'Geological st*^^^ B34q 15 on tlje Palg Scriptiius of ilit #Itr mxH UNDER THE EDITORSHIP OF The Rev. CHARLES AUGUSTUS BRIGGS, D.D, Sometime Professor of Theological Encyclopedia and Symbolics Union Theological Seminary, New York The Rev. SAMUEL ROLLES DRIVER, D.D. Regius Professor of Hebrew, Oxford The Rev. ALFRED PLUMMER, M.A., D.D. L»te Master of University College, Durhmm J THE BOOKS OF EZRA-NEHEMIAH The International Critical Commentary CRITICAL AND EXEGETICAL COMMENTARY ON THE BOOKS OF EZRA AND WeHEMIAH BY V LORING W. BATTEN, Ph.D., S.T.D. PSOFESSOK OF THE LITERATURE AND INTERPRETATION OF THE OLD TESTAMENT, GENERAL THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY, NEW YORK NEW YORK CHARLES SCRIBNER'S SONS Copyright, 1913, by CHARLES SCRIBNER'S SONS Published September, 1913 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- bility. 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 VIU 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 Ust 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 Seminary, 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 24 § 10. The Date of Ezra's Mission 28 § II. The History of the Persian Period 30 § 12. Chapter and Verse Divisions 52 § 13. Literature 52 COMMENTARY ON Ezra i 55 Ezra 2'-" 71 Ezra 2"'-4' 103 EzRA4"''-6" 128 Ezra 6"-^'' 151 Ezra 4*'* 15s Ezra 4'-2<» 160 Nehemiah I, 2 182 Nehemiah 3»-'« 206 Nehemiah 3"-4>' 224 Nehemiah 5 237 Nehemiah 6 249 Nehemiah 7>-» 262 Nehemiah ii 266 iz X CONTENTS PAGE Nehemiah i2'-'« 37s Nehemiah i2"-« 279 Nehemiah 12"-" 283 Nehemiah 13 286 Ezra 7-10 303 Nehemiah 8-10 352 INDEX 381 ABBREVIATIONS. I. TEXTS AND VERSIONS. ARV. = American Revised Ver- sion. AV. = Authorised Version. BD. = Baer and Delitzsch, He- brew text. Chr. = The Chronicler, author of Ch.-Ezr.-Ne. E. Esd. Esd_B,AotL = Memoirs of Ezra. = The Greek text known as I Esdras. The 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. (K = Greek Septuagint Ver- sion. In Ezr.-Ne. this always means 2 Esdras as distinguished from I Esdras. C5* = The Alexandrine text. (gB = Vatican text of Swete. (gx = The Sinaitic text. (§'- = The Lucian text; ed. La- garde. ^ = Hebrew consonantal text. 3 = Latin Version of Jerome. J = Judaic sources of the Hexateuch. Kt. = Knhib, 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.™ = The margin of the Re- vised Version. B = The Vulgate Version. Vrss. = Versions, usually an- cient. xu ABBREVIATIONS II. BOOKS OF THE OLD AND NEW TESTAMENTS. Am. = Amos. Je. = Jeremiah. Apocr. = Apocrypha, Apocry- Jn. = John. phal. Jo. = Joel. Jos. = Joshua. I, 2 Ch. = I, 2 Chronicles. Ju. = Judges. Dn. = Daniel. I, 2K. = 1, 2 Kings. Dt. = Deuteronomy. Lv. = Leviticus. Est. = Esther. I, 2 Mac . = I, 2 Maccabees. Ex. = Exodus. Mai. = Malachi. Ez. = Ezekiel. Ezr. = Ezra. Na. = Nahum. Ne. = Nehemiah. Gn. = Genesis. Nu. = Numbers. Ps. = Psalms. Hg. = Haggai. I, 2S. = 1,2 Samuel. Is. = early parts of Isaiah. Is.' = exilic parts of Isaiah. Zc. = Zechariah. Is.» = postexilic parts of Isaiah. Zp. = Zephaniah. III. AUTHORS AND WRITINGS. BDB. = Hebrew and English Dr.'""- = 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.B = Gesenius, Heb. Lex. ed. Br.P^ = Psalms, ICC. Buhl. Bud. = K. Budde. Ges.5 = his Heb. Gram. ed. Kautzsch. Che. = T. K. Cheyne. Curt. DB. = Curtis, Chron. ICC. = Hastings' Dictionary of ICC. = International Critical Commentary. the Bible. JBL. = Journal of Biblical Lit- De. = Friederic Delitzsch. erature. ABBREVIATIONS XllI Jer. = Jerome. Seis. = Seisenberger, Esd. Neh. Jos. = Fl. Josephus. u. Est. Sieg. = Siegfried, Esr., Neh. u. Kost. = Kosters, Wiederher- Est. slellung. Sm. = R. Smend. Kue. = A. Kuenen. Sta. = B. Stade, Bib. Theol. des A.T. Lag. = P. de Lagarde. Str. = Strack, Gram, d Bibl.- Mar. = Marti, Bib-Aram. Gram. Aram. Mey. = Meyer, Entstehung. We. = J. Wellhausen. PSBA. = Proc. Soc. Bib. Arch. ZAW. = Zeitschrift f. alttcst. Ryle = Ezr.-Neh. Camb. Bible. Wissenschaft. RS. = W. Robertson Smith. ZMG. = Z. d. detitsck. Morgen- land. Gesellschaft. Sachau = Aram. Pap. u. Ost. atis ZPV. = Z. d. deutsch. Pal. Ve- Elephantine. reins. 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. = &%x^ XsY6ti,£vov, 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 cum, esp. = especially. with. equiv. = equivalent. XIV ABBREVIATIONS el al. — and others, esp. associ- obj. = object. ates. op. cit. = work quoted. et pass. = el passim, and here and opp. = opposite, as opposed to there. or contrasted with. exc. = except. exil. = exilic. P- = person. f. fig. fpl. = feminine. = figurative. = feminine plural. pap. parall. part. = papyrus. = 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. = quod vide. intr. = introduction. rd. = read. Jerus. = Jerusalem. rel. = relative. juss. = jussive. 1. = line. Sam. = Samaria, Samaritans. Lev. = Levite, Levites. sf. = suifix, sufl&xes. 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. = sub 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., w, = verse, verses. p. = 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 sufl&ce for a demonstration: (i) The story of Ezr. is partly in one book, Ezr. 7-10, and partly in the other, Ne. 7^-8^^.* In 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.f 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 - 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'-2<'' a cause of failure. The original sequence was, therefore, i 2'»-43 42-«5, and perhaps Ne. 11'-". 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. 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. 4^-2<»is 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. THE 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 (^ (i S. 1712-31 ij^^-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 Oi 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 1^, 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 216-30 = " 47-24 3^5' = not in MT. 57.ra = Ezr. 2^45 6,7 = " 5,6 8>-9« = " 7-10 9"-55 = Ne. 7 '^812 It will be noted that there is one long addition (3 '-5'). 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 time 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." f •). 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. 2^^-^", 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. 7'2-8i- 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'-"a) 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 arc 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"), as Torrey lias shown (ES-^O, has nothing to do with Heb. history, but the rest (4*^50 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 hst 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 Hst 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 '"-43 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 Esd."). 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 C§>, while the Gk. 2 Esd., usually known as (B, is really Theodotion's translation. Much credit is due to this accomplished scholar for his persistent efl'orts 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 recepius. 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 Ihe Society of Biblical Archceology, 1901-2. 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 MT. 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", y.ad i%iauyfix^i)is(xv = iDDNj. Torrey believes that the surviving fragment came from a Gk. not a Semitic MS., as Ne. S'^ begins ''J'^'h nrai (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" ff-. 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. 8'-'* = Esd. g3'-55 {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 (An(. 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. 1,2, 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. 71- "a ni f-, and finally he describes the provisions for the pr. and Lev. (Ne. 13"-").* 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- abihty 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 puts 4' f- 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 36-" an actual completion of the temple {A>it. 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-^'^-5'. His date for 3'-4^ is the only possible one to be derived from Esd., and his use of 3*-'3 = Esd. 5 "-66 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. (S (e. g., DB. i,"')- 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. 36-13. 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. Rut there is a special reason why that correcting process should be marked in this particular book. 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 politic 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.^" ^■). It has long been sus- pected that Esd. 5'-= 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.i'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 1 3 Cod.'^ to ^, and urges great caution in the use of '-. The caution is wise, and 3'et 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 N. especially there is as a rule very little trouble once the interpolations are recognised. But on the whole MT. is in decidedly bad shape. At times the confusion is so great that the work of the critic is most difficult. In some places there is a wholesale corruption of the text in the interest of the his- torical 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 the 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 OT. 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 1 5 minimum about which all are agreed, but the moment we step beyond that boundary contention arises. The 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 i2"-« 134-31. Berth, and Sieg. exc. 12"-'' -^o-^^-^^, but Sieg. adds II' f- and Dr. adds 13'-". Torrey, on the other extreme, finds N. only in 11-2' 2^^-^ 4'-6'5. 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 Neh. It seems certain that ^^-'^^ is not from N. It has none of the char- acteristics of that document, but is very like other lists in our books, 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 sufficient to reject 2'-3a. I can see no satisfactory evidence against 233-38 616-19 yi-6a j^e-na. exc. v. ". The last passage is not only writ- ten in the first p., but also has numerous characteristics of N. On the other hand, I have no hesitation in rejecting i^-ua^ the major por- tion of Neh.'s prayer, which is too close to a t>T3e 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. In the passage describing the dedication of the walls (12"-"), there are unmistakable traces of N., e. g., in ^i f- as. 4ob^ but a story like this was too tempting to the Chr., and he has so em- bellished 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(1. 4> ff- repeat one another rather awkwardly, an awkwardness much in- creased by the elimination of ^^-^- (ES.^^^). That is quite true, and yet I doubt if any of the passages exc. possibly 333-35 ^an 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 scholars that another important and trustworthy source is found in E. This, it is claimed, includes Ezr. 72^-8^'* 9^-^^; such, at all events, are the conclusion of such competent schol- ars as Driver, Ryle, Cornill, Kosters, Siegfried, and Bertholet. Before discussing the matter further, it is necessary to reduce the space of the memoirs somewhat. First, we must eliminate 8'-", the 1 6 INTRODUCTION list of the heads of the fathers who went up with Ezra. There is noth- ing to suggest E. in the whole passage save the " with me " 'cy in v. '. 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," and in the silence about the temple ofiicers so liberally supplied in 7'. The explanation about the Neth. in 8=° is suspicious; indeed, the whole v. is prob. an addition by the Chr. The same hand prob. produced vv. ^e '■ '<>■ ".35^ for reasons given in the notes. Also gub-is are to be excluded, so that for E. we have 7^"- giS-IS. 21-26. 28 f. 31 f. 36 gl-lla. 13-15^ thOUgh 8'^ iS dub. 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, insisting 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.238-248j cf. Comp. 14 £f. 67 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. (c/. Comp.^^ ^■). He goes so far as to declare deliberately, as the "result of a good deal of hard study," that "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 easil}' recognisable than in the Heb. narrative of Ezr. 7-10 and Ne. 8-10" (ES.-"). 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.'^, 91-' in Esd.^. But we note that the 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 credibility. But the most decisive argument is the relation of the various parts THE MEMOIRS OF EZRA 1 7 of the narrative to each other. It is incredible that Ezr. 7-10 was all written by the same person, the Chr. or any one else whatsoever. In 711 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", Ezr^, 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 consistency. It has been conceded by several scholars, esp. since the publica- tion of Torrey's Composilion (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. 19 10) asserts that the Chr. does not revise his material, that he either incorporates bodily or composes entirely. Torrey cites as an instance the parallel N. which he says the Chr. has practically not revised. My own studies constrain me to dissent from this contention. As a matter of fact, I am persuaded that the Chr. revised his material pretty freely whenever it suited his purpose to do so. I may cite as an impressive instance his change from Yahweh to Satan as the tempter of David (i Ch. 2i» = 28. 24O. (See further evidence in Curt. /«/r.'-"' ")• 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 N. has been tampered with comparatively little. 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. The 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 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^-"^); he furnishes the leader with letters which he seemed to think Neh. had overlooked (27-9a| 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 (7O; 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. 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 actuallj' 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 Aramaic: (i) The correspondence with Artaxerxes, 4^-^^». (2) The history of the rebuilding of the temple, Ezr. ^.^'^^-6^^ (3) The edict of Artaxerxes authorising Ezra's mission, 7^2-26^ As 6^^--2 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^^. It may be, therefore, that before the Chron- icler there was an Aramaic history of this period, which he used to a limited extent. 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. The 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 modern defender of these Aram, documents (£«L'-")- 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) There can be no doubt that the Chr. incorporated the Art. correspondence in 4'-2-j^^, 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 Hg. 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. ^-*- ' '■ '"'. These vv. make a complete and consistent story in themselves, and the other vv. have all the earmarks of the 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 difficult 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'- »■■ ■'. 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. 24 INTRODUCTION (5) The Lists. There is little left but the lists of names. These occupy a liberal space; Ezr. 2 (= Ne. f-'-) S^-^^ ioi«-« Ne. 3I-32 lo^-z* jj4-36 12I-26 are practically nothing else. These hsts 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. He was an expert in genealogies. But it does not follow that he composed all the lists. Lists of names were common in the postex. period, and now we have long lists of Jewish names from Egypt (Sachau, ra/e/w,"-"). 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. S'-'O- It is, at all events, highly prob. that the Chr. merely incorporated lists which he found to his hand. The real work of the Chr. in these books consists, therefore, of edit- ing and compihng. 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. 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. 41-' the Sam., so far from desiring to impede the build- THE SAMARITAN OPPOSITION 25 ing of the temple, sincerely ofifer 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 (S*), 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'-"») 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 no poUtical significance. The Pers. officials kept their hands o£f as long as the Jews were dealing 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"'). 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 efifort 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. a'"-" 3>»- ^17 6i_7i», 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"' 41), and in another To. fails (6^), Sanb. always occurs, twice alone (3" 6^). 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, 1.=', 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.^s. 330). 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."0) but he admits that Sanb. comes forth with an army in a suitable place (42). 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 we must connect THE SAMARITAN OPPOSITION 27 the term with Beth-horon, a town on the border of Sam. (Jos. i6'- »; c/. 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 (61'); 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-Israehte. 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 hostility there is no need to go back to the repulse of the Sam.'s offer to aid in building the temple (Ezr. 4'-0, 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. ("), 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. 12^^), 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 (;<). 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 {AhL xi, 5, 6-8). Before THE DATE OF EZRA S MISSION 29 he takes up the story of Nch. 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. 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. 121"), 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. lo^. The succession of high pr. in Ne. 12^2 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. 12=5 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. (GejcA."''°), 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.'^y 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, toO aXkou ApTasePTo^J (Ant. Ed. Niese, iiij^of-, 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. official in Egypt, and who was probably the same as Hanani, the brother of Neh. (JBL. i9i2,3«). 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.""- "6. 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'-24. 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 (s'O- 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 vv. *-''■ ^ ' ^^^, 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.^* f). 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. 38-13 ig 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 hot 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 {Abh'^^). 34 INTRODUCTION is a tradition going back to Dorotheus, Epiphanius, and others that Hg. was bom in Bab. {Hg. in ICC.")- Mitchell assumes that Zc. came from Bab., with his father Iddo {op. cit.^^, and see note on Ne. ii2<). 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'O- 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 (KAT.^^^). 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 Mene Tekel Upharsin, 1893). In 1.-^ 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 y^t 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, Cim. 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. 48'"). 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 Judaism,'^ '■). 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.=, 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. 325'-", 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 Heb. 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 possibiUties. 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. 5^^), 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. 4>-»), he makes Zer. and the others say they had been appointed to build that temple at first by Cy. and now by Dar. (Afit. 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. 5<7-7i (= Ezr. 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^^-'" = Ezr. 4'-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'-50, 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. a'-^?); 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" ^- 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 follows, 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'-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^. 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^-K 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. 3'" 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"'-43 42«b_5i8^ to which must be added the important fragment found in Esd. 4*^5', 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 (Wied."), 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 4 1 pie and to have the same reUgion. 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 effect- 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. 31= 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. 6i=-'5 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*-*, 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. 4'), 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. ofl&cials. 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 p»opulation, 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 affairs, 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 et 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* f. They are no mere investigators like Tattenai el 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 rebellfous 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^^)^ 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. 6'5, there could have been little left to build after work 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 mihtary escort, trusting in the protection of the Most High (Ezr. 8-1 f) ; 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= 71). 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'f), 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 Uke 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 (13®), 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 text 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 (13'"'); 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 (13-*"=°). 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" (n-nn> nno '^ua), the very same title which Neh. applies to himself (s"). 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 136-31 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-" 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 {i. e., 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. g'); Neh. also plucks out hair, but from the head of the wrong-doers (13-^). It is impossible to think of Ezra saying to the traders: "if you do it again, I will lay my hand upon you" (i3-0- 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 136-31 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, i. e., the occasion of Neh.'s return to Jems.; 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 IT 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. 71- '', 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 t. gu-ia. 2i-2». !8 1. 31 f. as gi-iia. 13-isj and the rest of Ezr. 7-10, and Ne. gi-wot u^ partly if not wholly due to the Chr. 4S INTRODUCTION We turn first to sure ground in E. As said above, 7" shows that we are forced to begin in medias 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 8^0 > he kept his caravan in camp until he had brought from Casiphia a sufficient number of "ministers for the house of God" (Si')- 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. 7"°-8'- is open to grave suspicion, while the later portions of that c, the account of the Feast of Booths (8"-i8) 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 checlied 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 (Gesch. 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 Hst, 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'S as the direct sequel to Ne. 9, 10 {Wied. '"■»''). Torrey with equal confidence places this section, 7"^8", between Ezr. 8 and 9. He gives the following reasons for the transposition (ES.'" *•): (i) To quote his own words: "here is a clear and consist- ent story, the only clear and consistent story dealing with Ezra that 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 91, 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 fiction. 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 {Conip.'^^). 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 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. 1907,1'=). § 12. CHAPTER AND VERSE DIVISIONS. It is unfortunate that in several books of the OT. the EV^. follow H 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. MT. Eng. MT. Eng. HI, 33 IV, I 3 9 II 17 34 2 4 10 12 18 35 3 5 II 13 19 36 4 6 12 14 20 37 5 7 13 15 21 38 6 8 14 16 22 IV. I 7 9 IS 17 23 2 8 10 16 The only other variation is in Ne. 10, where MT. 10' = Eng. 9", 10' = loS 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. Commentaries. 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 Gesch. 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. a}id Neh. in SBOT. 1901. M. Seisenberger, Die Biicher Esd., Neh. u. Est. in LITERATURE 53 Kurzgef. wissensch. Com. 2. d. H. S. dcs A. T. 1901. D. C. Siegfried, Esr., Neh. u. Est. in Handkom. dcs A. T. 1901. A. Bertholet, Die Backer Esr. u. Neh. in Kurzer Handkom. des A. T. 1902. G. Holscher, U. S. A. T. 1910. Monograplis. Kleinert, On the Origin, Elements and Antiquity of the Books of Ezr. atid Neh. 1832. R. Smend, Die Listen d. Biicher Esr. u. Neh. 1881. A. H. Sayce, Int. to Ezr. Neh. and Est. 1885. J. Imbert, Le Te?nple Reconstriiit 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 Etudes sur la Restaur. Julve. 1896. W. H. Kosters, Die Wiederherstellimg Israels in der persischcn Period (from the Dutch Herstel van Israel in het. Perzische Tijdoak), by A. Basedow, 1895. E. Meyer, Die Entstehung des Judenthums, 1896. Bertholet, Die Stellung der Israeliten u. d. Jtiden z. d. Fremden, 1896. E. Sellin, Serubbabel, 1898; Sttidien z. Entstehungsgeschichte der jiid. Gemeinde, 1901. T. K. Cheyne, Jewish Religious 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 Wieder her stellung 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. literarkritik Fragen in Esr. 1-6 (in Nikel's Alttest. Abhandl. 11, 5), 19 10. C. C. Torrey, Comp. and Hist. Value of Ezr. -Neh. (Beihefte zur ZAW.), 1896; Ezra Studies, 1910. Apparatus for Text. Crit. of Ckr.- Ezr.-Neh. (Harper Studies). Articles. H. Winckler, "Die Zeit der Herstellung Judas"; "Nehemias Reform." Alt. Forsch. H, 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. n. Krit. 1867. E. Nestle, "Marginalien u. Materilien," =3-31, 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, "Uber die Uberlieferung u. d. text-krit. Werth des dritten Esrabuchs," ZAW. i899,=-'<. 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.-Nch."; " Ezr."; " Nch." Hast. DB. Rosters, "Ezr.-Neh." EB. J. V. Prasck, "Kambj'ses u. d. Ubcrlicferung 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, Gesammelte Abhandlungen,-^'--^*, 1894. B. Stade, Bibl. Theologie des A.T.^^^-^'"^, 1905. Addis, Ezra and the Issue of the La-w, Documents of the Hexateuch, II,''' f^- Robertson, Poetry and Religion of the Psalms, c. 5. Marquart, Fundamente Israel, u. jiid. Geschichte, 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.^"'-'^. H. L. Strack, Grammatik des B. Aram.*, 1905. K. Marti, Kurzgef. Gram, der B.-Aram. Sprache, 1896. E. Kautzsch, Grammatik des B. Aram. 1884. Sachau, Aramdische Papyri und Oslraka aus Elephantine, 191 1. C. R. Brown, An Aramaic Method, 1884. Schulthess, Miscellen ziim Bibl. Aram. ZAW. 1902,'== «■ 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. 2I-". 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. pohcy 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. !-<• ' f- '"' are from a Heb. source, the rest by the Chr. {Intr.%^*). 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. 1. And in the first year of Cyrus]. Cyrus had ascended the throne in 559 e.g. 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 56 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. 3621 there is a reference to the fulfihnent 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= f- " 44=' 450- 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, Cun. Parol, ^'^°). 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, JerM). 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 Cyrus 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. 2^2) . — 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- braced regions where there were no Jews. The Hebrews were apparently settled in districts and were pretty well localised. The writer seems to have ignored any realm of Cyrus except his latest conquest. The edict would naturally be sent only to the Jewish colonies in Babylonia. — And also in writing]. These words imply that the proclamation was oral, and are intended to show that the Chronicler had a written source for his version of the edict. — Saying, better as j allows. The literal transla- tion mars the Scriptures sadly, recurring hundreds of times, and proving a stumbling-block in reading aloud. — 2. All the king- doms of the world]. With the conquest of Babylon, all its de- pendencies fell to Cyrus, and his became a vast empire, extend- ing from Elam on the east to the Mediterranean on the west. This did not cover all the countries of the world, but the exag- geration is more natural for Cyrus than for a Jewish writer, for on the cylinder inscription he calls himself "the king of the four quarters 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*- 2°). 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 lifetime; 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. igio. 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 Cod. 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. ». 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 (S, 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'-^ claiming to be a copy of an original found at Ecbatana. The two Vrss. dififer 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, et 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.»" ^■); 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^ f). In the Heb. edict, on the other hand, there is no note of improba- bihty, 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" (PS."). The Chr. would not have said " he is the God who is 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. — njc] st. cstr. before a prep. (c/. Ges.^ 130). — ty-iio] Pers. KftruS, Bab. KtiraS, whence Rawlinson would point v-\p. — We must rd. m'??'?] since nji is the obj. The mng. lo fulfil a prediction is not found elsw., but the context requires that sense here; cf. 2 Ch. 36=', where niNSoS has the same mng. — ■'sa] 2 Ch. 36== has iflJ, preferred by Guthe, Torrey, et al. Esd. lv oTdtAocTt, but 05 supports MT. Both forms are common, but •'od is better when utter- 62 EZRA-NEHEMIAH ance is implied (so Ryle). — nn T'^jh], only in late writers, v.', Hg. i'< I Ch. 5" 2 Ch. 2i>«; but vb. alone has same mng. in Is. 41'- " 45", all referring to Cy., and influencing our author {cf. Mar. Jes. on 41'). — Vip-nayi] 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. 30' the term is used where runners carry letters from Hezekiah. — anoD^] would mean here in a written form, as (K^ (in 2 Ch. 36=2) lv X6-]foc<; ypa^^?, but this sense is not found elsw. As the words are unnecessary and as "icnV goes back to the proclama- tion we suspect a gl. 2. "h jnj noS^c] Obj. first for emph. Ges.* '« '• Esd. I[il dvlSec^sv paatX^a, 3 Esd. me constituit regent, RV. "hath made me king," better proclaimed me king. After Esd. i^^- " = 2 Ch. 36'- * this expression would represent ■'jD^Ssn, lacking So and jnj. 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 ^nSx mni] Esd. xipio? [+ b 6ebq^, xupios'^] Tou 'lapaTjX y.ijptoi; 6 uyta-roi;. This suggests onD ^hSn as in Mi. 6*. Guthe follows this text, but it may well be a Jewish amplification — H^rt^]. The use of the pron. emphasises the fact of Yahweh's directing Cy. to build the house. — ^'"'y npe] 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 Ij-^txijvgv 5x01, he has given me a sign, prob. by the word of his prophet, showing again a closer dependence upon Is.' ; la-^[jLT)vev, however, usually represents >nn, shout. In Is. 442* Cy. is called ^P">, and in view of the close relationship of that passage to our text, it is tempting to propose here 'rpin, he has made me shepherd. 3. This v. is obscure and difficult. D33 barely admits of interpre- tation. The sf. in icy and vnVs refer, one to Yahweh and the other to ^D, a dub. construction; the phrase may his God be with him is in an awkward place; the Chr. has nini for 'ri''; the last clause is superfluous where it stands; and which is in Judah is tautologous after v. ». Turn- ing to the Vrss. we find in modem editions of (S has 7.al la-rat; hy>y is dva^^acTat^*, dva^TjTu^. ®^ ends with nS^'n^S. ■*■ lacks ni,T> after t\-<2. , it follows that we must rd. '•aj?, or possibly dj;. In the first case we have only the common change of ^ to 1; in the latter ■> was attached to the vb. when T\yr\^ was changed to "'H'' (z). CS, 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, la'x is corrected after Esd. to pa'n. mino "ityx is prob. an accidental repetition from the preceding v.; it is certainly unnecessary here. rnSs' fits admirably after nin> n^a. The whole v. then I would restore thus: •'hSk mni oy-Sro -^nb pS id 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. (S proper shows mostly the surviving MT. But Esd.