Difference between revisions of "Book of Nehemiah" - New World Encyclopedia

From New World Encyclopedia
Line 7: Line 7:
 
==Authorship and Historical Context==
 
==Authorship and Historical Context==
 
===Authorship, Dating, and Place in the Canon===
 
===Authorship, Dating, and Place in the Canon===
Though the traditional view that Nehemiah (or Ezra) authored the text(s) bearing their names has been roundly refuted in modern biblical criticism, most scholars continue to maintain that these books were the product of a synthesis between original memoir texts and later editorial additions (as [[#Insertions|described below]]).<ref>See, for example, Bandstra (1999), Eskenazi (1988), Klein (1999), Myers (1965).</ref> In attempting to unravel the editorial process that eventually culminated in the modern version of the ''Book of Nehemiah'', two primary hypotheses have been proposed: first, that ''Ezra'' and ''Nehemiah'' were originally composed as part of the Chronicler's History (as recorded in the [[Book of Chronicles]]), and second, that ''Ezra'' and ''Nehemiah'' were originally written as a single literary unit.<ref>Note: this second statement is not equivalent to the simple historical fact that ''Ezra'' and ''Nehemiah'' were traditionally inscribed on the same Torah scroll [http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/10737c.htm].</ref> In the first case, modern biblical scholarship (post-1960)<ref>According to Klein, the "Chronicler's History" hypothesis held sway from the time of Leopold Zunz (1832) until the 1960s (663).</ref> has held a near universal consensus (based on both linguistic and thematic evidence)<ref>Throntveit (1982) provides a a cogent summary of existing linguistic research, though he uses it to argue that a theological exploration of both books would ultimately be necessary to answer the questions of authorship.</ref> that ''Nehemiah'' had not initially been part of the ''Book of Chronicles''. For instance, Klein provides an eloquent summary of the theological divergences between the two texts:
+
Though the traditional view that Nehemiah (or Ezra) authored the text(s) bearing their names has been roundly refuted in modern biblical criticism, most scholars continue to maintain that these books were the product of a synthesis between original memoir texts and later editorial additions (as [[#Insertions|described below]]).<ref>See, for example, Bandstra (1999), Eskenazi (1988), Klein (1999), Myers (1965).</ref> In attempting to unravel the editorial process that eventually culminated in the modern version of the ''Book of Nehemiah'', two primary hypotheses have been proposed: first, that ''Ezra'' and ''Nehemiah'' were originally composed as a component of the [[Book of Chronicles]], and second, that ''Ezra'' and ''Nehemiah'' were originally written as a single literary unit.<ref>Note: this second statement is not equivalent to the simple historical fact that ''Ezra'' and ''Nehemiah'' were traditionally inscribed on the same Torah scroll [http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/10737c.htm].</ref>  
 +
 
 +
In the first case, modern biblical scholarship (post-1960)<ref>According to Klein, the "Chronicler's History" hypothesis held sway from the time of Leopold Zunz (1832) until the 1960s (663).</ref> has come to a near universal consensus (based on both linguistic and thematic evidence)<ref>Throntveit (1982) provides a a cogent summary of existing linguistic research, though he uses it to argue that a theological exploration of both books would ultimately be necessary to answer the questions of authorship.</ref> that ''Nehemiah'' had not initially been part of the ''Book of Chronicles''. For instance, Klein provides an eloquent summary of the theological divergences between the two texts:
 
:(1) the concept of retribution and the terms related to it in Chronicles are almost entirely lacking in Ezra-Nehemiah; (2) the two works differ in their attitude toward the northern tribes, in particular the Samaritans; (3) Chronicles places a greater emphasis on the Davidic monarchy; (4) Ezra-Nehemiah mentions the election of Abraham and the exodus, whereas Chronicles concentrates on the patriarch Jacob (who is always called Israel) and de-emphasizes the exodus; (5) the frequent references to prophets in Chronicles make it a prophetic history; in Ezra-Nehemiah, by contrast, the prophetic influence has virtually ceased; (6) the ''netinim'' "temple servants" and the sons of Solomon's servants appear throughout Ezra-Nehemiah, but are absent from Chronicles, with the exception of 1 Chr 9:2; (7) in Chronicles, Israel comprises all twelve tribes, whereas in Ezra-Nehemiah Israel is limited to Judah and Benjamin.<ref>Klein, 664.</ref>
 
