i :%'^
UNDER THE EDITORSHIP OF
The Rev. SAMUEL ROLLES DRIVER, D.D., D.Litt.,
Regius Professor o/ Hebrew, Oxford;
The Rev. ALFRED PLUMMER, M.A., D.D.,
Late Master of University College, Durham:
The Rev. CHARLES AUGUSTUS BRIGGS, D.D., D.Litt.
Sometime Professor oj Theological Encyclopiedia and Symbolics,
Union Theological Seminary, New York.
THE INTERNATIONAL CRITICAL COMMENTARY.
TWENTY-SIX VOLUMES NOW KEADY, viz. :—
Genesis (Dr. Skinner), Numbers (Dr. Gray), Deuteronomy (Dr. Driver), Judges (Dr. Moore),
I. and II. Samuel (Dr. H. P. Smith), Chronicles (Dr. Curtis), Ezra and Nehemiah
(Dr. BattSQ), Esther (Dr. Paton), Psalms, Two Vols. (Dr. Briggs), Proverbs (Dr. Toy),
Isaiah, chaps, i.-xxvli. (Dr. Gray), Ecclesiastes (Dr. Barton), Amos and Hosea (Dr.
Harper), Hicah, Zephaniah, Nahum, Habakkuk, Obadiah and Joel (Dr. J. M. P.
Smith, Dr. W. H. Ward, and Dr. J. A. Bewer), Haggai, Zechariah, Malachl and Jonah
(Dr. H. G. Mitchell, Dr. j; M. P. Smith, and Dr. J. A. Bewer), S. Matthew (Willoughby
C. Allen), S. Mark (Dr. Gould), S. Luke (Dr. Plummer), Romans (Dr. Sanday), 1st
Corinthians (The Bishop of Exeter and Dr. Plummer), Ephesians and Colossians (Dr.
Abbott), Philippians and Philemon (Dr. Vincent), Thessalonians (Prof. Frame), S.
Peter and S. Jude (Dr. Bigg), The Johannine Epistles (A. B. Broolte).
The following other Volumes are in course of preparation : —
Exodus.
Leviticus.
Joshua.
Kings.
Ruth, Song of Songs
and Lamentations
Isaiah, ohs. 2&-66.
Jeremiah.
EzekieL
Daniel.
THE OLD TESTAMENT.
A. R. S. Kennedy, D.D., Professor of Hebrew, University of Edinburgh.
J. F. Stbnnino, M.A., Fellow of Wadham College, Oxford ; and the late
H. A. White, M. A., Fellow of New College, Oxford.
Gborqe Adam Smith, D.D., LL.D., Principal of Aberdeen University.
Francis Brown, D.D., Litt.D., LL.D., Professor of Hebrew and Cognate
Languages, Union Theological Seminary, New York.
C. A. Brioos, D.D., Professor of Theological Encyclopsedia and Symbolics,
Union Theological Seminary, New York.
G. Buchanan Gray, D.D., Mansfield College, Oxford ; and A. 8. Peake,
D.D., University of Manchester.
A. F. KiRKPATRiCK, D.D., Dean of Ely.
G. A. CooKB, D.D.', Fellow of Oriel College, and C. F. Burnby, D.Litt.,
Fellow and Lecturer in Hebrew, St. John's College, Oxford.
John P. Peters, D.D., late Professor of Hebrew, P. E. Divinity
School, Philadelphia, now Rector of St. Michael's Church, New York.
THE NEW TESTAMENT.
Synopsis of the W. Sanday, D.D., LL.D., Lady Margaret Professor of Divinity, and
Four Gospels. Canon of Christ Church, Oxford ; and W. C. Allen, M.A., Principal
of Egerton Hall.
John. John Henry Bernard, D. D. , Dean of St. Patrick and Lecturer in Divinity,
University of Dublin.
Acts. C. H. Turner, M.A., Fellow of Magdalen College, Oxford; and H. N.
Bate, M.A., late Fellow and Dean of Divinity in Magdalen College,
Oxford, now Vicar of St. Stephen's, Hampstead, and Examining
Chaplain to the Bishop of London.
2nd Corinthians. The Right Rev. Arch. Robertson, D.D., Lord Bishop of Exeter; and
Alfred Pbummer, M.A., D.D., formerly Master of University
College, Durham.
Galatians. Ernest D. Bdrton, D.D., Professor of New Testament Literature,
University of Chicago.
The Pastoral Epistles. Walter Lock, D.D., Dean Ireland's Professor of Exegesis, Oxford.
Hebrews. James Moffatt, D.D., Professor in Mansfield College, Oxford.
James. James H. Ropes, D.D., Bussey Professor of New Testament Criticism in
Harvard University.
Revelation. Robert H. Charles, D.D., D.Litt., Fellow of Merton College, Oxford,
Grinfleld Lecturer on the Septuagint and Speaker's Lecturer in
Biblical Studies.
Oth$r engagements will he announced shortly.
To m ny A p 17 38 george street, Edinburgh.
. & 1. vLAlllV, STATIONERS' HALL, LONDON.
LONDON AGENTS: SIMPKIN, MARSHALL, HAMILTON, KENT, & CO. LTD.
THE BOOKS OF EZRA-NEHEMIAH
The International Critical Commentary
CRITICAL AND EXEGETICAL
COMMENTARY
ON
THE BOOKS OF
EZRA AND NEHEMIAH
BY
LORING W. BATTEN, Ph.D., S.T.D.
PROFESSOR OF THE LITERATURE AND INTERPRETATION OF THE OLD TESTAMENT,
GENERAL THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY, NEW YORK
y
EDINBURGH
T. & T. CLARK, 38 GEORGE STREET
19 1 3
/
Printed by
Morrison & Gibb Limited,
FOR
T. & T. CLARK, EDINBURGH.
LONDON : SIMPKIN, MARSHALL, HAMILTON, KENT, AND CO. LIMITED,
NEW YORK : CHARLES SCRIBNER'S SONS
TO
MY CHIEF AND MY FRIEND
WILFORD LASH ROBBINS
DEAN OF THE
GENERAL THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY
PREFACE.
ONE of the editors of the International Critical Commen-
tary, the Rev. Professor Charles A. Briggs, D.D., D.Litt.,
died while this volume was going through the press. I
was fortunate in having the benefit of his editorial supervision
of the manuscript and of a part of the proof. So the work was
well under way when the message came that he was too ill to
read proof any longer and that I must assume full responsi-
bihty. I have done my best that his illness should result in no
loss to this work.
In the death of Dr. Briggs, American Biblical scholarship has
lost one of its ablest and most widely known representatives.
He was called upon to suffer much for his convictions, and he
did suffer bravely. Nor did he suffer in vain. He had the sat-
isfaction of justification in the end; for the views which aroused
so much opposition have met with general acceptance. Dr.
Briggs was really conservative; he formed his opinions slowly
and deliberately; but once they were formed, he would yield
them only to new evidence. I am glad to have this opportunity
to express my appreciation of the character and attainments of
Dr. Briggs and the great privilege I have enjoyed in frequent
friendly association with him.
The preparation of this volume has occupied my available
time for several years. I should have despaired of finishing
what proved to be a far bigger task than I ever anticipated
save for my return, two years ago, to the professorial office so
that my summers were really free for work. The task proved
unexpectedly big, for I discovered early in my studies that
Ezra-Nehemiah bristled with hard problems which had not
really been solved. Many have ignored them altogether; oth-
ers have reached conclusions without adequately recognising
Vlll PREFACE
and weighing all the available evidence. There was, therefore,
a great deal of pioneer work to be done, and I have laboured
perseveringly in the hope of making some contribution to our
scanty knowledge of the important Persian period of Jewish
history and to our understanding of Biblical books which have
suffered from neglect.
Nevertheless, I confess that I am heavily indebted to scholars
who have laboured in this field, even to some from whose conclu-
sions I dissent. The references show at least a list of liabilities.
But there is another debt, and a larger one, which cannot be
exhibited in references, and which I desire to put on record here,
and that is the obligation to the three teachers under whom it
was my privilege to study years ago, and who awakened in me
an absorbing interest in the study of the Old Testament. In
the order of my acquaintance with them, the three are: Pro-
fessor David G. Lyon, of Harvard University; the Rev. Dr.
John P. Peters, formerly professor in the Philadelphia Divinity
School; and the late Dr. William R. Harper, president of the
University of Chicago.
LORING W. BATTEN.
The General Theological Semin.'Vry,
New York, June 28, 1913.
CONTENTS. .
PAGE
PREFACE vii
ABBREVIATIONS xi
INTRODUCTION
§ I. The Original Form of the Books i
§ 2. The Date 2
§ 3. The Contents of the Books . . • 3
§ 4. The Chronological Order 4
§ 5. The Two Editions of Ezra-Nehemiah .... 6
§ 6. I Esdras 6
§ 7. The Semitic Text 13
8. The Sources 14
9. The Samaritan Opposition 24JJ
§ 10. The Date of Ezra's Mission 28
§ II. The History of the Persian Period 30
£3 12. Chapter and Verse Divisions 52^
Q§ 13. Literature S2J]
COMMENTARY ON
Ezra i 55
Ezra 2'-" 71
Ezra 2"'-4' 103
EzRA4"''-6>»-; 128
Ezra 6"-" ^ iSi
EzRA4*-« y 155
EzRA4'-2<» 160
Nehemiah I, 2 182
Nehemiah 3'-== 206
Nehemiah 333-4" 224
Nehemiah 5 237
Nehemiah 6 249
Nehemiah 7'-' « 262
Nehemiah ii 266
vs.
I
X CONTENTS
PAGE
Nehemiah i2i-2« 275
Nehemiah i2"-« 279
Nehemiah i2"-«' 283
Nehemiah 13 286
Ezra 7-10 303
Nehemiah 8-10 352
INDEX 381
ABBREVIATIONS.
I. TEXTS AND VERSIONS.
ARV. = American Revised Ver-
AV.
sion.
= Authorised Version.
BD. = Baer and Delitzsch, He-
brew text.
Chr. = The Chronicler, author
of Ch.-Ezr.-Ne.
E. = Memoirs of Ezra.
Esd. = The Greek text known
as I Esdras.
]7sd.B.AorL = xhe Vatican, Alexan-
drian, or Lucian text
of the same. The let-
ters standing alone re-
fer to the same texts.
3 Esd. = The Latin text of i Es-
dras.
EV^ = English Versions.
(S = Greek Septuagint Ver-
sion. In Ezr.-Ne. this
always means 2 Esdras
as distinguished from
I Esdras.
^^ = The Alexandrine text.
^B = Vatican text of Swete.
d** = The Sinaitic text.
C5'- = The Lucian text; ed. La-
garde.
1^ = Hebrew consonantal text.
J = Latin Version of Jerome.
J = Judaic sources of the
Hexateuch.
Kt. = K«thib, the Hebrew text
as written.
MT.
= The Massoretic pointed
text.
N.
= Memoirs of Nehemiah.
NT.
= The New Testament.
OT.
= The Old Testament.
P
= The priestly sources of
the Hexateuch.
Qr.
= Q«re. the Hebrew text as
read.
R.
= The Redactor, or editor.
RV.
= The Revised Version.
RV.â„¢
= The margin of the Re-
vised Version.
H = The Vulgate Version.
Vrss. = Versions, usually an-
cient.
Xll
ABBREVIATIONS
II. BOOKS OF THE OLD
Am. = Amos.
Apocr. = Apocrypha, Apocry-
phal.
I, 2 Ch. = I, 2 Chronicles.
Dn. = Daniel.
Dt. = Deuteronomy.
AND NEW TESTAMENTS.
Je.
= Jeremiah
Jn.
= John.
Jo.
= Joel.
Jos.
= Joshua.
Ju.
= Judges.
I, 2 K. = I, 2 Kings.
Lv. = Leviticus.
Est.
Ex.
Ez.
= Esther.
= Exodus.
= Ezekiel.
1 , 2 Mac
Mai.
. = 1,2 Maccabees.
= Malachi.
Ezr.
= Ezra.
Na.
= Nahum.
Ne.
= Nehemiah.
Gn.
= Genesis.
Nu.
= Numbers.
Hg.
= Haggai.
Ps.
= Psalms.
Is.
= early parts of Isaiah.
I, 2 S.
= I, 2 Samuel.
Is.2
= exilic parts of Isaiah.
Zc.
= Zechariah.
Is.»
= postexilic parts of Isaiah.
Zp.
= Zephaniah.
III. AUTHORS AND WRITINGS.
BDB.
= Hebrew and English
Dl-Intr
= Introduction to Litera-
Lexicon of the OT.,
ture of OT.
edited by F. Brown,
Du.
= B. Duhm.
S. R. Driver, C. A.
Briggs.
EB.
= Encyclopaedia Biblica.
Berth.
= Bertholet, Esra u. Ne-
ES.
= Ezra Studies (Torrey).
hemia.
Ew.
= H. Ewald.
B.-Rys.
= Bertheau-Ryssel, Esra,
Neh. u. Esther.
Ges.J^
== Gesenius, Heb. Lex. ed.
Br.P^
= Psalms, ICC.
Buhl.
Bud.
= K. Budde.
Ges.5
= his Heb. Gram. ed.
Kautzsch.
Che.
= T. K. Cheyne.
Curt.
= Curtis, Chron. ICC.
ICC.
= International Critical
Commentary.
DB.
= Hastings' Dictionary of
the Bible.
JBL.
= Journal of Biblical Lit-
De.
= Friederic Delitzsch.
erature.
Jer.
Jos.
Kost.
Kue.
Lag.
Mar.
Mey.
= Jerome.
= Fl. Josephus.
ABBREVIATIONS
Seis.
= Kosters, Wiederher-
stellung.
= A. Kuenen.
= P. de Lagarde.
= Marti, Bib-Aram. Gram.
= Meyer, Entstehtmg.
PSBA. = Proc. Soc. Bib. Arch.
Ryle = Ezr.-Neh. Camb. Bible.
RS. = W. Robertson Smith.
Sachau = Aram. Pap. u. Ost. aus
Elephantine.
Sieg. =
Sm. =
Sta.
Str.
XIU
Seisenberger, Esd. Neh.
u. Est.
Siegfried, Esr., Neh. u.
Est.
R. Smend.
B. Stade, Bib. Theol. des
A.T.
Strack, Gram, d BiU.-
Aram.
We. = J. Wellhausen.
ZAW. = Zeitschrift f. alttest.
Wissenschaft.
ZMG. = Z. d. deutsch. Morgen-
land. Gesellschaft.
ZPV. = Z. d. deutsch. Pal. Ve-
IV. GENERAL, ESPECIALLY GRAMMATICAL.
abr.
= abbreviation.
c.
= chapter, chapters.
ace.
= accusative.
chron.
= chronological.
ace. cog.
= cognate ace.
cod., codd. = codex, codices.
ace. to
= according to.
cf.
= confer, compare.
act.
= active.
cog.
= cognate.
adj.
= adjective.
comm.
= commentary, commen
adv.
= adverb.
taries.
a.X.
= (XTca? XeydiJievov, word or
conj.
= conjunction.
phrase used once.
consec.
= consecutive.
app.
= apposition.
cstr.
= construct.
Ar.
= Arabic.
Aram.
= Aramaic.
del.
= dele, strike out.
art.
= article.
Deut.
= Deuteronomic.
As.
= Assyrian.
dittog.
= dittography.
dub.
= dubious, doubtful.
Bab.
= Babylon, Babylonian.
dup.
= duplicate.
Benj.
= Benjamin, Benjamite.
B. Aram
. = Biblical Aramaic.
elsw.
= elsewhere.
emph.
= emphasis, emphatic.
c.
= circa, about; also ciun,
esp.
= especially.
with.
equiv.
= equivalent.
XIV
ABBREVIATIONS
et al.
= and others, esp. associ-
obj.
= object.
ates.
op. cit.
= work quoted.
et pass.
= et passim, and liere and
opp.
= opposite, as opposed to
there.
or contrasted with.
exc.
= except.
exil.
= exilic.
P-
= person.
f.
= feminine.
pap.
= papyrus.
fig.
fpl.
= figurative.
= feminine plural.
parall.
part.
= parallel with.
= particle.
freq.
= frequentative.
pass.
Pers.
= passive.
= Persia, Persian.
fs.
= feminine singular.
pf.
= perfect.
gent.
= gentilic.
Pi.
= Piel of verb.
gl.
= gloss, glossator.
'pi.
= plural.
Gk.
= Greek.
postex.
= postexilic.
pr.
= priest, priests.
Heb.
= Hebrew.
pred.
= predicate.
Hiph.
= Hiphil of verb.
pre-ex.
= pre-exilic.
Hithp.
= Hithpael of verb.
prep.
= preposition.
prob.
= probable, probably.
ib.
= ibidem, in the same
pron.
= pronoun.
place.
ptc.
= participle.
i. e.
= id est, that is.
Pu.
= Pual of verb.
impf.
= imperfect.
imv.
= imperative.
qu.
= question.
inf.
= infinitive.
q.v.
= qiioi vide.
intr.
= introduction.
rd.
= read.
Jems.
= Jerusalem.
rel.
= relative.
juss.
= jussive.
1.
= line.
Sam.
= Samaria, Samaritans.
Lev.
= Levite, Levites.
sf.
= suffix, suffixes.
lit.
= literal, literally.
sg.
= singular.
sq.
= followed by.
m.
= masculine.
St.
= status, state, stative.
mng.
= meaning.
subj.
= subject.
mpl.
= masculine plural.
subst.
= substantive.
ms.
= masculine singular.
S. V.
= suh voce.
syl.
= syllable.
n.
= noun.
syn.
= synonymous.
n. p.
= proper name.
n. pr. loc. = proper noun of place. |
t.
= times (following a num-
Neth.
= Nethinim.
ber).
Niph.
= Niphal of verb.
tr.
= transfer.
ABBREVIATIONS
XV
trans. = transitive,
txt. err. = textual error.
v., vv. = verse, verses.
V. = vide, see.
vb. = verb.
V. i. = vide infra, see below.
V. s. = vide supra, see above.
V. OTHER SIGNS.
prefixed indicates all passages
cited,
parallel, of words or clauses
chiefly synonymous,
equivalent, equals.
+ plus denotes that other passages
might be cited.
" = sign of abbreviation in He-
brew words.
VI. NAMES RECURRING FREQUENTLY.
Art. = Artaxerxes I Longi-
Neh.
= Nehemiah.
manus.
Sanb.
= Sanballat.
Art. II. = Artaxerxes II Mnemon.
Shes.
= Sheshbazzar
Cy. = Cyrus.
To.
= Tobiah.
Dar. = Darius I.
Zer.
= Zerubbabel.
Jes. = Jeshua or Joshua.
VII. RE
MARKS.
Biblical passages are cited according to the verses of the Hebrew text.
Numerals raised above the line (i) after numerals designating chapters
indicate verses (Gn. 6'); (2) after proper names refer to sections of gram-
mars or pages of books (Ges.^*').
INTRODUCTION.
§ I. THE ORIGINAL FORM OF THE BOOKS.
The books of Ezr. and Ne. were originally one, and ought
really to be so combined now. The evidence of this is over-
whelming. |_Two points suffice for a demonstration: (i) The
story of Ezr. is partly in one book, Ezr. 7-10, and partly in
the other, Ne. 7^-8^^^* jn i Esd. these two parts are united
in a single book. (2) At the end of each book of the OT. there
are certain Massoretic notes, giving the number of verses, the
middle point in the volume or roll, etc. There are no such
notes at the end of Ezr., and those at the end of Ne. cover both
books, showing that the two constituted a single work when
those notes were made.fj
It is also generally agreed that Ezr.-Ne. originally was a
part of the book of Ch., so that the whole work was a com-
prehensive history of the Jews from Adam down to the end of
the Persian period.
It is true that in the Heb. Bible our books precede Ch., though
the right order is found in CS>. LThe order in the Heb. canon is naturally
illogical, and is prob. due to the fact that Ezr.-Ne. was accepted
as canonical before Ch. The fact is that Ch. was under a great
deal of suspicion. It was a book parall. the earlier histories long es-
tablished as authorities, and differing from them so much that the
presence of the new work created difficulties. Ezr.-Ne., on the other
t hand, contained the only account of the important Pers. period. A
I â– part of the large work of Ch. was, therefore, severed from the rest, and
naturally just that part dealing with the otherwise unknown period,
and of which there was no dup., and this part was accepted. Later the
rest of the work found its place at the very end of the canon.
The order in 05 really does not contravene this conclusion, for the
Gk. translators made anew arrangement of the canon on a literary basis,
•The grounds for this limitation are given below in the treatment of the history under
the reign of Art. II.
t See further my art. " Ezr.-Ne.," in DB. i,»"i>.
I I
2 INTRODUCTION
putting all the historical books together. When the transposition was
made on this basis, Ch. was put before Ezr.-Ne. from chron. consid-
erations.
When the disjuncture was made, there appears to have been an acci-
dent, for the severed parts overlap, Ezr. ii-'" being identical with 2
Ch. 36" '•. The latter ends in the middle of a sentence " and let him go
up," and in the middle of Cy.'s decree. The simplest explanation of
the strange fact is that a copyist who was working on the book of Ch.
had as his exemplar one of the older editions containing the whole orig-
inal Ch.-Ezr.-Ne. He got beyond the point of division before he
noted his mistake, and this slip has been perpetuated down to the
present day. Howorth explains differently (PSBA. 1901,2).
It is indisputable that Ch. and Ezr.-Ne. come from the same hand.
There is no book in the OT. which has more marked peculiarities than
Ch. These cover both literary features, favourite words and expres-
sions, peculiar style, etc. (for a list of which, see Curt.'), and also
historical features, for the Chr. had his own way of looking at the
history, and his theory colours his work so markedly that it is often
quite valueless to the student of history. There is scarcely one of these
peculiarities that is not found also in Ezr.-Ne. Evidence of the original
unity is furnished from Esd., which contains two whole c. of Ch.
(2 Ch. 35, 36) and then goes on directly to Ezra, without the duplica-
tion found in Heb. Further evidence is given by Curt. Intr. § ".
§ 2. THE DATE.
It is difficult to deal satisfactorily with this problem, for Ezr.-
Ne. is a composite work and contains sources from different
periods. Vli the decree of Cyrus in Ezr. i is original, this is the
earliest portion and belongs to 538 B.C. Ezr. 4^-24a is made up
chiefly of two letters which belong to the reign of Artaxerxes,
and before his 20th year, therefore is dated somewhere in the
period 464-444 B.cTl But the letters are imbedded in a nar-
rative, and it is impossible to say when the compilation of the
letters was made, except that it was before the Chronicler's time.
LThe Memoirs of Nehemiah were apparently written soon after
his second administration, certainly not later than the end of
the reign of Artaxerxes, 424 b.cT / As for the date of the whole
work, Ch.-Ezr.-Ne., it is unnecessary to duplicate the excellent
work of Curtis {v. Intr. §'). Certainl)rour books go down to the
Greek age, and it is quite impossible to place the work earlier
THE CONTENTS 3
than 300 B.C. We can with a good deal of confidence name
the third century B.C. as the time of the Chronicler, but cannot
be more exact/j
§ 3. THE CONTENTS OF THE BOOKS.
Ezra I. The return of exiles under Sheshbazzar bringing the
sacred vessels of the temple and having permission to rebuild
the temple.
2^-^^ A list of residents of the province of Judah.
2^-4^. The Hebrew story of the rebuilding of the temple un-
der the leadership of Zerubbabel and Jeshua.
4^-^. A fragment, descriptive of the opposition of the Gentile
neighbours of the Jews.
47-24a (Aram.). The complaint to Artaxerxes and his order
to stop the building operations.
424b_5i8 (Aram.). The Aramaic version of the history of the
rebuilding of the temple; parallel to 2^-4'.
519-22^ The keeping of the Passover.
7-10. The principal part of Ezra's history, containing the
letter of Artaxerxes 7^2-26 (Aram.), a description of the gather-
ing of his caravan, the discovery of the marriages with for-
eigners, and the dissolution of these marriages.
Nehemiah i, 2. Nehemiah learns of the sad plight of Jeru-
salem, obtains leave of absence from Artaxerxes, goes up to
Jerusalem with a caravan, makes an inspection of the walls,
and appeals successfully to the people to start the restoration
of the walls.
21-32 A list of the forces engaged in the rebuilding of the walls
and the portion restored by each body.
333-4" (EV^. 4I-23). The efforts of Sanballat, Tobiah, and
others to prevent the restoration of the walls.
5. The distress of the impoverished Jews and Nehemiah's
measures for their relief.
6^-7 ^ Further efforts of Sanballat and his associates to wreck
Nehemiah's projects; the completion of the walls, and the care
for the protection of the city.
4 INTRODUCTION
7«-". A duplicate of Ezr. 2^-«^
8^-1^ Resumption of the history of Ezra, describing the prom-
ulgation of the law.
8i3-i8_ The observance of the Feast of Booths.
9. The prayer of the Levites.
10^-2^. A list of names on a sealed record.
jq29-4o_ Measures taken to maintain a pure race and to sup-
port the worship of the temple.
II. The drafting of a population for Jerusalem, a list of those
who dwelt in the holy city, and a record of the towns of Judah
and Benjamin. A sequel to 7^
12^-26. Lists of priests and Levites of the various parts of the
Persian period.
j227-43_ The dedication of the walls.
12**-". Provision for the support of the temple officers.
13. The reforms instituted in Nehemiah's second administra-
tion.
§ 4. THE CHRONOLOGICAL ORDER.
The material has come down to us in an order that is often
, very puzzling. As the result of successive editings, the ma-
terial is very badly arranged. For the most part, however, it
is possible to restore the sections to a proper chronological
sequence.
[with a single exception Ezr. 1-4"* is in its true order. C. i belongs
to the time of Cy.; 2'i>-4' to the reign of Dar.; 4*-'^ to Xerxes, and 4'-2<a
to Art.; 2i-«^ is one of the late passages in the books, at least as late as
Ezr. To the reign of Art. belongs also all of the Ne. narrative, viz.,
Ne. 1-7', exc. c. 3'-'^, which is late, 11 12"-" and 137] There is left in
the book of Ezr. three sections, 4'^*^-6^» 6"-** and 7-10. C4^*^-6^' be-
longs to the time of Dar. and should directly follow 2"'-4', the Heb.
version of the same story, the place it practically has in Esd., where
it follows 4». ; It is a story apparently late in its origin and not of very
great value. "^Torrey holds that 4'-6i' was incorporated bodily by the
Chr. (ES."0> a^iid that the temple was chiefly in mind in the complaint
of the Sam. But his reasoning is not convincing {v. 4'*). The two
passages 4'-'*" and 4"b-6'8 really have little in common. The latter
passage was removed from its proper position because the former was
wrongly interpreted. It was a comparatively late addition, for its in-
THE CHRONOLOGICAL ORDER 5
sertion worked havoc with some of the earlier material. An editor had
the Heb. story of the rebuilding of the temple (2'»-4'), followed by
the correspondence with Art. about the rebuilding of the city; the
Aram, story differed somewhat from the Heb.; the editor incorporated
this version and made it the basis of his history. He then proceeded
to modify the Heb. story to make it an unsuccessful attempt at rebuild-
ing the temple, and found in 4'-"* a cause of failure.^ The original
sequence was, therefore, i 2''»-4' 42<b_6i8 44-241.. Where 6"-" belongs,
it is hard to say. By its subject it connects with another fragment
(Ne. 8"-"), or it may be very early (v. comm.). 7-10 belongs to a
period after Neh.Jj
Another possibility cannot be ignored. We note that Ezr. i belongs
to the time of Cy., 2"'-4' to that of Dar., 4<-' to that of Xerxes,*
and 4'-"» to that of Art. The last-named passage leads right up to
the work of Neh., which is also in the time of Art. Now between Ezr.
4"a and Ne. i we have, first, the story of Ezra (7-10), which should
follow Neh.'s story; second (4"b-6i')) a late and practically valueless
document; and third (613-22), ^\^ prob. late, fit is, therefore, per-
fectly possible that the original order was i a'^-^^^", Ne. | The Aram,
version of the temple-building story should have been put in directly
after 4', as it practically is in Jos. But the compiler failed to see that
the Aram, was but a dup., and thus the mischief was wrought.
In Ne. it is easy to follow a correct order, as shown in the notes on the
sections, so far as his own work is concerned. The order is i 2 3'*-
yi II 1227-43 21-32 ^ i^ aud lo, which is a sequel to c. 13. There follows
the story of Ezra's administration (Ezr. 7-10, Ne. 8'-"). The rest of
the material cannot be dated, and must be grouped by subjects. The
chron. order of the whole, so far as it can be determined, is as follows:
C(a) Ezr. i; (6) Ezr. 2'»-4» 4"b-6i8; (c) Ezr. 4*-* 4'-"* Ne. i 2 3"-4" \
-7» II 12"-" s^-" 5 13 10 12"-"; {d) Ezr. 7-10 Ne. 8'-" Ezr. 6"-" j
Ne."8"->«; (e) Ne. 9 i2i-'« 7«-" = Ezr. 2'-«», and perhaps Ne. ii'-". /
That under (a) belongs to the reign of Cy., (b) to Dar., (c) to Art.
(exc. 4<-«), {d) to Art. II, and (e) is uncertain, but prob. is to be
dated in the same reign as (d), as it is either a part of Ezra's work or a
natural consequence of what he had done. Ne. 9, however, as shown
in the notes, bears evidences of the Gk. period, and may be one of the
latest sections in the books. I
In reading a historical book it is desirable to have the ma-
terial in proper chronological order. To rearrange the whole of
Ezr,-Ne. would be needlessly confusing; but it is deemed best
in a few particulars to undo the mischief of R. Therefore in
* At least that is certain of 4', and that suffices.
^
6 INTRODUCTION
the commentary I have joined Ezr. 7-10 to Ne. 8-10, and
placed the whole after Ne. 13; and Ezr. 44-243 jg transposed to
follow Ezr. 6. The advantages are manifest: the two temple-
building stories are brought together; the brief passage belong-
ing to the time of Xerxes has its proper place; the Aramaic
letters (Ezr. 4^-24 «) come just before Ne. i, to which they are
an introduction; the whole story of Nehemiah's work comes in
proper sequence; and Ezra's history is combined and placed
where it probably belongs chronologically.
§ 5. JHE TWO EDITIONS OF EZRA-NEHEMIAH.
Ezr.-Ne. is peculiar in that it has come down to us in two
recensions, which at certain points differ from each other quite
radically. It is true that something of the same condition is
found in other OT. books. In S. there is a long section in
Hebrew which was not originally in C5 (i S. 1712-31 ly^^-iS^).
There is a vast difference also between the Greek texts and the
Hebrew in the books of Je. and Dn. In the case of Ezr.-Ne.,
however, the so-called 01 follows MT. very closely, but the
so-called Apocryphal book of Esd. constitutes really a different
edition of Ezr.-Ne.
In the Apocr. there are additional sections to some of the OT.
books; thus, the Rest of Est.; Baruch is an addition to Je.; the Song
of the Three Holy Children, the history of Susanna, and Bel and the
Dragon are additions to Dn. But in all these there is nothing corre-
sponding to any part of ^ ; the passages are additions pure and simple
and found only in Gk. Esd., on the other hand, is merely a variant
edition of a part of Ch.-Ezr.-Ne. For the most part, it is a faithful
translation of ^, but with addition and subtraction and rearrangement.
This book is of such vital importance to our work that a fuller discus-
sion is essential, and it is well worthy of a section by itself.
§ 6. I ESDRAS.
In Greek this edition of the history, as the title Esd.^ shows,
has the priority; the Greek translation of the whole of Ezr.-Ne.
is known as 2 Esd. or Esd.'^ In Lagarde's edition of Codex Luci-
anus this order is reversed, an evidence of an effort, manifested
I ESDRAS 7
on every page of this nevertheless valuable text, to conform to
the MT. more closely than other Greek texts. But the evidence
is overwhelmingly in favour of the priority of Esd., and the ex-
planation can only be, as I infer to be Torrey's conclusion too,
that this edition was preferred. Indeed, Sir Henry Howorth
has argued (of whose work more anon), that Esd. is the orig-
inal Septuagint text, and that our Hebrew edition is really the
Apocryphal book.
The subjoined table will show the contents of this edition in com-
parison with MT.
ESD.
MT.
C. I
=
2 Ch. 35, 36
21-15
=
Ezr. I
2 IS -30
=
" 4?-2<
s'-s'
=
not in MT.
57-73
=
Ezr. 2»-4«
6,7
=
" 5,6
81-93.
=
" 7-10
g37-65
=
Ne. 7 '^8"
It will be noted that there is one long addition (3'-S«). This is
the only element in the book which ace. to other usage can be called
Apocr., for the Apocr. comprises the books or sections of books which
were known only in a Gk. original. This addition contains the story
of the Three Youths, or Guardsmen of Dar. At the tim,e of a great
feast, the Three Guardsmen competed in a test of wisdom, to deter-
mine which was strongest, wine, the king, or women. The third con-
testant, who was the victor, is identified with Zer. in what is usually
regarded as a gl. (4"), easily suggested by 5', ace. to which Zer. spoke
wise sentences before Dar. This statement may account for the plac-
ing of this whole story as a prelude to the mission of Zer. By some
rather mysterious process not made clear in the text, probably because
of an addition here from a moral interest, Zer. switches off to prove that
truth is stronger than either wine, kings, or women. Down to this
point (4"), the story is a sort of a joke, and might belong to court
jesters, but at the close the story is given a serious turn.
At 4" we reach a new section, doubtless originally quite indepen-
dent of the preceding. Torrey has sufficiently demonstrated this point
(ES."''). Now we come to an important passage, fully discussed in
the intr. to Ezr. 3, in which Zer. obtains a grant from the king, collects
a company, and goes up from Pers. to Jerus. to rebuild the temple.
To revert to the table, we note that Esd. contains two c. of Ch., all
of Ezr. exc. a single v. (4'), but only a very small section of Ne. There
INTRODUCTION
is not a word about Neh.'s great work, nor is there anything of Ne.
8"-io, which are almost universally, but incorrectly, as I shall try to
show later, regarded as a part of the Ezra story.
The rearrangement appears at two points. First, the Art. letters,
Ezr. 4'-'< = Esd. si'-'", are placed immediately after the story of Shes.'s
return, and so between the reigns of Cy. and Dar., whence Jos. substi-
tuted Cambyses for Art. in the letters, so that following this text as he
did, his chronology is consistent. Second, a part of the Ezra story is
removed from its familiar place in the middle of Ne. and joined directly
to the part of Ezra's story contained in the book called by his name;
i.e., Ne. 772-812 follows Ezr. 7-10.
The latter of these variant arrangements undoubtedly preserves the
original order. If one could maintain that Ezra went to Jerus. in the
7th year of Art., a date shown later to be impossible, it would still be
out of the question for Ezra to begin publishing the law at least fifteen
years later. Even if Ezra and Neh. were contemporaries, no historian
would have severed the Ezra story by the insertion of a part of the Ne.
narrative without adequate reason, and there is no reason at all here.
But it is shown elsw. that the place of the Art. letters (Ezr. 4'-"i) in
the Esd. text is not original. Indeed, their situation is more inconsistent
in this text than in ^, for to say nothing of the putting of Art. before
Dar., we have in this edition an account of the stopping of the building
of the temple before that work had been begun. In this edition the
passage stands as a bald interpolation. It has neither ancestry nor
posterity, so that one may wonder whether it was an original part of the
Esd. text at all. It may have been put in by a later hand because it
was in the Heb. The striking result would be that the original Esd.
edition of the history knows of no interference with the Jews in their
efforts to rebuild the temple.
There is reason to believe that when this Art. correspondence was
placed directly after the reign of Cy., the name of the king was changed
to Cambyses, and that it so stood in the Esd. text in the time of Jos.,
for that historian would not have been likely to change the name of a
king, and that here he actually followed his source. If that is the case
there are some interesting considerations to be noted. The author of
Esd. was pretty well informed, and may easily have rebelled against
placing an event of the reign of Art. before the building of the temple.
This writer knew that the temple was built in the time of Dar. He
knew that Art. did not precede Dar. Therefore he transposed the pas-
sage and substituted the name Cambyses for Art.
In MT. the name of Xerxes also appears before that of Dar. (Ezr.
4«), but this name is not found in Esd. anywhere. In other words,
Esd. knows of but one king between Cy. and Dar., and the author
must have known that that was Cambyses. We might then infer that
he was right, and follow many scholars in thus changing the name of
I ESDRAS 9
the king. But it is apparent that the contents of the passage are in-
consistent with its position, for it would give us an account of the
interruption of the temple-building before the foundations were laid.
While the position of the passage would fit the reign of Cambyses, its
contents are inconsistent with that date.
To return to the addition, one part of it (3 '-4*0) as Torrey has shown
(ES.^O) has nothing to do with Heb. history, but the rest (4*^5*) is,
or at least contains, what we absolutely need as an explanation of the
events described in Ezr. 3. To jump from Ezr. i to Ezr. 3 involves
a wild flight, and in our text nothing intervenes but a list of names,
which certainly does not seem to make a historical connection. Inci-
dentally we have here a possible explanation of the insertion of the
list of Ezr. 2. There was certainly a historical section between Ezr. i
and 3. The Chr. or some later editor cut out the passage because it
spoiled his theory of the delay in building the temple. The gap was
supplied in MT. by the insertion of the strange list (2 '-«'). Later this
list was put into the Esd. text, and as it is joined closely to Ezr. 3
it was separated from Ezr. i, for it could not join at both ends in a
text which preserved the lost material which was original between
the two c. What this material was is fully stated in the intr. to
Ezr. 3. Its great importance lies in the fact that it fixes the history
related in Ezr. 2 '''-4' as belonging to the reign of Dar. It is hard for
me to understand how so accomplished a scholar as Torrey can insist
that the events narrated here belong to the reign of Cy. It is no more
reasonable to substitute Cy. for Dar. in this text than for Jos. to sub-
stitute Cambyses for Art. in his account of the letters in 4'-"». The
appeal is made to Esd. 5'* = Ezr. 4', where the Jews say they will
build the temple as King Cy. commanded them (so Thackeray, DB.
art. " I E^."). But surely there is no reason why Zer. in the time of
Dar. should not appeal to the earlier decree of Cy. The edicts of
Cy. were not invalidated by his death.
Sir Henry Howorth has written many interesting articles about this
book.* One of the points upon which he is most insistent is that
Esd. is the original (&, while the Gk. 2 Esd., usually known as <&, is really
Theodotion's translation. Much credit is due to this accomplished
scholar for his persistent efforts to bring Esd. into the prominence it
deserves. And yet I agree with Torrey that his main contention is of
little value. His fundamental mistake is the underlying theory that
there was an authoritative and standard Gk. translation of the OT.
comparable to the AV. in English, a sort of official textus receptus. The
fact is that i and 2 Esd. are quite independent translations of Semitic
originals, but they are renderings of different editions, i Esd. had one
Semitic text of which it is a free and idiomatic version; 2 Esd. is a
slavishly literal rendering of our present MT.
• Academy, 1893, Proceedings of the Society of Biblical Archeology, rgoi-a.
lO INTRODUCTION
It follows from this indisputable fact that Esd. is of vastly greater
value to the OT. student than (B and all the other Vrss. which de-
pend upon it. Sir Henry's point is well taken in this respect. Few
scholars have availed themselves of the treasures hidden away in this
storehouse. As Howorth suggests, there has been too much of a ten-
dency to make a fetish of MX. Even scholars are not dissociated en-
tirely from the theory once held as essential to orthodoxy that the words
and even the pointing of MT. are inspired. This comm. will show
ample use of this important text by whose aid alone some of the grave
problems have been solved.
An interesting question about Esd. concerns its original form. Many
scholars maintain that it is complete as it stands. Others, like Howorth
and Torrey, insist that it is a fragment from the middle of the complete
Ch.-Ezr.-Ne. The question is not of vital importance here, yet some
consideration is necessary. In favour of the latter view, it is noted that
Esd. ends with one word of Ne. 8", xal ixtauviQxOiriaav = iddnj. Torrey
believes that the surviving fragment came from a Gk. not a Semitic
MS., as Ne. 8" begins ^yyn dioi (ES.^O- In Cod.^- this v. is com-
pleted, and I am convinced that we have here one of the many attempts
to bring Esd. into conformity with MT. In other words, Esd. really
ends the Ezra story with Ne. 8'^, and in my opinion that text never
contained any more about Ezra.
This conclusion is supported by the testimony of Jos. It is contended
by Howorth and Torrey that Jos. uses Ne. 8" ^â– . This does not seem to
me to be the case. He does, indeed, refer to the Feast of Booths, but
only as a note of time; for he makes it the occasion of the assembly
in the 7th month at which the law was read as described in Ne. 81-" =
Esd. g"-« (^Anl. xi, 5, 5). There is not a reference to anything related
in Ne. 9, 10. Jos. knew nothing of any event in the story of Ezr. after
the reading of the law.
If Esd. is but a fragment of Ch.-Ezr.-Ne., it must have contained
an account of Neh.'s work. Jos. deals with Neh. rather summarily (Ant.
xi, 5, 6-8), whom, as well as Ezra, he places in the reign of Xerxes.
His treatment is most full in that which corresponds to Ne. i, 2, though
in this there are rather more than the usual number of glaring inac-
curacies. He has a considerable account of the trouble Neh. encoun-
tered from the enemy, a summary of Ne. 4, 6. He then proceeds with
a brief account of the dedication of the walls as in Ne. 12"-", and then
takes up the peopling of the city as in Ne. 7'-^" 11' '•, and finally he
describes the provisions for the pr. and Lev. (Ne. i3"'-")-* Now the
amazing fact is that Jos. shows a knowledge of every part of N.
exc. c. 5, and that he uses nothing else from the book of Ne. save S'-^',
a part of Ezra's story. It is clear, therefore, that if Esd. ever went
• This statement differs somewhat from Torrey's (ES."), but is, I believe, as accurate a
determination as can be made with confidence.
I ESDRAS II
any further than it does now, the lost contents comprised N. and
nothing else whatever. Jos. never could have picked out this story
from our present text. In his treatment of the book of Ezr. he does
not quote the lists of names, but he refers to them, showing that they
were in the text he used, but in the use of the book of Ne. there is no
hint of a list of names anywhere, not even of the wall-builders.
In what form the memoirs were to which Jos. had access it is im-
possible to say. These could hardly have survived as a separate pro-
duction in his time; yet they were originally published in that form;
and what we have includes all that Jos. knew. It is not unlikely that
he used the same text for the whole Pers. period, and certainly he had
these records in Gk.; therefore we may with a certain degree of prob-
ability conclude that Esd. originally contained the unadulterated N.
In that case the fragmentary hypothesis is the only tenable one.
One other point, though, it is commonly known, needs mention. In
his account of the return and the rebuilding of the temple, related in
Ezr. 1-6, Jos. follows Esd., not MT. He p.uts 4'^- after c. i, and he
incorporates the story of the Three Guardsmen. But he unmistakably
puts the events described in 3'-4' in the reign of Dar., making 3'-" an
actual completion of the temple {Ant. xi, 4, 2; see further under the
reign of Dar.). He is quite consistent, making 5, 6 a sort of sequel to
the preceding story, omitting entirely 4"b-5i. His date for 3*-4= is
the only possible one to be derived from Esd., and his use of 3«-" =
Esd. s"-85 shows that he had a better text than most of those which
have come down to us.
It is sometimes stated that Jos. goes beyond Esd. and shows a knowl-
edge of 2 Esd. 05 {e. g., DB. i,'5i>). At the end of Shes.'s story, he
does say that 42,462 came up at that time, as in Ezr. 2, but he uses
this list fully where it stands in Esd. He gives an intr. to the Art.
letters which is based on Ezr. 4'-^, but he uses that material again,
and these are probably but patches. Jos. sometimes follows his sources
so loosely that such usage hardly serves as an argument. The excep-
tion is about enough to prove the rule. Jos. certainly does not make
any use of our canonical Ezr.-Ne.
Reference has been made to the numerous changes in Esd. to bring
this edition into nearer agreement with MT. It is manifest that many
of these changes have been made since the time of Jos., for in several
important points he bears witness to another text than that which
has come down to us. This is esp. the case in Ezr. 3«-". It is also
probable that Cambyses was in the text of Esd. which Jos. used
instead of Art. The cause of this revising is determinable to a high
degree of probability. In the first place, it is well known that the
tendency to correct the Gk. version on the basis of the Heb. is dis-
coverable in every book of the OT. But there is a special reason why
that correcting process should be marked in this particular booh. For
12 INTRODUCTION
this work existed in two quite different Vrss., and these were strug-
gling for supremacy the one against the other. In the time of Jos.
it is clear that Esd. was preferred among the Jews; for Jos. was in
bad repute with his brethren because of his pro-Romanism, and he was
poHtic enough to use the most popular sources for his history.
Three centuries later this edition had lost caste. Jerome's attitude
shows that plainly. He would not translate the story of the Three
Youths. He insists that the proper discourses of Ezr. and Ne. are
contained in a single volume, and that whatever is not contained in
them is to be rejected (pref. to Ezr.). Confessedly he formed this
opinion from his Heb. teachers, so that in his day — the preface was
written a.d. 394 — Esd. had lost its former popularity. The advo-
cates of this edition would not see it sink into disuse without a serious
effort to save it. The chief count against it was its departure from the
received text. Then began a process of editing to remove these de-
partures as far as possible. In many of the texts the original is pretty
well erased. But in Cod.^ the changes were often made simply by
adding a translation of MT. to the original Esd., so that it is still
possible in places to recover the primitive text.
The Vrss. available for the textual criticism of Ezr.-Ne. are
the same as those for Ch., a full and scholarly discussion of
which is given by Curtis, Intr. %^, and need not be repeated
here. The Vrss. really serve little purpose, with the single ex-
ception of Esd., which has been fully treated above, and of
which but a few more words are necessary from the point of
view of textual criticism.
It has been shown that Esd. is a translation of a Semitic text. Tor-
rey has given pretty convincing evidence that the story of the Three
Guardsmen is from an Aram, original (ES.^" ^â– ). It has long been sus-
pected that Esd. 51-8 is from a Heb. source, and that is doubtless
correct. But it is equally plain that Esd. is not a translation of the
present MT. No translator would take such liberties as we find in
that version. Those who rendered the Scriptures into Gk. were moved,
as all other translators, to give a faithful version of the text before them,
which they desired to make accessible to people who knew only the Gk.
tongue. The conclusion is inevitable that there were two editions of
this book in Semitic, of which the one finally adopted in the Heb.
canon is the longer and the worse. On these two editions, see further
ES." ff-
The most complete presentation of the apparatus for the textual
criticism of our books is presented in ES. c. 4. Torrey greatly prefers
THE SEMITIC TEXT I3
Cod.^ to ^, and urges great caution in the use of ^. The caution is
wise, and yet some of the most important aids to the correction of the
text are hidden in that version.
§ 7. THE SEMITIC TEXT.
In places the text of Ezr.-Ne. is very well preserved. In
>f. especially there is as a rule very little trouble once the
nterpolations are recognised. But on the whole MT. is in
iecidedly bad shape. At times the confusion is so great that
:he work of the critic is most difficult. In some places there
-S a wholesale corruption of the text in the interest of the his-
corical theory of the editor.
The great majority of writers have accepted MT. and have
simply tried to make out of it the best they could. There is no
reason, however, for confining ourselves to one text in a case
in which we have good support for another and a better reading.
In places the result is most surprising and important. Many of
the critical theories of both the older and newer writers are de-
pendent on the corrupt MT. A reconstruction of these theories
is only possible in the light of a thorough-going criticism of the
text. This needs to go much further than Guthe's in Haupt's
SBOT. I myself worked for years on the supposition that there
was an early and fruitless effort to rebuild the temple. But
the discovery of the true text of Ezr. 3 compelled a radical
change of opinion.
The discovery of these corruptions, and in many places the
recovery of the true text, has another important consequence.
It proves beyond a doubt that there are original sources where
previously a passage has been assigned wholly to Chr. If a
text has been corrupted to make it suit a purpose, it is ob-
vious that the text in its original form is not the work of R.
In that way it is demonstrated that there are Hebrew sources
in these books, and so the contributions of the Chronicler are
correspondingly diminished.
14 INTRODUCTION
§ 8, THE SOURCES.
In the book of Ch. we find many sections of S. and K. in-
serted almost verbatim. There is a claim further that the
compiler used many other sources (see Curt. Intr.^^ '^•)- It is
true that some scholars, as Torrey, deny that these sources were
genuine, insisting that the Chronicler pretends to quote to add
plausibility to his history (ES. c. 7). Our books were originally
a part of the book of Ch., and we should expect the same
method to have been pursued. And our expectations are re-
alised, for it is possible to pick out some of the sources, even
though we have no parallels for control as we have in S. and
K. There is not, unfortunately, much agreement among schol-
ars as to the limits of some of these sources. There is noth-
ing then left for me but to give my conclusions, which are,
however, based on many years' study of these books. The
results will be seen to be decidedly conservative.
(i) The Memoirs of Nehemiah = N.
Beginning with a source about the presence of which there
is no difference of opinion, there is certainly incorporated in the
book which bears his name some [personal memoirs of Nehe-
miah. These are all written in tne first person, and the nar-
rative is terse and vivid. The memoirs were written for the
most part soon after the close of his first administration {v. 5"),
and as a historical source rank among the very best in OTr]
Nehemiah knew how to accomplish results, even in the face of
the gravest difficulties, and he also knew how to tell what he
had done without waste of words. In some places N. has
somewhat the character of a diary or journal. The brief pray-
ers and imprecations scattered through the document make
the impression of a narrative originally written for the author's
eye alone.
The agreement of scholars ceases, however, the moment we
attempt to determine the limits of the memoirs. There is a
THE MEMOIRS OF EZRA Ig
minimum about which all are agreed, but the moment we step
1 )eyond that boundary contention arises.
[jThe vast majority of modern scholars set rather large limits to these
memoirs. Berth. Sieg. Ryle, and Dr. practically agree that N. covers
Ne. 1-7 12"-" i3<-". Berth, and Sieg. exc. i2"-3o. 33-35^ but Sieg.
adds ii»'- and Dr. adds 13'-^ Torrey, on the other extreme, finds
N. only in i*-2'' s"'-'"' 4^6^K All agree that 7'-" was not written by
Neh., but the scholars who include this in N. suppose, wrongly I be-
lieve, that it was incorporated in N. by NehJ
Pit seems certain that s'-'" is not from N. It has none of the char-
acteristics of that document, but is very like other lists in our boolis,
and it is quite out of place where it stands, interrupting the narrative
sadly {v. notes on Ne. 3). I have shown in the notes reasons which
are sufiicient to reject a'-'O I can see no satisfactory evidence against
233-38 6>«->» 7>-"' i3«-3ia exc. v. 22. The last passage is not only writ-
ten in the first p., but also has numerous characteristics of N. On
the other hand,nrhave fio hesitation in rejecting is-na, the major por-
tion of Neh.'s prayer, which is too close to a type to be composed by
Neh. (v. notes), one point in which I go beyond Torrey, who only
goes so far as to assume editorial revision. I believe it a piece of
editorial composition] iln the passage describing the dedication of the
walls (12"-"), there are- unmistakable traces of N., e. g., in 31 1. as. 4ob^
but a story like this was too tempting to the Chr., and he has so em-
belUshed it with interpolations to bring pr.. Lev., music, and sacri-
fices into prominent place that Neh.'s own simple, straightforward
story is buried beyond hope of recovery.] Torrey notes that 2"^ 333 «•
4' ^- repeat one another rather awkwafdiy, an awkwardness much in-
creased by the elimination of 31-32 (ES."«). That is quite true, and
yet I doubt if any of the passages exc. possibly 333-35 can be legit-
imately questioned. [The portions which are from N. are, therefore.
(2) The Memoirs of Ezra = E.
It has been the practically unanimous opinion of Biblical
£:holars that another important and trustworthy source is
f )und in E. This, it is claimed,! includes Ezr. y^-S^* g^-^^;
i jch, at all events, are the conclusioii of such competent schol-
{ rs as Driver, Ryle, Cornill, Kosters, Siegfried, and Bertholet. j
Before discussing the matter further, it is necessary to reduce the
space of the memoirs somewhat. TlFirst, we must eliminate 8'-", the
1 6 INTRODUCTION
list of the heads of the fathers who went up with EzraJ There is noth-
ing to suggest E. in the whole passage save the " with me " •'Dj? in v. K
The V. is disjointed and shows an editor's hands, for " from Bab." is
connected with "went up," and we may infer that " with me" was in-
serted from 7^', or else that we should read by a very slight change " with
him." The passage is out of place here, as it gives a list of his company
before Ezra makes his inspection (v. '=■)• It would come better after
7'°, as 7'-"' summarises the whole story and commits other sins of
anticipation. Yet it must be noted that the list is peculiar in the
designation " males," andjn the silence about the temple officers so
liberally supplied in 7'.Z_The explanation about the Neth. in 8^o is
suspicious; indeed, the whole v. is prob. an addition by the Chr. The
same hand prob. produced vv. ^e '• ^o. 33. 35^ for reasons given in the
notes. Also giit-is are to be excluded, so that for E. we have 7"'*
315-19. 21-25. 28 f. 31 f. 36 gl-ll8. 13-15^ thoUgh 8'' IS dubTj
Now if these are genuine memoirs there can be no doubt of their histor-
ical value. [But Torrey has for years maintained that the Ezra memoirs
are a myth, msisting that the whole Ezra story is composed by the
Chr., and in fact the character of Ezra was created by him, so that
Ezr. 7-10 and Ne. 7'»-io are fiction pure and simple (ES."8-2"; cf. Comp.
14 fl. 57 ff.). A part of this radical opinion will be examined later. Here
we are concerned with the memoirs only. Torrey's conclusion rests
essentially on linguistic material. He gives a list of some thirty words
from the parts which are assigned to E. and which he declares to be
characteristic of the Chr. (cf. Comp.^' ^â– ). He goes so far as to declare
deliberately, as the "result of a good deal of hard study," tha^' there
is no portion of the whole work of Ch.-Ezr.-Ne. in which the Chr.'s
literary peculiarities are more strongly marked, more abundant, more
evenly and continuously distributed, and more easily recognisable than
in the Heb. narrative of Ezr. 7-10 and Ne. 8-10"' (ES."i).
The use of the first p. is easily explained by Torrey on the ground
that the Chr. employed it in deliberate imitation of N. He cites
other cases in which there is transition from the first p. to the third.
Torrey has overlooked, so far as I recall, what might be a strong
argument in support of his contention, viz., that in some places certain
Vrss. have the third p. where MT. has the first, e. g., 8» '■in Esd.^,
9'-' in Esd.K
But we note thatVthe first p. occurs in Esd. where N. is not found,
and where it may never have existed. The Ezra story may have been
once published quite independently of that of Neh. Then again it is
inconceivable that the Chr. should have written by far the major part
of the Ezra story in the third p., and then employed the first in such a
limited part. That is esp. the case as these passages in the first p.
are precisely those which raise no suspicion on the ground of credibilityTj
But the most decisive argument is the relation of the various parts
THE MEMOIRS OF EZRA 1 7
of the narrative to each other. f-It is incredible that Ezr. 7-10 was all
written by the same person, the Chr. or any one else whatsoever. In
7'° Ezra's whole company arrives in Jerus., and the members of the
company are enumerated in 8'-", while in 7-^ and its direct sequel, 8",
Ezra is beginning to gather a caravan at Ahava. Then, in the letter
of Art., Ezra is clothed with enormous powers, but in the actual record
of his deeds he never once calls upon any authority but the law. The
difference in this respect between Ezra and Neh. is very marked. Neh.
acts as governor and uses his authority, but Ezra can only appeal to
the people to obey the law. Surely a single author would have aimed
at greater consistencyj
' It has been conceded by several scholars, esp. since the publica-
tion of Torrey's Composition (1896), that E. has been worked over a
great deal, and that the numerous marks of the Chr. which Torrey
has pointed out are due to his revision. /But Torrey in his later
work (ES. 1910) asserts that the Chr. does not revise his material,
that he either incorporates bodily or composes entirely. Torrey cites 1 ,'„^(
as an instance the parallel N. which he says the Chr. has practically _^,'v.'^*;'" ^v, '*â– --,
not revised J ^ ^ ^ ^,^ "A J^-^ ^
My own studies constrain me to dissent from this contention. As ', 1? .^^^''^
a matter of fact, I am persuaded that the Chr. revised his material 1 v\
pretty freely whenever it suited his purpose to do so, I may cite -â– *
as an impressive instance his change from Yahweh to Satan as the
tempter of David (i Ch. 21* = 2 S. 24O. (See further evidence in
Curt. Inir.^-^*- "). But the testimony of our own books is decisive.
The Chr. has liberally revised Ezr. 3 to make it square with his theory
of the deferred building of the temple. In fact, his hand is visible
almost everywhere.
It is true, however, that JN. has been tampered with comparatively
littleT] But that fact is eloquent in its description of the Chr.'s method.
The building of the wall was of so little interest that in one recension
the whole story may have been omitted. [But when the Chr. came to
Neh.'s story of the dedication of the walls, he was in a field in which he
was perfectly at home, and on a subject in which he had a profound
interest. He revised the story, which certainly existed in N. until there
are only dim traces of the original, while the work of his own hand is to
be seen all through^/
Now Torrey is right in asserting that Ezra was the Chr.'s hero.fThe
editor found the work of a kindred spirit in E. That document pre-
sented material with which he was familiar and on which he had very
pronounced opinions. But Ezra lived more than a century before the
Chr. In the meanwhile, many changes had taken place. The Chr. was
almost forced to bring Ezra's work down to date, as he does David's.
He could hardly use such a source without revision. ' Otherwise there
would have been a historical development in religion, and such a
2
/
1 8 INTRODUCTION
phenomenon was abhorrent to him. Therefore, Torrey's list does not
seem to me at all decisive, even if we grant its validity, as we must
in part.
As a matter of fact,[the Chr. has revised even N. considerably. He
puts a suitable prayer in the cup-bearer's mouth (I'-na); he furnishes
the leader with letters which he seemed to think Neh. had overlooked
(2'-'a; but V. notes); he provided a systematic account of the method
of building the wall, and as Neh. had afforded nothing to work on he
had to make it himself, unless, indeed, he found it ready from some
other hand, just as he elaborates Ezra's work; by the twist of a sen-
tence he changes the purpose of Neh.'s assembly and makes him dis-
cover a then non-existent record of names (7^); and finally in c. 13,
where Neh. approaches closely to the editor's own field, the Chr.'s
hand has crept in so conspicuously that Torrey gives him the credit
of the whole.l
There is one more argument for the existence of E., which is entirely
subjective, and yet which is of very great force to one who feels it.
Every time I study Ezr. 7-10, I feel afresh the fact that two voices
speak in the various sections. The whole story as told in E. seems
so simple and natural and unaffected, and so lacking in the pomposity
which attaches to Ezra where the Chr. uses a free hand, that it bespeaks
its own genuineness. The very details of the gathering at Ahava
are just the things the Chr. would never think of composing, as we.
may see from the summary way in which he actually deals with the
journey (7'-"), in which he is careful to present abundant names and
dates, but no personal history at all.
Torrey's arguments have failed to convince those who have been
diligent students of the story of Ezra, and with all regard to his un-
doubted scholarship and industry, I find myself among the number
who must still take the Ezra story seriously.
(3) The Aramaic Documents.
There are three sections of the book of Ezr. which are writ-
ten in AramaicJ^i) The correspondence with Artaxerxes, 4^-2*».
(2) The history of the rebuilding of the temple, Ezr. ^^^^-d^^.
(3) The edict of Artaxerxes authorising Ezra's mission, 712-28.
As 6'^^-22 is a late insertion and 7^-^° is the Chronicler's introduc-
tion to Ezr., we have practically a long continuous section in
Aramaic, 4^-7^6. It may be, therefore, that before the Chron-
icler there was an Aramaic history of this period, which he used
to a limited extentTi If there was such a source, it must have
THE ARAMAIC DOCUMENTS 1 9
consisted mainly of official documents with a minimum of intro-
duction and comment.
^he first two of these pieces are alike in one respect, that
while the bulk of the material consists of the letters, there are
introductory and other notes also written in Aramaic. In the
case of the third, however, there is nothing in Aramaic save
the letter, the brief introduction (7") being written in Hebrew.
The Chronicler, therefore, does not get his material for (i)
and (2) at first hand. Before his time the letters had been pub-
lished with the various notes before and after the epistles. The
third he may have quoted at first hand; at all events, if there
ever had been any notes on the letter, the Chronicler left them
out entirely^
Mey. is the stoutest modem defender of these Aram, documents
(E«/.'-'0- He emends the text of Ezr. 4', reading "the despatch was
written in Pers. and translated into Aram.," so that originally there
was here one of the polylingual inscriptions which abounded in the
Pers. empire. This argument would be stronger if there were nothing
but the letters. As a matter of fact, there are the compiler's com-
ments. Mey. would hardly contend that these, too, were written in
Pers. and translated into Aram. Besides it is shown in the notes that
Mey.'s interpretation of 4' is more than doubtful. Mey. claims to find
a considerable list of Pers. words in the documents, and thus rein-
forces his belief in Pers. originals and in the authenticity of the letters.
But it does not seem possible to group the documents and formulate
a single conclusion which will cover them all. They must be treated
separately.
(i)rrhere can be no doubt that the Chr. incorporated the Art.
correspondence in 4'-24a and did not compose it, for he misunderstood
its tenor. Further, there is no good reason whatever to question its
genuineness. It describes just the conditions necessary to explain
Neh.'s work? as I have shown in the intr. to the passage, where also
Kost.'s arguments against its authenticity are examined in detail.
Further, the charge of a tendency to exalt the Jews, and to exult
over the Sam. (ES.'^Oi certainly does not apply here, for in this source
the Sam. triumph over the Jews, and leave Jerus. in the worst state
it had known since 586, a state which nearly broke Neh.'s heart when
he heard of it,
(2) I have myself repeatedly called this the Aram, version of the
temple-building story. In reality jfit is better described as the corre-
spondence with Dar. about the rebuilding of the temple. \ There is
20 INTRODUCTION
very little in the whole narrative except the story of what the Sam.
rulers did when they heard of the operation at Jerus. and the Pers. king's
action on their report. But the Chr. certainly was not the author of
the piece. The prominence of the prophets in 5' f-, which Mey., with
strange obtuseness, assigns to the Chr., could never have come from his
hand. He makes the pr. prominent even in building the walls, Ne. 3,
while the temple-construction is supported chiefly by the prophets.
Even Torrey, who regards the source as worthless historically, admits
that it is quoted by the Chr.
It is a favourite theory of modern scholars that this document has
been freely edited, and that there is an original and authentic sub-
stratum. Torrey really jeers at this conclusion, saying of a quota-
tion from Dr.^""^: "The documents are not genuine, but in substance
are thoroughly trustworthy" (ES.'"). Now, as a matter of fact, the
text of this document has been liberally edited and is decidedly cor-
rupt in some places, as I have shown in the notes. It can hardly be
supposed that a Jewish R. would modify such material without a cer-
tain tendency creeping in. And the fact that he modified his material
shows that he had something to modify.
CZfhe bare outline of the narrative is as follows: Under the inspiration
of the prophets the Jews begin the rebuilding of the temple in the 2d
year of Dar. Tattenai, the governor of the Syrian province, and others
go to Jerus. to see what authority the Jews had for building a temple
and who were the leaders in the movement. They report to Dar. by
letter the claim of the authority of Cy., and ask for instructions. Dar.
orders a search of the archives and finds the original decree of Cy.,
which is quoted, not in Dar.'s letter, but in the narrative portion. The
king confirms the decree of his predecessor and orders his officials not
to interfere^'
Now in all this there is no note of improbability. The Jews in Ele-
phantine could not rebuild their temple without authority of the Pers.
ofiicials, and surely Tattenai would have been remiss had he taken no
steps under the circumstances. [Jhe temple was certainly rebuilt in
the reign of Dar., and that task could hardly have been accomplished
without his knowledge and sanctionTl
The most serious difl&culty is the inconsistency with the story in
Esd. 4«2 f- that Zer. came to Jerus. in the reign of Dar. carrying with him
permission to rebuild the temple, and the silence of Hg. and Zc. about
interference from any source whatever. There is further the state-
ment in Ezr. 4^-^ that the Sam. desired to aid the Jews in building, and
there is in that story no note of any opposition. We are compelled to
choose between two contradictory stories, and I have no hesitation
in accepting the Heb. story as correct.
The fact is that this story is inconsistent with itself. In 5' the
temple is begun under Zer., but in 51" the building has been going on
THE AIIAMAIC DOCUMENTS 21
ever since the time of Shes. in the ist year of Cy. and was still incom-
plete. Now this last passage is the basis of the Chr.'s construction
of all his material of the period, Ezr. i-6. In accord with this theory he
makes c. 3 but a futile beginning of the work, and by leaving out dates
would make it appear that Zer.'s work was done in the time of Cy.
It is very likely, as Torrey contends, that he regarded this Dar. as
Dar. II (423-404), and so the time spent on building the temple was
a very long one indeed, certainly more than a century. The Chr., in
other words, had a very misleading source here, but he fell into the
trap, and made a mess of his good material accordingly.
Kost. has tried to solve the problem of the contradictory statements
by assuming that there are, in fact, two original stories which have been
woven together and worked over by the Chr. or an earlier compiler. This
dissection leaves in one part, A, 51-1" 6«-" (exc. "^, which with "-•' he
ascribes to the Chr.), and in the other, B, 5"-" 6'- '-« {Wied.^ «■). But the
grave difficulties of this piece cannot be solved in this way. There are
no linguistic or other marks to support such an arbitrary analysis.
The fact is that the whole piece is Jewish to the core. Tattenai and
his fellows, in their letter to the Pers. king, really plead the cause of the
Jews, and Dar. goes even beyond Cy. in his generosity toward the
temple.
Torrey holds now that 4'-6i6 •^^as incorporated bodily by the Chr.,
though he formerly held that 4^^ was the Chr.'s connecting link (ES.'^" '•;
cf. Comp. "T-)- I S'ln unable to follow Torrey in his change of opinion.
Had one author written the whole piece, he would hardly have been
entirely silent in two whole c. about the important letters in 4'-", and
Tattenai could hardly have been ignorant of Art.'s decree. Doubt-
less "Artaxerxes" was inserted in 6" to make the two pieces go better
together.
And yet the piece in its original form was doubtless a sincere at-
tempt of some devout Jew, living very long after the event, to describe
the manner in which the temple was rebuilt. He was doubtless igno-
rant of other sources, and could hardly have been familiar with official
documents or he would not have put such a pathetic Jewish plea as
5^-" into the letter of a Pers. official. The passage is eloquent of the
tribulations of the poor Jews, and doubtless the writer expressed some
true sentiments, however ill-informed he was of the history.
(3) Concerning Art.'s grant to Ezr. 7'2-26 little need be said. In the
notes on the passage, I have shown that the letter as a whole is appar-
ently incompatible with Ezra's work so far as we know it. VWe are
forced to conclude that if Ezra had any authority from Art. it must
have been what is contained in the first part of the letter (vv. ^^-^0), and
the rest is an amplification by one who exaggerated Ezra's mission
more than even the Chr. did. J
But there is no sufficient reason to doubt that the Chr. really found it
22 INTRODUCTION
as a source. The fact that he composed an intr. in Heb. (7") confirms
that opinion. Moreover, the Chr. would not have composed a letter
giving Ezra powers which even the Chr. himself never permits him
to use.
An effort has been made to fix the date of the composition of these
Aram, documents from the language. Torrey has given considerable
attention to this matter (ES.'^-i^^), and reaches a very positive opinion.
He asserts that the Aram, of Dn. is exactly the same as that of our
documents, and Dn. is assigned to the Gk. period. The whole of these
sources are placed in the second and third centuries B.C. from linguis-
tic considerations. This result is confirmed by the discovery of the
Aram, papyri in Egypt, which belong to the fifth century b.c. An
examination of some of these papyri is made, and the conclusion
reached that their language is much earlier than that of the docu-
ments in Ezr.
Other scholars have held different opinions. Sachau, in his earliest
work, Drei. Aram. Pap. 1907, asserted that the Aram, of the papyri
was identical with that of the Biblical documents, and he has said
nothing to the contrary in his latest and largest contribution, Aram.
Pap. u. Ost. 191 1. Sayce and Cowley maintained essentially the
same position. My own somewhat meagre examination of the papyri
makes me feel that their language and expressions are very like the
B. Aram.
Torrey has pointed out some clear differences in usage, but he may
have drawn too big a conclusion from his premises. The papyri were
never copied, but are preserved in their original form, while our docu-
ments were copied hundreds of times, and are found in living books.
It would be almost inevitable, therefore, that a certain modernisation
would result. The archaic relative •"?, e. g., would easily become the
common n. Then again we must admit that the language of peo-
ple of the same blood, but living long apart, tends to differ. Lowell
showed that many Americanisms were simply survivals of the language
of Shakespeare. The Jews in Elephantine were doubtless the suc-
cessors of those who migrated to that land soon after the fall of Jerus.,
586 B.C. The Jews who wrote these stories had prob. come from
Bab., certainly not from Egypt. The two bodies of Jews had lived
apart for more than a century before these documents could have been
written. There seems no adequate grounds for denying that these
records may belong to the fifth century, even if it is to be confessed that
there is little evidence to support that date. Then again it is shown
in the critical notes that many peculiar words are common to the two
soiurces and are used in precisely the same way.
THE HEBREW SOURCES 23
(4) The Hebrew Sources.
It is held by some modern scholars that all of our books, save
the parts enumerated above, viz., N., E., and the Aramaic
documents, were composed by the Chronicler. That conten-
tion cannot be maintained unless we adopt the old device,
worked so liberally in the criticism of the Pentateuch, and fall
back on a Chronicler, Chronicler 1, Chronicler 2, and so on as
far as necessary. An adequate textual criticism makes impos-
sible the verdict that the Chronicler wrote all of these books,
outside of the sources previously considered.
It is agreed, however, that the Chr. is the compiler of the books in their
present form. He could not then be the author of Ezr. 2"'-4', for, as
shown in detail in the notes, this piece has been subjected to such sweep-
ing revision that its original purport is quite lost. The Chr. did the
rewriting to make the stubborn piece fit his theory of the history, and
therefore he had before him an original Heb. story of the rebuilding
of the temple by Zer. and Jes., which harmonises perfectly with the in-
formation we have in Kg. and Zc.
It seems further necessary to analyse Ezr. i. Every time I read the
chapter I feel strongly that it is not all from the same hand. \ A part
of it is smooth and simple, esp. when correction is made in the text,
and a part of it rough and disjointed. The part which I venture to^
assign to a Heb. source, used by the Chr., is vv. '-<• ^ '• "i". These vv.
make a complete and consistent story in themselves, and the other
vv. have all the earmarks of thp embellishments which the Chr. loved
to interject into his narrative. ,
Whether the Chr. is the author of the Ezra story in Ezr. 10, Ne. 8 is
diflScult to determine. It is possible that he had some memoirs which
he rewrote. It is certainly possible that he composed the whole, esp.
as the Ezra story so far as we know ends with Ne. 8'^ or is.
In Ne. 10, which, contrary to the usual opinion, has nothing what-
ever to do with Ezra, we have a piece quite out of place, and for that
reason it was prob. in existence before the Chr. He would hardly
have composed a passage so out of harmony with its setting; but in
his method of editing and compiling he might easily have used it as
he did because he wanted to make it tell a different story from what
it does. An agreement of the people to do certain specific things is
ridiculous after the law had been given and the people were sworn to
obey it. Personal agreements have nothing to do with a code like
that in the Pentateuch.
iJ4 INTRODUCTION
(5) The Lists.
There is little left but the lists of names. These occupy a
liberal spaceQEzr. 2 (= Ne. 7«-") S^-" 10^8-43 ^e. 3^-32 102-28
jj4-36 12^-26 are practically nothing else. These lists are by
many scholars confidently attributed to the Chronicler^ Now,
that the Chronicler was fond of such lists is beyond a doubt.
The way he sets forth the history down to David (i Ch. 1-9)
is sufficient evidence. [Jle was an expert in genealogies. But
it does not follow that he composed all the lists^ j
Lists of names were common in the postex. period, and now we have
long lists of Jewish names from Egypt (Sachau, Tafeln,"-^"). It is hard
to believe that any one person composed all of these lists, for while there
are striking resemblances, there are also many differences; note esp.
the peculiar use of " males " in the list of Ezra's company (Ezr. 8i-'<).
Lit is, at all events, highly prob. that the Chr. merely incorporated
lists which he found to his hand^
VjEhe real work of the Chr. in these books consists, therefore, of edit-
ing and compiling. There is not a great deal which can be proved
to come from his pen; and yet there is very little that he has not
retouched ace. to his own ideas, j The work of compilation was badly
done, but fortunately there is enough guidance for the revision of the
Chr.'s blundering work and for bringing the various parts into their
right relations.
§ 9. THE SAMARITAN OPPOSITION.
The restoration of Jerusalem was greatly hindered by the
interference of other peoples who were living as neighbours to
the Jews. And yet the real extent and character of this oppo-
sition has been greatly misunderstood, owing largely to the
confusion of the text wrought by the compiler. The fact is
that save in one brief and obscure passage (Ezr. 4^-^) there is
no hint of an attempt of any one to place obstacles in the way
of the Jews until the time of Artaxerxes.
The corrupt passage in Ezr. 3', when properly corrected {v. notes),
shows an entirely friendly disposition on the part of the Jews' neigh-
bours. In Ezr. 4'-» the Sam., so far from desiring to impede the build-
THE SAMARITAN OPPOSITION 2$
ing of the temple, sincerely offer their aid in the work. Even if we
accept Ezr. 5/., there is still no opposition. Tattenai and his asso-
ciates betray no hostility and accept the statement of the leaders that
they had authority from Cy. and did not attempt to secure a cessation
of the building operations, but distinctly allowed them to continue
(5<), while their report and inquiry went to the Pers. court.
There is, indeed, the perplexing passage Ezr. 4*-^ which I have placed
in the time of Xerxes, but it is too obscure and uncertain to throw much
light on our problem. At most it is a very vague and general state-
ment about some opposition from foreigners. Vv. *■« might be from
the Chr.'s hand, but that would leave v. « in rather a sorry state, for it
is inconceivable that the Chr. should have written that much and no
more about the reign of Xerxes.
When we come to the reign of Art. there is plenty of material to show
that this hostility was very marked. The sources of our information
are two, and both unquestionably authentic : the Art. correspondence
(Ezr. 4'-"a) and N. The complainants against the Jews in the former
document were certainly the Sam. They describe themselves as the
colonists whom Asnappar — certainly some Assyrian king — had brought
to Sam. The hostility of these people is apparent. They came to
Jerus. on no mission of friendliness or inquiry, but, on the contrary,
point out to the king that the accomplishment of the Jews' purpose
spells disaster to the Pers. dominions in the west. Their intense oppo-
sition was due to the fact that the Jews in their time were engaged in
the building of the walls, the same cause that provoked the fierce
enmity toward Neh.
While the Jews were engaged in restoring the temple, there was no
trouble with their neighbours, but the moment they attack the walls,
opposition breaks out. Naturally, for the building of the temple had y/
no political significance. The Pers. officials kept their hands off as '//
long as the Jews were deahng with purely religious institutions. But
a city enclosed by a wall created another situation, for a walled city
could cause any amount of trouble to the officers of the satrapy of
which it was a part.
This consideration confirms the interpretation of this passage (Ezr.
4' ^â– ). Torrey puts a strange construction on the complaint, alleging
that Rehum et al. mention the building of the city rather than the
temple in order to reinforce their plea for interference, the complain-
ants thus making a false report of the actual conditions. As there is
otherwise not a shred of evidence of any opposition to the building of
the temple, and as the Sam. used every possible effort to prevent the
building of the walls, the right interpretation of this passage is fixed
beyond reasonable doubt.
Neh.'s story of the building of the walls is contained in Ne. 2"-" 3"-
4" 6>-7»«. As a matter of fact, these sections, comprising almost all of
26 INTRODUCTION
N. save the story of his leave of absence and his reforms, have as their
true subject the efforts of the enemy to stop Neh.'s operations.
Three men stand out as the leaders of this opposition, Sanb. the
Horonite, To. the Ammonite slave, and Geshem (or Gashmu) the
Arabian. In every case exc. 6", where To. is prob. a gl., Sanb. stands
first, and while in some sections Geshem is not named (2" 4'), and in
another To. fails (6^), Sanb. always occurs, twice alone (3" 60- It is
worth our while to try to discover who this arch-enemy of Neh. was.
Torrey thinks we have a choice between two, one of whom is named
by Jos. as the governor of Sam. at the time of the Sam. schism (Ant.
xi, 8) about 335 b.c. If Neh.'s date were the reign of Art. II, 404-358
B.C., then in 384, when Neh. would come to Jerus. fifty years before,
Sanb. might have been a young man, provided he was sufficiently aged
at the time in which Jos. places him. But this date for Neh. is out of
the question, and as we have the person in exactly the period required
we need waste no time in vague possibilities.
In Pap. I from Elephantine, l.-", we find " Delaiah and Shelemaiah
the sons of Sanb. the governor of Sam." The correspondents assert
that they had sent a letter to these men, detailing all the information
contained in the letter to Bagohi about the temple in Jeb. Sachau
believes that Sanb. was still living, though Buhl asserts that he was
certainly dead (Aram. Pap.*^). Sachau's argument is convincing, al-
though the point is immaterial. It suffices to assume, however, that
Sanb. was an old man, and that his sons had succeeded him, or were the
real administrators of the governorship. As this was in 407 B.C., thirty-
seven years earlier, 444 B.C., the date of Neh., Sanb. would have been
about thirty-five, in the very prime of life. This is undoubtedly the
enemy of Neh.
As his sons both bear Jewish names, Sachau argues that Sanb., in
spite of his Bab. name, was a Hebrew. With this position Torrey is
agreed, but deems it probable that the name is Heb. as well as the
man (ES.^"- '">).
Neh. never calls him the governor of Sam., but still that office is quite
consistent with other statements in the memoirs. Sanb. appears sup-
ported by the "army of Sam." (Ne. 3"), which Torrey [regards as a
note by the Chr. (ES.226)^ but he admits that Sanb. comes forth with an
army in a suitable place (4'). The rendezvous proposed by Sanb. in
the plain of Ono (6-) was, roughly, midway between Jerus. and Sam.
It is quite impossible, were Sanb. a private citizen, that he should act
with such a high hand toward a governor of Judah, an appointee of
the Pers. king. Neh., however, never gives him other designation
than "the Horonite," explained by Torrey as marking his contempt.
Winckler, followed cautiously by Berth., connects the appellative with
Horonaim (Is. 15=) in Moab, and makes Sanb. a Horonite sheik. The
Elephantine letters dispose of that contention, and wc must connect
THE SAMARITAN OPPOSITION 27
the term with Beth-horon, a town on the border of Sam. (Jos. i6'- »;
cf. Montgomery, Samaritans, ^^), of which place Sanb. might be a na-
tive and still governor of Sam. In what respect the appellative con-
tained a note of contempt in Neh.'s time is not known.
The letter shows that the Jewish colonists in Elephantine looked upon
the sons of Sanb. as friends who would be likely to assist their plea
for the rebuilding of the temple in their garrison. This could not have
been very long after Neh.'s second administration, and may seem to
raise a doubt about the above identification. As a matter of fact, our
sources show that, violently as Sanb. and others struggled against the
rebuilding of the walls, and consequently against Neh. as the leader
of that great work, there were friendly relations maintained by these
foes with some prominent persons in Jerus. Jehohanan, the high
priest in 407, or one of his brothers, had married a daughter of Sanb.
(Ne. 13"); correspondence was conducted between To. and the nobles
of Judah (6^'); and these were allied to him by marriage and agree-
ments; Sanb. was able to hire a prophet to mislead the governor (6")'
Neh.'s troubles were, in fact, greatly augmented by the disaffection
of some of the leaders in Jerus. Again the Jewish colonists in Jeb
show that they are not very well informed about affairs in the world
outside, and they may have been ignorant of Sanb.'s intrigues against
their fellow-Israelite. Finally, Sanb.'s sons, with their good Heb.
names, may not have shared their father's hostility, esp. at a time
when the wall had long been an accomplished fact.
To account for this hostihty there is no need to go back to the
repulse of the Sam.'s offer to aid in building the temple (Ezr. 4*-'),
still less to the later bitter feud between the Sam. and the Jews. As
Montgomery has pointed out in his able work on the Sam. (^s), the
opposition was political, not religious. In the time of Neh. the rela-
tions of the Sam. toward the Jews was exactly what the relations of
the northern kingdom, the predecessors of the Sam., had always been
to the kingdom of Judah. The exile, with the colonising and the
return, had not materially altered the conditions. The Sam. and
Jews could no more be one people than Ephraim and Judah could long
be one state. As shown above, the rival people picked no quarrel
with their southern neighbours as long as they were using their efforts
to build up their ecclesiastical institutions. The temple would not
interfere with the political supremacy of the north. But the building
of the walls was another matter. Once let Jerus. be made impreg-
nable again, as it had been in the days of old, and the balance of power
would be almost certain to move from the north to the south. The
Sam. would have been blind, indeed, had they not seen the significance
of the movement, and foolish, indeed, if they had not used every pos-
sible means to prevent it.
Their first attempt succeeded. They frightened the weak Art. and
/
28 INTRODUCTION
cowed the Jews who under some unknown inspiration and leadership
had started the work. Their second attempt failed, and the cause of
their failure was the presence of a personality against whom their
utmost struggles were in vain.
§ lO. THE DATE OF EZRA'S MISSION.
It has been assumed in the preceding pages that Ezra belongs
to a later period than Nehemiah. That conclusion seems to
me inevitable. It is true that the editor of the books thought
otherwise. His placing of Ezr. 7-10 before Ne. i shows that
the Artaxerxes who authorised Ezra's administration was, in
his view, the same as the Artaxerxes who appointed Nehemiah
to be governor of Judah, and his placing of the promulgation
of the law by Ezra (Ne. S'^-^^) in the midst of Nehemiah's rule
shows his belief that they were contemporaries. Further to
support his view, he has introduced Nehemiah in the story of
the reading of the law (Ne. 8^). He also drags Ezra's name
into the story of the dedication of the walls (Ne. i23«), but it is
a manifest gloss. In spite of the dissimilarity of their work,
these two leaders could not be contemporaries.
For Art. would scarcely send two men to Judah at the same time,
both clothed with similar powers. It would be strange, were Ezra such
a prominent figure in Jerus., that there is no genuine reference to him
in Neh.'s story. Neh. in his second administration was the first to
discover mixed marriages and to apply a sharp remedy. Such a con-
dition would not arise naturally after the wholesale dissolution as de-
scribed in Ezr. 9 /. Neh.'s reforms, as narrated in c. 13, would be
strange after Ezra, but are very natural before his time. It is incon-
ceivable that the Lev. should be driven to work in the fields directly
after Ezra's mission, or even possibly while it lasted. The measures
Neh. took for the support of the temple show that his action could not
have been preceded by the rule of a scribe-priest with ample authority
to enforce the law. Moreover, the Jerus. of Neh.'s time was a deso-
lation, without walls or houses or people (7^). Ezra's whole career
is spent in the holy city, and there appears to have been plenty of
houses and people in his time.
There is the evidence of Esd. which connects Ne. 7'^8'^ directly
with Ezr. 10, thus bringing the Ezra story together. There is nothing
about Neh.'s work in this the earliest edition of our books. Jos. has a
section dealing with Neh.'s administration {Ant. xi, 5, 6-8). Before
THE DATE OF EZRA'S MISSION 29
he takes up the story of Neh. he describes the death of Ezra at an ad-
vanced age {ib. § 5). Jos. follows Esd. as his authority, so that the
testimony is emphatic on this negative point — that Ezra and Neh. vr
were not contemporaries. Further Jos. says that both Ezra and Neh.
flourished in the reign of Xerxes (485-464), and he relates that the
death of Joakim the high pr. took place at about the same time as
that of Ezra. Now Joakim was the son of Jes. (Ne. 12'°), and he might
have ruled in the time of Xerxes, but he could hardly survive till the
reign of Art. As Jos. followed his sources pretty closely, it is perfectly
possible that the date of Ezra in the original text of Esd. was the reign
of Xerxes, and that Art. is one of the many modifications in that text
based on MT. As the version of Esd. lost favour largely owing to
Jer.'s great influence {cf. ES."), there was an evident effort to re-
cover its lost prestige by eliminating its variations from MT. Such
a date for Ezra is not impossible, esp. when the scope of his mission
is properly limited. He must be separated from Neh. by a consider-
able space of time.
Such evidence as we have in our sources, however, points to the
conclusion that Ezra followed Neh. To that evidence we now turn.
In Ezra's prayer he refers to God's grace as manifested before his
time, and among other evidences cites "the giving of a wall [in Judah
and] in Jerus." (Ezr. 9'). As shown in the notes, the reference can <
only be to the wall built by Neh. We are told that Ezra went into
the chamber of Jehohanan the son of Eliashib to spend the night (Ezr.
10^). The succession of high pr. in Ne. 12" shows that Jehohanan
is identical with Jonathan (12") and that he was the grandson of
Eliashib (so Sta. Gesch. ii,"'). Now as Eliashib was a contempo-
rary of Neh., Ezra is two generations later, or exactly where he be-
longs, in the reign of Art. II. Neh.'s administration began in 444,
and Ezra's in 397 or later. Finally in Ne. 1220 we have the order " Neh.
the governor and Ezra the pr., the scribe," and these are not contem-
poraries, but belong to successive periods. It does not help, there-
fore, to correct the text of Ezr. 7', as proposed by We. (Ge^cA."''"),
reading 27th instead of 7th. Indeed, that would make matters worse,
for as Neh. was governor of Judah from the 20th to the 3 2d years of
Art., we should then have Ezra coming up in the very midst of Neh.'s
rule. It is certainly simpler to suppose that the reference is to Art. II.
These considerations fix the date of Neh. as that of the reign of
Art. I (Longimanus), 464-424. Torrey insists that "the tradition rep-
resented by the Aram, document and the Chr." places Neh.'s work in
the reign of Art. II (Mnemon), 404-358 B.C., and says that we have
no means of determining which Art. was the benefactor of Neh.
(Comp.'^ ES."0. This conclusion comes from taking Chr.'s arrange-
ment too seriously. Ezra could hardly have been later than Art. II,
and I have shown that he followed Neh. Moreover, Neh. must have
/
30 INTRODUCTION
been familiar with Pers. history. He could hardly have held high
place at the court without knowing the succession of the Pers. kings.
If his benefactor had been preceded shortly before by a king of the
same name, he would in all probability have taken pains to specify
the later Art., as Jos. does, tou dtXXou ApTot^ipyou {Ant. Ed. Niese,
iii,""'-, quoted by Sachau,').
This date has received strong confirmation from the Eleph. pap.
Jehohanan was high pr. at Jerus. in 407 B.C. As he was the grand-
son of Eliashib, a contemporary of Neh. {v. s.), Neh. must have
preceded this time. This argument has been elaborated by Sachau
('*•)• Another notice from the same letter supports the conclusion.
Sanb.'s sons were prominent men in Sam. at the date given above,
407 B.C. As this person is to be identified with Neh.'s persistent
foe, Sanb., if still living, must have been a fairly old man, so that
his prime of life would exactly coincide with the date of Neh. Arnold
has added confirmation of this date from the presence of a Hananijah,
as a high Pers. ofEcial in Egypt, and who was probably the same as
Hanani, the brother of Neh. (JBL. 191 2,"').
Taking all the evidence there is no longer room for the slightest doubt
that the protector of Neh. was Art. Longimanus. In his later work
Torrey now admits the probability of this date, but he will go no
further (ES.""- 2«. 335).
§ II. THE HISTORY OF THE PERSIAN PERIOD.
Outside of some prophetic passages and Psalms, which can-
not always be positively dated, our books contain all the infor-
mation we have about the historical events of the important
Persian period, 538-332 B.C., and so slightly more than two
centuries. If every word of Ezr.-Ne. were authentic, our
knowledge would be meagre, for we have practically nothing
until we reach the reign of Darius I, 521-485, and but a brief
note, which yields little information, from the reign of the
famous Xerxes, 485-464. From the completion of the temple,
about 515 B.C., until the advent of Nehemiah, 444 B.C., there is
a long period, nearly three-quarters of a century, about the
history of which we have but slight knowledge.
A characteristic of our books is that they give us information about
a very few specific events, each of which occupies but a short time, and
then a great gap is left. Thus Ezr. 3-6 (exc. 4*--*) contains the story
of the rebuilding of the temple, Ne. 1-6 the story of the building of the
THE HISTORY 3 1
walls, Ezr. 7-10 the dissolution of mixed marriages. And there is no
attempt to tell what happened in the intervals.
Since Kost.'s arraignment, however, there has been a tendency to
discredit a large part of the scanty material contained in our books,
so that for some scholars the Pers. period is essentially a blank. Those
who hold this position regret the state of affairs. Thus Torrey says
finely: "We are in the direst need of information as to the history of
the Jews in the Pers. period, and every scrap of material that promises
help ought to be treasured and put to use. But no extremity of need
can outweigh the obligation to follow the evidence" (ES.'"). With
this statement every one will heartily agree. It is far better to have
no knowledge of the period than false knowledge. It is necessary to
be on one's guard lest the wish should be father to the thought. But
it is equally necessary to be on one's guard in another direction, and
after years of studying these books, I am convinced that some students
have used insufficient caution. Some portions of these books must
be rejected as historical sources, but in the process of rejection it is
easy to throw away the good with the bad. I am convinced that
some of the poverty of information which Torrey laments is due to an
indiscriminate criticism in which authentic sources have gone by the
board.
The method is a very simple one. A passage shows certain notes of
the Chr.; it is immediately ascribed to him as a whole; it is a fundamen-
tal principle that the Chr. never wrote history correctly, but is really
a novelist, and all his work is worthless. As N., pruned to the last
degree, is all that escaped his hand, barring some late and romantic
Aram, documents, pretty nearly all of our sources are cast aside. The
case does not seem to me so desperate by any means. Much of the
material frequently labelled Chr. was not his composition, and even
when it is there is no reason to distrust it on that ground alone. The
Chr. could, indeed, make sad havoc of history, when a favourite theory
was to be supported, as that all the temple ritual goes back to David;
but in the Pers. period there is much in regard to which he had no
theory that would control his writing of history.
The Chr.'s theory of the history of the period may be stated briefly
thus. He puts all the events described in Ezr. 1-4= in the reign of
Cy. The statement in 4' that the builders were frustrated " all the days
of Cy., king of Persia, even until the reign of Dar., king of Persia,"
proves that conclusively. That he supposed Art. to have reigned be-
tween Cy. and Dar. is the only possible construction to be placed on
the position of the Art. letters in 4''-^*. The Chr. then held that Cy.
allowed the Jews to go from Bab. and that the large company described
in 2«-" actually returned to Judah as a result. He held that they
built the altar and started to build the temple, but their efforts were
checked by the opposition of the neighbouring foreigners, and finally
32 INTRODUCTION
stopped by the decree of Art. The building was resumed under the
urging of the prophets Hg. and Zc. in the 2d year of Dar., and by
this king's approval carried on to completion in that king's 6th year.
Now the above is often accepted as the actual course of events,
as they are described in Ezr. 1-6. As a matter of fact, the sources are
not consistent with any such theory. The Chr. did, indeed, modify
his sources, but he was an indifferent editor, and did not eliminate all
the traces of a vastly different story. His theory would require the
once widely accepted identification of Shes. with Zer., an identification
flatly contradicted in the Aram, document, where Zer. built the temple
of which Shes. had laid the foundations long before (5'")- Moreover,
it is Zer., not Shes., who comes up from captivity (2^), and it is he who
made the abortive attempt to rebuild the temple (3^-"), and it was he
whose work was interfered with by the foreigners (4^-^). Moreover,
the passage in 4^-^* has nothing to do with the building of the temple.
Again, the Chr. makes Ezra come to Jerus. in the 7th year of the
same Art. in the 20th year of whose reign Neh. appeared in Judah, and
the latter came while the former was in the midst of his labours. Here
again the sources used by the Chr. do not bear out his theory, as shown
in § 10.
It is possible to reconstruct the history on the basis of the sources
used by the Chr., for, as indicated above, all the traces of the true
course of events were not obliterated by his sometimes extensive re-
vision. In parts this work has been done by others, though in some
respects incompletely. But there does not exist to my knowledge
any satisfactory reconstruction of the period covered by Ezr. 1-6, and
this is the part in which my results show the greatest divergence from
the conclusions of other students.
The history can best be considered under four periods, indi-
cated by the reigns of the Persian kings.
(i) The Reign of Cyrus — 559-529 B.C.
There is a wide departure at the outset from current opinion
in the limitations set for the material bearing on this reign (for
further demonstration, v. i. on the reign of Darius). As a mat-
ter of fact, all that our books tell us about this period is con-
tained in Ezr. i. Stripped of the Chronicler's embellishments,
vv. ^- ^- *-"^, which really furnish no historical information,
we learn from w. ^■^- ^ '• "^, that in the ist year of Cyrus's
THE REIGN OF CYRUS 33
rule in Babylonia he issued a decree* authorising the Jewish
exiles to return to Jerusalem and rebuild their temple. He
restored the sacred vessels which Nebuchadrezzar had taken
from the temple, giving them to Sheshbazzar, the prince of
Judah, by whom, in company with a caravan of returning ex-
iles, they were carried to Jerusalem.
In this section we come to the crux of the historical problem. One
of the most startling of the results of Kost.'s criticism was his assertion
that there was no return of the Jews from the Bab. exile until the time
of Ezra. The only arguments necessary to consider here are two,
the fact that the temple was first begun under Dar., and the silence of
Hg. and Zc. {Wied.^* ^â– ). Kost. makes a fundamental mistake from
his misinterpretation of Ezr. 3. He begins with evidence from the
prophets just named that the temple was begun in the time of Dar.
As Ezr. 3'-" is held to assert that the building was started under Cy.,
this passage is unhistorical. Then he proceeds to demolish Ezr. 3^-',
and c. I goes down in the ruin. Now we shall return to this point
later, but here it suffices to repeat the conclusion demonstrated later,
that Ezr. 3 describes events in the reign of Dar., not of Cy.
Then Kost. argues that if more than 40,000 exiles had returned in
the time of Cy., as stated in Ezr. 2, Hg. and Zc. must have contained
some reference to this stupendous movement, which was but a few
years before their time. In the first place, Ezr. 2 does not profess
to give a list of those who returned with Shes. in the reign of Cy., but
of those who came up with Zer. and others in the time of Dar. It is
only in Ne. 7^ that this record is designated as a list of those "who came
up at first," presumably with Shes., and therefore this prefatory note
contradicts the statements in the list itself. Kost. seems never to have
noted the evidence of Esd., in which text it is sufficiently plain that
Ezr. 2 is an interpolation, and really belongs to a late period, and where
the date of Dar. is fixed by the place in which the list is interpolated.
We have absolutely no hint even as to the number who came up from
Bab. with either Shes. or Zer. The whole number of both companies
may have comprised but a few hundred persons.
In view of these considerations, the silence of the two prophets of
the period is unimportant. If a few hundred people had come from
exile, their presence would not be the matter of supreme moment.
The prophets were concerned with the task of arousing the people to
restore the temple, not with the birthplace of their audiences. There
• We may note the wise caution of Kue., and realise that even the rejection of the authen-
ticity of either form of Cy.'s decree (Ezr. i'-* 6'-') does not prove that there was no return
of the Jews at this time (i4W."').
34 INTRODUCTION
is a tradition going back to Dorotheus, Epiphanius, and others that
Hg. was born in Bab. {Hg. in ICC.^')- Mitchell assumes that Zc.
came from Bab., with his father Iddo {op. cii.^', and see note on Nc.
ii^^). If these prophets were themselves returned exiles, it is natural
that they should not refer to the return of others. The fact is that
these prophets really tell a somewhat different story from that extracted
by Kost.
That story is found the moment we search for the occasion of these
prophetic utterances. Why was it that just in this 2d year of Dar.
these prophets were led to appeal to the people to build the house
of Yahweh ? The temple had already been in ruins for nearly seventy
years. On Kost.'s theory the work of rebuilding might just as well
have started earlier. There must have been some movement at this
particular period which made the prophets feel that the moment for
action had come.
The prophecies are full of the idea of a new era. Yahweh says: "I
am returned to Jerus. with mercies" (Zc. i"). A revival of prosperity
is to mark the new era. The advent of Zer. as the governor of Judah
best explains the new conditions which led the prophets to perceive
the God-given opportunity. This person bulks large in the utter-
ances of both prophets. He was a capable man, he had authority to
act, and he was quick to respond to the inspiration of the men of God.
Without a return from exile it is hard to find any impulse to start this
movement.
Without presupposing the return of most of those who resided in
Jerus., it is difficult to explain the plea of the people that the time had
not yet come for Yahweh's house to be built (Hg. i^). On what ground
should people say that who had lived undisturbed in Judah all their
lives? If the leading figures had returned recently from Bab., their
objection could be well sustained. Even David did not feel the incon-
gruity of Yahweh's dwelling in curtains until he himself had erected
his own house. These men from a foreign country could naturally
plead that they needed time for the establishment of their own affairs
before undertaking such a stupendous task as the erection of the
temple.
According to i Ch. 3" ^- both Shes. and Zer. were descendants of
Jeconiah or Jehoiachin, who was taken to Bab. as prisoner, Shes.
(= Shenazzur) being his son, and Zer. his grandnephew or his grand-
son. Both of these men have Bab. names and, therefore, both were in
all probability born in Bab.
The return of exiles in the timeof Cy. is certainly not improbable in
itself. By the help of some of the people of the land, disaffected Bab.,
and possibly foreign colonists, Cy. made short work of Nabonidus
and effected an easy conquest of his empire. His own realms then
extended from northern India to the border of Egypt {KATA"). Cy.
THE REIGN OF CYRUS 35
was a Zoroastrian, and the seeming devotion to Marduk in his inscrip-
tion was contributed for political effect (Jastrow, Relig. Ar. and Bab.*^).
The policy by which he proposed to rule these vast new dominions is
clearly shown in his own words. On the cylinder inscription he wrote:
"The cities across the Tigris whose sites had been established from
former times, the gods who live within them, I returned to their places
and caused them to dwell in a perpetual habitation. All of their
inhabitants I collected and restored to their dwelling places, and the
gods of Sumer and Akkad whom Nabonidus, to the anger of the lord
of the gods, had brought into Bab. at the command of Marduk the great
lord, in peace in their own shrines I made them dwell, in the habitation
dear to their heart. May all the gods whom I brought into their own
cities daily before Bel and Nebo pray for a long life for me, may they
speak a gracious word for me" (Prince's translation in Mene Mate
Tckel Upharsin, 1893). In I.^' there is a passage which Prince renders:
"I caused their troubles to cease," but which Sayce translates: "I
delivered their prisoners" {H.C.M.^"^). Rogers renders: "I cleared
out their ruins" {Cun. Par.^^^).
This passage leaves no reason for doubt that (i) any foreign people
colonised in Bab. could easily have gained permission to return to their
own land; (2) that any such people could have obtained authority to
rebuild any sanctuaries destroyed by the Bab.; and (3) that any
sacred objects plundered from the captured people, and resting as
trophies in the temple at Bab., would have been freely given back by
Cy. Hammurabi similarly orders the return of certain Elamite god-
desses to the shrines from which they had been taken (Clay, Light
from Babel,^^"). The Elephantine documents present remarkable evi-
dence of the favour of the Pers. kings toward the Jews. In the let-
ter to Bagohi the writers says that when Cambyses came into Egypt
the temples of the Egyptian gods were all torn down, but that to the
temple of Jaho no damage was done. If, therefore, the events nar-
rated in Ezr. i are not historical, the passage was certainly written
by one well acquainted with the policy of Cy., and he took great pains
to avoid a single note of improbability {v. Barton, Semitic Origins,
154. 310^
Long before Cy. approached the empire of Nabonidus, but after his
conquests foreshadowed the fall of Bab. (Rogers, Cun. Par."''), a
Heb. prophet arose among the Jewish exiles. The whole burden of
his message is the release from captivity and the restoration of Jerus.
He discerned clearly the character and policy of Cy., and exalts him
as the divinely appointed deliverer of the people of Yahweh (Is. 44-*-
45'). His glowing utterances continue until the conqueror enters
Bab., at which time he pours out his fervent appeal: "Go ye forth
from Bab., flee ye from the Chaldeans; with a voice of singing declare
ye, tell this, utter it even to the end of the earth : say ye, Yahweh has
36 INTRODUCTION
redeemed his servant Jacob" {ib. 482°). This fine prophecy is too
well known to need any elaboration. Long ago I showed that we
could follow the prophet through the period of Cy.'s approach to the
actual return to Jerus. {The Hist. Movement Traceable in Is. 40-66, in
And. Rev. Aug. 1888). It is true that some scholars, apparently
possessed with a zeal to bring all the OT. writings down to later and
later dates, have removed this prophecy to a period subsequent to the
reign of Cy. (e. g., Kent, in Makers and Teachers of Judaistn,'^^^).
One of Kent's arguments is that the prophet is concerned primarily
with Jerus. This does not seem to me true of c. 40-48, but if it were,
it is only necessary to say that on this ground one could prove that
Ez. spoke in Jerus., for the holy city was the constant centre of his
interest. Without any prejudice against a late date as such, the
transfer seems to me to take the prophecy away from the only good
historical background that was ever found for it. It may be suspected
that the prophecy was pushed out of its true place because of the grave
doubts entertained about the favour shown to the Jews by Cy. Kost.,
however, in his work admits the high expectations of Is. 2, but contents
himself with saying that his hopes were never realised.
Other prophets expressed their confidence in the return from exile
and the restoration of Jerus. One of the most beautiful sections of
Je. (30-33), belonging to the time when the hopes of Judah were all
centred in the future, the present period being one of disaster, show
the prophet's confidence that the overthrow of the state was tempo-
rary; we note, esp. 32'"-", where the restoration of the state is as-
sociated with a return from exile. A large section of Ez. (40-48),
the product of the prophet's older years, and worked out among the
exiles in southern Bab., is a new constitution for the revived state.
Prophets in all ages have visions that are never realised, but at all
events it may be confidently said that there was nothing to prevent
the fulfilment of these prophetic hopes.
The literature of the exile is abundant, and naturally sounds many
notes. But there is one strain running through it with singular per-
sistency, a lamentation over the necessity of a sojourn in a foreign
land and a longing for the turning again of the captivity. It is impos-
sible to read such a touching lyric as Ps. 137 without the conviction
that there were Jews in Bab. who would not stay there a single day
once the road to Jerus. were free. If there was no return of Jews in
the time of Cy., that fact is one of the most stubbornly inexplicable
of all the events in Ileb. history.
Yet Kost. has done a real service in forcing the students of the Bible
to take a truer view of postex. Israel. The men who restored Jerus.
were not wholly nor even chiefly those who had been born on a foreign
soil. The depopulation of Judah by Nebuchadrezzar was no more
complete than that of Sam. by Sargon. Thousands of the leading
THE REIGN OF DARIUS I 37
citizens had been carried away in the two great deportations of 597
and 586 B.C. But more thousands were left, enough to form a sort of
state under Gedaliah (Je. 40-44); and even after the large migration
to Egypt, described in the c. cited, the foundation of the colony at
Elephantine, from which in recent days such interesting information
has come to light, Jews were still abundant in every part of Judah
exc. the ancient capital. The people who came in from the Judean
towns to help Neh. build the walls, and doubtless the same class who
were the chief helpers of Zer. and Jes. in building the temple, were
mainly those who had been born and reared on the soil of the God of
their fathers.
The real problem of this period is the apparent paucity of numbers
of the returned exiles. If the Chr. conceived Ezr. 2 to be a list of those
who returned in response to Cy.'s decree, he shows that he was awake
to the actual possibilities. Yet there would be a natural reluctance
to leave Bab. after so many years' sojourn there. The Jews have
always been good emigrants and are alive to business opportunities.
Bab. was a more prosperous country than Judah, and the commercial
chances greater there. In our day the lack of zeal to go back to Pales-
tine halts the Zionistic movement. People who had established them-
selves securely would naturally be loath to tear up the roots and start
all over again in an impoverished land and to build again on the ruins
of a city long lying in a state of desolation.
The real need of Judah was not an increase of people, but
competent and aggressive leadership. The best people had
been carried into exile; witness among other things the prophecy
of the good and bad figs (Je. 24). From the land of exile must
come those who would arouse the sluggish spirits of the native
Judeans. Sheshbazzar, Zerubbabel, and Jeshua, Nehemiah and
Ezra, and probably Haggai and Zechariah, were the products
of Jewish blood and Babylonian enterprise, and their pres-
ence in Jerusalem counted for more than 40,000 ordinary men
who may, indeed, have returned from exile, but in the course
of the two centuries of Persian rule, not in one great company.
(2) The Reign of Darius I Hystaspis — 521-485 B.C.
What Sheshbazzar and the small body of Jews who came up
with him did, we do not know. In the Chronicler's use of his
sources, he has destroyed any information that he may have
38 INTRODUCTION
had. There is a late tradition that Sheshbazzar began the tem-
ple (Ezr. 51^), but that statement is inconsistent with other good
evidence and must be discredited. It is not difficult to con-
jecture the conditions though. Even later it required great
efforts to induce the people to undertake the stupendous task of
setting up a sanctuary worthy to stand on the site of the splen-
did edifice erected by Solomon. Sheshbazzar may have sincerely
striven to carry out the mandate of Cyrus, who was concerned
to have every native god in his new dominions properly housed,
and if he had been so fortunate as to have more than 40,000 who
had come to Judah inspired by the same high purpose, and espe-
cially a royal grant of all the funds necessary, as magnanimously
accorded by a late but badly informed Aramaic writer (Ezr. 6"*),
his task would have been easy. Alas, Sheshbazzar came back
with royal blood in his veins, but with few people and with no
other resources for the great work than a few temple vessels,
and with such meagre funds as the Jewish exiles had seen fit to
contribute. The people who did come with him were not the
rich — they are never the first to emigrate — but the poor, and
they would necessarily be compelled to devote their attention
to the pressing problem of keeping the wolf from the door.
In the time of Darius conditions were changed. There was
a new governor in Judah, there was a high priest sure to be
dominated by a zeal for the temple; above all, there were at
least two active prophets, and very likely there was a consid-
erable company of returned exiles. The apathy of the native-
born population could now be removed, and the great work
could be undertaken with every prospect of success.
It is expedient at this point to gather up the evidence that Ezr. 3 '-4*
belongs to the reign of Dar., and not to that of Cy., a point at which
my study has led me to diverge from the current opinion.
In the first place, the witness of Jos. is clear beyond a question.
Referring to the procuring of lumber from the Sidonians (Ezr. 3'), he
says " that was what Cy. had commanded at first, and what was now
done at the command of Dar." (Ant. xi, 4, i). He speaks of the work
beginning in the 2d year of the coming of Zer. and his company to
Jerus., and adds that it was finished sooner than any one would have
expected. He then tells the story of the disappointment of the older
THE REIGN OF DARIUS I 39
people (Ezr. 3"), but this was after the completion of the building.
In the account of the interview with the Sam. (Ezr. 41-'), he makes
Zer. and the others say they had been appointed to build that temple
at first by Cy. and now by Dar. (Ant. xi, 4, 3). In other words, Jos.
gives a clear and consistent account of the actual history of the period
and the only one that meets all the conditions.
Now, as well known, and shown above in § 6, Jos. follows Esd., not
MT. It is clear that he put the only possible construction upon his
source. It must be remembered, too, that Jos. had that text before the
extensive modification to conform to MT. Those who insist that Esd.
547-71 (= E2r_ 3»-4') is dated in the reign of Cy. in that version seem
to me to be led astray by a theory. Under any circumstances we must
judge by the large indications and not by a single doubtful phrase.
The arrangement of the material in Esd. leaves no doubt about the
editor's position. In that version the reign of Cy. is separated from
the reign of Dar. by the presence of the Art. letters (Esd. 2'6-3i) = Ezr.
47-23), This passage ends with the statement that "the building of the
temple in Jerus. ceased until the second year of the reign of Dar., king
of the Pers.," showing conclusively the idea that the events described
in the letter belonged to the period between Cy. and Dar. Then
immediately we come to the story of the Three Guardsmen, with its
sequel in the expedition of Zer. (Esd. 3 '-5°), which is certainly dated in
the reign of Dar., and that is followed by a list of those who came up
with Zer. and other leaders (5'-" = Ezr. 21-"); and then the story of
the rebuilding of the altar and of the temple (5"-" = Ezr. 3'-4')-
Those who insist that in Esd. the last-named passage is put in the
reign of Cy. are required to assume that the compiler goes back to
Cy. after taking up in turn the reigns of Art. and Dar. The appeal
to 5" "â– is really vain, for the passage closes with the words, "they
were hindered from building for two years until the reign of Dar." This
is mere patchwork to connect with the dup. account which foUcws,
but even so, two years will never carry us back from Dar. to Cy., for
their reigns are separated, not by that of Art., as this text has it, but
by the seven years of the reign of Cambyses.
Even the Heb. text, in spite of all its editing to make it tell a differ-
ent story, lends itself but poorly to the theory that 3 1-4' belongs to the
reign of Cy. Zer. and Jes. were unquestionably the temple-builders,
and they belong to the reign of Dar. Now Ezr. 2, on the face of it,
has no word about Cy. or Shes., but purports to be a list of those who
came up with Zer. et al. The only date in the whole passage, other
than of the month, is " in the second year of their coming to Jerus." (3'),
and to assume that that means Shes.'s return is purely gratuitous and
plainly contradictory to Ezr. 2 2. Then in the whole passage there is
not a word about any halt in the building of the temple, for I have
shown in the notes on the passage that Ezr. 4*-'= is from a different
40 INTRODUCTION
source, and has nothing to do with 4'-'. The Sam. show no purpose
of interfering in this passage any more than they do in Hg. and Zc.,
where any serious interruption is excluded.
Fortunately we have a final witness whose testimony is decisive.
No one can rd. Ezr. 38-11 without recognising the deep corruption.
It has been my good fortune to recover the original on the basis of
Esd., by which it is made unmistakable that we have here an account
of the building of the temple, and not merely an abortive attempt that
was soon halted (v. comm.).
It is plain, therefore, that our material for the reign of Dar. is Ezr.
2"'-4' 4}*'^-6^', to which must be added the important fragment found
in Esd. 4^^S°, and it is possible now to give a clear account of the
events as they actually happened, without being trammelled by the
theory of the Chr.
The first step was the restoration of the altar on its ancient
site (Ezr. 3^'^), even this small undertaking being accomplished
by the aid of friendly foreigners, perhaps Samaritans (v. cor-
rected text of Ezr. 3^).
Now Kost. rejects this passage, and makes merry over the notion
that the Jews had offered no sacrifices from 586 to 520 (PFz'ec?."),
apparently one of the chief grounds for its rejection. But the passage
implies only that the altar had never been restored. Kost. seems to
think that sacrifices had never been offered upon any other altar. He
evidently forgot the ancient shrines scattered all over the land, which
Josiah had tried so hard to wipe out, but which persisted none the less.
The erection of the altar by the temple site in Jerusalem, the
resumption of the regular sacrifices there, the observance of
one of the great festivals, all tended to kindle the enthusiasm of
the people whose fathers had worshipped at Jerusalem. But
all this was terribly incomplete without a suitable sanctuary,
making possible the residence and work of the priesthood, and
soon the people were ready to respond to the prophet's call, and
the foundations of the new temple were laid on the 24th day
of the 9th month of the 2d year of Darius, 520 B.C. (Hg. i^ 2^^).
The Jews had accepted the aid of foreigners in the setting
up of the altar, and now the Samaritans proffer assistance in
the larger task of rebuilding the temple (Ezr, 4^-^). But they
couple their request with a claim to be essentially the same peo-
THE REIGN OF ARTAXERXES I 41
pie and to have the same religion. Had their aid been accepted,
it would have carried with it a sort of recognition of this claim.
Now there was doubtless a good deal of looseness in the relig-
ious practices of even the Judeans, who were inclined to mingle
pretty freely with their foreign neighbours, certainly to the ex-
tent of intermarriage, and it is difficult to go much further with-
out complete amalgamation. Jeshua the high priest may have
been especially anxious to see the temple restored as an eflfect-
ive move toward the preservation of a pure religion and conse-
quently a pure blood. He could hardly look with favour upon
as mixed a population as the Samaritans certainly were, and
doubtless it was largely owing to his influence that the offer
was declined.
It is stated in Ezr. 6^^ that the temple was completed in the 6th year
of Dar., 516 B.C., that is, this building was put up in four years. Even
allowing, as we must on the best of evidence, for the comparative
meanness of this building (Ezr. 3 12 Hg. 2'), considering the force and
resources of the people, this is a surprisingly short time. Now Solomon
had no lack of either men or money, and yet it required seven years
to put up his temple (i K. 6"'-). As I have shown, the Aram, account
of the rebuilding of the temple in Ezr. 5-6 is not very trustworthy.
At several points it is certainly wrong, and yet this single statement is
all that we have to support that date. Ezr. 6"-" is quite generally
regarded as the work of the Chr. The mention of Art. in 6'^ is certainly
his doing. He is very fond of specific dates, and 6^^ has probably no
other basis than his own opinion as to the length of time required.
We have no trustworthy knowledge then, and it is safe to assume that
it took considerably more than four years to put up the temple.
This is all the information we have from the reign of Dar. The long
story in Esd. 3-5* is inserted because it prepares the way for the de-
scription of the building of the temple. The restoration of this build-
ing was the great achievement of the reign of Dar. and of the govern-
orship of Zer., and we do not know what else happened in the long
period.
(3) The Reign of Artaxerxes I Longimanus — 464-424 B.C.
This is the golden age of the period of the restoration. The
greatest achievements of the Persian period fall in this reign.
We have here a fuller story than for any other part of the two
42 INTRODUCTION
centuries of the Persian dominion of Judah. And yet the
whole reduces itself to pretty much one single subject, the
enclosing of the city of Jerusalem with walls.
There is a wide gap in the history before this event. The temple
had been finished certainly before 500 B.C. For more than fifty years
after that the records are silent, save for the obscure Ezr. 4^-8, which
creates more darkness than light. During the closing years of the
reign of Dar. the Jews would not be able to go much further than they
had. They were a poor people, and the erection of the temple must
have drained their resources, so that a period of recuperation was
necessary.
The inactivity during the reign of Xerxes must be due in part to the
exhaustion of the people, and in part to his unfriendliness toward the
Jews. The fact that at the beginning of his reign, Bishlam, Mithre-
dates, and Tabeel, apparently Pers. officials, lodged an accusation with
this king against "the inhabitants of Judah and Jerus." (Ezr. 4O, would
tend to prevent Xerxes from doing anything in their favour. The
book of Est. has its setting in this period, and it tells a wonderful story
of the prominence which certain Jews attained at the court of Xerxes.
But to say nothing of the. romantic character of the story, the scene
is laid in the Pers. capital, and even Mordecai in his exalted station
never does anything to serve the interests of his brethren in Judah.
Moreover, the book reveals an inveterate hostility to the Jews on the
part of the Pers. officials. It may be, if my surmise is right regarding
Ezr. 4^-", that the completion of the temple and the re-establishment
of the cult in Jerus. had provoked the hostility of the foreign peoples
in the province, and that enmity would be a decided check upon any
further achievements.
But the condition described in the vv. named above creates an urgent
demand for the great enterprise of the Pers. period. The vv. certainly
connect better with the building of the walls than with the building of
the temple. In ancient times a city without walls was no city at all.
A handful of people could walk into Jerus., with its few houses and
sparse population, and do what they listed with temple, pr., and peo-
ple. Jerus. could not possibly maintain its place, or advance to a po-
sition worthy of its temple, and of its being the religious centre of the
Jewish world, unless it was enclosed with walls.
In the early part of the reign of Art. a new and large caravan of
exiles had come back to Jerus. (Ezr. 4"), and, seeing the situation of
afifairs, immediately set to work to build the walls. The fact that it is
primarily these returned exiles who are found at work on the walls,
for Rehum et al. name no others, shows that there must have been a
large body. That conclusion is confirmed by the disastrous conse-
THE REIGN OF ARTAXERXES I 43
quences which the complainants fear should the walls be completed.
The fact that Rehum ei al. took the matter seriously indicates plainly
that there must have been a large number at work. We may contrast
their attitude to the sneers of Sanb. and To. at the notion that the
feeble Jews under Neh. could rebuild the walls (Ne. 3" '• EV. 4^ '•)•
Rehum, Shimshai, and others at once write a letter to Art., relating
their discovery of the operations at Jerus., and warning the king that
once the walls are up his peaceful rule of the Judean province will
be at an end. The authors of the letter show exactly the same hos-
tility to the Jews that we find in 4* '. They are no mere investigators
like Tattenai ei al., but have a definite purpose to keep down the Jews,
so that they will continue easy prey. They were all the more alarmed
as they perceived the large size of the company of workmen who were
evidently preparing to make Jerus. their permanent abode. Perhaps
just because of the large numbers found in the city, they were con-
strained to appeal to the Pers. king rather than attempt to act for
themselves.
Art. indorsed the charge, finding on the historical records confirma-
tion as to the rebellious character of the people, and ordered the work
to come to an end. Backed by this royal edict, and in view of the pos-
sible opposition of the large number of Jews, supported by a consider-
able armed force (v. on 4^3), the complainants go to Jerus. and exceed
at least the letter of their instruction by destroying the work already
completed. And judging from the ample force of workmen and the
considerable time which had elapsed, the major portion of the work
may have been finished, so that it could easily be said of their depre-
dations: "The walls of the city are breached and its gates burned with
fire" (Ne. i'). For if Neh. completed the walls in fifty-two days, as
said in Ne. 6", there could have been little left to build after work
â– which may have continued for a much longer time than fifty-two days.
The destruction of the work already done was necessary. It would
have been vain merely to serve an injunction on the Jews, as that
would leave open the possibility of completing the walls secretly.
Soon after this, certainly within twenty years, Neh. comes to Jerus.
with an appointment as governor of Judah, and with permission to
build the city of his fathers' sepulchres (Ne. 2^). His commission
seems to have been purposely left somewhat vague; it is quite certain
that he said nothing specifically about the city walls.
Neh. is thoroughly familiar with the abortive attempt to build the walls
which had been made a few years before, and in his own plans provides
against the causes of failure. In the first place, he carefully screens
his main purpose until the time for action has come. At the first
appearance of the enemy, they only know that he has come " to seek
good for the sons of Israel" (2'"). In the second place, he makes no
move until he has completed his arrangements so that the work can be
44 INTRODUCTION
done quickly. If another appeal is made to Art., by the time a reply
comes no force that can be collected in Sam. will be able to undo his
undertaking. Very likely the remainder of the earlier unsuccessful
enterprise facilitated his work, for there may have been some sections
undisturbed or but partly demolished by Rehum and his army.
In the third place, he came to Jerus. backed by an armed guard, so
that a force mustered from the peoples of the lands would not be a
serious menace at any time. Ezra was content to take his caravan
across the desert without military escort, trusting in the protection of
the Most High (Ezr. 8"'); but Neh. did not trust the gracious in-
fluence of his God upon the enemies of his people, and was glad to be
supplied with a guard (2»), which, it is safe to assume, was as large as
he could possibly secure. Apart from that he seems to have carried
from Pers., or secured elsw., a liberal supply of weapons, so that at the
proper moment he could convert his whole force of workmen into a
well-equipped army (4'-").
In the fourth place, contrary to the Chr.'s idea as revealed in c. 3,
Neh. did not attempt to erect the gates^ until the last stone was laid
in the walls (6^ 7'). The wooden gates of the city, ace. to c. 3 ten
in number, were the most vulnerable parts of its defences. An enemy
might easily slip up at night with a torch and undo in a moment
the labour of days. The gates were of little use, save as a check, exc.
as they were guarded by troops, a guard established by Neh. as soon
as the gates were in place (7'*^). While the people were at work on
the walls, the guarding of all the gates would be impossible, and so
that part of the work was deferred until the last, so that it would
never be possible to say of his work " that its gates had been burned
with fire."
These considerations are sufficient to show why Nehemiah
succeeded where others had failed, and that in spite of the fact
that from the moment he set foot in Jerusalem until the last
gate was built, locked, and guarded, the enemies of his people
had been persistent, numerous, active, and resourceful. Despite
all their efforts, by scorn, cajolery, open war, secret intrigue,
and black treachery, they failed, because they were over-
matched in the struggle by their great opponent, Nehemiah the
son of Hachaliah.
