Special Issue IOSOT 2013 - Books and Journals

S. Japhet / Vetus Testamentum IOSOT (2013) 36-76 39
the background of late biblical Hebrew each book exhibits strong and distinct
traits of its own, some of which reveal a true linguistic opposition and could
not have been written by one author. The study presented here, while fully
aware of the common linguistic basis, is concerned primarily with the differences
between the two books, and presents some of the material in this light.
It remains now, as a preliminary requirement to fix the boundaries of the
material in question. Chr. on the one hand, and Ezr.-Neh. on the other are composite
works. Both include various types of material which stem from different
sources. Most of the sources used by the Chr. are well-known16 and by studying
the method of their adaptation we are able to establish and define his own
particular goals and aims.17 In Ezr.-Neh. we are less fortunate since the sources
utilized by the author are not known outside the book itself and the question
as to what material in Ezr.-Neh. may be attributed to these sources and what
was actually composed by the author himself is still a matter of debate.18
In order to form the broadest ground for the present study we preferred
to use the narrowest definition, i.e., to consider only the general edition of
Ezr.-Neh. which is regarded as “chronistic”, and those portions which are not
subject to debate and are accepted as “chronistic” by general consensus.
16) They consist, in addition to Samuel and Kings, of parts of Genesis (for example Gen. x, xxv,
etc.), lists from Joshua (for example, Jos. xxi), Psalms (for example, Ps. xcvi, cv, and others), and
more.
17) The classical work in this respect is Wellhausen’s chapter on Chr. in his Prolegomena zur
Geschichte Israel, 1883, English translation by J. S. Black and A. Menzies, 1885, pp. 171-227. A certain
shift was made by M. Noth, op. cit., p. 110ff. Noth discerns in Chr. “post Chronistic” material
which, according to his criteria, is quite prevalent. In addition he attributes great import to the
conceptions of Ezr.-Neh. As a consequence, a certain shift is made in the estimation of the Chr.’s
world and goals.
18) The most extreme opinion is held by C. C. Torrey, who attributes to the Chr. the two parts of
the Ezra Narrative, certain parts of Nehemiah’s memoirs (as Neh. iii 1-32; vii 1-69; xi 1-xiii 31, etc.)
and also the Aramaic documents found in Ezr.-Neh. (Cf. Composition, pp. 50, 115, and also his
article: “The Aramaic portions of Ezra”, AJSL 1907-1908, p. 220). On the other hand, Rudolph tries
to narrow the “Chronistic” portions in Ezr.-Neh. and he ascribes to Ezra himself even those parts
in the Ezra Narrative which are written in the 3 pers. But he also admits a chronistic adaptation.
(Rudolph, Esr.-Neh., pp. 99-100, 163-165).
On the question of the two parts of the Ezra Narrative, see Torrey, op. cit., Kapelrud, op. cit.,
and lately Mowinckel: “Ich und Er” in der Esra Geschichte” Verbannung und Heimkehr, (Festschr.
Rudolph), 1961, pp. 211-234.