The Narratorial Voice of the Scribes of

Samaria: Ezra iv 8 vi 18 Reconsidered

Joshua Berman
e!t" of Bible
Bar#$lan %niversit&
Ramat 'an( $srael
Email: berman)*mail"biu"ac"il
The Narratorial Voice of the Scribes of Samaria: Ezra iv 8 vi 18 Reconsidered
The presence of a large block of Aramaic narrative in Ezra iv-vi has long
posed a conundrum for scholars of Ezra-Nehemiah. While the Aramaic pericope is
often thought of as a collation of official documents with a few lines of narrative
connection,

the narrative portions, in fact, make up more than one-third of its verses.
These include not onl! connecting pieces of narrative between the putative
documents, but indeed, following the last document, the response of "arius, we find
another si# verses of narrative in Aramaic in vi $-% before the &ebrew narrative
resumes at vi '.
(n the most recent sustained effort to e#plain this phenomenon, )ill Arnold
has brought a fresh perspective to the discussion.
*
+ensing that the translational and
diachronic approaches to this section fail to account for the retention of Aramaic in an
otherwise &ebrew work, Arnold sought to e#plain the presence of Aramaic here from
a rhetorical perspective.
$
,or Arnold, the presence of Aramaic represents a shift in
perspective. The Aramaic sections are related to the reader from what he terms -an
e#ternal point of view.. /iting the work of )oris 0spensk!, Arnold claims that
bilingualism within a te#t allows the author to shift from one perspectival point of
view to another.
1
Arnold2s suggestion that the &ebrew narration of Ezra is from one
perspective, and the Aramaic narration from another, is a starting proposal, and !et
Arnold never does suggest an identit! for this voice, be!ond referring to it as an
-e#ternal point of view..
(n this stud!, ( wish to e#pand upon Arnold2s thesis on two fronts. (n the first
place, ( wish to demonstrate that the evidence suggesting a perspective of narration
*
that is e#ternal to the camp of the returned 3udeans is actuall! far stronger than
Arnold indicated. +econd, ( will propose a concrete identit! for this e#ternal voice of
Aramaic narration. ( should make clear at the outset that m! claims do not revolve
around 4uestions of historicit! but rather e#plore the wa!s the writer uses material to
conve! specific ideolog!. (n what follows, ( identif! the constructed perspective and
position of the speaker -we. in v 1, concluding 5 counter to the consensus within
scholarship 5 that it is a gentile speaking. (n the ne#t stage ( support this conclusion
b! attending to the vocabular! utilized throughout this Aramaic pericope. (t is here
that Arnold made important initial observations, ones, that ( believe can be greatl!
e#panded. (n the final stage ( identif! the precise gentile identit! of the narratorial
voice of this Aramaic narrative.
Ezra v + ,ho is s!ea-in.: /0e1 or /the&12
6erhaps the strongest support for the thesis of e#ternal narration in the
Aramaic pericope concerns a peculiar anomal! within the 7T of Ezra v 1. The verse
has troubled commentators ancient, medieval and modern. ,ollowing the report of
the resumption of the building of the temple in the wake of the prophecies of &aggai
and 8echariah 9v -*:, the te#t of Ezra v continues as follows;
At once Tattenai, governor of the province of )e!ond the <iver,
+hethar-bozenai, and their colleagues descended upon them and said
this to them, -Who issued orders to !ou to rebuild this house and
complete its furnishings=. 9Ezra v $> N36+:
The ne#t verse 9v 1: then continues as follows;
.?@AB CA@AB DAE-@E C@FBG HDIJ ?KAC-?I LDM CAFIC CIAN ?@EC
$
The most literal English translation of this verse is found, among the modern English
translations, in the N36+ version;
Then we said to them, -What are the names of the men who are
engaged in the building=
The subOect of the verse, -we said. is a precise translation of the Aramaic, CAFIC. Pet,
its implications are far reaching, for it implies that the first person speaker who
addresses the 3ews is -from the other side., as it were, and that the vantage point of
the speaker here is that of a member of Tattenai2s entourage. These are implications
that have been hard to swallow for e#egetes of all periods.
Q

(ndeed, from ancient times translators and e#egetes have attempted to resist
this understanding of the verse. )oth the RSS and the +!riac translation of the )ible
read -the! said. instead of -we said.. (n so doing, the! retain the facts of the plot T
that Tattenai2s entourage posed a second 4uestion to the 3ews of 3erusalem. Pet, the!
do so while keeping the narrator obli4ue and at a distance rather than as the first
person narrator of the situation. (t is fair to sa! that this reading of the te#t has been
adopted b! all modern commentators with virtuall! no e#ception.