:(1) the concept of retribution and the terms related to it in Chronicles are almost entirely lacking in Ezra-Nehemiah; (2) the two works differ in their attitude toward the northern tribes, in particular the Samaritans; (3) Chronicles places a greater emphasis on the Davidic monarchy; (4) Ezra-Nehemiah mentions the election of Abraham and the exodus, whereas Chronicles concentrates on the patriarch Jacob (who is always called Israel) and de-emphasizes the exodus; (5) the frequent references to prophets in Chronicles make it a prophetic history; in Ezra-Nehemiah, by contrast, the prophetic influence has virtually ceased; (6) the ''netinim'' "temple servants" and the sons of Solomon's servants appear throughout Ezra-Nehemiah, but are absent from Chronicles, with the exception of 1 Chr 9:2; (7) in Chronicles, Israel comprises all twelve tribes, whereas in Ezra-Nehemiah Israel is limited to Judah and Benjamin.<ref>Klein, 664.</ref>
 +
<br>
  
 
In the second case, compelling arguments have emerged to suggest that Ezra and Nehemiah were originally redacted as a single literary unit, rather than simply sharing a scroll due to the similarities in their dating and subject matter. In particular, the stylistic, historiographic, and theological positions of the texts bear some marked similarities,<ref>See, in particular, Eskenazi (1988).</ref> though this issue remains more contentiously debated.<ref>Smith-Christopher (2001) and Klein (1999) provide a detailed summary of the conflicting positions, with Klein subsequently deciding in favor of the Ezra/Nehemiah hypothesis. Myers (1964) also provides a detailed account of the shared textual sources behind the two texts, but addresses them in the context of attempting to "reconstruct" a unitary source (LXI-L). This intellectual project has since been largely rejected.</ref>
 
In the second case, compelling arguments have emerged to suggest that Ezra and Nehemiah were originally redacted as a single literary unit, rather than simply sharing a scroll due to the similarities in their dating and subject matter. In particular, the stylistic, historiographic, and theological positions of the texts bear some marked similarities,<ref>See, in particular, Eskenazi (1988).</ref> though this issue remains more contentiously debated.<ref>Smith-Christopher (2001) and Klein (1999) provide a detailed summary of the conflicting positions, with Klein subsequently deciding in favor of the Ezra/Nehemiah hypothesis. Myers (1964) also provides a detailed account of the shared textual sources behind the two texts, but addresses them in the context of attempting to "reconstruct" a unitary source (LXI-L). This intellectual project has since been largely rejected.</ref>

Revision as of 08:03, 16 December 2007

Books of the

Hebrew Bible

Tanakh
Torah | Nevi'im | Ketuvim
Books of Ketuvim
Three Poetic Books
1. Psalms
2. Proverbs
3. Job
Five Megillot
4. Song of Songs
5. Ruth
6. Lamentations
7. Ecclesiastes
8. Esther
Other Books
9. Daniel
10. Ezra-Nehemiah
11. Chronicles

The Book of Nehemiah is a late historiographical book of the Hebrew Bible (and Christian Old Testament) that describes the rebuilding of Judah in the years after the Babylonian captivity. It is historically regarded as a continuation of the Book of Ezra, such that Jewish sources do not acknowledge the two as separate books and Christian sources occasionally refer to it as the second book of Ezra.[1] The text also occupies a different place in the Jewish and Christian canons, with the former placing it amongst the Ketuvim (Writings) as the second last book of the Bible, and the latter situating it amongst the historical writings (which include Samuel, Kings and Chronicles).

Authorship and Historical Context

Authorship, Dating, and Place in the Canon

Though the traditional view that Nehemiah (or Ezra) authored the text(s) bearing their names has been roundly refuted in modern biblical criticism, most scholars continue to maintain that these books were the product of a synthesis between original memoir texts and later editorial additions (as described below).[2] In attempting to unravel the editorial process that eventually culminated in the modern version of the Book of Nehemiah, two primary hypotheses have been proposed: first, that Ezra and Nehemiah were originally composed as a component of the Book of Chronicles, and second, that Ezra and Nehemiah were originally written as a single literary unit.[3]

In the first case, modern biblical scholarship (post-1960)[4] has come to a near universal consensus (based on both linguistic and thematic evidence)[5] that Nehemiah had not initially been part of the Book of Chronicles. For instance, Klein provides an eloquent summary of the theological divergences between the two texts:

(1) the concept of retribution and the terms related to it in Chronicles are almost entirely lacking in Ezra-Nehemiah; (2) the two works differ in their attitude toward the northern tribes, in particular the Samaritans; (3) Chronicles places a greater emphasis on the Davidic monarchy; (4) Ezra-Nehemiah mentions the election of Abraham and the exodus, whereas Chronicles concentrates on the patriarch Jacob (who is always called Israel) and de-emphasizes the exodus; (5) the frequent references to prophets in Chronicles make it a prophetic history; in Ezra-Nehemiah, by contrast, the prophetic influence has virtually ceased; (6) the netinim "temple servants" and the sons of Solomon's servants appear throughout Ezra-Nehemiah, but are absent from Chronicles, with the exception of 1 Chr 9:2; (7) in Chronicles, Israel comprises all twelve tribes, whereas in Ezra-Nehemiah Israel is limited to Judah and Benjamin.[6]


In the second case, compelling arguments have emerged to suggest that Ezra and Nehemiah were originally redacted as a single literary unit, rather than simply sharing a scroll due to the similarities in their dating and subject matter. In particular, the stylistic, historiographic, and theological positions of the texts bear some marked similarities,[7] though this issue remains more contentiously debated.[8]

Though the circumstances of the text's composition and redaction have provoked a certain amount of scholarly contention, the dating of Nehemiah's constituent parts has been a considerably more straightforward process.


If Nehemiah was the author, the date at which the book was written was probably about 431 - 430 B.C.E., when Nehemiah had returned the second time to Jerusalem after his visit to Persia.



It is more usual to suppose that Nehemiah's memoirs were utilized by another writer, who did not take the trouble to alter the first person where it occurred; such a supposition involves no impossibility, provided the compiler be not identified with the compiler of Ezra or the compiler of the Chronicles; for the utilization by these authors of documents also incorporated in Nehemiah involves improbabilities calculated to outweigh any arguments that can be urged on the other side. Ben Sira (Sirach [Ecclus.] xlix. 13), in describing Nehemiah's work, evidently refers to the account found in Neh. i.-vii. 1; from the short space that he devotes to each hero no inference can be drawn with regard to the existence of the whole work in his time. The fact of its being contained in his canon would, however, make it probable that it existed in its present form as early as 300 B.C.E., a date separated by some decades only from the last mentioned in the book, and by less than a century from Nehemiah's first visit to Jerusalem.

The Historical Nehemiah

File:Nehemiah1.jpg
Nehemiah Rebuilding Jerusalem

Nehemiah lived during the period when Judah was a province of the Persian Empire, having been appointed royal cup-bearer at the palace of Shushan.[9] The king, Artaxerxes I (Artaxerxes Longimanus), appears to have been on good terms with his attendant, as evidenced by the extended leave of absence granted him for the restoration of Jerusalem.[10]

Primarily by means of his brother Hanani, (Neh. 1:2; 2:3) Nehemiah heard of the mournful and desolate condition of Jerusalem, and was filled with sadness of heart. For many days he fasted and mourned and prayed for the place of his fathers' sepulchres. At length the king observed his sadness of countenance and asked the reason of it. Nehemiah explained this to the king, and obtained his permission to go up to Jerusalem and there to act as tirshatha, or governor of Judea.[11]

He arrived in Jerusalem in the 20th year of Artaxerxes I, (445/444 B.C.E.)[11] with a strong escort supplied by the king, and with letters to all the pashas of the provinces through which he had to pass, as also to Asaph, keeper of the royal forests, directing him to assist Nehemiah.

On his arrival in Jerusalem, Nehemiah began to survey the city secretly at night, and formed a plan for its restoration; a plan which he carried out with great skill and energy, so that the whole wall was completed over an astounding 52-day span. "So the wall was finished in the twenty and fifth day of the month Elul, in fifty and two days" (Nehemiah 6:15).

He rebuilt the walls from the Sheep Gate in the North, the Hananel Tower at the North West corner, the Fish Gate in the West, the Furnaces Tower at the Temple Mount's South West corner, the Dung Gate in the South, the East Gate and the gate beneath the Golden Gate in the East.

He remained in Judea for thirteen years as governor, carrying out many reforms, despite the opposition that he encountered (Neh. 13:11). He built up the state on the old lines, "supplementing and completing the work of Ezra," and making all arrangements for the safety and good government of the city. At the close of this important period of his public life, he returned to Persia to the service of his royal master at Shushan or Ecbatana. Very soon after this the old corrupt state of things returned.

