer is that since there is no opportunity for sacrifice, Azariah offers a contrite heart. This would demonstrate a considerable advance in the thinking of how to mediate with God. In the absence of sacrifices, a "contrite heart" might suffice in order to assure their acceptance before God. The next section of the addition focuses on the fiery furnace. It describes how the king's servants stoked the fire to comply with the king's request to heat it "seven times hotter." They piled on more naphtha, pitch, and brush until the flames rose seventy feet above the furnace. Ultimately, it would kill those servants who were too close. The three Hebrew men, however, were saved by the presence of an angel. The angel drove the blaze out of the middle and made it as if a dew-laden breeze were blowing through it. Obviously, they were completely protected from the fire. Some scholars think this section should precede the first. It is difficult to understand how the men survived the fall into the furnace without being burned to death, especially if the fire was so hot that it killed their executioners. It would make more sense for the angel to be present from the beginning to protect them. The dew-laden breeze would then have kept them safe even while they were falling through the flames to the bottom. Despite such logic, this appears as the second section. Then all three men joined in praising God. Their voices were as one. They invoke all of creation to join in the praise of God, repeating the phrase "Bless the Lord…sing his praise and highly exalt him forever" with each verse except one (see v. 52). This repetition can also be found in some of the Psalms (see Ps. 103, 136, 148). The repetition adds solemnity and a majestic rhythm to the refrain. Then the next verse (Dan. 3:24) states that King Nebuchadnezzar was astonished and rose up suddenly, saying to his advisers, "Didn't we throw three men into the fire?" The advisers answered, "Yes, we did." But now Nebuchadnezzar (and presumably everyone else as well) sees four men walking around in the midst of the flames, to say nothing of the fact that the three somehow survived without being simply consumed by the fire. And the king states that the fourth looks like a son of the gods. The addition of the prayers has the effect of keeping the focus on the three men and the greatness of their God, instead of on the king and his outrageous commands. Previously, these three men were rather colorless characters. Now, however, they shine as faithful followers. It also highlights the idea that God is a God of justice. The exile was the result of Israel's sin. When people sin against God, God hands them over to their enemies. This thought is rooted in the premise of the Deuteronomistic history. The irony, of course, is that the Hebrew Masoretic Text omits these verses, and Christians have tended to ignore them. Some scholars wonder why this is the case, since there is nothing in them that could be considered remotely offensive to Judaic theology. Most concur that it might simply be a matter of length. The prayer is simply too long and too disruptive within the context of the story. Nonetheless, Greek versions can be found in Orthodox and Catholic Bibles. …. These verses can be divided into three sections: 1:1-22 -- The Prayer of Azariah; 1:23-28 – Description of the Furnace; 1:29-68 – The Song of the Three Jews. I – 1:1-22 – The Prayer of Azariah o 1:1-2 o Introduction o As they walked around in the flames, they sang hymns to God o Then Azariah stopped and said this prayer o 1:3-15 o Confession of sins o Azariah begins by praising God o He is the God of our fathers and always just in whatever He has done o His deeds and judgments are true o The exile was "just" on account of the sins of all the people o The people did not obey God's commandments o Nor have they done "what was good for them" o Because of this, God's actions were justified o Israel has been delivered into the hands of their enemies o These enemies are lawless and hateful o Their king is completely unjust o Yet, the people of Israel cannot complain o Shame and disgrace are their lot – even for those who still worship him o All are culpable o Azariah prays that God will not abandon them forever or annul His covenant o He pleads that God will not withdraw His mercy from them o He refers to the promises made to Abraham and Isaac o They were promised descendants more numerous than the stars of the sky and of the sands of the seashore o He realizes Israel's smallness of importance and knows it is a result of their sin o In exile they have no king, no prophet, no leader [Technically, during the