U
(t is interesting to note that the Vulgate takes the subOect of the verse to be
members of the 3ewish communit!. 3erome, however, in his eagerness to have the
3ews respond to the 4uestion put them in v. $, has the 3ews provide the names of those
who authorized the building, rather than, as the language of the verse implies, a
second 4uer! from the commission, concerning the names of those who actuall!
engaged in the building; ad 4uod respondimus eis 4uae essent nomina hominum
auctorum illius aedificationis. Wne finds support for the N36+ translation of -we said
to them., where -we. refers to Tattenai2s commission onl! in a rare printing of the
glosses of <. "avid XimhYi to the book of Ezra.
Z

1
(n seeking a Oustification for favoring the RSS and +!riac readings of the
verse, modern commentators have averred that the 7T reflects the corruptive
influence of v ', where the identical phrase LDM CAFIC CIAN appears with Tattenai2s
letter to "arius.
%
(t is difficult to fathom, however, that a scribe cop!ing verse $,
would commit an error of dittograph!, distracted from his work b! a phrase that
appears in the te#t si# verses later. (t is clear that the consensus of scholarship,
ancient, medieval and modern, has reOected the 7T, not because of an! s!ntactical
difficult! but because of a preOudgment about the orientation and message of the te#t,
and therefore a preOudgment about the parameters of what the te#t can and cannot
look like. Together with XimhYi and the N36+ translation, however, ( would like to
submit that the simple meaning of the 7T is legitimate; -we. here, refers to some
group of individuals associated with Tattenai.
'
<ather than reOecting the premise that
the speakers of Q;1 are members of Tattenai2s camp, a priori, we ought instead to
search out the Aramaic pericope of iv %-vi %, to see if other evidence can be garnered
in support of this supposition, surprising as it ma! be.
Ezra iv 8 vi 18: The iscourse of an 3utsider
To his credit, Arnold was the first to notice that the shift in the pericope under
stud! here is not onl! one of language 5 Aramaic vs. &ebrew 5 but one of discourse
or, terms of reference. Time and time again, the Aramaic narrator 5 and not onl! the
documents he cites 5 speaks in a fashion that is alien to the discourse of the &ebrew
sections of Ezra-Nehemiah. Pet, in documenting this point, Arnold onl! touched on a
few brief e#amples of the wa!s in which this difference is manifest.
[
(n all, (
maintain, we can discern four semantic fault lines that distinguish the Aramaic
pericope of iv %-vi % from the &ebrew sections of Ezra, strengthening the claim that
Q
the account here is narrated from a perspective estranged from that of the rest of the
book. This is e#hibited in references to; i: \od> ii: the 3ews> iii: the Temple> iv: the
Raw.
i. \od
Arnold correctl! noted that the name P&W& does not appear as a designation
of \od in this section and that instead we find references to MCFJ@ D9K:MC, the \od of
(srael 9v > vi 1:. We ought to add a caveat to Arnold2s point b! noting that we do,
indeed, find the appellation MCFJ@ @DMC in the &ebrew sections of Ezra, but usuall! no
more than a verse awa! from a s!non!mous reference to P&W& 9iii *-$> vi **> i# 1-
Q> ';Q:, the name for \od that appears Q1 times in total in all of Ezra-Nehemiah.
)ut there are three other observations that we ma! make about the handling of
the divine name in the Aramaic narrative that all suggest that the perspective here is at
odds with the 3ewish perspective found elsewhere in the book.
The first is that even internall! within the Aramaic we can discern a difference
between the wa! the 3ews refer to \od and the wa! in which the Aramaic narrator
does. Within Tattenai2s letter to "arius, the 3ews refer to themselves as the servants
of -the Rord of the &eaven and Earth 9v T C]FCK C@IJ DMC @E @DKEB]:, and again in v
* the! refer to \od as -the Rord of the &eaven.. )! contrast, the Aramaic narrator
emplo!s neither the name P&W& 9as is found in the rest of Ezra-Nehemiah:, nor -the
Rord of the &eaven and the Earth. 9as the 3ews refer to \od in Tattenai2s letter:.
