Louis Feldman, Studies in Josephus’ Rewritten Bible (Leiden: Brill, 1998), 489-99. Cf. Hugh Williamson, Israel in the Books of Chronicles (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1977), 23-25. Williamson also argues that Josephus used the canonical account although he deliberately shortened and rewrote it, wanting to avoid repetition and the long lists of the Nehemiah-account. Seth Schwartz, Josephus and Judaean Politics (Leiden: Brill, 1990), 32 notes a parallel case concerning Josephus’ account of Jeremiah, in which he also misses out on several details. Schwartz here suggests that Josephus either purposefully altered the account or perhaps that he recounted the passages from memory and thus missed out on details from the canonical account.

Louis Feldman, Studies in Josephus’ Rewritten Bible (Leiden: Brill, 1998), 489-99. Cf. Hugh Williamson, Israel in the Books of Chronicles (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1977), 23-25. Williamson also argues that Josephus used the canonical account although he deliberately shortened and rewrote it, wanting to avoid repetition and the long lists of the Nehemiah-account. Seth Schwartz, Josephus and Judaean Politics (Leiden: Brill, 1990), 32 notes a parallel case concerning Josephus’ account of Jeremiah, in which he also misses out on several details. Schwartz here suggests that Josephus either purposefully altered the account or perhaps that he recounted the passages from memory and thus missed out on details from the canonical account.)| false
• Search Google Scholar
• Export Citation

Feldman, Studies, 495-98.

Feldman, Studies, 495-98.)| false
• Search Google Scholar
• Export Citation

Ibid., 235.

Höffken, Josephus Flavius, 178. For a discussion of these passages, see ibid., 121-32.

Höffken, Josephus Flavius, 178. For a discussion of these passages, see ibid., 121-32.)| false
• Search Google Scholar
• Export Citation

Bergren, “Nehemiah,” 261.

Bergren, “Nehemiah,” 261.)| false
• Search Google Scholar
• Export Citation

Theodore A. Bergren, “Ezra and Nehemiah Square Off in the Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha,” in Biblical Figures Outside the Bible (ed. T. A. Bergren and M. Stone: Harrisburg, Penn.: Trinity Press International, 1998), 340-66; cf. Bergren, “Nehemiah.”

Theodore A. Bergren, “Ezra and Nehemiah Square Off in the Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha,” in Biblical Figures Outside the Bible (ed. T. A. Bergren and M. Stone: Harrisburg, Penn.: Trinity Press International, 1998), 340-66; cf. Bergren, “Nehemiah.”)| false
• Search Google Scholar
• Export Citation

Ulrich Kellermann, Nehemia: Quellen, Überlieferung und Geschichte (Berlin: Alfred Töpelmann, 1967), 141; see further Karl-Friedrich Pohlmann, Studien zum Dritten Esra: ein Beitrag zur Frage nach dem ursprünglichen Schluss des Chronistischen Geschichtswerk (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1970), 114-26, who highlights a.j. 11.165, 196 as evidence that Josephus was not using the canonical account. See also above. It is surprising that Bergren appears to not be aware of this tradition read into the Josephus-narrative.

Ulrich Kellermann, Nehemia: Quellen, Überlieferung und Geschichte (Berlin: Alfred Töpelmann, 1967), 141; see further Karl-Friedrich Pohlmann, Studien zum Dritten Esra: ein Beitrag zur Frage nach dem ursprünglichen Schluss des Chronistischen Geschichtswerk (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1970), 114-26, who highlights a.j. 11.165, 196 as evidence that Josephus was not using the canonical account. See also above. It is surprising that Bergren appears to not be aware of this tradition read into the Josephus-narrative.)| false
• Search Google Scholar
• Export Citation

Bergren, “Ezra and Nehemiah,” 361; Anne Fitzpatrick-McKinley, “What Did Nehemiah Do for Judaism?” in A Wandering Galilean: Essays in Honour of Sean Freyne (ed. Z. Rodgers with M. Daly-Denton and A. Fitzpatrick-McKinley: Leiden: Brill, 2009), 93-119, esp. 99. They also conclude that the period probably saw several Nehemiah-traditions in circulation, cf. Kellermann, Nehemia.

Bergren, “Ezra and Nehemiah,” 361; Anne Fitzpatrick-McKinley, “What Did Nehemiah Do for Judaism?” in A Wandering Galilean: Essays in Honour of Sean Freyne (ed. Z. Rodgers with M. Daly-Denton and A. Fitzpatrick-McKinley: Leiden: Brill, 2009), 93-119, esp. 99. They also conclude that the period probably saw several Nehemiah-traditions in circulation, cf. Kellermann, Nehemia.)| false
• Search Google Scholar
• Export Citation

Fitzpatrick-McKinley, “Nehemiah,” 98-99.

