Elsewhere, in the technical literature, Professor Haran has promised a full examination of the relevant arguments, but until he does so we see no reason to accept his conjectures based on unsubstantiated presupposition.



Leopold Zunz, Die gottesdientslichen Vorträge der Juden, historisch entwikelt. Ein Beitrag zur Alterthumskunde und biblischer Kritik, zur Literatur-und Religionsgeschichte (Berlin, 1832).


A. C. Welch, The Work of the Chronicles. Its Purpose and Date (London: 1939).


S. Japhet, “The Supposed Common Authorship of Chronicles and Ezra-Nehemiah Investigated Anew,” Vetus Testamentum 18 (1968), pp. 330–371.


Hugh G. M. Williamson, Israel in the Books of Chronicles (Cambridge, UK: 1977).


Williamson, 1 and 2 Chronicles (Grand Rapids, MI and London: 1982); Williamson, Ezra, Nehemiah (Waco, TX).


I should also observe that while Professor Haran correctly observes that there are references at the end of Chronicles (2 Chronicles 36:21) and at the start of Ezra (Ezra 1:1) to prophecies by Jeremiah, he mistakenly assumes that they both refer to the same prophecy. In fact, the allusion in Chronicles is clearly to Jeremiah 25:11–12 and 29:10, with the references to 70 years. This will not fit the beginning of Ezra, however, because there the prophecy is applied to the Lord “stirring up the spirit of Cyrus king of Persia” with the result that he gave the Jews permission to return to Jerusalem and to rebuild the Temple, This must therefore refer to Jeremiah 51:11, perhaps understood in the light of other verses where the catchword “stir up” occurs in relation to Cyrus, such as Isaiah 45:13.