The only other achievement of Neh.'s first period as governor of
Judah, barring the measures to procure a population for Jerus. (ii''-)r
was the relief of the distress of the poor people who had been ground
down by their richer and more powerful neighbours (c. 5). The pas-
THE REIGN OF ARTAXERXES I 45
sage is of great importance in the light it throws upon the social con-
ditions of Judah in the period 444-432 B.C., and for the welcome addi-
tion to our knowledge of the character of Neh. He was not for an
instant deaf to the cries of distress, and he was generous in his own
contributions for their relief. He constantly used his personal funds
to redeem his brethren who had been sold into slavery. If Neh.
was a eunuch, as is quite possible, he had probably entered the ser-
vice of the Pers. king as a poor slave, and in the later days of his power
and wealth did not forget his early suffering, and was keenly sympa-
thetic toward others in like situation. Further, he served without
salary. He knew that the people were poor; he had learned that his
predecessors, who may have been Pers. since the time of Zer., had
borne hardly upon the people by their exactions.
It is usually said that Nehemiah's second administration be-
gan in 432 B.C. That statement is incorrect. Nehemiah says
plainly that he was governor of Judah for twelve years, from the
20th to the 32d year of Artaxerxes (5"), and that in the latter
year he returned to the king (13O, so that 432 was the end of
his first administration.
All the evidence we have for the date of the second period is the
scrap in 13' '•, "and at the end of days I asked [leave of absence] from
the king and I came to Jerus." But the te::t is much at fault, as the
notes show, and in his memoirs there is no hint about the time when
he returned to Jerus. But it must have been later than 432; for in his
absence several grievous wrongs had developed: To. had been given
a residence in one of the temple chambers (i3'-'); the Lev. had been
compelled to give up their ministrations in the sanctuary and scatter
into the country to earn a living (13^-"); a general disregard of the
Sabbath had grown up, so that work in the fields and traffic at Jerus.
went on unquestioned and unhindered (13"-^^); marriages had been
contracted with the Philistines, and the speech was becoming corrupt
(13"-"); one of the members of the high pr.'s family had married
the daughter of Sanb. the Horonite (i3=«-'<'). All these things pre-
suppose that Neh.'s absence from Jerus. was a protracted one. That
is most probable from other considerations. Neh. never lost the
favour of the king, and it is doubtful whether Art. would have per-
mitted another immediate absence. Indeed, it seems clear that Neh.'s
second visit to Jerus. was occasioned, like the first, by unfavourable
reports of conditions in the holy city. The brief way in which he
describes the big wrongs and the summary methods by which he sets
them right, all point to his coming to Judah with a definite purpose
in his mind. It is probable that Neh. secured his second leave of ab-
46 INTRODUCTION
sence by relating to the king the evil conditions about which he had
heard and his desire to remedy them.
But if we lack a terminus a quo we are more fortunate in the recent
discovery of data which provide a reliable terminus ad quern. For the
letter from the Jewish garrison at Elephantine was addressed "to
Bagohi the governor of Judah" (mini pna muj), the very same title
which Neh. applies to himself (5"). The date of this letter is 407 B.C.,
and therefore Neh.'s rule came to an end before that. Bagohi was
ruler in the time of Dar. II, 423-404, and prob. by his appoint-
ment. Now Art., the patron of Neh., died in 424 B.C. As Neh.'s
second appointment must have come from him, at least the beginning
of the second administration must have preceded that date. An inter-
val of five or six years must have separated the two administrations,
and therefore the second leave must fall very near the end of the
period of Art. The material we have indicates that the second ad-
ministration was very short; prob. it came to an abrupt end by the
death of the king. Certainly the events described in 136-81 fall between
432 and 424 B.C., and most likely close to the latter date.
The historicity of the second administration of Neh. depends upon
the conclusion reached above that 136-31 is a genuine part of N., though
in a less pure form than c, 1-6. Those who, like Torrey, assign c. 13
to the Chr. must needs begin and end Neh.'s mission with the build-
ing of the walls. Torrey's chief point against the passage, outside of
the language, is that the Neh. here " is simply Ezra (/. c, the Chr.),
under another name" (ES."'). There is, indeed, enough resemblance
to lend colour to such a view. But the differences are too marked to
make it tenable. The basis for the objection to foreign marriages is
very far removed from that in Ezr. 9 /. To suppose one person to be
the author of both passages seems to me impossible. Then the ani-
mus against To. and Sanb. is certainly characteristic of Neh. Again,
the methods by which wrong conditions are set right are absolutely
at variance with all that we know of Ezra. Ezra does, indeed, pluck .
out hair, but from his own head (Ezr. 9'); Neh. also plucks out hair,
but from the head of the wrong-doers (i3^0- It is impossible to think
of Ezra saying to the traders: "if you do it again, I will lay my hand
upon you" (13"). If the Chr. wrote this passage with Ezra in his mind,
I should say that he made Ezra act throughout in a manner perfectly
characteristic of Neh.
Further, it is inconceivable that the Chr. should abruptly have changed
to the first p. in v. «. He had been travelling along very well in the
third so far. If he lent colour to the story by the adoption of the first
p., why did he not employ it throughout and thus make the whole
narrative probable? Surely the Chr. did not intend to leave Ne. 8-13'
open to suspicion, and then suddenly put the closing section in such a
form that we must accept it alone as genuine. He must have con-
THE REIGN OF ARTAXERXES II 47
sidered his own writing just as good as Neh.'s. Moreover, why should
the Chr. invent such a pitiably incomplete story of a second adminis-
tration ?
It is apparent that the section of N. found in 13'-" was not a sep-
arate composition, but a part of the story found in 1-6. And yet a
section is lacking, for 13^ presupposes information which we do not
possess, X. c, the occasion of Neh.'s return to Jerus.; 13'-^ suggests
what the material was like. Just as Neh. had heard of the bad con-
dition of the people and of the walls (i'), that report being the occasion
of his first visit, so now there had been brought to him reports of other
evil conditions which stir him to make a second appeal to the king
and a second journey to Jerus. Unfortunately the memoirs have been
condensed in some respects — a passage must have fallen out between
vv. « and ' — and expanded in others, as best accorded with the edi-
tor's views.
(4) The Reign of Artaxerxes II Mnemon — 404-358 B.C.
We have seen good reason to place the mission of Ezra after
that of Nehemiah {v. s. § 10), but the grounds for fixing the
date more closely are very slender. We have apparently no
authority save that of the Chronicler for the name of any Per-
sian king in connection with Ezra, and whatever may be said in
his favour as a historian, he certainly is not to be trusted on
questions of chronology. Ezra himself alludes to his royal
benefactor simply as " the king," and Artaxerxes is only men-
tioned in the Chronicler's introduction, Ezr. 7^- ^, and in the
Aramaic document. The latter is certainly not authentic in
its present form, and may be wholly an invention. At the
same time 7^^ requires some antecedent, and there may have
been in the genuine E. the original decree, of which we have
only an amazing elaboration. Certainly we dare not follow
Kosters and give Ezra's date as 398 B.C., for "the 7th year"
is entirely untrustworthy. And yet the conclusions reached
above as to the interval between the two leaders would sug-
gest that Ezra's work was done in the first quarter of the fourth
century.
For the history of Ezra we have two sources, his own memoirs,
yti f. 815-19. 21-25. 28 f. 31 f. 36 gi-ua. i3-i5j and the rest of Ezr. 7-10, and Ne.
gi-iioris^ partly if not wholly due to the Chr.
48 INTRODUCTION
We turn first to sure ground in E. As said above, 7" shows that we
are forced to begin in medics res. E. must have contained some ac-
count of the favour of the king, a parallel to Ne. 2'-^ The outburst
of praise is due to the fact that the Pers. king had given Ezra permis-
sion to go up to Jerus. at the head of a caravan. That is exactly what
we have in the beginning of the decree, 7", and therefore we cannot
deny the possibility that there is a germ of an original element here,
of which element more anon.
Ezra's story is very unlike Neh.'s. He loves graphic details, and
spends much of his space on such points as the gathering and compo-
sition of his company, the measures taken for a safe journey, the cus-
tody of the treasures intrusted to him — that is all that we find in the
authentic portions of c. 8. Upon his arrival in Jerus. we have infor-
mation in E. merely of the report of the mixed marriages, of his dis-
tress over these tidings, and of his prayer — for that is all there is in c. 9.
How much dependence is to be placed on the rest of the story about
Ezra is certainly open to question. We have, at all events, a note to
guide us, even though it is somewhat indefinite. In praising God for
the favour of the king, he states what that favour consists in, viz.,
"to glorify the house of God which is in Jerus." (7"). The word
"glorify" is found elsw. only in Is. 55^ 6o'- »• " and is used there of the
temple twice; it is, indeed, somewhat vague, and yet these words must
provide the key to Ezra's mission. It is consistent with this key
that when Ezra inspected his company at Ahava and found neither
pr. nor sons of Levi {v. on S'^j he kept his caravan in camp until he
had brought from Casiphia a sufficient number of "ministers for the
house of God" (8'0- Another leading subject in this part of E. is the
proper safeguarding of the large treasures which Ezra had collected
for the temple. In other words, all of E. in c. 8 supports absolutely
the conclusion that Ezra's whole mission was designed to carry out the
king's purpose "to glorify the house of God which is in Jerus."
Now if we examine the Aram, document containing the decree, we
find a part of it in harmony with this key. The pr. and Lev. were
expressly authorised to return with Ezra; he was directed to take to
Jerus. the offerings made by the king and his officers and by others
(presumably Jews), which had been given for the purpose of glorifying
the house of God; and was given instructions to use these funds for
the purchase of supplies required for the temple ritual. Therefore
this part of the decree 712-20^ barring a few obvious amplifications, is
perfectly consistent with the main purpose of Ezra, and if it is not
original, but a production of the Chr., then this strange historian for
once composed a work more than usually in harmony with its setting.
If this part of the decree is authentic, then of course the date of Ezra
is fixed in the reign of an Art., and that could only be Art. II.
The rest of the story of Ezra must be judged by its consistency with
THE REIGN OF ARTAXERXES II 49
this central theme. Now the Lev., whom Ezra was at such pains to
bring with him, are employed in other ways than in the ministrations
at the temple, and therefore the passage Ne. 770-812 is open to grave
suspicion, while the later portions of that c, the account of the Feast
of Booths (8"-i«) is in better state.
It may seem that Ezr. 9, which is mostly from E., would have to be
rejected on these grounds. But a closer inspection establishes a good
connection. When Ezra learned that a large number of people, in-
cluding pr. and Lev., had intermarried with foreigners, he could see
that his plan to glorify the house of God would be hopeless. To main-
tain the temple ritual with proper dignity requires a people of pure
blood, for the amalgamating people will result in an amalgamating
religion. This intermarriage must be checked before any glorifying
of the temple is possible. The sequel to Ezra's lament (Ezr. 10) is
not from his hand, but in the main it tells a true story. There are
striking features which suggest another pen than the Chr.'s. Surely
something must have happened after Ezra's prayer, and there is no
improbability in the divorce story in its main features.
If Ezra had anything to do with the establishment of the law — and
our sources for this event are really scanty and poor — this part of his
work could have come about only as the conditions he discovered con-
strained him to turn aside from his main purpose. Sta. emphasises
the fact that according to our sources Ezra was the possessor of the
law, not its author {Gcsch. ii,""- °- ^). When he learned of the mixed
marriages and had taken appropriate measures to break them up, he
might well have felt that the people must conform to the law in all
respects before there was any hope of making the temple worship the
central interest in Jewish life and religion. But it must be remem-
bered that at most Ezra's connection with the law was slight and
incidental. Our idea of Ezra's part in the law must depend largely
upon our opinion of the credibility of the decree (7" ^•).
The c. dealing with the reading of the law (Ne. 8) has caused much
discussion, chiefly as to its proper place. Kost. is confident that
it must follow Ne. 10. He argues that in c. 8 a new law is intro-
duced, and the only new law must be the pr. code. He analyses
c. 9, 10 and finds no reference to this code. In this way he thinks he
finds a suitable place for the troublesome list, 7^-", for after Ne. 9, 10
the people felt the need of organisation, and a list was made of those
in the newly organised community. As he deems the list closely
bound with c. 8, he places the whole section, 7«-8"', as the direct sequel
to Ne. 9, 10 (Tfiaf."-")-
Torrey with equal confidence places this section, 7'»-8", between
Ezr. 8 and 9. He gives the following reasons for the transposition
(ES."2ff): (i) To quote his own words: "here is a clear and consist-
ent story, the only clear and consistent story dealing with Ezra that
4
/
50 INTRODUCTION
has ever been told by any one." (2) "The dates given in such pro-
fusion throughout the narrative are now all intelligible for the first
time." (3) He sees an incongruity between c. 8 and the c. following,
finding nothing to account for the sackcloth and ashes in 9', but deem-
ing Ezr. 10, which he thinks lacks a conclusion, good grounds for the
mourning. (4) "Ezra makes his journey to Jerus. in order to teach
and administer the law, but it is not until 13 years after his arrival
that he first presents it to the people." (5) Another point on which
much stress is laid is that in the present arrangement the divorce of
the foreign wives (Ezr. 9/.) was effected according to the law, and that
before the law was made known.
Formidable as the array of arguments is, it is not convincing. I
make a few comments, (i) It is not possible to make any clear and
consistent story out of Ezr. 7-10 and Ne. 8-10, for the latter c, out-
side of c. 8, never contain Ezra's name, and there is no reason for con-
necting them with Ezra at all. If the Chr. had written them as a part
of his Ezra story, Ezra being his great hero — a point emphasised by
Torrey — he would not have omitted his name in that long passage.
(2) Many of the dates are too indefinite to enable us to make a chron.
sequence that is convincing. (3) Ezr. 9 is certainly not very closely
connected with Ezr. 8. But after c. 8 we must advance to some report
of the first thing Ezra did after establishing himself in Jerus. There
is no reason why he should have done one thing more than another.
As for the grounds for the sackcloth and ashes of Ne. 9', it seems to
be a poor sequel to Ezr. 10". After the compliance with Ezra's plea
and the putting away of the foreign wives in accordance with the
law, it would be more natural to expect a period of rejoicing, such as
we have in Ne. 8^-", than a scene of humiliation as described in Ne.
9. It would be vain to comply with the law, if the result were only
sackcloth and ashes. (4) In E. the law is never mentioned, but his
appeal is general to the commandments of God (Ezr. 9'"- ")• As shown
above in his own description of the purpose of his mission, the estab-
lishment of the law has but a dub. place. (5) This point is not well
taken. The Hebrews were always averse to foreign marriages. Abra-
ham makes his servant swear that he would get a wife for Isaac from
his own people (Gn. 24 J); Samson's parents are disturbed at the
plea of the hero for a Philistine wife (Ju. 14'); and finally the prohi-
bition of foreign marriages is in " the little book of the covenant" and in
Dt. only (Ex. 34^= Dt. 7'), pre-ex. laws. Since there was a temple of
Jaho in Jeb., contrary to the Deut. law, Sachau argues that this law
could not exist in 407 B.C. Others have given a different interpretation
of the surprising fact. But in any case there is no doubt of the pre-ex.
ban upon marriage with foreigners. It is really absurd to suppose
that the Jews must wait upon Ezra's reading of the law to learn that
such marriages were forbidden.
THE REIGN OF ARTAXERXES II 5 1
It is necessary now to consider Torrey's radical theory that
Ezra is wholly a creation of the Chronicler; in other words, that
Ezra is not a historical personage, but a character of i&ction.
Torrey's arguments are based largely upon the language of the
Chr., which he deems esp. abundant in the Ezra story. Again, he
urges that Ezra "was a man precisely like the Chr. himself: interested
very noticeably in the Lev., and esp. the class of singers; deeply
concerned at all times with the details of the cult and with the eccle-
siastical organisation in Jerus.; armed with lists of names giving the
genealogy and official standing of those who constituted the true
church: with his heart set on teaching and enforcing the neglected
law of Moses throughout the land; and — most important of all —
zealous for the exclusion of the 'people of the land,' the condemnation
of mixed marriages, and the preservation of the pure blood of Israel!
There is not a garment in all Ezra's wardrobe that does not fit the
Chr. exactly" (ES.^").
A large part of this description does not fit the Ezra we know in
the memoirs, e. g., there is not a single reference to singers in E.; there
is not a word about the law; there is no genealogical or other list of
names. The criticism is decidedly indiscriminate.
Further, no person would contend that in all the period from 400
down to his own time, the Chr. was the only person interested supremely
in the matters enumerated in the passage quoted above. Ezra was
a kindred spirit to the Chr. — and there must have been many such be-
fore the Chr.'s time — and the Chr. by his revisions and additions has
doubtless made Ezra more kindred to himself than he really was.
Another reason urged by Torrey is the silence of Sirach (Cow^."f).
Sirach writing apparently c. 180 B.C., composed a long passage (c.
44-50) in praise of the great men of the Jewish nation. Of those
in our period, Zer. and his associate Jes., and Neh. are accorded brief
L mention (49"-"), but Ezra's name is not found. This seems to me the
' ** weightiest of Torrey's arguments. It is certain that Ezra did not
have the place in the Jewish church in the time of Sirach that the Chr.
would have liked. But it is certain that there was never an edition of
the book of Ch. (including Ezr.-Ne.) which did not contain the story
of Ezra, though there may have been an edition silent about Neh.
The book of Ch. may be pretty late, but it is not as late as Sirach.
To give no other reason here, the author of the hymn had these records
for Zer. Jes. and Neh., and therefore he must have had them for Ezra.
Why he made no mention of Ezra's name, it is impossible to learn.
He left out other names, e. g., Shes., and he omitted Ezra for some good
reason, possibly because he was not in as deep sympathy with the
ruthless proceedings described in Ezr. 10 as the Chr. was.
/
52 INTRODUCTION
If Sirach was silent, other writers made up for the defect by the
exaltation of the priest-scribe. In several prophetic lists, e. g., Iraen.
Ag. Her. 1. xxx. ii, Ezra appears in the list of prophets in place of
Mai. {v. Nestle, ZAW. iQo;,"^-
§ 12. CHAPTER AND VERSE DIVISIONS.
It is unfortunate that in several books of the OT. the EV^.
follow B and in places have a different arrangement of chapters
from those in MT. It is necessary in a critical commentary to
follow the original text. Fortunately there is but one section
in Ne. where the confusion exists, and there is none in Ezr.
The appended table will serve as an adequate guide. The
English division is really the better, as it conforms to sub-
ject matter.
MT. Eng.
in, 2,2, IV, I
34 2
35 3
36 4
37 5
38 6
IV, I 7
2 8
The only other variation is in Ne. 10, where MT. io» = Eng. 9",
10' = ID', etc., the number of the vv. in EV^. throughout the c. being
one less than that of MT.
§ 13. LITERATURE.
As there is a comprehensive bibliography in Curt, covering^
much the same ground, for the most part only special works
on Ezr.-Ne. are named here.
Commenianes.
Rabbi Saadiah, Ezr. and Neh. ed. by H. J. Mathews, 1882. E.
Bertheau, Die Biicher, Esra, Nech. u. Ester, 2d ed. by V. Ryssel, 1887.
S. Oettli u. J. Meinhold, Die Cesch. Hagiographen, 1889. H. E.
Ryle, Ezr. and Neh. in Camb. Bib. 1893. W. F. Adeney, Ezr.-Neh.-
Est. Exp. Bible, 1893. H. Guthe and L. W. Batten, Ezr. and Neh.
in SBOT. 1901. M. Seisenberger, Die Biicher Esd., Neh. u. Est. in
MT.
Eng.
3
9
4
10
S
II
6
12
7
13
' 8
14
9
IS
10
16
MT.
Eng.
11
17
12
iS
13
19
14
20
15
21
16
22
17
23
LITERATURE 53
Kurzgef. wissensch. Com. z. d. H. S. des A. T. 1901. D. C. Siegfried,
Esr., Neh. u. Est. in Handkom. des A. T. 1901. A. Bertholet, Die
Backer Esr. u. Neh. in Kurzer Handkom. des A. T. 1902. G. Holscher,
H. S. A. T. 1910.
Monographs.
Kleinert, On the Origin, Elements and Antiquity of the Boohs of Ezr.
and Neh. 1832. R. Smend, Die Listen d. BUcher Esr. u. Neh. 1881.
A. H. Sayce, Int. to Ezr. Neh. and Est. 1885. J. Imbert, Le Temple
Reconstruit par Zorob. 1889. G. Rawlinson, Ezr. and Neh. {Men of the
Bible), 1890. P. H. Hunter, After the Exile, 1890. A. van Hoonacker,
Neh. et Esd. 1890; Zorob. et le Second Temple, 1892; Nouvelles Ettides stir
la Restaur. Juive, 1896. W. H. Kosters, Die Wiederherstellung Israels
in der persischen Period (from the Dutch Ilerstel van Israel in het.
Pcrzische Tijdoak), by A. Basedow, 1895. E. Meyer, Die Entstehung
des Judenthiims, 1896. Bertholet, Die Stellung der Israeliten u. d.
Juden z. d. Fremden, 1896. E. Sellin, Serubbabel, 1898; Studien z.
Entstehungsgeschichte der jiid. Gemeinde, 1901. T. K. Cheyne, Jewish
Religions Life After the Exile, 1898. J. Geissler, Die liter. Beziehungen
der Esra Memoiren, 1899. Rosenzweig, Einl. in d. Biicher Esr. u.
Neh. J. Nikel, Die Wiederherstellung d. jiid. Gemeinwesens nach d.
babyl. Exit, 1900. C. Holzhey, Die Biicher Ezr. u. Neh. 1902. S.
Gelbhaus, Esra u. seine reformatorischen Bestrebungen, 1903. J. Fischer,
Die Chron. Frage in d. Biichern Esr.-Neh. 1903. J. Theis, Gesch. u.
Ulerarkritik Fragen in Esr. 1-6 (in Nikel's Alttest. Abhandl. 11, 5),
1910. C. C. Torrey, Comp. and Hist. Value of Ezr. -Neh. {Beihefte zur
ZAW.), 1896; Ezra Studies, 1910. Apparatus for Text. Crii. of Chr.-
Ezr.-Neh. (Harper Studies).
Articles.
H. Winckler, "Die Zeit der Herstellung Judas " ; "Nehemias Reform."
Alt. Forsch. II, ii, i; "Die Zeit v. Ezras Ankunft in Jerus." ib. II, ii,
2; "Die doppelte Darstellung in Ezr.-Neh." ib. II, iii, 2. E. Schrader,
".Die Dauer d. zweiten Tempelbaues," Stud. u. Krit. 1867. E. Nestle,
"Marginalien u. Materilien," "-31^ 1893; Real-Ency.^ V. J. Wellhau-
sen, "Die Ruckkehr d. Juden a. d. Babyl. Exil," G. G. N. 1895.
T. F. Wright, "Nehemiah's Night Ride," JBL. 1896; "The Stairs
of the City of David," ib. 1897. C. C. Torrey, "Old Testament
Notes," JBL. 1897. W. J. Moulton, "tJber die Uberlieferung u. d.
text-krit. Werth des dritten Esrabuchs," ZAW. 1899,209-258^ igoo,^-^*.
Fraenkel, "Zum Buch Ezra," ZAW. 1899. T. K. Cheyne, "From
Isaiah to Ezra," AJT. 1901; "The Times "of Neh. and Ezra," Bib.
World, 1899. H. Howorth, PSBA. 1901, 1902. H. G. Mitchell, "The
Wall of Jerus. Ace. to the Book of Neh." JBL. 1903. L. W. Batten,
54 INTRODUCTION
"Ezr.-Neh."; " Ezr."; " Neh." Hast. DB. Kosters, "Ezr.-Neh." EB.
J. V. Prasek, "Kambyses u. d. Uberlieferung d. Altertums"; "Zur Chro-
nologic des Kyros," Forsch. z. Gcs. d. Alt. L. W. Batten, " Israel of
the Post-exilic Period," Horn. Rev. April, 1913.
General.
A. Kuenen, GesammeUe Abhandlungen,^^^-^^^, 1894. B. Stade, Bibl.
Theologie des ^.7".'"-'^', 1905. Addis, Ezra and the Issue of the Law,
Documents of the Hexateuch, II,i'' ^ â– Robertson, Poetry and Religion
of the Psalms, c. 5. Marquart, Fundamente israel. u. jiid. Geschichle,
1896. C. F. Kent, Israel's Hist, and Biog. Narratives,^^^-^'*, 1910.
Biblical Aramaic.
Powell, The Supposed Hebraisms in Biblical Aramaic, 1907. S.
Baer, Chaldaismi Biblici Adumbratio, in the Baer-Delitzsch ed. of
MT. vol. Dn.-Ezr.-Ne.='"'-i'^. H. L. Strack, Grammatik des B. Aram.*,
1905. K. Marti, Kiirzgcf. Gram, der B.-Aram. Sprache, 1896. E.
Kautzsch, Grammatik des B. Aram. 1884. Sachau, Aramdische Papyri
u}id Oslraka aus Elephantine, 191 1. C. R. Brown, An Aramaic Method,
1884. Schulthess, Miscellen zum Bibl. Aram. ZAW. i902,'« ^â–
Some Important Dates.
B.C.
559-521 Cyrus.
521-485 Darius I Hystaspis.
520 Rebuilding of the temple.
485-464 Xerxes.
464-424 Artaxerxes I Longimanus.
444-432 Nehemiah governor of Judah.
424-404 Darius II Nothus.
404-359 Artaxerxes II Mnemon.
Mission of Ezra.
A COMMENTARY ON EZRA-NEHEMIAH.
EZR. I = ESD. 2^-1^ THE END OF THE BABYLONIAN EXILE. '
Bab. was conquered by Cy. in 539 B.C. In that country he found
many colonies of foreigners who had been brought there as prisoners
of war in accordance with the As. and Bab. policy of transplanting con-
quered peoples. Cy. reversed this policy, and allowed all such peoples
to return to their homes. In the city of Bab. Cy. found also many
sacred images and other objects from foreign temples, brought there
as trophies, or by Nabonidus for protection {cf. Is. 46' '•). The new
king directed all these images to be taken back to their native shrines.
This policy was designed to effect the pacification of the peoples he
conquered. Indeed, he appeared in Bab. as a redeemer rather than a
conqueror. In accordance with this general programme we have the
statement that a special decree was issued in favour of the Jews {v.
Intr. § "• 0- Vv. »-*• ' '• "^ are from a Heb. source, the rest by the Chr.
{Intr. § 8- ").
1-4. The decree of Cyrus. — In the first year of his reign
in Babylon we are told that Cyrus set forth an edict, allowing
all captive Jews to return to Jerusalem, directing them to re-
build the house of their God, and enjoining their Jewish neigh-
bours who remained behind to strengthen their hands with
gifts to be used for the temple, and probably ordering the res-
toration to the returning pilgrims of the sacred vessels which
had been taken from the temple in 586.
X, And in the first year of Cyrus]. Cyrus had ascended the
throne in 559 B.C. His first year is put here twenty years
later, either because the Chronicler only knew of Cyrus as
ruler of Babylonia, or because the previous years of his reign are
deemed unimportant in connection with Jewish history. Cyrus
entered Babylon in the late autumn of 539 B.C., and this decree
may, therefore, fall in the year 538. Cyrus, like his successor
Darius, was a descendant of Achaemenes and was, therefore,
an Aryan and a Zoroastrian. However much of a monotheist
SS
5^ EZRA-NEHEMIAH
he may have been in Ansan, he was very liberal in his attitude
toward the gods of other peoples. — King of Persia]. The great
Persian empire did not reach its full height of power until the
time of Darius, and this title, therefore, has been regarded as a
mark of the Chronicler's hand. This contention is invalid, for
in the inscription of Nabonidus, 546 B.C., the same title is em-
ployed. — To fulfil the word of Yahweh]. Here we have a con-
ception of history which abounds in the Gospels, especially in
Matthew. The idea of the evangelist is that the acts of Jesus
are determined by the predictions which have been made long
before. The true conception from the Hebrew point of view
is that God controlled both the messages of the prophets and
the actions of kings, and therefore the king is led to fulfil the
prediction. In the pre-exilic period the apologetic appeal is
based on the works of God; in our period this new element is
introduced. The exiled Jews are aroused to a new faith in God
because things happen as the prophets have foretold. This
idea is brought out prominently in Is. 48, a passage belonging
to this very time. "The restoration was the last special proof
and sign that God was a factor in the life of the Hebrew peo-
ple under the old dispensation" (Simon, Bible as Theocratic
Liter ature,^^). — From the mouth of Jeremiah]. In 2 Ch. 36^^ we
have "by the mouth," but without any difference of meaning.
By places the emphasis on the prophet as a mere instrument of
God.
In 2 Ch. 36=1 there is a reference to the fulfilment of another Jeremian
prophecy that the exile would last seventy years (Je. 29'"; v. Curt.).
This passage is sometimes loosely interpreted as referring to the same
thing; but that is incorrect. The prediction refers to the moving of
Cy. to issue his decree in favour of the Jews. Je. contains no passage
referring to such an event, but the required prophecy is found in Is.'
(v. 41- '• " 44"' 45')- This prophet ascribes Cy.'s victories to Yahweh,
using language very similar to Cy.'s own, only that in the latter Mar-
duk is the moving spirit {cf. Cy.'s Inscription, Rogers, Cim. Paral,^'").
In Is. Cy. is called Yahweh's shepherd, having responsible care of
his people, and even by the Messianic title "his anointed." This
prophet certainly had great expectations from Cy., and he watches his
conquering career with keen anticipations of good for his own people.
Jos. regards Is. as the prophet who influenced Cy., saying that Cy. rd.
EZRA I '57
the book written by Is. one hundred and forty years before the temple
was destroyed {Anliq. xi, i, 2). " Je.," therefore, is either a txt. err.,
or else this anonymous prophecy (Is. 40-66) was attributed to that
prophet instead of to Is. (v. Duhm, JcrM). Berth, and Ryle refer
the passage to Je., but wrongly. If a txt. err., it is an early one, for
it is reproduced in all the Vrss. Prob. it is explained from the ref-
erence to Je. properly in the preceding v. of Ch., this name being
repeated instead of the correct one.
Yahweh moved the spirit], (See v. ^) This expression shows
the more refined theological ideas of the later times. The
prophet makes Yahweh address Cjo^us directly. Now we find
a spirit in man which may be influenced to action by Yahweh,
and henceforward that is the method by which God's will
is accomplished among men. Cf. Nehemiah's expression "my
God had put in my heart" = moved my spirit (Ne. 2^^). — And
he issued a proclamation], literally, caused a voice to go through.
The words suggest a herald rather than a written document,
and the heraldic method is not improbable here, though the
words might refer to a decree, especially if it were read by the
heralds. — In his whole kingdom]. The empire of Cyrus em-
Draced regions where there were no Jews. The Hebrews were
ipparently settled in districts and were pretty well localised.
The writer seems to have ignored any realm of Cyrus except his
atest conquest. The edict would naturally be sent only to the
[ewish colonies in Babylonia. — And also in writing]. These
.vords imply that the proclamation was oral, and are intended
show that the Chronicler had a written source for his version
)f the edict. — Saying], better as Jollows. The literal transla-
ion mars the Scriptures sadly, recurring hundreds of times, and
)roving a stumbling-block in reading aloud. — 2. All the king-
loms of the world]. With the conquest of Babylon, all its de-
)endencies fell to Cyrus, and his became a vast empire, extend-
ng from Elam on the east to the Mediterranean on the west.
This did not cover all the countries of the world, but the exag-
;eration is more natural for Cyrus than for a Jewish writer, for
)n the cylinder inscription he calls himself "the king of the four
[uarters of the earth," i. e., of the whole world. — Has Yahweh
58 EZRA-NEHEMIAH
given me]. Here we have the reflection of the prophetic utter-
ance in Is. 45^ ^^ In his own inscription Cyrus attributes his
conquest of Babylon to Marduk, its chief deity. But he may
have become acquainted with the prophecies above referred to,
and then in an edict to the Jews given their God credit for
his victories. Such credit would please the Jews, as the aid
of Marduk was certainly claimed to placate the Babylonians.
— The God of heaven] is an expression not found in pre-exilic
writings. The common terms are God of Israel, of hosts, or of
our fathers.* Nehemiah, however, regularly uses the expres-
sion (i* '• 2*- 20). In a magic bowl from Babylonia of about
500 B.C. "Lord of heaven and earth" occurs. f The term "God
of heaven" is found in the Eleph. pap. Marti regards the ex-
pression as the equivalent of the "high God," or "God of the
height," in Mi. 6^ and thinks it portrays the transcendence of
God {Dodekapropheton,^^^). The expression was never com-
mon among the Hebrews. Stade explains it as an adaptation
to the religious terms of the governing peoples {BT?"^^).
To build a house for him in Jerusalem]. In Is. 44^^ we have
a prediction that Cyrus would direct the rebuilding of Jeru-
salem and of the temple. If Cyrus had been made familiar
with this prophecy, as Josephus says, he might easily see in it
the commission to which he here refers. The Chronicler knew
that the temple was not built by Cyrus or in his Ufetime; it is,
therefore, difficult to see why he should have invented a state-
ment contrary to fact. The truth is that the Chronicler tried
to make it appear that the temple was begun under Cyrus, and
was compelled to misconstrue his material in justification of his
theory. — A Jewish writer would not have deemed it necessary
to say Jerusalem which is in Judah unless he were endeavouring
to give colour to an imitation decree, a device in which the Jews
were not expert. It appears from the terms of the edict that
the interest of Cyrus was not in the freedom of the Jews, but
in the building of the temple to the God to whom he here as-
• It is a curious fact, mention of which has not been observed by the present writer, that
in Ch. " God of Israel" is used with great regularity up to II 7", and after that almost in-
variably " God of (our) fathers."
t J. A. Montgomery, Mus. Jour. U. P. Dec. 1910. . , .
EZRA I 59
cribes his wonderful victories. The release of the captives was
incidental to the main purpose. — 3. In MT. this verse is cor-
rupt, so that the sense has been changed. — Among you] indicates
that the edict is addressed to the whole people of Cyrus's realm;
but the edict primarily concerns all his (Yahweh's) people. As
the text stands, the edict enjoins all Jews to return to Jerusalem
to build the temple; whereas in v. ^ it is stated that those only
went up whose heart was stirred by Yahweh. With hints found
in the Vrss. it is possible to reconstruct the text, obtaining a
terse and lucid statement which might well be a part of a royal
decree. The restored text gives: whoever wills of all the people
of Yahweh the God of Israel, he is the God who dwells in Jerusalem,
now let him go up to Jerusalem and build the house of Yahweh
his God.
The statement that Yahweh is the God who dwells in Jerus. is nat-
ural in this text. Cy. found many gods in Bab. who had been brought
there from other places, and whose devotees were distressed by their
removal. He sent all these gods back to their ancient shrines. To
him Yahweh seemed much like the other deities. Further, according
to this text, Cy. did not command all Jews to return; but he permitted
those to go back who desired, and thus the decree is in harmony with
the statement of v. K The amended text shows clearly that Cy.'s main
object was the rebuilding of the temple.
4. The next subject in the decree is the provision of funds for
building the temple. The implication of the text is that the
Babylonian neighbours of the returning Jews were called upon
for contributions. All that survive covers the whole body of
Jews in Babylonia, and as they are to be supported by the men
of his place these can be no other than the Babylonians. Cyrus
did all in his power to placate the conquered peoples, and he
was too politic to demand from them subscriptions to build a
temple for the despised Jews. If we accept this text we are
forced to admit a powerful Jewish colouring. With the help of
Esdras we are enabled to reconstruct the passage (v.**) thus:
and all that dwell in the places, let them support him. This nat-
urally means that the Jews, who dwell in the districts from
which certain exiles are departing, shall send by their hands
6o EZRA-NEHEMIAH
gifts for the temple. The wealthiest people would be most
likely to remain for commercial reasons, and they are the ones
able to contribute most, — With silver and gold, goods and cattle,
besides the free-will offerings for the house of God] implies dona-
tions for the caravan of pilgrims as well as for the temple. We
might well wonder whether Cyrus would be concerned about
the people. The last clause is different in Esd., and with other
things added by vows for the temple of the Lord, implying that
all the gifts were for the temple. Goods and cattle is probably
a gloss. — Which is in Jerusalem] is the translation of Oil, but
Esd. has who, requiring God as antecedent instead of house.
It is not possible to differentiate in Hebrew. The rendering
which tends to discredit the decree, as Cyrus would not order a
temple built and in the next sentence imply that it was already
built. The rendering of Esd. harmonises best with the ex-
pression in V. ^, he is the God who is in Jerusalem.
The edict of Cyrus. — ^There is another version of this edict in 6^-5,
claiming to be a copy of an original found at Ecbatana. The two
Vrss. differ materially. In the Aram, version there is nothing about
Yahweh's aid in Cy.'s conquests, the permission to return to Jerus., or
the contributions; but plans are prescribed for the new temple, the
cost is to be borne by the royal treasury, and the return of the sacred
vessels is expressly enjoined.
Both Vrss. profess to be original, but one or both must be wrong.
Few defend the Heb, version, though Dr., Ryle, ct al. accept the sub-
stance, admitting a marked Jewish colouring. Mey. accepts the Aram,
as authentic, and deems the Heb. a product of the Chr. It is difficult
to understand why the Chr. should incorporate an authentic edict, and
then himself compose one so at variance with his source, though he
might easily insert two different forms which he found in the docu-
ments he used. Mey. starts with the hypothesis that all the letters
and edicts in Ezr. are Aram. Vrss. of the Pers. originals {v. i. on 4').
This position has been widely accepted, apparently without much
critical sifting. Torrey has shown its weakness (ES.'" ^â– ); indeed, it
seems to rest on little more foundation than bare assumption. We
are, therefore, really driven to purely internal evidence. From this
point of view the Aram, edict does not commend itself. For Cy. would
not be chiefly concerned with the dimensions of the temple, and the
figures given are altogether improbable. Nor would he be likely to
order the expenses paid out of the royal treasury. Certainly the best
evidence we have, in Hg. and Zc, indicates that the cost was borne
EZRA I 6l
by the Jews themselves. Indeed, the long delay was accounted for on
the ground of the people's inability in material things (Hg. i^ '•).
In the Heb. edict, on the other hand, there is no note of improba-
bility, save in the matter of Bab. contributors, and here the Chr. ap-
parently retouched the passage to suit himself {v. s.). The original
very likely enjoined the Jews who remained in Bab. to send contribu-
tions by those who returned. Yet few scholars have any good to say
of this version. Sieg. remarks that it shows itself to be a forgery, since
it is given in the Heb. tongue, and since it is dominated by Jewish re-
ligious .ideas. Against this it may be remarked that the Chr. would
scarcely incorporate the Pers. or Bab. original. Moreover, since the
edict was for the benefit of the Jews, it may have been originally issued
in Heb. As to the Jewish conceptions, they do not seem to be any
more marked than we should expect. To pacify the Bab., Cy. writes
in his inscription with pronounced Bab. religious ideas; why should he
not do the same thing for the Jews ?
It is difficult to think that the Chr. composed the edict at all. Save
in V. * it does not seem to have any of his peculiar characteristics. If
he had invented it, he certainly would have followed his Aram, source
in c. 6, to which he could have had no earthly objection. To be con-
sistent with his policy Cy. must have allowed the Jews to return and
to rebuild their temple and to take back any treasures which had been
taken from it. Nikel notes that '"may his God be with him' has a
genuine Bab. tinge" (P5."). The Chr. would not have said " he is the
God whais. in Jerus.," nor would he have explained that Jerus, was in
Judah; and he never calls Yahweh " the God of heaven." It is very
doubtful if he would have exalted Cy. as this document does. On
the whole, then, there seems to be ample reason for asserting that Cy.
did give the Jews permission to return and to rebuild the temple. The
emended text which I have proposed confirms the belief that we may
have an authentic document here. It is true that Hg. and Zc. make
no reference to this decree, and it would have served their purpose
well; but they were speaking a score of years later, and were con-
cerned more with the will of God than with the will of a dead king.
1. The conj. i, with which the book begins, is explained by the
original connection of Ezr. with Ch. (Berth. Sieg.). But Ex. Lv.
Nu. Jos. Ju. I and 2 S. i and 2 K. Ruth, Est. 2 Ch. and Ne. (dis-
regarding the title) also begin with 1. It seems to be the rule to be-
gin a Heb. narrative with the conj.— njif] st. cstr. before a prep. {cf.
Ges.^ ""). — '.^"110] Pers. KuruS, Bab. KuraS, whence Rawlinson would
point v-\^2. — We must rd. mS?'?] since naT is the obj. The mng. io
fulfil a predidion is not found elsw., but the context requires that sense
here; cf. 2 Ch. 36=1, where rnxSn'? has the same mng. — ifls] 2 Ch. 362s
has ''33, preferred by Guthe, Torrey, el al. Esd. lv aib'^axi, but C6
supports MT. Both forms are common, but iflD is better when utter-
62 EZRA-NEHEMIAH
ance is implied (so Ryle). — nn T'jn], only in late writers, v. ', Hg.
I"* I Ch. 5=' 2 Ch. 21"; but vb. alone has same mng. in Is. 412- ^^ 45",
all referring to Cy., and influencing our author (c/. Mar. Jes. on 41^).
— Sip— I3J711] lit. he caused a voice to pass over, an oral proclamation,
Ex. 36" (P); cf. " he caused a trumpet to pass over," i. e., to be blown,
Lv. 25'. That is the sense here as we note from the added and also
in writing. In 2 Ch. 305 the term is used where runners carry letters
from Hezekiah. — anan^] would mean here in a written form, as (6'-
(in 2 Ch. 36") lv Xoyotq Ypacpii?, but this sense is not found elsw.
As the words are unnecessary and as ">Sf«S goes back to the proclama-
tion we suspect a gl.
2. i"? pj niDSoD] Obj. first for emph. Ges.^ ^^- '• Esd. eyt-s dveSst^sv
^QtaCkia, 3 Esd. me constiiuit regem, RV. "hath made me king," better
proclaimed me king. After Esd. i'<- " = 2 Ch. 361- < this expression
would represent ija^SDn, lacking Sa and |nj. The mng. is not the same,
as this text would be based on a phophecy, and MT. on the result
of a conquest. Esd. shows a text more closely associated with the
prophecies in Is.'. — a^Dcn -rnSx nin^] Esd. x6pio<; [+ h ^zh<^', xiipcoq^]
ToiJ Tapa'i^X xipto? 6 ucptcToq. This suggests Dnn inSx as in Mi. 6°.
Guthe follows this text, but it may well be a Jewish amplification —
nidi]. The use of the pron. emphasises the fact of Yahweh's directing
Cy. to build the house. — 'h'y "ips] usually means to bring upon, or visit
upon, i. e., punishment; there are, however, several passages, mostly
late, in which the sense required here is found, i. e., assigned to me.
Esd. renders ia-fi^x-qyiv yioc, he has given me a sign, prob. by the word
of his prophet, showing again a closer dependence upon Is.'; eaT^fATjvev,
however, usually represents ynn, shout. In Is. 44^3 Cy. is called 'J?"i,
and in view of the close relationship of that passage to our text, it is
tempting to propose here "'J-'yin, he has made me shepherd.
3. This v. ^s obscure and difficult. dd3 barely admits of interpre-
tation. The sf. in my and vr\hn refer, one to Yahweh and the other to
m, a dub. construction; the phrase may his God be with him is in an
awkward place; the Chr. has rt^n^^ for '•ni; the last clause is superfluous
where it stands; and which is in Judah is tautologous after v. K Turn-
ing to the Vrss. we find in modern editions of (& that the first clause is
an interrogative. Who is there among you of all his people ? For "tii (5 has
/.ctl ecjTctt; SyM is dvap-QoeTat^^, dvotPiQTa)^. (&^ ends with dSs'IT''?. ■*•
lacks nini after n''3. (&^ adds \i.ii' auToiJ at end of v. In Esd. we find
utJLcov for DD3 instead of ev u[aIv as 05. vn?N appears as xupto? auxoO in
^, showing an original nin"!; in ^ xipio? is repeated; in â– ^ we have
xiipto? without the pron. following. The last clause is rendered oiTb?
6 xupto? 6 xaTaaxTjvwaa? lv 'IzgouaaCkrp.. This clause is lacking in ^,
but most of it appears earlier in the v, ^ is quite divergent in the
first part thus: liq ouv IgtIv u[i.MV ex tou eOvou? aixoO oq icpo6u(JLeTTac
ToO TcopsuGijvai; eaiw 6 xupio? iast;' ai-uou 6 xataffXTjvcoaai; lv 'lepou-
EZRA I 63
(s<xkri\i, xal ivapA? x. t. X. Here we note a part, ouv (^^ et . . . ouv),
really necessary to the sense, and the verbs icpoOutAslTat and xatas-
XTivwaa?, which are not in Heb. 3 Esd. has also a peculiar and brief
text, viz., si quis est ex genere vestro, Dominus ipsius ascendat cum
eo in Jerus. Among you is lacking, but there is a faint reflection
in the your people instead of his. The superfluous which is in Judah
fails here as in Esd."^, which appears in ^ only as an adj. T-f]v 'louSafav.
The commentators mostly ignore the difficulty, though Berth, after
Guthe favours restoration of TcpoeufietTat as making the permit less
general, and regards the last clause as "'an intentional imitation of the
style of the foreign king." Guthe regards the last words as a gl.,
noting their change of place in Esd.'-. He wrongly says in (S^ also,
for (&^ has the clause in same place as MT. with \x.zi' aO-uou added.
For TcpoeutJi.elTat ToCi icopeuO^vat Guthe proposes noSS aijnnn (or aiJn"'),
and TcpoOuiieuTat invariably represents aijnn; but unless one dis-
regards MT. altogether, it is impossible to extract this word. We
have not far to go, however, to find a word closer to the text, for nna
suits the sense, and might easily be corrupted to aoa. inj? is obviously
impossible, but the moment we make the necessary changes of "'n'> to
nini, it follows that we must rd. 'd;;, or possibly oy. In the first case
we have only the common change of ' to 1; in the latter i was attached
to the vb. when nin^ was changed to "'.T' {v. 05, cited above), and was
moved back to the n. If the pi. was original the mng. was prac-
tically tribes or clans. Perhaps there was enough discord among the
Bab. Jews to make Cy. think that many peoples worshipped Yahweh.
Then to get a suitable text we must presume that two lines were
transposed: rd. people of Y. the G. of Is., he is the God who dwells
in Jerus., a change supported by Esd.'^. This clause then bears no
marks of a gl., nor of an attempt to imitate Cy., but is a necessary
definition to be exact in an edict, icn is corrected after Esd. to ptrn.
minij itTN is prob. an accidental repetition from the preceding v.; it
is certainly unnecessary here. vr\hi< fits admirably after nini no.
The whole v. then I would restore thus: ^^SN nini uy-hsn inb pS ^D
It is granted that this result requires considerable changes, but the
Vrss. show that correction is necessary. As frequently happens in
these books, ^ preserves some original features, which, as usual, are
obscured by corrections to conform to MT., corrections fortunately
mostly by addition, so that the original may still be picked out. —
4. This V. is not much clearer. The involvement is so great that
translation is almost impossible. Moreover, the Vrss. again show de-
partures which can hardly be due to the freedom of a translator, and
the Gk. renderings elsw. in these books show close fidelity to their
original. (5 proper shows mostly the surviving MT. But Esd.^ has
some good, material. That text has xal oaot xatd; Tdxou? oixoijac
64 EZRA-NEHEMIAH
PoT]0e(T6)ffav aixy •KpoOufi.sbOwaav tm xupfw ev tw t6ic(i) aiToO Iv ^puafy
X. -u. X. 3 Esd. qiiotqiiot ergo circa loca habitant adjuvent cos qui sunt
in loco ipso. We note that the perplexing ica'j is laciiing and that
nj becomes the leading vb.; in this respect ^^ agree. 'B'Jn is lack-
ing while iDipc has a new connection. A new vb. is introduced. This
may represent iDip33 niniS •ui.jn-') inxa'r niD\-iD3 D-'ijn-Spi. This is
a vast improvement over MT. and shows an earlier and better text.
It is prob. not original, but is more primitive than MT. In the
list of gifts (S'- has Swpwv for nanjn, tou kY.ouoio\j^^. v^o^\2^ = ev Soas-
aiv [leO' YxTCwv xal xttjvwv in Esd., so 3 Esd. This would, perhaps, be
nsnai can-a;? f 1313. Guthe corrects tJ'isi to !y3n, but ignores Siaeatv.
n3"i:n-D;? is in (S^ [xsTd: Swpwv = on-ij-Dy, and more fully in Esd. auv
"zolq oXKok; Totq xax' euxas •jcpoaT£6et[Ji£vot(;. This is found in 3 Esd.
too, and may be a priestly amplification, though it more likely shows
a different text, t^n is rendered in CS> with oinSxri as antecedent, but
in Esd. with no. With the emendations proposed above, based on
Esd., the edict as a whole runs thus: All the kingdoms of the world has
Yahweh the God of heaven given me, and he has charged me to build him
a house in Jems, which is in Jtidah : therefore whoever wills of all the
people of Yahweh the God of Israel, he is the God whose abode is in Jerus.,
now let him go up and build the house of Yahweh his God. And all that
dwell in the places let them support him, and make free-will offerings to
Yahweh, with silver and gold and with the free-will offerings for the house
of God who is in Jems.
If the above be the original form, many of the objections urged against
the edict are removed, although the emendations were not made with
that end in view. Esd.^ certainly had no such purpose. It appears
that the decree was not issued to the whole Bab. nation, but only to
the Jews. Cy. would hardly proclaim to the Bab. that his conquests
were due to Yahweh and thus contradict his inscription. But he
might have said this to the Jews. Moreover, the Jewish element in
Bab. fifty years after the fall of Jerus. must have been comparatively
insignificant. There would be no use of a national proclamation to
authorise their release.
iN'iS'jn] might easily mean those who are left behind, i. e., in Bab. {cf.
Ex. 10^8 Nu. II"); but it means also those who survive, a remnant, being
equivalent to nnx'^r {cf. Ne. i^ '•). — "^j] always refers to a temporary
rather than a permanent residence and shows that the Jews regarded
their stay in exile as transient. — inNtt'j''] from lift or carry the mng.
support or assist is naturally derived, a sense found also in 8'" Est. 9'
I K. 9". — ^y^^:l^\] is a very comprehensive term covering personal prop-
erty of any kind, including cattle. It is rather a general term for an
edict. What it is intended to comprise here it is impossible to say.
The word occurs only in P and other late sources, and is prob. a loan-
word from Bab. rukuSu. It occurs curiously 5 t. in Gn. 14, the story
of Abraham's campaign against the kings of the East.
EZRA I 65
5-11. Gifts for the temple. — The decree having been issued,
the next step is to put it into effect, and this is immediately
undertaken. The people prepare to depart; contributions are
secured; and the sacred vessels, of which the temple had been
plundered a half century before, are returned by Cyrus.
In a part of this passage at least the Chr.'s hand is manifest. The
vv. which come from his hand/- »• "-"=', really add nothing in the way
of historical information.
5. And arose to go up]. Dip is often used as here in a sense
like prepared. Three classes are mentioned, the chiefs, the
priests, and the Levites, the last two being separate classes as
in P, no longer identical as in Dt. — The heads of the fathers],
i. c, the chiefs of the clans, an expression occurring frequently
in P and the Chronicler (BDB.). Fathers in these passages
has the sense of family or clan. It is an abbreviation of "house
of the fathers," which naturally means family. — Of Judah and
Benjamin]. These two tribes are named as the elements out of
which postexilic Israel is composed {cf. 4^ Ne. 11^). In other
books we find the same combination (i K. 12^3 i Ch. 12^^ 2 Ch.
11^^). In the last-named passage we have the definite state-
ment that Benjamin as well as Judah adhered to Rehoboam
after the revolt of the northern tribes. The boundary between
the two kingdoms was never very sharply defined, and as Jeru-
salem was on the Benjamite border, it would be natural that
this tribe should for the most part cast in its fortunes with the
south. There were, therefore, Benjamites as well as Judeans
in Babylonia. — All whose spirit God stirred up]. This is inter-
preted in exactly opposite senses. B.-Rys. finds a fourth class
Df Jews, as if it read "and all others whose spirit God stirred
jp." But that implies that the leaders alone went of their
)wn accord, and others only as they were moved of God.
The Chronicler shows in c. i that his primary interest is in the
eaders, lay and ecclesiastical. It is, therefore, better to con-
.true the clause as a case of apposition limiting the preceding,
o that the sense is that not all the chiefs, priests, and Levites
eft Babylonia, but only those whom God moved to go up to
5
66 EZRA-NEHEMIAH
build the temple (so Sieg.). In v. ^ it was Yahweh who stirred
the spirit of Cyrus; here God moves the people. The former
name may be due to the influence of Is.^; the latter is the
Chronicler's usual term. The Chronicler says "house of Yah-
weh," but that is a technical term.*
6. And all their neighbors], equivalent to the men of his place
in V.'*, and referring to the Jews whose spirit was not moved
to go to Jerusalem. The use of all indicates that every neigh-
bour of the returning exiles made an offering for the temple.
— Strengthened their hands], literally, put strength in their hands,
is a common expression in Hebrew for "encourage," Ju. 9^*
Is. 35^ Ezr. 6^^ Ne. 2^* 6^. There is no other case where it refers
to material support, and yet that would be the most natural
meaning. The list of gifts should be exactly the same as in
v. ^. Here we have vessels of silver, choice things, a new element,
and a different expression for the free-will offerings. We have
seen evidence of textual errors in v. ^ and there may be more
of it here. Vessels, which is not found in v. ^, is certainly an er-
ror creeping in from v. ^. — 7. Now King Cyrus had brought out].
The unusual order, subject preceding verb, brings out the fact
of an attendant circumstance rather than a chronological se-
quence. The delivery of the temple vessels did not necessarily
follow the gathering of a caravan and the collection of sub-
scriptions, but may have been coincident with the issue of the
decree. Indeed, in the Aramaic version (6^^) the surrender of
these vessels was a part of Cyrus's original order. — Vessels]. *'b^
means vessels or implements. The list shows that both are
meant here. English has no single word to cover both suita-
bly, though utensils approximates the requirement. Nebuchad-
rezzar had plundered the temple each time he captured Jerusa-
lem, in 598 B.C. (2 K. 2413) and 586 B.C. {ib. 251^ «■). — And
placed them in the house of his God], as trophies of victory and as
tokens of the superiority of his god. Similarly the ark had been
placed in the temple of Dagon (i S. 5^). The temple in Jerusa-
lem probably had such treasures from the shrines of conquered
• G. A. Smith notes that in Ch.-Ezr.-Ne. " Sion " is not found, but the phrase " house
of God which is in Jerus." occurs often to describe the temple site {Jer. i, '-»").
EZRA I 67
nations. "The things which David his father had dedicated"
(2 Ch. 51), which were put in the temple by Solomon, were doubt-
less booty from David's wars. In Esd. we have in his house
of idols, showing the narrower Jewish conception of the Baby-
lonian temple. — 8. By the hand of Mithredath the treasurer],
Mithredath, or, as it is better known in the Greek form,
Mithredates, is a Persian name. In the time of Xerxes there
was a Persian oJ0S.cer of Syria bearing this name (4''). He must
have been the treasurer of the temple, since he is intrusted with
the disposition of the property of the sanctuary. — And he counted
them]. The subject must be "Mithredath," though a strict con-
struction would require "Cyrus." The verb has a pregnant
sense, the full meaning being, he counted them as he delivered them
to Sheshbazzar.
Shes. has often been identified with Zer. The motive was largely
apologetic, and yet there is this textual evidence, that in the Aram",
document (s"-") Shes. is said to have laid the foundation of the tem-
ple, whereas in later parts of this book as well as in Hg. and Zc, Zer. is
the temple-builder. Again, it may be urged that Shes. disappears
completely after c. i, and in c. 3 Zer. appears as leader without any
intr. On the other hand, the Aram, document describes the work of
Zer. and speaks of Shes. as an earlier leader, as he undoubtedly was.
The fact is that there is a gap between c. i and c. 3. Indeed, the his-
tory in these books is not continuous, but fragmentary, as evidenced
by the fact that there is no hint about the death of any of the leaders,
nor even of the close of their rule.
9 f . According to our text the list of utensils comprises 30
golden vessels, 1,000 silver vessels, 29 censers, 30 golden bowls, 410
silver bowls, 1,000 other utensils, 2,499 ^^ ^â– l^ ^ surprisingly large
number, yet in v. " the total is given as 5,400, the sort of dis-
crepancy commonly found in such lists.
In Esd. we find a larger total, 5,469, and the itemised figures agree
with this, the only consistent text, and therefore accepted by Nikel.
But the agreement of the total with the separate items may be artificial.
There is a list of articles taken from the temple in 586 B.C. (2 K. 2^^* f),
but no numbers are given. Some of the words used here do not occur
elsw., and it is difficult to identify the objects confidently. Doubtless
the Solomonic temple contained many votive offerings of gold and
silver which were of little use.
68 EZRA-NEHEMIAH
11. The whole Sheshhazzar took up]. He was not only the
receiver of the temple treasures, but the leader of an expedition,
known as the golah, which went from Babylon to Jerusalem.
— Golah properly means exile, but it has also a figurative sense,
a company of exiles, and that is the meaning here. It is used
constantly in these books as a national name (Kue. Abh.^^^ ^•),
and that use is responsible for the erroneous idea that the post-
exilic community was made up entirely of those who had come
from Babylonia.
The c. ends abruptly and the story is incomplete. Torrey professes
to have restored the missing section (ES.^"^-)- As a matter of fact, the
recovered material serves far better as an intr. to c. 3, and is fully dis-
cussed in that connection. Pretty nearly all the stories in these books
end abruptly.
5. ni3«n yi?it'\] is a technical term occurring often in P and Ch. The
full but less frequent form (see Dn. on Ex. 6"- ") is "an no ''^, heads of
the fathers' house, and therefore chiefs of clans. — SoS] The prep, is ex-
plained by Haupt as an emph. part, like the Ar. and Bab. use (Johns
Hopkins circulars, XIII, No. 114, Ges.^"'). Such a foreign influence
is unlikely in Ch. and a nearer explanation is possible since the writer
may have been influenced by the h with rnin\ Torrey explains in
sense of "namely," calling it a characteristic of Ch. (ES."j. n. 1). The
clause is rel., "la'N being omitted as it frequently is (c/. Dav. Syn.
§:44r6), — 6. D>n3''3D] properly means surrounding places, but in both
m. and f. there are cases where surrounding people is the true sense, m.
Ps. 7612898 Je. 48"-"; f.,Ps. 44"Ez. i6"2824 Dn.gi'. — anno] the only
case where a prep, is used in this phrase, though Lv. 25'^ is very similar,
but this is the sole instance where material support is meant. Torrey
regards it as a mere copyist's error. — 103 iSdj] cannot be right; vessels
would be appropriate below in connection with the temple, and this
list must originally have agreed exactly with that in v. *. Esd. reads
lv TOotv ev dpyupfy = 1D03 Sdj, putting Sj in app. with the rest of
V. This text is accepted by Guthe, Kittel, ei al. The mng. would
then be: supported them with everything [named in the above decree,
viz.] with silver, etc. — sfiDia] Esd. 2» Ytctcok; = b'?^. — nuunai] Esd.^^
%<x\ eux"'? <^<; â– Kkebzati; tcoXXwv SiV b vou? tqy^pOt], Esd.^ euxal? xX. wv
i^y^pOtj 6 vouq euGu?. laS has been rd. as 22'^ not 2^h as Guthe sug-
gests. Torrey calls Guthe's change indispensable (ES.'". n. o). The
passage is pretty corrupt, but the sense of this text is good, with the
numerous votive offerings of many whose heart was stirred. — 7. s^sin^] (g
IXa^ev, Esd. ^le-ziiyayev^ (jLe-nQveyxs^S both texts testifying to a different
word from N^'Sim. — Guthe and Kittel suggest i^on on basis of Esd.
EZRA I 69
Torrey with greater probability proposes Nnn. — 8. Before i^-H'] C5^
has sS(i)xev, Esd'. xap^Stoxev, and Sieg. accordingly adds Djnii. In
gas. S3 Yve have T1-S37 Spa', a better expression, but our text may be in-
terpreted as a pregnant expression, and (6 may be only an effort at
clearness. The equiv. of T"-*?]; occurs in Tell-Amarna Tablet No. 72.
112 has same sense in Gn. 32". — latjn] ^ did not understand the word
and transliterates as a n. p., TaaPotpTjvoO^ rap^apYjvou^, yavl^appafou^;
Esd. Tw eautoS yal^ocpuXaxt. (5 is apparently influenced by Bab. form
ganzabaru (Peiser^ ZAW. xvii,'^')- The word occurs elsw. only in B.
Aram. 7^1; it is 'originally Pers., though occurring also in Bab. (see
Mey. Ent.^*, and other references in Ges.).
9. •''?!3"(Jn] occurs only in this v. The mng. and derivation are both
unknown (»i Sta. Hcb. G. § "3, i), (g has tpu/.Ttipei;^^, a word not elsw.
found in C5. The mng. winecoolers, or cool places, is impossible here.
Esd. reads axovSeta. This is OS's word for nisyp, Ex. 25" 3718 Nu. 4' i Ch.
28'^ which means some vessel for holding liquid, and in those cases
was made of gold; flagon may therefore be the right mng. Torrey de-
rives "iS'^aiJX from Gk. xpaTitjp, bowl. — D'sSnc] a. X. The mng. usually
given here is knives, based on derivation from iSn, but iSn does not
have the assumed mng. of bore (v. Moore's Ju. on s^^), and the primary
ofHce of a knife is to cut not to bore. In the Talmud msiSn means
knives. Esd. has Oufaxac dcpYupat, silver pans, ©ut'axi] is the regular Gk.
rendering of 13, which is in the list of vessels carried from the temple
in 586 (2 K. 25"), and elsw. of temple vessels. Torrey proposes D^npSn
" snuffers." — 10. "iisd] elsw. only in i Ch. 28", but 6 t. in this v. and
Ezr. 8"; the mng. is plainly bowl. — D'-jm] RV. of a second sort is im-
possible, since no other silver bowls are mentioned. Guthe leaves a
blank in his text, but Esd. confirms the suspicion that the word is a
corrupted numeral. Esd. has 2,410(3,410'^). These silver bowls would
naturally be very numerous, and therefore D'qSx should prob. be sub-
stituted. Torrey reads aijt:* diaSn, but there is no other case of the
dual d^sSk with a numeral. — 11. *? — S] like As. hi — lu = both — and (v.
Ges.^*"^). — nSun . . San] Esd. dvrjvlxSir] S^ b%h IIa[Ji,avaaa<ipou a[i.a
Toi? ex "z^iq atxt'-aXwafaq. So Guthe emends in part to oa^nD DiS^n.
The mng. is the same, but Esd.'s expression is better, these were carried
from Bab. to Jerus. by Shes. together with those from the captivity. Esd.^-
has a different reading of whole v. : Ta Ss luivTa axeuir] X9^'^^ ^'^^ ipyupa
exotxfaOT) uTcb X. T. X. There is no total number mentioned, and so a
little more emph. is laid on the transportation. This puts us on the
track of what the original text of Esd. must have been, since ^^ be-
gins Ta Ss xtivTa axeurj IxotifaOirj and then adds gold and silver and a
number. Having done this another vb. must be introduced, as aviQv^x^iO.
Esd. then originally had merely all the vessels were carried from Bab.
to J cms. by Shes. and those from the captivity.
Shes. I'- " s'<- "•'t- The Heb. form of the name is always the same
7© EZRA-NEHEMIAH
->X3B'U'. But the Vrss. show great diversity. 31 has Sassabasar In
Ezr., and Salnianasarus in Esd. (8> has these forms: (i) Bayaaap'^
51^, (2) Sotp^ayap'^ 51^, (3) Sa^avaffap'^ i' {^ lacks the name in i")>
(4) SaPaaapT]?'- always in Ezr., (5) Sa^avaaaotpoc;" Esd. 6>', (6) Saaa-
PaXaaaapo?^' always in Esd., (7) SaaaPaaaapo?^ always in Ezr., (8)
2ava[i.aaaapoi;^ Esd. 21', (9) SayLcevotaffapoc;i^ Esd. 2'^, (10) Sava^aaaapoq^
Esd. 6" â– *â– always in Esd.
It is clear that (i) and (2) are the same, sar being in one case initial,
in the other final; and that (8) and (9) are the same, the [jl and v being
transposed. In fact, the forms (3), (8), (9), (10) are easily reducible
to one, and that should prob. be SavaPotaaapoq. It will be noted also
that ^^H. have only two forms, one in Ezr., the other in Esd. By
transposition of letters these texts agree with the Heb. in Ezr., i. e.,
Sassabasar, but they disagree in Esd. It is generally held that the
name is Bab., and may be SamaS-bil-uzur or Sin-bal-uzur (v. Sclbie, Z)5.
art. "Shes." KAT.'- ^^). The question is therefore one of reading ccxq
as Shemcsh, or aav for Sin. It is difficult to identify Sin-hal-tizur with
ixaca', therefore the former would be preferable; but if Shes. is the
same person as Shenazzar, then the latter is better, and both Heb.
names are a corruption of i??op, represented in several forms of Gk.
of which No. 10 is the most original.
Shes. has been regarded as a Jew, as a Pers., as identical with Zer.,
with Shenazzar, and as an independent personage. Schroeder held
that he was a Pers. officer, sent to secure the safety of the caravan
(c/. B.-Rys. Kue. Ahh.^^^). He was almost certainly a Jew. Bab.
names were often given to Jewish children in Bab. (c/. Clay, Light fr.
Babel,^"', Daiches, Jews in Bab.). Cy. would not have sent a Pers.
in charge of the sacred vessels, for his policy was to pacify, not to
irritate. The Chr. would not call a foreigner "prince of Judah," a
distinctive Heb. title often applied to kings.
The identification with Zer. rests on his having credit for laying the
foundations of the temple (5'°)) a ta^sk really performed by Zer. (Zc.
4'); on the titb "governor" (s")> which really belonged to Zer.; and
on his appointment by Cy. Zer. is called "governor of Judah" only
in Hg. !»• " 22- 21. Cy. prob. appointed Shes. as governor because he
was already a Judean prince, and therefore his rule would please the
Jews.
With far better reason Shes. is identified with Shenazzar (i Ch. 3"),
a son of the captive king Jehoiachin, and the uncle of Zer. (Mey,
ZAW. xviii,"^ Winckler, KAT.^- "-^). In that case he must have been
about sixty years of age in 539, and by 520 would naturally have
given place to his nephew. Both rulers would therefore hold office by
virtue of their royal descent (Torrey rejects this identification, ES.'").
N''"': is a general term, one who is exalted, and therefore applicable
to any high oflScer, It is used rarely before Ez. The term is applied
EZRA 2 ^-"9 71
to Solomon (i K. 11"), to Zedekiah (Ez. 7"), to a future Davidic king
{ib. 34'* ei pass.), and to foreign princes {ib. 26"; Smith, Jer. i,"',
BDB.). The Chr. applies the term to tribal chiefs. The most that
we can infer from its use is that Shes. was the natural chief of Judah.
It is difficult to think of any one holding such a place who was not of
the house of David. The statement of the release of Jehoiachin in
561 by Evil-Merodach and his restoration to the royal state becomes
significant in this connection (c/. Mey. £«/."'•).
Winckler maintains that Shes. continued his rule through the reign
of Cambyses (529-522), and that the opposition of the foreigners in
Ezr. 4*-' was directed against him, as he regards Cambyses, not Xerxes,
as the right name of the king (KAT.'-^^^^-). Kue. holds that he is
the Tirshaiha of Ezr. 2'\ and that he was superior in authority to
Zer. and Jes. (Abh.'^'^'') . The fact is that Shes, appears without intr.
and disappears without notice. Our sources contain no account of
his work other than the bare mention here, for Ezr. 5" is certainly
unhistorical.
EZR. 2^-"^ = NE. 78-". THE CENSUS OF RETURNED EXILES.
The passage falls into the following divisions: (i) A census
of the people of Israel, w. ^-^ = Ne.«-6« = Esd. 5^-^^ (2) A
list of laity who could not show their stock, and of priests who
could not prove their official status, vv. ^^-^^ = Ne.^^-^^ = Esd.
^36-40^ (3) The total figures of the census and the number of
slaves and animals, w. ^^-" = Ne.^"-''^ = Esd. s'^^ '• (4) A list
of contributions, vv. «» f- = Ne.^" '• = Esd. s*^-*K
There are really but three separate parts to the passage, for (i) and
(3) belong together, and the other two sections are independent. The
figures in (3) seem to be the totals of those catalogued in (i). In (2)
there is a figure given for the laity, which is prob. a gl., as there is no
figure for the suspended pr. (4) is the only section which in part is
duplicated in Esd.. for Esd. does not contain Ne. 7«-". It is the part
which has been most liberally edited to make it a suitable preface in
the one place to the temple-building, in the other to the assembly for
reading the law. The passage seems to be more original in Ne., though
Ezr.^8 seems to be an original part of the temple-building story, and
this was probably amplified from Ne.
Ace. to Ne. 75 this list is a record of "those who came up at the first,"
and it is assumed that this means the company of Shes. But "at the
first" is very vague, since Neh. wrote a hundred years later than Shes.
72 EZRA-NEHEMIAH
Neh. proposed to secure an enrolment with a view to securing residents
for the newly fortified Jerus. In the note on j^ it is shown that the
text is in error here; so Sm. (Listen) and many others. Manifestly a
record of a caravan a century before his time would have been of no
use for his purpose. Therefore the passage cannot be original in that
place, but Kue. regards the list as older thanNe. (Abh.^^^). Then the
narrative runs right on into the time of Ezra (S^. It is evident that
the Chr. uses the list as a record of those who came with Zer. and Jes., a
disposition still clearer in the text of Esd.; indeed, in that version no
other connection is possible. But such an accounting for this list is
untenable. For (i) when we compare with other companies, the num-
bers are suspiciously large. (2) The place-names suggest a time when
the people were already settled in Judah (cf. Ne. 11" ^â– ). (3) The
term "sons of the province" in v. 1 presupposes a time when Syria was
a regularly instituted satrapy of the Pers. empire. (4) The suspension
of pr. from the holy office (v. '^-) could scarcely precede the building
of the temple. (5) It is prob. that Neh. or Ezra ordered this suspen-
sion (v."). (6) The interpolated v. *8 shows that the original was
later than the building of the temple. (7) The term "all the congre-
gation" (v. ")> a term inappropriate to a caravan, suggests a census of
the whole nation, (v. further We. Isr. Jud. Ge^.i"). If we accept Tor-
rey's view of Esd. 4<'-5^ (v. Intr. to c. 3), it is plain that further criti-
cism is necessary; Esd. 5* begins "and these are the names of the
men who went up," but the only names found are those of Jes. and
Zer.; 5' virtually repeats the statement, showing that while the Esd.
text originally had a list, this is not the original list, but a substitute
prob. from a later Heb. source. Moreover, Ezr. 31 (or 2^^) seems to me
to join directly to Esd. 5', though Torrey sees no difficulty in the pres-
ent arrangement.
It is easy to dismiss the matter as a mere invention of the Chr., Tor-
rey saying that it was "deliberately repeated by him (to add as much
as possible to its importance) " (ES."=). Against this view, see Berth.'.
The mere catalogue of names does, indeed, seem like the Chr.; but
many others cared for genealogies besides the oft-abused Chr. and there
are integral parts of the c. which are not due to his pen. There are
some positive results which may be deemed reasonable. Ne. certainly
contained a list of those who took up residence in the newly walled
city, bare of inhabitants (Ne. 11). Esd. shows clearly that it originally
had a list of those who came up with Zer. Lists are required, there-
fore, in both places.
There are many lists of names in these books, but the one before us
is the most comprehensive of all. The largest of all the caravans of
returning exiles may have been that which came with Zer. But on
the face of it this list is a record of those who came up with a number of
dififerent leaders (v. ="). It appears to be an attempt to gather a com-
EZRA 2 1-^9 y^
prehensive list of all who had come to Judah from the time of Zer. to
the time of Ezra. Indeed, what may be the original title of the list,
"the number of the men of the people of Israel" (v. ^t) would suggest
that the list is a census of all the Israelites in Judah, for Mey.'s inter-
pretation of the term Israel as meaning those who came back from
captivity is exceedingly doubtful {Ent.^^^- °- 0» The leaders are grouped
together, and so are the chief men who composed the various caravans.
It was probably made up in the time of Ezra, and may have stood as a
part of the Ezra documents. Certainly the unrelated passage. No. 2,
above, fits his age. The earliest notice of any attempt to make a line
of cleavage between Israel and its neighbours was in Neh.'s second
administration (Ne. 12^5 f). There is no indication of a concern about
the purity of the priesthood before Ezra's time. The whole list may,
therefore, stand in its true place in connection with Ne. 8, in spite of
the evidence of Esd. to the contrary.
Now it was the theory of the Chr. that postex. Israel was made up
exclusively of those who had returned from captivity. He therefore
must have a large number of returning exiles at the beginning, cer-
tainly before the building of the temple, at which task none but pure
Israelites must have a hand (Ezr. 4^-'). Therefore he takes the largest
list found in any of his documents and substitutes it for the brief list
of those who had come up with Zer. When he interjected the reading
of the law into the history of Neh., he took the whole document Ne.
7«-8'2. By changing the purpose of Neh.'s assembly 7=% and adding
7"', he secured a suitable connection.
What value the list may have is hard to say. There was an interest
in such records in the postex. period, prob. growing out of the effort
to separate Israel from "the peoples of the lands." From that point
of view the section w. ''-«' may be quite appropriate in its place.
Allowing for corruption this may be an authentic census of Israel in
the latter part of the Pers. period.
The numbers in the lists. — The numbers vary greatly in the two Vrss.
In the list of laity Ezr. and Ne. differ in half the cases, and there is
not a single figure in which all the texts agree. On the other hand,
there is but little variation in the lists of temple officers, pr. Lev. etc.,
suggesting a later text for that part. There is virtual agreement in
the grand total, 42,360, but we could scarcely hold with Seis. that the
agreement proves the figure to be correct. That total is far in excess
of the sum of the various figures scattered through the lists and from
which it presumably is derived. This has been explained by Guthe as
due to the loss of a number of individual data; but it is easier to sup-
pose errors in the numbers than loss from the lists of such large numbers
as would be necessary to make the totals agree. Mey. supposes that
the numbers were not originally written in alphabetic characters, but
in cipher like the Phoenician (Ew/.'"). The variation is a good illus-
74 EZRA-NEHEMIAH
tration of the extent of textual corruption in the OT., though it is
hkely that numbers have suffered more than words. It is a curious
fact that if we take the maximum number in each case, and add the
3,005 in Esd. 5'^ (^), we get a total of 43,761, not far from the correct
figure. But no conclusion can safely be drawn from this fact, as there
may have been an attempt to make the text consistent.
The variations in the names is explained by Seis. as due to three
reasons: (i) Jews who had enrolled to return with Zer. changed their
minds and remained behind, while others may have joined the cara-
van on the way; (2) many may have died on account of hardships of
the journey; (3) and minors may have been enrolled in one list and not
in another (Esd.-Ne.-E. in loc). These reasons presuppose a fidelity
in the records which is scarcely borne out by the evidence. The
variations are not greater than in other cases of deuterographs, and
are to be explained as txt. err., sometimes made intentionally, more
often accidentally. The real interest is in the numbers, not in the
names, for names of living individuals are few. The people are grouped
by clans, towns, offices, and the importance lies in the number of
each group. Sm. calls attention to the fact that in this list the laity
stand first, while in other lists the temple officers take precedence
(Lfi/ew,"). He is in error to a degree, for in the strikingly similar
list in Ne. 11 = i Ch. 9, the laity are named first. Sm. explains the
precedence of the laity as due to the fact that in the first century after
the return the laity had the upper hand. He notes the invariable
naming of Zer. before Jer., and the absence of the high pr. in N. and E.
1-2" = Ne. 7^"'* Esd. 5'*-. The introduction to the list.
— 1. And these are the sons of the province who came up from the
captivity of the golah] shows a double limitation, the census
covering residents of the Persian province of Judah, but who
had been in Babylon. Sons of the province points to a period
when the country was well settled. The terms suggest an
effort to procure a Hst of Judeans who had come from the exile,
in distinction from those who had always lived in Judah. There
is no indication of a list of a caravan. — Each to his city] shows
that the pilgrims were already scattered over the country. —
2. Who came with]. There follow eleven names, twelve in Ne.,
usually regarded as a body of elders having supreme authority
at the time (Sta. Gesch. ii,io«; Kue. Abh.^; Sm. Listen,^''). It
is claimed that hints of such an official body are found in 5*
6^- 1^ It is more likely that these men were the leaders of the
EZRA 2^-^^ 75
various caravans of returning exiles which kept coming to
Judah throughout the Persian period {v. crit. n. on 2''). Nehe-
miah would then be the well-known wall-builder.
1. njncn >j3] cf. Ps. 149=, "sons of Zion," Ez. 23", "sons of Bab-
ylon," though text is dub. njnn is applied in Est. 38 t. to the Pers.
province, and it might here mean the district in Bab. whence the
exiles had come. But in Ne. i' it certainly means Judah, and it has
the same mng. here. — nSi.in ij-^] is redundant and is found only in
parall., Ne. 7°; elsw. ''2'if alone is used in the same sense. In the
earlier books "'32' means "prisoners," but in Ch.-Ezr.-Ne. it has the ab-
stract sense. In 8'^ we have "the captivity the sons of the exile";
nSun 1J2 may be a gl., or ija may have dropped out of our text. — "jaaS]
lacking in Ne. but found in all texts of Esd. The omission in Ne.
was prob. accidental on account of the preceding S23. The error is
early, as the Vrss. testify. The word means Babylonia, the country,
not Babylon, the city. — miniSi] as Ne.« is the more correct form. — 2.
1X3 •i:^^]. Ne.' Dix3n a difference shown also in (&. Esd., however,
has ol eXOovreq, supporting Ne. ^ lacks the expression in Ne. Ezr.
has II names, Ne. 12, Esd.^ 13, Matyap being added; (&^ in Ne. has 14,
adding "Eapa and Maaipap. Ezra's name properly belongs in the list;
the latter may be a repetition of naDD. — jjia*^] is regarded as a late form
of j?vi'in', in> becoming v and V becoming ~i(d. Gray,"'). In the con-
temporary Hg. and Zc. this name appears as yB'in'', from which it
would appear that the shortened name was later than this period and
may be due to the influence of d, which usually renders: Ti^aou? =
]?rr\ — T^'i-y^:;] Ne.' nnr;?. Esd. 5^ Zapafo?'^ SapafoqK Since 'Apaio?"^
is an evident error for Sotpafa?^'-, the Vrss. offer no real help. Both
are common names. Seraiah was the name of Ezra's father. He might
be the one intended here. In that case we should infer that Ezra
came up with his father. — niS>n] Ne. n^D^n. 'PeeXsxa'^ (in Ne.) gives
slight support to Ezr. Neither name occurs elsw. After this Ne. has
a name "ijcnj which E. lacks. The name is supported by Esd. 'Evi^vtoi;
and even in Ezr. Nefiiivi^. This person is not mentioned elsw. — i3ti2.
This can scarcely refer to Est.'s kinsman, and the name does not occur
otherwise. — nsD"] Ne. mDDD. The Vrss. support their texts exc. that
Esd. ('Aa9ap(iao(;) suggests the latter form, and this is accepted by
Guthe. Marquart suggests Aspadat, a Pers. name (SBOT.^^). Nei-
ther name occurs elsw. — ''IJ3] (S BaYoua, BaYoutat^, BctYouat'-, Baxouat,
Baxoet^. The name may have been ^\^^^, but that form does not
help in its explanation. Halevy reads: ''iJ-ox, rejected by Gray {Pr.
N.-^), and really without any support. — aim] Ne. oinj Esd.^ PoeifAO!;,
Naou[jL^'. The former is a well-known name in the postcx. period, the
latter does not occur elsw.
76 EZRA-NEHEMIAH
a^-SS = Ne. 7'"-^' Esd. 5^-^\ The list of the laity.—
These are enumerated under two classes: (i) under the head
of the clan, the people being designated as sons of Parosh, etc.;
(2) under the name of the town in which they lived, these
being designated as men of Bethlehem, etc. Wherever these
designations are confused a textual error may be regarded as
responsible. There is less of such confusion in Ne. than in Ezr.
We note that we have: (i) a long list of personal names, 5-20 or '-i»
if the Gibeon of Ne. is the correct reading; (2) a considerable list of
place-names, "o (ori9).s9j (2) a short list of personal names, "'-'2; (4)
place-names, =' f-; (5) and a single personal name, 's. There are two
cases where the order in Ne. differs from that in Ezr., vv. "• ". It
is very prob. that in its original form all the personal names stood first,
with the place-names following, and Guthe has so arranged them in
his text. Otherwise we should have to explain the list as a growth,
names being added at the end and so causing the disarrangement in
the order.
Esd. here shows wide divergence from MT. Esd.'- agrees through-
out with MT. so far as the names are concerned, but ^^ lacks Hashum,
v.", Gibbar, v. ^o, Ai, v. =", Nebo, v. ^s, the other Elam, v.", and
Harim, v. ^K On the other hand, ^-^ contain the following names
not found in MT. v. " KeCkdiv xal 'AX.-qz&q (npryi r\h^';p) 'A'C.apou (nj?
Ne. iQis) v.", 'Avvefc QAyvicxc;^), (n^Jjn Ne. lo^Oj *Ap6[i. (ann v. '-);
V. ", BottTTjpoui;; v. =", o\ xaStaaczt v.<x\ ' A\).[i.ilioi. It will appear, there-
fore, that Esd. follows Heb. in vv. i-»«- "i-zsa. ss-ss^ but in the rest leaves
out some names and introduces others, and curiously the number lack-
ing and the number added, counting combined names, is the same (six).
Four of the six added names stand between Ater of Hezekiah and Besai
(after v. ")> while four of the lacking Heb. names are virtually continu-
ous. This is the place where Ezr. and Ne. have a different order. Fol-
lowing Guthe's identifications we get easily a new and prob. place-name,
the men of Keilah and Azekah sixty-seven, and two new clan-names,-
Azziir and Hananiah. Bacuirjpoui; is certainly a place-name; Guthe
reads "ic? and substitutes this for Gibbar, v. ^o; but Esd. has the in-
credible number, 3,005, while Gibbar has but 95. A more prob. expla-
nation is found in i Ch. 2" "nj-n>3 •'3X «iin. The first word is a name
in Ne. (= Jorah v. "). The meaningless Gibbar may be a corrup-
tion of Beth-Giddar, which in Ne. becomes the well-known but
unsuitable Gibeon. Beth-Giddar is in Judah and would be a proper
locality to connect with Bethlehem; in fact, these two places are
connected in i. Ch. 2". Each name is preceded by ''J3 or "itfJ^'. Here
again there is considerable diversity in use. In Ezr. we find sons exc.
EZRA 2i-^' 77
before Netophah, Anathoth, Michmas, Bethel, and Ai; but in (5 before
the last three only. In Ne. we find men before the names Bethlehem
to Nebo, with which <& agrees exc. in having "men" before the other
Elam, and ^^ having "sons" before Bethlehem, Netophah, Anathoth,
and Azmaweth, these places not occurring in ^. Esd.^-^ agree with
Ne., since oY ex = ''ma, but ^ has "sons" exc. in two places, with
Michmash and with Bethel and Ai, and here we find avSpec;, a word
not occurring in ^\ It is safe to conclude that it was intended to use
"sons" before personal names, and "men" before place-names, but
that there was doubt about some of the names. The system in Ne.
is nearly correct, "sons" being used for "men" before some place-
names at the end on account of the disarrangement of the list. It
will appear below (on the place-names) that there are some doubtful
cases.
The personal names. — There are 24 such names, though Jes. and Joab
are not given as heads of clans, and Senaah is very uncertain. There
are other groups of personal names in our books: (i) Ezra's company
ef returning exiles (Ezr. 8); (2) the list of those who divorced their
foreign wives (Ezr. 10); (3) the builders of the wall (Ne. 3); and (4)
those who subscribed to the covenant (Ne. 10). List (i) contains the
clan-names, and then the individuals belonging to the clan. Of the
12 clans there are but 2, Shekaniah^ and Shelomithi", which are not
found in our list. But in list (4), a record of clan-names only, less than
half are found in our list. There are but 2 clans found in all the
lists, Parosh and Pahath-Moab, and these have the largest numbers
attached; 4 are found in three lists, while but i, Arah, occurs only in
one list. Reference should here be made to the valuable tables in
Sm.'s Die Listen, and to the glossary at the end of Berth. 's comm.
The place-names. — Of the 20 place-names in MT., 14 are well known,
being found in pre-ex. records (or 15 if we include Gibeon as in Ne.).
Of the others, Azmaweth is dub., for it may be a personal name. Lod,
Hadid, and Ono are place-names in Ne. ii'^*- and located in Benj.
Hadid does not occur elsw. Ono and Lod are named as BenJ. towns
in I Ch. 812, and the same Ono may be intended in Ne. 6^. In regard
to Nebo there is much doubt. We know a mountain and city of that
name in Moab, but that situation is unsuitable. We find the "sons
of Nebo" in Ezr. 10" among those divorced, but, contrary to BDB.,
it is a personal name. We note further that in Ezr. "men of" (v. ")
changes to "sons" at this point, after which we have personal names.
Therefore Nebo may be a personal name here. Otherwise we may
regard the text as slightly in error and identify with Nob, a Benj. city
(Is. io« Ne. II"). There are thus several names concerning which
we cannot positively determine whether they are personal or geograph-
ical. These are Magbish, Ilarim, Senaah, Azmaweth, and Nebo.
In Ne. ii«-36 there is an important geographical list of the places in
78 EZRA-NEHEMTAH
Judah and Benj. inhabited at the time that record was made. We find
there 17 Judean towns, not one of which is found in our Hsts. On the
other hand, there are 15 Benj. places, and of these 10 are in this hst,
and of these 9 are continuous. As our list is later than that in Ne.,
it would appear that the localities on the north of Jerus. remained
stationary, while those on the south changed almost completely with
the course of time. The Judean towns of our list are all near Jerus.;
some of them in Ne. 11 are more remote; it would appear, therefore,
that the pilgrims for the most part settled near Jerus., or else that the
census taken did not cover much ground. There are several place-names
in the hst of temple-builders (Ne. 3), and, strange to say, Jericho is the
only name that is common, though Keilah is found in Ne. 3 in agree-
ment with Esd.
Mey. explains the separation of these people designated by towns
from those indicated by clans on the theory that these are the poor
people (Ent.^^^), who were not reckoned by families. The conclusion
seems to me fanciful. In other lists the people are grouped by towns
to distinguish them from the Jerusalemites (v. esp. Ne. 11); the same
course is followed here.
2**. The number of the men oj the people of Israel] is a heading
for the lists which follow. The word number expresses the idea
shown in most of the table that the interest is not in the names,
but in the figures. Except in the case of some of the temple
officers, the names of living individuals are not given. — 3. The
sons of Parosh] meaning the members of the clan of which Parosh
was the head. It was a large body, having 2,172 individuals.
The clan appears often in Ezr.-Ne. 8^ lo'^^ Ne. 3^^^ 10^^. — 5.
The sons of Arah, 775], Ne. 652. — 6. The scheme of the list
fails here, MT. reading, the sons of Pahath-Moab: of the sons of
Jeshua, Joab, 2,812]. Ne." reads Jeshua and Joab. The text
is corrupt, as the departure from the mechanical system of the
list shows {v. i.). — 7. Elam is well known as the country over
which Cyrus ruled. The name recurs in v. ^^ with the distin-
guishing adjective other; otherwise the verses are the same.
This is a case of accidental repetition, and "other" was added
to cover up the error. — Zattu] lo^^ Ne. 10^^; 945 Ne. 845. — 9.
Zakkai] only here, but he may be the same as Zabbai Ne. 3^"
(so Qr.). — 10. Bani] Ne.^'' Binnui. Both forms recur; indeed,
there are numerous forms from the root Hi^. 642 Ne. 648. — •
12. Asgad] 8^2 Ne. lo^^ explained by Gray as containing the
EZRA 2 1-^5 79
name of the deity Gad — Gad is mighty. He regards the
name as proof of the worship of this deity during the exile
{Pr. iV."*). But these chiefs may have lived long before the
exile, as the list deals with their posterity. Gad may, therefore,
be David's prophet (i S. 22^), or the tribe across the Jordan,
representatives of which may have been in the postexilic com-
munity. — 14. Bigvai] is also the name of one of the leaders,
v. 2; also 8^ Ne. 10". — 16. The sons of Ater of Hezekiah] cf. Ne.
10^^, where Hezekiah follows Ater as a separate name. It is
possible that Ater was a descendant of King Hezekiah. — 18.
Jorah] Ne.^* Hariph. — 20. Gibbar] Ne.^^ Gibeon, a place-name.
Probably the correct form is Beth-Giddar (v. s.). — 22. Neto-
phah] the home of two of David's heroes (2 S. 23^^). Identified
with Beit Nettif at the entrance to the vale of Elah (DB.). Ne.
groups the Bethlehemites and Netophites together with 188
for the two; the figures in Ezr. are 123 and 56, 179 in all. —
23. Anathoth] was but three miles from Jerusalem, and was
Jeremiah's home. — 24. Azmaweth] Ne.^^ Beth-Azmaweth, a form
found nowhere else. Azmaweth is a personal name (2 S. 12^^
I Ch. 11^3 12'), and a place-name in Ne. 12^9, the home of the
singers near Jerusalem. As it is among the place-names, this
town may be meant. — 29. The sons of Nebo] Ne.^^ the men of
the other Nebo. The only known Nebo is the Reubenite town
in Moab (Nu. 32'- ^*). From Ne. w,e infer that there was an-
other place of this name. — 30. Magbish] lacking in Ne., and
not mentioned elsewhere. — 32. Harim] means consecrated and
is a good priestly name. — 35. Senaah] is the name of a wall-
builder (Ne. 3^) and is probably personal (v. i.).
2^. SnTlT" Djr >S'j« nsDc] (g^ dcvSpwv &piG\i.h<; [ + XaoO^l 'lapai^X, an
evident transposition, as ^ has dptOyLb? av. In Ne. 05 has Maayap
fivSpe(; ulou 'lapaiQX, Mat^ip fivSpe? Xaou 'lapai^XK Esd. 5'^ has a
different text twv xpoTjYoufjLivwv auTwv, iptOjib? twv dxb toO eOvouq
yxti o\ •jcpoir]YoiJ[Aevot au-uoiv. Here we have an equiv. of anitrN-i accepted
by Guthe as a suitable ending of the list of the leaders of returning
caravans, and a slightly different heading for the following census.
It would be in Heb. anv^xii [or luc] a;?n -ii3DD and is less awkward
than MT. 3 Esd. has a still different text, Etnonia unus de pHncipi-
bus eorum. Et numerus a geniilihus eorimi ex praposUis eorum. Seis.
8d EZRA-NEHEMIAH
y
holds that Israel is used advisedly rather than Judah, for the twelve
leaders indicate representatives of all the tribes. There may have been
men from the ten tribes in the later Judean province, but certainly the
use of the name Israel does not even suggest such a conclusion. The
Heb. phrase would make a good title for the list which follows, indicat-
ing a census of the whole nation, such as was taken in David's time
(2 S. 24). It is the Chr.'s theory that these all returned from cap-
tivity. — 5. Qiyaci na^cn] units preceding tens shows txt. err. Rd. as
Ne." D''j!yi D'^a'Dn. — 6. oxid nna] 8* 10'" Ne. 3" io'=. 05'^ has ^aXag-
[xoxip, Esd.'^ 4>6aXettJ.(i)a^, but otherwise ^aaGyiwip as ^. The lexicons
derive from nnD, a pit = pit of Moah; but governor of Moab is prefer-
able (B.-Rys. Ryle), an interpretation supported by a dup. in ^: 4>aa8
:f)You[i.ivou Mwa^. The name is strange for a Heb. family. Seis. sup-
poses it was borne by a Moabite family which had wandered into
Judah as Ruth did. Ryle supposes the family to have been rulers of
part of Moab, and the ofHcial has displaced the family name. B.-Rys.
explained as a Judean ruler in Moab and held that nno was a late sub-
stitution for an older word of the same meaning. He cites i Ch. 4^^,
where we find 2^?1DS iSya. The name might have been 3Sia-Sy3, and
the change made to get rid of the offensive Baal, as Ish-baal was changed
to Ish-bosheth. Ew. held that the name belonged to a governor of .
Moab appointed by the Chaldeans, and who had later returned to
Jerus. {Hist, v,^^), a view from which Sm. dissents. All that we can
say surely is that an official title has become a common clan-name.
3xi> yityi] It is held that Jes. was the head of one branch of his
family and Joab the head of a smaller branch. In that case we should
have the genealogy of Joab traced back through Jes. to an earlier
Pahath-Moab. But Ne. reads Jes. and Joab; so (S^ and Esd., a ren-
dering adopted by Guthe. There is no other case in the personal names
where clans are grouped together or where genealogical information
is added. The most prob. explanation is that a number has dropped
out after Pahath-Moab, that Jes. has crept in by accident, and " the
sons of Joab" is an independent clan. Otherwise we must regard of
the sons of Jes.: Joa&asagl. — 10. ''J3] C5, Bavou, Bavout, Bavet, Bavata,
Bavaiou. Perhaps both Ezr. and Ne. ("lua) are corrupt. We might
get 1U3 " built," or n;:3 " Yahweh has built," comparable to the Bab.
Banlia. Names from this root are very common {v. forms in Ne.
10" 11'= I Ch. 2").— 11. 03] is found in Bab. as Biba.— 16. There
is a -1- in Esd.^^ 5", the sons of Azer, of Hezekiah, the sons of Keilan and
Azetas, 67; the sons of Azaru, 432; the sons of Anneis, loi; the sons
of Arom. Twice a number is wanting, and once both " sons of" and a
number fail. — 18. n-iv] Ne. inn d^ has IwpiQe in Ezr. and Ne,, but
Esd.^ reads Qpott, Esd.^^ ApaetyoupstS, showing both names in a cor-
rupt form, n-iv has rather the better support. — 20. laj] may be an
error for pyaj, as Ne. Esd."- has Pa^auv, and Gibbar is not found
EZRA 2 ^-•'9 8 1
elsw. Gibeon is north of Jerus. The list begins with southern places
and later gives those in the north; therefore, if Gibeon is right the v. is
misplaced. — 21. In Ne. (S"^ lacks Bethlehem, Netophah, and Anathoth.
— 24. mctj?] is the correct pointing, as all the varied forms of CS> end
in ii(o6. — 26. Esd. has + ol x'^h'^^aai xal 'AyL[ji.i'Stot (422). — 27. ddoc]
so Ne., but CDOD is the form in i S. 13^ "• Is. lo^s Ne. 11".
29. i3j] + ins in Ne., a form supported by ^ alone, the other Gk.
texts following Ezr. Guthe holds that Ihe sons of Nebo must be a clan,
comparing Ne. lo^". The other Nebo of Ne. means another clan of the
same name. As the number 52 is the same in both texts, Guthe 's
contention is dub. — 30-32. Maghish, Elam, and Harim are usually
treated as place-names (Sieg. Seis. B.-Rys.). The evidence points to
personal names. Magbish, lacking in Ne., but supported by (&, docs
not occur elsw., but as all the other places are well known, an unheard-
of place would hardly be named here. There is a personal name cysJO
in Ne. 10" which might be the same. We know of no Judean town
named Elam, still less can we find two of that name. Harim recurs
pass. V. '^ lo"- " Ne. 3" 755.42 io«- 28 i2'5j and always is a person.
Ha-ri-im-ma-' is a personal name on the contract tablets (Clay, Mu-
rashu Sons, x,^"). — 35. nxjD] Ne. 3' is deemed a place-name by many.
The number in this group is 3,630, 3,930 in Ne., about one- twelfth of
the whole. This big number could not belong to an unknown place,
nor to an otherwise unknown clan. The number may, of course, be
wrong, esp. as (6^ in Ne. has 930. In i Ch. 9" there is nxjcn-ja a
Benj., the same person as nijon-p in Ne. 11' {v. Benz. and Curt, on
I Ch. 9'). The art. is found in Ne. J. D. Michaelis explained as " the
sons of the unloved wife" (nxiji?). Mey. notes (Is. 6015) Jerus. shall
be no longer " abandoned and hated," but a pride and joy. He holds
that "abandoned and hated" covers these people,' so that the name
indicates neither a place nor a person, but a class, men without property,
servants, and the like. But if Is. is cited, "the sons of the hated"
would be a national name, covering all of despised Israel. In our lists
personal or place names are required throughout. The pointing is
attested by all Gk. texts. A personal name must be meant, and the
same name is to be assumed in i Ch. 9' Ne. 11'. Guthe notes that in
the Mishna nxjD is a Benj. clan.
36-58. = Ne.'^^° Esd. 5'^-"^ The temple officers.— These
are arranged in six groups: (i) Priests. (2) Levites. (3) Singers.
(4) Porters. (5) Nethinim. (6) Sons of Solomon's servants.
(i) The priests, vv. ^e-sa Ne."-" Esd.^^ f-. — The number of pr. is large,
4,289, almost exactly one-tenth of the whole list, but as only four clans
are named, we have an average of over a thousand to each clan. It is
very likely that pr. would be interested above all others in the rebuild-
6
82 EZRA-NEHEMIAH
ing of the temple, as that would be a necessary step in their restoiation
to office. Nevertheless, it would be difficult to conceive of such a vast
number returning at one time; and still more difficult to comprehend
the delay in the rebuilding of the temple if more than 4,000 pr. were
on the ground from the first.
It is noteworthy that in the list of pr. Ezr. and Ne. agree in both
names and numbers, and even (^ offers no important variation. It is
natural to infer from this harmony that the list belongs to a late date,
a conclusion supported by the absence of any mention of these pr.
in Jos. There are large lists of pr.' names found in other parts of
our books (Ne. io>ff- iiio^- 12* "f-)- The heads of the priestly houses
here are the same as those in the list of divorced pr. (Ezr. lo'' ff),
exc. that here we have " the sons of Jcdaiah of the house of Jes." and
in the other " the sons of Jes, the son of Jozadak"; and in the latter
list Harim precedes Pashhur. Among the pr. who had taken foreign
wives were all the families named in our list, and no others. There
were four other priestly clans which came up with Ezra (S^f): the sons
of Phinehas, Ithamar, David, and Shecheniah. These would naturally
not have foreign wives, being fresh arrivals, while those in our list must
have been for some time in Judah. In Ne. 12' *f- we have the Chr.'s
list of the priestly chiefs who came up with Zer. and Jes. and there we
•find 22, not one being identical with our list. It is worthy of note
that Esd."^ gives a total of 2,588 pr. as against 4,289 of MT. The large
numbers and the few names may be due to the necessary grouping in
large divisions, because pr. were, indeed, very plentiful when the list
was made. Yet the number seems to be exaggerated. Smith con-
siders the 1,500 of the pseudo-Aristeas the maximum for any period
(7er. i,=" '•).
We. notes that the first priestly clan appears to be composed of the
descendants of Jes., the contemporary of Zer., and that the list, there-
fore, belongs to a much later period than that of Cy. or Dar. (GGN.
1895,"'); but Mey. questions, I think wrongly, the conclusion and
the identification {Ent.^^').
Jedaiah] recurs in the other lists of priests, and also in i Ch.
9'" 24^; in the last passage a priest of the second class. (S
shows a great variety of forms, but the Hebrew pointing is cor-
rect. — Of the house of Jeshua] means that the family of Jedaiah
is traceable to an earlier Jeshua. — 37. Immer] recurs in the lists
and in i Ch. 9^^ 24^. There was a priest of this name in Jere-
miah's time (Je. 20^). The name has accidentally dropped
from CS»^ in Ne. 7^". — 38. Passhur] is the name of the priest who
was the son of Immer and who put Jeremiah in the stocks (Je.
EZRA 2^-<«> 83
20). — 39. Harim] was found among the laity, v. ^^; as the name
means "consecrated," it is peculiarly appropriate for a priest.
Mey. suggests that there might be lay elements in a priestly
clan {EnL^"""), but we must not make too much out of a name.
36. Esd.^ begins " the sons of pr.," but this is an error. ^^ contain
an additional name, and a slightly dififerent construction : the sons of
Jeddon of tlte son of Jesus, for the sons of Sanabeis, 872 (A Anaseib, by
metathesis). This does not afiford much help. It is barely possible that
Esd.'s name is Sanb. and the omission from the lists would be due to
hatred of Neh.'s bitter opponent. (& suggests another name : 'leouSd;^,
'leSSoua^ i. e., Jaddiia (Ne. 12"-"), who was high pr. in the time
of Alexander the Great {v. Mey."')- But Jaddua and Jedaiah are
not necessarily the same, for 05 makes sad havoc of Heb. names. The
question arises whether this Jes. is the high pr. and the companion of
Zer. If so, We.'s contention is correct, that we are here far removed
from the time in which Jes. lived (quoted by Mey. op. cit.). But Mey.
says that that identification is by no means certain, since there was
also a Levitical family named Jes. We. is probably right though, for
there would be no reason for adding Jes.'s name unless it were well
known. It is not imlikely that we should correct the text here on the
basis of Ezr. lo'* ^- Among those divorced were four priestly families,
the sons of Jes. of Immer, of Harim, and of Passhur; the best result
would be obtained by regarding n^a*? nipni as an explanatory gl.
(2) The Levites, v. « Ne.« Esd.^'. — Two facts engage our attention
in connection with this list, the small number of the Lev. and their
separation into a distinct class from the pr. The paucity of this class
in the restoration is usually explained on the ground of the unwilling-
ness of the degraded Lev. to accept the humbler duties to which they
were consigned in the postex. period. But there is not a hint of this
feeling in our sources. When Ezra's company assembled at the river
Ahava and a muster was taken, it was learned that there was not a
Lev. in the whole assembly. By a diligent search through the coun-
try Ezra secured 38 Lev. (S'^f). It appears that the trouble was due
to the fact that in this period there were not many Lev. apart from the
priestly order. It seems clear that from the small numbers and from
the character of the v., which is very broken, that we have here but a
fragment of the original list of Lev.
This is the first instance in our books where pr. and Lev. are reck-
oned as distinct classes. It is not difficult, however, with the material
at hand to trace the course of events which led to this distinction. In
the early days Lev. like pr. and prophet indicated an ofl&ce rather than
a tribe. There were plenty of pr. who were not Lev., but there were
84 EZRA-NEHEMIAH
prob. no Lev. who were not pr. By the seventh century, as the book
of Dt. shows, the non-Levitical pr. had disappeared or had been re-
ceived into the order, for pr. and Lev. are syn. When Josiah central-
ised the cult at Jerus. the pr. of the local shrines either came to Jerus.
and acted in a subordinate capacity or were left without occupation
and support. Ez. knows the identification, but he declares that only
the sons of Zadok, who are nevertheless Lev., shall serve in the priest-
hood (40" 44*0; ^•ll other Lev. are to do the humble offices at the
sanctuary, tending the doors, butchering the sacrifices, and doing such
other menial services as are required. At the end the Lev. are spoken
of as a separate class (48'^ 'â– ).
It is apparent that now the Lev. is no longer a pr. in his own right.
The priesthood had once embraced many who were not Lev., now the
Lev. embrace many who are not pr. It would surely happen during
the exile that these deposed Lev. would enter the secular life (c/. Ne.
13"), with the result that when the exile was over but few of this order
survived. In P this distinction is treated as if it had always existed,
it being said that Moses gave the tribe of Levi unto Aaron that they
might minister to the priesthood (Nu. 3«). Their duties in the later
days were manifold and various; they killed the sacrificial animals;
they served as doorkeepers and singers; they did duty as scribes (2
Ch. 34") and as teachers (ib. 35' Ne. 8'- '); they went about begging
money for the temple (2 Ch. 24^ ff).
40. MT. runs: the sons of Jes. and Kadmiel: of the sons of Hodaviah].
It would appear from this that there was but one Levitical guild, whose
two branches, Jes. and Kadmiel, are represented in the return. But
in 3' there are apparently three independent guilds, Jes. Kadmiel,
Judah (= Hodaviah). Among the Lev. sealed we find Jes. Kadmiel,
and Hodiah (Hodaviah); in Ne. 9', another list of eight Lev. "who
went up with Zer.," we find Jes. Kadmiel, and Judah; while in Ne.
12" Jes. is given as the son of Kadmiel. (We have also Jes. the son of
Azaniah, Ne, 10°). In other lists we find of these three only Jes. and
Kadmiel (Ne. g*- ') or Jes. and Hodiah (Ne. 80. It is evident that
there is much confusion in the lists of Lev., but it is prob. that our
text should read : the sons of Jes. Kadmiel, Bani, and Hodaviah, so that
this record names four small Levitical guilds. 3 Esd. has an extraor-
dinary text : LevitcB filii Jesu in Caduhel et Baneis, et Screbias et Edias
septuaginta quattuor; omnis numerus a duodecimo anno: triginta millia
qiiadrigenti sexaginta duo, filii et filics et iixores: omnis computatis: quad-
raginta millia ducenti quadraginta duo. No lack of Lev. ace. to this
source.
(3) The singers, v. *^ Ne. 7^^ Esd. 5". — These are treated as
a distinct class like the Levites. There may have been such
EZRA 2^-'" 85"
a body in the pre-exilic age {OTJC.""^^). Their office would
naturally be that of choristers in the temple service, and they
played their own accompaniment (i Ch. 15^^); they were ap-
pointed by the king for service in the temple and received reg-
ular pay (Ne. ii^^ ^â– )', their dwellings were in the environs of
Jerusalem {ib. 12"^^)', Nehemiah found them scattered in the
fields on account of non-support {ib. 13^°). — The sons of Asaph]
the only name, indicating but a single guild. To Asaph are
ascribed a group of Psalms, 50, 73-83, and he may have been
the head of a choir in the Persian period (c/. Br.Ps-'^'f).
(4) The porters, v. *2 Ne. 7^^ Esd. 528. — Sons of]. Wanting in
Ne. and unnecessary. The porters or doorkeepers are usually
mentioned with the singers, though their functions were dif-
ferent. They must have been found wherever there was a
sanctuary; Samuel was virtually the porter of the temple at
Shiloh (i S. 3^^. According to Ne. 12^5 they were the guardians
of the storehouses of the gates, but this must have been a
special function.
There are six names as heads of the guilds of porters. —
Shallum] is a name given to many Hebrews. It is interesting
to note that Maaseiah the son of Shallum was a keeper of the
threshold in Jeremiah's time (Je. 35^). There were three such
officers, and all were put to death at the fall of Jerusalem {ib.
52^^ ^■). — Ater] occurs also as the head of a lay clan, v. ^^. We
know nothing further about him. — Akkub] is named among the
Levites who interpreted the law (Ne. 8''). — Hatita and Shobai]
are not mentioned elsewhere. — The whole] i. e., the sum of all
the guilds of porters is 139 (Ne. 138). From the words in Ps.
84", "I had rather be a doorkeeper in the house of my God
than to dwell in the tents of wickedness," the office must have
been rather a humble one. Br. gives quite a different render-
ing (Ps. in loc).
Singers and porters are mentioned many times in Ezr.-Ne. and in
Ch., but rarely elsw. (singers not at all, and porters not in the sense of
temple ofl&cers). The attempt has been made to show that in Ezr.-Ne.
they are sharply differentiated from the Lev., while in Ch. they belong
to that class {v. Baudissin, DB. iv,"^). Torrey, on the other hand.
86 EZRA-NEHEMIAH
holds that there is no such distinction {Contp.^'^ '). In most of the cases
where they are named in Ezr.-Ne. they are distinguished from the Lev.
as a class (Ezr. 2"> 7' Ne. lo^'- ■"» 13=, the porters usually named first).
But in Ne. 12" the Lev. were brought to Jerus. to sing at the dedication
of the wall, though it is apparently said in 12''- that the singers per-
formed this ofiace. In 1310 the singers and Lev. are classed together as
doing the same work and sharing the same hard fate. In i Ch. 9"
certain singers are called heads of Lev. clans, and they are called the
brethren of the Lev. ib. 15^^ On the other hand, the singers and porters
are distinguished from the Lev. in 2 Ch. 351^ as sharply as in any
place in Ezr.-Ne. The mention of these classes in our books is due
chiefly to the Chr., and he knows nothing of a development in religion.
In the pre-ex. temple, little as we know about its rites, we may be
sure there were porters and prob. singers. But guilds like these would
not be preserved intact during the exile. The origin of these classes
must date from the second temple, and such functions as they per-
formed would naturally fall to the Lev. The Chr. knows certain famous
names belonging to these guilds, and he uses them wherever the oc-
casion demands. In Ezr. 3'" Ne. 11" the Lev. are identified with the
sons of Asaph. Singing and playing were certainly functions of the
Lev. This list does not pretend to give the name of a singer of this
period nor do we find such a list in our sources. The Lev. are frequently
named also as doorkeepers (Ne. 12-5 1322 i Ch. g'^ 2 Ch. S'* 23* ^4^- ").
41. DnTiynn] Esd.^ ulol Aaa? ol ySof. ^ Esd. filii sacredotum qui psal-
lebant in templo, an explanatory gl. — 42. ''J3] del. as Ne., though (&^ in
Ne. supports text of Ezr. d^ is correct enough, ulol twv tcuXwv, reading
Dnya*.!, gates, instead of gatekeepers; this may be the original Ezr. text.
Esd.'^-'^ reads differently from MT., viz., the porters, 400; those oflshmacl,
the sons of Lakoubatos, 1,000; the sons of Tobeis, all 139. The total has
been made to agree with Heb. without reference to the other figures.
In other lists of porters, Ne. iii» has Akkub and Talmon; Ne. i2'«
Meshullam (= Shallum), Talmon, and Akkub; i Ch. 9" Shallum,
Akkub, Talmon, and Ahiman, Shallum being designated as the chief.
Ahiman is apparently a misreading of aninx, their brothers, so that we
have but three constant names, Shallum, Talmon, and Akkub. There-
fore Atcr, Hatita, and Shobai are prob. later than the Chr. — San] want-,
ing in Ne., but supported by Gk. texts of Ezr.
(5) The Nethinim, vv. ^^-^ Ne. f^-^^ Esd. 529-32.— Noteworthy
is the unusually long list of this class. There are 35 names in
Ezr., Ne. having 3 less. But Esd. has a longer list, 38 names
in ^, 39 in ^; ^ agrees with MT. On this ground Guthe adds
5 names to the list, making 40 in all. They are all given as
EZRA 2^-S3 87
heads of clans, and we should expect a large number of indi-
viduals. There were, however, but 392 of the Nethinim and
sons of Solomon's servants combined, separate numbers not be-
ing given. It is evident that these clans or guilds were very-
small, averaging about nine persons each. The Nethinim were
subordinate temple officers, performing the humblest functions
at the sanctuary.
The name Neth. occurs but once elsw. than Ezr.-Nc. (i Ch, g^),
but many times in our books, Ezr. 2"- ". 70 77. u gn. 20 (*«) Ne. z''*- "
746. 60. 73 1020 ii3. 21 Ws)^ Torrey holds that all these passages are from
the Chr. Of most of them that statement is true; when we find an insti-
tution like this traced back to David (Ezr. S^"), it is good evidence of
the hand of the Chr. But the reference to the house of the Neth. in Ne.
3" is earlier than the Chr. and attests the existence of this body before
his time. This house was prob. occupied by those who were on duty at
the temple, the rest living in Ophel (Ne. 32' 11"). The site of the house
opposite the water gate has been supposed to connect them with the
drawers of water (Jos. 9") (Ryle, DB.), but that is fanciful. Ace. to
Ezr. 820 they were given for the service of the Lev. They are gener-
ally regarded as temple slaves (Schiirer, Jewish People, ii,'- "^ ST.^^).
They are called lepdSouXot by Jos. {Antiq. xi, 5, i and Esd.'^^). Kue.
holds that they were mere foreigners held as slaves and finds a refer-
ence to them in Zc. 14^', " and in that day there shall no more be a
Canaanite in the house of Yahweh" {Einl. ii,<<>''). Mitchell supposes
Canaanite to mean " trader" {Zc. ICC, so Mar. Dodekapr.).
It is held that they were descendants of prisoners of war, as the
Gibeonites were made hewers of wood and drawers of water (Jos. 9"),
and support for this contention is found in the presence of foreign
names in the list (Berth. Or/C."')- This view is scarcely tenable;
for this term is applied to the Lev. in Esd. i', since lep6SouXoc standing
there for the Lev. is given to the Neth. in 5". If they were foreign
slaves we should scarcely have such a painstaking record of the names
of their clans. They are usually named in connection with the other
classes of temple ofiicers, pr. Lev. singers, and porters; with pr. and
Lev. alone in i Ch. 9', or with pr. Lev. and sons of Solomon's servants
(Ne. II'). The leaders of this body were Siha and Gishpa (Ne. ii'O,
showing some sort of organisation. The identification of the Neth.
with the Lev. as in Esd., along with the constant connection above
mentioned, makes it highly probable that they were a branch of the
Levitical body, which gradually disappeared in the later religious de-
velopment. This view is supported by Nu. 3', where it is said that
the Lev. were given to the pr. It is prob. that Nu. 3' has the name
88 EZRA-NEHEMIAH
of the Neth. The text stands now iS n;;n D"'jinj diji.ij, rendered in RV.
" they are wholly given to him" (Aaron), a rendering accepted by Gray
{Nu.). The repetition recurs in Nu. 8", but written defectively (a^jnj).
We should, perhaps, rd. D>jinj aij>nj "as Neth. are they given to him."
Nu. i8' should then be rendered: "to you they are a gift, Yahweh's
Neth., to do the work at the tent of meeting."
An extraordinary thing about this list is the large number of names
which are not found elsw. Of the 35 there are only 9 which recur. One
of these, Siha, may be disregarded, as its repetition is in the same con-
nection; two others are names of foreign kings, Rezin and Sisera; a
fourth is otherwise found only of one of the sons of Solomon, Giddel;
a fifth is corrupt, Meunim. Virtually we have a long list of peculiar
names. It is highly prob. that'this list was not made up by the Chr., for
he uses the same names over and over again. Another peculiarity of
the list is the considerable number with the ending n-^, of which there
are 14 (reading njdx, v. ^o, and taking Ne.'s forms). This apparently is
due to an Aram, influence. Many of the names are explicable as Heb.,
but the list seems to have been written by one whose tongue was Aram.
Che. has a characteristic interpretation: like Nathan, Nathanel,
Nethanim is a disguise of Ethani. Ethan the Ezrahite was a Jewish
Jerachmeelite, since bette Neahol (i K. 4" 51') = bene Jerachmcel {AJT.
i90i,^'8)_ Similarly he holds that for the sons of Solomon's servants
(v. ^0 we should rd. hdSb' :i-ri >j2] " the people of Salmaean Arabia."
Still the foreign element in the names is a serious difficulty. The fact
is we have very little information about this class of officers. The
designation in 3 Esd. sacerdotcs scrvientes in templo would indicate that
the Neth. were considered a branch of the pr.
43. Siha] was one of the leaders of the Nethinim (Ne. ii^i).
It is singular that the name of the other leader, Gispah, is not
found in this list. — 46. Hanan] occurs in i Ch. ii''^ as a warrior
of David's time. The sons of Hanan (Bab. Xanand) had a
chamber in the temple in Jeremiah's day (Je. 35''), and they may
have performed similar functions to the later Nethinim. The
name is also Levitical (Ne. 8^ iqI'^ 13^). — 47. Giddel] recurs as
one of the servants of Solomon (v. '^). — Reaiah] also in i Ch.
4^ (a Judahite) 5^ (a Reubenite). — 48. Rezin] is found else-
where only as the name of the king of Aram, who joined Pekah
against Ahaz (Is. 7^). — 49. Uzza] was the name of the man who
was slain in moving the ark (2 S. 6^). — Pareah] ("lame") is
found in i Ch. 4^^ and in Ne. 3" as the father of Joiada, one of
the wall-builders. — 50. Mewtim] is a gentilic noun (i Ch. 4^^
EZRA 21-69 gp
2 Ch. 2oi 26O, a people in Arabia (Benz. Chr. KAT.^' ^^^â– ) of
whom it is held that these Nethinim are descendants; from
this conclusion Taylor argues that the Nethinim were foreign
slaves (DB.). But the names in this list are personal, and there
can scarcely be two exceptions in the middle of the list. It is
probable that a personal name is disguised under this form, but
it is not possible to tell what it is. In Esd. we find Manei and
Maani, but little dependence can be placed on its testimony.
— NepMsim] is interpreted by Taylor {DB. iii,^i^'') as "repre-
sentatives of the race mentioned in Gn. 25^^"; in this passage
N aphis (t^''Si) is given as a descendant of Ishmael (so i Ch. i^i),
but apparently a different people is meant in i Ch. 5^^ There
is no other mention of this people, and it is scarcely likely that
their descendants would turn up in the postexilic period among
a Levitical order. Moreover, a personal name is required here.
— 53. Barkos] is unusually well attested by (I. There is a
Babylonian name which closely corresponds, BarqUsu. — Sisera]
also well attested by (^ (though ^ lacks it in Ezr. and ^ in Ne.),
was the name of the king whose defeat is celebrated in the song
of Deborah. On the name, see Moore, Ju. 4^, and PAOS. xix,i^°;
Moore holds that Sisera was a Hittite.
43. a>J>njn]. We find the word without the article (Ezr. S^o), and in
Nu. if my emendation is correct {v. s.). In one place we find the regular
participial form a-'jinj (Kt. Ezr. 8"), but the text is corrupt; (& bears
abundant testimony to the Heb. form, and it is therefore to be regarded
as a n. formation from the root |nj. The idea of giving a person to
the temple service is at least as old as Samuel; in Hannah's vow she
says: "I will give him to Yahweh all the days of his life." Samuel
may therefore be regarded as one of the Neth. — nn^i] Ne. xnx but 11"
as Ezr. (S Soueta^^ Souaa^^ SouSSaet^; Ne. H-qotP^, SouXa^L; Esd.
Horau'^^, SouSaei^. (& suggests that the first syl. should be li"; it is hard to
tell about the rest. — NsVirn] Ne. s'ija'n (^^ in Ne. Aaqja, but ^ in Ne. and
Esd. has Aoetcpa (Nflitt'n), but Ezr. is supported by (5 Acjouqje. — 44. Dip]
Ne. cn-'P C6^ always Kops? = regular ptc. DiiPj^has KaSij? (Ezr.) Ketpa
(Ne.) Kripa? (Esd.); ^ has Kirjpao? (Ezr.). — snjyio] Ne. n^d <&^ Iwatou,
ItoCTta (Esd.), ^ SwTjX (Ezr.), Aaouta'^, Stata-*-, laaouta** (Ne.), Soua,
Souaa^^ (Esd.). (5 therefore gives little support to either Heb. form. — â–
45. njai?] Ne. nj^S ^^ Aogva. Other Gk. forms attest MT. Prob.
Ne. is right, with its Aramaiscd ending, — najn] Nc. !<3Jn; latter prob.
90 EZRA-NEHEMIAH
right.— 3ip>"] lacking in Ne., but found in Gk. exc. ^ and Esd.^. The
name is suspicious in the Hst, because of its recurrence elsw. {cf. v. "). —
46. 3jn] also lacking in Ne., though found in (8 (exc. ^); it is prob. a
repetition of ^t^J^ v. «. — •''7D!r] Ne. inSr OH'' (Ezr.) Safxaotv; otherwise
(5 supports Ne. Berth, cites "'sS'i:' as evidence of the foreign origin
of the Neth. In NH the name '•pSc' occurs (BDB.), corresponding to
C5 SsXatAEt. Esd. 5" adds two names, Ouxa, Kif]TaP, so Cii^^' in Ne.".
— 47. Sij] Esd. Koua, KeOoua^; otherwise ll^ is attested, though in Ne.
the form raSirjX occurs in ^K — 48. xiipj] cf. Bab. NiqUdu. — 49. 'Dj]
BacjspL, Beaaep (Esd.); otherwise (I attests MT. — 50. hjdn] lacking
in Ne. but supported by Oi>''^^, Aaevva'-. Perhaps we should write
NjDs, "thorn bush" {cf. BDB.). — a^D'Dj] Qr. a^Disj, Ne. b^du^isj] Qr.
aiDiriej. The form in Ne. is explained as a mixture of two variants; it
is certainly a corrupt form, but the corruption is older than 05, where
we have Neqjwtjotast'^^', Ne9(i)ffaettJi.'^. 05^ in Ezr. has Na^etuwv (p''OJ), or
perhaps since [jl and v final are often confused (ddidj), which under the
influence of a^jiifc has been pointed as a pi.; Esd. has Napetaei. It is
not possible to tell what the original name was. — 52. niSxa] Ne." Kt.
iT'Ssa. There is much variation in 01, but most of the forms show that
they rd. the last syl. niS. — Na'in] (g offers great variety: Ezr. ApiQaa'^^
Apaaa'-; Ne. ASaaa(v) (t being rd. as i); Esd. AeSSai^, MesSSaA,
Baaaa'-. — Dipia] a south Ar. name (Euting), cf. Bab. Barlzusu. The
second element is regarded as the Edomite deity Kos {KAT."'^, Mu-
rashu Sons, ix,", Gray, Pr. iV.^*). Hilprecht and Clay explain the first
syl. as the deity Bir, but Gray with greater probability suggests bar.
