Ezra the scribe, Folio 5r, Florence, Biblioteca Medicea Laurenziana, MS Amiatinus 1.
Did Ezra Reconstruct the Torah or Just Change the Script?
In the second century C.E., 4 Ezra and Irenaeus tell a story of how the Torah was burned by Nebuchadnezzar and reconstructed by Ezra through divine inspiration. Rabbinic texts know of this tradition, but in their version, Ezra’s contribution is changing the Torah into Aramaic writing, or even Aramaic language.
Published: February 2, 2024
|
Last Updated: September 7, 2026
This article presents sources previously treated in my articles “The Book that Changed: Tales of Ezran Authorship as a Form of Late Antique Biblical Criticism,” Journal of Biblical Literature 138.1 (2019): 143–160 and “A King and a Scribe like Moses: The Reception of Deuteronomy 34:10 and a Rabbinic Theory of Collective Biblical Authorship,” Hebrew Union College Annual 90 (2020): 207–224, and in my book The Closed Book: How the Rabbis Taught the Jews (Not) the Read the Bible (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2023), 26-58. These sources have been explored as historical evidence in David Weiss Halivni, Revelation Restored: Divine Writ and Critical Responses (New York: Avalon, 1998), 16ff, Shlomo Naeh, “על כתב התורה בדברי חז"ל (א): המסורת על החלפת הכתב בידי עזרא” [Script of the Torah in Rabbinic Thought (A): The Traditions concerning Ezra’s Changing of the Script], Leshonenu (2008): 125–143; Mark Leuchter, “The Aramaic Transition and the Redaction of the Pentateuch,” Journal of Biblical Literature 136.2 (2017): 249–268. The topic is also explored in Mira Balberg’s recent Fractured Tablets: Forgetfulness and Fallibility in Late Antique Rabbinic Cultures (Berkeley: University of California Press: 2023), 208–221.
Frag. 465e as reproduced in Marcarius Magnes, Apokritikos 3.3. Adapted here from the translation of Robert M. Berchman trans., Porphyry Against the Christians (Brill: 2005), 198. Greek interpolations are taken from Makarios Magnus, Apokritikos: Kritische Ausgabe mit deutscher Uebersetzung, edited by Ulrich Volp (De Gruyter: 2013), 108.
The earliest reference to 4 Ezra appears in Clement of Alexandria’s late 2nd cent. C.E. Stromateis, who quotes from the Greek version of the text. For a basic introduction to 4 Ezra, and theories of when and why it was composed, see, Michael E. Stone, 4 Ezra: A Commentary on the Book of Fourth Ezra, Hermeneia (Minneapolis, MN: Augsburg Fortress, 1990), 1–47; Karina Martin Hogan, “4 Ezra,” in Outside the Bible: Ancient Writings Related to Scripture, eds. Louis H. Feldman, James L. Kugel, and Lawrence H. Schiffman (Philadelphia, PA/Lincoln, NE: Jewish Publication Society/University of Nebraska], 2013), 2.1607–1668 [1607–1608]; Andy Wong, with Ken M. Penner and David M. Miller, eds., “4 Ezra: Introduction,” Edition 1.0 The Online Critical Pseudepigrapha, ed., Ken M. Penner and Ian W. Scott (Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2010). See also, Michael Stone and Matthias Henze, 4 Ezra and 2 Baruch: Translations, Introductions, and Notes (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2013).
Confusingly, the book starts in chapter 3, since it was preserved as part of what the Latin calls 2 Esdras, which is actually a combination of multiple works: chs. 1–2 (5 Ezra), chs. 3–14 (4 Ezra); chs. 15–16 (6 Ezra).
Translation follows NRSV as quoted (and modified) by Hogan in Outside the Bible.
A close reading of this text in relation to the idea of ongoing revelation is found in Eva Mroczek, Jewish Literary Imagination in Antiquity (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2016), 169-171. Hindy Najman points out that the textual cue for this narrative may be the scene in which Ezra and Nehemiah attribute laws that do not occur in the Pentateuch to Moses. See, Hindy Najman, Seconding Sinai: The Development of Mosaic Discourse in Second Temple Judaism (Leiden: Brill, 2003), 112.
For texts that make use of the forty-day period to describe an ideal time for fasting, see Herbert Basser, “Ascetic Fasting and the Dangers of Piety,” TheTorah (2023).