reign of Nebuchadnezzar, Jeremiah and Ezekiel were both actively prophesying, which suggests that this was written much later.] o They have no temple or anyplace to make an offering o 1:16-22 o Plea for deliverance o Azariah asks God to accept their contrite souls and humble spirits o Like the previous sacrifices of rams and bulls, he prays that God will see their sacrifice o All he wants is to be able to follow God wholeheartedly o He does not want those who trust in God to be disappointed o He avows that they earnestly follow God and fear Him and seek His face o He prays that God will not put them to shame but treat them leniently o This would be in accordance with God's great mercy Anyone who abuses them should be put to shame and stripped of power o Their strength should be broken o Then even the pagans will know that He "alone is Lord, God" o God is glorious over the whole world Compare, for example, Ezra’s confession of the guilt of Israel (Ezra 9:5-15): Then, at the evening sacrifice, I rose from my self-abasement, with my tunic and cloak torn, and fell on my knees with my hands spread out to the LORD my God and prayed: “I am too ashamed and disgraced, my God, to lift up my face to you, because our sins are higher than our heads and our guilt has reached to the heavens. From the days of our ancestors until now, our guilt has been great. Because of our sins, we and our kings and our priests have been subjected to the sword and captivity, to pillage and humiliation at the hand of foreign kings, as it is today. But now, for a brief moment, the LORD our God has been gracious in leaving us a remnant and giving us a firm place in his sanctuary, and so our God gives light to our eyes and a little relief in our bondage. Though we are slaves, our God has not forsaken us in our bondage. He has shown us kindness in the sight of the kings of Persia: He has granted us new life to rebuild the house of our God and repair its ruins, and he has given us a wall of protection in Judah and Jerusalem. But now, our God, what can we say after this? For we have forsaken the commands you gave through your servants the prophets when you said: ‘The land you are entering to possess is a land polluted by the corruption of its peoples. By their detestable practices they have filled it with their impurity from one end to the other. Therefore, do not give your daughters in marriage to their sons or take their daughters for your sons. Do not seek a treaty of friendship with them at any time, that you may be strong and eat the good things of the land and leave it to your children as an everlasting inheritance.’ What has happened to us is a result of our evil deeds and our great guilt, and yet, our God, you have punished us less than our sins deserved and have given us a remnant like this. Shall we then break your commands again and intermarry with the peoples who commit such detestable practices? Would you not be angry enough with us to destroy us, leaving us no remnant or survivor? LORD, the God of Israel, you are righteous! We are left this day as a remnant. Here we are before you in our guilt, though because of it not one of us can stand in your presence.” Likewise, Azariah again (in vv. 2-10): Then Azari′ah stood and offered this prayer; in the midst of the fire he opened his mouth and said: “Blessed art thou, O Lord, God of our fathers, and worthy of praise; and thy name is glorified for ever. For thou art just in all that thou hast done to us, and all thy works are true and thy ways right, and all thy judgments are truth. Thou hast executed true judgments in all that thou hast brought upon us and upon Jerusalem, the holy city of our fathers, for in truth and justice thou hast brought all this upon us because of our sins. For we have sinfully and lawlessly departed from thee, and have sinned in all things and have not obeyed thy commandments; we have not observed them or done them, as thou hast commanded us that it might go well with us. So all that thou hast brought upon us, and all that thou hast done to us, thou hast done in true judgment. Thou hast given us into the hands of lawless enemies, most hateful rebels, and to an unjust king, the most wicked in all the world. And now we cannot open our mouths; shame and disgrace have befallen thy servants and worshippers. Part Two: Ezra when Jerusalem’s wall was re-built If this is a right conjunction, then we would have at the Dedication of the Wall … (i) Daniel (= Nehemiah); (ii) Azariah (= Ezra); and (iii) Mishael (= Meshullam). So far in this article a youthful Ezra has been identified with Azariah, re-named Abed-nego by the Chaldeans, who led the