(6) The sons of Solomon's servants, vv. ^^-^^ Ne. 7"-®' Esd. 533-35^
• — This body is named elsewhere only in the corresponding
passage in Ne. and in Ne. 11^. There is no other light on this
class, and we have no sure indication of their origin or func-
tions. As they are grouped so closely with the Nethinim, but
one number being given for the two classes, it is probable that
their office was much the same.
There is no sufTicient reason for Torrey's statement that this body is
a subdivision of the Neth. (Comp.^"); it would be more analagous to re-
gard them as a subdivision of the Lev. They are grouped with the pr.
Lev. and Neth. in Ne. ii^ as dwelling in their own cities. The Bible
throws no further light on them. Torrey regards the name as evidence
of the Chr.'s habit of tracing temple institutions back to the great kings
who established the temple ritual (op. cit.). Baudissin notes that Sol-
omon put the surviving Canaanites to forced service (i K. 9'" f) and
presumes this postex. body to be a survival from that time {DB.
EZRA 2^-63 91
iv,'"'). Taylor also regards them as foreigners like the Neth., and for
the same reason, viz., the presence of foreign names. All that we can
say with any great degree of probability is that the "servants of Sol-
omon" was an unimportant body of temple servants which grew up
in the period of the second temple and then soon disappeared as a
separate class. It is to be noted that the Neth. are often mentioned
without them, and there is no ground for holding, as Taylor does,
that in such cases they are included with the Neth. It is, however,
prob. that they are mentioned in the Aram, section (Ez. 7=0, where
after pr. Lev. singers, porters, and Neth. there is added "servants
of the house of God." That may be another name for the servants
of Solomon and would further define their office. There are but ten
names in the list, and there is but one name found elsw. (Shephatiah) ,
and there is the same tendency to Aram, terminations that was noted
in the case of the Neth.
55. nc'ra' nny]. The Gk. translators were as much perplexed about
this title as their modern followers. ^ gives here a partial translitera-
tion, A^STjaeX; in V. " AceSTjaeXsj-a, but '^ hasA^5r]a£X(ji.a: in this case
the whole thing was taken as a n. p., for the translators did not see the
name Solomon. This agrees with Peshito, which eliminates the office
entirely. In other cases (5 gives SouXtov SaXcotiov, or xafSwv 2. (^^ in
Esd. 533-35), — >[2d] Ne. "laiD (& offers every variety of vocalisation Sa-uet
(^ in Ezr.) = ^hd, Souxet (J^^ in Ne.) = "i'^id, and Su-uat (^ in Ezr. and '-
always). The name is lacking in Esd.'^^. — mflOn] Ne. hidd. (5 sup-
ports Ezr., for though ^^^ agree with Ne. in that passage, ^ has AaoyepeO,
and a similar form is found in Ezr. and Esd. in all texts. — snnfl] Ne.
Nnns supported by (& in Ne. (S $a5oupa in Ezr. and ^ in each case
= n~\MS. On the basis of this evidence any one of the three forms is
possible: Perudah, Pereidah, or Pedurah.— 5S. nS>"] Ne. i<h';\ In Ezr.
we find h-riXoJ^, IsXst^, IsSXaa'^; in Ne. leXijX'^, leairjX^^, leSaXaa^; in
Esd. hi-qkzi^, IsTjXc^, IcSXaaK It is diflacult to see what name could
have been at the bottom of all these variants. — Snj] occurs elsw. only
among the Neth., v. â– ". (g^ has HaSSat, Esd.^^A laZa-qk. As the re-
currence of a single name is doubtful, prob. MT. has lost the original
name which might have been no.
57. n"iai3!y] (" Yahweh judges") is a good Heb. name, and well at-
tested by (&, though in Esd. we find Sacpusi", SacpuOc^. The name
occurs as one of David's sons (2 S.s*); one of the enemies of Jer. (Je.
381); one of the lay chiefs, v. <; and of various other persons, i Ch.
98 12^ 27" 2 Ch. 21= Ezr. 88 Ne. ii^ On account of the familiarity of
this name, it is suspicious in this list. — o>3sn msD] (Ne. a^osn) " the
binder of the gazelles" (BDB.). In spite of the peculiarity of the name
and its anomalous character in this list, the Gk. texts afford no real help.
Esd.J'A ^34 has eight additional names at this point, each preceded by
u\oi: SapwOsc, Meiaatai;, Fai;, ASSou?, Sou^a?, Aysppa, BacpwSet?, Sacpav.
92 EZRA-NEHEMIAH'
These names were scarcely invented by a translator, but where he got
them it is not possible to say. — "'Dn] Ne. poN. CS» supports Ezr.; ^ has
AtAset in every case; ^^ Htxet (Ezr.) Hy.£t[j, (Esd.). Perhaps the original
was van, changed in Ne. to the more familiar poN. — 58. (S^ in Ezr.
and Esd. has 372 instead of 392. ^ agrees with Heb.
59-63. = Ne. 7^'"^^ Esd. 5^^-^\ A supplementary list of
those whose genealogy could not be accurately traced.
There is first a list of the laity, v. ^o, an appendix to vv. '-"; then of
pr., v. ", an appendix to vv. ="-". As these pr. were unable to find a
record of their genealogy, they were deprived of the emoluments of their
office by order of the governor until a pr. should arise for the Urim and
Thummim, that is, with the oracular apparatus and power.
59. Now these are those who went zip from Tel-Meleh, etc.]. It
is assumed that the places are in Babylonia, but not one of
them occurs elsewhere, and two are quite suspicious, Kerub and
Immer. It is likely from the inability of these people to trace
their connections, that they were from small places in Baby-
lonia, and our ignorance of the names, therefore, should not im-
pugn their accuracy. — The house of their fathers and their stock
whether they were of Israel]. The first words would imply that
a very exact genealogy was required, but the following qualify-
ing expression shows that the purpose was simply to determine
the question of nationality. Meyer infers that these men had
the position of proselytes {Ent.'^^). They may have come from
the mixed marriages which figure in the history of the period
(Ezr. 9/. Ne. 13). Smend recalls the nomadic Rechabites who
had come into Jerusalem at the time of the siege (Je. 35), and
thinks that these people may have lived in a distant part of
Babylonia (Listen,^^). Stock or seed is used very frequently of
descendants, rarely as here of ancestors. "Seed of Abraham"
is often used in a national sense, being equivalent to Israel
(Ps. 105^); and seed alone is apparently used with the same
meaning in Est. 10^. That would give a good sense here, so
that we might render their genealogy and their race. — 60. Since
the heads of the clans are given, Delaiah, Tobiah, and Nekodah,
the question must have been whether these chiefs were Israelites
or not. Delaiah is a well-established Hebrew name (" Yahweh
EZRA 2^-^^ 93
has drawn"), and was borne by a priest of David's time (i Ch.
24^*), by one of the princes before whom Jeremiah was tried (Je.
3612), and by a descendant of Zerubbabel (i Ch. 32^; cf. Ne. 6I").
The same may be said of Tobiah ("Yahweh is good"), though
it was the name of one of Nehemiah's enemies, and he was an
Ammonite. Nekodah is found elsewhere only among the Nethi-
nim, V. ^^ Ne. has 642 instead of 652 in Ezr. ; ^ agrees with Ezr.
— 61. And of the sons of the priests]. With Ne. omit the sons of.
Though Ezr. has some support, it is a faulty construction, and
doubtless the error of a scribe. The names of three priests are
given as belonging to this class, but the number is not given in.
any text. Habaiah does not occur elsewhere. Hakkos occurs
in Ne. 3*- ^i, as grandfather of one of the wall-builders. Bertho-
let notes that this clan is deemed legitimate in Ne. 3^- 21, whence
he argues for the priority of this list {Es. Neh.^). Meyer iden-
tifies Hakkos with a guild of Ezra's time (Ezr. 8^^ Ent.^''^).
Without the article (Kos) it is given as the name of a Judean
(i Ch. 4^). Barzillai is the name of a well-known Gileadite,
mentioned further on in this verse, who was the benefactor of
David when he fled from Absolom (2 S. 17^^ et pass.).
A Barzillai is also mentioned in 2 S. 21' as the father of Michal's
husband, but there are so many errors in the v. that this name may be
wrong. The name is Aram. {v. Smith, Bud. on 2 S. 17"). This Bar-
zillai, head of a priestly guild, had taken the name because he had mar-
ried into the family of the famous Gileadite. Perhaps the name had
been used first as what we call a nickname. It was given in mature
life after the man was married. Seis. suggests that this daughter was
an heiress and that the name was taken to secure the fortune. But he
offers no proof to support the theory that the name must go with the
fortune. Daughters, like sons, means the descendants of Barzillai. As
Barzillai's son went to David's comrt, the family became an important
one, and such a tradition as we have here might long have persisted
It surely is not the Chr.'s invention. The importance of the family
is further shown by the husband's taking his name from its founder.
The number of these pr. is not given; Jos., not satisfied to acknowledge
the defect, says there were about 525 {Ant. xi, 3, 10).
62. These sought their register among those that were reckoned
by genealogy, but they were not found]. So ARV. But this is
94 EZRA-NEHEMIAH
taking liberty with the text in an effort to get sense; even so,
the result at the end is not satisfactory. BDB. renders: " These
sought their writing, namely, the enrolled,'" i. e., " their genealog-
ical record." But the text reqmres a slight correction and then
we get good sense: These searched for their record, but their enrol-
ment was not found. — And they were barred (literally, desecrated)
from the priesthood], because they could find no record showing
priestly descent. This is evidently a different matter from the
question of nationality (v. ^^), for there is no question of race,
but only of official standing. In his usual way of confusing
things, the Chronicler has brought together here quite unre-
lated matters, which probably belong to entirely different peri-
ods, though both incidents seem to be authentic. — 63. And the
governor said] (or perhaps "his Excellency"). The case was
settled by a decree of the civil ruler, not by a high priest. Who
the governor was we do not know; it is generally assumed to
be Sheshbazzar,* but this thing happened long after Sheshbaz-
zar's time. If the name had been known to the writer of the
underlying original it would surely have been given here. Esd.
5*° supplies the name Nehemiah, perhaps because this unusual
word for governor is elsewhere applied to him (Ne. 8^ lo^); but
Nehemiah seems to have concerned himself very little with the
affairs of the priesthood. The conjecture of the Greek writer
warns us that the identification is far from assured. — Unto them]
cannot be right, unless we regard the construction as a loose
one, changing to the indirect discourse; we should expect, ye
shall not eat, instead of that they shoidd not eat. But d supports
the text as it is, and it may pass. — From the holy of holies]. But
"holy of holies" means the inner part of the temple in the
earlier literature, though in P and Ez. it applies also to sac-
rificial food. Gray has shown that "holy" and "holy of
holies" are used rather indifferently (Nu.'^'^^). Esd. s^'^ ^^^.s
from the holy things. That is preferred by Kittel. — Until a
priest stood for Urim and Thummim]. The meaning is clearly
that the unrecorded priests must refrain from exercising their
functions until there should be one qualified to give a divinely
• E. S; Km, Abh.«>, Mey. Ent.'» ; but Zer. B.-Rys.
EZRA 2^-"^ 95
guided decision. The decision was to come from a priest using
the Urim and Thummim.
In I Mac. 4« a question about the stones of a defiled altar was post-
poned "until the advent of a prophet to give an answer concerning
them." The matter is not one of relative time, for both methods of
divination were used, that is, by prophetic oracles and by pr. There
was this difference, that the prophet always gave a reply supposed to
be by direct divine enlightenment, while the pr. determined the question
by some instrument as the ephod, or by Urim and Thummim. The
last method is obscure, but apparently some way of casting the sacred
lot is meant. One might naturally ask why this could not be done now,
since pr. abounded. Mey. explains this difficulty by supposing that
the art of casting the lot had been lost in the postex. community, and
would be restored only by the advent of the Messianic rule (Ent^^*, so
Smith on i S. 14"). But such divination would be required during
the exile as well as at other times, and it would be more natural to sup-
pose that the Urim and Thummim, mng. some peculiar priestly appa-
ratus, had been lost, prob. in the destruction of the temple. It must
be confessed, however, that a strict construction of the words rather
favours Mey.'s view, since the desideratum is "a pr. for the Urim and
Thummim"; otherwise we should expect "until Urim and Thummim
appear for the pr." It is possible that the loss was due to the absence
of Lev. or their deterioration. From Dt. 3;^^ it would appear that
this method of divination was practised by the Lev., and with the dis-
esteem of this guild the art may have been lost, at least so far as
this early period in Judah is concerned.
Berth, says the fact that there was no pr. capable of using this method
of divination, but that it was expected that one might arise, points to
the earliest stage in the new community where there was prob. no high
pr. (so Sm. Listen,^^). The sacred lot was used, he says, in later times
(cf. Jos. Ant. iii, 8, 9, Sirach 363).
There is an elaborate treatment of Urim and Thummim in AJSL.
i6io3ff. by Muss-Arnolt. He identifies the divination by the ephod
with that of the Urim and Thummim, and connects with the Bab.
"tablets of destiny" and explains the words as derived from the Bab.
uhiru, "command," and tummu, "oracle." If a signification is to be
invented, it would be well to seek something more appropriate, such
as "favourable" and "unfavourable." On the use ». i. ,
59. '7n] is As., "hill of ruins," and applied to mounds which are
sites of ancient cities. As part of n. p. in OT. only in Tel-Abib (Ez.
3")) a place in Bab. — ana] is the name of a spiritual being, common in
pi., cherubim. As a n. pr. loc. it is dub. Esd. joins with the word
following: xapaocOaXctv'^, xspouPtSav'-. It might be a metathesis for
133 (Ez. !>), identified by Hilprecht as a canal near Nippur, Kabaru
96 EZRA-NEHEMIAH
(MurashuSons, ix,'6)- — P^] Ne. jnN ® HSav favours Ezr., though in Ne.
^ has Hptov. — icn] Ne. ncNi is a common priestly name, but improb.
as a Bab. n. pr. loc. — Kcrub, Addan and Immer] have been explained as
n. p., the preceding n. pr. loc. being marked by the prefixed tel, which
is not found with these three; but the n. p. are given in vv. «" f-, and
could not belong here unless text is disarranged. Esd. s" yields bet-
ter results than MT.: their leaders were Charathalan and Allar. Guthe
emends on this basis, thus: /row Tel-Meleh and from Tcl-Harsha : Kerub-
Addan and Immer were their leaders. 'Hyoutievoc; otixoiv (Esd.) = arx^,
and this could easily be corrupted to Ni^'in. 3 Esd. shows same text:
Principes eorum. This reading suggests that the people described in
vv. "-" constituted an independent caravan. — 60. <&^ has a fourth
name, Boua. Esd.^^ has but two names, Aaav, Basvav.
61. Esd.'^-*- 5" has an explanatory + these laid claim to the priest-
hood, and did not obtain it. — non] Ne. nj2n a reading adopted by Baer
but not by Kittel. (S gives various forms, among which are Ap(s)ta
(^L in Ne.) and O^^eia^, O^Sca^ (in Esd.) and QSouta^ (in Ezr. and
Esd.). The variants make Heb. suspicious, but do not afford material
for a restoration. — Tipn] is unusually well attested in 05, the only sig-
nificant variation being Ax^ax; (Esd.^), but there is doubt about the
pointing, as we find Ax(x.)ou<; in Ezr. and in Ne.'- {i. e., V^P'"'). — '''^na]
Esd. 5^' reads Jaddous (Jaddua) who took to wife Augia of the daughters
of Phaezeldaius and he was called by his name, an evident confusion of a
simple passage. The interesting point is the name of the wife. What
havoc is made of names by metathesis is shown by ^: ZoeppeXeet in
the first occurrence, but Bepl^e>.>vaet in the second. — an'*:']. With Guthe
rd. 1D•^^' as antecedent is Barzillai. — 62. Some correction of the text
is required. Those who are enrolled by genealogy cannot be in app.
with their register, and in fact there is no grammatical construction
at all. (S offers great variety; ^^ transliterates ol [xsOwsast'tx; ^ o\
YSveaXoYouvTs? (so in Ne.); Ne.'^-'^ has their writing of the caravan
(or company). Esd. 5'=' renders ev tcp y-octakoyia'^M: Esd. yields: the
genealogical writing of these being sought in the register, and not being
found, they were restrained from their office. This makes good sense, but
it shows merely a free handling of the same text. By a slight transpo-
sition we can restore the text, putting the inf. before the ptc, and read-
ing sg. as Ne.: nsdj DSfninn nSi, these searched for their record, but their
enrolment was not found. The ptc. D^cnincn does not occur elsw., and
inf. is used regularly in late Heb. mng. genealogy or enrolment (Ne.
75 I Ch. 4" 5' 7= et pass.). We then have a suitable subj. ior found.
The rendering "they [the pr.] were not found" does not give the right
idea, for the mng. is that the pedigrees could not be found. — iSxjm]
means dcfde (ARV.™ "polluted from the priesthood"). But v.»»,
which is a further statement about the case of these pr., shows that
they were simply barred from service until a pr. arose with authority
EZRA 21-69 97"
to adjudicate the matter. Further we find the term used in Mai.
I'- " (only other use of Pu.) where the defiling is not actual. There
was no formal deposition or desecration from ofiice, but only a sus-
pension, i
63. srcinn] is found elsw. in Ne. 7"- '^ 8' lo^, in the last two pas-
sages prob. interpolated. (i> takes it as a n. p. 'AOepaaa, 'AaepaaOa,
but Esd. $*" NatyLta? x,al AiQxgioic,^, Nee^iixq b xal AxapaaOat;^. The
word is Pers., Tarsata, but the exact definition is not clear. Moss
regards it as referring to a royal commissioner {DB. iv,"' ^). Mey.
holds that it is not the name of an office like governor, but rather a
title, "his Excellency" {Ent.^^*) or "his Reverence," as Moss suggests.
— is'n] is here used as a simple conj. The word is little more than a
mark of relation as inverted commas are a mark of a quotation; this
is a common usage, the word being translatable by many different
English conjs. — iVsN''] Esd. 5*" ixex^xstv "share in." This text also ren-
ders last part of v. a high priest [priest^] clothed with the manifesta-
tion ajid the truth. — p^] Ne.^' pan a reading preferred by Kittel, but
Esd. supports Ezr. Urhn and Thmntnim are found here only without
the art. The words are usually (Ex. aS^" Lv. S* Dt. S3^)> but not
always (i S. 28' Nu. 272') joined. The best explanation of the usage
is found in the restored text of i S. 14", "and Saul said unto Yahweh
the God of Israel, why dost thou not answer thy servant to-day: if
this guilt be on me or on Jonathan my son, O Yahweh the God of Israel,
give Urim, but if this guilt be on thy people Israel give Thummim."
Urim and Thummim would then be two objects drawn out of some
place by the pr., one mng. "yes" and the other "no." The usage was
apparently early, and was quite unknown exc. historically in the
postex. age {cf. Bud. on i S. 14", DB. and BDB., where other refer-
ences are given).
64-67 = Ne. t^'^^ Esd. 5*^-*\ The total figures of the
census. — It appears that the Judeans had a large number of
slaves, male and female, besides 736 horses, 245 mules, 435
camels, and 6,120 asses.
64. All the company together (literally, a^ one)]. The word THp
means community, the sacred congregation, or company. It re-
fers to an organised body and suggests a date later than Cyrus.
The total is 42,360 or 42,308 (01^ in Ne.). Esd. 5^^ contains a
limiting clause, reading: The whole Israel from ten years and
upward besides slaves and women (^): from twelve years besides
male and female slaves (^^). The latter is the better text, and
accepted by Guthe, for if slaves and women had been men-
7
98 EZRA-NEHEMIAH
tioned we should have expected to find a further statement
about women as well as about slaves. 65. And they had 245
(200 in Ezr.) singers and songstresses]. These are not the tem-
ple singers, for they have been alreadjrenumerated in v. ^^ and
women were excluded from the temple service.
Therefore the reading nnz' "songstresses" of the temple in Am. 8',
though adopted by We., is scarcely possible. The form nms^'D occurs
only here, and the m. without the art. occurs elsw. only in 2 Ch. 20".
All the <8 texts have the words, and therefore such an emendation as
"bulls and cows" has no support.
The true explanation is not far to seek. In 2 S. 19", where
curiously Barzillai is the speaker, there is named among the
pleasures of the court "the voice of singers and songstresses."
In Eccl. 2* we have the same singers and songstresses mentioned
among the various pleasures which Koheleth had sought. They
were men and women employed by kings and nobles for enter-
tainment. And they had, is lacking in Esd. and may be a gloss
added here to serve as a connecting link. Siegfried argues that
the number should be 245, as Ne. 7", so Zillessen, ZAW. 1904,"^
67. Four hundred and thirty-five camels] seems a large number
for a company as poor as these exiles were. (^ in Ne. mentions
2,700 asses and omits the other animals altogether. The best
Mss. of MT. lack the horses and mules of our text {v. Kittel and
Berth.). The text has been changed to agree with Ezr.
â– 64. ihnd]. In early Heb. ins i:'in3 is used to express joint action,
e. g., "all the people rose as one man" (Ju. 20^). The text shows a late
usage. The mng. required here is "combined," which in early Hob.
would be nn''. The word is unnecessary and is stricken out by Guthc.
— 65. nn-18'Di ami^'n]. As these words are followed directly by the list
of animals, it has been proposed to rd. nnai onitt' "bulls and cows."
This is rejected by Halevy on the ground that these animals could
not live in the journey across the desert {J A. Nov.-Dec. 1899,^").
We should prob. rd. as 2 S. i8'« 2 Ch. 352* Eccl. 2^ n^■^•^f^ an-.:' as
the same class of professional singers is meant. The writer has mis-
taken the word to mean temple singers and modified it accordingly.
Fischer argues for the early date of the list from the mention of these
classes, for he says they would soon be scattered after the return so that
a census would be impossible (jOhr. Fragen,^^). — 67. onnnn] must be
EZRA 2^-89 99
rd. as we have their horses, etc., so <S^^ in Ezr., <8^ in both. <&^ in
Ne. mentions no other animals than the asses. — «i3i] "myriad," "ten
thousand," is common in postex. Heb., but is not found earlier; for
Kt. 13-1 (Hos. 8") is better rd. as Qr. ''3^. though Harper accepts former
(ICC). — ani^Dj] is preferable to diSdj of Ne,
This last part of the list (vv. "-ss) offers peculiar difficulty to the
interpreter. If we supposed the list to be early, we should be puzzled
to know how this company of pilgrims got more than 7,000 slaves, 245
singers for entertainment, and a large number of animals. The knowl-
edge we have of this period all suggests a people few in number and poor
in worldly goods. In Neh.'s time there were a few slaves, but these
were Hebrews reduced to that condition by poverty. Neh. struggled
hard against the system by which the poor were sold into slavery-
After his rule ended, the system may have had a free hand, so that by
Ezra's time there may have been 7,000 slaves in the Judean province.
On the other hand, there is some reason for believing the list itself
to be composite, a growth resulting from additions. The priestly part
esp. bears traces of lateness in the close agreement of all the texts.
68 f. = Ne. l^^""' Esd. 5^^^: A Ust of contributions.— As
shown below, in Ne. the gifts come from the governor, the chiefs,
and the people. Ne. says nothing about the temple, but only
says the gifts are for the workers. Here the temple is the ob-
ject for which the contributions are made. — 68. When they came
to the house of Yahweh, which is in Jerusalem]. These words
imply that the temple was already built, and would require us
to date the passage later than 515. But the following expres-
sion, to set it upon its site] implies just the contrary. We must
regard the words as a later gloss. As we find first "house of
Yahweh," then "house of God," we may suspect different hands
in the gloss. — They made free-will offerings for the house of God],
The purpose is plainly indicated by what follows, to set it upon
its site, i. e., to rebuild it where it was, on the spot where Yah-
weh had in ancient time placed his name. — 69. They gave ac-
cording to their ability]. Even if we took the figures of the re-
turned literally (v. ^^), the ability of these people would not
explain the vast total of perhaps a half-million dollars {v. Mey.
Ent.^^'^ ^•). All the information drawn from the best sources
shows that the restored community was poor. — To the treasury
of the work], intended here to refer to the treasury of the build-
lOO EZRA-NEHEMIAH
ing fund. — Priests^ tunics]. The tunic was a long garment,
something like a wrapper. It was worn by men and women.
The same word is used for Joseph's famous coat (Gn. 37'), and for
the robe of office which Is. declared Shebna would be required to take
off (Is. 22"). On this garment, v. DB. i,^'-*, Benz. Arch.^^^-, Now.
Arch, i,*"- '". The pr.'s tunic was made of linen (Lv. 16^ and was
embroidered (Ex. 28^). In shape it was like that worn by laymen. In
Zc. 3' we have a picture of Jes. clothed in soiled garments, interpreted
usually in a fig. sense (e. g., by Mar. and G. A. Smith); but Ew. re-
ferred the vision to the investiture of the pr. in new robes which had
just come from Bab. Modern interpreters have scarcely improved on
Ew. In the postex. period pr.' garments would naturally be scarce
and therefore suitable for gifts.
68. laijnn] Esd. 5" eu^avTo = mjnn though the Hithp. of mj is
not found. Our preference for one or the other will depend upon
our conception of the purpose of the gifts, whether for the rebuilding
of the temple (Ezr.) or the maintenance of the service after the temple
was built (Ne.). — "isin] means treasure, isis nia Ne. 10", treasury, but
no is often omitted as here. — 69. nosSsn]. Mey. holds that this word
means here worship (Gottesdienst) (Em^.^^i. ido). xhe word applies to
many kinds of work, but the term is always general. In i K 53" it is the
work of temple-building, and that sense is meant by the Chr. here; in 2
Ch. 29'* the work is killing animals preparatory to sacrifice; in Ne. it is
used many times of the wall-building. When it means religious work
it is usually qualified as "service of the house of our God" (Ne. 10").
The passages esp. cited by Mey. are Ne. 2" 131°, but in both cases the
idea is "engaged in business," secular employment. The importance
of the question lies in the fact that Mey. contends that this passage
precedes the building of the temple. The character of the gifts shows
that Mey. is right in one respect, though he is wrong in another. The
pr.' garments and the bowls (Ne. 7") would serve for the worship,
not for the rebuilding. These gifts show that the passage followed the
rebuilding of the temple, though R. has made it seem otherwise in Ezr.
— D''JiC3-n] <S ixval^ SpaxtJia?^^. The authorities are divided, some con-
necting with Pers. daric, others with Gk. drachma, itself of foreign
origin (v. BDB. DB. iii,^")^ gm. says that if this term is meant,
the word must have been introduced later; but he is influenced by
his belief that the list is really early (Lislen,^^). — d'jd]. This is a Heb.
weight used often in OT. The value in silver is c. $30. If we take the
drachma instead of the daric, the total sum given, according to Ezr., is
about $300,000; or taking the daric, about $450,000. The figures show
the hand of the Chr., whose fondness for large numbers is apparent
in all his work. — njnj] [xexwvciO Ne.'^ xoOwvwG^^', xoGuvof Ezr.^ x''^^^"
EZRA 2i-" lOI
ycxq^. ^ always has aT6X(i<;, which is also found in Esd. The word
means hmic. It is here not a vestment to be worn only at religious
exercises, but the garment worn all the time.
68 f. Ezr. and Ne. differ widely, Ne. having a much fuller text, as
may be seen from the following parallels (including Esd.) :
Ne. Sotne of the heads of the fathers gave for the work. The Tirshatha
Ezr.
Esd.
Ne. gave to the treasury: gold, i,ooo darics, 50 bowls, 530 pr'
Ezr.
Esd.
Ne. tunics. And some of the heads of the fathers
Ezr. And some of the heads of the fathers, when they came to the
Esd. And some of the lecders according to their family, when
they came to the
" Ne.
Ezr. house of Yahweh, which is in Jerus. gave free-will offerings for
Esd. temple of God, which is in Jerus. made a voio
Ne.
Ezr. the house of God, to set it upon its site. According to their ability
Esd. to set the house upon its site, according to their
ability
Ne. gave {(S^ e6ir]xav, placed) to the treasury of the work {(S^
Tou I'tou?, yearly) : gold, 20,000 darics, and
Ezr. they gave to the treasury of the work : gold, 61,000 darics, and
EsD. and to give to the holy treasury of the work : gold, 1,000 mince, and
Ne. silver, 2,200 mince. And what the rest
Ezr. silver, 5,000 mina, and 100 pr.' tunics.
Esd. silver, 5,000 mince, and 100 pr.' tunics.
Ne. of the people gave was : gold, 20,000 darics, and silver, 2,000 mina
Ezr.
Esd.
Ne. {(^^^ lacks the passage so agreeing with Ezr.), and 67 ^r.' ttmics.
Ezr.
Esd.
The longer text is very systematic : the gifts come from three sources,
the governor, the chief, and the people, while in Ezr. they are all cred-
ited to the chiefs. The table makes this clear:
I02 EZRA-NEHEMIAH
GOLD
SILVER
ROBES
BOWL
Ne.
Governor
I, GOO
((S 30 (5^ 33)
50
Chiefs
20,000
2,200
People
Total
20,000
2,000
67
97
41,000
4,200
(100 in &-)
Ezr.
61,000
5,000
lOO
Esd.
1,000
5, 000
100
Nowhere in this section do we find so great a discrepancy. Ne.
contains two statements which are lacking in Ezr.: (i) 30 of the pr.'
garments were given by the Tirshatha and the others by "the rest of
the people," and (2) the chiefs and the people each gave 20,000 darics
of gold. In Ezr. these contributions were expressly given for the re-
building of the temple, which in Esd. was the result of a vow made
after their arrival in Jerus., a statement irreconcilable with Hg. Ne.
has not a word about the rebuilding of the temple, saying simply that
the offerings were "for the work," and that they were paid into a
treasury. Each text conforms to its setting, as Ezr. precedes the
temple-building while in Ne. we are getting close to the promulgation
of the law by Ezra.
Ne. bears unmistakable signs of a composite origin, for we have the
unusual DUttn ^a-xi nspDi (Dn. i- being the only parallel) in one place,
V. •^ and maxn ^B'Nim as Ezr. in another, v. ">; in v. «" we have they
gave for the work, in v. '" they gave to the treasury of the work, and again
he gave to the treasury, v. «'. We find ^\^2•\ ^jTir, v. ", directly followed by
N13T VTJ', V. ". We notice further that the passage is very disjointed.
The first statement, "some of the heads of the fathers gave for the
work," V. ", is suspended without any conclusion, but it is repeated
in V. '" with a suitable continuation.
In Ezr. we find the clause about the purpose of the contributions
pushed in between the subj. and the vb.: "and some of the heads of the
fathers [when they came to the house of Yahweh which is in Jerus.
made free-will offerings for the house of God to place it upon its site
according to their ability] gave to the treasury of the work." In Ne.
the subj. and vb. are directly joined, as they must be; therefore we
may pronounce positively that the bracketed passage is an interpola-
tion, inserted by the Chr. to make the statement agree with its context,
and a part of the preparation for the rebuilding of the temple. The
whole c. is therefore unquestionably later than the time of Zer.
The text of Ne. has manifestly been edited to conform to Ezr., and
yet it bears traces of greater originality. Mey. prefers it as it stands,
* C6 has 30, and as the 500 follows the 30 in the text, it is an obvious error.
EZRA 2^-4' 103
an evidence of the insufficiency of the text criticism upon which con-
clusions have been drawn (£«/.'" '•)• It is difficult to think that an
editor would have systematically distributed the gifts among the three
classes, the governor, the chiefs, and the rest of the people. If we
eliminate the part that is common and two prob. glosses we get a sur-
prisingly good text: a)id some of the heads of the fathers gave for the work
[the Tirshatha gave into the treasury] 1,000 gold darks, 50 bowls, [sl^o
pr.' tunics. A}td the rest of the people gave 20,000 gold darics, 2,000 sil-
ver mincB, and 67 pr.' tunics. When the passage from Ezr. was pushed
in, the clause bracketed was added of necessity. (6 evidently has some
clew to the mystery when it rd. "to Neh." The figures are, of course,
too large, but we cannot rely upon the text, and they are doubtless
greatly exaggerated.
The character of the gifts and the work indicate a date later than
515. The time of Ezra is, on the whole, most suitable. Under his
rule gifts for the temple would be sought diligently, and from the great-
ness of his influence prob. large sums would be obtained.
EZR. 2â„¢-4'. THE HEBREW STORY OF THE REBUILDING OF
THE TEMPLE.
A section recovered. — In MT. the period of Cy. and Shcs. ends with
c. i; for c. 2 is mostly a mere table of names, and has nothing to do'
with that period; while c. 3 brings us to the time of Zer. and Dar.
Moreover, c. 3 begins in medias res, "when the 7th month approached."
In the original story some year must have been indicated. Then Zer.,
the builder of the temple, appears as leader without a word of intr.
In Esd. we have quite a different story. There is a long narrative,
3-5', to which there is nothing correspondent in MT. Here we have
the tale of the Three Youths, contesting in wisdom before Dar., the
victory of one who proves to be Zer., the promise of King Dar. to give
him whatever he asks, the reminder of his vow to restore the vessels
and to rebuild the city, and a liberal permit from the king to under-
take these things, with a brief list of those who availed themselves of
this privilege.
Torrey has made the brilliant suggestion that we have imbedded in
this story, a fragment of the Chr.'s original narrative (ES." «• i" «.)_
Torrey believes that the story of the Three Youths ends at 4^^^ that
4""""- """ are interpolations, so that the recovered narrative consists
of 447b-56 462-26, Torrey has painstakingly retranslated the passage
into Heb. and appended an English translation. But this acute scholar
has by no means let the text stand, for he transfers the narrative bodily
from the reign of Dar. to that of Cy., so that the passage becomes the
104 EZRA-NEHEMIAH
sequel to c. i and the hero is Shes., though Zer. is named in $'. This
event is placed in the 2d year of Cy., and so in 3' we are dealing with
the 7th month of that year.
There are two difi&culties in accepting this date. In our text, asp.
in the better version of Esd., there is a statement that Shes. and a com-
pany went from Bab. to Jerus., taking the temple vessels with them.
This whole passage would be a mere amplification of that statement.
A more serious difGculty is found in the fact, as shown in intr., that
c. 3 does belong to the time of Dar. I believe, therefore, that Torrey's
main premise is correct and that we have here a genuine section of the
OT.; but it has nothing to do with c. i, though it is a necessary intr.
to c, 3. In some way Zer., who is here given Davidic lineage, had won
the favour of Dar., and so received authority to carry out the decree of
Cy., which according to Esd. 4" he had already vowed to do. The
date given is exactly what we need, agreeing with 4^^
A suitable intr. of so conspicuous a figure as Zer. is too valuable to
ignore. Therefore it seems wise to give a part of the Esd. story, fol-
lowing in a measure Torrey's translation (ES.'" f)
C. 4. (47) Then King Dar.(') arose and wroteC^) letters for him to all
the satraps and governors and captains and deputies to the effect that
they should help along him and all with him who were going up to build
Jerus. (') (48) And Dar.W wrote letters to all the governors in the
province Beyond the River and to those in Lebanon to bring cedar
timbers from Lebanon to Jerus. so that they might build the city with,
them. (5) (49) And he wrote concerning freedom for all Jews who
went up from his kingdom to Judah, that no ruler, deputy, governor,
or satrap should enter their doors, (50) and that all the country which
they possessed should be free from tribute; and that the EdomitesC)
should give up the villages which they had wrested from the Judeans.
(51) And for the building of the temple twenty talents of silverO should
be paid annually until it was built; (52) and for offering daily upon the
altar whole burnt sacrifices, as they had commandment to offer them,
other ten talents annually. (53) And freedom should be given to all
who had come from Bab. to build the city and to their children and to
all the pr. . . . (57) And Dar.W sent away all the vessels which Cy. had
brought out from Bab.; and everything which Cy. had said should be
done, he commanded to be done, and to be sent to Jerus. (58) And
when the youth came out [from the royal presence] he lifted his face
to heaven in the direction of Jerus. and praised the king of heaven. . . .
(61) And Zer. took the letters and('> went out and came to Bab. and
told everything to his brethren. (62) And they praised the God of
their fathers, because he had given them release and relief (63) to go
up and build Jerus. and the temple that is called by his name. And
for some days they kept a feast with musical instruments, drums,
and cymbals, and all their brethren dancedC") and rejoiced. C. 6. (i)
EZRA 2^0-45 105
Afterward heads of the fathers by tribes were chosen to go up, with
their wives and sons and daughters and their men-servants and maid-
servants and their cattle. (2) And Dar. sent with them a thousandC")
horsemen to bring them safely to Jerus. (3) And they made(") . , .
for them to go up with them. (4) And these are the names of the
men who went up ace. to their families by tribes by their divisions;
(5) the pr., the sons of Phineas the sons of Aaron, Jes. the son of
Josedek the son of Saraios. Then arose(") Zer. the son of Shealtiel of
the house of David, of the family of Phares, of the tribe of Judah, (6)
who spoke wise words to Dar. the king of Pers. in the 2d year of his
reign, in the month Nisan the ist month.
Notes. I. Torrey substitutes Cy. for Dar. to agree with his theory
of the chronology; but the evidence in favour of the text seems to me
convincing.
2. "Arose and wrote" is a good evidence of a Heb. or Aram, origi-
nal. It is true that a Jew might use the Hebraism, even if composing
in Gk.
3. The document bears evidence of a composite character, as we
find references here to building the city as well as the temple. The
temple rather than the city is meant in v. ", as that was the purpose of
the cedar timbers (c/. 3O.
4. The name is found in ^ here and in v. ", and is correct.
5. After 3 Esd. cum eis. The antecedent is cedar timbers. The
whole construction is improved by this slight correction.
6. ^ has Chaldeans, but all other texts Edomites. This is the
earliest mention of the Edomite aggression upon Judah, and may be
the occasion of some of the many fierce prophecies against this people.
7. "Of silver" is found only in ^, but it is prob. right; at all events
silver is more prob. than gold.
8. See note 5.
9. The name is found only in ^, but is right.
10. The text is sadly confused, and I have attempted to restore
order out of chaos by transposing a clause from 52'-. Torrey tries to
straighten the matter out by a smaller transposition and rendering:
"and all their brethren, playing upon musical instruments, drums, and
cymbals, sent them on their way as they went up," that is, the Jews
who remained played music as the caravan proceeded on its way. This
rendering seems to me to require some straining of the text.
11. This number is doubtless an exaggeration, though some escort
would be prob. Neh. had such a guard (2'), and Ezra implies that his
dispensing with an escort was unusual (8").
12. I do not understand this passage. It seems clear that some-
thing is omitted from the text, as I think it is a direct sequel to the
provision of the guard.
Io6 EZRA-NEHEMIAH
13. Seeing ap>i in the meaningless name Iwaxstyi seems to me one
of Torrey's most brilliant suggestions.
Vv. *-« presents a serious puzzle. The passage begins with an intr.
to a list of names such as begins in v. ', but the only names which occur
here are those of the leaders Jes. and Zer. The passage as a whole is
senseless as it stands, note esp. v. ^^ after v. *. If we place Torrey's
discovered spM before Jes. we have an amplified parall. Ezr. 3-. It
certainly improves the text greatly to substitute this clause for the
briefer statement in Ezr. 32a, then v. *â– '^ serves as a heading for the
genealogical list which follows. The added information about Zer.
fits into the building story admirably. Moreover, the account of the
migration in vv. »-' paves the way for the statement of the settlement
in the province in Ezr. 2'°, cf. Ezr. 3%
The dates in the section 2 '"-43 are somewhat hard to reconcile. In
the first place, "seventh" month in 3' is an error which got into our
text from the excerpted passage from Ne. The reconstructed text of
32 fixes the ist month of the 2d year of Dar. as the date of building the
altar, and so of the assembly described in 3>. In the same year in the
6th month, as the text should be {cf. on 3'-'"), the foundation of the
temple was laid. We thus have a consistent scheme, although the
events described by this passage cover a much larger period than the
text suggests. The date is recorded for the beginning but not for the
ending.
2'° Ne. V = Esd. 5'*^ The settlement of the returned
exiles in Judah. — We require the help of Esd. to get good
sense out of this verse, which by the omission or substitution
of one or two words is sadly confused. The original was: And
the priests mid the Levites and the singers and the porters and
some of the people were living in Jerusalem and all Israel [were
living] in their villages. The passage then becomes of great
value in bearing witness to the conditions before the building
of the temple. The temple officers naturally clung to the holy
city, while all Israel (in contrast with the temple officers) sought
a refuge and a livelihood in the towns of the province, for Jeru-
salem was a desolation and ofifered no means of procuring a
living.
3'-^" = Esd. S''^-". The building of the altar.— 1. When
the seventh month was come]. This is the original date in Ne.,
but this assembly is fixed in the first month. The year is the
EZRA 2''^-4^ 107
second of Darius (Hg. i^^), not of the return under Cyrus. —
The sons of Israel were in cities]. These words have no place
here. Esd. has a fitting connection rendering, the sons of Israel
being each occupied in his own affairs, meaning that when the
assembly was called all the people were scattered over the
country working for their bread. The words are probably
accidentally repeated from the preceding verse. — The people].
Read with Ne. all the people; — as one man]. This may mean all
together, or as Esd. with one accord, for a common purpose; —
unto Jerusalem]. Ne. has a fuller text, unto the broad place
which is before the water gate, to which (^ prefixes Jerusalem.
Esd. brings the assembly to the temple: unto the broad place of
the first porch towards the east. (The simpler text of Ezr. is
preferable here.) But the temple was not yet built.
At this point the deuterograph ends, each narrative now going its
own way, Ezr. to the temple-building, and Ne. to the reading of the
law.
2. Joshua] (or Jeshua) is named the high priest, or the great
priest. It is the same person mentioned in 2^, and he was a
prominent figure in the temple-building and the restoration of
the cult.
He is the first high priest in the list going down to ihe time of
Alexander the Great (Ne. 12" ^â– ). Jes. is named first here, but in 2'
3' 4' 5' Ne. 12* and throughout Hg., Zer. stands first. It is interesting
to note that in Hg. Zer. is evidently the more important of the two
{v. esp. 2"-23)j while in Zc. he is only mentioned in 4«-''' as the builder
of the temple. Zer. is never given a title in Zc, while Hg. four times
calls him "the governor of Judah." Zc. again never names his father,
as Hg. does, though Zc. calls Jes. the son of Jehozadak. Jes. here
comes before us for the first time in action. We know nothing about
his forebears except the name of his father. He joined Zer. in a com-
pany returning from Bab. (2= Ne. 12'), and it may have been the second
large company. At all events, it was later than the return under Shes.
And his brethren the priests]. Joshua is here put as one of the
priests, while the contemporary Haggai calls him high priest.
The Chronicler has not exalted the priesthood as much as we
Io8 EZRA-NEHEMIAH
should expect according to those who credit that worthy with
the production of the larger part of these books. — And they
huilt the altar]* So David built the altar on the temple moun-
tain long before the temple was erected (2 S. 24^''), The pur-
pose for which the altar was built is to offer sacrifices upon it].
The altar could be built in a very short time, and so the relig-
ious exercises could begin without waiting for the temple, which
it would take long to build. — The law of Moses] probably refers
only to Dt. here, not to the priest code, nor to the complete
Pentateuch. Dt.was attributed to Moses, and it makes abun-
dant provision for the one altar and the sacrifices upon it. —
Man of God] is a term applied to Moses, Dt, 33^ Jos. 14® i Ch.
23" 2 Ch. 30^"; to an angel, Ju. 13''; to Samuel, i S. 9®; to Elijah,
I K. 17I8; to Elisha, 2 K. 4^; to David, 2 Ch. S^^ Ne. I22*- 36;
it is therefore a prophetic title. In the NT. it is applied to
Timothy, the disciple of Paul, i Tim. 6" 2 Tim. ^^L
3. This V. has been a sore puzzle to the interpreters. Sense cannot
be extorted from the text as it stands. ARV. renders "and they set
the altar upon its base; for fear was upon them because of the peoples
of the countries, and they offered burnt-offerings thereon unto Jeho-
vah, even burnt-offerings morning and evening." But in the critical
part the Heb. runs, for in fear against them from the peoples of the lands.
Much stress is laid upon the longer text in Esd. s*": And certain men
gathered unto them out of tJie other nations of the land, and they erected
the altar upon its own place, because all the nations of the land were at
enmity with them, and oppressed them; and they offered sacrifices accord-
ing to the time, and burnt-offerings to the Lord both morning and evening
(RV.). Various reconstructions of the text have been made on the
basis of this evidence, but it really confuses matters worse than ever;
for the hostile peoples here become the altar-builders; and "the peoples
of the land" is unnecessarily repeated. Moreover, while the state-
ments are amplified, there is nothing new exc. the hostile assembling
of the enemy. Torrey tried a modification and rendered his emended
text: "And some of the peoples of the land gathered themselves to-
gether against them; and when they perceived that they were come
with hostile purpose, they withstood them, and built the altar in its
place," etc. {Comp. "). The point is, therefore, that the returned Israel-
ites succeeded in building the altar in spite of the hostility of their
* Jos. quotes Hecatxus's statement that the altar was 20 cubits square and 10 cubits high
(Smith, 7er. ii,"').
EZRA 2 ^"-43 109
neighbours. This emendation I formerly accepted {SBOT.^"); but it
does not touch the real difficulties, which are two: (i) The altar was
already built, v. 2; no one has attempted to explain the repetition of the
altar-building; the words are slightly different in Heb., it is true, ^VT^
for 1J3''1, but the meaning is exactly the same. (2) There is great dif-
ficulty in bringing in at this point the terror of the neighbours. In
c. 4 these people come with a sincere and friendly proposition to join
the Jews in rebuilding the temple. So forcible is this objection that
following Ew. various attempts have been made to show that the
passage means that these other peoples were in fear of the Jews, or of
their God. To say nothing of the impossibility of extracting this
mng. from any text whatever, the Jews were scarcely in a position to
inspire much terror among the neighbouring peoples.
There is one text of Esd. (Cod.^) which curiously has either been
overlooked or misunderstood. And this text is on the whole the best
Gk. version we have. Correcting this text on the basis of the corre-
sponding passage of the same version in Ezr. and making other slight
modifications, we get this striking result: for there were gathered unto
them some from other nations of the land; and they were well disposed
towards the altar, and they aided them, and they offered sacrifices at the
proper season and hurnt-oferings to Yahweh morning and evening. Zc.'s
vision (8") was based on past history. The other peoples in Pales-
tine came forward and helped the feeble Jews in the rebuilding of the
altar, and thus we can understand their coming forward at a later
period (c. 4) to render similar assistance in the rebuilding of the tem-
ple. As thus understood the fatal objections to our present text and
all the reconstructions are removed, and we have a most welcome
light on the early relation of the Jews to their neighbours. One result
of the right understanding of the passage is indubitable evidence that
we have here a good historical source. The Chr. has worked over the
material until its sense was lost. But the evidence is important as
showing that he had something to go on in this part of his story. On
the oft-recurring "peoples of the land," v. on 4*.
4. And they kept the Feast of Booths]. "Booths" is better
than " tabernacles " of our versions. The latter term comes from
(& through H, tabernaculum, which means tent. The booth was
made of branches from the trees (Lv. 23'"').
This feast was of Canaanite origin, as it was observed by the Shech-
emites (Ju. q"). In the earliest law, the code of the covenant, it is called
the feast of the harvest, and it is to be kept at the end of the year (Ex.
23"). Dt. prescribes seven days for the festival, but leaves the date
as in the earlier code, making the important addition that the festival
no EZR A-NEHEMIAH
was to be kept at Jerus. In P we find the date fixed as the 15th day
of the 7th month, the time is lengthened to eight days, and the whole
character of the festival is changed. The joyful harvest feast becomes
a solemn assembly for the offering of sacrifices to Yahweh (Lv. 2^^*-**
Nu. 2912-").
As it is written]. Esd. adds in the law. The rest of the verse,
as Esd. shows, consists mostly of the Chronicler's amplification of
a simple statement to make it harmonise with the feast as it
was observed in his own time. There is no ground for the con-
tention that the festival was kept in accordance with P (Chap-
man, DB. iv,^^'"). The original said no more than that sac-
rifices were offered according to the custom (not "ordinance,"
as RV.). Sacrifices were offered at this feast in pre-exilic days
(i K. 8^ 12^2). — As the duty of every day required; literally, the re-
quirement of each day in its day]. This is a gloss to make this
celebration agree with Nu. 29^^-^'', where detailed offerings are
prescribed for each of the eight days. The Chronicler, how-
ever, happily overlooked the fact that the text he worked over
so carefully had not stated that the feast was observed on the
15th day, and there is nothing to guarantee that it was kept in
the 7th month. Kosters regards the whole verse as an interpo-
lation {Wied.^°). h. And afterwards the continual burnt-offering].
This rule is first foimd in P (Ex. 29^8 ^â– ). Two yearling lambs
were offered, one in the morning, the other at evening. It
is the sacrifice called in v. ^ the offerings of the morning and
evening, and like that is due to the Chronicler. — And for the
new moons] i. e., offerings for the feasts of the New Moon. This
was an ancient festival, as we know from its observance by
the prophets {cf. 1 S. 20^ 2 K. 4^3). On that day no business
was transacted (Am. 8^). In the law it finds place only in P,
where there are abundant regulations (Ex. 40-- ^^ Nu. 10^" 28^^-^^
29^). — And for all the holy seasons of Yahweh]. The list of these
is given in Lv. 23, Sabbath, Passover, Weeks, Trumpets, Atone-
ment, Booths. The Sabbath and the New Moon were early
festivals (2 K. 4^' Am. 8^). To these are added "the sacred
seasons" in Is. i" as the general name for feasts other than New
Moon and Sabbath. The passage, therefore, is in harmony
EZRA 27*^43 III
with pre-exilic usage. 5''-6. And of every one that willingly
offered a free-will offering unto Yahweh. In 1^ this passage is
without antecedent or consequent. As it stands we should
have to translate and for every one, etc., a manifest absurdity.
We get good sense by connecting with the following verse as
in Esd., And every one who made a vow to Yahweh, from the new
moon of the first month, he began to offer sacrifices to God. Vows
had been made by the people, as for a safe journey back to
Judah, for a prosperous year, but there had been no opportu-
nity to pay these vows until the altar was set up. Now it was
possible to discharge these obligations. That is, we have here
underneath the confusion of the Chronicler a clear trace of the
re-establishment of the religious life of the community, though
on rather simple lines.
The events described cover a period of several months, from the
7th month of one year to the early part of the year following. As
v. « stands in Heb. it is a restrospective statement. The people began
the routine of the regular offerings on the ist day of the 7th month.
As that statement requires us to suppose that the assembly gathered,
the altar was rebuilt, and offerings made all on one day, it is manifest
that the chron. scheme is impracticable.
70. A comparison of the three texts is enlightening here:
Ne. And the pr. and the Lev.
EzR. And the pr. and the Lev. and some of the people
Esd. And the pr. and the Lev. and some of the people
Ne. and the porters and the singers and some of the
EzR. and the singers and the porters
Esd. were living in Jerus. and in the country, but the
Ne. people and the Neth. and all Israel were living
EzR. and the Neth.
Esd. singers and the porters and all Israel in
Ne. in their cities
EzR. in their cities, and all Israel in their ^cities
Esd. their villages.
The Heb. texts are both impossible. Sense could be secured by
omitting a>*n-jsi, but then the statement would be pointless, as all the
people would abide in the same place. If we turn to Esd. and per-
ceive that %<x\ XT\ xtipqt is a gl., prob. inserted from 1^ onn;'3 (3 Esd. ha3
region in both places), we get excellent sense and the very statement
112 EZRA-NEHEMIAH
necessary, as this v. goes back to Esd. 5'-', and describes the first step
after reaching Judah. The pr. the Lev. and a few of the people set-
tled in Jerus. ; the singers and the porters and the rest of Israel turned
to the more promising life in and around the country villages. But
it is not necessary to depart so far from MT. In Ne. v. " we note that
Dnnya is not repeated. If we substitute the necessary DSt£'n''3 for
Dunjni we have a good text, and exc. for the transposition of singers
and porters exactly what we have in Esd.
in. 1. >'Jm] is used nowhere else of the coming of time; but as the
Hiph. has this meaning we should prob. point yvi as Is. 6'. — anya] Ne.
Dnnyj, so (8 ev x6Xeatv auttov. The phrase "the sons of Israel were
in their villages" is of peculiar difficulty here, as the passage is un-
doubtedly connected closely with 2'° and the repetition is awkward.
We might connect 2^" closely with Esd. 5'-' and presuppose a full
break in a paragraph, or supply a word, the sons of Israel being still in
their villages, i. c, up to the 7 th month the people had not come to
Jerus. Esd., however, offers an alternative; in that text {^*^) we find xal
ovTwv Twv ulwv TaptiifiX IxaaTou ev "uotc; JSt'oi?. So 3 Esd., cumque essent
jilii Israel unusquisque in suis rebus, the sons of Israel each being occu-
pied with his own affairs, i. e., with the gaining of a livelihood. This
gives a satisfactory sense, and we must either adopt this reading, or
suppose the clause to be an accidental repetition from 2'". As the
subj. of "gathered" is expressed, and as this clause really breaks the
connection of the 7th month and the assembling of the people, the
latter is preferable. In a MS. of <S (in Ne.) the coming of the 7th
month follows the statement that the sons of Israel were in their cities.
— 2. D|">m] is sg., but following vb. is pi. The first vb. is sg. on account
of close connection with yia'\ — Saani] is a Bab. name (v. my note in
Poly. Bib. Ezr.-Neh."^). Some, indeed, make it Heb. '7J2>inr, "begotten
in Bab." But it is now generally explained as zirti Babili, "seed of
Bab." (Mey. Ent.'', Sieg. on 22). In our sources and in Hg. he is called
the son of Shealtiel, but in i Ch. 3", son of Pedaiah the grandson of
King Jehoiakim. But Pedaiah had several brothers, among whom
we find Shenazar (= Shes., v. s. on i^) and Shealtiel, the latter being
Zer.'s uncle. Either the Chr. has confused the names, or Zer. was
brought up by his uncle and thus became known as his son. — '?N''n'7xa'],
In Hg. ii2- " 22 "h-y. (6 SaXaOcTjX ("I have asked of God").— rnxi^]
is difficult; (B^ lacks part of the v., i. e., the pr. and Zer. the son of
Shealtiel and his brethren, but a copyist has jumped over the words
on account of the repeated aSsktfol. The word can only be used here
in a general sense of the laity. In our books it has much the same mng.
as Aram. nij3 "associates," men of the same class. — mm] meant in
the earlier literature the oral word of Yahweh, esp. by the mouth of
the prophet; it is there almost equiv. to teaching; here it has the later
sense of the written law.
EZRA 270-43 TI3
3. Rarely have we so much to choose from in determining a text,
both from ancient Vrss. and from modern conjecture. All agree that
MT. is impossible and there agreement ends. The basis of most efforts
at restoration is Esd.^ (5^°), here rendered into Heb. for easy com-
parison with MT.
"'o>-'?3 i-D) OH'-Sj; nn"is'3 ">3 injoa hy njtDn irsn y^art iDj'a cn^hy isapM '•
.aipSi npa*? [niSyi r^^7\>h ni'7yi n;7i33 o^nat ivh-;\ iS^m iptnn^i Y-\nn
The underlined and the bracketed parts represent MT.; it appears
thus that Esd. contains all of MT. with one significant additional
clause at the beginning. This is virtually the text accepted by Guthe,
but instead of clearing up the difficulty it only adds to the confusion.
Torrey worked on somewhat freer lines, with this result, so far as it dif-
fers from the above: iro^i iptnnii an^hy r\2>i<2 12 Iran (Comp.^^). Torrey
is obliged to translate his text with much freedom. Haupt says forcibly
that on this reconstruction we should rd. ar^^hy naixa vsa 13 {SBOT.^").
Various slight modifications have been proposed. Ryle omits prep.
D before in;' and so gets: "for the people of the countries were a terror
to them." Van Hoonacker regards nnia as an Aram, word: "they
established the altar upon its bases; for a bamah was found above,
erected by the care of the peoples of the land" (Restaur. ^**). In jus-
tification he says: "The cult had not been suppressed, but the altar
where it had been celebrated was a sacrilegious altar." Zillessen
proposed y^nn >3;'3 DinVx na^x >d (ZAW. 1904,1"), but this lacks any
textual support.
The attempts to reconstruct the text on the basis of Esd. all work
on the easier text of ^. When we turn to ^ we note some significant
variations. That text runs: xal extJuv:Q%OY]ffav auToI? ex twv aXXwv
lOvwv TTJq "{rjq xal xartopOwOifjaav Ixl xh GuataaiTjptov iiz\ toO toxou
auxwv • OTi Iv e'xOp? '^^av auxolq /.axtaxucocv auxoOc; luavtoc xx eOvij tcI;
licl T^t; Y^? • xal (iv^yepov 6ufft'a<; xaxob -rbv xaipbv y.a\ oXoxauTwyLaxot
7.'jp(o) Tb icpcoivbv Y.(x\ zh heCkiviv. This «hould be rendered somewhat
differently from the prevalent translations, thus: And there were gathered
to them some from all the other peoples of the land, and they were favorably
disposed towards the altar [upon its place, for they were at enmity with
them] so that all the peoples which were in the country helped them and
they oferei sacrifices according to the season, and burnt-offerings to Yahweh
morning and evening. At the start auxolg represents aniS;? in the sense
of aniSx, so that the gathering is friendly not hostile {cf. Esd. 9O.
From this text we cannot extort "they erected the altar on its base."
The vb. xaTwpewOrjffav represents T^'' in Mi. 7' Ps. iig'^s Pr. 2^- » 14",
and followed by exf must be rendered as above. Xairfax'J'^'^v might
mean overpowered, but followed by ace. we find it standing for nr;? in
I Ch. i5=« 2 Ch. 14". Putting into Heb. the parts not in brackets we
have: y\HTy >dj; Sa Dnryn naran Sx n-^"i onnxn fixn loyn oniSx ixapii
.aiySi ipaS nin^S niSyi nya ainar iSyi
114 EZRA-NEHEMIAH
To demonstrate in the usual way how this grew out of our present
text by slight changes here and there is beyond the critic's art; but to
show how this statement was reduced to the confusion we now have is
not so hard. The idea that the altar was built with the aid of the
peoples in Palestine was intolerable to the people who had drunk deeply
of the spirit of Ezra. By a few strokes of the pen that friendly aid
has been changed to a fear. The text of Esd. has been corrected from
MT. by putting in the new parts, but where they make no sense. ^ has
worked over the passage and made it intelligible but entirely wrong.
It is possible to put the substance of the passage in still closer con-
formity to MT.: iSj?M Dnrj;ii natDD-Sx nciM nixixn ^Dj;a nniSj? nnn inj >3.
We might go a little further in our reconstruction, reading Kt. ^]!^'^
(supported by (B^^). Connecting then with v. ^ we get this clear sense:
And Jes. . . . got ready and they built the altar of the God of Israel to
offer burnt-offerings upon it . . . for there were gathered unto them some of
the peoples of the lands, and they were well disposed towards the altar, and
they helped them, and he [Jes.] offered upon it, etc. Comparing emended
text (i) with MT. (2) we have: ^ /^
.rwn'h r\'hy vVy Sj?^ injian hy narnn irDii nis-\Nn icyn aniSy nnixa >3 <«
This reconstruction is as near to the original as practicable to pre-
serve the sense. The changes are not very great after the clauses are
transposed. The rest of v., "offerings morning and evening," is a
later gl.; for the original writer would not have repeated niS;?. More-
over, this passage describes the first offering made upon the newly
erected altar, whereas our text betrays the later point of view in bring-
ing in the regular establishment. The daily offering is described in v. *,
4. riSi?!]. So we should rd. with all texts of CS; Esd. lacks 1£3DD3
and inrn ni> ^3^. ^ further lacks av3 Dv, having only i3i3S'D3 nVj?. Since
"offerings" lacks a governing vb. it may be that the whole clause was
lacking in the original text. At all events, the clumsy hand of the Chr.
is apparent in the glosses. — 5. fhv\- With 05 rd. pi. as in v. *. — nina:;''?]
a word added in Esd. 5". The Chr. is fond of combining sabbaths,
new moons, and holy seasons (i Ch. 23" 2 Ch. 2' 8" 31' Ne. 10", so Ez.
45")- — '^1'^'] is lacking in d'^'^. It is better to om. the redundant
DiiyipDH. Elsw. we find nin> nyin, Lv. 23 (4 1.) 2 Ch. 2', or Dn;;iD alone.
— TiDn] is added by the Chr. to bring the passage up to date. The
intr. of this word has made the passage quite ungrammatical, requiring
the addition of "offerings" as in RV. As so often happens, Esd. pre-
serves both the original and the substitution. — nanj 2ijnDn SaSi] Esd. 5"
, xal oorat eu^avTo eux-^v = Tij "njn-Voi a far better text. — 'i^^rh nn.x dvd
^yott'n] Esd. axb ttj? vouiJnrjvfai; tou xptoTOu (xt]v6<; {^^ I^Sd^jLou) = ''B'lnD
nnNH trnnV, a correction by the Chr. to agree with the idea of v. ' that
all these things happened in the 7th month. But as he has here the
ist day of that month, his chronology is impossible.
EZRA 2^0-43 115
6''-4' is a pretty complete parallel to the Aram, story of the rebuild-
ing of the temple, c. 5, 6. We have in both places the actual building,
the appearance of the neighbouring peoples, and the dedication. The
greatest divergence is in connection with the foreigners, for in one case
the neighbours came with an offer of assistance, while in the other they
came for investigation. There is a striking parallel in the fact that in
both cases the Jews appealed to the edict of Cy. (4' 5"). The recon-
structed text shows that the original was a true parallel. But the Chr.
made sad havoc of his sources. He had a conviction, which may have
been based on a tradition explaining the long delay in the restoration
of the temple, that the interference of the enemy was effective for sev-
eral years, and he has modified the sources accordingly. But such
effective interference is unknown both in the contemporary prophets
Hg. and Zc, and in the Aram, account, for 5^8 is surely a gl. by the Chr.,
since it would be strange for interference to begin after the work had
gone on for fifteen years, and according to 52 they began to build the
house of God.
As the Chr.'s editing is so conspicuous throughout, it is evident that
before his time there was a Heb. account of the rebuilding of the tem-
• pie. The Chr. could not be author and editor too, esp. since the ed-
itor changed the whole significance of the story. The recognition of
the original character of the passage disposes of Kost.'s assertion that
vv. «-" are unhistorical.
e^-Kf . The temple is rebuilt.— 6". Nmsj the temple oj
Yahweh was not yet begun]. This begins a new section, yet
EV^. separate from preceding only by a colon. The awkward
paraphrase in our Vrss. — " the foundation of the temple of Je-
hovah was not yet laid" — is unnecessary. The words describe
the condition at the time indicated in vv. ^-^^, and they lead us
to expect another step, and we are not disappointed. — 7. And
they paid money to the guarrymen and stonecutters]. (^ reads,
he paid, i. e., Zerubbabel. The workmen named here are not
masons and carpenters as EV^, but the two classes of stone-
workers: those who did the wood- work are named further on.
These were men working in the quarries near the temple site,
perhaps in the ruin-heaps of the old temple, and were paid
wages. — And food and drink and oil to the Sidonians and to the
Tyrians]. These were not paid in cash, but in subsistence. Ac-
cording to 2 Ch. 2 3 Solomon agreed to give to the Phoenician car-
penters who prepared the timber for the first temple wheat, bar-
Il6 EZRA-NEHEMIAH —
ley, wine, and oil; but in i K. 5'^ only wheat and oil are named.
The present builders are following the modus operandi of their
famous predecessor, or this account is coloured by the Chroni-
cler's version of the early event. The Phoenicians were famous
for dressing timber (i K. 5-^). — To bring cedar timbers from the
Lebanon unto the sea at Joppa]. This follows closely the Chron-
icler's story also (2 Ch. 2^^). In i K. 5-'' the place where the
timbers were delivered is not mentioned. Joppa is on the coast
north-west of Jerusalem and is the natural port of entry. The
Phoenicians were to bring the timbers down the coast, the Jews
naturally being inexpert in that kind of service. Hg. probably
refers to Lebanon in i^ (Mitchell, in loc). Marti thinks refer-
ence to the hills of Judah (Dodekapr.). — According to the per-
mit of Cyrus, king of Persia, in their favor]. Happily para-
phrased in U: "as Cyrus . . . had directed them." This would
naturally imply that the grant of Cyrus referred to the securing
of timber from the Lebanon, and royal sanction would be neces-
sary, as that range was now under the control of Persia.
In the decree of i^-^ nothing is said of timber, but in 6* this material
is named, though only in connection with the specifications for build-
ing. Therefore we are driven to a freer interpretation: Cy. authorised
the construction of the temple, and that warrant carries with it by
implication the right to procure the materials wherever they may be
found. The implication is that we are still in the reign of Cy., though
the words will permit a later date. The phrase may be a note by the
Chr. to support his theory that these events fell in the reign of Cy. But
it is permissible to suppose that the terms of Cy.'s decree would hold
in the time of Dar. Another possibility is that the Chr. substituted
Cy. for Dar. for the latter gave such a decree (c/. Esd. 4" and note at
beginning of this c). Therefore we need not be disturbed by the state-
ment that Cy. had not authority to give such a permit because Cam-
byses was the first to control the west country (Justi, Gesch. Iran.*-*).
8-10". The text in part is scarcely intelligible; it runs (8)
And in the 2d year of their coming to the house of God at
Jerusalem, in the 2d month, Zerubbabel the son of Shealtiel and
Jeshua the son of Jozadak and the rest of their brethren, the priests
and the Levites, and all who had come from the captivity to Jerusa-
lem began — and they appointed the Levites from twenty years old
- EZRA 2^0-43 117
and upward to superintend the work of the house of Yahweh. (9)
And Jeshua, his sons and his brethren, Kadmiel and his sons the
sons of Judah, stood up with one accord to superintend the work-
men at the house of God, the sons of Henadad, their sons and their
brethren the Levites. (10) And the builders began the temple of
Yahweh. In this text we notice a sentence that is never fin-
ished, V. ^; Zerubbabel et al. began something, but we are not
told what they began, or what the result was. We have two
distinct statements about superintendence, in one place of the
Levites, in the other of Jeshua. Finally we learn that the build-
ers began or laid the foundations of the temple, but it goes no
further. Esd. shows duplication after MT., but it contains
three clear statements: (i) Zerubbabel et al. laid the founda-
tion of the temple in the 2d year of the return (or of Darius) ;
(2) Jeshua and other Levites served as superintendents of the
building (or as chief workmen) ; (3) the temple of Yahweh was
building at this time, not merely the foundations, but the
structure. So in 4^ the Samaritans heard that the Jews were
building a temple. Torrey sees that Esd. has the true reading
{Comp.^^), but he does not apparently recognise its full sig-
nificance.
The passage may be reconstructed with the help of Esd. so
that it tells a surprising and clear story of the work on the tem-
ple, advanced to completion, or certainly beyond anything sug-
gested in MT. The revised text, which in its essential features
is justified in the notes, is rendered thus: And in the 2d year
of Darius, in the 6th month, Zerubbabel the son of Shealliel
and Jeshua the son of Jozadak and their brethren, and the priests,
the Levites, and all (others) who had come in from the captivity
to Jerusalem began and laid the foundation of the house of God.
On the ist day of the 2d month of the 2d year of their coming
to Judah and Jerusalem, then they appointed the Levites of twenty
years and upward for the work on the house of Yahweh; then arose
Jeshua and Bani and Ahijah and Kadmiel, the sons of Hodaviah
and the sons of Henadad their sons and their brothers, all the Le-
vites doing the work on the house of God, and the builders were
erecting the temple of Yahweh.
118 EZRA-NEHEMIAH
Unto the house of God in v. ' is a gl. of the Chr. showing his tendency
to anachronism; the sequence to their coming is "to Jeru?." The im-
portant date, the 2d year of Dar., is found in Esd.'- and is doubtless
correct. Virtually all interpreters have explained this note of time
as being the 2d year of the return under Shes., 538 B.C. But neither
Zer. nor Jes. was in that party, and it is certain that the temple was
not begun at that time. We have here further the important fact
indirectly disclosed that there was a large migration to Judah in the
ist year of the reign of Dar., a fact inferred from Esd. 5'-'. The dates
are given with the particularity characteristic of the time, as in Hg.,
first by the king's reign, and then by the sojourn in Jerus. That two
dates were in the original is suggested by the separation of the year
and month by several intervening words. The later law of P made
thirty years (instead of the twenty years in text) the age for the Lev.
to begin their holy service (Nu. 4'- "• so. 35^ but twenty-five years in
8"). The Chr. has both thirty years (i Ch. 233) and twenty {ib. v. 2«).
The passage may be due to the Chr.'s efforts to make history conform
to law. In regard to Jes. and Bani, no reconstruction of the hopeless
confusion inspires much confidence. But as "their sons and their
brethren" (v. '), are comprehensive, we may suspect that in the bewil-
dering mass of sons and brothers preceding we have corrupted proper
names.
Erecting is a contribution from Esd., but in spite of its significance
it has generally been ignored by commentators. Yet it might have
been inferred from the fact that those who had seen the old temple
were disappointed at the new one, v. ^2. If nothing had been done
but laying the foundation, such a comparison with the Solomonic tem-
ple would have been impossible. It is true that the celebration (v. ")
might have come after the foundations were laid, at least arguing from
the modern ceremonious laying of corner-stones; but it would surely
be more suitable at a time when the temple was well under way. The
"builders" are identified with the Phoenicians (Berth, ct al.), but that
can scarcely be the case, for these were designated to prepare the ma-
terials in the mountains, while the Jews themselves, or the hired work-
men named in v. ', did the building. The term is comprehensive, and
covers all who were engaged in the big task.
A vexing problem is the work of the Lev. The term noxSn does mean
"worship" (11. on 2"), and Mey. seems to insist that it has that sense
throughout. But his contention ignores the use of the term in Hg. i'*,
"they did the work on the house of Yahweh," where "work" certainly
refers to the building operations. If the meaning "worship" were in-
sisted on, we should have to regard a large part of this passage as an
addition by the Chr., who strove hard enough to make it fit his theory.
There is no good reason though to doubt that the pr. and the Lev. did
much of the building. Certain classes of skilled labourers were en-
EZRA 2'
119
gaged in cutting timber and stones (v. ')• But there was a vast amount
of labour which pr. could do as well as laymen. In Ne. 3, pr. took a
conspicuous part in the rebuilding of the wall. But there the Chr. has
tried to obscure the correct meaning {v. i. 3'); and he has presumably
done the same thing here.
6''. h:i^r\]. As. ekallu, "palace" or "temple," prob. from Accadian
e-gd, "big house." In Heb. it means "palace" or, oftener, "temple."
As a rule, it stands alone for "temple," and is equiv. to mni n-'^, which
C5 reads here olxoc; xupt'ou. Subj. precedes vb. to mark a circumstantial
clause (Har. Syn. § *^). — iD"'] means "lay a foundation" in i K 5", but
"repair" or "restore" in 2 Ch. 24" Is. 44". The latter is completely
parall. our passage: "saying to Jerus., thou shalt be rebuilt, and to the
temple (reading as Kt. So-riSi) thou shalt be restored." Laying the
foundation as EV^ is not the idea of our passage; "begun" is the
right sense, and that use is found, e. g., in Hg. 2^^ Zc. 4' 8'. Esd. ren-
ders cpxoSotxTQTo, "built." — 7. a>3sn] means hewers. It signifies "stone-
cutter" in I Ch. 22', but that is a loose use. We find as obj. "copper"
Dt. 8', "cisterns" Dt. 6" Ne. 9", "sepulchre" Is. 22'% "wine-fat" Is.
52. In I K. 5" (EV. 5^0 â– '^^ 3sn = "digging stone in the mountain";
so here the proper mng. is "quarrymen." — oie'in] = cutters of wood,
metal, or stone, generally with a genitive to define exactly. In i
Ch, 22" there is r;?i px ''S'ln, "cutters of stone and timber.". The
proper mng. here is not "carpenters," since those are named later, but
"stonecutters," those who dressed the quarried stone. — mz>] Esd.^ 5^5
X<4pa = nnnc, which might stand for whatever they pleased to ask. H
cum gaiidio. Esd. 5" adds after Lebanon to transport it by rafts, a
reflection of the older story, i K. 5". — a''] Esd. \i\xivix and so to the
harbor of J op pa. — jvifn] a. X. C5^^ eTCcxwpT]atv, Yvcopiif)?'^ (decree), Esd.
th %p6<sT(xy[i.!x Tb Ypaifiv, "the written order." H decretum quod scriptiim
erat. This may represent anoa dib't (cf. Dn. 10"). The mng. of ivsyT
"permit" is established by the Vrss., the context and by the cog.
languages.
8-lOa. The textual problem in this passage is one of the most dif-
ficult in even this perplexing book. We note first that nsjS, a favourite
word of the Chr., is lacking in ($^ v. » and in 05^^ v. '; as it is wanting in
Esd.^^, it may safely be discarded from the original. inND v. ^ is not
found in (S^'^ and also should be omitted. But these minor details do
not relieve the passage of its almost hopeless confusion. The Chr.
might think that the establishment of Levitical duties was important
enough for all the preliminary notice in v. ', but Zer. may have deemed
the temple-building as a more vital matter. Esd. does make the work
on the temple the prominent subj.; and his suggestion must be fol-
lowed to extract order out of this chaos. The proposed text contains
all that we have in Heb., but in a different order and with some addi-
I20 EZRA-NEHEMIAH
tions and variations. Any reconstruction must aim at good sense, and
make the passage a connecting link between v. ' and c. 4. Combining
the two texts where necessary, the following is proposed: n-'jcn nrtrai
DiiSn D'ljnjni Dn>nNi pnsv-p jjVirii '7N'>n'?Na'-i3 S331? iSnn iif irn uina cim'?
r'ljtf n nja'S ^Jt^'^ v\rh ins ova Din'7Nn n>a-nN nOM aVa'n'''? latsriD o^N^n-Soi
-ni3 n3N'7D-S5; nSym nri:' ona'y pa OMSn-nx nicyi D'7a'n''Si mini*? dnu"?
dmSh-Ss oninxi on^ja n-ijn >jai nmn ija '?N"'mpi ninxi ^jai yia" nnri nirr
'Exl Aapefou is from Esd.'- 55*. This year agrees with Hg. i>. — t^BTi]
both MT. and d in all texts rd. ''ja'n. I have ventured to substitute
"sixth" from Hg. i'. It is not unlikely that the original author of
this piece took his whole date from Hg., where we have: "in the 2d
year of Dar. the king, in the 6th month, on the ist day of the month."
— iSnn] a peculiar and impossible use of this vb. in MT., for it requires
another dependent upon it. Esd. supplies the necessary sequence. A
somewhat similar use is found in 2 Ch. 20^2 and Dt. 2": "begin, pos-
sess." So here they began and laid the foundation, i. e., laid the foun-
dation as the first step. — Esd.^^ 5'^^ has a longer list of Levitical work-
men, adding to those in Heb. ol ulol 'Iirjaou 'HtiaSa^ouv, unless this
stands for iijn ^J3, which I suspect to be the case. There is also EiXt-
otSouv (= tni*?}*, "El judges"). It seems quite necessary to convert
vnsi VJ3 into n. p., for the final "their sons and their brothers" refers
comprehensively to all the names in the list. — ija] occurs frequently in
the Levitical lists. — The double date is explicable on the ground that
we have two stages of the work. In the 6th month of the 2d year of
Dar. the work of rebuilding began by laying the foundations. In the
6th month, the work not progressing fast enough, the pr. and Lev. were
set to the task.
To go back to our reconstructed text once more, it will be noted
that the main difference between MT. and Esd. is the clause -nx nOM
avnSxn n^3. But MT. has 'n-n^3 in v. «, where it does not belong,
and it has nOM v. ", where uaii is required by the connection and by
the Esd. text. I suspect that the required word is concealed in â–¡"'jan,
where ol oExoSo^jiot of Esd. may be a correction. MT. first suffered
from dropping out a clause bodily, easily explained on account of the
repeated date, then the text was further modified to make what was
left as reasonable as possible.
Even in this reconstruction there is evidence of the Chr.'s amplifica-
tion. Hg. addressed the temple-builders as Zer. Jes. and "all the peo-
ple of the land," exactly what [we have here, though we have a great
deal more. To reduce it to the Chr.'s source is a mere matter of con-
jecture, but the following is a fairly safe hazard: "And in the 2d year
of Dar. in the 6th month, Zer. the son of Shealtiel and Jes. the son of
Jozadak, and all who had come to Jerus. from the captivity began and
laid the foundations of the house of God. And in the ist day of the
EZRA 2^0-43 121
2d month of their coming to Jerus. they put the Lev. from twenty years
and upward at the work of the house of God. And they were building
the temple of Yahweh."
The one point assured is that in this passage we have a description
of the laying of the foundations and the partial completion of the build-
ing. Jos. says specifically that the celebration described in io''-i3
occurred when "the temple was finished" {Ant. xi, 4, 2).
10''-13. The celebration. — This passage originally contained
an account of the dedication of the temple. — 10''. Not they
"set the priests" (EV^), but the priests stood. Nor is it right
to render "in their apparel," though supported by BDB. and
Ges.'^, meaning in their vestments, but furnished with trum-
pets. The trumpet or clarion is the straight trumpet (Br.
p^ ixxviii) jjj distinction from the crooked ram's horn. It is
described as "a long, straight, slender metal tube with flaring
end" (BDB. Benz. Arch.^''\ DB. iii,^^^ where there is a cut
from the arch of Titus). This was particularly the instru-
ment of the priest (Ne. 10^) and was used to call an assembly
(Ne. lo^), to sound an alarm (2 Ch. 1312- ")^ ^^d to celebrate
any joyful occasion (i Ch. 16^). — The Levites the sons of Asaph].
In 2^^ the sons of Asaph are singers. The reference is to
that part of the order of Levites whose office was to furnish
music. Not all Levites were sons of Asaph, but that term
includes the musical class. The use of this expression proba-
bly shows a different source from 2^^. — With cymbals]. This is
parallel with the preceding clause, a word being understood,
i. e., the Levites furnished with cymbals. Cymbals only in Ch.-
Ezr.-Ne. and 2 S. 6^ Ps. 150^ but in the Ps. a different Hebrew
word is used. According to i Ch. 15^^ cymbals were made of
brass. The cymbals were for the Levites or sons of Asaph as
distinctly as the trumpet was for the priests. They are often
coupled with psalteries and harps, and are used to accompany
the singers. They seemed to have been esteemed for the loud
noise they made (i Ch. 15^'). — After the order of David (literally,
by the hands of David)]. This is a characteristic note of the
Chronicler. He naturally ascribes the Levitical use of musical
instruments to David (2 Ch. 292^^). — 11. And they answered in
their praise]. That is, they sang responsively. The words which
122 EZRA-NEHEMIAH
follow are not, however, the praise song which was sung, but
only the refrain which served as the response; therefore we
might render: they praised with the response. It is difficult
to think that a refrain which was so great a favourite with the
Chronicler was quoted here in a mutilated form, therefore we
should almost certainly read:
Give thanks to Yahweh, for he is good;
For his mercy is for everlasting.
This chorus is found in Ps. io6^ 136^ i Ch. 16^^ 2 Ch. 5" 7'. —
Towards Israel] would then have to be regarded as a gloss added
by one who did not see the poetical quotation and who deemed
it necessary to point the application. In any case the connec-
tion is awkward. Esd. felt the difficulty and rendered freely:
for his goodness and glory are eternal towards all Israel. — Now all
the people shouted with a great shout]. The unusual order, the
subject preceding the verb, marks a concomitant circumstance.
While the priests were blowing the trumpets and the Levites
were playing the cymbals and singing, the mass of the people
broke out with triumphant cries. — Because the house oj Yahweh
was begun]. Better with Esd. because the house of Yahweh was
building. The Jews were not wont to celebrate the beginning
of a building operation, but its completion.
Ace. to the text we have judged to be the most original (v. s.), the
foundation had been laid some time before, and at this period the
building was well under way. No great stress can be laid upon the
event, however, for the hand of the Chr. is conspicuous, and he was a
far better idealist than historian. It may be that Esd. preserves a note
of an original story when it says, all the people blew the trumpets and
shouted. The whole population participated, making the demonstra-
tion more democratic than MT. suggests.
12. Many of the priests and Levites]. Esd. here as in other
places omits the conjunction and thus preserves the deutero-
nomic expression the priests the Levites. This is an important
reading, and it is quite possible that the sharp distinction be-
tween priest and Levite belongs to a later period than the early
post-exilic, and was put back into this period by the Chronicler.
— The elders] in our text is in explanatory opposition with heads
EZRA 2^0-43 123
of clans, but in ^ it is separated by a conjunction and thus
made a separate class. That is an error, for the elders are not
here an ofl&cial body, but the old people of all classes. — Who
had seen the former house], that is, the temple of Solomon which
had been destroyed by the Babylonians in 587.
RV. continues, "when the foundation of this house was laid before
their eyes"; but this is a desperate expedient to extract sense from an
unintelligible text. The Heb. will not yield that mng. by any possible
straining. The words "when its foundations were laid" refer not to
the new temple, but to the temple of Solomon! Manifestly no one liv-
ing could have survived from Solomon's time, and the text is impossible.
The next clause is no better: now the house in their eyes has no con-
nection fore or aft. Hg. 2' throws important light on the passage both
for interpretation and date: "Who is there surviving among you that
saw this house in its former splendor? And what do you see it now?
Is it not of small account in your eyes? " The prophet saw that some
of the old people by making the invidious comparison were discouraging
the builders (cf. Halevy, Rev. Setn. xv,"'). These words were spoken
by Hg. when the work on the temple was well under way. Kost. holds
that the Chr. excerpted the passage from the prophet, changing terms
to suit himself {Wied.^''). Esd. has a somewhat confused text, but
it easily yields an intelligible mng.: Some of the pr. et al., having seen
the former house, came to this building with crying and great weeping.
The idea is the same: the wailing was due to the comparative insignifi-
cance of the temple that was now erecting. But that rendering pre-
supposes a different text. Possibly the corruption was due to the
misconception about the chronology. It might serve to make a slight
change in the pointing and render: the old people who had seen the
former house in its place, this was the house in their eyes. " This " refers
to the old temple, and the mng. would be that in their conception
that building was the proper temple, and the new and insignificant
structure a cause for weeping rather than rejoicing. But the cor-
ruption is prob. deeper. In v. •> our text yields no sense, it runs lit.,
many with a shout with joy to raise the voice. RV., "many shouted
aloud for joy," is paraphrastic and unmindful of original text. The n.
"shout" must be changed to a vb., as RV. in fact does. In contrast
to the old people who were weeping, many (others) shouted joyfully,
in order to make a noise so as to drown out the weeping.
13. But the people could not distinguish the sound of the joyful
shouting from the sound of weeping]. Of the people follows in the
text, but after (&^ it should be omitted; otherwise "people"
124 EZRA-NEHEMIAH
would be used in this v. three times and in each case referring
to a different group. The passage means that the efforts of
the younger element were not successful in smothering the
weeping of the old people. Esd. 5^"^ reads: so that the people
could not hear the sound of the trumpets on account of the weeping
of the people. That makes very good sense and paves the way
for the following clause, therefore (not for) the multitude trum-
peted loudly so that it was heard afar], i. e., they redoubled their
efforts to silence the wallers, so that the noise was heard at a
great distance. On the whole, the celebration was decidedly
unique. The priests blew the trumpets, the Levites played the
cymbals and sang; the old people wept and the younger ones
shouted joyfully and trumpeted loudly, so that the noise of the
tumult of sounds carried to a great distance.
10''. Following 05 we should rd. ni^yi, a reading found in some Heb.
Mss., as it is better to take pr. d at. as subj. rather than obj. — □■'tr^Sa
nnsxn^] is to be rendered "equipped with clarions." ti'j'? does mean
put on clothing, but it is an easy transition to "furnish" or "equip."
Esd.'^^ has [aeto: [jLouatxwv y.al aaXxtyycov, 3 Esd. habentcs stolas cum
tiibis. — ainSsD2] lacking in (S^. Esd. has exovre? tcc xu[j,paXa. This
word is used only in Ch.-Ezr.-Ne. Another form is aiSsSs (2 S. 6=
Ps. 150O. It is scarcely correct to say that one form is earlier than
the other (BDB.), as the evidence is too scanty. — n''] Esd. 5" reads
eiXoyouvTsi; (nmnS) and connects S37 with HMn, praising according to
David the king of Israel, unless, indeed, they rd. ni as a vb. in Qal with
a sense assigned only to the Hiph. — 11. ij;?ii] Esd. ecpwvTjaav, 3 Esd. et
cantabant cajiticun Domino. — "3123 'd] Esd. 5=*^ otc •?) xpt3iJt6'^''3? auToO
xal -^ So^a; also icavrl 'lupai^X = SNitT'i-SD'?. The passage is plainly a
corruption of a favourite refrain found in Ps. io6» 1361 i Ch. 16" 2 Ch.
5" 7', i. c., non dSi^-V ^3 aia-'O nin^"? nin. — ayn-S^i]. The subj. precedes
vb. to mark the circumstantial clause. — i;?nn] (^'^ iisi]\i.(xiyw, ^ :^>.dXa?av,
Esd. laiXxtaav xotl e^oTjaav, 3 Esd. tuba cccinerunt et proclamerunt. — n;?nn]
C5 (puvT^v or ?iwv^^- = Sip. — noin] (gi^A es[jLeXtcoast = iDin. But Esd. has
iyipasi = a''pn, 3 Esd. in suscitationc. — 12. n>3n ni nDo] Sieg. explains
the sf. as anticipatory of n^3n, very dub. Ges.^ '^^ regards 'an nt as
a txt. err. for nin non. Van Hoonacker dismisses the clause as an
Aramaism {Zorob.^"*). On the basis of Esd., Guthe adjudges nnn a
gl. to which Haupt adds nr (SBOT. in loc). But o{xo5o[i,V in Esd.
may stand for no. The word surely wanting in Esd. is an>jij;a. It is
prob. that Esd. understood iD'' here, as in previous cases, as having the
sense of nj3. The rest of the passage also is quite different in Esd., y.a>.
EZRA 2^''-4^ 125
xoXXol 8(4 {jaXicfyYwv xod xocpx [Ksyxkfi "zfi qjwvfj, 3 Esd., c^ WJ</// aim
tubis et gaudio magna. The obscurity of the texts is very great. There
is a certain similarity in MT. to Hg. 2' and also to Esd. We may,
however, extract possible sense by disregarding accents, omitting the
sf., and treating nr as an enclitic: when this house was building before
their eyes.
Yet that result is not entirely satisfactory. What we should expect
is something like: "because the house now was mean in their eyes, they
wept with a loud voice." It may be quite surely said that Dn-ij^ya in-
dicates that there preceded some words describing how the new build-
ing appeared to those who compared it with the old. No present text
suggests a suitable word. By substituting t3j?D3 in the sense of Ps.
lo^o for nou we get the required sense as indicated above, but the
emendation is purely conjectural. Another possibility is to let the text
stand with a slight change of pointing, nbn, taking the n. in the sense
of "base" or "place," and referring to the temple of Solomon. We
should expect '?y rather than 3, it is true, but some demands will fail in
this passage. We may compare Hg. 2', t'lS'xi^ maoa n-n pi^n, "this
house in its former glory." 11013 may be an error for naaa due to the
Chr.'s insistence that the temple was not advanced beyond the foun-
dations at this period. Hg. has r^3 before DTy';2. We should get
good sense, therefore, by reading who saw the former house in its glory,
now the house was as nothing in their eyes. — doi] (&^^ o'x^o?* other texts,
•xoXXof. — n;;nn3] W^^ Iv Qt]\^(XQ\q., CI'- ev iXocXaYtAw. Esd. Sti ([j.£T<i'-)
oaXxfyY'^V' But a vb. is required here. Heb. syntax has been freely
manufactured to explain corrupt texts, but the strain is too great here.
We should rd. a^ynD as in v. ". Following Esd. many would rd. nnna'ai,
but that is due to a misunderstanding. The mng. is that in contrast
to the loud wailing many others raised a cry of joy. — Sip onnS]. The
Gk. translators were puzzled by this expression. In ^^ we find toU
b'^daM cpSi^v, ToCi utJ^oOv T-f)v 9tovfiv^, Esd. [leyiiXT) x^ (pwv^. The inf. clause
expresses purpose, and is not to be treated adverbially as RV. "aloud."
— 13. Dyn2] is lacking in OS'^ and does not belong here (so Guthe). Esd.
here offers a quite different text: wots Tbv Xabv \).^ dx,ouecv twv aaXTcfYyuv
[Tr-fjv 9G)vf)v^] Std: tou xXau6[xbv tou Xaou. It is doubtful if this is any
improvement. — ^o] must be taken in the sense of "therefore," and ayrn
thus means the same ones that could not separate the joyful cries
from the wailing. Esd. shows a different text : 6 yctp oxXoi; •^v h aak-
id^oiv lieydiXox; uaxs (i.axp60£v dxoueoOat. (8^^ lacks ^^J^'iPi and rep-
resents SnjD b^p2 {fitiviii (leyciXy]), placing Sip in a different connection
from Heb.
4'-^ = Esd. 5^^â– ^^ The rejection of the Samaritans' offer.
-The Samaritans heard of the building operations, and they
126 EZRA-NEHEIkHAH
came to Jerusalem with an offer of assistance on the ground
that they were also worshippers of Yahweh. The offer was
flatly rejected by Zerubbabel and the chiefs.
This passage has nothing to do with vv. ^-^ with which it is invariably
connected. The two sections show that broad difference in style which
precludes common authorship. In one place the hostile party is called
"enemies of Judah and Benjamin" (v.'), in another, "the people of
the land" (v. <); the Jews are called "sons of the golah" in v.', but
"people of Judah" in v. *, The prevalent use of participles in vv. * '•
betrays a different hand. In vv. ^-' we find "building," but there is
no indication that the building of the temple is meant. There is noth-
ing in c. 5 or in Hg. or Zc. to indicate any serious stoppage of the build-
ing operations. The opposition of the nations is, in Briggs's opinion,
well brought out in Ps. 4.
The passage is obviously out of place. The proposal of the Sam.
would naturally be made as soon as the temple was begun. It is
tempting to transpose this section to follow 3'. The connection would
then be all that can be desired. Vv. « '• describes the laying of the foun-
dations and the start of the structure. At this point the proposal of
the Sam. would come in most appropriately. Then the statement
"and the builders built the temple of Yahweh" (v.") has its proper
place, while vv. "^-n finds its best explanation as the dedication of the
completed temple. The passage may have been transposed to suit the
Chr.'s theory that the temple was only begun at this time, or to bring
together in c. 4-6 all the stories of the interference of the foreigners.
1. The enemies] are shown by their own statement in v. ^ to
be the Samaritans. — The sons of the golah] or the captivity indi-
cates the writer's theory that the temple was rebuilt by those
who had come back from Babylonia. — Were building the tem-
ple]. The Chronicler evidently overlooked those words, since
he has doctored the text of c. 3 to exclude any work on the
temple save laying the foundations. The words presuppose
some progress on the structure itself. Esd. contains an elab-
orate statement connecting this passage more closely with 3":
and the enemies of the tribe of Judah and Benjamin hearing,
came to ascertain what the sound of the trumpets [meant], and they
perceived that those from the captivity were building the temple of
the Lord, the God of Israel. If those enemies lived in Samaria,
the noise made by the trumpets must have been loud indeed.
EZRA 2 ^"-4^ 127
But the Samaritans may have spread during the exile into the
bounds of the later Judean province. The Hebrew is better, for
the offer seems to have been deliberate, not on the spur of the
moment, as the Esd. text implies. 1
2. Zerubbabel] add and to Jeshua and the rest as in v.', a read-
ing supported by several texts, and required by the sense, since
the offer was rejected by the same ones to whom it was made.
Associated with Zerubbabel and Jeshua, the prince and the
priest in the government, were chiefs of clans, making a sort of
informal assembly. — We will build with you] or let us build with
you. Possibly these were the same people that had assisted
at the erection of the altar (v. 3^). — For we seek your God as ye
do] RV. According to early usage "seek" would mean to
make inquiries of God by prophets or oracles. In Ch. it is
used in what Driver calls a weakened sense (Intr.^^), seeking
God in any religious way. Esd. renders "obey." These peo-
ple acknowledge their foreign characters by saying ''your God."
— To him we have ofered sacrifices] MT. reads: We have not of-
fered sacrifices. The purpose of the corruption is to show that
the foreigners had obeyed the law and had not dared to sac-
rifice, contrary to the law in any other place than Jerusalem.
That would add strength to tlieir plea, but it was hardly the
truth. Since the time of Esarhaddon], referring to the story of
their transportation from other Assyrian provinces to take the
place of the deported people of the northern kingdom. They
were led to seek Yahweh, because they were beset by wild beasts,
in which they saw a punishment for their neglect of the local
deity. They were taught the cult of Yahweh by an Israelitish
priest who was sent back from exile for that purpose {v. 2 K.
Esarhaddon was king of Assyria 681-668 B.C., and was the son of
the famous Sennacherib and grandson of Sargon who captured Sam.
in 722 B.C. The deportation of these particular people may have been
delayed. According to 2 K. 17, Shalmanezer transported the colonists
to Sam., and Jos. has that name here. In 4' Asnappar is supposed
to be Assurbanipal, and Mey. would so rd. here. Torrey thinks the
Chr. deliberately put the wrong name here to make the heathen origin
of the Sam. more apparent (ES."'). We know almost nothing about
128 EZRA-NEHEMIAII
conditions in Sam. after 722, and must draw conclusions cautiously
(v. further, Smith DTH.^^o, Mar. Jes.'*, GAS. Jer. ii,>").
3. For you and for us]. "And for us" is wanting in E^d.,
and its omission gives force to the contrasting assertion, we
alone will build. — As King Cyrus commanded us] referring to
the edict in i^-^ (cf. 30- The impetus for the building opera-
tions is here derived from the royal order. It is possible to
interpret the statement as the ground of the Jews' refusal of the
Samaritan offer, King Cyrus ordered us (not you) to build this
temple. The reason commonly urged is that the Jews would
have no dealings with this mixed race, being solicitous for a
pure people and a pure religion. Such a consideration would
have had more force with Ezra than with Zerubbabel. The
motive was probably political. The old feelings against the
pectple of the north would be intensified by the addition of for-
eign elements. (See Rogers, Hist. Bab. and Assy, ii,^^*.)
1. ns] (S ol OXf^ffVTec;, Esd. 5" ol exOpof. Esd. adds tt^? guliic; (ntsn).
— hyr]] <jg olxov, Esd. vaov. Esd. adds i^lOoaav extyvwaac il<; •{] qjwv^
Ttiv aaXxfi-ywv, mng. that the attention to the temple was attracted
by the noise of the trumpets. — nSun] (g i-juot/.faq = njnnn as 2K Esd.
o\ iy. -zfiq aXx'^akaaXaq = OS'D also in 2'. — 2. "^aani]. We should add
yiiyi-Vxi in harmony with v. ", as Esd. and <jm — aainSxS] 05"^ tw 6e<p
ii[Lu>v, 05'^ Iv T(p Oe^ uiAwv. MT. is right though; h is found in this
connection only in Ch. — xSi] as Qr. and all Vrss. we must rd.
iSi. — pn-iDvs] elsw. only 2 K. 19" (= Is. 37'"). As. Ahir-ah-iddina.
Most of the Gk. texts make sad havoc of this name; thus we find
Aag(xxa?aO Esd.", NaxopSavk •*■preserves correct form AaapaSSwv,
— 3. in::'] is lacking in Esd. both here and in v. ' (it is best omitted);
(&^ has a curious dup. in v. 2; Zer. and Jes. and the rest of the chiefs and
to the chiefs of the clans. — ^\:h^] is lacking in Esd.". — in^] (^ i%\ -zh aM.
Esd. [xdvoi = n?*?, a better reading, since ini means together and would
rather imply the acceptance of the offer. But see BDB., s. v. — ''n'?«
SxTiTi] (6"^ Tw 6e(T> Tjtiwv, Esd. ttp xupt'y tou 'Icrpai^X,
^24b_5i8_ THE ARAMAIC ACCOUNT OF THE REBUILDING OF THE
TEMPLE.
In its present form this story cannot be authentic. We find in the
letter to Dar. some incorrect information, esp. the statement that Shes.
had begun the work. But as shown in the notes the text in that part
EZRA 424b-6i8 ^ 129
of the letter is very corrupt. I have been able to restore a suitable
intr. to the letter of Dar. (v. $^ '•); but there is more lacking still. For
Dar.'s orders are based upon the decree of Cy., to which there is no
reference in the letter. The decree of Cy. is practically quoted in the
letter to Dar., whereas its place should be in his reply. The decree
in 6'-= has been amplified by a later hand, and a similar elaboration
is found in the letter of Dar., esp. vv. ' ^- The story of the dedication
(vv. '<-'') also excites suspicion in part.
It seems plain that the underlying theory of this document is that
the temple had been begun by Shes. and that the building had contin-
ued for many years. There may have been some interruption, as
4*< indicates, and with which 5" is not inconsistent, esp. if the ces-
sation had only lasted for two years, as is stated in Esd. 5". This nar-
rative is therefore the basis for the Chr.'s arrangement of his mate-
rial in c. 1-6. He found this story, and not only used it, but made it
the framework for his whole structure. Whether the text was freely
amplified by him or whether that had already been done by another
hand, it is not easy to determine. He was not the only Jew holding
strong views about the temple and priesthood.
The corresponding Heb. story knows nothing of an appeal to Dar.,
and yet it does not exclude it; for there is nothing to indicate what the
Sam. did when their offer was rejected. This account, on the other
hand, contains no hint of the tendered aid of the Sam.
The narrative in brief is as follows: Under the influence of the
prophets Hg. and Zc, Zer, and Jes. in the 2d year of Dar. begin the
construction of the temple. At once the Pers. ofScers Tattenai and
Shethar appear on the scene (4^^''-sO' These officers write a letter
to King Dar., relating their discovery of the Jews' building operations,
the claim of the latter to authority from Cy., and asking for instruc-
tions (5'-'0- A search is made by order of Dar., and the original
decree of Cy. is discovered (6^-^). Dar. thereupon replies to Tattenai
et al., upholding the decree of Cy. and bestowing liberal gifts upon
the Jews (6«-"). The temple is then finished in the 6th year of Dar.,
and dedicated with a festival accompanied by appropriate sacrifices
(613-18).
It appears from the above outline that here, as in 4'-24a^ -^^e have
chiefly some correspondence with the Pers. court. But the proportion
of narrative is very much greater than in 4' ff-, as the letters occupy
but half of the passage. There is a striking parallel between the two
documents. In both cases the Jews are engaged in building, the
Pers. officials write a report of the operations to the Pers. king, and the
king sends an answer, though in one case the answer orders the build-
ing stopped, and in the other allows it to go on with liberal support.
But in 4'-24o the attitude of the Pers. officials is hostile, while in this
section it is neutral. In 4' ^- the complainants put their own construc-
9
130 EZRA-NEHEMIAH
tion upon the actions of the Jews, while in 4'^* ^- the Jews are invited
to plead their cause, and their plea is forwarded to the Pers. court.
424b_55 ^ Esd. 5'°-6^ The temple is begun.
The text is in bad condition, esp. in the latter part of the section; we
find a question without an answer, and an answer without a question.
The letter to Dar. which follows, however, supplies the material that
is lacking here.
24**. And the cessation was until the second year of the reign
of Darius the king of Persia]. Esd. 5"" has the more specific
statement, and they were restrained from the building two years
until the reign of Darius. It is possible that some attempt had
been made to begin earher, or it may be that these words are
but an editorial attempt to connect c. 5 with the correspondence
with Artaxerxes. — 1. Here we may confidently follow the text
of Esd. : In the second year of the reign of Darius. This date ap-
pears to be original, and it inay be that it has been carried back
from this place to 4^*''. — Prophesied Haggai the prophet and
Zechariah the son of Iddo the prophet]. The text shows a de-
pendence upon Hg. This prophet's father is never named, but
he is called habitually ''Haggai the prophet" (Hg. i^- ^^ 2^- 1°).
According to Zc. i^ Zechariah was the grandson of Iddo, an
instance of the untrustworthiness of our genealogies. — In the
name of the God of Israel unto them]. ARV. inserts "prophesied
they," but has a marginal alternative, "which was upon them."
Torrey renders "which was over them." So 3 Esd., super cos.
"In the name of the God of Israel" certainly is connected with
"prophesy," either as it stands at the beginning of the verse,
in which case "unto them" is an error (it is not found in H),
or else we must supply the verb as ARV. By a slight change
we might get "their God" for "unto them" {cf. Hg. i" "the
house of Yahweh of hosts their God").
2. Zerubbabel comes before Jeshua here as Hg. i^, and con-
trary to 3^ where Jeshua precedes. — And began to build the house
of God]. This statement makes it difficult to suppose that there
had preceded any attempt to rebuild the temple. Torrey says
that it is a characteristic redundant use of the Aramaic word
EZRA. 424b-6i8 131
"begin" (ES.^*^). In Esd. 3^^ he renders the same Greek word
"proceeded." Still it would be extremely difficult to make the
passage mean "resumed building." — Which is in Jerusalem].
Cf. I* 4^*. — And with them were the prophets of God helping
them]. It is generally assiuned that Haggai and Zechariah are
meant; but they were named in v. ^ of which this is not neces-
arily a mere duplication. "Helping" may refer to material
assistance, and the prophets are probably the members of the
prophetic guilds which continued in post-exilic times {v. my
Heb. Prop. c. 4). We note the prophetic tone in this story and
the lack of prominence for the priests as in c. 3. The prophets
may have shared in the actual manual labour.
3. At that time came unto them]. Work must have progressed
for some time before the Persian officials could hear of it and
appear on the scene. Tattenai or, as found in contract tablets,
Ustani, v. i., the satrap of the province beyond the River] (Syria)
the exact title found in the contract tablets, except that there
we learn that Ustani was ruler of Babylonia as well as Syria.
— Shethar-bozenai]. The real name was probably Shethar, as
Est. i", and bozenai is the unknown or corrupted title of his
office. Perhaps Shethar was the scribe, like Shimshai (4*). It
is the custom in these documents to give both the name and
the title of the writers. — Thus they said to them] i. e., thus they
inquired of them. — Who gave you an order to build this house]
impl3dng that the rebuilding of the temple could not be
permitted without proper authorisation. That undoubtedly
was a fact. There is a good illustration in the Eleph. pap.
The Jewish colony there had had a temple, but it had been
destroyed by their enemies; they wished to rebuild it, and so
sent a long letter to Bagohi, governor of Judah, asking the
necessary permission. This letter is dated the 17th year of
Darius Nothus (408 B.C.), that is, a little more than a century
later than our period. — And to finish this wall] is almost cer-
tainly wrong; but it is not so easy to say what is surely right.
The meaning of the word translated "wall" is not known. It
may be that "foundation" is right {v. i.). The word is found
in Eleph. Pap. i,", but the meaning is doubtful save that it
132 EZRA-NEHEMIAH
refers to some part of the temple, and to something made of
wood, as it was burnt. Sachau proposes here ''establishment"
{Pap. u. Ost.^').
In. vv. 1-' the text of Esd. is usually close to MT. But in vv. <'•
the departure becomes very considerable. The peculiar rendering
throws little light on the text, which here has suffered severely appar-
ently by the compiler's omissions.
4. Then we said to them as follows]. But what they said is lack-
ing. In Esd. the difficulty is relieved, for this phrase is wanting.
In (& we find a slight change, then they [the Persians] said these
things to them [the Jews], i. e., inquired further. But that gives
us two questions suitably introduced, while there is no answer
to either one. ARV. cuts the knot by turning the second ques-
tion into the missing answer to the first, though unhappily the
reply has no relation whatever to the question. RV. and AV.
more wisely render the text as it stands, though it does not
make sense. But not to know is sometimes better than to
know wrongly. In the letter which Tattenai sent to Darius we
find the missing answer of the Jews (vv."-^*^), and it is a good
answer, for here is related the history of the attempts at temple-
building, which it is declared had been authorised by Cyrus.
It may be that on account of the length of the reply, and to
avoid repetition, the Chronicler left out the long answer here.
— What are the names of the men who are building this building.
The answer would naturally be Zerubbabel and Jeshua. The
only name found in the letter, however, is Sheshbazzar, w. "• "•
— 5. And the eye of their God was upon the elders of the Jews].
Elders is used for the leaders, the men called so often "heads
of the fathers" {cf. i^). In (S we find captivity of Judah, also
found in Esd., and giving a more suitable sense, for the divine
favour was not limited to the leaders, but was extended to the
whole people. If, "elders" is right the meaning is that the
reply to Tattenai had been so happily framed that he had no
excuse for present interference. Esd. has a different text, and
they had favour, there being an overseeing of the captivity from
the Lord, the elders of the Judeans. — And they did not restrain
EZRA 424b-6i8 133
them] i. e., from continuing the building. — Until a report should
go to Darius, and then they would return an answer concerning
this]. We have clear evidence of confusion. The last part is
plainly an indirect reproduction of the verdict of the Persian
officials. We must assume something like this: then they [the
Persians] said to them [the Jews]* that they would not restrain them
until a report should go to Darius, and then they would give them
a reply about this. This would be a reply to the assertion of
the Jews that they were building the temple under the express
sanction of Cyrus, a sanction assumed by all parties to hold
good. The real question, therefore, referred to Darius was
whether there was any authorisation by Cyrus. The Jews
evidently had not at hand a copy of the important document.
1. Iv Bl T(p SeuTlpy Itec tyji; Aapefou paatXefotc; is the reading of
Esd., and is correct, for v. >" is taken almost bodily from Hg. i^ "in
the 2d year of Dar. [prophesied] Hg. the prophet," etc. The date, the
silence in regard to Hg.'s father, and the repetition of the prophetic
title are sure marks of the source. The clause is much like 4^*. — n^Ni^j]
<K zpocpiQTstav, but Esd. Tcpoip^Tat (so CI in v. 2); rd. noi in both cases.
— hSn] + otupfou (&^ Esd. — liniSj'] (& Esd. k%' auxoiq. In spite of this
support the word has no connection. It may have been originally their
God. — 2. piiJ'] is explained as Pa. from nt^', used often with mng.
"loosen." (5 Esd. render i^p^avco. — n>'D] only here in B. Aram., but it
13 a good Heb. word mng. "support." Aid by taking part in the work
is the sense here. — 3. NJDfna] d Iv au-utp "^v vcatpq) (xpovq) Esd.); lit.,
in it, the time, i. e., at that time. On the construction v. Kautzsch, § ".
pr is by some derived from old Pers. zrvan (Str.), but Zimmern traces
it to As., simanu {KAT.^^). The word occurs in late Heb. (Eccl. 31
Est. 9"- ")• — ^^^] ^- Kautzsch, § <^ — linn] (& ©avavac^, 0a66avat^, Tav-
Oavatoq^, Esd, Statvvit]?, so Jos. Andreas says, "surely a Pers. name
which has not been correctly transmitted." Mey. sees the correct form
in Esd., and connects it with Thishinaja {Ent.^^). Meissner finds in
contract tablets of the ist and 3d years of Dar., US-ta-an-ni pihat
Babili u ebir nari, "Ustani the satrap of Bab. and beyond the River,"
the very title and place of our text. He holds that we have here the
same person and should correct our text and rd. "'jnc'i (ZAW. 1897,'" '•,
so KAT.^- "0. This is a very prob. identification. There is no suffi-
cient reason for making this ofiicer a Pers.; he may just as well have
''This may be what was originally in the puzzling clause in 4«, then we said to ihcm as
/allows, a clause accidentally transposed, and then changed in form.
134 EZRA-NEHEMIAH
been a Bab., Aramean, or Sam. — nna] 05 sTuapxoq^^ and Esd. (jxpcczr^yhq^.
— ■'jtia -IDB'] 05 Sa6apPoui;ava'^^, Qctp^ou'C^ot.vaioqy (first syl. lacking), SotO-
pa^oul^avitjc Esd. Mey. accepts last form; buzanes, he says, is Pers.
barzanes, and sheihar might be Pers. citra, but as a divine name is re-
quired, he corrects the text to ijimnn = MtOpa^oul^avirii;. In this he
follows Andreas, who gives Iranian form Mithrahaiizana, " Mithra is the
rescuer." Scheftelowitz connects with old Iran. Seihrahiizana. Winckler
finds the word an ofiicial title (MVAG. 1897,=" f-). There is a Pers.
ofiicer named ina' in Esd. i^^, and as the text offers two words the
conjecture is good that nna' was the name and ''JT13 the title of his
office. Mey. thinks he was subordinate to Ustani; he was a royal
secretary like Shimshai (48). — Njia'N] v.'' ^■x.opt]-{ia,y, aii-ftiy'Esd. It is
a word of obscure origin and mng.; various Pers. and As. derivations
have been proposed {v. Ges.^', BDB.). The various meanings proposed
are "wall" (Mar. from As.), "sanctuary" (Haupt, As. aSru), "palace"
(Marquart, Pers.), "breach" (Scheftelowitz, Pers.). It seems pretty
clear that it is the same word (one or the other being a corrupt form)
as !<•'»'}< 412 516 6', the similarity of vocalisation being pointed out long
ago by Kautzsch, § "2. In all cases the reference is to an initial stage in
rebuilding either walls or edifice, something finished before the rest is
begun. In v. " Shes. put in the foundation as the first step (similarly
6^). In all these cases "foundation" makes the best sense, and may
be provisionally adopted. Contrary to Berth, "sanctuary" does not
seem to me to make good sense. It is admitted that the query, "who
issued a decree to you to build this house and to finish this foundation?"
reverses the natural order. At present there is no satisfactory solution.
I suspect that the clause was added here by an editor to force a sort
of agreement with 4". — 4. njidx] 05 e'cxoaav"^, elxov'^k Evidently the
incomplete and disordered text was before the translators, and they,
like EV^. made the best out of it they could. Esd. lacks v. » and thus
connects the two questions as they may well be. — xjija] 05 icdXtv, Esd.
Tauxa. — 5. r>^] 05 ScpOaT^tAof, Esd. xap'v = Heb. in and prob. right text,
corrupted here by similarity of sound, jn does not occur in B. Aram.,
but the vb. pn is found. p> also appears in Esd. as imav.6%Y;q. — ann'?x]
Hebraism, Mar. corrects to finnSN; apparently in Esd. as 'iaxoaay; Heb.
Dn>'?x "unto them." — o^'] <& atxt^tiXwatv. 05 rd. the Heb. word ''?'f.
It is Pe. ptc. used as subst. (v. = 6^- «• " t), "elders" (Mar. § s'^). Esd.
has a dup. adding TupeaPuTepot. — xnyts] is here used in the sense of
"report," which Tattenai will send to Dar. — ini] on the form see
Mar. § ^2 ". (5 has prob. a free rendering, dcxevexO'r], Esd. dcTcoCTYjtJLavOTJvat.
— Njina'j] (S^^ persist in the rendering cpopoXdyw, StiraytAaK "Letter"
is certainly unsuitable here; it is something which Tattenai ct al. will
bring back to the Jews after they hear from Dar., therefore "decision"
or "order," as (S^ really "answer." M has a different text, bui the eye
of their Cod was made over the elders of the Jews, and they were not able to
EZRA 424b-6i8 135
restrain them. And it sufficed that the matter shotdd be referred to Dar.,
and they would give adequate proof against that accusation, i. e., that they
were building without authority.
6-17 = Esd. &'". The report to Darius.— Vv. ^- '^^ (to
Darius) is introductory by R. — 6. A copy] or perhaps trans-
lation, V. on 4". The letter purports to be quoted exactly.
His companions, because Tattenai is chief {v. Mey.'^). The
Apharsachiies, v. 4^. Torrey explains the word as equivalent
to eparchs, Esd. similarly has "leaders" or "rulers." — 7. They
sent a report to him and therein was written like this] is redundant,
and lacking in Esd. together with the preceding unto Darius the
king. — To Darius the king, all peace] ; the beginning of the letter.
There is a textual error; for reconstruction v. i. — 8. To Judah
the province]. Esd. adds, and to the city of Jerusalem; we dis-
covered in the city of Jerusalem. "Province" refers to one of
the districts of the Syrian satrapy, as in 2^. — To the house of
the great God]. A strange statement for the Persian officials.
Berth, compares Cyrus's calling Marduk "the great lord," but
Cyrus thought he had conquered Babylon by Marduk's aid.
— And it is building of great stones]. The text is literally, stone
of rolling, i. e., "too big to carry"; but on basis of 01 we should
probably substitute hewn or splendid (costly) {v. i.). Esd. has
a suggestive variant: the elders of the Jews that are of the cap-
tivity are building a great new house for the Lord of hewn and splen-
did stones. — And timbers are being set in the walls]. So the pas-
sage is understood by Meyer (Ent.^^) et al., but Sieg. insists that
it means wainscotting placed on the walls as described in i K.
6^^ Berth, thinks that "wainscotting" would suggest a prog-
ress in building too advanced for this stage. The Aramaic
word means tree or wood and might be used of "beams" or
"boards." The older view "timbers" is preferable, for the
wainscotting would scarcely be worth reporting to the king.
The report aims to show that considerable progress has already
been made, and that the work is pushed forward rapidly. — â–
And it prospers in their hands] is redundant, and may be the
Chronicler's amplification. Esd. has an addition, and it is being
completed with all glory and diligence. — Then we asked these elders j
136 EZRA-NEHEMIAH
thus we said to them] is surely not original. The second clause
was apparently added from v.^; it is quite superfluous here.
In its place Esd. has simply saying. The question is word for
word that of v. ^. "These elders" has no antecedent in Ara-
maic text, but Esd. supplies it in v. *.
10. The second question is repeated indirectly: and also we
asked of them their names]. Esd. amplifies: "we asked them for
the register (ovofiaroypacfytav) of the principal men." — To in-
form thee and to write for thee the names of the men who are their
chiefs], so we must read as (5 and Esd., changing the finite verb
to the infinitive. It is to be noted that the letter contains in
great detail the Jews' answer to the first question, but there
is no mention of the names which are said to have been writ-
ten. Evidently we have not the whole of the letter, but only
that part which is material from the Jewish point of view. —
11. And in this manner they answered tis]. The answer of the
Jews is recited at great length, continuing through v. ^^•, it is
apologetic in tone and is such a review of the history as the
Jews were fond of making, containing a good deal of moral-
ising; it might be the actual words spoken to Tattenai, but
much of it would be quite immaterial to Darius, and would
scarcely find a place in this letter unless the writers were kindly
disposed toward the Jewish project. Now it is generally as-
sumed that Tattenai et al. betrayed a hostile purpose, but that
spirit can only be discovered by reading into this story the ideas
of its parallel 4^ '^•. In the whole story there is not the slightest
note of hostility, but on the contrary the zeal with which Da-
rius's orders were executed (6") reveals a friendly purpose. —
God of heaven and earth] is unusual. Esd. offers a more appro-
priate phrase, the Lord who created the heavens and the earth (cf.
Gn. 14^3-22^ where (^ has same words). — The great king of Israel]
is, of course, Solomon; for another reading v. crit. note. — 12.
Cf. 2 Ch. 36^^ '•. King of Babylon the Chaldean] is not very prob-
able. Esd. has king of Babylon, king of the Chaldeans, the last
title added by the Chronicler from 2 Ch. 36^^ = Esd. i^. —
And this house he destroyed]. Esd. and they pulling down the
house burned it. That agrees with the earlier history in
EZRA 424b-6l8 J^J
which it is said that the house was burned with fire (2 K.
25^ 2 Ch. 36^* = Esd. i^^). — 13. Here the story reaches Ezr.
I. Nothing is said about the permission to return from exile;
but that was unnecessary, that not being the point at issue. —
In the first year of Cyrus king of Babylon], exactly what we have
in I* except that Babylon takes the place of Persia, Esd. gives
more correctly in the first year that Cyrus ruled over the country
of Babylon. The decree may be that in i^-^ or that in 6^-^. In
the second there is nothing about permission to return from
Babylon, but had the decree contained that, it would not be
necessary to quote it here. — 14. In regard to these vessels
cf. i^ "• 6^ 2 K. 25^^ '^•. — Sheshbazzar whom he had appointed
governor]. In i^ Sheshbazzar was called ''prince of Judah," a
title due to his Davidic descent; here only do we find notice of
his appointment as governor by Cyrus. The title (pihat) is the
same given to Zerubbabel in Hg. i^ It is the title of Tattenai
also. — 15. In this verse we reach serious difficulty: And he
said to him these vessels take up, go, deposit them, but it con-
tinues in the temple which is in Jerusalem, and then in direct
contradiction, and the house of God shall be built upon its place.
(&^^ solves apparently by omission {v. crit. note) but that is
more easy than effective; Esd. has our text, so the confusion is
very old.
One may consult the comm. without getting much assistance. Ryle,
Sieg. Berth, and Seis. have not a syl. on the passage. B.-Rys. offers
this easy explanation: "Because this [the temple] is still destroyed it
is added, and the house of God shall be built at its place . . . the sen-
tence subjoined by 1 afterward explains the command to replace the
vessels in the temple in this way; I speak of a temple, that is to say.
the house of God or the temple shall be rebuilt." Exactness of state-
ment is surely unnecessary for one who has that kind of an inter-
preter. In the first place, that expression "temple which is in Jerus.,"
recurring frequently in our sources, is a mark of a late and careless
hand, prob. the Chr. Again in this letter "house" or "house of God"
is used for the temple at Jerus. 8 t., for in v. " the Gk. preserves the
true reading, while "temple" (NSD-in) is used for the sanctuary of Neb-
uchadrezzar at Bab. It is prob., therefore, that "temple" is a later
interpolation, the original reading being "store the vessels in Jerus."
Cy. would not be apt to specify the place where they were to be put,
138 EZRA-NEHEMIAH
and if he did he would not specify a place that did not exist. Another
solution may be that the last clause is a later addition, esp. as the decree
authorising the rebuilding of the temple has already been cited (v. "),
It is, indeed, perfectly possible that the letter ended with v. " and that
vv. '<-'« were appended by a later writer who felt that important in-
formation contained in i* f- had been neglected. These vv. have really
nothing to do with the question at issue, which was not the title to the
temple vessels nor the disposition of them, but only the authority to
rebuild the temple.
16. Then the said Sheshhazzar came and laid the foundation
of the house of God which is in Jerusalem, and from that time until
the present it has been building and is not finished]. It would be
difficult to get more misstatements into a short space. In a
contemporary record it is said positively that "the hands of
Zerubbabel laid the foundations of this house" (Zc. 4^, cf. Ezr.
3^"). The only correct statement in the passage is that the
temple was still unfinished. — 17. And now, to come to the heart
of the matter, if it seem good to the king], a polite expression,
which curiously Esd. lacks here, but has it in 2^^ (Ezr. 4^^) in
the complaint to Artaxerxes, where it is not found in MT. —
Let search be made in the royal treasures], but correctly in 6^ in
the library, so Esd. reads here in the royal libraries. The library
Is located in Babylon, though the record was actually found
at Ecbatana (6^). It is possible that these Jews, associating
Cyrus with Babylon, expected the edict concerning the Baby-
lonian exiles to be filed there. The object of the search is
clearly stated, to find whether such a decree as the Jews claimed
had ever been issued by Cyrus. It was a question of veracity
merely. The Jews had made a statement, and the task was to
ascertain whether the official records confirmed it. — And the
pleasure of the king in this matter let him send unto us]. This
implies that the king might or might not ratify the decree of
Cyrus if it were found. In the rendering in Esd. this implica-
tion is weakened: and if it is found that the house of the Lord in
Jerusalem stands with the approval of Cyrus the king, and it
seems good to our lord the king, let him signify unto us thereof.
This is probably the right idea, for Darius would be likely to
honour an edict of Cyrus.
EZRA 4"b-6l8 I^g
6f. The text is in evident disorder here, as in 4'-". Ace. to MT.
the letter begins with trim'? (v. ')• But in that case the letter does
not contain the names of the complainants, the names being only in
the intr. They are unnecessary there, since they have been given
already in v. =, but are required in the letter itself as in the reply (60.
