by
A reader has asked:
“Can you tell me more about Ezra?”
The
truth is that I can tell a lot more about Ezra, too much to fit into this one
article.
Here
I shall simply run with my latest idea about Ezra, the one that I presented to
the inquisitive reader for further information. I refer to my article:
High
Priest, Jesus (Joshua), brand plucked out of the fire
(1) High Priest, Jesus
(Joshua), brand plucked out of the fire
according
to which Ezra, whom I had previously identified in articles as Azariah of the
Fiery Furnace episode (Daniel 3), was also the same as the high priest, Jesus
(Joshua), “a brand plucked out of the fire” (Zechariah 3:2).
The
reader, obviously a follower of conventional dating, and apparently having
little knowledge of my own revision of this, is perceptive enough, at least, to
recognise immediately that my association of Ezra with Azariah, and with Jesus
(Joshua), is chronologically (and biologically) impossible – as, indeed, it is,
according to his context. Thus he writes, using all of the standard dates:
The
claim is Azariah in the fiery furnace (Daniel 3, ~580s BCE under
Nebuchadnezzar) is the same person as Ezra the scribe (~458 BCE under
Artaxerxes).
For these to be the same person, Ezra would need to be:
A young man (~20) in the fiery furnace (585 BCE)
Still active as a scribe at age 147 (458 BCE). That's not possible.
To answer a reader such as
this, who has no solid background about my revision, and who thus cannot argue
from that foundation, I need to go all the way back and refer to articles in
which I have addressed these sorts of problems and have greatly streamlined
ancient history, starting with my two university theses (as summarised in):
Damien F. Mackey’s
A Tale of Two Theses
(1) Damien F. Mackey's A Tale of Two Theses
The dramatic revision of
Israelite and Judean history that I have presented in this article, coupled
with a corresponding reduction of contemporaneous Assyrian and Babylonian (Chaldean)
history, is supplemented in many other articles of mine.
And the conventional
Medo-Persian history and archaeology, and its inadequacies – relevant to a part
of Ezra’s long life (traditionally 120 years) – is exposed in articles of mine
such as:
Medo-Persian
history has no adequate archaeology
(2) Medo-Persian history has no
adequate archaeology
Not to mention that historians have totally
mis-placed the land of Media itself:
Book of Tobit
confirms that land of Media was in Cilicia
(2) Book of Tobit confirms that land of
Media was in Cilicia
The reader then proposes
that “The Logical Fix” is to recognise that
persons of the same name have been conflated, “that composite stories” have been used:
The
Logical Fix: "Azariah" is a TITLE, not a personal name
What if:
"Azariah" = a priestly/prophetic title (like "bishop" or
"overseer")
Multiple people held this title across generations
The Azariah in the fiery furnace (580s BCE) ≠ Ezra
BUT Ezra also held the title "Azariah" later (450s BCE)
Writers conflated different "Azariahs" into composite stories
This would explain:
Why genealogies list "Azariah" multiple times
Ezra 7:3: "son of Azariah, the son of Hilkiah"
It's a recurring title in the priestly line, like "John Smith III"
Why
"brand plucked from fire" gets reused
It's a formula applied to whoever currently holds the "Azariah" title
Zechariah 3:2 applies it to Joshua (the current high priest)
Not because Joshua was literally in a furnace, but because he survived the
exile (metaphorical fire)
Why Sirach uses similar fire imagery
Standard priestly/wisdom literature metaphor
Not describing a literal event from 400 years earlier.
My own quite
different findings, on the other hand, are that historians, archaeologists and
geographers have, in some instances (with all due respect to the outstanding ones),
made a complete mess of restoring the ancient world.
The subject is so vast, of
course, that that is what is to be expected, in part.
What is not excusable,
however, is when scholars refuse to learn from the glaring anomalies that they
encounter. On this, see e.g. my article:
Dumb and
Dumbfounded archaeology
(3) Dumb and Dumbfounded archaeology
If the reader had trouble
accepting my equation of Ezra with Azariah, and with Jesus, the high priest at
the time of the finishing of the Second Temple, then a fortiori does he
find it totally impossible to embrace my identification of Ezra also with the
supposedly far later Jesus ben Sirach, the author of the Book of Sirach, who,
too, was, just like Azariah (nearly identical phrase) “in the heart of the fire
[furnace]”.
Cf Daniel 3:20; Sirach
51:4).
But it
still doesn't make the core claim work unfortunately.
Even with the title fix, their argument has a fundamental problem:
You claim these are all the SAME PERSON:
Ezra the scribe
Azariah in fiery furnace
Joshua the high priest
Jesus ben Sirach
We are now in the vicinity
of Maccabean times, which would mean – and it seems impossible, and, indeed, it
is by conventional terms – that Ezra’s life had spanned from Nebuchednezzar the
Chaldean, right through the Medo-Persian period, and down into the time of the
Hellenistic Greeks.
I could refer for support in
this to a whole lot more of my articles, but this one will have to suffice. It
is comprehensive and it is telling: Ezra (Esdras) still going strong in
Maccabean times:
Ezra ‘Father of
the Jews’ dying the death of Razis
(3) Ezra 'Father of the Jews' dying the
death of Razis
The reader, rightly noting
(in favour of my chronology) that Joshua
and Ezra Were Contemporaries, is not able to show that they were named together
in any text.
If Ezra = Joshua, why does the text: Never mention
them together in the same scene?
Well, because Ezra/Joshua
was the one and same person!