^ has some good material. That text has xal oooc xaxa -udxoui; oJxoiJct 64 EZRA-NEHEMIAH PoTj6e{x(«)ffav aOxw ■xpoOuyiefaBuaav Ttp xupfcp ^v -rcj) t6x(i) auTou Iv xpu'jftp X. T. X. 3 Esd. quotquot ergo circa loca habitant adjuvent eos qui sunt in loco ipso. We note that the perplexing ij'B'j is lacking and that "ij becomes the leading vb.; in this respect ^^ agree. '•a'JN is lack- ing while iDipc has a new connection. A new vb. is introduced. This may represent impna nin^'? -taijn'j v^nvy niDipoa D''-)jn-S3\ 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 (6^ has Supwv for naijn, toO lxoua{ou^^. cii^ai = Iv Soae- otv [leO' Yxxwv xal xtt]vwv in Esd., so 3 Esd. This would, perhaps, be nnnai iyoToy enoia. Guthe corrects b'13i to tt'sn, but ignores B6a£(Jtv. naijn-Dj? is in (S^ (xeTa Stopwv = D^inj-Dj,', and more fully in Esd. ouv tot? (SXXot? Tol? xax' euxfi? xpoaTsOsttilvoti;. This is found in 3 Esd. too, and may be a priestly amplification, though it more likely shows a different text, "ib'n is rendered in (S with DTiSvn as antecedent, but in Esd. with 7^2. With the emendations proposed above, based on Esd., the edict as a whole runs thus: All Die kingdoms of the world has Yahweh the God of heaven given me, and he has charged me to build him a house in Jerus. which is in Judah : therefore whoever wills of all the people of Yahweh the God of Israel, he is the God whose abode is in Jems., 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 oj'erings to Yahweh, with silver and gold and with the free-will oferings for the house of God who is in Jerus. 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. ixcjn] might easily mean those who are left behind, i. e., in Bab. (cf. Ex. lo^s Nu. 11^"); but it means also those who survive, a remnant, being equivalent to nnNS' {cf. Ne. i^f). — ij] always refers to a temporary rather than a permanent residence and shows that the Jews regarded their stay in exile as transient. — inNSf j^] from lift or carry the mng. support or assist is naturally derived, a sense found also in 8'« Est. 9' I K. 9". — cion] 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 impKJSsible to say. The word occurs only in P and other late sources, and is prob. a loan- word from Bab. rukidu. 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 havmg 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. Aitd 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. e., 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. 41 Ne. 11*). In other books we find the same combination (i K. 12^^ i Ch. 12^^ 2 Ch. 11^2). 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 m Babylonia. — All whose spirit God stirred up]. This is inter- preted in exactly opposite senses. B.-Rys. finds a fourth class of Jews, as if it read "and all others whose spirit God stirred up." But that implies that the leaders alone went of their own accord, and others only as they were moved of God. The Chronicler shows in c. 2 that his primary interest is in the leaders, lay and ecclesiastical. It is, therefore, better to con- strue the clause as a case of apposition limiting the preceding, so that the sense is that not all the chiefs, priests, and Levites left Babylonia, but only those whom God moved to go up to 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. (P' 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]. *h'2 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. 24") and 586 B.C. {ib. 25'^ ^■). — 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 Jems." occurs often to describe the temple site (Jer. i,'"). EZRA I 67 nations. "The things which David his father had dedicated" (2 Ch. 5O, 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 officer 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 (5'*"") 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 in all, a surprisingly large number, yet in v. " the total is given as 5,400, the sort of dis- crepancy commonly found in such hsts. 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. 25" '•), but no numbers are given. Some of the words used here do not occur clsw., 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 Sheshbazzar 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. Ahh^^^^-), 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.^s ff). 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. ni2Nn irNi] is a technical term occurring often in P and Ch. The full but less frequent form (see Dn. on Ex. 6"- ") is "nh no '-1, heads of the fathers^ house, and therefore chiefs of clans. — S3S] 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 V with niin\ Torrey explains in sense of "namely," calling it a characteristic of Ch. (ES."'- "■ ')• The clause is rel., "ic'n being omitted as it frequently is (cf. Dav. Syn. §i44r6)_ — 6. Din3''2D] properly means surrotinding places, but in both m. and f. there are cases where surrounding people is the true sense, m. Ps. 7612898 Je. 48""; f.,Ps. 44i^Ez. 16" 28=4 Dn. 9".— 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 •'Soa] 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 Tcaatv ev ipYupt'tp = 1^33 ^22, putting So in app. with the rest of v. This text is accepted by Guthe, Kittel, et al. The mng. would then be: supported them tenth everything [named in the above decree, viz.] with silver, etc. — 2f^D•\2] Esd. 2' txxot? = iron. — mnjDai] Esd.^^ xal £u%ats w<; xXefaxai? ToXkdiv wv 6 voO? ijfigQ-q, Esd.^ euxalq xX. wv iQyipOTj 6 voQs euOiJi;. laS has been rd. as 22^ not 2^h as Guthe sug- gests. Torrey calls Guthe's change indispensable (ES.'"- °- °). The passage is pretty corrupt, but the sense of this text is good, mith the numerous votive offerings of many whose heart was stirred. — 7. N^sin^] CS ^Xa^sv, Esd. (jLET-^yaYsv^ (AST'^vsyxs'^^, both texts testifying to a different word from Nixim. — Guthe and Kittel suggest -con on basis of Esd. EZRA I 69 Torrey with greater probability proposes Non. — 8. Before t""*^]?] (6^ has eSwxsv, Esd. •rcapiSwx.ev, and Sieg. accordingly adds djp'i. In 326. 33 ;ve have T'^Sj? Spif , a better expression, but our text may be in- terpreted as a pregnant expression, and <8 may be only an effort at clearness. The equiv. of T-Sy occurs in Tell-Amarna Tablet No. 72. n^3 has same sense in Gn. 32". — larjn] QJ did not understand the word and transliterates as a n. p., Taa^apiQvou^ FapPapYivoG^, Yotvl^a^pafou'-; Esd. T(p lauTou •(a.'C,Q(fu\av.t. (6 is apparently influenced by Bab. form ganzabaru (Peiser, ZAW. xvii,'"). The word occurs elsw. only in B. Aram. 721; it is originally Pers., though occurring also in Bab. (see Mey. EntJ^*, and other references in Ges.). 9. •'StaiJN] occurs only in this v. The mng. and derivation are both tmknown {v. Sta. Heb. G. § '^*^< '). (& has t^uxT^pet;^^, a word not elsw, found in (&. The mng. winecoolers, or cool places, is impossible here. Esd. reads aicovSela. This is OJ's word for nicp, Ex. 25=9 3716 Nu. 4' i Ch. 281 ', 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 •'Sbijn from Gk. xpaxiQp, bowl. — o-s'^nD] a. X. The mng. usually given here is knives, based on derivation from iSn, but n'^n does not have the assumed mng. of hore {v. Moore's Ju. on 5=*)) a^nd the primary office of a knife is to cut not to bore. In the Talmud nis^Sn means knives. Esd. has Guiaxat dpyupai, silver pans. ©utaxT^ 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 DinpSn " snuffers." — 10. iidd] elsw. only in i Ch. 28", but 6 t. in this v. and Ezr. 8"; the mng. is plainly bowl. — cjii'D] 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 nimaeral. Esd. has 2,410 (3,410^). These silver bowls would naturally be very numerous, and therefore o^sS"? should prob. be sub- stituted. Torrey reads o^jiv d^'d'tn, but there is no other case of the dual d^sVn with a numeral. — 11. V — S] like As. lu — In = both — and (v. Qes.§i««). — rhMTi . . Ssn] Esd. dvY^vixOtj Se b%h SafJiavaffaipou a[ia Toiq ex "zr^q aExtJ^aXwafa?. So Guthe emends in part to otynn D'^'^iyn. The mng. is the same, but Esd.'s expression is better, these were carried from Bab. to Jems, by Shcs. together with those from the captivity. Esd.'- has a different reading of whole v. : Ta 3e xdv-ra axeutj xpiJ^« ^'^^ apyupa lxo[ji.ta6Y) uxb 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 T (4) Sapo!aapTj<;^ always in Ezr., (5) Sapavaaaapo?^ Esd. 6", (6) Saaa- PaXauaapo?^ always in Esd., (7) Saaapaaaotpoc'^ always in Ezr., (8) SavafJiaaaapoi;^ Esd. 2", (9) 2]a[JLavaaaapo<;^ Esd. 2'^, (10) SavaPaffaapo(;^ Esd. 6" '^ 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 Savapaaaapo?. It will be noted also that ■'^^B. have only two forms, one in Ezr., the other in Esd. By transposition of letters these texts agree with the Heb. in Ezr., t. c, 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. Selhie, DB. art. "Shes." KAT.^- ='«). The question is therefore one of reading aaq as Shemesh, or aav for Sin. It is difficult to identify Sin-bal-uzur with nsaa'B', 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??Jp, 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. Abh^^"^). He was almost certainly a Jew. Bab. names were often given to Jewish children in Bab. (c/. Clay, Light jr. 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 task really performed by Zer. (Zc. 4"); on the title "governor" (s'O, which really belonged to Zer.; and on his appointment by Cy. Zer. is called "governor of Judah" only in Hg. I'- " 2-- ". 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")i a son of the captive king Jehoiachin, and the uncle of Zer. (Mey. ZAW. xviii,3«, Winckler, KAT.'- ^ss). 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'tt*: is a general term, one who is exalted, and therefore applicable to any high officer. It is used rarely before Ez. The term is applied EZRA 2^-^^ 71 to Solomon (i K. 11"). to Zedekiah (Ez. 7"), to a future Davidic king (tb. 34" et 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 difl&cult 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 (f/. Mey. Ent.''^^). Winckler maintains that Shes. continued his rule through the reign of Cambyses (529-522), and that the opposition of the foreigners in Ezr. 4*-8 was directed against him. as he regards Cambyses, not Xerxes, as the right name of the king (isT^r.'- ^sss.). Kue. holds that he is the Tirshatha of Ezr. 2", and that he was superior in authority to Zer, and Jes. (^&A."°). 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. s'* is certainly unhistorical. EZR. 2^-*^ = NE. 7«-". THE CENSUS OF RETURNED EXILES. The passage falls into the following divisions: (i) A census of the people of Israel, w. ^-^ = Ne.'-^ = Esd. 5^-'*. (2) A list of laity who could not show their stock, and of priests who could not prove their official status, w. ^'-^^ = Ne.^^-^^ = Esd. ^36-4o_ (2) The total figures of the census and the number of slaves and animals, w. ^^-^'^ = Ne.^^-^^ = Esd. 5*^ f-. (4) A list of contributions, vv. ^^ '• = Ne.™ ^- = Esd. 5«-45. 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.«' seems to be an original part of the temple-building story, and this was probably amplified from Ne. Ace. to Ne. 7^ 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 7^ 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 than Ne. (Abh.-^^). Then the narrative runs right on into the time of Ezra (80- 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" ^■). (3) The term "sons of the province" in v. ' 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. ^s 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. Jiid. Ges.^^^). 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. 3" (or 2«8) 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 "dehberately 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 different leaders (v. 2). it appears to be an attempt to gather a com- EZRA 2i-«3 73 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. ">) 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 (£n/."5. n. 2)_ fhe 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. la^^ 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 vv. »'-«' 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 (£«/."»). The variation is a good ilius- 74 EZRA-NEHEMIAH tration of the extent of textual corruption in the OT., though it is likely 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. 51^ (^), 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, ofiices, 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 {Listen,-'"). 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. T^-'" 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 suprenie authority at the time (Sta. Gesch. n,^°^; Kue. Abh.^^°; Sm. Listen,''). It is claimed that hints of such an official body are found in 5^ 6'- ". 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. nnnn ^jd] 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. — nSun >2-i'] is redundant and is found only in parall., Ne. 7«; elsw. otr alone is used in the same sense. In the earher books uc 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 ^j2 may be a gl., or ^J3 may have dropped out of our text. — S32S] lacking in Ne. but found in all texts of Esd. The omission in Ne. was prob. accidental on account of the preceding S33. The error is early, as the Vrss. testify. The word means Babylonia, the country, not Babylon, the city. — mini'^i] as Ne.« is the more correct form. — 2. 1N3 t.:'n]. Ne.' qin^h a difference shown also in (&. Esd., however, has ot iXOovTs?, supporting Ne. ^ lacks the expression in Ne. Ezr. has II names, Ne. 12, Esd.^ 13, Matqjap being added; (S^ in Ne. has 14, adding "Eapa and Macr^ap. Ezra's name properly belongs in the list; the latter may be a repetition of "iDOr. — jna"] is regarded as a late form of yiB'in"', ini becoming v and v becoming ~\{v. Gray,''^). In the con- temporary Hg. and Zc. this name appears as ys'ini, from which it would appear that the shortened name was later than this period and may be due to the influence of (S, which usually renders: 'iT^aoQi; = j,'Vi'\ — nn-^] Ne.' nnr>'. Esd. 5^ Zapato?'' Slapatoq^-. Since 'Apocto<;^ is an evident error for Sapottas'^^, 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. — ni':'y-i] Ne. n>Dj?n. 'Pse^tJ^a'^ (in Ne.) gives slight support to Ezr. Neither name occurs elsw. After this Ne. has a name ''jnnj which E. lacks. The name is supported by Esd. 'Ev^qvco^; and even in Ezr. Nsfiavc^. This person is not mentioned elsw. — ^aTic. This can scarcely refer to Est.'s kinsman, and the name does not occur otherwise. — "12D?:] Ne. niDDC. The Vrss. support their texts exc. that Esd. ('Aacpapaaos) suggests the latter form, and this is accepted by Guthe. Marquart suggests Aspadat, a Pers. name {SBOT.^^). Nei- ther name occurs elsw. — Mja] Oe» Bayoua, Bayouiai'^, Bayouott'-, Baxouat, Baroet^. The name may have been ^',"9, but that form does not help in its explanation. Halevy reads: ''U-'3N, rejected by Gray (Pr. N.-'), and really without any support. — amn] Ne. oinj Esd."* Poet[jt.o<;, Naou[i.L. The former is a well-known name in the postex. period, the latter does not occur elsw. 76 EZRA-NEHEMIAH 2''-35 = 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, '-^o or =-i' if the Gibeon of Ne. is the correct reading; (2) a considerable list of place-names, ^o (ori9)-29j (^) a short list of personal names, 2°-"; (4) place-names, ^^f-; (5) and a single personal name, ". There are two cases where the order in Ne. differs from that in Ezr., w. "■ i'. 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. 2», Ai, v. ^^ Nebo, v.", the other Elam, v. ^i, and Harim, v. =-. On the other hand, ^^ contain the following names not found in MT. v. " KecXav x,al 'Al^TQxa? (npiy^ nSiyp) 'Al^ipou (ijy Ne. iQis) V. 'S 'Avvet? ('Avvt'ot?^), (n;::n Ne. lo^^), 'ApoyL (onn v. ==); V. 1', BatTiQpoOq; v. ■", oc yjxZia^JOLi %(x\ 'A[jL[xtStot. It will appear, there- fore, that Esd. follows Heb. in vv. '-i^- 21-233. 33-35^ 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 Azekak sixty-seven, and two new clan-names, Azziir and Hmianiah. BatTr)pou<; is certainly a place-name; Guthe reads in''? and substitutes this for Gibbar, v. -"; 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''a lox f|-in. The first word is a name in Ne. (= Jorah v. i'). 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 'ja or 'B'JN. Here again there is considerable diversity in use. In Ezr. we find sons exc. EZRA 2^-^^ 77 before Netophah, Anathoth, Michmas, Bethel, and Ai; but in (^ before the last three onl}-. In Ne. we find mai before the names Bethlehem to Nebo, with which 05 agrees exc. in having "men" before Ihe other Elam, and ^^ having "sons" before Bethlehem, Netophah, Anathoth, and Azmaweth, these places not occurring in ^. Esd.^'^ agree with Ne., since o" Ix = ib'JN, but ^ has "sons" exc. in two places, with Michmash and with Bethel and Ai, and here we find avSpsq, 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 of 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 Shelomith'", 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, Aztnaiveth is dub., for it may be a personal name. Lod, Hadid, and Ono are place-names in Ne. ii^'if- and located in Benj. Hadid does not occur elsw. Ono and Lod are named as Benj. towns in I Ch. 8^-, 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. io32 Ne. II''). There are thus several names concerning which we cannot positively determine whether they are personal or geograph- ical. These are Magbish, Harim, Senaah, Azmaweth, and Nebo. In Ne. 1 1 26-36 there is an important geographical list of the places in 78 EZRA-NEHEMIAH Judah and Benj. inhabited at the time that record was made. We find there 1 7 Judean towns, not one of which is found in our lists. On the other hand, there are 15 Benj. places, and of these 10 are in this list, 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 list 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 (£«/.'"), 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 of 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^ 10" Ne. 3^^ lo^^ — 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. ^i 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] 10-^ Ne. lo^^; 945 Ne. 845. — 9. Zakkai] only here, but he may be the same as Zabbai Ne. 3-" (so Qr.). — 10. Bani\ Ne.i= Binnui. Both forms recur; indeed, there are numerous forms from the root T\^2. 642 Ne. 648. — 12. Asgad] 8^2 Ne. io^« explained by Gray as containing the EZRA 2^-^^ 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.2^ 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. 232*). Identified with Beit Nettif at the entrance to the vale of Elah (Z)5.). 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. 1 1 3^ 12^), and a place-name in Ne. 12^^, 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. we 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^. Sn-hb'"' Dy •'Z'in iddd] (5^ (jvSpwv apiOixbq [ -|- XctoG^] 'laptJc^X, an evident transposition, as ^ has dtpi6[j.b<; av. In Ne. 05 has Maaydp avSps? u'toG 'lCTpaY)X, Matiyip avSpe? XoeoO 'lapaiQX'-. Esd. 588 has a different text twv tcpotjyouij.svojv auxuv, iptO^jib? tuv dicb toO SOvou? xocl ol xpo75Yo6txevot aixwv. Here we have an equiv. of on>B>N"i accepted by Guthe as a suitable ending of the list of the leaders of returning caravans, and a sHghtly different heading for the following census. It would be in Heb. anirxni [or luc] aya lijDD and is less awkward than MT. 3 Esd. has a still different text, Emonia units de principi- bus eorum. Et numerus a genlilibus eorum ex prapositis eorum. Seis. 8o EZRA-NEHEMIAH 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. D^'j.'aa'i ntrnn] units preceding tens shows txt. err. Rd. as Ne." DijUM O'ccn. — 6. axin nns] 8* 10=° Ne. 3" lo'^ <6^ has aXa^- yiwii^, Esd.^ ^OaXstpiwa^, but otherwise ^ocxQ[j.m&^ as ^. The lexicons derive from nns, a pit = pit of Moab; but governor of Moab is prefer- able (B.-Rys. Ryle), an interpretation supported by a dup. in ^: 4>aa9 ■^YOuiA^vou 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 official 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 2xidS iS^'a. The name might have been 3ni3-S>'3, 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,86), a view from which Sm. dissents. All that we can say surely is that an official title has become a common clan-name. aNv yvi'>] 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 C6^ 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. : Joab as a gl. — 10. ''12] 05, Bavou, Bavouc, Bavet, Bavata, Bavatou. Perhaps both Ezr. and Ne. (■'ua) are corrupt. We might get 11J2 " built," or n;:2 " Yahweh has built," comparable to the Bab. Baniia. Names from this root are very common (v. forms in Ne. 10" ii'= I Ch. 225). — 11. 133] 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 sotis 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. niv] Ne. inn (K^ has IwpTjs in Ezr. and Ne., but Esd.'- reads Qpat, Esd.^^ Apaet^oupstO, showing both names in a cor- rupt form, niv has rather the better support. — 20. 13 j] may be an error for JV3J, as Ne. Esd.^ has Fagauv, and Gibbar is not found EZRA 2^-6* 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. (&^ lacks Bethlehem, Netophah, and Anathoth. — 24. mc']:] is the correct pointing, as all the varied forms of (S end in lAwO. — 26. Esd. has + o\ xotSiaaat xal 'A[Ati(Stot (422). — 27. DD3d] so Ne., but e'03D is the form in i S. 13- f- Is. 10=8 Ne. 11". 29. i3j] + -inN in Ne., a form supported by ^ alone, the other Gk. texts following Ezr. Guthe holds that the sons of Neho must be a clan, comparing Ne. io=°. The other Neho 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. Maghish, lacking in Ne., but supported by (&, does 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 B'JJ^sjjd 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. =8 lo^'- 31 Ne. 3" 735.42 iqs- 28 121^, and always is a person. ^a-ri-im-ma- is a personal name on the contract tablets (Clay, Mn- rashu Sotis, x,^"}. — 35. hnjd] 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 (S^ in Ne. has 930. In i Ch. 9' there is rivSjDn-p 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" (nsuc'). Mey. notes (Is. 60'^ 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 hnjd 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. 36-39 Ne.3'-« Esd.^^ '-. — 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- 82 EZRA-NEHEMIAH ing of the temple, as that would be a necessary step in their restoration 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 d 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. 10' f- ii'" ^- 12' f). The heads of the priestly houses here are the same as those in the list of divorced pr. (Ezr. lo'^'^), exc. that here we have " the sons of Jedaiah 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 (8^ '■) : 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' ^- 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 Qer. i,5"f). 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. (8 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 (^^ in Ne. 7*°. — 38. Passkur] is the name of the priest who was the son of Immer and who put Jeremiah in the stocks (Je. EZRA 2i-«9 83 20). — 39. Harim] was found among the laity, v. ^^; as the name means "consecrated," it is pecuHarly appropriate for a priest. Mey. suggests that there might be lay elements in a priestly clan {Ent.^'"'), but we must not make too much out of a name. 36. Esd.L begins " the sons of pr.," but this is an error. ^^ contain an additional name, and a slightly different construction ; the sons of Jeddon of the 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. (B suggests another name: 'leouSi^, 'IsSSoua^"-, i. e., Jaddua (Ne. 12""), who was high pr. in the time of Alexander the Great {v. Mey.'s^). But Jaddua and Jedaiah are not necessarily the same, for (& 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 weU known. It is not unlikely 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 rr'^S n^yii as an explanatory gl. (2) The Levites, v. ^^ Ne." Esd.=«. — Two facts engage our attention in connection with this hst, 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. (8" '•). 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 office 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; £ill other Lev. are to do the humble oflQces at the sanctuary, tending the doors, butchering the sacrifices, and doing such other menial services as are recjuired. At the end the Lev. are spoken of as a separate class (4812 '•). 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. 3O. 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^ ^■). 40. MT. runs: the sofis 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. gS 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. lo'). In other lists we find of these three only Jes. and Kadmiel (Ne. g*- ') or Jes. and Hodiah (Ne. 8'). 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 : LevilcB filii Jesu in Cadnhel et Bands, et Serebias et Edias septuaginta qnattnor; omnis numeriis a duodecimo anno: triginta inillia qiiadrigenti sexaginta duo, filii et filice et nxores: omnis computatis: quad- raginta millia ducenti quadraginla 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 21-^9 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^^ '•); their dwellings were in the environs of Jerusalem {ih. 1229); 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 {cf. Br.Ps>i^'f). (4) The porters, v. ^^ Ne. 7''^ Esd. 5^^ — 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. 52^4 ff). — 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 officers). 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^ i.v ,"''). Torrey, on the other hand. 86 EZRA-NEHEMIAH holds that there is no such distinction {Comp.''- ^ )• In most of the cases where they are named in Ezr.-Ne. they are distinguished from the Lev. as a class (Ezr. 2-° y Ne. lo"- *" 1$% 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 i2« that the singers per- formed this ofEce. In 13'° 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. 151^ On the other hand, the singers and porters are distinguished from the Lev. in 2 Ch. 35'^ 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=2 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=^ 13-- i Ch. 9-^ 2 Ch. 8" 23^ 34'- "). 41. omrcn] Esd.^ u'lol Aaay ot <^3o(. 3 "Esd. Jilil sacredolum qui psal- lebant in tetnplo, an explanatory gl. — 42. ''J3] del. as Ne., though (S^ in Ne. supports text of Ezr. (S^ is correct enough, ulol twv xuXwv, reading onj/'cn, gates, instead of gatekeepers; this may be the original Ezr. text. Esd.^^ reads differently from MT., viz., the porters, 400; thoseof Ishmael, the sons of Lakoiibatos, 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. 11" has Akkub and Talmon; Ne. 12'^ MeshuUam (= Shallum), Talmon, and Akkub; i Ch. 91' Shallum, Akkub, Talmon, and Ahiman, Shallum being designated as the chief. Ahiman is apparently a misreading of onins, their brothers, so that we have but three constant names, Shallum, Talmon, and Akkub. There- fore Ater, Hatita, and Shobai are prob. later than the Chr. — Sjn] want- ing in Ne., but supported by Gk. texts of Ezr. (5) The Nethinim, w. "3-54 ^g, ^46-56 ggd. 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 21-69 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 oflacers, performing the humblest functions at the sanctuary. The name Neth. occurs but once elsw. than Ezr.-Ne. (1 Ch. 9=), but many times in our books, Ezr. 2"- ^^- '° 7'- -< S^'- 2° '*"' Ne. j's- 3» yte. 60. 73 10" II'- 21 '*"). 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. 3^' ii=')- 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. 8-° they were given for the service of the Lev. They are gener- ally regarded as temple slaves (Schiirer, Jewish People, ii,'- "', BT.^"). They are called lepoSouXot by Jos. (Anliq. xi, 5, i and Esd.^'^). Kue. holds that they were mere foreigners held as slaves and finds a refer- ence to them in Zc. 1421, " 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. OTJC.^^^). This view is scarcely tenable; for this term is applied to the Lev. in Esd. i', since ispoSouXoc 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 officers, pr. Lev. singers, and porters; with pr. and Lev. alone in i Ch. g-, or with pr. Lev. and sons of Solomon's servants (Ne. 1 1 3). The leaders of this -body were Siha and Gishpa (Ne. 11 =0? 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 ncn o'jinj a>jinj, rendered in RV. " they are wholly given to him" (Aaron), a rendering accepted by Gray (Nil.). The repetition recurs in Nu. 8", but written defectively (o'lji-ij). We should, perhaps, rd. D'-jipj otpj " 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 njdn, 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 hst 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 bene Neahol (i K. 4^' 5'') = bene Jerachmeel {AJT. 1901,^^*). Similarly he holds that for the sons of Solomon's servants (v. ") we should rd. nDSb- 3';i]?.''J3] " 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. sacerdotes servientes 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. 11^' as a warrior of David's time. The sons of Hanan (Bab. Xanana) 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' 10" 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. 4I- and in Ne. 3® as the father of Joiada, one of the wall-builders. — 50. Meunim] is a gentilic noun (i Ch. 4*^ EZRA 2i-«» 89 2 Ch. 20^ 26O, a people in Arabia (Benz. C/^r. KAT.^- 1^"^) 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. — Nephisim] is interpreted by Taylor {DB. iii,^*''') as "repre- sentatives of the race mentioned in Gn, 251^"; in this passage N aphis (t^"'SJ) is given as a descendant of Ishmael (so i Ch. i^i), but apparently a different people is meant in i Ch. 51^. 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 C5. There is a Babylonian name which closely corresponds, Bargilsu. — Sisera] also well attested by C5 (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,""; Moore holds that Sisera was a Hittite. 43, D'rnjn], 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 D'-jinj (Kt. Ezr. 8'0, but the text is corrupt; d bears abundant testimony to the Heb. form, and it is therefore to be regarded as a n. formation from the root jn:. 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^x] Ne. am but 11 21 as Ezr, (5 SouGtaB, SouaaA, SouSSaeti-; Ne, SrjaBA, SouXatL; Esd, Haau^A, SouSaet^. 05 suggests that the first syl. should be 1X; it is hard to tell about the rest,— Nown] Ne, Nscn (S^ jq Ne. Aa] lacking in Ne., but found in Gk. exc. ^ and Esd.'^. The name is suspicious in the h'st, because of its recurrence elsw. (c/. v. "). — 46. 3Jn] also lacking in Ne., though found in (S (exc. ^); it is prob. a repetition of XJjn v. •"•'. — i'^ds'] Ne. ■'D'?t^' (&^ (Ezr.) Satiaov; otherwise (S supports Ne. Berth, cites ■'cStf as evidence of the foreign origin of the Neth. In NH the name ■'n'j'-f occurs (BDB.), corresponding to d SeXotixet. Esd. 52' adds two names, Ouxa, Kij-cap, so 05-*^^ in Ne.". — 47. Snj] Esd. Koua, K£9oua^; otherwise l| is attested, though in Ne. the form FaSTjX occurs in ^^. — 48. Niipj] cf. Bab. Niqudu. — 49. ■^02] Baaepi-, BeaaBp (Esd.); otherwise (g attests MT. — 50. hjdn] lacking in Ne. but supported by ^^^^, Aaevva'-. Perhaps we should write NjDN, "thorn bush" {cf. BDB.). — oidibj] Qr. dididj, Ne. a-'DK'i£3j] Qr. D^DC'^'SJ. 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 Nsywaotaet^'*, Neqjwaasttx^. (6^ in Ezr. has Nacpeifftov (jD''Dj), or perhaps since [j. and v final are often confused (dd^dj), which under the influence of O'ij^d has been pointed as a pi.; Esd. has Na(pstaec. It is not possible to tell what the original name was. — 52. mSxa] Ne." Kt. n^Sxa. There is much variation in (5, but most of the forms show that they rd. the last syl. niS. — xcnn] (5 offers great variety: Ezr. ApTjaa^^, Agaaa^; Ne. ASaaa(v) ("i being rd. as i); Esd. AeSSa^, MeeSSaA BaaaaK — Dipna] a south Ar. name (Euting), cf. Bab. Barkusu. 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 probabiUty suggests bar, (6) The sons of Solomon's servants, vv. ^^-^^ Ne. y^^-eo Egfj ^33-35_ — This body is named elsewhere only in the corresponding passage in Ne. and in Ne. ii^ 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 sufficient 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. 11' 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. cil.). Baudissin notes that Sol- omon put the surviving Canaanites to forced service (i K. 9^0 f.) ^^iA presumes this postex. body to be a survival from that time {DB. EZRA 2 1-^3 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. 724), 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. ncSa' nap]. The Gk. translators were as much perplexed about this title as their modern followers. ^ gives here a partial translitera- tion, ApST^asX; in v. ^^ AffeSTja£>.[ji,a, but ^ has ApSirjasXtAa: 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 (S gives SoOXwv ZiaXcotAwv, or xotiouv H. Q^^ in Esd. 533. 35)_ — it3D] Ne. ''taiD (5 offers every variety of vocalisation Sa-ret (^ in Ezr.) = iqd, Sou-uet {^^ in Ne.) = ■'WID, and Swuat (^ in Ezr. and ^ always). The name is lacking in Esd.^*. — msDn] Ne. msD.' d sup- ports Ezr., for though ^^^ agree with Ne. in that passage, ^ has AaoyspsO, and a similar form is found in Ezr. and Esd. in all texts. — xnnc] Ne. N"(nfl supported by (S in Ne. ® aSoupa in Ezr. and '- in each case = x-iTiD. On the basis of this evidence any one of the three forms is possible: Perudah, Pereidah, or Pedurah. — 56. nSy-'] Ne. n'S;*\ In Ezr. we find le-^Xa^, leXa'^, IsoXaa'-; in Ne. IsX-qk^, lexrfk^^, IsoaXaa^; in Esd. IstYiXst^, hriki^, leSXaa^. It is difficult to see what name could have been at the bottom of all these variants. — h•\^] occurs elsw. only among the Neth., v. ". ^^ has SaSBat, Esd.^^. l^ZariX. As the re- currence of a single name is doubtful, prob. MT. has lost the original name which might have been nb. 57. niastf] (" Yahweh judges") is a good Heb. name, and well at- tested by 05, though in Esd. we find 2a '■, and could not belong here unless text is disarranged. Esd. s^e yields bet- ter results than MT.: their leaders were Charathalan and Allar. Guthe emends on this basis, thus: /row Tel-Meleh and from Tel-Harsha : Kerub- Addan and Immer were their leaders. 'HYo6[xevo? au-uwv (Esd.) = db'ni, and this could easily be corrupted to Nifin. 3 Esd. shows same text: principes eorum. This reading suggests that the people described in w. "-" constituted an independent caravan. — 60. Sn3] Esd. 53s 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 ^: Zap^sXOei in the first occurrence, but BepI^eXXaet in the second. — ddb']. With Guthe rd. iDty 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. (6 offers great variety; ^^ transliterates o\ ixeBweaet'iJ,; ^ ol Yev£aXoyouvTe(; (so in Ne.); Ne.^-*^ has their writing of the caravan (or company). Esd. 5'' renders Iv xy v.