the latter after Ezr. x., but more probably this event (dated in the seventh month) should precede the great undertaking in Ezr. ix.[1] That the adjustment was attended with considerable revision of the passages appears from a careful comparison of Neh. viii. sq. with Ezr. ix. sq. With Ezra’s confession (ix. 6 sqq.) compare the prayer in Neh. ix. 5 sqq., which the Septuagint ascribes to him. In Ezr. x. (written in the third person) the number of those that had intermarried with the heathen is relatively small considering the general trend of the preliminaries, and the list bears a marked resemblance to that in ch. ii. It ends abruptly and obscurely (x. 44; cf. 1 Esdr. ix. 36), and whilst as a whole the memoirs of Ezra point to ideas later than those of Nehemiah, the present close literary connexion between them is seen in the isolated reference to Johanan the son of Eliashib in Ezra x. 6, which seems to be connected with Neh. xiii. 7, and (after W. R. Smith) in the suitability of ib. xiii. 1, 2 between Ezr. x. 9 and 10. The list of signatories in Neh. x. 1-27 should be compared with the names in xii. and 1 Chron. xxiv.; the true connexion of ix. 38 is very obscure, and the relation to Ezr. ix. seq. is complicated by the reference to the separation from the heathen in Neh. ix. 2. The description of the covenant (Neh. x. 28 sqq., marked by the use of “we”) is closely connected with xii. 43–xiii. 3 (from the same or an allied source), and anticipates the parallel though somewhat preliminary measures detailed in the more genuine memoirs (Neh. xiii. 4 sqq.). Finally, the specific allusion in xiii. 1-3 to Ammon and Moab is possibly intended as an introduction to the references to Tobiah and Sanballat respectively (vv. 4 seq., 28).
5. Summary.—The literary and historical criticism of Ezra-Nehemiah is closely bound up with that of Chronicles, whose characteristic features it shares. Although the three formed a unit at one stage it may seem doubtful whether two so closely related chapters as 1 Chron. ix. and Neh. xi. would have appeared in one single work, while the repetition of Neh. vii. 6–viii. 1 in Ezr. ii.–iii. 1 is less unnatural if they had originally appeared in distinct sources. Thus other hands apart from the compiler of Chronicles may have helped to shape the narratives, either before their union with that book or after their separation.[2] The present intricacy is also due partly to specific historical theories regarding the post-exilic period. Here the recension in 1 Esdras especially merits attention for its text, literary structure and for its variant traditions.[3] Its account of a return in the time of Darius scarcely arose after Ezr. i.–iii. (Cyrus); the reverse seems more probable, and the possibility of some confusion or of an intentional adjustment to the earlier date is emphasized by the relation between the popular feeling in Ezr. iii. 12 (Cyrus) and Hag. ii. 3 (Darius), and between the grant by Cyrus in iii. 7 (it is not certain that he held Phoenicia) and the permit of Darius in 1 Esdr. iv. 47-57 (see v. 48). To the latter context belongs the list of names which reappears in Ezr. ii. (Cyrus). But from the independent testimony of Haggai and Zechariah it is doubtful whether the chronicler’s account of the return under Cyrus is at all trustworthy. The list in 1 Esdr. v., Ezr. ii., as already observed, appears to be in its more original context in Neh. vii., i.e. in the time of Artaxerxes, and it is questionable whether the earliest of the surviving detailed traditions in Ezra-Nehemiah went back before this reign. It is precisely at this age that there is evidence for a return, apparently other than that of Ezra or Nehemiah (see Ezr. iv. 12), yet no account seems to be preserved unless the records were used for the history of earlier periods (cf. generally Ezr. iii. 12 sq. with Neh. viii. 9-11; Ezr. iii. 7 with the special favour enlisted on behalf of the Jews in vi. 7 sq., 13, vii. 21; Neh. ii. 7 sq.). But the account of the events in the reign of Artaxerxes is extremely perplexing. Since the building of the walls of Jerusalem must have begun early in the fifth month (Neh. vi. 15), an allowance of three days (ii. 11) makes the date of Nehemiah’s arrival practically the anniversary of Ezra’s return (Ezr. vii. 9, viii. 32). Considering the close connexion between the work of the two men this can hardly be accidental. The compiler, however, clearly intends Neh. vi. 15 (25th of sixth month) to be the prelude to the events in Neh. vii. 73, viii. (seventh month), but the true sequence of Neh. vi. sqq. is uncertain, and the possibility of artificiality is suggested by the unembellished statement of Josephus that the building of the walls occupied, not fifty-two days, but two years four months (Ant. xi. 5. 8). The present chronological order of Nehemiah’s work is confused (cf. §4, n. 3), and the obscure interval of twelve years in his work corresponds very closely to that which now separates the records of Ezra’s labours. However, both the recovery of the compilers’ aims and attempted reconstructions are precluded from finality by the scantiness of independent historical evidence. (See further Jews: History, §21 seq.)