This is an especially interesting claim since one of the 24 books that Ezra recreates is the biblical book of Ezra-Nehemiah, which is largely about him. In any event, none of the books from the Persian period on—I refer here to traditional ascription, not to when they were actually composed—would have been burned by Nebuchadnezzar, since they weren’t yet written. This highlights how the numbers here are typological, and only loosely tied to the historical claim about loss due to destruction and exile.
See, for instance, Willian Adler, “The Jews as Falsifiers: Charges of Tendentious Emendation in Anti-Jewish Christian Polemic” in Translation of Scripture: Proceedings of a Conference at the Annenberg Research Institute (Jewish Quarterly Review Supplement: 1990), 1–27, Lisbeth S. Fried, Ezra and the Law in History and Tradition, Studies on Personalities of the Old Testament (Columbia, SC: University of South Carolina Press, 2014), 118–147, Hava Lazarus-Yafeh, Intertwined Worlds: Medieval Islam and Bible Criticism, (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1992), 50–74.
The story is told in detail in The Letter of Aristeas. See Benjamin G. Wright, III, The Letter of Aristeas: ‘Aristeas to Philocrates’ or ‘On the Translation of the Law of the Jews’, Commentaries on Early Jewish Literature (Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 2015); Francis Borchardt, “What Do You Do When a Text is Failing? The Letter of Aristeas and the Need for a New Pentateuch,” JSJ 48 (2017): 1–21.
Historically speaking, Artaxerxes was not king 70 years after the destruction, but, like the rabbis, early Christian authors were not always working with precise historical knowledge, but numbers derived from biblical texts.
Iraneaus, Against Heresies, 3.21.2, translation my own. Greek and Latin taken from William Wigan Harvey ed., Sancti Irenaei episcopi Lugdunensis Libros quinque adversus haereses (Typis Academicis:1857), 2.114.
As we do not know whether references to tradents (i.e., specific quoted rabbis) have a real historical connection to the person or are more of a literary feature of the text, I prefer to phrase things in this cautious manner.
The MS has not been published, but I follow here Naeh’s transcription (“Script of the Torah in Rabbinic Thought [A],” 130-131).
The text continues by offering a midrashic proof for this.
See Naeh “Script of the Torah in Rabbinic Thought [A],” 130-131, for a different understanding of what the Tosefta is claiming in this first derasha, which takes the original context of the verses as directly relevant to the word plays.
In context, the verse means “The decree was written in Aramaic script and Aramaic language”—a reference to the letter sent to king Artaxerxes about Jerusalem.
The Erfurt MS (the basis of the Zuckermandel edition) has an error here, reading: כתוב במקרא. The MT verse actually reads like neither of the MSS, למקרא.
In context, the verse means “they could not read the writing” a reference to the writing on the wall at Belshazzar’s feast in Daniel, which only Daniel could understand.
Erfurt [Zuckermandel] has כתב “writing.”
In context this means “he should write for himself a copy of the Torah,” referring to the future king who thus shows his loyalty to YHWH.
The Jerusalem Talmud (Megillah 1:9), in its rendition of this midrash, quotes Rabbi Nathan at this point who says this explicitly.
For an introduction to this ancient Western Semitic script, see Joseph Naveh, Early History of the Alphabet: An Introduction to West Semitic Epigraphy and Palaeography, 2nd ed. (Jerusalem: Magnes, 1997 [1st ed., 1982])
The midrash ends by noting that this is why the Hebrew writing of the day is called Assyrian script:
תוספתא סנהדרין [וינה] ד:ה(*ח) למה נקרא שמו אשורי? על שם שעלה עמהן מאשור.
t. Sanhedrin 4:5(*8) Why is [square Hebrew script] it called “Assyrian” (i.e., Aramaic)? Because it came back with them from [the exile in] Assyria (i.e., Babylonia, where they write in this script).
Erfurt has רועץ and the Yerushalmi has רעץ and דעץ as alternatives. The etymology of this word is unclear though the referent is certainly Paleo-Hebrew or Samaritan script.
The third position in the text, that of Elazar HaModai, defends the idea that the Torah was given in Ashurit (Aramaic script), but says nothing at all about Ezra.
This is one reading of the text. Another possible reading is to connect this with the previous passage and explain that Aramaic has a beautiful written script but an unattractive sound, and that Hebrew has an attractive sound but an unattractive script, and the Jews chose the best of both worlds for the Torah, Hebrew language but Aramaic script.
