Information for the Book of
Nehemiah
Significant sections:
AN INTRODUCTION TO THE BOOKS OF EZRA-NEHEMIAH
I. CANONICITY:
A. Hebrew: The Hebrew title is hymjn-arzu (Ezra-
Nehemiah)1
1. arzu is probably an Aramaic form of the Hebrew
term "rzu," meaning "to help"2
2. hymjn is Hebrew meaning "Yahweh comforts."3
3. The Writings: The Hebrew placement of the books is
among the Writings just before Chronicles4 and
after Daniel:
a. The Hebrew Scriptures were probably
originally canonized into a two-fold
division: the Law and the Prophets5
b. By around the second century B.C.6 a three-
fold division of the Hebrew Scriptures arose:
The Law, The Prophets, and The Writings7
1) The three-fold division included the
same books as the two-fold division
2) There are several possible reasons for a
three-fold division:8
a) A distinction was made between
books which were written by men who
held the prophetic office, and men
who only had the prophetic gift
b) Some at a later date may have felt
that those books which were not
written by "prophets" were not
fully canonical
c) A more practical purpose was served
by the topical and festal9
significance rather than by the two-
fold categories
4. Unity: It seems that in the Hebrew canon Ezra and
Nehemiah were one book (Ezra-Nehemiah)
a. Ezra Nehemiah were regarded as one by the
Babylonian Talmud,10 Josephus11 and Melito of
Sardis12
b. In the MT there is no space between the end
of Ezra 10 and the beginning of Nehemiah 113
c. In the MT the verse statistics are given for
both books at the end of Nehemiah and not at
the end of Ezra14
d. Perhaps Chronicles and Ezra-Nehemiah were a
first and second volume of Hebrew history15
e. The books were not divided in the Hebrew
canon until around the fifteenth century A.D.
(1448) when a Hebrew manuscript divided the
books into two. This was sustained in the
Bomberg edition of 152516
B. Greek: The Greek titles are ESDRAS and NEEMIAS17
1. The LXX also grouped Ezra and Nehemiah together as
one book calling the canonical Ezra-Nehemiah
"Esdras B" or "2 Esdras" with 1 Esdras being the
apocryphal book18
2. Later, by the time of Origen, the LXX divided the
books of Ezra and Nehemiah
C. Latin: The Latin Vulgate divided Ezra-Nehemiah into
First and Second Ezra because of the duplicate list in
Ezra 2 and Nehemiah 7.
II. AUTHORS: Ezra and Nehemiah (and a possible Chronicler)
A. The Book of Ezra was written by the spiritual leader
Ezra the scribe/priest
1. The Babylonian Talmud identifies Ezra the scribe
as the chronicler of 1 and 2 Chronicles and Ezra-
Nehemiah19
2. Note the use of the first person in Ezra 7:27--
9:15
B. Most of Nehemiah seems to have been written by Nehemiah
since it too is in the first person (cf. 1:1--7:5;
12:31--13:31)
C. It seems that Ezra incorporated into one work his
writings in Ezra and Nehemiah (chapter 7) as well as
Nehemiah's personal memoirs in Nehemiah
D. Another possibility is that a later, but not much
later, Chronicler combined the works of Ezra and
Nehemiah into the canonical work of Ezra-Nehemiah
III. DATE: Some time around 433/432-400 B.C.
A. Ezra: Ezra's arrival in Jerusalem was probably in
458/457 B.C.20
1. Ezra 7:1 affirms that Ezra arrived in Jerusalem
during the reign of Artaxerxes the king of Persia
2. Ezra 7:8 affirms that Ezra arrived in Jerusalem in
the fifth month of the seventh year of the king
(Artaxerxes)
a. The is some question as to whether this was
in the reign of Artaxerxes I Longimanus (464-
423 B.C.) or Artaxerxes II Mnemon (404-359
B.C.)21
b. The evidence seems to be that this was during
the reign of Artaxerxes I Longimanus;
therefore, the seventh year of his reign
would have been 458/457 B.C.
1) Nehemiah 8:2 identifies Ezra as
Nehemiah's contemporary
2) The Elephantine Papyri22 [c. 400 B.C.]
mentions Johanan (the grandson of
Eliashib [Neh 3:1, 20])23
B. Nehemiah I: Nehemiah's first arrival in Jerusalem was
probably in 445/444 B.C.