(zx(x\ofia[L(b: 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.: ksdj oa-ninn nSi, these searched for their record, but their enrolment was not found. The ptc. oicninnn does not occur elsw., and inf. is used regularly in late Heb. mng. genealogy or enrolment (Ne, 7' I Ch. 4" 5' 7= e/ pass.). We then have a suitable subj. lor 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. — iSnj'>i] means defile (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 2i-«9 97 to adjudicate the matter. Further we find the term used in Mai. I'- " (only other use of Pu.) where the defiUng is not actual. There was no formal deposition or desecration from ofSce, but only a sus- pension. 63. Nna'inn] is found elsw. in Ne. 765.69 gs io=, in the last two pas- sages prob. interpolated. (S takes it as a n. p. 'AGepaaa, 'AaspaaOa, but Esd. s*" Natpitai; xal AT6otptaq^, NeefAtoK; 6 %a.\ Aiaptxabatq'^. 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. — ntys'] 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 EngUsh conjs. — iVsni] Esd. 54" [aetIxs'v "share in." This text also ren- ders last part of v. a high priest [priesi^] clothed ivith the manifesta- tion and the truth. — po] Ne.*^ pon a reading preferred by Kittel, but Esd. supports Ezr. Urim and Thwnmim are found here only without the art. The words are usually (Ex. aS^" Lv. 8' Dt. 338), but not always (i S. 286 Nu. 27") 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 (r/. Bud. on i S. 14", DB. and BDB., where other refer- ences are given). 64-67 = Ne. 7""-"" 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, as one)]. The word ^HD means community, the sacred congregatmi, or company. It re- fers to an organised body and suggests a date later than Cyrus. The total is 42,360 or 42,308 {^^ in Ne.). Esd. $^^ contains a limiting clause, reading: The whole Israel from ten years and upward besides slaves and women (L): 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- 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 already enumerated in v. *^, and women were excluded from the temple service. Therefore the reading nna" "songstresses" of the temple in Am. 8% though adopted by We., is scarcely possible. The form m-nB>D occurs only here, and the m. without the art. occurs elsw. only in 2 Ch. 20". All the (S 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. 64. iriH^]. In early Heb. ^^^• e'ind is used to express joint action, c. g., "all the people rose as one man" (Ju. 208). The text shows a late usage. The mng. required here is "combined," which in early Heb. would be nn>. The word is unnecessary and is stricken out by Guthe. — 65. nnitt'Di oma'D]. As these words are followed directly by the list of animals, it has been proposed to rd. nnoi onitf "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. iSgg,"^). We should prob. rd. as 2 S. iS^s 2 Ch. 35=* Eccl. 2^ nnifi onir 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 {Chr. Fragen,'^^). — 67. onncn] must be EZRA 2'-^9 99 rd. as we have their horses, etc., so ^^^ in Ezr., C6'- in both. (^^ in Ne. mentions no other animals than the asses. — xm] "myriad," "ten thousand," is common in poste.x. Heb., but is not found earlier; for Kt. 131 (Hos. 8") is better rd. as Qr. o-i, though Harper accepts former (ICC). — dh^Sdj] is preferable to d^'Soj of Ne. This last part of the list (vv. ^s-sa) offers peculiar difSculty 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. 7^^"' Esd. 5^"'-. A list 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 w^ould 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 oferings 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.^^* ff). 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. 222'). On this garment, v. DB. i,«24, Benz. Arch.^^^-, Now. Arch, i,"'- •". The pr.'s tunic was made of linen (Lv. i6<) 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. mjnn] Esd. 5" eui;avTo = i-njnn though the Hithp. of -\-\: 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.). — i^in] means treasure, ixin p^j Ne. 10'', treasury, but nia is often omitted as here. — 69. naN^nn]. Mey. holds that this word means here worship {Gottesdienst) {Ent.^^*- ''O- The word applies to many kinds of work, but the term is always general. In i K 52" 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. lo'^). The passages esp. cited by Mey. are Ne. 2" 13'°, but in both cases the idea is "engaged in business," secular emplo3rment. 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''OiDDTi] CS lAval^ SpaxP'-os?'^^' The authorities are divided, some con- necting with Pers. dark, others with Gk. drachma, itself of foreign origin {v. BDB. DB. iii,<")_ gfn g^ys 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,^^). — a^'jc]. This is a Heb. weight used often in OT. The value in silver is c. $30. If we take the drachma instead of the dark, 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. — ninz] tiEx^^toO Ne.^ xo8<»>^<^^'^'*> ''■oQoiwl Ezr.^ xitu- EZRA 2»-«9 lOI va?*. ^ always has aioXacq, which is also found in Esd. The word means tunic. 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, No. having a much fuller text, as may be seen from the following parallels (including Esd.) : Ne. Some 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 prJ EzR. ESD. Ne. tunics. And some of the Jieads of the fathers Ezr. a nd some of the heads of the fathers, when they came to the EsD. And some of the leaders according to their family, when they came to the Ne. Ezr. house of Yahweh, which is in Jems, gave free-will oferingsfor Esd. temple of God, which is in Jerus. made a vow 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 ((6^ eOrjxav, placed) to the treasury of tlie work ((8^ Tou £Tou<;, yearly) : gold, 20,000 darics, and Ezr. tlicy gave to the treasury of the work : gold, 61,000 darics, and Esd. a}id 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 mince, atul 100 pr.^ tunics. Esd. silver, 5,000 mince, and 100 pr.' tunics. Ne. of the people gave was : gold, 20,000 darics, attd silver, 2,000 mines Ezr. Esd. Ne. ((S^a lacks the passage so agreeing with Ezr.), and 67 pr.' tunics. 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 BOWLS Ne. Governor I, GOO [5)30* ((6 30 (^"^ 33) SO Chiefs 20,000 2,200 People Total 20,000 41,000 2,000 67 97 4,200 (100 in (6'-) Ezr. 61,000 5, 000 100 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.: (1) 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 niaxn ^rx-i nspci (Dn. 1= being the only parallel) in one place, V. ", and nnsa ^B'N-idi 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 nm tw, v. '">, directly followed by N13T ^nt;', 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, *(& has 30, and as the 500 follows the 30 in the text, it is an obvious error. EZRi\ 2 '0-4' 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: and some of the heads of the fathers gave for the work [the Tirshatha gave into the treasury] 1,000 gold darics, 50 howls, [s\-,o pr.' tunics. And the rest of the people gave 20,000 gold darics, 2,000 sil- ver mince, and 67 pr.' tunics. When the passage from Ezr. was pushed in, the clause bracketed was added of necessity. (S 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. 2^<'-4^ THE HEBREW STORY OF THE REBUILDING OF THE TEMPLE. A section recovered. — In MT. the period of Cy. and Shes. 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." " ■ "^ «•). Torrey believes that the story of the Three Youths ends at 4<=, that 443-47a. 67-61 are interpolations, so that the recovered narrative consists of 44"'-56 462-5S. 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 EZRiV-NEHEMIAH sequel to c. i and the hero is Shes., though Zer. is named in 5*. This event is placed in the 2d year of Cy., and so in 3' we are deahng with the 7 th month of that year. There are two difficulties in accepting this date. In our text, esp. 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 difficulty 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."^ '•) C. 4. (47) Then King Dar.(i) arose and wroteC^) letters for him to all the satraps and governors and captains and deputies to the efifect that they should help along him and all with him who were going up to build Jerus. (') (48) And Dar.(^) 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 EdomitesW 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.(*) 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 Ufted 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. 5. (i) EZRA 2^0-43 105 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 aroseC") 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 inGk. 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/. 3'). 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 5^ f-. 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 Dp>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. ^a after v. ■•. If we place Torrey's discovered npii before Jes. we have an amphfied parall. Ezr. 3=. It certainly improves the text greatly to substitute this clause for the briefer statement in Ezr. 32a, then v. ■•■ ^a 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. 32. The dates in the section 2 '"-45 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 and the Levites atid the singers atid 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 offered no means of procuring a living. 3'-*'' = Esd. 5^*-". 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. — Tlie 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 the time of Alexander the Great (Ne. 121" ^■). Jes. is named first here, but in 2* 3S 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), 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 built 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 ofer sacrifices upon it]. The altar could be built in a very short time, and so the reUg- 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. 301^; to an angel, Ju. 13^; to Samuel, i S. 9^; to Elijah, I K. 17I8; to Elisha, 2 K. 4^; to David, 2 Ch. 8" Ne. ii"'- ^S; it is therefore a prophetic title. In the NT. it is applied to Timothy, the disciple of Paul, i Tim. 6" 2 Tim. 31^. 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, /or in fear against them from the peoples of the lands. Much stress is laid upon the longer text in Esd. 5=°: And certain men gathered unto them out of the other nations of the la>id, ajid they erected the altar upon its own place, because all the nations of the land were at enmity with them, and oppressed them; and tJiey ojffered 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 ampHfied, 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 Hecataeus's statement that the altar was 20 cubits square and 10 cubits high (Smith, /er. ii,»»). EZRA 2'»-43 109 neighbours. This emendation I formerly accepted (SBOT.""); but it does not touch the real difficulties, which arc 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, ij^dm for ua-'i, 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 natiotis 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-ojferings 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 B, 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. 9")- 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 EZRA-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. 23"-" 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^ i222)_ — jig iiiQ ^^ly qJ 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.'^''). 5. And afterwards the continual burnt-oferin^. This rule is first found in P (Ex. 29^* ^■). 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. i S. 20^ 2 K. 4-^). On that day no business was transacted (Am. 8'^). In the law it finds place only in P, where there are abundant regulations (Ex. 402- 1^ Nu. lo^*' 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 2^0-43 III with pre-exilic usage. S'^-S. Atid of every one that willingly offered a free-will offering unto Yahweh. In lif 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., Aiid 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 7 th 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. a^id some of the people Ne. and the porters and the singers and some of the EzR. and the singers atid the porters Esd. were living in Jerus. and in the country, but the Ne. people and the Neth. and all Israel were living EzE. 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 ayn-pi, 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 xotl "zj^ 7J^9'J- is a gl., prob. inserted from 1^ Zi7\'<-\-j2 (3 Esd. has region in both places), we get excellent sense and the very statement ili 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 nnnpa is not repeated. If we substitute the necessary aStynia for D-ijiuni we have a good text, and exc. for the transposition of singers and porters exactly what we have in Esd. in. 1. >Jii] is used nowhere else of the coming of time; but as the Hiph. has this meaning we should prob. point J?r_] as Is. 6'. — 3''iJ?a] Ne. Dnnj73, so ^ ev xoXeatv au-cwv. 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. s'-^ and presuppose a full break in a paragraph, or supply a word, the sons of Israel being still in their villages, i. e., up to the 7th month the people had not come to Jerus. Esd., however, offers an alternative; in that text (5^0 we find x,al ovTwv Twv ulwv 'Isp&Tjk ly.affTou ev Tofi; iSt'oc?. So 3 Esd., cutnqiie essent filii Israel tinusquisque 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 (6 (in Ne.) the coming of the 7th month follows the statement that the sons of Israel were in their cities. — 2. op''!] is sg., but following vb. is pi. The first vb. is sg. on account of close connection with 3?1C'\ — Saant] is a Bab. name {v. my note in Poly. Bib. Ezr.-Neh.^^). Some, indeed, make it Heb. Saa;:!-!:, "begotten in Bab." But it is now generally explained as ziru Babili, "seed of Bab." (Mey. E«/.', Sieg. on 2=). 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. — Sx^nS.xi']. In Hg. ii2. u 22 "Sa-. (& HaXaeiTjX ("I have asked of God").— i'hnis] is difiicult; (6^ 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 aSsXyof. 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. ni:a "associates," men of the same class. — ."nin] 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 2^0-43 113 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. "'dj.-Sd [-D] an^^y na''N3 13 mjisn hy narcn irs^i pxn ^ai'D Dn>Sp ixapii ■ jnp'-'i yj'? [m^yi ■Tin-''? m^yi ivi^a D^'nat ir'-'^'] iSj'm iprniT'i V"'**'^ 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: uon iptnnn on^'-'y n2\s3 13 ij''3m {Comp.^-). Torrey is obliged to translate his text with much freedom. Haupt says forcibly that on this reconstruction we should rd. on^Sy n3\x3 in3 '3 (SBOT.^o). Various slight modifications have been proposed. Ryle omits prep. c before ''s;' and so gets: "for the people of the countries were a terror to them." Van Hoonacker regards nao 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 inxn >a>'3 D^n'^x rn^x 13 (ZAW. 1904,'"), but this lacks any textual support. The attempts to reconstruct the text on the basis of Esd. all work on the easier text of K When we turn to ^ we note some significant variations. That text runs: xal extauvTJxBiQffav auxolq ex twv d'XXwv eOvwv TTJ? Y^O? 5^*^ xaxwpOtoOYjaav exl to BuatatjriQptov e-zl -uoO totcou auTwv • oTt ev exSp? '^aav auxols /.otxtaxy^tv otJ-coO? xavra xx I'Ovy) tx Ixl T^? Y^? ■ '^'^^ avscpspov Guatas; v-x-zo: Tbv xatpbv xal oXoxauTwiiara xupi'(j) -zh "TCpwtvbv Y.x\ rb SstXtvov. 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 offered sacrifices according to the season, and burnt-offerings to Yahweh morning and evening. At the start auTol? represents nniS;? in the sense of an^V.x, so that the gathering is friendly not hostile (cf. Esd. g^). From this text we cannot extort "they erected the altar on its base." The vb. xaT. Putting into Heb. the parts not in brackets we have: I'lxn iny S3 Dnryn nstnn Sx n'i""'i onnNn ^nsn injJD oniSx ix3pii .2-\yh^ -ypzh nin-'j niSyi np a''n3r iSyi 114 EZRA-NEHEMLAH To demonstrate in the osoal way how this grew oat of our presoit text bjr sli^t changes here and there is beyond the critic's art; but to show how this statement was reduced to the confusimi we now hare is not so hard. The idea that the altar was built with the aid ai the pet^es in Palestine was intolerable to the people who had drunk deefty of the spint of Ezra. By a few strokes of the pen that friendly aid has be«i changed to a fear. The test of Esd. has been conected fran MT. by putting in the new parts, but where they make do sense. ^ has worked over the passage and made it intdligiUe but oitirdy wrong. It is passible to put the substance of the passage in still doser ooa- formity to MT. : t'^i cpti rsrr.T-Hn rir; r"*; '^t'i s-t-; na-n t"! rT^~ 'Z" z~~' ~z~ ■-•<; •: > This reconstruction is as near to the origiiial aj 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 lato^ gL; for the original writer would not have repeated r-h;. More- OT'er, this passage describes the first (Bering made upon the newly erected altar, whereas our text betrajrs the later point of view in bring- ing in the regular establishmoit. The daily <^eiing is described in v. *. 4. f-'7\. So we should rd. frith aU tests irpz, Lv. 23 (4 1.) 2 Ch. 2», or r>7pc akne. — Tsr] b added by the Chr. to bring the passage up to date. The intr. of this word has made the passage quite ungrammatiral, requiring the addition of "offerings" as in RV. -\3 so (rften happens, Esd. pte- series both the original and the substitutian. — noTj aTr^nci Wn] Esd- 5« xal C'rs: slrx/^o si^t"' = ''"'-' '>''.n"'-'Ji a far better text. — trth Tm dtd ■swT e-TT-, a correction by the Chr. to agree with the idea 6, "wine-fat" Is. 52. In I K. 5" (EV. 5>5) -in3 2xn = "digging stone in the mountain"; so here the proper mng. is "quarrymen." — 0''tt'nn] = cutters of wood, metal, or stone, generally with a genitive to define exactly. In i Ch. 22'= there is vyi px itt'in, "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. — iDtf] Esd.'^ 5" Xipot = nnDsy, which might stand for -whatever they pleased to ask. H cum gaudio. Esd. 5" adds after Lebanon to transport it by rafts, a reflection of the older story, i K. 52^. — a>] Esd. Xc[i^va and so to the harbor of Joppa. — ]vtv\] a. X. (S^'^ iiziyjlyprioiy, fyd>[Lriq^ (decree), Esd. Tb xp6aTaYiAa xh ypatfiv, " the written order." M dccretum quod scriptiim erat. This may represent anoa Dic^-j (cf. Dn. lo^'). The mng. of jvifi "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 nx:S, a favourite word of the Chr., is lacking in ®^ v. « and in ^^^ v. »; as it is wanting in Esd.^^, it may safely be discarded from the original, nnss v. ' is not found in (H^^ 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- 1 20 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: ■T'jS'n nja'31 Q•<^hn a•'ir\^n^ aninsi |-nxi>-p yv^M SjonSxr-p Saait iSnn ^B'a'^ lyina lyv-n'? r\''yyn nrrV ■'jari trinS ins uv2 DTiSsn rr'a-ns nD''i a'^i'niS ijarro DiNan-Sai -ni3 njxSn-'^y n'^yni ny.;' on-^i'y pa a^iSn-nx nicyi aSa'n-'Si min>'7 dnuS DiiSn-So on^nxi Dn^ja Tijn ij2i nnin ••ja Snidipi ninsi 'jai yiiJ'i ncri '^i'"'' .ni,T> '?3in-nN D''J3n ijaM D''n'?Nn n''22 PDNScn icy 'Enl Aapefou is from Esd."- 5^^ This year agrees with Hg. i'. — 'trcn] both MT. and (B in all texts rd. 'J!!"."!. 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." — i'?nn] 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^^ 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. ot u\o\ Ttjitou 'HtJ.a.'Ba^ouv, unless this stands for mjn ija, which I suspect to be the case. There is also EtXt- aSouv (= pT''^N, "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. — ^32] 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 non D'nSxn n>3. But MT. has 'n-n>a in v. », where it does not belong, and it has nD>i v. i», where ij3M is required by the connection and by the Esd. text. I suspect that the required word is concealed in oijan, where ol o!/.oS6yLot 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 ^"-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 lob-ij 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. — lO**. 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. P5 isxviii) [^ distinction from the crooked ram's horn. It is described as "a long, straight, slender metal tube with flaring end" (BDB. Benz. ^rcA."^, DB. m,*^\ 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. 13^2. i4)^ a,nd 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. 1$^^ 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. 1519). — 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. 29" '•). — 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 difi&cult 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 of 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^»-4' 123 of clans, but in (S^ it is separated by a conjunction and thus made a separate class. That is an error, for the elders are not here an official 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 unintelhgible 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 (c/. Halevy, Rev. Sem. 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 huilding with crying and great weeping. The idea is the same: the wailing was due to the comparative insigni5- 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 front the sound of weeping]. Of the people follows in the text, but after (B^ 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 sowid 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 luas 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. lot". Following <& we should rd. nnp^, a reading found in some Heb. MSB., as it is better to take pr. d al. as subj. rather than obj. — 0''B'3'?d nnssna] is to be rendered "equipped with clarions." caS does mean put on clothing, but it is an easy transition to "furnish" or "equip." Esd.^^ has iJieTd piouatxwv xal aaXictyywv, 3 Esd. kabentes stolas cum itibis. — D''n'?xca] lacking in (JS^. Esd. has exovxe? Tcb xutxPotXa. This word is used only in Ch.-Ezr.-Ne. Another form is D'''?sSs (2 S. 6' Ps. 150=). 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 s'JXoYoGvTSi; (nnin'^) and connects ^'J with T'n, praising according to David the king of Israel, unless, indeed, they rd. n' as a vb. in Qal with a sense assigned only to the Hiph. — 11. ijj?m] Esd. eyuvrjaav, 3 Esd. et cantahant canticun Domino. — "2x2 'a] Esd. 5*' otc f; xp-O^totyji; auxou xal T) oo^a; also xav-cl 'lapa-^X = Sntj'i-So'^. The passage is plainly a corruption of a favourite refrain found in Ps. 106' 136' i Ch. 16" 2 Ch. 5" 7^ i. e., non dSijjS ^3 3Vi3-i3 nini'? mn. — ayn-Vji]. The subj. precedes vb. to mark the circumstantial clause. — ij?nn] (§fi laiQixatvov, ^ TjXaXa^av, Esd. saaXxtaav xal ePoTjaav, 3 Esd. tiiha cecinerunt et proclamermit. — n^-nr] d (pwvTjv or (pwv-^'- = Sip. — iDin] (gSA espieXtwaet = iDin. But Esd. has eylpsst = a^"'n, 3 Esd. in suscitalione. — 12. ni3n nr nD-iD] Sieg. explains the sf. as anticipatory of n''3n, very dub. Ges.5 '-^ regards 'an nr as a txt. err. for ^^T^ non. Van Hoonacker dismisses the clause as an Aramaism {Zorob.^"*). On the basis of Esd., Guthe adjudges n^2n a gl. to which Haupt adds nr (SBOT. in loc). But oixoSoti.iQv in Esd. may stand for ni3. The word surely wanting in Esd. is an-jiy^. It is prob. that Esd. understood iDi here, as in previous cases, as having the sense of nj3. The rest of the passage also is quite different in Esd., xal EZRA 2™-4^ 125 "KoXkol Sia aaXxtyywv /.al X''^?* t^sV^^TJ '^'n 'pwv^, 3 Escl., c^ inidti cum tubis el gaudio magno. 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 Dnij>j73 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 !Oj?co in the sense of Ps. 10=° for nDO 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, "'ib"'.?, taking the n. in the sense of "base" or "place," and referring to the temple of Solomon. We should expect Sj; rather than 3, it is true, but some demands will fail in this passage. We may compare Hg. 2=, iicsnn m3D3 n?n n^in, "this house in its former glory." t\d>3 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 pxD before D3''j''y2. 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. — o^a-i] (^'^^ Sx^os, other texts, •rcoXXoi. — npnna] ©'^^ Iv aTjtxaola, (S^ sv dXa>^ay[XM. Esd. Sta (pieTa'-) aaXxtYifwv. But a vb. is required here. Heb. S3aitax has been freely manufactured to explain corrupt texts, but the strain is too great here. We should rd. O'lynn as in v. '^ Following Esd. many would rd. nnca^Ji, 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 onn'?]. The Gk. translators were puzzled by this expression. In ^^ we find toQ utj^waat wSfiv, "tou u'.{^o5v xfy ^wvtjv^, Esd. (jLeyaXy) Tfj ipuvfj. The inf. clause expresses purpose, and is not to be treated adverbially as RV. "aloud." — 13. ayn^] is lacking in (&^ and does not belong here (so Guthe). Esd. here offers a quite different text: wsts Tbv Xotbv [jltj a/.o6stv twv aaXxtyywv [ttiv q)(i)v9]v''] Ota ToO xXauOpibv tou Xaou. It is doubtful if this is any improvement. — ^0] must be taken in the sense of "therefore," and Djjns thus means the same ones that could not separate the joyful cries from the wailing. Esd. shows a different text : 6 yap oyXoc, ^v 6 aaX- xll^uv [AsyaXwi; uoTe [lay.poOev dxoueaGat. (&^^ lacks n-i^-\r\ and rep- resents Snjn b^p2 ((ptovfj [AeydXy]), placing Sip in a different connection from Heb. 4'-^ = Esd. 5'*^■^^ The rejection of the Samaritans' ofifer. -The Samaritans heard of the building operations, and they 126 EZILA.-NEHEMIAH 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. * f- 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. 1°) has its proper place, while vv. ""'-" 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. 2. Zerubbabel] add a'nd 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 rehgious way. Esd. renders ''obey." These peo- ple acknowledge their foreign characters by saying ''your God." — To him we have offered 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 their 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-NEHEMIAH conditions in Sam. after 722, and must draw conclusions cautiously (v. further, Smith, OTH.-^", Mar. Jes.-'^, GAS. Jer. ii,'")- 3. For you and for us]. "And for us" is wanting in Esd., 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. 3^), The impetus for the building opera- tions is here derived from the royal order. It is possible to interpret the statement as the groimd 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 pcQple of the north would be intensified by the addition of for- eign elements. (See Rogers, Hist. Bab. and Assy, ii,^^^) 1. ns] (S o\ bXl^avxeq, Esd. 5" ol exOpot. Esd. adds t^<; (foXriq (nan). — S3'n] ^ olxov, Esd. vaov. Esd. adds i^XOoaav IxcYvuaat Tfq "f) ipuvJ) Twv aaCK-Klffdiv, mng. that the attention to the temple was attracted by the noise of the trumpets. — nSun] d (iicot/,{a<; = njnDn as 2'. Esd. ol ex t'qq atxiAaXwffla? = os'D also in 2^. — 2. '?33"\t]. We should add ywi-Sxi in harmony with v. ', as Esd. and (S^. — oain^NS] (&^ t^ Oe^ f](x.b)v, (5^ ev Ty Qetb u^jlwv. MT. is right though; S is found in this connection only in Ch. — nSi] as Qr. and all Vrss. we must rd. ^^^. — pmDN] elsw. only 2 K, 19" (= Is. 37='). As. ASur-a^-iddina. Most of the Gk. texts make sad havoc of this name; thus we find Aa^axaipaO Esd.^, NaxopSavK ■*■ preserves correct form AaoepaSSuv. — 3. iNc] is lacking in Esd. both here and in v. = (it is best omitted); C6^ has a curious dup. in v. =: Zer. and Jes. and the rest of the chiefs and to the chiefs of the clans. — i:Si] is lacking in Esd.^. — in''] CS> sxl -rb au-ri. Esd. [x6vot = n^S, a better reading, since in^ means together and would rather imply the acceptance of the offer. But see BDB., s. v. — ■'h'jn SniB'''] CS^'^ tw 6ew TjiJLoiv, Esd. tw xupt'ti) tou 'lapai^X. 424b_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 42''b-6i8 129 of the letter is very corrupt. I have been able to restore a suitable intr. to the letter of Dar. {v. 5« '•); 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. officers 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 (s'-")- 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«-i-). 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"'--*^, we 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''-'*^ the attitude of the Pers. officials is hostile, while in this section it is neutral. In 4' «■ the complainants put their own construe- 130 EZRA-NEHEMIAH tion upon the actions of the Jews, while in 4-* " the Jews axe invited to plead their cause, and their plea is forwarded to the Pers. court. 4''*''-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. s^'^ 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 earlier, or it may be that these words are but an editorial attempt to connect c. 5 with the correspondence with Arta.xerxes. — 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 may be that it has been carried back from this place to /^^^. — 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^- ^^ 2I. 10), 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 eos. "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 }l), 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. — Atid 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_5i8 1 2 1 "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 assumed 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] implying 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. I-' the text of Esd. is usually close to MT. But in w. **• 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 (S 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 (\^. ""^*), 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 accoimt 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 (11 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 42^b-6i8 j^^ 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. £v M Tw SeuTEpw exet iriq Aapeiou PafftXsiocs 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 siure marks of the source. The clause is much like 4=^. — h^ni^j] (& xpocpTt]Te;av, but Esd. •xpo^^xat (so (& in v.-); rd. no; in both cases. — hSn] 4- xupt'ou (&^ Esd. — pniSy] 05 Esd. Ix' au-uouc;. In spite of this support the word has no connection. It may have been originally their God. — 2. riw'j is explained as Pa. from xi'-r, used often with mng. "loosen." (& Esd. render rjpqavTo. — nj?D] only here in B. Aram., but it is a good Heb. word mng. "support." Aid by taking part in the work is the sense here. — 3. Njn?-n3] 05 £v au-rJ) tw xatpw (xp6v