Esd. has dtvT{Ypa90V eictaToXfii; ^s eYpa(]^£V A(zpe((p xal dxs(Ji:stXav. Statv-
VT)? 6 exapxo<; Supla? Y.od <I>otvtxT]<; xal SaGpaPoupt^avT)? %ai.\ o\ auvsTottpot
oi Iv 2up((}c xal 'J>oiv{/,Y5 •fjysfj.ovsi; Baat'Xet Aapet'y xc^'pstv icdcvTa Yvwa-ud:
x. T. X. MT. has hpuji 'jnj nniyi mnj— ijy rna >jpn nSg ^^n nh-ijx py-\o
tPimS nij3 2>n3 ^J^31 ^niSy inSi:> Nsjno ndSd cim-Sy mnj 13 vj ""t x^'roT^s
yni nSd ndSs* «dSd. Esd. was plainly taken from this text, as shown by
the underlined words. "EYpa<pev has no corresponding word until we
reach sna. 'HYEtJiive? represents correctly !<''3D-(£3X, cf. xptTat for !<''jn in
precisely similar connection in 4'. In 6' = Esd. 6^' we find toi? iizozexx-^-
Hivotg . . . ■f)YetJi6CTtv. 'AxeaTstXav represents ^^h•^ not nhz'. The transla-
tion of the plus in Aram, text runs: unio Dar. the king they sent an answer
unto him and therein was written as follows: "Unto the king" and "unto
him" show a redundancy as 4". The pahath could hardly send an
answer (the proper mng. of NDjns here as in v. ") to the king. Disre-
garding for the moment the ^'J made necessary by a false connection,
restoring the original place of nStr, and correcting a sf., we may ren-
der: Dar. the king sent an answer unto them and therein was written as
follows. Now when we turn to 6« we have an order of Dar. without
the necessary words of intr. The superfluous sentence here makes a
very suitable intr.. and we may confidently restore them to their proper
place, reading y'^y for '?37. Esd. has an intr., but not a very suitable
one. V. on 6".
The text here, therefore, originally stood as follows : NniJS jji'ifl (intr.)
N^3Di£3S nnuDi ■'jin "intri mnj -125; rna ■'jnn (the letter) cim-Sj; inSc n
NDSa* ndSd cimS mnj-naya n. Then to 6" we should transpose jn«
.nua 31.-13 r\i^^â– 2^ mSy rh-a NDjno ndSd cim
6. IJe^ifl] (K'^A Stacj(i9iriCTt<;, a word occurring only in 7", and Gn. 40',
for Heb. I'nnfl, "interpretation"; so here (& understands "transla-
tion"; cf. on 4", the original being in some other language, perhaps
Bab.— 7. NDJns] (& p^atv^^^ ^^[Ji-a^ (so ^'^ in v. ^').—nh:3 nrh-a\ 05 with
exact literalness efpTjviQ icaaa, Esd. with greater freedom xst'P^'v (''^n'^"'^)
and connects nSd (xivxa) with v. ', x(ivTa -/vwaTii ea-rw. — 8. xnjnD nin^S]
(& 'louSafav x^pov, Esd. •/j'^goc^ "zriq TouSafaq, Esd. has a -}- xal 'lepou-
caX-Jjti. T'fjv xoXtv 7taT£X{ipo[j,ev ttj? afxiiaXwafai; toCi? xpeaPuT^poui; twv
'louSafuv ev 'lepouaaX-fjix t^ '3c6Xet, showing a ^3ii' rd. in two ways as
in V. «. — 5<3n] is attributive of nhSn, but Esd. (olxov t^) xupfy [x^yav
xatv6v) connects with ni3, a more natural statement from foreigners. —
SSj] 6* t, equivalent to the Heb. word and mng. "rolling." But 05
has IxXexToti; (ip' in Ez. 27")* Esd. 5u<rrciv -rcoXuteXav = Heb. nvj ps
I40 EZRA-NEHEMIAH
'\p\ In view of the forced mng. which must be given to h^i we must
accept the testimony of the Gk, and rd. either "hewn stones" or
"splendid stones"; the latter is best supported, the former makes the
best sense. Otherwise we might correct on basis of niSnj D'-jax, but
Snj does not occur in B. Aram. — sSno] Dn. 5^, Kautzsch,»''<», Mar. § ",
cf. Heb. Shd, As. hdallii. (6 to^xok;, Esd. oV/.otc;'^, Tot'xoiq^''. ^'"^ read-
ing is a blunder. — njiddn] (& extSe?tov'^\ dff9aX(I)<;'', Esd. i%\ aiuouSiic;.
It is a word of frequent occurrence (6'- "■" 7''- "• 26) and connected
with "^y; exc. in two cases (6^ 71'). Andreas derives from Iranian
uspuru, late Pers. ispari, "completed." So the mng. assigned is "care-
fully," "thoroughly." Mey. cites a stamp mark on the lion from
Abydos, where he holds pflDx has the mng. "precise" or "accurate"
(£«/."■2^ f). The best sense here would be as (& "skilfully" or
Esd. "rapidly." — nSsn] (& euoBou-uat^'^, xaxeuGuvet^, euoSoutAsvov Esd. —
9. nijar;'?] in v, ' xjaS; this is the only place where the repeated ques-
tion differs from the original in v. '. We should rd. here nj^*?, or
prob. in both cases NjanS as in v. "^j which is the normal form (Mar.
§", Str., §"!)■— 10. 5in3j] is difficult, the construction changing from
inf. to impf. with n. (S has wjte ypi^J^ctc [oot'^], apparently a correc-
tion; Esd. %ol\ Ypiijjat aof, and that is prob. the original form. — a-^] C5
6v6tJLaTa, so Guthe reads nno'''^'. — anViyxia] is usually regarded as a
Hebraism, but Torrey shows that it is good Aram. (ES.i")- — H- nmpo
NJi] (& ■Tcpb xo6tou, taking 'd as prep., Esd. ItjncpoaOev. — 3i] Esd. \x.z-
YiiXou xal eax^Jpou- — ^7 ■3!!'] ^ xaTTjpxtaaxo auTbv aiToiq, suggesting that
the original rd. : and a great king hiilt it for Israel and completed it for
them. Thus we should better understand Snt.ti'?. — 12. irjin] f but
cf. Heb. Tjn, <JS xapwpYtCTav, Esd. xapaxfxpavTe? T^piapTov. — xnDs] om.
(S?'. XaXoatou^^, Esd. ^aatX^wq twv XaXSafwv, after which we might
emend Nno? ^Sd. — 13. S23 n] lacking in (^^\ The difficulty of call-
ing Cy. king of Bab. in this connection is obviated in ^ toO PaatXsiaav-
Toq (xal) Twv ^a^uXfovfcov, and in Esd. p. y^dtpaq Ba^. The better sense
suggests that Esd. has the original text. The vb. "i^d is not found
in B. Aram., but it might well be. We should thus understand the
repetition of Cy. — 14. psjn]. On the form, unassimilated, see Mar. § '^K
— sSain'?] (B^^ rightly vo(6v (so Esd.), since in this letter it means the
Bab. temple. — nsa> nna n noa-] can scarcely be right; <S Oi^aaupoyuXaxt
[xCi exl ToO OrjaaupoO] bracketed part not in K This may be a confu-
sion of the offices of Mithredath and Shes. (i^). Esd. has Zopoga^eX xal
Sa^avaaadtptp T(p ex(4px(p, an evidently harmonistic note, nna* may be
an accidental anticipation of naa* (so Str.) and its omission seems
necessary. — 15. nSx] (g "Kivza.^^, TauxaK hSn is Heb., the Aram, be-
ing iSn and Mar. §<< so reads. — Stn] v. Mar. §6", Baer, BD.". — nnx]
is Haph. imv. from nnj Mar. § ^^^ Kautzsch, § ^^. On the peculiar com-
bination of three imperatives, v. Kautzsch, § '<. Maqqeph joins the
words to show close connection, "go, place," expressing but a single
EZRA 424b-6l8 141
idea. — nipn] is used in same sense as Heb. n:i3D (32). The word occurs
in Elcph. Pap. in same connection, "on the place where it had stood
before" (Sachau,'0- — 16. nni] is not to be explained as a Hebraism;
it is used in Palestinian Aram, in the sense of "lay" and that is re-
quired here (Schueltens, ZAW. i902,"2). — aS-.:'] 05 exeX^aOif], Esd. eXa^ev
aux^Xetav; it is Pe. pass. ptc. — 17. nmjj n'':^] (8'- '^cxC,ocf\jkcit.':f.{oic„ Esd.
ptpXtocf!uXax(oii;; both represent nu by (f\ika.%lo\q, one having "treasury"
as MT., the other "library." But v. 6^. Prob. Esd. represents an in-
terpretation, the annals being preserved in the royal treasury, a general
storehouse, nnn and S33 n, vidctur dclendum esse (Str. 0, cf. 6^, but
as the edict was found at Ecbatana, V^a^ in 6' must be stricken out.
In this V. it is better to om. nnn which is lacking in (B^^, and which
may have got here from 6^. (5^^, however, has a larger variant, run-
ning: Tou PactXsdx; Pa^uXcivo?; Esd. correctly Iv Toi<; PaatXtxot? ^t^Xio-
(yuXax(oi<; toCi xupfou (Kupou) [^afftXdox; dup.] Toi<; ev ^a^uXwvc. — "Tn =
Heb. t'l, (& oxio? Yvyq.
6"^ = Esd. 6'^"^ The decree of Cyrus is found at Ec-
batana. — 1. Made a decree] is unnecessarily formal here; the
reference is scarcely to a public proclamation, therefore gave an
order is better. — In the library (literally, house of books) where
the treasures were stored in Babylon]. This is fuller than house
of treasures of 5^^. Probably the former passage should be cor-
rected to agree with this (so Torrey). We should infer that the
library or book-room was a part of a larger treasury. In Baby-
lonia is either an addition, or was probably an error, for in
Ecbatana as v. ^. A Jewish writer may have meant Babylonia
to include Persia. — 2. And there was found in Achmetha] i. e.,
Ecbatana, the capital of Media and the summer residence of
the Persian kings; it was captured by Cyrus in 550 B.C. It has
been identified by Jackson with modern Hamadam {Persia
Past and Present,^^-). — In the castle which is in the province of
Media]. The exact spot where the record was found is de-
scribed; it appears that the library was a part of the treasury
and that a part of the royal residence. — A certain roll, and thus
it was written therein]. "Roll" apparently shows a Hebrew
colouring, for there can be little doubt that these records were
all made on the now familiar clay tablets. — Memorandum] is
interpreted rightly by Mey. as a sort of title to the document
which follows. — 3. The record of Cyrus is now quoted: In
142 EZRA.-NEHEMIAH
the first year of King Cyrus]. It is quite unlikely that Cyrus
would call 539 (or 538) his ist year. It would be all right if
put as Esd. 2^^ (Heb. 5*'), in the first year that Cyrus was king
of Babylonia. R. may have changed the year to agree with i^
— The place of sacrificing sacrifices] may be construed as in ap-
position with "house of God." The following clause is unin-
telligible: "let the foundations thereof be strongly laid," as
ARV. cannot be made out of the text, and has poor support
in the Vrss. Esd. combines with the preceding clause and
renders: house of the Lord where they continually offer sacrifices
by fire. This is the simplest and only intelligible text. — Its
height sixty cubits and its breadth sixty cubits]. But its length
is not mentioned. It is certain that we have an omission here.
The obscure and corrupt clause must have given the length of
the building, for Cyrus would not have given two dimensions
and left out the third. The dimensions of Solomon's temple
were: 60 cubits in length, 20 in breadth, and 30 in height (i
K. 6^). So that the new temple was six times as big as the old
one. These figures are wrong, for the new temple was much
smaller than the old one (3^^ Hg. 2^). — 4. Three layers of hewn
stone and one layer of timber] continuing the description of the
building specifications. "One" is the correct reading, though
the text has "new"; "new" is in ARV. and without even a
marginal alternative; RV."" is correct. It is difficult to under-
stand this method of building. According to i K. 6^^ 7^^ Sol-
omon built the inner court of the temple and the outer court
of his palace with three courses of hewn stone and one course of
cedar beams. Delitzsch supposed that the rows or layers were
vertical, but that has little to commend it, and it fails to explain
an unintelligible method of building. The similarity to i K.
6^^ would suggest that the statement is due to R. rather than to
Cyrus. — The outlay shall be given from the house of the king].
Esd. Cyrus the king. In v. ^ we have "from the property of
the king," and that more appropriate expression should be read
here. As the temple was not begun in the time of Cyrus, this
grant was naturally inoperative. — 5. This verse begins exactly
like 5" and it agrees in substance with s"''- ^^, but not in words.
EZRA 42''b-6»8 143
It appears that both passages were originally the same, but now
both are in part corrupt. But one is supposed to be a state-
ment of the Jews in 520 B.C., and the other a copy of a decree
of Cyrus in 538. The identity of language shows that both
passages are not authentic. One may be original and the other
made up from it.
V. ^^ is even more corrupt than 5". It is true that 5" f- casts the
decree partly into narrative form, while this purports to quote directly.
My own belief is that both passages are late interpolations to make
the decree agree with i^ ff-, and that they represent a growth. They
are quite unnecessary and really drag in an extraneous element into
the question at issue, which was not the title to temple vessels, but the
building of the temple. It is instructive to compare the decree of
Cy. with the quoted statement of the Jews in 5"-".
■•jNO ONI (6") N02ni Npia aSa'nij nhSx ni3 6'
x'^D'H-JD pojn -|Xn313J n NDDD1 N^HT n XhSn H-ia 6=
ion nnx s" • • • la-'n^ S23 n vxSo-nS inn S^tii aSfn'-j n 5'*
nnii p^inn'' "jaaS Sa-'ni aSe'n'a n 6^
NnVx n-aa nnm mnxS aStrno-n NSm"? 6^
In each version there is an omission of a practically complete section.
In one case the lacking passage is Cy. the king hroitght them out from the
temple of Bab. to Shes. by name, whom he had appointed governor, and he
said to him, take these vessels, go place. By omitting this the sense is not
impaired, but rather improved. In the other passage the lacking sec-
tion has the dub. phrase where sacrifices are ojfered, etc., the state-
ment about the dimensions of the temple, and about payment from the
royal funds. The decree loses nothing by this omission.
That the passages are dependent is made clear by the most cursory
inspection. The report made by Tattenai and the decree of Cy. after-
ward discovered at Ecbatana could not have accidentally agreed to
such an extent as we find here. The differences even in words are very
few. The extra clause in 5" n NSa^nS is possibly added on the basis of
144 EZRA-NEHEMIAH
I'; u'-ni and juirni are only accidental variations. The final clause in
6= is absolutely unintelligible, and its resemblance to the clear state-
ment of s'5 is so close that the former is manifestly a corruption of the
latter. The awkward nnni curiously has a parallel in 5", where it cor-
responds to inn.
Rendering the passage now and making certain selections we have:
In the first year of Cy. the king of Bah., Cy. the king made a decree that
the house of God should be built, and that the vessels of the house of God,
both gold atid silver, which Nebuchadnezzar carried away from the temple
in Jerus. and brought to Bab. should be restored to the temple in Jerus. ;
and the hotise of God shall be built upon its site. The last clause is super-
fluous. It might originally have been "let therefore the house of God
be built upon its site." Or this clause may be the comment of the
complainants, "and (now) the house of God is building upon its site."
This is prob. all that was in the original decree. It is certainly suf-
ficient that Cy. should have authorised the building of the temple and
the restoration of the sacred vessels. In i^-^ there is no mention of the
vessels, but the statement that they were returned (i' ^O indicates that
they may well have been covered by the decree. The added material
in b*, to the effect that support was to come from the king, has its
parallel in i<, where the aid was to come from the Jews, and it may
have crept in from 6'. But the comparison certainly increases our
distrust of the Jewish apologia in 5iib-i6^ \ye are constrained to pro-
nounce against the authenticity of that passage.
1. NncD nia] <& pt^XtoG^Qxat?, Esd. as in 5" pt^XtoipuXaxfot?. Esd.*
has PaaiXtxtotq ^t^. — 2. NncnNJ old Pers. Haugmatana, Bab. Agmatanu.
(S om. ^, AiJiaGa^, Ex^aTavot(;L^=''-. — N'm>33] f (g^^A ^^s a dup. ev x6Xet
h if) P<ip£t, Esd.^ pipet only. B(ipi<; is found in Jos. 'Ev •j!:6Xet is a gl.,
explaining a word unknown to all the Gk. translators. The corre-
sponding Heb. nT'3 occurs many times in late Heb., esp. in Est., cf.
Ne. I' 28 72. It is from As. birtu, the common word for "fortress" or
"citadel" (Mar.^e). It here means the castle in which the king lives.
— NHjna nca] lacking <S^^ and rejected by Berth. — nSjs] is pure Heb.
and only here in B. Aram. (& has xecpaXf?, which represents nSjD in
Ez. 2' 3>- 23 Ps. 40'. As it is followed by \}.ia., and so = c. i, it can
only be a marginal reference to the other decree of Cy. in Ezr. i. —
njnon] can scarcely be different from p3i, 4^=; (& uTC6[j.vif)[xa. — 3. n^3
nhSn] after 05 -rcspl oYxou we should prefix S. d^ shows a dup., add-
ing lepoCi. Or we may follow Esd. and om. nho. ^^ lacks NJ2n^ Nn-'J,
so that the decree concerned only sacrifices and vessels, and not the
rebuilding. — inN] is suspended in air as completely as Kno. 05 has
c6xou connected apparently with xepf understood. — ''t:'^] Ol^-'^ I'icapixa,
which does not occur elsw. in 05, but in Aq. Th. Sym. in Job 2o« =
K^i? a. X.— rSaiDD] t C6 eOrjxev^A, TtO^TOjL. The sense of Heb. SaD will
EZRA 424b-6i8 14^
not fit; the traditional "raised" has no authority. (5 scarcely makes
sense, "and let the foundation be laid," but ^ adds, a foundation of a
cubit. Haupt suggests that *nv^vS = Heb. na>K, "fire offering," and cf.
As. zabalu, so "and bring in his fire offerings." He compares Esd. Stcou
£xtOijouatv Sci xupb? ivis.\sxouq, where they continually offer sacrifices by
fire; but those who quote this overlook the fact that it is the only
mention of the sacrifices in Esd., that is, this text lacks r'??"!- ''^''i'f<i ^
8t(i xupoq, pSaiDD = i\iZsXsx.^iJc; = Heb. T'sn. The corruption seems
quite hopeless, the Vrss. having as much difficulty and reaching as
many conclusions as modern scholars. — pnu'-nv-ia] lacking in <S^
Esd."^^; ^ has e^ (pnt^). It is most prob. that the original passage gave
the missing dimension of the temple. I venture to make the conjec-
ture that the original text was T\m'\ D'^yy; hnd pcN hdini, — 4. T^jij] is
generally derived from the As. nadbaku, which means "mountain slope,"
but Zimmern says this remains questionable (Mar.", Mey.-i^). The
mng. "course" is quite certain; d S6[jLot. — hhi\ lacking in (&^, xpa-
"zaiU^^, V. on 5'. — >'n] Esd. adds iyxf^pfo") which represents miN in
Ex. 12^' Lv. i82« 2422 Nu. 1529; in Ps. 37" pj;n mrx, "a native tree";
hence here native wood to distinguish it from the wood brought from
Lebanon. The native and cheaper wood would serve to build into
the walls. — mn] f 05, elq'^^, xatvdiv I'va'-^^''-, a dup. reading both mn,
"new," and in "one." The latter is correct. — xnpoj] v. « f from root
i">i3J, cf. 5'*, "what is brought out," "outlay." (& SaxivY), which oc-
curs only in Apocr. — ."113] but in v. ' more appropriately ''D3J. — 5. ''Jnc]
but in 5" n n^jnd. — xSo^n] rd. with (g Nn>3, as in 5". — «n'7vS . . . Sa^ni].
To this point our text follows 5" verbatim except as noted above.
Here we have a summarising of 5" b-". (&'^ has only exl t6xou ixi^t] lv
otxy Tou 6eou, i. e., it lacks all but nhSs r\>2i nnni mnx'?. -^ follows MT.,
but with manifest corruptions. Esd.'^'^ supports a shorter text: ixo-
xaTaaxaO^vac ef? nrbv olxov Tbv lv Isp. o5 •^v xef[jLeva and adds a dup.
reading, Sxwq teO^ Ixel; ^ has only the double reading at the end.
Mar. suggests a restoration thus : pmns"? pnnnii D'7a'nia n NSD>n'7 painnii
khSn noa; but this source used '?3'>n only of the temple of Bab. —
n-inxS] is surely connected with nnnN-'?;; as 5'^; it is impossible here.
Indeed, the passage is hopelessly corrupt.
6-12 = Esd. 6^'"^*. The reply of Darius.— 6. As shown
above on 5^ the introduction to Darius's letter has been trans-
posed. (Torrey notes a lacuna between w. ^ ""'i ^, ES.^^').
This section should begin: Then Darius the king sent an answer
unto him, and therein was written as follows. — Be ye far from
thence] is not a striking command. Esd. keep away from the place
is stronger. — 7. Let the work of this house of God alone], forbid-
146 EZRA-NEHEMIAH
ding any kind of interference. Esd. names Zerubbabel here as
"the servant of the Lord and governor of Judah." 3 Esd.
lacks the whole verse. — 8. The king further commands that,
the decree of Cyrus be executed by providing the money for the
building operations out of the royal tribute collected in the
Syrian province. That we have no evidence of any such help
for the Jews does not disprove the authenticity of this order;
for it was one thing for the king to give such an order, but quite
another matter to get the satrap of a distant province to carry
it out. In Esd., however, the satrap is enjoined to help in the
work of rebuilding, but the payments out of the tribute are
only for sacrificial purposes. — 9. And whatever is necessary].
There follows in apposition the list of articles to be furnished:
young bullocks, rams, and sheep for burnt-offerings to the God
of heaven (v. on i^, where this expression occurs in a Persian
decree), and wheat, salt, wine, and oil as required by the priest.
The latter list provides for the minchah, or meal-ofifering, which
was made of fine flour, moistened with oil and salted (Lv. 2^-").
Wine was required for the daily drink-offering (Ex. 29^°). — Day
by day without fail] implies that this provision was for the daily
offering, and while we might suspect that the Persian officials
would not be concerned about such details, still it is possible
that this is a reflection of a Jewish priestly influence at the Per-
sian court. — 10. That they may offer pleasing sacrifices]. "Sac-
rifices of sweet savor" (ARV.) is scarcely justifiable, an error
as old as CS. The root idea is "rest," therefore "pleasing" or
perhaps "propitiating." — And pray for the life of the king and of
his sons]. This explains the motive of the grant for sacrifices.
The sacrifice would be pleasing to God and incline him favour-
ably toward the offerer. The Persian king was not averse to
the good oJB&ces of other gods than his own. This expression
is surely a sign of the Persian point of view. Sachau compares
this with "the sons of the royal house" in Eleph. Pap.^^.
11. Any man that alters this command]] "frustrate" (BDB.)
is scarcely justifiable; the idea is not to punish the one who
interferes with the execution of the decree, but the one who
would venture to change its terms. Berth, interprets in the
EZRA 42ib-6i8 147
sense of "transgress" or "violate." The punishment will be
twofold; the culprit will be impaled on a beam or stake pulled
from his own house, and the house will be made a ruin. The
impalement was a Semitic method of execution, and, as Sieg.
says, to be distinguished from the Roman crucifixion. Sieg.
claims that impalement existed among the Hebrews, citing
Nu. 25* 2 S. 21^- ^. BDB. says correctly that the method of
execution was imcertain. Herod, testifies to the custom among
the Assyrians (iii,^^^). The words may be rendered, "let him
be lifted up and stuck upon it" (the beam). The punishment
has quite a different turn in Esd. 6^^, let a beam be pulled from
his own house, and let him be hung thereon, and his property shall
become the king^s. That has a more modern and less Oriental
note. — 12. This verse has been generally discredited. Esd.
has the original text, if we may judge by inherent fitness, thus:
and the Lord, whose name is called there, shall annihilate all kings
and the nation who stretches forth his hand to hinder or to harm that
house of the Lord which is in Jerusalem. The writer has in mind
the petty neighbours of Judah, who had shown marked hos-
tility to the Jews, and who are now warned that Yahweh him-
self shall do them harm if they bar the progress of the temple.
As the king had sought the favour of Yahweh for his own house
(v. ^''), so he naturally invokes his displeasure upon all who
interfere with the restoration of his cult.
6. ''jnn] (B^^ has SwaeTe, forgetting the n. p. — tinmj3i]. The sf. should
be second p. — nn ppini] 05 jxaxpiv ovieq'^^, [l. dtx^x^Te^, Esd. i-nixs^aQM.
— nnn-jD] 05 exelOev, Esd. toO t6xou = inN-jD. — 7. Nnin> nnc] is lack-
ing in (8^, Mar. om. also, o\ ii(frifou[i.ivot x. 'IouS\ Esd. eTcapxov t. IouS.
prefixing ibv xatSa x.up(ou Zopo^a^iX. — ''JtJ''?] .with C5 Esd. we must om.
"?, since nc as well as nno is subj. of pj3\ Esd. has a + after Dj?a:
SXoaxepw? o^xoSoixYJuat xal dtrevfaat. — 8. "'ac] Esd. 6''' atxtxaXwafa? = ^au',
a word not found in B. Aram. — iSx] lacking in (5^'^, a text approved
by Mar. Esd. has ^iyj^^ = ij?- kj3sS, Esd. extTeXeffO^vat, so " until the
house of God is finished." — D3j] ']'^^\. The word occurs in late Heb.
and the mng. is clearly established as "property." — njiadx]. V. on 5'.
— 9. jntyn] pi. of nncn f, 05^^ uaTipTjfxa, CS"- S^ov. — jmn ^ja] (Heb.
amc) means "young bullocks." This is associated with Lv. 4'- " p "ifl
npa. But '•ja is lacking in ($t^ and in Esd., also in v. " 7'^ and may have
been introduced here under the influence of Lv. (S has three render-
148 EZRA-NEHEMIAH
ings of jmn : powv^^, [ji.oaxou?'-, Totupou?^^**-. MSaxoui; may represent 'J3.
— iSsy ah n] (6'^^ 8 lav aS-ui^atoatv, reading Snc, and being a repetition
of "3 iDNDD. (S^ has apparently a dup., the above preceded by dcxot-
paXX(4xTM<;, a word found elsw. only in Est. 3" (Apocr.), but which
may represent our text, since "unchangeably" would be a suitable ren-
dering. — 10. JinS] Mar. § «a. — pmn>3] (Dn. 2" f) is a Hebraism, occur-
ring in J (Gn. 8") and very often in P; (5 eiwSt'a? gives a wrong
sense. — r^xn] Mar. § '*". in As. saltu is used in sense of "entreat," but
not to pray to a deity, Zim. KAT.'- "o- s). — ^n] (6^ awTirjpfa?, ^(oV^^^
The former may represent a theological interpretation. — 11. noj] here
only in B. Aram., but it is a common Semitic word and occurs 4 t. in
B. Heb. — ^^1] t here only in B. Aram. Pe. pass. ptc. The word occurs
twice in late B. Heb. — nhd]. The mng. usually given, "smite," is
scarcely appropriate here. BDB. gives two ideas, one of impalement
(v. s. Ipr) and the other nail. The latter would imply crucifixion,
whereas the mng. is impalement. (Sfi^ xX-QYT^aeTrat gives the true
sense. (5^ has xaYTrjcJeTat, which has the mng. impale. — i*?!:] 05 xb
xa-c' Iji^^^, t\<; StapxaYiQv'^. Dn. 2^ 3''' f. Jensen compares As. nawalu,
"ruin" (BDB.). The mng. given "dunghill " is not appropriate, though
that sense is foimd in Targum; "ruin" is better in every case. (S"^
"plunder" would give good sense, but it is dub. whether that mng.
is permissible. — nin-*?]?] lacking in (&, but found in Esd.; "besides" or
"in addition to" is better than "on this account," since the latter
would apply to both parts of the punishment. — 12* is regarded as
spurious by virtually all modem scholars; Sta. Gesch. ii,'", Kost.^',
Sieg. Mey.". Mey.'s argument is typical: "It is quite impossible
that Dar. in an oflSicial document should call in question the contin-
uance of the Pers. sovereignty and speak of kings and peoples who in
the future might make his orders inoperative." Berth, defends the
passage, but does not go far enough. Mar. rejects n-'j-km'? as gl. with
reference to Antiochus Epiphanes; but the Gk. Vrss. all show that some
word belongs here, though not this one. Esd. here offers a simpler and
better text: h xupto?, o5 ib ovofxa aiToO k'K.i%iyXrf:a.i Ixsl, iyavfoat xcivTa
^(xaCkioi. xal eGvo? 0? IxTsvel X^Tpa ahxou xwXuaat x] xaxoxof^aac Tbv olxov
xupi'ou Ixelvov xbv ev TepouoraXiQEJi.. The Deut. phrase is more accurately
given than in MT. Dt. more than P appears in the programme of
the restoration.
13-18 = Esd. 7'"'. The temple is finished and dedicated.
Tattenai and his fellows respected the decree of Dar.; the work on
the temple was pushed forward and finished in the 6th year of Dar.
(515 B.C.). A service of dedication was held; many sacrifices were
offered; the pr. and Lev. were assigned their tasks according to the
book of Moses.
EZRA 424b-6l8 149
13. Our text gives but a general and rough statement, that
Tattenai et al. because Darius the king had sent acted accordingly
with all care] ; but in Esd. this is much ampHfied, following closely
the commands of King Darius they with all care presided over the
holy works laboring with the elders of the Jews and temple officers.
This is very unlike MT., but it agrees with the Esd. version of
the Darius letter {of. v. *). The passage is hard to explain as
a later addition, since the Jews would not be likely to invent
the notion that hostile foreigners presided over the rebuilding
of the temple, especially as they had rejected the offered assist-
ance of the Samaritans (4^-^). — 14. And the elders of the Jews
built successfully because of the prophesying of Haggai and Zecha-
riah] cf. 5^ The reference here is to the problem at home; all
outward difficulties had been overcome by the decree of Darius
confirming that of C3n:us; but the books of the prophets named
above show that the Jews themselves were not very eager to
engage in public works; they were aroused to their duty and
kept at it by the inspiriting oracles of these prophets, without
whom the command of God and the edicts of kings would have
been alike ineffective. The mention of Artaxerxes is a gloss, as
he belongs to a later period. As we have the singular, king of
Persia, Darius or Cyrus may also be a gloss. — 15. And they con-
tinued that house until the third day of the month Adar]. The verb
means, literally, brought out, or continued until it was finished.
Esd. reads 23d day. Adar only elsewhere in Est. (8^) is a loan-
word from the Babylonian. It is the 12th month, February-
March. Our text runs, which is the sixth year of the reign of
Darius the king]. We must read of the sixth year of King Darius,
as we find in Esd., or more probably an original Hebrew year
was first given, which was synchronised with the Persian reign.
The temple was finished, according to the text, in the spring of
515 B.C.
16. The sons of Israel] in apposition with which stands, the
priests and the Levites and the rest of the sons of captivity]. That
is, these three classes constituted the postexilic community. —
Made a dedication of the house of God with joy]. Upon the com-
pletion of the work there was a joyful service of dedication.
150 EZRA-NEHEMIAH
Esd. gives quite a different reading, the sons of Israel and the
priests and the Levites and the rest of those from the captivity who
had joined them did in accordance with those things in the book
of Moses. This is interesting from the impUcation that many
who had returned from exile had taken no part in the rebuild-
ing of the temple, a statement in itself highly probable. The
reference to the requirements of the book of Moses is explained
by the sacrifices made at the dedication. — 17. The numbers
of the animals sacrificed, 100 bullocks, 200 rams, 400 lambs,
and 12 he-goats, are small compared to those offered by Solo-
mon at the dedication of the first temple, i K. 8^- ^^, and are
not unsuitable, in spite of Sieg.'s doubt, to the poorer conditions
of the new community. — For all Israel according to the number
of the tribes of Israel]. "Those returned deemed themselves
the representatives of all Israel" (Sieg.). They may have
taken to heart their brethren scattered over the world and made
the offerings in their behalf. — 18. And they established the
priests in their divisions and the Levites in their classes]. Accord-
ing to 2 Ch. 35^ the priests were established in divisions in
Josiah's time. The ordering of the priests and Levites is de-
scribed minutely in i Ch. 23-26, each class or division being on
duty for a week at a time. For the condition in NT. times v.
Lu. i^- ^ *•. — For the service of God who is in Jerusalem]. (B
shows a later conception, reading, /or the service of the holy things
of the house of God. Esd. reads, and the priests and the Levites
stood in full vestments, according to their tribes {or classes) for the
works of the Lord. — According to the writing of the book of Moses]
i. e., as written in the book of Moses. V. Nu. 3, 8. Esd. adds,
and the gatekeepers at each gate, but that suggests a period after
Nehemiah had built the walls.
13. V. '' in Esd. is as follows : xaTaxoXou6-^(javTS<; toT? ixb to5 ^aatX^ox;
Aapsfou icpoaxayelacv l-utsCT-udtTOuv twv lepGiV I'pywv IxttAsX^orepov auvep-
youvzsq toc<; "jcpea^uTipot? twv 'louSat'cov xoii lepoaTaxat?. This gives a
clear sense which is wanting in MT. — 14. rnSxn] for which (6 has ol
Aeuelxai^^, xaxiQiGuvov^, Esd. eSoSa Iycveto ix lepa epya. The word is to
be taken adverbially with pja, they built successfully. — nxiaj and ni'-na]
are wanting in Esd. V. ^ is regarded as a gl. by many (Mar. Sieg.
Mey. et al.). With Berth, we must excise the name of Art., which
EZRA 619-22 151
finds a place here on account of 4'-", though the name is supported by
all the Gk. Vrss. Sieg. urges against the passage the combining of a
command of God and of the Pers. kings. But in Esd. we find different
words used: Std: •rcpoaTdcYiiaxo? tou xupi'ou — [iz-zic t^c; YV(i;ji.T]<; t. Kijpou
X. T. X., by the command of Yahweh and with the permission of Cy. That
part of the text seems unobjectionable, j^ja, ua] are both lacking in
Esd., and Berth, may be right in changing the latter to "prophets."
Otherwise it is to be combined with iSSoa*, they finished building. —
(15} Nisie'] or Qr. ■•x^c. Kautzsch," prefers a pi. form i''S''C', adopted by
Mar. on basis of 05 H. Kautzsch interprets as a pass, from npx, but
De. regards it as Shafel from Bab. asu, and that fits better. The usual
rendering, "complete," will not serve here unless we dispose of the
following "ly, which is well attested. We cannot say "they finished the
house until the 3d of Adar "; that is no better in Aram, than in English.
But from the root asu we get "they brought out or continued the work
until," etc. — nnSn DI1] Esd. igk-qc, xal eJxiiSo?. It is impossible to
tell which text is right, though Sieg. follows Guthe in preferring the
latter. Jos. {Ant. xi, 4, 7) agrees with Esd. — "Nin n] is certainly wrong.
Esd. has xoij ?x,tou eTOu? gotaiXewi; Aapetou. Mey. (£«/.") supposes
some words to have fallen out, and suggests, "that is (the 12th month)
of the 6th year of Dar." explanatory of the Bab. term Adar. It is
more prob. that a year was first given ace. to a Jewish calendar and
that this date was dropped accidentally. (S^ tries to help along by
an addition of ew?, thus: 0? eaxtv ew? eTouq.— ^^ pnin] (& [Aoaxou?,
but Esd. correctly Taupouc — piDx] (& dtfAvouq, Esd. with better Gk.
(Spva?. — pry niDx] (& xttJL<ipo"J? aEywv, Esd. xtlJ-apou?- The same redun-
dancy is found in late H[eb. Dn. S^- « 2 Ch. 292', but cf. 8". In
Lv. 9' the he-goat is a sin-oEfering. — '>:03B'] Esd.^^ giuXdtpxwv.— ^^) mi:!];]
which referred to the building in 5' here indicates the temple cult.
— nhSn] (S^ (ZYfwv 0Y/.0U Toij OeoG. — idd] (&^ ^t^Xicp v6ii.ou. Esd. adds:
xal ol Gupwpol lip' Ixaaxou luuXcovo?, 3 Esd. et ostearii per singidas januas.
This passage is important, for it indicates that the Aram, narrative has
broken off abruptly. The story evidently went on to describe the in-
stallation of other officials of the temple. Torrey regards the words
as the work of the Chr. Esd. prob. lacked from nojn v. " to a'7B'n>a
V. ", as shown by the repeated ev T(p Moa^o)^ ^f^Xy, and by the sus-
piciously close agreement with MT.
EZR. 6"-22 = ESD. yio-is. THE OBSERVANCE OF THE
PASSOVER.
This passage has suffered like many other parts of these books from a
mutilation of the text. The purpose of the mutilation is plain. The
passage was attached by the Chr. to the temple-building story, and then
was modified to make it conform to its new position and to the ideas
152 EZRA-NEHEMIAH
of the editor. To comprehend what we have to deal with, we must
have the original text so far as it can be recovered; and therefore a
translation of the reconstructed text is given here. The justification
for the changes will be found in the critical notes. In this passage the
Heb. language is employed.
(19) And the sons of Israel kept the pass over on the fourteenth
day of the first month. (20) Now the priests and the sons of the
captivity were not cleansed, hut the Levites to a man were all of them
clean, and they [the Levites] sacrificed the passover for all the sons
of the captivity, and for their brethren the priests [and for them-
selves]. (21) And the sons of Israel, all that had separated them-
selves from the uncleanness of the nations of the earth, and those
who had returned unto them from the captivity to seek Yahweh ate
the passover. (22) And they kept the feast of unleavened bread
seven days, rejoicing before Yahweh, because he had turned the
purpose of the king of Assyria unto them to strengthen their hands
for the worship of Yahweh the God of Israel.
A company of exiles had recently arrived in Judah through
the favour of one known only as "king of Assyria." The
Israelites already in Judah celebrated the Passover at its regular
time, and so far as their condition permitted the recent arrivals
participated. The passage shows an amalgamating process be-
tween the Jews returning from exile and those who were native
in Judah. There is not a word about the temple or its building.
It is usually assumed that the Chr. wrote the passage as a fitting con-
clusion to the temple-building story. Torrey notes that the temple
was finished in the 12th month, Adar, v. »«, and that the Chr., with his
usual exactness in dates, fills in the next month with the keeping of the
Passover. The Chr. has an elaborate description of the celebration of
the Passover in 2 Ch. 351-". Many phrases are identical in the two
passages. But in our passage we rd. that the Lv. slew the Passover
for the others, v. =", while in 2 Ch. s5^* the phrase is "prepared." In-
deed, the points of identity are mostly in stock phrases, which any
writer would use. The Chr. cannot be the author of this piece, for he
would not mutilate his own work to the extent we find here. Those
who attribute the fragment to the Chr. do so on the basis of the cor-
rupt text.
There is not sufficient evidence to determine the date of the piece, but
such indications as we have suggest that it belongs to the early period.
EZRA 6"-22 153
It may weil belong to the time of Cy., or to the period when Zer. and
his company first arrived in Jerus. C. 3 describes various festivals
that were kept, and this may have been among them. It is separated
only by the long Aram, insertion 4'-6i' and may originally have stood
after 4', or even in the early part of c. 3.
19. The day for this feast is fixed in Ex. 12^. — The sons of
the captivity] is an error for the sons of Israel. These two classes
are named in this passage in contrast. The sons of Israel are
those who had always remained in Judah, and the sons of
the golah are those who returned from Babylonia. — 20. This
verse in MT. runs thus: For the priests and Levites had cleansed
themselves, to a man they were all clean, and they slew the passover
for all the sons of the captivity and for their brethren the priests and
for themselves]. "For themselves" can only refer to the Le-
vites. The expression is cumbersome, but it has the support of
all texts. Nevertheless it may be a gloss. The idea is clear
that the clean Levites sacrificed the Passover on behalf of the
two classes stated in v." to be unclean. As the Passover was
kept in memory of the return from the captivity in Egypt, the
festival would be highly significant for those who had just re-
turned from the exile in Babylonia. — 21. This verse also re-
quires correction as above. "The sons of Israel" is further
defined. During the exile the Jews in Judah had probably
mingled freely with the surrounding peoples, called in our books
"the people of the land." Now with the return of some exiles,
there was an earnest revival of Yahweh worship, in the interest
of which some of the Israelites dissociated themselves from the
loose ways of their neighbours. — 22. The Feast of Unleavened
Bread was virtually a part of the Passover, continuing for
seven days thereafter (Ex. 12^^). Instead of with joy for Yah-
weh made them rejoice] it is better to read with Esd. rejoicing
before Yahweh. — He turned the heart] (or counsel as Esd.) refers
to some especial act of favour shown to the Israelites. — King
of Assyria] is strange here. We should expect " king of Persia."
B.-Rys. notes that in Judith 2^ Nebuchadrezzar is called king of the
Assyrians (the same confusion is found in 2 K. 23"); as the kings of
Pcro. ruled over the old As. domain, the title might be used by a Pers.
154 EZRA-NEHEMIAH
king (so Berth.). In Ne. 13" Art. is called king of Bab. As the text
is supported by all Vrss. we may assume that the phrase was in the
original text. It is usually assumed that Dar. is meant, e. g., Sieg.,
but, save the position of the passage assigned by the Chr., there is no
evidence to support that identification. There seems to be room to
doubt whether such a mistake would have been made as this by any
postex. writer. However ignorant the Jews may have been of con-
temporary history, they knew that As. had long been defunct and that
Pers. was the real power of this time. As the reference is to one who
had conferred favours upon the people as a whole, we naturally sup-
pose the king of Pers. to be meant. Yet it may be that it was really
a satrap in the old As. domains who was called by courtesy king of
Assyria .
To strengthen their hands] in i" refers to material support,
and that sense would be admissible here. Were our text cor-
rect that meaning would be required. As a matter of fact,
the last clause originally read for the worship of Yahweh the God.
of Israel]. The favour of the Assyrian king then consisted of
the privilege of keeping the Passover, for which very little
expenditure was necessary. The king's grace may refer to a
gift of lambs, which were slain at the feast, or to the privilege
conferred upon the sons of the golah in allowing them to re-
turn to Judah. In the latter case the king would naturally be
Cyrus. — For the work of the house of God] is badly supported by
the Vrss., and is inconsistent with the tenor of the passage,
which is concerned with the keeping of festivals, i. e., the wor-
ship at the temple, not with its building.
19. isyyii] (& exotYjaav, but Esd. uses a more technical word, â– ^YdtYo-
cav^^ T5YaYov'-. — nSun >j3] is suspicious, for the Passover was slain for
the sons of the golah (v. 20). Esd. has ol uiol 'Icjpaf)X twv ex Ti^c atx-
[jLaXwfffa?, H fdii Israel transmigrationis, 3 Esd. Jilii Israel cimi his qui
erant ex captivitate, i. e., the sons of Israel together with those who had
come from the captivity. Now Esd. cannot be rendered " the sons of
Israel that came from captivity," as RV.; the T'iv forbids that, for
the text is defective; the Latin is good. 3 Esd. shows two distinct
classes, the sons of Israel and the sons of the golah, and these two
classes are kept distinct in this whole passage. Now the original
reading must have been "sons of Israel" and the rest is a correction
from MT. As so often happens Esd. has preserved the original text
with a dup. derived from Heb. — 20". Esd. has a striking text, ote
EZRA. 4*-8 155
•^lYvtaBrjaav o\ Upet? xal (ol AeueTxae Syia xal irAvrei; I ol ulol zriq alx-
liaXwatai; oxt [oux,^] •fjYvfaOrjaav Sxt ^^ Aeuetxat a[i.a xdtvreq -JiYvfoOYjaav, 3
Esd. quando sandificati sunt sacrdotes ct Levitae. Omnes ^lii captivitatis
non sunt simul sanctijicaii, quia Levitae omnes simul sandificati sunt.
The reading o-ut in ^^ is senseless, and ^ supported by 3 Esd. is correct.
Some parties were clean and others not. Now the subj. of iana'''i can
only be the Lev. We can get good sense for a part of the v., i. e., hit
the Lev. to a man were all of them clean, and they sacrificed the passover
for all the sons of the golah, for their brethren the pr. and for themselves.
In this part Esd. and MT. agree. The preceding part is meaningless
as it stands in both texts. Esd. shows corrections from the Heb. in
the repeated clause ot A. SfAa xal xivTsq. Omitting that and putting
the remainder back into Heb., we have a good text: D^jnan 'nnan vh id
nSun 1J31. It may be that we should go further. When the Chr. drop-
ped the negative to get rid of the intolerable implication of the pas-
sage, he may have inserted "pr."; in that case the Esd. text is cor-
rect from ol ulof, the preceding being added from MT. The antithesis
is then between the sons of Israel, v. ", and the sons of golah, v. 20. —
21 is unintelligible; there is no obj. for iSonm; "sons of Israel" and
"sons of the golah" are identified; there is a third class otherwise un-
known in this section "and all who had separated," etc., and there
is no antecedent for the pron. in anSs. (K has an obj., ih xiiaxa, in place
of Di3a>n, but dxb T^? dTuot5cea{a<; is disconnected (ol £^eX06vTe<; ix6^).
CS has e?? dcxaeapafa? for hnd^od. Esd. follows MT. exc. that it has
xtivreq for Sai and lacks an^N and bNTiT'" inSN, Sense may be obtained
by transposition so as to rd. I'lNn . . . '7^3J^ Va Sxic'' "ija noijn iSsxii
nSijna coir'ni. It is better with Esd. to drop Sxitf' >rhii. . . . unha. —
22. In <&^ mni is lacking; in 05^ it is found here and with 3Dn. Esd-
has T-Qv ^ouXiQV for 3'7 = nsj;, and lacks oinSxri ni3 or rather has xupt'ou
instead. — nin'> . . . nnntt'a] appears in Esd. as evavrt xupfou^, eijippatitievoc
IvavTt xupfou''^ "House of God" was added by the Chr. when he
attached the passage to the temple story. Esd. gives better sense, for
Yahweh made them rejoice and turned is awkward. We should rd.
therefore Sxia'i inVx nini naxSna . . . -)^vi< ^'?D nx;; aon 13 nini ijaS wnw.
EZR. 4''-'', THE COMPLAINT TO XERXES.
This is a fragment describing an event in the reign of Xerxes (485-
464), and the only passage we have from his period. It is given dif-
ferent connections in MT. and Esd. In the latter the name of Xerxes
does not occur; in fact, the only part of v. « preserved in that text is
against the inhabitants ofJudah and Jerus., and that is imbedded in the
letter to Art. The section is usually divided, vv. ^ 'â– being connected
with vv. '-' and v. « made a section all by itself. It has been shown
above that this passage did not come from the same hand as vv. "-', and
156 ' EZRA-NEHEMIAH
vv. * '■give a suitable~setting for v. «. As the text stands the arrange-
ment in Esd. is the only logical one, for the dates of Cy. and Dar. in
V. ^b lead up to 51. It is clear that these dates are later glosses. The
connection of "all the days of Cy." shows that it is interpolated. As
it stands it is connected with "hiring counsellors," but manifestly the
enemy would not be engaged in hiring counsellors during a whole reign —
to ignore the intervening period of Cambyses. As the editor supposed
the events narrated in 31-4^ to have happened in the time of Cy., it
would be natural for him to add this date. "Unto the reign of Dar."
is easily explained as a duplication from 4^*, which v. is substantially
a repetition of the passage before us. It must be remembered that
in the original text preserved in Esd., 4^ was directly followed by 4'*.
The troubling of the Jews referred to here of course really took place
in the reign of Dar., since the complaint was lodged with Xerxes in
the beginning of his reign. The key to the situation lies in the word
"build," v.''. That could not refer to the building of the temple, for
we have three accounts of that performance (31-4' 5/., Hg. and Zc),
in no one of which is there a hint of even an attempt to check the build-
ing. Even with the poor and few people for the task, the work was
apparently done in a shorter time than Solomon took with all of his
resources. The building could only refer then to the building of
houses in Jerus. or of the walls or both. Now houses in the city and
walls around it would naturally be the next step after the erection of
the temple; for the temple standing alone would be subject to raids for
plunder and desecration. Ne. shows that any preceding attempts to
put up either houses or walls had failed. The complaint accomplished
its purpose.
As Dar. was favourably disposed toward the Jews, there would be
no use in appealing to him. Consequently the enemies had to fall
back upon themselves, and do what they could to impede the prog-
ress of those Jews who were bravely struggling to restore Zion. A new
king always raises new hopes. When Xerxes succeeded to the throne,
there might be a chance of turning him against the rising people of
Palestine. The advent of a new king was a favourite time for the
rebellion of subject peoples. The freshly crowned monarch must be
on the alert for uprisings, and he would naturally be suspicious. Upon
the accession of Xerxes, therefore, the counsellors, Bishlam, Mithredates,
and Tabeel, who had been employed by the enemy, wrote their charges
against the Jews.
What they wrote and what the result of their letter was we do not
know, for that part of the narrative has been lost. We may, however,
draw a pretty safe inference. In our books we have stories which show
the favourable attitude of Pers. kings toward the Jews; Cy. Dar.
Art. and Art. II, each one in his way, furthered the desires of these
people. We have nothing from the lon;;^ rei^n of Xerxes. Before him
EZRA 4^-« 157
a good beginning had been made, but after his time the situation de-
scribed in Ne. i /. indicates that all the work of the Jews had been
undone, save in the fact that the temple had not been destroyed. It
is evident then that Xerxes showed no favour to the Jews, and that
their hostile neighbours had a free hand to work their own will.
The term "people of Judah" in v.* would not naturally be applied
to a body of exiles who had just returned. The words imply a people
settled for some time in the land, and hence a later date than that of
Cy. is necessary.
It has, indeed, been proposed by many to change the name Xerxes
to Cambyses {e. g., KAT.^- -«^), but that is an attempt to support a
chron. system in the present arrangement of our books which on all
grounds is impossible. Even if this name were disposed of, we still have
the passage vv. '-", and would have to dispose of Art. as well as Xerxes.
4. The people of the land] occurs in the contemporary proph-
ets, in Zc. 7 5 as a term for the laity, in Hg. 2* as equivalent to
the rest of the people named in 2-, i. e., all others than Jeshua
and Zerubbabel. In our books this term occurs nowhere else,
and as Esd. reads "peoples," the text must be corrected ac-
cordingly.
We have this expression "peoples of the land" in lo^- » Ne. 9" lo"- "
and "peoples of the lands" in 3' gi- '■" Ne. 9"- '» 10". In Ezr. lo'- "
Ne 10" "peoples of the land" describes the peoples from which the
foreign wives had come; there the mng. is manifestly the non-Israelite
nations dwelling in Judah or its immediate neighbourhood. "Peoples
of the lands" has the same sense in Ezr. 9»- =• ", "peoples of these
abominations" (9") being used synonymously, but the emph. here is
on the difference of religion rather than of race. In Ne. g'" the term
refers to the As. and Bab., therefore the foreign people distant from
Judah. In Ne. lo'^ it is rendered "traders" in BDB., but the real mng.
is country people as distinguished from those in Jerus. In Ne. 92* the
word for peoples has an unusual form ("'Dcy), but as inZc. 7^, it means
the people as distinguished from the king; the reference, however, is to
foreigners. These are all the cases in our books, and it is apparent
therefore that the phrase refers to foreigners, and while originally
"peoples of the land" was distinguished from the others as mng. for-
eigners near by, the distinction is lost as the texts stand. The refer-
ence here is very prob. to the Sam.
Were weakening the hands]. Cf. "their hands will drop from
the work" (on the walls), Ne. 6'. The phrase usually means
158 EZRA-NEHEMIAH
to discourage, but literally it would be making the hands drop,
and so stopping whatever the people of Judah were doing. In
view of the following clause, "disheartening" is the better
sense. — Troubling them in building]. The history of the efforts
of the foreigners to stop Nehemiah's work is the best commen-
tary on the passage. The meaning is that the people of the
land interfered with the Jews, putting every possible obstacle
in their way. There may have been actual assaults made upon
them as well. What the people of Judah were building is not
stated, but it must have been either the city walls or houses
(v. s.). Esd. has a somewhat different account: The nations of
the land, lying down upon (or sending a message to) those in
Judea and besieging them, prevented the building. This hostility
is still more emphasised in 3 Esd., where an ambush is de-
scribed {v. i.). — 5. Hiring counsellors against them]. Cf. Ne.
6^2 f., "counsellors of the king," 7^8 8", but here BDB. gives the
meaning "agents." The counsellors were not employed for
advice, but to represent them in their complaint to Xerxes.
To make an appeal like this effective, it would have to be sup-
ported by names that would carry weight with the king. It is
certain that the agents were Bishlam, Mithredates, and Tabeel
{v. on ^--^), and they may have been Persian officers, to whose
report Xerxes would give heed, and who knew how to draw up
a suitable document. — To defeat their purpose]. Their purpose
was the rebuilding of the city. It would appear that in spite
of the efforts of the enemy the work had continued, though
with diminished success. Despairing of completely stopping the
progress by their own efforts, they now prepare to secure a re-
straining decree from the Persian king. — All the days of Cyrus]
is a harmonising gloss added here when this passage was placed
in a false connection {v. s.) ; similarly until the reign of Darius is
carried back from v.^^. The Esd. text shows plainly how this
was done. — 6. In the reign of Xerxes], the only mention of
this king in our books, but he is named often in Est. — In the
beginning of his reign], that is, immediately upon his acces-
sion (485 B.C.), when an accusation of rebellion would be most
effective. — Wrote] in our text has no subject. The implied sub-
EZRA 4^-" 159
ject is "the people of the land" in v. *, but to say nothing of
the distance and change of construction, a multitude could not
well be the author of a letter. Proper textual criticism shows
that Bishlam, Mithredates, and Tabeel should be transposed
from V. ^ to serve as the subject of this verb. — Accusation], in
Esd. letter, and probably that is correct; for the Hebrew verb
"write" is not used with a figurative subject. "Accusation"
would mean a letter containing an accusation.
The abrupt end is what we may expect in any fragmentary piece the
original form of which has been lost by editing to fit a new situation.
That abruptness of termination is, however, a characteristic of our
books.
4. Y'\iin a>'] Esd. tcsSs sOvtq t^c fr^q, 3 Esd. genies ierrae, rd. 'Dy as in
other places. — ni con"] only case of Pi. in this connection. Qal is
used several times with t" as subj., e. g., 2 S. 4', where we have also Sna.
Esd. gives us excxottAwfjieva^* {incumbentes, 3 Esd.) = n^S, Dt. 21" =
332', I K. 3", hardly a suitable sense here; extxotvwvouvua^ occurs
only in Sirach 26' 4 Mac. 4=. This gives quite a different sense, sent
a communication to those in Jndah, possibly ordering them to stop the
work. — D-TiSiD] trouble, Qr. u-hn^-c, frighten. <& lvex6Sti;ov (= vh7\ in Ju.
5") supports Kt. Esd. has luoXtopxouvusc; Elpyov. The first word often
represents onS, and this text apparently rd. aicnSj. Elpyov stands for
some vb. concealed in dhin. As Esd. has dcicexwXuaav for "prevent"
in 5'" and 2", it appears that we have two sources woven together
here. 3 Esd. has a further elaboration, et levantes opus cedificationis
et insidias et populos adducentes prohibebant eos cedificare, "and impair
the work of building and bringing an ambush and peoples prevented
them from building." This is very like Neh.'s troubles. — 5. onoDf]
an error in sibilants; the correct form is anott". The text of Esd. is
radically different in this v.: xal ^ouXa? xal 8Tf][xaywYouvT£<; (STifjiaYw-
•)ffa<;^^) y.al auaTdaeti; (extauatiiaeti;'-) xoto^fjievot djTCsxwXuaav tou ixo-ue-
XsGO-^vat TTjv o[xoSo[jl9)v (tou o?xoSo[i.^aat xal extTeXeaOiivat tyjv ocxoSo(A-f)v^)
xivTa -cbv xp6vov t^<; 1^wf)i; tou ^aatXEox; Kipou. There is added xotl e"px-
6T]aav Tij? o^xoSoy-ijc; ett) Suo lax; t^? Aapetou paatXefa?, but that is a
translation of v.^\ so that the clause "until the reign of Dar." of
MT. is lacking in Esd., and correctly, for it has nothing to do with
this section. The above contains more than we have in MT., but it
appears to be chiefly the work of R., who wanted to emphasise the
good ground for the cessation of the work on the temple. Yet he did
not venture to insert any word that necessarily refers to the temple.
The difference from MT. is so great that the text can hardly be a
l6o EZRA-NEHEMIAH
translation at all. Indeed, in the whole passage ("-«) Esd. shows that
the material has been worked over perhaps by several hands. The pas-
sage may be translated, and using plans and demagoguery and tumults
they preve7ited the building from completion all the days that Cy. lived.
The following clause, they hindered the building for two years, is a dup.
— 6. njatr] does not occur elsw. (B^ lacks the word, ^ has extaToXi^v,
while ^ has a dup., exca. xal evavcfwatv. Other forms of the root are
common.
EZR. 4^-2^^ = ESD. 2^^-^. THE ARTAXERXES LETTERS.
The material in this passage covers two letters, that of Rehum,
Shimshai, and their associates to Artaxerxes, and that of the
king in reply; an introduction to each letter; and a descrip-
tion of the execution of the king's decree. The section has been
the subject of much discussion, for it presents difficulties to an
unusual degree. Some of these will be considered here.
(i) Contrary to the general impression, the whole passage exc. '•>
is in Aram. It is usually said that v. ' is the Heb. intr. to the Aram,
letters, a conclusion due in part to an inadequate criticism of the text.
As a matter of fact, we find that v. '" is a part of the warp and woof of
the intr. to the first letter, an intr. mixed all through vv. '-'", and which
I have fortunately been able to disentangle (v. i.). The v. can be rd.
as Aram, as well as Heb. The word imjD is, in fact, an Aram, word,
and the passage can only be forced into Heb. by assuming a loan-word.
The mistake was originally made by the Massorites, and has been
perpetuated ever since. V. ^'^ is Heb., but at most it is an editor's note;
and it is certainly out of place. It has never been understood, but it
clearly has nothing to do with the interpretation of the passage which
follows. It may be only some copyists' notes {v. i.). (2) The letters
are placed in different chron. situations in the two editions which
have come down to us. In MT. the passage stands between the Heb.
and Aram, stories of the temple-building, that is, in the reign of Dar.,
an obvious absurdity. In Esd. the passage comes directly after Ezr.
I, between the reigns of Cy. and Dar. This position was not that of
the original text of Esd., but was due to a later editor. In the Esd.
text of vv. '-" there are two references to the building of the temple,
both in the letter of complaint, neither being in the Aram, text (Esd.
217. 20 = Ezr. 412. 14). Now those references to the temple must have
been added to the text after it was placed in the position it has in MT.
In the Esd. text the beginning of the building operations of the tem-
ple follows this passage {i. e., S""-)- The references to the temple-
building are therefore impossible iii an earlier section. If these references
EZRA 4^-24'' l6l
had been in the original text, they surely would not have been over-
looked by the Chr., who believed that this passage explained the delay
in building the temple. The section must have been transposed in
the Esd. text in an attempt to get rid of the obvious absurdity of
placing the Art. letters in the midst of the reign of Dar. That would
be all the more necessary, since the Esd. text makes it clear that 3^-4'
of MT. do belong to the time of Dar., a fact disguised in MT. by the
aid of numerous textual changes.
It seems possible to go a step further and attempt to account for the
fact that there are no references to the temple in the Aram, version of
the letter. At all events, a simple explanation may be proposed. In
the original text of Ezr.-Ne. this passage stood where it belongs,
immediately preceding Ne. i. The passage was transposed in Esd.,
which has nothing of Neh.'s work at all, and was edited to fit its new
place. Then in MT. it was also separated from its context by the
insertion of c. 5-10, but without the textual changes* Later, to get
rid of the problem of chronology, it was again pushed back in the Esd.
text by an editor who was certainly, and perhaps pardonably, ignorant
of the true order of succession of the Pers. kings.
(3) The passage is dated in the time of Art., presumably Art. I
(464-424). This date is inconsistent with the position of the passage
in either text. Therefore many scholars have supposed that the name
of the king is wrong, and that we should substitute Cambyses for Art.
Cambyses reigned 529-522, between the reigns of Cy. and Dar. That
substitution would make the Esd. text chronologically consistent. But
we have seen that the position of the passage in that version was not
original, and consequently the gain is nothing. The substitution does
not help out the version in MT.; for here we have the sequence of
kings, Cy. Dar. Xerxes, Art. Dar. (4^'^), thus placing Art. too early.
If Cambyses is assumed, he becomes as much too late in this scheme
as Art. is too early. With better success we might substitute the name
Xerxes. We could then interpret v. ' as a Heb. beginning of the matter
in vv. '-'<a. The chron. sequence is then not so bad, for while c. 5/.
does belong to the reign of Dar., we might suppose that the Aram,
account of the temple-building story had been added to this Aram,
section without regard to chron. order. Then it is a singular fact that
in the book of Est. the Pers. king Xerxes appears in (g as Art.; if the
same mistake had been made here, the error in ^ might have crept
back into the Aram. Finally that substitution would rid us of the
serious difficulty that Art. authorised Neh. to do the very thing forbid-
den in this edict {v. Intr.).
Alluring as this hypothesis is, it is certainly unnecessary. After all,
it scarcely relieves us of any real difficulties, for as the passage is in the
wrong place, to remove it one reign further along is no strain. Fur-
ther, the change, as shown below, creates a diflficulty of its own.
II
1 62 EZRA-NEHEMIAH
In its original form the letter to the Pers. king charges that the Jews
are rebuilding the walls of Jerus., and erecting houses in it. That
much we may gather in spite of the corrupt and obscure text. There
is not a word about the temple; indeed, it is excluded; for the complain-
ants urge that if the Jews finish their undertaking, the city will be in
a position to rebel against the king of Pers. The restoration of the
temple as the basis of that charge would be ridiculous. Further, the
most trustworthy source we have for the history of this period de-
mands just such events as are described here. Neh. learns with sur-
prise and chagrin that Jerus. is lying waste, its walls are thrown down,
and its gates burned (Ne. i' 2'). To suppose that Neh. refers to the
destruction in 587, nearly a century and a half before his time, is absurd.
The reference can only be understood of some recent calamity. Neh.'s
audience with Art. was in the 20th year of his reign. Therefore the
events narrated as occurring "in the days of Art." may have come at
any time in the first twenty years of his reign. But if we transfer the
letters to Xerxes, they must be put in the beginning of his reign (4'),
i. e., 485, or forty years before Neh., and therefore presenting too long
an interval between the calamity and the report brought to Neh.
There is then the difficulty of supposing that Art. retracted his own
words in giving Neh. permission to rebuild the walls. In the [Aram,
form of the letter, there is the saving clause " until a decree is issued by
me." Esd. lacks the passage, but that might easily be due to its un-
fitness, as the letter was understood. If words are to be pressed over-
hard, as is apt to be the case in dealing with Pers. laws, that clause
would have to be omitted, or the temple could never have been built,
for Art., in spite of 6'<, never issued a decree in favour of building the
temple.
We cannot rd. the story in Ne. i-2« without seeing that Neh. realised
that he had a delicate and difficult problem. If he knew of the king's
letter, vv. " *f-, and had just heard how ruthlessly the decree to stop
the work had been carried out, we can well understand his fear and per-
plexity. Finally, it is by no means inconceivable that a weak mon-
arch like Art. could be induced to do almost anything by a court
favourite.
By placing the section just before Neh. we get an exceedingly good
connection. In the early part of the reign of Art., perhaps under the
inspiration of the patriot Neh., a large body of exiles had gone up to
Jerus., possibly the very company confused with Ezra's. They had
the purpose, so near the heart of Neh., of rebuilding Jerus., and began
to execute the project. The jealous Sam., rebuffed by the Jews years
before, realise the danger to their supremacy, and write a letter to the
king. Neh. being at court, knows of the complaint and the tenor of
the king's reply. After the Sam. forces had made havoc of the Jews'
work, some of the disheartened colonists returned to Pers., and are
EZRA 4^-24° 163
brought straight to the royal cup-bearer. He learns now that the
enemy had taken advantage of the edict and had gone far beyond its
terms in their passion for destruction.
With this situation clearly in mind, we can comprehend the patriot's
disappointment and sorrow. We can further understand the secrecy
with which he surrounds his own enterprise, and the constant conflicts
with the very people who had succeeded once before in breaJiing down
the walls of Jerus.
(4) The authenticity of the letters has been assumed in the above
discussion. Any other theory seems to me untenable. The text is
in places very bad, esp. in the intr. and in the complaint, v.", due
doubtless to tampering with the text to make it fit a false position.
But the main purport of the letters can be ascertained beyond a doubt,
and if this passage were lacking we should be obliged to assume,
in order to understand Neh., just such an occurrence as is here de-
scribed. The passage cannot be attributed to the Chr. on any condi-
tions; for he could not have composed a passage which he so egregi-
ously misunderstood, and which is so hopelessly inappropriate for the
purpose for which he would have invented it. Whatever his faults,
and they were many, he was not as stupid as that. Had the Chr.
composed the passage, he would almost certainly have written all in
Heb. save the letters themselves, as is the case in the story of Ezra,
whereas the whole document is in Aram. Moreover, the passage does
contain more than the letters themselves, and I cannot understand
Torrey's declaration that the "Aram, source contains nothing but these
suspicious documents" (ES."^)^
Kost. was the first to deny the historicity of the passage, admitting
that if it were authentic it would refer to Ezra's golah and overthrow
his theory that Ezra is later than Neh. The points raised by Kost.
(TFze^f.^^ ^â– ), with some comments thereon, follow:
(i) The colonising by Asnappar (Assurbanipal) is improbable. But
it is by no means certain that Asnappar is to be identified with Assur-
banipal {v. i.). (2) There is a suspicious similarity between this cor-
respondence and that of c. 5/. The agreement is rather fanciful and
is mostly in unimportant matters. Both complaints are in Aram., are
aimed at the Jews, and are addressed to a Pers. king. But in the im-
portant matters there is great divergence. One contains a grave charge
and urges action; the other is an inquiry, and the correspondents
await orders. In one the complaint is heeded and drastic measures
ordered; in the other the Jews are upheld. (3) The phrase "in the
book of thy father's memoirs," v. ", could not apply to Bab. inscrip-
tions. This argument ignores simple textual criticism, the Esd. text
reading "in the library of thy fathers," in which Bab. inscriptions may
well have been stored. (4) "The mighty kings" of v. ^o admits of
no satisfactory explanation, since the history of David and Solomon
164 EZRA-NEHEMIAH
would not be recorded in Bab. annals. But the phrase could apply
just as well to later kings like Hezekiah, who held a Bab. vassal as a
prisoner and who bulks large in the inscriptions of Sennacherib. (5)
The phrase "until a command is given by me," v. =1, shows a knowledge
of Art.'s later consent to Neh. Here again we may note that Esd.
lacks the passage, and Kost. is certainly wrong in his assumption that
Art. orders the destruction of the walls. Further, we may well ques-
tion Kost.'s inference. The king might easily issue a conditional de-
cree. As he merely orders the work to stop, it is natural to assume
that some further investigation was intended. (6) The impression
made by Ne. 1-7 « is that Neh. was engaged in an entirely new work,
and that a story of a previous attempt to rebuild the walls is incon-
sistent. The fact is that Neh. was urged to his task by learning that
the walls had been thrown down and the gates burned. (7) The
mocking attitude of Sanb. and To. is inexplicable if the walls had pre-
viously been carried close to completion. It seems to me that if the
Sam. had recently destroyed what the Jews had built, they would have
sufficient ground to jeer at any one else who attempted to resume the
work. The fact that they trust to their own devices, and do not ap-
peal to the king, indicates that they regarded their task as easy. (8)
Ne. 2'-* is silent about an existing order to destroy the walls, Neh. does
not ask for a reversal of a previous decree, and the king only considers
the loss of a faithful servant. Strictly speaking, there had been no
order to destroy the walls. Neh. would not be likely to provoke oppo-
sition by reminding the king of his former action.
Kost. then gives his ideas as to the origin of the passage. As the
first golah in the time of Cy. had attempted to rebuild the temple, and
were hindered by the Sam., so the walls must have been attempted
before the 20th year of Art. Therefore the Chr. makes the golah at-
tack the walls after the completion of the temple. It would be difficult
to frame a weaker hjqjothesis. The golah under Cy. did not attempt
to rebuild the temple and there was no hindrance from the Sam. The
Chr. had no idea that this passage dealt with the walls of the city.
, He incorporates the passage on the theory that the letters referred to
the building of the temple. It is easy to agree with Torrey that
"Kost.'s methods were not thoroughly scientific, and his conclusions,
in the main, were of little value" (ES."').
7-11. The occasion of the letter to Artaxerxes and its be-
ginning. — 7. In the days of Artaxerxes]. The writer evidently
had no exact knowledge of the date or he would have been
more specific— T^e rest of their associates] suggesting an official
body which joined in the complaint whose word would add
EZRA 47-24» 165
weight to the charge. The word rendered ''associates" occurs
in the Eleph. pap., where the meaning is determinable. In 1, 1,^
we find "Jedaniah and his associates, the priests who are in
Jeb." The word is used like "brother" in Hebrew to indicate
those in the same official class. Sachau limits the meaning
needlessly to those who joined in the letter, but the word covers
all the priests in Jeb. — And the writing of the letter was written
in Aramaic]. "Character" added by RV. is wrong, for the
reference is to the language, not to the script. — And translated
into Aramaic]. But as it has already been said that the letter
was written in Aramaic, the statement that it was translated
into Aramaic is manifestly impossible. Marquart proposed
"Persian," the letter being translated into the native speech
of the king, and so being a bilingual document. Mey. substi-
tutes Persian for the first Aramaic, and omitting the redundant
"writing" gets "the dispatch was written in Persian and trans-
lated into Aramaic." Berth, regards the second Aramaic as
a gloss; it is lacking in (H. The phrase is a copyist's note, and is
not of much importance (v. i.). — Rehum] is a good Hebrew name,
and occurs frequently in Ezr.-Ne. (v. on 2^). — Commander] is
better than "chancellor," RV. Arnold proposes "master of
the decrees" (JBL. 1912,24). Rehum then would be the chief
officer. — Shimshai the scribe] w. ^- 1'^- ^3 f. The name usually is
traced to Iranian (BDB.), but it might easily be Hebrew. The
accusers of the Jews in this case, though holding presumably
Persian offices in Syria, may themselves have been of Hebrew
stock. In that case they certainly would not have written in
Persian. The words are a gloss due to the confusion of the text.
— As follows] but the letter does not begin till v.^^^. — 9. Dinaites]
or "judges" according to Cii^, so Hoffmann, Mar. — Apharsath-
chites] also interpreted as "generals" (BDB.). — Tarpelites] or an
Dfficial title tahellarii (Jensen): it has also been interpreted as
Iranian and equal to the frequently used term "beyond the
River" (Syria). — Apharsites]. Marquart renders "secretaries."
—Archevites] the people of Erech (Mey. Ent.^), a city in Bab-
/lonia. — Babylonians] only occurrence of the gentilic form in
3T. — Shushanchites] the people of Susa, the Elamite capital.
l66 EZRA-NEHEMIAH
— Dehavites]. Following ^ now generally interpreted as "that
is," a rendering requiring a slight emendation. We should
then have "the Susians, that is, the Elamites," people of the
country over which Cyrus had first ruled. — And the rest of the
peoples]. In spite of the above rather lengthy list, there were
other nationalities involved in the hostility toward the Jews. —
Whom the great and famous A snap par had taken captive]. That
is, all these peoples had been brought to Samaria from other
places, referring to the story in 2 K. 17. Asnappar is usually
identified with Assurbanipal, apparently because it is more like
his name than any other. (@» offers Shalmaneser who began
the siege of Samaria. As the name is corrupt, as the resemblance
to Assurbanipal is not very close, and as there is no evidence of
his colonising Samaria, we might conjecture Sargon, who con-
quered Samaria in 722 or Esarhaddon as v. ^. — In the city of
Samaria]. Better with 05 in the cities of Samaria, since all these
peoples would scarcely reside in one city. — And the rest beyond
the River] i. e., other peoples of the country west of the Eu-
phrates. The term "beyond the River" is used in this period
for all the country from the Euphrates to Egypt. — And so forth].
Usually interpreted as equivalent to "and others," and so "too
tedious to mention." But Torrey (JBL. 1897) has shown that
it means "and now," the preface to the real matter of the
letter. The word is misplaced in our text, being repeated from
the end of v. ". — 11. This is a copy of the letter which they sent
unto him] obviously an editorial note, and should stand between
the narrative and the beginning of the letter proper, as shown
below in the reconstructed text. — Thy servants]. The names
have been transposed, and are wanting here, so that as the text
stands the complaint was anonymous.
It would be difficult to find a more corrupt text than vv. '-". At
first sight the case seems quite hopeless, for while there can be but a
single letter, there are two sets of complainants, and there are three
different introductions. The whole is so confused in MT. that we seem
balked at every point. We may easily assume that preceding the let-
ter proper there was a simple and straightforward intr., stating the time
of writing, the complainants, the accused, and the person with whom
the complaint is lodged. The text of Esd. is simple and straightfor-
EZRA 4^-2<'» 167
ward, but a careful exairtination shows that even that does not have the
original text. It does, however, afford a basis for reconstruction.
The letter proper begins at v. "'' with the complainants, thy servants,
the vien of Abar-Naharah. Plainly we lack something here, viz., the
addressee and the names of the accusers. Esd. has a part of the neces-
sary material beginning, to King Art. lord. Then after ol •jcaiS£<; oou
we have 'PdtOuiio? h (Torrey rightly supplies yP'^^'^v) to: •rcpocrxtxTovTa
xal SaiJL^XXtoi; 6 Ypa[JL[xaT£i(; xotl ol IxiXotiirot Tfj? ^ouX^q au-rdiv x,al (xpf-
Tai'^) ol Iv xofXy] Supfqs xal 4>oiv(7,t). And in v. '' we find in the ad-
dress of the king's reply an additional clause, ofxoOatv ev Saixapeftj;.
Combining this material we see that the beginning of the letter then
must have been: nibd ^'^vcvy Dj;ta-'7;?a Dim y\T; jnN n^Sd NniT'cnmNS
mnj— 12;; iNU'i jnac n n>-\p3 jnTi^ n ]innij3 -\ii-y\ If now we turn to
MT. here reprinted for easy inspection, we find all this, as will appear
by noting the words with a single underline: ia>ctyi pya-Spj oim (8)
"Syj aim pix (g) : ncjd ksSp sp-j'tt'nn-i}<S pStyn'-Sy nin nijx ijpj n-isd
N3T -iDjDx •'Sjn n x>0vx -ix2>i (10) : ... Nijn tinmjj nxa'i NnoD liyjiyi arj
KrnjNjj^no njT (n) : pj>'3i mnj-'-ijy nsiyi rnsc •'n n^npa inn jmm n-\^p>\
njpi mnj— 12? tf jx inay n jSd sntt'e>nn-ix *?;? ini*?]? in'?a> n . It is a sup-
port to our reconstruction to note that ^ has xphat, 3 Esd. judices
just where n^jit occurs in v. '; :;. i. in note on text. Kupt'<p, which is
always found in Esd. with Art., is a rendering of tnx reading jnx.
inn anini of MT. shows a modified construction to fit the connection as
the text stands. It is to be noted that we find this beginning of the
letter in two sections of our present text separated by the clause "and
the rest of the peoples whom the just and noble Asnappar took captive,"
and this intervening portion is plainly an explanation of "their com-
panions," or "their counsel," as Esd. has it. Thus we are able to put
together the passages which are required as the first part of the letter
proper.
If now we take the sections of the text preceding and following our
extracted passages and preface the date from v. ', we get this surprising
result: And in the days of Art. Rchtim tlie reporter (or commander) and
Shimshai the scribe wrote a letter against Jenis., (11) and this is a copy of
the letter which they sent to him to Art. the king, from a source indicated
above by double underlining. From this it appears that we have now
also a simple and straightforward intr. to the letter. If we compare
thisresult with the text of Esd., we find: (i) Instead of "against Jerus.,"
"against [those dwelling in Judah and] Jerus.," showing an addition
(within brackets), and that exactly what we find in v. « in the letter to
Xerxes, no other note of which is found in Esd. (2) The complainants
are (BTJXstxo? xal MtOpaSiTiQi; xal Ta^lXXto? xal) 'PiiOuyioi; xal Be^XtsB-
[io? xal SafilXXto? h YPOtHP^aTsui; (xal hi Xoticol ol Toiixot? ouvTaao6[Aevo()
oJxouvTSi; 8^ Iv Sanapefqc xocl toTc; <2XXot<; idtzoic,. Now the additions
1 68 EZRA-NEHEMIAH
here (within parentheses) are taken from v. ', adding three names, and
having inuD ins'i, which belongs to the intr., and besides is Aram., not
Heb. The last clause, dwelling in Samaria and the other places, belongs
to the letter itself, for even Esd. lacks it in its proper place. To this
we might make a further addition from v. ' and so get as the original:
And in the days of Art. Rehum the reporter and S hints hai the scribe and
the rest of their companions wrote a letter against Jerus. to Art. the king
of Pers. This may as easily be all Aram, as partly one language and
partly the other. In v. ' we have left the three names, Bishlam, Mith-
redates, and Tabeel. These names have no place in the letter to Art.
For as they stand first here they would certainly be named in the
reply; but they do not recur at all. Now we have noted that lana in
V. 8 lacks a subj. The three names are manifestly the accusers of v. •.
Bishlam, Mithredates, and Tabeel were the hired agents of v. ^ Con-
sidering the vast amount of transposition which has taken place, the tr.
of those names is not singular (so Torrey, ES.'", Mey. £w/.>')-
V. "» is lacking in Esd. and is easily explained as a marginal note,
or an explanation by the Chr. in a text with which havoc was already
made. Its place would be more appropriate after v. »''. We have still
to account for the passage, vv. 9^-10", i. e., the list of names and the
explanatory note and the rest of the peoples whom the great and noble
Asnappar took captive. This clause seems to be a late gl., describing
the origin of the Sam. and showing marked hostility to them. The
last part may easily be taken from v. =. The absence of the whole pas-
sage in Esd. shows that it was prob. later than that translation; for
there would be no motive for its omission.
Further ncjo in v. «, to which there is nothing corresponding in Esd.,
was added after the dislocation was made. And finally n-inj-n^y i:?:n
njpi is a repetition due to the misplacing of ina;?. an is a mistake
for ixs', njj'Di is the beginning of the letter and could not occur twice.
"To Art. the king of Pers." is superfluous, rendered necessary only
after the dislocation was made to explain the preceding "to him."
Mey. notes the use of hy before Art., used in the sense of "unto," but
that is good Aram, usage (cf. vv. "• ")• The confusion is not so great
as appears from the difficulty of reconstruction. The principal changes
necessary are but two: the tr. of the three names from v. ' to v. «, and
the tr. of "a to «^.
V. ' did not appear at all in the text used by Esd., or else the trans-
lator omitted it because he saw that it was an unintelligible scrap.
Torrey holds that "v. «, or at all events v.^^, is exactly reproduced"
(ES."9; italics mine). But his reasons are not convincing. He is
obliged to assume that Art. was substituted for Xerxes, whereas Esd.
begins exactly as v. ', showing in xaT^yaij^ev (though ^ has the cor-
rection xaxiypaij^av) jna of v. ', not i2no of v. «. This is followed by
auTt) = ''mSj; of V. ". uaa* Torrey finds in extJToXigv and cites (S^; but
EZRA 4^-2<» 169
(&^' has exttJToX-fjv x,al Ivavrfwutv, an obvious and characteristic dup.
Since "letter" appears three times in the section, vv. '• s- ", it is strange
to suppose that this well-informed translator misconceived the mng.
of so easy a word as nj'iat:'. Esd. has u-KoysypoiyLiLiyQV before IxtaxoXiQV,
which Torrey regards as representing ndjo; but to get an unnecessary
adj. the translator would hardly jump from v. ' to v. *; moreover, ndjd
is, I think, a late interpolation. The words stand at the end of the
passage in Esd.; had "Esd." followed v. * he certainly would have written
xaTlypatJ^av t^ ims'zo'kiiv. This position and the order of the words in
Gk. suggest that they may stand for smjx ]iV\Q in v. " 'T%ofe-(g(x\j.\xivt}v
occurs only in the Apocr. On pir'nc v. i. critical note. Finally, xp^vok;
may represent "iDi, but never elsw. stands for niisc.
The whole section vv. '-" should therefore rd. as follows: And in
the days of Art., Rehum the reporter and Shimshai the scribe,
and the rest of their companions, wrote a letter against Jerus. to
Art. the king of Pers. And this is a copy of the letter which they
sent to him: To Art. the king our lord. Thy servants Rehum the
coimnander and Shimshai the scribe and the rest of their compan-
ions who dwell in the cities of Sam. and in the remainder of the
province beyond the River. And now —
It must be noted that this result is not attained by the free play
of a critic's imagination, but it is entirely obtained from a text which as
it stands is utterly unintelligible. A literal translation of MT. will be
the most convincing evidence of its impossibility for the reader not
versed in Aram.: (7) And in the days of Art. wrote Bishlam, Miihredates,
Tabeel and the rest of their companions unto Art. the king of Pers. and the
writing of the letter was written in Aram, and interpreted in Aram. (8)
Rehum the commander and Shimshai the scribe wrote a letter against
Jerus. to Art. the king as follows. (9) Then Rehum the reporter and
Shimshai the scribe and the rest of their companions, the Dinaites and the
Apharsathchites, the Tarpelites, the Apharsites, the Archevites, the Baby-
lonians, the Shushanchites, the Dehavites, the Elamites, (10) and the
rest of the nations whom the great and noble Asnappar took captive and
caused them to dwell in the cities of Sam. and the rest of the province beyond
the River. And now. — (11) This is a copy of the letter which they sent
unto him, unto Art. the king: Thy servants the men of the province beyond
the River. And now —
We find in the king's reply (v. ") the names of the men who sent the
charge. Obviously the same names and titles must have stood in the
accusing letter. It is a justification of the reconstruction that the two
lists of names and titles agree save in the words "cities of," which do
not occur in v. ".
7. ^D^a] in v. • the same idea is expressed by rii3'?D3, showing a dif-
ferent hand. — NDB'B'nmN] an Aramaised form. In <& only ■- and Esd.
lyo EZRA-NEHEMIAH
show the regular Gk. form Apra^^p^ou; '' has AaapBaOa, ^ ApOaaaaOa.
Bab. form is Ar-iak-Sal-sn, Achamenian, UrtaxSasa. — 27\:] from this
sg. and the sg. sf. {his companions) Mey. argues that Rehum was the
principal instigator of the letter. But a sg. vb. with more than one
subj. is a common Semitic usage. — ihud] does not occur in Heb., but is
frequent in the Aram, passages, w. '• "• =' 5« 6^- ". It is contended by
Zimmern that its As. equivalent kinaliu means only "house servants"
(Mar.^^); but here it means "associates," as in the Eleph. pap. The
former sense would be unsuitable unless the antecedent of "his" were
"Art.," a possibility in this v., but not in v. ". — ana] may signify "char-
acter of writing" in Est. i" 3" 8', but not in 4'; "mode of writing" is
a rather forced sense; the natural mng. is the thing written, cf. 2"^ <S
renders as a vb., eYpat{»Ev. — pna'jn] also 7"; the Chr. has taken this
from Aram. vv. "-"5^ Andreas says middle-Iranian ptc. pf. pass.
nibhisl=scriptiim (Mar.), Hoffmann {ZA. ii,") and Str. similarly. Mey.
holds that it is an error for p'^no, Pers. paligama, "report" or "mes-
sage." As it is synonymous with ^ns, he contends that the latter
is an explanatory gl. of the Pers. word. 05 here and v. '' 6 9opoX6Yo<;,
which in Job 3'' 39' = rjj, "oppressor," but the mng. here, as appears
from Esd. 2'^, is "tax-collector." — ain^] d Ypa9-Qv. — niDiN^] lacking in
(S, while aJiHD is epsATtjveu'tiivtjv, so agreeing with YpayiQV. CI gives, there-
fore: "The tax-collector wrote a letter in Aram, and it was trans-
lated." We must either change one "Aram." to "Pers.," the reasons
urged for which are not very convincing, or else explain, "the letter
was written in Aram, and it had been translated into Aram.," implying
that it was first composed in some other language. As Aram, was the
diplomatic language of Pers., as it had been of the Bab. and Hebrews
(2 K. iS^O) it is difficult to see why the letter must have been first com-
posed in one language and then translated into another. Mar. after
<8 calls .T'DiN a gl. We might solve the problem by reading ^jcns {v.
on V. ") "copy," and thus have the letter was written in Aram, and there
was an Aram, copy, the copy being preserved in vv. "'f-. The most
prob. solution is that we have a jargon of copyists' marginal notes or
directions, e. g., "write the letter," "write in Aram.," "translated into
Aram." The words really stand at the head of the Aram, sections of
Ezr., and may have been directions to note the change of language, a
change much less obvious in ^ than in MT.-^S^ amn]. Both this and
"icnc are declared to be Syrian names by Mey. (Ent.^*). Rehum was
regarded as Pers. by Rawlinson, while Andreas (Mar.'«) regards 'C'db'
as a popular etymological adaptation from an Iranian '•cu't:'. Thus is
it determined to make foreigners of two good Heb. names. — ayia-'?];^]
was misunderstood in di, and transliterated in various ways, ^aSoTatilv^,
paaXxayi^, peXxcefx^. Esd. BedXTeiAOi;, but in v. " -rdc xpoaxfxcovra, to
which Torrey rightly adds from v. â– ' h Ypiywv. Andreas explains as a
translation of an old Pers. title; Mey. says it is applied to the governor
EZRA 4'^-2<» 171
of a small Pers. district. It seems to be a compound, "master of
commands," a sense suitable in v.^. Torrey renders "reporter." —
ndjd] from p and indefinite xn and mng. "as follows" (Str. Mar.").
It is lacking in (S, but appears in Esd. apparently as Ilepffwv.-^g^ pis].
Contrary to the general statement, this is represented in (6 by a doub-
let, xiSe exptvev. Str. regards as gl. Berth, explains it as a doublet
from N^rn in v. ^. In this corrupt text a word or two more or less
makes little difference. Vv. » '• are simply a more amplified repetition
of V. ' with a vb. lacking. (5 saw the defect and supplied it by taking
pi« in two senses (n V"^^). We have in this v. a list of nine words
or names which have sorely perplexed all students. It is useless to
print all the desperate conjectures which have been offered. Passing
by the first four names for the present, we arrive for the rest at pretty
definite results. — (!<)'''>aiN]. Jensen, Theol. Liz. 1895, proposed to iden-
tify with Gk. Spxot, an interpretation generally rejected in favour of
"people of Erech." — x^Saa] is clearly "people of the city of Bab." —
tf^w\y]. Zimmern {KAT.^- "=) suggests that here is preserved an iden-
tification of the Susian god SuUnak with the name of the city. Andreas,
Mar. 85, (cf. De. Par.^") explains ak as a sf.; so Str. — ]V^^\ is the
place-name. — Kirn] De. (BD.^) suggested Du-u-a, found in As. con-
tract tablets. Virtually all scholars now agree with (&^ ol eb(v = nv\ ii,
"that is," and so explaining the fact that the Susians were Elamites.
This explanation is generally regarded as a gl., the Elamites being
much better known than the Susians (Mey. Mar. el al.). We have
then peoples named from three well-known cities, Erech, Bab., and
Susa. To revert to the first four names, we have an unsolved problem
and must rest content with conjecture. — 8<''jn] Schrader proposed Da-
ja-e-ni {KA T.^- ^*'). De. Din-iarru, a city near Susa (BD.»). (6^ ol xpt-
Taf, and so virtually all scholars rd. ^<;J;'^, "the judges," regarded by
Andreas as an Aram, translation of the Pers. ddlabhar. — niSdid] made a
Latin name by Jensen, tabellarii, rejected by Andreas, Mar. et al. Pers.
is diligently sought in this document, and its presence would be nat-
ural enough, but Latin is scarcely admissible. Andreas is quite sure
that we should point N^Sonta and find in the word some unknown of-
ficial title (so Mey."). Hoffmann explains from Pers. taraparda, "the
provinces beyond the River." — x-'anDios, n^didn, and n^ddidn] 5' are
much alike, and may justly be regarded as variants. De. (DB.'») sug-
gested for the first Partakka or Partukka, towns in Media mentioned by
Esarhaddon; in the second he saw Parsua. The desperate state of the
case is shown by Mey.; he notes that the root in all three is D10,
"Persia." k, he says, may be prefixed or left off at will in Iranian
names; n in the first is a corruption; in (i) and (3) the adj. sf. Ka
appeared, so each word is reduced to Pers. {Ent.'^'"); thus he gets
out of the passage: "the Pers. judges, the Pers. , the Erechites,
the Bab., and the Susians." Others have made official titles of all
172 EZRA-NEHEMIAH
the words: "the judges, messengers, tablet-writers, scribes." All
these identifications reckon with the single words and forget the
context. The passage shows that names of peoples are required in
each case. The v. begins with names of two persons and their offices:
Rehum the commander mid Shimshal the scribe and the rest of their asso-
ciates: then in apposition to the last word we have the catalogue of the
races of which the Sam. were composed, which cannot be a mixture of
offices and peoples. As part of the names are peoples, they must all
be. So V. " begins and the rest of the peoples. That we cannot identify
them merely proves a corruption of the text, or else the transplanting
to Sam. of peoples from places as yet quite unknown. The ransack-
ing of every language under heaven to make offices out of this Jargon
is an unwarranted extravagance of criticism. It is better frankly to
confess our ignorance. The writer, having an animus against the Sam.,
may have sought the most outlandish names he knew.— (TOy isjdn]
almost unanimously identified with Assurbanipal (668-626), son and
successor of Esarhaddon (v. 2). Schrader identified with Esarhaddon
to agree with v. 2 {KAT.''-^^). Mey. and others who are searching
diligently for Pers. influences in a document conceived to have been
written by Persians sees a choice bit of evidence in this word; he sup-
plies two missing letters, "liJJiJiiDK, and decides that the final "i is due
to the fact that Pers. has no S {EntJ^ '•). As the adj. Njn (Heb. 2-1)
is directly applied to this king, it would appear that the writer took out
a part of two syllables from the name and made it into a title. The
resemblance is the only ground for this identification, resting therefore
on a slender basis in spite of its general acceptance. (6^ has 2aX[i.a-
vaaaipT]?, this text being credited with correcting the name on the
basis of 2 K. 17, a critical acumen not otherwise apparent. This iden-
tification is, however, impossible chronologically; Shalmaneser was too
early. Marquart {FimdJ^) saw the old Heb. juidn, Sargon. We
know that Sargon colonised Sam.; ace. to v. ' Esarhaddon did like-
wise. As generally understood Assurbanipal added to the confusion
of tongues and religions. The name is corrupt and may be Sargon or
Esarhaddon as well as Assurbanipal. — }<"i\">'>i kj-i]. Sieg. says: "Aram,
translation of the As. royal title Sarru rahbii" but we lack Mrru, and have
another adj. which has no parallel in the As. inscriptions. — ^^■'•'] occurs
elsw. only in Dn. 2", where it means difficidt. Here it is equivalent to
Heb. ip'' and means famous. It is not easy to see why Assurbanipal
should be singled out for praise by those whom he had carried into
exile. — n'li^] (& has pi. icdXeatv, the most suitable text, for while the
chief complainants might live in the city of Sam., the description of
peoples covers a much wider territory. If MT. is right, it would appear
that all these peoples were not made a party to the complaint. The
diflSculty may be avoided by reading "ixcai.
(11) ]W\b\ V. " s« and as loan-word in Heb. 7" \. We may compare
EZRA 4^-2^" 173
ptfnfl having same sense, "copy," Est, 3'^ 4' 8". Mar. says both words
come from Pers. In Gk. we find five renderings: (i) uxoYeypaixtJLevTjv,
Esd. 2'«. (2) uxoxs{[ievov, Esd. 7". (3) dvrfYpotcpov, Esd. 5« CS^. (4) Sia-
TaY'Oj ^^^- is) Siaaa9T)at<;, CS^^ in s« 7". — '■niS;] lacking in (S"- and in
ARV. through misunderstanding the corruption of the text. The let-
ter proper begins with 'mx-S>'. — '.:':}<] = Heb. vmh. Esd. has ol i%Ckoi-
Tcot Tiis ^ouXiji; auxwv. This shows a different text.
12-16. The charges against the Jews. — 12. In Esd. we have
a slightly different and more deferential address than MT. :
be it known to our lord the king, the same difference recurring
in V. ". The next clause is almost always translated wrong; it
should run thus: the Jews, who have come up from thee unto us,
have gone to Jerusalem, a rebellious and evil city]. The last
words are in apposition to Jerusalem, and not the object of
''build."
We note that the Jews here denounced are recent arrivals. There
must therefore have been an extensive migration in the time of Art., of
which we have no other record. From their undertakings the company
must have been a large one. This could not refer to Neh.'s company,
for he had authority from the king to do the very things which are here
prohibited. In <B^ we find "from Cy." instead of "from thee," the
editor supposing there was only one migration, i. e., that in the reign
of Cy.
Now we come to the heart of the matter, a description of
what the returned Jews were doing which aroused the suspicions
of the local Persian officials. But unfortunately at this critical
point the text is corrupt and obscure. With the help of Esd.
it is possible to get a fairly good sense: They are building it [the
city or some unknown object], they are repairing the walls, and
they have completed a temple. It is true that the Jews who had
come from Artaxerxes had not built a temple, but the fact that
a temple was standing would be an incentive for the rebuilding
of the city and its walls. The essence of the charge is certainly
the statement about the restoring of the walls. All other con-
ditions could be ignored, but once the walls were about the
city, Jerusalem could defy all the peoples in the Syrian province.
— 13. They will not pay tribute, custom or toll]. It is not pos-
174 EZRA-NEHEMIAH
sible to differentiate these words; the meaning of the first is
assured, any kind of tribute or tax. The meaning of the others
is mostly guesswork. Esd. yields better sense and says all that
is necessary: they will not only refuse to pay tribute. — But in the
end it will damage the king] is a very doubtful rendering of a
very obscure passage. Mey. gets "the revenue of the king
will suffer," a good enough sense, but a mere repetition. Esd.
offers the best solution known to me : hut also they will stand out
against even kings. What is apprehended is described fully and
clearly in v.^^; the loss to the Persian empire of the whole Syrian
province, the plaintiffs greatly exaggerating the power of the
Jews and perverting their purpose. — 14. Now because we eat
the salt of the palace], lacking in (^^. (^ has "temple" in-
stead of "palace," making the Samaritans priests. On the
Bond of Salt v. RS. Relig. Sem.^^\ The idea is that the salt
constituted a bond which those who ate were bound to respect.
We might compare the covenant of salt by which the pr. were bound
to Yahweh, Nu. iSi", cf. 2 Ch. 13=, where it is the sign of the divine title
of the Davidic dynasty. Here it might therefore be a sign of the agree-
ment of fidelity of the oiEcers to the Pers. king. It is possible that the
mng. here is simpler, the idea being that the officers were in the king's
pay; see AV. "have maintenance from the king's palace," so Ryle, Sieg.
The old Jewish interpretation was based upon the sowing with salt
as a sign of utter destruction (Ju. 9") and was, "because we aforetime
destroyed the temple," i. e., salted the salt of the temple. Nestle in-
terpreted the text a little differently, "because the salt of the palace is
our salt " (v. Sieg.), because we will suffer if the king's tribute falls off —
not a very high motive for their fidelity. The mng. must be, because
we are bound to protect the king's interests, therefore we send this
despatch. Esd. offers a radically different text, and a sadly erroneous
one: because matters at the temple are pressed forward, another reflection
of the temple-building story.
A second reason for their report is: it is not right for us to wit-
ness the king^s dishonor]. The word rendered "dishonor" has
the root meaning nakedness; that is the idea here, it is not right
to see the king stripped bare of his lawful tribute and territory.
— 15. In the hook of thy father^ s memoirs]. The words imply
that the kings kept a record of events presumably for reference.
EZRA 4^-2'''» 175
These Sam. knew that the records desired could be found only in the
archives of the kings of As. and Bab.; "fathers" therefore is used in
the sense of predecessors. Any story of Judean revolts since the time
of Cy. would not be adequate, esp. as it is added that the revolts were
in the olden days. The reference is to the revolts of Judah in the
century preceding the collapse of 587: note therefore this city was de-
stroyed, i. e., by Nebuchadrezzar: from the Bab. point of view the
destruction of Jerus. was a punishment for rebellion. In fact, Judah
had been a vassal long before 587, but was ever ready to seize a promis-
ing moment for rebellion. The Sam. knew the history of Jerus., and
knew it correctly. Curiously Art. and his officers were entirely igno-
rant of the past history of this province.
16. This verse is a summarising of the whole matter: we
make known to the king [Esd. "to thee, O lord king"] that if this
city is built and its walls finished, then thou wilt have no portion
beyond the River] that is, the whole Syrian province will be lost
to Persia. In other words, the complainants assume that if the
Jews complete their project, they will proceed to reduce their
neighbours to subjection by restoring the old empire of David.
There could hardly be plainer evidence of the correct date, for
such a result could never ensue from the building of a temple,
but only from the repairing of the walls and the restoration of
the houses in the city. Esd. has a different reading for the
latter part of the verse : there will no longer be an outlet for thee
to the province beyond the River. The meaning is not essentially
different.
12. xin'?] Esd. T(p xup(q) reading nin\ Mar. explains preformative
S as a change due to the similarity of the form with nini (§ 65n)j gtr.
otherwise (§ ^^k); j,. AJSL. xiii. — ^n1S-Jc].t There is difference of
opinion about the composition, v. Mar. § "^, Kautzsch,"8. i. There
is prob. a n. which has lost its force in the prep.; the mng. is like Heb.
oya, and so "from thee" or "from thy presence." (& has i%b xijpou^,
dcxo aou^, -rcap' Ij[xuv^ ^^^ E^-. — sji*?];]. The Massoretic pointing sep-
arates this from preceding word, giving, therefore, the impression that
the complainants were at Jerus. The pause should be on this word,
separating it from what follows. — xnnp] lacking in (S>^, but by an ob-
vious error. — Nmns] Vv. "-i'; on the form v. Mar. § ", Kautzsch, § ^^^
{kattal). It is equivalent to Heb. Tia. From Esd. we infer some fur-
ther n. than city. The passage would then run to Jerus. the rebellious
city, and they are building its — . — Mar. ct al., adopt Qr. 'hhyif »'^•\yy^]
176 EZRA-NEHEMIAH
but this cannot mean they have finished the walls, otherwise the com-
plaint would have been too late. V. " indicates that the walls are not
finished. The Vrss. offer some variety: ® xal Ta tsixtq aiT^(; xaxTjp-
Ttcfxlvot elcjfv, they are repairing (or finishing) the walls, using the
same word for SSd in vv. "• '^ 5'- »• " 6'^ (but in v. " ^ has kioi\},(xa%ji) .
Esd. has xal to: Tst'^^Yj Gepaxeuouat, but auvTsXsaOfj in v. '^, showing a
different Aram. vb. here. 3 Esd. et statimnt miiros. 0ep. may have
the mng. repair, and that is the sense required here. — il3''n> niitni] offers
serious difficulty. (& has xa'. 6g[j.eX{ou<; auxfji; dtv6!j;waav, U d parictcs
componentes. Esd. x,al vabv ixo^aXTvOVTat^-^, x. v. uxep^iXXovTa 6e[jLs-
XioOfftvK 3 Esd. et templum siiscitant. Esd. is clear in one respect, the
reference being to the temple. The usual rendering "they have re-
paired the foundations," is impossible after the statement about the
walls. Many conjectures have been made (v. BDB. 5. v. oin and the
comm.). Str. reads la-'H"', as 5'", "laid the foundations." Jensen derives
from As. hatii, "examine," an unsuitable sense here. Haupt calls it
Afil of isan, "excavate the rubbish" (Guthe,s=), likewise impossible here.
"They are repairing the gates" would be the best sense, but there
is no basis for this reading. It is more natural to follow Esd. and
place snci^ai . . . Nnxnp in apposition with aVB'n\ The separation of
the obj. from its vb. by these adjectives, as is usually done, is very
awkward. — pja] is left without an obj., but the text is wrong in any
event; the ptc. would not be used with the verbs following in the impf.
C5^ has xal o!xoSo[xouatv auxijv. Esd. has olxouatv [oixoSofioiJat^'-] Ti?
Ts ficYopdi:? au-u^?. 3 Esd. cedificant furnos ejus. 'Ayopic. is used in Eccl.
i2<- « Ct. 32 for pry, "a street," which is really an Aram, word, and
which may have been confused with ivj' though ms' is represented. In
the case of a modern city, laying out its streets would be a first step,
but that would hardly be the case in an ancient Oriental town. Yet
from V. " if this city be built, and v. " this city shall not be built, we
might infer that city was meant here; but there are three counts in
V. 12, reduced to two in v. " and to one in v. ^i, so that the phrases are
not repeated. Indeed, we should expect a generalisation in the latter
passage. Some form of nj3 is well attested, and some obj. is required.
Now Nr.!:'"'N3i does not recur with r\H^'\p in v. ", and is an anticlimax.
The crux of the charge is that Jerus. had been a rebellious city. That
it was "bad" would have had no significance. It may be that the
obj. of "build" is concealed in this word, though it is not easy to con-
jecture its nature.
13. Esd. lacks nsSd"? . . . |5?3. The words may be an accidental rep-
etition from V. ". — nSni iVa m:D] v. ^o 724, (5 <p6pot oOx eaovrat^^, ?6p(j>v
icpa^cv xal auvx^XeafAa^, Esd. (popoXoyfav ou [i,-?) uxo[j,£tva>acv Souvat. ^ as
often shows correction from MT. d has had our text, but in iVa has
seen a negative (nS) and in I'^n a vb. (l'?'"''). nijc, or, better, nnn, so
Heb. Ne. 5^ (c/. ma 6*) is derived from As. mandatu {nadanu, "give"
EZRA 47-2<'» 177
= Heb. jnj). i':'3 is explained from As. biliu, "tax," or, better, from
Iranian ball, "tribute." Mey. explains as tax in kind. iSn from vb.
"go," is explained as money paid for going, "toll" (Mar. Glossary,
Str. et a/.); but such a derivation is not convincing though generally
accepted. Another explanation is found in As. ilkn, "tax" (Ges.'^,
Winckler, Alt. Forsch. xv,"= '•). Winckler supposes iSa to be a corrup-
tion of iSd> of the original text, and renders the passage: "they will
withhold tribute and pay no taxes" (op. cit.). He is close to the truth,
but it is better to follow Esd. {v. s.). Mey. regards <& as evidence that
the translators were no longer able to distinguish the three kinds of
tribute. — Dnoxjfmng. dub.; Andreas emends ddsn, Pers. afsos, "in-
jury"; usually explained as mng. "in the end"; Scheft. (BDB.) "treas-
uries," from Zend pathwa. Mey. gets mng. "income." — w^hv] "an
unsupportable Hebraism" (Mey. Ent.^*); he would rd. ndSd, so "the
revenues of the king." — pTjnn] vv. ^^- ^^ Dn. 6' f; on the form v.
Kautzsch, § "• ='', third p. f. used in neuter sense, "it will injure," or
it may go back at least in sense to nnp (Berth.). (6 xaxoxotei^^,
SxXiQaouatv'^, Esd. dvTtaTTQaovrat. The last word in 2 Ch. 13' '• repre-
sents pin in Hithp., but sense prob. "rebel against" as 3 Esd. resistent.
— 14. nn>'] 05 with great literalness, dtaxTQiAoouvYj, the rendering in many
places of Heb. t^^-^V, which is apparently the same word used here. — â–
15. N'lnDn] Heb. piST, cf. Mai. 3", "memorandum-book"; here the
royal annals. The phrase is wanting in (S^^ in the second place; Esd.
ev Toc? d%h Twv xaxipuv aou ^i^Xioiq. — pis] Heb. njiin, cf. 2', Esd. x6Xetq.
— -innsyx] V. " t from nia', Dn. 6^\ Mar. § ^\ (& (pw^x^ela. — jnaj;] ^
BouXuv, by an easy misunderstanding. Esd. icoXcopxtaq auveaTa[xivoc,
may represent this text, giving to "nne'N a mng. somewhat different
from the received one, "enduring sieges." — 16''. ($^^ has only oOx eoTiv
oot efp-QVTj. Esd., e^oBo?, has rd. phr\ as I'jn (cf. v. "). C5 is certainly
not based on our text exc. for "i*? nS.
17-24'. The edict of Artaxerxes and its execution.
The king sent a reply to Rehum, Shimshai, and their associates
saying that the annals had been searched and their charges against
Jerus. sustained. Therefore he directs his officers to stop the building
of the city until authorisation is given by him. The oflScers proceed
to Jerus. with a body of troops and stop the operations.
17. As the text stands we naturally take the whole verse,
except the last two words, as introductory to the letter, the king
sent a decree to Rehum]. The passage is so read in the Vrss.
The Greek has and the king sent back to Rehum . . . peace and
command. Esd., then the king wrote back to Rehum . . . the
178 EZRA-NEHEMI AH
subjoined letter, as in v. ". The names of the persons addressed
are, however, an essential part of the letter itself, and we have
a good beginning of the letter with those names: to Rehum. . . .
Peace to you. And now]. The first clause is then all that we have
by way of introduction, the king sent a decree. We note, how-
ever, that the name of the king is not found in the reply at all.
It is therefore quite likely that the text is corrupt and that the
verse originally read: Artaxerxes the king to Rehum et al., that is,
there was no introduction at all, but only the letter itself. —
18. The letter which you sent unto us has been read before me in
translation}. As the singular is used elsewhere, "unto us" must
be a mistake for "unto me." "Plainly read," as usually ren-
dered, is found also in Ne. S^; ARV." has "or translated." That
is the correct sense. The king probably did not understand
Aramaic, and his scribes therefore would translate the letter.
The word occurs in the Eleph. pap. v,^ where "explained" seems
to be the meaning. Esd. has a simpler text : I have read the let-
ter which you sent to me, obtained by omitting two of the Aramaic
words. — 19. / issued an order and they searched and found].
The search was made in the annals suggested in v, ^^ The dis-
coveries amply justified the charges of the accusers; for the
king's secretaries unearthed these facts concerning Jerusalem:
this city from olden time has risen against kings, and rebellion and
insurrection have been made in it]. This verse indorses the com-
plaint of V. ", which should apparently be reproduced. The
words all recur, but in a different connection. — 20. The search
uncovered more than the accusers had charged; for three new
points are made: (i) Mighty kings were over Jerusalem], show-
ing that only the Judean kingdom was involved. (2) And they
ruled over all the province beyond the River], all the Persian domin-
ions west of the Euphrates. (3) And tribute, custom and toll
{v. on V. ^^) were paid to them]. The last two clauses are combined
in Esd., ruling and taxing the province beyond the River. The
conditions described in (2) and (3) were never true except in
the time of David and Solomon, and Ryle supposes that those
kings are meant here. But Sieg. rightly questions whether the
archives found in Persia would preserve records of the Judean
I
EZRA 4^-2*'» 179
history of that period. In the time of David, moreover, Jerusa-
lem could hardly be described as a rebellious city, at least so
far as foreign kings were concerned. If the king had a copy of
the inscriptions of Sennacherib, there would be adequate data
for his purpose. There is really no need of assuming the pres-
ence of a Jewish hand here. It is assumed that should Jerusalem
be rebuilt and its walls restored, it would regain the power it
had had in the pre-exilic days. This expectation was far from
realisation in the period before Nehemiah; but it was sufficient
to arouse the apprehensions of a king who was always fearing
rebellion in the subject provinces. — 21. Make now a decree] is
surely not what we look for, since the officers could scarcely
expect to stop the building by a decree. It is better to read as
in V. ^^, now a decree is made, i. e., by this letter; or as Esd., now
therefore I command to stop these men, i. e., the Jewish builders.
— And that city shall not be built]. Nothing is said about walls,
but the word "city" is used comprehensively, so that the injunc-
tion stops every kind of building operations. Esd. combines the
clauses, to prevent those men from building the city. — Until a decree
is issued from me]. A clause lacking in Esd. The injunction
could only be dissolved by the one who made it. This condi-
tion was necessary, as without it the decree might be regarded
as binding even though the king had changed his mind, and
such a change was surely possible.
22. Be warned against doing remissly in this matter]. The
king did not appreciate the hostile purpose of the complainants;
he did not realise how eager they would be to execute his orders;
and he was aware that royal decrees were not always taken very
seriously in remote provinces. — Lest injury should increase to
royal loss]. The interrogative sentence of EV^. shows a strange
misunderstanding of the text. — 23. Then after the copy of the
letter]. "Copy" creates the same difficulty here as in v."
and as "plainly" in v. ", which is from the same root. "Trans-
lation of the letter" would be better. — Was read in the presence
of Rehum]. The royal messenger who brought the edict prob-
ably read or translated it to the officers and their council. Here
only Rehum's official title is lacking, probably due to an error
l8o EZRA-NEHEMIAH
of a copyist. Esd. has here a preferable text: then the writing oj
King Artaxerxes being read, Rehum et al. proceeded, etc. — They
proceeded in haste to Jerusalem against the Jews]. A considerable
time must have elapsed between the sending of the despatch and
the receipt of the reply, especially as an investigation of the
archives in Persia was necessary. The building meanwhile had
continued, all the more vigorously if the Jews suspected the
effort to stop their work. The moment the injunction comes to
hand the zealous officials hasten to put it in force. — And stopped
them with force and power]. Esd. has a better reading in two
points. It says marching to Jerusalem at speed with cavalry and
a multitude in battle array, they began to restrain the builders. The
clauses are in better order, the "armed force" being connected
with "march." Then it brings out the fact that the officers
required armed men to enforce obedience to the royal decree,
showing that Jerusalem had a considerable power at the time.
— 24". Then the work stopped]. This is the concluding portion
of the "correspondence." The rest of the verse is connected with
c. 5, the Aramaic account of the building of the temple. The
narrative of Nehemiah shows graphically how utterly the at-
tempt to restore Jerusalem had failed. We may safely infer
that the builders scattered to the various towns of Judah, that
the enemy destroyed the work that had been accomplished, so
that Jerusalem was left as desolate as in 587; for again "its
walls were broken down, and its gates burnt with fire."
, ly KSJi-iD] 5'- » 611 Dn. 3" 41^ t Bib. Heb. Eccl. 8» Est. i^" f. From Old
Pets, paiigama (Andreas, Mcy. Ent.^^ '•). 05^^ lacks the word, possibly
because its mng. was unknown; C5^ has a feeble rendering, t^v X6yov.
Esd. combines with rhz', if that represents same text, t6ts avT^Ypo«{;£v.
— cn>*3i) 07^*] (S^^ etp-rjvTQV xal (piatv, both being apparently obj. of ixia-
TEtXev. (&^ efpi^viQ u;jLtv. xal vOv. This represents a good text reading
paS for npi. nSir is not "prosperity," as BDB., but "peace to you,"
a common greeting. The greeting is lacking in Esd.; in place of last
two words tjiere is tgI: uxoyeYpaiAtA^va as in v. ". 3 Esd. ca qua sub-
jeda sunt. — 18. K>-iflc] f lacking in CS^^ and Esd.; d^ ffa^xo?. It is a
good Heb. word, v. Ne. 8', and has the same sense. It is here used
adverbially. — •'•\p] as in Heb. means call or read. (&^^ sxXi^Otq, a render-
ing necessitated by translating Njin^'j, 9op6XoYoi;. (S^ follows closely
MT. Esd. has a simpler text for the whole v.: 'Aviyvwv [legi 3 Esd.]
EZRA 47-2^" 181
T^jv extoToX'Jiv rjv xsx6ti9aTs xpb? [jii, lacking therefore a'iflD and ''Dip.
— A9) Bya]. Here and in v. " *" ^ was forced to translate and uses
YvtijxT]; but (&^ in 2>b S^Yy-a. — laj^nn] (5 y^vovcat^^, Yfyvovxat^ Esd.
has o\ (2v6p(i)xot as 3ubj. — 20. ]"'fl"ipn] see Mar. § ". Esd. Ja/upol xal
oxXtjpoI. — i^r'^tt'] CS Ixtxpa-uoOvTS?, Esd. xupteiovTsq, both texts reading
as a ptc. The rest of v. appears in Esd. thus: xal (popoXoyoOvTSi; xofXrjv
Supfav xal $o'.v(xT]v; whether this is a free rendering or represents a
simpler text, it is hard to say. — 21. ID''"*] rd. as in v. ", a''ty or net", I
make a decree; cf. Esd. Ix^xa^a. — dstt' ns^jj iJD-n>"]. (S'^'^ was apparently
puzzled by this passage; we find ext [6xm<;-^] dxb tyj<; yvcifiTQ? = ]D "i;;
NDyj. (6^ shows our text, though disarranged in Lagarde. Esd. lacks
the passage altogether; but in v. 22* it has a rendering which covers the
ground, and to take heed that nothing be against this, reading Sy, against,
and getting a negative in "hv. — 22. ]ninr] f Pe. pass, ptc; it is the
same as Heb. inr, which may be of Aram, origin. (S xe9uXaYtx^vot^^, xpo-
ciyeis^, Esd. xpovoTjGTJvat. — iSs*] CI aveatv^'^ xapA Xoyov^. — nnS] ® y,T^
xoTs, Esd. \i.f], i. e., xS. The force is that of Heb. 1.2, cf. Kautzsch, § "■".
— i^yy] appears in Esd., xpo^fj sxl xXelov, evidence of the free render-
ing which often characterises this text. (S^ xXiq6uv6^ cydSpa. — nSjh] (&
d(pavta[j.6i;, apparently interpreting like Heb. San "destruction,'* Esd.
T-Jj? xaxfot?. — 23. p"nD n-p] lacking in (Si^^, Tb avT(Ypa?ov'^=NJina'i^ xoH
SoYy.aioc;!'. The title of Rehum is missing here; it is found only in (&^
(g^XT££[A). In spite of the strong support of MT., the title must have
been in the original. — iSix] Esd. graphically brings out the true con-
ception in (ival^e6^avT£c, a commoH word in Mac. representing Heb.
J?DJ in Ex. and Nu. {v. Hatch and Redpath, Concord.). — xmni-Sy]
lacking in Esd.; (& xal Iv 'IouS(j;^A^ |xl tolk; 'louSott'ouc;^ correctly. —
pmxa] (& £v Yxxotc, Esd. ^£1:' Yxxou^'^, [aet' YxxuvI-. The word means
arm literally as Heb. i'ntx. The Gk. rendering is hard to explain,
but as 331 is thus translated in Ex. 14' Jos. 17"- >' i K. 16" 2 Ch. 2i»
Is. 38", that may be what was seen or imagined here. — Sin] C5 §uv(4[j.£t,
Esd. oxXou xapaxd^Ewi; (rax^wi;'') . — 24=*. jnxj 05 t6t£. This form with
prep, occurs 26 t. in Dn., but in Ezr. only here and 5^ 6K The mng. is
the same as in^'.
I formerly thought that v. =* was from the Chr.'s hand, and written
to connect the correspondence of Art. with the building of the temple
in c. 5. The text of Esd. forbids that commonly received interpreta-
tion. In Esd. 2" we have the v. in its entirety: and the building of the
temple which is in Jerus. ceased until the 2d year of the reign of Dar.
the king of Pers. This differs from Aram, in having "temple" instead
of "house of God," and in the omission of the meaningless "and it
was ceasing" (sSaa mm). But we find a part of this repeated in Esd.
5'°, "and they prevented the building two years until the reign of
Dar.; and in the 2d year of the reign of Dar. Hg. and Zc. prophe-
l82 EZRA-NEHEMIAH
sied" (6'). 24'' of Aram, text is plainly discerned here. The clause
"until the reign of Dar." is from 4^, where we have added "king of
Pars." as in Esd. 2". Now 5' in MT. lacks a necessary date, and the
defect is supplied in Esd. correctly. It appears, therefore, that the Art.
correspondence originally ended with the words, "and the work ceased,"
while the Aram, temple-building narrative began "in the 2d year of
the reign of Dar." When these two narratives were joined as in MT.
there was added in 4'* "the house of God which is in Jerus." The
meaningless words "and it was ceasing" first appeared in the Esd. text
to connect s> with 4= (of MT.).
NE. I, 2'. NEHEMIAH BECOMES GOVERNOR OF JUDAH.
1''"". Pilgrims from Judah bring tidings of the sad plight
of Jerusalem. — 1. The words of Nehemiah the son of Hachaliah].
This is a heading, like a title-page prefixed to any other book.
This was probably added by an editor when our books were
compiled. — And it was in the month Kislev, twentieth year],
Kislev is the 9th month in the Hebrew calendar (cf. Ezr.
10') = November-December (Zc. 7^ i Mac. i^^). "Twentieth
year" is defective, as there is no further definition; it is an
interpolation by the Chronicler. This date as well as that in
2^ were taken from 5^*. The date in 2^ is the ist month of the
20th year, therefore this must be the 19th year of Artaxerxes,
unless, as Wellhausen suggests, the year is reckoned after the
Syrian fashion as beginning in the autumn {Is.-Jud. Gesch}''^).
Susa or Shushan (Dn. 8^ Est. i^- ^) was the winter residence of the
Persian kings. We find a correct geographical note in a Greek
text, "Susa the metropolis of the Persians." This story opens,
therefore, like Ezra's, on foreign soil. The palace or royal castle
is added to define more closely the abode of Nehemiah. He was
at the palace in the city of Shusban, because he was a court
official (v. *''). — 2. And Hanani came in to me] "to me" being
rightly added from <B>. — One of my brethren] or one of my brothers.
"Brother" in OT. may denote one born of the same parents, a
more distant relative, a fellow-countryman, or even one bound
to another by a covenant. From the expression in 7^, " Hanani
my brother," it is likely that he was a near relative and may be
a literal brother. He went to Jerusalem with Nehemiah and
NEHEMIAH I 183
was placed in a position of trust by him. — He and men from
Judah]. Hanani apparently had not been in Judah himself,
but he had heard tidings from a company of returning pilgrims,
and had brought them to the cup-bearer, because of his high
position and commanding influence, as well as his known in-
terest in the welfare of Jerusalem. The visit was scarcely acci-
dental, and so Hanani deserves credit for starting the important
mission of Nehemiah. — And I asked them], not Hanani, but the
men from Judah. They had been introduced to him as return-
ing pilgrims and the question to them was natural. — Concerning
the Judeans, the remnant who have survived from the captivity, and
concerning Jerusalem]. The text is overloaded probably by a
gloss (the remnant). The implication is that those who had
survived the captivity were few in nvunber. The reference may
be either to those who had always remained in Judah, and so
support in a way the radical view that there was no return, or
to the small number who were left of those who had gone up
from Babylonia. It is probably a specific reference to those who
had gone up in the time of Artaxerxes (Ezr. 4^^) and who had
made a vain attempt to restore the walls. — 3. The survivors who
have survived from the exile there in the province]. For province
V. on Ezr. 2^. The particularity of these words supports the
view that Nehemiah has in mind those who had gone up to Jeru-
salem, otherwise "exile" would be strangely used as a note of
time. — Are in great distress and in contempt]. Nearly a century
after the decree of Cyrus, the condition of the people in Judah
was almost hopeless. They were few in number, at least in
Jerusalem, and were poor and oppressed. — And the wall of Jeru-
salem is breached and its gates have been burned with fire]. This
is said not to explain the distress of the people, but to reply to
the second part of Nehemiah's question. He had inquired
about the people and about the city. Both questions are an-
swered, but with singular brevity. Nehemiah may have only
recorded the substance of the report. It suffices, however, to
show that some great calamity had befallen the holy city. —
Breached or perhaps broken down] the word is too indefinite to
describe accurately the extent of damage to the walls.
184 EZRA-NEHEMIAH
To what catastrophe does this report refer? The great majority of
scholars have explained it as that of 586 B.C. Then the Bab. army-
broke down (rnj) the whole wall of Jerus. and burned (fins') the tem-
ple, the palace, and all the houses of the city (2 K. 25°'' Jer. ^q* .1^2 " 'â–
2 Ch. 36". The last clause Torrey regards as a gl. (ES.'»«), but it is
immaterial, for the city was pretty effectually destroyed, but there is
nothing said about the gates, though they must also have been burnt,
as that was the usual course in the destruction of a city. Yet a very
plausible description is found in Lam. 2\ "her gates are sunk into the
ground," implying that being made useless by the breaking of the walls
they were left to rot. These accounts are all manifestly dependent
upon a single source, for they all use the same words for "break down"
and "burn." Now in our text with "walls" we have the pred. rxiDC,
the only occurrence of the Pu., and strictly speaking the word means
breached. Little stress can be laid on that (against Sieg.), for in Is. 5"
and other places the same word seems to refer to complete destruction.
For the burning we have ns'' here and in 2" and '?3X in 2'- " instead of
r\•^'i^ in 2 K. That this story is not dependent, therefore, upon the his-
torical sources cited above is shown by the employment of different
words for the same act and by the silence in regard to the gates; and it
is to be noted that the burning of the gates is a prominent feature of
this narrative.