prayers, confessions of guilt, and Divine praises, within the heart of king Nebuchednezzar’s burning fiery furnace. And, regarding the latter, we now know that Nebuchednezzar’s alter ego, king Ashurbanipal, actually had, and indeed used for execution, “a burning fiery furnace”. See e.g. my article: Ashurbanipal and Nabonidus (4) Ashurbanipal and Nabonidus | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu The burning fiery furnace is a vivid symbol of the Sacred Heart of Jesus, abyss of fiery love: St. John Vianney put it this way: “Let us open the door of the Sacred Heart and shut ourselves in for a moment amidst the divine flames. We shall then realize what God’s love means.” If our difficulties put us right in the center of the Sacred Heart of Jesus, then instead of complaining about the heat, instead of moaning about the flames … we can take refuge there. The flames become victory. They become freedom. As our reading just said: “God chastises those who are close to him.” If we want to be close to God, then we must willingly go inside this furnace. The Crucible of the Heart of Jesus - Casting Out Fear We move on from king Nebuchednezzar’s Accession Year to his 20th year. Nebuchednezzar, though, is now to be found under an alternate name, “Artaxerxes”. Mid-way through the reign of Nebuchednezzar Here we encounter our first “King Artaxerxes” (Nehemiah 2:1), who, as further enquiry informs us, was “king of Babylon” (13:6). Despite that vital piece of information, critics argue over whether this monarch - as well as the “Artaxerxes king of Persia” in Ezra 7:1 - was meant as a reference to Artaxerxes I (c. 464 to 425 BC) or to Artaxerxes II (c. 404 to 358 BC). It was neither. This verse does not refer to an Achaemenid king at all, but to a Chaldean king. The king in question was, in fact, Nebuchednezzar the king of Babylon. The wall of Jerusalem had recently been destroyed by the Chaldeans. With the Great King’s permission, Nehemiah will rebuild it. He was an obvious favourite of the Chaldean king: Daniel and Nehemiah (3) Daniel and Nehemiah | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu Did Daniel’s learned friend, Azariah (= Ezra), accompany him on this brief mission? Though the paths of Nehemiah and Ezra barely seem to cross, which had caused me for a long time to imagine that Ezra was Nehemiah, I can identify a few verses in the Book of Nehemiah that definitely seem to place Ezra and Nehemiah side by side. Firstly, there is the well-known one - most controversial for those who try to separate Ezra and Nehemiah chronologically (8:9): “Then Nehemiah the governor, Ezra the priest and teacher of the Law, and the Levites who were instructing the people said to them all, ‘This day is holy to the LORD your God. Do not mourn or weep’. For all the people had been weeping as they listened to the words of the Law”. I used to try to read this verse as a waw consecutive, “Then Nehemiah … even Ezra …”, thereby fusing two names into the one person. But a second verse seems to militate right against that notion. At the Dedication of the Wall, the very incident upon which we are focussed here, we read that (12:36): “Ezra the teacher of the Law led the procession”. That this “Ezra” could not be a reference to Nehemiah himself is apparent from this combination of verses in Nehemiah 12: 27 At the dedication of the wall of Jerusalem …. 31 I [Nehemiah] had the leaders of Judah go up on top of the wall. I also assigned two large choirs to give thanks. 36 Ezra the teacher of the Law led the procession. The seemingly obscure Ezra likely ‘peeps out’ again in verse 33: “… along with Azariah, Ezra, Meshullam …”. Of possible great interest, regarding the last name here, “Meshullam”, is that William H. Shea has proposed an historical identification of Azariah’s friend, Mishael (Meshach), with Nebuchednezzar’s official, Mušallim-Marduk: William H. Shea's hopeful historical evidence for Daniel's three friends, Shadrach, Meshach and Abednego (2) (DOC) William H. Shea's hopeful historical evidence for Daniel's three friends, Shadrach, Meshach and Abednego | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu If this is a conjunction, then we would have at the Dedication of the Wall (my reconstruction): (i) Daniel (= Nehemiah); (ii) Azariah (= Ezra); and (iii) Mishael (= Meshullam). Just to complicate matters, though, in Nehemiah 8:4 both a Mishael and a Meshullam stand on the left side of Ezra: “Ezra the teacher of the Law stood on a high wooden platform built for the occasion. … on his left were Pedaiah, Mishael, Malkijah, Hashum, Hashbaddanah, Zechariah and Meshullam”. Part Three: One named