^, really "answer." "U has a different text, bid the eye of their God was made over the elders of the Jews, and they ivere not able to EZRA 424b-6l8 135 restrain them. And it sufficed that the mailer should be referred to Dar., and they would give adequate proof against that accusation, i. e., that they were building without authority. 6-17 = Esd. 6'-". 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 oj 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 (^ we should probably substitute hewn or splendid (costly) (7;. i.). Esd. has a suggestive variant: the elders oJ 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. — 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, 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 (ovofiaToypa^iav) 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 (H 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 iis]. The answer of the Jews is recited at great length, continuing through v. 1^; 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. 141^- 2^ 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 42^^-518 j^y which it is said that the house was burned with fire (2 K. 25' 2 Ch. 361^ = Esd. i^). — 13. Here the story reaches Ezr, I. Nothing is said about the perrnission 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. 25I' '^•. — 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" (N'73''n) 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* "• 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 Sheshbazzar 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. 2 8. 10)^ I'jig 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 foimd. 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 424''_5i8 j^g 6f. The text is in evident disorder here, as in 4'-". Ace. to MT. the letter begins with trimS (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 (6^). Esd. has avtiYpa^ov i'Kis-co'kric; i)c, iypot^'sv AoepstM x«l aiceaTetAav. 2ia(v- VT3<; 6 exapxo? Supta? x.al tf>oiv{/.T)<; seal SaOpa^oupl^dvT)? xod o't auv^xatpot o\ ev Supfgt xal 'i>otv(xy) ri~fe[i.6vsc, ScxsCkel Aapet'w x°"'P^'''' "tavTa y'^'^'''^* x.ir. X. MT. has npuji 'jtn inci n-3y nna ijnn nStr-^T xmjx p-^io cv-n'? nij3 a^PD hjid) tiiSj? in'^ti' NDJna noSd cim-Sy mnj njyj in n^jd-ids- piT" nSj NpSa* NjSa . Esd. was plainly taken from this text, as shown by the underlined words. "Eypai^ev has no corresponding word until we reach 203. 'Hyeiiovsi; represents correctly n^jdidn, cf. xptxac for N^'on in precisely similar connection in 4". In 6« = Esd. 6-« we find xoti; aTCoxexay- (levot? . . . T)Y£tJL6oiv. 'AxsaxetXav represents mSti' not nS'.:'. The transla- tion of the plus in Aram, text runs: unto 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 sajns here as in v. ") to the king. Disre- garding for the moment the Vj; made necessary by a false connection, restoring the original place of rhv, 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 ]^iy for Sy. Esd. has an intr., but not a very suitable one. V. on 6^ The text here, therefore, originally stood as follows : xmjK ps'is (intr.) N"i3Dni3N nnij3i ■'jnj ihe'i mnj n^j? nno 'jnn (the letter) cim-Sj; inSiy >t ND^tf joSd cimS mnj— i3j;3 n. Then to 6« we should transpose jnx .nij3 a\n3 r\i•[^^ niSy nSif Nnjnis nd'^d cim 6. iJtr-ifl] (gSA Staaatprjati;, a word occurring only in 7'', and Gn. 40', for Heb. ]y^^o, "interpretation"; so here (5 understands "transla- tion"; cf. on 4", the original being in some other language, perhaps Bab. — 7. Nrsjns] (g pijatv^'^, pf)[j.a'' (so ^■^ in v."). — n'^3 aoh-y] (g with exact literalness cfpTjvY) xaaa, Esd. with greater freedom xat'petv (xo'r'tt') and connects nSo (xivxa) with v. ', icavxa yvwaxa eaxw. — 8. Nn:nD niri'S] d TouSa{o:v %topav, Esd. xcopav x-^s 'louSatag, Esd. has a -f- xal Tepou- aaXf)^ x-J)v xoXtv xaxeXipopiev x^? atxtAaXwaia? xoil<; xpsffPux^pou? xtov 'louSafwv Iv 'IspouaaXTjyL x^ xoXet, showing a ^atf rd. in two ways as in V. 5. — x3-\] is attributive of xnSs, but Esd. (olxov xy xupfw ti^yo'v xatv6v) connects with n'3, a more natural statement from foreigners. — SSj] 6< t. equivalent to the Heb. word and mng. "rolling." But (B has ExXexxol? (ip^ in Ez. 27"), Esd. §uaxwv xoXuxsXwv = Heb. niu pt* I40 EZRA-NEHEMIAH "ip\ In view of the forced mng. which must be given to VVj 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 niSij □•'J3n, but h^-\i does not occur in B. Aram. — nShd] Dn. s', Kautzsch,'<«, Mar. § ", cf. Heb. Spd, As. kiitallu. (& iolyo\c„ Esd. o't'xoiq^, loiyoic,'^^. ^'= read- ing is a blunder. — NJiiJOx] (^ e-ictSi^tov^'^, a^^, however, has a larger variant, run- ning: Toij p«CTt>.£w<; ^a^uXuvo?; Esd. correctly Iv Tot<; PaatXcxots ^t^Xio- 9uXotx{ots Tou xupi'ou (Kupou) [paatXiax; dup.] toI<; Iv ^aPuXwvt. — ^HN = Heb. Z'l, xdD3i nam i-i xnSx no 51* nSj^tjc p£3jn ni-jn3i:3j n ndD31 Nam n xnSx nia 6* IDH nnx 51^ ■ • ■ i3>n>i S32 IT NSo''nS inn S^ini aScno n 5" inn juipni S^iS Sjini aStrn-'^ n 6^ nhSn n''23 nnni n-inxS D'?B'n''a-n aho^nh 6^ In each version there is an omission of a practically complete section. In one case the lacking passage is Cy. the king brought them out from the temple of Bab. to Shes. by name, whom he had appointed governor, aiid 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 offered, 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 xSa^nS is possibly added on the basis of 144 EZRA-NEHEMIAH I'; la^H"' and ^n^nn' are only accidental variations. The final clause in 6' is absolutely unintelligible, and its resemblance to the clear state- ment of 5'^ is so close that the former is manifestly a corruption of the latter. The awkward nnni curiously has a parallel in 5 '5, where it cor- responds to IHM. Rendering the passage now and making certain selections we have: In the first year of Cy. the king 0} Bab., 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 and silver, which Nebuchadnezzar carried away from the temple in Jerus. and brought to Bab. should be restored to the temple in Jerus. ; and the house of God shall be halt 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' '■) indicates that they may well have been covered by the decree. The added material in 6% 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 We are constrained to pro- nounce against the authenticity of that passage. 1, Nni3D n>3] (& ^tpXtoOT^xat?, Esd. as in 5"' P:^Xto9uXax,fot?. Esd.* has PaaiXixiot? ^t^. — 2. npchn] old Pers. Havgmatana, Bab. Agmatanu. (& om. ^, A[i.aeaA, Ex^otTovot?!-!^^''-.— Nn-\03] f ^^^ has a dup. ev x6Xet Iv T^ ^lipet, Esd.'- pipet only. Bipt? is found in Jos. 'Ev xoXst is a gl., explaining a word unknown to all the Gk. translators. The corre- sponding Heb. nnia 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.^^). It here means the castle in which the king lives. — NnjnD nna] lacking 3. <& has t6i:ou connected apparently with iirepf understood. — ''Va] <&^^ Sxaptxa, which does not occur elsw. in (&, but in Aq. Th. Sym. in Job 20« = N'tP a. X.— j^SaiDc] t <8 EeTjxevBA, TtO'^iu'-. The sense of Heb. Sao will EZRA 424b-6i8 14^ not fit; the traditional "raised" has no authority. (B scarcely makes sense, "and let the foundation be laid," but ^ adds, a foundation of a cubit. Haupt suggests that 'nvi'vs = Heb. na'N, "fire offering," and cf. As. zahalu, so "and bring in his fire offerings." He compares Esd. oxou liciOuouatv Stot xupb<; svBeXsxoiJ?. '^'here they continually oj'er 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 rnat.. int^Ni = Stii Tcup6?, i'''?3iDD = eySsXexou? = Heb. '\''r?Pi. The corruption seems quite hopeless, the Vrss. having as much difficulty and reaching as many conclusions as modern scholars. — pnc-nins] lacking in (6^ Esd.^^; ^ has 'iq (rnw')- 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 r\m-y Dn-i-j? hnd pcx hdini. — 4. r^^nj] is generally derived from the As. nadbaku, which means "mountain slope," but Zimmem says this remains questionable (Mar.", Mey."). The mng. "course" is quite certain; (5 Soiiot. — S^j] lacking in (&^, xpa- xatdt*'-, V. on 5 5. — >n] Esd. adds eyx'^P'O'^) which represents mrx in Ex. 12" Lv. 18-'= 24=2 Nu. 1529; in Ps. 37" ]r;-\ n-.is, "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 (&, sls'^'^, xatvwv I'va^^^'^-, a dup. reading both mn, "new," and in "one." The latter is correct. — Nnpsj] v. » \ from root pflj, cf. 5'^, "what is brought out," "outlay." m]. To this point our text follows 5" verbatim except as noted above. Here we have a summarising of 5"b-i5. 0|b jjg^ Q^iy ^^\ t6xou stIOt) ev o"x(j) ToO esoO, i. e., it lacks all but nhSs ni33 nnm nnriNS. al follows MT., but with manifest corruptions. Esd.^-*- supports a shorter text: dtxo- xaTaaiaB^vat ei? xbv olxov tJjv lv Isp. ou ■^v -/.sfiAgva and adds a dup, reading, oxox; TEGfj Ixst; ^ has only the double reading at the end. Mar. suggests a restoration thus : ji'tI''^'*'' Jinnn^i a':'a'n>3 n nSd^hS jn^-inM kdSn noa; but this source used Sa^n only of the temple of Bab. — mnNS] is surely connected with ni.nx-'rj? 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. ^ °'"* ^, 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 fro^n 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-offering, 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 oflacials 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 CI. 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 ofifi.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 424b_5l8 j^y 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 uncertain. Herod, testifies to the custom among the Assyrians (iii,i^^). 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 he ptilled 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. i"), so he naturally invokes his displeasure upon all who interfere with the restoration of his cult. 6. '•jnn] (gBA ija^g Scjas-re, forgetting the n. p. — Jinnusi]. The sf. should be second p. — nn pp''m] (S [xaxpav ovtec;^^, [x. (Jxsxsxe'-, Esd. dtxixsaGat. — nDn-p] d £X£t9ev, Esd. toO tozou = inx-p. — 7. Nnini nne] is lack- ing in (S"^, Mar. cm. also, ol i^iQYourjilvot t. 'Iouo^. Esd. exapxov x. louS. prefixing xbv •rcatSa xupfou Zopo^a^sX. — •'^ti''?] with C5 Esd, we must om. S, since ^yz' as well as nno is subj. of pja\ Esd. has a 4- after aya: 6Xoax£pw? oixoSo^AYjcrat xal aievfaoti. — 8. otr] Esd. 6-^ aixtJi-^^wata? = lat?, a word not found in B. Aram. — "jSn] lacking in (&^^, a text approved by Mar. Esd. has [J-^xpt = ly. nj2sS, Esd. sxtTsXsaOiivat, so " until the house of God is finished." — ddj] 726 f. The word occurs in late Heb. and the mng. is clearly established as "property." — njiadn]. V. on 5'. — 9. jntt'n] pi. of nnts'n f, ^^^ baxig-r^xa, (Si^ Sdov. — jmn 1J2] (Heb. onitf) means "young bullocks." This is associated with Lv. 4'- " p "ib sp2. But ^J3 is lacking in (5'- and in Esd., also in v. " 7", and may have been introduced here under the influence of Lv. <& has three render- 148 EZRA-NEHEMIAH ings of pii.n : ^owv'^'^, \}.b<;~/_o'j<^- , xaupou?^-^'-'-. Moaxou? may represent 'ja. — iSs' nS n] (S^'^ dav alx-/jawfftv, reading '?x-', and being a repetition of "d iDXDa. ©^ has apparently a dup., the above preceded by ixa- paXX(4)txui;, a word found elsw. only in Est. 3" (Apocr.), but which may represent our text, since "unchangeably" would be a suitable ren- dering. — 10. X^rh] Mar. § "='. — pmn^j] (Dn. 2« f) is a Hebraism, occur- ring in J (Gn. 8") and very often in P; (& suwSfa? gives a wrong sense. — r'^^'^l Mar. § '<«. In As. saltu is used in sense of "entreat," but not to pray to a deity, Zim. KAT.^- "»• »). — "n] (S^ auTitjpfaq, Xjiitriy^'^. 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. — n"'p] t here only in B. Aram. Pe. pass. ptc. The word occurs twice in late B. Heb. — xn?:]. The mng. usually given, "smite," is scarcely appropriate here. BDB. gives two ideas, one of impalement {v. s. ipi) and the other nail. The latter would imply crucifixion, whereas the mng. is impalement, d^^ •TcXyiyiQasTat gives the true sense. (5^^ has luayrjasTa!, which has the mng. impale. — iSu] d xb xax' i[Ki^^, dq Siapxayfjv'-. Dn. 2^ ^-^ f- Jensen compares As. naivalii-, "ruin" (BDB.). The mng. given "dunghill" is not appropriate, though that sense is found in Targum; "ruin" is better in ever>' case. (S^- " plunder" would give good sense, but it is dub. whether that mng. is permissible. — nn-Sy] 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 modern scholars; Sta. Gesch. ii,'", Kost.-', Sieg. Mey.". Mey.'s argument is typical: "It is quite impossible that Dar. in an official 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 nijtynS 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 xiipto?, ou th ovotia auTou extx.iy.XT]Tat Ixst, dyavfoai xivxa ^autX^a xal eOvo? 0? sxrevel xstpa auToO xwXuaat ^ xaxoTcotrjaat ihy oIx,ov xupfou IxEtvov xbv Iv 'lepouaaX-rjiJ.. 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_6i8 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 SLmplified, 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 {cf. 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 Jeios 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 Cyrus; 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 otit, 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 implication 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 5 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]. (^ 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, ajid the gatekeepers at each gate, but that suggests a period after Nehemiah had built the walls. 13. V.'' in Esd. is as follows: xaTaKoXouSiQaavTe.; rot? uxb tou gadtXEWi; Aapefou xpoaTaYsiutv sTteaTctTouv Tdiv lepwv ep^wv IxttJieXeaTspov auvsp- YouvTE? x] Esd.^^ ipuXap/wv. — 18. m^ay] which referred to the building in 5' here indicates the temple cult. — ntiSn] (8^ ayiiay ol'xou xou 6eou. — iflo] (S^ pt^Xtw vopiou. Esd. adds: xal o\ Oupupol i(f' |-/,(iaTou icuXcovoi;, 3 Esd. ct 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 najn v. " to oSsyn^a V. '«, as shown by the repeated £v xy Mwaitix; Pf^Xtp, and by the sus- piciously close agreement with MT. EZR. 6^3-" = ESD. yio-i^ 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 modifted 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 passover on the fourteenth day of the first month. (20) Now the priests and the sons of the captivity were not cleansed, but 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. 35'-". 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. 35" the phrase is "prepared." In- deed, the points of identity are mostly in stock phrases, whicli 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 sufi&cient evidence to determine the date of the piece, but such indications as we have suggest that it belongs to the early period. EZRA 6i'-« 153 It may well belong to the time of Cj'., 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"-6's and may originally ha%-e 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 tlie 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 ivere 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 tmclean. As the Passover was kept in memory of the return from the capti\-ity 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 re\'ival 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 vdrtually a part of the Passover, continuing for seven days thereafter (Ex. 12^=). Instead of unth joy for Yah- weh made them rejoice] it is better to read with Esd. rejoicing before YaJrweh. — He turfied tJte heart] (or counsel as Esd.) refers to some especial act of favour shown to the Israelites. — King of Assyria] is strange here. We should expecl "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 Pers. ruled over the old As. domain, the title might be used by a Pers. 154 EZRA-NEHEMIAH king (so Berth.). In Ne. 138 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. iB'j?ii] (& IxotTjoov, but Esd. uses a more technical word, ri^k-^a- gjj^BA ^yayov'-. — nSun ija] is suspicious, for the Passover was slain for • the sons of the golah (v. 2"). Esd. has ol ulol 'Icjpa9)>. tuv ex, xfj^ oe?%- HaXtoaias, 19 filil Israel transmigrationis, 3 Esd. filii Israel aim his qui erant ex captivitate, i. c, 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, Bxe EZRA 4^-6 155 •^YvfoOrjaav ol Up£l<; xal o\ Aeuelxott a;jLa y.al xivTSs o't u'tol ttjc; ac^- (iaXwatai? OTt [oux.^] ■fjyviffGYjffav ott ot Aeuetxat ajia •rcivTsi; TiyviaOTjaczv, 3 Esd. qiiando sandificali sunt sacerdotes et Levitae. Omnes filii captivitatis non sunt simul sanctificati, quia Levitae omnes simul sandificati sunt. The reading o-ct in ^^ is senseless, and ^ supported by 3 Esd. is correct. Some parties were clean and others not. Now the subj. of lanirii can only be the Lev. We can get good sense for a part of the v., i. e., hut the Lev. to a man were all of them dean, 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. oi[i', and lacks D''n':'Nn pi^ or rather has xupt'ou instead. — nini . . . nnntio] appears in Esd. as evav-ut xupt'ou'-, eijq3pat6[ji.£vot I'vavTt xupt'ou^'^. "House of God" was added by the Chr. when he attached the passage to the temple story. Esd. gives better sense, for Yahiveh made them rejoice and turned is awkward. We should rd. therefore S^na-i inSx nin> nsxSca . . . iicn iSd nx>' aon ■ >:oh a^n'cv. 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. < '• 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-NEHEMI AH vv. •» f- 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. 5b lead up to $'. 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 Camb3'ses. As the editor supposed the events narrated in 3^-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 hes in the word "build," v. ^ That could not refer to the building of the temple, for we have three accounts of that performance (3 '-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. 11, each one in his way, furthered the desires of these people. We have nothing from the long reign of Xerxes. Before him EZRA 4^-6 157 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., KATJ- '^^), 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* 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 10= " Ne. 9''' lo"- 32 and "peoples of the lands" in 3^ gi- 2. n Ne. g^*- 30 1029. In Ezr. lo^- n 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. g^- -■ ^\ "peoples of these abominations" (9") being used synonymously, but the emph. here is on the difference of religion rather than of race. In Ne. 9^" the term refers to the As. and Bab., therefore the foreign people distant from Judah. In Ne. 10'= it is rendered "traders" in BDB., but the real mng. is country people as distinguished from those in Jerus. In Ne. g^* the word for peoples has an unusual form ('DDy), 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 EZR A-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 thetn, 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," f^ 8^^ but here BDB. gives the meaning "agents." The counsellors w^ere 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. T^NH Dj?] Esd. TaSe e'Gvtj t^? y^?, 3 Esd. gentes terrae, rd. "'Dj? as in other places. — ni didid] only case of Pi. in this connection. Qal is used several times with ti as subj., e. g., 2 S. 4", where we have also Snj. Esd. gives us ii^iy-oiiuliixsvoL^^ {incwnbentes , 3 Esd.) = ^''?, Dt. 21^' = 332', I K. 3I', hardly a suitable sense here; sTcixotvuvoOvra^ occurs only in Sirach 26^ 4 Mac. 4^. This gives quite a different sense, sent a communication to those in Jiidah, possibly ordering them to stop the work. — a^nS^D] trouble, QT.U-hr\2'a, frighten. 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 w. '-2< there are two references to the building of the temple, both in the letter of complaint, neither being in the Aram, text (Esd. 2i7- so = Ezr. 4'2- "). 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., 5*"^). The references to the temple- building are therefore impossible in an earlier section. If these references EZRA 4'--<» l6l had becu 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. 1. 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^ ff), 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. '-2<». 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 05 as Art.; if the same mistake had been made here, the error in (S 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 difficulty of its own. 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 (4O, 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. " s-, 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 imder 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 theproject. 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"--^» 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 breaking 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 obhged 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 theor>' that Ezra is later than Neh. The points raised by Kost. {Wied.^* ^■), 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. =" admits of no satisfactory explanation, since the history of David and Solomon 1 64 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, (s) The phrase "until a command is given by me," v. -^, 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. 21-* 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 ser\'ant. 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 hypothesis. 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. — The rest of their associates] suggesting an official body which joined in the complaint whose word would add EZRA 4'-24» 165 weight to the charge. The word rendered "associates" occurs in the Eleph. pap., where the meaning is determinable. In I, l.^ 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. — A fid 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 (S. 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. 1912,2^). Rehum then would be the chief officer. — Shimshai the scribe] w. ^- ^^- '^ 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 (H^, so Hoffmann, Mar. — Apharsath- chites] also interpreted as "generals" (BDB.). — Tarpelites] or an official title tabellarii (Jensen) : it has also been interpreted as Iranian and equal to the frequently used term "beyond the River" (Syria). — Aphar sites]. Marquart renders "secretaries." — Archevites] the people of Erech (Mey. Ent.'^'^), a city in Bab- ylonia. — Babylonians] only occurrence of the gentilic form in OT. — ShushanchUes] the people of Susa, the Elamite capital. 1 66 EZRA-NEHEMIAH — Dehaviks]. Following (S^ 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 Asnappar 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, (I 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 (& 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 examination 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 men of Ahar-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 izalhic, aou we have 'Pa6u(ji,os 6 (Torrey rightly supplies ypaipwv) t« xpoaxt'xxovTa xal "^a^iWioc, 6 Ypa(J-[AaTeij<; xal ol sxfXotTuot t^<; ^ouXfji; auTwv xal (xp(- xat'-) o\ Iv xo-rXj) Supt? v-aX otv(xjj. And in v. " we find in the ad- dress of the king's reply an additional clause, o!5(,oijatv Iv Safjiapefij:. Combining this material we see that the beginning of the letter then must have been: n"»od iB'Dt:'i a>.'a-S;?3 mm y^2y jnx ndSd Nni^'S'nmNS mnj— 13;? •i>s!i'i rina> n nnpa |''3''ni n |inni:3 -iNri. 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: y^piyi aya-Spj pini (8) -S}?3 Dim piN (9) :NDjo iSo'^D NPtr'trnmN':' dSb'ti'-Sj; mn nijwX lan^ nidd N3-I nijjDK "iSjn IT N-inx nxa'i (10) : ... xijn pnnuD •\i^•^^ nidd >'i;-cz'> ovtD xmjN ptfiD nji (11) : PjyjT mnj— i^y ni< reading ^nx. 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. Rehnm the reporter (or commander) and Shimshai the scribe wrote a letter against Jems., (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 this result 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 (BtjXeiaoi; xal MtOpaSdrTjs r.J ]ja'-\fl in v. " 'Y%o-^e-(paiL[Liyqv occurs only in the Apocr. On p^r^D :;. i. critical note. Finally, xpovots may represent "'D', but never elsw. stands for nnsD. 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 Jems, 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 commander 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 hteral 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, Mithrcdates, 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 Jems, to Art. the king as follows. (9) Then Rehum the reporter and Shimshai the scribe and the rest of their companions, the Dlnaites and the Apharsathchites, the Tarpelltes, the Apharsites, the Archemles, the Baby- lonians, the Shushanchltes, the Dehavltes, the Elamites, (10) and the rest of the nations whom the great and noble Asnappar took captive atid 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. A-nd 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>3] in V. « the same idea is expressed by ni3'?na, showing a dif- ferent hand. — xns'B'nnnN] an Aramaised form. In C5 only ^ and Esd. 170 EZRA-NEHEMIAH show the regular Gk. form Apxa^ip^ou; ''has AsapBaOa, * Ap6aaaa9a. Bab. form is Ar-iak-sai-su, Achamenian, UriaxSasa. — 2P2] 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. — inus] does not occur in Heb., but is frequent in the Aram, passages, w. '■ i'- -' 5' 6^- ". It is contended by Zimmem that its As. equivalent kinattu 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. ". — 2no] 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'^. C5 renders as a vb., sypaij^ev. — pncjn] also 71'; the Chr. has taken this from Aram. vv. '^-ss^s, Andreas says middle-Iranian ptc. pf. pass. nihhist = scriptuni (Mar.) , Hoffmann {ZA. \i,^-) and Str. similarly. Mey. holds that it is an error for pariD, Pers. patigania, "report" or "mes- sage." As it is synonymous with ano, he contends that the latter is an explanatory gl. of the Pers. word. CI here and v. " 6 (popoXiyoc, which in Job 3'* 39' = e'JJ, "oppressor," but the mng. here, as appears from Esd. 2^, is "tax-collector." — ama] (5 -jfpacpi^v. — niD-iN^] lacking in (&, while DJinn is IppLTjveufjL^vigv, so agreeing with Ypa^iQV. (& 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. 18=^), it is difficult to see why the letter must have been first com- posed in one language and then translated into another. Mar. after d calls i'T'DiN a gl. We might solve the problem by reading pariij (11. on V. ") "copy," and thus have the letter was written in Aram, and there was an Aram, copy, the copy being preserved in w. "S-. The most prob. solution is that we have a jargon of copyists' marginal notes or directions, c. 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. — 8. mm]. Both this and iB'Dtt' are declared to be Syrian names by Mey. (Ent.^*). Rehum was regarded as Pers. by Rawlinson, while Andreas (Mar.'^) regards 'B'DB' as a popular etymological adaptation from an Iranian ''CCtt'. Thus is it determined to make foreigners of two good Heb. names. — aya-Spa] was misunderstood in (B, and transliterated in various ways, pa8aTa[j.ev^, ^aa\z(z[L^, psXT£e(i^. Esd. BelXrepLOi;, but in v. " xa icpoaxfirrovra, to which Torrey rightly adds from v. " h ypi^wv. Andreas explains as a translation of an old Pers. title; Mey. says it is applied to the governor EZR7\ 4'^-"^^ 171 of a small Pers. district. It seems to be a compound, "master of commands," a sense suitable in v. =^ Torrey renders "reporter." — ■ K0J3] from J3 and indefinite nd and mng. "as follows" (Str. Mar.'O- It is lacking in 05, but appears in Esd. apparently as Hepawv. — 9. piN]. Contrary to the general statement, this is represented in C5 by a doub- let, TaSs exptvev. Str. regards as gl. Berth, explains it as a doublet from N'jn 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. Ci» saw the defect and supplied it by taking piN in two senses (n T''i^')- 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. — (n)"'01x]. Jensen, Theol. Liz. 1895, proposed to iden- tify with Gk. apxot, an interpretation generally rejected in favour of "people of Erech." — N'Saa] is clearly "people of the city of Bab." — Ni3jtt>Vi;']. Zimmern (KAT.^- "=) suggests that here is preserved an iden- tification of the Susian god SiiHnak with the name of the city. Andreas, Mar.ss, (cf. De. Par.'^'') explains ak as a sf.; so Str. — yznz'l is the place-name. — vsini] De. (BD.^) suggested Du-u-a, found in As. con- tract tablets. Virtually all scholars now agree with (&^ ol etfft'v = x-in n, "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. et 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. — nti] Schrader proposed Da- ja-e-ni (KAT.^- 2«). De. Din-sarru, a city near Susa (BD.^). Z'r^D having same sense, "copy," Est. 3'^ 4' 8'^. Mar. says both words come from Pers. In Gk. we find five renderings: (i) b%oys'{p(X[i\i.i\ir]v, Esd. 2"^. (2) uxoxeffievov, Esd. 7". (3) d(;vTt-]fpa90v, Esd. 5' (B^-. (4) Sta- xajrj, <&^^. is) Staad^Tjutq, CS'"^ in 5« 7". — •'niS>'] lacking in (B^ and in ARV. through misunderstanding the corruption of the text. The let- ter proper begins with 'mN-S;;. — 'y:n] = Heb. b'un. Esd. has o\ IxfXoi- •rcot TT]? pouX^? auTwv. 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 tmto 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 (&'■ 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 ivill 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 : but 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 (^^. d^ 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. i8'», 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 officers 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 v/e 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 te.xt, and a sadly erroneous one: because mailers al Ihc lemple 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 book of thy father's memoirs]. The words imply that the kings kept a record of events presumably for reference. EZRA 4"-24'» 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, 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 he an outlet for thee to the province beyond the River. The meaning is not essentially different. 12. NinS] Esd. xy xupftp reading nin\ Mar. explains preformative S as a change due to the similarity of the form with nini (§ 6 5a)j gtr. otherwise (§ ^st); ji. AJSL. xiii. — iniV-jcJ.f There is difference of opinion about the composition, v. Mar. § "d^ Kautzsch,'-*- '. There is prob. a n. which has lost its force in the prep.; the mng. is like Heb. D^D, and so "from thee" or "from thy presence." (& has dx6 xijpou^, 4x0 aou^, xap' uixwv^ ^"'^ ^^^■. — Nji'^i']. 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. — xmia] Vv. '^-is; on the form v. Mar. § **, Kautzsch, § "d (kattal). It is equivalent to Heb. tic. 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. et al., adopt Qr. iSSoc *tmtyi] 176 EZR A-NEHEMI AH 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 : (& %a\ xa. xeixfi au-ui^i; xa-cTjp- xia^iivoi e'itjlv, they are repairing (or finishing) the walls, using the same word for SS3 in vv. "■ '« 5=- ^- " 6" (but in v. " ^ has IxoiiAaaG^). Esd. has xal la xeiyr} Ospaxeuouat, but auvTsXeaB^ in v. ", showing a different Aram. vb. here. 3 Esd. et statmint muros. 0ep. may have the mng. repair, and that is the sense required here. — la^ni nib'ni] offers serious difficulty. (& has v-dX GspisXtous auTJjc; avutj^waav, "B et parietes componentes. Esd. xal vcih-^ uxopaXXovTat^'^, y.. v. uxsp^iXXovra Ge[xe- XtoOfftv^. 3 Esd, et templmn suscitant. 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. s. v. am and the comm.). Str. reads lain'', as 5'% "laid the foundations." Jensen derives from As. hahi, "examine," an unsuitable sense here. Haupt calls it Afil of B'jn, "excavate the rubbish" (Guthe,^'), 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 N'PS'iNai . . . NHNnp in apposition with aSs'n\ The separation of the obj. from its vb. by these adjectives, as is usually done, is very awkward. — pj^] is left without an obj., but the text is wrong in any event; the ptc. would not be used with the verbs following in theimpf. (S^ has xal olxoSo[jLouaiv auT'^v. Esd. has oE/.oOatv [oixoSotAoOac^^] -ud:? Ts dYopa? auT^q. 3 Esd. cedificant furnos ejus. 'Ayopd is used in Eccl. i2<- s Ct. 3= for P12', "a street," which is really an Aram, word, and which may have been confused with ma' though "US' 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. ^i this city shall not be built, we might infer that city was meant here; but there are three counts in V. 1-, reduced to two in v. '' and to one in v. -', so that the phrases are not repeated. Indeed, we should expect a generalisation in the latter passage. Some form of nj2 is well attested, and some obj. is required. Now NPB'iNai does not recur with nii^-\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 toSn*? . . . j>*3. The words may be an accidental rep- etition from v. ". — I'^ni iVa mjD] v. "" 7", (5 qxSpot oux ejov-rat^^, f 6pwv Tcpa^'v xal auvTiXeopia^, Esd. 90poXoy(otv ou [j.t) uxojjLetvuatv Soijvac. ^ as often shows correction from MT. (S has had our text, but in 1S3 has seen a negative (nS) and in iSn a vb. (I'^n''). m:c, or, better, nnn, so Heb. Ne. 5* (cf. did 6') is derived from As. mandatu {nadanu, "give" EZRA 4^ -24 a I^y = Heb. jnj). pa is explained from As. hiltu, "tax," or, better, from Iranian bali, ''tribute." Mey. explains as tax in kind. iSn from vb. "go," is explained as money paid for going, "toll" (Mar. Glossary, Str. et al.); but such a derivation is not convincing though generally accepted. Another explanation is found in As. ilku, "tax" (Ges.^, Winckler, Alt. Forsch. xv,"^ '•). Winckler supposes 1*73 to be a corrup- tion of iSo' 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. — DnDN'Jfmng. dub.; Andreas emends dddn, Pers. afsos, "in- jury"; usually explained as mng. "in the end"; Scheft. (BDB.) "treas- uries," from Zend patkiva. Mey. gets mng. "income." — aisSn] "an unsupportable Hebraism" (Mey. Etit.-*); he would rd. n^Sd, so "the revenues of the king." — ;^ur^D] vv. '^- " Dn. 6^ f; on the form v. Kautzsch, § 3^ -^, third p. f. used in neuter sense, "it will injure," or it may go back at least in sense to nnp (Berth.). 05 xaxoicotel^*^, hyXiiaouaa^, Esd. avTtaTYjaovrat. The last word in 2 Ch. 13''- repre- sents pin in Hithp., but sense prob. "rebel against" as 3 Esd. resistent. — 14. nn;*] (5 with great literalness, aa%Tj[xoauvT), the rendering in many places of Heb. nnj?, which is apparently the same word used here. — 15. x''j-iD-i] Heb. piDT, cf. Mai. 3'", "memorandum-book"; here the royal annals. The phrase is wanting in (&^^ in the second place; Esd. Iv xolq dL%'h xcov xaTripwv aou ptpXtoi?. — Jjin] Heb. njnD, cf. 2', Esd. •rcoXet?. — inntt'N] V. " t from -ns-, Dn. 6'», Mar. § '^^ CS (pui-aSsia. — jnaj'] ® SouXwv, by an easy misunderstanding. Esd. xoXiopxt'a? CTuveaTaixlvot, may represent this text, giving to "nnirs a mng. somewhat different from the received one, "enduring sieges." — 16''. (S^^ has only oox gaTtv aot etp-^viQ. Esd., e^ooo?, has rd. p'^'n as l^n (f/. v. "). (S is certainly not based on our text exc. for iS n*^. 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 oflScers to stop the building of the city until authorisation is given by him. The officers 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 hack to Rehum . . . peace and command. Esd., then the king wrote back to Rehum . . . the 1 78 EZRA-NEHEMIAH 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. 8»; 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: / 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 EZRA 4^-24* 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 Jevv^ish 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, Rehmn el 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." 17. ndjpd] 5'- " 6i> Dn. 3'« 4" f Bib. Heb. Eccl. 8" Est. i^o f. From Old Pers. patigama (Andreas, Mey. Ent.'^'' '•). (B^^ lacks the word, possibly because its mng. was unknown; (5'- has a feeble rendering, tov X6yov. Esd. combines with nh">, if that represents same text, Tdis dvziyga'liev. — cn>'3i) ahz'] (Si^A gjpT^vYjv v-ad (paatv, both being apparently obj. of d-zia- TstXsv. (S^ eEp-^vT] u[jitv. xal vOv. This represents a good text reading poS for n;73i. dVit is not "prosperity," as BDB., but "peace to you," a common greeting. The greeting is lacking in Esd.; in place of last two words there is ta bxofsf pa[H).ivct as in v. ". 3 Esd. ea qua sub- jeda sunt. — 18. irissn] f lacking in d^^ and Esd.; W- c& *" (S was forced to translate and uses YvutiYj; but 05^ in ^ib Zhfiia. — "laync] (B ytvovTat^^, Y'Tvovrat^ Esd. has 01 d'vOpwxot as iubj. — 20. pe^^n] see Mar. § s-. Esd. bxupoi y.al axXT]pol. — pp"^::'] C5 eicixpaxouvTe?, Esd. xupisuovreq, both texts reading as a ptc. The rest of v. appears in Esd. thus: xal (popoXoyouvxsi; xoiX-r^v Supfav y.al ^o'.vtxTjv; whether this is a free rendering or represents a simpler te.xt, it is hard to say. — 21. m''Z'] rd. as in v. ", oitt' or npr, I make a decree; cf. Esd. iizixa^x. — airn^ NDya ^jD-ny]. ^'^'^ was apparently puzzled by this passage; we find ixi [oxm?'^] i-Kb t^<; yvwtnr]!; = p ij? NDya. (S^ 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 Sj?, against, and getting a negative in iSii'. — 22. jninr] f Pe. pass, ptc; it is the same as Heb. ini, which may be of Aram, origin. (5 xs(puXaY[jLevot^^, xpo- dytxs}', Esd. xpovoif]6f)vai. — 1*?'.^] C5 aveacv^A icapa Xoyov^. — nnS] (^ i^-q xoT£, Esd. piTj, z. c, nS. The force is that of Heb. j?, cf. Kautzsch, § ^s- m. — njl:'''] appears in Esd., xpo^f) eicl xXeTov, evidence of the free render- ing which often characterises this text. (S^ xXijOuvO^ a(p6Spa. — xSan] (S dcpavtayii?, apparently interpreting like Heb. Sjn "destruction," Esd. •z^c, v.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/.). — II. 1. p''j] Est. 3't) often in later Heb.; from Bab. nisdnu. The old Heb. name is 313N. — i^ish^] (S^^^ evd)xtov i\j.oiJ, rd. with Kittel, ct al. 'jflS. — For jnj] in this sense v. Gn. 40". — vjdSs]. To get the accepted meaning Kittel reads dijoS, so Kent. But we should require "'Jfl vn as vv. 2 f-. The text is good, but it has not been correctly interpreted. — ynl is antithetic to 21311 jn v. ' and means "in disfavour." (& gets an entirely different sense: -^v ?T£po<; = j:^ nm; that is difficult to reconcile with V. ', and is unnecessary. But see my note in Guthe,'". (&^^ adds xal ^[xri-^ cxu6p(i)'rc6c;, and I was of a sad coimtenatjce, lacking nS, but this is a dup. — 2. pnn] cj. Gn. 40' Dijn ddijo yno, and d>j£3 yi Eccl. ^S 196 EZR A-NEHEMI AH — n'^in] 05^AN (jtexpta'Cwv, a. X. in (S>. This gives a different sense: 2vhy is Ihyfacc sad attd thou art not composed? This is an interesting variant, but i^ is prob. correct. — 2S j?