Ezra, Book

Does the Bible prohibit intermarriage with non-Israelites? Not originally. Deuteronomy only prohibits intermarriage with the Canaanite nations. Faced with an intermarriage crisis in Persian Period Yehud, Ezra and Nehemiah reinterpret texts from Deuteronomy and Leviticus, thereby extending the prohibition of intermarriage to all the peoples of the land from their times.

Writers in the Second Temple period portray Moses as the Torah’s author and master lawgiver, attributing commandments directly to him. The rabbis, by contrast, repeatedly depict Moses as forgetful, confused, and sometimes mistaken—downplaying his authority to emphasize the Torah’s divine authorship and elevate the rabbis’ own role as its interpreters.

The biblical accounts of the Tabernacle and Solomon’s Temple reflect ancient Near Eastern ideas of divine residence. Ezra’s account of the Second Temple, however—where the altar is built first—reflects a theology closer to the Greek world, also echoed in the patriarchal stories of Genesis.

The book of Kings recounts how all Ten Tribes were exiled by the Assyrians and replaced by foreigners, and Ezra–Nehemiah rejects them as non-Israelites. Yet other biblical and Second Temple texts, along with the archaeological record, show that northern Israelites continued to live in Samaria well into the Second Temple period. Far from vanishing, the northern tribes maintained a temple and priesthood that cooperated with their southern neighbors and played a role in shaping the Pentateuch.

Ezra-Nehemiah mentions only four of the twelve kings who ruled the Persian empire: Cyrus, Darius, Xerxes, and Artaxerxes. The book of Daniel also speaks of four Persian kings, and adds a fictional Darius the Mede as their precursor. Historically, the Achaemenid period lasted 220 years, but using only the kings mentioned in the Bible, rabbinic texts reconstruct a 52-year Persian period.

The Bible describes the shock that Ezra and Nehemiah experience upon learning that the Judean locals had married non-Judeans. And yet, from Babylonian marriage documents uncovered in cities near Babylon, we learn that intermarriage was occurring back in Babylonia as well.

In pre-exilic texts, לְהַבְדִּיל lehavdil means “to select, appoint, designate.” In the Priestly text, the term is used to refer to physical separation, while in the Holiness Text, it takes on an abstract meaning, to distinguish between objects and people in a cultic sense. The book of Ezra uses a new form of the term, לְהִבָּדֵל lehibbadel, to urge separating from non-Jews, prompting Trito-Isaiah to argue against separating (lehavdil) any faithful person from YHWH and His Temple.

The Tabernacle is completed on the first of Nisan (Exodus 40) and is consecrated eight days later (Leviticus 9). And yet, the Book of Chronicles, Biblical Antiquities, and the Rabbis read these accounts as describing the same event. Indeed, the Torah’s final editor may have understood the texts as a continuous narrative, but chose to emphasize different themes of the Tabernacle by separating them.

In the Persian period, the Torah, which is made up of various law collections, was ascribed to Moses as revealed by YHWH. A parallel development was taking place in Achaemenid Persia that sheds light on this process: The sacred texts called the Avesta, that contain the law​​ (dāta) and tradition (daēnā) of Zoroastrianism​, were being collectively ascribed to Zarathustra (Zoroaster) as revealed by Ahuramazdā.

Ancient scribes would write as if Moses was the author, or they would claim that a tradition was originally stated by Moses, but they did not intend to convey a historical fact with this description. Instead, they meant that a given tradition was “authentically” Jewish, or God’s will and that Moses would have approved. I call this phenomenon “Mosaic Discourse.”

By considering two moments in the Bible at which the people gather to hear God’s word: the revelation to Moses at Sinai in Exodus, and Ezra’s assembly in a Jerusalem square in Nehemiah, we can contrast the clear revelation we yearn for with the hidden revelation that upon reflection we should accept.