Ezra returned with Zerubbabel and Jeshua “These were the priests and Levites who returned with Zerubbabel son of Shealtiel and with Joshua [Jeshua]: Seraiah, Jeremiah, Ezra …”. Nehemiah 12:1 Tradition would have it that Ezra the scribe was not part of this important return of Jewish exiles to Jerusalem from Babylon when king Cyrus issued his famous decree in c. 535 BC (conventional dating, not mine) ordering for the Temple of Yahweh to be re-built (Ezra 1:1-4). I referred to this extraordinary situation in my article: Did Ezra leave Babylon only after Baruch died? (3) (DOC) Did Ezra leave Babylon only after Baruch died? | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu Ezra, who had previously returned to Jerusalem with governor Nehemiah in the 20th year of king Nebuchednezzar (that is, “Artaxerxes king of Babylon”: Nehemiah 13:6), to rebuild the Wall that the Chaldeans had wrecked - while Baruch was actually away in Egypt with Jeremiah - would be expected to re-visit Jerusalem for this once-in-a-lifetime occasion, Year 1 of Cyrus. By now, Ezra would have been almost 30 years older than when he had accompanied Nehemiah to Jerusalem on the Wall building expedition. True to form, though, the obscure Ezra does not stand out in any accounts of this great event. I would see him as one of the leading priests-Levites referred to in Nehemiah 12:1: “These were the priests and Levites who returned with Zerubbabel son of Shealtiel and with Joshua: Seraiah, Jeremiah, Ezra …”. Ezra the scribe, even though he was of the priestly line of Aaron (Ezra 7:1-5), would not actually assume the rôle of the High Priest in Jerusalem, however. No doubt this was because of his official commitments. Had not king Nebuchednezzar appointed Ezra (as the young Azariah), and his two fiery furnace companions, Hananiah and Mishael, to be high officials in the kingdom (Daniel 3:30): “Then the king promoted Shadrach, Meshach and Abednego in the province of Babylon”? (Refer back to the William H. Shea article) The High Priest for this period, from the commencement of the construction of the Temple in the 1st year of Cyrus, until its completion, in the 6th year of king Darius, was Joshua, or Jeshua (cf. Ezra 3:2; 6:15), apparently the grandfather of Eliashib (Nehemiah 12:10) who had been the High Priest at the time of Nehemiah’s first visit (3:1). Part Four: Ezra returns again as soon as the Temple is completed “After these things, during the reign of Artaxerxes king of Persia, Ezra son of Seraiah, the son of Azariah, the son of Hilkiah, the son of Shallum, the son of Zadok, the son of Ahitub, the son of Amariah, the son of Azariah, the son of Meraioth, the son of Zerahiah, the son of Uzzi, the son of Bukki, the son of Abishua, the son of Phinehas, the son of Eleazar, the son of Aaron the chief priest— this Ezra came up from Babylon”. Ezra 7:1-6 Though Ezra was of the line of the chief priests, being descended from Aaron, it will be Jeshua, not Ezra, who will serve as the High Priest (Kohen Gadol) at the beginnings of the second Temple. Ezra, likely, as I have suggested, had high official duties in Babylon. Now, the prophet Zechariah would have a most dramatic vision of Jeshua (or Joshua) as clothed in utterly filthy garments, and being judicially accused by Satan (Zechariah 3:1-10): https://bible.ucg.org/bible-commentary/Zechariah/Vision-concerning-Joshua-the-high-priest-and-the-coming-Branch/ The high priest Joshua stands before the Angel of the Lord (3:1). As this particular figure is able to remove iniquity (see verses 3-4), the reference is apparently to the preincarnate Christ. Indeed, in verse 2 we see the "Lord" calling a rebuke down from the "Lord"—evidently Christ calling a rebuke down from God the Father. The rebuke is called down on Satan. "The Hebrew is literally 'the Satan,' meaning 'the Accuser'" (Nelson Study Bible, note on verse 1)—or, similarly, "the Adversary" or "the Opponent." The word "oppose" in verse 1 could also, in a legal setting, be rendered "accuse." "Satan's accusation invests [the scene] with a judicial character. The position of standing at the right side was the place of accusation under the law (Ps 109:6). Satan knows the purposes of God concerning Israel and therefore has always accused the Jews and accuses them still.... Satan is the accuser, not only of Joshua (i.e., Israel), but also of all believers (Job 1-2; Rev 12:10)" (Expositor's Bible Commentary, note on Zechariah 3:1). It is interesting to recall that the Samaritans, as agents of Satan to thwart the restoration of Judah and its worship, had constantly brought the Jews before the Persian imperial court (Ezra 4:4-5). The