Fitzpatrick-McKinley, “Nehemiah,” 98-99.)| false
• Search Google Scholar
• Export Citation

Note the dispute between Jacob L. Wright, Rebuilding Identity: The Nehemiah Memoir and Its Earliest Readers (Berlin: De Gruyter, 2005), and Fitzpatrick-McKinley, “Nehemiah,” on whether these opposition narratives were original to the Nehemiah memoir (below) or later interpolations. Contrary to the theory suggested by Wright, that these opposition narratives in which we see Nehemiah opposed by other local potentates such as Sanballat are later insertions reflecting local tension, Fitzpatrick-McKinley, “Nehemiah,” 98, instead argues that as Samaria was an administrative centre in the Persian Period, opposition against their ambitious neighbours “was a normal aspect of relations between local rulers.” See also Kellerman, Nehemia, 7-8, 166-173, who sees the narratives focusing on Nehemiah’s opponents as integral, following a strict sequence including biblical legal terminology, which imposes on the Nehemiah-source, below, the character of a legal document.

Note the dispute between Jacob L. Wright, Rebuilding Identity: The Nehemiah Memoir and Its Earliest Readers (Berlin: De Gruyter, 2005), and Fitzpatrick-McKinley, “Nehemiah,” on whether these opposition narratives were original to the Nehemiah memoir (below) or later interpolations. Contrary to the theory suggested by Wright, that these opposition narratives in which we see Nehemiah opposed by other local potentates such as Sanballat are later insertions reflecting local tension, Fitzpatrick-McKinley, “Nehemiah,” 98, instead argues that as Samaria was an administrative centre in the Persian Period, opposition against their ambitious neighbours “was a normal aspect of relations between local rulers.” See also Kellerman, Nehemia, 7-8, 166-173, who sees the narratives focusing on Nehemiah’s opponents as integral, following a strict sequence including biblical legal terminology, which imposes on the Nehemiah-source, below, the character of a legal document.)| false
• Search Google Scholar
• Export Citation

See also Fitzpatrick-McKinley, “Nehemiah,” 99; Lisbeth S. Fried, The Priest and the Great King: Temple-Palace Relations in the Persian Empire (Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 2004), 193-212, in general, on the power struggles faced by Nehemiah and other governors of Yehud.

See also Fitzpatrick-McKinley, “Nehemiah,” 99; Lisbeth S. Fried, The Priest and the Great King: Temple-Palace Relations in the Persian Empire (Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 2004), 193-212, in general, on the power struggles faced by Nehemiah and other governors of Yehud.)| false
• Search Google Scholar
• Export Citation

For the epilogue as prologue, see Mason, Life, xiv-xv.

For the epilogue as prologue, see Mason, Life, xiv-xv.)| false
• Search Google Scholar
• Export Citation

Lester L. Grabbe, “Triumph of the Pious or Failure of the Xenophobes?” in Jewish Local Patriotism and Self-Identification in the Graeco-Roman Period (ed. S. Pearce and S. Jones; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1998), 50-65, at 88, sees a “pure Nehemiah tradition” as the source for 2 Maccabees, independent of the canonical Nehemiah.

Lester L. Grabbe, “Triumph of the Pious or Failure of the Xenophobes?” in Jewish Local Patriotism and Self-Identification in the Graeco-Roman Period (ed. S. Pearce and S. Jones; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1998), 50-65, at 88, sees a “pure Nehemiah tradition” as the source for 2 Maccabees, independent of the canonical Nehemiah.)| false
• Search Google Scholar
• Export Citation

Williamson, Ezra and Nehemiah, 18-19. A similar theory has been suggested by Richard Laqueur, Der jüdische Historiker Flavius Josephus: ein biographischer Versuch auf neuer quellenkritischer Grundlage (Giessen: Münchow’sche Verlagsbuchhandlung, 1920), to explain the composition of Josephus’ Life; he suggests that Josephus reworked an earlier report to the Jerusalem authorities to expand it to its present form.

Williamson, Ezra and Nehemiah, 18-19. A similar theory has been suggested by Richard Laqueur, Der jüdische Historiker Flavius Josephus: ein biographischer Versuch auf neuer quellenkritischer Grundlage (Giessen: Münchow’sche Verlagsbuchhandlung, 1920), to explain the composition of Josephus’ Life; he suggests that Josephus reworked an earlier report to the Jerusalem authorities to expand it to its present form.)| false
• Search Google Scholar
• Export Citation

Kellermann, Nehemia, 144-45; Stern, “Life of Josephus,” 64-65.

Kellermann, Nehemia, 144-45; Stern, “Life of Josephus,” 64-65.)| false
• Search Google Scholar
• Export Citation

Curran, “Flavius Josephus,” 73, 77.

Curran, “Flavius Josephus,” 73, 77.)| false
• Search Google Scholar
• Export Citation

Mason, “Should Any Wish to Enquire Further,” 79.

Mason, “Should Any Wish to Enquire Further,” 79.)| false
• Search Google Scholar
• Export Citation