-\] in i S. i;^' a^S yn means "badness of heart," "evil purpose": "sadness of heart" is aS-naxy (Prov. 15"), aS-njJD (Lam. 3"). (5^*^ renders D'^n and >n colourlessly by xovT]p6v and xovT)p(a; ^ with better discrimination by axuOpwxov and Xiixr). The context fixes the mng. here, and "sadness" is the right idea. — 3, n^ni] (5 l^T)T(i). We should rd. ^r\> as in other cases of this greeting, i S. io24 I K. i25ff-. — iy-i^] Ges.^". d^'^^' adhere to tcovt^pov, (&^ aTuyv^ast. ni3 does not recur in v. ^ and is doubtful here, needlessly cumbering the text. — nnap] ^^^^ [jLVT]yi,eto)v, so v. ^, i:a-nD nnc t\on. It appears that we have a dup. for DT\i3 and (a)mfl have evidently been confused. Now keeper of the royal tnides 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 label it N.: aman idi:' tlD^<■''^^< mjs (v. ^t) i^jj naion in'^N— lo -iSon >•? ]r\>^ "i*? |ni nirx •^rh ■m'N. 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 hatid of Cod upon me, a letter to Asaph the keeper of the king's nudes 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.^^). — noS iifx n-ion njjc]. (gBA j^^g Qj^iy ■ziq TuuXai;. n-|i3 and no are syn. and we should rd. either non ■^t^'^•, a note explaining the unusual m^an, or n^aS ntfN nnyiyn, to which mon 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 mi3 (op. cil.). But he sees in the passage only the Chr.'s hand, and not the additional corruption of an original 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 198 EZRA-NEHEMIAH by dividing the chapter at the end of v. ^, as most scholars still do, following the wrong guidance of (&. 10. Sanhallat 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. ^^ f^ 41 6^- ^- ^- ^^- " 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. ^^ 3^^ 41 61- 12- 14. 17. 19 1^4. 7. 8 •]-_ T\As> whole expression recurs in V. "; in 3^^ we have Tobiah the Ammonite; elsewhere Tobiah alone. He has been identified with Tabeel of Ezr. 4^ by Van Hoonacker (Sac. Zct.^"). 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 fo 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 Parodies ,^^^) . ■ — // 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 I99 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. Gcsch. ii,i", JBL. 1896,129, and the map in Kent's Hist. Biog. NarJ*\ and asp. Mitchell, JBL. 1903," «-, 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. 1^), 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]. (S 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 tJie valley gate] to which by night is needlessly added from v. ^2. The valley gate (v. 1^ 3" 2 Ch. 26^) is the gate leading to the valley of Hinnom (on which v. GAS. Jer. i,i^i ^- i'^ f), and on the western wall of Jerusalem. The corresponding modern entrance is the Jaffa gate {v. Ryle's note). — And unto the mouth of the dragon-springy 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. — A}td unto the dung gate] 3^' ^- 12" 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 tJie animal to pass under me]. This is hard to under- stand; EV. the beast that was under me is based on B cui sede- bam, 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 20I the same place at which he had started, d 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. et at. 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 flight 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 CH 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 atid 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- ^^\ GAS. 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 : afid 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.390a. 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 difficult, 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 CH and B we find: and I said, lei 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. 1^ 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 (8 in part and translate: and I said, let us up and build ! and their hands took hold [of the work] auspiciously. 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 (cf. v. "), Geshem the Arabian] V. 6^- 2- «; 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 (^, 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. — ■ 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 Ci» 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 2 205 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 (ICC.'^). There is nothing in the remarks of Sanb. to indicate anj^ such friendly purpose, and Neh. is not declining 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. toS^jD] (B 2avaPaX(X)aT. The name is Bab. Sin-nballil, or ace. to Winckler Sin-muballit, but Haupt notes that this m in Bab. is often silent (Guthe-Batten,6'). ® preserves the pronunciation better than MT. — "n '\2-;n noio] is lacking in (S^, but as we find auToti; for an*^ it is evident that the omission is a mistake. — nSnj nyn] sounds more like the Chr. than N. The words are lacking in CS^'^^, while ^ has a vb., xal eXuxTjOrjaav = nnii (?). — 11 is almost an exact reproduction of Ezr. 8" or the converse. There the verbs are pi. and we have acj instead of 'HN. — 12. oSc'n'''?] [KSTx ToG TapaifjX^-'^'^', ^ has a dup., prefixing T'n 'IepuCTaXTf][JL. (H was influenced by the Chr.'s "sons of Israel" in v. 1°, perhaps even to a correction of the text. — na] ®ban ^^' auxu = n>Sjj. ^ has the usual dup. ev w . . . ex' auTw. a in this sense is so rare and hy so common that we must suspect the text. — 13. nSiS N>jn] d translit- erates yuikt]kdc, to which we find a correction in ^^', yuv.ihq. V. ", giving the terminus at the valley gate, shows that the text is sound. nSiV is certainly unnecessary after v. ^^, and is a gl. — pjnn] (B auxwv^^^' = DijNnn; SpdxovTo?^. — "^2^'] auvxpf^wv^'^'^', xctTavowv^, 31 consideraham, so V. ". The former stands for -y2-d and makes no sense, nafc' occurs only here and in v. ", but inspect is the sense required. — nnin] Tstj^st^Ax^ -cefxeatv'-, murum H: point npm. — aisnsan] or oisns an as Qr.; in i^ iTiioc; (6 has: 8 otuTol xaOatpoOatv®**', zolq xaTeaxaatx^vot?^. — Z'Hi . . . IK'n] has been added from i^. There is no jugglery by which we can join it to its context. We might retain nxiDon iii'N, but that fails in v. '^ Indeed, the whole of v.'' interrupts the narrative of the itinerary and needlessly anticipates v. "^ Houtsma reads 3''X-i2n nnrx, comparing Aram, njicn, Ezr. 5'- ', and believes the first word has a special ar- chitectural mng. like gate-structure {ZAW. 1907,^8 f.)_ — 14, pjyn] 0} ^oO 2o6 EZRA-NEHEMIAH AEva^'^', Atv*, T. -Kriyfjq^. — 15. Snja] (S Iv tw Tsfxsc x^'f-'^PPOu?^*'*) §'« Tou xetiJLappou^ = Snjnnmna. The former reading is not improb. — 7\h^h] is a gl. or the corrupted name of the valley. — 3itt'vMi] lacking in (5. It is better to om. in the second place and interpret the first adverbially. — Niaxi] 05 xal T51JI.TJV = •'Hni. (S^ has xal t^^ayjv ev xfj xuXm -c^i; 9(ipaYYo?. xal ivscTTpeti'a. 5tal SifjlOov Sta xfji; tcuXtji; Fat. It is difficult to say whether this is one of ^'^ frequent corrections from MT. by addition or a genuine text. — 16. a-ijJDn]. Rd. with (S o\ cpuXaaaoyxeq = oncirn. — onnS] Tot? evTt'tJ.0'?^***) AeuizQciq^. — 0'':jdS] om. ^^, but the combination ann D''jJDi is common in Ne. (48- " 5' 7O J*- Dr.i""",*". — P""')'] f may be an Aramaism; cf. lyo""!)?, Ezr. 5^^; the mng. is the same, 7ip to the present. It maybe a txt. err. for nnj.'-i>'. — 17. ixnj] (g^Ax is^Oijaav = unj. — 18. in] xpbi;^ (^^n) toOi;^^ i'^^), irspl^ ("^J.')) i^^' is correct, as it is used with ti, the other obj. of the same vb. imx. — ncs'-i] %a\ eka^^** = •mMi\ ^ shows that it is correcting and will leave no doubt about the sense: Tied a'jTol el%hv piot. — anni] (S^- makes a separate clause and reads sg. xal T) x^'P auTwv st? aYa66v. (S^^** makes ai x^'P^? 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. isini with 05 and point "ipjn^j. If dhiti were the obj. it would certainly have nt< before it. — 19. irSj? V2•'^]. Nowhere else is n73 followed by Sy; it usually takes direct obj., though occasionally we find '7. (6^^** has y.al rikQov l(p' ri\x&q, i. e., isn^i, and that is the cor- rect text (v. 5.). (&^ has here also the original (6 + a correction from Heb. : xars^povouv Tjfiwv y.a\ ■q'kQov iif' T]\xaq. — 20. Dipj] Cl^*'* xaOapoi = O'lpj. ^ has the usual dup., xaOapol dvaa-uTjaotieOa. NE. 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. '^-^Oj 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. In 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. »• "• "-»• ". 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. *. 21; 4. 6. 30; 4. 29; n. 14. 31; II. 23, Many of the names recur in other lists iu 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 3 '-22 207 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, ^"'^ 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 2'8, leaving space between for the visit of Sanb. et al. (2" '•). 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, 6'. 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. (Comp." '■). 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. ^-'^ and "after him" in vv. i'-^^. 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. 1 12^9 Jn. 52; (2) the fish gate, v. = 12" 2 Ch. ^3,'^ Zp. i'»; (3) the old gate, v. « 12"; (4) the dung gate, v. " f- 2" 12"; (5) the valley gate, V." 2"- 16 2 Ch. 26^; (6) the fountain gate, v. '^ 2" 12"; (7) the water gate east, v. 2« 12", cf. the water gate, 8»- s- '6; (8) the horse gate, v. 28 Je. 31"; (q) the east gate, v. ^s; (10) the gate of the muster, v. ^'. The catalogue is manifestly incomplete. Tv/ice a "second portion" is mentioned without an antecedent first portion (vv. "• ^). Sm. sup- poses a considerable gap before v. ", basing his conclusion on a com- parison with 12"'- (Listen," ' ). On the geographical elements in this list V. also Mey. Ent.^"'' '■ "» "■ On the topography v. the valuable article by Mitchell, JBL, igos,""^ , and particularly his map, p. 162. 2o8 E2RA-NEHEMIAH 1. Eliashib the high priest] mentioned often in our books. Ezr. io« Ne. 320- 21 laio- 22. 23 134. 7. 28. jn 13" he is called "the priest," but in 1328, as here, "the high priest." His son was a prominent priest in the time of Ezra, Ezr. 10^. According to Ne. 12" 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. 22-29; 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. 2 twace, 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. ^2 12^9, but cf. 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 \r\'.^- *. 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 31-^2 209 misplaced from v. ' or some other section. It may have been inserted here from 12^^ — 2. And at his hand] meaning next to him. We find at his (or their) hand in vv. ^-i^^, and "after him," to express the same idea in vv. ^^-^^ (except in w. ^^-"). 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, w. ^- '^'^, 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. io>' J 235 j^i^, but there is no certain identification. — 3. The fish gate] i2''9 Zp. i^° 2 Ch. 33'^ f. It was probably the market-place where the Tyrians sold their fish, 13I''. 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. ^i 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 vv. ^- ^", 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 (S {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 2 1 EZRA-NEHEMIAH to take part. "Bring the neck unto," with "yoke" understood, is found in Je. 27" f-, 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. ii^^ » — 6. The old gate] mentioned also in 12^3, 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,^2 ff). — Repaired Joiada and Meshullam]. We should expect "built," as in w. i- ', 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- erywhere 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 biimed" may be a gen- eral rather than an exact description. — 7. Meletiah the Gibeonite and Jadon the Meronothite, the men of Gibeon and Mispah]. Sa- chau (p.*) identifies \']1'^ with the "''iT' of Pap. i. Here we find men designated by their homes instead of by their fathers. Me- ronothite, elsewhere only i Ch. 2'j^, 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 d, we look upon it with suspicion. Mispah is mentioned in vv. '^- ^'. — 0/ 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 KD3 means jurisdiction. The text of (S 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. 1903,1'** ^■). — 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. 1903,1^-). 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 Hur [a Calebite according to Mey. En/."^], was ruler of half the district of Jerusalem]. Following B 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. ^-. 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, vv. ^^- 1^, Keilah, vv. ^^ ^-j one about Beth-haccerem, v. 1*, and one of the two about Beth-zur, v. ^''. (On these districts v. Mey. Ent}^^ 2). 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 undertaking. — 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 vv. ^^- 2*- ^9, 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^. — 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 »• "Second portion" recurs in vv. "■ 2"- "• "• "■ '", 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 31-22 213 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 iirst 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. 3", 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. "■ 27, cf. vv. < '\ 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-Moab] (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^^ as next to the broad wall (v. *), and between the gate of Ephraim and the valley gate. "Unto the tower" is based on (S 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 found elsewhere only in lo^^ 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 {Ent }'"''). 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, 11"-". 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 soHtary 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 ofi&cer of the town. Zanoah is in the list of postex. Jewish towns, ii'°, cf. 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 '3). 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 vv. "■ 3'. It is naturally a common name, meaning "Yahweh is piy 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^^ ^-j g. 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 v. GAS. Jer. i,'". NEHEMIAH 3I-32 215 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 Shalluni the surrounding country. — He built it]. Perhaps we should emend as in v. ": he and his sons; though we lack here the support of (B, 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,^1 '■). 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. i\,^^\ See also i Mac. 429 ii«5 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 ♦5ee Wright's treatise, JBL. 1897."' ^■. also GAS. Jer. i,'». 2 1 6 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 iZDPV. 1882,^^^). It 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 Hashabiah are given in the list of the heads of the people, lo^^ Hashabiah 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-32 21 7 each other in their work. This authority also sugg^ts 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.-* iqI" 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. ^, 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 his 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, w. 20- 2<- 25^ 2 Ch. 26', is a local name well known to the author, but not clear to us. (5 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 cltamber 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. 1^ is the temple hill. The mention of the door may mean that EHashib'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 EliashiVs house to the end of Eliashib^s 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. 13'°, 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. 1*. 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 3'-32 219 described in v. ^^. — Pedaiah the son of Pavosh], 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 Neth'mini were living in Opkel], 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. "^^ 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. ^' offers us quite a different text: unto 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, S^- ^- 1^, 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 vv. ""-^, 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 born 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 (& has to the middle of the bend, which is somewhat clearer. NEHEMIAH 3'-32 221 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. i, showing that at least in theory we have been carried around the whole circumference of the wall. 1. imcnp], ace. to Berth, and Torrey, is without an obj. in ^; but that is only true in v. «, and then only in ^^^. But with Torrey we should rd. innp as in vv. '• «. In v. " it is better with Kent to om. the word altogether. Kittel changes iniifip^ to ^T\r\p. — rnnSi] should be followed by vnn^i vSipjsi as in vv. =• ^- "• "• 's. — vSiyjci] has been cor- rupted into SiJD-vv — 2. (S^A** u'twv, shows 'J2 for ua and nj2, and it' for n\ ua is indeed difficult, for it should have an obj., and if a section of the wall is intended, pnnn would be the proper term. But it is hard to make good sense out of (&. — 3. ^r\'\-^p\ 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 mi|-i, "rafter," "beam," BDB. Ges.^, and the mng. given is "lay beams." In Ch. that mng. will not serve, though RV. "make beams" may pass. (& renders aTefaJ^ctv, once axexal^etv, "to cover"; so B texerunt. 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. — iTiny CS^x Ivsii-^aaav = np, but this is prob. a scribal error for eaxtjaav. — Si^jjd] is given the mng. bolt; (& xlsiGpov, H 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 holts 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 Siyjo 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 ix] was transliterated by (gBAN (i3(,jpTQ^. This shows the same text and the word is common; the transliteration may be due to the obscurity of the passage. — maj?3 oh^jin] ^S-'^'* elq SouXet'av a'JTwv; ^ Iv Tfj SouXef? tou xupfou. — 6. njB'^n]. Kittel suggests ri:sfari, 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. (8 trans- literates as n. p. 'laava, thus bearing witness to our text. V veterem. — 7. Mey. puts i before 'K'Jn (£h^. "s- i). — \-inDn] i Ch. 27" t <8^ MTjpwvaeatoq; but in Ch. ex Mspdewv (MocpaOwv^). — ndjS] n|-nn] m. only here; <&^^, 'Iwotxefpi, Pwxeet'tJi'^, twv [lupstj^tiv^, H pigmentarii. — laryi] (S^ eerjxav, but that represents thirty-six Heb. words, though usu- ally DT, which would not help us much. In Prov. 8'« this word rep- resents try, and so we might rd. ir;j>i, and they strengthened, implying that the wall was standing, but in a weakened state. Sieg. suggests nrNii, i. e., they surrounded Jerus. [with a wall] as far as the broad wall. Most authorities regard aij? 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 regulars?;?. But if the mng. is "repair," we should expect the usual prnn. If the text is sound, then we have further witness to an older story underlying the present composition. — 9. "Tin-p] om. ^^^, while ^ adds a link between Rephaiah and Hur: ulbq Sst^avfou utou Soup (nix'p). — iSfl] mng. district or portion is found only in this c, where it occurs 8 t. (S renders xsptxtopo?, the country around Jerus., and not Jerus. itself. — 11. n>ja> mc] xal Seu-repoq'^A'*. — nxi] xal ^w^ban = ^j^^ — Dnunn] twv vctSoupet'ix^^, -cbv 0avvoupef[i.AL. — 13. (jgL has a peculiar text. It transliterates, t'^v xuXtjv Fat, and connects that with v. ". — p'lrnn] is here rendered evtaxui^otv, and pjn 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. — mccn] is regarded by Ges.^"<*- as a syncopated form; it is more likely a scribal error. — 14. ^:^2'' Kin] (gBAN au-zhq xal o\ ulol ctuTou, and adds xal eox^icaaosv auT'fjv, and then consistently uses pi. laTT)aav. ^ has same text exc. sa^zi-^aiav for eax^- •jcaaav. (S had therefore this text : nicvi mnpii rj3i Kin. This reading is preferable to MT.; for we have thus the regular formula for the gate building, v. vv. » ". Guthe reads injj. — 16. V.« is lacking in (&^^^. — IiSb- t] C6^ Ennuv. — ntn-So] ft^ XoXot;ec. — uSSton] i3] (& BsM^, Bi?ep«<, B^veiA, Bavai^-. Berth, says: " nach LXX Textf elder = ••^}2." The conclusion may be better than the reason. Guthe corrects accordingly. — 19. its'] (S^ has apxwv xou -fitifoou? = isn na'. If this is right, as Mey. holds, we should have to add i'>D, and insert ''xn in v. ^K But the Heb. is clear enough, v. on v. '^ — v^p^n . . . nhy] (g^AN (^vctgd- aetoq "zriq auvaxTouarji; -c^c; ytovfaq; but dtva^ciffswi; twv otcXwv ttj<; ouvtzxTouaT)<; ef? ttjv ycovfav 6xtati) eJ? t?> opoq aitoO^. It is clear that (& rd. some other word than pi:':, perhaps yjD, and ^^ 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. ^f, reading mn'? nnx. ptrj 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 terminus ad quern. Our text gives us the former only. With a hint from d^ I would rd.: ninn yxpa ny p\:^in n^a ijjd. This is bold, but there is no use in emending unless in the process we can make sense. V^pv, being thus defined, is used in vv. ^o- 2<- 25 as an established point, ninn does not appear in v. 20 in ($, but "B has in monte. Mitchell suggests njJD yxpnn iy ptyjn n>Sy (JBL. 1903,155).— 20. ac^Sx n>2] (S^ BTjSeXtaoij^, BrjOacXiaoi^'*, BirjOeXEt Aaaou^'^, o'txou AXtaaou^^. — 22. norn] d has: (ixs/ip®, X^X'^P'*) !xXkr^\—^m f] (S Eust^x, EuX^ai^, Ou!;at^.— SnjDHi] Tou x6pYou''. Rd. therefore Sunn njo. — Nxrn] (g 6 l^^xuv^*'"*, ToO l^^xovTOi;^. This is the only case of the mng. "project" for nx'>, so also vv. 2« ". — jrSyn] cannot mean "upper," describing a second 2 24 EZRA-NEHEMIAH palace. ®^ has lie' avw, which stands for jvSp in Gn. 40" 2 K. is'', but usually represents a prep., and we may substitute nSyn*?, as ^ continues •zfic, auXf)? TTJ? qjuXaxii?. — 26. iJJ-ijj] 05 Iw? x-qtcou^*'* = ]J-ny; ^ shows both MT. and 05: ewi; dx' evavxt x-^xou (c/. note on v."). — o^nn] (g»< ev Tw Q(paX. — 29. B"x] OS'", dcxb Ntjp, which must be a corruption of av^p. — njja'] d^ o't'xou. — 30. nnx] rd. as Qr. innN. — ■'jb'] must be a scribal error of n^jr, the correct form, and occurring in every other place in this c. — rijcj] i2<< 13' t, usually nas'S, for which this form may be a scribal error. — 31. ■'oixn] (g Sapaqpef^, Espayefv**, SapEgjf*, Sepaipsf^. But a n. p. is scarcely right here. Guthe suggests a gentilic from neix. It is simpler to rd. after 05** D-'Dixn, one of the goldsmiths. — airnjn n>3] (& BT]6avaes(ii,B, BTi6avva0avt[JL*. — 3"'SDirn] (g xal ol popoxtoXai^^, ?!Oxo- •luwXat^'^, xal twv {leTa^oXojv^. The last elsw. represents DnnDn; the others are both errors for pwicoxoiXat. — ipsDn] (g^A ^qq Ma^exiS Mot- 9£9(iS'*, T^? exiaxstj^ewt;^. As this name does not occur elsw., we should prob. rd. niODn, as in 12". — njon n^Sj? nj;] (5 ew? dvd [liaov [iva^i- (j-M^NAL] xa[XTC^<;B [x^c; xuXiji;^]. We have then J^a instead of ni'?!?. — 32. We have here the Massoretic note nsDn isn. — njon] and the fol- lowing V are lacking in <& and ^ lacks also niSj?. 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 anny, 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 rang. 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'' 4' 6' and between these stories there is in N. some statement about the condition of the work. But between the appearance of the enemy in 21' 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 333-4" 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 2,^-^-, 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. 33-35 may suggest another explanation of its appearance here. Originally it was identical with 2" '•, and accidentally appeared both before and after the insertion, vv. i-'^, possibly from uncertainty as to which was the more suitable position. Then by a process of changes it was differentiated 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 Jtideans], perhaps sincerely believing that their pretentious efforts would amount 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. <8 has simply: and he said before his brethren, is this the army of Sam. that these Jtideatis are building their city? A?id To. the Ammonite came mlh 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 (6 is this: Sanb. is amazed to think that the Sam. army was 2 26 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 4" we have a record of the interfer- ence of a Sam. army in the affairs of Jerus. C6 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 nimiber of Sam. To. and Geshem are covered by "his brethren," i.e., his associates. Frenquentia Samari- tanorum of B 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 (S that these Jews are building their city. H 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 d 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 shall we let them alone ? H has will they drive out those nations ? ^ 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 efid in a day ?] Here we have a variety of renderings. -nN 1J3'' rhnT\ omnin ij p-icir Sn nt; i- follows || to anS iJii'in, for which it has ote oix.o3otJiouat Tijv sauTwv xoXtv, and thus shows that C5 rd. those words as Diij; ija\ Several of the letters of these words are common with ^, 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 inaji, "they will build high" (JBL 1903,3"). A part of the balance of this v. is found in the speech of To. — For aj and what follows (&^ has: \^^ Gouataaouatv y^ cfuzyovuat exl toO totcou auxwv; oxtyl dvotp-rjffeTat a>.(oxY)^ xal xaGsXsl rb xel^oq >^i6(i)v auTdiv; (5^ has the cus- tomary elaboration and duplication showing the original (& corrected by addition of the extra matter of MT.— iSj^n] appears as C5?n. — '3 ^^Tr\] (|Ban qjiyovxat [Son] Ixl xoO x6xou aixwv. (&^ has this, but in the dup. apa Suvrjaovxat [So-']; It ei cotnplebunt [■"i'?j] /m m/m» 236 EZRA-NEHEMIAH die, reading nnxn for rn^n. — H has a plus here: mimquld adificare polerunl. — non] (g^ ■^e'ZOs, B ini {"^'i'^^)- — 36. ina] (g> has seen ntaS as in V. ''. — nor Y^ii2] 19 mss. Doa* (2;. Kittel); (&^ %a\ elc, aixiiaiktiiaiav, i. e., niB'Si. — 37. n:v;] (S^an rj, pj; and lack the remainder of this v. and V. 38. — D1J1J3 . . . o] B gw/a irrescrimt cedificantes . 4. 1. DiinB'Nm] lacking in ^^■'^. — nonx] usually /zeaZ/wg, but here and 2 Ch. 24", rcstoratmi of walls. (5 cpur]. — nnn"?] some Gk. mss. and B have sg., which is better. — D^snan] (S Bcaacpayat, only occurrence of this word in LXX. Kittel suggests dis^d. — 2. iTi'^M] (& auvr)%6T)c:av; auvdYw stands for 50 Heb. words (see Hatch and Redpath, Concord.), but no- where else for iii'p. We should rd. V3p, so B congregati sunt. — niB'jjSi] lacking in ^'''^^', (S^ toG •rcoitjaai kuttjv a^avij xal xotYJffat (xot •rcXavrjaiv. The first clause is lacking in MT., and we have the interesting •'V. Kittel suggests nS, which is better if text is otherwise right. — 3. uti'^n] C5^ x6ptov Tov Gsbv Y)ii.wv = ijin"?** nin\ — 4. Saon] O^ban ^-f^v e'xOpwv, ^^ T. g. Tjixwv.— lijyn] (gBN g^Xo? = pnn, ©al j, .^oq-^_6. irSjj— ib*;] MT. cannot be forced to yield any sense. The simplest text is (&^^^ dvtzpaf- vouatv [I'^J?''] £/. xdvTwv twv toxwv I9' Y)[i,a?. (S^ inserts oTt lictoTp^t^aTS after toxwv, and thus shows lawn. I would rd.: ninpDn-Ssn iSy it^N ijiS;; ntt'i—irs. 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. nDyi for T'?3j;n'i. — D-inHi^] occurs elsw. only in Ez. 24"- * 26<- '% with sense of smooth or bare, and here the mng. hare places is assigned. But such an interpre- tation is difficult. (6^ comes to the rescue, having a dup., first that of (6^, then Lucian's own text: xal saxr^aav uxoxdxwGev xoij toxou s^oxcaSev ToO ireI%oui; ev Tot? avoticsicTafxevoti;. The last word occurs in LXX only in Jb. 39=°, corresponding to iy^s; so here we might infer D^t'isa. (gBAN j;ia,s axeitstvoii;, "sheltered places." 13 has a text in which v. "■ ^ are compressed into a single sentence: slatul In loco post murum per circiiiliim popidum in ordinem cum gladils suis, et lanceis ct arcuhus. — 8. d^jjdh-Sni] lacking in (^'^^. — "'Jin] (5 toQ Osou tjiawv, i. e., ijihSn. — (&^ has an important plus preceding is'iti-Sn, /.al wpxcaa au-rou? xuptov Xeywv =-i!:«'^ ■'jix Dyos'Ni. Guthe puts this vb. at the beginning of the V. in place of the superfluous oipxi nini. That certainly improves the text very greatly. Torrey regards the addition as purely arbitrary (ES.^")- 9. 3c=:i] is to be rd. with the Vrss. and virtually all commentators. — 10. ^^f; >i>*j] OS'^AN ^Q^^ £XTeTtvaY[J.£va)v sicotouv, 05^ TuapaTSTaysjisvwv ex. (D-iJiii")) 15 juvenum eormn faciebat. We might infer that (& and B took the ^ from "i>'J and prefixed to the vb., but (5 generally disregards the participles in this troublesome passage. — a^ivnc] (& ivTSi'xovTo, B parata erat ad bellum. — a''Dmm]. Sieg. follows B.-Rys., reading 0''nma after v. ", but in view of nSfn nprnn, v. ", the emendation is unneces- sary. — 11. nnna o^j^n]. In their despair the Vrss. generally connect with preceding; Guthe and Kittel follow these and change verse-ending NEHEMIAH 5 237 accordingly. — ^302] ($ Iv 'zolc, apx^patv. — a''i;'cj?] (B^^^ ev oxXoti;, (6^ evoxXot, H fi imp07icntium. There is no root s'cy, and the word has been identified with orj,', but that makes a hopeless redundancy, and after (& D'HJ'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 D"'cy is all that is needed. — 12. a^jjni] is a second pred. after onoN, they were armed and were braid- ing, i. e., armed while engaged in building. U begins a new sentence and connects with following: et adificabant, el clangebant biiccina juxta me. —•h^n] (gBAN |^6[jLeva aixou, but MT. is right.— 15. o^nma . . . o^xm] can only be a repetition from v. 1° and does not belong here. In place of unjN] Ci>A has TjfAt'au, making more repetition. If the words were re- tained, this text would be right, as aisn needs a complement. — 16. k'^n n;ji] om. (S^anl _,j,i,,j (g auXtaOTiTe.— aSi-n^] (S^- tcoXswc;.— 17. pNi] (S %n2v'^] (S>^ dq SoijXa<;; H in scrvi- tutem. — mcajj] (S^ <^iq. ayatpoOvxat. — u-'T' Vx*? pNi] B ncc hahemus, nude possint redimi (Snj) ; d^ reads xetpb?, (S^ xal 06/ layyu -fj xslp rf^&M. — ■ annxS] (& toI? evT([xocs, a word which always stands in Ne. for iin (2I6 48.13 ^7 6" 75), rd. therefore amnS. — 6. Dnp>ni] (S^ ampHfies: T^v ip(i)vf]v TTj? xpauy-^? auTuv. — 7. iSci] 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 i'?a, my heart was king over me, i. e., he acted according to his feelings. — '^Snp] is found in late poetry in but two places, Dt. 2i^ Sirach 7'. We have Snp in v. ". But the govern- ing vb. would not be jnj, for which Cl^ has auvigYoyov, 18 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, on"? in v. ' would refer to the assembly. In spite of the Vrss. I would rd. nSS"!, curse. — 8. unjx] B adds ut scilis. — ua ns] CS ev Ixouafy ■fjfxwv; H secwidum possibilitatcin nostrain. (& shows unaija, a reading generally ignored, but better than MT. (S^ has a long insertion or plus at this point: YjiJiIv Be SouXeiiouorcv ol a3sX9ol ri\j.Giy ol ulol 'lapaTjX; sxacvecw u[ji.a<; oux. eu xsxotrjxdTa?. xotl ■^[lecs Y«p axoSwa6[jL£6a toCk; aSeXyo'jg ■^tz.wv toOi; 'louSatouc; tou? xpaOlvra? Iv -rot? sSvsatv. Ixavw?, xixva, exoti^aaTS. eSSs (xi^, xav utilv dxcSwaeaOe aiJTOu<;. In part, this is a repetition, and generally speaking it does not throw any additional light upon the situation. — uS njDji] lacking in d^^^". — nai] (g^ adds dxo/.pi'vaa0at (nuyS) ; B rm inveneriint quid respondcrcnl. In Jb. 32^ we find njj-D ixsD nS. — 9. iCN"'i] Qr. -1DN1, but we should rd. n-^csi as vv. ' '-. — xiSn] d oux outgx;. — *nj<"(0] ®^ ouSs dx; (popou[X£vot tov Bebv axeffirpsiJ^aTS xbv aveiStaixdv X. T. >.. — Dun] lacking in (S^'^**. — 10. njjj] d ot yyoiazoi [xou = "|J?Ti, but MT. agrees with 4''. — a"'B'j] d l9T)x.ot[i.£v, z. e., D>r^, from D'tr. (6^ adds to the v. xal Scoaofxev uxep aOTwv apyuptov dtxoOdaOat dcip' ujitov xb pdepoi; ToiJTo. H has: non repelamus, in citmmmie istud as alienum conce- damus, quod debetur nobis. — 11. hndi] d^^x y^^i ^^i^ ^l ^^^ ^^^ Most authorities rd. hncd, v. Guthe's note. — is'n] (S^^^ xal, d'' iiiel?. — a>a':] d l^eviYxocrs (ns"'). H adds to v., (fa/e pro illis. — ''jxn] d'' xkq xet- paq p.ou, representing ''Jon, hollow oj the hand, as in Ex. 9^ Lv. i6>-. fxn 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 (§^^. — ano] is, as Guthe says, impossible. Fol- lowing d dc, apxovTTa auTwv, he reads anno. But as the sf. has no antecedent, I should prefer nna. — '^'or\] is lacking in (&^^; H has rex as subj. of nix. Such a subj. is required there, and I would transpose accordingly. — nnon anS] d^^*^ ^tav auTuv. In v. " these texts have Ta? ^ta? for mnon. 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 anS nor nnsn. In v. i' we have apTOu? iric, <^>i(xq, so ^fa repre- sents some word which was rd. in place of nnc in all three places, d^ has SpTov TT)<; -fjYejxovfas [lou, B qu(£ ducibus debebantur. — 15. d^ lacks B-'jB'N-in and avoids a redundancy which, however, is not uncommon in Heb. The same text adds xXot6v as obj. of n^aan, reading therefore o;>n-S3; H\ — For ayn hy] d^'^^' has ex' auTou? = an^Sy. — tiaa -\n.x] d ea- XOTOv (Jpyiptov (ou^), II et pecunia quotidie. — annyj] d^'^^ 01 IxTS-ucvaY- NEHEMIAH 6 249 ir^vot auxwv = onmyj. — vshf] (S^an e^oujtdl^ovTat, (6^ lnuptsuaav. — 16. ^npinn] (Sban 0,^^ expcJcxTjaa. — nyj] lacking iu (g^AN^ (gL jj^g ^^j, ^aj(3j,p((i liou xal %&vzz<; ol auvayiJievoi. — 17. DijJDn] lacking in (S^^^^*. — o^xam] 1 is lacking in 05^^'. — ■>jnSa'-?>;] (5^ liil Tfjv xpaxei^iv (aou s^svc'Covxo; the last word not occurring elsw. in (S and mng. "to wash out" is scarcely appropriate here. Some vb. like "sat" or "ate" might have stood here. — 18. w] lacking in (S^. — onflx] <5 xt[jiapoc; = i^iiS; B exceplis volatilibus. — nainS] (g^'^** tw %kri%zi; (&^ xocvxl xw xX-^Oei, icavxl xy Xaw, an explanatory dup. (& rd. a'l';' and that is clearer than MT. — nt] (& xoiixoii;, referring to the people whom Neh. fed. In v. •> H has in some respects a variant text:_e/ alia multa tribuebam: insuper el annonas ducatus mei non quaesivi, valde enim alteniiatus erat populus. 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 Elul. 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. 2 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. 2. — 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 EZR A-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 3^*. In spite of the trying conditions described in c. 4, the last stone had been laid in the wall. (&, however, offers a tempting substitute for the second clause, i. c, then there was no spirit left in them, cf. i K. 10% 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^* {v. 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 meet together in the hamlets in the plain of Ono]. B is more specific, reading: let us make a treaty, presumably of peace, and intending to throw Nehemiah off his guard. One is found only in postex. writings (Ezr. 2" Ne. 7" 11" i Ch. 8")) in all these places as the name of a city. The place is located near Lj^dda, 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 25 1 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 @, 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 sufficiently 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. — ^. 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. ^, then the "four times" is unintelligible. If (S 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 (B, 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, Laud 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 (S, 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 Judeans 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.)_ f i^g 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 unfortunately 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. i3'^"^), 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 CI 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 difficulty 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 (& B : 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. — // has not heen done according to these words which thou sayest, hut 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, ^ has rendered, / strengthened my hajids. 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]. Tliis 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 EZR A-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: /or they are coming in to slay thee, yea, at night they are coming hi 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? J 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 iti the state, NEHEMIAH 6 257 and so carrying great responsibilities, fiee from danger? And even so, who is the man [so cowardly and base] that would enter the tem- ple, not to pray or offer 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 lo! 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. ", 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 do thus and sin, and it [I] should be to them for an evil name, in order that they might reproach me]. With (5 we may read / instead of it, though it might be explained with some forcing. Do thus can only refer to hiding in the temple. The sinnin,?; must refer to his taking asylum in the temple. The whole thing then reduces to two points, showing cowardice, and enter- 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 (r/. 3^6 f-): 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 Tobiah 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. 51^. 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 (i> , 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. Attd 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 is natural here. — 16. That this verse is hopeless as it stands is shown by a fairly literal rendering: and it was when all our enemies heard — and all the nations round about us were afraid, and they fell greatly in their eyes, and they knew that this work had been 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 thetn], 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-laiv to Shekaniah]. Shekaniah is a common name in our sources, but this one can- not be identified unless with one named in 3-* {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, i^-^.) 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. \,^^^. — 19. The contents of the correspondence are now exposed. Also his goodness they were reciting before me]. NEHEMIAH 6 261 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. l^ 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. Tija] (6^ (^x,oBo[A'^6Tf]. — "ps na] d^AvX i^ aOxol*; xvoi^, i. e., I'bj ana or possibly nn, as i K. io«. (^ has a dup. uxeXetyGr] ev auT