Neh. is deeply affected by the tidings about Jerus. He makes no
reference to what was said about the people, but the destruction of
Jerus. depresses him deeply. He weeps, fasts, and prays for days and
nights, and even after three months is unable to control his distress
when in the presence of the king and when his depression is perilous to
himself. The query insistently arises whether he would have been so
distressed by hearing of a calamity which had occurred one hundred and
fifty years before. Kost. explains his distress as due to the continued
dispersion of Israel (Wied.^ f), but this scholar lays too much stress
upon the prayer, which is not authentic, and too little upon undis-
puted facts. Neh.'s work was the rebuilding of the city, not the gath-
ering of the scattered exiles. Furthermore, when he asked the pilgrims
about the condition of Jerus. it is most unnatural that their sole report
should be a description of a condition which had stood unchanged for a
century and a half. That might have been a true account, but it could
scarcely be regarded as the latest news from the holy city. Suppose
Neh. as ignorant of Judean conditions as we may, it is incredible that
he should be unaware of Nebuchadrezzar's destruction of the walls.
We might find an explanation by supposing that there was an expec-
tation that the walls and gates had been restored, and the grief of
Neh. would then be due to his disappointment that such is not the
case. The report would then be tantamount to the statement that
nothing had yet been done. But tha languaje used forbids such an
NEHEMIAH I 185
interpretation, even if it would meet the case. The report is the wall
of Jerus. is breached and Us gates have been burned with fire. This news
is a great surprise to Neh. and is the most significant fact in the affairs
of Jerus. The conditions require a recent calamity, not one of one
hundred and fifty years' standing.
Therefore we must suppose that since 536 B.C. the walls had been
restored in some sort of way and new gates set in place. On a priori
grounds such a movement is highly prob. For the people had been
able to build ceiled houses for themselves (Hg. i^, and had restored the
temple. Without walls the city would be at the mercy of any maraud-
ing band of hostile neighbours. We are not left to conjecture, how-
ever, for we have exact information in Ezr. 4'-", where there is a clear
account of an attempt to rebuild the walls of Jerus. Neh. knew of
that expedition and was anxiously awaiting news of the accomplish-
ment of its supreme purpose. Hanani fell in with some pilgrims who
had Just come back from Judah, and took them to his influential and
patriotic brother. From them Neh. learned of the disastrous failure
of the expedition. It was natural that he should be surprised and de-
pressed.
4. And when I had heard these words I sat down atid wept].
That was the immediate result of the surprise and disappoint-
ment in regard to affairs at Jerusalem. As Nehemiah's distress
was too great to be relieved by one outburst of tears, we have
the description of continued action: and I mourned for days [de-
noting an' indefinite period] and [during those days] / was fast-
ing and praying before the God of heaven]. On the God of heaven
V. Ezr. i^- 6-11 ».
Nehemiah's prayer. — 5. Yahweh the great and terrible God],
for which (^ reads the mighty, the great and the terrible, usual attri-
butes of the God of heaven, v. 4* 9'^. Yahweh occurs nowhere
in N. — Keeping the covenant and mercy] joins incongruous ideas;
for the first clause means being faithful to an agreement made
with the nation. We should expect a word like "showing"
before "mercy." But we find "keep mercy" in Ps. 89^^. On
the nature of "mercy" v. Bennet, Post-Ex. Pr.^^ '-. The
phrase is a hackneyed one and is of Deuteronomic origin (Dt.
79- 12 I K. 8^ Dn. 9<). The whole verse is found in the last-
named passage with very slight differences. It appears to be a
stereotyped form of prayer. — 6. Let now thy ears be attentive]
called by Sieg. "a special Nehemian formula," on the basis of
1 86 EZRA-NEHEMIAH
V. ". But we find the expression in Solomon's prayer, 2 Ch. 6^
Ps. 130^ (also a prayer). — And thine eyes open] cf. i K. S^^- ^^
2 Ch. 6^0 715. Here again we have the stock phrases of prayer.
— Which I am praying before thee to-day, day and night]. The
participle denotes continuous action in harmony with v. * and
with "day and night"; but "to-day" would mean a specific
time. The text seems to be original, but we may suspect the
Chronicler's hand. — And making confession of the sins of the sons
of Israel which they have sinned against thee]. The text has
"we" as subject of "have sinned," but with (^ and U we must
read "they." Confession was a typical part of the Hebrew
prayers, and indeed is a part of the true prayers of all worship-
pers. — And I and the house of my father have sinned]. From this
statement Nehemiah's Davidic descent has been inferred. Such
a conclusion is not improbable, as the sin of his house is sep-
arated from that of the people generally. That relationship
would explain his interest in Judah and his sense of responsibil-
ity. The view has other support (cf. note on 2^). The sin is the
general disregard of the law of God, going back through past
centuries and extending down to the present. To this long-
standing wickedness is ascribed the present unhappy failure to
restore the walls and thus make Jerusalem a city capable of
defence against her neighbours. — 7. We have acted very cor-
ruptly against thee], a general positive statement, followed by
the negative and more specific: and we have not kept the command-
ments and the statutes and the judgments [typical Deuteronomic
words] which thou didst command Moses thy servant]. Moses is
very often called the servant of God (Jos. i pass, i K. 8^^- ^ and
cf. further in Ryle). — 8. Saying] would properly introduce a
direct quotation from the words of Moses. The alleged quota-
tion extends through v. ^^. But these words are not found in
the Pentateuch. Nevertheless the phrases are mostly Deuter-
onomic. The passage from which this is mainly drawn is Dt.
30I-5, not 2920 ff-, as Sieg. says. But the passage in Dt. has
nothing in it about transgressing; it presupposes the exile as a
punishment for sin, and deals with the repentance of Israel and
the consequent restoration of the exiles to the land of their
NEHEMIAH I 187
fathers, making them greater than they had ever been before;
therefore the passage must be exilic. — If you transgress, I will
scatter you among the nations]. The threat of dispersion is fre-
quent in the pre-exilic literature: Dt. 4^^ (the same words, but
in third person with Yahweh as subject) 28" Je. 9^^ Ez. ii^^
et pass. — 9. // you return unto me and keep my commandments
and do them], the first part of the conditional sentence, contain-
ing the protasis. Returning to God and keeping his command-
ments are not the same thing, as Ryle states; the latter is the
result of the former. — Though your banishment be in the end of
heaven], taken verbatim from Dt. 30* except "thy" becomes
"your." Some mss. of dl hsLvefrom the end of heaven to the end
of heaven, i. e., from one end of heaven to the other, as Dt, 4^^
(but not Ju. 7" which Ryle cites). In Dt, 28^* we have the more
appropriate idea: "Yahweh will scatter thee among the nations
from one end of the earth to the other end of the earth," Heaven
cannot be right. It is true that it is conceived possible for a
man to climb up to heaven (Am. 9^), but that is the bold flight
of the prophet, while our passage is intensely literal, — Then
comes the apodosis: From there I will gather you and bring you
in]. We must read "you" instead of "them," as Dt. 30* and
some Greek texts and H. — Unto the place], but Dt. 30^ has "unto
the land." Here the reference is to the city. — Where I have
elected to cause my name to dwell] is a frequent Deuteronomic
description of Jerusalem, Dt. 12" 14^2 J56. n 26^ 4- fifteen times.
The phrase is not found elsewhere in the Pentateuch. — 10.
And these are thy servants and thy people]. "These" would refer
to the Jews struggling in Jerusalem; but the whole verse is a
loose quotation from Dt. g^^: "and these are thy people and thy
inheritance whom thou broughtest out with thy great power and
with thy outstretched arm." The words differ slightly, but
the sense is the same. — Mighty hand] occurs in Dt. many times;
so does redeem. (I gives a different turn, we are thy servants
and thy people. — 11". The prayer returns to supplication and
repeats in part v. ^ (& adds a clause: do not turn away thy face.
— And unto the prayer of thy servants] implies that others than
Nehemiah joined in his prayers. The following paradoxical
l88 EZRA-NEHEMIAH
clause who delight to fear thy name] requires some such antecedent
as (& provides. But there is no hint of any other supplicant. —
And prosper, I pray, thy servant this day, and grant him compas-
sion before this man]. These words have a genuine ring and,
unlike the rest of the prayer, they have something to do with
the case in hand. But they have no relation to the preceding
passage, which was a lament over Israel's unhappy condition.
The words show that the supplicant has a definite purpose in
hand, and that he was about to make some request from the
king. Artaxerxes is called "this man," a use absolutely inex-
plicable as the connection stands, for the king has not been
mentioned, and he certainly was not present, as the words im-
ply. But we can easily put this clause in its right place. In
2* we have I prayed unto the God of heaven. That was a critical
moment, and the prayer in v. " is in part exactly appropriate to
that situation {v. i. 2^).
The authenticity of Neh.^s prayer. — Neh. was certainly much given to
prayer. Doubtless he offered many prayers during the three months
between his receipt of the bad report from Jerus. and his official audi-
ence with the king. But it is difficult to believe that we have in vv. '-'"
the words he used. There are favourite words of the Chr. like hyv,
V. ', and the whole prayer is made up of passages and phrases from Dt^
It is true that in Christian praying there is an unhappy tendency to
use stock and hackneyed expressions, and so the resemblance of this
prayer to others in the OT. may not justify suspicion. But Neh. was
not a common man, and would be unlikely to use such phrases. His
memoirs show a peculiar, clear, succinct, and business-like style, and
this prayer has no traces whatever of his hand. We must regard the
prayer vv. '-" and part of v. " as the compilation of the Chr. It is in-
deed perfectly possible that the Chr. has worked over a brief prayer
found in N., since "I and the house of my fathers have sinned" is ap-
parently genuine. But the Chr. has wrested v. >' from its true connec-
tion, and he may have composed the whole passage. It is true that even
the most radical scholars have not questioned this passage. Torrey, for
example, says: "C. i Ne. [the Chr.] seems to have left untouched"
(Comp.">). Mitchell, by no means radical, does doubt its authenticity
(JBL. 1903,")- But I cannot believe that the striking similarity in
ideas and phrases between this prayer on the one hand and Ezra's
(Ezr. 9« f •) and Daniel's (Dn. g* ^■) on the other can be explained on the
theory of Nehemian authorship. Moreover, "i" joins very well to v. *.
NEHEMIAH I 1 89
If Neh. recorded his prayer at all, it has been so elaborately worked over
that the original cannot be recovered. Whoever composed the prayer
either had Dt. before him, or knew it by heart.
Note. Esd. fails us for Ne. {cxc. 8'-^^) and consequently our sources for
textual criticism are comparatively poor.- — 1. r\''h:ir\\ XeXxei'a'', XeXxt'ou^
(n>|-)Sn), KxoCkici.^^. — iVdd] only elsw. Zc. 7>, SexsTjXou^, xa<'£T]^o^*,
XaaaXeui-; Bab. loan-word kislivu QBL. 1892,"', ZA. ii,"»). — m-'jn] is
applied to the temple (i Ch. 291- ", v. i. 2*). It may come from As.
btrtu or Pers. bura. The Greeks did not understand it, and so trans-
literated a^etpi^, d^eippi^, Tf] ^dcpet^. — 2. N3''i] + icphq yl^ = iSn, a
good reading. — min-'!:] (S^ax 'lo6Sa, but the prep, is better. — omnin]
lacking in (l'^*^. A better text would be obtained by omitting naiSfl,
which might easily be an explanatory gl. — 3. ^MiVl itpx] lacking in
CS"^; it is better omitted, as such overloading is more characteristic of
the Chr. than of N. — n;;i2] CS^=< has a blundering dup., Iv xoXst [t'>'3]
Iv TCovT]pt'(jc; Iv xotxoiq'^. The use of the ptc. nsiBD followed by pf. mxj is
apparently accidental, as there is no difference in time intended. The
only distinction we can make is that the one describes an existent con-
dition: the wall is breached, and the other a past act: the gates have
been burned with fire. — 4. In sense the v. divides at ijaxi ; the con-
struction has misled the Massorites. — a"'D"'] if ^iLipaiq xoXkodq^, diebus
multis U; this may be a free rendering, as it gives the correct idea
(BDB. 5. ».).— 5. Snh] (g 6 layugic,, H /or/w.— iDn] CS^x ^^ g^g^^ ^^^^
e. aixoO^. Elsw. we find nonn (Dt. 7' Dn. 9^). — 6. naa'p] occurs elsw.
only in v. ". Rd. T\^2vp T'JTx] (Guthe) so (S^ Tci wTdt aou Tcpoalxovra, H
aures tuae ausciiltantes. — UNoni] <S^ i^^jiapTov, H peccaverunt ; rd. ixan.
— 7. "j^n] inf. cstr.; but used as absolute. (S^^^ renders BtaXuaet,
yi.axatdjaei'^. Kittel suggests Pi., or ijSi;? hr;. — n"?] om. CS^ Ivaoi^. — ^^2J?]
(g TcatSf, so V. «, but elsw. BoOXo?, H famido. — 8. i3"in] (gi- Tbv Xd^ov
aou. — h';-sr\ dhn], 05 has edv, ^ adds (jt.ot = iS, which might easily have
dropped after iV. Guthe inserts ds after anx, but a conditional sen-
tence in Heb. may dispense with the part. Ges,^ ""«'. — 9. DDmj] (S^- Btaa-
Tpoiff), but ^^^' Staaxopdc, which becomes a technical word and is taken
over into English, the diaspora = the scattering of the Jews among the
nations. It is better with (S to give the word an abstract sense, "ban-
ishment," rather than "banished ones." — d^duti] CS^n ^.dd I'co? fixpou tou
oupavoO = DiDcn nxp ny. This may be implied also in ^^^ which has
for T\-^P'2 dx' axpoLt = nxpn. — aS3|ivs] (^"^ auvi^w h^aq, H congregabo vos ;
rd. therefore 03T£3|1N and on the same grounds: os^nxon. — 10. am] (g^
yux\ vOv ■fjyLel? = unj nnyi. — inay] ^ has here luafSe?. — 11a. (6^^ has a
plus after •'Jix, jji'f] IxtaTpitpTQc; rb ■jcp6ffwx6v aou. — ^'^3l•] <g^ tou Xaou aou,
and so having: the prayer of thy people and the prayer of thy servants
which corresponds to we are thy servants and thy people of v. " and
makes Neh. pray in a representative sense.
19© EZRA-NEHEMIAH
j^iib 29, Nehemiah's depression was observed by the
king; its cause is ascertained; and the cup-bearer is granted
leave of absence and authority to rebuild Jerusalem. — 11''.
Now I was one of the king^s cupbearers] two texts of d have
eunuchs. Whatever the text may have been, it is not improb-
able that Nehemiah was eunuch as well as butler {v. Sta. BT.^^).
Graetz supposes Ps. 127 to be directed against him, to which
Is. 5^ might be a reply (Berth.). The office of butler was
honourable and lucrative at an Oriental court {DB. i,^^^). In-
deed, in almost any court the most menial duties were performed
by the nobility. Piers Gaveston, son of a Gascon knight, was
made royal bootjack to Edward I, an office for which men of
the highest birth were pining (Andrew Lang, Century, Oct.
1907).
This section begins exactly as the first part of N. (lO now I was, etc.
These words belong to the narrative in c. 2. They explain how Neh.
obtained his audience with the king in the regular course of his duties;
months of waiting intervened, however; therefore it is unlikely that he
was the chief butler. It appears that his personal attendance upon
the king was but infrequent. This fact lends support to the notion
that he was a eunuch and so a general servant of the court. The words
are more closely connected with 2^^, and the intervening date is due
to the Chr., who has borrowed it from 5". Following MT. we must
connect thus: "I was one of the royal butlers, and in the month Nisan
of King Art.'s 20th year, the wine was given to me, and I took up the
wine and gave it to the king."
II. 1. Nisan] was the ist month. Since Artaxerxes reigned
464-424, his 20th year would be 444 B.C. — Wine was before me].
So we must read with (^. Before him of 1^ is contrary to fact, as
the following statements show. — And I took up the wine and
gave it to the king]. The wine was placed in Nehemiah's hands
by the chief butler, and he took it up and carried it to the king.
If ^ were right the meaning would be that the scene opened in
the royal presence.
The EV^. have tried to make black white by rendering the next
clause, "now I had not been beforetime sad in his presence." But
on what ground can we import "beforetime," and thus make the words
imply the exact opposite of what they say? For the text says plainly
NEHEMIAH 2 IQI
I was not sad before him. This statement in turn is contradicted by the
king's question in v. ^ which shows that Neh. was depressed in spirit
and that the depression showed in his face. 05 reads and there was no
companion with him; but that is contrary to v. « unless we limit "com-
panion" to the sense of court ofl&cial. There is no difficulty if we
interpret the words correctly. In the subsequent narrative the ex-
pressions are : why is thy face sad ? why should my face not be sad ? but
"face" is lacking here, and the word for "sad" is slightly different.
In V.'' we have if thy servant is good before thee, i. e., is in favour. Here
we have the negative antithesis: / was not evil before him, i. e., not out
of favour with him, therefore Neh, had good hopes of a successful pre-
ferring of his request.
2. Why is your face sad?] The same question, in identical
words, was asked by Joseph of Pharaoh's eunuchs, the butler
and the baker, Gn. 40^. — Now thou art not sick; there is nothing
now except sadness of heart]. The' king's diagnosis is accurate
and penetrating. The servant shows by his appearance that
he has no physical disease, but the months of fasting, praying,
and worrying had left their indelible marks upon his face. The
trouble was accurately located in the mind, for the heart is
thus commonly used in Hebrew. Nehemiah's sufferings were
mental. — And I was very badly frightened]. Nehemiah had de-
sired an audience with the king, though he had not intended
to reveal his depressed spirits. But the consciousness of Jeru-
salem's woes, his own anxiety to secure favour from his royal
master, the natural embarrassment of the long-sought oppor-
tunity, made a bigger burden than he could carry in conceal-
ment. Now an Oriental monarch did not expect his servants
to carry their personal troubles to him or to reveal them in his
presence; indeed, very few people desire that of servants.
Nehemiah knew that summary action might be taken. He
might be punished, or, worse still, he might be banished from
the royal presence without an opportunity to prefer his request.
There was, therefore, abundant occasion for his fear. The king
would scarcely believe that "by sadness of face the heart is
made good" (Eccl. 7^). Nevertheless he did not allow his
emotions to destroy his privilege, but promptly and frankly
stated his case. — 3. May the king live forever]. This form of
192 EZRA-NEHEMIAH
greeting is found elsewhere only in Aramaic, Dn. 2* 3', and in
slightly different form in i K. i^K The usual greeting is "may
the king live." — Inasmuch as the city of the house of the graves
of my fathers lies waste and its gates have been consumed with fire],
"House" is lacking in v. ^ and may be dispensed with here also.
Nehemiah's statement is not quite the same in the first part as
that of the pilgrims, i^ They said "the wall is broken down,"
while Nehemiah says "the city lies waste." He wisely chose
a more general statement, for the mention of defensive walls
would not make a favourable impression upon the king, who a
few years before had ordered their restoration to stop. Nehe-
miah was patriotic and perhaps of the seed royal; his words here
indicate Davidic descent, for Jerusalem was particularly the
burying-ground of the kings. Therefore he could not be other
than sad in view of the desolation of Jerusalem. It is difficult
to think we must here presuppose a catastrophe 150 years old.
— 4. For what now dost thou make request?] The king's ques-
tion shows that the great moment had come. Artaxerxes dis-
closed an opening favourable to the patriot's purpose in that he
invited his servant to make known his plan to right the evil
conditions which lay so heavily upon his spirit. And I prayed
to the God of heaven]. Nehemiah was a devoutly religious man.
He believed strongly in the direct help of God at critical mo-
ments. He had now reached the supreme moment of his life.
Coolness and judgment were required on his part and sympathy
and kindness on the king's part. Before making his plea, he
pauses for a moment to invoke the interposition of God. His
prayer must have been very short, as the king would not brook
continued silence. The prayer is not given here, but, as shown
above, we have the very petition required in i", i. e., pros per y
I pray, thy servant this day, and give him pity before this man.
The use of the term "this man" is clear now, but incomprehen-
sible in connection with c. i {v. s.). — 5. That thou wilt let him
go to Judah, to the city of my fathers^ graves that I may rebuild it].
"Him" with (S and i" is better than "me" of 2^ after "thy
servant." The last clause "to the city," etc., is introduced for
more exact definition of his destination. Nehemiah's request is
NEHEMIAH 2 1 93
simply for leave of absence, and the purpose of the leave was
to rebuild the ruined city. He still says nothing about the
walls. The naming of the city as the place of his ancestors'
graves was to make an effective appeal to the king, as there was
then as now great regard for the abode of the dead. — 6. Now
the queen was sitting beside him]. It is pretty certain that
"queen" is not the right rendering; it is equally sure that the
exact meaning is unknown. It is probable that the name was
applied to a favourite member of the harem, denoting the one
who had the most dominating influence. Such situations have
been known at other courts.
(& and It were puzzled by the passage and render: Tlte king and the
queen who was silting by him said to me. Some scholars have emended
the text to conform to this idea. But the clause is manifestly paren-
thetical. This woman is not mentioned elsw. There is no hint that
she did or said anything. Yet the mention of her presence seems to be
genuine. One explanation offers itself readily. Neh. attributes, at
least in part, the gracious attitude of his sovereign to the presence of
this woman. Without her saying a word, the king was moved to show
the generous side of his character. But if Neh. owed anything to her
presence, a more appropriate place to mention her would have been at
the beginning or at the end of his story. Moreover, he would very
prob. have stated more exactly what her good offices were. Therefore
it may be that the suppliant sees in her presence an obstacle to his plans.
The king shows an interest in spite of the presence of this
woman. — For how long shall thy journey he? and when wilt thou
return?] RV. Then the king asks only a single question, re-
peating it in different words. That is improbable on the face
of it, though that rendering is generally accepted. The first
clause should read: at what time shall he thy departure? i. e., when
do you wish to start? Then we have the two salient points for
a leave of absence, the time of departure and the time of return.
— In v.*' the clauses have become inverted by an error of a copy-
ist. That will be made plain by restoring the right connection
and order thus: at what time shall he thy departure? and when
wilt thou return? Then I proposed to him a time. And it was
acceptable to the king, and he granted me leave]. The received
^3
194 EZRA-NEHEMIAH
text empties the passage of logical sense and has led to unneces-
sary emendation. According to 5^* it appears that Nehemiah
was appointed governor of Judah and that he was absent twelve
years. Berth, says, "v.® foresees no twelve years' absence."
That is true, but, on the other hand, as Nehemiah proposed to
rebuild the city he could not have asked for a very short leave.
If 5" is correct it is easy to suppose that Nehemiah secured from
time to time an extension of his leave, a course by no means
uncommon.
7-9 '^ is accepted as genuine by most scholars, but the whole pas-
sage as it stands has been so changed by the Chr. that one can pick out
but little of the original. 9^ comes badly after 9", which describes the
arrival in Syria, and puts the cart before the horse. The leave car-
ried with it ample authority to pass through Syria, esp. to one with
an armed escort. Torrey rejects the whole (see his arguments from
the language, CompJ'). Winckler regards a part of the passage as
genuine, but his criticism does not go to the root of the matter. In
Neh.'s own account there is no reference to this grant exc. in v. ',
where it is unnecessary. There is buried in the passage, however, an
important bit of information for which v. i.
7. And I said to the king]. Nehemiah would have deferen-
tially shown that he was making a supplementary request, such
as we find in Gn. iS^' "â– ; the Chronicler was not so tactful.
— That they will let me pass through until I shall come into Judah].
The idea of the writer is that the Syrian satraps would have
barred even the king's servant unless he were armed with a
proper passport. — 8. Asaph the keeper of the king^s park]. Who
Asaph was we do not know, but v. i. The name is Hebrew, but
Nehemiah would not be likely to know the name of such an
official in Syria. The Persian king would scarcely have a park
in Palestine, and if he did, it would scarcely be the scene of
extensive lumbering. Smith is content with saying we do not
know where this park was {Jer. 1,^0 • Asaph was to furnish
timber for three purposes: (i) To make beams for the gates of
the castle of the house]. The hirah or castle here, says Torrey,
means "the fortified enclosure of the temple" (Comp.^^). But
such an enclosure did not exist at this time, and the Chronicler
NEHEMIAH 2 t95
uses birah for the temple itself (i Ch. 29^- ^^). Perhaps we
should read the casUe, which is the temple, or the gates which
appertain to the temple. (2) For the wall of the city]. The walls
were built of stone, and the idea of beams seems to be due
entirely to the Chronicler, It is unlikely that Nehemiah would
have mentioned the "walls," but the Chronicler liked to see
his characters clothed with ample and specific authority. (3)
And for the house which I shall enter]. As Nehemiah's declared
purpose was to rebuild the city, he is here by the Chronicler's
hand removed rather far from his design, — 9. The first half
of the verse relates Nehemiah's arrival before the governors
beyond the river and the presentation of his credentials. Then
the memoirs are reached again, but the construction forbids
rendering as a circumstantial clause as EV^.; it is a straight-
forward narrative: and the king sent with me army officers and
horsemen]. In the Chronicler's arrangement this follows the
arrival in Syria. Ezra at a later time felt the need of an armed
escort {v. S^^)^ but he had forestalled such an aid by his religious
protestations. Nehemiah had no such scruples. The mention
of officers and cavalry indicates that the guard was of con-
siderable size. The dangers of the journey were doubtless very
real. We have not a word about the trip. The patriot was
not concerned about a history of his travels, but only about
the work to be done in Jerusalem. ,
lib. npcn] eOvoCixoi;^^', o!vo%6o<;^, pincerna IT. The first is prob.
a confusion within (&, on account of the similarity of words,' as we
could hardly explain a change from cno. On the syntax, v. Ges-^'^'".
na^pD is really a ptc. and means "one who gives drink." In the sense
of "butler" it is used only here and in the story of Joseph (Gn. 40/.).
— ^n. 1. p'j] Est. 3't, often in later Heb.; from Bab. nisdnu. The old
Heb. name is 3>3n. — Vioh^] (g'^Ax |v(ixtov e[xoCi, rd. with Kittel, et al.
'JB*?. — For tnj] in this sense v. Gn. 40". — vjisS^]. To get the accepted
meaning Kittel reads dijcS, so Kent. But we should require "ijo vn as
vv. 'f-. The text is good, but it has not been correctly interpreted.
— J7"il is antithetic to aaii in v. ^ and means "in disfavour." (6 gets an
entirely different sense: â– ^v l-repog = y_-\ n>n; that is difficult to reconcile
with V. «, and is unnecessary. But see my note in Guthe,". (S^^ adds
xotl i]iJLir)v axuOpwxd?, and I was of a sad countenance, lacking nS, but
this is a dup. — 2. j?nc] cf. Gn. 40' D'lyi D31J0 ync, and a^jo in Eccl. 7',
196 EZRA-NEHEMIAH
— nSin] d^AN ^l,ex(n&'Cfx)V, a. X. in 05. This gives a different sense: why
is ihyface sad and thou art not composed? This is an interesting variant,
but ^ is prob. correct. — ^S y-\] in i S. 17=' 33"? jji means "badness of
heart," "evil purpose": "sadness of heart" is aS-naxp (Prov. 15"),
aS-njjn (Lam. 3«5). 05^^^' renders aij,n and >n colourlessly by xovT]p6v
and xovTQpfa; ^ with better discrimination by axuOpwxdv and Xfiiaj.
The context fixes the mng. here, and "sadness" is the right idea. —
3. nin""] (5 !^TQT(i). We should rd. â– 'n> as in other cases of this greeting, i S.
10" I K. I""-. — 1;?^^] Ges.^". (S^^^' adhere to xovT3p6v, (&^ cxuYvdast.
nij does not recur in v. ' and is doubtful here, needlessly cumbering the
text. — nnap] CS^'An [j.viq[X£(wv, so v. ", Ticpwv^. — nann] corresponds to
nsiDD in I' as iSss' to inxj. — 4. cpa] in the sense of requesting is found
only in late Heb. (v. BDB. for references). — 5. 05^ has a plus after i'jxn :
lxfoTa[i.at Tbv paatXia (iYaG6v. xaL — 6. SjS'] is a difficult word. Haupt
says it is identical with As. 'sigrdti, "ladies of the harem" (Guthe,")-
Lagarde also calls it a loan-word. In Heb. there is a vb., hxv "to
ravish," which became so obscene that the Massorites everywhere sub-
stituted i^c. On this account a similarity of root is denied. But we
have no business to resort to As. loan-words without exhausting the
Heb. first. For Neh. uses good Heb. words. He could not have been
ignorant of such common terms as nsSs or nni^j. We must remember
that words used for delicate purposes tend to take on an indecent
character. AV. teems with words which were seemly in 161 1, but which
cannot properly be rd. now to a mixed congregation. We find the
word in Aram., Dn. 52- 3 "^ followed by "concubines," and therefore
"wives" might be the sense intended. Behrmann refers to Ct. 6',
where we have "wives, concubines and maidens without number," and
so the passage proves too much. In Heb. many scholars following
Ew. substitute ^iv for SSc in Ju. s'», in which case it would mean a
captive woman added to Sisera's harem. But Nowack objects to the
insertion of a late word into one of the oldest Heb. poems. We have
then only Ps. 45", where unhappily we have a corrupt text and a dub.
mng. It is uncertain whether the words are applied to the king or to
the bride. See Br.^^. It is clear that if Sja* means the bride the art.
is required; if it refers to the bride's maid it is hard to see why she
should be arrayed in "gold of Ophir." Perhaps the maid stands at the
bride's side "with gold of Ophir" for the queen. Further the address
to the bride begins at v. » not at v. ". Finally <& renders xaXXi^xTr] here
and in Dn. It appears impossible to get the mng. queen for this word.
It is very likely that it indicates a mere member of the harem. But
we cannot define it exactly. — It is unnecessary to prefix art. to nat^v]
with Guthe, as that would change the sense. 05 has it, but that is never
decisive. — td ny] @**^ have one additional question: Yva t( xiBirjaat
top' I[xo[; but it offers no help, and it not very intelligible.— i^n::]
means journey without doubt, but as "t^^ means go the subst. may
NEHEMIAH 2 1 97
surely mean going, starling, and so departure, the sense required here.
— pi] means a fixed or suitable time, or season. Here it involves a
reply to both of the king's questions, a time to go and a time to come
back. Winckler emends last clause to pr iS p^i (Alt. Forsch-xv,*"");
but that was due to a misunderstanding of the passage (v. s.). — 7. Mn^]
(& S6t(»), "B del., both attest sg. and understand the king as subj. —
8. DTi£3] Ct. 4" Eccl. 25f, a loan-word from Zend and carried over into
English "paradise." The word does not apply to a forest for lumber-
ing, but to a preserve. The expression dtia las' can no more be due to
the Chr. than to Neh. There is an important reading in (§i^^ which
as so often elsw. has escaped the attention of scholars. The text runs :
Affaipar Tbv (juXdiaaovTa liq ri]j.i6vouq toO ^aatXea)? xal xbv -nrapiSetaov 8?
IffTc Tw paatXsI. The illumination appears when we put this back
into Heb.: iSd*? t^n Dniflni ^Scn mfl ids' idn. It appears that we
have a dup. for D^^a and iz)'''\-^s have evidently been confused. Now
keeper of the royal mules has a true ring, but this officer would have been
in Pers., not in Syria. Neh. would have had little use for mules after
reaching his destination. It is not unlikely that the Chr. has hope-
lessly obscured a genuine part of N. in which he described his outfit
and to which v. '*• would be an appropriate conclusion. Out of the
present confusion we may extract the following and pretty confidently
labelitN.: anifln -\r:y riDX-Vx mjN (v. st) iSy navjjn inSN—cs iScn ■•S ]nii
•>S jr.> ns'X iSdS t^x. Then we can easily conjecture that the actual
grant was mules for the caravan, but the Chr. has corrupted it to
timber for building. Directly following the leave of absence, the pas-
sage originally continued : and the king gave to me, according to the good
hand of God upon me, a letter to Asaph the keeper of the king's mtdes who
gave to me [animals for the journey]. And the king sent with me army
officers and cavalry. Neh. rode a mule on the night journey described
in the section following. — nnp] is regarded by Torrey as a word char-
acteristic of the Chr. {Comp.^^). — rr^aS la'N mian nyii']. OJBA iias only
Ti? xuXac;. n-|i3 and ni3 are syn. and we should rd. either non "is^x, a
note explaining the unusual nni^n, or ni^S -wh Dn;;2'n, to which r\^'<27\
is a gl. The mng. would then be the gates -which appertain to the tem-
ple, to distinguish them from the city gates. Torrey implies that (S's
omission was due to the difficulty, and he notes only the omission of
n-|i3 {op. cit.). But he sees in the passage only the Chr.'s hand, and
not the additional corruption of an origuial text.
10-20. In this section we have two distinct subjects: (i)
The opposition of Sanballat, Tobiah, and Geshem, vv. ^^- ^^ '-.
(2) Nehemiah's secret inspection of the ruined walls of Jerusa-
lem, vv. "-^^ There is no need further to confuse this material
igS EZRA-NEHEMIAH
by dividing the chapter at the end of v. ^, as most scholars still
do, following the wrong guidance of <S.
10. Sanballai the Horonite]. The name is Babylonian, but
it does not follow that the man was of that race, as Sieg. holds.
Among the subject peoples we naturally find Babylonian names.
Sanballat is named often in Ne. v. ^^ 333 4I 51. 2. 5. 12. u 1328^
always as an inveterate enemy. The epithet "Horonite" is
found in but three of the above-named places; it would natu-
rally mean an inhabitant of Beth-horon, a town or two neigh-
bouring towns of Ephraim. But Winckler holds that since
Tobiah was an Ammonite, Sanballat must be located in Horon
in Moab (Alt. Forsch. xv,^^^ «•). The Elephantine documents,
however, show that Sanballat was governor of Samaria, hence
the former place is meant. — Tobiah the slave, the Ammonite]
V. 19 3^^ 41 6^- "• "• "• " 13^- ^- 8 f. This whole expression recurs
in V. 19; in 3^^ we have Tobiah the Ammonite; elsewhere Tobiah
alone. He has been identified with Tabeel of Ezr. 4^ by Van
Hoonacker (Sac. Zet;."^). The names are similar, one meaning
"God is good," the other "Yahweh is good"; but Tobiah is
Hebrew, while Tabeel, as in Is. 7^, is Aramaic; but, as Tabeel has
been shown to belong to the reign of Xerxes, the identification
is difficult, as the letter to Xerxes was written forty years be-
before Nehemiah's advent in Jerusalem. Slave is added as a
term of opprobrium. Tobiah was very probably a slave of the
Persian king who had risen to a position of consequence (Kue.
Abh.^^). Noldeke holds that a true Ammonite could not have
borne the name Tobiah; but Torrey rightly says that we do not
know enough about true Ammonites to draw such conclusions
(ES.i^*). Delitzsch suggests that the name is evidence of the
worship of Yahweh by other peoples (Wo lag das Paradies,^^^).
— It was evil to them with a great evil]. The text may be wrong,
but the sense is not affected. The meaning is that it was
a very great evil to these enemies of the Jews. — That a man
had come to seek good for the sons of Israel]. These words make
us suspect that the verse is either due to the Chronicler or is
misplaced. Nehemiah's arrival at Jerusalem is chronicled in
V. ". It may further be doubted whether Nehemiah would have
NEHEMIAH 2 1 99
used the impersonal phrase "a man had come." Further, Ne-
hemiah does not describe his mission in such general terms as
we find here. His purpose was very specific. The enemies of
Israel, according to this verse, had heard of his arrival before
his actual advent, and they knew the object of his mission.'
But Nehemiah keeps his purpose a secret even from his fellow-
Israelites.— 12. After three days {cf. Ezr. 8^*) spent in resting
from the journey and in sheltering his companions, Nehemiah
starts out on his famous night ride.
On which v. GAS. Jer. Sta. Gesch. ii,»", JBL. 1896,1", and the map
in Kent's Hist. Biog. Nar.^*\ and esp. Mitchell, JBL. 1903," ff-, who
has made the most elaborate attempt to follow the course of Neh.'s
wall.
/ arose at night, I and a few men with me]. Secrecy was the
design, therefore the inspection was made by night (though
there is doubt about this term; v. v. ^^), and with but a few at-
tendants. These were probably servants who would have no
idea of the object in view, or a selected body, including Hanani,
who could be trusted. — And I had not made known to any man
what my God was putting in my heart to do for Jerusalem]. ^
lacks "my" before "God," and that may be right. The par-
ticiple "was putting" suggests that Nehemiah had reached
a definite purpose only since his arrival at Jerusalem. God
is conceived as the author of all good thoughts (Sta. BT.^^^).
For Jerusalem may be contrasted with for the sons of Israel in
V. ^°. — And there was no animal with me except that upon which
I was riding a further indication that his attendants were ser-
vants, perhaps Persians. If all the company had been mounted
it would have been more likely to attract attention. The ani-
mal was probably one of the mules which Nehemiah had brought
from Persia {v. s. v. ^). — 13. And I went out at the valley gate] to
which by night is needlessly added from v. ^2. The valley gate
(v. ^^ 3" 2 Ch. 26®) is the gate leading to the valley of Hinnom
(on which v. GAS. Jer. i,"^ ^- "® ^■), and on the western wall
of Jerusalem. The corresponding modem entrance is the Jaffa
gate {v. Ryle's note). — And unto the mouth of the dragon-spring],
200 EZRA-NEHEMIAH
or according to some texts of ^, the fig-spring. This spring is
not mentioned elsewhere and cannot be identified. "Towards"
(RV.) is not correct. Nehemiah means that in going from the
valley gate he passed the outlet of this spring. The water,
therefore, must have emerged just outside of the ruined wall,
— And unto the dung gate] 31^ f- 1221 f, the gate out of which the
refuse of the city was carried and so might better be called the
garbage gate. It was probably the southern outlet. — And I
was inspecting the wall of Jerusalem which had been pulled down,
and its gates had been burned by fire]. All or at least a part of
the clause is an addition by R. The repetition interrupts the
succinct story of the ride.
14. And I passed along unto the fountain gate] 3^^ 12". This
gate was probably at the eastern side of the Tyropoeon valley.
— And unto the king's pool], identified with the pool of Siloam,
perhaps because of Hezekiah's famous tunnel, or, as Ryle says,
"because it adjoined the king's garden." — And there was no
place for the animal to pass under me]. This is hard to under-
stand; EV. the beast that was under me is based on U cut sede-
ham, but cannot be fairly taken from the text. Sieg. interprets
"under me" as meaning "so long as I sat thereon," indicating
a "low bridge." However pregnant the sense of Tinn may be,
it is doubtful if that interpretation does not stretch its meaning.
■— ^The narrative makes a break at this place. Nehemiah had
been following the course of the wall and now goes up a valley.
It would be natural to suppose that he reached a point beyond
which exploration was impossible. But as the mule could go
almost any place a pedestrian could, it is far from clear why he
describes the obstacle in this way. — 15. And I was going up the
wady by night and I was inspecting the wall]. The participial
construction does not connect well with the preceding. There
is nothing except the doubtful phrase in v. ^^ to indicate that
his going up the valley was due to the impossibility of con-
tinuing his direct course. Some texts of ^ have / was going
up by the wady wall, the wall along the valley, and thus suita-
bly introducing the statement about the inspection. — The last
clause is best rendered and I came in again by the valley gate],
NEHEMIAH 2 201
the same place at which he had started. (I has an interesting
variant : and I was at the wady gate ; and I went hack and entered
through the valley gate. It does not, however, clear up the dif-
ficulties of Nehemiah's tour of inspection. This verse is in
large part a repetition; ''I was inspecting the wall" is needless
after v. ^^.
The passage vv. "-'^ is very perplexing. The taking of the trip by
night is explained almost too easily by the necessity of secrecy. In
the first place, Neh. discloses his purpose immediately upon his return
from his ride. At that time there was a large company of nobles,
pr. d al. gathered. Was this early in the morning or still at night ?
Then if it was dark enough to screen the party from observation, it
would surely be too dark to make a satisfactory investigation of the
condition of the walls. The examination might have been made in
the daytime without unmasking the object. He could have deter-
mined the condition of the walls sufficiently without actually travers-
ing the course of the wall. By night recurs three times in the passage,
and everywhere is loosely thrown in. It may be that the phrase was
added by an editor, who deemed it an essential part of the secret pur-
pose of the trip.
16. Now the guards did not know where I had gone nor what I
was doing]. Our text has rulers, but guards as ^ is better.
Rulers recurs in v.** and would not stand in both places. Nehe-
miah had kept his course secret from the watchmen, though
they must have witnessed his departure and return. Perhaps
we have thus the explanation of his coming back through the
same gate by which he had gone out, as that would prevent
their suspecting his real itinerary. — And to the Judeans and to
the priests and to the Levites and to the officers and to the rest doing
the work I had as yet not made known] supply what I was about
to do from v.". "Levites" is substituted for "nobles" on the
basis of ^. Still we cannot lay too much stress on the text, as
it plainly betrays retouching by the Chronicler. Nehemiah
often uses the phrase "nobles and deputies" (on these offi-
cials V. Mey. £w/.i32. i84^ qAS. Jer. i,^^^), but he would not say
"and the rest doing the work," as that is anticipating. This
phrase in Ezr. 3* is used of the temple-builders; here it refers
to the wall-builders and is due to the Chronicler. Nehemiah's
202 EZRA-NEHEMIAH
phrase is "the nobles and deputies and the rest of the people"
(4^-"). "Judeans" here would include all the other classes.
The fact is again emphasised that Nehemiah had not yet dis-
closed the object of his mission even to the highest official
classes. Until he was ready for action, the objective point
would not be revealed. — 17. In some way not explained there
had now gathered about the new envoy a body of officials and
others, and for the first time he makes known the secret of his
coming to Jerusalem. First, he arouses their appreciation of
the unhappy condition of affairs: you perceive the evil state we
are in, in that Jerusalem lies a waste and its gates are burned with
fire]. This is the oft-repeated description based on i^. Then
follows the exhortation to act: come and let us build the wall of
Jerusalem and we shall be a reproach no longer]. The returning
pilgrims had told Nehemiah at the beginning that the Jews
were in contempt, i'. So long as the city was unprotected by
walls they must remain the butt and scorn of their neighbours.
— 18. The rebuilding of the walls of Jerusalem was a big under-
taking. Nehemiah was no near-sighted fanatic going to war
without reckoning the cost. He did not desire to kindle an
enthusiasm quick to begin and soon to end. He proposed to
carry the project to its conclusion. Therefore he now discloses
two facts which were the foundation of his confidence. First,
he tells them how God had at every point opened the way before
him; and second, how he was supported by the authority of the
king. In his record, though, he does not put down what he
said, for that would be a resume of 1^2^; he gives only the sub-
ject of his address: and I revealed to them the hand of my God, that
it had been favorable towards me, and also the words of the king
which he had spoken to me]. The sense in which Nehemiah uses
hand of God becomes clear now; it is guidance rather than power,
as BDB.'^^ God had led him to the king's presence at a fa-
vourable moment, had moved the king to note his depression,
had caused him to speak the right words to move the king, and
had induced Artaxerxes to comply with all his requests. — The
rest of the verse is diflScult, and we have many readings. MT.
has: and they said, we will up and build; and they strengthened
NEHEMIAH 2 203
their hands for good], making this the favourable response of the
nobles and people to Nehemiah's plea. In Ci» and H we find:
and I said, let us up and build; and their hands were strengthened
for good; or: and these said to me, we will up and build, and they
were strengthened, and their hand was for good. We are in doubt,
therefore, whether this is the final exhortation of Nehemiah, fol-
lowing naturally his recital of the guidance of God and the fa-
vour of the king, or the assent of the assembly to his appeal.
It would put us on the right track if we could get at the true
sense of "strengthening the hands." We note that Nehemiah
uses the phrase "for good" in the sense of "auspiciously," 5^^'.
It will appear further that these words in all their varied in-
terpretations really make no sense. It is clear that we have
no statement of the actual beginning of the work on the walls;
but w. " f- imply that the work has begun. The words before
us may be rendered equally well: and their hands took hold au-
spiciously. Therefore I should follow CS in part and translate:
and I said, let us up and build! and their hands took hold [of the
work] auspiciously. ^i^Wj-^
19. And Sanballat et al. heard]. There is no object and we
have to infer what they heard from the preceding and from their
actions. Now their charge and Nehemiah's reply show that it
was the building of the walls which excited their scorn. That
presupposes the interpretation put upon v. ^^. The enemy had
heard, not of a plan, but of an action, the work on the walls. —
A third enemy is named here (c/. v. 1°), Geshem the Arabian]
V. 6^- 2- 6; in the last place the name is Gashmu. The foes are
all foreigners and the gentilic name is added to show that fact.
They were evidently keeping a close and jealous watch on
Jerusalem, especially since the arrival of Nehemiah with a Per-
sian escort. For some time now a large part of Nehemiah's
story concerns his trouble with these enemies. Making a nec-
essary correction from 05, the text continues: and they held us
in derision; and they came unto us and said]. MT., lacking
"and they came unto us," implies that these enemies were
already at Jerusalem; but it is much more likely that they had
for years been preying upon the defenceless Jews, and hear-
204 EZRA-NEHEMIAH
ing of the rebuilding of the walls came at once to Jerusalem. — â–
What is this thing that you are doing? Are you raising a revolt
against the king ?] The first question shows that Sanballat et al.
found the Jews at work; the second is asked ironically, for they
had no idea that the Jews could carry the walls and gates very
far before they would be able again to appear on the scene with
battering-rams and torches. It is the same charge made by
Rehum to Artaxerxes in Ezr. 4^' ^•. — 20. In his reply Nehe-
miah first addresses himself to their jesting at the Jews' big
undertaking: the God of heaven will prosper us], cf. i". Then he
throws off all disguise, which would indeed be vain now: and
•we are his servants; we will up and build]. But <ji» has a tempting
variant: we are his innocent servants, that is, innocent of any evil
design against the king. But in that case the antecedent of
"his" should be Artaxerxes rather than "God." Now when
Nehemiah says "we are his servants," in view of the charge
just made we inevitably think of the king, as if Nehemiah had
said, "we are his loyal subjects and as such we are building."
It is at least possible that a clause has dropped out, and that
Nehemiah said that God would further them, the king had ap-
proved their work, and they were his loyal subjects. In his
appeal to his followers he had named both the favour of God and
of the king. The mention of the king's authority would be
far more impressive to Sanballat than the grace of God, and
Nehemiah might well not overlook so formidable a weapon. —
Then he proceeds to serve notice upon them that their days of
preying upon the Jews is over : and for you there is neither por-
tion nor right nor memorial in Jerusalem]. By portion Nehemiah
means property, real or personal. The enemy may have owned
land or houses, or more probably may have exacted tribute,
which would be equivalent to levying blackmail as David did
of Nabal, i S. 25. \ Right is not "just claim," Ryle, Sieg. Berth.,
but authority. That these enemies claimed a certain authority
over the people of Jerusalem is shown by their subsequent
actions, and may be due to the decree of Artaxerxes (Ezr. 4^"^').
Memorial is interpreted as meaning that their descendants
should have no place in the community of God (Berth. Sieg.
NEHEMIAH 2 20$
B.-Rys.), a proof of their past connection with Jerusalem
(Ryle) ; proof of citizenship (BDB.) ; it may be used in a general
broad sense: there will not be a thing by which even to remem-
ber you; you will soon be a thing of the past and completely
forgotten. By the restoration of the walls Jerusalem would
recover its autonomy and would no longer be open to the raids
of roving bands in quest of plunder.
Mitchell infers from Neh.'s words that the Sam. had offered to aid
in the building of the wall, and attributes the above passage to the
Chr., presumably for this reason (TCC.^O- There is nothing in the
remarks of Sanb. to indicate any such friendly purpose, and Neh. is
not dechning a neighbourly offer, but serving emphatic notice on the
Sam. that, since he is the direct representative of the Pers. king, their
interference with the Jewish people will no longer be tolerated.
10. tsSajD] (& SavaPa>.(X)aT. The name is Bab. Sin-uballit, or ace.
to Winckler Sin-muhdlit, but Haupt notes that this m in Bab. is often
silent (Guthe-Batten,")- ^ preserves the pronunciation better than
MT. — "ry n3>'n niaia] is lacking in C5^, but as we find auToIi; for an'? it
is evident that the omission is a mistake. — nSnj n>n] sounds more like
the Chr. than N. The words are lacking in (&^^^, while ^ has a vb.,
xal eXuTC^Oifjcjav = nmi (?). — 11 is almost an exact reproduction of Ezr.
8" or the converse. There the verbs are pi. and we have oa'J instead
of inx. — 12. aStt'ni'?] \x.zi$e, toO 'lapa-QX^^**, ^ has a dup., prefixing tfj
'lepuaaXiriyL. (& was influenced by the Chr.'s "sons of Israel" in v.",
perhaps even to a correction of the text. — na] CS^an g^» aix^ = niS>*.
^ has the usual dup. ev <[> . . . ex' aiT(p. 3 in this sense is so rare and "??
so common that we must suspect the text.— 13. Tirh Nun] (g translit-
erates ycoXi^Xd:, to which we find a correction in ^^, vuxTbq. V. ", giving
the terminus at the valley gate, shows that the text is sound, rh'h is
certainly unnecessary after v. ", and is a gl. — pjnn] Cg ctuxwv^^** =
DijNnn; SpdsxovTO:;^. — latr] auvrpf^wv^'^^, xaravowv^, H consideraham, so
V. ". The former stands for 12B' and makes no sense, i^tr occurs
only here and in v. ", but inspect is the sense required. — nmn] Tef%et^A**,
tefx^o'v^, murum "M: point npin. — aisnijon] or a'>xn9 on as Qr.; in i*
nxisc; (B has : o auxol xaOatpouatv^^^', toT? xaTsaTcac^/.^vot?^. — B'X j . . . is'n]
has been added from i'. There is no jugglery by which we can join
it to its context. We might retain nsisDn t^x, but that fails in v. ".
Indeed, the whole of v.^ interrupts the narrative of the itinerary and
needlessly anticipates v. ". Houtsma reads d-'XIed nn2>!<, comparing
Aram. Njityx, Ezr. s»- », and believes the first word has a special ar-
chitectural mng. like gate-slrudure {ZAW. 1907.68 f). — 14, ]"i;»n] (g toiJ
2o6 EZRA-NEHEMIAH
AEvci^^, Atv*, T. TCTJY^?^. — 15. Snja] (B Iv tw Tsi'xet x^'tJ^'^Ppou?^^*'? St4
Tou x£t[ji.appou^ = SnjnnDina. The former reading is not improb. — rh^h\
is a gl. or the corrupted name of the valley. — jv^nii] lacking in (5. It
is better to om. in the second place and interpret the first adverbially.
— Kl3Ni] d xal i^fJiTiv = inNi. (^^ has x,al i^fjnrjv Iv Tfj -jzukf} Trj? (pdtpaYYog.
xal dtvlcTTpeiJ^a. xal StijXOov Sicl: tYJ? toXt)? Fat. It is difficult to say
whether this is one of '^'^ frequent corrections from MT. by addition or a
genuine text. — 16. o^jjon]. Rd. with 05 ol (puXiaaovTs? = onDttTi. — a>in'?]
Tol? evir(yi.otq^^^, Aeutxatq'^. — o^jjdS] om. ^^, but the combination onn
D1JJD1 is common in Ne. (48- " 5' 7O ». Dr.^'"',"3, — p-n]?] f may be an
Aramaism; cf. J>'^'^y, Ezr. 5"; the mng. is the same, up to the present.
It may be a txt. err. for nny-iy. — 17. isnj] (S^an |S66T)aav = i:nj. — 18.
in] -TCpbqS (Vx) ToO?*'^ (nx), xepl^ ('7^), riN is correct, as it is used with i"',
the other obj. of the same vb. lUN. — nnxn] xal eka^^^ = iDWi. '^
shows that it is correcting and will leave no doubt about the sense:
xal ai-uol eSxbv [xot. — 3n>Ti] (gi- makes a separate clause and reads sg.
xal ■?] %£lp aixwv sf? dyo'^'^v. (B^^^ makes al %£tp£<; subj. not obj.
Berth, says: "perhaps the vb. should be pointed as a pass."; but the
pass, does not elsw. occur, and we have no warrant here for a new form.
I should rd. 121x1 with CS and point -ipinii. If onn'' were the obj. it
would certainly have nx before it. — 19. ^y^y mil]. Nowhere else is
ni3 followed by '73;; it usually takes direct obj., though occasionally we
find v. (g»BAX jias xal ^X6ov I9' ii\iaq, i. e., ixi3m, and that is the cor-
rect text {v. s.). 05^ has here also the original (S + a correction from
Heb. : xaT£(pp6vouv tjejlwv xal ^XBov I9' TjpLas. — 20. Dipj] CS^Ax xa6apo( =
O'pj. ^ has the usual dup., xaOapol (ivaCTTTfja6iJ,£6a.
NE. 31-2^ THE DISTRIBUTION OF THE WORK ON THE WALL.
In the list of the wall-builders as it stands in the text there are 39 names
of men, of whom 6 were apparently Lev. (vv. "-"), and possibly 13 were
pr. There were five companies of the builders who are named only by
the towns in which they live, Jericho, Hassenaah, Tekoa, Gibeon and
Mispah, and Zanoah. The genealogical interest is very marked. la
32 cases the father's name is given, and in 5 instances the name of the
grandfather or some earlier ancestor is added. In a number of cases
the civil office held by the builder is appended, vv. '• '2- "-19. 29. It
thus appears that for the most part these officials are grouped together.
As in other lists, there is frequent repetition of the same name, vv.
t. 21; t. 6. 3o: 4. 29; n. 14. 31; 11. 23, Many of the names recur in other lists in
our books.
The narrative shows but a poor connection with 2»». It has all the
appearance of an independent piece, as we may note from the begin-
ning "and Eliashib arose." There are many characteristics of the
NEHEMIAH s^-^^ 207
Chr.: the prominence of pr. and Lev.; the expressions "and his breth-
ren"; the exact genealogical data; the mechanical system; repetition
of phrases "and by his hand," "set up its doors," "repaired," etc. See
further arguments by Mitchell, JBL. 1903,88 «•
On the other hand, there is not a single trace of N. in the whole pas-
sage, though it is assigned to N. by Berth. Sieg. and many others. The
statement in v. " connects directly with 2'', leaving space between for
the visit of Sanb. et al. (2" 'â– ). Neh. was not concerned with the de-
tails of the building methods, but with securing suitable protection for
the city.
The section is needlessly anticipative, for it is a description of the
complete work, whereas v. =' shows that much was yet to be done, and
the walls were not finished until some time later. Ace. to this c. all
parts were carried on simultaneously, whereas N. states explicitly
that the walls were finished before the gates were touched, 61. The
passage is obviously quite out of place, and would come in better
after c. 6.
Torrey regards the whole section as due to the Chr. (Co7«^."f).
But the evidence of its composite character is convincing to the con-
trary. We cannot resist the evidence of the use of "at his, or their,
hand" in vv. ^-is and "after him" in vv. "-'^ Other indications are
pointed out in the notes. The Chr.'s hand is indeed evident in the
editing, but not in the composition. We are constrained then to sup-
pose that some one had composed an account of the building of the
walls, others had made additions, and the Chr. combines, edits, and as
usual, where it is possible, misplaces his material.
The account in general may be quite correct. The memoirs agree
very closely with the method described here. There were certainly
many workers who lived outside of Jerus., 4', and the builders were
widely scattered on the walls, 4". But we have no data to control the
details, and some of them excite suspicion.
The gates mentioned in this c. are ten in number, as appears from
the following list in which all the other references are cited: (i) the sheep
gate, V. » i2'3 Jn. 5^; (2) the fish gate, v. ' i2'« 2 Ch. 2>3^* Zp. i»°; (3)
the old gate, v. • 12"; (4) the dung gate, v. " '■2" 12"; (5) the valley
gate, v." 2i'-" 2 Ch. 26'; (6) the fountain gate, v." 2" 12"; (7) the
water gate east, v. «« 12", cf. the water gate, gi- '• "; (8) the horse
gate, v. 28 Je. 31"; (9) the east gate, v. ''; (10) the gate of the muster,
V. '*.
The catalogue is manifestly incomplete. Twice a "second portion"
is mentioned without an antecedent first portion (vv. i>- 2"). Sm. sup-
poses a considerable gap before v. ", basing his conclusion on a com-
parison with i2'8'- (Lw/e»," '•). On the geographical elements in this
list V. also Mey. Ew/.'"' '• "« «■On the topography v. the valuable
article by Mitchell, JBL. 1903,'" «■, and particularly his map, p. 162.
2o8 EZRA-NEHEMIAH
1. Eliashib the high priest] mentioned often in our books.
Ezr. io6 Ne. 320- 21 i2i''- 22- 23 j^"- 7. 28. j^ 13" he is called "the
priest," but in 132^, as here, "the high priest." His son was a
prominent priest in the time of Ezra, Ezr. 10^. According to
Ne. i2i° he was a grandson of Jeshua the co-worker of Zerub-
babel. In the list of builders the names of the priests with this
exception are put last, w. 2^-^^; but Eliashib is named first on
account of his prominent position. — ^Associated with him in the
work were his brethren the priests], meaning apparently those
belonging to his own course. — And they built the sheep gate].
There are four terms for the building operations, "build," "lay
beams," "erect," and "repair," the last occurring thirty-three
times. "Build" is found here, in v. ^ twice, and in w. "• "• ".
Except in v. 2 it has always "gate" as its object. Therefore we
may conclude that the work described in v. 2 was a part of the
erection of the sheep gate. It is to be noted, however, that
"repair" is frequently found with "gate" as object, w. ^- "• "• ".
The sheep gate is mentioned only in Ne. v. ^^ 12*^, but cj. Jn.
52. It was on the north of the temple and was so named be-
cause it was the entrance for sacrificial animals. — These con-
secrated it], i. e., the gate. Consecrating a gate, especially be-
fore "they erected its doors," arouses suspicion. The appeal
for support is mainly made to Solomon's consecration of the
court before the temple (i K. 8^*), but that was done because
he was preparing to offer sacrifices there. Doubtless we should
read "laid its beams," as in w. '• ^. The change was due to
the fact that consecrating was regarded as more appropriate
work for priests than laying beams, showing the trace of an
editor with priestly sympathies. — And they erected its doors, its
hinges and its bars], so we should read as in all other cases
where doors are mentioned. For hinge v. note to v. ^. In the
Chronicler's fashion we have an anticipation, for in 6^ the doors
were not yet built. — And unto the tower of Hammeah they con-
secrated it unto the tower of Hananel]. There could scarcely be
a gate of this extent. Moreover, this description does not fit
in here, because it refers to a section of the wall, whereas
Eliashib and his fellow-priests built the gate. It might be
NEHEMIAH 3I-32 209
misplaced from v. ^ or some other section. It may have been
inserted here from 12'^. — 2. And at Ms hand] meaning next
to him. We find at his (or their) hand in vv. 2-^^, and "after
him," to express the same idea in vv. ^^-^^ (except in vv. "-^^).
This proves that we have a composite production, as a single
writer would either have used the same term throughout or
mixed the words indiscriminately. In both cases in this verse
we should read at their hand, for the antecedent is plural. — The
men of Jericho]. In Ezr. 2 before place-names we found both
"men of" and "sons of"; in this list we have further the gen-
tilic Tekoites, vv. ^-"j and "inhabitants of," v. ^*. It appears
that companies came from some of the Judean towns to aid in
the wall-building. It is not stated whether they were giving
their service from patriotic motives or whether they were work-
ing for wages. — Zaccur] recurs in our books, Ezr. 8^^ Qr. Ne. 10^*
J 235 j^", but there is no certain identification. — 3. The fish
gate] 12^3 Zp. i^° 2 Ch. 33^'*t- It was probably the market-place
where the Tyrians sold their fish, 13^^. It lay in the northern
part of the city {v. Mar. on Zp. i^°, GAS. Jer. i,^^''). — The sons
of Hassenaah] v. Ezr. 2^^. — 4. Meremoth] is repeated in v. ^^ and
with the same pedigree. The text is wrong in one case or the
other. The same person is named as a travelling companion of
Ezra, Ezr. 8^^ — And next to them]. We should expect "him,"
but as we note from v. ^ the pronouns frequently do not corre-
spond with the antecedent, an evidence of confusion in the text.
— The second clause, about Meshullam is lacking in some texts
of %. As Meshullam occurs in w. ^- ^, we can easily dispense
with him here. In v. ^ he has the same father, but the grand-
father is not given. In v. ^ the name of the father may be cor-
rupt, or that may be a different person. — Zadok] recurs in v. ^',
but the father is different. — 5. The Tekoites]. Tekoa was the
home of Amos the prophet (Am. i^). It is on the border of the
Judean wilderness, five miles south of Bethlehem. — But their
chiefs did not bring their neck into the service of their lords]. The
natural inference, especially from (& (v. i.), is that the governor
of Tekoa was interested in the work and brought a band of the
humble classes to assist him, but was unable to induce his chiefs
14
2IO EZRA-NEHEMIAH
to take part. "Bring the neck unto," with "yoke" understood,
is found in Je. 27" *•, but there it refers to the submission of a
conquered people. "Their lords" is also interpreted to mean
Nehemiah and his associates (Berth.). The meaning would then
be that while the lower classes of Tekoa responded to Nehemiah's
call, the rulers refused to recognise his authority. As but four
or five towns are mentioned in the list, it would appear that many
other towns had made a similar refusal; for if Nehemiah called
upon some of the neighbouring villages for help, he would cer-
tainly have called upon all, and of such towns we have a much
larger list in Ezr. 2 and Ne. 11" ^ — 6. The old gate] mentioned
also in 12^^, is supposed to have been on the northern side of
the city and to the west of the fish gate. Mitchell reads " the
gate of the old pool" (JBL. 1903,"^ ff). — Repaired Joiada and
MeshuUam]. We should expect "built," as in w. ^- 2, but we
find "repaired," with gates as object, in w. "• "• ^^ It is tempt-
ing to suppose that these particular gates had not been entirely
destroyed, and so "repaired," rather than "built," is an accu-
rate description of the work done. But as the statement is ev-
er3^here that Jerusalem's "gates had been burned with fire," we
are warned against assuming that four out of the six were only
damaged. It may be that the author, having started with "re-
paired," repeats it without much consideration for exactness. It
is possible that the expression "its gates burned" may be a gen-
eral rather than an exact description. — 7. Meletiah the Gibeonite
and Jadon the Meronothite, the men of Giheon and Mis pah]. Sa-
chau (p.^) identifies in"* with the IT'^T' of Pap. i. Here we find
men designated by their homes instead of by their fathers. Me-
ronothite, elsewhere only i Ch. 27^°, is unknown. If "men of
Gibeon and Mispah" is an appositive clause, then we should
probably read Mispite, or with Mey. read Meronoth instead of
Mispah (Ent.^^^). But as this is the only place where we find this
use of gentilic names, and as the whole verse is lacking in the best
texts of 05, we look upon it with suspicion. Mispah is mentioned
in w. ^^- ^'. — Of the jurisdiction of the governor beyond the River],
This would refer to the satrap of the Syrian province. As Gibeon
and Mispah were in Benjamin and close to Jerusalem, it is hard
NEHEMIAH 3I-32 211
to see why they were any more under his authority than Jericho.
GAS. argues that the satrap of the province sometimes held
his court at Mispah {Jer. ii/^). Further it is very doubtful
whether ND3 means jurisdiction. The text of (& which has this
passage renders: unto the throne of the governor beyond the Enna.
I have no idea what Enna stands for, but this rendering makes
the passage descriptive of the part of the wall repaired by these
men. We should then have to suppose that some governor main-
tained a residence or office in Jerusalem, a supposition by no
means improbable, and such a place would be a well-understood
designation. Mitchell renders "the seat of the governor be-
yond the River," and holds that the clause defines which of the
numerous Mispahs is meant (JBL. 1903,^*^ ^•). — 8. Uzziel] is
a common Hebrew name, but Harahiah, his father's name, is
not found elsewhere, and in spite of the divine name, which is a
part of it, its root is unknown. But we should probably read
Barakiah {v. i.). — Hananiah the son of the ointment-makers], i. e.,
one engaged in that craft {cf. v. ^0- Probably the word ren-
dered "ointment-makers" is a disguised form of the name of
Hananiah's father. Mey. argues that these men are denoted by
their trade because they had no connection with a family group
{Ent}^). — And they abandoned Jerusalem as far as the broad wall]
makes no sense; "fortified" of EV^ is unwarranted. The mod-
ern authorities generally connect with a late Hebrew word and
give the meaning "repair" or "complete." That gives good
sense, at all events. It may be, however, that the reference is
to some part of the old city that was not included in the new,
and "abandoned" would then be right. Mitchell suggests "en-
close" (JBL. 1903,"^). Our information is too slight, however,
to determine positively what the words do imply. The broad
wall according to 12'^ was that portion lying between the gate of
Ephraim and the tower of the ovens. From its position in this
passage, though, it would appear to be a part of the wall between
the old gate, v. ^, and the valley gate, v. ". It is far from cer-
tain, however, that we have a systematic description, and our
ignorance of the topography is still very great. Ryle suggests
that it was this part which was destroyed by Amaziah and which
212 EZRA-NEHEMIAH
Hezekiah strengthened (2 K. 14" 2 Ch. 32^). — 9. Rephaiah the
son of Eur [a Calebite according to Mey. £w/."*], was ruler of
half the district of Jerusalem]. Following Iff vici (for half -district)
the passage is interpreted to mean that Jerusalem was divided
into two districts or wards, of which Rephaiah rules one and
Shallum the other, v, ^2. But the meaning of the word is far
from certain, and the Greek rendering is "the country around,"
so that the domain of these men was not the city, but the sub-
urbs (so GAS. Jer. i,^^^). The latter is the more probable ex-
planation. In this chapter eight such divisions of the Judean
province are named: two about the cities of Jerusalem, Mispah,
w. ^^- ^', Keilah, w. " '•, one about Beth-haccerem, v. ", and one
of the two about Beth-zur, v. ^^. (On these districts v. Mey.
Ent}^^ ^â– ). It is plain from the mention of these places that so
far as possible the people from the whole province of Judah were
enlisted in the great imdertaking. — 10. Jedaiah] cannot be
identified with any other person in our books, though the name
may be a shortened form of Jedaiah (Ezr. 2'^ Ne. ii^° 12^ ^- ^'- ^i,
Mey. thinks that the name of his father, Harumaph, indicates
a non- Jewish clan {Ent}^"^). Berth, gives the meaning "with
a split nose" (Anhang,'^°°) , thus making it a Hebrew name,
Harum-aph. That could only be a nickname acquired in later
life. — Even before his house]. The part of the wall repaired by
Jedaiah lay in front of his own house, which was probably on or
near the wall. Naturally he would be especially interested in
the restoration of the part of the wall which would insure him
protection. We find the same expression in w. ^- ^^- ^^, cf. v. ^.
It is likely that every builder who had a residence in Jerusalem
was assigned the part of the wall nearest his home. — Hattush
the son of Hashabneiah] Ezr. 8^ Ne. 10^ 12 2. — 11. A second por-
tion repaired Malkiiah the son of Harim and Hasshub the son
of Pahath-Moab, and unto the tower of the furnaces] or ovens,
Mitchell, JBL. 1903,128 s-
"Second portion" recurs in vv. "• M' "• 2^ 2?- >o, but in all those cases
as obj., the sentence having the regular intr. "after him." In this
V. "second portion" stands in place of the usual "and next to him."
The more general term used in RV., "another portion," is inadmissible.
NEHEMIAH 3I-52 213
The ordinal means second and nothing else. We should infer, therefore,
that certain large sections of the wall were divided into two parts, and
a gang of workmen assigned to each part. But then it seems incredible
that the first portion is never mentioned at all, and that "second por-
tion" recurs without any intervening assignment, vv. i»-". It is to
be noted, however, that in all of the cases, exc. v. '", where this desig-
nation is used, we have a fuller description of the particular section of
the wall. The words have also been interpreted to mean that these
particular builders were esp. energetic or had a larger force of helpers,
and that after completing their first assignment they undertook a
second portion. This view is supported by the repetition of the names
in vv. "• ", cf. vv. <■"i. But other names recur without any mention of
a second portion, and in four of the six cases before us there is no re-
currence of the name. About the only certain inference is that the
Chr. has after all his labours left us but an imperfectly intelligible de-
scription of the building operations.
Pahath-Moah] (v. Ezr. 2^) is surely a clan-name, suggesting
that we may have clan-names all through the chapter. But
as most of the heads of the genealogies are not known to us,
in spite of our formidable lists, the suggestion is to be taken
cautiously. — The tower of the furnaces] or ovens is mentioned
in 12^8 as next to the broad wall (v. ^), and between the gate of
Ephraim and the valley gate. "Unto the tower" is based on
CS and is doubtless correct (Guthe); for the second portion
could not be the tower, but the section of wall adjoining. — 12.
Shallum] is a common name, but that of his father, Hallohesh,
is foimd elsewhere only in 10^^. It means charmer or magician;
Mey. argues that it is an appellative clan-name, and marks a
family which had remained in Judah rather than one coming
from the exile {Enty°''). Shallum was ruler of the other part of
the district about Jerusalem {v. s. v. ^). — He and his daughters] is
regarded by Mey. as a corruption for and its daughters, i. e.,
its hamlets {Ent.^°''). But if this is the sense we might render
it [Jerusalem] and its hamlets, making the district over which
Shallum ruled include both a part of Jerusalem and of the sur-
rounding country.
" Daughters " is a regular term for the hamlets which "grow up about
a city and which are dependent upon it, ii^^-". Ryle prefers a literal
214 EZRA-NEHEMIAH
interpretation that Shallum's daughters aided him in the work. But
as women in the East were quite sure to have a large share in such work
as this, their especial mention here is unnecessary. Against the other
view it may be urged that a solitary mention of hamlets is inexplicable.
Berth, says it would be easiest to reject the words but that such a
course is arbitrary. The meaning is really unknown.
13. Hanun] recurs in v. ^ among the priests, but there is no
reason for identifying the two. From the fact that the inhabi-
tants of Zanoah] collaborated with him, he may have been a
resident of that town. Sieg. says he was the principal officer
of the town.
Zanoah is in the Ust of postex. Jewish towns, ii'», cj. Jos. 15", i
Ch. 4>«. It is located 13 miles west of Jerus. There was prob. a
large company of the Zanoites, in spite of the considerable distance
which they came; for they built both the valley gate and the section
of the wall between that and the dung gate {v. on 2"). This section
was 1,000 cubits; and roughly speaking that would be a quarter of a
mile. Hence some have doubted whether one body would accomplish
so large a portion, and have interpreted the words as a parenthetical
topographical description, giving the distance between the gates. But
the expression is too specific, and a thousand cubits on the wall, to ad-
mit of such a mng. It may be that some parts of the wall were less
damaged than others, and so could be easily and quickly repaired.
We note that it is hard to say whether it is meant in i' that the'walls
were breached or broken down.
14. The dung gate*] itself was repaired or rebuilt by Malchi-
jah the son of Rekab ruler of the Beth-hakkarem district]. Mal-
chijah, with other fathers, is mentioned also in w. "• ". It
is naturally a common name, meaning "Yahweh is my king."
— Beth-hakkarem] means vineyard house. From Je. 6^ it must
have been south of Jerusalem beyond Tekoa, and so not be-
tween the latter place and Bethlehem as Ryle states. — He built
it and set up]. Making a slight change and a restoration from
(&, we get a better text: he and his sons, and they made its beams
and set them up, v. i.— 15. The fountain gate] follows the dung
gate in 2^^ ^-f q. v. — Shallum the son of Kal-hozeh]. Kal-hozeh
means "every seer"; Mey. says it is not a personal name, but
•On the prob. location of this gate ». GAS. /er. i,"'.
NEHEMIAH ^^'^^ 215
probably the clan designation of a Calebite guild of soothsayers
(Ent.^*''). In 11^ this name occurs as that of the grandfather
of one of the prominent Jerusalemites, and there it is surely
used as a personal name. — Ruler of the Mis pah district]. Work-
ers from Mispah have already been mentioned, v. ''. In view
of V. " we may read with Mey., ruler of half the Mispah dis-
trict, but as Ezer is there called simply ruler of Mispah, it may
be that he governed the city and Shallum the surrounding
country. — He built it]. Perhaps we should emend as in v. ":
he and his sons; though we lack here the support of ^, we
have the fact that "set up" is plural in the original text. —
Then we are told that Shallum repaired also a section of the
wall, a section very minutely described: and the wall of [or from]
the pool of Siloam at the king^s garden and unto the stairs descend-
ing from the city of David]. The pool of Shelah or Sheloah in
Is. 8^ is the same as the Siloam of Jn. 9^- ^^. There was also a
town of Siloam, Lu. 13^. It was in the conduit of this pool
that the famous Siloam inscription was found. Guthe questions
this identification {ZDPV. 1882,^'^^ *•)• The king^s garden oc-
curs in 2 K. 25* Je. 39* 52^, all, however, parallel and describ-
ing the route by which Zedekiah fled from the defenceless city.
Stairs of the city of David* recurs in 12'^ as being near the foun-
tain gate. The city of David has been regarded as the southern
part of the western hill, as the northern portion, and as the
temple hill, which last Ryle regards as established by this pas-
sage. In spite of the exact description of this section of wall,
it is not possible for us to locate it with very great confidence.
— 16. Nehemiah the son of Azbuk, the ruler of half the district
of Beth-zur] is thus carefully differentiated from the hero of
our book. He is not mentioned elsewhere, nor is his father.
Beth-zur is in the list of Judean towns, Jos. 15^*, and among
those built by Rehoboam, 2 Ch. 11^. Robinson located it in
the modern Beit-Sur, about twelve miles south of Jerusalem.
So GAS. Jer. n,^»K See also i Mac. 4.^^ 11" f- 147. The part
of the wall rebuilt by Nehemiah is also elaborately described:
to a point opposite the sepulchre of David, and to the artificial pool
* See Wright's treatise, JBL. 1897,"' 2-, also GAS. Jer. i,'".
2l6 EZRA-NEHEMIAH
and to the armoury]. We find the unusual expression, literally,
unto before, indicating that there was no good marking-point
at the wall, and implying that the tomb of David was some
distance away. In 2 Ch. 32'^ we find "the sepulchres of the
sons of David" given as the burial-place of Hezekiah. But
see Benzinger in loc. This royal cemetery was in the city of
David, V. ^^ where David himself was buried, i K. 2^". — The
artificial pool] literally, the pool that was made, was still new, ac-
cording to Sieg. But it is more likely to be the reservoir re-
ferred to in Is. 22": "You made a reservoir between the walls
for the waters of the old pool." — House of the heroes]. The
location is unknown, though Guthe proposes a place southwest
of the Virgin spring (ZDPV. 1882,332). j^ must have been the
military headquarters, or the armoury. B.-Rys. regards it as the
residence of the gate-watch, in which case it would be witness
of the late date of this passage; but it is very probable that
the watch lived in their homes. As before, we find darkness
rather than light from the details given. As the text stands,
we have three statements about the terminating-point of Ne-
hemiah's work, but none about its beginning. As Shallum's sec-
tion extended to the city of David, v. ^^, we should probably read
from the sepulchres of David, though such a correction is purely
conjectural. — 17-20 apparently covers the account of the labour
of the Levites who took part in the work, but the text is in poor
shape, — 17. After him repaired the Levites: Rehum the son of
Bani]. Then we expect a further list of Levitical names, but
the narrative goes back to the old formula. Both Rehum and
Eashabiah are given in the list of the heads of the people, 10^®.
Hashahiah was ruler of half the district of Keilah], a place famous
in David's early history, i S. 23, a Judean town, near the
Philistine border, and about eight miles northwest of Hebron
(GAS. Hist. Geog^^). Mey. infers that Keilah had been set-
tled by the Levites during and after the exile {Ent}''^). — For
his district]. AV. in his part is unjustifiable.
Ryle interprets as distinguishing the part he represented from the other
part named in v. ". B.-Rys. goes so far as to argue from this state-
ment that the two parties from the Keilah district were separated from
NEHEMIAH 3I-52 21 7
each other in their work. This authority also suggests that the word
implies that this workman participated, not as a Lev., but as the ruler
of a Keilah district. It is doubtful about his being a Lev. at all, and
the word is too obscure in this solitary use to serve as a good basis for
such large inferences.
18. Their brethren] implies a preceding list of Levites, for
the antecedent of their is Levites. — Bawai the son of Henadad],
Henadad was a Levite chief, v. ^^ lo^" Ezr. 3^. As the name
means Hadad favours, it must be of Aramaic origin. It is a
strange title for Levites of the postexilic age, and it may be
an old clan-name. — Binnui, as v. ^4, is the form of the name
adopted by Guthe and Berth. But son of Henadad is a clan
designation. Moreover, Binnui is among the priests. Both
priests and Levites might be sons of Henadad, for that name
goes back to a time when the two offices were not distinguished;
but they would not be confused in this list. — 19. Ezer the son
of Jeshua]. The name is not found elsewhere in our books.
As he was the ruler of Mispah {v. on v. ^^), he was probably not
connected with the guild of Jeshua the associate of Zerubbabel.
Indeed, it is very improbable that these district rulers were
Levites.
We note here a changed order at the beginning: and then repaired at
Ms hand]. The variation is prob. a scribal error, but it is old, for it
is reproduced in C5. The description of this second section is very ob-
scure: from opposite the ascent of the arms, the corner]. The corner,
vv. '"'â– 2^- 2^, 2 Ch. 26', is a local name well known to the author, but
not clear to us. C5 offers two readings: the tower going up at the junction
of the corner; and the tower of the ascent of the arms joining at the corner
behind its hill. Now it is impossible to make sense out of any of these
readings. Partly aided by the latter Greek text, I would correct and
render: from opposite the armoury to the corner of the hill, and so reaching
a definite point, the northwest corner of the wall. Mitchell proposes
past the armour chamber to the corner (JBL. 1903,'").
20. Baruch the son of Zabbai], or Zakkai as Qr. From the
corner] of the hill, v. ^^ to the door of the house of Eliashib the high
priest], who was the first builder named, v. ^. This house was
evidently hard by the wall, and near the corner. From the
prominence of the occupant, the house would be well known.
2 1 8 EZRA-NEHEMIAH
The proximity of the high priest's residence indicates that
"the hill" of V. ^^ is the temple hill. The mention of the door
may mean that Eliashib's house was too wide to serve as a
defining mark, or that the description has become very exact.
— 21. The same person mentioned in v. * is here appropriately
described as repairing a second portion, and still further ap-
propriately it was a very small portion, only that fronting on a
part of Eliashib's house: from the door of Eliashib's house to the
end of EliashiVs house]. To be sure, there may have been a
bad piece of wall at this point which required much labour.
— 22. The priests, the men of the plain]. The plain is a tech-
nical name for the oval plain of the Jordan. The full designa-
tion is the plain (or oval) of the Jordan, Gn. 131°, but naturally
Jordan could easily be dispensed with. "The river" or "the
town" has a specific sense in every locality. The brief passage
implies that this plain was especially the abode of priests. The
statement is incomplete, as there is no description of the part
of the wall repaired by these priests. — 23. Benjamin and
Hasshub apparently lived together opposite their house] and
their house adjoined Azariah's, for the latter also built opposite
his house and from that point Binnui repaired, v. ^^. If v. ^"^
is misplaced, as it may well be, then the jointly occupied house
would adjoin the residence of the high priest. — 24. On Bin-
nui V. s. V. ^*. The part he repaired is described as extending
from the house of Azariah, v. ^^, to the corner and to the turn]. If
we have reached a corner or turn in the wall, it must be a differ-
ent one from that mentioned in w. "• ^. Naturally the wall
had more than one corner. — 25. At the beginning we must
supply after him repaired. Neither Palal nor his father Uzai oc-
curs elsewhere in OT. The section is described thus: from op-
posite the corner [i. e., the corner or turn of v. ^^] and the tower
which goes down from the upper palace which is at the court of the
guard]. The text is obviously wrong; for the tower is not the
same as the corner; and there were not two royal palaces in
Jerusalem, an upper and a lower. With (^ we get intelligibility:
from opposite the corner of the tower which projects from the royal
palace above the court of the guard. The end of the section is
NEHEMIAH s^-^ 219
described In v. ^^. — Pedaiah the son of Parosh], or of the clan of
Parosh, Ezr. 2', is misplaced. The word "repaired" is lacking
and the names interrupt the description of the section repaired
by Palal. — 26. Now the Nethinim were living in Ophel], a par-
enthetic expression which has strayed from its original place
(v. Ezr. 2«, and on Ophel, GAS. Jer. i,^^^). It would naturally
come in where Ophel has been mentioned. The name occurs
at the end of v. ^7, and to that place these words should be trans-
posed. Then we have, not a further description of the abode
of the Nethinim, but the missing terminus belonging to v. ^s.
As our text stands, we have: unto opposite the water gate on the
east and the projecting tower]. As the water gate was in the wall,
" opposite" is out of the question, (il offers us quite a different
text: ujtto the garden of the gate which is in Ophel on the east.
The projecting tower is used for both termini of Palal's section,
and as it serves as the initial point for the Tekoites' second sec-
tion, that must be right. Probably it should be connected with
Ophel thus: on the east of the projecting tower]. According to the
Talmud, the water gate was so named because water was carried
from the Virgin spring through this gate to the temple at the
Feast of Booths. Before it there was a plaza, 8^- ^- ", used for
assemblies. From the term in 12^^ it was evidently in the east
wall. — 27. After him repaired the Tekoites a second portion (cf.
v. ^) from the great projecting tower even to the wall of Ophel].
This overhanging tower was a prominent spot, and must have
survived the catastrophes which had befallen Jerusalem, as it
would not have been rebuilt by the new community. Restor-
ing the text and transposing in w. ^5-27^ as shown above to be
necessary, we get the following: (25) After him repaired Palal the
son of Uzai from opposite the corner of the tower which projects
from the royal palace above the court of the guard, (26) unto the
garden of the gate which is in Ophel to the east of the projecting
tower. (27) After him repaired the Tekoites a second portion from
opposite the great projecting tower and to the wall of Ophel. (26")
{Now the Nethinim were living in Ophel) (25'^) After them re-
paired Pedaiah the son of Parosh.
28. Above the horse gate] cf. Je. 31*^, from which it appears to
220 EZRA-NEHEMIAH
have been near the brook Kidron, repaired the priests each one
opposite his house]. Evidently this was a part of the city oc-
cupied chiefly by priests. It may be the very section which
Jeremiah said would become holy unto Yahweh (31*'). — 29,
Zadok the son of Immer] cf. v. *, must be a priest. — Shemaiah
the son of Shekaniah was the keeper of the east gate]. This may be
the gate described in v. ^s as the east water gate. One Greek
MS. reads the east house. The name Shemaiah occurs often in
our lists, but we cannot identify this builder with any other.
As the name means Yahweh has heard [my prayer], it would
naturally be given to children bom in answer to a woman's fer-
vent prayers. We may recall the case of Hannah (i S. i). —
30. A Hananiah] was mentioned in v. ^ as one of the ointment-
makers. This would be the same man, if second portion (v. s.
V. ") were to be strictly pressed. Hanun the sixth son of Zalaph].
Here we have an unparalleled particularity in the genealogy,
and an assurance that Zalaph is not a clan-name, but the name
of the actual father of Hanun. Guthe, however, thinks that
sixth" is a corruption for the abode of Hanun. A Hanun is
mentioned in v. " in connection with the inhabitants of Zanoah.
— Meshullam] with the same father is named in v. *. Perhaps
it is meant here to describe a second portion built by him op-
posite his chamber]. Meshullam did not have a house, but only
a room. As Meshullam was probably a priest, this room would
be in the temple. — 31. We should probably read Malchijah
one of the goldsmiths. Unto the house of the Nethinim and of
the traders]. The Nethinim dwelt in Ophel, v. ^^, and apparently
had a house there in which they lived in common. The ad-
dition of and of the traders is suspicious. If the text is correct
the reference would be not to the residence, but to the ware-
house of the merchants. Opposite the gate of the muster], a
gate not elsewhere mentioned, may be a gate near which mili-
tary enrolments were made, but the matter is hopelessly ob-
scure, as, for that matter, is all this long description. The text
is probably wrong. And unto the ascent of the tower]. Another
bend in the wall on a hill is probably meant, but (8 has to the
middle of the bend, which is somewhat clearer.
NEHEMIAH 3'-'2 221
32. At the beginning of this v. we find the Massoretic note "the
middle of the book," showing that Ezr. and Ne. were reckoned as one.
By actual space we are quite past the middle, but the Massorites
counted by vv.
Then follows a description of a section of the wall repaired
by two guilds, without specifying any individuals, the goldsmiths
and the traders between the ascent of the turn and the sheep gate],
(& gives a variant between the ascent of the sheep gate, but this
is defective, as it gives but one terminus. This brings us
around to the point at which we began, viz., the sheep gate, v. *,
showing that at least in theory we have been carried around the
whole circumference of the wall.
1. invj'ip], ace. to Berth, and Torrey, is without an obj. in C5; but
that is only true in v. % and then only in ^â– ***. But with Torrey we
should rd. innp as in vv. »• •. In v. « it is better with Kent to om.
the word altogether. Kittel changes inicip' to innp. — vnnSi] should
be followed by vnnai vViyjm as in vv. '• «• "• "• ". — vSijjjdi] has been cor-
rupted into '7nja-iyi. — 2. (S^^^x ^^\Qy^^ shows ^J3 for W3 and njj, and >^^
for n\ 1J3 is indeed difficult, for it should have an obj., and if a section
of the wall is intended, pvnn would be the proper term. But it is hard
to make good sense out of <&. — 3. innp] 2' v.' 2 Ch. 34" Ps. 104' f.
From the infrequent use Torrey's contention that the word is charac-
teristic of the Chr. is not sustained. It is called a denominative from
mip, "rafter," "beam," BDB. Ges.^, and the mng. given is "lay
beams." In Ch. that mng. will not serve, though RV. "make beams"
may pass. (5 renders oreYcil^etv, once axexdrl^ecv, "to cover"; so H
tcxcrunt. If a denominative, it must refer to rafters or roof as Gn.
19'. The mng. here is the putting of the roof over the gates. — ninp'
(S^x io^i-^aco:.^ = ^^p, but this is prob. a scribal error for lorijaaf. — •
hvjiD] is given the mng. boU; (& xXetGpov, U sera. The word occurs
outside of this c. only in Ct. 5' Dt. 33", for a'different pointing does
not make a different word. But bolts does not fit the case here, as
it could not be differentiated from bars, and would be needlessly rep-
etitious, as if the chief concern were the fastenings. The vb. Syj
means to fasten on a sandal, whence Sijjjd would be that by which a
sandal is fastened, therefore thong or strap. Now that which binds on
a door is not a bolt, but the hinges or straps. Indeed, we have the
technical term "strap-hinges." With (S we should rd. as in v.'
vSijjjDi, so vv. "• "• ". — 4. prnn] occurs in this c. S3 t. besides v. ", where
the wrong pointing gives Pi. In (S^an* ^g have r.<rziuxsv in vv. *â– " and
iy-piz-qcxv elsw.; ^ has ^xpatafoxie exc. v.". C5 may have rd. the vb.
2 22 EZRA-NEHEMIAH
vnx. — (jgB lacks the second clause. — 5. onnnx] was transliterated by
^BAN (i§(^pYj^[i,. This shows the same text and the word is common;
the transliteration may be due to the obscurity of the passage, — maya
DHijix] 05^A*< e[c; SouXefav aiTwv; ^ ev -zji SouXefij: toO xupfou. — 6. njc>n].
Kittel suggests njcnn, presumably on the basis of Zp. i'» and Ne. ii».
But we could hardly understand a loose term, the gate of the second half
of the city, where so many other gates are specifically named. (S trans-
literates as n. p. 'laavfj, thus bearing witness to our text. B veterem.
— 7. Mey. puts i before >cjn {Ent.^'>^- »)• — ''nnan] i Ch. 2730! (S^
MirjpwvaOaioi;; but in Ch. ex. MepaOwv (MocpiOtov*). — xDjS] 05^ eax; t.
ep6vou, i. e., NDo v.— -\;?jn] (gL xoO Evva. The v. is wanting in (g^Ax^
— 8. n^mn]. As mn is unknown, we may have an error of the text.
(gBAx lacks first clause, and ^^ has Bapaxlou = nijia, a good Heb.
name. — Disnis] could not be in app. with "Uzziel," and as this guild
comes in at v. ", the word must be omitted here. — O'lnpin] m, only
here; <B^'*, 'loiaxefsx, Ptoxeeffji.^, tuv [xupstj^uv^, H pigmentarii. — larpii]
05^ I'OTjxav, but that represents thirty-six Heb. words, though usu-
ally Dv^;', which would not help us much. In Prov. 8^' this word rep-
resents vj, and so we might rd. iryi, and they strengthened, implying
that the wall was standing, but in a weakened state. Sieg. suggests
nrsii, i. e., they surrounded Jerus. [with a wall] as far as the broad wall.
Most authorities regard 2v; as a technical building term, the exact
mng. of which is unknown, but may be "pave," "repair," "complete"
(cf. Ges.^ BDB. and v. s.). The lexicons separate the word from the
regular irjj. But if the mng. is "repair," we should expect the usual
ptnn. If the text is sound, then we have further witness to an older
story underlying the present composition. — 9. iin-ja] om. ^^^, while
^ adds a link between Rephaiah and Hur: ulb? Sa^otvfou ulou Soup
(nis-p). — ^Sfl] mng. district or portion is found only in this c, where
it occurs 8 t. (8 renders xeptxcopo?, the country around Jerus., and not
Jerus. itself. — 11. n^yy mn] xotl SeuTspo.;^^**. — ns'i] xal gw?^^'* = nyi.
— Dnunn] Toiv vot6oupef[ji,^'<, xbv ©avvoupefiAAi-. — 13. 05^ has a peculiar
text. It transliterates, T-f)v xuXtjv Fat, and connects that with v. ". —
pitnn] is here rendered Ivt'axuaav, and ]Mn is lacking altogether. This
departure indicates one spot which escaped the eye of the free editor
of Lucian's text. Still the context shows that the people of Zanoah, and
not Shallum, rebuilt the valley gate. — mij-irn] is regarded by Ges-^"*!-
as a syncopated form; it is more likely a scribal error. — 14. 1JJ3> Nin]
(gBAx cjixb? xal ol ulol aixou, and adds xal eax^xaaav aixiQv, and then
consistently uses pi. eaTTjaav. ^ has same text exc. iaiiyaaav for eax^-
izaaccv. 05 had therefore this text : TTiDyi iniipM rjai Nin. This reading
is preferable to MT. ; for we have thus the regular formula for the gate
building, v. vv. '••. Guthe reads inja. — 15. V.* is lacking in CS^^^. —
pScf] (6^ Eixfiuv. — ntn-Sa] (S^-XoXot^ec. — liSSa^i] 05^ eaxiYaaev, the same
word being used for ^ri^-\p in vv. '• «. — hhd\ is defined as roof over, the
NEHEMIAH 31-22 223
same sense required for n,i (c/. on v.'). The Chr. would not use a
a. X. for one of his so-called characteristic words, nor could we explain
it as a txt. err. It is another link in the chain by which the composite
character of this c. is surely established. — pS nSiiri] (S^^ twv xwSfwv xfj
xoupijt. Underlying this we must presuppose uh ncn, — 16. 'p njj-ij?]
(8 ?a)i; x-^xou (xigxwv^) â– z&(fou = "i3p p-^J?, making the reference to the
tomb of David rather than the royal cemetery. — iJJ-n;? implies that
the tombs were not close to the wall, but 05 reads otherwise. — niicjjn]
regarded by Birch as an error for nja'in, Is. 22" (PEFQ. 1890,205).
But the mpn of Isaiah's time has become the artificial pool of Neh.'s.
— 17. iDSij*?] lacking in (5^, perhaps because of its obscurity. — 18. ^^2]
d BeSefB, Bi^ep^, B^vEi^ B<xytxi\ Berth, says: "nach LXX Texifehler =
•>1J3." The conclusion may be better than the reason. Guthe corrects
accordingly. — 19. it:'] (S^ has <2pxwv tou ii[iiaouq = isn lU'. If this is
right, as Mey. holds, we should have to add l^a, and insert ''xn in v. ■».
But the Heb. is clear enough, v. on v. ^K — ^jjspnn . . . rh';] (S^an (jva^i-
oecix; T^q auvaxrouaT]<; -zriq -^oiylaq; but (Sva^aaswi; twv SxXmv t^<;
auvaxTouaitji; zlq T-f)v ycovfav 6xfaci) ef? xb opo<; ai-uou^. It is clear that
(8 rd. some other word than p^:, perhaps yjD, and (S^ has corrected
as usual by addition. Our text is suspicious on account of the un-
usual combination: the arms, the corner. The plus in ^ is found in the
first two words of v. ^, reading mn'? nnx. ptyj is usually rendered
armoury, but that is a mng. it does not bear. The text is surely cor-
rupt. For various suggested emendations, v. my note in Guthe. None
yet offered is acceptable, for they are all patchwork. In a description
of a section of a wall we require both a terminus a quo and a termintis
ad quern. Our text gives us the former only. With a hint from (S^ I
would rd. : r^-^r^n j;spa -^y pv:n rT>3 ^JJ2. This is bold, but there is
no use in emending unless in the process we can make sense, yxpn,
being thus defined, is used in vv. ="• ''*■'^ as an established point, mnn
does not appear in v. 20 in (H, but It has in motitc. Mitchell suggests nJja
npcn r; p-^^in n>Sy (JBL. 1903,1").— 20. 2^^hH n^a] (gs B-q^zXiaobl^,
BijOatXtaoup^, BrjOeXet Aaaou^^, o'tV.ou AXtocaoug^. — 22. loan] (g has:
&X^X^P^, 7.^X^9^} <^XX2%^ap^, toG TCpcoTOTdxou^. The last represents a
different text, i. e., "loan. |t is sufficiently interpretative: de campes-
iribus Jordanis. — 23. Ssn] is suspicious, for the author shows no fond-
ness for variety in expression and would have said irr'a "ijj as v.*. (8
has Ix6[ji.eva, IS contra (iJj).— 24. njsn— ijji yixpon] looks like an expla-
nation of an unusual word. It is prob. that the original text had
simply njBn-ij?i, suggesting another bend in the wall, and some early
scribe wrongly identified this with that of vv. "• 20. — 25. SSs f] <S $«-
XaXB $aXax»<, ^txka^\ ^aXkri\—>m f] <g Euet^^, EuIm\ Oui;at^.—
SiJsni] Toij xiipYou^. Rd. therefore Snjsn njs. — Nxvn] (g 6 l^l^^v^'*'^,
Toij e^lxovTO?^. This is the only case of the mng. "project" for nsi,
so also vv. 28-27. — irSyn] cannot mean "upper," describing a second
224 EZRA-NEHEMIAH
palace. (S^ has Ix' Hyio, which stands for ]vh'; in Gn. 40" 2 K. 15", but
usually represents a prep., and we may substitute nSyaV, as ^ continues
tfiz aiX^? zfiq ^uXaxfjq. — 26. nJJ~n>] (8 ew? x.i^xou^'^** = p~^>; ^ shows
both MT. and CS: ?(o<; dcx' evavut xtqxou (c/. note on v."). — aion] d**
Iv Tw Q^aX. — 29. ens] (6^, ixb Nrjp, which must be a corruption of
<iv^p. — ly;:'] d^ oi;/.ou. — 30. nnx] rd. as Qr. inns. — ija'] must be a
scribal error of nij;:', the correct form, and occurring in every other place
in this c. — r^y^:] 12" 13' fj usually nstyS, for which this form may be a
scribal error. — 31. iflisn] C5 Sapacpef^, Sepacpsfv^, Sapeyf*, Sepa^sf^.
But a n. p. is scarcely right here. Guthe suggests a gentilic from n<3"\s.
It is simpler to rd. after (&^ Diansn, one of the goldsmiths. — aTnjn no]
C5 BijOavaesfix^, Bif)6avva0avt[ji.^. — aiS^-im] (g xal ol fiogoxcoXat'^, f>oxo-
•jcwXczi'^^, xal Twv [XETa^oXwv'^. The last elsw. represents annon; the
others are both errors for ptoxozioXat. — npann] (gsA .^qq MaqjsxdS Ma-
9eO(i5'^, T^? Extux^tpewi;^. As this name does not occur elsw., we should
prob. rd. mLJcn, as in 12". — njon r^'hy n>»] (S ew? dvii jA^aov [dvoc^i-
asw<;**AL] xa[JLx^<;^ [t^? xuXtqi;^]. We have then JO instead of n'-Sjj. — •
32. We have here the Massoretic note iflDn isn. — njan] and the fol-
lowing h are lacking in (6 and ^ lacks also n'''?;?.
NE. 3'^-4" (eV. 4^-^^). THE EFFORTS OF THE ENEMY TO
STOP THE WORK ON THE WALLS.
Sanb. and his fellows tried first ridicule and then force, but neither
was effective against the genius of the great leader. He met sneers by
imprecation and a fighting force with a large army, his people being
ready to use either the trowel or the sword. Whether the enemy really
attacked or not is uncertain, though an actual assault is improb. in
view of the silence of the text. But the long continuance of the pre-
cautions — and precautions which in a degree checked the progress of
the work — indicates that the danger was always real, and we may infer
that the enemy hovered in the vicinity of the city for a considerable
period {v. Intr. § ").
The text in several places is very corrupt, and sometimes it is im-
possible to be sure of the mng. Every effort has been made to clear up
the difficulties, though we must frequently be content with various
degrees of probability.
In the account of the wall-building the interference of the enemy
occupies a very conspicuous place. There is always an independent
intr., 2^"- " 3'' 41 61 and between these stories there is in N. some
statement about the condition of the work. But between the appearance
of the enemy in 2" and that in 3" there is not a word from N. There
never could have been, since 3" follows 2>', so we cannot fall back upon
NEHEMIAH 3'^4" 225
the theory of a lost section of N. Then we note that vv. "-" are in
substance a repetition of 2" f-. The enemy did nothing new here. It is
difficult to see why there should be two accounts of their jeering the
Judeans. In 2" we lack an obj. for heard, and yet it must have been the
same thing we have here, viz., that "we were building the wall," a clause
which really belongs to 2". We note here that the enemy " scorned the
Judeans," while in 2" "they scorned us." Outside of the transposed
clause cited above, this passage is in the third p. It does not belong to
N., and so is prob. not authentic. It was either added to his section
by the author of 3'-", or was composed by the Chr. when he put the
list of wall-builders in the midst of N. The imprecation of v. " then
really belongs to 2^", which it follows naturally. The gross corrup-
tion of vv. "-" may suggest another explanation of its appearance here.
Originally it was identical with 2" '•, and accidentally appeared both
before and after the insertion, vv. '-'', possibly from uncertainty as to
which was the more suitable position. Then by a process of changes
it was dififerentiated from 2'" and made into a mess from which clear
sense can scarcely be extracted.
33-35. The wrath of Sanballat when he heard that the
building operations were progressing. — 33. That we were
building the wall]. The wall had not progressed very far before
Sanballat, the watchful enemy, heard of it. — And he was an-
gry and deeply incensed], because he was jealous and dreaded
to see Jerusalem regain its importance. — And he derided the
Judeans], perhaps sincerely believing that their pretentious
efforts would amoimt to nothing. — 34 f. As far as we can de-
cipher this very corrupt text, it may be rendered: And he said
before his brethren and the army of Samaria, and he said: what
are the feeble Jews doing? will they give up to them? will they
sacrifice? will they prevail in the day? will they revive the stones
from the earth-heaps? and these are burned. And Tobiah the
Ammonite was by him, and he said: Even what these build, if a
jackal shall go up, he can tear down the wall of their stones]. In
part that is not very promising or intelligible.
d has simply: and he said before his brethren, is this the army of Sam.
that these Judeans are building their city? And To. the Ammonite came
with him; and he said to them, shall they sacrifice or eat at their place?
Will not a jackal go up and tear down the wall of their stones ? The
mng. of C6 is this: Sanb. is amazed to think that the Sam. army was
15
226 EZRA-NEHEMIAH
so inactive as to allow the Jews to engage in extensive building oper-
ations. In defence of the army To. asserts that the feeble efforts of the
Jews is a negligible quantity. In 42* we have a record of the interfer-
ence of a Sam. army in the affairs of Jerus. (6 further makes it clear
that Sanb. and To. had come to Jerus., but there is no record in either
text of anything that they did. To take what is most prob. out of a
very difficult text we get: And he [Sanb.] said in the presence of his
brethren and the crowd of Sam. On the whole, this rendering seems to
me preferable to (&. The idea is that Sanb. came to the outskirts of
Jerus. with To. Geshem, and a number of Sam. To. and Geshem are
covered by "his brethren," i.e., his associates. Frenquentia Samari-
tanorum of H is preferable to the army of Sam. If an army had been
present, the attempt would have been made at once to stop the work.
The crowd was not a body prepared to fight. There are two hard
problems about Sanb.'s speech, the length and the contents. It is
difficult to choose between MT. what are these feeble Jews doing ? and
(& that these Jews are building their city. U supports MT. On the
whole, I incline to the latter, for it is more specific, and the idea of the
weakness of the Jews was introduced by To. Sanb. seems to have been
seriously alarmed at Neh.'s activity. In (5 the rest of v. ^* is part of
To.'s speech, but it does not altogether fit his other remarks. Besides,
it would be strange to introduce Sanb. so elaborately and then have
him make a single self-evident remark. Will they abandon to them ? as
MT. reads, is out of the question. Will they fortify themselves as EV*.
is scarcely permissible. Following Sta. many have emended and ren-
dered: Will they commit themselves unto God? So Sieg. Ryle. The
phrase is lacking in most Gk. texts, but ^ renders s/mZ/ we let them alone ?
U has will they drive out those natio?is ? ^ gives us the most intelligible
reading and the least amendment to make sense. The phrase is then
a part of a conditional sentence, if we let them alone, i. e., refrain from
forcible interference. Will they sacrifice ? is supported by all Vrss., but
I do not understand its mng. All attempts to explain it fail. The
Jews had been sacrificing from their first arrival in the time of Cy.;
they could offer sacrifices equally well whether the walls were built or
not, and sacrificing was considered a perfectly innocent practice. In
spite of the antiquity of the error, the text seems to be wrong. — Will
they make an end in a day?] Here we have a variety of renderings.
C5 offers us prevail or eat. EV^. follow !E complebunt in una die.
Without changing ^ much, we may rd. in any one of the three ways.—
Can they revive (i. e., restore) the stones from the earth-heaps ?] The stones
were so buried in the mass of debris that it seems impossible that they
should ever be got back into a wall. — And these are burned]. This is
not very clear, but prob. refers to the increased difficulty of restoration
from the fire-swept ruins. To.'s remark is intended to be the final
sarcasm on the Jewish labourers; if a jackal walks along any stone wall
NEHEMIAH ^^^4" i2f
that these people build, it will break down under his tread. The
building of a proper wall, adequate for defence, is a diflBcult and la-
borious task; the Jews had not shown capability or inclination for such
an effort. The enemy has only sneers for the present essay; but they
fail to reckon with the new personality back of the efforts.
36 f. Nehemiah's imprecation. — His words imply that Ne-
hemiah had heard the jeering of the enemy. Doubtless San-
ballat and Tobiah spoke in the presence of the people in order
to weaken their hands, cf. 2 K. 18^^. — 36. In the land of captiv-
ity]. It would be better with some Hebrew mss. to read their
captivity. The reference would then be to the fact that many
of the enemy were exiles in Samaria, and so were still enduring
the shame from which the Jews had been delivered. That
reference is not, however, very satisfactory, and it may be that
the true reading is found in (^: give them over to shame and to exile
{v. i.). — 37. And do not cover their iniquity], i. e., keep it in sight
as a reminder that it is to be avenged. The sin may be the
ridiculing of the patriotic efforts of God's people, or that which
is common to mankind. As this is a quotation from Je. iS^^,
we may doubt its genuineness in N.
For they provoke before the builders] is difficult. The vb. usually has
Yahweh as obj., and so Sieg. interprets here: "Yahweh's wrath is
aroused as regards the builders." But the clause could then not mean
that Yahweh's wrath was stirred up against the builders, but on behalf
of the builders. That sense is scarcely extractable from 1^, and besides
would be a good thing for which Neh. might thank the enemy. We
must start with the fact that this clause gives the reasons for Neh.'s
imprecation, and that the last clause means in the presctice of the builders;
therefore we should expect because they jeered in the presence, trying to
discourage their efforts. Perhaps that is the idea of H quia irriserunt
eedificantes, pecause they derided the builders. It is not a part of the
imprecation which is prob. contained wholly in v. ", and may be a gl.
to justify the strong language.
38. The wall is half completed. — And we built the wait].
Nehemiah ejaculates his maledictions, but the work goes right
on. And the whole wall was joined unto its half]. According
to c. 3, different gangs of men were engaged on various parts of
the work. A memorable point in the progress is now recorded,
228' EZRA-NEHEMIAH
when the gangs met and so all gaps were stopped. Unto its
half can therefore only mean with Berth, half the height, not
half the circumference, for note the words "the whole wall,"
i. e., the whole circumference was joined together. This alone
is consistent with the stopping of the breaches in 4^ — ^The wall
was now of considerable significance as a means of defence. —
The unexpectedly quick result is explained, and the heart of the
people was in the work], the condition for all effective effort.
4'"^ (EV. = 4'''"). The enemy comes to Jerusalem to stop
the work by force. — 1. The enemy is enlarged now by the
presence of the Arabians, Ammonites, and Ashdodites, though;
the last name may be a gloss. Tobiah was an Ammonite and
Geshem an Arabian (2^^). Geshem is not named here, but he
was probably in the company. The jeering at the walls had
not stopped the work. An early inspection had apparently
satisfied the foe that nothing effective would be accomplished
by the feeble Jews. Now another story comes to their ears, for
they heard that the restoration of the walls of Jerusalem went on,
for the breaches were being stopped], the condition marked by the
statement of 3'^; the walls were finished to half the required
height. — And they were exceedingly angry] for all their projects
were going astray. Once the walls were up, the despised and
easily harassed Jews would be a thorn in the flesh of their
neighbours. — 2. And they all conspired together]. It is simpler
with (& and U to read gathered together. A conspiracy was hardly
necessary after 2^' ^- 3^' ^•. The leaders now collected a consid-
erable force with the aggressively hostile purpose to go fight in
Jerusalem] not "against," for they had no idea that an effort
would be required to capture the city, but expected to enter and
force the un warlike builders to stop work. — And to cause it con-
fusion]. This is all clear in itself, except the masculine suffix
(li?) referring to Jerusaleip, which is feminine. Still a Greek
text offers a tempting amplification to wipe it [Jerusalem] off
the face of the earth and to cause me confusion. This gives us
the first person characteristic of N. It also makes clear the
purpose of the enemy; they were determined to strike such a
blow that Jerusalem would be no further a menace. — 3. Nehe-
NEHEMIAH 3 ''-4" 229
I
miah, like all true leaders, was kept informed of the movements
of the enemy. That no surprise should be sprung he stationed
a guard which kept watch both day and night. Doubtless the
guard was placed as outposts beyond the city walls. The
commimity was pious and believed in God's power to help,
and therefore they prayed as well as watched, anticipating our
Lord's "watch and pray" (Mt. 26^0-
^. And Judah said]. Jtddah cannot be tribal here, but as
suggested by 3^* ^- it is the name of the postexilic community.
The latter part of the verse is clear: and we are not able to build at
the wall]. This is a serious declaration. The whole body of
workers announce to Nehemiah that they can go on with the
task no longer. The reason for this critical situation is given in
the intervening words. The text rims: the strength of the burden-
bearers has failed, and the earth is great]. Earth is usually inter-
preted as rubbish-heaps, and that sense fits in with 3'^, where
Sanballat jestingly asks if the Jews can restore the stones from
the earth ruins. But if this is the meaning, then the verse is
misplaced, for we are dealing here with the attack of the enemy,
not with the exhaustion of the labourers. (5 has a very different
text: for the strength of the enemy is exhausted and the multitude is
large. The verb "exhausted" is indeed incongruous, yet 05
follows MT. The original verb must have said the very oppo-
site: the strength of the enemy is boundless. That text makes
the passage fit in admirably with the context and is doubtless
right. The Jews felt that with the large hostile force assembled
against them that they could no longer take the risk, even with
their prayers and the guard. They were not afraid of the work,
but they were afraid of the warriors. — 5. The plan of Sanballat
and his company was to take the city by surprise and then to
slay the workmen (in agreement with (^ of v. ^) and thus effec-
tively to bring the wall-building to an end.
6-8 (EV.""'*). Nehemiah sets a large armed guard
against the enemy. — 6. And it was that when the Judeans who
were living by them [i. e., the enemy, not the Jerusalemites as Sieg.
holds] came in they said to us]. The enemy had proposed to
surprise the builders. They were assembling for the attack.
230 EZRA-NEHEMIAH
Among the builders, as correctly indicated in c. 3, were many
who came from the country. It was evidently their custom to
return home at intervals. Some of these lived close by the ren-
dezvous of the Samaritans. They came up to Jerusalem now
with an alarming report. But this report is in hopeless con-
fusion in our text, which runs: ten times from all places when ye
return unto us]. No commentator has yet been able to give a
satisfactory interpretation of these words. Naturally, for they
are wrong. (& preserves a simple and intelligible reading: they
are coming up against us from all places, perhaps adding, where
we live. We understand now the alarming character of their
report and the prompt measures taken for defence. — 7. Here
again we have a hopeless text. †” And I stationed] cannot be right,
for the verb has no object expressed or implied, and that verb
belongs to the second part of the verse. We might read /
stood, but while grammatical, it would not be clear. With (&
read and they stood, as most modem interpreters. But the sub-
ject, contrary to general opinion, is the enemy, not the builders.
Where they stood is in any case unintelligible from the descrip-
tion: at the lowest part of the place behind the wall in the open
places]. For the last expression with <S we might read in the
breaches, or in the sheltered places. The general sense seems to be
that the enemy had advanced to the best cover they could find
opposite the lowest parts of the rapidly rising wall. They were
therefore in the most available place for an attack, sheltered
from the sight of the builders and ready to rush to those places
in the wall where it could most easily be scaled. — Their plan
was thwarted by Nehemiah's action: And I stationed the people
by families [or companies] with their swords and their spears and
their bows]. This action shows a distinct advance on v. ^, where
a guard was set for the purpose of watching; here we have an
army equipped and posted for the purpose of fighting. — 8. Our
text runs: and I looked and I arose and I said]. This is pretty re-
dundant for the terse Nehemiah. With Guthe we may emend on
the basis of (B: and I adjured them by the Lord, saying. Berth. 's
proposal, "and I saw their fear and arose and said," seems to
be less satisfactory. The brief exhortation was addressed to the
NEHEMIAH 3^=^-4" 23I
whole army: to the nobles, and to the deputies [(^ generals], and to
the rest of the people]. The appeal forcibly aims at the senti-
ments of courage, religion, and patriotism. Do not fear on their
account; remember our God [so (&, the Lord ^] the great, and the
one to be feared [cf. i^ Lu. 12^ ^- Dt. 20^ ^•] and fight on behalf of
your brethren, your sons and your daughters, your wives and your
homes].
9-17 (EV/^'^^). The enemy gives up the contemplated at-
tack. — 9. This verse is so difficult in the relation of its parts
that we may well suspect an omission. The parts are clear in
themselves, but are hard to join so as to make sense. — And it
was when our enemies heard that it was known to us] certainly
must originally have been followed by some statement as to
what the enemy did under these circumstances ; but what course
of action they pursued we do not know. We do not hear of
them again imtil c. 6, and that is some time later. It is clear,
however, that there was no actual battle. The enemy perhaps
stayed in the neighbourhood, watching for an opportunity that
never came. — And God frustrated their plot, and we all returned
to the wall, each man to his work]. This resumption of work
naturally follows the unknown action of the enemy, whatever
that may have been. As the foe took no aggressive measures,
Nehemiah deemed it safe to return to the work. Every day
of labour made an effective assault less possible. The people
laying stones were doing more for defence than standing under
arms. — 10. The text goes on to describe the conditions under
which the work was now carried on. First there is described the
arrangement of Nehemiah's own followers: half of my servants
were engaged in the work]. These men were the governor's per-
sonal servants, perhaps a body-guard brought from Persia,
cf. 5": and half of them held the lances and the shields and the
bows and the coats of mail], Sieg. regards all after "spears" as
a later addition, but the reason he gives is that no one would
possess a coat of mail. The Jews certainly would not have such
accoutrements, but Nehemiah's body-guard, the ones referred to
here, trained and equipped in Persia, would surely possess a com-
plete armament. Reuss, on the contrary, supposed "swords"
232 EZRA-NEHEMIAH
to have dropped out of the list, so Berth.; but swords are abun-
dantly provided for below. B has undoubtedly got the sense
when it merely summarises: and half were prepared for war.
Nehemiah's servants were the best fighters, and so apparently
half of them were working on the wall, while the other half were
kept under arms to be ready to resist an attack at a moment's
notice. — ^The rest of the verse is unintelligible, for no sense
can be made out of and the princes were behind the whole house of
Judah], at least not in this connection. (^ vainly connects with
V. " and the princes of the whole house of Judah building on the
wall. But V. " begins a new passage and is clear enough, while
the above would imply that the princes alone were working now,
contrary to v. ». Either "princes" is an accidental repetition
after the similar Hebrew word for coats of mail or it is an error
for some verb like drawn up. Behind the whole house of Judah
then would indicate the station of the armed guard; they were
divided into squads and were close by the various bodies of
workmen, giving moral as well as material support. — 11. Now
we come to the warlike preparation of the workers: those who
were building on the wall and those who were carrying burdens were
working, with one hand he was doing the work, and with the other
he was holding a missile]. Working is a conjecture. The He-
brew word might mean laden, but that makes no sense. Most
authorities follow 01 armed. It is hard to see how a mason could
lay stones with one hand grasping a weapon. But it may be
that what the statement really means is that the weapon was
close at hand, not necessarily in the hand. Or the last clause
may refer only to the burden-bearers. What the missile was
we do not know. U has sword, but the swords were girded on
the waist, v. ^^ The Hebrew word means sent and implies that
it was a weapon used for hurling like a javelin. — 12". And the
builders [in addition to the missile close at hand and distin-
guished from the burden-bearers] had each one his sword girded
upon his loins, and were building], that is, the masons went
right on with the work, but fully prepared to meet an attack. —
12''. With V. ^ we begin a new section in which the governor
describes the measures he took to collect the forces quickly at
NEHEMIAH 3^-4" 233
any spot where an assault was made or threatened. — Now the
trumpeter was by my side]. In vv. "^- we learn that the blast of
the trumpet was to indicate the point to which the whole body
of guards and workmen should rush in case of a threatened at-
tack. Now if there was but one bugler and he always by Nehe-
miah, there would be much delay in the event of an assault.
For Nehemiah would have to be informed, and the trumpeter
sent to the threatened point before he blew the alarm. This
would be poor generalship. The probability is that there were
several trumpeters, one with each squad of the armed guard of
V. ^°. The blast would be given without waiting for the gov-
ernor. Why then does he say " by my side "? We have no great
confidence in the details of this somewhat corrupt text, but the
word may be collective and the trumpeters gathered while
Nehemiah gave orders both to them and to the people. The
trumpeter was a city watchman whose business it was to warn
the people of impending danger (GAS. Jer. 1,^*0*
13. The work is extensive and wide]. The builders, as in c. 3,
are spread around the whole circuit of the walls, so that at any
one point there was but a small body, perhaps the very condi-
tions for which the enemy was watching. — 14. Unto us], for
Nehemiah and his servants would repair quickly to any point
of danger. — Our God will fight for us] cf. v. ^. Nehemiah's stir-
ring address would not fail to arouse the people. Ps. 83 is
ascribed to this occasion in Psalms Chronologically Arranged, by
Four Friends, Macmillan, 1891. — 15. And half of them were
holding the spears] is a copyist's repetition from v. ^°. The
words have no meaning here, and they force asunder related
clauses. Omitting this we have an intelligible statement: Now
we were engaged on the work from the rising of the dawn until the
appearance of the stars]. The point brought out is therefore
the high pressure under which the work was done. Since the
enemy had approached and was now probably lurking in the
neighbourhood, speed was of the utmost importance. Every
stone laid added to the security of the city. Night-shifts were
hardly possible under the limitations of ancient times, but the
working hours were prolonged from daylight until the stars
;234 EZRA-NEHEMIAH
could be seen, when it became too dark to work any longer.
The omitted words spoil this fine sense; as the text stands, we
have the long day, not for working, but for holding weapons,
and the weapons would then be laid aside at night when they
might be most needed. — 16. Let each man and his servant lodge
in the midst of Jerusalem]. As we have seen {v. v. ^), many
of the people (most of them perhaps, since these words are ad-
dressed to the people and since Jerusalem had few inhabitants,
7'') lived outside of the city, and went home at certain times,
those who lived near probably each night. — And they shall he for
us a guard by night and a working force by day]. The Hebrew
n^K^D has nowhere else exactly this sense, but the context makes
clear the meaning. It is not "occupation" or "the work,"
but the force doing the work. The antithesis is to "guard,"
which may have an abstract sense like "defence," but English
has no suitable corresponding word for H^i^^D. — 17. Here we
have an impressive statement that shows again the pressure
under which work was done and the criticalness of the situa-
tion. / and my brethren and my servants and the men of the guard
following me, we did not take off our clothes]. Those who were
especially charged with the defence were ready for action at a
moment's notice, showing that a night attack was feared.
The rest of the passage is obscure. Most scholars correct text and
render: each one with his missile in his hand. But to say nothing about
the lack of support, a further statement about arming is not appro-
priate here. That point has been abundantly covered above. The
text runs literally: each ma7t his missile the water, which lacks both con-
struction and sense. In a Gk. text we find the passage amplified: and
the one whom they sent for water, a man and his missile to the water. But
this has no connection with the otherwise incomplete statement about
sleeping with the clothes on, and is pretty confused in itself. More-
over, we have nStr translated in two different senses. The water was
within the walls, and the carrying of a weapon esp. then is unintelli-
gible. The Latin seems to mean that each one stripped for bathing,
making an exception to v.^, but it is difficult to get this sense from our
text. As some emendation is essential, we may regard the Latin as
the clearest. EV^. " every one went with his weapon to the water " is
highly interpretative, and certainly gives the wrong idea. The words
must in some way have qualified the retention of the clothing. If I
might draw a bow at a venture, I should conjecture neither by night
NEHEMIAH 333-417 ,235
nor by day. This text is not so very different from MT., and some he-
roic course is required. This proposal has at least the recommendation
that it makes good sense, completing the statement about wearing the
clothes. In the preceding clause, we did not take ojf our clothes, we miss
a confidently expected note of time, and the proposed emendation
supplies it. Under any circumstances the passage is too short for a
complete independent statement.
33. tih^x] C6^adds6'Qpwv{'tif)i;as2»''. — d^m] (gi- eXuTf^Or] xal (SpyfaOT),
cf, 4». — jyS'^]. The Hiph. with same sense as Qal is late usage. 05^
IjiuxT^pcas xal i^BfiXa. I suspect that in both cases we have a double
translation of the same Heb. word rather than a witness to an origi-
nally more amplified text. — 34 f . (^ is shorter than MT., and differs con-
siderably from it. As usual, ^^^ has simplest form. Beginning with
S^ni we find: Au-nrj ^ Suva[Ati; So^ioptov, ore o\ 'louSaiot oStoc oExoSofioO-
civ T^v lauTwv toXIv = m^y-riN uji rhnn omnin 13 pica' ^''n nr; ^ follows
1^ to anS uiyn, for which it has Sxt oExoSoyioOat Tijv ^auTtov iciXtv, and
thus shows that ($ rd. those words as m^j; M2\ Several of the letters of
these words are common with l|, and this variant is eloquent of the oc-
casional troubles of those who tried to decipher ancient mss. Mitchell
renders the clause "if they be left to themselves," and for "sacrifice"
he suggests ^r^23\ "they will build high" QBL. 1903, »»). A part of the
balance of this v. is found in the speech of To. — For aj and what
follows (S^ has: ^i) Oouctiffoutrtv tj (fiyoYZxi exl toO -udiuou aixtiiv; ouxl
dva^T^asTat iXciiCTr]^ xal xaOsXet -cb -uelxo? XfOwv au-uuv; (S^ has the cus-
tomary elaboration and duplication showing the original (H corrected by
addition of the extra matter of MT. — iS^in] appears as (fd-fowai, i. e.,
iS^N"', though ^ has as dup. in one place SuvT^aov-rat. — niflnt!' . . . dvd]
found only in ^ and then as follows : xal et ai^tAepov Jaaovrott toCh; XfGou?
tie-ud: tb yeyh^ai yfji; x<^lJi.a xauGevra? xal zh Telxoq e[i.xexpif3a[jL^vov. This
text shows iNflT' for rn\ vi!< or msix for niDij;, nnin for hdh; and nya
or a s)aionym is added, unless xauO^vra? represents niDi;?c, which then
would be understood as a form from "lya. — The first problem of textual
criticism is to determine where To. begins to speak. 05^^*"' starts him
at inarin. (S^ introduces him at this point and then reintroduces him
at V. '5. It agrees with MT. To.'s speech seems to be an answer to the
timid note in Sanb.'s. Therefore in this respect MT. is preferable.