(nstead, his narrated sections 9v > vi 1: refer to \od via the appellation -Rord of
(srael., an epithet that resonates with an e#clusive tone 5 this god is the god of
(srael> theirs but not ours.
U
The second point is that having noted that the Aramaic narrator fails to emplo!
the personal denomination, P&W&, we now note that in all of the Aramaic
documents from Elephantine, the onl! mention of the \od of (srael !et without
reference to P&W&, is uttered b! a non-3ew. (n one pap!rus, the governor of 3udah,
)agavah!a, and "elaiah the son of +anballat make a recommendation to rebuild the
temple at Elephantine. The! refer to the shrine as -the altar-house of the \od of
&eaven. 9C@IJ DMC @^ C_BEI H@B:.

)! contrast, 3ewish references to the shrine within

these pap!ri universall! make reference to some form of the name P&W&. This
observation concerning the nomenclature of the Elephantine pap!ri ma! allow us to
view the omission of the personal name of P&W& within the Aramaic narration as
representing an e#ternal perspective.
,inall!, we might add a third characteristic about the seemingl! non-3ewish
wa! in which the Aramaic narrated portions refer to \od. Elsewhere in Ezra and in
the Elephantine pap!ri, we find that non-3ewish speakers refer to \od as the -god in
3erusalem.. (n the opening verses of Ezra, /!rus refers, in une4uivocal terms, to \od
as -the god who is in 3erusalem. 9i $:. (t is an appellation that finds no parallel b!
an! 3ewish speaker an!where in Ezra-Nehemiah. This is echoed in the Elephantine
pap!ri from around roughl! this same period. We find a document from 1U1 )/E in
the name of a non-3ew accusing a 3ew of having violated an oath that he had taken
-b! PW& the \od in Elephantine the fortress..
*
)! contrast, the documents found at
Elephantine that were penned b! 3ews routinel! refer to \od as the Rord of the
heaven, even when addressing a non-3ew.
$

)lenkinsopp has noted that we encounter an ambiguous phrase in the Aramaic
sections of Ezra; -the house of \od in 3erusalem. 9iv *1, v *, U, Z> vi $, *, %> cf.
Z
vii U, Z, ':. The troubling Aramaic preposition, @E, does not indicate whether it is
-\od. or -the temple. that is in 3erusalem. Even if we assume that the implication is
that the temple is in 3erusalem, one such phrase in this section stands out as worth! of
notice. The last such reference in the Aramaic narrative refers not to the &ouse of
\od in 3erusalem, but to the -service of \od in 3erusalem. 9vi %:. The previous five
verses address activities that take place e#clusivel! within the precincts of the
Temple. (t seems unwarranted, then, that in vi % the narrator should now refer to -the
service of \od in 3erusalem.. )! contrast, the passage presents no such difficult! if
the locus of 3erusalem refers to \od2s presence there, rather than a reference to the
location of the service. (ndeed this would match similar non-3ewish statements
attributing a seat to \od2s location as proclaimed b! /!rus in i $, or as we saw in the
name of a non-3ew in the Elephantine pap!ri.
1

ii. The Temple
Rinked closel! to the distinctions we find concerning the divine name, are the
distinctions we find in the denominations that refer to the Temple. (t follows from the
previous section that if the Aramaic pericope does not refer to \od as P&W&, then
we will never find here references to the Temple as D H@B`, even as the te#t of Ezra-
Nehemiah uses this appellation eight times 9Ezra i *, $, Q> ii U%> iii %, > vii *Z> viii
*'> Neh. # $U:. Nor do we find the phrase KA@aMC H@B, a phrase often found in Ezra-
Nehemiah 9Ezra viii Z, *Q, $[, $$> i# '> Neh. # $$, $1, $Q, $Z b*#c, $%, $', 1[> #iii 1:.
(n universal fashion, the Aramaic section refers to the Temple through the determinate
CDMC H@B, somewhat less personal in reference to P&W&, and somewhat less self-
inclusive than KA@aMC H@B.