fl3. — 3. nn^] (g ^-q xoxs, prob. ]VTi^. — ^din] (6 T£>v£tMaw auxo, H vencro; (S shows dn'^dk. — 4. 'd >'3ns] lacking in (&^^^. — nrn 1213] (§ xaxa Tauxa, B juxta sermonem prior cm. (§^ lacks all of v.'', one of the rare cases in which this cod. has the shortest text. — 5. nrn -ijid] lacking in (6^-^'^'. It is an erroneous repetition from v. ^ — 'n oys] lacking in (5^'^'^'; (&,^ xeixiccov, so lacking Dj?D. — 6. IDS iDCJi] lacking in d^^x^ gjg^_ always otyj, though former is prob. correct. — nSsn onaio] is meaningless here. (6 and H connect with following, xtzl xpb? xo6Tot<;, reading only nS^ni; U propter quant caiisam. — 7. NipS] )f qucR pradicent. ^^'^^ Yva xaOfoD? (aa''')- — "t^] ®^ e^aafXsuoa?. — aii3i3] 05 ot Xoyot = onain, so H verba hcec in ace. — nni . . . njS] 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. ONnia] elsw. only in i K. 12"; :i] 262 EZRA-NEHEMIAH ^BAN g^5 sp^ovrat w/.ihq (poveuaat ae = iJinS nS'''? D''i] (5 -/.ai £Tt auTwv sYPTiyopouvcwv = onpiy on iiyi; H cumque adhuc assis- terent. I should rd. mny N^n •^y;^. — vna] (&^^^ aqjTjvouaeuaav = Sj;j, ia- '•; (2) the list of the residents of the holy city, vv. '-"; (3) the towns of the Judean province, vv. -^■'^. The list is parall. that in Ezr. 2 = Ne. 76-", both lists covering essentially the same classes, laity and temple officers, and both containing geographical as well as genealogical material. The Hst 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. ^ 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, hke many other writings, from the hands of editors. Vv. ■ '■ connect directly with 7^*, not with 7"* as Sta. (Gesck. 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 hst which follows, vv. 3-2<, 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,'' ^f-, Kost. Wied.^'' f-, Mey. EnL'^^^-. 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 vv. ^^ ^^ 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. 1 1 7. — 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 ofhcers.— 3-9. The list of laymen in Jerusalem. This is parallel to i Ch, g2-9. — 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, ^ This is the Chronicler's introduction to the catalogue of names which follows. — The rest of the verse connects more appro- priately with vv. 20 ff; in fact, it is a duplicate of v. 2° 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."-. If in their cities is authentic, the meaning is each one in his own city. The list of these cities is found in vv. -■' '^•. 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. 9-. — 4. The original sequence to v.- runs: and in Jerusalem there divelt some 268 EZRA-NEHEMI AH oj 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. g^ 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 h*st 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, 3^^ — 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 dwelt 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 Judah 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>ny and imj? are cer- tainly identical. Asaiah has no genealogy assigned save that he is a descendant of Shelah, therefore n>!:'3;c and r\>z'y 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 sous 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 X2'- ■". The alternative is to emend on basis of NEHEMIAH II 269 (&, and rd.: and his brothers Gabhai and Sallai: all the sons of Bcnj. 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^ 7^8; 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) 12 ''-13'^, Adaiah and his brethren who were heads of the fathers, numbering 242; (3) 13^-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^^-i^, though with numerous variations as noted below. 10. Jedaiah the son of Jojarib, Jakin]. i Ch. 9" 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 126- 19, 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 lo', and it is impossible to tell which is correct. Ace. to i Ch. s" (r/. 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. 5=^ <*• and Ezr. 7'- = 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. Aiid 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-NEHEMI AH though it may refer to the work on the building of the temple. Jedaiah was a pr. who returned before the temple was built. 12b-13». AdaiaJi]. His ancestry in i Ch. g" is Jeroham, Pashhur, Malchijah, lacking Pelaljah, Amsi, and Zechariah. — 13». His brethren heads of the fathers], v. Ezr. iK 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 Atnasai, but i Ch. 9'= has Maasai, a very com- mon postex. name (Gray,i'0 and dififering from Atnasai 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, JNIeshullam, Meshillemith, and Immer. — 14. A?id their brethren]. As our text runs we should rd. Ms 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 12a 13b and 14", 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 tJicm was Zabdiel the son of the great ones]. This name is not elsw. found save as an officer of David, I Ch. 2-J-. 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. S'''"'^. 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 Netophatites, cf. is^^. 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., ot 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 Skabbethai 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 Mattaniah the son of Macha and Obed [Abdah] the 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. 9'5 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 tlie 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 Ley. who were trained to lead the chants and prayers. — Abdah the son of Shammua]. i Ch. 91= has "Obadiah the son of Shemaiah," differing chiefly in having iah at the end of both names. — 18. All the Lev. in tlie 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. 9" 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. 1 Ch. 9>'-" gives an elaborate statement of their duties, showing that their office was chiefly connected with the temple gates (of. i Ch. 26). — 20. This V. is virtually a repetition of v. ^ b, Jt 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. "f-. Vv. ^o '■ 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" " , but Gishpa is not found elsw. It may be a corruption for Hasupha, 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. ^^-^*; (S 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. i22<, 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 diflScult to render n:cN 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 e.xacted of the singers the strict and punctual performance of their daily duties. — 24. And Pethahiah the son 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'^ f-. 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. "■'» 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. =«) and Meconah (v. 28) J 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 toivns. Of all these thirty-three towns but one occurs in the list of places from which the wall-builders came, i. e., Zanoah, v. ^o {cj. Ne. 3"). A comparison with the shorter lists of CS 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. 25-30. 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. ^o; making some necessary corrections by comparison with v. ^ and i Ch. Q-, we have : and the rest of Israel were in all their cities, each one in his possession, and [spread] unto the villages in their fields. — Some of the sotts of Jiidah divelt], the others, of course, being those in Jerus. as described in vv. * ^■. There follows the list of seventeen towns. Dibon is a city of Moab, prob. to be identified with the Judean Dimonah (Haupt, in ZA, 1887,268). Yekabsccl appears in Jos. 152' as Kabseel, so 2 S. 233" i Ch. II"; of course, the same place is meant. — 26. In Jeshtia]. 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 njmn, 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 ivild land, but here the reference is to the cultivated land (GAS. Jer. i,"')- — 30. And they encajnped from Beersheba to Ce-hifinom]. The 2 74 EZRA-NEHEMIAH valley of Hinnom ran along the western wall of Jerus., and is given in Jos. 15' 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-hasor, 2 S. 1323, as the situation on the border between Ephraim and Benj. favours such identification. — GiUaim] 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 Judah for Benj.], the mng. of which may be and some of the Lev. had allotments of Judah and of Benj. 3. D^jPjn] lacking in (&^^. — 4. n>rj.'] 01'^ A0apaa6aq = xna'inn, — ij3d] <8 xal axb uiwv. — 5. ''jScn]. The pointing should be — ^t-''?^, from n'?^; <& Tou AfjXwve^'^, HXwvt^, StqXwvsi^; (S makes DTyn one of the sons of Peres, having of the sons of Peres, corresponding to of the sons of Judah in V. ■*. — 8. (B'^ has xod oxtaw auroG ol aSeXqjol auxoG FePoue 2t)X££c. ol ■Konxsq svvaxoatot s't/,oai oxTtb toO Bevtafjitv. I suspect a dup. at the be- ginning rather than a plus, vnNi being rd. instead of innN, the original being, therefore: . . . ]->^^:2 ija Vd iSdi i^j vnxi. In that case we should rd. min> for y\s in v.". The least emendation for v.^* is to rd. ''J3 Sai iSd. — 9. riNUDH-p min>i] is to be identified with nxjon-p ninin, i Ch. 97. — 10 f . identical with i Ch. 9'" exc. that p fails before ^n^i and nnB' = nnty. — 11. ijj] (B^^^ ixdvavTi (ij;), T)Yo6tisvo?^. — 12. . . . njna' O'ljci] lacking in ^^^. C&^ lacks first three names and p before ishn. —13. vnxi] lacking in (&^^^. — idn . . . vnN-p] lacking in (B^^\—14. TipDi] to end, (61^^^ Y.(x\ Ixfoxoxo? BaSn^X. — a-'Snjn-p] ^^ uXhc, tcjv [x.e- y4Xo)v.— 15 f . anSn . . . aptntyi] lacking in (S^^x^ — njs^nn] (gi- e'pya tou otxou "Tou 6eou toG s^wtixou. — 17. 05^**^ has only xotl MaOotvia u'ihq Maxii xal 'Q^-f)0 ulb? Sotpiouic. — n^cnS rtntn>] (^^ 'AaAip Spxwv toO a"vou xstl 'Io68a<; ttj? xpoaeux'Sj?, one of the rare cases where Torrey admits the value of this text (ES.""). In x™- we find, taking in a little of the con- text to show connection, 'Aai? fipx^JYoi; toO atvou toG 'louSi ecq xpo- NEHEMIAH I2'-2g 275 oeuxTjv. To get sense we should rd. n'^n.-in, used in a technical sense for a psalm; for ^^^^1 we might rd. y^^^^\ teacher, n^on has a tech- nical sense as in Ps. 72-" and in psalm titles and means a liturgical prayer.— 16. tt'-ipn ... So] lacking in ^^«A__23b lacking in (B^^^. (6^ xal StEiJievev ev xIqici exl toIi; wSols x. t. X. This is a dup., cor- rected from MT., but showing originally iny for njcx, since n™- has oi^ixecvsv Ixl Tot? tSSot?. We must rd. -ic>;m, v. s. — 24. SNat^a'c] C6«ax Bacn)!^a. — mirf . . . ij3d] lacking in ^^-^'*. — t'S] (6^ sxotxsvo:. — 25. From >3, last syl. of i"3ixn, to end of v. is lacking in (5^'^** (save that ^ has ap^o). — nnsn] (gi- Guyaxpaatv auTfjg = nin:2. — 26. (&^'^*< has only xal sv 'Iijaou, (S^ xal £V Houa x. t. X.— 27. (S'''^!< has only xal sv BsTjpaa^es. — 28 f . lacking in (S'^^'*.— njon] (^^ MasiT), Maxva x"-. — 30. ::^-^y nj;] and nprj? 'ai] lacking in j t;] lacking in 05^*^. — 31. r^>}!^] to end of v. " lacking in ^^^^. — 36. . . , nipSnn] ^^ [Lsglosq ev Tw 'louSd: xal tw Bevtayitv. 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. i" '■, put in by the Chr. as a guide, and covering the whole Pers. period. There are five pails: (i) the names of those 'belonging to the time of Jes., the associate of Zer., vv. i-^; (2) the succession of high pr.; (3) those of the period of Jojakim, Jes.'s successor, vv. i^-^'; (4) Lev. of the time of Eliashib, a generation later, v. "; (5) apparently intended to be a list of those of the time of Johanan called here the son (but ace. to v. '" f- the grandson) of Eliashib, vv. "-". 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 (S 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. Enl.^^^ f- 1'% Sm. Listen,^". 1-9. A list of priests and Levites who came up with Zenibbabel and Jeshua. The passage purports to be parallel to the list in Ezr. 2''«-*' and Ne. f^-'^\ 1. Jes.]. To make the identification certain ^^ 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., Binimi, Kadmiel, Sherebiah, Jiidah, 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 11", whatever that may mean. — Unni] = Obadiah in v. " and Abda in iii^. 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. '-^ 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. '-'. — 14. Meliki], but Malliik in v. -. — Hattush of v. - fails us here. The omission may be accidental, or, as d lacks the name in v. =, it may be an error there. — Shebaniah] = Shckaniah, v.'. — 15. Harim] = Rehiim, v. ^. — Mcrajoth] = Meremoth, v. ^ — 16. Ginncthon] = 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 121-26 277 of Jojada, we might render: the Lev. in the days of Eliashib, Jojada, Jonathan and Jaddiia 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. =3. It may be misplaced from vv. '-', where the date would be accurate. It is obviously but a fragment. Dar. the Pers. is pecuUar, 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 hook 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 soft of Eliashib], or strictly the grandson, vv. '» '-, cf. Ezr. 10^; "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], IS 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. H 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. « '■ 11", and the last two, Talmon and Akkub, are named as porters in ii>». In i Ch. 9" we find also Shallum, corresponding to our Meshullam. — As our text stands their 278 EZFL\-NEHEMIAH duties are thus defined: walchmcn, gatekeepers [their] office, at the store' houses of the gates]. Such a description is very prob. wrong. The Vrss. render variously, d having ivatchmen, gatekeepers of the watch when I gathered the gatekeepers. 11 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 ^^ of seeing that the gates were watched and opened and closed at the proper time. This fact, as well as the "I" of d, 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. tyion] lacking in (&^'^^. — i'VJ"] d^ Irjaou xoij luasSsx. — nnsNJ (&^ Ktapvxc,. — 3. From am to v. ''^, the end of the list, there is a blank in (gBAN. — 4. n;] (gL Aootia;. — 8. n^jnc] (6^ Ma'/avia. — MJ3] <&^ xai ol ut'ol auToG = TiJ^i. — nnvT'^y] d^^** ItcI twv xstpwv, (Si^ sxl twv e^o- [loXoY-QCTswv = nmnn-'?;? as in v. 2'. And so we should rd. instead of a. X., which is a form hard to explain. <& shows that the error was an old one. — 9. (S^^^ omits all but last word, which is connected with v. '. — After an'^ns] d^ inserts dvsxpouovxo, which in five places represents four different Heb. words, no one of which can readily be inferred here. — 10. yw] d^ 'Iigaou? o ToO TucjsSe-/.. — 12. vn] d^'^'^' aSeX^ol auTou = vnN, d^ has the dup. -^aav 01 il. — ^n^'jjn] lacking in d^. — •■oi'^cS] d 1^ MaXoux = li'^c, as v. -. (&^'^^ omits all the rest of the names down to the end of v. 21. — 15. nnn] d^ Psouyi = zm-\, as v. =. — 17. After a^s'j-"'] d^ has Maaott. Some name is required, d^ has BevtaiAstv ev xai- pot? T(p (psXtjTst, reading 0'^>'1C^. — 24. n^a-^n] d A^ta Affapta(<;)'^**^. — S^'Cip-ja] (§i^^^ v.!x\ ol uto! Kaoyiti^X; d^ xal o'i u'tol airou, KeS(j.ti^X; con- sistently that text reads 01 dSsX^ot auTou, showing vnx, and having Kadmiel alone as antecedent. — 25. idcd . . . n>jn!:] lacking in d^-^^. — nnc'S onyia"] (Si^ xuXwpol (ftSXaxfjc,. — "tyn ••eONa] d ev xy ouvayaYsiv fis Tou<; xuXwpoCx;. We should rd. D'->;;u'3, as in 11". — . . . idcd] 19 ctistodes portarutn et vestibulorum ante port as. — 26. d^"^^' lacks nVx and nnon. — Beforfe T^ai] d^ has a part of what is also found in v. ", giving this as the date of the dedication of the walls. NEHEMIAH I22'-«3 279 NE. 12*^-^. 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*-^^ 11' '-. 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,"-" *f-, 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 tite 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 <^^^^ 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 (i. Harps would hardly be suit- able in a procession. — 28 f . is parallel with v. ". 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 01, to which in MT. we find additions thus: from the villages of the Netophathites and from Beth-haggilgal and from the fields of Geha 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 noun 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 (i> 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 oflSce the priests and Levites purified themselves], cf. Ezr. 620. 'Yhi's, 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]. (S 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 poh'tical rather than a geographical sense Uer. i,'"). NEPIEMIAH I22^-« 28 1 "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 Judah 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.) — 32. 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. *", 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. A-nd some of the sons of the priests with clarions], cf. "sons of the singers," v. ^s. 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 05) 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. 2', — 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. 3^®. 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 dung 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. — And I was following it; and half the people]. Nehemiah himself was in the rear of this procession, as Hoshaiah followed the other, v. ^■-; the Chron- icler put Ezra with the former, a high dignitary being with each company. — Upon the wall above the toiver of the ovens as far as the broad ivall] 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 atid past the old gate* and tlte fish gate and the tower of Hananel and the tower of Hammeah and 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 Ipool]," Mitchell, JBL. i903,"2 «•. NEHEMIAH I2«"'^ 283 the same as that of the first procession. — 40. Afid both proces- sions came to a hall 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 vv. ^^ '• 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 dupHcate 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. ^^, 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. CH 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 of], i. e., the joyful shouting was loud and participated in by many people, cf. Ezr. 3". 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. 13O is about as vague as "once upon a time." The passage by subject matter is con- nected with lo-*-^^, 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. 284 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 ^^, would do in itself, but why fields of the cities? d^, 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 command 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 arid thanksgiving to God] is certainly disjointed. The meaning is apparently that temple songs as well as singers go back to the time of David. B forces a connection, leaders of songs were appointed over the songs, etc. — 47. In the days of Zerubbabel 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 anA 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. nmn^j 05 ev GwXaOa'^'^*^', a transliteration, though there is a con- fusion of letters in ^; ^ adds sv s^otAoXoyfjaet, showing a dup. ^ has xal dyaXXtdaet = njjn^i, B in actione graliarum. — "T'tt'] CS wSal? = an^^^'. — nnj32i] lacking in (S^^^^. — 28. amiT'cn ijd] C5^ ot utol Aeut. — TiiJDj] lacking in CS«an__29. ^^^i7\ nom] lacking in .-\] (& avrjvsYxav; v. i- lacking in (5ban. — naSnni] (S^ xotl St^XOov, H et ierunt preceded by the plus laudantium. Rd. DDSmni ptc. as in V. 38. Or with Mitchell, JBL. 1903,", noSn nnxni for na'^nni. — 33. nnry] (g^x Zaxap'«<; = 'T'l^f- — 34. pD^j^] (6^ Mia[jL£tv = pD'-D, cf. v. ". — n^j';:ts>] ®bn ^^pat-a.—Z^. -T'-^ . • • -hhr:] (&^'^'^ ahzlv sv ihlalq, prob. reading on^S' "'i^S'l'P- ^^ has all the names and then tou at'vetv ev oxeueat xal mcolIc,, showing a dup. — 37. pyri] CgBAvS .^qq afveiv. This may be a transliteration which has then crept back to the preceding v. — nirc] to onflx, v. ", lacking in (6^'^^'. — 38. SxidS] C&^ auvavTwaot auTois, i. e., anNnpS. Many rd. Snic-^'S, corresponding to T"'i3iS, v. =■, and this is right. — 39. "t^-n lyc Syi] lacking in (&^^^, so nxcn Sum and nrj? to end of v.— 40-42 » lacking in (&^^^.—i2. n^mr^i] lacking in (S^an, 286 EZRA-NEHEMIAH — Tpsn] ®BAN ^gj'j eTCoxexTjastv = npci. — 44. .-^iDnnS] lacking in C5. — nirS] (S apxouatv = na'. (g^ has a doublet, dtxb twv (iYPtov x. t. irdXswv tote; i'pxouat -u. x6Xeti>v. — minn] lacking in ^^'^^', B principes civUatis in decor egraliar urn actlonis. — 46. IDni], i lacking in (&. — mini . . . T'lf] (S^as u[jLvov 7.al atvefftv, ^ usjlvo; x. s^oixoXdy'Qot; x. aVvsatc;. — 47. n'>?3nj '>ci3i] 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 as to the time of his coming back to Jerus., but since Eliashib was still high pr., though an old man (v. note on v. -»), and To. the Ammonite was still a troublesome character, the interval between the two admin- istrations could not have been long {v. 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, vv. »-'; (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, w. 1^-"; (4) the abolition of marriages with foreign women, vv. *'-"; and (5) the banishment of a pr., vv. ^s-si. Clearly all is from N. save vv. >-5- ". 20 1. 29b-3ia_ jn 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. io» {OTJCS-''), 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 is 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 wc 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 braciiets 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. 23'), 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.^-^), 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 pronouncing 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 alieti 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 oj 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 Tobiah 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. ^s. 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 follov/ 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 1 3 289 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 ijinSx in vv. ^ *, this passage may be one of those in first p. pi., though v.' is against this conclusion. After idd] (&^ adds votxou. From xu'' nS to end of v.'' consists of extracts of Dt. 23^-% giving the substance of the law. — cnS^n] Dt. nini, showing plainly the Elohistic bias of our author. — 2. •'o] Dt. "^U'X nai-Sy. — Snib" ija-ns] Dt. dddh. — -oa'ii] Dt. idb' ntrxi; d reads pi. eixta6a)aotvTo, so B.— vSy] Dt. T''?!".— iSSpS] Dt.lSSpS.— irni^N] Dt. n*? T'riSvX nin\ — nSSpn] (&^ xa-rapav auTou. — 3. 3iy] 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. — SNityiD] (& ev I. — 4. ijaS ntc] means before a particular event, while a^js'? in v. ^ is a general word, "formerly." — tmj] (S oExwv, II fuerat prcBpositus. (& has missed the idea, but H has rendered correctly. The sense "appoint" is found in I S. 12" I Ch. 12', V. BDB. — r\yv^] must be pointed as a pi. to make the sense required. — 5. nixc] d^ d%u[jLa = msr, unleavened cakes, IS partes = niijD, as 12", which gives the best sense. — nonn] (& dxapxaf, H primitias, which represents also nis'xi, 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- tration. — King of Babylon] is hardly original. Nehemiah refers to Artaxer.xes merely as "the king" (2^, the natural use for a contemporary. "Babylon" is from a later hand. — The last clause of the verse is usually connected with what follows, thus: and at the end of a time I [again] asked leave [of absence] from the 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, /. 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 wdth 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 NEHEMIAII 13 291 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. "iScn . . . VP^^] (5^ et? xbv ?^atpbv twv •r)[i.£pwv wv TQXTjatzixiQv xapa Toii paatXew?, xal (asto: to TeXo? twv Titxepwv wv f)TT5ad[A7]v iiapa tou ^aucXeox;. This represents two interpretations rather than two texts. — a"'^^] 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. hd::':] is found elsw. only in Ne. 3'" 12", and the mng. is exactly the same as the common n:;c'S, for which it is prob. an error. Neh. would hardly use a strange word alongside of a familiar one. — 8. ^!i] (S^ has a dup., xocl TovTypov [Aoi eydvT), xal iX'jnfjOfjv aqjdSpa, cf. ^ND ''7 nriM, 58. — 9. niou'Sn] <&^ has sg. which the sense requires. 10-14. Tithes are paid to the Levites. Neh., finding that the Lev. hud 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^ '^■. — Attd 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. Afid 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 ofl&ce 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 ivine 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, i2''- "• ^^ 142^- ^^ 26^-. In the NEHEMIAH 13 293 later law of Holiness the tithe became the absolute property of the Levites (Lv. iS'^-^^). — 13. This verse is sadly confused in our text; by eliminating some unnecessary lumber and correct- ing from (S, 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 {of. 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. 33°. Two Zadoks worked on the wall, 3"- ^9, but the scribe may be a different one still. Pedaiah cannot be the one who stood with Ezra, Ne. %^, and is hardly the wall-builder of 3". 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 ^ and may be a gloss added by the Chronicler. 294 EZRA-NEHEMIAH 10. 'C'i'] (S^ xal o't xotouvTSs, similarly 'B. — 11. n^nNi] ^l- x,al IxpfOrjv. — D^jjon-nx] lacking in (gJ^AN — i^. rnsiN-Sj? msixi] (S^^^ stX x^''-p(xi<;) , (S^ xal svsTetXdtir^v sxl x^'P"^? — n^-'ry nvjNi. 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.). (B offers a better t-ext 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. — aT'-*-;.-] could only be retained by rendering and with them. But it stands here for iT-Sy as (8, being misplaced in the confusion of the text. — aniV;"!] (|BAN |.^' aOxouc — 14. "31 ^n'?N] (Sban ^.upfou ^G Geoij. 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 comitry 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 atid 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! 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: I 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 the fields, but only against the traffic, which disturbed the peace of Jerus. While he notices the work done, v. J*, 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 (&, 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 (I and render: and there resided therein those who brought in fish atui 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. i^, 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 296 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. 56^- ^ 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 saying "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 closed when the gates were shut. — A nd I said] = commaftded, 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. Afui 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 difScult 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 (B 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 resumed 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 (S may be right in v. -° none the less. The only way to break up the trading would be to keep the merchants away altogether. — // yoii do it a second time]. According to v. 2° 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. 22, but the Chronicler was not satisfied to have the Levites ignored. — On the closing prayer, cj, v. ". — According to God's good deeds] now, not his own as in v. ". 15. nmj] = r\yT\\y, from p"', which does not occur in Heb., pi. only here. The wine-press was usually hewn from the rock {DB. 'B&toz.-^'^ f-, 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. 6i')- The word is found also in Is. 63- Lam. i'^ Jo. 4". The passage last cited rd. 1J^^, as m is never found with nj and is inappropriate, v. Mar. Dodekapr. — nianyn] does not mean "sheaves," as Wetzstein contends {Zcil. f. Eth. 1873, 2.rt. "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. 315-3 jt 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. — n^i] is rightly ignored in d H. Even if original it has no translatable force. It may be an error for ns. — In late Heb. we may find 1 before a direct obj., for r'' et sq. is obj. of o'Ddj?. — aojy j"] 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." — xs'id-Sd] is easy to understand, but hard to render tersely. It means all the other marketable stuff. — ^'X . . . D10] OJ^an |y i^^ipq^ •jcpdaewi; auxwv, lacking n^x; (S^ adds oxe exwXouv extaiTtayibv, showing one of the usual duplicates. 31 has an interesting reading, or possibly interpretation : ut in die qua vendere licerel venderenL The original text must have been n^x didd3 natyn ora. — 16. onxni] lacking in ^^^^. The clause is quite unintelligible, and some conjectural emendation is essential. I venture to suggest na ^2y^f'' Qiixni. 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". — jni] is wrong, and we may substitute jjt as easily as Ji. — 17. nn] ^^^^ Tot? utoti; -zolq eXsuOipot*;, showing an original text, 'J3, and a later correction, fortunately not by substitu- NEHEMIAH 1 3 299 tlon. — 18. u^n"?}*] OJBANL j^^g ^^» ai^jo^^; ^ Qehq TitAuv, a dup. showing on>Sx and U'h'^n'. — 19. iS'^s] 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. 13Dl] (g^AN y^^\ £Xo{T)aaV xpaatv. At end (6^ reads xal sKw^jOTjaav axa^ xal hie,, adding inSom. — 22. D^iyjyn . . . onrmn] (&^ Vva epx6[Ji.£vot ayviXwyxat xal (puXiaawat T;a<; icuXa?, showing no difference of text but only an interpretation. 23-31. Mixed marriages. Neh. finds Judeans married to Philistine women and the children were unable 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. "-25. as. 29a. 31b are from N. This is the kind of story which the Chr. would delight in elaborating. 