Why 1 Esdras Is Probably Not an Early Version of the Ezra–Nehemiah Tradition

WHY 1 ESDRAS IS PROBABLY NOT AN EARLY VERSION OF THE EZRA–NEHEMIAH TRADITION Juha Pakkala 1. INTRODUCTION In this paper I will analyze and present passages from different parts of 1 Esdras and Ezra–Nehemiah that indicate that the Masoretic Text (MT) generally represents an earlier textual stage than 1 Esdras.1 My perspective is technical in the sense that I will give particular attention to the method and technical aspect of the changes. I will ask how the text may have been changed by later editors. I will try to show that in many cases a reading in 1 Esdras can be seen as an editorial change from an older text form that is preserved in the MT. In this respect, this paper also contributes to the discussion about editorial developments in the Second Temple period.2 Comparing the texts on the micro level, I will avoid arguments based on the probable or reconstructed general tendencies of the different versions. My examples will deal with different themes, so that the influence of one theme will not play a decisive role in the discussion. In contrast, in Dieter Böhler’s theory, Jerusalem and its condition is strongly connected to the entire discussion about the relative age of the two versions.3 Rather than thematic considerations, technical observations from the texts should be given priority.4 1. 2 Esdras is a rather literal translation and is relatively close to the Masoretic one. Although there are some significant variants (for example in Neh 9:6), for the purposes of this paper it can be treated as representative of the same textual tradition as the MT. It should be added that the discussion deals with the relative age of the Hebrew/Aramaic Vorlage of 1 Esdras and the MT, whereas both Greek translations are very probably late. 2. That 1 Esdras contains considerable differences from the Masoretic edition is fortunate for biblical studies because the differences provide “empirical evidence” of the editorial pro- cesses and the development of biblical texts in the Second Temple period. Especially note- worthy are the radical changes that are rarely assumed to have occurred in the editing process of biblical texts. 3. See the example texts in Dieter Böhler, Die heilige Stadt in Esdras α und Esra-Nehemia: Zwei Konzeptionen zur Wiederherstellung Israels (OBO 158; Freiburg: Universitätsverlag; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1997), 143–306. Many other scholars have also argued 1 94 WAS 1 ESDRAS FIRST? Moreover, I will provide evidence that 1 Esdras is dependent on a late version of the text that already contains the latest redactional layers included in the Masoretic version. Here I will draw attention to some late additions to the Masoretic version that were also known to the author of 1 Esdras. In these cases I will give examples in which 1 Esdras has developed the text even further. In some cases 1 Esdras may preserve a reading more original than the one preserved in the MT or 2 Esdras.5 It is clear that the development of the texts was very complicated because they were copied and transmitted in many forms and in many different contexts. After centuries of transmission, different readings emerged, so that one textual tradition may preserve a better reading in one passage, whereas another tradition is more original in another passage. In the end, each variant reading should be considered separately. The theory that is able to explain the birth of a particular reading should be given priority and one’s general understanding of the primacy of the versions should not impact the evaluation of any single passage. Since 1 Esdras differs radically from the MT, it is reasonable to discuss whether the differences are the result of a radical editing of 1 Esdras at some point in its transmission or whether this happened in the Masoretic tradition. When the differences are so extensive that one must assume the text to have been thoroughly rewritten, it is often difficult to establish which version is more original. In some cases, however, the author who rewrote the older text left traces that reveal the direction of development. These traces, which are also then parallels between the two versions, imply that the two versions are literarily dependent. Passages in which the versions differ considerably but that still contain several parallels are often very fruitful in revealing the direction of development between the versions. I proceed with examples from different parts of the composition and conclude with a discussion. that 1 Esdras represents the more original text; see, for example, Gustav Hölscher, Die Bücher Esra und Nehemia (HAT 2; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1923), 491–502; Karl-Friedrich Pohl- mann, 3. Esra-Buch (JSHRZ 1/5; Gütersloh: Gütersloher Verlagshaus, 1980), 383–85; and Adrian Schenker, “La relation d’Esdras A’ au texte massorétique d’Esdras-Néhémie,” in Tradition of the Text: Studies Offered to Dominique Barthélemy in Celebration of His 70th Birthday (ed. Gerard J. Norton and Stephen Pisano; OBO 109; Freiburg: Universitätsverlag; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1991), 218–49. 