%
6erhaps most striking on this account is a particular term that we find three
times in the Aramaic section; LMJKF@B @E CDMC H@B 9iv *1> v *, U:. (n the previous
section we considered the possibilit! that the phrase implies that it is \od who resides
in 3erusalem, with the attendant theological implications for differentiating between
the &ebrew and Aramaic sections of the te#t of Ezra. Pet, even if we take a
minimalist position, and assume that the phrase LMJKF@B @E CDMC H@B refers to the
location of the Temple, we ma! still see that the discourse of the Aramaic section
differs from that of the &ebrew section. The onl! occurrences outside of this Aramaic
section where we encounter such a phrase is in the words of the 6ersian king. The
first instance is within the rescript of /!rus, where the 6ersian king refers, in &ebrew,
to LMJKF@B FJC L@DMCD H@B 9i 1:. The other instance is from Arta#er#es, in his rescript
to Ezra, where he refers to LMJKF@B @E LDDMC H@B 9vii U:. These two instances ma! be
said to mark the phrase LMJKF@B @E CDMC H@B as indicative of an e#ternal perspective
portra!ing the events transpiring within the Aramaic section of chapters iv-vi.
Q
iii. The 3ews
We find a differentiation between the Aramaic section under stud! and the
surrounding &ebrew te#t of Ezra with regard to the appellations used for the
returnees. Wverwhelmingl!, Ezra emplo!s two designations for his co-religionists
within the &ebrew narrative of the book. Wn man! occasions he refers to them either
as -the e#ile. or, as -the people of the e#ile. 9i > ii > iv > vi ', *[> viii $Q> # Z, %,
U:. 7ore often, he refers to them as either -(srael. or -the children of (srael. 9iii >
iv $> vi *> vii Z, [, *%> viii *'> # , *, Q, [:. )! contrast, the Aramaic section under
stud! refers to them in nearl! e#clusive fashion as -the 3ews. 9C@EKD@:, a denomination
whose &ebrew e4uivalent 9L@EKD@D: we find onl! in Nehemiah but not in Ezra.
U
We
'
find this term first used in the correspondence from <ehum to Arta#er#es 9iv *:. Pet
what is more important is that having noted that this is the discourse in which this
official from +amaria speaks with his monarch in 6ersia, we then further see that this
discourse is maintained in the Aramaic narrative portions of the section as well, at
three Ounctures 9v , Q> vi 1:, once again lending credence to the claim that the
perceptual point of view of narration here is that of someone e#ternal to the camp of
the returned e#iles.
(t should be pointed out that while in overwhelming fashion Ezra refers to the
returnees either as -(srael. or as -the e#ile., we do find on occasion that Ezra refers to
the returnees through some derivative of the pronoun -3udah.. (n iv 1, the! are
referred to as -the people of 3udah.. Rater, in # ', the! are referred to as -the people
of 3udah and )enOamin.. These designations, however, are the e#ceptions that prove
the rule and their conte#ts ma! be readil! e#plained. ,or Ezra, -3udah. is strictl! a
geographic term. (ndeed, we see from the te#t of Tattenai2s letter to "arius later on 9v
%:, his reference to CHA@EI EKD@.
Z
Thus, in his pra!er in chapter i#, Ezra praises \od
for having given them a foothold -in 3udah and 3erusalem. 9i# ':. (n similar fashion,
the decree to attend the intermarriage convocation in chapter # is promulgated
-throughout 3udah and 3erusalem to all of the people of the e#ile. 9# Z:. The
recipients themselves are designated through the ethno-religious term -the people of
the e#ile.. -3udah. is the geographic province in which the! reside. When +cripture
wishes to underscore that people came from far and wide to attend this convocation, it
refers to them in terms of their geographic referent; -And all of the people of 3udah
and of )enOamin gathered to 3erusalem for three da!sd. 9# ':.
[
\ermane for our discussion is the appearance of the phrase -the people of
3udah. in iv 1. &ere, too, it is first and foremost a geographic term, with political
overtones. We see here the apposition of two geographic terms in the brewing battle
between -the people of the land. and -the people of 3udah.. ( would submit that our
Aramaic narrator could have referred to the returnees as -the people of (srael. 9CI]
MCFJ@:, as does Arta#er#es in his rescript to Ezra 9vii $:. &is choice of the term
C@EKD@ underscores his view of the 3ews, not in ethno-religious terms 9-e#iles.,
-(srael.:, but first and foremost in geo-political terms.
