Peter H.W. Lau, «Gentile Incorporation into Israel in Ezra - Nehemiah?», Vol. 90 (2009) 356-373
In contrast to other texts dated to the post-exilic period, Ezra – Nehemiah is well known for its separatist policy towards gentiles. Two exceptions in EN are the possible participation of foreigners in the Passover ceremony (Ezra 6,19-21) and the community pledge to follow the Torah (Neh 10,29[28]). An examination of antecedent Passover celebrations reveals that participation in the Passover marks out those who are members of ‘true’ Israel. This article argues that these cases indeed exhibit an anomalous inclusiveness, and discusses how it can be understood within the wider ethno-theological thrust of EN.
Gentile Incorporation into Israel in Ezra – Nehemiah? 365
Because of the impurity of the peoples of the land in EN, the
Passover can only be celebrated by Israel and those who are willing to
devote themselves to Israel and its God. Scholars are divided over
whether the phrase ‘all who joined them’ refers to Jews who sepa-
rated themselves from the surrounding peoples or to foreigners who
separated (40). Two factors render the latter option as most likely. First,
within the outlook of EN, the recognition of a legitimate group of
Jews outside those who returned from exile is generally denied (41).
Hence, those who joined Israel ‘should be regarded proselytes’ (42).
Second, within the context of antecedent Passovers in the HB dis-
cussed supra, this would refer to those foreigners who are willing to
assimilate into Israel. An allowance for their participation is men-
tioned in Exod 12, Num 9, Deut 16, and 2 Kgs 23. Thus, according to
the biblical record, foreigners were involved in the Passover from the
formation of the nation Israel to its last throes under the Judean
monarchy, and into the post-exilic period.
In contrast to Exodus 12, however, the requirement for foreigners
to undergo circumcision prior to partaking of the Passover is not men-
tioned (43). Its omission is consistent with the ideology of EN, in
all who had separated themselves from the impurity of the nations of the land to
them’. For a convincing refutation of Janzen’s translation, and an argument for
the standard translation, see H.G.M. WILLIAMSON, “More Unity Than Disunityâ€,
Unity and Disunity in Ezra-Nehemiah. Redaction, Rhetoric, and Reader (eds.
M.J. BODA – P.L. REDDITT) (Sheffield 2008) 335-336.
(40) Scholars who interpret Ezra 6,21 as incorporating foreigners include J.
BLENKINSOPP, Ezra-Nehemiah (OTL; Philadelphia, PA 1988) 133; JAPHET, “Peo-
pleâ€, 115; J.M. MYERS, Ezra, Nehemiah (AB 14; Garden City, NY 1965);
SPARKS, Ethnicity, 295, 318-319; WILLIAMSON, Ezra, Nehemiah, 85. Scholars
who interpret Ezra 6,21 as excluding foreigners and only allowing non-exiled
Judeans include L.W. BATTEN, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the
Books of Ezra and Nehemiah (ICC; Edinburgh 1913) 153; M. BRENEMAN, Ezra,
Nehemiah, Esther (Nashville, TN 1993) 122; M.G. BRETT, Decolonizing God.
The Bible in the Tides of Empire (Sheffield 2008) 116, n. 11.
(41) See JAPHET, “Peopleâ€, 108-115.
(42 )WILLIAMSON, Ezra, Nehemiah, 85.
(43) The omission is not discussed in most commentaries. Exceptions include
D.J.A. CLINES, Ezra, Nehemiah, Esther (NCBC; Grand Rapids, MI 1984) 97,
who suggests that circumcision may be in view as the sign of separation from
uncleanness, and BLENKINSOPP, Ezra-Nehemiah, 133, who comments that silence
regarding the requirement is ‘perhaps significant’. Cf. Isaiah 56,1-8, which men-
tions keeping the Sabbath as an identity marker but not circumcision. For the
contrary view, see S.J.D. COHEN, The Beginnings of Jewishness. Boundaries,
Varieties, Uncertainties (Berkeley, CA 1999) 219-221, who argues that there is