Thus the reader:
The
evidence directly contradicts this:
1. Joshua and Ezra Were Contemporaries (Not Same Person)
The biblical text presents them as working together:
Ezra
3:2 (516 BCE - Temple rebuilding):
"Then Jeshua [Joshua] son of Jozadak and his fellow priests and Zerubbabel
son of Shealtiel... began to build the altar... They set the altar on its
foundation and sacrificed burnt offerings."
Ezra 5:2 (same period):
"Then Zerubbabel... and Jeshua son of Jozadak set to work to rebuild the
house of God in Jerusalem."
Ezra
doesn't appear until chapter 7 (458 BCE - 58 years later):
"In the seventh year of King Artaxerxes, Ezra came up from Babylon."
No, the Temple was
completed in the 6th year of Darius “Artaxerxes”. And Ezra, who had
gone back to Babylon to collect utensils, wealth and Levitical manpower to
furnish the new Temple, returned next year (7th) - not, 458 BCE: Ezra arrives (58 years later).
The reader continues:
The
chronology:
536 BCE: Zerubbabel and Joshua return, start rebuilding
516 BCE: Temple completed under Joshua as high priest
458 BCE: Ezra arrives (58 years later)
If Ezra = Joshua, why does the text:
Never mention them together in the same scene?
Present Joshua's work (516 BCE) as complete before Ezra arrives (458 BCE)?
List Joshua's descendants as high priests (Nehemiah 12:10-11) but never say
"Joshua, also called Ezra"?
As already noted, Ezra lived even into Maccabean
times.
Thus he, presumably, or an
editor, was able to include in his praises of great men, in Sirach, which he
authored, a eulogy of Simon Hasmonaean, a Maccabean priest.
2.
Jesus ben Sirach Lived ~180 BCE (300+ Years Later)
Sirach 50:1-21 describes Simon son of Onias (Simon II):
"The leader of his brothers and the pride of his people was the high
priest, Simon son of Onias, who in his life repaired the house... How glorious
he was, surrounded by the people, as he came out of the house of the
veil!"
Historical dating:
Simon II was high priest ~219-196 BCE
Sirach writes as an eyewitness to his ministry
This places the author ~180 BCE
Sirach 50:27 explicitly identifies himself:
"Jesus son of Eleazar son of Sira of Jerusalem"
This is 280 years after Ezra (458 BCE → 180 BCE)
Ezra, Seraiah, Azariah, 458 BCE
Joshua (High Priest), Jehozadak, Seraiah, 516 BCE
Jesus ben Sirach, Eleazar, Sira, 180 BCE
These genealogies don't match - different fathers, different grandfathers.
On the contrary, the
genealogies are, I think, a pretty good match. Thus I had written:
Compare the genealogy of the high priest, Jesus, son
of Jehozadak, son of Seraiah:
“[Jehozadak] is primarily recognized as the father
of Jeshua (Joshua) the high priest, who played a crucial role in the rebuilding
of the Temple after the Babylonian exile. Jehozadak was the son of Seraiah …”.
Jehozadak, generally thought to have been Ezra’s
brother, is actually omitted in Ezra’s impressive genealogy in Ezra 7:1-5:
Ezra son of
Seraiah, the son of Azariah, the son of Hilkiah, the son of Shallum,
the son of Zadok, the son of Ahitub, the son of Amariah, the son of
Azariah, the son of Meraioth, the son of Zerahiah, the son of Uzzi, the
son of Bukki, the son of Abishua, the son of Phinehas, the son of
Eleazar, the son of Aaron the chief priest ….
But the genealogy is widely regarded as being not a
fully comprehensive one:
Ezra (Azariah) was son of Jehozadak, son of Seraiah.
The high priest, Jesus, was son of Jehozadak, son of Seraiah.
Jesus (author of Sirach), was son of
Eleazer, son of Sira[ch].
As Azariah, Ezra was in the Burning Fiery Furnace.
As the high priest, Jesus, he was “plucked out of the fire”.
And so, apparently, as Jesus ben Sirach, was he “in
the heart of a fire” (Sirach 51:1, 2, 4):
‘I
will give thanks to you, Lord and King … for you have been protector and
support
to me, and redeemed my body from destruction … from the stifling heat which
hemmed me in, from the heart of a fire which I had not kindled’.
Sirach 51:1, 2, 4
Saved ‘from the heart of a fire’, ‘hemmed in’ by its
‘stifling heat’.
Could Jesus ben
Sirach’s account here be a graphic description by one who had actually stood in
the heart of the raging fire? - had stood inside “the burning fiery furnace” of
King Nebuchednezzar? (Daniel 3:20).
The
ONLY Way to Fix This
You'd have to argue:
"Later scribes/editors CONFLATED multiple historical figures (Azariah +
Ezra + Joshua + ben Sirach) into composite narratives, similar to how the
Gospels conflated Emmanuel ben Judas + Joseph ben Ananias into one
'Jesus.'"
This would mean:
The biblical narrative we have is already a composite
We're trying to separate the original historical figures
"Azariah in furnace" (580s BCE) was one person
Ezra (458 BCE) was a different person
Joshua (516 BCE) was a different person
Jesus ben Sirach (180 BCE) was a different person
Later editors blended their stories through shared titles/metaphors.
The irony: your methodology (identifying composite figures) might actually work
in REVERSE - showing how different historical "Jesus/Joshua" figures
got conflated in tradition - which is exactly what my research does for the 1st
century CE!