Some commentators believe that Malachi now appeared among the people with words of stern reproof and solemn warning;[12] and when Nehemiah again returned from Persia, (after an absence of some two years) he was grieved to see the widespread moral degeneracy that had taken place during his absence. He set himself with vigour to rectify the flagrant abuses that had sprung up, and restored the orderly administration of public worship and the outward observance of the Law of Moses. (Neh. 13:6-31)

Of his subsequent history we know nothing. Probably he remained at his post as governor till his death (about 413 B.C.E.) in a good old age. The place of his death and burial is, however, unknown.

Nehemiah was the last of the governors sent out from the Persian court. Judea was annexed to the satrapy of Coele-Syria after this point, and was governed by the Syrian-appointed high priest.[10]

Language and Style

There are portions of the book written in the first person (ch. 1-7; 12:27-47, and 13). But there are also portions of it in which Nehemiah is spoken of in the third person (ch. 8; 9; 10).

Contents

The book consists of four parts:[13]

  1. An account of the rebuilding of the wall of Jerusalem, and of the register Nehemiah had found of those who had returned from Babylon (ch. 1-7).
  2. An account of the state of religion among the Jews during this time (8-10).
  3. Increase of the inhabitants of Jerusalem; the census of the adult male population, and names of the chiefs, together with lists of priests and Levites (11-12:1-26).
  4. Dedication of the wall of Jerusalem, the arrangement of the temple officers, and the reforms carried out by Nehemiah (12:27-ch. 13).

Insertions

As discussed above, current scholarship suggests that the redactors of Ezra/Nehemiah began with the memoirs of these noted reformers and edited them into their present form. This hypothesis was largely supported through the use of source critical techniques, which noted that certain sections of the text seem to be later insertions. Some of these seemingly incongruous materials are summarized below:

(1)

Ch. iii. 1-32, a list of persons who helped to rebuild the walls of Jerusalem. This document agrees with ch. xii. in exhibiting remarkable acquaintance with the topography of Jerusalem; and it also gives some curious details about the persons who took part in the work, some of whose names figure in other contexts. It is, however, observable that Eliashib is said to have been high priest at the time of Nehemiah's first visit; and the same is suggested by xiii. 7, whereas in Ezra x. 6 it is suggested that Eliashib's grandson (Neh. xii. 11, 12) was in office thirteen years before Nehemiah came. If the list of high priests in ch. xii. be correct, it is clear that Eliashib could not have been in office in Nehemiah's time; and this fact discredits the historical character of the document, at any rate to a certain extent; for the possibility of Nehemiah, at a great distance from the scene of the events, having mistaken some of the details, can not be quite excluded. The account of the building given in this chapter represents it as more elaborate and national than would be imagined from iii. 33-38.

(2)

Ch. vii. 6-73, a list of the exiles who returned with Zerubbabel. This is a document which Nehemiah says he discovered (vii. 5); and it is embodied in the narrative of Ezra also (Ezra ii.). The difference between the copies is such as can be attributed to the not overstrict ideas of accuracy current in antiquity. Some difficulty is occasioned by the fact that the narrative which deals with the days of Zerubbabel is continued without break into ascene which ostensibly took place in Nehemiah's own time; in other words, though the document is introduced as extraneous, it is not clear at what point it ends. Indeed, the purpose for which Nehemiah says he gathered the people, namely, to discover their genealogies (vii. 5), does not appear to have been realized, but instead the reader is taken into a scene at which the Law is publicly read by Ezra. Here again resort may be had to the hypothesis of carelessness on the author's part, or to that of compilation by an unscientific collector.

(3)

If the Septuagint be believed, ch. ix. contains a discourse delivered by Ezra.

(4)

Ch. x., containing a solemn league and covenant, bearing eighty-four signatures of persons who undertook to observe the Law of Moses and discharge certain duties. The number of signatories is evidently a multiple of the sacred numbers 7 and 12, and the list is headed by Nehemiah himself. Of the signatories some are persons about whom something definite is learnt in either Ezra or Nehemiah (e.g., Sherebiah, Ezra viii. 18; Hanan, Neh. xiii. 13; Kelita, Ezra x. 23), but those called "the heads of the people" appear all to be families, their names occurring to a great extent in the same order as that in which they occur in the list of ch. vii. This mixture of family names with names of individuals excites suspicion; but the unhistorical character of this document, if proved, would greatly mar the credit of the whole book. The framing of such a document at a time of religious revival and excitement has no a priori improbability.