Bibliography.—S. R. Driver, Lit. of the O.T. (1909), pp. 540 sqq. and the commentaries of H. E. Ryle (Camb. Bible, 1893), C. Siegfried (1901), A. Bertholet (1902), and T. W. Davies (Cent. Bible, 1909). Impetus to recent criticism of these books starts with Van Hoonacker (Neh. et Esd. [1890]; see also Expos. Times [1897], pp. 351-354, and M.-J. Lagrange, Rev. biblique, iii. 561-585 [1894], iv. 186-202 [1895]) and W. H. Kosters (Germ. ed., Wiederherstellung Israëls, 1895). The latter’s important conclusions (for which see his article with Cheyne’s additions in Ency. Bib. col. 1473 sqq., 3380 sqq.) have been adversely criticized, especially by J. Wellhausen (Nachrichten of the Univ. of Göttingen, 1895, pp. 166-186), E. Meyer (Entstehung d. Judentums, 1896), J. Nikel (Wiederherstellung d. jüd. Gemein., 1900), and S. Jampel in Monatsschrift f. Gesch. u. Wissens. d. Judentums, vols. xlvi.-xlvii. (1902–1903). The negative criticisms of Kosters have, however, been strengthened by his replies (in the Dutch Theolog. Tijdschrift), and by the discussions of C. C. Torrey and C. F. Kent (op. cit) and of G. Jahn (Esra u. Neh. pp. i-lxxviii; 1909), and his general position appears to do more justice to the biblical evidence as a whole. (S. A. C.)
EZZO, or Ehrenfried (c. 954–1024), count palatine in Lorraine,
was the son of a certain Hermann (d. c. 1000), also a count
palatine in Lorraine who had possessions in the neighbourhood
of Bonn. Having married Matilda (d. 1025), a daughter of the
emperor Otto II., Ezzo came to the front during the reign of his
brother-in-law, the emperor Otto III. (983–1002); his power was
increased owing to the liberal grant of lands in Thuringia and
Franconia which he received with his wife, and some time later
his position as count palatine was recognized as an hereditary
dignity. Otto’s successor, the emperor Henry II., was less
friendly towards the powerful count palatine, though there was
no serious trouble between them until 1011; but some disturbances
in Lorraine quickly compelled the emperor to come to terms,
and the assistance of Ezzo was purchased by a gift of lands.
Henceforward the relations between Henry and his vassal appear
to have been satisfactory. Very little is known about Ezzo’s
later life, but we are told that he died at a great age at Saalfeld
on the 21st of March 1024. He left three sons, among them being
Hermann, who was archbishop of Cologne from 1036 to 1056,
and Otto, who was for a short time duke of Swabia; and seven
daughters, six of whom became abbesses. Ezzo founded a
monastery at Brauweiler near Cologne, the place where his
marriage had been celebrated. This was dedicated in 1028 by
Piligrim, archbishop of Cologne, and here both Ezzo and his wife
were buried.
EZZOLIED, or Anegenge, an old German poem, written by Ezzo, a scholar of Bamberg. It was written about 1060, but not, as one authority asserts, composed while the author was making a pilgrimage to Jerusalem. The subject of the poem is the life of Christ. Very popular during the later middle ages, the Ezzolied had a great influence on the poetry of south Germany, and is valuable as a monument of the poetical literature of the time.
The text is printed in the Denkmäler deutscher Poesie und Prosa aus dem 8-12. Jahrhundert (Berlin, 1892) of C. V. Müllenhoff and W. Scherer.
- ↑ C. C. Torrey, Comp. and Hist. Value of Ezra-Neh. (Beihefte of Zeit. f. alttest. Wissens., 1896), pp. 30-34; C. F. Kent, Israel’s Hist. and Biog. Narratives, pp. 32, 369. Since Neh. vii. 70-73 is closely joined to viii., the suggested transposition would place its account of the contributions to the temple in a more appropriate context (cf. Ezr. viii. 24-30, 33 sq.).
- ↑ For linguistic evidence reference should be made to J. Geissler, Die literarischen Beziehungen d. Esramemoiren (Chemnitz, 1899).
- ↑ See especially Sir Henry Howorth, Proc. of Society of Bibl. Arch. (1901–1904), passim; C. C. Torrey, Ezra Studies (Chicago, 1910). For the text, see A. Klostermann, Real-Ency. f. prot. Theol. v. 501 sqq.; H. Guthe in Haupt’s Sacred Books of Old Testament (1899); and S. A. Cook in R. H. Charles, Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha.
