The authenticity of the chronicler's account of the restoration of Israel in the light of Ezra & Nehemiah: a critical & historical study
Abstract
For purposes of convenience the thesis is divided into four
main sections. The first, on the Linguistic evidence, seeks to set
forth and evaluate concisely the main arguments based on language
against the authenticity of the Chronicler's narrative. Although
the result is largely negative, the fact that these linguistic
arguments have never been adequately attacked, so far as I know,
apart from very summary treatment in some of the standard histories
of the period, and that they have been made the primary basis for
such sweeping indictments against the Chronicler's authenticity,
makes. it seem only right that the evidence should be laid bare and
its inadequacy, as a proof against the Chronicler's narrative, be
revealed. The second section is more positive, and seeks to
assemble concisely but comprehensively all the relevant sources
of the Persian period which bear witness to the authenticity of
the Chronicler's account. In the light of this evidence the
documents of Ezr. -Neh. are examined and are f.)und to agree in
form and content with other Persian parallels of the time. It
is true that much of this material is not new. A good deal of
it is quite old, some of it has been referred to, and in part
quoted by, the standard works of Kittel, Sellin, Lods and
Oesterley, etc. in their treatment of the period, but no attempt
has been made to marshal the evidence in its completeness and to
apply its concentrated testimony to the Hebrew account. In the
third section we come to the main body of the thesis to which the
first two sections are largely prolegomena. Here the salient
episodes of the Chronicler's history of the Restoration are
critically examined, and wherever possible conclusions have been
drawn. Here again most of these conclusions are not new; indeed,
many go back to the Chronicler himself. No studied attempt has
been made to blaze new trails for the sake of originality. The
fact can hardly be overstressed that the thesis is, in part at least,
a sustained protest against the many blind trails with which past
research has confused the subject. The main effort here has been
to set forth throughout an unbiased statement of the evidence as
it at present exists, with the purpose of making clear what stands
firm and what does not in a field of study where diversity of
opinions is extremely great. In the final section a very brief
attempt is made to illustrate and evaluate the main trends of the
Chronicler as an historian and to apply those trends to the problems
of his Restoration history. It will be readily apparent that no attempt has been made
to deal with all the problems which fall within the limits of the
Chronicler's story. To do this would have carried the work far
beyond all reasonable bounds, even if, in the present circumstances,
it had been possible. But all the main controversial issues of
the Chronicler's narrative gather round the question of Authenticity,
and this is the chief reason for dealing with the subject under
this main theme. Another reason for thus limiting the subject
can be equally appreciated when one considers the extraordinary
difficulties of sustained research under war conditions in a part
of the world so isolated from all university libraries. It is
because of this second reason that so few of the references and
footnotes have the page or chapter given. This is especially the
case with references to German authors.