4. I will not deal with other arguments or considerations in favor of the secondary nature of 1 Esdras here, but leave them for the other scholars of this volume. Perhaps the most persuasive arguments against the priority of 1 Esdras have been put forward by Zipora Talshir in her publications, for example in her review of Dieter Böhler’s Die heilige Stadt, but there is no reason to repeat those arguments here. For details, see Zipora Talshir, “Ezra–Nehemiah and First Esdras: Diagnosis of a Relationship between Two Recensions,” Bib 81 (2000): 566– 73. See also Robert Hanhart, Text und Textgeschichte des 2. Esrabuches (MSU 25; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2003), 12. 5. For example, Ezra 10:10 refers to Ezra the priest, but 1 Esdras (9:7) omits the title. It is probable that here the MT (and 2 Esdras) is expansive and late. 1 PAKKALA: WHY 1 ESDRAS IS PROBABLY NOT AN EARLY VERSION 95 2. AN OMISSION IN 1 ESDRAS 8:5–6 THAT REMOVED A REPETITION IN THE OLDER TEXT The MT contains many inconsistencies, contradictions, and disturbing repetitions, most of which are caused by earlier editorial activity.6 It is probable that in many cases 1 Esdras tries to improve the text by leaving out some repetitions or other disturbing factors caused by earlier editing, whereas the MT seems to preserve them. There are many examples of cases where this is the key to understanding the relationship between the two versions and where it otherwise would be difficult to assume that 1 Esdras preserves an older version of the text than the Masoretic one. One example of an omission that implies that 1 Esdras is younger than the MT can be found in Ezra 7:7–9: Ezra 7:7–97 1 Esdras 8:5–6 καὶ συνανέβησαν ἐκ τῶν υἱῶν Ισραηλ καὶ τῶν ἱερέων 5 7 ויעלו מבני־ישׂראל ומן־הכהנים καὶ Λευιτῶν καὶ ἱεροψαλτῶν והלוים והמשׁררים καὶ θυρωρῶν καὶ ἱεροδούλων והשׁערים והנתינים εἰς Ιεροσόλυμα ָ אל־ירושׁלם ἔτους ἑβδόμου βασιλεύοντος Ἀρταξέρξου בשׁנת־שׁבע לארתחשׁסתא המלך 8 ויבא ירושׁלם ἐν τῷ πέμπτῳ μηνί בחדשׁ החמישׁי οὗτος ἐνιαυτὸς ἕβδομος τῷ βασιλεῖ היא שׁנת השׁביעית למלך ἐξελθόντες γὰρ ἐκ Βαβυλῶνος τῇ νουμηνίᾳ τοῦ πρώτου 6 9 כי באחד לחדשׁ הראשׁון הוא יסד μηνὸς ἐν τῇ νουμηνίᾳ τοῦ πέμπτου μηνὸς המעלה מבבל ובאחד לחדשׁ החמישׁי παρεγένοντο εἰς Ιεροσόλυμα בא אל־ירושׁלם ᾽κατὰ τὴν δοθεῖσαν αὐτοῖς εὐοδίαν παρὰ τοῦ κυρίου ἐπ כיד־אלהיו הטובה עליו αὐτῷ. Among many other problems and repetitions in these verses, the MT contains a double reference to the arrival of the exiles8 in Jerusalem. The repetition 6. Some of the problems may have been caused by textual corruption, but in most cases editorial activity can provide an explanation for the problems. Textual corruption should only be assumed if a text or parallel reading cannot be otherwise understood. That the Hebrew text contains additions from different editors has long been demonstrated by scholars; see, for example, Loring W. Batten, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Books of Ezra and Nehemiah (ICC; Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1913); Sigmund Mowinckel, Studien zu dem Buche Ezra–Nehemia I–III (Oslo: Universitätsforlaget, 1964–1965); and Antonius H. J. Gunneweg, Esra (KAT 19/1; Gütersloh: Gütersloher Verlagshaus, 1985). For further discussion about the unity and disunity of the composition, see the contributions in Mark J. Boda and Paul L. Redditt, eds., Unity and Disunity in Ezra–Nehemiah: Redaction, Rhetoric and Reader (Hebrew Bible Monographs 17; Sheffield: Sheffield Phoenix Press, 2008). 7. In this paper the omissions are written in italics and additions in bold. Parallels that are being discussed are underlined. 1 96 WAS 1 ESDRAS FIRST? was caused by an earlier editor who had added ויבא ירושלם … בא אל־ירושלם of v. 9 to the older v. 8.9 Similar additions that specify the dates of important events have been found in other parts of Ezra–Nehemiah and of the Hebrew Bible. The first reference to the arrival in Jerusalem is missing in 1 Esdras. Although the original reference is the one that was eventually left out, the result- ing text is less repetitive than the confusing Masoretic version. If one were to assume that 1 Esdras represents the more original text, one would have to in the Masoretic tradition, but this is ויבא ירושלם assume the separate addition of improbable, as it would be difficult to find any reason for the addition of such a sentence alone. The repetition was caused by an editor who added the whole v. 9, which also necessitated the repetition of the arrival in Jerusalem, because the date of the arrival was added.

Load more