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.
368 Peter H.W. Lau
habitants of Judah and Jerusalem’ (μlçwryw hdwhy ybçy), reinforces this
topographical understanding (52). Within EN, a specific catalogue of
the settlements of the tribes of Benjamin and Judah is found in Neh
11,25-36 (53). Thus, the concern for geographical location in this pas-
sage implies that the adversaries were not the non-exiled Judeans.
At first glance, the grounds for rejecting the adversaries appear to
be non-religious. They are refused participation on racial grounds:
they are a mixed race, descended from those imported by the Assyri-
ans and those remaining in the northern kingdom (4,2). Political ex-
pediency is an additional reason, since the decree of Cyrus to rebuild
the temple was given to the returnees alone (1,1-4; 4,3). However,
from the viewpoint of EN, the fundamental problem blocking their in-
4,1-3. See B. HALPERN, “A Historiographic Commentary on Ezra 1-6. Achrono-
logical Narrative and Dual Chronology in Israelite Historiographyâ€, The Hebrew
Bible and Its Interpreters (eds. B. HALPERN – W.H. PROPP – D.N. FREEDMAN)
(Winona Lake, IN 1990) 108; WILLIAMSON, Ezra, Nehemiah, 56-57.
(52) The specific location of the people of Israel in the areas of Judah, Ben-
jamin and Jerusalem is consistent with the presentation in the rest of EN. Those
listed by fathers’ houses (Ezra 2,2-20; Neh 7,8-24) are likely to comprise the re-
turnees who predominantly settled in Jerusalem, while those listed by location
(Ezra 2,21-35; Neh 7,25-38) remained in the Judah and Benjamin during the ex-
ile, but were subsequently granted membership into Israel by the returnees (cf.
Ezra 6,21). See JAPHET, “Peopleâ€, 111; J.P. WEINBERG, The Citizen-Temple
Community (Sheffield 1992) 132; H.G.M. WILLIAMSON, “The Family in Persian
Period Judah: Some Textual Reflectionsâ€, Symbiosis, Symbolism, and the Power
of the Past. Canaan, Ancient Israel, and Their Neighbors from the Late Bronze
Age through Roman Palaestina: Proceedings of the Centennial Symposium W.
F. Albright Institute of Archaeological Research and American Schools of Ori-
ental Research Jerusalem, May 29-31, 2000 (eds. W.G. DEVER – S. GITIN)
(Winona Lake, IN 2003) 479. Pace BLENKINSOPP, Ezra-Nehemiah, 85, who
states that the division ‘does not seem to have any significance’. Evidence for
this understanding is found in the distribution of the towns: of the twenty towns,
the majority are found within the border of Benjamin (twelve), three each in the
region south of Jerusalem and in the Ono-Lod Valley, and two in the Jordan Val-
ley; see O. LIPSCHITS, The Fall and Rise of Jerusalem. Judah under Babylonian
Rule (Winona Lake, IN 2005) 157. The current archaeological data also suggest
that the Babylonian deportations centred around Jerusalem, without extensive
deportations from other areas of Judah and Benjamin; see LIPSCHITS, Fall, 164-
165, 270-271.
(53) The catalogue is generally not understood by scholars to be historically
accurate; rather, it intentionally harks back to the exodus-settlement pattern as
found elsewhere in EN. For further discussion, see BLENKINSOPP, Ezra-Ne-
hemiah 328-30; WILLIAMSON, Ezra, Nehemiah, 349-350,353. Nonetheless, it still
reveals the author/redactor’s geographical focus.