John_Mann wrote:
I thought the role of Ezra (not necessarily during the exile) was unanimous among Jews. I'm Catholic and the Jewish tradition we inherited says Ezra played a major role in the making of what we call OT.
This is a good example of the vast difference between Jewish thought and the way some Christians, especially Jehovah's Witnesses (that even ex-members can accidentally hold over after leaving the Watchtower), think.
I never said that the role of Ezra was not unanimous among Jews. I merely said that "it's not the only worthy hypothesis that can be considered."
Unlike much in Christianity that restricts an individual to usually one (and often very exact) view, as you might have noted already this is not the way Jews do things.
Jews almost unanimously, hands down, understand Ezra as having a distinct role in re-publishing (even refashioning) the Hebrew Scriptures, especially the written Torah. In fact, much as a Catholic would call the apostle Paul by the name "Saint Paul," Jews generally speak of "Ezra the Scribe," and not just as "Ezra."
But having this universal view doesn't mean that there can't be other equally possible ways that things actually worked out in the construction of the written Hebrew Scriptures. No one knows 100% for sure what happened as Ezra the Scribe did not make a documentary called "The Re-publishing of the Jewish Bible After We High-Tailed It Out of Babylon," and especially since Ken Burns was not born yet.
Even the best critical approaches can only produce a theory on how things were done by Ezra, what part he actually played. At best, the critical view can only suggest that Ezra the Scribe was likely responsible for the Priestly Code material added to Torah (which is "P" if you subscribe to the Documentary (or Wellhausen) Hypothesis).
The Roman Catholic Church generally agrees with this view, while simultaneously holding a conservative and liberal view of what was done by Ezra the Scribe in this regard. In the United States, for instance, while the majority of Catholics seem to favor the use of the official U.S. Catholic Bible translation, the NABRE (an excellent translation), its critical apparatus (which strongly supports the argument of Ezra's part in the production of "P") is generally disregarded and protested by a large number of churchgoers. In fact, a growing number of American Catholics are refusing to use the NABRE, adopting the use of the Revised Standard Version, 2nd (Ignatius) Catholic Edition for personal use instead. Study versions of the RSV-CE 2, while still employing sound critical methods, resort to a more moderate and even conservative lean in the presentation of explanatory footnotes. The view of this large number of faithful Catholics is that the Documentary Hypothesis is not necessarily correct, which means that Ezra did not have as large of a role as critical analysis claims. So the Catholic Church is not unanimous on this issue either, and the Holy See does not require Catholics to reject a more traditional view over the critical approach in the study of Scripture.
That being said, the Jewish view, even when it holds to different theories, does not downplay the importance and historical significance of Ezra the Scribe and the part he played in the finalizing of our Scriptures. Exactly what it was, however, cannot be determined with accuracy, and this leaves ample room for educated guesses without diminishing the importance of Ezra.
