(2) the rebuilding of the temple, 5-6; (3) Ezra’s expedition and the priestly reformation, 8-10, and Nehemiah 8-10; (4) Nehemiah’s work in rebuilding the walls, Nehemiah 1:1-7:5; (5) census of the Judean community, 7:6-69; (6) measures to secure the repopulation of Jerusalem, 11; (7) genealogy of the priests and Levites, 12:1-26; (8) dedication of the walls, 12:27-43; and (9) Nehemiah’s later reform measures, 12:44-13:31.  It is evident that Ezra and Nehemiah were originally one book, and that they come from the same author as I and ii Chronicles.  This important fact is demonstrated by the presence of the same marked characteristics of thought and literary style in both of these books.  The closing verses of ii Chronicles are also repeated verbatim at the beginning of Ezra.

Throughout these books the interest is religious and ceremonial rather than civil and national.  They constitute in reality a history of the Jerusalem temple and its institutions.  The whole may properly be designated as the “Ecclesiastical History of Jerusalem.”  It traces the history of Jerusalem and the southern kingdom from the earliest times to the close of the Persian period.  Its author, who is commonly known as the Chronicler, evidently lived during the earlier part or middle of the Greek period.  Certain characteristics of his literary style and point of view indicate that he wrote about 250 B.C.  His peculiarities and methods of writing are clearly revealed by a comparison of the older parallel history of Samuel-Kings with the books of Chronicles.  In general he lacks the historical spirit and perspective of the earlier prophetic historians.  He also freely recasts his record of earlier events in order to bring it into accord with the traditions current in his own day.  Above all he aimed to establish the authority and prestige of the Jerusalem temple, and to prove that Jehovah “was not with Israel” (II Chron. 25:7), which was represented in his day by the hated Samaritans.  The hatred engendered by the Samaritan feud explains many of the peculiarities of the Chronicler.  He was, in fact, an apologist rather than a historian.  Thus post-exilic institutions, as, for example, the temple song service with its guilds of singers, are projected backward even to the days of David, and the events of early Hebrew history are constantly glorified.  The numbers found in the earlier, prophetic sources are magnified, and at every point it is easy to recognize the influence of the Chronicler’s familiarity with the splendor and magnificence of the great Persian and Greek empires, and of his desire to inspire his fellow-Jews with national pride and with loyalty to their religious institutions.