(5)

Ch. xi. contains a list of persons who drew lots to reside at Jerusalem, with notices of the assignment of offices and of the residences of officials. This document agrees very closely in places with one embodied in I Chron. ix.; indeed, both would appear to be adaptations of a register originally found in a "book of the kings of Israel and Judah" (ib. verse 1). It might seem as if the use of the word "king's" in Neh. xi. 23, 24, having been taken over from the older document, had given rise to the charge of which Nehemiah complains in vi. 6, where his enemies accuse him of making himself king; and indeed the arbitrary character of some of his measures (xiii. 25) would in part justify such a charge. If one may judge by the analogy of Mohammedan states, there would be nothing unusual in a provincial governor taking that title. The purpose of the register must have been seriously misunderstood by either Nehemiah or the Chronicler; but it may be inferred with certainty, from the occurrence of the same document in such different forms in the two books, that the compiler of Nehemiah is not identical with the Chronicler.

(6)

Ch. xii. 1-26 gives a list of priests and Levites who returned with Zerubbabel, carried down, very imperfectly, to Nehemiah's time, or perhaps later. The "book of the chronicles" (verse 23) is cited for parts of it; but this document covers some of the same ground as the last, and it might seem as if both were rough drafts, never finally worked up. It is of course open to the critic to regard the whole work as compiled by Nehemiah, who, where his memory or knowledge failed him, may have inserted these documents, or have ordered his secretaries to insert accounts of scenes. Indeed, the expression "and in all this" (xiii. 6), which reintroduces the personal narrative, implies that the author had before him some matter which he had not himself described.

Themes

The Historical Reality of Female Prophecy

The text includes a brief mention of Noadiah, a false prophetess who is antagonistic to Nehemiah's plans to rebuild Jerusalem's city walls Nehemiah 6:14. Though she is a decidedly marginal figure who is never again mentioned in the Tanakh or New Testament, she is occasionally mentioned by feminist theologians to show that the practice female prophecy survived the Babylonian exile.[14]

Related Texts

A work ascribed to Nehemiah, but bearing in some canons the title Esdras II. or Esdras III., having been attributed to Ezra on the ground that Nehemiah's self-assertion deserved some punishment (Sanh. 93b), or because, having ordinarily been written on the same scroll with the Book of Ezra, it came to be regarded as an appendix to it.[15] The book consists ostensibly (i. 1) of the memoirs of Nehemiah, compiled, or at any rate completed, toward the close of his life, since he alludes to a second visit to Jerusalem "at the end of days" (xiii. 6, A. V. margin), which must mean a long time after the first. In xiii. 28 he speaks of a grandson (comp. xii. 10, 11) of the high priest Eliashib as being of mature years; whence it appears that the latest event mentioned in the book, the high-priesthood of Jaddua, contemporary of Alexander the Great (xii. 11, 22), may have fallen within Nehemiah's time. The redaction of his memoirs occurred probably later than 360 B.C.E., but how much later can not easily be determined. The first person is employed in ch. i.-vii. 5, xii. 31-42, xiii. 6 et seq. Sometimes, however, Nehemiah prefers to speak in the name of the community (ii. 19, iii. 33-38, x.), and in some places he himself is spoken of in the third person, either with the title "tirshatha" (viii. 9, x. 2) or "peḥah" (xii. 26, claimed by him in v. 14; A. V. "governor"), or without title (xii. 47). The style of these last passages implies somewhat that Nehemiah is not the writer, especially that of the third and fourth: "in the days of Nehemiah the governor, and of Ezra"; "in the days of Zerubbabel, and in the days of Nehemiah." The portions of the book in which the first person is used are marked by repeated prayers for recognition of the author's services, and imprecations on his enemies (iii. 36, 67; v. 19; vi. 13; xiii. 14, 22, 29, 31), which may be taken as characteristic of an individual's style; and indeed the identity of the traits of character which are manifested by the writer of the opening and closing chapters can not escape notice. Moreover, the author's enemies, Sanballat and Tobiah, figure in both parts.