23. In those days [cf. v. 1^] / 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: afid their sons were speaking half AsModite], 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 Nabatsan, Neubauer, Sludia Biblica.^K 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 Israelites and Philistines in the early days we would infer that their languages were mutually intelligible. nm.T'] is used of the Jewish speech in 2 K. iS^'- ^s^ to which we have the parallels in Is. 36i'- " and 2 Ch. 3218, the only occurrences. The word in those passages certainly means Hebrew; indeed, Heze- kiah's officers 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, /er. ii,^"). 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, Imlf 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^'S] 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, cj. 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 sivear 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 1 3 301 for yoiir:>clves] is not in DL. nor in Lhe 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. 12-^ ^■. Even him], in spite of his greatness and the blessings showered upon him from on high, theforeigti 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. B 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 ayid 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^°'-, 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. ^^ introduces a new section, I suspect that the original text read: " and in those days Jehoiada the son of EHashib." That would agree better with the chro- nology. Sanballat was one of the most troublesome of Nehe- miah's enemies, 2^° 3^^ 4^ 6^ It was by such alliances that the enemy was kept posted in regard to Nehemiah's doings, cf. 6'*. — And I drove him from me]. Drove away is used of putting enemies to flight, i Ch. 8" 12^^ of driving a mother 302 EZRA-NEHEMIAH (from her house), Prov. 19"^. 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, 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, vv. "^ '^•. — 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 U: the priestly and the Levitical right. As the passage stands it is part of the object of "corrupters," cf. Dt. 33^"" Mai. 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. Aiuifor the offering of wood in its appointed seasons], cf. 10'*; and for the first-fruits], cf. 10^*^ ^■. — Remember me, O my God, for good], breaking off the supplication abruptly, cf. vv. "• i'- 22. 23. i3''B'n] is impossible after an ace. subj.; ($ ol IxiOtcav, B ducetiles. We may rd. oiaicnn or substitute -\vh for nx before oninin. On 2^^, mng. to marry, found only in Ezr.-Ne., v. Ezr. lo^. — 24. djji ay pu'Sai] lacking in (S^'^*"'. It has the appearance of a crude explanatory gl. —25. Da-iD«i] lacking in (gBA^^._^^^1] lacking in (S'^'^^'.— 26. hSn-Sj:] CgBAN ouTwq, .tvov = iBH, the word used in i K. ii^. — 28. "ijinn] lacking in (Sfi^^. — 29. "''^Nj] C5^'^^ d7'xtffT£((5t, i. e., understanding hax, to act as kinsman; (S^ dtXh-ioyiixq. — njHDns] (&^ twv Up^wv. — "nni] H jiisqne sacerdotale et Leviticum. EZRA 7-10 303 EZR. 7-10. THE HISTORY OF 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. § ^(2)). 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. ". 19. 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. *-' 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 stbry 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. Serai ah is the same pr. named in Ne. II". Azariah is lacking in the priestly genealogy, Ne. 11", but recurs 3 t. in that of i Ch. 5-' ^- (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. ^^*- ^s. The best- known pr. of this name was the one whom Solomon exalted over the 304 EZRA-NEHEMIAH deposed Abiathar, i K. 2". Ahilub is named as father of Zadok in 2 S. 8", but the text is rejected by We. {Biicher Sam.). — 3. Amariah. This name is also repeated in 1 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.^''-. Meraioth occurs in Ne. II" I Ch. 9" between Zadok and Ahitub, 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. 34". — 5. Ahishua 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^ (6 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^^ 8"; it is given to Baruch, Jeremiah's private secretary, who wrote his prophecies at his dictation, Je. 36'^. 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. Sprf), but that he was an expert with the pen, writing or copying 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 everywhere 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 (S: because the hand of Yahweli 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. § '0, Kost. Wied.^^^. — 8. Esd. omits and he came to Jerusa- lem] and has in one text (^) "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 upfront 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 Bah. 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 (S 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 vv. '-" 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: (r) In the reign of Art. the king of Pers. Ezra (6) ivent up from Bab. Now he was an accomplished scribe in the law of Moses which Yahweh the 3o6 EZRA-NEHEMIAH God of Israel had given. And the king granted all his requests, ace. to the [good] hand of God upo7i 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 Jems, in the sth month of the yth year of the king; (9") for he had departed from Bab. on the 1st 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 iry 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 difficult 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 em ph. 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 (&^, where we have: and after these things in the reign of Art. the king of Bah., Ezra went up from Bab. Ezra the son of Seraiah. . . . That Ezra went up frotn 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-iry] Eapa<;B, E^gaq^^ Esd. has xpoaiprj Eapas, ($^ dvl^Tj E!;pa<;, 3 Esd. accesil Esdras. — 5. a'xin jnon] (gi- Esd.^ tou kplw? tou -rptoxou, Esd.^ TOU irpuTou lepeo)?, (^^^ tou •TcaTptpou, an adj. in Prov. 2y^'> and representing 3n: otherwise it is found only in Apocr. H sacerdotes ab initio, 3 Esd. primi sacerdotes. The words bring out the idea very well that Aaron was the father of the priestly order. — 6. nitj? Nin] om. (6^. ^ adds to this iv. Bx^oXtiwc, and then repeats Et^pot? ut6<; x. t. X. — Tinn] seems sufficiently explained from "inn, "to hasten," and to EZRA 7-10 307 have the mng. quick, a sense apph'cable in the only other occurrences of the word, Ps. 45' Prov. 22=' Is. i6^ Miiller (^.y. u. EuJ''^) compares Egyptian mahira, "capable." (& gives a variety of renderings: Taxii?^, 0^6?^, Esd. eucpu-^s;; H velox, 3 Esd. ingeniosus. — to] (& oti xst'p, /• e., T '3, so V. '. Esd. has in v.'': xat eowxsv aixw 6 ^aatXeCiq S6sav, eupdvToq Xiiptv IvavTt'ov auToO k%\ izScvzoc Ta d^cwfitzTa auToiJ, thus reading lo as ma*?, vSj; as S>', rnSs as vSx, and rf\rt^ as ?n nx:;. — 7. ci'^n] CI prefixes dtico 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. Na-ii] ^ H Esd rd. INO'' here and v. '. — n^yarn] Esd.^ SeuTspoq, but this offers very little help, unless for We.'s conjecture that we should rd. 27th year. — 9» is lacking in <&^^. — nSynn ^D> Nin] is difficult; (g^ runs: ai-ub? e6e[i.e- X^uas T-?)v dva^aaiv dtwo, i. e., nD», a reading generally accepted, and in- terpreted "he began the journey from Bab." BDB. gives sense "ap- point " here. Esd. has l^eXGovTot; yap ix^, lacking iDv — . . . ^^3] Esd. xaxa T-Jjv SoOetaav auxolq euoStav icapa tou xupt'ou ex' oeutw: acc. 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. pan] (g ISuxev^'^, TjTotjji.a^si'. Esd. reads: 6 yap "E;;pas [A^iapa?^] xoXX-Jjv ZTCiarii^Ltiv iceptetxev ef? xh (itjSsv •rcapaXeixstv twv sy. tou voyiou xupfou xal ex Ttov IvToXwv [Tcpb?^] xivra xbv 'lapaigX StaxupLaxa xit xpffjiaTa. In part this is traceable, reading nain rty^n for 133*7 pjn. 3 Esd. shows further correction from MT., reading at end: et docendo universam Israel omnem justitiam 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 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 (BT.'^O. 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. -^--*. 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 officers whom Ezra was authorised to appoint were not civil rulers. The texts show uncertainty, (S having "scribes" in place of "judges." These officers 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 vv. "-"• ^- -=• ^', but this 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 assuredl}' 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 treasur}', 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) Ki7tg 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 Jems. As many therefore as are eager, let them set forth together, (14) as seems good to me and to the seven friends counselling with me, that they look after the welfare of Judah aiui Jerus. in accordance with the law of the Lord; (15) and to carry to Jcrus. gifts which I and my friends have vowed to the Lord. (16) And all the gold and silver which shall be found in the province of Bab., for the Lord at Jerus., with that wliich 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 Jerus. {iS) Arui 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 given thee for the service of the temple of thy God which is in Jerus., (20) atid 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 tlte treasurers of Syria and Phcenicia, 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 ivheat and a hutuired 3 1 EZRA-NEHEMIAH boUles 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. (25) 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 Phxnicia; and all who do not know the law of thy God do thou teach. (26) AM all as matiy as shall trangress the law [of thy God and of the king] slmll 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 differently, 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. 1 2; 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 "offered." — 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" 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 S'^^, and is supported by all texts and Vrss. In Esd. we might render: all the gold afid silver belonging to the Lord of Jerus. 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"; d^"^ If have former, ^ latter, for in Greek and Latin the distinction must be made, cf. i\ — 17. That thou may st 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^'. — Aiid their meat ofcrings and their drink oferings], 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]. — 19. 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 8-^-", 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 be 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. 610*. — 24. To you it is directed]. The antecedent can only be the treas- urers named in v. 2'. As the decree was issued to Ezra (v. "2) and in view of the material intervening between v. ^i 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. -K 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 (S adds to this a provision that no kind of [public] service may be exacted of them. 25. Atid thou, Ezra]. The name recurs because a passage, w. ^1 "f-, 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 hi- 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 ike 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 clear and in good order. Esd. has a different text; it runs: Tcpoaxeadvxoi; [Be tou ypa^iivToc;]'""- ^ icpoaTaytJ.a'uoq'""- '^ wapi 'Apxa^epsou lou ^aatX^ws icpb? "Eapav tov Ispsa /.al avaYvwaxirjv xou v6[xou xupt'ou ou saxtv avxtypacpov xb uxoxetyievov. This is nonsense as it stands, because a clause has dropped out after xpoa-raytxtzTOs. The deficit is found in 3 Esd.: accidenlcs aiitem, qui scrihebant scripta Artaxerxis regis, tradideriint script urn, quod ohvencrai ab Artaxerxe rege ad Esdram sacerdotcm et lectorem legis Domini, cujus exemplum siibjectum est. Doubtless (S is right in the use of the sg. — iScn] om. (S^^. — ncDJ <& ^i^Xfou = nsD, Esd. dvayvciatTiv = N^p. The title "scribe" is never found in Esd. (save for the gl. in 9"^^). "Reader" is doubtless the earlier term. For SNitr' . . •>^3■l] Esd. shows only nini nnin, agreeing essentially with title in v. i^. — 12. xjhd om. 'Di -iinj] is a much-disputed phrase. In (& we find: TExiXeaTo >.6yo<; xal % 'j] v. 4". — 13. '•niaSDaj Esd.^ xocl xwvSe ev t^ ri\ieiipif pafftXsfqt. — SxTi'i] Esd. Twv 'louSafwv, a reading overlooked by Kost. — 14. n S^iI-Sd] wanting in (S^^, xaG' o-zi^. — "nisp] cf. t3>?% Sachau,<='; it corresponds to Heb. yy and has the same mng. — 15. nSa-ri'?] (g^A ^i^ olxov xuptou, i. e., So^n. ^ has a dup. : dtxeveyxsiv dq x. t. X. — njnn] Esd. T]u?(i[ji,75v = Heb. -nj not found in B. Aram. — 16. noB'nn] Esd. 8 EZRA 7-10 315 eav eijpeOfj (n^Pttri cf. 6-) Iv xyj X«P6po<; y.i) esxti) ao! ouy. I^ouataasn; xaxaSouXouaSott ocu-zodt;. The first part is easily derivable from MT. iVa = oux., iSm = eaxw cot, i. €., nin. With this reading Esd. in part agrees: [JLY)Se[A(a 9opoXoYfa IJLTjSe SXXyj £TCtpouX9) ylvf]-zai, [L-qoivx s'xstv l^ouat'av eictpaXetv xouxot?. — 25. njNi] Masora magna in B diserlis verbis ait. In libris Danielis et Esdrce ubique nnjs scripium est, uno loco njN excepto (Str.). Doubt- less the text preserves a mere scribal error. — ^^'3 n] lacking in Esd. — 3l6 EZRA-NEHEMIAH pMB'] yp(Xit.[L<2ztlq^^ (?'iod), xptxds^^^-. It is hard to say whether ^ is right or merely trying to avoid a tautolog>', since the two Aram, words both mean judges and cannot be distinguished. In Dt. i6'» we find Dnas'i D''aDw', ($ xpixccq ■/.. ypajJLtiaToeiaaYwyeli;. The officers were ec- clesiastical, not civil. — \"n] (5 v6[j.ov^a ^^'^■, ^ v6[i.nioc; with Torrcy rd. m. — lu*"''!^-'^] Guthe corrects to njj; inn, @^ YvwpistTe ajT«. Guthe ap- pears not to have noted this reading, but his emendation has little support. — 26. ^C'•^'^] (S xoctSeiav^'^, sxti^wcat auxbv i^ •icatSeOffat^; Esd. (ZTtiJLt?^, disfranchisement, Tt;ji.up{(j:^^, torture, so 3 Esd. cruciatii. ens' means roo/, 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 C5, ^^nr, "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. — vddj ts'jj:] CS l,-q[j.i(xv ^(ou^^, "loss of life"; t^Tjixiwaat to: uxapxovxa^, Esd. ap'fupita'Q-q. The punishment is the imposition of fines. — jmON] (5 xapdtSoatv^, SiafAa*, 9uXa*A"f)v sYxXstaat^; Esd. axaycoY^^^, SeofAEijaott^. 7" '• = Esd. 8'^"". 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: Afid 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 Yahwch] by estab- lishing the full system of sacrifices. "Glorify" is a favourite word of Is." 44"^* 49'' 55-'' 6o^- '• '^- ^' 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, ^nighty 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 (S. 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.A begins: x,al eksv 'Ei^paq 6 ■^ga.'^^a.izuq (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 bj' 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. — imi3N] lacking in Esd.^^; zaxipuv jAoyA = ipuN, a better reading. — nsra] Esd. Tauta, prob. a free render- ing. — "I'l'Dn 3S3] Esd. zlc, T-J)v >to(p8t«v \xo\) xoO PotatXiwc;. The last two words are a corrective addition. — nin^2] om. (S^^, while Esd. curiously reads aixoO. — 28. non nan] is a peculiar combination, but recurs in 9'; Esd. stftxYjasv, prob. mn for ^D^.— ■':d'?] (& iv ocpOaXpioTs = 'J'PJ. Esd. SvGtvTt. Prob. a case of an obscure word rd. in two different ways. — lajn . . . S:h\\. The change of construction and its peculiar character 3l8 EZRA-NEHEMTAH raise suspicions. (S reads: •rcavTO)v x. apxovxwv t. p. t. Itc-opiasvojv^A [Suvaxwv^]. Esd. has a different text for the whole : paatXsw? xal xivxwv iwv 9t>vwv auTou xal twv [AeytaTiivwv aO-uoO. It is likely that the original was the same as 8", and is here awkwardly amplified. — ih'^n] on basis of (§ Guthe adds "jvion, cf. 7^. Esd. has a simpler text: eu6apa-fj<; sfs- v6|x-r5v xotTa ttJv dvTfXiQitv xupfou Beou [jlou. — DTNi] Esd. avSpo(s]= O'lf'X; ^ apxovTa? = D'-i::' in v. ». This is another case of an obscure word; cir-xt may be a correction from S'. 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. AbltJ'^"). Daniel and Hattush are mentioned among the pr. in Ne. 10=^ '-. 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 sofi 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. lo""-, 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, /. 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. 3" 10= la^- '^ CS 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. % 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 required 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. ■'a'N-i] d^ adds oVxwv as Ex. 6" et pass., but of. 1^. — ae'ninm] Hithp. inf. with sf. Ges.^ ". The word is hard to render here. Esd. has xal Ta? t'-sptSapxta? (+ aOToQ^); (&^^ 01 63if)Yot connected with cSyn, the gtiides going up with me; [isptSapxta? recurs in 1^ = 2 Ch. 35^ for nuSs, in i" = 2 Ch. 35'^, hijiVdd; we should rd. here DmjSflm = and their divisions [or companies]. — Saan] (S^^ 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. — ■'oy] is found in all the texts. It was doubtless added by the Chr. to make the list fit into its context. — n^jja* ^jao]. 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 C5^ omits v. ^ altogether. We should om. the name here and supply a name in v. ^. Since in i Ch. 3-2 Hattush is the grandson of Shekaniah, we might rd. nijots' p cian. — 5. After (8* Esd. ix Twv uiwv ZaGo-^t; Et£xo^''«? TsOi^Xou (so 3 Esd.), rd. Ninr ij3D SNnn^-p nij3!r. — onDtS cn^-in] 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 avSpeq. — 6. 13>'] should cer- tainly be a n. p., but it is peculiar certainly. j;tr> is the great-grandfather of a Shelo- mith. There is a suspicious phonic resemblance to inicov, here named as father of Shelomith. — 11. In 05^ Esd. the names are differentiated; correct with Guthe to . . . ipj -.j^a, v. on lo^^, — (gBA h^s 78, MT. 28, i. €., D''jjac for oniry. — 12. ppn] the little one, cf. "James the less," Mk. IS"; the name is attested by (5 B Esd. — 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 B 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 present slaves to the temple {v. Smith, OT. Htst.'^^). 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 3ni. The Chr. having put pr. in the list (vv. = ff ) must, of course, have them here. — 16. We must either drop the prep. S before each name, as ^^ B and Esd.L, 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: ; the names are certainly du- plications; (B^ omits from a^CNi to end of v.; Esd. lacks the last two names altogether, and so recognises no classes. The evidence shows that ]n:Sxi aniv are accidental repetitions. Then a''B'Ni and D'raa should be joined together as in Esd.: ■fjYoutAsvou<; xal i%i.in:^\xQV(xq^^, apxovxaq auvsTou^i-. — 17. nssix] so d§>^'^ e^Tiveyxa. Qr. nixN, so (gi- ev- etetXatATjv. The former is the better reading. Esd.^A xal Blr.a ocu-zolg eX6£iv = .iinx':' DiDxi. — . . . nx]. For this very difficult text 05^ has: exl (Spxov-ro? £v apyupiq) toQ toxou, /. e., Dipcn i'n); i'hasdup.,X£o'uoupYQLii;-/.al aoovxa;;, Esd. ispaxeuaavTOs, in agreement with its reading in v. '^j so 3 Esd. coj 5«i saccrdotlo Jimgerentiir = a''jn3D. — 18. wom] so Esd.i- T^-fixjov, B and 3 Esd. adduxcnml; Qr. ini3m, so (S T]XGoaavBAj ^^.Govi-. The first clause is lacking in Esd.B. Kt. is pref- erable, as the Hiph. corresponds to x^anS, v. ". — aavjn] Esd.AL xpaxtav = nptnn. — ^y^ v^a] puzzled the translators; (§ has iiv?)p CTax'o(x)^'^> «• cuvexo?!-, doctissimum H, Esd. avSpoc IxtaxTjiAovaBL^ avopa<; £'iuiaxTi[xova(;Aj z)i>05 peritos 3 Esd. There is no good reason for a pi., as the words apply only to Sherebiah. — n^a-mn] (& xotl apx'']v rik^oaav^^, ev depxfi Sa- pouca^, so Esd.^; apx^) is used to translate twenty-four different Heb. words (Hatch and Redpath, Concord.), but the text was apparently P'.rxn2, "at the head," and that has been corrupted to SxTkr^-p. That designation would agree with the statement that Sherebiah was a prudent man. — mS p] is wanting in C^k — 19, xhe text is corrupt. It requires the slightest change to make sense: et Hasahiam, el cum eo Isaiam dcfillis Merari, fratresque ejus, et filios ejus viginti. (& and Esd. rd. HN for inx. OI^a have ulol auxwv, ^ xwv uluv otuxoij xal xuv deSsX^wv auxoij, transposing in agreement with v. ". But in Esd. ^ has auxwv in both cases, while ^ has for the whole v. : o\ ix xwv ulwv xavouva'ou xal ol u'tol aoxwv s't'/toat avopss; 3 Esd. Asbiam et Aniin ex jiUis fiUorum Chanancci, et filii corum 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., vi2\ — 20. in:] = "appoint," cf. BDB. — ancn] (5 01 apxovxe?, Esd. q\ TiYoutievot, 3 Esd. principes. Therefore there is no support for Winckler's emendation, as-nirn. — o^yr\3 . . . inja'] is inserted by the Chr. as an explanatory note. The rel. a* never occurs elsw. in Ezr.-Ne., but twice in Ch. (Dr.i""-- =■" f). Sieg. regards whole v. as a gl. — I3p:] (B cn)yfiyj^ri<^av^'^, wvoixdcffOrjaavi', B vocahantur, Esd. icavxwv la- yj^jlccvGy] [ovofJiaaOTjA] ivotxaxoYpczyta^; oSxot lar^ijLcivOTjcav sv dvoiiaxoYpacpfi?^; 3 Esd. omnia nomina significata sunt in scripturis. It is a favourite phrase of the Chr. (Dr.i°''-- ^3«). — 22. ij-ii>-'^] (S awaat, Esd. iaipaXeta-;. There is much variety in the rendering of the last clause: Ci» renders lit., but Esd. has: bxu? [^V for i^] xou xupt'ou Tjyiwv ecxat ^Ji.s'^a twv extl^T^xouvxwv auTov sXq ixaaav IxavopOuatv; 3 Esd. virtus Domini erit cum eis qui inquirunt cum in onini affectu. This lacks the last clause entirely, i. e., the threat to those who abandon God. — 23. idisj] Esd. icctXcv = naiirj. — 24. oijnDn na'c] 3 Esd. ex plebis prcepositis et sacerdotibus tem- pli = ^■:i-'7\7[ ^J^^1 ayn ncc. — nia^B''?]. The prep, is supported by So]. Here we have a mpl. followed by a f. adj. The Vrss. vary: C5 axEUY] xaXxoiJ axCk^ovioq dyaOoO St(4tpopa £TCt6u(JLY]Ta Iv [w<;^] XP'^'^'V? Esd. axeuTj ycCkv-OL ktcq '/jxkv.nij xprjaxou axt'X^ovxa axeuT) Sexa [xpuaoetSou? SIxa Suo]!-, showing a correction from MT. This would be: ntrm iSs 1!:'^ D^jnsD u-h-2 n3ia n^'mn. Sieg. emends nana ansn to 210 ante, "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. iSpB'n] Esd. -rcapaSouvat auxA b\}.a.c,. — Sxitt'^'?] lacking in (Sba^ 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. — niDirSn] CS> etq a/,T]V(is^A^ gj^ ^^ xaaxocpdpta^, H in Ihe- sanrum, 3 Esd. in pastoporio. Doubtless we should rd. 3 or S for n; the art. could not be used with st. cstr. — 30. ^pvji 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. 24, and rightly, for the precious money and vessels would have been committed to the highest class of sacred officials. ^S-p in v. '^ is lacking in (S^ and may be a gl. to har- monise with v. '5. 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 officers were wedded to the old ways and were not in sympathy with the 328 EZRA-NEIIEMIAH new order which Ezra proposed to mstitule, 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. 331-36 ^ £g(j 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. ^s. 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. ^2; 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 thefoiirth 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 '2"^'^ does not mean that. Therefore we had better follow Esd. : on the third day of our being there, we weighed, etc., or better with (S 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 io« la^- ^^ 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, Jozahad] {id^- '■ Ne. 8^ ii'«) and Noadiah], a EZRA 7-10 329 name elsewhere only of a prophetess, Ne. 6". In spite of the lower ofl&ce 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. €., 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^^ ^■], 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 ofl5cers 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 ^^O EZRA-NEHEMIAH the Persian officials, and that is presumably what the Chronicler meant, but grammatically it is the same as that of "delivered." Vv. " '• 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 pNi, though MT. is supported by all texts. In V. ">= Esd.B has third p. throughout; and other Mss. of Esd. and C5 have it in places. Yet something is required between v. -^ and 9'. The only part of our text which inspires confidence is vv. '■ f-. 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. Nin« nnj] Esd. i:6xou ©epi^^ -icoTaiAoGAL. — t^i] Esd. xa-ra xpaxatdbv xslpa. We should restore rypm for the superfluous r\r\^Ty. — 3iin) j^in «13d] (S) dcxb zetpbi; sxOpou x^al xoXetifou^A -j_ IvsSpeuovTOc;!-, showing a double rendering of aiix; Esd. has only axb xdvTo? sxOpoO (^mn-Sdd). 3 Esd. lacks V. ^. It is prob. that "^s was corrupted to 10 and that 3niN is an amplification by the Chr. or an accidental repetition of a similar word. — 32 f. . . . 3'i'Ji]. The unrevised Esd. gives merely: YevonlvT)? (Tjiitv) aixoBt -fiEA^pai; -cptTTj^B, to which t^ ^ia^p? tt) TSTiipTT) has been added in AL from MT., but without changing the construction, and so making no sense. 3 Esd. et cum f actus fuisset tertius dies, quarta autem die. — Vpa*:] iQxr\z(x\i.s.y of 05 goes better with ni32. — 34. . . . -12033] Esd. Tcpb<; aptO- (ibv xal 6Xx9)v TCizvTa. — 35. nj'aa'i D^yatt'] Esd.AL ipSofi-^xovTa S60, rightly, since every offering is twelve or a multiple of twelve. — nson n^sx] cf. N>C3n'? >i''flS, 6"; (S xtsxipous xepl ajxapTfaq; Esd.SAxpiyouq ux2pjni (Guthe). — 5. . . ''yipai] Esd. Scep- pTJYliiva Ix*'*'*' "r* l(Xi4Tta xal T-f)v lepav sffOijTa. — anyn nnjD2i] om. Esd. — 'n'jync] Esd. ex ttj? vTrjaxefa? = oixn. — lana-Sj; njriDNi] Esd. xiijul/a? xi ')f6vaTa. — '"hSn] om. Esd. 338 EZRA-NEHEMIAH 6. n-\DN] clirov (&^, Esd. elxsv^, zXe-(Qv^^, but 3 Esd. dicebam. — 'nSn] om. (gB, so Esd. 7.upteAL.— a'-in*^] om. Esd.— '^Sn^] om. » Esd.— T'Sn >}s] Esd. xan:i xp6a(i)TC6v ao-j = TJ3-^y. — B-xi nSjJcS] an expression occur- ring nowhere else. (5 uxi? xeyaXrjc; -fjiJLwvBAj j„j^p 5v(i>l, Esd. xe^aXdi;^*, uTclp T(i<; Tpfxa? '^ti<; xeyoeX-^c; TjiiaJvi-. The evidence is convincing for Uiyxn. The presence of -rpfxa? = "^^^ in ^ is interesting; by modify- ing a little more we get good sense, /. e., u'^nt nnya'D, cf. Ps. 69', TNT nnjJtt'O lan. No one seems to have noticed the important text of L, though every one sees the difliculty. Torrey rendered riSynS, "ex- ceedingly" (cf. I Ch. 23I') and explains ti'N^ as due to dittog. (Comp.^^, ES.'")' — "^ • l^''^''^] ^ o't ulol Tj^Awv^A^ rj[ tepsi? -rjixoJv /.al o'i xivreq YltAwvi-; Esd. aiv Tolq dSsXqjoIi; tjjjlwv, ctuv toT? ^aatXsuatv "fjtiwv, xal auv TOti; Ispeu- ffiv Tjfjiwv. i:njN] is here rd. as irnN, 3 Esd. cz<;;?. fratribus nosiris, et Slim sacerdotibus nostrls. By an eclectic process I would restore the text thus: irj3i ^yr\ii^ %y^3 unj. irSa became ^y2^^2, ^ynn became unjN, and irja became irjna. — T^a] lacking in Esd.; C^ ev x^P'^^ ('■'''3). — msixn] (jg TTcJv eOvwv, Esd. ttji; yfiq. — o^jfj] lacking in Esd., (S xpoatoxou 7)[i.d)v = ViD. — nrn DvnD] Esd. [xl/pt -rii? aTit^epov Tj^jLlpcti;, a better sense and prob. from ovn^. — 8. (S offers variant for the awkward begin- ning of MT. : xal vOv sxeffxeuciffaTo -fjii-Iv 6 6£b<; t)iiwv, z. e., uS pin n.-iyi irnV.s. L adds w? ^paxu. B reads: e/ «?wc quasi parum et ad momen- tum facia est deprecatio nostra apud Dominum Deiim nostrum; 3 Esd. et nunc quantum est hoc, quod conligil nobis misericordia abs te Domine Deus. — ^V^P ■ . . liNii'n'^]. Esd. xataXetcpOfjvat ^(j.tv pti^ocv xal ovoyLa Iv Ttji TOTCw Tou [toutwB] aYtaSfxaTO? [+ au-roui-]. H relinque nobis radicum et nomen in locum sanctificationis tna. We must, at all eventS; get rid of the inappropriate in\ (g has CTTT)piY[a](jia, which elsw. stands for nan. Esd. may have rd. 13J "posterity." — u*? nnS] would scarcely be used here in view of Mr\Th, v. ^ M^^^i< . . . n^xnS] (6 lacks u^hSn, the least possible emendation. Esd. has : ToCi avaxaXu(];at ipwaTfipa -Jjiicov Iv Tw oVxtfj ToG xupfou TjiAwv = irnSs r-'22 1J11ND rnSjS. — D>'0 .thd] CS ?wo- xofv^atv ixixpczvB, xepcxodrjaav^, Esd. Tpo^-Jjv Iv Ty xatpw TTJt; SouXsta? Tjfiwv; B cibum in omni tejnpore servitentis nostrcB. — ^oj?d] cannot be an adj. as (& and EV^ render; "a little sustenance" would be ninn toyn. Therefore substitute with Esd. n>'3. — n>nD] can scarcely mean rcwV ing, RV. BDB. It indicates that which supports life, so food, as Ju. 54 iyio_ — 9, (§L Iv .jj^ xotpa^diaet •iiyiwv sv ^ xapi^TjfAev -fiEieti;, connecting unjN Dn3j7 'D with ijm3>'3 of v. '. This reading avoids the monotonous repetition of "in our servitude." Esd. has ev t^ SouXeuetv ^[>.&<;, read- ing 1J13;'3, and lacking ijm3>'3i. — uiaj?] is rd. as Pu. in Esd. lyxare- XsifieT)[iev. — irnSs'] preceded in (& by xupio?, Esd xupfou "Otiiov; Gk. and 1^ often disagree in the use of the divine names; Esd. is the work of a pretty consistent Yahwist. — . . . tO"] Esd. Ixofrjuev Tj^jiai; ev x<4ptTc =* ]r\2 ir!£Ti. — '^'nn i:S nnS] Esd.i- SoOvat V'v IXeov (ion). — nnnV] (g to5 StJ^fiiaat aiTou?, mistaking Polel for Qal with sf.; Esd. xal Zo^&aai lapbv EZRA 7-10 339 'Jjpi.wv. — vnain], Esd. T-f)v spTj(j.ov St'tov, 3 Esd. (sdificare deserla Sion = tvs na^^. — nj] $ (pp(ZY(J.6v"AN^ Teixo<;L, cT£pl(OEJ.aE»pi), 3 Esd. iia- bilitatem. — "31 mino] is supported by all Vrss., j'et we might better rd. "S 3>3D2, ». s. — 10. nnpi] lacking in (Sban. — pNr nnx] Esd. Sxovrsg TKuxa, (S [iSTd: touto. — iJ3'i'] Esd. icapl^TjaotvB, xapi^TjiAevAL^ j'. g.^ ij^3>'. — 11. nniix] ?5wxa^ '^'^ 4" toutwvI-, Esd. t^ "]. For consistency we find sxt- {Aty^vac = (aiynns) in Esd., where (B has ^atJi^psOffac (= innnn). — —\y . . . nSs] Esd. ixoXiffat TQ^jia? ew<; toO [jlt) xaxaXtxelv pfl^av xal ax^pfjia xal Svo[j.a Tjtiwv = "INCH I'nS ny u.-iiSs. — 15. ujn] om. (S''. — P'-^^i] Esd. dXr)- Gtv6q. — ovnj] Esd. Iv Tfi orjiJiepov = orna. — na-^'^s] may be construed as an ace. or as appos. with the subj. of the vb. (Ges.^ "'). 10'"* = Esd. S^*'-9\ The people agree to divorce the for- eign wives. Ezra's praying 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. 1. 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 dreu], 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, Jcr. 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^* 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 treynble 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 God. 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 ncn for riti^y\ There are several variants for "those who tremble," etc.; C5 reads : stand iip and make them tremble at the command of our God; Esd.^: 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. EZRA 7-10 341 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 aiid 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. Ci» 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. ^ — 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.^'"), 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. g*, 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. A)id all who did not arrive within three days]. The short time allowed shows the narrow bounds of the new commimity (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 be confiscated and he should be separated from the assembly of the captivity], i. e., excommunicated. The word rendered "confis- cated" means put iDider a religious ban, 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. ?BJnDi] (g xpoasu^oy^svos^'^', thus repeating SSsPC. — a-'HSun-no] Esd. here as often elsw. toG Ispoij. — SxTi"'c] Esd. axb 'lepouaaXTjti.. — Snp] (§ exxXTjata, Esd. ox^os, v. on v. «. — DnV] ®l and Esd.i- veavtai xal TcatSapta = a'i>Ul onS\ — n;3 . . . '^J (5 o-zi sxXauasv 6 Xxhc; xat 'j'J^waev xXaiwv^AN'^ g.ct /.Xau6ii(i> y-syaXcp ijcXauaev 6 "kxoq^, Esd. xXauOiJibs T^^P T]v [Alya? £v TiT) -zXifiei, 3 Esd. flctiis enim erat magnus in ipsa midtitu- dine. — 2. a'^i>"] Esd. 'IjpaTjX. — yi>:] (S sxaGtaaixevBA (= j-^", "to dwell"), eXipotisv**!-, Esd. xaTt^jxryaav^, auva)x;ja[i£vA, xaTC[)x(ffa[X£vL. Xhe 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. lo'") we have (juvotxYjaars yuva^fv. The idea, therefore, may be "cohabit," the prep, which would naturally follow being dropped idio- matically. — nipcj (S uTCO|j.ovi^BAK^ iXtaiq^, Esd. sxivo) ici^ 'Io.ba = nSya 'C'Sa. — 3- nna] Esd. 6pxw^oa(a. — ^^v:] -j-yv*ixa; xk^ iXXoxptati; (5S EZRA 7-10 343 Esd. Yuvaiy.at; :f)[xwv tocs £5t t^wv aXXoyevwy eOvwv, a necessary qualifica- tion. — 2rir3 iVjni] Esd. auv Tsxvotc; aurwv == innS'^a. — . . . nr;2] n-nnj] ^ d>; 6 v6[Jios Yevt)- Gi^Tto^A, om. Esd.BA. — 4. -la^] ^bavX pfj^ta, so v. ^; Xdyoi;^, but pTJ^Aa, V. '; Esd. xpaytJ-a, om. v. K In v. ^ the mng. is general, e. g., matter, but specific in v. ^, plan. — p?n] (gL, dvSpt^ou, act like a man. — 6. •\'^?^^ Dc] is an impossible ^edundanc3^ 05^ omits perhaps from a critical motive. Esd. has the true text : aJXtaOsl^ Ixsl = o-' ]^^'^, so most mod- ern scholars. — ^n'^ijn Vjj^] Esd. x. avot«.tuv x. [AsyaXtov xoO xXtjOou? = D^Snjn 3in ^Vys. Sieg. translates wegen des grossen Vergehcns = S'^^n nSijn. — 7. CS^A om. ''3'^ to end of v. — 8. o^jprm ancn] Esd. x. xpo- xa6ifjtJLdv' used in opposite senses in two successive vv. It is plain, 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 umnistakable word, Dip. The authorities have quite dis- regarded the reading of (8 : 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 all opposition. 16. 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 (&. 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.-^' ' ). — 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. 1*. 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. — A^id they sat on the ist 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 ^ho^] has dropped out before xin, so Guthe before him, but hoD itnna would be required, and then the correction is more prob. I suspect that the date is a note by the Chr. After (6 Esd. tou jjnrjvii;, we should rd. S'nnS for a'nna. — . . . oiT'yic] (B (x%h Sopu^ou auruv •jcspl tou p-rj^iaTo? v.7.1 ircb tou '/bi[xmw^^-'^^ , Iv Tpopiw aicb x. g-QiLa-zoq v.. dxb T. xstfJ-wvoi;^; Esd. xpi^iovizq [Sta^-] xbv EvsairuTo: xstf^wva. 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 nain-Sj?, it had, perhaps, onojjn. idj? means persist in Eccl. 8' (BDB.), and is represented by svtoravat in 2 K. 13^; "persistent rains" would do well here. This, however, requires a trans- position of words, and I hazard a conjecture, "3 Dni;yn:;, shivering because of slattding in the rain. — 11. niir] (S a'cvsaiv xal s^otioXdyigatvi-, 348 EZRA-NEHEMIAH Esd. s$o[ioX6YY]atv v.tX ho^av^, 6\i.o'k. So^av^A. Prob. we should add TI33, cf. 7". — D3'ni3N] with d and Esd. rd. irni3K. — ijisi] (6 tb apsaxov svwiccov aO-rou, which may be paraphrastic as in Ne. q^^. Esd. -zh Qskrilia auToO. — 12. iJ!;^] Esd.