1. Nehemiah 1:2 and 2:1 affirm that the events of
Nehemiah occurred in the twentieth year of king
Artaxerxes
2. Nehemiah arrived the first time in Jerusalem
twelve-thirteen years after Ezra arrived
C. Nehemiah II: Nehemiah's second arrival in Jerusalem was
probably in 433/432-420 B.C.
1. Nehemiah 13:6-7 reads, "But during all this time I
was not in Jerusalem, for in the thirty-second
year of Artaxerxes king of Babylon I had gone to
the king. After some time, however, I asked leave
from the king, and I came to Jerusalem and learned
about the evil ...."
2. Nehemiah left Jerusalem in the thirty-second year
of Artaxerxes
3. Nehemiah may also have returned to Jerusalem in
the thirty-second year of Artaxerxes (this is not
certain since the text reads, "After some time,
..."
D. Conclusion: While portions of each book were probably
written earlier during the lives and events of their
authors, it seems that they were combined and canonized
some time after Nehemiah's second return to Jerusalem
in 433/432 B.C.24
IV. PURPOSES FOR THE BOOKS OF EZRA-NEHEMIAH
A. To provide a record of the reconstruction of the
"Hebrew theocracy upon the physical and spiritual
foundations of the past"25
B. To emphasize covenant renewal in the restored community
(e.g., Neh 8-10)
C. To demonstrate God's faithfulness through the physical
rebuilding and dedication of the wall (cf. Zeph 3:19-
20; Hag 2:1-9)
D. To emphasize the historical and theological continuity
between the preexilic and postexilic Israel through the
institution of the temple, installation of officers
like priests and temple servants, the emphasis of the
Law of Moses
E. To proclaim the legitimacy of the restored community's
religious, political, economic, and social life as
God's people (cf. Neh 9:32-37)
F. To trace the re-establishment of Yahweh worship and the
securing of Jerusalem as a religious community
separated from all foreign influences unto Yahweh's
Law26
G. To foreshadow the full restoration of the nation
through that which was accomplished by Ezra and
Nehemiah27
___________________________
1 Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia (Stuttgart: Deutsche
Bibelstiftung), 1411.
2 BDB, s.v. " rz^u* ," 740.
3 BDB, s.v. " hy*m=j#n= ," p. 637.
4 Perhaps Ezra-Nehemiah is placed before Chronicles (even
though it covers information after Chronicles) because it was
included in the canon first whereas Chronicles was included later
since it had information similar to Samuel and Kings (cf. R. K.
Harrison, Introduction to the Old Testament, 1136)
5 The two-fold division is argued upon (1) the way in which
Moses' Law is referred to as a unit throughout the Scriptures,
(2) the way in which the historical books are linked together as
a unit, (3) the reference in Daniel to the Law and the "books"
[9:2], and (4) the recognition of the "Former" prophetic books by
the "Latter" (See Geisler and Nix, A General Introduction to the
Bible, pp. 148-161).
6 Prologue to Ecclesiasticus (c. 132 B.C.), Jesus in Luke
24:44 (A.D. 30) Josephus, Against Apion, I.8 (A.D. 37-100).
7 The Writings include: (1) Poetical Books--Psalms,
Proverbs, Job, (2) Five Rolls (Megilloth)--Song of Songs, Ruth,
Lamentations, Esther, Ecclesiastes, (3) Historical Books--Daniel,
Ezra-Nehemiah, Chronicles
Sometimes Ruth was attached to Judges, and Lamentations was
attached to Jeremiah thereby making the Hebrew canon comprised of
22 books rather than the more usual 24 books (see Geisler and
Nix, General, pp. 18-19).
8 Critical scholars assume that the three-fold division
reflects dates of canonization in accordance with their dates of
compositions--Law (400 B.C.), Prophets (c. 200 B.C.), Writings
(c. A.D. 100). However, this thesis is untenable in light of
early reports of a three-fold division (c. 132 B.C.; see above).
See Geisler and Nix, General, p. 151.
This critical approach is suggested by La Sor et al as an
explanation for the placement of Ezra, Nehemiah, Chronicles,
Esther, Song of Solomon, and Ecclesiastes when they write,
"Essentially, the purpose of the Writings as a whole was to
collect those sacred books whose purpose, character, or date
excluded them form the collections of law and prophecy (Old, p.
