NEHEMIAH, The Book of, was anciently connected with Ezra, as if it formed part of the same work (Eichhorn, Einleitung, ii. 627) (See EZRA.) From this circumstance some ancient writers were led to call this book the 2d book of Ezra, and even to regard that learned scribe as the author of it (Carpzov, Introductio, &c., p. 336). There can, however, be no reasonable doubt that it proceeded from Nehemiah, for its style and spirit, except in one portion, are wholly unlike Ezra's.
The canonical character of Nehemiah's work is established by very ancient testimony. It is not expressly named, however, by Melito of Sardis (A.D. 170) in his account of the sacred writings; but this creates no difficulty, since he mentions Ezra, of which, as we have seen, Nehemiah was then considered a part. The work is properly a collection of notices of some important transactions that happened during the first year of Nehemiah's government, with a few scraps from his later history. The contents appear to be arranged in chronological order, with the exception perhaps of ch. xii. 27-43, where the account of the dedication of the wall seems out of its proper place: we might expect it rather after ch. vii. 1-4, where the completion of the wall is mentioned. While the book as a whole is considered to have come from Nehemiah, it consists in part of compilation. He doubtless wrote the greater part himself, but some portions he evidently took from other works. It is allowed by all that he is, in the strictest sense, the author of the narrative from ch. i. to ch. vii. 5 (Hävernick, Einleitung, ii. 304). The account in ch. vii. 6-73 is avowedly compiled, for he says in ver. 5, 'I found a register,' &c. This register we actually find also in Ezra ii. 1-70: hence it might be thought that our author borrowed this part from Ezra; but it is more likely, from their obvious discrepancies, that
they both copied from public documents, such as "the book of the chronicles" mentioned in Neh. xii. 23, which were not themselves harmonious. The exegetical helps for the explanation of this book are chiefly Poole's Synopsis, Lond. 1669-76; Jo. Clerici, Comm. in Lib. Historicorum V. T., Amst. 1708; Maurer, Comment. Crit. Grammat. in V. T., vol. i., Lips. 1833; Strigelii, Scholia in Nehem., Lips. 1575; and Rambach, Annotationes in Librum Nehemiae, Halle, 1751.