iv. The Raw
A final reference point that distinguishes between the two sections is
witnessed in the designations we find in each for the law book of Ezra-Nehemiah. (n
universal fashion, Ezra-Nehemiah refers to the Raw as -Torah.. (n almost all
instances there is e#plicit reference made to the divinit! of the Torah, such as the
construct phrase -the Torah of P&W&. 9Ezra vii [:, or, more fre4uentl! the
construct, -the Torah of Elohim. 9Neh. viii %, %> i# $, *U, *', $1> # *', $[> cf. Ezra #
$:. Wther appellations identif! the Torah as that of 7oses, but with various indicators
of its divinit! 9Ezra iii *> vii U> Neh. viii , 1> # $[:. (n Nehemiah we find that after
the narrator has underscored the divinit! of the Torah, he then refers to it throughout
the rest of the pericope as -Torah. alone 9cf. Neh. viii *, $, Z, ', $, following viii >
see also Neh. # $Q, $Z, following # *'-$[:. Wnl! once do we find the Torah referred
as -the book of 7oses. 9DJI Fef:, and that is in Neh. #iii . (t ma! be that having
underscored the Torah2s divinit! in earlier passages, at this late Ouncture in the book,
the author could refer to it shorthand as -the book of 7oses. without need of further
elaboration. Whereas the discourse of Ezra-Nehemiah nearl! universall! refers to the

law as -Torah. with some accompan!ing denotation its divinit!, we find neither of
these characteristics in the Aramaic narrator2s designation for the law. &e notes onl!
9vi %: that upon completion of the Temple, the 3ews established shifts of priests and
of levites in accordance with -the book of 7oses. 9DJI Fef BHNN:. The distinct nature
of this appellation relative to those found throughout the &ebrew sections of Ezra-
Nehemiah and particularl! the failure to underscore the divinit! of the book, again
accords with the assumption that the Aramaic narrative is reported from the point of
view of an outsider to the 3ewish camp.
To summarize, we have before us a glimpse of a first-person narrator who
seems to be identified with the camp of Tattenai, who speaks of the 4uestions that -we
asked them. 9v 1:. We have seen that this narrator refers to the deit! of (srael without
recourse to &is personal name 9P&W&: as found throughout the book of Ezra, nor
even as -the Rord of heaven and earth,. as the 3ews themselves are 4uoted as sa!ing
in the letter to "arius 9v -*:. &e does not refer to the Temple as the house of
P&W&, nor as the house of -our Rord. 9KAaMC:, as we find throughout Ezra-
Nehemiah. (n terms found onl! in his narration, the 3ews are the C@EKD@, but not an! of
the other designations emplo!ed b! Ezra. The -Torah given to 7oses b! the \od of
(srael., is referred to merel! as -the book of 7oses.. Wur narrator, then, is addressing
us as someone outside of the camp of the returnees. )ut who is he=
The 4ramaic Narratorial Voice: $dentif&in. the S!ea-er
(n his article, Arnold consistentl! refers to -e#ternal narration., !et without
e#plicitl! identif!ing this e#ternal voice as non-3ewish. ,or the translators of the
N36+ version, the first-person plural voice of v 1 is that of -the officials of v. $.,
presumabl! a reference to the associates 9?KDHKAN: of Tattenai, mentioned there. ,or
*
XimhYi, the speakers are Tattenai and +hethar )ozenai themselves. While ( read as
the! do, that the first-person plural narration at v 1 is a member of Tattenai2s part!, (
would like to offer an alternative suggestion as to the identit! of the speakers here.
,or, if we adopt either the N36+ translation 9that the speakers are the officials of v. $:,
or the approach suggested b! XimhYi 9that the speakers are the leaders mentioned in v.
$:, we encounter a clums! s!nta# in the shift in person from v $ to v 1. Wh! would
the narrator, who, according to both these opinions, is alread! e#plicitl! mentioned in
v. $, report the first 4uestion in third person 9LDM ?@FIC ?NK:, onl! to shift a verse later
to first-person 9LDM CAFIC CIAN ?@EC:= <ather, it seems to me that the part! speaking in
verse 1, is affiliated with Tattenai2s commission, !et not e#plicitl! mentioned in verse
$. The 4uestions posed respectivel! in v. $ and in v. 1 are posed b! two different
parties.