— The clause aiti'j; -iskii should be emended in part after (S (v.s.). —
D^S'j."] might be an erroneous reading in a bad copy for aiiy; then we
might conjecture: ai^j; ns* O-':^ nSsn Dmn>n nnS icnS. — anS oipin].
These words correspond, apparently, to (S^^ xotl elxav xpb? lauToi?,
elxev**. C5^ has this plus M^ xaTaXef^^ofjiev a^'zoCq = apu 2ryjn, This
reading makes the best sense. B num dimittent cos gentes, = nn mh'yi
nSxH a'Djrn. — '3 iSsti] (S^ax ^piyovzai [Ssn] Ixl tou t6xou auTwv. (S^ has
this, but in the dup. apa Suv^aovxat ['?D'']; H e/ complebunt [nVo] iw Mwa
236 EZRA-NEHEMIAH
die, reading nnxn for vn^n. — U has a plus here: numquid adijicare
poierunt. — non] (gi- xelxo?, "M qui (^ts'^<). — 36. ina] d has seen nra"?
as in V. '^. — noB' TiNa] 19 mss. dob' {v. Kittel); (8^ xal ei? aixfJi-aXwofoev,
j. c, n>B'Si. — 37. ajiy] (S^an j.(J pj, ^nd lack the remainder of this v.
and V. '». — aijua . . . '>3] H gwxa irreserunt adificantes.
4, 1. DnntJ'Nni] lacking in CS^'*. — riDn^] usually to/mg, but here and
2 Ch. 24*2, restoration of walls. 05 (piirj. — nnnS] some Gk. mss. and B
have sg., which is better. — a>sisn] (6 Staaipayaf, only occurrence of this
word in LXX. Kittel suggests D"'X-\^d. — 2. Titfpii] d auviox9^<^av; ouviyw
stands for 50 Heb. words (see Hatch and Redpath, Concord.), but no-
where else for itrp. We should rd. Y'zp, so H congregati sunt. — niB'ySi]
lacking in (H^^^, 05^ tou Tcot^aat aiT-fjv dcipav^ xal xot^aat (lot xXivtjatv.
The first clause is lacking in MT., and we have the interesting "h.
Kittel suggests nV, which is better if text is otherwise right. — 3. utiSn]
(&^ xupiov Tbv Oebv -^[awv = •M^rha mn\ — 4. Saon] OH^an ^-jj^ exOpwv, 05^
T. e. ■^[jLwv. — isyn] QJBN g^Xo? = jiDn, (gAi-" 6 xou?- — 6. M'hv'^^v] MT.
cannot be forced to yield any sense. The simplest text is (5^^^ iwct^ai-
vouatv \py\ ex xdvuwv twv T6xa)v 69' tj^iai;. 05^ inserts otc extaxpetJ'aTe
after t6tcuv, and thus shows lar.r'n. I would rd. : nicpnn-'jDD iSy -\t:'N
irSy lac"— i2>N. This is clear and intelligible and might easily be cor-
rupted into the present hopeless form. — 7. There is corruption here
also, but it is not so deep-seated. With ^^^ rd. noyi for tidj;ni. —
Dinnxa] occurs elsw. only in Ez. 24'- » 26^- ", with sense of smooth or
hare, and here the mng. bare places is assigned. But such an interpre-
tation is difficult. 05^ comes to the rescue, having a dup., first that of
(S^, then Lucian's own text : xal eaTT]aav uxoxaTwOev toO t6xou e^dxcaOev
Tou TEtxouc; £v "ZQlq dvaxexTajjL^vot?. The last word occurs in LXX only
in Jb. 39=8, corresponding to U'lfl; so here we might infer aiiyica.
(gBAN- i^as oxexstvot?, "sheltered places." It has a text in which v. »• *»
are compressed into a single sentence: slatiii in loco post murum per
circidtum populum in ordinem cum gladiis siiis, et lanceis ei arciibtis. —
8. aijJDn-SNi] lacking in (^^^. — i^n] 05 tou 6iou ri\i.m, i. e., iJinVx. —
<S^ has an important plus preceding iK-|in-SN, xal wpxtaa auToi? x6ptov
X^ywv =-i!2x'? ^jnvs Dj?>3t:'.s'i. Guthe puts this vb. at the beginning of the
V. in place of the superfluous aipxi Nn>xi. That certainly improves the text
very greatly. Torrey regards the addition as purely arbitrary (ES."=).
9. ac'Ji] is to be rd. with the Vrss. and virtually all commentators.
— 10. nic>i' n>j] (i»SA^ Tciv IxTeTtvaYtA^vwv exofouv, 05^ xapa-ceTaYtJiivwv
ex. (aian;?), H juvenum eorum faciebai. We might infer that C5 and "B
took the "1 from lyj and prefixed to the vb., but (I generally disregards
the participles in this troublesome passage. — a^innc] 05 ivTsfxovro, B
parata crat ad helium. — a>cmni]. Sieg. follows B.-Rys., reading aicma
after v. "^ but in view of nScn nprnD, v. >', the emendation is unneces-
sary. — 11. noma aijan]. In their despair the Vrss. generally connect
with preceding; Guthe and Kittel follow these and change verse-ending
NEHEMIAH $ 237
accordingly. — ^X2] <S Iv toi? dtpT^patv. — a^tyny] d'^Ax |v SicXoi?, (S>^
SvoicXot, B e/ imponentium. There is no root tt'c;', and the word has
been identified with dc>', but that makes a hopeless redundancy, and
after (6 aitr'cn is now generally substituted. The word is pred. both to
"builders" and "bearers," but armed is not good, as that is too general
a statement for the workmen. Perhaps DiB'y is all that is needed. —
12. D^jjni] is a second pred. after anox, theywere armed and were build-
ing, i. e., armed while engaged in building. B begins a new sentence and
connects with following: et cedificahant, et clangehant hiccina jtixta me.
— iSsn] (gsAN i^^^jxeva aiToi, but MT. is right.— 15. ainma . . . csm]
can only be a repetition from v. i" and does not belong here. In place
of unjx] (gA has fjixfau, making more repetition. If the words were re-
tained, this text would be right, as a''sn needs a complement. — 16. v^ii
nyji] om. (S^^xl _ij,l„] (g aOX(a9T]Te.— aSa'n"'] <S^ Tc6Xew<;.— 17. j-'Ni] (&
xal TiiXTjv, i. e., ^nxi. — -nyji inxi] om. d^AN. — ijnjN] 05 e^ -fjtjiwv = umsc,
— 'Sf tfix] (gBAx connects ti"'X with preceding and lacks a-'cn inSa'; (6^
has xal SvSpa ov dcx^axeXXov Ixl tb uSwp, dvJ)p xotl oxXov auTou e?? irb
uSwp. B umisquisque tantum nudabatur ad baptismum, apparently
interpreting rhv in the sense of taking oflf the clothes. Guthe follows
(6^ and has a'-nn hn inVa-i lyx a-'nn-Sy inSa* irx cini. Most scholars
rd. nu for a'^nn. As a bold guess I would propose avni r\h^hr\ pn, neither
by night nor by day.
NE. 5. THE ECONOMIC DIFFICULTIES WHICH CONFRONTED
NEHEMIAH.
The placing of this c. so that it breaks the story of the rebuilding of
the wall indicates that the compiler regarded these hard conditions as
due to the work on the walls. And many authorities have followed this
suggestion. It is true that the forced labour without pay would take
many away from the ordinary means of livelihood. On the other hand,
the work was done in too short a time for a serious economic disturb-
ance, esp. of the kind described here. There is no hint in the text that
the distress was connected with the great work. It is more likely due
to the governor's efforts to secure a population for Jerus. A long
time must have elapsed to bring about the state of affairs described.
Neh. would scarcely have stopped work to hold an assembly, esp. in
view of the pressing danger, which never ceased until the last stone was
laid and the last gate in place. Finally, the date in v. " shows that we
are at the end of twelve years of Neh.'s rule. The passage therefore
belongs to a later period than the building of the walls. It describes
one of the last acts of Neh.'s first administration. The c. falls into two
main parts: vv. '-", the distress and its relief; vv. "•", the economic
aspects of Neh.'s administration.
238 EZRA-NEHEMIAff
1-5. Three complaints are made against the Judeans by-
three different groups of people. — These complaints were:
(i) There was insufficient food for the large number of
children. (2) Property had been mortgaged to buy food.
(3) Money had been borrowed to pay taxes. The result was
the alienation of property and the slavery of some of the
people.
1. The cry was one of distress on account of dire want. The
complainants were the people and their wives], and the defendants
were their brethren the Jiideans]. The people, therefore, are He-
brews who were not reckoned to the house of Judah, and may
be those who had survived the exile in the surrounding terri-
tory, unless the "Judeans" means here the Jews living in Jeru-
salem, as V. ' may imply. — 2. With our sons and our daughters
we are numerous]. Such is the apparent meaning, and this
rendering is found in (&. The population had increased faster
than the means of support. Guthe, adopting a slight emenda-
tion proposed first in 1753, gets "our sons and our daughters we
give as security." But that would make this complaint vir-
tually identical with that of v. ^ and needlessly anticipatory of
V. ^ This change does, however, make a connection with v. *»,
while as the text stands the transition is very abrupt: that we
may get corn and eat and live]. (^ gives a different rendering,
give us therefore corn. But the people do not seem to be begging;
they are complaining of the gradual loss of their property. — â–
3. The second statement is clear: our fields and our vineyards
and our houses we are mortgaging]. The complainants therefore
belonged to a class that had considerable property, and who
Uved outside of the city. The situation is Hke that described
in Is. 5*. The gathering of the land into the hands of the rich
was not a new condition. The text gives us a reason for this
alienation of property, that we may get corn in the famine].
"Corn," as in v. 2, is used for food generally, like "bread" and
"meat." There is no use in softening "famine" to "dearth,"
as EV^. That rendering is based on the false connection with
the wall-building. Famines were plentiful enough in Judah,
owing to the failure of rain, and the situation requires a real
NEHEMIAH 5 239
and perhaps long-continued meagreness of crops. It is true
that d has ''eat," as v. ^, instead of "famine," but the Hebrew
text is better here. — 4. The third trouble is in part plain: we
have borrowed money for the king^s tax]. This is the only ref-
erence to the taxing of the people by the Persian king. Like
all other taxes, this is a preferred claim. As their crops had
failed, and the people had little or nothing to sell, the money
had to be borrowed. In the text we have following only our
fields and our vineyards], to which 01 adds our houses, as v. ',
and one text makes sense by a preceding "upon," so EV^. Ac-
cording to that reading, the real estate had been pledged both
for food and for taxes. It is not unlikely that the words are
a repetition by accident from v. '. (So Bohme, see Guthe's
note.) They are unnecessary here. It quite suffices to say
that they had borrowed money, for whatever property they
had would, of course, be security. — 5. One class of people com-
plained that their families were so large that they could not
supply them with food; another that they had mortgaged
their property because of famine; and a third that they could
only pay their taxes by resort to the money-lenders. Then we
have the plea of the relationship of the oppressor and the op-
pressed. And yet as the flesh of our brothers [the Judeans, v. ^]
so is our flesh], "Flesh" is used here in the sense of "blood"
to indicate race identity. These people were not suffering
from the oppression of foreign tyrants, but from the exactions
of those who were Jews like themselves. — As their sons are our
sons], not meaning that the poor loved their children as truly as
the rich, and suffered the pangs of separation as they would,
but repeating the idea of the blood relationship. The sons of
the borrowers were children of Abraham as well as those of the
lenders. — ^The result of the hard condition is now stated: lo,
we are reducing our sons and our daughters to slavery]. The peo-
ple had come back from Babylonian bondage to find a Judean
bondage, and the last state was worse than the first. In Baby-
lon the whole family stood as one, but now children were taken
from their parents to become the slaves of those of their own
blood.
240 EZRA-NEHEMIAH
Then follows an unintelligible passage. Rendered as literally as
possible, we have: and there arc some of our daughters subjugated, and they
are not for the strength of our hand]. The difficulty was felt by the an-
cient translators. In one Gk. text we find: some of our daughters they
take by force, and our hand is not strong, i. e., enough to make effective
resistance. This text is interesting because it discloses measures of
oppression that were lawless. In the complaints above there was no
hint of violent action; the rich kept well within the law, as they love
to do. Here is a stage in which the law was disregarded, and young
women were seized and taken from their homes by superior force. "M
renders: some of our daughters are slaves; and we have no means by which
they may be redeemed, in part showing a different underlying Heb. text.
I do not think "reduced to bondage" right, for that would be a rep-
etition of what was just said of both sons and daughters. Either we
must om. "and daughters" in the preceding statement or substitute
some other vb. in this passage, as in ^ (taken by force). \ The lack of
strength in the hand refers to the pecuniary loss. A daughter repre-
sented a certain money value as a prospective wife, and the price was
presumably high in this period, so that many Jews married cheaper
foreign women (Ezr. 9, 10 Ne. 1^^* f). Leaving out a single Heb.
letter in the last word, as in 05, we get the conclusion of the trouble:
our fields and our vineyards belong to the nobles ("nobles" instead of
"others" of MT.). These were naturally the wealthier classes, as al-
ways land-hungry, and striving to get together large estates.
6-13. Nehemiah is greatly incensed at the oppression and
takes prompt measures to relieve the distress. — 6. And I was
very angry], Nehemiah was capable of great passion when his
sense of right was outraged. — Their cry and these words]. The
cry was the general wail of the distressed of v.^; the words were
the specific complaints made in vv. 2-5. 3| interprets differently
and happily: their cry according to these words, i. e., their com-
plaint as just specified. — 7. Literally, and my heart counselled
upon me], EV^ "then I consulted with myself." This does
not make very satisfactory sense, and the word does not occur
elsewhere in Hebrew. We might render: my heart was king [or
''ruler] over me. It would be more natural to find something like
"my heart was hot within me," as in Ps, 39^. — And I reproved
the nobles and the rulers], the two dominant classes in this period.
The nobles had acquired the property of their brethren (v. s.
V. ^) ; and the rulers were probably condemned because they had
NEHEMIAH 5 24 1
permitted the oppression. Of course, they may have been a
party to it and shared in the plunder. — You have exacted interest
each one of his brethren] is the specific charge against them. This
was a violation of the law which forbade interest from Hebrews,
but allowed it from foreigners, Dt. 232" f-, cf. Ex. 22^^ Lv. 25'^ '^•.
The prohibition was not merely against usury as we might in-
fer from EV^., i. e., interest above the rate established by law,
but against any compensation whatever for a loan. Now the
charges made against the Judeans in vv. ^-^ say nothing about
interest, and they do not even imply that interest was charged.
The inability to pay the principal of the loans would account for
the loss of property. Nehemiah may have assumed that in-
terest was exacted in order to bring the oppressors within the
pale of the law. — And I gave against them a great assembly] can
scarcely be right, though supported by the Vrss. ; for the nobles
and lenders and complainants were already present, and v. '
continues the charge already begun. The true text was prob-
ably I gave a great curse against them, v. i. Nehemiah was not
averse to such a course (see 13^^), where we have a similar
conjunction of expressions: "I reproved them and I cursed
them," and note Guthe's text in 4^. — 8. And I said to them],
i. e., to the nobles and rulers of v. ^, we have bought our brethren
the Judeans who had been sold to the nations, according to our
ability], or better with (Ji» of our own free will. This introduces a
new feature in Nehemiah's administration. He had for twelve
years been wont to purchase such Hebrews as he found who had
been sold as slaves to foreigners, and had set them free. The
text as it stands would imply that he repurchased the slaves as
his means permitted. (& is stronger, indicating that he bought
these slaves voluntarily that he might give them freedom.
"The nation" means the foreigners in and about Judah, so
Ryle and Kost. There is no reason to suppose that Nehemiah
refers to people he had bought in Persia and brought back with
him, apparently Stade's view (BT.^"^). That would weaken
the contrast now plainly stated, but you on your part are selling
your brothers; and they are sold back to us], so that some of the
slaves which he had been buying, as he now discovers, were the
16
242 EZRA-NEHEMIAH
very ones sold by these nobles. No wonder he was exceedingly
angry and cursed them roundly. No wonder, in view of this pub-
lic exposure, that they were silent and not a word did they find], i. e.,
for reply. In Jb. 32^ we have a similar expression, "and they
found no answer." The expression is peculiar and happy, im-
plying inability of the accused to find any defence to the charge.
9. Nehemiah now appeals to the nobles both on religious —
should ye not walk in the fear of our God — and on patriotic
grounds — because of the reproach of the nations our enemies].
The fear of God here, as often in the late literature, is merely
synonymous with "religion" or "law." The meaning is not
that the people should dread God, for to fear him is to live ac-
cording to his laws. In the latter clause (S lacks "the nations."
"The enemies" would refer to people like Sanballat and his
crew, who had made so much trouble during the building of the
wall. "The nations" are the foreigners to whom the slaves had
- been sold. It is impossible to make these identical, and one
term or the other must be dropped. In later times than Nehe-
miah "foreigner" and "enemy" were synonymous. The appeal
to the people and to God to avoid the scorn of their enemies
is common in the postexilic literature (see, e. g., Ps. 42^- " Jo.
2"). How could these Jews have the face to claim superiority
for their God and for their religion if their enemies saw the
strong and rich taking advantage of the weak and poor. — 10.
The Hebrew text has: and now, I, my brethren and my servants,
have loaned them money and corn]. Nehemiah then admits
that he has done the same thing for which he curses the nobles
(v. ^). — ^The latter part does not help much, let us therefore re-
mit this interest]. The ancients were puzzled by the passage.
0§» reads: we have supported them with money and corn. 31 keeps
text in v.% but in v. ^ has: we do not ask back what is due to us;
we grant that that is another's money for common use. One Greek
text adds to v.'^: and we will give for them money to put away
from you this interest. The course of least resistance to make
sense would be to render: we have loaned them money and corn
and we have remitted this interest, that is, they also had made
loans to the needy, but had scrupulously followed the law,
NEHEMIAH 5 243
making no interest charges, — 11. Nehemiah now leaves off the
denunciation of the oppressors and the recitation of his own
good deeds and makes a definite demand: restore to them this
very day their fields, their vineyards, their oliveyards and their
houses], "Oliveyards" is not found in vv. ^-^ and is an addition
because of its constant use in Dt., which law-book is the basis
of the actions described here. — The text continues: and the
hundredth of the money and the corn, the wine and the oil which
you loan them]. "Wine and oil," like "oliveyards" above,
are added from Dt. "Hundredth" cannot be right. Such a
petty remission would be useless to relieve the distress. II saw
the difficulty and renders: rather more than the hundredth.
Most authorities by a slight change of text render: the interest
of the money and corn. The demand was therefore to restore
the real estate so that the people would have the means to sub-
sist and to pay their just debts, and to relinquish the unlawful
interest which had been charged. Geike reads, "remit this ex-
action of a pledge" {Hours, vi,*^^). — 12. The nobles and lead-
ers had been silent in the face of the accusation, v. ^, for they
could only plead guilty, and silence sufficed for that. Now they
are called upon to speak, for a definite requirement was laid
upon them. They accept in full the governor's terms: we will
give hack [the fields, vineyards, and houses being understood as
objects], and we will not exact from them [the interest of the
money and the com also understood as objects]. — And I sum-
moned the priests], for either they alone had the right to admin-
ister an oath or an oath sworn by them was peculiarly solemn
and binding: and I made them [the accused] swear to do accord-
ing to this word]. Nehemiah was not satisfied with their bare
word. An affidavit is more convincing than a mere personal
statement, even after all the centuries since Christ taught the
contrary. — 13. Further I shook out my arms]. "Lap" of RV.
is quite unjustifiable. In one text we find hands. The He-
brew word is usually rendered bosom, and after sinum of H,
interpreted to mean the bosom of the garment; see Ryle's highly
imaginative description. The action was symbolical, a com-
mon method among the Hebrews of reinforcing an idea. The
244 EZRA-NEHEMIAH
point of the action appears in the following: so may God shake out
every man who does not establish this word from his house and from
his property and so may he be shaken loose and empty]. The
man is to be separated violently from his property, so that they
part company. To make the symbol effective, therefore, we
should expect that Nehemiah's shaking would result in loosen-
ing something from him. This could not be his arms or his
bosom, but might well be his cloak. If he shook loose his
outer garment, so that it fell from his shoulders, then the point
would be clear. But perhaps it would not be necessary to say
all this, as the people were looking on. What happened may
be put thus: and I shook my arms [or bosom], and then as the
garment fell from him, he went on: so may God shake it. — And
all the assembly said, Amen]. The assembly does not mean a
formally called and authoritative body, but the crowd of peo-
ple which had gathered. Indeed, Nehemiah's summoning the
priests (v. ^^) shows that there was no formal assembly, other-
wise they would have been present. "Amen," which plays such
an important role in Christian worship, was much used as a
form of solemn congregational assent in postexilic times. —
And they praised Yahweh]. The subject is "assembly"; nat-
urally those who had been released from their oppressive bur-
dens would have good cause for praise. — And the people did ac-
cording to this word]. The "people," however, had been the
complainants, v. ^ It would be more natural to find the nobles
and the rulers. At all events, they are meant; for the reference
is to the execution of the demand made upon the rich by Nehe-
miah. The people had nothing to do except to go back to their
houses and fields.
This passage, vv. i-", is from N., but it has been worked over more or
less by the Chr. 05 shows that in some texts the process had gone
further than appears in MT. The most liberal expansion is in vv. ' '•,
which are probably wholly from Chr. "icnii can easily be^ explained
then. Chr. introduces a speech for Neh. by prefixing the natural
"and he said," forgetting that Neh. always wrote "and / said."
14-19. Nehemiah recites the good features of his rule,
that he had imposed no exactions upon the people, that he
NEHEMIAH 5 24^
had supported the poor from his own purse, and that he had
contributed to the work on the wall. — 14. He commanded me],
i. e., King Artaxerxes. We might transpose " the king " from v.''
to this place as subject. — To be governor in the land of Judah],
This is the only reference to the official position of satrap, to
which Nehemiah had been duly appointed. The fact is im-
portant in view of the question of Ezra's relation to Nehemiah.
The latter could scarcely have accomplished such great works
in development and administration without the support of
official status. — From the 20th year even to the 32 J year of Arta-
xerxes]. The 20th year (2^ was the date of his coming to Jeru-
salem; from 13^ it appears that the 3 2d year indicates the close
of his term. He merely says here that he served for twelve
years without pay, but the implication is that his whole period
of service is included. — The bread of the governor I did not eat].
The satrap was wont to require provisions for his extensive
household to be supplied by the people over which he ruled;
cf. Solomon's method, i K 4^ ^•. Nehemiah did not exact this
customary demand, but lived from his own purse. — 15. In
contrast to his own generous rule, he describes the precedents
he had ignored : now the former governors who had preceded me
laid a heavy burden upon the people]. The implication is clear
that there had been Jewish governors before Nehemiah, so Mey.
(Ent.^^). The general statement is followed by specifications:
they took from them for bread and wine forty shekels of silver each
day]. H furnishes daily in place of the meaningless after, which
would mean that forty shekels (about $25) were required daily
from the whole people, a reading followed by Guthe, Ryle, et at.,
interpreting the words to mean forty shekels of silver each day
for the purchase of bread and wine. — Another specification is:
also their servants domineered over the people]. The meaning
must be that the satrap's servants were not only insolent and
haughty, but also that they filled their hands at the expense of
those who were helpless before them. The person in authority
is never wont to lend a very willing ear to complaints against
his subordinates. — 16. And further the work of this wall I sup-
ported]. This wall shows that Nehemiah was in Jerusalem when
246 EZRA-NEHEMIAH
he wrote (or spoke) those words. In the Chronicler's report,
G. 3, there is no statement of work done by Nehemiah. The
meaning may be that he contributed of his means toward the
work. "Continued" (for "supported") of EV^. is meaningless
and unjustifiable, being due to the misplacing of this chapter. —
And a field I did not acquire]. He may mean that he had not
taken land for debt as the nobles had, or that he had acquired
no landed property in any way during his governorship. He
was not richer, but poorer, as the result of twelve years' rule. —
And all my servants were gathered there at the work]. This would
more naturally follow the first clause describing Nehemiah's
personal efforts toward laying up the walls. The clause about
the field introduces a different subject and breaks the narrative,
and it may be misplaced. — 17. Now we come to another point
in Nehemiah's generosity. The Judeans, to the number of a
hundred and fifty, who had come to us from the surrounding nations
[ate] at my table].
The text adds: and the rulers. But it is difficult to see what place
they have here. Their presence would not be accounted a good deed
on his part. Feeding the poor is meritorious, but feeding the rich is
a different matter. We may best follow (& and om. this word. Fur-
ther the text inserts and, making two classes sitting at the governor's
table, the Judeans and those who had come in from the nations. This
again obscures the point of merit. After the fall of Jerus. in 586 many
Jews found homes among the neighbouring peoples, just as a large
colony went to Egypt and settled there. Neh. was endeavouring to
build up not only the walls of the city, but a state, and therefore would
naturally strive for the return of his own people. Some were induced to
return. They would surely be the poorer classes, and would for a time
have no means of subsistence. Neh. generously fed them at his own
expense. This charitable act he might properly ask God to reckon to
him for righteousness, v. ".
18. To feed this large body would require liberal provisions,
so we have information from the commissary department: and
that which was prepared for one day]. n^J? is often used in this
sense of preparing food for the table, v. BDB. — One ox, six
choice sheep and fowl were prepared for me]. This would provide
meat for one meal for six or eight hundred people, provided
NEHEMIAH 5 247
they ate as we do with other varieties of food. With the 150
poor Judeans and Nehemiah's own household, he had to feed
some four or five hundred people. — The next statement is not
so clear; literally, it runs: and between ten days with all wine
in abundance]. With the aid of (S we may get: and every ten
days wine for the whole multitude. The "multitude" was prob-
ably the large body which fed at the governor's table. While
the select few might have had wine daily, only at intervals of
ten days was this drink served to the whole household. — And
even with this I did not exact the bread of the governor]. In spite
of the unusual requirements of his court, he did not collect his
just dues. The reason he gives adds greatly to his credit: be-
cause the service was heavy upon this people]. The "service"
would naturally suggest the rebuilding of the walls; but such a
restricted sense is not admissible, and the word may properly
refer to the whole labour imposed upon a feeble people by the
effort to build up a respectable state. H expresses the true idea
very well: for the people were enfeebled, a condition made clear
by the testimony of this whole chapter. — 19. Nehemiah closes
with a characteristic prayer: remember to me for good, my God,
all that I have done for this people], cf. 6" i^^^- ^^- ".
2. *3i ij^ja] (5 ev uloi? t]. xal Iv 6u.; "Bfdii nosiri etfilicB nostra muUce
sunt nimis. — Don] Guthe follows an old proposal and reads a^aij?, as
V. '. — nnpji] (SI- Sots ouv i}\j.lv = uS ]J? un; U accipiaimis pro pretio
eorum. — 3. 3^-12] (B xal ($(x-{6\j.e0ix, so nSsxji as in v. 2. — 4. 05 adds:
y.a.1 oixtat -fjiidiv; ^^ puts the nouns in the dative preceded by Ixt; IT
precedes by deniiisqiie. — 5. d^ has ulol -fiyLciv ulol auTwv by transposi-
tion. To this (Si^ adds Stc aap§ [lIoc lajJiiv, an expression not elsw. in
OT., for Gn. 2'^ refers to marriage, — anayS] (S^ e[^ BouXai;; "B in servi-
tiitem. — ■niB'33:] (S^ ^iq. dtipatpoOvTat. — i^T" ivh pxi] H nee habemus, unde
possint redimi (Snj); (6^ reads yzighq, (S^ xocl oix hjuzi ^ ysXip -^[auv. —
annNS] (S> toI? evT^ixot?, a word which always stands in Ne. for iin
(2I6 48. 13 2' 6" 7«), rd. therefore amnS. — 6. anpjjn] (&^ amplifies:
T-fiv ywvfjv T-^c; xpauy^? auTwv. — 7. iSdm] f is explained as a loan-word
from the Aram. mng. counsel; BDB. explains: "I considered care-
fully." But from his course there seems to have been no cause for very
deep pondering before the attack on the rich. Ges.^ gives, "I went
to myself for advice"; but Neh. was not wont to go to any one else.
The Vrss. all understand the word in this sense. It might easily be
248 EZRA-NEHEMIAH
connected with the common "iSa, my heart was king over me, i. e., he
acted according to his feelings. — r\hnp] is found in late poetry in but
two places, Dt. 33^ Sirach 7'. We have Sn,i in v. ". But the govern-
ing vb. would not be jnj, for which d^ has auYt^yo-^ov, B congregavi.
Moreover, what sort of an assembly would Neh. call against the lead-
ers? There was no democracy in those days. If this were right, anS
in V. 8 would refer to the assembly. In spite of the Vrss. I would rd.
^hhp, curse. — 8. unjx] IB adds ut scitis. — 1J3 ns] C5 Iv Ixouaftp -fjiiwv; B
secundum possibilitatem nostram. CS> shows unnija, a reading generally
ignored, but better than MT. <g^ has a long insertion or plus at this
point: -JjiAtv 81 SouXeijouacv t>\ dSsXyol â– fjtiwv 0! ulol 'Icpa-JjX; Ixatvlaw u[xa<;
oix eij xsTcotTjxdTa?. xal â– fjti.eti; yip axoS(oa6[xe9a to6? (iSeX(pou<; -fjixdiv toui;
'louSafout; toCi? xpaO^VTa? ev toIs eOvsatv. Ixavdi?, lixva, IxotTJaaTe. etSs [ai^,
xi2v 6tJi.Iv dxoScoaeaGe otOxoi?. In part, this is a repetition, and generally
speaking it does not throw any additional light upon the situation. —
uS nsDji] lacking in (SBAx^_-|3-,] (gL ^dds dcxoxpfvaaGat (nijp'?); 1 ncc
invenerunt quid responderent. In Jb. 32' we find nj^jn ihxd nS. — 9.
iDN'i] Qr. 10X1, but we should rd. n-^^ssi as vv. ' '-. — xiSn] @ oO% oucws.
— "nxio] (g^ oiSI w? (popoutjievoc Tbv Oebv ixeaxpltJiaTS Tbv dvetStafAov
X. T. X.— Dun] lacking in (6^^*^'. — 10. "i-i>-j] (g ol yvwaTof [jlou = v\ but
MT. agrees with 41'. — aia-j] <g eGY)xa[i,ev, /. c, airj, from D^tr. C5^ adds
to the v. xal Stoaofjiev Cixep aixwy dpyuptov (ixoOiaOac a?>' ufxaiv tJ) ^ipoi;
•uoOto. !0 has: wo« repetamus, in cummime istud as alicnum conce-
damus, quod dehetur nobis. — 11. nxni] (g^Ax 5^,^^ ^^■^^ ^jl ^^^ |^_ Most
authorities rd. DNtt'D, i;. Guthe's note. — -i2'n] (g^Ax y^^\^ (gL j,jj,,gj^, —
ccj] 05 l^ev^Yxore (xsi). ]| adds to v., date pro illis. — -"jsn] <&^ Tfi? xsi-
pa? [jLou, representing •'Jon, M/om; of tlic hand, as in Ex. 98 Lv. 16". jxn
is defined as bosom, but in the few places of its occurrence^ (Ps. 129^
Is. 49") it might better mean arms.
14. Dj] lacking in (S^^. — ana] is, as Guthe says, impossible. Fol-
lowing <S t\q (SpxovTxa otuTwv, he reads annfl. But as the sf. has no
antecedent, I should prefer nna. — iScn] is lacking in (&^^; It has rex
as subj. of ms. Such a subj. is required there, and I would transpose
accordingly. — nnsn anS] (g^Ax ^t'^y otCiTuv. In v. >5 these texts have
Ta? ^ioLc, for mnsn. Hatch and Redpath give no Heb. equivalent in
these places. Bfa represents a different Heb. word in almost every
place it is used. It is therefore difficult to ascertain what the Gk.
translators had before them. It is certain, however, that they had
neither an'? nor nnsn. In v. " we have apTouq ty]? pfaq, so gfa repre-
sents some word which was rd. in place of nns in all three places. <&^
has 5pTov TYjs ■f)Ye[xov(as [xou, B qua; ducibiis debebantur. — 15. ^^ lacks
Dij3'x-in and avoids a redundancy which, however, is not uncommon
in Heb. The same text adds x>.ot6v as obj. of n^aDn, reading therefore
ayn-Sy Sy. — For :i-;r\ h-;] ^bax ji^g i^' auio(tq = an^S;;. — 103 nnx] d lo-
XKTov ipy6ptov (ou^), H ct pccimia quotidie. — ann;*:] (g^Ax ^j cxxsTcvay-
NEHEMIAH 6 249
tilvot (zOtwv = Dnmyj. — ijd'jb'] Q5^a*< l^ou(Tt(i1^ovrat, (§^ Ixupfsuoav. — 16,
'npinn] (^ban oJ^ IxpdcTiQaa. — n;?j] lacking in (S^^^, (S"' has tA xatScipiok
[lou xal Tcivrei; ol auvaYiiivot. — 17. D^jJOn] lacking in (S^an^ — aiN2ni] 1
is lacking in (&^^. — ''jnSe'-Sj?] <&^ Ixl -riiv -rpixet^iv [xou e^ev{1^ovTo; the
last word not occurring elsw. in (J6 and mng. "to wash out" is scarcely-
appropriate here. Some vb. like "sat" or "ate" might have stood
here. — 18. src] lacking in (&^. — anijx] ^ x^lJ^apo? = "^'os; U exceptis
volatilihus. — n^-inS] (g^Ax ^^ -luXigOet; (jii^ ■kolyzX tw xXi^Get, xavxl Tcp Xaqi,
an explanatory dup. (6 rd. y^S and that is clearer than MT. — n?] (g
TouTot?, referring to the people whom Neh. fed. In v. '^ H has in some
respects a variant text: et alia muUa tribuebam: insuper et annonas
ducattis mei non quaesivi, valde enim atienuaius erat popidus.
NE. 6. FURTHER EFFORTS OF SANBALLAT AND THE OTHERS
TO THWART NEHEMIAH.
This c. is the direct continuation of c. 4. The wall proper is finished
on the 25th of EIul. The enemy first tries to tempt Neh. to a confer-
ence in the plain of Ono. He puts them off repeatedly with a promise
to meet them when his great work is finished. The enemy then tries
to frighten him with a rumour that he is planning rebellion and as-
piring to royalty. These measures proving futile, the foe tries a new
method and hires a prophet to induce him to act as a coward and
to commit sacrilege. A secret correspondence was carried on between
To., who was related by marriage to prominent Judeans, and certain
conspiring nobles, trying to frighten Neh. to some overt and self-
condemning action. In this narrative the plots of the enemy are so
much in evidence that we hear of the walls only incidentally.
1-4. Sanballat, being thwarted in his efforts to check the
work on the walls by force, now falls back on treachery. — 1.
Here the three leaders of the conspiracy are named, as in 2^',
Sanballat, Tobiah, and Geshem; in v. ^ Tobiah is not men-
tioned. We might suppose that only two were willing to go so
far as to indulge in personal violence. It may be that Tobiah
had reasons for declining to be a party to the plot, since he was
related to some Jewish magnates, but it is more likely that the
name has been accidentally dropped in v. ^. — The rest of our
enemies] is explained by the full list in 4^ We note a change
of construction, when it was reported to Sanballat, etc., perhaps
indicating that the enemy had left the immediate neighbour-
250 EZRA-NEHEMIAH
hood of Jerusalem, — That I had built the wall, and that there
was not left a breach in it]. The tenses show that the wall proper
was now finished, a distinct advance on the last notice in t,^^
In spite of the trying conditions described in c. 4, the last stone had
been laid in the wall. 05, however, offers a tempting substitute for
the second clause, i. e., then there was no spirit left in them, cf. i K. io«,
where a similar statement is made of the Queen of Sheba. Gram-
matically this text is better, as the sentence makes a suitable apodosis,
thus: when it was reported to them . . . there was no spirit left in them.
They were dispirited because of their failure to check the upbuilding of
the old hostile city. On the other hand, MT. makes a more suitable
connection with the following clause, which continues the description
of the progress of the work. Neh.'s own account of the work reads
very unlike the story told in c. 3.
Up to that time I had not set up doors in the gates]. The ex-
pression shows that Nehemiah was writing some time after the
event, and that at the time of writing the gates were finished.
This is in agreement with 5^^ (z;. s.). The gate is the open
space in the wall, and the "doors" would close that gap. Jeru-
salem was still vulnerable, but only at a few narrow points,
and thus comparatively easily defended. — 2. Therefore the op-
portunity for a secret or open attack had gone by. The enemy
must adopt a different plan of campaign. It appears that the
city with its menacing walls was not so dispiriting as the capa-
ble and energetic leader. The purpose of the enemy was now
to accomplish his destruction, not openly but by subtlety. If
they could get rid of Nehemiah they could easily dispose of the
walls he had built. They sent him a message therefore: come,
let us m^eet together in the hamlets in the plain of Ono]. U is
more specific, reading: let us make a treaty, presumably of peace,
and intending to throw Nehemiah off his guard.
Ono is found only in postex. writings (Ezr. 2'' Ne. 7" ii'^ i Ch.
8"), in all these places as the name of a city. The place is located near
Lydda, about 1 2 miles north of Jerus. Stress is laid upon the fact that
Neh.'s reply indicates that the rendezvous was some distance away.
Berth. Sieg. Ryle; but Neh. might have made the same reply if the
appointed place were close by. The conference would interfere with
his work without any travelling. The indefiniteness of the proposed
NEHEMIAH 6 251
meeting-place is apparent; therefore it has been suggested that under
the word for villages is concealed a n. p., perhaps Kephirah. The
art., at all events, indicates a definite place.
Now they were devising to do me harm]. This is Nehemiah's
own divination of the purpose of the meeting, a conviction amply
justified by future events. The character of the harm cannot
be determined by the very general Hebrew word; but it is diffi-
cult to conceive of any other aim than personal violence, for the
mere slackening of the work would be useless to these foes. —
3. Sanballat must have sent some one to Nehemiah to convey
this message, probably his servant, as v. ^. The governor does
not reply by those who had brought the invitation, but sends
messengers of his own. Perhaps he could not trust hostile
persons to give his exact words. This reply is, as our text runs:
/ am engaged on a great work and am not able to go down. Why
should the work stop while I forsake it and go down to you?] The
excuse made is not the conviction of a sinister purpose in the
invitation. Nehemiah does not see fit to disclose his suspicions,
or possibly his knowledge. He lays stress upon his exacting
occupation. The interrogative sentence is questionable, as we
find some interesting variants in (H, viz., lest the work should stop.
When I have finished it, I will go down to you. This makes an
important change in Nehemiah's answer and reveals his shrewd
purpose. He is striving to gain time so that the gates may be
finished. We see then why he gives no hint of his suspicions,
and indulges in no defiance, as he well might as governor of
Judah; for he wants to keep his enemies idle and expectant
until he is in a suflSciently strong position openly to defy them.
The superiority of this text is evident, and the change required
in MT. is not very great. It does, however, make Nehemiah
indulge in a somewhat vague promise to do what he presumably
never expected to do, vague because the clause "when his work
was finished" might point to a very indefinite period indeed. —
A. And they sent unto me according to this word four times], that
is substantially the same message, possibly with an addition,
like "the matter is too important for delay." If MT. is ac-
cepted in V. 3, then the "four times" is unintelligible. If (&
252 EZRA-NEHEMIAH
is received, then the repetition of the request with increased
urgency and Nehemiah's reiterated reply, "I will go down as
soon as I finish the work," are alike clear. But curiously (H,
which requires it, lacks the "four times," and MT., which can-
not endure it, contains the words. To find a true original text,
selection is frequently essential.
5-9. Sanballat sends a letter to Nehemiah trying to alarm
him with a report that he was aiming at royalty. — 5. Accord-
ing to this word] is a meaningless repetition from v. *. The
phrase could only be retained by a loose interpretation like
"for a similar purpose." — A fifth time] referring to the four
times of v. *. This time Sanballat, who alone is credited with
action, sends his servant, but the servant is not his spokes-
man, for he carries an open letter in his hand]. Why Sanballat
changed from oral messages to a written document is not made
clear — possibly to make the damaging charge more forcible.
Many efforts have been made to explain the statement that the
letter was open. In Je. 32" we have the statement that the purchaser
of land was given "a deed [book] of purchase, the sealed and the open."
This may be explained by comparison with a Bab. contract tablet in
which the real document was covered with an outer envelope of clay
upon which a summary of the contents was written. If Sanb. sent a
tablet, as is surely possible, the mng. is that there was no outer en-
velope. We are still in the dark, however, as to why attention is
called to this fact. The common idea that an open letter was insulting
— as held, e. g., by Thomson, Land and Book, iii,«^ — is wrong, for it would
be stupid for Sanb. to insult a man whom he was trying to entice to a
meeting. It is tempting to change a single Heb. letter and rd. "a large
letter." The letter was short so far as our information goes, but it was
long relatively to the short oral messages, and we may have only a sum-
mary. Or "open" may be a technical term no longer understood.
6. The charge now made, Sanballat says, came to him from
reports among the nations, the foreign peoples surrounding
Judah. — And Gashmu says] is troublesome. It can hardly mean
that Gashmu — before called Geshem — indorses the report, the
implication of EV\ We may omit with 01, or understand so
Gashmu says. Sanballat is the author of the letter, but he
makes his co-conspirator the author of the report. — Thou and
NEHEMIAH 6 253
the Jtideans are minding to rebel]. This, of course, is a serious
charge: therefore thou dost build the wall], not as a defence against
such foes as Sanballat, but against a possible Persian army. —
And thou wilt become for them a king]. The charge is now, indeed,
grave. To change from satrap to king would be an open act
of rebellion. This is a similar accusation to that by which the
Jews finally made Pilate listen to their cries (Jn. 19^2 f.)_ -phe
charge appears plausible enough in itself in view of the general
restlessness of subject peoples, the Jews in particular having a
genius for rebellion. — According to these words] must either be
omitted, for sense cannot be forced into it in this connection,
or transferred to the beginning of the verse, thus: in it was
written according to these words]. — 7. The gravamen of the letter
was the suspected aspiration toward royalty. Upon this point
the changes are rung: Even prophets thou hast set up to proclaim
concerning thee in Jerusalem]. In the old kingdom of northern
Israel most of the numerous revolutions were instigated by
prophets {v. my Hebrew Prophet, c. 7), but we naturally suppose
that men like Ahijah and Elisha acted in accord with the spirit
of God which was in them. In the time of Judah's dependency
prophets were active in fomenting rebellion {v., e. g., Je. 28).
They were the natural media for this purpose because they were
patriotic. But unfortvmately there is abundant evidence that
it was easy to find prophets to proclaim whatever was desired.
Balak could not understand a prophet who would not speak as
he was paid. Zechariah had pretty nearly said of Zerubbabel
that he would be king (Zc. 4^ ^•). We know that there were
hordes of prophets in Jerusalem in the postexilic period (He-
brew Prophet, c. 4). It is perfectly possible that some of these
had actually said the words charged by Sanballat, but it is
certain that Nehemiah had not inspired their utterances, for
these prophets were a despised class (Zc. is^'^), and Nehemiah
would not be likely to have dealings with them. If we may
judge from Zc. the prophets of the period deserved the con-
tempt in which they were held (Sta.^^). The prophecy which
Nehemiah was accused of instigating consists of two words in
Hebrew, but requires more space in English: there is a king
254 EZRA-NEHEMIAH
in Judah]. The idea is that this terse oracle would be reit-
erated again and again, until the passions of the people were
aroused for action. Some texts of (i» render quite differently:
thou hast set up prophets for thyself, that thou mayst sit [or rule]
in Jerusalem for a king over Judah. There is no advantage in
this reading, but it shows the diflOiculty in the ancient deciphering
of obscure passages in mss. The danger of such reports is now
plainly indicated: and now it will he reported to the king accord-
ing to these words] or better with ^H : these matters will he reported
to the king, i. e., Artaxerxes. Sanballat's letter is very shrewd:
he does not himself make a charge, but pretends to give friendly
information of the dangerous gossip which is so widespread that
the Persian king is sure to hear it. It does not matter whether -
it is true or not. If such a report reached the ears of a sovereign,
ever suspicious of disloyalty in subject peoples, the result would
be disastrous, even though the charge were false. — Sanballat
concludes by repeating the substance of his first message, v. ^:
and now come and let us take counsel together], or possibly meet to-
gether. The object of the conference is made to appear friendly
that they might counsel as to the best means of extricating
the satrap from a situation full of peril to him. — 8. And I
sent unto him], whether by a written or oral reply we are not
informed. — It has not heen done according to these words which
thou say est, but thou inventest them from thy heart]. The reply
is brief and covers two points, a general denial of the accusation,
and the assertion that Sanballat had made it out of whole
cloth. Nehemiah may mean merely to deny that he has any
disloyal aspirations, but he may mean to deny the charge in
toto, even that there was any such report among the foreign
neighbours. At last he speaks plainly to the enemy and by ac-
cusing him of manufacturing the story in his own mind breaks
off all negotiations. Meanwhile the work on the gates had
reached a point enabling him boldly to scorn his enemies. —
9. This verse cannot be original. It may be wholly an inter-
polation by the Chronicler or a modification of some comment of
Nehemiah, now no longer recoverable. — All of them would make
us afraid], but it was Sanballat alone who wrote the letter. — •
NEHEMIAH 6 255
Their hands will let go the work and it will not he done]. The work
is, as always in N., the wall-building. Sanballat had tried to
stop that, but as the wall was already finished, v. ^, an effort
to scare the people from the task is manifestly out of place
here. — And now strengthen my hands] is a fragment of a prayer
which may be genuine. On account of its broken character
and to make it fit the context, 01 has rendered, / strengthened
my hands. In this form the clause might be a part of the sec-
tion following.
10-14. Shemaiah the prophet is hired by the enemy to
persuade Nehemiah to do some act by which he might be dis-
credited. — In large part this narrative is obscure, the text is
corrupt in places, and there are transactions indicated which
are no longer intelligible. — 10. And I went to the house of Shem-
aiah.] The name occurs many times in our books, but this
person is not mentioned elsewhere. Sachau cites the name of
Shemaiah and his father Delaiah in illustration, but the names
there are Delaiah and Shelemaiah {Pap. u. Ost."^). He is par-
ticularised from the others by naming his father and grand-
father, whose names are not found otherwise in our sources.
He was certainly a prophet, but a corrupt one, and that is all
we know about him. For what purpose Nehemiah went to
his house is not clear. / is emphatic, though that use of
the pronoun for emphasis is weakened by repetition in our
sources, being especially common in N. It is probable that
the governor depended, to a certain extent, upon the prophets
for information about the purposes and plans of the enemy.
The prophets were often possessed of much political informa-
tion, and that is the object of his voluntarily seeking out Shem-
aiah, V. i. — And he was shut up]. This cannot mean that he
was ceremonially unclean, as Robertson Smith suggests, for the
prophet straightway proposes that they shall go to the temple.
The meaning can hardly be "kept under cover," as in Je. 36*,
for Shemaiah was in his own house. "Secretly" as H has, per-
haps by interpretation, is not right, for Nehemiah would scarcely
have gone secretly to a paid tool of Sanballat's. Since the fol-
lowing "and he said" lacks an introduction, we may best sup-
256 EZRA-NEHEMIAH
pose there was originally in the text something like "now he
had sent for me." Shemaiah was the one desiring the interview,
and Nehemiah came to his house at his request. The plot
which the prophet pretends to reveal would be abundant reason
for his summons. Or it may be that the original read, now he
was a prophet; that statement would be helpfully enlightening
here. — Shemaiah's proposal is: let us meet at the house of God in
the midst of the temple and let us shut the doors of the temple]. The
verb is very suspicious in the first clause. The two who would
go together could hardly meet by appointment. Shemaiah's
idea is plainly that they should conceal themselves and thus
avoid the danger which is impending. "Temple" as distin-
guished from "house of God" would mean the inner sanctuary,
and that would naturally be the best place of refuge. The holy
of holies in Zerubbabel's temple therefore had doors of its own,
which would be shut for more effective concealment. Shemaiah's
meaning is evidently that assassins would not look for their
victim in such an unwonted place. — ^The reason for hiding is
given in impressive amplitude in the text, the redundancy, how-
ever, not occurring in the best Greek versions :/(9r they are coming
in to slay thee, yea, at night they are coming in to slay thee]. The
character of the message implies that Shemaiah had sought the
interview. The assassins are naturally the emissaries of San-
ballat, who could get into the city in some disguise. At night
is general, but the impression conveyed is this very night, and if
that were the correct reading the repetition would be less ob-
jectionable. There would be no use hiding in the sanctuary
against foes coming "some night." The urgency of the situ-
ation would explain Shemaiah's sending for the governor at
this particular time. — 11. Nehemiah's reply, as our text stands,
is in parts sadly lacking in clearness: should a man like me flee?
And who is there like me that should go into the temple and live?
I will not go in]. (^^ has at least a more intelligible text: who is
the man that would go into the house and live? i. e., to save his life.
The air is cleared, perhaps sufficiently, by dropping the second
like me, which is an error by dittography. Then we would have:
should a man like me, holding the highest position in the state,
NEHEMIAH 6 257
and so carrying great responsibilities, flee from danger? And even
so, who is the man [so cowardly and base] that would enter the tem-
ple, not to pray or ojfer sacrifice, but to save his life? The temple
is a place for worship, not an asylum in time of danger.
12. And I discerned, and lol no God had sent him], so we may
represent the unusual place of the negative in the original.
How Nehemiah recognised that Shemaiah spoke without in-
spiration is a mystery. Perhaps in a very human way: Nehe-
miah could not accept the counsel of the prophet; if the word
had been of God, he must obey; as he refused to hearken, he
could only justify his course by drawing the conclusion, cer-
tainly justified, that no God had part in the message. — For the
prophecy he spoke unto me], after which we should expect a
clause like, came from his own heart, to make an antithesis to
no God had sent him. It may be that we should read: for the
prophetess had spoken to me, v. i. on v. ^â– *, and thus he had re-
ceived warning of the plot. — And Tobiah and Sanballat had
hired him]. This text we may accept as reasonably certain,
though Guthe gives some weight to a Greek reading had hired
a multitude. But while we might believe that the foe had
bribed several people in Jerusalem, the collective term multi-
tude or crowd could scarcely be applied to Shemaiah. Further,
the statement is necessary to explain Shemaiah's attempt to
lead the governor astray; for he would scarcely take such a
course of his own accord. The bribe explains his action.
13. In order that he be bribed], the only permissible rendering,
shows the impossibility of the text. The fact seems to be that
the words are a dittographic repetition. It suffices to drop in
order that, so we should have he was bribed in order that I might,
etc. The rest of the verse connects directly with v. ^'^, explain-
ing why Shemaiah was hired: in order that I might be afraid and
io thus and sin, and it [l] should be to them for an evil name, in
irder that they might reproach me]. With (i> we may read /
nstead of it, though it might be explained with some forcing.
Do thus can only refer to hiding in the temple.
The sinning must refer to his taking asylum in the temple. The
whole thing then reduces to two points, showing cowardice, and enter-
n
258 EZRA-NEHEMIAH
ing the sanctuary. A leader who is a coward can scarcely pilot the
ship of state unless the seas are very smooth. Neh. would, indeed, get
an evil name if he were known as a coward and as one who misused the
temple. We might well ask what harm it would do Neh. if his enemies
had grounds to heap reproaches upon him. Neh., indeed, was little
concerned with what his enemies outside the city might say; but their
effort in this stroke was to weaken his influence in the city among those
over whom he ruled. Once get him to show timidity and they would
have a story to circulate which would undermine his great influence and
power. This section is important because it is the first intimation we
have that Neh. had enemies in the city, enemies not due to his acts
but to Sanb.'s pay.
14. Another imprecation is poured out against the two
bribers (c/. 3^^ ^ •) : Remember, my God, against Tohiah and
Sanhallat according to these their deeds]. We note the absence of
Geshem: cf. absence of Tobiah, v. ^. As we have really '^his
deeds" perhaps Tohiah is a gloss. The prayer is that God
would do to them as they had vowed to do to him. He asks
God to remember their evil deeds, as he had asked for the re-
membrance of his own righteous acts, cf. 5^^. The rest of the
verse may be interpreted in two exactly opposite senses, ac-
cording to the text we accept. MT. makes it a continuation
of the imprecation, but directed toward Noadiah the prophetess
and the rest of the prophets who were scaring me]. This is diffi-
cult, for surely Shemaiah would be named and not included in
the group of "the rest of the prophets." Again, the meaning
would have to be who tried to scare me; "would have put me
in fear," ARV. The English translators strove for intelligi-
bility, but that rendering is certainly not extractable from the
Hebrew. Quite another sense is given by a reading in (S , in
which the remembrance for evil of v. " becomes now a remem-
brance for good toward the prophets, who were giving me warn-
ing. We thus understand the omission of Shemaiah. Noadiah,
a prophetess not otherwise mentioned, was working for Nehe-
miah as Shemaiah was working against him. She may be the
prophetess suggested in v. ^2, who disclosed the source of Shem-
aiah's cunning advice. While the change from imprecation to
supplication is surprising., on the whole the latter interpretation
seems preferable.
NEHEMIAH 6 259
15-19. The completion of the walls produces consterna-
tion among the enemy and fear among the nations. Further
plots are revealed in Jerusalem. — 15. And the wall was com-
pleted on the twenty-fifth day of Elul]. Elul, mentioned only here,
is the 6th month, corresponding to August-September. The
wall was completed therefore about September 10. Of the
fifty-second day]. This reckoning, in spite of the reproduced
awkward phrasing, must mean the period within which the
walls were reconstructed. The shortness of the time has
aroused wonder in some quarters and suspicion in others. The
work must have been done with astonishing celerity. The
enemy were constantly surprised at the rapid progress. It
seemed to the nations the work of God, v. ^^, because concluded
with miraculous speed. There was every incentive for Nehe-
miah to rush the defences of the city. There was evidently a
vast force at work, and skilfully distributed so as not to interfere
with each other. Josephus, who followed the Esd, text, gives
two years and four months as the time for the work on the walls
{Ant. xi, 5, 8). If the date Elul is correct, it was less than six
months since Nehemiah obtained leave of absence from Arta-
xerxes, 2^. He could therefore scarcely have been in Jerusalem
much more than two months. The whole verse looks like the
work of the Chronicler, and yet some statement about the wall
.s natural here. — 16. That this verse is hopeless as it stands
s shown by a fairly literal rendering: and it was when all our
memies heard — and all the nations round about us were afraid,
ind they fell greatly in their eyes, and they knew that this work had
Ken done of God.
There are two ways in which we can clear up the passage: (i) By as-
suming an ellipsis which told the effect upon the enemy of hearing about
the completion of the walls. (2) By supposing that "all the nations
round about us" is an interpolation by the Chr. to whom enemy and
foreigner were syn. The real sense seems to be: when our enemies
heard, they fell greatly in their own eyes, and they were exceedingly afraid.
In the text as it stands, and they fell greatly in their eyes, we have
to assume "they" to refer to the enemy and "their" to the nations.
Such looseness is hardly conceivable in such a writing as we know
these memoirs to be. Neh. is all through describing his struggles with
26o EZRA-NEHEMIAH
a particular enemy and " the nations " have no place in the story. The
latter part is clear. As explained above, on v. ", the hand of God
alone enabled the Jews to do such a stupendous work in so incredible
a time.
17. Now we have further light on the desperate attempts of
Tobiah to overthrow the great leader; for Tobiah becomes the
leader now in place of the discredited Sanballat. Two slight
corrections are necessary to make good grammar: also in those
days], note the vague reference to the time, an expression gen-
erally referring to a period long antecedent, many letters from
the Judean nobles were going to Tobiah, and Tobiah's [letters]
came in to them]. A vigorous correspondence was carried on
between Tobiah and those high in Judean affairs, the object of
which is explained in v. ^^^, to frighten the great leader. Nat-
urally this correspondence was carried on secretly. Nehemiah
may have learned about it from Noadiah and the other prophets
(v. s. v. "). The governor of ancient times, like the present
rulers in despotic governments, must have an extensive secret-
service department. Nehemiah naturally regards this corre-
spondence as disloyal to him; the mere mention of it shows his
attitude. — 18. For many in Judah were conspirators with him],
or were bound to him by an oath, but the sense is best expressed
by conspirators (BDB.). These were the Judean nobles of v. ^^.
The reason he could inveigle so many Jews is made clear by his
connections in marriage: he himself was son-in-law to Shekaniah].
Shekaniah is a common name in our sources, but this one can-
not be identified unless with one named in 3^8 (cf. Che. A. Jr.
Th. 1901,^"). It is clear though that Shekaniah must have been
one of the nobility or occupied some prominent position in
Jerusalem. Then again Tobiah had contrived a marriage be-
tween his son Johanan and the daughter of Meshullam. (San-
ballat's daughter was the wife of Eliashib the chief priest, 13'^^)
The name of the wife's father only is given, because he was a
prominent man {cf. Ne. 3^- ^). It is even contended that he
was the contemporary head of the house of David (Herzfeld,
Gesch. Isr. i,^*^ — 19. The contents of the correspondence are
now exposed. Also his goodness they were reciting before me].
NEHEMIAH 6 26 1
Most Greek texts have his words. If MT. is correct, there is a
play on Tobiah's name, which may be translated "goodness of
Yahweh." The sarcasm is evident. The purpose would plainly
be to make Nehemiah think well of Tobiah. His efforts must
therefore have been in line with Shemaiah's, to undo the gov-
ernor by advice which had a friendly appearance. — And my words
they were carrying to him]. Perhaps words may mean more than
speech here. Tobiah would be much more concerned to know
what Nehemiah did than to hear what he said. — Tobiah sent
letters to frighten me], that is, by telling Nehemiah of imaginary
dangers, v. s. on v. ^^
Here we reach the end of the long story of obstacles placed in Neh.'s
path by the determined efforts of Sanb. To. and Geshem to prevent his
restoration of the defences of Jerus. The section dealing with the
walls in N. (2^°-^*, omitting c. 3, 5) is really a history of Neh.'s success-
ful thwarting of all their plots. The work on the walls is mentioned only
incidentally. We cannot appreciate the stupendous accomplishment of
the great leader unless we take into account the fact that the walls
were restored in the face of great danger and of constant interference.
1. in>jal (S^ i^%oBo[L-rfiri. — y^s na] (S^ax |y aixoiq xvotq, i. e., ys: ana
or possibly nn, as i K. 10'. CS^ has a dup. uxsXefcpOT] Iv aiji:<p Btaxoxi^,
xal ou xaTeXedpGtj ev a^xolq xvoirj, bearing most convincing testimony to
this reading. — 2. nijjij] U percutiamus foedus = nnnsj. — an''i3:!]. A def-
inite place is indicated and Sieg. suggests mifls, — 3. no'?] ^ [ii^ xote,
prob. ]yvh. — doin] 05 TsXetwaco auT6, H venero; (8 shows hnSdn, — 4.
'fl yanx] lacking in 05^*^'. — nrn 1212] (S xaxi TaOra, H juxta sermonem
priorem. 05^ lacks all of v.^, one of the rare cases in which this cod. has
the shortest text. — 5. njn -\2-\2] lacking in (&^^^. It is an erroneous
repetition from v. *. — 'n Dj?s] lacking in (S^^k. ^l xIjixtov, so lacking
Dj?£3. — 6. "iDN iDtrji] lacking in (S^^n^ gig^^ always Dtfj, though former
is prob. correct. — rhan onans] is meaningless here. (5 and H connect
with following, xal izghq toutoe?, reading only nS^m; H propter quam
causatn. — 7. NipS] It quce prcedicent. 05^an ^va xotefaTj? (3B'i). — iSc] 05^
e^aafXeuaaq. — Dnaii] (6 ol X6Yot = Dnain, so It verba hcec in ace. —
nn'' . . . naS] differs from the invitation in v. ' by a single letter, x for i.
Surely the vb. must be alike in both cases. It is hard to choose, as
either makes good sense. — 8. aN^^a] elsw. only in i K. 12"; (S tJ'euByj,
"B cotnponis. — 9. pin] (H^AN Ixpaxafcoaa; (S^ expaTatwOrjaav (al xstp^?
(jLou); It conforiavi. — 10. isj? Nini] U secreto, which may be an inter-
pretation or represent 11.-D xin. Perhaps we should rd. N^aj Nim, v. s.
— Sa^nn] bis lacking in (6, but (&^ has e6pa<; t. vaoij. — •\x-\Th ... 13]
262 EZRA-NEHEMIAH
... <J6^Ax g^j ep^ovrat vuxxb? 90veijaa£ as = ijnn'? r\h>h a^N3 >3. Our text
shows the repetition of a word by dittog. — 11. (S^^^ xal elxa t(<;
laxtv h dvfjp 8<; ebeXeiasxac e[<; xbv olxov xal l^-^usTat = itfN !f"'Kn id hidni
^m n>3n-Sx nii, an important reading which has not received much
notice.— 12 f , n^n] (^'^^^ Xdyo? = na-j.— xin moa' ijidS •\•^y:;]. Guthe
says truly that this passage defies any attempt at interpretation as
it stands. There is undoubted evidence of corruption, largely by a
copyist's error. ^ offers some help; we find: IjitaGtiaavTo i%' e[ik
gj^Xov^A'*, i. e., lien •<hy nac But this scarcely represents MT. (S^
has l[jLtff6ioaavTo aixdv; that would be merely innstr, and thus we have
intelligibility. "ii3U' ]}}th is explicable as a case of dittog., and xm is the
misplaced obj. of the vb. The least change to make sense is to om.
lynS. — n^ni] after (5 rd. in^ni. — 14. Disajn] CS^ ,^^^ lepiwv. — d^ni^c] (6^
IvouO^TOuv = W'yir:, giving an entirely different sense. — 16. hz] lack-
ing in (6^; the word is unnecessary. — on^j^yj . . . ^hs^^] (^ has 96^01;
((5^ 9. [li-^aq) as subj. of Ssv "M renders ei conciderent intra sctnetipsos.
Difficult as the text is, these variants offer no help. — 17. aiaic].
(gBAN (j^j) TzoXk&v = a-'lic. — on^nnjN] sf. lacking in (5^^**, so H, which
has muU(Z epistolcB. — 18. 05 adds to end of v. zlc, yuvxlxa = ntr'sS,
necessary ace. to Heb. usage. — 19. vnaia] (6^^^ %ouq Xdyou? auTou =
7^'^. The doors are put in place; a guard is stationed to
watch the gates. On account of the magnitude of the en-
closed city and the paucity of the inhabitants, Nehemiah
calls a general assembly. — 1. This is the first part of a tem-
poral sentence: and it was when the wall was built and I had
set up the doors, and gatekeepers were appointed]. To this the
Chronicler was irresistibly drawn to add the completion of the
trio and the singers and the Levites] (so Sm. Listen, 26^*^), who
had nothing whatever to do with the present situation. The
setting up of the gates is mentioned only incidentally, as a
second note of time after "the wall was built." We do not
know when they were completed, probably not within the fifty-
two days of 6^^. We have only negative information in 6^ The
events described certainly took place upon the finishing of the
gates, therefore soon after the story of c. 6. The gatekeepers
were charged with the custody of the gates, and certainly per-
formed some police duties. — 2. Then I commanded Hanani my
brother and Hananiah the captain of the fortress in Jerusalem].
On Hanani v. i^. On fortress v. 2^. The fortress was probably
NEHEMIAH yi'^ 263
connected with the temple and was doubtless the military head-
quarters as well as the seat of government. Hananiah is a name
recurring frequently, Ezr. lo^^ Ne. 3*- ^ lo^* 12^2. 4i_ Whether
these are all different persons, it is hard to say. From the
particularity of his mention here it is apparent that this one
cannot be identified with any other. — Nehemiah had given him
a position of trust on account of his character, for he was like a
man of truth], and so different from the lying prophets and con-
spiring nobles; and because of his religious zeal, and he feared
God more than many]. Fearing God is here following God's will,
not living in dread. Nehemiah does not need to give any reason
for the selection of Hanani; it sufficed that he was his own
brother. — 3. To these trustworthy officers Nehemiah's orders
are given for the safety of the city, the gates of Jerusalem shall
not be opened until the sun is hot]. The time is not very specific,
but the conditions would be met some time after sunrise. — The
next clause is corrupt. From the part which is clear, let them
close the doors and bar them], we can infer that the corrupt clause
must have indicated the time for shutting the gates. But our
text has and until they are standing], which is meaningless. (8
has as a substitute: and while they are still watching. This is
clear in itself, but there is no antecedent to the pronoun, for the
guard is mentioned later. Without changing the text much,
we may get good sense, while it is still standing, "it" referring
to the sun, and the time indicated is then shortly before sunset.
That corresponds suitably with the hour for opening the gates.
The doors were to be kept securely fastened except during the
hours of broad daylight. Instead of he stationed] we must read
either / stationed or station ye, preferably the former. — Guards
of the inhabitants of Jerusalem]. The great difficulty in this
treacherous community was to find men that could be trusted.
Those who lived in the city would, at all events, have the
strongest motive to fidelity. — Each one in his watch] shows
that there was a regular military organisation; the guards were
divided into watches, being on duty a certain number of hours
each day. — And each one in front of his house] sounds like the
voice of the Chronicler. The guards must have been stationed
on the walls and at the gates; for they were not so much po-
264 EZRA-NEHEMIAH
licemen as sentries to watch against attack from the enemy
outside. It is doubtful whether as yet there were houses in
which they could live, v. i.
4. Here we begin a new section, dealing with the sparseness
of the population. Perhaps songs like Ps. 127, 128, were com-
posed at this period by a poet who was sympathetic with Nehe-
miah. — Now the city was wide of hands]. Of hands is omitted
in (5 because not imderstood. The phrase wide of hands is
common, Gn. 34"^ Ju. iS^o Is. 2 2^8 3321 i Ch. 4''o Ps. 104". This
is predicated of land, of the sea, and of streams. The mean-
ing is given usually as wide in both directions. It really means
wide in all directions and is equivalent to long and broad, other-
wise of hands would add nothing to wide. — And great] emphasises
the extent of the city, and makes an effective contrast with the
following: but the people in its midst are few]. Those who actu-
ally lived within the city walls, from whom the guard had to be
enlisted, were few in number, and besides were obliged virtually
to camp out, for houses had not been built]. In spite of this the
Chronicler had each sentry stationed in front of his house, v. M
This statement is authentic and important. When Nehemiah
came to Jerusalem he found the temple restored, and that was
practically all there was of Jerusalem, so the city was indeed
in ruins, 2^. The houses referred to in Hg. i^ may have been
without the city. The new Judah had been built up on agri-
cultural lines, a necessary condition in a new community, and
was without a headquarters. We can see clearly that Nehe-
miah's mission was to restore Jerusalem. Now the city had
walls and was safe as a residence, and so the problem confront-
ing Nehemiah was to induce people to live in the city and to
see that they had houses to dwell in. He proceeds to take
measures accordingly. — 5. And my God put it into my heart].
Doubtless he had earnestly pondered the grave problem of this
great empty space enclosed with walls; then the solution comes
to him, as to many earnest souls in ancient times and modern, by
inspiration. — And I assembled the nobles and the rulers and the
people], and then the Chronicler, deciding to attach a list of
names at this point, makes Nehemiah say appropriately for
taking their genealogies]. Nehemiah had a vastly different pur-
NEHEMIAH 71-6
265
pose, fortunately recorded in most Greek Vrss., i. e., for a con-
ference. To provide people and houses in the city the governor
needs the co-operation of the people, and therefore he calls a
great assembly to consider the problem. — And I found the
genealogical record of those who came up in the former time, and
I found written in it]. This is the Chronicler's note to connect
the preceding passage with his list. Here we say farewell to
Nehemiah and his work until we reach c. 11, which describes
the effort to secure residents for Jerusalem and therefore di-
rectly follows.
2. mon] eS^AN Tfiz pefpa, P(4pew<;^ H domus.—^-\^-'h]<\ (g^AK |v j.
The prep, is lacking in (S^; H de. — 3. With Qr. rd. icki]. — ainny on i>'i]
(& xal ETC auTwv £ypt)Y°P°'^'^''^"v — ^^'^?^ 0^ "T'^i; M cumque adhuc assis-
terent. I should rd. nnnj? N>n iiyi. — iton] (S^an (j<pY]voua0o)aav = h';:, dta-
q)aXi^ea6o)aav^ = rnsi. U oppUatcs. — iinyni] rd. nDj?m or better n^D;?xi.
— 4. a''T> ram] (g xXaTela^As* _|_ ^ep^^L, — 5, inVx] (5 h Qs6q. — B'mnnV]
and cnTi] eE? auvoSta<;^A.s = nns;?S. It ui recenserem eos.
y6-8ia is a duplicate of Ezr. 2-31. The notes are found on the
former passage. For convenience of reference, a table of correspond-
ing vv. is given. In the list of the Neth. (Ezr."-5< Ne."-'«) the v. di-
visions are not the same in the two recensions, and therefore in that
part the table is only approximately correct.
EZR.
NE.
EZR.
NE.
EZR.
NE.
EZR.
NE.
I
6
19
22
37
40
55
57
2
7
20
25
38
41
56
58
3
8
22 5
26
39
42
57
59
4
9
40
43
58
60
S
10
23
27
41
44
59
61
6
II
24
28
42
45
60
62
7
12
25
29
43
46
61
63
8
13
26
30
44
47
62
64
9
14
27
31
45 >
46 y
48
63
65
10
IS
28
32
64
66
II
16
29
33
47
49
65
67
12
17
30
48
50
66
68
13
18
31
34
49
51
67
69
14
19
32
35
50
52
68
70
IS
20
33
37
51
53
69
71, 72
16
21
34
36
52
54
70
73
17
23
35
38
53
55
(3)1
(8)i»
18
24
36
39
54
56
266 EZRA-NEHEMIAH
NE. II. THE DISTRIBUTION OF THE POPULATION OF
JUDAH.
There are three parts to the c: (i) The drafting of people to live in
Jerus., vv. *'•; (2) the list of the residents of the holy city, vv. '-2*;
(3) the towns of the Judean province, vv. "â– ". The list is parall. that
in Ezr. 2 = Ne. 7'-", both lists covering essentially the same classes,
laity and temple officers, and both containing geographical as well
as genealogical material. The list before us is earlier, for here we find
but a handful of people in Jerus. (1,400 laity) and their presence the
result of Neh.'s special efforts, while the great majority of the people
live in the smaller towns, S3 of which were occupied. And yet it can
scarcely be in its original form, since the elaborate genealogy of the few
clansmen named would have no place. 05 shows expansion since the
list was made (see notes). The text has certainly suffered from cor-
ruption, as is evidenced by comparison with the parallel in i Ch, 9,
and it has also suffered, like many other writings, from the hands of
editors. Vv. * '• connect directly with y^'^, not with 7"" as Sta. (Gesch.
ii,"') and Sm. (Listen,'^') hold, and show the measures adopted by the
assembly to secure a population for the newly walled city. Ew. has
been followed by many scholars in the belief that the reference is to
the first settlement in the time of Cy. The passage is not so badly
placed as that contention would require. The list which follows,
vv. '-^*, originally contained the names of those who had taken resi-
dence in Jerus. The rest, vv. ''-", is an appendix to show the dis-
tribution of the remainder of the people in the province, and so com-
pleting the record. On the names see Sm. Listen,'' ff-, Kost. Wied." f^-,
Mey. EnW^ «-.
1. And the chiefs of the people resided in Jerusalem]. That
describes the condition when the assembly of 7^ met; the official
classes alone resided in Jerusalem. There are indications here
and there to support this statement, such as the secret corre-
spondence with Tobiah, the ruling classes being the Jewish party.
The wealthier people, being few in numbers, might live in the
city, while the working people remained on the soil from which
they derived their living. — And the rest of the people], in con-
NEHEMIAH II 267
trast to the preceding, hence the common people, cast lots to
bring one out of ten to dwell in Jerusalem]. As the lot was always
deemed sacred, then the one chosen would feel a strong obli-
gation to move to Jerusalem. It is plain that residence in the
holy city was not considered desirable. — And nine parts [were
left] in the cities] is the correct idea. Yet a strict construction
would connect with the lots: one part to dwell in Jerusalem and
nine parts allotted to the cities, i. e., those named in w. " ^%
We must assume that all the common people had been residing
in the cities, such as are enumerated at the close of the chap-
ter, and that now one-tenth of them come to Jerusalem. For
hands denoting fractional parts see also Gn. 47^^ 2 S. 19^* 2 K.
11^. — 2. And the people praised all the men who volunteered to
dwell in Jerusalem]. Some evidently offered themselves as res-
idents for the holy city, and these would be in addition to
those drafted by lot. The commendation shows the desperate
plight of a city largely devoid of a population.
3-24. The residents are treated as in other lists by classes.
We note, as in Ezr. 2, that the laity precede the temple officers.—
3-9. The list of laymen in Jerusalem. This is parallel to i Ch.
92-9. — 3. These are the chief men of the province who dwelt in Jeru-
salem]. These are the same as the officers of the people, v. K
This is the Chronicler's introduction to the catalogue of names
which follows. — The rest of the verse connects more appro-
priately with vv. ^ ^- ; in fact, it is a duplicate of v. 20 and has no
place here. — And in the cities of Judah there dwelt, each man
in his possession, in their cities, Israel, the priests and the Levites
and the Nethinim and the sons of Solomon's servants]. The last
class is not mentioned subsequently, while we miss from the
catalogue "porters," v. ^^ and "judges," v. 22. If in their cities
is authentic, the meaning is each one in his own city. The list
of these cities is found in w. ^s ff-. The implication is that in
Jerusalem dwelt only the civil officers and the common people,
drafted by lot or volunteering, v. ^ while the temple officials and
laity alike dwelt in the towns. The statement is almost ex-
actly what we have in 7^* = Ezr. 2™ and in i Ch. 92. — 4. The
original sequence to v.* runs: and in Jerusalem there dwelt some
268 EZRA-NEHEMIAH
of the sons of Judah and of the sons of Benjamin] see on Ezr. i *.
The two tribes of the postexilic period, the Jerusalemites coming
from both tribes, i Ch. 9* adds "Ephraim and Manasseh."
Of the sons of Judah would connect very well with v. ^^. Judah
is individual here, not tribal, since the sons are traced back to
him.
Now we have had sufficient intr. to expect a formidable list of names.
As a matter of fact, we have just two, Athaiah, whose ancestry is traced
to the sixth generation, and Maaseiah, traced to the eighth generation.
If these were chief officers, perhaps two Judeans would be all that are
required. The elaborate genealogy marks them as important person-
ages. Athaiah is of the sons of Peres]. Peres was a son of Judah and
Tamar, Gn. 38". — 5. Kal-hozeh] was the father of one of the gate-
builders, the ruler of the district of Mizpah, s^K — The son of the Shi-
lonite] or with most scholars the Shelanite, a descendant of Shelah, an-
other son of Judah from a Canaanite, Gn. 38^ — 6. All the sons of Peres
who dwell in Jerusalem were 468 men of valour] cannot be right here, for
we are dealing with two individuals, one of whom was a descendant
of Peres. A Gk. text saw the trouble in part and made Maaseiah a
son of Peres; but that is an attempt to correct one error by creating
another. The v. is either to be regarded as a fragment having refer-
ence to the common people drawn by lot to reside in Jerus., or we
should substitute Jtidah for Peres, and then we learn that 468 Judeans
were living in the holy city. In i Ch. g*-' we find three clan-names,
Uthai, Asaiah, and Jeuel, with a total for the three clans of 690. Uthai
is traced to Peres with four intermediate generations as against five
here, and without a single name in common, yet n\nj? and 'my are cer-
tainly identical. Asaiah has no genealogy assigned save that he is a
descendant of Shelah, therefore nitfpn and n>s'jj are identical (v. Curt.).
— 7. Of the Benj. we are sure of but one name, Sallu, who is carried
back to the eighth generation to Isaiah, but not the well-known
prophet. — 8. That this v. is corrupt is clear from a literal rendering —
and no other is possible — and after him Gabbai Sallai 928]. A Gk.
text offers his brothers in place of after him, but then the numeral is
in the air. We should expect after v. « all the sons of Sallu were 928. It
is prob. that the original text named two Judean leaders who had 468
followers, and one Benj. with 928 clansmen. Gabbai Sallai is as-
sumed to be a double name, but that explanation is very unlikely.
Sallai is a priest in 12'- ". The alternative is to emend on basis of
NEHEMIAH II 269
<S, and rd.: and his brothers Gabbai and Sallai: all the sons of Benj.
The Chr.'s corresponding phrase is "and their brethren for their genera-
tions." — 9. Overseer over them], i. e., over the 928 BenJ. of v. '. — Over
the second city], i. e., one of the two districts into which the city was
divided for administrative purposes, 3'- ". Senuah occurring also in i
Ch. 9' can hardly be a different name from Senaah, Ezr. 2" Ne. 3' 7";
V. s. on Ezr. 2". For Judah the son of Senuah the Chr. has Hadaniah
the son of Senuah, but in the genealogy of Sallu! In i Ch. 9'-^ we find
the list of BenJ. with four clan-names, Sallu, Ibniah, Elah, Meshullam,
and the total is 956. There is little else in common. In Ch. Sallu is a
son of Hassenuah, and there is no mention of the officers.
10-14. The list of the priests who dwelt in Jerusalem. —
These are arranged in three groups: (i) 10-12% Jedaiah, Jakin,
and Seraiah, and their brethren engaged upon the work of the
temple, numbering 822; (2) i2''-i3», Adaiah and his brethren
who were heads of the fathers, numbering 242; (3) 1^,^-14^,
Amashsai and his brethren, men of valour, numbering 128,
making 1,192 in all. The ancestry of the priests is traced back
in various degrees, Adaiah's to the seventh generation. This
is the same list found in i Ch. g^^-^^, though with numerous
variations as noted below.
10. Jedaiah the son of Jojarib, Jakin]. i Ch. 91° has Jedaiah and
Jehojarib (the same name) and Jakin. Our text cannot be right,
for Jakin lacks the conj. As Jedaiah and Jojarib are separate pr. in
12'- 1', Ch. is more likely to be right. Jedaiah was one of four pr. who
came from the captivity in the time of Zer. before the temple was re-
built, Zc. 6"- " {v. Mar.). This is prob. the same man. — 11. This v.
is identical with i Ch. 9" exc. that Azariah appears in place of Seraiah
Both are common priestly names, occurring together in 10', and it is
impossible to tell which is correct. Ace. to i Ch. 5" {cf. 'Ezr. 7=),
Seraiah was the son of Azariah, but Seraiah's son was carried into
captivity by Nebuchadrezzar, so that both Seraiah and Azariah were
pre-ex. pr., another warning as to the dependence to be placed on these
lists. The line in i Ch. s^s «■and Ezr. 71- 2 is Ahitub, Zadok, Shallum,
Hilkiah, Azariah, Seraiah, while ours is Ahitub (Merajoth), Zadok,
Meshullam, Hilkiah, Seraiah. Ace. to Ezr. 7' Seraiah was the father
of Ezra. — Chief officer of the house of God], i. e., high pr. As our text
stands this chief pr. may be either Seraiah or Ahitub. — 12. And their
brethren doing the work for the house]. Ch. more specifically: "the
work of the service [or worship] of the house of God." The reference is
here prob. to the official ministrations of the pr. in the restored temple,
270 EZRA-NEHEMIAH
though It may refer to the work on the building of the temple. Jedaiah
was a pr. who returned before the temple was built.
12''-13'». Adaiah]. His ancestry in i Ch. g'- is Jcroham, Pashhur,
Malchijah, lacking Pelaljah, Amsi, and Zechariah. — 13". His brethren
heads of the fathers], v. Ezr. i''. Ch. has "their brethren heads for the
house of their fathers." These pr. had a higher official position than
those in the first group, though the title does not suggest what that
position was. It is, strictly speaking, a lay title, but is surely applied
to pr. here.
13^-14 ». Amashsai] occurs nowhere else, and is a very dub. Heb.
name. BDB. suggests Amasai, but i Ch. g^^ has Maasai, a very com-
mon postex. name (Gray, "3) and differing from Amasai only in the
order of the first two consonants. The genealogy differs as in the other
cases, but the identification of persons is clear. The ancestors in Ch.
are Adiel, Jahzerah, MeshuUam, Meshillemith, and Immer. — 14.
And their brethrefi]. As our text runs we should rd. his brethren as in
V. ", since Amashsai is the antecedent; but men of valour] standing alone
is a military term and hardly applicable to the pr. In i Ch. q" we have
a statement grouping Jedaiah, Adaiah, and Maasai, and combining
i2'» 13'' and 14a, thus: "and their brethren, heads for the house of
their fathers, 1,760, men of valour for the work of the service of the
house of God." The Chr. ignores the three classes of our text, and
makes a larger total, 1,760 as against 1,192. The valour is shown in
the temple work, and that does not consist in laying stones, but in per-
forming rites and ceremonies. Ch. therefore shows a later hand than
our text. — 14''. And the overseer over them was Zabdiel the son of the
great ones]. This name is not elsw. found save as an officer of David,
I Ch. 27% He must be regarded as overseer of the third group only,
since Jedaiah was the chief at the temple. There may be a n. p. con-
cealed under the title "great ones," but it is absurd to regard this as
such a name, as even ARV. does. The texts of ^ either lack the title
or translate it.
15-18 = I Ch. 9"*-'^ The Levites.— The two Hebrew texts
differ materially, though the agreements are such as to make
original identity certain. The chief Greek Vrss. show a shorter
text, containing less than half of the material here. The list
consists essentially of the genealogy of three Levites, Shemaiah,
Mattaniah, and Abdah. Ch. adds a fourth, Berechiah, but his
name is lacking here because he dwelt in the villages of the
Netophatitds, cf. 1228.
15. Shemaiah's ancestry is identical in i Ch. 9" until we come to
the son of Bunni], for which we find "of the sons of Merari," a son
NEHEMIAH II 271
of Levi. — 16. This v. is represented in Ch. only by three n. p., of
which Bakbukkai may be the Bakbukiah of v. ". The v. is lacking in
the chief Gk. texts; it is a parenthetical note and properly construed
says: and Shabbethai and Jozabad of the chiefs of the Lev. were over the
outside work of the house of God]. The Gk. text which has this passage
construes outside with house, mng., as in Ez. 41'^ the holy place in contra-
distinction to the holy of holies. But we find "outside work" in i
Ch. 26", which is specified as that of officers and judges, therefore it
is secular. Here the word differentiates the Lev. work from the more
sacred offices of the pr., and perhaps refers to menial tasks. — •
Chiefs of the Lev.], similar to "chiefs of the fathers," applied to the
pr. in V. ". — 17. The best Gk. texts have only Maltaniah the son of
Macha and Obed [Abdah] tlte son of Samonei, showing how these genealog-
ical records have grown even in late times. Mattaniah is here a con-
temporary of Neh., but in v." he is three generations earlier. In i Ch.
9" we find Zichri instead of Zabdi, names which resemble each other
more closely in Heb. than in English. After Asaph we have four words
not in Ch. EV^. make no use of them. The words must give some
further information about Mattaniah, not about Asaph. By emending
the text we get chief of the praise [singing], teacher of the [liturgical]
prayers]. The Lev. had an important role in the public services, and
Mattaniah was the leader in the offices. — Second of his brethren] is a
sore puzzle. Second, however, is connected with the preceding "chief"
or "first," and the prob. mng. then is that Bakbukiah was next in office
to Mattaniah the chief. "His brethren" would refer to that section
of the Lev. who were trained to lead the chants and prayers. — Abdah
the son of Shammua]. 1 Ch. 9" has "Obadiah the son of Shemaiah,"
differing chiefly in having iah at the end of both names. — 18. All the
Lev. in the holy city were two hundred and eighty-four]. There were
1,192 pr. {v. s.), and we see here as elsw. testimony to the comparative
paucity of men belonging to the Levitical order. There are slightly
more than four pr. to each Lev.
19. The Porters. — But two names are given, Akkub and Talmon.
I Ch. 91' adds Shallum and Ahitnan. In Ezr. 2" we find six names of
porters, Akkub and Talmon being among them. In 12" six porters
are named, Mattaniah, Bakbukiah, Obadiah, Meshullam, Talmon, and
Akkub, the first three of whom are in this list classed as Levitical
singers (v. ")• — Who keep watch in the gates] (lacking in the best Gk.
texts) is the only definition of the function of the porters in these lists.
I Ch. 9i»-s2 gives an elaborate statement of their duties, showing that their
office was chiefly connected with the temple gates {cf. i Ch. 26). — 20.
This V. is virtually a repetition of v. ' >». It may serve as a transition to
mark the fact that the Neth. did not dwell in Jerus. proper. It would
be more appropriate as an intr. to vv. "«-. Vv. '"f- are lacking in
the chief Gk. texts. — 21. The Neth, were dwelling in Ophel], so 3",
272 EZRA-NEHEMIAH
q. V. Of the leaders of the Neth., Ziha is found in the list, Ezr. 2" '•
Ne. 7" ^â– , but Gishpa is not found elsw. It may be a corruption for
Hasupka, the second name in the list in Ezr. 2.
22-24. Miscellaneous notes about certain officers and
about the singers. — 22*. The chief of the Levites in Jerusalem
was Uzzi] seems to belong to the list of Levites, vv. ^^-^^; 05 lacks
"in Jerusalem," better adapting the clause to its present place.
Uzzi's ancestry is in part common with Shemaiah's and Mat-
taniah's, w. "-^*. — 22''-23. The singers. — The confusion in the
list is very marked here, but on the whole it is best to follow
MT. and begin a new section with of the sons of Asaph], though
Mika is a grandson of Asaph according to 4^^. — The singers were
over the business of the house of God], so ARV. "Over" is doubt-
ful, as the original means rather in front of. It may be that an
attempt was made to say that the quarters of the singers were
in front of the temple.
23. For the commandment of the king was upon them], cf. 12'*, where in
accord with the theory of the Chr. the king who instituted the temple
ritual was David, and David is meant here. — And a settled provision
for the singers, as every day required] as ARV. is surely wrong, for we are
not dealing with the support of the singers, but with their duties. It
is difficult to render njDX in any satisfactory way. Some texts of ^
show another word, "stood over the singers." On the basis of this
hint, we may conjecture: he imposed upon the singers the duty of a day
in its day. This resembles closely the confused note in Ch. David
exacted of the singers the strict and punctual performance of their
daily duties. — 24. And Pethahiah the sott of Meshezabel of the sons of
Zerah the son of Judah was at the king's hand for all business with the
people]. We are suddenly removed far away from temple officials and
services and plunged into civilian affairs. This v. would fit a record of
the royal officers such as we find in 2 S. 8" ^â– .
25-36. The Judeans and the Benjamites outside of Jeru-
salem. — ^The list is no longer genealogical, but geographical;
we have not a list of the heads of clans, but of the towns in-
habited by Jews in the postexilic period. These are in the old
Benjamite and Judean territories. Jerusalem is the centre, but
the holy city was on the ancient borderland between Judah
NEHEMIAH II 273
and Benjamin. The postexilic Judea comprises territory on
the north and still more on the south.
The Judean list is contained in vv. "-so and comprises seventeen
towns, located from Beersheba to the environs of Jerus. Of Benj.
towns there are sixteen in vv. "-'«. After some of the names we have
"daughters," 6 t., after others "villages" {bis), after one (Lachish)
"fields," all in connection with the Judean list exc. one (Bethel). Of
the seventeen Judean towns, all but two, Jeshua (v. ^6) and Meconah
(v. "), are in the list of towns assigned to Judah in Jos. 15, and the order
is the same in both lists. Of the fifteen or sixteen Benj. towns, but
three, Geba, Bethel, and Ramah, are among the fourteen assigned to
Benj. in Jos. 18. On the other hand, seven are found among the
places enumerated in Ezr. 2 = Ne. 7, while not one of the Judean towns
finds a place. Possibly the Judeans were reckoned as belonging to the
holy city, and the Benj. were the country people so often mentioned
as living in their towns. Of all these thirty-three towns but one
occurs in the list of places from which the wall-builders came, i. e.,
Zanoah, w.^" (cf. Ne. 3"). A comparison with the shorter lists of (S
suggests that names have been added in the list at a late period; such
additions would be made as the population spread so as to keep the
list up to date.
2&-30. The Judean towns. — 25. And unto the villages in their fields]
evidently requires something preceding. It would connect very well
with 2^, showing the disposition of the nine parts not allotted to
Jerus. We can join to this more immediately the misplaced v. ^'>;
making some necessary corrections by comparison with v. ' and i Ch.
9», we have: and the rest of Israel were in all tfieir cities, each one in his
possession, and [spread] unto the villages in their fields. — Some of the sons
of Judah dwelt], the others, of course, being those in Jerus. as described
in vv. * ^â– . There follows the list of seventeen towns. Dihon is a city
of Moab, prob. to be identified with the Judean Dimonah (Haupt, in
ZA, i887,''«8). Yekabseel appears in Jos. 15" as Kabseel, so 2 S. 23"' i Ch.
11^''; of course, the same place is meant. — 26. In Jeshua]. This sounds
rather strange as a place-name. As no such name is known, and as an
unheard-of place is scarcely possible in a list like this, the other names
being common, we have to suppose a corruption, as (S^ suggests, or
that in Jeshua is a marginal note, originally intended to call atten-
tion to the fact that these names were to be found in the book of Jos.
— 28. Meconah] does not occur elsw. Doubtless it is a corruption for
njmo, occupying the corresponding place in Jos. 15". — 29. En-rimmon]
is incorrectly divided in Jos. 15", "Ain and Rimmon." On Zorah
see Moore's Judges,'^'. — Its fields]. The term originally meant moun-
tain or wild land, but here the reference is to the cultivated land (GAS.
Jer. i,"0- — 30. And they encamped from Beersheba to Ce-hinnom]. The
18
274 EZRA-NEHEMIAH
valley of Hinnoin ran along the western wall of Jerus., and is given in
Jos. is« as the northern boundary of Judah. Beersheba was the pro-
verbial southern limit of the whole land. The term "encamped,"
though parall. "dwelt" in v. 2^, suggests a temporary condition, and so
gives colour to the theory that this c. was originally intended to de-
scribe the settlement of a caravan which had recently arrived.
31-36. The Benjamite towns. — The first clause has puzzled inter-
preters. "The children also of Benj. from Geba dwelt at Michmash"
of AV. was revised to "the children of Benj. also dwelt from Geba
onward, at Michmash," in ARV. The fact is that we have a slight
corruption of a single letter, and the true text reads very simply:
and the sons of Benj. in Geba, Michmash, etc. — 33. Nob] is doubtless
the same as Nebo, Ezr. 2^'. — Ananiah] occurs nowhere else, and is
certainly corrupt. — 34 Hazor] is doubtless the same as Baal-hazor,
2 S. 13''', as the situation on the border between Ephraim and Benj.
favours such identification. — Gittaim] elsw. only in 2 S. 4', where it
appears to be a Benj. place. — 35. Neballat] is found nowhere else. —
Ge-haharashim] means valley of the craftsmen, but n. pr. loc. is required
here, as in i Ch. 4^*. It was prob. a wady near Jerus., known as the
residence of a certain class of workmen. Ace. to i Ch. 4" it was founded
by Joab. — 36. Lit., and from the Lev. portions of Jtidah for Benj], the
mng. of which may be and some of the Leo. had allotments of Judah and
of Benj.
3. Dunjn] lacking in (S^^. — 4. ninj?] d^ AGapaaOa? = Nne^inn. — ^jan]
(B x.al dtxb ulwv. — 5. '•jStt'n]. The pointing should be — '•J^ti'n, from nSr;
d Tou AifjXwve^^, HXwvt^, SirjXwvei^; 05 makes nicyn one of the sons of
Peres, having of the sons of Peres, corresponding to of the sons of Jtidah
in V. *. — 8. (S^ has xal Sxfau auTou ol iSsXcpol auTou Fe^ouE SriXeet. ol
tzit^-zEc, lvva/.6aiot e'txofft Sxto) tou Bevtafxtv. I suspect a dup. at the be-
ginning rather than a plus, vnxi being rd. instead of mnx, the original
being, therefore: . . . |"'3''J3 "|J3 Sd 'ho^ oj vnxi. In that case we should
rd. niini for fifl in v. «. The least emendation for v." is to rd. ''J3 Sai
iSd. — 9. nxijDn-}3 min^i] is to be identified with nxjon-ja ninm, i Ch.
q'. — 10 f . identical with i Ch. 9" exc. that J3 fails before anMi and
nnsy = nnry. — 11. ijj] (S^'^^ ixivav-rt {Vl), ^to()\xsvo(^. — 12. . . . hjdb'
Dijtri] lacking in (S^'^. d^ lacks first three names and J3 before "'SDN.
— 13. vnNi] lacking in (&^^^. — idk . . . iinN-ja] lacking in <&^'^^. — 14.
nipDi] to end, (&^^^ xal exfoxoxoi; BaSii^X. — Di'jiJn-p] 05^ \Ah(i twv [xe-
yiXuv. — 15 f . a^iVn . . . DpcnTj?]] lacking in (S^ax, — nJS^^^] d^ I'pya tou
oTxou TOU 6eou tou e^wTdiTOu. — 17. <S^^^ has only xal MaOavcd: \>\hq Maz4
xal 'Q^-fjS ulb? Sa[jL0u^t. — n'7enS mini] d^ 'Aa(icp Spx^v tou acvou xal
'Io6Sa<; t^? xpoaeuxij?, one of the rare cases where Torrey admits the
value of this text (ES.""). In ><"â– we find, taking in a little of the con-
text to show connection, 'Aaiip Stgyri'^oq tou al'vou tou 'louSi zlq xpo-
NEHEMIAH 12^-26 275
os6xiQv. To get sense we should rd. n'?nnn, used in a technical sense
for a psalm; for nnini we might rd. pnini, teacher, rhen has a tech-
nical sense as in Ps. 722' and in psalm titles and means a liturgical
prayer. — 18. cipn ... '73] lacking in (&^^\ — 23'» lacking in (6^^^.
d^ xal Bt^[X£vev ev xftrret 2x1 Tolq ySoI? x. t. X. ?_This is a dup., cor-
rected from MT., but showing originally nnyi for hjdn, since nâ„¢- has
St^[Aetvev exl toI? (^Sot?. We must rd. nD^.ll, v. 5. — 24. SNaftyD] (g'^Ax
BaoTfj^a. — nnin^ . . . ijas] lacking in (H^ax^ — -,,i,] ^l |^6pi,eva.— 25. From
>a, last syl. of yanxn, to end of v. is lacking in (6^^^ (save that ^ has
apgo). — nnsn] ^l GuYaxpaatv auTTj? = ninj3. — 26. CS^^x ii^g only xal ev
'Irjaoii, <8»^ xal ev Soua x. t. X. — 27. (&^^^ has only xal ev BeiQpffdpee. — 28 f .
lacking in (S^^x^ — njon] d^ Moc^jlt], Maxva n'"-. — 30. dSv nji] and nprj;
"31] lacking in (S^a**.— in3d] (6^^^^ ev B.— ajn nu i;?] lacking in (§«*«.
— 31. n^yi] to end of v. " lacking in (6^^^. — 36. . . . nipSnn] (5^ yiepfSei;
iv i(fi 'louSdi: xal Ttp Bsvia^tv.
NE. 12^-26. A LIST OF PRIESTS AND LEVITES ARRANGED
BY PERIODS.
This list was inserted here prob. as a sort of appendix to the preced-
ing lists. It carries us down to a late period, certainly to the Gk. age.
The basis of the chron. system is the succession of high pr., v. "• '-,
put in by the Chr. as a guide, and covering the whole Pers. period.
There are five parts: (i) the names of those belonging to the time of
Jes., the associate of Zer., vv. 1-"; (2) the succession of high pr.; (3)
those of the period of Jojakim, Jes.'s successor, vv. "-"; (4) Lev. of
the time of Eliashib, a generation later, v. ^2; (5) apparently intended to
be a list of those of the time of Johanan called here the son (but ace.
to V. " '• the grandson) of Eliashib, vv. 23-25. it appears, therefore, that
the passage was originally designed to furnish a list of the pr. and Lev.
who were heads of their guilds during the whole of the Pers. period. The
passage shows the hand of the Chr. throughout. The big gaps in the
best MSS. of (5 show that the list was developed at a late date, and yet
it was never completed, unless we suppose that some of the Chr.'s sys-
tematic work has been lost. As in c. 11 there is here and there inter-
spersed a phrase defining the functions of certain Lev. On the lists
see Mey. Ent."'^ '• "», Sm. Listen,^".
1-9. A list of priests and Levites who came up with
Zerubbabel and Jeshua. The passage purports to be parallel
to the list in Ezr. 2^-'^ and Ne. f^-^.
1. Jes.]. To make the identification certain 05^ inserts the son of
Josedek. After this we should expect the pr. as we have the Lev. in
v. », cf. 11*. All the names after Shekaniah, i. e., out of the total
276 EZRA-NEHEMIAH
22, are lacking in the chief Gk. texts. — 7. These were the heads of the
pr. and their brethren in the days of Jes.]. Brethren was mechanically
inserted after pr., apparently for no other reason than its constant
recurrence in the lists of pr. and Lev. It has a technical sense in these
lists, like associates, those of the same class. The list does not pretend
to name all the individual pr., but only the heads of clans. — 8. The
Lev. in two groups; first six names, and then it is said of one of them:
He and his brethren were [appointed] over the thanksgivings]. The ante-
cedent, therefore, must be sg. In view of ii^' (of which 8^ is a dup.),
we should prob. rd.: and the Lev.; Jes., Binuni, Kadmiel, Sherebiah,
Judah, Mattaniah; and Mattaniah was over the thanksgivings, he and
his brethren. Instead of Jes., Binuni, Kadmiel, v. ^* has Jes. the son of
Kadmiel. — 9. And Bakbukiah and Unni [and] their brethren were op-
posite them for the functions]. This may refer to antiphonal singing,
or to the changes of orders for different occasions. It is an elabora-
tion of the vague "second" of ii^', whatever that may mean. — Unni]
— Obadiah in v. " and Abda in ii^'.
10 f. gives a priestly genealogy from Jeshua, the son of
Josedek, to Jaddua. According to Jos. {Ant. xi, 8, 5), Jaddua
was a contemporary of Alexander the Great. The list there-
fore extends through two centuries; as there are six genera-
tions, the time covered corresponds very closely to that date.
Further confirmation comes from the identification of Eliashib
with the high priest of Nehemiah's time, 3^
12-21. Priests and Levites of a later period. — 12. And in the
days of Jojakim], the father or predecessor of Eliashib, and therefore
we are in the period just before Neh.'s advent. — Priests the heads of
guilds were]. The list in vv. 1-' was of the contemporaries of Zer.; this
list gives the heads of those clans a century later. The scheme is to
give a clan-name and then the contemporary representative, thus; of
the guild or course of Seraiah, Meraiah. The clan-names are those of
vv. 1-8. — 14. Meliki], but Malluk in v. =. — Hattush of v. ' fails us here.
The omission may be accidental, or, as ^ lacks the name in v. ', it
may be an error there. — Shebaniah] = Shekaniah, v. '. — 15. Harim] =
Rehum, v. '. — Merajoth] = Meremoth, v. '. — 16. Cinnethon] = Ginnetho,
V. ^ — 17. Minjamin] = Mijamin, v. ". The name of the representative
of this clan has fallen out. — Moadjah] = Maadjah, v. ". — 20. Salli] =
Sallu, V. '.
22. A list of the Levites of a generation succeeding, i. e., in the
days of Eliashib, contemporary with Nehemiah. — All three names
recur in the genealogy of high pr., v. ", being the last three of that list;
for Jonathan and Johanan are identical. As Eliashib was the father
NEHEMIAH I2*-26 277
of Jojada, we might render: the Lev. in the days of Eliashib, Jojada,
Jonathan and Jaddua were recorded as heads of guilds]. At all events,
the three high pr. cannot be classed as Lev. — And the pr. unto the
reign of Dar. the Pers.] is quite unintelligible here. The idea seems to
be that a certain list covered the pr. known as far down the period as
the reign of Dar., cf. v. ^'. It may be misplaced from vv. *-', where the
date would be accurate. It is obviously but a fragment. Dar. the Pers.
is peculiar, the only case of the gentilic form, and suggests a fragment
from an unfamiliar hand.
23-26. Another list of Levites and notes of their duties. — 23.
Here we find the unusual sons of Levi in place of the common Lev.,
"perhaps to include them with pr.," Berth. — Written upon the book
of the deeds of the days]. "The deeds of the days" is equiv. to an-
nals or chronicles; it is a technical term used many times, though
usually with some further definition, as the annals of the kings of
Israel (or Judah). It refers, though, to a historical record, not to a
genealogy. But the Chr. wrote history on the theory that genealo-
gies were an important part, and this may pass as his work. In 7%
however, the correct term, "book of genealogy," occurs. — And down
to the days of Johanan [or Jonathan, v. "] the son of Eliashib], or strictly
the grajtdson, vv. " '•, cf. Ezr. lo^; "son" is not employed very strictly
in these records. The words do not fit their present connection,
as they require a preceding statement of an earlier date than that of
Jonathan. Instead of the inappropriate "book of the chronicles,"
there may have originally stood "in the days of . . . and down to,"
etc. Or V. "^ may be connected with v. "», the record extending from
Eliashib to his grandson. The idea is that there was a record of the
Lev. who were heads of guilds down to the time of Johanan, that is, later
than Neh. — 24. The Lev. are divided into two classes by their offices.
In the first class we find nearly the same names as in v. «, Hashahiah,
Sherebiah, and Jes. the son of Kadmiel. — And their brethren in front
of them], B in their courses, v. on v. '. — The office of this class is to praise
and give thanks] cf. v. * 11". — David] is here given the prophetic title
the man of God, to show that his authority in the regulation of the
temple service was not royal but prophetic. How different is the
David of 2 S. 7, who was enjoined from building the temple by Nathan
the prophet! — Watch next to watch] ARV., but see v. ' for their watches
or functions. U renders freely and they in turn kept watch equally.
It seems more natural to suppose that the reference here is not to
standing watches by turn, but to the antiphonal singing, one body of
singers opposite another body. — 25. The second class of Lev. consists
of six men, the first three of whom — Mattaniah, Bakbukiah, and
Obadiah ( = Abda=Unni) — are named in vv. ^ f- n", and the last two,
Talmon and Akkub, are named as porters in 11". In i Ch. 91' we find
also Shallum, corresponding to our MeshuUam. — As our text stands their
278 EZRA-NEHEMIAH
duties are thus defined: watchmen, gatekeepers [their] office, at the store-
houses of the gates]. Such a description is very prob. wrong. The
Vrss. render variously, (H having watchmen, gatekeepers of the watch
when I gathered the gatekeepers. It has: keepers of the gates and of the
fore-courts before the gates, a rendering which has the advantage of mak-
ing sense. All we can say positively is that these men were charged
with the duty prescribed in 7' of seeing that the gates were watched and
opened and closed at the proper time. This fact, as well as the "I" of
05, suggests a fragment of N. The same function in 11" is prescribed
for the gatekeepers. The confusion is surely bewildering. The impli-
cation is that the gatekeepers were a branch of the Levitical body.—
26. The text contains two dates, one that of Jojakim the predecessor
of Eliashib, the other that of Neh. and Ezra. But the theory is that
Ezra and Neh. were contemporaries, and it is possibly the intention of
the writer to name three men assumed to be of the same age, and there-
fore we should expect Eliashib instead of Jojakim. One Gk. cod. con-
nects this date with the following story of the dedication of the walls.
It is suggestive to find Neh. preceding Ezra, contrary to the Chr.'s
arrangement of his material. Strictly speaking, we might interpret
this V. as mng. that the lists enumerated cover the period from Jojakim
to Ezra, a period of considerable length.
2. crjn] lacking in (&^^^. — yw^] (S^ It^cou tou loxreSsx. — nnoN] 0»^
Kuxgiiaq. — 3. From Dm to v. '% the end of the list, there is a blank
in ^BAN,_4, i-,j;] (|L ASata?.— 8. n>jnn] (&^ Maxavta.— Mja] (&^ x,al
ol ufol oeuTou = VJ21. — nnin-Sy] (S^ak i^\ ^(^.^ X^'P^v, (S>^ exl twv l^o-
[AoXoYT^ffEwv = nninn-'r>" as in v. ". And so we should rd. instead of
a. X., which is a form hard to explain. 05 shows that the error was an
old one. — 9, d^^^' omits all but last word, which is connected with v. ».
— After Dn^nx] (S^ inserts d;v£x.po6ovTo, which in five places represents
four different Heb. words, no one of which can readily be inferred here. —
10. yie'^] 05^^ 'iTjffou? 6 TOU 'IwaeBex,. — 12. vn] (g^A-K (JBsXyol auxou =
VPN, 05^ has the dup. r^^m ol d3. — n>jjn] lacking in (&'^. — ^JiSsS] 05 T(p .
MaXoux = iiSd, as v. ^. d^-^*^' omits all the rest of the names down to
the end of v.". — 15. Dnn] (g^ Psouji, = Dim, as v. '. — 17. After d^d^jd'?]
(^ has Motcrat. Some name is required. (&^ has Bsvtafieiv ev v.al-
pot? T<p cpsXi^Tst, reading anj-'iDa. — 24. notrn] 05 Apta AaaPta(<;)^'<^. —
SN''mp-p] (S^^^ xotl ol \Ao\ KaSiJitifjX; (5^ x,al ol ulol aOioO, KeBtAi'^X; con-
sistently that text reads ol ctSeXipol auxoO, showing vns, and having
Kadmiel alone as antecedent. — 25. iDiTD . . . r^^iT\-d\ lacking in (S^^^.
— "iDtt'D Dn;;iB'] ^ xuXopol tpuXaxtj?. — "tr'n iDDxa] 05 ev xy CTuvayaYsiv (jls
Toi? toXmpoOc We should rd. anjjti'a, as in ii»». — . . . idb'c] H custodes
portarum et vestibulorum ante portas. — 26. Cg^A.'* lacks nVs and nnon.
— Before ■>D>3i] C5^ has a part of what is also found in v. ", giving this
as the date of the dedication of the walls.
NEHEMIAH i2"-« 279
NE. I227-«. THE DEDICATION OF THE WALLS.
The subject shows that we must go back to 7', for the dedication
would be the natural sequence to the completion of the building. It
is prob. that the original order was 7' 12"-" y*-^^ iii 'â– . Editors and
compilers have done much more damage, however, than merely to dis-
arrange the chron. connections; for in this part the confusion is prob.
unparalleled in the OT. It is beyond the bounds of probability that
any ingenuity of criticism will be able to restore the original. At the
basis there seems to be a mere unintelligible fragment of N. which has
been worked over and over until the passage is hopelessly obscure.
We have two recensions of the expanded text, of which the Gk. is by
far the simpler.
But the main course of the narrative may be followed. The Lev.
were brought from their rural abodes to lead in the joyful songs. The
people were drawn up in two companies, each with its leader, and with
a company of pr. carrying clarions. One company started from the
dung gate eastward, traversing the wall to the east water gate, and
halting in the temple area. The second company with Neh. at its
head went in the opposite direction, and after going along a portion of
the wall halted also in the temple area. The whole body, now reunited,
witnessed the offering of splendid sacrifices and participated in the loud
rejoicings. On this section see Kost. Wied.*'> '-, and esp. the excellent
article by Mitchell, JBL. 1903,"° ^-t in which he has attempted, with
the aid of all the modern light, to show the course of march of each
company.
Its place here is prob. due to the fact that in its present form it is
much more concerned with the pr. and Lev. than with the walls. We
might perhaps give it as a title: The Great Place of the Priests and Levites
in the Dedication of the Walls. Nevertheless there seems to be a frag-
ment of N. discernible here and there, though so worked over by the
Chr. as to be barely distinguishable. It is noteworthy that (S^^^ here
generally agree, showing a single prototype and that their version is
much shorter than MT. MT. therefore reveals much editing and
amplifying. The passage begins with such abruptness that we may as-
sume that some introductory words have been lost.
27. And at the dedication of the wall of Jerusalem], a phrase
which shows that we are not dealing with N. He would not have
named the city. — They sought the Levites from all their places].
Here we have an exact statement of fact. In Nehemiah's time
the Levites did not live in Jerusalem, but were scattered about
28o EZRA-NEHEMIAH
the country. — To make a dedication and rejoicing. In joyful
singing the Levites are assumed to be leaders, cf. v. ^^. — And with
thanksgivings] fits in very poorly, as it interrupts the connection.
The dedication and rejoicing were to be made with song of cym-
bals and of lutes], i. e., songs sung to the accompaniment of cym-
bals and lutes. An editor has added the third common instru-
ment, and with harps]; for the construction differs from the
preceding and the word fails in (&. Harps would hardly be suit-
able in a procession. — 28 f . is parallel with v. ^7. The Levites
were gathered from their places to sing joyful songs, and now
the sons of the singers] are collected from the same places and
for the same purpose. " Sons of the singers " means those skilled
in song. — From the plain* around Jerusalem and from the villages
and from the fields] so (S, to which in MT. we find additions thus:
from the villages of the Netophathites and from Beth-haggilgal and
from the fields of Geba and Azmaweth]. Netophah is about fif-
teen miles south-west of Jerusalem, and was in later days the
home of Levites. Beth-haggilgal is a mystery, but as other
names have a novm preceding, this may mean, from the Levite
house at Gilgal, a name given to several localities, any one
of which may be meant here. Geba and Azmaweth are north
of Jerusalem. The use of hamlets and fields shows that the
Levites of Nehemiah's time were earning their living from the
soil. The simpler text of (B is the original, a conclusion borne
out by the note following: for the singers had built their ham-
lets about Jerusalem]. The Chronicler was overfond of loading
down his narrative with such comments. — 30. In preparation*
for a religious office the priests and Levites purified themselves],
cf. Ezr. 6'^". This would be necessary for the Levites who had
been engaged in agriculture; perhaps also for the priests, be-
cause they had been labouring on the walls. The singers are
not mentioned, because they are the same as the Levites.
After purifying themselves, they in turn purified the people and
the gates and the wall]. (B saw the incongruity and rendered, as
is perfectly possible by change of pointing, "gatekeepers" for
* G. A. Smith holds that plain or circuit here has a political rather than a geographical
sense (Jer. i,*").
NEHEMIAH I2"-« 281
"gates," but we still have "wall," and "gatekeepers" is not ap-
propriate here. How this purifying was accomplished we are
not informed; Sieg. says by a sacrifice, and by sprinkling with
the blood of the victim. — 31. And I had the princes of Jtidah go
upon the wall; and I stationed two great processions and they were
proceeding to the right at the dung gate]. The first person shows
that we have a trace of N. again. There is a general descrip-
tion of the whole company which took part in the dedication
upon the wall, consisting of the princes and the processions of
singers or of the people generally. Mitchell, however, proposes
"and the one went" for "and they were proceeding" (JBL.
1903,^^), making the passage refer to one of the two companies.
The place where they ascended the wall was at the dung gate
in the Tyropoeon valley on the south. (But cf. note on v. ^2,) —
212. And there went after them Hoshaiah and half of the princes of
Judah], but corresponding to this in v. ^^ we have half of the peo-
ple, and should so read here. It is plain that as we have half
of the parade here, and find the other half with Nehemiah,
V. â– *", and as we have the second procession, v. ^^, we are dealing
now with the first procession only. Further, this division goes
to the right, while the second goes to the left, v. ^^. Possibly the
clauses are transposed in v. ^^ and that we should read: and I
stationed two great divisions upon the wall; one was at the dung
gate; and I caused the princes of Judah [the first division] to go to
the right. — 33 f. Some names are inserted here absolutely without
connection. Most of them we can identify with Levites. Judah
and Benjamin as they stand in the list are persons, not tribes,
and yet it is tempting to think that they are really used here to
cover the whole community. — 35 f . And some of the sons of the
priests with clarions], cf. "sons of the singers," v. "«. The clarion
was a priestly instrument. It was not intended for tunes but
for signals, like our bugle. The priests named are Zechariah,
whose ancestry is traced to Asaph the singer, and (according to
C5) Shemaiah and Azarel. The other names are partly corrupt
forms not found elswehere. — With the singing instruments of
David the man of God], cf. v. ^^ and Am. 6^ This can hardly be
original ; for the priests had clarions and the Levites had the ac-
282 EZRA-NEHEMIAH
companying instruments, v. ^7. — And Ezra the scribe was before
them]. The Chronicler is bound to magnify his favourite and
so he does not hesitate here to make him the leader of the band.
37. The course of this procession is now described: unto the
fountain gate], "by" of RV., instead of "unto," or literally
"upon," is a doubtful rendering forced by the difficulty of the
situation: and straight before them], RV., rather and over against
them, but it is impossible to say over against what. — They went
up by the stairs of the city of David] v. 3^^. — It is generally as-
sumed that the procession leaves the wall and goes straight
north, Ryle, Sieg. But from the qualifying clause by the ascent
of the wall above the house of David], it would appear that the
company followed the wall. Our ignorance of the ancient
topography makes it impossible to determine the exact force
of the words. — And to the water gate on the east] of the temple,
cf:^"^. This was the end of the journey of the first company.
The march took them around something like one-fourth of the
circuit of the walls, from the dimg gate to the water gate. —
38. And the second procession was going to the left], i. e., to the
west: to meet them there in one Greek text. — Atid I was following
it; and half the people]. Nehemiah himself was in the rear of
this procession, as Hoshaiah followed the other, v. ^^j the Chron-
icler put Ezra with the former, a high dignitary being with
each company. — Upon the wall above the tozver of the ovens as far
as the broad wall] is the description of the course followed by the
second division. — 39. Here we find the course of the march re-
sumed: beyond the gate of Ephraim and past the old gate* and the
fish gate and the tower of Hananel and the tower ofHammeahand
to the sheep gate and they stopped at the gate of the guard]. This
procession went out by the gate of Ephraim and marched around
the walls to the sheep gate, and then keeping within the walls
finished the circuit to the gate of the guard, which was close
by the temple. There must have been bad going outside of
the walls for the latter part of the march, or else the company
came inside because it had nearly reached the meeting-place
at the temple area. The distance traversed was thus about
• Strictly " gate of the old [pool]," Mitchell, JBL. i903,"2 ff..
NEHEMIAH I2«-*' 283
the same as that of the first procession. — 40. And both proces-
sions came to a halt at the house of God]. One had come into the
city at the water gate, the other at the sheep gate, both places
in the temple precincts. It is assumed that they marched on
until they met and stopped at the temple. The story then is
resumed in v. ^, for w. ^^ ^- contain material inappropriate to
this place. — And I and half the nobles with me] is doubtless a
genuine fragment of N., but the predicate is gone beyond re-
covery, perhaps buried in the list of priestly names. It may be
a duplicate of "I and half of the people," v. ^^ — 41. This con-
tains a list of seven priests who had trumpets. It is perhaps in-
tended to imply that this is the body of priests in the second
company corresponding to those assigned to the first company,
V. 3^, and so the Chronicler has put his material in at a very
bad place, for here we have done with the second procession
and are dealing with the whole body at rest before the temple.
— 42. A further list of eight priests is given, but with no in-
timation of their office. — And the singers chanted aloud] seems
to be authentic, as this singing would naturally begin as the
two processions halted before the temple. — ^The following and
Izrahiah was the overseer] is certainly corrupt or a bald inter-
polation by the Chronicler. (U has and the singers were heard
and paid attention. — 43. The conclusion of the dedicatory exer-
cises consisted of great sacrifices, for which purpose the pro-
cessions had halted at the temple, and rejoicing on the part of
the whole people, including women and children, who had nat-
urally gathered to watch the great proceedings. — The rejoicing
of Jerusalem was heard afar off], i. e., the joyful shouting was
loud and participated in by many people, cf. Ezr. t,^^.
44-47. Provision to secure the collection of the priestly
revenues. The connection with the dedication of the walls
is purely artificial. "On that day" {cf. 13I) is about as vague
as "once upon a time." The passage by subject matter is con-
nected with I028-39, and with some parts of c. 13. It is quite im-
possible to assign any definite date. It appears to be due to the
Chronicler or to some other whose supreme interest was the cult.
i84 EZRA-NEHEMIAH
44. Men were appointed over the storerooms], the rooms in
which the sacrificial supplies and the dues of the temple officers
were kept. It was the business of these men, not to guard the
stuff collected, but rather to see that a good amount was kept
on hand. — For the supplies], in apposition to which, describing
what these supplies were, we read: for the heave-offerings, for
the first fruits and for the tithes], the chief offerings that are made
by an agricultural people. — To gather into them], i. e., the store-
rooms. — For the fields of the cities] makes poor sense. From the
fields, as we find in (5^, would do in itself, but why fields of the
cities? (^, by a difference of a single letter, gives for the chiefs
of the cities, a better reading, as the meaning is that general offi-
cers were delegated to make collections for the whole country
instead of intrusting the task to the local officials. — The legal
portions] or apportionments ; the amount to be gathered was not
left to the discretion or the greed of the temple officers, but
was determined strictly by law. The collections described here
are exclusively for the support of the priests and Levites. It
was possible now to make such collections, for Judah rejoiced
in the priests and Levites who served] literally, stood, i. e., cared
for the interests of the whole people in the temple services.— •
45. As this verse stands, sense cannot be extracted from it save
by violence. The subject of kept cannot be the "collectors" of
V. **, for we are finished with them; nor " the priests and Levites,"
for they are objects in this passage, not subjects. There is only
one other choice: read therefore and the singers and the gate-
keepers performed the offices of their God and the office of purifica-
tion according to the commaizd of David and of Solomon his son],
"Purification" is more than doubtful; possibly we should sub-
stitute the law, an emendation requiring but a slight change
in the original. — 46. The Chronicler persists in attributing the
temple institutions to David and Solomon. For in the days
of David and of Asaph of old]. We should expect Solomon in
place of Asaph, as v. ^^. — There were chiefs of the singers], or,
as Sulzberger renders: "a, guild of singers" (Am-ha-aretz,*^),
Asaph himself being the great chief, at least according to the
Chronicler. The text should run : for in the days of David, Asaph
NEHEMIAH I2«-« 285
was of old the chief of the singers, cf. i Ch. 6'^- ^^. We know noth-
ing of Asaph from the authentic history of David's time. — And
a song of praise and thanksgiving to God] is certainly disjointed.
The meaning is apparently that temple songs as well as singers
go back to the time of David, H forces a connection, leaders
of songs were appointed over the songs, etc. — 47. In the days of
Zerubhabel and in the days of Nehemiah], unconscious testimony
to the fact that in this period there were but two real civil
leaders known. Jeshua and Ezra evidently had no place in
the government. — All Israel paid the portions of the singers and
of the porters, the obligation of a day on its day]; the support
of these officials is here separated from that of the priests and
Levites, and is described as if the payments were made volun-
tarily without the intermediaries named in v. ^. — From the fol-
lowing we get a different story from that told in v. **: and they
set apart for the Levites and the Levites set apart for the sons of
Aaron]. From this it would appear that the singers and porters
received support from the people, and they gave a part of their
supplies to the Levites and the latter in turn bestowed a part on
the priests. To say nothing of the contradiction, this method
of supporting the men higher up is extremely improbable.
27. nnina] 05 Iv ewXaOii'^''^^, a transliteration,' though there is a con-
fusion of letters in (S; ^ adds ev i^oiiokoyriazi, showing a dup. ^ has
%(x\ dcYaXXtdaet = njj-i3i, It in actione gratiarum. — ■cc] 05 tpSoelq = an>tt'.
— nnjD2i] lacking in CS^ax^ — 28. amir^nn ^ja] 05^ o\ ulol Aeut. — TictJj]
lacking in ^^^^—22. '7jSjn noni] lacking in (g^^^x ((gL ^^ BatOraX),
so nmrpi yaj. — ni3''3D] (g^As |y_ — 30. anytrn] OJ^an .^^^^ xuXwpouq. —
31. rhyn)] 05 dtv^veyxav; v.^ lacking in 05bax. — naSnni] (gi- xal StfjXeov,
"M et ierunt preceded by the plus laudantium. Rd. naSinm ptc. as in
v.". Or with Mitchell, JBL. 1903,", no'^n nnxni for nD^nni. — 33.
nnr>'] CS^»< Zaxaptas = nnoi. — 34. ]-<'a^i2\ (S^ Mta[j,etv = pniD, cf. v. ".
— n^ysc] (gBx Sapata.— 36. nic . . . -hhti] (gsAN afvelv ev ySatq, prob.
reading Dn''B> ^S'?(n)c. 05^ has all the names and then toO aEveiv ev
axe6eat xal (pBai?, showing a dup. — 37. pj?n] C6^an .^qQ afvetv. This
may be a transliteration which has then crept back to the preceding v.