508-509).
9 Song of Solomon (eighth day of Passover), Ruth (second day
of Weeks, or Pentecost), Lamentations (ninth day of Ab, in
mourning for the destruction of Solomon's temple), Ecclesiastes
(third day of Tabernacles), Esther (Purim).
10 Bab. Bath. 15a.
11 Contr. Apion. 1.8.
12 In Eusebius, Hist. Eccl., IV.26.
13 Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia (Stuttgart: Deutsche
Bibelstiftung), 1430.
14 Ibid., 1458.
15 This is supported by the similarity of 2 Chronicles 36:22-
23 and Ezra 1:1-2 (see Andrew E. Hill and John H. Walton, A
Survey of the Old Testament, 228-29). Childs writes, "The
repetition of the last verses of Chronicles in the introduction
of Ezra, ..., interprets the Ezra story as a continuation of
Israel's history. The author focuses only on certain events as
theologically significant. Chapters 1--6 progress from release
under Cyrus to the reconstruction of the temple. Chapters 7--10
treat the arrival of Ezra and his initial reform. Nehemiah 1--6
records the building of the walls and Neh. 7-13 handle the
reordering of the community's life. Moreover, the particular
structuring of these events reveal the writer's perspective. Ezra
1--6, 7--10 along with Neh. 1--6 are only preparation for the
climax of this sacred history which occurs in the combined
activity of Ezra and Nehemiah in chs. 7--13. Likewise, the last
chapter (13.4ff) is subordinated to this section and not given an
independent significance ...)" (Brevard S. Childs, Introduction
to the Old Testament as Scripture, 632-33).
16 R. K. Harrison, Introduction to the Old Testament, 1135.
17 Sir Lancelot C. L. Brenton, The Septuagint with
Apocrypha: Greek and English (Grand Rapids: Regency Reference
Library), 617, 631.
18 Hill and Walton write,"Two books in the Old Testament
Apocrypha are titled 'Esdras,' the Greek equivalent of the name
Ezra. The apocryphal 2 Esdras is an apocalyptic work of the late
first century A.D. and has no connection with the historical
Ezra. The Apocryphal 1 Esdras dates to the second century B.C.
and includes material from 2 Chronicles 35:1 through the end of
the Old Testament book of Ezra, with Nehemiah 7:73--8:12 forming
an appendix to the text. Though the book of 1 Esdras has some
value for comparative analysis with the biblical texts of
Chronicles, Ezra and Nehemiah, the book is generally considered
inferior both historically and theologically to the Old Testament
book of Ezra (e.g., 1 Esd. 5:70-73)" (Andrew E. Hill and John H.
Walton, A Survey of the Old Testament, 228-229; For a good chart
on this see LaSor, Hubbard, and Bush, Old Testament Survey, 639;
see also R. K. Harrison, Introduction to the Old Testament, 1135-
36).
19 Baba Bathra 15a. It also adds that the work was completed
by Nehemiah.
20 This was the second return from Exile. The first return
was under Zerubbabel in 538 B.C. when Cyrus was King (Ezra 1--6).
The second return was under Ezra in 458/457 while Artaxexes I
Longimanus was King (Ezra 7--10) and the third return was under
Nehemiah in 445/444 B.C. also while Artaxerxes I Longimanus was
king (Nehemiah 1--13).
For a discussion of problems with the dates of Ezra-Nehemiah
see Gleason L. Archer, Jr. A Survey of Old Testament
Introduction, 420-24. John Bright, A History of Israel, 391-402.
21 See Albright's early discussions. He seems to have
changed his mind about this matter.
22 LaSor et al write, "These business documents and letters
were found on the island of Elephantine, north of the first
cataract of the Nile and opposite Aswan. They belonged to a
Jewish military colony established at least as early as the fall
of Jerusalem in 586. The texts throw brilliant light on the
affairs of the Jewish colony in Upper Egypt, especially for the
period 425-400. In 410 these Jews wrote a letter to Johanan, high
priest at Jerusalem (Neh. 12:22), regarding the rebuilding of
their temple. In 407 they sent a long appeal in the same regard
to Bagoas, governor of Judah, in which they mentioned a similar
letter to 'Delaiah and Shelemiah, the sons of Sanballat the
governor of Samaria." Assuming this is the same Sanballat who was
the inveterate enemy of Nehemiah (2:19; 4:1 [MT 3:33]), the
Artaxerxes referred to in 2:1 must be Artaxerxes I" (LaSor,
Hubbard, and Bush, Old Testament Survey, 560, n. 33; See also
ANET, pp. 491ff).