We can construct a highl! coherent reading of these opening verses of chapter
v if we assume that the first person plural narration in verse v 1 is that of the scribes
of Tattenai. Notice how the mention of scribes is handled differentl! in the
e#positor! introduction to the letter to "arius in chapter v, in contradistinction with
the parallel introduction to the letter to Arta#er#es b! <ehum in chapter iv. (n chapter
iv, +cripture reports 9iv %: that the letter was composed b! <ehum the chancellor and
b! +himshai the scribe. The following verse, iv ', records the beginning of the actual
letter, and again makes e#plicit mention of +himshai as the scribe who drafted the
correspondence, a standard practice in fifth centur! Aramiac epistolograph!, as well
attested b! the Elephantine papr!ri. )! contrast, however, note how the mention 5
or lack thereof 5 is handled with regard to the drafting of the letter to "arius in
chapter v. The letter opens 9v U: in the customar! fashion b! indicating the name of
the sender, in this instance, Tattenai, +hethar )ozenai and other assorted anon!mous
$
dignitaries. Pet, no mention is made of the name of the scribe. Nor is an! scribe
mentioned b! name during the in4uir! that precedes the letter, in verses $-Q. Pet,
surel!, the letter was not written b! Tattenai himself, but b! a trained scribe, and
hence, perforce, a scribe is there, even if he is not named.
(f we read the first person account of v. 1 as emanating from a scribe, we ma!
receive insight into the d!namics of the in4uir! of vv. $-Q. "ifferent members of the
commission pla!ed different roles. ,ollowing the resumption of the building of the
Temple in v -*, we read,
At once, Tattenai, governor of the province of )e!ond the <iver,
+hethar-bozenai, and their colleagues descended upon them and said
this to them; -Who issued order to !ou to rebuild this house and
complete its furnishings=.
)! resuming construction of the Temple, the 3ews had, in effect, undermined the
authorit! of Tattenai and his regime and thus it is precisel! the! who pose the
challenge to the 3ews to name the authorit! and auspices under which the! have taken
matters into their own hands.
Verse 1, however, it seems, raises a different issue, and is verbalized b! a
different speaker;
Then we said to them, -What are the names of the men who are
engaged in the building=.
The 4uestion here is not posed b! the authorit! figures of verse $, Tattenai and
+hethar-bozenai. <ather, at this Ouncture, ( submit, we see a group of scribes running
to the fore, with ledgers in hand, preparing to record length! lists of the names of all
1
those involved in the building. A support for this reading is found in the retelling of
the episode within the letter to "arius itself. Tattenai reports that;
bThe house of the great godc is being rebuilt of hewn stoned The work is
being done with great dispatch and is going well. Thereupon we directed this
4uestion to these elders, -Who issued orders to !ou to rebuild this house and
to complete its furnishings= We also asked their names so that we could write
down the names of the leaders for !our information 9Q;%-[:.
The 4uestion posed, then, in v. $ was an e#pression of triumphalism and an attempt to
intimidate, and hence was posed b! the most senior figures of the commission. The
4uestion posed in v. 1 was essentiall! a clerical act, carried out b! scribes to comprise
lists of the foremen overseeing the various facets of the Temple2s reconstruction, for
"arius2 review.
The notion that the reporting is done here from an e#ternal perspective allows
us to better understand another detail of the account of v -Q. The speakers of v. v 1
9the scribes of Tattenai, b! m! reading: go on in the following verse to make the
following observation;
)ut the e!e of their god was upon the elders of the 3ews and the! did
not stop them while a report went to "arius and a letter was sent back
in repl! to it 9v Q:
The remark that, -the e!e of their god was upon the elders of the 3ews,. is
e#clusionar! in nature. The narrator reports here what their god 5 apparentl! not his
5 did for them. The word -their god. in Aramaic, LDDMC, appears in one other place
in Ezra, and that is in the rescript of Arta#er#es to Ezra. Arta#er#es empowers Ezra,
Q
sa!ing, -whatever silver and gold that !ou find throughout the province of )ab!lon,
together with the freewill offerings which the people and the priests will give for the
&ouse of their \od 9LDDMC H@B:, which is in 3erusalem. 9vii U:. 3ust as vis-g-vis
Arta#er#es the term LDDMC is e#clusionar!, so too, we ma! read that vis-g-vis the
Aramaic narrator himself, the reference to what -their god. did for them, is
e#clusionar! as well.
The argument that the speakers of v. v 1 are the scribes of Tattenai raises
narratological 4uestions for the entire Aramaic pericope. Are we meant to understand
that it is these scribes who represent the point of view narrating the entire se4uence of
iv %-vi %=
Ret us probe that 4uestion within the conte#t of the poetics of the )ook of
Ezra generall!. /hapters vii-# of Ezra alternate between standard third person
narration and first person narration. When engaging these chapters in a s!nchronic
reading we easil! identif! the first person narration to be that of Ezra and
automaticall! assume that the third-person narration is from his point of view as well.