— niTDJ to D>nflN, V. '», lacking inC5^^^. — 38. SnidS] OJ^auvavrwaa ai-rot?,
i. e., onN-ip*?. Many rd.' Snidb'S, corresponding to ro''S v. ", and this
is right. — 39. "cti i^jc Syi] lacking in 05^an^ go nxcn Vijm and ncy
to end of v. — 40-42 » lacking in CS^^.x^ — 42. nimt'i] lacking in (g^Ax^
286 EZRA-NEHEMIAH
— T-pisn] (gBAx ^3jj IxsaxIxKjaav = ^•\po^^. — 44. niDnn"?] lacking in (5. —
ncS] C6 dcpxoufftv = nsy. (g^ has a doublet, i%h twv dtypwv x. t. xiXewv
Toiq dcp%ouat t. xdXewv. — mmn] lacking in (6^^^, H principes civitatis in
decore gratiarum actionis. — 46. IDxi], i lacking in C6. — mini . . . t>i:>] (Jbak
S[jivov xal a'tveatv, ^ u(ji,voc; x. e^oyioXiYifjati; x. a'tveacs. — 47. n^nru iD^i]
lacking in (S^^.
NE. 13. NEHEMIAH's second ADMINISTRATION.
This c. deals wholly with the reforms effected by Neh. during his
second administration. After twelve years had been spent in Jerus.,
his leave having expired, he returned to Pers. We have no information
^^zs> to the time of his coming back to Jerus., but since Eliashib was still
high pr., though an old man (zi. note on v. ^s), and To. the Ammonite
was still a troublesome character, the interval between the two admin-
istrations could not have been long (t;. Intr. § " (')).
The reforms remind us of the matter in c. 5, though a number of
evils are dealt with here as against a single one in c. 5; but the descrip-
tion of each is characteristically brief. The affairs receiving atten-
tion were: (i) To.'s residence in a chamber of the temple, w. *-';
(2) the securing of the tithes to the Lev. so that they could give their
services to the temple, vv. "-"; (3) the prevention of traffic on the Sab-
bath, vv. "-22; (4) the abolition of marriages with foreign women,
vv. "-"; and (s) the banishment of a pr., vv. ^s-". Clearly all is from
N. save vv. i-^- ^s- 26 f- ssb-aia. in regard to vv. '-^ it is hard to reach a
definite conclusion. The material is practically all drawn from vv. «-»
and from Dt. The passage was prob. composed by the Chr. to con-
nect the work of Neh. with Ezra's reading of the law. W. R. Smith
suspected that vv. >-' originally stood after Ezr. lo' {OTJCJ'^''), but
Mitchell rightly rejects this (JBL. 1903,"). In this connection the
latter writer sets forth convincing proof of the place of 13^ ^- in N.
Obviously the section vv. «-" is incomplete, and the conclusion's plain
that the Chr. preserved but a small section of the record of the second
administration, selecting only those parts which dealt with the enforce-
ment of the law.
1-5. Tobiah is installed in one of the chambers of the
temple.
The law is found that an Ammonite and a Moabite are excluded from
the congregation, whereupon all of alien blood are excommunicated.
; Eliashib, however, being overseer of the temple chambers, had fitted
up a sumptuous room for his friend To. These things took place while
Neh. was away in Pers.
NEHEMIAH 1 3 287
1. On that day it was read [or we read] in the book of Moses].
This reminds us of the public reading of the law as described in
c. 8. But the story is introduced here to connect the incident
with the admission of Tobiah to the temple and his subsequent
expulsion by Nehemiah.
The law in Dt. 23* contains a dup.: "An Ammonite and a Moabite
shall not come into the congregation of Yahweh [even to the tenth
generation; there shall not come in of them to the congregation of
Yahweh] forever." The part in brackets is omitted in our text. Per-
haps it is a later addition in Dt., v. Dr. As provision was made that
Edomites might be received in' the third generation (Dt, 23O, the ex-
clusion to the tenth, ace. to a later writer, would be a sufficient penalty
for the other peoples.
2. The cause of the exclusion was not hostility to the foreigners
as such, but the failure of these two races to supply the needs of
Israel at the time of their invasion of the east- Jordan country.
— And he hired], the change to the singular follows text of Dt.*
and may be due to the unconscious transition to Balak as sub-
ject. Our text omits the details about Balaam as given in Dt.,
because they are not germane here. Vv.^f- are a reproduction
of Dt. 23*-^ (Eng.3-s), though somewhat abbreviated. For the
whole story see Nu. 22-24. — Turned the curse into a blessing].
As a matter of fact, all of Balaam's oracles were blessings.- He
tried, however, to earn Balak's tendered prize by pronotmcing
a blighting curse on Israel. But Balaam was a true prophet
of Yahweh and could only utter in the ecstatic state what
Yahweh put into his mouth (Nu. 22^^- ^^ 24"). What Balaam
intended to be a curse proved to be a benediction. — 3. When
the people heard the law, as usual they proceeded to put it
into execution; therefore they excommunicated from Israel every
one of alien blood]. The meaning is not that the foreigners were
banished from the land, but merely that they were denied the
privileges of the temple. It is evident that a liberal construc-
tion was put upon the law. Dt. refers to Ammonites and Mo-
abites, but not to any other peoples whatsoever. The leaders
• ARV. has rendered erroneously " they hired."
288 EZRA-NEHEMIAH
here make the law apply to all foreigners, no matter of what
nationality. It is plain that if this event is historical, the work
of Ezra must have followed, for the condition described here
could not have existed after his complete separation of the Jews
from foreigners. — 4. Now before this], earlier than the excom-
munication of the foreigners, Eliashib the priest had been ap-
pointed in charge of the chambers of the house of our God]. Eliashib
was high priest and is named often in these books. — And he was
near to Tobiah]. This is Tobiali the Ammonite slave who was
one of Nehemiah's chief enemies, 2^". "Near" is usually in-
terpreted as referring to blood relationship, BDB. Ges.^, Ryle.
There is no evidence of such a connection, and the meaning may
well be that the relationship was purely one of friendship, or
that Eliashib had attempted to placate an enemy of the people.
According to 6^^ he was related by marriage to Shekaniah and to
Meshullam. If he had also such a close connection with the
high priest, the fact would not have been overlooked there.
Moreover, Sanballat was related to Eliashib, v. ^^. It is not
likely that Tobiah was also. — 5. And he assigned to him a great
chamber]. Eliashib, who was overseer, designated one of the
finest chambers to Tobiah, and the latter evidently used it as
a place of residence, v. ^. During Nehemiah's rule he kept up
a correspondence with leaders in Jerusalem, but could not get
into the city. Now that the governor was away, he not only
entered the city, but actually found an abode in the temple.
The desecration was the more pronounced as this was the very
room which had been set apart for the offerings of the people,
both those used for sacrifice and those for the support of the
four groups of temple officers. — The description of the offerings
is quite different from that in c. 12, and shows another hand,
influenced a good deal by Dt. — The commandment] makes poor
sense and lacks support in the Vrss. Retained we should
understand it to mean that the tithe was by the command of
the law given to the Levites et al. But it is better to follow
the Latin and render by a slight emendation "portions." The
verse shows amplification by a later hand. Comparing v. '
we note that this room was used for the sacred vessels and for
NEHEMIAH I3 289
two kinds of offerings, vegetable and incense. But at a later
period other things were kept in this room, and an editor adds
a list to bring the story down to date.
1. Nipj] may be Niph. or first p. pi. Qal. As we have irnSs in vv. '• \
this passage may be one of those in first p. pi., though v. ' is against
this conclusion. After iflo] <S^ adds v6[ji.ou. From ni2'> nV to end of v. ^
consists of extracts of Dt. 23^-', giving the substance of the law. — •
D'ln'jNn] Dt. nini, showing plainly the Elohistic bias of our author. —
2. ■'3] Dt. ncK nan-"?;?. — Sxns'i ^ja-nx] Dt. aonx. — iri'ii] Dt. loa' iij'N'i;
(8 reads pi. lixtaGcoaavro, so H. — vSy] Dt. yh-;. — iSSpS] Dt.l':''7p'?. — ij^hSn]
Dt. l"? TTiSn nin\ — nSSpn] (§^ xaripav airou. — 3. an;] is a rare word,
but the mng. mixture is well established. The word naturally means a
people not of pure blood, though it may sometimes be applied to a mass
of people made up of various races. In this passage both senses may
apply. There may have been some foreigners of different races, but
certainly there were many of mixed blood. — SN-ia'ic] (S ev I. — 4. '•ich
nrn] means before a particular event, while aija*? in v. = is a general
word, "formerly." — pnj] 05 oExwv, "M fuerat prceposikis. (S has missed
the idea, but B has rendered correctly. The sense "appoint" is found
in I S. 12" I Ch. 12', V. BDB. — no'^S] must be pointed as a pi. to make
the sense required. — 5. mxc] (S^ &Z,u\).(x = nisr, unleavened cakes, H
partes = nvjD, as 12^', which gives the best sense. — nann] (g dxapxaf,
B primitias, which represents also n'la'N-i, as in 12".
6-9. Tobiah's belongings are ejected from the temple.
After an absence of uncertain duration Neh. returns to Jerus., and
finding To. residing in the temple chamber, he ejects his furnishings,
orders the room cleansed, and puts back the vessels and offerings for
which the room had formerly been used. We are certainly dealing with
N. again. The intr., in all this, and the contents show a connection
with the preceding. Yet vv. '-^ are not from N.
6. In all this] refers only to the events described in w. ^-^,
not to the long story of Ezra's promulgation of the law. —
Thirty-second year] as 5", indicating the end of the first adminis-
:ration. — King of Babylon] is hardly original. Nehemiah refers
;o Artaxerxes merely as "the king" (2^), the natural use for
I contemporary. "Babylon" is from a later hand. — The last
lause of the verse is usually connected with what follows, thus:
•■nd at the end of a time I [again] asked leave [of absence] from the
19
290 EZRA-NEHEMIAH
king and came to Jerusalem. But in a Greek text preserved only
in a duplicate rendering {v. i.) we find a better sense. The
clause should be closely connected with what precedes, for our
verse division is here right, thus: / came in to the king even at the
end of the period for which I had asked leave from the king. The
point that Nehemiah makes is that he had gone back because
the period for which he had been appointed governor had ex-
pired. He was not driven from Jerusalem by his foes, nor did
he break faith with the king. The latter point was important
in view of the charges of rebellion that had been made against
him. It must be recalled that Artaxerxes exacted a limit of
time from Nehemiah before consenting to his departure (2^),
and Nehemiah takes pains to say that he returned at the time
agreed upon. The words "at the end of days" are sufficiently
definite in this connection, as they refer to the term described
earlier in the verse, i. e., the end of days means the 3 2d year
of Artaxerxes, the end of the leave of absence. — 7. And I came
to Jerusalem]. This is abrupt, and one might wonder whether
the above interpretation does not leave something wanting
here. But we note that the clause in v. ^ does not make a
very happy introduction to the second administration; and
while Nehemiah was concerned to explain his absence for a
period, he is at no pains to explain how he had come to return.
In view of the full report of c. if., perhaps he thought it would
be assumed that a second furlough would easily be obtained.
Probably Nehemiah was led to return because rumours of what
he found at Jerusalem had already reached him in Persia. —
The words are closely connected with what follows: and un-
derstood the evil] of EV^. is not happy; observed is better. The
evil from the narrow Jewish point of view would consist in the
profanation of the temple because Tobiah was an Ammonite.
Nehemiah may have made use of this sentiment in view of the
purifying which followed (v. ®); but one may wonder whether
Nehemiah was not largely moved by his remembrance of Tobi-
ah's striving to thwart him in his efforts to rebuild the wall. —
The room in which Tobiah had taken abode is further described
as in the courts of the house of God]. The "courts" were strictly
NEHEMIAH 13 29I
the open spaces in the temple area, and doubtless the room
opened upon these courts, — 8. Nehemiah acted with his cus-
tomary promptness and decision; every article in the sumptu-
ous chamber was thrown out. The word implies more than
"set outside"; "thrown out" is none too strong. As there is
no mention of Tobiah himself, the ejecting was probably done
in his absence. With Nehemiah on the ground Tobiah would
very likely prefer to live elsewhere for a time. — House of Tobiah]
implies that he had set up a regular housekeeping establishment
and that his family lived with him, thus explaining the large
room assigned him, v, ^. — 9. And I spoke], equivalent to com-
manded; and they purified the chamber]. Nearly all texts have
chambers. Of itself there is nothing improbable in the notion
that a series of rooms should have been occupied (so Ryle) ; but
as the singular is used everywhere else, it must be restored here.
The purifying was limited to the room occupied as shown from
its restoration to its original use. Ceremonial cleansing was
common even in early times, and was performed in various ways,
usually by the symbolic use of blood or water. The list of ar-
ticles returned to this room is shorter than in v. ^, in which
there is doubtless an editorial addition.
6. n^Dn . . . VpSi] (6^ ef? Tbv xatpbv twv -fjtispwv wv i^TiQciti.Yjv xapa xou
PaatXIti)?, xal [JLexa ih tIXo<; twv -^jiJLepwv cLv ioTiQatitxKjv -rcapd; tou ^aatXiox;.
This represents two interpretations rather than two texts. — aic] has
the specific sense of a year (BDB.) in numerous passages, and should
be so understood here if we retain the usual interpretation, referring
to the time when Neh, started for his second visit to Jerus, But
Neh. is usually very exact in his dates, and presumably would have
specified the time accurately if that had been his mng. — 7. nae'j] is
found elsw. only in Ne. 3'<' 12", and the mng. is exactly the same as the
common naa'S, for which it is prob. an error. Neh. would hardly use a
strange word alongside of a familiar one. — 8. nND "h yi>i] (S^- has a dup.,
v.(x\ xovT)p6v \x.ot. lyivifj, xal IXuTcifjGiiv a(p6Spa, c/. HND 17 iriM, 5*. — 9. niarSn]
C6^ has sg. which the sense requires.
10-14. Tithes are paid to the Levites.
Neh., finding that the Lev. had received no portions and were driven
to their fields to make a living, rebukes the people, and all Judah pays
292 EZRA-NEHEMIAH
the tithes. Officers are appointed^ to supervise the distribution of the
offerings. Neh. prays that he may be remembered for his good offices
on behalf of the temple.
10. And I learned that the portions of the Levites had not been
paid]. This condition had arisen during Nehemiah's absence
in Persia. In the twelve years of his former governorship
such neglect would not have been tolerated. In the whole
Persian period the people seem to have been slow to discharge
the lawful obligations to the temple, cf. Mai. 3^ ^•. — And the
Levites had fled each one to his land]. The Levites may have
owned land, or they may have hired themselves out to other
landowners to make the living which the temple offices no
longer furnished them. — And the singers doing the work] is ap-
parently a gloss. Nehemiah seems to be concerned only with the
Levites. — 11. And I contended with the rulers], v. 5^, where we
have "with the nobles and rulers." With the rulers is lacking
in the best Greek texts. The fault lay with the whole people,
not with limited classes as in c. 5. If the text is right, the rulers
were reproved because they had not enforced the law. — Why
is the house of God neglected ?] The implication is that the sacred
offices were not conducted at all in the house of God, and that
situation in turn implies that the Levites were those who exe-
cuted the priestly offices, that is, that the Deuteronomic con-
dition in which priests and Levites were identical still pre-
vails. — And I gathered them, i. e., the Levites, from the fields
where they had been employed in secular work; and I placed
them at their station] in the temple, so that they could fulfil their
holy offices. Station implies not only place in the sense of
locality, but also covers the particular office in which the Levites
were employed. — 12. And all Judah brought in]. The response
to Nehemiah's demand was general; for he would brook no
further neglect and ruled always with a strong hand. Benjamin
is not mentioned, but obviously "Judah" covers the whole
people. — The tithe of the corn and of the wine and of the oil]. In
Dt. the tithe of the corn, etc., was paid every 3d year, and
was to be eaten at the sanctuary. The Levites and the poor
were to share in these feasts, 12^- "• " 14'"- ^^ 26". In the
NEHEMIAH 1 3 293
later law of Holiness the tithe became the absolute property of
the Levites (Lv. 1821-32). — 12. This verse is sadly confused in
our text; by eliminating some unnecessary lumber and correct-
ing from (&, we get the true sense: and I committed to the hands
of Shelemiah the priest and of Zadok the scribe, and of Pedaiah of
the Levites and of Hanan the son of Zakkur the son of Mattaniah,
because they were accounted trustworthy, to them [I committed] to
distribute to their brethren]. The tithes were paid into the treas-
ury by the whole people, and they were for the common support
of the Levites. But these were human, like many other ec-
clesiastical officials, and the problem which confronted Nehe-
miah was to make sure of an equitable distribution so that
every one should have a just share and none be neglected {cf.
Acts 6, a similar condition which led to the appointment of the
seven deacons). Shelemiah we know nothing more about, as he
cannot be identified with the men of that name in Ezr. 9^*
jo39. 41 Ne. 330. Two Zadoks worked on the wall, 3*- 29, but
the scribe may be a different one still. Pedaiah cannot be the
one who stood with Ezra, Ne. 8*, and is hardly the wall-builder
of 32^ In spite of the elaborate genealogy of Hanan and the
frequent recurrence of the name, we cannot identify this man
either. The treasurers are therefore unknown to us save in
this enumeration, but were appointed because they were deemed
honest so as to insure a just apportionment of the Levitical dues.
— To their brethren] would imply that all the officers were Levites;
but the expressions, the priest, the scribe, and especially of the
Levites, would suggest that only Pedaiah belonged to that order.
Of the Levites may, however, be a predicate of Shelemiah and
Zadok as well as of Pedaiah, since the priest was also a Levite
and the scribe may have well been. On the other hand, " breth-
ren" is used pretty broadly, and the Levites might be regarded
as the brethren of any of the people. — 14. See similar ejacula-
tory petitions, 2* 3^^ 5^^. — My kindness], i. e., in restoring the
support of the Levites and so the re-establishment of the sacred
offices. — In the house of my God and in its observances], the last
clause is lacking in C5 and may be a gloss added by the
Chronicler.
294 EZRA-NEHEMIAH
10. 'a*];] (S>'^ xal o\ TcotouvTs?, similarly H. — 11. nanxi] W' xal expfOijv.
— DijJDn-pN] lacking in ^^^^. — 13. nnsiN-*?;? msixi] (g^AN ^^j xe'pa(?)i
(S'^ xal eveTetX(4[xi3v i%\ xetpa? = ni-'jj; niSNi. This is the only occur-
rence of the Hiph., and it is used in a peculiar sense, not "I caused
to store," but "appointed treasurer." It is difficult to extract this
sense by the usual devices of calling it a denominative (BDB.). (8
offers a better text and one that should be adopted here, for the point
is not the naming of a number of treasurers, but the assignment to
certain officers of the delicate task of distributing the tithes. — m^-Sj;]
could only be retained by rendering and with them. But it stands here
for ni-S;? as (6, being misplaced in the confusion of the text. — an>Vyi]
gBAN 1^' ojOtou?. — 14. "31 irha] (Sban j^ypfou xoij GeoO.
15-22. The enforcement of the Sabbath law.
Finding the people working in the fields and trading with the Phoeni-
cians on the Sabbath, Neh. rebuked the nobles and ordered the gates
of the city closed during the holy day. He threatened the merchants
who lodged by the wall over the Sabbath waiting for the first day of
the week. Note the similar conditions described in lo'^.
15. In those days] cf. v. ^, another indefinite note of time.
Nehemiah evidently made a tour of the country on the Sabbath,
possibly for the purpose of noting the way in which the day was
kept. — The points of violation may easily be obscured in trans-
lation. These are only two, as I understand the text: (i)
[people] were treading wine-presses on the sabbath]. This is the
only case in OT. where we find the literal use of this expression.
But the figurative use shows that the wine-press was always
trodden, for another verb in Jos. 4" is suspicious. (2) And
[people] were gathering in the harvests and loading asses with grape-
wine and figs and all sorts of produce and bringing them to Jeru-
salem on the sabbath day]. All the deeds enumerated were con-
tributing to the one point of importance, the carrying produce
to Jerusalem on the Sabbath, and naturally selling it on that
day. The recurrent use of sabbath day justifies this connection.
— And I testified on the day they sold provisions].
Ryle says this could not have taken place on the Sabbath, but on a
subsequent day when the food gathered on the Sabbath was sold.
There was objection then apparently because the food had been gath-
ered on the Sabbath and so was tainted. Easy-going criticism surely I
NEHEMIAH I3 295
The Vrss. offer a suggestive hint. One Gk. text has: in the day of their
traffic because they sold provisions; and B: / protested that they should
sell on a day when it was lawful to sell. On this basis we can easily re-
construct the text and get: / protested because they sold provisions on the
sabbath day. The food was manifestly sold on the Sabbath as it was
borne to Jerus. on that day; and the offence was the selling as much
as the gathering. Neh. does not seem to have raised his voice against
the work that was done in thefields, but only against the traffic, which
disturbed the peace of Jerus. While he notices the work done, v. '5, at
least nothing more is said about that phase of the trouble. This brings
us into exact agreement with the conditions in Am. 8^, where barter
alone was suspended on the Sabbath. Evidently the amplification of
the Sabbath law was later than Neh.
16. Now the Tyrians dwelt in it\', "it" could only be Jeru-
salem, but the use of that name in v. ^^ can hardly serve as an
antecedent here.
Tyrians is lacking in (5, and prob. should be omitted, for they are not
named again in the long passage. Neh. blames the nobles of Judah
and calls them the profaners of the Sabbath. It is true that their
guilt might consist in buying what was offered for sale, cf. 10". But
it is difficult to think of Phoenician merchants as residents of Jerus. at
this period. On the other hand, c. 5 shows that the nobles were greedy
of money, and would not be likely to stickle at profitable traffic even
on the Sabbath. The passage seems to me so corrupt that understand-
ing is not possible. Perhaps the best we can do is to follow (6 and render:
and there resided therein those who brought in fish and other merchandise
and sold them on the sabbath to the people of Judah in Jerus. "Peo-
ple of Judah" admittedly suggests that the traders were foreigners;
but, on the other hand, in a passage so full of difficulties we cannot press
details. Moreover, the purchasers could hardly be described in any
other way. To try to get sense I propose: and the provision bearers re-
turned therein, bringing fish, etc. Neh. had warned them on their first
offence, v. ", protesting against the desecration, and supposing that the
matter was ended. On the next Sabbath the dealers returned bringing
other wares. Neh. had objected to their traffic, possibly mentioning
the wine and figs which they offered for sale. The dealers may have
supposed that he could not object to fish, but the reading may be
"corn." — Neh. is, at all events, aroused now, and his usual vigour and
resource show themselves.
17. And I contended with the nobles of Judah], cf. v. ", either
because they made no attempt to stop this barter, or because
2 90 EZRA-NEHEMIAH
they were engaged in it. It is possible that sons should be
read for nobles (v. i.), and in that case the reproof is admin-
istered to those who had purchased supplies on the Sabbath. —
Profaning the sabbath day] is late, found only in Ex. 31" (P),
Is. 552- 6 Ez. pass. — 18. The implication is that the woes of
Israel were due to the desecration of the Sabbath. In the scant
testimony we have from the earlier days (Am. 8^), the Sabbath
was kept in letter but not in spirit. Ez. makes the profanation
of the Sabbath one of the serious offences, 20" 22^ 23'*. But
our passage more likely refers to the general disobedience to
the law which was supposed to be the cause of Israel's downfall,
from which Jerusalem was still suffering. — And ye would add
wrath upon Israel by profaning the sabbath]. Another violation
of law would lead to further manifestations of divine wrath, of
which Israel would be the victim. This sort of speech is couched
in the hackneyed terms of which N. is free, and doubtless
what Nehemiah actually said has been replaced with the con-
ventional prophetic utterance. — 19. Nehemiah now takes meas-
ures to enforce the law against barter on the Sabbath. — When
the gates of Jerusalem grew dark before the sabbath] is an impossible
way of sa3dng "when evening came on." The text must be
changed and we may best render with (&: when the gates were
put in place. The reference plainly is to the closing of the gates,
and only indirectly the approach of evening. The time is
sufficiently indicated by the phrase before the sabbath. Nehe-
miah had previously directed the closing of the gates at night
(7^), and it is to that customary act to which reference is made
here. — And I spoke] is an accidental repetition from its use fur-
ther on in the verse. The doors in the gates were naturally â–
closed when the gates were shut. — And I said] = commanded, as
in V. ^, because now a new regulation is issued (to the porters)
that they should not open them until after the sabbath]. It now
became impossible for a person to go in or out of Jerusalem on
the Sabbath. — And I stationed some of my servants at the gates]\
a superfluous precaution, says Winckler, Alt. Forsch. ii,^", since
no one could pass through the closed gates. Not if they were
kept closed, but Nehemiah puts his trusty servants by the
NEHEMIAH 13 297
gates to see that no porter is induced to reopen the gates by
bribery, persuasion, or threats. — That no produce should come in
on the sabbath day], showing plainly the purpose of Nehemiah's
elaborate precautions. Perhaps the words may imply that a
person might find passage through the gates if he carried no
merchandise. — 20. And the traders and the dealers in all kinds of
wares lodged without Jerusalem]. The usual explanation is that
the merchants, finding the gates shut, lodged outside of the city
until the Sabbath was over. But it is difficult to see why Nehe-
miah should so seriously object to that. Indeed, their camping
outside was no violation of the law from any point of view.
The text is doubtful. In ^ we find a striking reading: and they
all lodged and engaged in traffic outside of Jerusalem]. There is
abundant cause for the wrath of the governor. He had stopped
the trading in Jerusalem and had kept the gates closed, only to
find the traffic resiuned outside of the walls. The purchasers
may have been those who resided outside the city, or Jeru-
salemites may have been allowed to pass through the gates. —
Once or twice], i. e., for one or two Sabbaths. This traffic went
on for a few weeks before Nehemiah took notice of it. When
he did act, he went at the task with his usual thoroughness. —
21. And I protested to them and said unto them]. "Testified," of
EV^., hardly gives the sense. The word serves to introduce the
threat. — Why are you lodging before the wall ?] There is no word
of trading; but (& may be right in v. ^ none the less. The only
way to break up the trading would be to keep the merchants
away altogether. — If you do it a second time]. According to
v.^ they may have done it a second time already. If that is
correct, we must render more generally: "if you do it again," a
sense the words easily bear. — / will put a hand on you], i. e.,
inflict punishment, though the same expression is used elsewhere
in a good sense. The threat of punishment served its purpose,
for the traders did not come [to Jerusalem any more] on the
sabbath. — 22. And I said to the Levites that they should purify
themselves and come in to watch the gates to sanctify the sabbath
day]. The passage plainly shows a later hand. Nehemiah had
already brought the Levites to Jerusalem, v. ". If they were
298 EZRA-NEHEMIAH
the porters, they were not trusted, as Nehemiah set his own
servants over them, v.". The passage naturally ends with v.^^^^
but the Chronicler was not satisfied to have the Levites ignored.
— On the closing prayer, cf. v. ". — According to God's good deeds]
now, not his own as in v. ^*.
15. nmj] = nin^i, from pi, which does not occur in Heb., pi. only
here. The wine-press was usually hewn from the rock (DB. Benz."^ '•,
V. also Haupt, SBOT. on i K. i'^). On this account it was gener-
ally in a hillside, in an out-of-the-way place, and so the wine-press
served Gideon as a secret threshing-floor (Ju. 6")- The word is found
also in Is. 63' Lam. i" Jo. 4". The passage last cited rd. io"n, as
m is never found with nj and is inappropriate, v. Mar. Dodekapr. —
niDiyn] does not mean "sheaves," as Wetzstein contends {Zeit. f.
Eth. 1873, art. "Dreschtafel"), though it might mean "shocks of
grain." But in Ru. 3' Ct. 7' Hg. 2" it refers to the heap of threshed
grain. That cannot be its mng. here, for the grain season (3d month)
was long past when grapes and figs were ripe (7th month), and Ryle
is reduced to the desperate expedient of supposing the people were
bringing in the straw! The word means piles of any sort as we use
"pile" in "wood pile," "potato pile," etc. In 2 Ch. 316-" it refers
to droves of oxen and sheep as well as to other dedicated offerings,
perhaps of grain and fruits. I have rendered by the general word
harvests, for it refers to the wine in skins, figs, and whatever else was
carried to market. — f|!<i] is rightly ignored in 05 H. Even if original
it has no translatable force. It may be an error for nx. — In late Heb.
we may find 1 before a direct obj., for r'' et sq. is obj. of D^DDy. — aojy ]•<'•]
might be wine and grapes as Vrss. and all authorities render; but the
absence of a conj. suggests st. cstr., and it is better to translate "grape-
wine." — s^tt'D-So] is easy to understand, but hard to render tersely.
It means all the other marketable stuff. — "i^x . . . av2] CS^an |y i^\j.ip<f
Ttpdcaeo)? aixwv, lacking "i^S; 05^ adds ots eictiXouv extfftTtayi.bv, showing
one of the usual duplicates. 31 has an interesting reading, or possibly
interpretation: ut in die qua vender e liceret vender ent. The original text
must have been "T'S onsna nauri Dva. — 16. onsni] lacking in <S^^'^.
The clause is quite imintelligible, and some conjectural emendation is
essential. I venture to suggest na i2V^> cnxni. The changes are very
slight, and good sense is secured. This text has the further advantage
of being a suitable sequel to v. ", for we can hardly be dealing with a
new situation entirely. Neh. was not fighting Phoenicians, but Sabbath-
trading among the Jews. Tyrians may have been substituted by a later
hand on the basis of 10". — jn"<] is wrong, and we may substitute jjt
as easily as Jn. — 17. nn] (S^^^ toT? uIot<; toTi; eXeuG^pot?, showing an
original text, iJ3, and a later correction, fortunately not by substitu-
NEHEMIAH I3 299
tion. — 18. yyrha] (gBAxi. has ex' auTois 6 Oeb? ii\xGiV, a dup. showing
nrfha and ^v^^hn. — 19. 'hhis] is impossible. To describe the coming of
evening by saying "the gates grew dark" is too far-fetched. Indeed,
this vb. must be ejected from the Heb. lexicon. It occurs elsw. only
in Ez. 31', but is corrected by most recent writers. (5 has xanrlaTiQaav,
prob. nnj?. As this may be rendered "put in place," the sense is good.
^^ precedes by -Jjciixaaa = tapsf . Similarly H ctim qidevissent porta.
Winckler {Alt. Forsch. ii,"0 follows ^ and renders from As. salahc,
"drop," "the merchants deposited their fish at the gates" (reading
nya'a). Why that should be done he does not say and I cannot guess.
— mDSi>] lacking in (S^. — n;yjm] lacking in CS^^**. — 20. u^V^] does not
necessarily imply that they spent the night, but means rather "went
into camp," perhaps setting up a sort of temporary market. — a'''7Dnn]
(gBAvS xdvTs?, (S^ xAvTe? o\ yi.£T(ipoXot. — nana Sa nam] ^bax ^,35^ Ixofitjaav
TCpaatv. At end (6^ reads xal ex(i)X60Trjaav aica? v.(z\ Ziq, adding ixSaM. —
22. an^jari . . . Dnntaa] 05^ Yva epx6yievot iyvCQitivzai xal (puXiaawac tiq
Tc6Xa<;, showing no difference of text but only an interpretation.
23-31. Mixed marriages.
Neh. finds Judeans married to Philistine women and the children
were imable to speak Jewish. He punished the offenders severely and
exacted an oath against the repetition of the offence. The case of
Solomon's downfall is cited. The son-in-law of Sanb., a grandson of
Eliashib, was banished from Jerus. The book closes with general
statements about the temple ritual. Not more than vv. "-^s. js. Ma. sib
are from N. This is the kind of story which the Chr. would delight in
elaborating.
23. In those days [cf. v. ^^] I saw the Judeans who had married
women, that were Ashdodites], Ammonites, Moabites, seems to me
a later addition. These were the people toward whom there
was the greatest animosity, cf. v. ^ and therefore these names
are added here. There may have been marriages with these
peoples, but Ashdodite in cf. v. ^^ shows that Nehemiah is deal-
ing with a single class. — 24. We may render: and their sons were
speaking half Ashdodite], a corruption of speech producing a
patois, half foreign and half Jewish; or and half their sons spoke
Ashdodite*]. The latter is more probable, in spite of the balance
of opinion in favour of the former. A patois can only be devel-
oped in the course of several generations. The children would
• Really Nabatsean, Neubauer, Slidia Biblica,^.
300 EZRA-NEHEMIAH
be pretty certain to use the speech of the mother. And the
clause and they were not able to speak Jewish] supports this
view, for it is in contrast with the statement that some of the
sons spoke another tongue. From the free intercourse between
IsraeUtes and Philistines in the early days we would infer that
their languages were mutually intelligible.
nmn^] is used of the Jewish speech in 2 K. i8'«- ", to which we
have the parallels in Is. 36"- " and 2 Ch. 321^, the only occurrences.
The word in those passages certainly means Hebrew; indeed, Heze-
kiah's ofl5.cers asked the Assyrians not to speak Heb. as they were
doing, but Aram. The word prob. means the same thing here, and not
Aram. (Smith, Jer. ii,"5)- Neh. wrote good Heb., and that was doubt-
less still the language of the people. The construction indicates an
incomplete clause. The rendering strictly correct is: and their sons, half
of them spoke Ashdodite; we expect a corresponding clause, "and half
of them spoke ." The resumption of the pi. shows that we go
back to "sons" and that it is predicated of the whole body that "they
were unable to speak Jewish," that is, half of them spoke one language
and half another, but none of them could speak Heb. — But according to
the tongue of people and people} is a gl. intended to define more accurately
the foregoing, but the definition is quite as obscure as the text. — p'^V]
is used often in the sense of language, but mostly in late passages.
25. The violence of the punishment shows how greatly Nehe-
miah was incensed: / cursed them and I smote certain of them],
perhaps some chief offenders, and I pulled out their hair], usually
from the beard, cf. Is. 50^, but in Ezr. 9' both hair of head and
beard as a sign of distress; "my cheeks to them that pulled out
the hair," Is. 50^, would indicate that this was a regular form of
punishment, as we might say he gave his neck to the hangman.
The hair was all pulled out, as the word means to be smooth.
The loss of the beard was in itself a disgrace, 2 S. 10*. — And I
made them swear by [the name of] God], The oath is put in the
second person, either to conform to Dt. 7', though there we find
the singular and a different word for "take," or to reproduce
the exact form of the oath, though according to our usage that
would be in the first person. Nehemiah had found Jewish men
married to Philistine women, not the reverse. Still the general
oath would be natural in view of the Deuteronomic law. — And
NEHEMIAH 13 30 1
for yourselves] is not in Dt. nor in the oldest Greek mss. Yet
it is the most appropriate part of the oath, as Nehemiah is
dealing with men who had themselves married foreign women.
— 26. Solomon is now quoted as a horrible example of a great
man led astray by foreign wives. This is not due to Nehemiah,
as he appears to have been disturbed purely by the corruption
of the language, and feared the Jewish people were in danger
of losing their identity. — Did not Solomon the king of Israel sin
in regard to these [foreign wives]. And among many nations there
was not a king like him] is based upon the promise in i K. 3".
And he was beloved of his God], cf. 2 S. 122* ^^ Even him], in spite
of his greatness and the blessings showered upon him from on
high, the foreign wives made to sin] or turned aside as in i K. 11'
"turned aside his heart." — 27. The conclusion of Nehemiah's
assumed address. As it stands the verse is barely translatable.
Iff has often a happy disposition to insist on sense and gives us:
and shall we by disobedience do all this great evil that we should act
insolently toward our God and marry foreign women. To make a
bold try at the text, we might extract: and as for you shall we
listen to [tolerate] the doing of this great evil, the acting violently
against our God, the marrying of foreign women? — 28. We find
now a specific instance of a foreign alliance which naturally
aroused the governor. — And one of the sons of Jehoiada, the son
of Eliashib the high priest, was son-in-law to Sanballat the Horon-
ite]. The offender could hardly be Jonathan the successor of
Jehoiada, 12^° ^-j but must have been another son, since his
name is not given. As Eliashib was contemporary with Nehe-
miah {cf. V. *), he must have been an old man at this time to
have a grandson old enough to marry. It is strange to find a
person so vaguely introduced; as v. ^s introduces a new section,
I suspect that the original text read: " and in those days Jehoiada
the son of Eliashib." That would agree better with the chro-
nology. Sanballat was one of the most troublesome of Nehe-
miah's enemies, 2^" 3^3 ^i 51^ n -^y^g ^y gy^.}! alliances that
the enemy was kept posted in regard to Nehemiah's doings,
cf. 6*8. — And I drove him from me]. Drove away is used of
putting enemies to flight, i Ch. S^^ 12", of driving a mother
302 EZRA-NEHEMIAH
(from her house), Pro v. ig^^. Doubtless the offender was ban-
ished from Jerusalem. His punishment was different from that
inflicted upon the others, v. ^^, because of the hostility toward
Sanballat and his house. — 29. Instead of supplication we find
now imprecation as in 6". Remember against them, O my God,
for they are corrupters of the priesthood]. But there was only-
one priestly offender mentioned, and Nehemiah was not con-
cerned about the purity of the priesthood. Jehoiada's son was
not a grave offender because he was a priest, but because he
had married Sanballat's daughter. *h^^ has another sense,
which appears in ^, and Nehemiah may have said: because they
have sought kinship with the priesthood. The imprecation would
then be against the house of Sanballat; perhaps with a recol-
lection of Tobiah, w. ■* ^•. — The covenant of the priesthood and of
the Levites]. For which we find in the Greek text: of the priests
and of the Levites, and in B: the priestly and the Levitical right.
As the passage stands it is part of the object of "corrupters,"
cf. Dt. 2)Z^'^^ M.d\. 2^-*. — 30. And I purified them from everything
foreign]. This expression is more comprehensive than "mixed
marriages." But it is probably a late addition. — And I ap-
pointed the charges for the priests and for the Levites each one for
his task]. For the Levites this had already been done, v. ^^ —
31. And for the offering of wood in its appointed seasons], cf. lo'^;
and for the first-fruits], cf. lo'^ ^•. — Remember me, O my God, for
good], breaking off the supplication abruptly, cf. vv. "• "• ^^
23. i^iari] is impossible after an ace. subj.; (S ol exiOcaav, "M dticentes.
We may rd. a>:3>B'Dn or substitute ncx for pn before D>nin^n. On iv\
mng. to marry, found only in Ezr.-Ne., v. Ezr. lo''. — 24. Dj;i aj? ]^wh■z^]
lacking in (6^^**. It has the appearance of a crude explanatory gl.
—25. DB-IDN1] lacking in «sA^«__a^^,] lacking in (S^^^.—Z6. rhu-hv]
(gBAs aZ-ztaq, a?' xep' to6t6>v. — After mno] (&^ has [ilYa?. — wtsnn] <S
e^lxXtvov = iE)n, the word used in i K. ii'. — 28. "iJinn] lacking in C5^^^.
— 29. "hni] (&^^'^ dyxiorefijt, i. e., understanding Snj, to act as kinsman;
05^ dXfaYovtai;. — njn^ns] (S^ tcjv Ispiwv. — "nnj] H jusque sacerdotale et
Lemiicum.
EZRA 7-10 303
EZR. 7-10. THE HISTORY OP EZRA.
The priest-scribe receives a liberal firman from Artaxerxes,
gathers a company, and goes to Jerusalem. There he learns of
the mixed marriages, and after prayer and fasting measures
are taken for their dissolution. Ezra's career is continued in
Ne. 8 and in Esd. a part of that chapter follows Ezr. 10 directly,
an order adopted here. It has been shown in the Intr. § ^° that
Ezra is later than Nehemiah, belonging to the period of Ar-
taxerxes II.
The basis of this section is, I believe, the memoirs of Ezra {v. Intr. § •(')).
This source is used with few exceptions in c. 8/. In c. 10 there are
but two buried indications of the original E., v. on vv. "• ". Who
revised the text of c. 10 and how radical the revision was it is hard to
say. It seems plain that there is more than one hand visible in the
editing. Vv. 1-' do not seem to come from the same source as vv. »-".
It appears that there was a gradual transforming of the memoirs into
the third p., for various Gk. texts show more of it than MT. In the
main the story seems to be entirely worthy of confidence.
7'-" = Esd. 8'"^ The introduction to the story of Ezra.—
The narrative consists chiefly of the priest's genealogy and of-
fice and of the dates of his departure from Babylon and arrival
at Jerusalem. — 1. And after these things], a general statement
meant to connect this passage with Ezr. 6 which precedes in MT.,
a favourite phrase of the Chronicler. — In the reign of Artaxerxes
the king of Persia]. The reference is to Artaxerxes II (404-358).
Ezra's genealogy is traced through seventeen generations back to
Aaron. The genealogy is wrong in several respects, v. i. Were we to allow
three generations to a century, this would carry us back 567 years, that is,
about to the period of Solomon. Seraiah is the same pr. named in
Ne. II". Azariah is lacking in the priestly genealogy, Ne. ii», but
recurs 3 t. in that of i Ch. s^^ ^- (EV. 6» ^■). The name, which means
Yahweh hath helped, was borne by many persons. Hilkiah was a high
pr. of Josiah's time, 2 K.~ 22*, the one who found the book of Dt.,
and from the table in i Ch. 5 this might be the same one. — 2. Shallum
is found as Meshullam in Ne. 11" i Ch. 9". Like others in the list,
it was a common name. — Zadok occurs twice in i Ch. 5"- ". The best-
known pr. of this name was the one whom Solomon exalted over the
304 EZRA-NEHEMIAH
deposed Abiathar, i K. 2'K Ahiiub is named as father of Zadok ia
2 S. 8", but the text is rejected by We. (Bucher Sam.). — 3. Amariah.
This name is also repeated in i Ch. 5"- ". Azariah in the Chr.'s table
is wanting at this place, though found 3 t. elsw., Amariah being the son
of Meraioth. The name fails also in Esd.^^. Meraioih occurs in Ne.
II" I Ch. 9" between Zadok and Ahituh, evidence of the imperfection
of these genealogies. — 4. Zerahiah, outside of the lists in Ch., occurs
only in 8*. Bukki is the name of a chief in Dan, Nu. 3422. — 5. Abishua
is named among the sons of Bela, i Ch. 8*, Bela being a son of Benj.
Phinehas, Eleazer, and Aaron are well known. — The first pr.\ applies
to Aaron and should not be rendered "the chief pr." as in EV^
C6 gives it correctly.
6. This Ezra] is not right. The words can only be explained
as a resumption, the subject in v. ^ being too far separated from
the verb, and we should render: he [Ezra] went upfront Babylon].
But the text is made to fit the later introduction of the gene-
alogy. — He was a ready scribe in the law of Moses]. Ezra would
not have applied this term to himself. The word rendered
scribe is used often in the pre-exilic writings of a royal official,
a secretary; so in Persia, Est. 3^^ goj Jt is given to Baruch,
Jeremiah's private secretary, who wrote his prophecies at his
dictation, Je. 36^2. The royal scribe's business was to write a
report of the historic events as they occurred and to inscribe
the king's edicts. The idea of the word became then essen-
tially "a writer." The term applied to Ezra does not imply
primarily that he was learned in the law (Str. Neuheb. Spr.^),
but that he was an expert with the pen, writing or cop3dng
the law. Inevitably the scribes became learned in the law;
see the fine passage in Sirach 38^^39". The adjective "ready"
or "quick" shows the true idea. In papyrus 49 there is the
term "a wise and ready scribe" (Sachau,"^). The law of
Moses is either the completed Pentateuch or the priestly por-
tion thereof. Ezra is supposed to have brought this law-book
with him. — Which Yahweh the God of Israel had given], the ante-
cedent being the law, which is ever5rwhere assigned to a divine
origin, Moses having received it from God. V. ^ is very obscure.
The best we can make out of MT. is: and the king gave to him all
that he sought according to the hand of Yahweh upon him]] or
EZRA 7-10 305
with CS: because the hand of Yakweh was upon him. Esd. reads:
and the king gave him honor, for he found favor with him for all his
undertakings. — 7. The classes that went up with Ezra are the
same as those in c. 2. In his own account priests, Levites, and
Nethinim are mentioned, but not singers or porters, 8^^*-. —
In the seventh year of Artaxerxes the king]. On this date, v. i.,
Intr. § ^°, Kost. Wied.'"-^. — 8. Esd. omits and he came to Jerusa-
lem] and has in one text (S) "second" year instead of "seventh."
Wellhausen proposed twenty-seventh, but that does not help
much. — 9. For on the first day of the first month]. This date is
found in nearly all the Vrss., and is emphasised because it was
the beginning of the year. — That was the beginning of the going
up from Babylon]. This as well as the date preceding is lacking
in two Greek texts, but that makes the repetition more mean-
ingless than it is even in MT.
Esd. reads: he went out from Bab. The text is not very certain.
But the statement shows that the journey from Bab. to Jerus. lasted
exactly four months. The time is meant to include the encampment at
Ahava, 8", from which place a final start was made on the 12th day of
the ist month. The obscure statement above may be due to the dis-
tinction between the original start from Bab. and the later one from
Ahava. As the distance was about 900 miles (Ryle), and the journey
lasted more than 100 days, the caravan moved slowly.
10. This verse states the object of Ezra and explains his so-
licitude to have Levites as well as priests: to seek the law of Yah-
weh and to do it, and to teach in Israel statute and judgment], or
with ^ statutes and judgments, both being familiar synonyms
for the law. Esd. has a different idea: /or Ezra possessed much
knowledge, not to omit anything of the law of the Lord and of his
commands to all Israel, statutes and judgments, the last two words
being a corrective gloss.
As the passage w. »-w runs, it is not surprising that it is labelled Chr.
and passed by as unimportant; for it is overloaded with genealogy, with
specific and repeated dates, and other details. But a close examination
reveals the fact that a single statement runs through the mass, thus:
(i) In the reign of Art. the king of Pers. Ezra (6) went up from Bab.
Now he was an accomplished scribe in the law of Moses which Yahweh the
20'
3o6 EZRA-NEHEMIAH
God of Israel had given. And the king granted all his requests, ace. to
the [good] hand of God upon him. (lo) For Ezra had set his heart upon
following and executing the law of Yahweh, and to teach his statutes and
judgments in Israel. (8) And he came to Jerus. in the 5th month of the yth
year of the king; (9*) for he had departed from Bab. on the ist day of the
1st month.
To this V. ' is surely an addition, for the verbs before and after are
all in the sg. It is true that we find the pi. in some Vrss., but they are
obvious corrections. The material is easily gathered from the body of
the narrative, and an intr. which named only Ezra did not suit an
editor who kept ever in mind a return from captivity. The genealogy
has been added apparently by stages, Esd. having a briefer one than
MT., and the latter even being less full than Ch. The insertion of this
genealogy made necessary the repetition of nry Nin in v. «. Esd. has
gone further and added a vb. in v. ". A comparison with Esd, shows
that there has been tampering with the dates in v. » '•. It is diflScult
to determine whether "ace. to the good hand," etc., in v. », is an ac-
cidental repetition, a good text, or, as Esd. suggests, wrong in both
cases.
It is apparent that to the story of Ezra there was an original and
simple note of intr. In this all emph. was laid upon Ezra's mission and
upon his fitness for its accomplishment. The material, it is true, is
drawn from the body of the narrative, but that is generally the case with
introductions. In my opinion, this original intr. long preceded the
editing of the Chr. We note that the writer has chiefly in mind the
intr. of the law.
That the genealogy has been shoved in is disclosed most plainly in
C5^, where we have: and after these things in the reign of Art. the king
of Bab., Ezra went up from Bab. Ezra the son of Seraiah. . . . That
Ezra went up from Bab. All the texts show efforts to piece the narra-
tive here. The genealogy may have been a marginal note, and then
the clause following would be repeated after it had got into the text.
The addition may well be the work of the Chr., but in his genealogical
table some names have dropped from our text. The reason for most
of the added material is fairly obvious. The passage is much later than
E., however, as the stress is laid on the law.
1. N-ity] Eapa?B^ Ei;pa<;AL^ Esd. has -zgoai^-q Eapxq, (S^ dvlgij Et;pa?,
3 Esd. accesit Esdras. — 6. tfNin ]n2'^] ^^ Esd.^ tou Upiux; tou xptoTou,
Esd.^ TOU xpciTou hpiuiq, 05^^ TOU icaTpwou, an adj. in Prov. 27" and
representing 3i<; otherwise it is found only in Apocr. H sacer dotes ah
initio, 3 Esd. primi sacerdotes. The words bring out the idea very
well that Aaron was the father of the priestly order. — 6. Nirj? Nin] om.
(8^. ^ adds to this sx BaPuXwvoc; and then repeats El^pa? Mq x. t. X.
— •ynn] seems sufficiently explained from inc, "to hasten," and to
EZRA 7-10 307
have the mng. quick, a sense applicable in the only other occurrences of
the word, Ps. 45* Prov. 22" Is. I6^ Miiller (^45. u. Eu.^^^) compares
Egyptian mahira, "capable." 05 gives a variety of renderings: Ta%ii<;^,
o^6q^, Esd. e!)(f<j-i]<;; H velox, 3 Esd. ingeniosus. — tio] (5 ore "xelp, I. e.,
n> ^3, so v. '. Esd. has in v.'': xal eSwxev aixw 6 ^(xaikziiq So^av, eup6vTo<;
xiptv evav-uCov autoCi Ixl xdvira to: dc^icoyiaTa autou, thus reading no as
nnV, vSy as Sy, vnSs as vSx, and nin> as in xsa. — 7. aiiSn] 05 prefixes
dxd correctly, since the partitive should be used with each n.; its ab-
sence before the last three nouns in all texts suggests either careless-
ness of the Chr. or more prob. a later addition. — 8. n^m] 05 B Esd rd.
W3'' here and v. '. — niyae'n] Esd.^ SeuTepo?, but this offers very little
help, unless for We.'s conjecture that we should rd. 27th year. — 9"
is lacking in (8^*.— nVjjnn nD> Nin] is difficult; 05^^ runs: ai-zhq s0etJi.e-
X&)as T-fjv dvtipaotv (k%6, i. e., no;, a reading generally accepted, and in-
terpreted "he began the journey from Bab." BDB. gives sense "ap-
point " here. Esd. has e^eXGdv-coq ydp Ix^, lacking ■\D\ — . . . Ta] Esd.
xaxd: -z^y SoOeiaav aitot<; eioSfav Tcapd: tou xupfou ex' au-utp: ace. to the
good journey given to them from the Lord to him, the last two words be-
ing added as a correction from MT., and lacking in *, — 10. ]''2r\] (g
ISwxev^*, •fjTofiJ.al^e'^. Esd. reads: h ydp "Ei^pai; [AiJ'apai;^] xoXX9)v
lxtaTiQli.TQV xeptelxev eiq xb injBsv xapaXsixetv twv Ix tou v6[jlou xupfou xal
Ix Twv evToXdiv [xpb?^] xivua -ubv 'lapai^X Staxw^Aa-ua xdit xpffxaTa. In
part this is traceable, reading nain njon for laaS pan. 3 Esd. shows
further correction from MT., reading at end: et docendo universam
Israel omnem jtistitiam et judicium.
7"-''' = Esd. 8^^*, The edict of Artaxerxes.
Of all the official documents in our books this one arouses the great-
est suspicion. It is difficult to believe that the Pers. king would bestow
such immense grants upon Ezra, including c. $140,000 in cash; indeed,
it is impossible that Ezra, whose purpose was the proper institution of
the temple ritual, should need any such sum. It is absolutely out of
the question that such enormous powers were conferred upon a Jew-
ish pr., making him really the supreme authority in the whole Syrian
province, with power to impose even the death penalty. The decree
is even inconsistent with itself in this respect, for a part of it authorises
the Pers. officers to pay Ezra money, and then he is clothed with a
power that would have enabled him to displace them if he saw fit.
Moreover, a large part of the decree is flatly at variance with the work
of Ezra, which is described with more fulness than any other event in
this period. There is not a hint in the whole story that this pr. ever
received as much as a kid from any foreigner whatever. He says
himself that he would not ask even a guard from the Pers. king. There
3o8 EZRA-NEHEMIAH
is no hint of any tremendous sacrifices such as we should have heard of
if the leader had received such liberal donations.
Ezra is here clothed with all of the power of the Pers, king in the
1 whole of Syria, yet he was unable to effect a single divorce except by
a pathetic appeal to the people. The official titles which he bears are
humble enough, pr. and reader of the law, nothing more. And those
titles cover everything that he actually did at Jerus. No great move-
ments of any kind can be traced to him exc. in connection with the cult
and with the law. Even Sta. seems to accept the idea that Ezra's law
became the law of the king (ST.''^). There were two things for which
Ezra needed the authorisation of Art., and two only: the permit to
take a caravan to Jerus., and to make the Torah the law for the Jew-
ish people. Now these two points are explicitly covered in the edict,
and if there were nothing else, no one would ever have questioned the
authenticity of this decree.
On account of his work in connection with the temple and the law,
Ezra is exalted above every other character in this period. In the
portion of Esd. which has come down to us, Neh. is not mentioned.
To make him as conspicuous as later ages supposed him to be, the
historic sources available to the Chr. have been freely worked over.
Evidence of this contention abounds everywhere. In this initial c.
of his story we have abundant instances. The havoc which has been
made of his memoirs offers further proof. To dispose of this edict as
a whole by calling it the invention of the Chr., as Torrey among others
does, is quite unnecessary. It is hard to see why the Chr. should have
written in Aram. Torrey's argument that he does it to give colour to the
genuineness of the document breaks down in view of the fact that he
is supposed to have written the edict of Cy. in c. i in Heb., and that
even Torrey admits that the other Aram, sections antedate the Chr.
Now if we dissect this decree, as Torrey dissects that of Dar, we may
find perfectly good authority for Ezra's course. There is, indeed, a
greater elaboration than in other sections, but Ezra was the hero of the
age, and greater glorification was demanded. To find the original we
have first the easy task of eliminating vv. "-2<. In this part there is so
unusually close an agreement between MT. and Esd. as alone to offer
good ground for suspicion. This agreement is best explained as due
to the fact that the passage is later than the rest of the section. The
passage in form consists of a decree to the Syrian treasurers, and yet it
runs into the decree of Ezra. Vv. " '• may be original, but the oflBcers
whom Ezra was authorised to appoint were not civil rulers. The texts
show uncertainty, (& having "scribes" in place of "judges." These
ofl&cers were mere assistants to be appointed to aid Ezra in his religious
duties, and such as we find working with him in large numbers, Ne. 8.
The punishments named in v. " were not to be imposed by Ezra or his
assistants, but by the properly constituted civil officers in the satrapy.
EZRA 7-10 309
The condition described there had always held good in every part of
the Pers. empire, so far as the law of the king is concerned. The new
feature is the obligation to obey the law of Yahweh. This law Ezra
seems authorised to impose on the Jews.
With the rest of the decree there is little occasion to quarrel. Fischer
accepts as genuine w. "-i'- ='• 's. 26^ ^Qt t^jg presupposes too much am-
plification. There may have been a little retouching here and there to
enlarge the conception of Ezra's mission, but what it really amounts
to is that Ezra had a free hand to beg all the money he could for sacred
purposes, and that is assuredly not extravagant in its claims. V. '" is
not quite so natural, and yet Oriental kings were often not averse to
doing liberal things on paper. Witness the gold bricks so freely inter-
changed between the courts of Egypt and Bab. on the unimpeachable
evidence of the Tell-Amarna letters. Yet the Esd. texts say that Ezra
may take from the royal treasury, presumably in Bab., the vessels for
the house of God; quite a different proposition. The version of Esd.
differs so much from the Aram, that a translation of the former is ap-
pended, for while the detailed variants are cited in the notes, the matter
will be grasped better by comparing the Vrss. as a whole. Among the
differing texts of Esd. I have chosen that which in each instance seems
to be best: (11) But the person approaching who did the writing of King
Art., he delivered the writing, which had come from King Art. to Ezra the
pr. and reader of the law of the Lord, of which the subjoined is a copy :
(12) King Art. to Ezra the pr. and reader of the law of the Lord, greeting.
(13) And I having a preference for benevolent acts have ordered that those
who desire of the nation of the Jews, of their own election, and of the pr.
and Lev. who are in our kingdom, may proceed with thee to Jerus. As
many therefore as are eager, let them set forth together, (14) <w seems good
to we and to the seven friends counselling with me, that they look after the
welfare of Judah and Jerus. in accordance with the law of the Lord; (15)
and to carry to Jerus. gifts which I and my friends have vowed to the Lord.
(16) And all the gold and silver which sJtall be found in the province of
Bab., for the Lord at Jerus., with that which is given by the nations for
the temple of the Lord which is in Jerus., (17) shall be collected, and the
gold and silver for bulls and rams and lambs and the things which go with
them, in order that they may offer sacrifices on the altar of the Lord which
is in Jems. {1^) And all that seems right to thy brethren to do with the gold
and silver let it be done, ace. to the will of thy God. (19) And the sacred
vessels which are giveji thee for the service of the temple of thy God which
is in Jerus., (20) and the rest whatever shall come to thee for the service of
the temple of thy God, thou shall take from the royal treasury.
(21) And I, Art. the king, give orders to the treasurers of Syria and
Phoenicia, that whatever Ezra the pr. and reader of the law of the most high
God demands, shall be scrupulously given to him, (22) up to a hundred
talents of silver, likewise up to a hundred cor of wheat atui a hundred
3IO EZRA-NEHEMIAH
bottles of wine. (23) And ace. to the law of God, let everything be com-
pleted for the most high God that there be no wrath against the realm of
the king and of his sons. (24) And to you it is said that to all the pr. and
Lev. and singers and porters and Neth. and scribes of the temple, there
shall be no tribute nor other imposition, and no one shall have authority
to lay anything upon them. {2$) And thou, Ezra, according to the wisdom
of God, appoint judges and magistrates of those who know the law that they
may judge in all Syria and Phoenicia; and all who do not know the law
of thy God do thou teach. (26) And all as many as shall trangress the law
[of thy God and of the king] shall be strictly punished, whether it be by
death, or by torture, or by fines, or by banishment.
11. This verse is Hebrew and is the Chronicler's introduction
to the letter which is in Aramaic, — Copy of the letter], cf. 4}^
5®. The writer claims to have an authentic document before
him. — The scribe, the scribe of the words of Yahweh's command-
ments]. In place of "scribe," Esd. in one place, by pointing
dififerently, reads "book."
In this V. 3 Esd. has an interesting plus: but those approaching who
did the writing of King Art., they delivered the writing which had come from
King Art. to Ezra, the pr. and reader of the law of the Lord, of which the
subjoined is a copy. It is impossible to think this text an invention of
translators, and yet it is rather startling in its implications; for it re-
veals plainly a beginning in medias res. In other words, this passage
was preceded by an account of the way in which Ezra obtained his
favour from the king, a natural part of the story; cf. the story of the
Three Youths, Esd. 3, 4 and Ne. i, 2. It appears that Ezra was not
at the Pers. court when the decree was issued, but that it was brought
to him at the river Ahava in Bab.
12-26. The letter.— 12. God of heaven], v. i «; Esd. reads
the Lord. — Perfect and so forth] as ARV. is nonsense. By a
slight emendation we get the true sense, perfect peace. And
now, coming to the real business. — 13. In my empire]. 'Ezra, is
free to gather his caravan from any part of the vast Persian
kingdom. — 14. The purpose of Ezra's mission, a mission sup-
ported by the king and his seven counsellors (cf. the seven
princes, Est. i"), was to investigate the condition of Judah,
but from the point of view of the law of God which he carried
with him; that is, to see whether the law was enforced or not.
EZRA 7-10 311
— 15. Silver and gold], Esd. gifts for the Lord which I and my
friends have vowed for Jerusalem]. This implies that Ezra's mis-
sion was in some part due to a vow taken by the king, the con-
ditions of which had been fulfilled. We may compare the appeal
to the vow of Darius, Esd. 4^^'^-. The expression "vow" is
stronger than the Aramaic "ofifered." — The God of Israel whose
dwelling-place is in Jerusalem]. The dwelling-place is strictly
the temple; but the meaning is more comprehensive than that:
Jerusalem was the place Yahweh had selected as his abode.
The statement therefore shows a distinct Jewish colouring. —
16. All the silver and gold which thou shall find in the whole prov-
ince of Babylon]. This is not qualified by the following words,
since the voluntary gifts of the people and priests are quite
distinct. Ezra has a roving commission so far as raising money
is concerned.
Ryle explains by saying that the neighbours of the Jews would gladly
assist their undertaking. Sieg. supposes it to be a compulsory tax
which Ezra had the right to levy upon Jewish property in Bab. Seis.
contends that this money came from Jews, since 8^5 names only king,
counsellors, princes, and all Israel as contributors. Berth, thinks this
gift came from foreigners, and if exactness is insisted upon, we might
identify this "find" with the gift of the princes, though they are not
mentioned here. In spite of his antipathy to aliens in Judah, Ezra
might be willing to receive money from them. But all suggestions to
explain the money overlook the troublesome word "find," which re-
curs, by the way, in ?)^, and is supported by all texts and Vrss. In
Esd. we might render: all the gold and silver belonging to the Lord of
Jems, which can be found in the province of Bab. From this we get an
entirely new idea. The temple had been repeatedly plundered by As.
and Bab. kings, and the booty carried ultimately to temples and palaces
in Bab. Now Ezra is authorised to take back all of that spoil which
he can find. This makes the passage intelligible, at all events, and
makes good sense. If that is the right conception it speaks for the
authenticity of the decree.
For the house of God who [or which] is in Jerusalem]. In Aramaic
it is not possible to tell whether the relative stands for "house"
or "God"; (&^^ H have former, ^ latter, for in Greek and Latin
the distinction must be made, cf. i^ — 17. That thou mayst faith-
312 EZRA-NEHEMIAH
fully buy with the money], showing that the purpose for which
it was collected was the proper institution of the cultus. — Bul-
locks, rams, lambs], the same animals (lacking the goats) named
as offered at the dedication of the temple, 6^^ — And their meat
offerings and their drink offerings], that is, those which prop-
erly accompanied the animal sacrifices, v. Nu. 15^-^". Esd. has
merely: and those things which accompany them. — 18. But all
the money would not be required for sacrifices, therefore the
general statement is made that Ezra and his brethren (the
priests) may use the balance of the money as may seem to them
good; but that it was only to be used for sacred purposes is
shown by the limitation, according to the pleasure of your God]. —
Id. And the vessels which are given thee for the service of the house
of thy God]. These are doubtless the same as those enumerated
in S^^-", and are gifts of the king, members of his court, and
Israelites. They are not vessels that had previously been in
the temple and which had been already returned, cf. i''^- 5^^
6^ The direction about these vessels is that they shall be
placed in the temple as votive memorials. — 20. Provision is
now made to cover any expenditure not provided in the above
grant by allowing the priest to draw upon the royal treasury to
meet any requirement for the temple which might fall upon
him. — 21. The king then limits this permission by decreeing
that all the treasurers in the Syrian province shall honour the
requisitions of Ezra, 22, up to a hundred talents of silver, a
hundred cor of wheat, a hundred bottles of wine and of oil, and
an unlimited supply of salt: salt which is not written, or re-
stricted. The cor is the same as homer = 393.9 litres. The oil
and salt are not mentioned in Esd. According to Meyer's
computation the silver would be worth about $140,000, a much
larger sum than we should expect. Meyer adds, "but the
amount appears to me unsuspicious in view of the rich gifts of
the king and his magnates which Ezra brought with him." It
is difficult to share this view; v. on 8^^. — 23. Everything which is
by the command of the God of heaven shall be correctly executed for
the house of the God of heaven]. This is the most sweeping of
all the provisions. Ezra is assumed to have the law as the basis
EZRA 7-10 313
of his plea for assistance. That law showed in detail what
God demanded in the service at his temple in Jerusalem. That
service was not yet rendered according to this law, and with
such a condition God was not well pleased. — Ezra had shrewdly
appealed to the king's fears and so the decree continues: why
should there he wrath upon the empire of the king and his sons?]
The displeasure of God, which might fall upon the Persian em-
pire, may be averted by establishing the rightful cult at Jeru-
salem. That kind of an appeal would be the most effective and
adds probability to the liberal terms of the edict, cf. 61°^. — 24.
To you it is directed]. The antecedent can only be the treas-
urers named in v. ^^
As the decree was issued to Ezra (v. i') and in view of the material
intervening between v. =â– and v. ^*, the construction makes the passage
suspicious, esp. the use of the second p., as if the decree were directed
to the treasurers named in v. =". We find here a supposedly "exhaustive
list of the temple officials: pr. Lev. singers, porters, Neth. and ser-
vants of the house of God. This agrees with the lists of c. 2 exc. for
the last-named, corresponding to which we find "servants of Solomon."
These may be identical, but "servants" in our passage has a more
technical mng. than Berth, gives: whoever besides has to oversee the ser-
vice at the temple. Our text simply asserts that it shall be unlawful
to impose any kind of tax upon the temple officers; but (& adds to this
a provision that no kind of [public] service may be exacted of them.
25. And thou, Ezra]. The name recurs because a passage,
w. ^^^-j had been addressed to others. — According to the wisdom
of thy God which is in thy hand], does not mean, according to
the priests' inspired discretion, as Esd. implies, but according
to the written law-book which he carries and to which he must
conform, cf. v.^*; "wisdom" is often in late literature used as a
synonym for "law." The government established by Ezra was
therefore to be hierarchical. — Appoint judges and magistrates],
(& better scribes and judges, as they were the administrators of
the religious law. — To all the people who are beyond the River] is
qualified by the following: i, e., to all who observe the law of thy
God], so that Ezra's jurisdiction is confined to Jews in the Syrian
province. — And whoever does not observe [the law] you shall in-
314 EZRA-NEHEMIAH
struct]. This does not open the way to a propaganda among the
non- Jewish residents, but means that Ezra and others shall
teach the law to those Jews who now do not know or follow it.
— 26. And every one who does not obey the law of thy God and the
law of the king]. Here is the beginning of the double law under
which the Jews have lived to this day, and which causes so much
confusion and perplexity {cf. Jn. 19^). The officers appointed
by Ezra were authorised to administer both the religious and
the civil law. The various punishments permitted are death,
banishment, imposition of fines, and imprisonment. These are
comprehensive enough for all purposes. — ^This brings us to the
end of the decree and of the Aramaic sections of the book of
Ezra.
11. The Heb. is dear and in good order. Esd. has a different text;
it runs : •]i;poffxea6vTo? [SI tou ypaiplvToq]""* ^ 'Kpoai&f[i.o:xoq°^- ^ •7cap(i
'Apxa^lp^ou "cou ^(xaiki(i)q xpb<; "Eapav Tbv Isp^a xal (Jvayvcoffintjv toO vit^ou
xupfou ou laxtv dcvrfypa^ov Tb uicoxeffxevov. Tliis is nonsense as it stands,
because a clause has dropped out after â– Kpoai&'xii.axQq. The deficit is
found in 3 Esd.: accidentes autem, qui scribehant scripta Artaxerxis
regis, tradiderunt scriptum, quod ohvenerat ab Artaxerxe rege ad Esdram
sacerdotem et lectorem legis Domini, cujus exemplum subjectum est.
Doubtless 05 is right in the use of the sg. — iScn] om. ^^K — "iad] (&
^tpXfou = inp, Esd. dcvaYV(iCTi:Y]v = N^p. The title "scribe" is never
found in Esd. (save for the gl. in 9"^^). "Reader" is doubtless the
earlier term. For ha-^^i . . nail Esd. shows only nin> mm, agreeing
essentially with title in v. ^\ — 12. Njno om. (S^\ — xm] is Pers. dadh
(Andreas, in Mar.*'). — njj?3i iisj] is a much-disputed phrase. In 05 we
find: TETiXecruo Xoyo? xal â– ?)' ix6xpc(jK;^^, let the word and the answer he
performed; in ^ to the above is added : xal vuv = njyoi; Esd. xctigEW,
3 Esd. salutem; Esd. begins v.": xal toI: (ptXavOpwxa lytb xpfva?, which
is not represented in the Aram. "i''DJ would correspond to TSTiXeaTO,
though Berth, says Gk. did not understand this word; but the rest, at
all events, is not discoverable. Torrey thinks dW has fallen out after
n^Tiv (Comp.^^), a correction supported by Esd. and now frequently
adopted. But if we rely on the Vrss. we must suppose more lost than
a single word. — n:yo] v. 4". — 13. iniD'7Da] Esd.^ xal twvSs ev t^ ■^[j,sT^p(jt
gaatXeftjc. — Sn-ici] Esd. twv 'louSafwv, a reading overlooked by Kost. —
14. n '73p-'7o] wanting in (S^\ xocO' oxti'. — inay>] cf. ap, Sachau,"; it
corresponds to Heb. yp and has the same mng. — 15. nSainS] 05^A g[^
olxov xupfou, i. e., S^^^. ^ has a dup. : (ixeveYxelv sl(; x. x. "k. — ^finr]
Esd. TfjO^itJiiQv = Heb. -nj not found in B. Aram. — 16. no'^nr] Esd. 8
EZRA 7-10 315
idiv zbgsQji (^^nt^»n cf. 6^ Iv Tfj x^^P? fij? B. Tcp xupf<p Isp. Kupfcp is best
interpreted as a dative of possession, i. e., belonging to the Lord of
Jems. — 16. Nijnai] lacking in Esd., which knows of no contribution
from the pr.; this agrees with 8^5 and is prob. right. — paunn . . . djj]
Esd. aiv T(p 8eS(opT)[ji.lv(p uTcb toO eOvou?, referring to Bab. — 17. . . .hj
T^lV] (S^^ xal -rcav •rcpoaTcopeu6[jievov, toOxov eTof^AW!; evxa^ov ev PipXf(p tou-
T(p; ^ adds to this a lit. rendering of the Aram.; H libere accipe et
Stiidiose erne de hoc pecunia; Esd. auvrjxO^vat -zd te xpuufov xal dpYuptov;
so 3 Esd. 2ti coUigatur hoc auriitn et argentum. (^ looks like a bad cor-
ruption: xav = S3, -TcpOCTX. = ^ip (Sap), toOtov = nn, eTo([j,G)i; = njisDX,
Ivra^ov = NJpn (»<ip), ^t^Xfo = NflDa (leo). MT. is poorly supported,
but the words are not of great moment. — 19. ihSd] only here as subst.,
but cf. V. 24. (8 XetToupyfav. Esd. uses a less technical word, xpetav,
in Heb. nnnj;. — aStyn] ^ xapiSo?. The word is lacking in Esd.^^, as
well as the preceding and following, so that we have merely the temple
of thy God which is in Jerus. Sieg. Berth. BDB. render "deliver in
full number." That implies a certain distrust of Ezra, and would be
superfluous in any case. Ges.^ renders "restore," implying, wrongly
I think, that these vessels had previously been taken from the temple.
Torrey renders "deliver in the presence of." We should prob. assign
a weakened sense, "lay up," as Esd.'^ Bi^aet?. — oSa'n^ nS.s] (S Iv 'lep.
Guthe emends "t'S n Sx-it:'' dSn to correspond to v. ". The most
elaborate text is Esd.^: e[<; t-J)v x^ziocj tou iepou toO Oeou cou tou ev 'lep.
O'^aet? Ivavxfov iroO Oeoij 'lapa-^X. — 20. nina'n] f All Gk. texts have xpefav
= inSa, V. 1'. — 22. n'^'D jtna] lacking in CS^ and Esd.: ^ ikxlou gaSwv
Ixa-cdv; "^ IXccfou Iw? ^aTwv exaxdv. The unusual order and the witness
of (g make the mention of the oil suspicious. — ana NS-n] means with-
out prescription, i. e., ace. to requirement. — 23. D3;a-p] (6 Iv yy&Ml
but MT. shows no need of correction. — 24. ddS] is a manifest He-
braism; Mar. corrects to pS; similarly we should have piSj? at end
of V. — pjJimc] C5 lYvwptffTat^^, Yva)p{sO[j.ev^, XlyeTat^^'^-. The idiom
is explained in Kautzsch, § '«. The Gk. variants prob. represent only
different attempts to make intelligible a circumlocutory expression. —
Nnnr] Heb. a>-na'Dn, 2", v. Kautzsch, § ". Zimmem connects with
Bab. zammare {v. Haupt's note in Guthe,"). — TiSa] (v. ]rho, v. i") (g
XeiToupYoI? = Heb. mtr; Esd. xpaY(JLaTtxot<;^'^, YpaiJLpLaxtxoi?^. The word
must have some technical sense, but just what it is impossible to
say. 05 offers a variety of renderings of v. ^. ^ alone agrees with
MT. ^^ has: <f6g>oq (x-fj sotw ctoi oux l^ouacaaet? xaraSouXoOaOat auTOu?.
The first part is easily derivable from MT. iSa = oux, iSni = eaTw aoc,
». e., nin. With this reading Esd. in part agrees: [xif)Se!J.(a (popoXoyfa
(jLTjSe oXXyj IxtPouX-fi yfvTiTat, [jlyjSIvoc e'xetv e^ouafav IxtgaXeTv TouTOtq. —
25. njNi] Masora magna in B disertis verbis ait. In libris Danielis
et EsdrcB ubique nnjN scriptum est, uno loco pjn excepto (Str.). Doubt-
less the text preserves a mere scribal error. — i^a ■•■<] lacking in Esd. — â–
3l6 EZRA-NEHEMIAH
ptflflB'] YpatAtAaTsi<;^AL (pnsD), y.gn&<;^^: It is hard to say whether 05 is
right or merely trying to avoid a tautology, since the two Aram, words
both mean judges and cannot be distinguished. In Dt. i6"» we find
Dn:3a'i o^oij'.;', (^ xptxa? x. â– ^g(X[i.\i.xzoBi(jayu>-{Blq. The officers were ec-
clesiastical, not civil. — \'n] 05 v6[jlov^^ ^^'^•, ^ v6[ji.ttJia; with Torrey rd.
m. — jijjiinn] Guthe corrects to njg fnn, (S^ yvwpcelTs aiii. Guthe ap-
pears not to have noted this reading, but his emendation has little
support. — 26. inS'] d xatSefav^^, Ixtl^waat autbv ij xatSeuaai^; Esd.
dTt[j.tijc^, disfranchisement, TttJLwpfcjc^^, torture, so 3 Esd. cruciatu. cic
means rooi, so the lexicographers argue uprooting, banishment, ignoring
the big gaps in the chain of reasoning. Sieg., perhaps taking a hint
from Ges.^, refers to Ps. 52', where Pi. is rendered "uproot," but we
should rd. with <&, 1fi&', "thy root." The Gk. translators did not
know what the word meant, and we are no better off to-day; "excom-
munication" would be the most natural mng. — vDsj v;y;] C5 i;ir)[x{av
Pfou^^, "loss of life"; ^Tjfjitwaat toI: ixipxovra^, Esd. dpyupfyl^T). The
punishment is the imposition of fines. — jniDx] (& xaptiSofftv^, Siafjia^,
9uXfltx'^v lyxXeloai^; Esd. dTcaywY^^^, 8eff[j,s0aat^.
T'' ^- = Esd. S'^-"'. Ezra's thanksgiving.
As usually interpreted the leader gives thanks for the decree of Art.,
but it is really much more than that. The true connection has been
destroyed by the editorial work of the Chr. Doubtless this was origi-
nally not an appendix to a royal decree, but the conclusion of Ezra's own
story of his successful plea to the king. The brief passage expresses
thanksgiving in a few words and then proceeds to action, describing
how the pr. began to collect leaders to take part in his expedition. The
passage is directly continued in 8^\ the Chr. having interjected one of
the lists in which he so much delighted. This is the beginning of the
fragments of E.
27. One Greek ms. in Esd. begins: And Ezra the scribe said.
MT. begins: who has thus put it into the heart of the king], or
better into my heart. This refers not to the decree, which was
no part of E., but, if MT. is right, to the favourable disposition
already described by Ezra in a lost section of his story. The
good office of Artaxerxes is due to the moving of God's spirit
in his heart. But Esd.^ has my heart, doubtless the original read-
ing. Of the king was added to make a closer connection with
the decree. Ezra expresses gratitude first that he was moved
to do something for the temple, and then that he had received
EZRA 7-10 317
favour from the king. — To glorify the house of Yahweh] by estab-
lishing the full system of sacrifices. "Glorify" is a favourite
word of Is.2 4423 493 555 6o^- ^- ^^- 21 61'. These words express
the great purpose of Ezra's mission, which was concerned with
the temple rather than the law. — 28. The second ground for
praising God is: he extended mercy to me before the king and his
counsellors and his officers] as we should probably read like 8^^
All the mighty officers of the king is in MT,, but as the last named
were the least important, mighty is out of place, and the repeti-
tion of king is awkward. — As the good hand of Yahweh my God
was upon me]. "Good" is inserted from ^. Esd. reads: ac-
cording to the support of Yahweh my God. The substance is the
same. All of his success is ascribed to the loving kindness of
God. — And I gathered leaders [i. e., heads of fathers, Esd. men]
from Israel], that is, of course, from the race, not the land. Each
leader would have a number of his clan associated with him.
Having obtained a grant from the king, Ezra proceeds at once
to gather a company from the exiles who are ready to take part
in his expedition. His narrative is now interrupted by a list
of the names of those who went up with him. On these vv. v.
also Intr. § " (^).
27. Esd.^ begins: xal elxsv 'W,p(xq b YpattyiaTsii; (so 3 Esd.). Very-
little attention has been paid to this reading. Guthe, Sieg. B.-Rys.
Seis. do not refer to it. Berth, quotes it without a word of comment,
but does not note that it is found only in ^ and 3 Esd. Were we to
hold that this is the true beginning of E., we should surely regard this
as an authentic note by the compiler, for Ezra's name is not mentioned
in the genuine memoirs. The abruptness is explained by comparing
6', but it is really due to the Chr.'s omission of the introductory part of
E. The passage serves its purpose here, but is poorly supported, and
shows only a marginal note which was found in some texts, but not in
all. It did not come from the Chr., but was a later editor's note and
so did not find a place in all texts. — irniaN] lacking in Esd.^^; xar^pwv
y,ou* = Tiux, a better reading. — hnto] Esd. TocuTa, prob. a free render-
ing. — "iSnn 2*731 Esd. s!? Tfjv xapSfav \xou xoO ^xatXiuiq. The last two
words are a corrective addition. — nin'-!] om. (S^^, while Esd. curiously
reads ai-roij. — 28. non non] is a peculiar combination, but recurs in 9';
Esd. iTrf^jiTQaev, prob. iin for non. — ijij'?] C5 Iv 6?0aX[iot(; = '•J-'pa. Esd.
Evav-rt. Prob. a case of an obscure word rd. in two different ways. —
ijjn . . . VaSi]. The change of construction and its peculiar character
3 1 8 â– EZRA-NEHEMT AH
raise suspicions. 01 reads: xivTwv t. (ipx6vTwv t. p. t. lx7]p[i.lvuv^A.
[Suvaxwv^]. Esd. has a different text for the whole : PaaiXiuq y.ad -jcivxwv
Twv {pfXcov auTou xal twv (xeyttJTivwv auroO. It is likely that the original
was the same as 8", and is here awkwardly amplified. — >r\hn] on basis
of (6 Guthe adds riaion, cf. 7'. Esd. has a simpler text: e56apa-Ji<; lye-
v6[i.7]v xatoc T-fjv dtvrfXiQtJJtv xupfou 6eou [jlou. — □''•^si] Esd. (2vBpa(;'= a^'S'^N;
(8 apxovTa<; = ona' in v.\ This is another case of an obscure word;
D''C'«-> may be a correction from 8>.
8'"''' = Esd. 8'^"^°. The list of the leaders of Ezra's com-
pany. — 1. Heads of the fathers] v. s. on i^ — And their genealogy],
read with Esd. companies. — In the reign of Artaxerxes the king].
These words show that this list was not originally composed
for this place, or the date would be quite superfluous after c. 7;
still less would it be necessary in E. The separation of "with
me" from "from Babylonia" indicates that the date was not
originally in the text. The Chronicler evidently found the list
ready to his hand. "With me" is an editorial note to lend
plausibility to the insertion in the body of the memoirs.
2. Phineas, a grandson of Aaron, and Ithamar, a son, are named as
heads of priestly clans {v. Kue. Abh.*'"). Daniel and Hattush are
mentioned among the pr. in Ne. lo^" '-. It is very doubtful whether
David here means the famous son of Jesse, though Hattush is given
as of Davidic descent in i Ch. 3". — 3. Here begins a list of twelve names
of heads of houses all originally with a formula: of the sons of ;
the son of , and with him were males. There are some places
in which the text has been corrupted and thus the formula is marred.
Of these names eight recur among "the heads of the people" in Ne.
10" "f-, identifying Adonikam and Adoniah, i. e., all except Shekaniah,
Shephatiah, Joab, and Shelomith. In the list of Ezr. 2 we find ten
of these names, i. e., all exc. Shekaniah and Shelomith. The text is
therefore very doubtful and the name Shekaniah is certainly wrong.
Shekaniah is a priestly name in our books, Ne. 329 lo^ 12'- ". <K has
Zattu, a name found in both Ne. 10 and Ezr. 2, and that is prob.
right. Shelomith is a Levitical name found often in Ch., and does not
belong here as head of a clan. Esd. supplies the true text: of the sons
of Bani, Shelomith the son of Josephiah. Bani is found in both parallel
lists. It is not without interest to note that the first ten names in Ne.
agree with ten in our list, and that with two exceptions (Arach, v. 5,
Zaccai, v. they agree with the first twelve in Ezr. 2. B.-Rys. argues
that the twelve heads of fathers are due to the theory that the re-
stored Israel was to be made up from the twelve tribes. — 13. And of
the sons of Adonikam the last]. What the last means is quite un-
EZRA 7-10 319
known. Something is apparently lacking. As we rd. of the sons of
Adonikam . . . and these are their names, it is clear that there must have
been some statement about these sons, for the last clause would not
be reouired otherwise. Something like "there were three brothers"
would properly fill up the gap. It may be that we should render:
"and of the sons of Adonikam there were others, and these are their
names." It is noteworthy that here alone we find three names instead
of one, and that here alone the names of the fathers are lacking. The
Vrss. do not agree with our text, Esd.^ and H having : Eliphalet the son
of Jeuel and Shemaiah. — 14. Instead of Uthai and Zabbud we should
rd. Uthai the son of Zabbud, or Zacchur, as some texts have. The
numbers vary somewhat in the different texts.
1. is'Ni] <S^ adds ocxwv as Ex. 6^* et pass., but cf. i\ — aa'nTini]
Hithp. inf. with sf. Ges.^ ^*. The word is hard to render here. Esd. has
xal T(ii; [xeptSapxfa? (+ aiiou^); (S^^ o\ b^-qyol connected with a^Syn,
the guides going up with me; t«.eptSapxta<; recurs in 1^ = 2 Ch. 35= for
nuSs, in i" = 2 Ch. 35'', nuSon; we should rd. here omjSijm = and
their divisions [or companies]. — Vaan] (g^A lack D and rd. king of Bab.
The date is a late insertion. Esd. transposes : went up with me from Bab.,
though this does not presuppose a different text. — '•ny] is found in all
the texts. It was doubtless added by the Chr. to make the list fit into
its context. — n''joa> 'J3d]. The expected name following does not ap-
pear. In v. 5 this name is repeated, but still with a name lacking. Esd.
omits the name in v. ', and (1^ omits v. * altogether. We should om.
the name here and supply a name in v. ». Since in i Ch. 3'' Hattush
is the grandson of Shekaniah, we might rd. n^jj-^ ja cirn. — 5. After
(&^ Esd. h. Twv ulwv Zot6oT^<; Eiexovfa? TeOtqXou (so 3 Esd.), rd. Nint ijan
Ssirn-'-ja n-ijoa'. — DnoiS cnTin] puzzled the ancients, but the real mng.
is counting only the males; further on it is deemed sufficient to repeat
only "males," which in Esd. is always SvSpeq. — 6. nay] should cer-
tainly be a n. p., but it is peculiar certainly. 05 offers Q^tjG^, QS^ri\
AiAtvaSa^^ (= ^r; in;*); Esd. OuPtjv^, Q^tjOA, AtxtvSa^i-. On the whole,
n?V is best supported and may be an abbreviated form, as there are
numerous n. p. with lay as the initial element. — 10. A name is evi-
dently lacking, as Esd. offers ex twv ulwv Bavta? SotXetpiwO Iwaaqjtou^*.
C5* has a similar text. In Esd.'' the first two names are transposed.
Rd. . . . ''J3 ij3ai. In i Ch. 26" in^jj-j'i is the great-grandfather of a Shelo-
mith. There is a suspicious phonic resemblance to in>DDv, here named
as father of Shelomith. — 11. In (S^ Esd. the names are differentiated;
correct with Guthe to . . . \''3 ''J3D, v. on 10". — 05^a h^g ^3^ -^^ 28,
i. e., 0'j73B' for Dncy. — 12. iBpn] the little one, cf. "James the less,"
Mk. 15^"; the name is attested by (5 H Esd. — (S^ has 120 for no. — 13.
D''nnN "unintelligible" (Berth.); Seis. says it has a distinguishing sig-
nificance in view of "the sons of Adonikam," 2", but other names are
320 EZRA-NEHEMIAH
repeated without marks of distinction. The "other" of 2" is supposed
to distinguish names in the same list. (S renders 'iaxoc-zoi, "B qui erant
novissimi, 3 Esd. ipsis postremis. The text is well supported; but, if
correct, is a mystery. — 14. nun] om. (&^; text is wrong, as iDj?, the
best reading, indicates but one name. Esd. has: Ouxoili TaxaxiXxou^,
Oiei h ToO ToraXxoupou*; ^ agrees with MT. Guthe suggests ^^a as
the first part of this name, after which we should expect the name of
a place. But elsw. in this list we have the name of the father, not
of the place of residence, and following the easiest way we may rd.
ni3T-p \"n?. But 'laxaxiXxou may be yhn nyyn, "I have spread out
unto thee." Qr. substitutes ii^r and the Vrss. vary greatly: ZagouS*,
Zotxxoup'^, Zachur H. The whole v. is lacking in 3 Esd.
8'5-3° = Esd. S'^'"^^ The assembly at the river Ahava.
Here Ezra collects his company. During a three days' encampment
it is discovered that no Lev. have joined the expedition. Ezra de-
spatches messengers who return with a suitable supply of temple ser-
vants. The company fasts and prays for a safe journey, Ezra being
ashamed to ask a guard because he has assured the king that Yahweh
would adequately protect those who sought him. This section is from
E. and has suffered chiefly by addition of vv. " '• '",
lb. And I assembled them]. The antecedent is heads or chiefs,
728, not those named in the list (vv. ^â– ") interpolated by the
Chronicler. In 7^* the reference is to collecting the people to
form a caravan; here it is to the assembling of the company at a
particular place in preparation for departure. — The river which
comes into Ahava]. With Esd. we must read: the river which is
called Ahava; for in vv.^^-^^ we find "the river Ahava," this
being the name of a river not of a place (so Ewald, Hist, v,"^^) ;
Winckler identifies it with Hables-suk, which enters the Tigris
near Seleucia. But he considers it not a canal of water, but a
trade route (Alt. Forsch. iii,*^^ ^■). — And I viewed the people and
the priests, but I did not find any of the sons of Levi there]. This
explains the purpose of the three days' encampment. Ezra
made a scrutiny of the caravan, which had collected voluntarily,
his object being to note its composition. Now it would be
strange for him to say that he looked among the laity and priests
and found no Levites there, as if one were to say " I searched
among the privates and found no officers there." Esd. offers
a more intelligible text : / car ef idly observed them [the assembled
EZRA 7-10 321
caravan], and of the priests and of the Levites I found none there,
i. e., priests as well as Levites were wanting. It will appear
below that Ezra secured others than Levites when he sent to
Casiphia. — 16. Making a necessary correction of the text, to se-
cure the lacking temple servants, it appears that an embassy
was sent out comprising two classes of men: one called "heads,"
consisting of nine men whose names are given; the other called
"intelligent," and consisting of two men. But we find Elna-
than three times, and the very similar Nathan once. Jarib
and Jojarib are repetitions, and thus a noun, " leaders," and
its adjective, "intelligent," have been separated. We should
therefore read: / sent Eliezer^ et at., intelligent leaders, men com-
petent for the task in hand. Of these leaders but two, Zechariah
and Shemaiah, are mentioned in the Chronicler's list, w. ^-^^
an evidence of the character of that list. It is impossible to
tell just how many Ezra sent. The shortest and critically best
list is found in Esd. : Eliezer, Ariel, Shemaia, Elnathan, Nathan,
Zecheriah, Meshullam, seven in all. — 17. And I sent them], not
"I commanded them," which we find as an alternative reading.
— Unto Iddo the chief in Casiphia the place]. We must omit the
place to make good sense. The text shows a Babylonian idiom.
Iddo, otherwise unknown, was the head of a Jewish colony
in Casiphia, which Winckler locates on the Tigris, opposite
Seleucia, and so not far from Ahava {Alt. Forsch. iii,^^ ^■). —
I put words into their mouth]. In spite of his care to choose
intelligent chiefs for his embassy, Ezra framed carefully the
message they were to carry to Iddo. — Unto Iddo his brethren
the Nethinim] cannot be right. We should read unto Iddo and
his brethren the Nethinim, or possibly Iddo and his brethren
dwelling in. Unless Levites and Nethinim are synonymous, it
was evidently not merely Levites which Ezra sought to add to
his company. On the Nethinim, v. s. 2^^. It is evident that
Ezra was quite ignorant of the list in c. 2, or he would not
have been at such pains to secure the attendance of classes
already supposed to be largely represented at Jerusalem. — To
bring to us ministers for the house of our God]. Esd. has send,
a better reading, since the message was to Iddo, who could
322 EZRA-NEHEMIAH
send but not bring. Though some Vrss. read "singers" for
"ministers," the more general word, which includes all classes
of temple officers, is preferable. Certainly this term would not
be used if Levites alone were desired. — 18. And they brought to
us]. Another, but erroneous, text, though found in (S, is: and
there came to us. The meaning is that the intelligent leaders
were successful in their quest, for "the good hand of God was
over" the whole enterprise, and they brought back from Casiphia
to the caravan at Ahava those enumerated in the list following.
— The rest of the verse is confusing: a man of prudence, of the sons
of Mahli a son of Levi a son of Israel, and Sherehiah and his sons
and his brethren eighteen]. With Guthe on basis of Esd. we may
omit "and," and thus make Sherebiah the man of prudence;
for he was a prominent Levite in Ezra's administration, v. 2*
Ne. 8'' g* f-. "Son of Levi" is here not genealogical, but official,
being equivalent to Levite. "Son of Israel" is a corruption.
Mahli was a son or grandson of Merari, v. ", and Merari was a
son of Levi. There were eighteen Levites of the kin of the pru-
dent Sherebiah who joined him to go up for the temple service.
The true reading is: a prudent man of the sons of Mahli a Levite
as the chief, Sherebiah, etc. — 19. And with him Isaiah of the sons
of Merari, his brethren and their sons twenty]. The text is ob-
viously impossible. (H Esd. omit "with him," thus coupling the
two names as co-ordinate; but as this Isaiah is not named else-
where he could not have been so important a personage. The
Vrss. vary, but H gives good sense: Hashabiah, and with him
Isaiah of the sons of Merari, and his brethren and his sons twenty.
— 20. And of the Nethinim], following which we have the only
historical account of this order, from which it appears that the
order was established by David and his ministers for the ser-
vice of the Levites
The Chr. traces all the temple institutions to David, and the inter-
polation from his hand is easily recognised here. It is prob. that kings
had been wont to preseiit slaves to the temple (v. Smith, OT. //w/."').
The statement is amplified in 3 Esd.: and they themselves were the
chiefs for the work of the Lev. who served in the temple. It is barely pos-
sible that with (& we should understand two classes here: (i) of tJie
EZRA 7-10 323
Neih. whom David established, (2) and the chiefs for the Levitical service,
the Ndh. 220. — All of them were mentioned by name], or designated by
name, is a phrase of the Chr. and shows another interpolation. It
appears that the embassy secured 38 Lev. belonging to two families
and 220 Neth. The caravan is now prepared to start on its great
journey, but first the favour of Yahweh must be secured.
21. Ezra proclaims a fast that the people might humble
themselves before God in order to secure an auspicious road. —
22. The reason for the fast is now stated in other terms. Ezra
was ashamed to ask the king for a guard to protect them from the
enemy on the road], because he had assured the king that the
hand of God was adequate both to protect those who sought him
(Sta.325)^ ^^ Ills lurath was against those who abandoned him].
The closing threat is wanting in Esd., which runs: the power of
the Lord is with those who seek him for every reparation. It is
rather strange for Ezra to say that God's power and wrath are
against those who forsake him. — 23. And we fasted and sought
from our God touching this, and he was entreated of us]. Esd.
reads: and we again sought from our Lord all these things and we
found him favorable. The beneficent disposition was not de-
terminable at the time, but was shown by the ultimate success of
the enterprise. — 24. The first person singular is resumed: and
I selected [literally, separated] twelve of the leaders of the priests],
but two are mentioned by name, Sherebiah and Hashabiah, the
very ones who were called Levites in vv. ^* ^•. 3 Esd. has: from
the leaders of the people and the priests of the temple, making a lay
representation in this important body. It looks as If there
were a gap here and that originally the text ran: and I set apart
from the leaders of the people twelve, and from the priests of the
temple Sherebiah and Hashabiah and with them ten of their breth-
ren. The whole committee comprised 24, half laymen and half
priests. — 25. The purpose of their selection is now given: and
I weighed out to them the silver and the gold and the vessels, the
offering for the house of our God], the gifts to which reference
is made, at least according to the Chronicler, in the king's de-
cree, 7i5ff.. It appears that the property, which was sacred
on account of its destination, was carefully weighed and then
324 EZRA-NEHEMIAH
committed to hands deemed peculiarly trustworthy. — And all
Israel that were found]. So is designated one of the sources of
the gifts. The qualifying clause is not found in Esd., but is
attested by (^. It is not the kind of expression that would be
added as a gloss. The explanation may be in 7^"^: "all the silver
and the gold that thou shalt find in the province of Babylonia."
The search was for Israelites from whom contributions could
be asked. All that could be found were solicited. There may
be an intimation that some of the exiles were not conspicuous
when subscriptions for the temple were collected.
26 f. The total amount is given as 650 talents of silver, 100 talents
of gold, 100 silver vessels, 20 bowls of gold, and 2 vessels of brass.
The silver talents would be about a million dollars, the gold more than
three millions. There is, indeed, some uncertainty in the values, but
make it as low as possible and still the figures are impossibly big. We
realise the Chr.'s fondness for large sums, and his imagination may
have led to raising the figures in Ezra's chronicle. As I weighed to them
or to their hand is repeated from v. ^^, and as v. ^' connects closely with
V. ", vv. " f- are almost certainly a gl., an opinion supported by the closer
agreement of Esd. and the unnatural description of the words in what
is supposed to be a mere list. We have no idea of the value of the
silver vessels, because the number of talents is wanting, but the worth
of the 20 golden bowls is given as 1,000 darics, ace. to Mey. about
$5,000. On the daric, a Pers. coin, v. 2^^. — And two vessels of . . .
brass, desirable as gold]. The character of the brass is usually given as
"finely polished," but the construction is ungrammatical and the mng.
obscure. Esd. reads: brass vessels of the best brass, ten [or twelve] polished
vessels.
28. You are holy to Yahweh] by virtue of your sacred office,
and the vessels are holy], because they were to be placed in the
temple, 7", and the silver and the gold is a free-will offering to
Yahweh], and therefore that also is a sacred trust. With (i» and
Esd. we should read God of our fathers, since Ezra would not
say your fathers. — 29. Be watchful and vigilant until you weigh
it again in the presence of the leaders of the priests and Levites and
leaders* of the fathers of Israel in Jerusalem]. Whatever may
• Guthe makes a slight change and reads " heads," the more common expression for the
laity; but " heads " is characteristic of the Chr., not of E. There is no need to emend where
the Chr. has let the text alone.
EZRA 7-10 325
have been the amount of the sacred property, Ezra carefully
impresses upon its guardians their great responsibility. — The
chambers of the house of Yahweh] designates more particularly
the place where the gifts were to be put. With (& we should
prefix "for" or "m."
30. This V. is an addition by the Chr., for the third p. is used at the
beginning and the first at the end; pr. and Lev. are here the custodians
of the valuables, whereas above twelve chief pr. were the treasurers;
the statement gets ahead of Ezra's narrative in v. '', and it adds noth-
ing whatever to the story. Esd. has a radically different text: and the
pr. and Lev., receiving the silver and the gold and the vessels which were in
Jerus., brought them to the house of the Lord. It becomes thus an exact
dup. of v. ".
15. Ninx-St* Nan] Esd.i- ibv icoTayibv Tbv XeY6[X£vov Esta; so rd. Nipn.
This important reading seems to have escaped all the commentators.
The text is at variance with vv. "• ". The Vrss. give several forma
of the name: EuetiiS, EuecAL (w. «>• "), ©out^, AoueA, AaouaOi-. Esd.
©epav; B Ahava, Esd. Thia. Winckler reads: naix or njN. — njiax] (g
ouv^xa'', ' xaTrevorjaa^, "B qiicesivi, Esd. xofultJLaGov, 3 Esd. recognovi.
These all support the text. — For what follows Esd. has a better text:
xaT^yiaGov aOToCii; xal ex Tdiv Ispicov xal ex twv Aeutiruv oix eupcjv exet.
Therefore rd. ... a^jnrsi oraxi. The Chr. having put pr. in the list
(vv. 2 1) must, of course, have them here. — 16. We must either drop
the prep. S before each name, as 05^ H and Esd.^-, or interpret *? rhv
as mng. "summon" or "sent for." V." shows that the men named
were Ezra's messengers. The Vrss. show much discrepancy in the list
of names: (Si^ has Ape^ for an'' and aniv; the names are certainly du-
plications; (S^ omits from i^^'^h-^ to end of v.; Esd. lacks the last two
names altogether, and so recognises no classes. The evidence shows
that inj^N) aniv are accidental repetitions. Then di'i^n-i and 3''J''33
should be joined together as in Esd.: :?)you[ji.Ivou<; xai extaTiQtJiovasBA^
oEp^ovxa? auv£'uo6(;i'. — 17. nxsis] so (S^a ^^ifjveYxa. Qr. nisx, so (gi- ev-
eTetXatJ.T3v. The former is the better reading. Esd.SA ^al elxa au-uoli;
iXOelv = mn^S didni. — . . . nx]. For this very difficult text (&^ has: exi
fipxovxoi; ev dcpYupftp tou toxou, i. e., aipnn >flD33 tfNT "yy. This makes
no sense and this version is still more hopeless in v. ^. Esd. xpb?
AaaSalov [ASSat^, AoXSatov^], xbv •fjYouti.evov xbv ev -uy rdxcp yat^o^uXaxfou,
i. e., -laun oipca t^wsin nx-Sx, In spite of the antiquity of the cor-
ruption, it is best to regard the ungrammatical aipnn as a marginal
note to show that the unknown Casiphia was a place; it is employed
like the Bab. determinative. We might easily imagine that this pas-
sage was originally written in Bab. — vnn nx] (8ba ^f^^^ -joi^ (iSeX9bui;
326 EZRA-NEHEMIAH
aO-uciv Twv 'AGavefy.; ^ xal xpb? t. a. oc. tolk; NaBcvafoui;. It suffices to
rd. with Esd. vriiSi. Esd. lacks a''jn:n, and this may be an error for
c^a'Ti. — NonS] Esd. dxoaTlXott = rhi^. — DTintt'D] (S (jcSovTa<;BA (a>-nu>D);
^ has dup., XsitoupyoCk; xal tjESoviai;, Esd. lepairsijaaviro?, in agreement with
its reading in v. "; so 3 Esd. eos qui saccrdotio jungerentur = D''jn3D. —
18. IN1311] so Esd.^ i5YaY°Vj ^ ^i^d 3 Esd. adduxeruni; Qr. 1x1311, so (S
T^XOoaav^A^ ^XOov^-. The first clause is lacking in Esd.^. Kt. is pref-
erable, as the Hiph. corresponds to xianS, v. ". — 33i3n] Esd.AL xpocxt(iv
= npinn. — Soc r^N] puzzled the translators; (6 has dvfjp cjax'o(x)^'^, a.
auveT6<;i', doclissimum H, Esd. avSpa eTuta'uiip.ovai^i'^ av§pa<; IxtanQtAovai;*,
»jVo,s peritos 3 Esd. There is no good reason for a pi., as the words
apply only to Sherebiah. — nij-iC'i] (5 xal apxV i^XOoffav^A, |v apxS Soc-
pouioe^, so Esd.i-; fipxiQ is used to translate twenty-four different Heb.
words (Hatch and Redpath, Concord.), but the text was apparently
p2>Kn3, "at the head," and that has been corrupted to S{<-i'j'i-]3. That
designation would agree with the statement that Sherebiah was a
prudent man. — ''1'? T^] is wanting in (U^'. — 19. The text is corrupt. V
requires the sUghtest change to make sense: d Ilasabiam, d cum eo
Isaiam de filiis Mcrari, fraircsquc ejus, d fdios ejus viginti. C5 and Esd.
rd. nx for inx. (Sfi^ have ulol aixoiv, ^ xwv ulwv aOTou xal twv dtSeXywv
auTou, transposing in agreement with v. »'. But in Esd. i- has auxciv
in both cases, while b has for the whole v. : ol ex, twv ulwv xavouvatou
xal ol ulol auTwv e"x,oat (3cvSpe<;; 3 Esd. Ashiam et Amin ex fdiis fdiorum
Chananai, et jilii eorum viri viginti. Two names are pretty well at-
tested, but there is doubt between Merari and nijjn. On the whole,
the reading of the Latin is the simplest, requiring but a single change,
i. e., VJ31. — 20. pj] = "appoint," cf. BDB. — a>is'n] (g ol apxovTe?, Esd.
ol i]-(ou\j.ivoi, 3 Esd. principes. Therefore there is no support for
Winckler's emendation, nTna's. — D^jipj . . . injif] is inserted by the Chr.
as an explanatory note. The rel. ty never occurs elsw. in Ezr.-Ne.,
but twice in Ch. (Dr.i°''^- "9 f). Sieg. regards whole v. as a gl.—
I3pj] (5 CTUvi^x^^'^'^v^^j (hvo\i.&aQ-f]c(xv'^, H vocabantur, Esd. "juiivTwv ia-
â– >j[jl(4vGtj [6vo[JLaa9if]A] dvoyiaTOYpaytai^; oSxot latjtxavG-rjCTav ev 6vo\t.<z'zo'^p(X(flqJ",
3 Esd. omnia nomina signijicata sunt in scripturis. It is a favourite
phrase of the Chr. (Dr.i"*'- ™). — 22. ijiijjS] (5 awaat, Esd. dcacpaXec'a?.
There is much variety in the rendering of the last clause: (S renders
lit., but Esd. has: ?axC«; [fj? for i^] toli xupfou -^nxdv eorat [jieTa twv
excI^T]TouvT(i)v au-ubv eEi; TCctaav eicavopGcoatv; 3 Esd. virtus Domini erit cum
eis qui inquirunt eum in omni ajfectu. This lacks the last clause entirely,
i. e., the threat to those who abandon God. — 23. idixj] Esd. xiXtv =
nsviTJ. — 24. DijHDn n-^c] 3 Esd. ex plebis prcBpositis et sacerdotibus tem-
pli = Sainn ijnji Dj?n na'D. — ni3ic'7]. The prep, is supported by (S^a^
but not by CS'^ Esd. It is an error, but not, I think, accidental. It
was prob. put in to avoid the statement that Sherebiah and Hashabiah
were pr. — 26. nSipcn] CS gsTtjaa, so vv. "•"••», Esd. as (B, but in vv.
EZRA 7-10 327
*>â– " xaplSwxev. In my addenda to Guthe {SBOT.") I stated that in
Ezr. 8-'- " xaplSMxev stands for Spa>. Torrey denies this and insists
that'?i"'ts' is represented by ax-i]Gcc<; and oraO^v (ES.i^a). It is true that
loxeivat stands for hptff, though very rarely, but in Esd. S^s (= Ezr. 8"),
TcapaSoCivat does represent hpv. In 8'^^- " ( = Ezr. S^^- 33) we have both Gk.
words, xap^Stoxev axT^aai;, oxaOev icaps360ifj; azriaixq and aiaOivmay there-
fore be complementary vbs. — 26. an^^S] cannot be connected with
any word as it stands; hnd gives the number of the vessels, not of
talents as RV. The word is lacking in 05 H. Mey. suggests that a
number has fallen out, but says that it may be that each vessel averaged
a talent (£«/.")• Guthe omits the word as a gl. On the analogy of
iVk D'-jornxS, v. '"j the most natural supposition is that a number fol-
lowed, so that the text originally rd. : 100 silver vessels [weighing] . . .
talents. — 27. DijD-nxS] d elq •c'fjv 6Sbv ^aiJLaveftJL (Sp^xfJ^wvA, hp(kx[i.(xq^).
This is a dup. reading, first iiiS and then correcting by adding a
weight. Esd. lacks the word and the numeral following as well. — â–
nirnj ^Sj]. Here we have a mpl. followed by a f. adj. The Vrss. vary:
(S axsiir) xaXxou a-ufXpovTOi; iYaOoCi Sto:(popa eiciOutXT^To: Iv [wq^] xpuafcp,
Esd. axeuTj xockxx dzb xotXxou xprjoToO a-zCk^ovza axeurj Blxa [xpuaoetSouq
Sixa S6o]L, showing a correction from MT. This would be: ns'nj >'?:)
•\y)} D'jnsD DiSo n3i:3 n^njn. Sieg. emends naw ansa to 21D antn, "bet-
ter than gold," and then disposes of nmnn as a later gl. In spite of
lack of textual support this is ingenious. Some emendation is neces-
sary, but it is dub. if brass would be considered as desirable as gold,
unless it were of an unusual kind. — 29. iSpa'n] Esd. xapaSouvat auxi
6[ia<;. — Snib''''?] lacking in (&^^, but it is used in place of a genitive and
denotes the lay order that had a part in the government as well as
the pr. and Lev. — niaa'Sn] (5 elq ayt.r)V!kq^^, elq xa icaaToydpiai-, H in Ihe-
saurum, 3 Esd. in pastoporio. Doubtless we should rd. 3 or S for n;
the art. could not be used with st. cstr. — 30. hpivn lacking in Esd.; it
is certainly unnecessary.
As our text stands, Ezra discovered that there were no Lev. in his
caravan, and therefore he sent a large embassy, seven or possibly eleven
men, to Iddo to make good the deficiency, or, as he says, "to bring us
ministers for the house of God." Sherebiah with 18 brethren, Hasha-
biah with 20, and 220 Neth. were brought back. But these two men
are called "leaders of the pr." in v.", and rightly, for the precious
money and vessels would have been committed to the highest class of
sacred officials. 'iS-p in v. " is lacking in (S>^ and may be a gl. to har-
monise with V. ". Esd., indeed, says that both pr. and Lev. were lack-
ing, and that agrees with the mission to bring ministers for the temple.
But it is strange that in the assembly called by the great pr. Ezra,
there was neither pr. nor Lev. Nevertheless it is possible that these
oflBcers were wedded to the old ways and were not in sympathy with the
328 EZRA-NEHEMIAH
new order which Ezra proposed to institute, and only joined the car-
avan after much persuasion and perhaps with liberal promises. Then
we should explain the large number of Neth. as being a subordinate
order of Lev. In regard to the descent of Sherebiah from Mahli and
Hashabiah from Merari, it suffices to say that every pr. was of Levit-,
ical descent.
83^-36 = Esd. 8^*^*. The caravan goes to Jerusalem.
Upon the arrival of the company the money and vessels were counted
and placed in the temple, sacrifices were offered, and the royal edict
was delivered to the officers of the Syrian province. Only vv. " '• are
from E.; the rest is the Chr.'s.
31. On the twelfth day of the first month]. On the date, v. 7^ *•.
According to that passage the journey lasted about four months,
Jerusalem being reached in the 5th month of the 7th year of
Artaxerxes. — And the hand of our God was upon us]. We miss
the usual adjective qualifying "hand," but in Esd. we find
mighty hand. — And he delivered us from the hand of the enemy and
lier-in-wait on the way], or better with Esd. : from every foe on the
way. So they knew that God had heeded their petition, v. ^,
Emphasis is laid upon the safety of their journey, because such
caravans were always exposed to the attacks of plundering
Bedouin; though the caravan comprised upward of 2,000 people
their defensive power was little, v. ^^j the large amount of treas-
ure carried, the possession of which could scarcely be kept a se-
cret, made an attack especially inviting. — 32 f . And we remained
there three days, and on the fourth day]. This statement is scarcely
natural, as we should expect to continue by saying "they went
to some other place." If we could render "rested," that would
make good sense, but iti^'' does not mean that. Therefore we had
better follow Esd. : on the third day of our being there, we weighed,
etc., or better with (8 placed, since in the house of God shows the
ultimate destination of the treasure, not the mere place of re-
weighing. — The final custodians are now named; there were
two priests: Meremoth] 10'^ Ne. 3^- ^i 10^ 12'- ^^, not the same
person, though, in every case, and Eliezer], who had been one
of those deputed to fetch temple servants, v. ^^. Besides there
were two Levites, Jozabad] {jo^"^ ^- Ne. 8^ 11^^) and Noadiah], a
EZRA 7-10 329
name elsewhere only of a prophetess, Ne. 6**. In spite of the
lower office of the Levites they were associated with the priests
in the care of the temple treasures. The peculiar expression
Meremoth . . . and with him Eliezer . . . and with them], sup-
ported by all the Vrss., means that Meremoth was chief, his
first associate being a fellow-priest, and their associates being
two Levites. — 34. The awkward expression by number and by
weight for everything] shows the hand of the Chronicler, who
dearly loved amplification. It is quite superfluous in view of
the following : and the whole weight was recorded], to tally with
the list made at Ahava, and to show for what amount Meremoth
and his associates were responsible. The care of the treasure
reveals at every point a commendable business sagacity. The
writer may have recalled such stories as that in 2 K. 12, where
the priests purloined money given for the repair of the temple.
— At that time] is better connected with v. ^^, as in some Greek
texts, — 35. The sons of the captivity who had come from the exile]
is intended to emphasise the statement that the great sacrifices
were made wholly by Ezra's company and were not participated
in by those already in Jerusalem. — Twelve bullocks for all Israel],
i. e., one for each tribe, showing the persistent theory that the
new Israel comprised the whole nation. The specific number of
rams, 96, it is to be noted is a multiple of 12. Note also 12
he-goats, and according to Esd. there were 72 lambs (instead
of 77). Our text has he-goats of a sin offering] (v. on 6^'^), but
Esd. reads 12 he-goats for deliverance, making this sacrifice a
thank-offering for the safe journey, or it may be a peace-offer-
ing. — 36. And they delivered the king^s decree] not decrees, pre-
sumably meaning the edict in 7^^ ff.]^ to the king's satraps, the
governors beyond the River]. There should be no "and unto"
before ''governors," though the last clause is a gloss. These
were, of course, the Persian officers in the province. — And they
supported the people and the house of God] is difficult. We may
take recourse in one Greek text: and they supported the people
and honored the house of God, or emend the text slightly, reading :
the people honored the house of God, thus explaining the large
offerings. The subject of "supported" is usually held to be
33° EZRA-NEHEMIAH
the Persian officials, and that is presumably what the Chronicler
meant, but grammatically it is the same as that of "delivered."
Vv. " f. are surely by the Chr. The use of the third p. as well as the
character of the passage shows that (so Fischer, Chr. Fr.^). In the
rest we have the first p. pi. throughout, but it is consistent in vv. " '•
with Ezra's usage to employ the pi. to describe a corporate act. In
V. " we should surely have inxi, though MT. is supported by all texts.
In v. »»•' Esd.B has third p. throughout; and other mss. of Esd. and (&
have it in places. Yet something is required between v. '^ and 9'. The
only part of our text which inspires confidence is vv. " 'â– . The rest is
written by the Chr. or edited by him beyond recognition of the orig-
inal. It is plain that, omitting the Chr.'s "after these things," v. " con-
nects well with 9'.
31. Ninx inj] Esd. t6xou @sgi^, TCOTa[xouAL — n^i] Esd. xaxi xpaxativ
Xetpa. We should restore nprn for the superfluous nnin. — a-\iNi smn isd]
C5 dcxb xs'P^? ^x^poU xotl -rcoXstAfouBA _^ IveSpeuovTo?'^, showing a double
rendering of 3-iix; Esd. has only dtxb xivTo? ix^poij (aMN-Soc). 3 Esd.
lacks V. ^. It is prob. that So was corrupted to ^13 and that 3-iin is an
amplification by the Chr. or an accidental repetition of a similar word.
— 32 f. . . . 2Cji]. The unrevised Esd. gives merely: Yevo[j.ivTr)<; (fitiitv)
auxdOt â– })[i.ip<zq 'zphriq'^, to which t^ "fjlJ-i^p? x^ tst^pty] has been added
in AL from MT., but without changing the construction, and so making no
sense. 3 Esd. ei cum f actus fuisset tcrtius dies, quarta autcm die. — S'^'^^J]
ea-u^Qoraixev of (S goes better with n^aa. — 34. . . . isDDa] Esd. xpb? dpiO-
(jibv xal &Xx-rjv Tutkvra. — 35. T\yya^ DV^'^J Esd.AL |pSo(j,i^xovTra Suo, rightly,
since every offering is twelve or a multiple of twelve. — n^an '*'\>Q-<i] cf.
N^an*? nifiS, 6"; (8 yi'^^^^^'i xepl dixap-utai;; Esd.^A xp^You? Cixlp awxTjpfou,
i. e., rh^h onsx. or njjirn "x.— 36. im] cf. 7"; in spite of (& we must rd.
sg. m. — ijDns'nN] Pers. Khskaliapavan, used also in Est. 3" 8' 9'. OS^a
tolq BtotxTj-cati;. Esd. toI? oEx.ov6[iot<;, 3 Esd. dispensatoribus. CS^ has a
wholly different text: the governors of the king and the officers beyond
the River gave the burnt-offerings of the king. — . . . mins] is an explanatory
gl. — INB':] (S^A Ead. eS6^affav, ^ exijpav -rbv Xabv xal eSd^aaav xbv olxov x. 0.
EZR. 9, 10. THE MIXED MARRIAGES AND THEIR DISSOLUTION.
In this section we find Ezra dealing with the Jews already in Judah.
This is the only event of his administration recorded in the book called
by his name. The rest of his mission is described in Ne. 8.
9'"' = Esd. 8^^^°. The officers report to Ezra that the
Jews had been marrying women of alien races. — 1. Now
when these things were completed]. As our text stands the ref-
EZRA 7-10 331
erence is to the depositing of the treasure in the temple, the
sacrifices, and the delivery of the edict. But it is far from cer-
tain that we have the whole of the memoirs, and there may be
a gap between 8^^ and 9^ poorly filled by the Chronicler's notes.
These words are certainly a connecting link due to the Chron-
icler. So far as we can see, though, this passage directly follows
V. 32, and the connection is passable. — We dwelt there three days,
[when] there drew near unto me the leaders reporting]. "Leaders"
is characteristic of E.; the Chronicler uses "heads." They
cannot be the same as those named in v. ^ b as chief trespassers.
After this the text is bad, but probably ran somewhat as fol-
lows: the magistrates and the priests and the Levites have not
separated themselves from the peoples of the lands]. On peoples
of the lands, v. on 4*. The rest of the verse is a gloss, added to
increase the stigma. According to their abominations] has no
place here; for that word refers to the religious practices, while
here the only fault is the mixed marriages. Ewald's proposal
to emend and read "from their abominations" {Hist, v."')
improves the grammatical construction, and should be adopted
if the phrase is accepted. — ^The list of foreigners is based on
Dt. 7^, where we find Girgashite and Hivite, but not Ammonite,
Moabite, or Egyptian; in (^ these three are at the end of the
list, suggesting a gloss. Esd. omits Ammonite, and reads Edom-
ite for Amorite, a reading accepted by Smend {Listen,^*), thus
having seven nations {cf. Acts 13^^). Nehemiah found mar-
riages only with the Ashdodites {v. 13"). — 2. The specific
charge is now made to explain the general accusation in v. ^:
they have taken wives of their [peoples of the lands'] daughters for
themselves and for their sons]. There is no hint that Jewish
women had married foreign men. The condition is attributable
to the scarcity of women in the new community. — The result
is that the holy seed is amalgamated with the peoples of the lands].
Israel is called a "holy seed" in Is. 6", cf. 62^2 ^.a}. 2^^. —
Now the hand of the leaders and nobles was chief in this wrong} is
usually regarded as the conclusion of the accusation; but from
the structure it could only be a note by Ezra or the Chronicler.
3 Esd. preserves what I deem the original text: the officer of
332 EZRA-NEHEMIAH
lawlessness has been a participant [in the wrong] from the begin'
ning of his rule. Here is a specific charge of dereliction on the
part of one of the high Jewish officials. The words then give
the climax of the accusation. — 3. Upon hearing this Ezra ex-
hibited the outward acts of mourning, tearing his clothes, and
pulling his hair from his head and beard, and sat down appalled].
Esd. forcefully renders anxious and very sad, (S^ silent and won-
dering. It appears that the mourner showed his distress by
his actions, but that all the day he was silent, uttering no
cry until the evening oblation. — 4. And there gathered unto me
all that trembled at the word [not words] of the God of Israel], all
that showed any purpose to keep the law. (^ has all that fol-
lowed the word, a rather better sense, though we have a parallel
to the text in Is. 66 ^ — Because of the wrong of the captivity]
is difficult here. Esd. has a better sense : while I was mourning
because of the lawlessness. — 5. And at the evening oblation] used
as a mark of time {cf. i K. iS^^) and to indicate the' appropri-
ate moment for prayer. — / rose from my humiliation], a doubtful
sense; the word is only used here. Esd. renders /a^/m^. — Even
with my garment and my robe rent] RV., which Ryle prefers to
AV. "having rent my garment and my mantle."
The latter is an accurate rendering; indeed, the text will not allow
RV., which is made to harmonise with the statement of v. ' that Ezra
had already rent his garments. Moreover, some such action is required
to explain his getting up and then kneeling down. It may be that he
rent his garments again, though the act would scarcely be appropriate
at the beginning of his prayer. The attitude of prayer is bowing the
knees and spreading forth the hands. So Solomon knelt upon his
knees with his hands spread forth toward heaven, i K. S^^. The hands
were extended upward (Ex. 17'^, so the supplicant could not have
bowed his face to the ground.
9«-*s ^ £s(j^ 8''"^^ Ezra's prayer.
The history of Israel is reviewed, showing that the sufferings of the
people were due to their sins. Just now God had shown a gracious
purpose which was in danger of being thwarted by the violation of
the prophetic word forbidding mingling with aliens. The prayer closes
with a despondent cry that the people cannot stand before an offended
God.
EZRA 7-10 333
6. And I said]. In some mss. of Esd. we read: and Ezra said.
— / am ashamed and confounded before thee], as Esd. lacking to
lift up my face, is better language than MT. If we retain to
lift up my face unto thee we should expect but one preceding
verb. — For our iniquities are many above head] is what MT. has,
but this is unintelligible. The idea cannot be "higher than our
head" in parallelism with our guilt is great unto the heavens])
for the verb ni"! means "to be many" not "to be high." EV^
"our iniquities are increased over our head" is obscure, as
above the head is a strange place for the increase of wrongs.
On the basis of Esd. we may read : our iniquities are more numer-
ous than the hairs of our head, cf. Ps. 40" 69 ^ — Unto the heavens]
so as to reach the heavens, viewed as a definite place above the
earth. — 7. From the days of our fathers], as shown by unto this
day, means from the beginning of history. — Because of our in-
iquities we, our kings, our priests, have been delivered]. It is
hard to see why kings and priests should be specified as the
victims of the sword, captivity, plundering and shame of face].
The Vrss. vary greatly, but I have ventured to restore we all
with our brethren and our sons, and thus \ye get a characteristic
general description so frequent in these books. Esd. has a plus :
our iniquities and those of our fathers, showing the idea that the
past suffering could not be due to present sins. — Into the hands
of the kings of the lands], "lands" as often meaning foreign coun-
tries; so (& plainly, kings of the gentiles. — 8. And now [to come to
the heart of the matter] as for a moment, there was mercy from
Yahweh our God [for which (& has only and now our God has re-
stored us] to leave us a root and a name in his holy place], emending
on the basis of Esd. MT. has to give us a tent-pin in his holy
place, interpreted to mean a secure position. Why a tent-pin
should have such a significance is not clear, and besides Ezra
regards the position of the people as very insecure. The holy
place covers more than the temple, including the sacred city.
— To lighten our eyes, O our God] occurs in Prov. 29^^ Ps. 13*
19^, but fits poorly here. The real meaning is to give under-
standing or to restore health or to refresh, cf. i S. 14^^. Esd.
has a suggestive text : to uncover our light in the house of God.
