viii. 7-9, the names of thirteen men are enumerated who, together

with the Levites, “caused the people to understand the Law. And they read in the book, in the Law of God, interpreting it; and they gave the sense, and caused (the people) to understand the reading. And Nehemiah, which was the Tirshatha,[142] and Ezra the priest the scribe, and the Levites that taught the people, said unto all the people, This day is holy unto the Lord your God; mourn not, nor weep.” Further, in viii. 13-15, it is said: “And on the second day were gathered together the heads of the fathers’ houses of all the people, the priests and the Levites, unto Ezra the scribe, even to give attention to the words of the Law. And they found written in the Law, how that the Lord had commanded by Moses that the children of Israel should dwell in booths in the feast of the seventh month ...”; then follows the account of how the people were to celebrate the Feast of Tabernacles.

These passages show that whatever may have been the scribal activity before the Exile, an altogether new position was assigned to the Law and its observances by the scribe Ezra.[143] The Law now begins to be the central pre-occupation of the Scribes under the guidance of Ezra and Nehemiah, the former of whom is the scribe _par excellence_. The priests and Levites are associated with the scribe Ezra, and presumably with the scribes in general; but we know from later history that the study of the Law soon became the special concern of the Scribes almost to the exclusion of the priests. Noteworthy is the stress laid on teaching the Law to the people; and a new element of far-reaching importance seems to be adumbrated in Nehemiah viii. 8, where it is said that the teachers of Law “read in the book, in the Law of God, interpreting it; and they gave the sense, and caused (the people) to understand the reading.” It is interesting to note that the Hebrew root for “to interpret” here (_p-r-sh_) is the same as that from which the word Pharisee comes; we shall draw attention to this again later.

One or two passages of later date must also be noted, for they are not without interest, and shed further light on our subject:

1 Chronicles ii. 55: Among various genealogical enumerations occurs that of “the families of scribes which dwelt at Jabez; the Tirathites, the Shimeathites, the Sucathites. These are the Kenites that came of Hammath, the father of the house of Rechab.” From this we gather, first, that the scribal office was inherited, and from Jeremiah xxxvi. 10-12 we may assume that this was also the case in pre-exilic times, for both Michaiah, and his father Gemariah, who was the son of Shaphan the scribe, seem to be closely associated with the scribes, and were presumably themselves scribes. Another point to be noted from the passage quoted is that some families of the scribes were connected with the house of Rechab; now the Rechabites were ascetics (see Jer. xxxv. 6-10), and it is possible that when, in later days, the Pharisees made a point of practising asceticism,[144] they were following an early tradition in principle though the actual practices had become different with the changed conditions of life.

2 Chronicles xxxiv. 13: This passage is referred to because it says that some of the Levites were scribes, which again implies association with the priests.

Daniel v. 26-28: Here we have an example of text and interpretation which, so far as the principle is concerned, is according to the scribal method.

We have now to examine some Old Testament evidence of another kind, and as this is calculated to throw light on the subsequent history of the scribal movement and its developments it deserves careful consideration.

From a number of indications to be found in the Books of Ezra and Nehemiah it is evident that from the very commencement of the settlement of the exiles in Palestine differences arose between them and the Israelites whom they found there on their return. There seem to have been several causes for these differences; but what largely lay at the bottom of them was the contention of the returned exiles that they alone represented the true Israelites; those who had been left in the land had become mixed with the heathen[145] by living among them and intermarrying with them, and were therefore not regarded as true Israelites. But more than this; it would seem that among the exiles themselves there were some who belonged to the priesthood, but that this was denied by the leaders among the exiles; this is gathered from Ezra ii. 61-63, where the enumeration of some priestly families is given concerning whom it is said: “These sought their register among those that were reckoned by genealogy, but they were not found; therefore were they deemed polluted and put from the priesthood. And the Tirshatha said unto them, that they should not eat of the most holy things, till there stood up a priest with Urim and with Thummim.” Among the exiled people, too, were some who “could not show their fathers’ houses and their seed, whether they were of Israel” (Ezra ii. 39). Thus both those who had been living in Palestine, and some of those who returned with the exiles, had a grievance. This was greatly aggravated when Zerubbabel refused the help of any but those whom he considered true Israelites in the building of the temple (Ezra iv. 1-5): “... Then the people of the land weakened the hands of the people of Judah, and troubled them in building....” (cp. Neh. ii. 19, iv. 1 ff.).

A more far-reaching cause of division was that of marriage with foreigners, especially with Samaritans, who were with justice regarded as heathen by the bulk of the returned exiles; in Ezra ix. 1, 2, we read: “... the princes drew near unto me, saying, The people of Israel, and the priests and the Levites, have not separated themselves from the peoples of the lands.... For they have taken of their daughters for themselves and for their sons; so that the holy seed have mingled themselves with the peoples of the lands. Yea, the hand of the princes and rulers hath been chief in this trespass” (cp. Neh. xiii. 23, 24). That, as indicated in these last words, it was the aristocracy, i.e. the high-priestly families, who were most forward in contracting foreign alliances and who were in favour of intercourse with non-Jews generally, is shown further by such passages as Nehemiah vi. 17-19: “Moreover, in those days the nobles of Judah sent many letters unto Tobiah, and the letters of Tobiah came unto them. For there were many in Judah sworn unto him, because he was the son-in-law of Shechaniah the son of Arah; and his son Johanan had taken the daughter of Meshullam the son of Berechiah to wife. Also they spake of his good deeds before me and reported my words to him.” And again Nehemiah xiii. 28: “And one of the sons of Joiada, son of Eliashib the high-priest, was son-in-law to Sanballat the Horonite.” Very significant, too, is the long passage Ezra x. 18-44; this contains a list of those who had married strange wives; first are mentioned the sons of the priests, among these a few had put away their wives (verses 18, 19), but the list, as it continues, mentions those priests who did not do so (verses 20-22); then follow the names of Levites, singers, and porters, then of Israelites, who “had taken strange wives; and some of them had wives by whom they had children” (verse 44). The attempts of Ezra and Nehemiah to stop these alliances and to put an end to the intercourse between the Jews and those whom they regarded as heathen were thus not wholly successful; and this is further borne out by several passages which reveal the resistance offered, e.g. Ezra x. 15: “But Jonathan the son of Asahel and Jahaziah the son of Tikvah stood up against this matter; and Meshullam and Shabbethai the Levite helped them.” Again, in Nehemiah