Again, the same two possibilities for why it is called Assyrian script are mentioned—the first based on a word-play, the second based on history:
ירושלמי מגילה א:ט וְלָמָּה נִקְרָא שְׁמוֹ אֲשׁוּרִי. שֶׁהוּא מְאוֹשָּׁר בְּכָתְבוֹ. אָמַר רִבִּי לֵוִי. עַל שֵׁם שֶׁעָלָה בְיָדָם מֵאַשּׁוּר.
j. Megillah 1:9 And why is it called Assyrian (Ashuri)? Because it is pleasant (meʾushar) in its writing. R. Levi said: “Because they brought it back from Assyria (=Babylon).”
The text reads:
ירושלמי מגילה א:ט תַּנּי. רִבִּי יוֹסִי אוֹמֵר. רָאוּיּ הָיָה עֶזְרָה שֶׁתִּינָּתֵן תּוֹרָה עַל יָדוֹ אְלָּא שֶׁקְּדָמוֹ דוֹר מֹשֵׁה.
Rabbi Jose says: “Ezra was worthy that the Torah should have been given at his hand, if it hadn’t been that Moses preceded him.”
אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁלֹּא נִיתְנה הַתּוֹרָה עַל יָדָיו אַף הוּא נִיתַּן כְּתָב וְלָשׁוֹן עַל יָדוֹ. וּכְתָב הַנִּשְׁתְּווָן כָּתוּב אֲרָמִית וּמְתוֹרְגָּם אֲרָמִית. וְלָא כָהֲלִין כְּתָבָא לְמִיקְרֵי. מְלַמֵּד שֶׁבּוֹ בַיּוֹם נִיתַּן.
Even though the Torah was not given at his hands, the writing and language was given at [Ezra’s] hand. (Ezra 4:7): “The letter was written in Aramaic and translated in Aramaic.” (Dan 5:8), “They could not read the writing”—which teaches that [this new script] was only given on that very day.
רִבִּי נַתָן אוֹמֵר. בְּדַעַץ נִיתְנָה הַתּוֹרָה. וְאַתְייָא כְרִבִּי יוֹסֵה.
Rabbi Nathan says: “The Torah was given in Paleo-Hebrew”—this follows Rabbi Jose.
רִבִּי אוֹמֵר. אֲשׁוּרִית נִיתְנָה הַתּוֹרָה. וּכְשֶׁחָטְאוּ נֶהְפַּךְ לָהֶן לְרַעַץ. וּכְשֶׁזָּכוּ בִּימֵי עֶזְרַא נֶהְפַּךְ לָהֶן אֲשׁוּרִית. גַּם הַיּוֹם מַגִּיד מִשְׁנֶה אָשִׁיב לָךְ. וְכָתַב לוֹ אֶת מִשְׁנֵה הַתּוֹרָה הַזֹּאת עַל סֵפֶר. כְּתָב שֶׁהוּא עָשׂוּי לְהִשְׁתַּנּוֹת.
Rabbi (=Judah HaNasi) says: “The Torah was [originally] given to Israel in Ashurit (Aramaic script) but when they sinned it changed for them into Paleo-Hebrew. Then when they merited it in the days of Ezra, it returned for them into Aramaic script. (Zech 9:12): ‘lo today I tell you I will restore to you double (mishneh)].’ (Deut 17:18): ‘He shall write for himself this copy (mishneh) of the Torah on a scroll’—a Torah that is destined to change [its form].”
Like the Tosefta, the text moves on here to the third position of R. Elazar HaModai.
All the MSS have Rav Hisda (Florence 8-9 has “Mar Hisda,” a strange hybrid). As Mar Ukva is a first generation amora and Rav Hisda a second/third, this makes sense (narratively or historically). The printed versions have the sixth generation Mar Zutra instead of Rav Hisda, which seems to be an error influenced by the name Mar Ukva.
Of course, the Samaritan Pentateuch differs from the Masoretic Torah in many more ways than just script, but the rabbis are either unaware of this or purposefully ignoring it here.