A priori, the same hermeneutic could be applied here as well; first person narration b!
the scribes of Tattenai at v 1 grants them -ownership. over the point of view of the
whole pericope.
The chronolog! of the Aramaic pericope, however, should make us war! of
ascribing the narratorial voice of the entire section to +amarian scribes who witnessed
all the events depicted. The putative speakers of v 1 attest to events that transpired,
b! most accounts, somewhere around Q' )/E, in the second !ear of "arius2 reign.
Pet the Aramaic pericope also details the undated letter of <ehum to Arta#er#es, who
reined from 1UQ-1*Q. We see in vi 1 that the narrator lists Arta#er#es together with
U
/!rus and "arius as 6ersian kings who supported the Temple.
%
+ince <ehum2s letter
is undated, it ma! be that we are to understand that Arta#er#es had an initial enmit!
toward 3erusalem that changed before Ezra2s appointment in the seventh !ear of his
reign, in 1Q%. (f that is the case, then -the scribes of Tattenai., as ( have referred to
them, attest to events perhaps si#t! !ears apart, not an impossible feat of longevit!,
considering that elsewhere Ezra reports that the -man! of the priests, levites, heads of
clans and elders who had seen the ,irst Temple while it !et stood, cried in a loud
voice. 9iii *: at the sight of the foundation of the +econd Temple, some fift! !ears
after the destruction of the first.
Pet even if we are unwilling to e#tend the narratorial ownership of the entire
passage to the !oung scribes of Tattenai, who, in old age, witnessed a shift in
disposition b! Arta#er#es toward 3erusalem, we ma! still rightfull! maintain that the
Aramaic section of Ezra iv %-vi % is reported from a +amarian perceptual point of
view. This ma! be discerned in the fashion in which this narrator refers to \od, to the
Temple, to the 3ews and to the law. The great 4uestion that remains before us is this;
Wh! has the author of Ezra -handed over the hmicrophone2., as it were to a +amarian
adversar! for such an e#tended narrative period= &ow is this narratorial strateg!
integrated within the overall rhetorical aim of the )ook of Ezra= These are important
issues that ( look forward to addressing in a further stud!.
Z
The Narratorial Voice of the Scribes of Samaria: Ezra iv 8 vi 18 Reconsidered
4bstract
The presence of a large block of Aramaic narrative in Ezra iv-vi has long
posed a conundrum for scholars of Ezra-Nehemiah. )ill Arnold has e#plained the
presence of Aramaic as a shift in perspective to -an e#ternal point of view.. This
stud! e#pands upon Arnold2s thesis on two fronts. ,irst, the evidence suggesting a
perspective of narration that is e#ternal to the camp of the returned 3udeans is far
stronger than Arnold indicated. +econd, a concrete identit! for this e#ternal voice of
Aramaic narration is proposed. The argument begins b! identif!ing the constructed
perspective and position of the speaker -we. in v 1, concluding 5 counter to the
consensus within scholarship 5 that it is a gentile speaking. This conclusion is then
supported b! attending to the vocabular! and discourse utilized throughout this
Aramaic pericope. (n the final stage the precise gentile identit! of the narratorial
voice of this Aramaic pericope is identified.
%
'

i 7! thanks to Tamara /ohn Eskenazi and to Edward \reenstein for their careful scrutin! of the
earlier versions of this work.
+ee discussion in 3. )lenkinsopp, Ezra-Nehemiah 9WTR> Rondon, '%':, pp. 1*, *> and in ".3.A
/lines, Ezra Nehemiah, Esther 9N/)/> \rand <apids, '%1:, p. %.
*
). Arnold, -The 0se of Aramiac in the &ebrew )ible; Another Rook at )ilingualism in Ezra and
"aniel., 3N+R ** 9''U:, pp. -U.
$
(bid., p. .
1
). 0spensk!, A 6oetics of /omposition; The +tructure of the Artistic Te#t and T!polog! of a
/ompositional ,orm 9trans. V. Aravin and +. Wittig> )erkele!, 'Z$: pp. Q[-QU.
Q
+ee discussion in &.\.7. Williamson, Ezra, Nehemiah 9W)/ U> Waco TS, '%Q:, p. Z[.