334 EZRA-NEHEMIAH
The idea then would be that God had enabled his people once
more to worship him in his holy temple; they were no longer
constrained to sing Yahweh's songs in a strange land (Ps. 137*).
— Give us a little reviving in our bondage], ARV., is scarcely to
be extracted from MT. Making a slight correction from Esd.
and translating correctly we have: to give us sustenance in the
time of our bondage. That may seem to refer to the past rather
than the present; but the condition of bondage in a way per-
sists, V, *, and the meaning is that God was supporting them in
their servitude. — 9. The benefits conferred by their God through
the agency of the Persian kings, the plural (kings) showing that
Ezra is not dealing with a single incident, are: {1) to give us
sustenance]; but this is a repetition of the statement in v. 8;
therefore with Esd. read to show us mercy, i. e., by the release
from captivity; (2) to erect the house of our God], referring to
the rebuilding by Zerubbabel and Joshua; (3) to raise up its
ruins], so amplifying the preceding; but this is a needless repe-
tition, therefore read with Esd. to raise up the desolation of Zion,
and so we have a more comprehensive statement than building
the temple and referring to the new houses which had certainly
been erected in the city by Nehemiah; (4) to give us a wall in
Judah and Jerusalem]. "Wall" is occasionally used in a figura-
tive sense, for the divine protection, and Mey. so interprets
here (Ent.^); but the preceding statements are literal, and
the natural reference is to the wall built by Nehemiah. As
Ezra would scarcely say a wall in Judah and Jerusalem, we- may
best omit in Judah or read around Jerusalem, as due to the
Chronicler's idea that Ezra preceded Nehemiah. The refer-
ence to the building of the wall is strong support for the true
date of Ezra. — 10. And now what further shall we say? What
follows is best taken as the answer to this question. All that
we can say is that we have forsaken thy commandments]. — 11.
These were given by thy servants the prophets]. The quotations
are all from Dt., and the prophets therefore means Moses. On this
conception of the prophetic origin of the law, v. OTJC.^°*- '^^.
What follows is the commandment said to be given by the prophets;
I translate it all, putting in quotation-marks that which is traceable:
EZRA 7-10 33S
"The land which you go in to possess it" (Dt. 7O is a polluted land,
by the pollution of the peoples of the lands, by their abominations in that
they have filled it from end to end with their uncleanness. (12) "And
now you shall not give your daughters to their sons nor shall you take their
daughters for your sons" (Dt. 7')- "Atui you shall not seek their peace
and their good forever" (Dt. 23') in order that you may be strong and eat
the good of the land and possess it for your sons forever. All direct quo-
tations are from Dt. We may note the change to the pi. in Ezr., but
that does not tell the whole story, for otherwise the passage abounds
in Deut. phrases. The word rendered "abominations" occurs in Dt.
13 t., and indicates practices of aliens which are forbidden to Israel.
"Be strong" and "possess it" are frequent in Dt. "The good of the
land" in the sense of its best products occurs in Gn. 4518-20 Is. i".
But nowhere in the Pentateuch is Palestine called a polluted land; on
the contrary, it is called "a land flowing with milk and honey" (Nu.
13" et pass.), "a good land, a land of brooks of water," etc. (Dt. 8' '•).
Nevertheless the idea is found in Lv. iS^^-'", where the land is called
unclean by reason of the abominations practised by the peoples who
preceded Israel in its occupation. The expression from end to end,
lit., from mouth to mouth, is found in 2 K. 10" 21". On the other
hand, peoples of the lands, i. e., foreigners, is characteristic of the Chr.
The citation is made up of Deut. phrases patched together loosely and
with the insertion of a free adaptation of a passage from Lv. But it
is cited as a divine command given by the prophets. Ezra is thought
to have carried the law-book in his hand and should have been able
to quote literally; and the particular precept which was so flagrantly
disobeyed is quoted lit. enough (against intermarriage), and the state-
ment about the land is made to reinforce the danger of marital alliance.
By marrying foreign women the abominations which have made the
land unclean will adhere to Israel. The whole passage (from saying)
seems to show the Chr.'s hand.
13. And after all that has befallen us because of our evil deeds
and our great guilt]. The sentence is left in the air; the con-
nection with what follows is only made by violence. The
reference is to the exile which resulted from the evil deeds of
pre-exilic Israel. We must go back to v. ^°^ to get sense : we have
transgressed thy commandments which thou didst command by thy
servants, the prophets, and all that has come upon us [has come]
because of our evil deeds and our great guilt, i. e., in the transgres-
sion stated in v. ^°''. — For thou, our God, reckonest our sins down-
wards]. Determined to extract sense, this is usually interpreted
"punished less than our iniquities deserve." Esd. reads: /or
336 EZRA-NEHEMIAH
thou, Lord, art he who lightenest our sins; this makes sense,
but requires some correction of the text. CI has a much longer
passage : for thou, O our God, hast taken away our sceptre because
of our sins, and it is not like thee; for thou lightenest our sins.
This would connect fairly well with v. ^, and with the following,
and givest us a remnant, or with (i> deliverance. Good sense is
obtained by two slight emendations : and now thou hast withheld
the rod from our sins, and hast given us deliverance. — 14. Yet we
have again broken thy commandments and intermarried with the
peoples of these lands]. Yet as 05 is better than the interrogative
of 1^; for the intermarriage was an accomplished fact, — Wilt thou
not be angry with us to a finish, without residue or remnant ?] This
very awkward passage is much smoother in Esd. : Wilt thou not
be angry [enough] to destroy us until there is left neither root nor
seed nor name. — 15. Thou art righteous] or innocent, or truthful
(Esd.). The punishment which Israel had endured was not
due to the injustice of God; for the people had richly deserved
their woes. Then the supplicant reverts to the present con-
dition: wg are left [but] a remnant this day]. — The future can be
read from the past which has been in review, and the outlook
is gloomy : behold we are before thee in our guilt]. The same con-
ditions which destroyed early Israel are prevalent now; there-
fore the conclusion is inevitable : it is not possible to stand before
thee in this matter]. If the guilt of Israel persists, their life will
be short. The future depends upon strict obedience to the law.
This prayer was evidently intended to produce an effect upon the
audience rather than upon God, perhaps like many other public prayers.
Ezra waited until a considerable congregation had assembled before
he began to pray. The whole tenor of the prayer shows the desire
to touch the heart of the guilty and to impel them to abandon the
course of life which seemed so evil. Sieg. regards the prayer as "a
verbal extract from Ezra's memoirs." Torrey ascribes the whole to
the Chr. There are some words characteristic of the Chr. even if we
cannot accept all of Torrey's list (Comp.^^ '•)• Further, there are sev-
eral awkward phrases and constructions more like the Chr. than E.
It is quite prob. that the passage has suffered in part from doubt about
obscure words and in part from the Chr.'s retouching. Nevertheless,
the substance of the prayer is so appropriate to a pr. zealous for the
law, profoundly believing that the fate of the new Israel depended upon
EZRA 7-10 337
its observance, and shrewd in his devices for securing adherence to it,
that we must admit the great cleverness of the Chr., or hold that we
have substantially the genuine prayer of Ezra. The latter is surely
the simpler alternative. We must, however, excise vv. "•>. 12^ which
are due to the Chr.
1-5 in Esd.i- is in the third p. throughout, having Ty El^Spa for
iSn. Other texts of Esd. lack all sf. of the first p.— 1. Vxia'^ oyn] is,
of course, not original. We might explain Sxia'i as an explanatory gl.,
or drop the art. — an^niapa] is without construction. (Sba has ev (jiax-
pu(JHJLafftv, a word used only here and v. " in 05. Esd. renders prep,
(i%6; the latter offers a variant: oux Ixwptaav xal ol dtpxcvret; xal ol
Upeli; xal ol Asuslxctt xal iXkoyevri eOvT) -riji; yr]q (dtxb) (ixa6apafac auTwv.
AL show a correction from ^, inserting xb e9vo<; toO 'lapa-^X after xat'.
I- has &%h Tuv aXXoyevwv IBvov, while ^ has dxb twv eOvwv in place of
aixwv. 3 Esd. has a still further amplification : non segregaverimt genus
Israel et principes et sacerdotes et Leviice et alienigence genies et nationes
terra immunditias suas a Chanancsis, etc. The evidence is very strong
in favour of reading a''B'!<in or some word of similar mng. instead of npn
"3". — noKH] Esd. ISouyiatwv. — 2. lanynn] (pA ^^^^^y^^^ — -,33,. a\i\z\i.l.'{f^,
IxEtifYT) Esd. All Vrss. have a sg. vb. with "seed" as subj. BDB.
gives six roots, but wrongly translates here "have fellowship with";
Ges.^ is correct, i. e., "mix." — ti] om. Esd. The circumstantial
clause of MT. suggests a note by the writer rather than a part of the
charge. V. ^ in Esd. runs: xal [xsTeixov [[xsTiaxov^] ol xpoTiYoufAsvot xal
ol [jLeYioravs? x^q dvoiifai; Tai-nj? dxb t^? <ip}C'»i? "^^^ xpiytiaTO?. 3 Esd.
has a startling text: et participes erant et magistratus iniquitatus ejus
ah initio ipsius regni. The peculiar construction in these texts shows
that we should rd. nxcnn po, corrupted into pin o^jjon, and mng. "the
officer of lawlessness," the one whose duty was to restrain all kinds of
wrong-doing. Then Esd. shows iniaSn pcxin, the last word a corrup-
tion of ntn '?j;d. How aneri t became participes erant, originally par-
ticips erat, is not clear, po is from As. Saknu. The word occurs in
the Eleph. pap. in connection"with "judges," i. e., jm po {Pap.'^^-^- ",
V. Sachau,*''')- — 3. i'7''yDi] k%aXKb\ixiv 05^a^ leap, a word only here in
(6, but in Gn. 31"- '^ we have D^Sjjn, mng. leaped. Esd. -u^ Ispav Icj-
6^Ta, so V. ^ — ania'D] (5 iQpetiit^tov^, epeixtil^wvA,' i^pe[j.uv xal ^(xu^itfn^^,
Esd. auvvou? xal xepfXuico?. — 4. iin] (& Stwxtbv^A^ gvTpo(jLo? xal ext-
Stwxtovi-, showing originally <& and a correction from MT. Esd. Ixe-
xevoOvToBL (a. X. in LXX), to which A prefixes t^TjXwxae xotf. — nai] Xdyov
C6, pi^pLaxtEs^-, so rd. 131. — r^^MTs hya hi] Esd. IfioO [aOTouL] xevOouvro?
Ixl T^ dtvotxfqc, so Syo Sj? "jaxno ^jni (Guthe). — 5. . ■. lyip^i] Esd. Step-
pT)Y[iiva e'xwv Tci IfidiTta xal T-fjv lepav laO^xa. — 3"iyn nnjsai] om. Esd. —
'D'jynD] Esd. ex -nj? vrjoirsfa? = aisD. — "'ona-'?;? nyi2Ni] Esd. X(4[i(];a<; -rdt
Y6vaTa. — ^hSn] om. Esd.
22
338 EZRA-NEHEMIAH
6. msN] elxov ^^, Esd. eksvi-, eXeyovBA^ but 3 Esd. dicebam. — "'hSk]
om. (|B, so Esd. xupisAL. — ann^] om. Esd. — viSn^] om. b Esd. — T'Sn ■«js]
Esd. xocT(i -rcpoacoxdv aou = ^JD-'^JJ. — a'xi nSynS] an expression occur-
ring nowhere else. Ci> uxsp xsyaX^? -fjyiwvBA^ bizhg avw^, Esd. xs^aXdi:?^^,
uxep idic, xpixoiq tt]? xsyaX-^? â– iiiiibv^. The evidence is convincing for
U'sTXi. The presence of xpfxa? = IJ'2' in ^ is interesting; by modify-
ing a little more we get good sense, i. e., ua'Nn nn>'tt'D, cf. Ps. 69%
''tt'NT nnj;'iyD m. No one seems to have noticed the important text of
I-, though every one sees the difficulty. Torrey rendered rhyuh, "ex-
ceedingly" (cf. I Ch. 23") and explains cni as due to dittog. (Comp.^',
ES.'"). — 7. U'^jna] (6 ol ulol •fjixwvBA.j ol \egelq rj[Lm xal ot luivre? fj[xwv^;
Esd. civ Tol? dcSeX(pot(; •fjti.wv, aiv 'coT<; PaatXeuffcv "rj^JiMV, v.tx\ ctCiv toIi; lepeu-
atv 7][i.&y. unjx] is here rd. as irnn, 3 Esd. cmw fratribus nostris, et
sum saccrdotibtis nostris. By an eclectic process I would restore the
text thus: ^y:2^ tynny wSa ijnj. iji'ra became uoSd, u'^nx became unjx,
and irj3 became iJ-i^no. — 113] lacking in Esd.; (S^ sv xspaf (it'3).—
nisisn] (jg Td)v eGvwv, Esd. tyj? yf]?. — oijd] lacking in Esd., CS icpofftixou
■^lAwv = 1J"'JD. — nrn orns] Esd. jilxpc ty^<; a-^yispov fjfxdpai;, a better sense
and prob. from arna. — 8. <l> offers variant for the awkward begin-
ning of MT. : xal vOv iTZ£a%eu&acxxQ -Jjixlv 6 Osb? fitiLcov, i. e., U*? |5rn nnyi
irn'?^. L adds 6? ^pax"J- ^ reads: ei wmwc gwa^/ parum et ad momen-
tum facta est deprecatio nostra apud Dominum Deum nostrum; 3 Esd. el
mine quantum est hoc, quod contigit nobis misericordia abs te Domine
Deus. — W^P . . . I^NcnS]. Esd. xaxaXst^OYivat ijpLiv fifl^av xal ovofia ev T<p
Toxq) Tou [toutw^] &-(i&h[>.!X':oq [+ auTou^]. 15 relinque nobis radicum et
nomen in locum sanctificationis tuce. We must, at all events, get rid
of the inappropriate ini. (S has a'n^ptY[a][ji,a, which elsw. stands for
nt3D. Esd. may have rd. noj "posterity." — ^h nn"?] would scarcely be
used here in view of unn'?, v. ^ i:^nSx . . . n^xn"?] 05 lacks u^nVx, the
least possible emendation. Esd. has : toO <ivaxaXijtJ;at cpwaxY^pa -^[awv ev
•uy o"x(j> Toij xupfou ■fjpLwv = irn'?^ noa umxa niSjS. — taya ninn] (S ^oo-
Tcofirjatv (xtxpdev^, Tcepixofrjaav'^, Esd. •cpocp'fjv ev Tqi xatpcp t^? SouXe(a<;
■^[jLuv; H cibum in omni tempore servitentis nostrce. — i2'jv] cannot be an
adj. as (6 and EV^ render; "a little sustenance" would be nina tsya.
Therefore substitute with Esd. nj;3. — ninn] can scarcely mean reviv-
ing, RV. BDB. It indicates that which supports Hfe, so food, as Ju.
54 iyio_ — 9. (gL |y .jyj xapa^iaet :^[JL6iv sv 73 xapl^rjtxev •f)[JLet(;, connecting
unjN onay ^3 with umaya of v. '. This reading avoids the monotonous
repetition of "in our servitude." Esd. has ev -cy SouXe6etv TjiJLaq, read-
ing maya, and lacking umayai. — una;?] is rd. as Pu. in Esd. syxaTs-
Xe(q)6T5[j.£v. — ijin'?!*] preceded in d by xiptoq, Esd. xupfou Tjtiwv; Gk.
and I? often disagree in the use of the divine names; Esd. is the work
of a pretty consistent Yahwist. — •. . . t3ii] Esd. Ixofirjcev Tifxag ev xaptxt =
jna ijia-jjii. — n^nn uS nnS] Esd.i- SoOvat -fitxlv IXeov (ion). — annS] <& toS
6t|;uffat a6xo6?, mistaking Polel for Qal with sf.; Esd. y.<x\ So^(iaat lepbv
EZRA 7-10 339
•^{jiwv. — vnann], Esd. t^jv ?pT)(i.ov Sfwv, 3 Esd. mdificare deserta Sion =
jvs nam. — -nj] (B ((ptz-{[t.6v^^^, teIxo?^, oreplwExaEsd. (ypn), 3 Esd. 5to-
bilitatem. — "21 mino] is supported by all Vrss., yet we might better
rd. "S 313D3, V. s. — 10. nn;;i] lacking in (|ban, — nxr ••nnN] Esd. I'xovire?
xauTa, C6 [Ji^xi TOUTO. — iJ3iy] Esd. luap^PrjaavS, •rcap^^tjtJi.evAi', i. e., ij-(337.
— 11. nn^ix] eSwxa? (i> and Esd. — inaj:] om. ^^. — . . . nan] to end of
V. is lacking in Esd. — 13. nn><] om. Esd. — U"''?];] 05 Icp' u(jLa<;B, and con-
sistently second p. in v.^. V. ^ is amplified in (S^: oxt ctu 6 Oeb? y)[jlwv,
xaT^xaucja? xb ox^Tcrpov tjejlwv Stct xa? (5:[ji(zpT{a<; •JjEJi.wv, xal oOx. laxtv W'; uii,
2x1 Ixouiptaa? x(i<; dtvotxt'a'; â– fltJ.wv, xal I'Suxaq f)[xTv ux6Xet[iyLa. Esd. has:
o5 Y<^P) 5^iJpt£, i xoucpfaa? xa<; d[J.apxfa(; -fjiJLwv eSoxaq •f)tJLtv xotaiixt]v ^fl^av.
<S has rd. nap na-^n for riaE*? na-^n, a very slight change. Esd. shows
mirn, but not n^jn"?. (& therefore shows a dup., but (S^a represents an
approximation to Esd. : oix loxtv o)? 6 Osb? -fjtiwv, oxt exoucptaac; fifjicov xd?
(ivo[JL(a<; xal eSwxos? â– J)fj.tv awxTrjpfav (i. e., ryyw). It is possible that one
of two similar passages has been lost. This text is entirely ignored
by Guthe. — 14. aiB'jn] better with (S ^3 for n interrogative. — "n ^nya]
(S xoli; Xaol?^'* + xoiv yot'wvA -{- xouxtov'^, Esd. xfj ixaOapcfijc xwv IGvwv
rriz fiiq, i. e., nayna. — nSxn nisiNn ^np]. For consistency we find Ixt-
mY^vat = (anynns) in Esd., where (5 has yati^peOaat (= innnn). — -ly
. . . nSo] Esd. dcTuoX^aat â– ^JAa? eox; xou (x-fj xaxaXtxelv p(l^av xal axlp^a xal
ovofia ^ifAtov = ixcn I'nS ip uhiSd. — 15. UJn] om. (S^. — pnx] Esd. iXtj-
6cv6(;. — dvhd] Esd. Iv xfj oT^jjiepov = avna. — naiSo] may be construed as
an ace. or as appos. with the subj. of the vb. (Ges.^ "').
10'-* = Esd. S^^-O^ The people agree to divorce the for-
eign wives.
Ezra's pra3dng and loud weeping attracts a very large crowd. Shek-
aniah admits that Israel has done wrong and proposes that the offend-
ers shall be put under oath to cast out their foreign wives and the chil-
dren born from them. Ezra accepts the plan and a decree is issued
ordering all Israel to convene within three days under penalty of con-
fiscation and excommunication. The narrative is now in the third p.
as in 7>-''. This form continues in the rest of the Ezra story.
X. And while Ezra was praying and while he was making con-
fession, weeping and prostrating himself before the house of God].
The language is exhausted to show Ezra's deep distress. Here
for the first time a place is indicated; the priest offered his public
prayer in the open space before the temple. — From Israel] or
more appropriately with Esd., from Jerusalem, since the crowd
could hardly come from all Judah. — Men and women and chil-
340 EZRA-NEHEMIAH
dren], or boys and girls, or children and slaves, as some Greek
texts have in place of children. (On the place of the assembly in
postexilic Israel v. Smith, Jer. i, c. x,). — For the people wept with a
great weeping] is scarcely intelligible as a reason for the vast as-
sembly. We have heard only of Ezra's weeping heretofore. It
is a loose construction: the writer apparently meant that Ezra's
tears were contagious, and that the multitude began to weep as
it gathered. This verse quite ignores the assembly already col-
lected, 9^; the terms are different here, the crowd being of a more
general composition . — 2 . Then answered Shekaniah] . ' ' Answer ' '
is used idiomatically in Hebrew to introduce a statement made,
not as a reply to a spoken word, but with reference to an act
upon which the answer is a comment. Shekaniah is classed here
among the sons of Elam, and there was such a clan in Ezra's
company, 8^. This may be a man of royal descent, a son of Je-
hoiakim, i Ch. 3^1 f-. — There is hope for Israel in regard to this],
i. e., something can be done to rectify the wrong. — By the
counsel of the Lord], The plan is Shekaniah's, for there was no
law ordering a divorce in such cases. The Vrss. vary greatly;
Esd. has: as it seemeth good to thee, making far better sense. —
And they who tremble at the command of our God] is quite with-
out connection.
The ordinary rendering is secured by changing "the Lord" to "my
lord," and thus getting: at the counsel of my lord [i. e., Ezra] and of those
who tremble at the command of Cod. In 9* there gathered about Ezra
at the beginning "all who trembled at the words of the God of Israel."
The rendering cited would make them a party to the pr.' plan, and
would put the proposal for divorce in his mouth. In his prayer he had
suggested no drastic remedy; in fact, it seems that he left it entirely
to others to advise the heroic course to be followed. If this reading
were accepted, two slight changes should be made so as to get: ace.
to the counsel of my lord . . . and ace. to the law of Moses, reading nvo
for nsyyv There are several variants for "those who tremble," etc.;
(6 reads : stand up and make them tremble at the command of our God;
Esd.i-: and as many as obeyed the law of the Lord, standing up, said to
Ezra, rise, act. Though this breaks off Shekaniah's speech suddenly,
it is prob. the best text we have. Let it be done according to the law], but
while the law forbade the mixed marriages, it did not, unless by in-
ference, provide for their dissolution.
E2RA y-I^ 341
4. The matter is upon thee] or belongs to thee, a recognition
of Ezra's leadership in the matter. — And we are with thee] a
pledge of the speaker's support in the righting of the wrong.
— Take courage and act] an appeal to Ezra as if he needed urg-
ing. — 5. And Ezra rose and adjured] but whom? The text has
the leaders of the priests, Levites and of all Israel, making the Le-
vites equivalent to priests. ^ has : the leaders, the Levites and all
Israel^; the leaders of the Judean priests and of the Levites and all
Israel}'. By a single change we get the best text: the leaders of
the priests and of the Levites and of all Israel. The leaders alone
were required to take the oath to carry out Shekaniah's plan. —
And they took the oath], i. e., the leaders just named, thus be-
coming a party to the solemn covenant with God, v. K — 6.
And Ezra arose from before the house of God] where he had been
prostrating himself, v. ^, and where this verse presupposes
that he is still, ignoring v. ^ altogether, evidence of disorder in
the text. — And he went to the room of Jehohanan], one of the
quarters in the temple cloisters in which the temple officers
lived. For Jehohanan v. Ne. 12^" f-. Our text gives no hint as
to the reason for Ezra's going to those quarters. In Esd. we
find the right reading; instead of the repeated and he went there,
we have: and he spent the night there. Ezra's prayer had been
offered at the time of the evening oblation, 9^ The events
which had taken place meanwhile carry us down to nightfall,
and next we are told of Ezra's temporary lodging-place. The
business was urgent and he remained upon the ground until its
completion. — Bread he did not eat and water he did not drink, i. e.,
overnight; fasting enters largely into the religious life of the
people of this period (Sta.'^O? and becomes more prominent
later {cf. Est.). — For he was mourning for the sins of the captivity]
cf. Dt. 9^^; in place of "the sins of the captivity," cf. 9^ Esd.
has the great sins of the exalted ones, or of the multitude. Sieg.
by a slight change reads: "for the great sin." If MT. is right,
"captivity" designates the new community, conceived as wholly
composed of returned exiles. The phrase betrays the Chron-
icler, to whom the Judeans and the golah are one. — 7. And they
[the leaders and elders of v. ^] issued a proclamation in Judah and
342 EZRA-NEHEMIAH
Jerusalem to all the sons of the captivity to gather at Jerusalem].
The assembly was to be general and was to carry out the agree-
ment subscribed by the oath of the leaders. — 8. And all who did
not arrive within three days]. The short time allowed shows the
narrow bounds of the new community (Berth.). — According
to the command of the leaders and elders]. This supplies the
missing subject in v. ^. Ezra himself was much in the back-
ground. He was impelling the rulers to act. — A severe penalty
was to be imposed upon those who did not comply with the
edict; the punishment would be twofold: all his property should
he confiscated and he should he separated from the assemhly of the
captivity] f i. e., excommimicated. The word rendered "confis-
cated" means put under a religious han, devote, and property so
devoted was to be destroyed, Jos. 6^^ Dt. 20". But the word
here probably means confiscated to sacred uses, as for the support
of the temple.
The authority for the edict, and which undertook to punish heavily
those who disobeyed it, was not that of Ezra, but of the oligarchy,
"the leaders and elders," v. '. Indeed, in the whole passage, barring
the single expression "the matter is upon thee," there is no hint of
any authority vested in Ezra. He does not even evolve a plan to right
the wrong which distresses him, and he administers an oath to bind
the leaders to execute the plan proposed by Shekaniah. Ezra shows
fervent zeal, a passion for the law, an eloquence in prayer, but not a
shred of authority to enforce his ideas.
1. ^fljriDi] C5 xpoaeux6tJL£vo?B!<j thus repeating SSono. — ainSxn-n-'a]
Esd. here as often elsw. toO lepoO. — Snic'e] Esd. dxb 'IspouaaXi^ix. —
Snp] (g exxXijafa, Esd. Sx^oc* ^- on v. «. — onSi] (&^ and Esd.i- veavfat
xal •JuatSapta = on^'ji DnS\ — n;3 . . . ''o] (8 otc exXauaev 6 Xab<; xal uij^waev
xXafwvBAX^ Zxi xXauOfiq) [AeyiXq) exXauaev 6 Xao?'^, Esd. xXau6[jLb<; -ycip
â– ^v [iif(x<i Iv TM Tzkifisi, 3 Esd. Jletus cnim erat magnus in ipsa mullihc-
dine. — 2. dSi>'] Esd. 'lapaTiX. — 3trj] 01 IxaOtaafjievBA (= ^s-^, "todwell"),
eXi^oyiev^'^, Esd. xaTtpXTjaav'', CTUveoxfaafxevA, xaTtpxfaatiev^. The mng.
marry is peculiar to Ezr.-Ne., but the usage is so frequent (7 t.) that
the text can scarcely be distrusted. This mng. is derived from the
idea of giving a house in connection with marriage. But in Esd. 9^
(= Ezr. 10") we have auvotxT^aaTs yuva^fv. The idea, therefore, may be
"cohabit," the prep, which would naturally follow being dropped idio-
matically. — nipc] (6> uxo[jLovi^BAKj eXxf(;L, Esd. exivto xa? Tff.^A = nVyo
'iyi-Sa. — 3. nna] Esd. 6pxci)iJi,oo(a. — o^a'j] Yuvalxai; xcei; iXXofpfa? (K^,
EZRA 7-10 343
Esd. Yuvatxa? 'fjiAuv "zScq ex tuv dXXoY£vwv lOvwv, a necessary qualifica-
tion. — snD i^i^i] Esd. aCiv tsxvoIi; auxwv = innSo. — . . . nxya] <S w? Sv
^ouXt] dtvdcoTTjOt xal (fo^igtcov auToui;^'^, Esd. (b? lxpt6iQ 001 xal oaot xet-
GapxTjaouatv. (& shows o^iinn, Esd. lysc; Esd.i- has a noteworthy vari-
ant: xal oaot TcetOapxouat xqj v6[j.ci) xupfou dvaaT(4vT£(; elxov ■]i:pb<; "El^pav
Avtiaxa, eiciT^Xet. This reading is accepted by Guthe; v. his text. —
n«D] 05 evToXal?, Esd. v6[j.ou, c/. gi". — na>y> minj] (S dx; 6 v6[jlo<; yevy]-
ef)TwBA, om. Esd.BA. — 4. -i3i] (gBAX ^^jjia, so V. 5; Xdyo?'^, but prifta,
V. '; Esd. xpaY[xa, om. v. ^ In v. < the mng. is general, e. g., matter,
but specific in v. =, plan. — pin] ($^, dtvSptXou, act like a man. — 6. iSm
Dc] is an impossible redundancy. (8'^ omits perhaps from a critical
motive. Esd. has the true text : auXtaOel? exel = 0'^ ]^^\ so most mod-
ern scholars. — nSun Sjjd] Esd. t. ivofitcov x. [jLeyiiXwv tou xXtqOouc; =
D^Snjn am ^Syn. Sieg. translates wegen des grossen Vergebens = ^ycn
nSijn. — 7. CS'^A om. SaS to end of v. — 8. D^jpini ontrn] Esd. t. xpo-
xaOT)[ilvii)v [a word peculiar to Esd.] xpeaPu-rlpuv; 3 Esd. assidentium
seniorum.
10^'^ = Esd. 9^"'. The putting away of the foreign wives
and of their children.
Agreeably to the call, the people of Judah and Benj. assembled on
the 20th day of the 9th month in the open space before the temple.
Ezra would proceed at once in spite of the magnitude of the task and
the storm that was raging. The people, however, asked that officers
be appointed from each city to whom the execution of the plan should
be committed. Ezra acceded to this plea, the business was taken in
hand, and completed at the end of the year. The source is different
from vv. '-', as other terms are used for the same ideas.
9. And all the men of Judah and Benjamin assembled]. The
proclamation was issued in Judah and Jerusalem according to
V. ^ The difference of terms is one of the numerous signs of a
different source in this section. It appears that the threat in
V. * was effective, as the response is declared to be general, the
whole people gathering without exception. — On the 20th day of the
gth month], i. e., Kislev, so in the early part of December, Ezra
had been in Jerusalem, therefore, more than four months; but,
as the material has come down to us, there was nothing done in
this time. — And all the people sat in the plaza of the house of God].
The plaza of the temple, badly rendered "street" in AV., was
344 EZRA-NEHEMIAH
the open space before the water gate, Ne. 3^6 8^, a favourite
place for assemblies. The number of people was not as great
as V. * would imply, for there could not have been a large space
there. — Trembling for the matter and because of the rain] is a
dubious conjunction of ideas. The Vrss. show enough discrep-
ancy to make the text questionable, Esd. reads: skivering on
account of the persistent storm. That may be modified slightly
so as to get shivering because of standing in the rain. — 10. Ezra
the priest] previously called the priest the scribe, 7" ^- 21, cf.
Ne. i22«; but the duties he is now performing are not scribal,
and so that title does not appear; "priest" is wanting in Esd.,
and it may be a gloss. — To add to the guilt of Israel]. Esd. to
add guilt to Israel. By the violation of the law the present gen-
eration was increasing the already large record of national sin.
— 11. Give praise to Yahweh the God of our fathers], not "your"
fathers as MT. "Our" is found in 05 and Esd. The ground for
praise is not very apparent, at least from the people's stand-
point. The rendering of EV^., based on Iff, "make confession"
is impossible. The same appeal is made to Achan, Jos. 7^%
where as a parallel we have "give glory." The author of this
passage seems to have drawn from that story. The idea may
be that praise was due to God because the culprits were brought
to a state of amendment. — The double demand is made: sep-
arate yourselves from the nations of the land and from the foreign
women]. This is in agreement with 9^ f-, cf. Dt. f 'â– . The
clauses are practically synonymous, the former being somewhat
broader. The Israelites were called upon to cut off all associa-
tion with the aliens. — 12. Why should the assembly answer in a
loud voice? and why should that be emphasised? It may be
explained as a Hebrew usage to express earnestness, cf. 3^2
2 S. 1523 I K. 855 2 Ch. 1514 2oi3 Ez. 818 Ly. ifK But (5
preserves an interesting variant: and all the assembly answered
and said, great is thy demand for us to do, i. e., you have laid a
heavy burden upon us. — 13. But the people are many and the
season is stormy]. The assembly was ready to meet the leaders'
demands, but the conditions made it impossible; there were too
many cases and the weather was too bad. "A time of much
EZRA 7-10 345
rain" (EV.) is based on U and gives a wrong idea, viz., that
the day was too wet. The people say rather, "it is the rainy
season," and the rains therefore will persist. It was the period
of the winter rains, called "the former rain" in Dt. ii^*, see
Nowack, Arch, i," '-. — We are not able to stattd without] is based
on the rendering of the ancient Vrss., especially Esd. But "we"
does not appear in ^, and the idea is : it is not Jit to stand out-
side, on account of the rain. Ezra's zeal was not dependent
upon the weather. — For we have transgressed very much in this
respect], corresponding to "the people are many"; the number
who had married foreigners was relatively very large.
14. This V. contains the counter-proposal of the people, but the text
is very troublesome; we may render: Let now our leaders stand for the
whole assembly, and let all who are in our cities that have married foreign
women come at appointed times; and with them elders of each city and its
judges, unto the averting from us of the fury of the wrath of our God in re-
gard to this matter]. In the latter part esp. we find obscurity and bad
constructions, greater in the original than in this translation. C5 varies
considerably in detail. Esd. runs: and let the leaders of the assembly
stand, and let all from our homes who have foreign wives be at hand when
opportunity serves; and the elders and judges of each place until, etc.
3 Esd. gives a connection for the last clause: and let the elders and judges
from each place assist, but it lacks a pred. for all who have foreign wives-
We get little help from these sources; the ancients were puzzled by the
passage, and their difficulties appear in their translation. The mng.
apparently is that (i) leaders should take charge of the business for
the whole assembly; (2) to this tribunal all transgressors should come
at appointed times (cf. Ne. lo'^; (3) with the guilty should appear
the local elders and judges. The function of the local officers is left t»
conjecture; it is natural to suppose, however, that their office was to
see that the decrees of the tribunal were carried out. From the emph.
laid on these officers Sm. argues that most of the offenders were in-
habitants of the country districts (Listen,'^''). It appears that the di-
vorce court sat in Jerus. and that all proceedings took place there.
For "until," etc., we should rd. : in order to turn away from us the
fury of the wrath of our God. — 15. This v. contains a sore puzzle.
But by an emendation of the text on the basis of 05 we discover a frag-
ment of E. and evidence of decided opposition to the divorce. As it
stands in MT. two opposing constructions have been put upon the
v.: (i) We may translate: But Jonathan the son of Asahd and Jo-
haziah the son of Tikvah stood over this, and Meshullam and Shabbethai
346 EZRA-NEHEMIAH
the Lev. aided them, so AV. Esd. Michaelis, Kue. and many of the older
interpreters. The mng. would then be that the four men named con-
stituted the divorce tribunal. But that rendering must be pronounced
impossible. For (o) v. " connects directly with v. '*; (b) the appoint-
ment of the court is described in v. i«; (c) the introductory tn has a
restrictive not a continuative sense; (d) the circumstantial clause shows
that this V. cannot describe the execution of the plan previously pro-
posed, but must be an attendant circumstance. (2) Instead of "stood
over" we may render nay stood against, a late usage found in Lv.
19" I Ch. 211 2 Ch. 20" Dn. 8" iii< (see Moore's /M^ge^,'"). The
mng. then is that these four men stood in opposition to the ruthless
proceedings. This idea we find in RV. Lightfoot, B.-Rys. Ryle, Sieg.
Berth. Ges.^, BDB. The construction fits in finely with this idea;
but we find nnj; used in opposite senses in two successive w. It is
plam, therefore, that if this is the right mng. the two vv. are not from
the same hand. To express his mng. the author would have used a
common and unmistakable word, mp. The authorities have quite dis-
regarded the reading of 05 : only Jonathan et al. were with me in this
matter. This text requires but an infinitesimal change in % But can
we get any sense out of that? With me would, of course, mean with
Ezra.
Now it is a commonly accepted theory that c. 10 is the Chr.'s re-
vision of E. In most places the original has been revised beyond recog-
nition. But here we may have a scrap which escaped the blue pencil,
a genuine fragment of E. The brief passage then becomes of great
significance. The question naturally arises why E. was so thoroughly
revised here. It is surprising that the whole community submitted
like tame sheep to the breaking up of their homes. Now the Chr. was
pretty certain to make the path of the enforcer of law easy; but ap-
parently historic facts were of a different mind. At some stage of
the story of his efforts Ezra cries out pathetically: "only Jonathan and
Johaziah were with me in this matter and Meshullam and Shabbethai
the Lev. aided them." Perhaps the actual divorce was not such a
sweeping success as the Chr. makes out; or it may be that with the aid
of the four original supporters the great zealot did succeed in bearing
down aU opposition.
IB. And the sons of the captivity did so] naturally would refer
to the carrying out of the plan for divorce. But the sons of the
captivity had proposed the plan; what we should expect is a
statement that Ezra accepted the proposal, e. g., and Ezra did
so. The text is apparently disarranged by the Chronicler and
the true connection is obscured. — And Ezra the priest selected
EZRA 7-10 347
for him men], so we must read after Esd. supported in part by C5.
The rendering of RV. disregards the text and makes Ezra the
head of the divorce tribunal. Torrey renders : " Ezra the priest
and certain chief men . . . were set apart" (ES."^ ^O. — The
heads of the fathers for the house of their fathers and all of them
with names] is not a very satisfactory description. "The heads
of the fathers" are the clan leaders called "our leaders" by the
people, V. ^^. The Vrss. show that the text is overloaded; Esd.
has : heads of their fathers all of them according to names, and
that is quite sufl&cient. — And they sat on the 1st day of the loth
month to investigate the matter]. One text of Esd. has and they
were convened, which is a better expression. The loth month
corresponds to December- January. Some Vrss. have "12th
month"; but that would make the session of the court one
month instead of three; and it would convene two and one-third
months after the assembly, v. ^, instead of ten days. Esd. offers
for the last clause to transact the business, and the greater defi-
niteness commends this reading, for investigation was not re-
quired. The tribunal was charged with executive rather than
judicial functions. (^ has a somewhat different reading of a
part of this verse: Ezra the priest set apart the leaders of their
fathers' houses; and all being called together by name on the ist
day of the 12th month they sat down to investigate the matter. This
reading is certainly less awkward than MT.
9. Berth, thinks iSd;] has dropped out before xin, so Guthe before
him, but iSdd irnna would be required, and then the correction is more
prob. I suspect that the date is a note by the Chr. After (6 Esd. toO
{XT(3v6<;, we should rd. tt'inS for cnna. — . . . d^tijid] C5 dtxb Bopijpou aixoiv
Tcspl ToO p^fiaxo? xal (Jicb toO x^'f-wvo^^A^, |v TpdjJKp i%h i. pT^iiaTO? x.
dxb T. xettAwvo?!-; Esd. Tpl[i.ovTe<; [Zidi^] xbv IvsaTuxa xzi\L(bv(x. The first
reading is interesting, explaining the assembly in the open as due to
the large number and to the storm; but the two ideas harmonise no
better than in MT. The important reading in Esd., the only one that
makes good sense, has escaped the attention of the commentators.
Instead of the meaningless nann-S;?, it had, perhaps, annyn. nnj; means
persist in Eccl. 8' (BDB.), and is represented by Ivtoravat in 2 K. i3«;
"persistent rains" would do well here. This, however, requires a trans-
position of words, and I hazard a conjecture, "a o^icync, shivering
because of standing in the rain. — 11. nmn] (S aVvsaiv xal l5oyLoX6Y'')fftv^,
348 EZRA-NEHEMIAH
Esd. e^o[jLoX6Yt]ff:v xal Sd^avi-, StxoX. 86$av^A. Prob. we should add
1133, c/. 7>'. — D3>ni3N] with 01 and Esd. rd. ij^ni3«. — uisi] 05 Tb dtpeff-cbv
Ivtixtov ai-rou, which may be paraphrastic as in Ne. g"^*. Esd. xb
6iXY3[ji.a aO-rou. — 12, iJ5?''i] Esd.^A xa\ eipwvTjffav, a rendering found in v. '
= ixipM. — . . . Sip] 01 [liya TOUTO xb '(>fi\x& aou^Aj (gL Jj^s (fwvfj [LBfiXt}
with "answered" and continues: tilya toOto xb pYj[j.a l<p' T)[Jia?, xal xa-ri
ttoCk; X6you<; cou ou? I'qjT)?, outw? xotTQaofJiev, a double reading with varia- â–
tions; Esd. outox; w? eYpigxa? •jcoti^cjoiJi.sv; H yz<a;to verbum tuum ad nos sic
fiat, 3 Esd. sicut dixisti faciemus. Certainly we must rd. Ti3i3 {v.
Moore's Judges, '^^), inf. and prob. "tyj;:, though 05 may be a free ren-
dering; it is incumbent upon us to do is not, however, as strong as we will
do. — 13. S3N] in late Heb. is strongly adversative. — nyn] OS'' 6 t6tcoi;
xatp6(;A><L, wpa^sd-. The mng. is season, not day. — didcj] has an ad-
jectival force corresponding to 3i, so C@> and Esd., but It tempus
pluvicB, 3 Esd. tempus hybernum, is perpetuated in EV^. The lexicons
ignore this use. It is impossible to render "a time of rain" without
unnecessarily emending the text. — l'in3 . . . pxi] Esd. xal oix Eaxu[ff]o'
(xev ar^vat a"6ptoc [xai oux eupofjiev], bracketed parts in b only. AiOpto?
elsw. stands for Ihdd, "threshold," or aijD, but it would serve as well
for Tins. We note here a neat idiomatic rendering instead of the sla-
vish literalism of 05. s'» plus is difficult to understand unless we get nxd
out of hsnSd, though the latter is represented by epTov, followed, it
may be noted, by -rjii-wvi- TjpiivBA. — 14. lajj] jg here given the mng.
among rare uses, "be appointed," BDB. This would require Snpn-Sj?,
and the subj. would be a^'nc; ir^ty shows that existing officials are
meant. Ges.^ proposes die Gemeinde vcrtretcn. The idea seems to
be : let our officers stand for [or represent] the whole assembly. — Snp h:h\
om. 05^, Iv •jciqQi', Esd. ol TupoTjYoiJtJLsvoi toO xXiq6ou<; = Snpn i-\v. — ijnjj3]
Esd. ex Twv xaTocxtwv t)[j.wv = uott'iCD, 3 Esd. qui vobiscum inhabitant.
— CJDTD DTij??] Ne. 10'^ 13^1, 05 elq xafpou? dxb auvaYwydiv^ [auvTaywvA**]
cixb xatptov^; Esd. Xo(P6vTe<; xP'^vov; 3 Esd. accepto tempore, s has rd.
nnjJD, AL anyiDD, and Esd. perhaps onjjio ny. — nj?] is of obscure origin,
but in early use is construed as f . Later, as in this passage, it is treated
as m. in accordance with the rule that expressions of time are m. {ZAW.
1896,^0 • — I'J'''] om. (&^. Esd, lacks this and also anny. — ti«< V^^] SpY'OV
OJA Esd. — HTH -isnV n;;] It stipcr peccato hoc. For "h ij? rd, hj: as Sieg.
— 15 . is] 05 xXtqv, om. Esd.BA, ]| igitur, 3 Esd. autem. The mng. is
important; it never represents a continuation like "and so," but has a
restrictive or adversative sense. The construction, vb. following subj.,
indicates a circumstantial clause, another fact having significance for
the exegesis. — nop] 05 (xex' i\}.ou = "'705;, Esd. exeSi^avxo, TB steterunt
susceperunt. — amy] 05 porjOwv auTOl^^AN^ dyreXatx^dtvov xb aixtiiv'^, Esd.
ouveppd^eucav aixotq. — 16, Jo] more emph. in Esd.: xaxd: ic(ivTa xaGxa,
— iSi3i] is grammatically impossible. OS^a SteaxdcXiQaav, thus making all
the nouns the subj,; 05^^ StiaxstXev, having the nouns in ace; Esd.
EZRA 7-10 349
IxeXlt^aTo a5i:(p . . . avSpa? x. t. X. = i*? '?73ii ace. to Guthe, Berth, et al.
But '713 is used always with a bad association, as in "separate yourself
from people of land"; exeX^Yetv never stands for Via, but for nna or, by
confusion of gutturals, nya. Therefore rd. iS "ina\ — niDa>3 D''!:'JvS']. (5bax
cm. — oni3N]. Esd. avSpa? T)YouiJL£vou<; twv xaTptwv auxwv TCavxai; xax'
Svofjia, so lacking in"i3> niaNn. — niDtya dSd] c/. 8", where lapj intervenes.
d^ puts this after utt'i and renders: Tcivxe? ol xXitjGivTsq Iv 6v6[jLaacv =
"3 Nipjn So. It is tempting to see a confusion of i3pj and nipj, and v/e
may have the true text in a reading ignored by all scholars so far as
I know. — na'ii] is not easy. (5 has oxi exiaTpat^avi^AX^ y^^\ IxiOtaav +
•rcivxe? ol xXTjO^vce?!-, Esd. xotl auvexXet'aGiQaavi', tjuvextiOiarav'^i', 3 Esd.
considerunt. Esd.^ must be an error for CTuv£xXT]6ififfav, cf. (S>^, and then
we have the best sense : they were convened for business, etc. — ncj?n]
SwSexdTou (S^i-, Esd.^. — ivimS] must be pointed rn-i':, but the word
is inappropriate; we should expect a word like "begin" or as Esd.
l-uAaat, to transact (the business). — 17. u^vm ^33 iSd^i] H et consiimmaii
sunt omnes viri, Esd. xal t^x^tJ eii^i xipa? -cdk xaxd: Toii; (2vSpa<; = -'?)? '?3"ii
D''8'jxn; ^3 is explained by dittog. — iv] is well supported, and has here
the unusual sense at, or on; but we should expect ar3.
10'^-^= Esd. 9'^^^ The Ust of the divorced.— The names
are arranged in two classes, clerical and lay; in the clerical sec-
tion we find four orders, priests, Levites, singers, and porters.
The laity are grouped tinder clan-names. The scheme is the
same as in c. 2 and other lists.
18-22. The pr. are grouped by clans, of which there were four,
the sons of Jes. Immer, Harim, and Pashhur. These are the same
priestly clans found in 2''-", but the order in the latter passage is
Jes., Immer, Passhur, Harim. — 18. Jes. the son of Jozadak] a full notice
so as to identify this person with the associate of Zer. — And his
brethren] implies that the descendants of Jes.'s brothers were classed
imder the more celebrated name. The Chr,, however, thrusts in
"sons" and "brothers" rather recklessly when writing about pr. or
Lev. — 19. And they gave their hand to put away their wives], "Give
the hand" as a s5Tnbol of swearing is old usage, 2 K. lo'^. — And guilty,
a ram of the flock for their guilt] requires some editing. RV. inserts
"they offered"; Kue. emends to read: "and their guilt-offering was a
ram of the flock for their guilt." Torrey renders: "they were fined a
ram of the flock." A slight change yields : and I appointed a ram of the
flock for their guilt, with the startling result that we have another frag-
ment of E., which the Chr. disguised but imperfectly. It is diflScult
to see why this is said of the clan of Jes. and not of the other pr.
Ryle supposes this requirement to be imposed upon all the offenders,
350 EZRA-NEHEMIAH
but the position of the clause forbids such a wide application. Other
scholars are discreetly silent. The natural explanation lies in the
greater prominence of the Jes. guild. They were of the chief pr., and
so were required to take an oath and pay a penalty. It is not unlikely
that the whole v. is out of place. It might belong after v. ", or better
after v. i"», which connects poorly with v. "b^ but very well with v. ".
The passage would then rd. : and there were found some of the pr. who
had married foreign wives, attd they gave their hand to put away their
wives; and I appointed a ram of the flock for their guilt. Of the sons of
Jes., etc. This is a great improvement on MT. — 23. Atid of the Lev.}
of whom six are named as offenders. — 24. We find but one singer and
three porters, but Esd. has two in each class. In contrast with the 17
pr. and 6 Lev., we note the absence of the Neth.; it appears that the
humbler officials were the stricter observers of the law, but perhaps they
were foreigners and their marriage with foreign women was permitted.
25-43. The laity are grouped under the clans of Parosh, Elam,
Zattu, Bebai, Bani, Pahath-Moab, Harim, Hashum, Bani, and Nebo.
These are all found in c. 2, exc. one of the Banis, but in quite a different
order. Four of the names are included in the list of Ezra's company:
Parosh, Elam, Bebai, and Pahath-Moab. — 30. Esd. lacks Pahath-Moab,
making Addin (= Adnah) the clan-name. There was such a clan which
was represented in Ezra's caravan, 8', but not found in c. 2. — 34. For
Bani, which is already found in v. ", we may possibly rd. Binoui. — 38.
Instead of Bani and Binnui on basis of (i we should introduce another
clan : and of the sons of Bigvai or some other name. The text in this
part is so corrupt that the original names can no longer be determined.
44. All these had taken foreign wives, and they had wives of them, and they
— sons]. The omitted vb. of last clause means to place, but it cannot
be translated so as to make sense. The text is doubtless corrupt. <S
offers : all lltese had taken foreign wives and had begotten sons of them.
This would mean either that all who had foreign wives had children
also, or that only those who had children were required to put away
their wives. This reminds us of the ground of Neh.'s divorce proceed-
ings, Ne. 13'*. Esd. reads still differently: all these had married foreign
wives and they put them away with their children. A pretty radical
emendation is necessary, and I would rd. : all these put away foreign
wives, and some of them had children, and they restored the children (to
their mothers). The children in divorce proceedings are always the
bone of contention. In a sparsely settled Jewish community the chil-
dren would be esp. prized. The rang, is that the reform was radical
and the children were sent with their mothers to their old homes among
their own people. Being of mixed blood, they would be deemed unde-
sirable in a community seeking to eliminate all foreign influences.
18. wsDvJ so we should rd. with 05a«<i. Esd. instead of sg. of MT.
— 19. UHm] Esd. exd^aXov. — DT'] (S xslpa? auxdiv, Esd. tk? x^lpaq. —
EZRA 7-10 351
O'DB'n] <S^ xepl x>.Tjti,[xeXefa(;, Esd. zlq l^iXaajidv, IS pro delicto stw, 3
Esd. ad litandum in exorationem. Kue. proposes osa'N, "their guilt-
oflfering" {Ahh.^*^). It is natural, though, to expect a vb. here, and I
suggest a^^Ni, "and I appointed." — dhd^'n] Esd. i'^^olcxq aittav, 3 Esd.
ignoraniia sua. — 23. oil*?:!] twv ulwv twv Aeutxwv (8^ Esd.^-. — . . . ^^^p]
<& KtoXeti auzhq KwXteu, Esd. oy-roq. — Km] is to identify this Lev. with
nia^Sp of Ne. 8^ 10" {JBL. 1898,"') .—24. aicSs] Esd. EXtaae^oq, Bax-
Xoupo<; (Saxxoup^). — ''i^^] lacking in Esd.^A^ (^ QSouO^, QSoueA, Oupia?!-.
— 37. wjii] (S^AN xal ETCotiQffav. It is lacking in Esd. and C^i-; "B Jasi.
Qr. reads ''15';''', to which we may add n. — 38. . . . ''jai] CSbax qJ ujoi
Bavoul xal ulol Se^xef, d'^ Bovval xocl ulol Bovvit. We might rd. as
Guthe, ''1J3 iJiDi. But we have already had two Bani clans, and Banui
(the name is really identical) is embarrassing. It is little more than
guessing, but we might rd. iiJ3 in v." as above and substitute ''1J3
or some other clan in this passage. — 44. Nearly every scholar has
tried his hand at this impossible text, but there is no agreement about
results. Curiously the first part of the v. is passed without notice.
But why should we have here the statement that these men had taken
foreign wives, a fact already sufficiently emphasised? Moreover, we
find here f<8'J for marry, while in the body of this story 3!?'' is always
used, vv. '• "• ^*- "■". We do find xt^J in 9', but it is followed by iv.
The point here is the putting away, and that is expressed in this
story by nx"' (vv. '•"), not nVc, as Guthe has it. Rd. therefore in'^sh
for '•Na'j : all these put away foreign wives. To clear up the rest of the
v., substitute ^^12 for D''2'j (repeated from v. "), thus: and some of them
[the men] had children. What must have been done with these children
appears from v. '. We may rd. la'-'i^'i in place of the impossible iDie'''i:
and they restored the children (to their mothers).
' The ethics of the great divorce. — Sta. has pointed out the evil conse-
quences of the mixed marriages, in that they tended to threaten the
imperfectly established solidarity of the community and the develop-
ment of the religious life {BT. 3""). But actions cannot always be
judged from a consideration of their consequences. Moreover, it must
be noted that the record is that of mixed marriages in one direction
only. There is nothing here of the marriage of Jewish women to
foreign men, but only of Jewish men to foreign women. Incidentally,
this would suggest that the offenders belonged chiefly to the golah.
A large number of unmarried men might well have come back from
exile, and the provision of wives for them may have been as serious a
problem as that of the Benj. centuries before (Ju. 19-21). In spite of
the classic story of Solomon's downfall (i K. 11 Ne. 13^'), the position
of a Jewish wife was not such as to make her a very influential factor
in the religious life of the nation. The number of offenders looks pretty
big, but after all there are only 103 names in the list, an inconsiderable
number for the whole Judean province.
352 EZRA-NEHEMIAH
Ezra's act must not be judged from the highest standards of our
day, but from the ethical conceptions of his own time and people.
Divorce was a very simple process in Israel, and there was no stigma
attached to it. A public hearing was not necessary, and no oflScial
sanction was required. A man who wanted to get rid of a wife for any
cause whatever had only to give her a bill of divorce of his own mak-
ing and send her away. Neh. had made short work of several such al-
liances a generation earlier, and no one opposed him then or criticised
him since. The possible hardships to the women are easily exaggerated
from sentimental considerations, but such an idea would hardly enter
the mind of Ezra or his contemporaries. The law had long forbidden
such marriages, and the law was meant to be obeyed.
One may well doubt, though, whether any great good resulted from
such a drastic course, and rejoice in the development of more humane
methods of dealing with social problems, even if these reforms came
slowly.
NE. 8-10. THE READING OF THE LAW. THE LEVITES' PRAYER.
THE SUPPORT OF THE TEMPLE.
It is usual to group c. 8-10 together as a description of the closing
part of Ezra's administration. It is shown in the intr. to c. 10 that
that c. really belongs to Neh.'s second administration. C. 9 also con-
tains no evidence of Ezra's presence. This name in v. « in 05 is a late
interpolation, and contradicts vv. ^-^ As certain Lev. are the only
ofl&cials who have any part in the proceedings, Ezra is really excluded,
for he was not likely ever to be an idle spectator. The c. really describes
the wailing and praying on a great fast day, such as is described in Jo.,
and the statement about the reading of the law, v. », is the only connec-
tion with c. 8, as if there never had been a public reading of the law
in postex. Israel exc. under the guidance of Ezra. Indeed, v. ^ is so
disjointed that it may well be an addition by the Chr. to make an ar-
tificial connection between two unrelated passages.
We have left then only c. 8 as a part of Ezra's story. In regard to
vv. 1-" there is no room for doubt, but the case is not quite so clear
for w. "-18. In the first place, the passage contains a detailed descrip-
tion of the keeping of the Feast of Booths, which is not particularly
happy in an account of the promulgation of the law. Again, we note
that Esd. ends with v. ^^^ for the one word of v. ", which is found in
Esd., being the same word essentially as found in C5, is decidedly sus-
picious. It is true that in v. i' we are told that " the heads of the
fathers the pr. and the Lev. were gathered unto Ezra the scribe." But
as they assembled "to give attention to the words of the law," and as
the assembly then directed the keeping of the Feast of Booths, it is
NEHEMIAH 8-IO 353
certainly prob. that "unto Ezra the scribe" is another of the Chr.'s
ingenious connecting links. The v. loses nothing, but rather gains, by
the omission of these words, and without them there is no hint of Ezra's
presence. Still the reinstitution of an ancient feast is more in harmony
with Ezra's chief purpose "to glorify the house of God," Ezr. 7", than
the reading of the law.
It is impossible to trace c. 9 to its origin. It may be from the pen
of the Chr., but such narratives as this might be written by almost any-
body. The Chr. may have had scores of documents that we know noth-
ing about. Surely writings of various sorts were numerous enough in
this period without ascribing everything to the Chr., unless we know
positively to the contrary. It is very likely that the Chr. found this
story of the keeping of a fast, and incorporated it in his book, adding
some of his characteristic editorial annotations. In its original form
the story certainly had nothing to do with Ezra's mission.
8. The promulgation of the law, and the Feast of Booths.
The story properly begins as in Esd. with 7", for notes on which v.
Ezr. a'". Connecting the text of MT. after Esd. we find this prelimi-
nary notice : and the pr. and the Lev. and some of the people dwelt in
Jerus., and all Israel in their cities. And the yth month approached,
and all the people with one accord assembled in the plaza at the east gate
of the temple. This is part of the long deuterograph (Ezr. 2'-3' =
Ne. 7*-8i''); the section is used in Ezr. as the intr. to the building of
the altar, in Ne. as the intr. to the issue of the law. Mey. dates this c.
in the ist year of Neh., but that is much too early, v. Intr. § ".
l''-12 = Esd. 9^*'^^ The public reading of the law.— All
the people being gathered, Ezra reads the law of Moses. — 1**.
And they said to Ezra]. It is assumed that the people knew
that Ezra had the law and had gathered for the purpose of
hearing it. As in Ezr. lo^^-, the leader does not act on his own
initiative, but in response to the suggestions of others. — Which
Yahweh commanded Israel] is preserved better in Esd. : which was
given by Yahweh the God of Israel. — 2. Before the congregation].
Esd. uses the less technical term multitude. The assembly was
composed of men, women, and children, a condition emphasised
in this section because it was unusual in Jewish practice. — And
all understanding to hear] is a literal rendering of an obscure
23
354 EZRA-NEHEMIAH
phrase, Esd. has all the priests to hear the law. This is clear,
but does not suit the context. The words really mean children
old enough to understand what was read.
This is clear from a comparative study. In v. ' there are three con-
stituents in the assembly, men, women, and all able to hear under-
standingly. In lo'' besides the men in the assembly there are " their
wives, their sons and their daughters, all knowing how to understand."
The last clause qualifies "sons and daughters." The mng. is then that
all the children old enough to comprehend the business were a part
of the gathering, and that is the sense here, the children being a third
element in the congregation.
On the ist day of the yth month] in the early autumn. This
date is probably original in the body of the story, and may be
the ground of the connection with c. 7. That passage leads up
to an assembly in the 7th month, and here we have an assembly
of the 7th month, and on that slender basis some rather obtuse
editor has made the two assemblies identical. — 3. And he read
in it . . . from daylight until the middle of the day]. (S is more
specific : from the hour the sun gives light. H was not satisfied
with a half-day's reading of the law, and so has until evening in-
stead of until noon. In Esd. we have and I read, suggesting
a trace of E. — Before the men and the women and the children].
The same components of the assembly are named in v. ^, but the
last word is lacking in Esd. — And the ears of all the people were
towards the book of the law]. Esd. has a reading here which is
clearer than MT. : and they gave their whole attention to the law.
The people not only remained during this long reading, but
were attentive to what they heard. The fact is noteworthy
because of the length of the session. — 4. The narrative comes
back now to describe with minuteness the conditions under
which Ezra was reading. Evidently the author considered
this an important occasion. — And Ezra the scribe stood upon a
wooden platform]. The word properly means tower; it is very
common, and nowhere else has any other sense. But a tower
here indicates a high platform, large enough for Ezra and his
companions to stand upon, so that the reader could be heard
by the large audience. — Which they had made for the purpose]f
NEHEMIAH 8-10 355
indicating that the platform was newly erected in view of this
anticipated reading of the law. "Purpose" is not too broad a
meaning for the comprehensive 121, though the strict meaning
is word. It is tempting with some ancient texts to read for
speaking. In that case Ezra uses a platform which had already
been long in use by those like Nehemiah (cf., e. g., Ne. 5) who
addressed the assembled people. Esd., however, has merely:
upon the wooden platform which had been made. — And there stood
by his side], and then follows a list of six men on his right and
seven on his left.
The list of names is regarded by Mey. as quite worthless (Ent.
1790- Torrey regards these men as laymen (ES.^'s). There must
originally have been but twelve, six on each side. MeshuUam is lacking
in (5 and Esd., and, as Torrey suggests, may be a variant of '?NDte»D, on
the left. Sm. thinks with much plausibility that the readers of the law
were Lev. {Listen,^').
8^"". Another story of the reading of the law. — As the text
stands, we make little, if any, advance over w. ^-\ The only
thing new is the effect upon the people. — 5. And Ezra opened
the book in the sight of all the people]. As he had already been
reading the law for a half-day, v. ^, this must be a duplicate.
(& has before the people, but our text is better, for it means that
Ezra stood so that all the people saw him. — For he was above all
the people], certainly unnecessary after v. *, and another evi-
dence of a duplicate account. Esd. gives a less physical sense,
reading: /or he sat in glory in the sight of all. — And as he opened
it all the people stood up]. The standing was a mark of recogni-
tion of the divine source of the law; so King Eglon rose from
his seat when Ehud told him he had a message from God
(Ju. 32"). — 6. And Ezra blessed Yahweh the great God]. Before
beginning to read, Ezra, holding the open roll in his hands,
blessed or praised God, probably for giving the people the law,
V. ^. — With a raising of their hands] in token of adoration, the
attitude of prayer. So Moses held up his hands in prayer
while Joshua fought with Amalek (Ex. 17"). BDB. interprets
this passage as equivalent to taking an oath, but it is not easy
356 EZRA-NEHEMIAH
to see what place an oath has here. — And they bowed down and
prostrated themselves to Yahweh with the face to the ground], an
Oriental posture of homage, universal to-day among the Mo-
hammedans, and supporting the interpretation given to the pre-
ceding clause.
7. In this list of 13 names, not one is found among those of the men
who stood on the platform with Ezra. With Esd. we must om. "and"
before "the Lev.," which stands in app. with the names. Then, un-
fortunately, we reach obscurity abundantly witnessed in the Vrss.
The furthest removal from our text, and yet the best sense is found in
H: caused silence among the people for the hearing of the law, a function
of the Lev. ace. to v.". The people had been crying "amen," and
were prostrating themselves, perhaps with loud cries. While this
commotion lasted, the reading of the law was out of the question.
The usual rendering, caused the people to understand the law, is impos-
sible, for that puts the cart before the horse with a vengeance, as it
makes the interpretation of the law precede its reading, which in this
section first comes in v. «. The last clause is lit. and the people tipon
their standing], which is rendered in EV^ after It "the people stood in
their place." The words are best connected with v. ', and out of the
corruption we may extract and when the people rose again, from the
prostration described in v. ', for the reading would not begin until the
people stood up.
8. They read in the book of the law of God]. The plural verb
is evidently a mistake, for Ezra alone was the lector. — ^The rest
is so obscure that we cannot be sure what word stood here.
The ordinary rendering is : distinctly, and they gave the sense, and
the people understood the reading, but this is a doubtful trans-
lation of a loosely constructed passage. The first clause is
lacking in Esd. (^ renders : and he taught and instructed them in
the knowledge of Yahweh, and the people understood at the reading.
3 Esd. has: and individually they singled out those who under-
stood the reading.
On the basis of Ezr. 4" the word for "distinctly" may be rendered
in translation. The last clause is clear, and they understood what was
read. fisD must define the means by which the people understood.
The obscure clause may mean: atul the translator set forth the meaning.
The office of translating is given to the Lev. who were teachers, and
who certainly stood by Ezra while he rd. The law was in Heb., and
NEHEMIAH 8-IO 357
this interpretation assumes that most of the people no longer under-
stood that tongue. Ne. i^^* shows the beginning of the decadence of
Heb. as a living tongue. This event was surely later and may have
been very much later.
The alternative is to suppose the word really to mean imth a loud
voice. The point then would be that Ezra reads a sentence, which is
repeated by the Lev., famous for their high, far-carrying tones, so that
it could be heard by all the assembly.
8*"". The keeping of a feast. — ^The effect of hearing the
law was to produce mourning and weeping among the peo-
ple. They are cheered with the assurance that the day is holy
and are bade to keep a joyful feast. — 9. The speakers named in
our text are Nehemiah, that is the governor, and Ezra, the priest,
the scribe, and the Levites who taught the people]. Nehemiah the
governor has been interpolated into the text by the Chronicler
to justify his wrong chronology, making Ezra and Nehemiah
contemporaries (so Mey."*). Torrey considers only "Nehe-
miah" as the interpolation (ES.^^^). Esd. has an interesting
text : the governor said to Ezra and to the Levites. It would have
been unseemly to the Chronicler that a civil governor should
inform the priest about holy days. — To-day is holy to Yahweh
our God]. Our of (^ is preferable to your of ^. The ist day
of the 7th month (Tisri, v. 2) was set apart for the Feast of
Trumpets, Lv. 2323-25 Nu. 29^-^ But the observance of the day
as described here does not conform to the law. Ryle thinks
the day became holy because the law was read, since the peo-
ple would not yet know anything about this festival. The
people did not know that it was a holy day until they were told,
and certainly Ezra could not have been ignorant about the re-
quirements for the Feast of Trumpets. — Do not mourn and do
not weep, for all the people were weeping as they heard the words
of the law]. The law produced an undesired effect, for the peo-
ple broke out into weeping. Why did they shed tears? We
have at least a striking parallel, for King Josiah rent his clothes
when the new law of Dt. was read to him (2 K. 22"). We
know further that the cause of his distress was the expected
execution of the threats in a law which had never been obeyed
358 EZRA-NEHEMIAH
(ib. V. "). The same reasons might explain the mourning of
the people now, cf. Ezr. lo^ — 10. Directions are given by Ezra
for the people's observance of the holy day : come, eat the fat
pieces and drink sweet drinks]. The fat pieces, from the Oriental
point of view, are the most dainty morsels of the meat. The
sweet drink is presumably the new sweet wine. — And send por-
tions to those for whom nothing is prepared], or better with C5
who have nothing, i. e., the poor. There is no law enjoining
this distribution except the general law of charity.
The words taken altogether imply that a feast was held and sacri-
fices made, from which the people were to eat as in the early times.
The words sound like an invitation to a meal. The reading had pro-
ceeded from dawn till noon. The people were hungry. Animals may
already have been slain and now the invitation is given to feast. The
last sentence is obscure on account of corruption; the text may be
rendered : and do not grieve, for the joy of Yahweh is your stronghold].
This word for "joy" is foimd elsw. only i Ch. i6"; "stronghold" as
a place of shelter is often found as a pred. of God, e. g., Ps. 27' 31'
Is. 25 <. But how could the joy of Yahweh be a shelter? We might
possibly suppose a very refined sense: you will find your refuge from
the dire threats of the law by filling yourselves now with a divine joy.
The Vrss. show that the text was hard to rd. or to understand, Esd.,
e. g., reading /or Yahweh will give yoii glory. (& has merely: /or he is
our strength. The trouble is not so much the words themselves as their
unsuitableness to the context. The sentence is designed to give rea-
son why the people should cease to mourn.
11. This verse is in a way parenthetical, describing more par-
ticularly the method by which the people were quieted. — And
the Levites were quieting all the people saying, Be still, for to-day
is holy, and do not grieve. This repeats what has been already
said in preceding places. — 12. The people did as enjoined in
V. ^°, the writer adding and to make a great rejoicing]. The rea-
son for the joyful feasting is then given in words hard to com-
prehend: for they understood the words which had been taught
them]. Here again the statement is clear in itself, but it serves
poorly as a ground for the feasting.
We would naturally refer the statement to their comprehension of
the law, but that had produced mourning and lamentation and woe.
NEHEMIAH 8-10 359
The only other possible reference is to the words of vv. " 'â– , about the
holy day and the feast. But it would seem superfluous to explain
that the people imderstood such simple directions as to eat and drink.
It may be that the meaning is : they perceived the duty to feast in the words
of tlte law which had been taught them. As we cannot find a hint of such
a duty in the passage, the understanding of the people was noteworthy.
3 Esd. shows an alternative, though not a very hopeful one : they were
greatly exalted by the words which they had been taught.
1. Dj?n h:i[ Esd. xav -zh izkfi^oc, = Sr\p as v. =. — inx] (S^ adds e!<; 'le-
pouaaX:^[x, thus completing the sentence as Ezr. 31. — a'cn . . . t^n]
Esd. Tou Tcpb? dcvaxoXccs Ispou TcuXwvoq. — iflDn] Esd. xy lepel xal ivct-^-
voKyqn = snpi pan. — . . . ns niri''] om. (K''; Esd.AL Jj^b xupfou Oeou 'la-
pai^X, 2 om. Jtupfou. — 2. psn] (B^ adds 6 7pa[ji.[i.aTeij<;, Esd.^A i dp^tepsu?,
which A has in v. ^ also. — J''3D~70i] dii' xal xavxb? dxouovTo? auvt^vat, Esd.
•mi Tcaatv TOt? Upeuati^A^ showing pD for r^n, eloquent witness of the il-
legibility of MSS. I- adds xal xav-rl dxouovrt tou auvtivat, showing the
common correcting dup. — vt^^^\ Esd.sA^ dcxouuat -cbv v6[ji.ov. — 3. {<i,"'''i]
Esd.i- dtvlyvto. — cicn ""jdS] lacking in (S^ax^ Esd. ev T<p icpb toO lepou
TcuXuvoq eupuxwpou'^Aj |v T<p eupoxwpy xoO -rcpcoTou lepoO xwXwvoi;'^. — ~p
iinh] Esd. dxb opOpou, 05 dxb TTi<; wpaq StayuTfaat xbv i^Xtov = TiNH n;7C
B'DS'n, — minn . . . D"'Jiai3i] Esd. v-aX exiStoxav xavra [xav xb xXfjOoqAL] ^■^^
voGv ef? xbv v6iiov. This text lacks ''Jini and ">DD and construes a''J"'3D
as pred. of opn or "rnpn. — 4. iflon] Esd. 6 Upe6<; xal dtvayvwaT-r)? xoO
v6[i.ou. — lai'? . . . iiJ'n] om. CS^'^'*, ^ has h exofrjaEV eEi; xb STjfATjyop^aat =
-\^^h T\vy TtTN; Esd. xou xaxaaxeuaejGivxoq. — U'Di-Vj:] 05 Esd. ex. Of
the last four names 05^ has only Zechariah. — 5. nno-i] Esd. xal iva-
Xa^<i)v, dvdXa^evi- = t<s>ji or npW — iDDn] Esd.A xb ^f^Xtov xoij voixou. — •
^J^yV] (5 and Esd. Ivtixtov = ''ith. — a3;n Vs] Esd. xoO xX^Oouq. — n^n . . . ^o]
Esd. xpoexdtOirjxo ydip extSd^w? evcoxtov xtivxwv. 3 Esd. prcBsidebat enim
in gloria in conspectu omnium, showing ■•Jv'^ here. — 6. nitj?] lacking
in <8>B, Esd.s has Al^apta?, one of those on Ezra's right hand in v. *.
— . . . run''] Esd. xup((p Oey xtii icpfjxM 6sy ca^aibO navxoxpaxopt'AL. —
uyi] Esd. e9a>vY)(j£vBA, i^z<fim\as^. — px'] 05 xal elxav = nsKii. — jcn"]
om. Esd.Ai-. Esd. lacks D'^iJN and puts nsiN directly after â– \'^p-'>, thus
xpoaxeuovxei; exl x-?jv y^v xpoaexuviQtjav xy Gey. — 7. uai] (8^ and Esd.^-
xal ol ulol auxou xal Bavata?. — DMSni . . . va<\ lacking in (Sbak^ perhaps
accidentally skipping a line. — oiiSm]. The conj. is lacking in Esd. —
niinS . . . V213D] H silentium faciehant in populo ad audiendam legem,
showing D''B'na for 0"|J3D. Esd. has ISfSaaxov^, but "teaching" an-
ticipates V. 8, and teaching could not precede reading. For the whole
clause 3 Esd. has: et prceferebant singuli eos qui intelligebant lectionem,
and they each one chose those who understood the reading. — aioy-Sy oyni]
Esd. xal xpb? xb xXi^eoi; (connecting with k1|-»i v. «) = oyn'S;'. MT.
may be due to careless dittog. — 8. in->i">''i] 05^ xal Ivlyvw "E^Spai;. —
360 EZRA-NEHEMIAH
byif . . . B'-isd] C5 xa\ eSfSaoxev ["E(jpa<;o>»- 1-] xal BtioreXXev ev Ixterr^jxTj
Kupfou; the words are lacking in Esd., rd. hy<ff Dia* if nam, aM<^ ///e /raw5-
lator gave the mng. — Nipna UO'i] (g xal cuv^xsv 6 Xabq ev t^ ivaYvwaec
Esd. ejiyuatouvTEi; a[xa t-Jjv dcvdcyvcoatv; B e^ intellexerunt, cum legeretur. —
9. "nn xin n^nnj] «ban Nee[j.(a<;. Esd. has xal elxev 'Axzxpxz-q "Eapq:
TTwx. T. X. One Gk. version lacks "Neh.," the other the title. Esd.
did not understand this title and transliterates it. It appears that
this title was put into the text first, and that "Neh." was added in a
new recension in which Ne. 1-7 was placed in the midst of the Ezra
narrative. The title may in the original have been applied to Ezra,
though it is given to him nowhere else. — a^inSs] lacking in Esd. (Sban ^^
Osw Tjixuv correctly. — i33n . . . Sn] lacking in Esd. — nan] lacking in Esd.
— 10. anS -iDN^i] lacking in Esd.BA^ 3 Esd. et dixit Esdras. — a>|inDO intri]
lacking in Esd.B. — ni:D] Esd. ixoaToXi? = DimStt'. — ^h ]^2i vah] (S and
Esd. Tot<; [x-fj 'ixouaiv. — Dsryn . . . id] 05 2Tt eorlv ?ax^? fjiJLwvB^ (uiauvA);
Esd. 6 ydcp xijptoc So^dcast b^Laq. — 11. D'B'nD] v. on v. '; Esd. exdXsuov,
only used in Apocr., but mng. "make an announcement"; so 3 Esd.
denuntiehant. — ion] lacking in Esd.^Aj transposed and placed after tfnp
in I-, i. e., afyaTS xal (x-f) XuxelaOe. — i:ori 12] Esd. otc xal eveyuatwOTjaav;
3 Esd. magnifice enim sunt exaltati, where we may note n'7nj lacking
in its proper place, and an has been rd. for yz.
gi3-i8^ The Feast of Booths.— Continuing the reading of
the law, the command to keep the Feast of Booths, or Taber-
nacles, as it is wrongly called, is found and the people go to the
mountain for branches to build booths. The reading of the law
is continued daily for the seven days. — 13 . On the 2d day of the
7th month, and so directly after the events described in vv. ^-^'^,
all of which are assumed to have taken place in one day, cf. v. ^.
The assembly is now described as composed of the heads of the
fathers of all the people, a favourite term of the Chronicler, the
priests and the Levifes]. The mass of the people, who had par-
ticipated in the first day's proceedings, are not mentioned, and
were probably not present. Unto Ezra the scribe] is probably a
gloss, V. s. — ^The object of this assembly was not the reading
of the law, but its study, to get an insight into [or give heed to]
the words of the law]. The clan leaders and the ecclesiastics
were gathered now to put the law into effect. — 14. And they
found written in the law which Yahweh commanded by the hand of
Moses that the sons of Israel should dwell in booths on the feast
of the yth month. RV. "how that Yahweh had commanded"
NEHEMIAH 8-IO 361
is wrong. The first *1t5^i< is a relative and the second a con-
junction.
The law referred to is found in Dt. 16"-" Lv. 23" "â– . The time
prescribed in Dt. is after the gathering of the harvest, and the festival
corresponds with the ingathering of the earlier code (Ex. 23>«'' 34"'')-
The Levitical code gives the 15th of the 7th month as the appointed
time, but connects the feast with the gathering of the harvest. Ace.
to our dates the feast was kept on the 2d day of the month. This
story is based on the Lev. code, where alone a specific date is prescribed,
and where the making of booths is ordered. It is inconceivable that
Ezra should have held the feast on the wrong day. We may suppose
that either the ist day of v. = is an error, "2d" in v. " mng. the next
day, or, more prob., 13 days had elapsed between the assembly of stu-
dents in V. " and the actual keeping of the festival. In 9» we are
transported to the 24th day, just right if the seven-day feast began
on the 15th. We must remember, though, that the two sections are
loosely joined and may have no original connection at all.
15. And they commanded and issued a proclamation]. So we
must read by a slight correction, for here we have the orders
given to the people, and not a continuation of the law. On
"issuing a proclamation" v. on Ezr. iK — In all their cities and
in Jerusalem. As the message convening all the people to the
feast was sent all over Judah, a period of seven days would be
required before the orders could be complied with, and so we
can account for the 13 days between v. i' and v. ". — Go to the
mountain], referring probably to the hill country of Judah gen-
erally and not to any one mountain. — And bring in leaves],
here meaning the leaves attached to the twigs and so used for
branches. There follows the catalogue of trees, the most exten-
sive in the Bible, except Is. 41^^: olive, oil-tree {oleaster), myrtle,*
palm, and thick trees (with heavy foliage, perhaps evergreens).
In Lv. 23^" we find "palm, thick trees and willows," only two
trees common in the two passages. Perhaps the Chronicler has
amplified the passage according to the usage in his own day, or
the leaders may have named all the trees which might easily
be found, thinking rightly that it was not material what kind
of trees the branches were from. — 16. The people obeyed the
•Once common in Palestine, and still found, though rarely (GAS. Twelve Prophets, ii.^ss).
362 EZRA-NEHEMIAH
proclamation and built the booths each one upon his rooj* and
in their courts], for those who had residences in Jerusalem, and
in the courts of the house of God], for the priests, Levites, and
other temple officials, and in the open place of the water gate],
where the first assembly had been held, v. *, and therefore pre-
sumably the largest open space in the city, and in the open place
of the gate of Ephraim], for those who lived outside of Jerusalem.
The gate of Ephraim is named in 2 K. 14^' = 2 Ch. 25^3 Ne.
12''. See Guthe, ZDPV. \m.,^^ ^â– . It was presumably the
main outlet to the north country.
VI . And all the congregation who had returned from the cap-
tivity] shows a note of the Chronicler, who assumed that all the
people who were in Judah in Ezra's time were returned exiles.
— For the sons of Israel had not done so from the days of Joshua
the son of Nun until that day]. The reference is not to some
keeping of this feast by Joshua, for we know of no other cele-
bration, but the meaning is that in all Hebrew history the fes-
tival had not been kept. Ryle argues that the meaning is not
that no feast was kept, but that it had not been kept in the
strict way required by Ezra, and this big conclusion is based
on the words "done so." "So" or "thus" is indeed an in-
definite word, but here it can only refer to the particular fes-
tival described. The feast had been kept by Solomon, 2 Ch.
78 8", by Zerubbabel and Jeshua, Ezr. 3^ cf Zc. 14^^-^^ Hos.
12^ shows that the feast was generally kept in his time. But
the author ignores this evidence. The law was new, and every
institution appears to be new. — Atid there was a very great
rejoicing]. This was but complying with the law for the feast
according to Dt. 16^^ Lv. 23^. — 18. With a Greek text we
must read: and Ezra read in the book of the law of God daily from
the 1st day [of the Feast of Booths, as we find in a Greek MS.]
until the last day], i. e., the 7th day of the feast. — And on the
Sth day there was an assembly according to the ordinance]. This
word for "assembly" is found in Lv. 23^^ to define holy convoca-
tion. The law forbade any work on that day; perhaps thus we
may explain the abrupt stop of the narrative at this point.
• Simple tents were often set up on the roofs for transient guests (Kittel, KSnige,^'*).
NEHEMIAH 8-IO 363
The narrative assumes that the people were absolutely ignorant of
the law prescribing the Feast of Booths. As it had been celebrated
already in the postex. period, this section cannot have originated with
the Chr. He would not have been guilty of such a stupid blunder as
to contradict Ezr. 3*. Some other writer might easily have displayed
such ignorance, for many Jews may have been uneducated in the his-
tory of Israel. ^
13-18. At this point the book of Esd. ends, though we find in ^A
xal extffUVT^xOiJiJav corresponding to iddxj in v. ". In ^ we have the
whole of v. ", but it agrees so exactly with <&^ that the broken sentence
of Esd. must have been completed from (5, perhaps by Lucian himself.
Material for textual criticism, therefore, is sadly deficient for the rest of
the book. — 14. 113] lacking in <S.— 15. Sip n^aj;^] <S atkl-Ki-^^iv = msisn,
"clarion," a word found often in P (v. BDB. and Benz. ^rcA."'). —
-idn'?] C5 xal elxev "Eapaq. This is prob. an original reading, as may
be determined by the disinclination of the Gk. translators to depart
from the text in the interest of intelligibility, but the Heb. has the
better text nevertheless. — 16. 3in-iai d^dh lya'] (gsAN ^f^^ icdXeox; xal
Suq = nj;i i''yn. l has this and then adds full text of MT., showing
the frequent correction by addition. — 17. nxc] lacking in (gsAX^ — is.
n•\p''^] + "El^Spai;!'. — pcNnn] -\- tuv oxtjvcovI'. — •JStt'DD] lacking in (S^.
9. The great confession. — ^A great fast is kept and on the
day of its observance a long confession is said. The two things
are but loosely connected, and the confession reveals clearly
conditions later than the Persian period.
1-5. The fast. — 1. And on the 24th day of this month]. The
day but one after the completion of the Feast of Booths by all
the people of Judah, S^^. For so the Chronicler connects the
events. — Our text has: and earth was upon them]. This is not
found in the best Greek texts, and where it does occur it is
correctly specified upon their head. This was a common sign
of deep distress (v., e. g., i S. 4^^ 2 S. i'^ 15^^ Jb. 2^^). — 2.
And the seed of Israel separated themselves from all the sons of
foreigners. This shows the priestly spirit. The pure-blooded
son of Abraham was alone a fit subject for Yahweh's favour.
The presence of an alien was a disturbing influence. Just how
the separation was made it is hard to say. Perhaps foreigners
were not hard to exclude from a service characterised by fast-
ing, sackcloth, and earth. Sta. says we do not know who these
364 EZRA-NEHEMIAH
foreigners were nor their relation to the Jewish community
(BT.^"^^). They must include all that could not prove their
IsraeHte blood (Ezr. 2^-^; see further Mey. Ent.^). This
statement is inconceivable after Ezr. 9/. The separation had
already taken place according to that story. — And they stood and
made confession of their sins and of the iniquity of their fathers].
The sin of themselves and of their fathers was the failure to
observe the law. — 3. And they stood upon their place and read].
The subject strictly is the seed of Israel, v. 2. Probably the
Levites of v. * are really meant. — The fourth of the day and a
fourth they made confession and prostrated themselves to Yahweh
their God]. The assembly was apparently held only in the morn-
ing, as that was the duration of Ezra's reading, 8'. Half of the
morning was spent in reading the law and the other half in
bemoaning its long neglect. — 4. And there stood upon the stairs
of the Levites] cannot be right; for we know of no such stairs,
though of course ignorance is not equivalent to knowledge.
But the place of the assembly is the same as in c. 8, and Levites
is the body whose names are recited. We may easily translate :
and there stood upon the elevation, the wooden platform already
described, 8^. Eight Levites are named, three common with
8^, Jeshua, Bani, and Sherebiah; two Banis and a Buni (for
all of which (& has son or sons) make the list suspicious. — And
they cried with a loud voice unto Yahweh their God]. The Levites
were characterised by their loud voices, doubtless the result of
cultivation. They wanted to be heard by the whole assembly.
So they had silenced the crowd by their high voices penetrating
even through the loud wailing of the people, 8". It looks as
if we should have " unto the people " instead of " unto Yahweh,"
for in V. ^ the Levites address the assembly. It may be that
the Levites led the people in chanting some psalm. — 5. And the
Levites said], this time to the assembled people. There follows
a list of eight names of Levites, the same number as in v. *,
and surely we should expect the same names. Our text, how-
ever, has but five in common. This is an unmistakable sign of
corruption. — ^The direction to the people is rise, bless Yahweh
OUR [as (&] God from everlasting to everlasting. The call is for
NEHEMIAH 8-10 36$
the people to rise from their prostration, v. 3, in order to praise
Yahweh and to be ready to listen. — ^The people obeyed, doubt-
less following the Levites in some ritual, and they blessed the name
of thy glory and exalted above all blessing and praise]. For this
jumble (^ has tried to make sense by rendering: bless the name
of the glory exalted above all with joy and with praise. It makes
"exalted" a predicate of "name" and thus helps to determine
the true meaning: and they blessed his glorious name exalting it
above all blessing and praise. A slight change in the text is re-
quired, but some correction is essential.
g6-39^ The confession.
This is much like many other prayers, exhortations, and addresses
found in the Bible, the NT. parallel being the speech of Stephen (Acts
7). It is quite unlike the confession of Ezra (Ezr. 9), and if that be
genuine, as I doubt not, this one is a production from another source
incorporated by the Chr. The state of the Gk. text shows a passage
so well preserved that it may be well regarded as a late insertion. It
is in substance a review of Israel's history, dealing with events well
known to us. The purpose is to show God's goodness to Israel and
Israel's failure to respond. The spirit of the passage is prophetic
rather than priestly. It clearly belongs to the Gk. age, v. i., vv. " '•
On the character of the prayer, v. further Kost.'^ «■, Sta.'".
In MT. the confession is anonymous, and it is natural to assume that
it is a continuation of the Lev. call to prayer preceding. The prayer
must come from an individual, and 05 has a prefatory note, and Ezra
said. From this note the c. has been associated wrongly with Ezra.
6. Thou alone art Yahweh] is obviously not original, God
being the proper word. The change was presumably due to
an illogical Yahwist. — As usual, the history goes back to the
creation as told in Gn. Yahweh had created not only the
heavens, but also the heaven of heavens], an expression found in
Dt. 10" and elsewhere. It would naturally be the heavens
par excellence, somewhat as we say the seventh heaven. — 7.
The history jumps to Abraham as the real father of the Hebrew
people. The historical points are the migration from Ur-
Kasdim and the change of name, both events from P. — 8.
Thou didst find his heart faithful before thee] might be a reference
366 EZRA-NEHEMIAH
to Abraham's whole life of fidelity, but the author had especially
in mind the great act of obedience (Gn. 22).— The laitd of the
Canaanite], In the E. story of this covenant ten nations are
mentioned (Gn. iS^^-^O, of which we find but six here. This
same list is found in Ex. 2333 Jos. 2^^K—And thou didst es-
tablish thy words, for thou art righteous]. God, though foreseeing
the poor use which would be made of his boon, nevertheless
from his own righteousness, which includes truthfulness, must
make good his promise.— 9. We plunge into the midst of the
Egyptian bondage, for the author is reciting the most con-
spicuous of God's gracious acts toward his people. — Thou didst
hear their cry at the Red Sea]. This refers to the cry when the
pursuing Eg3rptians overtook the fleeing Israelites (Ex. 1410).
— 10. And thou didst give signs and wonders]. We naturally
think of the plagues, but these long preceded the wonders at
the Red Sea, which in themselves would be sufficient. The
author does not keep strictly to chronological order, and the
plagues were doubtless in his mind. — The reason for interven-
tion is now given: for thou [Yahweh] knowest that they [the
Egyptians] acted presumptuously against them]. The same ex-
pression occurs in a speech of Jethro's reviewing this deliverance,
Ex. 18^^. The presumption consisted in the pursuit of a people
to whom liberty had been accorded. — And thou didst make for
thyself a name as this day]. Name is here and frequently in the
OT. nearly equivalent to reputation. — 11. Into the depths like
a stone] is a quotation from the Song of the Sea, Ex. 15^; thou
didst cast replaces "they sank" in Ex., showing the speaker's
conception of God's intervention. — 12. The pillar of cloud by
day and pillar of fire by night are described in Ex. 1321, where
it is said that Yahweh himself was in the pillars or columns.
Our passage refines the earlier theology of J. Yahweh leads
the people by the pillars, but is not himself in them. — 13 . Here,
too, the later ideas are revealed; though Yahweh is said to
descend upon Mt. Sinai, he spoke with the people /row heaven].
In Ex. ig'"' Yahweh actually descended to the top of the moun-
tain and spoke to Moses face to face (Dt. 5^ 34^°). — 14. One
part of the law is emphasised: thy hply sabbath thou didst make
NEHEMIAH 8-10 367
known to them], indicating a supremacy for this law such as we
find in NT. times (Mk. 2" «• Lu. 1310 ^- Ju. 5I8).— 15. Bread
from heaven thou gavest them for their hunger]. The story of the
giving of the 'manna is found in Ex, 16* *^- The supposed
miraculous character of this bread makes its gift one of the
great acts of God. — And water from the rock thou broughtest out
to them for their thirst], v. Ex. 17^, and a longer account in Nu.
20^-1'. — To go in to take possession of the land] as we find com-
manded in Dt. i^; which I raised my hand to give them]. We
find Yahweh swore to give Israel the land of Canaan {v. Gn.
26' Ex. 33^ Nu. 14^ 32"). Raising the hand is the gesture
accompanying the oath and is here its equivalent, so Ex. 6'
Nu. 1450 Ez. 2o28- « 4714 Ps. io626, V. on S^.— 16. The list of
Yahweh's gracious acts ends and the speaker turns to the at-
titude of the people toward God. They and our fathers acted
presumptuously]. They are the people of Moses' time; our
fathers the later generations. Yahweh kept his compact, but
the people did not. — Hardened their neck] is quoted from Dt.
10^^, and V. Je. 72s 172^ 19^^ and vv. i^. 29_ 'pj^g repetition in
v. ^^ is probably a copyist's error. — 17. The rebellious spirit of
Israel is elaborated after the manner of some of the prophets
to impress the hearers : and they refused to listen [obey], nor did
they remember thy wonders which thou didst with them]. Then
we come again to a specific act of insubordination : and they ap-
pointed a leader to return to their servitude in Egypt], By the
accidental dropping of a letter, MT. has in their rebellion, v.
Nu. 14. — But the salvation of Israel was assured from the
character of God. Our text runs: thou art a God of forgiveness,
gracious and merciful, slow to anger and abundant in loving kind-
ness]. With the exception of of forgiveness these are conven-
tional attributes of God and are found verbatim in Ex. 34^
Jon. 4^^. — 18. Nevertheless [with reference to the preceding]
thou didst not abandon them]. In spite of God's overlooking
their wrong in resolving to choose a leader of their own in place
of the one appointed by him, they proceed to a further act of
gross apostasy. EV^. render yea, when (so BDB.) and con-
nect with V. ^^, but the above-named connection is better. —
368 EZRA-NEHEMIAH
And they committed great blasphemies]. This may refer to the
idolatry just described, but it is more natural to refer it to the
general faithless attitude of early Israel toward God. — 19.
And thou by reason of thy abundant compassion didst not abandon
them in the desert], evidence of the long suffering of God as de-
// scribed in v. ^^ — 20. Thy good spirit thou gavest to make them
wise]. A Greek text has the more common holy spirit. There
is no reference to this gift in the Pentateuch, for Nu. ii'^^ deals
with quite another matter, but it is in harmony with the later
conception, as we find the same idea in Is. 63". — 21. This
verse is a free quotation of passages in Dt. 8^- ^, v. Dr. Dt.
The common rendering "swell" is not so good as "blister" as
a description of the trouble caused to the feet by long marches.
The actual hunger, thirst, and other privations of the desert
were decidedly minimised by those who looked back to them
from a later period of time. — 22. The narrative jumps now to
the time when Israel emerged from the desert and began the
permanent conquest of the land. The kingdoms and peoples are
explained to be the two districts conquered on the east of the
Jordan, while still under Moses' leadership. Thou didst allot
them [the kingdoms and peoples] to a corner] is interpreted to
mean "into every corner" (BDB), i. e., the land was divided
to its utmost extent. The rendering of EV®. "after their por-
tion" is unjustifiable. But the sense is vague at best, and the
phrase needless; therefore it is better to read with (& allot to
them. — ^The text is badly confused in the following: and they
took possession of the land of Sihon [and the land of] the king of
Eeshbon], The bracketed words are an accidental repetition.
For the history v. Nu. 21. — 23. And their sons thou didst multiply
like the stars of heaven] is a reference to the promise to Abraham,
Gn. 15^ 22^^ 26^ But this passage may come from Dt. i^".
With V. ^ we are brought to the conquest of Canaan and so to
the period after Moses. — 24. Their kings and the peoples of the
lands to do with them according to their [Israel's] pleasure]. The
theory that Joshua exterminated the whole body of Canaan-
ites (Jos. 1-12) finds no reflection here. — 25. The expressions
are for the most part taken from Dt. : fortified cities, 3 5, houses
f
NEHEMIAH 8-IO 369
full of everything good, cisterns [already] hewn, vineyards and olive-
yards, is condensed from 6"; fat land occurs in Nu. 1320 with
a different word for "land." — 26. And have cast thy law behind
their back]. We find references to disobedient persons casting
God behind the back, i K. 14' Ez. 23^5. The phrase is
equivalent to turning the back to the law (c/. Je. 2"), and so
disregarding it. It is interesting to note the late conception
which puts the law where earlier writers put God. — Thy proph-
ets [standing first for emphasis] who testified against them to turn
them back to thee, they have slain]. Elsewhere in OT. this crime
is cited only by Elijah, i K. 19^"; it is an offence emphasised in
NT., Mt. 512 2331-37 Lu. II™ 1333 Acts 7^2 Rom. ii3 Rev. i6« iS^*.
The slaying of the prophets was a peculiarly obnoxious crime,
because they were executing the will of Yahweh (Je. 26"). —
27. God's efforts being thwarted, punishment was inflicted:
thou didst give them into the hand [power] of their tormentors, and
they tormented them, and in the time of their torment they cried
unto thee], so we may reproduce the word-play of the original.
The reference is not to any specific invasion, but is a general
survey of the early period as portrayed in Ju. The moralising
here is very like that of the editor of Ju. 2" ^•, et pass. — And
thou didst hear from heaven]. Emphasis is laid upon the fact,
as the speaker reads the history, that whenever Israel cried in
distress God gave relief. — And according to thy abundant com-
passions as [v. "] thou didst give saviours]. The saviours are
called "judges" (Ju. 2^^-^^); they were the warlike heroes
Ehud, Jerubbaal, et al. — 28. But when they had a respite], as
soon as the pimishment was withdrawn and conditions were fa-
vourable, they again did evil before thee, and thou didst abandon
them in the hand of their enemies]. The idea is that Israel was
held up by God's hand, and as soon as he let go, setting the
enemy free to act, then Israel was no match for the foe. There
follows a repetition of the story of the people's distressful cry
and Yahweh's resumed intervention. — Thou didst deliver them
according to thy compassions many times], "Many times," as
EV*., is impossible on any just principles of Hebrew syntax.
"Many" or "abundant" must qualify "compassions" as in
24
370 EZRA-NEHEMIAH
yy^ 19. 27_ "Times" is lacking in most Greek texts, and where
it occurs it introduces v. ^s. "Many times" does not fit in with
the idea. The point is that each time when the people cried Yah-
weh delivered them. What we should rather expect is from their
enemies. — 29 . And thou didst testify against them] by the mouth
of the prophets, as v. ^^ Here the object is to bring them back
to thy law], but in v. ^^ to thee. God and the law are practically
identified in respect to Israel's obedience. — Which a man shall
do and live by them] is a quotation from Lv. i8^ with the usual
slight inaccuracies. — 30. The first clause is difficult; EV^. have:
"Many years thou didst bear with them" as in ^^. The other
Vrss. render Uterally. Ryle supposes an object, "mercy," to
be omitted, "prolong" being equivalent to "prolong mercy."
But in Ps. 36*° 101^2 the object is foimd. Such a sense is suit-
able. The passage may be rendered : thou didst draw many years
unto them, i. e., a, long-suffering God gave them many years of
grace. — And thou didst give them into the hand of the peoples of
the lands] refers to the final catastrophes resulting from long-
continued infidelity, therefore the peoples are the Babylonians.
32. And now]. The speaker leaps from historic retrospect
to the present consequences of the facts stated above. — Our
God, the great, the mighty and the terrible God, keeping covenant
and mercy]. A good instance of the late usage showing a fond-
ness for a long list of divine attributes. — Let not all the hardship
which has found [befallen] us seem little before thee]. The; word
hardship is almost technical like "the exile," referring espe-
cially to the bondage in Egypt, Nu. 20". The plea is that God
would not minimise the humiliation which his people endured.
These hardships had befallen us, our kings, our princes, and our
priests, and our prophets, and our fathers, and all thy people].
The long catalogue is made to emphasise the extent of the hard-
ships which God is asked not to underestimate. — 33. But thou
art innocent [literally, righteous] in regard to all that has come upon
us]. Great as the degradation of Israel, this prophet does not
charge God with injustice. Indeed, the whole passage is meant
to show the singular forbearance of God. — 34. This wickedness
is described now as disobedience of the laws, commandments,
NEHEMIAH 8-IO 37 1
and testimonies, in which wrong the higher classes, kings,
princes, priests, and fathers, were involved as well as the lowly.
—35. And they in their kingdom and in thy great good which thou
gavest to them and in the wide and fat land which thou gavest
before them have not served thee]. This literal rendering brings
out the extreme awkwardness of an accumulation of phrases
such as some of these late writers loved. — And have not turned
from their evil deeds].' The purpose of God in bestowing his
gifts was to make the people righteous as well as prosperous.
— 36. The writer now comes to the clearest description of the
present plight, a description which points insistently to the
miseries of the Greek period. And behold, we are to-day bond-
men; and the land, which thou gavest to our fathers to eat its fruit
and its good, behold we are bondmen upon it]. The good refers
to the general abundant products of the land "flowing with
milk and honey." Israel was familiar with bondage from the
experience in Egypt and in Babylon. Now they are suffering
bondage in the holy land itself. The condition is different
from that of the Persian period, which was regarded as a re-
lief from the bondage in Babylon. — 37. And its abundant yield
goes to the kings whom thou hast placed over us on account of our
sins]. The land is still fruitful, but its wealth enriches only
the foreign kings. — And over our bodies they rule]. Words could
scarcely be found which would make Israel's humiliation deeper.
The word for bodies also means corpse. The bodies of these
bondmen are virtually dead bodies, for the people are the mere
tools of foreign tyrants. — And with our cattle they do according
to their pleasure]. That is, the foreign rulers take what they
want and the nominal owners get what is left. A man might
have great herds, but he could never tell how much benefit
would accrue to him. — And we are in great distress]. Since the
oppressors took Israel's property at will, the yield both of the
soil and of the herd, we may regard the distress as including
dire poverty, though the term also includes the anguish of soul
endured by a liberty-loving people, bearing a galling servitude
3n the land which was theirs by divine gift. Yet there is no
nurmur against the ways of a mysterious Providence. In all
372 EZRA-NEHEMIAH
their bitterness there is only self-reproach. God's hand is plain
in the people's degradation, but his course is abundantly jus-
tified by Israel's sins.
1. DHiSj? nmsi] lacking in (8bax. (gL has xal xivt? Ixl t^c xs(paX^(;
aiTwv = 03''B'N-|-Sj? 'n. — 2. yni] Q5 ol ulof. — ■'ia] (I ulou. — 3. ^1^^] lack-
ing in OJBAN^ — n^yani orn niyat] lacking in CS^an. (gt has ih liia.g'zov
T^? -Jiti^pa? in both clauses. — amnc] (& adds Try xupfy. — mn^S] lacking
in <BB. — 4. Sh'-cip ">j2i] (6 xal u\o\ Ka8[itif)X. — i^JO 'Ja] lacking in (&^,
u\o\ XavavtAX, Xajvevta?!- = ni:j3. — 5. Of the names C^ban has only
'ItjcjoO? xal KaStJLf^X. i- has all the names exc. the two Banis. — oainSx]
d Tbv Osbv -{jfioiv. — onnsi nanD] ^^ -riiq S6^tji; tou ixeputpoutilvou; rd.
1133. — DDnc] is a Polal ptc, the only case of its use. imc, exalting
it, would be better. — n3-i3] (g dyocXXtciaet = nj:-i. — 6. <S prefaces to
MT. xal elxev "Eapotq = Nntj? ncN-'i. — 3>De'ni] lacking in (6ba. — ajoj;]
(gBAN t:^v axfiatv aiTwv = mDj?. — 7. nin^] lacking in (B^. — 0-13N] (g^'i-
A^paafi. as in v. ''. — iin] (g x«ipa? = Y"^^- — 8. nnS'] d adds aOTqi; (6^
adds Euacwv to the list of peoples.— .-inS2] lacking in C|ba«. — For nnS
"iS] rd. lyitSl lS. — 9. hid] epuOpdcv, as always exc. Is. 63", when it stands
for DIN. — 10. D'lnflDi] 01 adds ev Aiyuxtcp. — 15. t^n] 05 I9' t]v. — 17.
o-iica] (&^ Iv A?YUTUT(p = anXD3. — 20. nir^r]] ^^ Sycov. — 21. mon xS]
051- xal oix exeSs^OTiaav p^fxaTOc;, reading lan -i3n;:3.— 22. nsaS] dBA><
oOtoTc; = anS, OJ^- eEg xpoawxov = a^asS.— 23f. in^*^ • • • ^i^S] (gBAN has
only Y.a\ lxX-r5pov6pnf]ffav iuT-^v. — "an yM<n] 05 y^v twv Xavavafwv. — 25.
njcc HDiNi] lacking in OJban', — 25. noisn] ^^ adds ou<; oix l^£XaT6-
(ATjaav = i3sn nS la'vS as Dt. 6". — 28. ain>'] lacking in OJ^an. 05^ has
xal Iv xatpotq as beginning of v. "'. For mai] we should rd. a''3-in, as
vv. 19. 27. 31. — DTi;?] may be a corruption of an>nxD. There is no possible
legitimate construction of the text as it stands. — 29. ^^\''^^ nnni] lack-
ing in dBA»<.— 31, Sn] Cljaxupd?, so Sxn in v. ".—35. ani3'?Dc] 01 ^a-
aiksicf aou. — 36 f. n3iD . . . nara-riNi] lacking in OJban.
10 (EV. 9^^-10^^). A list of names on a sealed tablet and
an agreement to provide supplies for the temple-worship.
The c. is written in the first p. pi. The expression "our princes,
our Lev., our pr." is striking, and the ending is in perfect accord: "we
did not neglect the house of our God." This construction is lost oc-
casionally. V. 2' begins with third p., but the text shades off into the
first p. again in v. 29 1. go again in v. â– ">, the original form being resumed
at the end. The passage is therefore neither from N. nor the Chr.
To any one carefully studying the characteristics of N. no argument
is needed to show that the governor had no part in this composition.
We miss altogether his sharp, brief, and clear expressions. I am per-
NEHEMIAH 8-IO 373
suaded that the Chr. never used the first p. exc. occasionally in the
expansion of N. or E., and very little then. Neither is the c. from E.,
for it was not written by a pr. This may be made clear from a single
expression: "We brought the best of our coarse meal ... to the pr.
. . . and the tithe of our land to the Lev.," v. ='. The conclusion is
therefore apparent that the c. is from the pen of a layman of the period,
possibly a prophet, who was a most zealous supporter of the temple-
worship.
The passage has nothing to do with the time of Ezra. In words
there is, indeed, much about the law; but the inevitable result of a care-
ful study shows that the measures taken for the support of the temple
were not the consequence of legal enactment, but of mutual agreement.
It is prob., therefore, that the phrases referring to the law are inter-
polated or to be interpreted in a general sense.
The measures agreed upon are: (i) not to intermarry with foreigners;
(2) not to purchase from those who sold merchandise on the Sabbath
day; (3) to keep the seventh year; (4) to impose a cash tax upon them-
selves for the support of the temple; (5) to provide wood for burning
upon the altar; (6) to offer the first fruits; and (7) to pay the tithes.
Now four of these matters (i, 2, 5, 7) are identical with the reforms
of Neh.'s second administration, c. 13. Indeed, all exc. (3) are prac-
tically covered by those reforms. The most fitting place for this c,
therefore, is found by placing it as a sequel to c. 13. Neh.'s habit
was to put the people imder a solemn pledge to continue the right
course instituted by him, 5'^ 1325, We have here a story, by one of
the participants, of the measures taken by the people to perpetuate
Neh.'s reforms. The lists of names in their present forms are all sus-
picious.
It is easy to see how the c. came to be misplaced. By its structure,
being in first p. pi., it has an external association with the long prayer
in c. 9. By its devotion to the cult, and by the measures taken to
maintain it, which could easily be connected with the keeping of the
law, it afforded an easy sequel to the story of Ezra's promulgation of
the law. In the original form this c. follows the Deut. law, which was,
of course, well known before Ezra; indeed, it is the basis of Neh.'s
reforms. The law-book of Ezra was not Dt., but either the priestly
law or the whole Pentateuch.
On the character of these regulations, esp. in relation to the Priest
Code, V. Kost."«-, GAS. Jer. i,'" '■, Schurer, Jewish People, div. ii,
vol. i,"9 «-.
lO'"""^. A list of priests, Levites, and chiefs upon a sealed
record. — 1. And in all this] is inserted by the Chronicler to
make a connection with the preceding, cf. 13®, "and in all this
374 EZRA-NEHEMIAH
time"; but the connection will scarcely hold here. The usual
conception is that the phrase means in view of this, i. e., the
condition described in 9^-^^.
We make a sure covenant] RV. The phrase is difficult, but it is
hard to get this meaning, as "covenant" is lacking in l|. The words
literally mean we are cutting support, and "cut" is not equivalent to
"make a covenant"; n:DX occurs elsw. only in 11 2', where it is a txt.
err. By changing the pointing the word would mean truly or accu-
rately. But a conception like "pledging faith" (BDB.) does not fit
in here at all. We should render, we are engraving correctly, referring
to the list of names, and thus the word ninx is removed from the Heb.
lexicon. Thus understood, the phrase prepares the way for what
follows, and writing upon the sealed (record)]. This is very different
from the usual translation. "Seal unto it," RV., or "are at the seal-
ing," RV."» in V. 2, cannot be wrung from the text. The idea of at-
testing an agreement to obey the law which had been rd. is as early
as (&, but it comes from wresting an impossible mng. from misunder-
stood words. Indeed, this conception may be as old as the Chr.'s
editing. The conj. "and" must be omitted before "upon." As in
Je. 32'* ainn is the part of a clay cylinder or tablet which is sealed up
or covered with an outer envelope. The writer gives the list of names
which they wrote upon the inner part of the cylinder. For what pur-
pose the record was made we are not informed, but the character and
size of the list forbid our thinking of a catalogue of people who were
inspired by Ezra to subscribe to an agreement to obey the law.
Our princes, our Levites, our priests] is made the subject of
a non-existent verb in the Vrss., ancient and modern. The
words may possibly be interpreted as appositives to "me,"
but are more likely mere headings to the list of names which
, follows. The words describe the composition of that list,
though in reverse order.
2-9. The list of priests. — At the head stands in our text Neh. the
governor the son of Hachaliah. The doubled specification identifies him
with the wall-builder, but his name does not fit in a catalogue of pr.,
and may be an interpolation here. The official title is not found in
the best Gk. Vrss., evidence of a growth. There is a list of 22 priestly
names, many of which are common to other catalogues. The absence
of Eliashib's name has caused much discussion (Ryle, Canon, ^^). It
is either an accidental omission or the event belongs to the high priest-
NEHEMIAH 8-IO 375
hood of his successor. 10-14. The list of Levites. — There are 17
names, but there are grave uncertainties about the text. — 10. Jes. the
son of Azaniah] is thus differentiated from the contemporary of Zer., but
it is the same Jes. as in other groups of Lev. — Of the sons of Henadad],
V. Ezr. 3'. — 11. Aitd their brethren] often recurs in Levitical Hsts, and
generally is interjected awkwardly as here. The implication seems to
be that the names which follow are the brethren of Jes. Binuni, and
Kadmiel. It is not clear whether the relationship is of blood or of
office. 15-28. The list of princes. — They are called here heads of the
people, a title equivalent to the more common heads of the fathers,
Ezr. i^ Many of these names recur in the list, Ezr. 2. On the names
V. Gray, Heb. Pr. NA'* "-, Sm. Listen,'^
1. mr] (6 TouTot?. — Dinnn-7>'] ^ IxtafppaYfi^ouotv = icnn^i. But as this
is the only occurrence of this compound in (6 (save that <8^ has it in
V. '), and as we find in v. ^ exl twv acppaYt?^6vT(i)v, it is easy to find in the
prefix i%i an attestation of the Sy of MT. That is the correct reading.
onn might mean "to attest by seal," as given in BDB., but how that
can be worked into a pass, with a prep, is incomprehensible, v. s. (IS
does, however, attest the pi. in both cases (aiDinn as v.'). The same
form must belong to both places, and the sg. is preferable. — 2. NntS'inn]
lacking in (S^ax^ Jq l Jt is an obvious insertion, as we find a conj.
6xal 'AQxpaaaQ&q. — 11. DH^nx] ^ ol dtSeXqpol a^Tou. — NCD^Sp] (gB Kotvra.
The five names following this are wanting in (S^. — 14. ij'':a '>:3] C|b>«
olol Bevta[i.etv (BavouottacAj Bavouta^). — 15 f. ^J3 'ij] (i»B ulol Bavc. ^
has only ulbc. Here the names in <8 are confused in division as in
V. ^ B has Bavc aq FaS p-QSac s Aavta. — 20. iJu] Qr. i2i, (|bn Bwvat
(■•jia), Nw^atAi-. — 22. yni] lacking in (S^, leSSouxA. — 25 f . As in vv. * '•
" '• there is confusion here. (&^ has $aSa etc; aw Btjx paoune aa Bav«
(tot Aaoftot.
29 f . The compact to obey certain requirements of the law. The
whole of V. 29 is the subject of the verb in v. ^. To get the
sense the whole must be taken together : the rest of the people,
the priests, the Levites, the porters, the singers, the Nethinim and
every one who had separated himself from the peoples of the lands
unto the law of God, their wives, their sons and their daughters,
every one knowing how to understand (30) adhering to their breth-
ren, their chiefs, and coming under a curse and an oath to walk in
the law of God, which was given by the hand of Moses the servant
of God, and to observe and do all the commandments of Yahweh
our God and his judgments and his statutes]. This long state-
376 EZRA-NEHEMIAH
ment in ^ lacks a finite verb, and can therefore hardly be in
its original form, unless it was a part of a still longer sentence
the rest of which does not appear here. It is like much other
work from the pen of the Chronicler. Kost. notes that the
people accept not a new law, but an old one (Wied.^'^). — Every
one knowing how to understand] is an appositive to sons and
daughters {v. 8^). — 30. Adhering unto their brethren] implies that
this large group were following the lead of others in taking
an oath to obey the law. But it is singular to find the whole
body of temple ofl&cers among the last ones to subscribe to the
law. The words may equally well be rendered prevailing upon
their brethren, and thus the situation would be reversed and
this list would give the leaders in the oath of subscription a
more natural situation. — Their chiefs] stands in opposition to
their brethren and limits the meaning too closely, especially if
the sense above given is correct. — Yahweh our Lord] is an error.
The passage is Elohistic, God occurring three times; it is written
in the third person throughout, and we should have here simply
God. Yahweh is wanting in two Greek mss.
j^Q3i-4o^ The regulations agreed upon. — This is in the
first person and represents the people's point of view, as the
priests and Levites are spoken of in the third person. It is a
different source from w. ^9 f-. — 31. And that we will not give
our daughters]. This shows that we are dealing with the specific
forms of an agreement, and that the proper introduction has
been lost in the Chronicler's arrangement. — 32. And the peoples
of the land who are bringing wares and all grains on the sabbath
day to sell, we will not take from them on the sabbath nor on a
holy day]. This also connects with 13^^ ^^ Here only for-
eigners are violating the Sabbath, while in 13^^ ^- Judeans are
guilty, though only Tyrians are named as selling wares in
Jerusalem on the Sabbath. But the point here is the agreement
not to buy on the Sabbath. — And we will forego the yth year and
every debt]. The law that no harvest should be gathered in the
7th year is found in the earliest code, Ex. 23^° f-, a law greatly
elaborated in the later codes, Dt. 15^-" Lv. 25^-^ The remis-
sion of the debts is the one obligation of the 7th year in Dt.,
NEHEMIAH 8-IO 377
hence the remission of the 7 th year may here refer to debts and
not to land. — In the passage following we come into a different
atmosphere. — 33. And we established over us commmidments].
The plain inference is rather startling that the people them-
selves made ordinances to do the things prescribed in the law.
It seems a necessary implication that we are here dealing with
the origin of these laws. — To place upon ourselves the third of a
shekel yearly for the service of the house of our God], The temple
tax according to the law was a half-shekel, Ex. 30" 36^8 Mt.
172^ Jos. BJ. vii, 6, 6. The provision made at this time by
the people was c|,fterward apparently raised, a further evidence
that we are here dealing with origins. — 34 is a statement of
the purposes for which the temple tax was to be employed.
It looks like an elaboration by the Chronicler. — For the show-
bread], literally, the bread of the row, because this bread was ar-
ranged in two rows of six cakes each, Lv. 24^ f-. The keeping
of bread at the sanctuary is at least as old as David, i S. 21^-^.
The term show-bread is due to Tindale's rendering D'"J3 DPI?, Ex.
25'", "bread of presence," "bread to show Yahweh," v. DB. s. v.
— For the continual meal-offering], a vegetable offering in con-
tradistinction to the common animal sacrifices. The reference
must be to the morning and evening sacrifices of a lamb, a
meal-offering accompanying it, Ex. 29^^ ^- Nu. 28' ^•. — And all
the work of the house of our God]. This use of the temple tax has
already been specified in v. '', but with service in place of work.
The latter term in our books usually refers to the building, the
term service to the ritual. The phrase scarcely belongs here.
In 2 Ch. 24^- ^ we have a reference to this tax as collected for
the restoration of the temple imder King Joash. Is it possible
that we have here a fragment of the temple-building story
which has been misplaced? — 35. And we cast the lots with respect
to the wood-offering]. The purpose of the lots must have been
to determine the order in which certain ones should supply the
wood required to burn upon the altar of Yahweh. Those who
joined in the lot were the priests, the Levites and the people]. The
order of the words makes the text suspicious, and the classing
of the priests as wood-carriers is a further indication that these
378 EZRA-NEHEMIAH
words do not belong to the text. But the Chronicler cannot
be credited with this phrase, for he certainly would not have
assigned such work to priests. — At appointed times yearly].
From this it would appear that the lots determined who were
to perform the duty for a year, bringing the wood at such times
as it was needed. — As it is written in the law]. The only place
in the law to which this can refer is Lv. 6", providing that the
priest shall burn wood on the fire every morning and never let
the fire go out. The wood was brought to the temple to burn
upon the altar of Yahweh our God as it is written in the law. —
36 f. And to bring in]. The infinitive requires us to connect
this with the casting of lots, v. ^^ But manifestly the people
could not cast lots to determine who was to do what the law
required every man to do. A better connection would be with
V. ^, where the people took an oath to obey the law. The con-
nection is broken by the insertion of alien fragments. The
specification covers the first fruits of the land, of the fruit of
every tree [as v. ^^, q. v.], of the sons and of the cattle, of the herds
and of the flocks]. The fruits of the ground and of the trees
were to be brought in yearly, the others, of course, whenever
a first birth occurred. The vegetable offerings were to be
brought in for the house of Yahweh] the only place where
Yahweh occurs in this passage — presumably for the meal or
vegetable offering. The animal offerings were to be brought
to the house of our God to the priests who minister in the house of
our God]. The law of the first fruits of the ground is old, Ex.
22", cf. Dt. 26^ ^•. For the fruits of the tree Ryle refers to
Nu. 18^2 f.^ but that passage deals with the products of the land,
which there belong to the priest. — As it is written in the law] is
out of place as the passage stands. But the words which fol-
low, "herds and flocks," are included in cattle and are doubt-
less a marginal gloss which has crept into the text. The law
then embraces all the offerings of the first-born. — 38. And the
best [or first fruits] of our coarse meal, and our offerings, and the
fruit of every tree, wine and oil, we brought in for the priests to
the chambers of the house of our God]. These offerings are not
different in kind from those enumerated above, w. ^^ *•. The
NEHEMIAH 8-1 379
first fruits are enumerated there as well as here, but in this
case the offerings are for the use of the priests, and so were
brought to the store chambers of the temple, whereas those
above were brought to the temple, presimiably for sacrificial
purposes. In the oldest times there was a somewhat vague
line dividing what the priest might have for his own use from
what belonged to the temple, v. 1 S. 2^' ^•. The coarse meal is
prescribed in Nu. 152" in the same words as here, but it was to
be lifted up (as a so-called heave-offering) to Yahweh. — And
the tithe of our land [we brought] to the Levites]. The tithe both
of the land and tree is declared to be Yahweh's in Lv. 27'". — And
they are the Levites who are collecting the tithes in all the cities of
our labour]. "Cities of our tillage," RV., is not very happy.
The city is scarcely the place for collecting the tithes of the
land. The meaning may be the hamlets in the midst of the
agricultural districts. — 39. The priest the son of Aaron] is a
definition which sharply marks the division of priests and
Levites as belonging to separate classes. — Was with the Levites,
when the Levites collected [or levied] the tithes]. If the Levites
went about the country collecting tithes, as we may infer from
V. ^^ a priest went with them, not for the purpose of seeing
that the full collections were made, but to make sure that a
tenth of the tithe was brought to the temple and placed at the
disposal of the priests. This part of the tithes was brought
to the chambers of the house of the treasury], according to MT.
But it is better to follow a Greek text and read house of God.
The chambers were the store-rooms at the temple. There was
no separate building used as a sacred treasury; the rooms all
around the holy edifice sufficed for that purpose. — 40. The
offering of the corn, the wine and the oil], which here is brought
to the temple by both Levites and laymen, is the tithe described
in the preceding verses. — There were the vessels of the sanctuary],
the receptacles used for the storage of the contributions brought
in for sacred use. — The priests who minister], or the officiating
priests who resided in the temple chambers during their term
of service, or, in military parlance, tour of duty. — And we did
not neglect the house of our God] is the ending of the original
380 EZRA-NEHEMIAH
document which described the plans adopted by the people to
furnish the temple with supplies needed for the sacrifices.
29. panl (5 xal auvfwv. — 30. Dn^nnx] (5 xaxi^piaavTO txiiouq = aniN,
On the basis of this text Houtsma proposes mND3 and renders the
passage: "they bound themselves for their brethren through a curse"
{ZAW. 1907,"). — mm ruse] <S^ ev-uoXa? t)[jlwv. This must be an ac-
cidental abr. of xupi'ou tou Oeou -^[awv as found in (8^. — vpni] lacking in
C|B_ — 31, jpj ii^ -itt'N'i] 05 x,al Tou [ii] Souvat and so making this a part
of the subscription beginning, ace. to 05, with naSS. The rendering
is interpretative rather than a witness of a txt. err. — 32. n!S'd] 05^ has
a dup. : Y.a\ xp^o? [hb^d Dt. 15= '•] xal dcxafinrjatv. Ntt'D occurs only 5'- >»,
where it has the mng. of usury or interest. "Usury of every hand" is
improbable unless Ti means kind. In Dt. 15' we have n> ne>a Sj?3 Va,
"every possessor of a loan of his hand," i. e., "creditor." The law re-
quired not merely the remission of interest but of the debt, and perhaps
NCD is everywhere to be interpreted as the equivalent of ntrn, so here
"loan of every hand" would be naturally borrowed from Dt. — 33.
iinD;?ni] (g^, xa> 'KOi-f]ao[Lsv, ai;TQao[jt.ev*<A, — 34. nDxSn] 05 epyot, but maj?,
v.", SouXefavBAN, XaTpet'otvi-. — 35. a^syn tanp-Si'] (g xepl xX'^pou ^oXo-
(foplctq. — mina] (B^ h ^t^Xfy. — pnp] 13" elsw. always pi|X The point-
ing here must be an error. Two words are not required for the same
thing. — 36. na S3]. Sa is lacking in (B^^^, as MT. in v. 's.— nin^] lack-
ing in 05'^'*. — 38. u^nDn;>] 05 akwv f)[Awv always = tJT in Ne. — irnnnni]
lacking in (B^^^, (ixapz(i<; rjtxwvi-.— 39 . Point ic'ja] BDB. or after v.»
iB-jn.. — Tii.sn] 05"^ TOU Oeou.
INDEXES,
INDEXES.
I. ENGLISH.
ACHMETHA, 141.
Adar, 149.
Ahava, 320.
Amen, 244.
Answer, 340.
Aramaic sources, 18 jf.
Artaxerxes I, 41^.
Artaxerxes II, AT jf-
Ashdodite, 299/.
Asnappar, 166, 172.
Assembly, 353 /.
Associates, 165.
Barzillai, 93.
Benjamin, 65.
Beth-hakkarem, 214.
Bo 
