THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN CHRONICLES AND EZRA-NEHEMIAH by SARAJAPHET Jerusalem The problem we are trying to elucidate in the present symposium is oflong standing; it is related to one ofthe first impulses of any Bible student, i.e. to identify the anonymous authors of biblical books. These books may be divided in this respect into two groups: those designated by personal names were traditionally assumed to be authored by those individuals (Joshua, Samuel, Isaiah, etc.), while for those bearing general titles (Judges, Proverbs, Song of Songs, etc.) various historical figures were suggested as authors. 1 The inclination to identify the author with a known historical figure may be accounted for to a certain degree by the general Midrashic trend to avoid anonymity,2 but this cannot be seen as its major motive. Rather, the providing of a name-label arises from the need - essential for the study of any literary work - to understand the work in a meaningful historical and theological context; such a context is instantly provided when a known historical figure is identified as author of the anonymous work. It is well known that ancient tradition ascribes the composition of the book of Chronicles, or part of it, to Ezra the scribe. 3 The method of the Rabbis in this matter is the same followed elsewhere: 1 The classical presentation of this matter is the Baraitha in BT Baba Bathra 14b-15a, with the ensuing Talmudic discussion. The passage revolves around two problems: "the order" of the prophets and the Hagiographa, and "who wrote the Scriptures". 2 Cf. I. Heinemann, "The Methods of the Midrash" (Hebrew; Jerusalem, 19542), pp. 13, 2lff. and passim. 3 Cf. the obscure statement of the BT. Baba Bathra 15a: "Ezra wrote the book that bears his name and the genealogies of the book of Chronicles up to him (or: up to his time) ... Who then finished it? Nehemiah the son of Hachaliah." It is remarkable that this tradition was not followed by the medieval exegete David Kimbi, who views the canonical book of Chronicles as "the Book of the Chronicles of the Kings ofJudah" mentioned repeatedly in the book of Kings (I Kgs xiv 29, etc.). The role of Ezra in regards to this book was limited, according to KimQ.i, to the addition of the post-exilic genealogy of the house of David, and the joining of CHRONICLES AND EZRA-NEHEMIAH 299 basing themselves on hints found within the work, and some tradition regarding its general provenance, they attribute author­ ship to a contemporary historical figure- Ezra. In this way they determined the historical context and- perhaps even more impor­ tant - confirmed its canonical status: Chronicles falls within the boundaries of inspired books: "until now", as opposed to: "from now on".4 While Ezra's authorship of Chronicles was explicitly refuted already by Spinoza,5 it was L. Zunz who posed the relationship of the two works as a problem to be solved in a systematic way. Beginning with the book ofEzra-Nehemiah and observing that "its careful study reveals amazing phenomena", and -that "certain parts of this book could by no means be ascribed to Ezra or Nehemiah", he concludes that "in the book bearing his name, Ezra's part is at most an eighth, and the rest belongs to earlier and later hands".6 Zunz found no similar difficulties, however, in the other aspect of tradition, i.e. the identification of the author of Ezra-Nehemiah with the author of Chronicles, and therefore came ·up with a brilliant solution: it was not Ezra who composed Chron­ icles but vice versa: the Chronicler was the author ofEzra-Nehemiah (p. 22). With this proposal, Zunz remained as close as possible to tradition, and at the same time provided a solid historical and theological context for these books. He moved authorship to the latest phase of the biblical period, in fact to the threshold of the post-biblical era, representing the connecting link between the Bible and the subsequent Rabbinic literature, which was his main concern. 7 The history of this view, its eventual acceptance as an fllmost obvious consensus of scholarly opinion, and the results of this the book to the Scriptures - unlike "the Book of the Chronicles of the Kings of Israel", which was lost. (Cf. Kiml;li's prologue to his commentary on Chronicles, in the Rabbinic Bible.) 4 Cf. Seder Olam Rabbah 30: "Until now prophets were prophesying by inspiration of the holy spirit; from now on, lend your ear and listen to the words of the wise men". Indeed, in the many later discussions in jewish sources on matters of canonization, the book of Chronicles never comes up. For early Christian attitudes, cf. T. Willi, Die Chronik als Auslegung (Gottingen, 1972), p. 13. 5 " .•• the two books of Chronicles ... were certainly written after the time of Ezra ... ", B. Spinoza, Theologico-political Treatise (1670), translated by R.H.M. Elwes, in The Chief Works of Benedict de Spinoza (New York, 1951) I, p. 146. 6 Die Gottesdienstlichen Vortriige der Juden historisch entwickelt (Berlin, 1832), pp. 20-2. 7 Zunz dates the Chronicler to the Hellenistic period; his approximate proposal is around 260 B.C.E, which is also the time to which he ascribes the activity of "the Great Assembly" (knst hgdwlh) (pp. 32-6). .