U
(bid.> see )lenkinsopp, Ezra-Nehemiah, p. '> ,./. ,ensham, The )ooks of Ezra and Nehemiah
9N(/WT> \rand <apids, '%*:, p. %[> /lines, Ezra Nehemiah, Esther, p. %Q. This is also the wa! in
which the verse is translated in the <+V, N<+V, and j3 translations. (n addition to the N36+, the onl!
other notable e#ception is the \eneva )ible, which reads, -then said we to them;.. ,or the medieval
rabbinic e#egetes such as <ashi and (bn Ezra, no te#tual emendation 9as per the RSS and +!riac here:
could be tolerated. Pet, the!, too, in their own wa!, sought to skirt the plain meaning of the verse. Pet
their interpretations are rife with difficulties, as was noted b! W. <udolph, Esra und Nehemia 9&AT
*[> Tkbingen, '1':, pp. 1U-1Z> cf. Williamson, Ezra, Nehemiah, p. Z[.
Z
XimhYi2s commentar! to most books of the )ible is a standard feature of an! edition of the 7i4raot
\edolot, the 3ewish e4uivalent of the \lossa Wrdinaria. &is glosses to Ezra, however, are brief and are
dedicated entirel! to the Aramaic sections of the book and are not found in an! modern edition of the
7i4raot \edolot. The! are printed, however, under the title Xehilot 7oshe, an edition of the 7i4raot
\edolot, published in Amsterdam in Z*Z. 7! thanks to the rare book collection of )ar-(lan
0niversit! for the use of this material.
%
<udolph, Esra und Nehemia, p. 1Z> Williamson, Ezra, Nehemiah, p. Z[.
'
(t is puzzling to me that Arnold entirel! ignores this verse and its implications for his argument of
-e#ternal. perspective.
[
Arnold, -The 0se of Aramaic., pp. U-Z.

). 6orten, The Elephantine 6ap!ri in English; Three 7illennia of /ross-/ultural /ontinuit! and
/hange 9Reiden, ''U:, p. 1% 9doc. )*: line * 9l ). 6orten and A. Pardeni, Te#tbook of Aramaic
"ocuments from Ancient Eg!pt bhenceforth TA"c, bU vols> 3erusalem, 'ZUc vol. , doc. A1.':.
*
TA" vol. * 93erusalem, '%': '-*, doc. )*.* line 1.
$
TA" vol. , Z*-ZQ, doc. A1.%, lines *, 1, *Z. 3ews refer to \od as Rord of the &eaven, when
addressing the governor of 3udah, a non-3ew 91[Z )/E:.
1
Apparentl! the RSS
R
and +!r. were also troubled b! this phrase, and hence amended the te#t to read,
-for the service of the house of \od in 3erusalem..
Q
(n this argument ( am assuming, counter to most readings, that v. v U stands outside of the 3ews2
defense, and is part of Tattenai2s address to "arius. This would e#plain wh! +heshbazzar is referred to
as -this +heshbazzar.. Tattenai e#plains to "arius that indeed, -hthis +heshbazzar fellow., as it were,
went ahead and did that. Tattenai stresses however, that the work was never completed, and hence the
option now for review of the whole enterprise. Notice that the 7T places a break between v. Q and v.
U, perhaps indicative of a change in speaker as ( suggest here.
U
The sole e#ception is at the end of the Aramaic section, at its clima# in vi U, where the! are referred
to in terms reminiscent of the designations in the &ebrew sections of the book, -children of (srael,. and
-people of the e#ile.. The switch to -3ewish. appellations at the end of the Aramaic section is not
accidental, but is a function of the rhetorical purpose of e#ternal or, Aramaic narration. This is an issue
that ( hope to take up in a further stud!. ,or the time being we note that the general term of reference
throughout this section is C@EKD@, a term we find nowhere else in Ezra.
Z
7aterial evidence supports this contention as well. &undreds of Oug handles from the Achaemenid
period have been recovered from the region of 3udah, in which the word EKD@ , the official designation
of 3udah, is imprinted, often in Aramaic.
%
Though the te#t literall! sa!s -built the temple., ( am reading the verse as do /lines, Ezra,
Nehemiah, Esther, p. 'Q and \ershon \alil 9ed.: Ezra and Nehemiah 9Wlam &atanakh> Tel-Aviv,
'%1:, p. U[ 9&ebrew:, to the effect that the Aramaic narrator credits Arta#er#es as having participated
in its building b! virtue of his enormous support for the Temple displa!ed in the rescript to Ezra.