Notes

  1. A. van Hoonacker, "Book of Nehemiah." Catholic Encyclopedia (Vol. X). New York: Robert Appleton Company, 1911.
  2. See, for example, Bandstra (1999), Eskenazi (1988), Klein (1999), Myers (1965).
  3. Note: this second statement is not equivalent to the simple historical fact that Ezra and Nehemiah were traditionally inscribed on the same Torah scroll [1].
  4. According to Klein, the "Chronicler's History" hypothesis held sway from the time of Leopold Zunz (1832) until the 1960s (663).
  5. Throntveit (1982) provides a a cogent summary of existing linguistic research, though he uses it to argue that a theological exploration of both books would ultimately be necessary to answer the questions of authorship.
  6. Klein, 664.
  7. See, in particular, Eskenazi (1988).
  8. Smith-Christopher (2001) and Klein (1999) provide a detailed summary of the conflicting positions, with Klein subsequently deciding in favor of the Ezra/Nehemiah hypothesis. Myers (1964) also provides a detailed account of the shared textual sources behind the two texts, but addresses them in the context of attempting to "reconstruct" a unitary source (LXI-L). This intellectual project has since been largely rejected.
  9. Peter R. Ackroyd, Exile And Restoration: A Study of Hebrew Thought of the Sixth Century B.C.E., (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1968). 141.
  10. 10.0 10.1 Easton's Bible Dictionary, Entry: Nehemiah
  11. 11.0 11.1 Joseph Blenkinsopp, Ezra-Nehemiah, A Commentary, (Philadelphia: The Westminster Press, 1988), ISBN 0-664-21294-8. pp. 212-213, 140. Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; name "a" defined multiple times with different content
  12. "The Book of Malachi," Introduction to the Books of the Bible from the NIV Study Bible
  13. Derived from the New International Version of the text and from Bandstra, 484-485.
  14. See, for example, Alice L. Laffey, An Introduction to the Old Testament: A Feminist Perspective, (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1988), ISBN 080062078X, 205. However, many such sources acknowledge that the point is better made through accounts of more prominent female prophetesses, such as Huldah, Miriam and Deborah. See also: Ismar J. Peritz, "Woman in the Ancient Hebrew Cult," Journal of Biblical Literature 17:2 (1898), 111-148; [2].
  15. NEHEMIAH, BOOK OF. Jewish Encyclopedia.

References
ISBN links support NWE through referral fees

  • Bandstra, Barry L. Reading the Old Testament: An Introduction to the Hebrew Bible (Second Edition). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Publishing Company, 1999. ISBN 0534527272.
  • Dozeman, Thomas B. "Geography and History in Herodotus and in Ezra-Nehemiah." Journal of Biblical Literature 122:3 (Autumn 2003). 449-466.
  • Eskenazi, Tamara C. "The Structure of Ezra-Nehemiah and the Integrity of the Book." Journal of Biblical Literature 107:4 (December 1988). 641-656.
  • Klein, Ralph W. "The Books of Ezra and Nehemiah." The New Interpreter's Bible (Vol. III). Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1994-2004. ISBN 0687278201.
  • Lipschits, Oded. "Literary and Ideological Aspects of Nehemiah 11." Journal of Biblical Literature 121:3 (Autumn 2002). 423-440.
  • Myers, Jacob M. Ezra and Nehemiah: with introduction, translation and notes by Jacob M. Myers. The Anchor Bible Volume 14. Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1965.
  • Smith-Christopher, Daniel L. "Ezra-Nehemiah." The Oxford Bible Commentary. Edited by John Barton and John Muddiman. Oxford; New York: Oxford University Press, 2001. ISBN 0198755007.
  • Throntveit, Mark A. "Linguistic Analysis and the Question of Authorship in Chronicles, Ezra and Nehemiah." Vetus Testamentum 32: Fascicle 2. (April 1982). 201-216.
  • van Hoonacker, A. "Book of Nehemiah." Catholic Encyclopedia (Vol. X). New York: Robert Appleton Company, 1911.

This article incorporates text from the 1901–1906 Jewish Encyclopedia, a publication now in the public domain.

Credits

New World Encyclopedia writers and editors rewrote and completed the Wikipedia article in accordance with New World Encyclopedia standards. This article abides by terms of the Creative Commons CC-by-sa 3.0 License (CC-by-sa), which may be used and disseminated with proper attribution. Credit is due under the terms of this license that can reference both the New World Encyclopedia contributors and the selfless volunteer contributors of the Wikimedia Foundation. To cite this article click here for a list of acceptable citing formats.The history of earlier contributions by wikipedians is accessible to researchers here:

The history of this article since it was imported to New World Encyclopedia:

Note: Some restrictions may apply to use of individual images which are separately licensed.