Like the Jerusalem Talmud, the Babylonian also proceeds to quote the same text as in the Tosefta, but again, Ezra’s position has been neutralized by the preamble. In this case, Rabbi Judah HaNasi’s position appears in the name of Rabbi Meir:
בבלי סנהדרין [קרלסרוהה רוכלין 2] כא: תניא א'ר' יוסי ראוי היה עזרא ש[תינת]ן תורה לישר[אל] על ידו אילמלא קדמו משה...
b. Sanhedrin 21b Rabbi Jose says: “Ezra was worthy that the Torah should have been given at his hand, if it hadn’t been that Moses preceded him.…”
וא'ע'פ'י' שלא ניתנה תורה על ידו נישתנה כתב על ידו שנ' [כב.] וכתב הנישתוון כתוב ארמית ומתורגם ארמית ואו' לא כ[הלי]ן [כתבא למקרי] ופ[שר]א להודעא למלכ' ואו' וכתב לו את משנה התורה הזאת על ספ[ר כתב] הראוי להישתנות
Even though the Torah was not given at his hands, the writing and language was given at [Ezra’s] hand. As it says (Ezra 4:7): [22a] “The letter was written in Aramaic and translated in Aramaic.” And it says (Dan 5:8): “They could not read the writing to inform the king.” And it says (Deut 17:18): ‘He shall write for himself this copy (mishneh) of the Torah on a scroll’—a Torah that is destined to change [its form].”
למה נקרא שמ[ו] אשורי? שעלה מן אשור עמהם.
And why is it called Assyrian (Ashuri)? Because it came up with them from Assyria (=Babylon).
תני ר' מאיר או[מר]: בתחילה בכתב זה ניתנה תורה לישר[אל] וכיון שחטאו נהפך להם לרועץ וכיון שחזרו בהן החזי[רו] להן שנ[אמר] שובו לביצרון אסירי הת[קוה] גם היום מגיד משנה אשיב לך
It was taught: Rabbi Meir says: “The Torah was originally given to Israel in this (Aramaic) script, but when they sinned it changed for them into Paleo-Hebrew. Then when they repented, it returned for them into Aramaic script. As it says: (Zech 9:12): ): ‘Return to the stronghold, you prisoners of hope, lo today I tell you I will restore to you double (mishneh).’”
למה נקרא שמו אשורי שמאושר בכתב(ו).
And why is it called Assyrian (Ashuri)? Because it is pleasant (meʾushar) in its writing.
Benjamin Sommer’s Revelation and Authority: Sinai in Jewish Scripture and Tradition (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2015), for instance, correctly argues that not all premodern Jewish authorities opposed the notion that the biblical text had been formed in some measure by human hands. He proposed instead that some biblical authors and rabbinic authorities found theological grounds to embrace a “participatory theory of revelation” that acknowledged, and even celebrated, the role that human beings were understood to have played as agents in scriptural revelation.
As Hava Lazarus-Yafeh (Intertwined Worlds, 19–20) puts it, for instance, in a much-quoted passage: “[The accusation of textual corruption or falsification] was a widespread polemical motif in pre-Islamic times, often connected with the translations and quotations of scriptures, and used by sectarians and traditional authors, including Samaritans and Christians, to discredit various opponents and Scriptures.” For extensive discussions of early Muslim accusations of Ezran falsification see, for instance, Camilla Adang, Muslim Writers on Judaism and the Hebrew Bible: From Ibn Rabban to Ibn Hazm (Leiden: Brill, 1996); Willian Adler, “The Jews as Falsifiers: Charges of Tendentious Emendation in Anti-Jewish Christian Polemic” in Translation of Scripture: Proceedings of a Conference at the Anneberg Research Institute, Jewish Quarterly Review Supplement Series 1990, 1–27; Mark R. Cohen, Under Cross and Crescent: The Jews in the Middle Ages (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1994), 145-154; Gordon Nickel, Narratives of Tampering in the Earliest Commentaries on the Qur’an (Leiden: Brill, 2010); Norman Roth, “Forgery and Abrogation of the Torah: A Theme on Muslim and Christian Polemic in Spain,” in Proceedings of the American Academy for Jewish Research 54 (1987), 203–236; Gabriel Said Reynolds, “On the Qur’anic Accusation of Scriptural Falsification (tahrif) and Christian Anti-Jewish Polemic,” Journal of the American Society 130.2 (2010), 189–202.
See, for instance, Eve Krakowski’s discussion of Al-Qirqisani’s treatment of this issue: “‘Many Days Without the God of Truth’: Loss and Recovery of Religious Knowledge in Early Karaite Thought” in Pesher Nahum: Texts and Studies in Jewish Literature from Antiquity through the Middle Ages Presented to Norman Golb, Joel Kraemer and Michael Wechsler, eds. (Chicago: Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago Press, 2011), 122.