23 Archer writes, "This Johanan was a grandson of the
Eliashib mentioned in Nehemiah 3:1 and 20 and Nehemiah was a
contemporary of Eliashib. It therefore follows that when the
biblical record speaks of Nehemiah going to Jerusalem in the
twentieth year of Artaxerxes (Neh 1:1) and again in his thirty-
second year (Neh. 13:6), the reference must be to Artaxerxes I
(yielding the date 445 and 433 respectively) rather than the
reign of Artaxerxes II (which would result in the dates 384 and
372 respectively--far too late for the high priesthood of
Johanan)" (Gleason L. Archer, Jr. A Survey of Old Testament
Introduction, 419-20).
24 It is also possible that a later "Chronicler" edited the
memoirs of Ezra and Nehemiah into this final form around 400 B.C.
While this conclusion is not absolutely necessary, it is a
possibility (see Andrew E. Hill and John H. Walton, A Survey of
the Old Testament, 229-30).
25 Gleason L. Archer, Jr. A Survey of Old Testament
Introduction, 419. Continuing he writes, "As God protected His
remnant from the hatred of external foes, so also He delivered
them from the insidious corruption of the false brethren within
the commonwealth" (Ibid.).
26 Johnson writes, "Although Israel now lived under Persian
rule God worked in mercy through the Gentiles to restore a true
form of worship and true worshippers separated to Himself. It
would be in this context that YHWH would come to be received and
worshipped in Spirit and truth (Elliott E. Johnson, "Synthesis of
Ezra," [unpublished class notes in 303 Old Testament History II,
Dallas Theological Seminary, Spring 1981], 10). Continuing he
writes, "Whereas Ezra primarily was concerned with worship
Nehemiah is primarily civil. Yet its civil establishment as a
city in the Persian empire is not secular and political but
establishes itself under Mosaic law as a religious community. The
political authority remains securely in the control of Persia
under whom Nehemiah functions. Still, it is YHWH's initiative and
will that are being affected in the establishment of Jerusalem"
(Elliott E. Johnson, "Synthesis of Nehemiah," [unpublished class
notes in 303 Old Testament History II, Dallas Theological
Seminary, Spring 1981], 9).
27 Childs writes, "The reading of the law has been assigned
to this section of Nehemiah [chapters 8--12] because it was only
after the completion of the wall and the settlement of the people
(7.5ff) that the conditions for the full restoration of the
community were met. Separation unto God was internal as well as
external. For this reason, Ezra's early reform and Nehemiah's
building programme only served to foreshadow the full
restoration. It has been reserved for the Nehemiah chapters to
describe the formation of the ideal community of faith. This task
required a combining of the sacred with the secular in a divine
theocracy, and thus called forth the participation of both Ezra
and Nehemiah as representatives of these two different offices.
The paradigmatic purposes of these chapters in describing the
ideal, faithful community is made further apparent in the two
summaries at the conclusion of the assembly. 'On that day'
(12.44; 13.1) both the service of worship and the purity of the
people were established.
To summarize, the books of Ezra-Nehemiah offer an extreme
example of a canonical process which has disregarded a strictly
literary or historical sequence in order to describe the
restoration as a theological model for the obedient and holy
people of God. (Brevard S. Childs, Introduction to the Old
Testament as Scripture, 636-37).
Johnson writes, "It is written to demonstrate what God has
done without any necessary implications directing attention to
future actions. Rather, based on the demonstration of what God
has begun to fulfill, the godly reader is encouraged to
anticipate a complete fulfillmentof what He has begun. The godly
Jews were expected to continue in purity of worship with an
expectation that God would continue to work He had begun"
(Elliott E. Johnson, "Ezra and Nehemiah," [unpublished class
notes in 327 Seminar in Old Testament Historical Literature,
Dallas Theological Seminary, Spring 1989], 5).