^A -^aX l^wviQaav, a rendering found in v. ' = ixnp-'i. — . . . Sip] (5 [tiytx TouTo tb p^i^ci aou^Aj ^l l^as (pcovfj tAeyizXTJ with "answered" and continues: [Asya toOto to p^ixa e?' Tj[Jia^, xal xaTct Tou? Xdyoui; aou ou? s$if]?, outwi; xotiQaoiJLev, a double reading with varia- tions; Esd. ouTw<; ojq e[pT)xa<; TCotTQaopLsv; H juxta verbum tuimi ad nos sic fiat, 3 Esd. «'«// dixisti Jaciemiis. Certainly we must rd. Ti3i.3 {v. Moore's Judges,^-''), inf. and prob. "cju, though OJ may be a free ren- dering; it is incumbent upon us to do is not, however, as strong as we will do. — 13. Sax] in late Heb. is strongly adversative. — nj?n] CgB i toxo? xaipogAf^L, wpofEsd.. The mng. is season, not day. — d-'DB'j] has an ad- jectival force corresponding to 3i, so d and Esd., but U tcmpus pliivia;, 3 Esd. tetnpus hybernum, is perpetuated in EV^. The lexicons ignore this use. It is impossible to render "a time of rain" without unnecessarily emending the text. — I'lno . . . }\si] Esd. y.otl oux bxuHo' yisv oT^vat (zYOptot [xal oux eupotJLev], bracketed parts in b only. AtOptoc elsw. stands for infla, "threshold," or D'jd, but it would serve as well for v^n^. We note here a neat idiomatic rendering instead of the sla- vish Uteralism of ®. ^s plus is difficult to understand unless we get nxd out of hdnSd, though the latter is represented by epyov, followed, it may be noted, by yp.{hy^ -osaivBA. — 14. inp] is here given the mng. among rare uses, "be appointed," BDB. This would require ':'npn-S3;, and the subj. would be o^is'; yy-\v shows that existing officials are meant. Ges.^ proposes die Geineinde vertreten. The idea seems to be : let our officers stand for [or represent] the whole assembly. — Snp SaS] om. ($^, ev xaaif)!', Esd. ol TupoTjYoutJLEvot tou -xXtjOous = '"'^p^ 'ntf. — ijnj!3] Esd. i% Twv y.aTotxtwv -fjtxwv = uo'^'icD, 3 Esd. qni wbiscum inhabitant. — CJOTD DTiyS] Ne. 10'^ 13'', (& zlc, xatpoijc; axb auvaywycivB [auvTaywvA'*] i-izh y.atptovi-; Esd. XaPovTc? ^povov; 3 Esd. accepto tempore. ^ has rd. nnyn, al onpion, and Esd. perhaps anpin np. — 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,^^). — i^i'i] om. (gL. Esd. lacks this and also Dn?3>\ — t^N jnn] fipYTjv '] is well supported, and has here the unusual sense at, or on; but we should expect ara. 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 under 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 under 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 symbol of swearing is old usage, 2 K. 10". — And guilty, a ram of the flock for their gtiilt] 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 difficult 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. "^a^ which connects poorly with v. '«'', but very well with v. •'. The passage would then rd. : and there were found some of the pr. who had married foreign luives, and 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. And 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 (^ 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. .6y, H pro delicto sua, 3 Esd. ad litandum in exoraiionem. Kue. proposes odi:'n, "their guilt- offering" {Abk.'*^). It is natural, though, to expect a vb. here, and I suggest D''B'Ni, "and I appointed." — anrc'N] Esd. iyvoixq aijTwv, 3 Esd. ignorantia sua. — 23. D''iSn] twv ulwv twv Aeutxwv CSl Esd.^-. — . . . n^Sp] S|-i of Ne. 8' io» (7BL. 1898,'").— 24. J'^B'Sn] Esd. EXiaaePo?, Bax- Xoupo? (Sa>ixoup^). — 'ii^'] lacking in Esd.^A^ ^ QSouGb, QSoueA, Ouptaq^ — 37. iK'j;^] (gBAN xal exotTjffav. It is lacking in Esd. and (gi-; B Jasi. Qr. reads ''l^'y^ to which we may add n. — 38. . . . ijai] ®ban qJ u^qI Bavoul xal u\o\ SeiJiet, OS'" Bovval xal ulol Bovvit. We might rd. as Guthe, ''1J3 ijam. 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. >M2 in v. " as above and substitute Mja 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 nb'j for marry, while in the body of this story aci is always used, vv. '• '"■ !<• "• 1'. We do find kz': in g^, but it is followed by ]0. The point here is the putting away, and that is expressed in this story by nxi (vv. '• '«), not nStr, as Guthe has it. Rd. therefore iN^xn for ^v^'J : all these put away foreign wives. To clear up the rest of the v., substitute aija for di^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. ijicm in place of the impossible idicii: 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'"'f). 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 ofl&cial 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-IO. 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. Mn (6 is a late interpolation, and contradicts vv. i-^. As certain Lev. are the only officials 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. '-'2 there is no room for doubt, but the case is not quite so clear for vv. "-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 -3' = Ne. 7«-8'»); 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. § i". l''-12 = Esd. 9^^-^^ The public reading of the law.— All the people being gathered, Ezra reads the law of Moses. — l**. 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. — A fid all understanding to hear] is a literal rendering of an obscure 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]. (I is more specific : from the hour the sun gives light. B 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. 2, 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], NEIIEMIAH 8-IO 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 l^ll, 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. — Atid 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. I79<). Torrey regards these men as laymen (ES.^'s). There must originally have been but twelve, six on each side. Meshullam is lacking in 05 and Esd., and, as Torrey suggests, may be a variant of Skdivd, 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. (5 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. 320). — 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 B : 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 upon their standing], which is rendered in EV^ after B " 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 hook 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. 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. 1'). 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 (^ 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 Uke 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 found 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 for Yahweh will give you glory. OS has merely: for 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-IO 359 The only other possible reference is to the words of vv. " '•, about the holy day and the feast. But it would seem superfluous to explain that the people understood such simple directions as to eat and drink. It may be that the meaning is: they perceived the didy to feast in the words of the 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 hy the words which they had been taught. 1 . D>'n h^] Esd. icdtv xi) xX^Oo? = Snp as v. -. — nnx] (Sii- adds zlc, 'le- pouaaXT)t«., thus completing the sentence as Ezr. 3'. — D'cn . . . ntJ'x] Esd. ToO xpb? dvaToXa? Ispou icuXwyoi;. — neon] Esd. xw lepel xal avay- V(i(jx7) = Nip) pDH. — . . . P!< niD''] om. (&^; Esd.Ai uxb xupt'ou OeoG 'la- pai^X, B om. xupt'ou. — 2. I^jn] "S here. — 6. nitj?] lacking in C6^, Esd.B has Al^apta?, one of those on Ezra's right hand in v. *. — . . . niD''] Esd. xupt'q) 6ew xw U(p(crx(p Oetp aa^awO navxoxpdxopt'AL. — W"] Esd. eyuvTjcevBAj i^s(f(!ivt]as'^. — jdn>] ^ xal sixav = noNii. — px'] om. Esd.AL. Esd. lacks 0''dn and puts nsiN directly after np>i, thus xpoaxeaovxe? Ixl x-f]v ytjv xpoaexuvrjaav xy Oew. — 7. 'J3i] C|l and Esd.i- xal ol ulol auxou xal Bavaiaq. — dmShi . . . VO'] lacking in (Si'AX^ perhaps accidentally skipping a line. — aiiSni]. The conj. is lacking in Esd. — minS . . . VJ12D] II silentium faciebant in populo ad audiendam legem, showing O'lirnn for oijjc. Esd. has eSfSaaxovS, but "teaching" an- ticipates V. «, and teaching could not precede reading. For the whole clause 3 Esd. has: et prceferebant singuli eos qui intelligebant leclionem, and they each one chose those who understood the reading. — ainy-Sy oyni] Esd. xal xpb? xb xXrjOos (connecting with Nip'i v. «) = ayn-Sy. MT. may be due to careless dittog. — 8. iNip^i] (&^ xal sv^yvw "El^Spaq. — 360 EZRA-NEHEMIAH Sou* . . . ItnsjD] C5 xal eStSaaxev ["Eapa?"™- ^j xal StiffTeXXsv Iv extcxi^pit) Kupfou; the words are lacking in Esd., rd. hy-v oiiy anani, aH(f ;Ae trans- lator gave the mng. — Nipaa ijia^] (8 xoeI auvijxsv 6 Xabq sv xfj devotyvtoffst; Esd. etiyuotouvxei; apiat ir-fjv dtvaYvtoatv; H ei intellexerunt, ctivi legeretur. — 9. "nn Nin .T'onj] ^ban NeetiJai;. Esd. has xal e?xsv 'ATxapa-riQ "Eapqc Twx. T. >.. 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 apphed to Ezra, though it is given to him nowhere else. — od-tiSn] lacking in Esd. (Sban ^^ eew Tjiiwv correctly. — i^an . . . Sk] lacking in Esd. — nai] lacking in Esd. — 10. anS idkm] lacking in Esd.BA, 3 Esd. et dixit Esdras. — a^pnno intfi] lacking in Esd.s. — nijc] Esd. ixoaioMq = o^mSr.— iS ]idj r^''] C5 and Esd. Tol? [li) exouotv. — DDrpn . . . '<3] (S o-ct eaxlv bx^i? '^[JlwvB^ (ufAwvA); Esd. 6 yap xiipto? So^tiaet b[xa<;. — 11. D^trns] v. on v. '; Esd. IxiXeuov, only used in Apocr., but mng. "make an announcement"; so 3 Esd. denuntiebant. — ion] lacking in Esd.BA; transposed and placed after B'np in I-, i. c, fftyocTe xal (1t) XuxsIaOs. — lJ"'3n >3] Esd. Sxt xal £ve9uatweT3aav; 3 Esd. magnifice enim sunt exaltati, where we may note nSnj lacking in its proper place, and on has been rd. for pa. 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. ^-i^, 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 Levites]. 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. Afid they found written in the law which Yahweh commanded by the hand of Moses that the sons of Israel shoidd dwell in booths on the feast of the 'jth month. RV. "how that Yahweh had commanded" NEHEMIAH 8-IO 36 1 is wrong. The first It^t^ is a relative and the second a con- junction. The law referred to is found in Dt. 16"-'= Lv. 23^3 (i._ 'Yhe time prescribed in Dt. is after the gathering of the harvest, and the festival corresponds with the ingathering of the earlier code (Ex. 23'5i> 34=2 b)^ 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. i^ — 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. " 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, afui 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 Propliets. W,'*'). 362 EZRA-NEHEMIAH proclamation and built the booths each one upon his roof* and in their courts], for those who had residences in Jerusalem, aitd 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^ Ne. 12'^. See Guthe, ZDPV. viii,^^ ^^ It was presumably the main outlet to the north country. n. 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. 7* 8", by Zerubbabel and Jeshua, Ezr. 3'', cf. Zc. 141^-^^. 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. — And 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 ist 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 8th 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, Kdnige,^"). 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 ba xal lxtffuvT)x9T)aav corresponding to isdn: in v. ". In ^ we have the whole of V. ", but it agrees so exactly with 05^ that the broken sentence of Esd. must have been completed from (B, perhaps by Lucian himself. Material for textual criticism, therefore, is sadly deficient for the rest of the book. — 14. T'3] lacking in (§. — 15. Sip n'JjJ^i] ($ adcXxcy^tv = msisn, "clarion," a word found often in P (v. BDB. and Benz. ylrc/?."'). — idnS] CS» xal sixev "Eapac;. 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. aimai con nj;'^] OS^an' ^fiq xdXew? xal Id)? = njJi l-ipn. ^ has this and then adds full text of MT., showing the frequent correction by addition. — 17. nND] lacking in (Sban — ig. NnpM] + "El^Spa?!-. — pCNin] -j- tuv axrjvuvi-. — OSiyno] lacking in <&^. 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. Aitd 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, 8^*. 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 Israelite 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 siood 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 fo^irth of the day and a fourth they made confession and prostrated themselves to Yahiveh 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 C5 has son or sons) make the list suspicious. — A?id they cried ivilh a loud voice unto Yahiveh 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 Yahiveh OUR [as d] God from everlasting to everlasting]. The call is for NEHEMIAH S-IO 365 the people to rise from their prostration, v. ^ in order to praise Yahweh and to be ready to Hsten. — 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. H 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. 96-39^ 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.s^ff , 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 (S 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 land of the Canaanite], In the E. story of this covenant ten nations are mentioned (Gn. i5^^'^0> of which we find but six here. This same list is found in Ex. 23^^ Jos. 24". — 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 Egyptians overtook the fleeing Israelites (Ex, 14*°). — 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. 1920 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 holy 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. 13" ^- Ju. 5^8) .—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^"^^. — 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. T^^^ Nu. 14^ 32"). Raising the hand is the gesture accompanying the oath and is here its equivalent, so Ex. 6^ Nu. 1430 Ez. 2o28- « 4714 Ps. io626, V. on 8«.— 16. The list of Yahweh's gracious acts ends and the speaker turns to the at- titude of the people toward God. They ajid 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. 7^^ 17^^ 19^* and vv. ^^- ^9, The 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: atid they refused to listen [obey], nor did they remember thy wottders 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. 42. — 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. 1', but the above-named connection is better. — 368 EZRA-NEHEMIAH And ihey committed great blaspliemies]. 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. 1^ — 20. Thy good spirit thoti 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. S''- *, 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 (S allot to them. — The text is badly confused in the following: and they took possession of the land of Sihon [and the laftd of] the king of Heshbon]. 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^, houses NEHEMIAH 8-IO 369 ftdl of everything good, cisterns [already] hewn, vineyards and olive- yards, is condensed from 6"; fat land occurs in Nu. 13^ with a different word for "land." — 26. And have cast thy law behind their hack]. We find references to disobedient persons casting God behind the back, i K. 14^ Ez. 23^^ The phrase is equivalent to turning the back to the law {cf. 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. 51- 23=*'" Lu. II™ 13^' Acts 7"- Rom. ii^ 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 ihou 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. 1*] thou didst give saviours]. The saviours are called "judges" (Ju. o^^-^'^); they were the warlike heroes Ehud, Jerubbaal, et al. — 28. But when they had a respite], as soon as the punishment 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 370 EZRA-NEHEMIAH vv. "• ". "Times" is lacking in most Greek texts, and where it occurs it introduces v. ^9. "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. 2^ Here the object is to bring them back to thy lau>\, but in v. ^e 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 literally. Ryle supposes an object, "mercy," to be omitted, "prolong" being equivalent to "prolong mercy." But in Ps. 36'° loi^^ the object is found. 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 371 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. A ltd 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. Atid 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 on the land which was theirs by divine gift. Yet there is no murmur against the ways of a mysterious Providence. In all 372 EZRA-NEHEMIAH their bitterness there is only self-rej)roach. God's hand is plain in the people's degradation, but his course is abundantly jus- tified by Israel's sins. 1, on^hy nciN'i] lacking in (gBAX. (gL iias xal x6vc<; Ixl t^? xe9aX^<; auTuv = ss'e'xn-Sj; 'n. — 2. jrir] (S ol p'3->i orn n^i'^i] lacking in (gB-^^. di- has trb x^apTov Tfj? TjsJispas in both clauses. — ^^^inr] ® adds -zCi xupttp. — mrrS] lacking in C5^. — 4. '^S'cip 'J3>] (6 xat ulol KaSiJLnjA. — '::d 'J3] lacking in <&^, utol Xavavt-^'^', Xcovsvta;^ = ni:j3. — 5. Of the names (Sban has only 'IrjaoGi; xat KaSyiti^X. i- has all the names exc. the two £a«7'j.-^D3''nSN] d Tov Oebv -fjjxwv. — 3Sn!;i njij] (&l tt^s S^St}? tou uicepu(j>ou(jLlvou; rd. n2D. — acne] is a Polal ptc, the onh' case of its use. i2-ic, exalting it, would be better. — n^na] ] lacking in (gs. — oi3n] (g=^i- A^paa(x as in v. >>. — -iin] (5 xwpa? = V^N. — 8. nnSi] (g adds cfirw; d^ adds Euatwv to the list of peoples. — .inS^] lacking in (&bas_ — Pq^ r~r-f~, "I'^l rd. •\^-\th-\ ^^. — 9. ^id] gpjOpdv, as alwaj's exc. Is. 63-, when it stands for aiK. — 10. a^PODi] (g adds sv Aiyutctw. — 15. t"n] (S I^' i;v. — 17. ancD] O9B ^v AtyuTUTw = 0^X03. — 20. njian] (|i- Sytov. — 21. nan nS] (gL xal ouy. sic£0£T)6T;aav pTj[j.axoq, reading "lai ^2^D^. — 22. nss'^] (|ban aiTot? = an"?, CS^ eic, TCpoacoxov = a''JoS. — 23 f. inxn . . . Nn*^] ®ban jjas only xal sxXT)pov6[ji,T()aav dtuTifjv. — ^'on |'-!wsn] (g y'Ov twv Xavavaiwv. — 25. TMTi-if nmNi] lacking in (6ban\_25, aoisn] ®i- adds oji; oux e^sXaxo- tJiTjaav = i3sn mS ns-.x as Dt. 6". — 28, avnj-] lacking in (5ban. (|l has xal ev xatpoi? as beginning of v. =9. For niai] we should rd. aonn, as vv. "■ 27. 3i_ — 3>ny] may be a corruption of annso. There is no possible legitimate construction of the text as it stands. — 29. nirn ncni] lack- ing in Q5BAN_ — 31. ':; so again in v. *", 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. cxc. 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 under a solemn pledge to continue the right course instituted by him, 5'- 13". 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 coiu-se, 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."ff-, GAS. Jer. i,""-, Schurer, Jewish People, div. ii, vol. i,»' «•. 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 % The words literally mean we are cutting support, and "cut" is not equivalent to "make a covenant"; njDN occurs elsw. only in 11=', 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 hj^n 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. ", 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 (5, 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»< amn 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 Ust, though in reverse order. 2-9. The list of priests. — At the head stands in our text Neh. the governor the son of Haclialiah. 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, Ca«oK,"). It is either an accidental omission or the event belongs to the high priest- NEHEMIAH 8-1 375 hood of his successor. 10-14. The list of Levites. — There are 17 names, but there are grave uncertainties about the text. — 10. Jes. tlie son of Azanialr] is thus differentiated from the contemporary of Zer., but it is the same Jes. as in other groups of Lev. — Of the sons of Ilenadad], V. Ezr. 3'. — 11. And 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. 1 5. Many of these names recur in the list, Ezr. 2. On the names V. Gray, Heb. Pr. iV.'^f-, Sm. Listen,^K 1. hit] 05 TouTots. — Dinnn-Sy] (g licta^payfl^ouaiv = i?3nnM. But as this is the only occurrence of this compound in 05 (save that Q|l has it in V. ■), and as we find in v. ^ Ixl Tciv aippaYt^6vxuv, it is easy to find in the prefix ixi 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. <& does, however, attest the pi. in both cases (s-icirin as v. '). The same form must belong to both places, and the sg. is preferable. — 2 . Nntrnnn] lacking in CS^an. in l it is an obvious insertion, as we find a conj. 6 xocl 'AeapaaaOdcc;. — 11. aninx] 05 ol d5sX(pol auToO. — Na^Sp] (S^ Kavxa. The five names following this are wanting in (&^. — 14. u^jo aSa sec; aco Bijx paouiie aa Bava (j,(z Aatzta. 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 afid his judgments and his statutes]., This long state- 376 EZRA-NEHEMIAH ment in f| 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.-^^-. — 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" ' , 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 7th 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 commandments]. The plain inference is rather starthng that the people them- selves made ordinances to do the things prescribed in the law. It seems a necessary impUcation 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^'' Mt. 17" Jos. BJ. vii, 6, 6. The provision made at this time by the people was afterward 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*'25 Dn?, 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 under 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 Ly. 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. '^, g. 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. i8^^ '-, 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-IO 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, presumably 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. i$^° 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. pan] nixc] CS»b evToX(i(? -fj^tuv. This must be an ac- cidental abr. of xup(ou toO Osou -fitJiwv as found in (§1-. — rpm] lacking in C6B. — 31. |.-ij n"? ntt'Ni] 05 xal tou ;i-J) Souvat and so making this a part of the subscription beginning, ace. to 05, with nsSS. The rendering is interpretative rather than a witness of a txt. err. — 32. Niyn] CJi-has a dup. : xal XP^°? ['""^° Dt. 15' '•] xal dicaf-cTjciv. aw occurs only 5'- ", where it has the mng. of usury or interest. "Usury of every hand" is improbable unless i"' means kind. In Dt. 15' we have n> njfo 'jya Sd, "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 tivvi is everywhere to be interpreted as the equivalent of niyn, so here "loan of every hand" would be naturally borrowed from Dt. — 33. uioyni] (§^, xal ■Koi-T]m[isy, a-zi]ao[>.ev^^. — 34. pdnSd] <. — 38. UTiDny] S3, 66. ^T^V, 346/. IN, 348. imJ3, 170. 2^V, 289, 337. njcN, 374. iSdo, 189. NJIli'N, 134. 3n3, 95 /. 3N1D nno, 80. Ninx, 141. iSnJ, 302. caS, 124. Mx, 299. iVnn, 196/. hryp, 97. pip, 380. Dijcom, 100. aiiiSnc, 69. '73''n, 119. nosSn, 100, 118, 234- niciyn, 298. 1^12, 247 /. ni3Nn ^rxi, 68 lapn, 319. 01JD, 100. pc"!, 119. h^y:^a, 221. t:'i3i, 64. D''3Xn, 119. nx-iDC, 184. n, 195- ixn, 248. XK'D, 380. Dinn, 374. yhi:, 148. Sjty, 196. nmni, 300. wnty, 316. M>h\ 299. PD, 337- 3tt'\ 342. riNjD, 81. NPB'-in, 97. Hie International Critical Commentary ARRANGEMENT OF VOLUMES AND AUTHORS THE OLD TESTAMENT GENESIS. The Rev. John Skinner, D.D., Principal and Professor of Old Testament Language and Literature, College of Presbyterian Chur«h of England, Cambridge, England. [Now Ready. CXODUS. The Rev. A. R. S. KENNEDY, D.D,, Professor of Hebrew, University of Edinburgh. LEVITICUS. J. F. Stenning, M.A., Fellow of Wadham College, Oxford. NUM BERS. The Rev. G. Buchanan Gray, D.D., Professor of Hebrew, Mansfield College, Oxford. \_Now Ready. DEUTERONOMY. The Rev. S. R. Driver, D.D., D.Litt., Regius Pro- fessor of Hebrew, Oxford, \N(rw Ready. JOSHUA. The Rev. George Adam Smith, D.D., LL.D., Principal of flie University of Aberdeen. JUDGES. The Rev. George Moore, D.D., LL.D., Professor of Theol- ogy, Harvard University, Cambridge, Mass. \Now Ready, SAMUEL. The Rev. H. P. Smith, D.D., Professor of Old Testament Literature and History of Religion, Meadville, Pa. \Now Ready. KINGS. The Rev, Francis Brown, D.D., D.Litt., LL.D., President and Professor of Hebrew and Cognate Languages, Union Theological Seminary, New York City. CHRONICLES. The Rev. Edward L, Curtis, D.D., Professor of Hebrew, Yale University, New Haven, Conn. [Now Ready. EZRA AND NEHEMIAH. The Rev. L. W. Batten, Ph.D., D.D., Pro- fessor of Old Testament Literature, General Theolcgical Seminary, New York City. [Now Ready. PSALMS. The Rev. Chas. A. Briggs, D.D., D.Litt., sometime Graduate Professor of Theological Encyclopaedia and Symbolics, Union Theological Seminary, New York. [2 vols. Now Ready. PROVERBS. The Rer. C. H. Toy, D.D., LL.D., Professor of Hebrew. Harvard University, Cambridge, Mass. [A^ow Ready. JOB. Tke Rev. S. R. Driver, D.D., D.Litt., Regius Professor of He- brew. Oxford. The International Critical Commentary ISAIAH. Chaps. I-XXVII. The Rev. G. Buchanan Gray, D.D., Pro- fessor of Hebrew, Mansfield College, Oxford. [Now Ready. ISAIAH . Chaps. XXVIII-XXXIX. The Rev. G. Buchanan Gray, D.D. Chaps. LX-LXVI. The Rev. A. S. Peake, M.A., D.D., Dean of the Theo- logical Faculty of the Victoria University and Professor of Biblical Exegesis in the University of Manchester, England. . JEREMIAH. The Rev. A. F. Kirkpatrick, D.D., Dean of Ely, sometime Regius Professor of Hebrew, Cambridge, England. EZEKIEL. The Rev. G. A. Cooke, M.A., Oriel Professor of the Interpre- tation of Holy Scripture, University of Oxford, and the Rev. Charles F. BuRNEY, D.Litt., Fellow and Lecturer in Hebrew, St. John's College, Oxford. DANIEL. The Rev. John P. Peters, Ph.D.. D.D., sometime Professor of Hebrew, P. E. Divinity School, Philadelphia, now Rector of St. Michael's Church, New York City. AMOS AND HOSEA. W. R. Harper, Ph.D., LL.D,, sometime President of the University of Chicago, Illinois. [Now Ready. MICAH, ZEPHANIAH, NAHUM, HAgAKKUK, OBADIAH AND JOEL. Prof. John M. P. Smith, University of Chicago; W. Hayes Ward, D.D., LL.D., Editor of The Independent, New York; Prof. Julius A. Bewer, Union Theological Seminary, New York. [Now Ready. HAGGAI, ZECHARIAH, MALACHI AND JONAH. Prof . H. G. MiTCHELL, D.D.; Prof. John M. P. Smith, Ph.D., and Prof. J, A. Bewer, Ph.D. [Now Ready. ESTHER. The Rev. L. B. Paton, Ph.D.. Professor of Hebrew, Hart- ford Theological Seminary. [Now Ready. ECCLESIASTES. Prof. George A. Barton, Ph.D., Professor of Bibli- cal Literature, Bryn Mawr College, Pa. \^Now Ready RUTH. SONG OF SONGS AND LAMENTATIONS. Rev. Charles A. Briggs, D.D., D.Litt., sometime Graduate Professor of Theological Ency- clopaedia and Symbolics, Union Theological Seminary, New York. THE NEW TESTAMENT ST. MATTHEW. The Rev. Willoughby C. Allen. M.A., Fellow and Lecturer in Theology and Hebrew, Exeter College, Oxford. [Now Ready. ST. MARK. Rev. E. P. Gould, D.D., sometime ProfesBor of New Testa- ment Literature, P. E. Divinity School. Philadelphia. [I^ow Ready. ST. LUKE. The Rev. Alfred Plummer, D.D., sometime Master of University College, Durham. [^Nuw Ready. The International Critical Commentary ST. JOHN. The Right Rev, John Henry Bernard, D.D., Bishop of Ossory, Ireland. HARMONY OF THE GOSPELS. The Rev. WiLLlAM Sanday, D.D., LL.D., Lady Margaret Professor of Divinity, Oxford, and the Rev. Wil- LOUGHBY C. Allen, M.A., Fellow and Lecturer in Divinity and Hebrew, Exeter College, Oxford. ACTS. The Rev. C. H, Turner, D.D., Fellow of Magdalen College, Oxford, and the Rev. H. N. Bate, M.A., Examining Chaplain to the Bishop of London. ROMANS. The Rev. William Sanday, D.D., LL.D., Lady Margaret Professor of Divinity and Canon of Christ Church, Oxford, and the Rev. A. C. Headlam, M.A., D.D., Principal of King's College, London. [Now Ready. I. CORINTHIANS. The Right Rev. Arch Robertson, D.D., LL.D., Lord Bishop of Exeter, and Rev. Alfred Plumuer, D.D., late Master of University College, Durham. [Now Ready. II. CORINTHIANS. The Rev. Dawson Walker, D.D., Theological Tutor in the University of Durham. GALATIANS. The Rev. Ernest D. Burton, D.D., Professor of New Testament Literature, University of Chicago. EPHESIANS AND COLOSSIANS. The Rev. T. K. Abbott, B.D., D.Litt., sometime Professor of Biblical Greek, Trinity College, Dublin, now Librarian of the same. ^ow Ready, PHILIPPIANS AND PHILEMON. The Rev. Marvin R Vincent, D.D., Professor of Biblical Literature, Union Theological Seminary, New York City. {Now Ready. THESSALONIANS. The Rev. James E. Frame, M.A., Professor of Biblical Theology, Union Theological Seminary, New York City. [Now Ready. THE PASTORAL EPISTLES. The Rev. Walter Lock, D.D., Warden of Keble College and Professor of Exegesis, Oxford. HEBREWS. The Rev. James Moffatt, D.D., Minister United Free Church, Broughty Ferry, Scotland. ST. JAMES. The Rev. James H. Ropes, D.D., Bussey Professor of New Testament Criticism in Harvard University. PETER AND JUDE. The Rev. Charles Bigg, D.D., sometime Regius Professor of Ecclesiastical History and Canon of Christ Church, Oxford. [A'cno Ready. THE JOHANNINE EPISTLES. The Rev. E. A. Brooke, B.D., Fellow and Divinity Lecturer in King's College, Cambridge. [Now Ready. REVELATION. The Rev. Robert H. Charles, M.A., D.D., sometime Professor of Biblical Greek in the University of Dublin. The International Theological Library ARRANGEMENT OF VOLUMES AND AUTHORS THEOLOGICAL ENCYCLOP/EDIA. By CharleS A. Briggs, D.D., D.Litt., sometime Professor of Theological Encyclopaedia and Symbolics, Union Theological Seminary, New York. AN INTRODUCTION TO THE LITERATURE OF THE OLD TESTA- MENT. By S. R. Driver, D.D., D.Litt., Regius Professor of Hebrew and Canon of Christ Church, Oxford. [Revised and Enlarged Edition. CANON AND TEXT OF THE OLD TESTAMENT, By the Rev. John Skinner, D.D., Principal and Professor of Old Testament Language and Lit- erature, College of the Presbyterian Church of England, Cambridge, England, and the Rev. Owen Whitehouse, B.A., Principal and Professor of Hebrew, Chestnut College, Cambridge, England. OLD TESTAMENT HISTORY. By Henry Preserved Smith, D.D., Professor of Old Testament Literature, Meadville, Pa. [Now Ready. CONTEMPORARY HISTORY OF THE OLD TESTAMENT. By Francis Brown, D.D., LL.D., D.Litt., President and Professor of Hebrew, Union Theological Seminary, New York. THEOLOGY OF THE OLD TESTAMENT. By A. B. DAVIDSON, D.D., LL.D.; sometime Professor of Hebrew, New College, Edinburgh. [Now Ready. AN INTRODUCTION TO THE LITERATURE OF THE NEW TESTA- MENT. By Rev. James Moffatt, B.D., Minister United Free Church, Broughty Ferry, Scotland. [Now Ready. CANON AND TEXT OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. By CASPAR Rene Gregory, D.D., LL.D., Professor of New Testament Exegesis in the University of Leipzig. [Now Ready. THE LIFE OF CHRIST. By WiLLiAM Sanday, D.D., LL.D., Lady Margaret Professor of Divinity and Canon of Christ Church, Oxford. The International Theological Library A HISTORY OF CHRISTIANITY IN THE APOSTOLIC AGE. By Arthur C. McGiffert, D.D., Professor of Church History, Union Theo- logical Seminary, New York. [Now Ready. CONTEMPORARY HISTORY OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. By Frank C. Porter, D.D., Professor of Biblical Theology, Yale University, New Haven, Conn. THEOLOGY OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. By George B. Stevens, D.D., sometime Professor of Systematic Theology, Yale University, New Haven, Conn. [Now Ready. BIBLICAL ARCH/EOLOGY. By G. BUCHANAN Gray, D.D., Professor of Hebrew, Mansfield College, Oxford. THE ANCIENT CATHOLIC CHURCH. By Robert Rainey, D.D., LL.D., sometime Principal of New College, Edinburgh. [Now Ready. THE LATIN CHURCH FROM GREGORY THE GREAT TO THE COUNCIL OF TRENT. [Author to be announced later. THE GREEK AND EASTERN CHURCHES. By W. F. Adeney, D.D., Principal of Independent College, Manchester. [Now Ready. THE REFORMATION. By T. M. LiNDSAY, D.D., Principal of the United Free College, Glasgow. [2 vols. Now Ready. CHRISTIANITY IN LATIN COUNTRIES SINCE THE COUNCIL OF TRENT. By Paul Sabatier, D.Litt., Drome, France. SYMBOLICS. By Charles A. Briggs, D.D., D.Litt., sometime Pro- fessor of Theological Encyclopaedia and Symbolics, Union Theological Seminary, New York. HISTORY OF CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE. By G. P. FiSHER, D.D., LL.D., sometime Professor of Ecclesiastical History, Yale University, New Haven, Conn. [Revised and Enlarged Edition. CHRISTIAN INSTITUTIONS. By A. V. G. Allen, D.D., sometime Professor of Ecclesiastical History, Protestant Episcopal Divinity School, Cambridge, Mass. [Now Ready. PHILOSOPHY OF RELIGION. By George Gallaway, D.D., Minister of United Free Church, Castle Douglas, Scotland. THE HISTORY OF RELIGIONS. By George F. Moore, D.D., LL.D., Professor in Harvard University. [In Press. APOLOGETICS. By A. B. Bruce, D.D., sometime Professor of New Testament Exegesis, Free Church College, Glasgow. [Revised and Enlarged Edition. THE CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE OF GOD. By WiLLiAM N. Clarke, D.D., Professor of Systematic Theology, Hamilton Theological Seminary. [Now Ready. The International Theological Library THE DOCTRINE OF MAN. By WiLLiAM P. Pateeson, D.D., Professor of Divinity, University of Edinburgh. THE DOCTRINE OF THE PERSON OF JESUS CHRIST. By H. R. Mackintosh, Ph.D., D.D., Professor of Theology, New College, Edinburgh. [Now Ready. THE CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE OF SALVATION. By George B. STE- VENS, D.D., sometime Professor of Systematic Theology, Yale University. [Now Ready. THE DOCTRINE OF THE CHRISTIAN LIFE. By WiLLIAM Adams Brown, D.D., Professor of Systematic Theology, Union Theological Seminary, New York. CHRISTIAN ETHICS. By Newman Smyth, D.D., Pastor of Congrega- tional Church, New Haven. [Revised and Enlarged Edition. THE CHRISTIAN PASTOR AND THE WORKING CHURCH. By Washington Gladden, D.D., Pastor of Congregational Church, Columbus, Ohio. [Now Ready. THE CHRISTIAN PREACHER. By A. E. Garvie, D.D., Principal of New College, London, England. ■« (^ Princeton Theological Seminary Libraries 54 7603 1012 01 DATE DUE tit.-— ^^' ■s ■mr-^"'^ m ?/ m^ w^ *^'^'- 1 J Demco, inc. 38-293