reason for Satan's accusation in Zechariah 3 is evidently Joshua's impurity, as symbolized by his defiled garments. Expositor's states in its note on verse 3: "The Hebrew word soim ('filthy') is 'the strongest expression in the Hebrew language for filth of the most vile and loathsome character' (Feinberg...). Some interpreters maintain that Joshua was covered with excrement—only in the vision, of course! Such clothes represent the pollution of sin (cf. Isa 64:6). To compound the problem, Joshua (i.e., Israel), contaminated by sin, was ministering in this filthy condition before the Angel of the Lord." Joshua had been guilty of sin, having previously abandoned the reconstruction of the temple while continuing in priestly service. "The high priest represented the people before God (see Ex. 28:29) and under no circumstances was to become defiled or unclean (Ex. 28:2; Lev. 21:10-15)" (Nelson, note on Zechariah 3:3). It is interesting to consider the high priest as representative of the nation, for the figure of Joshua is clearly being used that way in this passage. The whole nation, this priestly nation (see Exodus 19:6), stood guilty before God. The national identification is clear from verse 2. Responding to Satan's accusation against Joshua, the One who would later become Jesus Christ responds, "The Lord who has chosen Jerusalem rebuke you!" He follows with "Is this not a brand plucked from the fire?" God had earlier told the people of Israel in Amos 4:11, "I overthrew some of you, as God overthrew Sodom and Gomorrah, and you were like a firebrand plucked from the burning." That prophecy was dual, referring to both ancient and end-time Israel. The current vision is the same in this regard. Expositor's notes: "The reference to the burning stick snatched from the fire is an additional indication that Israel, not Joshua, is ultimately in view. Israel was retrieved to carry out God's future purpose for her (cf. Amos 4:11). The 'fire' refers to the Babylonian captivity. Metaphorically, Israel was snatched as a burning stick from that fire. However, this event may also look back to the deliverance from Egypt (cf. Deut 4:20; 7:7-8; Jer 11:4) and forward to the rescue from the coming tribulation period (cf. Jer 30:7; Zech 13:8-9; Rev 12:13-17)" (note on Zechariah 3:2). …. Whilst the description of Jeshua as “a brand plucked from the fire” might immediately make me think of Ezra - as the young Azariah delivered from the fiery furnace - the prophet Zechariah’s account of a High Priest covered with filth can by no means, one would think, be applicable to the saintly Azariah-Ezra. So far we have had Ezra return to Jerusalem on two important occasions, namely: (i) Year 20 of king Nebuchednezzar, when governor Nehemiah rebuilt the Wall; and (ii) Year 1 of king Cyrus, when official permission was given to the Jews to re-build the Temple of Yahweh. A little less than 30 years separated these two events according to my revision. Having settled the identification, as Nebuchednezzar, of the “Artaxerxes … king of Babylon” named in the Book of Nehemiah, we must now identify the “Artaxerxes king of Persia” mentioned in Ezra 7:1, who is absolutely key to the chronology of Ezra the scribe. For it was in “the seventh year of King Artaxerxes” when Ezra returned to Jerusalem (Ezra 7:7-8). As a useful commentator like Herb Storck (History and Prophecy: A Study in the Post-Exilic Period, House of Nabu, 1989) has insisted, this particular “Artaxerxes” can only be the Darius king of Persia in whose 6th year the Temple was completed (6:15). Ezra came back immediately afterwards, in the 7th year of Darius the Persian. Ezra was now bringing silver and gold, for which priestly purposes the King of Persia had decreed (Ezra 7:12-17): Artaxerxes, king of kings, To Ezra the priest, teacher of the Law of the God of heaven: Greetings. Now I decree that any of the Israelites in my kingdom, including priests and Levites, who volunteer to go to Jerusalem with you, may go. You are sent by the king and his seven advisers to inquire about Judah and Jerusalem with regard to the Law of your God, which is in your hand. Moreover, you are to take with you the silver and gold that the king and his advisers have freely given to the God of Israel, whose dwelling is in Jerusalem, together with all the silver and gold you may obtain from the province of Babylon, as well as the freewill offerings of the people and priests for the temple of their God in Jerusalem. With this money be sure to buy bulls, rams and male lambs, together with their grain offerings and drink offerings, and sacrifice them on the altar of the Temple of your