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? 367
excludes from the temple building program those descended from
mixed stock of former northern Israel and those peoples imported by
the Assyrians (4,2) (46). Although overlapping, the descriptions of Is-
rael in this passage progressively refer more to geographical location
than sociological grouping (47). The first description of Israel as both
‘Judah and Benjamin’ (ˆmynbw hdwhy) and ‘the returned exiles’ (hlwgh ynb;
4,1) appears redundant. Yet at the beginning of this episode, the asso-
ciation of the location-oriented ‘the returned exiles’ with ‘Judah and
Benjamin’ raises the possibility that it might also be more than a so-
cial grouping (48). The contrast of the opponents (49) in 4,4 with ‘the
people of Judah’ (hdwhy μ[) then highlights the location of the people,
since all Israel is involved in the rebuilding (4,1.3) (50). The further de-
scription of the opponents in 4,6 (51), in contradistinction to ‘the in-
Vogt, S.C. MATZAL, “The Structure of Ezra iv-viâ€, VT 50 (2000) 567-568, outlines
parallels between Ezra 4,1-5 and 6,19-22. He also argues that these passages form
a literary frame, and notes that they are nearly coincident with the Hebrew lingual
frame (4,1-7 and 6,19-22) surrounding the Aramaic text (4,8–6,18).
(46) There is no biblical record of the population of northern Israel under
Esarhaddon (681-669 B.C.E.; although cf. Isa 7,8). However, it is known from
the so-called Prism A that he conquered Sidon and settled people there from the
east. See ANET, 290. This is consistent with general Assyrian policy. See B.
ODED, Mass Deportations and Deportees in the Neo-Assyrian Empire (Wies-
baden 1979). Although BATTEN, Ezra and Nehemiah 125-126, identifies this
group as the Samaritans, current scholarship dates the emergence of the Samari-
tans as a group to later in the Persian period, or to the Hellenistic period. See,
e.g., WILLIAMSON, Ezra, Nehemiah, 49.
(47) Most of the references to Judah in EN are geographical, rather than to
the sociological grouping at the location (e.g., Ezra 1,2.3; 2,1; 5,1.8; 7,14; 10,7;
Neh 1,2; 2,5.7; 4,10; 5,14; 6,7.18; 7,6; 11,3.20.25; 13,15). The references to Ju-
dah or Benjamin in EN as an Israelite tribal grouping are generally prefaced,
e.g., with ‘the fathers’ houses of’ (Ezra 1,5), ‘the sons of’ (Ezra 3,9; Neh
11,4.25.31; 13,15), or ‘the house of’ (Neh 4,16).
(48) The two descriptions of Israel in 4,1 also outline the grounds for opposi-
tion with their adversaries, and form the basis of their subsequent rejection by
the leaders of Israel in 4,3.
(49) They are called ‘the people of the land’ (≈rah μ[), which probably in-
cludes the ‘adversaries’ in 4,1.
(50) This understanding is further strengthened if 4,4-5 is identified as a pro-
leptic summary for 4,6-23. See MATZAL, “Structureâ€, 566. Pace S. TALMON,
“Ezra and Nehemiah (Books and Men)â€, IDBSup (ed. K. CRIM) (Nashville, TN
1976) 322, who views 4,4-5 as a ‘summary notation’, recapitulating the contents
and delineating 3,1–4,3 as a textual unit.
(51) While this verse is best understood as part of a ‘flashforward’ (4,6-23),
the subject matter closely follows that present in 4,4-5, which in turn is linked to