God in Jerusalem. On the return journey home, Ezra would also have a delegation collect, from Kasiphia, Levites, who were completely lacking in the original group that had departed from Babylon (8:15-20). One amongst the “leaders” whom Ezra sent there was Meshullam (v. 16), a possible candidate, as we have found, for Mishael of the fiery furnace episode. The usually obscure scribe Ezra was this time, at the completion of the Temple, a major player (Ezra 7-10) - this visit of his occurring almost twenty years after his previous return to Jerusalem in Year 1 of Cyrus. In this article, three returns of Ezra have been identified: (i) Year 20 of Nebuchednezzar the Chaldean, to rebuild the broken Wall of Jerusalem; (ii) Year 1 of Cyrus, the Medo-Persian, to commence the building of the Temple; and (iii) Year 7 of Darius, just after the completion of the second Temple. This new chronology solves, I believe, the problem of who came first, Ezra or Nehemiah? They both came together to rebuild the Wall, and were there together again when the Temple’s reconstruction had commenced. But by the time that Ezra had returned on the third occasion, in Year 7 of Artaxerxes, which incident, as some commentators argue, actually pre-dated Nehemiah’s return in Year 20 of Artaxerxes – {and though this might seem logical, these were, in fact, two different kings “Artaxerxes”} – much of the work and reform that one finds in the Book of Nehemiah, had, of course, been completed – with Ezra himself also having played a significant part in it all. In the context of Ezra the scribe’s third return to Jerusalem only (Year 7 of Artaxerxes), the events narrated in the Book of Nehemiah would generally pre-date those of the Book of Ezra. For more on this, see e.g. my article: Nehemiah, and a cracker from A. van Hoonacker (3) (DOC) Nehemiah, and a cracker from A. van Hoonacker | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu Part Five: Ezra endured an horrific death in Maccabean times Judas Maccabeus asked this Esdrias (8:23) “to read the sacred book aloud …”. Is this not precisely what Ezra would do? (Nehemiah 8:1-3) …” Ezra, a mostly obscure character throughout the Scriptures, despite his immense reputation and status, will now (according to my much revised chronology) emerge in 2 Maccabees. We firstly encounter him there as Esdrias, a name very close to Esdras, a version of Ezra. In 2 Maccabees, in chapter 12, we read that this Esdrias was even commanding Jewish troops (v. 36). “… Esdrias and his men had been fighting for a long time and were exhausted …”. Then, more characteristically of Ezra, we learn that, after a Maccabean victory over Nicanor, Judas Maccabeus asked this Esdrias (8:23) “to read the sacred book aloud …”. Is this not precisely what Ezra would do? (Nehemiah 8:1-3): “… all the people … asked Ezra the scribe to bring the Book of the Law of Moses which Yahweh had prescribed for Israel. … Ezra the priest brought the Law before the assembly …. On the square before the Water Gate … he read from the book from early morning till noon …”. Finally, as according to my multi-part series: Ezra ‘Father of the Jews’ dying the death of Razis beginning with: Ezra ‘Father of the Jews’ dying the death of Razis. Part One: Introductory section | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu Ezra was the same as the Jewish elder, Razis, whose spectacular but gory death - surely one of the most dramatic in history - is narrated in 2 Maccabees 14. He has been described by one commentator as a “madman”, and his suicidal manner of death has been deemed “cowardly”. But, whatever one may conclude about the manner of his death, this Razis was no coward. The Maccabean account tells that Razis “bravely threw himself down into the crowd”. And, a few verses earlier, it had recalled how this man had, in bygone days, sacrificed himself fearlessly for his people: “In former times, when there was no mingling with the Gentiles, he had been accused of Judaism, and he had most zealously risked body and life for Judaism”. Owing to this, Razis, “a man who loved his compatriots and was very well thought of”, was, “for his goodwill … called Father of the Jews”. Ezra, of course, is similarly known as “Father of Judaïsm”. Tradition has Ezra dying “at the age of 120”: https://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/5967-ezra-the-scribe All of these years would be needed to cover the lengthy life that I have attributed to Ezra in this article, from his young manhood, as the wise Azariah, at the beginning of the reign of the Chaldean king, Nebuchednezzar, until the wars of Judas Maccabeus against the Seleucids.